Donald Trump is inheriting the scariest tools of aggression imaginable. A new book explores their dark legacy.
Journalist Mark Danner explores how Washington's disastrous policies in the Middle East became standard operating procedure.
(Photo: Berkeley School of Journalism)
"We have fallen into a self-defeating spiral of reaction and counterterror," writes Mark Danner in his new book Spiral: Trapped
in the Forever War. "Our policies, meant to extirpate our enemies, have strengthened and perpetuated them."
Danner - an award winning journalist, professor, and member of the Council on Foreign Relations who has covered war and revolutions
on three continents - begins Spiral with the aftermath of a 2003 ambush of U.S. troops outside of Fallujah, Iraq.
The insurgents had set off a roadside bomb, killing a paratrooper and wounding several others. "The Americans promptly dismounted
and with their M-16s and M-4s began pouring lead into everything they could see," including a passing truck, he writes. "By week's
end scores of family and close friends of those killed would join the insurgents, for honor demanded they kill Americans to wipe
away family shame."
The incident encapsulates the fundamental contradiction at the heart of George W. Bush's - and with variations, Barack Obama's
- "war on terror": The means used to fight it is the most effective recruiting device that organizations like Al Qaeda, the Taliban,
the Shabab, and the Islamic State have.
Targeted assassinations by drones, the use of torture, extra-legal renditions, and the invasions of several Muslim countries have
combined to yield an unmitigated disaster, destabilizing several states, killing hundreds of thousands of people, and generating
millions of refugees.
Putting War Crimes on the Menu
Danner's contention is hardly breaking news, nor is he the first journalist to point out that responding to the tactic of terrorism
with military force generates yet more enemies and instability. But Spiral argues that what was once unusual has now become
standard operating procedure, and the Obama administration bears some of the blame for this by its refusal to prosecute violations
of international law.
Torture is a case in point.
In the aftermath of the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, the Bush administration introduced so-called "enhanced interrogation"
techniques that were, in fact, torture under both U.S. and international law. Danner demonstrates that the White House, and a small
cluster of advisers around Vice President Dick Cheney, knew they could be prosecuted under existing laws, so they carefully erected
a "golden shield" of policy memos that would protect them from prosecution for war crimes.
In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, Obama announced that he had "prohibited torture." But, as Danner points out, "torture
violates international and domestic law and the notion that our president has the power to prohibit it follows insidiously from the
pretense that his predecessor had the power to order it. Before the war on terror official torture was illegal and an anathema; today
it is a policy choice."
And president-elect Donald Trump has already announced that he intends to bring it back.
There is no doubt that enhanced interrogation was torture. The International Committee of the Red Cross found the techniques "amounted
to torture and/or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment." How anyone could conclude anything else is hard to fathom. Besides the
waterboarding - for which several Japanese soldiers were executed for using on Allied prisoners during World War II - interrogators
used sleep deprivation, extreme confinement, and "walling." Abu Zubaydah, who was waterboarded 83 times, describes having a towel
wrapped around his neck that his questioners used "to swing me around and smash repeatedly against the wall of the [interrogation]
room."
According to a 2004 CIA memo, "An HVD [high value detainee] may be walled one time (one impact with the wall) to make a point,
or twenty to thirty times consecutively when the interrogator requires a more significant response to a question." There were, of
course, some restraints. For instance, the Justice Department refused to approve a CIA proposal to bury people alive.
And, as Danner points out, none of these grotesque methods produced any important information. The claim that torture saved "thousands
of lives" is simply a lie.
There was a certain Alice in Wonderland quality about the whole thing. Zubaydah was designated a "high official" in Al Qaeda,
the number three or four man in the organization. In reality he wasn't even a member, as the Justice Department finally admitted
in 2009. However, because he was considered a higher up in the group, it was assumed he must know about future attacks. If he professed
that he didn't know anything, this was proof that he did, and so he had to be tortured more. "It is a closed circle, self-sufficient,
impervious to disobedient facts," says Danner.
The logic of the Red Queen.
Through the Looking Glass
The Obama administration has also conjured up some interpretations of language that seem straight out of Lewis Carroll.
In defending his use of drone strikes in a 2014 speech at West Point, the president said he only uses them "when we face a continuing,
imminent threat." But "imminent" means "likely to occur at any moment" and is the opposite of "continuing." A leaked Justice Department
memo addresses the incongruity by arguing, "Imminent does not require the U.S. to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S.
persons and interests will take place in the immediate future."
Apparently the administration has now added "elongated" to "imminent," so that "a president doesn't have to deem the country under
immediate threat to attack before acting on his or her own." As Humpty Dumpty says to Alice in Through the Looking Glass
, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean."
Danner turns the phrase "American exceptionalism" on its head. The U.S. is not "exceptional" because of its democratic institutions
and moral codes, but because it has exempted itself from international law. "Americans, believing themselves to stand proudly for
the rule of law and human rights, have become for the rest of the world a symbol of something quite opposite: a society that imprisons
people indefinitely without trial, kills thousands without due process, and leaves unpunished lawbreaking approved by its highest
officials."
The war has also undermined basic constitutional restrictions on the ability of intelligence agencies and law enforcement to vacuum
up emails and cell phone calls, and has created an extra-legal court system to try insurgents whose oversight and appeal process
in shrouded in secrecy.
Failure by Any Measure
The war on terror - the Obama administration has re-titled it a war on extremism - hasn't been just an illegal and moral catastrophe.
It's a failure by any measure. From 2002 to 2014, the number of deaths from terrorism grew 4,000 percent, the number of jihadist
groups increased by 58 percent, and the membership in those organizations more than doubled.
The war has also generated a massive counterterrorism bureaucracy that has every reason to amp up the politics of fear. And yet
with all the alarm this has created, a total of 24 Americans were killed by terrorism in 2014, fewer than were done in by lighting.
Terrorism, says Danner, is "la politique du pire," the "politics of the worst" or the use of provocation to get your enemy to
overreact. "If you are weak, if you have no army of your own, borrow you enemy's. Provoke your adversary to do your political work
for you," he says. "And in launching the war on terror, eventually occupying two Muslim countries and producing Guantanamo and Abu
Ghraib celebrating images of repression and torture, the United States proved all too happy to oblige."
Danner argues that idea you can defeat terrorism - which is really just a tactic used by the less powerful against the more powerful
- with military force is an illusion. It can and does, however, make everything worse.
Even the Department of Defense knows this. In 2004, the Pentagon's Defense Science Board found that:
American direct intervention in the Muslim world has paradoxically elevated the stature and support for radical Islamists
while diminishing support for the United States.
Muslim do not "hate our freedoms." They hate our policies, including one-sided support for Israel and for tyrannies in the
Arab world.
American talk of bringing democracy to Muslim countries is self-serving hypocrisy.
The occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan hasn't brought democracy to those countries, only chaos and destruction.
Increasingly the war on terrorism (or "extremism," if you prefer) is a secret war fought by drones whose targets are never revealed,
or by Special Operations Forces whose deployments and missions are wrapped in the silence of national security.
And as long as Obama calls for Americans "to look forward as opposed to looking backward," the spiral will continue.
As Danner argues, "It is a sad but immutable fact that the refusal to look backward leaves us trapped in a world without accountability
that [Obama's] predecessor made. In making it possible, indeed likely, that the crimes will be repeated, the refusal to look backward
traps us in the past."
"... As the steward-in-chief of the American empire, Obama continued Bush's Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, and extended his "War on Terror" into Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and elsewhere in Africa and the Middle East. He also became a terrorist himself and a serial killer, weaponized drones and special ops assassins being his weapons of choice. ..."
Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize -- for not being George W. Bush. This seemed unseemly at the time, but not outrageous.
Seven years later, it seems grotesque.
As the steward-in-chief of the American empire, Obama continued Bush's Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, and extended his "War on Terror"
into Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and elsewhere in Africa and the Middle East. He also became a terrorist himself and a serial killer, weaponized drones and special ops assassins being his weapons of choice.
ANDREW LEVINE is a Senior Scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY
(Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS
(Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is
In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the
Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy)
at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to
Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics
of Illusion (AK Press).
"... And while I am not as focused on the poverty ve wealth dynamic. this century has revealed something very disappointing that you address. That the elites have done a very poor job of leading the ship of state, while still remaining in leadership belies such a bold hypocrisy in accountability, it's jarring. The article could actually be titled: "The Myth of the Best and the Brightest." ..."
"... They are teaching the elite how to drain all value from American companies, as the rich plan their move to China, the new land of opportunity. When 1% of the population controls such a huge portion of the wealth, patriotism becomes a loadstone to them. The elite are global. Places like Harvard cater to them, help train them to rule the world .but first they must remake it. ..."
"... In my high school, there were roughly 15 of us who had been advanced two years ahead in math. Of those, 10 were Jewish; only two of them had a 'Jewish' last name. In my graduate school class, half (7) are Jewish. None has a 'Jewish' last name. So I'm pretty dubious of the counting method that you use. ..."
"... Regarding the declining Jewish achievement, it looks like it can be primarily explained through demographics: "Intermarriage rates have risen from roughly 6% in 1950 to approximately 40–50% in the year 2000.[56][57] This, in combination with the comparatively low birthrate in the Jewish community, has led to a 5% decline in the Jewish population of the United States in the 1990s." ..."
"... Jewish surnames don't mean what they used to. And intermarriage rates are lowest among the low-performing and highly prolific Orthodox. ..."
"... A potentially bigger issue completely ignored by your article is how do colleges differentiate between 'foreign' students (overwhelmingly Asian) and American students. Many students being counted as "Asian American" are in reality wealthy and elite foreign "parachute kids" (an Asian term), dropped onto the generous American education system or into boarding schools to study for US entrance exams, qualify for resident tuition rates and scholarships, and to compete for "American" admissions slots, not for the usually limited 'foreign' admission slots. ..."
"... As some who is Jewish from the former Soviet Union, and who was denied even to take an entrance exam to a Moscow college, I am saddened to see that American educational admission process looks more and more "Soviet" nowadays. Kids are denied opportunities because of their ethnic or social background, in a supposedly free and fair country! ..."
"... Actually, Richard Feynman famously rejected genetic explanations of Jewish achievement (whether he was right or wrong to do so is another story), and aggressively resisted any attempts to list him as a "Jewish scientist" or "Jewish Nobel Prize winner." I am sure he would not cared in the slightest bit how many Jews were participating in the Physics Olympiad, as long as the quality of the students' work continued to be excellent. Here is a letter he wrote to a woman seeking to include him in a book about Jewish achievement in the sciences. ..."
"... It would be interesting to know how well "true WASPS" do in admissions. This could perhaps be estimated by counting Slavic and Italian names, or Puritan New England last names. I would expect this group to do almost as well as Jews (not quite as well, because their ability would be in the lower end of the Legacy group). ..."
"... The missing variable in this analysis is income/class. While Unz states that many elite colleges have the resources to fund every student's education, and in fact practice need-blind admissions, the student bodies are skewed towards the very highest percentile of the income and wealth distribution. SAT scores may also scale with parents' income as well. ..."
"... Having worked with folks from all manner of "elite" and not so elite schools in a technical field, the main conclusion I was able to draw was folks who went to "elite" colleges had a greater degree of entitlement. And that's it. ..."
"... My own position has always been strongly in the former camp, supporting meritocracy over diversity in elite admissions. ..."
"... The Reality of American Mediocrity ..."
"... The central test of fairness in any admissions system is to ask this simple question. Was there anyone admitted under that system admitted over someone else who was denied admission and with better grades and SAT scores and poorer ? If the answer is in the affirmative, then that system is unfair , if it is in the negative then the system is fair. ..."
"... Harvard ranks only 8th after Penn State in the production of undergrads who eventually get Doctorates in Science and Engineering. Of course Berkeley has the bragging rights for that kind of attribute. ..."
"... There is an excellent analysis of this article at The Occidental Observer by Kevin MacDonald, "Ron Unz on the Illusory American Meritocracy". The MSM is ignoring Unz's article for obvious reasons. ..."
"... Could it be that the goal of financial, rather than academic, achievement, makes many young people uninterested in competing in the science and math competitions sought out by the Asian students? I ..."
"... America never promised success through merit or equality. That is the American "dream." ..."
"... Anyone famliar with sociology and the research on social stratification knows that meritocracy is a myth; for example, if one's parents are in the bottom decile of the the income scale, the child has only a 3% chance to reach the top decile in his or her lifetime. In fact, in contrast to the Horatio Alger ideology, the U.S. has lower rates of upward mobility than almost any other developed country. Social classses exist and they tend to reproduce themselves. ..."
"... The rigid class structure of the the U.S. is one of the reasons I support progressive taxation; wealth may not always be inherited, but life outcomes are largely determined by the class position of one's parents. In this manner, it is also a myth to believe that wealth is an individual creation;most financially successful individuals have enjoyed the benefits of class privilege: good and safe schools, two-parent families, tutors, and perhaps most important of all, high expecatations and positive peer socialization (Unz never mentions the importants of peeer groups, which data show exert a strong causal unfluence on academic performance). ..."
"... And I would challenge Unz's assertion that many high-performing Asians come from impovershed backgrounds: many of them may undereport their income as small business owners. I believe that Asian success derives not only from their class background but their culture in which the parents have authority and the success of the child is crucual to the honor of the family. As they assimilate to the more individualist American ethos, I predict that their academic success will level off just as it has with Jews. ..."
"... All I can say is see a book: "Ivy League Fools and Felons"' by Mack Roth. Lots of them are kids of corrupt people in all fields. ..."
Just before the Labor Day weekend, a front page New York Times story broke the news of the largest cheating scandal in Harvard University
history, in which nearly half the students taking a Government course on the role of Congress had plagiarized or otherwise illegally
collaborated on their final exam.
[1] Each year, Harvard admits just 1600 freshmen while almost 125 Harvard students now face possible suspension over this single
incident. A Harvard dean described the situation as "unprecedented."
But should we really be so surprised at this behavior among the students at America's most prestigious academic institution? In
the last generation or two, the funnel of opportunity in American society has drastically narrowed, with a greater and greater proportion
of our financial, media, business, and political elites being drawn from a relatively small number of our leading universities, together
with their professional schools. The rise of a Henry Ford, from farm boy mechanic to world business tycoon, seems virtually impossible
today, as even America's most successful college dropouts such as Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg often turn out to be extremely well-connected
former Harvard students. Indeed, the early success of Facebook was largely due to the powerful imprimatur it enjoyed from its exclusive
availability first only at Harvard and later restricted to just the Ivy League.
During
this period, we have witnessed a huge national decline in well-paid middle class jobs in the manufacturing sector and other sources
of employment for those lacking college degrees, with median American wages having been stagnant or declining for the last forty
years. Meanwhile, there has been an astonishing concentration of wealth at the top, with America's richest 1 percent now possessing
nearly as much net wealth as the bottom 95 percent.
[2]
This situation, sometimes described as a "winner take all society," leaves families desperate to maximize the chances that their
children will reach the winners' circle, rather than risk failure and poverty or even merely a spot in the rapidly deteriorating
middle class. And the best single means of becoming such an economic winner is to gain admission to a top university, which provides
an easy ticket to the wealth of Wall Street or similar venues, whose leading firms increasingly restrict their hiring to graduates
of the Ivy League or a tiny handful of other top colleges.
[3] On the other side, finance remains the favored employment choice for Harvard, Yale or Princeton students after the diplomas
are handed out. [4]
As a direct consequence, the war over college admissions has become astonishingly fierce, with many middle- or upper-middle class
families investing quantities of time and money that would have seemed unimaginable a generation or more ago, leading to an all-against-all
arms race that immiserates the student and exhausts the parents. The absurd parental efforts of an Amy Chua, as recounted in her
2010 bestseller Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother , were simply a much more extreme version of widespread behavior among her
peer-group, which is why her story resonated so deeply among our educated elites. Over the last thirty years, America's test-prep
companies have grown from almost nothing into a $5 billion annual industry, allowing the affluent to provide an admissions edge to
their less able children. Similarly, the enormous annual tuition of $35,000 charged by elite private schools such as Dalton or Exeter
is less for a superior high school education than for the hope of a greatly increased chance to enter the Ivy League.
[5]
Many New York City parents even go to enormous efforts to enroll their children in the best possible pre-Kindergarten program,
seeking early placement on the educational conveyer belt which eventually leads to Harvard.
[6] Others cut corners in a more
direct fashion, as revealed in the huge SAT cheating rings recently uncovered in affluent New York suburbs, in which students were
paid thousands of dollars to take SAT exams for their wealthier but dimmer classmates.
[7]
But given such massive social and economic value now concentrated in a Harvard or Yale degree, the tiny handful of elite admissions
gatekeepers enjoy enormous, almost unprecedented power to shape the leadership of our society by allocating their supply of thick
envelopes. Even billionaires, media barons, and U.S. Senators may weigh their words and actions more carefully as their children
approach college age. And if such power is used to select our future elites in a corrupt manner, perhaps the inevitable result is
the selection of corrupt elites, with terrible consequences for America. Thus, the huge Harvard cheating scandal, and perhaps also
the endless series of financial, business, and political scandals which have rocked our country over the last decade or more, even
while our national economy has stagnated.
Just a few years ago Pulitzer Prize-winning former Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Golden published The Price
of Admission , a devastating account of the corrupt admissions practices at so many of our leading universities, in which every
sort of non-academic or financial factor plays a role in privileging the privileged and thereby squeezing out those high-ability,
hard-working students who lack any special hook.
In one particularly egregious case, a wealthy New Jersey real estate developer, later sent to Federal prison on political corruption
charges, paid Harvard $2.5 million to help ensure admission of his completely under-qualified son.
[8] When we consider that Harvard's
existing endowment was then at $15 billion and earning almost $7 million each day in investment earnings, we see that a culture of
financial corruption has developed an absurd illogic of its own, in which senior Harvard administrators sell their university's honor
for just a few hours worth of its regular annual income, the equivalent of a Harvard instructor raising a grade for a hundred dollars
in cash.
An admissions system based on non-academic factors often amounting to institutionalized venality would seem strange or even unthinkable
among the top universities of most other advanced nations in Europe or Asia, though such practices are widespread in much of the
corrupt Third World. The notion of a wealthy family buying their son his entrance into the Grandes Ecoles of France or the top Japanese
universities would be an absurdity, and the academic rectitude of Europe's Nordic or Germanic nations is even more severe, with those
far more egalitarian societies anyway tending to deemphasize university rankings.
Well, legacy programs are alive and well. According to the read, here's the problem:
"The research certainly supports the widespread perception that non-academic factors play a major role in the process,
including athletic ability and "legacy" status. But as we saw earlier, even more significant are racial factors, with black
ancestry being worth the equivalent of 310 points, Hispanics gaining 130 points, and Asian students being penalized by 140
points, all relative to white applicants on the 1600 point Math and Reading SAT scale."
These arbitrary point systems while well intended are not a reflection of AA design. School lawyers in a race not be penalized
for past practices, implemented their own versions of AA programs. The numbers are easy to challenge because they aren't based
on tangible or narrow principles. It's weakneses are almost laughable. Because there redal goal was to thwart any real challenge
that institutions were idle in addressing past acts of discrimination. To boost their diversity issues, asians were heavily recruited.
Since AA has been in place a lot of faulty measures were egaged in: Quotas for quotas sake. Good for PR, lousy for AA and issues
it was designed to address.
I think the statistical data hides a very important factor and practice. Most jews in this country are white as such , and
as such only needed to change their names and hide behaviors as a strategy of surviving the entrance gauntlet. That segregation
created a black collegiate system with it's own set of elite qualifiers demonstrates that this model isn't limited to the Ivy
league.
That an elite system is devised and practiced in members of a certain club networks so as to maintain their elite status, networks
and control, this is a human practice. And it once served as something to achieve. It was thought that the avenues of becoming
an elite were there if one wanted to strive for it. Hard work, honesty, persistence, results . . . should yield X.
And while I am not as focused on the poverty ve wealth dynamic. this century has revealed something very disappointing
that you address. That the elites have done a very poor job of leading the ship of state, while still remaining in leadership
belies such a bold hypocrisy in accountability, it's jarring. The article could actually be titled: "The Myth of the Best and
the Brightest."
I don't think it's just some vindictive intent. and while Americans have always known and to an extent accepted that for upper
income citizens, normal was not the same as normal on the street. Fairness, was not the same jn practice nor sentiment. What may
becoming increasing intolerant has been the obvious lack of accountability among elites. TARP looked like the elites looking out
for each other as opposed the ship of state. I have read three books on the financials and they do not paint a pretty portrait
of Ivy League leadership as to ethics, cheating, lying, covering up, and shamelessly passing the buck. I will be reading this
again I am sure.
It's sad to think that we may be seeing te passing of an era. in which one aspired to be an elite not soley for their wealth,
but the model they provided od leadership real or imagined. Perhaps, it passed long ago, and we are all not just noticing.
I appreciated you conclusions, not sure that I am comfortable with some of the solutions.
Since I still hanker to be an elite in some manner, It is interesting to note my rather subdued response to the cheating. Sadly,
this too may be an open secret of standard fair - and that is very very sad. And disappointing. Angering even.
The shifting social demography of deans, house masters and admissions committees may be a more important metric than the composition
of the student body, as it determines the shape of the curriculum, and the underlying culture of the university as a legacy in
itself.
If Ron harrows the literary journals of the Jackson era with equal diligence. he may well turn up an essay or two expressing
deep shock at Unitarians admitting too many of the Lord's preterite sheep to Harvard, or lamenting the rise of Methodism at Yale
and the College of New Jersey.
Harvard is a university, much like Princeton and Yale, that continues based on its reputation, something that was earned in
the past. When the present catches up to them people will regard them as nepotistic cauldrons of corruption.
Look at the financial disaster that befell the USA and much of the globe back in 2008. Its genesis can be found in the clever
minds of those coming out of their business schools (and, oddly enough, their Physics programs as well).
They are teaching the elite how to drain all value from American companies, as the rich plan their move to China, the new
land of opportunity. When 1% of the population controls such a huge portion of the wealth, patriotism becomes a loadstone to them.
The elite are global. Places like Harvard cater to them, help train them to rule the world .but first they must remake it.
• Replies: @Part White, Part
Native I agree, common people would never think of derivatives , nor make loans based on speculation
First, I appreciated the length and depth of your article.
Having said that, to boil it down to its essence:
Subconcious bias/groupthink + affirmative action/diversity focus + corruption + innumeracy = student bodies at elite institutions
that are wildly skewed vis-a-vis both: 1) the ethnic makeup of the general population; and 2) the makeup of our top-performing
students.
Since these institutions are pipelines to power, this matters.
I rather doubt that wage stagnation (which appears to have begun in ~1970) can be pinned on this – that part stuck out, because
there are far more plausible causes. To the extent you're merely arguing that our elite failed to counter the trend, ok, but I'm
not sure a "better" elite would have either. The trend, after all, favored the elite.
Anyway, I find your case is plausible.
Your inner/outer circle hybrid option is interesting. One (perhaps minor) thing jumps out at me: kids talk. The innies are
going to figure out who they are and who the outies are. The outies might have their arrogance tempered, but the innies? I suspect
they'd be even *more* arrogant than such folks are now (all the more so because they'd have better justification for their arrogance),
but I could be wrong.
Perhaps more significantly, this:
But if it were explicitly known that the vast majority of Harvard students had merely been winners in the application
lottery, top businesses would begin to cast a much wider net in their employment outreach, and while the average Harvard student
would probably be academically stronger than the average graduate of a state college, the gap would no longer be seen as so
enormous, with individuals being judged more on their own merits and actual achievements
Is a very good reason for Harvard, et al. to resist the idea. I think you're right that this would be a good thing for the
country, but it would be bad for Harvard. I think the odds of convincing Harvard to do it out of the goodness of their administrators
hearts is unlikely. You are basically asking them to purposefully damage their brand.
All in all, I think you're on to something here. I have my quibbles (the wage stagnation thing, and the graph with Chinese
vs USA per capita growth come on, apples and oranges there!), but overall I think I agree that your proposal is likely superior
to the status quo.
Don't forget the mess one finds after they ARE admitted to these schools. I dropped out of Columbia University in 2010.
You can "make it" on an Ivy-league campus if you are a conservative-Republican-type with all the rich country-club connections
that liberals use to stereotype.
Or you can succeed if you are a poor or working-class type who is willing to toe the Affirmative Action party line and be a
good "progressive" Democrat (Obama stickers, "Gay Pride" celebrations, etc.)
If you come from a poor or working-class background and are religious, or culturally conservative or libertarian in any way,
you might as well save your time and money. You're not welcome, period. And if you're a military veteran you WILL be actively
persecuted, no matter what the news reports claim.
It sucks. Getting accepted to Columbia was a dream come true for me. The reality broke my heart.
Regarding the overrepresentation of Jewish students compared to their actual academic merit, I think the author overstates
the role bias (subjective, or otherwise) plays in this:
1) , a likely explanation is that Jewish applicants are a step ahead in knowing how to "play the admissions game." They therefore
constitute a good percentage of applicants that admission committees view as "the total package." (at least a higher percentage
than scores alone would yield). Obviously money and connections plays a role in them knowing to say precisely what adcoms want
to hear, but in any case, at the end of the day, if adcoms are looking for applicants with >1400 SATs, "meaningful" life experiences/accomplishments,
and a personal statement that can weave it all together into a compelling narrative, the middle-upper-class east coast Jewish
applicant probably constitutes a good percentage of such "total package" applicants. I will concede however that this explanation
only works in explaining the prevalence of jews vs. whites in general. With respect to Asians, however, since they are likely
being actively and purposefully discriminated against by adcoms, having the "complete package" would be less helpful to them.
2) Another factor is that, regardless of ethnicity, alumni children get a boost and since in the previous generation Jewish
applicants were the highest achieving academic group, many of these lesser qualified jews admitted are children of alumni.
3) That ivy colleges care more about strong verbal scores than mathematics (i.e., they prefer 800V 700M over 700V 800M), and
Jewish applicants make up a higher proportion of the high verbal score breakdowns.
4) Last, and perhaps more importantly we do not really know the extent of Jewish representation compared to their academic
merit. Unlike admitted Asian applicants, who we know, on average, score higher than white applicants, we have no similar numbers
of Jewish applicants. The PSAT numbers are helpful, but hardly dispositive considering those aren't the scores colleges use in
making their decision information.
@Bryan– Getting accepted to Columbia was a dream come true for me. The reality broke my heart.
I'm touched by this. I've spent tons of time at Columbia, a generation ago -- and my background fit fine -- the kind of WASP
background Jews found exotic and interesting. But I can see your point, sad to say. There are other great schools -- Fordham,
where my wife went to law school at night, has incredible esprit de corps - and probably, person for person, has as many lawyers
doing good and interesting work as Columbia.
"There are other great schools–Fordham, where my wife went to law school at night, has incredible esprit de corps - and
probably, person for person, has as many lawyers doing good and interesting work as Columbia."
"Tiffany was also rejected by all her other prestigious college choices, including Yale, Penn, Duke, and Wellsley, an outcome
which greatly surprised and disappointed her immigrant father.88″
In the fall of 1990, my parents had me apply to 10 colleges. I had the profile of many Indian kids at the time – ranked in
the top 10 of the class, editor of school paper, Boy Scouts. SAT scores could have been better, but still strong. Over 700 in
all achievement tests save Bio, which was 670.
Rejected by 5 schools, waitlisted by 3, accepted into 2 – one of them the state univ.
One of my classmates, whose family was from Thailand, wound up in the same predicament as me. His response, "Basketball was
designed to keep the Asian man down."
The one black kid in our group – got into MIT, dropped out after one year because he could not hack it. The kid from our school
who should have gone, from an Italian-American family, and among the few who did not embrace the guido culture, went to Rennsealer
instead, and had professional success after.
As a University of Chicago alum, I infer that by avoiding the label "elite" on such a nifty chart we can be accurately categorized
as "meritocratic" by The American Conservative.
Then again, this article doesn't even purport to ask why elite universities might be in the business of EDUCATING a wider population
of students, or how that education takes place.
Perhaps, by ensuring that "the best" students are not concentrated in only 8 universities is why the depth and quality of America's
education system remains the envy of the world.
In my high school, there were roughly 15 of us who had been advanced two years ahead in math. Of those, 10 were Jewish;
only two of them had a 'Jewish' last name. In my graduate school class, half (7) are Jewish. None has a 'Jewish' last name.
So I'm pretty dubious of the counting method that you use.
Also, it's clear that there are Asian quotas at these schools, but it's not clear that Intel Science Fairs, etc, are the best
way to estimate what level of talent Asians have relative to other groups.
I was curious so I google High School Poetry Competition, High School Constitution Competition, High School Debating Competition.
None of the winners here seem to have an especially high Asian quotient. So maybe a non-technical (liberal arts) university would
settle on ~25-30% instead of ~40% asian? And perhaps a (small) part of the problem is a preponderance of Asian applicants excelling
in technical fields, leading to competition against each other rather than the general population? Just wonderin'
Regarding the declining Jewish achievement, it looks like it can be primarily explained through demographics: "Intermarriage
rates have risen from roughly 6% in 1950 to approximately 40–50% in the year 2000.[56][57] This, in combination with the comparatively
low birthrate in the Jewish community, has led to a 5% decline in the Jewish population of the United States in the 1990s."
Jewish surnames don't mean what they used to. And intermarriage rates are lowest among the low-performing and highly prolific
Orthodox.
Jewish birth rates have been falling faster than the white population, especially for the non-Orthodox:
"In contrast to the ongoing trends of assimilation, some communities within American Jewry, such as Orthodox Jews, have significantly
higher birth rates and lower intermarriage rates, and are growing rapidly. The proportion of Jewish synagogue members who were
Orthodox rose from 11% in 1971 to 21% in 2000, while the overall Jewish community declined in number. [60] In 2000, there were
360,000 so-called "ultra-orthodox" (Haredi) Jews in USA (7.2%).[61] The figure for 2006 is estimated at 468,000 (9.4%).[61]"
"As against the overall average of 1.86 children per Jewish woman, an informed estimate gives figures ranging upward from 3.3
children in "modern Orthodox" families to 6.6 in Haredi or "ultra-Orthodox" families to a whopping 7.9 in families of Hasidim."
These statistics would suggest that half or more of Jewish children are being born into these lower-performing groups. Given
their very low intermarriage rates, a huge portion of the secular, Reform, and Conservative Jews must be intermarrying (more than
half if the aggregate 43% intermarriage figure is right). And the high-performing groups may now be around 1 child per woman or
lower, and worse for the youngest generation.
So a collapse in Jewish representation in youth science prizes can be mostly explained by the collapse of the distinct non-Orthodox
Jewish youth.
Incidentally, intermarriage also produces people with Jewish ancestry who get classified as gentiles using last names or self-identification,
reducing Jewish-gentile gaps by bringing up nominal gentile scores at the same time as nominal-Jewish scores are lowered.
The center of power in this country being located in the Northeast is nothing new. Whether it be in it's Ivy League schools
or the ownership of natural resources located in other regions, particularly the South, the Northeast has always had a disproportionate
share of influence in the power structures, particularly political and financial, of this nation. This is one of the reasons the
definition of "white" when reviewing ethnicity is so laughably inaccurate. There is a huge difference in opportunity between WASP
or Jewish in the Northeast, for instance, and those of Scots Irish ancestory in the mountain south. Hopefully statistical analysis
such as this can break open that stranglehold, especially as it is directly impacting a minority group in a negative fashion.
Doing this exercise using say, white Baptists compared to other white subgroups, while maybe equally valid in the results, would
be seen as racist by the very Ivy League system that is essentially practicing a form of racism.
Yeah, my ultimate goal was to attend law school, and a big part of the heartbreak for me–or heartburn, the more cynical would
call it–was seeing how skewed and absurd the admissions process to law school is.
I have no doubt that I could have eventually entered into a "top tier" law school, and that was a dream of mine also. I met
with admissions officers from Duke, Harvard, Stanford, Fordham, etc. I was encouraged. I had the grades and background for it.
But–and I'm really not trying to sound corny 0r self-important here–what does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his
soul? I really don't feel that I'm exaggerating when I say that that's exactly how it felt to me.
The best experience I had while In New York was working as an after-school programs administrator for P.S. 136, but that was
only because of the kids. They'll be old and bitter and cynical soon enough.
At one point it occurred to me that I should have just started claiming "Black" as my ethnicity when I first started attending
college as an adult. I never attended high-school so it couldn't have been disproved. I'm part Sicilian so I could pass for 1/4
African-American. Then I would have received the preference toward admission that, say, Michael Jordan's kids or Barack Obama's
kids will receive when they claim their Ivy-league diplomas. I should have hid the "white privilege" I've enjoyed as the son of
a fisherman and a waitress from one of the most economically-depressed states in America.
The bottom line is that those colleges are political brainwashing centers for a country I no longer believe in. I arrived on
campus in 2009 and I'm not joking at all when I say I was actively persecuted for being a veteran and a conservative who was not
drinking the Obama Kool-aid. Some big fat African-American lady, a back-room "administrator" for Columbia, straight-up threw my
VA benefits certification in the garbage, so my money got delayed by almost two months. I had no idea what was going on. I had
a wife and children to support.
The fact that technology has enabled us to sit here in real-time and correspond back-and-forth about the state of things doesn't
really change the state of things. They are irredeemable. This country is broke and broken.
If Abraham Lincoln were born today in America he would wind up like "Uncle Teardrop" from Winter's Bone. Back then, in order
to be an attorney, you simply studied law and starting trying cases. If you were good at it then you were accepted and became
a lawyer. Today, something has been lost. There is no fixing it. I don't want to waste my time trying to help by being "productive"
to the new tower of Babel or pretending to contribute.
Perhaps only one thing you left out, which is especially important with regard to Jewish enrollment and applications at Ivy
leagues, and other schools as well.
Jewish high school graduates actively look out for campuses with large Jewish populations, where they feel more comfortable.
I don't know the figures, but I believe Dartmouth, for example, has a much smaller Jewish population than Columbia, and it will
stay that way because of a positive feedback loop. (i.e. Jews would rather be at Columbia than Dartmouth, or sometimes even rather
be at NYU than Dartmouth). This explains some of the difference among different schools (and not solely better admission standards).
This is also especially relevant to your random lottery idea, which will inevitably lead to certain schools being overwhelmingly
Asian, others being overwhelmingly Jewish, etc., because the percentage of applicants from every ethnicity is different in every
school. This will necessarily eliminate any diversity which may or may not have existed until now.
I like the lottery admissions idea a lot but the real remedy for the US education system would be to abandon the absurd elite
cult altogether. There is not a shred of evidence that graduates of so-called elite institutions make good leaders. Many of them
are responsible for the economic crash and some of them have brought us the disaster of the Bush presidency.
Many better functioning countries – Germany, the Scandinavians – do not have elite higher education systems. When I enrolled
to University in Germany, I showed up at the enrollment office the summer before the academic year started, filled out a form
(1), and provided a certified copy of my Abitur certificate proving that I was academically competent to attend University. I
never wasted a minute on any of the admissions games that American middle class teenagers and their parents are subjected to.
It would surely have hurt my sense of dignity to be forced to jump through all these absurd and arbitrary hoops.
Americans, due to their ignorance of everything happening outside their borders, have no clue that a system in which a person
is judged by what "school" they attended is everything but normal. It is part of the reason for American dysfunction.
Since they are the pool from which tomorrow's governing elites will be chosen, I'd much rather see Ivy League student bodies
which reflected the full ethnic and geographic diversity of the US. Right now rural and small town Americans and those of Catholic
and Protestant descent who live in the South and Mid-West - roughly half the population - are woefully under-represented, which
explains why their economic interests have been neglected over the last forty years. We live in a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic
representative democracy and our policy-making elites must reflect that diversity. Else the country will come apart.
Thus I recommend 'affirmative action for all' in our elite liberal arts colleges and universities (though not our technical
schools). Student bodies should be represent 'the best and the brightest' of every ethnic group and geographical area of the country.
Then the old school ties will truly knit our society together in a way that is simply not happening today.
A side benefit - and I mean this seriously - is that our second and third tier colleges and universities would be improved
by an influx of Asian and Ashkenazi students (even though the very best would still go to Harvard).
I believe that this article raises – and then inappropriately immediately dismisses – the simplest and most likely reason for
the over-representation of Jewish students at Ivy League Schools in the face of their declining bulk academic performance:
They apply to those schools in vastly disproportionate numbers.
Without actual data on the ethnicity of the applicants to these and other schools, we simply cannot rule out this simple and
likely explanation.
It is quite clear that a large current of Jewish American culture places a great emphasis on elite college attendance, and
among elite colleges, specifically values the Ivy League and its particular cache as opposed to other elite institutions such
as MIT. Also, elite Jewish American culture, moreso than elite Asian American culture, encourages children to go far away from
home for college, considering such a thing almost a right of passage, while other ethnic groups tend to encourage children to
remain closer. A high performing Asian student from, say, California, is much more likely to face familial pressure to stay close
to home for undergrad (Berkeley, UCLA, etc) than a high performing Jewish student from the same high school, who will likely be
encouraged by his or her family to apply to many universities "back east".
Without being able to systematically compare – with real data – the ethnicities of the applicants to those offered admission,
these conclusions simply cannot be accepted.
Different expectations for different races should worry traditional Americans.
If we become comfortable with different academic standards for Asians will we soon be expected to apply different laws to them
also? Will we apply different laws or at least different interpretations of the same laws to blacks?
The association of East Asians with CalTech is now as strong as the association of blacks with violent crime. Can not race
conscious jurisprudence be far behind?
Around a millenium ago in England it mattered to the court if you were a commoner or a noble. Nobles could exercise 'high justice'
with impunity. They were held to different standards. Their testimony counted for more in court. The law was class concious.
Then we had centuries of reform. We had 'Common Law'. By the time of our revolution the idea that all were equal before the
law was a very American kind of idea. We were proud that unlike England we did not have a class system.
Today we seem to be on the threshold of a similar sytem of privileges and rights based on race. Let me give an example. If
there were a domestic riot of somekind and a breakdown of public order, the authorities might very well impose a cufew. That makes
good sense for black male teens but makes little or no sense for elderly Chinese women. I can envision a time when we have race
specific policies for curfews and similar measures.
It seems to be starting in schools. It could be that the idea of equality before the law was an idea that only flourished between
the fifteenth century and the twenty first.
"But filling out a few very simple forms and having their test scores and grades scores automatically forwarded to a list of
possible universities would give them at least the same chance in the lottery as any other applicant whose academic skills were
adequate."
They get a lot of applications. I am guessing they chuck about 1/2 or more due to the application being incomplete, the applicant
did not follow instructions, the application was sloppy, or just obviously poor grades/test scores. The interview and perhaps
the essay and recommendations are necessary to chuck weirdos and psychopaths you do not want sitting next to King Fahd Jr. So
the "byzantine" application process is actually necessary to reduce the number of applicants to be evaluated.
I have a friend who went to Stanford with me in the early 80s. She has two sons who recently applied to Stanford. The older
son had slightly better grades and test scores. The younger son is gay. Guess which one got in?
If you were in Columbia's GS school, (or even if you were CC/SEAS/Barnard) you ought to reach out to some of on-campus and
alumni veteran's groups. They can help you maneuver through the school. (I know there's one that meets at a cafe on 122 and Broadway)
CU can be a lonely and forbidding place for anyone and that goes double for GSers and quadruple for veterans.
You ought to give it another go. Especially if you aren't going somewhere else that's better. Reach out to your deans and make
a fuss. No one in the bureaucracy wants to help but you can force them to their job.
Mr. Unz, the issues of jewish/gentile intermarriage and the significance of jewish-looking names do indeed merit more consideration
than they were given in this otherwise very enlightening article.
What would the percentage of jews in Ivy-League universities look like if the methodology used to determine the percentage
of jewish NMS semifinalists were applied to the list of Ivy League students (or some available approximation of it)?
For background: I'm an Asian-American who worked briefly in legacy admissions at an Ivy and another non-Ivy top-tier, both
while in school (work-study) and as an alum on related committees.
Mendy Finkel's observations are spot on. Re: her 1st point, personal "presentation" or "branding" is often overlooked by Asian
applicants. An admission officer at another Ivy joked they drew straws to assign "Night of a 1000 Lee's", so accomplished-but-indistinguishable
was that group.
A few points on the Asian analysis:
1. I think this analysis would benefit from expanding beyond HYP/Ivies when considering the broader meritocracy issue. Many
Asians esteem technical-leaning schools over academically-comparable liberal arts ones, even if the student isn't a science major.
When I was in college in the 90′s, most Asian parents would favor a Carnegie Mellon or Hopkins over Brown, Columbia or Dartmouth
(though HYP, of course, had its magnetic appeal). The enrollment percentages reflect this, and while some of this is changing,
this is a fairly persistent pattern.
2. Fundraising is crucial. The Harvard Class of '77 example isn't the most telling kind of number. In my experience, Jewish
alumni provide a critical mass in both the day-to-day fundraising and the resultant dollars. And they play a key role, both as
givers and getters, in the signature capital campaign commitments (univ hospitals, research centers, etc.). This isn't unique
to Jewish Ivy alumni; Catholic alumni of ND or Georgetown provide similar support. But it isn't clear what the future overall
Asian commitment to the Ivy "culture of fundraising" will be, which will continue to be a net negative in admissions.
Sidenote: While Asians greatly value the particular civic good, they are uneasy with it being so hinged to an opaque private
sector, in this case, philanthropy. That distinction, blown out a bit, speaks to some of the Republican "Asian gap".
3. I would not place too much weight on NMS comparisons between Asians and Jews. In my experience, most Asians treat the PSAT
seriously, but many established Jews do not – the potential scholarship money isn't a factor, "NMS semifinalist" isn't an admissions
distinction, and as Mendy highlighted, colleges don't see the scores.
On a different note, while the "weight" of an Ivy degree is significant, it's prestige is largely concentrated in the Northeast
and among some overseas. In terms of facilitating access and mobility, a USC degree might serve you better in SoCal, as would
an SMU one in TX.
And like J Harlan, I also hope the recent monopoly of Harvard and Yale grads in the presidency will end. No doubt, places like
Whittier College, Southwest Texas State Teachers' College, and Eureka College gave earlier presidents valuable perspectives and
experience that informed their governing.
But thank you, Ron, for a great provocative piece. Very well worth the read.
Hey Ron, your next article should be on the military academies, and all those legacies that go back to the Revolutionary War.
How do you get into the French military academy, and do the cadets trace their family history back to the soldiers of Napoleon
or Charles Martel or whatever?
"Thus, there appears to be no evidence for racial bias against Asians, even excluding the race-neutral impact of athletic recruitment,
legacy admissions, and geographical diversity."
Yes, at UCLA, at least up to 2004, Asian and white admits had nearly identical SATs and GPAs.
Further, it just isn't the case that Asians are so spectacular as people seem to think. Their average on the SAT Verbal is
slightly less than whites, their average on SAT Writing is slightly more. Only in math do they have a significant advantage, 59
points or .59 standard deviation. Total advantage is about .2 over the three tests. Assuming that Harvard or Yale admit students
at +3 standard deviations overall, and plugging the relative group quantiles +(3, 2.8) into a normal distribution, we get that
.14% of white kids would get admitted, versus .26% of Asian kids. Or, 1.85 Asian kids for every one white kid.
But, last year 4.25 times as many whites as Asians took the SAT, so there still should be about 2.28 times as many white kids
being admitted as Asians (4.25/1.85).
On GPA, whites and Asians are also pretty similar on average, 3.52 for Asians who took the SAT, 3.45 for whites who took the
SAT. So that shouldn't be much of a factor.
I am a Cadet at the US Military Academy at West Point and generally pretty familiar with trans-national Academy admissions
processes. There's an excellent comparative study of worldwide military academy admissions that was done in the late '90′s you
might find interesting (IIRC it was done by a group in the NATO Defence College) and I think you will find that although soldiers
are often proud of their family histories to a fault, it is not what controls entrance to the officer corps in most countries.
"Legacy" is definitely meaningless in US Military Academy admissions, although can be very helpful in the separate process
of securing a political appointment to attend the Academy once accepted for admission and in an Army career. West Point is not
comparable to the Ivy League schools in the country, because (ironically) the admissions department that makes those comparisons
lets in an inordinate number of unqualified candidates and ensures our student body includes a wide range of candidates, from
people who are unquestionably "Ivy League material" to those who don't have the intellect to hack it at any "elite" institution.
Prior the changes in admissions policies and JFK ordering an doubling of the size of the Corps of Cadets in the '60′s, we didn't
have this problem. But, I digress. My point is, the Academy admissions system is very meritocratic.
I am a Jewish alum of UPenn, and graduated in the late 90s. That puts me almost a generation ago, which may be before the supposed
Jewish decline you write about. I was in an 80%+ Jewish fraternity, and at least 2/3 of my overall network of friends at Penn
was also Jewish. As was mentioned earlier, I have serious qualms with your methods for counting Jews based upon last name.
Based upon my admittedly non-scientific sample, the percentage of us who had traditionally Jewish last names was well under
half and closer to 25%. My own last name is German, and you would never know I am Jewish based solely upon my name (nor would
you based upon the surname of 3/4 of my grandparents, despite my family being 100% Jewish with no intermarriages until my sister).
By contrast, Asians are much easier to identify based upon name. You may overcount certain names like Lee that are also Caucasian,
but it is highly unlikely that you will miss any Asian students when your criterion is last name.
Admittedly I skimmed parts of the article, but were other criterion used to more accurately identify the groups?
The Jewish presence is definitely understated by just looking at surnames. As is the American Indian.
My maternal grandfather was Ashkenazi and his wife was 1/2 Ashkenazi and 1/4 Apache. He changed his name to a Scots surname
that matched his red hair so as to get ahead as a business man in 20s due to KKK and anti-German feelings at the time. Their kids
had two PHDs and a Masters between them despite their parents running a very blue collar firm.
My surname comes from my dad and its a Scottish surname although he was 1/4 Cherokee. On that side we are members of the FF
of Virignia. Altogether I am more Jewish and American Indian than anything else yet would be classified as white. I could easily
claim to be
Jewish or Indian on admissions forms. I always selected white. I was NMSF.
Both my sister and I have kids. Her husband is a full blood Indian with a common English surname. One of my nieces made NMSF
and another might. My sisters kids do not think of themselves as any race and check other.
My wife is 1/4 Indian and 3/4 English. My kids are young yet one has tested to an IQ in the 150s.
Once you get West of the Appalachians, there are a lot of mutts in the non-gentile whites. A lot of Jews and American Indians
Anglicized themselves a generation or two ago and they are lumped into that group – as well as occupy the top percentile academically.
Interesting article with parts I would agree with but also tinged with bias and conclusions that I would argue are not fully
supported by the data.
I think more analysis is needed to confirm your conclusions. As others have mentioned there may be problems with your analysis
of NMS scores. I think graduate admissions and achievements especially in the math and sciences would be a better measure of intellectual
performance.
Now, I didn't attend an Ivy League school, instead a public university, mainly because I couldn't afford it or so I thought.
I was also a NMS finalist.
But I always was of the opinion that except for the most exceptional students admission to the Ivies was based on the wealth
of your family and as you mentioned there are quite a few affluent Jews so I imagine they do have a leg up. Harvard's endowment
isn't as large as it is by accident.
It is interesting that you didn't discuss the stats for Stanford.
Lastly, I think your solution is wrong. The pure meritocracy is the only fair solution. Admissions should be based upon the
entrance exams like in Asia and Europe.
There are plenty of options for those who don't want to compete and if the Asians dominate admissions at the top schools so
be it.
Hopefully, all of this will be mute point n a few years as online education options become more popular with Universities specializing
in graduate education and research.
Ron Unz on Asians (ie Asian Americans): "many of them impoverished immigrant families"
Why do you twice repeat this assertion. Asians are the wealthiest race and most of the wealthiest ethnic groups tracked by
the Census Bureau, which includes immigrants.
A potentially bigger issue completely ignored by your article is how do colleges differentiate between 'foreign' students
(overwhelmingly Asian) and American students. Many students being counted as "Asian American" are in reality wealthy and elite
foreign "parachute kids" (an Asian term), dropped onto the generous American education system or into boarding schools to study
for US entrance exams, qualify for resident tuition rates and scholarships, and to compete for "American" admissions slots, not
for the usually limited 'foreign' admission slots.
Probably people from non-Asian countries are pulling the same stunt, but it seems likely dominated by Asians. And expect many
more with the passage of the various "Dream Acts"
So American kids must compete with the offspring of all the worlds corrupt elite for what should be opportunities for US Americans.
Am I the only one that finds the comparison of Asians (a race) to Jews (a religion) as basis for a case of discrimination completely
flawed? I got in at Harvard and don't remember them even asking me what my religion was.
The value of diversity is absolutely key. I have a bunch of very good Asian friends and I love them dearly, but I don't believe
a place like CalTech with its 40% demographics cannot truly claim to be a diverse place any more.
Regarding the SAT, we do know more than just differences of averages between whites and Asians. We have some years of
score distributions . As recently
as 1992, 1.2% of whites and 5.1% of Asians scored between 750 and 800 on the math subtest. As recently as 1985, 0.20% of whites
and 0.26% of Asians scored in that range on the verbal/critical reading subtest.
On a different form of the writing subtest than is currently used, 5.0% of whites and 3.0% of Asians scored greater than 60
in 1985. We also know that, as the white-Asian average verbal/critical reading gap shrank to almost nothing and the average math
gap grew in Asians' favor, the standard deviations on both for Asians have been much higher than every other group but have stayed
relatively unchanged and have become, in fact, slightly lower than in 1985.
Therefore, Asians probably greatly increased their share of top performers.
@Milton F.: "Perhaps, by ensuring that "the best" students are not concentrated in only 8 universities is why the depth and
quality of America's education system remains the envy of the world."
Hardly. America's education system is "the envy" because of the ability for minorities to get placement into better schools,
not solely for the education they receive. Only a very select few institutions are envied for their education primarily, 90% of
the colleges and universities across the country are sub-standard education providers, same with high schools.
I would imagine you're an educator at some level, more than likely, at one of the sub-standard colleges or even perhaps a high
school teacher. You're attempting to be defensive of the American education system, when in reality, you're looking at the world
through rose colored glasses. Working from within the system, rather than from the private sector looking back, gives you extreme
tunnel vision. That, coupled with the average "closed mindedness" of educators in America is a dangerous approach to advancing
the structure of the American education system. You and those like you ARE the problem and should be taken out of the equation
as quickly as possible. Please retire ASAP or find another career.
Aside from the complete lack of actual ivy league admission data on jewish applicants, a big problem with unz's "jewish affirmative
action" claim is how difficult such a policy would be to carry out in complete secrecy.
Now, it would be one thing if Unz was claiming that jews are being admitted with similar numbers to non-jewish whites, but
in close cases, admissions staff tend to favor jewish applicants. But he goes much further than that. Unz is claiming that jews,
as a group, are being admitted with lower SAT scores than non-jewish whites. Not only that, but this policy is being carried out
by virtually every single ivy league college and it has been going on for years. Moreover, this preference is so pervasive, that
it allows jews to gain admissions at many times the rate that merit alone would yield, ultimately resulting in entering classes
that are over 20% Jewish.
If a preference this deep, consistent and widespread indeed exists, there is no way it could be the result of subjective bias
or intentional tribal favoritism on the part of individual decision makers. It would have to be an official, yet unstated, admissions
policy in every ivy league school. Over the years, dozens (if not hundreds) of admission staff across the various ivy league colleges
would be engaging in this policy, without a single peep ever leaking through about Jewish applicants getting in with subpar SAT
scores. We hear insider reports all the time about one group is favored or discriminated against (we even have such an insider
account in this comment thread), but we hear nothing about the largest admission preference of them all.
Remember, admissions staffs usually include other ethnic minorities. I couldn't imagine them not wondering why jews need to
be given such a big boost so that they make up almost a quarter of the entering class. Even if every member of every admissions
committee were Jewish liberals, it would still be almost impossible to keep this under wraps.
Obviously, I have never seen actual admission numbers for Jewish applicants, so I could be wrong, and there could in fact be
an unbreakable wall of secrecy regarding the largest and most pervasive affirmative action practice in the country. Or, perhaps,
the ivy league application pool contains a disproportionate amount of high scoring jewish applicants.
As some who is Jewish from the former Soviet Union, and who was denied even to take an entrance exam to a Moscow college,
I am saddened to see that American educational admission process looks more and more "Soviet" nowadays. Kids are denied opportunities
because of their ethnic or social background, in a supposedly free and fair country!
But this is just a tip of the iceberg. The American groupthink of political correctness, lowest common denominator, and political
posturing toward various political/ethnic/religious/sexual orientation groups is rotting this country inside out.
"Similarly, Jews were over one-quarter of the top students in the Physics Olympiad from 1986 to 1997, but have fallen to just
5 percent over the last decade, a result which must surely send Richard Feynman spinning in his grave."
Actually, Richard Feynman famously rejected genetic explanations of Jewish achievement (whether he was right or wrong to
do so is another story), and aggressively resisted any attempts to list him as a "Jewish scientist" or "Jewish Nobel Prize winner."
I am sure he would not cared in the slightest bit how many Jews were participating in the Physics Olympiad, as long as the quality
of the students' work continued to be excellent. Here is a letter he wrote to a woman seeking to include him in a book about Jewish
achievement in the sciences.
Dear Miss Levitan:
In your letter you express the theory that people of Jewish origin have inherited their valuable hereditary elements from their
people. It is quite certain that many things are inherited but it is evil and dangerous to maintain, in these days of little knowledge
of these matters, that there is a true Jewish race or specific Jewish hereditary character. Many races as well as cultural influences
of men of all kinds have mixed into any man. To select, for approbation the peculiar elements that come from some supposedly Jewish
heredity is to open the door to all kinds of nonsense on racial theory.
Such theoretical views were used by Hitler. Surely you cannot maintain on the one hand that certain valuable elements can be
inherited from the "Jewish people," and deny that other elements which other people may find annoying or worse are not inherited
by these same "people." Nor could you then deny that elements that others would consider valuable could be the main virtue of
an "Aryan" inheritance.
It is the lesson of the last war not to think of people as having special inherited attributes simply because they are born
from particular parents, but to try to teach these "valuable" elements to all men because all men can learn, no matter what their
race.
It is the combination of characteristics of the culture of any father and his father plus the learning and ideas and influences
of people of all races and backgrounds which make me what I am, good or bad. I appreciate the valuable (and the negative) elements
of my background but I feel it to be bad taste and an insult to other peoples to call attention in any direct way to that one
element in my composition.
At almost thirteen I dropped out of Sunday school just before confirmation because of differences in religious views but mainly
because I suddenly saw that the picture of Jewish history that we were learning, of a marvelous and talented people surrounded
by dull and evil strangers was far from the truth. The error of anti-Semitism is not that the Jews are not really bad after all,
but that evil, stupidity and grossness is not a monopoly of the Jewish people but a universal characteristic of mankind in general.
Most non-Jewish people in America today have understood that. The error of pro-Semitism is not that the Jewish people or Jewish
heritage is not really good, but rather the error is that intelligence, good will, and kindness is not, thank God, a monopoly
of the Jewish people but a universal characteristic of mankind in general.
Therefore you see at thirteen I was not only converted to other religious views but I also stopped believing that the Jewish
people are in any way "the chosen people." This is my other reason for requesting not to be included in your work.
@Rob Schacter – your last point is basically spot-on. The Ivies are fairly unique in the high proportion of Jewish applicants.
History, geographical bias, and self-selection all play a role. I think the overall preference distortion is probably not as wide
as Unz claims, but you will see similar tilts at Stanford, Northwestern, etc. that reflect different preference distortions.
@Leon, two quick points.
1st – the census tracks by household, which generally overestimates Asian wealth. Many families have three generations and
extended members living in one household (this reflects that many of them work together in a small family business).
2nd – most of the time, it's clear in the application (the HS, personal info, other residency info, etc.) which Asian applicants
are Asian-American and which are "Parachute Kids". But the numbers are much smaller than one might think, and the implication
depends on the school.
At Ivies, parachute kids (both Asian and not) tend to compete with each other in the application pool, and aren't substantially
informing the broader admissions thesis in this article. I'm not saying that's right, just saying it's less material than we might
think.
They more likely skew the admissions equation in great-but-not-rich liberal arts colleges (like Grinnell) and top public universities
(like UCLA), which are both having budget crises and need full fare students, parachute or not. And for the publics, this includes
adding more higher-tuition, out-of-state students, which further complicates assertions of just whose opportunities are being
lost.
I will bring this back to fundraising and finances again, because the broader point is about who is stewarding and creating
access: so long as top universities are essentially run as self-invested feedback loops, and position and resource themselves
accordingly (and other universities have to compete with them), we will continue to see large, persistent discrepancies in who
can participate.
When I applied to Harvard College back in 1976, I was proud of my application essay. In it, I proposed that the US used the
Israeli army as a proxy, just as the Russians were using the Cuban army at the time.
Alas, I wasn't admitted (I did get into Yale, which didn't require free-form essay like that).
This, of course, illustrates the point that coming from an Application Hell instead of from central Illinois helps a student
know how to write applications. It also illustrates what might help explain the mystery of high Jewish admissions: political bias.
Jews are savvier about knowing what admissions officers like to hear (including the black and Latino ones, who as a previous commentor
said aren't likely to be pro-semite). They are also politically more liberal, and so don't have to fake it. And their families
are more likely to read the New York Times and thus have the right "social graces" as we might call them, of this age.
It would be interesting to know how well "true WASPS" do in admissions. This could perhaps be estimated by counting Slavic
and Italian names, or Puritan New England last names. I would expect this group to do almost as well as Jews (not quite as well,
because their ability would be in the lower end of the Legacy group).
The missing variable in this analysis is income/class. While Unz states that many elite colleges have the resources to
fund every student's education, and in fact practice need-blind admissions, the student bodies are skewed towards the very highest
percentile of the income and wealth distribution. SAT scores may also scale with parents' income as well.
Tuition and fees at these schools have nearly doubled relative to inflation in the last 25-30 years, and with home prices in
desirable neighborhoods showing their own hyper-inflationary behavior over the past couple of decades (~15 yrs, especially), the
income necessary to pay for these schools without burdening either the student or parents with a lot of debt has been pushed towards
the top decile of earners. A big chunk of the upper middle class has been priced out. This could hit Asian professionals who may
be self made harder than other groups like Jews who may be the second or third generation of relative affluence, and would thus
have advantages in having less debt when starting their families and careers and be less burdened in financing their homes. Would
be curious to see the same analysis if $$ could be controlled.
I would also like to add that I am a late '80′s graduate of Wesleyan who ceased his modest but annual financial contribution to
the school after reading The Gatekeepers.
If I had a penny for every Jewish American I met (including myself) whose first and last name gave no indication of his religion
or ethnicity, I'd be rich. Oh–and my brother and I have four Ivy League degrees between us.
I almost clicked on a different link the instance I came across the word "elite" , but curiosity forced my hand.
Just yesterday my mom was remarking how my cousin had gotten into MIT with an SAT score far below what I scored, and she finished
by adding that I should have applied to an ivy-league college after high school. I as always, reminded her, I'm too "black for
ivy games".
I always worked hard in school, participated in olympiads and symposiums, and was a star athlete. When it came to applying
for college I found myself startled when forced to "quantify" my achievements in an "application package". I did not do or engage
in these activities solely to boost my chances of gaining admission into some elite college over similarly-hardworking Henry Wang
or Jess Steinberg. I did these things because I loved doing them.
Sports after class was almost a relaxation activity for me. Participating in math olympiads was a way for me to get a scoop
on advanced mathematics. Participating in science symposiums was a chance for me to start applying my theoretical education to
solve practical problems.
The moment I realized I would have to kneel down before some admissions officer and "present my case", outlining my "blackness",
athleticism, hard work, curiosity, and academic ability, in that specific order I should point, in order to have a fighting chance
at getting admitted; is the moment all my "black rage" came out in an internal explosion of rebellion and disapproval of "elite
colleges".
I instead applied to a college that was blind to all of the above factors. I am a firm believer that hard work and demonstrated
ability always win out in the end. I've come across, come up against is a better way to put it, Ivy-league competition in college
competitions and applications for co-ops and internships, and despite my lack of "eliteness" I am confident that my sheer ability
and track record will put me in the "interview candidate" pool.
Finally, my opinion is: let elite schools keep doing what they are doing. It isn't a problem at all, the "elite" tag has long
lost its meaning.
The difficulty with using Jewish sounding last names to identify Jewish students works poorly in two ways today. Not only,
as others have pointed out, do many Jews not have Jewish sounding last names, but there are those, my grandson for example, who
have identifiably Jewish last names and not much in the way of Jewish background.
Interesting reading. The article opens a deceptively simple statistical window into a poorly understood process - a window
which I would guess even the key participants have never looked through. I especially appreciated the insights provided by the
author's examination of Asian surname-frequencies and their over-representation in NMS databases.
Though this is a long and meticulously argued piece, it would have benefited from a more thorough discussion of the statistical
share of legacies and athletic scholarships in elite admissions.
Perhaps, though, it would be better to focus on increasing meritocracy in the broader society, which would inevitably lead
to some discounting of the value of educational credentials issued by these less than meritocratic private institutions.
It is precisely because the broader society is also in many key respects non-meritocratic that the non-meritocratic admissions
practices of elite institutions are sustainable.
Despite the very long and detailed argument, the writer's interpretation of a pro-Jewish admissions bias at Ivy-league schools
is worryingly flawed.
First, he uses two very different methods of counting Jews: name recognition for counting various "objective" measures such
as NMS semifinalists and Hillel stats for those admitted to Harvard. The first is most likely an underestimate while the latter
very possibly inflated (in both cases especially due to the very large numbers of partially-Jewish students, in the many interpretations
that has). I wonder how much of his argument would just go away if he simply counted the number of Jews in Harvard using the same
method he used to count their numbers in the other cases. Would that really be hard to do?
Second, he overlooks the obvious two sources that can lead to such Asian/Jewish relative gaps in admissions. The first is the
different groups' different focus on Science/Math vs. on Writing/Culture. It is very possible that in recent years most Asians
emphasize the former while Jews the latter, which would be the natural explanation to the Caltech vs Harvard racial composition
(as well as to the other stats). The second is related but different and it is the different group's bias in applications: the
same cultural anecdotes would explain why Asians would favor applying to Caltech and Jews to Harvard. A natural interpretation
of the data would be that Jews have learned to optimize for whatever criteria the Ivy leagues are using and the Asians are doing
so for the Caltech criteria.
Most strange is the author's interpretation of how a pro-Jewish bias in admissions is actually put into effect: the application
packets do not have the data of whether the applicant is Jewish or not, and I doubt that most admission officers figure it out
in most cases. While it could be possible for admissions officers to have a bias for or against various types of characteristics
that they see in the data in front of them (say Asian/Black/White or political activity), a systematic bias on unobserved data
is a much more difficult proposition to make. Indeed the author becomes rather confused here combining the low education level
of admissions officers, that they are "liberal arts or ethnic-studies majors" (really?), that they are "progressive", and that
there sometimes is corruption, all together presumably leading to a bias in favor of Jews?
Finally, the author's suggestion for changing admittance criteria is down-right bizarre for a conservative: The proposal is
a centralized solution that he aims to force upon the various private universities, each who can only loose from implementing
it.
Despite the long detailed (but extremely flawed) article, I am afraid that it is more a reflection of the author's biases than
of admissions biases.
Both the article and the comments are illuminating. My takeaways:
1) Affirmative action in favor of blacks and Hispanics is acknowledged.
2) Admissions officers in the Ivy League appear to limit Asian admissions somewhat relative to the numbers of qualified applicants.
3) They may also admit somewhat more Jewish applicants than would be warranted relative to their comparative academic qualifications.
The degree to which this is true is muddled by the difficulty of identifying Jews by surnames, by extensive intermarriage, by
changing demographics within the Jewish population, by geographic factors, and by the propensity to apply in the first place.
4) (My major takeaway.) White Protestants and Catholics are almost certainly the sole groups that are greatly under-represented
relative to their qualifications as well as to raw population percentages.
5) This is due partly to subtle or open discrimination.
6) I would hypothesize that a great many of the white Protestants and Catholics who are admitted are legacies, star athletes,
and the progeny of celebrities in entertainment, media, politics, and high finance. White Protestant or Catholic applicants, especially
from the hinterlands, who don't fit one of these special categories–though they must be a very large component of Mr Unz's pool
of top talent–are out of luck.
7) And everyone seems to think this is just fine.
The inner and outer ring idea seems to me an excellent one, though the likelihood of it happening is next to nil, both because
some groups would lose disproportionate access and because the schools' imprimatur would be diminished in
value.
The larger point, made by several respondents, is that far too many institutions place far too much weight on the credentials
conferred by a small group of screening institutions. The great advantage of the American system is not that it is meritocratic,
either objectively or subjectively. It is that it is–or was–Protean in its flexibility. One could rise through luck or effort
or brains, with credentials or without them, early in life or after false starts and setbacks. And there were regional elites
or local elites rather than, as we increasingly see, a single, homogenized national elite. Success or its equivalent wasn't something
institutionally conferred.
The result of the meritocratic process is that we are making a race of arrogant, entitled overlords, extremely skilled at the
aggressive and assertive arts required to gain admission to, and to succeed in, a few similar and ideologically skewed universities
and colleges; and who spend the remainder of their lives congratulating each other, bestowing themselves on the populace, and
destroying the country.
This article is the product of careful and thoughtful research, and it identifies a problem hiding in plain sight. As a society,
we have invested great trust in higher education as a transformative institution. It is clear that we have been too trusting.
That the admissions policies of elite universities are meritocratic is hardly the only wrong idea that Americans have about
higher education. Blind faith in higher education has left too many people with largely worthless degrees and crushing student-loan
debt.
Of course, the problems don't end with undergraduate education. The "100 reasons NOT to go to grad school" blog offers some
depressing reading:
The higher education establishment has failed to address so many longstanding internal structural problems that it's hard to
imagine that much will change anytime soon.
"I believe that this article raises – and then inappropriately immediately dismisses – the simplest and most likely reason
for the over-representation of Jewish students at Ivy League Schools in the face of their declining bulk academic performance:
They apply to those schools in vastly disproportionate numbers."
Here's the problem with that point. What Ron Unz demonstrates, quite effectively, is that today's Jews simply don't measure
up to either their Asian or their White Gentile counterparts in terms of actual performance when they get into, say, Harvard.
The quite massive difference in the proportions of those groups who get into Phi Beta Kappa renders this quite undeniable. What
is almost certain is that policies that favored Asians and White Gentiles over the current crop of Jewish students would create
a class of higher caliber in terms of academic performance.
If indeed it's true that Jews apply to Harvard in greater numbers, then, if the desire is to produce a class with the greatest
academic potential, some appropriate way of correcting for the consequent distortion should be introduced. Certainly when it comes
to Asians, college admissions committees have found their ways of reducing the numbers of Asians admitted, despite their intense
interest in the Ivies.
One way of understanding Unz's results here might be not so much that today's Jewish student is far less inclined to hard academic
work than those of yesteryear, but rather that others - White Gentiles and Asians - have simply caught up in terms of motivation
to get into elite schools and perform to the best of their abilities.
Certainly among members of the upper middle class, there has been great, and likely increasing, emphasis in recent years on
the importance of an elite education and strong academic performance for ultimate success. This might well produce a much stronger
class of students at the upper end applying to the Ivies.
It may be that not only the Asians, but upper middle class White Gentiles, are "The New Jews".
I don't always agree with, Mr. Unz, but his expositions are always provocative and informative. As far as the criticisms of
his data set go, he openly admits that they are less than ideal. However, the variances are so large that the margin of error
can be excused. Jews are 40 TIMES more likely to be admitted to Harvard than Gentile whites. Asians are 10 times more likely.
Of course, it could be possible that Jews, because of higher average IQs, actually produce 40 times as many members in the upper
reaches of the cognitive elite.
Given Richard Lynn's various IQ studies of Jews and the relative preponderance of non-Jewish and Jewish whites in the population,
however, whites ought to have a 7 to 1 representation vis-a-vis Jews in Ivy League institutions, assuming the IQ cutoff is 130.
Their numbers are roughly equivalent instead.
Because Ivy League admissions have been a hotbed of ethnic nepotism in the past, it seems that special care should be taken
to avoid these improprieties (or the appearance thereof) in the future. But no such safeguards have been put in place. David Brooks
has also struck the alarm about the tendency of elites to shut down meritocratic institutions once they have gained a foothold:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/13/opinion/brooks-why-our-elites-stink.html?_r=1&ref=global-home
Clannish as the WASPs may have been, they were dedicated enough to ideals of fairness and equality that they opened the doors
for their own dispossession. I predict that a new Asian elite will eventually eclipse our Jewish elite. Discrimination and repression
can restrain a vigorously ascendant people but for so long. When they do, it will be interesting to see if this Asian cohort clings
to its longstanding Confucian meritocratic traditions, embodied in the Chinese gaokao or if it too will succumb to the temptation,
ever present in a multiethnic polity, of preferring ethnic kinsmen over others.
Does anyone know how a minority such as the Uighurs fares in terms of elite Chinese university admissions?
This may sound like special-pleading, but it's not clear that full-scale IQ measures are meaningful when assessing and predicting
Jewish performance. Jewish deficits on g-loaded spatial reasoning task may reflect specific visuo-spatial deficits and not deficits
in g. As far as I know, no one doubts that the average Jewish VIQ is at least 112 (and possibly over 120). This score may explain
jewish representation which seems to exceed what would be projected by their full-scale iq scores. Despite PIQ's correllation
to mathematical ability in most populations, we ought also remember that, at least on the WAIS, it is the VIQ scale that includes
the only directly mathematical subtest. We should also note that Jewish mathematicians seem to use little visualization in their
reasoning (cf. Seligman
That said, I basically agree that Jews are, by and large, coasting. American Jews want their children to play hockey and join
'greek life' and stuff, not sit in libraries . It's sad for those of us who value the ivory tower, but understandable given their
stigmatiziation as a nerdish people.
I wonder if it would be at all possible to assess the political biases of admissions counselors at these schools by assessing
the rates at which applicants from red states are admitted to the elite universities. I suppose you would have to know how many
applied, and those data aren't likely to exist in the public domain.
One major flaw with this article's method of determining Jewish representation: distinctive Jewish surnames in no way make
up all Jewish surnames. Distinctive Jewish surnames happen to be held by only 10-12% of all American Jews. In fact, the third
most common American Jewish surname after Cohen and Levy is Miller. Mr. Unz' methodology does not speak well for itself, given
that he's comparing a limited set of last names against a far more carefully scrutinized estimate.
I'm not suggesting his estimate of national merit scholars and the like is off by a full 90%, but he's still ending up with
a significant undercount, possibly close to half. That would still mean Jews may be "wrongfully" over-represented are many top
colleges and universities, but the disproportion is nowhere near as nefarious as he would suggest.
@Nick – the "red state" application and admission rates isn't useful data.
Short answer: There are many reasons for this, but basically, historical momentum and comfort play a much bigger role in where
kids apply than we think. I assure you, far more top Nebraska HS seniors want to be a Cornhusker than a Crimson, even though many
would find a very receptive consideration and financial aid package.
Long answer: 1st, although this article and discussion have been framed in broad racial/cultural terms, the mechanics of college
admissions are mostly local and a bit like athletic recruiting – coverage (and cultivation) of specific regions and districts,
"X" high school historically deliver "X" kinds of candidates, etc. So to the degree we may see broader trends noted in the article
and discussion, some of that is rooted at the HS level and lower.
2nd, in "red states", most Ivy applicants come from the few blue or neutral districts. E.g.: the only 2 Utah HS's that consistently
have applicants to my Ivy alma mater are in areas that largely mirror other high-income, Dem-leaning areas nationwide rather than
the rest of Utah.
3rd, but, with some variation among the schools, the Ivy student body is more politically balanced than usually assumed. Remember,
most students are upper-income, Northeastern suburban and those counties' Dem/Rep ratio is often closer to 55/45 than 80/20.
But to wrap up, ideology plays a negligible role in admissions generally (there's always an exception); they have other fish
to fry (see below).
"Quota against Asians" is not entirely wrong, but it's too strong because it implies the forward intent is about limiting their
numbers.
Put another way, Unz believes the Ivies are failing their meritocractic mission by over-admitting a group that is neither disadvantaged
nor has highest technical credentials; and this comes at the expense of a group that is more often disadvantaged and with higher
technical credentials. The Ivies would likely reply, "well, we define 'meritocractic mission' differently".
That may be a legitimate counter, but it's also what needs more expansion and sunlight.
But Unz' analysis has a broader causation vs correlation gap. Just because admissions is essentially zero-sum doesn't mean
every large discrepancy in it is, even after allowing for soft biases. I've mentioned these earlier in passing, but here are just
a couple other factors of note:
Admissions is accountable for selection AND marketing and matriculation – these are not always complementary forces. Essentially,
you want to maximize both the number and distribution (racial, geographic, types of accomplishment, etc.) of qualified applicants,
but also the number you can safely turn down but without discouraging future applications, upsetting certain stakeholders (specific
schools, admissions counselors/consultants, etc.) or "harming" any data in the US News rankings. And you have a very finite time
to do this, and – not just your competition, but the entire sector – is essentially doing this at the same time. You can see how
an admissions process would develop certain biases over time to limit risks in an unpredictable, high volume market, even if rarely
intended to target a specific group. Ivy fixation (but especially around HYP) is particularly concentrated in the Northeast –
a sample from several top HS' across America (public and private) would show much larger application and matriculation variations
among their top students than would be assumed from Unz's thesis. Different Ivies have different competitors/peers, which influences
their diversity breakdowns – to some degree, they all co-compete, but just as often don't. E.g.: Princeton often overlaps with
Georgetown and Duke, Columbia with NYU and Cooper Union, Cornell with SUNY honors programs because it has some "in state" public
colleges, etc.
There's much more, of course, but returning to Unz's ethnographic thesis, I have this anecdote: we have two friends in finance,
whose families think much of their success. The 1st is Asian, went to Carnegie Mellon, and is a big bank's trading CTO; the 2nd
is Jewish, went to Wharton, and is in private equity.
Put another way, while both families shared a pretty specific vision of success, they differed a lot in the execution. The
upper echelon of universities, and the kinds of elite-level mobility they offer, are much more varied than even 25 years ago.
While the relative role of HYP in our country, and their soft biases in admission, are "true enough" to merit discussion, it's
probably not the discussion that was in this article.
While you may have a point as to the difficulty in some cases of identifying a Jewish surname, the most important thing methodologically
is that the criteria be performed uniformly if one is comparing Jewish representation today vs. that of other periods. I can't
think, for example, of any reason that Cohens or Levys or Golds should be any less well represented today as opposed to many years
ago if indeed there has not been an underlying shift in numbers of Jews in the relevant categories. (Nor, for that matter, should
issues like intermarriage affect the numbers much here - for every mother whose maiden name is Cohen who marries a non-Jew with
a non-Jewish surname, and whose half Jewish child will be counted as non-Jewish, there is, on average, going to be a man named
Cohen who will marry a non-Jew, and whose half Jewish child will be counted as Jewish.)
One might suppose that all this "inequity" and "discrimination" matters if we're keeping score. However, seems to me that too
much emphasis is typically placed on equality whereas real criteria in productive and satisfying lives are neglected. Kind'a like
some people wanting bragging rights as much, if not more, than wanting positive reality.
I guess I just went about my way and lived a pretty god life (so far). Who knows?; maybe those "bragging rights" are meaningful.
Ditto to many comments about the "last name problem", even if its correction weakens but doesn't invalidate the argument. (One
imagines, chillingly, a new sub-field: "Jewish last name theory", seeking to determine proportionalities of classic names validated
against member/donor lists of synagogues and other Jewish organizations.)
Regarding the 20% inner ring suggestion, it suffers from its harsh transition. Consider a randomized derating scheme: a random
number between some lower bound (say 0.90) and 1.00 is applied to each score on the ranked applicant list.
The added noise provides warmth to a cold test scores list. Such an approach nicely captures the directive: "study hard, but
it's not all about the grades".
By adjusting the lower bound, you can get whatever degree of representativeness relative to the application base you want.
That it's a "just a number" (rather than a complex subjectivity-laden labyrinth incessantly hacked at by consultants) could
allow interesting conversations about how it could relate to the "top 1% / bottom 50%" wealth ratio. The feedback loop wants closure.
You missed my point, candid. A relatively small proportion of Jews, intermarried or otherwise, have distinctive Jewish names.
I didn't make that 10-12% figure up. It's been cited in numerous local Jewish population studies and is used in part (but certainly
far from whole) to help estimate those populations. It's also been significantly dragged down over the years as the Jewish population
(and hence the surname pool) has diversified, not just from intermarriage, but in-migration from groups who often lack "distinctive
Jewish surnames" such as Jews from the former Soviet Union. Consider also that for obvious reasons, Hillel, which maintains Jewish
centers on most campus, has an incentive to over-report by a bit. Jewish populations on college campuses in the distant past were
easier to gather, given that it was far less un-PC to simply point blank inquire what religious background applicants came from.
Again, I'm not saying there isn't a downward trend in Jewish representation among high achievers (which, even if one were to
accept Unz's figures, Jews would still be triple relative to were they "should" be). But Unz has made a pretty significant oversight
in doing his calculations. That may happen to further suit his personal agenda, but it's not reality.
This is interesting, but I suspect mostly bogus, based on your not having a decent algorithm for discovering if someone's Jewish.
I'm not sure what exact mechanism you're using to decide if a name is Jewish, but I'm certain it wouldn't have caught anyone,
including myself, in my father's side of the family (Sephardic Jews from Turkey with Turkish surnames), nor my wife's family,
an Ellis Island Anglo name. Or probably most of the people in her family. And certainly watching for "Levi, Cohen and Gold*" isn't
going to do anything.
Isn't the point about Jewish over representation in the Ivy League about absolute numbers?
Yes the Jewish demographic has a higher IQ at 115 to the Goyishe Kop 100 but Jewish people are only 2% of the population so
you have 6 million Jewish people vying with 200 million white Goys for admission to the Ivy League and future control of the levers
of power. That is a 33 times larger Bell curve so the right tail of the Goys' Bell curve is still much larger than the Jewish
Bell curve at IQ levels of 130 and 145, supposedly there are seven times more Goys with IQs of 130 and over 4 times more Goys
with IQs of 145. So why the equality of representation, one to one, Jewish to white Goy in the Ivy Leagues?
Russell K. Nieli on study by Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Radford (mentioned by Unz):
"When lower-class whites are matched with lower-class blacks and other non-whites the degree of the non-white advantage becomes
astronomical: lower-class Asian applicants are seven times as likely to be accepted to the competitive private institutions as
similarly qualified whites, lower-class Hispanic applicants eight times as likely, and lower-class blacks ten times as likely.
These are enormous differences and reflect the fact that lower-class whites were rarely accepted to the private institutions Espenshade
and Radford surveyed. Their diversity-enhancement value was obviously rated very low."
Having worked with folks from all manner of "elite" and not so elite schools in a technical field, the main conclusion I was
able to draw was folks who went to "elite" colleges had a greater degree of entitlement. And that's it.
If all of the author's suspicions are correct, the most noteworthy takeaway would be that Jewish applicants have absolutely
no idea that they are being given preferential treatment when applying to Ivys.
Not that they think they are being discriminated against or anything, but no Jewish high school student or their parents think
they have any kind of advantage, let alone such a huge one. Someone should tell all these Jews that they don't need to be so anxious!
Also, I know this is purely anecdotal but having gone to an ivy and knowing the numbers of dozens of other Jews who have also
gone, I don't think I have ever witnessed a "surprise" acceptance, where someone got in with a score under the median.
I don't doubt for a minute that it's increasingly difficult for Asian students to get into so-called "elite" universities.
Having grown up in that community, I know a lot of people who were pressured into applying at Harvard and Yale but ended up *gasp*
going to a very good local school. My sarcasm aside, we can't really deny that having Harvard on your CV can virtually guarantee
a ticket to success, regardless of whether or not you were just a C student. It happens.
But what worries me about that is the fact that I know very well how hard Asian families tend to push their children. They
do, after all, have one of the highest suicide rates and that's here in the US. If by some means the Asian population at elite
universities is being controlled, as I suspect it is, that's only going to make tiger mothers push their children even harder.
That's not necessarily a good thing for the child's psyche, so instead of writing a novel here, I'll simply give you this link.
Since the author brought up the subject of Amy Chua and her book, I think it's a pretty fitting explanation of the fears I have
for my friends and their children if this trend is allowed to continue.
As a former admissions staff person at Princeton, I always sigh when I read articles on elite college admissions processes
which build cases on data analysis but which fail to consult with admissions experts on the interpretation of that data.
I am neither an expert in sociology, nor am I a statistician, but I have sat in that chair, reading thousands of essays, and
I have a few observations:
The most selective part of any college's admissions process is the part where students themselves decides whether or not to apply.
Without data on the actual applicant sets, it is, at the least, misleading to attribute incongruities between the overall population's
racial/ethnic/income/what-have-you characteristics and the student bodies' make-ups entirely to the admission decisions. The reality
is that there is always a struggle in the admission offices to compensate for the inequities that the applicant pool itself delivers
to their doorsteps. An experienced admission officer can tell you that applicants from cultures where academics and education
are highly valued, and where the emphasis on a single test is quite high, will generally present with very high SAT scores. Race
does not seem to be correlated, but immigrant status from such a culture is highly correlated. (This may partially explain Unz's
observation of a "decline" in Jewish scores, although I also do not believe that the surname tool for determining which scores
are "Jewish" holds much water.) One of the reasons that such students often fare less well in holistic application processes is
that the same culture that produces the work ethic and study skills which benefit SAT performance and GPA can also suppress activities
and achievement outside of the academic arena. Therefore, to say that these students are being discriminated against because of
race is a huge assumption. The true questions is whether the students with higher test scores are presenting activity, leadership
and community contributions comparable to other parts of the applicant pool which are "overrepresented". All of these articles
seem to miss the point that a freshman class is a fixed size pie chart. Any piece that shrinks or grows will impact the other
slices. My first thought upon reading Unz' argument that the Asian slice shrank was, "What other pieces were forced to grow?"
Forced growth in another slice of the class is the more likely culprit for this effect, much more likely than the idea that all
of the Ivies are systematically discriminating against the latest victim. I could go on and on, but will spare you! My last note
is to educate Mr. Unz on what an "Assistant Director" is in college admissions. Generally that position is equivalent to a Senior
Admission Officer (one step up from entry level Admission Officer), while the head of the office might be the Dean and the next
step down from that would be Associate Deans (not Assistant Directors). So while Michelle Hernandez was an Assistant Director,
she was not the second in charge of Admissions, as your article implies. A minor distinction, but one which is important to point
out so that her expertise and experience, as well as my own, as AN Assistant Director of Admission at Princeton, are not overstated.
A last personal note: During Princeton's four month reading season, I worked 7 days a week, usually for about 14 hours a day,
in order to give the fullest, most human and considerate reading of each and every applicant that I could give. I am sure that
the admission profession has its share of incompetents, corruptible people and just plain jerks, and apparently some of us are
not intelligent enough to judge the superior applicants . . . . But most of us did it for love of the kids at that age (they are
all superstars!), for love of our alma maters and what they did for us, and because we believed in the fairness of our process
and the dignity with which we tried to do it.
The sheer numbers of applicants and the fatigue of the long winters lend themselves to making poor jokes such as the "Night
of 1000 Lee's", but a good dean of admission will police such disrespect, and encourage the staff, as mine did, to read the last
applicant of the day with the same effort, energy and attention paid to the first. We admission folk have our honor, despite being
underpaid and playing in a no-win game with regard to media coverage of our activities. I am happy to be able to speak up for
the integrity of my former colleagues and the rest of the profession.
My own position has always been strongly in the former camp, supporting meritocracy over diversity in elite admissions.
When these Ivy League institutions were first begun in the colonial period, they were not strictly speaking meritocratic. The
prevailing idea was that Christocentric education is the right way to go, both from an eschatological and a temporal perspective,
and the central focus was on building and strengthening family ties. The Catholic institutions of higher learning took on the
vital role of preserving Church tradition from apostolic times and were thus more egalitarian and universalist. The results went
far beyond all expectations.
Nothing lasts forever. Your premise misses the essential point that the economy is for man and not vice-versa.
Many of the statements in this article relating to Jews are rather misleading: for while the Hillel data regarding percentage
of students who self-identify as Jews may be fairly accurate, the numbers the author cites based upon "likely Jewish names" are
a gross under-count of the real numbers, leading to the appearance of a large disparity between the two which, in reality, does
not exist. The reason for the under-count is that a large percentage of American Jews have either Anglicized their family name
or intermarried, resulting in their being mistaken for non-Hispanic whites. Thus, one ends up with incorrect statements such as
"since 2000, the percentage (of Jewish Putnam Fellows) has dropped to under 10 percent, without a single likely Jewish name in
the last seven years". The reality is that Jews, by Hillel's definition of self-identified students, have continued to be prominent
among the Putnam Fellows, US IMO team members, and high scorers in the USA Mathematical Olympiad. I have published a careful analysis
of the true ethnic/racial composition of the very top-performing students in these math competitions from recent years (see, Andreescu
et al. Notices of the AMS 2008; http://www.ams.org/notices/200810/fea-gallian.pdf
). For example, Daniel Kane, a Putnam Fellow in 2002-2006, is 100% of Jewish ancestry; his family name had been Cohen before
it was changed. Brian Lawrence was a Putnam Fellow in 2007, 2008, 2010, and 2011; his mother is Jewish. Furthermore, many of the
non-Jewish Putnam Fellows in recent years are Eastern European or East-Asian foreigners who matriculated to college in the US;
they were not US citizen non-Jewish whites or Asian-Americans, respectively. Rather, my data indicate that in recent years both
Jews and Asians have been 10- to 20-over-represented in proportion to their percentage of the US population among the students
who excel at the highest level in these math competitions. The authors conclusions based upon data from other types of competitions
is likely similarly flawed.
The title of this piece captured me to read what it was all about. What was discussed was admissions into elite colleges as
the only focus on "meritocracy" in America. That leaves the tail of the distribution of high IQ people in America, minus those
that make it into elite colleges, to be ignored, especially those that managed to be admitted to Cal Tech, or MIT, or a number
of other universities where significant intellectual power is admitted and fostered. this seems to further the meme that only
the elite graduates run the nation. They may have an early advantage through connections, but I believe that the Fortune 400 CEO's
are fairly evenly spread across the university world.
(1) Jews are better at verbal IQ, Asians at math. Your measures are all math. That woudl be OK if all else were equal across
time, but especially because Jews care a lot about admissions to Ivies, what we'd expect is that with growing Asian competition
in math/science, Jews would give up and focus their energy on drama/writing/service. I wonder if Jewish kids are doing worse in
music competitions too? Or rather- not even entering any more.
(2) For college numbers, adjustment for US/foreign is essential. How many Asians at Yale are foreign? It could well be that
Asian-Americans are far more under-represented than it seems, because they face quota competition from a billion Chinese and a
billion Indians. Cal Tech might show the same result as the Ivies.
(3) A separate but interesting study would be of humanities and science PhD programs. Different things are going on there,
and the contrast with undergrads and with each other might be interseting.
I also learned that Jews are no longer as prominent in math and science achievement, and that's not surprising to me at
all, because everyone in the elite knows that STEM is for Asians and middle-class kids. Jewish parents have learned that colleges
value sports and "leadership" activities more than raw academic achievement and nerdy activities like math olympiads, and that
the most prestigious careers are value transference activities which don't require science or high-level math.
The higher representation of Jews in the Ivies compared to Asians who have better average academic records compared to Jews
(applicants that is ) in the Ivies is due to the greater eligibility of Jews for preferences of every kind in the Ivies. In a
typical Ivy school like Harvard, at least 60% of the freshman class will disappear because of the vast system of preferences that
exists. There is no doubt that there is racial animus involved despite the denials of the Ivies and other private universities
despite the constant denials involved like that of Rosovsky who happens to be a historian by training. Jews are classified as
white in this country, hence there would presumably greater affinity for them among the white Board of Trustees and the adcom
staff. This is in contrast to Asians who do not share the same culture or body physiogonomy as whites do.
I had read the Unz article and the Andrew Goldman response to it. I just do not agree with Unz with his solutions to this problem.
First of all private schools are not going to give legacy preferences and other kinds of preferences for the simple reason that
it provides a revenue stream. Harvard is nothing but a business just like your Starbucks or Mcdonald's on the corner.
Around the world private universities regarded as nothing but the dumping ground of the children of the wealthy, the famous
and those with connections who cannot compete with others with regards to their talent and ability regardless of what anyone will
say from abroad about the private universities in their own country. Bottomline is in other countries , the privates simply do
not get the top students in the country, the top public school does. People in other countries will simply look askance at the
nonsensical admissions process of the Ivies and other private schools, the system that the Ivies use for admission does not produce
more creative people contrary to its claims.
The Goldman response has more to do with the humanities versus math . My simple response to Andrew Goldman would be this :
a grade of A in Korean history is different from a grade of A in Jewish history, it is like comparing kiwis and bananas. The fast
and decisive way of dealing with this problem is simply to deprive private schools of every single cent of tax money that practices
legacy preferences and other kinds repugnant preferences be it for student aid or for research and I had been saying that for
a long time. I would like to comment on the many points that had been raised here but I have no time.
The solution to a lot of problems would be transparency. I'd love to see the admissions and grade data of even one major university.
Public universities should be required to post publicly the names, SAT scores, and transcripts of every student. Allowing such
posting should be a requirement for admission.
The public could then investigate further if, for example, it turned out that children of state senators had lower SAT scores.
Scholars could then analyze the effect of diversity on student performance.
Of course, already many public universities (including my own, Indiana), post the salaries of their professors on the web,
and I haven't seen much analysis or muckraking come out of that.
One factor hinted at in the article, but really needing to be addressed is the "school" that is being attended.
By this, I mean, you need philosophy students to keep the philosophy department going. When I was in college 20 years ago,
I was a humanities major. I took 1 class in 4 years with an Asian American student. 1 class. When I walked through the business
building, it was about 50% Asian.
Could Asian-American students only wanting to go to Harvard to go into business, science, or math be skewing those numbers?
I don't know, but it's just a thought to put out there.
You are preaching to the choir! I blog on this extensively on my Asian Blog: JadeLuckClub. This has been going on for the last
30 years or more! All my posts are here under Don't ID as Asian When Applying to College:
All private schools basically practice legacy prefrences and other kinds of preferences and this practice has been going on
in the Ivies since time immemorial. The income revenue from these gallery of preferences will certainly not encourage the Ivies
to give them up.
In many countries around the world, private universiites are basically the dumping ground for the children of the wealthy ,
the famous and the well connected who could not get into the top public university of their choice in their own country. This
no different from the Ivies in this country where these Ivies and other private universities are just a corral or holding pen
for the children of the wealthy, the famous and the well connected and the famous who could not compete with others based on their
won talent or ability.
Abroad you have basically 3 choices if you could not get into the top public university of that country , they are:
Go to a less competetive public university
Go to a private university
or go abroad to schools like the Ivies or in other countries where the entrance requirements to a public or private university
are less competetive compared to the top public universities in your own home country.
You can easily tell a top student from another country, he is the guy who is studying in this country under a government scholarship
( unless of course it was wrangled through corruption ). the one who is studying here through his own funds or through private
means is likely to be the one who is a reject from the top public university in his own country. That is how life works.
I am generally satisfied with the data that Ron provided about Jews compared to Asians where Jews are lagging behind Asians
at least in grades and SAT scores in the high school level, from the data I had seen posted by specialized schools in NY like
Stuy , Bronx Sci, Brook Tech, Lowell (Frisco ) etc.
Ron is correct in asserting that the Ivies little represents the top students in this country. Compare UCLA and for example.
For the fall 2011 entering freshman class at UCLA , there were 2391 domestic students at UCLA compared to 1148 at Harvard who
scored above 700 in the Math portion of the SAT and there were 439 domestic students who scored a perfect 800 in the Math portion
of the SAT at UCLA, more than Harvard or MIT certainly. For the fall 2012 freshman classs at UCLA the figure was 2409 and 447
respectively.
We can devise a freshman class that will use only income, SATS,grades as a basis of admissions that will have many top students
like UCLA has using only algorithms.
The central test of fairness in any admissions system is to ask this simple question. Was there anyone admitted under that
system admitted over someone else who was denied admission and with better grades and SAT scores and poorer ? If the answer is
in the affirmative, then that system is unfair , if it is in the negative then the system is fair.
I like the comments from Chales Hale. (Nov. 30, 2012) He says: "Welcome to China". It said all in three words. All of these
have been experienced in China. They said there is no new things under the sun. History are nothing but repeated, China with its
5000 years experienced them all.
I meant that there were 439 domestic students in the fall 2011 freshman class at UCLA and 447 domestic students in the fall
2012 freshman class at UCLA who scored a perfect score of 800 in the Math portion of the SAT. In either case it is bigger than
what Harvard or MIT has got.
In fact for the fall 2011 of the entire UC system there were more students in the the freshman class of the entire UC system
who scored above 700 in the Math portion of the SAT than the entire fall 2011 freshman of the Ivy League (Cornell not included
since it is both a public and a private school )'
As I mentioned earlier there were 2409 domestic students in the fall 2012 UCLA freshman class who scored above 700 in the Math
portion of the SAT. We know that Harvard had only 1148 domestic students in its fall 2011 freshman class who scored above 700
in the Math portion of the SAT, why would Harvard ever want to have that many top students like Berkeley or UCLA have ? The answer
to that is simple , it has to do with money. For every additional student that Harvard will enroll it would mean money being taken
out of the endowment .
Since the endowment needs constant replenishment. Where would these replenishment funds come from ? From legacies,from the
children of the wealthy and the famous etc. of course . It would mean more legacy admits, more children of the wealthy admitted
etc.
That would mean that the admission rate at Harvard will rise, the mean SAT score of the entering class will be no different from
the mean SAT scores of the entering freshman classes of Boston University and Boston College
down the road. With rising admission rates and lower mean SAT scores for the entering freshman class that prospect will not prove
appetizing or appealing to the applicant pool.
Harvard ranks only 8th after Penn State in the production of undergrads who eventually get Doctorates in Science and Engineering.
Of course Berkeley has the bragging rights for that kind of attribute.
In the scenario I had outlined above, it would mean that the mean SAT score of the Harvard freshman class will actually go
down if it tried to increase the size of its freshman class and that kind of prospect ia unpalatable to Harvard and that is the
reason as to why it wants to maintain its current " air of exclusivity ".
There is another way of looking at the quality of the Harvard student body. The ACM ICPC computer programming competition is
regarded as the best known college competition among students around the world , it is a grueling programming marathon for 2 or
3 days presumably. Teams from universities around the world vie to win the contest that is dubbed the "Battle of the Brains "
What is arguably sad is that Ivy schools, Stanford and other private schools teams fielded in the finals of the competition are
basically composed of foreign students or foreign born students and foreign born coaches.
The University of Southern California team in this competition in its finals section was made up of nothing but foreign Chinese
students and a Chinese coach. The USC team won the Southern California competition to win a slot in the finals. Apparently they
could not find a domestic student who could fill the bill. However the USC team was roundly beaten by teams from China and Asia,Russia
and Eastern Europe. The last time a US team won this competition was in 1999 by Harvey Mudd, ever since the US had gone downhill
in the competition with the competition being dominated by China and Asia and by countries from Eastern Europe and Russia. Well
I guess USC's strategy was trying to fight fire with fire (Chinese students studying in the US versus Chinese students from the
Mainland ), and it failed.
Thank you Mr. Unz for scratching the surface of the various forms of corruption surrounding elite college admissions. I hope
that your next article further discusses the Harvard Price (and Yale Price and Brown Price etc). The recent press surrounding
the Hong Kong couple suing the person they had retained to pave their children's way into Harvard indicates the extent of the
problem. This Hong Kong couple just were not savvy enough to lay their money down where it would produce results.
Additionally, a discussion of how at least some North Eastern private schools facilitate the corrupt process would be illuminating.
Finally, a more thorough discussion of whether the Asian students being admitted are US residents or nationals or whether they
are foreign citizens would also be worth while and reveal. I suspect, an even lower admit percentage for US resident citizens
of Asian ethnicity.
For these schools to state that their acceptances are need blind is patently untrue and further complicates the admissions process
for students who are naive enough to believe that. These schools should come clean and just say that after the development admits
and the wealthy legacy admits spots are purchased, the remaining few admits are handed out in a need blind fashion remembering
that many of admit pools will already be filled by the development and wealthy legacy admits resulting in extraordinarily low
rates for certain non-URM type candidates (I estimate in the 1% range).
"By contrast, a similarly overwhelming domination by a tiny segment of America's current population, one which is completely
misaligned in all these respects, seems far less inherently stable, especially when the institutional roots of such domination
have continually increased despite the collapse of the supposedly meritocratic justification. This does not seem like a recipe
for a healthy and successful society, nor one which will even long survive in anything like its current form."
I completely agree that it is not healthy for one tiny segment of our population to basically hold all the key positions in
every major industry in this country. If Asians or Blacks (who look foreign) all of a sudden ran education, media, government,
and finance in this country, there would be uproar and resistance. But because Jewish people look like the majority (whites),
they've risen to the top without the masses noticing.
But Jewish people consider themselves a minority just like blacks and Asians. They have a tribal mentality that causes stronger
ethnic nepotism than most other minority groups. And they can get away with it because no one can say anything to them lest they
be branded "jew-hunters" or "anti-semists."
The question is, "where do we go from here?" True race-blind meritocracy will never be instituted on a grand scale in this
country both in education and in the work force. One group currently controls most industries and the only way this country will
see more balance is if other groups take more control. But if one group already controls them all and controls succession plans,
how will there ever be more balance?
If Jews become presidents or regents of universities, that's a credit to their ability. Nothing sinister there.
But when Jews (or anyone) buy into an institution to create the 'Goldman School of Business', or when they give large donations,
that is not a credit to anyone's ability and there may well be something sinister there.
It is no secret that corporations and individuals look for influence, if not control, in return for cash. The same thinking
can easily affect admissions policy.
It's always the same. In spite of all the jingoism about "democracy" and "freedoms" and the "free market capitalist system",
the trail of money obfuscates and corrupts. It is still very true that whoever pays the piper, calls the tune. And naive to believe
otherwise.
How recent was it that Princeton cancelled its anti-Semitism classes for lack of participation, and at least one Jewish organisation
was screaming that Princeton would never get another penny from any Jew, ever.
That is close to absolute control of a curriculum. I give you money, and you teach what I want you to teach.
How far is that from I give you money and you admit whom I want you to admit? Or from I give you money and you hire whom I
want?
A university that is properly funded by the government – "the people" – doesn't have these issues because there is nothing
you can buy.
Operating educational institutions as a business, just like charities and health care, will always produce this kind of corruption.
Two other points:
1. It occurred to me that the lowly-paid underachiever admissions officers might well have been mostly Jewish, and hired for
that reason, and that in itself could skew the results in a desired manner.
2. I think this is a serious criticism of the othewise excellent article:
At the end, Ron Unz wants us to believe that a $30-billion institution, the finest of its kind in the world, the envy of the
known universe and beyond, the prime educator of the world's most prime elites, completely abandons its entire admissions procedures,
without oversight or supervision, to a bunch of dim-witted losers of "poor human quality" who will now choose the entire next
generation of the nation's elites. And may even take cash payments to do so.
Come on. Who are you kidding? Even McDonald's is smarter than this.
Some of the comments suggest major problems with estimating who is Jewish. But the authors information is underpinned by data
collected by Jewish pressure groups for the purpose of ensuring the gravy train keeps flowing. It's either their numbers, or the
numbers are consistent with their numbers.
This article, to me, is shocking and groundbreaking. I don't think anyone has gone this in-depth into this biased and un-meritocratic
system. This is real analysis based on real numbers.
Why is this not getting more coverage in the media? Why are people so afraid to talk about this?
There is an excellent analysis of this article at The Occidental Observer by Kevin MacDonald, "Ron Unz on the Illusory
American Meritocracy". The MSM is ignoring Unz's article for obvious reasons.
I don't know if there's any truth behind the idea that Japanese Americans have become lazy relative to their Korean and Chinese
counterparts. I've grew up in Southern California, a part of the country with a relatively high percentage of Japanese Americans,
yet I've know very few other Japanese Americans in my life. I can recall one Japanese American classmate in jr. high, and one
Japanese classmate in my high school (who returned to Japan upon graduating). Even at the UC school I attended for undergrad,
I was always the only Japanese person in the every class, and the Japanese Student Association, already meager in numbers, was
almost entirely made up of Japanese International students who were only here for school.
If, in fact, 1% of California is made up of Japanese Americans, I suspect they are an aging population. I also think many 2nd
and 3rd generation Japanese Americans are only partially Japanese, since, out of necessity, Japanese Americans have a very high
rate of out marriage.
The carefully researched article makes a strong case that there is some discrimination against Asian-Americans at the Ivy League
schools.
On the other hand, I don't see how a percentage of 40-60% Asian-Americans at the selective UC schools, even given the higher
percentage of Asian-Americans in California, does not perhaps reflect reverse discrimation, or at least affirmative action on
their behalf. To be sure one way or the other, we would have to see their test scores AND GPA, apparently the criteria that the
UC schools use for admission, considered as well in the normalization of this statistical data.
The replies to date make some good points but also reflect precisely the biases pointed out in the article as likely causing
the discussed distortions.
1) use of name data in achievement vs use of Hillel data for Ivy admits: definitely an issue but is this only one of the measures
used in this study. Focusing only on this obscures the fact that Jewish enrollment as measured over time by Hillel numbers (apples
to apples) increased significantly over the past decade while the percent of Jewish high school age students relative to other
groups declined. One explanation for this surge could be that Jewish students became even more academically successful than they
have been in the past. The achievement data using Jewish surnames is used to assess this thesis in the absence of other better
data. Rejecting the surname achievement data still leaves a huge enrollment surge over time in Jewish attendance at the Ivies
relative to their percentage of the population.
2) many comments accept that the numbers show disproportionate acceptance and enrollment growth but simply then go on to assert
that Jewish students really are smarter (absolutely or in gaming the system) relying on anecdotal evidence that is not at all
compelling. All definitions of "smarter" contain value judgments". Back in the '20s the argument was that the Ivies should rely
more on objective testing to remove bias against the then high testing Jewish students; now the writers argue conveniently wthat
the new subjective tests that are applied to disproportionately admit Jewish students over higher scoring Asians and non-Jewish
Caucasians are better measures. In both cases, there is still an issue of using a set of factors that disproportionately favors
one group. In all such cases of significant disproportionate admits, the choice of the factors used to definemmerit and their
application should be carefully evaluated for bias. The burden of proof should shift to those defending the status quo in this
situation. In any event, it is clear that given the large applicant pool, there is no shortage of non-Jewish caucasians and Asians
who are fully qualified, so if the desire was there for a balanced entering class, the students are available to make it happen
3) the numbers don't break down admissions between men and women. When my child was an athletic recruit to Harvard, we received
an ethnic breakdown of the prior year's entering class. I was surprised to discover that the Caucasian population skewed heavily
male and the non-white/Asian population skewed heavily female. It seemed that Harvard achieved most of its ethnic diversity that
year by admitting female URMs, which made being a Caucasian female the single most underrepresented group relative to its percentage
in the school age population. I'm curious if this was an anomaly or another element of bias in the admissions process.
I will note that there is one flaw in this whole argument, and that flaw is thus:
Harvard and Yale aren't the best universities in the country. As someone who went to Vanderbilt, I knew people who had been
to those universities, and their evaluation was that they were no better – and perhaps actually worse – than Vanderbilt, which
is "merely" a top 25 university.
While there is a great deal of, shall we say, "insider trading" amongst graduates of those universities, in actuality they
aren't actually the best universities in the country today. That honor probably goes to MIT and Caltech, which you note are far
more meritocratic. But most of the other best universities are probably very close in overall level, and some of them might have
a lot of advantages over those top flight universities.
Or to put it simply, the Ivy League ain't what it used to be. Yeah, it includes some of the best universities in the country,
but there are numerous non-Ivy League universities that are probably on par with them. This may indeed be in part a consequence
of some of what you have described in the article, as well as a sense of complacency.
I suspect that in twenty or thirty years a lot of Ivy League graduates are going to feel a lot less entitled simply because
there has been an expansion of the top while they weren't paying attention.
I'm against the Ivies going up to 30-50% Asian but I'm also against the over-representation of a tiny minority group. This
country is going to go downhill if we continue to let one group skirt a fair application process just because they possess money
and influence. Who will stand up for fairness and equality?
Many of those commenting above don't seem to be picking up on Unz's evidence of bias against white Gentiles, which by meritocratic
measures is far worse than the bias against Asian Americans.
A drop of 70 PERCENT??? What's going on? Why is so much of the discussion that this article has spawned focused only on Asian
Americans and (secondarily) Jews?
National Merit Scholarship semifinalists are chosen based on per-state percentiles.
What this means is that NMS semifinalist numbers would be skewed _against_ a high-performing demographic group to the extent
that group's demographics concentrate geographically. Mr. Unz acknowledges that geographical skewing of Jewish populations is
huge. However, he ignores its effect on the NMS semifinalist numbers he uses as a proxy for academic performance on a _national_
level to predict equitable distributions at _national_ universities.
Please somebody explain to me how this oversight isn't fatal to his arguments
Surely the author must be aware that approximately half the children with "Jewish" names are not fully Jewish. Over half of
the marriages west of the Mississippi are reportedly mixed. Many non-Jews have last names that start with "Gold". Just these two
facts make the entire analysis ridiculous. Hillel does not keep statistics on how Jewish a student is, while many of Levys and
Cohens are not actually Jewish. What would we call Amy Chua's daughters? Jewish or Asian? It is therefore impossible to tease
out in a multi-racial society who is who.
I am an elementary school teacher at a Title One school in northern California. I supported your "English for the Children"
initiative when it was introduced.
However, the law of unintended consequences has kicked in, and what exists now is not at all what you (or anyone else, for that
matter) had intended.
The school day was not lengthened to create a time slot for English language instruction. Instead, history and science classes
were elbowed aside to make way for mediocre English language instruction. These usually worthless classes have crowded out valuable
core academic instruction for English language learners.
To make matters worse, while English language learners are in ESL classes, no academic instruction in science or history can
be given to "regular" students because that would lead to issues of "academic inequity." In other words, if the Hispanic kids
are missing out on history, the black kids have to miss out on it, too.
As a teacher, I hope you will once again consider bringing your considerable talents to focus on the education of low-income
minority children in California.
Could it be that the goal of financial, rather than academic, achievement, makes many young people uninterested in
competing in the science and math competitions sought out by the Asian students? I wonder about the different percentages
of applicants to medical school versus law or business.
I must also add that I am surprised that the author used the word "data" as singular, rather than plural. Shouldn't he be stating
that the data ARE, not IS; or SHOW, not SHOWS.
The author perhaps pays an incredible amount of attention to those with strengths in STEM fields (Science, technology, engineering,
and math), even though the proportion of all native-born white students majoring in these fields has plummetted in recent decades.
That means that he overlooks a shift in what kinds of training is considered "prestigious," and that this might be reflected in
the pursuits of students in high school. Perhaps there is a movement away from Jewish students' focus on Math Olympiad because
they are in no way interested in majoring in math or engineering fields, instead preferring economics or business. Is that the
fault of the students, or of the rewards system that corporate America has set up?
Jobs in STEM fields pay considerably less than do jobs in numerous professions - investment banking and law. So that is why
~ 40% of the Harvard graduating class - including many of its Jewish students - pursue that route. But to rely on various assessments
of math/science/computing as the measure of intelligence fails to incorporate how the rewards structure in our society has changed
over time.
I teach at an Ivy League university, and believe that many of the authors' arguments have merit, but there are also many weaknesses
in his argument. He sneers at Steinberg and the other sociologists he cites for not quite getting how society has changed - but
he clearly doesn' tunderstand how other aspects of our society have changed. Many of our most talented undergrads have no desire
to pursue careers in STEM fields. Entrance into STEM jobs even among those who majored in those fields is low, and there is very
high attrition from those fields, among both men and women. Young adults and young professionals are voting with their feet. While
our society might be better off with more Caltech grads and students interested in creating our way to a better future rather
than pursuing riches on wall street, one cannot fault students for seeking to maximize their returns on their expensive education.
That's the system we have presented them with, at considerable cost to the students and their families.
Personally, what I found profoundly disturbing is not the overrepresentation of Jewish students or the large presence of Asians
who feel they are discriminated against, but the fact that Ivy League schools have not managed to increase their representation
of Blacks for the last 3 decades. We all compete for the same talent pool. And until the K-12 system is improved, Black representation
won't increase without others screaming favoritism. The other groups - high performing Asians, middle class Jews - will do fine,
even if they don't get into Ivy League schools but have to "settle" for elite private schools. But if the Ivy Leagues are the
pathway to prestige and power, than we're not broadening our power base enough to adequately reprewsent the demographic shifts
reshaping our nation. more focus on that, please.
I've been an SAT tutor for a long time in West Los Angeles (a heavily Asian city), and I feel that at least some of Asians'
over-representation in SAT scores and NMS finalists is due to Asian parents putting massive time and money into driving their
children's success in those very statistics.
In my experience, Asian parents are more likely than other parents to attempt to ramrod their kids through test prep in order
to increase their scores. For example, the few students I've ever had preparing for the PSAT - most students prepare only for
the SAT - were all Asian.
Naturally, because it's so strange to be preparing for what is supposed to be a practice test, I asked these parents why their
9th or 10th grade child was in this class, and the answer was that they wanted to do well on the PSAT because of its use in the
NMS! Similarly, many Asian immigrants send their children to "cram school" every day after regular school lets out (and I myself
have taught SAT at one of these institutions), essentially having their students tutored in every academic subject year-round
from early in elementary school.
Because whites are unlikely to do this, it would seem to me that the resulting Asian academic achievement is analogous to baseball
players who use steroids having better stats than baseball players who do not.
It seems reasonable that the "merit" in "meritocracy" need not be based solely on test scores and grades, and that therefore
a race-based quota system is not the only conclusion that one can draw from a decrease in the attendance rate of hard-driving
test-preppers. Maybe the university didn't want to fill its dorms with grade-grubbers who are never seen because they're holed
up in the library 20 hours a day, and grade-grubbers just happen to be over-represented in the Asian population?
Unz's piece analyzes only the data that lead up to college - when the Asian parents' academic influence over their children
is absolute - whereas the Ivy League schools he criticizes are most concerned with what their students do during and after college.
Is the kid who went to cram school his entire life as likely to join student organizations? To continue practicing his four instruments
once his mom isn't forcing him to take lessons 4 days a week? To start companies and give money to his university? Or did he just
peak early because his parents were working him so hard in order to get him into that college?
However, the remedies considered are not. It is silly to believe that all abilities can be distilled into a small set of numbers,
and anyway, no one knows what abilities will succeed in marketplaces. The source of the problem is the lack of competition in
education, including higher education, a situation written in stone by current accreditation procedures. The solution to the problem
is entry. Remember Brandeis U? With sufficient competition, colleges could take whomever they pleased, on whatever grounds, and
everyone would get a chance.
Concerning the drop in non-Jewish white enrollment:
I am a recent graduate of a top public high school, where I was a NMS, individual state champion in Academic Decathlon, perfect
ACT score, National AP Scholar, etc. etc. Many of my friends – almost exclusively white and Asian – had similar backgrounds and
were eminently qualified for Ivy. None of us even applied Ivy, let alone considered going there. Why? At $60,000/yr, the cost
is simply not worth it, since none of us would have been offered anything close to substantial financial aid and our parents were
unable/unwilling to fully fund our educations. Meanwhile, my Asian friends applied to as many Ivies as they could because it was
understood that (a) their parents would foot the bill if they got in or (b) they would take on a large debt load in order to do
it.
This article discounts financial self-selection, which (at least based on my own, anecdotal evidence) is more prevalent than
we tend to think.
The author ignores the role that class plays in setting kids up for success. At one point he notes, "Given that Asians
accounted for just 1.5 percent of the population in 1980 and often lived in relatively impoverished immigrant families. . ."
When I was at Harvard in the mid-1980s, there were two distinct groups of Asian students: children of doctors, academics, scientists
and businesspeople who came from educated families in China, Korea and Vietnam, and therefore grew up with both strong educational
values and parental resources to push them; and a much smaller group of kids from Chinatown and Southeast Asian communities,
whose parents were usually working class and uneducated. The second group were at a severe disadvantage to the first, who were
able to claim "diversity" without really having to suffer for it.
I would expect you'd see the same difference among higher-caste educated South Asian Brahmins and Indians from middle and
lower castes or from places like Guyana. It is ridiculous to put South Asians and East Asians in the same category as "Asian."
They have different cultural traditions and immigration histories. Ask any Indian parent what race they are and they'll answer
"Caucasian." Grouping them without any kind of assessment of how they might be different undermines the credibility of the
author.
The takeaway is not that affirmative action is damaging opportunities for whites, but that whites are losing against Asians.
The percentage of Hispanic and Black students at leading schools is still tiny. Hence, if invisible quotas for Asians are lifted,
there will be far fewer white students at these schools. This isn't because of any conspiracy, but because white students are
scoring lower than the competition on the relevant entry requirements. I would love to see an article in this publication titled,
"Why White Students Are Deficient." How about some more writing about "The White Student Achievement Gap?"
As parents of 2 HYP grads, We can tell you from experience that Asian students are not under-represented in the Ivies today.
(In fact, I think they are slightly over represented, for the same reasons and stats the author cited).
True, if one looks at stats, such as SAT, scientific competition awards etc, it seems to imply that a +35% enrollment of Asian
students is warranted. However, these indicators are just a small part of a "holistc" approach in predicting the success of a
candidate not only in the next 4 years, but the individual's success in life and be able to impact and contribute to society later.
I have seen candidates of Asian background, who score almost full mark in SAT but was less than satisfactory in all other aspects
of being a potential achiever in life.
Granted, if one wants to be an achiever in science and technology, by all means go with Caltech and MIT. But if one wants an
real "education" and be a leader later on in life, one has to have other qualities as well (skin color is NOT one of them). Of
course, history, and current cultural and political climate may influence the assessment of such qualities because it is highly
subjective. (Is is unfair to pick a pleasant looking candidate over a lesser one, if the rest are the same?)
That is why an interview with the candidates is a good way to assess a potential applicant. I always encourage my children
to conduct interviews locally for their alma mater.
I just hope that the Ivies do not use this holistic approach to practice quota policies.
Here's a quote from a friend just today about this related topic: "Just like the Catholic church in the middle ages recruited
the smartest peasants in order to forestall revolutionary potential, and to learn mind bending religious dogma to befuddle the
remaining peasants, current practice is much the same. To twist Billy Clinton's mantra, "its the economy stupid", No ,"its the
co opted brains"! "
We can substitute economics dogma to the befuddlement mix. The bottom line is every ruling elite has co-opted the top 1%-5%
of high wage earners, to make the pyramid work. Sociology writing is all over this. Veblen, Weber, etc. We can see this little
group created everywhere minerals or natural resources are coveted by private empires.
The universities are doing exactly what they are supposed to do to protect the interests of the Trustees and Donors who run
them for a reason. They are a tool of, not a cause of, the inequality and over-concentration. It is interesting how the story
goes into hairsplitting and comparing Asians to others, etc. But, the real story is a well understood sociology story. This article
explains why Napoleon established free public education after the French Revolution.
This is a fascinating article. So much data. So many inferences. It's hardly surprising to any parent of high school students
that college admissions are only marginally meritocratic. Whether that's a good a thing or a bad thing is an open question. I
think meritocracy has a place in college admissions. But not the only place. Consider athletics, which are themselves almost exclusively
meritocratic. Only the best among the best are offered Division I scholarships. The same, I think, applies to engineering schools,
the physical sciences, and (to a lesser degree), elite law schools. It also applies to auto-mechanics, plumbers, and electricians.
Regarding the humanities (a field in which I hold a PhD), not so much. I think Unz's beef is less with admissions policies per
se (which I agree are mind-bogglingly opaque) than with the status of elite institutions. I also think, and I may be wrong, that
Unz appears heading down the Bobby Fisher highway, intimating that those pesky Jews are
America never promised success through merit or equality. That is the American "dream." America promises freedom of
religious belief and the right to carry a gun.
This is a fascinating and extremely important article which I am very eager to discuss privately with the author, having spent
my whole life in higher education, albeit with a unique perspective. I was flabbergasted the findings about Jewish and non-Jewish
white representation, and intrigued, all the more so since my own ancestry is evenly divided between those two groups. I do want
to make one criticism, however of something the author said about the 1950s which I do not think is correct.
At one point in the article the author makes the claim that the breakdown of Ivy League Jewish quotas in the 1950s reflected
the power of Jews in the media and Hollywood. The statistics he gives about their representation there may be correct, but the
inference, I believe, is unsustainable. The Proquest historical database includes the Washington Post, New York Times, and many
other major newspapers. I did a search for "Harvard AND Jewish AND quota" for the whole period 1945-65 and it turned up only 20
articles, not one of which specifically addressed the issue of Jewish quotas at Harvard and other Ivy League schools. The powerful
Jews of that era had reached their positions by downplaying their origins–often including changes in their last names–and they
were not about to use their positions overtly on behalf of their ethnic group. (This could be, incidentally, another parallel
with today's Asians.) Those quotas were broken down, in my opinion, because of a general emphasis on real equality among Americans
in those decades, which also produced the civil rights movement. The Second World War had been fought on those principles.
I could not agree more that the admissions policies of the last 30 years have produced a pathetic and self-centered elite that
has done little if any good for the country as a whole.
It is really refreshing to see in print what we all know by experience, but I have to wonder out loud, what is our higher purpose?
Surely, you have a largely goal than merely exposing corruption in the academy. Lastly, I have to wonder out loud, how would the
predicament of the working class fit into your analysis? I thank you for this scathing indictment of higher ed that has the potential
to offer us a chillingly sobering assessment.
This is why we need to reinstate a robust estate tax or "death tax" as conservatives derisively call it. To break the aristocracy
described in this article. No less than Alexis de Tocqueville said that the estate tax is what made America great and created
a meritocracy (which now is weaker and riddled with loopholes, thus the decline of America). Aristocracies dominated Europe for
centuries because they did not tax the inheritance.
The day when I learned so many Chinese ruling class' offspring are either alumni or current students of Harvard (the latest
example being Bo GuaGua), it was clear to me Harvard's admission process is corrupt. How would any ivy college determine "leadership"
quality? Does growing up in a leader's family give you more innate leadership skills? Harvard obviously thinks so.
Therefore, it's not surprising that Ron said the following on this subject. " so many sons and daughters of top Chinese leaders
attend college in the West ..while our own corrupt admissions practices get them an easy spot at Harvard or Stanford, sitting
side by side with the children of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and George W. Bush." I hope world peace will be obtained within reach
in this approach.
The chilling factor is a hardworking Chinese immigrant's child in the U.S. would have less chance of getting into ivies than
these children of privileged.
It was also very disappointing to see another Asian parent whose children are HYP alumni saying too many Asians in ivies, despite
the overwhelming evidence showing otherwise.
Perhaps it's to be expected given the length of the article (over 22,000 words), but so many of the objections and "oversights"
raised in the comments are in fact dealt with – in detail and with a great deal of respect – by Unz in the article itself.
For example, this:
National Merit Scholarship semifinalists are chosen based on per-state percentiles.
What this means is that NMS semifinalist numbers would be skewed _against_ a high-performing demographic group to the extent
that group's demographics concentrate geographically. Mr. Unz acknowledges that geographical skewing of Jewish populations
is huge. However, he ignores its effect on the NMS semifinalist numbers he uses as a proxy for academic performance on a _national_
level to predict equitable distributions at _national_ universities.
Please somebody explain to me how this oversight isn't fatal to his argument
because geographical skewing of Asian populations is also huge, yet we don't witness the same patterning in admissions data
pertaining to Asian students. As the article states: "Geographical diversity would certainly hurt Asian chances since nearly half
their population lives in just the three states of California, New York, and Texas."
Unz goes on to note: "Both groups [Jews and Asians] are highly urbanized, generally affluent, and geographically concentrated
within a few states, so the 'diversity' factors considered above would hardly seem to apply; yet Jews seem to fare much better
at the admissions office."
So there's your answer.
And aside from the fact that your "basic question" has a very simple answer, it's just ludicrous in any case to suggest that
the validity of the entire article rests on a single data point.
There is no doubt this is more of a political issue than the academic one. If only merit is considered then asian american
would constitute as much as 50% of the student population in elite universities. Politically and socially this is not a desired
outcome. Rationale for affirmative action for the african americans and hispanics is same – leaving a large population is in elite
institution is not desired, it smacks of segregation.
But the core issue remains unsolved. Affirmative action resulted in higher representation but not the competitiveness of the
blacks. I am afraid whites are going the similar path.
Anyone famliar with sociology and the research on social stratification knows that meritocracy is a myth; for example,
if one's parents are in the bottom decile of the the income scale, the child has only a 3% chance to reach the top decile in his
or her lifetime. In fact, in contrast to the Horatio Alger ideology, the U.S. has lower rates of upward mobility than almost any
other developed country. Social classses exist and they tend to reproduce themselves.
The rigid class structure of the the U.S. is one of the reasons I support progressive taxation; wealth may not always be
inherited, but life outcomes are largely determined by the class position of one's parents. In this manner, it is also a myth
to believe that wealth is an individual creation;most financially successful individuals have enjoyed the benefits of class privilege:
good and safe schools, two-parent families, tutors, and perhaps most important of all, high expecatations and positive peer socialization
(Unz never mentions the importants of peeer groups, which data show exert a strong causal unfluence on academic performance).
And I would challenge Unz's assertion that many high-performing Asians come from impovershed backgrounds: many of them
may undereport their income as small business owners. I believe that Asian success derives not only from their class background
but their culture in which the parents have authority and the success of the child is crucual to the honor of the family. As they
assimilate to the more individualist American ethos, I predict that their academic success will level off just as it has with
Jews.
1. HYP are private universities: the success of their alumni verifies the astuteness of their admissions policies.
2. Mr. Unz equates "merit" with "academic". I wonder how many CalTech undergrads would be, or were, admitted, to HYP (and vice-versa).
3. I would like ethnic or racial stats on, for several examples, class officers, first chair musicians*, job holders, actors^,
team captains, and other equally valuable (in the sense of contributing to an entering freshman class) high-school pursuits.*By
17, I had been a union trombonist for three years; at Princeton, I played in the concert band, the marching band, the concert
orchestra, several jazz ensembles, and the Triangle Club orchestra.^A high school classmate was John Lithgow, the superb Hollywood
character actor. Harvard gave him a full scholarship – and they should have.
What if we were one homogeneous ethnic group? What dynamic would we set up then?
I suggest taking the top 20% on straight merit, based on SAT scores, whether they crammed for them or not, and take the next
50% from the economically poorest of the qualified applicants (1500 – 1600 on the SAT?) by straight ethnicity percentages to directly
reflect population diversity, and 30% at random to promote some humility, and try that for 20 years and see what effects are produced
in the quality of our economic and political leadership. And of course, keep them all in the dark as to how they actually got
admitted.
Maybe one effect is that more non-ivy league schools will be tapped by the top recruiters.
"Surely the author must be aware that approximately half the children with "Jewish" names are not fully Jewish. Over
half of the marriages west of the Mississippi are reportedly mixed. Many non-Jews have last names that start with "Gold". Just
these two facts make the entire analysis ridiculous. Hillel does not keep statistics on how Jewish a student is, while many
of Levys and Cohens are not actually Jewish. What would we call Amy Chua's daughters? Jewish or Asian? It is therefore impossible
to tease out in a multi-racial society who is who."
Well, there are several arguments to be made. First, unless you are advocating that there has been a mass adoption of words
like "Gold" in non-Jewish last names these past 10, 15 years, that argument sinks like a stone. Second, by selecting for specifically
Jewish last names, intermarriage can be minimized but not eliminated. How many kids with the lastname "Goldstein" was a non-Jew
in the last NMS? Not likely a lot of them.
Intermarriage can account for some fog, but not all, not by a longshot. Your entire argument reeks of bitter defensiveness.
You have to come to grips that Jews have become like the old WASPs, rich, not too clever anymore, and blocking the path forward
for brighter, underrepresented groups.
With all due respect, I was worried that I would get an answer that lazily points to the part of the essay that glosses over
this point (which mind you I had combed through carefully before posting my question). However, I was hoping that in response
someone might respond who had thought a little more carefully about the statistical fallacy in Unz's essay: that far-reaching
statements about nation-wide academic performance can be drawn directly from per-state-percentiles.
Yes, Asian Americans, like Jews, have concentrations. But their geographical distributions differ. Yes, it might be possible
that upon careful analysis of relative distributions of populations and NMS semifinalists in each state Unz might be able to draw
a robust comparison: he might even come up with the same answer. The point that I made is that he doesn't even try.
Given the lengths Unz goes to calculate and re-calculate figures _based_on_ the assumption of _equal_ geographic distributions
among Asians and Jews, it is - and I stand by this - a disservice to the reader that no effort (beyond hand-waving) is made to
quantitatively show the assumption is at all justified.
The statistical analysis used in this article is flawed. The author uses last names to identify the religion (or birth heritage)
of NMS semifinalists? Are you serious? My son was a (recent) National Merit Finalist and graduated from an ivy league university.
His mother is Jewish; his father is not, thus he has a decidedly WASP surname and according to the author's methods he would have
been classified as WASP. With the growing numbers of interfaith and mixed-race children how can anyone draw conclusions about
race and religion in the meritocracy or even "IQ" argument? Anecdotally, my son reported that nearly half his classmates at his
ivy league were at least one-quarter Jewish (one or more parents or one grandparent). To use last names (in lieu of actual demographic
data) to make the conclusion that Jews are being admitted to ivies at higher rates than similarly qualified Asians is irresponsible.
Essentially, the leftist forces in this country are trying to put the squeeze on white gentiles from both directions.
Affirmative action for underachieving minorities to take the place of white applicants.
Meritocracy for highly achieving Asians to push down white applicants, while never mentioning that full meritocracy would push
out other minorities as well (that's not politically correct).
The whole thing has become more about political narrative than actual concern for justice. I want you to know that as an Asian
man who graduated from Brown, I sympathize with you.
Very interesting article. The case that East Asian students are significantly underrepresented and Jewish students overrepresented
at Ivy League schools is persuasive, although not dispositive. The most glaring flaw in the analysis is the heavy reliance on
performance on the PSAT (the discussion of the winners of the various Olympiad and Putnam contests has little informational value
relevant to admissions, since those winners are the outliers on the tail of the distribution), which is a test that can be prepped
for quite easily. Another flaw is the reliance on last names to determine ethnicity, which I doubt works well for Jews, although
it probably works reasonably well for East Asians.
Unfortunately, the article is also peppered with (very) thinly supported (and implausible) claims like Asians are better at
visuospatial skills, worse at verbal skills, and that the situation is reversed for Jews. This kind of claim strikes me as racial
gobbledygook, and at least anecdotally belied if one considers the overrepresentation of Jews among elite chess players, both
in the US and worldwide.
In any event, the fundamental point is that the PSAT (as is the case with all standardized tests) is a fixed target that can
be studied for. Whether one chooses to put in 100s of hours studying for the PSAT is not, and should not be, the only criterion
used for admissions.
I find the relative percentage of East Asians and Jews at schools like MIT (and also Caltech and Berkeley, although obviously
those are in part distorted by the heavy concentration of East Asians in California) as compared to HYP as strong evidence that
the admissions process at HYP advantages Jews and disadvantages East Asians.
I suspect, though, that the advantages Jews enjoy in the admissions process are unconscious and unintentional, whereas the
disadvantages suffered by East Asians are quite conscious and intentional.
The graph entitled "Asians Age 18-21 and Elite College Enrollment Trends, 1990-2011″ is misleading. It contrasts percentage
of enrolled Asian students vs. the total number of the eligible Asian applicants. Therefore, it led to a flawed argument
when comfusing number vs. percentage . For proof, if a similar graph of Hispanic student percentage vs. eligible applicants
were drawn, it would appear that they were discriminated against as well. So would be the Black!
well, even a fair and objective admission criteria can have devastating consequences. here at IIT, we admit about 1 in 100.
this has the same effect on student ethics, career options and so on. in fact, even worse, since IIT is an engineering college,
the very definition of engineering in India has now distorted as serving international finance or distant masters in a globalized
world. our own development problems remain unattended.
also, the above is a part of the current trend of knowledge concentration, i.e., a belief that only a few universities can
impart us "true" knowledge or conduct "true" research.
see http://www.cse.iitb.ac.in/~sohoni/kpidc.pdf
This is a very valuable article. It deals with a subject that has received too little attention. I believe that cultural bias
in many cases outweighs the racial bias in the selection program. Time and again, I have seen young people with great potential
being selected against because they are culturally different from what the selectors are looking for (often people who are like
them culturally). The article's mentioning that students who participated in R.O.T.C., F.F.A. and/or 4H are often passed over
is a good illustration.
It was interesting to note that the girl who wrote an essay on how she dealt with being caught in a drug violation found acceptance.
I suspect that a student with similar academic qualifications who wrote an essay on the negative aspects of drug use would not
be so lucky.
comes news that Yale President Levin's successor will be Peter Salovey, tending to confirm Unz's observations regarding the
grossly disproportionate number of Jewish presidents at Ivy League schools.
All very interesting but I am among the National Merit Scholars from California who has a not obviously Jewish name despite
having two Jewish parents. It was changed in the 1950s due to anti-Semitism and an urge to assimilate. A lot of other names can
be German or Jewish for example. I suspect in light of that and intermarriage cases where the mom is Jewish and the dad is not,
not to mention a lot of Russian names, you may be undercounting Jews among other things. Although to be fair, you are probably
also undercounting some half-Asians given most of those marriages have a white husband and Asian wife.
I'm an Asian HYP grad. I applaud this article for being so extremely well researched and insightful. It's an excellent indictment
of the arbitrariness and cultural favoritism concentrated in the hands of a very small group of unqualified and ideologically
driven admissions officers. And I hasten to add that I am a liberal Democratic, an avid Obama supporter, and a strong proponent
of correcting income inequality and combating discrimination in the workplace.
To me, the most compelling exhibit was the one towards the end which showed the % relative representation of enrolled students
to highly-qualified students (I wish the article labeled the exhibits). This chart shows that in the Ivies, which administer highly
subjective admission criteria, Jews are overrepresented by 3-4x, but in the California schools and MIT, which administer more
objective criteria, Jews are overrepresented by only 0-50%, a range that can easily be explained by methodology or randomness.
This single exhibit is unequivocal evidence to me of systematic bias in the Ivy League selection process, with Jews as the
primary beneficiary. I tend to agree with the author this this bias is unlikely to be explicit, but likely the result of cultural
favoritism, with a decision-making body that is heavily Jewish tending to favor the activities, accomplishments, personalities,
etc. of Jewish applicants.
The author has effectively endorsed one of the core tenets of modern liberalism – that human beings tend to favor people who
look and act like themselves. It's why institutions dominated by white males tend to have pro-white male biases. The only twist
here is that the decision-making body in this instance (Ivy League admissions committees) is white-Jewish, not white-Gentile.
So if you're a liberal like me, let's acknowledge that everyone is racist and sexist toward their own group, and what we have
here is Jews favoring Jews. We can say that without being anti-semitic, just like we can say that men favor men without being
anti-male, or whites favor whites without being anti-white.
Just some puzzling statistics: In p. 32, second paragraph, it is mentioned "The Asian ratio is 63% slightly above the white
ratio of 61 percent", then in the third paragraph "However, if we separate out the Jewish students, their
ratio turns out to be 435 percent, while the residual ratio for non-Jewish whites drops to just 28 percent, less than half of
even the Asian figure", leading to the conclusion that "As a consequence, Asians appear under-represented relative to Jews by
a factor of seven, while non-Jewish whites are by far the most under-represented group of all". Not very clear on the analysis!
Let me try to make a guess on the calculation of this statistics ratio: Assume that all groups in NMS will apply, with mA=Asians,
mJ=Jews, mW=Whites be the respective numbers in NMS. Suppose that nA, nJ, and nW are those Asians, Jews, and Whites finally admitted.
Then if the statistics ratio for G means ((nG)/(mG))/(mG/mNMS), where mNMS is the total number in the NMS, then the ratio will
amplify the admission rate (nG/mG) by (mNMS/mG) times and becomes very large or very small for small group size. For example,
for a single person group, being admitted will give a ratio as large as mNMS, and a zero for not being admitted. Why can this
ratio be used for comparing under-representation between different groups?
Very well. Loved the fact that the author put a lot into reseaching this piece. But i would like to know how many asians who
manage to attend this ivy schools end up as nobel leaurets and professors?? This demonstrates the driving force behind the testscore
prowess of the asians-financial motivation. The author talks about asians being under-represented in the ivies but even though
they manage to attend then what?? do they eventually become eintiens and great nobel leurets or great cheese players. Also what
is the stats like for asian poets, novelist, actors.etc Pls focus should be given on improving other non-ivy schools since we
have a lots of high SAT test scores than high running universities.
Look at Nobel prizes, field medals and all kind of prizes and awards that recognize lifetime original academic contributions.
Not many asians there yet. Perfect grades or SAT scores does not guarantee creativity, original thinking, intelectual curiosity
or leadership. The problem is that those things are hard to measure and very easy to fake in an application.
Loved all the research in the article and I am on board with the idea that moving in the tiger mother direction will kill creativity
in young people. And I agree with the observation that our country's top leadership since 1970 or so has been underwhelming and
dishonest especially in the financial services industry which draws almost entirely from the Ivies.
However, I am not so convinced that the over representation of Jewish students in the Ivy league is created by intentional
bias on the part of Jewish professors or administrators at these institutions. Is it possible that admissions officers select
Jewish applicants at such a high rate because they are more likely to actually attend? Once a family of four's income exceeds
$160k the net price calculation for a year at Harvard jumps up pretty quickly. By the time you hit annual income of $200k you
are looking at $43k/yr or $172k for 4 years. And at the lower income levels, even if a family has to pay just $15k a year, how
will they do that if they are struggling to make it as it is? Do they want/does their student want to graduate with $60k worth
of debt? Why not choose a great scholarship offer from a state university to pay nothing at all or go to community college for
2 years and then on to the state public institution?
There are many options for top students who can compete at the Ivy level. If I am an admissions officer looking to fill slots
left over after minority admissions (ones poor enough to get the education for free and thus to say yes), legacies, athletic recruits,
and the few super special candidates, wouldn't I choose those most likely to take me up on the admissions offer and protect my
yield number? Might an easy way to get this done be to consult a demographic tool showing net worth by zip code? And to stack
the yield odds a little more in my favor might I also choose families with Jewish appearing last names knowing they would be extremely
likely to accept my offer since I obviously have recent history to show me that these families say yes to our prices? I think
this is a much more plausible explanation then assuming some secret quota in force at these schools.
I am a conservative but I cannot believe Jewish liberals would go that far just to ensure more Jewish liberals attend their
institutions or to keep conservative white non Jewish middle income students out. Dollars and cents and the perception a yield
number conveys about the desirability of a school are what is at work here in my humble opinion.
There is a very simple solution. There is no legal definition of race. Simply check the "Negro" (or "African-American" or whatever
it is called today) box on the application form. You don't look it? Neither do many others, because your ancestry is really mixed.
This may get you in. It won't hurt your chances, which are essentially zero before you check that box. At the very least, it will
make it harder for the bigots in the admissions office to exercise their bigotry.
"Look at Nobel prizes, field medals and all kind of prizes and awards that recognize lifetime original academic contributions.
Not many asians there yet. Perfect grades or SAT scores does not guarantee creativity, original thinking, intelectual curiosity
or leadership. The problem is that those things are hard to measure and very easy to fake in an application."
Last year, 75% of Ph.D candidates where foreign born, most of which were either Indian or Chinese. You should rely on statistics
that are more current and relevant.
Wow, another article on how corrupt higher eduation is.
Folks, open your eyes a bit. Online education is growing massively; sharing this growth are websites that write academic papers
(even Ph.D. theses) on demands .these websites in toto have nearly as many customers as there are online students.
Harvard is unusual in that they actually banned students for cheating. Every investigation of cheating on campus shows it exists
on a massive scale, and reports of half or more of a class cheating are quite common in the news.
The reason for this is simple: administrators care about retention, nothing else. Faculty have long since gotten the message.
I've taught in higher education for nearly 25 years now, and I've seen many faculty punished for catching cheaters; not once has
there been any reward.
Over 90% of remedial students fail to get a 2-year degree in three years, yet administration sees no issue with talking them
into loans that will keep them in debt forever. Admin sees no issue with exploiting the vulnerable for personal gain, of course.
Here's what higher education is today: desperate people take out loans to go to college. They use the money to pay the tuition,
and they use the money to buy academic papers because they really aren't there for college, they're there for the checks. Their
courses are graded by poorly paid faculty (mostly adjuncts), again paid by those checks. The facutly are watched over by administrators
to make sure there is no integrity to the system and again, admin is paid by those checks (in fact, most of the tuition money
goes to administrators).
Hmm, what part of this could be changed that would put integrity back into the system?
I think your sources who claim to be familiar with China are very wrong concerning entrance into Chinese universities, especially
those so-called upper tier unis. It is well known amongst most Chinese students who take the gaokao, the all-or-nothing university
entrance examination, bribes, guanxi (connections) and just being local, are often better indicators of who will be accepted.
• Replies: @KA Same and
some more in India.
In India it is politics of the gutter. Someone can get to medical school and engineering school even if he or she did not qualify,if
scored say 3 points out of 1000 points as long as he or she belonged to lower caste of Hindu. The minimum requirements they have
to fulfill is to pass the school leaving examinations with science subjects .A passing level is all that matters . The process
then continues (in further education -master , training, post doctoral, and in job and in promotion)
While upper caste Hindu or Christian or Muslim may not be allowed despite scoring 999 out of 1000. It is possible and has happened.
Unfortunately the lower caste has not progressed much. Upper caste Hindus have misused this on many occasions and continue to
do do by selling themselves as lower caste with legal loopholes .Muslim or Christians can't do that for they can't claim to be
Hindu
Ron Unz is a brilliant man. He created software that made him rich, and has written articles on all kinds of subjects. But
apparently, Ron shares a problem with a very tiny number of humanity. Ron is one of those oddball characters, that, no matter
where the truth leads him, he simply has to express it, regardless of political correctness. He did this in California with the
debate on English,etc.
Compared to the administrators of these Ivy League Institutions, Ron is a mental giant, not even near being in the same class
as these supposedly important but in reality, worthless beurocrats.
If ten million Gentile whites and Asians changed their surname to Kaplan, Levy, Golden, Goldstein, Goldman, it obviously would
throw a monkey wrench into the process of ethnic favoritism.
To paraphrase Unz - the "shared group biases" of Ivy League college admission officers that have "extreme flexibility and subjectivity",
does harm white Gentiles and Asians, but only because the process lacks objective, meritocratic decision making, and in its place
is a vile form of corrupt cronyism and favoritism.
An Asian speaking here, I agree that America isn't a meritocracy, but has it ever been? It seems like this article's falling
for the oldest trick in the book - looking back at the "good old days". I'd argue that now more than ever, the barrier to entry
is lower than ever, and that every individual can rise to the occasion and innovate for the better. Places like Exeter (my alma
mater) aren't just playgrounds for the rich - I'm not extremely wealthy, and neither were my classmates. Most of us were even
on financial aid. Don't just point fingers at institutions to account for shortcomings - if you had the stroke of fortune to be
born in a nation with such opportunity, with hard work and CREATIVITY and INNOVATION, anything is possible.
Has anyone thought about why the test-prep business has expanded so much? It's to feed into the very same system that you're
complaining about. Be the change you wish to see in the world, not a victim of it. To many of the Asians out there, I'd say get
over your 4.0 GPA and 2400 SAT score and be unique for once.
To put Unz's findings in social and historical perspective, it is important to understand where Jewish academics come from.
The Eastern European Jews who immigrated to Northeast US in the Twentieth Century ran into an immigrant world dominated by Catholics
and particularly Irish Catholics. The Irish, who were as "hungry" as the Jews got control over government and its ancillary economic
benefits. I wasn't there at the time, but I imagine we Irish did not do much to help Jewish immigrants compared with Catholic
immigrants.
One area abandoned by the Catholic Church was public and secular education. The Church formed its own educational Catholic
ghetto. Jewish immigrants adopted the public-secular educational world as their own and became strong adherents of education as
the key to Americanization. Education became their small piece of turf. The only memorable political conflict between Jews and
AfricanAmericans in New York City was over control of the public schools.
Just as the Irish react against affirmative action for non-Irish in government jobs, the descendants of these Jewish immigrants
react to the plagiarism of their assimilation plan by the Chinese/Koreans. When you have de facto Irish affirmative action you
don't want de jure African American affirmative action. When you have Jewish "meritocracy" you don't want Asian meritocracy.
The result is what you see today. The Irish still have a stranglehold on government related jobs in the Northeast with a smattering
of minorities ("New Irish") and the Jews try to protect their secular education turf from the "New Jews". It's just business.
Don't take it personally.
All I can say is see a book: "Ivy League Fools and Felons"' by Mack Roth. Lots of them are kids of corrupt people in all
fields.
But I disagree that opportunity is being closed off to most Americans. Here in North Dakota I work for a high school graduate,
self made trucking millionaire. Five years ago she was a secretary in Iowa. But she got off her butt and went to where the money
is circulating. Just my 2 cents
Sorry, but quick correction regarding rankings (and I only have to say this because I go to MIT). Technically, MIT and Caltech
are *both* ranked the same. The only reason why Caltech appears on the list before MIT is because it come before it alphabetically
to suggest otherwise would be untrue. When you look at individual departments, you'll find that MIT consistently ranks higher
than that of Caltech in all engineering disciplines and most scientific disciplines. Also, personally speaking, MIT has a far
better humanities program that Caltech (especially in the fields of economics, political science, philosophy, and linguisitics).
We do have a number of Pulitizer Prize winners who teach here.
Also generally, in academic circle, MIT is usually viewed with higher regard than Caltech, although that isn't to say Caltech
isn't a fantastic school (it really and truly is–I loved it there and I wish more people knew more about it)
One observation about methodology that struck me while reading this:
The Jewish population of universities is being evaluated based on Hillel statistics, with the "Non-Jewish white" population
being based on the white population minus the Jewish population.
This can be problematic when you consider that these population are merging at a pretty high rate. (I don't have much information
here, but this is from the header of the wikipedia article: "The 1990 National Jewish Population Survey reported an intermarriage
rate of 52 percent among American Jews.")
What percentage of partially Jewish students identify as "Jewish" or does Hillel identify as Jewish? If you're taking a population
that would have once identified as "white" and now identifying them as Jewish, obviously you'll see some Jewish inflation, and
white deflation. And when a large percentage of this population bears the names "Smith", "Jones", "Roberts" etc., you're obviously
not going to see a corresponding increase in NMS scores evaluated on the basis of last names.
Of course, I have no idea what methodology Hillel is using, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it's an inflated one.
Thank you Mr. Unz for this provocative article. It isn't the author's first one on Jewish & Asian enrollment at Ivy League
colleges. I remember another one, in the 1990s I believe.
According to what I read, less and less American Jews apply for medical school nationwide, and Jewish women are very educated,
but it comes also with a low birthrate and high median age. It makes the recent spike in Jewish admissions at Harvard College
all the more curious, intriguing.
This month, the NY Times published a list of the highest earners in the hedge fund industry in 2012, and 8 out of 10 were Jewish.
Are certain universities aggressively seeking donations from this super rich demographic since the 2000s?
The young American Jew is not like his grandparents. They are just as fun loving and lazy as any other. This is the result
of a lack of perceived persecution that use to keep the group together. In the major cities, half of the young people leave the
tribe through intermarriage. This is human nature. The Rabbis changed the rules some time ago to define a Jew as coming from the
mother, so the Jewish man would marry a Jewish woman, instead of a woman outside of the tribe. Read the Bible. In David's time,
the men had an eye for good looking women outside of the tribe(like all men). Now days, the young people just laugh at the Rabbi's
words.
Instead of the old folks liberal ideas of race and ethnic divisions, let us change it to go by economic class. According to
liberal thought, intelligence is equally distributed throughout all economic classes, so higher education admissions should be
by economic class, and not the old divisive ideas of race and ethnic background. After all, affirmative action programs are institutionalized
racism and racial profiling.
• Replies: @KA Yes . You
have points . This is one of the fears that drove the Zionist to plan of Israel in 1880 . It was the fear of secular life free
from religious persecution and freedom to enjoy life to its fullest in the post industrial non religious Europe guided by enlightenment
that drove them embrace the religious ethnic mix concept of statehood.
These and many other ills would be alleviated if government would stop: (a) banning aptitude tests or even outright discrimination
as determinants of employment; (b) subsidizing private institutions such as Harvard; and (c) close down all government schools,
starting with state institutions of "higher learning."
I know, pie in the sky. But the author's suggestions by comparison are mere Band-Aids.
Great analysis, but pie-in-the-sky prescription, which was presumably just intended to be thought provoking. If you want to
know why Harvard would never adopt the author's recommendation, just read what he wrote:
"But if it were explicitly known that the vast majority of Harvard students had merely been winners in the application lottery,
top businesses would begin to cast a much wider net in their employment outreach, and while the average Harvard student would
probably be academically stronger than the average graduate of a state college, the gap would no longer be seen as so enormous,
with individuals being judged more on their own merits and actual achievements. A Harvard student who graduated magna cum laude
would surely have many doors open before him, but not one who graduated in the bottom half of his class."
I wonder why Harvard officials would desire this outcome?
So a lot of ivy league presidents with Jewish-sounding names somehow influence admissions staff who may not have Jewish-sounding
names to favor undeserving applicants because they also have Jewish-sounding names? And this is because of some secret ethnic
pride thing going on? And nobody's leaked this conspiracy to the outside world until our whistle blowing author? The guy's a nut
job.
All of your statistics are highly suspect due to the enormous, and rapid annual increase in Jewish intermarriage. I do not
have the statistics, but over many years, it certainly appears that Jewish men are far more likely to intermarry than Jewish women
(the lure of the antithesis to their Jewish mother??) and to complicate matters further, Jewish men seem to have a predilection
for Asian women, at least in the greater NY Metro Area. But that still does not represent the majority of Jewish men marrying
Christians. QED. More Jewish last names, for children who are DNA wise only half Jewish than non Jewish names for the intermarried.
And if one wanted to get really specific, the rapidly rising intermarriage is diluting the "Jewish" genetic pool's previously
demonstrable intelligence superiority., strengthened by the fact that most couples use the Jewish fathers last name.
These observations are in no way associated with how the various Jewish denominations define 'Jewish"
In short: Unz substantially overestimated the percentage of Jews at Harvard while grossly underestimating the percentage of
Jews among high academic achievers, when, in fact, there is no discrepancy.
In addition, Unz's arguments have proven to be untenable in light of a recent survey of incoming Harvard freshmen conducted
by The Harvard Crimson, which found that students who identified as Jewish reported a mean SAT score of 2289, 56 points higher
than the average SAT score of white respondents.
First. I was thrilled to see your advocacy of admissions by lottery. I have advocated such a plan on various websites that
I participate in, but you have written the first major article advocating it that I have seen. Congratulations.
Just a small quibble with your plan, I would not allow the schools any running room for any alternatives to the lottery. They
have not demonstrated any willingness to administer such a system fairly. After a few years of pure lottery it would be time to
evaluate it and see if they should be allowed any leeway, but I wouldn't allow any variation before that.
I would hypothesize that one effect of a lottery admissions plan would be a return to more stringent grading in the class rooms.
It would be useful to the faculty to weed out the poor performers more quickly, and the students might have less of an attitude
of entitlement.
Second, I am glad that you raised the issue of corruption of the admissions staffs. It would be a new chapter in human history
if there was no straight out bribe taking of by functionaries in their positions. My guess is that the bag men are the "high priced
consultants". Pay them a years worth of tuition money and a sufficient amount will flow to the right places to get your kid in
to wherever you want him to go.
Third, three observations about Jewish Students.
First, Jews are subject to mean reversion just like everybody else.
Second, the kids in the millennial generation were, for the most part, born into comfortable middle class and upper class homes.
The simply do not have the drive that their immigrant grandparents and great-grandparents had. I see this in my own family. My
wife and I had immigrant parents, and we were pretty driven academically (6 degrees between us). Our kids, who are just as bright
as we were, did not show that same edge, and it was quite frustrating to us. None of them have gone to a graduate or professional
school. They are all working and are happy, but driven they aren't.
Third, Hillel's numbers of Jewish students on their website should be taken cum grano salis. All three of our kids went to
Northwestern U. (Evanston, IL) which Hillel claimed was 20% Jewish. Based on our personal observations of kids in their dorms
and among their friends, I think the number is probably 10% or less.
Finally, the side bar on Paying Tuition to a Hedge Fund. I too am frustrated with the current situation among the wealthy institutions.
I think that it deserves a lot more attention from policy makers than it has received. The Universities have received massive
benefits from the government (Federal and state) - not just tax exemptions, but grants for research and to students, subsidized
loans, tax deductions for contributions, and on, and on. They have responded to this largess by raising salaries, hiring more
administrators, spending billions on construction, and continually raising tuitions far faster than the rate of inflation. I really
do not think the tax payers should be carrying this much of a burden at a time when deficits are mounting without limit.
Henry VIII solved a similar problem by confiscating assets. We have constitutional limits on that sort of activity, but I think
there a lot of constitutional steps that should be considered. Here a few:
1. There is ample reason to tax the the investment gains of the endowments as "unrelated business taxable income" (UBTI, see
IRS Pub 598 and IRC §§ 511-515) defined as income from a business conducted by an exempt organization that is not substantially
related to the performance of its exempt purpose. If they do not want to pay tax on their investments, they should purchase treasuries
and municipals, and hold them to maturity.
2. The definition of an exempt organization could be narrowed to exclude schools that charge tuition. Charging $50,000/yr and
sitting on 30G$ of assets looks a lot more like a business than a charity.
3. Donations to overly rich institutions should be non deductible to the donors. Overly rich should be defined in terms of
working capital needs and reserves for depreciation of physical assets.
Is the proposed mechanism that Jewish university presidents create a bias in the admissions department?
That could be tested by comparing Jewish student percentages between schools with Christian and Jewish presidents. If Christian
presidents produce student bodies with a high proportion of Jews, then Jewish ethnocentrism is not the cause. (We'd have to find
a way to control for presidents' politics.)
If admissions departments are discriminating in favor of liberals, that will boost the proportion of all liberals, including
many Jews, but it will be political discrimination, not ethnic discrimination. (Both are bad, but we should be accurate.)
Liberals see a discrepancy in ethnic outcomes and consider it proof of ethnic discrimination. Are we doing the same thing?
After Russian emancipation, the Jews from Pale settlement spread out and took up jobs in government services, secured admissions
in technical and medical schools, and established positions in trade in just two decades. Then they started interconnecting and
networking more aggressively to eliminate competition and deny the non-Jews the opportunities that the non Jews rightfully claimed.
This pattern was also evident in Germany after 1880 and in Poland between interwars .
The anti-Jewish sentiment seen in pre revolutionary Russia was the product of this ethnic exclusivisity and of the tremendous
in-group behaviors .
@Ira The young American
Jew is not like his grandparents. They are just as fun loving and lazy as any other. This is the result of a lack of perceived
persecution that use to keep the group together. In the major cities, half of the young people leave the tribe through intermarriage.
This is human nature. The Rabbis changed the rules some time ago to define a Jew as coming from the mother, so the Jewish man
would marry a Jewish woman, instead of a woman outside of the tribe. Read the Bible. In David's time, the men had an eye for good
looking women outside of the tribe(like all men). Now days, the young people just laugh at the Rabbi's words.
Instead of the old folks liberal ideas of race and ethnic divisions, let us change it to go by economic class. According to
liberal thought, intelligence is equally distributed throughout all economic classes, so higher education admissions should be
by economic class, and not the old divisive ideas of race and ethnic background. After all, affirmative action programs are institutionalized
racism and racial profiling.
Yes . You have points . This is one of the fears that drove the Zionist to plan of Israel in 1880 . It was the fear of secular
life free from religious persecution and freedom to enjoy life to its fullest in the post industrial non religious Europe guided
by enlightenment that drove them embrace the religious ethnic mix concept of statehood.
@Anonymous I think your
sources who claim to be familiar with China are very wrong concerning entrance into Chinese universities, especially those so-called
upper tier unis. It is well known amongst most Chinese students who take the gaokao, the all-or-nothing university entrance examination,
bribes, guanxi (connections) and just being local, are often better indicators of who will be accepted.
Same and some more in India. In India it is politics of the gutter. Someone can get to medical school and engineering school
even if he or she did not qualify, if scored say 3 points out of 1000 points as long as he or she belonged to lower caste of Hindu.
The minimum requirements they have to fulfill is to pass the school leaving examinations with science subjects .A passing level
is all that matters . The process then continues (in further education -master , training, post doctoral, and in job and in promotion)
While upper caste Hindu or Christian or Muslim may not be allowed despite scoring 999 out of 1000. It is possible and has happened.
Unfortunately the lower caste has not progressed much. Upper caste Hindus have misused this on many occasions and continue to
do do by selling themselves as lower caste with legal loopholes .Muslim or Christians can't do that for they can't claim to be
Hindu
Takeaways:
Jews are really good at networking and in-group activity. They have centuries of practice, and lived a meritocratic existence
of self-sorting in the Pale and elsewhere.
That is evident to all who look.
Other groups have different approaches, and different organizational or affiliation bonds, based on their history, culture
and other factors.
NE Asians share some traits, and both value education as a way to improve themselves and to some extent their groups.
S Asians will demonstrate their own approach, focusing heavily on STEM.
Expect demographics to win out, given 2.5B Asians versus a smaller NAM or NE European-base populace.
Thanks for the informative article. Your proposal sounds reasonable. Another option would be to attempt to vastly decrease
the significance of these elite private schools. Why should we allow undemocratic little fiefdoms to largely control entry into
our country's ruling class? It would probably be considerably more fair, more transparent and more efficient to pour a lot of
resources into our public universities. If Berkeley, Michigan, UVA, UMass, etc. were completely free, for instance–or if they
provided students with living expenses as well as free tuition, the quality of their students would conceivably surpass that of
the Ivy League's, and over time the importance and prestige of Harvard, Stanford, etc. would diminish. Instead, we are subsidizing
students at elite private colleges more than those at public colleges–an absurd state of affairs (see this article, whose author
is a bit of an ideologue but who is right on this issue:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich/2014/1014/How-the-government-spends-more-per-student-at-elite-private-universities-than-public
).
Mr. Unz; thank you for the long, informational and scholarly article. I read the whole thing, and from Sailer I am familiar
with your reputation as a certified genius. I must admit however, after the 5-10,000 words you had written, I was a bit shocked
that your answer to how to improve elite University enrollment, was to FLIP A FIGURATIVE COIN.
I expected some chart with differential equations that I would have to consult my much more intelligent brother, the electrical
engineer to explain to me. Not that it does not make a lot of sense.
The issue with your solution is that you go from a three class university:
1) Legacy Admits
2) Non athletic, black admits
3) everyone else
to a much-more rigid, two class university:
1) academic admits
2) coin-flip admits
One tier being one of the smartest 15-18 year olds in the world, the other being "somewhat better than good student at Kansas
State."
My brother works at a little ivy league school. Well endowed because the parents Dun and Bradstreet reports are at the top
of the selection sheets with parents jobs also. Extra points for finance and government jobs at executive levels.
This article was excellent and reinforced everything he has told me over the years. One thing he did mention i would like to
add. Asians, which for years were their choice for filling minority quotas, are horrible when it comes to supporting the alma
mater financially during the fund drives. This information was confirmed by several other schools in the area when they tried
a multi-school drive in the far east and south east asia to canvas funds and returned with a pitiful sum.
Diversity is a scheme that is the opposite of a meritocracy. Diversity is a national victim cult that generally demonizes gentiles,
and more specifically demonizes people that conform to a jewish concocted profile of a nazi.
Why would anyone use the word diversity in the same sentence as the word meritocracy?
"Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?" Why would anybody claiming to be intelligent
include meritocracy and diversity in the same sentence?
@Sean Gillhoolley Harvard
is a university, much like Princeton and Yale, that continues based on its reputation, something that was earned in the past.
When the present catches up to them people will regard them as nepotistic cauldrons of corruption.
Look at the financial disaster that befell the USA and much of the globe back in 2008. Its genesis can be found in the clever
minds of those coming out of their business schools (and, oddly enough, their Physics programs as well). They are teaching the
elite how to drain all value from American companies, as the rich plan their move to China, the new land of opportunity. When
1% of the population controls such a huge portion of the wealth, patriotism becomes a loadstone to them. The elite are global.
Places like Harvard cater to them, help train them to rule the world....but first they must remake it.
I agree, common people would never think of derivatives , nor make loans based on speculation .
"Tiffany Wang['s] SAT scores were over 100 points above the Wesleyan average, and she ranked as a National Merit Scholarship
semifinalist "
"Julianna Bentes her SAT scores were somewhat higher than Tiffany's "
Did Ms. Wang underperform on her SATs? NMS semifinalist status depends purely on the score on a very SAT-like test being at
a 99.5 percentile level, as I understand it (and I was one, albeit a very long time ago) and I gather from the above that her
SAT scores did not correspond to the PSAT one. That is, merely " 100 points above the Wesleyan average" doesn't seem all that
exceptional. Or am I wrong?
Mr. Unz several times conflates NMS semifinalist status with being a top student. Which I most definitely was not. It's rather
an IQ test. As was the SAT.
Comey was a part of the coup -- a color revolution against Trump with Bremmen (possibly assigned by Obama) pulling the strings. That's right. This is a banana republic with nukes.
Notable quotes:
"... "Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election," the message said, according to officials who have seen it. ..."
"... Comment: The FBI now flip-flops from its previous assessment: FBI rejects CIA assessment that Russia influenced presidential election ..."
FBI and National
Intelligence chiefs both agree with the CIA assessment that Russia interfered with the 2016 US presidential elections partly in an
effort to help Donald Trump win the White House, US media report.
FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper are both convinced that Russia was behind cyberattacks
that targeted Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her campaign chairman, John Podesta,
The Washington Post and reported Friday, citing a message sent by CIA Director John Brennan to his employees.
"Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among
us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election," the message said, according to officials
who have seen it.
"The three of us also agree that our organizations, along with others, need to focus on completing the thorough review of this
issue that has been directed by President Obama and which is being led by the DNI," it continued.
"People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage. Intellectual
myopia, often called stupidity, is no doubt a reason. But the privileged also feel that their privileges, however egregious they
may seem to others, are a solemn, basic, God-given right. The sensitivity of the poor to injustice is a trivial thing compared
with that of the rich."
John Kenneth Galbraith
The sugar high of the Trump election seems to be wearing a bit thin on Wall Street. I had said at the time that I thought they would
just execute the trading plans they had in place in their supposition that Hillary was going to win. And this is what I think they
did, and have been doing.
And so when the thrill is gone, and dull reality starts sinking in, I suspect we are going to be in for quite a correction.
However, I am tuning out the hysteria from the Wall Street Democrats, especially the pitiful whining emanating from organizations
like MSNBC, CNN, and the NY Times, because they have discredited themselves as reliable, unbiased sources. They really have.
They may just be joining their right-leaning peers in this, but they still do not realize it, and think of themselves as exceptional,
and morally superior. And the same can be said of many pundits, and insiders, and very serious people with important podiums
in the academy and the press.
Hillary was to be their meal ticket. And their anguish at being denied a payday for their faithful service is remarkable.
We are being treated to rumours that Trump is going to appoint this or that despicable person to some key position. I am waiting
for him to show his hand with some actual decisions and appointments.
This is not to say that I am optimistic, not in the least. I am not, and I most certainly did not vote for him (or her for that
matter). But the silliness of the courtiers in the media is just too much, too much whining from those who had their candy of power
and money by association expectations taken away.
I am therefore very interested in seeing who the DNC will choose as chairperson. Liz Warren came out today and endorsed Ellison,
which I believe Bernie Sanders has done as well. He is no insider like Wasserman-Schulz, Brazile, or Dean.
The Democratic party is at a crossroads, in a split between taking policy positions along lines of 'class' or 'identity.'
By class is meant working class of the broader public versus the moneyed interests of financiers and tech monopolists.
Identity implies the working with various minority groups who certainly may deserve redress for real suppression of their
rights and other financial abuses, but in a 'splintering' manner that breaks them down into special interest groups rather than a
broader movement of the disadvantaged.
Why has this been the establishment approach of the heart of the Democratic power circles?
I think the reason for this Democratic strategy has been purely practical. There was no way the Wall Street wing of the Democratic
party could make policy along lines of the middle class and the poor, and keep a straight face, while gorging themselves in a frenzy
of massive soft corruption and enormous donations from the wealthiest few who they were thereby expected to represent and to serve.
And so they lost politically, and badly.
The average American, of whatever identity, finally became sick of them, and rejected the balkanization of their interests into
special identity groups that could be more easily managed and messaged, and controlled.
This was a huge difference that we saw in the Sanders campaign, almost to a fault. Not because he was wrong necessarily, but because
it was so unaccustomed, and insufficiently articulated. Sanders had his heart in the right place, perhaps, but he lacked the charisma
and outspokenness of an FDR. Not to mention that his own party powers were dead set against him, because they wanted to keep the
status quo that had rewarded them so well in place.
It is not at all obvious that the Democrats can find themselves again. Perhaps Mr. Trump, while doing some things well, will take
economic policy matters to an excess, and like the Democrats ignore the insecurity and discontent of the working class. And the people
will find a voice, eventually, in either the Democratic party, or something entirely new.
This is not just an American phenomenon. This has happened with Labour and Brexit in the UK, and is happening in the rest of the
developed nations in Europe. One thing that the ruling elite of the West have had in common is a devotion to corporate globalisation
and inequality.
And that system is not going to 'cohere' as economist Robert Johnson had put it so well.
With all this change and volatility and insecurity, it appears that people will be reaching for some sort of safe haven for themselves
and their resources. So far the Dollar index has benefited from this, not because of its virtues, but from the weakness and foundering
of the others.
I am afraid that the confidence in the Dollar as a safe haven is misplaced, especially if things go as I expect that they will
with the US economy under a Trump administration. But that is still largely in his hand,s to be decided and written. We have yet
to see if he has the will and mind to oppose the vested interests of his own party and the corporate, moneyed interests.
That is an enormous, history-making task, requiring an almost historic moral compass. And so I am not optimistic.
"People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage. Intellectual
myopia, often called stupidity, is no doubt a reason. But the privileged also feel that their privileges, however egregious they
may seem to others, are a solemn, basic, God-given right. The sensitivity of the poor to injustice is a trivial thing compared
with that of the rich."
John Kenneth Galbraith
The sugar high of the Trump election seems to be wearing a bit thin on Wall Street. I had said at the time that I thought they would
just execute the trading plans they had in place in their supposition that Hillary was going to win. And this is what I think they
did, and have been doing.
And so when the thrill is gone, and dull reality starts sinking in, I suspect we are going to be in for quite a correction.
However, I am tuning out the hysteria from the Wall Street Democrats, especially the pitiful whining emanating from organizations
like MSNBC, CNN, and the NY Times, because they have discredited themselves as reliable, unbiased sources. They really have.
They may just be joining their right-leaning peers in this, but they still do not realize it, and think of themselves as exceptional,
and morally superior. And the same can be said of many pundits, and insiders, and very serious people with important podiums
in the academy and the press.
Hillary was to be their meal ticket. And their anguish at being denied a payday for their faithful service is remarkable.
We are being treated to rumours that Trump is going to appoint this or that despicable person to some key position. I am waiting
for him to show his hand with some actual decisions and appointments.
This is not to say that I am optimistic, not in the least. I am not, and I most certainly did not vote for him (or her for that
matter). But the silliness of the courtiers in the media is just too much, too much whining from those who had their candy of power
and money by association expectations taken away.
I am therefore very interested in seeing who the DNC will choose as chairperson. Liz Warren came out today and endorsed Ellison,
which I believe Bernie Sanders has done as well. He is no insider like Wasserman-Schulz, Brazile, or Dean.
The Democratic party is at a crossroads, in a split between taking policy positions along lines of 'class' or 'identity.'
By class is meant working class of the broader public versus the moneyed interests of financiers and tech monopolists.
Identity implies the working with various minority groups who certainly may deserve redress for real suppression of their
rights and other financial abuses, but in a 'splintering' manner that breaks them down into special interest groups rather than a
broader movement of the disadvantaged.
Why has this been the establishment approach of the heart of the Democratic power circles?
I think the reason for this Democratic strategy has been purely practical. There was no way the Wall Street wing of the Democratic
party could make policy along lines of the middle class and the poor, and keep a straight face, while gorging themselves in a frenzy
of massive soft corruption and enormous donations from the wealthiest few who they were thereby expected to represent and to serve.
And so they lost politically, and badly.
The average American, of whatever identity, finally became sick of them, and rejected the balkanization of their interests into
special identity groups that could be more easily managed and messaged, and controlled.
This was a huge difference that we saw in the Sanders campaign, almost to a fault. Not because he was wrong necessarily, but because
it was so unaccustomed, and insufficiently articulated. Sanders had his heart in the right place, perhaps, but he lacked the charisma
and outspokenness of an FDR. Not to mention that his own party powers were dead set against him, because they wanted to keep the
status quo that had rewarded them so well in place.
It is not at all obvious that the Democrats can find themselves again. Perhaps Mr. Trump, while doing some things well, will take
economic policy matters to an excess, and like the Democrats ignore the insecurity and discontent of the working class. And the people
will find a voice, eventually, in either the Democratic party, or something entirely new.
This is not just an American phenomenon. This has happened with Labour and Brexit in the UK, and is happening in the rest of the
developed nations in Europe. One thing that the ruling elite of the West have had in common is a devotion to corporate globalisation
and inequality.
And that system is not going to 'cohere' as economist Robert Johnson had put it so well.
With all this change and volatility and insecurity, it appears that people will be reaching for some sort of safe haven for themselves
and their resources. So far the Dollar index has benefited from this, not because of its virtues, but from the weakness and foundering
of the others.
I am afraid that the confidence in the Dollar as a safe haven is misplaced, especially if things go as I expect that they will
with the US economy under a Trump administration. But that is still largely in his hand,s to be decided and written. We have yet
to see if he has the will and mind to oppose the vested interests of his own party and the corporate, moneyed interests.
That is an enormous, history-making task, requiring an almost historic moral compass. And so I am not optimistic.
Ron Paul was right in 2016 to express reservations about Trump forign policy.
Notable quotes:
"... Paul started off the interview saying that he is keeping his "fingers crossed" regarding Trump's potential foreign policy actions. ..."
"... Trump has presented "vague" foreign policy positions overall. Paul also comments that a good indication of how Trump will act on foreign policy issues will be provided by looking at who Trump appoints to positions in the executive branch and from whom Trump receives advice. ..."
"... Regarding Trump's foreign policy advisors and potential appointees, Paul expresses in the interview reason for concern. Paul states: "Unfortunately, there have been several neoconservatives that are getting closer to Trump, and, if he gets his advice from them, then I don't think that is a good sign." ..."
"... Even if Trump wants to pursue a significantly more noninterventionist course than his recent predecessors in the presidency, Paul warns that the entrenched "deep state" that favors foreign intervention and war, special interests that have "sinister motivation for these wars," and media propaganda that "builds up the war fever" can ..."
Ron Paul, known for his promotion of the United States following a noninterventionist foreign policy,
presented Thursday his take on the prospects of Donald Trump's foreign policy as president. Paul
set out his analysis in an extensive interview with host Peter Lavelle at RT.
Paul started off
the interview saying that he is keeping his "fingers crossed" regarding Trump's potential foreign
policy actions. Paul says he views favorably Trump's comments in the presidential election about
"being less confrontational with Russia" and criticizing some of the US wars in the Middle East.
Paul, though, notes that Trump has presented "vague" foreign policy positions overall. Paul also
comments that a good indication of how Trump will act on foreign policy issues will be provided by
looking at who Trump appoints to positions in the executive branch and from whom Trump receives advice.
Regarding Trump's foreign policy advisors and potential appointees, Paul expresses in the interview
reason for concern. Paul states: "Unfortunately, there have been several neoconservatives that are
getting closer to Trump, and, if he gets his advice from them, then I don't think that is a good
sign."
Even if Trump wants to pursue a significantly more noninterventionist course than his recent predecessors
in the presidency, Paul warns that the entrenched "deep state" that favors foreign intervention and
war, special interests that have "sinister motivation for these wars," and media propaganda that
"builds up the war fever" can
Ron Paul was right in 2016 to express reservations about Trump forign policy.
Notable quotes:
"... Paul started off the interview saying that he is keeping his "fingers crossed" regarding Trump's potential foreign policy actions. ..."
"... Trump has presented "vague" foreign policy positions overall. Paul also comments that a good indication of how Trump will act on foreign policy issues will be provided by looking at who Trump appoints to positions in the executive branch and from whom Trump receives advice. ..."
"... Regarding Trump's foreign policy advisors and potential appointees, Paul expresses in the interview reason for concern. Paul states: "Unfortunately, there have been several neoconservatives that are getting closer to Trump, and, if he gets his advice from them, then I don't think that is a good sign." ..."
"... Even if Trump wants to pursue a significantly more noninterventionist course than his recent predecessors in the presidency, Paul warns that the entrenched "deep state" that favors foreign intervention and war, special interests that have "sinister motivation for these wars," and media propaganda that "builds up the war fever" can ..."
Ron Paul, known for his promotion of the United States following a noninterventionist foreign policy,
presented Thursday his take on the prospects of Donald Trump's foreign policy as president. Paul
set out his analysis in an extensive interview with host Peter Lavelle at RT.
Paul started off
the interview saying that he is keeping his "fingers crossed" regarding Trump's potential foreign
policy actions. Paul says he views favorably Trump's comments in the presidential election about
"being less confrontational with Russia" and criticizing some of the US wars in the Middle East.
Paul, though, notes that Trump has presented "vague" foreign policy positions overall. Paul also
comments that a good indication of how Trump will act on foreign policy issues will be provided by
looking at who Trump appoints to positions in the executive branch and from whom Trump receives advice.
Regarding Trump's foreign policy advisors and potential appointees, Paul expresses in the interview
reason for concern. Paul states: "Unfortunately, there have been several neoconservatives that are
getting closer to Trump, and, if he gets his advice from them, then I don't think that is a good
sign."
Even if Trump wants to pursue a significantly more noninterventionist course than his recent predecessors
in the presidency, Paul warns that the entrenched "deep state" that favors foreign intervention and
war, special interests that have "sinister motivation for these wars," and media propaganda that
"builds up the war fever" can
"... Politics must not be subject to the economy, nor should the economy be subject to the dictates of an efficiency-driven paradigm of technocracy. Today, in view of the common good, there is urgent need for politics and economics to enter into a frank dialogue in the service of life, especially human life. ..."
"... Production is not always rational, and is usually tied to economic variables which assign to products a value that does not necessarily correspond to their real worth. This frequently leads to an overproduction of some commodities, with unnecessary impact on the environment and with negative results on regional economies.[133] The financial bubble also tends to be a productive bubble. The problem of the real economy is not confronted with vigour, yet it is the real economy which makes diversification and improvement in production possible, helps companies to function well, and enables small and medium businesses to develop and create employment. ..."
"... Whenever these questions are raised, some react by accusing others of irrationally attempting to stand in the way of progress and human development. But we need to grow in the conviction that a decrease in the pace of production and consumption can at times give rise to another form of progress and development. ..."
"... The principle of the maximization of profits, frequently isolated from other considerations, reflects a misunderstanding of the very concept of the economy. As long as production is increased, little concern is given to whether it is at the cost of future resources or the health of the environment; as long as the clearing of a forest increases production, no one calculates the losses entailed in the desertification of the land, the harm done to biodiversity or the increased pollution. In a word, businesses profit by calculating and paying only a fraction of the costs involved. Yet only when "the economic and social costs of using up shared environmental resources are recognized with transparency and fully borne by those who incur them, not by other peoples or future generations",[138] can those actions be considered ethical. An instrumental way of reasoning, which provides a purely static analysis of realities in the service of present needs, is at work whether resources are allocated by the market or by state central planning. ..."
I'm an environmental scientist, not an economist, but it seems to me that Pope Francis has some
sensible things to say, as in the following from Laudato si:
IV. POLITICS AND ECONOMY IN DIALOGUE FOR HUMAN FULFILMENT
189. Politics must not be subject to the economy, nor should the economy be subject to
the dictates of an efficiency-driven paradigm of technocracy. Today, in view of the common good,
there is urgent need for politics and economics to enter into a frank dialogue in the service
of life, especially human life. Saving banks at any cost, making the public pay the price,
foregoing a firm commitment to reviewing and reforming the entire system, only reaffirms the absolute
power of a financial system, a power which has no future and will only give rise to new crises
after a slow, costly and only apparent recovery. The financial crisis of 2007-08 provided an opportunity
to develop a new economy, more attentive to ethical principles, and new ways of regulating speculative
financial practices and virtual wealth. But the response to the crisis did not include rethinking
the outdated criteria which continue to rule the world. Production is not always rational,
and is usually tied to economic variables which assign to products a value that does not necessarily
correspond to their real worth. This frequently leads to an overproduction of some commodities,
with unnecessary impact on the environment and with negative results on regional economies.[133]
The financial bubble also tends to be a productive bubble. The problem of the real economy is
not confronted with vigour, yet it is the real economy which makes diversification and improvement
in production possible, helps companies to function well, and enables small and medium businesses
to develop and create employment.
190. Here too, it should always be kept in mind that "environmental protection cannot be assured
solely on the basis of financial calculations of costs and benefits. The environment is one of
those goods that cannot be adequately safeguarded or promoted by market forces".[134] Once more,
we need to reject a magical conception of the market, which would suggest that problems can be
solved simply by an increase in the profits of companies or individuals. Is it realistic to hope
that those who are obsessed with maximizing profits will stop to reflect on the environmental
damage which they will leave behind for future generations? Where profits alone count, there can
be no thinking about the rhythms of nature, its phases of decay and regeneration, or the complexity
of ecosystems which may be gravely upset by human intervention. Moreover, biodiversity is considered
at most a deposit of economic resources available for exploitation, with no serious thought for
the real value of things, their significance for persons and cultures, or the concerns and needs
of the poor.
191. Whenever these questions are raised, some react by accusing others of irrationally
attempting to stand in the way of progress and human development. But we need to grow in the conviction
that a decrease in the pace of production and consumption can at times give rise to another form
of progress and development. Efforts to promote a sustainable use of natural resources are
not a waste of money, but rather an investment capable of providing other economic benefits in
the medium term. If we look at the larger picture, we can see that more diversified and innovative
forms of production which impact less on the environment can prove very profitable. It is a matter
of openness to different possibilities which do not involve stifling human creativity and its
ideals of progress, but rather directing that energy along new channels.
192. For example, a path of productive development, which is more creative and better directed,
could correct the present disparity between excessive technological investment in consumption
and insufficient investment in resolving urgent problems facing the human family. It could generate
intelligent and profitable ways of reusing, revamping and recycling, and it could also improve
the energy efficiency of cities. Productive diversification offers the fullest possibilities to
human ingenuity to create and innovate, while at the same time protecting the environment and
creating more sources of employment. Such creativity would be a worthy expression of our most
noble human qualities, for we would be striving intelligently, boldly and responsibly to promote
a sustainable and equitable development within the context of a broader concept of quality of
life. On the other hand, to find ever new ways of despoiling nature, purely for the sake of new
consumer items and quick profit, would be, in human terms, less worthy and creative, and more
superficial.
193. In any event, if in some cases sustainable development were to involve new forms of growth,
then in other cases, given the insatiable and irresponsible growth produced over many decades,
we need also to think of containing growth by setting some reasonable limits and even retracing
our steps before it is too late. We know how unsustainable is the behaviour of those who constantly
consume and destroy, while others are not yet able to live in a way worthy of their human dignity.
That is why the time has come to accept decreased growth in some parts of the world, in order
to provide resources for other places to experience healthy growth. Benedict XVI has said that
"technologically advanced societies must be prepared to encourage more sober lifestyles, while
reducing their energy consumption and improving its efficiency".[135]
194. For new models of progress to arise, there is a need to change "models of global development";[136]
this will entail a responsible reflection on "the meaning of the economy and its goals with an
eye to correcting its malfunctions and misapplications".[137] It is not enough to balance, in
the medium term, the protection of nature with financial gain, or the preservation of the environment
with progress. Halfway measures simply delay the inevitable disaster. Put simply, it is a matter
of redefining our notion of progress. A technological and economic development which does not
leave in its wake a better world and an integrally higher quality of life cannot be considered
progress. Frequently, in fact, people's quality of life actually diminishes – by the deterioration
of the environment, the low quality of food or the depletion of resources – in the midst of economic
growth. In this context, talk of sustainable growth usually becomes a way of distracting attention
and offering excuses. It absorbs the language and values of ecology into the categories of finance
and technocracy, and the social and environmental responsibility of businesses often gets reduced
to a series of marketing and image-enhancing measures.
195. The principle of the maximization of profits, frequently isolated from other considerations,
reflects a misunderstanding of the very concept of the economy. As long as production is increased,
little concern is given to whether it is at the cost of future resources or the health of the
environment; as long as the clearing of a forest increases production, no one calculates the losses
entailed in the desertification of the land, the harm done to biodiversity or the increased pollution.
In a word, businesses profit by calculating and paying only a fraction of the costs involved.
Yet only when "the economic and social costs of using up shared environmental resources are recognized
with transparency and fully borne by those who incur them, not by other peoples or future generations",[138]
can those actions be considered ethical. An instrumental way of reasoning, which provides a purely
static analysis of realities in the service of present needs, is at work whether resources are
allocated by the market or by state central planning.
196. What happens with politics? Let us keep in mind the principle of subsidiarity, which grants
freedom to develop the capabilities present at every level of society, while also demanding a
greater sense of responsibility for the common good from those who wield greater power. Today,
it is the case that some economic sectors exercise more power than states themselves. But economics
without politics cannot be justified, since this would make it impossible to favour other ways
of handling the various aspects of the present crisis. The mindset which leaves no room for sincere
concern for the environment is the same mindset which lacks concern for the inclusion of the most
vulnerable members of society. For "the current model, with its emphasis on success and self-reliance,
does not appear to favour an investment in efforts to help the slow, the weak or the less talented
to find opportunities in life".[139]
197. What is needed is a politics which is far-sighted and capable of a new, integral and interdisciplinary
approach to handling the different aspects of the crisis. Often, politics itself is responsible
for the disrepute in which it is held, on account of corruption and the failure to enact sound
public policies. If in a given region the state does not carry out its responsibilities, some
business groups can come forward in the guise of benefactors, wield real power, and consider themselves
exempt from certain rules, to the point of tolerating different forms of organized crime, human
trafficking, the drug trade and violence, all of which become very difficult to eradicate. If
politics shows itself incapable of breaking such a perverse logic, and remains caught up in inconsequential
discussions, we will continue to avoid facing the major problems of humanity. A strategy for real
change calls for rethinking processes in their entirety, for it is not enough to include a few
superficial ecological considerations while failing to question the logic which underlies present-day
culture. A healthy politics needs to be able to take up this challenge.
198. Politics and the economy tend to blame each other when it comes to poverty and environmental
degradation. It is to be hoped that they can acknowledge their own mistakes and find forms of
interaction directed to the common good. While some are concerned only with financial gain, and
others with holding on to or increasing their power, what we are left with are conflicts or spurious
agreements where the last thing either party is concerned about is caring for the environment
and protecting those who are most vulnerable. Here too, we see how true it is that "unity is greater
than conflict".[140]
"... Although Russia simply is just a country in the wrong place at the wrong time (which, throughout Russian history, seems to be a theme for them) - there really is a reason the Elite hate Russia. It's not because they're Xenophobic, although there's that too - it's because of several key factors that make Russia a unique power in the world, compared to similar countries. ..."
"... Russia has banned a pro-democracy charity founded by hedge fund billionaire George Soros, saying the organization posed a threat to both state security and the Russian constitution. ..."
"... Plain and simple, the [western] Elite do not control Russia. While there are backchannels of Russian oligarchs that work directly with Western Rothschild interests, for example, they simply don't have the same level of control as they do European countries, like Germany for instance. Or another good example is China, there's this fanatical talk that China can dump US Treasuries blah blah blah the fact is that China is completely dependent on USA and US Dollars, and will be for the rest of our lives. Maybe in 1000 years in the Dong Dynasty still to come they will rule the world but it's not going to happen anytime soon. ..."
Although Russia simply is just a country in the wrong place at the wrong time (which, throughout
Russian history, seems to be a theme for them) - there really is a reason the Elite hate Russia.
It's not because they're Xenophobic, although there's that too - it's because of several key factors
that make Russia a unique power in the world, compared to similar countries.
1. Russia is an independent country. It's not possible to manipulate Russia via external
remote control, like it is most countries. The Elite don't like that!
Russia kicked out Soros "Open Society":
Russia has banned a pro-democracy charity founded by hedge fund billionaire George Soros,
saying the organization posed a threat to both state security and the Russian constitution.
In a statement released Monday morning, Russia's General Prosecutor's Office said two branches
of Soros' charity network - the Open Society Foundations (OSF) and the Open Society Institute
(OSI) - would be placed on a "stop list" of foreign non-governmental organizations whose activities
have been deemed "undesirable" by the Russian state.
2. Russia is not easy to cripple via clandestine means, whether it be CIA, MI6, or outright
military conflict. Some other BRICs however, that's not the case. Say what you will about Russia's
military - it's on par and in many cases, advanced, compared to the US military. And that's not AN
opinion,
that's in the opinion of top US military commanders:
Late in September, we brought you "
US Readies Battle Plans For Baltic War With Russia " in which we described a series of thought
experiments undertaken by The Pentagon in an effort to determine what the likely outcome would
be should something go horribly "wrong" on the way to landing the US in a shooting war with Russia
in the Balkans.
The results of those thought experiments were not encouraging. As a reminder, here's how
Foreign Policy summed up the exercises:
"I would like to present you with a little gift that represents what President Obama and Vice
President Biden and I have been saying and that is: 'We want to reset our relationship, and so
we will do it together.' ...
"We worked hard to get the right Russian word. Do you think we got it?" she asked Lavrov, laughing.
"You got it wrong," said Lavrov, as both diplomats laughed.
"It should be "perezagruzka" [the Russian word for reset]," said Lavrov."This says 'peregruzka,'
which means 'overcharged.'"
Yes, it's almost a certainty that if Clinton by some horrible fate is President there will be
Nuclear war. Wars have been started over much more subtle mistakes. One would think, that Clinton
would have had an advisor CHECK THIS before presenting it in a public ceremony, in front of reporters?
How much more blatantly unprofessional can one be? If politicians worked in the private sector, they
wouldn't last a day! How do these people advance so far in politics?
4.Plain and simple, the [western] Elite do not control Russia. While there are backchannels
of Russian oligarchs that work directly with Western Rothschild interests, for example, they simply
don't have the same level of control as they do European countries, like Germany for instance. Or
another good example is China, there's this fanatical talk that China can dump US Treasuries blah
blah blah the fact is that China is completely dependent on USA and US Dollars, and will be for the
rest of our lives. Maybe in 1000 years in the Dong Dynasty still to come they will rule the world
but it's not going to happen anytime soon.
Russia is one of the most highly misunderstood cultures in the West. Which is strange, because
Russia is more like America than any European country:
Both Russia and America share huge landmasses with large undeveloped territory
Both Russia and America are predominantly white Christian majorities (although in last decades,
America tries to be more of a melting pot
Both Russia and America fought against Hitler and the Nazis during World War 2, the defining
event of the last 60 years
There have been numerous interesting situations where Russia helped America and America helped
Russia on a number of levels, to learn more about it checkout the following books:
Most interestingly, during the Nixon administration Kissinger was prodding Nixon to partner with
Russia that would, in Kissinger's view would create an unstoppable alliance, that no one could compete
with such a superpower axis. But, it didn't happen, as there were 'neo-cons' who were against it,
mostly Polish Catholics who have some deep genetic fear of any culture using the Cyrillic alphabet.
Nixon instead chose China (what a mistake!) and created Forex. But the point being that, through
a small slip of fate, "China" may have been in this alternative Kissinger reality the 'Great Evil
Enemy' hacking our elections, as we drive across the Alaskan-Siberian highway without any speed limit,
oil would be ten cents a gallon, and we wouldn't need to war with the Middle East.
This is almost two year old discussion. Still relevant...
Notable quotes:
"... Republicans have fooled people into thinking budget deficits can be reduced substantially by eliminating waste and fraud in government, cutting foreign aid, or that it is the fault of lazy, undeserving "others" who sponge off of government programs. ... ..."
"... I am very happy that the Republican con is starting to come to light. Members of the working class who support Trump are beginning to see that the elites in the Republican Party do not have their best interests at heart. I am not pleased at all, however, that people are still being led to believe that there are simple answers to budget problems that do not require raising taxes, or, alternatively, reducing their hard-earned benefits from programs such as Social Security or Medicare. ... ..."
"... And the next GOP President will immediately give away those hard earned surpluses generated by President Clinton or Sanders to their plutocratic donors - just as W did. ..."
"... The collapse and subsequent economic rape of the USSR region in 1991-1998 was a huge stimulus for the US economy. Something like 300 millions of new customers overnight for many products and huge expansion of the dollar zone, which partially compensates for the loss of EU to euro. ..."
"... Actually, Bill Clinton put a solid fundament for subsequent deterioration relations with Russia. His semi-successful attempt to colonize Russia (under Yeltsin Russia was a semi-colony and definitely a vassal state of the USA) backfired. ..."
"... Now the teeth of dragon planted by Slick Bill (of Kosovo war fame) are visible in full glory. Russian elite no longer trusts the US elite and feels threatened. ..."
"... Series of female sociopath (or borderline personalities) in the role of Secretaries of State did not help either. The last one, "We came, we saw, he died" Hillary and her protégé Victoria Nuland (which actually was a close associate of Dick Cheney http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2005/11/president_cheney.html ) are actually replay of unforgettable Madeleine Albright with her famous a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" and Albright replied "we think the price is worth it."[ ..."
"... "Republicans have fooled people into thinking budget deficits can be reduced substantially by eliminating waste and fraud in government, cutting foreign aid, or that it is the fault of lazy, undeserving "others" who sponge off of government programs. ..." ..."
"... I think you have identified the potential roots of a movement. The unwrapping and critical analysis of the demagoguery that has defined the lives of the baby boom generation. The quote below from Dan Baum's Harper's article, Legalize It All", seems particularly poignant: ..."
"... Much Republican elites would love to raise sales taxes, payroll taxes, or any tax that the "little people" pay. This would allow them to cut taxes for rich people even more. This is their game. Take from the poor and give to the rich. DOOH NIBOR economics! ..."
"... Excellent piece, but I would point out that the GOP would likely sacrifice their own mothers for upper class tax cuts. ..."
"... Rachel Maddow pointed out last night that the GOP *leadership* is vehemently opposed to Trump, because he threatens their authority, but the rank-and-file seem to be pretty happy with him. ..."
"... The idea seems to be that Trump, if elected, will obviously 'reconstitute' the GOP, re-making it totally, casting out old people, bringing in New Blood. ..."
"... This would be 'yuuugely' more cataclysmic than what happened between Teddy Roosevelt and the anti-progressives of the GOP back in 1912. ..."
"... [I am very happy that the Republican con is starting to come to light. Members of the working class who support Trump are beginning to see that the elites in the Republican Party do not have their best interests at heart.] ..."
Why Republican Elites are Threatened, by Mark Thoma : ... Donald Trump's tax plan will result in a fall in revenue of 9.5
trillion dollars over the next ten years, yet somehow he will fulfill his promise to protect Social Security and Medicare and
balance the budget? When push comes to shove (or worse – this is Trump after all), who do you think he will protect, social insurance
programs the working class relies upon for economic security or his own and his party's wealthy interests? Ted Cruz has proposed
an 8.6 trillion dollar tax cut. How, exactly, will that be financed without large cuts to social insurance programs or huge increases
in the budget deficit?
Republicans have fooled people into thinking budget deficits can be reduced substantially by eliminating waste and fraud
in government, cutting foreign aid, or that it is the fault of lazy, undeserving "others" who sponge off of government programs.
...
I am very happy that the
Republican con is
starting to come to light. Members of the working class who support Trump are beginning to see that the elites in the Republican
Party do not have their best interests at heart. I am not pleased at all, however, that people are still being led to believe
that there are simple answers to budget problems that do not require raising taxes, or, alternatively, reducing their hard-earned
benefits from programs such as Social Security or Medicare. ...
And the next GOP President will immediately give away those hard earned surpluses generated by President Clinton or Sanders
to their plutocratic donors - just as W did.
Hence my support for a *countercyclical* Balanced Budget Amendment.
Peter K. -> New Deal democrat...
My point was that Sanders or Clinton would be getting the surprise surpluses as W. did.
My hope is that Clinton would do the right thing, but I wouldn't bet money on it. I could see her do tax cuts for
corporations and finance. Summers recently had a piece arguing for tax cuts as incentives for private investment.
sanjait -> Peter K....
If we consider that there is probably some pent up business investment demand that could drive above average productivity
growth for a few years ... then it plausibly is possible for the country to achieve late 90s style growth.
likbez -> Peter K....
The collapse and subsequent economic rape of the USSR region in 1991-1998 was a huge stimulus for the US economy. Something
like 300 millions of new customers overnight for many products and huge expansion of the dollar zone, which partially compensates
for the loss of EU to euro.
Even if we count just the cash absorbed by the region, it will be a major economic stimulus. All-it-all it was Bernanke size
if we add buying assets for pennies on the dollar.
Actually, Bill Clinton put a solid fundament for subsequent deterioration relations with Russia. His semi-successful attempt
to colonize Russia (under Yeltsin Russia was a semi-colony and definitely a vassal state of the USA) backfired.
Now the teeth of dragon planted by Slick Bill (of Kosovo war fame) are visible in full glory. Russian elite no longer trusts
the US elite and feels threatened.
Series of female sociopath (or borderline personalities) in the role of Secretaries of State did not help either. The last
one, "We came, we saw, he died" Hillary and her protégé Victoria Nuland (which actually was a close associate of Dick Cheney
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2005/11/president_cheney.html
) are actually replay of unforgettable Madeleine Albright with her famous a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked
her "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know,
is the price worth it?" and Albright replied "we think the price is worth it."[
pgl :
All well said! The notion that Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, and Donald Trump lie a lot is as established as the fact that the earth is
not flat.
Jerry Brown -> pgl...
True that!
Paul Mathis :
"[T]here are simple answers to budget problems that do not require raising taxes, or, alternatively, reducing their hard-earned
benefits from programs such as Social Security or Medicare."
As every legitimate economist knows, stimulus spending to increase the GDP growth rate would raise tax revenues without raising
tax rates. This phenomenon is well-known to Keynesians and has been demonstrated many times.
Thanks to the disinformation campaign run by Republicans, however, stimulus spending has been taken off the table of economic
choices except in China where minimum GDP growth is 6.5%. China is "killing us" economically because we are stupid.
Jerry Brown -> Paul Mathis...
Instead, the Trumps and Cruzes and Ryans believe in giant tax cuts for the very wealthy. This might provide a weak stimulus for
the economy, but it is a very poor way to go about it. More likely in my mind is that it would lead to increased pressure to cut
government spending on things that actually do help the economy.
Paul Mathis -> Jerry Brown...
Tax cuts for the wealthy do not increase demand. Trickle down is a false economic doctrine that exacerbates inequality and therefore
reduces demand. Keynes established this principle decades ago but his wisdom has been ignored.
pgl -> Paul Mathis...
You'll love this bit of honesty from right wing Joe Scarborough:
Job losses began the month Reagan signed the tax cuts. Job creation began the month Reagan hiked taxes to pay workers to fix the
roads and bridges. Reagan and his job killing tax cuts caused the recession, not the Fed and monetary policy. Monetary policy
was steady from 1980 to 1983.
Reagan's tax cuts struck fear into would be lenders. How much debt was the government going to need if it intentionally cuts
it's incomes? On the other hand, if the government stops spending, that's millions of workers who will be forced to stop spending.
For Nixon, the Fed monetized the smaller deficits from repealling the war tax surcharge that balanced the budget in 1969. Just
as the Fed monetized all government debt once FDR and his bankers took over, especially Eccles at the Fed.
But Volcker was not going to monetize the debt caused by Reagan's adoption of intentional deficit spending.
But even Reagan eventually understood what FDR did: gdp growth requires workers getting paid more, and government can take
the money from people who have it but won't spend it paying workers, but tax and spend, and create jobs.
If only economists today understood it, and called for tax and spend to create jobs to grow gdp.
anne :
Really nice essay.
Mr. Bill :
"Republicans have fooled people into thinking budget deficits can be reduced substantially by eliminating waste and fraud
in government, cutting foreign aid, or that it is the fault of lazy, undeserving "others" who sponge off of government programs.
..."
I think you have identified the potential roots of a movement. The unwrapping and critical analysis of the demagoguery
that has defined the lives of the baby boom generation. The quote below from Dan Baum's Harper's article, Legalize It All", seems
particularly poignant:
"At the time, I was writing a book about the politics of drug prohibition. I started to ask Ehrlichman a series of earnest,
wonky questions that he impatiently waved away. "You want to know what this was really all about?" he asked with the bluntness
of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. "The Nixon campaign in 1968,
and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We
knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies
with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest
their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know
we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
I'm pretty sure that the Trumpists would be thrilled to raise taxes...on someone else. It's only the elites that are interested
in lowering taxes on the rich. Trump's followers don't care.
I'm also pretty sure that Trump will turn on the donor class rather than reduce anything for his own base - but I could be
wrong.
Much Republican elites would love to raise sales taxes, payroll taxes, or any tax that the "little people" pay. This would
allow them to cut taxes for rich people even more. This is their game. Take from the poor and give to the rich. DOOH NIBOR economics!
All this liberal hand wringing about Trump's tax plan. Yet when Bernie introduces a major tax plan, it doesn't get noticed!!!
Not a single 'attaboy' from these supposedly liberal economists.
"With the most progressive tax policy of any candidate, Sanders would dramatically increase taxes for the very wealthy and
high-income earners (as well as moderate increases for the middle- and upper-middle classes) in order to pay for key planks of
his social agenda including tuition-free public college, a Medicare for All healthcare program, massive infrastructure spending,
and paid family leave for all workers."
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/03/21/tax-plan-sanders-beats-both-clinton-and-trump-double-digits
"Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders proposes significant increases in federal income, payroll, business, and estate taxes,
and new excise taxes on financial transactions and carbon. New revenues would pay for universal health care, education, family
leave, rebuilding the nation's infrastructure, and more. TPC estimates the tax proposals would raise $15.3 trillion over the next
decade. All income groups would pay some additional tax, but most would come from high-income households, particularly those with
the very highest income. His proposals would raise taxes on work, saving, and investment, in some cases to rates well beyond recent
historical experience in the US."
http://taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/2000639-an-analysis-of-senator-bernie-sanderss-tax-proposals.pdf
As I've said many times, most 'liberal' economists simply to not want increased taxes to be put on the table as a viable alternative
for funding stimulus. Else, why would they go silent when a major candidate makes such an economically significant proposal? Why
is it that they are eager to promote ever more debt but refuse to support more taxes?
pgl -> JohnH...
You are pushing this which is fine. But
"Yet when Bernie introduces a major tax plan, it doesn't get noticed!!"
I noticed this a long time ago. And I applauded Bernie's proposal. I guess I have to resign as a "liberal economist".
Question is, why are all those 'liberal' economists running from Bernie's progressive tax plan like the plague?
pgl -> JohnH...
I have supported tax increases on the rich many times. Pay attention. Also - read the latest column from Mark Thoma which is what
this thread is supposed to be about. I guess Mark must not be a liberal economists either. DUH!
Eric377 -> JohnH...
Because they can always run back to something like it if a Democrat is elected, but not so if Trump or Cruz are and they have
convinced themselves that supporting Sanders is a big risk of getting a Republican. And they are right about that.
JohnH -> Eric377...
LOL!!! Democrats will NOT endorse support anything like Bernie's tax pan EVER! Just like 'liberal" economists will never endorse
it either...in fact, they have every opportunity to endorse it now but refuse to even talk about it, apparently hoping it will
just go away.
But the real benefit of high tax rates on people with lots of money is they will work really hard to not pay taxes by investing
in new capital assets even if the bean counters think building more assets will only slash returns on capital.
The result is no increase in tax revenue, but lots of jobs created if the tax dodges are designed to create jobs.
The best example is a carbon tax. The correct carbon tax schedule of increases will raise virtually no tax revenue, but will
result in trillions of dollars in labor costs building productive capital, which will ironically make the rich far wealthier.
But if millions of people are employed for a lifetime and the burning of fossil fuels ends, only Bernie will be angry that
those responsible end up worth hundreds of billions, or maybe become trillionaires. Their businesses will not be profitable, just
like Amazon, Tesla, SpaceX are worth tens of billions but are unprofitable.
pgl :
GOP elite Peter Schiff babbling even worse lies than our excellent host has documented:
Every year Schiff predicts a recession. Once every 6-8 years, he's right. Schiff then claims he's predicted every recession for
the last three dozen years. Everyone is amazed. "How does he do it?" the crowd gasps.
Why does anyone even mention Schiff? He's a grifter with an angle to part rich people from their money. Nothing more.
pgl :
From the day job - filed under fun with Microsoft Excel. Math nerds will get this right away. I'm reading a report from some expert
witness that claims some loan guarantee is worth only 22 basis points when my client has charged 55 basis points. Think of x =
1.005 and take the natural log. Yes, the right answer is 50 basis points. This clown uses Excel and types in log(x).
OK - I hate Microsoft Excel as it took me a while. But the log function assumes base 10. The correct syntax is ln(x).
Somehow I think the right wing elite will start doing similar things in their Soc. Sec. analyzes.
William -> pgl...
Somehow, I think the right wing elite don't know the difference between a basis point and a percentage point, let alone between
a base 10 or a base e logarithm.
pgl -> William...
I know Stephen Moore certainly does not know the difference!
DrDick :
Excellent piece, but I would point out that the GOP would likely sacrifice their own mothers for upper class tax cuts.
pgl :
Politics down under (New Zealand). The Green Party is campaigning on transfer pricing enforcement in order to make the multinationals
pay their fair share of taxes:
Rachel Maddow pointed out last night that the GOP *leadership* is vehemently opposed to Trump, because he threatens their
authority, but the rank-and-file seem to be pretty happy with him.
pgl -> Fred C. Dobbs...
I was tired and fell asleep by 9PM missing Rachel's show. Thanks for filling me in. She's awesome!
Fred C. Dobbs -> pgl...
The idea seems to be that Trump, if elected, will obviously 'reconstitute' the GOP, re-making it totally, casting out old
people, bringing in New Blood.
This would be 'yuuugely' more cataclysmic than what happened between Teddy Roosevelt and the anti-progressives of the GOP
back in 1912.
eudaimonia :
[I am very happy that the Republican con is starting to come to light. Members of the working class who support Trump are
beginning to see that the elites in the Republican Party do not have their best interests at heart.]
I disagree here. I don't see Trump as exposing the Republican economic agenda to be a fraud. Instead, Trump is exposing that
the main driver in conservatism is not policy, but racism.
The Republican base is not "waking up" per say, but Trump rather erased away the policy veneer and has shown the heart of the
conservative base.
For decades, the RW economic and social agenda was based off of racism and bigotry - fictional Cadillac mothers, how blacks
just vote Democrat since they are lazy, increased voting restrictions for a non-problem, Willie Horton, opposing the CRA in the
name of "freedom" and states' rights, etc.
The argument now has simply shifted away from slashing taxes on white rich males since it creates an underclass of dependent
minorities, to blaming Mexicans, immigrants, Muslims, etc.
If you look at the heart of Trump supporters, they are high school dropouts who have also dropped out of the labor force since
they were dependent on the old economy, live in mobile houses and have not moved around much, with a history of voting for segregationists.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/13/upshot/the-geography-of-Trump_vs_deep_state.html?_r=0
As their economy breaks down around them, like it has in various parts of the country, we are seeing the same social ills emerge
- suicide, drug use, depression, rise of divorce, etc.
What Trump has shown them is that it is not their fault. It is not the fault of policy. It is not the fault of globalization.
It is not the fault of technological change. It is the fault of the Mexicans, immigrants, Muslims, etc.
The core of conservatism is still there: racism, and Trump has simply shown this. Conservatism is not about policy, but an
emotional reactionary ideology based on fear and ignorance that looks for minorities to be scapegoats.
pgl :
US Supreme Court splits 4-4 in Hawkins v. Community Bank of Raymore:
Appeals Court had ruled in favor of the bank so the bank prevails. OK - we know Scalia would have voted in favor of the bank
but now the standard is how would have Garland ruled. The Senate needs to act on his nomination.
sanjait :
Maybe the simplest way to dissect it is to note that the GOP has been running multiple overlapping cons. They tell the base that
tax cuts will improve their lives, and then passes tax cuts that go mostly to the rich.
They tell the base that regulations are killing jobs, and then block or remove any government protection or program that makes
the country livable so some industrialist can avoid having to deal with externalities. They tell the base that "those people"
are taking their stuff, and then shred the safety net that helps almost everyone except the rich.
What Trump has done is expose how these cons don't really fit together logically, but he hasn't really gone strongly against
any of them. He's been on both sides of the first two, and tripled down on the third.
"... We don't lock ourselves in an echo chamber, where we take comfort in the dogmas and opinions we already hold. ..."
"... Republicans like to say that massive growth followed the Reagan tax cut. But average real GDP growth during Reagan's eight years in the White House was only slightly above the rate of the previous eight years: 3.4 percent per year vs. 2.9 percent. The average unemployment rate was actually higher under Reagan than it was during the previous eight years: 7.5 percent vs. 6.6 percent. ... ..."
"... In his first economic text Greg Mankiw (pre Bush Kool Aid) laid this out nicely. Inward shift of the national savings schedule, higher real interest rates, and the crowding-out of investment. Which lowers long-term growth in the standard Solow model. QED! ..."
"... Responding to the increasingly inane behavior of the two parties, Robert Reich envisions a third party win in 2020: http://robertreich.org/post/141437490885 ..."
"... Bratton is the best police commissioner in the nation! My only regret is that the NYPD did not arrest Cruz and toss him in jail for a few days. ..."
"... (i) It implies that high taxation was responsible for the stagnant economy. Therefore, reducing taxes would unleash growth. The early 80's recessions was not caused by high taxation and growth was just as strong before. ..."
"... (ii) Reagan actually passed a significant tax increase in 1982; TERFA. Some have actually called it the largest peacetime tax increase in history. ..."
"... (iii) Supply-siders completely ignore interest rates. The federal funds rate fell from 19% in July 1981 to 8.5% in February 1983. That looks like good ol' fashion Keynesianism at work. ..."
... I was the staff economist for Rep. Jack Kemp (R-N.Y.) in 1977, and it was my job to draft what came to be the Kemp-Roth tax
bill, which Reagan endorsed in 1980 and enacted the following year. ...
Republicans like to say that massive growth followed the Reagan tax cut. But average real GDP growth during Reagan's eight
years in the White House was only slightly above the rate of the previous eight years: 3.4 percent per year vs. 2.9 percent. The
average unemployment rate was actually higher under Reagan than it was during the previous eight years: 7.5 percent vs. 6.6 percent.
...
PAUL MATHIS :
Lyin' Ryan
"In 1981 the Kemp-Roth bill was signed into law, lowering tax rates, spurring growth, and putting millions of Americans back
to work."
So the tax cuts reduced growth and increased unemployment. Those are FACTS
PAUL MATHIS -> pgl...
The Question Was the Effect of the 1981 Tax Cuts
Ryan says they were positive for growth and jobs. They were not based on the ensuing facts.
Obviously many other things were happening but Ryan made a clear statement that was a lie and that needs to be called out.
pgl -> PAUL MATHIS...
In his first economic text Greg Mankiw (pre Bush Kool Aid) laid this out nicely. Inward shift of the national savings schedule,
higher real interest rates, and the crowding-out of investment. Which lowers long-term growth in the standard Solow model. QED!
"Politics abhors a vacuum. In 2019, the People's Party filled it.
Its platform called for getting big money out of politics, ending "crony capitalism," abolishing corporate welfare, stopping
the revolving door between government and the private sector, and busting up the big Wall Street banks and corporate monopolies.
The People's Party also pledged to revoke the Trans Pacific Partnership, hike taxes on the rich to pay for a wage subsidy (a
vastly expanded Earned Income Tax Credit) for everyone earning below the median, and raise taxes on corporations that outsource
jobs abroad or pay their executives more than 100 times the pay of typical Americans.
Americans rallied to the cause. Millions who called themselves conservatives and Tea Partiers joined with millions who called
themselves liberals and progressives against a political establishment that had shown itself incapable of hearing what they had
been demanding for years."
Will Democrats and Republicans becoming out of touch with voters and illegitimate representatives of the will of the people,
it's time to register your disgust--vote third party!
[Not voting only communicates apathy, which is fine with the elites.]
Ben Groves :
Boomers were driving up the labor force, driving up unemployment.
If you want to be clear, this happened to Jimmy Carter in the late 70's when that expansion was peaking.
The bigger the growth rate of total population, the faster GDP must grow.........and vice versa. Why do you think the classical
liberals hated Malthus so much?
pgl :
Bruce may be right here but this includes business cycle effects:
"Republicans like to say that massive growth followed the Reagan tax cut. But average real GDP growth during Reagan's
eight years in the White House was only slightly above the rate of the previous eight years: 3.4 percent per year vs. 2.9 percent."
Using the typical measure of potential output, we can do this on the terms that supply-siders preach. Long-term growth. This
growth was around 3.5% before 1981. It was also 3.5% after 1992. But during the Reagan-Bush41 years, it was only 3%. You see -
this tax cut raised real interest rates and crowded out investment.
Paul Ryan wants to pretend he's a smart guy. If he is - then he knows this. Which means he is lying to us.
Yesterday when Brussels was attacked – my police department went into action to insure my subway rides were safe. My mayor
took a subway ride to Times Square which showed courage. So what does the slime ball Cruz do?
'Republican presidential hopeful Ted Cruz swooped into Manhattan Wednesday and promptly hit Mayor de Blasio below the belt
when he said cops who turned their backs on him were speaking for all Americans." When heroes of NYPD stood up and turned their
backs on Mayor de Blasio, they spoke not just for the men and women of New York, but for Americans all across this nation," said
Cruz at the GOP Party & Women's National Republican Club in Midtown.'
There has been tension as our police have to patrol as we march against how the police that murdered Eric Garner got off from
prosecution. And then the horror of two of them murdered in cold blood by some crazed person from Baltimore. A few cops did turn
their backs as the mayor honored these two brave cops. Most of the NYPD, however, was appalled at this garbage. Had I known Cruz
was coming here to insult my city – I would have been there protesting. But my mayor handled this the right way:
'De Blasio and NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton were two of the most vocal critics, with Bratton saying it was so out of line
it showed why he'd never win the White House race. He doesn't know the hell what he is talking about, to be frank with you," Bratton
said. "While he's running around here, he probably has some Muslim officers guarding him." Later, during an radio interview, Bratton
went after the Texas senator again on the monitoring." He is maligning a whole population group. A religion. That's not the American
way," Bratton said on "The John Gambling Show" on AM970. "Mr. Cruz showed his naivete of the police department. I don't recall
Mr. Cruz in uniform at any time fighting for his country. This election campaign is painting everyone with the broad brush. We
focus on people committing the crime the disorder, not the population."'
Bratton is the best police commissioner in the nation! My only regret is that the NYPD did not arrest Cruz and toss him
in jail for a few days.
eudaimonia :
Except the tax cut story does not hold up for a couple of reason.
(i) It implies that high taxation was responsible for the stagnant economy. Therefore, reducing taxes would unleash growth.
The early 80's recessions was not caused by high taxation and growth was just as strong before.
(ii) Reagan actually passed a significant tax increase in 1982; TERFA. Some have actually called it the largest peacetime
tax increase in history.
(iii) Supply-siders completely ignore interest rates. The federal funds rate fell from 19% in July 1981 to 8.5% in February
1983. That looks like good ol' fashion Keynesianism at work.
It is simply a comfortable story that conservatives tell themselves in order to validate slashing taxes on the rich, cut discretionary
non-military spending, and explode military spending and our deficits.
However, like in an echo-chamber for 3-4 decades, they will not come to terms with this.
In my opinion, this is a typical colour revolution. The US has so often used the mechanism of "colour revolutions" in other
countries that they were unable to remove this cup from their lips.
On the Internet there have been discovered vacancies for special jobs and groups, for which protesters have been paid. Clinton
is making use of such "love of the people" that she has to buy support. I am curious about when the protesters are going to start
building barricades and setting up tents. Stocks of Victoria Nuland biscuits will certainly come in useful.
As with the Ukrainian events, the driving force of the protest consists of a minority. However, the threats issuing from them
should hardly be ignored. Experience of colour revolutions has repeatedly proven that an active minority is able to win over a passive
majority.
Meanwhile, the majority of Americans are looking on with bewilderment and humour. Most Americans say that media lies have been
involved in causing the protests. As you know, until the last moment the media and sociologists in the US preferred that Clinton
win, which has caused this dissonance on the part of the people after the announcement of the election results. Press propaganda
was so strong that a fortnight before the election an Irish bookmaker lost any belief that Trump could win and began to pay out to
those who had put money on Clinton.
Dissonance has served as an additional catalyst in conjunction with bribery. Many Americans in the social media have been wondering
why the protesters have so much free time. The very possibility of protesting has surprised US citizens, because the protest is against
the legitimately elected President. Republicans noted that in 2008 and 2012 there were no protests, although they, too, were not
satisfied that Obama had become President.
A split has been planned in American society, which many have heralded regardless of the outcome of the election. However, the
elite group standing behind Clinton intends to extend this split. Truly, these crazy people are willing to do anything for the sake
of having power over everything.
Trump's elite group is also not sitting by idly, for the police are on their side in that they are preventing riots and arresting
provocateurs. In addition, they have shown that if police measures fail to suppress the protests, then it will come to using unidentified
snipers. Events in Seattle, where unknown persons shot five Clinton supporters, have served as a kind of warning.
Reply
A website that gives a representative presentation of the mentality is
We Hunted The Mammoth . The presentation story is that they are
attacking the "alt right" by mocking the latter. In general, the website is suspiciously ad-heavy, but a perusal of the comments
on a typical blogpost is enlightening-these are the kind of people who get used in a Maidan type of scenario. Note that they are
not trying to make fun of the Maidan.
The attitude is heavily unthinking, and there is a code for commenting, failure of complying with which is a short route to
being banned. The few regular members of their community that do tend to think tend to suffer abuse for their "transgressions"
that makes the stereotypical student Maoist party look sober by comparison. And they completely buy the Russia-phobia, and "Putin
stole our election" is an important topic in the discussion on the top posting. The blog postings are insubstantial button pushing
exercises. These people are a very representative example of the (so-called middle class) North American rejection of the modus
tollens, although that may be giving them too much credit-I doubt that they could enumerate their own premises. Most of the regular
comments are highly emotional exchanges that are frankly embarrassing.
I call them representative. I have had several North American roommates who could easily be among their regular commentators.
As an example, they refuse to see blood-shed, even for the purpose of being aware of ongoing state crimes. But they are very happy
to believe that enemy states are committing vast crimes, thus a certain emotional and pseudo-intellectual posture, reminiscent
of BH Levy. To engage in what appears to be their premises is to become fodder for their abuse. The tragedy is that youth from
poorer families get pulled into these cults, and their fathers don't have funds to retain lawyers when said youth get into trouble
on account of these clowns. It is hipster/kreakl incubation, and the poorer youth that get involved simply become a loss to their
parents and friends. That website is a hipster/kreakl incubator cult.
Reply
Yes, I know what exactly what you mean and recognize the types that you describe.
When I was 20, I dropped out of higher education and drifted for a while, eventually finding my niche in society working
in a local coal mine. I worked there until I was 35, and then I found myself out on my ear - along with about 180,000 others
- in 1985, I left the UK to work in Germany, only to return to higher education in the UK in 1988. That's when I first came
across these intolerant "liberals".
My first altercation with such types, the existence of which I had scarcely noticed some 20 years previously, was the result
of my stating in their company that I, as a devout unbeliever, needed no middle-eastern superstitions and moral strictures
rammed down my throat under the guise of religion.
Because I said "middle-eastern", a young woman then started screaming at me that I was a racist and threatened me with physical
violence, presumably to be meted out by those who thought like her and with the purpose that I be mended of the errors of my
"racist" ways.
Ironically, I left for foreign shores in '85 after having served time in prison following my conviction for public order
offences 2 weeks before the year-long British coal-miners' strike, a dispute in which the police had labelled me as an "activist".
Even more ironically, I remember a police sergeant saying to me when I was arrested for the umpteenth and final time during
the course of a year, which arrest led to my receiving a custodial sentence: "Why don't you just fuck off to Russia and join
your Commie pals?"
Reply
I worked there until I was 35, and then I found myself out on my ear - along with about 180,000 others - in 1985. I left
the UK to work in Germany, only to return to higher education in the UK in 1988. That's when I first came across these intolerant
"liberals"….
…2 weeks before the end of a year-long British coal-miners' strike, a dispute in which the police had labelled me
as an "activist".
Reply
Moscow Exile
says:
November 11, 2016 at 5:33 am I never knew any Russians before I arrived here, and it wasn't Russia then: it was the
Soviet Union. I wasn't a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain either, and never was acquainted with any.
I left the SU in June 1990 and when I returned to Mother Russia 2 years later, the USSR was history.
The only former CPSU party member here that I now know really well is my wife, and she was only a party member for
less than a year before the CP was abolished in 1991.
The cop who suggested that I go to join my "Commie friends" in Russia was just a dimwit trying to be smart and who
thought that the bulk of the members of organized labour in the UK were foolishly led by Kremlin agents.
In view of the fact that I had just made an open-air speech in London when I received his boorish advice, he no doubt
took me for one of "the enemy within", as the then prime minister once publicly labelled trade union "militants".
Reply
Moscow Exile
says:
November 11, 2016 at 5:41 am And no, I do not regret moving here. In fact, I wish I had come here years earlier
and met my wife when she was in her 20s - she was 32 when we married - rather than living a life that I now, in hindsight,
recognize as having been one of sheer, mind-numbing drudgery, not to mention the inherent dangers and unhealthy nature
of my old job, albeit that I thought I was living the life of Reilly when I was in my 20s and early 30s.
And I never have even the slightest desire to move back to the UK or to anywhere else, for that matter.
Reply
Northern Star says:
November 10, 2016 at 3:10 pm Hmmmm..American MSM is trying to keep the Seattle shootings 'hushed up'…so to speak.. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-09/4-shot-during-seattle-anti-trump-protest
When gfs or bfs start dying….people are gonna start to shoot back…then it's on….
My read of it is that the heavily militarized American police are decidedly with Trump. not to mention National Guard and Army
Reserves and regular Army combat units if needed.
So it would be a bloodbath for the anti Trump people ..initially…but then again those who were to become partisan guerlla units
in Nazi occupied europe..at first suffered huge losses under the SS and Wehrmacht reprisals and attacks…but then the tide turned….
Reply
yalensis
says:
November 11, 2016 at 5:25 am Well, not to burst your bubble, N.S., but the anti-Nazi partisans in Europe never stood
a chance against the German war machine. A few underground spies and resistors here and there can do basically zero against
a machine. And all that propaganda about the so-called "French Resistance" is basically a B.S. myth creaed by losers trying
to regain a shred of dignity retroactively.
The only "tide that turned" for the "Resistance" was when the Red Army was approaching, and the underground could finally
get some real support on the ground.
yalensis
says:
November 11, 2016 at 5:20 am That's very interesting. According to that Post piece, at least 20 Trump electors would have
to become "faithless" and vote for Clinton, in order for her to get the presidency.
I doubt if this could happen, but you never know.
Reply
Moscow Exile
says:
November 10, 2016 at 9:18 pm That's referred to in the translation of the article "Clinton is preparing a colour revolution
in the United States" I posted above:
Trump's elite group is also not sitting by idly, for the police are on their side in that they are preventing riots and
arresting provocateurs. In addition, they have shown that if police measures fail to suppress the protests, then it will come
to using unidentified snipers. Events in Seattle, where unknown persons shot five Clinton supporters, have served as a kind
of warning .
yalensis
says:
November 11, 2016 at 5:50 am This bit is alarming: Trump, who has been complimentary about Putin and Russia in a manner that prompted accusations from his Democratic rival
Hillary Clinton that he was a "puppet", has in the past mused about having Snowden killed. Trump's major national security
ally, the retired general and former Defense Intelligence Agency chief Michael Flynn, oversaw a highly speculative DIA report
that claimed Snowden took from the NSA a larger trove of documents than ever confirmed based on what Snowden could access as
a contract systems administrator.
"Snowden is a spy who has caused great damage in the US. A spy in the old days, when our country was respected and strong,
would be executed," Trump tweeted in 2014.
I am really impressed by Snowden's response to this, his quiet bravery, and his overall philosophical outlook. He is a real
man and a real thinker.
Reply
"Der Untergang" was a 2004 award winning film depicting Hitler's last days in the Berlin Führerbunker as the victorious Red Army
was drawing ever closer.
There is a memorable scene in the film where Hitler goes into a magnificent rant against some generals whilst outside in a corridor
his entourage, secretaries, servants and lackeys listen on dismayed. This scene has been dubbed many times and gone viral with subtitles
showing that Hitler is ranting against more mundane, present-day events.
I am sure there will soon be another "Der Untergang" clip done showing Hitler ranting on about Trump's victory/Clinton's defeat.
Here is a typical example of such a mischievously subtitled rant that shows Hitler going lulu about the UK Brexit vote:
The 2016 picture (above) was allegedly taken yesterday, Thursday,10th November, and claims to show White House staffers witnessing
Donald Trump's visit to Obama on Thursday.
It went viral after having first appeared thus:
However, the photo was actually taken when President Obama spoke from the Rose Garden the day before,on Wednesday, 9th November,
congratulating Trump on winning the election.
Trump was not there.
Nevertheless, the gang looks glum.
Bear in mind, that sad-sack in the middle always has a face that looks like a slapped arse.
Reply
Nonetheless, the plan is unlikely to succeed. According to the Daily Dot, at least 29 states, along with the District of
Columbia, require electors to vote for the candidate who won their state's vote. In U.S. history, there have only been 157 "faithless
electors," who defy their state's vote. That's less than 1 percent, and 71 of those 157 faithless electors changed their vote
because of the death of the candidate their state had voted for.
In fact, I read earlier today that Clinton's majority of 200,000 in the popular vote represents about 1% of the electorate.
Reminds me of when much was made of by the MSM that protests in Moscow against alleged discrepancies in the presidential ballot
peaked at about 800,000 (a very liberal estimate - no pun intended). That represents about 0.5% of the Moscow population, and
none of the protesters were bused in, of course, or received payment: the very thought!
Reply
So whose president have those folks in the counties that appear red below?
These California kreakles know full well that the system of an electoral college was put into place in order to prevent the opinions
of voters in the populous centres overwhelming those in the backwoods, that on the popular vote count Clinton won by a margin of
about 300,000 in fewer states but more populous states, whereas Trump, though having won fewer votes than Clinton, won far more states
than did his opponent. They know that the president is chosen according to the number of electors' votes, i../ the votes of states,
that are cast for a presidential candidate.
They know that. They know the rules, the system. They just do not like the result.
And if the boot were on the other foot, would thy howl "Unfair"?
Reply
yalensis
says:
November 11, 2016 at 8:28 am Of course these kreakles would and did howl "unfair".
When Gore won the popular vote but W became Prez, they screamed bloody murder and vowed to abolish the electoral college. But
then they never did it.
Many people in America have called for the abolition of the electoral college and switching to popular vote. It might happen
someday. The reality is that it would take a constitutional amendment to pull off. And that takes a lot of work and organization.
Which everybody is too lazy to undertake.
Reply
Moscow Exile
says:
November 11, 2016 at 9:08 am When by asking: "And if the boot were on the other foot, would they howl "Unfair"?" I meant
would the Hillary supporters have thought the system flawed if she had won the electoral college vote and had, therefore, become
president, but Trump had won the popular vote and not been elected president.
The staffer, named 'Zach,' showed her up in front of 150 DNC employees
He called her 'part of the problem' and Hillary Clinton 'a flawed candidate'
Zach also blamed the DNC for 'plotting' against Bernie Sanders
Sanders could have taken Trump due to anti-status-quo attitude, fans say
Democrats are divided into Clinton elites and Sanders progressives
The party must now embrace Sanders' vision, insiders say
####
By the rivers of Klintonshire, where the shock sets in,
Ye-eah we cried, for we stiffed dear Bernie…
I wonder if the British Labor party is taking any note over what was done to Bernie and the self-inflicted consequences? Jez we
can!
Reply
marknesop
says:
November 11, 2016 at 9:46 am I, too, believe that Sanders could have beaten Trump. But that's based on projections, which
turned out to be completely wrong for Clinton, so who knows? But I believe Clinton's demonizations and hysteria mobilized Trump
voters, where Sanders would likely have taken a less confrontational stand.
marknesop says:
November 11, 2016 at 9:28 am
It's a pity Russia chose to go that route, as it confers unmerited recognition. They might have
been better to just go with a list entitled, "Americans We Think Are Dozy And Delusional". McFaul would certainly have made that
one, as would most of his contemporaries.
Reply
Moscow Exile says:
November 11, 2016 at 9:47 am
A source in Russia's Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed to the TASS news agency that
McFaul has indeed been added to the Kremlin's sanctions list. "Michael McFaul is in fact on our 'mirror' list of sanctions,
which he knew," the source told TASS. "He was added to it in response to the U.S. visa sanctions on Russian citizens. Only
Michael McFaul is wrong, as usual: he wasn't put on the list for being 'close to Obama,' as he wrote, but for actively taking
part in the destruction of bilateral relations and his consistent campaign lobbying to pressure Russia."
"... The "Obama Doctrine" a continuation of the previous false government doctrines in my lifetime, is less doctrine than the disease,
as David Swanson points out . But in the article he critiques, the neoconservative warmongering global planning freak perspective (truly,
we must recognize this view as freakish, sociopathic, death-cultish, control-obsessed, narcissist, take your pick or get a combo, it's
all good). Disease, as a way of understanding the deep state action on the body politic, is abnormal. It can and should be cured. ..."
"... The deep state seems to have grown, strengthened and tightened its grip. Can a lack of real money restrain or starve it? I
once thought so, and maybe I still do. But it doesn't use real money, but rather debt and creative financing to get that next new car,
er, war and intervention and domestic spending program. Ultimately it's not sustainable, and just as unaffordable cars are junked, stripped,
repossessed, and crunched up, so will go the way of the physical assets of the warfare–welfare state. ..."
"... Because inflated salaries , inflated stock prices and inflated ruling-class personalities are month to month, these should
evaporate more quickly, over a debris field once known as some of richest counties in the United States. Can I imagine the shabbiest
of trailer parks in the dismal swamp, where high rises and government basilicas and abbeys once stood? I'd certainly like to. But I'll
settle for well-kept, privately owned house trailers, filled with people actually producing some small value for society, and minding
their own business. ..."
"... Finally, what of those pinpricks of light, the honest assessments of the real death trail and consumption pit that the deep
state has delivered? Well, it is growing and broadening. Wikileaks and Snowden are considered assets now to any and all competitors
to the US deep state, from within and from abroad – the Pandora's box, assisted by technology, can't be closed now. The independent
media has matured to the point of criticizing and debating itself/each other, as well as focusing harsh light on the establishment media.
Instead of left and right mainstream media, we increasingly recognize state media, and delightedly observe its own struggle to survive
in the face of a growing nervousness of the deep state it assists on command. ..."
"... Watch an old program like"Yes, Minister" to understand how it works. Politicians come and go, but the permanent state apparatchiks
doesn't. ..."
"... The "deep state" programs, whether conceived and directed by Soros' handlers, or others, risks unintended consequences. The
social division intended by BLM, for example could easily morph beyond the goals. The lack of law due to corruption is equally susceptible
to a spontaneous reaction of "the mob," not under the control of the Tavistock handlers. There's an old saying on Wall St; pigs get
fat, hogs get slaughtered. ..."
So, after getting up late, groggy, and feeling overworked even before I started, I read
this article . Just
after, I had to feed a dozen cats and dogs, each dog in a separate room out of respect for their territorialism and aggressive desire
to consume more than they should (hmm, where have I seen this before), and in the process, forgot where I put my coffee cup. Retracing
steps, I finally find it and sit back down to my 19-inch window on the ugly (and perhaps remote) world of the state, and the endless
pinpricks of the independent media on its vast overwhelmingly evil existence. I suspect I share this distractibility and daily estrangement
from the actions of our government with most Americans .
We are newly bombing Libya and still messing with the Middle East? I thought that the wars the deep state wanted and started were
now limited and constrained! What happened to lack of funds, lack of popular support, public transparency that revealed the stupidity
and abject failure of these wars?
Deep state. Something systemic, difficult to detect, hard to remove, hidden. It is a spirit as much as nerves and organ.
How do your starve it, excise it, or just make it go away? We want to know. I think this explains the popularity of infotainment
about haunted houses, ghosts and alien beings among us. They live and we are curious
and scared.
The "Obama Doctrine" a continuation of the previous false government doctrines in my lifetime, is less doctrine than the
disease, as David Swanson points out . But in the article he critiques, the neoconservative warmongering global planning freak
perspective (truly, we must recognize this view as freakish, sociopathic, death-cultish, control-obsessed, narcissist, take your
pick or get a combo, it's all good). Disease, as a way of understanding the deep state action on the body politic, is abnormal. It
can and should be cured.
My summary of the long Jeffrey Goldberg piece is basically that Obama has become more fatalistic (did he mean to say fatal?) since
he won that Nobel
Peace Prize back in 2009 . By the way, the "Nobel prize" article contains this gem, sure to get a chuckle:
"Obama's drone program is regularly criticized for a lack of transparency and accountability, especially considering incomplete
intelligence means officials are often unsure about who will die. "
[M]ost individuals killed are not on a kill list, and the government does not know their names," Micah Zenko, a scholar at
the Council on Foreign Relations told the New York Times."
This is about all the fun I can handle in one day. But back to what I was trying to say.
The deep state seems to have grown, strengthened and tightened its grip. Can a lack of real money restrain or starve it? I
once thought so, and maybe I still do. But it doesn't use real money, but rather debt and creative financing to get that next new
car, er, war and intervention and domestic spending program. Ultimately it's not sustainable, and just as unaffordable cars are junked,
stripped, repossessed, and crunched up, so will go the way of the physical assets of the warfare–welfare state.
Because
inflated salaries ,
inflated
stock prices and inflated ruling-class personalities
are month to month, these should evaporate more quickly, over a debris field
once known as some of richest
counties in the United States. Can I imagine the shabbiest of trailer parks in the dismal swamp, where high rises and government
basilicas and abbeys once stood? I'd certainly like to. But I'll settle for well-kept, privately owned house trailers, filled with
people actually producing some small value for society, and minding their own business.
Can a lack of public support reduce the deep state, or impact it? Well, it would seem that this is a non-factor, except for the
strange history we have had and are witnessing again today, with the odd successful popular and populist-leaning politician and their
related movements. In my lifetime, only popular figures and their movements get assassinated mysteriously, with odd polka dot dresses,
MKULTRA suggestions, threats against their family by their competitors (I'm thinking Perot, but one mustn't be limited to that case),
and always with concordant pressures on the sociopolitical seams in the country, i.e riots and police/military activations. The
bad dealings toward, and genuine fear
of, Bernie Sanders within the Democratic Party's wing of the deep state is matched or exceeded only by the genuine terror of
Trump among the Republican deep state wing. This reaction to something or some person that so many in the country find engaging and
appealing - an outsider who speaks to the growing political and economic dissatisfaction of a poorer, more indebted, and
more regulated population – is
heart-warming, to be sure. It is a sign that whether or not we do, the deep state thinks things might change. Thank you, Bernie and
especially Donald, for revealing this much! And the "republicanization" of the Libertarian Party is also a bright indicator blinking
out the potential of deep state movement and compromise in the pursuit of "stability."
Finally, what of those pinpricks of light, the honest assessments of the real death trail and consumption pit that the deep
state has delivered? Well, it is growing and broadening. Wikileaks and Snowden are considered assets now to any and all competitors
to the US deep state, from within and from abroad – the Pandora's box, assisted by technology, can't be closed now. The independent
media has matured to the point of criticizing and debating itself/each other, as well as focusing harsh light on the establishment
media. Instead of left and right mainstream media, we increasingly recognize state media, and delightedly observe its own struggle
to survive in the face of a growing nervousness of the deep state it assists on command.
Maybe we will one day soon be able to debate how deep the deep state really is, or whether it was all just a dressed up, meth'ed
up, and eff'ed up a sector of society that deserves a bit of jail time, some counseling, and a new start . Maybe some job training
that goes beyond the printing of license plates. But given the destruction and mass murder committed daily in the name of this state,
and the environmental disasters it has created around the world for the future generations, perhaps we will be no more merciful to
these proprietors of the American empire as they have been to their victims. The ruling class deeply fears our judgment, and in this
dynamic lies the cure.
LIST OF DEMANDS TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FROM FINANCIAL CATASTROPHE
I.CURB CORRUPTION AND EXCESSIVE POWER IN THE FINANCIAL ARMS OF THE US GOVERNMENT
A. FEDERAL RESERVE
1. Benjaman Bernanke to be removed as Chairman immediately
2. New York Federal Reserve Bank and all New York City offices of the Federal Reserve system will be closed for at least 3
years
3. Salaries will be reduced and capped at $150,000/year, adjusted for official inflation
4. Staffing count to be reduced to 1980 levels
5. Interest rate manipulation to be prohibited for at least five years
6. Balance sheet manipulation to be prohibited for at least five years
7. Financial asset purchases prohibited for at least five years
B. TREASURY DEPARTMENT
1. Timothy Geithner to be removed as Secretary immediately
2. All New York City offices of the Department will be closed for at least 3 years
3. Salaries will be reduced and capped at $150,000/year, adjusted for official inflation
4. Staffing count to be reduced to 1980 levels
5. Market manipulation/intervention to be prohibited for at least five years
7. Financial asset purchases prohibited for at least five years
II. END THE CORRUPTING INFLUENCE OF GIANT BANKS AND PROTECT AMERICANS FROM FURTHER EXPOSURE TO THEIR COLLAPSE
A. END CORRUPT INFLUENCE
1. Lifetime ban on government employment for TARP recipient employees and corporate officers, specifically including Goldman
Sachs and JP Morgan Chase
2. Ten year ban on government work for consulting firms, law firms, and individual consultants and lawyers who have accepted
cash from these entities
3. All contacts by any method with federal agencies and employees prohibited for at least five years, with civil and criminal
penalties for violation
B. PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM FURTHER HARM AT THE HANDS OF GIANT BANKS
1. No financial institution with assets of more than $10billion will receive federal assistance or any 'arm's-length' bailouts
2. TARP recipients are prohibited from purchasing other TARP recipient corporate units, or merging with other TARP recipients
3. No foreign interest shall be allowed to acquire any portion of TARP recipients in the US or abroad
III. PREVENT CORPORATE ACCOUNTING AND PENSION FUND ABUSES RELATED TO THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS
A. CORPORATE ACCOUNTING
1. Immediately implement mark-to-market accounting rules which were improperly suspended, allowing six months for implementation.
2. Companies must reserve against impaired assets under mark-to-market rules
3. Any health or life insurance company with more than$100 million in assets must report on their holdings and risk factors,
specifically including exposure to real estate, mortgage-backed securities, derivatives, and other exotic financial instruments.
These reports will be to state insurance commissions and the federal government, and will also be made available to the public
on the Internet.
B. PENSION FUNDS
1. All private and public pension funds must disclose their funding status and establish a plan to fully fund accounts under
the assumption that net real returns across all asset classes remain at zero for at least ten years.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: You know what happens when politicians get into Number 10; they want to take their place on the
world stage.
Sir Richard Wharton: People on stages are called actors. All they are required to do is look plausible, stay sober,
and say the lines they're given in the right order.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Some of them try to make up their own lines.
The "deep state" programs, whether conceived and directed by Soros' handlers, or others, risks unintended consequences.
The social division intended by BLM, for example could easily morph beyond the goals. The lack of law due to corruption is equally
susceptible to a spontaneous reaction of "the mob," not under the control of the Tavistock handlers. There's an old saying on
Wall St; pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.
The failed coup in Turkey is a significant indication of institutional weakness and also vulnerability. The inability to exercise
force of will in Syria is another. The list of failures is getting too long.
"... The "Obama Doctrine" a continuation of the previous false government doctrines in my lifetime, is less doctrine than the disease,
as David Swanson points out . But in the article he critiques, the neoconservative warmongering global planning freak perspective (truly,
we must recognize this view as freakish, sociopathic, death-cultish, control-obsessed, narcissist, take your pick or get a combo, it's
all good). Disease, as a way of understanding the deep state action on the body politic, is abnormal. It can and should be cured. ..."
"... The deep state seems to have grown, strengthened and tightened its grip. Can a lack of real money restrain or starve it? I
once thought so, and maybe I still do. But it doesn't use real money, but rather debt and creative financing to get that next new car,
er, war and intervention and domestic spending program. Ultimately it's not sustainable, and just as unaffordable cars are junked, stripped,
repossessed, and crunched up, so will go the way of the physical assets of the warfare–welfare state. ..."
"... Because inflated salaries , inflated stock prices and inflated ruling-class personalities are month to month, these should
evaporate more quickly, over a debris field once known as some of richest counties in the United States. Can I imagine the shabbiest
of trailer parks in the dismal swamp, where high rises and government basilicas and abbeys once stood? I'd certainly like to. But I'll
settle for well-kept, privately owned house trailers, filled with people actually producing some small value for society, and minding
their own business. ..."
"... Finally, what of those pinpricks of light, the honest assessments of the real death trail and consumption pit that the deep
state has delivered? Well, it is growing and broadening. Wikileaks and Snowden are considered assets now to any and all competitors
to the US deep state, from within and from abroad – the Pandora's box, assisted by technology, can't be closed now. The independent
media has matured to the point of criticizing and debating itself/each other, as well as focusing harsh light on the establishment media.
Instead of left and right mainstream media, we increasingly recognize state media, and delightedly observe its own struggle to survive
in the face of a growing nervousness of the deep state it assists on command. ..."
"... Watch an old program like"Yes, Minister" to understand how it works. Politicians come and go, but the permanent state apparatchiks
doesn't. ..."
"... The "deep state" programs, whether conceived and directed by Soros' handlers, or others, risks unintended consequences. The
social division intended by BLM, for example could easily morph beyond the goals. The lack of law due to corruption is equally susceptible
to a spontaneous reaction of "the mob," not under the control of the Tavistock handlers. There's an old saying on Wall St; pigs get
fat, hogs get slaughtered. ..."
So, after getting up late, groggy, and feeling overworked even before I started, I read
this article . Just
after, I had to feed a dozen cats and dogs, each dog in a separate room out of respect for their territorialism and aggressive desire
to consume more than they should (hmm, where have I seen this before), and in the process, forgot where I put my coffee cup. Retracing
steps, I finally find it and sit back down to my 19-inch window on the ugly (and perhaps remote) world of the state, and the endless
pinpricks of the independent media on its vast overwhelmingly evil existence. I suspect I share this distractibility and daily estrangement
from the actions of our government with most Americans .
We are newly bombing Libya and still messing with the Middle East? I thought that the wars the deep state wanted and started were
now limited and constrained! What happened to lack of funds, lack of popular support, public transparency that revealed the stupidity
and abject failure of these wars?
Deep state. Something systemic, difficult to detect, hard to remove, hidden. It is a spirit as much as nerves and organ.
How do your starve it, excise it, or just make it go away? We want to know. I think this explains the popularity of infotainment
about haunted houses, ghosts and alien beings among us. They live and we are curious
and scared.
The "Obama Doctrine" a continuation of the previous false government doctrines in my lifetime, is less doctrine than the
disease, as David Swanson points out . But in the article he critiques, the neoconservative warmongering global planning freak
perspective (truly, we must recognize this view as freakish, sociopathic, death-cultish, control-obsessed, narcissist, take your
pick or get a combo, it's all good). Disease, as a way of understanding the deep state action on the body politic, is abnormal. It
can and should be cured.
My summary of the long Jeffrey Goldberg piece is basically that Obama has become more fatalistic (did he mean to say fatal?) since
he won that Nobel
Peace Prize back in 2009 . By the way, the "Nobel prize" article contains this gem, sure to get a chuckle:
"Obama's drone program is regularly criticized for a lack of transparency and accountability, especially considering incomplete
intelligence means officials are often unsure about who will die. "
[M]ost individuals killed are not on a kill list, and the government does not know their names," Micah Zenko, a scholar at
the Council on Foreign Relations told the New York Times."
This is about all the fun I can handle in one day. But back to what I was trying to say.
The deep state seems to have grown, strengthened and tightened its grip. Can a lack of real money restrain or starve it? I
once thought so, and maybe I still do. But it doesn't use real money, but rather debt and creative financing to get that next new
car, er, war and intervention and domestic spending program. Ultimately it's not sustainable, and just as unaffordable cars are junked,
stripped, repossessed, and crunched up, so will go the way of the physical assets of the warfare–welfare state.
Because
inflated salaries ,
inflated
stock prices and inflated ruling-class personalities
are month to month, these should evaporate more quickly, over a debris field
once known as some of richest
counties in the United States. Can I imagine the shabbiest of trailer parks in the dismal swamp, where high rises and government
basilicas and abbeys once stood? I'd certainly like to. But I'll settle for well-kept, privately owned house trailers, filled with
people actually producing some small value for society, and minding their own business.
Can a lack of public support reduce the deep state, or impact it? Well, it would seem that this is a non-factor, except for the
strange history we have had and are witnessing again today, with the odd successful popular and populist-leaning politician and their
related movements. In my lifetime, only popular figures and their movements get assassinated mysteriously, with odd polka dot dresses,
MKULTRA suggestions, threats against their family by their competitors (I'm thinking Perot, but one mustn't be limited to that case),
and always with concordant pressures on the sociopolitical seams in the country, i.e riots and police/military activations. The
bad dealings toward, and genuine fear
of, Bernie Sanders within the Democratic Party's wing of the deep state is matched or exceeded only by the genuine terror of
Trump among the Republican deep state wing. This reaction to something or some person that so many in the country find engaging and
appealing - an outsider who speaks to the growing political and economic dissatisfaction of a poorer, more indebted, and
more regulated population – is
heart-warming, to be sure. It is a sign that whether or not we do, the deep state thinks things might change. Thank you, Bernie and
especially Donald, for revealing this much! And the "republicanization" of the Libertarian Party is also a bright indicator blinking
out the potential of deep state movement and compromise in the pursuit of "stability."
Finally, what of those pinpricks of light, the honest assessments of the real death trail and consumption pit that the deep
state has delivered? Well, it is growing and broadening. Wikileaks and Snowden are considered assets now to any and all competitors
to the US deep state, from within and from abroad – the Pandora's box, assisted by technology, can't be closed now. The independent
media has matured to the point of criticizing and debating itself/each other, as well as focusing harsh light on the establishment
media. Instead of left and right mainstream media, we increasingly recognize state media, and delightedly observe its own struggle
to survive in the face of a growing nervousness of the deep state it assists on command.
Maybe we will one day soon be able to debate how deep the deep state really is, or whether it was all just a dressed up, meth'ed
up, and eff'ed up a sector of society that deserves a bit of jail time, some counseling, and a new start . Maybe some job training
that goes beyond the printing of license plates. But given the destruction and mass murder committed daily in the name of this state,
and the environmental disasters it has created around the world for the future generations, perhaps we will be no more merciful to
these proprietors of the American empire as they have been to their victims. The ruling class deeply fears our judgment, and in this
dynamic lies the cure.
LIST OF DEMANDS TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FROM FINANCIAL CATASTROPHE
I.CURB CORRUPTION AND EXCESSIVE POWER IN THE FINANCIAL ARMS OF THE US GOVERNMENT
A. FEDERAL RESERVE
1. Benjaman Bernanke to be removed as Chairman immediately
2. New York Federal Reserve Bank and all New York City offices of the Federal Reserve system will be closed for at least 3
years
3. Salaries will be reduced and capped at $150,000/year, adjusted for official inflation
4. Staffing count to be reduced to 1980 levels
5. Interest rate manipulation to be prohibited for at least five years
6. Balance sheet manipulation to be prohibited for at least five years
7. Financial asset purchases prohibited for at least five years
B. TREASURY DEPARTMENT
1. Timothy Geithner to be removed as Secretary immediately
2. All New York City offices of the Department will be closed for at least 3 years
3. Salaries will be reduced and capped at $150,000/year, adjusted for official inflation
4. Staffing count to be reduced to 1980 levels
5. Market manipulation/intervention to be prohibited for at least five years
7. Financial asset purchases prohibited for at least five years
II. END THE CORRUPTING INFLUENCE OF GIANT BANKS AND PROTECT AMERICANS FROM FURTHER EXPOSURE TO THEIR COLLAPSE
A. END CORRUPT INFLUENCE
1. Lifetime ban on government employment for TARP recipient employees and corporate officers, specifically including Goldman
Sachs and JP Morgan Chase
2. Ten year ban on government work for consulting firms, law firms, and individual consultants and lawyers who have accepted
cash from these entities
3. All contacts by any method with federal agencies and employees prohibited for at least five years, with civil and criminal
penalties for violation
B. PROTECT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE FROM FURTHER HARM AT THE HANDS OF GIANT BANKS
1. No financial institution with assets of more than $10billion will receive federal assistance or any 'arm's-length' bailouts
2. TARP recipients are prohibited from purchasing other TARP recipient corporate units, or merging with other TARP recipients
3. No foreign interest shall be allowed to acquire any portion of TARP recipients in the US or abroad
III. PREVENT CORPORATE ACCOUNTING AND PENSION FUND ABUSES RELATED TO THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS
A. CORPORATE ACCOUNTING
1. Immediately implement mark-to-market accounting rules which were improperly suspended, allowing six months for implementation.
2. Companies must reserve against impaired assets under mark-to-market rules
3. Any health or life insurance company with more than$100 million in assets must report on their holdings and risk factors,
specifically including exposure to real estate, mortgage-backed securities, derivatives, and other exotic financial instruments.
These reports will be to state insurance commissions and the federal government, and will also be made available to the public
on the Internet.
B. PENSION FUNDS
1. All private and public pension funds must disclose their funding status and establish a plan to fully fund accounts under
the assumption that net real returns across all asset classes remain at zero for at least ten years.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: You know what happens when politicians get into Number 10; they want to take their place on the
world stage.
Sir Richard Wharton: People on stages are called actors. All they are required to do is look plausible, stay sober,
and say the lines they're given in the right order.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: Some of them try to make up their own lines.
The "deep state" programs, whether conceived and directed by Soros' handlers, or others, risks unintended consequences.
The social division intended by BLM, for example could easily morph beyond the goals. The lack of law due to corruption is equally
susceptible to a spontaneous reaction of "the mob," not under the control of the Tavistock handlers. There's an old saying on
Wall St; pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered.
The failed coup in Turkey is a significant indication of institutional weakness and also vulnerability. The inability to exercise
force of will in Syria is another. The list of failures is getting too long.
An interesting article on John McCain. I disagree with the contention that McCain hid knowledge that many American POWs were left
behind (undoubtedly some voluntarily choose to remain behind but not hundreds ). However, the article touched on some ideas that
rang true:
Today when we consider the major countries of the world we see that in many cases the official leaders are also the leaders
in actuality: Vladimir Putin calls the shots in Russia, Xi Jinping and his top Politburo colleagues do the same in China, and
so forth. However, in America and in some other Western countries, this seems to be less and less the case, with top national
figures merely being attractive front-men selected for their popular appeal and their political malleability, a development that
may eventually have dire consequences for the nations they lead. As an extreme example, a drunken Boris Yeltsin freely allowed
the looting of Russia's entire national wealth by the handful of oligarchs who pulled his strings, and the result was the total
impoverishment of the Russian people and a demographic collapse almost unprecedented in modern peacetime history.
An obvious problem with installing puppet rulers is the risk that they will attempt to cut their strings, much like Putin
soon outmaneuvered and exiled his oligarch patron Boris Berezovsky.
One means of minimizing such risk is to select puppets who
are so deeply compromised that they can never break free, knowing that the political self-destruct charges buried deep within
their pasts could easily be triggered if they sought independence. I have sometimes joked with my friends that perhaps the best
career move for an ambitious young politician would be to secretly commit some monstrous crime and then make sure that the hard
evidence of his guilt ended up in the hands of certain powerful people, thereby assuring his rapid political rise.
The gist is that elite need a kill switch on their front men (and women).
Seems to be a series of pieces dealing with Vietnam POWs: the following linked item was interesting and provided a plausible explanation:
that the US failed to pay up agreed on reparations…
Remarkable and shocking. Wheels within wheels – this is the first time I have ever seen McCain's father connected with the infamous
Board of Inquiry which cleared Israel in that state's attack on USS LIBERTY during Israel's seizure of the Golan Heights.
Another stunning article in which the author makes reference to his recent acquisition of what he considers to be a reliably authentic
audio file of POW McCain's broadcasts from captivity. Dynamite stuff. The conclusion regarding aspiring untenured historians is
quite downbeat:
Also remarkable; fantastic. It's hard to believe, and a testament to the boldness of Washington dog-and-pony shows, because this
must have been well-known in insider circles in Washington – anything so damning which was not ruthlessly and professionally suppressed
and simply never allowed to become part of a national discussion would surely have been stumbled upon before now. Land of the
Cover-Up.
So when you cut through all the steam and the boilerplate, how do they plan to do it so it's
fairer to poor Ukrainians, but the state spends less?
Ah. They plan to
raise the age at which you
qualify for a pension
, doubtless among other money-savers. If the state plays its cards
right, the target demographic wil work all its adult life and then die before reaching
pensionable age. But as usual, we must be subjected to the usual western sermonizing about
how the whole initiative is all about helping people and doing good.
This is borne out in one of the other 'critical reforms' the IMF insisted upon before
releasing its next tranche of 'aid' – a land reform act which would allow Ukraine to
sell off its agricultural land
in the interests of 'creating a market'. Sure: as if.
Land-hungry western agricultural giants like Monsanto are drooling at the thought of
getting their hands on Ukraine's rich black earth
plus a chink in Europe's armor against
GMO crops. Another possible weapon to use against Russia would be the growing of huge volumes
of GMO grain so as to weaken the market for Russian grains.
Another element of the plan to reduce pension obligations is the dismantling of whatever
health care system that remain in the Ukraine. That is a twofer – save money on
providing medical services and shortening the life span. This would be another optimization
of wealth generation for the oligarchs and for those holding Ukraine debt.
I can just see Ukrainian health authorities giving away free cigarettes to patients and their
families next!
That remark was partly facetious and partly serious: life these days in the Ukraine sounds
so surreal that I wouldn't put it past the Ministry of Healthcare of Ukraine to come up with
the most hare-brained "reform" initiatives.
I recall a news story about the adverse effects of a reduction in smoking on the US Social
Security Trust Fund. Those actuaries make those calculations for a living. The trouble with
shortening life spans via cancer is that end-of-life treatment tends to be very expensive
unless
people do not have or have very basic health insurance, then there is a likely
net gain. Alcohol, murder and suicides are generally much more efficient economically. I just
depressed myself.
Something does not add up. Any government expenditure is an economic stimulus. The only
potentially negative aspect is taxation. Since taxation is not excessive and in fact too
small on key layers (e.g. companies and the rich), there is no negative aspect to government
spending on pensions. So we have here narrow-definition accounting BS.
Agree that in a world where the people, represented by their governments, are in charge of
money creation and governments ran their financial systems independently of Wall Street and
Washington, any government spending would be welcomed as stimulating economic production and
development. The money later recirculates back to the government when the people who have
jobs created by government spending pay the money back through purchases of various other
government goods and services or through their taxes.
But in capitalist societies where increasingly banks are becoming the sole creators and
suppliers of money, government spending incurs debts that have to be paid back with interest.
In the past governments also raised money for major public projects by issuing treasury bonds
and securities but that doesn't seem to happen much these days.
Unfortunately also Ukraine is surviving mainly on IMF loans and the IMF certainly doesn't
want the money to go towards social welfare spending.
In fact, the IMF specifically intervenes to prevent spending loan money on social welfare, as
a condition of extending the loan. That might have been true since time out of mind for all I
know, but it certainly was true after the first Greek bailout, when leaders blew the whole
wad on pensions and social spending so as to ensure their re-election. They then went
sheepishly back to the IMF for a second bailout. So there are good and substantial reasons
for insisting the loan money not be wasted in this fashion, as that kind of spending
customarily does not generate any meaningful follow-on spending by the recipients, and is
usually absorbed by the cost of living.
But as we are all aware, such IMF interventions have a definite political agenda as well.
In Ukraine's case, the IMF with all its political inveigling is matched against a crafty
oligarch who will lift the whole lot if he is not watched. Alternatively, he might well blow
it all on social spending to ensure his re-election, thus presenting the IMF with a dilemma
in which it must either continue to support him, or cause him to fall.
"... This comes in the wake of Evelyn Farkas' television interview last month in which the former Obama deputy secretary of defense said in part: "I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill – it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration." ..."
Multiple sources tell Fox News that Susan Rice, former national security adviser under then-President
Barack Obama, requested to unmask the names of Trump transition officials caught up in
surveillance.
The unmasked names, of people associated with Donald Trump, were then sent to all those at
the National Security Council, some at the Defense Department, then-Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper and then-CIA Director John Brennan – essentially, the officials at the top, including
former Rice deputy Ben Rhodes.
The names were part of incidental electronic surveillance of candidate and President-elect
Trump and people close to him, including family members, for up to a year before he took office.
It was not clear how Rice knew to ask for the names to be unmasked, but the question was being
posed by the sources late Monday.
... ... ...
This comes in the wake of Evelyn Farkas' television interview last month in which the former
Obama deputy secretary of defense said in part: "I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly
speaking, the people on the Hill – it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get
as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves
the administration."
... ... ...
As the Obama administration left office, it also approved new rules that gave the NSA much broader
powers by relaxing the rules about sharing intercepted personal communications and the ability
to share those with 16 other intelligence agencies.
... ... ...
Rice is no stranger to controversy. As the U.S. Ambassador to the UN, she appeared on several
Sunday news shows to defend the adminstration's later debunked claim that the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks
on a U.S. consulate in Libya was triggered by an Internet video.
Barack Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize -- for not being George W. Bush. This
seemed unseemly at the time, but not outrageous. Seven years later, it seems
grotesque.
As the steward-in-chief of the American empire, Obama continued
Bush's Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, and extended his "War on Terror" into Libya,
Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and elsewhere in Africa and the Middle East.
He also became a terrorist himself and a serial killer, weaponized drones and
special ops assassins being his weapons of choice.
"... Trump is exactly where he is today because he attacked that same party. He called bullshit on the Bush's claims to have made the US safer and called bullshit on the idea that Iraq was something that we should still do in hindsight. He trashed the idea of free trade and TTIP - another Republican shibboleth. He refused to go down the standard Republican route of trashing social security... ..."
"... All he needs to do is call bullshit on this 'evidence' of Russian hacking and remind everyone that it wasn't Russians who manned the planes on 9/11. Trump is a oafish clown - but he's not a standard politician playing standard politics. He can shrug off this oh-so-clever manoeuvre by Obama with no trouble. ..."
"... Sanctions = token gestures that will soon fade into the distance. Much like you know who. Obama is salty because of Kilary getting whupped and Putin out-playing him in Syria. Never thought I would see the day when I sided with Trump over Obama. Interesting times. ..."
"... Yes, the so-called liberals are losing all over. They blame everyone but themselves. The problem is that they have been found out. They were not real liberals at all. They had little bits of liberal policies like "Gay rights" and "bathrooms for Transgenders" and, of course, "Anti-Anti-Semitism Laws" and a few other bits and pieces with which they constructed a sort of camoflage coat, but the core of their policies was Corporatism. Prize exhibits: Tony Blair and Barak Obama. ..."
"... The extreme Left and extreme Right ("Populists") are benefiting by being able to say what they mean, loud and apparently clear. People are not, on the whole, politically sophisticated but they do realise that they have been lied to for a very long time and they are fed up. That is why "Populists are making such a showing in the polls. People don't believe in the centre's "Liberalism" any more. ..."
"... Obama acting like a petulant child that has to leave the game and go home now, so he's kicking the game board and forcing everyone else to clean up his mess. Irresponsible. ..."
"... Obama will be making to many paid speeches to be doing anything of the sort. And frankly I suspect he be silent, because Trump is soon going to know where all the bodies were buried under Obama, just like Obama knows where all the bodies are buried from the Bush area. You are a wishful thinker, if you think Obama is going anything after he leaves office. ..."
"... So the person awarded a Nobel Peace Prize uses his last weeks in office to sour relations between the only 2 superpowers on Earth for - what ? ..."
The president-elect has been consistently ->
skeptical
about the US intelligence ->
consensus that Russia ordered cyber-attacks on Democratic party targets as a way to influence the 2016 election in his favor
– the reason for Obama's new sanctions. At one point, he suggested the culprit might have been China, another state or even
a 400lb man in his bedroom .
On taking office in January, Trump might therefore be expected to simply end the Obama sanctions. And as president, he could do
so; presidential orders can simply be repealed by the executive branch.
But the situation is not that simple. If Trump did choose to remove the sanctions, he would find himself at odds with his own
party. Senior Republicans in Congress responded to the Obama sanctions by identifying Russia as a major geopolitical foe and criticizing
the new measures only as a case of too little too late. Some promised a push for further measures in Congress.
Trump may therefore choose not to reverse the new sanctions. If so, he will find himself at odds with the man he so constantly
praises.
On Friday, the Kremlin responded to the moves, including the expulsion of 35 suspected intelligence operatives and the closing
of two Russian facilities in the US,
with
a shrug . Putin, it seems, is willing simply to wait until Trump moves into the Oval Office. Trump's tweet suggested he is too.
But such provocative words could not distract the media and public from another domestic concern for Trump – the growing perception
that his predecessor has acted
to
his disadvantage .
"The sanctions were clearly an attempt by the Obama administration to throw a wrench into – or [to] box in – the next administration's
relationship with Russia,"
All Obama does with his clumsy movements is just attempting to blame Russians for Democrat's loss of elections. Also he is obscuring
peaceful power transition while at it.
All what Trump needs to do is to just call the looser a loser a move on.
White House/StateDep press release on sanctions is ORWELLIAN: corruption within the DNC/Clinton's manager Podesta undermines the
democracy, not its exposure as claimed (let alone the fact that there is still no evidence that the Russian government has anything
to do with the hacks).
The press release also talks about how the security of the USA and its interests were compromised, so Obama in effects says
that national security interest of the country is to have corrupt political system, which is insane.
This argumentation means that even if Russian government has done the hacking, it was a good deed, there is nothing to sanction
Russia for even in such case.
'Fraid both Putin and Trump are a lot smarter than Barry. Putin's move in not retaliating and inviting US kids to the Kremlin
New Year party was an astute judo throw. And Barry is sitting on his backside wondering how it happened.
.. Probably Obama's "exceptionalism" made him so clumsy on international affairs stage..
.. just recently.. snubbed by Fidel.. he refused to meet him..
.. humiliated by Raul Castro, he declined to hug president of USA..
.. Duterte described.. hmm.. his provenance..
.. Bibi told him off in most vulgar way.. several times..
.. and now this..
..pathetic..
P.S.
You may be sure that the Americans will commit all the stupidities they can think of, plus some that are beyond imagination."
Charles de Gaulle.
Yes, the so-called liberals are losing all over. They blame everyone but themselves. The problem is that they have been found
out. They were not real liberals at all. They had little bits of liberal policies like "Gay rights" and "bathrooms for Transgenders"
and, of course, "Anti-Anti-Semitism Laws" and a few other bits and pieces with which they constructed a sort of camoflage coat,
but the core of their policies was Corpratism. Prize exhibits: Tony Blair and Barak Obama.
The extreme Left and extreme Right ("Populists") are benefiting by being able to say what they mean, loud and apparently clear.
People are not, on the whole, politically sophisticated but they do realise that they have been lied to for a very long time and
they are fed up. That is why "Populists are making such a showing in the polls. People don't believe in the centre's "Liberalism"
any more.
"US intelligence consensus that Russia ordered cyber-attacks on Democratic party targets as a way to influence the
2016 election in his favor "
These people either think that an ex-British Ambassador is not an important witness or they don't want to hear anything that
contradicts the narrative they have been told to spin. It has to be one or the other.
Obama will be making to many paid speeches to be doing anything of the sort. And frankly I suspect he be slient, because Trump
is soon going to know where all the bodies were buried under Obama, just like Obama knows where all the bodies are buried from
the Bush area. You are a wishful thinker, if you think Obama is going anything after he leaves office.
We watched trump defeat republican favourites to get the nomination. He has not really needed them as much as they have felt they
need him. Then he has big oil in his transition team, tillerson if I am not mistaken, connected to exxon which has oil interests
in Russia....
I also think this is Obama's move to direct attention away from the cease fire in Syria. There the US has been supporting all
these groups, flying air missions and dropping special forces in Syria for years now, and the US has no seat at the table of the
cease fire negotiations. That should be very embarrassing for the US, but it apparently is not, because all the media wants to
talk about are these sanctions, which seem pretty trivial to me. The Obama/media machine scores another hollow victory. Can't
wait until this guy is out of office.
Still no proof of any meddling by the Russians. Only a last gasp attempt by a weak president in what is starting to look like
a boys against men tussle with Putin. Add the Syria ceasefire brokered by Turkey and Putin to this to show how Obama is being
outmanouvered at every turn.
Sad to see what a far cry from Obama the candidate Obama the president has turned out to be.
Action makes propaganda's effect irreversible. He who acts in obedience to propaganda can never go back. He is now obliged to
believe in that propaganda because of his past action. He is obliged to receive from it his justification and authority, without
which his action will seem to him absurd or unjust, which would be intolerable. He is obliged to continue to advance in the direction
indicated by propaganda, for action demands more action.
Jacques Ellul:
The Obama administration should be thanking Russian efforts to end the war in Syria. We know the MIC wanted this civil war to
go on for another decade.
PS once you are there, read everything else Craig Murray has written there. This is the ambassador HM government fired for
daring to speak out against the Uzbek government's human rights abuses.
All Americans should be alarmed that their country is now losing its edge in terms of the manipulation of other countries' electoral
processes. This is "unpresidented". Where previously we had implemented such actions ourselves without fear of reciprocation we
should be concerned that we are no longer immune to such machinations by other states. These events may represent a turning point
as regards our accepted global hegemony. Share
Obama has been anti-Russia long before Trump came into the picture.
This article is more of a wish list than anything else.
We are told by 'experts' that 'There is now a public record of what Russia did'
Where is it? I would love to see this.
I do know that the 2 countries that carry out most cyber attacks in the world are the US and it's main ally in the Middle East.
Just ask the Iranians what they did.
Obama complaining about Russian influence in American elections.
Last time I've checked it was Mr. Obama that warned British people against Brexit, wasn't? What about the deposition of an
ELECTED president in Ukraine with their support of Obama and EU? Let's talk also about regime changes in Syria, Lybia and Egypt
undertaken under Obama's administration? Perhaps we could also remember that Obama's agencies spied 3 million of Spanyards, Merkel,
Dilma Rousseff (Brazilian President) and so on... WHAT A HIPOCRISY, OBAMA!!!!
You have hit the nail on the head on all your points. But America and especially the American military needs a boogy man to justify
the trillions of dollars of American tax payer money they request to keep their military empire going. Imagine if there was no
boogy man and the conclusion was to half the American military to a size only equal to the next 6 largest militarys instead of
the present 13. Incidentally, most of the next largest militarys are allies of the United States.
This whole kerfuffle about Russian hacking has the stink of shooting the messenger. What about concentrating on what was in the
leaked e-mails. They showed a high level of deep corruption in the DNC. That is the importance of the hacked e-mails. Whoever
hacked and released them to the American public has done the America public a great favor. If Wasserman Shultz in cohoots with
Hillary had not swung the primaries in favor of Hillary and if Obama had remembered that the constitution says the government
is for the people and by the people (the peoples choice was by a huge margin for Bernie) and come out for Bernie, we wouldn't
be in the CF we are in right now. I thought Obama is a constitutional lawyer. So much for the constitution. The only statesman
in this mess is Putin. Thank heaven for his level headedness. The American pronouncements have the stink of the build up to another
false flag operation (the CIA revelations themselves are probably a false flag operation). I hope Putin can keep his 'cool' in
the face of American provocation.
Well what a spiteful, petty man this Obama has turned out to be! This is the first time his side hasn't 'won' and he can't take
it so throws his toys out the pram and risks further souring relationships with the East. Thank goodness Putin rose above it.
Ha! Obama has obviously nothing to lose and decided to make hay in the limited time he has. More mischief making. Love it. Let's
face it the master spiteful petty man is the one about to occupy the white house.
This just shows the real character of Obama. Queering the pitch for Trump and the incoming administration. But well done Putin
for sidestepping. Clever. Much smarter than Obama. In the end lawyers make bad Presidents and bad Prime Ministers.
Bit of a pot-kettle interface going on here. America leads the way in the hacking of public servers around the world and spying
on friend and enemy alike. Not long ago the CIA tapped into Angela Merkel's mobile phone and I don't remember the same level of
public outcry. Seems like America is affronted that Russia and others are now doing what the US has done for years. And if it
is in fact the Russians - proof not yet forthcoming - this wasn't a hack into the electoral system at all; it was a simple phishing
email that the US officials were silly enough to click onto the link.
And finally - what eventually was released was the truth. Clinton was favoured by the DNC, she did say those things to Goldman
Sachs, a CNN reporter did provide her with the questions before the presidential debates. The truth is that the US elections were
corrupted, but not by the Russians - the culprits lie a little closer to home.
Obama tried to corner Russia, and almost all GOP lawmakers applauded Obama's action. Called it was well overdue. But our smart
president-elect comforted crying Putin right away by calling him a smart man for not taking any actions. It is becoming more and
more clear that Trump and Putin are made for each other. I think Trump is keeping Putin on his side to take air out of overinflated
Chinese balloon. May be he was advised by his team. No one knows his game plan.
Nearly 40 years ago , at the height of the cold war when I joined up to serve my country, never did i dream the day would come
when I had more respect for the leader of Russia than a president of the USA and that I would have more faith in the Russian media
than our own fake media.
Not content with merely stealing the silverware, BO is intent on causing as much mischief as possible before being booted out
of the White House, but the Russians are not falling for it. They will be dealing with Donald Trump in a few weeks, and there
is no need to respond to Barry's diaper baby antics.
I'm sure the Russians are hacking our internet systems, but the DNC emails that went to WikiLeaks did not come from them. The
content, outlining Podesta's plan to discredit Bernie supporters by falsely tying them to violent acts, would indicate that a
disgruntled and disgusted DNC employee was more likely the source.
The liberal media, I can't wait until they claim that Trump has few paths to victory from this trick bag he is in. We are living
in the dying days of the Obama administration. Things will be very different January 20, 2017. Things that appear difficult or
impossible now will suddenly be taken care of with the stroke of a pen. It will be exciting to see. Just a few months ago, Trumps
path to victory was so small that he shouldn't even bother trying, then it was the electors will do something about Trump. It
was all nonsense. This to about Obama limiting Trump is nonsense. Obama's lines in the sand are completely without effect.
It is of course impossible as the USA has the most and claimed most advanced spying network on the planet. It totally surrounds
both friends and foes alike - with such technical ability the only country who could spy and influence (e.g. arm twisting Merkal
is a prime example) on any country at will is the 'exceptional ' US Government.
If there was genuine evidence that Russia had somehow swayed the election, Hilary Clinton - who desires power above all other
things - would now be bringing a legal case to overturn the result and get a re-election.
But there is no evidence - only lies and cynicism. A few weeks ago I was convinced that US politics had hit a nadir and that
it couldn't smell any worse or get any more ridiculous. How wrong I was.
The U.S. has a long history of attempting to influence presidential elections in other countries – it's done so as many as
81 times between 1946 and 2000, according to a database amassed by political scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University.
That number doesn't include military coups and regime change efforts following the election of candidates the U.S. didn't
like, notably those in Iran, Guatemala and Chile. Nor does it include general assistance with the electoral process, such as election
monitoring. [...]
In 59% of these cases, the side that received assistance came to power, although Levin estimates the average effect of "partisan
electoral interventions" to be only about a 3% increase in vote share. (
Source
)
I understand why some may find outside interference objectionable, but I reckon many of those who think so fail to recognise
America's far-from-faultless behaviour. Curses are like chickens; they always come home to roost.
Of course had the DNC leadership and the Clinton camp behaved ethically in the primary by not conspiring to tip the scale in
Clinton's favour, the hack would have found nothing. What we have now is Obama forced to divert the public attention because of
yet another messy scandal Hillary finds herself involved in. Clinton must be one of the most blessed people on earth; everyone
bends over backwards to accommodate her ambitions.
Also the CIA-Belgian assassination of Lamumba in 61, Congo's first democratically elected president, for the same 'geopolitical'
aka 'big business' reasons as the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran in 53, who wanted the nationalize Iranian oil for their people,
and Lumumba had similar 'socialist' ideas for all the vast Congolese resources. To cut out the western business interests. And
think how well the Congo has fared since, one of the worst, saddest places, chaos, civil war, more dead than in Rwanda or anywhere
I think. They have not recovered from that.
And Iran, they were democratic, secular, elected a guy like Mossadegh, they were 'European', but the the US and Britain overthrew
him on behest of British-US oil interests, installed the Shah, their puppet dictator, and the blow-back was the Iranian religious
right-wing revolution and dictatorship some 20 years later. And now the Iranian people and our 'foreign policy' are suffering.
And all these US and CIA 'activities' the government had admitted and declassified, like the Gulf of Tonkin lie and false flag
in Vietnam, because it was so long ago nobody cares, so it's no 'conspiracy' here, just history. But now these Clinton Democrats
they really love and trust anything the CIA says, of course, they are big patriots now, and call people unpatriotic and foreign
agents if they question the so honorable CIA, because they are on Hillary's side now.
And the CIA in cahoots with Bush and Cheney also told us how there were these big, scary WMDs in Iraq, and mushroom clouds, and
how Saddam had links with Al Qaida, all obvious lies, that any amateur who knew basic world history could tell you even then.
And speaking of 'meddling', and overthrowing democratic governments, the US did the same under Obama and Hillary in Honduras
just a few years ago, backed the violent coup of a democratic leftist government there, and they still refuse to call it a coup,
and have legitimized the new corrupt and violent regime, are training their army, etc. Even though the EU and the US ambassador
to Honduras called it a coup at the time.
And for the same reasons, that leftist government didn't want to play ball with big US and western 'business interests', energy
companies, didn't want to sell them their rivers and resources like the new 'good' regime now. And since that coup, 100s of indigenous
activists and environmentalists have been killed, like Berta Caceres, and the violence and corruption has gone up big time under
the new regime, with 1000s more killed 'in general'. Yet Obama is so concerned about 'the integrity of democracy' and elections
and freedom and all that, what a nice guy.
The real question that Americans should be asking why Barack Obummer failed again to provide security in case of hacking Democrat's
emails?
Clinton did not deny that emails published by WikiLeaks were genuine.
That is called freedom of press.
What's wrong with public finding the truth about Clinton? Share
Facebook
Twitter
Haven't you noticed that whole of the West has already moved that way? I do not mean pro-Putin, I mean priority of national interests
at home and some isolationism.
Obama is leaving office with the record of saving American troops lives by the process of using drones which on dodgy information
mainly target wedding parties. Share
Facebook
Twitter
Appears suspiciously likely that Obama is just bitter that his legacy is about to be dumped in the nearest skip on Jan 20, and
wants to make trouble for Trump during his last 3 weeks in office.
Hard to see how Putin could have engineered Hillary Clinton's defeat, given she won the popular vote by 3 million.
Also Obama is extremely hypocritical as the CIA has repeatedly interfered in the affairs of other countries over the past 60
years.
The CIA never released emails of any country's people. It's simply bad tradecraft, meaning that it can't be used when one really
needs it. Share
Facebook
Twitter
The story is that they were 'leaked' to Wikileaks and that only stuff that helps Trump was leaked. There are loads of Republican/Trump
mails that remain secret (presumably). Sounds plausible to me but the how the hell would I know? Share
Facebook
Twitter
Not really. Democrats lost the election, through their own fault, and now Putin is waiting till Trump comes in office. All will
go swimmingly and we can look forward to better relations between the USA-Russia. Win win. Share
Facebook
Twitter
On Thursday, the Arizona senator John McCain and South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham said in a joint statement: "The retaliatory
measures announced by the Obama administration today are long overdue.
That's all I needed to know. If lunatic war monger John McCain wants to ratchet up the tension with a nuclear power - then
it is very wise to do the opposite. Share
Wouldn't it be hilarious if a revolution broke out next year in Russia, over the downward spiralling Russian economy, just when
Putin thinks he has victory in sight?
Ah! The evident effects of sipping too much Death Wish Coffee 64 fl.oz - 3,472 mg of caffeine it could do serious damage to your
brain. Share
Facebook
Twitter
Wow, the Trump/kremlin brigade zoomed in on this comments section faster than greased lightening! Good to know that some people
just love them some fascism! Share
Facebook
Twitter
Red baiting won't close down the debate. There's still no evidence of Russian hacking of the US election.
And fascism is shouting people down who ask for evidence and don't just follow the President because he is attacking the outsiders.
Share
Facebook
Twitter
I don't usually follow American elections but is this the usual way to hand over to a new president is to try to kick him in the
teeth? Share
Facebook
Twitter
It were GOP senators leading the huzzas for invading Iraq too. But Ted Cruz? James Inhoffe? Half of the GOP senators are just
hirelings for big business. Share
Facebook
Twitter
Such a move - did you manage to think this one up by yourself? Or is it just recient history repeating itself - you have only
a one tracked mind, a bit like your icon. Share
Facebook
Twitter
The fact that the Russian sanctions makes things difficult for blowhard Trump is not the issue nor the intent. President Obama
was acting in response to Russia's interference with our diplomats and cyber attacks. This needed to be done. As to Trump, that's
tough. Share
Facebook
Twitter
Why would Russia be happy that Clinton lost? Why would any foreign power be happy that Clinton lost?...
How many years did HRC, in her arrogance-fuelled denial, provide foreign intelligences with literally tonnes of free info??!
Trump might therefore be expected to simply end the Obama sanctions. .... But if he did choose to do so, he would find himself
at odds with his own party.
Trump is exactly where he is today because he attacked that same party. He called bullshit on the Bush's claims to have
made the US safer and called bullshit on the idea that Iraq was something that we should still do in hindsight. He trashed the
idea of free trade and TTIP - another Republican shibboleth. He refused to go down the standard Republican route of trashing social
security...
All he needs to do is call bullshit on this 'evidence' of Russian hacking and remind everyone that it wasn't Russians who
manned the planes on 9/11. Trump is a oafish clown - but he's not a standard politician playing standard politics. He can shrug
off this oh-so-clever manoeuvre by Obama with no trouble.
Simple solution, publish the commenter geolocation and ban proxy, clean the comment section from putinbots. Putin like ASBO's
must stop to do more harm against democracy.
There's still no evidence regarding the origin of the cyber attack. I've seen you posting a link to the report. The first line
in it is a disclaimer: "The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information
contained within". Which is very wise from them.
Sanctions = token gestures that will soon fade into the distance. Much like you know who. Obama is salty because of Kilary
getting whupped and Putin out-playing him in Syria. Never thought I would see the day when I sided with Trump over Obama. Interesting
times.
Yes, the so-called liberals are losing all over. They blame everyone but themselves. The problem is that they have been found
out. They were not real liberals at all. They had little bits of liberal policies like "Gay rights" and "bathrooms for Transgenders"
and, of course, "Anti-Anti-Semitism Laws" and a few other bits and pieces with which they constructed a sort of camoflage coat,
but the core of their policies was Corporatism. Prize exhibits: Tony Blair and Barak Obama.
The extreme Left and extreme Right ("Populists") are benefiting by being able to say what they mean, loud and apparently
clear. People are not, on the whole, politically sophisticated but they do realise that they have been lied to for a very long
time and they are fed up. That is why "Populists are making such a showing in the polls. People don't believe in the centre's
"Liberalism" any more.
Ben, I found Glenn Greenwald's take on you quite interesting. Have you responded? And, yes, I know, my polite and pertinent question
will violate the terms here.
Good to see someone with the bollox to call a spade a spade.
More importantly it helps lift the eyelids of those who think our msm tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
You just know these people, like Johnny boy, who are pointing fingers at Russia are doing so based upon long laid plans to bind
up Trump from building a healthy relationship with Russia which would put an end to terrorism and likely all of these petty little
wars that are tearing the world to pieces. These people want war because division keeps them in power and war makes them lots
of money. I hope that Trump and Putin can work together and build a trust and foundation as allies in that together we can stamp
out terrorism and stabilize the worlds conflicts. Everything these people do in the next 20 days has a single agenda and that
is to cause instability and roadblocks for Trump and his team. Hope is just around the corner people so let's help usher it in.
Don't trust anyone until you know them. Been married and watched it turn to shit? You can't really trust anyone. The same can
be said for any country member.
"US intelligence consensus that Russia ordered cyber-attacks on Democratic party targets as a way to influence the
2016 election in his favor "
These people either think that an ex-British Ambassador is not an important witness or they don't want to hear anything that
contradicts the narrative they have been told to spin. It has to be one or the other. Share
First... let's see some actual evidence/proof. Oh, that's right, none has been offered up.
Second... everyone is upset that the DNC turd was exposed, but no one upset about the existence of the turd. ?
Obama acting like a petulant child that has to leave the game and go home now, so he's kicking the game board and forcing
everyone else to clean up his mess. Irresponsible.
Hundred times repeated lie will become the truth... that's the US officials policy for decades now. In 8 years, they did nothing,
so they are trying to do "something" in the last minute. For someone, who's using his own brain is all of this just laughable.
United States are not united I guess. Guess, that Merkel is the next on the list...
Hopefully now this will enable senate and congress republicans to prevent these crazy ideas of Russian appeasement take hold and
pursue a hardline against Russia, Hamas, Iran and Cuba.
Obama will be making to many paid speeches to be doing anything of the sort. And frankly I suspect he be silent, because Trump
is soon going to know where all the bodies were buried under Obama, just like Obama knows where all the bodies are buried from
the Bush area. You are a wishful thinker, if you think Obama is going anything after he leaves office.
I think you can blame Obama for underestimating Putin. Remember when he told Putin before the 2012 election off mike that he would
have more leeway after the election. Remember when Romney in 2012 warned us that Russia was a big threat and Obama thought that
was silly. Obama has been outclassed by Putin at every turn. Whatever else you may say about Trump, he recognizes that Putin is
worthy adversary not one to be marginalized. Putin has manage to marginalize the US in Syria despite all the money and effort
we have dumped into it.
The foreign power did the American people a favor when it exposed the corruption within the Democratic Party; something the establishment
media was apparently unable or unwilling to do. Rather than sanctioning Putin, Americans should be thanking him!
His recent announcement (no tit-for-tat) was masterful politicking. Should Trump refuse to do anything, Putin knows he can
wrap Trump around his finger, with the added bonus of both US houses kicking off.
If Trump does do something, relations will sour and Putin can blame the US.
" and decides not to accept it he will have to make it public,"
Solely a presumption on your part, a simple statement by the new agency heads saying that the info is inconclusive and the
method of the investigation will not be revealed cancels your whole argument. Sure the press will howl, but Trumps using Twitter
to talk to the people and unless someone leaks you got nothing.
Seems a no brainer, reverse Obama's ridiculous posturing gesture. As if the US doesn't have a long track record of interfering
in the affairs of other countries.
Personally I think the US should do as it wishes but it's extremely hypocritical to act shocked when the same meddling is returned
by others. Obama is acting foolishly as if the final weeks of his presidency have any genuine traction on future events.
We watched trump defeat republican favourites to get the nomination. He has not really needed them as much as they have felt they
need him. Then he has big oil in his transition team, tillerson if I am not mistaken, connected to exxon which has oil interests
in Russia....if trump removed big oil from his team maybe he can get out of this without escalating the issue or appearing to
be a putin puppet...
If such attempts were really registered, the question is were those attempts to hack US sites from
Russian IP space a false flag operation, probably with participation of Ukrainian secret services?
'
As one commenter noted: "The Ukrainian government have been trying to drive a wedge between the West
and Russia for years for their own political advantage."
If so what is the agenda outside obvious attempt to poison Us-Russian relations just before
Trump assumes presidency. Neocon in Washington are really afraid losing this plush positions.
And there is the whole colony of such "national security professionals" in Washington DC. For
example Robert Kagan can't do anything useful outside his favorite Russophobic agenda and would be an
unemployed along with his wife, who brought us Ukrainian disaster.
Notable quotes:
"... President Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia for the hack of the Democratic National Committee emails. "These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government," he wrote. ..."
"... The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect. Nothing quite adds up. ..."
"... Now we have this sanctions story, which presents a new conundrum. It appears that a large segment of the press is biting hard on the core allegations of electoral interference emanating from the Obama administration. ..."
"... Did the Russians do it? Very possibly, in which case it should be reported to the max. But the press right now is flying blind. ..."
"... Maybe the Russians did hack the DNC, but the WikiLeaks material actually came from someone else? There is even a published report to that effect, with a former British ambassador as a source, not that it's any more believable than anything else here. ..."
"... We ought to have learned from the Judith Miller episode. Not only do governments lie, they won't hesitate to burn news agencies. In a desperate moment, they'll use any sucker they can find to get a point across. ..."
"... The Joint Analysis Report from the FBI contains an appendix that lists hundreds of IP addresses that were supposedly "used by Russian civilian and military intelligence services." While some of those IP addresses are from Russia, the majority are from all over the world, which means that the hackers constantly faked their location. ..."
"... "If I was the Chinese and I wanted to make it look like the Russians did it, I would use Russian language within the code, I would use Russian techniques of breaking into the organization," McAfee said, adding that, in the end, "there simply is no way to assign a source for any attack." ..."
"... I have a problem understanding why the powers that be can't understand the widening gap between their on podium statements and the average persons view. Are they hoping to brainwash, or really believe it, or just leaving a video record for posterity that might sway historical interpretation of the current time? ..."
"... A little OT, but how many people realize that Israel (less than half the population of the former Palestine) has taken complete control of ALL water and has decreed that 3% of that water may be directed to the Palestinians! ..."
"... It's been said that on average Americans are like mushrooms – "Keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em shit!" ..."
"... And THAT, from what I've read in OPEN literature (obviously) about what is known by our cyber threat intel community, read on tech sites, and seen on the outstanding documentary program CyberWar about the Eastern European hacking community, is a OUTRIGHT BLATANT LIE. ..."
"... NOTE that he may actually believe that because that is what he may have been TOLD, just as Bush was told there were WMDs in Iraq, but as I've pointed out, the clumsy errors allowing the malware to be so very EASILY traced back to "supposedly" Russia are beyond belief for any state-sponsored outfit, especially a Russian effort. ..."
"... Note that the user info for TWO BILLION Yahoo email accounts was stolen and they left no traces which then led the FBI to conclude that it must have been "state sponsored." ..."
"... We are left with two basic options. Either they are simply stupid or their is a larger agenda at hand. I don't believe they are stupid. They have been setting fires all around this election for months, none of them effective by themselves, but ALL reinforcing the general notion that Trump is unfit and illegitimate. ..."
"... I do not believe this is just random panic and hyperbole. They are "building" something. ..."
"... This is what is must have been like being a Soviet Citizen in 1989 or so. The official media was openly laughed at because its lies were so preposterous. ..."
"... Sadly, the JAR, as the Joint Analysis Report is called, does little to end the debate. Instead of providing smoking guns that the Russian government was behind specific hacks, it largely restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity. Even worse, it provides an effective bait and switch by promising newly declassified intelligence into Russian hackers' "tradecraft and techniques" and instead delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups." ..."
"... WORSE than "delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups." It should have said "by just about anyone using 'in the wild' malware tools." ..."
"... The Russians probably have a lot of information about USG employees, contractors, etc, via hacking, recording, etc than Wikileaks. But, as a general rule, intelligence agencies do not dump it into the public domain because you don't want a potential adversary know what you know about him lest he investigate and close off the means of obtaining that information. The leaks came from elsewhere. ..."
"... Smells like a "false flag" operation, like the USA/NATO Operation Gladio in Europe. ..."
"... McCain and the War Hawks have had it out for Russia for a long time, and the Neo-cons have been closing in on the borders of Russia for some time. What will be interesting is when Trump meets with the CIA/NSA et al. for intel briefings on the alleged hacking. Hopefully, Trump will bring along VP Pence, Mad Dog and the other Marine generals (appointees) for advice. I suspect that the "false flag" nature of the hacking excuse will be evident and revealed as the pretext for the Neo-con anti-Russia agenda moving forward. ..."
"... McCain is the real thug, and an interferer in foreign elections (Kiev) and seems to have no real scruples. ..."
"... After Victoria Nuland brags about the USA spending $5 billion to overthrow the elected Ukraine government, how these Russia-phobes have any credibility is beyond me. Just shows that the consolidation of the media into a few main propaganda outlets under Bill Clinton (who also brought the Neo-cons into foreign policy dominance) has reached its logical apex. The Swamp is indeed a stinking, Corrupt miasma. ..."
"... Russia a country of 170 million surrounded by NATO military bases and 800 million people in the EU and USA is the threat? The US alone spends 12 times as much on its military annually than Russia. It's not Russia invading and overthrowing secular governments in the Muslim world. ..."
"... If I remember correctly the CIA claimed their intelligence sources came from unspecified 'allies'. It seems rather crucial to establish who these allies actually are. If it were Germany that would be one thing, however it is more than likely to be the Ukraine. ..."
"... So if Obama had actually produced evidence that the Russians had hacked Hilary's illegal, unprotected email setup in her Chapaqua basement/closet how would that change the ***content*** of the emails? It wouldn't. ..."
"... Obama is failing to convince the world that Russia is a bunch of whistle blowers on his corrupt regime. All of the emails detailing corruption and fraud are true (unchallenged), however Obama wants to suggest they were obtained illegally from an illegal email server? That is Obama's bullshit defense for the corrupt behavior? ..."
Is there any evidence those expelled are "intelligence operatives"? Any hard evidence Russia was
behind the Hillary hacks? Any credible evidence that Putin himself is to blame?
The answers are No, No, and No. Yet, once again the American press is again asked to co-sign a
dubious intelligence assessment.
In an extraordinary development Thursday, the Obama administration announced a series of sanctions
against Russia. Thirty-five Russian nationals will be expelled from the country. President
Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia for the hack of the Democratic National
Committee emails. "These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by
the highest levels of the Russian government," he wrote.
The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle
of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect.
Nothing quite adds up.
If the American security agencies had smoking-gun evidence that the Russians had an organized
campaign to derail the U.S. presidential election and deliver the White House to Trump, then expelling
a few dozen diplomats after the election seems like an oddly weak and ill-timed response. Voices
in both parties are saying this now.
Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham
noted the "small price" Russia paid for its "brazen attack." The Democratic National Committee,
meanwhile, said Thursday that taken alone, the Obama response is "
insufficient " as a response to "attacks on the United States by a foreign power."
The "small price" is an eyebrow-raiser.
Adding to the problem is that in the last months of the campaign, and also in the time since
the election, we've seen an epidemic of factually loose, clearly politically motivated reporting
about Russia. Democrat-leaning pundits have been unnervingly quick to use phrases like "Russia
hacked the election."
This has led to widespread confusion among news audiences over whether the Russians hacked
the DNC emails (a story that has at least been backed by some evidence, even if it
hasn't always been great evidence ), or whether Russians hacked vote tallies in critical states
(a far more outlandish tale backed by
no credible evidence ).
As noted in The Intercept and other outlets, an Economist/YouGov poll conducted this month
shows that 50 percent of all Clinton voters believe the Russians hacked vote tallies.
And reports by some Democrat-friendly reporters – like Kurt Eichenwald, who has birthed some
real head-scratchers this year, including what he admitted was a
baseless claim that Trump spent time in an institution in 1990 – have attempted to argue that
Trump surrogates may have been liaising with the Russians because they either visited Russia
or appeared on the RT network. Similar reporting about Russian scheming has been based entirely
on unnamed security sources.
Now we have this sanctions story, which presents a new conundrum. It appears that a large
segment of the press is biting hard on the core allegations of electoral interference emanating
from the Obama administration.
Did the Russians do it? Very possibly, in which case it should be reported to the max.
But the press right now is flying blind.
Maybe the Russians did hack the DNC, but the WikiLeaks material actually came from someone
else? There is even a
published report to that effect, with a former British ambassador as a source, not that it's
any more believable than anything else here.
We just don't know, which is the problem.
We ought to have learned from the Judith Miller episode. Not only do governments lie, they
won't hesitate to burn news agencies. In a desperate moment, they'll use any sucker they can find
to get a point across.
The Joint Analysis Report from the FBI contains an appendix that lists hundreds of IP addresses
that were supposedly "used by Russian civilian and military intelligence services." While some
of those IP addresses are from Russia, the majority are from all over the world, which means that
the hackers constantly faked their location.
McAfee argues that the report is a "fallacy," explaining that hackers can fake their location,
their language, and any markers that could lead back to them. Any hacker who had the skills to
hack into the DNC would also be able to hide their tracks, he said
"If I was the Chinese and I wanted to make it look like the Russians did it, I would use
Russian language within the code, I would use Russian techniques of breaking into the organization,"
McAfee said, adding that, in the end, "there simply is no way to assign a source for any attack."
Question of Patriotism
It's not patriotic to accept accusations as facts, given US history of lies, deceit, meddling,
and wars.
The gullibility and ignorance of the typical media lapdog is appalling, and whores like McCain
and Graham will use them shamelessly to promote their twisted, warmongering agenda. The same old
story, over and over again.
I have a problem understanding why the powers that be can't understand the widening gap between
their on podium statements and the average persons view. Are they hoping to brainwash, or really
believe it, or just leaving a video record for posterity that might sway historical interpretation
of the current time?
Net control very likely in Europe soon with public administration of the web/content. Might at
least help reduce the unemployment rate. Looked over the 2016 Bilderberg attendees too. MSM attendees
interesting vs political bias they exhibit.
Whoever thinks there aren't people behind the scenes with a plan is naive and woe betide anyone
upsetting that plan.
Unemployment rate read last refuge from the official economy. Not the alt. web that takes away
motivation, it is a pressure valve for people who find the official direction nothing short of
insulting. The majority of social media users won't be distracted.
Noticed zh on Italy for you if you had not picked it up
A little OT, but how many people realize that Israel (less than half the population of the
former Palestine) has taken complete control of ALL water and has decreed that 3% of that water
may be directed to the Palestinians!
Over ten million get running water for 12 hrs a week, while in Israel (borders move
every day as the world says nothing) there are no water restrictions zero!
So, while Palestinians
struggle to live in hot barren desert conditions (food and medicine is also denied children die
of treatable cancer often as medication is blocked), a 5 min drive away millions of gallons are
used to create a green, lush paradise for the Jewish Masters!
Did you know US laws were changed in 1968 to allow "Dual Citizens" to be elected and appointed
to government positions and today many of the top posts are citizens of Israel and America WTF?
Trump needs to make a daily dose of Red Pills the law
Oops the 10M fig is a bit high but it's at least double the Jewish population, yet they get 97%
this is slow moving genocide yet it's never even acknowledged
Syria is about gas pipelines. Corporations want to profit from the gas pipeline through the region
and wr the people are supposed to send our children to war over it and pay taxes tpbsupport the
effort. Rissia wants pipelines from their country under the Black sea and Irans pipelines to the
north. The US is supporting Qatar pipeline and LNG from our own shores to the EU.
"These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels
of the Russian government," (Obama) wrote.
And THAT, from what I've read in OPEN literature (obviously) about what is known by our
cyber threat intel community, read on tech sites, and seen on the outstanding documentary program
CyberWar about the Eastern European hacking community, is a OUTRIGHT BLATANT LIE.
NOTE that he may actually believe that because that is what he may have been TOLD, just as
Bush was told there were WMDs in Iraq, but as I've pointed out, the clumsy errors allowing the
malware to be so very EASILY traced back to "supposedly" Russia are beyond belief for any state-sponsored
outfit, especially a Russian effort.
Note that the user info for TWO BILLION Yahoo email accounts was stolen and they left no
traces which then led the FBI to conclude that it must have been "state sponsored."
We are left with two basic options. Either they are simply stupid or their is a larger agenda
at hand. I don't believe they are stupid. They have been setting fires all around this election
for months, none of them effective by themselves, but ALL reinforcing the general notion that
Trump is unfit and illegitimate.
I do not believe this is just random panic and hyperbole. They are "building" something.
Well, it is an established and accepted fact that Richard Nixon was a very intelligent guy. None
of Nixon's detractors ever claimed he was stupid, and Nixon won reelection easily.
Tricky Dick was just a tad "honesty challenged", and so is Obama. They were/are both neo-keynesians,
both took their sweet time ending stupid wars started by their predecessors even after it was
clear the wars were pointless.
Then again, I doubt Obozo is as smart as Nixon. Soros is clearly the puppeteer controlling
what Obama does. Soros is now freaking out that his fascist agenda has been exposed.
This is what is must have been like being a Soviet Citizen in 1989 or so. The official media
was openly laughed at because its lies were so preposterous.
"While security companies in the private sector have said for months the hacking campaign was
the work of people working for the Russian government, anonymous people tied to the leaks have
claimed they are lone wolves. Many independent security experts said there was little way to know
the true origins of the attacks.
Sadly, the JAR, as the Joint Analysis Report is called, does little to end the debate.
Instead of providing smoking guns that the Russian government was behind specific hacks, it largely
restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity. Even
worse, it provides an effective bait and switch by promising newly declassified intelligence into
Russian hackers' "tradecraft and techniques" and instead delivering generic methods carried out
by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups."
WORSE than "delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking
groups." It should have said "by just about anyone using 'in the wild' malware tools."
2015 Bilderberg. Looking down the attendees and subjects covered. Interesting some of the main
anti-Brexit groups had representatives there, suggests HC picked for 2016 US election, Cyber-security
and etc. Look at the key topics. How they all helped define 2016. So many current intertwined
themes.
The Russians probably have a lot of information about USG employees, contractors, etc,
via hacking, recording, etc than Wikileaks. But, as a general rule, intelligence agencies do not
dump it into the public domain because you don't want a potential adversary know what you know
about him lest he investigate and close off the means of obtaining that information. The leaks
came from elsewhere.
Smells like a "false flag" operation, like the USA/NATO Operation Gladio in Europe.
McCain and the War Hawks have had it out for Russia for a long time, and the Neo-cons have
been closing in on the borders of Russia for some time. What will be interesting is when Trump
meets with the CIA/NSA et al. for intel briefings on the alleged hacking. Hopefully, Trump will
bring along VP Pence, Mad Dog and the other Marine generals (appointees) for advice. I suspect
that the "false flag" nature of the hacking excuse will be evident and revealed as the pretext
for the Neo-con anti-Russia agenda moving forward.
The CIA it is now widely believed was part of the Deep State behind the JFK assassination when
JFK took an independent view, so Trump will need the USA Marines on his side. McCain is the
real thug, and an interferer in foreign elections (Kiev) and seems to have no real scruples.
After Victoria Nuland brags about the USA spending $5 billion to overthrow the elected
Ukraine government, how these Russia-phobes have any credibility is beyond me. Just shows that
the consolidation of the media into a few main propaganda outlets under Bill Clinton (who also
brought the Neo-cons into foreign policy dominance) has reached its logical apex. The Swamp is
indeed a stinking, Corrupt miasma.
Perhaps the Clinton Foundation and nascent Obama foundation feel it in their financial
interests to nurture the misma.
Cha-ching, cha-ching. Money to be made in demonizing Russia.
"The CIA it is now widely believed was part of the Deep State behind the JFK assassination when
JFK took an independent view "
All the circumstantial evidence pointed to Oswald. No one has ever proven otherwise, in over
50 years.
After 50 years of being propagandized by conspiracy book writers, it isn't surprising that
anything is widely believed at this point. The former curator of the 6th Floor Museum, Gary Mack,
believed there was a conspiracy, but over time came to realize that it was Oswald, alone.
When liberal Rolling Stone questions the Obama/DNC propaganda, you know for certain that they
have lost even their base supporters (the ones that can still think). The BS has just gotten too
stupid.
Why is the WSJ strongly supporting Obama here but also saying he waited way to long to make this
move? I don't always agree with them nor do I with you.
Ok I haven't read the comments but would only say that when Vladimir Putin the once leader
of the KGB becomes a preacher and starts criticizing the West for abandoning its Christian roots,
it's moral dignity, that for me doesn't just stink, it raises red flags all over the place. I
think Trump and some of the rest of u r being set up here-like lambs to the slaughter. Mish your
naïveté here surprises me!
Russia a country of 170 million surrounded by NATO military bases and 800 million people
in the EU and USA is the threat? The US alone spends 12 times as much on its military annually
than Russia. It's not Russia invading and overthrowing secular governments in the Muslim world.
If I remember correctly the CIA claimed their intelligence sources came from unspecified 'allies'.
It seems rather crucial to establish who these allies actually are. If it were Germany that would
be one thing, however it is more than likely to be the Ukraine.
The Ukranian government have been trying to drive a wedge between the West and Russia for years
for their own political advantage. If I was Trump then when I took office I would want an extremely
thorough investigation into the activities of the CIA by a third reliable party.
Excerpt: But was it really Russian meddling? After all, how does one prove not only intent
but source in a world of cyberespionage, where planting false flag clues and other Indicators
of Compromise (IOCs) meant to frame a specific entity, is as important as the actual hack.
Robert M. Lee, CEO and founder of cybersecurity company Dragos, which specializes in threats
facing critical infrastructure, also noted that the IOCs included "commodity malware," or hacking
tools that are widely available for purchase.
He said:
1. No they did not penetrate the grid.
2. The IOCs contained *commodity malware* – can't attribute based off that alone.
So if Obama had actually produced evidence that the Russians had hacked Hilary's illegal,
unprotected email setup in her Chapaqua basement/closet how would that change the ***content***
of the emails? It wouldn't.
Obama is failing to convince the world that Russia is a bunch of whistle blowers on his
corrupt regime. All of the emails detailing corruption and fraud are true (unchallenged), however
Obama wants to suggest they were obtained illegally from an illegal email server? That is Obama's
bullshit defense for the corrupt behavior?
And as "proportional retaliation" for this Russian whistle blowing, Obozo is evicting 35 entertainment
staff from the Russian embassy summer camp?
I doubt Hollywood or San Francisco has the integrity to admit they backed the wrong loser when
they supported Obozo but they should think about their own credibility after January 20th. Anyone
who is still backing Obozo is just too stupid to tie their own shoes much less vote
"... Trump told a significant fraction of the population that he understood their problems and that he would fix them. He told enough people what they wanted to hear - and did so with a convincing tone - that he got himself elected. That's how you win. You sell people on your vision. If you tell a good story most people aren't going to reality-check it. Sad but true. ..."
"... On the importance of narrative: Drew Westen, "What Happened to Obama?" http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/opinion/sunday/what-happened-to-obamas-passion.html ..."
"... Matt Taibbi in 2011: "I simply don't believe the Democrats would really be worse off with voters if they committed themselves to putting people back to work, policing Wall Street, throwing their weight behind a real public option in health care, making hedge fund managers pay the same tax rates as ordinary people, ending the pointless wars abroad, etc." ..."
"... Unfortunately, there are at best a handful of Democrats who've been doing that. That should have been our message 24/7/365 for the past eight years. (That and the story Westen laid out.) It was not. ..."
"... Yup. And that is how you lose the Presidency, the House, the Senate, 30-someodd (?) governorships, and 900-someodd state legislative seats over the past eight years. ..."
And this is telling us something significant: namely, that supply-side economic theory is and
always was a sham.
Urgh. That it is and always a sham is irrelevant. It is THE NARRATIVE that matters! They had
a compelling story and they stuck to it. That's how you sell politics in this country.
Trump told a significant fraction of the population that he understood their problems and that
he would fix them. He told enough people what they wanted to hear - and did so with a convincing
tone - that he got himself elected. That's how you win. You sell people on your vision. If you
tell a good story most people aren't going to reality-check it. Sad but true.
Manned the phone banks and held signs for my state rep again this year. (Bowed out of going door-to-door
this election though.) Tough race against a right-wing jerk. My guy won - in no small part because
he's incredibly engaged with the community. I'll be back out for him again in 2018. That stated,
I'm not sure how to make an impact at the national level - in part I think because I live in a very
blue state. Keeping the goons from a establishing a local foothold seems a good place to start. Building
resilient local networks feels like it will be essential for getting through the next four years.
Matt Taibbi in 2011: "I simply don't believe the Democrats would really be worse off with voters
if they committed themselves to putting people back to work, policing Wall Street, throwing their
weight behind a real public option in health care, making hedge fund managers pay the same tax rates
as ordinary people, ending the pointless wars abroad, etc."
Unfortunately, there are at best a handful of Democrats who've been doing that. That should have
been our message 24/7/365 for the past eight years. (That and the story Westen laid out.) It was
not.
Taibbi continued: "That they won't do these things because they're afraid of public criticism,
and "responding to pressure," is an increasingly transparent lie. This "Please, Br'er Fox, don't
throw me into dat dere briar patch" deal isn't going to work for much longer. Just about everybody
knows now that they want to go into that briar patch."
Yup. And that is how you lose the Presidency, the House, the Senate, 30-someodd (?) governorships,
and 900-someodd state legislative seats over the past eight years.
This was written in 2011 but it summarizes Obama presidency pretty nicely, even today. Betrayer
in chief, the master of bait and switch. That is the essence of Obama legacy. On "Great Democratic betrayal"...
Obama always was a closet neoliberal and neocon. A stooge of neoliberal financial oligarchy, a puppet,
if you want politically incorrect term. He just masked it well during hist first election campaigning
as a progressive democrat... And he faced Romney in his second campaign, who was even worse, so after
betraying American people once, he was reelected and did it twice. Much like Bush II. He like
another former cocaine addict -- George W Bush has never any intention of helping American people, only
oligarchy.
Notable quotes:
"... IN contrast, when faced with the greatest economic crisis, the greatest levels of economic inequality, and the greatest levels of corporate influence on politics since the Depression, Barack Obama stared into the eyes of history and chose to avert his gaze. ..."
"... We (yes, we) recognise that capitalism is the most efficient way to maximise overall prosperity and quality of life. But we also recognise that unfettered, it will ravage the environment, abuse labor, and expand income disparity until violence or tragedy (or both) ensues. ..."
"... These are the lessons we've learned since the industrial revolution, and they're the ones that we should be drawing from the past decade. We recognise that we need a strong federal government to check these tendencies, and to strike a stable, sustainable balance between prosperity, community, opportunity, wealth, justice, freedom. We need a voice to fill the moral vacuum that has allowed the Koch/Tea/Fox Party to emerge and grab power. ..."
"... Americans know this---including, of course, President Obama (see his April 13 speech at GW University). But as this article by Dr. Westen so effectively shows, Obama is incompetent to lead us back ..."
"... he is not competent to lead us back to a state of American morality, where government is the protector of those who work hard, and the provider of opportunity to all Americans. ..."
"... I've heard him called a mediator, a conciliator, a compromiser, etc. Those terms indicate someone who is bringing divergent views together and moving us along. That's part of what a leader does, though not all. Yet I don't think he's even lived up to his reputation as a mediator. ..."
"... Almost three years after I voted for Obama, I still don't know what he's doing other than trying to help the financial industry: the wealthy who benefit most from it and the technocrats who run it for them. But average working people, people like myself and my daughter and my grandson, have not been helped. We are worse off than before. And millions of unemployed and underemployed are even worse off than my family is. ..."
"... So whatever else he is (and that still remains a mystery to me), President Obama is not the leader I thought I was voting for. ..."
"... I knew that Obama was a charade early on when giving a speech about the banking failures to the nation, instead of giving the narrative Mr. Westen accurately recommended on the origins of the orgy of greed that just crippled our economy and caused suffering for millions of Americans ..."
"... He should have been condemning the craven, wanton, greed of nihilistic financial gangsters who hijacked our economy. Instead he seemed to be calling for all Americans not to hate rich people. That was not the point. Americans don't hate rich people, but they should hate rich people who acquire their wealth at the expense of the well being of an entire nation through irresponsible, avaricious, and in some instances illegal practices, and legally bribe politicians to enact laws which allow them to run amok over our economy without supervision or regulation. ..."
"... I knew then that Obama was either a political lemon, in over his head, an extremely conflict averse neurotic individual with a compulsive need for some delusional ideal of neutrality in political and social relations, or a political phony beholden to the same forces that almost destroyed the country as Republicans are. ..."
When Barack Obama rose to the lectern on Inauguration Day, the nation was in tatters. Americans
were scared and angry. The economy was spinning in reverse. Three-quarters of a million people lost
their jobs that month. Many had lost their homes, and with them the only nest eggs they had. Even
the usually impervious upper middle class had seen a decade of stagnant or declining investment,
with the stock market dropping in value with no end in sight. Hope was as scarce as credit.
In that context, Americans needed their president to tell them a story that made sense of what
they had just been through, what caused it, and how it was going to end. They needed to hear that
he understood what they were feeling, that he would track down those responsible for their pain and
suffering, and that he would restore order and safety. What they were waiting for, in broad strokes,
was a story something like this:
"I know you're scared and angry. Many of you have lost your jobs, your homes, your hope. This
was a disaster, but it was not a natural disaster. It was made by Wall Street gamblers who speculated
with your lives and futures. It was made by conservative extremists who told us that if we just eliminated
regulations and rewarded greed and recklessness, it would all work out. But it didn't work out. And
it didn't work out 80 years ago, when the same people sold our grandparents the same bill of goods,
with the same results. But we learned something from our grandparents about how to fix it, and we
will draw on their wisdom. We will restore business confidence the old-fashioned way: by putting
money back in the pockets of working Americans by putting them back to work, and by restoring integrity
to our financial markets and demanding it of those who want to run them. I can't promise that we
won't make mistakes along the way. But I can promise you that they will be honest mistakes, and that
your government has your back again." A story isn't a policy. But that simple narrative - and the
policies that would naturally have flowed from it - would have inoculated against much of what was
to come in the intervening two and a half years of failed government, idled factories and idled hands.
That story would have made clear that the president understood that the American people had given
Democrats the presidency and majorities in both houses of Congress to fix the mess the Republicans
and Wall Street had made of the country, and that this would not be a power-sharing arrangement.
It would have made clear that the problem wasn't tax-and-spend liberalism or the deficit - a deficit
that didn't exist until George W. Bush gave nearly $2 trillion in tax breaks largely to the wealthiest
Americans and squandered $1 trillion in two wars.
And perhaps most important, it would have offered a clear, compelling alternative to the dominant
narrative of the right, that our problem is not due to spending on things like the pensions of firefighters,
but to the fact that those who can afford to buy influence are rewriting the rules so they can cut
themselves progressively larger slices of the American pie while paying less of their fair share
for it.
But there was no story - and there has been none since.
In similar circumstances, Franklin D. Roosevelt offered Americans a promise to use the power of
his office to make their lives better and to keep trying until he got it right. Beginning in his
first inaugural address, and in the fireside chats that followed, he explained how the crash had
happened, and he minced no words about those who had caused it. He promised to do something no president
had done before: to use the resources of the United States to put Americans directly to work, building
the infrastructure we still rely on today. He swore to keep the people who had caused the crisis
out of the halls of power, and he made good on that promise. In a 1936 speech at Madison Square Garden,
he thundered, "Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate
as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me - and I welcome their hatred."
When Barack Obama stepped into the Oval Office, he stepped into a cycle of American history, best
exemplified by F.D.R. and his distant cousin, Teddy. After a great technological revolution or a
major economic transition, as when America changed from a nation of farmers to an urban industrial
one, there is often a period of great concentration of wealth, and with it, a concentration of power
in the wealthy. That's what we saw in 1928, and that's what we see today. At some point that power
is exercised so injudiciously, and the lives of so many become so unbearable, that a period of reform
ensues - and a charismatic reformer emerges to lead that renewal. In that sense, Teddy Roosevelt
started the cycle of reform his cousin picked up 30 years later, as he began efforts to bust the
trusts and regulate the railroads, exercise federal power over the banks and the nation's food supply,
and protect America's land and wildlife, creating the modern environmental movement.
Those were the shoes - that was the historic role - that Americans elected Barack Obama to fill.
The president is fond of referring to "the arc of history," paraphrasing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther
King Jr.'s famous statement that "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."
But with his deep-seated aversion to conflict and his profound failure to understand bully dynamics
- in which conciliation is always the wrong course of action, because bullies perceive it as weakness
and just punch harder the next time - he has broken that arc and has likely bent it backward for
at least a generation.
When Dr. King spoke of the great arc bending toward justice, he did not mean that we should wait
for it to bend. He exhorted others to put their full weight behind it, and he gave his life speaking
with a voice that cut through the blistering force of water cannons and the gnashing teeth of police
dogs. He preached the gospel of nonviolence, but he knew that whether a bully hid behind a club or
a poll tax, the only effective response was to face the bully down, and to make the bully show his
true and repugnant face in public.
IN contrast, when faced with the greatest economic crisis, the greatest levels of economic
inequality, and the greatest levels of corporate influence on politics since the Depression, Barack
Obama stared into the eyes of history and chose to avert his gaze. Instead of indicting the
people whose recklessness wrecked the economy, he put them in charge of it. He never explained that
decision to the public - a failure in storytelling as extraordinary as the failure in judgment behind
it. Had the president chosen to bend the arc of history, he would have told the public the story
of the destruction wrought by the dismantling of the New Deal regulations that had protected them
for more than half a century. He would have offered them a counternarrative of how to fix the problem
other than the politics of appeasement, one that emphasized creating economic demand and consumer
confidence by putting consumers back to work. He would have had to stare down those who had wrecked
the economy, and he would have had to tolerate their hatred if not welcome it. But the arc of his
temperament just didn't bend that far.
Michael August 7, 2011
Eloquently expressed and horrifically accurate, this excellent analysis articulates the frustration
that so many of us have felt watching Mr...
Bill Levine August 7, 2011
Very well put. I know that I have been going through Kübler-Ross's stages of grief ever since
the foxes (a.k.a. Geithner and Summers) were...
AnAverageAmerican August 7, 2011
"In that context, Americans needed their president to tell them a story that made sense of
what they had just been through, what caused it,...
Unfortunately, the Democratic Congress of 2008-2010, did not have the will to make the economic
and social program decisions that would have improved the economic situation for the middle-class;
and it is becoming more obvious that President Obama does not have the temperament to publicly
push for programs and policies that he wants the congress to enact.
The American people have a problem: we reelect Obama and hope for the best; or we elect a Republican
and expect the worst. There is no question that the Health Care law that was just passed would
be reversed; Medicare and Medicare would be gutted; and who knows what would happen to Social
Security. You can be sure, though, that business taxes and regulation reforms would not be in
the cards and those regulations that have been enacted would be reversed. We have traveled this
road before and we should be wise enough not to travel it again!
Brilliant analysis - and I suspect that a very large number of those who voted for President
Obama will recognize in this the thoughts that they have been trying to ignore, or have been trying
not to say out loud. Later historians can complete this analysis and attempt to explain exactly
why Mr. Obama has turned out the way he has - but right now, it may be time to ask a more relevant
and urgent question.
If it is not too late, will a challenger emerge in time before the 2012 elections, or will
we be doomed to hold our noses and endure another four years of this?
Very eloquent and exactly to the point. Like many others, I was enthralled by the rhetoric
of his story, making the leap of faith (or hope) that because he could tell his story so well,
he could tell, as you put it, "the story the American people were waiting to hear."
Disappointment has darkened into disillusion, disillusion into a species of despair. Will I
vote for Barack Obama again? What are the options?
This is the most brilliant and tragic story I have read in a long time---in fact, precisely
since I read when Ill Fares the Land by Tony Judt. When will a leader emerge with a true moral
vision for the federal government and for our country? Someone who sees government as a balance
to capitalism, and a means to achieve the social and economic justice that we (yes, we) believe
in? Will that leadership arrive before parts of America come to look like the dystopia of Johannesburg?
We (yes, we) recognise that capitalism is the most efficient way to maximise overall prosperity
and quality of life. But we also recognise that unfettered, it will ravage the environment, abuse
labor, and expand income disparity until violence or tragedy (or both) ensues.
These are the lessons we've learned since the industrial revolution, and they're the ones
that we should be drawing from the past decade. We recognise that we need a strong federal government
to check these tendencies, and to strike a stable, sustainable balance between prosperity, community,
opportunity, wealth, justice, freedom. We need a voice to fill the moral vacuum that has allowed
the Koch/Tea/Fox Party to emerge and grab power.
Americans know this---including, of course, President Obama (see his April 13 speech at
GW University). But as this article by Dr. Westen so effectively shows, Obama is incompetent to
lead us back to America's traditional position on the global economic/political spectrum.
He's brilliant and eloquent. He's achieved personal success that is inspirational. He's done some
good things as president. But he is not competent to lead us back to a state of American morality,
where government is the protector of those who work hard, and the provider of opportunity to all
Americans.
Taxes, subsidies, entitlements, laws... these are the tools we have available to achieve our
national moral vision. But the vision has been muddled (hijacked?) and that is our biggest problem.
-->
I voted for Obama. I thought then, and still think, he's a decent person, a smart person, a
person who wants to do the best he can for others. When I voted for him, I was thinking he's a
centrist who will find a way to unite our increasingly polarized and ugly politics in the USA.
Or if not unite us, at least forge a way to get some important things done despite the ugly polarization.
And I must confess, I have been disappointed. Deeply so. He has not united us. He has not forged
a way to accomplish what needs to be done. He has not been a leader.
I've heard him called a mediator, a conciliator, a compromiser, etc. Those terms indicate
someone who is bringing divergent views together and moving us along. That's part of what a leader
does, though not all. Yet I don't think he's even lived up to his reputation as a mediator.
Almost three years after I voted for Obama, I still don't know what he's doing other than
trying to help the financial industry: the wealthy who benefit most from it and the technocrats
who run it for them. But average working people, people like myself and my daughter and my grandson,
have not been helped. We are worse off than before. And millions of unemployed and underemployed
are even worse off than my family is.
So whatever else he is (and that still remains a mystery to me), President Obama is not
the leader I thought I was voting for. Which leaves me feeling confused and close to apathetic
about what to do as a voter in 2012. More of the same isn't worth voting for. Yet I don't see
anyone out there who offers the possibility of doing better.
This was an extraordinarily well written, eloquent and comprehensive indictment of the failure
of the Obama presidency.
If a credible primary challenger to Obama ever could arise, the positions and analysis in this
column would be all he or she would need to justify the Democratic party's need to seek new leadership.
I knew that Obama was a charade early on when giving a speech about the banking failures
to the nation, instead of giving the narrative Mr. Westen accurately recommended on the origins
of the orgy of greed that just crippled our economy and caused suffering for millions of Americans,
he said "we don't disparage wealth in America." I was dumbfounded.
He should have been condemning the craven, wanton, greed of nihilistic financial gangsters
who hijacked our economy. Instead he seemed to be calling for all Americans not to hate rich people.
That was not the point. Americans don't hate rich people, but they should hate rich people who
acquire their wealth at the expense of the well being of an entire nation through irresponsible,
avaricious, and in some instances illegal practices, and legally bribe politicians to enact laws
which allow them to run amok over our economy without supervision or regulation.
I knew then that Obama was either a political lemon, in over his head, an extremely conflict
averse neurotic individual with a compulsive need for some delusional ideal of neutrality in political
and social relations, or a political phony beholden to the same forces that almost destroyed the
country as Republicans are.
If such attempts were really registered, the question is were those attempts to hack US sites from
Russian IP space a false flag operation, probably with participation of Ukrainian secret services?
'
As one commenter noted: "The Ukrainian government have been trying to drive a wedge between the West
and Russia for years for their own political advantage."
If so what is the agenda outside obvious attempt to poison Us-Russian relations just before
Trump assumes presidency. Neocon in Washington are really afraid losing this plush positions.
And there is the whole colony of such "national security professionals" in Washington DC. For
example Robert Kagan can't do anything useful outside his favorite Russophobic agenda and would be an
unemployed along with his wife, who brought us Ukrainian disaster.
Notable quotes:
"... President Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia for the hack of the Democratic National Committee emails. "These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels of the Russian government," he wrote. ..."
"... The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect. Nothing quite adds up. ..."
"... Now we have this sanctions story, which presents a new conundrum. It appears that a large segment of the press is biting hard on the core allegations of electoral interference emanating from the Obama administration. ..."
"... Did the Russians do it? Very possibly, in which case it should be reported to the max. But the press right now is flying blind. ..."
"... Maybe the Russians did hack the DNC, but the WikiLeaks material actually came from someone else? There is even a published report to that effect, with a former British ambassador as a source, not that it's any more believable than anything else here. ..."
"... We ought to have learned from the Judith Miller episode. Not only do governments lie, they won't hesitate to burn news agencies. In a desperate moment, they'll use any sucker they can find to get a point across. ..."
"... The Joint Analysis Report from the FBI contains an appendix that lists hundreds of IP addresses that were supposedly "used by Russian civilian and military intelligence services." While some of those IP addresses are from Russia, the majority are from all over the world, which means that the hackers constantly faked their location. ..."
"... "If I was the Chinese and I wanted to make it look like the Russians did it, I would use Russian language within the code, I would use Russian techniques of breaking into the organization," McAfee said, adding that, in the end, "there simply is no way to assign a source for any attack." ..."
"... I have a problem understanding why the powers that be can't understand the widening gap between their on podium statements and the average persons view. Are they hoping to brainwash, or really believe it, or just leaving a video record for posterity that might sway historical interpretation of the current time? ..."
"... A little OT, but how many people realize that Israel (less than half the population of the former Palestine) has taken complete control of ALL water and has decreed that 3% of that water may be directed to the Palestinians! ..."
"... It's been said that on average Americans are like mushrooms – "Keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em shit!" ..."
"... And THAT, from what I've read in OPEN literature (obviously) about what is known by our cyber threat intel community, read on tech sites, and seen on the outstanding documentary program CyberWar about the Eastern European hacking community, is a OUTRIGHT BLATANT LIE. ..."
"... NOTE that he may actually believe that because that is what he may have been TOLD, just as Bush was told there were WMDs in Iraq, but as I've pointed out, the clumsy errors allowing the malware to be so very EASILY traced back to "supposedly" Russia are beyond belief for any state-sponsored outfit, especially a Russian effort. ..."
"... Note that the user info for TWO BILLION Yahoo email accounts was stolen and they left no traces which then led the FBI to conclude that it must have been "state sponsored." ..."
"... We are left with two basic options. Either they are simply stupid or their is a larger agenda at hand. I don't believe they are stupid. They have been setting fires all around this election for months, none of them effective by themselves, but ALL reinforcing the general notion that Trump is unfit and illegitimate. ..."
"... I do not believe this is just random panic and hyperbole. They are "building" something. ..."
"... This is what is must have been like being a Soviet Citizen in 1989 or so. The official media was openly laughed at because its lies were so preposterous. ..."
"... Sadly, the JAR, as the Joint Analysis Report is called, does little to end the debate. Instead of providing smoking guns that the Russian government was behind specific hacks, it largely restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity. Even worse, it provides an effective bait and switch by promising newly declassified intelligence into Russian hackers' "tradecraft and techniques" and instead delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups." ..."
"... WORSE than "delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups." It should have said "by just about anyone using 'in the wild' malware tools." ..."
"... The Russians probably have a lot of information about USG employees, contractors, etc, via hacking, recording, etc than Wikileaks. But, as a general rule, intelligence agencies do not dump it into the public domain because you don't want a potential adversary know what you know about him lest he investigate and close off the means of obtaining that information. The leaks came from elsewhere. ..."
"... Smells like a "false flag" operation, like the USA/NATO Operation Gladio in Europe. ..."
"... McCain and the War Hawks have had it out for Russia for a long time, and the Neo-cons have been closing in on the borders of Russia for some time. What will be interesting is when Trump meets with the CIA/NSA et al. for intel briefings on the alleged hacking. Hopefully, Trump will bring along VP Pence, Mad Dog and the other Marine generals (appointees) for advice. I suspect that the "false flag" nature of the hacking excuse will be evident and revealed as the pretext for the Neo-con anti-Russia agenda moving forward. ..."
"... McCain is the real thug, and an interferer in foreign elections (Kiev) and seems to have no real scruples. ..."
"... After Victoria Nuland brags about the USA spending $5 billion to overthrow the elected Ukraine government, how these Russia-phobes have any credibility is beyond me. Just shows that the consolidation of the media into a few main propaganda outlets under Bill Clinton (who also brought the Neo-cons into foreign policy dominance) has reached its logical apex. The Swamp is indeed a stinking, Corrupt miasma. ..."
"... Russia a country of 170 million surrounded by NATO military bases and 800 million people in the EU and USA is the threat? The US alone spends 12 times as much on its military annually than Russia. It's not Russia invading and overthrowing secular governments in the Muslim world. ..."
"... If I remember correctly the CIA claimed their intelligence sources came from unspecified 'allies'. It seems rather crucial to establish who these allies actually are. If it were Germany that would be one thing, however it is more than likely to be the Ukraine. ..."
"... So if Obama had actually produced evidence that the Russians had hacked Hilary's illegal, unprotected email setup in her Chapaqua basement/closet how would that change the ***content*** of the emails? It wouldn't. ..."
"... Obama is failing to convince the world that Russia is a bunch of whistle blowers on his corrupt regime. All of the emails detailing corruption and fraud are true (unchallenged), however Obama wants to suggest they were obtained illegally from an illegal email server? That is Obama's bullshit defense for the corrupt behavior? ..."
Is there any evidence those expelled are "intelligence operatives"? Any hard evidence Russia was
behind the Hillary hacks? Any credible evidence that Putin himself is to blame?
The answers are No, No, and No. Yet, once again the American press is again asked to co-sign a
dubious intelligence assessment.
In an extraordinary development Thursday, the Obama administration announced a series of sanctions
against Russia. Thirty-five Russian nationals will be expelled from the country. President
Obama issued a terse statement seeming to blame Russia for the hack of the Democratic National
Committee emails. "These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by
the highest levels of the Russian government," he wrote.
The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place in the middle
of a highly politicized environment during which the motives of all the relevant actors are suspect.
Nothing quite adds up.
If the American security agencies had smoking-gun evidence that the Russians had an organized
campaign to derail the U.S. presidential election and deliver the White House to Trump, then expelling
a few dozen diplomats after the election seems like an oddly weak and ill-timed response. Voices
in both parties are saying this now.
Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham
noted the "small price" Russia paid for its "brazen attack." The Democratic National Committee,
meanwhile, said Thursday that taken alone, the Obama response is "
insufficient " as a response to "attacks on the United States by a foreign power."
The "small price" is an eyebrow-raiser.
Adding to the problem is that in the last months of the campaign, and also in the time since
the election, we've seen an epidemic of factually loose, clearly politically motivated reporting
about Russia. Democrat-leaning pundits have been unnervingly quick to use phrases like "Russia
hacked the election."
This has led to widespread confusion among news audiences over whether the Russians hacked
the DNC emails (a story that has at least been backed by some evidence, even if it
hasn't always been great evidence ), or whether Russians hacked vote tallies in critical states
(a far more outlandish tale backed by
no credible evidence ).
As noted in The Intercept and other outlets, an Economist/YouGov poll conducted this month
shows that 50 percent of all Clinton voters believe the Russians hacked vote tallies.
And reports by some Democrat-friendly reporters – like Kurt Eichenwald, who has birthed some
real head-scratchers this year, including what he admitted was a
baseless claim that Trump spent time in an institution in 1990 – have attempted to argue that
Trump surrogates may have been liaising with the Russians because they either visited Russia
or appeared on the RT network. Similar reporting about Russian scheming has been based entirely
on unnamed security sources.
Now we have this sanctions story, which presents a new conundrum. It appears that a large
segment of the press is biting hard on the core allegations of electoral interference emanating
from the Obama administration.
Did the Russians do it? Very possibly, in which case it should be reported to the max.
But the press right now is flying blind.
Maybe the Russians did hack the DNC, but the WikiLeaks material actually came from someone
else? There is even a
published report to that effect, with a former British ambassador as a source, not that it's
any more believable than anything else here.
We just don't know, which is the problem.
We ought to have learned from the Judith Miller episode. Not only do governments lie, they
won't hesitate to burn news agencies. In a desperate moment, they'll use any sucker they can find
to get a point across.
The Joint Analysis Report from the FBI contains an appendix that lists hundreds of IP addresses
that were supposedly "used by Russian civilian and military intelligence services." While some
of those IP addresses are from Russia, the majority are from all over the world, which means that
the hackers constantly faked their location.
McAfee argues that the report is a "fallacy," explaining that hackers can fake their location,
their language, and any markers that could lead back to them. Any hacker who had the skills to
hack into the DNC would also be able to hide their tracks, he said
"If I was the Chinese and I wanted to make it look like the Russians did it, I would use
Russian language within the code, I would use Russian techniques of breaking into the organization,"
McAfee said, adding that, in the end, "there simply is no way to assign a source for any attack."
Question of Patriotism
It's not patriotic to accept accusations as facts, given US history of lies, deceit, meddling,
and wars.
The gullibility and ignorance of the typical media lapdog is appalling, and whores like McCain
and Graham will use them shamelessly to promote their twisted, warmongering agenda. The same old
story, over and over again.
I have a problem understanding why the powers that be can't understand the widening gap between
their on podium statements and the average persons view. Are they hoping to brainwash, or really
believe it, or just leaving a video record for posterity that might sway historical interpretation
of the current time?
Net control very likely in Europe soon with public administration of the web/content. Might at
least help reduce the unemployment rate. Looked over the 2016 Bilderberg attendees too. MSM attendees
interesting vs political bias they exhibit.
Whoever thinks there aren't people behind the scenes with a plan is naive and woe betide anyone
upsetting that plan.
Unemployment rate read last refuge from the official economy. Not the alt. web that takes away
motivation, it is a pressure valve for people who find the official direction nothing short of
insulting. The majority of social media users won't be distracted.
Noticed zh on Italy for you if you had not picked it up
A little OT, but how many people realize that Israel (less than half the population of the
former Palestine) has taken complete control of ALL water and has decreed that 3% of that water
may be directed to the Palestinians!
Over ten million get running water for 12 hrs a week, while in Israel (borders move
every day as the world says nothing) there are no water restrictions zero!
So, while Palestinians
struggle to live in hot barren desert conditions (food and medicine is also denied children die
of treatable cancer often as medication is blocked), a 5 min drive away millions of gallons are
used to create a green, lush paradise for the Jewish Masters!
Did you know US laws were changed in 1968 to allow "Dual Citizens" to be elected and appointed
to government positions and today many of the top posts are citizens of Israel and America WTF?
Trump needs to make a daily dose of Red Pills the law
Oops the 10M fig is a bit high but it's at least double the Jewish population, yet they get 97%
this is slow moving genocide yet it's never even acknowledged
Syria is about gas pipelines. Corporations want to profit from the gas pipeline through the region
and wr the people are supposed to send our children to war over it and pay taxes tpbsupport the
effort. Rissia wants pipelines from their country under the Black sea and Irans pipelines to the
north. The US is supporting Qatar pipeline and LNG from our own shores to the EU.
"These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed by the highest levels
of the Russian government," (Obama) wrote.
And THAT, from what I've read in OPEN literature (obviously) about what is known by our
cyber threat intel community, read on tech sites, and seen on the outstanding documentary program
CyberWar about the Eastern European hacking community, is a OUTRIGHT BLATANT LIE.
NOTE that he may actually believe that because that is what he may have been TOLD, just as
Bush was told there were WMDs in Iraq, but as I've pointed out, the clumsy errors allowing the
malware to be so very EASILY traced back to "supposedly" Russia are beyond belief for any state-sponsored
outfit, especially a Russian effort.
Note that the user info for TWO BILLION Yahoo email accounts was stolen and they left no
traces which then led the FBI to conclude that it must have been "state sponsored."
We are left with two basic options. Either they are simply stupid or their is a larger agenda
at hand. I don't believe they are stupid. They have been setting fires all around this election
for months, none of them effective by themselves, but ALL reinforcing the general notion that
Trump is unfit and illegitimate.
I do not believe this is just random panic and hyperbole. They are "building" something.
Well, it is an established and accepted fact that Richard Nixon was a very intelligent guy. None
of Nixon's detractors ever claimed he was stupid, and Nixon won reelection easily.
Tricky Dick was just a tad "honesty challenged", and so is Obama. They were/are both neo-keynesians,
both took their sweet time ending stupid wars started by their predecessors even after it was
clear the wars were pointless.
Then again, I doubt Obozo is as smart as Nixon. Soros is clearly the puppeteer controlling
what Obama does. Soros is now freaking out that his fascist agenda has been exposed.
This is what is must have been like being a Soviet Citizen in 1989 or so. The official media
was openly laughed at because its lies were so preposterous.
"While security companies in the private sector have said for months the hacking campaign was
the work of people working for the Russian government, anonymous people tied to the leaks have
claimed they are lone wolves. Many independent security experts said there was little way to know
the true origins of the attacks.
Sadly, the JAR, as the Joint Analysis Report is called, does little to end the debate.
Instead of providing smoking guns that the Russian government was behind specific hacks, it largely
restates previous private-sector claims without providing any support for their validity. Even
worse, it provides an effective bait and switch by promising newly declassified intelligence into
Russian hackers' "tradecraft and techniques" and instead delivering generic methods carried out
by just about all state-sponsored hacking groups."
WORSE than "delivering generic methods carried out by just about all state-sponsored hacking
groups." It should have said "by just about anyone using 'in the wild' malware tools."
2015 Bilderberg. Looking down the attendees and subjects covered. Interesting some of the main
anti-Brexit groups had representatives there, suggests HC picked for 2016 US election, Cyber-security
and etc. Look at the key topics. How they all helped define 2016. So many current intertwined
themes.
The Russians probably have a lot of information about USG employees, contractors, etc,
via hacking, recording, etc than Wikileaks. But, as a general rule, intelligence agencies do not
dump it into the public domain because you don't want a potential adversary know what you know
about him lest he investigate and close off the means of obtaining that information. The leaks
came from elsewhere.
Smells like a "false flag" operation, like the USA/NATO Operation Gladio in Europe.
McCain and the War Hawks have had it out for Russia for a long time, and the Neo-cons have
been closing in on the borders of Russia for some time. What will be interesting is when Trump
meets with the CIA/NSA et al. for intel briefings on the alleged hacking. Hopefully, Trump will
bring along VP Pence, Mad Dog and the other Marine generals (appointees) for advice. I suspect
that the "false flag" nature of the hacking excuse will be evident and revealed as the pretext
for the Neo-con anti-Russia agenda moving forward.
The CIA it is now widely believed was part of the Deep State behind the JFK assassination when
JFK took an independent view, so Trump will need the USA Marines on his side. McCain is the
real thug, and an interferer in foreign elections (Kiev) and seems to have no real scruples.
After Victoria Nuland brags about the USA spending $5 billion to overthrow the elected
Ukraine government, how these Russia-phobes have any credibility is beyond me. Just shows that
the consolidation of the media into a few main propaganda outlets under Bill Clinton (who also
brought the Neo-cons into foreign policy dominance) has reached its logical apex. The Swamp is
indeed a stinking, Corrupt miasma.
Perhaps the Clinton Foundation and nascent Obama foundation feel it in their financial
interests to nurture the misma.
Cha-ching, cha-ching. Money to be made in demonizing Russia.
"The CIA it is now widely believed was part of the Deep State behind the JFK assassination when
JFK took an independent view "
All the circumstantial evidence pointed to Oswald. No one has ever proven otherwise, in over
50 years.
After 50 years of being propagandized by conspiracy book writers, it isn't surprising that
anything is widely believed at this point. The former curator of the 6th Floor Museum, Gary Mack,
believed there was a conspiracy, but over time came to realize that it was Oswald, alone.
When liberal Rolling Stone questions the Obama/DNC propaganda, you know for certain that they
have lost even their base supporters (the ones that can still think). The BS has just gotten too
stupid.
Why is the WSJ strongly supporting Obama here but also saying he waited way to long to make this
move? I don't always agree with them nor do I with you.
Ok I haven't read the comments but would only say that when Vladimir Putin the once leader
of the KGB becomes a preacher and starts criticizing the West for abandoning its Christian roots,
it's moral dignity, that for me doesn't just stink, it raises red flags all over the place. I
think Trump and some of the rest of u r being set up here-like lambs to the slaughter. Mish your
naïveté here surprises me!
Russia a country of 170 million surrounded by NATO military bases and 800 million people
in the EU and USA is the threat? The US alone spends 12 times as much on its military annually
than Russia. It's not Russia invading and overthrowing secular governments in the Muslim world.
If I remember correctly the CIA claimed their intelligence sources came from unspecified 'allies'.
It seems rather crucial to establish who these allies actually are. If it were Germany that would
be one thing, however it is more than likely to be the Ukraine.
The Ukranian government have been trying to drive a wedge between the West and Russia for years
for their own political advantage. If I was Trump then when I took office I would want an extremely
thorough investigation into the activities of the CIA by a third reliable party.
Excerpt: But was it really Russian meddling? After all, how does one prove not only intent
but source in a world of cyberespionage, where planting false flag clues and other Indicators
of Compromise (IOCs) meant to frame a specific entity, is as important as the actual hack.
Robert M. Lee, CEO and founder of cybersecurity company Dragos, which specializes in threats
facing critical infrastructure, also noted that the IOCs included "commodity malware," or hacking
tools that are widely available for purchase.
He said:
1. No they did not penetrate the grid.
2. The IOCs contained *commodity malware* – can't attribute based off that alone.
So if Obama had actually produced evidence that the Russians had hacked Hilary's illegal,
unprotected email setup in her Chapaqua basement/closet how would that change the ***content***
of the emails? It wouldn't.
Obama is failing to convince the world that Russia is a bunch of whistle blowers on his
corrupt regime. All of the emails detailing corruption and fraud are true (unchallenged), however
Obama wants to suggest they were obtained illegally from an illegal email server? That is Obama's
bullshit defense for the corrupt behavior?
And as "proportional retaliation" for this Russian whistle blowing, Obozo is evicting 35 entertainment
staff from the Russian embassy summer camp?
I doubt Hollywood or San Francisco has the integrity to admit they backed the wrong loser when
they supported Obozo but they should think about their own credibility after January 20th. Anyone
who is still backing Obozo is just too stupid to tie their own shoes much less vote
"... I also think this is Obama's move to divert attention away from the cease fire in Syria. ..."
"... The Obama/media machine scores another hollow victory. Can't wait until this guy is out of office. ..."
"... The Obama administration should be thanking Russian efforts to end the war in Syria. We know the MIC wanted this civil war to go on for another decade. ..."
"... Oh for christ's sake, once again: There were no hacks, the emails were LEAKED! Probably by Democrats disgusted by the way Bernie was treated. ..."
"... All Americans should be alarmed that their country is now losing its edge in terms of the manipulation of other countries' electoral processes. This is "unprecedented". ..."
"... Red baiting won't close down the debate. There's still no evidence of Russian hacking of the US election. And fascism is shouting people down who ask for evidence and don't just follow the President because he is attacking the outsiders. Share Facebook Twitter TheControlLeft -> osprey1957 , 30 Dec 2016 21:12 It's preferable to the Obama brigades sponsorship of Islamic terrorism Share Facebook Twitter monsieur_flaneur , 30 Dec 2016 20:49 Obama, envisioning a spot on Mt Rushmore, exits a laughing stock. Ah well Share Janjii , 30 Dec 2016 20:54 Russia defeated the US in the Ukraine and recently it received an even harder blow Syria. Next think you know the US 'administration' makes a fool of itself by expelling 35 RF officials, who would have though that! Sad to see this beautiful continent is being compromised by someone's puppets in the white house. Nato is crumbling now that Turkey t-he gateway to the Balkans, the Caspian, to the Stannies- rethinks its ties with US/NATO and moves towards Russia. It is crumbling beacuse the world begins to understand that the rationale behind 'operation gladio' /strategy of tension is still ruling the US admin. We could do without NATO, and could use a US government supporting peace rather than an administration creating war. Even Germany starts to realize that, because of the abundance of US military bases in this country, Germany is in fact 'occupied territory', a US colony if you will. The USA has underestimated people on this planet who, as opposed to US politicians, were able to put current politics in a historical perspective. US policymakers took a part of Heidegger, Locke, Freud, Descartes and others without knowing their interpretations were at least incomplete. It results from the way in which US universities teach the discretized model of two extremes with the requirement of choosing one of these without putting both in one perspective: 'Descartes or Pascal' (not both as the French do); 'black or white'; 'with or against us'. The result Americans aimed for was a stable socio-political model, same with 'Neue Sozialismus'. What they obtained was a polarized world, because, a rigid stable model can only be governed by suppression (which the Military industrial Complex is currently doing) and we do not want that. Trump may lack political experience, he may be supported by a group of ideosyncratic wealthy people attracting bad press from 'regulated media'. Equal chance of Trump having a positive or negative effect on US internal and external policy-making, and on the relationship with RF. But, Trump has one advantage: the more the Obama 'administration' barks, the more support Trump will receive to change what Bush-Clinton-Obama have ruined for their electorates; the more to celebrate for the Russians on January 13. LMichelle -> Janjii , 30 Dec 2016 20:57 Bingo. This is not about the integrity of US elections. It's about being punked in Syria this week. The problems with the electoral process in the US were massive before 2016 and never received this many Presidential press conferences. Share ga gamba , 30 Dec 2016 20:55 The U.S. has a long history of attempting to influence presidential elections in other countries – it's done so as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000, according to a database amassed by political scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University. That number doesn't include military coups and regime change efforts following the election of candidates the U.S. didn't like, notably those in Iran, Guatemala and Chile. Nor does it include general assistance with the electoral process, such as election monitoring. [...] In 59% of these cases, the side that received assistance came to power, although Levin estimates the average effect of "partisan electoral interventions" to be only about a 3% increase in vote share. ( Source ) I understand why some may find outside interference objectionable, but I reckon many of those who think so fail to recognise America's far-from-faultless behaviour. Curses are like chickens; they always come home to roost. Of course had the DNC leadership and the Clinton camp behaved ethically in the primary by not conspiring to tip the scale in Clinton's favour, the hack would have found nothing. What we have now is Obama forced to divert the public attention because of yet another messy scandal Hillary finds herself involved in. Clinton must be one of the most blessed people on earth; everyone bends over backwards to accommodate her ambitions. Paull01 -> ga gamba , 30 Dec 2016 21:18 Please provide an example of a political party behaving ethically during an election campaign? You reckon the republicans weren't trying to tip the scales away from Donny? Also, Clinton lost despite getting way more votes so Donny will be president and it is pointless to continue to indulge in bashing Hillary, she is now just another elderly lady enjoying her golden years. Share Facebook Twitter europeangrayling -> ga gamba , 30 Dec 2016 21:23 Also the CIA-Belgian assassination of Lamumba in 61, Congo's first democratically elected president, for the same 'geopolitical' aka 'big business' reasons as the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran in 53, who wanted the nationalize Iranian oil for their people, and Lumumba had similar 'socialist' ideas for all the vast Congolese resources. To cut out the western business interests. And think how well the Congo has fared since, one of the worst, saddest places, chaos, civil war, more dead than in Rwanda or anywhere I think. They have not recovered from that. And Iran, they were democratic, secular, elected a guy like Mossadegh, they were 'European', but the the US and Britain overthrew him on behest of British-US oil interests, installed the Shah, their puppet dictator, and the blow-back was the Iranian religious right-wing revolution and dictatorship some 20 years later. And now the Iranian people and our 'foreign policy' are suffering. And all these US and CIA 'activities' the government had admitted and declassified, like the Gulf of Tonkin lie and false flag in Vietnam, because it was so long ago nobody cares, so it's no 'conspiracy' here, just history. But now these Clinton Democrats they really love and trust anything the CIA says, of course, they are big patriots now, and call people unpatriotic and foreign agents if they question the so honorable CIA, because they are on Hillary's side now. And the CIA in cahoots with Bush and Cheney also told us how there were these big, scary WMDs in Iraq, and mushroom clouds, and how Saddam had links with Al Qaida, all obvious lies, that any amateur who knew basic world history could tell you even then. And speaking of 'meddling', and overthrowing democratic governments, the US did the same under Obama and Hillary in Honduras just a few years ago, backed the violent coup of a democratic leftist government there, and they still refuse to call it a coup, and have legitimized the new corrupt and violent regime, are training their army, etc. Even though the EU and the US ambassador to Honduras called it a coup at the time. And for the same reasons, that leftist government didn't want to play ball with big US and western 'business interests', energy companies, didn't want to sell them their rivers and resources like the new 'good' regime now. And since that coup, 100s of indigenous activists and environmentalists have been killed, like Berta Caceres, and the violence and corruption has gone up big time under the new regime, with 1000s more killed 'in general'. Yet Obama is so concerned about 'the integrity of democracy' and elections and freedom and all that, what a nice guy. fanUS , 30 Dec 2016 20:58 The real question that Americans should be asking why Barack Obummer failed again to provide security in case of hacking Democrat's emails? Clinton did not deny that emails published by WikiLeaks were genuine. That is called freedom of press. What's wrong with public finding the truth about Clinton? Share Not4TheFaintOfHeart , 30 Dec 2016 20:59 Why would Russia be happy that Clinton lost? Why would any foreign power be happy that Clinton lost?... How many years did HRC, in her arrogance-fuelled denial, provide foreign intelligences with literally tonnes of free info??! Share furiouspurpose , 30 Dec 2016 21:03 Trump might therefore be expected to simply end the Obama sanctions. .... But if he did choose to do so, he would find himself at odds with his own party. Trump is exactly where he is today because he attacked that same party. He called bullshit on the Bush's claims to have made the US safer and called bullshit on the idea that Iraq was something that we should still do in hindsight. He trashed the idea of free trade and TTIP - another Republican shibboleth. He refused to go down the standard Republican route of trashing social security... ..."
"... All he needs to do is call bullshit on this 'evidence' of Russian hacking and remind everyone that it wasn't Russians who manned the planes on 9/11. Trump is a oafish clown - but he's not a standard politician playing standard politics. He can shrug off this oh-so-clever manoeuvre by Obama with no trouble. ..."
On Friday, the Kremlin responded to the moves, including the expulsion of 35 suspected intelligence
operatives and the closing of two Russian facilities in the US, with a shrug. Putin, it seems, is
willing simply to wait until Trump moves into the Oval Office. Trump's tweet suggested he is too.
But such provocative words could not distract the media and public from another domestic concern
for Trump – the growing perception that his predecessor has acted to
his disadvantage .
"The sanctions were clearly an attempt by the Obama administration to throw a wrench into – or [to]
box in – the next administration's relationship with Russia," said Boris Zilberman, a Russia expert
at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
"Putin, in part, saw through that and sidestepped it by playing good cop to [Russian foreign minister
Sergey] Lavrov and the [state] Duma, who were calling for a reciprocal response."
I also think this is Obama's move to divert attention away from the cease fire in Syria.
There the US has been supporting all these groups, flying air missions and dropping special
forces in Syria for years now, and the US has no seat at the table of the cease fire negotiations.
That should be very embarrassing for the US, but it apparently is not, because all the media wants
to talk about are these sanctions, which seem pretty trivial to me.
The Obama/media machine scores another hollow victory. Can't wait until this guy is out
of office.
Still no proof of any meddling by the Russians. Only a last gasp attempt by a weak president in
what is starting to look like a boys against men tussle with Putin. Add the Syria ceasefire brokered
by Turkey and Putin to this to show how Obama is being outmaneuvered at every turn.
Sad to see what a far cry from Obama the candidate Obama the president has turned out to be.
Action makes propaganda's effect irreversible. He who acts in obedience to propaganda can never
go back. He is now obliged to believe in that propaganda because of his past action. He is obliged
to receive from it his justification and authority, without which his action will seem to him
absurd or unjust, which would be intolerable. He is obliged to continue to advance in the direction
indicated by propaganda, for action demands more action.
Jacques Ellul:
The Obama administration should be thanking Russian efforts to end the war in Syria. We know
the MIC wanted this civil war to go on for another decade.
PS once you are there, read everything else Craig Murray has written there. This is the ambassador
HM government fired for daring to speak out against the Uzbek government's human rights abuses.
Share
No, no, you see you just put the word "consensus" before a pathetically transparent lie and then
apparently it magically becomes evidence based and well sourced...
All Americans should be alarmed that their country is now losing its edge in terms of the
manipulation of other countries' electoral processes. This is "unprecedented".
Where previously we had implemented such actions ourselves without fear of reciprocation we
should be concerned that we are no longer immune to such machinations by other states. These events
may represent a turning point as regards our accepted global hegemony.
Obama has been anti-Russia long before Trump came into the picture.
This article is more of a wish list than anything else.
We are told by 'experts' that 'There is now a public record of what Russia did'
Where is it? I would love to see this.
I do know that the 2 countries that carry out most cyber attacks in the world are the US and it's
main ally in the Middle East. Just ask the Iranians what they did. Share
I think all American presidents are anti Russian. Sounds like you was born 2005 or you just doing
your British citizenship. You don't know much so read this
Life in the uk test Share
Facebook
Twitter
Obama complaining about Russian influence in American elections.
Last time I've checked it was Mr. Obama that warned British people against Brexit, wasn't?
What about the deposition of an ELECTED president in Ukraine with their support of Obama and EU?
Let's talk also about regime changes in Syria, Lybia and Egypt undertaken under Obama's administration?
Perhaps we could also remember that Obama's agencies spied 3 million of Spanyards, Merkel, Dilma
Rousseff (Brazilian President) and so on... WHAT A HIPOCRISY, OBAMA!!!! Share
You have hit the nail on the head on all your points. But America and especially the American
military needs a boogy man to justify the trillions of dollars of American tax payer money they
request to keep their military empire going. Imagine if there was no boogy man and the conclusion
was to half the American military to a size only equal to the next 6 largest militarys instead
of the present 13. Incidentally, most of the next largest militarys are allies of the United States.
This whole kerfuffle about Russian hacking has the stink of shooting the messenger. What about
concentrating on what was in the leaked e-mails. They showed a high level of deep corruption in
the DNC. That is the importance of the hacked e-mails. Whoever hacked and released them to the
American public has done the America public a great favor. If Wasserman Shultz in cohoots with
Hillary had not swung the primaries in favor of Hillary and if Obama had remembered that the constitution
says the government is for the people and by the people (the peoples choice was by a huge margin
for Bernie) and come out for Bernie, we wouldn't be in the CF we are in right now. I thought Obama
is a constitutional lawyer. So much for the constitution. The only statesman in this mess is Putin.
Thank heaven for his level headedness. The American pronouncements have the stink of the build
up to another false flag operation (the CIA revelations themselves are probably a false flag operation).
I hope Putin can keep his 'cool' in the face of American provocation.
It starts to look as if Putin and Trump wipe their shoes on Obama at this point, and it is Obama
who asked for it. Embarrassing. Share
Facebook
Twitter
I've read Guardian's article on Russia's response to Obama's tantrum. Yep, it's clear why Obama
lost to Russians and can't cope with it. Now use your own advice, Barry. Go to the back of the
queue. Share
Facebook
Twitter
They were gossipy emails ffs. If that was all it took for H. Clinton to lose to Trump, then the
Democrats really need to do an autopsy on itself. Or, here's a thought, VISIT the states where
you need the support to win. This is becoming soooooo boring! Share
Facebook
Twitter
Well what a spiteful, petty like man this Obama has turned out to be! This is the first time his
side hasn't 'won' and he can't take it so throws his toys out the pram and risks further souring
relationships with the East. Thank goodness Putin rose above it. Share
Facebook
Twitter
Few words left.....the future presidency and its administration is an absolute farce....a 'free
for all' for Trump and his cronies. Watch the rich get even richer and the poor get screwed. America
chose....they have to deal with it.
Unfortunately for those of us who aren't are going to be screwed as well. Lack of tact and ignorance
of diplomacy could ignite a power keg. Share
Facebook
Twitter
The problem is no one trusts the agencies you mentioned anymore based on their past record....
As regards the FBI being no friend of the democrats, didn't they just let her off for storing
thousands of classified emails on a private server?
Besides, the whole world knows that the US have been sponsoring changes of Govs around the world
so it comes across as completely hypocritical.
This appears to be a smokescreen for numerous embarrassing issues relating to the election
& foreign policy.
For the record, I'm not a putin bot or fan if DT. So tired of the same old hackie responses
to anyone who questions the narrative. It's getting really boring. Share
This just shows the real character of Obama. Queering the pitch for Trump and the incoming administration.
But well done Putin for sidestepping. Clever. Much smarter than Obama. In the end lawyers make
bad Presidents and bad Prime Ministers. Share
Bit of a pot-kettle interface going on here. America leads the way in the hacking of public servers
around the world and spying on friend and enemy alike. Not long ago the CIA tapped into Angela
Merkel's mobile phone and I don't remember the same level of public outcry. Seems like America
is affronted that Russia and others are now doing what the US has done for years. And if it is
in fact the Russians - proof not yet forthcoming - this wasn't a hack into the electoral system
at all; it was a simple phishing email that the US officials were silly enough to click onto the
link.
And finally - what eventually was released was the truth. Clinton was favoured by the DNC, she
did say those things to Goldman Sachs, a CNN reporter did provide her with the questions before
the presidential debates. The truth is that the US elections were corrupted, but not by the Russians
- the culprits lie a little closer to home.
Obama tried to corner Russia, and almost all GOP lawmakers applauded Obama's action. Called it
was well overdue. But our smart president-elect comforted crying Putin right away by calling him
a smart man for not taking any actions. It is becoming more and more clear that Trump and Putin
are made for each other. I think Trump is keeping Putin on his side to take air out of overinflated
Chinese balloon. May be he was advised by his team. No one knows his game plan. Share
He is a great tactician. It certainly makes Obama look less threatening.
But he is a horrible strategist. A good strategy doesn't surprise. It makes plain to one's
opponent that things will only get worse--and one had better accommodate sooner rather than later.
It was at the heart of Reagan's strategy, which destroyed the SU.
And this is exactly the situation that Putin faces with or without sanctions. The renewed fracking
is going to keep oil and gas at lows not seen since the 90s. What was interesting was that even
Putin's stooge in the UK, Krassnov, said that Russia faced a very dire economic future. Whatever
Trump does, few Republicans are going to be accommodating after:
1) Crimea and Donbass
2) Blasting Aleppo to smithereens
3) Trying to throw the US election
The latter is an existential threat to every lawmaker, and they are hopping mad at the thought
that it could happen again.
Ironically, Putin is proving ever more clearly that Obama should have used air power in 2013,
as Putin has done in 2016.
It is a lesson that will not be lost on a Republican Congress.
1) situation caused by US Newland causing havoc in Ukraine by spending millions on regime change.
2) caused by US arming terrorists
3) lol - no serious person believes the Reds had any influence. It was the candidate. (If interference
in someone else's election was an international crime, the US would be in the dock every 6 months!)
The fool trump cannot do any worse than what's been occurring the last 15 years! Wars, invasions,
terrorist support and dossiers on mythical WMDs! It's been a disaster. US foreign policy is heavily
influenced by the CFR. He won't have a say in it. They will continue in the same diabolical fashion.
Nearly 40 years ago , at the height of the cold war when I joined up to serve my country, never
did i dream the day would come when I had more respect for the leader of Russia than a president
of the USA and that I would have more faith in the Russian media than our own fake media.
Not content with merely stealing the silverware, BO is intent on causing as much mischief as possible
before being booted out of the White House, but the Russians are not falling for it. They will
be dealing with Donald Trump in a few weeks, and there is no need to respond to Barry's diaper
baby antics.
I'm sure the Russians are hacking our internet systems, but the DNC emails that went to WikiLeaks
did not come from them. The content, outlining Podesta's plan to discredit Bernie supporters by
falsely tying them to violent acts, would indicate that a disgruntled and disgusted DNC employee
was more likely the source. Share
Of course everyone on here decrying Obama's actions knows far more and understands the cyber-attacks/election
interference issue far better than the combined resources and considered judgement of the US intelligence
community.
Of course you do. Goes without saying, all you have to do is cite an example of incompetence or
malfeasance by US intelligence agencies in the past and you rest your case.
Or maybe it's like parents who can't accept their child has been a bully or a general shit at
school. If you are a fan of the Trump-Putin axis you'll go through any self-deceiving contortions
necessary to avoid accepting reality.
Stop defending the indefensible. It happened, Obama acted (albeit slowly) and now Trump quite
properly will be expected to justify any softening of position.
Talking about self-deceiving contortions while performing your own mental gymnastics. It's quite
a show.
You say "stop defending the indefensible", while waving away any past instances of malfeasance
by US intelligence agencies in the past. To be explicit: yes, that includes meddling in other
countries' political affairs. Share
Facebook
Twitter
It is of course impossible as the USA has the most and claimed most advanced spying network on
the planet. It totally surrounds both friends and foes alike - with such technical ability the
only country who could spy and influence (e.g. arm twisting Merkal is a prime example) on any
country at will is the 'exceptional ' US Government.
Appears suspiciously likely that Obama is just bitter that his legacy is about to be dumped in
the nearest skip on Jan 20, and wants to make trouble for Trump during his last 3 weeks in office.
Hard to see how Putin could have engineered Hillary Clinton's defeat, given she won the popular
vote by 3 million.
Also Obama is extremely hypocritical as the CIA has repeatedly interfered in the affairs of
other countries over the past 60 years.
On Thursday, the Arizona senator John McCain and South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham said
in a joint statement: "The retaliatory measures announced by the Obama administration today
are long overdue.
That's all I needed to know. If lunatic war monger John McCain wants to ratchet up the tension
with a nuclear power - then it is very wise to do the opposite. Share
Red baiting won't close down the debate. There's still no evidence of Russian hacking of the
US election.
And fascism is shouting people down who ask for evidence and don't just follow the President
because he is attacking the outsiders. Share
Facebook
Twitter
Russia defeated the US in the Ukraine and recently it received an even harder blow Syria. Next
think you know the US 'administration' makes a fool of itself by expelling 35 RF officials, who
would have though that!
Sad to see this beautiful continent is being compromised by someone's puppets in the white
house. Nato is crumbling now that Turkey t-he gateway to the Balkans, the Caspian, to the Stannies-
rethinks its ties with US/NATO and moves towards Russia. It is crumbling beacuse the world begins
to understand that the rationale behind 'operation gladio' /strategy of tension is still ruling
the US admin. We could do without NATO, and could use a US government supporting peace rather
than an administration creating war. Even Germany starts to realize that, because of the abundance
of US military bases in this country, Germany is in fact 'occupied territory', a US colony if
you will.
The USA has underestimated people on this planet who, as opposed to US politicians, were able
to put current politics in a historical perspective. US policymakers took a part of Heidegger,
Locke, Freud, Descartes and others without knowing their interpretations were at least incomplete.
It results from the way in which US universities teach the discretized model of two extremes with
the requirement of choosing one of these without putting both in one perspective: 'Descartes or
Pascal' (not both as the French do); 'black or white'; 'with or against us'. The result Americans
aimed for was a stable socio-political model, same with 'Neue Sozialismus'. What they obtained
was a polarized world, because, a rigid stable model can only be governed by suppression (which
the Military industrial Complex is currently doing) and we do not want that.
Trump may lack political experience, he may be supported by a group of ideosyncratic wealthy
people attracting bad press from 'regulated media'. Equal chance of Trump having a positive or
negative effect on US internal and external policy-making, and on the relationship with RF. But,
Trump has one advantage: the more the Obama 'administration' barks, the more support Trump will
receive to change what Bush-Clinton-Obama have ruined for their electorates; the more to celebrate
for the Russians on January 13.
Bingo. This is not about the integrity of US elections. It's about being punked in Syria this
week.
The problems with the electoral process in the US were massive before 2016 and never received
this many Presidential press conferences. Share
The U.S. has a long history of attempting to influence presidential elections in other countries
– it's done so as many as 81 times between 1946 and 2000, according to a database amassed by political
scientist Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University.
That number doesn't include military coups and regime change efforts following the election
of candidates the U.S. didn't like, notably those in Iran, Guatemala and Chile. Nor does it include
general assistance with the electoral process, such as election monitoring. [...]
In 59% of these cases, the side that received assistance came to power, although Levin estimates
the average effect of "partisan electoral interventions" to be only about a 3% increase in vote
share. (
Source )
I understand why some may find outside interference objectionable, but I reckon many of those
who think so fail to recognise America's far-from-faultless behaviour. Curses are like chickens;
they always come home to roost.
Of course had the DNC leadership and the Clinton camp behaved ethically in the primary by not
conspiring to tip the scale in Clinton's favour, the hack would have found nothing. What we have
now is Obama forced to divert the public attention because of yet another messy scandal Hillary
finds herself involved in. Clinton must be one of the most blessed people on earth; everyone bends
over backwards to accommodate her ambitions.
Please provide an example of a political party behaving ethically during an election campaign?
You reckon the republicans weren't trying to tip the scales away from Donny?
Also, Clinton lost despite getting way more votes so Donny will be president and it is pointless
to continue to indulge in bashing Hillary, she is now just another elderly lady enjoying her golden
years. Share
Facebook
Twitter
Also the CIA-Belgian assassination of Lamumba in 61, Congo's first democratically elected president,
for the same 'geopolitical' aka 'big business' reasons as the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran in
53, who wanted the nationalize Iranian oil for their people, and Lumumba had similar 'socialist'
ideas for all the vast Congolese resources. To cut out the western business interests. And think
how well the Congo has fared since, one of the worst, saddest places, chaos, civil war, more dead
than in Rwanda or anywhere I think. They have not recovered from that.
And Iran, they were democratic, secular, elected a guy like Mossadegh, they were 'European',
but the the US and Britain overthrew him on behest of British-US oil interests, installed the
Shah, their puppet dictator, and the blow-back was the Iranian religious right-wing revolution
and dictatorship some 20 years later. And now the Iranian people and our 'foreign policy' are
suffering.
And all these US and CIA 'activities' the government had admitted and declassified, like the
Gulf of Tonkin lie and false flag in Vietnam, because it was so long ago nobody cares, so it's
no 'conspiracy' here, just history. But now these Clinton Democrats they really love and trust
anything the CIA says, of course, they are big patriots now, and call people unpatriotic and foreign
agents if they question the so honorable CIA, because they are on Hillary's side now.
And the CIA in cahoots with Bush and Cheney also told us how there were these big, scary WMDs
in Iraq, and mushroom clouds, and how Saddam had links with Al Qaida, all obvious lies, that any
amateur who knew basic world history could tell you even then.
And speaking of 'meddling', and overthrowing democratic governments, the US did the same under
Obama and Hillary in Honduras just a few years ago, backed the violent coup of a democratic leftist
government there, and they still refuse to call it a coup, and have legitimized the new corrupt
and violent regime, are training their army, etc. Even though the EU and the US ambassador to
Honduras called it a coup at the time.
And for the same reasons, that leftist government didn't want to play ball with big US and
western 'business interests', energy companies, didn't want to sell them their rivers and resources
like the new 'good' regime now. And since that coup, 100s of indigenous activists and environmentalists
have been killed, like Berta Caceres, and the violence and corruption has gone up big time under
the new regime, with 1000s more killed 'in general'. Yet Obama is so concerned about 'the integrity
of democracy' and elections and freedom and all that, what a nice guy.
The real question that Americans should be asking why Barack Obummer failed again to provide security
in case of hacking Democrat's emails?
Clinton did not deny that emails published by WikiLeaks were genuine.
That is called freedom of press.
What's wrong with public finding the truth about Clinton? Share
Why would Russia be happy that Clinton lost? Why would any foreign power be happy that Clinton
lost?...
How many years did HRC, in her arrogance-fuelled denial, provide foreign intelligences with literally
tonnes of free info??! Share
Trump might therefore be expected to simply end the Obama sanctions. .... But if he did
choose to do so, he would find himself at odds with his own party.
Trump is exactly where he is today because he attacked that same party. He called bullshit
on the Bush's claims to have made the US safer and called bullshit on the idea that Iraq was something
that we should still do in hindsight. He trashed the idea of free trade and TTIP - another Republican
shibboleth. He refused to go down the standard Republican route of trashing social security...
All he needs to do is call bullshit on this 'evidence' of Russian hacking and remind everyone
that it wasn't Russians who manned the planes on 9/11. Trump is a oafish clown - but he's not
a standard politician playing standard politics. He can shrug off this oh-so-clever manoeuvre
by Obama with no trouble.
"... Therefore, the neoliberal project, considered under the aspect of justice, was destined to implode, and known to be so destined from the very beginning, since ultimately for popular acceptance it depends on redistribution, but "winners seldom, if ever, compensate the losers." So why throw good money after bad? ..."
"... Second, neoliberalism puts markets first . Always. So there's no reason to think that losers will ever be compensated, because there's no market in doing that. In any case, how do you put a price on a destroyed Main Street or a child dead from opiates? ..."
"... The neoliberal project has finally failed. It cannot secure a popular mandate, and by its nature cannot ever secure one. Therefore, anyone dedicated to an open society should not fund it. One might argue that alternatives to that project should be funded, but I think (see above) that only small-d democratic projects can create such alternatives, and they should be self-funded. ..."
"... Everything Lambert states he is correct, but as much as Soros's money is amplified by and mirrors NED and USAID money, it might be his job to invest in Democrat, Neoliberal, and Regime Change projects. He seems to function as a front/shell company like Chaz T. MAIN (Confessions of an Economic Hitman, John Perkins) or Business International Corp. ( http://johnpilger.com/articles/power-illusion-and-americas-last-taboo ) ..."
"... Soros and the State Department (or the dominant faction thereof) have roughly the same prescription for Russia and Eastern Europe. So no need at all to hypothesize one as a front for the other. ..."
"... It's not inconceivable. Think of Pierre Omidyar and USAID in Ukraine ..."
"... Agreed. Just a dumb excuse to persuade people we can't have nice things. Obama may have campaigned on "Yes We Can" in 2008 but Hillary in 2016 was the soaring voice of "No, You Can't." ..."
"... Pretty clear from the rich people and a few very rich people I have encountered, professionally and personally (once shared a secretary with Bill Gates Sr.) that the empathy and comity and decency drivers never got installed with the original programming. ..."
"... Everything Soros does is to line his own pockets I'm afraid. This will fall on deaf ears. For them, it's never enough money. That is what this is really about. Behind the curtains, you are dealing with a bunch of people who care nothing about the collective good and everything about their own net worth. Nothing else matters to them. ..."
I find the current moment in history very painful. Open societies are
in crisis, and various forms of closed societies – from fascist
dictatorships to mafia states – are on the rise. How could this happen?
The only explanation I can find is that
elected leaders failed to
meet voters' legitimate expectations and aspirations
and that this
failure led electorates to become disenchanted with the prevailing
versions of democracy and capitalism. Quite simply, many people felt that
the elites had stolen their democracy.
Not to mention their money, as the foreclosure crisis showed.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US emerged as the sole
remaining superpower, equally committed to the principles of democracy
and free markets. The major development since then has been the
globalization of financial markets, spearheaded by advocates who argued
that globalization increases total wealth. After all, if the winners
compensated the losers, they would still have something left over.
The argument was misleading, because it ignored the fact that the
winners seldom, if ever, compensate the losers
. But the potential
winners spent enough money promoting the argument that it prevailed .
Globalization has had far-reaching economic and political
consequences. It has brought about some economic convergence between poor
and rich countries; but it increased inequality within both poor and rich
countries. In the developed world,
the benefits accrued mainly to
large owners of financial capital
, who constitute less than 1% of
the population. The
lack of redistributive policies is the main
source of the dissatisfaction
that democracy's opponents have
exploited. But there were other contributing factors as well,
particularly in Europe.
Therefore, the neoliberal project, considered under the aspect of
justice, was destined to implode, and known to be so destined from the very
beginning, since ultimately for popular acceptance it depends on
redistribution, but "winners seldom, if ever, compensate the losers." So why
throw good money after bad?
Now, to be fair, some more fair-minded mainstream academics are trying to
improve neoliberalism by bringing redistribution forward. First, why - after
forty years of neoliberalism - would anyone trust them? For example, a
current popular topic is the replacement of all wage work by robots. And
sometimes the topic "How to help all those poor
losers
workers"
is vaguely discussed. Are we really to believe any help will be forthcoming?
Or that, if it comes, it won't be gate-keepered and means-tested to death?
History says no. Experience says no.
Second,
neoliberalism puts markets first
. Always. So there's no reason to think
that losers will ever be compensated, because there's no market in doing
that. In any case, how do you put a price on a destroyed Main Street or a
child dead from opiates?
The neoliberal project has finally failed. It cannot secure a popular
mandate, and by its nature cannot ever secure one. Therefore, anyone
dedicated to an open society should not fund it. One might argue that
alternatives to that project should be funded, but I think (see above) that
only small-d democratic projects can create such alternatives, and they
should be self-funded.
Conclusion
I think philanthropy even on the Nineteenth Century Robber Baron model -
Carnegie Libraries, the Frick Museum, or genuine scholarship[1] - would be
preferable to continuing to fund Democrats, or neoliberal projects
generally. Soros should consider those alternatives. Short neoliberalism.[2]
Lambert Strether has been blogging, managing online communities, and
doing system administration 24/7 since 2003, in Drupal and WordPress.
Besides political economy and the political scene, he blogs about
rhetoric, software engineering, permaculture, history, literature, local
politics, international travel, food, and fixing stuff around the house.
The nom de plume "Lambert Strether" comes from Henry James's The
Ambassadors: "Live all you can. It's a mistake not to." You can follow
him on Twitter at @lambertstrether. http://www.correntewire.com
mothyGeithner
,
December 30, 2016 at 1:26 pm
I'm reminded of Dan Snyder, the owner of the football team from
Landover, Maryland.
Snyder is a guy who sold three business ventures for crazy valuations
for companies that didn't exist in any capacity a few years later or
didn't have anything beyond pizzazz. Yet, Snyder is a billionaire. Why?
What good is he? Why shouldn't the government say, "hey, we will leave
you with $25 million, but we are taking the rest."? There is no rationale
reason for billionaires to exist, so billionaires have to come up with a
reason for why their billions are justified without giving the money
away. Dan Snyder runs a football team into the ground. George Soros tries
to fight villains of his youth, Nazis and Communists under the bed before
people realize they should just get rid of billionaires.
Snyder has to run the football team because he has to prove he's worth
it and not the by product of inane Fed and tax policies that turned two
bit operations into over night IPO bonanzas. Why isn't the guy who
invented synthetic diamonds a billionaire or even a millionaire?
Wallace
: [while eating some Chicken McNuggets]
Man, these s****s is right, yo.
Malik 'Poot' Carr
: [with his mouth full] Mm-hmm.
Wallace
: Good with the hot sauce too, yo.
Malik 'Poot' Carr
: Most definitely.
Wallace
: Yo, D, you want some nuggets?
D'Angelo Barksdale
: Nah, go ahead, man.
Wallace
: Man, whoever invented these, yo, he off the
hook.
Malik 'Poot' Carr
: What?
Wallace
: Mm. M********* got the bone all the way out
the damn chicken. 'Til he came along, n****s been chewin' on
drumsticks and s***, gettin' they fingers all greasy. He said, " Later
for the bone. Let's nugget that meat up and make some real money."
Malik 'Poot' Carr
: You think the man got paid?
Wallace
: Who?
Malik 'Poot' Carr
: Man who invented these.
Wallace
: S***, he richer than a m*********.
D'Angelo Barksdale
: Why? You think he get a
percentage?
Wallace
: Why not?
D'Angelo Barksdale
: N****, please. The man who
invented them things? Just some sad-ass down at the basement at
McDonald's, thinkin' up some s*** to make some money for the real
players.
Malik 'Poot' Carr
: Naw, man, that ain't right.
D'Angelo Barksdale
: F*** "right." It ain't about
right, it's about money. Now you think Ronald McDonald gonna go down
in that basement and say, "Hey, Mista Nugget, you the bomb. We sellin'
chicken faster than you can tear the bone out. So I'm gonna write my
clowny-ass name on this fat-ass check for you"?
Wallace
: S***.
D'Angelo Barksdale
: Man, the n**** who invented them
things still workin' in the basement for regular wage, thinkin' up
some s*** to make the fries taste better or some s*** like that.
Believe.
[pause]
Wallace
: Still had the idea, though.
Everything Lambert states he is correct, but as much as Soros's money
is amplified by and mirrors NED and USAID money, it might be his job to
invest in Democrat, Neoliberal, and Regime Change projects. He seems to
function as a front/shell company like Chaz T. MAIN (Confessions of an
Economic Hitman, John Perkins) or Business International Corp. (
http://johnpilger.com/articles/power-illusion-and-americas-last-taboo
)
Soros and the State Department (or the dominant faction
thereof) have roughly the same prescription for Russia and
Eastern Europe. So no need at all to hypothesize one as a front
for the other.
Isn't he a frontman for the pretense of democracy? and the pretense
that billionaires are concerned with the working class in general
rather than a resource to be exploited and discarded?
I see Soros useful in that he feeds the myth that there are two
parties and is a pr funder marketing the myth of choice to the voters.
His words are counter to the vast majority of what he funds. I try to
focus on what people are doing not what they say.
He could personally build vast swaths of manufacturing plants and
hand them over to the workers. He could leave his wealth to a
volunteer co-op board that only grants funds to employee owned
start-ups. He could build vast swaths of non-profit public housing and
hand them over to the communities.
Also, this is not a criticism, but it looks like your argument
is for lesser evilism. Your first proposal that he stop investing
in D elections as they are losers seems merely to be a capitalist
argument that he isn't getting a return on his investment.
I'm not to sure what your second proposal of supporting small d
institions refers to maybe think tanks and media? but supporting
lower level elections is again back to the 'more and better Ds'.
I get your strategy is to take over the D party but it seems
that 'more and better Ds' that just failed to get traction with the
2016 election. Promoting that billionaires could fine tune their
influence looks like an amelioration strategy of conservatism
rather than an affirmative policy platform in opposition to the Rs.
The problem for Soros and all billionaires interested in the politics
game is that they cannot fathom voting against their own interests and they
must pick credentialed and vetted candidates. Somebody like Hillary is great
for them. For example, when she stated during the primary against Bernie
that we can't just have outright free public higher education because rich
people would benefit unfairly. That is coding to say that we won't
redistribute ill gotten gains for the purposes of building a stable and
functioning society.
> we can't just have outright free public higher education becuase
rich people would benefit unfairly
Agreed. Just a dumb excuse to persuade people we can't have nice
things. Obama may have campaigned on "Yes We Can" in 2008 but Hillary in
2016 was the soaring voice of "No, You Can't."
Especially since, in the not too distant past, we actually
had
"nice things" like tuition-free state universities but we
allowed them to be taken away from us.
Pretty clear from the rich people and a few very rich people I have
encountered, professionally and personally (once shared a secretary with
Bill Gates Sr.) that the empathy and comity and decency drivers never got
installed with the original programming.
And I "follow" Gates Jr. on Twitter, when I can stand to look in, and
what a piece of work he, or his Twavatar, is. Always on his book and on his
game. And it seems like just a game to him, from the way he plays his
position.
Now Trumpunist stars are in the ascendant. And the planet gets more heat
load, every moment of every day Too bad the looters are on the way to
"conquering death" for themselves, while "dealing death" to the rest of us
> Too bad the looters are on the way to "conquering death" for
themselves, while "dealing death" to the rest of us
I wonder what they'll do once they realize they've been had by a bunch
of grifting con artists, hardly different from themselves. When the
billionaires realize Mars is a death trap worse than Earth, will they
feel any remorse about destroying the planet? Or has the "market"
whittled that away, along with the rest of the human emotions like shame,
guilt, and compassion for their fellow man? When they realize eternal
youth and immortality isn't ever going to happen, partly because they've
hollowed out their own civilization and corrupted its science, will they
regret forcing so many others into destitution and an early grave? Maybe
for about 30 seconds, I reckon. The rest cower in self-protective
ignorance.
It's fun to look to pop culture for illustrative myths and
potentially illuminating analogies. I like "Wall-e" and "Elysium" and
"Terminator" and "Robocop" and for dessert, a big helping of "Soylent
Green "
The dillusionati always drown in their own vomit it has been that way
for the last 2 million sunsets all the technology in the world wont
change that if one can not find peace and happiness with a few million
dollars, chasing billions to spend more money 4 monets on the wall in the
hall is a losing proposition
As to georgi sore-ohs redirecting his money the klown princes will
soon be abandoning their givings with the coming removal of the estate
tax putting many non profits out of business
"non profit" hospitals will now be able to convert to for profit
dividend paying entities instead of consultant skim capital kiting
enterprises
The rober baron era existed before income taxes so I expect sow-oats
to slowly melt away now that he can hand out his remaining assets
directly and enjoy the rest of his youth with his robobabe .
Despite the best efforts of the dillusionati these past 5 – 10
thousand years once they run out of people to prey with they turn on each
other
these are weak creatures, power hungry and control crazy based on
their own fears and limitations
The bernaze sauce isnt spicy enough anymore
the rewind button on vcrs killed the soviet union and youtube and the
capacity of the average shmoe to cut, paste, edit and freeze frame has
reduced the mesmerization to a near stand still
The game is up and there is no more room left to squeeze more gold
tips on a chip no matter how much cooling one throws into the mix
The iPhone is just newton with the security state release of tech that
has been aroud for over 20 years
The programs still have bugs/features that can not be fixed based on a
unix/linux platform from over 50 years ago designed to exist in a closed
loop circuit decades of patch and pray can not be fixed by decree
one of the funders of one of the fake news "overseers"(u of penn/annanb)
runs an outfit in nyc that prices out derivatives out over 150 years from
now but all the tech can't tell me if it is going to rain or snow in 72
hours
The dillusionati are running on fumes
What is amusing is watching the panic as they fear resistance and
revolution that will never develop people just want to eat, breath and
live a reasonable life these weak dillusionati contemplate and imagine
how "they" in their weakness and fears would react but many parts of
america have already seen and lived thru an economic apocalypse
even manhattan was a dead zone on the west side when all their
shipping moved to LA and all the piers were left open and abandoned with
jokes about the only place to find nypd was at donut shops abounding
Living in the south bronx or coney island was living a real life
version of madmax
Anyhoot methinx, in respects to the original posting sore-oats just
does his freedom and democracy funding to tip the scales on his out of
the money tail risk currency options investing he just games the system
with a smile
Onto a wondrous and pleasant 2017
The fun has just begun
Less fences and more dances let 2017 be the year we talk past our
differences with our neighbors and get on with the being of being
(Damn that was long winded I thought I gave that up )
Everything Soros does is to line his own pockets I'm afraid. This
will fall on deaf ears. For them, it's never enough money. That is what this
is really about. Behind the curtains, you are dealing with a bunch of people
who care nothing about the collective good and everything about their own
net worth. Nothing else matters to them.
They'd rather watch the world burn than lose money.
Hope this isn't dinged as an
ad hominem,
but I recall that old
central European expression: "Anybody with a Hungarian for a friend doesn't
need an enemy."
Now that can be read in several ways - but always to the same end, some
allies you don't want. Soros may be a Dark Side conduit for neocon or neolib
instincts and pelf; or he may just be pissing away his own money,
a la
Snyder, just in a less benign enterprise. Neither scenario undercuts the
"bootstrap" metaphor for progressive funding. We should, therefore, be
prepared to see increased efforts to diminish "self-funding" mechanisms that
leave too much power in the hands of the little people. Not an
ad hom,
I'm not talking about Munchkins.
Soros need not be worried. Even without his money funding all these
projects, plenty of people will join him in hell afterwards. Once his Open
Ideas have been tested there, then he is welcomed to port those here, the
lesser hell.
The argument was misleading, because it ignored the fact that the
winners seldom, if ever, compensate the losers.
Yep, which is why sources of unjust wealth inequality – such as
government privileges for private credit creation – should be precluded at
their SOURCE.
In other words, ethical financing is needed to insure that increases in
productivity and wealth are justly shared.
One thing all Americans should believe in is "Thou shall not steal" –
even if by subtle means such as implicit privileges for a usury cartel.
I would argue that the U.S. hasn't been interested in democracy since, at
least, WWII. They have performed coups and assassinations and other
destabilizations in other countries (and, I would argue, here with JFK, RFK,
MLK, Jr., and who knows how many others in those "freak" small plan
accidents over the years) in favor of "friendly" dictators and tyrants.
Although Soros claims to hate Nazis and Communists, Allen Dulles was quite
partial to Nazis and made sure many of them did not face trial at Nuremberg
but instead were employed in the U.S., West Germany and other places.
If Soros wanted to put his money to good use, he could invest in getting
some transparency and cohesiveness to our election system. Had he done that
after 2000, John Kerry would have been president and probably Hillary also.
And many Dem senators, congress critters, etc. To pretend that the elections
are honest and represent the people's will has pretty much been discredited,
as far as I'm concerned.
My understanding is that Soros likes instability. It's good for his
market plays.
Call an annihilation an annihilation. Auschwitz was NOT a "resettlement
to the East". The 1931 Ukrainian Famine was NOT a "Collectivization". Using
our precious language to lie and obscure .
Despicable
There is a recording out today of Hillary Clinton talking to her
biggest donors, laying blame for her loss entirely on the shoulders
of Putin and Comey.
Let's break this down, shall we?
In the first place, she is talking to her "donors." There's your
first problem right there. Hers was always a campaign of the donors,
by the donors and for the donors. That's exactly what the American
people were turned off by. At no time did she actually talk to and
connect with them.
But more fundamentally, there was never a chance of her winning
unless she won the popular vote by MORE than 2 1/2 million. As we
have already pointed out, the last four presidential elections that
Democrats have won in the electoral college were associated with a
MINIMUM popular vote margin of about 5 million and an average of 7
million.
Let's take WI for example. The governor, lieutenant governor,
attorney general and state treasurer are all Republicans, as are 5 of
8 members of the US House, and the senators are split. By what
delusional political consultant standard is WI to be seen as an
inherently blue state? And she never set foot in WI to campaign after
the primaries.
What blue wall where?
If you win the popular vote by a minimum of 5 million, OK then
sure,
there's your blue wall, otherwise all you have is blue tissue paper.
So the day Clinton locked up the Democratic nomination, question
number one, two and three should have been, "How the hell can I, the
Democratic nominee with the highest negatives ever, win by at least 5
million in the popular vote count?"
She told her donors then that the general election was going to be
close. The general election was lost right there.
Where could all those extra votes have come from?
At that very moment we were pleading with you to rally behind an
initiative to tap Bernie Sanders for VP. The Clinton people shouted
us down. The Bernie people told us to shut up. Bernie can still win
it all they claimed, totally detached from the reality of even the
pledged delegate count.
But Bernie still got more than 13 million votes in the primaries.
There's your general election victory right there, including taking
back the Senate and bigger gains in the House.
Just as they are doing now, the Clinton's political genius dream
team
came up with the wrong answers last July. Not only have they learned
nothing, they are perversely determined to learn nothing.
Clinton had a 65% negative approval rating before Putin did a
thing.
If Comey was the big problem that should have been known on July 5th
when he called her out for being extremely careless. The "good news"
that she was not going to be indicted did not give her a big positive
bump. The tone deaf Kaine VP pick was more than 2 weeks later.
She had more than 2 weeks to come up with the answer to the
question,
"How the hell do we overcome all these negatives by a WIDE margin?"
And her answer was a corporate TPP supporter for VP?
Are you kidding us?
As unpopular as she was, Trump was only MARGINALLY more unpopular.
That was not a wide margin in her favor, and a wide margin was
mandatory. That was why she lost.
The blame list does not stop with Putin and Comey. Also this week
she
accused President Obama of not doing enough. If Obama actually
retained the power to substantially rally anyone, he would have
rallied people to demand confirmation of Merrick Garland for the
Supreme Court, and THAT would have positively impacted Hillary's
chances by highlighting Republican disrespect and obstructionism.
Some blame Bernie for not doing enough. Bernie never had the power
to
MAKE his supporters like her. By doing what . . . standing on stage
next to her more? We guarantee you she did not want him standing on
stage with her more times that he did.
But all his 13 million votes, not just a begrudging part, would
have
been hers if she had genuinely embraced him and his supporters by
putting him on the ticket too as VP in a display of unity. His
popularity, the highest of any candidate, would have rubbed off on
her big time.
The White House was hers and she threw it away to appease her
donors,
to raise an extra 100 million dollars to burn.
How are we so sure of this?
We did a private outreach to the Bernie or Bust people at the time.
What if she picks Bernie for VP, would you go for it? The answer was
not hell no. It was, we'll consider it.
That's called a yes.
And tomorrow we will talk about how to reconstruct the big tent
that
was lost by people too busy condemning people on the other side of
the tent to actually win an election.
Making money is a knack usually with some very modest intellectual input.
These guys know this and that's why once they have their big pile they start
meddling in politics using the clout ( read power ) that their billions
gives them. The politicians on the other hand know little, or nothing about
making money, but are enthralled by the billionaires . What they have in
common is that they all crave kudos to justify their position and its
maintenance. That they are a bunch of vain, self-aggrandising sociopaths is
beyond question; it's just that it took the Great Financial Crash of 2008
for most of us to realise this and that realisation has now spread to large
numbers of the populations in most of the West . So now they have a problem,
but how to deal with it they have no idea because there isn't a scintilla of
empathy in those minds of theirs. And so now we have Trump and Brexit etc.
From a Guardian article on insecure "smart Meters" put up by
Jerri-Lynn in the 12/31 Links, the humors line of the year: "The Power
[players] have to understand that with great power comes great
responsibility." Nyuk nyuk nyuk Should read, "with great power comes
great power "
democracy with a small d is a fine idea for your schools and other issues
that affect your local community. Alas, for everything else, you are living
in a complex post-agrarian society in which your very ability to eat depends
on the amorphous structure called "the economy". Which in turn depends on
central banks, trade, national policies, etc. One could deconstruct this
economy, but I somehow doubt that such deconstruction would lead to
exceptional prosperity for all. There are multiple examples of deconstructed
countries around the world, and they are not exactly an inspiration.
Soros is one of the few bright spots among billionaires, though I am sure
he is not perfect. He understands that, through generational forgetting, the
world is now facing a resurgence of fascism. He understands it better than
most, because he is one of the very few survivors of the holocaust that are
still alive. Fascism is so dangerous because, as a method of political
advancement, it works well. Appeal to emotion, particularly fear, works
better that appeal to reason. It has always been thus. You can second guess
him all you want, but you have to give this to him: he is one of the very
few left that are trying to do something to stop this wave before it plunges
the world into a sequence of wars with nukes on day one.
You would do well to join him, rather than dis him.
As far as neoliberalism goes, one should also be careful throwing this
label around indiscriminately. Human population more than doubled in my
lifetime, and all these new people are competing for resources. The US will
not escape unscathed. Governments can mitigate to some degree, but they
cannot fully stop some decline in the living standard until technologies
catch up and reduce pressures on resources. Furthermore, US relies on
imports for 50% of her oil, which also means US needs to trade and be
competitive on world markets. There are no free lunches and easy solutions
that will magically make everything better overnight. Thinking there are is
unrealistic in its own right.
Hillary Clinton, for all her faults, was a center left politician. She
was defeated by a con artist who was riding a wave of about 10-15 years
worth of fascist propaganda emanating from increasingly radicalized
Republican party. The greatest danger now is actually radicalization of the
left, as this will put the US on the path to become another South American
permanent disaster. So, when you attack those "Democratic elites", be
careful what you wish for, and be careful not to become part of the problem,
rather than part of the solution.
"Hillary Clinton, for all her faults, was a center-left politician."
Her record at State, not to mention most of the policy positions she has
supported throughout her career, is a vehement refutation of that
assertion.
We are living in the twilight of the ideologues. Whatever proves to be
practical will now prevail. Soros always had one wheel stuck in the ditch.
And Hillary, for all her experience, wound up knowing nothing. It was
amazing. Very wizard of oz. Capitalism can morph – but it can't go back. We
have all new, complex circumstances now and free marketeering in an open
society BS just hasn't got a chance of fixing things anymore. Soros should
try to understand this. So should Trump.
All I can say is, if Soros's Quantum Fund performed the way the Democrats
had the last 8 years, heads would definitely be rolling. Odd that he doesn't
demand the same accountability for his dollars when it comes to his Open
Society Foundation.
All I can say is that if Soros's fund, Quantum, delivered performance
comparable to what the Democrats had delivered over the last 8 years
electorally, heads would definitely roll and there would be no more dollars
forthcoming. Interesting that this accountability doesn't apply here.
"... You can't go all Ayn Rand/Gordon Gekko on the importance of greed as a motivator while claiming that wealth insulates ... from
temptation. ... ..."
"... And this is telling us something significant: namely, that supply-side economic theory is and always was a sham. It was never
about the incentives; it was just another excuse to make the rich richer. ..."
"... "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is, the search for a superior
moral justification for selfishness." ..."
"... choosing a cabinet of billionaires, because rich men are incorruptible"...kind of like showering ZIRP on the Wall Street banking
cartel and letting them how to ration credit to the rest of economy...mostly their wealthy clientele, who use it for stock buy-backs
and asset speculation. ..."
"... Of course, 'liberal' economists see nothing wrong with trickle down, supply side economics, as long as it's the Wall Street
banking cartel who's in charge of it... ..."
"... Stiglitz: "I've always said that current monetary policy is not going to work because quantitative easing is based on a variant
of trickle-down economics. The lower interest rates have led to a stock-market bubble – to increases in stock-market prices and huge
increases in wealth. But relatively little of that's been translated into increased and broad consumer spending." ..."
"... But pgl and many other '[neo[liberal' economists just can't get enough of the trickle down monetary policy...all the while
they vehemently condemn trickle down tax policy. ..."
"... You all think Trump can do worse than the sitting cabal adding $660B from Sep 2015 to the federal debt quietly keeping the
economy going for the incumbent party? ..."
"... The losers think the winners are as crooked as they! ..."
To belabor what should be obvious: either the wealthy care about having more money or they don't. If lower marginal tax rates
are an incentive to produce more, the prospect of personal gain is an incentive to engage in corrupt practices. You can't go
all Ayn Rand/Gordon Gekko on the importance of greed as a motivator while claiming that wealth insulates ... from temptation. ...
And this is telling us something significant: namely, that supply-side economic theory is and always was a sham. It was never
about the incentives; it was just another excuse to make the rich richer.
In one sentence, you still can't beat John Kenneth Galbraith's assessment: "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's
oldest exercises in moral philosophy: that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
Nothing is more admirable than the fortitude with which millionaires tolerate the disadvantages of their wealth. -- Nero
Wolfe
You need to know nothing else to understand the entirety of the conservative edifice.
JohnH :
"choosing a cabinet of billionaires, because rich men are incorruptible"...kind of like showering ZIRP on the Wall Street
banking cartel and letting them how to ration credit to the rest of economy...mostly their wealthy clientele, who use it for stock
buy-backs and asset speculation.
Of course, 'liberal' economists see nothing wrong with trickle down, supply side economics, as long as it's the Wall Street
banking cartel who's in charge of it...
But pgl and many other '[neo[liberal' economists just can't get enough of the trickle down monetary policy...all the while
they vehemently condemn trickle down tax policy.
yuan -> JohnH...
and few liberal economists have been more skeptical of QE's economic impact than Krugman.
You all think Trump can do worse than the sitting cabal adding $660B from Sep 2015 to the federal debt quietly keeping the
economy going for the incumbent party?
The losers think the winners are as crooked as they!
yuan -> ilsm...
when we can borrow over the long-term at 3% and have truly massive infrastructure and clean energy needs we should be borrowing
like military Keynesian republicans...
Firstly, this coup is not against a standing President, but targets an elected president set to
take office on January 20, 2017. Secondly, the attempted coup has polarized leading sectors of the
political and economic elite. It even exposes a seamy rivalry within the intelligence-security apparatus,
with the political appointees heading the CIA involved in the coup and the FBI supporting the incoming
President Trump and the constitutional process. Thirdly, the evolving coup is a sequential process,
which will build momentum and then escalate very rapidly.
Notable quotes:
"... In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential power by unconstitutional means, which may help illustrate some of the current moves underway in Washington. These are especially interesting since the Obama Administration served as the 'midwife' for these 'regime changes'. ..."
"... Firstly, this coup is not against a standing President, but targets an elected president set to take office on January 20, 2017. Secondly, the attempted coup has polarized leading sectors of the political and economic elite. It even exposes a seamy rivalry within the intelligence-security apparatus, with the political appointees heading the CIA involved in the coup and the FBI supporting the incoming President Trump and the constitutional process. Thirdly, the evolving coup is a sequential process, which will build momentum and then escalate very rapidly. ..."
"... In the wake of her resounding defeat, Candidate Stein usurped authority from the national Green Party and rapidly raked in $8 million dollars in donations from Democratic Party operatives and George Soros-linked NGO's (many times the amount raised during her Presidential campaign). This dodgy money financed her demand for ballot recounts in selective states in order to challenge Trump's victory. The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists. ..."
"... The 'Big Lie' was repeated and embellished at every opportunity by the print and broadcast media. The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa. The great American Empire looked increasingly like a 'banana republic'. ..."
"... The coup intensified as Trump-Putin became synonymous for "betrayal" and "election fraud". As this approached a crescendo of media hysteria, President Barack Obama stepped in and called on the CIA to seize domestic control of the investigation of Russian manipulation of the US election – essentially accusing President-Elect Trump of conspiring with the Russian government. Obama refused to reveal any proof of such a broad plot, citing 'national security'. ..."
"... Obama's last-ditch effort will not change the outcome of the election. Clearly this is designed to poison the diplomatic well and present Trump's incoming administration as dangerous. Trump's promise to improve relations with Russia will face enormous resistance in this frothy, breathless hysteria of Russophobia. ..."
"... Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations. He wants to force a continuation of his grotesque policies onto the incoming Trump Administration. ..."
"... Trump's success at thwarting the current 'Russian ploy' requires his forming counter alliances with Washington plutocrats, many of whom will oppose any diplomatic agreement with Putin. Trump's appointment of hardline economic plutocrats who are deeply committed to shredding social programs (public education, Medicare, Social Security) could ignite the anger of his mass supporters by savaging their jobs, health care, pensions and their children's future. ..."
"... If Trump defeats the avalanching media, CIA and elite-instigated coup (which interestingly lack support from the military and judiciary), he will have to thank, not only his generals and billionaire-buddies, but also his downwardly mobile mass supporters (Hillary Clinton's detested 'basket of deplorables'). ..."
"... He embarked on a major series of 'victory tours' around the country to thank his supporters among the military, workers, women and small business people and call on them to defend his election to the presidency. He will have to fulfill some of his promises to the masses or face 'the real fire', not from Clintonite shills and war-mongers, but from the very people who voted for him. ..."
"... It is true there is breaking news today but you certainly won't hear it from the mainstream media. While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year 2017 into law which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" and in this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth shows how this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of the Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's book 1984. ..."
"... What we have to do is prove that there is an organization that includes George Soros, but is not limited to him personally–you know, a kosher nostra! ..."
"... I would dearly like to know what Moscow and Tel Aviv know about 9-11. I suspect they both know more than almost anyone else. ..."
"... Those dastardly Russkies have informed and enlightened the American public for long enough! This shall not stand! ..."
"... What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia. ..."
"... Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason. ..."
A coup has been underway to prevent President-Elect Donald Trump from
taking office and fulfilling his campaign promise to improve US-Russia relations. This 'palace coup'
is not a secret conspiracy, but an open, loud attack on the election.
The coup involves important US elites, who openly intervene on many levels from the street to
the current President, from sectors of the intelligence community, billionaire financiers out to
the more marginal 'leftist' shills of the Democratic Party.
The build-up for the coup is gaining momentum, threatening to eliminate normal constitutional
and democratic constraints. This essay describes the brazen, overt coup and the public operatives,
mostly members of the outgoing Obama regime.
The second section describes the Trump's cabinet appointments and the political measures that
the President-Elect has adopted to counter the coup. We conclude with an evaluation of the potential
political consequences of the attempted coup and Trump's moves to defend his electoral victory and
legitimacy.
The Coup as 'Process'
In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential
power by unconstitutional means, which may help illustrate some of the current moves underway in
Washington. These are especially interesting since the Obama Administration served as the 'midwife'
for these 'regime changes'.
Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras and Haiti experienced coups, in which the elected Presidents were ousted
through a series of political interventions orchestrated by economic elites and their political allies
in Congress and the Judiciary.
President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton were deeply involved in these operations as part
of their established foreign policy of 'regime change'. Indeed, the 'success' of the Latin American
coups has encouraged sectors of the US elite to attempt to prevent President-elect Trump from taking
office in January.
While similarities abound, the on-going coup against Trump in the United States occurs within
a very different power configuration of proponents and antagonists.
Firstly, this coup is not against a standing President, but targets an elected president set to
take office on January 20, 2017. Secondly, the attempted coup has polarized leading sectors of the
political and economic elite. It even exposes a seamy rivalry within the intelligence-security apparatus,
with the political appointees heading the CIA involved in the coup and the FBI supporting the incoming
President Trump and the constitutional process. Thirdly, the evolving coup is a sequential process,
which will build momentum and then escalate very rapidly.
Coup-makers depend on the 'Big Lie' as their point of departure – accusing President-Elect Trump
of
being a Kremlin stooge, attributing his electoral victory to Russian intervention against his
Democratic Party opponent, Hillary Clinton and
blatant voter fraud in which the Republican Party
prevented minority voters from casting their ballot for Secretary Clinton.
The first operatives to emerge in the early stages of the coup included the marginal-left Green
Party Presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein, who won less than 1% of the vote, as well as the mass
media.
In the wake of her resounding defeat, Candidate Stein usurped authority from the national Green
Party and rapidly raked in $8 million dollars in donations from Democratic Party operatives and George
Soros-linked NGO's (many times the amount raised during her Presidential campaign). This dodgy money
financed her demand for ballot recounts in selective states in order to challenge Trump's victory.
The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump.
It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite
and liberal activists.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's
$8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media
and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and not the
American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!
The 'Big Lie' was repeated and embellished at every opportunity by the print and broadcast media.
The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts
and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly
described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC,
NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa. The great American
Empire looked increasingly like a 'banana republic'.
Like the Billionaire Soros-funded 'Color Revolutions', from Ukraine, to Georgia and Yugoslavia,
the 'Rainbow Revolt' against Trump, featured grass-roots NGO activists and 'serious leftists', like
Jill Stein.
The more polished political operatives from the upscale media used their editorial pages to question
Trump's illegitimacy. This established the ground work for even higher level political intervention:
The current US Administration, including President Obama, members of the US Congress from both parties,
and current and former heads of the CIA jumped into the fray. As the vote recount ploy flopped, they
all decided that 'Vladimir Putin swung the US election!' It wasn't just lunatic neo-conservative
warmongers who sought to oust Trump and impose Hillary Clinton on the American people, liberals and
social democrats were screaming 'Russian Plot!' They demanded a formal Congressional investigation
of the 'Russian cyber hacking' of Hillary's personal e-mails (where she plotted to cheat her rival
'Bernie Sanders' in the primaries). They demanded even tighter economic sanctions against Russia
and increased military provocations. The outgoing Democratic Senator and Minority Leader 'Harry'
Reid wildly accused the FBI of acting as 'Russian agents' and hinted at a purge.
ORDER IT NOW
The coup intensified as Trump-Putin became synonymous for "betrayal" and "election fraud". As this approached a crescendo of media hysteria, President Barack Obama stepped in and called
on the CIA to seize domestic control of the investigation of Russian manipulation of the US election
– essentially accusing President-Elect Trump of conspiring with the Russian government. Obama refused
to reveal any proof of such a broad plot, citing 'national security'.
President Obama solemnly declared the Trump-Putin conspiracy was a grave threat to American democracy
and Western security and freedom. He darkly promised to retaliate against Russia, " at a time and
place of our choosing".
Obama also pledged to send more US troops to the Middle East and increase arms shipments to the
jihadi terrorists in Syria, as well as the Gulf State and Saudi 'allies'. Coincidentally, the Syrian
Government and their Russian allies were poised to drive the US-backed terrorists out of Aleppo –
and defeat Obama's campaign of 'regime change' in Syria.
Trump Strikes Back: The Wall Street-Military Alliance
Meanwhile, President-Elect Donald Trump did not crumple under the Clintonite-coup in progress.
He prepared a diverse counter-attack to defend his election, relying on elite allies and mass supporters.
Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing
the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. He appointed three
retired generals to key Defense and Security positions – indicating a power struggle between the
highly politicized CIA and the military. Active and retired members of the US Armed Forces have been
key Trump supporters. He announced that he would bring his own security teams and integrate them
with the Presidential Secret Service during his administration.
Although Clinton-Obama had the major mass media and a sector of the financial elite who supported
the coup, Trump countered by appointing several key Wall Street and corporate billionaires into his
cabinet who had their own allied business associations.
One propaganda line for the coup, which relied on certain Zionist organizations and leaders (ADL,
George Soros et al), was the bizarre claim that Trump and his supporters were 'anti-Semites'. This
was were countered by Trump's appointment of powerful Wall Street Zionists like Steven Mnuchin as
Treasury Secretary and Gary Cohn (both of Goldman Sachs) to head the National Economic Council. Faced
with the Obama-CIA plot to paint Trump as a Russian agent for Vladimir Putin, the President-Elect
named security hardliners including past and present military leaders and FBI officials, to key security
and intelligence positions.
The Coup: Can it succeed?
In early December, President Obama issued an order for the CIA to 'complete its investigation'
on the Russian plot and manipulation of the US Presidential election in six weeks – right up to the
very day of Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2017! A concoction of pre-cooked 'findings' is already
oozing out of secret clandestine CIA archives with the President's approval. Obama's last-ditch effort
will not change the outcome of the election. Clearly this is designed to poison the diplomatic well
and present Trump's incoming administration as dangerous. Trump's promise to improve relations with
Russia will face enormous resistance in this frothy, breathless hysteria of Russophobia.
Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous
and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations. He wants to force a continuation of his grotesque
policies onto the incoming Trump Administration. Will Trump succumb? The legitimacy of his election
and his freedom to make policy will depend on overcoming the Clinton-Obama-neo-con-leftist coup with
his own bloc of US military and the powerful Wall Street allies, as well as his mass support among
the 'angry' American electorate. Trump's success at thwarting the current 'Russian ploy' requires
his forming counter alliances with Washington plutocrats, many of whom will oppose any diplomatic
agreement with Putin. Trump's appointment of hardline economic plutocrats who are deeply committed
to shredding social programs (public education, Medicare, Social Security) could ignite the anger
of his mass supporters by savaging their jobs, health care, pensions and their children's future.
If Trump defeats the avalanching media, CIA and elite-instigated coup (which interestingly lack
support from the military and judiciary), he will have to thank, not only his generals and billionaire-buddies,
but also his downwardly mobile mass supporters (Hillary Clinton's detested 'basket of deplorables').
He embarked on a major series of 'victory tours' around the country to thank his supporters among
the military, workers, women and small business people and call on them to defend his election to
the presidency. He will have to fulfill some of his promises to the masses or face 'the real fire',
not from Clintonite shills and war-mongers, but from the very people who voted for him.
A very insightful analysis. The golpistas will not be able to prevent Trump from taking power.
But will they make the country ungovernable to the extent of bringing down not just Trump but the
whole system?
If the coup forces President Trump to abandon his America First campaign promises by appointing globalists
eager to invade-the-world/invite-the-world, then the coup is a success and the Trump campaign was a
failure.
Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous
and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the
top. Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance
of the Camelot image?
Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for
the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his
wife and kids?
Replies:
@Skeptikal I expect Obama loves his kids.
Great analysis from Petras.
So many people have reacted with "first=level" thinking only as Trump's appointments have been announced:
"This guy is terrible!" Yes, but . . . look at the appointment in the "swamp" context, in the "veiled
threat" context. Harpers mag actually put a picture on its cover of Trump behind bars. That is one of
those veiled invitations like Henry II's "Will no one rid me of this man?"
I think Trump understands quite well what he is up against.
I agree completely with Petras that the compromises he must make to take office on Jan. 20 may in the
end compromise his agenda (whatever it actually is). I would expect Trump to play things by ear and
tack as necessary, as he senses changes in the wind. According to the precepts of triage, his no. 1
challenge/task now is to be sworn in on Jan. 20. All else is secondary.
Once he is in the White House he will have incomparably greater powers to flush out those who are trying
to sideline his presidency now. The latter must know this. He will be in charge of the whole Executive
Branch bureaucracy (which includes the Justice Department). ,
@animalogic Oh, yes, Robert -- To read the words "Obama" & "legacy" in the same sentence is to LOL.
What a god-awful president.
An 8 year adventure in failure, stupidity & ruthlessness.
The Trump-coup business: what a (near treasonous) disgrace. The "Russians done it" meme: "let's show
the world just how stupid, embarrassing & plain MEAN we can be". A trillion words -- & not one shred
of supporting evidence.... ?! And I thought that the old "Obama was not born in the US" trope was shameless
stupidity --
If there is any bright side here, I hope it has convinced EVERY American conservative that the neo-con's
& their identical economic twin the neoliberals are treasonous dreck who would flush the US down the
drain if they thought it to their political advantage.
Excellent analysis! Mr. Petras, you delved right into the crux of the matter of the balance of forces
in the U.S.A. at this very unusual political moment. I have only a very minor correction to make, and
it is only a language-related one: you don't really want to say that Trump's "illegitimacy" is being
questioned, but rather his legitimacy, right?
Another thing, but this time of a perhaps idiosyncratic nature: I am a teeny-weeny bit more optimistic
than you about the events to come in your country. (Too bad I cannot say this about my own poor country
Brazil, which is going faster and faster down the drain.)
@John Gruskos If the coup forces President Trump to abandon his America First campaign promises
by appointing globalists eager to invade-the-world/invite-the-world, then the coup is a success and
the Trump campaign was a failure.
The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump.
It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite
and liberal activists.
On the contrary, this first salvo from the anti-American forces resulted in more friendly fire hits
on the attackers than it did on its intended targets. Result: a strengthening of Trump's position. It
also serve to sap morale and energy from the anti-American forces, helping dissipate their momentum.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory.
And it backfired, literally strengthening it (Trump gained votes), while undermining the anti-American
forces' legitimacy.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's
$8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media
and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and not the
American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!
This was simply a continuation of Big Media's Full Capacity Hate Machine (thanks to Whis for the
term; this is the only time I will acknowledge the debt) from the campaign. It has been running since
before Trump clinched the nomination. It will be no more effective now, than it was then. Americans
are fed up with Big Media propaganda in sufficient numbers to openly thwart its authors' will.
The big lie, as you refer to it, hasn't even produced the alleged "report" in question. The CIA supposedly
in lockstep against Trump (I don't buy that), and they can't find one hack willing to leak this "devastating"
"report"? It must suck. Probably a nothing burger.
This is all much ado about nothing. Big Media HATES Trump. They want to make sure Trump and the American
people don't forget that they HATE Trump. It's a broken strategy, doomed to failure (it will only cause
Trump to dig in and go about his agenda without their help; it certainly will not break him, or endear
him to their demands). Trump's voters all voted for him in spite of it, so it won't win them
over, either. Personally, I think Trump's low water mark of support is well behind him. Obviously subject
to future events.
Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing
the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
CIA mouthpieces have been pointing and sputtering in response that it was not they who cooked the
books, but parallel neoconservative chickenhawk groups in the Bush administration. The trouble with
this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to
assent by way of silence.
Personally, I sort of doubt this imagined comity between Hussein and the CIA Ever seen Zero Dark
Thirty ? How much harder did Hussein make the CIA's job? I doubt it was Kathryn Bigelow who chose
to go out of her way to make that movie hostile to Hussein; it's far more likely that this is simply
where the material led her. I similarly doubt that the intelligence community difficulties owed to Hussein
were in any way limited to the hunt for UBL.
The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative,
instead choosing to assent by way of silence.
That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to undermine
the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it. At that time, the neocons controlled the ranking
civilian positions at the Pentagon, but did not yet fully control the CIA This changed after Bush's
re-election, when Porter Goss was made DCI to purge all the remaining 'realists' and 'arabists' from
the agency. Now the situation in the opposite: the CIA is totally neocon, while the Pentagon is a bit
less so.
So even if what Trump is saying is technically inaccurate, it's still true at a deeper level: it was
the neocons who lied to us about WMD, just as it is now the neocons who are lying to us about
Russia.
I think Obama's right-in-the-open [a week or so ago] authorization for the sale and shipping [?]
of "man pads" to various Syrian rebel and terrorist forces is insane, and may be contrary to law.
Yes, I have no trouble calling it TREASON. It is certainly felony support for terrorists.
Man pads are shoulder held missile launchers that can destroy high and fast aircraft .such as commercial
passenger airlines [to be blamed on Russia?] and also any nations' fighter/bombers .such as Russia's
Air Force planes operating in Syria still–that were invited to do so by the elected government of Syria
which is still under attack by US proxy [terrorist] forces. Syria is a member in good standing of the
UN.
Given this I think we are all in very great danger today–now– AND I think we have to press hard
to reverse the insane Obama move vis a vis these man pads.
This truly is an emergency.
TULSI GABBARD'S BILL MAY BE TOO LITTLE TOO LATE. It may even be just window dressing or PR. [That
could be the reason Peter Welch has agreed to co-sponsor it.... The man never does anything that is
real and substantive and decent or courageous.]
IN ANY EVENT both Gabbard and Welch via this bill have now acknowledged
that Obama and the US are supporting terrorists in Syria [and elsewhere]–a felony under existing laws.
–Quite possibly an impeachable offense.
"Misprision" of treason or misprision of a felony IS ITSELF A FELONY.
If Gabbard and Welch KNOW that the man-pad authorization and other US support
for terrorists in Syria and elsewhere is presently occurring, I THINK THEY NEED TO FORCE PROSECUTION
UNDER EXISTING LAWS NOW, rather than just sponsoring a sure-to-fail NEW LAW that will prevent such things
in the far fuzzy future–or NOT.
Respectfully,
Dennis Morrisseau
US Army Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR
–FOR TRUMP–
Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
FIRECONGRESS.org
Second Vermont Republic
POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT USA 05775 [email protected]
802 645 9727
Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.
Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer
in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big,
and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering as
we speak.
Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been sent
to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.
BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.
I think Obama's right-in-the-open [a week or so ago] authorization for the sale and shipping [?] of
"man pads" to various Syrian rebel and terrorist forces is insane, and may be contrary to law.
Yes, I have no trouble calling it TREASON. It is certainly felony support for terrorists.
Man pads are shoulder held missile launchers that can destroy high and fast aircraft ....such as commercial
passenger airlines [to be blamed on Russia?] and also any nations' fighter/bombers....such as Russia's
Air Force planes operating in Syria still--that were invited to do so by the elected government of Syria
which is still under attack by US proxy [terrorist] forces. Syria is a member in good standing of the
UN.
Given this......I think we are all in very great danger today--now-- AND I think we have to press hard
to reverse the insane Obama move vis a vis these man pads.
This truly is an emergency.
TULSI GABBARD'S BILL MAY BE TOO LITTLE TOO LATE. It may even be just window dressing or PR. [That could
be the reason Peter Welch has agreed to co-sponsor it.... The man never does anything that is real and
substantive and decent or courageous.]
IN ANY EVENT both Gabbard and Welch via this bill have now acknowledged
that Obama and the US are supporting terrorists in Syria [and elsewhere]--a felony under existing laws.
--Quite possibly an impeachable offense.
"Misprision" of treason or misprision of a felony IS ITSELF A FELONY.
If Gabbard and Welch KNOW that the man-pad authorization and other US support
for terrorists in Syria and elsewhere is presently occurring, I THINK THEY NEED TO FORCE PROSECUTION
UNDER EXISTING LAWS NOW, rather than just sponsoring a sure-to-fail NEW LAW that will prevent such things
in the far fuzzy future--or NOT.
Respectfully,
Dennis Morrisseau
US Army Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR
--FOR TRUMP--
Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
FIRECONGRESS.org
Second Vermont Republic
POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT USA 05775 [email protected]
802 645 9727
The Man Pad Letter is brilliant!
It needs to be published as a feature story.
Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.
Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer
in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big,
and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering as
we speak.
Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been sent
to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.
BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.
• Replies:
@El Dato Hmmm.... If I were GRU I would offer Uber services to the recipients of the manpads all
the way up to West European airports (not that this is needed, just take a truck, any truck).
What will the EU say if smouldering wreckage happens?
Especially as Obama won't be there to set the overall tone.
This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some
balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least
for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot
of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role.
And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's
beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the
money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political
miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal
with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating.
And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore,
Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant
than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support
for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not
throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump–not Obama–that's looking weak in the face of Israeli
pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and
appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Will Trump–out of fear and necessity–run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?–Or
will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say.
Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast
approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?–Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic
spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go
Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's
political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
In general, I agree with a good portion of your analysis. A few minor quibbles and
qualifications, though:
Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel.
Not really. Since he's a lame-duck president and the election is over, he's not really risking anything
here. After all, opposition to settlements in the occupied territories has been official US policy for
nearly 50 years, and when has that ever stopped Israel from founding/expanding them? No, this is just
more empty symbolism.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
It's been dead foreever. The One State solution will replace it, and that will really freak out all
the Zios.
They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena.
Trump understands this all-too-well.
Oderint dum metuant ("Let them hate, so long as they fear.") - Caligula ,
Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political
foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both
sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
I'm hoping that Trump is running with the neocons just as far as is necessary to pressure congress to
confirm his cabinet appointments and make sure he isn't JFK'd before he gets into office and can set
about putting security in place to protect his own and his family's lives.
For John McBloodstain to vote for a SoS that will make nice with his nemesis; Putin, will require massive
amounts of Zio-pressure. The only way that pressure will come is if the Zio-cons are convinced that
Trump is their man.
Once his cabinet appointments are secured, then perhaps we might see some independence of action. Not
until. At least that is my hope, however naïve.
It isn't just the Zio-cons that want to poke the Russian bear, it's also the MIC. Trump has to navigate
a very dangerous mine field if he's going to end the Endless Wars and return sanity and peace to the
world. He's going to have to wrangle with the devil himself (the Fiend), and outplay him at his own
game. , @map
I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance
on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.
What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism
program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they
want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a
model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing
project.
Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is
a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews.
It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result
in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed
by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.
Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those
revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return.
Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly
reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because
they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries.
So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do
not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.
Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel
remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to
do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive
the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians,
workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained.
How many of these
Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just
to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of
no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews,
therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.
So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with
Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their
pride in nationalist endeavors. ,
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office.
Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right . "
THEN WHY DOESN'T HE DO WHAT'S RIGHT? As Seamus Padraig pointed out, the UN abstention is "just more
empty symbolism." Meanwhile... The Christmas Eve attack on the First Amendment The approval of arming terrorists in Syria
The fake news about Russian hacking throwing Killary's election
Aid to terrorists is a felony. Obama should be indicted.
Most of the Western world is much sicker of the head-choppers in charge of our 'human rights'
at the UN (thanks to Obama and the UK) than it is of Israel. It is they, not we, who have funded ISIS
directly.
The real issue at stake is that Presidential control of the system is non existent, and although
Trump understands this and has intimated he is going to deal with it, it is clear his hands will now
be tied by all the traitors that run the US.
You need a Nuremburg type show trial to deal with all the (((usual suspects))) that have usurped
the constitution. (((They))) arrived with the Pilgrim Fathers and established the slave trade buying
slaves from their age old Muslim accomplices, and selling them by auction to the goyim.
(((They))) established absolute influence by having the Fed issue your currency in 1913 and forcing
the US in to three wars: WWI, WWII and Vietnam from which (((they))) made enormous profits.
You have to decide whether you want these (((professional parasitical traitors))) in your country
or not. It is probably too late to just ask them to leave, thus you are faced with the ultimate reality:
are you willing to fight a civil war to free your nation from (((their))) oppression of you?
This is the elephant in the room that none of you will address. All the rest of this subject matter
is just window dressing. Do you wish to remain economic slaves to (((these people))) or do you want
to be free [like the Syrians] and live without (((these traitor's))) usurious, inflationary and dishonest
policies based upon hate of Christ and Christianity?
My guess: the outgoing Obama administration is in a last ditch killing frenzy, to revenge Aleppo
loss!
The Berlin bus blowup, The Russian ambassador in Turkey killed and the Red army's most eminent Alexandrov's
choir send to the bottom of the black sea.
Typical CIA ops to threaten world leaders to comply with the incumbent US elite.
Watch Mike Morell (CIA) threaten world leaders:
• Replies:
@annamaria The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the
so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real
"deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not
do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy
home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the
US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell - who has never been
in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor - is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly
educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time.
Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.
It seems you may be on to something:
RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer" to
file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s) are
not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[3]
There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either
the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise
(18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control of,
the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (b)); or the defendant(s)
conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering
activity (subsection (c)); or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above (subsection (d)).[4]
In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the
racketeers.[5] A civil RICO action can be filed in state or federal court.[6]
In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential
power by unconstitutional means Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras and Haiti experienced coups
The US is not at the stage of these countries yet. To compare them to us, politically, is moronic.
In another several generations it likely will be different. But by then there won't be any "need" for
a coup.
If things keep up, the US "electorate" will be majority Third World. Then, these people will
just vote as a bloc for whomever promises them the most gibs me dat. That candidate will of course be
from the oligarchical elite. Trump is likely the last white man (or white man with even marginally white
interests at heart) to be President. Unless things drastically change, demographically.
Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.
Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer
in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big,
and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering as
we speak.
Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been sent
to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.
BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.
Hmmm . If I were GRU I would offer Uber services to the recipients of the manpads all the way up
to West European airports (not that this is needed, just take a truck, any truck).
What will the EU say if smouldering wreckage happens?
Especially as Obama won't be there to set the overall tone.
@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally
gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least
for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot
of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role.
And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's
beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the
money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political
miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal
with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating.
And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore,
Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant
than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support
for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not
throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli
pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and
appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his
campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible
to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast
approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic
spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go
Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's
political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
Okay so you voted twice for BO, and now for HC, so what else is new.
Authenticjazzman, "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.
D.C. has passed their propaganda bill so I am not shocked.
Dec 27, 2016 "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" Signed Into Law! (NDAA 2017)
It is true there is breaking news today but you certainly won't hear it from the mainstream media.
While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year 2017 into law
which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" and in this video Dan Dicks of Press
For Truth shows how this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of the Ministry of Truth"
in George Orwell's book 1984.
Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous
and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the top.
Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance of the
Camelot image?
Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for
the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his
wife and kids? https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/barry-we-hardly-knew-ye/
I expect Obama loves his kids.
Great analysis from Petras.
So many people have reacted with "first level" thinking only as Trump's appointments have been announced:
"This guy is terrible!" Yes, but . . . look at the appointment in the "swamp" context, in the "veiled
threat" context. Harpers mag actually put a picture on its cover of Trump behind bars. That is one of
those veiled invitations like Henry II's "Will no one rid me of this man?"
I think Trump understands quite well what he is up against.
I agree completely with Petras that the compromises he must make to take office on Jan. 20 may in the
end compromise his agenda (whatever it actually is). I would expect Trump to play things by ear and
tack as necessary, as he senses changes in the wind. According to the precepts of triage, his no. 1
challenge/task now is to be sworn in on Jan. 20. All else is secondary.
Once he is in the White House he will have incomparably greater powers to flush out those who are trying
to sideline his presidency now. The latter must know this. He will be in charge of the whole Executive
Branch bureaucracy (which includes the Justice Department).
Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous
and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the top.
Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance of the
Camelot image?
Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for
the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his
wife and kids? https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/barry-we-hardly-knew-ye/
Oh, yes, Robert -- To read the words "Obama" & "legacy" in the same sentence is to LOL.
What a god-awful president. An 8 year adventure in failure, stupidity & ruthlessness.
The Trump-coup business: what a (near treasonous) disgrace. The "Russians done it" meme: "let's show
the world just how stupid, embarrassing & plain MEAN we can be". A trillion words - & not one shred
of supporting evidence . ?! And I thought that the old "Obama was not born in the US" trope was shameless
stupidity -- If there is any bright side here, I hope it has convinced EVERY American conservative that the neo-con's
& their identical economic twin the neoliberals are treasonous dreck who would flush the US down the
drain if they thought it to their political advantage.
The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump.
It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite
and liberal activists.
On the contrary, this first salvo from the anti-American forces resulted in more friendly fire hits
on the attackers than it did on its intended targets. Result: a strengthening of Trump's position. It
also serve to sap morale and energy from the anti-American forces, helping dissipate their momentum.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory.
And it backfired, literally strengthening it (Trump gained votes), while undermining the anti-American
forces' legitimacy.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's $8
million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media and
NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and not the American
voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!
This was simply a continuation of Big Media's Full Capacity Hate Machine (thanks to Whis for the term;
this is the only time I will acknowledge the debt) from the campaign. It has been running since before
Trump clinched the nomination. It will be no more effective now, than it was then. Americans are fed
up with Big Media propaganda in sufficient numbers to openly thwart its authors' will.
The big lie, as you refer to it, hasn't even produced the alleged "report" in question. The CIA supposedly
in lockstep against Trump (I don't buy that), and they can't find one hack willing to leak this "devastating"
"report"? It must suck. Probably a nothing burger.
This is all much ado about nothing. Big Media HATES Trump. They want to make sure Trump and the American
people don't forget that they HATE Trump. It's a broken strategy, doomed to failure (it will only cause
Trump to dig in and go about his agenda without their help; it certainly will not break him, or endear
him to their demands). Trump's voters all voted for him in spite of it, so it won't win them
over, either. Personally, I think Trump's low water mark of support is well behind him. Obviously subject
to future events.
Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing
the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
CIA mouthpieces have been pointing and sputtering in response that it was not they who cooked the books,
but parallel neoconservative chickenhawk groups in the Bush administration. The trouble with this is
that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to assent
by way of silence.
Personally, I sort of doubt this imagined comity between Hussein and the CIA Ever seen Zero Dark
Thirty ? How much harder did Hussein make the CIA's job? I doubt it was Kathryn Bigelow who chose
to go out of her way to make that movie hostile to Hussein; it's far more likely that this is simply
where the material led her. I similarly doubt that the intelligence community difficulties owed to Hussein
were in any way limited to the hunt for UBL.
The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative,
instead choosing to assent by way of silence.
That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to undermine
the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it. At that time, the neocons controlled the ranking
civilian positions at the Pentagon, but did not yet fully control the CIA This changed after Bush's
re-election, when Porter Goss was made DCI to purge all the remaining 'realists' and 'arabists' from
the agency. Now the situation in the opposite: the CIA is totally neocon, while the Pentagon is a bit
less so.
So even if what Trump is saying is technically inaccurate, it's still true at a deeper level: it
was the neocons who lied to us about WMD, just as it is now the neocons who are lying to us about
Russia.
@Mark Green
This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally
gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least
for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot
of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role.
And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's
beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the
money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political
miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal
with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating.
And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore,
Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant
than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support
for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not
throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli
pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and
appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his
campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible
to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast
approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic
spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go
Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's
political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
In general, I agree with a good portion of your analysis. A few minor quibbles and qualifications,
though:
Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel.
Not really. Since he's a lame-duck president and the election is over, he's not really risking anything
here. After all, opposition to settlements in the occupied territories has been official US policy for
nearly 50 years, and when has that ever stopped Israel from founding/expanding them? No, this is just
more empty symbolism.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
It's been dead for ever. The One State solution will replace it, and that will really freak out all
the Zios.
They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena.
Trump understands this all-too-well.
Oderint dum metuant ("Let them hate, so long as they fear.") – Caligula
@Karl
the "shot across the bow" was the "Not My President!" demonstrations, which were long before
Dr Stein's recount circuses.
They spent a lot of money on buses and box lunches - it wouldn't fly.
Nothing else they try will fly.
Correct me if I am wrong.... plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.
Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.
It seems you may be on to something:
RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer"
to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s)
are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[3]
There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either
the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise
(18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control of,
the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (b)); or the defendant(s)
conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering
activity (subsection (c)); or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above (subsection (d)).[4]
In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the
racketeers.[5] A civil RICO action can be filed in state or federal court.[6]
@Max Havelaar
My guess: the outgoing Obama administration is in a last ditch killing frenzy, to
revenge Aleppo loss!
The Berlin bus blowup, The Russian ambassador in Turkey killed and the Red army's most eminent Alexandrov's
choir send to the bottom of the black sea.
Typical CIA ops to threaten world leaders to comply with the incumbent US elite.
Watch Mike Morell (CIA) threaten world leaders:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZK2FZGKAd0
The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the so-called "elites"
in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the
US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does
not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad.
The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the US government is
the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell – who has never been in combat and
never demonstrated any intellectual vigor – is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated
opportunist that is endangering the US big time.
The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have
brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not
follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad.
It is corrupt, annamaria, corrupt to the very core, corrupt throughout. Any talk of elections, honest
candidates, devoted elected representatives, etc., is sappy naivete. They're crooks; the sprinkling
of decent reps is minuscule and ineffective.
So, what to do? ,
@Max Havelaar
A serial killer, paid by US taxpayers. By universal human rights laws he would hang.
I agree with some, mostly the pro-Constitutionalist and moral spirit of the essay, but differ as
to when the Coup D'etat is going to – or has already taken place .
The coup D'etat that destroyed our American Republic, and its last Constitutional President, John
F. Kennedy, took place 53 years ago on November 22, 1963. The coup was consolidated at the cost of 2
million Vietnamese and 1 million Indonesians (1965). The assassinations of JF Kennedy's brother, Robert
Kennedy, R. Kennedy's ally, Martin L. King, Malcolm X, Fred Hampton, John Lennon, and many others, followed.
Mr. Petras, the Coup D'etat has already happened.
Our mission must be the Restore our American Republic! This is The Only Road for us. There
are no shortcuts. The choice we were given (for Hollywood President), in 2016, between a psychotic Mass
Murderer, and a mid level Mafioso Casino Owner displayed the lack of respect the Oligarchs have for
the American Sheeple. Until we rise, we will never regain our self-respect, our Honor.
I enclose a copy of our Flier, our Declaration, For The Restoration of the Republic below,
for your perusal. We (of the Anarchist Collective), have distributed it as best we can.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal governments are instituted
among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute
new government, laying its foundation on such principles "
The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence , written by Thomas Jefferson.
We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.
The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial aristocracy
destroyed the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963, when they assassinated the last democratically
elected president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy , and overthrew his government. All following governments
have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the
Republic were interrupted by their murder.
A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam , conducted by the murderers of Kennedy,
left 2 million dead in a wake of napalm and burning villages.
In 1965 , the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian civilians.
In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala.
In the 1970s , the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America's middle class,
by encouraging the export of industry and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare subsistence
wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation's Oligarchs cost American taxpayers $13trillion. The long
decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard working citizens, as well
as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.
The impoverishment of America's middle class has undermined the nation's financial stability. Without
a productive foundation, the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion . This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations. Concurrently, the top 1% of the
nation's population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest rate has
been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings, as their savings
cannot stay even with the inflation rate.
The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures,
and is or has recently conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain 700
military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much on military weapons of terror as the rest of the
nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget is spent on the military
and 16 associated secret agencies.
The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared by the
Founders of the United States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as with previous
administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever is chosen in November 2016, operates a Gulag of dozens
of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely tortured. The Patriot Act
and The National Defense Authorizations Act , enacted by both Democratic and Republican factions
of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.
The nation's media is controlled , and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population;
the people are intimidated and treated with contempt.
The United States is No longer Sovereign
The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress, is
bought, utterly owned and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the Rothschilds,
Rockefellers, and Duponts , to name only a few of the best known.
The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government,
with its controlling International Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices for
imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations, including ours.
For Love of Country
The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous debts
owed to that unconstitutional regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student Debts,
will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with a clean slate.
As American Founder, Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:
"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct
to the living':"
"Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and in their
own right. The 2d. Generation receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of
the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead
and not the living generation."
Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful government
which will ensure President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms , freedom of speech and expression,
freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom from want "which means economic understandings which
will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants " and freedom from fear "which means
a world-wide reduction of armaments "
Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free people.
We will establish a government, hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal politicians
of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage of the previous totalitarian governments.
For the Democratic Republic! Sons and Daughters of Liberty [email protected]
@annamaria
The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the
so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real
"deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not
do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy
home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the
US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell - who has never been
in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor - is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly
educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time.
The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have
brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not
follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad.
It is corrupt, annamaria, corrupt to the very core, corrupt throughout. Any talk of elections, honest
candidates, devoted elected representatives, etc., is sappy naivete. They're crooks; the sprinkling
of decent reps is minuscule and ineffective.
So, what to do?
• Replies:
@Bill Jones
The corruption is endemic from top to bottom.
My previous residence was in Hamilton Township in Monroe County, PA . Population about 8,000.
The 3 Township Supervisors appointed themselves to township jobs- Road master, Zoning officer etc and
pay themselves twice the going rate with the occupant of the job under review abstaining while his two
palls vote him the money. Anybody challenging this is met with a shit-storm of propaganda and a mysterious
explosion in voter turn-out: guess who runs the local polls?
The chief of the local volunteer fire company has to sign off on the sprinkler systems before any occupation
certificate can be issued for a commercial building. Conveniently he runs a plumbing business. Guess
who gets the lion's share of plumbing jobs for new commercial buildings?
As they climb the greasy pole, it only gets worse.
Meanwhile the routine business of looting continues:
My local rag (an organ of the Murdoch crime family) had a little piece last year about the new 3 year
contract for the local county prison guards. I went back to the two previous two contracts and discovered
that by 2018 they will have had 33% increases over nine years. Between 2008 and 2013 (the latest years
I could find data for) median household income in the county decreased by 13%.
At some point some rogue politician will start fighting this battle.
If the US is split between Trump and Clinton supporters, then the staffs of the CIA and FBI are probably
split the same way.
The CIA and FBI leadership may take one position or another, but many CIA and FBI employees joined
these agencies in the first place to serve their country – not to assist Neo-con MENA Imperial projects,
and they know a lot more than the general public about what is really going on.
Employees can really mess things up if they have a different political orientation to their employers.
@Mark Green
This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally
gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least
for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot
of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role.
And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's
beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the
money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political
miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal
with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating.
And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore,
Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant
than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support
for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not
throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli
pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and
appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his
campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible
to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast
approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic
spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go
Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's
political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political
foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both
sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
I'm hoping that Trump is running with the neocons just as far as is necessary to pressure congress
to confirm his cabinet appointments and make sure he isn't JFK'd before he gets into office and can
set about putting security in place to protect his own and his family's lives.
For John McBloodstain to vote for a SoS that will make nice with his nemesis; Putin, will require
massive amounts of Zio-pressure. The only way that pressure will come is if the Zio-cons are convinced
that Trump is their man.
Once his cabinet appointments are secured, then perhaps we might see some independence of action.
Not until. At least that is my hope, however naïve.
It isn't just the Zio-cons that want to poke the Russian bear, it's also the MIC. Trump has to navigate
a very dangerous mine field if he's going to end the Endless Wars and return sanity and peace to the
world. He's going to have to wrangle with the devil himself (the Fiend), and outplay him at his own
game.
I do not like saying it, but the appointment of the Palestinian hating Jew as ambassador to Israel
has disarmed the Jew community – they can no longer call Trump an anti-Semite – the most power two words
in America. The result is that the domestic side of the coup is over.
The Russian thing has to play out. The Jew forces will try and make bad blood between America and
Russia – hopefully Trump and Putin will let it play out, but really ignore it.
If we get past the inauguration, the CIA is going to be toast. GOOD!
Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) - doing his best to screw things up before
Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?
Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at war
with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act - providing
aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.
A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.
Francis Boyle writes:
"... I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put
in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great
Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP.
Just have
the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.
Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax)
That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to
undermine the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it.
It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country, on grounds
of hacking the election against Hillary.
Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt"
you seem to believe is in the offing ?
It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement with
Moscow.
What for ?
It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine disgruntlement
of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ?
Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining
to stuff ..like 9-11 ?
Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that they would
initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ?
They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before
Trumps inauguration.
Perhaps something "else "is being planned ..Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ?
@Tomster
What does Russian intelligence know? Err ... perhaps something like that the US/UK have
sold nukes to the head-choppers of the riyadh caliphate, say (knowing how completely mad their incestuous
brains are?). Who knows? - but such a fact could explain many inexplicable things.
@Art
I do not like saying it, but the appointment of the Palestinian hating Jew as ambassador to
Israel has disarmed the Jew community – they can no longer call Trump an anti-Semite – the most power
two words in America. The result is that the domestic side of the coup is over.
The Russian thing has to play out. The Jew forces will try and make bad blood between America and Russia
– hopefully Trump and Putin will let it play out, but really ignore it.
If we get past the inauguration, the CIA is going to be toast. GOOD!
Peace --- Art
"If we get past the inauguration ."
Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) – doing his best to screw things up
before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?
Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at
war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act – providing
aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.
A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII. Francis Boyle writes:
" I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put
in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great
Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP. Just have
the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.
Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax)
This is much ado about nothing - in a NYT's article today - they said that the DNC was told about
being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 - they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!
The RNC got smart - not the DNC - it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.
Really - how pissed off can they be?
Peace --- Art
p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.
@Mark Green
This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally
gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least
for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot
of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role.
And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's
beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the
money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political
miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal
with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating.
And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore,
Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant
than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support
for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not
throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli
pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and
appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his
campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible
to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast
approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic
spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go
Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's
political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance on
Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.
What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism
program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they
want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a
model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing
project.
Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It
is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews.
It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result
in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed
by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.
Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those
revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return.
Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly
reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because
they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries.
So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do
not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.
Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if
Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis
to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers,
drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians,
workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these
Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just
to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of
no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews,
therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.
So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with
Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their
pride in nationalist endeavors.
• Replies:
@joe webb
masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer
moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever,
but probably did not come from Trump.
As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist
claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either
"solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced
security stance and quality of life for Israelis."
That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty
with Israel, and then continue to press their claims...Israel would have the moral high ground to beat
hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public
opinion.
Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and
morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs
is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.
I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now. Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains
for the jews.
Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big
time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he
is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but...
Joe Webb ,
@RobinG
"A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers,
drive the nails, throw out the trash."
"The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts
and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly
described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC,
NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa."
You left out Fox, most of their news anchors and pundits are rabidly pro Israel and anti Russia.
There is a pretty good chance, since all else has failed so far, Obama will declare 'a special situation
martial law'. And you can be sure many on both sides of Congress will comply. This will once again demonstrate
who is on the power elite payroll. If this happens hopefully the military will be on Trumps side and
round up those responsible and proper justice meted out.
@map
I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance
on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.
What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism
program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they
want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a
model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing
project.
Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is
a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews.
It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result
in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed
by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.
Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those
revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return.
Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly
reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because
they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries.
So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do
not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.
Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel
remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to
do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive
the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians,
workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these
Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just
to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of
no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews,
therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.
So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with
Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their
pride in nationalist endeavors.
masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer moms on the
Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever, but probably
did not come from Trump.
As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist
claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either
"solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced
security stance and quality of life for Israelis."
That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty
with Israel, and then continue to press their claims Israel would have the moral high ground to beat
hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public
opinion.
Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and
morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs
is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.
I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now. Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains
for the jews.
Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big
time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he
is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but
Joe Webb
• Replies:
@map
The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think
their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling
will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result
in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.
It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.
The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board
going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled
by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just
triangulation against the left.
I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a
lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle
East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.
@Realist
"The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented
any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly
described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC,
NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa."
You left out Fox, most of their news anchors and pundits are rabidly pro Israel and anti Russia.
There is a pretty good chance, since all else has failed so far, Obama will declare 'a special situation
martial law'. And you can be sure many on both sides of Congress will comply. This will once again demonstrate
who is on the power elite payroll. If this happens hopefully the military will be on Trumps side and
round up those responsible and proper justice meted out.
The obscenity of the US behavior abroad leads directly to an alliance of ziocons and war profiteers.
Here is a highly educational paper on the exceptional amorality of the US administration:
http://www.voltairenet.org/article194709.html
"The existence of a NATO bunker in East Aleppo confirms what we have been saying about the role of NATO
LandCom in the coordination of the jihadists The liberation of Syria should continue at Idleb the
zone is de facto governed by NATO via a string of pseudo-NGO's. At least, this is what was noted last
month by a US think-tank. To beat the jihadists there, it will be necessary first of all to cut their
supply lines, in other words, close the Turtkish frontier. This is what Russian diplomacy is currently
working on." Well. After wasting the uncounted trillions of US dollars on the war on terror and after filling the
VA hospitals with the ruined young men and women and after bringing death a destruction on apocalyptic
scale to the Middle East in the name of 9/11, the US has found new bosom buddies – the hordes of fanatical
jihadis.
Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) - doing his best to screw things up before
Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?
Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at war
with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act - providing
aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.
A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII. Francis Boyle writes: "... I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put
in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great
Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP. Just have
the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.
Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)
Hi RobinG,
This is much ado about nothing – in a NYT's article today – they said that the DNC was told about
being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 – they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!
The RNC got smart – not the DNC – it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.
Really – how pissed off can they be?
Peace - Art
p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.
I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking
is nil.
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine,
his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin,
and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates
in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.
The feds have now released their reports, detailing how the dastardly Russians darkly influenced
the 2016 presidential election by releasing Democrats' emails, and giving the American public a peek
inside the Democrat machine.
Those dastardly Russkies have informed and enlightened the American public for long enough! This
shall not stand!
This is much ado about nothing - in a NYT's article today - they said that the DNC was told about
being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 - they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!
The RNC got smart - not the DNC - it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.
Really - how pissed off can they be?
Peace --- Art
p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.
Hi Art,
I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking
is nil.
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in
Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization
of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates
in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in
Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization
of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
RobinG --- Agree 100% - some times I get things crossed up --- Peace Art
I assume that everyone agrees that the final outcome of the security breach was that 'Wikileaks'
leaked internal emails of Clinton Campaign Manager Pedesta and DNC emails regarding embarrassing behavior.
No one is suggesting that the leaked information is 'fake news'.
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic
campaign itself.
Given that Podesta's password was 'P@ssw0rd' - does it take Russian deep state security to hack?
Though CAP is still having issues with my email and computer, yours is good to go. jpodesta p@ssw0rd
The report is 13 pages of mostly nothing.
Note the Disclaimer:
DISCLAIMER: This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within.
DHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory or otherwise. This
document is distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules, TLP:WHITE information may
be distributed without restriction. For more information on the Traffic Light Protocol, see
https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp .
@annamaria
The obscenity of the US behavior abroad leads directly to an alliance of ziocons and
war profiteers. Here is a highly educational paper on the exceptional amorality of the US administration:
http://www.voltairenet.org/article194709.html
"The existence of a NATO bunker in East Aleppo confirms what we have been saying about the role of NATO
LandCom in the coordination of the jihadists... The liberation of Syria should continue at Idleb ...
the zone is de facto governed by NATO via a string of pseudo-NGO's. At least, this is what was noted
last month by a US think-tank. To beat the jihadists there, it will be necessary first of all to cut
their supply lines, in other words, close the Turtkish frontier. This is what Russian diplomacy is currently
working on."
Well. After wasting the uncounted trillions of US dollars on the war on terror and after filling the
VA hospitals with the ruined young men and women and after bringing death a destruction on apocalyptic
scale to the Middle East in the name of 9/11, the US has found new bosom buddies - the hordes of fanatical
jihadis.
@joe webb
masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer
moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever,
but probably did not come from Trump.
As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist
claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either
"solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced
security stance and quality of life for Israelis."
That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty
with Israel, and then continue to press their claims...Israel would have the moral high ground to beat
hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public
opinion.
Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and
morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs
is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.
I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now. Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains
for the jews.
Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big
time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he
is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but...
Joe Webb
The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their
land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not
change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a
comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.
It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.
The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on
board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled
by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just
triangulation against the left.
I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose
a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle
East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.
• Replies:
@Tomster
"treated very shabbily" indeed, by other Arabs - who have done virtually nothing for them.
,
@joe webb
good points. Yet, Palestinians ..."They should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim
Middle East." sounds pretty much like an Israel talking point. How about Israel should be dissolved and the Jews repatriated around Europe and the US?
Not being an Idea world, but a Biological World, revanchism is true enough up to a point. Of course
The Revanchists of All Time are the jews, or the zionists, to speak liberalize.
As for feelings that don't change, there is a tendency for feelings to change over time, especially
when a "legal" document is signed by the participating parties. I have long advocated that the Jews
pay for the land they stole, and that that payment be made to a new Palestinian state. A Palestinian
with a home, a job, a family, and a nice car makes a lot of difference, just like anywhere else.
(We paid the Mexicans in a treaty that presumably ended the Mexican war. This is a normal state of affairs.
Mexico only "owned" California, etc, for about 25 years, and I do not think paid the injuns anything
for their land at the time. Also, if memory serves, I think Pat Buchanan claimed somewhere that there
were only about 10,000 Mexicans in California at the time, or maybe in the whole area under discussion..)
How Palestine stolen property, should be evaluated I leave to the experts. Jews would appear to have
ample resources and could pony up the dough.
The biggest problem is the US evangelicals and equally important, the nice Episcopalians and so on,
even the Catholic Church which used to Exclude Jews now luving them. This is part of our National Religion.
The Jews are god's favorites, and nobody seems to mind. Kill an Arab for Christ is the national gut
feeling, except when it gets too expensive or kills too many Americans.
As I have said, Trump is in between the rock and the hard place. If he wants to end the Jewish Wars
in the ME, he cannot luv the jews, and especially he cannot start lobbing bombs around too much...even
over Isis and the dozens of jihadist groups, especially now in Syria.
Sorry but your "comfortably repatriated" is a real howler. There is no comfort to be had by anybody
in the ME. And, like Jews with regard to your points about revanchism in general, Palestinians have
not blended into the general Arab populations of other countries, like Lebanon, etc.. Using your own
logic, the Palestinians will continue to nurse their grievances no matter where they are, just like
the Jews.
The neocon goals of failed states in the Arab World has been largely accomplished and the only way humpty-dumpty
will be put back together again is for tough Arab Strong Men to reestablish order. Like Assad, like
Hussein, etc. Arab IQ is about 85 in general. There is not going to be democracy/elections/civics lessons per the White countries's genetic predisposition.\
For that matter, Jews are not democrats. Left alone Israel, wherever it is, reverts to Rabbinic Control
and Jehovah, the Warrior God, reigns. Fact is , that is where Israel is heading anyway. Jews never invented free speech and rule of law, nor did Arabs, or any other race on the planet.
The Jews With Nukes is of World Historical Importance. And Whites have given them the Bomb, just as
Whites have given Third World inferior races, access to the Northern Cornucopia of wealth, both spiritual
and material. They will , like the jews, exploit free speech and game the economic system.
All Semites Out! Ditto just about everybody else, starting with the Chinese.
finally, if the jews had any real brains, they would get out of a neighborhood that hates them for their
jewishness, their Thefts, and their Wars. Otoh, Jews seem to thrive on being hated more than any other
race or ethnic group. Chosen to Always Complain.
I assume that everyone agrees that the final outcome of the security breach was that 'Wikileaks'
leaked internal emails of Clinton Campaign Manager Pedesta and DNC emails regarding embarrassing behavior.
No one is suggesting that the leaked information is 'fake news'.
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic
campaign itself.
Given that Podesta's password was 'P@ssw0rd' -- does it take Russian deep state security to hack?
Though CAP is still having issues with my email and computer, yours is good to go. jpodesta p@ssw0rd
The report is 13 pages of mostly nothing.
Note the Disclaimer:
DISCLAIMER: This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within.
DHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory or otherwise. This
document is distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules, TLP:WHITE information may
be distributed without restriction. For more information on the Traffic Light Protocol, see https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp.
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the
Democratic campaign itself.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.
"Was" is the operative word:
Julian Assange Suggests That DNC's Seth Rich Was Murdered For Being a Wikileaker
https://heatst.com/tech/wikileaks-offers-20000-for-information-about-seth-richs-killer/ ,
@alexander
Given all the hoaky, "evidence free" punitive assaults being launched against Moscow
today ....combined with the profusion of utterly fraudulent narratives foisted down the throats of the
American people over the last sixteen years...
Its NOT outside of reason to take a good hard look at the "Seth Rich incident" and reconstruct an
outline of events(probably) much closer to the truth than the big media would ever be willing to discuss
or admit.
Namely, that Seth Rich, a young decent kid (27) who was working as the data director for the campaign,
came across evidence of "dirty pool" within the voting systems during the DNC nomination ,which were
fraudulently (and maybe even blatantly) tilting the results towards Hillary.
He probably did the "right thing" by notifying one of the DNC bosses of the fraud ..who informed
him he would look into it and that he should keep it quite for the moment...
.I wouldn't be surprised if Seth reached out to a reporter , too, probably at the at the NY Times,
who informed his editor...who, in turn, had such deep connections to the Hillary corruption machine...that
he placed a call to a DNC backroom boss ... who , at some point, made the decision to take steps to
shut Seth's mouth, permanently...."just make it look like a robbery (or something)"
Seth, not being stupid, and knowing he had the dirt on Hillary that could crush her (as well as the
reputation of the entire democratic party)......probably reached out to Julian Assange, too, to hedge
his bets.
In the interview Julian gave shortly after Seth's death, he intimated that Seth was the leak, although
he did not state it outright.
Something like this sequence of events (with perhaps a few alterations ) is probably quite close
to what actually happened.
So here we have a scenario, where the D.N.C. Oligarchs , so corrupt, so evil, so disdainful of the
electorate, and the democratic process , rig the nomination results (on multiple levels) for Hillary..and
when the evidence of this is found, by a decent young kid with his whole life ahead of him, they had
him shot in the back.....four times...
And then "Big Media for Hillary", rather than investigate this horrific tragedy and expose the dirty
malevolence at play within the DNC , quashes the entire narrative and grafts in its place the"substitute"
Putin hacks..... demanding faux accountability... culminating with sanctions and ejections of the entire
Russian diplomatic corp.......all on the grounds of attempting to "sully American Democracy"
.
But hey, that's life in the USA....Right, Seamus ?
"what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist
policies. "
The longer Israel persists in its "facts-on-the-ground" thievery, the less moral standing it has
for its white country. And it is a racist state also within its own "borders."
A pathetic excuse for a country. Without the USA it wouldn't exist.
A black mark on both countries' report cards.
@map
I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance
on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.
What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism
program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they
want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a
model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing
project.
Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is
a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews.
It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result
in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed
by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.
Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those
revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return.
Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly
reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because
they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries.
So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do
not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.
Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel
remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to
do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive
the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians,
workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these
Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just
to get by?
The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of
no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews,
therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.
So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with
Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their
pride in nationalist endeavors.
"A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive
the nails, throw out the trash."
Perhaps you'd like to discuss why so much of this and other "scut work" is done by Palestinians,
while an increasing number of Israeli Jews are on the dole.
@Mark Green
This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally
gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least
for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot
of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role.
And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's
beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the
money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political
miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal
with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating.
And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore,
Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant
than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support
for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not
throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli
pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and
appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his
campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible
to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast
approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic
spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go
Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's
political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
"As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore,
Obama is finally free to do what's right . "
THEN WHY DOESN'T HE DO WHAT'S RIGHT? As Seamus Padraig pointed out, the UN abstention is "just more
empty symbolism." Meanwhile The Christmas Eve attack on the First Amendment The approval of arming terrorists in Syria
The fake news about Russian hacking throwing Killary's election
Aid to terrorists is a felony. Obama should be indicted.
I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking
is nil.
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine,
his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin,
and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates
in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup
in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization
of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
RobinG - Agree 100% – some times I get things crossed up - Peace Art
@Mark Green
This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally
gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least
for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot
of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role.
And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's
beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the
money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political
miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal
with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating.
And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore,
Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant
than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support
for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not
throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli
pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and
appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his
campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible
to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast
approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic
spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go
Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's
political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
Most of the Western world is much sicker of the head-choppers in charge of our 'human rights' at
the UN (thanks to Obama and the UK) than it is of Israel. It is they, not we, who have funded ISIS directly.
It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country, on grounds of
hacking the election against Hillary.
Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt" you
seem to believe is in the offing ?
It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement with
Moscow.
What for ?
It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine disgruntlement
of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ?
Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining
to stuff.....like 9-11 ?
Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that they would
initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ?
They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before
Trumps inauguration.
Perhaps something "else "is being planned........Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ?
What does Russian intelligence know? Err perhaps something like that the US/UK have sold nukes
to the head-choppers of the riyadh caliphate, say (knowing how completely mad their incestuous brains
are?). Who knows? – but such a fact could explain many inexplicable things.
@map
The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think
their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling
will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result
in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.
It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.
The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board
going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled
by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just
triangulation against the left.
I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a
lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle
East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.
"treated very shabbily" indeed, by other Arabs – who have done virtually nothing for them.
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic
campaign itself.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.
Given all the hoaky, "evidence free" punitive assaults being launched against Moscow today .combined
with the profusion of utterly fraudulent narratives foisted down the throats of the American people
over the last sixteen years
Its NOT outside of reason to take a good hard look at the "Seth Rich incident" and reconstruct an
outline of events(probably) much closer to the truth than the big media would ever be willing to discuss
or admit.
Namely, that Seth Rich, a young decent kid (27) who was working as the data director for the campaign,
came across evidence of "dirty pool" within the voting systems during the DNC nomination ,which were
fraudulently (and maybe even blatantly) tilting the results towards Hillary.
He probably did the "right thing" by notifying one of the DNC bosses of the fraud ..who informed
him he would look into it and that he should keep it quite for the moment
.I wouldn't be surprised if Seth reached out to a reporter , too, probably at the at the NY Times,
who informed his editor who, in turn, had such deep connections to the Hillary corruption machine that
he placed a call to a DNC backroom boss who , at some point, made the decision to take steps to shut
Seth's mouth, permanently ."just make it look like a robbery (or something)"
Seth, not being stupid, and knowing he had the dirt on Hillary that could crush her (as well as the
reputation of the entire democratic party) probably reached out to Julian Assange, too, to hedge his
bets.
In the interview Julian gave shortly after Seth's death, he intimated that Seth was the leak, although
he did not state it outright.
Something like this sequence of events (with perhaps a few alterations ) is probably quite close
to what actually happened.
So here we have a scenario, where the D.N.C. Oligarchs , so corrupt, so evil, so disdainful of the
electorate, and the democratic process , rig the nomination results (on multiple levels) for Hillary..and
when the evidence of this is found, by a decent young kid with his whole life ahead of him, they had
him shot in the back ..four times
And then "Big Media for Hillary", rather than investigate this horrific tragedy and expose the dirty
malevolence at play within the DNC , quashes the entire narrative and grafts in its place the"substitute"
Putin hacks .. demanding faux accountability culminating with sanctions and ejections of the entire
Russian diplomatic corp .all on the grounds of attempting to "sully American Democracy"
.
@map
The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think
their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling
will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result
in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.
It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.
The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board
going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled
by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just
triangulation against the left.
I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a
lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle
East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.
good points. Yet, Palestinians "They should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle
East." sounds pretty much like an Israel talking point. How about Israel should be dissolved and the Jews repatriated around Europe and the US?
Not being an Idea world, but a Biological World, revanchism is true enough up to a point. Of course
The Revanchists of All Time are the jews, or the zionists, to speak liberalize.
As for feelings that don't change, there is a tendency for feelings to change over time, especially
when a "legal" document is signed by the participating parties. I have long advocated that the Jews
pay for the land they stole, and that that payment be made to a new Palestinian state. A Palestinian
with a home, a job, a family, and a nice car makes a lot of difference, just like anywhere else.
(We paid the Mexicans in a treaty that presumably ended the Mexican war. This is a normal state of
affairs. Mexico only "owned" California, etc, for about 25 years, and I do not think paid the injuns
anything for their land at the time. Also, if memory serves, I think Pat Buchanan claimed somewhere
that there were only about 10,000 Mexicans in California at the time, or maybe in the whole area under
discussion..)
How Palestine stolen property, should be evaluated I leave to the experts. Jews would appear to have
ample resources and could pony up the dough.
The biggest problem is the US evangelicals and equally important, the nice Episcopalians and so on,
even the Catholic Church which used to Exclude Jews now luving them. This is part of our National Religion.
The Jews are god's favorites, and nobody seems to mind. Kill an Arab for Christ is the national gut
feeling, except when it gets too expensive or kills too many Americans.
As I have said, Trump is in between the rock and the hard place. If he wants to end the Jewish Wars
in the ME, he cannot luv the jews, and especially he cannot start lobbing bombs around too much even
over Isis and the dozens of jihadist groups, especially now in Syria.
Sorry but your "comfortably repatriated" is a real howler. There is no comfort to be had by anybody
in the ME. And, like Jews with regard to your points about revanchism in general, Palestinians have
not blended into the general Arab populations of other countries, like Lebanon, etc.. Using your own
logic, the Palestinians will continue to nurse their grievances no matter where they are, just like
the Jews.
The neocon goals of failed states in the Arab World has been largely accomplished and the only way
humpty-dumpty will be put back together again is for tough Arab Strong Men to reestablish order. Like
Assad, like Hussein, etc. Arab IQ is about 85 in general. There is not going to be democracy/elections/civics lessons per the White countries's genetic predisposition.\
For that matter, Jews are not democrats. Left alone Israel, wherever it is, reverts to Rabbinic Control
and Jehovah, the Warrior God, reigns. Fact is , that is where Israel is heading anyway.
Jews never invented free speech and rule of law, nor did Arabs, or any other race on the planet.
The Jews With Nukes is of World Historical Importance. And Whites have given them the Bomb, just
as Whites have given Third World inferior races, access to the Northern Cornucopia of wealth, both spiritual
and material. They will , like the jews, exploit free speech and game the economic system.
All Semites Out! Ditto just about everybody else, starting with the Chinese.
finally, if the jews had any real brains, they would get out of a neighborhood that hates them for
their jewishness, their Thefts, and their Wars. Otoh, Jews seem to thrive on being hated more than any
other race or ethnic group. Chosen to Always Complain. Joe Webb
Trump has absolutely no support in the media. With the Fox News and Fox Business, first string, talking
heads on vacation (minimal support) the second and third string are insanely trying to push the Russian
hacking bullshit. Trump better realize that the only support he has are the people that voted for him.
January 2017 will be a bad month for this country and the rest of 2017 much worse.
Sorry Joe, the "whites" did not give the Jews the atomic bomb. In truth, the Jews were critically
important in developing the scientific ideas and technology critical to making the first atomic bomb.
I can recognize Jewish malfeasance where it exists, but to ignore their intellectual contributions
to Western Civilization is sheer blindness.
"... In the wake of her resounding defeat, Candidate Stein usurped authority from the national Green Party and rapidly raked in $8 million dollars in donations from Democratic Party operatives and George Soros-linked NGO's (many times the amount raised during her Presidential campaign). This dodgy money financed her demand for ballot recounts in selective states in order to challenge Trump's victory. The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump. It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite and liberal activists. ..."
"... The 'Big Lie' was repeated and embellished at every opportunity by the print and broadcast media. The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC, NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa. The great American Empire looked increasingly like a 'banana republic'. ..."
"... The coup intensified as Trump-Putin became synonymous for "betrayal" and "election fraud". As this approached a crescendo of media hysteria, President Barack Obama stepped in and called on the CIA to seize domestic control of the investigation of Russian manipulation of the US election – essentially accusing President-Elect Trump of conspiring with the Russian government. Obama refused to reveal any proof of such a broad plot, citing 'national security'. ..."
"... Obama's last-ditch effort will not change the outcome of the election. Clearly this is designed to poison the diplomatic well and present Trump's incoming administration as dangerous. Trump's promise to improve relations with Russia will face enormous resistance in this frothy, breathless hysteria of Russophobia. ..."
"... Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations. He wants to force a continuation of his grotesque policies onto the incoming Trump Administration. ..."
"... Trump's success at thwarting the current 'Russian ploy' requires his forming counter alliances with Washington plutocrats, many of whom will oppose any diplomatic agreement with Putin. Trump's appointment of hardline economic plutocrats who are deeply committed to shredding social programs (public education, Medicare, Social Security) could ignite the anger of his mass supporters by savaging their jobs, health care, pensions and their children's future. ..."
"... If Trump defeats the avalanching media, CIA and elite-instigated coup (which interestingly lack support from the military and judiciary), he will have to thank, not only his generals and billionaire-buddies, but also his downwardly mobile mass supporters (Hillary Clinton's detested 'basket of deplorables'). ..."
"... He embarked on a major series of 'victory tours' around the country to thank his supporters among the military, workers, women and small business people and call on them to defend his election to the presidency. He will have to fulfill some of his promises to the masses or face 'the real fire', not from Clintonite shills and war-mongers, but from the very people who voted for him. ..."
"... It is true there is breaking news today but you certainly won't hear it from the mainstream media. While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year 2017 into law which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" and in this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth shows how this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of the Ministry of Truth" in George Orwell's book 1984. ..."
"... What we have to do is prove that there is an organization that includes George Soros, but is not limited to him personally–you know, a kosher nostra! ..."
"... I would dearly like to know what Moscow and Tel Aviv know about 9-11. I suspect they both know more than almost anyone else. ..."
"... Those dastardly Russkies have informed and enlightened the American public for long enough! This shall not stand! ..."
"... What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia. ..."
"... Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason. ..."
A coup has been underway to prevent President-Elect Donald Trump from
taking office and fulfilling his campaign promise to improve US-Russia relations. This 'palace coup'
is not a secret conspiracy, but an open, loud attack on the election.
The coup involves important US elites, who openly intervene on many levels from the street to
the current President, from sectors of the intelligence community, billionaire financiers out to
the more marginal 'leftist' shills of the Democratic Party.
The build-up for the coup is gaining momentum, threatening to eliminate normal constitutional
and democratic constraints. This essay describes the brazen, overt coup and the public operatives,
mostly members of the outgoing Obama regime.
The second section describes the Trump's cabinet appointments and the political measures that
the President-Elect has adopted to counter the coup. We conclude with an evaluation of the potential
political consequences of the attempted coup and Trump's moves to defend his electoral victory and
legitimacy.
The Coup as 'Process'
In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential
power by unconstitutional means, which may help illustrate some of the current moves underway in
Washington. These are especially interesting since the Obama Administration served as the 'midwife'
for these 'regime changes'.
Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras and Haiti experienced coups, in which the elected Presidents were ousted
through a series of political interventions orchestrated by economic elites and their political allies
in Congress and the Judiciary.
President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton were deeply involved in these operations as part
of their established foreign policy of 'regime change'. Indeed, the 'success' of the Latin American
coups has encouraged sectors of the US elite to attempt to prevent President-elect Trump from taking
office in January.
While similarities abound, the on-going coup against Trump in the United States occurs within
a very different power configuration of proponents and antagonists.
Firstly, this coup is not against a standing President, but targets an elected president set to
take office on January 20, 2017. Secondly, the attempted coup has polarized leading sectors of the
political and economic elite. It even exposes a seamy rivalry within the intelligence-security apparatus,
with the political appointees heading the CIA involved in the coup and the FBI supporting the incoming
President Trump and the constitutional process. Thirdly, the evolving coup is a sequential process,
which will build momentum and then escalate very rapidly.
Coup-makers depend on the 'Big Lie' as their point of departure – accusing President-Elect Trump
of
being a Kremlin stooge, attributing his electoral victory to Russian intervention against his
Democratic Party opponent, Hillary Clinton and
blatant voter fraud in which the Republican Party
prevented minority voters from casting their ballot for Secretary Clinton.
The first operatives to emerge in the early stages of the coup included the marginal-left Green
Party Presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein, who won less than 1% of the vote, as well as the mass
media.
In the wake of her resounding defeat, Candidate Stein usurped authority from the national Green
Party and rapidly raked in $8 million dollars in donations from Democratic Party operatives and George
Soros-linked NGO's (many times the amount raised during her Presidential campaign). This dodgy money
financed her demand for ballot recounts in selective states in order to challenge Trump's victory.
The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump.
It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite
and liberal activists.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's
$8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media
and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and not the
American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!
The 'Big Lie' was repeated and embellished at every opportunity by the print and broadcast media.
The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts
and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly
described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC,
NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa. The great American
Empire looked increasingly like a 'banana republic'.
Like the Billionaire Soros-funded 'Color Revolutions', from Ukraine, to Georgia and Yugoslavia,
the 'Rainbow Revolt' against Trump, featured grass-roots NGO activists and 'serious leftists', like
Jill Stein.
The more polished political operatives from the upscale media used their editorial pages to question
Trump's illegitimacy. This established the ground work for even higher level political intervention:
The current US Administration, including President Obama, members of the US Congress from both parties,
and current and former heads of the CIA jumped into the fray. As the vote recount ploy flopped, they
all decided that 'Vladimir Putin swung the US election!' It wasn't just lunatic neo-conservative
warmongers who sought to oust Trump and impose Hillary Clinton on the American people, liberals and
social democrats were screaming 'Russian Plot!' They demanded a formal Congressional investigation
of the 'Russian cyber hacking' of Hillary's personal e-mails (where she plotted to cheat her rival
'Bernie Sanders' in the primaries). They demanded even tighter economic sanctions against Russia
and increased military provocations. The outgoing Democratic Senator and Minority Leader 'Harry'
Reid wildly accused the FBI of acting as 'Russian agents' and hinted at a purge.
ORDER IT NOW
The coup intensified as Trump-Putin became synonymous for "betrayal" and "election fraud". As this approached a crescendo of media hysteria, President Barack Obama stepped in and called
on the CIA to seize domestic control of the investigation of Russian manipulation of the US election
– essentially accusing President-Elect Trump of conspiring with the Russian government. Obama refused
to reveal any proof of such a broad plot, citing 'national security'.
President Obama solemnly declared the Trump-Putin conspiracy was a grave threat to American democracy
and Western security and freedom. He darkly promised to retaliate against Russia, " at a time and
place of our choosing".
Obama also pledged to send more US troops to the Middle East and increase arms shipments to the
jihadi terrorists in Syria, as well as the Gulf State and Saudi 'allies'. Coincidentally, the Syrian
Government and their Russian allies were poised to drive the US-backed terrorists out of Aleppo –
and defeat Obama's campaign of 'regime change' in Syria.
Trump Strikes Back: The Wall Street-Military Alliance
Meanwhile, President-Elect Donald Trump did not crumple under the Clintonite-coup in progress.
He prepared a diverse counter-attack to defend his election, relying on elite allies and mass supporters.
Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing
the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. He appointed three
retired generals to key Defense and Security positions – indicating a power struggle between the
highly politicized CIA and the military. Active and retired members of the US Armed Forces have been
key Trump supporters. He announced that he would bring his own security teams and integrate them
with the Presidential Secret Service during his administration.
Although Clinton-Obama had the major mass media and a sector of the financial elite who supported
the coup, Trump countered by appointing several key Wall Street and corporate billionaires into his
cabinet who had their own allied business associations.
One propaganda line for the coup, which relied on certain Zionist organizations and leaders (ADL,
George Soros et al), was the bizarre claim that Trump and his supporters were 'anti-Semites'. This
was were countered by Trump's appointment of powerful Wall Street Zionists like Steven Mnuchin as
Treasury Secretary and Gary Cohn (both of Goldman Sachs) to head the National Economic Council. Faced
with the Obama-CIA plot to paint Trump as a Russian agent for Vladimir Putin, the President-Elect
named security hardliners including past and present military leaders and FBI officials, to key security
and intelligence positions.
The Coup: Can it succeed?
In early December, President Obama issued an order for the CIA to 'complete its investigation'
on the Russian plot and manipulation of the US Presidential election in six weeks – right up to the
very day of Trump's inauguration on January 20, 2017! A concoction of pre-cooked 'findings' is already
oozing out of secret clandestine CIA archives with the President's approval. Obama's last-ditch effort
will not change the outcome of the election. Clearly this is designed to poison the diplomatic well
and present Trump's incoming administration as dangerous. Trump's promise to improve relations with
Russia will face enormous resistance in this frothy, breathless hysteria of Russophobia.
Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous
and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations. He wants to force a continuation of his grotesque
policies onto the incoming Trump Administration. Will Trump succumb? The legitimacy of his election
and his freedom to make policy will depend on overcoming the Clinton-Obama-neo-con-leftist coup with
his own bloc of US military and the powerful Wall Street allies, as well as his mass support among
the 'angry' American electorate. Trump's success at thwarting the current 'Russian ploy' requires
his forming counter alliances with Washington plutocrats, many of whom will oppose any diplomatic
agreement with Putin. Trump's appointment of hardline economic plutocrats who are deeply committed
to shredding social programs (public education, Medicare, Social Security) could ignite the anger
of his mass supporters by savaging their jobs, health care, pensions and their children's future.
If Trump defeats the avalanching media, CIA and elite-instigated coup (which interestingly lack
support from the military and judiciary), he will have to thank, not only his generals and billionaire-buddies,
but also his downwardly mobile mass supporters (Hillary Clinton's detested 'basket of deplorables').
He embarked on a major series of 'victory tours' around the country to thank his supporters among
the military, workers, women and small business people and call on them to defend his election to
the presidency. He will have to fulfill some of his promises to the masses or face 'the real fire',
not from Clintonite shills and war-mongers, but from the very people who voted for him.
A very insightful analysis. The golpistas will not be able to prevent Trump from taking power.
But will they make the country ungovernable to the extent of bringing down not just Trump but the
whole system?
If the coup forces President Trump to abandon his America First campaign promises by appointing globalists
eager to invade-the-world/invite-the-world, then the coup is a success and the Trump campaign was a
failure.
Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous
and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the
top. Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance
of the Camelot image?
Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for
the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his
wife and kids?
Replies:
@Skeptikal I expect Obama loves his kids.
Great analysis from Petras.
So many people have reacted with "first=level" thinking only as Trump's appointments have been announced:
"This guy is terrible!" Yes, but . . . look at the appointment in the "swamp" context, in the "veiled
threat" context. Harpers mag actually put a picture on its cover of Trump behind bars. That is one of
those veiled invitations like Henry II's "Will no one rid me of this man?"
I think Trump understands quite well what he is up against.
I agree completely with Petras that the compromises he must make to take office on Jan. 20 may in the
end compromise his agenda (whatever it actually is). I would expect Trump to play things by ear and
tack as necessary, as he senses changes in the wind. According to the precepts of triage, his no. 1
challenge/task now is to be sworn in on Jan. 20. All else is secondary.
Once he is in the White House he will have incomparably greater powers to flush out those who are trying
to sideline his presidency now. The latter must know this. He will be in charge of the whole Executive
Branch bureaucracy (which includes the Justice Department). ,
@animalogic Oh, yes, Robert -- To read the words "Obama" & "legacy" in the same sentence is to LOL.
What a god-awful president.
An 8 year adventure in failure, stupidity & ruthlessness.
The Trump-coup business: what a (near treasonous) disgrace. The "Russians done it" meme: "let's show
the world just how stupid, embarrassing & plain MEAN we can be". A trillion words -- & not one shred
of supporting evidence.... ?! And I thought that the old "Obama was not born in the US" trope was shameless
stupidity --
If there is any bright side here, I hope it has convinced EVERY American conservative that the neo-con's
& their identical economic twin the neoliberals are treasonous dreck who would flush the US down the
drain if they thought it to their political advantage.
Excellent analysis! Mr. Petras, you delved right into the crux of the matter of the balance of forces
in the U.S.A. at this very unusual political moment. I have only a very minor correction to make, and
it is only a language-related one: you don't really want to say that Trump's "illegitimacy" is being
questioned, but rather his legitimacy, right?
Another thing, but this time of a perhaps idiosyncratic nature: I am a teeny-weeny bit more optimistic
than you about the events to come in your country. (Too bad I cannot say this about my own poor country
Brazil, which is going faster and faster down the drain.)
@John Gruskos If the coup forces President Trump to abandon his America First campaign promises
by appointing globalists eager to invade-the-world/invite-the-world, then the coup is a success and
the Trump campaign was a failure.
The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump.
It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite
and liberal activists.
On the contrary, this first salvo from the anti-American forces resulted in more friendly fire hits
on the attackers than it did on its intended targets. Result: a strengthening of Trump's position. It
also serve to sap morale and energy from the anti-American forces, helping dissipate their momentum.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory.
And it backfired, literally strengthening it (Trump gained votes), while undermining the anti-American
forces' legitimacy.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's
$8 million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media
and NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and not the
American voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!
This was simply a continuation of Big Media's Full Capacity Hate Machine (thanks to Whis for the
term; this is the only time I will acknowledge the debt) from the campaign. It has been running since
before Trump clinched the nomination. It will be no more effective now, than it was then. Americans
are fed up with Big Media propaganda in sufficient numbers to openly thwart its authors' will.
The big lie, as you refer to it, hasn't even produced the alleged "report" in question. The CIA supposedly
in lockstep against Trump (I don't buy that), and they can't find one hack willing to leak this "devastating"
"report"? It must suck. Probably a nothing burger.
This is all much ado about nothing. Big Media HATES Trump. They want to make sure Trump and the American
people don't forget that they HATE Trump. It's a broken strategy, doomed to failure (it will only cause
Trump to dig in and go about his agenda without their help; it certainly will not break him, or endear
him to their demands). Trump's voters all voted for him in spite of it, so it won't win them
over, either. Personally, I think Trump's low water mark of support is well behind him. Obviously subject
to future events.
Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing
the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
CIA mouthpieces have been pointing and sputtering in response that it was not they who cooked the
books, but parallel neoconservative chickenhawk groups in the Bush administration. The trouble with
this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to
assent by way of silence.
Personally, I sort of doubt this imagined comity between Hussein and the CIA Ever seen Zero Dark
Thirty ? How much harder did Hussein make the CIA's job? I doubt it was Kathryn Bigelow who chose
to go out of her way to make that movie hostile to Hussein; it's far more likely that this is simply
where the material led her. I similarly doubt that the intelligence community difficulties owed to Hussein
were in any way limited to the hunt for UBL.
The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative,
instead choosing to assent by way of silence.
That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to undermine
the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it. At that time, the neocons controlled the ranking
civilian positions at the Pentagon, but did not yet fully control the CIA This changed after Bush's
re-election, when Porter Goss was made DCI to purge all the remaining 'realists' and 'arabists' from
the agency. Now the situation in the opposite: the CIA is totally neocon, while the Pentagon is a bit
less so.
So even if what Trump is saying is technically inaccurate, it's still true at a deeper level: it was
the neocons who lied to us about WMD, just as it is now the neocons who are lying to us about
Russia.
I think Obama's right-in-the-open [a week or so ago] authorization for the sale and shipping [?]
of "man pads" to various Syrian rebel and terrorist forces is insane, and may be contrary to law.
Yes, I have no trouble calling it TREASON. It is certainly felony support for terrorists.
Man pads are shoulder held missile launchers that can destroy high and fast aircraft .such as commercial
passenger airlines [to be blamed on Russia?] and also any nations' fighter/bombers .such as Russia's
Air Force planes operating in Syria still–that were invited to do so by the elected government of Syria
which is still under attack by US proxy [terrorist] forces. Syria is a member in good standing of the
UN.
Given this I think we are all in very great danger today–now– AND I think we have to press hard
to reverse the insane Obama move vis a vis these man pads.
This truly is an emergency.
TULSI GABBARD'S BILL MAY BE TOO LITTLE TOO LATE. It may even be just window dressing or PR. [That
could be the reason Peter Welch has agreed to co-sponsor it.... The man never does anything that is
real and substantive and decent or courageous.]
IN ANY EVENT both Gabbard and Welch via this bill have now acknowledged
that Obama and the US are supporting terrorists in Syria [and elsewhere]–a felony under existing laws.
–Quite possibly an impeachable offense.
"Misprision" of treason or misprision of a felony IS ITSELF A FELONY.
If Gabbard and Welch KNOW that the man-pad authorization and other US support
for terrorists in Syria and elsewhere is presently occurring, I THINK THEY NEED TO FORCE PROSECUTION
UNDER EXISTING LAWS NOW, rather than just sponsoring a sure-to-fail NEW LAW that will prevent such things
in the far fuzzy future–or NOT.
Respectfully,
Dennis Morrisseau
US Army Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR
–FOR TRUMP–
Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
FIRECONGRESS.org
Second Vermont Republic
POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT USA 05775 [email protected]
802 645 9727
Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.
Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer
in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big,
and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering as
we speak.
Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been sent
to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.
BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.
I think Obama's right-in-the-open [a week or so ago] authorization for the sale and shipping [?] of
"man pads" to various Syrian rebel and terrorist forces is insane, and may be contrary to law.
Yes, I have no trouble calling it TREASON. It is certainly felony support for terrorists.
Man pads are shoulder held missile launchers that can destroy high and fast aircraft ....such as commercial
passenger airlines [to be blamed on Russia?] and also any nations' fighter/bombers....such as Russia's
Air Force planes operating in Syria still--that were invited to do so by the elected government of Syria
which is still under attack by US proxy [terrorist] forces. Syria is a member in good standing of the
UN.
Given this......I think we are all in very great danger today--now-- AND I think we have to press hard
to reverse the insane Obama move vis a vis these man pads.
This truly is an emergency.
TULSI GABBARD'S BILL MAY BE TOO LITTLE TOO LATE. It may even be just window dressing or PR. [That could
be the reason Peter Welch has agreed to co-sponsor it.... The man never does anything that is real and
substantive and decent or courageous.]
IN ANY EVENT both Gabbard and Welch via this bill have now acknowledged
that Obama and the US are supporting terrorists in Syria [and elsewhere]--a felony under existing laws.
--Quite possibly an impeachable offense.
"Misprision" of treason or misprision of a felony IS ITSELF A FELONY.
If Gabbard and Welch KNOW that the man-pad authorization and other US support
for terrorists in Syria and elsewhere is presently occurring, I THINK THEY NEED TO FORCE PROSECUTION
UNDER EXISTING LAWS NOW, rather than just sponsoring a sure-to-fail NEW LAW that will prevent such things
in the far fuzzy future--or NOT.
Respectfully,
Dennis Morrisseau
US Army Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR
--FOR TRUMP--
Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
FIRECONGRESS.org
Second Vermont Republic
POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT USA 05775 [email protected]
802 645 9727
The Man Pad Letter is brilliant!
It needs to be published as a feature story.
Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.
Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer
in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big,
and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering as
we speak.
Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been sent
to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.
BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.
• Replies:
@El Dato Hmmm.... If I were GRU I would offer Uber services to the recipients of the manpads all
the way up to West European airports (not that this is needed, just take a truck, any truck).
What will the EU say if smouldering wreckage happens?
Especially as Obama won't be there to set the overall tone.
This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some
balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least
for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot
of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role.
And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's
beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the
money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political
miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal
with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating.
And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore,
Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant
than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support
for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not
throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump–not Obama–that's looking weak in the face of Israeli
pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and
appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Will Trump–out of fear and necessity–run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his campaign?–Or
will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible to say.
Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast
approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?–Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic
spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go
Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's
political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
In general, I agree with a good portion of your analysis. A few minor quibbles and
qualifications, though:
Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel.
Not really. Since he's a lame-duck president and the election is over, he's not really risking anything
here. After all, opposition to settlements in the occupied territories has been official US policy for
nearly 50 years, and when has that ever stopped Israel from founding/expanding them? No, this is just
more empty symbolism.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
It's been dead foreever. The One State solution will replace it, and that will really freak out all
the Zios.
They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena.
Trump understands this all-too-well.
Oderint dum metuant ("Let them hate, so long as they fear.") - Caligula ,
Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political
foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both
sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
I'm hoping that Trump is running with the neocons just as far as is necessary to pressure congress to
confirm his cabinet appointments and make sure he isn't JFK'd before he gets into office and can set
about putting security in place to protect his own and his family's lives.
For John McBloodstain to vote for a SoS that will make nice with his nemesis; Putin, will require massive
amounts of Zio-pressure. The only way that pressure will come is if the Zio-cons are convinced that
Trump is their man.
Once his cabinet appointments are secured, then perhaps we might see some independence of action. Not
until. At least that is my hope, however naïve.
It isn't just the Zio-cons that want to poke the Russian bear, it's also the MIC. Trump has to navigate
a very dangerous mine field if he's going to end the Endless Wars and return sanity and peace to the
world. He's going to have to wrangle with the devil himself (the Fiend), and outplay him at his own
game. , @map
I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance
on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.
What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism
program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they
want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a
model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing
project.
Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is
a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews.
It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result
in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed
by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.
Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those
revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return.
Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly
reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because
they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries.
So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do
not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.
Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel
remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to
do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive
the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians,
workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained.
How many of these
Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just
to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of
no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews,
therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.
So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with
Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their
pride in nationalist endeavors. ,
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office.
Therefore, Obama is finally free to do what's right . "
THEN WHY DOESN'T HE DO WHAT'S RIGHT? As Seamus Padraig pointed out, the UN abstention is "just more
empty symbolism." Meanwhile... The Christmas Eve attack on the First Amendment The approval of arming terrorists in Syria
The fake news about Russian hacking throwing Killary's election
Aid to terrorists is a felony. Obama should be indicted.
Most of the Western world is much sicker of the head-choppers in charge of our 'human rights'
at the UN (thanks to Obama and the UK) than it is of Israel. It is they, not we, who have funded ISIS
directly.
The real issue at stake is that Presidential control of the system is non existent, and although
Trump understands this and has intimated he is going to deal with it, it is clear his hands will now
be tied by all the traitors that run the US.
You need a Nuremburg type show trial to deal with all the (((usual suspects))) that have usurped
the constitution. (((They))) arrived with the Pilgrim Fathers and established the slave trade buying
slaves from their age old Muslim accomplices, and selling them by auction to the goyim.
(((They))) established absolute influence by having the Fed issue your currency in 1913 and forcing
the US in to three wars: WWI, WWII and Vietnam from which (((they))) made enormous profits.
You have to decide whether you want these (((professional parasitical traitors))) in your country
or not. It is probably too late to just ask them to leave, thus you are faced with the ultimate reality:
are you willing to fight a civil war to free your nation from (((their))) oppression of you?
This is the elephant in the room that none of you will address. All the rest of this subject matter
is just window dressing. Do you wish to remain economic slaves to (((these people))) or do you want
to be free [like the Syrians] and live without (((these traitor's))) usurious, inflationary and dishonest
policies based upon hate of Christ and Christianity?
My guess: the outgoing Obama administration is in a last ditch killing frenzy, to revenge Aleppo
loss!
The Berlin bus blowup, The Russian ambassador in Turkey killed and the Red army's most eminent Alexandrov's
choir send to the bottom of the black sea.
Typical CIA ops to threaten world leaders to comply with the incumbent US elite.
Watch Mike Morell (CIA) threaten world leaders:
• Replies:
@annamaria The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the
so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real
"deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not
do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy
home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the
US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell - who has never been
in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor - is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly
educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time.
Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.
It seems you may be on to something:
RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer" to
file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s) are
not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[3]
There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either
the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise
(18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control of,
the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (b)); or the defendant(s)
conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering
activity (subsection (c)); or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above (subsection (d)).[4]
In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the
racketeers.[5] A civil RICO action can be filed in state or federal court.[6]
In the past few years Latin America has experienced several examples of the seizure of Presidential
power by unconstitutional means Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras and Haiti experienced coups
The US is not at the stage of these countries yet. To compare them to us, politically, is moronic.
In another several generations it likely will be different. But by then there won't be any "need" for
a coup.
If things keep up, the US "electorate" will be majority Third World. Then, these people will
just vote as a bloc for whomever promises them the most gibs me dat. That candidate will of course be
from the oligarchical elite. Trump is likely the last white man (or white man with even marginally white
interests at heart) to be President. Unless things drastically change, demographically.
Yes finally someone has the guts to say it: Obama is a traitor and terrorist.
Said by a true antiwar hero, Lt. Morrisseau who said no to Vietnam, while in uniform, as an officer
in the U.S. Army. The New York Times and CBS Evening News picked it up back in the day. It was big,
and this is bigger, same war though, just a different name: Its called World War III, smouldering as
we speak.
Again I do urge Unz to contact Denny and get this letter up as a feature. Note that it has been sent
to Rep. Gabbard and Rep. Welch. so it is a vital, historic action, may it be recognized.
BTW Rep. Tulsi Gabbards Bill is the Stop Arming Terrorist Act.
Hmmm . If I were GRU I would offer Uber services to the recipients of the manpads all the way up
to West European airports (not that this is needed, just take a truck, any truck).
What will the EU say if smouldering wreckage happens?
Especially as Obama won't be there to set the overall tone.
@Mark Green This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally
gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least
for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot
of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role.
And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's
beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the
money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political
miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal
with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating.
And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore,
Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant
than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support
for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not
throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli
pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and
appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his
campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible
to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast
approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic
spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go
Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's
political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
Okay so you voted twice for BO, and now for HC, so what else is new.
Authenticjazzman, "Mensa" society member of forty-plus years and pro jazz artist.
D.C. has passed their propaganda bill so I am not shocked.
Dec 27, 2016 "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" Signed Into Law! (NDAA 2017)
It is true there is breaking news today but you certainly won't hear it from the mainstream media.
While everyone was enjoying the holidays president Obama signed the NDAA for fiscal year 2017 into law
which includes the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" and in this video Dan Dicks of Press
For Truth shows how this new law is tantamount to "The Records Department of the Ministry of Truth"
in George Orwell's book 1984.
Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous
and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the top.
Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance of the
Camelot image?
Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for
the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his
wife and kids? https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/barry-we-hardly-knew-ye/
I expect Obama loves his kids.
Great analysis from Petras.
So many people have reacted with "first level" thinking only as Trump's appointments have been announced:
"This guy is terrible!" Yes, but . . . look at the appointment in the "swamp" context, in the "veiled
threat" context. Harpers mag actually put a picture on its cover of Trump behind bars. That is one of
those veiled invitations like Henry II's "Will no one rid me of this man?"
I think Trump understands quite well what he is up against.
I agree completely with Petras that the compromises he must make to take office on Jan. 20 may in the
end compromise his agenda (whatever it actually is). I would expect Trump to play things by ear and
tack as necessary, as he senses changes in the wind. According to the precepts of triage, his no. 1
challenge/task now is to be sworn in on Jan. 20. All else is secondary.
Once he is in the White House he will have incomparably greater powers to flush out those who are trying
to sideline his presidency now. The latter must know this. He will be in charge of the whole Executive
Branch bureaucracy (which includes the Justice Department).
Ultimately, President Obama is desperate to secure his legacy, which has consisted of disastrous
and criminal imperial wars and military confrontations
The current wave of icon polishing we constantly are being asked to indulge seems a bit over the top.
Why is our president more devoted to legacy than Jackie Kennedy was to the care and maintenance of the
Camelot image?
Have we ever seen as fine a behind-the-curtain, Wizard of Oz act, as performed by Barrack Obama for
the past eight years? Do we know anything at all about this man aside from the fact that he loves his
wife and kids? https://robertmagill.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/barry-we-hardly-knew-ye/
Oh, yes, Robert -- To read the words "Obama" & "legacy" in the same sentence is to LOL.
What a god-awful president. An 8 year adventure in failure, stupidity & ruthlessness.
The Trump-coup business: what a (near treasonous) disgrace. The "Russians done it" meme: "let's show
the world just how stupid, embarrassing & plain MEAN we can be". A trillion words - & not one shred
of supporting evidence . ?! And I thought that the old "Obama was not born in the US" trope was shameless
stupidity -- If there is any bright side here, I hope it has convinced EVERY American conservative that the neo-con's
& their identical economic twin the neoliberals are treasonous dreck who would flush the US down the
drain if they thought it to their political advantage.
The recounts failed to change the outcome, but it was a 'first shot across the bow', to stop Trump.
It became a propaganda focus for the neo-conservative mass media to mobilize several thousand Clintonite
and liberal activists.
On the contrary, this first salvo from the anti-American forces resulted in more friendly fire hits
on the attackers than it did on its intended targets. Result: a strengthening of Trump's position. It
also serve to sap morale and energy from the anti-American forces, helping dissipate their momentum.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory.
And it backfired, literally strengthening it (Trump gained votes), while undermining the anti-American
forces' legitimacy.
The purpose was to undermine the legitimacy of Trump's electoral victory. However, Jill Stein's $8
million dollar shilling for Secretary Clinton paled before the oncoming avalanche of mass media and
NGO propaganda against Trump. Their main claim was that anonymous 'Russian hackers' and not the American
voters had decided the US Presidential election of November 2016!
This was simply a continuation of Big Media's Full Capacity Hate Machine (thanks to Whis for the term;
this is the only time I will acknowledge the debt) from the campaign. It has been running since before
Trump clinched the nomination. It will be no more effective now, than it was then. Americans are fed
up with Big Media propaganda in sufficient numbers to openly thwart its authors' will.
The big lie, as you refer to it, hasn't even produced the alleged "report" in question. The CIA supposedly
in lockstep against Trump (I don't buy that), and they can't find one hack willing to leak this "devastating"
"report"? It must suck. Probably a nothing burger.
This is all much ado about nothing. Big Media HATES Trump. They want to make sure Trump and the American
people don't forget that they HATE Trump. It's a broken strategy, doomed to failure (it will only cause
Trump to dig in and go about his agenda without their help; it certainly will not break him, or endear
him to their demands). Trump's voters all voted for him in spite of it, so it won't win them
over, either. Personally, I think Trump's low water mark of support is well behind him. Obviously subject
to future events.
Trump denounced the political elements in the CIA, pointing out their previous role in manufacturing
the justifications (he used the term 'lies') for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
CIA mouthpieces have been pointing and sputtering in response that it was not they who cooked the books,
but parallel neoconservative chickenhawk groups in the Bush administration. The trouble with this is
that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative, instead choosing to assent
by way of silence.
Personally, I sort of doubt this imagined comity between Hussein and the CIA Ever seen Zero Dark
Thirty ? How much harder did Hussein make the CIA's job? I doubt it was Kathryn Bigelow who chose
to go out of her way to make that movie hostile to Hussein; it's far more likely that this is simply
where the material led her. I similarly doubt that the intelligence community difficulties owed to Hussein
were in any way limited to the hunt for UBL.
The trouble with this is that the CIA did precious little to counter the chickenhawks' narrative,
instead choosing to assent by way of silence.
That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to undermine
the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it. At that time, the neocons controlled the ranking
civilian positions at the Pentagon, but did not yet fully control the CIA This changed after Bush's
re-election, when Porter Goss was made DCI to purge all the remaining 'realists' and 'arabists' from
the agency. Now the situation in the opposite: the CIA is totally neocon, while the Pentagon is a bit
less so.
So even if what Trump is saying is technically inaccurate, it's still true at a deeper level: it
was the neocons who lied to us about WMD, just as it is now the neocons who are lying to us about
Russia.
@Mark Green
This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally
gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least
for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot
of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role.
And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's
beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the
money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political
miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal
with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating.
And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore,
Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant
than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support
for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not
throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli
pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and
appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his
campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible
to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast
approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic
spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go
Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's
political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
In general, I agree with a good portion of your analysis. A few minor quibbles and qualifications,
though:
Incredibly, Obama has finally gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel.
Not really. Since he's a lame-duck president and the election is over, he's not really risking anything
here. After all, opposition to settlements in the occupied territories has been official US policy for
nearly 50 years, and when has that ever stopped Israel from founding/expanding them? No, this is just
more empty symbolism.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
It's been dead for ever. The One State solution will replace it, and that will really freak out all
the Zios.
They may be hated (and appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena.
Trump understands this all-too-well.
Oderint dum metuant ("Let them hate, so long as they fear.") – Caligula
@Karl
the "shot across the bow" was the "Not My President!" demonstrations, which were long before
Dr Stein's recount circuses.
They spent a lot of money on buses and box lunches - it wouldn't fly.
Nothing else they try will fly.
Correct me if I am wrong.... plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.
Correct me if I am wrong . plain ole citizens can start RICO suits against the likes of Soros.
It seems you may be on to something:
RICO also permits a private individual "damaged in his business or property" by a "racketeer"
to file a civil suit. The plaintiff must prove the existence of an "enterprise". The defendant(s)
are not the enterprise; in other words, the defendant(s) and the enterprise are not one and the same.[3]
There must be one of four specified relationships between the defendant(s) and the enterprise: either
the defendant(s) invested the proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into the enterprise
(18 U.S.C. § 1962(a)); or the defendant(s) acquired or maintained an interest in, or control of,
the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity (subsection (b)); or the defendant(s)
conducted or participated in the affairs of the enterprise "through" the pattern of racketeering
activity (subsection (c)); or the defendant(s) conspired to do one of the above (subsection (d)).[4]
In essence, the enterprise is either the 'prize,' 'instrument,' 'victim,' or 'perpetrator' of the
racketeers.[5] A civil RICO action can be filed in state or federal court.[6]
@Max Havelaar
My guess: the outgoing Obama administration is in a last ditch killing frenzy, to
revenge Aleppo loss!
The Berlin bus blowup, The Russian ambassador in Turkey killed and the Red army's most eminent Alexandrov's
choir send to the bottom of the black sea.
Typical CIA ops to threaten world leaders to comply with the incumbent US elite.
Watch Mike Morell (CIA) threaten world leaders:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZK2FZGKAd0
The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the so-called "elites"
in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the
US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does
not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad.
The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the US government is
the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell – who has never been in combat and
never demonstrated any intellectual vigor – is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly educated
opportunist that is endangering the US big time.
The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have
brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not
follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad.
It is corrupt, annamaria, corrupt to the very core, corrupt throughout. Any talk of elections, honest
candidates, devoted elected representatives, etc., is sappy naivete. They're crooks; the sprinkling
of decent reps is minuscule and ineffective.
So, what to do? ,
@Max Havelaar
A serial killer, paid by US taxpayers. By universal human rights laws he would hang.
I agree with some, mostly the pro-Constitutionalist and moral spirit of the essay, but differ as
to when the Coup D'etat is going to – or has already taken place .
The coup D'etat that destroyed our American Republic, and its last Constitutional President, John
F. Kennedy, took place 53 years ago on November 22, 1963. The coup was consolidated at the cost of 2
million Vietnamese and 1 million Indonesians (1965). The assassinations of JF Kennedy's brother, Robert
Kennedy, R. Kennedy's ally, Martin L. King, Malcolm X, Fred Hampton, John Lennon, and many others, followed.
Mr. Petras, the Coup D'etat has already happened.
Our mission must be the Restore our American Republic! This is The Only Road for us. There
are no shortcuts. The choice we were given (for Hollywood President), in 2016, between a psychotic Mass
Murderer, and a mid level Mafioso Casino Owner displayed the lack of respect the Oligarchs have for
the American Sheeple. Until we rise, we will never regain our self-respect, our Honor.
I enclose a copy of our Flier, our Declaration, For The Restoration of the Republic below,
for your perusal. We (of the Anarchist Collective), have distributed it as best we can.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal governments are instituted
among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute
new government, laying its foundation on such principles "
The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence , written by Thomas Jefferson.
We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.
The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial aristocracy
destroyed the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963, when they assassinated the last democratically
elected president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy , and overthrew his government. All following governments
have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the
Republic were interrupted by their murder.
A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam , conducted by the murderers of Kennedy,
left 2 million dead in a wake of napalm and burning villages.
In 1965 , the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian civilians.
In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala.
In the 1970s , the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America's middle class,
by encouraging the export of industry and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare subsistence
wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation's Oligarchs cost American taxpayers $13trillion. The long
decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard working citizens, as well
as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.
The impoverishment of America's middle class has undermined the nation's financial stability. Without
a productive foundation, the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion . This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations. Concurrently, the top 1% of the
nation's population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest rate has
been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings, as their savings
cannot stay even with the inflation rate.
The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures,
and is or has recently conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain 700
military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much on military weapons of terror as the rest of the
nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget is spent on the military
and 16 associated secret agencies.
The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared by the
Founders of the United States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as with previous
administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever is chosen in November 2016, operates a Gulag of dozens
of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely tortured. The Patriot Act
and The National Defense Authorizations Act , enacted by both Democratic and Republican factions
of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.
The nation's media is controlled , and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population;
the people are intimidated and treated with contempt.
The United States is No longer Sovereign
The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress, is
bought, utterly owned and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the Rothschilds,
Rockefellers, and Duponts , to name only a few of the best known.
The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government,
with its controlling International Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices for
imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations, including ours.
For Love of Country
The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous debts
owed to that unconstitutional regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student Debts,
will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with a clean slate.
As American Founder, Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:
"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct
to the living':"
"Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and in their
own right. The 2d. Generation receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of
the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead
and not the living generation."
Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful government
which will ensure President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms , freedom of speech and expression,
freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom from want "which means economic understandings which
will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants " and freedom from fear "which means
a world-wide reduction of armaments "
Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free people.
We will establish a government, hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal politicians
of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage of the previous totalitarian governments.
For the Democratic Republic! Sons and Daughters of Liberty [email protected]
@annamaria
The prominence of the "perfumed prince" Morell is the most telling indictment of the
so-called "elites" in the US. The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real
"deciders" in the US have brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not
do diplomacy, does not follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy
home and abroad. The proliferation of the incompetent and opportunists in the highest echelons of the
US government is the consequence of the lack of responsibility on the top. Morell - who has never been
in combat and never demonstrated any intellectual vigor - is a prime example of a sycophantic and poorly
educated opportunist that is endangering the US big time.
The arrogant, irresponsible (and untouchable) imbeciles among the real "deciders" in the US have
brought the country down to a sub-civilization status when the US does not do diplomacy, does not
follow international law, and does not keep with even marginal aspects of democracy home and abroad.
It is corrupt, annamaria, corrupt to the very core, corrupt throughout. Any talk of elections, honest
candidates, devoted elected representatives, etc., is sappy naivete. They're crooks; the sprinkling
of decent reps is minuscule and ineffective.
So, what to do?
• Replies:
@Bill Jones
The corruption is endemic from top to bottom.
My previous residence was in Hamilton Township in Monroe County, PA . Population about 8,000.
The 3 Township Supervisors appointed themselves to township jobs- Road master, Zoning officer etc and
pay themselves twice the going rate with the occupant of the job under review abstaining while his two
palls vote him the money. Anybody challenging this is met with a shit-storm of propaganda and a mysterious
explosion in voter turn-out: guess who runs the local polls?
The chief of the local volunteer fire company has to sign off on the sprinkler systems before any occupation
certificate can be issued for a commercial building. Conveniently he runs a plumbing business. Guess
who gets the lion's share of plumbing jobs for new commercial buildings?
As they climb the greasy pole, it only gets worse.
Meanwhile the routine business of looting continues:
My local rag (an organ of the Murdoch crime family) had a little piece last year about the new 3 year
contract for the local county prison guards. I went back to the two previous two contracts and discovered
that by 2018 they will have had 33% increases over nine years. Between 2008 and 2013 (the latest years
I could find data for) median household income in the county decreased by 13%.
At some point some rogue politician will start fighting this battle.
If the US is split between Trump and Clinton supporters, then the staffs of the CIA and FBI are probably
split the same way.
The CIA and FBI leadership may take one position or another, but many CIA and FBI employees joined
these agencies in the first place to serve their country – not to assist Neo-con MENA Imperial projects,
and they know a lot more than the general public about what is really going on.
Employees can really mess things up if they have a different political orientation to their employers.
@Mark Green
This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally
gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least
for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot
of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role.
And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's
beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the
money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political
miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal
with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating.
And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore,
Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant
than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support
for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not
throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli
pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and
appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his
campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible
to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast
approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic
spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go
Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's
political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
Trump will go Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political
foundation. I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both
sides of America's political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
I'm hoping that Trump is running with the neocons just as far as is necessary to pressure congress
to confirm his cabinet appointments and make sure he isn't JFK'd before he gets into office and can
set about putting security in place to protect his own and his family's lives.
For John McBloodstain to vote for a SoS that will make nice with his nemesis; Putin, will require
massive amounts of Zio-pressure. The only way that pressure will come is if the Zio-cons are convinced
that Trump is their man.
Once his cabinet appointments are secured, then perhaps we might see some independence of action.
Not until. At least that is my hope, however naïve.
It isn't just the Zio-cons that want to poke the Russian bear, it's also the MIC. Trump has to navigate
a very dangerous mine field if he's going to end the Endless Wars and return sanity and peace to the
world. He's going to have to wrangle with the devil himself (the Fiend), and outplay him at his own
game.
I do not like saying it, but the appointment of the Palestinian hating Jew as ambassador to Israel
has disarmed the Jew community – they can no longer call Trump an anti-Semite – the most power two words
in America. The result is that the domestic side of the coup is over.
The Russian thing has to play out. The Jew forces will try and make bad blood between America and
Russia – hopefully Trump and Putin will let it play out, but really ignore it.
If we get past the inauguration, the CIA is going to be toast. GOOD!
Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) - doing his best to screw things up before
Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?
Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at war
with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act - providing
aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.
A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII.
Francis Boyle writes:
"... I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put
in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great
Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP.
Just have
the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.
Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax)
That's not entirely accurate. CIA people like Michael Scheuer and Valery Plame were trying to
undermine the neocon narrative about Iraq and WMD, not bolster it.
It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country, on grounds
of hacking the election against Hillary.
Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt"
you seem to believe is in the offing ?
It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement with
Moscow.
What for ?
It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine disgruntlement
of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ?
Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining
to stuff ..like 9-11 ?
Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that they would
initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ?
They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before
Trumps inauguration.
Perhaps something "else "is being planned ..Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ?
@Tomster
What does Russian intelligence know? Err ... perhaps something like that the US/UK have
sold nukes to the head-choppers of the riyadh caliphate, say (knowing how completely mad their incestuous
brains are?). Who knows? - but such a fact could explain many inexplicable things.
@Art
I do not like saying it, but the appointment of the Palestinian hating Jew as ambassador to
Israel has disarmed the Jew community – they can no longer call Trump an anti-Semite – the most power
two words in America. The result is that the domestic side of the coup is over.
The Russian thing has to play out. The Jew forces will try and make bad blood between America and Russia
– hopefully Trump and Putin will let it play out, but really ignore it.
If we get past the inauguration, the CIA is going to be toast. GOOD!
Peace --- Art
"If we get past the inauguration ."
Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) – doing his best to screw things up
before Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?
Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at
war with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act – providing
aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.
A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII. Francis Boyle writes:
" I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put
in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great
Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP. Just have
the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.
Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (phone) 217-244-1478 (fax)
This is much ado about nothing - in a NYT's article today - they said that the DNC was told about
being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 - they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!
The RNC got smart - not the DNC - it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.
Really - how pissed off can they be?
Peace --- Art
p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.
@Mark Green
This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally
gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least
for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot
of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role.
And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's
beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the
money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political
miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal
with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating.
And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore,
Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant
than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support
for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not
throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli
pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and
appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his
campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible
to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast
approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic
spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go
Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's
political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance on
Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.
What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism
program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they
want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a
model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing
project.
Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It
is a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews.
It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result
in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed
by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.
Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those
revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return.
Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly
reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because
they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries.
So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do
not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.
Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if
Israel remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis
to do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers,
drive the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians,
workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these
Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just
to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of
no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews,
therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.
So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with
Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their
pride in nationalist endeavors.
• Replies:
@joe webb
masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer
moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever,
but probably did not come from Trump.
As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist
claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either
"solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced
security stance and quality of life for Israelis."
That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty
with Israel, and then continue to press their claims...Israel would have the moral high ground to beat
hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public
opinion.
Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and
morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs
is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.
I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now. Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains
for the jews.
Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big
time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he
is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but...
Joe Webb ,
@RobinG
"A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers,
drive the nails, throw out the trash."
"The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented any facts
and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly
described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC,
NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa."
You left out Fox, most of their news anchors and pundits are rabidly pro Israel and anti Russia.
There is a pretty good chance, since all else has failed so far, Obama will declare 'a special situation
martial law'. And you can be sure many on both sides of Congress will comply. This will once again demonstrate
who is on the power elite payroll. If this happens hopefully the military will be on Trumps side and
round up those responsible and proper justice meted out.
@map
I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance
on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.
What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism
program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they
want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a
model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing
project.
Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is
a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews.
It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result
in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed
by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.
Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those
revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return.
Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly
reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because
they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries.
So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do
not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.
Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel
remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to
do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive
the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians,
workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these
Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just
to get by? The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of
no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews,
therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.
So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with
Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their
pride in nationalist endeavors.
masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer moms on the
Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever, but probably
did not come from Trump.
As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist
claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either
"solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced
security stance and quality of life for Israelis."
That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty
with Israel, and then continue to press their claims Israel would have the moral high ground to beat
hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public
opinion.
Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and
morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs
is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.
I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now. Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains
for the jews.
Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big
time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he
is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but
Joe Webb
• Replies:
@map
The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think
their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling
will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result
in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.
It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.
The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board
going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled
by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just
triangulation against the left.
I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a
lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle
East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.
@Realist
"The 'experts' were trotted out voicing vitriolic accusations, but they never presented
any facts and documentation of a 'rigged election'. Everyday, every hour, the 'Russian Plot' was breathlessly
described in the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, BBC,
NPR and their overseas followers in Europe, Asia, Latin America, Oceana and Africa."
You left out Fox, most of their news anchors and pundits are rabidly pro Israel and anti Russia.
There is a pretty good chance, since all else has failed so far, Obama will declare 'a special situation
martial law'. And you can be sure many on both sides of Congress will comply. This will once again demonstrate
who is on the power elite payroll. If this happens hopefully the military will be on Trumps side and
round up those responsible and proper justice meted out.
The obscenity of the US behavior abroad leads directly to an alliance of ziocons and war profiteers.
Here is a highly educational paper on the exceptional amorality of the US administration:
http://www.voltairenet.org/article194709.html
"The existence of a NATO bunker in East Aleppo confirms what we have been saying about the role of NATO
LandCom in the coordination of the jihadists The liberation of Syria should continue at Idleb the
zone is de facto governed by NATO via a string of pseudo-NGO's. At least, this is what was noted last
month by a US think-tank. To beat the jihadists there, it will be necessary first of all to cut their
supply lines, in other words, close the Turtkish frontier. This is what Russian diplomacy is currently
working on." Well. After wasting the uncounted trillions of US dollars on the war on terror and after filling the
VA hospitals with the ruined young men and women and after bringing death a destruction on apocalyptic
scale to the Middle East in the name of 9/11, the US has found new bosom buddies – the hordes of fanatical
jihadis.
Obama expelled 35 Russian diplomats today (effective Friday) - doing his best to screw things up before
Trump takes office. Will he start WWIII, then say Trump can't transition during war?
Obama has authorized transfer of weapons, including MANPADS, to terrorist affiliates. If we are at war
with terrorists, isn't this Treason? It is most certainly a felony under the Patriot Act - providing
aid, directly or indirectly, to terrorists.
A Bill of Impeachment against Obama might stave off WWIII. Francis Boyle writes: "... I am willing to serve as Counsel to any Member of the US House of Representatives willing to put
in a Bill of Impeachment against Obama as soon as Congress reconvenes-just as I did to the late, great
Congressman Henry B. Gonzalez on his Bill to Impeach Bush Sr. on the eve of Gulf War I. RIP. Just have
the MOC get in touch with me as indicated below.
Francis A. Boyle Law Building 504 E. Pennsylvania Ave. Champaign IL 61820 USA 217-333-7954 (phone)
217-244-1478 (fax)
Hi RobinG,
This is much ado about nothing – in a NYT's article today – they said that the DNC was told about
being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 – they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!
The RNC got smart – not the DNC – it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.
Really – how pissed off can they be?
Peace - Art
p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.
I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking
is nil.
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine,
his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin,
and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates
in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.
The feds have now released their reports, detailing how the dastardly Russians darkly influenced
the 2016 presidential election by releasing Democrats' emails, and giving the American public a peek
inside the Democrat machine.
Those dastardly Russkies have informed and enlightened the American public for long enough! This
shall not stand!
This is much ado about nothing - in a NYT's article today - they said that the DNC was told about
being hacked in the fall or winter of 2015 - they all knew the Russian were hacking all along!
The RNC got smart - not the DNC - it is 100% their fault. Right now they look real stupid.
Really - how pissed off can they be?
Peace --- Art
p.s. I do not blame Obama – he had to do something – looks like he did the minimum.
Hi Art,
I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking
is nil.
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in
Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization
of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates
in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in
Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization
of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
RobinG --- Agree 100% - some times I get things crossed up --- Peace Art
I assume that everyone agrees that the final outcome of the security breach was that 'Wikileaks'
leaked internal emails of Clinton Campaign Manager Pedesta and DNC emails regarding embarrassing behavior.
No one is suggesting that the leaked information is 'fake news'.
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic
campaign itself.
Given that Podesta's password was 'P@ssw0rd' - does it take Russian deep state security to hack?
Though CAP is still having issues with my email and computer, yours is good to go. jpodesta p@ssw0rd
The report is 13 pages of mostly nothing.
Note the Disclaimer:
DISCLAIMER: This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within.
DHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory or otherwise. This
document is distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules, TLP:WHITE information may
be distributed without restriction. For more information on the Traffic Light Protocol, see
https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp .
@annamaria
The obscenity of the US behavior abroad leads directly to an alliance of ziocons and
war profiteers. Here is a highly educational paper on the exceptional amorality of the US administration:
http://www.voltairenet.org/article194709.html
"The existence of a NATO bunker in East Aleppo confirms what we have been saying about the role of NATO
LandCom in the coordination of the jihadists... The liberation of Syria should continue at Idleb ...
the zone is de facto governed by NATO via a string of pseudo-NGO's. At least, this is what was noted
last month by a US think-tank. To beat the jihadists there, it will be necessary first of all to cut
their supply lines, in other words, close the Turtkish frontier. This is what Russian diplomacy is currently
working on."
Well. After wasting the uncounted trillions of US dollars on the war on terror and after filling the
VA hospitals with the ruined young men and women and after bringing death a destruction on apocalyptic
scale to the Middle East in the name of 9/11, the US has found new bosom buddies - the hordes of fanatical
jihadis.
@joe webb
masterful interpretation here. But I doubt it , in spades. Trump cooled out the soccer
moms on the Negroes by yakking about Uplift. And he reduced the black vote a tad. That was very clever,
but probably did not come from Trump.
As for "The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those revanchist
claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return. Either
"solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly reduced
security stance and quality of life for Israelis."
That is a huge claim which is not substantiated with argument. If the Palestinians sign a peace treaty
with Israel, and then continue to press their claims...Israel would have the moral high ground to beat
hell out of them. Clearly, the jews got the guns, and the Palestinians got nothing but world public
opinion.
Please present an argument on just how Palestinians and other Arabs could continue to logically and
morally challenge Israel. Right now, the only thing preventing Israel from cleansing Israel of Arabs
is world public opinion. That public opinion is real and a huge factor.
I have been arguing that T. may be outfoxing the jews, but I doubt it now. Don't forget the Christian evangelical vote and Christians generally who have a soft spot in their brains
for the jews.
Also, T's claim that he will end the ME wars is a big problem if he is going to go after Isis, big
time, in Syria or anywhere else. He has put himself in the rock/hard place position. I don't think he
is that smart. I voted for him of course and sent money, but...
Joe Webb
The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think their
land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling will not
change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result in is a
comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.
It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.
The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on
board going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled
by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just
triangulation against the left.
I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose
a lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle
East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.
• Replies:
@Tomster
"treated very shabbily" indeed, by other Arabs - who have done virtually nothing for them.
,
@joe webb
good points. Yet, Palestinians ..."They should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim
Middle East." sounds pretty much like an Israel talking point. How about Israel should be dissolved and the Jews repatriated around Europe and the US?
Not being an Idea world, but a Biological World, revanchism is true enough up to a point. Of course
The Revanchists of All Time are the jews, or the zionists, to speak liberalize.
As for feelings that don't change, there is a tendency for feelings to change over time, especially
when a "legal" document is signed by the participating parties. I have long advocated that the Jews
pay for the land they stole, and that that payment be made to a new Palestinian state. A Palestinian
with a home, a job, a family, and a nice car makes a lot of difference, just like anywhere else.
(We paid the Mexicans in a treaty that presumably ended the Mexican war. This is a normal state of affairs.
Mexico only "owned" California, etc, for about 25 years, and I do not think paid the injuns anything
for their land at the time. Also, if memory serves, I think Pat Buchanan claimed somewhere that there
were only about 10,000 Mexicans in California at the time, or maybe in the whole area under discussion..)
How Palestine stolen property, should be evaluated I leave to the experts. Jews would appear to have
ample resources and could pony up the dough.
The biggest problem is the US evangelicals and equally important, the nice Episcopalians and so on,
even the Catholic Church which used to Exclude Jews now luving them. This is part of our National Religion.
The Jews are god's favorites, and nobody seems to mind. Kill an Arab for Christ is the national gut
feeling, except when it gets too expensive or kills too many Americans.
As I have said, Trump is in between the rock and the hard place. If he wants to end the Jewish Wars
in the ME, he cannot luv the jews, and especially he cannot start lobbing bombs around too much...even
over Isis and the dozens of jihadist groups, especially now in Syria.
Sorry but your "comfortably repatriated" is a real howler. There is no comfort to be had by anybody
in the ME. And, like Jews with regard to your points about revanchism in general, Palestinians have
not blended into the general Arab populations of other countries, like Lebanon, etc.. Using your own
logic, the Palestinians will continue to nurse their grievances no matter where they are, just like
the Jews.
The neocon goals of failed states in the Arab World has been largely accomplished and the only way humpty-dumpty
will be put back together again is for tough Arab Strong Men to reestablish order. Like Assad, like
Hussein, etc. Arab IQ is about 85 in general. There is not going to be democracy/elections/civics lessons per the White countries's genetic predisposition.\
For that matter, Jews are not democrats. Left alone Israel, wherever it is, reverts to Rabbinic Control
and Jehovah, the Warrior God, reigns. Fact is , that is where Israel is heading anyway. Jews never invented free speech and rule of law, nor did Arabs, or any other race on the planet.
The Jews With Nukes is of World Historical Importance. And Whites have given them the Bomb, just as
Whites have given Third World inferior races, access to the Northern Cornucopia of wealth, both spiritual
and material. They will , like the jews, exploit free speech and game the economic system.
All Semites Out! Ditto just about everybody else, starting with the Chinese.
finally, if the jews had any real brains, they would get out of a neighborhood that hates them for their
jewishness, their Thefts, and their Wars. Otoh, Jews seem to thrive on being hated more than any other
race or ethnic group. Chosen to Always Complain.
I assume that everyone agrees that the final outcome of the security breach was that 'Wikileaks'
leaked internal emails of Clinton Campaign Manager Pedesta and DNC emails regarding embarrassing behavior.
No one is suggesting that the leaked information is 'fake news'.
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic
campaign itself.
Given that Podesta's password was 'P@ssw0rd' -- does it take Russian deep state security to hack?
Though CAP is still having issues with my email and computer, yours is good to go. jpodesta p@ssw0rd
The report is 13 pages of mostly nothing.
Note the Disclaimer:
DISCLAIMER: This report is provided "as is" for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within.
DHS does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory or otherwise. This
document is distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules, TLP:WHITE information may
be distributed without restriction. For more information on the Traffic Light Protocol, see https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp.
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the
Democratic campaign itself.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.
"Was" is the operative word:
Julian Assange Suggests That DNC's Seth Rich Was Murdered For Being a Wikileaker
https://heatst.com/tech/wikileaks-offers-20000-for-information-about-seth-richs-killer/ ,
@alexander
Given all the hoaky, "evidence free" punitive assaults being launched against Moscow
today ....combined with the profusion of utterly fraudulent narratives foisted down the throats of the
American people over the last sixteen years...
Its NOT outside of reason to take a good hard look at the "Seth Rich incident" and reconstruct an
outline of events(probably) much closer to the truth than the big media would ever be willing to discuss
or admit.
Namely, that Seth Rich, a young decent kid (27) who was working as the data director for the campaign,
came across evidence of "dirty pool" within the voting systems during the DNC nomination ,which were
fraudulently (and maybe even blatantly) tilting the results towards Hillary.
He probably did the "right thing" by notifying one of the DNC bosses of the fraud ..who informed
him he would look into it and that he should keep it quite for the moment...
.I wouldn't be surprised if Seth reached out to a reporter , too, probably at the at the NY Times,
who informed his editor...who, in turn, had such deep connections to the Hillary corruption machine...that
he placed a call to a DNC backroom boss ... who , at some point, made the decision to take steps to
shut Seth's mouth, permanently...."just make it look like a robbery (or something)"
Seth, not being stupid, and knowing he had the dirt on Hillary that could crush her (as well as the
reputation of the entire democratic party)......probably reached out to Julian Assange, too, to hedge
his bets.
In the interview Julian gave shortly after Seth's death, he intimated that Seth was the leak, although
he did not state it outright.
Something like this sequence of events (with perhaps a few alterations ) is probably quite close
to what actually happened.
So here we have a scenario, where the D.N.C. Oligarchs , so corrupt, so evil, so disdainful of the
electorate, and the democratic process , rig the nomination results (on multiple levels) for Hillary..and
when the evidence of this is found, by a decent young kid with his whole life ahead of him, they had
him shot in the back.....four times...
And then "Big Media for Hillary", rather than investigate this horrific tragedy and expose the dirty
malevolence at play within the DNC , quashes the entire narrative and grafts in its place the"substitute"
Putin hacks..... demanding faux accountability... culminating with sanctions and ejections of the entire
Russian diplomatic corp.......all on the grounds of attempting to "sully American Democracy"
.
But hey, that's life in the USA....Right, Seamus ?
"what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled by anti-nationalist
policies. "
The longer Israel persists in its "facts-on-the-ground" thievery, the less moral standing it has
for its white country. And it is a racist state also within its own "borders."
A pathetic excuse for a country. Without the USA it wouldn't exist.
A black mark on both countries' report cards.
@map
I wish people would stop making a big deal out of John Kerry's and Barack Obama's recent stance
on Israel. Neither of them are concerned about whatever injustice happened to the Palestinians.
What they are concerned with is Israeli actions discrediting the anti-white, anti-national globalism
program before it has successfully destroyed all of the white nations. That is the real reason why they
want a two-state solution or a right of return. If nationalists can look at the Israeli example as a
model for how to proceed then that will cause a civil war among leftists and discredit the entire left-wing
project.
Trump, therefore, pushing support for Israel's national concerns is not him bending to AIPAC. It is
a shrewd move that forces an internecine conflict between left-wing diaspora Jews and Israeli Jews.
It is a conflict Bibi is willing to have because the pet project of leftism would necessarily result
in Israel either being unlivable or largely extinct for its Jewish population. This NWO being pushed
by the diaspora is not something that will be enjoyed by Israeli Jews.
Consider the problem. The problem is that Palestinians have revanchist claims against Israel. Those
revanchist claims do not go away just because they get their own country or they get a right of return.
Either "solution" actually strengthens the Palestinian claim against Israel and results in a vastly
reduced security stance and quality of life for Israelis. The diaspora left is ok with that because
they want to continue importing revanchist groups into Europe and America to break down white countries.
So, Israel makes a small sacrifice for the greater good of anti-whitism, a deal that most Israelis do
not consider very good for themselves. Trump's support for Israeli nationalism short-circuits this project.
Of course, one could ask: why don't the Israeli Jews just move to America? What's the big deal if Israel
remains in the middle east? The big deal is the kind of jobs and activities available for Israelis to
do. A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive
the nails, throw out the trash. Everyone can't be a doctor, a lawyer or a banker. Tradesmen, technicians,
workers are all required to get a project like Israel off the ground and maintained. How many of these
Israelis doing scut work in Israel for a greater good want to do the same scut work in America just
to get by?
The problem operates in reverse for American Jews. A Jew with an American law degree is of
no use to Israelis outside of the money he brings and whether he can throw out the trash. Diaspora Jews,
therefore, have no reason to try and live and work in Israel.
So, again, we see that Trump's move is a masterstroke. Even his appointment to counter the coup with
Zionists is brilliant, since these Zionists are rich enough to both live anywhere and indulge their
pride in nationalist endeavors.
"A real nation requires a lot of scut work. Someone has to do the plumbing, unplug the sewers, drive
the nails, throw out the trash."
Perhaps you'd like to discuss why so much of this and other "scut work" is done by Palestinians,
while an increasing number of Israeli Jews are on the dole.
@Mark Green
This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally
gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least
for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot
of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role.
And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's
beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the
money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political
miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal
with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating.
And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore,
Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant
than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support
for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not
throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli
pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and
appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his
campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible
to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast
approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic
spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go
Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's
political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
"As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore,
Obama is finally free to do what's right . "
THEN WHY DOESN'T HE DO WHAT'S RIGHT? As Seamus Padraig pointed out, the UN abstention is "just more
empty symbolism." Meanwhile The Christmas Eve attack on the First Amendment The approval of arming terrorists in Syria
The fake news about Russian hacking throwing Killary's election
Aid to terrorists is a felony. Obama should be indicted.
I try to write clearly, but if this is your response I've failed miserably. My interest in the hacking
is nil.
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup in Ukraine,
his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization of Putin,
and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
Obama has been providing weapons, training, air support and propaganda for Terrorists via their affiliates
in Syria, and now directly. This is a felony, if not treason.
What I have against Obama is his regime-change war in Syria, his State Department enabled coup
in Ukraine, his support of Saudi war/genocide against Yemen, his destruction of Libya, his demonization
of Putin, and his bringing us to a status near war in our relations with Russia.
RobinG - Agree 100% – some times I get things crossed up - Peace Art
@Mark Green
This is a good article but there's been a sudden shift. Incredibly, Obama has finally
gotten some balls in his dealings with Israel. And Trump is starting to sound like a neocon!
Maybe Trump is worried enough about a potential coup to dump his 'America First' platform (at least
for now) to shore up vital Jewish support for his teetering inauguration. This ploy will require a lot
of pro-Zionist noise and gesturing. Consequently, Trump is starting to play a familiar political role.
And the Zio-friendly media is holding his feet to the fire.
Has the smell of fear pushed Trump over the edge and into the lap of the Zionist establishment? It's
beginning to look that way.
Or is Trump just being a fox?
Let's face it: nobody can pull out all the stops better than Israel's Fifth Column. They've got the
money, the organization skills, the media leverage, and the raw intellectual moxie to make political
miracles/disasters happen. Trump wants them on his side. So he's is tacitly cutting a last-minute deal
with the Israelis. Trump's Zionized rhetoric (and political appointments) prove it.
This explains the apparent reversal that's now underway. Obama's pushing back while Trump is accommodating.
And, as usual, the Zions are dictating the Narrative.
As Israel Shamir reminds us: there's nothing as liberating to a politician as leaving office. Therefore,
Obama is finally free to do what's right. Trump however is facing no such luxury. And Bibi is more defiant
than ever. This is high drama. And Trump is feeling the heat.
Indeed, outgoing Sec. John Kerry just delivered a major speech where he reiterated strongly US support
for a real 'Two State' solution in Israel/Palestine.
And I thought the Two State Solution was dead.
Didn't you?
Kerry also criticized Israel's ongoing confiscation of the Occupied Territories. It was a brilliant
analysis that Kerry gave without the aid of a teleprompter. Hugely impressive. Even so, Kerry did not
throw Israel under the bus, as claimed. His speech was extremely fair.
This renewed, steadfast American position, coupled with the UNSC's unanimous vote against Israel
(which Obama permitted by not casting the usual US veto) has set the stage for a monumental showdown.
Israel has never been more isolated. But it's Trump--not Obama--that's looking weak in the face of Israeli
pressure.
Indeed, the international Jewish establishment remains uniquely powerful. They may be hated (and
appropriately so) but they get things accomplished in the political arena. Trump understands this all-too-well.
Will Trump--out of fear and necessity--run with the mega-powerful Jews who tried to sabotage his
campaign?--Or will he stay strong with America First and avoid "any more disasterous wars". It's impossible
to say. Trump is speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
I get the feeling that even Trump is unsure of where all this is going. But the situation is fast
approaching critical mass. Something's gotta give. The entire world is fed up with Israel.
Will Trump blink and take the easy road with the Zions?--Or will he summon Putin's independent, nationalistic
spirit and stay the course of 'America First'?
Unfortunately, having scrutinized the Zions in action for decades, I'm fearful that Trump will go
Pure Washington and run with the Israeli-Firsters. This will fortify his shaky political foundation.
I hope that I'm wrong about this but the Zions are brilliantly equipped to play both sides of America's
political divide. No politician is immune to their machinations.
Most of the Western world is much sicker of the head-choppers in charge of our 'human rights' at
the UN (thanks to Obama and the UK) than it is of Israel. It is they, not we, who have funded ISIS directly.
It seems that our POTUS has just chosen to eject 35 Russian diplomats from our country, on grounds of
hacking the election against Hillary.
Is this some weird, preliminary "shot across the bow" in preparation for the coming "coup attempt" you
seem to believe is in the offing ?
It seem the powers-that-be are pulling out all the stops to prevent an authentic rapprochement with
Moscow.
What for ?
It makes you wonder if there is more to this than meets the eye, something beyond the sanguine disgruntlement
of the party bosses and a desire for payback against Hillary's big loss ?
Does anyone know if Russia is more aware than most Americans of certain classified details pertaining
to stuff.....like 9-11 ?
Why is cooperation between the new administration and Moscow so scary to these people that they would
initiate a preemptive diplomatic shut down ?
They seem to be dead set on welding shut every single diplomatic door to the Kremlin there is , before
Trumps inauguration.
Perhaps something "else "is being planned........Does anyone have any ideas whats going on ?
What does Russian intelligence know? Err perhaps something like that the US/UK have sold nukes
to the head-choppers of the riyadh caliphate, say (knowing how completely mad their incestuous brains
are?). Who knows? – but such a fact could explain many inexplicable things.
@map
The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think
their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling
will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result
in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.
It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.
The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board
going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled
by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just
triangulation against the left.
I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a
lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle
East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.
"treated very shabbily" indeed, by other Arabs – who have done virtually nothing for them.
An alternative hypothesis is that the Wikileaks material was, in fact, leaked by members of the Democratic
campaign itself.
His name was Seth Rich, and he did software for the DNC.
Given all the hoaky, "evidence free" punitive assaults being launched against Moscow today .combined
with the profusion of utterly fraudulent narratives foisted down the throats of the American people
over the last sixteen years
Its NOT outside of reason to take a good hard look at the "Seth Rich incident" and reconstruct an
outline of events(probably) much closer to the truth than the big media would ever be willing to discuss
or admit.
Namely, that Seth Rich, a young decent kid (27) who was working as the data director for the campaign,
came across evidence of "dirty pool" within the voting systems during the DNC nomination ,which were
fraudulently (and maybe even blatantly) tilting the results towards Hillary.
He probably did the "right thing" by notifying one of the DNC bosses of the fraud ..who informed
him he would look into it and that he should keep it quite for the moment
.I wouldn't be surprised if Seth reached out to a reporter , too, probably at the at the NY Times,
who informed his editor who, in turn, had such deep connections to the Hillary corruption machine that
he placed a call to a DNC backroom boss who , at some point, made the decision to take steps to shut
Seth's mouth, permanently ."just make it look like a robbery (or something)"
Seth, not being stupid, and knowing he had the dirt on Hillary that could crush her (as well as the
reputation of the entire democratic party) probably reached out to Julian Assange, too, to hedge his
bets.
In the interview Julian gave shortly after Seth's death, he intimated that Seth was the leak, although
he did not state it outright.
Something like this sequence of events (with perhaps a few alterations ) is probably quite close
to what actually happened.
So here we have a scenario, where the D.N.C. Oligarchs , so corrupt, so evil, so disdainful of the
electorate, and the democratic process , rig the nomination results (on multiple levels) for Hillary..and
when the evidence of this is found, by a decent young kid with his whole life ahead of him, they had
him shot in the back ..four times
And then "Big Media for Hillary", rather than investigate this horrific tragedy and expose the dirty
malevolence at play within the DNC , quashes the entire narrative and grafts in its place the"substitute"
Putin hacks .. demanding faux accountability culminating with sanctions and ejections of the entire
Russian diplomatic corp .all on the grounds of attempting to "sully American Democracy"
.
@map
The revanchist claim that I refer to is psychological, not moral or legal. Palestinians think
their land was stolen in the same way Mexicans think Texas and California were stolen. That feeling
will not change just because they get a two-state solution or a right of return. What it will result
in is a comfortable base from which to continue to operate against Israel, one that Israel can't afford.
It is Nationalism 101 not to allow revanchist groups in your country.
The leftists are being consistent in their ideology by opposing Israel, because they are fully on board
going after what looks like a white country attacking brown people and demanding not to be dismantled
by anti-nationalist policies. Trump suggesting the capital go to Jerusalem and supporting Bibi is just
triangulation against the left.
I feel sorry for the Palestinians and I think they have been treated very shabbily. They did lose a
lot as any refugee population would and they should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle
East. I don't know who is using them or for what purpose.
good points. Yet, Palestinians "They should be comfortably repatriated around the Muslim Middle
East." sounds pretty much like an Israel talking point. How about Israel should be dissolved and the Jews repatriated around Europe and the US?
Not being an Idea world, but a Biological World, revanchism is true enough up to a point. Of course
The Revanchists of All Time are the jews, or the zionists, to speak liberalize.
As for feelings that don't change, there is a tendency for feelings to change over time, especially
when a "legal" document is signed by the participating parties. I have long advocated that the Jews
pay for the land they stole, and that that payment be made to a new Palestinian state. A Palestinian
with a home, a job, a family, and a nice car makes a lot of difference, just like anywhere else.
(We paid the Mexicans in a treaty that presumably ended the Mexican war. This is a normal state of
affairs. Mexico only "owned" California, etc, for about 25 years, and I do not think paid the injuns
anything for their land at the time. Also, if memory serves, I think Pat Buchanan claimed somewhere
that there were only about 10,000 Mexicans in California at the time, or maybe in the whole area under
discussion..)
How Palestine stolen property, should be evaluated I leave to the experts. Jews would appear to have
ample resources and could pony up the dough.
The biggest problem is the US evangelicals and equally important, the nice Episcopalians and so on,
even the Catholic Church which used to Exclude Jews now luving them. This is part of our National Religion.
The Jews are god's favorites, and nobody seems to mind. Kill an Arab for Christ is the national gut
feeling, except when it gets too expensive or kills too many Americans.
As I have said, Trump is in between the rock and the hard place. If he wants to end the Jewish Wars
in the ME, he cannot luv the jews, and especially he cannot start lobbing bombs around too much even
over Isis and the dozens of jihadist groups, especially now in Syria.
Sorry but your "comfortably repatriated" is a real howler. There is no comfort to be had by anybody
in the ME. And, like Jews with regard to your points about revanchism in general, Palestinians have
not blended into the general Arab populations of other countries, like Lebanon, etc.. Using your own
logic, the Palestinians will continue to nurse their grievances no matter where they are, just like
the Jews.
The neocon goals of failed states in the Arab World has been largely accomplished and the only way
humpty-dumpty will be put back together again is for tough Arab Strong Men to reestablish order. Like
Assad, like Hussein, etc. Arab IQ is about 85 in general. There is not going to be democracy/elections/civics lessons per the White countries's genetic predisposition.\
For that matter, Jews are not democrats. Left alone Israel, wherever it is, reverts to Rabbinic Control
and Jehovah, the Warrior God, reigns. Fact is , that is where Israel is heading anyway.
Jews never invented free speech and rule of law, nor did Arabs, or any other race on the planet.
The Jews With Nukes is of World Historical Importance. And Whites have given them the Bomb, just
as Whites have given Third World inferior races, access to the Northern Cornucopia of wealth, both spiritual
and material. They will , like the jews, exploit free speech and game the economic system.
All Semites Out! Ditto just about everybody else, starting with the Chinese.
finally, if the jews had any real brains, they would get out of a neighborhood that hates them for
their jewishness, their Thefts, and their Wars. Otoh, Jews seem to thrive on being hated more than any
other race or ethnic group. Chosen to Always Complain. Joe Webb
Trump has absolutely no support in the media. With the Fox News and Fox Business, first string, talking
heads on vacation (minimal support) the second and third string are insanely trying to push the Russian
hacking bullshit. Trump better realize that the only support he has are the people that voted for him.
January 2017 will be a bad month for this country and the rest of 2017 much worse.
Sorry Joe, the "whites" did not give the Jews the atomic bomb. In truth, the Jews were critically
important in developing the scientific ideas and technology critical to making the first atomic bomb.
I can recognize Jewish malfeasance where it exists, but to ignore their intellectual contributions
to Western Civilization is sheer blindness.
"... I'd wager that most people know that cell phones can track their location, hoover up their personal info, record their conversations, etc, etc but that doesn't stop most people from owning one anyway. The populace has been convinced that owning the device that constantly spies on them is a necessity. ..."
"... I've often wondered whether the relatively high difficulty in buying a smartphone with less than two cameras has something to do with the SIGINT Enabling Project. ..."
I was paranoid about the Roomba and I'm pretty sure it doesn't have
any connectivity, nor does it record anything.
Personal assistant connected to both the 'net and Large Corp? No. Way.
I'd wager that most people know that cell phones can track their
location, hoover up their personal info, record their conversations, etc,
etc but that doesn't stop most people from owning one anyway. The
populace has been convinced that owning the device that constantly spies
on them is a necessity.
Don't think learning that Echo is doing the same thing would deter
most people from using it. 'Convenience' and all
Fortunately, I can barely hear the person I'm talking to through my
smartphone, so I am not optimistic that it can actually hear me from
someplace else in the house, especially compared to someone's Echo I
have experience with. But point taken.
The microphoneS (often there is an extra mic to cancel ambient
noise) in a phone are exquisitely sensitive. The losses you're
hearing are those from crushing that comparatively high-fidelity
signal into a few thousand bits per second for transmission to/from
the base station.
I've often wondered whether the relatively high difficulty
in buying a smartphone with less than two cameras has something to
do with the SIGINT Enabling Project.
(Not that
I'm
foily )
Wonder if Mr. B gave Mr. T and all the other attendees an Echo at Mr.
T's tech summit. ATT and all the other big telcom players all said,
scout's honor, they don't listen in on their customer's phone calls, so
no worries because Fortune 500 companies are such ethical people. That
may even be technically true because the 3 letter agencies and their
minions (human or otherwise) are doing the actual listening. So if you
are too lazy to go to Amazon.com to delete your idle chit chat, I can
sell you a cloth to wipe it with (maybe I'll even list it on Amazon's
marketplace).
"... I'd wager that most people know that cell phones can track their location, hoover up their personal info, record their conversations, etc, etc but that doesn't stop most people from owning one anyway. The populace has been convinced that owning the device that constantly spies on them is a necessity. ..."
"... I've often wondered whether the relatively high difficulty in buying a smartphone with less than two cameras has something to do with the SIGINT Enabling Project. ..."
I was paranoid about the Roomba and I'm pretty sure it doesn't have
any connectivity, nor does it record anything.
Personal assistant connected to both the 'net and Large Corp? No. Way.
I'd wager that most people know that cell phones can track their
location, hoover up their personal info, record their conversations, etc,
etc but that doesn't stop most people from owning one anyway. The
populace has been convinced that owning the device that constantly spies
on them is a necessity.
Don't think learning that Echo is doing the same thing would deter
most people from using it. 'Convenience' and all
Fortunately, I can barely hear the person I'm talking to through my
smartphone, so I am not optimistic that it can actually hear me from
someplace else in the house, especially compared to someone's Echo I
have experience with. But point taken.
The microphoneS (often there is an extra mic to cancel ambient
noise) in a phone are exquisitely sensitive. The losses you're
hearing are those from crushing that comparatively high-fidelity
signal into a few thousand bits per second for transmission to/from
the base station.
I've often wondered whether the relatively high difficulty
in buying a smartphone with less than two cameras has something to
do with the SIGINT Enabling Project.
(Not that
I'm
foily )
Wonder if Mr. B gave Mr. T and all the other attendees an Echo at Mr.
T's tech summit. ATT and all the other big telcom players all said,
scout's honor, they don't listen in on their customer's phone calls, so
no worries because Fortune 500 companies are such ethical people. That
may even be technically true because the 3 letter agencies and their
minions (human or otherwise) are doing the actual listening. So if you
are too lazy to go to Amazon.com to delete your idle chit chat, I can
sell you a cloth to wipe it with (maybe I'll even list it on Amazon's
marketplace).
Did not William Casey (CIA
Director) say, "We'll know
our disinformation program is
complete when everything the
American public believes is
false."?
Notable quotes:
"... The media should certainly shoulder some blame for parroting militarist propaganda but ordinary USAnians who continue to reward these scoundrels with their votes. And with Trump ordinary USAnians appear to have elected someone even more willing to shamelessly lie and loot than his predecessors. ..."
Americans are also led to believe a lot of crazy, wrong
things, such as Saddam had WMDs, or Iran had a nuclear
weapons program, to cite only the most outrageous lies
dutifully propagated by the mainstream media.
Before
Catherine Rampell criticizes ordinary Americans, she should
have the Washington Post engage in a little serious
introspection and self-criticism...
The media should certainly shoulder some blame for
parroting militarist propaganda but ordinary USAnians who
continue to reward these scoundrels with their votes. And
with Trump ordinary USAnians appear to have elected someone
even more willing to shamelessly lie and loot than his
predecessors.
It is time for ordinary USAnians to
engage in a lot of serious introspection and self-criticism.
I doubt this will happen until it's too late. (Very thankful
that I am not tied to this nation!)
>It is time for ordinary USAnians to engage in a lot of
serious introspection and self-criticism.
Don't hold your breath. Introspection and self-criticism
aren't our strong suits. They run counter to that whole
"American exceptionalism" thing.
> I doubt this will happen until it's too late.
I doubt that it will ever happen but, if it does, I have
no doubt that it will happen until after its too late to
salvage what currently passes for civilization in these
parts.
"There's a big difference between the task of trying to
sustain "civilisation" in its current form... and the task of
holding open a space for the things which make life worth
living. I'd suggest that it's this second task, in its many
forms, which remains, after we've given up on false hopes." (
http://dark-mountain.net/blog/what-do-you-do-after-you-stop-pretending/)
The poll found that, when asked whether increasing or
decreasing America's military presence abroad would make the country safer, 45 percent
of respondents chose a reduction in military activity, while 31 percent favored
increasing it (while 24 percent didn't know). Asked if there should be more U.S.
democracy promotion abroad or less, 40 percent said less, while 31 said more (with 29
percent not sure).
The poll overall seemed to
suggest Americans favor a smaller U.S. footprint abroad than we have seen in recent
years. Fully 55 percent of respondents opposed deployment of U.S. troops to Syria,
compared to 23 percent who favored it (and 23 percent who weren't sure). A plurality of
35 percent opposed the idea of a greater U.S. military presence in the Middle East,
while 22 percent favored it and 29 percent favored no change.
But the poll also indicated the American people don't
want to retreat from the world into any kind of isolationism. A plurality of 40 percent
favored increased military spending compared to 32 percent who wanted to keep it
constant and 17 percent who favored reductions.
And the poll suggested Americans view China with a
certain wariness. Asked if China should be viewed as a U.S. ally, 93 percent said no.
But a like number-89 percent-said China should not be viewed as an enemy either. Some 42
percent favored the term competitor.
A Wikileaks envoy today claims he personally received Clinton campaign emails in Washington
D.C. after they were leaked by 'disgusted' whisteblowers - and not hacked by Russia.
Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Wikileaks founder
Julian Assange, told Dailymail.com that he flew to Washington, D.C. for a clandestine hand-off
with one of the email sources in September.
'Neither of [the leaks] came from the Russians,' said Murray in an interview with Dailymail.com
on Tuesday. ' The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks,
not hacks.'
His account contradicts directly the version of how thousands of Democratic emails were published
before the election being advanced by U.S. intelligence.
Americans steeped in a culture of 'politics' are again being fooled, this election wasn't about
party or state lines, "Republicans" didn't win over "Democrats" - this election was about a wild
card, a non-politician, non-Establishment candidate winning by a landslide if going by the polls
(Trump was given 5% chance of winning up until the night of election).
When Peña Nieto won, Sepúlveda began destroying evidence. He drilled holes in flash drives,
hard drives, and cell phones, fried their circuits in a microwave, then broke them to shards with
a hammer. He shredded documents and flushed them down the toilet and erased servers in Russia
and Ukraine rented anonymously with Bitcoins. He was dismantling what he says was a secret history
of one of the dirtiest Latin American campaigns in recent memory.
For eight years, Sepúlveda, now 31, says he traveled the continent rigging major political
campaigns. With a budget of $600,000, the Peña Nieto job was by far his most complex. He led a
team of hackers that stole campaign strategies, manipulated social media to create false waves
of enthusiasm and derision, and installed spyware in opposition offices, all to help Peña Nieto,
a right-of-center candidate, eke out a victory. On that July night, he cracked bottle after bottle
of Colón Negra beer in celebration. As usual on election night, he was alone.
Sepúlveda's career began in 2005, and his first jobs were small-mostly defacing campaign websites
and breaking into opponents' donor databases. Within a few years he was assembling teams that
spied, stole, and smeared on behalf of presidential campaigns across Latin America. He wasn't
cheap, but his services were extensive. For $12,000 a month, a customer hired a crew that could
hack smartphones, spoof and clone Web pages, and send mass e-mails and texts. The premium package,
at $20,000 a month, also included a full range of digital interception, attack, decryption, and
defense. The jobs were carefully laundered through layers of middlemen and consultants. Sepúlveda
says many of the candidates he helped might not even have known about his role; he says he met
only a few.
His teams worked on presidential elections in Nicaragua, Panama, Honduras, El Salvador, Colombia,
Mexico, Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Venezuela. Campaigns mentioned in this story were contacted
through former and current spokespeople; none but Mexico's PRI and the campaign of Guatemala's
National Advancement Party would comment.
The point here, well there are several points. One, Sepulveda is not the only guy in the world
doing this. The CIA even has a team of social media trolls and the NSA has a department that only
develops robots to do the same thing Sepulveda was doing and better. The age of 'spies' has transformed
into an electronic, digital, online version - much like the internet has transformed life and business
it has also changed the way the intelligence establishment deals with controlling the population.
Oh how the FBI has evolved since the days of Hoffman and Cointelpro!
Many of Sepúlveda's efforts were unsuccessful, but he has enough wins that he might be able
to claim as much influence over the political direction of modern Latin America as anyone in the
21st century. "My job was to do actions of dirty war and psychological operations, black propaganda,
rumors-the whole dark side of politics that nobody knows exists but everyone can see," he says
in Spanish, while sitting at a small plastic table in an outdoor courtyard deep within the heavily
fortified offices of Colombia's attorney general's office. He's serving 10 years in prison for
charges including use of malicious software, conspiracy to commit crime, violation of personal
data, and espionage, related to hacking during Colombia's 2014 presidential election. He has agreed
to tell his full story for the first time, hoping to convince the public that he's rehabilitated-and
gather support for a reduced sentence.
Usually, he says, he was on the payroll of Juan José Rendón, a Miami-based political consultant
who's been called the Karl Rove of Latin America. Rendón denies using Sepúlveda for anything illegal,
and categorically disputes the account Sepúlveda gave Bloomberg Businessweek of their relationship,
but admits knowing him and using him to do website design. "If I talked to him maybe once or twice,
it was in a group session about that, about the Web," he says. "I don't do illegal stuff at all.
There is negative campaigning. They don't like it-OK. But if it's legal, I'm gonna do it. I'm
not a saint, but I'm not a criminal." While Sepúlveda's policy was to destroy all data at the
completion of a job, he left some documents with members of his hacking teams and other trusted
third parties as a secret "insurance policy."
We don't need a degree in cybersecurity to see how this was going on against Trump all throughout
the campaign. Not only did they hire thugs to start riots at Trump rallies and protest, a massive
online campaign was staged against Trump.
Rendón, says Sepúlveda, saw that hackers could be completely integrated into a modern political
operation, running attack ads, researching the opposition, and finding ways to suppress a foe's
turnout. As for Sepúlveda, his insight was to understand that voters trusted what they thought
were spontaneous expressions of real people on social media more than they did experts on television
and in newspapers. He knew that accounts could be faked and social media trends fabricated, all
relatively cheaply. He wrote a software program, now called Social Media Predator, to manage and
direct a virtual army of fake Twitter accounts. The software let him quickly change names, profile
pictures, and biographies to fit any need. Eventually, he discovered, he could manipulate the
public debate as easily as moving pieces on a chessboard-or, as he puts it, "When I realized that
people believe what the Internet says more than reality, I discovered that I had the power to
make people believe almost anything."
Sepúlveda managed thousands of such fake profiles and used the accounts to shape discussion
around topics such as Peña Nieto's plan to end drug violence, priming the social media pump with
views that real users would mimic. For less nuanced work, he had a larger army of 30,000 Twitter
bots, automatic posters that could create trends. One conversation he started stoked fear that
the more López Obrador rose in the polls, the lower the peso would sink. Sepúlveda knew the currency
issue was a major vulnerability; he'd read it in the candidate's own internal staff memos.
While there's no evidence that Rendon or Sepulveda were involved in the 2016 election, there is
also no evidence that Russian hackers were involved in the 2016 election. There's not even false
evidence. There isn't a hint of it. There isn't a witness, there isn't a document, there's nothing
- it's a conspiracy theory! And a very poor one.
Russian hackers would have had the same or better (probably much better) tools, strategies, and
resources than Sepulveda. But none of this shows up anywhere. If anything, this is an example of
how NOT to hack an election.
Thanks. Right. Hillary's official electronic communications is more correct than Hillary's emails.
(And the "wipe them, you mean like with a rag?" from Hillary, after having been in government
all her adult life and after having presented herself as a modern Secretary of State who knew
all about how government and modern technology worked would have been a funny joke if it hadn't
obviously been intended to cover up enormous crimes.)
Whoever is running the world with all of this fake stuff and all of the monitoring of people and
petty false propganda, they pretty much suck at it. it is as if they are claiming to be running
the world using "training wheels". As a substitute for God they stink! Grade D-!
The tale doesn't have to be a good one for the TV addicted masses to believe it, it only has to
be presented by the only sources these imbeciles are willing to use: their fucking TV sets. Most
people are so deluded by their main source of entertainment and information that they wouldn't
give a shit if incontrovertible evidence that their TV information source was lying was presented
to them.
Most people I know don't want to know anything that can't be spoonfed to them on a TV screen.
"The tale doesn't have to be a good one for the TV addicted masses to believe it..."
Like the tale that the only steel highrise buildings to ever collapse due to fires (turning
into dust at near freefall speed) ocurred on a single day 15 years ago, orchestrated, along with
everything else on that fateful day, by a man in a cave half a world away.
and that after every airport was closed and every single commercial plane was grounded, that man's
entire extended family resident in the u.s., some two dozen individuals, was given fbi protection,
rented cars and chartered planes, and flown out of the country without ever being interviewed,
at all, by any law enforcement branch of the government of the united states which, needless to
say, had absolutely no involvement with the deadliest foreign attack on u.s. soil since the war
of 1812, killing nearly 600 more than died at pearl harbor.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bin-laden-family-evacuated/
this was known at the time it happened. what took longer to discover was that the source of
the foreign attack was not a cave in afghanistan or even saudi arabia or the muslim world generally.
all along it was our trusted ally, brave little israel.
Anti-semitism enables one to ignore the elephant in the room, namely the Saudis who have been
spending billions promoting Wahhabism and terrorism, to blame a tiny little country for everything,
without ever having to bother about evidence. Seek help.
"... But there are other flavors too. For example Trump introduced another flavor which I called "bastard neoliberalism". Which is the neoliberalism without neoliberal globalization and without "Permanent revolution" mantra -- efforts for enlargement of the US led global neoliberal empire. Somewhat similar to Eduard Bernstein "revisionism" in Marxism. Or Putinism - which is also a flavor of neoliberalism with added "strong state" part and "resource nationalism" bent, which upset so much the US neoliberal establishment, as it complicates looting of the country by transnational corporations. ..."
"... Neoliberalism also can be viewed as a modern mutation of corporatism, favoring multinationals (under disguise of "free trade"), privatization of state assets, minimal government intervention in business (with financial oligarchy being like Soviet nomenklatura above the law), reduced public expenditures on social services, and decimation of New Deal, strong anti trade unionism stance and attempt to atomize work force (perma temps as preferred mode of employment giving employers "maximum flexibility") , neocolonialism and militarism in foreign relations (might makes right). ..."
"... The word "elite" in the context of neoliberalism has the same meaning as the Russian word nomenklatura. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenklatura, -- the political establishment holding or controlling both public and private power centers such as media, finance, academia, culture, trade, industry, state and international institutions. ..."
At this point, when I hear people use the words "neoliberal," "elites" and "the media" in unspecified
or highly generalized terms to make broad characterizations ... I know I'm dealing with an
unserious person.
It's a lot like when someone says "structural reform" without specification in an economic
discussion: An almost perfect indicator of vacuity.
likbez -> sanjait... , -1
Let's define the terms.
Neoliberals are those who adhere to the doctrine of Neoliberalism (the "prohibited" word
you should not ever see in the US MSM ;-)
In this sense the term is very similar to Marxists (with the replacement of the slogan of
"proletarians of all nations unite" with the "financial oligarchy of all countries unite").
Or more correctly they are the "latter day Trotskyites".
Neoliberalism consists of several eclectic parts such as neoclassic economics, mixture of
Nietzscheanism (often in the form of Ann Rand philosophy; with the replacement of concept of
Ubermench with "creative class" concept)) with corporatism. Like with Marxism there are different
flavors of neoliberalism and different factions like "soft neoliberalism" (Clinton third way)
which is the modern Democratic Party doctrine, and hard neoliberalism (Republican party version),
often hostile to each other.
But there are other flavors too. For example Trump introduced another flavor which I called
"bastard neoliberalism". Which is the neoliberalism without neoliberal globalization and without
"Permanent revolution" mantra -- efforts for enlargement of the US led global neoliberal empire.
Somewhat similar to Eduard Bernstein "revisionism" in Marxism. Or Putinism - which is also
a flavor of neoliberalism with added "strong state" part and "resource nationalism" bent, which
upset so much the US neoliberal establishment, as it complicates looting of the country by
transnational corporations.
Neoliberalism also can be viewed as a modern mutation of corporatism, favoring multinationals
(under disguise of "free trade"), privatization of state assets, minimal government intervention
in business (with financial oligarchy being like Soviet nomenklatura above the law), reduced
public expenditures on social services, and decimation of New Deal, strong anti trade unionism
stance and attempt to atomize work force (perma temps as preferred mode of employment giving
employers "maximum flexibility") , neocolonialism and militarism in foreign relations (might
makes right).
Like for any corporatist thinkers the real goals are often hidden under thick smoke screen
of propaganda.
The word "elite" in the context of neoliberalism has the same meaning as the Russian word
nomenklatura. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenklatura,
-- the political establishment holding or controlling both public and private power centers
such as media, finance, academia, culture, trade, industry, state and international institutions.
[As if] protectionist Japan is now backward and poverty stricken; free trade Africa is soaring
on the wings of giant trade deficits :
Economists lead the way in silly beliefs that defy empirical reality and common sense. The most glaring
example of this is the view that free trade is beneficial. All evidence points in the opposite direction,
but no matter - our fake economists are happy to say/believe whatever so long as their foreign government
paymasters and banks write the ten thousand dollar checks for "consulting" and "academic reports".
You are probably wrong. Free trade is a delicate instrument, much like tennis racket. If you hold
it too tightly you can't play well. If you hold it too loose you can't play well either.
Neoliberals promote "free trade" (note "free" not "fair") as the universal cure for all nations
problems in all circumstances. This is a typical neoliberal Three-card Monte.
The real effect in many cases is opening market for transnationals who dictate nations the
rules of the game and loot the country.
But isolationism has its own perils. So some middle ground should be fought against excessive
demands of neoliberal institutions like IMF and World Bank. For example, any country that take
loans from them (usually on pretty harsh conditions; with string attached), has a great danger
that money will be looted via local fifth column. And will return in no time back into Western Banks
leaving the country in the role of the debt slave.
The latter is the preferred role neoliberals want to see each and every third world country
(and not only third world countries -- see Greece and Cyprus). Essentially in their "secret" book
this is the role those counties should be driven into.
Recent looting of Ukraine is the textbook example of this process. The majority of population
now will live on less then $2 a day for many, many years.
At the same time, balancing free trade and isolationism is tricky process also. Because at some
point, the subversion starts and three letter agencies come into the play. You risk getting color
revolution as a free present for your refusal to play the game.
Neoliberals usually do not take NO for the answer.
That's when the word "neoliberal" becomes yet another dirty word.
Did William Casey (CIA
Director) really say, "We'll know
our disinformation program is
complete when everything the
American public believes is
false."?
Americans are also led to believe a lot of crazy, wrong
things, such as Saddam had WMDs, or Iran had a nuclear
weapons program, to cite only the most outrageous lies
dutifully propagated by the mainstream media.
Before
Catherine Rampell criticizes ordinary Americans, she should
have the Washington Post engage in a little serious
introspection and self-criticism...
The media should certainly shoulder some blame for parroting
militarist propaganda but ordinary USAnians who continue to
reward these scoundrels with their votes. And with Trump
ordinary USAnians appear to have elected someone even more
willing to shamelessly lie and loot than his predecessors.
It is time for ordinary USAnians to engage in a lot of
serious introspection and self-criticism. I doubt this will
happen until it's too late. (Very thankful that I am not tied
to this nation!)
Replace Technocrats with Neoliberals. Somewhat stupid laments of a neoliberal economist, who feels that his plush position might be soon
engaged... Under the smoke screen of identity politics (exemplified by gay and lesbian rights
and "gay marriage" gambit desired to distract from important economic processes in the country )
neoliberals destroyed unions, outsourced manufacturing and now are outsourcing service sector,
and lowered the standard living of the US middle class, while top 1% became filthy rich...
they behave like the occupiers of the country so "Occupy Wall Street" movement should actually be
called "liberation of the country from Wall Street occupation" movement.
Notable quotes:
"... This is most obvious in the case of Trump, who devoted a large share of his presidential campaign not just to attacking democratic norms but also to attacking the technocratic experts who have come to symbolize democracy in the United States. ..."
"... Technocrats do not even have a good answer for technocratic-sounding attacks on democracy. ..."
"... Whether because of the incompetence of experts or just a string of bad luck, democracies haven't been performing very well lately. ..."
"... The foreign-policy experts guided wars on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq that seemingly made terrorism worse. Domestic economists gave us the 2008 financial crisis - and a response afterward that bailed out banks too big to fail but treated families losing homes as too small to care about. Dictator-run China is taking over ever larger chunks of the world economy while U.S. wages stagnate. ..."
"... Experts often cannot agree on "what works" or even what already happened. Some experts could still credibly argue that in the long run democracies worldwide outperform dictatorships on average, but there is disagreement, and few have the patience to wait for long-run world averages to reassert themselves. ..."
"... As the economist John Stuart Mill said almost 150 years ago, the true test of freedom is not whether we care about our own rights but whether we care about "the rights of others." ..."
This is most obvious in the case of Trump, who devoted a large share of his presidential campaign
not just to attacking democratic norms but also to attacking the technocratic experts who have come
to symbolize democracy in the United States.
...the technocrats who now monopolize the country's political elite would be incapable of fighting
back.
Technocrats have always shown little interest in fights over fundamental values. ...So when technocrats
are all we have to defend democracy, fights over fundamental values become embarrassingly one-sided.
Technocrats do not even have a good answer for technocratic-sounding attacks on democracy.
Technocrats'
defense of democracy on the basis of "what works" was always vulnerable because the anti-democratic
side was not going to be maximally scrupulous about the evidence in any case. It also makes liberal
values hostages to fortune.
Whether because of the incompetence of experts or just a string of bad
luck, democracies haven't been performing very well lately.
The foreign-policy experts guided wars
on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq that seemingly made terrorism worse. Domestic economists gave us
the 2008 financial crisis - and a response afterward that bailed out banks too big to fail but treated
families losing homes as too small to care about. Dictator-run China is taking over ever larger chunks
of the world economy while U.S. wages stagnate.
Experts often cannot agree on "what works" or even what already happened. Some experts could still
credibly argue that in the long run democracies worldwide outperform dictatorships on average, but
there is disagreement, and few have the patience to wait for long-run world averages to reassert
themselves. Which is why the principal defense of democratic values must be that they are desirable
in themselves as values - something technocrats are not trained to do Which is not to suggest they
don't have any resources at their disposal. My own field of economics can be so technical that whenever
I give a talk mentioning values, I feel like I have to apologize.
Yet economics is better equipped
to defend values than usually believed. At the core of models of economic behavior is individual
choice. Hidden in plain sight is the assumption that all individuals - whether male, female, white,
black, gay, Muslim, or Latino - should indeed have equal rights to make decisions for themselves.
The assumptions that guide analysis of what makes people better off embody the same respect for individual
choice - we infer A is better than B for an individual if they voluntarily selected A over B. And
if an individual chose something for himself or herself that did not make anyone else worse off,
we say that overall well-being improved.
Although these principles are more than a century old in economics and are still at the core of
our textbooks, they get sporadic attacks and less attention than they should due to our infatuation
with evidence-based policy. Yet as Harvard University economist Edward Glaeser
argued along the same lines in 2011, economics still has a "moral spine" beneath all the technocracy:
"That spine is a fundamental belief in freedom."
As the economist John Stuart Mill said almost 150
years ago, the true test of freedom is not whether we care about our own rights but whether we care
about "the rights of others."
But can economics provide a conception of democracy that truly protects the "rights of others"?
The field does indeed offer a potential defense against one of the core democratic dangers - the
possibility that a tyrannical majority might vote to violate the rights of some minority group. Economists
teach that it's in a majority party's interest to conduct a simple thought experiment before making
political decisions: Since it's impossible to know for sure that they will always be in the majority,
and they could always wind up as part of some minority that some future majority decides to tyrannize,
they should make political decisions behind a so-called "veil of ignorance" that sets aside their
personal status and group affiliations. And anyone running that thought experiment faithfully would
join a coalition to protect all future minority and individual rights.
Needless to say, the "veil of ignorance" thought experiment is ultimately a voluntary exercise.
This year's U.S. election tore the veil of ignorance to shreds and not for the first time. Many white
men apparently did not perceive, or consider, this "ignorance" about the future, feeling confident
that they will always have enough power to protect themselves and thus are free not to vote to protect
the rights of others.
The long campaign for equal rights, by mixing eloquent moral appeals with "veil of ignorance"
warnings, has nevertheless tried to make us all care just enough about other groups to forge a broad
coalition in favor of democracy. Our technocratic age often sees such appeals as sentimentalism -
more suitable for refrigerator magnets than serious debates. But Trump's attack on core values required
a response of such universal moral appeals - to white people as well as to minorities - instead of
Clinton's coalition of minorities and the 41-point plan of measurable outcomes on her website.
Democratic values have never been capable of defending themselves - equal rights require eloquent
defenses capable of building broad alliances on their behalf. History offers plenty of inspiration.
Abraham Lincoln: "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just
God, can not long retain it." Martin Luther King Jr.: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice
everywhere." Elie Wiesel: "Wherever men or women are persecuted because of their race, religion,
or political views, that place must - at that moment - become the center of the universe."
"... "Fake news was a term specifically about people who purposely fabricated stories for clicks and revenue," said David Mikkelson, the founder of Snopes, the myth-busting website. "Now it includes bad reporting, slanted journalism and outright propaganda. And I think we're doing a disservice to lump all those things together." ..."
"... "What I think is so unsettling about the fake news cries now is that their audience has already sort of bought into this idea that journalism has no credibility or legitimacy," ..."
"... The market in these divided times is undeniably ripe. "We now live in this fragmented media world where you can block people you disagree with. You can only be exposed to stories that make you feel good about what you want to believe," Mr. Ziegler, the radio host, said. "Unfortunately, the truth is unpopular a lot. And a good fairy tale beats a harsh truth every time." ..."
.... As reporters were walking out of a Trump rally this month in Orlando, Fla., a man heckled them with shouts of "Fake news!"
Until now, that term had been widely understood to refer to fabricated news accounts that are meant to spread virally online.
But conservative cable and radio personalities, top Republicans and even Mr. Trump himself, incredulous about suggestions that fake
stories may have helped swing the election, have appropriated the term and turned it against any news they see as hostile to their
agenda.
In defining "fake news" so broadly and seeking to dilute its meaning, they are capitalizing on the declining credibility of all
purveyors of information, one product of the country's increasing political polarization. And conservatives, seeing an opening to
undermine the mainstream media, a longtime foe, are more than happy to dig the hole deeper.
"Over the years, we've effectively brainwashed the core of our audience to distrust anything that they disagree with. And now
it's gone too far," said John Ziegler, a conservative radio host, who has been critical of what he sees as excessive partisanship
by pundits. "Because the gatekeepers have lost all credibility in the minds of consumers, I don't see how you reverse it."
Journalists who work to separate fact from fiction see a dangerous conflation of stories that turn out to be wrong because of
a legitimate misunderstanding with those whose clear intention is to deceive. A report, shared more than a million times on social
media, that the pope had endorsed Mr. Trump was undeniably false. But was it "fake news" to report on data models that showed Hillary
Clinton with overwhelming odds of winning the presidency? Are opinion articles fake if they cherry-pick facts to draw disputable
conclusions?
"Fake news was a term specifically about people who purposely fabricated stories for clicks and revenue," said David Mikkelson,
the founder of Snopes, the myth-busting website. "Now it includes bad reporting, slanted journalism and outright propaganda. And
I think we're doing a disservice to lump all those things together."
The right's labeling of "fake news" evokes one of the most successful efforts by conservatives to reorient how Americans think
about news media objectivity: the move by Fox News to brand its conservative-slanted coverage as "fair and balanced." Traditionally,
mainstream media outlets had thought of their own approach in those terms, viewing their coverage as strictly down the middle. Republicans
often found that laughable. As with Fox's ubiquitous promotion of its slogan, conservatives' appropriation of the "fake news" label
is an effort to further erode the mainstream media's claim to be a reliable and accurate source.
"What I think is so unsettling about the fake news cries now is that their audience has already sort of bought into this idea
that journalism has no credibility or legitimacy," said Angelo Carusone, the president of Media Matters, a liberal group that
polices the news media for bias. "Therefore, by applying that term to credible outlets, it becomes much more believable."
.... ... ...
Mr. Trump has used the term to deny news reports, as he did on Twitter recently after various outlets said he would stay on as
the executive producer of "The New Celebrity Apprentice" after taking office in January. "Ridiculous & untrue - FAKE NEWS!" he wrote.
(He will be credited as executive producer, a spokesman for the show's creator, Mark Burnett, has said. But it is unclear what work,
if any, he will do on the show.)
Many conservatives are pushing back at the outrage over fake news because they believe that liberals, unwilling to accept Mr.
Trump's victory, are attributing his triumph to nefarious external factors.
"The left refuses to admit that the fundamental problem isn't the Russians or Jim Comey or 'fake news' or the Electoral College,"
said Laura Ingraham, the author and radio host. "'Fake news' is just another fake excuse for their failed agenda."
Others see a larger effort to slander the basic journalistic function of fact-checking. Nonpartisan websites like Snopes and Factcheck.org
have found themselves maligned when they have disproved stories that had been flattering to conservatives.
When Snopes wrote about a State Farm insurance agent in Louisiana who had posted a sign outside his office that likened taxpayers
who voted for President Obama to chickens supporting Colonel Sanders, Mr. Mikkelson, the site's founder, was smeared as a partisan
Democrat who had never bothered to reach out to the agent for comment. Neither is true.
"They're trying to float anything they can find out there to discredit fact-checking," he said.
There are already efforts by highly partisan conservatives to claim that their fact-checking efforts are the same as those of
independent outlets like Snopes, which employ research teams to dig into seemingly dubious claims.
Sean Hannity, the Fox News host, has aired "fact-checking" segments on his program. Michelle Malkin, the conservative columnist,
has a web program, "Michelle Malkin Investigates," in which she conducts her own investigative reporting.
The market in these divided times is undeniably ripe. "We now live in this fragmented media world where you can block people
you disagree with. You can only be exposed to stories that make you feel good about what you want to believe," Mr. Ziegler, the radio
host, said. "Unfortunately, the truth is unpopular a lot. And a good fairy tale beats a harsh truth every time."
While the presidential campaign was still in progress it was possible to think
that there might be some positive change in America's broken foreign policy.
Hillary Clinton was clearly the candidate of Washington Establishment
hawkishness, while Donald Trump was declaring his disinclination for democracy
and nation building overseas as well as promoting détente with Russia. Those of
us who considered the foreign policy debacle to be the most dangerous issue
confronting the country, particularly as it was also fueling domestic tyranny,
tended to vote on the basis of that one issue in favor of Trump.
On December
1
st
in Cincinnati, president-elect Donald Trump made
some interesting comments
about his post-electoral foreign policy plans.
There were a lot of good things in it, including his citing of $6 trillion
"wasted" in Mideast fights when "our goal is stability not chaos." And as for
dealing with real enemies, he promised to "partner with any nation that is
willing to join us in the effort to defeat ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism "
He called it a "new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the
past" adding that "We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow
governments, folks."
Regarding the apparent inability of governments to thoroughly check out new
immigrants prior to letting them inside the country, demonstrated most recently
in Nice, Ohio and Berlin, Trump
described how
"People are pouring in from regions of the Middle East - we
have no idea who they are, where they come from what they are thinking and we
are going to stop that dead cold. These are stupid refugee programs created
by stupid politicians." Exaggerated? For sure, but he has a point, and it all
is part and parcel of a foreign policy that serves no actual interest for
people who already live in the United States.
But, as so often with Trump, there was also the flip side. On the looney
fringe of the foreign and national security policy agenda, the president-elect
oddly believes that
"The United States must greatly strengthen and expand
its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses
regarding nukes." So to reduce the number of nukes we have to create more of
them and put them in more places. Pouring gasoline on a raging fire would be an
appropriate analogy and it certainly leads to questions regarding who is
advising The Donald with this kind of nonsense.
Trump has promised to "put America first," but there is inevitably a spanner
in the works. Now, with the New Year only six days away and the presidential
inauguration coming less than three weeks after that, it is possible to discern
that the new foreign policy will, more than under Barack Obama and George W.
Bush, be driven in significant part by Israeli interests.
At least Obama had the good sense to despise Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu, but that will not be true of the White House after January 20
th
.
Trump's very first telephone conversation with a foreign head of government
after being elected was with Netanyahu and during the campaign, he promised to
invite Bibi to the White House immediately after the inauguration. The new
president's first naming of an Ambassador-designate to a foreign nation was of
his good friend and bankruptcy lawyer David Friedman to Israel. Friedman
had headed
Trump's Israel Advisory Committee and is a notable hard liner
who supports the Israeli settler movement, an extreme right-wing political
entity that is nominally opposed by existing U.S. government policy as both
illegal and damaging to Washington's interests. Beyond that, Friedman rejects
creation of a Palestinian state and supports Israel's actual annexation of the
West Bank.
U.S. Ambassadors are supposed to support American interests but Friedman
would actually be representing and endorsing a particularly noxious version of
Israeli fascism as the new normal in the relationship with Washington. Friedman
describes
Jerusalem as "the holy capital of the Jewish people and only the
Jewish people." Trump is already taking steps to move the U.S. Embassy there,
making the American government unique in having its chief diplomatic mission in
the legally disputed city. The move will also serve as a recruiting poster for
groups like ISIS and will inflame opinion against the U.S. among friendly Arab
states in the region. There is no possible gain and much to lose for the United
States and for American citizens in making the move, but it satisfies Israeli
hardliners and zealots like Friedman.
The Trump team's animosity towards Iran is also part of the broader Israeli
agenda. Iran does not threaten the United States and is a military midget
compared either to nuclear armed Israel or the U.S. Yet is has been singled out
as the enemy
du jour
in the Middle East even though it has invaded no
one since the seventeenth century. Israel would like to have the United States
do the heavy lifting to destroy Iran as a regional power. If Washington were to
attempt to do so it would be a catastrophe for all parties involved but that
has not stopped hardliners from demanding unrelenting military pressure on
Tehran.
Donald Trump is not even president yet but he advised Barack Obama to
exercise the U.S. veto for the resolution condemning Israeli settlements that
was voted on at the United Nations Security Council on Friday,
explaining that
"As the United States has long maintained, peace between
the Israelis and the Palestinians will only come through direct negotiations
between the parties, and not through the imposition of terms by the United
Nations. This puts Israel in a very poor negotiating position and is extremely
unfair to all Israelis."
This is a straight Israeli line that might even have been written by
Netanyahu himself. Or by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC),
which fumed "AIPAC is deeply disturbed by the failure of the Obama
Administration to exercise its veto to prevent a destructive, one-sided,
anti-Israel resolution from being enacted by the United Nations Security
Council (UNSC). In the past, this administration and past administrations have
rejected this type of biased resolution since it undermines prospects for
peace. It is particularly regrettable, in his last month in office, that the
president has taken an action at odds with the bipartisan consensus in Congress
and America's long history of standing with Israel at the United Nations."
Ah yes, the fabled negotiations for a two state solution, regularly employed
to enable Israelis to do nothing while expanding their theft of Arab land and
one wonders how Trump would define what is "fair to the Palestinians?" So we
are already well into Trump's adoption of the "always the victim argument" that
the Israelis have so cleverly exploited with U.S. politicians and the media.
Not content with advising Obama, Trump also reportedly took the Palestinian
issue one step further by directly pressuring the sponsoring Egyptians to
postpone any submission of the resolution. Expecting to have a friendly
president in the White House after January 20
th
, Egypt's president
Abdel Fattah al-Sisi
complied on Thursday
but the motion was reintroduced by New Zealand,
Venezuela, Senegal and Malaysia on the following day. The resolution passed
with 14 yes votes and a courageous U.S. abstention after Obama finally, after
eight long years, developed a backbone. But unfortunately, Trump's
interventions suggest that nothing critical of Israel will be allowed to emerge
from the U.N. during his term of office. Referring to the U.N. vote, he said
that "things will be different after January 20
th
."
The problem with Israel and its friends is that they are never satisfied and
never leave the rest of us Americans alone, pushing constantly at what is
essentially an open door. They have treated the United States like a doormat,
spying on us more than any ostensibly friendly nation while pocketing our $38
billion donation to their expanding state without so much as a thank you. They
are shameless. Israel's ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer has been all over
American television sputtering his rage over the United Nations settlements
vote. On CNN
he revealed
that Israel has "clear evidence" that President Obama was
"behind" the resolution and he announced his intention to share the information
with Donald Trump. Every American should be outraged by Israel's contempt for
us and our institutions. One has to wonder if the mainstream media will take a
rest from their pillorying of Russia to cover the story.
For many years now, Israel has sought to make the American people complicit
in its own crimes while also encouraging our country's feckless and corrupt
leadership to provide their government with political cover and even go to war
on its behalf. This has got to stop and, for a moment, it looked like Trump
might be the man to end it when he promised to be even-handed in negotiating
between the Arabs and Israelis. That was before he promised to be the best
friend Israel would ever have.
Israel's quarrels don't stay in Israel and they are not limited to the
foreign policy realm. I have
already discussed
the pending Anti-Semitism Awareness Act,
a bipartisan effort by Congress
to penalize and even potentially
criminalize any criticism of Israel by equating it to anti-Semitism. Whether
Israel itself wants to consider itself a democracy is up to Netanyahu and
Israeli voters but the denial of basic free speech rights to Americans in
deference to Israeli perceptions should be considered to be completely
outrageous.
And there's more. Israel's government funded lawfare organization Shurat
HaDin has long been using American courts to punish Palestinians and Iranians,
obtaining punitive damages linked to allegations regarding terrorist incidents
that have taken place in Israel. Now Shurat HaDin is using our courts to go
after American companies that do business with countries like Iran.
Last year's nuclear agreement with Iran included an end to restraints on the
Islamic Republic's ability to engage in normal banking and commercial activity.
As a high priority, Iran has sought to replace some of its aging
infrastructure, to include its passenger aircraft fleet. Seattle based Boeing
has sought to sell to Iran Air 80 airplanes at a cost of more than $16 billion
and has worked with the U.S. government to meet all licensing and technology
transfer requirements. The civilian-use planes are not in any way configurable
for military purposes, but Shurat HaDin on December 16
th
sought to block
the sale at a federal court in Illinois, demanding a lien
against Boeing for the monies alleged to be due to the claimed victims of
Iranian sponsored terrorism. Boeing, meanwhile, has stated that the Iran Air
order "support(s) tens of thousands of U.S. jobs."
So an agency of the Israeli government is taking steps to stop an American
company from doing something that is perfectly legal under U.S. law even though
it will cost thousands of jobs here at home. It is a prime example of how much
Israel truly cares about the United States and its people. And even more
pathetic, the Israel Lobby owned U.S. Congress has predictably bowed down and
kissed Netanyahu's ring on the issue,
passing a bill in November
that seeks to block Treasury Department licenses
to permit the financing of the airplane deal.
The New Year and the arrival of an administration with fresh ideas would
provide a great opportunity for the United States to finally distance itself
from a toxic Israel, but, unfortunately, it seems that everything is actually
moving in the opposite direction. Don't be too surprised if we see a shooting
war with Iran before the year is out as well as a shiny new U.S. Embassy in
Jerusalem (to be built
on land stolen from Palestinians
, incidentally). Trump might think he is
ushering in a new era of American policy based on American interests but it is
beginning to look a lot like same-old same-old but even worse, and Benjamin
Netanyahu will be very much in the driver's seat.
Some day the figures of case infusion to buy Soviet elite will be known. the rumors are the over
billion of dollars was spend to bytthe KGB brass and some members of Politburo.
Not the the USSR economic model was viable. But "return to NEP" was possible without the dissolution
of the country. The tragic coincidence was the the collapse happened when neoliberal idea
became popular. This period was the period of Triumphal march of neoliberalism over the globe.
and that inflicted on the former USSR republic looting on the scale that happened only in middle ages.
Many Soviet people paid with life and thier helath for this mass scale social experiment inflicted on
them by Harvard academic crooks/henchmen, see
Harvard Mafia, Andrei Shleifer and the economic
rape of Russia for details.
It's been 25 years since the fall of the Soviet Union, and in that time the Chinese Communist
Party (CCP) has generated tens of thousands of internal papers, roundtables, and even
documentaries on the issue. Like most intellectual products in the mainland, 95 percent of these
have been worthless regurgitations of the political line of the day by
mediocre careerists
. But the official angle on the collapse, which once seemed to be pushing the country toward
reforms that were more sensitive to public needs and opening the economy, has shifted sharply in
the last few years. Today, the lessons Beijing is drawing seem likely to keep sending it backward.
It's no surprise that the party is obsessed with the collapse of its former rival and ideological
partner. The most bizarre thing about the
brief spate of articles in 2012 and 2013 describing the newly appointed CCP general secretary,
Xi Jinping, as a potential Mikhail Gorbachev for China was that some of the writers seemed to think
they were paying him a compliment. In China, though, Gorbachev is seen not as a far-sighted reformer
but as a disastrous failure, a man who led his country, and his party, to national calamity. That's
not an unfair view: China has no desire to lose a quarter of its territory, watch GDP drop by 40
percent, and see male life expectancy cut short by seven years, as Russia did in the 1990s.
Before the Soviet leader's failed gambit, though, many Chinese looked favorably on Gorbachev.
The Soviet Union and China had tentatively made up after their vicious - and
nearly world-ending - split in the 1960s, and both were looking to learn from the other's experiences.
Moscow was increasingly convinced that China's "reform and opening up" was a way forward for its
moribund economy, and Chinese intellectuals, inside and outside the party, were intrigued by the
possibilities offered by glasnost and perestroika - the pillars of Gorbachev's
heralded reform platform.
The Soviet collapse prompted hard self-reflection, albeit couched within the even harder limits
of Chinese political correctness.
The Soviet collapse prompted hard self-reflection, albeit couched within the even harder limits of
Chinese political correctness. (Even in relatively liberal moments - such as the fervent intellectual
debates of the late 1980s - raising fundamental questions about national identity, the leadership
of the party, and the correctness of socialism was a risky move for anyone inside the system.) What
were the causes? Was China inevitably heading down the same path if it didn't change its ways?
Virtually every aspect of the early People's Republic, from the organization of its railways to
its party structure to its ethnic minority policy, was copied from the Soviet Union. As Marxist theorists
saw it, like the Soviets, China had leapfrogged from peasant feudalism over industrial capitalism
straight into socialism. But in reality, both slapped a veneer of socialism over a fusion of new
nationalism and old-fashioned empire. And both followed mass famine with cultural revolution (originally
a Soviet
term ) and bloody party purges.
At first, part of the Chinese response was to use the Soviet example to spur further reform inside
the party itself. As political scientist David Shambaugh has
argued , critical analysis of Soviet failings pointed to a top-heavy, incompetent, and stagnant
Soviet Communist Party and prompted efforts in Beijing to transform the CCP into a more modern, flexible,
and resilient organization. That didn't mean sweeping democratic reform, but it meant a party more
sensitive to public opinion - and more interested in steering it, through both subtle and unsubtle
means, in the right direction.
There were also more immediate shifts. Fear of the popular changes unleashed across Eastern Europe
had already played a powerful role in prompting the brutal crackdown on protesters in Beijing and
elsewhere in 1989. In the aftermath of the Soviet collapse, deeply conscious of the role that rising
nationalism, from Ukraine to Azerbaijan, had played in bringing down the Soviet Union, policy around
China's autonomous regions and ethnic minorities tightened, and the language shifted. Minzu
, the Chinese term for non-ethnic-Han groups, shifted from being "nationalities" in official
translations to "ethnic minorities." Meanwhile, worries over Soviet economic stagnation boosted Chinese
leader Deng Xiaoping's final big push for economic reform during his 1992 "Southern Tour" of the
country's newly booming commercial cities.
Running parallel to this, however, was always a counternarrative that suggested the disaster hadn't
come from inside but outside. It was the reformers who had caused the fall of a superpower, this
argument went, by shaking faith in the system through acknowledging the Soviet Union's
past crimes , letting in dangerous foreign influences, and abandoning hard-line Marxism. This
idea has now received official stamp from the very top of Beijing's leadership, and one can see it
reverberating through the
new wave of paranoia about foreign influence, reassertion of party power, and hostility to civil
society.
As Xi himself put it in a
2013 speech : "Their ideals and beliefs had been shaken. In the end, 'the ruler's flag over the
city tower' changed overnight. It's a profound lesson for us! To dismiss the history of the Soviet
Union and the Soviet Communist Party, to dismiss Lenin and Stalin, and to dismiss everything else
is to engage in historic nihilism, and it confuses our thoughts and undermines the party's organizations
on all levels."
The new line is simple: blame the West and blame the Soviet leaders - like Gorbachev - who let
the West in. It's one reason why China has pushed through harsh new laws designed to force out foreign
nongovernmental organizations, why the national press is getting shriller and shriller in its hostility
to the United States, and why censorship is worsening. At the same time, there's no sign of the political
reforms that some Western observers once
confidently predicted .
What's behind this shift? Part of it seems to be Xi's personal conviction in the essential truth
of the party - and in his own right to rule as a
revolutionary scion . That would be enough to shift the entire course of discussion by itself,
in a country where following the leader's signals is second nature for anyone who wants to climb
the ladder. (It's a habit that carries over into other contexts: Before President-elect Donald Trump's
Taiwan call, visiting Chinese groups in Washington were ending speeches with, "Together, we can make
America and China great again.")
But Xi's own convictions have been empowered by the events of the last decade.
The deepest Chinese fear is of regime change similar to the kinds that swept across the former
Soviet space and let loose the Arab Spring.
The deepest Chinese fear is of regime change similar to the kinds that swept across the former
Soviet space and let loose the Arab Spring. "Color revolution" is a useful phrase, because it detaches
these events from true, rightful revolution - of the kind that made the People's Republic of China
and all its "revolutionary martyrs" - and puts it firmly in the realm of an organized, U.S.-led conspiracy
designed to destabilize potential opponents.
The belief that all of these revolutions were U.S.-orchestrated plots isn't just propaganda, but
sincerely held; I argued with a People's Daily editor after a visit to Iran just after the
Green Revolution in which he'd claimed that the Iranians loved their regime. "All the so-called protesters
were CIA spies!" he told me.
In Beijing, American promotion of democracy and human rights is seen as just a tool to ensure
U.S. dominance and one that therefore has to be constantly resisted. "
Peaceful
evolution ," the nationalist tabloid Global Times proclaimed, was just another name
for color revolution. Even seemingly harmless cultural products have been caught up in this.
Zootopia , a recent Disney animated children's film, explained a People's Liberation Army newspaper,
was an
American plot to weaken China's morale.
The hostility toward the color revolutions and the chaos they've unleashed has thus been projected
backward. The Soviet fall, once seen at least in part as a result of the Communist Party's own failings,
has become reinterpreted as a deliberate U.S. plot and a moral failure to hold the line against Western
influence. That has ended what was once a powerful spur to reform - meaning that, barring a major
change in leadership, the likely course of Chinese politics over the next few years will be further
xenophobia, even more power to the party, and an unwillingness to talk about the harder lessons of
history.
Developing nations continued to be the largest buyers of arms in 2015, with Qatar
signing deals for more than $17 billion in weapons last year, followed by Egypt,
which agreed to buy almost $12 billion in arms, and Saudi Arabia, with over $8
billion in weapons purchases.
Although global tensions and terrorist threats have shown few signs of diminishing,
the total size of the global arms trade dropped to around $80 billion in 2015 from
the 2014 total of $89 billion, the study found. Developing nations bought $65 billion
in weapons in 2015, substantially lower than the previous year's total of $79
billion.
The United States and France increased their overseas weapons sales in 2015, as
purchases of American weapons grew by around $4 billion and France's deals increased
by well over $9 billion.
The report, "
Conventional Arms
Transfers to Developing Nations, 2008-2015
," was prepared by the nonpartisan
Congressional Research Service, a division of the Library of Congress, and delivered
to legislators last week. The annual review is considered the most comprehensive
assessment of global arms sales available in an unclassified form. The report adjusts
for inflation, so the sales totals are comparable year to year.
Economist was always adamantly anti-Russian and, especially, anti-Putin. The use of people like
Sergey Guriev (recent emigrant to Paris, who excape to avoid the danger of criminal procecution for skolkovao machinations) is just an icing on the cake.
Notable quotes:
"... During the 2015-16 recession, GDP. fell by more than 4 percent and real incomes declined by 10 percent. That is significant, but much less serious than, say, the 40 percent drop in GDP that Russia experienced during the first half of the 1990s. Despite a dramatic decline in oil prices and the burden of sanctions imposed by Western governments after the Crimea crisis, the Putin administration has managed to avert economic disaster by pursuing competent macroeconomic policies. ..."
"... As the sanctions cut off Russia's access to global financial markets, the government set out to cover the budget deficit by undertaking major austerity measures and tapping its substantial sovereign funds. In early 2014, the Reserve Fund (created to mitigate fiscal shocks caused by drops in oil prices) and the National Welfare Fund (set up to address shortfalls in the pension system) together held the equivalent of 8 percent of GDP. ..."
LONDON - The Russian economy is in trouble - "in tatters," President Obama has said - so why
aren't Russians more upset with their leaders? The country underwent a major recession recently.
The ruble lost half of its value. And yet, according to a leading independent pollster in Russia,
President Vladimir V. Putin's approval ratings have consistently exceeded 80 percent during the
past couple of years.
One reason is that while the Russian economy is struggling, it is not falling apart, and many
Russians remember times when it was in a much worse state. Another, perhaps more important, explanation
is that Mr. Putin has convinced them that it's not the economy, stupid, anymore.
Thanks largely to the government's extensive control over information, Mr. Putin has rewritten
the social contract in Russia. Long based on economic performance, it is now about geopolitical
status. If economic pain is the price Russians have to pay so that Russia can stand up to the
West, so be it.
It wasn't like this in the 1990s and 2000s. Back then the approval ratings of Russian leaders
were closely correlated with economic performance, as the political scientist Daniel Treisman
has demonstrated. When the economy began to recover from the 1998 financial crisis, Mr. Putin's
popularity increased. It dipped when growth stalled. It climbed again in 2005, after the global
price of oil - Russia' main export commodity - rose, foreign investment flowed in and domestic
consumption boomed. And it fell substantially after growth rates slowed in 2012-13.
Russia's intervention in Crimea in early 2014 changed everything. Within two months, Mr. Putin's
popularity jumped back to more than 80 percent, where it has stayed until now, despite the recession.
One might argue that these figures are misleading: Given the pressures faced by the Kremlin's
political opponents, aren't respondents in polls too afraid to answer questions honestly? Hardly,
according to a recent study co-written by the political scientist Tim Frye, based on an innovative
method known as "list experiments." It found that, even after adjusting for respondents' reluctance
to openly acknowledge any misgivings about specific leaders, Mr. Putin's popularity really is
very high: around 70 percent.
During the 2015-16 recession, GDP. fell by more than 4 percent and real incomes declined
by 10 percent. That is significant, but much less serious than, say, the 40 percent drop in GDP
that Russia experienced during the first half of the 1990s. Despite a dramatic decline in oil
prices and the burden of sanctions imposed by Western governments after the Crimea crisis, the
Putin administration has managed to avert economic disaster by pursuing competent macroeconomic
policies.
As the sanctions cut off Russia's access to global financial markets, the government set
out to cover the budget deficit by undertaking major austerity measures and tapping its substantial
sovereign funds. In early 2014, the Reserve Fund (created to mitigate fiscal shocks caused by
drops in oil prices) and the National Welfare Fund (set up to address shortfalls in the pension
system) together held the equivalent of 8 percent of GDP.
The government also adopted sound monetary policy, including the decision to fully float the
ruble in 2014. Because of the decline in oil prices and large net capital outflows - caused by
the need to repay external corporate debt and limited foreign investment in Russia - the currency
depreciated by 50 percent within a year. Although a weaker ruble hurt the living standards of
ordinary Russians, it boosted the competitiveness of Russia's companies. The Russian economy is
now beginning to grow again, if very modestly - at a projected 1 to 1.5 percent per year over
the next few years.
This performance comes nowhere near meeting Mr. Putin's election-campaign promises of 2012,
when he projected GDP. growth at 6 percent per year for 2011-18. But it isn't catastrophic either,
and the government has managed to explain it away.
Thanks partly to its near-complete control of the press, television and the internet, the government
has developed a grand narrative about Russia's role in the world - essentially promoting the view
that Russians may need to tighten their belts for the good of the nation. The story has several
subplots. Russian speakers in Ukraine need to be defended against neo-Nazis. Russia supports President
Bashar al-Assad of Syria because he is a rampart against the Islamic State, and it has helped
liberate Aleppo from terrorists. Why would the Kremlin hack the Democratic Party in the United
States? And who believes what the CIA says anyway?
The Russian people seem to accept much of this or not to care one way or the other. This should
come as no surprise. In a recent paper based on data for 128 countries over 10 years, Professor
Treisman and I developed an econometric model to assess which factors affect a government's approval
ratings and by how much. We concluded that fully removing internet controls in a country like
Russia today would cause the government's popularity ratings to drop by about 35 percentage points.
...
Fred C. Dobbs -> Peter K....
December 26, 2016 at 07:15 AM neopopulism: A cultural and political movement, mainly in Latin
American countries, distinct from twentieth-century populism in radically combining classically opposed
left-wing and right-wing attitudes and using electronic media as a means of dissemination. (Wiktionary)
(Does this have something to do
with Jon Stewart's retirement &
Stephen Colbert 'going legit'?)
Wielding Claims of 'Fake News,' Conservatives
Take Aim at Mainstream Media http://nyti.ms/2iuFxRx
NYT - JEREMY W. PETERS - December 25, 2016
WASHINGTON - The CIA, the F.B.I. and the White House may all agree that Russia was behind
the hacking that interfered with the election. But that was of no import to the website Breitbart
News, which dismissed reports on the intelligence assessment as "left-wing fake news."
Rush Limbaugh has diagnosed a more fundamental problem. "The fake news is the everyday news"
in the mainstream media, he said on his radio show recently. "They just make it up."
Some supporters of President-elect Donald J. Trump have also taken up the call. As reporters
were walking out of a Trump rally this month in Orlando, Fla., a man heckled them with shouts
of "Fake news!"
Until now, that term had been widely understood to refer to fabricated news accounts that are
meant to spread virally online. But conservative cable and radio personalities, top Republicans
and even Mr. Trump himself, incredulous about suggestions that fake stories may have helped swing
the election, have appropriated the term and turned it against any news they see as hostile to
their agenda.
In defining "fake news" so broadly and seeking to dilute its meaning, they are capitalizing
on the declining credibility of all purveyors of information, one product of the country's increasing
political polarization. And conservatives, seeing an opening to undermine the mainstream media,
a longtime foe, are more than happy to dig the hole deeper.
"Over the years, we've effectively brainwashed the core of our audience to distrust anything
that they disagree with. And now it's gone too far," said John Ziegler, a conservative radio host,
who has been critical of what he sees as excessive partisanship by pundits. "Because the gatekeepers
have lost all credibility in the minds of consumers, I don't see how you reverse it."
Journalists who work to separate fact from fiction see a dangerous conflation of stories that
turn out to be wrong because of a legitimate misunderstanding with those whose clear intention
is to deceive. A report, shared more than a million times on social media, that the pope had endorsed
Mr. Trump was undeniably false. But was it "fake news" to report on data models that showed Hillary
Clinton with overwhelming odds of winning the presidency? Are opinion articles fake if they cherry-pick
facts to draw disputable conclusions?
"Fake news was a term specifically about people who purposely fabricated stories for clicks
and revenue," said David Mikkelson, the founder of Snopes, the myth-busting website. "Now it includes
bad reporting, slanted journalism and outright propaganda. And I think we're doing a disservice
to lump all those things together."
The right's labeling of "fake news" evokes one of the most successful efforts by conservatives
to reorient how Americans think about news media objectivity: the move by Fox News to brand its
conservative-slanted coverage as "fair and balanced." Traditionally, mainstream media outlets
had thought of their own approach in those terms, viewing their coverage as strictly down the
middle. Republicans often found that laughable.
As with Fox's ubiquitous promotion of its slogan, conservatives' appropriation of the "fake
news" label is an effort to further erode the mainstream media's claim to be a reliable and accurate
source. ...
Martin Sklar's disaccumultion thesis * is a restatement and reinterpretation of passages in Marx's
Grundrisse that have come to be known as the "fragment on machines." Compare, for example, the following
two key excerpts.
Marx:
...to the degree that large industry develops, the creation of real wealth comes to depend
less on labour time and on the amount of labour employed than on the power of the agencies set
in motion during labour time, whose 'powerful effectiveness' is itself in turn out of all proportion
to the direct labour time spent on their production, but depends rather on the general state of
science and on the progress of technology, or the application of this science to production. ...
Labour no longer appears so much to be included within the production process; rather, the
human being comes to relate more as watchman and regulator to the production process itself. (What
holds for machinery holds likewise for the combination of human activities and the development
of human intercourse.)
Sklar:
In consequence [of the passage from the accumulation phase of capitalism to the "disaccumlation"
phase], and increasingly, human labor (i.e. the exercise of living labor-power) recedes from the
condition of serving as a 'factor' of goods production, and by the same token, the mode of goods-production
progressively undergoes reversion to a condition comparable to a gratuitous 'force of nature':
energy, harnessed and directed through technically sophisticated machinery, produces goods, as
trees produce fruit, without the involvement of, or need for, human labor-time in the immediate
production process itself. Living labor-power in goods-production devolves upon the quantitatively
declining role of watching, regulating, and superintending.
The main difference between the two arguments is that for Marx, the growing contradiction between
the forces of production and the social relations produce "the material conditions to blow this
foundation sky-high." For Sklar, with the benefit of another century of observation, disaccumulation
appears as simply another phase in the evolution of capitalism -- albeit with revolutionary potential.
But also with reactionary potential in that the reduced dependence on labor power also suggests
a reduced vulnerability to the withholding of labor power.
Carnival Corp. told about 200 IT employees that the company was transferring their work to Capgemini,
a large IT outsourcing firm
Notable quotes:
"... Senior IT engineer Matthew Culver told CBS that the requested "knowledge transfer activities" just meant training their own replacements , and "he isn't buying any of it," writes Slashdot reader dcblogs . ..."
"... Foreign workers are willing to do a job at a lower salary in most if not all cases b/c the cost of living in their respective countries is a fraction of ours. ..."
Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday December 25, 2016 @05:05PM from the Bob-Cratchit-vs-Scrooge dept.
ComputerWorld reports:
In early December, Carnival Corp.
told about 200 IT employees that the company was transferring their work to Capgemini, a large
IT outsourcing firm. The employees had a choice: Either agree to take a job with the contractor or
leave without severance. The employees had until the week before Christmas to make a decision about
their future with the cruise line.
By agreeing to a job with Paris-based Capgemini, employees are guaranteed employment for six
months, said Roger Frizzell, a Carnival spokesman.
"Our expectation is that many will continue to work on our account or placed into other open
positions within Capgemini" that go well beyond the six-month period, he said in an email.
Senior IT engineer Matthew Culver told CBS that the requested "knowledge transfer activities"
just meant training their own replacements , and "he isn't buying any of it," writes Slashdot
reader dcblogs . "After receiving
his offer letter from Capgemini, he sent a counteroffer.
It asked for $500,000...and apology letters to all the affected families," signed by the company's
CEO. In addition, the letter also demanded a $100,000 donation to any charity that provides services
to unemployed American workers. "I appreciate your time and attention to this matter, and I sincerely
hope that you can fulfill these terms."
Foreign workers are willing to do a job at a lower salary in most if not all cases b/c
the cost of living in their respective countries is a fraction of ours.
I would be willing to do my job at a fraction of what I am paid currently should that (that
being how expensive it is to live here) change. It is equally infuriating to me when American
companies use loopholes in our ridiculously complicated tax code to shelter revenues in foreign
tax shelters to avoid paying taxes while at the same time benefiting from our infrastructure,
emergency services, military, etc..
Its assholes like you that always spout off about free market this or that, about some companies
fiduciary responsibilities to it's shareholders blah blah blah... as justification for shitty
behavior.
It is equally infuriating to me when American companies use loopholes in our ridiculously
complicated tax code to shelter revenues in foreign tax shelters to avoid paying taxes
So who are you infuriated at? The companies that take advantage of those loopholes, or the
politicians that put them there? Fury doesn't help unless it is properly directed. Does your fury
influence who you vote for?
... while at the same time benefiting from our infrastructure, emergency services, military,
etc.
No. Taxes are only sheltered on income generated overseas, using overseas infrastructure, emergency
services, etc. I am baffled why Americans believe they have a "right" to tax the sale of a product
made in China and sold in France.
I suppose it's related to the idea that intellectual property "rights" granted by a country
of origin should still have the same benefits and drawbacks when transferred to another country.
Or at the very least should be treated as an export at such time a base of operations moves out
of country.
Except that calling, say iOS sales 'generated overseas' when the software was written in the
US, using US infrastructure, etc . And the company is making the bogus claim that their
Irish subsidiary owns the rights to that software. It's a scam - not a loophole.
They are the same thing. The only way to ensure that there are no tax dodges out there is to
simplify the tax code, and eliminate the words: "except", "but", "excluding", "omitting", "minus",
"exempt", "without", and any other words to those same effects.
Americans are too stupid to ever vote for a poltiician that states they will raise taxes. This
means that either politicians lie, or they actively undermine the tax base. Both of those situations
are bad for the majority of americans, but they vote for the same scumbags over and over, and
will soundly reject any politician who openly advocates tax increases. The result is a race to
the bottom. Welcome to reaping what you sow, brought to you by Democracy(tm).
Except that calling, say iOS sales 'generated overseas' when the software was written
in the US, using US infrastructure, etc .
That makes no sense. Plenty of non-American companies develop software in America. Yet only
if they are incorporated in America do they pay income tax on their overseas earnings, and it
is irrelevant where their engineering and development was done.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with "using infrastructure". It is just an extraterritorial
money grab that is almost certainly counterproductive since it incentivizes American companies
to invest and create jobs overseas.
Yes, taxes are based on profits. So Google, for instance, makes a bunch of money in the US.
Their Irish branch then charges about that much for "consulting" leaving the American part with
little to no profits to tax.
"I am baffled why Americans believe they have a "right" to tax the sale of a product made in
China and sold in France."
Because the manufacturing and sales are controlled by a US based company, as is the profit
benefit which results. If a US entity, which receives the benefits of US law, makes a profit by
any means, why should it not be taxed by the US?
"... Rich individuals (who are willing to be interviewed) also express concern about inequality but generally oppose using higher taxes on the rich to fight it. Scheiber is very willing to bluntly state his guess (and everyone's) that candidates are eager to please the rich, because they spend much of their time begging the rich for contributions. ..."
"... Of course another way to reduce inequality is to raise wages. Buried way down around paragraph 9 I found this gem: "Forty percent of the wealthy, versus 78 percent of the public, said the government should make the minimum wage "high enough so that no family with a full-time worker falls below the official poverty line." ..."
"... The current foundational rules embedded in tax law, intellectual property law, corporate construction law, and other elements of our legal and regulatory system result in distributions that favor those with capital or in a position to seek rents. This isn't a situation that calls for a Robin Hood who takes from the rich and gives to the poor. It is more a question of how elites have rigged the system to work primarily for them. ..."
"... the problem is incomes and demand, and the first and best answer for creating demand for workers and higher wages to compete for those workers is full employment. ..."
"... if you are proposing raising taxes on the rich SO THAT you can cut taxes on the non rich you are simply proposing theft. ..."
"... what we are looking at here is simple old fashioned greed just as stupid and ugly among the "non rich" as it is among the rich. ..."
"... you play into the hands of the Petersons who want to "cut taxes" and leave the poor elderly to die on the streets, and the poor non-elderly to spend their lives in anxiety and fear-driven greed trying to provide against desperate poverty in old age absent any reliable security for their savings.) ..."
"... made by the ayn rand faithful. it is wearisome. ..."
"... The only cure for organized greed is organized labor. ..."
"... A typical voice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues" ..."
The content should be familiar to AngryBear
readers. A majority of Americans are alarmed by high and increasing inequality and support government
action to reduce inequality. However, none of the important 2016 candidates has expressed any willingness
to raise taxes on the rich. The Republicans want to cut them and Clinton (and a spokesperson) dodge
the question.
Rich individuals (who are willing to be interviewed) also express concern about inequality but
generally oppose using higher taxes on the rich to fight it. Scheiber is very willing to bluntly
state his guess (and everyone's) that candidates are eager to please the rich, because they spend
much of their time begging the rich for contributions.
No suprise to anyone who has been paying attention except for the fact that it is on the front
page of www.nytimes.com and the article is printed in the business section not the opinion section.
Do click the link - it is brief, to the point, solid, alarming and a must read.
I clicked one of the links and found weaker evidence than I expected for Scheiber's view (which
of course I share
"By contrast, more than half of Americans and three-quarters of Democrats believe the "government
should redistribute wealth by heavy taxes on the rich," according to a
Gallup poll of about 1,000 adults in April 2013."
It is a small majority 52% favor and 47% oppose. This 52 % is noticeably smaller than the solid
majorities who have been telling Gallup that high income individuals pay less than their fair share
of taxes (click and search
for Gallup on the page).
I guess this isn't really surprising - the word "heavy" is heavy maaaan and "redistribute" evokes
the dreaded welfare (and conservatives have devoted gigantic effort to giving it pejorative connotations).
The 52% majority is remarkable given the phrasing of the question. But it isn't enough to win elections,
since it is 52% of adults which corresponds to well under 52% of actual voters.
My reading is that it is important for egalitarians to stress the tax cuts for the non rich and
that higher taxes on the rich are, unfortunately, necessary if we are to have lower taxes on the
non rich without huge budget deficits. This is exactly Obama's approach.
Comments (87)
Jerry Critter
March 29, 2015 10:40 pm
Get rid of tax breaks that only the wealthy can take advantage of and perhaps everyone will
pay their fair share. The same goes for corporations.
amateur socialist
March 30, 2015 11:42 am
Of course another way to reduce inequality is to raise wages. Buried way down around paragraph
9 I found this gem: "Forty percent of the wealthy, versus 78 percent of the public, said the government
should make the minimum wage "high enough so that no family with a full-time worker falls below
the official poverty line."
I'm fine with raising people's taxes by increasing their wages. A story I heard on NPR recently
indicated that a single person needs to make about $17-19 an hour to cover most basic necessities
nowadays (the story went on to say that most people in that situation are working 2 or more jobs
to get enough income, a "solution" that creates more problems with health/stress etc.). A full
time worker supporting kids needs more than $20.
You double the minimum wage and strengthen people's rights to organize union representation.
Tax revenues go up (including SS contributions btw) and we add significant growth to the economy
with the increased purchasing power of workers. People can go back to working 40-50 hours a week
and cut back on moonlighting which creates new job opportunities for the younger folks decimated
by this so called recovery.
Win Win Win Win. And the poor overburdened millionaires don't have to have their poor tax fee
fees hurt.
Mark Jamison, March 30, 2015 8:09 pm
How about if we get rid of the "re" and call it what it is "distribution". The current
foundational rules embedded in tax law, intellectual property law, corporate construction law,
and other elements of our legal and regulatory system result in distributions that favor those
with capital or in a position to seek rents.
This isn't a situation that calls for a Robin Hood who takes from the rich and gives to the
poor. It is more a question of how elites have rigged the system to work primarily for them.
Democrats cede the rhetoric to the Right when they allow the discussion to be about redistribution.
Even talk of inequality without reference to the basic legal constructs that are rigged to create
slanted outcomes tend to accepted premises that are in and of themselves false.
The issue shouldn't be rejiggering things after the the initial distribution but creating a
system with basic rules that level the opportunity playing field.
coberly, March 30, 2015 11:03 pm
Thank You Mark Jamison!
An elegant, informed writer who says it better than I can.
But here is how I would say it:
Addressing "inequality" by "tax the rich" is the wrong answer and a political loser.
Address inequality by re-criminalizing the criminal practices of the criminal rich. Address
inequality by creating well paying jobs with government jobs if necessary (and there is necessary
work to be done by the government), with government protection for unions, with government policies
that make it less profitable to off shore
etc. the direction to take is to make the economy more fair . actually more "free" though you'll
never get the free enterprise fundamentalists to admit that's what it is. You WILL get the honest
rich on your side. They don't like being robbed any more than you do.
But you will not, in America, get even poor people to vote to "take from the rich to give to
the poor." It has something to do with the "story" Americans have been telling themselves since
1776. A story heard round the world.
That said, there is nothing wrong with raising taxes on the rich to pay for the government
THEY need as well as you. But don't raise taxes to give the money to the poor. They won't do it,
and even the poor don't want it except as a last resort, which we hope we are not at yet.
urban legend, March 31, 2015 2:07 am
Coberly, you are dead-on. Right now, taxation is the least issue. Listen to Jared Bernstein
and Dean Baker: the problem is incomes and demand, and the first and best answer for creating
demand for workers and higher wages to compete for those workers is full employment. Minimum
wage will help at the margins to push incomes up, and it's the easiest initial legislative sell,
but the public will support policies - mainly big-big infrastructure modernization in a country
that has neglected its infrastructure for a generation - that signal a firm commitment to full
employment.
It's laying right there for the Democrats to pick it up. Will they? Having policies that are
traditional Democratic policies will not do the job. For believability - for convincing voters
they actually have a handle on what has been wrong and how to fix it - they need to have a story
for why we have seem unable to generate enough jobs for over a decade. The neglect of infrastructure
- the unfilled millions of jobs that should have gone to keeping it up to date and up to major-country
standards - should be a big part of that story. Trade and manufacturing, to be sure, is the other
big element that will connect with voters. Many Democrats (including you know who) are severely
compromised on trade, but they need to find a way to come own on the right side with the voters.
coberly, March 31, 2015 10:52 am
Robert
i wish you'd give some thought to the other comments on this post.
if you are proposing raising taxes on the rich SO THAT you can cut taxes on the non
rich you are simply proposing theft. if you were proposing raising taxes on the rich to provide
reasonable welfare to those who need it you would be asking the rich to contribute to the strength
of their own country and ultimately their own wealth.
i hope you can see the difference.
it is especially irritating to me because many of the "non rich" who want their taxes cut make
more than twice as much as i do. what we are looking at here is simple old fashioned greed
just as stupid and ugly among the "non rich" as it is among the rich.
"the poor" in this country do not pay a significant amount of taxes (Social Security and Medicare
are not "taxes," merely an efficient way for us to pay for our own direct needs . as long as you
call them taxes you play into the hands of the Petersons who want to "cut taxes" and leave
the poor elderly to die on the streets, and the poor non-elderly to spend their lives in anxiety
and fear-driven greed trying to provide against desperate poverty in old age absent any reliable
security for their savings.)
Kai-HK, April 4, 2015 12:23 am
coberly,
Thanks for your well-reasoned response.
You state, 'i personally am not much interested in the "poor capitalist will flee the country
if you tax him too much." in fact i'd say good riddance, and by the way watch out for that tarriff
when you try to sell your stuff here.'
(a) What happens after thy leave? Sure you can get one-time 'exit tax' but you lose all the
intellectual capital (think of Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, or Steve Jobs leaving and taking their
intellectual property and human capital with them). These guys are great jobs creators it will
not only be the 'bad capitalists' that leave but also many of the 'job creating' good ones.
(b) I am less worried about existing job creating capitalists in America; what about the future
ones? The ones that either flee overseas and make their wealth there or are already overseas and
then have a plethora of places they can invest but why bother investing in the US if all they
are going to do is call me a predator and then seize my assets and or penalise me for investing
there? Right? It is the future investment that gets impacted not current wealth per se.
You also make a great point, 'the poor are in the worst position with respect to shifting their
tax burden on to others. the rich do it as a matter of course. it would be simpler just to tax
the rich there are fewer of them, and they know what is at stake, and they can afford accountants.
the rest of us would pay our "taxes" in the form of higher prices for what we buy.'
Investment capital will go where it is best treated and to attract investment capital a market
must provide a competitive return (profit margin or return on investment). Those companies and
investment that stay will do so because they are able to maintain that margin .and they will do
so by either reducing wages or increasing prices. Where they can do neither, their will exit the
market.
That is why, according to research, a bulk of the corporate taxation falls on workers and consumers
as a pass-on effect. The optimum corporate tax is 0. This will be the case as taxation increases
on the owners of businesses and capital .workers, the middle class, and the poor pay it. The margins
stay competitive for the owners of capital since capital is highly mobile and fungible.Workers
and the poor less so.
But thanks again for the tone and content of your response. I often get attacked personally
for my views instead of people focusing on the issue. I appreciate the respite.
K
coberly, April 4, 2015 12:34 pm
kai
yes, but you missed the point.
i am sick of the whining about taxes. it takes so much money to run the country (including
the kind of pernicious poverty that will turn the US into sub-saharan africa. and then who will
buy their products.
i can't do much about the poor whining about taxes. they are just people with limited understanding,
except for their own pressing needs. the rich know what the taxes are needed for, they are just
stupid about paying them. of course they would pass the taxes through to their customers. the
customers would still buy what they need/want at the new price. leaving everyone pretty much where
they are today financially. but the rich would be forced to be grownup about "paying" the taxes,
and maybe the politics of "don't tax me tax the other guy" would go away.
as for the sainted bill gates. there are plenty of other people in this country as smart as
he is and would be happy to sell us computer operating systems and pay the taxes on their billion
dollars a year profits.
nothing breaks my heart more than a whining millionaire.
Kai-HK
April 4, 2015 11:32 pm
Sure I got YOUR point, it just didn't address MY points as put forth in MY original post. And
it still doesn't.
More importantly, you have failed to defend YOUR point against even a rudimentary challenge.
K
coberly, April 5, 2015 12:45 pm
kai,
rudimentary is right.
i have read your "points" about sixteen hundred times in the last year alone. made by the
ayn rand faithful. it is wearisome.
and i have learned there is no point in trying to talk to true believers.
William Ryan, May 13, 2015 4:43 pm
Thanks again Coberly for your and K's very thoughtful insight. You guys really made me think
hard today and I do see your points about perverted capitalism being a big problem in US. I still
do like the progressive tax structure and balanced trade agenda better.
I realize as you say that we cannot compare US to Hong Kong just on size and scale alone. Without
all the obfuscation going Lean by building cultures that makes people want to take ownership and
sharing learning and growing together is a big part of the solution Ford once said "you cannot
learn in school what the world is going to do next".
Also never argue with an idiot. They will bring you down to their level then beat you with
experience. The only cure for organized greed is organized labor. It's because no matter
what they do nothing get done about it. With all this manure around there must be a pony somewhere!
"
A typical voice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real
issues". FDR.
Rich people pay rich people to tell middle class people to blame poor people
Earth doesn't matter, people don't matter, even economy doesn't matter . The only thing
that matters is R.W. nut bar total ownership of everything.
I'm sorry I put profits ahead of people, greed above need and the rule of gold above God's
golden rules.
I try to stay away from negative people who have a problem for every solution
We need capitalism that is based on justice and greater corporate responsibility. I do
not speak nor do I comprehend assholian.
"If you don't change direction , you may end up where you are headed". Lao-Tzu.
"The true strength of our nation comes not from our arm or wealth but from our ideas".
Obama..
Last one.
"If the soul is left to darkness, sins will be committed. The guilty one is not the one
who commits the sins, but the one who caused the darkness". Victor Hugo.
coberly , May 16, 2015 9:57 pm
kai
as a matter of fact i disagree with the current "equality" fad at least insofar as it implies
taking from the rich and giving to the poor directly.
i don't believe people are "equal" in terms of their economic potential. i do beleive they
are equal in terms of being due the respect of human beings.
i also believe your simple view of "equality" is a closet way of guarantee that the rich can
prey upon the poor without interruption.
humans made their first big step in evolution when they learned to cooperate with each other
against the big predators.
Jerry Critter, May 17, 2015 12:10 am
it is mildly progressive up to about $75,000 per year where the rate hits 30%. But from there
up to $1.542 million the rate only increases to 33.3%.
I call that very flat!
Jerry Critter, May 17, 2015 11:20 am
"i assume there are people in this country who are truly poor. as far as i know they
don't pay taxes."
Read my reference and you will see that the "poor" indeed pay taxes, just not much income tax
because they don't have much income. You are fixated on income when we should be considering all
forms of taxation.
Jerry Critter, May 17, 2015 9:25 pm
Oh Kai, cut the crap. Paying taxes Is nothing like slavery. My oh my, how did we ever survive
with a top tax rate of around 90%, nearly 3 times the current rate? Some people would even say
that the economy then was pretty great and the middle class was doing terrific. So stop the deflection
and redirection. I think you just like to see how many words you can write. Sorry, but history
is not on your side.
Distributional National Accounts: Methods and Estimates for the United States
By Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman
Abstract
This paper combines tax, survey, and national accounts data to estimate the distribution of national
income in the United States since 1913. Our distributional national accounts capture 100% of national
income, allowing us to compute growth rates for each quantile of the income distribution consistent
with macroeconomic growth. We estimate the distribution of both pre-tax and post-tax income, making
it possible to provide a comprehensive view of how government redistribution affects inequality.
Average pre-tax national income per adult has increased 60% since 1980, but we find that it
has stagnated for the bottom 50% of the distribution at about $16,000 a year.
The pre-tax income of the middle class-adults between the median and the 90th percentile-has
grown 40% since 1980, faster than what tax and survey data suggest, due in particular to the rise
of tax-exempt fringe benefits.
Income has boomed at the top: in 1980, top 1% adults earned on average 27 times more than
bottom 50% adults, while they earn 81 times more today.
The upsurge of top incomes was first a labor income phenomenon but has mostly been a capital
income phenomenon since 2000.
The government has offset only a small fraction of the increase in inequality. The reduction of
the gender gap in earnings has mitigated the increase in inequality among adults. The share of women,
however, falls steeply as one moves up the labor income distribution, and is only 11% in the top
0.1% today.
Distributional National Accounts: Methods and Estimates for the United States
By Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman
Introduction Income inequality has increased in many developed countries over the last
several decades. This trend has attracted considerable interest among academics, policy-makers,
and the general public. In recent years, following up on Kuznets' (1953) pioneering attempt,
a number of authors have used administrative tax records to construct long-run series of
top income shares (Alvaredo et al., 2011-2016). Yet despite this endeavor, we still face
three important limitations when measuring income inequality. First and most important,
there is a large gap between national accounts-which focus on macro totals and growth-and
inequality studies-which focus on distributions using survey and tax data, usually without
trying to be fully consistent with macro totals. This gap makes it hard to address questions
such as: What fraction of economic growth accrues to the bottom 50%, the middle 40%, and
the top 10% of the distribution? How much of the rise in income inequality owes to changes
in the share of labor and capital in national income, and how much to changes in the dispersion
of labor earnings, capital ownership, and returns to capital? Second, about a third of U.S.
national income is redistributed through taxes, transfers, and public good spending. Yet
we do not have a good measure of how the distribution of pre-tax income differs from the
distribution of post-tax income, making it hard to assess how government redistribution
affects inequality. Third, existing income inequality statistics use the tax unit or the
household as unit of observation, adding up the income of men and women. As a result, we
do not have a clear view of how long-run trends in income concentration are shaped by the
major changes in women labor force participation-and gender inequality generally-that have
occurred over the last century.
This paper attempts to compute inequality statistics for the United States that overcome
the limits of existing series by creating distributional national accounts. We combine tax,
survey, and national accounts data to build new series on the distribution of national income
since 1913. In contrast to previous attempts that capture less than 60% of US national income-
such as Census bureau estimates (US Census Bureau 2016) and top income shares (Piketty and
Saez, 2003)-our estimates capture 100% of the national income recorded in the national accounts.
This enables us to provide decompositions of growth by income groups consistent with macroeconomic
growth. We compute the distribution of both pre-tax and post-tax income. Post-tax series
deduct all taxes and add back all transfers and public spending, so that both pre-tax and
post-tax incomes add up to national income. This allows us to provide the first comprehensive
view of how government redistribution affects inequality. Our benchmark series uses the
adult individual as the unit of observation and splits income equally among spouses. We
also report series in which each spouse is assigned her or his own labor income, enabling
us to study how long-run changes in gender inequality shape the distribution of income.
Distributional national accounts provide information on the dynamic of income across
the entire spectrum-from the bottom decile to the top 0.001%-that, we believe, is more accurate
than existing inequality data. Our estimates capture employee fringe benefits, a growing
source of income for the middle-class that is overlooked by both Census bureau estimates
and tax data. They capture all capital income, which is large-about 30% of total national
income- and concentrated, yet is very imperfectly covered by surveys-due to small sample
and top coding issues-and by tax data-as a large fraction of capital income goes to pension
funds and is retained in corporations. They make it possible to produce long-run inequality
statistics that control for socio-demographic changes-such as the rise in the fraction of
retired individuals and the decline in household size-contrary to the currently available
tax-based series.
Methodologically, our contribution is to construct micro-files of pre-tax and post-tax
income consistent with macro aggregates. These micro-files contain all the variables of
the national accounts and synthetic individual observations that we obtain by statistically
matching tax and survey data and making explicit assumptions about the distribution of income
categories for which there is no directly available source of information. By construction,
the totals in these micro-files add up to the national accounts totals, while the distributions
are consistent with those seen in tax and survey data. These files can be used to compute
a wide array of distributional statistics-labor and capital income earned, taxes paid, transfers
received, wealth owned, etc.-by age groups, gender, and marital status. Our objective, in
the years ahead, is to construct similar micro-files in as many countries as possible in
order to better compare inequality across countries. Just like we use GDP or national income
to compare the macroeconomic performances of countries today, so could distributional national
accounts be used to compare inequality across countries tomorrow.
We stress at the outset that there are numerous data issues involved in distributing
national income, discussed in the text and the online appendix. First, we take the national
accounts as a given starting point, although we are well aware that the national accounts
themselves are imperfect (e.g., Zucman 2013). They are, however, the most reasonable starting
point, because they aggregate all the available information from surveys, tax data, corporate
income statements, and balance sheets, etc., in an standardized, internationally-agreed-upon
and regularly improved upon accounting framework. Second, imputing all national income,
taxes, transfers, and public goods spending requires making assumptions on a number of complex
issues, such as the economic incidence of taxes and who benefits from government spending.
Our goal is not to provide definitive answers to these questions, but rather to be comprehensive,
consistent, and explicit about what assumptions we are making and why. We view our paper
as attempting to construct prototype distributional national accounts, a prototype that
could be improved upon as more data become available, new knowledge emerges on who pays
taxes and benefits from government spending, and refined estimation techniques are developed-just
as today's national accounts are regularly improved....
I wonder what facts you have to label Trump's team "globalist shills".
Robert W. Merry in his National Interest article disagrees with you
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/trump-vs-hillary-nationalism-vs-globalism-2016-16041
=== start of the quote ===
Globalists captured much of American society long ago by capturing the bulk of the nation's elite
institutions -- the media, academia, big corporations, big finance, Hollywood, think tanks, NGOs,
charitable foundations. So powerful are these institutions -- in themselves and, even more so,
collectively -- that the elites running them thought that their political victories were complete
and final. That's why we have witnessed in recent years a quantum expansion of social and political
arrogance on the part of these high-flyers.
Then along comes Donald Trump and upends the whole thing. Just about every major issue that this
super-rich political neophyte has thrown at the elites turns out to be anti-globalist and pro-nationalist.
And that is the single most significant factor in his unprecedented and totally unanticipated
rise. Consider some examples:
Immigration: Nationalists believe that any true nation must have clearly delineated and protected
borders, otherwise it isn't really a nation. They also believe that their nation's cultural heritage
is sacred and needs to be protected, whereas mass immigration from far-flung lands could undermine
the national commitment to that heritage.
Globalists don't care about borders. They believe the nation-state is obsolete, a relic of
the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, which codified the recognition of co-existing nation states.
Globalists reject Westphalia in favor of an integrated world with information, money, goods
and people traversing the globe at accelerating speeds without much regard to traditional concepts
of nationhood or borders.
=== end of the quote ===
I wonder how "globalist shills" mantra correlates with the following Trump's statements:
=== start of quote ===
"Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very, very wealthy ... but
it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache," Trump told supporters
during a prepared speech targeting free trade in a nearly-shuttered former steel town in Pennsylvania.
In a speech devoted to what he called "How To Make America Wealthy Again," Trump offered a
series of familiar plans designed to deal with what he called [Obama] "failed trade policies"
- including rejection of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with Pacific Rim nations
and re-negotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico,
withdrawing from it if necessary.
The presumptive Republican presidential nominee also said he would pursue bilateral trade agreements
rather than multi-national deals like TPP and NAFTA.
In addition to appointing better trade negotiators and stepping up punishment of countries
that violate trade rules, Trump's plans would also target one specific economic competitor: China.
He vowed to label China a currency manipulator, bring it before the World Trade Organization and
consider slapping tariffs on Chinese imports coming into the U.S.
Market capitalism has certainly had a rough five years. Remember the
Washington Consensus
? That was the to-do list of 10 economic policies designed to Americanize emerging markets back
in the 1990s. The U.S. government and international financial institutions urged countries to impose
fiscal discipline and reduce or eliminate budget deficits, broaden the tax base and lower tax rates,
allow the market to set interest and exchange rates, and liberalize trade and capital flows. When
Asian economies were hit by the 1997-1998 financial crisis, American critics were quick to bemoan
the defects of "crony capitalism" in the region, and they appeared to have economic history on their
side.
Yet today, in the aftermath of the biggest U.S. financial crisis since the Great Depression, the
world looks very different. Not only did the 2008-2009 meltdown of financial markets seem to expose
the fundamental fragility of the capitalist system, but China's apparent ability to withstand the
reverberations of Wall Street's implosion also suggested the possibility of a new "Beijing Consensus"
based on central planning and state control of volatile market forces.
In his book
The End of the Free Market , the Eurasia Group's Ian Bremmer
argues that authoritarian governments all over the world have "invented something new: state
capitalism":
In this system, governments use various kinds of state-owned companies to manage the exploitation
of resources that they consider the state's crown jewels and to create and maintain large numbers
of jobs.
They use select privately owned companies to dominate certain economic sectors.
They use
so-called sovereign wealth funds to invest their extra cash in ways that maximize the state's profits.
In all three cases, the state is using markets to create wealth that can be directed as political
officials see fit.
And in all three cases, the ultimate motive is not economic (maximizing growth)
but political (maximizing the state's power and the leadership's chances of survival). This
is a form of capitalism but one in which the state acts as the dominant economic player and uses
markets primarily for political gain.
For Bremmer, state capitalism poses a grave "threat" not only to the free market model, but also
to democracy in the developing world.
Although applicable to states all over the globe, at root this is an argument about China. Bremmer
himself writes that "China holds the key." But is it in fact correct to ascribe China's success to
the state rather than the market? The answer depends on where you go in China. In Shanghai or Chongqing,
for example, the central government does indeed loom very large. In Wenzhou, by comparison, the economy
is as vigorously entrepreneurial and market-driven as anywhere I have ever been.
True, China's economy continues to be managed on the basis of a five-year plan, an authoritarian
tradition that goes all the way back to Josef Stalin. As I write, however, the Chinese authorities
are grappling with a problem that owes more to market forces than to the plan: the aftermath of an
urban real estate bubble caused by the massive 2009-2010 credit expansion. Among China experts, the
hot topic of the moment is the new shadow banking system in cities such as Wenzhou, which last year
enabled developers and investors to carry on building and selling apartment blocks even as the People's
Bank of China sought to restrict lending by raising rates and bank reserve requirements.
Talk to some eminent Chinese economists, and you could be forgiven for concluding that the ultimate
aim of policy is to get rid of state capitalism altogether. "We need to privatize all the state-owned
enterprises," one leading economist told me over dinner in Beijing a year ago. "We even need to privatize
the Great Hall of the People." He also claimed to have said this to President Hu Jintao. "Hu couldn't
tell if I was serious or if I was joking," he told me proudly.
Ultimately, it is an unhelpful oversimplification to divide the world into "market capitalist"
and "state capitalist" camps. The reality is that most countries are arranged along a spectrum where
both the intent and the extent of state intervention in the economy vary. Only extreme libertarians
argue that the state has no role whatsoever to play in the economy. As a devotee of Adam Smith, I
accept without qualification his argument in
The Wealth of Nations that the benefits of free trade and the division of labor will be
enjoyed only in countries with rational laws and institutions. I also agree with Silicon Valley visionary
Peter Thiel that, under the right circumstances (e.g., in time of war), governments are capable of
forcing the direction and pace of technological change: Think the Manhattan Project.
But the question today is not whether the state or the market should be in charge. The real question
is which countries' laws and institutions are best, not only at achieving rapid economic growth but
also, equally importantly, at distributing the fruits of growth in a way that citizens deem to be
just.
Let us begin by asking a simple question that can be answered with empirical data: Where in the
world is the role of the state greatest in economic life, and where is it smallest? The answer lies
in data the IMF publishes
on "general government total expenditure" as a percentage of GDP. At one extreme are countries like
East Timor and Iraq, where government expenditure exceeds GDP; at the other end are countries like
Bangladesh, Guatemala, and Myanmar, where it is an absurdly low share of total output.
Beyond these outliers we have China, whose spending represents 23 percent of GDP, down from around
28 percent three decades ago. By this measure, China ranks 147th out of 183 countries for which data
are available. Germany ranks 24th, with government spending accounting for 48 percent of GDP. The
United States, meanwhile, is 44th with 44 percent of GDP. By this measure, state capitalism is a
European, not an Asian, phenomenon: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary,
Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, and Sweden all have higher government spending relative to GDP
than Germany. The Danish figure is 58 percent, more than twice that of the Chinese.
The results are similar if one focuses on government consumption - the share of GDP accounted
for by government purchases of goods and services, as opposed to transfers or investment. Again,
ignoring the outliers, it is Europe whose states play the biggest role in the economy as buyers:
Denmark (27 percent) is far ahead of Germany (18 percent), while the United States is at 17 percent.
China? 13 percent. For Hong Kong, the figure is 8 percent. For Macao, 7 percent.
Where China does lead the West is in the enormous share of gross fixed capital formation (jargon
for investment in hard assets) accounted for by the public sector. According to
World Bank data,
this amounted to 21 percent of China's GDP in 2008, among the highest figures in the world, reflecting
the still-leading role that government plays in infrastructure investment. The equivalent figures
for developed Western countries are vanishingly small; in the West the state is a spendthrift, not
an investor, borrowing money to pay for goods and services. On the other hand, the public sector's
share of Chinese investment has been falling steeply during the past 10 years. Here too the Chinese
trend is away from state capitalism.
Of course, none of these quantitative measures of the state's role tells us how well government
is actually working. For that we must turn to very different kinds of data. Every year the World
Economic Forum (WEF) publishes a
Global Competitiveness
Index , which assesses countries from all kinds of different angles, including the economic efficiency
of their public-sector institutions. Since the current methodology was adopted in 2004, the United
States' average competitiveness score has fallen from 5.82 to 5.43, one of the steepest declines
among developed economies. China's score, meanwhile, has leapt from 4.29 to 4.90.
Even more fascinating is the WEF's
Executive
Opinion Survey , which produces a significant amount of the data that goes into the Global Competitiveness
Index. The table below selects 15 measures of government efficacy, focusing on aspects of the rule
of law ranging from the protection of private property rights to the policing of corruption and the
control of organized crime. These are appropriate things to measure because, regardless of whether
a state is nominally a market economy or a state-led economy, the quality of its legal institutions
will, in practice, have an impact on the ease with which business can be done.
"... We have a dollar democracy that protects the economic interest of the elite class while more than willing to let working class families lose their homes and jobs on the back end of wide scale mortgage fraud. Then the fraud was perpetuated in the mortgage default process just to add insult to injury. ..."
"... One thing that Trump certainly got wrong that no one ever points out is that there is a lot more murder than rape crossing the Mexican-American border in the drug cartel operations ..."
"... The technocrats lied about how globalization would be great for everyone. People's actual experience in their lives has been different. ..."
"... Centrist Democrat partisans with their increasinly ineffectual defenses of the establishment say it's only about racism and xenophobia, but it's more than that. ..."
Assaults on democracy are working because our current political elites have no idea how to
defend it.
[There are certainly good points to this article, but the basic assumption that our electorally
representative form of republican government is the ideal incarnation of the democratic value
set is obviously incorrect. We have a dollar democracy that protects the economic interest of
the elite class while more than willing to let working class families lose their homes and jobs
on the back end of wide scale mortgage fraud. Then the fraud was perpetuated in the mortgage default
process just to add insult to injury.
One thing that Trump certainly got wrong that no one ever points out is that there is a lot
more murder than rape crossing the Mexican-American border in the drug cartel operations:<) ]
The author fails to mention the Sanders campaign. An elderly socialist Jew from Brooklyn was able
to win 23 primaries and caucuses and approximately 43% of pledged delegates to Clinton's 55%.
This despite a nasty, hostile campaign against him and his supporters by the Clinton campaign
and corporate media.
There's also Jeremy Corbyn in the UK. Podemos, Syriza, etc.
Italy's 5 Star movement demonstrates a hostility to technocrats as well.
The author doesn't really focus on how the technocrats have failed.
The technocrats lied about how globalization would be great for everyone. People's actual experience
in their lives has been different.
Trump scapegoated immigrants and trade, as did Brexit, but what he really did was channel hostility
and hatred at the elites and technocrats running the country.
Centrist Democrat partisans with their increasinly ineffectual defenses of the establishment
say it's only about racism and xenophobia, but it's more than that.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to Peter K.... , -1
"Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very, very wealthy ... but
it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache," Trump told supporters
during a prepared speech targeting free trade in a nearly-shuttered former steel town in Pennsylvania.
In a speech devoted to what he called "How To Make America Wealthy Again," Trump offered a series
of familiar plans designed to deal with what he called "failed trade policies" - including rejection
of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with Pacific Rim nations and re-negotiation of the
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico, withdrawing from it if necessary.
The presumptive Republican presidential nominee also said he would pursue bilateral trade agreements
rather than multi-national deals like TPP and NAFTA.
In addition to appointing better trade negotiators and stepping up punishment of countries that violate
trade rules, Trump's plans would also target one specific economic competitor: China. He vowed to
label China a currency manipulator, bring it before the World Trade Organization and consider slapping
tariffs on Chinese imports coming into the U.S.
"... For starters, it's important to accept that the New York Times has always - or at least for many decades - been a far more editor-driven, and self-conscious, publication than many of those with which it competes. Historically, the Los Angeles Times, where I worked twice, for instance, was a reporter-driven, bottom-up newspaper. Most editors wanted to know, every day, before the first morning meeting: "What are you hearing? What have you got?" ..."
"... It was a shock on arriving at the New York Times in 2004, as the paper's movie editor, to realize that its editorial dynamic was essentially the reverse. By and large, talented reporters scrambled to match stories with what internally was often called "the narrative." We were occasionally asked to map a narrative for our various beats a year in advance, square the plan with editors, then generate stories that fit the pre-designated line." ..."
"... Reality usually had a way of intervening. But I knew one senior reporter who would play solitaire on his computer in the mornings, waiting for his editors to come through with marching orders. Once, in the Los Angeles bureau, I listened to a visiting National staff reporter tell a contact, more or less: "My editor needs someone to say such-and-such, could you say that?"" ..."
"... The Hateful New York Times has been pushing the "Party Line" (narrative) since at least the 1920s, and has "artfully" facilitated the deaths (murder) of millions of deplorables – and the subsequent cover-up of the crimes. ..."
"... Clinton and Obama's record were one and the same. ..."
"... People chose the devil they don't know over the absolute-slam-dunk-warmongering-elitist devil who's been running for President since 2000 and fixed the (D) primary against the Roosevelt Democrat who would have beaten Trump by 10+ points. ..."
"... Yep. When the dominant financial venue is blatantly a "casino," why not resort to chance? As the mood out in the hustings grows ever bleaker, the "kick the table over" strategy gains legitimacy among a wider and wider circle of people. ..."
"... The problem with identity politics is that unless everyone has an identity, identity politics is a politics of exclusion. Something is carved out for those who have been "identified" (as worthy), while the rest stay where they are, or get left behind. ..."
"... Fascinating to learn that it is at least in some cases not only a problem of reporters being blind to problems because of their worldview, and that the frames they pick aren't 'just' due to their education. In a way, it's hopeful, because it means that even here, alternatives are/must be restricted in order to allow the world to be categorized into tiny little boxes, via Procrustes doing his thing. ..."
"... An early sign was the Procrustean "embedment" of journos in with the Army during the Gulf Wars. The suspension of disbelief required of the reader to accept the resultant "narrative" was, by any measure, a "stretch." ..."
"... From The Devil's Chessboard: Allan Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government by David Talbot, which I am still reading. Regarding the overthrow of Arbenz of Guatemala: ..."
"... The U.S. press coverage of the Guatemala coup offered a sanitized account, one that smacked of CIA manipulation. The leading newspapers treated the overthrow of Arbenz's government as a topical adventure, an " opera bouffe ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... The Republicans are the party of the rich; the Democrats are the party of the rich and poor. Those in between have no place. ..."
"... The Republicans and the Democrats are parties of the rich who use the poor. Both use the poor as a lever to extract wealth from the shrinking resource known as middle class. There is only a superficial difference in how they use them, and in both cases a real democracy has no place in their governance. ..."
"... For anyone interested in the inner workings of the print media I highly recommend 'Flat Earth News' by Nick Davies. It is a little uk centric but Davies, the guy that broke Murdoch's phone hacking conspiracy, is authoritative. ..."
"... The chapter on the role of the security services in the press is quite interesting and gives important context for understanding the current attempts to centralize control of the internet news narrative. ..."
I know I linked to this already this morning, but I've been turning it over in my mind as a jumping
off point (and in any case, I forgot to say, as I should have said: "Please distribute widely"!)
From "Stunned By Trump, The New York Times Finds Time For Some Soul-Searching," in the
Hollywood Reporter :
For starters, it's important to accept that the New York Times has always - or at least
for many decades - been a far more editor-driven, and self-conscious, publication than many of
those with which it competes. Historically, the Los Angeles Times, where I worked twice, for instance,
was a reporter-driven, bottom-up newspaper. Most editors wanted to know, every day, before the
first morning meeting: "What are you hearing? What have you got?"
It was a shock on arriving at the New York Times in 2004, as the paper's movie editor,
to realize that its editorial dynamic was essentially the reverse. By and large, talented reporters
scrambled to match stories with what internally was often called "the narrative." We
were occasionally asked to map a narrative for our various beats a year in advance, square the
plan with editors, then generate stories that fit the pre-designated line."
Reality usually had a way of intervening. But I knew one senior reporter who would play
solitaire on his computer in the mornings, waiting for his editors to come through with marching
orders. Once, in the Los Angeles bureau, I listened to a visiting National staff reporter tell
a contact, more or less: "My editor needs someone to say such-and-such, could you say that?""
The bigger shock came on being told, at least twice, by Times editors who were describing the
paper's daily Page One meeting: "We set the agenda for the country in that room."
So, if you think about what narrative the Times signed onto in early 2015, it would be the inevitability
of Clinton's victory, would it not? Certainly there was no place for Sanders coverage in any "pre-designated
line," since Sanders came out of nowhere. So, the Sanders campaign (and, to be fair, the Trump campaign)
both charged ahead to the sound of smashing rice bowls: Not only is "the narrative" a commitment
by subordinates to management (and by management to various power players), the episodes from which
it is composed are the creation of the stenographer reporter and the sources to which the reporter
has access, and that involves any amount of backscratching, favors exchanged, and careerist maneuvering,
all of which the reporter will consider assets. News - "newly received or noteworthy information,
especially about recent or important events" - puts the narrative in jeopardy. So we have another
reason that the Times suppressed coverage of the Sanders campaign, beyond simple class hatred; class
interest.
Yes. I see editorials in WaPo and NYT where the writer claims they've "woken up in another
country", they "don't know what happened to the real America", they "didn't realize the country
was so full of awful people". They seem mighty disoriented by the neoliberal narrative, as given
for the last 40 years, losing this election.
That's funny. Okay, I was soooo naive. I woke up finally in 2004 to the realization that the
"awful " people were the 01% including good friends. The Rest are trying to survive with dignity.
They are not awful.
The Hateful New York Times has been pushing the "Party Line" (narrative) since at least
the 1920s, and has "artfully" facilitated the deaths (murder) of millions of deplorables – and
the subsequent cover-up of the crimes.
"My editor was dubious. I had been explaining that 50 years ago, in the spring and summer
of 1933, Ukraine, the country of my forebears, had suffered a horrendous catastrophe. In a
fertile, populous country famed as the granary of Europe, a great famine had mowed down a sixth,
a fifth and in some regions even a fourth of the inhabitants. Natural forces – drought, flood,
blight – have been at least contributory causes of most famines. This one had been entirely
man-made, entirely the result of a dictator's genocidal policies. Its consequences, I said,
are still being felt.
Erudite, polyglot, herself a refugee from tyranny, the editor remained skeptical. "But isn't
all this ," she leaned back in her chair and smiled brightly, "isn't all this a bit recondite?"
My face must have flushed. Recondite? Suddenly I knew the impotent anger Jews and Armenians
have felt. Millions of my countrymen had been murdered, and their deaths were being dismissed
as obscure and little known.
Later I realized that the editor had said more than she had intended. The famine of 1933
was rationalized and concealed when it was taking its toll, and it is still hidden away and
trivialized today. George Orwell need not have limited his observation to British intellectuals
when he remarked that "huge events like the Ukraine famine of 1933, involving the deaths of
millions of people, have actually escaped the attention of the majority of English Russophiles."_1_
Still later, after I had set about uncovering the whole story by delving into newspaper
files and archives and talking to people who had witnessed the events of 1933, I came to understand
how Walter Duranty and The New York Times helped Stalin make the famine recondite.
Walter Duranty worked for The New York Times for 21 years "
" The combination of ambiguous policy signals and the cult of secrecy could produce absurd
results , as when certain categories of officials could not be informed of relevant instructions
because the instructions were secret. In one blatant example, the theater censorship and the Ministry
of Enlightenment, headed by A. V. Lunacharsky, spent weeks arguing at cross purposes about Mikhail
Bulgakov's controversial play Days of the Turbins, despite the fact that the Politburo had instructed
the Ministry that the play could be staged, because "this decree was secret, known to only key
officials in the administration of art, and Lunacharsky was not at liberty to divulge it." [42]
A few years later, after Stalin had expressed strong views on cultural policy in a private
letter that had circulated widely, if unofficially, on the grapevine, Lunacharsky begged him to
allow publication of the letter so that people would know what the party line on art actually
was.
Some of Stalin's cultural signals were even more minimalist, involving telephone calls to writers
or other cultural figures whose content was then instantly broadcast on the Moscow and Leningrad
intelligentsia grapevine. A case in point was his unexpected telephone call to Bulgakov in 1930
in response to Bulgakov's letter complaining of mistreatment by theater and censorship officials.
The overt message of the call was one of encouragement to Bulgakov. By extension, the "signal"
to the non-Communist intelligentsia was that it was not Stalin who harrassed them but only lower-level
officials and militants who did not understand Stalin's policy.
This case is particularly interesting because the security police (GPU, at this date) monitored
the effectiveness of the signal. In his report on the impact of Stalin's call, a GPU agent noted
that the literary and artistic intelligentsia had been enormously impressed. "It's as if a dam
had burst and everyone around saw the true face of comrade Stalin. "People speak of Stalin's simplicity
and accessibility. They "talk of him warmly and with love, retelling in various versions the legendary
history with Bulgakov's letter." They say that Stalin is not to blame for the bad things that
happen: He follows the right line, but around him are scoundrels. These scoundrels persecuted
Bulgakov, one of the most talented Soviet writers. Various literary rascals were making a career
out of persecution of Bulgakov, and now Stalin has given them a slap in the face. [44]
The signals with Stalin's personal signature usually pointed in the direction of greater relaxation
and tolerance, not increased repression. This was surely not because Stalin inclined to the "soft
line," but rather because he preferred to avoid too close an association with hard-line policies
that were likely to be
unpopular with domestic and foreign opinion. His signals often involved a "good Tsar" message:
"the Tsar is benevolent; it is the wicked boyars (a member of the old aristocracy) who are responsible
for all the injustice." Sometimes this ploy seems to have worked, but in other cases the message
evoked popular skepticism.
When Stalin deplored the excesses of local officials during collectivization in a letter, "Dizzy
with success," published in Pravda in 1930, the initial response in the villages was often favorable.
After the famine, however, Stalin's "good Tsar" ploy no longer worked in the countryside, and
was even mocked by its intended audience
People chose the devil they don't know over the absolute-slam-dunk-warmongering-elitist
devil who's been running for President since 2000 and fixed the (D) primary against the Roosevelt
Democrat who would have beaten Trump by 10+ points.
Don't blame me. I voted Sanders. Hindsight is 2020.
Yep. When the dominant financial venue is blatantly a "casino," why not resort to chance?
As the mood out in the hustings grows ever bleaker, the "kick the table over" strategy gains legitimacy
among a wider and wider circle of people.
The problem with identity politics is that unless everyone has an identity, identity politics
is a politics of exclusion. Something is carved out for those who have been "identified" (as worthy),
while the rest stay where they are, or get left behind.
But note that this is only because we insist on operating under the zero sum economics of monetarism.
Once this restriction is removed; once we acknowledge the power of the sovereign fiat, the zero
sum is left behind, and the either-or choices forced upon us by identity politics are no longer
necessary.
Fascinating to learn that it is at least in some cases not only a problem of reporters
being blind to problems because of their worldview, and that the frames they pick aren't 'just'
due to their education. In a way, it's hopeful, because it means that even here, alternatives
are/must be restricted in order to allow the world to be categorized into tiny little boxes, via
Procrustes doing his thing.
An early sign was the Procrustean "embedment" of journos in with the Army during the Gulf
Wars. The suspension of disbelief required of the reader to accept the resultant "narrative" was,
by any measure, a "stretch."
Yes, well. We must all do our bid to perpetuate the State - even those of us who are too weak-kneed
to serve as cannon fodder (no disrespect intended, of course - just observing). After all, it's
only
thanks to liberal "democracy" that our betters were able to create this best/least-worst of
all possible worlds in the first place. Being bothered by those few remaining necessary egg-shells
just goes to show I'm in the right place.
Oh, good sir, those "necessary egg shells" are needed to settle the grounds of the strong coffee
required to energize the masses to continue the work designed to bring on the Dawn of the Neoliberal
dispensation!
You are in the "right place."
As for States; some years ago, Louisiana had a motto on their automobile license plates that read;
"Louisiana: A Dream State." Truth in advertising. That motto didn't last long.
The bigger shock came on being told, at least twice, by Times editors who were describing
the paper's daily Page One meeting: "We set the agenda for the country in that room."
They believe their own fake news. Now they can't believe their lying eyes.
Difficult for me to believe the NYT originates "The Narrative" any more than Pravda or Izvestia
did so in the USSR. I am more receptive to the idea that its senior editors coordinate with upstream
sources to assure news coverage and opinion pieces are consistent with policies favored by the
administration and other senior government officials, as well as other selected constituencies.
Also of interest to me is what is occurring at the Washington Post in this regard.
There may well be truth to that idea. I recall
reading a blog post by a Swedish journalist who
did an article on the NY Times. He writes that they
have a building that none of their journalists are allowed
to enter as it is sometimes visited by important dignitaries
who negotiate how they will be covered. He gave
Gaddafi of Libya as an example. I suppose this is possible if
you fixing the narrative.
The Michael Cieply story reminds me of this (from 9/14/2016):
This off-limits part of the building was not only where the president would sit in on editorial
board meetings, it was also the place where Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was received when
he successfully negotiated to be removed from "The Axis of Evil" list after 9/11. At that point
in time The New York Times was still considered perhaps the most important publication in the
world, and what it wrote was thought to have a direct impact on the life and death of nations.
Because of this, many powerful people would put a lot of effort and money into gaining preferable
coverage from The New York Times. These floors, Bill Keller told me, was where the proprietor
and the editors of the newspaper would meet with and negotiate deals with powerful visitors.
In retrospect, whatever "deal" that Gaddafi struck with The New York Times, the exonerating
article penned by Judith Miller didn't save his life, nor did it save his nation from the might
of the US air force.
Despite the brutal fate that Gaddafi came to face, the assumption that The New York Times
was capable of making meaningful deals with governments was not entirely unfounded. Bill Keller
spoke of how he successfully negotiated to freeze the NSA warrantless wiretapping-story uncovered
by Eric Lichtblau for two years until after the re-election of George W Bush. This top-floor
was also where the Iraq WMD evidence was concocted with the help of the Pentagon and handed
to reporter Judith Miller to pen, later letting her hang when the wind changed. This, Keller
also told me, was where the CIA and State Department officials were invited to take part in
daily editorial meetings when State Department Cables were published by WikiLeaks. I would
personally witness how this was the place where Sulzberger himself oversaw the re-election
coverage of president Obama. And this was much later where the main tax-evaders of the US would
make their cases so that the Panama Papers on their tax records would never reach the public
eye (which at the time of writing, they have yet to be).
Just an FYI, the reason that hardly any Americans featured in the Panama Papers was that Panama
was not a favored destination for US tax evaders. So the Times had nothing to protect.
I still think the story is evolutionary. In the sense that just as the central nervous system
of society, government, started as a privatized function and eventually evolved into a public
utility, for basic reasons of efficiency and scale, the financial system, as the medium and circulation
system of society, is going through a similar evolutionary process. The premise of vast notional
wealth, which is necessarily backed by debt, is insupportable, at its current levels, simply because
the debt is unsustainable. So collapse is inevitable and the only question is how well and quickly
we develop a viable alternative.
From The Devil's Chessboard: Allan Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government
by David Talbot, which I am still reading. Regarding the overthrow of Arbenz of Guatemala:
"The U.S. press coverage of the Guatemala coup offered a sanitized account, one that smacked
of CIA manipulation. The leading newspapers treated the overthrow of Arbenz's government as a
topical adventure, an " opera bouffe ," in the words of Hanson Baldwin, one of Dulles's
trusted friends at The New York Times . Nonetheless, reported Baldwin, the operation
had "global importance."
This is precisely how Dulles liked his overseas exploits to be chronicled – as entertaining
espionage capers, with serious consequences for the Cold War struggle.
New York Times publisher Arthur Hays Sulzberger was extremely accommodating
to Dulles throughout the covert operation, agreeing to keep foreign correspondent Sydney Gruson,
whom Dulles considered insufficiently compliant, out of Guatemala and even assuring the CIA director
that Gruson's future articles would be screened "with a great deal more care than usual."
The Republicans are the party of the rich; the Democrats are the party of the rich and
poor. Those in between have no place.
The Republicans and the Democrats are parties of the rich who use the poor. Both use the
poor as a lever to extract wealth from the shrinking resource known as middle class. There is
only a superficial difference in how they use them, and in both cases a real democracy has no
place in their governance.
For anyone interested in the inner workings of the print media I highly recommend 'Flat
Earth News' by Nick Davies. It is a little uk centric but Davies, the guy that broke Murdoch's
phone hacking conspiracy, is authoritative.
The chapter on the role of the security services in the press is quite interesting and
gives important context for understanding the current attempts to centralize control of the internet
news narrative.
"... Excellent critique. Establishment Democrats are tone-deaf right now; the state of denial they live in is stunning. I'd like to think they can learn after the shock of defeat is over, but identity politics for non-white, non-male, non-heterosexual is what the Democratic party is about today and has been the last decade or so. ..."
"... That's the effect of incessant Dem propaganda pitting races and sexes against each other. ..."
"... And Democrats' labeling of every Republican president/candidate as a Nazi - including Trump - is desensitizing the public to the real danger created by discriminatory policies that punish [white] children and young adults, particularly boys. ..."
"... So, to make up for the alleged screw job that women and minorities have supposedly received, the plan will be screwing white/hetro/males for the forseeable future. My former employer is doing this very plan, as we speak. Passed over 100 plus males, who have been turning wrenches on airplanes for years, and installed a female shop manager who doesn't know jack-$##t about fixing airplanes. No experience, no certificate......but she has a management degree. But I guess you don't know how to do the job to manage it. ..."
"... Bernie Sanders was that standard bearer, but Krugman and the Neoliberal establishment Democrats (ie. Super Delegates) decided that they wanted to coronate Clinton. ..."
"... Evolution of political parties happens organically, through evolution (punctuated equilibrium - like species and technology - parties have periods of stability with some sudden jumps in differentiation). ..."
"... If Nancy Pelosi is re-elected (highly likely), it will be the best thing to happen to Republicans since Lincoln. They will lose even more seats. ..."
"... The Coastal Pelosi/Schumer wing is still in power, and it will take decimation at the ballot box to change the party. The same way the "Tea Party" revolution decimated the Republicans and led to Trump. Natural selection at work. ..."
"... The central fact of the election is that Hillary has always been extraordinarily unlikable, and it turned out that she was Nixonianly corrupt ..."
"... I'm from Dallas. Three of my closest friends growing up (and to this day), as well as my brother in law, are hispanic. They, and their families, all vote Republican, even for Trump. Generally speaking, the longer hispanics are in the US, the more likely they tend to vote Republican. ..."
"... The Democratic Establishment and their acolytes are caught in a credibility trap. ..."
"... I also think many Trump voters know they are voting against their own economic interest. The New York Times interviewed a number who acknowledge that they rely on insurance subsidies from Obamacare and that Trump has vowed to repeal it. I know one such person myself. She doesn't know what she will do if Obamacare is repealed but is quite happy with her vote. ..."
"... Krugman won his Nobel for arcane economic theory. So it isn't terribly surprising that he spectacularly fails whenever he applies his brain to anything remotely dealing with mainstream thought. He is the poster boy for condescending, smarter by half, elite liberals. In other words, he is an over educated, political hack who has yet to learn to keep his overtly bias opinions to himself. ..."
"... Funny how there's all this concern for the people whose jobs and security and money have vanished, leaving them at the mercy of faceless banks and turning to drugs and crime. Sad. Well, let's bash some more on those lazy, shiftless urban poors who lack moral strength and good, Protestant work ethic, shall we? ..."
"... Clinton slammed half the Trump supporters as deplorables, not half the public. She was correct; about half of them are various sorts of supremacists. The other half (she said this, too) made common cause with the deplorables for economic reasons even though it was a devil's bargain. ..."
"... I have never commented here but I will now because of the number of absurd statements. I happen to work with black and Hispanic youth and have also worked with undocumented immigrants. To pretend that trump and the Republican Party has their interest in mind is completely absurd. As for the white working class, please tell me what programs either trump or the republican have put forward to benefit them? I have lost a lot of respect for Duy ..."
"... The keys of the election were race, immigration and trade. Trump won on these points. What dems can do is to de-emphasize multiculturalism, racial equality, political correctness etc. Instead, emphasize economic equality and security, for all working class. ..."
"... Krugman more or less blames media, FBI, Russia entirely for Hillary's loss, which I think is wrong. As Tim said, Dems have long ceased to be the party of the working class, at least in public opinion, for legitimate reasons. ..."
"... All Mr. Krugman and the Democratic establishment need to do is to listen, with open ears and mind, to what Thomas Frank has been saying, and they will know where they went wrong and most likely what to do about it, if they can release themselves from their fatal embrace with Big Money covered up by identity politics. ..."
"... Pretty sad commentary by neoliberal left screaming at neoliberal right and vice versa. ..."
"... The neoliberals with their multi-culti/love them all front men have had it good for a while, now there's a reaction. Deal with it. ..."
Excellent critique. Establishment Democrats are tone-deaf right now; the state of denial they
live in is stunning. I'd like to think they can learn after the shock of defeat is over, but identity
politics for non-white, non-male, non-heterosexual is what the Democratic party is about today
and has been the last decade or so.
The only way Dems can make any headway by the midterms is if Trump really screws up,
which is a tall order even for him. He will pick the low-hanging fruit (e.g., tax reform, Obamacare
reform, etc), the economy will continue to recover (which will be attributed to Trump), and Dems
will lose even more seats in Congress. And why? Because they refuse to recognize that whites from
the middle-class and below are just as disadvantaged as minorities from the same social class.
If white privilege exists at all (its about as silly as the "Jews control the banks and media"
conspiracy theories), it exists for the upper classes. Poor whites need help too. And young men
in/out of college today are being displaced by women - not because the women have superior academic
qualification, but because they are women. I've seen it multiple times firsthand in some of the
country's largest companies and universities (as a lawyer, when an investigation or litigation
takes place, I get to see everyone's emails, all the way to CEO/board). There is a concerted effort
to hire only women and minorities, especially for executive/managerial positions. That's not equality.
That's the effect of incessant Dem propaganda pitting races and sexes against each other.
This election exposed the media's role, but its not over. Fortunately, Krugman et al. are
showing the Dems are too dumb to figure out why they lost. Hopefully they keep up their stupidity
so identity politics can fade into history and we can get back to pursuing equality.
"There is a concerted effort to hire only women and minorities, especially for executive/managerial
positions."
Goooooolllllllllllllly, gee. Now why would that be? I hope you're not saying there shouldn't
be such an effort. This is a good thing. It exactly and precisely IS equality. It may be a bit
harsh, but if certain folks continually find ways to crap of women and minorities, then public
policies would seem warranted.
Are you seriously telling us that pursuing public policies to curb racial and sexual discrimination
are a waste of time?
How, exactly, does your vision of "pursuit of equality" ameliorate the historical fact of discrimination?
You don't make up for past discrimination with discrimination. You make up for it by equal application
of the law. Today's young white men are not the cause of discrimination of the 20th century, or
of slavery. If you discriminate against them because of the harm caused by other people, you're
sowing the seeds of a REAL white nationalist movement. And Democrats' labeling of every Republican
president/candidate as a Nazi - including Trump - is desensitizing the public to the real danger
created by discriminatory policies that punish [white] children and young adults, particularly
boys.
Displacement of white men by lesser-qualified women and minorities is NOT equality.
So, to make up for the alleged screw job that women and minorities have supposedly received,
the plan will be screwing white/hetro/males for the forseeable future. My former employer is doing
this very plan, as we speak. Passed over 100 plus males, who have been turning wrenches on airplanes
for years, and installed a female shop manager who doesn't know jack-$##t about fixing airplanes.
No experience, no certificate......but she has a management degree. But I guess you don't know
how to do the job to manage it.
God forbid somebody have to "pay some dues" before setting them loose as suit trash.
Back when cultural conservatives ruled the roost (not that long ago), they didn't pursue equality
either. Rather, they favored (hetero Christian) white men. So hoping for Dem stupidity isn't going
to lead to equality. Most likely it would go back to favoring hetero Christian white men.
"...should they find a new standard bearer that can win the Sunbelt states and bridge the divide
with the white working class? I tend to think the latter strategy has the higher likelihood of
success."
Easy to say. What would that standard bearer or that strategy look like?
Bernie Sanders was that standard bearer, but Krugman and the Neoliberal establishment Democrats
(ie. Super Delegates) decided that they wanted to coronate Clinton. Big mistake that we are
now paying for...
Basic political math - Sanders would have been eaten alive with his tax proposals by the GOP anti-tax
propaganda machine on Trump steroids.
His call to raise the payroll tax to send more White working class hard-earn money to Washington
would have made election night completely different - Trump would have still won, it just wouldn't
have been a surprise but rather a known certainty weeks ahead.
Evolution of political parties happens organically, through evolution (punctuated equilibrium
- like species and technology - parties have periods of stability with some sudden jumps in differentiation).
Old politicians are defeated, new ones take over. The old guard, having been successful in
the past in their own niche rarely change.
If Nancy Pelosi is re-elected (highly likely), it will be the best thing to happen to Republicans
since Lincoln. They will lose even more seats.
The Coastal Pelosi/Schumer wing is still in power, and it will take decimation at the ballot
box to change the party. The same way the "Tea Party" revolution decimated the Republicans and
led to Trump. Natural selection at work.
In 1991, Republicans thought they would always win, Democrats thought the country was relegated
to Republican Presidents forever. Then along came a new genotype- Clinton. In 2012, Democrats
thought that they would always win, and Republicans were thought to be locked out of the electoral
college. Then along came a new genotype, Trump.
A new genotype of Democrat will have to emerge, but it will start with someone who can win
in flyover country and Texas. Hint: They will have to drop their hubris, disdain and lecturing,
some of their anti-growth energy policies, hate for the 2nd amendment, and become more fiscally
conservative. They have to realize that *no one* will vote for an increase in the labor supply
(aka immigration) when wages are stagnant and growth is anemic. And they also have to appreciate
people would rather be free to choose than have decisions made for them. Freedom means nothing
unless you are free to make mistakes.
But it won't happen until coastal elites like Krugman and Pelosi have retired.
My vote for the Democratic Tiktaalik is the extraordinarily Honorable John Bel Edwards, governor
of Louisiana. The central fact of the election is that Hillary has always been extraordinarily
unlikable, and it turned out that she was Nixonianly corrupt (i.e., deleted E-mails on her
illegal private server) as well - and she still only lost by 1% in the tipping point state (i.e.,
according to the current count, which could very well change).
You know what will win Texas? Demographic change. Economic growth. And it is looking pretty inevitable
on both counts.
I'm also pretty damned tired of being dismissed as "elitist", "smug" and condescending. I grew
up in a red state. I know their hate. I know their condescension (they're going to heaven, libruls
are not).
It cuts both ways. The Dems are going into a fetal crouch about this defeat. Did the GOP do
that after 2008? Nope. They dug in deeper.
Ahh yes, all Texas needs is demographic change, because all [Hispanics, Blacks, insert minority
here] will always and forever vote Democrat. Even though the Democrats take their votes for granted
and Chicago/Baltimore etc. are crappy places to live with no school choice, high taxes, fleeing
jobs, and crime. Even though Trump outperformed Romney among minorities.
Clinton was supposed to be swept up in the winds of demographics and the Democrats were supposed
to win the White House until 2083.
Funny things happen when you take votes for granted. Many urban areas are being crushed by
structural deficits and need some Detroit type relief. I predict that some time in the next 30
years, poles reverse, and urban areas are run by Republicans.
If you are tired of being dismissed as "elitist", "smug" and condescending, don't be those
things. Don't assume people will vote for your party because they have always voted that way,
or they are a certain color. Respect the voters and work to earn it.
The notion that hispanic=democrat that liberals like bob have is hopelessly ignorrant.
I'm from Dallas. Three of my closest friends growing up (and to this day), as well as my
brother in law, are hispanic. They, and their families, all vote Republican, even for Trump. Generally
speaking, the longer hispanics are in the US, the more likely they tend to vote Republican.
The Democratic Party's plan to wait out the Republicans and let demographics take over is ignorant,
racist and shortsighted, cooked up by coastal liberals that haven't got a clue, and will ultimately
fail.
In addition to losing hispanics, Democrats will also start losing the African American vote
they've been taking for granted the last several decades. Good riddance to the Democratic party,
they are simply unwilling to listen to what the people want.
This is a really shoddy piece that repeats the medias pulling of Clintons quote out of context.
She also said "that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them
down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens
to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change. It doesn't really even
matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says, but he seems to hold out some hope
that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid
to heroin, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize
with as well."
Now maybe it is okay to make gnore this part of the quote because you think calling racism
"deplorable" is patently offensive. But when the ignored context makes the same points that Duy
says she should have been making, that is shoddy.
There are zero electoral college votes in the State of Denial. Hopefully you understand a)the
difference between calling people deplorable and calling *behavior* deplorable; b) Godwin's Law:
when you resort to comparing people to Hitler you've lost the argument. Trump supporters were
not racist, homophobic, xenophobic, or any other phobic. As a moderate, educated, female Trump
supporter counseled: He was an a-hole, but I liked his policies.
Even my uber liberal friends cannot tell me what Clinton's economic plan was. Only that they
are anti-Trump.
Trump flanked Clinton on the most popular policies (the left used to be the anti-trade party
of union Democrats): Lower regulation, lower taxes, pro-2nd amendment, trade deals more weighted
in favor of US workers, and lower foreign labor supply. Turn's out, those policies are sufficiently
popular that people will vote for them, even when packaged into an a-hole. Trump's anti-trade
platform was preached for decades by rust belt unions.
The coastal Democrats have become hostages to pro-big-government municipal unions crushing
cities under structural deficits, high taxes, poorly run schools, and overbearing regulations.
The best thing that can happen for the Democrats is for the Republicans to push for reforms of
public pensions, school choice, and break municipal unions. Many areas see the disaster in Chicago
and Baltimore, run by Democrats for decades, and say no thank you. Freed of the need to cater
to urban municipal unions, Democrats may be able to appeal to people elsewhere.
Tim, I believe you've missed the point: by straightforward measures, Democratic voters in USA
are substantially under-represented. The problem is likely to get much worse, as the party whose
policies abet minority rule now controls all three branches of the federal government and a substantial
majority of state governments.
This is an outstanding takedown on what has been a never-ending series of garbage from Krugman.
I used to hang on every post he'd made for years after the 2008 crisis hit. But once the Clinton
coronation arose this year, the arrogant, condescending screed hit 11 - and has not slowed down
since. Threads of circular and illogical arguments have woven together pathetic - and often non-liberal
- editorials that have driven me away permanently.
Since he's chosen to ride it all on political commentary, Krugman's credibility is right there
with luminaries such as Nial Ferguson and Greg Mankiw.
Seems that everyone who chooses to hitch their wagon to the Clintons ends up covered in bilge.....
funny thing about that persistent coincidence...
"And it is an especially difficult pill given that the decline was forced upon the white working
class.... The tsunami of globalization washed over them....in many ways it was inevitable, just
as was the march of technology that had been eating away at manufacturing jobs for decades. But
the damage was intensified by trade deals.... Then came the housing crash and the ensuing humiliation
of the foreclosure crisis."
All the more amazing then that Trump pulled out such a squeaker of an election beating Clinton
by less than 2% in swing states and losing the popular vote overall. In the shine of Duy's lights
above, I would have imagined a true landslide for Trump... Just amazing.
"I don't know that the white working class voted against their economic interest".
I think you're pushing too hard here. Democrats have been for, and Republicans against many
policies that benefit the white working class: expansionary monetary policy, Obamacare, housing
refinance, higher minimum wage, tighter worker safety regulation, stricter tax collection, and
a host of others.
I also think many Trump voters know they are voting against their own economic interest.
The New York Times interviewed a number who acknowledge that they rely on insurance subsidies
from Obamacare and that Trump has vowed to repeal it. I know one such person myself. She doesn't
know what she will do if Obamacare is repealed but is quite happy with her vote.
There is zero evidence for this theory. It ignores the fact that Trump lied his way to the White
House with the help of a media unwilling to confront and expose his mendacity. And there was the
media's obsession with Clinton's Emails and the WikiLeaks daily release of stolen DNC documents.
And finally the Comey letter which came in the middle of early voting keeping the nation in suspense
for 11 days and which was probably a violation of the hatch act. Comey was advised against his
unjustified action by higher up DOJ officials but did it anyway. All of these factors loomed much
larger than the deplorables comment. Besides, the strong dollar fostered by the FOMC's obsession
with "normalization" helped Trump win because the strong dollar hurts exporters like farmers who
make up much of the rural vote as well as hurting US manufacturing located in the midwest states.
The FOMC was objectively pro Trump.
I was surrounded by Trump voters this past election. Trust me, an awful lot of them are deplorable.
My father is extremely anti semetic and once warned me not to go to Minneapolis because of there
being "too many Muslims." One of our neighbors thinks all Muslims are terrorists and want to do
horrible things to all Christians.
I know, its not a scientific study. But I've had enough one on one conversations with Trump
supporters (not just GOP voters, Trump supporters) to say that yes, as a group they have some
pretty horrible views.
Yep. I've got plenty of stories myself. From the fact that there are snooty liberals it does NOT
follow that the resentment fueling Trump's support is justified.
One should note that the "The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic - you name
it ... " voted for Obama last time around.
When the blue collar voter (for lack of a better class) figures out that the Republicans (Trump)
are not going to help them anymore than the Dems did -- it will be time for them to understand
they can only rely on themselves, namely: through rebuilding labor union density, which can be
done AT THE STATE BY PROGRESSIVE STATE LEVEL.
To keep it simple states may add to federal protections like the minimum wage or safety regs
-- just not subtract. At present the NLRB has zero (no) enforcement power to prevent union busting
(see Trump in Vegas) -- so illegal labor market muscling, firing of organizers and union joiners
go completely undeterred and unrecoursed.
Recourse, once we get Congress back might include mandating certification elections on finding
of union busting. Nothing too alien: Wisconsin, for instance, mandates RE-certification of all
public employee unions annually.
Progressive states first step should be making union busting a felony -- taking the power playing
in our most important and politically impacting market as seriously as taking a movie in the movies
(get you a couple of winters). For a more expansive look (including a look at the First Amendment
and the fed cannot preempt something with nothing, click here):
http://ontodayspage.blogspot.com/2016/11/first-100-days-progressive-states-agenda.html
Labor unions -- returned to high density -- can act as the economic cop on every corner --
our everywhere advocates squelching such a variety of unhealthy practices as financialization,
big pharam gouging, for profit college fraud (Trump U. -- that's where we came into this movie).
6% private union density is like 20/10 bp; it starves every other healthy process (listening blue
collar?).
Don't panic if today's Repub Congress passes national right-to-work legislation. Germany, which
has the platinum standard labor institutions, does not have one majority union (mostly freeloaders!),
but is almost universally union or covered by union contracts (centralized bargaining -- look
it up) and that's what counts.
Trump took both sides of every issue. He wants high and low interest rates. He wants a depression
first, (Bannonomics) and inflation first, (Trumponomics), he wants people to make more and make
less. He is nasty and so he projected that his opponent was nasty.
Now he has to act instead of just talk out of both sides of his mouth. That should not be as
easy to do.
Hi Tim, nice post, and I particularly liked your last paragraph. The relevant question today if
you have accepted where we are is effectively: 'What would you prefer - a Trump victory now? Or
a Trump type election victory in a decade or so? (with todays corresponding social/economic/political
trends continuing).
I'm a Brit so I was just an observer to the US election but the same point is relevant here in
the UK - Would I rather leave the EU now with a (half sensible) Tory government? Or would I rather
leave later on with many more years of upheaval and a (probably by then quite nutty) UKIP government?
I know which one I prefer - recognise the protest vote sooner, rather than later.
Sure they're angry, and their plight makes that anger valid.
However, not so much their belief as to who and what caused their plight, and more importantly,
who can and how their plight would be successfully reversed.
Most people have had enough personal experiences to know that it is when we are most angry
that we do the stupidest of things.
Krugman won his Nobel for arcane economic theory. So it isn't terribly surprising that he
spectacularly fails whenever he applies his brain to anything remotely dealing with mainstream
thought. He is the poster boy for condescending, smarter by half, elite liberals. In other words,
he is an over educated, political hack who has yet to learn to keep his overtly bias opinions
to himself.
Tim's narrative felt like a cold shower. I was apprehensive that I found it too agreeable on one
level but were the building blocks stable and accurate?
Somewhat like finding a meal that is satisfying, but wondering later about the ingredients.
But, like Tim's posts on the Fed, they prompt that I move forward to ponder the presentation
and offer it to others for their comment. At this time, five-stars on a 1-5 system for bringing
a fresh approach to the discussion. Thanks, Professor Duy. This to me is Piketty-level pushing
us onto new ground.
Funny how there's all this concern for the people whose jobs and security and money have vanished,
leaving them at the mercy of faceless banks and turning to drugs and crime. Sad. Well, let's bash
some more on those lazy, shiftless urban poors who lack moral strength and good, Protestant work
ethic, shall we?
Clinton slammed half the Trump supporters as deplorables, not half the public. She was correct;
about half of them are various sorts of supremacists. The other half (she said this, too) made
common cause with the deplorables for economic reasons even though it was a devil's bargain.
Now, there's a problem with maternalism here; it's embarrassing to find out that the leader
of your political opponents knows you better than you know yourself, like your mother catching
you out in a lie. It was impolitic for Clinton to have said this But above all remember that when
push came to shove, the other basket made common cause with the Nazis, the Klan, and so on and
voted for a rapey fascist.
"Economic development" isn't (and can't) be the same thing as bringing back lost manufacturing
(or mining) jobs. We have had 30 years of shifting power between labor and capital. Restoring
labor market institutions (both unions and government regulation) and raising the floor through
higher minimum wages, single payer health care, fair wages for women and more support for child
and elder care, trade policies that care about working families, better safe retirement plans
and strengthened Social Security, etc. is key here, along with running a real full employment
economy, with a significant green component. See Bob Polllin's excellent program in
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/back-full-employment
That program runs up against racism, sexism, division, and fear of government and taxation,
and those are powerful forces. But we don't need all Trump supporters. We do need a real, positive
economic program that can attract those who care about the economics more than the cultural stuff.
How about people of color drop the democrats and their hand wringing about white people when they
do nothing about voter suppression!! White fragility is nauseating and I'm planning to arm myself
and tell all the people of color I know to do the same. I expect nothing from the democrats going
forward.
I have never commented here but I will now because of the number of absurd statements. I happen
to work with black and Hispanic youth and have also worked with undocumented immigrants. To pretend
that trump and the Republican Party has their interest in mind is completely absurd. As for the
white working class, please tell me what programs either trump or the republican have put forward
to benefit them? I have lost a lot of respect for Duy
I think much of appeal of DJT was in his political incorrectness. PC marginalises. Very. Of white
working class specifically. it tells one, one cannot rely on one's ideas any more. In no uncertain
terms. My brother, who voted for Trump, lost his job to PC without offending on purpose, but the
woman in question felt free to accuse him of violating her, with no regard to his fate. He was
never close enough to do that. Is that not some kind of McCarthyism?
Just to be correct. Clinton was saying that half (and that was a terrible error-should have said
"some") were people that were unreachable, but that they had to communicate effectively with the
other part of his support. People who echo the media dumb-ing down of complex statements are part
of the problem.
Still, I believe that if enough younger people and african-americans had come out in the numbers
they did for Obama in some of those states, Clinton would have won. Certainly, the media managed
to paint her in more negative light than she objectively deserved-- even if she deserved some
negatives.
I am in no way a fan of HRC. Still, the nature of the choice was blurred to an egregious degree.
"The tough reality of economic development is that it will always be easier to move people to
jobs than the jobs to people."
This is indisputable, but I have never seen any discussion of the point that moving is not
cost-free. Back in the '90s I had a discussion with a very smart person, a systems analyst, who
insisted that poor people moved to wherever the welfare benefits were highest.
I tried to point out that moving from one town to another costs more than a bus ticket. You
have to pay to have your possessions transported. You have to have enough cash to pay at least
two months' rent and maybe an additional security deposit.
You have to have enough cash to pay for food for at least one month or however long it takes
for your first paycheck or welfare check to come in. There may be other costs like relocating
your kids to a new school system and maybe changing your health insurance provider.
There probably are other costs I'm not aware of, and the emotional cost of leaving your family
and your roots. The fact that some people succeed in moving is a great achievement. I'm amazed
it works at all in Europe where you also have the different languages to cope with.
I'm not sure the Hillary non-voters - which also include poor black neighborhoods - were voting
against their economic interests. Under Obama, they didn't do well. Many of them were foreclosed
on while Obama was giving the money to the banks. Jobs haven't improved, unless you want to work
at an Amazon warehouse or for Uber and still be broke. Obama tried to cut social security. He
made permanent Bush's tax cuts for the rich. Wars and more wars. Health premiums went up - right
before the election. The most Obama could say in campaigning for Hillary was "if you care about
my legacy, vote for Hillary." He's the only one that cares about his legacy. I don't know that
it's about resentment but about just having some hope for economic improvement - which Trump offered
(no matter how shallow and deceptive) and Hillary offered nothing but "Trump's an idiot and I'm
not."
I believe Bernie would have beat Trump's ass if 1) the DNC hadn't put their fingers on the
scale for Hillary and 2) same with the media for Hillary and Trump. The Dems need more than some
better campaign slogans. They really need a plan for serious economic equality. And the unions
need to get their shit together and stop thinking that supporting corrupt corporate Dems is working.
Or perhaps the rank and file need to get their shit together and get rid of union bosses.
The keys of the election were race, immigration and trade. Trump won on these points. What
dems can do is to de-emphasize multiculturalism, racial equality, political correctness etc. Instead,
emphasize economic equality and security, for all working class.
Lincoln billed the civil war as a war to preserve the union, to gain wide support, instead
of war to free slaves. Of course, the slaves were freed when the union won the war. Dems can benefit
from a similar strategy
Krugman more or less blames media, FBI, Russia entirely for Hillary's loss, which I think
is wrong. As Tim said, Dems have long ceased to be the party of the working class, at least in
public opinion, for legitimate reasons.
Besides, a lot voters are tired of stale faces and stale ideas. They yearn something new, especially
the voters in deep economic trouble.
Maybe it's time to try some old fashioned mercantilism, protectionism? America first is an
appealing idea, in this age of mindless globalization.
All Mr. Krugman and the Democratic establishment need to do is to listen, with open ears and
mind, to what Thomas Frank has been saying, and they will know where they went wrong and most
likely what to do about it, if they can release themselves from their fatal embrace with Big Money
covered up by identity politics.
But they cannot bring themselves to admit their error, and to give up their very personally
profitable current arrangement. And so they are caught up in a credibility trap which is painfully
obvious to the objective observer.
Pretty sad commentary by neoliberal left screaming at neoliberal right and vice versa.
It seems quite clear that the vast majority of commenters live as much in the ivory tower/bubble
as is claimed for their ideological opponent.
It is also quite interesting that most of these same commenters don't seem to get that the
voting public gets what the majority of it wants - not what every single group within the overall
population wants.
The neoliberals with their multi-culti/love them all front men have had it good for a while,
now there's a reaction. Deal with it.
"... The author missed the fact that pillage and plunder and rentier capitalism as defined by Reaganomics
has failed just as badly as communism for the same reason. ..."
"... If you want to be paid well, you must pay everyone else well. ..."
"Do unto Others " -might be an important Economic principle
The author missed the fact that pillage and plunder and rentier capitalism as defined by
Reaganomics has failed just as badly as communism for the same reason.
When you call for cost cuts which can only be done by cutting labor costs which means fewer
workers getting paid less, you are calling for your wages and income, or of your children and
grandchildren to be slashed as well.
Tax cuts mean paying fewer workers to provide public services whether roads, education, knowledge,
health, which means you will suffer losses of services AND eventual loss of income to your family.
Fewer paid workers forces wages and incomes lower for all workers.
If you want to be paid well, you must pay everyone else well.
(facebook.com)
286
Posted by msmash
on Thursday November 24, 2016 @01:01PM
from the
stranger-things
dept.
On Wednesday, J. Alex Halderman, the director of the University of Michigan's
Center for Computer Security & Society and a respected voice in computer
science and information society, said that the Clinton Campaign
should ask for a recount of the vote for the U.S. Presidential election
.
Later he wrote, "Were this year's deviations from pre-election polls the
results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation
is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was
hacked. But I don't believe that either one of these seemingly unlikely
explanations is overwhelmingly more likely than the other." The Outline, a new
publication by a dozen of respected journalists, has published a post (on
Facebook for now, since their website is still in the works), in which former
Motherboard's reporter Adrianne Jeffries makes it clear that we
still don't have concrete evidence that the vote was tampered with, but why
still the case for paper ballots is strong
. From the article:
Halderman
also repeats the erroneous claim that federal agencies have publicly said that
senior officials in Russia commissioned attacks on voter registration databases
in Arizona and Illinois. In October, federal agencies attributed the Democratic
National Committee email hack to Russia, but specifically said they could not
attribute the state hacks. Claims to the contrary seem to have spread due to
anonymous sourcing and the conflation of Russian hackers with Russian
state-sponsored hackers. Unfortunately, the Russia-hacked-us meme is spreading
fast on social media and among disaffected Clinton voters. "It's just
ignorance," said the cybersecurity consultant Jeffrey Carr, who published his
own response to Halderman on Medium. "It's fear and ignorance that's fueling
that." The urgency comes from deadlines for recount petitions, which start
kicking in on Friday in Wisconsin, Monday in Pennsylvania, and the following
Wednesday in Michigan. There is disagreement about how likely it is that the
Russian government interfered with election results. There is little
disagreement, however, that our voting system could be more robust -- namely,
by requiring paper ballot backups for electronic voting and mandating that all
results be audited, as they already are in some states including California.
Despite the 150,000 signatures collected on a Change.org petition, what happens
next really comes down to the Clinton team's decision.
"... The Democratic Party as a Party (Sanders was an outlier) has nothing to do with "fair and equal
play for all". This is a party of soft neoliberals and it adheres to Washington consensus no less then
Republicans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus ..."
"... If you read the key postulates it is clear that that they essentially behaved like an occupier
in this country. In this sense "Occupy Wall street" movement should actually be called "Liberation from
Wall Street occupation" movement. ..."
"... Bill Clinton realized that he can betray working class with impunity as "they have nowhere
to go" and will vote for Democrat anyway. In this sense Bill Clinton is a godfather of the right wing
nationalism in the USA. He sowed the "Teeth's of Dragon" and now we have, what we have. ..."
You guys should wake up and smell what country you live in. Here is a good place to start.
"Campaigning for president in 1980, Ronald Reagan told stories of Cadillac-driving "welfare
queens" and "strapping young bucks" buying T-bone steaks with food stamps. In trumpeting these
tales of welfare run amok, Reagan never needed to mention race, because he was blowing a dog
whistle: sending a message about racial minorities inaudible on one level, but clearly heard
on another. In doing so, he tapped into a long political tradition that started with George
Wallace and Richard Nixon, and is more relevant than ever in the age of the Tea Party and the
first black president.
In Dog Whistle Politics, Ian Haney L?pez offers a sweeping account of how politicians and
plutocrats deploy veiled racial appeals to persuade white voters to support policies that favor
the extremely rich yet threaten their own interests. Dog whistle appeals generate middle-class
enthusiasm for political candidates who promise to crack down on crime, curb undocumented immigration,
and protect the heartland against Islamic infiltration, but ultimately vote to slash taxes
for the rich, give corporations regulatory control over industry and financial markets, and
aggressively curtail social services. White voters, convinced by powerful interests that minorities
are their true enemies, fail to see the connection between the political agendas they support
and the surging wealth inequality that takes an increasing toll on their lives. The tactic
continues at full force, with the Republican Party using racial provocations to drum up enthusiasm
for weakening unions and public pensions, defunding public schools, and opposing health care
reform.
Rejecting any simple story of malevolent and obvious racism, Haney L?pez links as never
before the two central themes that dominate American politics today: the decline of the middle
class and the Republican Party's increasing reliance on white voters. Dog Whistle Politics
will generate a lively and much-needed debate about how racial politics has destabilized the
American middle class -- white and nonwhite members alike."
Reading the above posts I am reminded that in November there was ONE Election with TWO Results:
Electoral Vote for Donald Trump by the margin of 3 formerly Democratic Voting states Michigan,
Ohio, and Pennsylvania
Popular Vote for Hillary Clinton by over 2.8 Million
The Democratic Party and its Candidates OBVIOUSLY need to get more votes in the Electoral States
that they lost in 2016, not change what they stand for, the principles of fair and equal play
for all.
And, in the 3 States that turned the Electoral Vote in Trump's favor and against Hillary, all
that is needed are 125,000 or more votes, probably fewer, and the DEMS win the Electoral vote
big too.
It is not any more complex than that.
So how does the Democratic Party get more votes in those States?
PANDER to their voters by delivering on KISS, not talking about it.
That is create living wage jobs and not taking them away as the Republican Party of 'Free Trade'
and the Clinton Democratic Party 'Free Trade' Elites did.
Understand this: It is not the responsibility of the USA, or in its best interests, to create
jobs in other nations (Mexico, Japan, China, Canada, Israel, etc.) that do not create jobs in
the USA equivalently, especially if the gain is offset by costly overseas confrontations and involvements
that would not otherwise exist.
"The Democratic Party and its Candidates OBVIOUSLY need to get more votes in the Electoral
States that they lost in 2016, not change what they stand for, the principles of fair and equal
play for all. "
The Democratic Party as a Party (Sanders was an outlier) has nothing to do with "fair and
equal play for all". This is a party of soft neoliberals and it adheres to Washington consensus
no less then Republicans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus
If you read the key postulates it is clear that that they essentially behaved like an occupier
in this country. In this sense "Occupy Wall street" movement should actually be called "Liberation
from Wall Street occupation" movement.
Bill Clinton realized that he can betray working class with impunity as "they have nowhere
to go" and will vote for Democrat anyway. In this sense Bill Clinton is a godfather of the right
wing nationalism in the USA. He sowed the "Teeth's of Dragon" and now we have, what we have.
"You control the message, and the facts do not matter. "
Notable quotes:
"... That's funny. Neoliberals are closet Trotskyites and they will let you talk only is specially
designated reservations, which are irrelevant (or, more correctly, as long as they are irrelevant) for
swaying the public opinion. ..."
"... If you think they are for freedom of the press, you are simply delusional. They are for freedom
of the press for those who own it. ..."
"... Try to get dissenting views to MSM or academic magazines. Yes, they will not send you to GULAG,
but the problem is that ostracism works no less effectively. That the essence of "inverted totalitarism"
(another nickname for neoliberalism). You can substitute physical repression used in classic totalitarism
with indirect suppression of dissenting opinions with the same, or even better results. Note that even
the term "neoliberalism" is effectively censored and not used by MSM. ..."
"... And the resulting level of suppressing of opposition (which is the essence of censorship) is
on the level that would make the USSR censors blush. And if EconomistView gets too close to anti-neoliberal
platform it will instantly find itself in the lists like PropOrNot ..."
"Then of course, it is easy to attack the neoliberals, they'll actually let you talk."
That's funny. Neoliberals are closet Trotskyites and they will let you talk only is specially
designated reservations, which are irrelevant (or, more correctly, as long as they are irrelevant)
for swaying the public opinion.
They are all adamant neo-McCarthyists, if you wish and will label you Putin stooge in no time
[, if you try to escape the reservation].
If you think they are for freedom of the press, you are simply delusional. They are for
freedom of the press for those who own it.
Try to get dissenting views to MSM or academic magazines. Yes, they will not send you to
GULAG, but the problem is that ostracism works no less effectively. That the essence of "inverted
totalitarism" (another nickname for neoliberalism). You can substitute physical repression used
in classic totalitarism with indirect suppression of dissenting opinions with the same, or even
better results. Note that even the term "neoliberalism" is effectively censored and not used by
MSM.
See Sheldon Wolin writings about this.
And the resulting level of suppressing of opposition (which is the essence of censorship)
is on the level that would make the USSR censors blush. And if EconomistView gets too close to
anti-neoliberal platform it will instantly find itself in the lists like PropOrNot
With the election of Donald Trump to
the presidency, the American public opted for change. A
new poll
from the Charles Koch Institute and Center for the National
Interest on America and foreign affairs indicates that the desire for a fresh
start may be particularly pronounced in the foreign policy sphere. In many
areas the responses align with what Donald Trump was saying during the
presidential campaign-and in other areas, there are a number of Americans who
don't have strong views. There may be a real opportunity for Trump to redefine
the foreign policy debate. He may have a ready-made base of support and find
that other Americans are persuadable.
Two key questions centering on whether U.S. foreign policy has made
Americans more or less safe and whether U.S. foreign policy has made the rest
of the world more or less safe show that a majority of the public is convinced
that-in both cases-the answer is that it has not. 51.9 percent say that
American foreign policy has not enhanced our security; 51.1 percent say that it
has also had a deleterious effect abroad. The responses indicate that the
successive wars in the Middle East, ranging from Afghanistan to Iraq to Libya,
have not promoted but, rather, undermined a sense of security among Americans.
The poll results indicate that this sentiment has translated into nearly 35
percent of respondents wanted a decreased military footprint in the Middle
East, with about 30 percent simply wanting to keep things where they stand.
When it comes to America's key relationship with Saudi Arabia, 23.2 percent
indicate that they would favor weaker military ties, while 24 percent say they
are simply unsure. Over half of Americans do not want to deploy ground troops
to Syria. Overall, 45.4 percent say that they believe that it would enhance
American security to reduce our military presence abroad, while 30.9 percent
say that it should be increased.
That Americans are adopting a more equivocal approach overall towards other
countries seems clear. When provided with a list of adjectives to describe
relationship, very few Americans were prepared to choose the extremes of friend
or foe. The most popular term was the fairly neutral term "competitor." The
mood appears to be similarly ambivalent about NATO. When asked whether the U.S.
should automatically defend Latvia, Lithuania, or Estonia in a military
conflict with Russia, 26.1 percent say that they neither agree nor disagree. 22
percent say that they disagree and a mere 16.8 percent say that they agree.
Similarly, when queried about whether the inclusion of Montenegro makes America
safer, no less than 63.6 percent say that they don't know or are not sure.
About Russia itself, 37.8 percent indicate they see it as both an adversary and
a potential partner. That they still see it as a potential partner is
remarkable given the tenor of the current media climate.
The poll results underscore that Americans are uneasy with the status quo.
U.S. foreign policy in particular is perceived as a failure and Americans want
to see a change, endorsing views and stands that might previously have been
seen as existing on the fringe of debate about America's proper role abroad.
Instead of militarism and adventurism, Americans are more keen on a cooperative
world, in which trade and diplomacy are the principal means of engaging other
nations. 49 percent of the respondents indicate that they would prioritize
diplomacy over military power, while 26.3 percent argue for the reverse. 54
percent argue that the U.S. should work more through the United Nations to
improve its security. Moreover, a clear majority of those polled stated that
they believed that increasing trade would help to make the United States safer.
In a year that has been anything but normal, perhaps Trump is onto something
with his talk of burden sharing and a more critical look at the regnant
establishment foreign policy that has prevailed until now.
(muckrock.com)
52
Posted by EditorDavid
on Sunday December 18, 2016 @09:34PM
from the
actually-it's-108-years
dept.
"Over a century of fear and filing cabinets" at the FBI has been exposed
through six years of Freedom of Information Act requests. And now MuckRock
founder (and long-time Slashdot reader)
v3rgEz
writes:
MuckRock recently published its 100th look into
historical FBI files, and to celebrate they've also
compiled a timeline of the FBI's history
. It traces the rise and fall of J.
Edgar Hoover as well as some of the Bureau's more questionable investigations
into famous figures
ranging from Steve Jobs
to
Hannah Arendt
. Read the timeline, or browse through all of MuckRock's FBI
FOIA work.
The FBI interviewed 29 people about Steve Jobs (after he was appointed to the
President's Export Council in 1991), with several citing his "past drug use,"
and several individuals also saying Jobs would "distort reality."
Posted by BeauHD on Tuesday December
06, 2016 @07:05PM from the muscle-memory dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Phys.Org:
Scientists have
developed a mind-controlled robotic hand
that allows people with certain types of spinal injuries
to perform everyday tasks such as using a fork or drinking from a cup. The low-cost device was tested
in Spain on six people with quadriplegia affecting their ability to grasp or manipulate objects.
By wearing a cap that measures electric brain activity and eye movement the users were able to send
signals to a tablet computer that controlled the glove-like device attached to their hand. Participants
in the small-scale study were able to perform daily activities better with the robotic hand than
without, according to results
published Tuesday in
the journal Science Robotics .
It took participants just 10 minutes to learn how to use the system
before they were able to carry out tasks such as picking up potato chips or signing a document. According
to Surjo R. Soekadar, a neuroscientist at the University Hospital Tuebingen in Germany and lead author
of the study, participants represented typical people with high spinal cord injuries, meaning they
were able to move their shoulders but not their fingers. There were some limitations to the system,
though. Users had to have sufficient function in their shoulder and arm to reach out with the robotic
hand. And mounting the system required another person's help.
An autonomous
shuttle from Auro Robotics is
picking up and dropping off students, faculty, and visitors
at the Santa Clara University Campus
seven days a week. It doesn't go fast, but it has to watch out for pedestrians, skateboarders, bicyclists,
and bold squirrels (engineers added a special squirrel lidar on the bumper). An Auro engineer rides
along at this point to keep the university happy, but soon will be replaced by a big red emergency
stop button (think Staples Easy button). If you want a test drive, just look for a "shuttle stop"
sign (there's one in front of the parking garage) and climb on, it doesn't ask for university ID.
More directly to the heart of American fast-food cuisine, Momentum Machines, a restaurant concept
with a robot that can supposedly
flip hundreds of burgers an hour
, applied for a building permit in San Francisco and started
listing job openings this January, reported Eater. Then there's Eatsa, the automat restaurant where
no human interaction is necessary, which has locations
popping up across California .
(businessinsider.co.id)
83 Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday December 11, 2016 @09:34PM from the damn-it-Jim-I'm-a-doctor-not-a-supercomputer
dept.
"Supercomputing has another use," writes Slashdot reader
rmdingler , sharing a story that
quotes David Kenny, the General Manager of IBM Watson:
"There's a 60-year-old woman in Tokyo. She was at the University of Tokyo. She had been diagnosed
with leukemia six years ago. She was living, but not healthy. So the University of Tokyo ran
her genomic sequence through Watson and
it was able to ascertain that they were off by one thing . Actually, she had two strains
of leukemia. They did treat her and she is healthy."
"That's one example. Statistically, we're seeing that about one third of the time, Watson is
proposing an additional diagnosis."
"... Skype Translator, available in nine languages, uses artificial intelligence (AI) techniques such as deep-learning to train artificial neural networks and convert spoken chats in almost real time. The company says the app improves as it listens to more conversations. ..."
Posted by msmash on Monday December 12, 2016 @11:05AM from the worthwhile dept.
Microsoft has added the ability to use Skype Translator on calls to mobiles and landlines to its
latest Skype Preview app. From a report on ZDNet: Up until now, Skype Translator was available
to individuals making Skype-to-Skype calls. The new announcement of the expansion of Skype Translator
to mobiles and landlines
makes Skype Translator more widely available .
To test drive this, users need to be members
of the Windows Insider Program. They need to install the latest version of Skype Preview on their
Windows 10 PCs and to have Skype Credits or a subscription.
Skype Translator, available in
nine languages, uses artificial intelligence (AI) techniques such as deep-learning to train artificial
neural networks and convert spoken chats in almost real time. The company says the app improves
as it listens to more conversations.
Fund
more research in robotics and artificial intelligence in order for the U.S. to
maintain its leadership in the global technology industry. The report calls on
the government to steer that research to support a diverse workforce and to
focus on combating algorithmic bias in AI.
Invest in and increase STEM education for youth and job retraining for
adults in technology-related fields. That means offering computer science
education for all K-12 students, as well as expanding national workforce
retraining by investing six times the current amount spent to keep American
workers competitive in a global economy.
Modernize and strengthen the federal social safety net, including public
health care, unemployment insurance, welfare and food stamps. The report also
calls for increasing the minimum wage, paying workers overtime and and
strengthening unions and worker bargaining power.
The report says the government, meaning the the incoming Trump administration,
will have to forge ahead with new policies and grapple with the complexities of
existing social services to protect the millions of Americans who face
displacement by advances in automation, robotics and artificial intelligence.
The report also calls on the government to keep a close eye on fostering
competition in the AI industry, since the companies with the most data will be
able to create the most advanced products, effectively preventing new startups
from having a chance to even compete.
Back in April, Stanford University professor
Oussama Khatib led
a team of researchers on an underwater archaeological expedition, 30 kilometers off the southern
coast of France, to La Lune , King Louis XIV's sunken 17th-century flagship. Rather than
dive to the site of the wreck 100 meters below the surface, which is a very bad idea for almost
everyone, Khatib's team
brought along a custom-made humanoid submarine robot called Ocean One . In this month's issue
of
IEEE Robotics and Automation Magazine , the Stanford researchers describe in detail
how they designed and built the robot , a hybrid between a humanoid and an underwater remotely
operated vehicle (ROV), and also how they managed to send it down to the resting place of
La Lune , where it used its three-fingered hands to retrieve a vase. Most ocean-ready ROVs
are boxy little submarines that might have an arm on them if you're lucky, but they're not really
designed for the kind of fine manipulation that underwater archaeology demands. You could send
down a human diver instead, but once you get past about 40 meters, things start to get both complicated
and dangerous. Ocean One's humanoid design means that it's easy and intuitive for a human to remotely
perform delicate archeological tasks through a telepresence interface.
schwit1 notes: "Ocean One is the best name they could come up with?"
Posted by msmash on Friday November 25, 2016 @12:10AM from the interesting-things dept.
BBC has a report today in which, citing several financial institutions and analysts, it claims that
in the not-too-distant future, our fields could be tilled, sown, tended and harvested entirely by
fleets of co-operating autonomous machines by land and air. An excerpt from the article:
Driverless
tractors that can follow pre-programmed routes are already being deployed at large farms around the
world. Drones are buzzing over fields assessing crop health and soil conditions. Ground sensors are
monitoring the amount of water and nutrients in the soil, triggering irrigation and fertilizer applications.
And in Japan, the world's first entirely automated lettuce farm is due for launch next year.
The future of farming is automated
. The World Bank says we'll need to produce 50% more food by 2050 if the global population continues
to rise at its current pace. But the effects of climate change could see crop yields falling by more
than a quarter. So autonomous tractors, ground-based sensors, flying drones and enclosed hydroponic
farms could all help farmers produce more food, more sustainably at lower cost.
The truck "will travel in regular traffic, and a driver in the truck will be positioned to
intervene should anything go awry, Department of Transportation spokesman Matt Bruning said Friday,
adding that 'safety is obviously No. 1.'"
Ohio sees this route as "a corridor where new technologies can be safely tested in real-life traffic,
aided by a fiber-optic cable network and sensor systems slated for installation next year" -- although
next week the truck will also start driving on the Ohio Turnpike.
Posted by BeauHD on Friday December 02,
2016 @05:00PM from the be-afraid-very-afraid dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Business Insider:
In
a column in The Guardian , the world-famous physicist wrote that "the automation of factories
has already decimated jobs in traditional manufacturing, and the
rise of artificial intelligence is likely to extend this job destruction deep into the middle
classes , with only the most caring, creative or supervisory roles remaining." He adds his
voice to a growing chorus of experts concerned about the effects that technology will have on
workforce in the coming years and decades. The fear is that while artificial intelligence will
bring radical increases in efficiency in industry, for ordinary people this will translate into
unemployment and uncertainty, as their human jobs are replaced by machines.
Automation will, "in turn will accelerate the already widening economic inequality around the
world," Hawking wrote. "The internet and the platforms that it makes possible allow very small
groups of individuals to make enormous profits while employing very few people. This is inevitable,
it is progress, but it is also socially destructive." He frames this economic anxiety as a reason
for the rise in right-wing, populist politics in the West: "We are living in a world of widening,
not diminishing, financial inequality, in which many people can see not just their standard of
living, but their ability to earn a living at all, disappearing. It is no wonder then that they
are searching for a new deal, which Trump and Brexit might have appeared to represent." Combined
with other issues -- overpopulation, climate change, disease -- we are, Hawking warns ominously,
at "the most dangerous moment in the development of humanity." Humanity must come together if
we are to overcome these challenges, he says.
"... The firm says that 44 percent of the CEOs surveyed agreed that robotics, automation and AI would reshape the future of many work places by making people "largely irrelevant." ..."
Posted by msmash on Monday December 05, 2016 @02:20PM from the shape-of-things-to-come
dept.
An anonymous reader shares a report on BetaNews:
Although artificial intelligence (AI),
robotics and other emerging technologies may reshape the world as we know it, a new global study
has revealed that the
many
CEOs now value technology over people when it comes to the future of their businesses . The study
was conducted by the Los Angeles-based management consultant firm Korn Ferry that interviewed 800
business leaders across a variety of multi-million and multi-billion dollar global organizations.
The firm says that 44 percent of the CEOs surveyed agreed that robotics, automation and AI would
reshape the future of many work places by making people "largely irrelevant."
The global managing
director of solutions at Korn Ferry Jean-Marc Laouchez explains why many CEOs have adopted this controversial
mindset, saying:
"Leaders may be facing what experts call a tangibility bias. Facing uncertainty,
they are putting priority in their thinking, planning and execution on the tangible -- what they
can see, touch and measure, such as technology instruments."
Posted by BeauHD on Tuesday
December 06, 2016 @10:30PM from the what-to-expect dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from
The Verge:
Microsoft
polled 17 women working in its research organization about the technology advances they expect to
see in 2017 , as well as a decade later in 2027. The researchers' predictions touch on natural
language processing, machine learning, agricultural software, and virtual reality, among other topics.
For virtual reality,
Mar Gonzalez Franco
, a researcher in Microsoft's Redmond lab, believes body tracking will improve
next year, and then over the next decade we'll have "rich multi-sensorial experiences that will be
capable of producing hallucinations which blend or alter perceives reality."
Haptic devices will
simulate touch to further enhance the sensory experience. Meanwhile,
Susan Dumais
, a scientist and deputy managing director at the Redmond lab, believes deep learning
will help improve web search results next year.
In 2027, however, the search box will disappear,
she says.
It'll be replaced by search that's more "ubiquitous, embedded, and contextually sensitive."
She says we're already seeing some of this in voice-controlled searches through mobile and smart
home devices.
We might eventually be able to look things up with either sound, images, or video.
Plus, our searches will respond to "current location, content, entities, and activities" without
us explicitly mentioning them, she says.
Of course, it's worth noting that Microsoft has been losing
the search box war to Google, so it isn't surprising that the company thinks search will die. With
global warming as a looming threat,
Asta Roseway
, principal research designer, says by 2027 famers will use AI to maintain healthy
crop yields, even with "climate change, drought, and disaster."
Low-energy farming solutions, like
vertical farming and aquaponics, will also be essential to keeping the food supply high, she says. You can view all 17 predictions
here
"... Efforts which led to impoverishment of lower 80% the USA population with a large part of the US population living in a third world country. This "third world country" includes Wal-Mart and other retail employees, those who have McJobs in food sector, contractors, especially such as Uber "contractors", Amazon packers. This is a real third world country within the USA and probably 50% population living in it. ..."
"... While conversion of electricity supply from coal to wind and solar was more or less successful (much less then optimists claim, because it requires building of buffer gas powered plants and East-West high voltage transmission lines), the scarcity of oil is probably within the lifespan of boomers. Let's say within the next 20 years. That spells deep trouble to economic growth as we know it, even with all those machinations and number racket that now is called GDP (gambling now is a part of GDP). And in worst case might spell troubles to capitalism as social system, to say nothing about neoliberalism and neoliberal globalization. The latter (as well as dollar hegemony) is under considerable stress even now. But here "doomers" were wrong so often in the past, that there might be chance that this is not inevitable. ..."
"... Shale gas production in the USA is unsustainable even more then shale oil production. So the question is not if it declines, but when. The future decline (might be even Seneca Cliff decline) is beyond reasonable doubt. ..."
"What is good for wall st. is good for America". The remains of the late 19th century anti
trust/regulation momentum are democrat farmer labor wing in Minnesota, if it still exists. An
example: how farmers organized to keep railroads in their place. Today populists are called deplorable,
before they ever get going.
And US' "libruls" are corporatist war mongers.
Used to be the deplorable would be the libruls!
Division!
likbez -> pgl...
I browsed it and see more of less typical pro-neoliberal sentiments, despite some critique
of neoliberalism at the end.
This guy does not understand history and does not want to understand. He propagates or invents
historic myths. One thing that he really does not understand is how WWI and WWII propelled the
USA at the expense of Europe. He also does not understand why New Deal was adopted and why the
existence of the USSR was the key to "reasonable" (as in "not self-destructive" ) behaviour of
the US elite till late 70th. And how promptly the US elite changed to self-destructive habits
after 1991. In a way he is a preacher not a scientist. So is probably not second rate, but third
rate thinker in this area.
While Trump_vs_deep_state (aka "bastard neoliberalism") might not be an answer to challenges the USA is
facing, it is definitely a sign that "this time is different" and at least part of the US elite
realized that it is too dangerous to kick the can down the road. That's why Bush and Clinton political
clans were sidelined this time.
There are powerful factors that make the US economic position somewhat fragile and while Trump
is a very questionable answer to the challenges the USA society faces, unlike Hillary he might
be more reasonable in his foreign policy abandoning efforts to expand global neoliberal empire
led by the USA.
Efforts which led to impoverishment of lower 80% the USA population with a large part of
the US population living in a third world country. This "third world country" includes Wal-Mart
and other retail employees, those who have McJobs in food sector, contractors, especially such
as Uber "contractors", Amazon packers. This is a real third world country within the USA and probably
50% population living in it.
Add to this the decline of the US infrastructure due to overstretch of imperial building efforts
(which reminds British empire troubles).
I see several factors that IMHO make the current situation dangerous and unsustainable, Trump
or no Trump:
1. Rapid growth of population. The US population doubled in less them 70 years. Currently
at 318 million, the USA is the third most populous country on earth. That spells troubles for
democracy and ecology, to name just two. That might also catalyze separatists movements with two
already present (Alaska and Texas).
2. Plato oil. While conversion of electricity supply from coal to wind and solar
was more or less successful (much less then optimists claim, because it requires building of buffer
gas powered plants and East-West high voltage transmission lines), the scarcity of oil is probably
within the lifespan of boomers. Let's say within the next 20 years. That spells deep trouble to
economic growth as we know it, even with all those machinations and number racket that now is
called GDP (gambling now is a part of GDP). And in worst case might spell troubles to capitalism
as social system, to say nothing about neoliberalism and neoliberal globalization. The latter
(as well as dollar hegemony) is under considerable stress even now. But here "doomers" were wrong
so often in the past, that there might be chance that this is not inevitable.
3. Shale gas production in the USA is unsustainable even more then shale oil production.
So the question is not if it declines, but when. The future decline (might be even Seneca
Cliff decline) is beyond reasonable doubt.
4. Growth of automation endangers the remaining jobs, even jobs in service sector .
Cashiers and waiters are now on the firing line. Wall Mart, Shop Rite, etc, are already using
automatic cashiers machines in some stores. Wall-Mart also uses automatic machines in back office
eliminating staff in "cash office".
Waiters might be more difficult task but orders and checkouts are computerized in many restaurants.
So the function is reduced to bringing food. So much for the last refuge of recent college graduates.
The successes in speech recognition are such that Microsoft now provides on the fly translation
in Skype. There are also instances of successful use of computer in medical diagnostics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-aided_diagnosis
IT will continue to be outsourced as profits are way too big for anything to stop this trend.
"... Companies can now test self-driving cars on Michigan public roads without a driver or steering wheel under new laws that could push the state to the forefront of autonomous vehicle development. ..."
Posted by msmash on Friday December 09, 2016 @01:00PM from the it's-coming dept.
Companies
can now test self-driving cars on Michigan public roads without a driver or steering wheel under
new laws that could push the state to the forefront of autonomous vehicle development.
From a report
on ABC:
The package of bills signed into law Friday comes with few specific state regulations
and leaves many decisions up to automakers and companies like Google and Uber. It also allows automakers
and tech companies to run autonomous taxi services and
permits test parades of self-driving tractor-trailers as long as humans are in each truck
. And
they allow the sale of self-driving vehicles to the public once they are tested and certified, according
to the state. The bills allow testing without burdensome regulations so the industry can move forward
with potential life-saving technology, said Gov. Rick Snyder, who was to sign the bills. "It makes
Michigan a place where particularly for the auto industry it's a good place to do work," he said.
DeepMind, which was acquired by Google for $400 million in 2014, announced
on Monday that it is open-sourcing its "Lab" from this week onwards so that others can try and make
advances in the notoriously complex field of AI.
The company says that the DeepMind Lab, which it
has been using internally for some time, is a 3D game-like platform tailored for agent-based AI research.
[...]
The DeepMind Lab aims to combine several different AI research areas into one environment.
Researchers will be able to test their AI agent's abilities on navigation, memory, and 3D vision,
while determining how good they are at planning and strategy.
"... The matter with ATT was originally made public in 2014 and also involved two companies that actually applied the unauthorized charges, Tatto and Acquinity. ..."
"Through the FTC's refund program, nearly 2.5 million current ATT customers will receive
a credit on their bill within the next 75 days, and more than 300,000 former customers will receive
a check. The average refund amount is $31. [...] According to the FTC's complaint, ATT placed
unauthorized third-party charges on its customers' phone bills, usually in amounts of $9.99 per
month, for ringtones and text message subscriptions containing love tips, horoscopes, and 'fun
facts.' The FTC alleged that ATT kept at least 35 percent of the charges it imposed on its customers."
The matter with ATT was originally made public in 2014 and also involved two companies that
actually applied the unauthorized charges, Tatto and Acquinity.
"... Someone needs to buy Paul Krugman a one way ticket to Camden and have him hang around the devastated post-industrial hell scape his policies helped create. ..."
"... Krugman should be temporarily barred from public discourse until he apologizes for pushing NAFTA and all the rest. Hundreds of millions of people were thrust into dire poverty because of the horrible free trade policies he and 99.9% of US economists pushed. ..."
"... Extremes meet: extreme protectionism is close to extreme neoliberal globalization in the level of devastation, that can occur. ..."
"... But please do not forget that Krugman is a neoliberal stooge and this is much worse then being protectionist. This is close to betrayal of the nation you live it, people you live with, if you ask me. ..."
"... To me academic neoliberals after 2008 are real "deplorables". And should be treated as such, despite his intellect. There not much honor in being an intellectual prostitute of financial oligarchy that rules the country. ..."
Economists are still oblivious to the devastation created by 40 years of free trade.
Someone needs to buy Paul Krugman a one way ticket to Camden and have him hang around the
devastated post-industrial hell scape his policies helped create.
Krugman should be temporarily barred from public discourse until he apologizes for pushing
NAFTA and all the rest. Hundreds of millions of people were thrust into dire poverty because of
the horrible free trade policies he and 99.9% of US economists pushed.
They have learned nothing and they have forgotten much.
Oh yea - bring on the tariffs which will lead to a massive appreciation of the dollar. Which in
turn will lead to massive reductions in US exports. I guess our new troll is short selling Boeing.
likbez -> pgl, -1
I tend to agree with you. Extremes meet: extreme protectionism is close to extreme neoliberal
globalization in the level of devastation, that can occur.
But please do not forget that Krugman is a neoliberal stooge and this is much worse then
being protectionist. This is close to betrayal of the nation you live it, people you live with,
if you ask me.
To me academic neoliberals after 2008 are real "deplorables". And should be treated as
such, despite his intellect. There not much honor in being an intellectual prostitute of financial
oligarchy that rules the country.
(cnn.com)
255
Posted by EditorDavid
on Sunday December 18, 2016 @12:34PM
from the
eat-different
dept.
An anonymous reader writes:
Apple has been
ordered to cut a $2 million check
for denying some of its retail workers
meal breaks. The lawsuit was first filed in 2011 by four Apple employees in San
Diego. They alleged that the company failed to give them meal and rest breaks
[as required by California law], and didn't pay them in a timely manner, among
other complaints. In 2013, the case became a class action lawsuit that included
California employees who had worked at Apple between 2007 and 2012,
approximately 21,000 people...
The complaint says Apple's culture of secrecy keeps employees from talking
about the company's poor working conditions. "If [employees] so much as discuss
the various labor policies, they run the risk of being fired, sued or
disciplined."
Apple changed their break policy in 2012, according to CNN, which reports that
the second half of the case should conclude later this week. The employees that
had been affected by Apple's original break policy could get as much as $95
each from Friday's settlement, according to CNN, "but it's likely some of the
money will go toward attorney fees."
(washingtonpost.com)
497
Posted by
BeauHD
on Thursday December 08, 2016 @10:30PM
from the
live-long-and-prosper
dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Washington Post:
For the first time
in more than two decades,
life expectancy for Americans declined last year
(Warning: may be paywalled;
alternate source
) -- a troubling development linked to a panoply of
worsening health problems in the United States.
In all, death rates
rose for eight of the top 10 leading causes of death. The new report raises the
possibility that major illnesses may be eroding prospects for an even wider
group of Americans. Its findings show increases in "virtually every cause of
death. It's all ages," said David Weir, director of the health and retirement
study at the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan. Over
the past five years, he noted, improvements in death rates were among the
smallest of the past four decades. "There's this just across-the-board
[phenomenon] of not doing very well in the United States." Overall, life
expectancy fell by one-tenth of a year, from 78.9 in 2014 to 78.8 in 2015,
according to the latest data. The last time U.S. life expectancy at birth
declined was in 1993, when it dropped from 75.6 to 75.4, according to World
Bank data. The overall death rate rose 1.2 percent in 2015, its first uptick
since 1999. More than 2.7 million people died, about 45 percent of them from
heart disease or cancer.
"At least three tents have been spotted in woodland beside the online retail
giant's base," reports a Scottish newspaper -- hidden behind trees, but within
sight of Amazon's warehouse, and right next to a busy highway.
An anonymous
reader writes:
Despite Scotland's "bitterly cold winter nights" -- with lows
in the 30s -- the tent "
was
easier and cheaper than commuting from his home
," one Amazon worker told
the
Courier
. (Though yesterday someone stole all of his camping
equipment.)
Amazon charges its employees for shuttle service to the fulfillment
center, which "swallows up a lot of the weekly wage," one political party
leader told the
Courier
, "forcing people to seek ever more desperate
ways of making work pay.
"Amazon should be ashamed that they pay their workers so little that they have
to camp out in the dead of winter to make ends meet..." he continued. "They pay
a small amount of tax and received millions of pounds from the Scottish
National Party Government, so the least they should do is pay the proper living
wage." Though the newspaper reports that holiday shopping has created 4,000
temporary jobs in the small town of Dunfermline,
The
Disney IT employees, said Sara Blackwell, a Florida labor attorney who is
representing this group, "lost their jobs when their jobs were outsourced to
contracting companies. And those companies brought in mostly, or virtually all,
non-American national origin workers," she said. The lawsuit alleges that
Disney terminated the employment of the plaintiffs "based solely on their
national origin and race, replacing them with Indian nationals." The people who
were laid off were multiple races, but the people who came in were mostly one
race, said Blackwell. The lawsuit alleges that Disney terminated the employment
of the plaintiffs "based solely on their national origin and race, replacing
them with Indian nationals."
"As companies tighten their purse strings, they're spreading out their hires --
this year, and for years to come," reports Backchannel, citing interviews with
executives and other workplace analysts.
mirandakatz
writes:
Once a
cost-cutting strategy,
remote offices are becoming the new normal
: from GitHub to Mozilla and
Wordpress, more and more companies are eschewing the physical office in favor
of systems that allow employees to live out their wanderlust. As workplaces
increasingly go remote, they're adopting tools to keep employees connected and
socially fulfilled -- as Mozilla Chief of Staff David Slater tells Backchannel,
"The wiki becomes the water cooler."
The article describes budget-conscious startups realizing they can cut their
overhead and choose from talent located anywhere in the world. And one group of
analysts calculated that the number of telecommuting workers
doubled
between 2005 and 2014
, reporting that now "75% of employees who work from
home earn over $65,000 per year, putting them in the upper 80th percentile of
all employees, home or office-based."
Are Slashdot's readers seeing a surge in
telecommuting? And does anybody have any good stories about the digital nomad
lifestyle?
Posted by msmash
on Tuesday November 29, 2016 @11:40AM
from the
fight-for-money
dept.
Uber drivers will join forces with fast food, home care and airport workers in
a nationwide protest on Tuesday.
Their demand: higher pay
.
From a report on CNET:
Calling it the "Day of
Disruption," drivers for the ride-hailing company in two dozen cities,
including Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco, will march at
airports and in shopping areas carrying signs that read, "Your Uber Driver is
Arriving Striking." The protest underscores the dilemma Uber faces as it
balances the needs of its drivers with its business. Valued at $68 billion,
Uber is the highest-valued venture-backed company worldwide. But as it has cut
the cost of rides to compete with traditional taxi services, Uber reportedly
has experienced trouble turning a profit.
Unlike many other workers involved in
Tuesday's protests, Uber drivers are not members of a union. In fact, Uber
doesn't even classify its drivers as employees. Instead the company considers
drivers independent contractors. This classification means the company isn't
responsible for many costs, including health insurance, paid sick days, gas,
car maintenance and much more.
However, Uber still sets drivers' rates and the
commission it pays itself, which ranges between 20 percent and 30 percent.
"I'd
like a fair day's pay for my hard work," Adam Shahim, a 40-year-old driver from
Pittsburgh, California, said in a statement.
"So I'm joining with the
fast-food, airport, home care, child care and higher education workers who are
leading the way and showing the country how to build an economy that works for
everyone, not just the few at the top."
"... Uber treats its drivers as Victorian-style "sweated labor", with some taking home less than the minimum wage, ..."
"... Drivers at the taxi-hailing app company reported feeling forced to work extremely long hours, sometimes more than 70 a week , just to make a basic living, said Frank Field, the Labor MP and chair of the work and pensions committee. ..."
"... Field received testimony from 83 drivers who said they often took home significantly less than the "national living wage" after paying their running costs. The report says they described conditions that matched the Victorian definition of sweated labor: "when earnings were barely sufficient to sustain existence, hours of labor were such as to make lives of workers periods of ceaseless toil; and conditions were injurious to the health of workers and dangerous to the public. ..."
"... Uber controls what the drivers charge, what they drive (minimum standards and all) and punishes them if they don't work when told to (by locking them out of the app for declining low paying rides). That's not a contract gig, that's employment. ..."
"... the math on the purchase of the car doesn't work out. ..."
"... That's the essence of modern American Slavery. Nobody's _ever_ forcing you. You're completely free to starve to death and die in the streets. It's why the South abandoned real slavery. Wage Slavery is ever so much more cost effective. ..."
"... The aristocrats of our age are as detached from reality as the French aristocrats were, and as unwilling to accept the responsibilities that come with vast accrual of wealth. ..."
"... The key is to run a business that is profitable enough to pay its workers a wage sufficient to cover food and medical and housing. Otherwise, my tax money does it and those dollars essentially make the business owner a welfare recipient by enabling him to be artificially enriched. ..."
Posted by msmash on Friday December 09, 2016 @05:40PM from the app-economy dept.
Uber treats its drivers as Victorian-style "sweated labor", with some taking home less than the minimum
wage, according to a report into its working conditions based on the testimony of dozens of drivers.
From a report on The Guardian:
Field received testimony from 83 drivers who said they often took home significantly less than
the "national living wage" after paying their running costs. The report says they described conditions
that matched the Victorian definition of sweated labor: "when earnings were barely sufficient to
sustain existence, hours of labor were such as to make lives of workers periods of ceaseless toil;
and conditions were injurious to the health of workers and dangerous to the public."
rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Friday December 09, 2016 @06:13PM (#53456097)
Au contre mon cheri (Score:2)
they realized the exact opposite. Pity you didn't.
Uber controls what the drivers charge, what they drive (minimum standards and all) and
punishes them if they don't work when told to (by locking them out of the app for declining
low paying rides). That's not a contract gig, that's employment.
fluffernutter ( 1411889 ) on Friday December 09, 2016 @06:54PM (#53456365)
Re:Was never meant to be full time... (Score:2)
I think then the whole problem is that the math on the purchase of the car doesn't work
out. They have to work a lot of hours to make anything once the vehicle expenses are
taken care of.
MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Friday December 09, 2016 @06:42PM (#53456283) Journal
Re:Tough shit (Score:3)
Even brilliant people can find themselves out of work, and become prey for pretty predatory
companies happy to take advantage of them. I've worked in the employment industry for many
years and see even some pretty highly skilled people stuck in shit-ass jobs because they can't
afford to move.
That is why most jurisdictions have it least some basic level of worker protection, and why no
one seriously contemplates turning the industrialized world into a Libertarian fantasy land.
Dorianny ( 1847922 ) on Friday December 09, 2016 @07:29PM (#53456597) Journal
Re:Mixed Metaphors (Score:2)
Antoinette's expression is in reference the tyranny of feudalism.
Pretty sure Uber drivers aren't indentured servants, much less serfs. Seeing as how, you
know, if you don't want to drive for Uber, you just don't load the app. The Gendarme isn't
going to break down your door and drag you to jail.
The expression "Let them eat cake" shows a complete lack of understanding that the absence
of basic food staples was due to poverty rather than a lack of supply. Serfdom was officially
abolished in France in 1789 by Antoinette's husband Louis XVI, although this was mostly a
formality as there were few if any actual Serfs left in France.
Most people were "free peasents" that were paid extremely low wages to work the lands of
the King and Nobility FYI: Even thou the expression "Let them eat cake" is commonly attributed
to Marie Antoinette there is no record of the phrase ever being said by her...
matbury ( 3458347 ) on Friday December 09, 2016 @06:55PM (#53456367) Homepage
Re:"Feel forced?" (Score:4, Insightful)
Taxi drivers also have regulated hours. Being tired is as impairing and dangerous as being
drunk. Would you hail a cab if you knew the driver was drunk? If he's been working double the
recommended hours a week, like an Uber driver, he's likely to be severely impaired and very
likely to have an accident.
rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Friday December 09, 2016 @06:09PM (#53456055)
Says a man or woman (Score:4, Insightful)
who's never had a rent check bounce. Or never had to pay out of pocket to fix a kid's
broken arm. Or been born in a rust belt town when the last factory just left and/or automated.
That's the essence of modern American Slavery. Nobody's _ever_ forcing you. You're
completely free to starve to death and die in the streets. It's why the South abandoned real
slavery. Wage Slavery is ever so much more cost effective.
Solandri ( 704621 ) on Friday December 09, 2016 @07:31PM (#53456603)
Re:Says a man or woman (Score:4, Interesting)
Wage slavery is never cost effective except for the slave owner. That's what makes it an
unstable system which can only be perpetuated by government collusion, or lack of willpower by
the employees to break out of slavery. e.g. Detroit used to have slave-level wages.
Henry Ford decided to set up shop there and paid his factory workers much more than the
prevailing wage. He accidentally discovered that when he paid people a fair wage, not only did
their productivity increase, but they used those wages to buy the very product they were
helping build.
The resulting feedback loop multiplied his company's revenue and turned the Ford Motor
Company into the behemoth it is today. No longer were cars affordable only to the privileged
elite; the average middle class worker (by Ford factory standards) could afford to buy one.
If the only options you see are being a wage slave or starving to death, then you haven't
really tried. A location where the people are being paid slave wages or starving is ripe for a
new company to set up shop and hire willing employees for less than they'd have to pay at
well-established locations. As more of these people become employed and spend their wages on
local merchants, the economy picks up.
There are fewer unemployed, resulting in wages increasing. This is how the market equalizes
geographic wage inequality. If this isn't happening, then there are fundamental problems with
the region not caused by slave wages. Maybe the location is too far from markets, or the
highway/railroad access is poor, or people just don't want to live in that location. Unless
the government is intentionally keeping business out, low wages are a symptom not a cause.
And yes I've had a rent check bounce. A rent check a tenant gave me. I was stupid and
deposited it directly into our payroll bank account since it almost exactly topped off the
amount we needed to make payroll. Normally I transfer the payroll money from our primary
checking account, but I was lazy and decided to save a little work by depositing the checks
directly into payroll.
As a result I got charged a bounced check fee, but more importantly a bunch of my
employees' paychecks bounced, causing more bounced check fees for both them and myself. The
whole thing was a disaster. I called in each employee who was affected, apologized to them in
person, and told them to bring in their bank statement so I could reimburse their bounced
check fee (or fees if they then wrote checks which bounced).
The ones who needed the money immediately, I paid in cash out of my own pocket. All told it
was over $1300 in bank fees incurred because I was stupid/lazy, and because the person who
wrote the first check did so knowing he didn't have enough money to cover it but thought it
would be easier turning his problem into my problem.
It's cliche, but it's true. Your employees are your most valuable asset. A good business will
do everything it can to protect them and to retain them. A business which pays slave wages is
just ripe to be squeezed out by a business which will pay better (fair) wages. The only way a
slave wage business can stay in business is if the government is blocking competing
businesses, or if people like you have so discouraged others with your gloom and doom hopeless
corporate feudalism talk that they don't even bother trying to start up their own business to
compete.
serviscope_minor ( 664417 ) on Saturday December 10, 2016 @04:50AM (#53458279) Journal
Re:Says a man or woman (Score:5, Insightful)
or lack of willpower by the employees to break out of slavery
Ah, it's the slaves fault that they're slaves, then.
If the only options you see are being a wage slave or starving to death, then you haven't
really tried. A location where the people are being paid slave wages or starving is ripe for a
new company to set up shop and hire willing employees for less than they'd have to pay at
well-established locations.
Ah yes, it's so easy to set up a company when you're a wage slave and have no spare
resources with which to set up the company. If you don't you just lack the willpower to starve
to death for a few months or years before your company takes off.
Oh and if you don't have a head for business, you deserve to be a wage slave because fuck
you that's why.
A business which pays slave wages is just ripe to be squeezed out by a business which will
pay better (fair) wages.
Oh yes, that's precisely how things worked in Victorian England.
You know, or not. that they don't even bother trying to start up their own business to
compete.
Starting a business is the highest form of intellect and worth. If you can't, then die in
filth, scum. You deserve worse!
Jzanu ( 668651 ) on Friday December 09, 2016 @06:02PM (#53456007)
Re:"Feel forced?" (Score:4, Insightful)
Step 1: Create system where I make money doing nothing, we will call this being a
platform
Step 2: Force existing systems to work for me by under cutting prices and providing a
better way to interact
Step 3: Profit
Shit, Uber makes profit by undercutting cabs who already did not make much money... You can
tell people not to drive for them, but when you see the lease terms uber demands (weekly
payments, taken directly from your take, you dont pay we take the car) then you see that they
are required to drive, and drive long hours if riders are minimal.
This is a firm that has a master plan of shifting as much as it can on to other people so its
30% cut can be 90% profit. So far its working because people with no job will work any job in
a world where unskilled labor is not worth much (driving is definitely on the unskilled labor
side here) There are simply not many other jobs out there for a subset of people.
Uber's
real business [uber.com] (see bottom of page)
model [xchangeleasing.com] is incentivizing wage-slavery with poverty wages and binding
contract enforcement - it is just the vehicular version of the
company town [wikipedia.org].
MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Friday December 09, 2016 @07:51PM (#53456707) Journal
Re:Don't worry (Score:5, Insightful)
It will certainly be screwed if it keeps allowing corporate interests to arguing away the
taxes they should be paying.
I'm genuinely concerned that events like Brexit and the Trump victory are the opening shots in
some sort of modern day French revolution. The aristocrats of our age are as detached from
reality as the French aristocrats were, and as unwilling to accept the responsibilities that
come with vast accrual of wealth.
They are creating a dangerously unstable situation, and when the Trumps of the world prove
as incapable or unwilling to rebalance economic and social issues, then we may be facing a far
less savory group of revolutionaries. And, as the French Revolution so ably demonstrated, even
wealth isn't an absolute shield.
jlowery ( 47102 ) on Friday December 09, 2016 @06:19PM (#53456129)
Re: Don't worry (Score:5, Insightful)
The key is to run a business that is profitable enough to pay its workers a wage
sufficient to cover food and medical and housing. Otherwise, my tax money does it and those
dollars essentially make the business owner a welfare recipient by enabling him to be
artificially enriched.
If your business doesn't sell a product people are willing to spend enough for you pay your
workers a living wage, then your business should go bankrupt. I'm not paying for your beach
house.
ghoul ( 157158 ) on Friday December 09, 2016 @06:20PM (#53456149)
Uber needs a recession (Score:5, Insightful)
The Uber business model only works for newly laid off workers who have a nice car with car
payments to make. Its not meant to be a fulltime job. The entire gig economy including iOS
apps only took off as in 2008 a lot of people lost their jobs but they still had cars,
computers and loads of time on their hand. As we closer to full employment people who have a
choice have moved away from gigs. Taxi companies are built upon the exploitation of illegal
immigrant drivers. Uber as a high visibility company cannot compete with Taxi companies as it
cant hire illegal immigrants and pay them sweat wages under the table. At the same time
driving a cab will not support a minimum wage so the best thing for Uber would be to go back
to being a gig company. Put a hard cap of 10 hours a week on driving for a driver - that will
remove the entire pool of drivers expecting to make a living from Uber, stop promoting Uber
driving as a full time job and stop giving leases to drivers to buy cars to drive for Uber.
Stop trying to grow for growth's sake. Stay at the size of a gig economy company like a temp
agency. They have some good software - license it to taxi companies and let them use it for
managing their own fleets in a mutli-tenant kind of model.
(techcrunch.com)
157
Posted by
BeauHD
on Wednesday December 14, 2016 @05:00AM
from
the
no-place-to-hide
dept.
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey
interviewed
Edward Snowden via Periscope
about the wide world of technology. The NSA
whistleblower "
discussed
the data that many online companies continue to collect about their users
,
creating a 'quantified world' -- and more opportunities for government
surveillance," reports TechCrunch. Snowden said, "If you are being tracked,
this is something you should agree to, this is something you should understand,
this is something you should be aware of and can change at any time."
TechCrunch reports:
Snowden acknowledged that there's a distinction between
collecting the content of your communication (i.e., what you said during a
phone call) and the metadata (information like who you called and how long it
lasted). For some, surveillance that just collects metadata might seem less
alarming, but in Snowden's view, "That metadata is in many cases much more
dangerous and much more intrusive, because it can be understood at scale." He
added that we currently face unprecedented perils because of all the data
that's now available -- in the past, there was no way for the government to get
a list of all the magazines you'd read, or every book you'd checked out from
the library. "[In the past,] your beliefs, your future, your hopes, your dreams
belonged to you," Snowden said. "Increasingly, these things belong to
companies, and these companies can share them however they want, without a lot
of oversight." He wasn't arguing that companies shouldn't collect user data at
all, but rather that "the people who need to be in control of that are the
users." "This is the central problem of the future, is how do we return control
of our identities to the people themselves?" Snowden said.
(cyberscoop.com)
412
Posted by EditorDavid
on Sunday December 11, 2016 @11:34AM
from the
blaming-Oliver-Stone
dept.
schwit1
quotes CyberScoop:
Low
morale at the National Security Agency is causing some of the agency's most
talented people
to leave in favor of private sector jobs
, former NSA Director Keith
Alexander told a room full of journalism students, professors and cybersecurity
executives Tuesday. The retired general and other insiders say a combination of
economic and social factors including negative press coverage -- have played a
part... "I am honestly surprised that some of these people in cyber companies
make up to seven figures. That's five times what the chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff makes. Right? And these are people that are 32 years old. Do
the math. [The NSA] has great competition," he said.
The rate at which these cyber-tacticians are exiting public service has
increased over the last several years and has gotten considerably worse over
the last 12 months, multiple former NSA officials and D.C. area-based
cybersecurity employers have told CyberScoop in recent weeks... In large part,
Alexander blamed the press for propagating an image of the NSA that causes
people to believe they are being spied on at all times by the U.S. government
regardless of their independent actions.
"What really bothers me is that the people of NSA, these folks who take paltry
government salaries to protect this nation, are made to look like they are
doing something wrong," the former NSA Director added. "They are doing exactly
what our nation has asked them to do to protect us. They are the heroes."
Economists might also wince just a bit... Dickens writes: "I know that the unreasonable
disciples of a reasonable school, demented disciples who push arithmetic and political economy
beyond all bounds of sense (not to speak of such a weakness as humanity), and hold them to be
all-sufficient for every case, can easily prove that such things ought to be, and that no man has
any business to mind them. Without disparaging those indispensable sciences in their sanity, I
utterly renounce and abominate them in their insanity ..." Here's Dickens:
Economists might also wince just a bit... Dickens writes:
"I know that the unreasonable disciples of a reasonable
school, demented disciples who push arithmetic and
political economy beyond all bounds of sense (not to speak
of such a weakness as humanity), and hold them to be
all-sufficient for every case, can easily prove that such
things ought to be, and that no man has any business to
mind them. Without disparaging those indispensable
sciences in their sanity, I utterly renounce and abominate
them in their insanity ..."
This is not about insanity,
this is about greed.
Reading this I am thinking that Hyman Minsky was a
scientist, while Milton Friedman especially just before
and after "Capitalism and Freedom" was a well-paid
intellectual prostitute of financial oligarchy.
"... "Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media. People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids – all while the very rich become much richer. ..."
"... "To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him. To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him." ..."
This is inspiring, but I hope they realise that opposing Trump is just
one side of a two-front battle. Trump needs to be opposed when (as seems
very likely) he will start to drive a very right wing pro-billionaire set of
policies. But its increasingly obvious that there is an equally difficult
battle to be fought against the 'centrists' in the Dems and elsewhere. If
all the focus is on Trump, then there is the danger they just become the
useful idiots of the Dem mainstream.
I would go so far to say that their greatest opponent and biggest
danger is not Trump and the Republicans at all. It is the Democratic
Party and pretty much every significant office holding Democrat and their
staffs.
Revolution starts at home. Fighting with Republicans will not
accomplish much when the fifth columnists from the Democratic Party are
going to sabotage every effort they make which shows promise of having an
effect. They need to show their power by hamstringing targeted Democrats
and thus herding the rest into line through fear. You do what we say and
how we say it or we replace you. They have to own the left. No more
liberal's in name only. You are against us or you are with us.
I agree - they must be opposed in the primaries. That's tough to
do, and will take real dedication and money. The deplorable Debbie
Wasserman Schultz won against Tim Canova in the 2016 primary, and the
equally deplorable Chuck Schumer won reelection in 2016, so he won't
be facing a primary opponent until the 2022 election season. Pelosi,
of course is vulnerable every two years.
Please need to be willing to do more than just post comments on
blogs. And lets not have any more of those comments bewailing the
impossibility of overthrowing the status quo - it's difficult, but
it's not impossible. (This paragraph isn't directed specifically to
you, JohnnyGL or PlutoniumKun. I'm just concerned that some other
commenters seem to try to prevent people from taking an active role in
politics, and that is just plain wrong.)
uh why fight against a party with NO federal power? (state power in a
few states so maybe relevant there)
Even if you get unanimous Dem opposition how much does it matter? Ok
the Rs don't quite have a super-majority yet I guess but it is Rs who
will be passing legislation. Fighting Dems is about like fighting WWII
after it's all over. They have mouthpieces and foundations it is true,
but no power.
Better message is to be pro a set of policies:
1. Medicare for all
2. SS are a real retirement system
3. Job Guarantee
4. College for all – student debt
5. Taxes as social and business policy
6. No permanent standing military
Irritated by the identity politics of the main article. That and
would they have opened an office if Hillary had won? If not, I fear
they don't understand and are doomed to repeat the same mistakes of
their elders.
Sanders is always on point moving toward the goal with minimal time
spent talking about moving away from what Is opposed. Here's a sometime
humorous case in point–
A candid conversation: Bernie Sanders and Sara Silverman
Waaaaay too many bullet points already, and I see that others are
adding more. Not that I'm saying any of those are unimportant, but when
you have a dozen goals you actually have none at all. My ideal
progressive movement would hammer relentlessly on 3 major initiatives:
– Medicare for all
– $15 minimum wage
– Post office banking
All 3 provide tangible benefits to the majority of Americans, with the
added bonus of poking a sharp stick in the eye of the oligarchs.
I definitely agree about keeping the list of priorities short, but
I feel that these two areas are foundational and systemically
corrupting, and little else is likely to be accomplished without major
reforms of both
– MIC/"Defense" spending (mostly spent on offense, not defending
the borders of the USA from invasion)
– Campaign Finance – big money in politics
9. Lifelong job education and skills-building for all unemployed and
under-employed, paid for directly from corporate taxes.
10. Universal two-year commitment to the military or a full-time volunteer
public service program.
11. Rewilding and reforesting polluted and abandoned land.
12. Anti-trust! More trust-busting needed!
13. Agricultural reform to ban feedlots, fertilizers and pesticides and
reorganize farms to restore and rebuild soil. And yes, this will create
jobs.
"9. Lifelong job education and skills-building for all unemployed and
under-employed, paid for directly from corporate taxes."
people don't know what a nightmare such scenarios are, ok it sucks if
you are underemployed and have no way to retrain because finances, but it
also sucks big league if you have to spend your entire life working full
time AND pursuing more and more formal education, forever until you die.
Is any of our utopias going to care about human beings being able to BE
human beings? We are so so much more than just useful labor machines
forever aquiring labor market useful skills.
Ok course a basic income guarantee or a labor market tilted for labor
not capital (including government job creation sure – and sure there's
other things that can tilt it for labor – lower Social Security age,
unionization etc.) would nullify this objection as the competition for
jobs would lessen enough perhaps.
"10. Universal two-year commitment to the military or a full-time
volunteer public service program."
well this is even more self-evidently nightmarish but it hardly needs
unpacking. 2 years of becoming hired killers for the imperialist murder
machine. Yea I know you didn't specify military as mandatory, I'm just
saying what is being encouraged.
jrs: Agreed. Points 9 and 10 are non-starters. They will not lessen
class warfare. Only a jobs policy and a commitment to full employment
will. And this idea that U.S. citizens have to be drafted into some
regimented public-service program isn't helpful.
But let's talk about reopening the Civilian Conservation Corps, as
in point 11. Now that is a genuinely good idea. And people would
gladly join–without feeling regimented.
There was an interesting debate around the water cooler links on
Festivus. I would like to recap and extend it here because I want to know
more. First about how you, Lambert, see the take over of a single state
Democratic party office breaking open a path to reform the party from
within. I would like to hear what scenarios you feel are possible.
Walden pond wrote
"The elite control the D party (which is nothing but a criminal organization
at this point). They will allow outsiders to have dog-catcher, but get
uppity and run for a state position and that person will be out in an
instant. The Ds are factually/legally a private club and they can select
their membership and candidates in any way they choose or get a court to
back them on every petty legal change they make to block outsiders. They
change rules (legal contract) retroactively, they violate their own rules
repeatedly and someone thinks they are going to get any farther than a few
school board positions or city council is going to fail.
Taking over the D party is similar to proposing infiltrating gangs (fully
backed by the legal system) with 13 year olds to 'save the neighborhood'."
I whole heartedly agree. I think it's important that people understand
that the party is not just a "machine" waiting for someone new to guide it.
It is not a set of empty offices and poster printing machines with helpful
local people waiting for guidance. At the top, it is much more like an
exclusive country club whose membership passes down through wealthy families
who think they know what's best for the nation.
Anyhow, if you have a strategy on how to break it, I would like to
support that discussion. I would like to hear more.
I'm glad you carried this discussion over to today. People hear have
heard my sad tales of woe when I decided in 2004 to stop being
inattentive and to actually try "to change the party from within" that
talk show hosts like Thom Hartmann and "The Nation" gang call for every 4
years. Yes, I discovered what Walden Pond wrote; that there is an "elite"
control of the state parties. They are almost hereditary positions. Yes,
they will get excited by a newbie like me who was articulate, worked in
Hollywood, married to a rancher for conservative creeds. But then I
started to challenge their positions by advocating for single payer;
stronger labor stances that they all paId lip service to but didn't
really seem to care about. So no longer was I allowed to talk to the
press at the DNC Convention. As I recall in 2006 or 2007 they changed a
rule to make it harder to challenge Jon Tester in a primary.
Affairs like "Campaign for America's Future" conventions were always in
D.C. And during the 2nd one I went to, I confirmed by observations that
they were just big job fairs for people wanting jobs in the next
administration or becoming lobbyists. That was actually what the
convention in 2004 was too that I attended as a delegate. "Agriculture
Salutes Tom Harking"; brought to you not by The Grange but by Monsanto
and Carroll. Lavish party with handsome young men shucking tons of
oysters. Ick.
I went in naive as I suspect many well meaning millennials will do now to
this "house". But boy did I start to wake up and finally by 2009 after
the failed single payer health care movement, I quit this dead donkey.
There's a lot of contentious debate on whether to fight in the
Democrat Party or build a 3rd one. The answer is both, always and
constantly.
1) Start the fight within the Party, as seen in MI. What happened
there is important to expose and embarrass the local party officials. I
consider the incident an encouraging sign and hope there are more like it
around the country (not happy with the guy getting assaulted, of course,
but if it shows 'they are who we thought they were', then that's progress
of a sort).
2) If you can fight within the party and the party leadership at the
state level understands the need to change and gets on board (getting on
board as defined by fighting for specific policies, organizing and party
building, and going against the wishes of big donors), then work with
them.
3) if the big donors and dinosaur party leaders don't get on board,
then then need to be A) removed, if possible. Or, if not possible, B)
they should be isolated. If Schumer and Pelosi can't be primary-ed out of
existence (a-la Eric Cantor) then they should be stripped of leadership
positions and isolated. Primary all of their allies in congress. Pelosi
still got around 2/3 of the vote. Let's get it below 1/2. We're not
starting from scratch, there's a base of opposition to work with.
4) Part of the contention between points 2) and 3) is protests like
those seen recently protesting at Schumer's office by BLM and Occupy
folks. Again, make them come to us on policy. Life should get
increasingly uncomfortable for Party leaders and members that don't play
ball. It should be clear that their current attitudes and policies are
untenable and they need to get with the new program. Hassle them in their
offices, at their public events. Anti-fracking protestors who harassed
Cuomo over several years showed what to do. I think one of his kids joked
that when they got lost on the way to an event, they could always find
where they were going because the anti-fracking protestors were there
waiting for them.
People like Pelosi and Schumer will cave to public pressure, they've
done it in the past. Pelosi said no to medicare changes when Obama wanted
to put entitlement reform on the table. These people are different than
ideologues who will push their agenda regardless of public opinion.
They're snakes, but they'll play ball under pressure.
5) Now in the case where we can't with the fight within the party, go
outside. Socialist Alternative, Working Families and other 3rd parties
that are built up at the local level can threaten and do real damage.
Does anyone think Seattle gets a $15/hr min. wage without Sawant and
Socialist Alternative? Working Families Party demonstrated exactly what
NOT to do during NY Governor election. If Cuomo won't come to us and meet
our demands, bring him down. Suck it up, deal with a Republican for a few
years, if necessary. While the Republican is in charge, pressure them,
too. Don't think about the election right now .that's short termism.
Let's think 2, 3, 4 elections out. If you're not winning now, clear out
the deadwood to win later.
6) Now, to face up to the 'lesser evil' arguments regarding 5). It's
over, there's no more 'lesser evilism'. It's dead. Hillary Clinton and
the elite Dems killed it. They put it all on display for all to see. They
were willing to crush the left (again), squash voting rights through a
variety of means, and risk Trump or another whacky 'Pied Piper' candidate
in order to get their anointed candidate put in charge. THAT should tell
you EXACTLY who we're dealing with here. They were perfectly willing to
risk Trump to win, so that means if a 3rd party can get 3%-5% in a close
election and play a spoiler role, then that 3rd party should DO it. Every
time. Again, keep doing it until the Democrats adopt the platform of a
3rd party (which, presumably includes fight for $15, medicare for all, no
wars, etc). Again, until the Dems come to us on policy, they will be
opposed.
But, but Nader brought us Bush who brought us Iraq War! You cannot
take risks like that! Must vote lesser evil!!! Oh really? Dems voted for
Patriot Act, Dems voted for AUMF over and over again. Dems voted to keep
funding the war, too. When Dems don't win the Presidency they want to sit
back and wait for Repubs to do awful stuff so that Dems will be back in
charge as seen in 2006-8. Pelosi and Reid did NOTHING to deserve a win,
they just waited it out until people voted for change again. They want to
do this again. We can't let them. Make them do their job. Make them act
in opposition. Make them earn their next win, otherwise we'll get the
same group and the same policies that have just been discredited.
7) From the article, I like Ahmed's strategy/tactics, but the concept
of attacking Trump the person, seems flawed. Remember, policy is what
matters!
Nixon passed an amendment that created the EPA. That doesn't happen if
you oppose Nixon for who he is. Also, wikipedia reveals that the Clean
Water Act got passed in spite of Nixon's veto! If Trump wants to move in
the right direction, he should be praised for doing so. If he doesn't, go
around him!
Trump is a guy that just slapped the Repub establishment silly and
clearly is running at least partially out of vanity more than he wants to
collect fat checks when he leaves office (like the Clintons, and probably
Obama soon enough). There's value in this, by itself, and there's value
on policy grounds, too.
Okay, I'm done. I hope anyone who bothers to read found this
enjoyable. Happy for comments. Also, to be clear, I've got no experience
in organizing or any kind of playbook to carry this plan out. :) So, feel
free to mock my credentials, because they don't exist!
Sigh. We millennials might be smart about policy and pragmatic, but if
this is our moonshot, we don't know jack about how to organize a successful
social movement. Protesting "Trump" is stupid. Trump is not a policy. He is
a person. Is our goal to make him feel bad about himself? And he did win the
election. So his administration is, in fact, "legitimate" in any meaningful
sense of the word.
I'd have slightly different lists, but I entirely agree that a pro-policy
platform is an essential starting point. That said, protests basically
always fail, and more often then not IMO, strengthen the opposition. When
they succeed, or even make headway like NODAPL, they always share a common
set of features.
1) One very specific policy. Today, if I were in charge, I'd choose
Federally funded Medicare for all. Never mind details for protesting
purposes.
2) A simple, clear message that appeals to values that most people in a
body politic can agree on "Health Care is a Civil Right!"
3) A symbol that presents a clear, binary, moral choice. Sorry people, it
makes me feel icky too, but this is where we go hunting for a dying grandma
or kid with cancer who can't get medical care and make him/her our mascot
(ideally, in a purely strategic realm, such person would refuse any care
until it was guaranteed to all, then die at a decisive moment, thus becoming
a martyr).
4) The ability to bring different folks together to agree on ONE thing.
Organized bitch sessions about Obamacare in Trump country might work here,
but we'd have to throw shit at the wall and see what stuck. I know for a
fact that most Trump supporters, if pressed, will say that a family should
not have to choose between impoverishment and treating mom's cancer. But
protesting "Trump" is protesting them too, with the main goal of feeling
like you are a better person because you know that gender is socially
constructed or whatever (as if there is something magical in who you are
that is the reason you got to go to a private liberal arts college, and you
totally never would have been racist no matter what life circumstances you
were born into).
It's not that I'm a single issue person, it's just protesting lots of
things at once just makes a lot of noise, and a bunch of people trying to
work together with competing agendas (lack of shared vision, in corporate
speak), makes all human organizations dysfunctional. Basically, I support
many issues, but think mixing them all together is not a good recipe for
success.
Didn't read the article. Seems like a misdirected effort to me. You don't
win voters by being against something. You win them by being for something.
I am getting tired of the "Ain't It Awful" game. Give me a vision to be for.
There is something called target fixation. When you concentrate on what
you want to avoid, you end up going right toward it. Concentrate on where
you want to go rather than spend all your time thinking about where you
don't want to go.
This can be demonstrated by asking someone to follow your instructions
and then issuing a number of imperative sentences:
Don't think of blue
Don't think about your left earlobe
Don't think about what Crazyman will do with this
Don't think of Trump
Etc
One has to think of those things in order to make sense of the words.
Moving away from can be a powerful motivator but only toward will get you
there. Sorry, clarifying the obvious again.
This effort is not about winning voters but about blocking really bad
policy changes that will hurt millions of people. Organizing for an
election campaign and organizing for issue-based activism are not the
same. If Barb Mikulski forty-odd years ago had just gone around the city
talking about her vision of good communities and good transportation
policy, a lot of Baltimore neighborhoods would have been wiped out as the
city was cut apart by an ill-placed interstate. She stopped it by
organizing a fight against it. More recently, Destiny Watford, still in
high school at the time, was the prime mover in the successful fight
against an incinerator in her Curtis Bay neighborhood in south Baltimore.
There is a time and a place for everything. There are at least two
other organizations focusing on electoral politics. This one has a
different purpose.
Yes to be opposed to Trump is because they think a bunch of bad
policies will come from his administration and they are likely not
wrong. It doesn't need to be about Trump the person at all, though for
some deluded people it may be. Now they could broaden it to opposing
Paul Ryans congress etc. since they are hardly better but if any
legistlaton is actually going to be passed a Republican congress and
Trump will be working together.
A single issue focus, say it was Medicare for all, even if it was
sucessful, would have let all the other issues a Trump administration
will represent slide. Ok so if Trump passes tax cuts say that further
enrich the plutocrats, an ever more unequal society might even destroy
Medicare for all (the rich will just buy their way out). If Trump
passes even more obviously anti-environmental legistlation, the fact
Medicare for all was achieved would be a goal of it's own but would
not change this. Maybe there are people enough for all movements, I
don't know.
It'll never work & for good reason. It's a form of ideation contrary to
gnostic principles and therefore to the highest spiritual values on this
plane of existence.
Sad to see hopeful inspired people get lost in that maze of misery. Trust
your perceptions in the silence of your mind without looking to anybody else
for affirmation. People are people. That's what everybody who can figure
things out figures out when they grow up.
Grow up & Merry Christmas. LOL
I'm wishing Trump well & am somewhat hopeful that - through the odd
feedback loops in complex systems - the provocations of his originality will
shape things in a direction even progressives will find appealing. Maybe
I'll be wrong, I admit. But I'm usually not wrong. LOL. (Although I am
sometimes, no lie.)
Firecracker puppies professional trainer who isists she knows about how
people of color feel..hmmm a bunch of photos of ms nadine and her fellow
associates something about dc that tells me the demographics are not the
same as iowa does not look as she thinks there are any people of color who
can train on what "she" calls "non violence" and her "famous" black female
puppet to represent and protest against the military because the military is
so black and female seems a bit tone deaf
Same old same old chameleons bending to the new hot button funding to
keep the lights on
"As the international director of the committee to make noise and get
nothing done, we strive to "
And ms bangladeshi her nov 27 tweet that anyone right of the democrats is
a fascist does this child have an idea what that word means, or is it
something she picked up at one of the "people" conventions she attended or
spoke at
Not looking to be hyper cynical on this of all days but seems moumita has
spent her entire adult life posing with her megaphone and for someone who is
so "out there" mekantz find much about her except her self proclaimed
relevance and for a person who claims this large network somewhat smallish
set of followers on her chyrping account
The Washington police will now have to use a search warrant or a
battering ram unlike Zuccotti park where night sticks and pepper spray were
used. I don't see a problem getting those. Especially after agents have
infiltrated. Well at least it is a start which I hope snowballs!
enter the sans coullottes! I am thrilled and will try to get in contact
with them. depend upon it, the American people will turn to those who
demonstrate the best ability to push back against Trump. Which is why Bernie
has been doing that since the election.
No, I disagree. Bernie does not push back against Trump. No identity
politics, no focus on personalities. Bernie pushes back against
wrong-headed policies. Bernie wants policies that benefit the majority.
Let's pray our new president does some good that most of us do not
expect. I hope he is more unpredictable than that. I may be wrong but I
can hope.
Sounds like the Alternet crowd is up to its sheepdogging tactics again.
Let's corral young energy and co-opt it for the Democrats. Co-opting is what
I call "Skunking" because it sure stinks up the joint.
I'm with the majority here in finding this sad that these "organizers"
have decided to go all negative. They are "going to hold him [Trump]
accountable and delegitimize literally everything he is doing and not let
him succeed." Well, how has that worked out so far.
New thinking and new solutions ae called for, not the same old feel good
"protests" and voter drives that professional organizers love to do. If they
had done any real introspection they would have come up with ways of forming
new coalitions; and also realize the need to keep Schumer and Pelosi as
accountable as Trump. But these are still party operatives in younger
sheep's clothing. Many are poli sci majors who want to be in politics in
Washington as a vocation. See, they are the wise "behind the scenes" people
that will guide the "activists" . Ugh. Same old; Same old story.
And this smells of the same DLC Clinton gang since they are calling Trump's
victory and presidency illegitimate. Again, they don't want to delve into
why she lost. They wants jobs in D.C. And spend their energy "resisting"
rather than coming up with anything remotely interesting. This is not
Occupy. And I doubt they will embrace young Anarchists.
Wonderful shakeout by Cohn: Trump won by
trading places with
Obama
. O appealed to less educated whites as their protector
against the Wall Street candidate (47% time) Romney. (Crackpot) Trump
appealed to them with same promise versus Wall Street candidate (true
enough) Hill.
Upshot: Dems only have to get busy rebuilding labor union density at the
state by progressive state level (or not so progressive; but be seen trying
hard). Repubs will have no where to hide: once and for all political
checkmate.
We are only asking state legislatures to make possible joining a union if
you want to - without running an impassable gauntlet - no complicated policy
issues at all.
Totally unpromising that they start with the calamitous premise of the
whole Sanders campaign: "a campaign where Bernie specifically said, 'Do not
attack the other person." Sanders knew he could run a campaign that would
destroy the Clinton, a proven loser on the merits, and thereby make it
possible to defeat any of the GOP's dumpster of deplorables, especially the
Trumpe-l'oeil. But that would involve a political break with the whole
record of the Obama administration in both domestic and foreign policy. So
instead Sanders wound up saying the falsest single thing anyone said in the
whole campaign–"nobody cares about those damn e-mails."
Youth may wish to have their bragging rights for their old age, but Trump
has proven that power lies with the voters, who will be driven away to the
likes of Reagan by this posturing.
Ahmed has not learned all the lessons of the 1960s.
We-The-Ppl rejected Gold Sacks's "shitty deal" Hillary, foisted on us by
the Dems whose elites "assassinated" the best candidate since JFK; Repubs
rejected "fool me again" Jeb in the Primary. Nasty Trump was put there to
shoo-in Hill, but it backfired. Democracy? all gone. The Wild West is back.
We need both "away from" and "toward" bullet points. The "away
from" will naturally target Trump's onerous policies and will generate
lots of energy. The "toward" bullet points will also "target" the
"fake news" neoliberals because their support will prove to be tepid
faint praise and lots of how it can't be done. Energy wise it will be
more of a slog. They will also covertly seek to undermine progressive
change. They will be called out on their crap.
Why didn't they set up this "permanent base" when Sanders voted for the
700 billion dollar F35 or when Obama claimed the legal right to indefinitely
detain or kill anyone without judicial oversight?
"You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image,
when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do."
I assume all of those who have so arrogantly dismissed the efforts of
these young people are all, therefore, engaged in alternative activities
that support their respective opinions of how to effect the change that is
our only salvation from neo-feudalism. Otherwise, I say put up or shut up.
Because I'm getting really sick of all the armchair quarterbacking, which
to me is no different from the way the DNC elites treat anyone who isn't a
member of their club. If people who object to the goals and/or methods of
the District 13 House group have useful suggestions to make, why haven't
they engaged in working to bring those suggestions to fruition. It's also
precisely the kind of ivory-tower critique that has brought us to this pass,
so do keep in mind that when pointing out the sins of others, one has three
other fingers pointing in the opposite direction.
Natural skeptic/cynic at this point I go back to to Bernie's first
statement after the election:
"Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that
is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the
establishment media. People are tired of working longer hours for lower
wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage
countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not
being able to afford a college education for their kids – all while the very
rich become much richer.
"To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that
improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other
progressives are prepared to work with him. To the degree that he pursues
racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously
oppose him."
Now taken in that light, do we need a generic "anti-Trump" resistance
house to "stick out like a sore thumb"?
Or do we need something that speaks to the deeper issues around which
non-squillionaire people can unite?
I concur with those who posted above on sticking to the issues. If you
stick to the issues, the face of the opposition (from within and without)
doesn't matter. It's about getting people to realize that agents of the
establishment on BOTH sides (Dem & Repub) of all various
identarian
flavors have betrayed us all.
Now granted, there's plenty of swamp left undrained to warrant being all
up the new administration's grill like freckles. But please, let's get the
focus where it should be – on what's being done and undone. Focusing on
"Trump" is a non-starter.
Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah and FestivusForTheRestOfUs to everyone!
Sometimes a case looks weak because there is no "smoking gun"-no obvious, direct evidence of conspiracy,
malfeasance or evil intent-but once you tally up all the evidence it forms a coherent and damning
picture. And so it is with the Obama administration vis à vis Russia: by feigning hostile intent
it did everything possible to further Russia's agenda. And although it is always possible to claim
that all of Obama's failures stem from mere incompetence, at some point this claim begins to ring
hollow; how can he possibly be so utterly competent at being incompetent? Perhaps he just used incompetence
as a veil to cover his true intent, which was always to bolster Russia while rendering the US maximally
irrelevant in world affairs. Let's examine Obama's major foreign policy initiatives from this angle.
Perhaps the greatest achievement of his eight years has been the destruction of Libya. Under the
false pretense of a humanitarian intervention what was once the most prosperous and stable country
in the entire North Africa has been reduced to a rubble-strewn haven for Islamic terrorists and a
transit point for economic migrants streaming into the European Union. This had the effect of pushing
Russia and China together, prompting them to start voting against the US together as a block in the
UN Security Council. In a single blow, Obama assured an important element of his legacy as a Russian
agent: no longer will the US be able to further its agenda through this very important international
body.
Next, Obama presided over the violent overthrow of the constitutional government in the Ukraine
and the installation of an American puppet regime there. When Crimea then voted to rejoin Russia,
Obama imposed sanctions on the Russian Federation. These moves may seem like they were designed to
hurt Russia, but let's look at the results instead of the intentions.
First, Russia regained control of an important, strategic region.
Second, the sanctions and the countersanctions allowed Russia to concentrate on import replacement,
building up the domestic economy. This was especially impressive in agriculture, and Russia now earns
more export revenue from foodstuffs than from weapons.
Third, the severing of economic ties with the Ukraine allowed Russia to eliminate a major economic
competitor.
Fourth, over a million Ukrainians decided to move to Russia, either temporarily or permanently,
giving Russia a major demographic boost and giving it access to a pool of Russian-speaking skilled
labor. (Most Ukrainians are barely distinguishable from the general Russian population.)
Fifth, whereas before the Ukraine was in a position to extort concessions from Russia by playing
games with the natural gas pipelines that lead from Russia to the European Union, now Russia's hands
have been untied, resulting in new pipeline deals with Turkey and Germany.
In effect, Russia reaped all the benefits from the Ukrainian stalemate, while the US gained an
unsavory, embarrassing dependent.
Obama's next "achievement" was in carefully shepherding the Syrian conflict into a cul de sac.
(Some insist on calling it a civil war, although virtually all of the fighting there has between
the entire Syrian nation and foreign-funded outside mercenaries). To this end, Obama deployed an
array of tactics. He simultaneously supported, armed, trained and fought various terrorist groups,
making a joke of the usual US technique of using "terrorism by proxy." He made ridiculous claims
that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons against its own people, which immediately reminded
everyone of similarly hollow claims about Saddam's WMDs while offering Russia a legitimate role to
play in resolving the Syrian conflict. He made endless promises to separate "moderate opposition"
from dyed-in-the-wool terrorists, but repeatedly failed to do so, thus giving the Russians ample
scope to take care of the situation as they saw fit. He negotiated several cease fires, then violated
them.
There have been other achievements as well. By constantly talking up the nonexistent "Russian
threat" and scaremongering about "Russian aggression" and "Russian invasion" (of which no evidence
existed), and by holding futile military exercises in Eastern Europe and especially in the geopolitically
irrelevant Baltics, Obama managed to deprive NATO of any residual legitimacy it once might have had,
turning it into a sad joke.
But perhaps Obama's most significant service on behalf of the Russian nation was in throwing the
election to Donald Trump. This he did by throwing his support behind the ridiculously inept and corrupt
Hillary Clinton. She outspent Trump by a factor of two, but apparently no amount of money could buy
her the presidency. As a result of Obama's steadfast efforts, the US will now have a Russia-friendly
president who is eager to make deals with Russia, but will have to do so from a significantly weakened
negotiating position.
As I have been arguing for the last decade, it is a foregone conclusion that the United States
is going to slide from its position of global dominance. But it was certainly helpful to have Obama
grease the skids, and now it's up to Donald Trump to finish the job. And since Obama's contribution
was especially helpful to Russia, I propose that he be awarded the Russian Federation's Order of
Friendship, to go with his Nobel Peace Prize.
Looks like the US elite now is afraid that color revolution methods developed for overthrowing
government in xUSSR area and Arab countries might come home to roost. and with neoliebral
ideology discredited those worries are not completely unfounded: the USA population now is
susceptible to anti-neoliberal (which means like in the USSR simultaneously
anti-establishment) propaganda much like people of the USSR since 1960th were susceptible to
Anti-communist propaganda. they listened to BBC and Voice of America for the same reason people now
read and watch RT: the USA MSM became a bunch of propagandists that fake reality, the real producers
of "fake news". All major news sources in the USA are now yellow.
But while the passage of the NDAA - and the funding of the US military - was hardly a
surprise, the biggest news is what was buried deep inside the provisions of the Defense
Authortization Act.
Recall that as
we reported in early June
,
"a bill to implement the U.S.' very own
de
facto
Ministry of Truth had been quietly introduced in Congress
. As with
any legislation attempting to dodge the public spotlight the Countering Foreign
Propaganda and Disinformation Act of 2016 marks a further curtailment of press freedom
and another avenue to stultify avenues of accurate information. Introduced by
Congressmen Adam Kinzinger and Ted Lieu, H.R. 5181 seeks a "whole-government approach
without the bureaucratic restrictions" to counter "foreign disinformation and
manipulation," which they believe threaten the world's "security and stability."
Also called the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S. 2692), when
introduced in March by Sen. Rob Portman, the legislation represents a dramatic return to
Cold War-era government propaganda battles.
"These countries spend vast sums of
money on advanced broadcast and digital media capabilities, targeted campaigns, funding
of foreign political movements, and other efforts to influence key audiences and
populations," Portman explained, adding that while the U.S. spends a relatively small
amount on its Voice of America, the Kremlin provides enormous funding for its news
organization, RT.
"Surprisingly," Portman continued, "there is currently no single U.S. governmental
agency or department charged with the national level development, integration and
synchronization of whole-of-government strategies to counter foreign propaganda and
disinformation."
Long before the "fake news" meme became a daily topic of extensive conversation on
such discredited mainstream portals as CNN and WaPo, H.R. 5181 would task the Secretary
of State with coordinating the Secretary of Defense, the Director of National
Intelligence, and the Broadcasting Board of Governors to "establish a Center for
Information Analysis and Response," which will pinpoint sources of disinformation,
analyze data, and - in true dystopic manner - 'develop and disseminate' "
fact-based
narratives
" to counter effrontery propaganda.
In short, long before "fake news" became a major media topic, the US government was
already planning its legally-backed crackdown on anything it would eventually label
"fake news."
* * *
Fast forward to
December 8,
when the "
Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act
"
passed in the Senate,
quietly inserted inside the 2017 National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report.
And now, following Friday's Obama signing of the NDAA on Friday evening,
the Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act
is now law.
* * *
Here is the
full statement
issued by the
generously funded
Senator Rob Portman (R- Ohio) on the singing into law of a bill
that further chips away at press liberties in the US, and which sets the stage for
future which hunts and website shutdowns, purely as a result of an accusation that any
one media outlet or site is considered as a source of "disinformation and propaganda"
and is shut down by the government.
Portman-Murphy Bill Promotes Coordinated Strategy to Defend America, Allies
Against Propaganda and Disinformation from Russia, China & Others
U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-OH) and Chris Murphy (D-CT) today announced that their
Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act –
legislation designed to
help American allies counter foreign government propaganda from Russia, China, and other
nations
–
has been signed into law as part of the FY 2017 National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report. The bipartisan bill, which was
introduced
by Senators Portman and Murphy in March, will improve the ability of the
United States to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation from our enemies by
establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department to coordinate and
synchronize counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government. To support these
efforts, the bill also creates a grant program for NGOs, think tanks, civil society and
other experts outside government who are engaged in counter-propaganda related work.
This will better leverage existing expertise and empower our allies overseas to defend
themselves from foreign manipulation. It will also help foster a free and vibrant press
and civil society overseas, which is critical to ensuring our allies have access to
truthful information and inoculating people against foreign propaganda campaigns.
"Our enemies are using foreign propaganda and
disinformation against us and our allies, and so far the U.S. government has been asleep
at the wheel," Portman said. "But today, the United States has taken a critical step
towards confronting the extensive, and destabilizing, foreign propaganda and
disinformation operations being waged against us by our enemies overseas.
With
this bill now law, we are finally signaling that enough is enough; the United States
will no longer sit on the sidelines. We are going to confront this threat head-on. I am
confident that, with the help of this bipartisan bill, the disinformation and propaganda
used against us, our allies, and our interests will fail."
"
The use of propaganda to undermine democracy has hit a
new low.
But now we are finally in a position to confront this threat head on
and get out the truth. By building up independent, objective journalism in places like
eastern Europe, we can start to fight back by exposing these fake narratives and
empowering local communities to protect themselves," said Murphy. "I'm proud that our
bill was signed into law, and I look forward to working with Senator Portman to make
sure these tools and new resources are effectively used to get out the truth."
NOTE:
The bipartisan
Countering
Disinformation and Propaganda Act
is organized around two main priorities to help
achieve the goal of combatting the constantly evolving threat of foreign disinformation
from our enemies:
The first priority is developing a whole-of-government strategy for
countering THE foreign propaganda and disinformation being wages against us and our
allies by our enemies
. The bill would increase the authority, resources, and
mandate of the Global Engagement Center to include state actors like Russia and China
as well as non-state actors. The Center will be led by the State Department, but with
the active senior level participation of the Department of Defense, USAID, the
Broadcasting Board of Governors, the Intelligence Community, and other relevant
agencies. The Center will develop, integrate, and synchronize whole-of-government
initiatives to expose and counter foreign disinformation operations by our enemies
and proactively advance fact-based narratives that support U.S. allies and interests.
Second, the legislation seeks to leverage expertise from outside government to
create more adaptive and responsive U.S. strategy options. The legislation
establishes a fund to help train local journalists and provide grants and contracts
to NGOs, civil society organizations, think tanks, private sector companies, media
organizations, and other experts outside the U.S. government with experience in
identifying and analyzing the latest trends in foreign government disinformation
techniques. This fund will complement and support the Center's role by integrating
capabilities and expertise available outside the U.S. government into the
strategy-making process. It will also empower a decentralized network of private
sector experts and integrate their expertise into the strategy-making process.
* * *
And so, with the
likes of WaPo having already primed the general public
to equate "Russian
Propaganda" with "fake news" (despite admitting
after the fact their own report was essentially "fake
"), while the US media has
indoctrinated the public to assume that any information which is not in compliance with
the official government narrative, or dares to criticize the establishment, is also
"fake news" and thus falls under the "Russian propaganda" umbrella, the scene is now set
for the US government to
legally
crack down on every media outlet that the
government deems to be "foreign propaganda."
Just like that, the US
Ministry of Truth
is officially born.
"... That 'political pressure' turned out to be the bait and switch for a system that shifted power via debt creation. ..."
"... What we have not yet come to terms with are the implications of David Graeber's anthropological insights: how does debt affect social relationships, alter social norms, and affect relationships among individuals? ..."
"... Debt is a form of power, but by failing to factor this into their equations, the Central Bankers are missing the social, political, and cultural consequences of the profound shifts in 'credit market architecture'. In many respects, this is not about 'money'; it's about power. ..."
"... The Central Bankers' models can include all the parameters they can dream up, but until someone starts thinking more clearly about the role and function of money, and the way that 'different kinds of money' create 'different kinds of social relationships', we are all in a world of hurt. ..."
"... At this point, Central Bankers should also ask themselves what happens - socially, personally - when 'debt' (i.e., financialization) shifts from productivity to predation. That shift accelerated from the 1970s, through the 1990s, into the 2000s. ..."
"... Now, maybe it is just a coincidence, but it is hard for me not to notice that the explosion in consumer credit matches up nicely with the rise in inequality. ..."
Of the structural changes, the evolution and revolution of credit market architecture
was the single most important . In the US, credit card ownership and instalment credit spread
between the 1960s and the 2000s; the government-sponsored enterprises – Fannie Mae and Freddie
Mac – were recast in the 1970s to underwrite mortgages; interest rate ceilings were lifted
in the early 1980s; and falling IT costs transformed payment and credit screening systems in
the 1980s and 1990s. More revolutionary was the expansion of sub-prime mortgages in the 2000s,
driven by rise of private label securitisation backed by credit default obligations (CDOs)
and swaps. The 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA) made derivatives enforceable
throughout the US with priority ahead of claims by others (e.g. workers) in bankruptcy. This
permitted derivative enhancements for private label mortgage-backed securities (PMBS) so that
they could be sold on as highly rated investment grade securities. A second regulatory change
was the deregulation of banks and investment banks . Similar measures to lower required capital
on investment grade PMBS increased leverage at commercial banks. These changes occurred in
the political context of pressure to extend credit to poor.
That 'political pressure' turned out to be the bait and switch for a system that shifted
power via debt creation.
What we have not yet come to terms with are the implications of David Graeber's anthropological
insights: how does debt affect social relationships, alter social norms, and affect relationships
among individuals?
Debt is a form of power, but by failing to factor this into their equations, the Central
Bankers are missing the social, political, and cultural consequences of the profound shifts in
'credit market architecture'. In many respects, this is not about 'money'; it's about power.
After Brexit, Trump, and the emerging upheaval in the EU, it's no longer enough to just 'build
better economic models'.
The Central Bankers' models can include all the parameters they can dream up, but until
someone starts thinking more clearly about the role and function of money, and the way that 'different
kinds of money' create 'different kinds of social relationships', we are all in a world of hurt.
At this point, Central Bankers should also ask themselves what happens - socially, personally
- when 'debt' (i.e., financialization) shifts from productivity to predation. That shift accelerated
from the 1970s, through the 1990s, into the 2000s.
Allowing anyone to charge interest that is usurious is the modern equivalent of turning a blind
eye to slavery.
By enabling outrageous interest, any government hands their hard working taxpayers over to
what is essentially unending servitude.
This destroys the political power of any government that engages in such blind stupidity.
Frankly, I'm astonished that it has taken so long for taxpayers to show signs of outrage and
revolt.
I think you have come up with a good insight – I very much agree its about power and not money.
Now, maybe it is just a coincidence, but it is hard for me not to notice that the explosion
in consumer credit matches up nicely with the rise in inequality.
And one other thing I would point out – it doesn't take usurious interest rates. If squillionaires
have access to unlimited, essentially cost free money in which the distributors of money are guaranteed
a profit, NO MATTER HOW MUCH THEY HAVE LOST, while the debts on non-squillionaires are collected
with fees, penalties, and to the last dime, than it doesn't matter if interest rates are essentially
zero.
Who gets bailed out is not due to logic or accounting that says that the banks' losses have
to be made whole, but not home owners – that is an ideology called economics .
The biggest political surprise of
2016 was that everyone was so surprised. I certainly had no excuse to be caught
unawares: soon after the 2008 crisis, I wrote a book suggesting that a collapse of
confidence in political institutions would follow the economic collapse, with a lag of
five years or so.
We've seen this sequence before. The
first breakdown of globalization, described by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in their
1848
The Communist Manifesto,
was followed by reform laws creating unprecedented
rights for the working class. The breakdown of British imperialism after World War I was
followed by the New Deal and the welfare state. And the breakdown of Keynesian economics
after 1968 was followed by the Thatcher-Reagan revolution. In my book
Capitalism 4.0
, I argued that comparable political upheavals would follow the
fourth systemic breakdown of global capitalism heralded by the 2008 crisis.
When a particular model of capitalism
is working successfully, material progress relieves political pressures. But when the
economy fails – and the failure is not just a transient phase but a symptom of deep
contradictions – capitalism's disruptive social side effects can turn politically toxic.
That is what happened after 2008.
Once the failure of free trade, deregulation, and monetarism came to be seen as leading
to a "new normal" of permanent austerity and diminished expectations, rather than just
to a temporary banking crisis, the inequalities, job losses, and cultural dislocations
of the pre-crisis period could no longer be legitimized – just as the extortionate taxes
of the 1950s and 1960s lost their legitimacy in the stagflation of the 1970s.
If we are witnessing this kind of
transformation, then piecemeal reformers who try to address specific grievances about
immigration, trade, or income inequality will lose out to radical politicians who
challenge the entire system. And, in some ways, the radicals will be right.
The disappearance of "good"
manufacturing jobs cannot be blamed on immigration, trade, or technology. But whereas
these vectors of economic competition increase total national income, they do not
necessarily distribute income gains in a socially acceptable way. To do that requires
deliberate political intervention on at least two fronts.
First, macroeconomic management must
ensure that demand always grows as strongly as the supply potential created by
technology and globalization. This is the fundamental Keynesian insight that was
temporarily rejected in the heyday of monetarism during the early 1980s, successfully
reinstated in the 1990s (at least in the US and Britain), but then forgotten again in
the deficit panic after 2009.
A return to Keynesian demand
management could be the main economic benefit of Donald Trump's incoming US
administration, as expansionary fiscal policies replace much less efficient efforts at
monetary stimulus. The US may now be ready to abandon the monetarist dogmas of
central-bank independence and inflation targeting, and to restore full employment as the
top priority of demand management. For Europe, however, this revolution in macroeconomic
thinking is still years away.
At the same time, a second, more
momentous, intellectual revolution will be needed regarding government intervention in
social outcomes and economic structures. Market fundamentalism conceals a profound
contradiction. Free trade, technological progress, and other forces that promote
economic "efficiency" are presented as beneficial to society, even if they harm
individual workers or businesses, because growing national incomes allow winners to
compensate losers, ensuring that nobody is left worse off.
This principle of so-called Pareto
optimality underlies all moral claims for free-market economics. Liberalizing policies
are justified in theory only by the assumption that political decisions will
redistribute some of the gains from winners to losers in socially acceptable ways. But
what happens if politicians do the opposite in practice?
By deregulating finance and trade,
intensifying competition, and weakening unions, governments created the theoretical
conditions that demanded redistribution from winners to losers. But advocates of market
fundamentalism did not just forget redistribution; they forbade it.
The pretext was that taxes, welfare
payments, and other government interventions impair incentives and distort competition,
reducing economic growth for society as a whole. But, as Margaret Thatcher famously
said, "[ ] there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and
there are families." By focusing on the social benefits of competition while ignoring
the costs to specific people, the market fundamentalists disregarded the principle of
individualism at the heart of their own ideology.
After this year's political
upheavals, the fatal contradiction between social benefits and individual losses can no
longer be ignored. If trade, competition, and technological progress are to power the
next phase of capitalism, they will have to be paired with government interventions to
redistribute the gains from growth in ways that Thatcher and Reagan declared taboo.
Breaking these taboos need not mean
returning to the high tax rates, inflation, and dependency culture of the 1970s. Just as
fiscal and monetary policy can be calibrated to minimize both unemployment and
inflatio n, redistribution can be designed not merely to recycle taxes into welfare, but
to help more directly when workers and communities suffer from globalization and
technological change.
Instead of providing cash handouts
that push people from work into long-term unemployment or retirement, governments can
redistribute the benefits of growth by supporting employment and incomes with regional
and industrial subsidies and minimum-wage laws. Among the most effective interventions
of this type, demonstrated in Germany and Scandinavia, is to spend money on high-quality
vocational education and re-training for workers and students outside universities,
creating non-academic routes to a middle-class standard of living.
These may all sound like obvious
nostrums, but governments have mostly done the opposite. They have made tax systems less
progressive and slashed spending on education, industrial policies and regional
subsidies, pouring money instead into health care, pensions, and cash hand-outs that
encourage early retirement and disability. The redistribution has been away from
low-paid young workers, whose jobs and wages are genuinely threatened by trade and
immigration, and toward the managerial and financial elites, who have gained the most
from globalization, and elderly retirees, whose guaranteed pensions protect them from
economic disruptions.
Yet this year's political upheavals
have been driven by elderly voters, while young voters mostly supported the
status
quo
. This paradox shows the post-crisis confusion and disillusionment is not yet
over. But the search for new economic models that I called "Capitalism 4.1" has clearly
started – for better or worse
Anatole Kaletsky is Chief Economist and Co-Chairman of Gavekal Dragonomics. A former columnist at
the Times of London, the International New York Times and the Financial Times, he is the author of
Capitalism 4.0, The Birth of a New Economy, which anticipated many of the post-crisis
transformations
"He stated, the culture in Silicon Valley is about social liberalism and environmentalism,
yet, the tech firms are full of the most ruthless free market capitalists he's ever seen."
Ha, Silicon Valley is full of the most anti-free market capitalists anywhere. They spend all
their time trying to figure out ways to eliminate competition through mergers and buyouts and
market domination.
The spend all their time suing each other to maintain their government enforced
anti-competitive patent monopolies. Silicon Valley hates free market competition. They spend inordinate
amounts of time and money to reduce free market competition.
"... the newly elected US president, Donald Trump, is a big question mark, especially concerning the US foreign policy. First of all, we must not forget that Trump is part of the US plutocracy, therefore, he will seek to defend the interests of his class, no matter how much the Right-Wing fanatics want to present him as an 'anti-establishment' figure. ..."
"... The only hope we have, is that Trump will reject the neocon policy and try to build a different relation with the oncoming rival economic alliance of BRICS, based on mutual benefits for both the developing countries and the West. ..."
"... We have to assume, of course, a very ideal situation in which Trump will be capable to surpass the pressure of the warmongering neocons and the deep state who run the US empire for decades, in contrast with Hillary Clinton, who would be more than willing to apply their agenda. ..."
"... The US is using the dollar superiority to retain its vast military expenses, conduct wars and secure oil reserves. It feels that it must confront the Chinese economic expansionism, otherwise dollar monopoly will break and a vicious circle will start in which the US declining empire will be finding more and more difficult to be the number one global power. ..."
"... Well, it seems that Donald is following such an approach! He appears to be conciliatory concerning Putin, but continuously provokes the Chinese! ..."
As
John Pilger describes in his new
documentary
The
Coming War on China
,
the "threat of China" is becoming big
news. The media is beating the drums
of war, as the world is being primed
to regard China as the new enemy.
What is not news, is that China
itself is under threat. A quick look
at the map of the American military
bases in Asia-Pacific, is adequate
for someone to understand that they
form a giant noose, encircling China
with missiles, bombers, warships.
It is
quite clear that the Western
plutocracy is changing the agenda
because it sees that the Sino-Russian
alliance is trying to build an
independent block which could become
a serious threat against the dollar
domination, and therefore, the
neoliberal model, through which the
elites are hoping to establish their
global supremacy.
Many support that
the newly elected US president,
Donald Trump, is a big question mark,
especially concerning the US foreign
policy. First of all, we must not
forget that Trump is part of the US
plutocracy, therefore, he will seek
to defend the interests of his class,
no matter how much the Right-Wing
fanatics want to present him as an
'anti-establishment' figure.
You
don't need to go too far on this.
Just take a look at
those who has appointed in key
positions to run the economy
and you will understand that Trump
will not only do 'business as usual',
but indeed, he will seek to secure
the domination of the plutocracy, by
expanding the destructive neoliberal
agenda against the interests of the
US working class.
The only hope we have, is that Trump
will reject the neocon policy and try
to build a different relation with
the oncoming rival economic alliance
of BRICS, based on mutual benefits
for both the developing countries and
the West.
We have to assume, of course, a
very ideal situation in which Trump
will be capable to surpass the
pressure of the warmongering neocons
and the deep state who run the US
empire for decades, in contrast with
Hillary Clinton, who would be more
than willing to apply their agenda.
While
it seems that, he does want a smooth
re-approach with Russia, the signals
he sends concerning China, long
before he get elected, are not to be
taken as a conciliatory approach,
without doubt.
The US is using the dollar
superiority to retain its vast
military expenses, conduct wars and
secure oil reserves. It feels that it
must confront the Chinese economic
expansionism, otherwise dollar
monopoly will break and a vicious
circle will start in which the US
declining empire will be finding more
and more difficult to be the number
one global power.
What
would be the 'right approach' for the
neocons who are running out of time
in this brutal race? It would be,
probably, to focus primarily on
China, which is indeed the biggest
economic threat, but doesn't have the
military power (like Russia) to
confront the US. A scenario would be
that the US starts a war that ends
quickly, changes the regime in China,
put its puppet, and probably, break
China (as they want to do with
Russia), using disputed provinces as
a pretext (e.g. Tibet, Xinjiang).
Having also encircled Russia from
Europe, the US will bet on the fact
that the Russians will not react, as
they will be occupied to maintain
forces on their Western borders.
Well, it seems that Donald is
following such an approach! He
appears to be conciliatory concerning
Putin, but continuously provokes the
Chinese!
Everything shows that
Trump is determined to continue the
Obama 'Pivot to Asia' anti-China
legacy, but this would be also his
biggest mistake.
Forget for a moment that the Chinese
continuously upgrade their military
forces, as well as, their nuclear
arsenal, partly because of the stupid
neocon policy, adopted by Obama, that
makes them feel directly threatened
and quite nervous. Forget that in the
area there is a North Korea that no
one knows what it can do and how far
it will go with its nukes, if only
would "smell" a coalition of US-led
forces that are about to operate
close to its territory.
If
Trump thinks that Putin will sit back
and watch this happening, he is
completely mistaken. Apart from the
fact that Russia and China are
committed by the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization (SCO), which is
expanding on security and defence
issues
, Putin
knows that, if China falls, Russia
will be next. Therefore, it would be
a major mistake for Trump to obey to
the lunatic neocon plans because the
gates of hell towards WWIII will be
opened for good.
"Trump_vs_deep_state ... is anything but populist":
Populism, Real and Phony, by Paul Krugman, NY Times : Authoritarians with an animus against
ethnic minorities are on the march across the Western world. ... But what should we call these
groups? Many reporters are using the term "populist," which seems both inadequate and misleading...,
are the other shared features of this movement - addiction to conspiracy theories, indifference
to the rule of law, a penchant for punishing critics - really captured by the "populist" label?
Still, the European members of this emerging alliance - an axis of evil? - have offered some real
benefits to workers. ... Trump_vs_deep_state is, however, different..., the emerging policy agenda is anything
but populist.
All indications are that we're looking at huge windfalls for billionaires combined with savage
cuts in programs that serve not just the poor but also the middle class. And the white working
class, which provided much of the 46 percent Trump vote share, is shaping up as the biggest loser.
...
Both his pick
as budget director and his choice to
head Health and Human Services want to dismantle the Affordable Care Act and privatize Medicare.
His
choice as labor secretary is a fast-food tycoon who has been a vociferous opponent both of
Obamacare and of minimum wage hikes. And House Republicans have already
submitted plans for drastic cuts in Social Security, including a sharp rise in the retirement
age. ...
In other words..., European populism is at least partly real, while Trumpist populism is turning
out to be entirely fake, a scam sold to working-class voters who are in for a rude awakening.
Will the new regime pay a political price?
Well, don't count on it..., you know that there will be huge efforts to shift the blame. These
will include claims that the collapse of health care is really President Obama's fault; claims
that the failure of alternatives is somehow the fault of recalcitrant Democrats; and an endless
series of attempts to distract the public.
Expect more Carrier-style stunts that don't actually help workers but dominate a news cycle. Expect
lots of fulmination against minorities. And it's worth remembering what authoritarian regimes
traditionally do to shift attention from failing policies, namely, find some foreigners to confront.
Maybe it will be a trade war with China, maybe something worse.
Opponents need to do all they can to defeat such strategies of distraction. Above all, they shouldn't
let themselves be sucked into cooperation that leaves them sharing part of the blame. The perpetrators
of this scam should be forced to own it.
It really depend on how the two sides play it out. You don't need to move the diehard sexists
and racists for things to change. But the Democrats need to have a Warren/Sanders attack team
ready on every single GOP "favor the rich and screw the rest" proposal. It would be rather easy
to get the press to pay attention to those two if they went to war with Trump/GOP. Their following
is sufficiently large to be a media market - so their comments would not be ignored. We also know
that at least Warren knows how to bait Trump into saying something stupid so you can get the kind
of firework that commercial media cannot ignore. The Dems need to learn how to bait the media
at least as effectively as Trump does.
When can we please start tuning Krugman down here? He aided and abetted the election disaster
by being one of the most prominent Very Serious People leading the offensive against Sanders and
promoting a fatally flawed candidate that was beaten resoundingly in 2008 and with irredeemable,
self-inflicted, negative baggage.
He may make good points here after-the-fact, but they're all "duh!" level bits of analysis
at this stage. And the last thing I want to hear from any of the VSPs who piloted the train over
the cliff during this election season is b*tching about the mess at the bottom of the cliff.
Aren't there ANY other voices with some remaining shred of political credibility that can be
quoted here instead of the unabashed VSPs who helped elect trump?
Since I am only noting objection to one blogger who invested much of his personal credibility
into promoting a horrible leader, I don't see the relevance of your comment at all. I enjoy pretty
much every other blogger to which Thoma links.
My issue is with highlighting a crank whose writing has cratered over the last year. If a Trump
ripping is due (and it usually is), then I'm fine with it being a feature so long as it's written
by someone who isn't channeling Niall Ferguson and with the same degree of credibility as a political
"wonk".
I think a certain amount of self-criticism and introspection is warranted at this point, no? And,
I think, there is little question that the long-term coziness of the democratic party with high
finance and the PMIC played a major role in negative perceptions of HRC.
Although I did not vote for Clinton, if I had lived in a remotely competitive state I would
have certainly voted for her. To put this in perspective, my vote for Sanders was a very reluctant
vote and Clinton is the POTUS I despise the most (Trump will change this).
"beaten resoundingly in 2008 and with irredeemable, self-inflicted, negative baggage."
Characterizing Clinton's electoral college defeat as being beaten resoundingly is exactly the
kind of irrational "bro" rhetoric that Krugman rightly criticized.
And I write this as someone who voted for Sanders and then Stein.
They're an angry lot.... and they, like the conservative "affinity fraudsters" that Krugman has
lambasted over the years, refuse to accept reality. Instead, they hunker down, shut out facts,
and surround themselves only with people and information that agrees with their flawed opinions.
All I hear from Paul -- and others -- sounds like ducking and weaving and back peddling -- in
a phrase: retreat-in-good-order to avoid defeat-in-detail.
How about a little aggression? Would it be too much to expect these top brains the potential
to rebuild labor union density (THE ONLY POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC TISSUE OF THE AVERAGE PERSON)
at state by progressive state level.
NEVER HEAR OF IT -- NO OTHER PATH (and it looks to be multi-multi-path once you start looking
through all the angles.
I'm only beginning to sort all this out -- like the angle that any group disallowed of employee
status by the Trump NLRB (student teaching and research assistants?) immediately become eligible
for full state supported conduction of NLRB-like certification process. No preemption problem.
Preemption on closer exam may not be the barrier folks think. So, so much more federal preemption/supremacy
(not the same thing!) stuff to sort through -- another reason to put off posting the full comment.
Few weeks maybe.
Where I come from, the Bronx of the 50s-70s, everybody was different, so nobody was different,
so we had more fun with your differences.
We didn't have diversity; we had assimilation; everyone was the same.
Typical 60s high school chatter: How's an Italian like a crashing airplane? Guinea, Guinea,
Guinea: Whop!
How's an Irishman like a submarine under attack? Down the hatch; down the hatch; down the hatch!
In the movie The Wanderers, portraying the 1979 Bronx with more people of color, the high school
teasing is all: nigger, spic, kike! Too much for your non-real-melting pot ears.
:-)-
********************
Be more impressed by your (plural) interest in minority dignity if it obsessed on getting everyone
one the same ECONOMIC (!) level.
You rebuild union density or you do nothing! You do it at the state by progressive state level
or you do nothing! Are you academic progressives the slightest bit interested in doing just that?
How come you are not obsessed with re-unionization?
"... Democratic party under Bill Clinton became yet another neoliberal party (soft neoliberals) and betrayed both organized labour and middle class in favour of financial oligarchy. ..."
"... The cynical calculation was that "they have nowhere to go" and will vote for Democrats anyway. And that was true up to and including election of "change we can believe in" guy. After this attempt of yet another Clinton-style "bait and switch" trick failed. ..."
"... Now it is clear that far right picked up large part of those votes. So in a way Bill Clinton is the godfather of the US far right renaissances. The same is true for Hillary: her "kick the can down the road" stance made victory of Trump possible (although it surprised me; I expected that neoliberals were still strong enough to push their candidate down the US people throat) ..."
"... Under "democrat" Obama the USA pursued imperial policy of creating global neoliberal empire. The foreign policy remained essentially unchanged. Neocons were partially replaced with "liberal interventionists" which is the same staff in a different bottle. This policy costs the US tremendous amount of money and it is probable that the US is going the way British empire went -- overextending itself. ..."
"... Regional currency blocks are now a reality and arrangements bypass the usage of US dollar if international trade are common. They are now in place between several large countries such as Russia and China and absolutely nothing can reverse this trend. So dollar became virtualized -- a kind of "conversion gauge" but without profits for real conversion national currency to dollars for major TBTF banks. ..."
This Washington Post article on Poland - where a right-wing, anti-intellectual, nativist party
now rules, and has garnered a lot of public support - is chilling for those of us who worry that
Trump_vs_deep_state may really be the end of the road for US democracy. The supporters of Law and Justice
clearly looked a lot like Trump's white working class enthusiasts; so are we headed down the same
path?
(In Poland, a window on what happens when
populists come to power http://wpo.st/aHJO2
Washington Post - Anthony Faiola - December 18)
Well, there's an important difference - a bit of American exceptionalism, if you like. Europe's
populist parties are actually populist; they pursue policies that really do help workers, as long
as those workers are the right color and ethnicity. As someone put it, they're selling a herrenvolk
welfare state. Law and Justice has raised minimum wages and reduced the retirement age; France's
National Front advocates the same things.
Trump, however, is different. He said lots of things on the campaign trail, but his personnel
choices indicate that in practice he's going to be a standard hard-line economic-right Republican.
His Congressional allies are revving up to dismantle Obamacare, privatize Medicare, and raise
the retirement age. His pick for Labor Secretary is a fast-food tycoon
who loathes minimum wage hikes. And his pick for top economic advisor is the king of trickle-down.
So in what sense is Trump a populist? Basically, he plays one on TV - he claims to stand for
the common man, disparages elites, trashes political correctness; but it's all for show. When
it comes to substance, he's pro-elite all the way.
It's infuriating and dismaying that he managed to get away with this in the election. But that
was all big talk. What happens when reality begins to hit? Repealing Obamacare will inflict huge
harm on precisely the people who were most enthusiastic Trump supporters - people who somehow
believed that their benefits would be left intact. What happens when they realize their mistake?
I wish I were confident in a coming moment of truth. I'm not. Given history, what we can count
on is a massive effort to spin the coming working-class devastation as somehow being the fault
of liberals, and for all I know it might work. (Think of how Britain's Tories managed to shift
blame for austerity onto Labour's mythical fiscal irresponsibility.) But there is certainly an
opportunity for Democrats coming.
And the indicated political strategy is clear: make Trump and company own all the hardship
they're about to inflict. No cooperation in devising an Obamacare replacement; no votes for Medicare
privatization and increasing the retirement age. No bipartisan cover for the end of the TV illusion
and the coming of plain old, ugly reality.
Democratic party under Bill Clinton became yet another neoliberal party (soft neoliberals)
and betrayed both organized labour and middle class in favour of financial oligarchy.
The cynical calculation was that "they have nowhere to go" and will vote for Democrats
anyway. And that was true up to and including election of "change we can believe in" guy. After
this attempt of yet another Clinton-style "bait and switch" trick failed.
Now it is clear that far right picked up large part of those votes. So in a way Bill Clinton
is the godfather of the US far right renaissances. The same is true for Hillary: her "kick the
can down the road" stance made victory of Trump possible (although it surprised me; I expected
that neoliberals were still strong enough to push their candidate down the US people throat)
Point 2:
Under "democrat" Obama the USA pursued imperial policy of creating global neoliberal empire.
The foreign policy remained essentially unchanged. Neocons were partially replaced with "liberal
interventionists" which is the same staff in a different bottle. This policy costs the US tremendous
amount of money and it is probable that the US is going the way British empire went -- overextending
itself.
Regional currency blocks are now a reality and arrangements bypass the usage of US dollar
if international trade are common. They are now in place between several large countries such
as Russia and China and absolutely nothing can reverse this trend. So dollar became virtualized
-- a kind of "conversion gauge" but without profits for real conversion national currency to dollars
for major TBTF banks.
So if we think about Iraq war as the way to prevent to use euro as alternative to dollar in
oil sales that goal was not achieved and all blood and treasure were wasted.
In this sense it would be difficult to Trump to continue with "bastard neoliberalism" both
in foreign policy and domestically and betray his election promises because they reflected real
problems facing the USA and are the cornerstone of his political support.
Also in this case neocons establishment will simply get rid of him one way or the other. I
hope that he understand this danger and will avoid trimming Social Security.
Returning to Democratic Party betrayal of interests of labour, Krugman hissy fit signifies
that he does not understand the current political situation. Neoliberal wing of Democratic Party
is now bankrupt both morally and politically. Trump election was the last nail into Bill Clinton
political legacy coffin.
Now we returned to essentially the same political process that took place after the Great Depression,
with much weaker political leaders, this time. So this is the time for stronger, more interventionist
in internal policy state and the suppression of financial oligarchy. If Trump does not understand
this he is probably doomed and will not last long.
That's why I think Trump inspired far right renaissance will continue and the political role
of military might dramatically increase. And politically Trump is the hostage of this renaissance.
Flint appointment in this sense is just the first swallow of increased role of military leaders
in government.
"... If we go back to Bill Clinton, his "Putting People First" manifesto in '92 was quite left-of-center, but he didn't govern that way. If you look at things like NAFTA, Welfare reform, and cutting capital gains taxes - well, in many ways, Ronald Reagan would have been proud of him. ..."
"... Part of my view is that in the 1930s, we rejected the individuality of the '20s and before. After the crash and the Depression, we finally put the corporate class and bankers to the sidelines. Whether it was Keynesianism or the New Deal in the West, or state fascism or the advent of Stalinism, you saw more government control over the economy. This was good for workers and large governments. It was more nationalistic and led, obviously, to the next conflict. But the rise of government planning and government involvement was good for nominal GDPs. It was not good for the asset-holding classes - stocks and bonds did terribly over that period, right? You wanted to be a worker, you wanted to be labor, not capital. ..."
"... The period from the late 1970s to 1980 changed all that. You had Thatcher and the U.K. and Reagan in the U.S. Mao died in 1976, the Solidarity movement in Poland began in 1978, and the Soviet Union peaked in power in 1979. You saw that the pendulum had gone too far and now we're going to cut taxes on capital, we're going to be more globalistic, and trade was going to improve. Since then, capital has risen and assets have done better than labor. Taxes have been light on financial assets and heavy on labor. Everything was reversed on its head. ..."
"... If we look at the events of 2016 - Brexit, the Italian referendum, Trump, and the rise of nationalist China - are these the harbingers of something bigger? Or are they just a coincidence? The ground seems to be fertile for things to change globally. If so, does this give rise to a more nationalistic, protectionist, statist scenario? Are labor prices going to go up again? Are we going to tax capital and emphasize wages? ..."
You and I have
talked about how it has become a cost calculus for lots of corporations and financial
institutions to cheat. "If I get caught," they say, "I'm just going to pay a fine." How does this
change with new faces in Washington? You still have this very pro-corporate group on Capitol
Hill whose main bailiwick, in my opinion, is to protect the corporate class and the very wealthy.
You've got what ostensibly is a proto-populist in the White House with a cabinet that is a mélange
of different types, so who knows?
In my overall view, stuff happens to change people. If we go back to Bill Clinton, his "Putting
People First" manifesto in '92 was quite left-of-center, but he didn't govern that way. If you
look at things like NAFTA, Welfare reform, and cutting capital gains taxes - well, in many
ways, Ronald Reagan would have been proud of him.
Events conspire to derail our perceptions of presidents. When we look at their platforms, we
think we know where things are headed. But in modern times, the only two presidents that I can
think of who really got their ideas and platforms enacted wholesale were FDR and Reagan. Everybody
else has gotten compromised, or has had events overwhelm them.
... ... ...
JC:
Part of my view is that in the 1930s, we rejected the individuality of the '20s and before.
After the crash and the Depression, we finally put the corporate class and bankers to the sidelines.
Whether it was Keynesianism or the New Deal in the West, or state fascism or the advent of Stalinism,
you saw more government control over the economy. This was good for workers and large governments.
It was more nationalistic and led, obviously, to the next conflict. But the rise of government
planning and government involvement was good for nominal GDPs. It was not good for the asset-holding
classes - stocks and bonds did terribly over that period, right? You wanted to be a worker, you
wanted to be labor, not capital.
The period from the late 1970s to 1980 changed all that. You had Thatcher and the U.K. and Reagan
in the U.S. Mao died in 1976, the Solidarity movement in Poland began in 1978, and the Soviet
Union peaked in power in 1979. You saw that the pendulum had gone too far and now we're going
to cut taxes on capital, we're going to be more globalistic, and trade was going to improve. Since
then, capital has risen and assets have done better than labor. Taxes have been light on financial
assets and heavy on labor. Everything was reversed on its head.
If we look at the events of 2016 - Brexit, the Italian referendum, Trump, and the rise of nationalist
China - are these the harbingers of something bigger? Or are they just a coincidence? The ground
seems to be fertile for things to change globally. If so, does this give rise to a more nationalistic,
protectionist, statist scenario? Are labor prices going to go up again? Are we going to tax capital
and emphasize wages?
"... The fact remains, however, that every single developed country got there by using protectionist policies to nurture the develop local industries. Protectionism in developed countries does have strongly negative consequences, but it is beneficial for developing economies. ..."
"... You are exactly right about Japan and I lived through that period. Please name one advanced economy which did not rely on protectionist laws to support domestic industries. All of the European industrial countries did it. The US did it. Japan and Korea did it. China is currently doing it and India has done it. ..."
"... Nobody cared about US labor or about hollowing out the US economy. Krugman frequently noted that the benefits to investors and 'strategic' considerations for free trade were more important that job losses. ..."
"... This extra demand for dollars as a commodity is what drives the price of the dollar higher, leading to the strategic benefits and economic hollowing out that I noted above. ..."
"... There really is no "post-industrialization era", no matter what fantasies the FIRE sector wants to sell. To the extent there is, the existing global trade agreements (including the WTO, World Bank, IMF, and related organization) accomplish that as well by privileging the position of first world capital. ..."
"... "Over the long haul, clearly automation's been much more important - it's not even close," said Lawrence Katz, an economics professor at Harvard who studies labor and technological change. No candidate talked much about automation on the campaign trail. Technology is not as convenient a villain as China or Mexico, there is no clear way to stop it, and many of the technology companies are in the United States and benefit the country in many ways. ..."
"... Globalization is clearly responsible for some of the job losses, particularly trade with China during the 2000s, which led to the rapid loss of 2 million to 2.4 million net jobs, according to research by economists including Daron Acemoglu and David Autor of M.I.T. ..."
"... People who work in parts of the country most affected by imports generally have greater unemployment and reduced income for the rest of their lives, Mr. Autor found in a paper published in January. Still, over time, automation has had a far bigger effect than globalization, and would have eventually eliminated those jobs anyway, he said in an interview. "Some of it is globalization, but a lot of it is we require many fewer workers to do the same amount of work," he said. "Workers are basically supervisors of machines." ..."
"... Clarification of 3: that is, infant industry protection as traditionally done, i.e. "picking winners", won't help. What would help is structural changes that make things relatively easier for small enterprises and relatively harder for large ones. ..."
"... Making direct lobbying of state and federal politicians by industry groups and companies a crime punishable by 110% taxation of net income on all the participants would be a start. ..."
"... "Over time, automation has generally had a happy ending: As it has displaced jobs, it has created new ones. But some experts are beginning to worry that this time could be different. Even as the economy has improved, jobs and wages for a large segment of workers - particularly men without college degrees doing manual labor - have not recovered." ..."
"... So why have manufacturing jobs plummeted since 2000? One answer is that the current account deficit is the wrong figure, since it also includes our surplus in trade in services. If you just look at goods, the deficit is closer to 4.2% of GDP. ..."
"... trade interacts with automation. Not only do we lose jobs in manufacturing to automation, but trade leads us to re-orient our production toward goods that use relatively less labor (tech, aircraft, chemicals, farm produces, etc.), while we import goods like clothing, furniture and autos. ..."
"... There are industries that are closely connected with the sovereignty of the country. That's what neoliberals tend to ignore as they, being closet Trotskyites ("Financial oligarchy of all countries unite!" instead of "Proletarian of all countries unite!" ;-) do not value sovereignty and are hell bent on the Permanent Neoliberal Revolution to bring other countries into neoliberal fold (in the form of color revolutions, or for smaller countries, direct invasions like in Iraq and Libya ). ..."
"... Neoliberal commenters here demonstrate complete detachment from the fact that like war is an extension of politics, while politics is an extension of economics. For example, denying imports can and is often used for political pressure. ..."
"... Now Trump want to play this game selectively designating China as "evil empire" and providing a carrot for Russia. Will it works, or Russia can be wiser then donkeys, I do not know. ..."
"... The US propagandists usually call counties on which they impose sanction authoritarian dictatorships to make such actions more politically correct, but the fact remains: The USA as a global hegemon enjoys using economic pressure to crush dissidents and put vassals in line. ..."
"... Neoliberalism as a social system is past it pinnacle and that creates some problems for the USA as the central player in the neoliberal world. The triumphal march of neoliberalism over the globe ended almost a decade ago. ..."
The Case for Protecting Infant Industries : I must say, it's been almost breathtaking to see
how fast the acceptable terms of debate have shifted on the subject of trade. Thanks partly to
President-elect Donald Trump's populism and partly to academic
research
showing that the costs of free trade could be higher than anyone predicted, economics commentators
are now happy to lambast
the entire idea of trade. I don't want to do that -- I think a nuanced middle ground is best.
But I do think it's worth reevaluating one idea that the era of economic dogmatism had seemingly
consigned to the junk pile -- the notion of infant-industry protectionism. ...
DrDick -> pgl...
The fact remains, however, that every single developed country got there by using protectionist
policies to nurture the develop local industries. Protectionism in developed countries does have
strongly negative consequences, but it is beneficial for developing economies.
You are exactly right about Japan and I lived through that period. Please name one advanced
economy which did not rely on protectionist laws to support domestic industries. All of the European
industrial countries did it. The US did it. Japan and Korea did it. China is currently doing it
and India has done it.
JohnH -> pgl... , -1
Japan and other developed countries took advantage of the strong dollar/reserve currency, which
provided their industries de facto protection from US exports along with a price umbrella that
allowed them export by undercutting prices on US domestic products. The strong dollar was viewed
as a strategic benefit to the US, since it allowed former rivals to develop their economies while
making them dependent on the US consumer market, the largest in the world. The strong dollar also
allowed the US to establish bases and fight foreign wars on the cheap, while allowing Wall Street
to buy foreign economies' crown jewels on the cheap.
Nobody cared about US labor or about hollowing out the US economy. Krugman frequently noted
that the benefits to investors and 'strategic' considerations for free trade were more important
that job losses.
Even pgl's guy, Milton Friedman, recognized that "overseas demand for dollars allows the United
States to maintain persistent trade deficits without causing the value of the currency to depreciate
or the flow of trade to re-adjust." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_use_of_the_U.S._dollar
This extra demand for dollars as a commodity is what drives the price of the dollar higher,
leading to the strategic benefits and economic hollowing out that I noted above.
John San Vant -> JohnH... , -1
That is because you get a persistent trade surplus in services, which offsets the "Goods" trade
deficit. The currency depreciated in the 2000's because said surplus in services began to decline
creating a real trade deficit.
There really is no "post-industrialization era", no matter what fantasies the FIRE sector
wants to sell. To the extent there is, the existing global trade agreements (including the WTO,
World Bank, IMF, and related organization) accomplish that as well by privileging the position
of first world capital.
anne -> DrDick... , -1
There really is no "post-industrialization era", no matter what fantasies the Finance, Insurance,
and Real Estate sectors want to sell....
[ Interesting assertion. Do develop this further. ]
The Long-Term Jobs Killer Is Not China. It's Automation.
By Claire Cain Miller
The first job that Sherry Johnson, 56, lost to automation was at the local newspaper in Marietta,
Ga., where she fed paper into the printing machines and laid out pages. Later, she watched machines
learn to do her jobs on a factory floor making breathing machines, and in inventory and filing.
"It actually kind of ticked me off because it's like, How are we supposed to make a living?"
she said. She took a computer class at Goodwill, but it was too little too late. "The 20- and
30-year-olds are more up to date on that stuff than we are because we didn't have that when we
were growing up," said Ms. Johnson, who is now on disability and lives in a housing project in
Jefferson City, Tenn.
Donald J. Trump told workers like Ms. Johnson that he would bring back their jobs by clamping
down on trade, offshoring and immigration. But economists say the bigger threat to their jobs
has been something else: automation.
"Over the long haul, clearly automation's been much more important - it's not even close,"
said Lawrence Katz, an economics professor at Harvard who studies labor and technological change.
No candidate talked much about automation on the campaign trail. Technology is not as convenient
a villain as China or Mexico, there is no clear way to stop it, and many of the technology companies
are in the United States and benefit the country in many ways.
Mr. Trump told a group of tech company leaders last Wednesday: "We want you to keep going with
the incredible innovation. Anything we can do to help this go along, we're going to be there for
you."
Andrew F. Puzder, Mr. Trump's pick for labor secretary and chief executive of CKE Restaurants,
extolled the virtues of robot employees over the human kind in an interview with Business Insider
in March. "They're always polite, they always upsell, they never take a vacation, they never show
up late, there's never a slip-and-fall, or an age, sex or race discrimination case," he said.
Globalization is clearly responsible for some of the job losses, particularly trade with
China during the 2000s, which led to the rapid loss of 2 million to 2.4 million net jobs, according
to research by economists including Daron Acemoglu and David Autor of M.I.T.
People who work in parts of the country most affected by imports generally have greater
unemployment and reduced income for the rest of their lives, Mr. Autor found in a paper published
in January. Still, over time, automation has had a far bigger effect than globalization, and would
have eventually eliminated those jobs anyway, he said in an interview. "Some of it is globalization,
but a lot of it is we require many fewer workers to do the same amount of work," he said. "Workers
are basically supervisors of machines."
When Greg Hayes, the chief executive of United Technologies, agreed to invest $16 million in
one of its Carrier factories as part of a Trump deal to keep some jobs in Indiana instead of moving
them to Mexico, he said the money would go toward automation.
"What that ultimately means is there will be fewer jobs," he said on CNBC....
Clarification of 3: that is, infant industry protection as traditionally done, i.e. "picking winners",
won't help. What would help is structural changes that make things relatively easier for small
enterprises and relatively harder for large ones.
Making direct lobbying of state and federal politicians by industry groups and companies a
crime punishable by 110% taxation of net income on all the participants would be a start.
What's Different About Stagnating Wages for Workers Without College Degrees
There seems to be a great effort to convince people that the displacement due to the trade
deficit over the last fifteen years didn't really happen. The New York Times contributed to this
effort with a piece * telling readers that over the long-run job loss has been primarily due to
automation not trade.
While the impact of automation over a long enough period of time certainly swamps the impact
of trade, over the last 20 years there is little doubt that the impact of the exploding trade
deficit has had more of an impact on employment. To make this one as simple as possible, we currently
have a trade deficit of roughly $460 billion (@ 2.6 percent of GDP). Suppose we had balanced trade
instead, making up this gap with increased manufacturing output.
Does the NYT want to tell us that we could increase our output of manufactured goods by $460
billion, or just under 30 percent, without employing more workers in manufacturing? That would
be pretty impressive. We currently employ more than 12 million workers in manufacturing, if moving
to balanced trade increase employment by just 15 percent we would be talking about 1.8 million
jobs. That is not trivial.
But this is not the only part of the story that is strange. We are getting hyped up fears over
automation even at a time when productivity growth (i.e. automation) has slowed to a crawl, averaging
just 1.0 percent annually over the last decade. The NYT tells readers:
"Over time, automation has generally had a happy ending: As it has displaced jobs, it has
created new ones. But some experts are beginning to worry that this time could be different. Even
as the economy has improved, jobs and wages for a large segment of workers - particularly men
without college degrees doing manual labor - have not recovered."
Hmmm, this time could be different? How so? The average hourly wage of men with just a high
school degree was 13 percent less in 2000 than in 1973. ** For workers with some college it was
down by more than 2.0 percent. In fact, stagnating wages for men without college degrees is not
something new and different, it has been going on for more than forty years. Hasn't this news
gotten to the NYT yet?
Inequality, technology, globalization, and the false assumptions that sustain current inequities
by Jared Bernstein
December 22nd, 2016 at 3:24 pm
Here's a great interview* with inequality scholar Branko Milanovic wherein he brings a much-needed
historical and international perspective to the debate (h/t: C. Marr). Many of Branko's points
are familiar to my readers: yes, increased trade has upsides, for both advanced and emerging economies.
But it's not hard to find significant swaths hurt by globalization, particularly workers in rich
economies who've been placed into competition with those in poorer countries. The fact that little
has been done to help them is one reason for president-elect Trump.
As Milanovic puts it:
"The problems with globalization arise from the fact that gains from it are not (and can never
be) evenly distributed. There would be always those who gain less than some others, or those who
lose even in absolute terms. But to whom can they "appeal" for redress? Only to their national
governments because this is how the world is politically organized. Thus national governments
have to engage in "mop up" operations to fix the negative effects of globalization. And this they
have not done well, led as they were by the belief that the trickle-down economics will take care
of it. We know it did not."
But I'd like to focus on a related point from Branko's interview, one that gets less attention:
the question of whether it was really exposure to global trade or to labor-saving technology that
is most responsible for displacing workers. What's the real problem here: is it the trade deficit
or the robots?
Branko cogently argues that "both technological change and economic polices responded to globalization.
The nature of recent technological progress would have been different if you could not employ
labor 10,000 miles away from your home base." Their interaction makes their relative contributions
hard to pull apart.
I'd argue that the rise of trade with China, from the 1990s to the 2007 crash, played a significant
role in moving US manufacturing employment from its steady average of around 17 million factory
jobs from around 1970 to 2000, to an average today that's about 5 million less (see figure below;
of course, manufacturing employment was falling as a share of total jobs over this entire period).
Over at Econlog I have a post that suggests the answer is no, CA deficits do not cost jobs.
But suppose I'm wrong, and suppose they do cost jobs. In that case, trade has been a major
net contributor to American jobs during the 21st century, as our deficit was about 4% of GDP during
the 2000 tech boom, and as large as 6% of GDP during the 2006 housing boom. Today it is only 2.6%
of GDP. So if you really believe that rising trade deficits cost jobs, you'd be forced to believe
that the shrinking deficits since 2000 have created jobs.
So why have manufacturing jobs plummeted since 2000? One answer is that the current account
deficit is the wrong figure, since it also includes our surplus in trade in services. If you just
look at goods, the deficit is closer to 4.2% of GDP.
But even that doesn't really explain very much, because it's slightly lower than the 4.35%
of GDP trade deficit in goods back in 2000. So again, the big loss of manufacturing jobs is something
of a mystery. Yes, we import more goods than we used to, but exports of goods have risen at about
the same rate since 2000. So why does it seem like trade has devastated our manufacturing sector?
Perhaps because trade interacts with automation. Not only do we lose jobs in manufacturing
to automation, but trade leads us to re-orient our production toward goods that use relatively
less labor (tech, aircraft, chemicals, farm produces, etc.), while we import goods like clothing,
furniture and autos.
So trade and automation are both parts of a bigger trend, Schumpeterian creative destruction,
which is transforming big areas of our economy. It's especially painful as during the earlier
period of automation (say 1950-2000) the physical output of goods was still rising fast. So the
blow of automation was partly cushioned by a rise in output. (Although not in the coal and steel
industries!) Since 2000, however, we've seen slower growth in physical output for a number of
reasons, including slower workforce growth, a shift to a service economy, and a home building
recession (which normally absorbs manufactured goods like home appliances, carpet, etc.) We are
producing more goods than ever, but with dramatically fewer workers.
Update: Steve Cicala sent me a very interesting piece on coal that he had published in Forbes.
Ironically, environmental regulations actually helped West Virginia miners, by forcing utilities
to install scrubbers that cleaned up emissions from the dirtier West Virginia coal. (Wyoming coal
has less sulfur.) He also discusses the issue of competition from natural gas.
The historical record is totally unambiguous. Protectionism always leads to wealth and industrial
development. Free trade leads you to the third world. This was true four hundred years ago with
mercantilist England and the navigation acts; it was true with Lincoln's tariffs in the 1860's,
it was true of East Asia post 1945.
Economists better abandon silly free trade if they want to have any credibility and not be
seen as quacks.
Washington (CNN)President-elect Donald Trump's transition team is discussing a proposal to
impose tariffs as high as 10% on imports, according to multiple sources.
A senior Trump transition official said Thursday the team is mulling up to a 10% tariff aimed
at spurring US manufacturing, which could be implemented via executive action or as part of a
sweeping tax reform package they would push through Congress.
Incoming White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus floated a 5% tariff on imports in meetings
with key Washington players last week, according to two sources who represent business interests
in Washington. But the senior transition official who spoke to CNN Thursday on the condition of
anonymity said the higher figure is now in play.
Such a move would deliver on Trump's "America First" campaign theme, but risks drawing the
US into a trade war with other countries and driving up the cost of consumer goods in the US.
And it's causing alarm among business interests and the pro-trade Republican establishment.
The senior transition official said the transition team is beginning to find "common ground"
with House Speaker Paul Ryan and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady, pointing in particular
to the border adjustment tax measure included in House Republicans' "Better Way" tax reform proposal,
which would disincentivize imports through tax policy.
Aides to Ryan and Brady declined to say they had "common ground" with Trump, but acknowledged
they are in deep discussions with transition staffers on the issue.
Curbing free trade was a central element of Trump's campaign. He promised to rip up the North
American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada. He also vowed to take a tougher line against
other international trading partners, almost always speaking harshly of China but often including
traditional US allies such as Japan in his complaint that American workers get the short end of
the stick under current trade practices.
Gulf with GOP establishment
It is an area where there is a huge gulf between Trump's stated positions and traditional GOP
orthodoxy. Business groups and GOP establishment figures -- including Ryan and Senate Majority
Leader Mitch McConnell -- have been hoping the transition from the campaign to governing would
bring a different approach.
Ryan did signal in a CNBC interview earlier this month that Trump's goals of spurring US manufacturing
could be accomplished through "comprehensive tax reform."
"I'll tell him what I've been saying all along, which is we can get at what he's trying to
get at better through comprehensive tax reform," Ryan said.
The pro-business GOP establishment says the new Trump administration could make clear it would
withdraw from NAFTA unless Canada and Mexico entered new talks to modernize the agreement to reflect
today's economy. That would allow Trump to say he kept a promise to make the agreement fairer
to American workers without starting a trade war and exacerbating tensions with America's neighbors
and vital economic partners.
But there remain establishment jitters that Trump, who views his tough trade message as critical
to his election victory, will look for ways to make an early statement that he is serious about
reshaping the trade playing field.
And when Priebus told key Washington players that the transition is mulling a 5% tariff on
imports, the reaction was one of fierce opposition, according to two sources who represent business
interests in Washington and spoke on condition of anonymity because the conversations with the
Trump team were confidential.
Priebus, the sources said, was warned such a move could start trade wars, anger allies, and
also hurt the new administration's effort to boost the rate of economic growth right out of the
gate.
Role of Wilbur Ross
One of the sources said he viewed the idea as a trial balloon when first raised, and considered
it dead on arrival given the strong reaction in the business community -- and the known opposition
to such protectionist ideas among the GOP congressional leadership.
But this source voiced new alarm Tuesday after being told by allies within the Trump transition
that defending new tariffs was part of the confirmation "murder board" practice of Wilbur Ross,
the President-elect's choice for commerce secretary.
At least one business community organization is worried enough about the prospect of the tariff
it already has prepared talking points, obtained by CNN Wednesday night.
"This $100 billion tax on American consumers and industry would impose heavy costs on the
US economy, particularly for the manufacturing sector and American workers, with highly negative
political repercussions," according to the talking points. "Rather than using a trade policy
sledgehammer that would inflict serious collateral damage, the Trump administration should
use the scalpel of US trade remedy law to achieve its goals."
The talking points also claim the tariffs would lead to American job loss and result in a tax
to consumers, both of which would harm the US economy.
Trump aides have signaled that Ross is likely to be a more influential player in trade negotiations
than recent Commerce secretaries. Given that, the aides know his confirmation hearings are likely
to include tough questioning -- from both Democrats and Republicans -- about Trump's trade-related
campaign promises.
"The way it was cast to me was that (Trump) and Ross are all over it," said one source. "It
is serious."
The second source was less certain about whether the tariff idea was serious or just part of
a vigorous debate about policy options. But this source said the unpredictability of Trump and
his team had the business interests nervous.
The business lobbying community is confident the GOP leadership would push back on any legislative
effort to impose tariffs, which organizations like the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable,
the National Association of Manufactures and others, including groups representing farmers, believe
would lead to retaliation against US industries heavily dependent on exports.
But the sources aligned with those interests told CNN the conversation within the Trump transition
includes using executive authority allowed under existing trade laws. Different trade laws enacted
over the course of the past century allow the president to impose tariffs if he issues a determination
the United States is being subjected to unfair trade practices or faces an economic or national
security threat because of trade practices.
There are industries that are closely connected with the sovereignty of the country. That's
what neoliberals tend to ignore as they, being closet Trotskyites ("Financial oligarchy of all
countries unite!" instead of "Proletarian of all countries unite!" ;-) do not value sovereignty
and are hell bent on the Permanent Neoliberal Revolution to bring other countries into neoliberal
fold (in the form of color revolutions, or for smaller countries, direct invasions like in Iraq
and Libya ).
For example, if you depends of chips produced outside the country for your military or space
exploration, then sabotage is possible (or just pure fraud -- selling regular ships instead of
special tolerant to cosmic radiation or harsh conditions variant; actually can be done with the
support of internal neoliberal fifth column).
The same is probably true for cars and auto engines. If you do not produce domestically a variety
at least some domestic brans of cars and trucks, your military trucks and engines will be foreign
and that will cost you tremendous amount of money and you might depend for spare parts on you
future adversary. Also such goods are overprices to the heaven. KAS is a clear example of this
as they burn their money in the war with Yemen as there is no tomorrow making the US MIC really
happy.
So large countries with say over 100 million people probably need to think twice before jumping
into neoliberal globalization bandwagon and relying in imports for strategically important industries.
Neoliberal commenters here demonstrate complete detachment from the fact that like war
is an extension of politics, while politics is an extension of economics. For example, denying
imports can and is often used for political pressure.
That was one of factors that doomed the USSR. Not that the system has any chance -- it was
doomed after 1945 as did not provide for higher productivity then advanced capitalist economies.
But this just demonstrates the power of the US sanctions mechanism. Economic sanctions works
and works really well. The target country is essentially put against the ropes and if you unprepared
you can be knocked down.
For example now there are sanctions against Russia that deny them advanced oil exploration
equipment. And oil is an important source of Russia export revenue. So the effect of those narrow
prohibitions multiples by factor of ten by denying Russia export revenue.
That's how an alliance between Russia and China was forged by Obama administration. because
China does produce some of this equipment now. And Russia paid dearly for that signing huge multi-year
deals with China on favorable for China terms.
Now Trump want to play this game selectively designating China as "evil empire" and providing
a carrot for Russia. Will it works, or Russia can be wiser then donkeys, I do not know.
And look what countries are on the USA economic sanctions list: many entries are countries
that are somewhat less excited about the creation of the global neoliberal empire led by the USA.
KAS and Gulf monarchies are not on the list. So much about "spreading democracy".
The US propagandists usually call counties on which they impose sanction authoritarian
dictatorships to make such actions more politically correct, but the fact remains: The USA as
a global hegemon enjoys using economic pressure to crush dissidents and put vassals in line.
The problem with tariffs on China is an interesting reversion of the trend: manufacturing is
already in China and to reverse this process now is an expensive proposition. So alienating Chinese
theoretically means that some of USA imports might became endangered, despite huge geopolitical
weight of the USA. They denied export of rare metals to Japan in the past. They can do this for
Apple and without batteries Apple can just fold.
Also it is very easy to prohibit Apple sales in China of national security grounds (any US
manufacturer by definition needs to cooperate with NSA and other agencies). I think some countries
already prohibit the use of the USA companies produced cell phones for government officials.
So if Trump administration does something really damaging, for Chinese there are multiple ways
to skin the cat. Neoliberalism as a social system is past it pinnacle and that creates some problems
for the USA as the central player in the neoliberal world. The triumphal march of neoliberalism
over the globe ended almost a decade ago.
The first several months of a new administration are inevitably seen as an opening for
those who hope to influence the White House over the next four years. The Senate Ukraine
Caucus-a bipartisan group of senior lawmakers who have lobbied intensively for a closer
U.S.-Ukraine relationship-hopes to take advantage of this sensitive period, in which the
new president will order policy reviews, modifications in existing programs, or even a
clean break from the past.
In a letter to
President-elect Trump, the caucus writes that it is absolutely critical for the United
States to enhance its support to Kiev at a time when Vladimir Putin's Russia continues
to support a separatist movement on Ukrainian soil. "Quite simply,"
the group claims
,
"Russia has launched a military land-grab in Ukraine that is unprecedented in modern
European history. These actions in Crimea and other areas of eastern Ukraine dangerously
upend well-established diplomatic, legal, and security norms that the United States and
its NATO allies painstakingly built over decades."
On this score, the senators are correct. Russia's
stealth invasion, occupation, and annexation of the Crimean Peninsula was for all
intents and purposes a land-grab denounced not only by the United States but by the
United Nations as a violation of state sovereignty and self-determination.
But let's not kid ourselves; this isn't the first time
a stronger power will attempt to change the borders of a weaker neighbor, nor will it be
the last. The Russians saw an opportunity to immediately exploit the confusion of
Ukraine's post-Viktor Yanukovych period. Moscow's signing of the Minsk accords, an
agreement that was designed to de-escalate the violence in Eastern Ukraine through
mutual demobilization of heavy weapons along the conflict line and a transfer of border
control from separatist forces back to the Ukrainian government, has been stalled to the
point of irrelevance.
It is incontrovertible that, were it not for Russia's
military support and intervention in the summer of 2014, the Ukrainian army would likely
have been able to defeat the separatist units that were carving out autonomous "peoples'
republics" in the east-or at the very least, degrade rebel capabilities to such an
extent that Kiev would be able to win more concessions at the negotiating table.
Yet while we should acknowledge Russia's violations of
international law and the U.N. Charter, U.S. and European policymakers also need to
recognize that Ukraine is far more important for Moscow's geopolitical position than
Washington's.
There is a reason why Vladimir Putin made the fateful
decision in 2014 to plunge Russian forces into Ukraine, and it wasn't because he was
itching for a war of preemption. He deployed Russian forces across the Ukrainian
border-despite the whirlwind of international condemnation and the Western financial
sanctions that were likely to accompany such a decision-because preserving a pro-Russia
bent in the Ukraine body politic was just too important for Moscow's regional position.
Grasping this reality in no way excuses Moscow's
behavior. It merely explains why the Russian government acted the way it did, and why
further U.S. military assistance to the Ukrainian security forces would be ill-advised.
In fact, one could make a convincing case that providing hundreds of millions of dollars
in security assistance to the Ukrainian government wouldn't help the situation at all,
and might lead Kiev to delude itself into thinking that Washington will come to its
immediate military aid in order to stabilize the battlefield.
Since 2015, the United States Congress has authorized
$750 million to improve the defensive capabilities of the Ukrainian military and
security forces. Congress has followed up those funds with an additional $650 million
earmarked for the Ukrainians over the next two years, a hefty sum that the next
administration would probably use as a message to the Russians that further territorial
encroachment on Ukrainian territory would produce more casualties in their ranks.
What the next administration needs to ask itself,
however, is whether more money thrown at the Ukraine problem will be more or less likely
to cause further violence in the country and turmoil for Ukraine's elected government.
Russia has demonstrated consistently that it will simply not permit a pro-Western
democratic government from emerging along its western border-and that if a pro-Western
government is formed in Kiev, Moscow will do its best to preserve a pro-Russian bent in
Ukraine's eastern provinces. Hundreds of millions of dollars in appropriations haven't
forced Russia to change that calculation so far; it's not likely that hundreds of
millions more will be any more successful. Indeed, every time Washington has escalated
its rhetoric or authorized money for Ukraine's military, the Russians have responded in
equal terms.
The political crisis in Ukraine is far from resolved,
in large measure because of Russia's own actions on the ground and its nonexistent
implementation of the Minsk peace agreement. But the situation in the east, while not
fully peaceful by any means, is far less violent than it was at the war's peak in 2015.
Sometimes, not weighing in can be just as smart for the U.S. national interest as
getting involved-a reflex that is has been the forte of Washington's foreign policy
establishment since the end of the Cold War.
Daniel DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities.
In response to the latest imposition of US sanctions on Russia, the Kremlin said on Wednesday that
the new sanctions would further damage relations between the two countries and that Moscow would
respond with its own measures. "We regret that Washington is continuing on this destructive path,"
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters on a conference call.
As a reminder, on Tuesday the United States widened sanctions against Russian businessmen and
companies adopted after Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the conflict in Ukraine.
"We believe this damages bilateral relations ... Russia will take commensurate measures."
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov
Then again, it is difficult to see how sanctions between the two administration could be any more
"damaged": also on Wednesday, the Kremlin said it did not expect the incoming U.S. administration
to reject NATO enlargement overnight and that almost all communications channels between Russia and
the United States were frozen, the RIA news agency reported.
" Almost every level of dialogue with the United States is frozen. We don't communicate with one
another, or (if we do) we do so minimally ," Peskov said.
Additionally, RIA said that according to Peskov "he did not know whether President Vladimir Putin
would seek re-election in 2018."
"Everyone's heads are aching because of work and with projects and nobody is thinking or talking
about elections," Peskov said.
Then again, the sanctions may soon be history.
According to a Bloomberg report , the U.S. will start easing its penalties, imposed over the
showdown in Ukraine in 2014, during the next 12 months, according to 55 percent of respondents in
a Bloomberg survey, up from 10 percent in an October poll. Without the restrictions, Russia's economic
growth would get a boost equivalent to 0.2 percentage point of gross domestic product next year and
0.5 percentage point in 2018, according to the median estimates in the poll.
"It's still a toss-up whether the U.S. will ease sanctions quickly, with the EU lagging, but the
direction of travel is toward easier sanctions or less enforcement, which could reduce financing
costs," said Rachel Ziemba, the New York-based head of emerging markets at 4CAST-RGE. "We think the
macro impact would be greater in the medium term than short term as it facilitates a rate easing
trend that is already on course. In the longer term, it gives more choice of investment."
Trump, who's called President Vladimir Putin a better leader than Barack Obama, has said he
may consider recognizing Russia's annexation of Crimea from Ukraine and lifting the curbs. While
dogged by concerns that Russia intervened to tip this year's elections in the Republican candidate's
favor, Trump has already showed his hand by planning to stack his administration with officials
supportive of closer cooperation with the Kremlin, from Michael Flynn, the president-elect's national
security adviser, to Exxon Mobil Corp. chief Rex Tillerson, a candidate for secretary of state.
An equally important consequence of any policy change by Trump would be its affect on the EU's
own penalties on Russia, with more economists saying the bloc will follow suit. Forty percent
of respondents said in the Dec. 16-19 survey that the EU will begin easing sanctions in the next
12 months, compared with 33 percent in October.
"If the U.S. eases sanctions, it won't be possible to achieve a consensus among EU member states
to keep their sanctions regime in place as currently formulated," said Charles Movit, an economist
at IHS Markit in Washington.
And although it is always possible to claim that all of Obama's failures stem from mere
incompetence, at some point this claim begins to ring hollow; how can he possibly be so utterly
competent at being incompetent?
Obama is not a Russian agent but could very well be a Soviet agent.
Being a dumb fuck whose only skill is reading a teleprompter, he has no idea how to resolve
the change in the world since the Soviet Union disintegrated.
A Russian in Crimea told me of a recent past winter near disaster when Ukraine shut off the power
(and water) - somewhat covered here on ZH. Only a truly heroic effort by Russia to bring
in generators kept them from living in dangerous conditions. Crimea is more solidly pro-Russian
than it was before the vote to secede.
All Ukrainians should understand that the NWO (controlled by the elite and their Western banks)
will subjugate the Ukraine. Evidence for this is abundant, but the most striking example
is the willingness to accept millions of non-European refugees, while few Ukrainians are allowed
into Western countries.
Yes, there is genuine reason for resentment (Holodomar), but this terror was executed by the
Bolshevik Lazar Kaganovich (which means son of Kagan - as in Ron Kagan - husband of Nudelman -
understand the connection?). More Russians died under this same type of Bolshevik terror
than any other ethnicity in the USSR.
Russia is no longer the USSR, and seeks to return to a society of Christian values. Ukrainians
should seek peace with their Russian brothers. It would be to the benefit of all Western
countries, which is why the NWO is trying everything to prevent it.
The UN Mediator for Palestine, "The U.S. appointed Count Folke Bernadotte of Sweden" was assassinated
in 1948 in Jerusalam by the likudnik-future izraeli Prime Ministers Begin & Shamir....
FACT:
"Folke Bernadotte ,
Count of Wisborg
( Swedish : Greve
af Wisborg ; 2 January 1895 – 17 September 1948) was a Swedish
diplomat and nobleman. During
World War II he negotiated
the release of about 31,000 prisoners from German
concentration camps
including 450 Danish Jews from the
Theresienstadt camp.
They were released on 14 April 1945. [1]
[2] [3] In 1945, he received a German surrender offer from
Heinrich Himmler
, though the offer was ultimately rejected.
After the war, Bernadotte was unanimously chosen to be the
United
Nations Security Council mediator in the
Arab–Israeli conflict
of 1947–1948. He was assassinated in
Jerusalem in 1948 by the
militant Zionist group
Lehi while pursuing
his official duties. Upon his death,
Ralph Bunche took up
his work at the UN, but was removed from the post around six months after Bernadotte was assassinated,
at the critical period of recognition of the fledgling state. ....."
Likudniks like present-day murderer & chief Benny-Boy Nutandyahoo!!!
It's 100% bonefide fuckin' TERRORISTS that are the leaders of the rothschild colony & real
estate project in the eastern Mediterranean.
Wow! Those are some stringent sources! Wikipedia, where you can edit the text to read however
you wish before citing it, ...great source! ( Seriously? A wiki cite ends the discussion for me
every single time. Dead. (Kind of like interviewing an architect who says Fisher-Price is his
inspiration). Next up is the legendary duckduckgo. Move over Library of Congress! And of course
WhatReallyHappened is the next up on the hit parade. Jeeze, I spent a cargoload of time and money
earning a masters in history. I wish I had had wiki. It would have been so much easier, AND I
would be as smart as this guy telling us all about how stupid we all are. LOL!. X_in_Sweden, go
to Wiki and look up "Useful Idiot" while standing in front of a mirror.
Zionists are also behind the use of Saudi wahabbists. It's a twofer. It clears land that Israel
covets and is part of the plan to get Christians to fight Muslims, wipping each other out.
Well Mr Chumbawamba let me congratulate you on joining the big club of anti-jewish fascism, you
share a honorable position together with Nazism and Islamic Fascism. Fuck off paranoid religitard.
I have done business with Israelis Most of them think that they are in a crunch existential
mess.
The reality is that the tech and arms business is pretty cushy and they are reluctant to give
it up.
If they get a decent guarantee of their space (and maybe a couple more settlements) they might
scale down a tad.
They can do an up-front deal with the head choppers in Riyadh any time they want because the
princes do not want to live on a sea of radioactive glass.
Obama and the current congress already locked this in until 2026 (see below) which takes
us past 2 terms of Trump. Doubt Trump could change/drain this if he wanted (?) as
current congress not only did the deal but added $500M per year to the previous Bush 10 year deal
which was set to expire in 2018. Dem/Rep... it is going to happen no matter.
"The United States has finalized a $38 billion package of military aid for
Israel
over the next 10 years, the largest of its kind ever, and the two allies plan to sign the
agreement on Wednesday, American and Israeli officials said". NY Times Sept 2016,
When I was a kid, we had a pump to fill the water trough for the animals. There was a coffee
can near it, that you used to take some of the water that was left in the water trough and pour
it into the pump. This was known as "priming the pump". You had to do this to allow
the pump to pump more water into the trough from the well.
America is a money-well for Israel. They take a little bit of the money that we flood
them with, and they donate to enough politicians campaign to insure that those politicians will
vote to turn on the money spigot, filling up Israels trough with money. Don't worry, they'll
save a coffee can or two of it to prime the pump again next time.
I really don't care if Israel lives or dies. If they live and prosper, that's just fine
with me. But what pisses me off is this system that allows them to pump money from us, just
by using a tiny portion of it to bribe our politicians with campaign contributions. This
bribing results in not just lost treasure, but also lost blood, as we fight wars to weaken Israels
neighbors, again, only because our politicians are being bribed with foreign donations.
I would prefer we find ways to jail any politician that gets money from foreign countries.
I would also prefer we put an end to Super PACs, since the foreign money will simply migrate to
those. It is bullshit that our system is set up so that the honest politicians that refuse
to sell out are promptly voted out of office because their competitor, who is willing to sell
out, is flooded with campaign money. This ends up giving us representatives who do not represent
our interests at all.
My greatest fear in Trump being a plant is that he is supposed to calm relations with Russia,
which will open up the opportunity for the big event. This gives them more time on the surface
while the deep state continues spreading chaos along Russia's borders.
I suspect Russia would be aware of this possibility however.
Trump is going to keep allowing Israelis to bribe American politicians.
Aid money goes full circle. The tax payers are the losers as usual. Trump needs to look into
the dual citizanship of congress stoolies. Drain that swamp first to put that coin into merican
infrastructure renewal/upgrades.=.jobs.
Biden's son in Ukraine couldn't help things much. How cool was the "invasion" of Crimea?
I thought it was cool. I was kind of wishing Texas would pull something like that, maybe
with NJ.
I know you have "invasion" written in a way that shows you know it was NOT an invasion. The speed
a decisiveness was certainly impressive, shame the Donbass has been relegated to the roll of dead
buffer zone though. I understand the strategic benefit of letting the Ukrainian `Army` bog down
there and bleed resources, but a lot of Ethnic Russians are dying and suffering as a result.
The Ukro-Nazis have just tried to re-run the attack on Debaltsevo, where there were put through
the meat grinder last winter. Guess what, they ended up in the grinder again, even though the
Novorossians are following Minsk rules on sending heavy armor away from the front. The Ukrops
lost up to 100 dead, a large number just left on the ground as the survivors fled. The wounded
were airlifted to Kharkov military hospital.
One Ukrop unit reported 25 dead in 3 hours of fighting.
A leaked communication between the Trump transition team's Undersecretary of Defense for
policy Brian McKeon, and the Pentagon, has revealed the four biggest defense priorities for
the president-elect. Among the top four items listed in the memo from are: 1) developing a
strategy to defeat/destroy ISIS; 2) build a strong defense by eliminating budget caps/the
sequester, 3) develop a comprehensive cyber strategy, and 4) eliminate wasteful spending by
finding greater efficiencies.
The list was communicated to McKeon by Mira Ricardel, one
of the leaders of Trump's Pentagon transition team, according to the memo obtained by
Foreign Policy
magazine and published Tuesday.
One can only hope, based on the crumpled appearance of the leaked memo,
that it was smuggled out by this year's Fawn Hall stuffed in her
unmentionables.
"... Only John F. Kennedy directly challenged it, firing CIA Director Allen Dulles after the Bay of Pigs disaster. He was assassinated, and whether or not CIA involvement is ever conclusively proven, the allegations have been useful to the agency, keeping politicians in line. The Deep State also co-opted the media, keeping it in line with a combination of fear and favor. ..."
"... Why has the US been involved in long, costly, bloody, and inconclusive wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? ..."
"... Why should the US get involved in similar conflicts in Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Iran, and other Middle Eastern and Northern African hotspots? ..."
"... Isn't such involvement responsible for blowback terrorism and refugee flows in both Europe and the US? ..."
"... Have "free trade" agreements and porous borders been a net benefit or detriment to the US? Why is the banking industry set up for periodic crises that inevitably require government bail-outs? ..."
"... How has encouraging debt and speculation at the expense of savings and investment helped the US economy? ..."
"... The shenanigans in the US after Trump's election-violent protests, hysterical outbursts, the vote recount effort, the proof-free Russian hacking allegations, "fake news," and the attempt to sway electoral college electors-are the desperate screams of those trapped inside. ..."
"... Regrettably, the building analogy is imperfect, because it implies that those inside are helpless and that the collapse will only harm them. In its desperation, incompetence, and corrupt nihilism, the Deep State can wreak all sorts of havoc, up to and including the destruction of humanity. Trump represents an opportunity to strike a blow against the Deep State, but the chances it will be lethal are minimal and the dangers obvious. ..."
The pathetic attempts to undo Donald Trump's victory are signs of desperation, not strength, in
the Deep State.
The post World War II consensus held that the USSR's long-term goal was world domination. That
assessment solidified after the Soviets detonated an atomic bomb in 1949. A nuclear arms race, a
space race, maintenance of a globe-spanning military, political, and economic confederation, and
a huge expansion of the size and power of the military and intelligence complex were justified by
the Soviet, and later, the Red Chinese threats. Countering those threats led the US to use many of
the same amoral tactics that it deplored when used by its enemies: espionage, subversion, bribery,
repression, assassination, regime change, and direct and proxy warfare.
Scorning principles of limited government, non-intervention in other nations' affairs, and individual
rights, the Deep State embraced the anti-freedom mindset of its purported enemies, not just towards
those enemies, but toward allies and the American people. The Deep State gradually assumed control
of the government and elected officials were expected to adhere to its policies and promote its propaganda.
Only John F. Kennedy directly challenged it, firing CIA Director Allen Dulles after the Bay of
Pigs disaster. He was assassinated, and whether or not CIA involvement is ever conclusively proven,
the allegations have been useful to the agency, keeping politicians in line. The Deep State also
co-opted the media, keeping it in line with a combination of fear and favor.
Since its ascension in the 1950s, the biggest threat to the Deep State has not been its many and
manifest failures, but rather what the naive would regard as its biggest success: the fall of the
Soviet Union in 1991. Much of the military-industrial complex was suddenly deprived of its reason
for existence-the threat was gone. However, a more subtle point was lost.
The Soviet Union has been the largest of statism's many failures to date. Because of the Deep
State's philosophical blinders, that outcome was generally unforeseen. The command and control philosophy
at the heart of Soviet communism was merely a variant on the same philosophy espoused and practiced
by the Deep State. Like the commissars, its members believe that "ordinary" people are unable to
handle freedom, and that their generalized superiority entitles them to wield the coercive power
of government.
With "irresponsible" elements talking of peace dividends and scaling back the military and the
intelligence agencies, the complex was sorely in need of a new enemy . Islam suffers the same critical
flaw as communism-command and control-and has numerous other deficiencies, including intolerance,
repression, and the legal subjugation of half its adherents. The Deep State had to focus on the world
conquest ideology of some Muslims to even conjure Islam as a plausible foe. However, unlike the USSR,
they couldn't claim that sect and faction-ridden Islam posed a monolithic threat, that the Islamic
nations were an empire or a federation united towards a common goal, or that their armaments (there
are under thirty nuclear weapons in the one Islamic nation, Pakistan, that has them) could destroy
the US or the entire planet.
There was too much money and power at stake for the complex to shrink. While on paper Islam appeared
far weaker than communism, the complex had one factor in their favor: terrorism is terrifying. In
the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Americans surrendered liberties and gave the Deep State carte blanche
to fight a war on terrorism that would span the globe, target all those whom the government identified
as terrorists, and never be conclusively won or lost. Funding for the complex ballooned, the military
was deployed on multiple fronts, and the surveillance state blossomed. Most of those who might have
objected were bought off with expanded welfare state funding and programs (e.g. George W. Bush's
prescription drug benefit, Obamacare).
What would prove to be the biggest challenge to the centralization and the power of the Deep State
came, unheralded, with the invention of the microchip in the late 1950s. The Deep State could not
have exercised the power it has without a powerful grip on information flow and popular perception.
The microchip led to widespread distribution of cheap computing power and dissemination of information
over the decentralized Internet. This dynamic, organically adaptive decentralization has been the
antithesis of the command-and-control Deep State, which now realizes the gravity of the threat. Fortunately,
countering these technologies has been like trying to eradicate hordes of locusts.
The gravest threat, however, to the Deep State is self-imposed: it's own incompetence. Even the
technologically illiterate can ask questions for which it has no answers.
Why has the US been involved in long, costly, bloody, and inconclusive wars in Afghanistan
and Iraq?
Why should the US get involved in similar conflicts in Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Iran,
and other Middle Eastern and Northern African hotspots?
Isn't such involvement responsible for blowback terrorism and refugee flows in both
Europe and the US?
Have "free trade" agreements and porous borders been a net benefit or detriment to the
US? Why is the banking industry set up for periodic crises that inevitably require government
bail-outs? (SLL claims no special insight into the nexus between the banking-financial sector
and the Deep State, other than to note that there is one.) Why does every debt crisis result in
more debt?
How has encouraging debt and speculation at the expense of savings and investment helped
the US economy?
The Deep State can't answer or even acknowledge these questions because they all touch on its
failures.
Brexit, Donald Trump, other populist, nationalist movements catching fire, and the rise of the
alternative media are wrecking balls aimed at an already structurally unsound and teetering building
that would eventually collapse on its own. The shenanigans in the US after Trump's election-violent
protests, hysterical outbursts, the vote recount effort, the proof-free Russian hacking allegations,
"fake news," and the attempt to sway electoral college electors-are the desperate screams of those
trapped inside.
Regrettably, the building analogy is imperfect, because it implies that those inside are helpless
and that the collapse will only harm them. In its desperation, incompetence, and corrupt nihilism,
the Deep State can wreak all sorts of havoc, up to and including the destruction of humanity. Trump
represents an opportunity to strike a blow against the Deep State, but the chances it will be lethal
are minimal and the dangers obvious.
The euphoria over his victory cannot obscure a potential consequence: it may hasten and amplify
the destruction and resultant chaos when the Deep State finally topples . Anyone who thinks Trump's
victory sounds an all clear is allowing hope to triumph over experience and what should have been
hard-won wisdom.
"War on Terror" + "Refugee Humanitarian Crisis" =European Clusterfuck
Or
"War on Drugs" + "Afghan Opium/Nicaraguan Cocaine" =Police State America
Both hands (Left/Right) to crush Liberty
Mano-A-Mano -> Cheka_Mate •Dec 22, 2016 8:54 PM
The DEEP STATE pretends they hate Trump, gets him in office, hoodwinks the sheeple into
believing they voted for him, while they still retain control.
Voila!
TeamDepends -> unrulian •Dec 22, 2016 8:55 PM
Remember the Maine! Remember the Lusitania! Remember the USS Liberty! Remember the Gulf of
Tonkin! Never forget.
Withdrawn Sanction •Dec 22, 2016 8:52 PM
"In the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Americans surrendered liberties and gave the Deep State
carte blanche..."
What a load of crap. The Deep State CAUSED 9/11 and then STOLE Americans' liberties.
StraightLineLogic: Linear thinker, indeed.
WTFUD •Dec 22, 2016 8:56 PM
Shakespeare would have had a field-day with this Material; Comic Tragedy!
BadDog •Dec 22, 2016 9:00 PM
Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.
red1chief •Dec 22, 2016 9:09 PM
Funny how a guy loading up his administration with Vampire Squids is thought to be disliked
by the Deep State. Deep State psy ops never ceases to amaze.
Krugman is a neoliberal stooge. Since when Social Security is an entitlement program. If you start
contributing at 25 and retire at 67 (40 years of monthly contributions), you actually get less then
you contribute, unless you live more then 80 years. It just protects you from "free market casino".
Notable quotes:
"... A "contribution" theory of what a proper distribution of income might be can only be made coherent if there are constant returns to scale in the scarce, priced, owned factors of production. Only then can you divide the pile of resources by giving to each the marginal societal product of their work and of the resources that they own. ..."
"... n a world--like the one we live in--of mammoth increasing returns to unowned knowledge and to networks, no individual and no community is especially valuable. Those who receive good livings are those who are lucky -- as Carrier's workers in Indiana have been lucky in living near Carrier's initial location. It's not that their contribution to society is large or that their luck is replicable: if it were, they would not care (much) about the departure of Carrier because there would be another productive network that they could fit into a slot in. ..."
"... If not about people, what is an economy about? ..."
"... I hadn't realized that Democrats now view Social Security and Medicare as "government handouts". ..."
"... Some Democrats like Krugman are Social Darwinists. ..."
"... PK is an ignorant vicious SOB. Many of those "dependent hillbillies" PK despises paid SS and Medicare taxes for many decades, most I know have never been on foos stamps, and if they are on disability it is because they did honest hard work, something PK knows nothing about. What an ignorant jerk. ..."
"... What is a very highly subsidized industry that benefits Delong and Krugman? Higher education. Damn welfare queens! :) ..."
"... No Krugman is echoing the tribalism of Johnny Bakho. These people won't move or educate themselves or "skill up" so they deserve what they get. Social darwinism. ..."
"... People like Bakho are probably anti-union as well. They're seen as relics of an earlier age and economically "uncompetitve." See Fred Dobbs below. That's the dog whistle about the "rust belt." ..."
"... Paul Krugman's reputation, formerly that of a a noted economic, succumbed after a brief struggle to Trump Derangement Syndrome. Friends said Mr Krugman's condition had been further aggravated by cognitive dissonance from a severely challenged worldview. ..."
"... He is survived by the New York Times, also said to be in failing health. ..."
"... For a long time DeLong was mocking the notion of "economic anxiety" amongst the voters. Does this blog post mean he's rethinking that idea? ..."
"... The GOP has a long history of benefitting from the disconnect where a lot of their voters are convinced that when government money goes to others (sometimes even within their own white congregations), then it is not deserved. ..."
Brad DeLong has an interesting meditation * on markets and political demands - inspired by
a note from Noah Smith ** - that offers food for thought. I wonder, however, if Brad's discussion
is too abstract; and I also wonder whether it fully recognizes the disconnect between what Trump
voters think they want and reality. So, an entry of my own.
What Brad is getting at is the widespread belief by, well, almost everyone that they are entitled
to - have earned - whatever good hand they have been dealt by the market economy. This is reflected
in the more or less universal belief of the affluent that they deserve what they have; you could
see this in the rage of rentiers at low interest rates, because it's the Federal Reserve's job
to reward savers, right? In this terrible political year, the story was in part one of people
in Appalachia angrily demanding a return of the good jobs they used to have mining coal - even
though the world doesn't want more coal given fracking, and it can get the coal it still wants
from strip mines and mountaintop removal, which don't employ many people.
And what Brad is saying, I think, is that what those longing for the return to coal want is
those jobs they deserve, where they earn their money - not government handouts, no sir.
A fact-constrained candidate wouldn't have been able to promise such people what they want;
Trump, of course, had no problem.
But is that really all there is? Working-class Trump voters do, in fact, receive a lot of government
handouts - they're almost totally dependent on Social Security for retirement, Medicare for health
care when old, are quite dependent on food stamps, and many have recently received coverage from
Obamacare. Quite a few receive disability payments too. They don't want those benefits to go away.
But they managed to convince themselves (with a lot of help from Fox News etc) that they aren't
really beneficiaries of government programs, or that they're not getting the "good welfare", which
only goes to Those People.
And you can really see this in the regional patterns. California is an affluent state, a heavy
net contributor to the federal budget; it went 2-1 Clinton. West Virginia is poor and a huge net
recipient of federal aid; it went 2 1/2-1 Trump.
I don't think any kind of economic analysis can explain this. It has to be about culture and,
as always, race.
Regional Policy and Distributional Policy in a World Where People Want to Ignore the Value
and Contribution of Knowledge- and Network-Based Increasing Returns
Pascal Lamy: "When the wise man points at the moon, the fool looks at the finger..."
Perhaps in the end the problem is that people want to pretend that they are filling a valuable
role in the societal division of labor, and are receiving no more than they earn--than they contribute.
But that is not the case. The value--the societal dividend--is in the accumulated knowledge
of humanity and in the painfully constructed networks that make up our value chains.
A "contribution" theory of what a proper distribution of income might be can only be made
coherent if there are constant returns to scale in the scarce, priced, owned factors of production.
Only then can you divide the pile of resources by giving to each the marginal societal product
of their work and of the resources that they own.
That, however, is not the world we live in.
In a world--like the one we live in--of mammoth increasing returns to unowned knowledge
and to networks, no individual and no community is especially valuable. Those who receive good
livings are those who are lucky -- as Carrier's workers in Indiana have been lucky in living near
Carrier's initial location. It's not that their contribution to society is large or that their
luck is replicable: if it were, they would not care (much) about the departure of Carrier because
there would be another productive network that they could fit into a slot in.
All of this "what you deserve" language is tied up with some vague idea that you deserve what
you contribute--that what your work adds to the pool of society's resources is what you deserve.
This illusion is punctured by any recognition that there is a large societal dividend to be
distributed, and that the government can distribute it by supplementing (inadequate) market wages
determined by your (low) societal marginal product, or by explicitly providing income support
or services unconnected with work via social insurance. Instead, the government is supposed to,
somehow, via clever redistribution, rearrange the pattern of market power in the economy so that
the increasing-returns knowledge- and network-based societal dividend is predistributed in a relatively
egalitarian way so that everybody can pretend that their income is just "to each according to
his work", and that they are not heirs and heiresses coupon clipping off of the societal capital
of our predecessors' accumulated knowledge and networks.
On top of this we add: Polanyian disruption of patterns of life--local communities, income
levels, industrial specialization--that you believed you had a right to obtain or maintain, and
a right to believe that you deserve. But in a market capitalist society, nobody has a right to
the preservation of their local communities, to their income levels, or to an occupation in their
industrial specialization. In a market capitalist society, those survive only if they pass a market
profitability test. And so the only rights that matter are those property rights that at the moment
carry with them market power--the combination of the (almost inevitably low) marginal societal
products of your skills and the resources you own, plus the (sometimes high) market power that
those resources grant to you.
This wish to believe that you are not a moocher is what keeps people from seeing issues of
distribution and allocation clearly--and generates hostility to social insurance and to wage supplement
policies, for they rip the veil off of the idea that you deserve to be highly paid because you
are worth it. You aren't.
And this ties itself up with regional issues: regional decline can come very quickly whenever
a region finds that its key industries have, for whatever reason, lost the market power that diverted
its previously substantial share of the knowledge- and network-based societal dividend into the
coffers of its firms. The resources cannot be simply redeployed in other industries unless those
two have market power to control the direction of a share of the knowledge- and network-based
societal dividend. And so communities decline and die. And the social contract--which was supposed
to have given you a right to a healthy community--is broken.
As I have said before, humans are, at a very deep and basic level, gift-exchange animals. We
create and reinforce our social bonds by establishing patterns of "owing" other people and by
"being owed". We want to enter into reciprocal gift-exchange relationships. We create and reinforce
social bonds by giving each other presents. We like to give. We like to receive. We like neither
to feel like cheaters nor to feel cheated. We like, instead, to feel embedded in networks of mutual
reciprocal obligation. We don't like being too much on the downside of the gift exchange: to have
received much more than we have given in return makes us feel very small. We don't like being
too much on the upside of the gift exchange either: to give and give and give and never receive
makes us feel like suckers.
PK is an ignorant vicious SOB. Many of those "dependent hillbillies" PK despises paid SS and
Medicare taxes for many decades, most I know have never been on foos stamps, and if they are on
disability it is because they did honest hard work, something PK knows nothing about. What an
ignorant jerk.
Exactly the same could be said about many of those inner city minorities that the "dependent hillbillies"
look down on as "welfare queens". That may be one of the reasons they take special issues with
"food stamps", because in contrast to the hillbillies, inner city poor people cannot grow their
own food. What Krugman is pointing out is the hypocrisy of their tribalism - and also the idiocy,
because the dismantling of society would ultimately hurt the morons that voted GOP into power
this round.
"What Krugman is pointing out is the hypocrisy of their tribalism "
No Krugman is echoing the tribalism of Johnny Bakho. These people won't move or educate
themselves or "skill up" so they deserve what they get. Social darwinism.
People like Bakho are probably anti-union as well. They're seen as relics of an earlier age
and economically "uncompetitve." See Fred Dobbs below. That's the dog whistle about the "rust
belt."
His tone is supercilious and offensive. But your argument is that they are not "dependent" because
they earned every benefit they get from the government. I think his point is that "dependent"
is not offensive -- the term jus reflects how we all depend on government services. DeLong makes
the point much better in the article quoted by anne above.
Paul Krugman's reputation, formerly that of a a noted economic, succumbed after a brief
struggle to Trump Derangement Syndrome. Friends said Mr Krugman's condition had been further aggravated
by cognitive dissonance from a severely challenged worldview.
He is survived by the New York Times, also said to be in failing health.
The New York Times is easily the finest newspaper in the world, is broadly recognized as such
and is of course flourishing. Such an institution will always have sections or editors and writers
of relative strength but these relative strengths change over time as the newspaper continually
changes.
NYT Co. to revamp HQ, vacate eight floors in consolidation
"In an SEC filing, New York Times Co. discloses a staff communication it provided today to
employees about a revamp of its headquarters -- including consolidating floors.
The company will vacate at least eight floors, consolidating workspaces and allowing for "significant"
rental income, the memo says."
The GOP has a long history of benefitting from the disconnect where a lot of their voters
are convinced that when government money goes to others (sometimes even within their own white
congregations), then it is not deserved. But if that same government money goes to themselves
(or their real close relatives), then it is a hard earned and well-deserved payback for their
sacrifices and tax payments. So the GOP leadership has always called it "saving social security"
and "cracking down on fraud" rather than admitting to their attempts to dismantle those programs.
The Dems better be on the ball and call it what it is. If you want to save those programs you
just have to prevent rich people from wiggling out of paying for them (don't repeal the Obamacare
medicare taxes on the rich).
On the Pk piece. I think it is really about human dignity, and the need for it. There were a lot
of factors in this horrific election, but just as urban blacks need to be spared police brutality,
rural whites need a dignified path in their lives. Everyone, united, deserves such a path.
This is a real challenge for economists; how do we rebuild the rust belt (which applies to
areas beyond the literal rust belt).
If we do not, we risk Trump 2.0, which could be very scary indeed.
I agree to a point, but what the piece is about is that in search of a solution to the problems
of the rustbelt (whatever the definition is),people voted for Trump who had absolutely no plan
to solve such a problem, other than going back to the future and redoing Nafta and getting rid
of regulations.
Meanwhile, that vote also meant that the safety net that helps all Americans in trouble was
being placed in severe risk.
Those voters were fixed on his rhetoric and right arm extended while his left hand was grabbing
them by the (in deference to Anne I will not say the words, but Trump himself has said one of
them and the other is the male version).
Really? You didn't seem to before. You'd say what Duy or Noah Smith or DeLong were mulling about was
off-limits. You'd ban them from the comment section if you could. "This is a real challenge for economists; how do we rebuild the rust belt (which applies to
areas beyond the literal rust belt).
If we do not, we risk Trump 2.0, which could be very scary indeed." I don't see why this is such a controversial point for centrist like Krugman. How do we appeal to the white working class without contradicting our principles?
By promoting policies that raise living standards. By delivering, which mean left-wing policies
not centrist tinkering. It's the Clinton vs. Sanders primary. Hillary could have nominated Elizabeth Warren as her VP candidate but her corporate masters
wouldn't let her.
"Meanwhile, that vote also meant that the safety net that helps all Americans in trouble was being
placed in severe risk."
That safety net is an improvement over 1930. But it's been fraying so badly over the last 20-30
years that it's almost lost all meaning. It's something people turn to before total destitution,
but for rebuilding a life? A sick joke, filled with petty hassles and frustrations.
And the fraying has been a solidly bipartisan project. Who can forget welfare "reform"?
So maybe the yokels you're blaming for the 10,000-th time might not buy your logic or your
intentions.
... At the height of their influence in the 1950s, labor unions could claim to represent about
1 of every 3 American workers. Today, it's 1 in 9 - and falling.
Some have seen the shrinking size and waning influence of labor unions as a sign that the US
economy is growing more flexible and dynamic, but there's mounting evidence that it is also contributing
to slow wage growth and the rise in inequality. ...
(Union membership) NY 24.7%, MA 12.4%, SC 2.1%
... Are unions faring any better here in Massachusetts?
While Massachusetts's unions are stronger than average, it's not among the most heavily unionized
states. That honor goes to New York, where 1 in every 4 workers belongs to a union. After New
York, there are 11 other states with higher union membership rates then Massachusetts.
Here too, though, the decline in union membership over time has been steep.
... In 2015, 30 states and the District of Columbia had union membership rates below
that of the U.S. average, 11.1 percent, and 20 states had rates above it. All states
in the East South Central and West South Central divisions had union membership rates
below the national average, and all states in the Middle Atlantic and Pacific divisions
had rates above it. Union membership rates increased over the year in 24 states and
the District of Columbia, declined in 23 states, and were unchanged in 3 states.
(See table 5.)
Five states had union membership rates below 5.0 percent in 2015: South Carolina
(2.1 percent), North Carolina (3.0 percent), Utah (3.9 percent), Georgia (4.0 percent),
and Texas (4.5 percent).
Two states had union membership rates over 20.0 percent in
2015: New York (24.7 percent) and Hawaii (20.4 percent).
State union membership levels depend on both the employment level and the union
membership rate. The largest numbers of union members lived in California (2.5 million)
and New York (2.0 million).
Roughly half of the 14.8 million union members in the
U.S. lived in just seven states (California, 2.5 million; New York, 2.0 million;
Illinois, 0.8 million; Pennsylvania, 0.7 million; and Michigan, Ohio, and New Jersey,
0.6 million each), though these states accounted for only about one-third of wage and
salary employment nationally.
(It appears that New England union participation
lags in the northeast, and also in the rest of
the US not in the Red Zone.)
I have noted before that New England
is doing better 'than average' (IMO)
because of high-tech industry & education.
Not necessarily because of a lack of
unionization, which is prevalent here
in public education & among service
workers. Note that in higher ed,
much here is private.
Private industry here traditionally
is not heavily unionized, although
that is probably not the case
among defense corps.
As to causation, I think the
implication is that 'Dems dealing
with unions' has not been working
all that well, recovery-wise,
particularly in the rust belt.
That must have as much to do with
industrial management as it does
with labor, and the ubiquitous
on-going industrial revolution.
Everybody needs, and desperately crave, self-confidence and dignity. In white rural culture that
has always been connected to the old settler mentality and values of personal "freedom" and "independence".
It is unfortunate that this freedom/independence mythology has been what attracted all the immigrants
from Europe over here. So it is as strongly engrained (both in culture and individual values)
as it is outdated and counterproductive in the world of the future. I am not sure that society
can help a community where people find themselves humiliated by being helped (especially by bad
government). Maybe somehow try to get them to think of the government help as an earned benefit?
"... That seems to be the problem in most of our western democracies right now. Voters are able to diagnose the problems they themselves feel and suffer from; but are clueless as to the actual cause of those problems. So the first guy who comes around promising to provide solutions is given the go ahead, under the false assumption that it "cannot get any worse than it is now" - but it can get a lot worse! ..."
David Souter warned of a Trump-like
candidate in prescient remarks (in 2012)
Steve Benen - October
2016 - Maddow Blog
Former Supreme Court Justice David Souter has maintained
a very low public profile since retiring from the bench nearly
eight years ago, but Rachel highlighted a 2012 appearance
Souter made in New Hampshire, and his remarks on "civic ignorance"
are striking in their foresight.
"I don't worry about our losing republican government in
the United States because I'm afraid of a foreign invasion.
I don't worry about it because I think there is going to be
a coup by the military as has happened in some of other places.
What I worry about is that when problems are not addressed,
people will not know who is responsible. And when the problems
get bad enough, as they might do, for example, with another
serious terrorist attack, as they might do with another financial
meltdown, some one person will come forward and say, 'Give
me total power and I will solve this problem.'
"That is how the Roman republic fell. Augustus became emperor,
not because he arrested the Roman Senate. He became emperor
because he promised that he would solve problems that were
not being solved.
"If we know who is responsible, I have enough faith in
the American people to demand performance from those responsible.
If we don't know, we will stay away from the polls. We will
not demand it. And the day will come when somebody will come
forward and we and the government will in effect say, 'Take
the ball and run with it. Do what you have to do.'
"That is the way democracy dies. And if something is not
done to improve the level of civic knowledge, that is what
you should worry about at night."
Souter couldn't have known about Donald Trump's rise in
Republican politics, but that only makes his fears in 2012
that much more prophetic. ...
That seems to be the problem in most of our western democracies
right now. Voters are able to diagnose the problems they themselves
feel and suffer from; but are clueless as to the actual cause
of those problems. So the first guy who comes around promising
to provide solutions is given the go ahead, under the false
assumption that it "cannot get any worse than it is now" -
but it can get a lot worse!
I hope you are correct, but if Trump decides to defy the Congress
or the Courts, with 40% of the populace ready to do whatever
he says, who do you think is going to stand up to him? Mitch
McConnell? Paul Ryan? Clarence Thomas? Samuel Alito?
If PK's concern is right -- and I think it is -- Trump is
going to crack down on dissent. In this he will be aided and
abetted by his Nuremburg rallies.
We will still have elections
in 2018 and 2020. But will they be fair or banana-republic
facsimiles? North Carolina has already crossed the line in
my opinion.
The comment you made and reminder for me that the
Chinese leadership has long been largely educated as engineers
was especially important in my understanding the IMF warning
of dangerous credit growth in China. Economic planners are
of course aware of the warning and a just established goal
in 2017 is to limit the extension of credit though keeping
general economic growth at 6.5%.
PGL was equally helpful.
I now have the solution, which I can depict in graphs.
[...the seeming lack of concern about corporate debt suggests
the level is not considered a problem. Why though?]
Easy answer: China's leaders are technocrats not finance
people like in the US. Meaning they think that a factory is
an asset, the bonds used to pay for it is just a weak obligation
on paper. In the US it's the opposite.
I think most people commenting on the Trump phenomena are
treating as though it sprang whole cloth out of the either.
I think Trump is the natural conclusion of two things the
GOP accepted as its own. The modern management style of tell
your employees anything and it will happen, no need to be
a good manager and know what you're talking about just act
as though you know everything. Next the original sin(not my
coin) of the GOP supply side economics. Now this brings into
power R. Reagan. Who said famously, the scariest thing to
hear is, "I am from the Federal Government, and I am here
to help you!" This caused down through the years an ongoing
disdain for anything coming from Washington, no expert was
to be trusted, the other side was not to be trusted, etc.
This was for one reason, to make rich people feel good about
all the money that was going up stream into their pockets
instead of anyone who works for a living.
After about forty years of this is it any wonder that half
the people don't vote? Or that half of the half see a rich
guy and think he can do it look at all the money he made?
It is a very sad state of affairs, but it is what you get
when most of society is in love with the all mighty dollar
and not actual substance in their lives.
First of all, let me emphasize that I want to be polite about
this. But I think the concern is valid. The country will exist.
Elections will be held. But they are also held in Russia and
Turkey. If those in power crack down on the opposition, and
crack down on dissent, and the ruling party controls the election
apparatus, then the elections do not make the country a Republic.
The question is, why do you think Trump will refrain -- or
be restrained -- from doing any of those things? His rallies
have already appeared to condone violence. He has already
suggested an embrace of "second amendment remedies. He called
for his opponent to be locked up. He has suggested that he
personally will start prosecutions. He has said he wants libel
laws broadened. He has called for judges who rule against
him to be investigated. Really, he has telegraphed that he
wants to cross the Rubicon in just about every way he can.
Why shouldn't we take that seriously?
Well for one he has said a lot of stupid things that he's
already backed up on, from making the wall just a fence to
keeping parts of Obamacare and Dodd-Frank.
Second, a President
can't do whatever he wants. Lots of Republicans didn't want
him there in the first place, they won't let him just violate
the constitution and ruin the party when they have control
of house, senate, states, etc.
I can believe he'll be the worst president yet, I have
trouble seeing how we'll become Turkey, which has a history
many coups, or Russia, which is practically a failed state.
I guess we will just have to leave it at that, because when
Trump has his base (which is the GOP base) frothing at the
mouth, I simply do not see Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, Clarence
Thomas, and Samueal Alito suddenly auditioning for Profiles
in Courage.
I pray that Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg
have the best healthcare on earth.
Something about whistling and graveyards is coming to mind
here. Do you think that a weasel like Ryan or an addled old
man like McCain can hold him back? McConnell? The Republicans
long ago gave up any trappings of rationality or reason. They
long ago gave up anything smacking of conscious or thoughtfulness.
They long ago stopped treating policy as something to be determined
by what works best for the most people. For decades the Republican
Party has been an insurgent party that has been seeking to
prevent positive change in the world. The elected leaders
despise government. They are against programs that actually
help people. They nakedly stole $12B in Iraq that we know
of. Pretending this is normal only helps to hasten the demise.
While I think this will likely be worse than anything we have
seen before, but I do not think this will be the end of democracy.
It may be in rather ragged shape by then, however.
draconian voter suppression is not a figment of krugman's
imagination. nor is the north carolina legislative coup. i
think the usa may very well transitionin into an authoritarian
political system.
"Why is this happening? ... And let's be clear: This is a
Republican story, not a case of "both sides do it.""
No
it's also a story about Democrats and center-left parties
the world over.
The callous elites of the center are not presenting a good
alternative to the demagogues on the right.
(So voters are unenthusiastic or they don't bother to vote
or organize. They're apathetic.)
You can see it here in comments. You can see it with Krugman
who absolves the center-left of any blame.
Bernie Sanders and his supporters issued a warning.
But Krugman assured us Hillary was a great candidate who
would easily win.
If the Democrats keep behaving like Krugman and EMichael
with their heads in the sand, then they'll lose in 2018 and
2020.
EMichael quotes Mike Singletary when Singletary would have
nothing but contempt for the EMichaels who are always crying
about the media/referees and blaming their loss on meddling
from the Russians.
I've seen NO post-mortem from the center-left Democrats.
Only excuses.
In a normal world, we would know - due to exit polling - that
something was amiss. In fact, the large skew from the results
and exit polling would be considered by our own election watchers
in the 3rd world to be indicative of shenanigans. But we can't
say that. And apparently the reason we can't is due to people
like you being on the same page with the Republican kleptocrats.
Your level of dishonesty is appalling. Calling Krugman a centrist?
That defies reason. Saying that there is a center-left? Absurd.
It doesn't exist. The Pete Peterson's of the world are Center
Right. Do you think that being just plain liberal is center
left? Anyone who questions anything that Amy Goodman or Thom
Hartman says is a centrist (and for the record, while I like
Thom and Amy very much - they occasionally fall for utter
BS because of tribalism). Also - reasons =/= excuses.
I would say a rare
but of brilliant honesty here. But I should add EVERY one
here knows PeterK lies 24/7. It is his day job. Don't get
him fired now as this winter is cold.
additional losses in 2018 are inevitable and voter suppression
and gerrymandering will likely result in even larger losses
in 2020. i also think constitutional amendments that make
the usa a de facto one party state are conceivable.
Bernie Sanders and his primary campaign made me hopeful.
"Initially considered a long shot, Sanders won 23 primaries
and caucuses and approximately 43% of pledged delegates to
Clinton's 55%. His campaign was noted for the enthusiasm of
its supporters, as well as his rejection of large donations
from corporations, the financial industry, and any associated
Super PAC. The campaign instead relied on a record-breaking
number of small, individual contributions."
If the Democrats continue to flail helplessly, energy will
continue to build on the left.
sanders is on his way to retirement and warren is hardly
an inspiring candidate. i personally see little evidence of
energy from the center-left (e.g. the congressional progressive
caucus). if anything, sanders and warren appear to be supporting
more triangulation (e.g. neoliberals like ellision and gabbard).
Adrian Goldsworthy's "In the Name of Rome" says: *
"However important it was for an individual to win fame
and add to his own and his family's reputation, this should
always be subordinated to the good of the Republic. The same
belief in the superiority of Rome that made senators by the
second century BC hold themselves the equals of any king ensured
that no disappointed Roman politician sought the aid of a
foreign power."
The Roman political élite was not unique in its competitiveness
and desire to excel. The aristocracies of most Greek cities
– and indeed of the overwhelming majority of other communities
in the Mediterranean world – were just as eager to win personal
dominance and often unscrupulous in their methods of achieving
this. Roman senators were highly unusual in channelling their
ambitions within fairly narrow, and universally recognized,
boundaries. The internal disorder and revolution which plagued
the public lives of most city states were absent from Rome
until the last century of the Republic. Even then, during
civil wars of extreme savagery when the severed heads of fellow
citizens were displayed in the Forum, the Roman aristocracy
continued to place some limits on what means were acceptable
to overcome their rivals. A common figure in the history of
the ancient world is the aristocratic exile – the deposed
king or tyrant, or the general forced out when he was perceived
to be becoming too powerful – at the court of a foreign power,
usually a king. Such men readily accepted foreign troops to
go back and seize power by force in their homeland – as the
tyrant Pisistratus had done at Athens – or actively fought
against their own city on their new protector's behalf, like
Alcibiades.
Rome's entire history contains only a tiny handful of individuals
whose careers in any way followed this pattern. The fifth-century
BC, and semi-mythical, Caius Marcius Coriolanus probably comes
closest, for when banished from Rome he took service with
the hostile Volscians and led their army with great success.
In the story he came close to capturing Rome itself, and was
only stopped from completing his victory by the intervention
of his mother. The moral of the tale was quintessentially
Roman. However important it was for an individual to win fame
and add to his own and his family's reputation, this should
always be subordinated to the good of the Republic. The same
belief in the superiority of Rome that made senators by the
second century BC hold themselves the equals of any king ensured
that no disappointed Roman politician sought the aid of a
foreign power. Senators wanted success, but that success only
counted if it was achieved at Rome. No senator defected to
Pyrrhus or Hannibal even when their final victory seemed imminent,
nor did Scipio Africanus' bitterness at the ingratitude of
the State cause him to take service with a foreign king.
The outbreak of civil war did not significantly change
this attitude, since both sides invariably claimed that they
were fighting to restore the true Republic. Use was often
made of non-Roman troops, but these were always presented
as auxiliaries or allies serving from their obligations to
Rome and never as independent powers intervening for their
own benefit. Yet the circumstances of Roman fighting Roman
did create many highly unorthodox careers, none more so than
that of Quintus Sertorius, who demonstrated a talent for leading
irregular forces and waging a type of guerrilla warfare against
conventional Roman armies. Exiled from Sulla's Rome, he won
his most famous victories and lived out the last years of
his life in Spain, but never deviated from the attitudes of
his class or thought of himself as anything other than a Roman
senator and general....
Julius Caesar who was born in 100 BC, of course invaded Rome
with a Roman army. I really am uncomfortable with the theme
in using Adrian Goldsworth on the end of the republic, likely
I am missing something and will read Goldworthy for a while
now.
The Roman political élite was not unique in its competitiveness
and desire to excel. The aristocracies of most Greek cities
– and indeed of the overwhelming majority of other communities
in the Mediterranean world – were just as eager to win personal
dominance and often unscrupulous in their methods of achieving
this. Roman senators were highly unusual in channelling their
ambitions within fairly narrow, and universally recognized,
boundaries. The internal disorder and revolution which plagued
the public lives of most city states were absent from Rome
until the last century of the Republic. Even then, during
civil wars of extreme savagery when the severed heads of fellow
citizens were displayed in the Forum, the Roman aristocracy
continued to place some limits on what means were acceptable
to overcome their rivals. A common figure in the history of
the ancient world is the aristocratic exile – the deposed
king or tyrant, or the general forced out when he was perceived
to be becoming too powerful – at the court of a foreign power,
usually a king. Such men readily accepted foreign troops to
go back and seize power by force in their homeland – as the
tyrant Pisistratus had done at Athens – or actively fought
against their own city on their new protector's behalf, like
Alcibiades.
Rome's entire history contains only a tiny handful of individuals
whose careers in any way followed this pattern. The fifth-century
BC, and semi-mythical, Caius Marcius Coriolanus probably comes
closest, for when banished from Rome he took service with
the hostile Volscians and led their army with great success.
In the story he came close to capturing Rome itself, and was
only stopped from completing his victory by the intervention
of his mother. The moral of the tale was quintessentially
Roman. However important it was for an individual to win fame
and add to his own and his family's reputation, this should
always be subordinated to the good of the Republic. The same
belief in the superiority of Rome that made senators by the
second century BC hold themselves the equals of any king ensured
that no disappointed Roman politician sought the aid of a
foreign power. Senators wanted success, but that success only
counted if it was achieved at Rome. No senator defected to
Pyrrhus or Hannibal even when their final victory seemed imminent,
nor did Scipio Africanus' bitterness at the ingratitude of
the State cause him to take service with a foreign king.
The outbreak of civil war did not significantly change this
attitude, since both sides invariably claimed that they were
fighting to restore the true Republic. Use was often made
of non-Roman troops, but these were always presented as auxiliaries
or allies serving from their obligations to Rome and never
as independent powers intervening for their own benefit. Yet
the circumstances of Roman fighting Roman did create many
highly unorthodox careers, none more so than that of Quintus
Sertorius, who demonstrated a talent for leading irregular
forces and waging a type of guerrilla warfare against conventional
Roman armies. Exiled from Sulla's Rome, he won his most famous
victories and lived out the last years of his life in Spain,
but never deviated from the attitudes of his class or thought
of himself as anything other than a Roman senator and general....
I grew up in Bakersfield, California. Most of my friends were
minorities, mexicans, phillipinos, blacks. But a lot were
white - and there's no other way to put it - racists. I played
pool with these guys, drank beer with em.
A lot of the racism
was just so casual I let it slide, though I'm very liberal.
We all figured it's just something you say over a beer, it
doesn't mean anything.
Well, maybe now that they run the government, maybe it
does. Maybe they just figure they got nothing left to lose.
And when you got nothing left to lose, you're one dangerous
fellow. And there's a bunch of em.
Lately I have been thinking about the famous story of Kurt
Gödel's citizenship hearing, when he said that he could prove
that the U.S. Constitution would allow for our government
to be converted to a dictatorship. (The most complete account
of this perhaps apocryphal story AFAIK is found here
http://morgenstern.jeffreykegler.com/ ). I wonder what
the most important logician of the 20th century had concluded,
and I worry that we may find out!
What is happening follows directly and inevitably from the
Citizens United decision. The Supreme Court failed in its
duty to be a bulwark of democracy.
However, that decision
wouldn't have gone the way it did unless the culture was already
fully compromised.
It's not so much that Clinton spent more than Trump. Seriously
Clinton lost because she had terrible negatives in the Rust
Belt and she didn't do jack diddly to shore that up.
Where
money comes in is that Clinton's ability to raise unlimited
amounts of money allowed her to squash the better candidate,
Sanders. Even though she lost a lot of campaign operatives
made a lot more than they would have if they backed Sanders.
"... Can you please explain to me why you are thinking that this was a hack, not a leak by an insider? ..."
"... Yes, of course, Russians are everywhere, much like Jews in traditional anti-Semitic propaganda. ..."
"... Or in good McCarthyism tradition, they are under each bed. This evil autocrat Putin (who actually looks like yet another corrupt neoliberal ruler, who got Russia into WTO mousetrap and invests state money in the USA debt) manages to get everywhere, control everything and at the same time (German elections, Ukraine, Syria, world oil prices, Chechnya Islamic insurgence, US Presidential election, US stock market, you name it.) Amazing fit for a man over 60. ..."
"... And citing NYT article as for Russian hacks is probably not so much different from citing The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to support anti-Semitic propaganda. NYT was and still is one of the most enthusiastic supporters of Hillary campaign. Hardly a neutral observer. ..."
"... This level of anti-Russian hysteria that several people here are demonstrating is absolutely disgusting. Do you really want a military confrontation with Russia in Syria as most neocons badly want (but would prefer that other fought for them in the trenches) ? ..."
Former British Ambassador and current Wikileaks operative Craig Murray recently said he has
met the person who leaked DNC and Clinton campaign emails, and they aren't Russian.
While he is highly critical of Wikileaks, he suggests that without NSA coming forward with
hard data obtained via special program that uncover multiple levels of indirection, those charges
are just propaganda and insinuations.
And BTW after the fact it is usually impossible to discover who obtained the information, as
they use multiple levels of indirection and Russia might be just one of those indirection levels.
Use of Russian IP-space or Russian IPS might be just an attempt to create a false trail and to
implicate a wrong party.
As in any complex case you should not jump to conclusions so easily.
Or you can explain why you believe strange Faux news conspiracy stories with absolutely no evidence
that this person was in a position to hack the computers? Or why do you believe the obvious hugely
conflicted statements from Wikileaks operatives, who would never want to admit that they were
played by the Russians? Or a guy like Snowden who's life depend on Putins charity? Why would those
sources make anybody question the clear evidence already presented?
The fact that NSA is not going to publish all its evidence, is not a surprise. No need to tell
the Russians and other hackers how they can avoid detection. But it is not just the government
that conclude Russian involvement. Private company experts have reached the same conclusion. The
case for a Russian government hack is about as good as it can get.
Yes, of course, Russians are everywhere, much like Jews in traditional anti-Semitic propaganda.
Or in good McCarthyism tradition, they are under each bed. This evil autocrat Putin (who actually
looks like yet another corrupt neoliberal ruler, who got Russia into WTO mousetrap and invests
state money in the USA debt) manages to get everywhere, control everything and at the same time
(German elections, Ukraine, Syria, world oil prices, Chechnya Islamic insurgence, US Presidential
election, US stock market, you name it.) Amazing fit for a man over 60.
And citing NYT article as for Russian hacks is probably not so much different from citing
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion to support anti-Semitic propaganda. NYT was and still
is one of the most enthusiastic supporters of Hillary campaign. Hardly a neutral observer.
This level of anti-Russian hysteria that several people here are demonstrating is absolutely
disgusting. Do you really want a military confrontation with Russia in Syria as most neocons badly
want (but would prefer that other fought for them in the trenches) ?
That's what this hysteria is now about, I think.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> likbez... , -1
The NSA is very good at finding the source of intrusion attempts because they happen all the time
every day from China, Russia, North Korea and just little island backwaters in the Pacific.
Doing
something to stop or punish the perpetrators is what is hard. Individual US installation instances
must each be protected by their own firewalls and then still monitored for unusual variations
in traffic patterns through firewalls to detect IP spoofing.
Russia, Iran and Turkey met in Moscow on Tuesday to work toward a political accord to end Syria's
nearly six-year war, leaving the United States on the sidelines as the countries sought to drive
the conflict in ways that serve their interests.
Secretary of State John Kerry was not invited. Nor was the United Nations consulted.
With pro-government forces having made critical gains on the ground, ...
(Note: The last sentence originally and correctly said "pro-Syrian forces ...", not "pro-government
forces ...". It
was altered after
I noted the "pro-Syrian" change of tone on Twitter.)
Russia kicked the U.S. out of any further talks about Syria after the U.S. blew a deal which,
after long delaying negotiations, Kerry had made with the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov.
In a recent interview Kerry
admits that it was opposition from the Pentagon, not Moscow or Damascus, that had blown up his
agreement with Russia over Syria:
More recently, he has clashed inside the administration with Defense Secretary Ashton Carter.
Kerry negotiated an agreement with Russia to share joint military operations, but it fell apart.
"Unfortunately we had divisions within our own ranks that made the implementation of that extremely
hard to accomplish ," Kerry said. "But I believe in it, I think it can work, could have worked."
Kerry's agreement with Russia did not just "fell apart". The Pentagon actively sabotaged it by
intentionally and perfidiously attacking the Syrian army.
The deal with Russia was made in June. It envisioned coordinated attacks on ISIS and al-Qaeda
in Syria, both designated as terrorist under two UN Security Council resolutions which call upon
all countries to eradicate them. For months the U.S. failed to separate its CIA and Pentagon trained,
supplied and paid "moderate rebel" from al-Qaeda, thereby blocking the deal. In September the deal
was modified and finally ready to be implemented.
The Pentagon still
did not like it but had been overruled by the White House:
The agreement that Secretary of State John Kerry announced with Russia to reduce the killing in
Syria has widened an increasingly public divide between Mr. Kerry and Defense Secretary Ashton
B. Carter, who has deep reservations about the plan for American and Russian forces to jointly
target terrorist groups.
Mr. Carter was among the administration officials who pushed against the agreement on a conference
call with the White House last week as Mr. Kerry, joining the argument from a secure facility
in Geneva, grew increasingly frustrated. Although President Obama ultimately approved the effort
after hours of debate, Pentagon officials remain unconvinced.
...
"I'm not saying yes or no," Lt. Gen. Jeffrey L. Harrigian, commander of the United States Air
Forces Central Command , told reporters on a video conference call. "It would be premature to
say that we're going to jump right into it."
The CentCom general threatened to not follow the decision his Commander of Chief had taken. He
would not have done so without cover from Defense Secretary Ash Carter.
Three days later U.S. CentCom Air Forces and allied
Danish airplanes attack Syrian army positions near the ISIS besieged city of Deir Ezzor. During
37 air attacks within one hour between 62 and 100 Syrian Arab Army soldiers were killed and many
more wounded. They had held a defensive positions on hills overlooking the Deir Ezzor airport. Shortly
after the U.S. air attack ISIS forces stormed the hills and have held them since. Resupply for the
100,000+ civilians and soldiers in Deir Ezzor is now endangered if not impossible. The CentCom
attack enabled ISIS to eventually conquer Deir Ezzor and to establish the
envisioned "Salafist principality" in east Syria.
During the U.S. attack the Syrian-Russian operations center had immediately tried to contact the
designated coordination officer at U.S. Central Command to stop the attack. But that officer could
not be reached and those at CentCom taking the Russian calls just hanged up:
By time the Russian officer found his designated contact - who was away from his desk - and explained
that the coalition was actually hitting a Syrian army unit, "a good amount of strikes" had already
taken place, U.S. Central Command spokesman Col. John Thomas told reporters at the Pentagon Tuesday.
Until the attack the Syrian and Russian side had, as agreed with Kerry, kept to a ceasefire to
allow the separation of the "marbled" CIA and al-Qaeda forces. After the CentCom air attack the Kerry-Lavrov
deal
was off :
On the sidelines of an emergency UN Security Council meeting called on the matter, tempers were
high. Russia's permanent UN representative, Vitaly Churkin, questioned the timing of the strikes,
two days before Russian-American coordination in the fight against terror groups in Syria was
to begin.
"I have never seen such an extraordinary display of American heavy-handedness," he said, after
abruptly leaving the meeting.
The Pentagon launched one of its usual whitewash investigations and a heavily
redacted summary report (pdf) was released in late November.
The report, released by US Central Command on 29 November, shows that senior US Air Force officers
at the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) at al-Udeid Airbase in Qatar, who were responsible
for the decision to carry out the September airstrike at Deir Ezzor:
misled the Russians about where the US intended to strike so Russia could not warn that
it was targeting Syrian troops
ignored information and intelligence analysis warning that the positions to be struck were
Syrian government rather than Islamic State
shifted abruptly from a deliberate targeting process to an immediate strike in violation
of normal Air Force procedures
The investigation was led by a Brigade General. He was too low in rank to investigate or challenge
the responsible CentCom air-commander Lt. Gen. Harrington. The name of a co-investigator was redacted
in the report and marked as "foreign government information". That officer was likely from Denmark.
Four days after the investigation report was officially released the Danish government, without
giving any public reason,
pulled back its air contingent from any further operations under U.S. command in Iraq and Syria.
With the attack on Deir Ezzor the Pentagon has:
enabled ISIS to win the siege in Deir Ezzor where 100,000+ civilians and soldiers are under
threat of being brutally killed
cleared the grounds for the establishment of an ISIS ruled "Salafist principality" in east-Syria
deceived a European NATO ally and lost its active cooperation over Syria and Iraq
ruined Kerry's deal with Russia about a coordinated fight against UN designated terrorists
in Syria
kicked the U.S. out of further international negotiations about Syria
It is clear that the responsible U.S. officer for the attack and its consequences is one Lt. Gen.
Jeffrey L. Harrigian who had earlier publicly spoken out against a deal that his Commander in Chief
had agreed to. He likely had cover from Defense Secretary Ash Carter.
The White House did not react to this public military insubordination and undermining of its diplomacy.
Emptywheel
notes that, though on a different issue, the CIA is also in quite open insurrection against the
President's decisions:
[I]t alarms me that someone decided it was a good idea to go leak criticisms of a [presidential]
Red Phone exchange. It would seem that such an instrument depends on some foundation of trust
that, no matter how bad things have gotten, two leaders of nuclear armed states can speak frankly
and directly.
though on a different issue, the CIA is also in quite open insurrection against the President's
decisions:
It merely confirms or reinforces what was known now for quite some, rather long, time--Obama
is a shallow and cowardly amateur who basically abandoned the duty of governing the nation to
all kinds of neocon adventurists and psychopaths. So, nothing new here. Results are everywhere
on display for everyone to see.
https://twitter.com/BilalKareem/status/811216051656658944
Here's Bilal (American CIA agent) pointing out another terrorist scumbag has an explosive belt
to avoid getting captured. Notice his face is covered and he appears western? Likely the American
David Scott Winner or Israeli aDavid Shlomo Aram. They're going to explode their way out of Aleppo.
SAA should have just exterminated the rats rather than let them leave, Bilal included
Then again, it is difficult to see how sanctions between the two administration could be
any more "damaged": also on Wednesday, the Kremlin said it did not expect the incoming U.S. administration
to reject NATO enlargement overnight and that almost all communications channels between Russia
and the United States were frozen, the RIA news agency reported.
"Almost every level of dialogue with the United States is frozen. We don't communicate
with one another, or (if we do) we do so minimally," Peskov said.
The only thing worse than not using a weapon is using it ineffectively. And if he does choose
to retaliate, he has insisted on maintaining what is known as "escalation dominance," the ability
to ensure you can end a conflict on your terms.
Mr. Obama hinted as much at his news conference on Friday, as he was set to leave for his annual
Hawaii vacation, his last as president.
"Our goal continues to be to send a clear message to Russia or others not to do this to us because
we can do stuff to you," he said. "But it is also important to us to do that in a thoughtful,
methodical way. Some of it, we will do publicly. Some of it we will do in a way that they know,
but not everybody will."
On Monday 19 December, there was a hit captured on video and played worldwide. It was not by
droning.
This post confirms that neocon Ash Carter was at the heart of the attack on Deir Ezzor and that
the pro-Israel faction at the Pentagon will defy the chief executive if it achieves their political
objectives.
I don't know how anyone can review the details of this incident and not conclude that the split
in the US government is nearing a climax-point where the removal of an obstinate president is
a real possibility.
the fact this division in power is happening in the usa today is indeed scary... why is this
fucker ash carter still in any position of power, let alone the dipshit Jeffrey L. Harrigian?
both these military folks might be serving israels interests very well, not to mention saudi arabia
and gcc's but they sure ain't representing the usa's... or is the usa still a country with a leadership
command? doesn't look like it..
The trolls of the empire are feeding on each other. And this is a good thing ... why?
Because on their own the sheople of the US are incapable of a revolt no matter how righteous
their cause. The oligarchs and their minions thrive on discord and chaos. Thus we have the beginnings
of a major breakdown (at long last) as some states (California in the lead) contemplate an exit
by trying to establish embassies.
My, my!
We've never had a revolution in this country. Once upon a time we had a revolt by one group
of oligarchs against the other (called a civil war, and its predecessor called the revolution).
But a real bloody, kill off the oligarchs (as per France and Russia) revolt? No way Jose!
No ... we stupidly accept the tripe/trope of being too damned good ... recently called exceptionalism.
Implosion! The rest of the world (like me) can't wait!
So that's it? Deir Ezzor is just a write off? Putin is publicly talking about "wrapping up" the
Russian mission in Syria, Iran wants to turn the military focus westward, towards Idlib. At least
this is what they say in public.
I think the Deir EzZor attack was more of a dying gasp from the CIA/CENTCOM than anything of immense
strategic value. A last shot at prepping their east Syrian head-chopper partition, but a futile
one at that. Palmyra and the attack on the Syrian oil/gas hub give that same impression, too.
Neither was very well though out and both efforts are proving to be failures.
All this while the Obama administration is pushing for the SF 'cleaners' to erase any left-over
intel and al Qaeda/al Nusra leaders as the head-choppers flee Aleppo. The CIA/CENTCOM are obviously
in on this, while they still fancy some safe place for their spies and collaborators to escape
and continue the fight.
Russia's Turkish ambassador? Maybe he was an unfortunate part of the U.S. clean-up operation.
He would have certainly been privy to a lot of damaging info on U.S. involvement. Obama announced
the clean-up operation in mid-November - recall the unexpected 'targeting key ISIS and al Nusra
leaders' spiel, followed by the dispatch of U.S. SF (and U.K. SAS) kill-teams.
The ugly part of U.S. CIA/CENTCOM support for head-choppers is that they must control them.
If they can't corral them in an east Syrian Pipelanistan, then they have to kill them and eliminate
evidence of U.S. (and cronies') involvement. All at a time when a lame-duck U.S. administration
is packing their belongings and cleaning out their offices.
The current CIA leaders and current neocon CENTCOM lackeys are pretty much out
of business in the Middle East when Trump gets in. If they can't eliminate Trump, he will eliminate
them. Current CENTCOM commanders will be purged and replaced with fresh Israeli-firsters for the
war with Iran. Trump's stated plans to pour more money into 'strengthening' the U.S. military
means plenty of jobs for the departing generals.
MacDill AFB (CENTCOM's home) must be crawling with defense industry executive recruiters looking
for some fresh meat. The Pentagram is probably going to get an enema as well. Pretty soon, there
will be unshaven, dirty generals standing near freeway on-ramps in Arlington begging for change,
holding crudely-lettered cardboard signs that say, "Unemployed. Will wage war for sheckels.
God bless you!" [I'll have my baseball bat ready...]
Russia's Turkish ambassador? Maybe he was an unfortunate part of the U.S. clean-up operation.
He would have certainly been privy to a lot of damaging info on U.S. involvement.
If he was privy, so were, simultaneously, all intelligence people working under cover and,
as a consequence, Russia's military-political top. There are some really strong indications of
Karlov's assassination being a "parting gift" by US neocon mafia who, especially after Trump's
victory and liberation of Aleppo, is the main loser (not that they ever won anything realistically)
in a major geopolitical shift which is taking place as I type this.
One of your best posts ever, b. Certainly, it shows what a terrible mess has been created by the
deceptive, infamous lot, who have added fuel to the fire in this war in Syria.
I should imagine that if you Google Bethania Palma's name (she's also known as Bethania Palma
Markus), you will find that as a freelance writer she will have social media accounts (Facebook,
Twitter, possibly LinkedIn) and you and others can try to contact her through those.
Palma has also written rubbish pieces on the Syrian White Helmets and former UK ambassador
Craig Murray's claims that the DNC emails leaks were the work of a Washington insider.
The more she writes such pieces for Snopes.com, laying out the details of the issue and then
blithely dismissing them as having no credibility, the more the website's reputation for objective
investigation will fall anyway. Palma will be her own worst enemy. So perhaps we need not bother
trying to argue with her.
I have never before seen a US President as weak as Obama to the point where his own military disregards
his command. the fact that anyone at the Pentagon would still have a job after openly defying
the commander in chief shows you the pathetic state of affairs in a crumbling US.
While it speaks to a serious changing of the guard in the US military with Trump I hold little
hope that it in anyway signals a lessening of the goals of empire.....just a change in approach.
Those owning private finance are still leading our "parade" into extinction, IMO It sure looks
to me like the acolytes of Trump have primary fealty to the God of Mammon.
Then, about 35 or so comments down, an excellent and rather devastating analysis of the Snopes
attack, by one "sleepd." In it he discusses the background of the Snopes "report's" author:
"Let's look at the background of Bethania Palmer, the author of the Snopes piece. It claims
she worked as a "journalist" for the Los Angeles Newspaper Group, which is a media company that
has been purchased by a holding company called Digital First (previously Media News Group) that
was run by a private equity company managed by a hedge funder. They are known for purchasing local
run small newspapers and cutting staff and consolidating content into corporate-friendly ad sales
positions. She also claims work for LAist, a local style and events blog in Los Angeles, and the
OC Weekly, a somewhat conservative-leaning local weekly that survives on advertising. Nothing
in her background that speaks towards expertise in the Middle East, or even awareness of differences
in populations there. Considering that, we have to rate her credibility as below Barlett's when
it comes to reporting on Middle Eastern affairs."
Obama had the Secretary of Defense he wanted, Chuck Hagel, in the office for a while. But for
some reason he was unable to resist the pressure that was put on him to replace Hagel with Carter.
Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that in this day and age where everyone has a phone
camera there exists not one picture of the alleged gore that occurred in France and German truck
attacks???
Also possessing identification documents, leaving them at the scene, appears to be a special
talent required of all pseudo terr'ists.
I even saw a report in Tagesspiegel yesterday that said the authorities did not have a video.
Pretty hard to believe. The place was packed with tourists. Just about everybody has a cellphone
these days.
I commented on it on a site yesterday, but I don't remember which one. Might have been here.
Good stuff, b. As much as I dislike Obama, I imagine he has to feel relieved his presidency is
coming to an end so he doesn't have to deal with idiots like Ash Carter every day.
The General should have been publicly fired by the Secretary immediately after that video conference.
It didn't happen so the CIC should have fired the SOD and found someone to fire the General. Defying
the CIC, what a message to the world!
The CentCom general threatened to not follow the decision his Commander of Chief had taken.
He would not have done so without cover from Defense Secretary Ash Carter.
Ash Carter is certainly a neo-con, an insubordinate traitor, and is likely a CIA mole in the Pentagon.
He has 29 days of monkey-wrenching left at the Pentagon.
Beneath your heading 'With the attack on Deir Ezzor the Pentagon has:' add effected a coup
against the POTUS.
I agree with @12 wwinsti and @13 paveway ... at least i wanna believe that Ash 'CIA' Carter
has managed to throw in his monkey-wrenches but that 'the Deir EzZor attack was more of a dying
gasp from the CIA/CENTCOM than anything of immense strategic value'.
@17 danny801
Reagan was the same ... just that he was non compos mentis from the start, so didn't know he
was just the cardboard cutout that he was. Obama knew, took the job anyway.
@20 lysias
i don't know who controls us nukes ... but it ain't Barack Obama. he'll just do as he's told.
@22 blues
agree with your wish ... unfortunately Ash 'CIA' Carter has already fired Barack Obama. we
get coal in our stockings ... or we get turned into radioactive coal by AC, CIA
todays daily press briefing, lol.. no mention of ash carter...
"QUESTION: Okay. All right. I wanted to go back for a second to an interview that Secretary
Kerry gave to The Globe, The Boston Globe, in which he admitted that the deal with the Russians
over Syria was basically killed here because of the divisions within the Administration. Who was
that – what was the agency that killed the deal? Was it the Pentagon?
MR KIRBY: I don't think that that's what the Secretary said. I think the Secretary acknowledged
what we've long acknowledged; there was nothing new in this interview. He's been very open and
candid that even amongst the interagency here in the United States we haven't all agreed on the
way forward in Syria. I'm also not sure why that should be shocking to anybody. Every federal
agency has a different view --
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif says Iran, Russia and Turkey have started the
process of finding a political solution to the Syria crisis.
According to the Islamic State's official media wing, their forces foiled the massive Turkish
Army led assault, killing and wounding more than 50 military personnel in the process.
The primary cause of these high casualties was a suicide attack that was initiated by an
Islamic State terrorist west of the Al-Farouq Hospital.
For nearly a month now, the Turkish Army has attempted to enter the key city of Al-Bab;
however, they have been repeatedly repelled by the terrorist forces each time.
Local sources said that Mahmud Akhtarini was arrested by a group of Zenki militants at midnight
on charges of being a member of the ISIS terror organization. Four hours later, Mahmud was
reported dead after being brutally tortured.
The sources confirmed that the victim was mentally retarded.
The Turkish backed group is notorious for beheading a 12 year-old boy in Aleppo city, for
allegedly being a fighter of the Palestinian Liwaa Al Quds (Al-Quds Brigade).
... has Erdogan finally been taught the facts of life? or have all the other Turks in Turkey,
and will they soon put the sultan on his magic carpet in a real, made in Turkey, coup? Terrorism
at home, and abroad - with nothing to show for it - must be getting old for ordinary Turks.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't military 'assets' operating covertly in a country that
that is 'hostile' to US interests be under the command of the CIA?
We have been using "False Flag" operations to expand land since we were colonies and used white
slaves kidnapped from European countries to work for the Elite 1% land owners in the 16th, 17th,
18th, 19, 20th, and continuing in the 21st Century when the 911 False Flag Operation to further
erode the everyday people and further enrich the elite 1% and Masonic and Zionist ideologies.
https://mycommonsenseparty.com
"The Dow's initial move down in January of 2017 was very sharp and within a month, it was off
1900 points or almost 10%. As it is apparent from the chart, the Dow's slide was extremely volatile
with big losing streaks often followed by sharp rallies. In the meantime, the Russiagate scandal
was beginning to grow, as top Trump aides resigned at the end of April amid charges of obstruction
of justice. The Dow's fall continued until late August when it finally bottomed at 16,357 to complete
a seven month loss of almost 3600 points (over 18%). From this point, the Dow surged ahead so
rapidly that the Fools were likely lulled by Wall Street traitors into believing that a new leg
up was occurring. Amid October's renewed Ukraine-Syria War, Vice President Pence's forced resignation
for incompetence, and an Arab oil glut sending WTI to the mid-$30s, the Dow closed at 19,387 near
the end of that month for a gain of 15% off of its summer lows. The huge, two month rally left
the Dow just 6% below its all time high of 20,247 set back in January, but the NYSE's advance/decline
line was still in shambles. In addition, higher Fed interest rates were taking their toll on the
US economy which officially re-entered a recession in November. The divergence between the large-cap
stocks and smaller-cap stocks was resolved over the next five weeks as the markets experienced
a brutal pounding and the Dow plunged 4000 points or over 20%. The Dow bottomed at 15,788 in early
December of 2017 when NATO units were routed in Crimea by superior Russian forces, and Trump was
finally forced to resign in early 2018 for corporate malfeasance of office, but this did not bring
any relief to the Dow which continued to trade near the 15,000 level through most of the 2018
Recession."
Play by play, verbatim, from the last time a Republican President joined at the hip with Tel
Aviv, back in 1972. It's a' comin'!
I think b is being very subtle here, as these two statements are not consistent:
The White House did not react to this public military insubordination and undermining of
its diplomacy.
Emptywheel notes that ... the CIA is also in quite open insurrection against the President's
decisions
This might be hard to decipher for those who have not been paying attention. Suffice it to
say that skepticism that Obama/Kerry ever really wanted any deal is more than warranted. Was this
bungled deal just a delaying action?
Obama apologists have been making excuses this empty suit for years: 11-dimensional
chess, elite factions undermining him, his focus on his "legacy", etc. Yet Obama/Kerry really
don't seem too upset by the "failures" that have occurred on their watch. They don't really attempt
to recover from/rectify these failures. At some point one must ask: are those "failures" intentional?
"... The essence of voting the lesser of two evils: "To comfortable centrists like pgl, the Democrats should be graded on a curve. As long as they're better than the awful Republicans, then they're good enough and beyond criticism." ..."
"... These Wall Street Democrats can rest assured that Democrats will surely get their turn in power in 4-8 years...after Trump thoroughly screws things up. And then Democrats will proceed to screw things up themselves...as we learned from Obama and Hillary's love of austerity and total disinterest in the economic welfare of the vast majority. ..."
"... In case you didn't notice, Democrats did nothing about the minimum wage 2009-2010. ..."
"... Many Democratic candidates won't even endorse minimum wage increase in states where increases win via initiative. They preferred to lose elections to standing up for minimum wage increases. ..."
Peter K.... The essence of voting the lesser of two evils: "To comfortable centrists like pgl,
the Democrats should be graded on a curve. As long as they're better than the awful Republicans,
then they're good enough and beyond criticism."
These Wall Street Democrats can rest assured that Democrats will surely get their turn in power
in 4-8 years...after Trump thoroughly screws things up. And then Democrats will proceed to screw
things up themselves...as we learned from Obama and Hillary's love of austerity and total disinterest
in the economic welfare of the vast majority.
To pgl and his ilk, Obama was great as long as he said the right things...regardless of what
he actually did. Hillary didn't even have to say the right things...she only had to be a Wall
Street Democrat for pgl to be enthusiastic about her.
In case you didn't notice, Democrats did nothing about the minimum wage 2009-2010.
At a minimum,
they could have taken their dominance then to enact increases for 2010-2016 or to index increases
to inflation. Instead, Pelosi, Reid and Obama preferred to do nothing.
Many Democratic candidates won't even endorse minimum wage increase in states where increases
win via initiative. They preferred to lose elections to standing up for minimum wage increases.
"... Allegations aren't evidence but the media is treating them as such. And even if they Russia did hack Hillary's e-mails I haven't heard anyone claim the e-mails released by Wikileaks are untrue or fabrications. ..."
"... At minimum (((Carl Gershman))) should be questioned along with rogue CIA agents in their role in the anti-Putin demonstrations of 2011. ..."
"... Obama has ordered an investigation. The result will be the Russians did it. Then the lie will be official truth. You can't argue with official truth. It's official. ..."
"... I suspect John McBloodstain and Lindsey and Chucky are in denial, and haven't quite come to terms with the idea that Trump is going to be the man in power. With his hands on the levers and the bully pulpit at his fingertips. I hope they learn to regret their treasonous hubris, in presuming to undermine Trump as he takes the reins and then fastens the bit tightly on McCain's angry face. And then jerks them for effect. ..."
"... The era of neocon Eternal Wars is over. America is no longer going to be Israel's obedient, dutiful golem. ..."
"... Some say that objectively reality doesn't even exist, that is all just a matter of perception. Well Americans must be really lucky people, because they have government + MSM who are so vastly intellectually superior to any mere mortal, that they are able to interpret the reality to the ordinary Americans so it won't confuse them any longer. ..."
"... Actually, according to Karl Rove, the neocon intelligentsia (I know, a contradiction in terms) of whom he is a proud member, claims to possess even higher powers – they are able to create reality now, because why bother with only interpreting reality, when thanks to your superior intellect you can create it. Hillary is also one of those neocons possessing (or possessed by) higher power and proud owner of those magical abilities. ..."
"... One of those neocon moments when they were able to create reality out of thin air, occurred when they "discovered" the Russian hacking of the election process in USA. Some people will call that "creation" of reality for what it actually is – creation of propaganda, but those are just mean unpatriotic Americans or other nationals who don't have America's best interests at heart. ..."
"... Some who are even more critical of America's reality "creation" abilities, would call those realities nightmares – like the realities created in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine even, but as they say, maybe those are only interpretations of reality and according to US – wrong interpretations of reality. ..."
I think Trump is likely to follow this advice, which is excellent, and I don't think he'll
give way easily to the power structure. He knows he'll be neutered if he follows their dictates
and the demands of the lamestream media.
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public
Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are only available to recent,
frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox,
and may also only be used once per hour.
The Obama Presidency began with predetermined success. After all, they gave him the Nobel Peace
Prize.
And we know how long that lasted.
Trump is the Republican's 'come to Jesus' moment. They have to get beyond their fetish for
'losing on principle' to winning.
The Russian Hacking was big news because it was the last gasp for a rationale to gum up the
Electoral College vote today. Russian hacking is a purely partisan, Democratic ploy. So lets have
big Congressional hearings on insecure computer servers and hacked emails of who was that? Hillary
Clinton. This will disappear in a New York minute as soon as anyone starts digging into the Democrat's
junk. Sample questions: Were Podesta's emails altered or faked? Or were they his actual emails?
Are we sure? How sure? He couldn't have actually said that, no? He REALLY said that? And on and
on.
The mere use of 'Hillary Clinton' and 'Email' in the same sentence will create a pavlovian
response and the next word is what? Even Nancy Pelosi will hear the word JAIL in some crevice
of her demented mind.
This isn't going anywhere.
Meanwhile, there is a taxcut to fight over. There won't be time to even consider it given the
rush to the trough for the various interests.
And anyway - Trump isn't going to cut military budgets. But he will gladly - along with congressional
whores of all parties - put more money into anti-terror cyber stuff. It's way more profitable
than building an airplane. Profit margins higher. And its impossible to determine if it works
or it doesn't work. An airplane has to fly, no? Cyber intelligence? I dunno - it can never be
proven one way or the other unless there is a massive failure, and then it can never be proven
who actually screwed up.
Trump isn't the sort to 'take one for the team' and will instinctively blame Obama and Bush
and Hillary and search for something that looks less like guaranteed failure. There is nothing
left in the Middle East to do that doesn't have failure written all over it.
And the last thing he will tolerate is Paul Ryan and Company trying to cram a big Russian sanctions
package down his throat. Plus - get real - anyone with any sense knows the smart play is the US
plus Russia vs China.
Plus - get real - anyone with any sense knows the smart play is the US plus Russia vs China.
Yes! This is exactly the smart play. It is essential.
Let's have a little triangular diplomacy in the other direction this time. We've paid a big price
for Nixon/Kissenger's three-way ploy. It's time to rotate their triangle. China is our enemy.
It is the enemy they birthed and our capital created. ,
@boogerbently " Plus - get real - anyone with any sense knows the smart play is the US plus
Russia vs China."
Russia didn't "hack" the election and anyone who believes they did is a low information American
searching for reasons to oppose Trump and rationalize Hillary's electoral loss.
After all Hildabeast won the popular vote (thanks to mass third world immigration) but was
rejected in key battleground states owing to Obamanomics and her treasonous call for admitting
hundreds of thousands of Syrian Muslim refugees as well as her support for amnesty. This was too
much for flyover country to stomach.
Allegations aren't evidence but the media is treating them as such. And even if they Russia
did hack Hillary's e-mails I haven't heard anyone claim the e-mails released by Wikileaks are
untrue or fabrications.
At minimum (((Carl Gershman))) should be questioned along with rogue CIA agents in their
role in the anti-Putin demonstrations of 2011. I think waterboarding would be a fitting form
of interrogation in this case.
@anon The Obama Presidency began with predetermined success. After all, they gave him the
Nobel Peace Prize.
And we know how long that lasted.
Trump is the Republican's 'come to Jesus' moment. They have to get beyond their fetish for 'losing
on principle' to winning.
The Russian Hacking was big news because it was the last gasp for a rationale to gum up the Electoral
College vote today. Russian hacking is a purely partisan, Democratic ploy. So lets have big Congressional
hearings on insecure computer servers and hacked emails of ... who was that? Hillary Clinton.
This will disappear in a New York minute as soon as anyone starts digging into the Democrat's
junk. Sample questions: Were Podesta's emails altered or faked? Or were they his actual emails?
Are we sure? How sure? He couldn't have actually said that, no? He REALLY said that? And on and
on.
The mere use of 'Hillary Clinton' and 'Email' in the same sentence will create a pavlovian response
and the next word is what? Even Nancy Pelosi will hear the word JAIL in some crevice of her demented
mind.
This isn't going anywhere.
Meanwhile, there is a taxcut to fight over. There won't be time to even consider it given the
rush to the trough for the various interests.
And anyway -- Trump isn't going to cut military budgets. But he will gladly -- along with congressional
whores of all parties -- put more money into anti-terror cyber stuff. It's way more profitable
than building an airplane. Profit margins higher. And its impossible to determine if it works
or it doesn't work. An airplane has to fly, no? Cyber intelligence? I dunno -- it can never be
proven one way or the other unless there is a massive failure, and then it can never be proven
who actually screwed up.
Trump isn't the sort to 'take one for the team' and will instinctively blame Obama and Bush and
Hillary and search for something that looks less like guaranteed failure. There is nothing left
in the Middle East to do that doesn't have failure written all over it.
And the last thing he will tolerate is Paul Ryan and Company trying to cram a big Russian sanctions
package down his throat. Plus -- get real -- anyone with any sense knows the smart play is the
US plus Russia vs China.
Plus - get real - anyone with any sense knows the smart play is the US plus Russia vs China.
Yes! This is exactly the smart play. It is essential.
Let's have a little triangular diplomacy in the other direction this time. We've paid a big
price for Nixon/Kissenger's three-way ploy. It's time to rotate their triangle. China is our enemy.
It is the enemy they birthed and our capital created.
Obama has ordered an investigation. The result will be the Russians did it. Then the lie
will be official truth. You can't argue with official truth. It's official.
He should also investigate which legislators leaked CIA "report" to press and have them held
accountable. Investigate why other agencies didn't push against the CIA's attempted coup. Ideally
the CIA would be abolished, but it will probably be hard to find enough support for that.
• Replies:
@Avery {Ideally the CIA would be abolished, but it will probably be hard to find enough
support for that.}
Abolishing CIA not a good idea, because some level of intelligence gathering (humint) on _foreign_
enemies/adversaries of US is needed. But Trump definitely can abolish entire departments that
are not purely humint intelligence related. And those who meddled in the presidential election
should be brought up on charges, if they can be identified.
Also, if Trump tries to completely abolish CIA, a massive terrorist attack might be organized
and Trump will be blamed for taking away US ability to detect it by abolishing CIA Frightened
American public will acquiesce to even more enslavement, just like after 9/11. US spooks who meddle
in American politics are evil and are experts at that sort of thing. And will do anything to survive.
Trump has to be very careful. Maybe have the Pentagon neuter them in a roundabout way.
But if there is to be an investigation of clandestine interference in the politics and
elections of foreign nations, let's get it all out onto the table.
yes, let's please do! as Hillary and the neocons and msm have all been demanding that "Assad
must go".. out of the other side of their lizard faces they're howling that 'Russia is trying
to meddle in our politics!!' How dare they?!'
$5 billion in the Ukraine for a putsch to undermine that democratically elected government,
and then get caught deciding on the phone who's going to be the next president in Kiev -- all
while screeching about the impropriety of Russia leaking the phone call. The hypocrisy is mind-numbing.
The only thing exceptional is the unilateral arrogance on steroids.
President-elect Trump should call in his new director of the CIA, Rep. Mike Pompeo, and
tell him to run down and remove, for criminal misconduct, any CIA agents or operatives leaking
secrets to discredit his election.
I suspect John McBloodstain and Lindsey and Chucky are in denial, and haven't quite come
to terms with the idea that Trump is going to be the man in power. With his hands on the
levers and the bully pulpit at his fingertips. I hope they learn to regret their treasonous hubris,
in presuming to undermine Trump as he takes the reins and then fastens the bit tightly on McCain's
angry face. And then jerks them for effect.
The era of neocon Eternal Wars is over. America is no longer going to be Israel's obedient,
dutiful golem. Spilling its blood and treasure to assuage the insatiable lust for death and
misery of the Zio-scum.
'America first!' is now the mantra, and little Chucky and the Stain and Lindsey are all just
traitorous little war pigs from the old order. Soon to join Mitt Romney in publically humiliated
repudiation.
• Replies:
@FLgeezer Keep them coming Rurik. Your posts are priceless.
Avery
says:
December 20, 2016 at 4:34 pm GMT • 200 Words
@Marcus He should also investigate which legislators leaked CIA "report" to press and have them
held accountable. Investigate why other agencies didn't push against the CIA's attempted coup. Ideally
the CIA would be abolished, but it will probably be hard to find enough support for that.
{Ideally the CIA would be abolished, but it will probably be hard to find enough support for
that.}
Abolishing CIA not a good idea, because some level of intelligence gathering (humint) on _foreign_
enemies/adversaries of US is needed. But Trump definitely can abolish entire departments that are
not purely humint intelligence related. And those who meddled in the presidential election should
be brought up on charges, if they can be identified.
Also, if Trump tries to completely abolish CIA, a massive terrorist attack might be organized
and Trump will be blamed for taking away US ability to detect it by abolishing CIA Frightened American
public will acquiesce to even more enslavement, just like after 9/11. US spooks who meddle in American
politics are evil and are experts at that sort of thing. And will do anything to survive. Trump has
to be very careful. Maybe have the Pentagon neuter them in a roundabout way.
But you are right: Trump can't let what CIA did slide.
Abolishing CIA not a good idea, because some level of intelligence gathering (humint) on _foreign_
enemies/adversaries of US is needed. But Trump definitely can abolish entire departments that
are not purely humint intelligence related. And those who meddled in the presidential election
should be brought up on charges, if they can be identified.
Also, if Trump tries to completely abolish CIA, a massive terrorist attack might be organized
and Trump will be blamed for taking away US ability to detect it by abolishing CIA Frightened
American public will acquiesce to even more enslavement, just like after 9/11. US spooks who meddle
in American politics are evil and are experts at that sort of thing. And will do anything to survive.
Trump has to be very careful. Maybe have the Pentagon neuter them in a roundabout way.
But you are right: Trump can't let what CIA did slide.
It can be replaced by something better, anyway it has been largely obsolete since a) collapse
of USSR and b) internet revolution.
Another perspective: in a secular era of declining industry, the next new technology is expected
to be cybersecurity. Companies like Palantir are clearing that path; others will follow. (Palantir
got its major boost thru CIA contracts; the company, created in Silicon Valley, established a
presence next door to the US anti-terrorism center in N Virginia - closer to the teat.) Money
men want US gov and other governments as well to put government funding behind these ventures.
Creating a scare to herd the flock this way or that is as old as Torah. Similarly, creating
a scapegoat - an unblemished ram caught in the thicket - is an age-old tactic.
Alex Karp, Peter Thiel, Elon Musk and a few other innovator/entrepreneurs are not the folks
who are behind the Russkie scare, but the investors or would-be investors in the emerging industries
those folks created, and the politicians they depend on to ensure government support for their
investment/enterprise, are in it up to their third wive's plastic surgery bills, not to mention
the pool boy.
Some say that objectively reality doesn't even exist, that is all just a matter of perception.
Well Americans must be really lucky people, because they have government + MSM who are so vastly
intellectually superior to any mere mortal, that they are able to interpret the reality to the
ordinary Americans so it won't confuse them any longer.
Actually, according to Karl Rove, the neocon intelligentsia (I know, a contradiction in
terms) of whom he is a proud member, claims to possess even higher powers – they are able to create
reality now, because why bother with only interpreting reality, when thanks to your superior intellect
you can create it. Hillary is also one of those neocons possessing (or possessed by) higher power
and proud owner of those magical abilities.
One of those neocon moments when they were able to create reality out of thin air, occurred
when they "discovered" the Russian hacking of the election process in USA. Some people will call
that "creation" of reality for what it actually is – creation of propaganda, but those are just
mean unpatriotic Americans or other nationals who don't have America's best interests at heart.
Some who are even more critical of America's reality "creation" abilities, would call those
realities nightmares – like the realities created in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine even, but as
they say, maybe those are only interpretations of reality and according to US – wrong interpretations
of reality.
The propaganda broadcasts on behalf of the North Vietnamese by Tokyo Rose McCain are readily
available on the internet. It is well known in Wash DC that Dame Lindsey Graham is a closet case
overcompensating with campy militarism. The rest of the neocons .we all know who and what they
are, by now.
Plus - get real - anyone with any sense knows the smart play is the US plus Russia vs China.
Yes! This is exactly the smart play. It is essential.
Let's have a little triangular diplomacy in the other direction this time. We've paid a big price
for Nixon/Kissenger's three-way ploy. It's time to rotate their triangle. China is our enemy.
It is the enemy they birthed and our capital created.
"China is our enemy. "
Bollocks.
China is not my enemy.
My enemies are located in Washington DC and Sodom on Hudson.
It is impossible to overstate the stakes involved in the latest controversy over Russia. They
involve trillions of dollars in warfare largess to the tens of thousands of bureaucratic warfare-state
parasites who are sucking the lifeblood out of the American people.
Ever since the advent of the U.S. national-security state after World War II, America has needed
official enemies, especially ones that induce fear, terror, and panic within the American citizenry.
When people are fearful, terrified, and panicked, they are much more willing, even eager, to have
government officials do whatever is necessary to keep them safe and secure. It is during such times
that liberty is at greatest risk because of the propensity of government to assume emergency powers
and the proclivity of the citizenry to let them have them.
That's what the Cold War was all about. The official enemies were communism and the Soviet Union,
which was an alliance of nations that had Russia at its center. U.S. officials convinced Americans
that there was a worldwide communist conspiracy to take over the world, with its principal base in
Moscow.
A correlative threat was Red China, whose communist hordes were supposedly threatening to flood
the United States.
There were also the communist outposts, which were considered spearheads pointed at America. North
Korea. North Vietnam. Cuba, which, Americans were told, was a communist dagger pointed out America's
neck from only 90 miles away.
And then there was communism the philosophy, along with the communists who promoted it. It was
clear, U.S. officials gravely maintained, that communism was spreading all across the world, including
inside the U.S. Army, the State Department, and Hollywood, and that communists were everyone, including
leftist organizations and even sometimes under people's beds.
Needless to say, all this fear, terror, and panic induced people to support the ever-growing budgets,
influence, and power of the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA, which had become the national-security
branch of the federal government - and the most powerful branch at that. Few cared that their hard-earned
monies were being taken from them by the IRS in ever-increasing amounts. All that mattered was being
kept safe from the communists.
Hardly anyone questioned or challenged this warfare-state racket. President Eisenhower alluded
to it in his Farewell Address in 1961, when he pointed out that this new-fangled governmental structure,
which he called "the military industrial complex," now posed a grave threat to the freedoms and democratic
processes of the American people.
One of those who did challenge this official-enemy syndrome was President John F. Kennedy. At
war with his national-security establishment in 1963, Kennedy threw the gauntlet down at his famous
Peace Speech at American University in June of that year. There was no reason, Kennedy said, that
the Soviet Union (i.e., Russia) and the rest of the communist world couldn't live in peace co-existence
and even friendship, even if the nations were guided by different ideologies and philosophies. Kennedy
announced that it was time to end the Cold War against Russia and the rest of the communist world.
What Kennedy was proposing was anathema to the national-security state and its ever-growing army
of voracious contractors and subcontractors who were feeding at the public trough. How dare he remove
the Soviet Union (i.e., Russia) as America's official enemy? How could the Pentagon, the CIA, and
the NSA justify their ever-growing budgets and their ever-growing emergency powers? Indeed, how could
they justify the very existence of their Cold War totalitarian-type apparatus known as a "national
security state" without a giant official enemy to strike fear, terror, and panic with the American
people?
Once Kennedy was removed from the scene, everything returned to "normal." The Cold War continued.
The Vietnam War against the commies in Asia to prevent more dominoes from falling got ramped up.
The Soviet Union, Red China, and the worldwide communist conspiracy continued to be America's big
official enemies. The military and intelligence budgets continued to rise. The number of warfare
state parasites continued soaring.
Seemingly, there was never going to be an end to the process. Until one day, the unexpected suddenly
happened. The Berlin Wall came crashing down, East and West Germany were reunited, and the Soviet
Union was dismantled, all of which struck unmitigated fear within the bowels of the American deep
state.
Oh sure, there was still Cuba, Red China, North Korea, and Vietnam but those communist nations,
for some reason, just didn't strike fear, terror, and panic within Americans as Russia did.
U.S. officials needed a new official enemy. Enter Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq, who had
served as a partner and ally of the U.S. government during the 1980s when he was waging war against
Iran, which, by that time, had become converted from official friend to official enemy of the U.S.
Empire. Throughout the 1990s, Saddam was made into the new official enemy. Like the Soviets and the
communists, Saddam was coming to get us and unleash mushroom clouds all over America. The American
people bought it and, not surprisingly, budgets for the national-security establishment continued
their upward soar.
Then came the 9/11 attacks in retaliation for what the Pentagon and the CIA were doing in the
Middle East, followed by with the retaliatory invasions Afghanistan and Iraq. Suddenly the new official
enemies were "terrorism" and then later Islam. Like the communists of yesteryear, the terrorists
and the Muslims were coming to get us, take over the federal government, run the IRS and HUD, and
force everyone to study the Koran. The American people bought it and, not surprisingly, budgets for
the national-security establishment continued their upward soar.
The problem is that Americans, including U.S. soldiers and their families, are now growing weary
of the forever wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan. But U.S. national-security state officials
know that if they bring the troops home, the official enemies of terrorism and Islam disappear at
the same time.
That's why they have decided to return to their old, tried and true official enemy - Russia and,
implicitly, communism. It's why the U.S. broke its promise to Russia to dismantle NATO. It's why
the U.S. supported regime change in the coup in Ukraine. It's why the U.S. wants Ukraine into NATO
- to enable the U.S. to install missiles on Russia's border. It's why the national-security state
is "pivoting" toward Asia - to provoke crises with Red China. It's why they are accusing Russia of
interfering with the U.S. presidential election and campaigning for Donald Trump. The aim of it all
is to bring back the old Cold War official enemies of Russia, China, and communism, in order to keep
Americans afraid, terrified, and panicked, which then means the continuation of ever-growing budgets
to all those warfare state parasites who are sucking the lifeblood out of the American people.
With his fight against the CIA over Russian hacking and his desire to establish normal relations
with Russia, Donald Trump is clearly not buying into this old, tried-and-true Russia-as-official
enemy narrative. In the process, he is posing a grave threat to the national-security establishment
and its ever-growing budgets, influence, and power.
"... Democracy is inevitably going to clash with the demands of Globalization as they are opposite. Globalization requires entrepreneurs to search cheaper means of production worldwide. ..."
"... In practice, this means moving capital out of the USA. ..."
"... To put it in Marxist terms the interests of American society to survive and prosper came into contradiction with the interests of capitalism as a system of production and with the capitalists as a class who has no homeland, and for whom homeland is where it is easier to make money. ..."
"... American capitalism from its very beginning was based on the assumption that what was good for business was good for America. Until 1929 it more or less worked. The robber barons were robbing other entrepreneurs and workers but at least they reinvested their ill gained profits in America. The crash of 1929 showed that the interests of Big Banks clashed with the interest of American society with devastating results. ..."
"... The decades after WWII have seen a slow and steady erosion of American superiority in technology and productivity and slow and steady flight of capital from the USA. Globalization has been undermining America. From the point of view of Global prosperity if it is cheaper to produce in China, production should relocate to China. From the point of view of American worker, this is treason, a policy destroying the United States as an industrial power, as a nation, and as a community of citizens. Donald Trump is the first top ranking politician who has realized this simple fact. The vote for Donald Trump has been a protest against Globalization, immigration, open borders, capital flight, multiculturalism, liberalism and all the values American Liberal establishment has been preaching for 60 years that are killing the USA. ..."
"... Donald Trump wants to arrest the assault of Globalization on America. He promised to reduce taxes, and to attract business back to the USA. However, reduced taxes are only one ingredient in incentives. For businesses to stay or come back to the US, companies must have educated labor force, steady supply of talented, well-educated young people, excellent schools, and safe neighborhoods, among other things. As of now most of these preconditions are missing. ..."
"... Dr. Brovkin is a historian, formerly a Harvard Professor of History. He has published several books and numerous articles on Russian History and Politics. Currently, Dr. Brovkin works and lives in Marrakech, Morocco. ..."
"... This is an interesting question: is it possible to contain neoliberal globalization by building walls, rejecting 'trade' agreement, and so on. I get the feeling that a direct attack may not work. Water will find a way, as they say. With a direct attack against globalization, what you're likely to face is major capital flight. ..."
In his election campaign Donald Trump has identified several key themes that defined American malaise.
He pointed to capital flight, bad trade deals, illegal immigration, and corruption of the government
and of the press. What is missing in Trump's diagnosis though is an explanation of this crisis. What
are the causes of American decline or as Ross Pero used to say: Let's look under the hood.
Most of the challenges America faces today have to do with two processes we call Globalization
and Sovietization. By Globalization we mean a process of externalizing American business thanks to
the doctrine of Free trade which has been up to now the Gospel of the establishment. By Sovietization
we mean a process of slow expansion of the role of the government in economy, education, business,
military, press, virtually any and every aspect of politics and society.
Let us start with Globalization.
Dani Rodrick (
The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy) has argued that
it is impossible to have democracy and globalization at the same time. Democracy is inevitably
going to clash with the demands of Globalization as they are opposite. Globalization requires entrepreneurs
to search cheaper means of production worldwide.
In practice, this means moving capital out of the USA. For fifty years economists have
been preaching Free trade, meaning that free unimpeded, no tariffs trade is good for America. And
it was in the 1950s, 60s and 1970s that American products were cheaper or better than those overseas.
Beginning with the 1970s, the process reversed. Globalization enriched the capitalists and impoverished
the rest of Americans. To put it in Marxist terms the interests of American society to survive
and prosper came into contradiction with the interests of capitalism as a system of production and
with the capitalists as a class who has no homeland, and for whom homeland is where it is easier
to make money.
American capitalism from its very beginning was based on the assumption that what was good
for business was good for America. Until 1929 it more or less worked. The robber barons were robbing
other entrepreneurs and workers but at least they reinvested their ill gained profits in America.
The crash of 1929 showed that the interests of Big Banks clashed with the interest of American society
with devastating results.
The decades after WWII have seen a slow and steady erosion of American superiority in technology
and productivity and slow and steady flight of capital from the USA. Globalization has been undermining
America. From the point of view of Global prosperity if it is cheaper to produce in China, production
should relocate to China. From the point of view of American worker, this is treason, a policy destroying
the United States as an industrial power, as a nation, and as a community of citizens. Donald Trump
is the first top ranking politician who has realized this simple fact. The vote for Donald Trump
has been a protest against Globalization, immigration, open borders, capital flight, multiculturalism,
liberalism and all the values American Liberal establishment has been preaching for 60 years that
are killing the USA.
Donald Trump wants to arrest the assault of Globalization on America. He promised to reduce
taxes, and to attract business back to the USA. However, reduced taxes are only one ingredient in
incentives. For businesses to stay or come back to the US, companies must have educated labor force,
steady supply of talented, well-educated young people, excellent schools, and safe neighborhoods,
among other things. As of now most of these preconditions are missing.
To fight Globalization Donald Trump announced in his agenda to drop or renegotiate NAFTA and TPP.
That is a step in the right direction. However, this will not be easy. There are powerful vested
interests in making money overseas that will put up great resistance to America first policy. They
have powerful lobbies and votes in the Congress and it is by far not certain if Trump will succeed
in overcoming their opposition.
Another step along these lines of fighting Globalization is the proposed building of the Wall
on Mexican border. That too may or may not work. Powerful agricultural interests in California have
a vested interest in easy and cheap labor force made up of illegal migrants. If their supply is cut
off they are going to hike up the prices on agricultural goods that may lead to inflation or higher
consumer prices for the American workers.
... ... ...
The Military: Americans are told they have a best military in the world. In fact, it is not the
best but the most expensive one in the world. According to the National priorities Project, in fiscal
2015 the military spending amounted to 54% of the discretionary spending in the
amount of 598.5 billion dollars . Of those almost 200 billion dollars goes for operations and
maintenance, 135 billion for military personnel and 90 billion for procurement (see
Here is How the US Military Spends its Billions )
American military industrial complex spends more that the next seven runners up combined. It is
a Sovietized, bureaucratic structure that exists and thrives on internal deals behind closed doors,
procurement process closed to public scrutiny, wasted funds on consultants, kickbacks, and outrageous
prices for military hardware. Specific investigations of fraud do not surface too often. Yet for
example, DoD Inspector General reported:
Why is it that an F35 fighter jet should cost 135 million apiece and the Russian SU 35 that can
do similar things is sold for 35 million dollars and produced for 15 million? The answer is that
the Congress operates on a principle that any price the military asks is good enough. The entire
system of military procurement has to be scrapped. It is a source of billions of stolen and wasted
dollars. The Pentagon budget of half a trillion a year is a drain on the economy that is unsustainable,
and what you get is not worth the money. The military industrial complex in America does not deliver
the best equipment or security it is supposed to.(on this see:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/cutting-waste-isnt-enough-curb-pentagon-spending-18640
)
Donald Trump was the first to his credit who raised the issue: Do we need all these bases overseas?
Do they really enhance American security? Or are they a waste of money for the benefit of other countries
who take America for a free ride. Why indeed should the US pay for the defense of Japan? Is Japan
a poor country that cannot afford to defend itself? Defense commitments like those expose America
to unnecessary confrontations and risk of war over issues that have nothing to do with America's
interests. Is it worth it to fight China over some uninhabitable islands that Japan claims? (See
discussion:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/should-the-us-continue-guarantee-the-security-wealthy-states-17720
)
Similarly, Trump is the first one to raise the question: What is the purpose of NATO? ( see discussion
of NATO utility:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/will-president-trump-renegotiate-the-nato-treaty-18647
) Yes the Liberal pro-Clinton media answer is: to defend Europe from Russian aggression. But
really what aggression? If the Russians wanted to they could have taken Kiev in a day two years ago.
Instead, they put up with the most virulently hostile regime in Kiev. Let us ask ourselves would
we have put up with a virulently anti-American regime in Mexico, a regime that would have announced
its intention to conclude a military alliance with China or Russia? Were we not ready to go to nuclear
war over Soviet missiles in Cuba? If we would not have accepted such a regime in Mexico, why do we
complain that the Russians took action against the new regime in Ukraine. Oh yes, they took Crimea.
But the population there is Russian, and until 1954 it was Russian territory and after Ukrainian
independence the Russians did not raise the issue of Crimea as Ukrainian territory and paid rent
for their naval base there The Russians took it over only when a hostile regime clamoring for NATO
membership settled in Kiev. Does that constitute Russian aggression or actually Russian limited response
to a hostile act? (see on this Steven Cohen:
http://eastwestaccord.com/podcast-stephen-f-cohen-talks-russia-israel-middle-east-diplomacy-steele-unger/
) As I have argued elsewhere Putin has been under tremendous pressure to act more decisively
against the neo-Nazis in Kiev. (see Vlad Brovkin: On Russian Assertiveness in Foreign Policy. (
http://eastwestaccord.com/?s=brovkin&submit=Search
)
With a little bit of patience and good will a compromise is possible on Ukraine through Minsk
accords. Moreover, Ukraine is not in NATO and as long as it is not admitted to NATO, a deal with
the Russians on Ukraine is feasible. Just like so many other pro-American governments, Ukraine wants
to milk Uncle Sam for what it is worth. They expect to be paid for being anti/Russian. (See discussion
on need of enemy:
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/does-america-need-enemy-18106
) Would it not be a better policy to let Ukraine know that they are on their own: no more subsidies,
no more payments? Mend your relations with Russia yourselves. Then peace would immediately prevail.
If we admit that there is no Russian aggression and that this myth was propagated by the Neo/Cons
with the specific purpose to return to the paradigm of the cold war, i.e. more money for the military
industrial complex, if we start thinking boldly as Trump has begun, we should say to the Europeans:
go ahead, build your own European army to allay your fears of the Russians. Europe is strong enough,
rich enough and united enough to take care of its defense without American assistance. (See discussion
of Trumps agenda:
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/course-correction-18062
)
So, if Trump restructures procurement mess, reduces the number of military bases overseas, and
invests in high tech research and development for the military on the basis of real competition,
hundreds of billions of dollars could be saved and the defense capability of the country would increase.
... ... ...
Dr. Brovkin is a historian, formerly a Harvard Professor of History. He has published several
books and numerous articles on Russian History and Politics. Currently, Dr. Brovkin works and lives
in Marrakech, Morocco.
This is a bit too much, Volodya. Maybe you should've taken one subject – globalization, for
example – and stop there.
This is an interesting question: is it possible to contain neoliberal globalization by
building walls, rejecting 'trade' agreement, and so on. I get the feeling that a direct attack
may not work. Water will find a way, as they say. With a direct attack against globalization,
what you're likely to face is major capital flight.
You might be able to make neoliberal globalization work for you (for your population, that
is), like Germany and the Scandinavians do, but that's a struggle, constant struggle. And it's
a competition; it will have to be done at the expense of other nations (see Greece, Portugal,
Central (eastern) Europe). And having an anti-neoliberal president is not enough; this would require
a major change, almost a U turn, in the whole governing philosophy. Forget the sanctity of 'free
market', start worshiping the new god: national interest
What an INTERESTING article -- So much that is right, so much that is wrong. An article you
can get your teeth into.
On globalisation: pretty spot-on (although I believe he exaggerates the US weakness in what he
calls "preconditions": there are still many well educated Americans, still good neighborhoods
(yes, sure it could be a lot better). He's against NAFTA & other neoliberal Trade self indulgences.
But then we come to his concept of "Sovietization" of the US. Perhaps it's mere semantics, but
I find the concept incoherent & suspiciously adapted to deliberately agitate US conservatives.
Example: "huge sectors of American economy are not private at all, that in fact they have been
slowly taken over by an ever growing state ownership and control"
This is nonsense on its face: the government spews out trillions to private actors to provide
goods & services. It does so, in part, because it has systematically privatized every government
function capable of returning a profit. The author can't see the actor behind the mask: how much
legislation is now written by & for the benefit of private interests ? (Obama care, Bush pharmaceutical
laws ?)
Of course, the author is correct on the US military-industrial complex: it is a sump of crime
& corruption. Yet he seems not to grasp that the problem is regulative capture. How is the Fiasco
of the F35 & MacDonald Douglas merely an issue for the Legislature alone & how does this circus
resemble the Soviet Union, beyond the fact that BOTH systems (like most systems) are capable of
gross negligence & corruption ?
I like what the author says about NATO, Japan, bases etc. Although he's a little naive if he
thinks NATO for instance is about "protecting" Europe. Yes, that's a part of it: but primarily
NATO etc exist as a tool/mask behind which the US can exert it's imperial ambitions against friend
& for alike.
The author does go off against welfare well that's to be expected: sadly I don't think he quite
gets the connection between globalisation & welfare .He also legitimately goes after tertiary
education, but seems to be (again) confused as to cause & effect.
The author is completely spot on with his sovietization analogy when he comes to the US security
state. Only difference between the Soviets & the US on security totalitarianism ? The US is much
better at it (of course the US has technological advantages unimaginable to the Soviets)
• Replies:
@Randal I agree with you that it's a fascinating piece, and I also agree with many of the points
you agree with.
But then we come to his concept of "Sovietization" of the US. Perhaps it's mere semantics, but
I find the concept incoherent & suspiciously adapted to deliberately agitate US conservatives.
Example: "huge sectors of American economy are not private at all, that in fact they
have been slowly taken over by an ever growing state ownership and control"
This is nonsense on its face: the government spews out trillions to private actors to provide
goods & services. It does so, in part, because it has systematically privatized every government
function capable of returning a profit. The author can't see the actor behind the mask: how much
legislation is now written by & for the benefit of private interests ? (Obama care, Bush pharmaceutical
laws ?)
I think part of the problem here might be a mistaken focus on "the government" as an independent
actor, when in reality it is just a mechanism whereby the rulers (whether they are a dictator,
a political party or an oligarchy or whatever), and those with sufficient clout to influence them,
get things done the way they want to see them done.
As such there is really not much difference between the government directly employing the people
who do things (state socialism), and the government paying money to companies to get the same
things done. Either way, those who use the government to get things done, get to say what gets
done and how. There are differences of nuance, in terms of organizational strengths and weaknesses,
degrees of corruption and of efficiency, but fundamentally it's all big government.
A more interesting question might be - how really different are these big government variants
from the small government systems, in which the rulers pay people directly to get things done
the way they want them to be done?
An excellent article. The points that resonated the most were:
For businesses to stay or come back to the US, companies must have educated labor force,
steady supply of talented, well-educated young people, excellent schools, and safe neighborhoods,
among other things. As of now most of these preconditions are missing.
This is an enormously difficult problem that will take years to resolve, and it will need a
rethink of education from the ground up + the political will to fight the heart of Cultural Bolshevism
and the inevitable 24/7 Media assault.
Drain the swamp in Washington: ban the lobbyists, make it a crime to lobby for private interest
in a public place, restructure procurement, introduce real competition, restore capitalism,
phase out any government subsidies to Universities, force them to compete for students, force
hospitals to compete for patients. Cut cut cut expenditure everywhere possible, including welfare.
Banning lobbyists should be possible but draining the rest of the swamp looks really complicated.
Each area would need to be examined from the ground up from a value for money – efficiency viewpoint.
It doesn't matter which philosophy each one is run on – good value healthcare is desirable whichever
system produces it.
Could we have ever imagined in our worst dreams that a system of mass surveillance would
be created and perfected in the USA. (see discussion on this in: Surveillance State, in
http://www.americamagazine.org/issue/surveillance-state
This one should be easy. The Constitution guarantees a right to privacy so just shut down the
NSA. Also shut down the vast CIA mafia (it didn't exist prior to 1947) and the expensive and useless
FED (controlling the money supply isn't the business of a group of private banks – an office in
the Treasury could easily match the money supply to economic activity).
This one should be easy. The Constitution guarantees a right to privacy so just shut down the
NSA. Also shut down the vast CIA mafia (it didn't exist prior to 1947) and the expensive and useless
FED (controlling the money supply isn't the business of a group of private banks – an office in
the Treasury could easily match the money supply to economic activity).
From Unz, I have learned that the US actually has a four-part government: the "Deep State"
part which has no clear oversight from any of the other three branches.
To put it in Marxist terms the interests of American society to survive and prosper came
into contradiction with the interests of capitalism as a system of production and with the
capitalists as a class who has no homeland, and for whom homeland is where it is easier to
make money.
Another add-on contradiction, comrade, is that the selfsame capitalist class expect their host
nation to defend their interests whenever threatened abroad. This entails using the resources
derived from the masses to enforce this protection including using the little people as cannon
fodder when deemed useful.
Donald Trump is the first top ranking politician who has realized this simple fact.
Come now, do you really believe that all these politicians who have gone to these world-class
schools don't know this? They simply don't care. They're working on behalf of the .1% who are
their benefactors and who will make them rich. They did not go into politics to take vows of poverty.
They just realize the need to placate the masses with speeches written by professional speechwriters,
that's all.
Insofar as Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid goes, those are the most democratic institutions
of all. It's money spent on ourselves, internally, with money being cycled in and out at the grassroots
level. Doctors, nurses, home-care providers, etc etc, all local people get a piece of the action
unlike military spending which siphons money upwards to the upper classes.
I'd rather be employed in a government job than unemployed in the private sector. That's not
the kind of "freedom" I'm searching for comrade.
@animalogic What an INTERESTING article -- So much that is right, so much that is wrong. An
article you can get your teeth into.
On globalisation: pretty spot-on (although I believe he exaggerates the US weakness in what
he calls "preconditions": there are still many well educated Americans, still good neighborhoods
(yes, sure it could be a lot better). He's against NAFTA & other neoliberal Trade self indulgences.
But then we come to his concept of "Sovietization" of the US. Perhaps it's mere semantics, but
I find the concept... incoherent...& suspiciously adapted to deliberately agitate US conservatives.
Example: "huge sectors of American economy are not private at all, that in fact they
have been slowly taken over by an ever growing state ownership and control"
This is nonsense on its face: the government spews out trillions to private actors to provide
goods & services. It does so, in part, because it has systematically privatized every government
function capable of returning a profit. The author can't see the actor behind the mask: how much
legislation is now written by & for the benefit of private interests ? (Obama care, Bush pharmaceutical
laws ?)
Of course, the author is correct on the US military-industrial complex: it is a sump of crime
& corruption. Yet he seems not to grasp that the problem is regulative capture. How is the Fiasco
of the F35 & MacDonald Douglas merely an issue for the Legislature alone...& how does this circus
resemble the Soviet Union, beyond the fact that BOTH systems (like most systems) are capable of
gross negligence & corruption ?
I like what the author says about NATO, Japan, bases etc. Although he's a little naive if he
thinks NATO for instance is about "protecting" Europe. Yes, that's a part of it: but primarily
NATO etc exist as a tool/mask behind which the US can exert it's imperial ambitions ...against
friend & for alike.
The author does go off against welfare...well that's to be expected: sadly I don't think he quite
gets the connection between globalisation & welfare....He also legitimately goes after tertiary
education, but seems to be (again) confused as to cause & effect.
The author is completely spot on with his sovietization analogy when he comes to the US security
state. Only difference between the Soviets & the US on security totalitarianism ? The US is much
better at it (of course the US has technological advantages unimaginable to the Soviets)
I agree with you that it's a fascinating piece, and I also agree with many of the points you
agree with.
But then we come to his concept of "Sovietization" of the US. Perhaps it's mere semantics,
but I find the concept incoherent & suspiciously adapted to deliberately agitate US conservatives.
Example: "huge sectors of American economy are not private at all, that in fact they have been
slowly taken over by an ever growing state ownership and control"
This is nonsense on its face: the government spews out trillions to private actors to provide
goods & services. It does so, in part, because it has systematically privatized every government
function capable of returning a profit. The author can't see the actor behind the mask: how
much legislation is now written by & for the benefit of private interests ? (Obama care, Bush
pharmaceutical laws ?)
I think part of the problem here might be a mistaken focus on "the government" as an independent
actor, when in reality it is just a mechanism whereby the rulers (whether they are a dictator,
a political party or an oligarchy or whatever), and those with sufficient clout to influence them,
get things done the way they want to see them done.
As such there is really not much difference between the government directly employing the people
who do things (state socialism), and the government paying money to companies to get the same
things done. Either way, those who use the government to get things done, get to say what gets
done and how. There are differences of nuance, in terms of organisational strengths and weaknesses,
degrees of corruption and of efficiency, but fundamentally it's all big government.
A more interesting question might be – how really different are these big government variants
from the small government systems, in which the rulers pay people directly to get things done
the way they want them to be done?
"Egyptian police arrest five people for using children to stage fake 'Aleppo' footage
Amateurish photos and video taken at demolition site show little girl with red stains on a white
dress and bandages being interviewed about life in the war-torn Syrian city"
You just have to bluster through it, b, and shout "Yellow Cake! Yellow Cake! Yellow Cake!!"
Bush Jrs administration was much more experienced than Trump's, yet brought on the greatest defeat
in US history, 'let's rolled' two failed $4T oil wars, killed millions of innocents in the greatest
war crimes holocaust in the 21stC, turned the whole world against 'the shining beacon (sic) of FreedomTM
(sicker), and allowed the greatest economic crisis in US history to wipe out everyone's 401Ks and
home equity, then loaned it all back to us QEn, with interest-only payments, forever, stolen our
of our SS/MC TRUST FUND. That's an
incredible record
for two multi-$M war criminals, who are
still walking around, free as jay-birds.
And in exactly ONE MONTH, it will all be on Trump and the Republicans, 100%. Nobody left to blame,
as the Goldmanauts crush our 401ks and all our life savings, and their Pretorianims launch the Final
Crusade of Moloch.
"I can't
tell you where all the money went!" Benhamin
Juannie @ 16, You say Putin is the leading moral & ideological voice of his time. I'll leave
the "moral" aside for the moment. His ideology is to applaud the IMF, the WTO, and the UN-- all
Western controlled. Even if they were not Western-controlled they are the first three floors of
the global governance edifice which usurps national sovereignties, preventing the emergence of
any variant of democracy. Not long ago Putin wanted to join EU and NATO, not disband them.
Russia's development continues hostage to the international banking cabal, as her issuance
of her own currency & credits is limited by the Fed/IMF rules under which her Central Bank has
no function except to support the dollar-ruble conversion rate, and the Central Bank "reserves"
may not even be used as collateral. let alone as capital. So Russia is not truly owner of her
own "reserves".
Putin's ideology is to support every institution of the emerging global oligarchy. Including
the neoliberal economics of Russian austerity and the privatization of remaining State assets.
He is demonized so that you will exclude from your mind the possibility that the Russian oligarchs
are in substantial cooperation w the Western ones in producing the NWO.
It is not very different than the MSM demonizing Trump as a way to establish him as an "outsider,"
a person against the establishment.
If only you could acknowledge that heavy aircraft parts that fall from the sky must gouge holes
in the sand of the Sinai and the soft farmland of the Donbass. Indeed the engines must half-bury
themselves, as in real plane crashes, shown here
http://killtown.911review.org/flight93/crash-comparisons.html
what the impact craters of real plane crashes look like.
In the Sinai "crash" and the MH17 hoax there had to be collusion between the West and the Russian
govt.
The never-Trumpers are never going to surrender the myth that Russian President Vladimir Putin
ordered the hacking of Hillary Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and the Democratic National
Committee to defeat Clinton and elect Donald Trump.
Their investment in the myth is just too huge.
For Clinton and her campaign, it is the only way to explain how they booted away a presidential
election even Trump thought he had lost in November. To the mainstream media, this is the smoking
gun in their Acela Corridor conspiracy to delegitimize Trump's presidency.
Incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer sees Russian hacking as a way to put a cloud over
the administration before it begins. But it is the uber-hawks hereabouts who are after the really
big game.
They seek to demonize Putin as the saboteur of democracy - someone who corrupted an American presidential
election to bring about victory for a "useful idiot" whom Clinton called Putin's "puppet."
If the War Party can convert this "fake story" into the real story of 2016, then they can scuttle
any Trump effort to attain the rapprochement with Russia that Trump promised to try to achieve.
If they can stigmatize Trump as "Putin's president" and Putin as America's implacable enemy, then
the Russophobes are back in business.
Nor is the War Party disguising its goal.
Over the weekend, Sen. John McCain called for a congressional select committee to investigate
Russian hacking into the Clinton campaign. The purpose of the investigations, said Sen. Lindsey Graham,
"is to put on President Trump's desk crippling sanctions against Russia."
"They need to pay a price," Graham chortled on Twitter.
"Crippling sanctions" would abort any modus vivendi, any deal with Russia, before Trump could
negotiate one. Trump would have to refuse to impose them - and face the firestorm to follow. The
War Party is out to dynamite any detente with Russia before it begins.
Among the reasons Trump won is that he promised to end U.S. involvement in the costly, bloody
and interminable wars in the Middle East the Bushites and President Barack Obama brought us - and
the neocons relish - and to reach a new understanding with Russia and Putin.
But to some in Washington, beating up on Russia is a conditioned reflex dating to the Cold War.
For others in the media and the front groups called think tanks, Russophobia is in their DNA.
Though Julian Assange says WikiLeaks did not get the emails from Russia, this has to be investigated.
Did Russia hack the DNC's email system and John Podesta's email account? Did Putin direct that the
emails be provided to WikiLeaks to disrupt democracy or defeat Clinton?
Clinton says Putin has had it in for her because he believes she was behind the anti-Putin demonstrations
in Moscow in 2011.
But if there is to be an investigation of clandestine interference in the politics and elections
of foreign nations, let's get it all out onto the table.
The CIA director and his deputies should be made to testify under oath, not only as to what they
know about Russia's role in the WikiLeaks email dumps but also about who inside the agency is behind
the leaks to The Washington Post designed to put a cloud over the Trump presidency before it begins.
Agents and operatives of the CIA should be subjected to lie detector tests to learn who is leaking
to the anti-Trump press.
Before any congressional investigation, President-elect Trump should call in his new director
of the CIA, Rep. Mike Pompeo, and tell him to run down and remove, for criminal misconduct, any CIA
agents or operatives leaking secrets to discredit his election.
Putin, after all, is not an American. The CIA saboteurs of the Trump presidency are. Will the
media investigate the leakers? Not likely, for they are the beneficiaries of the leaks and co-conspirators
of the leakers.
The top officials of the CIA and Carl Gershman, president of the National Endowment for Democracy,
should be called to testify under oath. Were they behind anti-Putin demonstrations during the Russian
elections of 2011?
Did the CIA or NED have a role in the "color-coded" revolutions to dump over pro-Russian governments
in Moscow's "near abroad"?
If Russia did intrude in our election, was it payback for our intrusions to bring about regime
change in its neighborhood?
What role did the CIA, the NED and John McCain play in the overthrow of the democratically elected
government of Ukraine in 2014? McCain was seen cheering on the crowds in Independence Square in Kiev.
Trump has promised a more hopeful foreign policy than that of the Republicans he denounced and
is succeeding. No more wars where vital interests are not imperiled. No more U.S. troops arriving
as first responders for freeloading allies.
The real saboteurs of his new foreign policy may not be inside the Ring Road in Moscow; rather,
they may be inside the Beltway around D.C.
The real danger may be that a new Trump foreign policy could be hijacked or scuttled by anti-Trump
Republicans, not only on Capitol Hill but inside the executive branch itself.
"... But "bastard neoliberalism" that Trump represents in his internal economic policy probably is not a solution for the nations problems. It is too early to say what will be the level of his deviation from election promises, but judging for his appointments it probably will be considerable -- up to a complete reverse on certain promises. ..."
"... So I view his election as the next logical step (after the first two by Bush II and Obama) toward military dictatorship. Previous forms of "Inverted totalitarism" -- a neoliberal version of Bolshevism (or, more correctly, Trotskyism -- many neocons were actually former Trotskyites ) seems to stop working. Neoliberal ideology was discredited in 2008. All three: Bolshevism, Trotskyism and neoliberalism might also be viewed as just different flavors of Corporatism. ..."
"... After 2008 crisis, neoliberalism in the USA continues to exist in zombie state: as a non-dead dead, so it will be inevitably replaced by something else. Much like Bolshevism after 1945. How soon it will happen and what will be the actual trigger (the next oil crisis which turns into another round of Great Recession?) and what will be the successor is anybody guess. Bolshevism in the USSR lasted till 1991 or 46 years. The victory on neoliberalism in the Cold War was in 1991 so if we add 50 years then 2041 might be the date. ..."
I think the shift from New Deal Capitalism to neoliberalism proved to be fatal for the form
of democracy that used to exist in the USA (never perfect, and never for the plebs).
Neoliberalism as a strange combination of socialism for the rich and feudalism for the poor
is anathema for democracy even for the narrow strata of the US society who used to have a say
in the political process. Like Bolshevism was dictatorship of nomenklatura under the slogan of
"Proletarians of all countries, unite!", neoliberalism is more like dictatorship of financial
oligarchy under the slogan "The financial elite of all countries, unite!")
In this sense Trump is just the logical end of the process that started in 1980 with Reagan,
or even earlier with Carter.
And at the same time [he is] the symptom of the crisis of the system, as large swats of population
this time voted against status quo and that created the revolutionary situation when the elite
was unable to govern in the old fashion. That's why, I think, Hillary lost and Trump won.
But "bastard neoliberalism" that Trump represents in his internal economic policy probably
is not a solution for the nations problems. It is too early to say what will be the level of his
deviation from election promises, but judging for his appointments it probably will be considerable
-- up to a complete reverse on certain promises.
So I view his election as the next logical step (after the first two by Bush II and Obama)
toward military dictatorship. Previous forms of "Inverted totalitarism" -- a neoliberal version
of Bolshevism (or, more correctly, Trotskyism -- many neocons were actually former Trotskyites
) seems to stop working. Neoliberal ideology was discredited in 2008. All three: Bolshevism, Trotskyism
and neoliberalism might also be viewed as just different flavors of Corporatism.
After 2008 crisis, neoliberalism in the USA continues to exist in zombie state: as a non-dead
dead, so it will be inevitably replaced by something else. Much like Bolshevism after 1945. How
soon it will happen and what will be the actual trigger (the next oil crisis which turns into
another round of Great Recession?) and what will be the successor is anybody guess. Bolshevism
in the USSR lasted till 1991 or 46 years. The victory on neoliberalism in the Cold War was in
1991 so if we add 50 years then 2041 might be the date.
And the slide toward military dictatorship does not necessary need to take a form of junta,
which takes power via coup d'état. The control of the government by three letter agencies ("national
security state") seems to be sufficient, can be accomplished by stealth, and might well be viewed
as a form of military dictatorship too. So it can be a gradual slide: phase I, II, III, etc.
The problem here as with Brezhnev socialism in the USSR is the growing level of degeneration
of elite and the growth of influence of deep state, which includes at its core three letter agencies.
As Michail Gorbachev famously said about neoliberal revolution in the USSR "the process already
started in full force". He just did not understand at this point that he already completely lost
control over neoliberal "Perestroika" of the USSR. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perestroika
In a way, the US Presidents are now more and more ceremonial figures that help to maintain
the illusion of the legitimacy of the system. Obama is probably the current pinnacle of this process
(which is reflected in one of his nicknames -- "teleprompter" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/obama-photo-caption-contest-teleprompter_n_1821154.html)
.
You probably could elect a dog instead of Trump and the US foreign policy will stay exactly
the same. This hissy fits about Russians that deep state gave Trump before December 19, might
be viewed as a warning as for any potential changes in foreign policy.
As we saw with foreign policy none of recent presidents really fully control it. They still
are important players, but the question is whether they are still dominant players. My impression
is that it is already by-and-large defined and implemented by the deep state. Sometimes dragging
the President forcefully into the desirable course of actions.
We should not expect the truth from the corrupted establishment who fiercely fought Bernie Sanders,
for example. We should expect it from someone who supported him. Indeed, the Congresswoman Tulsi
Gabbard, who resigned as DNC vice-chair on February 28, 2016, in order to endorse Bernie Sanders
for the Democratic presidential nomination, and actually was the first female US Representative to
endorse Sanders, 'dared' to introduce bill so that the US to stop arming terrorists!
Her words left no doubt of who is behind the dirty war in Syria and the chaos in the Middle East:
Mr. speaker, under US law, it is illegal for you, or me, or any American, to provide any
type of assistance to Al-Qaeda, ISIS, or other terrorist groups. If we broke this law, we'll be
thrown in jail.
Yet the US government has been violating this law for years, directly and indirectly supporting
allies and partners of groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS, with money, weapons, intelligence and other
support in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government .
A recent NY Times article, confirmed that rebel groups supported by the US 'have entered
into battlefield alliances with the affiliate of al-Qaeda in Syria, formerly known as al Nusra.'
The Wall Street Journal reports that rebel groups are 'doubling down on their alliance with al-Qaeda'.
This alliance has rendered the phrase 'moderate rebels' meaningless .
We must stop this madness.We must stop arming terrorists .
I'm introducing the Stop Arming Terrorists act today, to prohibit taxpayer dollars for being
used to support terrorists.
Speaking on
CNN , Gabbard specifically named CIA as the agency that supports terrorist groups in
the Middle East:
The US government has been providing money, weapons, intel. assistance and other types of
support through the CIA, directly to these groups that are working with and are affiliated with
Al-Qaeda and ISIS.
Also, Gabbard specifically named the allies through which the US assist these terrorist groups:
We've also been providing that support through countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar
...
Speaking
on NPR , Gabbard explained that she was working on the issue of the US interventionist,
regime-change wars for years since she has been in Congress. Therefore, her position coincides with
that of Donald Trump who repeatedly declared his opposition to these wars. This was also the main
reason for which she endorsed Bernie Sanders:
SIMON: You and President-elect Trump are obviously of different parties. But don't you kind
of have the same position on Syria?
GABBARD: I have heard him talk about his opposition to continuing interventionist, regime-change
wars. I want to be clear, though, that this is an issue that I have been working on for years
since I have been in Congress. And it's one...
SIMON: It's why you endorsed Senator Sanders, isn't it?
GABBARD: It's - correct. It was a clear difference between Senator Sanders and Secretary
Clinton. I am hopeful that this new administration coming in will change these policies so that
we don't continue making these destructive decisions, as have been made in the past.
This is really a unique moment, showing the absolute failure of the US obsolete, dirty policies
and the degree of degeneration of the 'idealistic' picture of the Unites States as the number one
global power. We can't remember any moment in the past in which a congressman was seeking to pass
a bill to prohibit the US government funding terrorists, or, a newly elected president who, in his
campaigns, was stating clearly that the previous administration created many terrorist groups.
"... What we ordinary folk think of as "American" interests are those interests as expressed by an entrenched foreign policy establishment to which the price of admission isn't only graduate studies in an expensive university. No, you have to walk within the lines. There's nothing as old under the sun as "group-think". ..."
"... he served a purpose when he diverged from long established consensus and said that maybe, just maybe, getting on with the Russians might not be that hard. Or that NATO is an out-dated, dead-weight non-alliance of the unwilling. Or that border-less trade ruined heartland America. ..."
The way things are supposed to work on this planet is like this: in the United States, the power
structures (public and private) decide what they want the rest of the world to do. They communicate
their wishes through official and unofficial channels, expecting automatic cooperation. If cooperation
is not immediately forthcoming, they apply political, financial and economic pressure. If that still
doesn't produce the intended effect, they attempt regime change through a color revolution or a military
coup, or organize and finance an insurgency leading to terrorist attacks and civil war in the recalcitrant
nation. If that still doesn't work, they bomb the country back to the stone age. This is the way
it worked in the 1990s and the 2000s, but as of late a new dynamic has emerged.
In the beginning it was centered on Russia, but the phenomenon has since spread around the world
and is about to engulf the United States itself. It works like this: the United States decides what
it wants Russia to do and communicates its wishes, expecting automatic cooperation. Russia says "Nyet."
The United States then runs through all of the above steps up to but not including the bombing campaign,
from which it is deterred by Russia's nuclear deterrent. The answer remains "Nyet." One could perhaps
imagine that some smart person within the US power structure would pipe up and say: "Based on the
evidence before us, dictating our terms to Russia doesn't work; let's try negotiating with Russia
in good faith as equals." And then everybody else would slap their heads and say, "Wow! That's brilliant!
Why didn't we think of that?" But instead that person would be fired that very same day because,
you see, American global hegemony is nonnegotiable. And so what happens instead is that the Americans
act baffled, regroup and try again, making for quite an amusing spectacle.
The whole Edward Snowden imbroglio was particularly fun to watch. The US demanded his extradition.
The Russians said: "Nyet, our constitution forbids it." And then, hilariously, some voices in the
West demanded in response that Russia change its constitution! The response, requiring no translation,
was "Xa-xa-xa-xa-xa!" Less funny is the impasse over Syria: the Americans have been continuously
demanding that Russia go along with their plan to overthrow Bashar Assad. The unchanging Russian
response has been: "Nyet, the Syrians get to decide on their leadership, not Russia, and not the
US." Each time they hear it, the Americans scratch their heads and try again. John Kerry was just
recently in Moscow, holding a marathon "negotiating session" with Putin and Lavrov. Above is a photo
of Kerry talking to Putin and Lavrov in Moscow a week or so ago and their facial expressions are
hard to misread. There's Kerry, with his back to the camera, babbling away as per usual. Lavrov's
face says: "I can't believe I have to sit here and listen to this nonsense again." Putin's face says:
"Oh the poor idiot, he can't bring himself to understand that we're just going to say 'nyet' again."
Kerry flew home with yet another "nyet."
What's worse, other countries are now getting into the act. The Americans told the Brits exactly
how to vote, and yet the Brits said "nyet" and voted for Brexit. The Americans told the Europeans
to accept the horrendous corporate power grab that is the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
(TTIP), and the French said "nyet, it shall not pass." The US organized yet another military coup
in Turkey to replace Erdoǧan with somebody who won't try to play nice with Russia, and the Turks
said "nyet" to that too. And now, horror of horrors, there is Donald Trump saying "nyet" to all sorts
of things-NATO, offshoring American jobs, letting in a flood of migrants, globalization, weapons
for Ukrainian Nazis, free trade
The corrosive psychological effect of "nyet" on the American hegemonic psyche cannot be underestimated.
If you are supposed to think and act like a hegemon, but only the thinking part still works, then
the result is cognitive dissonance. If your job is to bully nations around, and the nations can no
longer be bullied, then your job becomes a joke, and you turn into a mental patient. The resulting
madness has recently produced quite an interesting symptom: some number of US State Department staffers
signed a letter, which was promptly leaked, calling for a bombing campaign against Syria in order
to overthrow Bashar Assad. These are diplomats. Diplomacy is the art of avoiding war by talking.
Diplomats who call for war are not being exactly diplomatic. You could say that they are incompetent
diplomats, but that wouldn't go far enough (most of the competent diplomats left the service during
the second Bush administration, many of them in disgust over having to lie about the rationale for
the Iraq war). The truth is, they are sick, deranged non-diplomatic warmongers. Such is the power
of this one simple Russian word that they have quite literally lost their minds.
But it would be unfair to single out the State Department. It is as if the entire American body
politic has been infected by a putrid miasma. It permeates all things and makes life miserable. In
spite of the mounting problems, most other things in the US are still somewhat manageable, but this
one thing-the draining away of the ability to bully the whole world-ruins everything. It's mid-summer,
the nation is at the beach. The beach blanket is moth-eaten and threadbare, the beach umbrella has
holes in it, the soft drinks in the cooler are laced with nasty chemicals and the summer reading
is boring and then there is a dead whale decomposing nearby, whose name is "Nyet." It just ruins
the whole ambiance!
The media chattering heads and the establishment politicos are at this point painfully aware of
this problem, and their predictable reaction is to blame it on what they perceive as its ultimate
source: Russia, conveniently personified by Putin. "If you aren't voting for Clinton, you are voting
for Putin" is one recently minted political trope. Another is that Trump is Putin's agent. Any public
figure that declines to take a pro-establishment stance is automatically labeled "Putin's useful
idiot." Taken at face value, such claims are preposterous. But there is a deeper explanation for
them: what ties them all together is the power of "nyet." A vote for Sanders is a "nyet" vote: the
Democratic establishment produced a candidate and told people to vote for her, and most of the young
people said "nyet." Same thing with Trump: the Republican establishment trotted out its Seven Dwarfs
and told people to vote for any one of them, and yet most of the disenfranchised working-class white
people said "nyet" and voted for Snow White the outsider.
It is a hopeful sign that people throughout the Washington-dominated world are discovering the
power of "nyet." The establishment may still look spiffy on the outside, but under the shiny new
paint there hides a rotten hull, with water coming in though every open seam. A sufficiently resounding
"nyet" will probably be enough to cause it to founder, suddenly making room for some very necessary
changes. When that happens, please remember to thank Russia or, if you insist, Putin.
NowhereMan said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 7:13:00 AM EDT
Beautiful! I'm going to start using that word in conversation now just to gauge people's
reactions. Nyet!!! I have one particularly stuffy friend who's just baffled by the Trump
phenomenon. He's an old school GOP conservative at heart who's chagrined that he's had to
abandon the grand old party in favor of HRC and can't understand for the life of him why the
"dirt people" are so enamored with Trump and Sanders. I just laugh and tell him that they're
abandoning the Dems for the same reasons that he's embracing them.
The rich and the near rich (which seems to include just about everybody these days, if only in
their imaginations) here in the US all suffer from fundamental attribution bias - the idea
that their own exceptionalism is why they are doing well - rather than realizing that it's all
mostly just the luck of the draw - or even worse - their own willingness to carry corporate
water like the good little Nazi's they are that has allowed them to temporarily advance their
station in life.
Fortunately for us all, the sun is setting on America's empire as we speak, and fevered dreams
of US hegemony for the rest of time will be short lived indeed, although homo sapiens' time
might be limited as well. If history keeps recording in the aftermath, US nuclear enabled
hegemony will be but a brief blip on the historical radar, and like the legend of Atlantis
before us, we'll be remembered chiefly as a society gone mad with our technologies, who
aspired to reach out and touch the face of god, but instead settled for embracing our many
inner devils. We won't be missed.
Happy Unicorn said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 9:26:00 AM EDT
A vote for Trump is a vote for Putin? Wouldn't THAT be nice!
Dave Stockton said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 9:36:00 AM EDT
This whole, "a vote against Hillary is a vote for Putin", is the best thing that could have
happened this election. The US population will now have a debate and get to vote on whether we
truly want to start World War Three. Hopefully the powers that be will be surprised by the
response... NYET!
Unknown said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 12:23:00 PM EDT
Nice...
Putin recently made fun of Lavrov, that he is becoming like Gromyko....
...and Gromyko was called Mr. NYET. :-)
Vyse Legendaire said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 12:37:00 PM EDT
I hope someone would volunteer to design a 'Nyet!' T-shirt on teepublic for advocates to
show their unity to the cause.
Shawn Sincoski said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 4:44:00 PM EDT
I really hope that the next time the TBTF banks need a handout, somebody, somewhere reacts
with a 'NFW' that resonates with the other plebes. Such a powerful word. But I am doubtful
that such an event will occur. With all that is going on with Hillary the house should be on
fire by now, but it is not (I am not advocating Trump by disparaging HRC). I suspect that the
coming American experience will be unique and (dis)proportionate to their apathy.
Cortes said... Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 9:01:00 PM EDT
Herbert Marcuse: The first word of freedom is "No"
Irene Parousis said... Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 6:58:00 AM EDT
BRILLIANT!!!
Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 12:12:00 AM EDT
d94c074a-53e8-11e6-947a-073bf9f943f9 said...
Excellent.
There is a minor twist: "The corrosive psychological effect of "nyet" on the American
hegemonic psyche cannot be underestimated". Probably GWB's "misunderestimated" left some local
linguistic traume in your brain popping up in your otherwise perfect comment. I guess you
meant "cannot be overestimated". Nevermind, you message is clear and convincing anyway :-)
Mister Roboto said... Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 8:07:00 AM EDT
This sums up why all the usual poppycock and folderol about why I need to vote for Hillary
that always succeeded in getting under my intellectual skin in the past is now just the mere
noise of screeching cats outside the window to me: There just comes a point where, if you have
any integrity at all, you have to say, "Nyet!"
Mark said...
Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 5:42:00 AM EDT
At some point, voting for a major party candidate is just throwing away your vote.
Roger said...
Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 7:11:00 AM EDT
I always enjoy Dmitry's blogs and the fact that he pushes the Russian perspective, as a relief
from the Russophobic drivel put out by the mainstream. However, a word of caution to the wise.
Obama, Kerry, Clinton, Trump et al. are, in fact, extremely unfunny. Charlie Chaplin lampooned
the funny little man with the moustache in the Great Dictator, xa! xa! xa! The truth came out
later. Do not be afraid of Neocon America, but please remember these are dangerous people. Be
vigilant always.
Bruno said...
Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 10:55:00 AM EDT
Loved.
And sad because Brasil didn't say NYET to the coup planted here by USA.
Unknown said...
Thursday, July 28, 2016 at 1:02:00 PM EDT
"Putin recently made fun of Lavrov, that he is becoming like Gromyko....
...and Gromyko was called Mr. NYET. :-)"
Even better, Lavrov was subsequently quoted in the press as saying "don't make me say the four
letter word".
What a tag team!
Marty said...
Friday, July 29, 2016 at 9:20:00 AM EDT
I really believe that you have hit the crux of the issue, the Neocon psychopaths are besides
themselves over the Nyets, and they find themselves to be a once powerful now toothless lion,
the are being laughed at, even by the American people.
I hope so because the worst of the bunch is Mrs. Clinton, she is just a crazy and stupid enough
to burn it all down, perhaps the only thing that would prevent her from doing so is that this
would interfere with her Diabolical Narcissistic need to be seen as the Kleptocrat she is and
to get away with being the biggest grifter in American history.
Turkey shows that they can't even organize a proper coup any more, even when they have a major
base in the country of the government to be compromised. The NeoCons must be so disappointed.
This failed coup was probably also was a big disappointment to those Fed Banksters who were
counting on looting the Bank if Turkey's 500 or so Tonnes of gold, as they did with Ukraine.
Roger said...
Friday, July 29, 2016 at 12:53:00 PM EDT
Leon Panetta sez "we know how to do this" despite an exuberant flourishing of evidence to the
contrary. But there's a glimmer of hope, even if it comes from a way down the ranks, because
there's a Col Bacevitch who begs to differ and sez "with all due respect, we DON'T know how to
do this."
You ask, know how to do WHAT exactly? Well, the topic at issue in a PBS panel discussion was
destroying the Islamic State. But knowing how to do it or NOT knowing how to do it could refer
equally to a series of monumental American foreign policy muffs. How could it be, that America
with all its military force, screws up so mightily and predictably? Because it's as Mr Orlov
asserts, there's a lot of NYETS out there and the American foreign policy establishment can't
fathom it.
But what they most crucially can't fathom is that those damn furriners have their own
interests at heart just like the Americans have their own interests. Americans from the street
level to the highest echelons view the world through Americentric lens resulting in
ludicrously distorted fun-house views of the world.
For example, why doesn't the Iranian see things the way Americans want him to? Why is it
always "nyet" coming out of Teheran? Why are Iranians so belligerent? Americans seemingly
can't comprehend that Iran is an ancient imperial power whose roots go back millennia, right
to the origins of civilization. But could it possibly be that Iranian concerns have got more
to do with goings-on in their geographic locale and pretty much nothing to do with the United
States? And that the Iranian is highly irritated that Americans stick their noses into matters
that concern Americans only tangentially or not at all? Could it be that the Iranian has his
own life pathways in age-old places that Americans know nothing about? Could it be that an
Iranian is educated in his own traditions in ancient academies that far pre-date anything on
American soil? You can replace the words "Iranian" and "Iran" with "Chinese" and "China" or
"Japanese" and "Japan" or dozens of other places and societies including "Russian" and
"Russia". American incomprehension goes deep.
Maybe some of the world is Washington-dominated. But maybe some this domination is more
apparent than real. Maybe it only seems Washington-dominated because in many of these places
there's a concordance of interests with the United States. But in most of the globe the
interests of Americans are not the same as those of the locals. And America has not got the
will nor the reach to make it otherwise.
Happy Unicorn said...
Roger: "But in most of the globe the interests of Americans are not the same as those of the
locals."
Most of the globe, including America itself! The interests of the Americans you're talking
about are usually not the same as mine or anyone's that I know ("the locals" in America). I
suspect the people of the USA who aren't brainwashed would have a lot in common with everybody
else in the world, because the first colony of any would-be empire (colony 0, let's say) is
always the country it originated from. More and more of us are saying nyet too, though the
utterance usually takes the less exotic form also enumerated by Dmitry awhile back: "No,
because we hate you."
Friday, July 29, 2016 at 3:03:00 PM EDT
flops said...
Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 7:22:00 AM EDT
In good wronglish:
There's America, Americans, USA.
And, in some point of our decolonized memory, there's Pacha Mama, our Mother Earth, the name
given to our land by the older people.
Not by chance, the unique country in Pacha Mama continents that have a pre-colonial language
as its official - Paraguay's Guarani - was the initial focus of this antidemocratic wave
attacking our countries.
We, the united states of...? What?
"Pacha Mama" is our best nyet!
Not anymore south and central americas, south and central "americans". Pacha Mama is our real
continents' name! We are The United States of Pacha Mama!
When mentioning people from brazil, angentine, chile, bolivia, peru paraguay
colombiavenezuelahaiti,surinamepanamacubamexico and so, please call us Pachamamists. That'
what we are.
Roger said...
Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 11:27:00 AM EDT
HappyUnicorn, of course you're right.
What we ordinary folk think of as "American" interests are those interests as expressed by an
entrenched foreign policy establishment to which the price of admission isn't only graduate
studies in an expensive university. No, you have to walk within the lines. There's nothing as
old under the sun as "group-think".
The lines are long established. Just think of it: globalization, off-shoring millions of jobs,
on-shoring millions of dirt-poor immigrants, legal and otherwise. Nothing warms the cockles of
the oligarch's heart like a desperate underclass.
I know Trump is a buffoon. But he served a purpose when he diverged from long established
consensus and said that maybe, just maybe, getting on with the Russians might not be that
hard. Or that NATO is an out-dated, dead-weight non-alliance of the unwilling. Or that
border-less trade ruined heartland America.
You saw the venomous reaction. A lot of people staked a career on the status-quo. Is the
best-before expired as Trump suggested? I'll bet that if it hadn't been a blustering clown
that raised it, many more people on the street would agree.
Some regional interests are historic and easily visible for example, along the Mason-Dixon
line. But even on either side of that old divide I think that the disparity is more an
artifact of opposing elites determined to not get along. Why don't they get along? Well,
there's a country to loot. You need distractions and diversions while pension funds and
treasuries are emptied.
And so we're off chasing our tails on burning problems like gender neutral washrooms.
Brilliant, don't you think? Kudos to the Obama regime for that one. And so it's God fearin',
gun packin' "conservative" versus enlightened, high-minded "progressive". What a joke, what a
con. Yet, predictably, we fell for it. You name it, school prayer, abortion, evolution, and
now washrooms, we fall for it, we always do.
Robert T. said...
Saturday, July 30, 2016 at 1:52:00 PM EDT
It would be very nice if someone could write a piece on what life in Russia, in all its
levels, is really like nowadays. I suspect that it is not just "nyet" that terrifies the
Empire, but rather what Russia herself is now increasingly coming to represent.
A lot of people, myself included, had been brought up thinking that Russia, while indeed a
superpower, isn't and cannot be on the same page as the US. But now here are reports saying
that a good and strong leader has pulled Russia out of the rut, and made things better. What's
more, this leader did it in a manner that seems antithetical to the Empire. And what's even
better is that this new Russia can't be easily rocked, like how the other countries had been
rocked and thrown into chaos. The Empire therefore is at its wit's end. If people from other
parts of the Earth, especially in those many places where democracy has failed miserably,
begin to see that there is indeed an alternative to the empirical system, won't they then
start to follow Russia's footsteps?
Headsails said... Tuesday, August 2, 2016 at 2:07:00 AM EDT
Just like a spoiled rotten child that needs to learn some manners. It needs to learn the
meaning of no. But in this case, instead of a spankng they would be chain ganged for life.
Brain Parasite Gonna Eatcha!
I've been experiencing some difficulties with commenting on the current political situation in the
US, because it's been a little too funny, whereas this is a very serious blog. But I have decided
that I must try my best. Now, these are serious matters, so as you read this, please refrain from
any and all levity and mirth.
You may have heard by now that the Russians stole the US presidential election; if it wasn't for
them, Hillary Clinton would have been president-elect, but because of their meddling we are now stuck
with Donald Trump and his 1001 oligarchs running the federal government for the next four years.
There are two ways to approach this question. One is to take the accusation of Russian hacking
of the US elections at face value, and we will certainly do that. But first let's try another way,
because it's quicker. Let's consider the accusation itself as a symptom of some unrelated disorder.
This is often the best way forward. Suppose a person walks into a doctor's office, and says, "Doctor,
I believe I have schizophrenium poisoning." Should the doctor summon the hazmat team, or check for
schizophrenia first?
And so let's first consider that this "Russians did it" refrain we keep hearing is a symptom of
something else, of which Russians are not the cause. My working hypothesis is that this behavior
is being caused by a brain parasite. Yes, this may seem outlandish at first, but as we'll see later
the theory that the Russians stole the election is no less outlandish.
Brain parasites are known to alter the behavior of the organisms they infest in a variety of subtle
ways. For instance, Toxicoplasma gondii alters the behavior of rodents, causing them to lose
fear of cats and to become attracted to the smell of cat urine, making it easy for the cats to catch
them. It also alters the behavior of humans, causing them to lavish excessive affection on cats and
to compulsively download photographs of cute kittens playing with yarn.
My hypothesis is that this particular brain parasite was specifically bioengineered by the US
to make those it infects hate Russia. I suspect that the neurological trigger it uses is Putin's
face, which the parasite somehow wires into the visual cortex. This virus was first unleashed on
the unsuspecting Ukrainians, where its effect was plain to see. This historically Russian, majority
Russian-speaking, culturally Russian and religiously Russian Orthodox region suddenly erupted in
an epidemic of Russophobia. The Ukraine cut economic ties with Russia, sending its economy into a
tailspin, and started a war with its eastern regions, which were quite recently part of Russia and
wish to become part of Russia again.
So far so good: the American bioengineers who created this virus achieved the effect they wanted,
turning a Russian region into an anti-Russian region. But as happens so often with biological agents,
it turned out to be hard to keep under control. Its next victims turned out to be NATO and the Pentagon,
whose leadership started compulsively uttering the phrase "Russian aggression" in a manner suggestive
of Tourette's Syndrome, entirely undeterred by the complete absence of evidence of any such aggression
that they could present for objective analysis. They, along with the by now fit-to-be-tied Ukrainians,
kept prattling on about "Russian invasion," waving about decades-old pictures of Russian tanks they
downloaded from their friends on Facebook.
From there the brain parasite spread to the White House, the Clinton presidential campaign, the
Democratic National Committee, and its attendant press corps, who are now all chattering away about
"Russian hacking." The few knowledgeable voices who point out that there is absolutely no hard evidence
of any such "Russian hacking" are being drowned out by the Bedlam din of the rest.
This, to me, seems like the simplest explanation that fits the facts. But to be fair and balanced,
let us also examine the other perspective: that claims of "Russian hacking" should be taken at face
value. The first difficulty we encounter is that what is being termed "Russian hacking" is not hacks
but leaks. Hacks occur where some unauthorized party breaks into a server and steals data. Leaks
occur where an insider-a "whistleblower"-violates rules of secrecy and/or confidentiality in order
to release into the public domain evidence of wrongdoing. In this case, evidence of leaking is prima
facie: Was the data in question evidence of wrongdoing? Yes. Was it released into the public domain?
Yes. Has the identity of said leaker or leakers remained secret? Yes, with good reason.
But this does not rule out hacking, because what a leaker can do, a hacker can also do, although
with difficulty. Leakers have it easy: you see evidence of wrongdoing, take umbrage at it, copy it
onto a thumb drive, smuggle it off premises, and upload it to Wikileaks through a public wifi hotspot
from an old laptop you bought off Craislist and then smashed. But what's a poor hacker to do? You
hack into server after server, running the risk of getting caught each time, only to find that the
servers contain minutes of public meetings, old press releases, backups of public web sites and-incriminating
evidence!-a mother lode of pictures of fluffy kittens playing with yarn downloaded by a secretary
afflicted with Toxicoplasma gondii .
The solution, of course, is to create something that's worth hacking, or leaking, but this is
a much harder problem. What the Russians had to do, then, was take the incorruptible, squeaky-clean
goody-two-shoes faithful public servant Hillary Clinton, infiltrate the Clinton Foundation, Hillary's
presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee, and somehow manipulate them all into
doing things that, when leaked (or hacked) would reliably turn the electorate against Clinton. Yes
Sir, Tovarishch Putin!
Those Russians sure are clever! They managed to turn the DNC into an anti-Bernie Sanders operation,
depriving him of electoral votes through a variety of underhanded practices while appealing to anti-Semitic
sentiments in certain parts of the country. They managed to manipulate Donna Brazile into handing
presidential debate questions to the Clinton campaign. They even managed to convince certain Ukrainian
oligarchs and Saudi princes to bestow millions upon the Clinton foundation in exchange for certain
future foreign policy concessions. The list of these leak-worthy Russian subterfuges goes on and
on But who can stop them?
And so clearly the Russians had to first corrupt the Clinton Foundation, the Clinton Presidential
campaign and the Democratic National Committee, just in order to render them hackworthy. But here
we have a problem. You see, if you can hack into a server, so can everyone else. Suppose you leave
your front door unlocked and swinging in the breeze, and long thereafter stuff goes missing. Of course
you can blame the neighbor you happen to like least, but then why would anyone believe you? Anybody
could have walked through that door and taken your shit. And so it is hard to do anything beyond
lobbing empty accusations at Russia as far as hacking is concerned; but the charge of corrupting
the incorruptible Hillary Clinton is another matter entirely.
Because here the ultimate Russian achievement was in getting Hillary Clinton to refer to over
half of her electorate as "a basket of deplorables," and this was no mean feat. It takes a superpower
to orchestrate a political blunder of this magnitude. This she did in front of an LGBT audience in
New York. Now, Hillary is no spring chicken when it comes to national politics: she's been through
quite a few federal elections, and she has enough experience to know that pissing off over half of
your electorate in one fell swoop is not a particularly smart thing to do. Obviously, she was somehow
hypnotized into uttering these words no doubt by a hyperintelligent space-based Russian operative.
The Russian covert operation into subverting American democracy started with the Russians sending
an agent into the hitherto unexplored hinter regions of America, to see what they are like. Hunched
over his desk, Putin whipped out a map of the US and a crayon, and lightly shaded in an area south
of the Mason-Dixon line, west of New York and Pennsylvania, and east of the Rockies.
Let me come clean. I have split loyalties. I have spent most of my life hobnobbing with transnational
elites on the East Coast, but I have also spent quite a few years working for a very large midwestern
agricultural equipment company, and a very large midwestern printing company, so I know the culture
of the land quite well. I am sure that what this Russian agent reported back is that the land is
thickly settled with white people of Anglo-Irish, Scottish, German and Slavic extraction, that they
are macho, that their women (for it is quite a male-centric culture) tend to vote same way as the
men for the sake of domestic tranquility, that they don't much like dark-skinned people or gays,
and that plenty of them view the East Coast and California as dens of iniquity and corruption, if
not modern-day Sodoms and Gomorras.
And what if Vladimir Putin read this report, and issued this order: "Get Clinton to piss them
all off." And so it was done: unbeknownst to her, using nefarious means, Hillary was programmed,
under hypnosis, to utter the phrase "a basket of deplorables." A Russian operative hiding in the
audience of LGBT activists flashed a sign triggering the program in Hillary's overworked brain, and
the rest is history. If that's what actually happened, then Putin should be pronounced Special Ops
Officer of the Year, while all the other "world leaders" should quietly sneak out the back entrance,
sit down on the ground in the garden and eat some dirt, then puke it up into their hands and rub
it into their eyes while wailing, because how on earth can they possibly ever hope to beat that?
Or we can just go back to my brain parasite theory. Doesn't it seem a whole lot more sane now?
Not only is it much simpler and more believable, but it also has certain predictive merits that the
"Russian hacking" theory lacks. You see, when there is parasitism involved, there is rarely just
one symptom. Usually, there is a whole cluster of symptoms. And so, just for the sake of comparison,
let's look at what has happened to the Ukraine since it was infected with the Ukrainian Brain Parasite,
and compare that to what is happening to the US now that the parasite has spread here too.
1. The Ukraine is ruled by an oligarch-Petro Poroshenko, the "candy king"-along with a clique
of other oligarchs who have been handed regional governorships and government ministries. And now
the US is about to be ruled by an oligarch-Trump, the "casino king"-along with a clique of other
oligarchs, from ExxonMobile to Goldman Sachs.
2. The Ukraine has repudiated its trade agreements with Russia, sending its economy into free-fall.
And now Trump is promising to repudiate, and perhaps renegotiate, a variety of trade agreements.
For a country that has run huge structural trade deficits for decades and pays for them by constantly
issuing debt this is not going to be easy or safe.
3. The Ukraine has been subjected to not one but two Color Revolutions, promoted by none other
than that odious oligarch George Soros. The US is now facing its own Color Revolution-the Purple
Revolution-paid for by that same Soros, with the goal of overturning the results of the presidential
election and derailing the inauguration of Donald Trump through a variety of increasingly desperate
ploys including paid-for demonstrations, vote recounts and attempts to manipulate the Electoral College.
4. For a couple of years now the Ukraine has been mired in a bloody and futile civil war. To this
day the Ukrainian troops (with NATO support) are lobbing missiles into civilian districts in the
east of the country, and getting decimated in return. So far, Trump's victory seems to have appeased
the "deplorables," but should the Purple Revolution succeed, the US may also see major social unrest,
possibly escalating into a civil war.
The Ukrainian Brain Parasite has devastated the Ukraine. It is by now too far gone for much of
anything to be done about it. All of the best people have left, mostly for Russia, and all that's
left is a rotten, hollow shell. But does it have to end this way for the US? I hope not!
There are, as I see it, two possibilities. One is to view those who are pushing the "Russian hacking"
or "Russian aggression" story as political adversaries. Another is to view them as temporarily mentally
ill. Yes, their brains are infected with the Ukrainian Brain Parasite, but that just means that their
opinions are to be disregarded-until they feel better. And since this particular brain parasite specifically
influences social behavior, if we refuse to reward that behavior with positive reinforcement-by acknowledging
it-we will suppress its most debilitating symptoms, eventually forcing the parasite to evolve toward
a more benign form. As with many infectious diseases, the fight against them starts with improved
hygiene-in this case, mental hygiene. And so that is my prescription: when you see someone going
on about "Russian hacking" or "Russian aggression" be merciful and charitable toward them as individuals,
because they are temporarily incapacitated, but do not acknowledge their mad ranting, and instead
try to coax them into learning to control it.
"... One bankruptcy attorney told the Detroit Metro Times he had as many as 30 cases in 2015 tied to debt from the UIA; before the automated system was implemented, he said he would typically have at most one per year with such claims. The newspaper also found claimants who were charged with fraud despite never having received a single dollar in unemployment insurance benefits. ..."
"... A pair of lawsuits were filed in 2015 against the UIA over Midas. According to a pending federal case, in which the state revealed it had discontinued using Midas for fraud determinations, the system "resulted in countless unemployment insurance claimants being accused of fraud even though they did nothing wrong". ..."
"... Blanchard told the Guardian in February that many unemployment applicants may not have realized they were even eligible to appeal against the fraud charge, due to the setup of Midas. Attorneys representing claimants have said that many refuse to ever apply for unemployment benefits again. ..."
"... Levin, who represents part of metropolitan Detroit, said in his statement that Michigan officials had to fully account for the money that has flowed into the unemployment agency's contingent fund. ..."
Michigan government
agency wrongly accused individuals in at least 20,000 cases of fraudulently seeking unemployment
payments, according to a review by the state.
The review released this week found that an automated system had erroneously accused claimants
in 93% of cases – a rate that stunned even lawyers suing the state over the computer system and faulty
fraud claims.
"It's literally balancing the books on the backs of Michigan's poorest and jobless," attorney
David Blanchard, who is pursuing a class action in federal court on behalf of several claimants,
told the Guardian on Friday.
The
Michigan unemployment insurance agency (UIA) reviewed 22,427 cases in which an automated computer
system determined a claimant had committed insurance fraud, after federal officials, including the
Michigan congressman Sander Levin, raised concerns with the system.
The review found that the overwhelming majority of claims over a two-year period between October
2013 and August 2015 were in error. In 2015, the state revised its policy and required fraud determinations
to be reviewed and issued by employees. But the new data is the first indication of just how widespread
the improper accusations were during that period .
The people accused lost access to unemployment payments, and reported facing fines as high as
$100,000. Those who appealed against the fines fought the claims in lengthy administrative hearings.
And some had their federal and state taxes garnished. Kevin Grifka, an electrician who lives
in metro Detroit, had his entire federal income tax garnished by the UIA, after it accused him of
fraudulently collecting $12,000 in unemployment benefits.
The notice came just weeks before Christmas in 2014.
"To be honest with you, it was really hard to see your wife in tears around Christmas time, when
all of this went on for me," Grifka said.
The computer system claimed that he had failed to accurately represent his income over a 13-week
period. But the system was wrong: Grifka, 39, had not committed insurance fraud.
In a statement issued on Friday, Levin called on state officials to review the remaining fraud
cases that were generated by the system before the policy revision.
"While I'm pleased that a small subset of the cases has been reviewed, the state has a responsibility
to look at the additional 30,000 fraud determinations made during this same time period," he said.
Figures released by the state show 2,571 individuals have been repaid a total of $5.4m. It's unclear
if multiple cases were filed against the same claimants.
The findings come as Michigan's Republican-led legislature passed a bill this week to use
$10m from the unemployment agency's contingent fund – which is composed mostly of fines generated
by fraud claims – to balance the state's budget. Since 2011, the balance of the contingent fund has
jumped from $3.1m to $155m, according to
a report from a Michigan house agency.
The system, known as the Michigan Integrated Data Automated System (Midas), caused an immediate
spike in claims of fraud when it was implemented in October 2013 under the state's Republican governor,
Rick Snyder, at a cost of $47m.
In the run-up to a scathing report on the system issued last year by Michigan's auditor general,
the UIA began requiring employees to review the fraud determinations before they were issued.
The fraud accusations can carry an emotional burden for claimants.
"These accusations [have] a pretty big burden on people," Grifka said. While he said the new findings
were validating and his own case had been resolved, he called for state accountability.
"There's no recourse from the state on what they're doing to people's lives. That's my biggest
problem with all of this."
Steve Gray, director of the University of Michigan law school's unemployment insurance clinic,
told the Guardian earlier this year that he routinely came across claimants facing a significant
emotional toll. As a result, he said, the clinic added the number for a suicide hotline to a referral
resource page on the program's website.
"We had just a number of clients who were so desperate, saying that they were going to lose their
house they've never been unemployed before, they didn't know," said Gray, who filed a complaint
with the US labor department in 2015 about the Midas system.
The fines can be enormous. Residents interviewed by local news outlets have highlighted fraud
penalties from the UIA
upwards of $100,000 . Bankruptcy petitions filed as a result of unemployment insurance fraud
also increased during the timeframe when Midas was in use.
One bankruptcy attorney
told the Detroit Metro Times he had as many as 30 cases in 2015 tied to debt from the UIA; before
the automated system was implemented, he said he would typically have at most one per year with such
claims. The newspaper also found claimants who were charged with fraud despite never having received
a single dollar in unemployment insurance benefits.
A pair of lawsuits were filed in 2015 against the UIA over Midas. According to a pending federal
case, in which the state revealed it had discontinued using Midas for fraud determinations, the system
"resulted in countless unemployment insurance claimants being accused of fraud even though they did
nothing wrong".
Blanchard told the Guardian in February that many unemployment applicants may not have realized
they were even eligible to appeal against the fraud charge, due to the setup of Midas. Attorneys
representing claimants have said that many refuse to ever apply for unemployment benefits again.
A spokesman for the unemployment insurance agency, Dave Murray, said it appreciated Levin's work
on the issue and said it was continuing "to study fraud determinations".
The agency had already made changes to the fraud determination process, he said, and "we appreciate
that the state legislature this week approved a bill that codifies the reforms we've set in place".
Levin, who represents part of metropolitan Detroit, said in his statement that Michigan officials
had to fully account for the money that has flowed into the unemployment agency's contingent fund.
"While I am pleased that $5m has been repaid, it strikes me as small compared to the amount of
money that was collected at the time," he said. "Only a full audit will ensure the public that the
problem has been fully rectified."
ManuSHeloma 12 Feb 2016 9:02
Another failure of Gov Snyder's administration: first Flint water, now this. What can the people
of Michigan expect next? The recall of Snyder should be automated.
stuinmichigan pepspotbib 12 Feb 2016 10:02
It's not just Snyder and his lackies. You should see the radically gerrymanderd Michigan legislature,
run by rightist extremists, directed by the Koch Brothers, the DeVos family and others, via the
ALEC program that provides them with the radical right legislation they have passed and continue
to pass. Snyder ran saying that sort of stuff was not really on his agenda, but continues to sign
it. He's either a liar, an unprincipled idiot, or both. It's bad here. And it's getting worse.
DarthPutinbot 12 Feb 2016 9:09
What the f*ck is wrong in Michigan? Split it up among the surrounding states and call it good.
Michigan destroyed Detroit and cutoff their water. Michigan deliberately poisoned the residents
of Flint. Too many Michigan lawyers are crooks or basically inept. The court system screws over
parents in divorce cases. And now, Michigan is wrongly trying to collect money from people on
trumped up fraud charges. Stop it. The federal government needs to take over the state or bust
it up.
Non de Plume 12 Feb 2016 9:23
Hell, when the system *works* it's ridiculous. Watching my Dad - who had worked continuously since
14 years old save a few months in the early 90s - sitting on hold for hours... At least once a
week, to 'prove' he still deserved money from a system he paid into. Hours is not an exaggeration.
And now this. Goddammit Lansing! How many other ways can you try to save/take money from the
poor and end up costing us so much more?!?
Bailey Wilkins stuinmichigan 12 Feb 2016 21:56
Nothing against The Guardian's reporting, but if you follow the links, you'll see FOX 17 has been
covering the story locally since last May. It's their investigation that got the attention of
all the other publications (including Detroit Metro Times.) Local papers could have done a better
job though, agreed on that.
talenttruth 12 Feb 2016 12:48
Leering, Entitled Republican bastards like Governor Snyder simply HATE poor people. And THAT is
because all such bullies are cowards, through-and-through, always selecting as their "victims"
those who can't fight back. And, since such Puritan Cretins as Snyder "Believe" that they are
rich because of their superior merit, it stands to reason (doesn't it) that "poor people" (actually,
all us Little Folk) have NO merit, because we didn't inherit a Trust Fund, Daddy's Business or
other anciently stolen wealth. These people deserve stunningly BAD Karma. Unfortunately, Karma
has its own timeline and doesn't do what seems just, on a timely basis (usually).
Jim Uicker 12 Feb 2016 13:29
With today's sophisticated algorithms, computers are used to flag insurance claims all the time.
The hit rate is usually much better than 8%. But how can they even consider automating the adjudication
of fraud? Fraud is a crime; there should be a presumption of innocence and a right to due process.
Without telling people they had a right to appeal, didn't this system violate the constitutional
rights of Michigan's most vulnerable citizens: those with no job and therefore no money to defend
themselves?
And what about the employers who paid unemployment insurance premiums month after month, expecting
the system to protect their employees from business conditions that would necessitate layoffs?
Michigan has defrauded them as well, by collecting premiums and not paying claims.
Jim Uicker 12 Feb 2016 13:51
Even if the problem with Midas can be entirely blamed on the tech workers who built and tested
the software, there is no excuse for the behavior of the Snyder administration when they became
aware of the problem. Just like the cases of legionnaires disease, where the state failed to alert
the public about the outbreak and four more people died, the Snyder administration is again trying
to sweep its mistakes under the rug.
Before taking Midas offline, the UIA refused to comment on the Metro Times investigation, and
Snyder himself artfully avoided reporters' questions after being made aware of the result of an
investigation by a local television station. Now the state only revealed that it shut down Midas
to a pending lawsuit.
The state spent $47 million dollars on a computer system and then took it offline because it
didn't work. The flaws in the system are now costing the state many millions more. This level
of secrecy is evidence of bad government. The state is supposed to be accountable to taxpayers
for that money! Even if the Snyder administration isn't responsible for all of these tragedies,
it is definitely responsible for covering them up.
Jefferson78759 12 Feb 2016 13:55
This is the GOP "governing"; treat the average person like a criminal, "save" money on essential
infrastructure like water treatment, regardless of the consequences.
I get why the 1% votes GOP but if you're an average person you're putting your financial and
physical well being on the line if you do. Crazy.
MaryLee Sutton Henry 12 Feb 2016 22:30
I was forced to plead guilty by a public defender to the UIA fraud charge & thrown in jail for
4 days without my Diabetic meds or diet in Allegan county. As it stands right now the State of
Michigan keeps sending me bills that are almost $1000 more then what the county says I own. I
have done community service, and between witholding tax refunds and payments I have paid over
$1200 on a $4300 total bill. I have literally spend hours on the phone with UIA and faxing judgements
trying to straighten this out, yet still get bills for the higher amount from UIA. Its a nightmare,
I have a misdominer, until its paid and refuse to pay no more then $50 per month until they straighten
this out. Maybe joining the class action law suit would help. Does anyone have any better ideas??
Teri Roy 13 Feb 2016 13:27
My son and I both got hit, I was able to dispute mine but he has autism and they would not dismiss
his, so at 24 yrs old he's paying back 20 grand in pentailies and interest. Just not right
Outragously Flawless 14 Feb 2016 9:42
I also received a letter stating I owe and hadn't file taxes since 2007. I had to find all of
my taxes from 2007 to 2013 my question is why did they wait over 5yrs to contact me, or is that
the set up H&R block does my taxes and they didn't have records that far back.#sneakyass government
"... Republican leaders in Congress are already sending Trump a subtle but clear warning: accept our business-as-usual Chamber of Commerce agenda or we will join Democrats to impeach you. ..."
"... Impeachment has been the goal of Democrats since the day after Trump won the election, and the Republican establishment will use the veiled threat as leverage to win concession after concession from the Trump White House. ..."
"... There are at least four Trump campaign promises which, if not dropped or severely compromised, could generate Republican support for impeachment: Trump's Supreme Court appointments, abandoning the Trans Pacific Partnership, radical rollback of Obama regulatory projects, and real enforcement of our nation's immigration laws. ..."
"... On regulatory rollback, Congress can legitimately insist on negotiating the details with Trump. But on the other three, immigration, the TPP, and Supreme Court nominees, Trump's campaign promises were so specific - and so popular - that he need not accept congressional foot-dragging. ..."
"... Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell announced this week he will oppose Trump's tax reforms. Senator Lindsey Graham is joining Democrats in sponsoring new legislation to protect the "Dreamers" from deportation after their unlawfully granted legal status and work permits expire. Senator Susan Collins will oppose any restrictions on Muslim refugees, no matter how weak and inadequate the vetting to weed out jihadists. Senator Lamar Alexander aims to protect major parts of Obamacare, despite five years of voluminous Republican promises to "repeal and replace" it if they ever had the power to do so. ..."
"... on the House side, we have the naysayer-in-chief, Speaker Paul Ryan, who refused to campaign with Donald Trump in Wisconsin, and who has vowed to obstruct Trump's most important and most popular campaign promise - an end to open borders and vigorous immigration law enforcement. ..."
"... Donald Trump won a electoral mandate to change direction and put American interests first, beginning with border security. If the congressional Republican establishment chooses to block the implementation of that electoral mandate, it would destroy not only Trump's agenda, it would destroy the Republican Party. ..."
Several months ago I was asked what advice I would give to the Trump campaign.
I said, only half joking, that he had better pick a vice presidential candidate the establishment
hates more than it hates him. That would be his only insurance against impeachment. Those drums have
already begun to beat, be it ever so subtly.
Is anyone surprised how quickly the establishment that Donald Trump campaigned against has announced
opposition to much of his policy agenda? No. But few understand that the passionate opposition includes
a willingness to impeach and remove President Trump if he does not come to heel on his America First
goals.
Ferocious opposition to Trump from the left was expected and thus surprises nobody. From the comical
demands for vote recounts to street protests by roving bands of leftist hate-mongers and condescending
satire on late-night television, hysterical leftist opposition to Trump is now part of the cultural
landscape.
But those are amusing sideshows to the main event, the Republican establishment's intransigent
opposition to key pillars of the Republican president's agenda.
Republican leaders in Congress are already sending Trump a subtle but clear warning: accept our
business-as-usual Chamber of Commerce agenda or we will join Democrats to impeach you.
If you think talk of impeachment is insane when the man has not even been sworn into office yet,
you have not been paying attention. Impeachment has been the goal of Democrats since the day after
Trump won the election, and the Republican establishment will use the veiled threat as leverage to
win concession after concession from the Trump White House.
What are the key policy differences that motivate congressional opposition to the Trump agenda?
There are at least four Trump campaign promises which, if not dropped or severely compromised, could
generate Republican support for impeachment: Trump's Supreme Court appointments, abandoning the Trans
Pacific Partnership, radical rollback of Obama regulatory projects, and real enforcement of our nation's
immigration laws.
On regulatory rollback, Congress can legitimately insist on negotiating the details with Trump.
But on the other three, immigration, the TPP, and Supreme Court nominees, Trump's campaign promises
were so specific - and so popular - that he need not accept congressional foot-dragging.
Yet, while the President-elect 's transition teams at the EPA, State Department and Education
Department are busy mapping ambitious changes in direction, Congress's Republican leadership is busy
doubling down on dissonance and disloyalty.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell announced this week he will oppose Trump's tax reforms.
Senator Lindsey Graham is joining Democrats in sponsoring new legislation to protect the "Dreamers"
from deportation after their unlawfully granted legal status and work permits expire. Senator Susan
Collins will oppose any restrictions on Muslim refugees, no matter how weak and inadequate the vetting
to weed out jihadists. Senator Lamar Alexander aims to protect major parts of Obamacare, despite
five years of voluminous Republican promises to "repeal and replace" it if they ever had the power
to do so.
And then, on the House side, we have the naysayer-in-chief, Speaker Paul Ryan, who refused to
campaign with Donald Trump in Wisconsin, and who has vowed to obstruct Trump's most important and
most popular campaign promise - an end to open borders and vigorous immigration law enforcement.
It is no exaggeration to say that Trump's success or failure in overcoming the opposition to immigration
enforcement will determine the success or failure of his presidency. If he cannot deliver on his
most prominent and most popular campaign promise, nothing else will matter very much.
So, the bad news for President Trump is this: If he keeps faith with his campaign promises on
immigration, for example to limit Muslim immigration from terrorism afflicted regions, which is within
his legitimate constitutional powers as President, he will risk impeachment. However, his congressional
critics will face one enormous hurdle in bringing impeachment charges related to immigration enforcement:
about 90 percent of what Trump plans to do is within current law and would require no new legislation
in Congress. Obama disregarded immigration laws he did not like, so all Trump has to do is enforce
those laws.
Now, if you think talk of impeachment is ridiculous because Republicans control Congress, you
are underestimating the depth of Establishment Republican support for open borders.
The first effort in the 21st century at a general amnesty for all 20 million illegal aliens came
in January 2005 from newly re-elected President George Bush. The "Gang of Eight" amnesty bill passed
by the US Senate in 2013 did not have the support of the majority of Republican senators, and now
they are faced with a Republican president pledged to the exact opposite agenda, immigration enforcement.
And yet, do not doubt the establishment will sacrifice a Republican president to protect the globalist,
open borders status quo.
The leader and spokesman for that establishment open borders agenda is not some obscure backbencher,
it is the Republican Speaker of the House. Because the Speaker controls the rules and the legislative
calendar, if he chooses to play hardball against Trump on immigration he can block any of Trump's
other policy initiatives until Trump abandons his immigration enforcement goals.
What all this points to is a bloody civil war within the Republican Party fought on the battlefield
of congressional committee votes.
Donald Trump won a electoral mandate to change direction and put American interests first, beginning
with border security. If the congressional Republican establishment chooses to block the implementation
of that electoral mandate, it would destroy not only Trump's agenda, it would destroy the Republican
Party.
"... The CIA says it has "high confidence" that Russia was trying to get Trump elected, and, according to The Washington Post, the directors of the F.B.I. and national intelligence agree with that conclusion. ..."
"... Now we come to the most reckless step of all: This Russian poodle is acting in character by giving important government posts to friends of Moscow, in effect rewarding it for its attack on the United States. ..."
"... Rex Tillerson, Trump's nominee for secretary of state, is a smart and capable manager. Yet it's notable that he is particularly close to Putin, who had decorated Tillerson with Russia's "Order of Friendship." ..."
In 1972, President Richard Nixon's White House dispatched burglars to bug Democratic Party offices. That Watergate burglary and
related "dirty tricks," such as releasing mice at a Democratic press conference and paying a woman to strip naked and shout her love
for a Democratic candidate, nauseated Americans - and impelled some of us kids at the time to pursue journalism.
Now in 2016 we have a political scandal that in some respects is even more staggering. Russian agents apparently broke into the
Democrats' digital offices and tried to change the election outcome. President Obama on Friday suggested that this was probably directed
by Russia's president, saying, "Not much happens in Russia without Vladimir Putin."
In Watergate, the break-in didn't affect the outcome of the election. In 2016, we don't know for sure. There were other factors,
but it's possible that Russia's theft and release of the emails provided the margin for Donald Trump's victory.
The CIA says it has "high confidence" that Russia was trying to get Trump elected, and, according to The Washington Post,
the directors of the F.B.I. and national intelligence agree with that conclusion.
Both Nixon and Trump responded badly to the revelations, Nixon by ordering a cover-up and Trump by denouncing the CIA and, incredibly,
defending Russia from the charges that it tried to subvert our election. I never thought I would see a dispute between America's
intelligence community and a murderous foreign dictator in which an American leader sided with the dictator.
Let's be clear: This was an attack on America, less lethal than a missile but still profoundly damaging to our system. It's not
that Trump and Putin were colluding to steal an election. But if the CIA is right, Russia apparently was trying to elect a president
who would be not a puppet exactly but perhaps something of a lap dog - a Russian poodle.
In Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair was widely (and unfairly) mocked as President George W. Bush's poodle, following him loyally
into the Iraq war. The fear is that this time Putin may have interfered to acquire an ally who likewise will roll over for him.
Frankly, it's mystifying that Trump continues to defend Russia and Putin, even as he excoriates everyone else, from CIA officials
to a local union leader in Indiana.
Now we come to the most reckless step of all: This Russian poodle is acting in character by giving important government posts
to friends of Moscow, in effect rewarding it for its attack on the United States.
Rex Tillerson, Trump's nominee for secretary of state, is a smart and capable manager. Yet it's notable that he is particularly
close to Putin, who had decorated Tillerson with Russia's "Order of Friendship."
Whatever our personal politics, how can we possibly want to respond to Russia's interference in our election by putting American
foreign policy in the hands of a Putin friend?
Tillerson's closeness to Putin is especially troubling because of Trump's other Russia links. The incoming national security adviser,
Michael Flynn, accepted Russian money to attend a dinner in Moscow and sat near Putin. A ledger shows $12.7 million in secret payments
by a pro-Russia party in Ukraine to Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort. And the Trump family itself has business connections
with Russia.
"... "Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper, and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in our presidential election," the message said, according to officials who have seen it. ..."
"... Comment: The FBI now flip-flops from its previous assessment: FBI rejects CIA assessment that Russia influenced presidential election ..."
FBI and National Intelligence chiefs both agree with the CIA assessment that Russia interfered with
the 2016 US presidential elections partly in an effort to help Donald Trump win the White House,
US media report.
FBI Director James B. Comey and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper are both convinced
that Russia was behind cyberattacks that targeted Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton
and her campaign chairman, John Podesta,
The Washington Post and reported Friday, citing a message sent by CIA Director John Brennan
to his employees.
"Earlier this week, I met separately with FBI [Director] James Comey and DNI Jim Clapper,
and there is strong consensus among us on the scope, nature, and intent of Russian interference in
our presidential election," the message said, according to officials who have seen it.
"The three of us also agree that our organizations, along with others, need to focus on completing
the thorough review of this issue that has been directed by President Obama and which is being led
by the DNI," it continued.
"... Moderate: one who carries guns and heavy weapons, terrifies and kills in pursuit of US/NATO/Gulf States/Israeli policy. ..."
"... Of course this was the action of moderates. Radical islam would have burned them when they were full of people going the other direction. I have to wonder where they get the "volunteers" to drive them. ..."
"... "Rebels" are by definition "moderates", and therefore friends of Obama, Hillary, McCain, and Lindsey Graham, and therefore DO NOT burn people. "Rebels" use fire to drive the devils out of people , which frees the people's souls up to where Jehovah can get a good look at them and ask them why they were in a bus in Aleppo instead of in a limo pulling up to CometPizza. Freeing, not burning. Big difference. ..."
While the UN condemns Syrian and Russian "atrocities" in the battle over East Aleppo, which as
noted previously was a key victory for the Assad regime in the past week, one which will end
the stalemate and sway the balance of power in the ongoing war between regime forces and US-coalition
armed rebels, little attention had been paid to the subversive tactics employed by such "moderate
rebels" as the al Qaeda linked al-Nusra front.
That may change after five buses en route to evacuate the sick and injured from two government-held
villages in Syria's Idlib province were attacked and burned by rebels.
PHOTOS: Reports coming in that an "unknown rebel group" has attacked buses going to evacuate
civilians from Kafraya and Fuah - @Ald_Aba
pic.twitter.com/7xMPhumeu5
Five buses were attacked and burned by "armed terrorists" while en route to militant-held villages
after an evacuation deal was struck between the Syrian government and rebels, Syrian state television
has reported. According to Reuters, the deal was reached earlier on Sunday, citing al-Ikhbariya TV
news. It will see the remaining militants and their families evacuated from east Aleppo in return
for the evacuation of people in militant-held villages in Idlib province, al-Foua and Kafraya.
Syrian state television has reported that five buses were attacked and burned by "armed terrorists"
while en route to al-Foua and Kefraya. However, most of them, as well as Red Crescent vehicles, reached
the entrance to the villages, the report said.
Syrian state news agency SANA reported earlier that evacuation buses had entered the last militant-held
district of eastern Aleppo, Ramousah, under the supervision of the International Committee of the
Red Cross (ICRC) and the Syrian Arab Red Cross. State television showed live footage of buses and
a van bearing a Syrian Arab Red Crescent flag parked next to a highway intersection in Ramousah .
Several large white cars marked with Red Crescent and Red Cross symbols also appeared in the footage.
As
BBC adds, the convoy was traveling to Foah and Kefraya, besieged by rebel fighters. Pro-government
forces have been demanding that people be allowed to leave the mainly Shia villages in order for
the evacuation of east Aleppo to restart, with thousands of people waiting to leave in desperate
conditions, reports say.
The initial plan to evacuate eastern Aleppo collapsed on Friday, leaving civilians stranded at
various points along the route out without access to food or shelter.
PHOTOS: Other buses have however arrived in Kafraya and Fuah -
@sayed_ridha
Despite delays caused by disagreements over the new evacuation plan, convoys were said to be traveling
to both eastern Aleppo and the government-held villages in Idlib province on Sunday. However, UK-based
monitoring group the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said six buses were attacked and torched
on the way to Foah and Kefraya.
Jaish Fateh militants have set fire to several buses that were going towards Fuah-Kafraya in
Idlib countryside pic.twitter.com/wud4CNQp1u
It had reported earlier that the "moderate rebel" group Jabhat Fatah al-Sham, formerly known as
the Nusra Front, was preventing buses entering the villages.
As a reminder, earlier in the year, Jabhat Al-Nusra, rebranded itself Jabhat Fateh Al-Sham, a
cosmetic change which was apparently sufficient to convince the US government to brand them "moderates"
and send them arms and equipment, equipment which today may have been used against innocent Syrian
citizens.
Syrian state media said "armed terrorists" attacked five buses, burned and destroyed them.
More pics of the buses which were burned by militants near Sarmin south of Binnish, Idlib
pic.twitter.com/by7g7wf5tP
Rebel groups have not yet commented on the attack. Subsequent to the attack, it was reported that
more buses have been sent to Fuah-Kafraya to replace those that were burnt, although it was unclear
if the "rebels" would allow them passage.
Meanwhile, later on Sunday, the United Nations Security Council is set to vote on a French-drafted
resolution aimed at ensuring that UN officials can monitor the evacuations from Aleppo and the safety
of the remaining civilians. Reuters reported that those evacuated on Thursday and Friday morning
had been taken to rebel-held districts in the countryside west of Aleppo.
As RT notes
, a draft of the resolution "emphasizes that the evacuations of civilians must be voluntary and
to final destinations of their choice, and protection must be provided to all civilians who choose
or who have been forced to be evacuated and those who opt to remain in their homes."
It was not immediately clear how Russia will vote. "If it is a sensible initiative and we see
it on paper, why not entertain this initiative?" Russian Ambassador to the UN Vitaly Churkin said
on Friday.
i HAVE TO ASK A QUESTION: Didn't the US back the rebels and how deep is the US ( under the Pervert
in the WH ) involved and is the US (CIA) responsible?
JUST MAKES ME SICK ... AS THOMAS JEFFERSON ONCE SAID:
"I TREMBLE FOR MY NATION WHEN I KNOW THAT GOD IS JUST AND HIS JUSTICE CANNOT SLEEP FOREVER."
While the rebels may well be connected to terrorist group, this incident does sound odd.
"State television showed live footage of buses and a van bearing a Syrian Arab Red Crescent
flag parked next to a highway intersection in Ramousah. Several large white cars marked with Red
Crescent and Red Cross symbols also appeared in the footage."
No rebel approached or attacked the state television crew? Hidden camera? Invisibility cloak?
"Moderate" Rebels. Your tax dollars at work. I hope Trump gets rid of all of the sick fucks in
our government who are behind all of this shit in the Middle East.
Meh, empires rise and fall...the Romans at Palmyra, more recently the Ottomans, "we" really don't
have a dog in the fight, from a western perspective, it was a French Mandate after the Ottomans
crashed & burned so maybe Hollande should nuke it...lol...joking of course.
Make no mistake, to me Assad Jr is the same as his daddy before him but its not our fight,
the imposed borders mean nothing to the people who actually live there, the lines are just lines
on a map and bunch of sand & rock isn't worth a war with Russia over, no matter what the west
might think of an Assad (and my opinion is clear on him) there was some structure (or order)...for
better or worse.
No one ever said "order & structure" is always angelic, its just order & structure, as opposed
to the lack of and they know that more than anyone ;-)
Of course this was the action of moderates. Radical islam would have burned them when they were
full of people going the other direction. I have to wonder where they get the "volunteers" to
drive them.
"Rebels" are by definition "moderates", and therefore friends of Obama, Hillary, McCain, and Lindsey
Graham, and therefore DO NOT burn people. "Rebels" use fire to drive the devils out of people
, which frees the people's souls up to where Jehovah can get a good look at them and ask them
why they were in a bus in Aleppo instead of in a limo pulling up to CometPizza. Freeing,
not burning. Big difference.
There are clear signs that the Neocons running the AngloZionist Empire and its
"deep state" are in a state of near panic and their actions indicate they are
truly terrified.
The home front
One the home front, the Neocons have resorted to every possible dirty trick
on the book to try to prevent Donald Trump from ever getting into the White
House: they have
organized riots and demonstrations (some paid by Soros money)
encouraged the supporters of Hillary to reject the outcome of the
elections ("not my President")
tried to threaten the Electors and make them either cast a vote for
Hillary or not vote at all
tried to convince Congress to refuse the decision of the Electoral
College and
they are now trying to get the elections annulled on the suspicion that
the (apparently almighty) Russian hackers have compromised the election
outcome (apparently even in states were paper ballots were used) and stolen
it in favor of Trump.
That is truly an amazing development, especially considering how Hillary
attacked Trump for not promising to recognize the outcome of the elections. She
specifically said that Trump's lack of guarantees to recognize the outcome
would threaten the very basis of the stability of the US political system and
now she, and her supporters, are doing everything in their power to do just
that, to throw the entire electoral process into a major crisis with no clear
path towards resolution. Some say that the Democrats are risking a civil war.
Considering that several key Republican Congressmen have said they do support
the notion of an investigation into the "Russian hackers" fairy tale, I submit
that the Republicans are doing exactly the same thing, that this is not a
Democrat vs Republican issue, but a "deep state vs The People of the USA"
issue.
Most experts agree that none of these tactics are going to work. So this
begs the question of whether the Neocons are stupid, whether they think that
they can succeed or what their true objective is.
My guess is that first and foremost what is taking place now is what always
happens when the Neocons run into major trouble: they double down, again. And
again. And again. That is one of the key characteristics of their psychological
make-up: they cannot accept defeat or, even less so, that they were wrong, so
each time reality catches up to their ideological delusions, they automatically
double-down. Still, they might rationalize this behavior by a combination of
hope that maybe one of these tricks will work, with the strong urge to do as
much damage to President-Elect Trump before he actually assumes his office. I
would never underestimate the vicious vindictiveness of these people.
What is rather encouraging is Trump's reaction to all this: after apparently
long deliberations he decided to nominate Rex Tillerson as his Secretary of
Defense. From a Neocon point of view, if General Michael Flynn was bad, then
Tillerson was truly an apocalyptic abomination: the man actually had received
the order of "
Friend of Russia
" from the hands of Vladimir Putin
himself!
Did Trump not realize how provocative this nomination was and how it would
be received by the Neocons? Of course he did! That was, on his part, a totally
deliberate decision. If so, then this is a very, very good sign.
I might be mistaken, but I get the feeling that Trump is willing to accept
the Neocon challenge and that he will fight back. For example, his reaction to
the CIA accusations about Russian hackers was very telling: he reminded
everybody that "
these are the same people that said Saddam Hussein had
weapons of mass destruction
". I think that it is now a safe bet to say that
as soon as Trump take control
heads will roll at the CIA .
[Sidebar: is it not amazing that the CIA is offering its opinion about
some supposed Russian hacking during the elections in the USA? Since when
does the CIA have any expertise on what is going on inside the USA? I
thought the CIA was only a foreign intelligence agency. And since when does
the CIA get involved in internal US politics? Yes, of course, savvy
observers of the USA have always known that the CIA was a key player in US
politics, but now the Agency apparently does not even mind confirming this
openly. I don't think that Trump will have the guts and means to do so but,
frankly, he would be much better off completely dissolving the CIA Of
course, that could get Trump killed – messing with the Fed and the CIA are
two unforgivable crimes in the USA – but then again Trump is already very
much at risk anyway, so he might as well strike first].
One the external front
On the external front, the big development is the liberation of Aleppo by
Syrian forces. In that case again, the Neocons tried to double-down: they made
all sorts of totally unsubstantiated claims about executions and atrocities
while the BBC, always willing to pick up the correct line, published an article
about
how much the situation in Aleppo is similar to what took place in Srebrenica .
Of course, there is one way in which the events in Aleppo and Srebrenica are
similar: in both cases the US-backed Takfiris lost and were defeated by
government forces and in both cases the West unleashed a vicious propaganda war
to try to turn the military defeat of its proxies into a political victory for
itself. In any case, the last-ditch propaganda effort failed and preventing the
inevitable and Aleppo was completely liberated.
ORDER IT NOW
The Empire did score one success: using the fact that most of the foreign
forces allied to the Syrians (Hezbollah, Iranian Pasdaran, Russian Spetsnaz,
etc.) were concentrated around Aleppo, the US-backed Takfiris succeeded in
breaking the will of the Syrians, many of whom apparently fled in panic, and
first surrounded and then eventually reoccupied Palmyra. This will be short
lived success as I completely agree with my friend Alexander Mercouris who says
that
Putin will soon liberate Palmyra once again, but until this happens the
reoccupation of Palmyra is rather embarrassing for the Syrians, Iranians and
Russians.
It seems exceedingly unlikely to me that the Daesh movement towards Palmyra
was undetected by the various Syrian, Iranian and Russian intelligence agencies
(at least
once source reports that Russian satellites did detect it) and I therefore
conclude that a deliberate decision was made to temporarily sacrifice Palmyra
in order to finally liberate Aleppo. Was that the correct call?
Definitely yes. Contrary to the western propaganda, Aleppo, not Raqqa, has
always been the real "capital" of the US backed terrorists. Raqqa is a
relatively small town: 220,000+ inhabitants versus 2,000,000+ for Aleppo,
making Aleppo about ten times larger than Raqqa. As for tiny Palmyra, its
population is 30,000+. So the choice between scrambling to plug the holes in
the Syrian defenses around Palmyra and liberating Aleppo was a no-brainer. Now
that Aleppo has been liberated, the city has to be secured and major
engineering efforts need to be made in order to prepare it for an always
possible Takfiri counter-attack. But it is one thing to re-take a small desert
town and quite another one to re-take a major urban center. I personally very
much doubt that Daesh & Co. will ever be in control of Aleppo again. Some
Neocons appear to be so enraged by this defeat that
they are now accusing Trump of "backing Iran" (I wish he did!).
The tiny Palmyra was given a double-function by the Neocon propaganda
effort: to eclipse the "Russian" (it was not solely "Russian" at all, but never
mind that) victory in Aleppo and to obfuscate the "US" (it was not solely "US"
at all, but never mind that) defeat in Mosul. A hard task for the tiny desert
city for sure and it is no wonder that this desperate attempt also failed: the
US lead coalition in Mosul still looks just about as weak as the Russian lead
coalition looks strong in Aleppo.
Any comparison between these two battles is simply embarrassing for the USA:
not only did the US-backed forces fail to liberate Mosul from Daesh & Co. but
they have not even full encircled the city or even managed to penetrate beyond
its furthest suburbs. There is very little information coming out of Mosul, but
after three months of combat the entire operation to liberate Mosul seems to be
an abject failure, at least for the time being. I sincerely hope that once
Trump takes office he will finally agree to work not only with Russia, but also
with Iran, to finally get Daesh out of Mosul. But if Trump delivers on his
promise to AIPAC and the rest of the Israel Lobby gang to continue to
antagonize and threaten Iran, the US can basically forget any hopes of
defeating Daesh in Iraq.
Our of despair and spite, the US propaganda vilified Russia for the killing
of civilians in Aleppo while strenuously avoiding any mention of civilian
victims in Mosul. But then, the same propaganda machine which made fun of the
color of the smoke coming out of the engines of the Russian aircraft carrier
Admiral Kuznetsov (suggesting that she was about to break down) had to eat
humble pie when it was the US navy's most expensive and newest destroyer, the
USS Zumwalt, which broke down in the Panama canal and had to be immobilzed,
while the Kuznetsov continued to do a very good job supporting Russian
operations in Syria.
Over and over again, the AngloZionist propaganda machine has failed to
obfuscate the embarrassing facts on the ground and it now clearly appears that
the entire US policy for the Middle-East is in total disarray and that the
Neocons are as clueless as they are desperate.
The countdown to January 20
th
It is pretty obvious that the Neocon reign is coming to an end in a climax
of incompetence, hysterical finger-pointing, futile attempts at preventing the
inevitable and a desperate scramble to conceal the magnitude of the abject
failure which Neocon-inspired policies have resulted in. Obama will go down in
history as the worst and most incompetent President in US history. As for
Hillary, she will be remembered as both the worst US Secretary of State the US
and the most inept Presidential candidate ever.
In light of the fact that the Neocons always failed at everything they
attempted, I am inclined to believe that they will probably also fail at
preventing Donald Trump from being sworn in. But until January 20
th
,
2017 I will be holding my breath in fear of what else these truly demented
people could come up with.
As for Trump, I still can't figure him out. On one hand he nominates Rex
Tillerson in what appears to be a deliberate message of defiance against the
Neocons, while on the other hand he continues to try to appease the Israel
Lobby gang by choosing
a rabid Zionist of the worst kind, David M. Friedman, as the next US
ambassador to Israel. Even worse then that, Donald Trump still does not appear
to be willing to recognize the undeniable fact that the US will never defeat
Daesh as long as the anti-Iranian stance of the Neocons is not replaced by a
real willingness to engage Iran and accept it as a partner and ally.
Right now the Trump rhetoric simply makes no sense: he wants to befriend
Russia while antagonizing China and he wants to defeat Daesh while threatening
Iran again. This is lunacy. Still, I am willing to give him the benefit of the
doubt, but somebody sure needs to educate him on the geopolitical realities out
there before he also end up making a total disaster of US foreign policy.
And yet, I still have a small hope.
My hope is that the latest antics of the Neocons will sufficiently aggravate
and even enrage Trump to a point where he will give up on his futile attempts
at appeasing them. Only by engaging in a systematic policy of "
de-neoconization
"
of the US political establishment will Trump have any hopes of "
making
America great again
". If Trump's plan is to appease the Neocons long enough
from him to be sworn in and have his men approved by Congress – fine. Then he
still has a chance of saving the USA from a catastrophic collapse, but only as
long as he remains determined to ruthlessly crack down on the Neocons once in
power. If his hope is to distract the Neocons by appeasing them on secondary or
minor issues, then his efforts are doomed and he will go down the very same
road as Obama who, at least superficially, initially appeared to be a
non-Neocon candidate and who ended up being a total Neocon puppet (in 2008 the
Neocons had placed their bets on McCain and they only infiltrated the Obama
Administration once McCain was defeated
Israel does not recognize the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation and is jointly planning
with Ukraine steps for its de-occupation. This was stated by President of Israel Reuven Rivlin and
the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko at a joint press conference in Kiev.
"Israel did not recognize the illegal annexation of Crimea and is not going to do either and we
have a plan to take the city back from Russia dictator club ," Rivlin said. According to him, Russia
violated international law in this matter.
Comment: What a hypocrite. When has Israel EVER had any respect for international law, unless
it expressly suits Israel.
"Mr President (of Israel) supported the joint steps aimed at the de-occupation of Crimea. For
this plan we will work together in the framework of international organizations on the basis of new
international formats, including the format of "Geneva+" with the participation of the guarantors
of the Budapest Memorandum, Israel and Ukraine", - quotes "Interfax" from the words of the President
of Ukraine.
First Bush II bankrupted the country by cutting taxes for rich and unleashing Iraq war. Then
Republicans want to cut Social Securty to pay for it
Notable quotes:
"... His nominee to run the Department of Health and Human Services, Tom Price, a Republican congressman from Georgia, has been a champion of cuts to all three of the nation's large social programs - Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. When discussing reforms to Social Security, he has ignored ways to bring new revenue into the system while emphasizing possible benefit cuts through means-testing, private accounts and raising the retirement age. ..."
"... But Mr. Price, who currently heads the House Budget Committee, has found a way to cut Social Security deeply without Congress and the president ever having to enact specific benefit cuts, like raising the retirement age. ..."
"... Mr. Trump's hands-off approach to Social Security during the campaign was partly a strategic gesture to separate him from other Republican contenders who stuck to the party line on cutting Social Security. But he also noted the basic fairness of a system in which people who dutifully contribute while they are working receive promised benefits when they retire. Unfortunately, he has not surrounded himself with people who will help him follow those instincts. ..."
Donald Trump campaigned on a promise not to cut Social Security, which puts him at odds with the
Republican Party's historical antipathy to the program and the aims of today's Republican leadership.
So it should come as no surprise that congressional Republicans are already testing Mr. Trump's hands-off
pledge.
... ... ...
As Congress drew to a close this month, Sam Johnson, the chairman of the House Social Security
subcommittee, introduced a bill that would slash Social Security benefits for all but the very poorest
beneficiaries. To name just two of the bill's benefit cuts, it would raise the retirement age to
69 and reduce the annual cost-of-living adjustment, while asking nothing in the way of higher taxes
to bolster the program; on the contrary, it would cut taxes that high earners now pay on a portion
of their benefits. Last week, Mark Meadows, the Republican chairman of the conservative House Freedom
Caucus, said the group would push for an overhaul of Social Security and Medicare in the early days
of the next Congress.
... ... ...
Another sensible reform would be to bring more tax revenue into the system by raising the level
of wages subject to Social Security taxes, currently $118,500. In recent decades, the wage cap has
not kept pace with the income gains of high earners; if it had, it would be about $250,000 today.
The next move on Social Security is Mr. Trump's. He can remind Republicans in Congress that his
pledge would lead him to veto benefit cuts to Social Security if such legislation ever reached his
desk. When he nominates the next commissioner of Social Security, he can choose a competent manager,
rather than someone who has taken sides in political and ideological debates over the program.
What Mr. Trump actually will do is unknown, but his actions so far don't inspire confidence. By law,
the secretaries of labor, the Treasury and health and human services are trustees of Social Security.
Mr. Trump's nominees to head two of these departments, Labor and Treasury - Andrew Puzder, a fast-food
executive, and Steve Mnuchin, a Wall Street trader and hedge fund manager turned Hollywood producer
- have no government experience and no known expertise on Social Security.
His nominee to run the Department of Health and Human Services, Tom Price, a Republican congressman
from Georgia, has been a champion of cuts to all three of the nation's large social programs - Medicare,
Medicaid and Social Security. When discussing reforms to Social Security, he has ignored ways to
bring new revenue into the system while emphasizing possible benefit cuts through means-testing,
private accounts and raising the retirement age.
There is no way to mesh those ideas with Mr. Trump's pledge. But Mr. Price, who currently
heads the House Budget Committee, has found a way to cut Social Security deeply without Congress
and the president ever having to enact specific benefit cuts, like raising the retirement age.
Recently, he put forth a proposal to reform the budget process by imposing automatic spending
cuts on most federal programs if the national debt exceeds specified levels in a given year. If Congress
passed Mr. Trump's proposed tax cut, for example, the ensuing rise in debt would trigger automatic
spending cuts that would slash Social Security by $1.7 trillion over 10 years, according to an analysis
by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. This works out to a cut of $168 a month
on the average monthly benefit of $1,240. If other Trump priorities were enacted, including tax credits
for private real estate development and increases in military spending, the program cuts would be
even deeper.
Mr. Trump's hands-off approach to Social Security during the campaign was partly a strategic
gesture to separate him from other Republican contenders who stuck to the party line on cutting Social
Security. But he also noted the basic fairness of a system in which people who dutifully contribute
while they are working receive promised benefits when they retire. Unfortunately, he has not surrounded
himself with people who will help him follow those instincts.
Susan Anderson is a trusted commenter Boston 1 hour ago
There is a simple solution to Social Security.
Remove the cap, so it is not a regressive tax. After all, Republicans appear to be all for
a "flat" tax. Then lower the rate for everyone.
There is no reason why it should only be charged on the part of income that is needed to pay
for necessary expenses should as housing, food, medical care, transportation, school, communications,
and such. Anyone making more than the current "cap" is actually able to afford all this.
There is no reason the costs should be born only by those at the bottom of the income pyramid.
As for Republican looting, that's just despicable, and we'll hope they are wise enough to realize
that they shouldn't let government mess with people's Social Security!
Thomas Zaslavsky is a trusted commenter Binghamton, N.Y. 1 hour ago
The idea hinted in the editorial that Trump has any principle or instinct that would lead him
to protect benefits for people who are not himself or his ultra-wealthy class is not worthy of
consideration. No, Trump has none such and he will act accordingly. (Test my prediction at the
end of 2017 or even sooner; it seems the Republicans are champing at the bit to loot the government
and the country fro their backers.)
Christine McM is a trusted commenter Massachusetts 2 hours ago
I wouldn't hold Trump to any of his campaign promises, given how often he changes positions, backtracks,
changes subjects, or whatever. His biggest promise of all was to "drain the swamp" and we know
how that turned out.
He might have a cabinet of outsiders, but they are still creatures from outside swamps. That
said, if there is even the barest of hints that this is on the agenda, I can pretty much bet that
in two years, Congress will completely change parties.
Imagine: cutting benefits for people who worked all their lives and depend on that money in
older age, all in order to give the wealthiest Americans another huge tax cut. For a fake populist
like Trump, that might sound like a great idea (he has no fixed beliefs or principles) but to
his most ardent supporters, that might be the moment they finally get it: they fell for one of
the biggest cons in the universe.
Rita is a trusted commenter California 2 hours ago
Given the Republican desire to shut down Medicare and Social Security, it is not hard to predict
that they will do so a little at a time so that people will not notice until its too late.
But since the Republicans have been very upfront with hostility towards the social safety net,
one can conclude that their supporters want to eliminate social safety net.
Mary Ann Donahue is a trusted commenter NYS 2 hours ago
RE: "To name just two of the bill's benefit cuts, it would raise the retirement age to 69 and
reduce the annual cost-of-living adjustment..."
The COLA for 2017 is .03% a paltry average increase of $5 per month. There was no increase in
2016.
The formula for how the COLA is calculated needs to be changed to allow for fair increases
not reductions.
Mary Scott is a trusted commenter NY 4 hours ago
Republicans have been promising to "fix" Social Security for years and now we are seeing exactly
what they mean. We can see how low they're willing to stoop by their plan to cut the taxes that
high earners now pay on a portion of their benefits and decimate the program for everybody else.
I wouldn't be surprised if they raised SS taxes on low and middle income earners.
There has been an easy fix for Social Security for years. Simply raise the tax on income to
$250,000 thousand and retirees both present and future would be on much firmer footing. Many future
retirees will be moving on to Social Security without the benefit of defined pension plans and
will need a more robust SS benefit in the future, not a weaker one.
Don't count on Donald Trump to come to the rescue. He seems to hate any tax more than even
the most fervent anti-tax freak like Paul Ryan. Mr. Trump admitted throughout the campaign that
he avoids paying any tax at all.
The Times seems to want to give Mr. Trump limitless chances to do the right thing. "Will Donald
Trump Cave on Social Security" it asks. Of course he will. One has only to look at his cabinet
choices and his embrace of the Ryan budget to know the answer to that question. Better to ask,
"How Long Will It Take Trump To Destroy Social Security?"
At least it would be an honest question and one that would put Mr. Trump in the center of a
question that will affect the economic security of millions of Americans.
serban is a trusted commenter Miller Place 4 hours ago
Cutting benefits for upper income solves nothing since by definition upper incomes are a small
percentage of the population. The obvious way to solve any problem with SS is to raise taxes on
upper incomes, the present cap is preposterous. People so wealthy that SS is a pittance can show
their concern by simply donating the money they get from SS to charities.
david is a trusted commenter ny 4 hours ago
We can get some perspective on what Social Security privatization schemes would mean to the
average SSS recipient from Roger Lowenstein' analysis of Bush's privatization scheme.
Roger Lowenstein's Times article discusses the CBO's analysis of how the Bush privatization
scheme for Social Security would reduce benefits.
"The C.B.O. assumes that the typical worker would invest half of his allocation in stocks
and the rest in bonds. The C.B.O. projects the average return, after inflation and expenses,
at 4.9 percent. This compares with the 6 percent rate (about 3.5 percent after inflation) that
the trust fund is earning now.
The second feature of the plan would link future benefit increases
to inflation rather than to wages. Because wages typically grow faster, this would mean a rather
substantial benefit cut. In other words, absent a sustained roaring bull market, the private
accounts would not fully make up for the benefit cuts. According to the C.B.O.'s analysis,
which, like all projections of this sort should be regarded as a best guess, a low-income retiree
in 2035 would receive annual benefits (including the annuity from his private account) of $9,100,
down from the $9,500 forecast under the present program. A median retiree would be cut severely,
from $17,700 to $13,600. "
"... this will probably be in tomorrow's washington post. "how putin sabotaged the election by hacking yahoo mail". and "proton" and "putin" are 2 syllable words beginning with "p", which is dispositive according to experts who don't want to be indentified. ..."
"... [Neo]Liberals have gone truly insane, I made the mistake of trying to slog through the comments the main "putin did it" piece on huffpo out of curiosity. Big mistake, liberals come across as right wing nutters in the comments, I never knew they were so very patriotic, they never really expressed it before. ..."
"... Be sure and delete everything from your Yahoo account BEFORE you push the big red button. They intentionally wait 90 days to delete the account in order that ECPA protections expire and content can just be handed over to the fuzz. ..."
"... It's a good thing for Obama that torturing logic and evasive droning are not criminal acts. ..."
"... "Relations with Russia have declined over the past several years" I reflexively did a Google search. Yep, Victoria Nuland is still employed. ..."
"... With all the concern expressed about Russian meddling in our election process why are we forgetting the direct quid pro quo foreign meddling evidenced in the Hillary emails related to the seldom mentioned Clinton Foundation or the more likely meddling by local election officials? Why have the claims of Russian hacking received such widespread coverage in the Press? ..."
"... I watched it too and agree with your take on it. For all the build up about this press conference and how I thought we were going to engage in direct combat with Russia for these hacks (or so they say it is Russia, I still wonder about that), he did not add any fuel to this fire. ..."
"... The whole thing was silly – the buildup to this press conference and then how Obama handled the hacking. A waste of time really. I don't sense something is going on behind the scenes but it is weird that the news has been all about this Russian hacking. He did not get into the questions about the Electoral College either and he made it seem like Trump indeed is the next President. I mean it seems like the MSM was making too much about this issue but then nothing happened. ..."
this will probably be in tomorrow's washington post. "how putin sabotaged the election
by hacking yahoo mail". and "proton" and "putin" are 2 syllable words beginning with "p",
which is dispositive according to experts who don't want to be indentified.
[Neo]Liberals have gone truly insane, I made the mistake of trying to slog through the
comments the main "putin did it" piece on huffpo out of curiosity. Big mistake, liberals come
across as right wing nutters in the comments, I never knew they were so very patriotic, they never
really expressed it before.
Be sure and delete everything from your Yahoo account BEFORE you push the big red button. They
intentionally wait 90 days to delete the account in order that ECPA protections expire and content
can just be handed over to the fuzz.
I don't think I've looked at my yahoo account in 8-10 years and I didn't use their email; just
had an address. I don't remember my user name or password. I did get an email from them (to my
not-yahoo address) advising of the breach.
I was amazed as I watched a local am news show in Pittsburgh recommend adding your cell phone
number in addition to changing your password. Yeah, that's a great idea, maybe my ss# would provide
even more security.
I use yahoo email. Why should I move? As I understood the breach it was primarily a breach
of the personal information used to establish the account. I've already changed my password -
did it a couple of days after the breach was reported. I had a security clearance with DoD which
requires disclosure of a lot more personal information than yahoo had. The DoD data has been breached
twice from two separate servers.
As far as reading my emails - they may prove useful for phishing but that's about all. I'm
not sure what might be needed for phishing beyond a name and email address - easily obtained from
many sources I have no control over.
So - what am I vulnerable to by remaining at yahoo that I'm not already exposed to on a more
secure server?
Yeah, it isn't like Mr. 'We go high' is going to admit our relationship has declined because
we have underhandedly tried to isolate and knee cap them for pretty much his entire administration.
Are you referring to Obama's press conference? If so, I am glad he didn't make a big deal out
of the Russian hacking allegations - as in it didn't sound like he planned a retaliation for the
fictional event and its fictional consequences. He rose slightly in stature in my eyes - he's
almost as tall as a short flea.
With all the concern expressed about Russian meddling in our election process why are we forgetting
the direct quid pro quo foreign meddling evidenced in the Hillary emails related to the seldom
mentioned Clinton Foundation or the more likely meddling by local election officials? Why have
the claims of Russian hacking received such widespread coverage in the Press?
Why is a lameduck
messing with the Chinese in the South China sea? What is the point of all the "fake" news hogwash?
Is it related to Obama's expression of concern about the safety of the Internet? I can't shake
the feeling that something is going on below the surface of these murky waters.
I watched it too and agree with your take on it. For all the build up about this press conference
and how I thought we were going to engage in direct combat with Russia for these hacks (or so
they say it is Russia, I still wonder about that), he did not add any fuel to this fire.
He did
respond at one point to a reporter that the hacks from Russia were to the DNC and Podesta but
funny how he didn't say HRC emails. Be it as it may, I think what was behind it was HRC really
trying to impress all her contributors that Russia really did do her in, see Obama said so, since
she must be in hot water over all the money she has collected from foreign governments for pay
to play and her donors.
The whole thing was silly – the buildup to this press conference and then
how Obama handled the hacking. A waste of time really. I don't sense something is going on behind
the scenes but it is weird that the news has been all about this Russian hacking. He did not get
into the questions about the Electoral College either and he made it seem like Trump indeed is
the next President. I mean it seems like the MSM was making too much about this issue but then
nothing happened.
Unfortunately the nightly news is focusing on Obama says Russia hacked the DNC and had it in
for Clinton!!! He warned them to stay out of the vote! There will be consequences! Russia demands
the evidence and then a story about the evidence. (This one might have a few smarter people going
"huh, that's it?!?!")
I do like the some private some public on that consequences and retaliation thing. You either
have to laugh or throw up about the faux I've got this and the real self-righteousness. Especially
since it is supposedly to remind people we can do it to you. Is there anyone left outside of America
who doesn't think they already do do it to anyone Uncle Sam doesn't want in office and even some
they do? Mind you I'm not sure how many harried people watching the news are actually going to
laugh at that one because they don't know how how much we meddle.
"... Shorter Paul Krugman: nobody acted more irresponsibly in the last election than the New York Times. ..."
"... Looks like Putin recruited the NYT, the FBI and the DNC. ..."
"... Dr. Krugman is feeding this "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality. He comes across as increasingly shrill and even unhinged - it's a slide he's been taking for years IMO, which is a big shame. ..."
"... It is downright irresponsible and dangerous for a major public intellectual with so little information to cast the shadow of legitimacy on a president ("And it means not acting as if this was a normal election whose result gives the winner any kind of a mandate, or indeed any legitimacy beyond the bare legal requirements.") This kind of behavior is EXACTLY what TRUMP and other authoritarians exhibit - using pieces of information to discredit institutions and individuals. Since foreign governments have and will continue to try to influence U.S. policy through increasingly sophisticated means, this opens the door for anyone to declare our elections and policies as illegitimate in the future. ..."
"... Any influence Russian hacking had was entirely a consequence of U.S. media obsession with celebrity, gotcha and horse race trivia and two-party red state/blue state tribalism. ..."
"... Without the preceding, neither Trump nor Clinton would have been contenders in the first place. Putin didn't invent super delegates, Citizens United, Fox News, talk radio, Goldman-Sachs, etc. etc. etc. If Putin exploited vulnerabilities, it is because preserving those vulnerabilities was more important to the elites than fostering a democratic political culture. ..."
"... It's not a "coup". It's an election result that didn't go the way a lot of people want. That's it. It's probably not optimal, but I'm pretty sure that democracy isn't supposed to produce optimal results. ..."
"... All this talk about "coups" and "illegitimacy" is nuts, and -- true to Dem practice -- incredibly short-sighted. For many, voting for Trump was an available way to say to those people, "We don't believe you any more. At all." Seen in that light, it is a profoundly democratic (small 'd') response to elites that have most consistently served only themselves. ..."
"... Post Truth is Pre-Fascism. The party that thinks your loyalty is suspect unless you wear a flag pin fuels itself on Post Truth. Isnt't this absurdity the gist of Obama's Russia comments today!?! ..."
"... Unless the Russians or someone else hacked the ballot box machines, it is our own damn fault. ..."
"... The ship of neo-liberal trade sailed in the mid-2000's. That you don't get that is sad. You can only milk that so far the cow had been milked. ..."
"... The people of the United States did not have much to choose between: Either a servant of the Plutocrats or a member of the Plutocratic class. The Dems brought this on us when they refused to play fair with Bernie. (Hillary would almost certainly have won the nomination anyway.) ..."
"... The Repubs brought this on, by refusing to govern. The media brought this on: I seem to remember Hillary's misfeasances, once nominated, festering in the media, while Trump's were mentioned, and then disappeared. (Correct me if I'm wrong in this.) Also, the media downplayed Bernie until he had no real chance. ..."
"... The government brought this on, by failing to pursue justice against the bankers, and failing to represent the people, especially the majority who have been screwed by trade and the plutocratic elite and their apologists. ..."
"... The educational system brought this on, by failing to educate the people to critical thought. For instance: 1) The wealthy run the country. 2) The wealthy have been doing very well. 3) Everybody else has not. It seems most people cannot draw the obvious conclusion. ..."
"... Krugman is himself one of those most useful idiots. I do not recall his clarion call to Democrats last spring that "FBI investigation" and "party Presidential nominee" was bound to be an ugly combination. Some did; right here as I recall. Or his part in the official "don't vote for third party" week in the Clinton media machine....thanks, hundreds of thousands of Trump votes got the message. ..."
"... It's too rich to complain about Russia and Wikileaks as if those elements in anyway justified Clinton becoming President. Leaks mess with our democracy? Then for darn sure do not vote for a former Sec. of State willing to use a home server for her official business. Russia is menacing? Just who has been managing US-Russia relations the past 8 years? I voted for her anyway, but the heck if I think some tragic fate has befell the nation here. Republicans picked a better candidate to win this thing than we Democrats did. ..."
"... The truth of the matter is that Clinton was a very weak candidate with nothing to offer but narcissism ("I'm with her"). It's notable that Clinton has still not accepted responsibility for her campaign, preferring to throw the blame for the loss anywhere but herself. Sociopathy much? ..."
[ I find it terrifying, simply terrifying, to refer to people as "useful idiots" after all
the personal destruction that has followed when the expression was specifically used in the past.
To me, using such an expression is an honored economist intent on becoming Joseph McCarthy.
]
To demean a person as though the person were a communist or a fool of communists or the like,
with all the personal harm that has historically brought in this country, is cruel beyond my understanding
or imagining.
Well, not really. For example he referred to "the close relationship between Wikileaks and Russian
intelligence." But Wikileaks is a channel. They don't seek out material. They rely on people to
bring material to them. They supposedly make an effort to verify that the material is not a forgery,
but aside from that what they release is what people bring to them. Incidentally, like so many
people you seem to not care whether the material is accurate or not -- Podesta and the DNC have
not claimed that any of the emails are different from what they sent.
ZURICH - If Putin the Thug gets away with crushing Ukraine's new democratic experiment and
unilaterally redrawing the borders of Europe, every pro-Western country around Russia will be
in danger....
Yup, like the other elections, the bases stayed solvent and current events factored into the turnout
and voting patterns which spurred the independent vote.
When people were claiming Clinton was going to win big, I thought no Republican and Democratic
voters are going to pull the lever like a trained monkey as usual. Only difference in this election
was Hillary's huge negatives due entirely by her and Bill Clinton's support for moving manufacturing
jobs to Mexico and China in the 90s.
To Understand Trump, Learn Russian http://nyti.ms/2hLcrB1
NYT - Andrew Rosenthal - December 15
The Russian language has two words for truth - a linguistic quirk that seems relevant to our
current political climate, especially because of all the disturbing ties between the newly elected
president and the Kremlin.
The word for truth in Russian that most Americans know is "pravda" - the truth that seems evident
on the surface. It's subjective and infinitely malleable, which is why the Soviet Communists called
their party newspaper "Pravda." Despots, autocrats and other cynical politicians are adept at
manipulating pravda to their own ends.
But the real truth, the underlying, cosmic, unshakable truth of things is called "istina" in
Russian. You can fiddle with the pravda all you want, but you can't change the istina.
For the Trump team, the pravda of the 2016 election is that not all Trump voters are explicitly
racist. But the istina of the 2016 campaign is that Trump's base was heavily dependent on racists
and xenophobes, Trump basked in and stoked their anger and hatred, and all those who voted for
him cast a ballot for a man they knew to be a racist, sexist xenophobe. That was an act of racism.
Trump's team took to Twitter with lightning speed recently to sneer at the conclusion by all
17 intelligence agencies that the Kremlin hacked Democratic Party emails for the specific purpose
of helping Trump and hurting Hillary Clinton. Trump said the intelligence agencies got it wrong
about Iraq, and that someone else could have been responsible for the hack and that the Democrats
were just finding another excuse for losing.
The istina of this mess is that powerful evidence suggests that the Russians set out to interfere
in American politics, and that Trump, with his rejection of Western European alliances and embrace
of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, was their chosen candidate.
The pravda of Trump's selection of Rex Tillerson, head of Exxon Mobil, as secretary of state
is that by choosing an oil baron who has made billions for his company by collaborating with Russia,
Trump will make American foreign policy beholden to American corporate interests.
That's bad enough, but the istina is far worse. For one thing, American foreign policy has
been in thrall to American corporate interests since, well, since there were American corporations.
Just look at the mess this country created in Latin America, the Caribbean, Southeast Asia and
the Middle East to serve American companies.
Yes, Tillerson has ignored American interests repeatedly, including in Russia and Iraq, and
has been trying to remove sanctions imposed after Russia's seizure of Crimea because they interfered
with one of his many business deals. But take him out of the equation in the Trump cabinet and
nothing changes. Trump has made it plain, with every action he takes, that he is going to put
every facet of policy, domestic and foreign, at the service of corporate America. The istina here
is that Tillerson is just a symptom of a much bigger problem.
The pravda is that Trump was right in saying that the intelligence agencies got it wrong about
Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction.
But the istina is that Trump's contempt for the intelligence services is profound and dangerous.
He's not getting daily intelligence briefings anymore, apparently because they are just too dull
to hold his attention.
And now we know that Condoleezza Rice was instrumental in bringing Tillerson to Trump's attention.
As national security adviser and then secretary of state for president George W. Bush, Rice was
not just wrong about Iraq, she helped fabricate the story that Hussein had nuclear weapons.
Trump and Tillerson clearly think they are a match for the wily and infinitely dangerous Putin,
but as they move foward with their plan to collaborate with Russia instead of opposing its imperialist
tendencies, they might keep in mind another Russian saying, this one from Lenin.
"There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience," he wrote. "A scoundrel may be
of use to us just because he is a scoundrel."
Putin has that philosophy hard-wired into his political soul. When it comes to using scoundrels
to get what he wants, he is a professional, and Trump is only an amateur. That is the istina of
the matter.
If nothing else, Russia - with a notably un-free press - has shrewdly used our own 'free press'
against US.
RUSSIA'S UNFREE PRESS
The Boston Globe - Marshall Goldman - January 29, 2001
AS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION DEBATES ITS POLICY TOWARD RUSSIA, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS SHOULD BE
ONE OF ITS MAJOR CONCERNS. UNDER PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN THE PRESS IS FREE ONLY AS LONG AS IT
DOES NOT CRITICIZE PUTIN OR HIS POLICIES. WHEN NTV, THE TELEVISION NETWORK OF THE MEDIA GIANT
MEDIA MOST, REFUSED TO PULL ITS PUNCHES, MEDIA MOST'S OWNER, VLADIMIR GUSINSKY, FOUND HIMSELF
IN JAIL, AND GAZPROM, A COMPANY DOMINATED BY THE STATE, BEGAN TO CALL IN LOANS TO MEDIA MOST.
Unfortunately, Putin's actions are applauded by more than 70 percent of the Russian people. They
crave a strong and forceful leader; his KGB past and conditioned KGB responses are just what they
seem to want after what many regard as the social, political, and economic chaos of the last decade.
But what to the Russians is law and order (the "dictatorship of the law," as Putin has so accurately
put it) looks more and more like an old Soviet clampdown to many Western observers.
There is no complaint about Putin's promises. He tells everyone he wants freedom of the press.
But in the context of his KGB heritage, his notion of freedom of the press is something very different.
In an interview with the Toronto Globe and Mail, he said that that press freedom excludes the
"hooliganism" or "uncivilized" reporting he has to deal with in Moscow. By that he means criticism,
especially of his conduct of the war in Chechnya, his belated response to the sinking of the Kursk,
and the heavy-handed way in which he has pushed aside candidates for governor in regional elections
if they are not to Putin's liking.
He does not take well to criticism. When asked by the relatives of those lost in the Kursk
why he seemed so unresponsive, Putin tried to shift the blame for the disaster onto the media
barons, or at least those who had criticized him. They were the ones, he insisted, who had pressed
for reduced funding for the Navy while they were building villas in Spain and France. As for their
criticism of his behavior, They lie! They lie! They lie!
Our Western press has provided good coverage of the dogged way Putin and his aides have tried
to muscle Gusinsky out of the Media Most press conglomerate he created. But those on the Putin
enemies list now include even Boris Berezovsky, originally one of Putin's most enthusiastic promoters
who after the sinking of the Kursk also became a critic and thus an opponent.
Gusinsky would have a hard time winning a merit badge for trustworthiness (Berezovsky shouldn't
even apply), but in the late Yeltsin and Putin years, Gusinsky has earned enormous credit for
his consistently objective news coverage, including a spotlight on malfeasance at the very top.
More than that, he has supported his programmers when they have subjected Yeltsin and now Putin
to bitter satire on Kukly, his Sunday evening prime-time puppet show.
What we hear less of, though, is what is happening to individual reporters, especially those
engaged in investigative work. Almost monthly now there are cases of violence and intimidation.
Among those brutalized since Putin assumed power are a reporter for Radio Liberty who dared to
write negative reports about the Russian Army's role in Chechnia and four reporters for Novaya
Gazeta. Two of them were investigating misdeeds by the FSB (today's equivalent of the KGB), including
the possibility that it rather than Chechins had blown up a series of apartment buildings. Another
was pursuing reports of money-laundering by Yeltsin family members and senior staff in Switzerland.
Although these journalists were very much in the public eye, they were all physically assaulted.
Those working for provincial papers labor under even more pressure with less visibility. There
are numerous instances where regional bosses such as the governor of Vladivostok operate as little
dictators, and as a growing number of journalists have discovered, challenges are met with threats,
physical intimidation, and, if need be, murder.
True, freedom of the press in Russia is still less than 15 years old, and not all the country's
journalists or their bosses have always used that freedom responsibly. During the 1996 election
campaign, for example, the media owners, including Gusinsky conspired to denigrate or ignore every
viable candidate other than Yeltsin. But attempts to muffle if not silence criticism have multiplied
since Putin and his fellow KGB veterans have come to power. Criticism from any source, be it an
individual journalist or a corporate entity, invites retaliation.
When Media Most persisted in its criticism, Putin sat by approvingly as his subordinates sent
in masked and armed tax police and prosecutors. When that didn't work, they jailed Gusinsky on
charges that were later dropped, although they are seeking to extradite and jail him again. along
with his treasurer, on a new set of charges. Yesterday the prosecutor general summoned Tatyana
Mitkova, the anchor of NTV's evening news program, for questioning. Putin's aides are also doing
all they can to prevent Gusinsky from refinancing his debt-ridden operation with Ted Turner or
anyone else in or outside of the country.
According to one report, Putin told one official, You deal with the shares, debts, and management
and I will deal with the journalists. His goal simply is to end to independent TV coverage in
Russia. ...
"Unfortunately, Putin's actions are applauded by more than 70 percent of the Russian people"
Exactly; the majority of people are so stupid and/or lazy that they cannot be bothered understanding
what is going on; and how their hard won democracy is being subjugated. But thank God that is
in Russia not here in the US - right?
"Pravda" is etymologically derived from "prav-" which means "right" (as opposed to "left", other
connotations are "proper", "correct", "rightful", also legal right). It designates the social-construct
aspect of "righteousness/truthfulness/correctness" as opposed to "objective reality" (conceptually
independent of social standards, in reality anything but). In formal logic, "istina" is used to
designate truth. Logical falsity is designated a "lie".
It is a feature common to most European languages that rightfulness, righteousness, correctness,
and legal rights are identified with the designation for the right side. "Sinister" is Latin for
"left".
If you believe 911 was a Zionist conspiracy, so where the Paris attacks of November 2015, when
Trump was failing in the polls as the race was moving toward as you would expect, toward other
candidates. After the Paris attacks, his numbers reaccelerated.
If "ZOG" created the "false flag" of the Paris attacks to start a anti-Muslim fervor, they
succeeded, much like 911. Bastille day attacks were likewise, a false flag. This is not new, this
goes back to when the aristocracy merged with the merchant caste, creating the "bourgeois". They
have been running a parallel government in the shadows to effect what is seen.
There used to be something called Usenet News, where at the protocol level reader software could
fetch meta data (headers containing author, (stated) origin, title, etc.) independently from comment
bodies. This was largely owed to limited download bandwidth. Basically all readers had "kill files"
i.e. filters where one could configure that comments with certain header parameters should not
be downloaded, or even hidden.
The main application was that the reader would download comments in the background when headers
were already shown, or on demand when you open a comment.
Now you get the whole thing (or in units of 100) by the megabyte.
A major problem is signal extraction out of the massive amounts of noise generated by the media,
social media, parties, and pundits.
It's easy enough to highlight this thread of information here, but in real time people are
being bombarded by so many other stories.
In particular, the Clinton Foundation was also regularly being highlighted for its questionable
ties to foreign influence. And HRC's extravagant ties to Wall St. And so much more.
The media's job was to sell Trump and denounce Clinton. The mistake a lot of people make is thinking
the global elite are the "status quo". They are not. They are generally the ones that break the
status quo more often than not.
The bulk of them wanted Trump/Republican President and made damn sure it was President. Buffering
the campaign against criticism while overly focusing on Clinton's "crap". It took away from the
issues which of course would have low key'd the election.
Not much bullying has to be applied when there are "economic incentives". The media attention
economy and ratings system thrive on controversy and emotional engagement. This was known a century
ago as "only bad news is good news". As long as I have lived, the non-commercial media not subject
(or not as much) to these dynamics have always been perceived as dry and boring.
I heard from a number of people that they followed the campaign "coverage" (in particular Trump)
as gossip/entertainment, and those were people who had no sympathies for him. And even media coverage
by outlets generally critical of Trump's unbelievable scandals and outrageous performances catered
to this sentiment.
First, let me disclose that I detest TRUMP and that the Russian meddling has me deeply concerned.
Yet...
We only have assertions that the Russian hacking had some influence. We do not know whether
it likely had *material* influence that could have reasonably led to a swing state(s) going to
TRUMP that otherwise would have gone to HRC.
Dr. Krugman is feeding this "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality. He comes across
as increasingly shrill and even unhinged - it's a slide he's been taking for years IMO, which
is a big shame.
It is downright irresponsible and dangerous for a major public intellectual with so little
information to cast the shadow of legitimacy on a president ("And it means not acting as if this
was a normal election whose result gives the winner any kind of a mandate, or indeed any legitimacy
beyond the bare legal requirements.") This kind of behavior is EXACTLY what TRUMP and other authoritarians
exhibit - using pieces of information to discredit institutions and individuals. Since foreign
governments have and will continue to try to influence U.S. policy through increasingly sophisticated
means, this opens the door for anyone to declare our elections and policies as illegitimate in
the future.
It is quite clear that the Russians intervened on Trump's behalf and that this intervention had
an impact. The problem is that we cannot actually quantify that impact.
"We only have assertions that the Russian hacking had some influence."
Any influence Russian hacking had was entirely a consequence of U.S. media obsession with
celebrity, gotcha and horse race trivia and two-party red state/blue state tribalism.
Without the preceding, neither Trump nor Clinton would have been contenders in the first
place. Putin didn't invent super delegates, Citizens United, Fox News, talk radio, Goldman-Sachs,
etc. etc. etc. If Putin exploited vulnerabilities, it is because preserving those vulnerabilities
was more important to the elites than fostering a democratic political culture.
But this is how influence is exerted - by using the dynamics of the adversary's/targets organization
as an amplifier. Hierarchical organizations are approached through their management or oversight
bodies, social networks through key influencers, etc.
I see this so much and it's so right wing cheap: I hate Trump, but assertions that Russia intervened
are unproven.
First, Trump openly invited Russia to hack DNC emails. That is on its face treason and sedition.
It's freaking on video. If HRC did that there would be calls of the right for her execution.
Second, a NYT story showed that the FBI knew about the hacking but did not alert the DNC properly
- they didn't even show up, they sent a note to a help desk.
This was a serious national security breach that was not addressed properly. This is criminal
negligence.
This was a hacked election by collusion of the FBI and the Russian hackers and it totally discredits
the FBI as it throwed out chum and then denied at the last minute. Now the CIA comes in and says
PUTIN, Trump's bff, was directly involved in manipulating the timetable that the hacked emails
were released in drip drip form to cater to the media - creating story after story about emails.
It was a perfect storm for a coup. Putin played us. And he will play Trump. And God knows how
it ends. But it doesn't matter b/c we're all screwed with climate change anyway.
"It was a perfect storm for a coup. Putin played us. And he will play Trump. And God knows how
it ends. But it doesn't matter b/c we're all screwed with climate change anyway."
It's not a "coup". It's an election result that didn't go the way a lot of people want.
That's it. It's probably not optimal, but I'm pretty sure that democracy isn't supposed to produce
optimal results.
All this talk about "coups" and "illegitimacy" is nuts, and -- true to Dem practice --
incredibly short-sighted. For many, voting for Trump was an available way to say to those people,
"We don't believe you any more. At all." Seen in that light, it is a profoundly democratic (small
'd') response to elites that have most consistently served only themselves.
Trump and his gang will be deeply grateful if the left follows Krugman's "wisdom", and clings
to his ever-changing excuses. (I thought it was the evil Greens who deprived Clinton of her due?)
Post Truth is Pre-Fascism. The party that thinks your loyalty is suspect unless you wear a
flag pin fuels itself on Post Truth. Isnt't this absurdity the gist of Obama's Russia comments
today!?!
"On Wednesday an editorial in The Times described Donald Trump as a "useful idiot" serving Russian
interests." I think that is beyond the pale. Yes, I realize that Adolph Hitler was democratically
elected. I agree that Trump seems like a scary monster under the bed. That doesn't mean we have
too pee our pants, Paul. He's a bully, tough guy, maybe, the kind of kid that tortured you before
you kicked the shit out of them with your brilliance. That's not what is needed now.
What really is needed, is a watchdog, like Dean Baker, that alerts we dolts of pending bills and
their ramifications. The ship of neo-liberal trade bullshit has sailed. Hell, you don't believe
it yourself, you've said as much. Be gracious, and tell the truth. We can handle it.
The experience of voting for the Hill was painful, vs Donald Trump.
The Hill seemed like the least likely aristocrat, given two choices, to finish off all government
focus on the folks that actually built this society. Two Titans of Hubris, Hillary vs Donald,
each ridiculous in the concept of representing the interests of the common man.
At the end of the day. the American people decided that the struggle with the unknown monster
Donald was worth deposing the great deplorable, Clinton.
The real argument is whether the correct plan of action is the way of FDR, or the way of the industrialists,
the Waltons, the Kochs, the Trumps, the Bushes and the outright cowards like the Cheneys and the
Clintons, people that never spent a day defending this country in combat. What do they call it,
the Commander in Chief.
My father was awarded a silver and a bronze star for his efforts in battle during WW2. He was
shot in the face while driving a tank destroyer by a German sniper in a place called Schmitten
Germany.
He told me once, that he looked over at the guy next to him on the plane to the hospital in
England, and his intestines were splayed on his chest. It was awful.
What was he fighting for ? Freedom, America. Then the Republicans, Ronald Reagan, who spent the
war stateside began the real war, garnering the wealth of the nation to the entitled like him.
Ronald Reagan was a life guard.
Anthony Weiner
Podesta
Biden (for not running)
Tim Kaine (for accepting the nomination instead of deferring to a latino)
CNN and other TV news media (for giving trump so much coverage- even an empty podium)
Donna Brazile
etc.
The people of the United States did not have much to choose between: Either a servant of the
Plutocrats or a member of the Plutocratic class. The Dems brought this on us when they refused
to play fair with Bernie. (Hillary would almost certainly have won the nomination anyway.)
The Repubs brought this on, by refusing to govern. The media brought this on: I seem to
remember Hillary's misfeasances, once nominated, festering in the media, while Trump's were mentioned,
and then disappeared. (Correct me if I'm wrong in this.) Also, the media downplayed Bernie until
he had no real chance.
The government brought this on, by failing to pursue justice against the bankers, and failing
to represent the people, especially the majority who have been screwed by trade and the plutocratic
elite and their apologists.
The educational system brought this on, by failing to educate the people to critical thought.
For instance: 1) The wealthy run the country. 2) The wealthy have been doing very well. 3) Everybody
else has not. It seems most people cannot draw the obvious conclusion.
The wealthy brought this on. For 230 years they have, essentially run this country. They are
too stupid to be satisfied with enough, but always want more.
The economics profession brought this on, by excusing treasonous behavior as efficient, and
failing to understand the underlying principles of their profession, and the limits of their understanding.
(They don't even know what money is, or how a trade deficit destroys productive capacity, and
thus the very ability of a nation to pay back the debts it incurs.)
The people brought this on, by neglecting their duty to be informed, to be educated, and to
be thoughtful.
Anybody else care for their share of blame? I myself deserve some, but for reasons I cannot
say.
What amazes me now is, the bird having shown its feathers, there is no howl of outrage from
the people who voted for him. Do they imagine that the Plutocrats who will soon monopolize the
White House will take their interests to heart?
As far as I can tell, not one person of 'the people' has been appointed to his cabinet. Not
one. But the oppressed masses who turned to Mr Trump seem to be OK with this.
I can only wonder, how much crap will have to be rubbed in their faces, before they awaken to
the taste of what it is?
Eric377 : , -1
Krugman is himself one of those most useful idiots. I do not recall his clarion call to Democrats
last spring that "FBI investigation" and "party Presidential nominee" was bound to be an ugly
combination. Some did; right here as I recall. Or his part in the official "don't vote for third
party" week in the Clinton media machine....thanks, hundreds of thousands of Trump votes got the
message.
It's too rich to complain about Russia and Wikileaks as if those elements in anyway justified
Clinton becoming President. Leaks mess with our democracy? Then for darn sure do not vote for
a former Sec. of State willing to use a home server for her official business. Russia is menacing?
Just who has been managing US-Russia relations the past 8 years? I voted for her anyway, but the
heck if I think some tragic fate has befell the nation here. Republicans picked a better candidate
to win this thing than we Democrats did.
The truth of the matter is that Clinton was a very weak candidate with nothing to offer
but narcissism ("I'm with her"). It's notable that Clinton has still not accepted responsibility
for her campaign, preferring to throw the blame for the loss anywhere but herself. Sociopathy
much?
This has made me cynical. I used to think that at least *some* members of the US political
elite had the best interests of ordinary households in mind, but now I see that it's just ego
vs. ego, whatever the party.
As for democracy being on the edge: I believe Adam Smith over Krugman: "there is a lot of ruin
in a nation". It takes more than this to overturn an entrenched institution.
I think American democracy will survive a decade of authoritarianism, and if it does not, then
H. L. Mencken said it best: "The American people know what they want, and they deserve to get
it -- good and hard."
Donald Trump won the electoral college at least in part by promising to bring coal jobs
back to Appalachia and manufacturing jobs back to the Rust Belt. Neither promise can be honored
– for the most part we're talking about jobs lost, not to unfair foreign competition, but to
technological change. But a funny thing happens when people like me try to point that out:
we get enraged responses from economists who feel an affinity for the working people of the
afflicted regions – responses that assume that trying to do the numbers must reflect contempt
for regional cultures, or something.
Is this the right narrative? I am no longer comfortable with this line:
for the most part we're talking about jobs lost, not to unfair foreign competition, but
to technological change.
Try to place that line in context with this from
Noah Smith:
Then, in the 1990s and 2000s, the U.S opened its markets to Chinese goods, first with Most
Favored Nation trading status, and then by supporting China's accession to the WTO. The resulting
competition from cheap Chinese goods contributed to vast inequality in the United States, reversing
many of the employment gains of the 1990s and holding down U.S. wages. But this sacrifice on
the part of 90% of the American populace enabled China to lift its enormous population out
of abject poverty and become a middle-income country.
Was this "fair" trade? I think not. Let me suggest this narrative: Sometime during the
Clinton Administration, it was decided that an economically strong China was good for both the
globe and the U.S. Fair enough. To enable that outcome, U.S. policy deliberately sacrificed manufacturing
workers on the theory that a.) the marginal global benefit from the job gain to a Chinese worker
exceeded the marginal global cost from a lost US manufacturing job, b.) the U.S. was shifting
toward a service sector economy anyway and needed to reposition its workforce accordingly and
c.) the transition costs of shifting workers across sectors in the U.S. were minimal.
As a consequence – and through a succession of administrations – the US tolerated implicit
subsidies of Chinese industries, including national industrial policy designed to strip production
from the US.
And then there was the currency manipulation. I am always shocked when international economists
claim "fair trade," pretending that the financial side of the international accounts is irrelevant.
As if that wasn't a big, fat thumb on the scale. Sure, "currency manipulation" is running the
other way these days. After, of course, a portion of manufacturing was absorbed overseas. After
the damage is done.
Yes, technological change is happening. But the impact, and the costs, were certainly accelerated
by U.S. policy.
It was a great plan. On paper, at least. And I would argue that in fact points a and b above
were correct.
But point c. Point c was a bad call. Point c was a disastrous call. Point c helped deliver
Donald Trump to the Oval Office. To be sure, the FBI played its role, as did the Russians. But
even allowing for the poor choice of Hilary Clinton as the Democratic nominee (the lack of contact
with rural and semi-rural voters blinded the Democrats to the deep animosity toward their candidate),
it should never have come to this.
As the opioid epidemic sweeps through rural America, an ever-greater number of drug-dependent
newborns are straining hospital neonatal units and draining precious medical resources.
The problem has grown more quickly than realized and shows no signs of abating, researchers
reported on Monday. Their study, published in JAMA Pediatrics, concludes for the first time
that the increase in drug-dependent newborns has been disproportionately larger in rural areas.
The latest causalities in the opioid epidemic are newborns.
The transition costs were not minimal.
My take is that "fair trade" as practiced since the late 1990s created another disenfranchised
class of citizens. As if we hadn't done enough of that already. Then we weaponized those newly
disenfranchised citizens with the rhetoric of identity politics. That's coming back to bite us.
We didn't really need a white nationalist movement, did we?
Now comes the big challenge: What can we do to make amends? Can we change the narrative? And
here is where I agree with Paul Krugman:
Now, if we want to have a discussion of regional policies – an argument to the effect that
my pessimism is unwarranted – fine. As someone who is generally a supporter of government activism,
I'd actually like to be convinced that a judicious program of subsidies, relocating government
departments, whatever, really can sustain communities whose traditional industry has eroded.
The damage done is largely irreversible. In medium-size regions, lower relative housing
costs may help attract overflow from the east and west coast urban areas. And maybe a program
of guaranteed jobs for small- to medium-size regions combined with relocation subsidies for very
small-size regions could help. But it won't happen overnight, if ever. And even if you could reverse
the patterns of trade – which wouldn't be easy given the intertwining of global supply chains
– the winners wouldn't be the same current losers. Tough nut to crack.
Bottom Line: I don't know how to fix this either. But I don't absolve the policy community
from their role in this disaster. I think you can easily tell a story that this was one big policy
experiment gone terribly wrong.
It's time to wake up, America. The mainstream media is attempting once again to draw
the public's opinion towards issues that are ultimately fringe issues that impact a
small percentage of us in order to ignore the large-scale
major
issues that
affect all of us.
When I saw mainstream media, I am referring to any major media outlet, including
satirical quasi-political shows such as the Daily Show. All of these shows, op-eds,
media appearances are in fact one colossal game meant to draw our attention away from
what matters to items that
don't
really matter all that much.
Now, before you get angry at me, let's try and work our way rationally through how
things actually work in the US.
For starters, ask yourself the following:
Which affects you more, the fact a particular candidate voted for a particular
bill in the past,
or
the fact that our entire monetary system is run by a
man who none of us voted for and who has systemically worked to debase the value of
the currency in our pockets while raising the cost of living?
What matters more to the US, whether or not homosexuals can get married
or
the fact that all of us are married to a financial system in which all of
us shoulder the debts of Wall Street and the banks, thereby insuring that our country
will eventually face a debt crisis resulting is most if not all of us losing a major
percentage of our wealth?
Which is more important for our well-being, whether or a certain
candidate paid his taxes
or
the fact that we are all of us being taxed by
inflation which decreases our purchasing power, making all of us much poorer?
My point with all of this is that politics in this country is in fact a grand
distraction to draw our attention away from those who actually call the shots in the US
(the Fed and banking elites) by hitting our "emotional" buttons and getting us worked up
about peripheral issues so we don't wake up and realize that we're being robbed every
single day of our lives by individuals who we never even voted for.
"Give me control of a nation's money and I care
not who makes it's laws"
~Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild
The reason the media shies away from these topics is because the talking heads have
all gotten rich by doing so. John Stewart, hilarious champion of the left made $15
million last year. His net worth is close to $80 million. His arch nemesis, Bill
O'Reilly, made $20 million and is worth somewhere in the ballpark of $50 million.
Wake up people, these folks
don't
represent you. You won't make as much
money as they make in one year in your
entire lifetime
. You have absolutely
nothing in common with them.
Why? Because they're muppets who appeal to our vanity by espousing opinions similar
to our own. The end result is that we watch them and feel they're on "our side," when in
reality they're just lackeys who have gotten rich by distracting the masses from the
real power structure: the Fed and the Primary Dealer banking system.
"The few who understand the system, will either be
so interested from it's profits or so dependent on it's favors, that there will be no
opposition from that class."
As the Worm Turns!
For all those Amurican rubes out there who beleived that Homeland Security was protecting them
against foreign terrorists – ha hahahahahaha!
So Tillerson, ex-Oil cheese & apparently 'pro-Russian', is nominated USDoS
honcho by Trump.
On the other hand we have Trump trolling China over Taiwan. In this case,
it to me looks more like asymmetric diplomacy or 'hybrid warfare' as others
may call it, as the US cannot take on China financially, Trump's strategy is
to threaten to unpick all those things that China holds dear, such as the
'One China' policy to push Beijing out of its comfort zone and try and
destabilize its decision making. An interesting strategy that won't work.
But, by making apparently pro-Russia, anti-China choices it looks like a
divide and rule strategy. The US cannot take on both Russian and China, and
it has been China that has been backing Russia solidly politically and
economically against the West's threats. By offering sanctions relief,
Washington would expect something in return maybe distancing itself from
China The thing is, not only have the sanctions done quite a bit of damage,
but how is lifting them actually that useful any more now that (yet again) a
threat from the outside has made Russia carry out fundamental changes it
should have already made before (developing domestic produce industry etc.)
and even sabotaging those nascent industries for western imports? In short,
if it is Trump's strategy, too little too late.
I think though that a strategy of opportunistic disruption would
continue. What I would like to see from Trump is a rolling back of NATO and
removing US nukes from Europe permanently in return for a new nuclear arms
agreement and a de-escalation on the continent. What exactly does Washington
get from a riled up EU and its constant squealing for US support but without
pay up? None as far as I can see. Hopefully this is NATO's last hurrah.
Washington cannot offer sanctions relief without coming out into the open
as the EU's puppetmaster. Although we know that to be true, not everyone
does, or not everyone will stipulate to it, and the sanctions imposed by
Washington as purely American are harmless. It is the EU's sanctions
which cause trade damage, and as you accurately point out, many of those
markets will never again reach their former potential. I imagine there
would be a prompt return to trade with Europe if EU sanctions were
lifted, but quite a few people have lost their taste for European
products considering what false friends the Europeans have turned out to
be, and Russia likely fears their spinelessness would bring new sanctions
at Washington's bidding. I don't think European sales to Russia will
return to their previous levels, perhaps ever, and Russia will always
have a backup plan in future so that loss of European products will not
hurt it.
Many people in China feel that Trump trolling China over Taiwan is not a
bad thing. At least, maybe it will finally knock away the illusions about
America that many in the government still have. (There are plenty of
those illusions, in part because the generation of Chinese currently
between 40 and 65, overall, are probably the most shall we say
"psychologically disadvantaged" toward the West.
Meanwhile, the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, said Moscow was fed up of calls from
the US to halt the fighting. "We are tired of hearing this whining from our American colleagues
in the current administration," he told journalists.
"I think it is secret to no one if I say that we know about written instructions in the
European Union as to how each country, including candidates to join it, should speak publicly
at any mention of Russia," the diplomat said.
"It is written there that it is an absolute must for all these countries to pronounce as
mantra the terms 'annexation of Crimea', 'occupation of Donbass' and so on," he said. "It seems
that this instruction is binding," he added.
The kreakl with whom I have to work told me yesterday in all seriousness that Lavrov
is only foreign minister because he does everything Putin tells him to do.
He must think that a minister of state should act independently of and contrary to the wishes
of the chief executive of the administration of the state.
That's what he must think they do in the Golden West.
We live in a sea of lies. Per NPR this morning – French officials are demanding that Russia
stop the intense bombing of the huge masses of civilians seeking shelter in the last remaining
rebel areas in Aleppo. They demand that a humanitarian corridor 5 kilometers wide be created for
their escape [where to, I wonder] protected by NATO/EU troops. The barbarity of the Russians and
Syrians are is simply impossible to describe per the report.
NPR and other MSM channels have adopted a relatively clever strategy – they simply pass along
reports from important sounding organizations like the Observatory for Human Rights while ignoring
any alternative information sources. They sort of learned their lesson from the WMD fiasco – don't
manufacture the lie, let someone else do it. So the MSM is simply a component in the supply chain
of lies.
I have not ever experienced a #fakenews onslaught as today. Every mainstream media and agency
seems to have lost all inhibitions and is reporting any rumor claim regarding east-Aleppo as fact.
Consider this BBC headline and opener:
Aleppo battle: UN says 82 civilians shot on the spot
Syrian pro-government forces have been entering homes in eastern Aleppo and killing those inside,
including women and children, the UN says.
The UN's human rights office said it had reliable evidence that in four areas 82 civilians
were shot on sight.
1. A UN human rights office does not exists. What the BBC means is the Office of the U.N. High
Commissioner of Human Rights (OHCHR). That commissioner is the Jordanian Prince Zeid Ra'ad Al
Hussein, a Hashemite educated in the UK and U.S. and a relative of the Jordanian dictator king.
That is relevant to note as Jordan is heavily involved in the supporting the "rebels" against
the Syrian government.
2. The office has not "said" that "82 civilians were shot" or other such gruesome stuff. It
said that there were "sources" that have "reports" that such happened. From its press statement
today:
Multiple sources have reports that tens of civilians were shot dead yesterday in al-Ahrar
Square in al-Kallaseh neighbourhood, and also in Bustan al-Qasr, by Government forces and their
allies, including allegedly the Iraqi al-Nujabaa armed group .
####
At least 93 reportedly killed and hundreds injured near Palmyra, with witnesses saying many child
victims suffocated
The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is seriously concerned about
claims that at least 93 people were killed by a gas attack in central Syria when airstrikes hit
a cluster of five villages.
Up to 300 people were also reported to have been injured in the strikes on Monday morning around
130 miles west of the city of Palmyra, which was retaken from Syrian forces by the Islamic State
group. Witnesses to the attacks say that none of those who died had blast injuries
The high death toll is not consistent with the spate of chlorine gas attacks across Syria
in recent years, which have killed scores of people in total but have not caused mass casualties
at this scale.
Photographs purportedly taken after the attacks show rows of children lying on the ground.
All appear to be dead and foam is apparent near the nose of one young boy.
The images resemble those taken in the aftermath of an attack that killed more than 1,300
people in the suburbs of Damascus in August 2013, which the United Nations said was 'indisputably'
caused by sarin gas. On that occasion the US, UK and France blamed the Assad regime. The UN said
the sarin used had probably come from regime stockpiles
####
So it didn't take so long after all. ISIS/ISIL/DAESH/Whatever can kill as creatively as they
wish and the Pork Pie News Networks will consistently report is as being done 'by Assad'. ISIS
forced them in to cellars then gassed them, only to have 'sources' present it as an
"These libertarians, isolationists and realists see an opportunity to pull back America's
commitments around the world, spend less money on foreign aid and "nation-building," curtail
expensive military campaigns and troop deployments and intervene militarily only to protect American
interests."(
The Hill
) But will they prevail?
Notable quotes:
"... First of all, I don't think that President Putin is foolish enough to believe the rhetoric. He is a serious political person and has been through too many lies and deceptions from Washington in many different forms to be naive about some nice sunny words, even if the Secretary General of NATO Jens Stoltenberg starts purveying friendly sounds about Russia after Trump's election. ..."
"... But I think it is very important that Russian leaders have in mind the ultimate agenda of this patriarchy in the United States that is one of war, and Donald Trump's mission is to prepare United States for that war and to win. And that is no nice prospect. Russia should not in the slightest instant forget that threat. ..."
"... Thus, take the advantage that you can from this deception, but do not be deceived that Donald Trump's America is in any sense a true friend of Russia. People in Washington still care about the interests of the American hegemony and that's it. ..."
First of all, I don't think that President Putin is foolish enough to believe the
rhetoric. He is a serious political person and has been through too many lies and deceptions from
Washington in many different forms to be naive about some nice sunny words, even if the Secretary
General of NATO Jens Stoltenberg starts purveying friendly sounds about Russia after Trump's
election.
Of course, it is intelligent for Russia to gain as much advantage from this apparently friendly
period of Trump's presidency as possible. Perhaps it is reasonable to ask for taking US and NATO
troops away from the borders of Russia and Belarus. They will do that, I have no doubt.
But I think it is very important that Russian leaders have in mind the ultimate agenda of
this patriarchy in the United States that is one of war, and Donald Trump's mission is to prepare
United States for that war and to win. And that is no nice prospect. Russia should not in the
slightest instant forget that threat.
Take advantage of this time, build the Russian economy as you have been doing, show the door to
the neoliberal economists, take them out of the ministries, and put genuine Russians who want to
do good for the Russian economy in those positions.
The Central Bank of Russia needs to be renationalized. That's an urgent priority for Russia's
economy. The reason I think it hasn't been done so far is that the political power of those
American-linked oligarchs up until now has been strong enough to make it very difficult for
Russia to clean up house. I think we are already going in that direction.
The development of indigenous Russian non-GMO agriculture needs to go forward regardless of
what the EU does with their sanctions. Russia needs to prohibit the import of food from the
European Union.
Also, Russia should leave the World Trade Organization. This organization was created by
Washington in the interests of American and European multinationalism and not in the interests of
free and fair trade.
Russia should free itself from undesirable NGOs as it has been doing – and watch the anger of
Washington who use those NGOs to do so-called "democracy projects".
Thus, take the advantage that you can from this deception, but do not be deceived that Donald
Trump's America is in any sense a true friend of Russia. People in Washington still care about
the interests of the American hegemony and that's it.
So Tillerson, ex-Oil cheese & apparently 'pro-Russian', is nominated USDoS
honcho by Trump.
On the other hand we have Trump trolling China over Taiwan. In this case,
it to me looks more like asymmetric diplomacy or 'hybrid warfare' as others
may call it, as the US cannot take on China financially, Trump's strategy is
to threaten to unpick all those things that China holds dear, such as the
'One China' policy to push Beijing out of its comfort zone and try and
destabilize its decision making. An interesting strategy that won't work.
But, by making apparently pro-Russia, anti-China choices it looks like a
divide and rule strategy. The US cannot take on both Russian and China, and
it has been China that has been backing Russia solidly politically and
economically against the West's threats. By offering sanctions relief,
Washington would expect something in return maybe distancing itself from
China The thing is, not only have the sanctions done quite a bit of damage,
but how is lifting them actually that useful any more now that (yet again) a
threat from the outside has made Russia carry out fundamental changes it
should have already made before (developing domestic produce industry etc.)
and even sabotaging those nascent industries for western imports? In short,
if it is Trump's strategy, too little too late.
I think though that a strategy of opportunistic disruption would
continue. What I would like to see from Trump is a rolling back of NATO and
removing US nukes from Europe permanently in return for a new nuclear arms
agreement and a de-escalation on the continent. What exactly does Washington
get from a riled up EU and its constant squealing for US support but without
pay up? None as far as I can see. Hopefully this is NATO's last hurrah.
Washington cannot offer sanctions relief without coming out into the open
as the EU's puppetmaster. Although we know that to be true, not everyone
does, or not everyone will stipulate to it, and the sanctions imposed by
Washington as purely American are harmless. It is the EU's sanctions
which cause trade damage, and as you accurately point out, many of those
markets will never again reach their former potential. I imagine there
would be a prompt return to trade with Europe if EU sanctions were
lifted, but quite a few people have lost their taste for European
products considering what false friends the Europeans have turned out to
be, and Russia likely fears their spinelessness would bring new sanctions
at Washington's bidding. I don't think European sales to Russia will
return to their previous levels, perhaps ever, and Russia will always
have a backup plan in future so that loss of European products will not
hurt it.
Many people in China feel that Trump trolling China over Taiwan is not a
bad thing. At least, maybe it will finally knock away the illusions about
America that many in the government still have. (There are plenty of
those illusions, in part because the generation of Chinese currently
between 40 and 65, overall, are probably the most shall we say
"psychologically disadvantaged" toward the West.
Vladimir Putin's Valdai Speech at the XIII Meeting (Final Plenary Session) of the Valdai International
Discussion Club (Sochi, 27 October 2016)
As is his usual custom, Russian President Vladimir Putin delivered a speech at the final session
of the annual Valdai International Discussion Club's 13th meeting, held this year in Sochi, before
an audience that included the President of Finland Tarja Halonen and former President of South Africa
Thabo Mbeki. The theme for the 2016 meeting and its discussion forums was "The Future in Progress:
Shaping the World of Tomorrow" which as Putin noted was very topical and relevant to current developments
and trends in global politics, economic and social affairs.
Putin noted that the previous year's Valdai Club discussions centred on global problems and crises,
in particular the ongoing wars in the Middle East; this fact gave him the opportunity to summarise
global political developments over the past half-century, beginning with the United States' presumption
of having won the Cold War and subsequently reshaping the international political, economic and social
order to conform to its expectations based on neoliberal capitalist assumptions. To that end, the
US and its allies across western Europe, North America and the western Pacific have co-operated in
pressing economic and political restructuring including regime change in many parts of the world:
in eastern Europe and the Balkans, in western Asia (particularly Afghanistan and Iraq) and in northern
Africa (Libya). In achieving these goals, the West has either ignored at best or at worst exploited
international political, military and economic structures, agencies and alliances to the detriment
of these institutions' reputations and credibility around the world. The West also has not hesitated
to dredge and drum up imaginary threats to the security of the world, most notably the threat of
Russian aggression and desire to recreate the Soviet Union on former Soviet territories and beyond,
the supposed Russian meddling in the US Presidential elections, and apparent Russian hacking and
leaking of emails related to failed US Presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton's conduct as
US Secretary of State from 2008 to 2012.
After his observation of current world trends as they have developed since 1991, Putin queries
what kind of future we face if political elites in Washington and elsewhere focus on non-existent
problems and threats, or on problems of their own making, and ignore the very real issues and problems
affecting ordinary people everywhere: issues of stability, security and sustainable economic development.
The US alone has problems of police violence against minority groups, high levels of public and private
debt measured in trillions of dollars, failing transport infrastructure across most states, massive
unemployment that either goes undocumented or is deliberately under-reported, high prison incarceration
rates and other problems and issues indicative of a highly dysfunctional society. In societies that
are ostensibly liberal democracies where the public enjoys political freedoms, there is an ever-growing
and vast gap between what people perceive as major problems needing solutions and the political establishment's
perceptions of what the problems are, and all too often the public view and the elite view are at
polar opposites. The result is that when referenda and elections are held, predictions and assurances
of victory one way or another are smashed by actual results showing public preference for the other
way, and polling organisations, corporate media with their self-styled "pundits" and "analysts" and
governments are caught scrambling to make sense of what just happened.
Putin points out that the only way forward is for all countries to acknowledge and work together
on the problems that challenge all humans today, the resolution of which should make the world more
stable, more secure and more sustaining of human existence. Globalisation should not just benefit
a small plutocratic elite but should be demonstrated in concrete ways to benefit all. Only by adhering
to international law and legal arrangements, through the charter of the United Nations and its agencies,
can all countries hope to achieve security and stability and achieve a better future for their peoples.
To this end, the sovereignty of Middle Eastern countries like Iraq, Syria and Yemen should be
respected and the wars in those countries should be brought to an end, replaced by long-term plans
and programs of economic and social reconstruction and development. Global economic development and
progress that will reduce disparities between First World and Third World countries, eliminate notions
of "winning" and "losing", and end grinding poverty and the problems that go with it should be a
major priority. Economic co-operation should be mutually beneficial for all parties that engage in
it.
Putin also briefly mentioned in passing the development of human potential and creativity, environmental
protection and climate change, and global healthcare as important goals that all countries should
strive for.
While there's not much in Putin's speech that he hasn't said before, what he says is typical of
his worldview, the breadth and depth of his understanding of current world events (which very, very
few Western politicians can match), and his preferred approach of nations working together on common
problems and coming to solutions that benefit all and which don't advantage one party's interests
to the detriment of others and their needs. Putin's approach is a typically pragmatic and cautious
one, neutral with regards to political or economic ideology, but one focused on goals and results,
and the best way and methods to achieve those goals.
One interesting aspect of Putin's speech comes near the end where he says that only a world with
opportunities for everyone, with access to knowledge to all and many ways to realise creative potential,
can be considered truly free. Putin's understanding of freedom would appear to be very different
from what the West (and Americans in particular) understand to be "freedom", that is, being free
of restraints on one's behaviour. Putin's understanding of freedom would be closer to what 20th-century
Russian-born British philosopher Isaiah Berlin would consider to be "positive freedom", the freedom
that comes with self-mastery, being able to think and behave freely and being able to choose the
government of the society in which one lives.
The most outstanding point in Putin's speech, which unfortunately he does not elaborate on further,
given the context of the venue, is the disconnect between the political establishment and the public
in most developed countries, the role of the mass media industry in reducing or widening it, and
the dangers that this disconnect poses to societies if it continues. If elites continue to pursue
their own fantasies and lies, and neglect the needs of the public on whom they rely for support (yet
abuse by diminishing their security through offshoring jobs, weakening and eliminating worker protection,
privatising education, health and energy, and encouraging housing and other debt bubbles), the invisible
bonds of society – what might collectively be called "the social contract" between the ruler and
the ruled – will disintegrate and people may turn to violence or other extreme activities to get
what they want.
An English-language transcript of the speech can be found at
this link .
"... "The weirdest speech to me was the one by the US representative which built her statement as if she is Mother Theresa herself. Please, remember which country you represent. Please, remember the track record of your country." ..."
"... "I shouldn't want to remind this Western trio [France, US, UK] , which has called for today's meeting and carried it out in a raised voice, about your role in the creation of ISIS as a result of US and UK intervention in Iraq", Churkin said. ..."
"... "I don't want to remind these three countries about their role in unwinding the Syrian crisis, which led to such difficult consequences, and let terrorists spread in Syria and Iraq. ..."
"... Russia's public positions are getting progressively less 'diplomatic' and more direct. The west has been inviting Russia to take a swing with deliberately insulting language for a long time, but Russia is beginning to answer in kind. I smell a lifelong enemies situation, and that's unfortunate because Russia cannot be said to have not tried repeatedly to keep things civil. ..."
In response, Vitaly Churkin advised his colleague from the United States to remember the actions
of her own country.
"The weirdest speech to me was the one by the US representative which built her statement as
if she is Mother Theresa herself. Please, remember which country you represent. Please, remember
the track record of your country."
"I shouldn't want to remind this Western trio [France, US, UK] , which has called for today's
meeting and carried it out in a raised voice, about your role in the creation of ISIS as a result
of US and UK intervention in Iraq", Churkin said.
"I don't want to remind these three countries about their role in unwinding the Syrian crisis,
which led to such difficult consequences, and let terrorists spread in Syria and Iraq.
Churkin's actual words re the Mother Theresa wannabe, namely "Outraged" Powers:
"Особенно странным мне показалось выступление представителя Соединенных Штатов, которая построила
свое выступление, как будто она мать Тереза", - заявил он.
Especially strange to me appeared the speech by the representative of the United States,
who constructed her statement as though she were Mother Theresa", he stated.
[You see, Denis Denisovich uses the subjunctive mood, unlike those CNN dickheads! :-)]
Russia's public positions are getting progressively less 'diplomatic' and more direct. The west
has been inviting Russia to take a swing with deliberately insulting language for a long time,
but Russia is beginning to answer in kind. I smell a lifelong enemies situation, and that's unfortunate
because Russia cannot be said to have not tried repeatedly to keep things civil.
Classic, Lyttenburgh, very droll. I hope Churkin was able to negotiate a pay increase or some
sort of bonus for himself for having to sit through and reply to Samantha Power's rants. For a
professional diplomat it must be beyond painful to try and work with her and her ilk.
I wonder if she prays for the souls of those innocents, about whose estimated half-a-million lives,
sacrificed as a result of US sanctions imposed by the USA on Iran, were infamously considered
by her fellow countrywoman as a "price well worth it" as regards the furtherance of the the policies
of the "Exceptional Nation"?
Moscow Exile, yes, it's interesting what examples she picks as the epitome of evil that stains
consciences – Halabja, Rwanda, Srebrenica etc. All of them non-western. How about Hiroshima, Nagasaki,
Agent Orange (the gift that's still giving today), the saturation bombing of Cambodia, the extraordinary
destruction wrecked on North Korea, the genocides of South and Central America carried out by
those trained and shielded by the US and so on and so on – is she unaware of the history of her
own country?
Indeed, Northern Star, the US along with many of its allies had a hand in all of the examples
of 'irredeemable evil' Powers named. My point was that she chose examples where the immediate
perpetrators were not western actors.
Not to mention of course that 7-year-old boy her motorcade knocked over and killed while she was
racing to a photo-shoot in Cameroon. The child's family did get compensation but you wonder how
much guilt Samantha Power feels over an incident that would never have occurred had she not been
so eager to meet and be photographed with former Boko Haram victims just so she could have bragging
rights among the Washington social set.
On watching the "Keiser Report " on the imperial blowback against independent media, it strikes me
that the MSM are as to the Papacy as the new media are to Martin Luther:
The poster is trying to imply that John Bolton = Hillary Clinton as the Secretary of State. But
I doubt that this is true. Still the level of jingoism in those quotes is really breathtaking...
Everything is fake, b, everything is fake. One ring to bind them and in the darkness find them,
and the One Party of Mil.Gov to rule them all with a $35B/yr domestic propaganda budget.Say
hello to USArya's defacto 'day-to-day operations' SecState:
===
John Bolton
"Overthrowing Saddam Hussein was the right move for the US and its allies"
Hillary Clinton
"No, I don't regret giving the president authority [to invade Iraq] because at the time it was in
the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam
Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."
===
John Bolton
"Our military has a wonderful euphemism called 'national command authority.' It's a legitimate military
target. In Libya, Muammar Gaddafi is the national command authority. I think that's the answer right
there. ... I think he's a legitimate target... and that would end the regime right there."
Hillary Clinton
"We came, we saw, he died!"
===
John Bolton
"If, in this context, defeating the Islamic State means restoring to power Mr. Assad in Syria...
that outcome is neither feasible nor desirable."
Hillary Clinton
"The world will not waver, Assad must go"
===
John Bolton
"To stop Iran's bomb, bomb Iran"
"The only longterm solution is regime change in [Iran]."
Hillary Clinton
"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during
which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate
them."
===
John Bolton
"Vladimir Putin's Russia is on the prowl in Eastern Europe and the Middle East in ways unprecedented
since the Cold War"
Hillary Clinton
"[Russia is] interested in keeping Assad in power. So I, when I was secretary of state, advocated
and I advocate today a no-fly zone and safe zones. ... I want to emphasize that what is at stake
here is the ambitions and the aggressiveness of Russia. Russia has decided that it's all in, in Syria.
... I've stood up to Russia. I've taken on Putin and others, and I would do that as president."
===
John Bolton
"The gravest threat to U.S. interests ... is the Russia-Iran-Syria axis"
Hillary Clinton
"ISIS was primarily the result of the [power] vacuum in Syria caused by Assad first and foremost,
aided and abetted by Iran and Russia."
The Nuremberg Court Trials rulings only apply to 'them' not 'US'
Sundus Saleh, an Iraqi woman, claims that former President George W. Bush and other government
officials committed the crime of aggression when they launched the Iraq War, an international
war crime that was banned at the Nuremberg Trials.
Saleh filed her lawsuit in March 2013 in San Francisco federal court. The court ruled in December
2014 that the defendants in the lawsuit - George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza
Rice, Colin Powell and Paul Wolfowitz - were immune from civil proceedings based on the Westfall
Act, a federal law which immunizes government officials from lawsuits for conduct taken within
the lawful scope of their authority. Saleh appealed the decision in June 2015.
The Ninth Circuit has not indicated when it will issue an order with respect to Saleh's appeal.
Nuremberg trial also prosecuted Judges unt Doctors.
The views expressed are the author's own and do not reflect the official policy or position
of the U.S. Army War College, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
Over the past several months, much has been made of President-elect Donald Trump's attitude toward
and connections with Russia and its leader Vladimir Putin. Some observers have charged that Trump
is naïve about Putin's real objectives and have implied that a Trump administration is likely to
subvert core U.S. security interests in a misguided attempt to repair the U.S.-Russia relationship.
Others claim to have detected a genuine affinity between Trump and Putin and have wondered whether
the two leaders – both known as pragmatic dealmakers – might be able to set the bilateral relationship
on a more sustainable footing by ending the hostility and mistrust that have characterized it over
the last several years. Neither is likely to happen: a President Trump will not abandon core U.S.
security interests on the altar of cooperation with Russia, nor will he be able to cut a series of
deals with Putin that repair the bilateral relationship.
The influence of the U.S. and Russian presidents on the bilateral relationship is significantly
more limited than is commonly assumed. Despite our penchant for personalizing the actions of the
Russian government – for example, by charging that "Putin is in Ukraine" or wondering whether "Putin
is likely to attack the Baltics" – Putin is neither in Ukraine nor likely to attack the Baltics.
Elements of his government are certainly in Ukraine, but the process that got them there is far more
complex than many Western observers assume. He is not the only figure that matters in that process
although he does wield outsized power in comparison to the U.S. president.
[1] Governmental decision-making, even in autocracies, is rarely a simple or straightforward
process. Rather than reflecting a sober analysis of costs and benefits or the preferences of the
top political leadership of a state, national security decision-making processes often produce policy
choices that reflect the idiosyncrasies of a decision-making group or the "pulling and hauling" among
government bureaucracies.
[2] Additionally, foreign policy decision-makers, regardless of regime-type, must remain sensitive
to public opinion in making their decisions.
Thus, even if Trump and Putin decide to cooperate on the basis of what they both agree are interests
shared between the U.S. and Russia, each will have to convince the rest of his government to go along,
and each will have to push policies based upon this new vision of cooperation through his government's
bureaucracy. This task will be far from simple since there are powerful elements within both governments
that believe a rapprochement is not in the national interest. This is not to say a period of pragmatic
cooperation is impossible. The Obama administration's 2009 "reset" with Russia is an example. Pursuant
to the reset, the U.S. and Russia were able to agree on a new strategic nuclear arms treaty, on enhanced
sanctions against Iran, and on the use of Russian territory as a resupply route for U.S. forces in
Afghanistan, among other things. But within three years, the reset had largely run its course, and
U.S.-Russian relations began to deteriorate. This deterioration began with the 2011-2012 anti-government
protests in Russia (which the Kremlin suspected were supported by the U.S.), accelerated in the aftermath
of the fall of the Gadhafi regime in Libya (which Russia saw as another instance of U.S.-sponsored
regime change), and culminated in the fall of the Yanukovych regime (which Russia also blamed in
the U.S.) and the Russian intervention in Ukraine. The failure of the Obama reset to put the bilateral
relationship on a sustainable footing illustrates the reason a Trump reset will also fail in the
long run. Namely, the issues in the U.S.-Russia relationship are largely structural, which gives
the relationship a cyclical nature that defies control by leaders in either capital.
As Kier Giles of the UK's Conflict Studies Research Centre has noted, there are predictable stages
to Russia's relations with the West: euphoria, realism, disillusionment, crisis, and reset. A review
of U.S.-Russian relations since the end of the Cold War bears this out and reveals three cycles of
these stages. The first stage began in the early 1990s with the West proclaiming the courage and
asserting the democratic credentials of Russian President Boris Yeltsin and with Russia proclaiming
its desire to fully integrate into the Western political and economic system. Yeltsin's violent 1993
showdown with the Russian parliament and the 1994 Russian military intervention in Chechnya tempered
the early euphoria in the West; the difficult economic conditions along with the perceived lack of
economic support for Russia from the West tempered the early euphoria in Russia. Realism had descended
into disillusionment on both sides by the late 1990s, spurred by the impacts of the Asian financial
crisis, which spread to Russia in 1998, forcing the government to devalue the ruble and default on
both domestic and foreign debt. A crisis in relations erupted over NATO's 1999 war in Kosovo and
the resumption of Russia's war in Chechnya that same year.
The first reset came in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks in the U.S. when Russia offered cooperation
with the U.S. against terrorism and agreed to U.S. use of bases in the Central Asian States to support
its campaign in Afghanistan. This reset was typified by the comment of then-President George W. Bush,
who after meeting Putin, claimed to have looked him in the eye and gotten "a sense of his soul."
Realism set in within a few years when the U.S. and Russia realized they defined the threat from
terrorism and the legitimacy of measures to combat it very differently. This realism gave way to
disillusionment over NATO's 2004 enlargement, which included the post-Soviet Baltic states and the
"Color Revolutions" in Georgia in 2004 and Ukraine in 2004, which Moscow suspected were carried out
with the assistance of the U.S. intelligence agencies. Russia's disillusionment was expressed publicly
and bluntly in Putin's now notorious 2007 speech at the annual international security conference
in Munich, Germany, where he accused the U.S. of threatening international security by developing
ballistic missile defenses, undermining international institutions, destabilizing the Middle East,
expanding NATO, and attempting to overthrow governments in the former Soviet bloc, among other things.
The crisis in relations that ended this phase of the U.S.-Russia relationship was Russia's August
2008 invasion of Georgia. The third phase in bilateral relations began with the 2009 Obama administration's
reset and ended, as noted previously, with the crisis in relations over the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
The reason relations between the U.S. and Russia tend to be cyclical is that many of the factors
that influence them are structural, or "built-in" to the patterns of interaction between the two
countries. Like any two countries, Russia and the U.S. have some interests in common and some interests
that clash. What makes the U.S.-Russia relationship unstable and prone to crisis is not the periodic
clash of interests, but a lack of other factors that can act as "shock absorbers" when interests
do clash. In some bilateral relationships – the U.S.-China relationship is a prime example here –
a robust economic relationship can provide that shock absorber. Despite periodic complaints from
both sides about elements of the relationship that displease them, the fact is that a major disruption
in the U.S.-China economic relationship would be potentially catastrophic for both sides. China's
export-dependent economy would lose access to its largest and most lucrative market, and the U.S.
would lose a major foreign purchaser of its sovereign debt. Thus, when the U.S. and China find themselves
in a situation where their interests clash, there are powerful incentives for both sides to contain
the disagreement, lest it impact the bilateral economic relationship.
No such economic shock absorber exists in the U.S.-Russia relationship : U.S. exports to Russia
in 2013 totaled just $11 billion, or less than 0.1% of U.S. GDP, and U.S. imports from Russia totaled
just $27 billion, under 0.2% of U.S. GDP. Compare these numbers with China, which, despite consistent
U.S. complaints about the bilateral trade imbalance, constitutes a $300 billion market for U.S. exports.
[3]
Even where there are no economic interests to act as a shock absorber in a bilateral relationship,
a shared ideology, worldview, or value set can play that role, but this is also lacking between the
U.S. and Russia. In fact, the two countries have largely incompatible worldviews, and this fact tends
to magnify the impact of any clash in interests rather than minimize it. Glenn P. Hastedt argues
that American foreign policy is guided by, among other factors, moral pragmatism and legalism. Moral
pragmatism holds that "state behavior can be judged by moral standards" and that "American morality
provides the universal standard for making those judgments."
[4] Legalism rejects power politics as a means of settling disputes and assumes that people are
rational beings who abhor war. Therefore, the legalist tradition inclines American policy-makers
to believe that a central task of U.S. foreign policy should be to "create a global system of institutions
and rules that will allow states to settle their disputes without recourse to war."
[5]
A review of the four enduring U.S. national interests articulated in the 2015 U.S. National Security
Strategy bears out Hastedt's claim. The first two of these interests are fairly standard, revolving
around "the security of the U.S., its citizens, and U.S. allies and partners," and "A strong, innovative,
and growing U.S. economy in an open international economic system that promotes opportunity and prosperity."
[6] These interests, focusing on the physical security and economic prosperity of the state,
are widely shared, including by Russia. But the other two of the four enduring U.S. interests bring
the clash in worldview between the U.S. and Russia into sharp focus. These are "respect for universal
values at home and around the world," and "an international order advanced by U.S. leadership that
promotes peace, security, and opportunity through stronger cooperation to meet global challenges."
[7] This focus on promotion of values and a (U.S.-led) rules-based international order is so
strong in the U.S. foreign policy tradition that even presidents largely seen as realists and pragmatists,
such as Nixon and Obama, have been unable to set these factors aside and focus exclusively on core
U.S. security and economic interests.
Russia's view of the world, unsurprisingly, is different. Conditioned by its history to view the
world as a threatening place and to believe that a country as vast and diverse as Russia can only
be ruled by a strong center, Russian political thought places little value on post-modern ideas about
individual rights and is supremely skeptical of the idea that a global set of institutions and rules
can prevent war. Instead, it holds a strong state to be the supreme guarantor of domestic tranquility
and a stable military balance among Great Powers to be the best guarantor of international security.
Furthermore, many Russians believe the U.S. is not truly committed to the promotion of what it deems
universal values or the preservation of a set of global institutions as a means of enabling international
cooperation. Instead, they tend to believe that the U.S. cynically uses concepts such as values and
institutions to advance its own security interests and damage those of Russia. This incompatibility
in worldviews often leads to misperception and miscommunication in Russian-American relations.
A review of some of the main issues in the bilateral relationship since the end of the Cold War
bears this assertion out. In Kosovo, for example, where the U.S. saw ongoing ethnic cleansing as
justification for military intervention under the emerging doctrine of "responsibility to protect,"
Russia saw a military operation designed to destabilize and dismember Serbia, Russia's main ally
in the Balkans. However implausible it may seem to those in the West, some Russians also saw the
Kosovo operation as a dress rehearsal for a NATO-led intervention in Chechnya. NATO's enlargement
also presents a case of fundamentally different interpretations of the same issue. Where the U.S.
and the West see the enlargement of NATO as a way to ensure security, stability, and prosperity in
as much of the Euro-Atlantic zone as possible, Russia sees encroachment on its borders by a potentially
hostile military alliance. Enlargement of the European Union, while not seen as a military threat
by Moscow, is however seen as an attempt to isolate and weaken Russia.
A final example of how Russia and the West can observe the same phenomenon and come to fundamentally
different conclusions concerns the so-called "color revolutions" in the former Soviet Union. Many
in the West saw these popular uprisings, which peacefully ousted authoritarian governments in Georgia
in 2003 (the "Rose Revolution"), in Ukraine in 2004 (the "Orange Revolution"), in Kyrgyzstan in 2005
(the "Tulip Revolution"), and again in Ukraine in 2014 (the "Maidan Revolution") as evidence that
the peoples of the former Soviet Union wanted no more than peoples everywhere: to be governed justly
and democratically. The Kremlin, however, claimed to see the hand of Western intelligence services
in these political transformations and suspected the West was intentionally destabilizing pro-Russian
governments in Russia's neighbors with the ultimate goal of bringing down the Russian government
itself.
Disagreement over the last two of these issues – the enlargement of Western institutions and popular
revolution in Russia's neighbors – came together to cause war in Georgia in 2008 and Ukraine in 2014.
In Georgia, the war started in August 2008, four months after NATO stated that Georgia and Ukraine
would become members of the Alliance and after a long period of hostility between Georgia's pro-Western
government headed by Mikhail Saakashvili and the Putin regime. In Ukraine, the catalyst for war was
the overthrow of the pro-Russian government of Viktor Yanukovych, which had used violence against
protesters angered by Yanukovych's rejection of an association agreement with the European Union.
In both cases, fundamentally incompatible worldviews were the underlying cause of the conflict. The
U.S. and the West espouse a liberal internationalist worldview that sees international institutions
as focal points for cooperation, individual rights as sacrosanct, and democratic governments as inherently
more legitimate and predictable – and therefore less threatening – than autocratic ones. Russia adheres
to a more realist worldview, where military power is the currency that buys security, where stability
is only maintained by a military balance among great powers, and where human rights and international
law are seen as either irrelevant or as tools to be used – often cynically and instrumentally – by
great powers to advance their security interests.
A President Trump will be unable to change the fundamental characteristics of this relationship
because the powers of the American president are much more constrained than those of most corporate
CEOs. Presidential historian Richard Neustadt has observed that U.S. presidential powers really amount
to the "power to persuade." Neustadt quotes Truman, who when contemplating an Eisenhower presidency
in 1952, remarked, "He'll sit here and he'll say 'Do this! Do That!' And nothing will happen. Poor
Ike – it won't be a bit like the Army. He'll find it very frustrating."
[8] The reason for this is that even inside his own administration, the president has to persuade
a large and sometimes recalcitrant community of national security and foreign policy professionals
to implement his vision.
And even if a president is able to get the executive branch moving in one direction with dispatch
and purpose, he still has to deal with the Congress, which has more powers in foreign policy-making
than is often assumed. As Edward Corwin has correctly observed, the U.S. Constitution is "an invitation
to struggle for the privilege of directing American foreign policy."
[9] The Congress a Trump administration will have to deal with – despite the Republican majorities
in both houses – will be far from compliant on national security issues, especially where Russia
is concerned. First, the Democratic minorities in the Senate and the House, already skeptical of
Russia due to its autocratic form of government and documented human rights abuses, will be even
more unwilling to acquiesce to major deals with Russia due to its interference in the U.S. presidential
election, which some Democrats believe was intended to prevent the election of Hillary Clinton. On
the Republican side, there is a group of national security hawks, led by John McCain in the Senate,
who are strongly opposed to any cooperation with Russia, seeing it as the biggest single threat to
America's interests. And although the president is less constrained in foreign policy than he is
in domestic policy, Congress still has the power to deny him the achievement of his objectives in
many areas. For example, Congress sets the levels of military aid for foreign partners, so even if
a Trump administration were to request no aid for Ukraine and Georgia in an attempt to signal to
Russia that the U.S. was not willing to contest their geopolitical affiliation, Congress could –
and very likely would – reinstate robust military aid packages for both.
In short, a President Trump will neither be duped into subverting core American security interests
on the altar of cooperation with Russia, nor will he be able to build a sustainable partnership with
Russia on the basis of deal-making with Putin. Despite his inexperience in foreign policy, the natural
aversion of the executive branch national security and foreign policy community to radically change,
along with a skeptical Congress, will prevent the former; the fundamentally incompatible worldviews
of the U.S. and Russia will prevent the latter. Sustainable partnership between the U.S. and Russia
would require a fundamental change in the worldviews of one or both. Either the U.S. would need to
begin seeing the world in realist, power politics terms, something anathema to most Americans, or
Russia would need to abandon its great power politics view of the world and become a post-modern
state. No matter how much Putin and Trump may want to make cooperation work, neither of these is
likely to happen over the short term. There may indeed be a Trump reset – in the same way there was
an Obama reset and a Bush reset – that results in deals over issues not involving critical U.S. or
Russian national security interests. But over time, the structural factors impeding long-term cooperation
will reassert themselves, and the relationship will proceed through its familiar stages of realism,
disillusionment, and crisis. Trump's main task – like those of Clinton, Bush, and Obama before him
– will be to ensure that the as the relationship erodes, miscalculation and misperception do not
allow it to escalate to open war. His predecessors managed to succeed in this; we should all wish
President Trump similar success.
[1] Although Putin's influence on Russian foreign policy is more pronounced than is that of the
American president, the point here is that he is not unconstrained. Putin – and any Russian president
– has to consider both the preferences of the Russian people and those of the Russian elite when
making foreign policy decisions. In his 2016 book Russia's Foreign Policy: Change and Continuity
in National Identity , Andrei Tsygankov locates Putin's foreign policy in Russia's Statist tradition,
arguing that it has deep historical roots that Putin appeals to but did not create. Similarly, in
their 2015 paper "Russian Foreign Policy in Historical and Current Context: A Reassessment," Olga
Oliker and her co-authors note that while Putin's leadership style and viewpoints are important factors
in Russian foreign policy decision-making, the process also reflects deeply-held, underlying Russian
attitudes about Russia's place in the world and that these attitudes will drive Russian foreign policy
decision-making after Putin is gone. Oliker and her co-authors also note that the Russian government
is "deeply fearful of elite and public opposition to its actions," which also influences its foreign
policy decisions.
[2] David Patrick Houghton, The Decision Point: Six Cases in U.S. Foreign Policy Decision-Making
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), p. 10.
@35 Trump is a big unknown. I think Paul Craig Roberts said it best - give Trump 6 months
and then form an opinion. I'm not too optimistic however; Trump's policies could flop and
the hawks could weasel their warmongering in (IRAN + CHINA + ????)
For the moment, I think Tillerson is a far far better pick than Guilliani, Romney or Bolton.
I hope that he will acquire the position. He seems to be smart, but also seems to have good
character (considering.)
Of course, the inauguration is a few weeks off, so the concern about a soft coup are real ones,
especially when the CIA is throwing out the Russia claims.
OT (sorry, but I really don't care about so-called 'leaks' and 'hacks'):
Trump chooses Exxon CEO Tillerson as Secretary of State.
Kind of makes me wonder...what if we see the emergence of a new confrontation, between a 'fossil
fuel' block comprising the US, Russia and OPEC, and a 'renewables' block of China, the EU and
pretty much everyone else? Yep, I admit that's a very long shot.
John Bolton, dutifully reading from the CIA's Yellow Cake playbook
"I'm obviously aware that people are quite focused on the economy rather than foreign
policy issues, but that is something that should and can be altered as people see the
nature of the grave threats around the world that we face. We estimate that once Iraq acquires
fissile material -- it could fabricate a nuclear weapon within one year."
MIC IS NOW IN CONTROL OF DEFENSE, NSA, CIA AND STATE, AND GOLDMAN IS IN CONTROL OF TREASURY,
COMMERCE, OMB, NEC AND FED. THIS IS THE NEO-CON END-GAME: THE 1998-2001 SOFT COUP-HARD COUP, THAT
TOOK AMERICA DOWN.
All we need is Ari Fleischer in the role of Bolton's spox to the media, lol. "Mr. Fleischer,
please come to the red phone service desk, you have a call waiting."
It's all monkey-brain now!
There's something very fishy about the choices of Rex Tillerson and John Bolton for SoS and Deputy
SoS respectively.
Tillerson has major potential conflicts of interest that the Senate will scrutinize including
the award he received from Putin. I'm seriously questioning how Tillerson will get Senate approval.
On the other hand, John Bolton, is very popular with most Republicans and hawkish Democrats and
will have no problem whatsoever.
I believe this strange combination is a red flag that perfectly illustrates Trump's strategy,
which is one of the following:
1. Either Trump deliberately chose someone with close ties to Russia and Putin because he knows
he won't be approved by the Senate, and his first choice from the start, John Bolton, will pass
with flying colors;
2. Or William Engdahl is right that the Neocon strategy is pivoting and adapting to present
circumstances:
His job will be to reposition the United States for them to reverse the trend to disintegration
of American global hegemony, to, as the Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz Project for the New American
Century put it in their September, 2000 report, "rebuild America's defenses."
To do that preparation, a deception strategy that will fatally weaken the developing deep
bonds between Russia and China will be priority. It's already begun. We have a friendly phone
call from The Donald to Vladimir the Fearsome in Moscow. Russian media is euphoric about a
new era in US-Russia relations after Obama. Then suddenly we hear the war-mongering NATO head,
Stoltenberg, suddenly purr soothing words to Russia. Float the idea that California Congressman
and Putin acquaintance, Dana Rohrabacher, is leaked as a possible Secretary of State. It's
classic Kissinger Balance of Power geopolitics–seem to ally with the weaker of two mortal enemies,
Russia, to isolate the stronger, China. Presumably Vladimir Putin is not so naïve or stupid
as to fall for it, but that is the plot of Trump's handlers. Such a strategy of preventing
the growing Russia-China cooperation was urged by Zbigniew Brzezinski in a statement this past
summer.
Let's not forget that the first time Trump was asked during the campaign who he gets foreign
policy advice from; the first name that popped up was JOHN BOLTON, and he praised him as being
tough. John Bolton was strongly allied with Dick Cheney. Steve Yates, another Neocon, was Cheney's
China advisor and is Trump's as well. After reading Engdahl's article, I wrote my own opinion
of the Neocon strategy based on Engdahl's and you can read it on the Saker's site here:
http://thesaker.is/his-own-man-or-someones-puppet/
But if you find it difficult to read without paragraphs: scroll down through the comments on
the Saker's own opinion of Engdahl's piece as that's where my original comment appeared with paragraphs.
Something stinks about this Tillerson/Bolton combination. You can read my theory on why Neocons
are pivoting to a new strategy of divide and conquer as Engdahl believes, and it has to do with
the growing economic bond between China and Iran as well and killing two birds with one stone;
invading Iran to contain China and sabotage OBOR.
Note as well, that in courting Russia to isolate China and weaken the growing cooperation between
China and Russia, as Engdahl puts it, Russia will ultimately lose its own influence, unless of
course Netanyahu has made Putin an offer he can't refuse, since Netanyahu has been courting Putin
for quite some time already; and this is very bizarre, since Putin frustrated Netanyahu's plan
for Syria.
So Bolton will be Tillerson's vice-SoS. How much more Neocon can you get? And you seriously believe
Trump will 'clean the Augean Stables', 'drain the swamp' and 'open a new book' in foreign policy,
esp. relations with Russia? Dream on.
First of all; that Boeing deal was a condition of the Iran deal! Trump wants to tear up the
deal; it was one of his promises. Second, Republicans wanted more than that funding for Israel.
I never denied Obama was not a Zionist enabler -- can't you read??? Third, if Obama's an enabler;
Trump is in bed with Netanyahu and Zionists since he promised to tear up the Iran deal and move
the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem... whooooo does that??? Who promises sht like that? Only someone
who's even crazier than Nut job yahu!
"But he has also complained that American companies are shut out of post-deal economic opportunities
in Iran, and suggested that Washington will need to cooperate with Iran as well as Russia in
dealing with the Syrian civil war."
Here's what I predict short-term for the Middle East: The situation will settle down into something
like the Pakistan-India situation, with Iran and Syria on one side, and Saudi Arabia and Israel
on the other. That's just short-term, however. Israel and Saudi Arabia are not very viable long-term.
Eventually, I'm guessing the Gulf Arab monarchies will be replaced by parliamentary democracies,
as happened with the Shah of Iran, and Israel will have to accept a one-state solution in which
all Palestinians and Arabs get the same rights as Jewish citizens of Israel - which means, yes,
separation of church and state, something any American vassal/client state should be willing to
accept. IAEA inspections of the nuclear arsenal are also inevitable. But this will not "wipe Israel
off the map" any more than it resulted in genocide for white South Afrikaaners.
"... "We propose the creation of a harmonious economic community stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok," Putin writes. "In the future, we could even consider a free trade zone or even more advanced forms of economic integration. The result would be a unified continental market with a capacity worth trillions of euros." ..."
"... "The proposal comes as Putin travels to Germany on Thursday for a two-day visit, including a Friday meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. On Wednesday, Russia and the EU reached an important agreement on the elimination of tariffs on raw materials such as wood. The deal was an important prerequisite for the EU dropping its opposition to Russian membership in the World Trade Organization. Moscow is hoping to become a member in 2011." http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/from-lisbon-to-vladivostok-putin-envisions-a-russia-eu-free-trade-zone-a-731109.html ..."
Causes more polarization, between those who believe it & those who don't.
More importantly, it's in support of "fake news" (censorship) which is a serious move.
Also, the reason for such an unconvincing accusation is in Russia & Putin:
November of 2010, Putin wrote an editorial for Suddeutsche Zeitung. He urged No more tariffs.
No more visas. Vastly more economic cooperation between Russia and the European Union.
"We propose the creation of a harmonious economic community stretching from Lisbon to
Vladivostok," Putin writes. "In the future, we could even consider a free trade zone or even
more advanced forms of economic integration. The result would be a unified continental market
with a capacity worth trillions of euros."
"The proposal comes as Putin travels to Germany on Thursday for a two-day visit, including
a Friday meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. On Wednesday, Russia and the EU reached
an important agreement on the elimination of tariffs on raw materials such as wood. The deal
was an important prerequisite for the EU dropping its opposition to Russian membership in the
World Trade Organization. Moscow is hoping to become a member in 2011."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/from-lisbon-to-vladivostok-putin-envisions-a-russia-eu-free-trade-zone-a-731109.html
While we applaud the breakup of the EU, recognizing it as a force which eats the liberty and
economic prosperity of Europeans, Putin wants Russia to join it., and NATO as well.
Putin at Valdai in 2015
"I am certain that if there is a will, we can restore the effectiveness of the international
and regional institutions system. We do not even need to build anything anew, from the scratch;
this is not a "greenfield," especially since the institutions created after World War II are
quite universal and can be given modern substance, adequate to manage the current situation.
"We need a new global consensus of responsible forces. It's not about some local deals or
a division of spheres of influence in the spirit of classic diplomacy, or somebody's complete
global domination. I think that we need a new version of interdependence. We should not be
afraid of it. On the contrary, this is a good instrument for harmonising positions"
Putin supports the Rule of Law-- thru the Rockefeller-controlled UN. He's for national sovereignty
but never speaks of the desirability for nations to regain trade sovereignty, let alone economic,
immigration or currency sovereignty.
An opposition must have an opposing vision. Otherwise, what is it opposing? Is it enough that
it opposes US aggression as a means to bring about the shared vision of a regionally-administered
global oligarchy? Is it enough that Russia's 1% have to fight the West's 1% to keep 74% of the
wealth of Russia?
The hacking accusation is not meant to persuade us that it's true-- but only to reinforce our
feeling that there is opposition between Russia and the West: That Russia opposes the global tyranny
which is progressing to completion. That we need do nothing but have faith in our minds in Putin
and Russia.
I hope I'm wrong guys. Can anybody find any words of Putin's which speak of the desirability
of reversing any part of global governance?
"... ALBerto I agree. It is also clear the cease fire agreements between the army and the Russians in Syria were deliberately sabotaged on at least two occasions. This supports the view that there is a split between the CIA and the army. ..."
From The Syrian Arab Army's "more official than any
other"
Facebook
page:
"...the city of Palmyra after the Syrian Arab Army units managed to regroup
and counterattack; the counter attack was aimed to prevent ISIS from entering the city
before the majority if not all civilians, what needs to be evacuated is evacuated.
In the morning, an organized withdrawal order was given to the troops, even after
the bulk of ISIS attack was repelled.
As we mentioned the night ended with ISIS pushed over 7km form the city itself;
and as we mentioned yesterday don't take any news as definitive.
Yesterday, reinforcement from the Syrian Arab Army were sent led by one of the
greatest SAA Generals, and everything changed afterwards.
As for now, the Syrian Arab Army pulled out of Palmyra; we don't know the second
step yet and we will update the page when we have information that we can share.
In its latest post some 45 minutes ago, the page author explains: "...the Syrian
command have to make hard choices to minimize SAA loses over any area on the map;
because the control map can be changed either with huge casualties or with minimal
casualties, but those who are lost cannot be revived."
It's a familiar story. We see armies advance and withdraw, advance and withdraw. What
matters is how many civilians die or can be protected and how many soldiers are left,
and to which side, which then rules the ground. Russian and Syrian gunships are
inflicting massive damage on these terrorists. Civilians are being evacuated from the
battle zones. At this moment SAA either controls the city or will control the city. But
SAA controls the battle.
ALBerto I agree. It is also clear the cease fire agreements between the army and the Russians
in Syria were deliberately sabotaged on at least two occasions. This supports the view that there
is a split between the CIA and the army. Good luck to trump and his friends. He is not someone
I would normally support but it does appear that he is an outsider to both the Republicans and
Democrats and may indeed be intent on draining the swamp. A very difficult road ahead as the corruption
amongst the powerful in the USA is widespread. Karma is the word that comes to mind if one looks
at what the USA has done to other countries around the world.
Robert McMaster@66 Tillerson's nomination could face intense scrutiny in the Senate, considering
his years of work in Russia and the Middle East on behalf of the multinational petroleum company.
Already, two leading Republican hawks, Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.),
have voiced concerns about Tillerson's serving as the nation's top diplomat because of his ties
to Putin.
I can hear McCains first question "Have you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist
Party.
"... Greenwald's take down is another hammer meets nail piece. The CIA are systemic liars. In fact, that's their job to move around in the shadows and deceive. They literally lie about everything. They lied about Iran/Contra, torture programs, their propensity for drug smuggling and dealing, infesting the media with agents, imaginary WMDs that launch war and massacre, mass surveillance of citizens, just to name a few. ..."
"... This is the agency who are in secret and anonymity, with no verifiable evidence, whispering rumors in the WaPoo and NYTimes' ears that the Russians made Hillary lose. What moron would take the CIA at its word anymore? Much less a major newspaper? Did I miss something, is it 1950 again? Methinks I've picked up the scent of fake news ..."
"... Apparently, all the morons who are still screaming about Trump, as if he alone will be in charge of the government and not his GOP handlers. Please keep in mind that the ardent Clinton supporters quite clearly reveal cult behavior, and anything that allows them to continue embracing their belief in their righteousness will be embraced without question or qualm. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... The upside of these overtly political battles among intelligence agencies is that we are eroding away the idea that these are non-partisan institutions without overt political agendas. ..."
"... What Stengel and various mainstream media outlets appear to be arguing for is the creation of a "Ministry of Truth" managed by mainstream U.S. media outlets and enforced by Google, Facebook and other technology platforms. ..."
"... In other words, once these supposedly responsible outlets decide what the "truth" is, then questioning that narrative will earn you "virtual" expulsion from the marketplace of ideas, possibly eliminated via algorithms of major search engines or marked with a special app to warn readers not to believe what you say, a sort of yellow Star of David for the Internet age. ..."
"... The NC lawsuit against WaPo, like the lawsuit of Hedges et al. against provisions of the NDAA, marks a watershed moment for defending free speech in our country! I hope that my oft-expressed belief -- that we will soon need to revive samizdat ..."
"... According to a recent posting on Wolf Street, according to records, the Treasury has borrowed 4 trillion more between 2004-15, than can actually be accounted for in spending. This is because it is the borrowing and thus public obligations, which really matter to the powers that be. The generals just get their toys and wars as icing on the cake. It doesn't matter if they win, because there would be less war to spend it on. Eventually they will use "public/private partnerships" to take their piles of public obligations and trade for the rest of the Commons. ..."
"... Money needs to be understand as a public utility, like roads. We no more own it than we own the section of road we are using. It is like blood, not fat. ..."
"... The CIA whinging about a right wing president being installed by a foreign power might just be the greatest self-awareness fail ever! ..."
"... LOL at that! You'd think they were afraid trump might turn out to be the next Hugo Chavez! They must really, really love their program to help al Qaeda in Syria. ..."
"... The CIA lies as a matter of course, and now they're being propped up as the paragons of honesty, simply out of political expediency. Crazy days. ..."
"... Modern Democrats simply aren't a political party but fanatics of a professional sports club. If it wasn't the Russians, it would be referees or Bill Belichick at fault. I'm surprised they aren't mentioning "Comrade Nader" at all times. ..."
"... In fact, Trump's coalition looks remarkably similar to the one that Scott Walker put together in 2014. ..."
"... Obama in Spartanburg, SC in 2007: And understand this: If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I'm in the White House, I'll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself, I will walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States of America. Because workers deserve to know that somebody is standing in their corner. ..."
"... And the Dems wonder why the working class feel betrayed. ..."
Meet the Democrats' proto-Trumps Politico. "In three major states with a governor's
mansion up for grabs in 2018, a big-name, politically active billionaire or multimillionaire
is taking steps toward a run - [Democrat] donors looking to take matters into their own
hands after 2016's gutting losses."
The Evidence to Prove the Russian Hack emptywheel. The headline is a bit off, since the
post's subject is really the evidence required to prove the Russian hack. Some of
which does exist. That said, this is an excellent summary of the state of play. I take issue
with one point:
Crowdstrike reported that GRU also hacked the DNC. As it explains, GRU does this by sending
someone something that looks like an email password update, but which instead is a fake
site designed to get someone to hand over their password. The reason this claim is strong
is because people at the DNC say this happened to them.
First, CrowdStrike is a private security firm, so there's a high likelihood they're talking
their book, Beltway IT being what it is. Second, a result (DNC got phished) isn't "strong"
proof of a claim (GRU did the phishing). We live in a world where 12-year-olds know how to
do email phishing, and a world where professional phishing operations can camouflage themselves
as whoever they like. So color me skeptical absent some unpacking on this point. A second post
from emptywheel,
Unpacking the New CIA Leak: Don't Ignore the Aluminum Tube Footnote , is also well worth
a read.
Greenwald's take down is another hammer meets nail piece. The CIA are systemic liars.
In fact, that's their job to move around in the shadows and deceive. They literally lie about
everything. They lied about Iran/Contra, torture programs, their propensity for drug smuggling
and dealing, infesting the media with agents, imaginary WMDs that launch war and massacre,
mass surveillance of citizens, just to name a few.
They murder, torture, train hired mercenary proxies (who they are often pretending to oppose),
stage coups of democratically elected govt.'s, interfere with elections, topple regimes, install
ruthless puppet dictators, and generally enslave other nations to western corporate pirates.
They are a rogue band of pirates themselves.
This is the agency who are in secret and anonymity, with no verifiable evidence, whispering
rumors in the WaPoo and NYTimes' ears that the Russians made Hillary lose. What moron would
take the CIA at its word anymore? Much less a major newspaper? Did I miss something, is it
1950 again? Methinks I've picked up the scent of fake news
Conclusion: It isn't the Russians that are interfering with U.S. kangaroo elections, it's
the professionals over at the CIA
Apparently, all the morons who are still screaming about Trump, as if he alone will
be in charge of the government and not his GOP handlers. Please keep in mind that the ardent
Clinton supporters quite clearly reveal cult behavior, and anything that allows them to continue
embracing their belief in their righteousness will be embraced without question or qualm.
I've tried to point out on other blogs just how shaky that story in the Washington Post
is, and the response I get is something along the lines of, well, other outlets are also
reporting it, so it must be true. It does me no good to point out that this is the same tactic
used by the Bush administration in the run-up to the Iraq war. People will believe what they
want to believe.
It may help to point to the history of CIA influence at WaPoo. Counterpunch had a short
piece reminding everyone of Operation Mockingbird (going from memory on that name) where CIA
had reporters on staff at the paper directly taking orders and simultaneously on CIA payroll.
If questioned about CIA's motivation for hating trump, my best guess is that it is because
trump is undermining their project to overthrow assad in syria using nusra rebels. And also
because trump wants to be nice to russia.
I think there's some people in the cia that think they played a major role in winning the
cold war through their support for mujahadeen rebels in afghanistan. I suspect they think they
can beat putin in syria the same way. This is absolutely nutty.
The upside of these overtly political battles among intelligence agencies is that we
are eroding away the idea that these are non-partisan institutions without overt political
agendas.
There's a large number of people that will see through the facade. Right now, Trump supporters
are getting a lesson in how much resistance there can be within the establishment. I'm no Trump
supporter, but I think seeing what these institutions are capable of is a useful exercise for
all involved.
Apologies if this analysis by Robert Parry has already been shared here:
"What Stengel and various mainstream media outlets appear to be arguing for is the
creation of a "Ministry of Truth" managed by mainstream U.S. media outlets and enforced
by Google, Facebook and other technology platforms.
In other words, once these supposedly responsible outlets decide what the "truth"
is, then questioning that narrative will earn you "virtual" expulsion from the marketplace
of ideas, possibly eliminated via algorithms of major search engines or marked with a special
app to warn readers not to believe what you say, a sort of yellow Star of David for the
Internet age.
And then there's the possibility of more direct (and old-fashioned) government enforcement
by launching FBI investigations into media outlets that won't toe the official line. (All
of these "solutions" have been advocated in recent weeks.)
On the other hand, if you do toe the official line that comes from Stengel's public diplomacy
shop, you stand to get rewarded with government financial support. Stengel disclosed in
his interview with Ignatius that his office funds "investigative" journalism projects.
"How should citizens who want a fact-based world combat this assault on truth?" Ignatius
asks, adding: "Stengel has approved State Department programs that teach investigative reporting
and empower truth-tellers."
The NC lawsuit against WaPo, like the lawsuit of Hedges et al. against provisions of
the NDAA, marks a watershed moment for defending free speech in our country! I hope that my
oft-expressed belief -- that we will soon need to revive samizdat techniques to preserve
truth– may turn ou to be overly pessimistic.
Keep in mind the basis of this capitalist economy is Federal debt. They have to spend it
on something. The government doesn't even budget, which is to list priorities and spend according
to need/ability. They put together these enormous bills, add enough to get the votes, which
don't come cheap and then the prez can only pass or veto.
If they wanted to actually budget, taking the old line item veto as a template, they could
break these bills into all their various items, have each legislator assign a percentage value
to each one, put them back together in order of preference and the prez would draw the line.
"The buck stops here."
That would keep powers separate, with congress prioritizing and the prez individually responsible
for deficit spending. It would also totally crash our current "Capitalist" system.
According to a recent posting on Wolf Street, according to records, the Treasury has
borrowed 4 trillion more between 2004-15, than can actually be accounted for in spending. This
is because it is the borrowing and thus public obligations, which really matter to the powers
that be. The generals just get their toys and wars as icing on the cake. It doesn't matter
if they win, because there would be less war to spend it on. Eventually they will use "public/private
partnerships" to take their piles of public obligations and trade for the rest of the Commons.
Money needs to be understand as a public utility, like roads. We no more own it than
we own the section of road we are using. It is like blood, not fat.
LOL at that! You'd think they were afraid trump might turn out to be the next Hugo Chavez!
They must really, really love their program to help al Qaeda in Syria.
There are so many eye-rolling ironies in all this I think my eyeballs might just pop out
of their sockets. And the liberals going out of their way to tout the virtues of the CIA the
very same organization that never shied from assassinating or overthrowing a leftwing president/prime
minister it galls. The CIA lies as a matter of course, and now they're being propped up
as the paragons of honesty, simply out of political expediency. Crazy days.
Modern Democrats simply aren't a political party but fanatics of a professional sports
club. If it wasn't the Russians, it would be referees or Bill Belichick at fault. I'm surprised
they aren't mentioning "Comrade Nader" at all times.
My guess is donors are annoyed after the 2014 debacle and are having a hard time rationalizing
a loss to a reality TV show host with a cameo in Home Alone 2.
And understand this: If American workers are being denied their right to organize and
collectively bargain when I'm in the White House, I'll put on a comfortable pair of shoes
myself, I will walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States of America.
Because workers deserve to know that somebody is standing in their corner.
And the Dems wonder why the working class feel betrayed.
That ProPublica piece (
Suspected of Corruption at Home, Powerful Foreigners Find Refuge in the U.S. Pro Publica)
is brutal. Not only do we have to be the shittest corrupt country in the world but we have
to be a safe haven for ever other corrupt politician in the world as long as they have $$.
Can someone just make it all end? Please. There needs to be a maximum wealth where anything
you earn past it just gets automatically redistributed to the poor.
Thanks for the link – really important and scary things are going in congress concerning
'fake news' and Russian propaganda and HR 6393 is particularly bad. The EU is also taking steps
to counter 'fake news' as well. Obama claimed that some form of curation is required – and
it is happening quickly. People are suggesting that propornot has been debunked. That does
not matter anymore. The Obama regime and the MSM don't care – that have gotten the message
out.
And the people behind this are really deranged – check out Adam Schiff calling Tucker Carlson
a Kremlin stooge for even suggesting that there is no certainty that Russia leaked the emails
to Wikileaks.
After all, the media went all in for Hillary and spent huge amounts of time explaining why
Trump is unfit. But they lost.
And now our efforts on behalf of al Queada are failing in Syria and more hysteria ensues.
See for example:
The email saga lost a provable set of sources a long time ago. Before the files were given
to Wikileaks it was already too late to determine which people did it. So-called forensic evidence
of these computers only tell us that investigators either found evidence of a past compromise
or that people want us to believe they did. Since the compromise was determined after the fact,
the people with access could have done anything to the computers, including leave a false trail.
The core problem is that since security for all of these machines, including the DNC's email
server and most likely many of those from Team R, was nearly non-existent nearly nothing useful
can be determined. The time to learn something about a remote attacker, when it's possible
at all, is while the machine is being attacked – assuming it has never been compromised before.
If the attacker's machine has also been compromised then you know pretty much nothing unless
you can get access to it.
As far as physical access protection goes. If the machine has been left on and unattended
or is not completely encrypted then the only thing that might help is a 24 hour surveillance
camera pointed at the machine.
Forensic evidence in compromised computers is significantly less reliable than DNA and hair
samples. It's much too easy for investigators to frame another party by twiddling some bits.
Anyone that thinks that even well intentioned physical crime investigators have never gotten
convictions with bad or manipulated evidence has been watching and believing way too many crime
oriented mysteries. "Blindspot" is not a documentary.
As for projecting behaviors on a country by calling it a "state action", Russia or otherwise,
implying that there is no difference between independent and government sponsored actions,
that is just silly.
Apt observation from Gareth: "I believe the CIA is attempting to delegitimize Trump's election
so as to force him into a defensive position in which he will temper his dual goals of normalizing
relations with Russia and destroying the CIA's proxy armies of jihadists. We will see if Trump has
the guts to make some heads roll in the CIA He will remember that the last President who even
threatened to take on the CIA received a massive dose of flying lead poisoning. "
Essentially after WaPo scandal it is prudent to view all US MSM as yellow press.
Notable quotes:
"... The Post and the like are terrified over their loss of credibility just as the internet has destroyed their advertising. Interesting that their response to competition isn't to outdo the competition but to smother the competition with a lie. Their own fake news. ..."
"... As a moral American and supporter of free speech, I am going to make a list of online or print WaPo advertisers. Then I will communicate to them that I will never buy another thing from them as long as they advertise in the Washington Post. ..."
"... Open their ads in Firefox ad blocker. Then add them to the script and spam blacklist. ..."
"... The story serves many purposes. One is firing a shot across TrumpCo's bow: 'Submit to us or we'll delegitimate your election.' ..."
"... Another is excusing the Democratic Party establishment for losing the election, and thus diverting the wrath of the rank and file. ..."
"... About all we can do at the moment is remember to remember the names of the people who purveyed and supported the story, just as we should remember to remember the names of those who purveyed WMD stories. ..."
"... Job #1 always is suppressing the Sanders faction. Not beating Trump or the Republicans. They want control of their little pond. ..."
"... Personally, after what we did in Ukraine (essentially funding a revolution) I refuse to get the vapors because Russia apparently "helped" elect Trump by exposing (not forcing her to be a liar or cheat) Hillary. ..."
"... All of this crap about Russia, or the electoral college system is a distraction from the real issues at hand about our political system, which is a two party one oligarchy (ALEC) anti-democratic system. The rot runs from national presidential elections to the comptroller of the smaller city governments. ..."
"... If any candidate was capable of speaking to the working and middle class, then either Russia nor the the 0.01% who compose the oligarchy could control who wins in popular elections. What is really needed is to eliminate either the two party system, or democratize their methods of selecting candidates. ..."
"... Think Hillary played an unfair hand to Sanders? That was nothing compared to the shenanigans that get played at local level, state level, and Congress level to filter out populist candidates and replace them with machine / oligarchy pets. ..."
"... the idea that Saudi (or other Middle Eastern states) also intervened (with money), is not more credible? ..."
"... Yes, the NYT piece on Russian hacking is complete evidence free tripe. Not once do they say what evidence they base these accusations on, beyond the Cyrillic keyboard. The code for Cyrillic keyboard is, "fuzzy bear" et al. as the original reporting on the DNC hack and the company that ran security made clear that this was the one and only piece of concrete evidence the attacks by "fuzzy bear" et al. were perpetrated by the Russians. ..."
"... So based on a Cyrillic keyboard and the below quote, unnamed "American intelligence agencies know it was the Russians, really? ..."
"... Based on this it appears the NYTs definition of fake reporting is anything that isn't fed directly to it by unnamed experts or the USG and uncritically reported. ..."
"... I think these unnamed agencies are not going to have a very good working relationship with the orange overlord if they keep this up. They might not even be getting that new war they wanted for Christmas. ..."
"... It's as though the NYT and WaPo had these vast pools of accumulated credibility and they could go out on a limb here Oh wait - their credibility has been destroyed countless times over the past decade or so. One would think they'd realise: If you're in a ditch, the first thing to do is stop digging. ..."
"... The world is flat . Note: This is not me awarding a Thomas L. Friedman prize. In this case, I am simply sharing the article because I think it is hilarious. ..."
"... Nowhere, in any of this, is it mentioned that Clinton's illegal private email server (that got hacked) played any factor whatsoever. It just stinks so bad, I wonder how they can not smell what they are sitting in.. ..."
"... Summarizing a very plausible theory, NeoCon Coup Attempt: As Syria's Assad (with Russian help) is close to crushing HRC's jihadi Queda & Nusra rebels in Aleppo, the NeoCons are freaking out on both sides of the Atlantic. ..."
"... What to do? Jill's recount is floundering. So, last resort: Concoct Russia hacking myth to either delay Dec 19 EC vote or create more faithless electors. Result: A NeoCon like HRC or a NeoCon sympathizer is installed. ..."
"... Two biggest war hawks, McCain and Graham, are leading the Senate charges against Russia. All of this within days of Obama sending 200 MORE US troops to Syria and lifting the ban on more arms to the Syrian rebels, including anti-aircraft MANPADS. ..."
"... The recount farce makes me angry, and has made me resolve to never give Stein my vote again. ..."
"... That implies the NeoCon establishment views DJT and cabinet as a threat in any way, which is an extremely dubious premise. Occam's razor: Clinton and the media establishment that gifted the country DJT will do anything they can to cast the blame elsewhere. ..."
"... I'm not sure if that is a simpler explanation. I offer this: It's simpler to see that they are engaging in a struggle for now and the future – that means the neocons vs Trump. ..."
"... "The story reveals that a CIA assessment detailing this conclusion had been presented to President Obama and top congressional leaders last week." You read that? It's "detailed". None of us peasants will ever know what those "details" are, but its the f#ckin CIA, dude. ..."
"... The problem is we are expected to just trust the NYT and CIA without evidence??? Anybody remember WMD in Iraq?? The complete loss of credibility by the NYT and CIA over the last decade means I have to see credible evidence before I believe anything they say. ..."
"... Seems coordinated to me -- Globe/Times/WaPo. Double down for WaPoo who are now reporting from area 51 where they found Bigfoot sitting on a stockpile of Sadam's WMDs. Reading this article is surreal. The CIA, a terrorist outfit which our own former reporter (Bernstein) showed to be infesting our own newsroom, whispered in our ear that the Cold War 2.0 is going to escalate with or without the establishment coronation queen. ..."
"... "Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House" The link on WaPoo's site actually says a different headline so I am just sharing the headline itself. Not another secret assessment . no more passing notes in class, students. ..."
"... Robert Reich has posted the news that the Russians helped to secure the election for Trump on his FB page, to it seems much acclaim – perhaps I was foolish for having expected better from him. ..."
"... WaPo seems allied with the CIA-FIRE sector Clintonian group, while T may be more inclusive of the classic MICC-Pentagon sector which was asserting itself in Syria. ..."
"... Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims "bullshit", adding: "They are absolutely making it up." "I know who leaked them," Murray said. "I've met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it's an insider. It's a leak, not a hack; the two are different things. ..."
"... Although I'm convinced that the Republicans are, on average, noticeably worse than the Democrats, I agree with you. It is useful that there is no doubt about where Trump and the Congressional Republicans stand, which is on the side of the billionaires and the giant corporations. We've had 8 years of Obama's obeisance to the oligarchs, and millions of Americans still don't understand that this was happening. ..."
"... rhetoric that is beginning conspicuously to resemble the celebration by capitalist elites during the interwar years of German and Italian fascism (and even Stalinist communism) for their apparently superior economic governance. [12] ..."
"... I always knew Trump would be a disaster. However, Trump is a survivable disaster–with Hillary that would have been the end. ..."
"... If Trump has many Goldman guys, is it a case of 'keeping your enemies close?' ..."
"... First of all, the Democrats would use Clinton to suppress the left and to insist that Clinton was more electable. That would lead to a validation of the idea that the left has nowhere to go and set a precedent for decades with a 3 point formula: ..."
"... Suppress the left ..."
"... Accept money from Wall Street and move to the right with each election ..."
"... Use identity politics as a distraction. ..."
"... There were other dangers. Clinton wanted war with Russia. That could easily escalate into a nuclear conflict. With Trump, the risk is reduced, although given his ego, I will concede that anything is possible. We would also be seeing some very damaging neoliberal policies. ..."
"... The reality is that the US was screwed the moment Sanders was out of the picture. With Trump, at least it is more naked and more obvious. The real challenge is that the left has a 2 front war, first with the corporate Democrats, then the GOP. On the GOP side, Trump's supporters are going to wake up at some point to an Obama like betrayal, which is exactly what I expect will happen. ..."
"... There are elements of the Trump fan base already calling him out for the people he has appointed, which is a very encouraging sign. Trump's economic performance is what will make or break him. He has sold himself on his business acumen. Needless to say, I expect it will break him because he won't even try to do anything for his base. ..."
"... I like a lot of your analysis. "We would also be seeing some very damaging neoliberal policies." We could still yet under Trump, given the cabinet nominees. ..."
"... By dangerous and delegitimizing I assume you mean the results of the election will be reversed sometime in the next six weeks while the current establishment still has martial authority. ..."
"... Both sides now fear the other side will lock them up or, at the very least, remove them from power permanently. Why do I think this is not over? ..."
"... I am certainly not ready to rule out Moore's gut feeling. Capitalist Party + MSM + Clinton + Nuland + CIA has shown to be an equation that ends in color revolution ..or at least an attempted color revolution ..."
"... At the same time that the media hysteria over "fake news" has reached a fever pitch, yesterday the Senate passed the "Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" , colloquially known as the Portman-Murphy Counter-Propaganda Bill, as part of the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference Report. ..."
"... " establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government." Our very own Ministry of Truth! ..."
"... Under Ukrainian law journalists that disagree with Kiev's policies are collaborators. They are subject to any mechanism Kiev can devise to stop them. In the case of RT Ruptly or the Guardian this means developing a strategy to ruin their reputations. The Interpreter was developed to that end. Kiev has gone so far as to petition the UK government to censure the Guardian for its coverage of events in Ukraine hoping to bully the publication into line. US broadcasters (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) have put RT on the same list as ISIS. ..."
"... This plan to censor opposing viewpoints in the US was intended to be executed during a Clinton presidency, and would've been almost impossible to stop under those circumstances. There is now a window of opportunity to fight back and ruin these clowns once and for all. ..."
"... These rallies are Trump's means of maintaining contact with his base, and making sure that he knows what they want. And a means of showing that he is trying to get it for them. If Hillary had bothered to do anything of the sort she would have been elected. Sanders did it and it was much appreciated. Trump's ego is huge but the rallies are much more than an ego-trip. ..."
"... Re: WP's response to Truthdig's retraction request. It seems as if they are doubling down on the "not our responsibility to verify the validity theme". My first reaction is that the WP is now the equivalent of the National Enquirer. What's next, a headline " I gave birth to Trump's Love Child". ..."
I believe the CIA is attempting to delegitimize Trump's election so as to force him into a
defensive position in which he will temper his dual goals of normalizing relations with Russia
and destroying the CIA's proxy armies of jihadists. We will see if Trump has the guts to make
some heads roll in the CIA He will remember that the last President who even threatened to
take on the CIA received a massive dose of flying lead poisoning.
This hysteria over Russia is getting downright dangerous. The people pushing that story will
seemingly stop at nothing to delegitimize the election results.
The Post's Marc Fisher was on the PBS Newshour last night. He talked about Alex Jones. They
probably didn't expect the pushback from Yves, Truthdig, etc. The Establishment often underestimates
dissenters.
Real fake news, like Jones, benefits from the fake news charge. Their readers hate the MSM.
I wonder if the same ethic can develop on the left.
The Post and the like are terrified over their loss of credibility just as the internet
has destroyed their advertising. Interesting that their response to competition isn't to outdo
the competition but to smother the competition with a lie. Their own fake news.
I heard Stephen Colbert lump Alex Jones together w/Wikileaks as if they were the same "fake
news". I have also repeatedly heard Samantha Bee refer to Julian Assange as a rapist. Sigh. Both
of those comments are "fake news". The allegations against JA are tissue thin and Wikileaks has
NEVER been challenged about the truth of their releases. Please correct me if I am wrong.
"just as the internet has destroyed their advertising." Shouldn't that be "destroyed their ability to sell advertising?"
As a moral American and supporter of free speech, I am going to make a list of online or print
WaPo advertisers.
Then I will communicate to them that I will never buy another thing from them as long as they
advertise in the Washington Post.
Open their ads in Firefox ad blocker. Then add them to the script and spam blacklist.
The Wapo's trying to steal Craigslist business with online job listings. Looks like an opportunity
to have some fun for creatives.
Boss WaPo OwnerMan Bezos is very rich. He bought WaPo as a propaganda outlet. He is prepared
to lose a lot of money keeping it "open for propaganda." Naming and shaming and boycotting every advertiser WaPo has could certainly embarass WaPo and
perhaps diminish its credibility-patina for Bezoganda purposes. It is certainly worth trying.
The WaPo brand also owns a lot of other moneymaking entities like Kaplan testing and test-prepping
I believe. It would be a lot harder to boycott those because millions of people find them to be
important. But perhaps a boycott against them until WaPo sells them off to non Bezos ownership
would be worth trying.
Perhaps a savage boycott against Amazon until Bezos fires everyone at WaPo involved in this
McCarthy-list and related articles . . . and humiliates them into unhireability anywhere else
ever again?
The Dem Liberals (Joan Walsh etc). on the twitter are going full throttle with this, it's a
twofer as Joan is using this to attack Sanders supporters for not being on the front lines of
Russia Fear.
The story serves many purposes. One is firing a shot across TrumpCo's bow: 'Submit to us or
we'll delegitimate your election.' (Apparently TrumpCo has not delivered a convincing submission
yet.)
Another is excusing the Democratic Party establishment for losing the election, and thus
diverting the wrath of the rank and file. Evidently it's also going to be used against the Sanders
faction of the Democrats. About all we can do at the moment is remember to remember the names
of the people who purveyed and supported the story, just as we should remember to remember the
names of those who purveyed WMD stories.
Personally, after what we did in Ukraine (essentially funding a revolution) I refuse to get
the vapors because Russia apparently "helped" elect Trump by exposing (not forcing her to be a
liar or cheat) Hillary.
Perhaps they should consider that it could be worse, a foreign nation could be arming people
and encouraging them to topple the government we have like what we're doing in Syria. It isn't
like the very sharp divisions elsewhere haven't resulted in civil war.
All of this crap about Russia, or the electoral college system is a distraction from the real
issues at hand about our political system, which is a
two party one oligarchy (ALEC) anti-democratic system. The rot runs from national presidential
elections to the comptroller of the smaller city governments.
If any candidate was capable of speaking to the working and middle class, then either Russia
nor the the 0.01% who compose the oligarchy could control who wins in popular elections. What
is really needed is to eliminate either the two party system, or democratize their methods
of selecting candidates.
Think Hillary played an unfair hand to Sanders? That was nothing
compared to the shenanigans that get played at local level, state level, and Congress level to
filter out populist candidates and replace them with machine / oligarchy pets.
The popular vs. electoral vote – look up the rules next time you play.
Recount – to investigate without much evidence is something senator McCarthy would do.
Russia – and the idea that Saudi (or other Middle Eastern states) also intervened (with money),
is not more credible?
Coincidentally, all these urgent initiatives will lead to replacing Trump with Hillary as president.
"I will tear down the very building just to achieve my Pyrrhic victory."
Thank you, sorry Dems, Boris Badunov did not swing the election. If you want *hard* evidence
(not fake news) of a foreign government influencing the election you might have a look at the
beheading, gay-killing, women-supressing tyrannical monarchy known as The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
and ask whether it made sense for them to be the *#1* contributor to your candidate.
Yes, the NYT piece on Russian hacking is complete evidence free tripe. Not once do they say
what evidence they base these accusations on, beyond the Cyrillic keyboard. The code for Cyrillic
keyboard is, "fuzzy bear" et al. as the original reporting on the DNC hack and the company that
ran security made clear that this was the one and only piece of concrete evidence the attacks
by "fuzzy bear" et al. were perpetrated by the Russians.
So based on a Cyrillic keyboard and the below quote, unnamed "American intelligence agencies
know it was the Russians, really?
"They based that conclusion, in part, on another finding - which they say was also reached
with high confidence - that the Russians hacked the Republican National Committee's computer systems
in addition to their attacks on Democratic organizations, but did not release whatever information
they gleaned from the Republican networks."
Based on this it appears the NYTs definition of fake reporting is anything that isn't fed directly
to it by unnamed experts or the USG and uncritically reported.
I think these unnamed agencies are not going to have a very good working relationship with
the orange overlord if they keep this up. They might not even be getting that new war they wanted
for Christmas.
It's as though the NYT and WaPo had these vast pools of accumulated credibility and they could
go out on a limb here Oh wait - their credibility has been destroyed countless times over the
past decade or so. One would think they'd realise: If you're in a ditch, the first thing to do is stop digging.
Especially when dealing with a President Trump. He's already made his distaste for the WaPo
clear. We are entering a new, crazy, dangerous era of press-presidential relations. All the more
reason for the newspapers to behave responsibly - is that too much to ask?
The world is flat .
Note: This is not me awarding a Thomas L. Friedman prize. In this case, I am simply sharing
the article because I think it is hilarious.
Also, Bradford deLong should be included with Krugman and Friedman, though the length and width
of deLong's connections don't seem to have the same acceleration, energy, or viscosity, as the
other two. There are also olfactory and temporal differences.
Come to think of it, I also don't think Krugman Turdman or Friedman
Flathead would have to grovel to Neera "I'm a loyal soldier" Tanden and John "Done, so
think about something else" Podesta to get a family member a "meritocratic" job.
If Russia is so dangerous, then anyone who mishandles classified information (say, by storing
it on a personal server) should be prosecuted, shouldn't they?
Nowhere, in any of this, is it mentioned that Clinton's illegal private email server (that
got hacked) played any factor whatsoever. It just stinks so bad, I wonder how they can not smell
what they are sitting in.. I also wonder just where the line is between those who actually buy
into this hysteria, and those who simply feel justified in using whatever means they can to discredit
Trump and overturn the election. I think there's a lot of overlap and grey area there in many
people's minds.
Summarizing a very plausible theory, NeoCon Coup Attempt: As Syria's Assad (with Russian help) is close to crushing HRC's jihadi Queda & Nusra rebels
in Aleppo, the NeoCons are freaking out on both sides of the Atlantic.
What to do? Jill's recount is floundering. So, last resort: Concoct Russia hacking myth to
either delay Dec 19 EC vote or create more faithless electors. Result: A NeoCon like HRC or a
NeoCon sympathizer is installed.
Two biggest war hawks, McCain and Graham, are leading the Senate charges against Russia.
All of this within days of Obama sending 200 MORE US troops to Syria and lifting the ban on
more arms to the Syrian rebels, including anti-aircraft MANPADS.
The recount farce makes me angry, and has made me resolve to never give Stein my vote again.
Apparently she's in opposition to much of her party leadership on this, so if they ditch her in
the future and get someone better I may consider voting for them again. The reality of Trump as
president is going to be bad enough, attempting to sabotage the transition isn't doing anyone
any favors. I don't like Obama at all, but he wants a clean, peaceful transfer of power, and on
that issue at least he's correct.
That implies the NeoCon establishment views DJT and cabinet as a threat in any way, which is
an extremely dubious premise. Occam's razor: Clinton and the media establishment that gifted the country DJT will do anything
they can to cast the blame elsewhere.
I'm not sure if that is a simpler explanation. I offer this: It's simpler to see that they are engaging in a struggle for now and the future – that means
the neocons vs Trump.
Hillary vs Trump, invoking Russia now, is about fighting the last war. That one was over more
than a month ago. It's more convoluted to say one team still desires to continue the fight.
"The story reveals that a CIA assessment detailing this conclusion had been presented to President
Obama and top congressional leaders last week." You read that? It's "detailed". None of us peasants will ever know what those "details" are,
but its the f#ckin CIA, dude.
The problem is we are expected to just trust the NYT and CIA without evidence??? Anybody remember
WMD in Iraq?? The complete loss of credibility by the NYT and CIA over the last decade means I
have to see credible evidence before I believe anything they say. But that is just me. From reading
the NYT comments on the OBama Russia election hack article, the NYT commenters have en mass swallowed
the story hook, line and sinker. They apparently don't need evidence and have completely loss
any sort of functioning long term memory.
Based on the fact that she was hidden more than actually performing on the campaign trail,
that is a possibility. She may have very well been our own puppet government member that some were ready to install
here just like we tend to do over in other nations. No real marbles needed since she wouldn't
actually be running things. It's come to my attention that we seem to be inching closer and closer
to third world here and those places rarely have vibrant democracies.
Seems coordinated to me -- Globe/Times/WaPo. Double down for WaPoo who are now reporting from
area 51 where they found Bigfoot sitting on a stockpile of Sadam's WMDs. Reading this article
is surreal. The CIA, a terrorist outfit which our own former reporter (Bernstein) showed to be
infesting our own newsroom, whispered in our ear that the Cold War 2.0 is going to escalate with
or without the establishment coronation queen.
"Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House" The link on WaPoo's site actually says a different headline so I am just sharing the headline
itself. Not another secret assessment . no more passing notes in class, students.
Robert Reich has posted the news that the Russians helped to secure the election for Trump
on his FB page, to it seems much acclaim – perhaps I was foolish for having expected better from
him.
Sifting the election through a Peter Turchin filter, Sanders' run was a response to 'popular
immiseration' while the choice-of-billionaires was 'intra-elite competition'. WaPo seems allied
with the CIA-FIRE sector Clintonian group, while T may be more inclusive of the classic MICC-Pentagon
sector which was asserting itself in Syria.
I needed
Jalen & Jacoby to sooth me to sleep last night, after seeing the last chart (Fig. 14.4) from
Turchin's latest book. You can see it by hitting Ctrl-End from this
pdf . If he's correct,
this election was just the warm-up for 2020. Crikey.
Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange,
called the CIA claims "bullshit", adding: "They are absolutely making it up." "I know who leaked them," Murray said. "I've met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly
not Russian and it's an insider. It's a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.
Although I'm convinced that the Republicans are, on average, noticeably worse than the Democrats,
I agree with you. It is useful that there is no doubt about where Trump and the Congressional
Republicans stand, which is on the side of the billionaires and the giant corporations. We've
had 8 years of Obama's obeisance to the oligarchs, and millions of Americans still don't understand
that this was happening.
I hope people will vigorously lobby their Representatives and Senators, and pay attention to
who the genuine progressives are in the 2018 primaries.
Like ordinary citizens, although for the opposite reasons, elites are losing faith in democratic
government and its suitability for reshaping societies in line with market imperatives. Public
Choice's disparaging view of democratic politics as a corruption of market justice, in the
service of opportunistic politicians and their clientele, has become common sense among elite
publics-as has the belief that market capitalism cleansed of democratic politics will not only
be more efficient but also virtuous and responsible. [11]
Countries like China are complimented
for their authoritarian political systems being so much better equipped than majoritarian democracy,
with its egalitarian bent, to deal with what are claimed to be the challenges of 'globalization'
-- a
rhetoric that is beginning conspicuously to resemble the celebration by capitalist elites during
the interwar years of German and Italian fascism (and even Stalinist communism) for their apparently
superior economic governance. [12]
Right, the euphemisms have been done away with. I always knew Trump would be a disaster. However,
Trump is a survivable disaster–with Hillary that would have been the end.
In the long run, a Clinton presidency would be far more damaging.
First of all, the Democrats would use Clinton to suppress the left and to insist that Clinton
was more electable. That would lead to a validation of the idea that the left has nowhere to go
and set a precedent for decades with a 3 point formula:
Suppress the left
Accept money from Wall Street and move to the right with each election
Use identity politics as a distraction.
A Trump victory forces questions on the conventional wisdom (not really wisdom), and forces
changes. At best, they can hope to shove another Obama that is attractive on the outside, but
will betray people, but even that will be harder because people now are more watchful. Not to
mention, the mainstream media has lost its power.
There were other dangers. Clinton wanted war with Russia. That could easily escalate into a
nuclear conflict. With Trump, the risk is reduced, although given his ego, I will concede that
anything is possible. We would also be seeing some very damaging neoliberal policies.
The reality is that the US was screwed the moment Sanders was out of the picture. With Trump,
at least it is more naked and more obvious. The real challenge is that the left has a 2 front
war, first with the corporate Democrats, then the GOP. On the GOP side, Trump's supporters are
going to wake up at some point to an Obama like betrayal, which is exactly what I expect will
happen.
There are elements of the Trump fan base already calling him out for the people he has appointed,
which is a very encouraging sign. Trump's economic performance is what will make or break him.
He has sold himself on his business acumen. Needless to say, I expect it will break him because
he won't even try to do anything for his base.
I like a lot of your analysis. "We would also be seeing some very damaging neoliberal policies."
We could still yet under Trump, given the cabinet nominees.
The left must be vigilant and smart. There is opportunity here, but sidetracking on fake news,
pop vote, etc. doesn't gain much in terms of opposition.
I think you're possibly right, and I just couldn't pull the lever to vote for Trump. Sometimes
we just have to be true to ourselves and hope it works out.
By dangerous and delegitimizing I assume you mean the results of the election will be reversed
sometime in the next six weeks while the current establishment still has martial authority.
All
the intelligent agencies are now in lock step over Russian intervention. How do they let this
result stand? Trump obviously realizes his win is now in play and has gone after those same agencies
pointing out their gross incompetence.
Both sides now fear the other side will lock them up or, at the very least, remove them from power
permanently. Why do I think this is not over?
Michael Moore agrees with you – something is, or might be (more accurate description of what
he is said to have said, I think), brewing, according to him, or rather, his intuition .
I am certainly not ready to rule out Moore's gut feeling.
Capitalist Party + MSM + Clinton + Nuland + CIA has shown to be an equation that ends in color
revolution ..or at least an attempted color revolution
What the State Department and MSM have pleasantly referred to in the past as a bloodless coup.
See Ukraine, Brazil, Argentina et al
At the same time that the media hysteria over "fake news" has reached a fever pitch, yesterday
the Senate passed the
"Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act" , colloquially known as the Portman-Murphy
Counter-Propaganda Bill, as part of the FY 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Conference
Report.
According to Senator Portman's press release, the Bill "will improve the ability of the United
States to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation by establishing an interagency center
housed at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize counter-propaganda efforts throughout
the U.S. government." The bill also creates a "grant program for NGOs, think tanks, civil society
and other experts outside government who are engaged in counter-propaganda related work."
While the passage of this bill seems very coincidentally timed given recent events, it was
actually introduced in March. Not sure whether it simply followed a normal legislative track,
or was brought back from the dead recently, etc.
" establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize
counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government." Our very own Ministry of Truth!
It is important to find work for our newly minted graduates of marketing, psychology and sociology
as well as those graduates of the communication school and the arts. The need of our post-industrial
information age is to make things up as opposed to just making things.
Our liberal nation has promised our children that after they have enslaved themselves through
student debt they will find work. The work they find is likely to be meaningful only to the creditors
who wish to be repaid.
The graduates will find idealistic rationales like patriotism or making
"'Merica Grate Again" to soothe their corrupted souls while keeping the fake news as fresh as
a steamy load.
Under Ukrainian law journalists that disagree with Kiev's policies are collaborators. They
are subject to any mechanism Kiev can devise to stop them. In the case of RT Ruptly or the
Guardian this means developing a strategy to ruin their reputations. The Interpreter was developed
to that end. Kiev has gone so far as to petition the UK government to censure the Guardian
for its coverage of events in Ukraine hoping to bully the publication into line. US broadcasters
(Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty) have put RT on the same list as ISIS.
From yesterday's links but seems appropriate. This plan to censor opposing viewpoints in the
US was intended to be executed during a Clinton presidency, and would've been almost impossible
to stop under those circumstances. There is now a window of opportunity to fight back and ruin
these clowns once and for all.
That may be but what we are seeing now is just an echo of the Clinton/Soros plan, and not even
close to the disaster that would result from having Soros et al at the helm. My guess is that
the CIA are now simply using gullible Republicans (yes, there is certainly some redundancy there)
as useful idiots, but this dynamic significantly weakens the original plan.
Amy Davidson ends her article with this paragraph.
And that is why the rallies are likely to endure: to serve as calibrators of or infomercials
for what Trump believes that "the public" wants. One can waste a lot of time delving into the
question of Trump's psychological need for affirmation . What is politically more important is
how he might use the set piece of a cheering crowd to brush aside other considerations, particularly
those involving the checks on the Presidency, and the willingness of those in other areas of the
government, or in the White House itself, to exercise them. Should courts worry about "a lot of
angry people"? One important point not to let go of is that a crowd that the President assembles
and the broader public are two very different things, no matter how big the arena, or how filled
it is with love . A better opportunity to hear that public voice will come in two years, at the
midterm elections. Maybe those will surprise Trump.
News flash for Amy. When a narcissist uses the word "love" it doesn't mean what you think it
does. Those rallies are about training people to react emotionally in a way that is fulfilling
to Donald. Nothing more, nothing less.
A better opportunity to hear that public voice will come in two years, at the midterm elections.
Maybe those will surprise Trump.
We remind ourselves that no one can help us but us. We empower ourselves.
So, it goes for today, as it did in 2008. Such moderation!!! A better opportunity will come
in two years!!!! I said that to myself 8 years ago, but I didn't hear much of it from the media
then. And we (not just I) say that now.
As for crowds reacting and it being fulfilling for the one being looked up on – again, it's
the same human psychology, whether the guy on stage is a rock star, Lenin, Roosevelt, Pol Pot,
the next savior or Idi Amin. How much love is there for anyone in any long term relationship,
except to affirm and be affirmed by 'love' everyday, in small acts or otherwise, much less some
politicians you interact through abstractions, like, through the media or stories told to us.
"Those rallies are about training people to react emotionally in a way that is fulfilling to
Donald. Nothing more, nothing less."
These rallies are Trump's means of maintaining contact with his base, and making sure that
he knows what they want. And a means of showing that he is trying to get it for them. If Hillary
had bothered to do anything of the sort she would have been elected. Sanders did it and it was
much appreciated. Trump's ego is huge but the rallies are much more than an ego-trip.
Re: WP's response to Truthdig's retraction request. It seems as if they are doubling down on
the "not our responsibility to verify the validity theme". My first reaction is that the WP is
now the equivalent of the National Enquirer. What's next, a headline " I gave birth to Trump's
Love Child".
Patriotic Correctness is a useful term and concept. Otherwise, the article was extremely long-winded
and boring. Editor to writer: "I need you to fill 3,000 words worth of space with this 50-word
idea "
I don't consider Trump a compromise candidate and that's largely because I don't see him actually
moving the country forward in the right direction. Sanders, for me, would have been a compromise
from the point of view of he probably wouldn't have moved us far enough fast enough for me but
he would have set us leftward instead of ever rightward and that IS an improvement.
The mainstream media is doubling down on imagined pro-Russian heresies in a fashion not seen
since the Reformation. Back then the Catholic Church held a monopoly on ideology. They lost it
to an unruly bunch of rebellious Protestants who were assisted by the new technology of the printing
press.
Nowadays various non-conformist internet sites, with the help of the new technology of the
internet, are challenging the MSM's monopoly on the means of persuasion. To show how much things
have changed, back in the 60's, dissidents such as the John Birch Society were limited to issuing
pamphlets to expound on their theories of Russians taking over America. In a very ironic role-reversal,
today it is the increasingly desperate Washington Post that more closely matches the paranoia
of the John Birch Society as it accuses non-conformist media heretics – who are threatening the
MSM's monopoly on the means of persuasion - of allowing Russians to take over America.
But let's spare a thought for poor Jeff Bezos. He basically thought he was purchasing the medieval
equivalent of a Bishopry when he bought the WaPo. But now after running six anti-Trump editorials
each and every day for the past 18 months, in which his establishment clergy engaged in an ever
increasing hysteria-spiral trying to outdo each other in turning Trump into Hitler, it ends up
Bezos' side lost the election anyway. It's like he bought a Blockbuster store in 2008 and never
even thought about Netflix!
And so now the MSM is literally launching an Establishment Inquisition by issuing "indexes"
of prohibited heretical websites.
Where will this lead? The grossly paranoiac reading is the Establishment's Counter Reformation
is laying the ideological groundwork for a sort of coup d'etat to be followed by the rule of a
goodthink junta. In this case we have to start calculating how many divisions are loyal to Trump's
gang of generals versus how many are loyal to Obama's generals. A more moderate reading is that
with these anti-Russian headlines, the Establishment is attempting to pressure Trump to stay the
Establishment course on foreign policy and to appoint a SecState who is hostile to Russia. And
in the best case these crazy MSM ramblings are just the last gasps of soon to be extinct media
mammoths.
One thing you can say about Trump is that he is most certainly not a wuss. In the face of this
firestorm about Russian influence sources say Trump is going to nominate Rex Tillerson, who is
very pro-Putin, as Secretary of State!
I wonder what happens when they don't confirm any of his nominees? Is this a case of 'I will nominee so many you don't like, you will be forced to confirm at
least a few?'
Yes I do because Trump is reportedly naming NeoCon John Bolton as undersecretary. That's going
to be a package deal; if they reject Tillerson then Bolton is gone as well. The NeoCons are desperate
to get Bolton into the Administration.
Bolton's job will be to go on talk shows and defend Trump's policies. If he doesn't do it then
he gets fired.
And so from the rest of the world's point of view, Tillerson is the carrot but Bolton remains
in the background as the stick in case anyone starts thinking Trump is too soft and decides to
test him.
"... I had always thought Hayek made some good critical points about the illusions of socialists/utopians and then chose to ignore the fact that his criticism also applied to his ..."
"... So maybe Hayek didn't overlook the fact that his critique also applied to his utopia. Maybe he knew full well he was misrepresenting what he was selling, engaging in exactly the same propaganda techniques that he attributed to others. ..."
"... A Rovian strategy - conceal your weakness by attacking others on precisely that issue. ..."
"... The Road to Serfdom put out in the US after WWII, which was full of this inflammatory sort of thing that doing anything to ameliorate the harder edges of capitalism put one inexorably on the road to serfdom. ..."
"... In the actual RtS one finds Hayek himself supporting quite a few such amiliorations, most notably social insurance, especially national health insurance well beyond what we even have in the US now with ACA. ..."
"... The problem for lovers of Hayek, and arguably Hayek himself, is that he simply never repudiated this comic book version of his work, even as he and many of his followers got all worked up when people, such as Samuelson, would criticize Hayek for this comic book version of the RtS, pointing out his support for these ameliorations in the original non-comic book version. ..."
"... However, Samuelson in his last remarks on Hayek, which I published in JEBO some years ago, effectively said that Hayek had only himself to blame for this confusion. ..."
"... I have been thinking that maybe both "sides" in our mostly brainwashed America today could agree with the meme of "DRAIN-THE-SWAMP" and hope to see it carried proudly on protest signs by the non-zombies of both sides in the ongoing social upheaval. ..."
"... I agree that "accuse the other side of doing what you are doing" is a familiar ploy of the right. ..."
Sandwichman | December 10, 2016 12:51 am
In his neo-Confederate "Mein Kampf," Whither Solid South ,
Charles Wallace Collins quoted a full paragraph from Hayek's The Road to Serfdom
regarding the emptying out of the meaning of words. My instinct would be not to condemn Hayek
for the politics of those who quote him. Even the Devil quotes Shakespeare.
But after taking another look at the Look magazine
comic book edition of Hayek's tome, I realized that Collins's depiction of full employment
as a sinister Stalinist plot was, after all, remarkably faithful to the
comic-book version of Hayek's argument. With only a little digging, one can readily
infer that what the comic book refers to as "The Plan" is a policy also known as full employment
(or, if you want to get specific, William Beveridge's Full Employment in a Free Society
). "Planners" translates as cartoon Hayek's alias for Keynesian economists and their political
acolytes.
To be sure, Hayek's sole reference to full employment in the book is unobjectionable
- even estimable almost:
That no single purpose must be allowed in peace to have absolute preference over all others
applies even to the one aim which everybody now agrees comes in the front rank: the conquest of
unemployment. There can be no doubt that this must be the goal of our greatest endeavour; even
so, it does not mean that such an aim should be allowed to dominate us to the exclusion of everything
else, that, as the glib phrase runs, it must be accomplished "at any price". It is, in fact, in
this field that the fascination of vague but popular phrases like "full employment" may well lead
to extremely short-sighted measures, and where the categorical and irresponsible "it must be done
at all cost" of the single-minded idealist is likely to do the greatest harm.
Yes, single-minded pursuit at all costs of any
nebulous objective will no doubt be short-sighted and possibly harmful. But is that really
what "the planners" were advocating?
Hayek elaborated his views on full employment policy in a 1945 review of Beveridge's
Full Employment in a Free Society, in which he glibly characterized Keynes's theory of
employment as "all that was needed to maintain employment permanently at a maximum was to secure
an adequate volume of spending of some kind."
Beveridge, Hayek confided, was "an out-and-out planner" who proposed to deal with the difficulty
of fluctuating private investment "by abolishing private investment as we knew it." You see, single-minded
pursuit of any nebulous objective will likely be short-sighted and even harmful unless that
objective is the preservation of the accustomed liberties of the owners of private property, in
which case it must be done at all cost!
Further insight into Hayek's objection to Keynesian full-employment policy can be found in
The Constitution of Liberty . The problem with full employment is those damn unions. On this
matter, he quoted Jacob Viner with approval:
The sixty-four dollar question with respect to the relations between unemployment and full
employment policy is what to do if a policy to guarantee full employment leads to chronic upward
pressure on money wages through the operation of collective bargaining .
and
it is a matter of serious concern whether under modern conditions, even in a socialist country
if it adheres to democratic political procedures, employment can always be maintained at a high
level without recourse to inflation, overt or disguised, or if maintained whether it will not
itself induce an inflationary wage spiral through the operation of collective bargaining
Sharing Viner's anxiety about those damn unions inducing an inflationary wage spiral "through
the operation of collective bargaining" was Professor W, H, Hutt, author of the Theory of
Collective Bargaining, who "[s]hortly after the General Theory appeared
argued that it was a specific for inflation."
Hutt, whose earlier book on collective bargaining "analysed [and heralded] the position of the
Classical economists on the relation between unions and wage determination," had his own
plan for full employment . It appeared in The South African Journal
of Economics in September, 1945 under the title "Full Employment and the Future of Industry."
I am posting a large excerpt from Hutt's eccentric full employment "plan"
here because it makes explicit principles that are tacit in the neo-liberal pursuit of
"non-inflationary growth":
Full employment and a prosperous industry might yet be achieved if what I propose
to call the three "basic principles of employment" determine our planning .
The first basic principle is as follows. Productive resources of all kinds, including
labour, can be fully employed when the prices of the services they render are sufficiently
low to enable the people's existing purchasing power to absorb the full flow of the
product.
To this must be added the second basic principle of employment. When the prices of
productive service have been thus adjusted to permit full employment, the flow of purchasing power,
in the form of wages and the return to property is maximised .
The assertion that unemployment is "voluntary" and can be cured by reducing wages is the classical
assumption that Keynes challenged in the theory of unemployment. Hutt's second principle, that full
employment, achieved by wage cuts, will maximize the total of wages, profit and rent thus would be
not be likely to command "more or less universal assent," as Hutt claimed. But even if it did, Hutt's
stress on maximizing a total , regardless of distribution of that total between wages
and profits, is peculiar. Why would workers be eager to work more hours for
less pay just to generate higher profits? Hutt's principles could only gain "more or
less universal assent" if they were sufficiently opaque that no one could figure out what he was
getting at, which Hutt's subsequent exposition makes highly unlikely.
Hutt's proposed full employment plan consisted of extending the hours of work, postponing retirement
and encouraging married women to stay in the work force. He advertised his idea as a reverse lump-of-labor
strategy. Instead of insisting - as contemporary economists do - that immigrants (older workers,
automation or imports) don't take jobs, Hutt boasted they create jobs, specifically because they
keep wages sufficiently low and thus maximize total returns to property and wages
combined. He may have been wrong but he was consistent. Nor did he conceal his antagonism toward
trade unions and collective bargaining behind hollow platitudes about
inclusive growth .
The U.S. has been following Hutt-like policies for decades now and the
results are in :
For the 117 million U.S. adults in the bottom half of the income distribution, growth has been
non-existent for a generation while at the top of the ladder it has been extraordinarily strong.
Or perhaps Hutt was right and what has held back those at the bottom of the income distribution
is that wages have not been sufficiently low to insure full employment and thus
to maximize total returns to labor and capital. The incontestable thing about Hutt's theory is that
no matter how low wages go, it will always be possible to claim that they didn't go sufficiently
low enough to enable people's purchasing power to absorb the full flow of their services.
coberly , December 10, 2016 11:52 am
I can't claim to know all of what Hayek meant. but I did read one of his books and it was clear
he did not mean what the right has taken him to not only mean, but to have proved.
In any case it is dangerous (and a bit stupid) to base policy on what someone said or is alleged
to have said. Especially economists who claim to have "proved" some "law" of economics.
That said, i wonder if some of what is said here is the result of over-reading what someone
(else) as said: to be concerned with policies "to the exclusion of all else" is not the same as
rejecting the policies while keeping other things in mind. and to recognize the potential of labor
unions to force inflationary levels of wages is not the same as opposing labor unions.
neither the advocates in favor of or those opposed to the extreme understanding of these cautions
–including the authors of them if that is the case - are contributing much to the development
of sane and humane policy.
I had always thought Hayek made some good critical points about the illusions of socialists/utopians
and then chose to ignore the fact that his criticism also applied to his neo-liberal
utopia. But I followed up the passage quoted by Collins and it turns out that Hayek was discussing
a statement made by Karl Mannheim, which he quoted out of context and egregiously misrepresented
-- a classic right-wing propaganda slander technique. So here is Hayek talking about emptying out
the meaning from words and filling them with new content and he is doing just that to the words
of another author.
So maybe Hayek didn't overlook the fact that his critique also applied to his utopia. Maybe
he knew full well he was misrepresenting what he was selling, engaging in exactly the same propaganda
techniques that he attributed to others. By accusing others first of doing what he was doing,
it made it awkward for anyone to point out that he was doing it, too. A Rovian strategy - conceal
your weakness by attacking others on precisely that issue.
One of the problems with Hayek is that there was always this conflict between the "comic book
Hayek" and the more scholarly and careful Hayek. In fact, there really was a comic book version
of The Road to Serfdom put out in the US after WWII, which was full of this inflammatory sort
of thing that doing anything to ameliorate the harder edges of capitalism put one inexorably on
the road to serfdom.
In the actual RtS one finds Hayek himself supporting quite a few such amiliorations,
most notably social insurance, especially national health insurance well beyond what we even have
in the US now with ACA.
The problem for lovers of Hayek, and arguably Hayek himself, is that he simply never repudiated
this comic book version of his work, even as he and many of his followers got all worked up when
people, such as Samuelson, would criticize Hayek for this comic book version of the RtS, pointing
out his support for these ameliorations in the original non-comic book version.
However, Samuelson
in his last remarks on Hayek, which I published in JEBO some years ago, effectively said that
Hayek had only himself to blame for this confusion.
To me it comes down to whether government is structured to serve all or some obfuscated minority
of all. With that as the divider it is easy to decipher Hayek's work and others.
I have been thinking that maybe both "sides" in our mostly brainwashed America today could
agree with the meme of "DRAIN-THE-SWAMP" and hope to see it carried proudly on protest signs by
the non-zombies of both sides in the ongoing social upheaval.
coberly , December 10, 2016 6:41 pm
Sammich
I agree that "accuse the other side of doing what you are doing" is a familiar ploy of the
right.
I don't know what Hayek was really saying, or if he let the comic book version stand because
he was so flattered to have his child receive such adulation, or just because he was in his dotage
and didn't really understand how he was being misrepresented if he was.
but the fun thing to do with Hayek is to point out what he "really" said to those who have
only heard the comic book version
if anyone is still talking about him at all. seems there was a big rush of talk about Hyak
a few years ago and now it has faded.
December 10, 2016 by
WashingtonsBlog
Anonymous CIA officials
claim that Russia hacked the U.S. election by accessing emails from top Democratic officials
and then leaking them to Wikileaks.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) voiced doubts about the veracity of the intelligence,
according to officials present.
***
A senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about
the agency's assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.
For example, intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the
Kremlin "directing" the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks .
***
Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has said
in
a television interview that the "Russian government is not the source." [The former intelligence
analyst, British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, and chancellor of the University of Dundee (Craig Murray)
– who is close friends with Wikileaks' Assange –
said he knows with
100% certainty that the Russians aren't behind the leaks.]
***
"I'll be the first one to come out and point at Russia if there's clear evidence, but there
is no clear evidence - even now," said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House
Intelligence Committee and a member of the Trump transition team . "There's a lot of innuendo,
lots of circumstantial evidence, that's it."
Indeed, some cybersecurity consultants
claim that it's impossible to ever know for sure who is behind hacks of this nature.
But that's wrong
In reality, it would be child's play to determine whether or not the Russians really
hacked the Dem emails and shared them with Wikileaks.
Specifically, Edward Snowden says the NSA could easily determine who hacked the Democratic National
Committee's emails:
But don't trust Snowden
The NSA executive who created the agency's mass surveillance program for digital information,
who served as the senior technical director within the agency, who managed six thousand
NSA employees, the 36-year NSA veteran widely regarded as a "legend" within the agency and the
NSA's best-ever analyst and code-breaker, who mapped out the Soviet command-and-control
structure before anyone else knew how, and so predicted Soviet invasions before they happened ("in
the 1970s, he decrypted the Soviet Union's command system, which provided the US and its allies with
real-time surveillance of all Soviet troop movements and Russian atomic weapons") – confirmed to
Washington's Blog that the NSA would definitely know who the hacker was.
Do they have evidence that the Russians downloaded and later forwarded those emails to wikileaks?
Seems to me that they need to answer those questions to be sure that their assertion is correct.
***
You can tell from the network log who is going into a site. I used that on networks that
I had. I looked to see who came into my LAN, where they went, how long they stayed and what
they did while in my network.
Further, if you needed to, you could trace back approaches through other servers etc. Trace
Route and Trace Watch are good examples of monitoring software that help do these things.
Others of course exist probably the best are in NSA/GCHQ and the other Five Eyes countries.
But, these countries have no monopoly on smart people that could do similar detection software.
If the idiots in the intelligence community expect us to believe them after all the crap they
have told us (like WMD's in Iraq and "no we don't collect data on millions or hundreds of millions
of Americans") then they need to give clear proof of what they say. So far, they have failed to
prove anything.
Which suggests they don't have proof and just want to war monger the US public into a second
cold war with the Russians.
After all, there's lots and lots of money in that for the military-industrial-intelligence-governmental
complex of incestuous relationships.
***
If you recall, a few years ago they pointed to a specific building in China that was where
hacks on the US were originating. So, let's see the same from the Russians. They don't have it.
That's why they don't show it. They want to swindle us again and again and again. You can not
trust these intelligence agencies period.
U.S. officials "know how many people [beyond the Russians] could have done this but they aren't
telling us anything. All they're doing is promoting another cold war."
Binney compared allegations about Russian hacks to previous U.S. fabrications of intelligence
to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the bombing of North Vietnam in 1964.
"This is a big mistake, another WMD or Tonkin Gulf affair that's being created until they have
absolute proof" of Russian complicity in the DNC hacks, he charged during a Newsweek
interview. He noted that after the Kremlin denied complicity in the downing of a Korean Airlines
flight in 1983, the U.S. "exposed the conversations where [Russian pilots] were ordered to shoot
it down." Obama officials "have the evidence now" of who hacked the DNC, he charged. "So let's
see it, guys."
If it were the Russians, NSA would have a trace route to them and not equivocate on who did
it. It's like using "Trace Route" to map the path of all the packets on the network.
In the program Treasuremap NSA has hundreds of trace route programs embedded in switches in Europe
and hundreds more around the world. So, this set-up should have detected where the packets
went and when they went there.
In other words, there's no need to speculate on whether the Russians were the hackers. The
NSA could easily determine who was behind the hacks.
Of course, in an era where challenging officials to provide evidence may get one
labeled as a Russian propagandist, the question is how many people will stand up for the all-American
value of questioning the proclamations of those in power:
Is this an attempt of CIA neocons and associated forces in State Department, Hillary campaign,
and elsewhere to extract some revenge for Syria regime change fiasco? They don't have any proofs and
just want to war monger the US public into a Cold War II.
Notable quotes:
"... Former UK Ambassador Craig Murray also strongly disagrees with the CIA claims: ..."
"... Murray claims to know the leaker, an insider person, and asks why the CIA and FBI, who claim to know the person related to Russia who leaked the papers, have then not arrested him or her. ..."
"... Even if neither 1 nor 2 can be achieved the propaganda effect of these leaks will be to dampen any movement of a Trump administration towards more friendly relations with Russia. ..."
"... In response to the leaks Trump pointed out that the CIA lied about WMDs in Iraq. That is a decisive point. Indeed the CIA lied about lots of stuff over the years and one must assume that anything that is following a "the CIA says" introduction is a lie or at least an obfuscation. ..."
"... Wonder how Oath Keepers and Flynn oriented officers would react to a soft coup.. ..."
"... I surely doubt that point no 2 is the motivation. US electoral and political system is a sham. No transition of any power happens ever in 2-4 years periods at all. It is all a political theater for American sheeple while the same Anglo-American oligarchic regime continues and thrives for over 227 years now and the ruling elites do not want to mess up a good thing going for them. ..."
"... In fact there are so many chicks on this political play that makes it impossible to rock the boat, namely there is no way that Dems will be able to coronate Hillary with both senate and congress are against her and rules would likely put Paul Ryan as chief executive by blocking Hillary electoral college vote. ..."
"... There is no time for more details but Hillary POTUS is almost impossible and hence what utterances we hear is just representation of deep division in security apparatus in the US unhappy with Obama rule and his affinity to Islamic terrorists, yes affinity shows by him arming them, and to the GCC despots who finance them. ..."
"... it is all rumour mill and conjecture, but what isn't conjecture is the ongoing attempt to ostracize russia... ..."
"... i agree with @7 kalen in that i doubt the reason is #2... i read the transcript yesterday from the us state dept daily briefly found here and where the superficial justification for the special "waiver that it is in U.S. national security interest to provide weapons to Syrian rebels".. apparently syria is designated a 'state sponsor of terrorism' and that is all that is needed to green light more war, murder and mayhem from the war party nation.. can anyone tell me how they arrive at this bs? ..."
"... If nothing else you have to be impressed by the effectiveness of the deceit makers. ..."
"... IMO the continuing effort to install Hillary ("Fake News", "Russia hacked the election", "Not my President", etc.) is primarily due to the Syrian conflict. Realists see that the war is lost, neocons and their sponsors want to double-down. ..."
"... B asked: "what-are-the-hearsay-leaks-about-russian-election-hacking-attempting-to-achieve" A: Obfuscation of the "drain-the-swamp" meme as both "sides" are in support of the elite maintaining control in the US and world wide. ..."
"... nothing better to unite a divided country than fear of an enemy, while the arms/militarization lobby - and add to that now the security lobby - rakes in the dough while steering foreign policy in a circuitous route leading back to the banks... has been standard operating procedure throughout history - e.g., the committee for the present danger v1 & v2.0 Jackrabbit | Dec 10, 2016 3:14:58 PM | 25 US Sends 200 More Troops To Syria Days After Obama Lifts Ban On Arms Supplies To Rebels IpsoFacto | Dec 10, 2016 3:21:35 PM | 26 W/ respect to B's Point #2, this just in from the Guardian: "[John] Dean called for the intelligence report on Russia's role to be made available to the 538 members of the electoral college before 19 December, when they formally vote to elect the next president. " /snip/ Chas. Schumer: "The silence from WikiLeaks and others since election day has been deafening. That any country could be meddling in our elections should shake both political parties to their core." Ha, ha, ha . . . Israel-firster Schumer bitching about other countries screwing around with US political system. Get the joke? ..."
"... Why is the focus on the Russians? What about other countries that unduly influence US elections? With hacking or money or sympathizers in key roles? ..."
"... It is my belief that we are witnessing a war between CIA and client NGO's and the US military. I have never heard a Presidential candidate assert that he is running at the behest of retired Generals and Admirals. Evidence of a soft military coup is everywhere but in the MSM (Mainstream Melodrama.) ..."
"... Witness Congressional Representative & US Army Major Tulsi Gabbard's bill to forbid the use of taxpayer funds to fund various terrorist groups ..."
"... These leaks have nothing to do with the Electoral College or any chance of swinging the 'election'. Rather, they are yet one more childish lashing out by the American empire that has been defeated in Syria. ..."
"... In my opinion this is an inside war between the ousted ruling elites of which the Clinton and Bush dynasties are part of the same group along with ALL of their employees on the payroll (lobbyists, academics, Medias etc) that have been in power and ruled and thieved for over 25 years. ..."
"... These people do NOT want to lose their ownership of the US ship of state as it has ginormous perks. Obviously they are willing to fight to the death. ..."
"... Did the US military and the Russian military covertly 'under the table' make a deal to attack the US WarParty and its various foreign backers? ..."
"... To this old IT pro it is obvious that they have zero evidence. The intelligence agency jackals are doing what they always do: making it up as they go. Their agenda with the Killary was more death and destruction. Now they are trying to redirect fear and hatred of Trump against Russia. ..."
"... The good news is the Clintonite neocon regime is in panic. Their usual double-down approach to everything. ..."
"... If Tillerson is SecState a lot of people are going to lose their jobs. ..."
"... all the vile tricks of the cia coming home to be utilized against Americans themselves. far too few will recognize the fact. ..."
"... I don't believe the election will be overturned by the Electoral College. That's nonsense; it's never gonna happen; period. I do believe that the CIA is a dangerous organization that fabricates intelligence when it suits it. The CIA is like a rogue junta. ..."
"... JFK mistrusted the CIA and was absolutely right to do so. JFK also mistrusted the Israelis with very good reason and was smart to do so; albeit, it turned out badly for him to try to act against both. ..."
"... America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won't get in our way...We're benefiting from one thing and that is the attack on the twin towers and Pentagon and the American struggle in Iraq. These events swung American public opinion in our favor. ..."
"... Israel can do cyber false flag better than anyone. They could have killed two birds with one stone; first getting rid of Hillary who would never tear up the Iran deal, and then pinning the hack on Russia as revenge for interfering in Syria. Who had access to the DNC and knew there was something questionable there that could swing public opinion? Zionists exist in both parties. ..."
"... If Hillary won, Netanyahu would be stuck with the Iran deal for 8 years! Whenever Israelis face a threat or pivotal impasse of some kind they have no scruples about acting extra judicially to neutralize the threat or force an issue critical to their interests and would not hesitate to do so. ..."
"... So, in fact, if the Israelis did this, there would be three victims, and three gains for Israel here: 1. Hillary, who would never undo a difficult deal negotiated by a fellow Democrat who helped her campaign tirelessly, would be out; 2.Putin who messed with the Zionist plan for Syria would get all the blame, and most importantly, 3. Trump who promised to make Jerusalem the Zionist capital and tear up the Iran deal, must therefore win, and Netanyahu will ensure he keeps his promises and knows who he's indebted to most. ..."
"... The Zionist media are up in arms that a foreign entity might have tipped the election to one side. However, if it that foreign entity were ISRAEL, would they be as vocal and outraged? Only because this is pinned squarely on Russia are they harping on this point. ..."
"... The ideal outcome for Zionists happened: the Iran deal will over, the Zionist capital in Israel will be Jerusalem, Putin is the villain who meddled in the election (and Syria)and Trump is in Israel's debt. What could be better for Zionism? ..."
"... Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims "bullshit", adding: "They are absolutely making it up." "I know who leaked them," Murray said. "I've met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it's an insider. It's a leak, not a hack; the two are different things. As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two. And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened. The continued ability of the mainstream media to claim the leaks lost Clinton the election because of "Russia", while still never acknowledging the truths the leaks reveal, is Kafkaesque. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/#respond ..."
"... Trump has put 'hard men', men likely harder than himself in charge of Defence, Homeland Security and now the State. These are not the kind of men impressed with puny Israel. ..."
"... As numerous commentators have noted, winning the popular vote in a country with an Electoral College is essentially meaningless. In the US, the Dems start off with the enormous advantage of California and New York State already in the bag. ..."
"... Trump played the ground game well in the battleground states where he had to flip a few hundred thousand votes. He won fair and square by the rules of the game. ..."
"... I like the meme "DRAIN THE SWAMP". ..."
"... Trump is a big unknown. I think Paul Craig Roberts said it best - give Trump 6 months and then form an opinion. ..."
"... For the moment, I think Tillerson is a far far better pick than Guilliani, Romney or Bolton. ..."
"... Senate Quietly Passes The "Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act" . . .the Act will i) greenlight the government to crack down with impunity against any media property it deems "propaganda", and ii) provide substantial amounts of money fund an army of "local journalist" counterpropaganda, to make sure the government's own fake news drowns that of the still free "fringes." ..."
"... So while packaged politely in a veneer of "countering disinformation and propaganda", the bill, once signed by Obama, will effectively give the government a full mandate to punish, shut down or otherwise prosecute, any website it deems offensive and a source of "foreign government propaganda from Russia, China or other nations." ..."
"... "I call it "Ukrainization" of America, where the hand of dual-citizen Israelis is everywhere, all the time." ..."
"... One would assume that if Trump becomes President he would use this new power to shit down "Fake News" to shut down the likes of Fake News outlets like the New York Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, Huffington Post etc. ..."
"... The mere fact that they're passing this legislation just before Donald Trump is supposed to be elected President (by the electoral college) and then inaugurated a month later does make me wonder just why they would have this sort of power to a new President who sends to oppose much of what these traitors stand for? ..."
"... The whole US constitution is undemocratic, not just the EC. The question is not whether the CIA "backs" Clinton. It is the irrefutable fact that the liberals and Clinton *back the CIA*. And what they are backing is a *political intervention* by the CIA An agency with a long and infamous history of political interventions worldwide. That is why the Clinton liberals are insane to support this intervention. So let's not hide this intervention behind bureaucratic technicalities. ..."
"... Trumps views on Iran are about the only cloud I can see in his Middle-East policy. To be fair it was the Iranians who played a major role in destabilizing the Iraqi South, costing the Americans and British many of their good men. ..."
"... The establishment and it's corporate media wing look extra retarded here - they've simply doubled down on the 'Russia hacked the election' narrative... fantastical stuff. No one was buying before the election, yet still they're attempting to bludgeon this one through the skull... A retarded, primitive, but it might but be enough to push some nasty legislation along with it. Legislation to protect the US and it's citizens from the big bad world out there. ..."
"... The Don should not have taken the pressure off Hell Bitch once he demolished her, the banshee is still a mouthful of venom. She ought to be pulling here f**king head in. ..."
"... CIA should not have a role as designated to foreign countries not the US - it is FBI turf. ..."
"... I think it is an inner Democratic Party fight. The party establishment lost and was revealed by the leaks. There is now a huge discussion going on on the role of donors. ..."
"... Support for Obama's agenda, by donor status Obama's role in this is to appease the party's left, but serve the party's establishment - not to fight for his stated agenda. ..."
"... I think the Yanks have interfered in just about every single election ever, all over my planet. ..."
"... JFK thought the CIA should be stopped from foreign military interventions, and he was killed as a result. ..."
"... PS. It looks like the Russians are being backed into a corner and demonized. It looks like a push to war with Russia as many have suggested with the first casualty being truth and the second action being to portray the enemy as the ultimate evil. ..."
"... They want to brand RT a foreign agent but not AIPAC? ..."
"... Curtis, Yeah or not to mention the whole EU/media/parties/elites sphere that supported Hillary in every single way! ..."
"... Imho, the "Russian Hacking of US Election" is as pointed out above by b and others total BS. It is an attempt to cast blame on 'outside' forces, and Russia as traditional bogey-man provides a kind of scapegoat. It is ridiculous nonsense, but seems to work, in part. ..."
"... The 'Russian hackers / influence / domination' is tightly tied to the 'Fake News' meme. Now, the 'Fake news' has no particular cited origin, nobody is directly accused except in vague, shoddy terms - alt-right, conspiracy theorists, dodgy lists of pro-Russia sites - , all that remains opaque (direct accusations can lead to libel, slander and other lawsuits), it is just in the air. ..."
"... Imho, "Russia manipulating the election" is just a last-ditch move by the Dems to keep their sheeples on board. ..."
"... All 'fake', nothing to see here, move along, but not only that: If YOU consider 'fake new' or examine it, you are wandering off the path of the True American Citizen who loves his/her country and other peoples of all kinds, hues, who are on the right side of history yada yada. The implicit threat has become overt, which negates the previous 'smooth and subtle' propaganda efforts, and forces one section (neo-libs) of the PTB to overtly switch to negating free speech, tolerance, supposed 'shared values' and 'harmony', etc. Doomed to fail, but then what? ..."
"... This could all be about internal Democratic Party politics. The Clinton Democrats trying to hold onto their positions of power in the Democratic Party, at the DNC and in the House and Senate. They're desperately trying to blame their massive failure in the past election on anything other than their own corruption and dishonesty, in order to block the Bernie Sanders Democrats who are trying to take over leadership of the party. ..."
"... The CIA is worried about exposure of their covert activities in Libya and Syria under a Trump Administration, and so are trying to get their talking points in first. ..."
"... Yes, Israel supported and approved of those operations, as ex-Israeli defense minister Ya'alon admitted when he said he'd rather see ISIS overrun Syria, but Israel is a vassal client state of the U.S. The relationship is a lot like that between China and North Korea, really. ..."
"... the us government is breaking down now, in terms of an institution looking out for america's interests. the scene now is one of a mob riot, with every wolf pack out for itself, and in that context israel is right up there, pack-wise. ..."
"... According to the bill, any defense cooperation with Moscow will be limited until the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, "provides a certification" that Russia stopped "to illegally occupy Crimea, to foster instability in Ukraine, and to maintain an aggressive posture towards its regional neighbors." In addition, US lawmakers insist on full implementation of the Minsk accords and a ceasefire agreement for southeastern Ukraine. ..."
"... "Bilateral military-to-military cooperation is unwarranted so long as Russia continues its aggressive and intimidating behavior towards U.S. partners and allies in Europe," the bill reads. ..."
"... The bill also contains a clause that blocks the allocation of $10 million for the Executive Office of the President of the United States until the Defense Secretary reports to the Congress about counter-measures that Washington had taken against alleged violation by Russia of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty). ..."
The FBI official's remarks to the lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee were, in comparison,
"fuzzy" and "ambiguous," suggesting to those in the room that the bureau and the [Central Intelligence
A]gency weren't on the same page, the official said.
WaPo still asserts that it was a "Russian hack" from which the election relevant emails and other
papers leaked. No evidence, none at all, has been presented to support that claim. Former UK Ambassador
Craig Murray also strongly
disagrees with the CIA claims:
As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have
explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference
between the two.
Murray claims to know the leaker, an insider person, and asks why the CIA and FBI, who claim to
know the person related to Russia who leaked the papers, have then not arrested him or her.
It was the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that
tried to hack the election systems of the state of Georgia. How do we know it was not them hacking
and leaking the DNC papers?
... ... ...
But one can think of three bigger reasons why these leaks about the CIA assessment are now happening:
To preempt the results of the official investigation Obama has now ordered. Any diversion
of the official results from the alleged CIA assessment results will need extensive public explanation.
To swing the electoral college to vote for Clinton instead of Trump. This would be unprecedented
and a coup contradicting the will of the voters. It would lead to political chaos and more. But
many Clinton partisans
are pressing in that direction and such a dirty business would not be out of character for
Hillary Clinton.
Even if neither 1 nor 2 can be achieved the propaganda effect of these leaks will be to
dampen any movement of a Trump administration towards more friendly relations with Russia.
Any such move by Trump will be responded with a chorus "but Russia hacked our election" even though
there has been zero evidence or proof produced that such was indeed the case.
In response to the leaks Trump pointed out that the CIA lied about WMDs in Iraq. That is a
decisive point. Indeed the CIA lied about lots of stuff over the years and one must assume that anything
that is following a "the CIA says" introduction is a lie or at least an obfuscation.
Nobody knows, but Donald Trump -- who has been accused of cozying up to Russia -- said that "no one
knows" who committed the attacks. He said they could even have been done by "someone who weighs
400 pounds who is sitting on a bed."
Wonder how Oath Keepers and Flynn oriented officers would react to a soft coup..
I surely doubt that point no 2 is the motivation. US electoral and political system is a sham.
No transition of any power happens ever in 2-4 years periods at all. It is all a political theater
for American sheeple while the same Anglo-American oligarchic regime continues and thrives for
over 227 years now and the ruling elites do not want to mess up a good thing going for them.
It is an empire of illusion hence the illusion of rules or principles must be maintained so
electoral college as much as it is deeply undemocratic must be maintained to maintain this illusion
of American republic.
In fact there are so many chicks on this political play that makes it impossible to rock the
boat, namely there is no way that Dems will be able to coronate Hillary with both senate and congress
are against her and rules would likely put Paul Ryan as chief executive by blocking Hillary electoral
college vote.
There is no time for more details but Hillary POTUS is almost impossible and hence what utterances
we hear is just representation of deep division in security apparatus in the US unhappy with Obama
rule and his affinity to Islamic terrorists, yes affinity shows by him arming them, and to the
GCC despots who finance them.
it is all rumour mill and conjecture, but what isn't conjecture is the ongoing
attempt to ostracize russia... now whether trump is a friend of Russia's remains to be seen,
but clearly the cia are known for lying, as you point out..
i agree with @7 kalen in that i doubt the reason is #2... i read the transcript yesterday
from the us state dept daily briefly found
here and where
the superficial justification for the special "waiver that it is in U.S. national security interest
to provide weapons to Syrian rebels".. apparently syria is designated a 'state sponsor of terrorism'
and that is all that is needed to green light more war, murder and mayhem from the war party nation..
can anyone tell me how they arrive at this bs? is this what those shekels are supposed to
pay for? all countries surrounding israel will be designated a certain way so that the little
nation that steers the big nation can continue with this bs 24/7? sure looks like it.
i go with option #4 which you haven't posted - continued and ongoing demon-ization of all things
russian until the trump character gets in office, assuming he makes it that far..
It has evolved to the point where you can't really name the American sides anymore except to say
that it is NOT top/bottom....that is we are not openly in agreement that the global plutocratic
families and their tools of private finance are the problem.
Let them eat propaganda!!!! The bus Americans are being thrown under is Edward Bernay's like brainwashed hate for others
but not the elite behind the curtain of deceit. If nothing else you have to be impressed by
the effectiveness of the deceit makers.
IMO the continuing effort to install Hillary ("Fake News", "Russia hacked the election", "Not
my President", etc.) is primarily due to the Syrian conflict. Realists see that the war is lost,
neocons and their sponsors want to double-down.
Those that want to double-down have declared war on the rest of us.
It's time for Trump to be more vocal about US and US-ally's support for extremists.
B asked: "what-are-the-hearsay-leaks-about-russian-election-hacking-attempting-to-achieve"
A: Obfuscation of the "drain-the-swamp" meme as both "sides" are in support of the elite maintaining
control in the US and world wide.
nothing better to unite a divided country than fear of an enemy, while the arms/militarization
lobby - and add to that now the security lobby - rakes in the dough while steering foreign policy
in a circuitous route leading back to the banks...
has been standard operating procedure throughout history - e.g., the committee for the
present danger v1 & v2.0
W/ respect to B's Point #2, this just in from the Guardian:
"[John] Dean called for the intelligence report on Russia's role to be made available to the
538 members of the electoral college before 19 December, when they formally vote to elect the
next president. "
/snip/
Chas. Schumer:
"The silence from WikiLeaks and others since election day has been deafening. That any country
could be meddling in our elections should shake both political parties to their core."
Ha, ha, ha . . . Israel-firster Schumer bitching about other countries screwing around
with US political system. Get the joke?
It is my belief that we are witnessing a war between CIA and client NGO's and the US military.
I have never heard a Presidential candidate assert that he is running at the behest of retired
Generals and Admirals. Evidence of a soft military coup is everywhere but in the MSM (Mainstream
Melodrama.)
Witness Congressional Representative & US Army Major Tulsi Gabbard's bill to forbid the
use of taxpayer funds to fund various terrorist groups ...
Here is the oath that Tulsi Gabbard took when she was commissioned
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as
indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that
I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without
any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge
the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."
(DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
Major Gabbard obviously takes her oath seriously! Also President elect Trump has appointed
several retired Generals to cabinet level posts, just my opinion
And of course there will be no report released, its just lies, otherwhise the reports would be
out everywhere. Clinton camp is just bummed out that they lost the election and must come up with
MANUFACTURED reasons of why.
These leaks have nothing to do with the Electoral College or any chance of swinging the 'election'.
Rather, they are yet one more childish lashing out by the American empire that has been defeated
in Syria. Hence UN grandstanding to force Russia to veto ridiculous bills, approving more
weapons deliveries to the losing terrorists to try to stave off victory for the Syrian people
during Obama's end of term, more WADA accusations against Russia, etc. In sum, they add up to,
"wah wah wah wah." Perhaps the true exceptionalism is the exceptional ability to pout and cry
when events don't go the empire's way.
In my opinion this is an inside war between the ousted ruling elites of which the Clinton
and Bush dynasties are part of the same group along with ALL of their employees on the payroll
(lobbyists, academics, Medias etc) that have been in power and ruled and thieved for over 25 years.
These people do NOT want to lose their ownership of the US ship of state as it has ginormous
perks. Obviously they are willing to fight to the death.
Trump seeks to bring in another set of oligarchs. There is no telling what will happens but
either way, the citizenry loses.
Did the US military and the Russian military covertly 'under the table' make a deal to attack
the US WarParty and its various foreign backers?
Since at least 2003 under the Bu$h II dynasty oil has been appropriated in Iraq and Syria,
piped and trucked through Turkey and sold at below wholesale for pennies on the dollar, to the
City of the District Columbia, City of London (which includes Tel Aviv,) City of Rome, France
and other NATO parasitic Euro Colonials.
Could the continuing trumpeting (pun not intended) of the primacy of Russian armaments just
be a justification for non US intervention or is it a smokescreen intended to give the US military,
not to be confused with the US Military Industrial Complex, a tactical reason to not directly
attack Russian Forces on the ground?
There are several instances in Syria where the US Air Forces have bombed targets on the ground
in Syria without any reaction by Russian forces. Is there an agreement that exists between us
and them?
These unsubstantiated attacks on Russia like the election hacking scheme are beyond laughable.
It seems that CIA/NGOs tantrum is all they are capable of. They have lost their war against the
Constitution. And lost it badly. Jut me opinion
To this old IT pro it is obvious that they have zero evidence. The intelligence agency jackals
are doing what they always do: making it up as they go. Their agenda with the Killary was more
death and destruction. Now they are trying to redirect fear and hatred of Trump against Russia.
@42 wbl, 'Perhaps the true exceptionalism is the exceptional ability to pout and cry when events
don't go the empire's way.'
make that the cia for the empire above and i agree completely. trump is as much the empire's
man as anyone, the problem is that he doesn't know that the potus works for the cia, the 'wisemen'
who've been pulling the strings since 1947 - pulling the pins and tossing the grenades is probably
more like it.
this is the cia's attempt to make the new adminstration acknowledge the lay of the land. the
cis is wedded to its plans for regime changes / death, devastation, and destgruction in general
to achieve its aims - and to maintain its power and control over us policy, foreign and domestic,
and its going to do what it takes to accomplish just that.
the evil cia does a lot more than pout and cry when it doesn't get its way, though. if this
doesn't work the next move will be assassination. just like jfk. and they'll blame the russians,
of course, their traditional enemy. just like last time.
the monstrous cia has been a cancer in the governing apparatus of the usa since 26 july 1947
and it looks to me like its now or never for it to be excised forever from the body politic. the
rump needs give the rogue machine its answer.
the rump can kill it with his fountain pin - and must, it'll be a matter of life-and-death,
both his and ours or its - on 21 january 2017. kill the rogue before it kills all of us.
The good news is the Clintonite neocon regime is in panic. Their usual double-down approach
to everything. It appears Trump - for his own security - aims to clean out the Augean Stables.
If Tillerson is SecState a lot of people are going to lose their jobs.
I don't believe the election will be overturned by the Electoral College. That's nonsense;
it's never gonna happen; period. I do believe that the CIA is a dangerous organization that fabricates
intelligence when it suits it. The CIA is like a rogue junta.
JFK mistrusted the CIA and was absolutely right to do so. JFK also mistrusted the Israelis
with very good reason and was smart to do so; albeit, it turned out badly for him to try to act
against both.
The media is bellowing that it's wrong for a President to question the CIA - BULLSHIT. A President
should always be skeptical of agencies and mind you, foreign Lobbies, with too much power! Similarly,
in the case of Israel, a President should question why a puny triangle in the Negev desert exerts
so much influence over the largest military power in the world? But since JFK, none do.
The difference between JFK and Trump is staaaagering! Trump only criticizes and mistrusts the
messenger when he doesn't like what he hears. If the CIA said that there was no Russian hacking
and the election result is beyond reproach; he'd be sending them chocolates and flowers!
Who stated?: America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction.
They won't get in our way...We're benefiting from one thing and that is the attack on the twin
towers and Pentagon and the American struggle in Iraq. These events swung American public opinion
in our favor.
If Wikileaks got the emails; someone had to do the job? Now, you have to ask yourselves: who
had the most to gain with a Trump victory? Which is the most tech-saavy country; inventor of Stuxnet?
Israel knew 9/11 was going to happen before anyone, because it had two Telecom companies spying
inside the U.S., and the depth of their involvement still remains a lingering question. One thing
is clear though: Israel couldn't have been more pleased with the change that 9/11 produced in
the American psyche and Netanyahu bragged about that.
Israel can do cyber false flag better than anyone. They could have killed two birds with
one stone; first getting rid of Hillary who would never tear up the Iran deal, and then pinning
the hack on Russia as revenge for interfering in Syria. Who had access to the DNC and knew there
was something questionable there that could swing public opinion? Zionists exist in both parties.
If Hillary won, Netanyahu would be stuck with the Iran deal for 8 years! Whenever Israelis
face a threat or pivotal impasse of some kind they have no scruples about acting extra judicially
to neutralize the threat or force an issue critical to their interests and would not hesitate
to do so.
So, in fact, if the Israelis did this, there would be three victims, and three gains for
Israel here: 1. Hillary, who would never undo a difficult deal negotiated by a fellow Democrat
who helped her campaign tirelessly, would be out; 2.Putin who messed with the Zionist plan for
Syria would get all the blame, and most importantly, 3. Trump who promised to make Jerusalem the
Zionist capital and tear up the Iran deal, must therefore win, and Netanyahu will ensure he keeps
his promises and knows who he's indebted to most.
Now, maybe you think - outrageous. Really? Again, who had the most to gain, who had access
to the DNC, and wouldn't think twice of doing what's necessary to rescue and advance Zionism?
Of course the media will never look in that direction; and the CIA are no where as smart as
Israel's spy network to get the facts.
I know, it's only a theory, but when you have three important goals to accomplish, that's what
I call the party with the most to gain.
The Zionist media are up in arms that a foreign entity might have tipped the election to
one side. However, if it that foreign entity were ISRAEL, would they be as vocal and outraged?
Only because this is pinned squarely on Russia are they harping on this point.
The ideal outcome for Zionists happened: the Iran deal will over, the Zionist capital in
Israel will be Jerusalem, Putin is the villain who meddled in the election (and Syria)and Trump
is in Israel's debt. What could be better for Zionism?
Think. America can be easily moved these events swung American public opinion in our favor.
And so it is; once again.
Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange,
called the CIA claims "bullshit", adding: "They are absolutely making it up." "I know who leaked
them," Murray said. "I've met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and
it's an insider. It's a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.
As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As
I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major
difference between the two. And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had
not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received
advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive
donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence,
if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none
of this would have happened.
These accusations of Russia meddling in American affairs have the Zionist fingerprints all over
it. Although it is argued that Trump is a good friend of Netanyahu and thus the Israelis have
that angle covered, they would much prefer a President beholden to them as Obama was.
Trump has
put 'hard men', men likely harder than himself in charge of Defence, Homeland Security and now
the State. These are not the kind of men impressed with puny Israel. Add to that, one only has
to look at the ethnic background of those leading the charge, that the Jews have as usual let
their hatred for the Russians get ahead of them.
Although it is argued that Trump is a good friend of Netanyahu and thus the Israelis have
that angle covered, they would much prefer a President beholden to them as Obama was.
Wrong. Netanyahu never liked Obama while Trump said he would tear up the Iran deal on day one
and move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem; therefore acknowledging it as the Zionist capital of Israel.
As numerous commentators have noted, winning the popular vote in a country with an Electoral College
is essentially meaningless. In the US, the Dems start off with the enormous advantage of California
and New York State already in the bag. Republican voters in California would not feel motivated
to vote against an insurmountable head start. That alone should have cost Republicans about a
million votes. Trump played the ground game well in the battleground states where he had to
flip a few hundred thousand votes. He won fair and square by the rules of the game.
@ rualito who assures me that ZH is safe in the coming propaganda wars.....thanks, I think Maybe
the name stays the same but the "more" than Naked Capitalism provides will be reigned in a bit.
I like the meme "DRAIN THE SWAMP". I think it is a bit of language poetry that can evolve to
connect many disaffected parts of our species. It provides some focus to build from. Us pond scum
have to use the little media they haven't taken away to bring people together around concepts
to move forward with...
@35 Trump is a big unknown. I think Paul Craig Roberts said it best - give Trump 6 months
and then form an opinion. I'm not too optimistic however; Trump's policies could flop and
the hawks could weasel their warmongering in (IRAN + CHINA + ????)
For the moment, I think Tillerson is a far far better pick than Guilliani, Romney or Bolton.
I hope that he will acquire the position. He seems to be smart, but also seems to have good
character (considering.)
Of course, the inauguration is a few weeks off, so the concern about a soft coup are real ones,
especially when the CIA is throwing out the Russia claims.
Senate Quietly Passes The "Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act" . . .the Act will
i) greenlight the government to crack down with impunity against any media property it deems "propaganda",
and ii) provide substantial amounts of money fund an army of "local journalist" counterpropaganda,
to make sure the government's own fake news drowns that of the still free "fringes."
So while packaged politely in a veneer of "countering disinformation and propaganda", the
bill, once signed by Obama, will effectively give the government a full mandate to punish, shut
down or otherwise prosecute, any website it deems offensive and a source of "foreign government
propaganda from Russia, China or other nations."
And since there is no formal way of proving whether or not there is indeed a foreign propaganda
sponsor, all that will be sufficient to eliminate any "dissenting" website, will be the government's
word against that of the website. One can be confident that the US government will almost certainly
prevail in every single time.
"I call it "Ukrainization" of America, where the hand of dual-citizen Israelis is everywhere,
all the time."
There, fixed it for you. The Israel junta coup in Kiev has looted the Ukranian Treasury of
all its gold bullion, sent off to NYC banks, and then issued junk bonds, already defaulting but
backstopped with USA taxpayer bailout funds by crypto-Zionist Kerry, in defiance of the Constitution,
that privatized Ukraine heavy industries and best farmlands for the Zionists.
Don't ever forget that history lesson.
The One Party of Mil.Gov exists for two purposes, neither of which have anything to do with
party politics, which is a puerile pastime of the plebs, or serving the citizens themselves. One
is to defend their own Mil.Gov salaries and full pensions for life. Second is to funnel $3,400,000,000,000
in tax revenues, after personnel expenses, from the public Treasury, to the private offshore bank
accounts of think tanks and mercenaries and shell company 'Green' industries, government grant
swindles, private colleges, and through tax credits, to MIC, Big Oil and Big Pharma et al. That's
all Mil.Gov is, the greatest grift pipeline on Earth.
Don't ever forget that history lesson.
Take Clinton and Benghazi, for example. CIA doesn't 'hate' Clinton. CIA was joined at the hip
to State during Reagan. Clinton became the focal point over Benghazi, so McCain played the Inquisitor,
and in the end, really, what difference did it make? Nada. McCain went on to meet with Al Nusra
/ The Caliph and become the new chief money / arms funneler. Just look at the Podesta and Weiner
affair. Nobody is going to investigate. Never happen. It was all the Russian hackers, and you
better not kneel during the Pledge of Allegiance to the Bombs and Red Glare, or they'll tattoo
9363 on your inner lip, and 0 all the 1s on your credit cards.
That's all they're saying: You are all kulaks now.
1998 Soft Coup...does anyone left on Earth still doubt that? Gramm-Leich-Bliley takeover.
2001 Hard Coup...two planes bring down four buildings, and destroy all evidence of Dot.Con and
the missing $2,600,000,000,000 at the Pentagon. Can you possibly doubt that was a coup?
2008 Take Down...with a narrative, as McKee's 'The Story' said, a nice linear story of this Lehman
and that Goldman and a bunch of other Zio names ... still they 'pulled it'. Period.
2011 Double Down...did anyone in their wildest imagination ever dream of a group of bankers bankrupting
the most powerful nation on earth in broad daylight, with smiles on their faces?
2016 Lock Down...look at who is being put into power: Goldman Bankers and the MIC NeoCons, exact
same people who executed the power plays of the last 20 years, are locking US down.
USAryans with the means can still escape, expatriate, even live well-off in a world dying under
the dominance of US$ hegemony, ...but the moment cracks show, and ripple-down begins, those expats
will be hunted down: "No, soy tu padre, por favor, soy tu hermano, perdóname!"
A friend of mine in SEAsia send me a video from a friend who took a USAryan into his home and
fed him, some lost expat, scraggly gray beard, ragged shirt, snaggle-tooth, eating cold rice with
both hands, looking dazed and confused. That's the future for USAryan kulaks. They don't need
you anymore. At all. At all. At all. You can be outsourced in a NYC nanosecond.
...
"Wrong. Netanyahu never liked Obama while Trump said he would tear up the Iran deal on day one
and move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem; therefore acknowledging it as the Zionist capital of Israel."
Posted by: Circe | Dec 10, 2016 10:34:54 PM | 87
That remark is rendered even more foolish than it superficially seems by your decision to fling
it into a thread about political Theatre, and given that "Netanyahu never liked Obama" was so
OBVIOUSLY ... Pure Theatre. When Bibi (discourteously) addressed Congress (to applause of unprecedented
duration) after side-stepping the Traditional Introduction By The President, to the Congress,
of a Foreign Leader, it was Proof that Obama was on board with the scheme to elevate Bibi's status
and influence. I find it impossible to accept that any sentient being could believe some of the
irritating drivel which you claim to believe, 'Circe'.
Re: Posted by: Perimetr | Dec 11, 2016 12:04:48 AM | 98
One would assume that if Trump becomes President he would use this new power to shit down
"Fake News" to shut down the likes of Fake News outlets like the New York Times, Washington Post,
MSNBC, Huffington Post etc.
Would anyone here really think if outlets like that were shut down it would really be a bad
thing?
The mere fact that they're passing this legislation just before Donald Trump is supposed
to be elected President (by the electoral college) and then inaugurated a month later does make
me wonder just why they would have this sort of power to a new President who sends to oppose much
of what these traitors stand for?
Unless of course they know of a plan to make sure he never steps in the White House as President?
s @18: Some facts: The whole US constitution is undemocratic, not just the EC. The question
is not whether the CIA "backs" Clinton. It is the irrefutable fact that the liberals and Clinton
*back the CIA*. And what they are backing is a *political intervention* by the CIA An agency
with a long and infamous history of political interventions worldwide. That is why the Clinton
liberals are insane to support this intervention. So let's not hide this intervention behind bureaucratic
technicalities.
That *political intervention* began *before* the election with the Clapper omnibus announcement.
Clinton ran with it in the last debate with Trump. She beat him over the head with Clapper with
the only passion she ever showed for an issue. You have the Clinton - CIA causation backwards.
Circe @87. Trumps views on Iran are about the only cloud I can see in his Middle-East policy.
To be fair it was the Iranians who played a major role in destabilizing the Iraqi South, costing
the Americans and British many of their good men.
Realistically there is no hope of a two state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Having recognized Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, the best deal is a one state solution. If
the Palestinians play their cards well - not a likely prospect, given their innate stupidity -
it will work out to everyone's good
The establishment and it's corporate media wing look extra retarded here - they've simply
doubled down on the 'Russia hacked the election' narrative... fantastical stuff. No one was buying
before the election, yet still they're attempting to bludgeon this one through the skull...
A retarded, primitive, but it might but be enough to push some nasty legislation along with it.
Legislation to protect the US and it's citizens from the big bad world out there.
The Don should not have taken the pressure off Hell Bitch once he demolished her, the
banshee is still a mouthful of venom. She ought to be pulling here f**king head in. We can only
hope The Don manages the downfall without bloodshed. One could accept a conflict an interest if
it only meant a chain of hotels dropped on foreign soil instead of a thousand cruise missiles.
That's where we're at.
CIA should not have a role as designated to foreign countries not the US - it is FBI turf.
FBI disagrees. I think it is an inner Democratic Party fight. The party establishment lost
and was revealed by the leaks. There is now a huge discussion going on on the role of donors.
And the US Senate slithered in with a 'quietly' passed "Countering Disinformation and
TERRORISM Propaganda Act". Does that match the Act passed by the House? If so,
it should be on Obama's desk for Christmas, in time enough Obama cannot use his pocket veto. Surprises
for New Years Eve; a hangover for the New Year.
It all is really only one subject - Russians, Syria, elections, ISIS, Clinton, Trump, Ukraine,
EU attacks in Paris, Bruxelles, fake news, whataboutism reloaded, psyops worldwide, Wikileaks,
very recent bombings in Cairo and Istanbul etc.
So what is happening here? Intelligence communities and all the levels of current administration
are fighting each other without a mercy, while there is obvious power vacuum and "state sponsored
everything" just falls apart right before our eyes. Scary is that all US sponsored terrorist sleeping
cells, as it seems, are going berserk all around Mid East while feeling abandoned by their main
sponsors and its control and coordination seems is lost. For any future administration that comes
to the power in the US next, it will take at least until next winter to try regain some sort of
control over such rogue covert field units.
"Trump lost the election. When the electoral college votes him in, is when the will of the
people is trampled. If those electors were decent people, they'd vote for the true winner of the
election as president."
The total ignorance of that statement is overwhelming. I get it that there are many socialists
here at the bar, but we don't need to be totally delusional about how the system works. We have
had protection of the small states from the large states via the Senate and the electoral college
from the beginning of the republic.
The fact that California votes millions of non-citizens and dead people does not mean the rest
of the country needs to bow to the crazies out there. Let California succeed from the nation ---
I would cheer their leaving.
The people of the US gave the Republicans the majority nationwide from the local county, to
the state level, to the national level. The national government is Republican in both houses of
congress as well as the presidency. SC to follow. The people have spoken.
Besides, let Germany host all the Muslim rape gangs and enjoy child marriage. Angela Merkel
must be very popular in Germany. No?
Shit, I think the Yanks have interfered in just about every single election ever, all over my
planet. Theres a teaspoon of cement out back, to be swallowed with a glass of water to harden
the fuck up.
Your government are only tools, there is nothing cool about their version of patriotism,
Americans. Stop fucking with the rest of us and create a truly independent foreign policy, or
quit wining about the shocking state of affairs that is your current DC sociopathic nightmare.
There is no saving that train smash, it has already hit terminal velocity, and the ground is a
generation away. Something tells me that learning how to grow potatoes would probably do you more
good right now than opining on the intricacies of a morbidly fascinating, yet ultimately doomed
cesspool of fuckwits who are jacking you off with one hand while smothering you with a pillow
in the other.
"CIA should not have a role as designated to foreign countries not the US - it is FBI
turf. FBI disagrees. I think it is an inner Democratic Party fight."
JFK thought the CIA should be stopped from foreign military interventions, and he was killed
as a result. It's not just an inner Democratic party fight. CIA runs the trillion-dollar-a-year
heroin industry in Afghanistan. The proceeds are laundered by the too-big-to-jail banksters, and
used to run foreign wars, buy politicians, whatever is necessary for the deep state to maintain
control.
The DEMs and their backers are throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. (more divide and
conquer)
1. It's the Russians. But don't look at what is revealed and the corruption present.
Don't look at the fact that important things are connected to the internet that are not and cannot
be protected.
2. It's the uneducated whites. But don't look to see if that's true just use insulting
language and imply that everyone would have voted for Hillary if they were educated. (brainwashed)
But don't look at the team-sport oriented quality to our elections. And don't look at Hillary's
corruption as most have done.
3. It's the electoral college and popular vote. But don't look at the electoral college
as preventing two states and several large cities from controlling the country. Don't look at
the presidency becoming more authoritarian and that the president should not have so much power
that the office becomes all important. And don't think about the fact that Trump won the popular
vote in each state he won.
PS. It looks like the Russians are being backed into a corner and demonized. It looks like
a push to war with Russia as many have suggested with the first casualty being truth and the second
action being to portray the enemy as the ultimate evil.
I wonder if the censoring of "fake news" and such applies to the magazine rack at the local supermarkets?
It is thus where I pick up most of the scandals about the Clintons, whether we truly made it to
the moon, assasination theories, and everything else. And judging by my fellow American beer drinking
patrons in line, I'm sure I'm not alone in my outrage!
If they plan to shut down information on the internet, in order to brainwash us more effectively,
certainly cleaning up the magazine racks would be a great service that I for one look forward
to in the coming administrations!
" will improve the ability of the United States to counter foreign propaganda and disinformation
by establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department to coordinate and synchronize
counter-propaganda efforts throughout the U.S. government. To support these efforts, the bill
also creates a grant program for NGOs, think tanks, civil society and other experts outside government
who are engaged in counter-propaganda related work. This will better leverage existing expertise
and empower local communities to defend themselves from foreign manipulation."
Once this interagency center is established expect the following:
a dual-citizen/Israeli-firster will be appointed to at least one key position in this center.
the center's mandate will be expanded to include "counter-propaganda" against criticism
of Israel and related topics, including criticism of tribalist's inordinate influence in the
U.S. gov't, media, finance, etc.
a significant portion of the grant program will be siphoned off by Israeli-firsters and
their organizations.
a concerted effort (in conjunction with Facebook and Google) will include isolating and
shutting down blogs which have been vocally critical of Israel and 'zionist occupied territory'
aka the U.S. gov't. (This means you MOA)
Imho, the "Russian Hacking of US Election" is as pointed out above by b and others total BS.
It is an attempt to cast blame on 'outside' forces, and Russia as traditional bogey-man provides
a kind of scapegoat. It is ridiculous nonsense, but seems to work, in part. It would be interesting
in fact to read how the Russians managed this, sadly but unsurprisingly no methods / facts / putative
credible scenarios are detailed, all is 'insinuations', 'speculations' etc.
Of course the Russians know much more than they are letting on, that is another topic entirely.
The 'Russian hackers / influence / domination' is tightly tied to the 'Fake News' meme.
Now, the 'Fake news' has no particular cited origin, nobody is directly accused except in vague,
shoddy terms - alt-right, conspiracy theorists, dodgy lists of pro-Russia sites - , all that remains
opaque (direct accusations can lead to libel, slander and other lawsuits), it is just in the
air.
The general impression your lambda Killary supporter is that Russia stole the election for
Trump (apparently believing this is a sort of regular natural occurrence, i.e that a foreign power
can manipulate the greatest democracy is just 'normal' and 'comprehensible') and there are shadowy,
obscure enemies out there, somewhere, creating 'Fake News', how nobody really knows. (Schizo thinking,
violent hateful people, criminals, something.)
Imho, "Russia manipulating the election" is just a last-ditch move by the Dems to keep
their sheeples on board. The scary thing is that probably many believe it themselves, as
they cannot fathom the bubble they live in or what the 'real world' is all about. They cannot
understand why they 'lost', how could that possibly be?, there must be some evil 'force' that
engineered it, no other explanation will do.
The 'Fake News' narrative is clearly put out there as a last-ditch move to suppress news about
Pizza-Gate, the Podesta / other e-mails, the Clinton Foundation, pedophilia rings in the world,
Benghazi, and more.
All 'fake', nothing to see here, move along, but not only that: If YOU consider 'fake new'
or examine it, you are wandering off the path of the True American Citizen who loves his/her country
and other peoples of all kinds, hues, who are on the right side of history yada yada. The implicit
threat has become overt, which negates the previous 'smooth and subtle' propaganda efforts, and
forces one section (neo-libs) of the PTB to overtly switch to negating free speech, tolerance,
supposed 'shared values' and 'harmony', etc. Doomed to fail, but then what?
Here are a couple factors I don't see mentioned in the thread:
1) This could all be about internal Democratic Party politics. The Clinton Democrats trying
to hold onto their positions of power in the Democratic Party, at the DNC and in the House and
Senate. They're desperately trying to blame their massive failure in the past election on anything
other than their own corruption and dishonesty, in order to block the Bernie Sanders Democrats
who are trying to take over leadership of the party. Part of that strategy to preserve power
is to blame their debacle on Putin, but only the brainwashed would buy that.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/scramble-for-control-of-the-democratic-party-rages-231242
That's just some of the shady behavior the CIA got up to under Obama; under GW Bush they helped
cook up lies about Iraqi WMDs, ran torture programs in 2002 aimed at forcing captured Al Qaeda
terrorists to invent links to Saddam, and later transferred their torture program to Iraq as part
of the effort to crush the anti-occupation insurgency.
One fact that supports this narrative is the leading role being played by pro-Clinton Democrats
on the House and Senate Intelligence committees in boosting the "Russia did it narrative"; they
also have close relationships with CIA lobbyists, who have their own reasons for undermining the
Trump Administration and preventing exposure of their activities in Syria. I'd say that's the
real agenda behind this propaganda blitz.
P.S. Those going on about how Israeli Zionists run the world and/or how Trump is out to invade
Iran are living in the past, not up to speed on the new realities. Take the massive deal Iran
and Boeing just signed, as one example of these new world realities: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-boeing-idUSKBN1400CR
The Israelis and the Saudis lobbied long and hard against that, they want sanctions against Iran
and all such deals blocked - it's not going to happen. And yes, Obama was the biggest Israel supporter
ever:
"The Obama administration is upping aid to Israel as part of the largest pledge of military assistance
in US history ($38 billion). - Sep 13 2016"
Your responses lead me to believe that all three of you are Zionist enablers, while my comment
@78 proves that I'm vehemently opposed to Zionism since I'm offering the theory that Zionists
might have been behind the DNC hack and leak to Wikileaks because Israel had everything to gain
with Trump who promised to tear up the Iran deal and move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. Those
promises are not small potatoes for Israel! I imagine they'd do just about anything to facilitate
them.
@105 writes:
When Bibi (discourteously) addressed Congress (to applause of unprecedented duration) after
side-stepping the Traditional Introduction By The President, to the Congress, of a Foreign
Leader, it was Proof that Obama was on board with the scheme to elevate Bibi's status and influence.
I find it impossible to accept that any sentient being could believe some of the irritating
drivel which you claim to believe, 'Circe'..
First of all, no one is going to buy that Obama was on board with Bibi upstaging him
and the office of the President with that speech to Congress in which he severely criticized the
Iran deal...that's pure baloney on your part. Further, I have no reason to defend Obama;
I can't stand Obama and my comment history proves this. Obama is a Zionist enabler; but Trump
will be much worse and his promises and defense of the radical nut job Netanyahu prove this! As
a matter of fact, Trump himself, criticized Obama's treatment of Netanyahu and Israel, and his
snub of Netanyahu when the latter addressed Congress. So you're argument is a total fail.
Secondly, my comments may irritate you, and I'm glad they do, they should bother all Zionist
enablers, and you seem really hot and bothered, but if you notice, the Saker chose one of my comments
to lead a discussion on his site, so they're not so much drivel as you'd like to pretend they
are.
@138 noirette, 'The 'Russian hackers / influence / domination' is tightly tied to the 'Fake News'
meme.' you said it! i've been looking at ProPornOT's actual 'document' and that
jump's out
of their introduction
.
Yes, Circe, Obama was so upset with Netanyahu that he promoted the largest military aid package
in U.S. history for Israel, a whopping $38 billion. I'd guess, however, that this was really a
gift package for the 9 out of 10 major U.S. arms manufacturers who were backing Hillary Clinton,
as most of that Israeli aid money will be recycled back to them in the form of weapons purchases.
The whole "Russia hacked the U.S. election" line has nothing to do with Israel, other than
that they think their interests are better served by someone like Hillary Clinton who relies on
the likes of Haim Saban for campaign donations, than by someone like Trump, who doesn't. This
gets back to the issue of the internal struggle within the Democratic Party for control, the Clinton
Democrats vs. the Sanders Democrats; if the Clintonites can blame their failure on Putin, they
stand a better chance of holding onto party leadership positions. And the CIA is onboard because
they're worried about exposure of their covert pro-ISIS pro-Al Qaeda operations in Turkey and
Jordan.
Yes, Israel supported and approved of those operations, as ex-Israeli defense minister
Ya'alon admitted when he said he'd rather see ISIS overrun Syria, but Israel is a vassal client
state of the U.S. The relationship is a lot like that between China and North Korea, really.
They're both troublesome rogue nuclear states with long-term relationships to their big brothers.
Now one smart move for Trump would be to cut a deal with China, in which North Korea and Israel
would both be pressured to accept IAEA inspections of their nuclear arsenals or face the loss
of aid from China and the U.S., respectively.
@145 nonsense, 'Israel is a vassal client state of the U.S'
you make a lot of sense, i especially like your comparison of north korea and israel vis a
vis china and the us ... and the opening for trump to do just as you 'recommend' ... but the us
government is breaking down now, in terms of an institution looking out for america's interests.
the scene now is one of a mob riot, with every wolf pack out for itself, and in that context israel
is right up there, pack-wise.
there's nothing left in ac/dc but a collection of mobs, each fighting for its own interest
exclusively ... witness the pentagon/cia each contesting the direction of the war ... not only
in syria. trump is just another mobster ... and a capo, really, in terms of power. he'll have
to pull a coup of his own to become the godfather. and israel is just one of the mobs he's going
to have to make his personal vassals.
that's what seems to be the lay of the land in the usa. duel among the financiers, the fusiliers,
the fossil-fuelers, israel, and trump himself for the dictatorship. the cia's been in the catbird
seat the past 8 years. remains to be seen if tee-rump is up to it.
The US Senate passed the bill on the Pentagon's 2017 budget Thursday, which prohibits military
cooperation with Russia and allocates funds to support Washington's allies in Europe.
Kremlin does not expect quick restoration of Russia-US ties. The overall US military budget
for the next year will stand at almost $619 billion. The bill is yet to be signed into law
by outgoing US President Barack Obama.
White House request
Members of Congress committees on defense and military issues earlier said they had granted
the Obama administration's request to allocate $3.4 billion to strengthen the defense of its
NATO allies in Europe. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter said the measure was to "aggressive
actions by Russia." The document also cites terrorist threat and the inflow of refuges from
the Middle East as reasons for allotting the money.
According to the bill, any defense cooperation with Moscow will be limited until the
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, "provides a certification"
that Russia stopped "to illegally occupy Crimea, to foster instability in Ukraine, and to maintain
an aggressive posture towards its regional neighbors." In addition, US lawmakers insist on
full implementation of the Minsk accords and a ceasefire agreement for southeastern Ukraine.
"Bilateral military-to-military cooperation is unwarranted so long as Russia continues
its aggressive and intimidating behavior towards U.S. partners and allies in Europe," the bill
reads.
Arms control
The bill also contains a clause that blocks the allocation of $10 million for the Executive
Office of the President of the United States until the Defense Secretary reports to the Congress
about counter-measures that Washington had taken against alleged violation by Russia of the
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF Treaty).
In addition, the bill imposes a direct ban on financing further implementation of the New
START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) until the administration makes a number of reports
to the Congress, including on Russia's nuclear doctrine and on the treaty's influence on the
US nuclear arsenal.
Open Skies
The Congress also banned any expenditures concerning Russia's observation flights under
the Treaty on Open Skies until the Department of State and the Pentagon convince lawmakers
that Moscow fully complies with the treaty and permits aerial surveillance of some of its territories,
including Kaliningrad, Moscow, Chenchya and areas that border the former Georgian republics
of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
White House stance
The White House administration has not yet expressed its attitude towards the document.
Last year, a similar text was vetoed by US President Barack Obama. At the same time, according
to the Miltiary Times portal, the Democrats previously expressed their support for the draft
bill.
"... I'm surprised how little discussion I'm seeing of the none too subtle redefinition by the MSM of propaganda itself. It used to be that propaganda was the injection of falsehoods into a discussion to disrupt the flow of truth. Currently, however, the propaganda hysteria is about the injection of truth to disrupt the flow of falsehood. It's quite different. ..."
"... I am surprised that no one has even defined 'fake news'. According to what I can find online, 'fake news' is defined as a spoof of traditional news, as with the Onion. The way it is being used now is that even legitimate news sources such as Wikileaks are purveyors of fake news even if what they leak is true. ..."
"... You can kind of relate to the Democrats' desperate efforts to distract people from what's in the emails with Russia Russia Russia. You haven't lived till you've curled up with those emails. Degradation has never been so entertaining. The Clinton Foundation emails read like Lump Snopes selling tickets to watch Ike fuck cows. No regime can survive that level of comedy. ..."
Lets face it, the rich control the main stream media and they want this agenda pushed. I just
Smerconish getting angry with a member of the RNC over "Russia" hacking them. This is just ridiculous.
Provide proof or shut up
I'm surprised how little discussion I'm seeing of the none too subtle redefinition by the
MSM of propaganda itself. It used to be that propaganda was the injection of falsehoods into a
discussion to disrupt the flow of truth. Currently, however, the propaganda hysteria is about
the injection of truth to disrupt the flow of falsehood. It's quite different.
I'm also quite surprised at the absence of any review whatever of the long history of foreign
interference in other nations' electoral processes. I'm no expert, but I don't believe the Weevil
Rooskibots are the historically most guilty party. Maybe ganders desiring noninterference should
consider leaving the geese unmolested.
I am surprised that no one has even defined 'fake news'. According to what I can find online,
'fake news' is defined as a spoof of traditional news, as with the Onion. The way it is being
used now is that even legitimate news sources such as Wikileaks are purveyors of fake news even
if what they leak is true.
Perhaps this is a good time to mention HRC's "hand on the scale" recorded suggestion that the
USA needs to influence foreign elections for the USA's purposes.
"Speaking to the Jewish Press about the January 25, 2006, election for the second Palestinian
Legislative Council (the legislature of the Palestinian National Authority), Clinton weighed in
about the result, which was a resounding victory for Hamas (74 seats) over the U.S.-preferred
Fatah (45 seats)."
"I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think
that was a big mistake," said Sen. Clinton. "And if we were going to push for an election, then
we should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win."
"(Eli) Chomsky recalls being taken aback that "anyone could support the idea-offered by a national
political leader, no less-that the U.S. should be in the business of fixing foreign elections.""
Clinton should respect the Russians for doing something to influence the US election their
way, as she suggested the USA should have done in the Palestinian territories.
One could argue the USA's access to friendly media around the world gives the USA far more
propaganda power to influence elections than the Russians.
The USA's TPTB, who are alleging the Russians influenced the election, should be embarrassed
to be suggesting the Russians did so well in "propaganda" game with far fewer resources.
That political/government officials are pushing this story, effectively Russian leaks of the
truth helped elect Trump, on the USA's population may give a good indication of the depth of contempt
the political elite really have of the "hoi polloi",.
Is this a case of 'I have done it so often, only I – but not you, the non-expert – know what
the Russians did?' Is it also, 'If I tell you how they did it, I will betray and expose myself?'
Perhaps the wolf-crier did it himself/herself?
Glad you posted 'Neo-McCarthyism and the New Cold War Nation, John Batchelor Show.' True that
his show is a bit of a mish-mash; tried to listen to shows on Philippines and China, with folks
who seemed like standard-issue, imperialist bots But I do try to catch his weekly broadcast with
Stephen Cohen; these are always excellent. Been reading Cohen since the early 80s, when he seemed
to be the only US academician who did not knee-jerky hate Russia, but actually tried to understand
the country (although he was critical of USSR). His knowledge, insights, and the willingness to
give the other side equal respect are highly informative (and commendable).
The former (raising prosperity and security for the population) will require a new political
economy and therefore some kind of defeat of the current elite.
That would also help with changing our technological focus.
CIA says Russia intervened to help Trump win presidency Boston Globe:
"The CIA shared its latest assessment with key senators in a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill
last week, in which agency officials cited a growing body of intelligence from multiple sources."
Trump is right: these are the same guys that said Saddam Hussein had WMDs. It's still an unsupported
claim; they don't name the supposed "known characters," nor do they offer the slightest textual
evidence.
A further point: if they did try to help Trump, they had strong reason: Hillary has been doing
her best to provoke a nuclear war, and Trump said he wouldn't. They acted in the interest of all
of us not glowing in the dark.
"Repealing Obamacare to be first on Senate agenda in 2017 Reuters (EM)"
If they were really smart, they'd repeal JUST the Mandate, then see what happens. It's purely
theoretical that it's essential, but if the theory is correct, the system would crash and burn
even faster than it already is. In any case, the Mandate is the most unpopular element, for good
reason.
The Mandate is the ONE item which the Repuglans and the Catfood Democrats will make the MOST
sure to preSERVE. It is the anchor and tentpeg of Heritage Care. It is the most key crucial feature
which the OverClass's faithful servant on the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts , made SURer
than SURE to upHOLD.
After the Catfood Democrats worked so hard to get the Mandate passed and upheld, they aren't
about to let anyone repeal it. And neither are the Heritage Care Republicans.
thanks for the link to Sweden's recycling dilemma. nice that they are so efficient that they
now import their recycling. the argument that it is better to reuse, reduce and share is interesting
in that Sweden needs this refuse to keep their homes warm in winter and they use lots of it, whereas
the southern countries do not need much if any heat in winter and so can export recyclables to
Sweden, much of which is burned and not reused. So Sweden might not be decreasing much CO2 in
the atmosphere – but on a European scale it is certainly reducing landfill waste (perhaps even
methane) and on a global scale it is reducing dumping in the Oceans. I still think we should be
subsidized to migrate south in winter and north in summer but nobody else does.
Speaking of 'fake news', the the role of fake news in reporting on Syria in the western media
has gotten a fair amount of attention. Here's a link to an excellent recent piece at Alternet.
If one listens to the BBC's reports/drivel from Syria, the only hard part is to be in a war
zone. But I doubt the reporter is in the war zone itself, but rather s/he just gave phones to
those who are. Little skirmishes are reported each night on the broadcast I hear.
o "Elephant keeper who punched a kangaroo to save his beloved pet dog will keep his job as
a zookeeper at Taronga Zoo Daily Mail (Li). Footage of 'roo boxing." - Sugar Roo Roobinson circles
to his left, looking to avoid Keeper's jab and down goes Roobinson! Keeper slipped a wicked
right hook to the ribs under Roo's guard! Team Marsupial is stunned as the ref ends it!
o "Mad Men: Trump May Be the Perfect Vehicle for Kissinger's Philosophy | Nation" - Riiiight,
because Hammerin' Hank K., unindicted war criminal extraordinaire, invented the notion of "keep
'em guessing." HK has cultivated quite the little cabal of hagiographers at the Nation, it seems.
o "Democrats Should Fight All of Trump's Nominees. Yes, All of Them. Nation (resilc). Democrats?
Fight? How quaint." - Yes, the heroic laboring-class-defender Dems should fight Trump's picks
for being too corporate! Yeah, that's the ticket especially if Trump tries to nominate some
Republican corporatist to the SCOTUS. Oh wait, that was Obama.
o "Russia Hacked Republican Committee but Kept Data, U.S. Concludes | New York Times" - Clearly
the NYT has contacts deep inside evil-Rooskie-hackerz-circles – just like they had inside Saddam's
WMD program – because they would never advance such a startling allegation without reams of really
solid evidence, would they? and equating DNC = U.S. in the headline is OK, because who better
represents the interest of everyday 'Mericans than the DNC?
o "The Blind Spots of Liberalism Jacobin. Margarita: "On a county that voted both for Trump
and Kamala Harris by wide margins." - Actually, ISTR several notable examples in post-election
articles documenting similar cross-party-line voting in 'unexpected' places like the Rust Belt.
o "The right has its own version of political correctness. It's just as stifling. | CraPo"
- Lemme guess, "striving for accuracy in journalism" is part of that "stifling PC-ness"?
You can kind of relate to the Democrats' desperate efforts to distract people from what's
in the emails with Russia Russia Russia. You haven't lived till you've curled up with those emails.
Degradation has never been so entertaining. The Clinton Foundation emails read like Lump Snopes
selling tickets to watch Ike fuck cows. No regime can survive that level of comedy.
Typically Diaspora is more nationalistic the "mainland" population. This is very true about
Ukrainian Diaspora, which partially is represented by those who fought on the side of Germany in the WWII.
They are adamantly anti-Russian.
Notable quotes:
"... Here it also bears mentioning that it has been established that Yanukovych's Party of Regions transferred $200,000 to the far right Svoboda party and about $30,000 to the nationalist UNA-UNSO. This is serious money in Ukraine. ..."
"... Firstly, most Ukrainians don't give a shit about Bandera and the OUN. So if they're not speaking out against people using those symbols or slogans it's not because they support them, but because they're more concerned with issues of pure survival. ..."
"... And then these same fascists were whitewashed as noble freedom fighters by Western MSM simply because their interests happen to allign with the interests of the US, for the moment. ..."
"... Uh, no. I haven't noticed anyone here thinking that Russia is some sort of fighter for social and economic justice. Rather, we as a group are sick of noxious propaganda driven by American Exceptionalism. ..."
"... And speaking for myself, I find the rise of Russia to be potentially a very good thing for the US itself, if it manages to curtail the MIC-driven hegemonic drive, weakens its relative power, and forces it to focus its money and energies on pressing domestic issues. ..."
"... The idea of considering Putin to be anticapitalist is risible. Putin represents a limit on a US hegemonized economic order and the greater likelihood that some portion ..."
"... This is some insidious strawman and dishonest argumentation, speaking of "BS." Nowhere does this article state that the entire Maidan revolution was a "fascist coup"-that's you putting words in the author's mouth to make his article appear to be Russian propaganda. The author specifies names of top figures in power today with seriously disturbing neo-Nazi backgrounds-the speaker of Ukraine's parliament, its Interior Minister, and head of National Police. He never once calls it a "fascist coup". Using strawman to avoid having to answer these specific allegations is bad faith commenting. ..."
"... The false analogy to Occupy shows how dishonest your comment is. No one disputes that neo-Nazi leader Parubiy was in charge of Maidan's "self-defense"; and that neo-Nazi Right Sektor played a lead role in the confrontations with the Yanukovych authorities. ..."
"... I suspect that Mr. Kovpak is a member of the Ukrainian diaspora that first infested this country starting around 1945, and has since been trying to justify the belief that the wrong side won WWII. ..."
"... "The appalling corruption of Yanukovich was replaced by the appalling corruption of Yats and Poroschenko " ..."
"... Paruiby (Neo Fascist) was in charge before and after the Maidan for security – the trajectory of the bullets came from his peoples positions that shot the cops – analyzed over and over ..."
"... The Nazi Asov Battalion among other organizations supporting the Regime in Kiev has Nazi symbols, objectives and is one of the main forces armed and trained by American Military. ..."
"... The entire corrupt Kiev administration is Nazi and now it appears the Clinton Campaign has direct ties well beyond the $13 million she received in her Slush Fund from the Oligarchs in 2013. The driving force behind this entire Fake News Initiative and support for Hillary is becoming more visible each day. ..."
"... Not to mention the Ukrainian Nazis penchant for shelling civilians. Or will Kovpak (Ukrainian school perhaps? Did his grandfather emigrate with the other Ukrainian SS?) will repeat the canard that unbeknownst to the locals, the rebels are shelling themselves, using artillery shells that can 180 mid-flight? ..."
"... What is the liberals' talking point these days? "Not all Trump supporters are racist, but all of them decided that racism isn't a deal-breaker. End of story." Hillary's SoS-designate Nuland and Barry 0 decided that Ukie nazism wasn't a deal breaker. End of story. ..."
"... Ukrainian neo-fascists were an integral part of the Maidan (trained in Poland, US, and Canada). ..."
"... Yes, ordinary Ukrainians protested against corruption – but every U. government since 1991 has been corrupt. Yanukovich was no exception – but he was also not the worst one (do some research on J. Timoshenko). ..."
"... There is enough actual footage from Maidan that shows the presence of neo-nazi members on the square from the beginning. They were also the one who completed the violent overthrow of the government that happened on 2/21-22/14 – after a deal had been signed calling for early elections. The burning of 48 people in Odessa was probably done by angels, according to your likely analysis. ..."
"... So perhaps in the future instead of repeating a bunch of Russian talking points ..."
"... I was going to say something about how the CIA made Ukraine's Social Nationalist party change its name to Svoboda (freedom), to obscure the obvious Nazi connection, but instead I will just laugh at you. ..."
"... What a shocker that Jim Kovpak, the commenter who tries smearing this article as "repeating a bunch of Russian talking points" -- works for CIA-founded Voice of America and is a regular with Ukraine's "StopFake.org" which is funded by the National Endowment for Democracy , the CIA's color revolution "soft" arm - in other words, PropOrNot's folks. Can't make this stuff up. ..."
"... Wait, so in Kovpak's case our tax dollars are used to fund and disseminate propaganda to America's public, too? I am not shocked or anything, but rather amused that the vaunted American democracy and famously free media is beginning to resemble communist Bulgaria. ..."
"... Okay, but isn't it the case that many far-right leaders have migrated to parties closer to the center, such as People's Front? Svoboda's leaders have done this. Andriy Parubiy, Tetiana Chornovol, and Oleksandr Turchynov, for example, hold high positions in People's Front, but started out as members or Svoboda. If I'm not mistaken, People's Front also has strong connections to the far-right Volunteer Battalions. I believe People's Front has its own paramilitary branch too. ..."
"... What this tells me is that much of Ukraine's far-right may be masquerading as right-center. That's kind of like a political Trojan Horse operation. This way the fascists avoid standing out as far-right, but at the same time, move closer to the mechanisms of power within Ukraine's government. ..."
"... Here's an article by Lev Golinkin commenting on the far-right's strong and dangerous influence on Ukraine today. A fascist presence like this could easily be a powerful element in Ukrainian elections, very suddenly and unpredictably too. https://www.thenation.com/article/the-ukrainian-far-right-and-the-danger-it-poses/ ..."
"... This is getting darker and darker. As much as I dislike Trump I feel happier that Clinton didn't make it. The TINA party is the most reactionary thing by far! ..."
"... Sanders might have had a hard time driving as far left on FP as he did on domestic issues. I'm his constituent, and I have a letter from him from mid-'15 reiterating all the mainstream lies about Russia and Ukraine. ..."
Hello, I'm the blogger of Russia Without BS, a site you cited once in the stories about PropOrNot.
As I have recently written
on my blog
, I believe PropOrNot is most likely one person who is not linked to any real organization
group or intelligence agency. The individual is most likely what I call a cheerleader, which is
basically a person with no reasonable connection to some conflict, yet who takes a side and sort
of lives vicariously through their imagined "struggle."
That being said, you're probably not going to do yourself any favors claiming that Maidan was
a fascist coup and that fascists are in charge in Ukraine. Euromaidan was not started by right-wingers
(quite the opposite, actually), and they were not the majority of people there. Basically you
condemning Maidan is like someone condemning Occupy just because of the presence of neo-Nazis
and racists who were sometimes involved in certain Occupy chapters (this is well documented).
Without actually bothering to look at the issues involved, you are basically telling millions
of Ukrainians that they should have tolerated a corrupt, increasingly authoritarian government
that was literally stealing their future all because some right-wingers happened to latch on to
that cause too. Here it also bears mentioning that it has been established that Yanukovych's
Party of Regions transferred $200,000 to the far right Svoboda party and about $30,000 to the
nationalist UNA-UNSO. This is serious money in Ukraine.
As for the slogan, yes, Slava Ukraini, Heroiam Slava! has its origins in the OUN, but there
are some important things to consider when discussing Ukrainian history.
Firstly, most Ukrainians don't give a shit about Bandera and the OUN. So if they're not
speaking out against people using those symbols or slogans it's not because they support them,
but because they're more concerned with issues of pure survival. Look at the average salary
in Ukraine and look into some of the instances of corruption (some of which continue to this day),
and you'll understand why a lot of people aren't going to get up in arms about someone waving
the red and black flag. Most people have become very cynical and see the nationalists as provocateurs
or clowns, and thus they don't take them seriously enough.
Before you call this good points, please familiarize yourself with the (accurate) history of
the Maidan, Ukraine, neo-nazi presence in that country, and Russian history. Please Kovpak seems
to be an embodiment of what Ames tries to convey.
The more experienced observer listens to all sides; and all sides lie at least a little, if
only for their own comfort. Beyond that, subjectivity is inescapable, and any pair of subjectives
will inevitably diverge. This is not a malign intent, it's existential circumstance, the burden
of identity, of individual life.
My own (admittedly cursory) analysis happens to coincide with Jim Kovpak's first para (PropOrNot
being primarily a lone "cheerleader"). And I can see merit, and the call for dispassionate assessment,
in some of his other points. This does not mean I endorse Kovpak over Ames, or Ames over Kovpak;
both contribute to the searching discussion with cogent observation (and the inevitable measure
of subjective evaluation).
I thank both for their remarks, and also thank our gracious hosts ;).
No, but it was hijacked by fascists. It is sad that more democratic/progressive forces lost
out, but that's what happened. You seem to be trying to avoid recognizing this fact by affirming
the rightfulness of those who began the revolt. Their agency was removed not by Naked Capitalism
or Mark Ames, but by fascists who out maneuvered, spent, and gunned them. It's time to mourn,
not to defend a parasitic Frankenstein that is trying to develop a European fascist movement.
Goons from that movement assaulted and injured May Day demonstrators in Sweden this year and then
fled back to the Ukraine. They are dangerous and should not be protected with illusions.
Their agency was removed not by Naked Capitalism or Mark Ames, but by fascists who out maneuvered,
spent, and gunned them
And then these same fascists were whitewashed as noble freedom fighters by Western MSM
simply because their interests happen to allign with the interests of the US, for the moment.
Thus we have the ridiculous situation where supposedly reputable media like NYT and WaPoo
cheer on the Azov battalion and its brethren, and deny the very symbolism of the various Nazi
insignia and regalia featured on their uniforms. Jim makes some very good points, but he fell
way short in ignoring the role of the US MSM in this travesty.
And just in case someone tries to claim that we all make mistakes at times and that the MSM
made an honest mistake in regards to these neo-Nazi formations, the same thing has been happening
in Syria, where the US and its Gulf allies have armed extremists and have whitewashed their extremism
by claiming even Al Qaeda and its offshoots are noble freedom fighters.
Good on the parallel with Syria. The evolution, or distortion, of revolutionary movements as
they struggle to gain support and offensive power and then either are modified or jacked by "supporting"
external powers is not a cheering subject. The tendency to ignore that this has happened takes
two forms. One is what we are here discussing. The other is its opposite, as seen in, for example,
the way some writers try to maintain that there never was a significant democratic/progressive/humane
etc. element to the Syrian opposition.
Ukraine, as I understand it, is not monolith but has roughly 2 interest areas – western and
eastern – divided by the River Dnieper. The Western half is more pro-European and EU, the Eastern
half is more pro-Russia. The word "fascist" in Ukraine means something slightly different than
in means in the US and the EU. So I take your comment with a grain of salt, even though it is
interesting.
Ukraine's geographical location as the land "highway" between Europe and Asia has created a
long and embattled history there.
So perhaps in the future instead of repeating a bunch of Russian talking points because
you mistakenly think Russia is somehow opposed to US capitalism,
Uh, no. I haven't noticed anyone here thinking that Russia is some sort of fighter for
social and economic justice. Rather, we as a group are sick of noxious propaganda driven by American
Exceptionalism.
And speaking for myself, I find the rise of Russia to be potentially a very good thing
for the US itself, if it manages to curtail the MIC-driven hegemonic drive, weakens its relative
power, and forces it to focus its money and energies on pressing domestic issues.
Thirded. The idea of considering Putin to be anticapitalist is risible. Putin represents
a limit on a US hegemonized economic order and the greater likelihood that some portion
of the fruits of the Russian oligarchic capitalist effort will benefit Russians, not elites
tied to the US, because of his self-interested nationalism. Not much to cheer about but better
than where things were headed when Yeltsin was in power.
This is some insidious strawman and dishonest argumentation, speaking of "BS." Nowhere
does this article state that the entire Maidan revolution was a "fascist coup"-that's you putting
words in the author's mouth to make his article appear to be Russian propaganda. The author specifies
names of top figures in power today with seriously disturbing neo-Nazi backgrounds-the speaker
of Ukraine's parliament, its Interior Minister, and head of National Police. He never once calls
it a "fascist coup". Using strawman to avoid having to answer these specific allegations is bad
faith commenting.
The false analogy to Occupy shows how dishonest your comment is. No one disputes that neo-Nazi
leader Parubiy was in charge of Maidan's "self-defense"; and that neo-Nazi Right Sektor played
a lead role in the confrontations with the Yanukovych authorities. There is absolutely no
equivalent to this with Occupy at all. Where does this false analogy even come from? No where
does the author state that Maidan was ONLY fascists, that is again your strawman response. Maidan
had a lot of support from pro-western, pro-european, pro-liberal forces. But to deny the key and
often lead roles played by neo-fascists in the actual organization, "self defense" and violent
confrontations with the Yanukovych goons is gross whitewashing.
Much worse is the way you rationalize the fascist OUN salute by arguing that it means something
else now, or it's become normalized, etc. These are all the same bullshit arguments made by defenders
of the Confederate flag. "It means something different now." "it's about heritage/being a rebel!/individualism!"
There is no "but" to this, and anyone who claims so is an asshole of the first order. The salute
descends directly from collaborators in the Holocaust and mass-murder of Jews and Poles and collaboration
with Nazis. If people claim they don't understand its origins, then educate them on why it's so
fucked up, don't make excuses for them. Really disgusting that you'd try to rationalize this away.
There is no "but" and no excuse, period.
"Russia Without BS" is one hell of an ironic name for someone bs-ing like this. Your failure
to actually engage the article, setting up and knocking down strawmen instead, and evading, using
false analogies-reveal your own intellectual pathologies. Try responding to the actual text here,
and maybe you'll be taken seriously.
My thought was that this post was an example of the strawman fallacy. Yet certainly Mr. Kovpak
wasn't just shooting from the hip. That is, he thought about this thing, wrote it, looked it over,
and said "well enough" and posted it. Poor logic, or bad faith?
I think the tell was his characterization of the article as "repeating a bunch of Russian talking
points." What the hell is a "Russian talking point"? How do Ames' contentions follow said talking
points? Are he saying, perhaps, that Ames is another one of those Kremlin agents we've been hearing
about, or perhaps another "useful idiot"? Perhaps Ames – of all people – is a dupe for Putin,
right?
Hasbara, Ukrainian style. Bringing this junk onto NS, either this guy is alot of dumber than
he gives himself credit for, or he actually has no familiarity with NS, outside of the now- and
rightly-notorious WP/ProporNot blacklist. Probably the latter, since it looks like his comment
was a pre-masticated one-and-done.
I suspect that Mr. Kovpak is a member of the Ukrainian diaspora that first infested this
country starting around 1945, and has since been trying to justify the belief that the wrong side
won WWII.
I'm glad Jim Kovpak provided this background. I was very troubled to see Ames breezily smear
the Ukrainian uprising as "fascist," essentially writing off the protesters as U.S. proxies and
dismissing their grievances as either non-existent or irrelevant. Something similar has happened
in Syria, of course. Yes, the U.S. ruling blocs try to advance their interests in such places,
but if you ignore the people on the ground or dismiss them as irrelevant, you're just playing
into the hands of other tyrannical interests (in Syria: Assad, Putin, Hezbollah, etc.).
$5 billion spent over the past 25 years by the US in Ukraine (per Nuland). Yeah, they ain't
US proxies. Gla that you straightened that out for us.
The grievances in Ukraine are many and are legitimate. But that the people's anger was hijacked
by US-financed proxies is a fact. Nuland was caught dictating that Yats would be the new PM, and
darned if he didn't become just that. The appalling corruption of Yanukovich was replaced by the
appalling corruption of Yats and Poroschenko, and the country was plunged into a civil war. But
Yats and Porky are freedom-loving democrats! The old saying remains true: "They may be corrupt
SOBs, but they are our corrupt SOBs!"
Heck, for all the crocodile tears shed by the West about corruption and democracy, it has nurtured
corruption in Eastern Europe and looked the other way as democracy has been trampled. Including
in my native Bulgaria, where millions of dollars spent by the US and allied NGOs on promoting
and financing "free press" have seen Bulgaria's freedom of media ranking slip to third world levels.
But Bulgaria is a "democracy" because it is a member of the EU and NATO, and as such its elites
have done the bidding of its Western masters at the expense of Bulgaria's national interests and
the interests of its people. Ukraine is headed down that road, and all I can say to regular Ukrainians
is that they are in for an even bigger screwing down the road, cheer-led by the Western "democracies"
and "free" media.
Meddling by US hyperpower in the internal affairs and the replacement of one set of bastahds
with another set of bastahds that is beholden to the US is not progress, which is why we call
it out. After all the spilled blood and destruction sponsored by the US, can you honestly say
that Ukraine and Syria and Libya and Iraq are now better off, and that their futures are bright?
I can't, and I can't say that for my native country either. That's because this new version of
neocolonialism is the most destructive and virulent yet. And it is particularly insidious because
it fools well-meaning people, like yourself, into believing that it actually helps improve the
lives of the natives. It does not.
"The appalling corruption of Yanukovich was replaced by the appalling corruption of
Yats and Poroschenko "
That pretty much sums it up. Jim Kovpak does make some excellent points which help to understand
what the Ukranians are thinking. The discussion regarding the poor education system and potential
lack of knowledge of what certain symbolism refers to was really good. Sort of reminds me of the
Southerners in the US who still claim that the Stars and Bars is just about Southern heritage
and pride without bothering to consider the other ramifications and what the symbol means for
those who were persecuted at one time (and continuing to today). But yeah, I'm sure there are
those who think that that flag was just something the Duke boys used on the General Lee when trying
to outrun Roscoe.
All that being said, I don't believe anybody here thinks that Yanukovich was some paragon of
virtue ruling a modern utopia. The problem is that the new boss looks surprisingly familiar to
the old boss with the main difference being that the fruits of corruption are being funneled to
different parties with the people likely still getting the shaft.
If your a(just as many in the US are), it's quite possible they are also unaware of the current
US influence in their country, just as most US citizens are unaware of what the US has done in
other countries.
I'd be very interested in Jim Kovpak's thoughts on this.
$5 billion spent over the past 25 years by the US in Ukraine (per Nuland). Yeah, they
ain't US proxies. Gla[d] that you straightened that out for us.
Yes, it doesn't get any more blatant than that, and if anyone believes otherwise they are obviously
hooked on the officially sanctioned fake news, aka the MSM.
"Euromaidan was not started by right-wingers / Ukraine certainly does not have more right-wingers
than other Eastern European nations" silly at best!
Paruiby (Neo Fascist) was in charge before and after the Maidan for security – the trajectory
of the bullets came from his peoples positions that shot the cops – analyzed over and over
The Nazi Asov Battalion among other organizations supporting the Regime in Kiev has Nazi
symbols, objectives and is one of the main forces armed and trained by American Military.
The entire corrupt Kiev administration is Nazi and now it appears the Clinton Campaign
has direct ties well beyond the $13 million she received in her Slush Fund from the Oligarchs
in 2013. The driving force behind this entire Fake News Initiative and support for Hillary is
becoming more visible each day.
Your statements are pure propaganda and I would assume you work indirectly for Alexandra Chalupa!
Not to mention the Ukrainian Nazis penchant for shelling civilians. Or will Kovpak (Ukrainian
school perhaps? Did his grandfather emigrate with the other Ukrainian SS?) will repeat the canard
that unbeknownst to the locals, the rebels are shelling themselves, using artillery shells that
can 180 mid-flight?
"Basically you condemning Maidan is like someone condemning Occupy just because of the presence
of neo-Nazis and racists who were sometimes involved in certain Occupy chapters (this is well
documented)."
You must be kidding. Where to begin? Can we start with the simple fact that the Russian Foreign
Ministry wasn't handing out baked goods to Occupy protesters in NYC, egging them on as they tossed
molotov cocktails at police, who, strangely enough, refrained from shooting protesters until right
after a peaceful political settlement was reached? Coincidence or fate? Or maybe there is strong
evidence that right wing fanatics were the ones who started the shooting on that fateful day?
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31359021
And sorry, no matter how much Kovpak denies it, the muscle behind the "glorious revolution"
was a bunch of far-right thugs that make our American alt-right look like girl scouts. Andrei
Biletsky, leader of Azov Battalion and head of Ukraine's creatively named Social-National Assembly,
says he's committed to "punishing severely sexual perversions and any interracial contacts that
lead to the extinction of the white man."
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28329329
- Just like those hippies at Zuccotti Park, right?! Oh,and this guy received a medal from
Poroshenko.
I can keep going, but your "Maidan was just like Occupy!" argument pretty much speaks for itself.
Glory to the heroes indeed.
As someone who lived many years in Ukraine, speaks Ukrainian and Russian and knows personally
many of the people involved, yes, Ukrainians know full well the origin of the Nazi slogans that
the local Nazis spout.
That doesn't mean that the average frustrated euromaidan supporter is a Nazi, but Nazis bussed
in from Galicia did eventually provide the muscle, as it were, and the rest of the country were
willing to get in bed with them, appoint them to run ministries, and let them have independent
military units.
Those Nazis are perfectly happy to call themselves Nazis.
What is the liberals' talking point these days? "Not all Trump supporters are racist, but
all of them decided that racism isn't a deal-breaker. End of story." Hillary's SoS-designate Nuland
and Barry 0 decided that Ukie nazism wasn't a deal breaker. End of story.
To be fair, there is a fairly wide gap between 'racist' and 'violent racist of the KKK/Nazi
variety'.
Also (yes, partly preaching to the choir, but with a purpose), liberals are perfectly happy
to stay quiet about enormous income/prosecution/incarceration/kill rate differences, so long as
those targeted/affected can (bureau-/meritocratically) be described as 'druggies/criminals/"extremists"/uneducated-thus-
undeserving '. And to ignore drone bombing of brown people. Etc. So all the pearl-clutching/virtue-signaling
concerning racism is pretty easy to shrug off as concerning little more than a plea to express
one's support for racist policy in a PC fashion.
(Highly recommend The New Jim Crow , which I've only recently started reading, for no
good reason. Bizarre to realize that all of the stuff that's being reported on a little bit now
has been going on for 30 years now (30y of silence / wir-haben-es-nicht-gewusst wrt the structural
nature; note that any/all reporting that im/explicitly describes these issues as "scandals"/"excesses"
is part of the problem.)
WOW I guess we have democracy, so your comment got through. In a way, your post confirms the
existence of rabidly anti-Russian entities – the very point that Mark Ames makes. But you know,
there are people who know a thing or two about Russia and Ukraine, and can easily refute much
of your diatribe. (1) Ukrainian neo-fascists were an integral part of the Maidan (trained
in Poland, US, and Canada).
Yes, ordinary Ukrainians protested against corruption – but every U. government since 1991
has been corrupt. Yanukovich was no exception – but he was also not the worst one (do some research
on J. Timoshenko).
Corruption persists in U. today – and based on the now-required property disclosures by U.
politicians – may be even worse. It is likely correct that most U. don't give a damn about Bandera
– but most U. also do not have any power to do anything about the neo-nazis, as they are (at least
in the western part of the country) numerous, vocal, and prone to violence.
There is enough actual footage from Maidan that shows the presence of neo-nazi members
on the square from the beginning. They were also the one who completed the violent overthrow of
the government that happened on 2/21-22/14 – after a deal had been signed calling for early elections.
The burning of 48 people in Odessa was probably done by angels, according to your likely analysis.
(2) But it is your comments about the U. neo-nazi participation in the war that seem to clarify
who you really represent. This participation was not much discussed during the soviet times –
I only found out that they continued to fight against the soviet state long after the war ended
recently – from family members who witnessed it (in Belorussia, west. Ukr., and eastern Czechoslovakia).
Some of them witnessed the unspeakable cruelty of these Ukr. "troops" against villagers and any
partisans they could find. White-washing this period (or smearing soviet educational system) will
not help – there is plenty of historical evidence for those who are interested in the subject.
(3) What you say about the Russian state promoting this or that is just a scurrilous attack,
with no proof. Not even worth exploring. On the other hand, there are plenty of documented murders
of Ukr. journalists (google Buzina – a highly intelligent and eloquent Ukr. journalist, who was
gunned down in front of his home; there are quite a few others).
Ukr. in 2014 may have been protesting inept government, but what they ended up with is far
worse – by any measure, Ukr. standard of living has gone way down. But now, the industrial base
of the country has been destroyed, and the neo-nazi genie will not go back into the bottle any
time soon. Ukr. as a unified place did not exist until after WWI, and the great divisions – brought
starkly into contrast by the 2014 destruction of the state – cannot be papered over anytime soon.
Appreciate the points you bring up but if the Ukranians truly want an end to an exploitative
system, they probably are not going to get it by allying themselves with Uncle Sugar. The US provided
billions of dollars to foment the coup and our oligarchs expect a return on that investment –
they aren't going to suddenly start trust funds for all Ukranians out of the goodness of their
hearts. You are aware of that aren't you?
So perhaps in the future instead of repeating a bunch of Russian talking points
I was going to say something about how the CIA made Ukraine's Social Nationalist party
change its name to Svoboda (freedom), to obscure the obvious Nazi connection, but instead I will
just laugh at you.
Hahahahahaha!
What a shocker that Jim Kovpak, the commenter who tries smearing this article as "repeating
a bunch of Russian talking points" -- works for CIA-founded
Voice of America and is
a regular with Ukraine's
"StopFake.org"
which is
funded
by the National Endowment for Democracy , the CIA's color revolution "soft" arm - in other
words, PropOrNot's folks. Can't make this stuff up.
Wait, so in Kovpak's case our tax dollars are used to fund and disseminate propaganda to
America's public, too? I am not shocked or anything, but rather amused that the vaunted American
democracy and famously free media is beginning to resemble communist Bulgaria. The good news
is that by the 80's nobody believed the state and its propagandists, even on the rare occasion
they were telling the truth, and America's people seem to be a bit ahead of the curve already,
which may explain the "fake news" hysteria from the creators and disseminators of fake news.
Ukraine certainly does not have more right-wingers than other Eastern European nations,
but if you look at their polls and elections you see that the far-right in Ukraine does far
worse than it does in other Eastern and even Western European countries
Okay, but isn't it the case that many far-right leaders have migrated to parties closer
to the center, such as People's Front? Svoboda's leaders have done this. Andriy Parubiy, Tetiana
Chornovol, and Oleksandr Turchynov, for example, hold high positions in People's Front, but started
out as members or Svoboda. If I'm not mistaken, People's Front also has strong connections to
the far-right Volunteer Battalions. I believe People's Front has its own paramilitary branch too.
What this tells me is that much of Ukraine's far-right may be masquerading as right-center.
That's kind of like a political Trojan Horse operation. This way the fascists avoid standing out
as far-right, but at the same time, move closer to the mechanisms of power within Ukraine's government.
Here in America we saw something like that in the early 1990s, when KKK leader David Duke migrated
to the political mainstream by running for office as a Republican in Louisiana. Of course Duke
never changed his views, he just learned to dissemble himself in the way he sold his politics
to the public.
This is getting darker and darker. As much as I dislike Trump I feel happier that Clinton
didn't make it. The TINA party is the most reactionary thing by far!
Yes, these are dangerous people, as are most "true believers". I'm also becoming even more
disappointed at Ms, Clinton. For a while, she seemed to be keeping a little distance from her
dead-enders, but now that her and Bill are out back on the money trail (How much is enough?),
it doesn't look good.
Selling fear? Really? Isn't there a shelf life on that?
I'm not certain about the contents of that crock, good sir. We now live in a "culture" where
s–t IS gold. Otherwise, why are we now enduring a "popular press" full of "wardrobe malfunctions,"
new amazing bikini bodies, salacious gossip, and equally salacious "news?" (The Page Three was
shut down really because there was too much competition.)
Oh tempura, oh s'mores! (Latinate for "We're crisped!")
Indeed. The above article is great, great stuff and shows why some of us found Hillary more
disturbing than Trump. Therefore Ames' final assumption
And the timing is incredible-as if Bezos' rag has taken upon itself to soften up the
American media before Trump moves in for the kill.
seems a bit off. It's certainly true that Trump said news organizations should face greater
exposure to libel laws but one suspects this has more to do with his personal peevishness and
inability to take criticism than the Deep State-y motives described above. Clearly the "public
versus private" Hillary–Nixon in a pant suit–would have been just the person to embrace this sort
of censorship by smear and her connection with various shadowy exiles and in her own campaign
no less shows why Sanders' failure to make FP the center of his opposition was, if not a political
mistake, at least evidence of his limited point of view.
It's unlikely that anyone running this time would be able to change our domestic trajectory
but this fascism from abroad is a real danger IMO. In Reagan times some of us thought that Reagan
supported reactionary governments abroad because that's what he and his rogue's gallery including
Casey and North wished they could do here. The people getting hysterical over Trump while pining
for Hillary don't seem to know fascism when it's right in front of them. Or perhaps it's just
a matter of whose ox is going to be gored.
Sanders might have had a hard time driving as far left on FP as he did on domestic issues.
I'm his constituent, and I have a letter from him from mid-'15 reiterating all the mainstream
lies about Russia and Ukraine.
No surprise, ever since the US, and Biden, got involved in Ukraine. And it is even probable,
that people like that were behind the Kennedy assassination, that the US has admitted was a conspiracy,
that is still protected from "journalistic sunshine" under lock and key by the US government.
Thanks for giving this article its own post, and thanks to dcblogger for providing the
link in yesterday's Water Cooler.
Seems to me that this little bout of D-party/CIA incompetence, and/or incontinence, will finally
sound the death knell for the Operation Paperclip gang's plan. Good riddance.
Short-termism is a real problem for the US politicians. It is only now the "teeth of dragon"
sowed during domination of neoliberalism since 80th start to show up in unexpected places. And reaction
is pretty predictable. As one commenter said: "Looks like the CIA's latest candidate for regime change
is the USA."
Notable quotes:
"... Divide and Control is being brilliantly employed once again against 'us'. The same tactics used against foreign countries are being used here at home on 'us'. ..."
"... Divide and Conquer, yes indeed, watch McCain and Graham push this Russian hacking angle hard. ..."
"... i regard this 'secret' CIA report, following on from the 'fake news' meme, to be another of what will become a never-ending series of attempts to deligitemize Trump, so that later on this year the coming economic collapse (and shootings, street violence, markets etc) can be more successfully blamed not only on Trump and his policies, but by extension, on the Russians. (a two-fer for the globalist statists) ..."
"... Nevermind that many states voting machines are on private networks and are not even connected to the internet. ..."
"... The Russians 'might' have influenced the election..... The American Government DID subvert and remove a democratically elected leader (Ukraine).Anyone see the difference there? ..."
"... Voted for Trump, but the Oligarcy picked him too. Check the connection between Ross and Trump and Wilburs former employer. TPTB laughs at all of us ..."
"... The sad facts are the CIA itself and it's massive propaganda arm has its gummy fingers all over this election and elections all over the planet. ..."
"... The Russians, my ass. ................. The CIA are famous for doing nefarious crap and blaming their handy work on someone else. Crap that usually causes thousands of deaths. ... Even in the KGB days the CIA was the king of causing chaos. ..... the KGB would kill a dissident or spy or two and the CIA in the same time frame would start a couple of wars killing thousands or millions. ..."
"... What makes people think the Post is believable? The truth has been hijacked by their self annihilating ideology. Honestly one would have to be dumb as a fence 'Post' (pun intended) to believe ANYTHING coming from this rag and the rest of these 'Fake News' MSM propaganda machines, good lord! ..."
"... As for the CIA, it was reported at the time to be largely purged under the Dubya administration, of consitutionalists and other dissidents to the 9-11 -->> total-war program. Stacked to the brim with with neocon cadres. ..."
"... Out of the 3,153 counties in this country, Hillary Clinton won only 480. A dismal and pathetic 15% of this country. The worst showing EVER for a presidential candidate. ..."
"... The much vaunted 2 million vote lead in the popular vote can be attributed to exactly 4 boroughs in NYC; Bronx, Queens, Manhattan, & Brooklyn ..."
"... 96 MILLION Americans were either too disgusted, too lazy, or too apathetic to even bother to go out and cast a vote for ANYONE in this election. ..."
"... Looks like the CIA's latest candidate for regime change is the USA. ..."
"... Clapper sat in front of congress and perjured himself. When confronted with his perjury he defended himself saying he told them the "least untruthful thing" he could - admitting he had not problem whatsoever about lying to Congress. ..."
"... There certainly is foreign meddling in US government policy but it is not coming from Russia. The countries that have much greater influence than Russia on 'our' government are the Sunni-dominated Persian Gulf oil states including the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and, of course, that bastion of human rights, Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... Oil money from these states has found its way into influentual think tanks including the Brookings Institution, the Atlantic Council, the Middle East Institute and the Georgetown Center for Strategic and International Studies and others. ..."
"... And also, there are arms sales. Arm sales to Saudi/Gulf States come with training. With training comes military ties, foreign policy ties and even intelligence ties. Saudi Arabia, with other Gulf oil states as partners, practically owns the CIA now. ..."
"... Reverse Blockade: emphatically insisting upon something which is the opposite of the truth blocks the average person's mind from perceiving the truth. In accordance with the dictates of healthy common sense, he starts searching for meaning in the "golden mean" between truth and its opposite, winding up with some satisfactory counterfeit. People who think like this do not realize that this effect is precisely the intent of the person who subjects them to this method. ..."
"... I recall lots of "consensus views" that were outright lies, bullshit and/or stupidity: "The Sun circles the Earth. The Earth is flat. Global cooling / next ice age (1970s). Global warming (no polar ice) 1990s-00's. Weapons of mass destruction." You can keep your doctor. ..."
"... The CIA, Pentagon and "intelligence" agencies need both a cleaning and culling ..."
"... Blacklist Promoted by the Washington Post Has Apparent Ties to Ukrainian Fascism and CIA Spying. ..."
"... This whopper of a story from the CIA makes the one fabricated about WMD's in Iraq that fooled Bush Jr. and convinced him to almost take this country down by violating the sage advice on war strategy from Sun-Tzu and Clausewitz and opening up a second front in Iraq almost child's play. ..."
"... At least with the WMD story they had false witnesses and some made up evidence! With this story, there is no "HUMINT (human intelligence) sources" and no physical evidence, just some alleged traces that could have been actually produced from the ether or if they knew ahead of time of Trump's possible win sent someone to Russia and had them actually run the IP routes for show. ..."
"... Bush was misled because the CIA management was scared of some of his budgetary saber rattles and his chasing after some CIA management. In this case, someone is really scared of what the people will find when the swam gets drained, if ever it gets done. This includes so-called "false flag conservatives" like Lindsey Graham and top Democrats "Cambridge 5 Admirers" salted in over the years into the CIA ..."
"... Trump has already signaled he is going hand them nearly unlimited power by appointing Pompeo in the first place. I would think they would be very happy to welcome the incoming administration with open arms. ..."
"... I could see it if they were really that pissed about Trumps proposed Russian re-set and maybe they are but even that has to be in doubt because of the rate at which Trump is militarizing his cabinet. ..."
"... In all reality Trump is a MIC, intelligence cabal dream come true, so why would they even consider biting the hand that feeds so well? Perhaps their is more going on here under the surface, maybe all the various agencies and bureaucracies are not playing nice, or together for that matter. ..."
"... after all the CIA and the Pentagon's proxy armies are already killing each other in Syria so one has to wonder in what other arenas are they clashing? ..."
"... The neocons are desperate. Their war monger Hitlery lost by a landslide now they fabricate all sorts of irrational BS. ..."
"... 'CIA Team B' ..."
"... 'Committee on the Present Danger' ..."
"... 'Office of Special Plans' ..."
"... Trump is a curious fellow. I've thought about this quite a bit and tried to put myself in his shoes. He has no friends in .gov, no real close "mates" he can depend on, especially in his own party, so he had to start from scratch to put his cabinet together. ..."
"... It could very well be that this was Trump & the establishment plan to con the American public from the start of course. I kind of doubt it, since the efforts of the establishment to destroy Trump was genuinely full retard from the outset and still continues. ..."
"... He would have done better to ignore the political divide to choose those who have spent their lives challenging the Deep State. My ignorance of US politics does not supply me with a complete picture, but Ron Paul, David Kucinich, Trey Gowdy, Tulsi Gabard and even turncoat Bernie Sanders would have been better to drain the swamp than the neocon zionists he has installed in power. ..."
It is worse than "shiny object." Human brains have a latency issue - the first time they hear
something, it sticks. To unstick something, takes a lot of counter evidence.
So, a Goebbels-like big lie, or shiny object can be told, and then it can take on a life of
its own. False flags operate under this premise. There is an action (false flag), and then false
narrative is issued into press mouthpieces immediately. This then plants a shiny object in sheeple
brains. It then takes too much mental effort for average sheeple to undo this narrative, so "crowds"
can be herded.
Six million dead is a good example of this technique.
Fortunately, with the internet, "supposed fake news sites like ZH" are spreading truth so fast
- that shiny stories issued by our Oligarch overlords are being shot down quickly.
Bezo's, who owns Washington Post, is taking rents by avoiding sales taxes; not that I'm a fan
of sales taxes. But, ultimately, Bezos is taking rental thefts, and he is afraid of Trump - who
may change the law, hence collapse the profit scheme of Amazon.
Cognitive Dissonance -> Oldwood •Dec 10, 2016 10:49 AM
Oldwood. I have a great deal of respect for you and your intelligent opinions.
My only concern is our constant and directed attention towards the 'liberals' and 'progressives'.
When we do so we are thinking it is 'them' that are the problem.
In fact it is the force behind 'them' that is the problem. If we oppose 'them', we are wasting
our energy upon ghosts and boogeymen.
Divide and Control is being brilliantly employed once again against 'us'. The same tactics
used against foreign countries are being used here at home on 'us'.
chunga -> Cognitive Dissonance •Dec 10, 2016 11:33 AM
I've been reading what the blue-teamers are saying over on the "Democratic Underground" site
and for a while they've been expressing it's their "duty" to disrupt this thing. They are now
calling Trump a "Puppet Regime".
Divide and Conquer, yes indeed, watch McCain and Graham push this Russian hacking angle
hard. Also watch for moar of the Suprun elector frauds pop out of the woodwork. The Russian
people must be absolutely galvanized by what's happening, USSA...torn into many opposing directions.
dark pools of soros -> chunga •Dec 10, 2016 1:38 PM
First tell them to change their name to the Progressive Party of Globalists. Then remind them
that many democrats left them and voted for Trump.. Remind them again and again that if they really
want to see blue states again, they have to actually act like democrats again
I assure you that you'll be banned within an hour from any of their sites
American Gorbachev -> Oldwood •Dec 10, 2016 10:12 AM
not an argument to the contrary, but one of elongating the timing
i regard this 'secret' CIA report, following on from the 'fake news' meme, to be another
of what will become a never-ending series of attempts to deligitemize Trump, so that later on
this year the coming economic collapse (and shootings, street violence, markets etc) can be more
successfully blamed not only on Trump and his policies, but by extension, on the Russians. (a
two-fer for the globalist statists)
with a political timetable operative as well, whereby some (pardon the pun :) trumped up excuse
for impeachment investigations/proceedings can consume the daily news during the run-up to the
mid-term elections (with the intent of flipping the Senate and possibly House)
these are very powerful, patient, and deliberate bastards (globalist statists) who may very
well have engineered Trump's election for the very purpose of marginalizing, near the point of
eliminating, the rural, christian, middle-class, nationalist voices from subsequent public debate
Oldwood -> American Gorbachev •Dec 10, 2016 10:21 AM
The problem is that once Trump becomes president, he will have much more power to direct the
message as well as the many factions of government agencies that would otherwise be used to substantiate
so called Trump failures. This is a calculated risk scenario for them, but to deny Trump the presidency
by far produces more positives for them than any other.
They will have control of the message and will likely shut down much of alternate media news.
It is imperative that Trump be stopped BEFORE taking the presidency.
sleigher -> overbet •Dec 10, 2016 10:00 AM
"I read one morons comment that the IP address was traced back to a Russian IP. Are people
really that dumb? I can post this comment from dozens of country IPs right now."
Nevermind that many states voting machines are on private networks and are not even connected
to the internet. IP addresses from Russia mean nothing.
kellys_eye -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 9:40 AM
The Russians 'might' have influenced the election..... The American Government DID subvert
and remove a democratically elected leader (Ukraine).Anyone see the difference there?
Paul Kersey -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 9:40 AM
"Most of our politicians are chosen by the Oligarchy."
And most of our politicians choose the Oligarchy. Trump's choices:
Anthony Scaramucci, Goldman Sachs
Gary Cohn, Goldman Sachs
Steven Mnuchin. Goldman Sachs
Steve Bannon, Goldman Sachs
Jared Kushner, Goldman Sachs
Wilbur Ross, Rothschild, Inc
The working man's choices.....very limited.
Paul Kersey -> Paul Kersey •Dec 10, 2016 10:27 AM
"Barack Obama received more money from Goldman Sachs employees than any other corporation.
Tim Geithner, Obama's first treasury secretary, was the protege of one-time Goldman CEO Robert
Rubin. "
"The more things change, the more they stay the same."
Nameshavebeench... -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 11:53 AM
If Trump gets hit, the 'official story' of who did it will be a lie.
There needs to be a lot of online discussion about this ahead of time in preparation. If/when
the incident happens, there needs to be a successful counter-offensive that puts an end to the
Deep State. (take from that what you will)
We've seen the MO many times now;
Pearl Harbor
Iran in the 50's
Congo
Vietnam
Most of Latin America many times over
JFK
911
Sandy Hook
Boston Marathon 'Bombings'
Numerous 'mass shootings'
The patterns are well established & if Trump gets hit it should be no surprise, now the 'jackals'
need to be exterminated.
Also, keep in mind that everything we're hearing in all media just might be psyops/counter-intel/planted
'news' etc.
sgt_doom -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 1:25 PM
Although I have little hope for this happening, ideally Trump should initiate full forensic
audits of the CIA, NSA, DIA and FBI. The last time a sitting president undertook an actual audit
of the CIA, he had his brains blown out (President John F. Kennedy) and the Fake News (CBS, NBC,
ABC, etc.) reported that a fellow who couldn't even qualify as marksman, the lowest category (he
was pencilled in) was the sniper.
Then, on the 50th anniversary of that horrible coup d'etat, another Fake News show (NPR) claimed
that a woman in the military who worked at the rifle range at Atsuga saw Oswald practicing weekly
- - absurd on the fact of it, since women weren't allowed at military rifle ranges until the late
1970s or 1980s (and I doublechecked and there was never a woman assigned there in the late 1950s).
Just be sure he has trustworthy bodyguards, unlike the last batch of phony Secret Service agents
(and never employ anyone named Elmer Moore).
2rigged2fail -> Nemontel •Dec 10, 2016 4:04 PM
Voted for Trump, but the Oligarcy picked him too. Check the connection between Ross and
Trump and Wilburs former employer. TPTB laughs at all of us
All these Russian interference claims require one to believe that the MSM and democrat machine
got out played and out cheated by a bunch of ruskies. This is the level of desperation the democrats
have fallen too. To pretend to be so incompetent that the Russians outplayed and overpowered their
machine. But I guess they have to fall on that narrative vs the fact that a "crazy" real estate
billionaire with a twitter account whipped their asses.
Democrats, you are morally and credulously bankrupt. all your schemes, agenda's and machinations
cannot put humpty dumpty back together again. So now it is another period of scorched earth. The
Federal Bureaucracy will fight Trump tooth and nail, joined by the democrats in the judiciary,
and probably not a few rino's too.
It is going to get ugly, like a machete fight. W. got a taste of it with his Plame affair,
the brouhaha over the AGA firings, the regime of Porter Goss as DCI
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter_Goss
DuneCreature -> cherry picker •Dec 10, 2016 10:30 AM
The sad facts are the CIA itself and it's massive propaganda arm has its gummy fingers
all over this election and elections all over the planet.
The Russians, my ass. ................. The CIA are famous for doing nefarious crap and
blaming their handy work on someone else. Crap that usually causes thousands of deaths. ... Even
in the KGB days the CIA was the king of causing chaos. ..... the KGB would kill a dissident or
spy or two and the CIA in the same time frame would start a couple of wars killing thousands or
millions.
You said a mouth full, cherry picker. ..... Until the US Intel community goes 'bye bye' the
world will HATE the US. ... People aren't stupid. They know who is behind the evil shit.
... ... ..
G-R-U-N-T •Dec 10, 2016 9:39 AM
What makes people think the Post is believable? The truth has been hijacked by their self
annihilating ideology. Honestly one would have to be dumb as a fence 'Post' (pun intended) to
believe ANYTHING coming from this rag and the rest of these 'Fake News' MSM propaganda machines,
good lord!
Colborne •Dec 10, 2016 9:37 AM
As for the CIA, it was reported at the time to be largely purged under the Dubya administration,
of consitutionalists and other dissidents to the 9-11 -->> total-war program. Stacked to the brim
with with neocon cadres. So, that's the lay of the terrain there now, that's who's running
the place. And they aren't going without a fight apparently.
Interesting times , more and more so.
66Mustanggirl •Dec 10, 2016 9:40 AM
For those of us who still have a grip on reality, here are the facts of this election:
Out of the 3,153 counties in this country, Hillary Clinton won only 480. A dismal and
pathetic 15% of this country. The worst showing EVER for a presidential candidate. Are
they really trying to blame the Russians and "fake" news for THAT?? Really??
The much vaunted 2 million vote lead in the popular vote can be attributed to exactly
4 boroughs in NYC; Bronx, Queens, Manhattan, & Brooklyn, where Hillary racked up 2 million
more votes than Trump. Should we give credit to the Russians and "fake" news for that, too?
96 MILLION Americans were either too disgusted, too lazy, or too apathetic to even
bother to go out and cast a vote for ANYONE in this election. On average 100 Million Americans
don't bother to vote.The Russians and "fake" news surely aren't responsible for THAT!
But given this is a story from WaPo, I think will just give a few days until it is thoroughly
discredited.
max2205 -> 66Mustanggirl •Dec 10, 2016 11:04 AM
And she won CA by 4 million. She hates she only gets a limited amount of electoral votes..
tough shit rules are rules bitch. Suck it
HalEPeno •Dec 10, 2016 9:43 AM
Looks like the CIA's latest candidate for regime change is the USA.
Clara Tardis •Dec 10, 2016 9:45 AM
This is a vid from the 1950's, "How to spot a Communist" all you have to do is swap out commie
for: liberal, neocon, SJW and democrat and figure out they've about won....
This is the same CIA that let Pakistan build up the Taliban in Afganistan during the 1990s
and gave Pakistan ISI (Pakistan spy agency) hundreds of millions of USD which the ISI channeled
to the Taliban and Arab freedom fighters including a very charming chap named Usama Bin Laden.
The CIA is as worthless as HRC.
Fuck them and their failed intelligence. I hope Trump guts the CIA like a fish. They need a
reboot.
Yes We Can. But... -> venturen •Dec 10, 2016 10:08 AM
Why might the Russians want Trump? If there is anything to the stuff I've been reading about
the Clintons, they are like cornered animals. Putin just may think the world is a safer, more
stable place w/o the Clintons in power.
TRM -> atthelake •Dec 10, 2016 10:44 AM
If it is "on" then those doing the "collections" should be aware that a lot of people they
will be "collecting" have read Solzhenitsyn.
"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every
Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he
would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?"
Those doing the "collections" will have to choose and choose wisely the side they are on. How
much easier would it be for them to report back "Sorry, couldn't find them" than to face the wrath
of a well armed population?
Abaco •Dec 10, 2016 9:53 AM
The clowns running the intelligence agencies for the US have ZERO credibility. Clapper
sat in front of congress and perjured himself. When confronted with his perjury he defended himself
saying he told them the "least untruthful thing" he could - admitting he had not problem whatsoever
about lying to Congress. He was not fired or reprimanded in any way. He retired with a generous
pension. He is a treasonous basrtard who should be swinging from a lamppost. These people serve
their political masters - not the people - and deserve nothing but mockery and and a noose.
mendigo •Dec 10, 2016 9:56 AM
As reported on infowars:
On Dec 9 0bomber issued executive order providing exemption to Arms Export Control Act to permit
supplying weapons (ie sams etc) to rebel groups in Syria as a matter "essential to national security
"interests"".
Be careful in viewing this report as is posted from RT - perhaps best to wait for corraboaration
on front page of rededicated nyt to be sure and avoid fratrenizing with Vlad.
Separately Gabard has introduced bill : Stop Arming Terrorists Act.
David Wooten •Dec 10, 2016 9:56 AM
There certainly is foreign meddling in US government policy but it is not coming from Russia.
The countries that have much greater influence than Russia on 'our' government are the Sunni-dominated
Persian Gulf oil states including the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and, of course, that bastion
of human rights, Saudi Arabia.
Oil money from these states has found its way into influentual think tanks including the
Brookings Institution, the Atlantic Council, the Middle East Institute and the Georgetown Center
for Strategic and International Studies and others. All of these institutions should be registered
as foriegn agents and any cleared US citizen should have his or her clearance revoked if they
do any work for these organizations, either as a contractor or employee. And these Gulf states
have all been donating oil money to UK and US universities so lets include the foreign studies
branches of universities in the registry of foreign agents, too.
And also, there are arms sales. Arm sales to Saudi/Gulf States come with training. With
training comes military ties, foreign policy ties and even intelligence ties. Saudi Arabia, with
other Gulf oil states as partners, practically owns the CIA now. Arms companies who sell
deadly weapons to the Gulf States, in turn, donate money to Congressmen and now own politicians
such as Senators Graham and McCain. It's no wonder Graham wants to help his pals - er owners.
So what we have here ('our' government) is institutionalized influence, if not outright control,
of US foreign policy by some of the most vicious states on the planet,
especially Saudi Arabia - whose religious police have been known to beat school girls fleeing
from burning buildings because they didn't have their headscarves on.
As Hillary's 2014 emails have revealed, Qatar and Saudi Arabia support ISIS and were doing
so about the same time as ISIS was sweeping through Syria and Iraq, cutting off the heads of Christians,
non-Sunnis and just about anyone else they thought was in the way. The Saudi/Gulf States are the
driving force to get rid of Assad and that is dangerous as nuclear-armed Russia protects him.
If something isn't done about this, the Gulf oil states may get US into a nuclear war with Russia
- and won't care in the least.
Richard Whitney •Dec 10, 2016 10:10 AM
So...somehow, Putin was able to affect the election one way, and the endorsements for HRC and
the slander of Trump by and from Washington Post, New York Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, practically
every big-city newspaper, practically every newspaper in Europe, every EU mandarin, B Streisand,
Keith Olberman, Comedy Central, MSNBC, CNN, Lady Gaga, Lena Dunham and a wad of other media outlets
and PR-driven-celebs couldn't affect that election the other way.
Sounds unlikely on the face of it, but hats off to Vlad. U.S. print and broadcast media, Hollywood,
Europe...you lost.
seataka •Dec 10, 2016 10:11 AM
The Reverse Blockade
"Reverse Blockade: emphatically insisting upon something which is the opposite of the truth
blocks the average person's mind from perceiving the truth. In accordance with the dictates of
healthy common sense, he starts searching for meaning in the "golden mean" between truth and its
opposite, winding up with some satisfactory counterfeit. People who think like this do not realize
that this effect is precisely the intent of the person who subjects them to this method.
" page 104, Political Ponerology by Andrew M. Lobaczewski
more
just the tip -> northern vigor •Dec 10, 2016 11:51 AM
that car ride for the WH to the capital is going to be fun.
Arnold -> just the tip •Dec 10, 2016 12:12 PM
Your comment ticked one of my remaining Brain Cells.
I recall lots of "consensus views" that were outright lies, bullshit and/or stupidity:
"The Sun circles the Earth. The Earth is flat. Global cooling / next ice age (1970s). Global warming
(no polar ice) 1990s-00's. Weapons of mass destruction." You can keep your doctor.
The CIA, Pentagon and "intelligence" agencies need both a cleaning and culling. 50%
of the Federal govt needs to go.....now.
What is BEYOND my comprehension is how anyone would think that in Putin's mind, Trump would
be preferable to Hillary. She and her cronies are so corrupt, he would either be able to blackmail
or destroy her (through espionage and REAL leaks) any time he wanted to during her presidency.
Do TPTB think we are this fucking stupid?
madashellron •Dec 10, 2016 10:31 AM
Blacklist Promoted by the Washington Post Has Apparent Ties to Ukrainian Fascism and CIA
Spying.
I love this. Trump is not eager to "drain the swamp" and to collide with the establishment,
anyway he has no viable economic plan and promised way too much. However if they want to lead
a coup for Hilary with the full backing of most republican and democrat politicians just to get
their war against Russia, something tells me that the swamp will be drained for real when the
country falls apart in chaos.
northern vigor •Dec 10, 2016 10:36 AM
Fuckin' Obama interfered in the Canadian election last year by sending advisers up north to
corrupt our laws. He has a lot of nerve pointing fingers at the Russians.
I notice liberals love to point fingers at others, when they are the guilty ones. It must be
in the Alinsky handbook.
Pigeon -> northern vigor •Dec 10, 2016 10:38 AM
Called "projection". Everything they accuse others of doing badly, illegally, immorally, etc.
- means that is EXACTLY what they are up to.
just the tip -> northern vigor •Dec 10, 2016 11:35 AM
Trump should not only 'defund' them but should end all other 'programs' that are providing
funds to them. Drug trade, bribery, embezzelment, etc. End the CIA terror organization.
Skiprrrdog •Dec 10, 2016 10:49 AM
Putin for Secretary of State... :-)
brianshell •Dec 10, 2016 10:50 AM
Section 8, The congress shall have the power to...declare war...raise armies...navies...militia.
The National Security Act charged the CIA with coordinating the nation's intelligence activities
and correlating, evaluating and disseminating intelligence affecting national security.
Rogue members of the executive branch have overstepped their authority by ordering the CIA
to make war without congressional approval or oversight.
A good deal of the problems created by the United States, including repercussions such as terrorism
have been initiated by the CIA
Under "make America great", include demanding congress assume their responsibility regarding
war.
Rein in the executive and the CIA
DarthVaderMentor •Dec 10, 2016 10:59 AM
This whopper of a story from the CIA makes the one fabricated about WMD's in Iraq that
fooled Bush Jr. and convinced him to almost take this country down by violating the sage advice
on war strategy from Sun-Tzu and Clausewitz and opening up a second front in Iraq almost child's
play.
At least with the WMD story they had false witnesses and some made up evidence! With this
story, there is no "HUMINT (human intelligence) sources" and no physical evidence, just some alleged
traces that could have been actually produced from the ether or if they knew ahead of time of
Trump's possible win sent someone to Russia and had them actually run the IP routes for show.
Bush was misled because the CIA management was scared of some of his budgetary saber rattles
and his chasing after some CIA management. In this case, someone is really scared of what the
people will find when the swam gets drained, if ever it gets done. This includes so-called "false
flag conservatives" like Lindsey Graham and top Democrats "Cambridge 5 Admirers" salted in over
the years into the CIA
The fact that's forgotten about this is that if the story was even slightly true, it shows
how incompetent the Democrats are in running a country, how Barak Obama was an intentional incompetent
trying to drive the country into the ground and hurting its people, how even with top technologies,
coerced corrupted vendors and trillions in funding the NSA, CIA and FBI they were outflanked by
the FSB and others and why Hillary's server was more incompetent and dangerous a decision than
we think.
Maybe Hillary and Bill had their server not to hide information from the people, but maybe
to actually promote the Russian hacking?
Why should Trump believe the CIA? What kind of record and leadership do they have that anyone
other than a fool should listen to them?
small axe •Dec 10, 2016 10:55 AM
At some point Americans will need to wake up to the fact that the CIA has and does interfere
in domestic affairs, just as it has long sought to counter "subversion" overseas. The agency is
very likely completely outside the control of any administration at this point and is probably
best seen as the enforcement arm of the Deep State.
As the US loses its empire and gains Third World status, it is (sadly) fitting that the CIA
war to maintain docile populations becomes more apparent domestically.
Welcome to Zimbabwe USA.
marcusfenix •Dec 10, 2016 11:10 AM
what I don't understand is why the CIA is even getting tangled up in this three ring circus
freak show.
Trump has already signaled he is going hand them nearly unlimited power by appointing Pompeo
in the first place. I would think they would be very happy to welcome the incoming administration
with open arms.
I could see it if they were really that pissed about Trumps proposed Russian re-set and
maybe they are but even that has to be in doubt because of the rate at which Trump is militarizing
his cabinet. All these stars are not exactly going to support their president going belly
up to the bar with Putin. and since Trump has no military or civilian leadership experience (which
is why I believe he has loaded up on so much brass in the first place, to compensate) I have no
doubt they will have tremendous influence on policy.
In all reality Trump is a MIC, intelligence cabal dream come true, so why would they even
consider biting the hand that feeds so well? Perhaps their is more going on here under the surface,
maybe all the various agencies and bureaucracies are not playing nice, or together for that matter.
perhaps some have grown so large and so powerful that they have their own agendas? it's not as
if our federal government has ever really been one big happy family there have been many times
when the right hand did not know what the left hand was doing. and congress is week so oversight
of this monolithic military and intelligence entities may not be as extensive as we would like
to think.
after all the CIA and the Pentagon's proxy armies are already killing each other in Syria
so one has to wonder in what other arenas are they clashing?
and is this really all just a small glimpse of some secret war within, which every once in
a while bubbles up to the surface?
CheapBastard •Dec 10, 2016 11:34 AM
The neocons are desperate. Their war monger Hitlery lost by a landslide now they fabricate
all sorts of irrational BS.
However, there is no doubt the Russians stole my TV remote last week.
The Intel agencies have been politicized since the late 1970's; look up 'CIA Team B'
and the 'Committee on the Present Danger' and their BS 'minority report' used by the
original NeoCons to sway public opinion in favor of Ronald Reagan and the arms buildup of the
1980's, which led to the first sky-high deficits. It also led to a confrontational stance against
the Soviet Union which almost led to nuclear war in 1983: The 1983 War Scare Declassified
and For Real
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb533-The-Able-Archer-War-Scare-Decl...
The honest spook analysts were forced out, then as now, in favor of NeoCons with political
agendas that were dangerously myopic to say the least. The 'Office of Special Plans'
in the Pentagon cherry-picked or outright fabricated intel in order to justify the NeoCon/Israeli
wet-dream of total control of oil and the 'Securing the (Israeli) Realm' courtesy of invading
parts of the Middle East and destabilizing the rest, with the present mess as the wholly predictable
outcome. The honest analysts told them it would happen, and now they're gone.
This kind of organizational warping caused by agency politicization is producing the piss-poor
intel leading to asinine decisions creating untold tragedy; that the WaPo is depending upon this
intel from historically-proven tainted sources is just one more example of the incestuous nature
of the relations between Traditional Media and its handlers in the intel community.
YHC-FTSE •Dec 10, 2016 11:54 AM
This isn't a "Soft Coup". It's the groundwork necessary for a rock hard, go-for-broke, above
the barricade, tanks in the street coup d'etat. You do not get such a blatant accusation from
the CIA and establishment echo vendor, unless they are ready to back it up to the hilt with action.
The accusations are serious - treason and election fraud.
Trump is a curious fellow. I've thought about this quite a bit and tried to put myself
in his shoes. He has no friends in .gov, no real close "mates" he can depend on, especially in
his own party, so he had to start from scratch to put his cabinet together. His natural "Mistake"
is seeking people at his level of business acumen - his version of real, ordinary people - when
billionaires/multimillionaires are actually Type A personalities, usually predatory and addicted
to money. In his world, and in America in general, money equates to good social standing more
than any other facet of personal achievements. It is natural for an American to equate "Good"
with money. I'm a Brit and foreigners like me (I have American cousins I've visited since I was
a kid) who visit the States are often surprised by the shallow materialism that equates to culture.
So we have a bunch of dubious Alpha types addicted to money in transition to take charge of
government who know little or nothing about the principle of public service. Put them in a room
together and without projects they can focus on, they are going to turn on each other for supremacy.
I would not be surprised if Trump's own cabinet destroys him or uses leverage from their own power
bases to manipulate him.
Mike Pompeo, for example, is the most fucked up pick as CIA director I could have envisaged.
He is establishment to his core, a neocon torture advocate who will defend the worst excesses
of the intelligence arm of the MIC no matter what. One word from his mouth could have stopped
this bullshit about Russia helping Trump win the election. Nobody in the CIA was going to argue
with the new boss. Yet here we are, on the cusp of another attack on mulitple fronts. This is
how you manipulate an incumbent president to dial up his paranoia to the max and failing that,
launch a coup d'etat.
It could very well be that this was Trump & the establishment plan to con the American
public from the start of course. I kind of doubt it, since the efforts of the establishment to
destroy Trump was genuinely full retard from the outset and still continues. I think he was
his own man until paranoia and the enormity of his position got the better of him and he chose
his cabinet from the establishment swamp dwellers to best protect him from his enemies. Wrong
choices, granted, but understandable.
He would have done better to ignore the political divide to choose those who have spent
their lives challenging the Deep State. My ignorance of US politics does not supply me with a
complete picture, but Ron Paul, David Kucinich, Trey Gowdy, Tulsi Gabard and even turncoat Bernie
Sanders would have been better to drain the swamp than the neocon zionists he has installed in
power.
flaminratzazz ->YHC-FTSE •Dec 10, 2016 12:03 PM
I think he was his own man until paranoia and the enormity of his position got the better of
him,,
+1 I think he was just dickin around with throwin his hat in the ring, was going to go have fun
calling everyone names with outlandish attacks and lo and behold he won.. NOW he is shitting himself
on the enormity of his GREATEST fvkup in his life.
jomama ->YHC-FTSE •Dec 10, 2016 12:16 PM
Unless you can show how Trump's close ties to Wall St. (owes banks there around 350M currently
YHC-FTSE ->jomama •Dec 10, 2016 12:59 PM
My post is conjecture, obviously. The basis of my musings, as stated above, is the fact that the
establishment has tried to destroy Trump from the outset using all of their assets in his own
party, the msm, Hollyweird, intelligence and politics. A full retard attack is being perpetrated
against him as I type.
There is some merit to dividing the establishment, the Deep State, into two opposing sides.
One that lost power, priestige and funds backing Hillary and one that did not, which would make
Trump an alternative establishment candidate. But there is no proof that any establishment (MIC+Banking)
entity even likes Trump, let alone supports him. As for Israel, Hillary was their candidate of
choice, but their MO is they will always infiltrate and back both sides to ensure compliance.
blindfaith ->YHC-FTSE •Dec 10, 2016 12:36 PM
Do not underestimate Trump. I will grant that some of these picks are concerning. However, think
in terms of business, AND government is a business from top to bottom. It has been run as a dog
and pony show for years and look where we are. To me, I think his picks are strating to look like
a very efficient team to get the government efficient again. That alone must make D.C. shake in
thier boots.
YHC-FTSE ->blindfaith •Dec 10, 2016 1:08 PM
Underestimating Trump is the last thing I would do. I'm just trying to understand his motives
in my own clumsy way. Besides, he promised to "Drain the swamp", not run the swamp more efficiently.
ducksinarow •Dec 10, 2016 12:04 PM
From a non political angle, this is a divorce in the making. Then democrats have been rejected
in totallity but instead of blaming themselves for not being good enough, they are blaming a third
party which is the Russians. They are now engaging the Republican Party in a custody battle for
the "children". There are lies flying around and the older children know exactly what is going
on and sadly the younger children are confused, bewildered, angry and getting angrier by the minute.
Soon Papa(Obama) will be leaving which is symbolic of the male father figure in the African American
community. The new Papa is a white guy who is going to change the narrative, the rules of engagement
and the financial picture. The ones who were the heroes in the Obama narrative are not going to
be heroes anymore. New heroes will be formed and revered and during this process some will die
for their beliefs.
Back to reality, Trump needs to cleanse the CIA of the ones who would sell our nation to the
highest bidder. If the CIA is not on the side of America the CIA should be abolished. In a world
where mercenaries are employed all over the world, bringing together a culturally mixed agency
does not make for a very honest agency. It makes for a bunch of self involved countries trying
to influence the power of individuals. The reason Castro was never taken down is because it was
not in the interest of the CIA to do so. That is why there were some pretty hilarious non-attempts
on Castro's life over the years. It is not in the best interest of the CIA that Trump be president.
It is in the best interest of America that Trump is our President.
brane pilot •Dec 10, 2016 12:22 PM
Even the idea that people would rely on foreign governments for critical information during
an election indicates the bankruptcy of the corrupt US media establishment. So now they resort
to open sedition and defamation in the absence of factual information. The mainstream media in
the USA has become a Fifth Column against America, no different than the so-called 'social science'
departments on college campuses. Trump was America's last chance and we took it and no one is
going to take it away.
"... Alawites in Syria: French Mandate and Sectarian Tensions ..."
"... "Baath nationalism was different from Sunni Arab nationalism in that [Baathists] wanted a united secular Arab society." ..."
"... Founded in Syria in 1940 by Orthodox Christian Michel Aflaq and Sunni Salah al-Din Bitar, the Baathist movement was influenced by secular and pan-Arab ideas, championing freedom from foreign powers, Arab unity, and socialism. ..."
"... Alawites in Syria: Assad Regime and Sectarian Tensions ..."
Alawites in Syria: French Mandate and Sectarian Tensions
The role of the Alawites in Syria first became apparent after World War I with the division of the
Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire by Britain and France. The division resulted in the assignment
of Palestine to Britain and Syria and Lebanon to France. France, fearing potential independence movements
and Arab nationalism which threatened its control over the region, intentionally inflamed sectarian
separations
during its mandate from 1920-1946 . Minorities, such as the Druze and Alawites, also
feared the nationalist movements that were mostly dominated by Sunnis. With France fearing movements
threatening its power and minorities fearing similar movements for more religious reasons, France
pragmatically granted autonomy to areas where these minorities were heavily populated. On July 1,
1922, "the state of Latakia" was established for the Alawites, and by September 15, 1922, a court
decision granted the Alawites legal autonomy. Not only did such autonomy strengthen the weaker minorities,
but it also allowed for distinctions between religions and sects to be created thus preventing a
unification of all Arabs and
ensuring the preservation of France's power . Until 1942, and except for a three-year period
from 1936 to 1939, the Alawites and Druze remained separate from the rest of unified Syria. To ensure
sectarian divisions and to prevent any takeover by Arab nationalists, France deliberately ignored
developing a ruling elite, coupling such a decision by having each institution represented by a different
religious or ethnic group. Any former amicable relationship between the minority and Sunni majority
and any possibility of growth in the nationalist movement in Syria deteriorated significantly because
of
France's "divide and rule" policy .
This new relationship between groups in Syria
continued after Syria's independence in April 1946 , stymieing any attempts for Arab unification
and fostering greater attention towards local ambitions. Before independence from France, Syrians
were united under one party and the common goal of achieving independence. After independence, a
Sunni elite became in charge of the government, and integration of the minorities into Syrian society
was necessary for a more nationalist approach. To eliminate regionalism and the domination of the
minorities in parliament (due to their close relationship with France under its mandate), the Sunnis
attempted
to limit the representation of the concentrated minority groups in parliament. The Sunni elite
eradicated the Alawite state, parliamentary seats, and certain minority jurisdictional rights.
The abolition of jurisdictional rights in order to establish a centralized rule in Damascus
ignited confrontation among the minorities . . . The Alawites became reconciled to common Syrian
citizenship and gave up the dream of a separate Alawite state. This change of outlook, which seemed
to be of minor importance at the time, actually led to a new era in Syrian politics: the political
rise of the Alawites.
The basis for sectarian tensions between Sunnis and Alawites is evident when one considers the
change from Alawite autonomy to subordination under the Sunnis.
Formed in 1921, the
Troupes Spéciales du Levant was a local military used by the French that eventually evolved into
the Lebanese and Syrian military. Similar to France's "divide and rule" approach, the integration
of the Troupes Spéciales du Levant was done in a way so that it was difficult for any group to attain
enough power to threaten French rule. Given the threatening nature of the Sunnis at the time, many
of whom supported Arab nationalist movements, the military gained
a large minority presence , and "military recruitment involved weakening the forces of nationalism
that Arab Sunnis used to challenge the French over the future of Syria." Sectarian tensions were
further developed with the creation of the Troupes Spéciales du Levant, given that the minority-dominated
military
frequently suppressed Sunni movements .
Minorities frequently found themselves joining the military because it provided a source of income
and potential for social mobility. Unlike the Sunni elites-who refused to send their children into
the military under the pretense that it was furthering France's imperial desires and used their money
to become exempt from military service-the Alawites and other minorities
took advantage of the potential opportunity the military provided. By 1949 (the year of the first
military coup in Syria), the Alawites had gained a political presence. By 1955, about 65% of the
non-commissioned officers were Alawites. Before 1963, the Alawites did not outnumber the Sunnis in
the officer corps, but they did dominate the lower positions of the military. Nevertheless
, the trend towards higher ranking positions began after Syrian independence from France. After
Syria's independence, the number of schools in Syria expanded greatly.
[1]
This expansion gave lower class citizens more educational opportunities, and they became more
qualified for military academies, such as the Military Academy at Homs.
[2]
Sunni leaders believed that dominating the higher positions in the military was enough to ensure
Sunni command of the military. This notion
proved to be a key factor in the Sunni elite's demise.
As the Alawites continued to dominate the lower ranks and ascend towards higher positions, the
higher-ranking Sunnis failed to remain unified. The Sunnis led
three military coups from 1949 to 1954. With the formation and establishment of the Syrian-Egyptian
Union from 1954 to 1958, the officer corps failed to remain unified and split into factions. Even
after the Sunni officer-led "union pledge" in January 1958, a coup led by Sunni officers in September
1961 resulted in Syria's
separation from the union . The lack of unity between Sunni officers, specifically after Syria's
break from the union,
[3]
"greatly weakened Sunni representation in the officer corps and strengthened the minorities,
mainly the Alawite officer corps. 'As
Sunni officers eliminated each other , Alawites inherited their positions and became increasingly
senior; as one [Alawite] rose through the ranks, he brought his kinsmen along.'"
Along with the military, the Baathist movement in Syria fostered greater Alawite power and furthered
sectarian tensions. Unlike pan-Arabism, which, "aimed at the political resurrection of the Arabs
as one nation" and had a
strong association with Sunni Islam , "Baath nationalism was different from Sunni Arab nationalism
in that [Baathists] wanted a united secular Arab society."
Pan-Arab nationalists attempted to incorporate Islam into the pan-Arab movement for they believed
that the religion played an integral role in both Arab history and culture. Even though the pan-Arab
movement was considered to be spearheaded by Sunnis from the perspective of the minorities, many
Sunnis disapproved of pan-Arabism because Islam
did not play a sufficient role in its doctrine. While many Sunnis believed in a
doctrine more heavily influenced by Islam , "the religious minorities supported the Baath's nationalistic
ideology, in which all Arabs were equal, whether Sunni Muslims, Alawites or members of other heterodox
Muslim communities or Christians."
Founded in Syria in 1940 by Orthodox Christian Michel Aflaq and Sunni Salah al-Din Bitar,
the Baathist movement was influenced by secular and pan-Arab ideas, championing freedom from
foreign powers, Arab unity, and socialism. By April 1947, the Baath Congress gathered in Damascus,
and another party, comprised mainly of Alawites, emerged with similar ideas. While the group supported
Baathist ideas such as Arab independence and unity, the members followed Alawite scholar Zaki Arsuzi
(follower of Alawite socialist, Dr. Wahib al-Ghanim), who placed priority on social justice. Ghanim
insisted that particular socialist ideas be adopted
into the Baathist constitution . While Aflaq rejected such adamancy, Bitar consented to uniting
the Baath and Arab Socialist Party, which advocated for the same issues as Ghanim. Akram al-Hawrani,
the leader of the Arab Socialist Party, received the support of many rural Alawites and young Alawite
officers. With the merger of the two parties into the Arab Baath Socialist Party in September 1953,
the Baathist movement gained strong support from officers (presumably minority officers) and the
Alawite community, given the fact that the party's advocacy for social justice would inherently
bolster the Alawites against the repressive Sunni s.
While the Syrian-Egyptian Union resulted in the disbandment of all political parties, the Baathist
ideology remained with organized Alawite groups that had a sizeable amount of control over the Latakian
region. Thus,
after Syria seceded from the union in 1961 , the Alawites "were the strongest and most organized
force in the much-weakened national organization." During the Syrian-Egyptian Union, a military faction
within the Baath Party developed, and
a secret organization among Baathist-supporting officers in Egypt was created in 1959.
Dr. Ayse Tekdal Fildis writes :
The goal of the organization was to restore the Syrian army to Syrian control. The members
of this secret military organization, eventually known as the military committee, were not involved
in the Baath's traditional leadership or party structure. They operated as one of several politically
active groups of officers involved in the dissolution of the union in 1961 and in the fight for
political control of Syria during the subsequent year and a half.
Following Syria's separation from the union, the Baath Party gained political potency swiftly.
The Baath Party itself became a national ruling party only after the Baathist military faction's
coup on March 8, 1963, which overthrew the "
separatist regime " (responsible for Syria's secession from the Syrian-Egyptian Union and was
undergoing infighting among Sunni leaders).
With the rise of the Baath Party came the rise of and partiality towards the Alawites given the
group's dominance in the Baath Party and its representation in the Baathist military faction (specifically
the Military Committee). After this coup, the minority representation in the officer corps, especially
that of the Alawites, increased greatly as Baathist military leaders (
five out of the fourteen members of the Military Committee were Alawites ) attempted to consolidate
their power.
[4]
"The climax of the [Baathists'] power [monopolization] came on [
July 18, 1963 ], when a group of predominantly Sunni Nasserist officers, led by Colonel Jasim
'Alwan, staged an abortive coup. Most of the officers who suppressed this coup, not without bloodshed,
were of minoritarian backgrounds, and among them [Alawites] played a prominent role."
[5]
Discrimination between Sunnis and the minorities became prevalent and more apparent in the years
following 1963. In order to strategically preserve Baathist and minority power, army units were filled
with "trusted" officers and stationed in tactical areas such as Damascus.
[6]
Units filled with non-minority members were more likely to be stationed in areas farther from
the Baathist stronghold. These
moves allowed for the military coup on February 23, 1966, which resulted in
Alawite
control of Damascus , to take place.
Even as the Military Committee came into power following 1963, the leaders began to split and
gain the support of those regionally and ideologically tied with them to bolster their individual
powers. While leaders frequently strengthened themselves with people of the same sectarian background,
alliances amongst the Military Committee leaders were not always along sectarian lines, and many
times were merely for practical reasons to pursue their interests.
[7]
In 1970,
both
Alawite rivalries and Syria's series of coups "were put to rest with a bloodless military coup
led by then-air force commander and Defense Minister Gen. Hafiz [al-Assad] (now deceased) against
his Alawite rival, Salah Jadid. [Al-Assad] was the first Alawite leader capable of dominating the
fractious Alawite sect."
Alawites in Syria: Assad Regime and Sectarian Tensions
Following the coup in 1970, which effectively marked the beginning of the Assad regime that exists
today, Hafez al-Assad consolidated his power among trusted Alawites and prominent Sunnis in order
to strategically thwart potential revolts by the Sunni majority. Specifically, he "
stacked
the security apparatus with loyal clansmen while taking care to build patronage networks with
Druze and Christian minorities that facilitated the [al-Assad] rise." Additionally
, to
mollify Sunni dissatisfaction , the Assad "leadership co-opted key Sunni military and business
elites, relying on notables like former Syrian Defense Minister Mustafa Tlass to contain dissent
within the military and Alawite big-business families like the Makhloufs to buy loyalty, or at least
tolerance, among a Sunni merchant class that had seen most of its assets seized and redistributed
by the state." Such actions facilitated resentment from Sunnis, especially Sunnis extremists. Hafez
al-Assad further engendered tensions between the Alawites and outspoken Sunni Islamists by constraining
their abilities to spread the Sunni religious doctrine. The
regime
took over religious funding and discharged leaders of Friday prayers. Along with consolidating
power through sectarian means, Hafez al-Assad politically established himself. In the
period from 1971-1973 , Assad bolstered himself through a nominated Baath legislature, confirmed
himself as President for a seven-year term through a national referendum, and established a new constitution
that declared Syria a secular socialist state with Islam being the majority religion.
With the Assad regime stabilized and consolidated through the support of Alawites, minority groups,
and key Sunnis, any attempts to overthrow the regime were suppressed and only added to the sectarian
tensions that already existed at the beginning of Hafez al-Assad's leadership. Such suppression peaked
in the regime's crackdown on Sunni insurgents led by the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, who were protesting
Assad's new constitution. The
constitution had established a secular state and allowed a non-Muslim to be president (
this was
later amended ). The uprising, intended to overthrow the heretical Assad regime, began in 1976
and became the most violent in 1982, in Hama. In this Sunni-populated town, Assad and his Alawite
constituency
killed up to 20,000 residents . Since the incident at Hama, the Alawites continued to consolidate
power and
control over Syria . The Assad regime also preserved its power by overcoming various potential
destabilizers: events that if handled improperly could have undermined the whole Assad regime. An
attempted coup by Hafez al-Assad's brother, the death of Hafez al-Assad's apparent heir, Syria's
frequent feuds with Israel, and Syria's involvement in Lebanon,
all
had the potential to destabilize the Assad regime . Rather, Assad dealt with these events in
ways that either preserved Assad's rule or further strengthened the regime's power.
Following the death of Hafez al-Assad on June 10, 2000, the Syrian parliament reduced the minimum
age for
presidential eligibility from 40 to 34 allowing Hafez al-Assad's son, Bashar al-Assad, to run
for president and maintain the regime. Bashar al-Assad's regime preserved its ruling authority by
imprisoning activists who
advocated for democratic elections in August 2001 .
It is important to note that while an apparent bias towards Alawites existed under the Assad regime,
both Assads claimed that Syria was a non-sectarian state. For this reason, many Alawites still remain
poor, and the Syrian education system promotes
the majority
orthodox faith in Syria, Sunni Islam . Moreover, dissent amongst Alawites exists in Syria, and
Alawite dissenters have sometimes experienced
harsher punishments than non-Alawites . Additionally, the Alawite regime did not completely repress
the Sunni majority and promote Alawi Islam. Rather, the Alawite regime under Hafez al-Assad attempted
to gain approval from the Sunni population as well as create a new relationship and distinction between
government and Islam. According to
Joshua Landis , director of the Center for Middle East Studies,
When [Hafez al-Assad] came to power in 1970, one of his primary goals was to establish a new
balance between the government and Islam. One of the central planks of his "Corrective Movement"
was to abandon the radical secularism and socialism of the Jadid regime that preceded him. Although
he reached out to Sunni clerics, giving them greater leeway in society, he strictly limited their
influence in politics. At the same time, he encouraged Alawites to embrace mainstream Islam. He
declared the Alawites to be nothing but Twelver [Shias], forbade Alawite Shaykhs to venerate Ali
excessively, and set the example for his people by adhering to Sunni practice. He built mosques
in Alawite towns, prayed publicly and fasted and encouraged his people to do the same. In short
he tried to turn Alawites into "good" (read Sunnified) Muslims in exchange for preserving a modicum
of secularism and tolerance in society To police this understanding, he squashed any semblance
of democracy in Syrian political life, forbidding elections even within professional organizations
and trade unions. As a result, civil society was crushed, ministries became havens for mafia groups,
and any political life outside the secretive factions in the regime came to a standstill.
Besides obtaining support from outside nations and groups such as Iran, Russia, and Hezbollah,
Assad's regime initially received support from the Alawite community. The Alawites supported Assad
for various reasons. While some backed the regime out of pure loyalty, other Alawites understood
their
fate if Assad's Alawite regime were to fall .
For the latter group, the downfall of Assad would inevitably result in another Sunni rule, allowing
the Sunni elite to once again
oppress the Alawites . More importantly, given the acts of the Assad regime (including the killing
in Hama), many Alawites understood
their grim fate if Sunnis regained power and exacted their revenge for the loss of thousands
of innocent Sunnis. For the most part, "the Assad regime has played on Alawite
fears to help it stay in power ." Nevertheless, "the wholehearted loyalty that Hafez enjoyed
in his early stage of rule has switched to another type of connection for Bashar
based on sectarian insecurity ."
"... existing official models do not sufficiently explain the Minsky period, the runup, how things got so fragile that they could collapse so badly. ..."
"... in effect Minsky provided a model and discussion of all three stages, although his model of the Keynes stage is not really all that distinctive and is really just Keynes. ..."
"... he probably did a better job of discussing the Bagehot stage than did Bagehot, and more detailed, if less formal, than Diamond and Dybvig. ..."
"... But the essentials of what go on in a panic and crash were well understood and discussed prior to 1873, with Minsky, and Kindlegerger drawing on Minsky in his 1978 Manias, Panics, and Crashes, quoting in particular a completely modern discussion from 1848 by John Stuart Mill ..."
"... Keep in mind, there are an infinite number of models that fit the data. Science requires more that a fit. It requires that the model correspond with reality in a way that it can fill in observable data before it is observed. ..."
"... Here's a theory (not a model): the true and revolutionary insights of Veblen, Keynes, and Minsky have all failed to significantly alter the trajectory of economic thought because the discipline expects "the truth" to do the impossible. ..."
Yes, we miss the late Hy Minsky, especially those of us who knew him, although I cannot claim
to be one who knew him very well. But I knew him well enough to have experienced his wry wit and
unique perspective. Quite aside from that, it would have been great to have had him around these
last few years to comment on what has gone on, with so many invoking his name, even as they have
in the end largely ended up studiously ignoring him and relegating him back into an intellectual
dustbin of history, or tried to.
So, Paul Krugman has a post entitled "The Case of the Missing Minsky," which in turn comments
on comments by Mark Thoma on comments by Gavyn Davis on discussions at a recent IMF conference on
macroeconomic policy in light of the events of recent years, with Mark link
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2015/06/the-case-of-the-missing-minsky.htmling
to Krugman's post.
He notes that there seem to be three periods of note:
a Minsky period of increasing vulnerability of the financial system to crash before the crash,
a Bagehot period during the crash,
a Keynes period after the crash.
Krugman argues that, despite a lot of floundering by the IMF economists, we supposedly understand
the second two, with his preferred neo-ISLM approach properly explaining the final Keynes period
of insufficiently strong recovery due to insufficiently strong aggregate demand stimulus, especially
relying on fiscal policy (and while I do not fully buy his neo-ISLM approach, I think he is mostly
right about the policy bottom line on this, as would the missing Minsky, I think).
He also says that looking at 1960s Diamond-Dybvig models of bank panics sufficiently explain the
Bagehot period, and they probably do, given the application to the shadow banking system. However,
he grants that existing official models do not sufficiently explain the Minsky period, the runup,
how things got so fragile that they could collapse so badly.
Now I do not strongly disagree with most of this, but I shall make a few further points. The first
is that in effect Minsky provided a model and discussion of all three stages, although his model
of the Keynes stage is not really all that distinctive and is really just Keynes.
But he probably did a better job of discussing the Bagehot stage than did Bagehot, and more
detailed, if less formal, than Diamond and Dybvig. I suspect that Bagehot got dragged in by
the IMF people because he is so respectable and influential regarding central bank policymaking,
given his important 1873 Lombard Street, and I am certainly not going to dismiss the importance
of that work.
But the essentials of what go on in a panic and crash were well understood and discussed prior
to 1873, with Minsky, and Kindlegerger drawing on Minsky in his 1978 Manias, Panics, and Crashes,
quoting in particular a completely modern discussion from 1848 by John Stuart Mill (I am tempted
to produce the quotation here, but it is rather long; I do so on p. 59 of my 1991 From Catastrophe
to Chaos: A General Theory of Economic Discontinuities), which clearly delineates the mechanics
and patterns of the crash, using the colorful language of "panic" and "revulsion" along the way.
Others preceding Bagehot include the inimitable MacKay in 1852 in his Madness of Crowds book
and Marx in Vol. III of Capital, although admittedly that was not published until well after
Bagehot's book.
One can even find such discussions in Cantillon early in the 1700s discussing what went on in
the Mississippi and South Sea bubbles, from which he made a lot of money, and then, good old Adam
Smith in 1776 in WoN (pp. 703-704), who in regard to the South Sea bubble and the managers of the
South Sea company declared, "They had an immense capital dividend among an immense number of proprietors.
It was naturally to be expected, therefore, that folly, negligence, and profusion should prevail
in the whole management of their affairs. The knavery and extravagance of their stock-jobbing operations
are sufficiently known [as are] the negligence, profusion and malversation of the servants of the
company."
It must be admitted that this quote from Smith does not have the sort of detailed analysis of
the crash itself that one finds in Mill or Bagehot, much less Minsky or Diamond and Dybvig. But there
is another reason of interest now to note these inflammatory remarks by Smith. David Warsh in his
Economic Principals has posted in the last few days on "Just before the lights went up," also linked
to by the
inimitable
Mark Thoma. Warsh discusses recent work on Smith's role in the bailout of the Ayr Bank of Scotland,
whose crash in 1772 created macroeconomic instability and layoffs, with Smith apparently playing
a role in getting the British parliament to bail out the bank, with its main owners, Lord Buccleuch
and the Duke of Queensbury, paying Smith off with a job as Commissioner of Customs afterwards. I
had always thought that it was ironic that free trader Smith ended his career in this position, but
had not previously known how he got it. As it is, Warsh points out that the debate over bubbles and
what the role of government should be in dealing with them was a difference between Smith and his
fellow Scottish rival, Sir James Steuart, whose earlier book provided an alternative overview of
political economy, now largely forgotten by most (An Inquiry into the Principles of Political
Oeconomy, 1767).
I conclude this by noting that part of the problem for Krugman and also the IMF crowd with Minsky
is that it is indeed hard to fit his view into a nice formal model, with various folks (including
Mark Thoma) wishing it were to be done and noting that it probably involves invoking the dread behavioral
economics that does not provide nice neat models. I also suspect that some of these folks, including
Krugman, do not like some of the purveyors of formal models based on Minsky, notably Steve Keen,
who has been very noisy in his criticism of these folks, leading even such observers as Noah Smith,
who might be open to such things, to denounce Keen for his general naughtiness and to dismiss his
work while slapping his hands. But, aside from what Keen has done, I note that there are other ways
to model the missing Minsky more formally, including using agent-based models, if one really wants
to, these do not involve putting financial frictions into DSGE models, which indeed do not successfully
model the missing Minsky.
Barkley Rosser
Update: Correction from comments is that the Ayr Bank was not bailed out. It failed. However,
the two dukes who were its main owners were effectively bailed out, see comments or the original
Warsh piece for details. It remains the case that Adam Smith helped out with that and was rewarded
with the post of Commissioner of Customs in Scotland.
What, exactly, is the value added of formal (or even informal) "models" in all this? That is to
say, if a historian were to describe the events and responses outlined above, what would he leave
out that an economist would put in?
Keep in mind, there are an infinite number of models
that fit the data. Science requires more that a fit. It requires that the model correspond with
reality in a way that it can fill in observable data before it is observed.
Meanwhile, Simon Wren-Lewis dismisses the policy-maker who listens to the historian as using
mere "intelligent guess work", strongly suggesting that economists clearly do better. But if trying
to figure out whether the current moments is Minsky, Keynes or even Keen, isn't "guesswork" then
I don't know what is. Put "intelligent guess work" policy next to model guided policy in your
history above. Where's the value added from modeling? It has to be useful AND the policy maker
must have a scientific reason for knowing it will be useful IN REAL TIME.
Krugman frequently defends "textbook" modeling with a "nobody else has come up with anything
better" response. But that's a classic "when did you stop beating your wife".
What if the economy can't be modeled? Claiming to do the impossible is deluded, even if you
can correctly say: "no one has ever improved upon my method of doing the impossible."
"But we have learned so much!" People say that, but what, exactly, are they talking about?
Here's a theory (not a model): the true and revolutionary insights of Veblen, Keynes, and
Minsky have all failed to significantly alter the trajectory of economic thought because the discipline
expects "the truth" to do the impossible.
Newton faced this when his theory of universal
Gravity was criticized for failing to explain the distance of the planets from the sun. The Aristotelian
tradition said that a proper theory of the heavens would do this.
And so Keynes has his Aristotelian interpreter Hicks and Minsky has his Keen. Requiring the
revolution to succeed in doing the impossible means that the truth gets misinterpreted or ignored.
Either way, no revolution despite every generation producing a revolutionary that sees the truth.
What is the value of this theory? If true, it explains how economics can be filled with smart
people seeking the truth and yet make zero progress in more than a century.
I get the impression that mainstream economists are generally resistant to any kind of boom-and-bust
models (at least while getting a BA in econ I was never taught any). Is this the case? It's too
bad, because models like Lotka–Volterra are not that hard. Just from messing around with agent-based
models it seems like anything with a lag or learning generates cycles. Is it because economists
are fixated on optimization and equilibrium? Are they worried about models that are too sensitive
to initial conditions?
Maybe they should not be, but the discussion among IMF economists, Davis, Thoma, and
Krugman has involved models, and in particular, conventional models. So, Krugman declares that
there are conventional models as noted above to cover two of the stages, the latter two, but not
the first one identified with Minsky. I think there are better models for all this, but they are
not the conventional ones.
chrismealy,
The DSGE and other conventional models are able to model booms and busts, although they generally
do not use the Lotka-Volterra models that such people as the late Richard Goodwin (and even Paul
Samuelson) have used for modeling business cycle dynamics. The big difference is that the conventional
models involve exogenous shocks to set off their busts, with cyclical reverberations that decay
then following the exogenous shock, with some of the lag mechanisms operating for that.
It is not really surprising that this sort of thing does not model Minsky or the Minsky moment,
which involve endogenous dynamics, the very success of the boom as during the Great Moderation
itself undermining the stability and even resilience of the system as essentially endogenous psychological
(and hence behavioral) factors operate to loosen requirements for lending and to use Minksy language,
lending and borrowing increasingly involves highly leveraged Ponzi schemes (and I note that some
more conventional economists have emphasized leverage cycles, notably John Geanakoplis, although
avoiding Minsky per se in doing so).
This is a good post and discussion so far. So here's my $.02:
1. Maybe the behaviorists like
Thaler have already explored this, but it seems to me that economists still need to learn learning
theory from psychologists. Most importantly, "bservational learning," { http://psychology.about.com/od/oindex/fl/What-Is-Observational-Learning.htm
), or more simply "monkey see, monkey do." We constantly learn by observing behavior in others:
our parents, our older siblings, the cool kids at school, our favorite pop icons, our professors,
our business mentors, and so on. As to which,
2. Some people are better at learning than others (duh!). Some learn right away, some more
slowly, some never at all. And further,
3. Some people are more persceptive than others, recognizing the importance of something earlier
or later. If you recognized how important the trend change was when Volcker broke the back of
inflation in the early 1980s, and simply bought 30 year treasuries and held them to maturity,
you made a killing. If you discovered that in the early 1990s, you made less. And so on.
All we need, to pick up on chrismealy's comment, are time periods and learning. Incorporate
variations in skill and persceptiveness into the population, and you can get a nice boom and bust
model. As more and more people, with various levels of skill, learn an economic behavior (flipping
houses, using leverage), they will "push the edge of the envelope" more and more -- does 2x leverage
work? Yes, then how about 4x? Yes, then how about 20x? -- until the system is overwhelmed.
4. But if you don't want to incorporate imitative learning models from psychology, how about
just using appraisals of short term vs. long term risk and reward. Suppose it is the 1980s, and
I think treasury yields are on a securlar downtrend. But this book called "Bankruptcy 1995" just
came out, based on a blue ribbon panel Reagan created to look at budget deficits. That best selling
book forecasts a "hockey stick" of exploding interest rates by the mid-1990s due to ever increasing
US debt. So let's say I am 50% sure of my belief that treasury yields will continue to decline
for another 20 years, and I can make 10% a year if I am right. But if I am wrong .....
Meanwhile, I calculate that there is an 80% chance I can make 10% a year for the next few years
by investing in this new publicly traded company named "Microsoft."
Even leaving aside behavioral finance theories about loss aversion, it's pretty clear that
most investors will plump for Microsoft over treasuries, given their relative confidence in short
term outcomes.
Historically, once interest rates went close to zero at the outset of the Great Depression,
they stayed there for 20 years, and then gradually rose for another 30. How confident are investors
that the same scenario will play out this time?
Either or both of the learning theory or the short term-long term risk reward scenario are
good explanations for why backwards induction ad absurdum isn't an accurate description of behavior.
----
BTW, a nice example of a failed "backwards induction" is the "taper tantrum" of 2013. Since
investors knew that the Fed was going to be raising interest rates sooner or later, they piled
on and raised interest rates immediately -- and made a nice intermediate term top at 3%.
I think New Deal Democrat has it here. This surely, can be covered with a simple model
of asynchronous adaptive expectations with stochastic (Taleb type - big tail) risks. I wouldn't
think you would even need a sophisticated agent based model. There must be plenty of ratchet type
models out there to chose from.
"...the true and revolutionary insights of Veblen, Keynes, and Minsky have all failed to significantly
alter the trajectory of economic thought because the discipline..." sacrifices to the God, Equilibrium.
New Deal Democrat,
WRT "monkey see, monkey do" see Andred Orlean's The Empire of Value which articulates
his mimetic theory of value.
Sorry, I am not on board with this at all. Sure, I am all for incorporating
learning and lags. No problem. This is good old adaptive expectations, which I have no problem
with.
The problem is back to what I said earlier, that Minsky's apparatus operates endogenously without
any need for exogenous shocks, although it can certainly operate within those, as his quoting
of Mill shows, although I did not provide that quote, but Mill starts his story of how bubbles
happen with some exogenous initial supply/demand shock in a market.
Why is what you guys talk about an exogenous shock model? Look at the example: Volcker does
something and then different people figure it out at different rates. But Volcker is the exogenous
shocker. If he does nothing, nothing happens.
In Minsky world, there does not need to be an exogenous shock. The system may be in a total
anf full equilibrium,, but that equilibrium will disequilibrate itself as psychological attitudes
and expectations endogenously change due to it. This is what the standard modelers have sush a
problem with and do not like. They have no problem wiht adaptive expectations models. This is
all old hat stuff for them, with only the fact that one does not know for sure what all those
lags are being the problem, and what opened the door to the victory of ratex because it said there
are no lags and thus no problem. Agents now what will be on average.
Warsh's history of the Ayr Bank has errors. The Bank of England offered it a "bailout" in 1772
but required the personal guarantees of the two Dukes which were not forthcoming. The Ayr Bank
struggled on without lender of last resort support until August 1773, when it closed for good.
(This is all in Clapham's history of the Bank of England.)
What Warsh is calling a "bailout" was not a bailout of the bank, but of its proprietors who
had unlimited liability and were facing the possibility of putting their estates on the market
(which would have affected land prices in Scotland).
As I understand Warsh's description, Parliament granted the two Dukes a charter for a limited
liability company that would sell annuities. It is entirely possible that contemporary sources
would describe such an action as "indemnifying" the promoters of the company. But what is meant
by this use of the term is only that Parliament authorized the formation of corporation. The actual
indemnity is provided in the event the corporation fails by the members of the public who are
creditors of the corporation.
In short, it is an error to claim that there was a "bailout" of the Ayr Bank.
I still don't understand what information is added by "models". Krugman has a job he has created
for himself where everything he does is with an eye toward policy.
So I'm a policy maker. Explain why I need a model. in the 1930s austerity caused recessions
and WWII ended the Depression. A little history of Japan's lost decade and some thinking about
the implications of fiat currency, and, voilia, Krugman's policy suggestions, with no models and
therefore no need to listen to economists like Mankiw or the Germans currently destroying Europe
(third times a charm).
By the by, I have thought this thru. The head of Duke's Philosophy Department agrees: Krugman's
method for using models is empty hand-waving. However he comes to his conclusions, it is not logically
possible that ISLM, or any other model, has anything to do with it.
http://thorntonhalldesign.com/philosophy/2014/7/1/credentialed-person-repeats-my-critique-of-krugman
Since Adam Smith economists have told rather enthralling stories about speculations, manias,
follies, frauds, and breakdowns. The audience likes this kind of stuff. However, when it comes
to how all this fits into economic theory things become a bit awkward. Of course, we have some
modls -- Minsky, Diamond-Dybvig, Keynes come to mind -- but we could also think of other modls
-- more agent-based or equilibrium with friction perhaps. On closer inspection, though, economists
have no clue at all.
Keynes messed up the basics of macro with this faulty syllogism: "Income = value of output
= consumption + investment. Saving = income - consumption. Therefore saving = investment." (1973,
p. 63)
From I=S all variants of IS-LM models are derived including Krugman's neo-ISLM which allegedly
explains the post-crash Keynes period. Let there be no ambiguity, all these models have always
been conceptually and formally defective (2011).
Minsky built upon Keynes but not on I=S.
"The simple equation 'profit equals investment' is the fundamental relation for a macroeconomics
that aims to determine the behavior through time of a capitalist economy with a sophisticated,
complex financial structure." (Minsky, 2008, p. 161)
Here profit comes in but neither Minsky, nor Keynes, nor Krugmann, nor Keen, nor the rest of
the profession can tell the fundamental difference between income and profit (2014).
The fact of the matter is that the representative economist fails to capture the essence of
the market economy. This does not matter much as long as he has models and stories about crashing
Ponzi schemes and bank panics. Yes, eventually we will miss them all -- these inimitable proto-scientific
storytellers.
To have any number of incoherent models is not such a good thing as most economists tend to
think. What is needed is the true theory.
"In order to tell the politicians and practitioners something about causes and best means,
the economist needs the true theory or else he has not much more to offer than educated common
sense or his personal opinion." (Stigum, 1991, p. 30)
The true theory of financial crises presupposes the correct profit theory which is missing
since Adam Smith. After this disqualifying performance nobody should expect that some Walrasian
or Keynesian bearer of hope will come up with the correct modl any time soon.
Egmont Kakarot-Handtke
References
Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2011). Why Post Keynesianism is Not Yet a Science. SSRN Working Paper
Series, 1966438: 1–20. URL http://ssrn.com/abstract=1966438.
Keynes, J. M. (1973). The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money. The Collected
Writings of John Maynard Keynes Vol. VII. London, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Minsky, H. P. (2008). Stabilizing an Unstable Economy. New York, NY, Chicago, IL, San Francisco,
CA: McGraw Hill, 2nd edition.
Stigum, B. P. (1991). Toward a Formal Science of Economics: The Axiomatic Method in Economics
and Econometrics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
In addition to my hypo re Volcker and interest rates, I also mention flipping
houses and leverage.
Person A flips a house, makes $100k. Person B learns of it, figures s/he can do just as well,
and flips a house. Eventually enough people are doing it that news stories are written about it.
By now 1000s of people are figuring, "if they can do it, I can do it.":
So long as the trend continues, the person using financial leverage to flip houses makes even
more profit. Person B uses more leverage, and so on. And since 2x leverage worked, why not 4x
leverage. And if that works, why not 10x leverage?
Both the number of people engaging in the behavior, and the financial leveraging of the behavior,
are endogenous, unless you are going to hang your hat on existing trend (note, not necessarily
a shock - of rising house prices0.
All you need is more and more people of various skill sets at various entry points of time
engaging in the behavior, and testing increasing leverage the more the behavior works.
Secondly, as to stability breeding instability, stability itself is the existing trend. Increasingly
over time, more and more leverage will be used to profit off the existing trend. All it takes
is learning + risk-takers successfully testing the existing limits. The more stable the system,
the more risk-takers can apply leverage without rupturing it -- for a while.
Let me try to express my position as a series of axioms:
1. Assume that no system, no matter how stable, can withstand infinite leverage.
2. Assume that there is a certain non-zero percentage of risk-taking individuals.
3. Assume that risk-takers will use some amount of leverage to attempt to profit within a stable
system.
4. Assume that risk-takers will use increasing leverage once any given lesser percentage of leverage
succeeds in rendering a profit, in order to increase profits.
5. Assume that others will learn, over various time periods, at varying levels of skill, to imitate
the successful behavior of risk-takers.
Under those circumstances, it is certain that any system,
no matter how stable, will ultimately succumb to leverage. And the more stable, the more leverage
will have been applied to reach that breaking point. I.e., stability breeds instability.
Even using history as an analogy is implicitly introducing a model. You're saying, here's my model
of this history and I crank my little model to show the behavior of the model simulates the historical
record, then I adapt the model to present circumstances, and crank again arguing, again by analogy.
What I would object to is the reliance on "analytic models" as opposed to operational
models of the actual institutions. Economists love their analytic models, particularly axiomatic
deductive "nomological machines", DSGE being the current orthodox approach. Not that there is
anything wrong about analysis. My objection would be to basing policy advice on a study of analytic
models to the exclusion of all else -- Krugman's approach -- rather than an empirical study of
institutions in operation (which would still involve models, because that's how people think,
but they might be, for example, simulation models calibrated to observed operational mechanisms).
There are reasons why economists prefer analytic models, but few of those reasons are sound.
In the end, it is a matter of bad judgment fostered by a defective education and corruption or
weakmindedness. Among other things, reliance on analytic models give economics an esoteric quality
that privileges its elite practitioners. Ordinary people can barely understand what Krugman is
talking about in the referenced piece, and that's by design. He does his bit to protect the reputations
of folks like Bernanke and Blanchard, obscuring their viewpoints and the consequences of their
policies.
I am not sure what can be done about it. Economists like Krugman are as arrogant as they are
ignorant -- there's not enough intellectual integrity to even acknowledge fundamental errors,
and that lack of integrity keeps the "orthodoxy" going in the face of manifest failures. For the
conservatives on some payroll, the problem is even worse.
I am not confident that shooing economists from the policy room and encouraging politicians
to discuss these matters among themselves improves the situation. In doubt, people fall back on
a moral fundamentalism of the kind that gets us to "austerity" and "sacrifice" and blames the
victims -- pretty much what we have now.
Re-doing Minsky as an analytic model is an impossible task almost by definition. Minsky's approach
was fundamentally about abstracting from careful observation of what financial firms did, operationally.
It made him a hero with many financial sector denizens, who recognized themselves in his narratives,
even when he cast them in the role of bad guys. (No one is ever going to recognize himself as
a representative agent in a DSGE model.)
Perhaps the hardest thing to digest from Minsky is the insight that business cycles can not
be entirely mastered. The economy is fundamentally a set of disequilibrium phenomena, the instability
built-in (endogenous, as they say). The New Keynesian idea is that the economy is fundamentally
an equilibrium phenomenon, that occasionally needs a helping hand to recover from exogenous disturbance.
These are antagonistic world views, which cannot be reconciled with each other, and the New Keynesian
view can be reconciled only minimally with the observable facts of the world, by a lot of ad hoc
fuzzy thinking ("frictions").
Bruce, I disagree with your view of politicians. The current GOP crop are essentially following
the moral philosophy that, in the end, is the only content generated by economics. But it was
not always thus.
I once watched Senator Kit Bond of Missouri (very-R) try to round up a quorum in the Small
Business Committee. It was quite clear that the man enjoyed people. He liked the company of just
about everybody. Without the strong interference from economists, that's who ends up in politics.
People like that are pragmatic. They try things. They aren't there for the purpose (contra Ted
Cruz) of breaking things.
You're right, my problem really is with analytic "models" which aren't really models but rather
metaphors or analogies. But I don't think that's the only way reasoning from history can work.
There are lots of areas of policy, some of which continue to resist conversion to economic
religion. In education policy we try interventions and see what happens. It's inductive and mostly
correlation, but thru trial and error we do progress toward better policy (although schools of
education are only slowly moving away from their notoriously anti-scientific past).
Politicians don't have to think about the budget like a household and tighten belts. They know
that business borrow money all the time. It's actually the language of the academy that leads
to "tightening belts" instead of investing in the future. Economics is the science of claiming
that if you need something, and you can afford that something, you still must consider "multipliers"
or "the philosophers stone" or some other nonsense before you can decide to buy what you need.
What I mean to say about history: don't confuse theories with models. I have a theory about what
caused what in the Great Depression. But I don't model the economy.
I think I should clarify, I think endogenous and exogenous are a little bit besides the point
here. I think the exact trigger that starts a "state change" in the system has a stochastic component.
But the increasing vulnerability of the system is endogenous, in a very Minsky sense. What I am
saying is that increasing vulnerability could be modelled without using agent based modelling
(a bit like modelling landslides or earthquakes if you like). I'm not saying that the model is
just being driven by exogenous shocks.
Bruce,
I think there is a bit of tendency to mischaracterise what Paul Krugman is saying. He is the last
person you should be accusing of mistaking the map for the territory. He is saying that EVEN relatively
simple models can make sensible suggestions about policy in some circumstances.
Yes, though I tend to agree with you that general equilibrium is the original sin in macro-economic
modelling and that the system is in fact a disequilibrium system. But that doesn't imply to me
at all that you can't use analytical approaches.
"... the world's largest private surveillance operation ..."
"... Ha! I wish I'd thought of that line! I just laughed out loud on the train and my fellow commuter drones are shuffling and wondering to themselves if I'm on day release from an institution. ..."
"... Of course, the joke's on us, because that's exactly what they (Google) are with all the right friends in high places to boot ..."
"... Something that has been occurring lately with Chrome makes me think that Google is truly watching. A lot of sites (RT et al) are having the https// crossed out in red implying that the connection is no longer secure. ..."
" the head of the world's largest private surveillance operation , billionaire
Eric Schmidt "
Ha! I wish I'd thought of that line! I just laughed out loud on the train and my fellow
commuter drones are shuffling and wondering to themselves if I'm on day release from an institution.
Of course, the joke's on us, because that's exactly what they (Google)
are with all the right friends in high places to boot .
Something that has been occurring lately with Chrome makes me think that Google is truly
watching. A lot of sites (RT et al) are having the https// crossed out in red implying that the
connection is no longer secure.
Probably TOR but I would caution
this is far from foolproof and may even incur The Panopticon's more intrusive surveillance attention.
I value my privacy as much as anyone but I don't use TOR or similar simply because if they
are not a guaranteed solution, what's the point? And besides, why should I have to? It's just
another tax on my time and resources.
The opendemocracy link you gave shows up as having issues in firefox also. It looks like they
have some insecure images on the page, which is probably what chrome is complaining about.
The election is over. I am left with two very contradictory feelings.
First is one of appreciation - every four years we peacefully replace our government.
I remember my parents in the late 1970s discussing Soviet politics at our house with
their close friend. Their friend said something anti-Soviet. I vividly recall the fear
in my mother's eyes when she realized I had overheard that part of the conversation.
Views that were contrary to "politics of the party" were not tolerated. If I repeated in
kindergarten what I had just heard, my teacher could report it to authorities and my
parents (not me) would get in trouble.
A six-year-old kid could have only heard this sort of anti-Soviet talk at home: TV,
radio, and newspapers were a pro-Soviet propaganda machine. My parents would not have
been sent to the gulag, but they could have lost their jobs. If this sounds farfetched,
my father's best friend, a colleague and professor at Murmansk Marine Academy, was fired
for possession of anti-Soviet propaganda - a copy of Solzhenitsyn's
Gulag
Archipelago
. It took him years to get another job, and it was almost two decades
later, when the Soviet Union fell apart, that he was finally able to get a decent
teaching job.
We in America tend to take our democratic elections for granted and underappreciate the
fact that we can openly express our views. But there is also the other, new feeling:
disgust. Yes, disgust. There is something deeply wrong with the U.S. election process.
Between the presidential candidates and the congressional races, billions of dollars
were spent (wasted) on the election. To spend that kind of money, first you have to
raise it. Politicians sell their souls and beliefs to whomever will give them the most
money.
And here is the sad truth: If you don't raise money, the other guy will, and then he can
outspend you. He can slaughter you, as his lies will be amplified louder through TV and
radio ads, and the victory will be his. As I am writing this, I am realizing that
allowing politicians to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaigns is not unlike
allowing steroids in sports - even the strongest athlete will lose to a weaker opponent
who is pumped on steroids.
Also, this election process will turn even a very honorable person into a liar or
half-truth teller, because it is impossible to express complex ideas in 30-second sound
bites. Even during the presidential debates, where candidates were allowed a few minutes
to make their case, every claim that each of them made had to be fact-checked the next
morning. We must be scratching an all-time low in politics when we feel the need to
fact-check the statements of the candidates running for the highest office in the land,
the president of the United States, the office that should be the moral compass for the
country. If we accept lies and half-truths from them as politics as usual, what do you
expect from just a mortal senator or a congressman?
The partisan politics of this country is simply insane. I observed both Republican and
Democrat friends, who are otherwise rational people whom I deeply respect, turning into
mindless robots when the conversation turned to politics. It seemed that their cognitive
abilities had been wiped and replaced by a party program as they mindlessly repeated
half-truths and lies propagated by the party mother ship, without any critical thinking
of their own. It was scary.
But there is a silver lining to U.S. politics. Call me a disillusioned optimist, but no
matter what the outcome of the election, this country has survived and will continue to
survive bad congressmen, bad senators, and even bad presidents.
Here is the irony of the above: I wrote that piece exactly four years ago about the
Obama/Romney election. I never thought that I was describing what, four years later,
we'd consider the good ol' days.
Thoughts on Trump's presidency:
If Hillary Clinton had been elected, her presidency would have provided a fairly narrow
band of outcomes - basically a continuation of the past eight years. (I'll let you, Dear
Reader, be the judge of whether that would have been good or bad.)
Potential outcomes for the Trump presidency fall in a much wider band. Probable outcomes
are relatively narrow for domestic policy and a mile wide for foreign policy.
We tend to think of the American president as a very powerful person. However, that is
only true when it comes to foreign policy, when the president acts as
commander-in-chief. Regarding domestic policy, the brilliance of the Constitution is
that it puts significant limits on what the president can do.
For instance, even though Republicans control the Congress, they lack the 60 votes to
break filibusters and invoke cloture. Thus, though Trump's party may diminish Obamacare,
they may not have the ability to repeal it altogether. In the case of domestic policy,
Trump is pretty much just another Republican president whose effectiveness will be
helped by Republican control of Congress - but at the same time may potentially be
restricted by the new president's own negotiating skills and his lack of political
experience.
When it comes to foreign policy and trade, the range of outcomes becomes incredibly
wide. First, we don't know who Trump the commander-in-chief really is. Is he Trump the
candidate, who would say brash and simply idiotic things - or the very calm,
presidential person who delivered a brilliant acceptance speech? Will he make the world
a safer or a more dangerous place?
I don't have an answer for that question. Just as with predictions for the outcome of
this election, it seems that no one does.
Vitaliy N. Katsenelson, CFA, is Chief Investment Officer at
Investment
Management Associates
in
Denver, Colo. He is the author of
Active
Value Investing
(Wiley)
and
The
Little Book of Sideways Markets
(Wiley).
I have spent the better
part of the last 10 years working diligently to investigate and relate information on
economics and geopolitical discourse for the liberty movement. However, long before I
delved into these subjects my primary interests of study were the human mind and the
human "soul" (yes, I'm using a spiritual term).
My fascination with economics and sociopolitical events has always been rooted in the
human element.
That is to say, while economics is often treated as a
mathematical and statistical field, it is also driven by psychology.
To know
the behavior of man is to know the future of all his endeavors, good or evil.
Evil is what we are specifically here to discuss.
I have touched on
the issue in various articles in the past including
Are Globalists Evil Or Just Misunderstood
, but with extreme tensions taking shape
this year in light of the U.S. election as well as the exploding online community
investigation of "Pizzagate," I am compelled to examine it once again.
I will not be grappling with this issue from a particularly religious perspective.
Evil applies to everyone regardless of their belief system, or even their lack of
belief. Evil is secular in its influence.
The first and most important thing to understand is this - evil is NOT simply
a social or religious construct, it is an inherent element of the human psyche.
Carl Gustav Jung was one of the few psychologists in history to dare write extensively
on the issue of evil from a scientific perspective as well as a metaphysical
perspective. I highly recommend a book of his collected works on this subject titled
'Jung On Evil', edited by Murray Stein, for those who are interested in a deeper view.
To summarize, Jung found that much of the foundations of human behavior are rooted in
inborn psychological contents or "archetypes." Contrary to the position of Sigmund
Freud, Jung argued that while our environment may affect our behavior to a certain
extent, it does not make us who we are. Rather, we are born with our own individual
personality and grow into our inherent characteristics over time. Jung also found that
there are universally present elements of human psychology. That is to say, almost every
human being on the planet shares certain truths and certain natural predilections.
The concepts of good and evil, moral and immoral, are present in us from birth and
are mostly the same regardless of where we are born, what time in history we are born
and to what culture we are born. Good and evil are shared subjective experiences. It is
this observable psychological fact (among others) that leads me to believe in the idea
of a creative design - a god. Again, though, elaborating on god is beyond the scope of
this article.
To me, this should be rather comforting to people, even atheists. For if there is
observable evidence of creative design, then it would follow that there may every well
be a reason for all the trials and horrors that we experience as a species. Our lives,
our failures and our accomplishments are not random and meaningless. We are striving
toward something, whether we recognize it or not. It may be beyond our comprehension at
this time, but it is there.
Evil does not exist in a vacuum; with evil there is always good, if one looks
for it in the right places.
Most people are readily equipped to recognize evil when they see it
directly. What they are not equipped for and must learn from environment is how to
recognize evil disguised as righteousness.
The most heinous acts in
history are almost always presented as a moral obligation - a path towards some "greater
good." Inherent conscience, though, IS the greater good, and any ideology that steps
away from the boundaries of conscience will inevitably lead to disaster.
The concept of globalism is one of these ideologies that crosses the line of
conscience and pontificates to us about a "superior method" of living.
It
relies on taboo, rather than moral compass, and there is a big difference between the
two.
When we pursue a "greater good" as individuals or as a society, the means are just as
vital as the ends. The ends NEVER
justify the means. Never. For if we
abandon our core principles and commit atrocities in the name of "peace," safety or
survival, then we have forsaken the very things which make us worthy of peace and safety
and survival. A monster that devours in the name of peace is still a monster.
Globalism tells us that the collective is more important than the individual,
that the individual owes society a debt and that fealty to society in every respect is
the payment for that debt.
But inherent archetypes and conscience tell us
differently. They tell us that society is only ever as healthy as the individuals
within it, that society is only as free and vibrant as the participants. As the
individual is demeaned and enslaved, the collective crumbles into mediocrity.
Globalism also tells us that humanity's greatest potential cannot be reached without
collectivism and centralization. The assertion is that the more single-minded a society
is in its pursuits the more likely it is to effectively achieve its goals. To this end,
globalism seeks to erase all sovereignty. For now its proponents claim they only wish to
remove nations and borders from the social equation, but such collectivism never stops
there. Eventually, they will tell us that individualism represents another nefarious
"border" that prevents the group from becoming fully realized.
At the heart of collectivism is the idea that human beings are "blank
slates;" that we are born empty and are completely dependent on our environment in order
to learn what is right and wrong and how to be good people or good citizens. The
environment becomes the arbiter of decency, rather than conscience, and whoever controls
the environment, by extension, becomes god.
If the masses are convinced of this narrative then moral relativity is only a short
step away. It is the abandonment of inborn conscience that ultimately results in evil.
In my view, this is exactly why the so called "elites" are pressing for globalism in the
first place. Their end game is not just centralization of all power into a one world
edifice, but the suppression and eradication of conscience, and thus, all that is good.
To see where this leads we must look at the behaviors of the elites
themselves, which brings us to "Pizzagate."
The exposure by Wikileaks during the election cycle of what appear to be coded emails
sent between John Podesta and friends has created a burning undercurrent in the
alternative media. The emails consistently use odd and out of context "pizza"
references, and independent investigations have discovered a wide array connections
between political elites like Hillary Clinton and John Podesta to James Alefantis, the
owner of a pizza parlor in Washington D.C. called Comet Ping Pong. Alefantis, for
reasons that make little sense to me, is listed as number 49 on GQ's
Most Powerful People In Washington list
.
The assertion according to circumstantial evidence including the disturbing child and
cannibalism artwork collections of the Podestas has been that Comet Ping Pong is somehow
at the center of a child pedophilia network serving the politically connected. Both
Comet Ping Pong and a pizza establishment two doors down called Besta Pizza use symbols
in their logos and menus that are listed on the
FBI's
unclassified documentation on pedophilia symbolism
, which does not help matters.
Some of the best documentation of the Pizzagate scandal that I have seen so far has
been done by David Seaman, a former mainstream journalist gone rogue.
Here is his
YouTube page
.
I do recommend everyone at least look at the evidence he and others present. I went
into the issue rather skeptical, but was surprised by the sheer amount of weirdness and
evidence regarding Comet Pizza. There is a problem with Pizzagate that is difficult to
overcome, however; namely the fact that to my knowledge no victims have come forward.
This is not to say there has been no crime, but anyone hoping to convince the general
public of wrong-doing in this kind of scenario is going to have a very hard time without
a victim to reference.
The problem is doubly difficult now that an armed man was arrested on the premises of
Comet Ping Pong while "researching" the claims of child trafficking. Undoubtedly, the
mainstream media will declare the very investigation "dangerous conspiracy theory."
Whether this will persuade the public to ignore it, or compel them to look into it,
remains to be seen.
I fully realize the amount of confusion surrounding Pizzagate and the assertions by
some that it is a "pysop" designed to undermine the alternative media. This is a
foolish notion, in my view. The mainstream media is dying, this is unavoidable. The
alternative media is a network of sources based on the power of choice and cemented in
the concept of investigative research. The reader participates in the alternative media
by learning all available information and positions and deciding for himself what is the
most valid conclusion, if there is any conclusion to be had. The mainstream media
simply tells its readers what to think and feel based on cherry picked data.
The elites will never be able to deconstruct that kind of movement with something
like a faked "pizzagate"; rather, they would be more inclined to try to co-opt and
direct the alternative media as they do most institutions. And, if elitists are using
Pizzagate as fodder to trick the alternative media into looking ridiculous, then why
allow elitist run social media outlets like Facebook and Reddit to shut down discussion
on the issue?
The reason I am more convinced than skeptical at this stage is because this has
happened before; and in past scandals of pedophilia in Washington and other political
hotbeds, some victims DID come forward.
I would first reference the events of the Franklin Scandal between 1988 and 1991. The
Discovery Channel even produced a documentary on it complete with interviews of alleged
child victims peddled to Washington elites for the purpose of favors and blackmail.
Meant to air in 1994, the documentary was quashed before it was ever shown to the
public. The only reason it can now be found is because an original copy was released
without permission by parties unknown.
I would also reference the highly evidenced
Westminster Pedophile Ring in the U.K.
, in which the U.K. government lost or
destroyed at least 114 related files related to the investigation.
Finally, it is disconcerting to me that the criminal enterprises of former Bear
Sterns financier and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein and his "Lolita Express" are
mainstream knowledge, yet the public remains largely oblivious. Bill Clinton is
shown on flight logs
to have flown on Epstein's private jet at least a 26 times; the
same jet that he used to procure child victims as young as 12 to entertain celebrities
and billionaires on his 72 acre island called "Little Saint James". The fact that
Donald Trump was also close friends with Epstein should raise some eyebrows - funny how
the mainstream media attacked Trump on every cosmetic issue under the sun but for some
reason backed away from pursuing the Epstein angle.
Where is the vast federal investigation into the people who frequented Epstein's
wretched parties? There is none, and Epstein, though convicted of molesting a 14 year
old girl and selling her into prostitution, was only slapped on the wrist with a 13
month sentence.
Accusations of pedophilia seem to follow the globalists and elitist politicians
wherever they go. This does not surprise me. They often exhibit characteristics of
narcissism and psychopathy, but their ideology of moral relativity is what would lead to
such horrible crimes.
Evil often stems from people who are empty.
When one abandons
conscience, one also in many respects abandons empathy and love. Without these elements
of our psyche there is no happiness. Without them, there is nothing left but desire and
gluttony.
Narcissists in particular are prone to use other people as forms of
entertainment and fulfillment without concern for their humanity. They can be vicious
in nature, and when taken to the level of psychopathy, they are prone to target and
abuse the most helpless of victims in order to generate a feeling of personal power.
Add in sexual addiction and aggression and narcissists become predatory in the
extreme. Nothing ever truly satisfies them. When they grow tired of the normal, they
quickly turn to the abnormal and eventually the criminal. I would say that pedophilia
is a natural progression of the elitist mindset; for children are the easiest and most
innocent victim source, not to mention the most aberrant and forbidden, and thus the
most desirable for a psychopathic deviant embracing evil impulses.
Beyond this is the even more disturbing prospect of cultism.
It is
not that the globalists are simply evil as individuals; if that were the case then they
would present far less of a threat. The greater terror is that they are also organized.
When one confronts the problem of evil head on, one quickly realizes that evil is within
us all. There will always be an internal battle in every individual. Organized evil,
though, is in fact the ultimate danger, and it is organized evil that must be
eradicated.
For organized evil to be defeated, there must be organized good.
I believe the liberty movement in particular is that good; existing in early stages,
not yet complete, but good none the less. Our championing of the non-aggression
principle and individual liberty is conducive to respect for privacy, property and
life. Conscience is a core tenet of the liberty ideal, and the exact counter to
organized elitism based on moral relativity.
Recognize and take solace that though we live in dark times, and evil men
roam free, we are also here. We are the proper response to evil, and we have been placed
here at this time for a reason. Call it fate, call it destiny, call it coincidence, call
it god, call it whatever you want, but the answer to evil is us.
"Out of the temporary evil we are now compelled to commit will emerge the
good of an unshakable rule, which will restore the regular course of the
machinery of the national life, brought to naught by liberalism. The result
justifies the means. Let us, however, in our plans, direct our attention not
so much to what is good and moral as to what is necessary and useful."
I should also point out those alledgedly behind The Protocols
are not the people the article is referring ie: those people are
typically found in any liberal establishment.
A good article, but it fails to deliver on these key aspects of
the matter:
Everyone knows from the Godfather and its genre
that there is a connection between loyalty, criminality and
power: Once you witness someone engaging in a criminal act, you
have leverage over them and that ensures their loyalty. But what
follows from that - which healthy sane minds have trouble
contemplating - is that the greater the criminality the greater
the leverage, and that because murderous paedophilia places a
person utterly beyond any prospect of redemption in decent
society, there in NO GREATER LOYALTY than those desperate to
avoid being outed. These must be the three corners of the
triangle - Power:Loyalty:Depravity through which the evil eys
views the world.
I always beleived in an Illuminati of sorts, however they
care to self identify. Until Pizzagate, I never understood that
murderous paedophilia, luciferian in style to accentuate their
own depravity, is THE KEY TO RULING THE EARTH
And another thing. If pizzagate is 'fake news' then it it
inconceivably elaborate - they'd have had to fake Epstein 2008,
Silsby 2010, Breitbart 2011, the 2013 portugese release of
podestaesque mccann suspects, as well as the current run of
wikileaks and Alefantis' instagram account - which had an avatar
photo of the 13 yr old lover of a roman emperor.
Is that much fake news a possibility? Or has this smoke been
blowing for years and we've all been too distracted to stop and
look for fire?
What floors me about the whole pizzagate thing is the evil staring us
right in the face. And then to realize that the libtards don't even
believe in evil at all, only "mental illness"!
Lesson #1: Do not waste your time figuring some things out. Things like evil
people are probably beyond a decent persons ability to understand and let's be
honest I don't want to feel any sympathy for them anyway.
Read a book years ago by Dr. Karl Menninger, a psychiatrist, titled
'Whatever happened to Sin?'
In it he talks of murder and that it is not a natural thing for man to
do,. However, when the burden of guilt is spread over many shoulders and
government condones the action, it becomes easier to bear.
When observing the results, such as soldiers returning from war, unstable
mentally, it is evident that evil has occured. It has been decades since I
read the book, so the words I wrote may not be verbatim.
Lurked ZH for years, just started reading the comments. This is worse than
Reddit's echo chamber. Bible quotes? 3 guys 1 hammer on liveleak has more
productive comments. Why not mention methods you've used to help people reach
their own conclusion about Pizzagate?
I had two slices of pizza for dinner. I had to try not to think of the poor
children walking innocently about the store who may at any moment fall victim
to a pedo. My gf said pizza places all over now need to keep a keen eye out for
the Posdesta Brothers and their Gang after all the stuff that has come out from
WikiLeaks and other sources about them.
The bible says God created evil and loosed it on us. The correct reading of
Genesis 4;1 is from the dead sea scrolls stating :
"And Adam knew his
wife Eve,
who was pregnant by Sammael [Satan]
, and she conceived and
bare Cain,
and he was like the heavenly beings, and not like earthly
beings,
and
she
said, I have gotten a man from
the angel of
the Lord."
So in Isaiah 45:7 we have this:
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the
LORD do all these
things
.
So my research shows evil was "grafted" into humans through
the unholy alliance and 2 seedline of people resulted.
Good article but an exception: evil doesn't reside in all of us, sin does.
Evil is the expression of wanton and intentional deception, injury,
degradation, and destruction and rarely self-recognizes or admits to God as
supreme. It may be DNA encoded. Sociopathy certainly is.
But you're so
right about the organized nature of it all, and for thousands of years. The
newly formed EU didn't advertise itself as the New Babylonia for nothing on
publicty posters, heralding the coming age of one tongue out of many and
fashioning its parliament building after the Tower of Bablyon:
Secret societies are cannibalizing us, and themselves, but members won't
know till it's too late that they'll also be eaten fairly early on. Of all
"people", they should know those in the pyramid capstone won't have enough
elbow room if they let in every Tom, Dick and Harry Mason.
I am sympatico with Brandon. I have always had similar interests, about the
soul, about ethics, about human behavior.
The reality is that evil is extant
in other human beings. The thought that your property manager is going to piss
in your OJ or fuck their BFF in your bed is abhorrent to most people, but not
all. There was an article this week about a married couple that had concerns
about their rental unit manager. And what did they find? He was fucking his BFF
(yes, of course it was another dude) in their bed. The good news is they got it
on video and moved. The bad news? This kind of attitude is rampant. People
don't give a shit about other people. They think the rules don't apply to them.
That they are special. The result is renting from some asshat that fucks in
your bed or pisses in your OJ. Or parents that wonder why little Johnny or
little Janie never move out of the house and are stoned and play video games
all day.
Evil exists, in varying forms. Sadly too many people continue to make
excuses for not only bad behavior but evil behavior. I don't think that way and
I don't live my life that way but I am fully aware of all the morons stumbling
through the world that do.
I think people are misunderstanding the setup theory. Nobody believes, at
least I hope not, that all of this art and bizarre behavior on the part of
these freaks was staged for the purposes of taking down the last of our free
media, but rather, they just took advantage of a situation where they knew
people were making accusations that couldn't be sufficiently backed up or even
prosecuted, and yet caused proven or contrived damages to people. If this is
the case, their intention,
with the help of intelligence agencies
, is
to frame alt-media for starting vigilante violence and the destruction of
innocent people's lives through promoting defamation against others.
I have
no doubt that our entire system is riddled with pedophilia and likely much
worse. They have also been getting away with this forever, so when we go for
the takedown we better have our ducks in a row. To do otherwise will just give
these sickos complete immunity and more decades will pass with them continuing
to prey on our children. Not only is this at stake but the fate of all the
children of this nation is at stake if we lose our media. We are in very
dangerous and treacherous times. When you go toe to toe with the professional
trade crafters you have to play smart or they will have you every time.
Once people have had enough exposure to NPDs or psychopaths you will vibe
them after a while. I imagine this is likely the case for anyone who has
worked as a trader, finance, politics, big commodity booms are bad, etc. We
have all encountered them somewhere. People should pay attention to how they
feel (yeah I know, people hate that word) when they are around people. I have
to pretend that I don't notice them because it is so apparent to me and
immediately.
The last time I picked one out at work, a few months later the creepy
bastard walked past me at night during a -20 blizzard, with next to no
visibility, knowing that I had an hour drive, and told me in super spooky
whisper.. "Don't hit a deer on your way home now." I found out later that a
bunch of horses had mysteriously died in his care and a bunch of other things
that confirmed my suspicions. I had a long battle with him so I eventually got
to understand him pretty well. I didn't have to hear the guy state a single
sentence or watch any body language, I just knew immediately because I could
feel his malevolence and threat in my stomach where we have a large nerve
cluster. Pay attention and you will know. Also their eye contact is all wrong
and too intense.
Globalism, is designed to make you poorer slowly over decades by allowing wages
and conditions to be for ever slowly reduced under the guise of free market
competition to funnel wealth ever upwards to the 1%.
"... One of the sites PropOrNot cited as Russian-influenced was the Drudge Report. ..."
"... The piece's description of some sharers of bogus news as "useful idiots" could " theoretically include anyone on any social-media platform who shares news based on a click-bait headline ," Mathew Ingram wrote for Fortune. ..."
"... But the biggest issue was PropOrNot itself. As Adrian Chen wrote for the New Yorker , its methods were themselves suspect, hinting at counter-Russian propaganda - ostensibly with Ukrainian origins - and verification of its work was nearly impossible. Chen wrote "the prospect of legitimate dissenting voices being labeled fake news or Russian propaganda by mysterious groups of ex-government employees, with the help of a national newspaper, is even scarier." ..."
"... Now, at least, the "national newspaper" has taken some responsibility, however the key question remains: by admitting it never vetted its primary source, whose biased and conflicted "work" smeared hundreds of websites, this one included, just how is the Washington Post any different from the "fake news" it has been deriding on a daily basis ever since its endorsed presidential candidate lost the elections? ..."
In the latest example why the "mainstream media" is facing a historic crisis of confidence among
its readership, facing unprecedented blowback following Craig Timberg November 24 Washington Post
story "
Russian propaganda effort helped spread 'fake news' during election, experts say ", on Wednesday
a lengthy editor's note appeared on top of the original article in which the editor not only distances
the WaPo from the "experts" quoted in the original article whose "work" served as the basis for the
entire article (and which became the most read WaPo story the day it was published) but also admits
the Post could not " vouch for the validity of PropOrNot's finding regarding any individual media
outlet", in effect admitting the entire story may have been, drumroll "fake news" and conceding the
Bezos-owned publication may have engaged in defamation by smearing numerous websites - Zero Hedge
included - with patently false and unsubstantiated allegations.
It was the closest the Washington Post would come to formally retracting the story, which has
now been thoroughly discredited not only by outside commentators, but by its own editor.
Editor's Note: The Washington Post on Nov. 24 published a story on the work of four
sets of researchers who have examined what they say are Russian propaganda efforts to undermine
American democracy and interests. One of them was PropOrNot, a group that insists on public anonymity,
which issued a report identifying more than 200 websites that, in its view, wittingly or unwittingly
published or echoed Russian propaganda. A number of those sites have objected to being included
on PropOrNot's list, and some of the sites, as well as others not on the list, have publicly challenged
the group's methodology and conclusions. The Post, which did not name any of the sites, does not
itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot's findings regarding any individual media outlet, nor
did the article purport to do so. Since publication of The Post's story, PropOrNot has removed
some sites from its list.
As The
Washingtonian notes , the implicit concession follows intense and rising criticism of the article
over the past two weeks. It was "
rife with obviously reckless and unproven allegations, " Intercept reporters Glenn Greenwald
and Ben Norton wrote, noting that PropOrNot, one of the groups whose research was cited in Timberg's
piece, "anonymous cowards." One of the sites PropOrNot cited as Russian-influenced was the Drudge
Report.
But the biggest issue was PropOrNot itself. As Adrian Chen
wrote for the New Yorker , its methods were themselves suspect, hinting at counter-Russian propaganda
- ostensibly with Ukrainian origins - and verification of its work was nearly impossible. Chen wrote
"the prospect of legitimate dissenting voices being labeled fake news or Russian propaganda by mysterious
groups of ex-government employees, with the help of a national newspaper, is even scarier."
Now, at least, the "national newspaper" has taken some responsibility, however the key question
remains: by admitting it never vetted its primary source, whose biased and conflicted "work" smeared
hundreds of websites, this one included, just how is the Washington Post any different from the "fake
news" it has been deriding on a daily basis ever since its endorsed presidential candidate lost the
elections?
"... it's truly amazing. many of these people have denounced joe mccarthy all their lives. ..."
"... I was thinking Katyusha. Besides being a very pretty diminutive name for Katherine, the sound of the Katyusha rockets made the forces of evil's collective sphincter tighten up. ..."
"... Just like the sound of the truth spoken to power here at NC is apparently tightening up some establishment sphincters :) ..."
"... Oh OIFVet, do you know where this line of snark is leading? Next, the NC will be "mischaracterized" as Stalin's News Organ! ..."
... Anyway, concerned by number of supposedly educated friends(Clinton supporters) being
taken in by this fake news/Russian ties thing. They've lost their heads and there's no discussing
it with them, they are convinced. Where does it end? Na zdorovie!
it's truly amazing. many of these people have denounced joe mccarthy all their lives. somebody
referred to invasion of the body snatchers on nc the other day, that's the only logical explanation.
I was thinking Katyusha. Besides being a very pretty diminutive name for Katherine, the
sound of the Katyusha rockets made the forces of evil's collective sphincter tighten up.
Just like the sound of the truth spoken to power here at NC is apparently tightening up
some establishment sphincters :)
"... On Wednesday, the Pentagon released its 2015 National Military Strategy, a 24-page blueprint for ruling the world through military force. While the language in the report is subtler and less incendiary than similar documents in the past, the determination to unilaterally pursue US interests through extreme violence remains the cornerstone of the new strategy. Readers will not find even a hint of remorse in the NMS for the vast destruction and loss of life the US caused in countries that posed not the slightest threat to US national security. Instead, the report reflects the steely resolve of its authors and elite constituents to continue the carnage and bloodletting until all potential rivals have been killed or eliminated and until such time that Washington feels confident that its control over the levers of global power cannot be challenged. ..."
"... lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at [email protected] . ..."
On Wednesday, the Pentagon released its
2015 National
Military Strategy,
a 24-page blueprint for ruling the world
through military force. While the language in the report is subtler
and less incendiary than similar documents in the past, the determination
to unilaterally pursue US interests through extreme violence remains
the cornerstone of the new strategy. Readers will not find even a hint
of remorse in the NMS for the vast destruction and loss of life the
US caused in countries that posed not the slightest threat to US national
security. Instead, the report reflects the steely resolve of its authors
and elite constituents to continue the carnage and bloodletting until
all potential rivals have been killed or eliminated and until such
time that Washington feels confident that its control over the levers
of global power cannot be challenged.
As one would expect, the NMS conceals its hostile intentions behind
the deceptive language of "national security". The US does not initiate
wars of aggression against blameless states that possess large quantities
of natural resources. No. The US merely addresses "security challenges"
to "protect the homeland" and to "advance our national interests."
How could anyone find fault with that, after all, wasn't the US just
trying to bring peace and democracy to Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and
now Syria?
In the Chairman's Forward, Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey
attempts to prepare the American people for a future of endless war:
Future conflicts will come more rapidly, last longer, and take
place on a much more technically challenging battlefield. We must
be able to rapidly adapt to new threats while maintaining comparative
advantage over traditional ones the application of the military
instrument of power against state threats is very different than
the application of military power against non state threats. We
are more likely to face prolonged campaigns than conflicts that
are resolved quickly that control of escalation is becoming more
difficult and more important. (
Document:
2015 U.S. National Military Strategy
, USNI News)
War, war and more war. This is the Pentagon's vision of the future.
Unlike Russia or China which have a plan for an integrated EU-Asia
free trade zone (Silk Road) that will increase employment, improve
vital infrastructure, and raise living standards, the US sees only
death and destruction ahead. Washington has no strategy for the future,
no vision of a better world. There is only war; asymmetrical war, technological
war, preemptive war. The entire political class and their elite paymasters
unanimously support global rule through force of arms. That is the
unavoidable meaning of this document. The United States intends to
maintain its tenuous grip on global power by maximizing the use of
its greatest asset; its military.
And who is in the military's gunsights? Check out this excerpt from
an article in Defense News:
The strategy specifically calls out Iran, Russia and North Korea
as aggressive threats to global peace. It also mentions China, but
notably starts that paragraph by saying the Obama administration
wants to "support China's rise and encourage it to become a partner
for greater international security," continuing to thread the line
between China the economic ally and China the regional competitor.
None of these nations are believed to be seeking direct military
conflict with the United States or our allies," the strategy reads.
"Nonetheless, they each pose serious security concerns which the
international community is working to collectively address by way
of common policies, shared messages, and coordinated action. (
Pentagon
Releases National Military Strategy
, Defense News)
Did you catch that last part? "None of these nations are believed
to be seeking direct military conflict with the United States or our
allies. Nevertheless, they each pose serious security concerns."
In other words, none of these countries wants to fight the United
States, but the United States wants to fight them. And the US feels
it's justified in launching a war against these countries because,
well, because they either control vast resources, have huge industrial
capacity, occupy an area of the world that interests the US geopolitically,
or because they simply want to maintain their own sovereign independence
which, of course, is a crime. According to Dempsey, any of these threadbare
excuses are sufficient justification for conflict mainly because they
"pose serious security concerns" for the US, which is to say they undermine
the US's dominant role as the world's only superpower.
The NMS devotes particular attention to Russia, Washington's flavor-of-the-month
enemy who had the audacity to defend its security interests following
a State Department-backed coup in neighboring Ukraine. For that, Moscow
must be punished. This is from the report:
Some states, however, are attempting to revise key aspects of
the international order and are acting in a manner that threatens
our national security interests. While Russia has contributed in
select security areas, such as counternarcotics and counterterrorism,
it also has repeatedly demonstrated that it does not respect the
sovereignty of its neighbors and it is willing to use force to achieve
its goals. Russia's military actions are undermining regional security
directly and through proxy forces. These actions violate numerous
agreements that Russia has signed in which it committed to act in
accordance with international norms. (2015 NMS)
Russia is an evildoer because Russia refused to stand by while the
US toppled the Ukrainian government, installed a US stooge in Kiev,
precipitated a civil war between the various factions, elevated neo
Nazis to positions of power in the security services, plunged the economy
into insolvency and ruin, and opened a CIA headquarters in the Capital
to run the whole shooting match. This is why Russia is bad and must
be punished.
But does that mean Washington is seriously contemplating a war with
Russia?
Here's an excerpt from the document that will help to clarify the
matter:
For the past decade, our military campaigns primarily have consisted
of operations against violent extremist networks. But today, and
into the foreseeable future, we must pay greater attention to challenges
posed by state actors. They increasingly have the capability to
contest regional freedom of movement and threaten our homeland.
Of particular concern are the proliferation of ballistic missiles,
precision strike technologies, unmanned systems, space and cyber
capabilities, and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) technologies
designed to counter U.S. military advantages and curtail access
to the global commons. (2015 NMS)
It sounds to me like the Washington honchos have already made up
their minds. Russia is the enemy, therefore, Russia must be defeated.
How else would one "counter a revisionist state" that "threatens our
homeland"?
Why with Daisy Cutters, of course. Just like everyone else.
The NMS provides a laundry list of justifications for launching
wars against (imaginary) enemies of the US. The fact is, the Pentagon
sees ghosts around every corner. Whether the topic is new technologies,
"shifting demographics" or cultural differences; all are seen as a
potential threat to US interests, particularly anything related to
the "competition for resources." In this skewed view of reality, one
can see how the invasion of Iraq was justified on the grounds that
Saddam's control of Iraq's massive oil reserves posed a direct challenge
to US hegemony. Naturally, Saddam had to be removed and over a million
people killed to put things right and return the world to a state of
balance. This is the prevailing view of the National Military Strategy,
that is, that whatever the US does is okay, because its the US.
Readers shouldn't expect to find something new in the NMS. This
is old wine in new bottles. The Pentagon has merely updated the Bush
Doctrine while softening the rhetoric. There's no need to scare the
living daylights out of people by talking about unilateralism, preemption,
shrugging off international law or unprovoked aggression. Even so,
everyone knows that United States is going to do whatever the hell
it wants to do to keep the empire intact. The 2015 National Military
Strategy merely confirms that sad fact.
"... I am among those who think tribalism as a organizing pattern for partisan mobilization is extending neoliberalism's reign rather than displacing it. ..."
"... What rankles me is the implication that "tribalism" is more or less synonymous with the right's reliance on racism as a primary rally cry, while the left's anti-racist stance exempts the left's identity politics from being a species of tribalism as well. ..."
"... It seems to me that the emergence of "tribalism" in organizing and motivating partisan identity is driven by forces of partisan reaction in the context of increasing social atomization and the decline of social affiliation in all areas of life. ..."
"... The "tribalism" of left identity politics has been very real and has contributed mightily in organizing a reactionary right "tribalism" around resentment and repulsion at being the left's outgroup, the poorly educated flyover people. ..."
"... The division over Brexit demonstrated the extent to which social membership in actual social organizations like clubs, unions, churches no longer matters as much as personal worldview, as the authoritarians divided from the cosmopolitans. ..."
"... One reason "tribalism" seems appropriate to characterize the eruption on right is that there is no coherent policy program corresponding to the resentments or grievances. It is voting on the basis of something personal, an emotional identification cum perception of sorts. ..."
I do not object to the word, tribalism, though I am among those who think tribalism as a organizing
pattern for partisan mobilization is extending neoliberalism's reign rather than displacing it.
What rankles me is the implication that "tribalism" is more or less synonymous with the right's
reliance on racism as a primary rally cry, while the left's anti-racist stance exempts the left's
identity politics from being a species of tribalism as well.
It seems to me that the emergence of "tribalism" in organizing and motivating partisan identity
is driven by forces of partisan reaction in the context of increasing social atomization and the
decline of social affiliation in all areas of life.
In an American context, a long-standing theme of right-wing televised and on-line propaganda has
aimed at motivating people on the basis of their resentments against the supposed contempt the hated
libruls have for "God and guns" and the self-regarding moral superiority of those driving a Prius
and listening to National Public Radio.
I would not want to be understood as saying that tribalism is symmetric between right and left;
I do think what has been happening on the right has been driven by social reaction to what has been
happening on the left, and the interpretation the left has of the right is just as driven by motivated
reasoning, even if the motivations are different. The left's sometime focus on language, micro aggression
and personal experience cum personal justification thru enlightened attitudes is a manifestation
of the decline of social affiliation, so there is an irony in naming the pseudo in-group conformity
that results, "tribalism". The "tribalism" of left identity politics has been very real and has
contributed mightily in organizing a reactionary right "tribalism" around resentment and repulsion
at being the left's outgroup, the poorly educated flyover people.
The division over Brexit demonstrated the extent to which social membership in actual social
organizations like clubs, unions, churches no longer matters as much as personal worldview, as the
authoritarians divided from the cosmopolitans. The angry, uncomprehending reaction to the vote
from cosmopolitans reinforced the "tribalism" of both, but to see that requires a modicum of detachment
from the angry accusation that racism and lies was the whole case and denies the legitimacy of economic
grievance.
One reason "tribalism" seems appropriate to characterize the eruption on right is that there
is no coherent policy program corresponding to the resentments or grievances. It is voting on the
basis of something personal, an emotional identification cum perception of sorts.
I am not so certain that the left, as it has sunk into a denial laden defense of the status
quo, has not also been shedding its attachment to a policy program, Hillary's proverbial website
notwithstanding. Democrats associated with the party establishment especially in the 2016 campaign
talked policy futility and never acted as if a concerted effort to, say, capture the Senate with
an eye on opening a policy agenda mattered to them. And, many ordinary supporters of the Democrats
seemed to be blithely unaware or apathetic about the policy record of war, economic predation, et
cetera.
Without a policy agenda, the tribes cannot be proper constituencies demanding delivery on promises,
which fits a continuation of neoliberal policy agenda just fine, but foretells, it seems to me, disillusion,
apathy, violence and loss of legitimacy becoming acute. If mobilizing the tribes substitutes for
a politics of coherent policy, it is hard to imagine any but ineffectual albeit authoritarian governance.
One major problem is the disconnect between macroeconomics and the study of economic inequality.
Macroeconomics relies on national accounts data to study the growth of national income while the
study of inequality relies on individual or household income, survey and tax data. Ideally all
three sets of data should be consistent, but they are not. The total flow of income reported by
households in survey or tax data adds up to barely 60 percent of the national income recorded
in the national accounts, with this gap increasing over the past several decades. 1
This disconnect between the different data sets makes it hard to address important economic
and policy questions...
A second major issue is that economists and policymakers do not have a comprehensive view of
how government programs designed to ameliorate the worst effects of economic inequality actually
affect inequality. Americans share almost one-third of the fruits of economic output (via taxes
that help pay for an array of social services) through their federal, state, and local governments.
... Yet we do not have a clear measure of how the distribution of pre-tax income differs from
the distribution of income after taxes are levied and after government spending is taken into
account. This makes it hard to assess the extent to which governments make income growth more
equal. 2
In a recent paper , the three
authors of this issue brief attempt to create inequality statistics for the United States that
overcome the limitations of existing data by creating distributional national accounts. 3
We combine tax, survey, and national accounts data to build a new series on the distribution
of national income. ... Our distributional national accounts enable us to provide decompositions
of growth by income groups consistent with macroeconomic growth.
In our paper, we calculate the distribution of both pre-tax and post-tax income. The post-tax
series deducts all taxes and then adds back all transfers and public spending so that both pre-tax
and post-tax incomes add up to national income. This allows us to provide the first comprehensive
view of how government redistribution in the United States affects inequality. Our benchmark series
use the adult individual as the unit of observation and split income equally among spouses in
married couples. But we also produce series where each spouse is assigned their own labor income,
allowing us to study gender inequality and its impact on overall income inequality. In this short
summary, we would like to highlight three striking findings.
Our first finding-a surge in income inequality
First, our data show that the bottom half of the income distribution in the United States has
been completely shut off from economic growth since the 1970s. ...
It's a tale of two countries. For the 117 million U.S. adults in the bottom half of the income
distribution, growth has been non-existent for a generation while at the top of the ladder it
has been extraordinarily strong. And this stagnation of national income accruing at the bottom
is not due to population aging. ...
Our second finding-policies to ameliorate income inequality fall woefully short
Our second main finding is that government redistribution has offset only a small fraction
of the increase in pre-tax inequality. ...
Our third finding-comparing income inequality among countries is enlightening
Third, an advantage of our new series is that it allows us to directly compare income across
countries. Our long-term goal is to create distributional national accounts for as many countries
as possible; all the results will be made available online on the
World Wealth and Income Database . One example
of the value of these efforts is to compare the average bottom 50 percent pre-tax incomes in the
United States and France. 8 In sharp contrast with the United States, in France the
bottom 50 percent of real (inflation-adjusted) pre-tax incomes grew by 32 percent from 1980 to
2014, at approximately the same rate as national income per adult. While the bottom 50 percent
of incomes were 11 percent lower in France than in the United States in 1980, they are now
16 percent higher. (See Figure 3.) ... Since the welfare state is more generous in France, the
gap between the bottom 50 percent of income earners in France and the United States would be even
greater after taxes and transfers.
The diverging trends in the distribution of pre-tax income across France and the United States-two
advanced economies subject to the same forces of technological progress and globalization-show
that working-class incomes are not bound to stagnate in Western countries. In the United States,
the stagnation of bottom 50 percent of incomes and the upsurge in the top 1 percent coincided
with drastically reduced progressive taxation, widespread deregulation of industries and services,
particularly the financial services industry, weakened unions, and an eroding minimum wage.
Conclusion
Given the generation-long stagnation of the pre-tax incomes among the bottom 50 percent of
wage earners in the United States, we feel that the policy discussion at the federal, state, and
local levels should focus on how to equalize the distribution of human capital, financial capital,
and bargaining power rather than merely the redistribution of national income after taxes. Policies
that could raise the pre-tax incomes of the bottom 50 percent of income earners could include:
Improved education and access to skills, which may require major changes in the system
of education finance and admission
Reforms of labor market institutions to boost workers' bargaining power and including a
higher minimum wage
Corporate governance reforms and worker co-determination of the distribution of profits
Steeply progressive taxation that affects the determination of pay and salaries and the
pre-tax distribution of income, particularly at the top end
The different levels of government in the United States today obviously have the power to make
income distribution more unequal, but they also have the power to make economic growth in America
more equitable again. Potentially pro-growth economic policies should always be discussed alongside
their consequences for the distribution of national income and concrete ways to mitigate their
unequalizing effects. We hope that the distributional national accounts we present today can prove
to be useful for such policy evaluations. ...
Progressive states can push it on their own -- re-constituting union density locally. Just need
to add some dimension of enforcement to what the NLRB helplessly considers illegal -- actually
protect employees right to organize commercially.
"Alas, I do not trust Trump to push for this agenda. I hope my distrust is misplaced."
I would hold out no hope for this. Trumputin is not going to empower the people vs the oligarchs.
You can with high confidence expect he will do the opposite.
Are the folks in the bottom half who are getting screwed over. They blame the Mexicans and
Chinese for their fates. They made their choice, let them live with it.
Economic Pie Grows, but Half of U.S. Gets Smaller Slice
By PATRICIA COHEN
In 35 years, the U.S. economy has more than doubled, but new research shows close to zero growth
for working-age adults in the bottom 50 percent of income.
A Bigger Economic Pie, but a Smaller Slice
for Half of the U.S. http://nyti.ms/2hdlnuU
NYT - PATRICIA COHEN - December 6
Even with all the setbacks from recessions, burst bubbles and vanishing industries, the United
States has still pumped out breathtaking riches over the last three and half decades.
The real economy more than doubled in size; the government now uses a substantial share of
that bounty to hand over as much as $5 trillion to help working families, older people, disabled
and unemployed people pay for a home, visit a doctor and put their children through school.
Yet for half of all Americans, their share of the total economic pie has shrunk significantly,
new research has found.
This group - the approximately 117 million adults stuck on the lower half of the income ladder
- "has been completely shut off from economic growth since the 1970s," the team of economists
found. "Even after taxes and transfers, there has been close to zero growth for working-age adults
in the bottom 50 percent."
The new findings, by the economists Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, provide
the most thoroughgoing analysis to date of how the income kitty - like paychecks, profit-sharing,
fringe benefits and food stamps - is divided among the American population.
Inequality has been a defining national issue for nearly a decade, thanks in part to groundbreaking
research done by Mr. Piketty at the Paris School of Economics and Mr. Saez at the University of
California, Berkeley.
But now a new administration in Washington is promising to reshape the government's role in
curbing the intense concentration of wealth at the top and improving the fortunes of those left
behind.
During his tenure in the White House, President Obama pushed to address income stagnation by
shifting more of the tax burden from the middle class to the rich and expanding public programs
like universal health insurance.
Both strategies are now targeted by President-elect Donald J. Trump and Republicans in Congress,
led by House Speaker Paul Ryan. Like many conservatives, Mr. Ryan argues that aid to the poor
is ultimately counterproductive because it undermines the incentive to work. Proposals put forward
by Republican leaders, though short on details, make clear that they want to roll back benefits
like Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, which primarily help the poor, and direct the largest
tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans.
About 30 percent of the country's income is channeled to federal, state and local taxes. Apart
from military spending and performing basic public services, much of that is distributed back
to individuals through various programs and tax benefits in the form of Social Security checks,
Medicare benefits and veterans' benefits. But until now, no one has truly measured the full impact
that tax payments, government spending, noncash benefits and nontaxable income together have on
inequality.
Abundant documentation of income inequality already exists, but it has been challenged as incomplete.
Studies have excluded the impact of taxes and value of public benefits, skeptics complained, or
failed to account for the smaller size of households over time.
This latest project tries to address those earlier criticisms. What the trio of economists
found is that the spectacular growth in incomes at the peak has so outpaced the small increase
at the bottom from public programs intended to ameliorate poverty and inequality that the gap
between the wealthiest and everyone else has continued to widen.
Stagnant wages have sliced the share of income collected by the bottom half of the population
to 12.5 percent in 2014, from 20 percent of the total in 1980. Where did that money go? Essentially,
to the top 1 percent, whose share of the nation's income nearly doubled to more than 20 percent
during that same 34-year period.
Average incomes grew by 61 percent. But nearly $7 out of every additional $10 went to those
in the top tenth of the income scale.
Inequality has soared over that period. In 1980, the researchers found, someone in the top
1 percent earned on average $428,200 a year - about 27 times more than the typical person in the
bottom half, whose annual income equaled $16,000.
Today, half of American adults are still pretty much earning that same $16,000 on average -
in 1980 dollars, adjusted for inflation - while members of the top 1 percent now bring home $1,304,800
- 81 times as much.
That ratio, the authors point out, "is similar to the gap between the average income in the
United States and the average income in the world's poorest countries, the war-torn Democratic
Republic of Congo, Central African Republic and Burundi."
The growth of incomes has probably increased a bit since 2014, the latest year for which full
data exists, said Mr. Zucman, who, like Mr. Saez, also teaches at the University of California,
Berkeley. But it is "not enough to make any significant difference to our long-run finding, and
in particular, to affect the long-run stagnation of bottom-50-percent incomes." ...
NYT: Is there nothing to be done about galloping inequality?
Last year the typical American family experienced the fastest income gains since the government
started measuring them in the 1960s. But the top 1 percent did even better, raising their share
of income higher than it was when President Obama took office.
Mr. Obama has led the most progressive administration since Lyndon B. Johnson's half a century
ago, raising taxes on the rich to expand the safety net for the less fortunate. Still, by the
White House's own account, eight years of trench warfare in Washington trimmed the top 1-percenters'
share, after taxes and transfers, to only 15.4 percent, from 16.6 percent of the nation's income.
It increased the slice going to the poorest fifth of families by 0.6 percentage point, to a grand
total of 4 percent.
The policies also helped push the Republican Party even further to the right, leading to the
Tea Party - whose rabid opposition to government redistribution still shakes American politics.
They did nothing to salve - and perhaps even added to - the stewing resentment of white working-class
Americans who feel left out of the nation's advancements, producing the electoral victory for
Donald J. Trump, who has proposed a tax plan that amounts to a lavish giveaway to the rich.
The point is not that President Obama should have done better. He probably did the best he
could under the circumstances. The point is that delivering deep and lasting reductions in inequality
may be impossible absent catastrophic events beyond anything any of us would wish for.
History - from Ancient Rome through the Gilded Age; from the Russian Revolution to the Great
Compression of incomes across the West in the middle of the 20th century - suggests that reversing
the trend toward greater concentrations of income, in the United States and across the world,
might be, in fact, nearly impossible.
That's the bleak argument of Walter Scheidel, a professor of history at Stanford, whose new
book, "The Great Leveler" (Princeton University Press), is due out next month. He goes so far
as to state that "only all-out thermonuclear war might fundamentally reset the existing distribution
of resources." If history is anything to go by, he writes, "peaceful policy reform may well prove
unequal to the growing challenges ahead."
Professor Scheidel does not offer a grand unified theory of inequality. But scouring through
the historical record, he detects a pattern: From the Stone Age to the present, ever since humankind
produced a surplus to hoard, economic development has almost always led to greater inequality.
There is one big thing with the power to stop this dynamic, but it's not pretty: violence. ...
Hmmm. At some point, the powers that
be may want to organize a gigantic
apocalyptical world-wide conflict
that does NOT go nuclear because
that would be Really Excessive.
After his success in the Red- White civil war, Lenin began the destruction of the hereditary rich
and the educated professional classes in the Soviet Union. Executions were common as were slower
deaths in work camps ridden with lice and typhus. He had to cut back on the pace of destruction
after a few years because he found he could not run the country without technical experts and
so some of the engineers, doctors, professors, etc were allowed to live out their days and care
for some of their impoverished relatives. A book on the subject, "Former People" gives details
of the methods used for selecting and liquidating the pre-revolutionary Elite. Not for the squeamish.
Distributional National Accounts: Methods and Estimates for the United States
By Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman
Abstract
This paper combines tax, survey, and national accounts data to estimate the distribution of
national income in the United States since 1913. Our distributional national accounts capture
100% of national income, allowing us to compute growth rates for each quantile of the income distribution
consistent with macroeconomic growth. We estimate the distribution of both pre-tax and post-tax
income, making it possible to provide a comprehensive view of how government redistribution affects
inequality. Average pre-tax national income per adult has increased 60% since 1980, but we find
that it has stagnated for the bottom 50% of the distribution at about $16,000 a year. The pre-tax
income of the middle class- adults between the median and the 90th percentile-has grown 40% since
1980, faster than what tax and survey data suggest, due in particular to the rise of tax-exempt
fringe benefits. Income has boomed at the top: in 1980, top 1% adults earned on average 27 times
more than bottom 50% adults, while they earn 81 times more today. The upsurge of top incomes was
first a labor income phenomenon but has mostly been a capital income phenomenon since 2000. The
government has offset only a small fraction of the increase in inequality. The reduction of the
gender gap in earnings has mitigated the increase in inequality among adults. The share of women,
however, falls steeply as one moves up the labor income distribution, and is only 11% in the top
0.1% today.
Distributional National Accounts: Methods and Estimates for the United States
By Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman
Conclusion
This paper has combined tax, survey, and national accounts data to build series on the distribution
of total National Income in the United States since 1913. Our "Distributional National Accounts"
estimates capture 100% of National Income and hence provide decompositions of growth by income
groups consistent with macroeconomic economic growth. We compute both pre-tax and post-tax series.
Post-tax series deduct all taxes and add back all transfers and public spending so that they also
aggregate to total National Income. We find an overall U-shape for pre-tax and post-tax income
concentration over the century. The surge in income concentration since the 1970s was first a
labor income phenomenon but has been mostly a capital income phenomenon since 2000. Since 1980,
growth in real incomes for the bottom 90% adults has been only about half of the national average
on pre-tax basis and about two-thirds on a post-tax basis. Median pre-tax incomes have hardly
grown since 1980. The reduction of the gender gap in earnings has played an important role in
mitigating the increase in inequality among adults since the late 1960s but the gender gap is
far from being closed especially at the upper earnings end. Tax progressivity at the top has declined
since the 1960s but the generosity of transfers at the bottom has increased hereby mitigating
the dramatic worsening in inequality.
Our objective is to extend the methods developed in this paper to as many countries as possible
in the coming years. The ultimate goal is to be able to compare inequality across countries and
over time rigorously. Just like we use GDP or national income to compare the macroeconomic performance
of countries today, so could distributional national accounts be used to compare inequality tomorrow.
We also hope that our work can contribute to foster international collaborations between academics
and statistical institutes in order to produce more and more consistent and systematic "Distributional
national accounts." The same methodology is currently being applied and extended to more countries.
"Given the generation-long stagnation of the pre-tax incomes among the bottom 50 percent of wage
earners in the United States, we feel that the policy discussion at the federal, state, and local
levels should focus on how to equalize the distribution of human capital, financial capital, and
bargaining power rather than merely the redistribution of national income after taxes."
Krugman:
"So what would a political manifesto aimed at winning over these voters look like? You could
promise to make their lives better in ways that don't involve bringing back the old plants and
mines - which, you know, Obama did with health reform and Hillary would have done with family
policies and more. But that apparently isn't an acceptable answer."
Chris Dillow:
"I have a slightly different beef. It's that this form of centrism offers too etiolated a vision
of equality. Inequality isn't simply a matter of pay packets but of power too. Centrism fails
to tackle the latter. This is a big failing not least because policies to increase productivity
might require greater equality of power in the workplace – something which technocratic centrism
has long ignored."
It's really easy to say we should "equalize" before tax outcomes, but notably, the authors don't
even attempt to say with specificity how to do that.
Not that it isn't a worthwhile endeavor, but when everyone saying we should do it fails to
say how to do it, it shows there are neither obvious answers nor long hanging fruit.
It should be noted though that in addition to after tax stuff like Obamacare and family support
policies, mainstream Dems like Obama and Clinton also support education at all levels and ages
and working bargaining through a friendly NLRB, which fall right into the categories the paper
authors specified.
One idea is to counter monopsony power in the labor market by increasing wage floors. But when
I suggest this - baby poor PeterK gets confused (he has no idea what we are talking about as usual)
so he gets all MAD.
"You could promise to make their lives better in ways ... which, you know, Obama did with health
reform and Hillary would have done with family policies and more."
Gotta love that "and more."
Boosting the safety net a tiny little bit does help with bargaining power but not much.
Democrats have to be much more bold and explicit - like Bernie Sanders was - or Trump is just
going to win again in 2020.
It's not enough for Democrats to just be better than Republicans (even as Obama pushes the
TPP). That's a very low bar.
ACA and Hillary's family support policies were huge.
Calling those "a little bit" shows you're one of those faux progressives who wants a "revolution"
but really doesn't appreciate how actual government policies affect actual working peoples' lives.
"Given the generation-long stagnation of the pre-tax incomes among the bottom 50 percent of wage
earners in the United States, we feel that the policy discussion at the federal, state, and local
levels should focus on how to equalize the distribution of human capital, financial capital, and
bargaining power rather than merely the redistribution of national income after taxes."
People have no right complain! They're just being racist and nostalgic for old days of white
male hetero Christian privilege.
EMichael wants to purge all of the Bernie Sanders voters who voted for Hillary in the general.
He equates them with Susan Sarandon and Jill Stein, since they didn't like Hillary.
When EMichael would defend centrist Bill Clinton and Obama's etiolated record of progressivism,
he'd argue that FDR and LBJ had large marjorities of Democrats.
Yeah but back then FDR and LBJ had to work with and compromise with racist Democrats from the
South in Congress.
That's why they New Deal and War on Poverty was imperfect but it was a lot better than what
Bill Clinton or Obama left behind.
" coincided with drastically reduced progressive taxation, widespread deregulation of industries
and services, particularly the financial services industry, weakened unions, and an eroding minimum
wage "
"weakened unions?"
Read disappeared unions. 6% union density in private industry is analogous to 20/10 blood pressure
-- it starves every other healthy economic and political process.
Re-constitute union density and unions will be your social cop on every corner -- goodbye "reduced
progressive tax, dereged industries and services espec' financial and the eroded minimum wage."
****************************
Just happened to post this somewhere else today -- talk about eroded!!!!!!!!!!!!
dbl-indexed is for inflation and per capita income growth -- 2013 dollars:
If we could have foretold to Americans of 1968 that by early 2007 the minimum wage would have
dropped almost in half in real terms (instead of almost tripling in real terms to keep up with
national productivity gains) -- what could they have possibly guessed: a comet strike, a limited
nuclear exchange, multiple world plagues?
Decomposed data is tremendously valuable, and making it publicly available for many countries
is a huge service.
I will again note that this piece falls into the category of diagnosing-but-not-proposing-anything-specific-to-address-the-problem,
from which we are seeing many pieces of commentary these days, but I think it's a useful part
of the process to collectively go through this realization phase.
But these authors take a good half-step forward in proposing a useful framework for the *types*
of policies that would be helpful. And it's a very good framework (I say with bias, because it's
the same one i've long had). That's also worth something, in addition to the invaluable contribution
of data.
Having real world data that would illuminate progressive issues is indeed a useful contribution.
But those faux progressives would just call our praise for this hard yet important work centrist
neoliberal elitism. Yes - they love their pointless labels as it makes actual analysis so obsolete.
How about "CAPS" on all top federal positions- presidents, vice-presidents,cabinet members, senators,
representatives. There needs to be Federal and STATE "CAPS" established across the US. "CAPS"
on University president wages, University coaches wages, etc. etc. THEN, minimize all the pensions
that the present 5 ex-Presidents are still getting, security guards, upkeep and expense on homes
etc. etc. The US citizens are really being forced to support a closed ARISTOCRACY. Just start
a list of all the extra-perks that the ARISTOCRACY are receiving. Some are receiving benefits
to sons, daughter, cousins, close relatives etc. etc. Just how much $$$ is given to 20 year-olds
that haven't worked except through patronage positions, because of "cronies" giving them a job
because of immediate family connections. The mess of political patronage on the Federal and State
levels need to be discussed and dissected. If Us taxpayers had to bail out private investors,
insurance companies and hedge-funds because of the TBTF fiasco, then let these companies that
were bailed out come to the focus on just how much churning, and bad investment advise occurred
that enabled the rape WORKERS in civil-service jobs across the US. Come on MSM and MSE start revealing
the behind-the-scenes patronage that has sucked the $$ from the general public. The $$$ was sucked
into the DC swamp by the Left, the Right, and the In-Betweeners that hide beyond the snow-job
propaganda messages to the GP.
llisa2u2 : , -1
One sentence should include the words:.... the rape of WORKERS PENSIONS.......
Just side note, the old European guilds, and unions KNEW what they were doing in their organizational
structures and why. The majority of US workers today don't have a clue. Too many blue collar and
white collar workers have been suckered by the New Boss, who's exactly the same as the Old Boss,
if not worse!
Since recounts that overturn the vote totals seem unlikely, it appears the Clinton campaign's Plan B is to use any evidence
of tampering that it can pin on Russia to lobby electors to change their votes to Clinton when the Electoral College meets
in state capitals on Dec. 19.
Finding evidence of hacking of election computers that can somehow be blamed on Russia could be crucial for the Clinton
team in their effort to convince electors to change their vote.
Laurence Tribe, a well-known and connected Democratic lawyer, has offered to defend pro bono any elector who breaks the
law by changing their vote to Clinton. And there are plans to mount a constitutional challenge against the 26 states that legally
bind the electors' to their state's popular vote.
Jill Stein's willingness to provide cover for 'the Russians hacked the election' recounts is interesting ...
Exhibit A in Stein's petition is an affidavit from Professor J. Alex Halderman, a professor of computer science at the University
of Michigan, who alleges that Russia hacked the election.
Exhibit B from Stein's petition is an article from Wired Magazine about Russia's alleged role in the hack.
Exhibit C is a New York Times article quoting DellSecureWorks, a private security firm, saying Russia was behind the hack
of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.
Exhibits D through G - meaning all of Stein's exhibits - are on alleged Russian hacking. One article is about an alleged
attempted Russian hack of the 2014, post-coup Ukrainian election.
... although I think it unlikely that 'the Russians hacked the election' it does look likely that the authors of that 'meme' managed
to get Jill Stein to carry their water for them. Why did she do that? Did she even read the petition - that drew $7 million in
funding overnight - before signing it? What does it say about her if she didn't? What does it say about her if she did?
What does it say about her that she went for such a lose-lose proposition?
Can an actual run on the electoral college be in the works? Can that be the 'reasoning' behind Jeff Bezos' ProPornoTeam?
General Mattis reportedly spoke of his concerns during discussions over attacking Iran and thus
fell afoul of the Washington establishment, so President Obama hastened his retirement.
Foreign Policy 's
Thomas Ricks reported :
Why the hurry? Pentagon insiders say that he rubbed civilian officials the wrong way-not
because he went all "mad dog," which is his public image, and the view at the White House,
but rather because he pushed the civilians so hard on considering the second- and third-order
consequences of military action against Iran. Some of those questions apparently were uncomfortable.
Like, what do you do with Iran once the nuclear issue is resolved and it remains a foe? What
do you do if Iran then develops conventional capabilities that could make it hazardous for
U.S. Navy ships to operate in the Persian Gulf? He kept saying, "And then what?"
Washington did have a "strategy" when it attacked Iraq, the neoconservative one. This
was to intimidate the Muslim world with massive bombing,
"Shock and Awe" we called
it, so all Muslims would be afraid of us and then do what we ordered. Then we planted giant, billion-dollar
American air bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. These would, they thought, give us hegemony over Central
Asia, intimidate Russia and Iran, while Iraq would turn into a friendly, modern democracy dependent
upon Washington. Other Muslim nations would then follow with democratic regimes which would co-operate
and obey Washington's plans.
With the neocons discredited, no other strategy has replaced theirs except to "win" and come
home. This is not unusual in our history. In past wars American "strategy" has usually been to
return to the status quo ante, the prewar situation. Washington violates nearly all of Sun Tzu's
dictums for success. Endless wars for little purpose and with no end strategy are thus likely
to continue. They are, however, profitable or beneficial for many Washington interests.
While Bashar al Assad has not created ISIS whose roots are in humiliated Saddam Hossein
Sunni generals and soldiers, it is obvious that he did not prevent them from
infiltrating the 'rebels'. He wanted a clash between the 'rebels' mostly inspired by the
Moslem Brotherhood (who has "succeeded" in Libya, Egypt and Tunisia) and with other
Sunni Islamists who had a more extreme ideology.
The 'rebels' ( later taken over by Al Nusra) were funded by Qatar and Turkey ( fans of
the MB) while the Salafists ( later ISIS) originated in Iraq, Pakistan and other
countries were funded by Saudi Arabia.
Bashar al Assad threw them face to face in order to weaken them. Its quite possible that
he managed to keep their dissension alive by sometime executing one side to get a
violent response of the other. That was a very smart strategy. He helped transforming
the 'moderate' rebels into violent fighters motivated by money and revenge that soon
were labelled terrorists by the Western world.
The war was had threefold: Salafists against Moslem Brotherhood, and both against the
Syrian army. As the funds and support the Islamist were getting from Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, Kuwait and Turkey were unlimited, the Syrian army found itself in a dire
situation, despite the help from Arab Shia militias. The intervention of Russia changed
the whole picture. Later the Kurdish factor has weakened Turkey further and the failed
Yemen war made Saudi Arabia less generous with the 'rebels'. Only Qatar has continued to
fund them.
Thus Bashar al Assad may have benefited from the emergence of ISIS in the
beginning but he was about to be overrun without Russia and Iran's support.
For Russia and Iran, the fall of Bashar al Assad meant the massacre of the Shia,
Alawites and Christians and violent struggle between the two extremist Islamist factions
( MB and Salafists) with incompatible ideology.
It was clear that Bashar al Assad should not be allowed to be toppled and they acted
accordingly independently of the civilian casualties.
The delirious state of the ruling European elites has been displayed on public when
the
Guardian
published their last demand:
'European leaders, notably the French, are privately warning Vladimir Putin that
if he permits Syria's president, Bashar al-Assad, to turn an expected capture of
Aleppo into a military victory across most of the country, it will be up to Russia to
foot the bill for reconstruction.'
It looks that those in power in London, Paris, Berlin are completely brain dead,
since they seem to be unable to recall who destroyed Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan
and a number of other countries.
The United States, with the avid support provided by the EU, have killed hundreds
of thousands of civilians, while destroying the homes and the infrastructure that
supported those that they spared, which resulted in a veritable exodus of migrants
from the Middle East and Africa to Europe.
So, maybe they should be paying the bills instead of forcing smaller European
countries to provide shelter for the refugees they created in the first place.
And what about Washington's responsibility?
Let's see ...
- If the US hires the Israelis to build a wall on the Mexican border, and the
Mexicans should pay for it, and
- If the US uses NATO to surround Russia and to start a war with that country, and the
Europeans should pay for it - and fight it
- Then Europeans should welcome the refugees from the USraeli/USaudi wars in the Middle
East and USropean wars in NA as well, right?
Trumpian logic 101.
I don't think Trump's counterparts in Europe are going to see it that way, once
they're elected as he was, out the revulsion of the population with USropean policies
that have left them financially devastated, bankrupts themselves.
Maybe China should pay? Right.
Maybe the Saudis and the GCC should pay ... they paid to destroy the ME, might they
not be compelled to pay to put it back together again? Seems like a Trumpian solution to
me. I imagine he can get his up and coming counterparts in Europe to go along with that.
Ben @ 10, it's not the USA that's addicted to war. Rather it is the US
govt AS CAPTURED BY THE OLIGARCHS. Nor is it truly an addiction, but a
means to the end of a global oligarchy. It isn't enough to see the evil
of US aggression. One must also understand why the international
institutions which have usurped nationhood around the world are evil:
Fed/IMF system, World Bank, WTO and the entire UN system to which they
belong. US hegemony has never been intended as the endgame. Oligarchical
global govt is-- initially as a decentralized administration which they
are already trying to sell you as "multipolarity".
If conflict with China is inevitable, it does not make sense to
increase hostility with Russia. Why neocons are doing that?
Notable quotes:
"... I've hesitated about whether to apply the word "neoconservative" to persons like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. I tend to follow the Christian Science Monitor lis t. Paul Wolfowitz, Libby, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, Richard Bolton, and Elliott Abrams are intellectuals absorbed in the project of using U.S. military power to remake the Middle East to improve Israel's long-term security interests. (Hannah, David Wurmser, Eric Edelman, and other White House staffers not on the Monitor's dated list also fall into this category.) ..."
"... Ultimate decision-makers Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld on the other hand are sometimes referred to as "aggressive nationalists." They are no doubt Christian Zionists, but are probably most interested in transforming the "Greater Middle East" in the interests of corporate America in an increasingly competitive world. They're probably more concerned about the geopolitics of oil and the placement of "enduring" military bases to "protect U.S. interests" than the fate of Israel. ..."
"... They are equipped with a philosophical outlook that justifies the use of hyped, imagined threats to unite the masses behind rulers' objectives and ambitions, to suppress dissent and control through fear. They're inclined to identify each new target as "a new Hitler," and to justify their actions as " an answer to the Holocaust ." ..."
"... "The true measure of how powerful the vice president's office remains today is whether the United States chooses to confront Iran and Syria or to seek diplomatic solutions. For the moment, at least, the war party led by Dick Cheney remains in ascendancy." ..."
I've hesitated about whether to apply the word
"neoconservative" to persons like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. I tend to follow
the Christian
Science Monitor list. Paul Wolfowitz, Libby, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle,
Richard Bolton, and Elliott Abrams are intellectuals absorbed in the project of
using U.S. military power to remake the Middle East to improve Israel's
long-term security interests. (Hannah, David Wurmser, Eric Edelman, and other
White House staffers not on the Monitor's dated list also fall into this
category.)
Ultimate decision-makers Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld on the other hand
are sometimes referred to as "aggressive nationalists." They are no doubt
Christian Zionists, but are probably most interested in transforming the
"Greater Middle East" in the interests of corporate America in an increasingly
competitive world. They're probably more concerned about the geopolitics of oil
and the placement of "enduring" military bases to "protect U.S. interests" than
the fate of Israel.
Dreyfuss' article suggests that Cheney (and thus, the
administration) sees China as the biggest long-term threat to those interests.
If conflict with China is inevitable,
it makes sense to have U.S. bases in
Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Iraq and maybe Iran and Syria. If China is dependent
on Middle East oil, it makes sense for the U.S. to be able to control how and
where it flows from the Caspian Sea and Persian Gulf oil fields.
It makes sense
to cultivate an alliance with India, risking the accusation of nuclear
hypocrisy in doing so. It makes sense to ratchet up tensions on the Korean
Peninsula, by linking North Korea to Iran and Iraq, calling it "evil,"
dismissing South Korea's "sunshine diplomacy" efforts and encouraging Japan to
take a hard line towards Pyongyang.
It makes sense to get Tokyo to declare, for
the first time, that the security of the Taiwan Straights is of common concern
to it and Washington. It makes sense to regain a strategic toehold in the
Philippines, in the name of the War on Terror, and to vilify the growing
Filipino Maoist movement.
It makes sense for a man like Cheney, who decided on
Bush's staff in late 2000, to seed the cabinet with strategically-placed
neocons who have a vision of a new Middle East.
Because
(1) that vision fits in
perfectly with the broader New World Order and U.S. plans to contain China, and
(2) the neocons as a coordinated "persuasion" if not movement, with their
fingers in a dozen right-wing think tanks, and the Israel Lobby including its
Christian Right component, and the academic community, are well-placed to serve
as what Dreyfuss calls "acolytes."
They are equipped with a philosophical outlook that justifies
the use of hyped, imagined threats to unite the masses behind rulers'
objectives and ambitions, to suppress dissent and control through fear. They're
inclined to identify each new target as "a new Hitler," and to justify their
actions as "an
answer to the Holocaust."
They have served Cheney well, and he them so far. They're all
being exposed, maybe weakened. But as Dreyfuss states at the end of his
article, "The true measure of how powerful the vice president's office remains
today is whether the United States chooses to confront Iran and Syria or to
seek diplomatic solutions. For the moment, at least, the war party led by Dick
Cheney remains in ascendancy."
GARY LEUPP is Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct
Professor of Comparative Religion. He can be reached at:
[email protected]
The quotes:
"
So the recent apparent rejection of the elites in both America and Britain is surely
aimed at me, as much as anyone. Whatever we might think about the decision by the
British electorate to reject membership of the European Union and by the American public
to embrace Donald Trump as their next president, there is no doubt in the minds of
commentators that this was a cry of anger by people who felt they had been abandoned by
their leaders.
"
"
What matters now, far more than the choices made by these two electorates, is how the
elites react. Should we, in turn, reject these votes as outpourings of crude populism
that fail to take account of the facts, and attempt to circumvent or circumscribe the
choices that they represent? I would argue that this would be a terrible mistake.
The concerns underlying these votes about the economic consequences of globalisation
and accelerating technological change are absolutely understandable. The automation of
factories has already decimated jobs in traditional manufacturing, and the rise of
artificial intelligence is likely to extend this job destruction deep into the middle
classes, with only the most caring, creative or supervisory roles remaining.
This in turn will accelerate the already widening economic inequality around the
world. The internet and the platforms that it makes possible allow very small groups of
individuals to make enormous profits while employing very few people. This is
inevitable, it is progress, but it is also socially destructive.
We need to put this alongside the financial crash, which brought home to people that
a very few individuals working in the financial sector can accrue huge rewards and that
the rest of us underwrite that success and pick up the bill when their greed leads us
astray. So taken together we are living in a world of widening, not diminishing,
financial inequality, in which many people can see not just their standard of living,
but their ability to earn a living at all, disappearing. It is no wonder then that they
are searching for a new deal, which Trump and Brexit might have appeared to represent.
"
"
For me, the really concerning aspect of this is that now, more than at any time in our
history, our species needs to work together. We face awesome environmental challenges:
climate change, food production, overpopulation, the decimation of other species,
epidemic disease, acidification of the oceans.
Together, they are a reminder that we are at the most dangerous moment in the
development of humanity. We now have the technology to destroy the planet on which we
live, but have not yet developed the ability to escape it. Perhaps in a few hundred
years, we will have established human colonies amid the stars, but right now we only
have one planet, and we need to work together to protect it.
To do that, we need to break down, not build up, barriers within and between nations.
If we are to stand a chance of doing that, the world's leaders need to acknowledge that
they have failed and are failing the many. With resources increasingly concentrated in
the hands of a few, we are going to have to learn to share far more than at present.
With not only jobs but entire industries disappearing, we must help people to retrain
for a new world and support them financially while they do so. If communities and
economies cannot cope with current levels of migration, we must do more to encourage
global development, as that is the only way that the migratory millions will be
persuaded to seek their future at home.
We can do this, I am an enormous optimist for my species; but it will require the
elites, from London to Harvard, from Cambridge to Hollywood, to learn the lessons of the
past year. To learn above all a measure of humility.
"
While ordinary people fret about austerity and jobs, the eurozone's corridors of power have
been undergoing a remarkable transformation
The ascension of Mario Monti to the Italian prime ministership is remarkable for more
reasons than it is possible to count. By replacing the scandal-surfing Silvio Berlusconi,
Italy has dislodged the undislodgeable. By imposing rule by unelected technocrats, it has
suspended the normal rules of democracy, and maybe democracy itself. And by putting a senior
adviser at Goldman Sachs in charge of a Western nation, it has taken to new heights the
political power of an investment bank that you might have thought was prohibitively
politically toxic.
This is the most remarkable thing of all: a giant leap forward for, or perhaps even the
successful culmination of, the Goldman Sachs Project.
It is not just Mr Monti. The European Central Bank, another crucial player in the sovereign
debt drama, is under ex-Goldman management, and the investment bank's alumni hold sway in the
corridors of power in almost every European nation, as they have done in the US throughout the
financial crisis. Until Wednesday, the International Monetary Fund's European division was
also run by a Goldman man, Antonio Borges, who just resigned for personal reasons.
Even before the upheaval in Italy, there was no sign of Goldman Sachs living down its nickname
as "the Vampire Squid", and now that its tentacles reach to the top of the eurozone, sceptical
voices are raising questions over its influence. The political decisions taken in the coming
weeks will determine if the eurozone can and will pay its debts – and Goldman's interests are
intricately tied up with the answer to that question.
Simon Johnson, the former International Monetary Fund economist, in his book 13 Bankers,
argued that Goldman Sachs and the other large banks had become so close to government in the
run-up to the financial crisis that the US was effectively an oligarchy. At least European
politicians aren't "bought and paid for" by corporations, as in the US, he says. "Instead what
you have in Europe is a shared world-view among the policy elite and the bankers, a shared set
of goals and mutual reinforcement of illusions."
This is The Goldman Sachs Project. Put simply, it is to hug governments close. Every business
wants to advance its interests with the regulators that can stymie them and the politicians
who can give them a tax break, but this is no mere lobbying effort. Goldman is there to
provide advice for governments and to provide financing, to send its people into public
service and to dangle lucrative jobs in front of people coming out of government. The Project
is to create such a deep exchange of people and ideas and money that it is impossible to tell
the difference between the public interest and the Goldman Sachs interest.
Mr Monti is one of Italy's most eminent economists, and he spent most of his career in
academia and thinktankery, but it was when Mr Berlusconi appointed him to the European
Commission in 1995 that Goldman Sachs started to get interested in him. First as commissioner
for the internal market, and then especially as commissioner for competition, he has made
decisions that could make or break the takeover and merger deals that Goldman's bankers were
working on or providing the funding for. Mr Monti also later chaired the Italian Treasury's
committee on the banking and financial system, which set the country's financial policies.
With these connections, it was natural for Goldman to invite him to join its board of
international advisers. The bank's two dozen-strong international advisers act as informal
lobbyists for its interests with the politicians that regulate its work. Other advisers
include Otmar Issing who, as a board member of the German Bundesbank and then the European
Central Bank, was one of the architects of the euro.
Perhaps the most prominent ex-politician inside the bank is Peter Sutherland, Attorney General
of Ireland in the 1980s and another former EU Competition Commissioner. He is now
non-executive chairman of Goldman's UK-based broker-dealer arm, Goldman Sachs International,
and until its collapse and nationalisation he was also a non-executive director of Royal Bank
of Scotland. He has been a prominent voice within Ireland on its bailout by the EU, arguing
that the terms of emergency loans should be eased, so as not to exacerbate the country's
financial woes. The EU agreed to cut Ireland's interest rate this summer.
Picking up well-connected policymakers on their way out of government is only one half of the
Project, sending Goldman alumni into government is the other half. Like Mr Monti, Mario Draghi,
who took over as President of the ECB on 1 November, has been in and out of government and in
and out of Goldman. He was a member of the World Bank and managing director of the Italian
Treasury before spending three years as managing director of Goldman Sachs International
between 2002 and 2005 – only to return to government as president of the Italian central bank.
Mr Draghi has been dogged by controversy over the accounting tricks conducted by Italy and
other nations on the eurozone periphery as they tried to squeeze into the single currency a
decade ago. By using complex derivatives, Italy and Greece were able to slim down the apparent
size of their government debt, which euro rules mandated shouldn't be above 60 per cent of the
size of the economy. And the brains behind several of those derivatives were the men and women
of Goldman Sachs.
The bank's traders created a number of financial deals that allowed Greece to raise money to
cut its budget deficit immediately, in return for repayments over time. In one deal, Goldman
channelled $1bn of funding to the Greek government in 2002 in a transaction called a
cross-currency swap. On the other side of the deal, working in the National Bank of Greece,
was Petros Christodoulou, who had begun his career at Goldman, and who has been promoted now
to head the office managing government Greek debt. Lucas Papademos, now installed as Prime
Minister in Greece's unity government, was a technocrat running the Central Bank of Greece at
the time.
Goldman says that the debt reduction achieved by the swaps was negligible in relation to euro
rules, but it expressed some regrets over the deals. Gerald Corrigan, a Goldman partner who
came to the bank after running the New York branch of the US Federal Reserve, told a UK
parliamentary hearing last year: "It is clear with hindsight that the standards of
transparency could have been and probably should have been higher."
When the issue was raised at confirmation hearings in the European Parliament for his job at
the ECB, Mr Draghi says he wasn't involved in the swaps deals either at the Treasury or at
Goldman.
It has proved impossible to hold the line on Greece, which under the latest EU proposals is
effectively going to default on its debt by asking creditors to take a "voluntary" haircut of
50 per cent on its bonds, but the current consensus in the eurozone is that the creditors of
bigger nations like Italy and Spain must be paid in full. These creditors, of course, are the
continent's big banks, and it is their health that is the primary concern of policymakers. The
combination of austerity measures imposed by the new technocratic governments in Athens and
Rome and the leaders of other eurozone countries, such as Ireland, and rescue funds from the
IMF and the largely German-backed European Financial Stability Facility, can all be traced to
this consensus.
"My former colleagues at the IMF are running around trying to justify bailouts of
€1.5trn-€4trn, but what does that mean?" says Simon Johnson. "It means bailing out the
creditors 100 per cent. It is another bank bailout, like in 2008: The mechanism is different,
in that this is happening at the sovereign level not the bank level, but the rationale is the
same."
So certain is the financial elite that the banks will be bailed out, that some are placing
bet-the-company wagers on just such an outcome. Jon Corzine, a former chief executive of
Goldman Sachs, returned to Wall Street last year after almost a decade in politics and took
control of a historic firm called MF Global. He placed a $6bn bet with the firm's money that
Italian government bonds will not default.
When the bet was revealed last month, clients and trading partners decided it was too risky to
do business with MF Global and the firm collapsed within days. It was one of the ten biggest
bankruptcies in US history.
The grave danger is that, if Italy stops paying its debts, creditor banks could be made
insolvent. Goldman Sachs, which has written over $2trn of insurance, including an undisclosed
amount on eurozone countries' debt, would not escape unharmed, especially if some of the $2trn
of insurance it has purchased on that insurance turns out to be with a bank that has gone
under. No bank – and especially not the Vampire Squid – can easily untangle its tentacles from
the tentacles of its peers. This is the rationale for the bailouts and the austerity, the
reason we are getting more Goldman, not less. The alternative is a second financial crisis, a
second economic collapse.
Shared illusions, perhaps? Who would dare test it?
News outta Italy is also good Matteo Renzi's attempt to amend the constitution to make the
government rather than the entire legislature (both houses) powerful enough to change laws has
gone down in a screaming prang. Matteo Renzi has to resign since that is what he promised, and
just for a change the populist replacement doesn't appear to be an islamophonic fascist.
It has been our undertaking, since 2010, to chronicle our understanding of capitalism via our book
The Philosophy of Capitalism . We were curious
as to the underlying nature of the system which endows us, the owners of capital, with so many favours. The Saker has asked me
to explain our somewhat crude statement 'Capitalism Requires World War'.
The present showdown between West, Russia and China is the culmination of a long running saga that began with World War One. Prior
to which, Capitalism was governed by the gold standard system which was international, very solid, with clear rules and had brought
great prosperity: for banking Capital was scarce and so allocated carefully. World War One required debt-capitalism of the
FIAT kind, a bankrupt Britain began to pass the Imperial baton to the US, which had profited by financing the war and selling munitions.
The Weimar Republic, suffering a continuation of hostilities via economic means, tried to inflate away its debts in 1919-1923
with disastrous results-hyperinflation. Then, the reintroduction of the gold standard into a world poisoned by war, reparation and
debt was fated to fail and ended with a deflationary bust in the early 1930's and WW2.
The US government gained a lot of credibility after WW2 by outlawing offensive war and funding many construction projects
that helped transfer private debt to the public book. The US government's debt exploded during the war, but it also shifted
the power game away from creditors to a big debtor that had a lot of political capital. The US used her power to define the new rules
of the monetary system at Bretton Woods in 1944 and to keep physical hold of gold owned by other nations.
The US jacked up tax rates on the wealthy and had a period of elevated inflation in the late 40s and into the 1950s –
all of which wiped out creditors, but also ushered in a unique middle class era in the West. The US also reformed extraction
centric institutions in Europe and Japan to make sure an extractive-creditor class did not hobble growth, which was easy to do because
the war had wiped them out (same as in Korea).
Capital destruction in WW2 reversed the Marxist rule that the rate of profit always falls. Take any given market
– say jeans. At first, all the companies make these jeans using a great deal of human labour so all the jeans are priced around the
average of total social labour time required for production (some companies will charge more, some companies less).
One company then introduces a machine (costed at $n) that makes jeans using a lot less labour time. Each of these robot assisted
workers is paid the same hourly rate but the production process is now far more productive. This company, ignoring the capital outlay
in the machinery, will now have a much higher profit rate than the others. This will attract capital, as capital is always on the
lookout for higher rates of profit. The result will be a generalisation of this new mode of production. The robot or machine will
be adopted by all the other companies, as it is a more efficient way of producing jeans.
As a consequence the price of the jeans will fall, as there is an increased margin within which each market actor can undercut
his fellows. One company will lower prices so as to increase market share. This new price-point will become generalised as competing
companies cut their prices to defend their market share. A further n$ was invested but per unit profit margin is put under constant
downward pressure, so the rate of return in productive assets tends to fall over time in a competitive market place.
Interest rates have been falling for decades in the West because interest rates must always be below the rate of return
on productive investments. If interest rates are higher than the risk adjusted rate of return then the capitalist might
as well keep his money in a savings account. If there is real deflation his purchasing power increases for free and if there is inflation
he will park his money (plus debt) in an unproductive asset that's price inflating, E.G. Housing. Sound familiar? Sure, there has
been plenty of profit generated since 2008 but it has not been recovered from productive investments in a competitive free market
place. All that profit came from bubbles in asset classes and financial schemes abetted by money printing and zero interest
rates.
Thus, we know that the underlying rate of return is near zero in the West. The rate of return falls naturally,
due to capital accumulation and market competition. The system is called capitalism because capital accumulates: high income economies
are those with the greatest accumulation of capital per worker. The robot assisted worker enjoys a higher income as he is highly
productive, partly because the robotics made some of the workers redundant and there are fewer workers to share
the profit. All the high income economies have had near zero interest rates for seven years. Interest rates in Europe are even negative.
How has the system remained stable for so long?
All economic growth depends on energy gain. It takes energy (drilling the oil well) to gain energy. Unlike our
everyday experience whereby energy acquisition and energy expenditure can be balanced, capitalism requires an absolute net energy
gain. That gain, by way of energy exchange, takes the form of tools and machines that permit an increase in productivity per work
hour. Thus GDP increases, living standards improve and the debts can be repaid. Thus, oil is a strategic capitalistic resource.
US net energy gain production peaked in 1974, to be replaced by production from Saudi Arabia, which made the USA a net importer
of oil for the first time. US dependence on foreign oil rose from 26% to 47% between 1985 and 1989 to hit a peak of 60% in 2006.
And, tellingly, real wages peaked in 1974, levelled-off and then began to fall for most US workers. Wages have never recovered. (The
decline is more severe if you don't believe government reported inflation figures that don't count the costof housing.)
What was the economic and political result of this decline? During the 20 years 1965-85, there were 4 recessions, 2 energy
crises and wage and price controls. These were unprecedented in peacetime and The Gulf of Tonkin event led to the Vietnam
War which finally required Nixon to move away from the Gold-Exchange Standard in 1971, opening the next degenerate chapter of FIAT
finance up until 2008. Cutting this link to gold was cutting the external anchor impeding war and deficit spending. The promise of
gold for dollars was revoked.
GDP in the US increased after 1974 but a portion of end use buying power was transferred to Saudi Arabia. They
were supplying the net energy gain that was powering the US GDP increase. The working class in the US began to experience a slow
real decline in living standards, as 'their share' of the economic pie was squeezed by the ever increasing transfer of buying power
to Saudi Arabia.
The US banking and government elite responded by creating and cutting back legal and behavioral rules of a fiat based
monetary system. The Chinese appreciated the long term opportunity that this presented and agreed to play ball. The USA
over-produced credit money and China over-produced manufactured goods which cushioned the real decline in the buying power of America's
working class. Power relations between China and the US began to change: The Communist Party transferred value to the American consumer
whilst Wall Street transferred most of the US industrial base to China. They didn't ship the military industrial complex.
Large scale leverage meant that US consumers and businesses had the means to purchase increasingly with debt so the class
war was deferred. This is how over production occurs: more is produced that is paid for not with money that represents actual realized
labour time, but from future wealth, to be realised from future labour time. The Chinese labour force was producing more than it
consumed.
The system has never differed from the limits laid down by the Laws of Thermodynamics. The Real economy system can never over-produce
per se. The limit of production is absolute net energy gain. What is produced can be consumed. How did the Chinese produce such a
super massive excess and for so long? Economic slavery can achieve radical improvements in living standards for those that benefit
from ownership. Slaves don't depreciate as they are rented and are not repaired for they replicate for free. Hundreds of millions
of Chinese peasants limited their way of life and controlled their consumption in order to benefit their children. And their exploited
life raised the rate of profit!
They began their long march to modern prosperity making toys, shoes, and textiles cheaper than poor women could in South Carolina
or Honduras. Such factories are cheap to build and deferential, obedient and industrious peasant staff were a perfect match for work
that was not dissimilar to tossing fruit into a bucket. Their legacy is the initial capital formation of modern China and one of
the greatest accomplishments in human history. The Chinese didn't use net energy gain from oil to power their super massive and sustained
increase in production. They used economic slavery powered by caloric energy, exchanged from solar energy. The Chinese labour force
picked the World's low hanging fruit that didn't need many tools or machines. Slaves don't need tools for they are the tool.
Without a gold standard and capital ratios our form of over-production has grown enormously. The dotcom bubble
was reflated through a housing bubble, which has been pumped up again by sovereign debt, printing press (QE) and central bank insolvency.
The US working and middle classes have over-consumed relative to their share of the global economic pie for decades. The correction
to prices (the destruction of credit money & accumulated capital) is still yet to happen. This is what has been happening since 1971
because of the growth of financialisation or monetisation.
The application of all these economic methods was justified by the political ideology of neo-Liberalism. Neo-Liberalism
entails no or few capital controls, the destruction of trade unions, plundering state and public assets, importing peasants as domesticated
help, and entrusting society's value added production to The Communist Party of The People's Republic of China.
The Chinese have many motives but their first motivation is power. Power is more important than money. If you're rich
and weak you get robbed. Russia provides illustrating stories of such: Gorbachev had received a promise from George HW Bush
that the US would pay Russia approximately $400 billion over10 years as a "peace dividend" and as a tool to be utilized in the conversion
of their state run to a market based economic system. The Russians believe the head of the CIA at the time, George Tenet, essentially
killed the deal based on the idea that "letting the country fall apart will destroy Russia as a future military threat". The country
fell apart in 1992. Its natural assets were plundered which raised the rate of profit in the 90's until President Putin put a stop
to the robbery.
In the last analysis, the current framework of Capitalism results in labour redundancy, a falling rate of profit and ingrained
trading imbalances caused by excess capacity. Under our current monopoly state capitalism a number of temporary preventive measures
have evolved, including the expansion of university, military, and prison systems to warehouse new generations of labour.
Our problem is how to retain the "expected return rate" for us, the dominant class. Ultimately, there are only two large-scale
solutions, which are intertwined .
One is expansion of state debt to keep "the markets" moving and transfer wealth from future generations of
labour to the present dominant class.
The other is war, the consumer of last resort. Wars can burn up excess capacity, shift global markets, generate
monopoly rents, and return future labour to a state of helplessness and reduced expectations. The Spanish flu killed 50-100 million
people in 1918. As if this was not enough, it also took two World Wars across the 20th century and some 96 million dead to reduce
unemployment and stabilize the "labour problem."
Capitalism requires World War because Capitalism requires profit and cannot afford the unemployed . The point
is capitalism could afford social democracy after the rate of profit was restored thanks to the depression of the 1930's and the
physical destruction of capital during WW2. Capitalism only produces for profit and social democracy was funded by taxing profits
after WW2.
Post WW2 growth in labour productivity, due to automation, itself due to oil & gas replacing coal, meant workers could be better
off. As the economic pie was growing, workers could receive the same %, and still receive a bigger slice. Wages as a % of US GDP
actually increased in the period, 1945-1970. There was an increase in government spending which was being redirected in the form
of redistributed incomes. Inequality will only worsen, because to make profits now we have to continually cut the cost of inputs,
i.e. wages & benefits. Have we not already reached the point where large numbers of the working class can neither feed themselves
nor afford a roof over their heads?13% of the UK working age population is out of work and receiving out of work benefits. A huge
fraction is receiving in work benefits because low skill work now pays so little.
The underlying nature of Capitalism is cyclical. Here is how the political aspect of the cycle ends:
1920s/2000s – High inequality, high banker pay, low regulation, low taxes for the wealthy, robber barons (CEOs), reckless
bankers, globalisation phase
1929/2008 – Wall Street crash
1930s/2010s – Global recession, currency wars, trade wars, rising unemployment, nationalism and extremism
What comes next? – World War.
If Capitalism could speak, she would ask her older brother, Imperialism, this: "Can you solve the problem?" We
are not reliving the 1930's, the economy is now an integrated whole that encompasses the entire World. Capital has been accumulating
since 1945, so under- and unemployment is a plague everywhere. How big is the problem? Official data tells us nothing, but the 47
million Americans on food aid are suggestive. That's 1 in 7 Americans and total World population is 7 billion.
The scale of the solution is dangerous. Our probing for weakness in the South China Sea, Ukraine and Syria has
awakened them to their danger.The Chinese and Russian leadershave reacted by integrating their payment systems and real economies,
trading energy for manufactured goods for advanced weapon systems. As they are central players in the Shanghai Group we can assume
their aim is the monetary system which is the bedrock of our Imperial power. What's worse, they can avoid overt enemy action
and simply choose to undermine "confidence" in the FIAT.
Though given the calibre of their nuclear arsenal, how can they be fought let alone defeated? Appetite preceded
Reason, so Lust is hard to Reason with. But beware brother. Your Lust for Power began this saga, perhaps it's time to Reason.
That's because they don't understand the word "capitalism."
Capitalism simply means economic freedom. And economic freedom, just like freedom to breed, must be exposed to the pruning
action of cause and effect, otherwise it outgrows its container and becomes unstable and explodes. As long as it is continually
exposed to the grinding wheel of causality, it continues to hold a fine edge, as the dross is scraped away and the fine steel
stays. Reality is full of dualities, and those dualities cannot be separated without creating broken symmetry and therefore terminal
instability. Freedom and responsibility, for example. One without the other is unstable. Voting and taxation in direct proportion
to each other is another example.
Fiat currency is an attempt to create an artificial reality, one without the necessary symmetry and balance of a real system.
However, reality can not be gamed, because it will produce its own symmetry if you try to deny it. Thus the symmetry of fiat currency
is boom and bust, a sine wave that still manages to produce equilibrium, however at a huge bubbling splattering boil rather than
a fine simmer.
The folks that wrote this do not have a large enough world view. Capitalism does not require world wars because freedom does
not require world wars. Freedom tends to bleed imbalances out when they are small. On the other hand, empire does require world
war, which is why we are going to have one.
Capitalism becomes imperialism when financial sociopaths steal profits from both sides of the trade. What you're seeing is
an Imperialism of Capital, as explained very nicely in the 1889 book "The Great Red Dragon."
Wrong. Capitalism needs prolonged directionless wars without clear winners and contained destruction that utilize massive amounts
of raw materials and endless orders for weapons and logistical support. That's what makes some guys rich.
That's was a very long-winded and deliberately obtuse way of explaining how DEBT AS MONEY and The State's usurpation of sound
money destroyed efficient markets. The author then goes to call this system Capitalism.
So yeah, the deliberate destruction of capital, in all its forms, is somehow capitalism. Brilliant observation. Fuck you. There
are better terms for things like this. Perhaps....central banking? The State? Fiat debt creation? Evil? Naw, let's just contort
and abuse language instead. That's the ticket.
I've spent my adult life in 51 countries. This was financed by correctly anticipating the Great Financial Crisis in 2008. I
was studying Marx at that time. I'm presently an employee of the Chinese State. I educate the children of China's best families.
I am the author, alongside a large international team of capitalists, of Before The Collapse : The Philosophy of Capitalism.
I also have my own business; I live with my girlfriend and was born and grew up in Ireland.
===============
Why would anyone waste time to read this drivel, buttressed by the author's credentials.
The unstated thesis is that wars involve millions of actors, who produce an end-result of many hundreds of millions killed.
Absent coercion ("the Draft"), how is any government going to man hundreds of divisions of foot soldiers. That concept is passé.
Distribute some aerosol poisons via drones and kill as many people as deemed necessary. How in the hell will that action stimulate
the world economy.
Weapons of mass-destruction are smaller, cheaper and easier to deploy. War as a progenitor of growth - forget it.
The good news is that this guy is educating the children of elite in China. Possibly the Pentagon could clone him 10,000 times
and send those cyborgs to China - cripple China for another generation or two.
The term cyclical doesn't quite cover what we have being experiencing. It's more like a ragdoll being shaken by a white shark.
The euphoria of bubble is more like complete unhinged unicorn mania anymore and the lows are complete grapes of wrath. It's probably
always been that way to some extent because corruption has remained unchallenged for a great deal of time. The boom phases are
scarier than the downturns anymore, especially the last oil boom and housing boom. Complete Alfred Hitchcock stuff.
I don't think it's capitalism and that term comes across as an explanation that legitimizes this completely contrived pattern
that benefits a few and screws everybody else. Markets should not be behaving in such a violent fashion. Money should probably
be made steady and slow. And downturns shouldn't turn a country into Zimbabwe. I could be wrong but there is really no way to
know with the corruption we have.
And War requires that an enemy be created. According to American General Breedlove-head of NATO's European Command-speaking
to the US Armed Services Committee 2 days ago, "Russia and Assad are deliberately weaponizing migration to break European resolve".
"The only reason to use non-precision weapons like barrel bombs is to keep refugees on the move". "These refugees bring criminality,
foreign fighters and terrorism", and "are being used to overwhelm European structures". "Russia has chosen to be an adversary
and is a real threat." "Russia is irresponsible with nuclear weapons-always threatening to use them." And strangely, "In the past
week alone, Russia has made 450 attacks along the front lines in E. Ukraine".
Even with insanity overflowing the West, I found these comments to be the most bizarrely threatening propaganda yet. After
reading them for the first time, I had to prove to myself that I wasn't hallucinating it.
This is a very weak article from a prominent paleoconservative, but it is instructive what a mess he has in his head as for the
nature of Trump phenomenon. We should probably consider the tern "New Class" that neocons invented as synonym for "neoliberals". If
so, why the author is afraid to use the term? Does he really so poorly educated not to understand the nature of this neoliberal revolution
and its implications? Looks like he never read "Quite coup"
That probably reflects the crisis of pealeoconservatism itself.
Notable quotes:
"... What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy. All have opposed large-scale free-trade agreements. ..."
"... the establishment in both parties almost uniformly favors one approach to war, trade, and immigration, while outsider candidates as dissimilar as Buchanan, Nader, Paul, and Trump, and to a lesser extent Sanders, depart from the consensus. ..."
"... The insurgents clearly do not represent a single class: they appeal to eclectic interests and groups. The foe they have all faced down, however-the bipartisan establishment-does resemble a class in its striking unity of outlook and interest. So what is this class, effectively the ruling class of the country? ..."
"... The archetypal model of class conflict, the one associated with Karl Marx, pits capitalists against workers-or, at an earlier stage, capitalists against the landed nobility. The capitalists' victory over the nobility was inevitable, and so too, Marx believed, was the coming triumph of the workers over the capitalists. ..."
"... The Soviet Union had never been a workers' state at all, they argued, but was run by a class of apparatchiks such as Marx had never imagined. ..."
"... Burnham recognized affinities between the Soviet mode of organization-in which much real power lay in the hands of the commissars who controlled industry and the bureaucratic organs of the state-and the corporatism that characterized fascist states. Even the U.S., under the New Deal and with ongoing changes to the balance between ownership and management in the private sector, seemed to be moving in the same direction. ..."
"... concept popularized by neoconservatives in the following decade: the "New Class." ..."
"... It consists of a goodly proportion of those college-educated people whose skills and vocations proliferate in a 'post-industrial society' (to use Daniel Bell's convenient term). We are talking about scientists, teachers, and educational administrators, journalists and others in the communication industries, psychologists, social workers, those lawyers and doctors who make their careers in the expanding public sector, city planners, the staffs of the larger foundations, the upper levels of the government bureaucracy, and so on. ..."
"... I have felt that this 'new class' is, so far, rather thin gruel. Intellectuals, verbalists, media types, etc. are conspicuous actors these days, certainly; they make a lot of noise, get a lot of attention, and some of them make a lot of money. But, after all, they are a harum-scarum crowd, and deflate even more quickly than they puff up. On TV they can out-talk any of the managers of ITT, GM, or IBM, or the administration-managers of the great government bureaus and agencies, but, honestly, you're not going to take that as a power test. Who hires and fires whom? ..."
"... Burnham had observed that the New Class did not have the means-either money or manpower-to wield power the way the managers or the capitalists of old did. It had to borrow power from other classes. Discovering where the New Class gets it is as easy as following the money, which leads straight to the finance sector-practically to the doorstep of Goldman Sachs. Jerry Rubin's journey from Yippie to yuppie was the paradigm of a generation. ..."
"... Yet the New Class as a whole is less like Carl Oglesby or Karl Hess than like Hillary Clinton, who arguably embodies it as perfectly as McNamara did the managerial class. ..."
"... Even the New Class's support for deregulation-to the advantage of its allies on Wall Street-was no sign of consistent commitment to free-market principles ..."
"... The individual-mandate feature of Obamacare and Romneycare is a prime example of New Class cronyism: government compels individuals to buy a supposedly private product or service. ..."
"... America's class war, like many others, is not in the end a contest between up and down. It's a fight between rival elites: in this case, between the declining managerial elite and the triumphant (for now) New Class and financial elites. ..."
"... Donald Trump is not of the managerial class himself. But by embracing managerial interests-industrial protection and, yes, "big government"-and combining them with nationalistic identity politics, he has built a force that has potential to threaten the bipartisan establishment, even if he goes down to defeat in November. ..."
"... The New Class, after all, lacks a popular base as well as money of its own, and just as it relies on Wall Street to underwrite its power, it depends on its competing brands of identity politics to co-opt popular support. ..."
"... Marx taught that you identify classes by their structural role in the system of production. I'm at a loss to see how either of the 'classes' you mention here relate to the system of production. ..."
"... [New] Class better describes the Never Trumpers. Mostly I have found them to be those involved in knowledge occupations (conservative think tanks, hedge fund managers, etc.) who have a pecuniary interest in maintaining the Global Economy as opposed to the Virtuous Intergenerational Economy that preceded. Many are dependent on funding sources for their livelihoods that are connected to the Globalized Economy and financial markets. ..."
"... "mobilize working-class voters against the establishment in both parties. " = workers of the world unite. ..."
"... Where the class conflict between the Working and Knowledge Classes begins is where the Knowledge Class almost unilaterally decided to shift to a global economy, at the expense of the Working Class, and to the self-benefit of the Knowledge Class. Those who designed the Global Economy like Larry Summers of Harvard did not invite private or public labor to help design the new Globalist Economy. The Working Class lost out big time in job losses and getting stuck with subprime home loans that busted their marriages and created bankruptcies and foreclosures. The Knowledge Class was mostly unscathed by this class-based economic divide. ..."
"... Trump's distinguishing ideology, which separates him from the current elite, is something he has summed up many times – nationalism vs. Globalism. ..."
"... The financial industry, the new tech giants, the health insurance industry are now almost indistinguishable from the government ruling elite. The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America. Both are right in a sense. ..."
"... The hyperconcentration of power in Washington and a few tributary locations like Wall Street and Silicon Valley, elite academia and the media–call that the New Class if you like–means that most of America–Main Street, the flyover country has been left behind. Trump instinctively – brilliantly in some ways – tapped into the resentment that this hyperconcentration of wealth and government power has led to. That is why it cuts across right and left. The elites want to characterize this resentment as backwards and "racist," but there is also something very American from Jefferson to Jackson to Teddy Roosevelt that revolts against being lectured to and controlled by their would-be "betters." ..."
"... The alienation of those left out is real and based on real erosion of the middle class and American dream under both parties' elites. The potentially revolutionary capabilities of a political movement that could unite right and left in restoring some equilibrium and opportunities to those left out is tremendous, but yet to be realized by either major party. The party that can harness these folks – who are after all the majority of Americans – will have a ruling coalition for decades. If neither party can productively harness this budding movement, we are headed for disarray, civil unrest, and potentially the dissolution of the USA. ..."
"... . And blacks who cleave to the democrats despite being sold down the tubes on issues, well, for whatever reason, they just have thinner skin and the mistaken idea that the democrats deliver – thanks to Pres. Johnson. But what Pres. Johnson delivered democrats made a mockery of immediately as they stripped it of its intent and used for their own liberal ends. ..."
"... Let's see if I can help Dreher clear up some confusion in his article. James Burnham's "Managerial Class" and the "New Class" are overlapping and not exclusive. By the Managerial Class Burnham meant both the executive and managers in the private sector and the Bureaucrats and functionaries in the public sector. ..."
"... The rise of managers was a "revolution" because of the rise of modernization which meant the increasing mechanization, industrialization, formalization and rationalization (efficiency) of society. Burnham's concern about the rise of the managerial revolution was misplaced; what he should have focused on was modernization. ..."
"... The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America ..."
"... . Some 3 – 5% of the population facing no real opposition has decided that that their private lives needed public endorsement and have proceeded to upend the entire social order - the game has shifted in ways I am not sure most of the public fully grasps or desires ..."
"... There has always been and will always be class conflict, even if it falls short of a war. Simply examining recent past circumstances, the wealthy class has been whooping up on all other classes. This is not to suggest any sort of remedy, but simply to observe that income disparity over the past 30 years has substantially benefitted on sector of class and political power remains in their hands today. To think that there will never be class conflict is to side with a Marxian fantasy of egalitarianism, which will never come to pass. Winners and losers may change positions, but the underlying conflict will always remain. ..."
"... State governments have been kowtowing to big business interests for a good long while. Nothing new under the sun there. Back in the 80s when GM was deciding where to site their factory for the new Saturn car line, they issued an edict stating they would only consider states that had mandatory seat belt use laws, and the states in the running fell all over each to enact those. ..."
"... People don't really care for the actions of the elite but they care for the consequences of these actions. During the 1960's, per capita GDP growth was around 3.5%. Today it stands at 0,49%. If you take into account inflation, it's negative. Add to this the skewed repartition of said growth and it's intuitive that many people feel the pain; whom doesn't move forward, goes backwards. ..."
"... People couldn't care for mass immigration, nation building or the emergence of China if their personal situation was not impacted. But now, they begin to feel the results of these actions. ..."
"... I have a simple philosophy regarding American politics that shows who is made of what, and we don't have to go through all the philosophizing in this article: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American. ..."
"... Re: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American. ..."
"... The first has nothing whatsoever to do with American citizenship. It's just a political issue– on which, yes, reasonable people can differ. However no American citizen should put the interests of any other country ahead of our own, except in a situation where the US was itself up to no good and deserved its comeuppance. And then the interest is not that of any particular nation, but of justice being done period. ..."
"... A lot of this "New Class" stuff is just confusing mis-mash of this and that theory. Basically, America changed when the US dollar replace gold as the medium of exchange in the world economy. Remember when we called it the PETRO-DOLLAR. As long as the Saudis only accepted the US dollar as the medium of exchange for oil, then the American government could export it's inflation and deficit spending. Budget deficits and trade deficits are intrinsically related. It allowed America to become a nation of consumers instead of a nation of producers. ..."
"... It's really a form of classic IMPERIALISM. To maintain this system, we've got the US military and we prop up the corrupt dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya ..."
"... Yeah, you can talk about the "new class", the corruption of the banking system by the idiotic "libertarian" or "free market utopianism" of the Gingrich Congress, the transformation of American corporations to international corporations, and on and on. But it's the US dollar as reserve currency that has allowed it all to happen. God help us, if it ends, we'll be crippled. ..."
"... The Clinton Class mocks The Country Class: Bill Clinton, "We all know how her opponent's done real well down in West Virginia and eastern Kentucky. Because the coal people don't like any of us anymore." "They blame the president when the sun doesn't come up in the morning now," ..."
"... That doesn't mean they actually support Hillary's policies and position. What do they really know about either? These demographics simply vote overwhelmingly Democrat no matter who is on the ticket. If Alfred E. Newman were the candidate, this particular data point would look just the same. ..."
"... "On the contrary, the New Class favors new kinds of crony finance capitalism, even as it opposes the protectionism that would benefit hard industry and managerial interests." This doesn't ring true. Hard industry, and the managers that run it had no problem with moving jobs and factories overseas in pursuit of cheaper labor. Plus, it solved their Union issues. I feel like the divide is between large corporations, with dilute ownership and professional managers who nominally serve the interests of stock fund managers, while greatly enriching themselves versus a multitude of smaller, locally owned businesses whose owners were also concerned with the health of the local communities in which they lived. ..."
"... The financial elites are a consequence of consolidation in the banking and finance industry, where we now have 4 or 5 large institutions versus a multitude of local and regional banks that were locally focused. ..."
Since the Cold War ended, U.S. politics has seen a series of insurgent candidacies. Pat Buchanan prefigured Trump in the Republican
contests of 1992 and 1996. Ralph Nader challenged the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party from the outside in 2000. Ron Paul vexed
establishment Republicans John McCain and Mitt Romney in 2008 and 2012. And this year, Trump was not the only candidate to confound
his party's elite: Bernie Sanders harried Hillary Clinton right up to the Democratic convention.
What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy. All
have opposed large-scale free-trade agreements. (The libertarian Paul favors unilateral free trade: by his lights, treaties
like NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership are not free trade at all but international regulatory pacts.) And while no one would
mistake Ralph Nader's or Ron Paul's views on immigration for Pat Buchanan's or Donald Trump's, Nader and Paul have registered their
own dissents from the approach to immigration that prevails in Washington.
Sanders has been more in line with his party's orthodoxy on that issue. But that didn't save him from being attacked by Clinton
backers for having an insufficiently nonwhite base of support. Once again, what might have appeared to be a class conflict-in this
case between a democratic socialist and an elite liberal with ties to high finance-could be explained away as really about race.
Race, like religion, is a real factor in how people vote. Its relevance to elite politics, however, is less clear. Something else
has to account for why the establishment in both parties almost uniformly favors one approach to war, trade, and immigration,
while outsider candidates as dissimilar as Buchanan, Nader, Paul, and Trump, and to a lesser extent Sanders, depart from the consensus.
The insurgents clearly do not represent a single class: they appeal to eclectic interests and groups. The foe they have all
faced down, however-the bipartisan establishment-does resemble a class in its striking unity of outlook and interest. So what is
this class, effectively the ruling class of the country?
Some critics on the right have identified it with the "managerial" class described by James Burnham in his 1941 book The Managerial
Revolution . But it bears a stronger resemblance to what what others have called "the New Class." In fact, the interests of this
New Class of college-educated "verbalists" are antithetical to those of the industrial managers that Burnham described. Understanding
the relationship between these two often conflated concepts provides insight into politics today, which can be seen as a clash between
managerial and New Class elites.
♦♦♦
The archetypal model of class conflict, the one associated with Karl Marx, pits capitalists against workers-or, at an earlier
stage, capitalists against the landed nobility. The capitalists' victory over the nobility was inevitable, and so too, Marx believed,
was the coming triumph of the workers over the capitalists.
Over the next century, however, history did not follow the script. By 1992, the Soviet Union was gone, Communist China had embarked
on market reforms, and Western Europe was turning away from democratic socialism. There was no need to predict the future; mankind
had achieved its destiny, a universal order of [neo]liberal democracy. Marx had it backwards: capitalism was the end of history.
But was the truth as simple as that? Long before the collapse of the USSR, many former communists -- some of whom remained socialists,
while others joined the right-thought not. The Soviet Union had never been a workers' state at all, they argued, but was run
by a class of apparatchiks such as Marx had never imagined.
Among the first to advance this argument was James Burnham, a professor of philosophy at New York University who became a leading
Trotskyist thinker. As he broke with Trotsky and began moving toward the right, Burnham recognized affinities between the Soviet
mode of organization-in which much real power lay in the hands of the commissars who controlled industry and the bureaucratic organs
of the state-and the corporatism that characterized fascist states. Even the U.S., under the New Deal and with ongoing changes to
the balance between ownership and management in the private sector, seemed to be moving in the same direction.
Burnham called this the "managerial revolution." The managers of industry and technically trained government officials did not
own the means of production, like the capitalists of old. But they did control the means of production, thanks to their expertise
and administrative prowess.
The rise of this managerial class would have far-reaching consequences, he predicted. Burnham wrote in his 1943 book, The Machiavellians
: "that the managers may function, the economic and political structure must be modified, as it is now being modified, so as
to rest no longer on private ownership and small-scale nationalist sovereignty, but primarily upon state control of the economy,
and continental or vast regional world political organization." Burnham pointed to Nazi Germany, imperial Japan-which became a "continental"
power by annexing Korea and Manchuria-and the Soviet Union as examples.
The defeat of the Axis powers did not halt the progress of the managerial revolution. Far from it: not only did the Soviets retain
their form of managerialism, but the West increasingly adopted a managerial corporatism of its own, marked by cooperation between
big business and big government: high-tech industrial crony capitalism, of the sort that characterizes the military-industrial complex
to this day. (Not for nothing was Burnham a great advocate of America's developing a supersonic transport of its own to compete with
the French-British Concorde.)
America's managerial class was personified by Robert S. McNamara, the former Ford Motor Company executive who was secretary of
defense under John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson. In a 1966 story for National Review , "Why Do They Hate Robert Strange McNamara?"
Burnham answered the question in class terms: "McNamara is attacked by the Left because the Left has a blanket hatred of the system
of business enterprise; he is criticized by the Right because the Right harks back, in nostalgia if not in practice, to outmoded
forms of business enterprise."
McNamara the managerial technocrat was too business-oriented for a left that still dreamed of bringing the workers to power. But
the modern form of industrial organization he represented was not traditionally capitalist enough for conservatives who were at heart
19th-century classical liberals.
National Review readers responded to Burnham's paean to McNamara with a mixture of incomprehension and indignation. It
was a sign that even readers familiar with Burnham-he appeared in every issue of the magazine-did not always follow what he was saying.
The popular right wanted concepts that were helpful in labeling enemies, and Burnham was confusing matters by talking about changes
in the organization of government and industry that did not line up with anyone's value judgements.
More polemically useful was a different concept popularized by neoconservatives in the following decade: the "New Class."
"This 'new class' is not easily defined but may be vaguely described," Irving Kristol wrote in a 1975 essay for the Wall
Street Journal :
It consists of a goodly proportion of those college-educated people whose skills and vocations proliferate in a 'post-industrial
society' (to use Daniel Bell's convenient term). We are talking about scientists, teachers, and educational administrators, journalists
and others in the communication industries, psychologists, social workers, those lawyers and doctors who make their careers in
the expanding public sector, city planners, the staffs of the larger foundations, the upper levels of the government bureaucracy,
and so on.
"Members of the new class do not 'control' the media," he continued, "they are the media-just as they are our educational
system, our public health and welfare system, and much else."
Burnham, writing in National Review in 1978, drew a sharp contrast between this concept and his own ideas:
I have felt that this 'new class' is, so far, rather thin gruel. Intellectuals, verbalists, media types, etc. are conspicuous
actors these days, certainly; they make a lot of noise, get a lot of attention, and some of them make a lot of money. But, after
all, they are a harum-scarum crowd, and deflate even more quickly than they puff up. On TV they can out-talk any of the managers
of ITT, GM, or IBM, or the administration-managers of the great government bureaus and agencies, but, honestly, you're not going
to take that as a power test. Who hires and fires whom?
Burnham suffered a stroke later that year. Although he lived until 1987, his career as a writer was over. His last years coincided
with another great transformation of business and government. It began in the Carter administration, with moves to deregulate transportation
and telecommunications. This partial unwinding of the managerial revolution accelerated under Ronald Reagan. Regulatory and welfare-state
reforms, even privatization of formerly nationalized industries, also took off in the UK and Western Europe. All this did not, however,
amount to a restoration of the old capitalism or anything resembling laissez-faire.
The "[neo]liberal democracy" that triumphed at "the end of history"-to use Francis Fukuyama's words-was not the managerial capitalism
of the mid-20th century, either. It was instead the New Class's form of capitalism, one that could be embraced by Bill Clinton and
Tony Blair as readily as by any Republican or Thatcherite.
Irving Kristol had already noted in the 1970s that "this new class is not merely liberal but truly 'libertarian' in its approach
to all areas of life-except economics. It celebrates individual liberty of speech and expression and action to an unprecedented degree,
so that at times it seems almost anarchistic in its conception of the good life."
He was right about the New Class's "anything goes" mentality, but he was only partly correct about its attitude toward economics.
The young elite tended to scorn the bourgeois character of the old capitalism, and to them managerial figures like McNamara were
evil incarnate. But they had to get by-and they aspired to rule.
Burnham had observed that the New Class did not have the means-either money or manpower-to wield power the way the managers
or the capitalists of old did. It had to borrow power from other classes. Discovering where the New Class gets it is as easy as following
the money, which leads straight to the finance sector-practically to the doorstep of Goldman Sachs. Jerry Rubin's journey from Yippie
to yuppie was the paradigm of a generation.
Part of the tale can be told in a favorable light. New Left activists like Carl Oglesby fought the spiritual aridity and murderous
militarism of what they called "corporate liberalism"-Burnham's managerialism-while sincere young libertarians attacked the regulatory
state and seeded technological entrepreneurship. Yet the New Class as a whole is less like Carl Oglesby or Karl Hess than like
Hillary Clinton, who arguably embodies it as perfectly as McNamara did the managerial class.
Even the New Class's support for deregulation-to the advantage of its allies on Wall Street-was no sign of consistent commitment
to free-market principles. On the contrary, the New Class favors new kinds of crony finance capitalism, even as it opposes the
protectionism that would benefit hard industry and managerial interests. The individual-mandate feature of Obamacare and Romneycare
is a prime example of New Class cronyism: government compels individuals to buy a supposedly private product or service.
The alliance between finance and the New Class accounts for the disposition of power in America today. The New Class has also
enlisted another invaluable ally: the managerial classes of East Asia. Trade with China-the modern managerial state par excellence-helps
keep American industry weak relative to finance and the service economy's verbalist-dominated sectors. America's class war, like
many others, is not in the end a contest between up and down. It's a fight between rival elites: in this case, between the declining
managerial elite and the triumphant (for now) New Class and financial elites.
The New Class plays a priestly role in its alliance with finance, absolving Wall Street for the sin of making money in exchange
for plenty of that money to keep the New Class in power. In command of foreign policy, the New Class gets to pursue humanitarian
ideological projects-to experiment on the world. It gets to evangelize by the sword. And with trade policy, it gets to suppress its
class rival, the managerial elite, at home. Through trade pacts and mass immigration the financial elite, meanwhile, gets to maximize
its returns without regard for borders or citizenship. The erosion of other nations' sovereignty that accompanies American hegemony
helps toward that end too-though our wars are more ideological than interest-driven.
♦♦♦
So we come to an historic moment. Instead of an election pitting another Bush against another Clinton, we have a race that poses
stark alternatives: a choice not only between candidates but between classes-not only between administrations but between regimes.
Donald Trump is not of the managerial class himself. But by embracing managerial interests-industrial protection and, yes,
"big government"-and combining them with nationalistic identity politics, he has built a force that has potential to threaten the
bipartisan establishment, even if he goes down to defeat in November.
The New Class, after all, lacks a popular base as well as money of its own, and just as it relies on Wall Street to underwrite
its power, it depends on its competing brands of identity politics to co-opt popular support. For the center-left establishment,
minority voters supply the electoral muscle. Religion and the culture war have served the same purpose for the establishment's center-right
faction. Trump showed that at least one of these sides could be beaten on its own turf-and it seems conceivable that if Bernie Sanders
had been black, he might have similarly beaten Clinton, without having to make concessions to New Class tastes.
The New Class establishment of both parties may be seriously misjudging what is happening here. Far from being the last gasp of
the demographically doomed-old, racially isolated white people, as Gallup's analysis says-Trump's insurgency may be the prototype
of an aggressive new politics, of either left or right, that could restore the managerial elite to power.
This is not something that conservatives-or libertarians who admire the old capitalism rather than New Class's simulacrum-might
welcome. But the only way that some entrenched policies may change is with a change of the class in power.
Daniel McCarthy is the editor of The American Conservative .
Excellent analysis. What is important about the Trump phenomenon is not every individual issue, it's the potentially revolutionary
nature of the phenomenon. The opposition gets this. That's why they are hysterical about Trump. The conservative box checkers
do not.
"Donald Trump is not of the managerial class himself. But by embracing managerial interests-industrial protection and, yes, "big
government"-and combining them with nationalistic identity politics, he has built a force that has potential to threaten the bipartisan
establishment, even if he goes down to defeat in November."
My question is, if Trump is not himself of the managerial class, in fact, could be considered one of the original new class
members, how would he govern? What explains his conversion from the new class to the managerial class; is he merely taking advantage
of an opportunity or is there some other explanation?
I'm genuinely confused by the role you ascribe to the 'managerial class' here. Going back to Berle and Means ('The Modern Corporation
and Private Property') the managerial class emerged when management was split from ownership in mid C20th capitalism. Managers
focused on growth, not profits for shareholders. The Shareholder revolution of the 1980s destroyed the managerial class, and destroyed
their unwieldy corporations.
You seem to be identifying the managerial class with a kind of cultural opposition to the values of [neo]liberal capitalism. And
instead of identifying the 'new class' with the new owner-managers of shareholder-driven firms, you identify them by their superficial
cultural effects.
This raises a deeper problem in how you talk about class in this piece. Marx taught that you identify classes by their
structural role in the system of production. I'm at a loss to see how either of the 'classes' you mention here relate to the system
of production. Does the 'new class' of journalists, academics, etc. actually own anything? If not, what is the point of ascribing
to them immense economic power?
I would agree that there is a new class of capitalists in America. But they are well known people like Sheldon Adelson, the Kochs,
Linda McMahon, the Waltons, Rick Scott the pharmaceutical entrepreneur, Mitt Romney, Mark Zuckerberg, and many many hedge fund
gazillionaires. These people represent the resurgence of a family-based, dynastic capitalism that is utterly different from the
managerial variety that prevailed in mid-century.
If there is a current competitor to international corporate capitalism, it is old-fashioned dynastic family capitalism. Not
Managerialism.
There is no "new class". That's simply a derogatory trope of the Right. The [neo]liberal elite– educated, cosmopolitan and possessed
of sufficient wealth to be influential in political affairs and claims to power grounded in moral stances– have a long pedigree
in both Western and non-Western lands. They were the Scribal Class in the ancient world, the Mandarins of China, and the Clergy
in the Middle Ages. This class for a time was eclipsed in the early modern period as first royal authority became dominant, followed
by the power of the Capitalist class (the latter has never really faded of course). But their reemergence in the late 20th century
is not a new or unique phenomenon.
In a year in which "trash Trump" and "trash Trump's supporters" are tricks-to-be-turned for more than 90% of mainstream journalists
and other media hacks, it's good to see Daniel McCarthy buck the "trash trend" and write a serious, honest analysis of the class
forces that are colliding during this election cycle.
Two thumbs way up for McCarthy, although his fine effort cannot save the reputation of those establishment whores who call
themselves journalists. Nothing can save them. They have earned the universality with which Americans hold them in contempt.
In 1976 when Gallup began asking about "the honesty and ethical standards" of various professions only 33% of Americans rated
journalists "very high or high."
By last December that "high or very high" rating for journalists had fallen to just 27%.
It is certain that by Election Day 2016 the American public's opinion of journalists will have fallen even further.
Most of your argument is confusing. The change I see is from a production economy to a finance economy. Wall Street rules, really.
Basically the stock market used to be a place where working folk invested their money for retirement, mostly through pensions
from unions and corporations. Now it's become a gambling casino, with the "house"-or the big banks-putting it's finger on the
roulette wheel. They changed the compensation package of CEO's, so they can rake in huge executive compensation–mostly through
stock options-to basically close down everything from manufacturing to customer service, and ship it off to contract manufacturers
and outside services in oligarchical countries like mainland China and India.
I don't know what exactly you mean about the "new class", basically its the finance industry against everyone else.
One thing you right-wingers always get wrong, is on Karl Marx he was really attacking the money-changers, the finance speculators,
the banks. Back in the day, so-called "capitalists" like Henry Ford or George Eastman or Thomas Edison always complained about
the access to financing through the big money finance capitalists.
Don't overlook the economic value of intellectual property rights (patents, in particular) in the economic equation.
A big chunk of the 21st century economy is generated due to the intellectual property developed and owned by the New Class
and its business enterprises.
The economic value of ideas and intellectual property rights is somewhat implied in McCarthy's explanation of the New Class,
but I didn't see an explicit mention (perhaps I overlooked it).
I think the consideration of intellectual property rights and the value generated by IP might help to clarify the economic
power of the New Class for those who feel the analysis isn't quite complete or on target.
I'm not saying that IP only provides value to the New Class. We can find examples of IP throughout the economy, at all levels.
It's just that the tech and financial sectors seem to focus more on (and benefit from) IP ownership, licensing, and the information
captured through use of digital technology.
"What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question the interventionist consensus in foreign policy."
But today we have this: Trump pledges big US military
expansion . Trump doesn't appear to have any coherent policy, he just says whatever seems to be useful at that particular
moment.
[New] Class better describes the Never Trumpers. Mostly I have found them to be those involved in knowledge occupations (conservative
think tanks, hedge fund managers, etc.) who have a pecuniary interest in maintaining the Global Economy as opposed to the Virtuous
Intergenerational Economy that preceded. Many are dependent on funding sources for their livelihoods that are connected to the
Globalized Economy and financial markets.
Being white is not the defining characteristic of Trumpers because it if was then how come there are many white working class
voters for Hillary? The divide in the working class comes from being a member of a union or a member of the private non-unionized
working class.
Where the real class divide shows up is in those who are members of the Knowledge Class that made their living based on the
old Virtuous Economy where the elderly saved money in banks and the banks, in turn, lent that money out to young families to buy
houses, cars, and start businesses. The Virtuous Economy has been replaced by the Global Economy based on diverting money to the
stock market to fund global enterprises and prop up government pension funds.
The local bankers, realtors, private contractors, small savers and small business persons and others that depended on the Virtuous
Economy lost out to the global bankers, stock investors, pension fund managers, union contractors and intellectuals that propounded
rationales for the global economy as superior to the Virtuous Economy.
Where the class conflict between the Working and Knowledge Classes begins is where the Knowledge Class almost unilaterally
decided to shift to a global economy, at the expense of the Working Class, and to the self-benefit of the Knowledge Class. Those
who designed the Global Economy like Larry Summers of Harvard did not invite private or public labor to help design the new Globalist
Economy. The Working Class lost out big time in job losses and getting stuck with subprime home loans that busted their marriages
and created bankruptcies and foreclosures. The Knowledge Class was mostly unscathed by this class-based economic divide.
Beginning in the 50's and 60's, baby boomers were warned in school and cultural media that "a college diploma would become what
a high school diploma is today." An extraordinary cohort of Americans took this advice seriously, creating the smartest and most
successful generation in history. But millions did not heed that advice, cynically buoyed by Republicans who – knowing that college
educated people vote largely Democrat – launched a financial and cultural war on college education. The result is what you see
now: millions of people unprepared for modern employment; meanwhile we have to import millions of college-educated Asians and
Indians to do the work there aren't enough Americans to do.
Have to say, this seems like an attempt to put things into boxes that don't quite fit.
Trump's distinguishing ideology, which separates him from the current elite, is something he has summed up many times –
nationalism vs. Globalism.
The core of it is that the government no longer serves the people. In the United States, that is kind of a bad thing, you know?
Like the EU in the UK, the people, who fought very hard for self-government, are seeing it undermined by the erosion of the nation
state in favor of international beaurocracy run by elites and the well connected.
Both this article and many comments on it show considerable confusion, and ideological opinion all over the map. What is happening
I think is that the world is changing –due to globalism, technology, and the sheer huge numbers of people on the planet. As a
result some of the rigid trenches of thought as well as class alignments are breaking down.
In America we no longer have capitalism, of either the 19th century industrial or 20th century managerial varieties. Money
and big money is still important of course, but it is increasingly both aligned with and in turn controlled by the government.
The financial industry, the new tech giants, the health insurance industry are now almost indistinguishable from the government
ruling elite. The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives
are exasperated by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America. Both
are right in a sense.
The hyperconcentration of power in Washington and a few tributary locations like Wall Street and Silicon Valley, elite
academia and the media–call that the New Class if you like–means that most of America–Main Street, the flyover country has been
left behind. Trump instinctively – brilliantly in some ways – tapped into the resentment that this hyperconcentration of wealth
and government power has led to. That is why it cuts across right and left. The elites want to characterize this resentment as
backwards and "racist," but there is also something very American from Jefferson to Jackson to Teddy Roosevelt that revolts against
being lectured to and controlled by their would-be "betters."
The alienation of those left out is real and based on real erosion of the middle class and American dream under both parties'
elites. The potentially revolutionary capabilities of a political movement that could unite right and left in restoring some equilibrium
and opportunities to those left out is tremendous, but yet to be realized by either major party. The party that can harness these
folks – who are after all the majority of Americans – will have a ruling coalition for decades. If neither party can productively
harness this budding movement, we are headed for disarray, civil unrest, and potentially the dissolution of the USA.
I have one condition about which, Mr. Trump would lose my support - if he flinches on immigration, I will have to bow out.
I just don't buy the contentions about color here. He has made definitive moves to ensure that he intends to fight for US citizens
regardless of color. This nonsense about white racism, more bigotry in reality, doesn't pan out. The Republican party has been
comprised of mostly whites since forever and nearly all white sine the late 1960's. Anyone attempting to make hay out of what
has been the reality for than 40 years is really making the reverse pander. Of course most of those who have issues with blacks
and tend to be more expressive about it, are in the Republican party. But so what. Black Republicans would look at you askance,
should you attempt this FYI.
It's a so what. The reason you joining a party is not because the people in it like you, that is really beside the point. Both
Sec Rice and General Powell, are keenly aware of who's what it and that is the supposed educated elite. They are not members of
the party because it is composed of some pure untainted membership. But because they and many blacks align themselves with the
ideas of the party, or what the party used to believe, anyway.
It's the issues not their skin color that matters. And blacks who cleave to the democrats despite being sold down the tubes
on issues, well, for whatever reason, they just have thinner skin and the mistaken idea that the democrats deliver – thanks to
Pres. Johnson. But what Pres. Johnson delivered democrats made a mockery of immediately as they stripped it of its intent and
used for their own liberal ends.
I remain convinced that if blacks wanted progress all they need do is swamp the Republican party as constituents and confront
whatever they thought was nonsense as constituents as they move on policy issues. Goodness democrats have embraced the lighter
tones despite having most black support. That is why the democrats are importing so many from other state run countries. They
could ignore blacks altogether. Sen Barbara Jordan and her deep voiced rebuke would do them all some good.
Let's face it - we are not going to remove the deeply rooted impact of skin color, once part of the legal frame of the country
for a quarter of the nations populous. What Republicans should stop doing is pretending, that everything concerning skin color
is the figment of black imagination. I am not budging an inch on the Daughters of the American Revolution, a perfect example of
the kind of peculiar treatment of the majority, even to those who fought for Independence and their descendants.
________________
I think that there are thousands and thousands of educated (degreed)people who now realize what a mess the educational and
social services system has become because of our immigration policy. The impact on social services here in Ca is no joke. In the
face of mounting deficits, the laxity of Ca has now come back to haunt them. The pressure to increase taxes weighed against the
loss of manual or hard labor to immigrants legal and otherwise is unmistakable here. There's debate about rsstroom etiquette in
the midst of serious financial issues - that's a joke. So this idea of dismissing people with degrees as being opposed to Mr.
Trump is deeply overplayed and misunderstood. If there is a class war, it's not because of Mr. Trump, those decks were stacked
in his favor long before the election cycle.
--------
"But millions did not heed that advice, cynically buoyed by Republicans who–knowing that college educated people vote largely
Democrat–launched a financial and cultural war on college education. The result is what . . . employment; meanwhile we have to
import millions of college-educated Asians and Indians to do the work there aren't enough Americans to do."
Hmmmm,
Nope. Republicans are notorious for pushing education on everything and everybody. It's a signature of hard work, self reliance,
self motivation and responsibility. The shift that has been tragic is that conservatives and Republicans either by a shove or
by choice abandoned the fields by which we turn out most future generations - elementary, HS and college education. Especially
in HS, millions of students are fed a daily diet of liberal though unchecked by any opposing ideas. And that is become the staple
for college education - as it cannot be stated just how tragic this has become for the nation. There are lots of issues to moan
about concerning the Us, but there is far more to embrace or at the very least keep the moaning in its proper context. No, conservatives
and Republicans did engage in discouraging an education.
And there will always be a need for more people without degrees than with them. even people with degrees are now getting hit
even in the elite walls of WS finance. I think I posted an article by John Maulden about the growing tensions resulting fro the
shift in the way trading is conducting. I can build a computer from scratch, that's a technical skill, but the days of building
computers by hand went as fast it came. The accusation that the population should all be trained accountants, book keepers, managers,
data processors, programmers etc. Is nice, but hardly very realistic (despite my taking liberties with your exact phrasing). A
degree is not going to stop a company from selling and moving its production to China, Mexico or Vietnam - would that were true.
In fact, even high end degree positions are being outsourced, medicine, law, data processing, programming . . .
How about the changes in economy that have forced businesses to completely disappear. We will never know how many businesses
were lost in the 2007/2008 financial mess. Recovery doesn't exist until the country's growth is robust enough to put people back
to work full time in a manner that enables them to sustain themselves and family.
That income gap is real and its telling.
___________________
even if I bought the Karl Marx assessment. His solutions were anything but a limited assault on financial sector oligarchs
and wizards. And in practice it has been an unmitigated disaster with virtually not a single long term national benefit. It's
very nature has been destructive, not only to infrastructure, but literally the lifeblood of the people it was intended to rescue.
Let's see if I can help Dreher clear up some confusion in his article. James Burnham's "Managerial Class" and the "New Class"
are overlapping and not exclusive. By the Managerial Class Burnham meant both the executive and managers in the private sector
and the Bureaucrats and functionaries in the public sector.
There are two middle classes in the US: the old Business Class and the New Knowledge Class. A manager would be in the Business
Class and a Bureaucrat in the New Class.
The rise of managers was a "revolution" because of the rise of modernization which meant the increasing mechanization,
industrialization, formalization and rationalization (efficiency) of society. Burnham's concern about the rise of the managerial
revolution was misplaced; what he should have focused on was modernization.
The New Class were those in the mostly government and nonprofit sectors that depended on knowledge for their livelihood without
it being coupled to any physical labor: teachers, intellectuals, social workers and psychiatrists, lawyers, media types, hedge
fund managers, real estate appraisers, financial advisors, architects, engineers, etc. The New Knowledge Class has only risen
since the New Deal created a permanent white collar, non-business class.
The Working Class are those who are employed for wages in manual work in an industry producing something tangible (houses,
cars, computers, etc.). The Working Class can also have managers, sometimes called supervisors. And the Working Class is comprised
mainly of two groups: unionized workers and private sector non-unionized workers. When we talk about the Working Class we typically
are referring to the latter.
The Trumpsters should not be distinguished as being a racial group or class (white) because there are many white people who
support Clinton. About 95% of Blacks vote Democratic in the US. Nowhere near that ratio of Whites are supporting Trump. So Trumps'
support should not be stereotyped as White.
The number one concern to Trumpsters is that they reflect the previous intergenerational economy where the elderly lent money
to the young to buy homes, cars and start small businesses. The Global bankers have shifted money into the stock market because
0.25% per year interest rates in a bank isn't making any money at all when money inflation runs at 1% to 2% (theft). This has
been replaced by a Global Economy that depends on financial bubbles and arbitraging of funds.
"The old left–represented by Sanders–rails against this as big money coopting government, even while conservatives are exasperated
by the unholy cabal of big business and big government in cohoots in the "progressive" remake of America. Both are right
in a sense."
Why other couching this. Ten years ago if some Hollywood exec had said, no same sex marriage, no production company in your
town, the town would have shrugged. Today before shrugging, the city clerk is checking the account balance. When the governors
of Michigan, and Arizona bent down in me culpa's on related issue, because business interests piped in, it was an indication that
the game had seriously changed. Some 3 – 5% of the population facing no real opposition has decided that that their private
lives needed public endorsement and have proceeded to upend the entire social order - the game has shifted in ways I am not sure
most of the public fully grasps or desires.
Same sex weddings in US military chapels - the concept still turns my stomach. Advocates control the megaphones, I don't think
they control the minds of the public, despite having convinced a good many people that those who have chosen this expression are
under some manner of assault – that demands a legal change - intelligent well educated, supposedly astute minded people actually
believe it. Even the Republican nominee believes it.
I love Barbara Streisand, but if the election means she moves to Canada, well, so be it. Take your "drag queens" impersonators
wit you. I enjoy Mr. and Mrs Pitt, I think have a social moral core but really? with millions of kids future at stake, endorsing
a terminal dynamic as if it will save society's ills - Hollywood doesn't even pretend to behave royally much less embody the sensitivities
of the same.
There is a lot to challenge about supporting Mr. Trump. He did support killing children in the womb and that is tragic. Unless
he has stood before his maker and made this right, he will have to answer for that. But no more than a trove of Republicans who
supported killing children in the womb and then came to their senses. I guess of there is one thing he and I agree on, it's not
drinking.
As for big budget military, it seems a waste, but if we are going to waste money, better it be for our own citizens. His Achilles
heel here is his intentions as to ISIS/ISIL. I think it's the big drain getting ready to suck him into the abyss of intervention
creep.
Missile defense just doesn't work. The tests are rigged and as Israel discovered, it's a hit and miss game with low probability
of success, but it makes for great propaganda.
I am supposed to be outraged by a football player stance on abusive government. While the democratic nominee is turning over
every deck chair she find, leaving hundreds of thousands of children homeless - let me guess, on the bright side, George Clooney
cheers the prospect of more democratic voters.
If Mr. Trumps only achievements are building a wall, over hauling immigration policy and expanding the size of the military.
He will be well on his way to getting ranked one of the US most successful presidents.
I never understood why an analysis needs to lard in every conceivable historical reference and simply assume its relevance, when
there are so many non constant facts and circumstances. There has always been and will always be class conflict, even if it
falls short of a war. Simply examining recent past circumstances, the wealthy class has been whooping up on all other classes.
This is not to suggest any sort of remedy, but simply to observe that income disparity over the past 30 years has substantially
benefitted on sector of class and political power remains in their hands today. To think that there will never be class conflict
is to side with a Marxian fantasy of egalitarianism, which will never come to pass. Winners and losers may change positions, but
the underlying conflict will always remain.
State governments have been kowtowing to big business interests for a good long while. Nothing new under the sun there.
Back in the 80s when GM was deciding where to site their factory for the new Saturn car line, they issued an edict stating they
would only consider states that had mandatory seat belt use laws, and the states in the running fell all over each to enact those.
The split on Trump is first by race (obviously), then be gender (also somewhat obviously), and then by education. Even among
self-declared conservatives it's the college educated who tend to oppose him. This is a lot broader than simply losing some "new"
Knowledge Class, unless all college educated people are put in that grouping. In fact he is on track to lose among college educated
whites, something no GOP candidate has suffered since the days of FDR and WWII.
People don't really care for the actions of the elite but they care for the consequences of these actions. During the 1960's,
per capita GDP growth was around 3.5%. Today it stands at 0,49%. If you take into account inflation, it's negative. Add to this
the skewed repartition of said growth and it's intuitive that many people feel the pain; whom doesn't move forward, goes backwards.
People couldn't care for mass immigration, nation building or the emergence of China if their personal situation was not
impacted. But now, they begin to feel the results of these actions.
I have a simple philosophy regarding American politics that shows who is made of what, and we don't have to go through all
the philosophizing in this article: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable.
Anyone who puts Israeli interests above America's is un-American.
EliteComic beat me to the punch. I was disappointed that Ross Perot, who won over 20% of the popular vote twice, and was briefly
in the lead in early 1992, wasn't mentioned in this article.
Re: Anyone who believes in same sex marriage has been brainwashed and is un-American and unreliable. Anyone who puts Israeli
interests above America's is un-American.
The first has nothing whatsoever to do with American citizenship. It's just a political issue– on which, yes, reasonable
people can differ. However no American citizen should put the interests of any other country ahead of our own, except in a situation
where the US was itself up to no good and deserved its comeuppance. And then the interest is not that of any particular nation,
but of justice being done period.
A lot of this "New Class" stuff is just confusing mis-mash of this and that theory. Basically, America changed when the US
dollar replace gold as the medium of exchange in the world economy. Remember when we called it the PETRO-DOLLAR. As long as the
Saudis only accepted the US dollar as the medium of exchange for oil, then the American government could export it's inflation
and deficit spending. Budget deficits and trade deficits are intrinsically related. It allowed America to become a nation of consumers
instead of a nation of producers.
Who really cares about the federal debt. REally? We can print dollars, exchange these worthless dollars with China for hard
goods, and then China lends the dollars back to us, to pay for our government. Get it?
It's really a form of classic IMPERIALISM. To maintain this system, we've got the US military and we prop up the corrupt
dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya
Yeah, you can talk about the "new class", the corruption of the banking system by the idiotic "libertarian" or "free market
utopianism" of the Gingrich Congress, the transformation of American corporations to international corporations, and on and on.
But it's the US dollar as reserve currency that has allowed it all to happen. God help us, if it ends, we'll be crippled.
And damn the utopianism of you "libertarians" you're worse then Marxists when it comes to ideology over reality.
"State governments have been kowtowing to big business interests for a good long while. Nothing new under the sun there. Back
in the 80s when GM was deciding where to site their factory for the new Saturn car line, they issued an edict stating they would
only consider states that had mandatory seat belt use laws, and the states in the running fell all over each to enact those."
Ah, not it's policy on some measure able effect. The seatbelt law was debate across the country. The data indicated that it
did in fact save lives. And it's impact was universal applicable to every man women or child that got into a vehicle.
That was not a private bedroom issue. Of course businesses have advocated policy. K street is not a K-street minus that reality.
But GM did not demand having relations in parked cars be legalized or else.
You are taking my apples and and calling them seatbelts - false comparison on multiple levels, all to get me to acknowledge
that businesses have influence. It what they have chosen to have influence on -
I do not think the issue of class is relevant here – whether it be new classes or old classes. There are essentially two classes
– those who win given whatever the current economic arrangements are or those who lose given those same arrangements. People who
think they are losing support Trump versus people who think they are winning support Clinton. The polls demonstrates this – Trump
supporters feel a great deal more anxiety about the future and are more inclined to think everything is falling apart whereas
Clinton supporters tend to see things as being okay and are optimistic about the future. The Vox work also shows this pervasive
sense that life will not be good for their children and grandchildren as a characteristic of Trump supporters.
The real shift I think is in the actual coalitions that are political parties. Both the GOP and the Dems have been coalitions
– political parties usually are. Primary areas of agreement with secondary areas of disagreement. Those coalitions no longer work.
The Dems can be seen as a coalition of the liberal knowledge types – who are winners in this economy and the worker types who
are often losers now in this economy. The GOP also is a coalition of globalist corporatist business types (winners) with workers
(losers) who they attracted in part because of culture wars and the Dixiecrats becoming GOPers. The needs of these two groups
in both parties no longer overlap. The crisis is more apparent in the GOP because well – Trump. If Sanders had won the nomination
for the Dems (and he got close) then their same crisis would be more apparent. The Dems can hold their creaky coalition together
because Trump went into the fevered swamps of the alt. right.
I think this is even more obvious in the UK where you have a Labor Party that allegedly represents the interests of working
people but includes the cosmopolitan knowledge types. The cosmopolitans are big on the usual identity politics, unlimited immigration
and staying in the EU. They benefit from the current economic arrangement. But the workers in the Labor party have been hammered
by the current economic arrangements and voted in droves to get out of the EU and limit immigration. It seems pretty obvious that
there is no longer a coalition to sustain the Labor Party. Same with Tories – some in the party love the EU,immigration, globalization
while others voted out of the EU, want immigration restricted and support localism. The crisis is about the inability of either
party to sustain its coalitions. Those in the Tory party who are leavers should be in a political party with the old Labor working
class while the Tory cosmopolitans should be in a party with the Labor cosmopolitans. The current coalitions not being in synch
is the political problem – not new classes etc.
Here in the US the southern Dixiecrats who went to the GOP and are losers in this economy might find a better coalition with
the black, Latino and white workers who are still in the Dem party. But as in the UK ideological culture wars have become more
prominent and hence the coalitions are no longer economically based. If people recognized that politics can only address the economic
issues and they aligned themselves accordingly – the membership of the parties would radically change.
The Clinton Class mocks The Country Class: Bill Clinton, "We all know how her opponent's done real well down in West Virginia
and eastern Kentucky. Because the coal people don't like any of us anymore." "They blame the president when the sun doesn't come
up in the morning now,"
"Trump's voters were most strongly characterized by their "racial isolation": they live in places with little ethnic diversity.
"
During the primaries whites in more diverse areas voted Trump. The only real exception was West Virginia. Utah, Wyoming, Iowa?
All voted for Cruz and "muh values".
In white enclaves like Paul Ryans district, which is 91%, whites are able to signal against white identity without having to
face the consequences.
"All three major African, Hispanic, & Asian-American overwhelming support HRC in the election."
That doesn't mean they actually support Hillary's policies and position. What do they really know about either? These demographics
simply vote overwhelmingly Democrat no matter who is on the ticket. If Alfred E. Newman were the candidate, this particular data
point would look just the same.
"On the contrary, the New Class favors new kinds of crony finance capitalism, even as it opposes the protectionism that would
benefit hard industry and managerial interests."
This doesn't ring true. Hard industry, and the managers that run it had no problem with moving jobs and factories overseas
in pursuit of cheaper labor. Plus, it solved their Union issues. I feel like the divide is between large corporations, with dilute
ownership and professional managers who nominally serve the interests of stock fund managers, while greatly enriching themselves
versus a multitude of smaller, locally owned businesses whose owners were also concerned with the health of the local communities
in which they lived.
The financial elites are a consequence of consolidation in the banking and finance industry, where we now have 4 or 5 large
institutions versus a multitude of local and regional banks that were locally focused.
It has been our undertaking, since 2010, to chronicle our understanding of capitalism via our book
The Philosophy of Capitalism . We were curious
as to the underlying nature of the system which endows us, the owners of capital, with so many favours. The Saker has asked me
to explain our somewhat crude statement 'Capitalism Requires World War'.
The present showdown between West, Russia and China is the culmination of a long running saga that began with World War One. Prior
to which, Capitalism was governed by the gold standard system which was international, very solid, with clear rules and had brought
great prosperity: for banking Capital was scarce and so allocated carefully. World War One required debt-capitalism of the
FIAT kind, a bankrupt Britain began to pass the Imperial baton to the US, which had profited by financing the war and selling munitions.
The Weimar Republic, suffering a continuation of hostilities via economic means, tried to inflate away its debts in 1919-1923
with disastrous results-hyperinflation. Then, the reintroduction of the gold standard into a world poisoned by war, reparation and
debt was fated to fail and ended with a deflationary bust in the early 1930's and WW2.
The US government gained a lot of credibility after WW2 by outlawing offensive war and funding many construction projects
that helped transfer private debt to the public book. The US government's debt exploded during the war, but it also shifted
the power game away from creditors to a big debtor that had a lot of political capital. The US used her power to define the new rules
of the monetary system at Bretton Woods in 1944 and to keep physical hold of gold owned by other nations.
The US jacked up tax rates on the wealthy and had a period of elevated inflation in the late 40s and into the 1950s –
all of which wiped out creditors, but also ushered in a unique middle class era in the West. The US also reformed extraction
centric institutions in Europe and Japan to make sure an extractive-creditor class did not hobble growth, which was easy to do because
the war had wiped them out (same as in Korea).
Capital destruction in WW2 reversed the Marxist rule that the rate of profit always falls. Take any given market
– say jeans. At first, all the companies make these jeans using a great deal of human labour so all the jeans are priced around the
average of total social labour time required for production (some companies will charge more, some companies less).
One company then introduces a machine (costed at $n) that makes jeans using a lot less labour time. Each of these robot assisted
workers is paid the same hourly rate but the production process is now far more productive. This company, ignoring the capital outlay
in the machinery, will now have a much higher profit rate than the others. This will attract capital, as capital is always on the
lookout for higher rates of profit. The result will be a generalisation of this new mode of production. The robot or machine will
be adopted by all the other companies, as it is a more efficient way of producing jeans.
As a consequence the price of the jeans will fall, as there is an increased margin within which each market actor can undercut
his fellows. One company will lower prices so as to increase market share. This new price-point will become generalised as competing
companies cut their prices to defend their market share. A further n$ was invested but per unit profit margin is put under constant
downward pressure, so the rate of return in productive assets tends to fall over time in a competitive market place.
Interest rates have been falling for decades in the West because interest rates must always be below the rate of return
on productive investments. If interest rates are higher than the risk adjusted rate of return then the capitalist might
as well keep his money in a savings account. If there is real deflation his purchasing power increases for free and if there is inflation
he will park his money (plus debt) in an unproductive asset that's price inflating, E.G. Housing. Sound familiar? Sure, there has
been plenty of profit generated since 2008 but it has not been recovered from productive investments in a competitive free market
place. All that profit came from bubbles in asset classes and financial schemes abetted by money printing and zero interest
rates.
Thus, we know that the underlying rate of return is near zero in the West. The rate of return falls naturally,
due to capital accumulation and market competition. The system is called capitalism because capital accumulates: high income economies
are those with the greatest accumulation of capital per worker. The robot assisted worker enjoys a higher income as he is highly
productive, partly because the robotics made some of the workers redundant and there are fewer workers to share
the profit. All the high income economies have had near zero interest rates for seven years. Interest rates in Europe are even negative.
How has the system remained stable for so long?
All economic growth depends on energy gain. It takes energy (drilling the oil well) to gain energy. Unlike our
everyday experience whereby energy acquisition and energy expenditure can be balanced, capitalism requires an absolute net energy
gain. That gain, by way of energy exchange, takes the form of tools and machines that permit an increase in productivity per work
hour. Thus GDP increases, living standards improve and the debts can be repaid. Thus, oil is a strategic capitalistic resource.
US net energy gain production peaked in 1974, to be replaced by production from Saudi Arabia, which made the USA a net importer
of oil for the first time. US dependence on foreign oil rose from 26% to 47% between 1985 and 1989 to hit a peak of 60% in 2006.
And, tellingly, real wages peaked in 1974, levelled-off and then began to fall for most US workers. Wages have never recovered. (The
decline is more severe if you don't believe government reported inflation figures that don't count the costof housing.)
What was the economic and political result of this decline? During the 20 years 1965-85, there were 4 recessions, 2 energy
crises and wage and price controls. These were unprecedented in peacetime and The Gulf of Tonkin event led to the Vietnam
War which finally required Nixon to move away from the Gold-Exchange Standard in 1971, opening the next degenerate chapter of FIAT
finance up until 2008. Cutting this link to gold was cutting the external anchor impeding war and deficit spending. The promise of
gold for dollars was revoked.
GDP in the US increased after 1974 but a portion of end use buying power was transferred to Saudi Arabia. They
were supplying the net energy gain that was powering the US GDP increase. The working class in the US began to experience a slow
real decline in living standards, as 'their share' of the economic pie was squeezed by the ever increasing transfer of buying power
to Saudi Arabia.
The US banking and government elite responded by creating and cutting back legal and behavioral rules of a fiat based
monetary system. The Chinese appreciated the long term opportunity that this presented and agreed to play ball. The USA
over-produced credit money and China over-produced manufactured goods which cushioned the real decline in the buying power of America's
working class. Power relations between China and the US began to change: The Communist Party transferred value to the American consumer
whilst Wall Street transferred most of the US industrial base to China. They didn't ship the military industrial complex.
Large scale leverage meant that US consumers and businesses had the means to purchase increasingly with debt so the class
war was deferred. This is how over production occurs: more is produced that is paid for not with money that represents actual realized
labour time, but from future wealth, to be realised from future labour time. The Chinese labour force was producing more than it
consumed.
The system has never differed from the limits laid down by the Laws of Thermodynamics. The Real economy system can never over-produce
per se. The limit of production is absolute net energy gain. What is produced can be consumed. How did the Chinese produce such a
super massive excess and for so long? Economic slavery can achieve radical improvements in living standards for those that benefit
from ownership. Slaves don't depreciate as they are rented and are not repaired for they replicate for free. Hundreds of millions
of Chinese peasants limited their way of life and controlled their consumption in order to benefit their children. And their exploited
life raised the rate of profit!
They began their long march to modern prosperity making toys, shoes, and textiles cheaper than poor women could in South Carolina
or Honduras. Such factories are cheap to build and deferential, obedient and industrious peasant staff were a perfect match for work
that was not dissimilar to tossing fruit into a bucket. Their legacy is the initial capital formation of modern China and one of
the greatest accomplishments in human history. The Chinese didn't use net energy gain from oil to power their super massive and sustained
increase in production. They used economic slavery powered by caloric energy, exchanged from solar energy. The Chinese labour force
picked the World's low hanging fruit that didn't need many tools or machines. Slaves don't need tools for they are the tool.
Without a gold standard and capital ratios our form of over-production has grown enormously. The dotcom bubble
was reflated through a housing bubble, which has been pumped up again by sovereign debt, printing press (QE) and central bank insolvency.
The US working and middle classes have over-consumed relative to their share of the global economic pie for decades. The correction
to prices (the destruction of credit money & accumulated capital) is still yet to happen. This is what has been happening since 1971
because of the growth of financialisation or monetisation.
The application of all these economic methods was justified by the political ideology of neo-Liberalism. Neo-Liberalism
entails no or few capital controls, the destruction of trade unions, plundering state and public assets, importing peasants as domesticated
help, and entrusting society's value added production to The Communist Party of The People's Republic of China.
The Chinese have many motives but their first motivation is power. Power is more important than money. If you're rich
and weak you get robbed. Russia provides illustrating stories of such: Gorbachev had received a promise from George HW Bush
that the US would pay Russia approximately $400 billion over10 years as a "peace dividend" and as a tool to be utilized in the conversion
of their state run to a market based economic system. The Russians believe the head of the CIA at the time, George Tenet, essentially
killed the deal based on the idea that "letting the country fall apart will destroy Russia as a future military threat". The country
fell apart in 1992. Its natural assets were plundered which raised the rate of profit in the 90's until President Putin put a stop
to the robbery.
In the last analysis, the current framework of Capitalism results in labour redundancy, a falling rate of profit and ingrained
trading imbalances caused by excess capacity. Under our current monopoly state capitalism a number of temporary preventive measures
have evolved, including the expansion of university, military, and prison systems to warehouse new generations of labour.
Our problem is how to retain the "expected return rate" for us, the dominant class. Ultimately, there are only two large-scale
solutions, which are intertwined .
One is expansion of state debt to keep "the markets" moving and transfer wealth from future generations of
labour to the present dominant class.
The other is war, the consumer of last resort. Wars can burn up excess capacity, shift global markets, generate
monopoly rents, and return future labour to a state of helplessness and reduced expectations. The Spanish flu killed 50-100 million
people in 1918. As if this was not enough, it also took two World Wars across the 20th century and some 96 million dead to reduce
unemployment and stabilize the "labour problem."
Capitalism requires World War because Capitalism requires profit and cannot afford the unemployed . The point
is capitalism could afford social democracy after the rate of profit was restored thanks to the depression of the 1930's and the
physical destruction of capital during WW2. Capitalism only produces for profit and social democracy was funded by taxing profits
after WW2.
Post WW2 growth in labour productivity, due to automation, itself due to oil & gas replacing coal, meant workers could be better
off. As the economic pie was growing, workers could receive the same %, and still receive a bigger slice. Wages as a % of US GDP
actually increased in the period, 1945-1970. There was an increase in government spending which was being redirected in the form
of redistributed incomes. Inequality will only worsen, because to make profits now we have to continually cut the cost of inputs,
i.e. wages & benefits. Have we not already reached the point where large numbers of the working class can neither feed themselves
nor afford a roof over their heads?13% of the UK working age population is out of work and receiving out of work benefits. A huge
fraction is receiving in work benefits because low skill work now pays so little.
The underlying nature of Capitalism is cyclical. Here is how the political aspect of the cycle ends:
1920s/2000s – High inequality, high banker pay, low regulation, low taxes for the wealthy, robber barons (CEOs), reckless
bankers, globalisation phase
1929/2008 – Wall Street crash
1930s/2010s – Global recession, currency wars, trade wars, rising unemployment, nationalism and extremism
What comes next? – World War.
If Capitalism could speak, she would ask her older brother, Imperialism, this: "Can you solve the problem?" We
are not reliving the 1930's, the economy is now an integrated whole that encompasses the entire World. Capital has been accumulating
since 1945, so under- and unemployment is a plague everywhere. How big is the problem? Official data tells us nothing, but the 47
million Americans on food aid are suggestive. That's 1 in 7 Americans and total World population is 7 billion.
The scale of the solution is dangerous. Our probing for weakness in the South China Sea, Ukraine and Syria has
awakened them to their danger.The Chinese and Russian leadershave reacted by integrating their payment systems and real economies,
trading energy for manufactured goods for advanced weapon systems. As they are central players in the Shanghai Group we can assume
their aim is the monetary system which is the bedrock of our Imperial power. What's worse, they can avoid overt enemy action
and simply choose to undermine "confidence" in the FIAT.
Though given the calibre of their nuclear arsenal, how can they be fought let alone defeated? Appetite preceded
Reason, so Lust is hard to Reason with. But beware brother. Your Lust for Power began this saga, perhaps it's time to Reason.
That's because they don't understand the word "capitalism."
Capitalism simply means economic freedom. And economic freedom, just like freedom to breed, must be exposed to the pruning
action of cause and effect, otherwise it outgrows its container and becomes unstable and explodes. As long as it is continually
exposed to the grinding wheel of causality, it continues to hold a fine edge, as the dross is scraped away and the fine steel
stays. Reality is full of dualities, and those dualities cannot be separated without creating broken symmetry and therefore terminal
instability. Freedom and responsibility, for example. One without the other is unstable. Voting and taxation in direct proportion
to each other is another example.
Fiat currency is an attempt to create an artificial reality, one without the necessary symmetry and balance of a real system.
However, reality can not be gamed, because it will produce its own symmetry if you try to deny it. Thus the symmetry of fiat currency
is boom and bust, a sine wave that still manages to produce equilibrium, however at a huge bubbling splattering boil rather than
a fine simmer.
The folks that wrote this do not have a large enough world view. Capitalism does not require world wars because freedom does
not require world wars. Freedom tends to bleed imbalances out when they are small. On the other hand, empire does require world
war, which is why we are going to have one.
Capitalism becomes imperialism when financial sociopaths steal profits from both sides of the trade. What you're seeing is
an Imperialism of Capital, as explained very nicely in the 1889 book "The Great Red Dragon."
Wrong. Capitalism needs prolonged directionless wars without clear winners and contained destruction that utilize massive amounts
of raw materials and endless orders for weapons and logistical support. That's what makes some guys rich.
That's was a very long-winded and deliberately obtuse way of explaining how DEBT AS MONEY and The State's usurpation of sound
money destroyed efficient markets. The author then goes to call this system Capitalism.
So yeah, the deliberate destruction of capital, in all its forms, is somehow capitalism. Brilliant observation. Fuck you. There
are better terms for things like this. Perhaps....central banking? The State? Fiat debt creation? Evil? Naw, let's just contort
and abuse language instead. That's the ticket.
I've spent my adult life in 51 countries. This was financed by correctly anticipating the Great Financial Crisis in 2008. I
was studying Marx at that time. I'm presently an employee of the Chinese State. I educate the children of China's best families.
I am the author, alongside a large international team of capitalists, of Before The Collapse : The Philosophy of Capitalism.
I also have my own business; I live with my girlfriend and was born and grew up in Ireland.
===============
Why would anyone waste time to read this drivel, buttressed by the author's credentials.
The unstated thesis is that wars involve millions of actors, who produce an end-result of many hundreds of millions killed.
Absent coercion ("the Draft"), how is any government going to man hundreds of divisions of foot soldiers. That concept is passé.
Distribute some aerosol poisons via drones and kill as many people as deemed necessary. How in the hell will that action stimulate
the world economy.
Weapons of mass-destruction are smaller, cheaper and easier to deploy. War as a progenitor of growth - forget it.
The good news is that this guy is educating the children of elite in China. Possibly the Pentagon could clone him 10,000 times
and send those cyborgs to China - cripple China for another generation or two.
The term cyclical doesn't quite cover what we have being experiencing. It's more like a ragdoll being shaken by a white shark.
The euphoria of bubble is more like complete unhinged unicorn mania anymore and the lows are complete grapes of wrath. It's probably
always been that way to some extent because corruption has remained unchallenged for a great deal of time. The boom phases are
scarier than the downturns anymore, especially the last oil boom and housing boom. Complete Alfred Hitchcock stuff.
I don't think it's capitalism and that term comes across as an explanation that legitimizes this completely contrived pattern
that benefits a few and screws everybody else. Markets should not be behaving in such a violent fashion. Money should probably
be made steady and slow. And downturns shouldn't turn a country into Zimbabwe. I could be wrong but there is really no way to
know with the corruption we have.
And War requires that an enemy be created. According to American General Breedlove-head of NATO's European Command-speaking
to the US Armed Services Committee 2 days ago, "Russia and Assad are deliberately weaponizing migration to break European resolve".
"The only reason to use non-precision weapons like barrel bombs is to keep refugees on the move". "These refugees bring criminality,
foreign fighters and terrorism", and "are being used to overwhelm European structures". "Russia has chosen to be an adversary
and is a real threat." "Russia is irresponsible with nuclear weapons-always threatening to use them." And strangely, "In the past
week alone, Russia has made 450 attacks along the front lines in E. Ukraine".
Even with insanity overflowing the West, I found these comments to be the most bizarrely threatening propaganda yet. After
reading them for the first time, I had to prove to myself that I wasn't hallucinating it.
"... That star and a ribbon around Munez's wrist hint at the Spaniards' motivation for joining a war thousands of miles from home. The ribbon's red, yellow and purple are the colors of the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, a conflict in the 1930s where thousands of foreigners joined the leftists against right-wing foes who eventually prevailed. ..."
"... More than 1,100 people have been killed in the fighting in Ukraine since mid-April, according to the United Nations, in a civil conflict that has dragged ties between Russia and the West to their lowest since the Cold War. ..."
"... Davilla-Rivas blamed the West - which has imposed sanctions on Moscow, accusing it of backing the rebels - for stoking the war. "The United States is trying to provoke a third (world war) against Russia here with your people," he said. "Ordinary people are suffering because they are caught in between three imperial powers - the Russian Federation, the European Union and, certainly, the United States, which is putting money into all this." ..."
"... Civil war in Ukraine is going more then 4 months. 30 000 Ukrainians was killed, and 1 million expelled from their homes. ..."
"... Volunteers, revolutionaries, zealots, idealist, mercenaries are all drawn to conflicts all over the globe. ..."
Angel Davilla-Rivas, a Spaniard who came to east Ukraine to fight alongside pro-Russian rebels,
proudly shows off two big monochrome portraits of Soviet leaders Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin,
tattooed on the right and left side of his torso.
Davilla-Rivas and his comrade Rafa Munez, both in their mid-twenties, traveled by train from Madrid
to eastern Ukraine where they joined the Vostok battalion, the most prominent and heavily armed unit
fighting Ukrainian troops.
"I am the only son, and it hurts my mother and father and my family a lot that I am putting myself
at risk. But ... I can't sleep in my bed knowing what's going on here," said Davilla-Rivas, sporting
a cap with the Soviet red star pinned to it.
That star and a ribbon around Munez's wrist hint at the Spaniards' motivation for joining
a war thousands of miles from home. The ribbon's red, yellow and purple are the colors of the Republicans
in the Spanish Civil War, a conflict in the 1930s where thousands of foreigners joined the leftists
against right-wing foes who eventually prevailed.
Angel said he wanted to return the favor after the Soviet Union, under Stalin, supported the Republican
side in Spain.
More than 1,100 people have been killed in the fighting in Ukraine since mid-April, according
to the United Nations, in a civil conflict that has dragged ties between Russia and the West to their
lowest since the Cold War.
The Spaniards are not the first foreigners to enter the fight.
Men from Russia, its former rebel republic of Chechnya and the Caucasus region of North Ossetia
have fought on the rebel side along with volunteers from a Russian-backed separatist enclave of Georgia
and natives of Serbia.
Russians have also taken top positions among the rebels, though a local took over at the helm
of the self-proclaimed "Donetsk Peoples' Republic" on Thursday, in a move aimed at blunting Western
accusations the rebellion is run by Moscow.
Moscow said last month there were reports that citizens from Sweden, Finland, France and the former
Soviet Baltic states had joined pro-Kiev volunteer battalions in the east as "mercenaries".
Davilla-Rivas blamed the West - which has imposed sanctions on Moscow, accusing it of backing
the rebels - for stoking the war. "The United States is trying to provoke a third (world war) against
Russia here with your people," he said. "Ordinary people are suffering because they are caught in
between three imperial powers - the Russian Federation, the European Union and, certainly, the United
States, which is putting money into all this."
A Vostok fighter said he was happy to have the Spaniards. "We need support now, we need fighters.
An additional automatic gun will do no harm, to support, to cover one's back," said the young, brown-haired
man who did not give his name. The Spanish embassy in Moscow was not immediately available
for comment.
(Writing by Gabriela Baczynska; Editing by Robin Pomeroy)
blazo 6 months ago
Civil war in Ukraine is going more then 4 months. 30 000 Ukrainians was killed, and 1 million
expelled from their homes. Not too bad for only 4 months. But it could be better.
Commander in chief of glorious Kiev army, Mr Porkoshenko, and his sponsor in killings and expulsions,
Mr Obama are not satisfied. For money spent, much higher pace of killing should be #$%$ured. What
is their reference? In Babin Yar during WW 2, 1200 Ukrainian #$%$, with help of 300 Germans, managed
to kill 60 000 Ukrainians for only two days. So Mr Porkoshenko ask from Chef of all Ukrainian
security forces, Mr Paruby to explain discrepancy in efficiency in Babin Yar, and in Donbas killings.
Mr Paruby said: In Babin Yar Ukrainians to be killed were civilized and unarmed. They even smiled
for photographs during killing. But in Donbas they are barbaric armed people, they don t allow
us to kill them in peace. They turned arms on us, and killed 10 000 of our brave soldiers. They
burned our tanks, APCs, and shot down our jet bombers. And as a extreme barbarism, they captured
from us multiple rocket launchers, and fired on us, killing our 25th, 72nd, 79th motorized brigades.
Mr Porkoshenko said: You are fired, and kicked him with foot to his #$%$.
The great strategist and visionary, Mr Porkoshenko said on 25th of May: It is not a question
of days, weeks, or months, when rebellion in East Ukraine will be defeated. It is the question
of hours.... .
Ricardo 6 months ago
Volunteers, revolutionaries, zealots, idealist, mercenaries are all drawn to conflicts
all over the globe. Muslims are headed to Syria and Iraq from Europe and North Africa to
fight either Assad or along side ISIS, now those that believe the days of the old USSR are returning
are headed to eastern Ukraine to fight. If you look at some of the countries mentioned in this
article it will not surprise anyone that they are all from Soviet/Russian supported countries
that even after the collapse of the USSR still follow the Russians, no matter the consequences
to their country.
"... By Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics and Chairperson at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Originally published at The Frontline ..."
"... President Obama has been a fervent supporter of both these deals, with the explicit aim of enhancing and securing US power. "We have to make sure America writes the rules of the global economy. We should do it today while our economy is in the position of global strength. We've got to harness it on our terms. If we don't write the rules for trade around the world – guess what? China will!", he famously said in a speech to workers in a Nike factory in Oregon, USA in May 2015. But even though he has made the case for the TPP plainly enough, his only chance of pushing even the TPP through is in the "lame duck" session of Congress just before the November Presidential election in the US. ..."
"... The official US version, expressed on the website of the US Trade Representative, is that the TPP "writes the rules for global trade-rules that will help increase Made-in-America exports, grow the American economy, support well-paying American jobs, and strengthen the American middle class." This is mainly supposed to occur because of the tariff cuts over 18,000 items that have been written into the agreement, which in turn are supposed to lead to significant expansion of trade volumes and values. ..."
"... But this is accepted by fewer and fewer people in the US. Across the country, workers view such trade deals with great suspicion as causing shifts in employment to lower paid workers, mostly in the Global South. ..."
"... But in fact the TPP and the TTIP are not really about trade liberalisation so much as other regulatory changes, so in any case it is hardly surprising that the positive effects on trade are likely to be so limited. What is more surprising is how the entire discussion around these agreements is still framed around the issues relating to trade liberalisation, when these are in fact the less important parts of these agreements, and it is the other elements that are likely to have more negative and even devastating effects on people living in the countries that sign up to them. ..."
"... Three aspects of these agreements are particularly worrying: the intellectual property provisions, the restrictions on regulatory practices and the investor-state dispute settlement provisions ..."
"... All of these would result in significant strengthening of the bargaining power of corporations vis-à-vis workers and citizens, would reduce the power of governments to bring in policies and regulations that affect the profits or curb the power of such corporations ..."
"... So if such features of US-led globalisation are indeed under threat, that is probably a good thing for the people of the US and for people in their trading partners who had signed up for such deals. ..."
"... The question arises: is Trump evil? Or merely awful? If Trump is merely awful, then we are not faced with voting for the Lesser Evil or otherwise voting Third Party in protest. If we are faced with a choice between Evil and Awful, perhaps a vote for Awful is a vote against Evil just by itself. ..."
"... Trump has backpedaled and frontpedaled on virtually everything, but on trade, he's got Sanders-level consistency. He's been preaching the same sanity since the 90s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZpMJeynBeg ..."
"... While I do not disagree with your comments, they must be placed in proper context: there is no substantive difference between Mike Pence and Tim Kaine, and the people who staff the campaigns of Trump and Clinton are essentially the same. (Fundamentally a replay of the 2000 election: Cheney/Bush vs. Lieberman/Gore.) ..."
"... Great Comment. Important to knock down the meme that "this is the most significant or important election of our time" - this is a carbon copy of what we have seen half a dozen times since WW2 alone and that's exactly how our elite handlers want it. Limit the choices, stoke fear, win by dividing the plebes. ..."
"... Let's face it, trade without the iron fist of capitalism will benefit us schlobs greatly and not the 1%. I'm all for being against it (TPP etc) and will vote that way. ..."
"... We'd also have put in enough puppet dictators in resource rich countries that we'd be able to get raw materials cheaply. The low labor/raw material cost will provide a significant advantage for exports but alas, our 99% won't be able to afford our own products. ..."
"... the TPP will completely outlaw any possibility of a "Buy America" clause in the future! ..."
"... The cynic in me wonders if under say NAFTA it would be possible for a multinational to sue for lost profits via isds if TPP fails to pass. That the failure to enact trade "liberalizing" legislation could be construed as an active step against trade. the way these things are so ambiguously worded, I wonder. ..."
"... Here's Obama's actual speech at the Nike headquarters (not factory). http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barackobama/barackobamatradenike.htm ..."
"... It should be noted that the Oregon Democrats who were free traitors and supported fast track authority were called out that day: Bonamici, Blumenauer, Schrader and Wyden. The only Oregon Ds that opposed: Sen. Merkley and Congressman DeFazio. ..."
"... The Market Realist is far more realistic about Oregon's free traitors' votes. http://marketrealist.com/2015/05/trans-pacific-partnership-affects-footwear-firms/ "US tariffs on footwear imported from Vietnam can range from 5% to 40%, according to OTEXA (Office of Textiles and Apparel). Ratification of the TPP will likely result in lower tariffs and higher profitability for Nike." ..."
"... So what's the incentive for Oregon's free traitors to support the TPP now? ..."
"... Perhaps they still need to show loyalty to their corporate owners and to the principle of "free trade". ..."
"... Obama: "We have to make sure America writes the rules of the global economy." ..."
"... Thank you, Mr. President, for resolving any doubts that the American project is an imperialist project! ..."
"... Yes, and I would add a jingoistic one as well. Manifest destiny, the Monroe doctrine, etc. are not just history lessons but are alive and well in the neoliberal mindset. The empire must keep expanding into every nook and cranny of the world, turning them into good consumerist slaves. ..."
"... Funny how little things change over the centuries. ..."
"... The West Is The Best, Subhuman Are All The Rest. The perpetual mantra of the Uebermensch since Columbus first made landfall. Hitler merely sought to apply the same to some Europeans. ..."
"... "How the West Came to Rule: The Geopolitical Origins of Capitalism", 2015, Alexander Anievas and Kerem Nisancioglu. ..."
"... The Dem candidate's husband made it appallingly clear what the purpose of the TPP is: "It's to make sure the future of the Asia-Pacific region is not dominated by China". ..."
"... Bill Clinton doesn't even care about "the rise of China". That's just a red herring he sets up to accuse opponents of TPP of soft-on-China treasonism. It's just fabricating a stick to beat the TPP-opponents with. Clinton's support for MFN for China shows what he really thinks about the "rise of China". ..."
"... Clinton's real motivation is the same as the TPP's real reason, to reduce America to colonial possession status of the anti-national corporations and the Global OverClass natural persons who shelter behind and within them. ..."
"... Obama. Liar or stupid? When Elizabeth Warren spoke out about the secrecy of the TPP, Obama, uncharacteristically, ran to the cameras to state that the TPP was not secret and that the charge being leveled by Warren was false. Obama's statement was that Warren had access to a copy so how dare she say it was secret. ..."
"... Obama (and Holder) effectively immunized every financial criminal involved in the great fraud and recession without bothering to run for a camera, and to this day has refused and avoided any elaboration on the subject, but he wasted no time trying to bury Warren publicly. The TPP is a continuation of Obama's give-away to corporations, or more specifically, the very important men who run them who Obama works for. And he is going to pull out all stops to deliver to the men he respects. ..."
"... It's a virtual "black market" of "money laundering" (sterilization). In foreign trade, IMPORTS decrease (-) the money stock of the importing country (and are a subtraction to domestic gDp figures), while EXPORTS increase (+) the money stock and domestic gDp (earnings repatriated to the U.S), and the potential money supply, of the exporting country. ..."
"... I don't WANT the US writing the rules of trade any longer. We know what US-written rules do: plunge worker wages into slave labor territory, guts all advanced country's manufacturing capability, sends all high tech manufacturing to 3rd world nations ..."
"... Time to toss the rules and re-write them for the greatest benefit of the greatest number of NON-wealthy and for the benefit of the planet/ecosystems, NOT for benefit of Wall St. ..."
By Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics and Chairperson at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru
University, New Delhi. Originally published at
The Frontline
There is much angst in the Northern financial media about how the era of globalisation led actively by the United States may well
be coming to an end. This is said to be exemplified in the changed political attitudes to mega regional trade deals like the Trans
Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) that was signed (but has not yet been ratified) by the US and 11 other countries in Latin America,
Asia and Oceania; and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement (TTIP) still being negotiated by the US and the
European Union.
President Obama has been a fervent supporter of both these deals, with the explicit aim of enhancing and securing US power.
"We have to make sure America writes the rules of the global economy. We should do it today while our economy is in the position
of global strength. We've got to harness it on our terms. If we don't write the rules for trade around the world – guess what? China
will!", he famously said in a speech to workers in a Nike factory in Oregon, USA in May 2015. But even though he has made the case
for the TPP plainly enough, his only chance of pushing even the TPP through is in the "lame duck" session of Congress just before
the November Presidential election in the US.
However, the changing political currents in the US are making that ever more unlikely. Hardly anyone who is a candidate in the
coming elections, whether for the Presidency, the Senate or the House of Representatives, is willing to stick their necks out to
back the deal.
Both Presidential candidates in the US (Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton) have openly come out against the TPP. In Clinton's case
this is a complete reversal of her earlier position when she had referred to the TPP as "the gold standard of trade deals" – and
it has clearly been forced upon her by the insurgent movement in the Democratic Party led by Bernie Sanders. She is already being
pushed by her rival candidate for not coming out more clearly in terms of a complete rejection of this deal. Given the significant
trust deficit that she still has to deal with across a large swathe of US voters, it will be hard if not impossible for her to backtrack
on this once again (as her husband did earlier with NAFTA) even if she does achieve the Presidency.
The official US version, expressed on the website of the US Trade Representative, is that the TPP "writes the rules for global
trade-rules that will help increase Made-in-America exports, grow the American economy, support well-paying American jobs, and strengthen
the American middle class." This is mainly supposed to occur because of the tariff cuts over 18,000 items that have been written
into the agreement, which in turn are supposed to lead to significant expansion of trade volumes and values.
But this is accepted by fewer and fewer people in the US. Across the country, workers view such trade deals with great suspicion
as causing shifts in employment to lower paid workers, mostly in the Global South. Even the only US government study of the
TPP's likely impacts, by the International Trade Commission, could project at best only 1 per cent increase in exports due to the
agreement up to 2032. A study by Jeronim Capaldo and Alex Izurieta with Jomo Kwame Sundaram ("Trading down: Unemployment, inequality
and other risks of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement", Working Paper 16-01, Global Development and Environment Institute, January
2016) was even less optimistic, even for the US. It found that the benefits to exports and economic growth were likely to be relatively
small for all member countries, and would be negative in the US and Japan because of losses to employment and increases in inequality.
Wage shares of national income would decline in all the member countries.
But in fact the TPP and the TTIP are not really about trade liberalisation so much as other regulatory changes, so in any
case it is hardly surprising that the positive effects on trade are likely to be so limited. What is more surprising is how the entire
discussion around these agreements is still framed around the issues relating to trade liberalisation, when these are in fact the
less important parts of these agreements, and it is the other elements that are likely to have more negative and even devastating
effects on people living in the countries that sign up to them.
Three aspects of these agreements are particularly worrying:
the intellectual property provisions,
the restrictions on regulatory practices
the investor-state dispute settlement provisions.
Three aspects of these agreements are particularly worrying: the intellectual property provisions, the restrictions
on regulatory practices and the investor-state dispute settlement provisions.
All of these would result in significant strengthening of the bargaining power of corporations vis-à-vis workers and citizens,
would reduce the power of governments to bring in policies and regulations that affect the profits or curb the power of such corporations
For example, the TPP (and the TTIP) require more stringent enforcement requirements of intellectual property rights: reducing
exemptions (e.g. allowing compulsory licensing only for emergencies); preventing parallel imports; extending IPRs to areas like life
forms, counterfeiting and piracy; extending exclusive rights to test data (e.g. in pharmaceuticals); making IPR provisions more detailed
and prescriptive. The scope of drug patents is extended to include minor changes to existing medications (a practice commonly employed
by drug companies, known as "evergreening"). Patent linkages would make it more difficult for many generic drugs to enter markets.
This would strengthen, lengthen and broaden pharmaceutical monopolies on cancer, heart disease and HIV/AIDS drugs, and in general
make even life-saving drugs more expensive and inaccessible in all the member countries. It would require further transformation
of countries' laws on patents and medical test data. It would reduce the scope of exemption in use of medical formulations through
public procurement for public purposes. All this is likely to lead to reductions in access to drugs and medical procedures because
of rising prices, and also impede innovation rather than encouraging it, across member countries.
There are also very restrictive copyright protection rules, that would also affect internet usage as Internet Service Providers
are to be forced to adhere to them. There are further restrictions on branding that would reinforce the market power of established
players.
The TPP and TTIP also contain restrictions on regulatory practices that greatly increase the power of corporations relative to
states and can even prevent states from engaging in countercyclical measures designed to boost domestic demand. It has been pointed
out by consumer groups in the USA that the powers of the Food and Drug Administration to regulate products that affect health of
citizens could be constrained and curtailed by this agreement. Similarly, macroeconomic stimulus packages that focus on boosting
domestic demand for local production would be explicitly prohibited by such agreements.
All these are matters for concern because these agreements enable corporations to litigate against governments that are perceived
to be flouting these provisions because of their own policy goals or to protect the rights of their citizens. The Investor-State
Dispute Settlement mechanism enabled by these agreements is seen to be one of their most deadly features. Such litigation is then
subject to supranational tribunals to which sovereign national courts are expected to defer, but which have no human rights safeguards
and which do not see the rights of citizen as in any way superior to the "rights" of corporations to their profits. These courts
can conduct closed and secret hearings with secret evidence. They do not just interpret the rules but contribute to them through
case law because of the relatively vague wording of the text, which can then be subject to different interpretations, and therefore
are settled by case law. The experience thus far with such tribunals has been problematic. Since they are legally based on "equal"
treatment of legal persons with no primacy for human rights, they have become known for their pro-investor bias, partly due to the
incentive structure for arbitrators, and partly because the system is designed to provide supplementary guarantees to investors,
rather than making them respect host countries laws and regulations.
If all these features of the TPP and the TTIP were more widely known, it is likely that there would be even greater public resistance
to them in the US and in other countries. Even as it is, there is growing antagonism to the trade liberalisation that is seen to
bring benefits to corporations rather than to workers, at a period in history when secure employment is seen to be the biggest prize
of all.
So if such features of US-led globalisation are indeed under threat, that is probably a good thing for the people of the US
and for people in their trading partners who had signed up for such deals.
I was watching a speech Premier Li gave at the Economic Club of NY last night, and it was interesting to see how all his (vetted,
pre-selected) questions revolved around anxieties having to do with resistance to global trade deals. Li made a few pandering
comments about how much the Chinese love American beef (stop it! you're killing me! har har) meant to diffuse those anxieties,
but it became clear that the fear among TPTB of people's dissatisfaction with the current economic is palpable. Let's keep it
up!
A federal appeals court on Tuesday threw out a $147 million civil price fixing judgment against Chinese manufacturers of
vitamin C, ruling the companies weren't liable in U.S. courts because they were acting under the direction of Chinese authorities.
The case raised thorny questions of how courts should treat foreign companies accused of violating U.S. antitrust law when
they are following mandates of a foreign government.
"I was only following orders" might not have worked in Nuremberg, but it's a-ok in international trade.
The question arises: is Trump evil? Or merely awful? If Trump is merely awful, then we are not faced with voting for the
Lesser Evil or otherwise voting Third Party in protest. If we are faced with a choice between Evil and Awful, perhaps a vote for
Awful is a vote against Evil just by itself.
Trump has already back peddaled on his TPP stance. He now says he wants to renegotiate the TTP and other trade deals. Whatever
that means. Besides, Trump is a distraction, its Mike Pence you should be keeping your eye on. He's American Taliban pure and
simple.
This is simply false. Trump has backpedaled and frontpedaled on virtually everything, but on trade, he's got Sanders-level
consistency. He's been preaching the same sanity since the 90s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZpMJeynBeg
Hillary wants to start a war with Russia and pass the trade trifecta of TPP/TTIP/TiSA.
While I do not disagree with your comments, they must be placed in proper context: there is no substantive difference between
Mike Pence and Tim Kaine, and the people who staff the campaigns of Trump and Clinton are essentially the same. (Fundamentally
a replay of the 2000 election: Cheney/Bush vs. Lieberman/Gore.)
Trump was run to make Hillary look good, but that has turned out to be Mission Real Impossible!
We are seeing the absolute specious political theater at its worst, attempting to differentiate between Hillary Rodham Clinton
and the Trumpster – – – the only major difference is that Clinton has far more real blood on her and Bill's hands.
Nope, there is no lesser of evils this time around . . .
Great Comment. Important to knock down the meme that "this is the most significant or important election of our time" -
this is a carbon copy of what we have seen half a dozen times since WW2 alone and that's exactly how our elite handlers want it.
Limit the choices, stoke fear, win by dividing the plebes.
Let's face it, trade without the iron fist of capitalism will benefit us schlobs greatly and not the 1%. I'm all for being
against it (TPP etc) and will vote that way.
>only 1 per cent increase in exports due to the agreement up to 2032.
At that point American's wages will have dropped near enough to Chinese levels that we can compete in selling to First World
countries . assuming there are any left.
We'd also have put in enough puppet dictators in resource rich countries that we'd be able to get raw materials cheaply.
The low labor/raw material cost will provide a significant advantage for exports but alas, our 99% won't be able to afford our
own products.
Naaah, never been about competition, since nobody is actually vetted when they offshore those jobs or replace American workers
with foreign visa workers.
But to sum it up as succinctly as possible: the TPP is about the destruction of workers' rights; the destruction of local and
small businesses; and the loss of sovereignty. Few Americans are cognizant of just how many businesses are foreign owned today
in America; their local energy utility or state energy utility, their traffic enforcement company which was privatized, their
insurance company (GEICO, etc.).
I remember when a political action group back in the '00s thought they had stumbled on a big deal when someone had hacked into
the system of the Bretton Woods Committee (the lobbyist group for the international super-rich which ONLY communicates with the
Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader, and who shares the same lobbyist and D.C. office space as the Group of Thirty,
the lobbyist group for the central bankers [Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, Mario Draghi, Ernesto Zedillo, Bill Dudley, etc.,
etc.]) and placed online their demand of the senate and the congress to kill the "Buy America" clause in the federal stimulus
program of a few years back (it was watered down greatly, and many exemptions were signed by then Commerce Secretary Gary Locke),
but such information went completely unnoticed or ignored, and of course, the TPP will completely outlaw any possibility of
a "Buy America" clause in the future!
The cynic in me wonders if under say NAFTA it would be possible for a multinational to sue for lost profits via isds if
TPP fails to pass. That the failure to enact trade "liberalizing" legislation could be construed as an active step against trade.
the way these things are so ambiguously worded, I wonder.
In June 2016, "[TransCanada] filed an arbitration claim under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) over President
Obama's rejection of the pipeline, making good on its January threat to take legal action against the US decision.
According to the official request for arbitration, the $15 billion tab is supposed to help the company recover costs and damages
that it suffered "as a result of the US administration's breach of its NAFTA obligations." NAFTA is a comprehensive trade agreement
between the United States, Canada, and Mexico that went into effect in January 1, 1994. Under the agreement, businesses can challenge
governments over investment disputes.
In addition, the company filed a suit in US Federal Court in Houston, Texas in January asserting that the Obama Administration
exceeded the power granted by the US Constitution in denying the project."
It should be noted that the Oregon Democrats who were free traitors and supported fast track authority were called out
that day: Bonamici, Blumenauer, Schrader and Wyden. The only Oregon Ds that opposed: Sen. Merkley and Congressman DeFazio.
Obama's rhetoric May 5, 2015 at the Nike campus was all about how small businesses would prosper. Congresswoman Bonamici clings
to this rationale in her refusal to tell angry constituents at town halls whether she supports the TPP.
The Market Realist is far more realistic about Oregon's free traitors' votes.
http://marketrealist.com/2015/05/trans-pacific-partnership-affects-footwear-firms/
"US tariffs on footwear imported from Vietnam can range from 5% to 40%, according to OTEXA (Office of Textiles and Apparel). Ratification
of the TPP will likely result in lower tariffs and higher profitability for Nike."
That appeals to the other big athletic corporations that cluster in the Portland metro: Columbia Sportswear and Under Armour.
Yes, and I would add a jingoistic one as well. Manifest destiny, the Monroe doctrine, etc. are not just history lessons
but are alive and well in the neoliberal mindset. The empire must keep expanding into every nook and cranny of the world, turning
them into good consumerist slaves.
Funny how little things change over the centuries.
The West Is The Best, Subhuman Are All The Rest. The perpetual mantra of the Uebermensch since Columbus first made landfall.
Hitler merely sought to apply the same to some Europeans.
"How the West Came to Rule: The Geopolitical Origins of Capitalism", 2015, Alexander Anievas and Kerem Nisancioglu.
The Dem candidate's husband made it appallingly clear what the purpose of the TPP is: "It's to make sure the future of
the Asia-Pacific region is not dominated by China".
Would be nice if they had even a passing thought for those people in a certain North American region located in between Canada
and Mexico.
Bill Clinton doesn't even care about "the rise of China". That's just a red herring he sets up to accuse opponents of TPP
of soft-on-China treasonism. It's just fabricating a stick to beat the TPP-opponents with. Clinton's support for MFN for China
shows what he really thinks about the "rise of China".
Clinton's real motivation is the same as the TPP's real reason, to reduce America to colonial possession status of the
anti-national corporations and the Global OverClass natural persons who shelter behind and within them.
If calling the International Free Trade Conspiracy "American" is enough to get it killed and destroyed, then I don't mind having
a bunch of foreigners calling the Free Trade Conspiracy "American". Just as long as they are really against it, and can really
get Free Trade killed and destroyed.
Excellent post. Thank you. Should these so called "trade agreements" be approved, perhaps Investor-State Dispute Settlement
(ISDS arbitration) futures can be created by Wall Street and made the next speculative "Play-of-the-day" so that everyone has
a chance to participate in the looting. Btw, can you loot your own house?
Obama. Liar or stupid? When Elizabeth Warren spoke out about the secrecy of the TPP, Obama, uncharacteristically, ran to
the cameras to state that the TPP was not secret and that the charge being leveled by Warren was false. Obama's statement was
that Warren had access to a copy so how dare she say it was secret.
At the time he made that statement Warren could go to an offsite location to read the TPP in the presence of a member of the
Trade Commission, could not have staff with her, could not take notes, and could not discuss anything she read with anyone else
after she left. Or face criminal charges.
Yeah. Nothing secret about that.
Obama (and Holder) effectively immunized every financial criminal involved in the great fraud and recession without bothering
to run for a camera, and to this day has refused and avoided any elaboration on the subject, but he wasted no time trying to bury
Warren publicly. The TPP is a continuation of Obama's give-away to corporations, or more specifically, the very important men
who run them who Obama works for. And he is going to pull out all stops to deliver to the men he respects.
And add to that everything from David Dayen's book (" Chain of Title ") on Covington & Burling and Eric Holder and President
Obama, and Thomas Frank's book ("Listen, Liberals") and people will have the full picture!
It's a virtual "black market" of "money laundering" (sterilization). In foreign trade, IMPORTS decrease (-) the money stock
of the importing country (and are a subtraction to domestic gDp figures), while EXPORTS increase (+) the money stock and domestic
gDp (earnings repatriated to the U.S), and the potential money supply, of the exporting country.
So, there's a financial incentive (to maximize profits), not to repatriate foreign income (pushes up our exchange rate, currency
conversion costs, if domestic re-investment alternatives are considered more circumscribed, plus taxes, etc.).
In spite of the surfeit of $s, and E-$ credits, and unlike the days in which world-trade required a Marshall Plan jump start,
trade surpluses increasingly depend on the Asian Tiger's convertibility issues.
I don't WANT the US writing the rules of trade any longer. We know what US-written rules do: plunge worker wages into slave
labor territory, guts all advanced country's manufacturing capability, sends all high tech manufacturing to 3rd world nations
or even (potential) unfriendlies like China (who can easily put trojan spyware hard code or other vulnerabilities into critical
microchips the way WE were told the US could/would when it was leading on this tech when I was serving in the 90s). We already
know that US-written rules is simply a way for mega corporations to extend patents into the ever-more-distant future, a set of
rules that hands more control of arts over to the MPAA, rules that gut environmental laws, etc. Who needs the US-written agreements
when this is the result?
Time to toss the rules and re-write them for the greatest benefit of the greatest number of NON-wealthy and for the benefit
of the planet/ecosystems, NOT for benefit of Wall St.
"... I keep trying to point out that these nations are proxies for the global plutocrats that own private finance and everything else. That is the social cancer we need to eliminate. The British people are not all bad any more than all Americans but all of private finance is bad and has been for centuries. ..."
Well, if you looked at it and decided against it why am I wasting my time? "unlike the U.S.
military which is used to destroys foreign cities without much thought of the aftermath" Always
with the nasty, sneering, condescending attitude toward us. I remind you that it was the BRITISH
army that destroyed your grandparents house, not the US Army. pl"
and the usa has learned and followed the British in so many of it's imperialist ways carrying
the mantel for empire building forward into the 20th and 21st century.. enough of British or
American
bullshit..
@ james who wrote " and the usa has learned and followed the british in so many of it's imperialist
ways caring the mantel for empire building forward into the 20th and 21st century.. enough
of british or american bullshit."
I keep trying to point out that these nations are proxies for the global plutocrats that own
private finance and everything else. That is the social cancer we need to eliminate. The British
people are not all bad any more than all Americans but all of private finance is bad and has been
for centuries.
The Crisis of the Twelfth Century: Power, Lordship, and the Origins of European Government
by Thomas N. Bisson Princeton University Press, 677 pp., $39.50
One of the major institutions of pre-industrial society, and one that makes it hard for people
in the modern Western world fully to grasp the past, is lordship. Lordship means a personal bond,
reciprocal but not equal, tying inferiors to superiors, bringing the latter a power over the former
that modern democratic and egalitarian ideologies would abhor. We are not accustomed to address
others as "Master" or "Mistress," "My Lord" or "My Lady."
Of course modern Western societies are not communities of equals. Vast differences in wealth
and access to education exist. But the world of lordship embraced and endorsed those differences.
Hierarchy was a valued ideal, and some people considered themselves better born than others-remember
those nineteenth-century novels with characters "of good family." The aristocrats ("aristocracy"
means "rule by the best") did not court their inferiors. They ruled them, and, if they were just
and well disposed, they protected them and furthered their interests. This is what "good lordship"
meant. Not all lords, of course, were good. Submission to cruel, arbitrary, or unhinged masters
could mean misery or death. Much of the savagery of the French Revolution is to be explained by
the fact that thousands of peasants had suffered just such a submission.
Thomas Bisson's new book concerns itself with lordship, that all-pervasive institution, in
a formative period of European history, the twelfth century (or rather the "long twelfth century,"
starting well before 1100 and continuing after 1200). It is an age that evokes for many the majesty
of the great cathedrals, like Chartres and Canterbury, the rise of a new kind of intellectual
inquiry, embodied in the questing spirit of Abelard or the emergence of the first universities,
and the flourishing of the love lyrics of the troubadours and the tales of Arthurian romance.
There is even the (now well established but initially paradoxical) notion of "the Twelfth-Century
Renaissance." This book, however, presents a different, and much darker, twelfth century.
Bisson, professor of medieval history emeritus at Harvard, is one of the leading historians
of the Middle Ages. His early work concentrated on Catalonia, a region with particularly rich
archival sources from this period; he has continually expanded both his geographical range and
the breadth of the historical questions he asks. In the 1990s he was a participant in a lively
debate on the so-called "Feudal Revolution," the theory that a transformation in the patterns
of power and authority took place in Europe in the decades around the year 1000. In those years
it was argued that older, official, and public structures of justice and administration were replaced
by new, more violent, and more localized forms, based on strongmen and their fortresses.
In his new book many of the elements of that "Feudal Revolution" recur, now extended to a later
period. Bisson's summary of developments in Catalonia in the years 1020 to 1060 presents such
a picture very clearly: there was "a terrifying collapse of public justice and the imposition
of a new order of coercive lordship over an intimidated peasantry." Moving on into the twelfth
century, the model is still recognizable: there is an "old passing world" ruled by a few nobles,
and a "burgeoning new world" of "vicious men," castle-lords and knights prepared to use violence
against the despised peasantry. This book is indeed an extended discussion of the issues arising
from that earlier debate. Bisson acknowledges that it is "not a systematic treatise, still less
a textbook," and those unfamiliar with the period may soon be lost. The book is an interpretation,
an individual assessment of European history of that period, one that takes a stand on a dozen
debated issues, often in implicit dialogue with other scholars. The main topics are lordship,
violence, and the state.
Lordship was a building block of most societies until relatively recently -- serfdom was abolished
in Russia only in 1861. Such societies were distinguished by extreme inequalities, made visible
by costume and gestures, like bowing and doffing of hats, and often supported by belief in hereditary
superiority and inferiority of blood. Collective groupings existed, but were not powerful, and
conflict and ambition were channeled more by vertical than horizontal solidarities: retainers,
servants, and other followers and dependants sought patronage from the great, not action alongside
their peers. At the highest level, lesser aristocrats became followers of great aristocrats, who
themselves would be competing for the ruler's favor. Costume dramas set in Tudor England, like
Shakespeare in Love and Elizabeth, convey some of the flavor of such a world.
It was the prevalence of lordship that complicates any discussion of the medieval state. Bisson
repeatedly uses the far from standard formulations "lord-king," "lord-ruler," and even "lord-archbishop"
to convey the point that every ruler of this time was also a lord, a master of men, a patriarch
of some kind, possessing his position as inheritance or property, rather than (or as well as)
holding it as an office-indeed, he writes, "there is no sign that European people in the twelfth
century thought of lordship and office as contrasting categories."
Kings were lords, but also more than lords. Like the great barons, their power was patrimonial:
that is, inherited, dynastic, based on ideas of property we might call "private." A king's kingdom
was his in the same way that a baron's landed estates were his. Transmission of power was through
father-to-son inheritance, not by election. Hence marriages, births, and deaths were the great
punctuating points of medieval politics, not caucuses and ballots. Yet a king was also more than
just the greatest of the barons. Both the Church and a long secular tradition saw him as having
special duties as a ruler, duties that might be called "public."
This dualism of lordship and the state meant that medieval rulership had two distinct faces,
which were close to being opposites: on the one hand, the grand promises made at coronation by
kings and emperors, to ensure justice and the protection of the weak and the Church; on the other
hand, the reality of being a warlord trained in mounted warfare, a leader of proud, hard men,
used to wielding lethal edged weapons, and the center of a court full of envy, ambition, and suspicion.
Europe in the eleventh and twelfth centuries was a militarized world: it was "an age of castles,"
when "those astride horses and bearing weapons routinely injured or intimidated people" -- although,
of course, they were still doing it in the thirteenth century, fourteenth century, fifteenth century,
and beyond. The Cossacks were still doing it in the twentieth century. This raises a problem.
In the absence of even a hint of dependable statistics, it is virtually impossible to weigh up
the relative violence of different periods and places of the past. We know all the difficulties
involved in dealing with modern crime figures; for the past we rarely have figures of any kind,
but must rely on stories told by chroniclers (often ecclesiastical) and interested parties (usually
plaintiffs). Historians read the laments, the individual accounts of plunder, murder, and rape,
and try to assess whether this was the way life was then, or whether it simply reflects a very
bad moment in that world. And while there can be little doubt that levels of violence were higher
in the medieval period than in modern Western peacetime societies, we, who live in the aftermath
of the worst genocidal atrocities in recorded history, should not make that claim with any complacency.
It is not difficult to gather stories of local violence and oppression from the eleventh and
twelfth centuries. But if we put these twelfth-century tales alongside those of the sixth-century
historian-bishop Gregory of Tours, whose History of the Franks reveals a world of monstrous cruelty,
we might wonder if things had really gotten much worse in the intervening six hundred years. On
one occasion, Gregory writes, a noble discovered that two of his serfs had married without his
consent: he supposedly said how delighted he was that they had at least not married serfs from
another lordship; he promised that he would not separate them, and then kept his word by having
them buried alive together. And was the twelfth century any more full of violence than, say, late
medieval France, a happy hunting ground for mercenaries and freebooters during the Hundred Years'
War?
The rulers of the eleventh and twelfth centuries were trained in, and glorified, war, and expected
to live off it, as well as off the tribute of a subjugated peasantry. If such rulers formed "the
state" of their day, what are the implications? The state engages in violence; it takes away our
property. How then does it differ from a criminal enterprise? This was a question that went back
at least as far as Saint Augustine in the fourth century:
What are robber gangs, except little kingdoms? If their wickedness prospers, so that they set
up fixed abodes, occupy cities and subjugate whole populations, they then can take the name of
kingdom with impunity.
Augustine's ponderings stem from the worrying doubt that states and kingdoms, indeed all lawfully
constituted governments, are just the most successful of the robber gangs. This idea, that the
state and the criminal gang are but larger and smaller versions of the same thing, was one recurrent
strand in medieval thinking. In the words of Gregory VII, the reformist pope of the eleventh century:
Who does not know that kings and dukes had their origin in men who disregarded God and, with
blind desire and intolerable presumption, strove to dominate their equals, that is, other men,
through pride, plunder, perfidy, homicides, and every kind of crime, under the inspiration of
the lord of this world, the devil?
Westerns (like Sam Peckinpah's Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid) often explore the thin line between
the gunslinger and the sheriff, or the poignancy of the bandit turned law officer; and the thinness
of that line is clear in the Middle Ages. In the fourteenth century the kings of France, wishing
to concentrate their forces against the English, called upon their barons to curtail their own
feuds and vendettas: "We forbid anyone to wage war (guerre) during our war (guerre)." What the
king does and what the feuding nobles do is the same kind of thing-"war." Nowadays, we make a
sharper distinction. For instance, in the modern world, someone who takes our property away is
either a criminal or a tax collector. If the latter, then it is the state taking our property
away, and most people, of most political outlooks, distinguish the lawmakers from the lawbreakers.
Traditionally the state took away people's property in order to finance war. In Charles Tilly's
phrase, "the state made war and war made the state." The war-making, tax-raising state is indeed
the standard, familiar political unit of modern world history. If we go back in time, do we reach
a period when such an entity did not exist?
Bisson is not a scholar who throws the term "state" around freely. Indeed, the conceptual vocabulary
of his book is worth a mention. On the one hand, Bisson is happy to use the traditional but deeply
contested terms "feudal" and "feudalism," both of which even have entries in his glossary at the
end of the book. He can write of "a massive feudalizing of England by the Normans." Some historians
would do away with these concepts altogether. Even if some kinds of estates were called "fiefs"
(feoda), they argue, why should that fact lead us to a characterization of a whole society? Perhaps
a touch of self-questioning is visible in Bisson's embrace of the terminology: "'Feudal monarchy':
is this the right concept?" he asks.
In contrast to his acceptance of this traditional terminology, Bisson has a marked tendency to
use large conceptual terms with a peculiar, even personal, connotation. "Political" is an example.
The bishops of this period, he says, "vied with one another for visible precedence," yet such
struggles "were not political disputes; they were concerned with status, not process." A footnote
refers us to an infamous incident when the archbishop of York, noticing that the archbishop of
Canterbury had a seat higher than his, kicked it over and refused to be seated until he had a
seat as high. Now, one might reasonably class this as a nursery tantrum, but why should not a
public dispute over precedence count as "political"?
This wariness about the term "political" (usually in scare quotes in the book) is based on the
idea that lordship "was personal, affective, and unpolitical in nature." Might it not be clearer
to say that the politics of that time was not the same as the politics of ours? It may be that
we have here an example of a recurrent dilemma, either to say that the power relations of long
ago are not politics at all, or to say that they are, but that we must differentiate between medieval
and modern politics. Similarly, we may say that the superior authorities of that time cannot be
called states at all; or we can argue that they were, but that we must distinguish medieval and
modern states.
One of the most important examples of Bisson's idiosyncratic use of general terms is his treatment
of the word "government." He is reluctant even to apply the term to Norman England. "Royal lordship"
was not the same thing as "government." Sometimes government is completely absent. Late-twelfth-century
Europe was "an ungoverned society," although there were also "proto-governments" at this time;
by the mid-thirteenth century "something like government hovered." This unwillingness to see the
rulers of the central Middle Ages as constituting "governments" is to be explained partly because,
in Bisson's view, the people of that time lacked any understanding of the state as distinct from
lordship, but also because there are certain criteria for government, as distinct from lordship,
that the rulers did not meet. He identifies three: accountability, official conduct, and social
purpose.
"Accountability" is an important term in Bisson's historical vocabulary. Sometimes it means
quite literally the rendering of financial accounts, like the Catalan fiscal records which Bisson
himself has edited. He emphasizes the birth, in the twelfth century, of "a newly searching and
flexible accountability," as simple surveys of resources and fixed revenues, which can be found
from early in the Middle Ages, were supplemented by balance sheets of incoming and outgoing assets.
The English Pipe Rolls, annual audits of income and expenditures of the royal sheriffs, are a
classic example. The English Dialogue of the Exchequer of 1178, or thereabouts, reveals a department
of government that is professional, with its own technical expertise, and (in the Dialogue) its
own handbook or manual. Slightly later, in 1202, there appears what has been called "the first
budget of the French monarchy."
But Bisson also uses the word in a broader sense: accountability means official responsibility,
answerability. He associates it with the idea of office. Record-keeping is in fact one test of
official status. And true government is "the exercise of power for social purpose," "social purpose"
perhaps to be glossed here as "the common good." It is the emergence of "official conduct aimed
at social purpose," linked, interestingly, with the rise of public taxation, that, for Bisson,
signals the shift of the balance from lordship to government in the thirteenth century.
However, the chronology of state formation in the Middle Ages is a disputed issue. Some historians
talk as if there were a stateless period at some point in the central Middle Ages. Others hold
the view that, to take one notable example, the kingdom of England of the year 1000 was not only
a state but a strong, centralized, and pervasive state. If taxation and a standardized coinage
are, in Bisson's words, parts of "a new model of associative power" around the year 1200, then
the uniform land tax and centralized currency of eleventh-century England show that that model
already existed in some places two hundred years earlier.
What cannot be disputed is that over the course of the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries,
the state became increasingly bureaucratic. The documents produced by the English government in
the eleventh century could be placed on one large table (even given that monumental oddity, Domesday
Book, the extensive survey of land ownership made in 1086 under William the Conqueror). The documents
produced by the English government in the thirteenth century fill whole rooms and could never
be read in one person's lifetime. Written records supplemented or replaced older oral forms of
information gathering, testimony, or command (Michael Clanchy's 1979 masterpiece, From Memory
to Written Record, analyzes this development for precociously bureaucratic England in the Norman
and Plantagenet period). But more bureaucratic government does not necessarily mean less violent,
or even less arbitrary, government.
Historians like bureaucracy, because it feeds their hunger for written sources, the raw material
with which they work; but the bond between historians and government is deeper than that. The
historical profession grew up in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in close symbiosis
with government. Not only was the heart of historical study usually the archives produced by past
governments, but many of the students and teachers in those generations, the first to study history
as a discipline, entered government service. Charles Homer Haskins, the founding father of American
medieval scholarship, was an adviser to Woodrow Wilson at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919.
He was also the teacher of Joseph Strayer, himself the teacher of Bisson. Such academic genealogies
can be overplayed, but there is no doubt that all three great medievalists, Haskins, Strayer,
and Bisson, demonstrate a deep-rooted concern with the techniques and records of administration,
with the procedures of the bureaucrats and officials. Strayer was as familiar with the modern
as with the medieval version, since he worked for the CIA One of his most vigorous pieces of
work is entitled On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State (1970; one might notice the emphasis
on both the "origins" and the "modern"; we live in the modern state; its origins go back a long
way, but the state of those days was not the state of ours). The book contains Strayer's cogent
definition of feudalism as "public powers in private hands," with that confident assurance that
these adjectives, "public" and "private," convey a simple and evident distinction that will arouse
no intellectual discomfort in readers. By contrast, Bisson's book is generated in part by his
wrestling with such concepts and their implications.
Bisson's book is called The Crisis of the Twelfth Century. "Crisis" means a vitally important
or decisive stage in the progress of anything. But in that sense, any century of human history
is a crisis. One might even say that this is simply the condition of human life-we are always
in an Age of Crisis (although the situation might not always be as alarming as today's). Bisson
acknowledges that "'crisis' was not a common word in the verbiage of the day," and the one instance
he cites of the contemporary use of the word (in its Latin form discrimen) refers to a succession
crisis in Poland in 1180. He wishes to see the various distinct political crises he discusses
(such as the Saxon revolt of 1075, the communal insurrection in Laon in 1111, the "anarchy" of
King Stephen's reign) as part of "the same wider crisis of multiplied knights and castles."
However, a case can be made that the levels of violence and disorder in this period were largely
dictated by the patterns of high politics rather than by a deep-seated structural malaise. Disputed
successions, or the accession of a child-king, could indeed upset the world of knights and castles,
unleashing the strongmen and their castle-based predatory attacks. Yet a regime of knights and
castles could also form the basis for fairly stable feudal monarchies, such as one sees in France
and England for most of the thirteenth century. If this is so, there were, of course, crises in
the twelfth century, but no Crisis.
The violence and greed of European knights of this period were directed beyond the local victims.
Bisson's "long twelfth century" was not only an age of predatory lords in their castles bullying
their peasantry but also an age of expansionary, one could say colonialist, violence. Christian
armies, led by these predatory lords, crossed into Muslim lands, capturing Toledo in 1085, Jerusalem
in 1099, and landing in North Africa in 1148; they destroyed the last remnants of West Slav paganism
in the Baltic in 1168; they even turned their formidable fighting strength against their estranged
Christian cousins in the Greek East, and sacked Constantinople in 1204. The energies generated
in the conflicts between mounted men in the West, and the expertise they acquired in subjugating
and fleecing the local peasantry, could be exported. The story of European violence is far from
unique, but it was in the central Middle Ages that it took a form that shaped the subsequent history
of the world.
A traditional view of the development of European society in the central Middle Ages, a view
to be found in textbooks past and present, is that the empire of Charlemagne (747–814) and his
successors had important elements of public authority, in the form of officials with delegated
powers and courts open to all free men, but that this regime was replaced, around the year 1000,
with a heavily militarized and violent world of strongmen in castles, lording it over peasants.
Over the course of time this world was, in its turn, transformed by the persistent efforts of
the kings of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries into a network of more centralized and bureaucratic
states, which led ultimately to modern systems of government. Like every model at this level of
generality, as long as people who know something about the subject have created it, there must
be some truth in this picture, however little it can be the whole truth. But we might have questions.
Was the "old public order" of Charlemagne and his successors so public and so ordered? Was the
subsequent regime so close to anarchy?
Bisson adds to this traditional account by thinking deeply about the benefits and disadvantages
of government. He is very aware of the inhumanity of the past he studies. He refers, with allusion
to the words of the twelfth-century cleric John of Salisbury, to "hunter-lords." John was talking
about the way that aristocrats were obsessed with the chase, but we might apply his phrase in
a wider sense. Since some theorists believe that human society is imprinted with its origins in
hunting packs and the mentality of the pack, the predatory lordship of the central Middle Ages
could be conceived of as just such a hunting pack-but its prey being fellow human beings, rather
than beasts.
Confronting this world of hunter and hunted, Bisson is inspired by attractively humane impulses.
In an earlier book, Tormented Voices, a microhistorical analysis of complaints raised by Catalan
peasants in the twelfth century, he stated explicitly that he was attempting "an essay in compassionate
history." Likewise in this book. And he looks for public, accountable, official remedies for suffering
and oppression. He seems sympathetic to the idea that "power is rightly oriented towards the social
needs of people." "If ever government was the solution, not the problem," he writes, "it was so
for European peoples in the twelfth century." Is the modern world so happy in its governments?
Whether we should endure the violence of the state, as a defense against the yet more fearful
violence of our neighbors, and whether there comes a point where the violence of the state must
be resisted are great recurrent questions of moral and political life. The questions raised by
Bisson's book remain open.
@4 psychohistorian.. and i agree with you in that too.. it has to do with the packaging and a
tendency in people to identify with the packaging - in this example 'made in the usa' as some
sort of rationale for that social sickness many suffer from called 'patriotism'.. it seems to
be especially prevalent in the worst nations, the usa at this point in time being the focal point
for much of this marketing...
@ okie farmer who added a loooong comment that contained the following about the definition of
government:
"
He identifies three: accountability, official conduct, and social purpose.
"
The narrative provided did not get into a discussion of "social purpose" but I think that it
is an important concept. The example I would posit is the original humanistic motto of the US,
E Pluribus Unum which was instantiated by government creations of the time like the pony express....true
socialism, if you need an ism to cling to. Social Security INSURANCE is another example of an
instantiation of social purpose.
The original US motto was replaced by In God We Trust in the mid 1950's which, IMO, destroyed
the social purpose concept of government and instead tells you to trust the leaders and religious
institutions.....reversion to kings and feudalism.
You get the government you demand. What sort of world do you want to pass to the children?
"... Rather than join the struggle of imperial rivalries, the United States could use its emerging power to suppress those rivalries altogether. ..."
"... "a power unlike any other. It had emerged, quite suddenly, as a novel kind of 'super-state,' exercising a veto over the financial and security concerns of the other major states of the world." ..."
"... Peter Heather, the great British historian of Late Antiquity, explains human catastrophes with a saying of his father's, a mining engineer: "If man accumulates enough combustible material, God will provide the spark." So it happened in 1929. The Deluge that had inundated the rest of the developed world roared back upon the United States. ..."
"... "The originality of National Socialism was that, rather than meekly accepting a place for Germany within a global economic order dominated by the affluent English-speaking countries, Hitler sought to mobilize the pent-up frustrations of his population to mount an epic challenge to this order." ..."
"... He could not accept subordination to the United States because, according to his lurid paranoia, "this would result in enslavement to the world Jewish conspiracy, and ultimately race death." ..."
"... By 1944, foreigners constituted 20 percent of the German workforce and 33 percent of armaments workers (less than 9 percent of the population of today's liberal and multicultural Germany is foreign-born). ..."
"... The Hitlerian vision of a united German-led Eurasia equaling the Anglo-American bloc proved a crazed and genocidal fantasy. ..."
The United States might claim a broader democracy than those that prevailed in Europe. On the
other hand, European states mobilized their populations with an efficiency that dazzled some Americans
(notably Theodore Roosevelt) and appalled others (notably Wilson). The magazine founded by pro-war
intellectuals in 1914, The New Republic, took its title precisely because its editors regarded
the existing American republic as anything but the hope of tomorrow.
Yet as World War I entered its third year-and the first year of Tooze's story-the balance of power
was visibly tilting from Europe to America. The belligerents could no longer sustain the costs of
offensive war. Cut off from world trade, Germany hunkered into a defensive siege, concentrating its
attacks on weak enemies like Romania. The Western allies, and especially Britain, outfitted their
forces by placing larger and larger war orders with the United States. In 1916, Britain bought more
than a quarter of the engines for its new air fleet, more than half of its shell casings, more than
two-thirds of its grain, and nearly all of its oil from foreign suppliers, with the United States
heading the list. Britain and France paid for these purchases by floating larger and larger bond
issues to American buyers-denominated in dollars, not pounds or francs. "By the end of 1916, American
investors had wagered two billion dollars on an Entente victory," computes Tooze (relative to America's
estimated GDP of $50 billion in 1916, the equivalent of $560 billion in today's money).
That staggering quantity of Allied purchases called forth something like a war mobilization in
the United States. American factories switched from civilian to military production; American farmers
planted food and fiber to feed and clothe the combatants of Europe. But unlike in 1940-41, the decision
to commit so much to one side's victory in a European war was not a political decision by the U.S.
government. Quite the contrary: President Wilson wished to stay out of the war entirely. He famously
preferred a "peace without victory." The trouble was that by 1916, the U.S. commitment to Britain
and France had grown-to borrow a phrase from the future-too big to fail.
Tooze's portrait of Woodrow Wilson is one of the most arresting novelties of his book. His Wilson
is no dreamy idealist. The president's animating idea was an American exceptionalism of a now-familiar
but then-startling kind. His Republican opponents-men like Theodore Roosevelt, Henry Cabot Lodge,
and Elihu Root-wished to see America take its place among the powers of the earth. They wanted a
navy, an army, a central bank, and all the other instrumentalities of power possessed by Britain,
France, and Germany. These political rivals are commonly derided as "isolationists" because they
mistrusted the Wilson's League of Nations project. That's a big mistake. They doubted the League
because they feared it would encroach on American sovereignty. It was Wilson who wished to
remain aloof from the Entente, who feared that too close an association with Britain and France would
limit American options. This aloofness enraged Theodore Roosevelt, who complained that the Wilson-led
United States was "sitting idle, uttering cheap platitudes, and picking up [European] trade, whilst
they had poured out their blood like water in support of ideals in which, with all their hearts and
souls, they believe."
Wilson was guided by a different vision: Rather than join the struggle of imperial rivalries,
the United States could use its emerging power to suppress those rivalries altogether. Wilson
was the first American statesman to perceive that the United States had grown, in Tooze's words,
into "a power unlike any other. It had emerged, quite suddenly, as a novel kind of 'super-state,'
exercising a veto over the financial and security concerns of the other major states of the world."
Wilson hoped to deploy this emerging super-power to enforce an enduring peace. His own mistakes
and those of his successors doomed the project, setting in motion the disastrous events that would
lead to the Great Depression, the rise of fascism, and a second and even more awful world war.
What went wrong? "When all is said and done," Tooze writes, "the answer must be sought in the failure
of the United States to cooperate with the efforts of the French, British, Germans and the Japanese
[leaders of the early 1920s] to stabilize a viable world economy and to establish new institutions
of collective security. Given the violence they had already experienced and the risk of even greater
future devastation, France, Germany, Japan, and Britain could all see this. But what was no less
obvious was that only the US could anchor such a new order." And that was what Americans of the 1920s
and 1930s declined to do-because doing so implied too much change at home for them: "At the hub of
the rapidly evolving, American-centered world system there was a polity wedded to a conservative
vision of its own future."
Widen the view, however, and the "forgotten depression" takes on a broader meaning as one of the
most ominous milestones on the world's way to the Second World War. After World War II, Europe recovered
largely as a result of American aid; the nation that had suffered least from the war contributed
most to reconstruction. But after World War I, the money flowed the other way.
Take the case of France, which suffered more in material terms than any World War I belligerent except
Belgium. Northeastern France, the country's most industrialized region in 1914, had been ravaged
by war and German occupation. Millions of men in their prime were dead or crippled. On top of everything,
the country was deeply in debt, owing billions to the United States and billions more to Britain.
France had been a lender during the conflict too, but most of its credits had been extended to Russia,
which repudiated all its foreign debts after the Revolution of 1917. The French solution was to exact
reparations from Germany.
Britain was willing to relax its demands on France. But it owed the United States even more than
France did. Unless it collected from France-and from Italy and all the other smaller combatants as
well-it could not hope to pay its American debts.
Americans, meanwhile, were preoccupied with the problem of German recovery. How could Germany achieve
political stability if it had to pay so much to France and Belgium? The Americans pressed the French
to relent when it came to Germany, but insisted that their own claims be paid in full by both France
and Britain.
Germany, for its part, could only pay if it could export, and especially to the world's biggest and
richest consumer market, the United States. The depression of 1920 killed those export hopes. Most
immediately, the economic crisis sliced American consumer demand precisely when Europe needed it
most. True, World War I was not nearly as positive an experience for working Americans as World War
II would be; between 1914 and 1918, for example, wages lagged behind prices. Still, millions of Americans
had bought billions of dollars of small-denomination Liberty bonds. They had accumulated savings
that could have been spent on imported products. Instead, many used their savings for food, rent,
and mortgage interest during the hard times of 1920-21.
But the gravest harm done by the depression to postwar recovery lasted long past 1921. To appreciate
that, you have to understand the reasons why U.S. monetary authorities plunged the country into depression
in 1920.
Grant rightly points out that wars are usually followed by economic downturns. Such a downturn occurred
in late 1918-early 1919. "Within four weeks of the Armistice, the [U.S.] War Department had canceled
$2.5 billion of its then outstanding $6 billion in contracts; for perspective, $2.5 billion represented
3.3 percent of the 1918 gross national product," he observes. Even this understates the shock, because
it counts only Army contracts, not Navy ones. The postwar recession checked wartime inflation, and
by March 1919, the U.S. economy was growing again.
As the economy revived, workers scrambled for wage increases to offset the price inflation they'd
experienced during the war. Monetary authorities, worried that inflation would revive and accelerate,
made the fateful decision to slam the credit brakes, hard. Unlike the 1918 recession, that of 1920
was deliberately engineered. There was nothing invisible about it. Nor did the depression "cure itself."
U.S. officials cut interest rates and relaxed credit, and the economy predictably recovered-just
as it did after the similarly inflation-crushing recessions of 1974-75 and 1981-82.
But 1920-21 was an inflation-stopper with a difference. In post-World War II America, anti-inflationists
have been content to stop prices from rising. In 1920-21, monetary authorities actually sought to
drive prices back to their pre-war levels. They did not wholly succeed, but they succeeded well enough.
One price especially concerned them: In 1913, a dollar bought a little less than one-twentieth of
an ounce of gold; by 1922, it comfortably did so again.
... ... ...
The American depression of 1920 made that decision all the more difficult. The war had vaulted
the United States to a new status as the world's leading creditor, the world's largest owner of gold,
and, by extension, the effective custodian of the international gold standard. When the U.S. opted
for massive deflation, it thrust upon every country that wished to return to the gold standard (and
what respectable country would not?) an agonizing dilemma. Return to gold at 1913 values, and you
would have to match U.S. deflation with an even steeper deflation of your own, accepting increased
unemployment along the way. Alternatively, you could re-peg your currency to gold at a diminished
rate. But that amounted to an admission that your money had permanently lost value-and that your
own people, who had trusted their government with loans in local money, would receive a weaker return
on their bonds than American creditors who had lent in dollars.
Britain chose the former course; pretty much everybody else chose the latter.
The consequences of these choices fill much of the second half of The Deluge. For Europeans, they
were uniformly grim, and worse. But one important effect ultimately rebounded on Americans. America's
determination to restore a dollar "as good as gold" not only imposed terrible hardship on war-ravaged
Europe, it also threatened to flood American markets with low-cost European imports. The flip side
of the Lost Generation enjoying cheap European travel with their strong dollars was German steelmakers
and shipyards underpricing their American competitors with weak marks.
Such a situation also prevailed after World War II, when the U.S. acquiesced in the undervaluation
of the Deutsche mark and yen to aid German and Japanese recovery. But American leaders of the 1920s
weren't willing to accept this outcome. In 1921 and 1923, they raised tariffs, terminating a brief
experiment with freer trade undertaken after the election of 1912. The world owed the United States
billions of dollars, but the world was going to have to find another way of earning that money than
selling goods to the United States.
That way was found: more debt, especially more German debt. The 1923 hyper-inflation that wiped
out Germany's savers also tidied up the country's balance sheet. Post-inflation Germany looked like
a very creditworthy borrower. Between 1924 and 1930, world financial flows could be simplified into
a daisy chain of debt. Germans borrowed from Americans, and used the proceeds to pay reparations
to the Belgians and French. The French and Belgians, in turn, repaid war debts to the British and
Americans. The British then used their French and Italian debt payments to repay the United States,
who set the whole crazy contraption in motion again. Everybody could see the system was crazy. Only
the United States could fix it. It never did.
Peter Heather, the great British historian of Late Antiquity, explains human catastrophes
with a saying of his father's, a mining engineer: "If man accumulates enough combustible material,
God will provide the spark." So it happened in 1929. The Deluge that had inundated the rest of the
developed world roared back upon the United States.
... ... ...
"The United States has the Earth, and Germany wants it." Thus might Hitler's war aims have been
summed up by a latter-day Woodrow Wilson. From the start, the United States was Hitler's ultimate
target. "In seeking to explain the urgency of Hitler's aggression, historians have underestimated
his acute awareness of the threat posed to Germany, along with the rest of the European powers, by
the emergence of the United States as the dominant global superpower," Tooze writes.
"The originality of National Socialism was that, rather than meekly accepting a place for
Germany within a global economic order dominated by the affluent English-speaking countries, Hitler
sought to mobilize the pent-up frustrations of his population to mount an epic challenge to this
order." Of course, Hitler was not engaged in rational calculation. He could not accept subordination
to the United States because, according to his lurid paranoia, "this would result in enslavement
to the world Jewish conspiracy, and ultimately race death." He dreamed of conquering Poland,
Ukraine, and Russia as a means of gaining the resources to match those of the United States.
The vast landscape in between Berlin and Moscow would become Germany's equivalent of the American
west, filled with German homesteaders living comfortably on land and labor appropriated from conquered
peoples-a nightmare parody of the American experience with which to challenge American power.
Could this vision have ever been realized? Tooze argues in The Wages of Destruction that Germany
had already missed its chance. "In 1870, at the time of German national unification, the population
of the United States and Germany was roughly equal and the total output of America, despite its enormous
abundance of land and resources, was only one-third larger than that of Germany," he writes. "Just
before the outbreak of World War I the American economy had expanded to roughly twice the size of
that of Imperial Germany. By 1943, before the aerial bombardment had hit top gear, total American
output was almost four times that of the Third Reich."
Germany was a weaker and poorer country in 1939 than it had been in 1914. Compared with Britain,
let alone the United States, it lacked the basic elements of modernity: There were just 486,000 automobiles
in Germany in 1932, and one-quarter of all Germans still worked as farmers as of 1925. Yet this backward
land, with an income per capita comparable to contemporary "South Africa, Iran and Tunisia," wagered
on a second world war even more audacious than the first.
The reckless desperation of Hitler's war provides context for the horrific crimes of his regime.
Hitler's empire could not feed itself, so his invasion plan for the Soviet Union contemplated the
death by starvation of 20 to 30 million Soviet urban dwellers after the invaders stole all foodstuffs
for their own use. Germany lacked workers, so it plundered the labor of its conquered peoples.
By 1944, foreigners constituted 20 percent of the German workforce and 33 percent of armaments
workers (less than 9 percent of the population of today's liberal and multicultural Germany is foreign-born).
On paper, the Nazi empire of 1942 represented a substantial economic bloc. But pillage and slavery
are not workable bases for an industrial economy. Under German rule, the output of conquered Europe
collapsed. The Hitlerian vision of a united German-led Eurasia equaling the Anglo-American bloc
proved a crazed and genocidal fantasy.
"... Expressing his overall objections to the TPP, Stiglitz said "corporate interests... were at the table" when it was being crafted. He also condemned "the provisions on intellectual property that will drive up drug prices" and "the 'investment provisions' which will make it more difficult to regulate and actually harm trade." ..."
"... The Democratic candidate, for her part, supported the deal before coming out against it , but for TPP foes, uncertainty about her position remains, especially since she recently named former Colorado Senator and Interior Secretary-and " vehement advocate for the TPP "-Ken Salazar to be chair of her presidential transition team. ..."
"... Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) said , "We have to make sure that bill never sees the light of day after this election," while Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) said at the American Postal Workers Union convention in Walt Disney World, "If this goes through, it's curtains for the middle class in this country." ..."
Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has reiterated his opposition
to the Trans Pacific
Partnership (TPP), saying on Tuesday that President Barack Obama's push
to get the trade deal passed during the upcoming lame-duck session of Congress
is "outrageous" and "absolutely wrong."
Stiglitz, an economics professor at
Columbia University and chief economist of the Roosevelt Institute,
made the comments on CNN's "Quest Means Business."
His criticism comes as Obama aggressively
campaigns to get lawmakers to pass the TPP in the Nov. 9 to Jan. 3 window-even
as
resistance mounts against the 12-nation deal.
Echoing an
argument made by Center for Economic
and Policy Research co-director Mark Weisbrot, Stiglitz said, "At the lame-duck
session you have congressmen voting who know that they're not accountable anymore."
Lawmakers "who are not politically accountable because they're leaving may,
in response to promises of jobs or just subtle understandings, do things that
are not in the national interest," he said.
Expressing his overall objections to the TPP, Stiglitz said "corporate
interests... were at the table" when it was being crafted. He also condemned
"the provisions on intellectual property that will drive up drug prices" and
"the 'investment provisions' which will make it more difficult to regulate and
actually harm trade."
"The advocates of trade said it was going to benefit everyone,"
he added. "The evidence is it's benefited a few and left a lot behind."
Stiglitz has also been advising the
Hillary
Clinton presidential campaign. The Democratic candidate, for her part,
supported the deal before coming out
against it, but for TPP foes, uncertainty about her position remains, especially
since she recently
named former Colorado Senator and Interior Secretary-and "vehement
advocate for the TPP"-Ken Salazar to be chair of her presidential transition
team.
Opposition to the TPP also appeared Tuesday in Michigan and Florida, where
union members and lawmakers criticized what they foresee as the deal's impacts
on working families.
Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.)
said, "We have to make sure that bill never sees the light of day after
this election," while Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.)
said at the American Postal Workers Union convention in Walt Disney World,
"If this goes through, it's curtains for the middle class in this country."
We cannot allow this agreement to forsake the American middle class, while foreign governments
are allowed to devalue their currency and artificially prop-up their industries.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal is a bad deal for the American people. This historically
massive trade deal -- accounting for 40 percent of global trade -- would reduce restrictions on foreign
corporations operating within the U.S., limit our ability to protect our environment, and create
more incentives for U.S. businesses to outsource investments and jobs overseas to countries with
lower labor costs and standards.
Over and over we hear from TPP proponents how the TPP will boost our economy, help American workers,
and set the standards for global trade. The International Trade Commission report released last May
(https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/pub4607.pdf)
confirms that the opposite is true. In exchange for just 0.15 percent boost in GDP by 2032, the TPP
would decimate American manufacturing capacity, increase our trade deficit, ship American jobs overseas,
and result in losses to 16 of the 25 U.S. economic sectors. These estimates don't even account for
the damaging effects of currency manipulation, environmental impacts, and the agreement's deeply
flawed Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) process.
There's no reason to believe the provisions of this deal relating to labor standards, preserving
American jobs, or protecting our environment, will be enforceable. Every trade agreement negotiated
in the past claimed to have strong enforceable provisions to protect American jobs -- yet no such
enforcement has occurred, and agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have
resulted in the loss of hundreds of thousands of American jobs. Former Secretary of Labor Robert
Reich has called TPP "NAFTA on steroids." The loss of U.S. jobs under the TPP would likely be unprecedented.
"... Existing "trade" agreements like NAFTA allow corporations to sue governments for passing laws and regulations that limit their profits. They set up special " corporate courts " in which corporate attorneys decide the cases. These corporate "super courts" sit above governments and their own court systems, and countries and their citizens cannot even appeal the rulings. ..."
"... Now, corporations are pushing two new "trade" agreements - one covering Pacific-are countries and one covering Atlantic-area countries - that expand these corporate rights and move governments out of their way. The Pacific agreement is called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Atlantic one is called the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). ..."
"... International corporations that want to intimidate countries have access to a private legal system designed just for them. And to unlock its power, sometimes all it takes is a threat. ..."
"... ISDS is so tilted and unpredictable, and the fines the arbitrators can impose are so catastrophically large, that bowing to a company's demands, however extreme they may be, can look like the prudent choice. ..."
BuzzFeed is running a very important investigative series called
"Secrets
of a Global Super Court." It describes what they call "a parallel legal
universe, open only to corporations and largely invisible to everyone else."
Existing "trade" agreements like NAFTA allow corporations to sue governments
for passing laws and regulations that limit their profits. They set up special
"corporate
courts" in which corporate attorneys decide the cases. These corporate "super
courts" sit above governments and their own court systems, and countries
and their citizens cannot even appeal the rulings.
Picture a poor "banana republic" country ruled by a dictator and his
cronies. A company might want to invest in a factory or railroad - things
that would help the people of that country as well as deliver a return to
the company. But the company worries that the dictator might decide to just
seize the factory and give it to his brother-in-law. Agreements to protect
investors, and allowing a tribunal not based in such countries (courts where
the judges are cronies of the dictator), make sense in such situations.
Here's the thing: Corporate investors see themselves as legitimate "makers"
and see citizens and voters and their governments - always demanding taxes and
fair pay and public safety - to be illegitimate "takers." Corporations are all
about "one-dollar-one-vote" top-down systems of governance. They consider "one-person-one-vote"
democracy to be an illegitimate, non-functional system that meddles with their
more-important profit interests. They consider any governmental legal or regulatory
system to be "burdensome." They consider taxes as "theft" of the money they
have "earned."
To them, any government anywhere is just another "banana republic"
from which they need special protection.
"Trade" Deals Bypass Borders
Investors and their corporations have set up a way to get around the borders
of these meddling governments, called "trade" deals. The trade deals elevate
global corporate interests above any national interest. When a country signs
a "trade" deal, that country is agreeing not to do things that protect the country's
own national interest - like impose tariffs to protect key industries or national
strategies, or pass laws and regulations - when those things interfere with
the larger, more important global corporate "trade" interests.
Now, corporations are pushing two new "trade" agreements - one covering
Pacific-are countries and one covering Atlantic-area countries - that expand
these corporate rights and move governments out of their way. The Pacific agreement
is called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Atlantic one is called
the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).
Secrets of a Global Super Court
BuzzFeed's series on these corporate courts,
"Secrets
of a Global Super Court," explains the investor-state dispute settlement
(ISDS) provisions in the "trade" deals that have come to dominate the world
economy. These provisions set up "corporate
courts" that place corporate profits above the interests of governments
and set up a court system that sits above the court systems of the countries
in the "trade" deals.
In a little-noticed 2014 dissent, US Chief Justice John Roberts warned
that ISDS arbitration panels hold the alarming power to review a nation's
laws and "effectively annul the authoritative acts of its legislature, executive,
and judiciary." ISDS arbitrators, he continued, "can meet literally anywhere
in the world" and "sit in judgment" on a nation's "sovereign acts."
[. . .]
Reviewing publicly available information for about 300 claims filed during
the past five years, BuzzFeed News found more than 35 cases in which the
company or executive seeking protection in ISDS was accused of criminal
activity, including money laundering, embezzlement, stock manipulation,
bribery, war profiteering, and fraud.
Among them: a bank in Cyprus that the US government accused of
financing terrorism and organized crime, an oil company executive accused
of embezzling millions from the impoverished African nation of Burundi,
and the Russian oligarch known as "the
Kremlin's banker."
One lawyer who regularly represents governments said he's seen evidence
of corporate criminality that he "couldn't believe." Speaking on the condition
that he not be named because he's currently handling ISDS cases, he said,
"You have a lot of scuzzy sort-of thieves for whom this is a way to hit
the jackpot."
Part Two,
"The Billion-Dollar Ultimatum," looks at how "International corporations
that want to intimidate countries have access to a private legal system designed
just for them. And to unlock its power, sometimes all it takes is a threat."
Of all the ways in which ISDS is used, the most deeply hidden are the
threats, uttered in private meetings or ominous letters, that invoke those
courts. The threats are so powerful they often eliminate the need to actually
bring a lawsuit. Just the knowledge that it could happen is enough.
[. . .] ISDS is so tilted and unpredictable, and the fines the arbitrators
can impose are so catastrophically large, that bowing to a company's demands,
however extreme they may be, can look like the prudent choice. Especially
for nations struggling to emerge from corrupt dictatorships or to lift their
people from decades of poverty, the mere threat of an ISDS claim triggers
alarm. A single decision by a panel of three unaccountable, private lawyers,
meeting in a conference room on some other continent, could gut national
budgets and shake economies to the core.
Indeed, financiers and ISDS lawyers have created a whole new business:
prowling for ways to sue nations in ISDS and make their taxpayers fork over
huge sums, sometimes in retribution for enforcing basic laws or regulations.
The financial industry is pushing novel ISDS claims that countries
never could have anticipated - claims that, in some instances,
would be barred in US courts and those of other developed nations, or
that strike at emergency decisions nations make to cope with crises.
ISDS gives particular leverage to traders and speculators who chase
outsize profits in the developing world. They can buy into local disputes
that they have no connection to, then turn the disputes into costly international
showdowns. Standard Chartered, for example, bought the debt of a Tanzanian
company that was in dire financial straits and racked by scandal; now, the
bank has filed an ISDS claim demanding that the nation's taxpayers hand
over the full amount that the private company owed - more than $100 million.
Asked to comment, Standard Chartered said its claim is "valid."
But instead of helping companies resolve legitimate disputes over seized
assets, ISDS has increasingly become a way for rich investors to make money
by speculating on lawsuits, winning huge awards and forcing taxpayers to
foot the bill.
Here's how it works: Wealthy financiers with idle cash have purchased
companies that are well placed to bring an ISDS claim, seemingly for the
sole purpose of using that claim to make a buck. Sometimes, they set up
shell corporations to create the plaintiffs to bring ISDS cases.
And some hedge funds and private equity firms bankroll ISDS cases as third
parties - just like billionaire Peter Thiel bankrolled Hulk Hogan in his
lawsuit against Gawker Media.
The Progressive Change Campaign Committee (PCCC) released this statement
on the ISDS provisions in TPP:
"Under the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Wall Street would be allowed to
sue the government in extrajudicial, corporate-run tribunals over any regulation
and American taxpayers would be on the hook for damages. This is an outrage.
We need more accountability and fairness in our economy – not less. And
we need to preserve our ability to make our own rules.
"It's time for Obama to take notice of the widespread, bipartisan opposition
to the TPP and take this agreement off the table before he causes lasting
political harm to Democrats with voters."
"... "No TPP - a certainty in case Donald Trump is elected in November - means the end of US economic hegemony over Asia. Hillary Clinton knows it; and it's no accident President Obama is desperate to have TPP approved during a short window of opportunity, the lame-duck session of Congress from November 9 to January 3." ..."
"... To me, the key to our economic hegemony lies in our reserve currency hegemony. They will have to continue to supply us to get the currency. Unless we have injected too much already (no scholars have come forth to say how much trade deficits are necessary for the reserve currency to function as the reserve currency, and so, we have just kept buying – and I am wondering if we have bought too much and there is a need to starting running trade surpluses to soak up the excess money – just asking, I don't know the answer). ..."
A response to Hillary Clinton's America Exceptionalist Speech:
1. America Exceptionalist vs. the World..
2. Brezinski is extremely dejected.
3. Russia-China on the march.
4. "There will be blood. Hillary Clinton smells it already ."
"No TPP - a certainty in case Donald Trump is elected in November
- means the end of US economic hegemony over Asia. Hillary Clinton knows
it; and it's no accident President Obama is desperate to have TPP approved
during a short window of opportunity, the lame-duck session of Congress
from November 9 to January 3."
To me, the key to our economic hegemony lies in our reserve currency
hegemony. They will have to continue to supply us to get the currency. Unless
we have injected too much already (no scholars have come forth to say how
much trade deficits are necessary for the reserve currency to function as
the reserve currency, and so, we have just kept buying – and I am wondering
if we have bought too much and there is a need to starting running trade
surpluses to soak up the excess money – just asking, I don't know the answer).
Regarding the push to pass the TPP and TISA I've been needing to get
this off my chest and this seems to be as good a time as any:
In the face of public opposition to the TPP and TISA proponents have
trotted out a new argument: "we have come too far", "our national credibility
would be damaged if we stop now." The premise of which is that negotiations
have been going on so long, and have involved such effort that if the
U.S. were to back away now we would look bad and would lose significant
political capital.
On one level this argument is true. The negotiations have been long,
and many promises were made by the negotiators to secure to to this
point. Stepping back now would expose those promises as false and would
make that decade of effort a loss. It would also expose the politicians
who pushed for it in the face of public oppoosition to further loss
of status and to further opposition.
However, all of that is voided by one simple fact. The negotiations
were secret. All of that effort, all of the horse trading and the promise
making was done by a self-selected body of elites, for that same body,
and was hidden behind a wall of secrecy stronger than that afforded
to new weapons. The deals were hidden not just from the general public,
not from trade unions or environmental groups, but from the U.S. Congress
itself.
Therefore it has no public legitimacy. The promises made are not
"our" promises but Michael Froman's promises. They are not backed by
the full faith and credit of the U.S. government but only by the words
of a small body of appointees and the multinational corporations that
they serve. The corporations were invited to the table, Congress was
not.
What "elites" really mean when they say "America's credibility is
on the line" is that their credibility is on the line. If these deals
fail what will be lost is not America's stature but the premise that
a handful of appointees can cut deals in private and that the rest of
us will make good.
When that minor loss is laid against the far greater fact that the
terms of these deals are bad, that prior deals of this type have harmed
our real economies, and that the rules will further erode our national
sovreignity, there is no contest.
Michael Froman's reputation has no value. Our sovreignity, our economy,
our nation, does.
"What "elites" really mean when they say "America's credibility is on
the line" is that their credibility is on the line. If these deals fail
what will be lost is not America's stature but the premise that a handful
of appointees can cut deals in private and that the rest of us will make
good."
Yes! And the victory will taste so sweet when we bury this filthy, rotten,
piece of garbage. Obama's years of effort down the drain, his legacy tarnished
and unfinished.
I want TPP's defeat to send a clear message that the elites can't count
on their politicians to deliver for them. Let's make this thing their Stalingrad!
Leave deep scars so that they give up on TISA and stop trying to concoct
these absurd schemes like ISDS.
sorry but i don't see it that way at all. 'they' got a propaganda machine
to beat all 'they' make n break reps all the time. i do see a desperation
on a monetary/profit scale. widening the 'playing field' offers more profits
with less risk. for instance, our Pharams won't have to slash their prices
at the risk of sunshine laws, wish-washy politicians, competition, nor a
pissed off public. jmo tho')
LOL "America's credibility" LOL, these people need to get out more. In
the 60's you could hike high up into the Andes and the sheep herder had
two pics on the wall of his hut: Jesus and JFK. America retains its cachet
as a place to make money and be entertained, but as some kind of beacon
of morality and fair play in the world? Dead, buried, and long gone, the
hype-fest of slogans and taglines can only cover up so many massive, atrocious
and hypocritical actions and serial offenses.
Clinton Inc was mostly Bill helping Epstein get laid until after Kerry
lost. If this was the reelection of John Edwards, Kerry's running mate,
and a referendum on 12 years of Kerronomics, Bill and Hill would be opening
night speakers at the DNC and answers to trivia questions.
My guess is Obama is dropped swiftly and unceremoniously especially since
he doesn't have much of a presence in Washington.
"It looks as if we'll be firing Tomahawk cruise missiles at Syria in
the coming days, and critics are raising legitimate concerns:"
"Yet there is value in bolstering international norms against egregious
behavior like genocide or the use of chemical weapons. Since President Obama
established a "red line" about chemical weapons use, his credibility has
been at stake: he can't just whimper and back down."
Obama did back down.
NIcholas Kristof, vigilant protector of American credibility through
bombing Syria.
Ah yes the credibility of our élites. With their sterling record on Nafta's
benefits, Iraq's liberation, Greece's rebound, the IMF's rehabilitation
of countries
We must pass TPP or Tom Friedman will lose credibility, what?
"... pro-TPPers "consciously seek to weaken the national defense," that's exactly what's going on. Neoliberalism, through offshoring, weakens the national defense, because it puts our weaponry at the mercy of fragile and corruptible supply chains. ..."
"... Now, when we think about how corrupt the political class has become, it's not hard to see why Obama is confident that he will win. ..."
"... I think raising the ante rhetorically by framing a pro-TPP vote as treason could help sway a close vote; and if readers try that frame out, I'd like to hear the results ..."
There are two reasons: First, they consciously seek to weaken the national
defense. And second, the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system is
a
surrender of national sovereignty .
National Defense
This might be labeled the "Ghost Fleet" argument, since we're informed that
Paul Singer and Augustus Cole's techno-thriller has really caught the attention
of the national security class below the political appointee level, and that
this is a death blow for neoliberalism. Why? "The multi-billion dollar, next
generation F-35 aircraft, for instance, is rendered powerless after it is revealed
that Chinese microprocessor manufacturers had implanted malicious code into
products intended for the jet" (
Foreign Policy ). Clearly, we need, well, industrial policy, and we need
to bring a lot of manufacturing home.
From Brigadier General (Retired) John Adams :
In 2013, the Pentagon's Defense Science Board put forward a remarkable
report describing one of the most significant but little-recognized threats
to US security: deindustrialization. The report argued that the loss of
domestic U.S. manufacturing facilities has not only reduced U.S. living
standards but also compromised U.S. technology leadership "by enabling new
players to learn a technology and then gain the capability to improve on
it." The report explained that the offshoring of U.S. manufacturing presents
a particularly dangerous threat to U.S. military readiness through the "compromise
of the supply chain for key weapons systems components."
Our military is now shockingly vulnerable to major disruptions in the
supply chain, including from substandard manufacturing practices, natural
disasters, and price gouging by foreign nations. Poor manufacturing practices
in offshore factories lead to problem-plagued products, and foreign producers-acting
on the basis of their own military or economic interests-can sharply raise
prices or reduce or stop sales to the United States.
The link between TPP and this kind of offshoring has been well-established.
And, one might say, the link between neo-liberal economic policy "and this
kind of offshoring has been well-established" as well.
So, when I framed the issue as one where pro-TPPers "consciously seek
to weaken the national defense," that's exactly what's going on. Neoliberalism,
through offshoring, weakens the national defense, because it puts our weaponry
at the mercy of fragile and corruptible supply chains. Note that re-industrializing
America has positive appeal, too: For the right, on national security grounds;
and for the left, on labor's behalf (and maybe helping out the Rust Belt that
neoliberal policies of the last forty years did so much to destroy. Of course,
this framing would make Clinton a traitor, but you can't make an omelette without
breaking eggs. (Probably best to to let the right, in its refreshingly direct
fashion, use the actual "traitor" word, and the left, shocked, call for the
restoration of civility, using verbiage like "No, I wouldn't say she's a traitor.
She's certainly 'extremely careless' with our nation's security.")
ISDS
The Investor-State Dispute Settlement system is a hot mess (unless you represent
a corporation, or are one of tiny fraternity of international corporate lawyers
who can plead and/or judge ISDS cases).
Yves wrote :
What may have torched the latest Administration salvo is a well-timed
joint publication by Wikileaks and the New York Times of a recent version
of the so-called investment chapter. That section sets forth one of the
worst features of the agreement, the investor-state dispute settlement process
(ISDS). As we've described at length in earlier posts, the ISDS mechanism
strengthens the existing ISDS process. It allows for secret arbitration
panels to effectively overrule national regulations by allowing foreign
investors to sue governments over lost potential future profits in secret
arbitration panels. Those panels have been proved to be conflict-ridden
and arbitrary. And the grounds for appeal are limited and technical.
Here again we have a frame that appeals to both right and left. The very
thought of surrendering national sovereignty to an international organization
makes any good conservative's back teeth itch. And the left sees the "lost profits"
doctrine as a club to prevent future government programs they would like to
put in place (single payer, for example). And in both cases, the neoliberal
doctrine of putting markets before anything else makes pro-TPP-ers traitors.
To the right, because nationalism trumps internationalism; to the left, because
TPP prevents the State from looiking after the welfare of its people.
The Political State of Play
All I know is what I read in the papers, so what follows can only be speculation.
That said, there are two ways TPP could be passed: In the lame duck session,
by Obama, or after a new President is inaugurated, by Clinton (or possibly by
Trump[1]).
[OBAMA:] And hopefully, after the election is over and the dust settles,
there will be more attention to the actual facts behind the deal and it
won't just be a political symbol or a political football. And I will actually
sit down with people on both sides, on the right and on the left. I'll sit
down publicly with them and we'll go through the whole provisions. I would
enjoy that, because there's a lot of misinformation.
I'm really confident I can make the case this is good for American workers
and the American people. And people said we weren't going to be able to
get the trade authority to even present this before Congress, and somehow
we muddled through and got it done. And I intend to do the same with respect
to the actual agreement.
So it is looking like a very close vote. (For procedural and political
reasons, Obama will not bring it to a vote unless he is sure he has the
necessary votes). Now let's look at one special group of Representatives
who can swing this vote: the actual lame-ducks, i.e., those who will be
in office only until Jan. 3. It depends partly on how many lose their election
on Nov. 8, but the average number of representatives who left after the
last three elections was about 80.
Most of these people will be looking for a job, preferably one that can
pay them more than $1 million a year. From the data provided by OpenSecrets.org,
we can estimate that about a quarter of these people will become lobbyists.
(An additional number will work for firms that are clients of lobbyists).
So there you have it: It is all about corruption, and this is about as
unadulterated as corruption gets in our hallowed democracy, other than literal
cash under a literal table. These are the people whom Obama needs to pass
this agreement, and the window between Nov. 9 and Jan. 3 is the only time
that they are available to sell their votes to future employers without
any personal political consequences whatsoever. The only time that the electorate
can be rendered so completely irrelevant, if Obama can pull this off.
(The article doesn't talk about the Senate, but Fast Track passed the Senate
with a filibuster-proof super-majority, so the battle is in the House anyhow.
And although the text of TPP cannot be amended - that's what fast track means!
- there are still ways to affect the interpretation and enforcement of the text,
so Obama and his corporate allies have bargaining chips beyond Beltway sinecures.[2])
Now, when we think about how corrupt the political class has become,
it's not hard to see why Obama is confident that he will win. (
Remember , "[T]he preferences of economic elites have far more independent
impact upon policy change than the preferences of average citizens do.") However,
if the anti-TPP-ers raise the rhetorical stakes from policy disagreement to
treason, maybe a few of those 80 representatives will do the right thing (or,
if you prefer, decide that the reputational damage to their future career makes
a pro-TPP vote not worth it. Who wants to play golf with a traitor?)
Passing TPP after the Inaugural
After the coronation inaugural, Clinton will have to use more
complicated tactics than dangling goodies before the snouts of representatives
leaving for K Street. (We've seen that Clinton's putative opposition to TPP
is based on lawyerly parsing; and her base supports it. So I assume a Clinton
administration would go full speed ahead with it.) My own thought has been that
she'd set up a "conversation" on trade, and then buy off the national unions
with "jobs for the boys," so that they sell their locals down the river. Conservative
Jennifer Rubin has a better proposal , which meets Clinton's supposed criterion
of not hurting workers even better:
Depending on the election results and how many pro-free-trade Republicans
lose, it still might not be sufficient. Here's a further suggestion: Couple
it with a substantial infrastructure project that Clinton wants, but with
substantial safeguards to make sure that the money is wisely spent. Clinton
gets a big jobs bill - popular with both sides - and a revised TPP gets
through.
What Clinton needs is a significant revision to TPP that she can tout
as a real reform to trade agreements, one that satisfies some of the TPP's
critics on the left. A minor tweak is unlikely to assuage anyone; this change
needs to be a major one. Fortunately, there is a TPP provision that fits
the bill perfectly: investor state dispute settlement (ISDS), the procedure
that allows foreign investors to sue governments in an international tribunal.
Removing ISDS could triangulate the TPP debate, allowing for enough support
to get it through Congress.
Obama can't have a conversation on trade, or propose a jobs program, let
alone jettison ISDS; all he's got going for him is corruption.[3] So, interestingly,
although Clinton can't take the simple road of bribing the 80 represenatives,
she does have more to bargain with on policy. Rubin's jobs bill could at least
be framed as a riposte to the "Ghost Fleet" argument, since both are about "jawbs,"
even if infrastructure programs and reindustrialization aren't identical in
intent. And while I don't think Clinton would allow ISDS to be removed (
her corporate donors love it ), at least somebody's thinking about how to
pander to the left. Nevertheless, what does a jobs program matter if the new
jobs leave the country anyhow? And suppose ISDS is removed, but the removal
of the precautionary principle remains? We'd still get corporate-friendly decisions,
bilaterally. And people would end up balancing the inevitable Clinton complexity
and mush against the simplicity of the message that a vote for TPP is a vote
against the United States.
Conclusion
I hope I've persuaded you that TPP is still very much alive, and that both
Obama in the lame duck, and Clinton (or even Trump) when inaugurated have reasonable
hopes of passing it. However, I think raising the ante rhetorically by framing
a pro-TPP vote as treason could help sway a close vote; and if readers try that
frame out, I'd like to hear the results (especially when the result comes
from a letter to your Congress critter). Interestingly, Buzzfeed just published
tonight the first in a four-part series, devoted to the idea that ISDS is what
we have said it is all along: A surrender of national sovereignty.
Here's
a great slab of it :
Imagine a private, global super court that empowers corporations to bend
countries to their will.
Say a nation tries to prosecute a corrupt CEO or ban dangerous pollution.
Imagine that a company could turn to this super court and sue the whole
country for daring to interfere with its profits, demanding hundreds of
millions or even billions of dollars as retribution.
Imagine that this court is so powerful that nations often must heed its
rulings as if they came from their own supreme courts, with no meaningful
way to appeal. That it operates unconstrained by precedent or any significant
public oversight, often keeping its proceedings and sometimes even its decisions
secret. That the people who decide its cases are largely elite Western corporate
attorneys who have a vested interest in expanding the court's authority
because they profit from it directly, arguing cases one day and then sitting
in judgment another. That some of them half-jokingly refer to themselves
as "The Club" or "The Mafia."
And imagine that the penalties this court has imposed have been so crushing
- and its decisions so unpredictable - that some nations dare not risk a
trial, responding to the mere threat of a lawsuit by offering vast concessions,
such as rolling back their own laws or even wiping away the punishments
of convicted criminals.
This system is already in place, operating behind closed doors in office
buildings and conference rooms in cities around the world. Known as investor-state
dispute settlement, or ISDS, it is written into a vast network of treaties
that govern international trade and investment, including NAFTA and the
Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Congress must soon decide whether to ratify.
That's the stuff to give the troops!
NOTE
[1] Trump:
"I pledge to never sign any trade agreement that hurts our workers." Lotta
wiggle room there, and the lawyerly parsing is just like Clinton's. I don't
think it's useful to discuss what Trump might do on TPP, because until there
are other parties to the deal, there's no deal to be had. Right now, we're just
looking at
Trump doing A-B testing - not that there's anything wrong with that - which
the press confuses with policy proposals. So I'm not considering Trump because
I don't think we have any data to go on.
To pacify [those to whom he will corrupt appeal], Obama will
have to convince them that what they want will anyway be achieved, even
if these are not legally part of the TPP because the TPP text cannot be
amended.
He can try to achieve this through bilateral side agreements on specific
issues. Or he can insist that some countries take on extra obligations beyond
what is required by the TPP as a condition for obtaining a U.S. certification
that they have fulfilled their TPP obligations.
This certification is required for the U.S. to provide the TPP's benefits
to its partners, and the U.S. has previously made use of this process to
get countries to take on additional obligations, which can then be shown
to Congress members that their objectives have been met.
In other words, side deals.
[3] This should not be taken to imply that Clinton does not have corruption
going for her, too. She can also make all the side deals Obama can.
"... One of the main concerns with TTIP is that it could allow multinational corporations to effectively "sue" governments for taking actions that might damage their businesses. Critics claim American companies might be able to avoid having to meet various EU health, safety and environment regulations by challenging them in a quasi-court set up to resolve disputes between investors and states. ..."
"... These developments take place against the background of another major free trade agreement - the Trans Pacific Partnership ( TPP ) - hitting snags on the way to being pushed through Congress. ..."
"... "US Faces Major Setback" Well, actually, US corporations face a major setback. Average US citizens face a reprieve. ..."
TTIP negotiations have been ongoing since 2013 in an effort to establish a massive
free trade zone that would eliminate many tariffs. After 14 rounds of talks
that have lasted three years not a single common item out of
the 27 chapters being discussed has been agreed on. The United States has
refused to agree on an equal playing field between European and American companies
in the sphere of public procurement sticking to the principle of "buy American".
The opponents of the deal believe that in its current guise the TTIP is too
friendly to US businesses. One of the main concerns with TTIP is that it
could allow multinational corporations to effectively "sue" governments for
taking actions that might damage their businesses. Critics claim American companies
might be able to avoid having to meet various EU health, safety and environment
regulations by challenging them in a quasi-court set up to resolve disputes
between investors and states.
In Europe thousands of people supported by society groups, trade unions and
activists take to the streets expressing protest against the deal. Three million
people have signed a petition calling for it to be scrapped. For instance, various
trade unions and other groups have called for protests against the TTIP across
Germany to take place on September 17. A trade agreement with Canada has also
come under attack.
These developments take place against the background of another major
free trade agreement - the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)
- hitting snags on the way to being pushed through Congress. The chances
are really slim.
silverer •Sep 5, 2016 9:51 AM
"US Faces Major Setback" Well, actually, US corporations face a major
setback. Average US citizens face a reprieve.
Blast from the past. Bill Clinton position on illegal immegtation.
Notable quotes:
"... Today's Democratic Party also believes we must remain a nation of laws. We cannot tolerate illegal immigration and we must stop it. For years before Bill Clinton became President, Washington talked tough but failed to act. In 1992, our borders might as well not have existed. The border was under-patrolled, and what patrols there were, were under-equipped. Drugs flowed freely. Illegal immigration was rampant. Criminal immigrants, deported after committing crimes in America, returned the very next day to commit crimes again. ..."
"... President Clinton is making our border a place where the law is respected and drugs and illegal immigrants are turned away. We have increased the Border Patrol by over 40 percent; in El Paso, our Border Patrol agents are so close together they can see each other. Last year alone, the Clinton Administration removed thousands of illegal workers from jobs across the country. Just since January of 1995, we have arrested more than 1,700 criminal aliens and prosecuted them on federal felony charges because they returned to America after having been deported. ..."
"... However, as we work to stop illegal immigration, we call on all Americans to avoid the temptation to use this issue to divide people from each other. We deplore those who use the need to stop illegal immigration as a pretext for discrimination . And we applaud the wisdom of Republicans like Mayor Giuliani and Senator Domenici who oppose the mean-spirited and short-sighted effort of Republicans in Congress to bar the children of illegal immigrants from schools - it is wrong, and forcing children onto the streets is an invitation for them to join gangs and turn to crime. ..."
Democrats remember that we are a nation of immigrants. We recognize the extraordinary contribution
of immigrants to America throughout our history. We welcome legal immigrants to America. We support
a legal immigration policy that is pro-family, pro-work, pro-responsibility, and pro-citizenship
, and we deplore those who blame immigrants for economic and social problems.
We know that citizenship is the cornerstone of full participation in American life. We are
proud that the President launched Citizenship USA to help eligible immigrants become United States
citizens. The Immigration and Naturalization Service is streamlining procedures, cutting red tape,
and using new technology to make it easier for legal immigrants to accept the responsibilities
of citizenship and truly call America their home.
Today's Democratic Party also believes we must remain a nation of laws. We cannot tolerate
illegal immigration and we must stop it. For years before Bill Clinton became President, Washington
talked tough but failed to act. In 1992, our borders might as well not have existed. The border
was under-patrolled, and what patrols there were, were under-equipped. Drugs flowed freely. Illegal
immigration was rampant. Criminal immigrants, deported after committing crimes in America, returned
the very next day to commit crimes again.
President Clinton is making our border a place where the law is respected and drugs and
illegal immigrants are turned away. We have increased the Border Patrol by over 40 percent; in
El Paso, our Border Patrol agents are so close together they can see each other. Last year alone,
the Clinton Administration removed thousands of illegal workers from jobs across the country.
Just since January of 1995, we have arrested more than 1,700 criminal aliens and prosecuted them
on federal felony charges because they returned to America after having been deported.
However, as we work to stop illegal immigration, we call on all Americans to avoid the
temptation to use this issue to divide people from each other. We deplore those who use the need
to stop illegal immigration as a pretext for discrimination . And we applaud the wisdom of Republicans
like Mayor Giuliani and Senator Domenici who oppose the mean-spirited and short-sighted effort
of Republicans in Congress to bar the children of illegal immigrants from schools - it is wrong,
and forcing children onto the streets is an invitation for them to join gangs and turn to crime.
Democrats want to protect American jobs by increasing criminal and civil sanctions against
employers who hire illegal workers , but Republicans continue to favor inflammatory rhetoric over
real action. We will continue to enforce labor standards to protect workers in vulnerable industries.
We continue to firmly oppose welfare benefits for illegal immigrants. We believe family members
who sponsor immigrants into this country should take financial responsibility for them, and be
held legally responsible for supporting them.
"... A loss of the expectation of privacy in communications is a loss of something personal and intimate, and it will have broader implications. ..."
"... Mr. Hentoff sees the surveillance state as a threat to free speech, too ..."
"... An entrenched surveillance state will change and distort the balance that allows free government to function successfully. ..."
"... "When you have this amount of privacy invasion put into these huge data banks, who knows what will come out?" ..."
"... Asked about those attempts, he mentions the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, the Red Scare of the 1920s and the McCarthy era. Those times and incidents, he says, were more than specific scandals or news stories, they were attempts to change our nature as a people. ..."
"... What of those who say they don't care what the federal government does as long as it keeps us safe? The threat of terrorism is real, Mr. Hentoff acknowledges. Al Qaeda is still here, its networks are growing. But you have to be careful about who's running U.S. intelligence and U.S. security, and they have to be fully versed in and obey constitutional guarantees. ..."
"... Mr. Hentoff notes that J. Edgar Hoover didn't have all this technology. "He would be so envious of what NSA can do." ..."
...Among the pertinent definitions of privacy from the Oxford English Dictionary: "freedom from
disturbance or intrusion," "intended only for the use of a particular person or persons," belonging
to "the property of a particular person." Also: "confidential, not to be disclosed to others." Among
others, the OED quotes the playwright Arthur Miller, describing the McCarthy era: "Conscience was
no longer a private matter but one of state administration."
Privacy is connected to personhood. It has to do with intimate things-the innards of your head
and heart, the workings of your mind-and the boundary between those things and the world outside.
A loss of the expectation of privacy in communications is a loss of something personal and
intimate, and it will have broader implications. That is the view of Nat Hentoff, the great
journalist and civil libertarian. He is 88 now and on fire on the issue of privacy. "The media has
awakened," he told me. "Congress has awakened, to some extent." Both are beginning to realize "that
there are particular constitutional liberty rights that [Americans] have that distinguish them from
all other people, and one of them is privacy."
Mr. Hentoff sees excessive government surveillance as violative of the Fourth Amendment, which
protects "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures" and requires that warrants be issued only "upon probable cause
. . . particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
But Mr. Hentoff sees the surveillance state as a threat to free speech, too. About a
year ago he went up to Harvard to speak to a class. He asked, he recalled: "How many of you realize
the connection between what's happening with the Fourth Amendment with the First Amendment?" He told
the students that if citizens don't have basic privacies-firm protections against the search and
seizure of your private communications, for instance-they will be left feeling "threatened." This
will make citizens increasingly concerned "about what they say, and they do, and they think." It
will have the effect of constricting freedom of expression. Americans will become careful about what
they say that can be misunderstood or misinterpreted, and then too careful about what they say that
can be understood. The inevitable end of surveillance is self-censorship.
All of a sudden, the room became quiet. "These were bright kids, interested, concerned, but they
hadn't made an obvious connection about who we are as a people." We are "free citizens in a self-governing
republic."
Mr. Hentoff once asked Justice William Brennan "a schoolboy's question": What is the most important
amendment to the Constitution? "Brennan said the First Amendment, because all the other ones come
from that. If you don't have free speech you have to be afraid, you lack a vital part of what it
is to be a human being who is free to be who you want to be." Your own growth as a person will in
time be constricted, because we come to know ourselves by our thoughts.
He wonders if Americans know who they are compared to what the Constitution says they are.
Mr. Hentoff's second point: An entrenched surveillance state will change and distort the balance
that allows free government to function successfully. Broad and intrusive surveillance will,
definitively, put government in charge. But a republic only works, Mr. Hentoff notes, if public officials
know that they-and the government itself-answer to the citizens. It doesn't work, and is distorted,
if the citizens must answer to the government. And that will happen more and more if the government
knows-and you know-that the government has something, or some things, on you. "The bad thing is you
no longer have the one thing we're supposed to have as Americans living in a self-governing republic,"
Mr. Hentoff said. "The people we elect are not your bosses, they are responsible to us." They must
answer to us. But if they increasingly control our privacy, "suddenly they're in charge if they know
what you're thinking."
This is a shift in the democratic dynamic. "If we don't have free speech then what can we do if
the people who govern us have no respect for us, may indeed make life difficult for us, and in fact
belittle us?"
If massive surveillance continues and grows, could it change the national character? "Yes, because
it will change free speech."
What of those who say, "I have nothing to fear, I don't do anything wrong"? Mr. Hentoff suggests
that's a false sense of security.
"When you have this amount of privacy invasion put into these huge data banks, who knows
what will come out?"
Or can be made to come out through misunderstanding the data, or finagling, or mischief of one
sort or another.
"People say, 'Well I've done nothing wrong so why should I worry?' But that's too easy a way
to get out of what is in our history-constant attempts to try to change who we are as Americans."
Asked about those attempts, he mentions the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, the Red Scare
of the 1920s and the McCarthy era. Those times and incidents, he says, were more than specific scandals
or news stories, they were attempts to change our nature as a people.
What of those who say they don't care what the federal government does as long as it keeps
us safe? The threat of terrorism is real, Mr. Hentoff acknowledges. Al Qaeda is still here, its networks
are growing. But you have to be careful about who's running U.S. intelligence and U.S. security,
and they have to be fully versed in and obey constitutional guarantees.
"There has to be somebody supervising them who knows what's right. . . . Terrorism is not going
to go away. But we need someone in charge of the whole apparatus who has read the Constitution."
Advances in technology constantly up the ability of what government can do. Its technological
expertise will only become deeper and broader.
"They think they're getting to how you think. The technology is such that with the masses of
databases, then privacy will get even weaker."
Mr. Hentoff notes that J. Edgar Hoover didn't have all this technology. "He would be so envious
of what NSA can do."
"... Far from being seen as the guardian of a free and open online medium, the US has been painted as an oppressor, cynically using its privileged position to spy on foreign nationals. The result, warn analysts, could well be an acceleration of a process that has been under way for some time as other countries ringfence their networks to protect their citizens' data and limit the flow of information. ..."
"... At the most obvious level, the secret data-collection efforts being conducted by the US National Security Agency threaten to give would-be censors of the internet in authoritarian countries rhetorical cover as they put their own stamp on their local networks. ..."
"... But the distrust of the US that the disclosures are generating in the democratic world, including in Europe , are also likely to have an impact. From the operation of a nation's telecoms infrastructure to the regulation of the emerging cloud computing industry, changes in the architecture of networks as countries seek more control look set to cause a sea change in the broader internet. ..."
Revelations about
US
surveillance of the global internet – and the part played by some of the biggest American internet
companies in facilitating it – have stirred angst around the world.
Far from being seen as the guardian of a free and open online medium, the US has been painted as
an oppressor, cynically using its privileged position to spy on foreign nationals. The result, warn
analysts, could well be an acceleration of a process that has been under way for some time as other
countries ringfence their networks to protect their citizens' data and limit the flow of information.
"It is difficult to imagine the internet not becoming more compartmentalised and Balkanised," says
Rebecca MacKinnon, an expert on online censorship. "Ten years from now, we will look back on the
free and open internet" with nostalgia, she adds.
At the most obvious level, the secret data-collection efforts being conducted by the US National
Security Agency threaten to give would-be censors of the
internet in authoritarian countries rhetorical cover as they put their own stamp on their local
networks.
But the distrust of the US that the disclosures are generating in the democratic world,
including
in Europe, are also likely to have an impact. From the operation of a nation's telecoms infrastructure
to the regulation of the emerging cloud computing industry, changes in the architecture of networks
as countries seek more control look set to cause a sea change in the broader internet.
"... When societies take the restraints off competition and free markets, inequality follows in its wake. It happened in the Gilded Age and it happened in the Neoliberal Era. the picture of competition leading to leveling is a jejune textbook fantasy. ..."
"To some extent that's correct, but competitive capitalism is not divisive. In fact, it is just
the opposite. Competition is a great leveling force. For example, when a firm discovers something
new, other firms, if they can, will copy it and duplicate the innovation. If a firm finds a highly
profitable strategy, other firms will mimic it and take some of those profits for themselves.
A firm might temporarily separate itself from other firms in an industry, but competition will
bring them back together. Sometimes there are impediments to this leveling process such as patents,
monopoly power, and talent that is difficult to duplicate, but competition is always there, waiting
and watching."
Nice defense of the market place with the appropriate caveat about how monopoly
power can interfere with it to the benefit of the few. We should note there is monopsony power
which at times impedes wages from rising. In such cases, unions and minimum wages can help not
hurt. Which is a shout out to Seattle for letting Uber driving unionize.
That really gets to my critique of capitalism. While Mark is certainly correct about emerging
markets, mature capitalism inevitably trends toward monopoly/oligopoly where all the benefits
disappear and we get the mess we are in today.
When societies take the restraints off competition and free markets, inequality follows in
its wake. It happened in the Gilded Age and it happened in the Neoliberal Era. the picture of
competition leading to leveling is a jejune textbook fantasy.
Societies have sometimes
succeeded in building broad prosperity and a fairly level distribution of income. They have done
it by creating strong socializing institutions and laws that place restraints on individual economic
liberty and accept the necessity of some degree of intelligent planning.
pgl ->Dan Kervick...
Yawn! Do define the "Neoliberal Era"? Is that the one where we passed anti-trust legislation or
the one where it was gutted? No scratch that - we have had enough of your bloviating for one day.
Also see Wendy Brown interview What Exactly Is Neoliberalism to Dissent Magazine (Nov 03, 2015)
== some quotes ===
"... I treat neoliberalism as a governing rationality through which everything is "economized"
and in a very specific way: human beings become market actors and nothing but, every field
of activity is seen as a market, and every entity (whether public or private, whether person,
business, or state) is governed as a firm. Importantly, this is not simply a matter of extending
commodification and monetization everywhere-that's the old Marxist depiction of capital's transformation
of everyday life. Neoliberalism construes even non-wealth generating spheres-such as learning,
dating, or exercising-in market terms, submits them to market metrics, and governs them with
market techniques and practices. Above all, it casts people as human capital who must constantly
tend to their own present and future value. ..."
"... The most common criticisms of neoliberalism, regarded solely as economic policy rather
than as the broader phenomenon of a governing rationality, are that it generates and legitimates
extreme inequalities of wealth and life conditions; that it leads to increasingly precarious
and disposable populations; that it produces an unprecedented intimacy between capital (especially
finance capital) and states, and thus permits domination of political life by capital; that
it generates crass and even unethical commercialization of things rightly protected from markets,
for example, babies, human organs, or endangered species or wilderness; that it privatizes
public goods and thus eliminates shared and egalitarian access to them; and that it subjects
states, societies, and individuals to the volatility and havoc of unregulated financial markets.
..."
"... with the neoliberal revolution that homo politicus is finally vanquished as a fundamental
feature of being human and of democracy. Democracy requires that citizens be modestly oriented
toward self-rule, not simply value enhancement, and that we understand our freedom as resting
in such self-rule, not simply in market conduct. When this dimension of being human is extinguished,
it takes with it the necessary energies, practices, and culture of democracy, as well as its
very intelligibility. ..."
"... For most Marxists, neoliberalism emerges in the 1970s in response to capitalism's falling
rate of profit; the shift of global economic gravity to OPEC, Asia, and other sites outside
the West; and the dilution of class power generated by unions, redistributive welfare states,
large and lazy corporations, and the expectations generated by educated democracies. From this
perspective, neoliberalism is simply capitalism on steroids: a state and IMF-backed consolidation
of class power aimed at releasing capital from regulatory and national constraints, and defanging
all forms of popular solidarities, especially labor. ..."
"... The grains of truth in this analysis don't get at the fundamental transformation of
social, cultural, and individual life brought about by neoliberal reason. They don't get at
the ways that public institutions and services have not merely been outsourced but thoroughly
recast as private goods for individual investment or consumption. And they don't get at the
wholesale remaking of workplaces, schools, social life, and individuals. For that story, one
has to track the dissemination of neoliberal economization through neoliberalism as a governing
form of reason, not just a power grab by capital. There are many vehicles of this dissemination
-- law, culture, and above all, the novel political-administrative form we have come to call
governance. It is through governance practices that business models and metrics come to irrigate
every crevice of society, circulating from investment banks to schools, from corporations to
universities, from public agencies to the individual. It is through the replacement of democratic
terms of law, participation, and justice with idioms of benchmarks, objectives, and buy-ins
that governance dismantles democratic life while appearing only to instill it with "best practices."
..."
"... Progressives generally disparage Citizens United for having flooded the American electoral
process with corporate money on the basis of tortured First Amendment reasoning that treats
corporations as persons. However, a careful reading of the majority decision also reveals precisely
the thoroughgoing economization of the terms and practices of democracy we have been talking
about. In the majority opinion, electoral campaigns are cast as "political marketplaces," just
as ideas are cast as freely circulating in a market where the only potential interference arises
from restrictions on producers and consumers of ideas-who may speak and who may listen or judge.
Thus, Justice Kennedy's insistence on the fundamental neoliberal principle that these marketplaces
should be unregulated paves the way for overturning a century of campaign finance law aimed
at modestly restricting the power of money in politics. Moreover, in the decision, political
speech itself is rendered as a kind of capital right, functioning largely to advance the position
of its bearer, whether that bearer is human capital, corporate capital, or finance capital.
This understanding of political speech replaces the idea of democratic political speech as
a vital (if potentially monopolizable and corruptible) medium for public deliberation and persuasion.
..."
"... My point was that democracy is really reduced to a whisper in the Euro-Atlantic nations
today. Even Alan Greenspan says that elections don't much matter much because, "thanks to globalization
. . . the world is governed by market forces," not elected representatives. ..."
Syaloch ->Dan Kervick...
I like where you're going, but your narrative here has a few problems:
"When societies take the restraints off competition and free markets, inequality follows
in its wake."
Free markets have restraints? Then they're not really "free", are they? And isn't that the
point?
"They have done it by creating strong socializing institutions and laws that place restraints
on individual economic liberty..."
I think Mark is defining economic liberty as the opposite of what you have in mind:
"The system works best when people have the freedom to enter a new business (if they have the
means and are willing to take the risk). It works best when people compete for jobs on equal footing,
have access to the same opportunities, when there are no artificial barriers in society that prevent
people from reaching their full potential."
Why not just say that strong socializing institutions and laws *increase* economic freedom?
DrDick ->Syaloch...
More to the point, "free markets" (largely unregulated) do not, have never, and cannot exist as
a viable system. Strong government regulation is essential to their viability.
Dan Kervick ->Syaloch...
Jeff Bezos had the freedom to create and enter a new business, and now he's a multi-gazillionaire
who uses his monopoly power to dictate terms. Mark Zuckerberg and the Koch brothers have used
their economic freedom to make themselves spectacularly wealthy and then move to buy control over
political processes.
The textbook picture of competition doesn't match reality. In that picture
the competitive economy is like an eternal game between equals. The players come and go, but no
one ever wins. The game goes on and on and on and on, and the conditions of the players is always
parity.
I don't know where economists came by this picture, but that's not what happens in most instances
in the real world. Generally, if you start out with a bunch of even competitors on a competitive
economic field, they will compete until one player defeats all of the others and rules the field.
Along the way, tacit coalitions will be built to gang up on the largest competitor and drive out
all of the small fry. The system tends with certainty toward oligopoly, if not always to monopoly.
The only way you can approximate enduring conditions of perfect competition is by rigging the
game with a bunch of highly restrictive rules designed to prevent human nature from taking its
course. For example, the ancient Greeks had a rule which allowed them to ostracize citizens who
had gotten too big.
I'm by no means arguing to get rid of private enterprise. But other countries have managed
to make intelligent use of restrained capitalist mechanisms within a more civilized and enlightened
social order. The United States has become an insane country: fanatically violent, aggressive,
uncivilized, nasty and anti-social. Conflict, competition and individual liberty are not effectively
balanced by moral, religious and political institutions that inhibit the vicious and narcissistic
tendencies of human beings. The popular image of the meaning of life perpetuated my the mass media
is crass and nihilistic.
Dan Kervick ->Syaloch...
"Why not just say that strong socializing institutions and laws *increase* economic freedom?"
I agree there are different kinds of freedom. Some restrictions on the economic freedom of capitalists
are enhancements of the workers' freedom not to live in fear of getting canned or impoverished.
But I really want to resist the doctrinal pressure in the US ideological system to cast everything
in the language of freedom. There are other important human valuesin addition to freedom. And
not every case in which people are given more choices makes them, or the people around them, happier.
likbez ->Syaloch...
The whole idea of "free markets" is an important neoliberal myth. Free for whom?
Only for multinationals.
The first for opening markets for multinationals under the banner of "free markets" is the cornerstone
of neoliberal ideology.
Free from what?
Free from regulation.
What about "fair markets" for a change?
ilsm ->DrDick...
US capitalism is not capitalism, it is exploitive greed and bankster plundering.
DrDick ->ilsm...
I agree with your characterization, but US capitalism is the only kind of actual capitalism that
has ever actually existed. Everywhere else has tempered its excesses with a healthy dose of socialism.
pgl ->DrDick...
19th century UK was far more laissez faire than our current set of rules. No socialism there.
Which was what Marx complained about.
DrDick ->pgl...
Which really makes my point, actually. You see the same basic patterns everywhere in the 19th
century that you do in the US today. We have only mildly reined it in compared to most of the
developed world.
"... It has been an absolute failure. Brexit has torpedoed TTIP and TPP has limited value - the largest economy in the partnership, Japan, has been largely integrated in to the US for the past 70 years. ..."
"... IMO the biggest failure of the US has been hating Russia too much. The Russians have just as much reason to be afraid of China ..."
"... It's old Cold War thinking that has seen America lose its hegemony -- similar to how the British were so focused on stopping German ascendancy they didn't see the Americans coming with the knife. ..."
The US grand strategy post-Bush was to reposition itself at the heart of a liberal economic system
excluding China through TTIP with the EU and TPP with Asia-Pac ex. China and Russia. The idea
was that this would enable the US to sustain its hegemony.
It has been an absolute failure. Brexit has torpedoed TTIP and TPP has limited value -
the largest economy in the partnership, Japan, has been largely integrated in to the US for the
past 70 years.
IMO the biggest failure of the US has been hating Russia too much. The Russians have just
as much reason to be afraid of China as the US do and have a pretty capable army.
If the US patched things up with the Russians, firstly it could redeploy forces and military
effort away from the Middle East towards Asia Pac and secondly it would give the US effective
leverage over China -- with the majority of the oil producing nations aligned with the US, China
would have difficulty in conducted a sustained conflict.
It's old Cold War thinking that has seen America lose its hegemony -- similar to how the
British were so focused on stopping German ascendancy they didn't see the Americans coming with
the knife.
"... The real problem is the Chinese do not believe in economic profits, just market rates of return on invested capital which to be honest is only about 2-5% depending on risk. ..."
No one disputes the need for more official infrastructure funding
:
What we find the most interesting is that the AIIB founders didn't ask
member countries to approve an expansion of either the World Bank or the
ADB. Instead, they opted for a new organization altogether.
Why? The problem is institutional legitimacy arising from issues of power
and governance :
-- Cecchetti & Schoenholtz
[ Why? Because when all is said and done the United States wants to be
able to control the Asian Development Bank, the IMF and World Bank and use
them to in turn "control" countries that it wishes to be subject to the
US but especially to control China as the New York Times editorial board
made clear today in supporting Japanese militarism. *
No one disputes the need for more official infrastructure funding
:
-- Cecchetti & Schoenholtz
[ Unless the word "official" suffices as an excuse, of course United
States and British policy makers in particular dispute the need for more
government supported infrastructure funding. Amartya Sen and Vijay Prashad
have made this entirely clear for India. *
The real problem is the Chinese do not believe in economic profits, just
market rates of return on invested capital which to be honest is only about
2-5% depending on risk.
Americans demand monopoly profits and ROIC so high that the price of
capital assets rapidly inflates.
Thus China's high speed rail plans are evil because China is advocating
high volumes of HSR construction that costs decline by economies of scale
leading to the replacement cost of any existing rail line being lower than
original cost so the result is capital depreciation lower the price of assets,
tangible and intangible, and the frantic pace of creating jobs and building
more capital - more rail - eliminates any monopoly power of any rail system,
thereby forcing revenues down to costs with the recovery of investment cost
stretched to decades, and ROIC forced toward zero.
And it's that policy of investing to eliminate profits that drives conservatives
insane. They scream, "it is bankrupt because those hundred year lifetime
assets are not paying for themselves and generating stock market gains in
seven years!"
Its like banking was from circa 1930 to 1980! It is like utility regulation
was from 1930 to 1980! How can wealth be created when monopoly power is
thwarted?!?
Just imagine how devastating if China uses the AIIB to build a rail network
speeding goods between China and the tip of Africa and every place in between!
Highly destructive of wealth.
Though I want to smooth the writing and terminology, I completely agree.
Again, a terrific thoroughly enlightening comment. ]
anne :
And :after failing to stop the AIIB, and refusing to participate as a
founding member, the United States should join the institution as soon as it
can, participating actively in holding it to the highest 21st century standards
:.
-- Cecchetti & Schoenholtz
[ Surely the IMF and the like are responsible for the "explosive" 38 year
growth in real per capita Gross Domestic Product and 35 year growth in total
factor productivity from Mexico, neighbor to the United States, to the Philippines,
to Kenya : ]
Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for China, India, Brazil
and South Africa, 1976-2011
(Indexed to 1976)
anne -> anne :
Even supposing analysts short of an Amartya Sen wish to be judicious in actually
looking to the data of the last 38 years, as even Sen has found there is a price
for arguing about the obvious importance of soft (social welfare spending) and
hard institutional infrastructure spending in China:
Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for China and Kenya, 1976-2014
(Indexed to 1976)
anne :
And :after failing to stop the AIIB, and refusing to participate
as a founding member, the United States should join the institution as soon
as it can, participating actively in holding it to the highest 21st century
standards :.
Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for China,
United States and United Kingdom, 1976-2011
(Indexed to 1976)
anne :
No one disputes the need for more official infrastructure funding :
And :after failing to stop the AIIB, and refusing to participate as a
founding member, the United States should join the institution as soon as it
can, participating actively in holding it to the highest 21st century standards
:.
Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for United States, United Kingdom, France, Netherlands, Germany and China,
1976-2011
(Indexed to 1976)
anne :
No one disputes the need for more official infrastructure funding :
What we find the most interesting is that the AIIB founders didn't ask member
countries to approve an expansion of either the World Bank or the ADB. Instead,
they opted for a new organization altogether.
Why? The problem is institutional legitimacy arising from issues of power
and governance :
Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for China, Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore, 1976-2011
(Indexed to 1976)
anne :
No one disputes the need for more official infrastructure funding
:
And :after failing to stop the AIIB, and refusing to participate
as a founding member, the United States should join the institution as soon
as it can, participating actively in holding it to the highest 21st century
standards :.
Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for Sweden,
Denmark, Norway, Finland and China, 1976-2011
(Indexed to 1976)
anne :
No one disputes the need for more official infrastructure funding
:
And :after failing to stop the AIIB, and refusing to participate
as a founding member, the United States should join the institution as soon
as it can, participating actively in holding it to the highest 21st century
standards :.
Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for Ireland,
Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece and China, 1976-2011
(Indexed to 1976)
anne :
No one disputes the need for more official infrastructure funding
:
And :after failing to stop the AIIB, and refusing to participate
as a founding member, the United States should join the institution as soon
as it can, participating actively in holding it to the highest 21st century
standards :.
Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for China, Japan
and Korea, 1976-2011
(Indexed to 1976)
kthomas :
yawn
anne :
Yawn
[ When did the United States experience 38 years of 8.6% real per capita
GDP growth yearly? How about the United Kingdom? How about any other country?
I have just begun, go ahead choose another country to go with China. I am
waiting. Go ahead. I will include the astonishing total factor productivity
growth as well. ]
anne :
While most of the G20 nations, including the big European states, Australia,
and South Korea, are among the founding members, the United States, Japan,
and Canada are noticeably not :
-- Cecchetti & Schoenholtz
[ I found it startling and discouraging that Greece virtually alone in
Europe did not apply to be a founding member of the AIIB. ]
anne :
No one disputes the need for more official infrastructure funding
:
And :after failing to stop the AIIB, and refusing to participate
as a founding member, the United States should join the institution as soon
as it can, participating actively in holding it to the highest 21st century
standards :.
Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for China,
United Kingdom, Australia and Canada, 1976-2011
(Indexed to 1976)
anne -> anne :
Yawn
[ I am still waiting, choose a country to go with China. ]
anne -> anne :
No one disputes the need for more official infrastructure funding
:
And :after failing to stop the AIIB, and refusing to participate
as a founding member, the United States should join the institution as soon
as it can, participating actively in holding it to the highest 21st century
standards :.
Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for Indonesia,
Philippines, Thailand and China, 1976-2011
(Indexed to 1976)
anne -> anne :
Yawn
[ Still waiting, choose a country to go with China. ]
Bruce Webb :
As to why the AIIB decided to go alone (at least without the US) it may
have something to do with a fact that I stumbled on in relation to the Greece
crisis. I am sure that most people here knew the basic fact and perhaps
appreciate the irony but I didn't know whether to weep or laugh outright.
The U.S. only controls 17% of voting powers of the IMF. Why barely a
sixth! Yet any positive decision requires an 85% vote. Meaning that in operational
terms the U.S. might as well hold 51%.
You see similar things with NATO. It's a partnership that has high officers
rotating in from here or there. But which requires that the overall NATO
Commander be an American.
Nothing undemocratic or hegemonic here! Nope! Moving right along!
anne -> Bruce Webb :
The U.S. only controls 17% of voting powers of the IMF. Why barely a
sixth! Yet any positive decision requires an 85% vote. Meaning that in operational
terms the U.S. might as well hold 51%.
You see similar things with NATO. It's a partnership that has high officers
rotating in from here or there. But which requires that the overall NATO
Commander be an American.
Nothing undemocratic or hegemonic here! Nope! Moving right along!
[ Perfect and important. ]
anne -> Bruce Webb :
I am sure that most people here knew the basic fact and perhaps appreciate
the irony but I didn't know whether to weep or laugh outright :.
[ No, in continually whining about the need for Asian Infrastructure
Investment Bank to be transparent and democratic the United States was making
sure never ever to explain the historic lack of transparency and anti-democratic
nature of the IMF and World Bank and Asian Development Bank. ]
"... Bill Clinton: "The geopolitical reasons for [TPP], from America's point of view, are pretty clear. It's designed to make sure that the future of the Asia-Pacific region, economically, is not totally dominated by China" ..."
"... " The full 40-page paper (PDF) [from the Global Development And Environment Institute at Tufts University] goes into the details [of projected economic gains from trade deals]. Along the way, it provides a highly critical analysis of the underlying econometric model used for almost all of the official studies of CETA, TPP and TTIP - the so-called "computable general equilibrium" (CGE) approach. In particular, the authors find that using the CGE model to analyze a potential trade deal effectively guarantees that there will be a positive outcome ("net welfare gains") because of its unrealistic assumptions" [ TechDirt ]. ..."
Bill Clinton: "The geopolitical reasons for [TPP], from America's point of view, are pretty
clear. It's designed to make sure that the future of the Asia-Pacific region, economically, is not
totally dominated by China" [
CNBC ].
"However, he stopped short [by about an inch, right?] of supporting the TPP. He added that his
wife [who is running for President' has said provisions on currency manipulation must be enforced
and measures put in place in the United States to address any labor market dislocations that result
from trade deals." Oh. "Provisions enforced" sounds like executive authority, to me. And "measures
put in place" sounds like a side deal. In other words, Bill Clinton just floated Hillary's trial
balloon for passing TPP, if Obama can't get it done in the lame duck. Of course, if you parsed her
words, you knew she wasn't lying , exactly .
" The full 40-page
paper (PDF) [from the Global Development And Environment Institute at Tufts University] goes
into the details [of projected economic gains from trade deals]. Along the way, it provides a highly
critical analysis of the underlying econometric model used for almost all of the official studies
of CETA, TPP and TTIP - the so-called "computable general equilibrium" (CGE) approach. In particular,
the authors find that using the CGE model to analyze a potential trade deal effectively guarantees
that there will be a positive outcome ("net welfare gains") because of its unrealistic assumptions"
[
TechDirt ].
"Conservative lawmakers looking for a way to buck Donald Trump's populist message on trade may
have gotten a little more cover with more than 30 conservative and libertarian groups sending a letter
today to Congress expressing strong support for free trade" [
Politico ]. National
Taxpayers Union, Club for Growth, FreedomWorks
"France is set to arrive at the meeting with a proposal to suspend TTIP negotiations, our Pro
Trade colleagues in Brussels report. But for the deal's supporters, there's hop'e: 'France will not
win the day,' Alberto Mucci, Christian Oliver and Hans von der Burchard write. 'Britain [???], Italy,
Spain, Poland, the Nordic countries and the Baltics will thwart any attempt to end the Transatlantic
Trade and Investment Partnership in Bratislava'" [
Politico ].
"... Speaking to a local radio station before the joint rally, Farage urged Americans to "go out and fight" against Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... "I am going to say to people in this country that the circumstances, the similarities, the parallels between the people who voted Brexit and the people who could beat Clinton in a few weeks time here in America are uncanny," Farage told Super Talk Mississippi. "If they want things to change they have get up out of their chairs and go out and fight for it. It can happen. We've just proved it." ..."
"... It's not for me as a foreign politician to say who you should vote for ... All I will say is that if you vote for Hillary Clinton, then nothing will change. She represents the very politics that we've just broken through the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom. ..."
...the British politician, who was invited by Mississippi governor Phil Bryant, will draw parallels
between what he sees as the inspirational story of Brexit and Trump's campaign. Farage will describe
the Republican's campaign as a similar crusade by grassroots activists against "big banks and global
political insiders" and how those who feel disaffected and disenfranchised can become involved in
populist, rightwing politics. With Trump lagging in the polls, just as Brexit did prior to the vote
on the referendum, Farage will also hearten supporters by insisting that they can prove pundits and
oddsmakers wrong as well.
This message resonates with the Trump campaign's efforts to reach out to blue collar voters who
have become disillusioned with American politics, while also adding a unique flair to Trump's never
staid campaign rallies.
The event will mark the first meeting between Farage and Trump.
Arron Banks, the businessman who backed Leave.EU, the Brexit campaign group associated with the
UK Independence party (Ukip), tweeted that he would be meeting Trump over dinner and was looking
forward to Farage's speech.
The appointment last week of Stephen Bannon, former chairman of the Breitbart website, as
"CEO" of Trump's campaign has seen the example of the Brexit vote, which Breitbart enthusiastically
advocated, rise to the fore in Trump's campaign narrative.
Speaking to a local radio station before the joint rally, Farage urged Americans to "go out
and fight" against Hillary Clinton.
"I am going to say to people in this country that the circumstances, the similarities, the
parallels between the people who voted Brexit and the people who could beat Clinton in a few weeks
time here in America are uncanny," Farage told Super Talk Mississippi. "If they want things to change
they have get up out of their chairs and go out and fight for it. It can happen. We've just proved
it."
"I am being careful," he added when asked if he supported the controversial Republican nominee.
"It's not for me as a foreign politician to say who you should vote for ... All I will say is
that if you vote for Hillary Clinton, then nothing will change. She represents the very politics
that we've just broken through the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom."
"... As Mr. Buffet so keenly said it, There is a war going on, and we are winning. ..."
"... Just type `TPP editorial' into news.google.com and watch a toxic sludge of straw men, misdirection, and historical revisionism flow across your screen. And the `objective' straight news reporting is no better. ..."
"... "Why is it afraid of us?" Because we the people are perceived to be the enemy of America the Corporation. Whistleblowers have already stated that the NSA info is used to blackmail politicians and military leaders, provide corporate espionage to the highest payers and more devious machinations than the mind can grasp from behind a single computer. 9/11 was a coup – I say that because looking around the results tell me that. ..."
"... The fourth estate (the media) has been purchased outright by the second estate (the nobility). I guess you could call this an 'estate sale'. All power to the markets! ..."
Free Trade," the banner of Globalization, has not only wrecked the world's economy, it has left Western
Democracy in shambles. Europe edges ever closer to deflation. The Fed dare not increase interest
rates, now poised at barely above zero. As China's stock market threatened collapse, China poured
billions to prop it up. It's export machine is collapsing. Not once, but twice, it recently manipulated
its currency to makes its goods cheaper on the world market. What is happening?
The following two
graphs tell most of the story. First, an overview of Free Trade.
Capital fled from developed countries to undeveloped countries with slave-cheap labor, countries
with no environmental standards, countries with no support for collective bargaining. Corporations,
like Apple, set up shop in China and other undeveloped countries. Some, like China, manipulated its
currency to make exported goods to the West even cheaper. Some, like China, gave preferential tax
treatment to Western firm over indigenous firms. Economists cheered as corporate efficiency unsurprisingly
rose. U.S. citizens became mere consumers.
Thanks to Bill Clinton and the Financial Modernization Act, banks, now unconstrained, could peddle
rigged financial services, offer insurance on its own investment products–in short, banks were free
to play with everyone's money–and simply too big to fail. Credit was easy and breezy. If nasty Arabs
bombed the Trade Center, why the solution was simple: Go to the shopping mall–and buy. That remarkable
piece of advice is just what freedom has been all about.
Next: China's export machine sputters.
China's problem is that there are not enough orders to keep the export machine going. There comes
a time when industrialized nations simply run out of cash–I mean the little people run out of cash.
CEOs and those just below them–along with slick Wall Street gauchos–made bundles on Free Trade, corporate
capital that could set up shop in any impoverished nation in the world.. No worries about labor–dirt
cheap–or environmental regulations–just bring your gas masks. At some point the Western consumer
well was bound to run dry. Credit was exhausted; the little guy could not buy anymore. Free trade
was on its last legs.
So what did China do then? As its markets crashed, it tried to revive its export model, a model
based on foreign firms exporting cheap goods to the West. China lowered its exchange rates, not once
but twice. Then China tried to rescue the markets with cash infusion of billions. Still its market
continued to crash. Manufacturing plants had closed–thousands of them. Free Trade and Globalization
had run its course.
And what has the Fed been doing? Why quantitative easy–increase the money supply and lower short
term interest rates. Like China's latest currency manipulation, both were merely stop-gap measures.
No one, least of all Obama and his corporate advisors, was ready to address corporate outsourcing
that has cost millions of jobs. Prime the pump a little, but never address the real problem.
The WTO sets the groundwork for trade among its member states. That groundwork is deeply flawed.
Trade between impoverished third world countries and sophisticated first world economies is not merely
a matter of regulating "dumping"-not allowing one country to flood the market with cheap goods-nor
is it a matter of insuring that the each country does not favor its indigenous firms over foreign
firms. Comparable labor and environmental standards are necessary. Does anyone think that a first
world worker can compete with virtual slave labor? Does anyone think that a first world nation with
excellent environmental regulations can compete with a third world nation that refuses to protect
its environment?
Only lately has Apple even mentioned that it might clean up its mess in China. The Apple miracle
has been on the backs of the Chinese poor and abysmal environmental wreckage that is China.
The WTO allows three forms of inequities-all of which encourage outsourcing: labor arbitrage,
tax arbitrage, and environmental arbitrage. For a fuller explanation of these inequities and the
"race to the bottom," see
here.
Of course now we have the mother of all Free Trade deals –the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)–
carefully wrapped in a black box so that none of us can see what finally is in store for us. Nothing
is ever "Free"–even trade. I suspect that China is becoming a bit too noxious and poisonous. It simply
has to deal with its massive environmental problems. Time to move the game to less despoiled and
maybe more impoverished countries. Meanwhile, newscasters are always careful to tout TPP.
Fast Tracking is a con man's game. Do it so fast that the marks never have a chance to watch their
wallets. In hiding negotiations from prying, public eyes, Obama, has given the con men a bigger edge:
A screen to hide the corporations making deals. Their interest is in profits, not in public good.
Consider the media. Our only defense is a strong independent media. At one time,
newsrooms were not required to be profitable. Reporting the news was considered a community service.
Corporate ownership provided the necessary funding for its newsrooms–and did not interfere.
But the 70′s and 80′s corporate ownership required its newsrooms to be profitable. Slowly but
surely, newsrooms focused on personality, entertainment, and wedge issues–always careful not to rock
the corporate boat, always careful not to tread on governmental policy. Whoever thought that one
major news service–Fox–would become a breeding ground for one particular party.
But consider CNN: It organizes endless GOP debates; then spends hours dissecting them. Create
the news; then sell it–and be sure to spin it in the direction you want.
Are matters of substance ever discussed? When has a serious foreign policy debate ever been allowed
occurred–without editorial interference from the media itself. When has trade and outsourcing been
seriously discussed–other than by peripheral news media?
Meanwhile, news media becomes more and more centralized. Murdoch now owns National Geographic!
Now, thanks to Bush and Obama, we have the chilling effect of the NSA. Just whom does the NSA
serve when it collects all of our digital information? Is it being used to ferret out the plans of
those exercising their right of dissent? Is it being used to increase the profits of favored corporations?
Why does it need all of your and my personal information–from bank accounts, to credit cards, to
travel plans, to friends with whom we chat .Why is it afraid of us?
jefemt, October 23, 2015 at 9:43 am
As Mr. Buffet so keenly said it, There is a war going on, and we are winning.
If 'they' are failing, I'd hate to see success!
Isn't it the un-collective WE who are failing?
failing to organize,
failing to come up with plausible, 90 degrees off present Lemming-to-Brink path alternative plans
and policies,
failing to agree on any of many plausible alternatives that might work
Divided- for now- hopefully not conquered ..
I gotta scoot and get back to Dancing with the Master Chefs
allan, October 23, 2015 at 10:03 am
Just type `TPP editorial' into news.google.com and watch a toxic sludge of straw men, misdirection,
and historical revisionism flow across your screen. And the `objective' straight news reporting
is no better.
Vatch, October 23, 2015 at 10:36 am
Don't just watch the toxic sludge; respond to it with a letter to the editor (LTE) of the offending
publication! For some of those toxic editorials, and contact information for LTEs, see:
A few of the editorials may now be obscured by paywalls or registration requirements, but most
should still be visible. Let them know that we see through their nonsense!
TedWa, October 23, 2015 at 10:38 am
"Why is it afraid of us?" Because we the people are perceived to be the enemy of America
the Corporation. Whistleblowers have already stated that the NSA info is used to blackmail politicians
and military leaders, provide corporate espionage to the highest payers and more devious machinations
than the mind can grasp from behind a single computer. 9/11 was a coup – I say that because looking
around the results tell me that.
TG, October 23, 2015 at 3:27 pm
The fourth estate (the media) has been purchased outright by the second estate (the nobility).
I guess you could call this an 'estate sale'. All power to the markets!
Pelham, October 23, 2015 at 8:32 pm
Even when newsrooms were more independent they probably would not, in general, have reported
on free trade with any degree of skepticism. The recent disappearance of the old firewall between
the news and corporate sides has made things worse, but at least since the "professionalization"
of newsrooms that began to really take hold in the '60s, journalists have tended to identify far
more with their sources in power than with their readers.
There have, of course, been notable exceptions. But even these sometimes serve more to obscure
the real day-to-day nature of journalism's fealty to the corporate world than to bring about any
significant change.
CHRIS HEDGES: We're going to be discussing a great Ponzi scheme that not only defines not only
the U.S. but the global economy, how we got there and where we're going. And with me to discuss this
issue is the economist Michael Hudson, author of
Killing
the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Destroy the Global Economy. A professor of economics
who worked for many years on Wall Street, where you don't succeed if you don't grasp Marx's dictum
that capitalism is about exploitation. And he is also, I should mention, the godson of Leon Trotsky.
I want to open this discussion by reading a passage from your book, which I admire very much,
which I think gets to the core of what you discuss. You write,
"Adam Smith long ago remarked that profits often are highest in nations going fastest to
ruin. There are many ways to create economic suicide on a national level. The major way through
history has been through indebting the economy. Debt always expands to reach a point where it
cannot be paid by a large swathe of the economy. This is the point where austerity is imposed
and ownership of wealth polarizes between the One Percent and the 99 Percent. Today is not the
first time this has occurred in history. But it is the first time that running into debt has occurred
deliberately." Applauded. "As if most debtors can get rich by borrowing, not reduced to a condition
of debt peonage."
So let's start with the classical economists, who certainly understood this. They were reacting
of course to feudalism. And what happened to the study of economics so that it became gamed by ideologues?
HUDSON: The essence of classical economics was to reform industrial capitalism, to streamline
it, and to free the European economies from the legacy of feudalism. The legacy of feudalism was
landlords extracting land-rent, and living as a class that took income without producing anything.
Also, banks that were not funding industry. The leading industrialists from James Watt, with his
steam engine, to the railroads
HEDGES: From your book you make the point that banks almost never funded industry.
HUDSON: That's the point: They never have. By the time you got to Marx later in the 19th century,
you had a discussion, largely in Germany, over how to make banks do something they did not do under
feudalism. Right now we're having the economic surplus being drained not by the landlords
but also by banks and bondholders.
Adam Smith was very much against colonialism because that lead to wars, and wars led to public
debt. He said the solution to prevent this financial class of bondholders burdening the economy by
imposing more and more taxes on consumer goods every time they went to war was to finance wars on
a pay-as-you-go basis. Instead of borrowing, you'd tax the people. Then, he thought, if everybody
felt the burden of war in the form of paying taxes, they'd be against it. Well, it took all of the
19th century to fight for democracy and to extend the vote so that instead of landlords controlling
Parliament and its law-making and tax system through the House of Lords, you'd extend the vote to
labor, to women and everybody. The theory was that society as a whole would vote in its self-interest.
It would vote for the 99 Percent, not for the One Percent.
By the time Marx wrote in the 1870s, he could see what was happening in Germany. German banks
were trying to make money in conjunction with the government, by lending to heavy industry, largely
to the military-industrial complex.
HEDGES: This was Bismarck's kind of social – I don't know what we'd call it. It was a form
of capitalist socialism
HUDSON: They called it State Capitalism. There was a long discussion by Engels, saying, wait a
minute. We're for Socialism. State Capitalism isn't what we mean by socialism. There are two kinds
of state-oriented–.
HEDGES: I'm going to interject that there was a kind of brilliance behind Bismarck's policy
because he created state pensions, he provided health benefits, and he directed banking toward industry,
toward the industrialization of Germany which, as you point out, was very different in Britain and
the United States.
HUDSON: German banking was so successful that by the time World War I broke out, there were discussions
in English economic journals worrying that Germany and the Axis powers were going to win because
their banks were more suited to fund industry. Without industry you can't have really a military.
But British banks only lent for foreign trade and for speculation. Their stock market was a hit-and-run
operation. They wanted quick in-and-out profits, while German banks didn't insist that their clients
pay as much in dividends. German banks owned stocks as well as bonds, and there was much more of
a mutual partnership.
That's what most of the 19th century imagined was going to happen – that the world
was on the way to socializing banking. And toward moving capitalism beyond the feudal level, getting
rid of the landlord class, getting rid of the rent, getting rid of interest. It was going to be labor
and capital, profits and wages, with profits being reinvested in more capital. You'd have an expansion
of technology. By the early twentieth century most futurists imagined that we'd be living in a leisure
economy by now.
HEDGES: Including Karl Marx.
HUDSON: That's right. A ten-hour workweek. To Marx, socialism was to be an outgrowth of the reformed
state of capitalism, as seemed likely at the time – if labor organized in its self-interest.
HEDGES: Isn't what happened in large part because of the defeat of Germany in World War I?
But also, because we took the understanding of economists like Adam Smith and maybe Keynes. I don't
know who you would blame for this, whether Ricardo or others, but we created a fictitious economic
theory to praise a rentier or rent-derived, interest-derived capitalism that countered productive
forces within the economy. Perhaps you can address that.
HUDSON: Here's what happened. Marx traumatized classical economics by taking the concepts of Adam
Smith and John Stuart Mill and others, and pushing them to their logical conclusion.
Progressive
capitalist advocates – Ricardian socialists such as John Stuart Mill – wanted to tax away the land
or nationalize it. Marx wanted governments to take over heavy industry and build infrastructure to
provide low-cost and ultimately free basic services. This was traumatizing the landlord class and
the One Percent. And they fought back. They wanted to make everything part of "the market," which
functioned on credit supplied by them and paid rent to them.
None of the classical economists imagined how the feudal interests – these great vested interests
that had all the land and money – actually would fight back and succeed. They thought that the future
was going to belong to capital and labor. But by the late 19th century, certainly in America,
people like John Bates Clark came out with a completely different theory, rejecting the classical
economics of Adam Smith, the Physiocrats and John Stuart Mill.
HEDGES: Physiocrats are, you've tried to explain, the enlightened French economists.
HUDSON: The common denominator among all these classical economists was the distinction between
earned income and unearned income. Unearned income was rent and interest. Earned incomes were wages
and profits. But John Bates Clark came and said that there's no such thing as unearned income. He
said that the landlord actually earns his rent by taking the effort to provide a house and
land to renters, while banks provide credit to earn their interest. Every kind of income is thus
"earned," and everybody earns their income. So everybody who accumulates wealth, by definition, according
to his formulas, get rich by adding to what is now called Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
HEDGES: One of the points you make in
Killing
the Host which I liked was that in almost all cases, those who had the capacity to make money
parasitically off interest and rent had either – if you go back to the origins – looted and seized
the land by force, or inherited it.
HUDSON: That's correct. In other words, their income is unearned. The result of this anti-classical
revolution you had just before World War I was that today, almost all the economic growth in the
last decade has gone to the One Percent. It's gone to Wall Street, to real estate
HEDGES: But you blame this on what you call Junk Economics.
HUDSON: Junk Economics is the anti-classical reaction.
HEDGES: Explain a little bit how, in essence, it's a fictitious form of measuring the economy.
HUDSON: Well, some time ago I went to a bank, a block away from here – a Chase Manhattan bank
– and I took out money from the teller. As I turned around and took a few steps, there were two pickpockets.
One pushed me over and the other grabbed the money and ran out. The guard stood there and saw it.
So I asked for the money back. I said, look, I was robbed in your bank, right inside. And they said,
"Well, we don't arm our guards because if they shot someone, the thief could sue us and we don't
want that." They gave me an equivalent amount of money back.
Well, imagine if you count all this crime, all the money that's taken, as an addition to GDP.
Because now the crook has provided the service of not stabbing me. Or suppose somebody's held up
at an ATM machine and the robber says, "Your money or your life." You say, "Okay, here's my money."
The crook has given you the choice of your life. In a way that's how the Gross National Product accounts
are put up. It's not so different from how Wall Street extracts money from the economy. Then also
you have landlords extracting
HEDGES: Let's go back. They're extracting money from the economy by debt peonage. By raising
HUDSON: By not playing a productive role, basically.
HEDGES: Right. So it's credit card interest, mortgage interest, car loans, student loans. That's
how they make their funds.
HUDSON: That's right. Money is not a factor of production. But in order to have access to credit,
in order to get money, in order to get an education, you have to pay the banks. At New York University
here, for instance, they have Citibank. I think Citibank people were on the board of directors at
NYU. You get the students, when they come here, to start at the local bank. And once you are in a
bank and have monthly funds taken out of your account for electric utilities, or whatever, it's very
cumbersome to change.
So basically you have what the classical economists called the rentier class. The class
that lives on economic rents. Landlords, monopolists charging more, and the banks. If you have a
pharmaceutical company that raises the price of a drug from $12 a shot to $200 all of a sudden, their
profits go up. Their increased price for the drug is counted in the national income accounts as if
the economy is producing more. So all this presumed economic growth that has all been taken by the
One Percent in the last ten years, and people say the economy is growing. But the economy isn't growing
HEDGES: Because it's not reinvested.
HUDSON: That's right. It's not production, it's not consumption. The wealth of the One Percent
is obtained essentially by lending money to the 99 Percent and then charging interest on it, and
recycling this interest at an exponentially growing rate.
HEDGES: And why is it important, as I think you point out in your book, that economic theory
counts this rentier income as productive income? Explain why that's important.
HUDSON: If you're a rentier, you want to say that you earned your income by
HEDGES: We're talking about Goldman Sachs, by the way.
HUDSON: Yes, Goldman Sachs. The head of Goldman Sachs came out and said that Goldman Sachs workers
are the most productive in the world. That's why they're paid what they are. The concept of productivity
in America is income divided by labor. So if you're Goldman Sachs and you pay yourself $20 million
a year in salary and bonuses, you're considered to have added $20 million to GDP, and that's enormously
productive. So we're talking in a tautology. We're talking with circular reasoning here.
So the issue is whether Goldman Sachs, Wall Street and predatory pharmaceutical firms, actually
add "product" or whether they're just exploiting other people. That's why I used the word parasitism
in my book's title. People think of a parasite as simply taking money, taking blood out of a host
or taking money out of the economy. But in nature it's much more complicated. The parasite can't
simply come in and take something. First of all, it needs to numb the host. It has an enzyme so that
the host doesn't realize the parasite's there. And then the parasites have another enzyme that takes
over the host's brain. It makes the host imagine that the parasite is part of its own body, actually
part of itself and hence to be protected.
That's basically what Wall Street has done. It depicts itself as part of the economy. Not as a
wrapping around it, not as external to it, but actually the part that's helping the body grow, and
that actually is responsible for most of the growth. But in fact it's the parasite that is taking
over the growth.
The result is an inversion of classical economics. It turns Adam Smith upside down. It says what
the classical economists said was unproductive – parasitism – actually is the real economy. And that
the parasites are labor and industry that get in the way of what the parasite wants – which is to
reproduce itself, not help the host, that is, labor and capital.
HEDGES: And then the classical economists like Adam Smith were quite clear that unless that
rentier income, you know, the money made by things like hedge funds, was heavily taxed and put back
into the economy, the economy would ultimately go into a kind of tailspin. And I think the example
of that, which you point out in your book, is what's happened in terms of large corporations with
stock dividends and buybacks. And maybe you can explain that.
HUDSON: There's an idea in superficial textbooks and the public media that if companies make a
large profit, they make it by being productive. And with
HEDGES: Which is still in textbooks, isn't it?
HUDSON: Yes. And also that if a stock price goes up, you're just capitalizing the profits – and
the stock price reflects the productive role of the company. But that's not what's been happening
in the last ten years. Just in the last two years, 92 percent of corporate profits in America have
been spent either on buying back their own stock, or paid out as dividends to raise the price of
the stock.
HEDGES: Explain why they do this.
HUDSON: About 15 years ago at Harvard, Professor Jensen said that the way to ensure that corporations
are run most efficiently is to make the managers increase the price of the stock. So if you give
the managers stock options, and you pay them not according to how much they're producing or making
the company bigger, or expanding production, but the price of the stock, then you'll have the corporation
run efficiently, financial style.
So the corporate managers find there are two ways that they can increase the price of the stock.
The first thing is to cut back long-term investment, and use the money instead to buy back their
own stock. But when you buy your own stock, that means you're not putting the money into capital
formation. You're not building new factories. You're not hiring more labor. You can actually increase
the stock price by firing labor.
HEDGES: That strategy only works temporarily.
HUDSON: Temporarily. By using the income from past investments just to buy back stock, fire the
labor force if you can, and work it more intensively. Pay it out as dividends. That basically is
the corporate raider's model. You use the money to pay off the junk bond holders at high interest.
And of course, this gets the company in trouble after a while, because there is no new investment.
So markets shrink. You then go to the labor unions and say, gee, this company's near bankruptcy,
and we don't want to have to fire you. The way that you can keep your job is if we downgrade your
pensions. Instead of giving you what we promised, the defined benefit pension, we'll turn it into
a defined contribution plan. You know what you pay every month, but you don't know what's going to
come out. Or, you wipe out the pension fund, push it on to the government's Pension Benefit Guarantee
Corporation, and use the money that you were going to pay for pensions to pay stock dividends. By
then the whole economy is turning down. It's hollowed out. It shrinks and collapses. But by that
time the managers will have left the company. They will have taken their bonuses and salaries and
run.
HEDGES: I want to read this quote from your book, written by David Harvey, in
A Brief
History of Neoliberalism, and have you comment on it.
"The main substantive achievement of neoliberalism has been to redistribute rather than
to generate wealth and income. [By] 'accumulation by dispossession' I mean the commodification
and privatization of land, and the forceful expulsion of peasant populations; conversion of various
forms of property rights (common collective state, etc.) into exclusive private property rights;
suppression of rights to the commons; colonial, neocolonial, and the imperial processes of appropriation
of assets (including natural resources); and usury, the national debt and, most devastating
at all, the use of the credit system as a radical means of accumulation by dispossession. To
this list of mechanisms, we may now add a raft of techniques such as the extraction of rents from
patents, and intellectual property rights (such as the diminution or erasure of various forms
of common property rights, such as state pensions, paid vacations, and access to education, health
care) one through a generation or more of class struggle. The proposal to privatize all state
pension rights, pioneered in Chile under the dictatorship is, for example, one of the cherished
objectives of the Republicans in the US."
This explains the denouement. The final end result you speak about in your book is, in essence,
allowing what you call the rentier or the speculative class to cannibalize the entire society until
it collapses.
HUDSON: A property right is not a factor of production. Look at what happened in Chicago, the
city where I grew up. Chicago didn't want to raise taxes on real estate, especially on its expensive
commercial real estate. So its budget ran a deficit. They needed money to pay the bondholders, so
they sold off the parking rights to have meters – you know, along the curbs. The result is that they
sold to Goldman Sachs 75 years of the right to put up parking meters. So now the cost of living and
doing business in Chicago is raised by having to pay the parking meters. If Chicago is going to have
a parade and block off traffic, it has to pay Goldman Sachs what the firm would have made
if the streets wouldn't have been closed off for a parade. All of a sudden it's much more expensive
to live in Chicago because of this.
But this added expense of having to pay parking rights to Goldman Sachs – to pay out interest
to its bondholders – is counted as an increase in GDP, because you've created more product simply
by charging more. If you sell off a road, a government or local road, and you put up a toll booth
and make it into a toll road, all of a sudden GDP goes up.
If you go to war abroad, and you spend more money on the military-industrial complex, all this
is counted as increased production. None of this is really part of the production system of the capital
and labor building more factories and producing more things that people need to live and do business.
All of this is overhead. But there's no distinction between wealth and overhead.
Failing to draw that distinction means that the host doesn't realize that there is a parasite
there. The host economy, the industrial economy, doesn't realize what the industrialists realized
in the 19th century: If you want to be an efficient economy and be low-priced and under-sell
competitors, you have to cut your prices by having the public sector provide roads freely. Medical
care freely. Education freely.
If you charge for all of these, you get to the point that the U.S. economy is in today. What if
American factory workers were to get all of their consumer goods for nothing. All their food,
transportation, clothing, furniture, everything for nothing. They still couldn't compete with
Asians or other producers, because they have to pay up to 43% of their income for rent or mortgage
interest, 10% or more of their income for student loans, credit card debt. 15% of their paycheck
is automatic withholding to pay Social Security, to cut taxes on the rich or to pay for medical care.
So Americans built into the economy all this overhead. There's no distinction between growth and
overhead. It's all made America so high-priced that we're priced out of the market, regardless of
what trade policy we have.
HEDGES: We should add that under this predatory form of economics, you game the system. So
you privatize pension funds, you force them into the stock market, an overinflated stock market.
But because of the way companies go public, it's the hedge fund managers who profit. And it's those
citizens whose retirement savings are tied to the stock market who lose. Maybe we can just conclude
by talking about how the system is fixed, not only in terms of burdening the citizen with debt peonage,
but by forcing them into the market to fleece them again.
HUDSON: Well, we talk about an innovation economy as if that makes money. Suppose you have an
innovation and a company goes public. They go to Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street investment banks
to underwrite the stock to issue it at $40 a share. What's considered a successful float is when,
immediately, Goldman and the others will go to their insiders and tell them to buy this stock and
make a quick killing. A "successful" flotation doubles the price in one day, so that at the end of
the day the stock's selling for $80.
HEDGES: They have the option to buy it before anyone else, knowing that by the end of the day
it'll be inflated, and then they sell it off.
HUDSON: That's exactly right.
HEDGES: So the pension funds come in and buy it at an inflated price, and then it goes back
down.
HUDSON: It may go back down, or it may be that the company just was shortchanged from the very
beginning. The important thing is that the Wall Street underwriting firm, and the speculators it
rounds up, get more in a single day than all the years it took to put the company together. The company
gets $40. And the banks and their crony speculators also get $40.
So basically you have the financial sector ending up with much more of the gains. The name of
the game if you're on Wall Street isn't profits. It's capital gains. And that's something that wasn't
even part of classical economics. They didn't anticipate that the price of assets would go up for
any other reason than earning more money and capitalizing on income. But what you have had in the
last 50 years – really since World War II – has been asset-price inflation. Most middle-class families
have gotten the wealth that they've got since 1945 not really by saving what they've earned by working,
but by the price of their house going up. They've benefited by the price of the house. And they think
that that's made them rich and the whole economy rich.
The reason the price of housing has gone up is that a house is worth whatever a bank is going
to lend against it. If banks made easier and easier credit, lower down payments, then you're going
to have a financial bubble. And now, you have real estate having gone up as high as it can. I don't
think it can take more than 43% of somebody's income to buy it. But now, imagine if you're joining
the labor force. You're not going to be able to buy a house at today's prices, putting down a little
bit of your money, and then somehow end up getting rich just on the house investment. All of this
money you pay the bank is now going to be subtracted from the amount of money that you have available
to spend on goods and services.
So we've turned the post-war economy that made America prosperous and rich inside out. Somehow
most people believed they could get rich by going into debt to borrow assets that were going to rise
in price. But you can't get rich, ultimately, by going into debt. In the end the creditors always
win. That's why every society since Sumer and Babylonia have had to either cancel the debts, or you
come to a society like Rome that didn't cancel the debts, and then you have a dark age. Everything
collapses.
"... Furthermore, as Mark Kleiman sagely observes , the conventional case for trade liberalization relies on the assertion that the government could redistribute income to ensure that everyone wins - but we now have an ideology utterly opposed to such redistribution in full control of one party, and with blocking power against anything but a minor move in that direction by the other. ..."
A Protectionist Moment? : ... if Sanders were to make it to the White House, he would find
it very hard to do anything much about globalization - not because it's technically or economically
impossible, but because the moment he looked into actually tearing up existing trade agreements
the diplomatic, foreign-policy costs would be overwhelmingly obvious. ...
But it's also true
that much of the elite defense of globalization is basically dishonest: false claims of inevitability,
scare tactics (
protectionism causes depressions !), vastly exaggerated claims for the benefits of trade liberalization
and the costs of protection, hand-waving away the large distributional effects that are what standard
models actually predict. I hope, by the way, that I haven't done any of that...
Furthermore, as Mark Kleiman
sagely observes , the conventional case for trade liberalization relies on the assertion that
the government could redistribute income to ensure that everyone wins - but we now have an ideology
utterly opposed to such redistribution in full control of one party, and with blocking power against
anything but a minor move in that direction by the other.
So the elite case for ever-freer trade is largely a scam, which voters probably sense even
if they don't know exactly what form it's taking.
Ripping up the trade agreements we already have would, again, be a mess, and I would say that
Sanders is engaged in a bit of a scam himself in even hinting that he could do such a thing. Trump
might actually do it, but only as part of a reign of destruction on many fronts.
But it is fair to say that the case for more trade agreements - including TPP, which hasn't
happened yet - is very, very weak. And if a progressive makes it to the White House, she should
devote no political capital whatsoever to such things.
Again, just because automation has been a major factor in job loss doesn't mean "off shoring"
(using the term broadly and perhaps somewhat inaccurately) is not a factor.
The "free" trade deals suck. They are correctly diagnosed as part of the problem.
What would you propose to fix the problems caused by automation?
Automation frees labor to do more productive and less onerous tasks. We should expand our solar
production and our mass transit. We need to start re-engineering our urban areas. This will not
bring back the number of jobs it would take to make cities like Flint thrive once again.
Flint and Detroit have severe economic problems because they were mismanaged by road building
and suburbanization in the 1950s and 1960s. Money that should have been spent on maintaining and
improving urban infrastructure was instead plowed into suburban development that is not dense
enough to sustain the infrastructure required to support it. People moved to the suburbs, abandoned
the built infrastructure of the cities and kissed them goodbye.
Big roads polluted the cities with lead, noise, diesel particles and ozone and smog. Stroads
created pedestrian kill zones making urban areas, unwalkable, unpleasant- an urban blights to
drive through rather than destinations to drive to.
Government subsidized the white flight to the suburbs that has left both the suburbs and the
urban cores with too low revenue to infrastructure ratio. The inner suburbs have aged into net
losers, their infrastructure must be subsidized. Big Roads were built on the Big Idea that people
would drive to the city to work and play and then drive home. That Big idea has a big problem.
Urban areas are only sustainable when they have a high resident density. The future of cities
like Flint and Detroit will be tearing out the roads and replacing them with streets and houses
and renewing the housing stock that has been abandoned. It needs to be done by infill, revitalizing
inner neighborhoods and working outward. Cities like Portland have managed to protect much of
their core, but even they are challenged by demands for suburban sprawl.
Slash and burn development, creating new suburbs and abandoning the old is not a sustainable
model. Not only should we put people to work replacing the Flint lead pipes, but much of the city
should be rebuilt from the inside out. Flint is the leading edge of this problem that requires
fundamental changes in our built environment to fix. I recommend studying Flint as an object lesson
of what bad development policy could do to all of our cities.
An Interview with Frank Popper about Shrinking Cities, Buffalo Commons, and the Future of Flint
How does America's approach shrinking cities compare to the rest of the world?
I think the American way is to do nothing until it's too late, then throw everything at it
and improvise and hope everything works. And somehow, insofar as the country's still here, it
has worked. But the European or the Japanese way would involve much more thought, much more foresight,
much more central planning, and much less improvising. They would implement a more, shall we say,
sustained effort. The American way is different. Europeans have wondered for years and years why
cities like Detroit or Cleveland are left to rot on the vine. There's a lot of this French hauteur
when they ask "How'd you let this happen?"
Do shrinking cities have any advantages over agricultural regions as they face declining populations?
The urban areas have this huge advantage over all these larger American regions that are going
through this. They have actual governments with real jurisdiction. Corrupt as Detroit or Philadelphia
or Camden may be, they have actual governments that are supposed to be in charge of them. Who's
in charge of western Kansas? Who's in charge of the Great Plains? Who is in charge of the lower
Mississippi Delta or central Appalachia? All they've got are these distant federal agencies whose
past performance is not exactly encouraging.
Why wasn't there a greater outcry as the agricultural economy and the industrial economy collapsed?
One reason for the rest of the country not to care is that there's no shortage of the consumer
goods that these places once produced. All this decline of agriculture doesn't mean we're running
out of food. We've got food coming out of our ears. Likewise, Flint has suffered through all this,
but it's not like it's hard to buy a car in this country. It's not as if Flint can behave like
a child and say "I'm going to hold my nose and stop you from getting cars until you do the right
thing." Flint died and you can get zero A.P.R. financing. Western Kansas is on its last legs and,
gee, cereal is cheaper than ever.
In some sense that's the genius of capitalism - it's heartless. But if you look at the local
results and the cultural results and the environmental results you shake your head. But I don't
see America getting away from what I would call a little sarcastically the "wisdom" of the market.
I don't think it's going to change.
So is there any large-scale economic fallout from these monumental changes?
Probably not, and it hurts to say so. And the only way I can feel good about saying that is
to immediately point to the non-economic losses, the cultural losses. The losses of ways of life.
The notion of the factory worker working for his or her children. The notion of the farmer working
to build up the country and supply the rest of the world with food. We're losing distinctive ways
of life. When we lose that we lose something important, but it's not like The Wall Street Journal
cares. And I feel uncomfortable saying that. From a purely economic point of view, it's just the
price of getting more efficient. It's a classic example of Schumpeter's theory of creative destruction,
which is no fun if you're on the destruction end.
Does the decline of cities like Flint mirror the death of the middle class in the United States?
I think it's more the decline of the lower-middle class in the United States. Even when those
jobs in the auto factories paid very high wages they were still for socially lower-middle-class
people. I think there was always the notion in immigrant families and working-class families who
worked in those situations that the current generation would work hard so that the children could
go off and not have to do those kind of jobs. And when those jobs paid well that was a perfectly
reasonable ambition. It's the cutting off of that ambition that really hurts now. The same thing
has been true on farms and ranches in rural parts of the united states.
It is a much different thing to be small minded about trade than it is to be large minded about
everything else. The short story that it is all about automation and not trade will always get
a bad reception because it is small minded. When you add in the large minded story about everything
else then it becomes something entirely different from the short story. We all agree with you
about everything else. You are wrong about globalization though. Both financialization and globalization
suck and even if we paper over them with tax and transfer then they will still suck. One must
forget what it is to be a created equal human to miss that. Have you never felt the job of accomplishment?
Does not pride and self-confidence matter in your life?
While automation is part of the story, offshoring is just as important. Even when there is not
net loss in the numbers of jobs in aggregate, there is significant loss in better paying jobs
in manufacturing. It is important to look at the distributional effects within countries, as well
as between them
It would probably be cheaper and easier to just fix them. We don't need to withdraw from trade.
We just need to fix the terms of trade that cause large trade deficits and cross border capital
flows and also fix the FOREX system rigging.
What would it take to ignore trade agreements? They shouldn't be any more difficult to ignore
than the Geneva Conventions, which the US routinely flaunts.
In order to import we must export and in order to export we must import. The two are tied together.
Suppressing imports means we export less.
What free trade does is lower the price level relative to wages. It doesn't uniformly lower
the price level but rather lowers the cost of goods that are capable of being traded internationally.
It lowers the price on those goods that are disproportionately purchased by those with low incomes.
Free trade causes a progressive decline in the price level while protectionism causes a regressive
increase in the price level.
Funny rebuttal! Bhagwati probably has a model that says the opposite! But then he grew up in India
and should one day get a Nobel Prize for his contributions to international economics.
Our media needs to copy France 24, ... and have real debates about real issues. What we get is
along the lines of ignoring the problem then attacking any effort to correct. for example, the
media stayed away from the healthcare crisis, too complicated, but damn they are good at criticizing.
A seriously shameful article. Krugman has been a booster of trade & globalization for 30 years:
marginally more nuanced than the establishment, but still a booster.
Now, the establishment has what it wanted and the effects have been disastrous for those not
in the top 20 percent of the income distribution.
At this stage, comes insult to injury. Establishment economists (like Mr. Krugman) can reinvent
themselves with "brilliant new studies" showing the costs and damage of globalization. They pay
no professional costs for the grievous injuries inflicted; there is no mention of the fact that
critical outsider economists have been predicting and writing about these injuries and were right;
and they blithely say we must stay the course because we are locked-in and have few options.
Krugman is not Greg Mankiw. Most people who actually get international economics (Mankiw does
not) are not of the free trade benefits all types. Paul Samuelson certainly does not buy into
Mankiw's spin. Funny thing - Mankiw recently cited an excellent piece from Samuelson only to dishonestly
suggest Samuelson did not believe in what he wrote.
Why are you mischaracterizing what Krugman has written? That's my point. Oh wait - you misrepresent
what people write so you can "win" a "debate". Never mind. Please proceed with the serial dishonesty.
"The truth is that if Sanders were to make it to the White House, he would find it very hard to
do anything much about globalization - not because it's technically or economically impossible,
but because the moment he looked into actually tearing up existing trade agreements the diplomatic,
foreign-policy costs would be overwhelmingly obvious. In this, as in many other things, Sanders
currently benefits from the luxury of irresponsibility: he's never been anywhere close to the
levers of power, so he could take principled-sounding but arguably feckless stances in a way that
Clinton couldn't and can't."
As Dean Baker says, we need to confront Walmart and Goldman Sachs at home, who like these policies,
more than the Chinese.
The Chinese want access to our consumer market. They'd also like if we did't invade countries
like Iraq.
"so he could take principled-sounding but arguably feckless stances in a way that Clinton couldn't"
And what is that? Tear up trade deals? It is Krugman who is engaging in straw man arguments.
Krugman does indeed misrepresent Sanders' positions on trade. Sander is not against trade, he
merely insists on *Fair Trade*, which incorporates human rights and environmental protections.
His opposition is to the kinds of deals, like NAFTA and TPP, which effectively gut those (a central
element in Kruman's own critique of the latter).
Krugman has definitely backed off his (much) earlier boosterism and publicly said so. This is
an excellent piece by him, though it does rather downplay his earlier stances a bit. This is one
of the things I especially like about him.
I can get the idea that some people win, some people lose from liberalized trade. But what really
bugs me about the neoliberal trade agenda is that it has been part of a larger set of economically
conservative, laissez faire policies that have exacerbated the damages from trade rather than
offsetting them.
At the same time they were exposing US workers to greater competition from abroad and destroying
and offshoring working class jobs via both trade and liberalized capital flows, the neoliberals
were also doing things like "reinventing government" - that is, shrinking structural government
spending and public investment - and ending welfare. They have done nothing serious about steering
capital and job development efforts toward the communities devastated by the liberalization.
The neoliberal position has seem to come down to "We can't make bourgeois progress without
breaking a few working class eggs."
Agreed! "Krugman has been a booster of trade & globalization for 30 years: marginally more nuanced
than the establishment, but still a booster.'
Now he claims that he saw the light all along! "much of the elite defense of globalization
is basically dishonest: false claims of inevitability, scare tactics (protectionism causes depressions!),
vastly exaggerated claims for the benefits of trade liberalization and the costs of protection,
hand-waving away the large distributional effects that are what standard models actually predict.
I hope, by the way, that I haven't done any of that..."
You would be hard pressed to find any Krugman clips that cited any of those problems in the
past. Far from being an impartial economist, he was always an avid booster of free trade, overlooking
those very downsides that he suddenly decides to confess.
As far as I know, Sanders has not proposed ripping up the existing trade deals. His information
page on trade emphasizes (i) his opposition to these deals when they were first negotiated and
enacted, and (ii) the principles he will apply to the consideration of future trade deals. Much
of his argumentation concerning past deals is put forward to motivate his present opposition to
TPP.
Note also that Sanders connects his discussion of the harms of past trade policy to the Rebuild
America Act. That is, his approach is forward facing. We can't undo most of the past damage by
recreating the old working class economy we wrecked, but we can be aggressive about using government-directed
national investment programs to create new, high-paying jobs in the US.
You could have said the same about the 1920s
We can't undo most of the past damage by recreating the old agrarian class economy we wrecked,
but we can be aggressive about using government-directed national investment programs to create
new, high-paying jobs in the US.
The march of progress:
Mechanization of agriculture with displacement of large numbers of Ag workers.
The rise of factory work and large numbers employed in manufacturing.
Automation of Manufacturing with large displacement of workers engaged in manufacturing.
What do we want our workers to do? This question must be answered at the highest level of society
and requires much government facilitation. The absence of government facilitation is THE problem.
Memo to Paul Krugman - lead with the economics and stay with the economics. His need to get into
the dirty business of politics dilutes what he ends up sensibly writes later on.
""The truth is that if Sanders were to make it to the White House, he would find it very hard
to do anything much about globalization - not because it's technically or economically impossible,
but because the moment he looked into actually tearing up existing trade agreements the diplomatic,
foreign-policy costs would be overwhelmingly obvious. In this, as in many other things, Sanders
currently benefits from the luxury of irresponsibility: he's never been anywhere close to the
levers of power, so he could take principled-sounding but arguably feckless stances in a way that
Clinton couldn't and can't."
Yeah, it's pretty dishonest for Krugman to pretend that Sanders' position is "ripping up the trade
agreements we already have" and then say Sanders is "engaged in a bit of a scam" because he can't
do that. Sanders actual position (trying to stop new trade deals like the TPP) is something the
president has a lot of influence over (they can veto the deal). Hard to tell what Krugman is doing
here other than deliberately spreading misinformation.
Also worth noting that he decides to compare Sanders' opposition to trade deals with Trump,
and ignore the fact that Clinton has come out against the TPP as well .
Busy with real life, but yes, I know what happened in the primaries yesterday. Triumph for
Trump, and big upset for Sanders - although it's still very hard to see how he can catch Clinton.
Anyway, a few thoughts, not about the horserace but about some deeper currents.
The Sanders win defied all the polls, and nobody really knows why. But a widespread guess is
that his attacks on trade agreements resonated with a broader audience than his attacks on Wall
Street; and this message was especially powerful in Michigan, the former auto superpower. And
while I hate attempts to claim symmetry between the parties - Trump is trying to become America's
Mussolini, Sanders at worst America's Michael Foot * - Trump has been tilling some of the same
ground. So here's the question: is the backlash against globalization finally getting real political
traction?
You do want to be careful about announcing a political moment, given how many such proclamations
turn out to be ludicrous. Remember the libertarian moment? The reformocon moment? Still, a protectionist
backlash, like an immigration backlash, is one of those things where the puzzle has been how long
it was in coming. And maybe the time is now.
The truth is that if Sanders were to make it to the White House, he would find it very hard
to do anything much about globalization - not because it's technically or economically impossible,
but because the moment he looked into actually tearing up existing trade agreements the diplomatic,
foreign-policy costs would be overwhelmingly obvious. In this, as in many other things, Sanders
currently benefits from the luxury of irresponsibility: he's never been anywhere close to the
levers of power, so he could take principled-sounding but arguably feckless stances in a way that
Clinton couldn't and can't.
But it's also true that much of the elite defense of globalization is basically dishonest:
false claims of inevitability, scare tactics (protectionism causes depressions! ** ), vastly exaggerated
claims for the benefits of trade liberalization and the costs of protection, hand-waving away
the large distributional effects that are what standard models actually predict. I hope, by the
way, that I haven't done any of that; I think I've always been clear that the gains from globalization
aren't all that (here's a back-of-the-envelope on the gains from hyperglobalization *** - only
part of which can be attributed to policy - that is less than 5 percent of world GDP over a generation);
and I think I've never assumed away the income distribution effects.
Furthermore, as Mark Kleiman sagely observes, **** the conventional case for trade liberalization
relies on the assertion that the government could redistribute income to ensure that everyone
wins - but we now have an ideology utterly opposed to such redistribution in full control of one
party, and with blocking power against anything but a minor move in that direction by the other.
So the elite case for ever-freer trade is largely a scam, which voters probably sense even
if they don't know exactly what form it's taking.
Ripping up the trade agreements we already have would, again, be a mess, and I would say that
Sanders is engaged in a bit of a scam himself in even hinting that he could do such a thing. Trump
might actually do it, but only as part of a reign of destruction on many fronts.
But it is fair to say that the case for more trade agreements - including Trans-Pacific Partnership,
which hasn't happened yet - is very, very weak. And if a progressive makes it to the White House,
she should devote no political capital whatsoever to such things.
Michael Mackintosh Foot (1913 – 2010) was a British Labour Party politician and man of letters
who was a Member of Parliament (MP) from 1945 to 1955 and from 1960 until 1992. He was Deputy
Leader of the Labour Party from 1976 to 1980, and later the Leader of the Labour Party and Leader
of the Opposition from 1980 to 1983.
Associated with the left of the Labour Party for most of his career, Foot was an ardent supporter
of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and British withdrawal from the European Economic Community.
He was appointed to the Cabinet as Secretary of State for Employment under Harold Wilson in 1974,
and he later served as Leader of the House of Commons under James Callaghan. A passionate orator,
he led Labour through the 1983 general election, when the party obtained its lowest share of the
vote at a general election since 1918 and the fewest parliamentary seats it had had at any time
since before 1945.
There was so much wrong with Mitt Romney's Trump-is-a-disaster-whom-I-will-support-in-the-general
* speech that it may seem odd to call him out for bad international macroeconomics. But this is
a pet peeve of mine, in an area where I really, truly know what I'm talking about. So here goes.
In warning about Trumponomics, Romney declared:
"If Donald Trump's plans were ever implemented, the country would sink into prolonged recession.
A few examples. His proposed 35 percent tariff-like penalties would instigate a trade war and
that would raise prices for consumers, kill our export jobs and lead entrepreneurs and businesses
of all stripes to flee America."
After all, doesn't everyone know that protectionism causes recessions? Actually, no. There
are reasons to be against protectionism, but that's not one of them.
Think about the arithmetic (which has a well-known liberal bias). Total final spending on domestically
produced goods and services is
Total domestic spending + Exports – Imports = GDP
Now suppose we have a trade war. This will cut exports, which other things equal depresses
the economy. But it will also cut imports, which other things equal is expansionary. For the world
as a whole, the cuts in exports and imports will by definition be equal, so as far as world demand
is concerned, trade wars are a wash.
OK, I'm sure some people will start shouting "Krugman says protectionism does no harm." But
no: protectionism in general should reduce efficiency, and hence the economy's potential output.
But that's not at all the same as saying that it causes recessions.
But didn't the Smoot-Hawley tariff cause the Great Depression? No. There's no evidence at all
that it did. Yes, trade fell a lot between 1929 and 1933, but that was almost entirely a consequence
of the Depression, not a cause. (Trade actually fell faster ** during the early stages of the
2008 Great Recession than it did after 1929.) And while trade barriers were higher in the 1930s
than before, this was partly a response to the Depression, partly a consequence of deflation,
which made specific tariffs (i.e. tariffs that are stated in dollars per unit, not as a percentage
of value) loom larger.
Again, not the thing most people will remember about Romney's speech. But, you know, protectionism
was the only reason he gave for believing that Trump would cause a recession, which I think is
kind of telling: the GOP's supposedly well-informed, responsible adult, trying to save the party,
can't get basic economics right at the one place where economics is central to his argument.
The Gains From Hyperglobalization (Wonkish)
By Paul Krugman
Still taking kind of an emotional vacation from current political madness. Following up on
my skeptical post on worries about slowing trade growth, * I wondered what a state-of-the-art
model would say.
The natural model to use, at least for me, is Eaton-Kortum, ** which is a very ingenious approach
to thinking about multilateral trade flows. The basic model is Ricardian - wine and cloth and
labor productivity and all that - except that there are many goods and many countries, transportation
costs, and countries are assumed to gain productivity in any particular industry through a random
process. They make some funny assumptions about distributions - hey, that's kind of the price
of entry for this kind of work - and in return get a tractable model that yields gravity-type
equations for international trade flows. This is a good thing, because gravity models *** of trade
- purely empirical exercises, with no real theory behind them - are known to work pretty well.
Their model also yields a simple expression for the welfare gains from trade:
Real income = A*(1-import share)^(-1/theta)
where A is national productivity and theta is a parameter of their assumed random process (don't
ask); they suggest that theta=4 provides the best match to available data.
Now, what I wanted to do was apply this to the rapid growth of trade that has taken place since
around 1990, what Subramanian **** calls "hyperglobalization". According to Subramanian's estimates,
overall trade in goods and services has risen from about 19 percent of world GDP in the early
1990s to 33 percent now, bringing us to a level of integration that really is historically unprecedented.
There are some conceptual difficulties with using this rise directly in the Eaton-Kortum framework,
because much of it has taken the form of trade in intermediate goods, and the framework isn't
designed to handle that. Still, let me ignore that, and plug Subramanian's numbers into the equation
above; I get a 4.9 percent rise in real incomes due to increased globalization.
That's by no means small change, but it's only a fairly small fraction of global growth. The
Maddison database ***** gives us a 45 percent rise in global GDP per capita over the same period,
so this calculation suggests that rising trade was responsible for around 10 percent of overall
global growth. My guess is that most people who imagine themselves well-informed would give a
bigger number.
By the way, for those critical of globalization, let me hasten to concede that by its nature
the Eaton-Kortum model doesn't let us talk about income distribution, and it also makes no room
for the possible role of globalization in causing secular stagnation. ******
Still, I thought this was an interesting calculation to make - which may show more about my
warped sense of what's interesting than it does about anything else.
General Equilibrium Analysis of the Eaton-Kortum Model of International Trade
By Fernando Alvarez and Robert E. Lucas
We study a variation of the Eaton-Kortum model, a competitive, constant-returns-to-scale multicountry
Ricardian model of trade. We establish existence and uniqueness of an equilibrium with balanced
trade where each country imposes an import tariff. We analyze the determinants of the cross-country
distribution of trade volumes, such as size, tariffs and distance, and compare a calibrated version
of the model with data for the largest 60 economies. We use the calibrated model to estimate the
gains of a world-wide trade elimination of tariffs, using the theory to explain the magnitude
of the gains as well as the differential effect arising from cross-country differences in pre-liberalization
of tariffs levels and country size.
The gravity model of international trade in international economics, similar to other gravity
models in social science, predicts bilateral trade flows based on the economic sizes (often using
GDP measurements) and distance between two units. The model was first used by Jan Tinbergen in
1962.
The Hyperglobalization of Trade and Its Future
By Arvind Subramanian and Martin Kessler
Abstract
The open, rules-based trading system has delivered immense benefits-for the world, for individual
countries, and for average citizens in these countries. It can continue to do so, helping today's
low-income countries make the transition to middle-income status. Three challenges must be met
to preserve this system. Rich countries must sustain the social consensus in favor of open markets
and globalization at a time of considerable economic uncertainty and weakness; China and other
middle-income countries must remain open; and mega-regionalism must be prevented from leading
to discrimination and trade conflicts. Collective action should help strengthen the institutional
underpinnings of globalization. The world should move beyond the Doha Round dead to more meaningful
multilateral negotiations to address emerging challenges, including possible threats from new
mega-regional agreements. The rising powers, especially China, will have a key role to play in
resuscitating multilateralism.
"Furthermore, as Mark Kleiman sagely observes, the conventional case for trade liberalization
relies on the assertion that the government could redistribute income to ensure that everyone
wins"
That was never the conventional case for trade. Plus it's kind of odd that you have to add
"plus have the government redistribute" to the case your making.
Tom Pally above is correct. Krugman has been on the wrong side of this issue. He's gotten better,
but the timing is he's gotten better as the Democratic Party has moved to the left and pushed
back against corporate trade deals. Even Hillary came out late against Obama's TPP.
Sanders has nothing about ripping up trade deals. He has said he won't do any more.
As cawley predicted, once Sanders won Michigan, Krugman started hitting him again at his blog.
With cheap shots I might add. He's ruining his brand.
Tell Morning Edition: It's Not "Free Trade" Folks
by Dean Baker
Published: 10 March 2016
Hey, can an experienced doctor from Germany show up and start practicing in New York next week?
Since the answer is no, we can say that we don't have free trade. It's not an immigration issue,
if the doctor wants to work in a restaurant kitchen, she would probably get away with it. We have
protectionist measures that limit the number of foreign doctors in order to keep their pay high.
These protectionist measures have actually been strengthened in the last two decades.
We also have strengthened patent and copyright protections, making drugs and other affected
items far more expensive. These protections are also forms of protectionism.
This is why Morning Edition seriously misled its listeners in an interview with ice cream barons
Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield over their support of Senator Bernie Sanders. The interviewer repeatedly
referred to "free trade" agreements and Sanders' opposition to them. While these deals are all
called "free trade" deals to make them sound more palatable ("selective protectionism to redistribute
income upward" doesn't sound very appealing), that doesn't mean they are actually about free trade.
Morning Edition should not have used the term employed by promoters to push their trade agenda.
This has been Dean Baker's excellent theme for a very long time. And if you actually paid attention
to what Krugman said about TPP - he agreed with Dean's excellent points. But do continue to set
up straw man arguments so you can dishonestly attack Krugman.
No. That is not a sign of a faulty memory, quite the contrary.
Krugman writes column after column praising trade pacts and criticizing (rightly, I might add)
the yahoos who object for the wrong reasons.
But he omits a few salient facts like
- the gains are small,
- the government MUST intervene with redistribution for this to work socially,
- there are no (or minimal) provisions for that requirement in the pacts.
I would say his omissions speak volumes and are worth remembering.
Krugman initially wrote a confused column about the TPP, treating it as a simple free trade deal
which he said would have little impact because tariffs were already so low. But he did eventually
look into the matter further and wound up agreeing with Baker's take.
"That was never the conventional case for trade". Actually it was. Of course Greg Mankiw never
got the memo so his free trade benefits all BS confuses a lot of people. Mankiw sucks at international
trade.
David Glasner attacks Krugman from the right, but he doesn't whitewash the past as you do.
He remembers Gore versus Perot:
"Indeed, Romney didn't even mention the Smoot-Hawley tariff, but Krugman evidently forgot the
classic exchange between Al Gore and the previous incarnation of protectionist populist outrage
in an anti-establishment billionaire candidate for President:
GORE I've heard Mr. Perot say in the past that, as the carpenters says, measure twice and cut
once. We've measured twice on this. We have had a test of our theory and we've had a test of his
theory. Over the last five years, Mexico's tariffs have begun to come down because they've made
a unilateral decision to bring them down some, and as a result there has been a surge of exports
from the United States into Mexico, creating an additional 400,000 jobs, and we can create hundreds
of thousands of more if we continue this trend. We know this works. If it doesn't work, you know,
we give six months notice and we're out of it. But we've also had a test of his theory.
PEROT When?
GORE In 1930, when the proposal by Mr. Smoot and Mr. Hawley was to raise tariffs across the
board to protect our workers. And I brought some pictures, too.
[Larry] KING You're saying Ross is a protectionist?
GORE This is, this is a picture of Mr. Smoot and Mr. Hawley. They look like pretty good fellows.
They sounded reasonable at the time; a lot of people believed them. The Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley
Protection Bill. He wants to raise tariffs on Mexico. They raised tariffs, and it was one of the
principal causes, many economists say the principal cause, of the Great Depression in this country
and around the world. Now, I framed this so you can put it on your wall if you want to.
You obviously have not read Krugman. Here is from his 1997 Slate piece:
But putting Greenspan (or his successor) into the picture restores much of the classical vision
of the macroeconomy. Instead of an invisible hand pushing the economy toward full employment in
some unspecified long run, we have the visible hand of the Fed pushing us toward its estimate
of the noninflationary unemployment rate over the course of two or three years. To accomplish
this, the board must raise or lower interest rates to bring savings and investment at that target
unemployment rate in line with each other.
And so all the paradoxes of thrift, widow's cruses, and so on become irrelevant. In particular,
an increase in the savings rate will translate into higher investment after all, because the Fed
will make sure that it does.
To me, at least, the idea that changes in demand will normally be offset by Fed policy--so
that they will, on average, have no effect on employment--seems both simple and entirely reasonable.
Yet it is clear that very few people outside the world of academic economics think about things
that way. For example, the debate over the North American Free Trade Agreement was conducted almost
entirely in terms of supposed job creation or destruction. The obvious (to me) point that the
average unemployment rate over the next 10 years will be what the Fed wants it to be, regardless
of the U.S.-Mexico trade balance, never made it into the public consciousness. (In fact, when
I made that argument at one panel discussion in 1993, a fellow panelist--a NAFTA advocate, as
it happens--exploded in rage: "It's remarks like that that make people hate economists!")
Yes. But please do not interrupt PeterK with reality. He has important work do with his bash all
things Krugman agenda. BTW - it is a riot that he cites Ross Perot on NAFTA. Perot has a self
centered agenda there which Gore exposed. Never trust a corrupt business person whether it is
Perot or Trump.
Yes the model PeterK is using is unclear. He doesn't seem to have a grasp on the economics of
the issues. He seems to think that Sanders is a font of economic wisdom who is not to be questioned.
I would hate to see the left try to make a flawed candidate into the larger than life icon that
the GOP has made out of Reagan.
"Yes the model PeterK is using is unclear. He doesn't seem to have a grasp on the economics of
the issues."
Dean Baker and Jared Bernstein. Like you I want full employment and rising wages. And like
Krugman I am very much an internationalist. I want us to deal fairly with the rest of the world.
We need to cooperate especially in the face of global warming.
1. My first, best solution would be fiscal action. Like everyone else. I prefer Sanders's unicorn
plan of $1 trillion over five years rather than Hillary's plan which is one quarter of the size.
Her plan puts more pressure on the Fed and monetary policy.
a. My preference would be to pay for it with Pigouvian taxes on the rich, corporations, and
the financial sector.
b. if not a, then deficit spending like Trudeau in Canada
C. if the deficit hawks block that, then monetary-financing would be the way around them.
2. close the trade deficit. Dean Baker and Bernstein have written about this a lot. Write currency
agreements into trade deals. If we close the trade deficit and are at full employment, then we
can import more from the rest of the world.
3. If powerful interests block 1. and 2. then lean on monetary policy. Reduce the price of
credit to boost demand. It works as a last resort.
"I would hate to see the left try to make a flawed candidate into the larger than life icon
that the GOP has made out of Reagan.'
I haven't seen any evidence of this. It would be funny if the left made an old Jewish codger
from Brooklyn into an icon. Feel the Bern!!!
Sanders regularly points out it's not about him as President fixing everything, it's about
creating a movement. It's about getting people involved. He can't do it by himself. Obama would
say this too. Elizabeth Warren become popular by saying the same things Sanders is saying.
However to say that the conventional case for trade liberalization relies on the Compensation
Principle isn't quite accurate. The conventional case has traditionally relied on the assertion
that "we" are better off with trade since we could *theoretically* distribute the gains. However,
free trade boosters never seem to get around to worrying about distributing the gains *in practice*.
In practice, free trade is typically justified simply by the net aggregate gain, regardless of
how these gains are distributed or who is hurt in the process.
To my mind, before considering some trade liberalization deal we should FIRST agree to and
implement the redistribution mechanisms and only then reduce barriers. Implementing trade deals
in a backward, half-assed way as has typically been the case often makes "us" worse off than autarky.
"Krugman has at times advocated free markets in contexts where they are often viewed as controversial.
He has ... likened the opposition against free trade and globalization to the opposition against
evolution via natural selection (1996),[167]
(In fact, when I made that argument at one panel discussion in 1993, a fellow panelist--a NAFTA
advocate, as it happens--exploded in rage: "It's remarks like that that make people hate economists!")
[Thanks to electoral politics, we're all fellow panelists now.]
"To me, at least, the idea that changes in demand will normally be offset by Fed policy--so that
they will, on average, have no effect on employment--seems both simple and entirely reasonable.
Yet it is clear that very few people outside the world of academic economics think about things
that way."
As we've seen the Fed is overly fearful of inflation, so the Fed doesn't offset the trade deficit
as quickly as it should. Instead we suffer hysteresis and reduction of potential output.
"The truth is that if Sanders were to make it to the White House, he would find it very hard to
do anything much about globalization - not because it's technically or economically impossible,
but because the moment he looked into actually tearing up existing trade agreements the diplomatic,
foreign-policy costs would be overwhelmingly obvious."
Here Krugman is more honest. We're basically buying off the Chinese, etc. The cost for stopping
this would be less cooperation from the Chinese, etc.
This is new. He never used to say this kind of thing. Instead he'd go after "protectionists"
as luddites.
"This is new. He never used to say this kind of thing. Instead he'd go after "protectionists"
as luddites."
You have Krugman confused with Greg Mankiw. Most real international economics (Mankiw is not
one) recognize the distributional consequences of free trade v. protectionism. Then again - putting
forth the Mankiw uninformed spin is a prerequisite for being on Team Republican. Of course Republicans
will go protectionist whenever it is politically expedient as in that temporary set of steel tariffs.
Helped Bush-Cheney in 2004 and right after that - no tariffs. Funny how that worked.
Where is the "redistribution from government" in the TPP. There isn't any.
Even the NAFTA side agreements on labor and the environment are toothless. The point of these
corporate trade deals is to profit from the lower labor and environmental standards of poorer
countries.
The fact that you resort to calling me a professional Krugman hater means you're not interested
in an actual debate about actual ideas. You've lost the debate and I'm not participating.
One is not allowed to criticize Krugman lest one be labeled a professional Krugman hater?
Your resort to name calling just weakens the case you're making.
You of late have wasted so much space misrepresenting what Krugman has said. Maybe you don't hate
him - maybe you just want to get his attention. For a date maybe. Lord - the troll in you is truly
out of control.
Sandwichman may think Krugman changed his views but if one actually read what he has written over
the years (as opposed to your cherry picking quotes), you might have noticed otherwise. But of
course you want Krugman to look bad. It is what you do.
Sizeable numbers of Americans have seen wages decline in real terms for nearly 20 years. Many/most
parents in many communities do not see a better future before them, or for their children.
Notable quotes:
"... Democracy demands that ballot access rules be selected by referendum, not by the very legacy parties that maintain legislative control by effectively denying ballot access to parties that will pose a challenge to their continued rule. ..."
"... I think the U.S. Party system, in the political science sense, shifted to a new state during George W Bush's administration as, in Kevin Phillip's terms the Republican Party was taken over by Theocrats and Bad Money. ..."
"... My understanding is trumps support disproportionately comes from the small business owning classes, Ie a demographic similar to the petite bourgeoisie who have often been heavily involved in reactionary movements. This gets oversold as "working class" when class is defined by education level rather than income. ..."
"... Racism serves as an organizing principle. Politically, in an oppressive and stultifying hierarchy like the plantation South, racism not incidentally buys the loyalty of subalterns with ersatz status. ..."
"... For a time, the balkanization of American political communities by race, religion and ethnicity was an effective means to the dominance of an tiny elite with ties to an hegemonic community, but it backfired. Dismantling that balkanization has left the country with a very low level of social affiliation and thus a low capacity to organize resistance to elite depredations. ..."
"... Watching Clinton scoop up bankster money, welcome Republicans neocons to the ranks of her supporters does not fill me with hope. ..."
Legislators affiliated with the duopoly parties should not write the rules governing the ballot
access of third parties. This exclusionary rule making amounts to preserving a self-dealing duopoly.
Elections are the interest of the people who vote and those elected should not be able to subvert
the democratic process by acting as a cartel.
Democracy demands that ballot access rules be selected by referendum, not by the very legacy
parties that maintain legislative control by effectively denying ballot access to parties that
will pose a challenge to their continued rule.
Of course any meaningful change would require a voluntary diminishment of power of the duopoly
that now has dictatorial control over ballot access, and who will prevent any Constitutional Amendment
that would enhance the democratic nature of the process.
bruce wilder 08.02.16 at 8:02 pm
I think the U.S. Party system, in the political science sense, shifted to a new state during
George W Bush's administration as, in Kevin Phillip's terms the Republican Party was taken over
by Theocrats and Bad Money.
Ronan(rf) 08.04.16 at 10:35 pm
"I generally don't give a shit about polls so I have no "data" to evidence this claim,
but my guess is the majority of Trump's support comes from this broad middle"
My understanding is trumps support disproportionately comes from the small business owning
classes, Ie a demographic similar to the petite bourgeoisie who have often been heavily involved
in reactionary movements. This gets oversold as "working class" when class is defined by education
level rather than income.
This would make some sense as they are generally in economically unstable jobs, they tend to
be hostile to both big govt (regulations, freeloaders) and big business (unfair competition),
and while they (rhetorically at least) tend to value personal autonomy and self sufficiency ,
they generally sell into smaller, local markets, and so are particularly affected by local demographic
and cultural change , and decline. That's my speculation anyway.
bruce wilder 08.06.16 at 4:28 pm
I am somewhat suspicious of leaving dominating elites out of these stories of racism as an
organizing principle for political economy or (cultural) community.
Racism served the purposes of a slaveholding elite that organized political communities to
serve their own interests. (Or, vis a vis the Indians a land-grab or genocide.)
Racism serves as an organizing principle. Politically, in an oppressive and stultifying
hierarchy like the plantation South, racism not incidentally buys the loyalty of subalterns with
ersatz status. The ugly prejudices and resentful arrogance of working class whites is thus
a component of how racism works to organize a political community to serve a hegemonic master
class. The business end of racism, though, is the autarkic poverty imposed on the working communities:
slaves, sharecroppers, poor blacks, poor whites - bad schools, bad roads, politically disabled
communities, predatory institutions and authoritarian governments.
For a time, the balkanization of American political communities by race, religion and ethnicity
was an effective means to the dominance of an tiny elite with ties to an hegemonic community,
but it backfired. Dismantling that balkanization has left the country with a very low level of
social affiliation and thus a low capacity to organize resistance to elite depredations.
bruce wilder 08.06.16 at 4:31 pm
Watching Clinton scoop up bankster money, welcome Republicans neocons to the ranks of her
supporters does not fill me with hope.
Trump and the other illiberal populists have been benefiting from three overlapping backlashes.
The first is cultural. Movements for civil liberties have been remarkably successful over the
last 40 years. Women, ethnic and religious minorities, and the LGBTQ community have secured important
gains at a legal and cultural level. It is remarkable, for instance, how quickly same-sex marriage
has become legal in more than 20 countries when no country recognized it before 2001.
Resistance has always existed to these movements to expand the realm of civil liberties. But this
backlash increasingly has a political face. Thus the rise of parties that challenge multiculturalism
and immigration in Europe, the movements throughout Africa and Asia that support the majority over
the minorities, and the Trump/Tea Party takeover of the Republican Party with their appeals to primarily
white men.
The second backlash is economic. The globalization of the economy has created a class of enormously
wealthy individuals (in the financial, technology, and communications sectors). But globalization
has left behind huge numbers of low-wage workers and those who have watched their jobs relocate to
other countries.
Illiberal populists have directed all that anger on the part of people left behind by the world
economy at a series of targets: bankers who make billions, corporations that are constantly looking
for even lower-wage workers, immigrants who "take away our jobs," and sometimes ethnic minorities
who function as convenient scapegoats. The targets, in other words, include both the very powerful
and the very weak.
The third backlash, and perhaps the most consequential, is political. It's not just that people
living in democracies are disgusted with their leaders and the parties they represent. Rather, as
political scientists Roberto Stefan Foa and Yascha Mounk
write in the Journal of Democracy , "they have also become more cynical about the value
of democracy as a political system, less hopeful that anything they do might influence public policy,
and more willing to express support for authoritarian alternatives."
Foa and Mounk are using 20 years of data collected from surveys of citizens in Western Europe
and North America – the democracies with the greatest longevity. And they have found that support
for illiberal alternatives is greater among the younger generation than the older one. In other countries
outside Europe and North America, the disillusionment with democratic institutions often takes the
form of a preference for a powerful leader who can break the rules if necessary to preserve order
and stability – like Putin in Russia or Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in Egypt or Prayuth Chan-ocha in Thailand.
These three backlashes – cultural, economic, political – are also anti-internationalist because
international institutions have become associated with the promotion of civil liberties and human
rights, the greater globalization of the economy, and the constraint of the sovereignty of nations
(for instance, through the European Union or the UN's "responsibility to protect" doctrine).
... ... ....
The current political order is coming apart. If we don't come up with a fair, Green, and internationalist
alternative, the illiberal populists will keep winning. John Feffer is the director of Foreign
Policy In Focus.
"... if neo-liberalism is partly defined by the free flow of goods, labor and capital - and that has been the Republican agenda since at least Reagan - how is Trump a continuation of the same tradition?" ..."
"... Trump is a conservative (or right populist, or whatever), and draws on that tradition. He's not a neoliberal. ..."
"... Trump is too incoherent to really represent the populist view. He's consistent w/the trade and immigration views but (assuming you can actually figure him out) wrong on banks, taxes, etc. ..."
"... But the next populists we see might be more full bore. When that happens, you'll see much more overlap w/Sanders economic plans for the middle class. ..."
"... There's always tension along the lead running between the politician and his constituents. The thing that seems most salient to me at the present moment is the sense of betrayal pervading our politics. At least since the GFC of 2008, it has been hard to deny that the two Parties worked together to set up an economic betrayal. And, the long-running saga of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan also speak to elite failure, as well as betrayal. ..."
"... Trump is a novelty act. He represents a chance for people who feel resentful without knowing much of anything about anything to cast a middle-finger vote. They wouldn't be willing to do that, if times were really bad, instead of just disappointing and distressing. ..."
"... There's also the fact Reagan tapped a fair number of Nixon people, as did W years later. Reagan went after Nixon in the sense of running against him, and taking the party in a much more hard-right direction, sure. But he was repudiated largely because he got caught doing dirty tricks with his pants down. ..."
"... From what I can tell - the 1972 election gave the centrists in the democratic party power to discredit and marginalize the anti-war left, and with it, the left in general. ..."
"... Ready even now to whine that she's a victim and that the whole community is at fault and that people are picking on her because she's a woman, rather than because she has a habit of making accusations like this every time she comments. ..."
"... That is a perfect example of predatory "solidarity". Val is looking for dupes to support her ..."
"Once again, if neo-liberalism is partly defined by the free flow of goods, labor and capital
- and that has been the Republican agenda since at least Reagan - how is Trump a continuation
of the same tradition?"
You have to be willing to see neoliberalism as something different
from conservatism to have the answer make any sense. John Quiggin has written a good deal here
about a model of U.S. politics as being divided into left, neoliberal, and conservative. Trump
is a conservative (or right populist, or whatever), and draws on that tradition. He's not a neoliberal.
... ... ...
T 08.12.16 at 5:52 pm
RP @683
That's a bit of my point. I think Corey has defined the Republican tradition solely
in response to the Southern Strategy that sees a line from Nixon (or Goldwater) to Trump. But
that gets the economics wrong and the foreign policy too - the repub foreign policy view has not
been consistent across administrations and Trump's economic pans (to the extent he has a plan)
are antithetical to the Nixon – W tradition. I have viewed post-80 Dem administrations as neoliberals
w/transfers and Repub as neoliberals w/o transfers.
Trump is too incoherent to really represent the populist view. He's consistent w/the trade
and immigration views but (assuming you can actually figure him out) wrong on banks, taxes, etc.
But the next populists we see might be more full bore. When that happens, you'll see much
more overlap w/Sanders economic plans for the middle class. Populists have nothing against
gov't programs like SS and Medicare and were always for things like the TVA and infrastructure
spending. Policies aimed at the poor and minorities not so much.
T @ 685: Trump is too incoherent to really represent the populist view.
There's always tension along the lead running between the politician and his constituents.
The thing that seems most salient to me at the present moment is the sense of betrayal pervading
our politics. At least since the GFC of 2008, it has been hard to deny that the two Parties worked
together to set up an economic betrayal. And, the long-running saga of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
also speak to elite failure, as well as betrayal.
These are the two most unpopular candidates in living memory. That is different.
I am not a believer in "the fire next time". Trump is a novelty act. He represents a chance
for people who feel resentful without knowing much of anything about anything to cast a middle-finger
vote. They wouldn't be willing to do that, if times were really bad, instead of just disappointing
and distressing.
Nor will Sanders be back. His was a last New Deal coda. There may be second acts in American
life, but there aren't 7th acts.
If there's a populist politics in our future, it will have to have a much sharper edge. It
can talk about growth, but it has to mean smashing the rich and taking their stuff. There's very
rapidly going to come a point where there's no other option, other than just accepting cramdown
by the authoritarian surveillance state built by the neoliberals. that's a much taller order than
Sanders or Trump have been offering.<
Corey, you write: "It's not just that the Dems went after Nixon, it's also that Nixon had so few
allies. People on the right were furious with him because they felt after this huge ratification
that the country had moved to the right, Nixon was still governing as if the New Deal were the
consensus. So when the time came, he had very few defenders, except for loyalists like Leonard
Garment and G. Gordon Liddy. And Al Haig, God bless him."
You've studied this more than I have,
but this is at least somewhat at odds with my memory. I recall some prominent attackers of Nixon
from the Republican party that were moderates, at least one of whom was essentially kicked out
of the party for being too liberal in later years. There's also the fact Reagan tapped a fair
number of Nixon people, as did W years later. Reagan went after Nixon in the sense of running
against him, and taking the party in a much more hard-right direction, sure. But he was repudiated
largely because he got caught doing dirty tricks with his pants down.
To think that something similar would happen to Clinton (watergate like scandal) that would
actually have a large portion of the left in support of impeachment, she would have to be as dirty
as Nixon was, *and* the evidence to really put the screws to her would have to be out, as it was
against Nixon during watergate.
OTOH, my actual *hope* would be that a similar left-liberal sea change comparable to 1980 from
the right would be plausible. I don't think a 1976-like interlude is plausible though, that would
require the existence of a moderate republican with enough support within their own party to win
the nomination. I suppose its possible that such a beast could come to exist if Trump loses a
landslide, but most of the plausible candidates have already left or been kicked out of the party.
From what I can tell - the 1972 election gave the centrists in the democratic party power
to discredit and marginalize the anti-war left, and with it, the left in general. A comparable
election from the other side would give republican centrists/moderates the ability to discredit
and marginalize the right wing base. But unlike Democrats in 1972, there aren't any moderates
left in the Republican party by my lights. I'm much more concerned that this will simply re-empower
the hard-core conservatives with plausbly-deniable dog-whistle racism who are now the "moderates",
and enable them to whitewash their history.
Unfortunately, unlike you, I'm not convinced that a landslide is possible without an appeal
to Reagan/Bush republicans. I don't think we're going to see a meaningful turn toward a real left
until Democrats can win a majority of statehouses and clean up the ridiculous gerrymandering.
Val: "Similarly with your comments on "identity politics" where you could almost be seen
by MRAs and white supremacists as an ally, from the tone of your rhetoric."
That is 100% perfect Val. Insinuates that BW is a sort-of-ally of white supremacists - an infuriating
insinuation. Does this insinuation based on a misreading of what he wrote. Completely resistant
to any sort of suggestion that what she dishes out so expansively to others had better be something
she should be willing to accept herself, or that she shouldn't do it. Ready even now to whine
that she's a victim and that the whole community is at fault and that people are picking on her
because she's a woman, rather than because she has a habit of making accusations like this every
time she comments.
That is a perfect example of predatory "solidarity". Val is looking for dupes to support
her - for people to jump in saying "Why are you being hostile to women?" in response to people's
response to her comment.
"... More than a dozen Republican rivals, described as the strongest GOP field since 1980, were sent packing. This was the year Americans rose up to pull down the establishment in a peaceful storming of the American Bastille. ..."
"... If 2016 taught us anything, it is that if the establishment's hegemony is imperiled, it will come together in ferocious solidarity - for the preservation of their perks, privileges and power. All the elements of that establishment - corporate, cultural, political, media - are today issuing an ultimatum to Middle America: Trump is unacceptable. Instructions are going out to Republican leaders that either they dump Trump, or they will cease to be seen as morally fit partners in power. ..."
"... Our CIA, NGOs and National Endowment for Democracy all beaver away for "regime change" in faraway lands whose rulers displease us. How do we effect "regime change" here at home? ..."
"... Donald Trump's success, despite the near-universal hostility of the media, even much of the conservative media, was due in large part to the public's response to the issues he raised. ..."
"I'm afraid the election is going to be rigged," Donald Trump told voters
in Ohio and Sean Hannity on Fox News. And that hit a nerve.
"Dangerous," "toxic," came the recoil from the media.
Trump is threatening to "delegitimize" the election results of 2016.
Well, if that is what Trump is trying to do, he has no small point. For consider
what 2016 promised and what it appears about to deliver.
This longest of election cycles has rightly been called the Year of the Outsider.
It was a year that saw a mighty surge of economic populism and patriotism, a
year when a 74-year-old Socialist senator set primaries ablaze with mammoth
crowds that dwarfed those of Hillary Clinton.
It was the year that a non-politician, Donald Trump, swept Republican primaries
in an historic turnout, with his nearest rival an ostracized maverick in his
own Republican caucus, Senator Ted Cruz.
More than a dozen Republican rivals, described as the strongest GOP field
since 1980, were sent packing. This was the year Americans rose up to pull down
the establishment in a peaceful storming of the American Bastille.
But if it ends with a Clintonite restoration and a ratification of the same
old Beltway policies, would that not suggest there is something fraudulent about
American democracy, something rotten in the state?
If 2016 taught us anything, it is that if the establishment's hegemony
is imperiled, it will come together in ferocious solidarity - for the preservation
of their perks, privileges and power. All the elements of that establishment
- corporate, cultural, political, media - are today issuing an ultimatum to
Middle America: Trump is unacceptable. Instructions are going out to Republican
leaders that either they dump Trump, or they will cease to be seen as morally
fit partners in power.
It testifies to the character of Republican elites that some are seeking
ways to carry out these instructions, though this would mean invalidating and
aborting the democratic process that produced Trump.
But what is a repudiated establishment doing issuing orders to anyone?
Why is it not Middle America issuing the demands, rather than the other way
around?
Specifically, the Republican electorate should tell its discredited and rejected
ruling class: If we cannot get rid of you at the ballot box, then tell us how,
peacefully and democratically, we can be rid of you?
You want Trump out? How do we get you out? The Czechs had their Prague Spring.
The Tunisians and Egyptians their Arab Spring. When do we have our American
Spring? The Brits had their "Brexit," and declared independence of an arrogant
superstate in Brussels. How do we liberate ourselves from a Beltway superstate
that is more powerful and resistant to democratic change?
Our CIA, NGOs and National Endowment for Democracy all beaver away for
"regime change" in faraway lands whose rulers displease us. How do we effect
"regime change" here at home?
Donald Trump's success, despite the near-universal hostility of the media,
even much of the conservative media, was due in large part to the public's response
to the issues he raised.
He called for sending illegal immigrants back home, for securing America's
borders, for no amnesty. He called for an America First foreign policy to
keep us out of wars that have done little but bleed and bankrupt us.
He called for an economic policy where the Americanism of the people
replaces the globalism of the transnational elites and their K Street lobbyists
and congressional water carriers.
He denounced NAFTA, and the trade deals and trade deficits with China,
and called for rejection of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
By campaign's end, he had won the argument on trade, as Hillary Clinton was
agreeing on TPP and confessing to second thoughts on NAFTA.
But if TPP is revived at the insistence of the oligarchs of Wall Street,
the Business Roundtable, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce - backed by conscript
editorial writers for newspapers that rely on ad dollars - what do elections
really mean anymore?
And if, as the polls show we might, we get Clinton - and TPP, and amnesty,
and endless migrations of Third World peoples who consume more tax dollars than
they generate, and who will soon swamp the Republicans' coalition - what was
2016 all about?
Would this really be what a majority of Americans voted for in this most
exciting of presidential races?
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution
inevitable," said John F. Kennedy.
The 1960s and early 1970s were a time of social revolution in America, and
President Nixon, by ending the draft and ending the Vietnam war, presided over
what one columnist called the "cooling of America."
But if Hillary Clinton takes power, and continues America on her present
course, which a majority of Americans rejected in the primaries, there is going
to be a bad moon rising.
And the new protesters in the streets will not be overprivileged children
from Ivy League campuses.
"... the capitalist economy is more and more an asset driven one. This article does not even begin to address the issue of asset valuations, the explicit CB support for asset inflation and the effect on inequality, and especially generational plunder. ..."
"... the problem of living standards is obviously a Malthusian one. despite all the progress of social media tricks, we cannot fool nature. the rate of ecological degradation is alarming, and now irreversible. "the market" is now moving rapidly to real assets. This will eventually lead to war as all war is eventually for resources. ..."
No matter what central banks do, their actions will not be able to create the same level of
economic growth that we have become used to over the past seven decades.
Economic growth does not come from the central banks; if government sought to provide the basics
for all its citizens, including health care, education, a home, and proper food and all the infrastructure
needed to give people the basics, then you could have something akin to "growth" while at the
same time making life more pleasant for the less fortunate. There seems to be no definition of
economic growth that includes everyone.
This seems a very elaborate way of stating a simple problem, that can be summarised in three
points.
The living standards of most people have fallen over the last thirty years or so because of
the impact of neoliberal economic policies. Conventional politicians are promising only more
of the same. Therefore people are increasingly voting for non-conventional politicians.
Neoliberalism has only exacerbated falling living standards. Living standards would be falling
even without it, albeit more gradually.
Neoliberalism itself may even be nothing more than a standard type response of species that
have expanded beyond the capacity of their environment to support them. What we see as an evil
ideology is only the expression of a mechanism that apportions declining resources to the elites,
like shutting shutting down the periphery so the core can survive as in hypothermia.
I really don't have problem with this. Let the financial sector run the world into the ground
and get it over with.
In defference to a great many knowledgable commentors here that work in the FIRE sector, I
don't want to create a damning screed on the cost of servicing money, but at some point even the
most considered opinions have to acknowledge that that finance is flooded with *talent* which
creates a number of problems; one being a waste of intellect and education in a field that doesn't
offer much of a return when viewed in an egalitarian sense, secondly; as the field grows due to,
the technical advances, the rise in globilization, and the security a financial occuptaion offers
in an advanced first world country nowadays, it requires substantially more income to be devoted
to it's function.
This income has to be derived somewhere, and the required sacrifices on every facet of a global
economy to bolster positions and maintain asset prices has precipitated this decline in the well
being of peoples not plugged-in to the consumer capitalist regime and dogma.
Something has to give here, and I honestly couldn't care about your 401k or home resale value,
you did this to yourself as much as those day-traders who got clobbered in the dot-com crash.
the capitalist economy is more and more an asset driven one. This article does not even
begin to address the issue of asset valuations, the explicit CB support for asset inflation and
the effect on inequality, and especially generational plunder.
the problem of living standards is obviously a Malthusian one. despite all the progress
of social media tricks, we cannot fool nature. the rate of ecological degradation is alarming,
and now irreversible. "the market" is now moving rapidly to real assets. This will eventually
lead to war as all war is eventually for resources.
"... "confronted with the Pivot to Asia and the construction of new US naval and air bases to ensure Washington's control of the South China Sea, now defined as an area of American National Interests." ..."
"... "for the crisis that Washington has created in Ukraine and for its use as anti-Russian propaganda." ..."
"... "How America Was Lost" ..."
"... "aggression and blatant propaganda have convinced Russia and China that Washington intends war, and this realization has drawn the two countries into a strategic alliance." ..."
"... "vassalage status accepted by the UK, Germany, France and the rest of Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia." ..."
"... "price of world peace is the world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony." ..."
"... "On the foreign policy front, the hubris and arrogance of America's self-image as the 'exceptional, indispensable' country with hegemonic rights over other countries means that the world is primed for war," ..."
"... "unless the dollar and with it US power collapses or Europe finds the courage to break with Washington and to pursue an independent foreign policy, saying good-bye to NATO, nuclear war is our likely future." ..."
"... "historical turning point," ..."
"... "the Chinese were there in their place," ..."
"... "Russian casualties compared to the combined casualties of the US, UK, and France make it completely clear that it was Russia that defeated Hitler," ..."
"... "in the Orwellian West, the latest rewriting of history leaves out of the story the Red Army's destruction of the Wehrmacht." ..."
"... "expressed gratitude to 'the peoples of Great Britain, France and the United States of America for their contribution to the victory.'" ..."
"... "do not hear when Russia says 'don't push us this hard, we are not your enemy. We want to be your partners.'" ..."
"... "finally realized that their choice is vassalage or war," ..."
"... "made the mistake that could be fateful for humanity," ..."
The White House is determined to block the rise of the key nuclear-armed nations, Russia and China, neither of whom will join the
"world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony," says head of the Institute for Political Economy, Paul Craig Roberts.
The former
US assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy, Dr Paul Craig Roberts, has written on his
blog
that Beijing is currently "confronted with the Pivot to Asia and the construction of new US naval and air bases to ensure Washington's
control of the South China Sea, now defined as an area of American National Interests."
Roberts writes that Washington's commitment to contain Russia is the reason "for the crisis that Washington has created in
Ukraine and for its use as anti-Russian propaganda."
The author of several books, "How America Was Lost" among the latest titles, says that US "aggression and blatant
propaganda have convinced Russia and China that Washington intends war, and this realization has drawn the two countries into a strategic
alliance."
Dr Roberts believes that neither Russia, nor China will meanwhile accept the so-called "vassalage status accepted by the UK,
Germany, France and the rest of Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia." According to the political analyst, the "price of
world peace is the world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony."
"On the foreign policy front, the hubris and arrogance of America's self-image as the 'exceptional, indispensable' country
with hegemonic rights over other countries means that the world is primed for war," Roberts writes.
He gives a gloomy political forecast in his column saying that "unless the dollar and with it US power collapses or Europe
finds the courage to break with Washington and to pursue an independent foreign policy, saying good-bye to NATO, nuclear war is our
likely future."
Russia's far-reaching May 9 Victory Day celebration was meanwhile a "historical turning point," according to Roberts
who says that while Western politicians chose to boycott the 70th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, "the Chinese were
there in their place," China's president sitting next to President Putin during the military parade on Red Square in Moscow.
A recent poll targeting over 3,000 people in France, Germany and the UK has recently revealed that as little as 13 percent of
Europeans think the Soviet Army played the leading role in liberating Europe from Nazism during WW2. The majority of respondents
– 43 percent – said the US Army played the main role in liberating Europe.
"Russian casualties compared to the combined casualties of the US, UK, and France make it completely clear that it was Russia
that defeated Hitler," Roberts points out, adding that "in the Orwellian West, the latest rewriting of history leaves out
of the story the Red Army's destruction of the Wehrmacht."
The head of the presidential administration, Sergey Ivanov, told RT earlier this month that attempts to diminish the role played
by Russia in defeating Nazi Germany through rewriting history by some Western countries are part of the ongoing campaign to isolate
and alienate Russia.
Dr Roberts has also stated in his column that while the US president only mentioned US forces in his remarks on the 70th anniversary
of the victory, President Putin in contrast "expressed gratitude to 'the peoples of Great Britain, France and the United States
of America for their contribution to the victory.'"
The political analyst notes that America along with its allies "do not hear when Russia says 'don't push us this hard, we
are not your enemy. We want to be your partners.'"
While Moscow and Beijing have "finally realized that their choice is vassalage or war," Washington "made the mistake
that could be fateful for humanity," according to Dr Roberts.
"... "confronted with the Pivot to Asia and the construction of new US naval and air bases to ensure Washington's control of the South China Sea, now defined as an area of American National Interests." ..."
"... "for the crisis that Washington has created in Ukraine and for its use as anti-Russian propaganda." ..."
"... "How America Was Lost" ..."
"... "aggression and blatant propaganda have convinced Russia and China that Washington intends war, and this realization has drawn the two countries into a strategic alliance." ..."
"... "vassalage status accepted by the UK, Germany, France and the rest of Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia." ..."
"... "price of world peace is the world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony." ..."
"... "On the foreign policy front, the hubris and arrogance of America's self-image as the 'exceptional, indispensable' country with hegemonic rights over other countries means that the world is primed for war," ..."
"... "unless the dollar and with it US power collapses or Europe finds the courage to break with Washington and to pursue an independent foreign policy, saying good-bye to NATO, nuclear war is our likely future." ..."
"... "historical turning point," ..."
"... "the Chinese were there in their place," ..."
"... "Russian casualties compared to the combined casualties of the US, UK, and France make it completely clear that it was Russia that defeated Hitler," ..."
"... "in the Orwellian West, the latest rewriting of history leaves out of the story the Red Army's destruction of the Wehrmacht." ..."
"... "expressed gratitude to 'the peoples of Great Britain, France and the United States of America for their contribution to the victory.'" ..."
"... "do not hear when Russia says 'don't push us this hard, we are not your enemy. We want to be your partners.'" ..."
"... "finally realized that their choice is vassalage or war," ..."
"... "made the mistake that could be fateful for humanity," ..."
The White House is determined to block the rise of the key nuclear-armed nations, Russia and China, neither of whom will join the
"world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony," says head of the Institute for Political Economy, Paul Craig Roberts.
The former
US assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy, Dr Paul Craig Roberts, has written on his
blog
that Beijing is currently "confronted with the Pivot to Asia and the construction of new US naval and air bases to ensure Washington's
control of the South China Sea, now defined as an area of American National Interests."
Roberts writes that Washington's commitment to contain Russia is the reason "for the crisis that Washington has created in
Ukraine and for its use as anti-Russian propaganda."
The author of several books, "How America Was Lost" among the latest titles, says that US "aggression and blatant
propaganda have convinced Russia and China that Washington intends war, and this realization has drawn the two countries into a strategic
alliance."
Dr Roberts believes that neither Russia, nor China will meanwhile accept the so-called "vassalage status accepted by the UK,
Germany, France and the rest of Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia." According to the political analyst, the "price of
world peace is the world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony."
"On the foreign policy front, the hubris and arrogance of America's self-image as the 'exceptional, indispensable' country
with hegemonic rights over other countries means that the world is primed for war," Roberts writes.
He gives a gloomy political forecast in his column saying that "unless the dollar and with it US power collapses or Europe
finds the courage to break with Washington and to pursue an independent foreign policy, saying good-bye to NATO, nuclear war is our
likely future."
Russia's far-reaching May 9 Victory Day celebration was meanwhile a "historical turning point," according to Roberts
who says that while Western politicians chose to boycott the 70th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, "the Chinese were
there in their place," China's president sitting next to President Putin during the military parade on Red Square in Moscow.
A recent poll targeting over 3,000 people in France, Germany and the UK has recently revealed that as little as 13 percent of
Europeans think the Soviet Army played the leading role in liberating Europe from Nazism during WW2. The majority of respondents
– 43 percent – said the US Army played the main role in liberating Europe.
"Russian casualties compared to the combined casualties of the US, UK, and France make it completely clear that it was Russia
that defeated Hitler," Roberts points out, adding that "in the Orwellian West, the latest rewriting of history leaves out
of the story the Red Army's destruction of the Wehrmacht."
The head of the presidential administration, Sergey Ivanov, told RT earlier this month that attempts to diminish the role played
by Russia in defeating Nazi Germany through rewriting history by some Western countries are part of the ongoing campaign to isolate
and alienate Russia.
Dr Roberts has also stated in his column that while the US president only mentioned US forces in his remarks on the 70th anniversary
of the victory, President Putin in contrast "expressed gratitude to 'the peoples of Great Britain, France and the United States
of America for their contribution to the victory.'"
The political analyst notes that America along with its allies "do not hear when Russia says 'don't push us this hard, we
are not your enemy. We want to be your partners.'"
While Moscow and Beijing have "finally realized that their choice is vassalage or war," Washington "made the mistake
that could be fateful for humanity," according to Dr Roberts.
"... " It is clear a significant number of former Baathist officers have formed the professional core of Daesh [IS] in Syria and Iraq and have given that organization the military capability it has shown in conducting its operations. " ..."
"... A March 2007 JIC report warned Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which it terms AQ-I, had " no shortage of suicide bombers. AQ-I is seeking high-profile attacks. We judge AQ-I will try to expand its sectarian campaign wherever it can: suicide bombings in Kirkuk have risen sharply since October when AQ-I declared the establishment of the notional 'Islamic State of Iraq' (including Kirkuk). " ..."
"... " They claimed that the label 'jihadist' is becoming increasingly difficult to define: in many cases distinctions between nationalists and jihadists are blurred. They increasingly share common cause being drawn together in the face of Shia sectarian violence. " ..."
Intelligence reports examined and now released by the Chilcot inquiry appear to confirm Islamic State
(IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) was created by the Iraq war, a view now apparently backed by Britain's Tory
Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond. The reports from the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), which
were previously classified, tell the story of the security services' increasing concern that the
war and occupation was fuelling ever more extremism in Iraq.
The evidence also appears to debunk repeated claims by former PM Tony Blair that IS began in the
Syrian civil war and not Iraq, positioning the brutal group's rise clearly within Iraq's borders.
The Chilcot findings were backed up Thursday by serving Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond. He
told The Foreign Affairs Committee " many of the problems we see in Iraq today stem from that
disastrous decision to dismantle the Iraqi army and embark on a program of de-Baathification
."
" That was the big mistake of post-conflict planning. If we had gone a different way afterwards
we might have been able to see a different outcome, " he said.
Hammond conceded that many members of Saddam's armed forces today filled top roles in IS.
" It is clear a significant number of former Baathist officers have formed the professional
core of Daesh [IS] in Syria and Iraq and have given that organization the military capability it
has shown in conducting its operations. "
The documents show that by 2006 – three years into the occupation – UK intelligence chiefs were
increasingly concerned about the rise of Sunni jihadist resistance to the Western-backed regime of
Shia President Nouri Al-Maliki.
A March 2007 JIC report warned Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which it terms AQ-I, had " no shortage of
suicide bombers. AQ-I is seeking high-profile attacks. We judge AQ-I will try to expand its sectarian
campaign wherever it can: suicide bombings in Kirkuk have risen sharply since October when AQ-I declared
the establishment of the notional 'Islamic State of Iraq' (including Kirkuk). "
Many leading Al-Qaeda figures had been pro-regime Baathists and members of the former Iraqi Army
disbanded by the occupation. They are broadly accepted to have later formed the basis for IS.
The report describes AQ-I as being " in the vanguard. "
" Its strategic main effort is the prosecution of a sectarian campaign designed to drag Iraq
into civil war " at the head of a number of other Sunni militia groups.
" We judge its campaign has been the most effective of any insurgent group, having significant
impact in the past year, and poses the greatest immediate threat to stability in Iraq. The tempo
of mass-casualty attacks on predominantly Shia targets has been relentless, " the spies argue.
Chillingly, an earlier report from 2006 appears to echo some of the realizations made late in
the Vietnam War that there were also strong elements of nationalism driving the insurgency.
" They claimed that the label 'jihadist' is becoming increasingly difficult to define: in
many cases distinctions between nationalists and jihadists are blurred. They increasingly share common
cause being drawn together in the face of Shia sectarian violence. "
The reports appear to suggest that the conditions also somewhat echo the Afghanistan war, which
by that time was already underway, in that the anti-coalition forces displayed a mix of ideological
and economic drivers to resist the occupation.
" Their motivation is mixed: some are Islamist extremists inspired by the AQ agenda, others
are simply hired hands attracted by the money, " the spies warn.
The religious sectarianism involved, however, was distinctly Iraqi and reflected the power battle
between the deposed Sunni forces and the US-installed Shia regime which replaced it.
They also appeared to believe that AQ-I was composed of local and not, as was claimed at the time,
foreign fighters.
" We judge Al-Qaida in Iraq is the largest single insurgent network and although its leadership
retains a strong foreign element, a large majority of its fighters are Iraqi.
" Some are drawn in by the opportunity to take on Shia militias: the jihadists' media effort
stresses their role as defenders of the Sunni ," the report concludes.
Prophetically, even before IS began to germinate in Iraq, one now-declassified Foreign Office
memo from January 2003 warned "all the evidence from the region suggests that coalition forces
will not be seen as liberators for long, if at all. Our motives are regarded with huge suspicion.
"
AHHA -> Blue Car 7 Jul
No there was a documentary on the rise of IS months ago on Dutch television coming to the same
conclusion. Kicking all Baath party members (all Sunni people) out of the army, leaving only Shiite
in created IS. Baath militairy specialists did it out of revenge. One former high Baath militairy
officer even went up to the room of the American leadership on Irak to tell him that if they would
kick Baath people out he would have no other option than to start fighting America. Because what
would all those people have to live of. And they did not just kick them out of the army but out
of all government posts. But the Americans and making one group less equal to another by treating
them different, does that ring any bells. ?
AHHA -> Blue Car 8 Jul
It was not Fox, I loath them. It was a well built Dutch documentary not praising the Americans
for a change but being real True, together with Bush and the rest of their accomplices, of the
most horrific mass killings based on lies (more than a million innocent people have perished because
of their deceitful actions)! We should all demand Justice for the sake of humanity, and also because
it is the only way to deter feature self-righteous leaders like them from leading our world to
more blood sheds and catastrophic destructions! No one should be above the law!
Blue Scissors -> Red Snow 7 Jul
No, Bush and Cheney are the biggest terrorist. Blair just followed behind them, like a sheep.
Linx 7 Jul
Its clear that the U.S. government was the instigator of the war in Iraq based on 911and WMD.
Blair in his ambition to reached the top lied to his parliament because there is noway they did
not have the intelligence there not WMDs. In a stunning but little-known speech from 2007, Gen.
Wesley Clark claims America underwent a "policy coup" at the time of the 9/11 attacks. In this
video, he reveals that, right after 9/11, he was privy to information contained in a classified
memo: US plans to attack and remove governments in seven countries over five years: Iraq, Syria,
Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. He was told: "We learned that we can use our military
without being challenged . We've got about five years to clean up the Soviet client regimes before
another superpower comes along and challenges us." "This was a policy coup these people took control
of policy in the United States. The interview is still available in the internet.
Orange Tag 7 Jul
What I want to be informed about is the ICC court date set for Bush, Blair, Cheney, Rumsfeld and
the generals ordering the killings of innocent people in Iraq. It's time for the west to wake
up and provide all and every help that Syrian legitimate government needs, and for west to stop
the support of Saudis, Qatari and others alike regimes whom are the providers and are state sponsors
of terrorism as Isis and others a like called " "moderates terrorist". Look you fly the Emirates
you pay for the costs of their terrorism in Middle East.
keghamminas 7 Jul Edited
Very true about the blind destructive policy of the US-Nato that should have attacked Saudi Arabia
instead of Iraq .The same faults are committed now against Syria and it's legal government ; the
total destruction of this country will lead to more anarchy and new terrorist movements as what's
happenning in Iraq. All the puppets ,like the UK are guilty by their criminal participation.
Malcolm stark 7 Jul
Yet another problem caused by Washington and Co and yet their are still people even here who say
Russia, Russia, Russia. And will make excuses for the problems caused without blaming their own
government.
CyanDog 7 Jul
Sexton: What a surprise. An investigation designed to whitewash the criminal activities of our
beloved Western leaders turned out to be eminently successful. A playful slap on the wrist for
Mr Blair, but basically the Western criminals made to look like good guys although a few unintentional
mistakes were made. From now on the West can continue business as usual. I wonder which countries
the West has currently set its future sights on? I would suggest that Iran, Russia and China should
keep their powder dry. The Westerners are playing for keeps, and they do not care who gets hurt
on either side.
"... RBC Capital Markets' Global Head of Commodity Strategy Helima Croft outlined three potential scenarios for WTI crude on CNBC's "Fast Money" for the new year. The most bullish situation would be seeing more than a million barrels of oil pulled off the market and prices averaging in the $60 dollar range. ..."
"... "If you are thinking about sort of about a mid-$30s average for WTI, low-$40s, I think that's a bearish scenario," said Croft, who's also a CNBC contributor. ..."
"... "Our base case is this sort of middle range... $52 is our WTI call for next year," she said, implying that U.S. crude would be nearly one-third higher than its current trading levels. The fourth quarter "is really where you want to be looking for WTI to sort of take-off," she added. ..."
RBC Capital Markets' Global Head of Commodity Strategy Helima Croft outlined three potential
scenarios for WTI crude on CNBC's "Fast Money" for the new year. The most bullish situation would
be seeing more than a million barrels of oil pulled off the market and prices averaging in the
$60 dollar range.
The worst case scenario involves a tsunami of new production from OPEC, Saudi Arabia, Iran and
Libya hitting the market -- all but certain to drive prices even lower. On Thursday, the final day
of trading before the Christmas holiday, Brent and U.S. crude closed up by more than a percent,
but still well under $40 per barrel.
"If you are thinking about sort of about a mid-$30s average for WTI, low-$40s, I think that's
a bearish scenario," said Croft, who's also a CNBC contributor.
... ... ....
"Our base case is this sort of middle range... $52 is our WTI call for next year," she
said, implying that U.S. crude would be nearly one-third higher than its current trading levels.
The fourth quarter "is really where you want to be looking for WTI to sort of take-off," she
added.
Unfortunatly, under neoliberalism it's not people who vote. It's only large corporations which use
two party system to put forward two canditates that will follow thier agenda. quote "Unfortunately
the US propaganda system is now so entrenched and so heavily financed by the financial elites that such
campaigns as that by Sanders, admirable as it is, have no chance of changing the US system. The only
thing that will is violent revolution and that is highly unlikely given the monopoly of legitimate force
commanded by those elites."
Notable quotes:
"... Bernie Sanders is the first candidate since Carter to actually project a sense of positive values and integrity. ..."
"... Sheepdogs are herders, and the sheepdog candidate is charged with herding activists and voters back into the Democratic fold who might otherwise drift leftward and outside of the Democratic party, either staying home or trying to build something outside the two party box. ..."
"... The function of the sheepdog candidate is to give left activists and voters a reason, however illusory, to believe there's a place of influence for them inside the Democratic party,... ..."
This is a good man. He is Independent, running as a Democrat as 3rd party candidates are doomed
from the start. He is elderly, so choosing his running mate will be extremely important in terms
of his electibility. Elizabeth Warren? If she won't run for President, maybe this is the ticket?
So far this is the ONLY candidate whose desire for "change" matches what folks want. The other
potential candidates are known sleight of hand change artists. And I use the word "artist" in
the way one might describe someone who draws stick figures. Badly.
lutesongs
Bernie Sanders is the first candidate since Carter to actually project a sense of positive values
and integrity. He is the frontrunner for most Americans who care about fairness and a sustainable
future. Don't allow the corporate media to marginalize him by innuendo or non-coverage. Don't
allow the Democratic Party to turn a blind eye to the issues. Don't allow the Repubs to steal
another election through blatant electronic voter fraud, hacking the voting machines and gaming
the results. Start a campaign for voters to photograph their results and compile independent vote
counts. An honest election would likely favor a populist with integrity. Bernie Sanders is the
one.
BabyLyon
The country is ruled by greedy corporation, all governmental authorities are corrupted to the
limit, unstoppable wars and overall torpidity and all these candidates are able to offer is doubtful
solutions for two-or three "serious" problems. Either they're blind or just fool American people.
PhilippeOrlando
This population is too stupid to elect a guy like Sanders. With a median household income of 50K/year
it will vote, one more time, for people who don't represent it. The only two running candidates
who represents 99% of the population are Sanders and Stein, the Green candidate. All others will
cater first to the wealthy. Clinton will be chosen over Sanders because for some weird reason
'mericans vote for the guy they think will fight for who they think they'll be one day, not for
whom they are now. I think it's about time to stop feeling sorry for most Americans, half of them
won't bother to go vote anyway, and a huge majority will keep voting for the wrong guys.
Justin Weaver -> PhilippeOrlando
I totally get you, but I think that a lot of Americans truly believe that they ARE prosperous
even if they have minimal savings, no job security, and are only one medical disaster away from
bankruptcy. Many American's have really bought the American dream narrative even if they have
little chance of achieving it.
patimac54
Bernie's brother Larry, long time UK resident, stood for the Green Party in my constituency in
the recent elections. He has spent his adult life working for others, particularly carers, and
is a man of great integrity and intelligence. Of course he didn't win but was by far the most
impressive candidate at the local hustings, and thereby exposed the audience to a viewpoint most
will not have experienced previously.
If Bernie is half the man his brother is, US voters have a fine candidate, and similarly he may
open up the electorate's eyes to the idea that it is possible to believe in something better.
amorezu
A man that openly calls himself a 'democratic socialist' will never win in the USA. People here
have an allergy to the word 'socialism'. Unfortunately that allergy is causing them to be OK with
living in a de-facto oligarchy.
Observer453
Something I love about Bernie Sanders is that he is straight forward, honest in his views and
cannot be bought. I imagine he's something of a mystery to the many 'politicians', as Barack Obama
recently described himself.
Someone that actually thinks about what is best for the people, not for himself. Bernie calls
himself a Socialist, if that is what Socialism means - and caring for the environment - sign me
up.
jdanforth
Part of an analysis of the Sanders campaign, written three weeks ago by Bruce A. Dixon:
Bernie Sanders is this election's Democratic sheepdog. The sheepdog is a card the Democratic
party plays every presidential primary season when there's no White House Democrat running
for re-election. The sheepdog is a presidential candidate running ostensibly to the left of
the establishment Democrat to whom the billionaires will award the nomination. Sheepdogs
are herders, and the sheepdog candidate is charged with herding activists and voters back into
the Democratic fold who might otherwise drift leftward and outside of the Democratic party,
either staying home or trying to build something outside the two party box.
1984 and 88 the sheepdog candidate was Jesse Jackson. In 92 it was California governor Jerry
Brown. In 2000 and 2004 the designated sheepdog was Al Sharpton, and in 2008 it was Dennis
Kucinich. This year it's Vermont senator Bernie Sanders. The function of the sheepdog candidate
is to give left activists and voters a reason, however illusory, to believe there's a place
of influence for them inside the Democratic party,...
Doro Wynant jdanforth
Except:
1. Not one of the candidates cited had the legislative background that Sanders has -- not the
duration in office, not the proven appeal to a diverse constituency, not the proven ability to
work respectfully with unlike-minded peers.
2. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson clearly never had a chance; they're not at all in the same
category.
3. Poverty is at a 50-year high in the US, and many once-middle-class, educated, professional
persons (myself included) are -- thanks to the recession -- part of the nouveau poor. Even the
formerly-non-activist-types are angry, and they're paying attention to his talk of income inequality
-- and Sanders has more credibility as a potential reformer than does wealthy insider HRC.
4. What Dixon condescendingly refers to as "left activists and voters [who have no influence
in the party]" are in fact people with mainstream ideas about building and maintaining a stable
society. The right, having skewed the debate over the past 25 years, luvvvvvs to pretend that
these centrist, humane ideas are wacky and way-out when in fact they're, well, mainstream ideas.
Who among us doesn't want a safe, clean world in which to live, love, work, raise our families?
Not only is that not a wacky idea, it's a very -- GASP -- Christian idea/ideal!
Jon Phillips
If you vote for Hillary you are accepting that America is now an oligarchy. How else can you
explain the amount of time the Bush & Clinton families have occupied the White House?
300 million Americans and 2 families have occupied the White House for 20 of the last 28 years........
RickyRat
This business comes down to just two choices: You can vote for Pennywise the Clown in either
his Republican or her Democratic persona, along with the creature's Robber Baron backers, or you
can vote for Sanders. You could cast a protest vote somewhere else, but doing that will just further
the cause of the Robber Barons. Let's take back the wheel of the American political process!
Bertmax RickyRat
That is a fallacy called "false equivalency". It is wrong to say that both parties are to blame.
Sure, both have their share of corruption, but at least the Democrats are pushing legislation
that actually benefits the 90%. I am a member of neither party, since I don't believe in supporting
only a narrow set of ideals one way or the other, but the GOP are the true scourge of my country.
People like Sanders and Warren actually care about this country.
A recent poll had Bernie "lagged behind the favorite by a margin of 63% to 13%" Is that among
the fake people "Hillary Who" has supporting her?
He's probably doing much better among real people.
RickyRat Chris Plante
There is a machine out there, running full blast. Sanders is the wrench the machine's owners fear.
Jeannie Parker
I take offense at the suggestion he's from far left field. It's absurd to say in the least. He's
been drafted by us. He's running for us. All of us. I admin on few Bernie Sanders' pages on FB
and I can tell you with all certainty that the folks getting behind this man and his campaign
are coming from across the political spectrum.
The beauty of it is, he has a thirty some odd years long record that cannot be altered.
This man has and always will work for the interests of everyone.
No one can listen to him and his policy positions and not get behind him.
Bernie Sanders is coming and a revolution is coming with him.
No amount of money can sway us or turn us from our goal of seeing this fine gentleman ascend to
the highest office of our Land. Cheers.
An interesting warning about possible return of neocons in Hillary administration. Looks like not
much changed in Washington from 2005 and Obama more and more looks like Bush III. Both Hillary and Trump
are jingoistic toward Iran. Paradoxically Trump is even more jingoistic then Hillary.
Notable quotes:
"... That no one yet claims actually exists, has begun. Once again we seem to be heading down a highway marked "counterproliferation war." What makes this bizarre is that the Middle East today, for all its catastrophic problems, is actually a nuclear-free zone except for one country, Israel, which has a staggeringly outsized, semi-secret nuclear arsenal. ..."
"... And not much has changed since. I recommend as well a piece written even earlier by Ira Chernus on a graphic about the Israeli nuclear arsenal tucked away at the MSNBC website (and still viewable ). ..."
"... Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst and one of the founders of the group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, considers the Iranian and Israeli bombs, and Bush administration policy in relation to both below in a piece that, he writes, emerged from "an informal colloquium which has sprung up in the Washington, DC area involving people with experience at senior policy levels of government, others who examine foreign policy and defense issues primarily out of a faith perspective, and still others with a foot in each camp. We are trying to deal directly with the moral -- as well as the practical -- implications of various policy alternatives. One of our group recently was invited to talk with senior staffers in the House of Representatives about Iran, its nuclear plans, its support for terrorists, and U.S. military options. Toward the end of that conversation, a House staffer was emboldened to ask, 'What would be a moral solution?' This question gave new energy to our colloquium, generating a number of informal papers, including this one. I am grateful to my colloquium colleagues for their insights and suggestions." ..."
"... What about post-attack "Day Two?" Not to worry. Well-briefed pundits are telling us about a wellspring of Western-oriented I find myself thinking: Right; just like all those Iraqis who welcomed invading American and British troops with open arms and cut flowers. ..."
"... In 2001, the new President Bush brought the neocons back and put them in top policymaking positions. Even former Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams, convicted in October 1991 of lying to Congress and then pardoned by George H. W. Bush, was called back and put in charge of Middle East policy in the White House. In January, he was promoted to the influential post (once occupied by Robert Gates) of deputy assistant to the president for national security affairs. From that senior position Abrams will once again be dealing closely with John Negroponte, an old colleague from rogue-elephant Contra War days, who has now been picked to be the first director of national intelligence. ..."
"... Those of us who -- like Colin Powell -- had front-row seats during the 1980s are far too concerned to dismiss the re-emergence of the neocons as a simple case of déjà vu . They are much more dangerous now. Unlike in the eighties, they are the ones crafting the adventurous policies our sons and daughters are being called on to implement. ..."
"... So why would Iran think it has to acquire nuclear weapons? Sen. Richard Lugar, chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was asked this on a Sunday talk show a few months ago. Apparently having a senior moment, he failed to give the normal answer. Instead, he replied, "Well, you know, Israel has..." At that point, he caught himself and abruptly stopped. ..."
That no one yet claims actually exists, has begun. Once again we seem to be heading down a highway
marked "counterproliferation war." What makes this bizarre is that the Middle East today, for all
its catastrophic problems, is actually a nuclear-free zone except for one country, Israel, which
has a staggeringly outsized, semi-secret nuclear arsenal.
As Los Angeles Times reporter Douglas Frantz wrote at one point, "Though Israel is a democracy,
debating the nuclear program is taboo A military censor guards Israel's nuclear secrets." And this
"taboo" has largely extended to American reporting on the subject. Imagine, to offer a very partial
analogy, if we all had had to consider the Cold War nuclear issue with the Soviet, but almost never
the American nuclear arsenal, in the news. Of course, that would have been absurd and yet it's the
case in the Middle East today, making most strategic discussions of the region exercises in absurdity.
I wrote about this subject under the title,
Nuclear Israel
, back in October 2003, because of a brief break, thanks to Frantz, in the media blackout on the
subject. I began then, "Nuclear North Korea, nuclear Iraq, nuclear Iran - of these our media has
been full for the last year or more, though they either don't exist or hardly yet exist. North Korea
now probably has a couple of crude nuclear weapons, which it may still be incapable of delivering.
But nuclear Israel, little endangered Israel? It's hard even to get your head around the concept,
though that country has either the fifth or sixth largest nuclear arsenal in the world." And
not much has changed since. I recommend as well a piece written even earlier
by Ira Chernus on a
graphic about the Israeli nuclear arsenal tucked away at the MSNBC website (and
still viewable
).
Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst and one of the founders of the group, Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity, considers the Iranian and Israeli bombs, and Bush administration policy
in relation to both below in a piece that, he writes, emerged from "an informal colloquium which
has sprung up in the Washington, DC area involving people with experience at senior policy levels
of government, others who examine foreign policy and defense issues primarily out of a faith perspective,
and still others with a foot in each camp. We are trying to deal directly with the moral -- as well
as the practical -- implications of various policy alternatives. One of our group recently was invited
to talk with senior staffers in the House of Representatives about Iran, its nuclear plans, its support
for terrorists, and U.S. military options. Toward the end of that conversation, a House staffer was
emboldened to ask, 'What would be a moral solution?' This question gave new energy to our colloquium,
generating a number of informal papers, including this one. I am grateful to my colloquium colleagues
for their insights and suggestions." Now, read on. ~ Tom
Attacking Iran: I Know It Sounds Crazy, But...
By Ray McGovern
"'This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous.'
"(Short pause)
"'And having said that, all options are on the table.'
"Even the White House stenographers felt obliged to note the result: '(Laughter).'"
For a host of good reasons -- the huge and draining commitment of U.S. forces to Iraq and Iran's
ability to stir the Iraqi pot to boiling, for starters -- the notion that the Bush administration
would mount a "preemptive" air attack on Iran seems insane. And still more insane if the objective
includes overthrowing Iran's government again, as in 1953 -- this time under the rubric of "regime
change."
But Bush administration policy toward the Middle East is being run by men -- yes, only men
-- who were routinely referred to in high circles in Washington during the 1980s as "the crazies."
I can attest to that personally, but one need not take my word for it.
According to James Naughtie, author of The Accidental American: Tony Blair and the Presidency
, former Secretary of State Colin Powell added an old soldier's adjective to the "crazies"
sobriquet in referring to the same officials. Powell, who was military aide to Defense Secretary
Casper Weinberger in the early eighties, was overheard calling them "the f---ing crazies" during
a phone call with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw before the war in Iraq. At the time, Powell
was reportedly deeply concerned over their determination to attack -- with or without UN approval.
Small wonder that they got rid of Powell after the election, as soon as they had no more use for
him.
If further proof of insanity were needed, one could simply look at the unnecessary carnage
in Iraq since the invasion in March 2003. That unprovoked attack was, in my view, the most fateful
foreign policy blunder in our nation's history...so far.
It Can Get Worse
"The crazies" are not finished. And we do well not to let their ultimate folly obscure
their current ambition, and the further trouble that ambition is bound to bring in the four years
ahead. In an immediate sense, with U.S. military power unrivaled, they can be seen as "crazy like
a fox," with a value system in which "might makes right." Operating out of that value system,
and now sporting the more respectable misnomer/moniker "neoconservative," they are convinced that
they know exactly what they are doing. They have a clear ideology and a geopolitical strategy,
which leap from papers they put out at the
Project for the New American Century
over recent years.
The very same men who, acting out of that paradigm, brought us the war in Iraq are now focusing
on Iran, which they view as the only remaining obstacle to American domination of the entire oil-rich
Middle East. They calculate that, with a docile, corporate-owned press, a co-opted mainstream
church, and a still-trusting populace, the United States and/or the Israelis can launch a successful
air offensive to disrupt any Iranian nuclear weapons programs -- with the added bonus of possibly
causing the regime in power in Iran to crumble.
But why now? After all, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency has just told Congress
that Iran is not likely to have a nuclear weapon until "early in the next decade?" The answer,
according to some defense experts, is that several of the Iranian facilities are still under construction
and there is only a narrow "window of opportunity" to destroy them without causing huge environmental
problems. That window, they say, will begin to close this year.
Other analysts attribute the sense of urgency to worry in Washington that the Iranians may
have secretly gained access to technology that would facilitate a leap forward into the nuclear
club much sooner than now anticipated. And it is, of course, neoconservative doctrine that it
is best to nip -- the word in current fashion is "preempt" -- any conceivable threats in the bud.
One reason the Israelis are pressing hard for early action may simply be out of a desire to ensure
that George W. Bush will have a few more years as president after an attack on Iran, so that they
will have him to stand with Israel when bedlam breaks out in the Middle East.
What about post-attack "Day Two?" Not to worry. Well-briefed pundits are telling us about
a wellspring of Western-oriented I find myself thinking: Right; just like all those Iraqis who
welcomed invading American and British troops with open arms and cut flowers. For me, this
evokes a painful flashback to the early eighties when "intelligence," pointing to "moderates"
within the Iranian leadership, was conjured up to help justify the imaginative but illegal arms-for-hostages-and-proceeds-to-Nicaraguan-Contras
caper. The fact that the conjurer-in-chief of that spurious "evidence" on Iranian "moderates,"
former chief CIA analyst, later director Robert Gates, was recently offered the newly created
position of director of national intelligence makes the flashback more eerie -- and alarming.
George H. W. Bush Saw Through "The Crazies"
During his term in office, George H. W. Bush, with the practical advice of his national security
adviser Gen. Brent Scowcroft and Secretary of State James Baker, was able to keep "the crazies"
at arms length, preventing them from getting the country into serious trouble. They were kept
well below the level of "principal" -- that is, below the level of secretary of state or defense.
Even so, heady in the afterglow of victory in the Gulf War of 1990, "the crazies" stirred up
considerable controversy when they articulated their radical views. Their vision, for instance,
became the centerpiece of the draft "Defense Planning Guidance" that Paul Wolfowitz, de facto
dean of the neoconservatives, prepared in 1992 for then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney. It dismissed
deterrence as an outdated relic of the Cold War and argued that the United States must maintain
military strength beyond conceivable challenge -- and use it in preemptive ways in dealing with
those who might acquire "weapons of mass destruction." Sound familiar?
Aghast at this radical imperial strategy for the post-Cold War world, someone with access to
the draft leaked it to the New York Times , forcing President George H. W. Bush either
to endorse or disavow it. Disavow it he did -- and quickly, on the cooler-head recommendations
of Scowcroft and Baker, who proved themselves a bulwark against the hubris and megalomania of
"the crazies." Unfortunately, their vision did not die. No less unfortunately, there is method
to their madness -- even if it threatens to spell eventual disaster for our country. Empires always
overreach and fall.
The Return of the Neocons
In 2001, the new President Bush brought the neocons back and put them in top policymaking
positions. Even former Assistant Secretary of State Elliot Abrams, convicted in October 1991 of
lying to Congress and then pardoned by George H. W. Bush, was called back and put in charge of
Middle East policy in the White House. In January, he was promoted to the influential post (once
occupied by Robert Gates) of deputy assistant to the president for national security affairs.
From that senior position Abrams will once again be dealing closely with John Negroponte, an old
colleague from rogue-elephant Contra War days, who has now been picked to be the first director
of national intelligence.
Those of us who -- like Colin Powell -- had front-row seats during the 1980s are far too
concerned to dismiss the re-emergence of the neocons as a simple case of déjà vu . They
are much more dangerous now. Unlike in the eighties, they are the ones crafting the adventurous
policies our sons and daughters are being called on to implement.
Why dwell on this? Because it is second in importance only to the portentous reality that the
earth is running out of readily accessible oil – something of which they are all too aware. Not
surprisingly then, disguised beneath the weapons-of-mass-destruction smokescreen they laid down
as they prepared to invade Iraq lay an unspoken but bedrock reason for the war -- oil. In any
case, the neocons seem to believe that, in the wake of the November election, they now have a
carte-blanche "mandate." And with the president's new "capital to spend," they appear determined
to spend it, sooner rather than later.
Next Stop, Iran
When a Special Forces platoon leader just back from Iraq matter-of-factly tells a close friend
of mine, as happened last week, that he and his unit are now training their sights (literally)
on Iran, we need to take that seriously. It provides us with a glimpse of reality as seen at ground
level. For me, it brought to mind an unsolicited email I received from the father of a young soldier
training at Fort Benning in the spring of 2002, soon after I wrote an op-ed discussing the timing
of George W. Bush's decision to make war on Iraq. The father informed me that, during the spring
of 2002, his son kept writing home saying his unit was training to go into Iraq. No, said the
father; you mean Afghanistan... that's where the war is, not Iraq. In his next email, the son
said, "No, Dad, they keep saying Iraq. I asked them and that's what they mean."
Now, apparently, they keep saying Iran ; and that appears to be what they mean.
Anecdotal evidence like this is hardly conclusive. Put it together with administration rhetoric
and a preponderance of other "dots," though, and everything points in the direction of an air
attack on Iran, possibly also involving some ground forces. Indeed, from the
New Yorker reports
of Seymour Hersh to
Washington Post articles , accounts of small-scale American intrusions on the ground as well
as into Iranian airspace are appearing with increasing frequency. In a speech given on February
18, former UN arms inspector and Marine officer Scott Ritter (who was totally on target before
the Iraq War on that country's lack of weapons of mass destruction) claimed that the president
has already "signed off" on plans to bomb Iran in June in order to destroy its alleged nuclear
weapons program and eventually bring about "regime change." This does not necessarily mean an
automatic green light for a large attack in June, but it may signal the president's seriousness
about this option.
So, again, against the background of what we have witnessed over the past four years, and the
troubling fact that the circle of second-term presidential advisers has become even tighter, we
do well to inject a strong note of urgency into any discussion of the "Iranian option."
Why Would Iran Want Nukes?
So why would Iran think it has to acquire nuclear weapons? Sen. Richard Lugar, chair of
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was asked this on a Sunday talk show a few months ago.
Apparently having a senior moment, he failed to give the normal answer. Instead, he replied, "Well,
you know, Israel has..." At that point, he caught himself and abruptly stopped.
Recovering quickly and realizing that he could not just leave the word "Israel" hanging there,
Lugar began again: "Well, Israel is alleged to have a nuclear capability."
Is alleged to
have ? Lugar is chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and yet he doesn't know that
Israel has, by most estimates, a major nuclear arsenal, consisting of several hundred nuclear
weapons? (Mainstream newspapers are allergic to dwelling on this topic, but it is mentioned every
now and then, usually buried in obscurity on an inside page.)
Just imagine how the Iranians and Syrians would react to Lugar's disingenuousness. Small wonder
our highest officials and lawmakers -- and Lugar, remember, is one of the most decent among them
-- are widely seen abroad as hypocritical. Our media, of course, ignore the hypocrisy. This is
standard operating procedure when the word "Israel" is spoken in this or other unflattering contexts.
And the objections of those appealing for a more balanced approach are quashed.
If the truth be told, Iran fears Israel at least as much as Israel fears the internal security
threat posed by the thugs supported by Tehran. Iran's apprehension is partly fear that Israel
(with at least tacit support from the Bush administration) will send its aircraft to bomb Iranian
nuclear facilities, just as American-built Israeli bombers destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor
at Osirak in 1981. As part of the current war of nerves, recent statements by the president and
vice president can be
read as giving a green light to Israel to do just that; while Israeli Air Force commander Major
General Eliezer Shakedi told reporters on February 21 that Israel must be prepared for an air
strike on Iran "in light of its nuclear activity."
US-Israel Nexus
The Iranians also remember how Israel was able to acquire and keep its nuclear technology.
Much of it was stolen from the United States by spies for Israel. As early as the late-1950s,
Washington knew Israel was building the bomb and could have aborted the project. Instead, American
officials decided to turn a blind eye and let the Israelis go ahead. Now Israel's nuclear capability
is truly formidable. Still, it is a fact of strategic life that a formidable nuclear arsenal can
be deterred by a far more modest one, if an adversary has the means to deliver it. (Look at North
Korea's success with, at best, a few nuclear weapons and questionable means of delivery in deterring
the "sole remaining superpower in the world.") And Iran already has missiles with the range to
hit Israel.
Israeli Prime Minister Sharon has for some time appeared eager to enlist Washington's support
for an early "pre-emptive" strike on Iran. Indeed,
American
defense officials have told reporters that visiting Israeli officials have been pressing the
issue for the past year and a half. And the Israelis are now claiming publicly that Iran could
have a nuclear weapon within six months -- years earlier than the Defense Intelligence Agency
estimate mentioned above.
In the past, President Bush has chosen to dismiss unwelcome intelligence estimates as "guesses"
-- especially when they threatened to complicate decisions to implement the neoconservative agenda.
It is worth noting that several of the leading neocons – Richard Perle, chair of the Defense Policy
Board (2001-03); Douglas Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy; and David Wurmser, Middle
East adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney -- actually wrote policy papers for the Israeli government
during the 1990s. They have consistently had great difficulty distinguishing between the strategic
interests of Israel and those of the US -- at least as they imagine them.
As for President Bush, over the past four years he has amply demonstrated his preference for
the counsel of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon who,
as Gen. Scowcroft said publicly , has the president "wrapped around his little finger." (As
Chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board until he was unceremoniously removed
at the turn of the year, Scowcroft was in a position to know.) If Scowcroft is correct in also
saying that the president has been "mesmerized" by Sharon, it seems possible that the Israelis
already have successfully argued for an attack on Iran.
When "Regime Change" Meant Overthrow For Oil
To remember why the United States is no favorite in Tehran, one needs to go back at least to
1953 when the U.S. and Great Britain overthrew Iran's democratically elected Premier Mohammad
Mossadeq as part of a plan to insure access to Iranian oil. They then emplaced the young Shah
in power who, with his notorious secret police, proved second to none in cruelty. The Shah ruled
from 1953 to 1979. Much resentment can build up over a whole generation. His regime fell like
a house of cards, when supporters of Ayatollah Khomeini rose up to do some regime change of their
own.
Iranians also remember Washington's strong support for Saddam Hussein's Iraq after it decided
to make war on Iran in 1980. U.S. support for Iraq (which included crucial intelligence support
for the war and an implicit condoning of Saddam's use of chemical weapons) was perhaps the crucial
factor in staving off an Iranian victory. Imagine then, the threat Iranians see, should the Bush
administration succeed in establishing up to 14 permanent military bases in neighboring Iraq.
Any Iranian can look at a map of the Middle East (including occupied Iraq) and conclude that this
administration might indeed be willing to pay the necessary price in blood and treasure to influence
what happens to the black gold under Iranian as well as Iraqi sands. And with four more years
to play with, a lot can be done along those lines. The obvious question is: How to deter it? Well,
once again, Iran can hardly be blind to the fact that a small nation like North Korea has so far
deterred U.S. action by producing, or at least claiming to have produced, nuclear weapons.
Nuclear Is the Nub
The nuclear issue is indeed paramount, and we would do well to imagine and craft fresh approaches
to the nub of the problem. As a start, I'll bet if you made a survey, only 20% of Americans would
answer "yes" to the question, "Does Israel have nuclear weapons?" That is key, it seems to me,
because at their core Americans are still fair-minded people.
On the other hand, I'll bet that 95% of the Iranian population would answer, "Of course Israel
has nuclear weapons; that's why we Iranians need them" -- which was, of course, the unmentionable
calculation that Senator Lugar almost conceded. "And we also need them," many Iranians would probably
say, "in order to deter 'the crazies' in Washington. It seems to be working for the North Koreans,
who, after all, are the other remaining point on President Bush's 'axis of evil.'"
The ideal approach would, of course, be to destroy all nuclear weapons in the world
and ban them for the future, with a very intrusive global inspection regime to verify compliance.
A total ban is worth holding up as an ideal, and I think we must. But this approach seems unlikely
to bear fruit over the next four years. So what then?
A Nuclear-Free Middle East
How about a nuclear-free Middle East? Could the US make that happen? We could if we had moral
clarity -- the underpinning necessary to bring it about. Each time this proposal is raised, the
Syrians, for example, clap their hands in feigned joyful anticipation, saying, "Of course such
a pact would include Israel, right?" The issue is then dropped from all discussion by U.S. policymakers.
Required: not only moral clarity but also what Thomas Aquinas labeled the precondition for all
virtue, courage. In this context, courage would include a refusal to be intimidated by inevitable
charges of anti-Semitism.
The reality is that, except for Israel, the Middle East is nuclear free. But the discussion
cannot stop there. It is not difficult to understand why the first leaders of Israel, with the
Holocaust experience written indelibly on their hearts and minds, and feeling surrounded by perceived
threats to the fledgling state's existence, wanted the bomb. And so, before the Syrians or Iranians,
for example, get carried away with self-serving applause for the nuclear-free Middle East proposal,
they will have to understand that for any such negotiation to succeed it must have as a concomitant
aim the guarantee of an Israel able to live in peace and protect itself behind secure borders.
That guarantee has got to be part of the deal.
That the obstacles to any such agreement are formidable is no excuse not trying. But the approach
would have to be new and everything would have to be on the table. Persisting in a state of denial
about Israel's nuclear weapons is dangerously shortsighted; it does nothing but aggravate fears
among the Arabs and create further incentive for them to acquire nuclear weapons of their own.
A sensible approach would also have to include a willingness to engage the Iranians directly,
attempt to understand their perspective, and discern what the United States and Israel could do
to alleviate their concerns.
Preaching to Iran and others about not acquiring nuclear weapons is, indeed, like the village
drunk preaching sobriety -- the more so as our government keeps developing new genres of nuclear
weapons and keeps looking the other way as Israel enhances its own nuclear arsenal. Not a pretty
moral picture, that. Indeed, it reminds me of the Scripture passage about taking the plank out
of your own eye before insisting that the speck be removed from another's.
Lessons from the Past...Like Mutual Deterrence
Has everyone forgotten that deterrence worked for some 40 years, while for most of those years
the U.S. and the USSR had not by any means lost their lust for ever-enhanced nuclear weapons?
The point is simply that, while engaging the Iranians bilaterally and searching for more imaginative
nuclear-free proposals, the U.S. might adopt a more patient interim attitude regarding the striving
of other nation states to acquire nuclear weapons -- bearing in mind that the Bush administration's
policies of "preemption" and "regime change" themselves create powerful incentives for exactly
such striving. As was the case with Iraq two years ago, there is no imminent Iranian strategic
threat to Americans -- or, in reality, to anyone. Even if Iran acquired a nuclear capability,
there is no reason to believe that it would risk a suicidal first strike on Israel. That, after
all, is what mutual deterrence is all about; it works both ways.
It is nonetheless clear that the Israelis' sense of insecurity -- however exaggerated it may
seem to those of us thousands of miles away -- is not synthetic but real. The Sharon government
appears to regard its nuclear monopoly in the region as the only effective "deterrence insurance"
it can buy. It is determined to prevent its neighbors from acquiring the kind of capability that
could infringe on the freedom it now enjoys to carry out military and other actions in the area.
Government officials have said that Israel will not let Iran acquire a nuclear weapon; it would
be folly to dismiss this as bravado. The Israelis have laid down a marker and mean to follow through
-- unless the Bush administration assumes the attitude that "preemption" is an acceptable course
for the United States but not for Israel. It seems unlikely that the neoconservatives would take
that line. Rather
"Israel Is Our Ally."
Or so
said
our president before the cameras on February 17, 2005. But I didn't think we had a treaty
of alliance with Israel; I don't remember the Senate approving one. Did I miss something?
Clearly, the longstanding U.S.-Israeli friendship and the ideals we share dictate continuing
support for Israel's defense and security. It is quite another thing, though, to suggest the existence
of formal treaty obligations that our country does not have. To all intents and purposes, our
policymakers -- from the president on down -- seem to speak and behave on the assumption that
we do have such obligations toward Israel. A former colleague CIA analyst, Michael Scheuer, author
of Imperial Hubris , has put it this way: "The Israelis have succeeded in lacing tight
the ropes binding the American Gulliver to Israel and its policies."
An earlier American warned:
"A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for
the favorite nation facilitates the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where
no real common interest exists, infuses into one the enmities of the other, and betrays the
former into participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement
or justification.... It also gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens, who devote
themselves to the favorite nation, facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own
country." ( George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796 )
In my view, our first president's words apply only too aptly to this administration's lash-up
with the Sharon government. As responsible citizens we need to overcome our timidity about addressing
this issue, lest our fellow Americans continue to be denied important information neglected or
distorted in our domesticated media.
Ray McGovern served as a CIA analyst for 27 years -- from the administration of John
F. Kennedy to that of George H. W. Bush. During the early 1980s, he was one of the writers/editors
of the President's Daily Brief and briefed it one-on-one to the president's most senior advisers.
He also chaired National Intelligence Estimates. In January 2003, he and four former colleagues
founded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
"Obama has normalized the idea that presidents get to have secret large-scale killing programs
at their disposal."
Obama was at pains, in his first post-election statement, to dismiss the bitter vituperation
of the election campaign, declaring that the electoral struggle between the Democrats and Republicans
was merely "an intramural scrimmage." This is profoundly true: both parties represent the same
class, the American financial aristocracy, and its global interests, defended in the final
analysis by death and destruction inflicted by the American military machine.
... what you get for your dime is that, for instance, Trump huffs and he puffs before he blows
your door in, while with Obama and the TNC media, people can claim that they didn't know what
hit them.
I wonder how wsws.org missed the Pro-Porno-t(eam)'s 'initial set of sites that 'reliably echo
Russian propaganda'? Probably didn't want to draw attention to it.
"... You can see what I mean when you visit Fall River, an old mill town 50 miles south of Boston. Median household income in that city is $33,000, among the lowest in the state; unemployment is among the highest, 15% in March 2014, nearly five years after the recession ended. Twenty-three percent of Fall River's inhabitants live in poverty. The city lost its many fabric-making concerns decades ago and with them it lost its reason for being. People have been deserting the place for decades. ..."
"... Many of the empty factories in which their ancestors worked are still standing, however. Solid nineteenth-century structures of granite or brick, these huge boxes dominate the city visually - there always seems to be one or two of them in the vista, contrasting painfully with whatever colorful plastic fast-food joint has been slapped up next door. ..."
"... The effect of all this is to remind you with every prospect that this is a place and a way of life from which the politicians have withdrawn their blessing. Like so many other American scenes, this one is the product of decades of deindustrialization, engineered by Republicans and rationalized by Democrats. This is a place where affluence never returns - not because affluence for Fall River is impossible or unimaginable, but because our country's leaders have blandly accepted a social order that constantly bids down the wages of people like these while bidding up the rewards for innovators, creatives, and professionals. ..."
"... Boston boasts a full-blown Innovation District, a disused industrial neighborhood that has actually been zoned creative - a projection of the post-industrial blue-state ideal onto the urban grid itself. ..."
"... Innovation liberalism is "a liberalism of the rich," to use the straightforward phrase of local labor leader Harris Gruman. This doctrine has no patience with the idea that everyone should share in society's wealth. What Massachusetts liberals pine for, by and large, is a more perfect meritocracy - a system where the essential thing is to ensure that the truly talented get into the right schools and then get to rise through the ranks of society. Unfortunately, however, as the blue-state model makes painfully clear, there is no solidarity in a meritocracy. The ideology of educational achievement conveniently negates any esteem we might feel for the poorly graduated. ..."
"... GE will move 800 jobs to Mass.with a tax incentive of $145,000,000. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/14/technology/ge-boston-headquarters.html?_r=0 This comes to over $181,000 per job. ..."
"... Attributed to Marx that capitalists will sell communists the ropes with which to hang them but probably should be updated that Dems will hang the poor to make the capitalists richer . ..."
"... Two parties (many of whose members genuinely hate each other). One system. ..."
"... The Clinton Bush Establishment Party is just about dividing the spoils. They don't need 320 million people – it will work with 30 million or less ..."
"... They hate each other because they compete for the same corporate money. ..."
"... As soon as you bring the social issues into that group, the group will start to fracture, losing strength until it no longer has that majority. This is how the elite's divide-and-conquer strategy works. ..."
"... This is Nader's two headed snake. The parties can differentiate on God, guns and gays as long as they both agree to corporate control of the economy. This is the Clinton Third Way legacy that left the Democrats kowtowing to the corporate elites. Hillary continues this tradition. ..."
"... Education and healthcare as rights are "unrealistic" in the richest nation the world has ever seen for Hillary. Even while every other advanced nation on the planet provides for it. Why is it unrealistic? Maybe because it will cut into corporate profits. ..."
"... I heard a self-identified "blue-collar conservative" express it this way: "the republicans always talking about Jesus, but they never try to help the people our Lord cared about. People who are sick, in jail, whatever." ..."
"... Deindustrialization has been occurring in all advanced OECD nations for the last 40 years, including before and after trade liberalization, before NAFTA, the WTO, Most-Favored Nation Status for China, in countries with strong interventionist industrial policy, and even in countries with strong labor unions. ..."
"... Robert Putnam, Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis, writes that "Growing class segregation means that rich Americans and poor Americans are living, learning, and raising children in increasingly separate and unequal worlds, removing the stepping-stones to upward mobility." ..."
"... "Long ago it was said that "one half of the world does not know how the other half lives." That was true then. It did not know because it did not care. The half that was on top cared little for the struggles, and less for the fate of those who were underneath, so long as it was able to hold them there and keep its own seat. There came a time when the discomfort and consequent upheavals so violent, that it was no longer an easy thing to do, and then the upper half fell to inquiring what was the matter. Information on the subject has been accumulating rapidly since, and the whole world has had its hands full answering for its old ignorance." – Jacob A. Riis, How the Other Half Lives ..."
By Thomas Frank, author of the just-published
Listen,
Liberal, or What Ever Happened to the Party of the People? (Metropolitan Books) from which this
essay is adapted. He has also written Pity the Billionaire , The Wrecking Crew , and What's the Matter
With Kansas? among other works. He is the founding editor of The Baffler . Originally published at
TomDispatch
When you press Democrats on their uninspiring deeds - their lousy free trade deals, for example,
or their flaccid response to Wall Street misbehavior - when you press them on any of these things,
they automatically reply that this is the best anyone could have done. After all, they had to deal
with those awful Republicans, and those awful Republicans wouldn't let the really good stuff get
through. They filibustered in the Senate. They gerrymandered the congressional districts. And besides,
change takes a long time. Surely you don't think the tepid-to-lukewarm things Bill Clinton and Barack
Obama have done in Washington really represent the fiery Democratic soul.
So let's go to a place that does. Let's choose a locale where Democratic rule is virtually unopposed,
a place where Republican obstruction and sabotage can't taint the experiment.
Let's go to Boston, Massachusetts, the spiritual homeland of the professional class and a place
where the ideology of modern liberalism has been permitted to grow and flourish without challenge
or restraint. As the seat of American higher learning, it seems unsurprising that Boston should anchor
one of the most Democratic of states, a place where elected Republicans (like the new governor) are
highly unusual. This is the city that virtually invented the blue-state economic model, in which
prosperity arises from higher education and the knowledge-based industries that surround it.
The coming of post-industrial society has treated this most ancient of American cities extremely
well. Massachusetts routinely occupies the number one spot on the State New Economy Index, a measure
of how "knowledge-based, globalized, entrepreneurial, IT-driven, and innovation-based" a place happens
to be. Boston ranks high on many of Richard Florida's statistical indices of approbation - in 2003,
it was number one on the "creative class index," number three in innovation and in high tech - and
his many books marvel at the city's concentration of venture capital, its allure to young people,
or the time it enticed some firm away from some unenlightened locale in the hinterlands.
Boston's knowledge economy is the best, and it is the oldest. Boston's metro area encompasses
some 85 private colleges and universities, the greatest concentration of higher-ed institutions in
the country - probably in the world. The region has all the ancillary advantages to show for this:
a highly educated population, an unusually large number of patents, and more Nobel laureates than
any other city in the country.
The city's Route 128 corridor was the original model for a suburban tech district, lined ever
since it was built with defense contractors and computer manufacturers. The suburbs situated along
this golden thoroughfare are among the wealthiest municipalities in the nation, populated by engineers,
lawyers, and aerospace workers. Their public schools are excellent, their downtowns are cute, and
back in the seventies their socially enlightened residents were the prototype for the figure of the
"suburban liberal."
Another prototype: the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, situated in Cambridge, is where
our modern conception of the university as an incubator for business enterprises began. According
to a report on MIT's achievements in this category, the school's alumni have started nearly 26,000
companies over the years, including Intel, Hewlett Packard, and Qualcomm. If you were to take those
26,000 companies as a separate nation, the report tells us, its economy would be one of the most
productive in the world.
Then there are Boston's many biotech and pharmaceutical concerns, grouped together in what is
known as the "life sciences super cluster," which, properly understood, is part of an "ecosystem"
in which PhDs can "partner" with venture capitalists and in which big pharmaceutical firms can acquire
small ones. While other industries shrivel, the Boston super cluster grows, with the life-sciences
professionals of the world lighting out for the Athens of America and the massive new "innovation
centers" shoehorning themselves one after the other into the crowded academic suburb of Cambridge.
To think about it slightly more critically, Boston is the headquarters for two industries that
are steadily bankrupting middle America: big learning and big medicine, both of them imposing costs
that everyone else is basically required to pay and which increase at a far more rapid pace than
wages or inflation. A thousand dollars a pill, 30 grand a semester: the debts that are gradually
choking the life out of people where you live are what has made this city so very rich.
Perhaps it makes sense, then, that another category in which Massachusetts ranks highly
is inequality. Once the visitor leaves the brainy bustle of Boston, he discovers
that this state is filled with wreckage - with former manufacturing towns in which workers watch
their way of life draining away, and with cities that are little more than warehouses for people
on Medicare. According to one survey, Massachusetts has the eighth-worst rate of income inequality
among the states; by another metric it ranks fourth. However you choose to measure the diverging
fortunes of the country's top 10% and the rest, Massachusetts always seems to finish among the nation's
most unequal places.
Seething City on a Cliff
You can see what I mean when you visit Fall River, an old mill town 50 miles south of Boston.
Median household income in that city is $33,000, among the lowest in the state; unemployment is among
the highest, 15% in March 2014, nearly five years after the recession ended. Twenty-three percent
of Fall River's inhabitants live in poverty. The city lost its many fabric-making concerns decades
ago and with them it lost its reason for being. People have been deserting the place for decades.
Many of the empty factories in which their ancestors worked are still standing, however. Solid
nineteenth-century structures of granite or brick, these huge boxes dominate the city visually -
there always seems to be one or two of them in the vista, contrasting painfully with whatever colorful
plastic fast-food joint has been slapped up next door.
Most of the old factories are boarded up, unmistakable emblems of hopelessness right up to the
roof. But the ones that have been successfully repurposed are in some ways even worse, filled as
they often are with enterprises offering cheap suits or help with drug addiction. A clinic in the
hulk of one abandoned mill has a sign on the window reading simply "Cancer & Blood."
The effect of all this is to remind you with every prospect that this is a place and a way
of life from which the politicians have withdrawn their blessing. Like so many other American scenes,
this one is the product of decades of deindustrialization, engineered by Republicans and rationalized
by Democrats. This is a place where affluence never returns - not because affluence for Fall River
is impossible or unimaginable, but because our country's leaders have blandly accepted a social order
that constantly bids down the wages of people like these while bidding up the rewards for innovators,
creatives, and professionals.
Even the city's one real hope for new employment opportunities - an Amazon warehouse that
is now in the planning stages - will serve to lock in this relationship. If all goes according to
plan, and if Amazon sticks to the practices it has pioneered elsewhere, people from Fall River will
one day get to do exhausting work with few benefits while being electronically monitored for efficiency,
in order to save the affluent customers of nearby Boston a few pennies when they buy books or electronics.
But that is all in the future. These days, the local newspaper publishes an endless stream of
stories about drug arrests, shootings, drunk-driving crashes, the stupidity of local politicians,
and the lamentable surplus of "affordable housing." The town is up to its eyeballs in wrathful bitterness
against public workers. As in: Why do they deserve a decent life when the rest of us have no chance
at all? It's every man for himself here in a "competition for crumbs," as a Fall River friend puts
it.
The Great Entrepreneurial Awakening
If Fall River is pocked with empty mills, the streets of Boston are dotted with facilities intended
to make innovation and entrepreneurship easy and convenient. I was surprised to discover, during
the time I spent exploring the city's political landscape, that Boston boasts a full-blown Innovation
District, a disused industrial neighborhood that has actually been zoned creative - a projection
of the post-industrial blue-state ideal onto the urban grid itself. The heart of the neighborhood
is a building called "District Hall" - "Boston's New Home for Innovation" - which appeared to me
to be a glorified multipurpose room, enclosed in a sharply angular façade, and sharing a roof with
a restaurant that offers "inventive cuisine for innovative people." The Wi-Fi was free, the screens
on the walls displayed famous quotations about creativity, and the walls themselves were covered
with a high-gloss finish meant to be written on with dry-erase markers; but otherwise it was not
much different from an ordinary public library. Aside from not having anything to read, that is.
This was my introduction to the innovation infrastructure of the city, much of it built up by
entrepreneurs shrewdly angling to grab a piece of the entrepreneur craze. There are "co-working"
spaces, shared offices for startups that can't afford the real thing. There are startup "incubators"
and startup "accelerators," which aim to ease the innovator's eternal struggle with an uncaring public:
the Startup Institute, for example, and the famous MassChallenge, the "World's Largest Startup Accelerator,"
which runs an annual competition for new companies and hands out prizes at the end.
And then there are the innovation Democrats, led by former Governor Deval Patrick, who presided
over the Massachusetts government from 2007 to 2015. He is typical of liberal-class leaders; you
might even say he is their most successful exemplar. Everyone seems to like him, even his opponents.
He is a witty and affable public speaker as well as a man of competence, a highly educated technocrat
who is comfortable in corporate surroundings. Thanks to his upbringing in a Chicago housing project,
he also understands the plight of the poor, and (perhaps best of all) he is an honest politician
in a state accustomed to wide-open corruption. Patrick was also the first black governor of Massachusetts
and, in some ways, an ideal Democrat for the era of Barack Obama - who, as it happens, is one of
his closest political allies.
As governor, Patrick became a kind of missionary for the innovation cult. "The Massachusetts economy
is an innovation economy," he liked to declare, and he made similar comments countless times, slightly
varying the order of the optimistic keywords: "Innovation is a centerpiece of the Massachusetts economy,"
et cetera. The governor opened "innovation schools," a species of ramped-up charter school. He signed
the "Social Innovation Compact," which had something to do with meeting "the private sector's need
for skilled entry-level professional talent." In a 2009 speech called "The Innovation Economy," Patrick
elaborated the political theory of innovation in greater detail, telling an audience of corporate
types in Silicon Valley about Massachusetts's "high concentration of brainpower" and "world-class"
universities, and how "we in government are actively partnering with the private sector and the universities,
to strengthen our innovation industries."
What did all of this inno-talk mean? Much of the time, it was pure applesauce - standard-issue
platitudes to be rolled out every time some pharmaceutical company opened an office building somewhere
in the state.
On some occasions, Patrick's favorite buzzword came with a gigantic price tag, like the billion
dollars in subsidies and tax breaks that the governor authorized in 2008 to encourage pharmaceutical
and biotech companies to do business in Massachusetts. On still other occasions, favoring inno has
meant bulldozing the people in its path - for instance, the taxi drivers whose livelihoods are being
usurped by ridesharing apps like Uber. When these workers staged a variety of protests in the Boston
area, Patrick intervened decisively on the side of the distant software company. Apparently convenience
for the people who ride in taxis was more important than good pay for people who drive those taxis.
It probably didn't hurt that Uber had hired a former Patrick aide as a lobbyist, but the real point
was, of course, innovation: Uber was the future, the taxi drivers were the past, and the path for
Massachusetts was obvious.
A short while later, Patrick became something of an innovator himself. After his time as governor
came to an end last year, he won a job as a managing director of Bain Capital, the private equity
firm that was founded by his predecessor Mitt Romney - and that had been so powerfully denounced
by Democrats during the 2012 election. Patrick spoke about the job like it was just another startup:
"It was a happy and timely coincidence I was interested in building a business that Bain was also
interested in building," he told the Wall Street Journal . Romney reportedly phoned him with
congratulations.
Entrepreneurs First
At a 2014 celebration of Governor Patrick's innovation leadership, Google's Eric Schmidt announced
that "if you want to solve the economic problems of the U.S., create more entrepreneurs." That sort
of sums up the ideology in this corporate commonwealth: Entrepreneurs first. But how has such a doctrine
become holy writ in a party dedicated to the welfare of the common man? And how has all this come
to pass in the liberal state of Massachusetts?
The answer is that I've got the wrong liberalism. The kind of liberalism that has dominated Massachusetts
for the last few decades isn't the stuff of Franklin Roosevelt or the United Auto Workers; it's the
Route 128/suburban-professionals variety. (Senator Elizabeth Warren is the great exception to this
rule.) Professional-class liberals aren't really alarmed by oversized rewards for society's winners.
On the contrary, this seems natural to them - because they are society's winners. The liberalism
of professionals just does not extend to matters of inequality; this is the area where soft hearts
abruptly turn hard.
Innovation liberalism is "a liberalism of the rich," to use the straightforward phrase of
local labor leader Harris Gruman. This doctrine has no patience with the idea that everyone should
share in society's wealth. What Massachusetts liberals pine for, by and large, is a more perfect
meritocracy - a system where the essential thing is to ensure that the truly talented get into the
right schools and then get to rise through the ranks of society. Unfortunately, however, as the blue-state
model makes painfully clear, there is no solidarity in a meritocracy. The ideology of educational
achievement conveniently negates any esteem we might feel for the poorly graduated.
This is a curious phenomenon, is it not? A blue state where the Democrats maintain transparent
connections to high finance and big pharma; where they have deliberately chosen distant software
barons over working-class members of their own society; and where their chief economic proposals
have to do with promoting "innovation," a grand and promising idea that remains suspiciously vague.
Nor can these innovation Democrats claim that their hands were forced by Republicans. They came up
with this program all on their own.
When Massachusetts officials put on a luncheon feting General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt
last week, they were celebrating the company's decision to accept hundreds of millions of dollars
worth of taxpayer incentives and move to the state. At the same time, however, GE is not backing
off its refusal to fully remove the toxins it dumped in one of Massachusetts' largest waterways.
"What does GE's headquarters bring? There are the jobs, for sure. About 800 people work
at the Fairfield headquarters. Its new Boston office will include 200 corporate jobs and about
600 tech-oriented jobs: designers, programmers and the like."
"But GE is closing down a valve factory in Avon, eliminating roughly 300 local, largely
blue-collar jobs - and shifting the work that's done there to a new plant in Florida."
Sorry about multiple replies but decided to check out the valve plant move. GE got a $15,400,000
tax incentive from Florida and Jacksonville for making the move.
"I grew up in a family that struggled to get a job,"(Gov.)Scott said during his stop at
the JAX Chamber's office in downtown. "My parents struggled to get jobs. It's the most important
thing you can do for a family."
The race to the bottom is obvious. Middle class tax payers make up for tax losses due to these
incentives. Taking jobs away from middle class people in Massachusetts to give them to middle
class people in Florida just so a giant multinational can cut its tax load is nothing to be proud
of.
Thanks for the links Pookah, and of course, you bring up a great point – the lack of examination
of how much these jobs cost, and who the JOBS are FOR, and who is actually paying for them.
Attributed to Marx that capitalists will sell communists the ropes with which to hang them
but probably should be updated that Dems will hang the poor to make the capitalists richer .
I guess, the expression: "the D's are no better than the R's" can never be repeated enough.
And certainly the concrete evidence of Massachusetts, putting the lie to the nonsense of "the
Republicans made us do it" (sook-sook) is useful.
But, I feel sure, most NC readers are way beyond discussion of the character and differences
between the kabuki appearances of the one sorry, TWO institutional business parties.
I feel for people on the wrong side of our social issues, but the fact is that you're never
going to come up wit a governing majority unless you are talking about putting food on the dinner
table.
As soon as you bring the social issues into that group, the group will start to fracture,
losing strength until it no longer has that majority. This is how the elite's divide-and-conquer
strategy works.
This is Nader's two headed snake. The parties can differentiate on God, guns and gays as
long as they both agree to corporate control of the economy. This is the Clinton Third Way legacy
that left the Democrats kowtowing to the corporate elites. Hillary continues this tradition.
Education and healthcare as rights are "unrealistic" in the richest nation the world has
ever seen for Hillary. Even while every other advanced nation on the planet provides for it. Why
is it unrealistic? Maybe because it will cut into corporate profits.
"It shouldn't be an either/or proposition." Absolutely right! Yet I think many working class
people are beginning to realize how they have been played by identity politics.
I heard a self-identified "blue-collar conservative" express it this way: "the republicans
always talking about Jesus, but they never try to help the people our Lord cared about. People
who are sick, in jail, whatever."
Deindustrialization has been occurring in all advanced OECD nations for the last 40 years,
including before and after trade liberalization, before NAFTA, the WTO, Most-Favored Nation Status
for China, in countries with strong interventionist industrial policy, and even in countries with
strong labor unions.
De-industrialization, like De-agriculturalism that preceded it, in which 98% of the populace
moved from farming to factory jobs, seems to be a fundamental aspect of massive increases in productivity
, and advanced economies moving to services.
The forces that were responsible for this really can't be laid on the Democrats or Republicans,
since it's occurring everywhere at roughly the same rate. You can see a graph here:
http://s17.postimg.org/bha27d6xb/worldmfg.jpg
This can only get worse with the likes of self-driving cars and trucks, mobile e-commerce,
warehouse automation, AI based customer support, etc. Moving into the future, fewer people will
be needed to produce more with less, in addition to a demographic inversion from a low birth rate
producing countries where 30-40% of the population are 65 or older.
It's really time to stop playing with partisan politics and past models that imagine a return
to the Ozzie and Harriet days of large blue collar labor in manufacturing. Our populations are
getting older, and our technology is making work less relevant.
If anything, we should be looking at a move to universal living income model in which no one
needs to work to live, it becomes optional.
What you are describing is a non-authoritarian fulfillment of Marxist communism. Except unlike
Marx, you left out all the conflict that happens in a class society. Pray tell, you seem to be
expecting a classless society to appear out of the fulfillment of automation. Human beings aren't
classless creatures. We love division into classes, and the resulting conflict between them, if
we aren't loving ethnic, religious or national conflict.
What Disturbed Voter is trying to say, is that no major change ever goes unnopposed by those
who benefit from the existing system. Be prepared for the oligarchs and their quislings to fight
you tooth and nail. If you expect the Masters of the Universe who benefit from modern capitalism
to 'stop playing with partisan politics' then im afraid youre believing a fairy tale.
The assumption that increasing automation will continue in a world of diminishing natural and
energy resources is highly dubious. In societies which do not have privileged access to energy,
a lot of work is still performed with human muscle. If the energy resources the rich countries
rely upon become scarcer, the same is likely to be the case in what are now rich societies.
Agreed. That automation still requires energy – whether you want to account for the human (food,
shelter, etc.) or the machine (resources to produce the machine, resources to program the logic,
resources to power the computation, etc.) you can't escape the 2nd Law.
You are not correct that that US deindustrialization has been primarily a function of massive
increases in productivity. First of all, mfg productivity has decreased in the US since 2004.
(See recent Brookings paper). Second, the vast majority of the increase in overall mfg productivity
over recent decades is has been due to giant measured increases in one sector – computers – and
those giant measured increases (which are probably mismeasurements) have been accompanied by massive
offshoring of manufacturing jobs in this sector, not the elimination of work.
Also, deindustrialization is not like de-farming because farmers could move to higher productivity
work, where as laid off factory workers are having to move, when they can find work at all, from
high productivity work to low productivity work.
fewer people will be needed to produce more with less : this has been the case for the
last 100+ years at least yet has never led to the elimination of work. Indeed, average workdays
are longer now than they were 50 years ago and most families have more people working today than
families did 50 years ago.
Tony: Increasing automation will absolutely occur and increase, irrespective of current rates
of resource extraction from the ground. Here is why: as resource prices increase, capital will
begin to apply AI, etc. to the task of maximizing efficiency in recycling, etc – in order to continue
the march towards elimination of the variable price input they despise most (humans). As far as
energy goes, keep in mind that solar is rapidly increasing in efficiency too. Add to that, the
following: there are trillions of tons of scrap metal that, absent the need to pay humans to harvest
and handle them for recycling, can be reused to make more robots. If you are a 95% automated company,
you locate your factories in hellholes like Death Valley where solar is cheap. You make robots
whose task is to make more robots from scavenged metal, precious metals, rare-earths, etc.
The thing is, the holders of capital are now (or are all becoming) fundamentally sociopathic.
Ultimately, in order to stem the tide of automation (that, goshdarnit, they wish they wouldn't
have to resort to, but darn those pesky wages and benefits and so on), minimum wage laws will
be eliminated. I see this in comment sections all the time – if you allow people to compete on
price, the lowest will always win.
If, following a long period of rentier-extraction of all economic value (i.e. forced liquidiation
of any assets the workers hold, sales of personal belongings, you fill in the blanks), the final
answer is dystopian nightmare. Eventually, it will be accepted that people will be allowed to
indenture themselves again. Those agreements become currency – tradeable like bonds or other instruments.
Eventually, the rich, having used up everything else to buy/sell/crapify will resort to the outright
trading in human lives – it's easy to envision a world in which one obligates oneself at, say,
16, to 30 years of labor and your contract is then bought or sold by the rich depending on your
apparent worth.
All of this will be sanctioned and embraced by the collective sufferers of Stockholm Syndrome
that we are all becoming.
But why do those negotiating our trade deals do everything possible to protect agriculture
even though it employs few while telling us that manufacturing is gotta go because it's too productive?
Curious, other than things like Free Trade and voting rights for white men, what else does
it mean? Are there things Im forgetting? Because those are what come to mind.
What Thomas Frank writes is a measure of our civilization.
It is the best of times, it is the worst of times, it is the age of wisdom, it is the age of
foolishness, it is the epoch of belief, it is the epoch of incredulity, it is the season of light,
it is the season of darkness, it is the spring of hope, it is the winter of despair.
Everyone wants the American dream. But the dream isn't there anymore. Most fall more than they
climb.
Robert Putnam, Our Kids: The American Dream in Crisis, writes that "Growing class segregation
means that rich Americans and poor Americans are living, learning, and raising children in increasingly
separate and unequal worlds, removing the stepping-stones to upward mobility."
The politicians and the media tell us that we have to further tighten our belts and live on
hay, while the collapse of the middle class continues to accelerate, and promise us pie in the
sky. What a mockery!
The masses, having been deceived, are now agitated and in ferment.
"Long ago it was said that "one half of the world does not know how the other half lives."
That was true then. It did not know because it did not care. The half that was on top cared little
for the struggles, and less for the fate of those who were underneath, so long as it was able
to hold them there and keep its own seat. There came a time when the discomfort and consequent
upheavals so violent, that it was no longer an easy thing to do, and then the upper half fell
to inquiring what was the matter. Information on the subject has been accumulating rapidly since,
and the whole world has had its hands full answering for its old ignorance." – Jacob A. Riis,
How the Other Half Lives
Politicians ultimately serve their most important constituents, which across the country means
the wealthy. In traditional Democratic enclaves where getting out the vote meant giving out benefits
like housing and health care, the pressure from the masses is no longer there. Rather, whoever
raises the most money for campaign cash is able to win most elections. Scott Brown tapped into
the dissatisfied and down trodden of the state for his brief turn as our Republican representative
in the Senate, but he turned out to be nothing more than a barn jacket driving an F150. Moreover,
witness the massive rewards that are now possible for retired technocrats. Deval Patrick made
a fantastic wage as a lawyer prior to being governor and now waltzes into Bain Capital to continue
harvesting economic gains. Why would a politician do anything to bite the hand that feeds it?
Another fitting quote from "that" time:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding
it."
Upton Sinclair Jr.
The thing that gets lost in all of these discussions concerning inequality and the changing
nature of work and education is that all of these things are the result of policy changes.
Yes. We did it.
Willfully and purposefully.
And those who benefit the most and therefore are able to contribute the most to professional
associations and personal giving continue to demand that these policies not only continue on the
same track but that new wrinkles be added to aid the people giving the money to do even better
– whether it is regulatory, statute, or enforcement of existing laws; all of these can be enhanced
for the rich and successful.
At this point the working class person (whether by choice or necessity) has no champion. A
few years ago The Onion posted a faux news story detailing how the American People had hired lobbyists
to influence policy.
Like too much of the Onion's Stuff, the lampoon becomes the harpoon as it flies directly to
the heart of the matter.
Again what is missing is that these things are the result of policy not some organic sea-change
as the poster above delineates. (For the policies that are fomenting these changes are copied
around the world – "improved" – in come cases and sent back creating an endless loop of denigration
for working folks)
Who's this "we" you speak of, kemosabe? Those with the power to influence policy have designed
these outcomes. I have never been among them. Have you?
But you are correct in asserting that what we are seeing is the result purposeful action. The
policies are bad, but before we will be able to really change them, I think, we'll need to re-frame
the debate in such a way that every possible solution turns out to be a win for the elites. We
need to get back to basics. What is the economy for? Hint, not making money.
Are you an oligarch of some kind? If not, then saying that 'we did it' is wrong, because the
oligarchs bought all the politicians and had them enact these changes. To blame the electorate
when the majority of choices available to vote for were pre-selected to be answerable only to
the masters of capital seems to me to be disingenuous.
I'm glad Mr. Frank didn't mention "Boston Strong". There's a term that makes the hairs on the
back of my neck stand up. The Boston that was so strong that it was shut down and stilled for
a while by two brothers then one remaining brother, the teenager. A primer for how to apply Marshall
law to populous American cities during times of trouble. "Coming soon to a city near you", if
need be.
The attitudes were no different in Massachusetts fifty years ago, but you had to venture into
Southie or Roxbury or Fall River to see past the liberal rhetoric and observe the contempt the
gownies held for the townies. All that has changed is that now the manufacturing jobs are gone;
only the contempt remains.
Frank doesn't really mention though that de-industrialization in places like Fall River started
even before World War II. To be fair at this point it was textile mills and tanneries moving to
other places in the US with cheaper labor(i.e. the South). So Massachusetts historically was really
not hurt per say by free trade with other countries but free trade within the United States.
That's a reductionist argument, like saying that since you already had a cold the fact you've
now been diagnosed with cancer really isn't that big a deal. It's important to disaggregate different
trends and analyze their distinct contributions to changes in economic fortunes. Such an analysis
is likely to show that while the migration of some industries from the North to the South, largely
to exploit cheap labour, did have some non negligible regional impact the effect was completely
swamped by the subsequent shock of trade liberalization and globalization. The initial movement
involved labour intensive low skill light industries while the latter saw the decimation of the
heavy industries that were once the bedrock of the American economy. Moreover, fluctuations in
employment patterns within the US doesn't effect aggregate employment and output,
while the outsourcing of jobs overseas represents the dead loss of both, not to mention the negative
impact on the trade account of having to import all the things that were once produced domestically.
Thanks for your comparison article on MA, maybe you should look at Minnesota the only state
that has been mostly democrat for the longest period. Of course if you did you could not manage
your theme it just would not play-
The Nation has mostly the same excerpt of Frank's book and gives it a headline that is a
misdirect-"Why Have Democrats Failed in the State Where They're Most Likely to Succeed?" .The
Democrats didn't "fail", the leaders of the party were successful in their desired outcome.
In the UK we used to have three parties Labour, Conservative and Liberal. Now there is no room
between the slightly left and slightly right parties and the Liberals have been squeezed out of
existence.
Unfortunately the Neo-liberal ideology failed in 2008.
Everyone has now noticed the Neo-Liberal, Centrist main parties are not working in the interests
of the electorate.
Unconditional bailouts for bankers and austerity for the people.
How can there be any doubt?
New parties or leaders are required that aren't, Neo-Liberal centrists.
In Europe we have Podemos, Syriza and Five Star with a myriad of right wing parties including
Golden Dawn.
In the UK, UKIP and Corbyn.
In the US, Trump, Sanders and the Tea Party.
The elite haven't quite worked out how badly they have failed their electorate.
Get out of your ivory towers and discover the new reality.
It is important to establish the difference between Liberal and Labour/Socialist.
Where even the UK term Labour, and US term Socialist, are just versions of Capitalism that
lie on the Left, not true Socialism.
Liberals are left leaning elitists who are always using words like "populist" to show their
disdain for the masses.
They want those lower down to have reasonable lives but very much believe the elite should
run things, people like them.
New Labour were really Liberals, but the UK election system meant they had to hide under the
Labour banner to get into power. They lived in places like Hampstead where they never had to mix
with the hoi polloi and believed in private schools, so their children don't have to mix with
the great unwashed.
Labour/Socialists represent the people and identify with them.
With the technocrat elite messing things up globally it is time for real Labour and Socialists
to make their presence felt.
There is a world of difference between Liberals and the real Left and a three party system
makes sense.
The New Labour sympathisers need to get themselves under the correct banner, Liberal.
All those innovative new spin-off businesses will fail. Most of them. There are only so many
things an economy needs. A bubble of innovation isn't one of them. But it is good for the "consumer"
as Hillary tells us, because competition. Progress. So everyone can have more cheap crap. Who
says we have been deindustrialized? All this misbegotten innovation is going to bury us under
mountains of garbage. Just to keep the economy churning. We are not just wasting time and resources
for the sake of a bad idea, we are creating critical mass. It's almost as if policy makers think
that if we don't all run around in a frenzy of creativity the world will stop turning. Liberalism
is a silly, self indulgent thing.
I think you are largely right but let's give the devil his due: most of us would not like to
return to the world of 1760 before the first stuttering steps of industrial innovation. It was
a world even more unequal and authoritarian than our own. So when people talk about progress and
innovation, they have history and some powerful evidence from the past to call upon. The question
now is appropriateness, which I think is what you are driving at. We need to determine as a community
what is appropriate for our future well-being and how we want to use the technology we have, under
democratic control, to make a better future than the consumerist ecological disaster looming close
on our horizon.
"Innovation" is what limousine liberals propose to offer the masses in place of secure employment
and a decent standard of living. It's effectively old fashioned social Darwinism -innovate or
die- dressed up in fadish contemporary buisiness-speak that provides an ideological justification
for throwing the masses overboard while flattering their own prejudices about "meritocracy", "flexible
labour markets", and what have you.
As you said most of these businesses will fail, because the idea that innovation is an end
in itself is a conceit dreamed up by business school professors who have never spent a day running
the day to day operations (like meeting payroll) of an actual business. In reality innovation
is largely a serendipitous process that can't be taught in classrooms and is at best only slightly
responsive to external support ("incubation"). Very often it is largely dependent on dumb luck
– the proverbial being "in the right place at the right time". People like Deval Patrick are never
going to acknowledge that however because to do so would be to admit -first of all to themselves-
that having championed policies that stripped workers of security and a respectable livelihood
what they are offering them in its place amounts to a handful of beans.
For at least 30 years Democrats have run on a platform of 'Identity Politics' which pits gays
against straits, people of color against whites, skeptics against the religious, immigrants against
nativists, etc. In short, deviding the country against itself in almost every demographic category
except the one that really counts – labor against capital. The party once led by FDR who famously
welcomed the hatred and wrath of Wall Street is now led by the likes of Chuck Shumer and Steney
Hoyer who have their heads so far up the ass-end of Wall Street that it's amazing that either
one of them can still breathe.
$145M in tax breaks for 800 jobs that we stole from CT! Innovation!!!
I'm guessing employees aren't going to get paid the $181,250 a year that that comes out to?
Perhaps the state could have just hired 800 people and saved a bundle. But then we couldn't brag
about how we have so many world class businesses based right here!!!
"The city's education budget is $50 million short, despite a $13 million hike in school spending."
"Schools are facing the deficit due to rising costs and declining state and federal aid."
Oh right, that's where. Sometimes, it's like you can actually watch our wonderful leaders making
our society worse, more unequal right before your very eyes?!?!?!
I just got Thomas Frank's new book, and so far it seems to have gathered together in a coherent
narrative the journey of the leadership of the Democratic party to split off from the blue collar
workers who used to fill the factories. We no longer have the factories to occupy the time of
the least educated, and the dems have done precious little to confront this problem. I don't know
what else he has to say about his ideas towards the middle and end of his book, but I know the
real conclusion should be that the work week needs to continue to drop down another couple of
days. The level of automation and smart manufacturing design from the past 100 years has steady
improvements in productivity. The vast majority of our time is simply no longer required to sustain
the standard of living and increases in productivity. We may need to give over 3 Eight hour days
to work for the economy, the rest of the time should be left to own pursuit of happiness while
we live the short span allotted to us in the world.
The economic restructuring is a political decision making process that so far, no one party
as a whole has picked up as their primary unifying cause. While there are plenty of dems who have
a working class politics, they are in a minority within the dems.And while they understand the
value of supporting a tech based new economy, that doesn't mean we still don't needs tables and
chairs, refrigerators and stoves and other manufactured goods. It may mean we need fewer people
to make them, but the other alternatives for people without college or professional degrees needs
to be supported in numbers required to give everyone a decent paying job.
There is enough deferred maintenance of falling down buildings, homeless people that can be
housed in abandoned homes, potholes in roads, bad bridges, not to mention the enormous transition
to solar and wind power. The social order needs to change to allow people a quality standard of
living from our economic activity. And our economic activity can not just be based upon apps,
video games and 3-D printed birthday cakes. We still need to eat, so we did not abandon agriculture.
We still like to live in comfortable homes, so we do not have to abandon furniture making. And
we all benefit from being educated and healthy. All of our industrial base does not have to be
jettisoned for the sake of computers and the internet of everything. We still need something manufactured
if we are going to put the internet inside of it, whatever it maybe.
The best way to encourage innovation is to assure a strong safety net so that everyone can
innovate. The Scandinavian countries lead in measures of innovation (look it up). The US is also
a leader but only because of the large presence of government (read the book, "The Entrepreneurial
State).
Artisanal furniture, Artisanal coffee. Artisanal this and Artisanal that
but Artisanal Liberals, Artisanal Democrates, now that's where it's at!
~ a forgotten forklift driver who doesn't deserve a decent life because a decent life costs
more here than it does in Asia, with the difference going to those who don't need it for anything
more than cocktail party bragging rights
Why won't progressives reach out to the white working class in the US and the UK in election
after election?
Jeremy Corbyn has proposed a program of nationalization of the utilities, rail and postal systems
– backed by an astonishing 70% of the public – even 70% of UKIP voters. The new leader
of UKIP wants to privatize the NHS.
The left can win again – but will the lying slandering filth liberal media let them?
But those politicians lucky enough to win discover -- if they did not know already -- that their
capacity to affect even their own domestic environment is constrained by forces beyond their control.
Notable quotes:
"... But those politicians lucky enough to win discover -- if they did not know already -- that their capacity to affect even their own domestic environment is constrained by forces beyond their control. ..."
"... In the case of Britain, the once-powerful centralized governments of that country are now multiply constrained. As the power of Britain in international affairs has declined, so has the British government's power within its own domain. Membership of the European Union constrains British governments' ability to determine everything from the quantities of fish British fishermen can legally catch to the amount in fees that British universities can charge students from other EU countries. ..."
"... Not least, the EU's insistence on the free movement of labor caused the Conservative-dominated coalition that came to power in 2010 to renege on the Tories' spectacularly ill-judged pledge to reduce to "tens of thousands a year" the number of migrants coming to Britain. The number admitted in 2014 alone was nearer 300,000. ..."
"... On top of all that, British governments -- even more than those of some other predominantly capitalist economies -- are open to being buffeted by market forces, whose winds can acquire gale force. In a world of substantially free trade, imports and exports of goods and services are largely beyond any government's control, and the Bank of England's influence over the external value of sterling is negligible. During the present election campaign, HSBC, one of the world's largest banks, indicated that it was contemplating shifting its headquarters from the City of London to Hong Kong. For good or ill, Britain's government was, and is, effectively helpless to intervene. ..."
"... That's why we need a federal Europe. Local governments for local issues and elected by the local people and a European government for European issues elected by all Europeans. ..."
Once upon a time, national elections were -- or seemed to be -- overwhelmingly domestic affairs,
affecting only the peoples of the countries taking part in them. If that was ever true, it is so
no longer. Angela Merkel negotiates with Greece's government with Germany's voters looming in the
background. David Cameron currently fights an election campaign in the UK holding fast to the belief
that a false move on his part regarding Britain's relationship with the EU could cost his Conservative
Party seats, votes and possibly the entire election.
Britain provides a good illustration of a general proposition. It used to be claimed, plausibly,
that "all politics is local." In 2015, electoral politics may still be mostly local, but the post-electoral
business of government is anything but local. There is a misfit between the two. Voters are mainly
swayed by domestic issues. Vote-seeking politicians campaign accordingly. But those politicians
lucky enough to win discover -- if they did not know already -- that their capacity to affect even
their own domestic environment is constrained by forces beyond their control.
Anyone viewing the UK election campaign from afar could be forgiven for thinking that British
voters and politicians alike imagined they were living on some kind of self-sufficient sea-girt island.
The opinion polls indicate that a large majority of voters are preoccupied -- politically as well
as in other ways -- with their own financial situation, tax rates, welfare spending and the future
of the National Health Service. Immigration is an issue for many voters, but mostly in domestic terms
(and often as a surrogate for generalized discontent with Britain's political class). The fact that
migrants from Eastern Europe and elsewhere make a positive net contribution to both the UK's economy
and its social services scarcely features in the campaign.
... ... ...
After polling day, all that will change -- probably to millions of voters' dismay. One American
presidential candidate famously said that politicians campaign in poetry, but govern in prose. Politicians
in democracies, not just in Britain, campaign as though they can move mountains, then find that most
mountains are hard or impossible to move.
In the case of Britain, the once-powerful centralized governments of that country are now
multiply constrained. As the power of Britain in international affairs has declined, so has the British
government's power within its own domain. Membership of the European Union constrains British governments'
ability to determine everything from the quantities of fish British fishermen can legally catch to
the amount in fees that British universities can charge students from other EU countries.
Not least, the EU's insistence on the free movement of labor caused the Conservative-dominated
coalition that came to power in 2010 to renege on the Tories' spectacularly ill-judged pledge to
reduce to "tens of thousands a year" the number of migrants coming to Britain. The number admitted
in 2014 alone was nearer 300,000.
The UK's courts are also far more active than they were. The British parliament in 1998 incorporated
the European Convention on Human Rights into British domestic law, and British judges have determinedly
enforced those rights. During the 1970s, they had already been handed responsibility for enforcing
the full range of EU law within the UK.
Also, Britain's judges have, on their own initiative, exercised increasingly frequently their
long-standing power of "judicial review," invalidating ministerial decisions that violated due process
or seemed to them to be wholly unreasonable. Devolution of substantial powers to semi-independent
governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has also meant that the jurisdiction of many
so-called UK government ministers is effectively confined to the purely English component part.
On top of all that, British governments -- even more than those of some other predominantly
capitalist economies -- are open to being buffeted by market forces, whose winds can acquire gale
force. In a world of substantially free trade, imports and exports of goods and services are largely
beyond any government's control, and the Bank of England's influence over the external value of sterling
is negligible. During the present election campaign, HSBC, one of the world's largest banks, indicated
that it was contemplating shifting its headquarters from the City of London to Hong Kong. For good
or ill, Britain's government was, and is, effectively helpless to intervene.
The heirs of Gladstone, Disraeli, Lloyd George and Winston Churchill, Britain's political leaders
are understandably still tempted to talk big. But their effective real-world influence is small.
No wonder a lot of voters in Britain feel they are being conned.
ItsJustTim
That's globalization. And it won't go away, even if you vote nationalist. The issues are increasingly
international, while the voters still have a mostly local perspective. That's why we need
a federal Europe. Local governments for local issues and elected by the local people and a European
government for European issues elected by all Europeans.
"... it seems fair to say: Globalism isn't quite the Wave of the Future that most observers thought it was, even just a year ago. And so before we attempt to divide the true intentions of Clinton and Trump, we might first step back and consider how we got to this point. ..."
"... An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations . ..."
"... Clinton will say anything then she'll sell you out. I hope we never get a chance to see how she will sell us out on TPP ..."
"... What we would be headed for under Hillary Clinton is fascism--Mussolini's shorthand definition of fascism was the marriage of industry and commerce with the power of the State. That is what the plutocrats who run the big banks (to whom she owes her soul) aim to do. President, Thomas Jefferson knew the dangers of large European-style central banks. ..."
On the surface, it appears that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, for all their mutual antipathy,
are united on one big issue: opposition to new trade deals. Here's a recent headline in
The Guardian: "Trump and Clinton's free trade retreat: a pivotal moment for the world's
economic future."
And the subhead continues in that vein:
Never before have both main presidential candidates broken so completely with Washington orthodoxy
on globalization, even as the White House refuses to give up. The problem, however, goes much
deeper than trade deals.
In the above quote, we can note the deliberate use of the loaded word, "problem." As in, it's
a problem that free trade is unpopular-a problem, perhaps, that the MSM can fix. Yet in the
meantime, the newspaper sighed, the two biggest trade deals on the horizon, the well-known
Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), and the lesser-known
Trans Atlantic Trade Investment
Partnership (TTIP), aimed at further linking the U.S. and European Union (EU), are both in jeopardy.
So now we must ask broader questions: What does this mean for trade treaties overall? And what
are the implications for globalism?
More specifically, we can ask: Are we sure that the two main White House hopefuls, Clinton and
Trump, are truly sincere in their opposition to those deals? After all, as has been
widely reported, President Obama still has plans to push TPP through to enactment in the "lame
duck" session of Congress after the November elections. Of course, Obama wouldn't seek to do that
if the president-elect opposed it-or would he?
Yet on August 30, Politico reminded its Beltway readership, "How
Trump or Clinton could kill Pacific trade deal." In other words, even if Obama were to move TPP
forward in his last two months in office, the 45th president could still block its implementation
in 2017 and beyond. If, that is, she or he really wanted to.
Indeed, as we think about Clinton and Trump, we realize that there's "opposition" that's for show
and there's opposition that's for real.
Still, given what's been said on the presidential campaign trail this year, it seems fair
to say: Globalism isn't quite the Wave of the Future that most observers thought it was, even just
a year ago. And so before we attempt to divide the true intentions of Clinton and Trump, we might
first step back and consider how we got to this point.
2. The Free Trade Orthodoxy
It's poignant that the headline, "Trump and Clinton's free trade retreat", lamenting the decay
of free trade, appeared in The Guardian. Until recently, the newspaper was known as The
Manchester Guardian, as in Manchester, England. And Manchester is not only a big city, population
2.5 million, it is also a city with a fabled past: You see, Manchester was the cradle of the Industrial
Revolution, which transformed England and the world. It was that city that helped create the free
trade orthodoxy that is now crumbling.
Yes, in the 18th and 19th centuries, Manchester was the leading manufacturing city in the world,
especially for textiles. It was known as "Cottonopolis."
Indeed, back then, Manchester was so much more efficient and effective at mass production that
it led the world in exports. That is, it could produce its goods at such low cost that it could send
them across vast oceans and still undercut local producers on price and quality.
Over time, this economic reality congealed into a school of thought: As Manchester grew rich from
exports, its business leaders easily found economists, journalists, and propagandists who would help
advance their cause in the press and among the intelligentsia.
The resulting school of thought became known, in the 19th century, as "Manchester
Liberalism." And so, to this day, long after Manchester has lost its economic preeminence to
rivals elsewhere in the world, the phrase "Manchester Liberalism" is a well-known in the history
of economics, bespeaking ardent support for free markets and free trade.
More recently, the hub for free-trade enthusiasm has been the United States. In particular, the
University of Chicago, home to the Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, became free trade's
academic citadel; hence the "Chicago
School" has displaced Manchesterism.
And just as it made sense for Manchester Liberalism to exalt free trade and exports when Manchester
and England were on top, so, too, did the Chicago School exalt free trade when the U.S. was unquestionably
the top dog.
So back in the 40s and 50s, when the rest of the world was either bombed flat or still under the
yoke of colonialism, it made perfect sense that the U.S., as the only intact industrial power, would
celebrate industrial exports: We were Number One, and it was perfectly rational to make the most
of that first-place status. And if scribblers and scholars could help make the case for this new
status quo, well, bring 'em aboard. Thus the Chicago School gained ascendancy in the late 20th century.
And of course, the Chicagoans drew inspiration from a period even earlier than Manchesterism,
3. On the Origins of the Orthodoxy: Adam Smith and David Ricardo
One passage in that volume considers how individuals might optimize their own production and consumption:
It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family never to attempt to make at home what it
will cost him more to make than to buy.
Smith is right, of course; everyone should always be calculating, however informally, whether
or not it's cheaper to make it at home or buy it from someone else.
We can quickly see: If each family must make its own clothes and grow its own food, it's likely
to be worse off than if it can buy its necessities from a large-scale producer. Why? Because, to
be blunt about it, most of us don't really know how to make clothes and grow food, and it's expensive
and difficult-if not downright impossible-to learn how. So we can conclude that self-sufficiency,
however rustic and charming, is almost always a recipe for poverty.
Smith had a better idea: specialization. That is, people would specialize in one line of
work, gain skills, earn more money, and then use that money in the marketplace, buying what they
needed from other kinds of specialists.
Moreover, the even better news, in Smith's mind, was that this kind of specialization came naturally
to people-that is, if they were free to scheme out their own advancement. As Smith argued, the ideal
system would allow "every man to pursue his own interest his own way, upon the liberal plan of equality,
liberty and justice."
That is, men (and women) would do that which they did best, and then they would all come together
in the free marketplace-each person being inspired to do better, thanks to, as Smith so memorably
put it, the "invisible hand." Thus Smith articulated a key insight that undergirds the whole of modern
economics-and, of course, modern-day prosperity.
A few decades later, in the early 19th century, Smith's pioneering work was expanded upon by another
remarkable British economist, David Ricardo.
Ricardo's big idea built on Smithian specialization; Ricardo called it "comparative advantage."
That is, just as each individual should do what he or she does best, so should each country.
In Ricardo's well-known illustration, he explained that the warm and sunny climate of Portugal
made that country ideal for growing the grapes needed for wine, while the factories of England made
that country ideal for spinning the fibers needed for apparel and other finished fabrics.
Thus, in Ricardo's view, we could see the makings of a beautiful economic friendship: The Portuguese
would utilize their comparative advantage (climate) and export their surplus wine to England, while
the English would utilize their comparative advantage (manufacturing) and export apparel to Portugal.
Thus each would benefit from the exchange of efficiently-produced products, as each export paid for
the other.
Furthermore, in Ricardo's telling, if tariffs and other barriers were eliminated, then both countries,
Portugal and England, would enjoy the maximum free-trading win-win.
Actually, in point of fact-and Ricardo knew this-the relationship was much more of a win for England,
because manufacture is more lucrative than agriculture. That is, a factory in Manchester could crank
out garments a lot faster than a vineyard in Portugal could ferment wine.
And as we all know, the richer, stronger countries are industrial, not agricultural. Food is essential-and
alcohol is pleasurable-but the real money is made in making things. After all, crops can be grown
easily enough in many places, and so prices stay low. By contrast, manufacturing requires a lot of
know-how and a huge upfront investment. Yet with enough powerful manufacturing, a nation is always
guaranteed to be able to afford to import food. And also, it can make military weapons, and so, if
necessary, take foreign food and croplands by force.
We can also observe that Ricardo, smart fellow that he was, nevertheless was describing the economy
at a certain point in time-the era of horse-drawn carriages and sailing ships. Ricardo realized that
transportation was, in fact, a key business variable. He wrote that it was possible for a company
to seek economic advantage by moving a factory from one part of England to another. And yet in his
view, writing from the perspective of the year 1817, it was impossible to imagine
moving a factory from England to another country:
It would not follow that capital and population would necessarily move from England to Holland,
or Spain, or Russia.
Why this presumed immobility of capital and people? Because, from Ricardo's early 19th-century
perspective, transportation was inevitably slow and creaky; he didn't foresee steamships and airplanes.
In his day, relying on the technology of the time, it wasn't realistic to think that factories, and
their workers, could relocate from one country to another.
Moreover, in Ricardo's era, many countries were actively hostile to industrialization, because
change would upset the aristocratic rhythms of the old order. That is, industrialization could turn
docile or fatalistic peasants, spread out thinly across the countryside, into angry and self-aware
proletarians, concentrated in the big cities-and that was a formula for unrest, even revolution.
Indeed, it was not until the 20th century that every country-including China, a great civilization,
long asleep under decadent imperial misrule-figured out that it had no choice other than to industrialize.
So we can see that the ideas of Smith and Ricardo, enduringly powerful as they have been, were
nonetheless products of their time-that is, a time when England mostly had the advantages of industrialism
to itself. In particular, Ricardo's celebration of comparative advantage can be seen as an artifact
of his own era, when England enjoyed a massive first-mover advantage in the industrial-export game.
Smith died in 1790, and Ricardo died in 1823; a lot has changed since then. And yet the two economists
were so lucid in their writings that their work is studied and admired to this day.
Unfortunately, we can also observe that their ideas have been frozen in a kind of intellectual
amber; even in the 21st century, free trade and old-fashioned comparative advantage are unquestioningly
regarded as the keys to the wealth of nations-at least in the U.S.-even if they are so no longer.
4. Nationalist Alternatives to Free Trade Orthodoxy
As we have seen, Smith and Ricardo were pushing an idea, free trade, that was advantageous to
Britain.
So perhaps not surprisingly, rival countries-notably the United States and Germany-soon developed
different ideas. Leaders in Washington, D.C., and Berlin didn't want their respective nations to
be mere dependent receptacles for English goods; they wanted real independence. And so they wanted
factories of their own.
In the late 18th century, Alexander Hamilton, the visionary American patriot, could see that both
economic wealth and military power flowed from domestic industry. As the nation's first Treasury
Secretary, he persuaded President George Washington and the Congress to support a system of protective
tariffs and "internal improvements" (what today we would call infrastructure) to foster US manufacturing
and exporting.
And in the 19th century, Germany, under the much heavier-handed leadership of Otto von Bismarck,
had the same idea: Make a concerted effort to make the nation stronger.
In both countries, this industrial policymaking succeeded. So whereas at the beginning of the
19th century, England had led the world in steel production, by the beginning of the 20th century
century, the U.S. and Germany had moved well ahead. Yes, the "invisible hand" of individual self-interest
is always a powerful economic force, but sometimes, the "visible hand" of national purpose, animated
by patriotism, is even more powerful.
Thus by 1914, at the onset of World War One, we could see the results of the Smith/Ricardo model,
on the one hand, and the Hamilton/Bismarck model, on the other. All three countries-Britain, the
US, and Germany, were rich-but only the latter two had genuine industrial mojo. Indeed, during World
War One, English weakness became glaringly apparent in the 1915
shell crisis-as
in, artillery shells. It was only the massive importing of made-in-USA ammunition that saved Britain
from looming defeat.
Yet as always, times change, as do economic circumstances, as do prevailing ideas.
As we have seen, at the end of World War II, the U.S. was the only industrial power left standing.
And so it made sense for America to shift from a policy of Hamiltonian protection to a policy of
Smith-Ricardian export-minded free trade. Indeed, beginning in around 1945, both major political
parties, Democrats and Republicans, solidly embraced the new line: The U.S. would be the factory
for the world.
Yet if times, circumstances, and ideas change, they can always change again.
5. The Contemporary Crack-Up
As we have seen, in the 19th century, not every country wanted to be on the passive receiving
end of England's exports. And this was true, too, in the 20th century; Japan, notably, had its own
ideas.
If Japan had followed the Ricardian doctrine of comparative advantage, it would have focused on
exporting rice and tuna. Instead, by dint of hard work, ingenuity, and more than a little national
strategizing, Japan grew itself into a great and prosperous industrial power. Its exports, we might
note, were such high-value-adds as automobiles and electronics, not mere crops and fish.
Moreover, according to the same theory of comparative advantage, South Korea should have been
exporting parasols and kimchi, and China should have settled for exporting fortune cookies and pandas.
Yet as the South Korean economist
Ha-Joon Chang has chronicled,
these Asian nations resolved, in their no-nonsense neo-Confucian way, to launch state-guided private
industries-and the theory of comparative advantage be damned.
Yes, their efforts violated Western economic orthodoxy, but as the philosopher Kant once observed,
the actual proves the possible. Indeed, today, as we all know, the Asian tigers are among the richest
and fastest-growing economies in the world.
China is not only the world's largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP), but
also the world's largest manufacturing nation-producing 52 percent of color televisions, 75 percent
of mobile phones and 87 percent of the world's personal computers. The Chinese automobile industry
is the world's largest, twice the size of America's. China leads the world in foreign exchange
reserves. The United States is the main trading partner for seventy-six countries. China is the
main trading partner for 124.
In particular, we might pause over one item in that impressive litany: China makes 87 percent
of the world's personal computers.
Indeed, if it's true, as ZDNet reports, that
the Chinese have built "backdoors" into almost all the electronic equipment that they sell-that
is to say, the equipment that we buy-then we can assume that we face a serious military challenge,
as well as a serious economic challenge.
Yes, it's a safe bet that the People's Liberation Army has a good handle on our defense establishment,
especially now that the Pentagon has fully equipped itself with
Chinese-made iPhones and iPads.
Of course, we can safely predict that Defense Department bureaucrats will always say that there's
nothing to worry about, that they have the potential hacking/sabotage matter under control (although
just to be sure, the Pentagon might say, give us more money).
Yet we might note that this is the same defense establishment that couldn't keep track of lone
internal rogues such as Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden. Therefore, should we really believe that
this same DOD knows how to stop the determined efforts of a nation of 1.3 billion people, seeking
to hack machines-machines that they made in the first place?
Yes, the single strongest argument against the blind application of free- trade dogma is the doctrine
of self defense. That is, all the wealth in the world doesn't matter if you're conquered. Even Adam
Smith understood that; as he wrote, "Defense
. . . is of much more importance than opulence."
Yet today we can readily see: If we are grossly dependent on China for vital wares, then we can't
be truly independent of China. In fact, we should be downright fearful.
Still, despite these deep strategic threats, directly the result of careless importing, the Smith-Ricardo
orthodoxy remains powerful, even hegemonistic-at least in the English-speaking world.
Why is this so? Yes, economists are typically seen as cold and nerdy, even bloodless, and yet,
in fact, they are actual human beings. And as such, they are susceptible to the giddy-happy feeling
that comes from the hope of building a new utopia, the dream of ushering in an era of world harmony,
based on untrammeled international trade. Indeed, this woozy idealism among economists goes way back;
it was the British free trader Richard Cobden who declared in 1857,
Free trade is God's diplomacy. There is no other certain way of uniting people in the bonds
of peace.
And lo, so many wars later, many economists still believe that.
Indeed, economists today are still monolithically pro-fee trade; a
recent survey of economists found that 83 percent supported eliminating all tariffs and other
barriers; just 10 percent disagreed.
We might further note that others, too, in the financial and intellectual elite are fully on board
the free-trade train, including most corporate officers and their lobbyists, journalists, academics,
and, of course, the mostly for-hire think-tankers.
To be sure, there are always exceptions: As that Guardian article, the one lamenting the
sharp decrease in support for free trade as a "problem," noted, not all of corporate America is on
board, particularly those companies in the manufacturing sector:
Ford openly opposes TPP because it fears the deal does nothing to stop Japan manipulating its
currency at the expense of US rivals.
Indeed, we might note that the same Guardian story included an even more cautionary note,
asserting that support for free trade, overall, is remarkably rickety:
Some suggest a "bicycle theory" of trade deals: that the international bandwagon has to keep
rolling forward or else it all wobbles and falls down.
So what has happened? How could virtually the entire elite be united in enthusiasm for free trade,
and yet, even so, the free trade juggernaut is no steadier than a mere two-wheeled bike? Moreover,
free traders will ask: Why aren't the leaders leading? More to the point, why aren't the followers
following?
To answer those questions, we might start by noting the four-decade phenomenon of
wage stagnation-that's
taken a toll on support for free trade. But of course, it's in the heartland that wages have been
stagnating; by contrast,
incomes for
the bicoastal elites have been soaring.
We might also note that some expert predictions have been way off, thus undermining confidence
in their expertise. Remember, this spring, when all the experts were saying that the United Kingdom
would fall into recession, or worse, if it voted to leave the EU? Well, just the other day came this
New York Post headline: "Brexit
actually boosting the UK economy."
Thus from the Wall Street-ish perspective of the urban chattering classes, things are going well-so
what's the problem?
Yet the folks on Main Street have known a different story. They have seen, with their own eyes,
what has happened to them, and no fusillade of op-eds or think-tank monographs will persuade them
to change their mind.
However, because the two parties have been so united on the issues of trade and globalization-the
"Uniparty," it's sometimes called-the folks in the boonies have had no political alternative. And
as they say, the only power you have in this world is the power of an alternative. And so, lacking
an alternative, the working/middle class has just had to accept its fate.
Indeed, it has been a bitter fate, particularly bitter in the former industrial heartland. In
a 2013 paper, the
Economic Policy Institute (EPI) came to some startling conclusions:
Growing trade with less-developed countries lowered wages in 2011 by 5.5 percent-or by roughly
$1,800-for a full-time, full-year worker earning the average wage for workers without a four-year
college degree.
The paper added, "One-third of this total effect is due to growing trade with just China."
Continuing, EPI found that even as trade with low-wage countries caused a decrease in the incomes
for lower-end workers, it had caused an increase in the incomes of high-end workers-so no
wonder the high-end thinks globalism in great.
To be sure, some in the elite are bothered by what's been happening.
Peggy Noonan, writing earlier this year in The Wall Street Journal-a piece that must have
raised the hackles of her doctrinaire colleagues-put the matter succinctly: There's a wide, and widening,
gap between the "protected" and the "unprotected":
The protected make public policy. The unprotected live in it. The unprotected are starting
to push back, powerfully.
Of course, Noonan was alluding to the Trump candidacy-and also to the candidacy of Sen. Bernie
Sanders. Those two insurgents, in different parties, have been propelled by the pushing from all
the unprotected folks across America.
We might pause to note that free traders have arguments which undoubtedly deserve a fuller airing.
Okay. However, we can still see the limits. For example, the familiar gambit of outsourcing jobs
to China, or Mexico-or 50 other countries-and calling that "free trade" is now socially unacceptable,
and politically unsustainable.
Still, the broader vision of planetary freedom, including the free flow of peoples and their ideas,
is always enormously appealing. The United States, as well as the world, undoubtedly benefits from
competition, from social and economic mobility-and yes, from new blood.
As
Stuart Anderson, executive director of the National Foundation for American Policy, notes, "77
percent of the full-time graduate students in electrical engineering and 71 percent in computer science
at U.S. universities are international students." That's a statistic that should give every American
pause to ask: Why aren't we producing more engineers here at home?
We can say, with admiration, that Silicon Valley is the latest Manchester; as such, it's a powerful
magnet for the best and the brightest from overseas, and from a purely dollars-and-cents point of
view, there's a lot to be said for welcoming them.
So yes, it would be nice if we could retain this international mobility that benefits the U.S.-but
only if the economic benefits can be broadly shared, and patriotic assimilation of immigrants can
be truly achieved, such that all Americans can feel good about welcoming newcomers.
The further enrichment of Silicon Valley won't do much good for the country unless those riches
are somehow widely shared. In fact, amidst the ongoing outsourcing of mass-production jobs,
total employment in such boomtowns as San Francisco and San Jose has barely budged. That is,
new software billionaires are being minted every day, but their workforces tend to be tiny-or located
overseas. If that past pattern is the future pattern, well, something will have to give.
We can say: If America is to be
one nation-something Mitt "47 percent" Romney never worried about, although it cost him in the
end-then we will have to figure out a way to turn the genius of the few into good jobs for the many.
The goal isn't socialism, or anything like that; instead, the goal is the widespread distribution
of private property, facilitated, by conscious national economic development, as
I argued at the tail end of this piece.
If we can't, or won't, find a way to expand private ownership nationwide, then the populist upsurges
of the Trump and Sanders campaigns will be remembered as mere overtures to a starkly divergent future.
6. Clinton and Trump Say They Are Trade Hawks: But Are They Sincere?
So now we come to a mega-question for 2016: How should we judge the sincerity of the two major-party
candidates, Clinton or Trump, when they affirm their opposition to TPP? And how do we assess their
attitude toward globalization, including immigration, overall?
The future is, of course, unknown, but we can make a couple of points.
First, it is true that
many have questioned the sincerity of Hillary's new anti-TPP stance, especially given the presence
of such prominent free-traders as vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine and presidential transition-planning
chief Ken Salazar. Moreover, there's also Hillary's own decades-long association with open-borders
immigration policies, as well as past support for such trade bills as NAFTA, PNTR, and, of course,
TPP. And oh yes, there's the Clinton Foundation, that global laundromat for every overseas fortune;
most of those billionaires are globalists par excellence-would a President Hillary really
cross them?
Second, since there's still no way to see inside another person's mind, the best we can
do is look for external clues-by which we mean, external pressures. And so we might ask a basic question:
Would the 45th president, whoever she or he is, feel compelled by those external pressures to keep
their stated commitment to the voters? Or would they feel that they owe more to their elite friends,
allies, and benefactors?
As we have seen, Clinton has long chosen to surround herself with free traders and globalists.
Moreover, she has raised money from virtually every bicoastal billionaire in America.
So we must wonder: Will a new President Clinton really betray her own class-all those
Davos Men and Davos Women-for the sake of middle-class folks she has never met, except maybe
on a rope line? Would Clinton 45, who has spent her life courting the powerful, really stick her
neck out for unnamed strangers-who never gave a dime to the Clinton Foundation?
Okay, so what to make of Trump? He, too, is a fat-cat-even more of fat-cat, in fact, than Clinton.
And yet for more than a year now, he has based his campaign on opposition to globalism in all its
forms; it's been the basis of his campaign-indeed, the basis of his base. And his campaign policy
advisers are emphatic. According to Politico, as recently as August 30, Trump trade adviser
Peter Navarro reiterated Trump's opposition to TPP, declaring,
Any deal must increase the GDP growth rate, reduce the trade deficit, and strengthen the manufacturing
base.
So, were Trump to win the White House, he would come in with a much more solid anti-globalist
mandate.
Thus we can ask: Would a President Trump really cross his own populist-nationalist base by going
over to the other side-to the globalists who voted, and donated, against him? If he did-if he repudiated
his central platform plank-he would implode his presidency, the way that Bush 41 imploded his presidency
in 1990 when he went back on his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge.
Surely Trump remembers that moment of political calamity well, and so surely, whatever mistakes
he might make, he won't make that one.
To be sure, the future is unknowable. However, as we have seen, the past, both recent and historical,
is rich with valuable clues.
Clinton will say anything then she'll sell you out. I hope we never get a chance to see
how she will sell us out on TPP
Ellen Bell -> HoosierMilitia
You really do not understand the primitive form of capitalism that the moneyed elites are trying
to impose on us. That system is mercantilism and two of its major tenets are to only give the
workers subsistence level wages (what they are doing to poor people abroad and attempting to do
here) and monopolistic control of everything that is possible to monopolize. The large multi-nationals
have already done that. What we would be headed for under Hillary Clinton is fascism--Mussolini's
shorthand definition of fascism was the marriage of industry and commerce with the power of the
State. That is what the plutocrats who run the big banks (to whom she owes her soul) aim to do.
President, Thomas Jefferson knew the dangers of large European-style central banks. He said:
"...The central bank is an institution of the most deadly hostility existing against the
Principles and form of our Constitution. I am an Enemy to all banks discounting bills or notes
for anything but Coin. If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of
their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will
grow up around them will deprive the People of all their Property until their Children will
wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered..."
The power to create money was given to the private banking system of the Federal Reserve in
1913. Nearly every bit of our enormous debt has been incurred since then. The American people
have become debt-slaves. In the Constitution, only Congress has the right to issue currency. That's
why the plutocrats want to do away with it--among other reasons.
"... Donald Trump is challenging the very fabric of the institutional elites in this country on both sides that have, quite frankly, just straight up screwed this country up and made the world a mess. ..."
Tom Coyne, a lifelong Democrat and the mayor of Brook Park, Ohio, spoke
about his endorsement of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump with Breitbart
News Daily SiriusXM host Matt Boyle.
Coyne said:
The parties are blurred. What's the difference? They say the same things
in different tones. At the end of the day, they accomplish nothing.
Donald Trump is challenging the very fabric of the institutional elites
in this country on both sides that have, quite frankly, just straight up
screwed this country up and made the world a mess.
Regarding the GOP establishment's so-called Never Trumpers, Coyne stated,
"If it's their expertise that people are relying upon as to advice to vote,
people should go the opposite."
In an interview last week, Coyne said that Democrats and Republicans
have failed the city through inaction and bad trade policies, key themes
Trump often trumpets.
"He understands us," Coyne said of Trump. "He is saying what we feel,
and therefore, let him shake the bedevils out of everyone in the canyons
of Washington D.C. The American people are responding to him."
Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00
a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.
"... Donald Trump isn't a politician -- he's a one-man wrecking ball against our dysfunctional and corrupt establishment. We're about to see the deluxe version of the left's favorite theme: Vote for us or we'll call you stupid. It's the working class against the smirking class. ..."
"... He understands that if we're ever going to get our economy back on its feet the wage-earning middle class will have to prosper along with investors ..."
"... Trump that really "gets" the idea that the economy is suffering because the middle class can't find employment at livable wages ..."
"... Ms. Coulter says it more eloquently: "The Republican establishment has no idea how much ordinary voters hate both parties." Like me, she's especially annoyed with Republicans, because we think of the Republican Party as being our political "family" that has turned against us: ..."
"... The RNC has been forcing Republican candidates to take suicidal positions forever They were happy to get 100 percent of the Business Roundtable vote and 20 percent of the regular vote. ..."
"... American companies used free trade with low-wage countries as an opportunity to close their American factories and relocate the jobs to lower-paying foreign workers. Instead of creating product and exporting it to other countries, our American companies EXPORTED American JOBS to other countries and IMPORTED foreign-made PRODUCTS into America! Our exports have actually DECLINED during the last five years with most of the 20 countries we signed free trade with. Even our exports to Canada, our oldest free trade partner, are less than what they were five years ago. ..."
"... Trade with Japan, China, and South Korea is even more imbalanced, because those countries actively restrict imports of American-made products. We run a 4x trade imbalance with China, which cost us $367 billion last year. We lost $69 billion to Japan and $28 billion to South Korea. Our exports to these countries are actually DECLINING, even while our imports soar! ..."
"... Why do Establishment Republicans join with Democrats in wanting to diminish the future with the WRONG kind of "free trade" that removes jobs and wealth from the USA? As Ms. Coulter reminds us, it is because Republican Establishment, like the Democrat establishment, is PAID by the money and jobs they receive from big corporations to believe it. ..."
"... The donor class doesn't care. The rich are like locusts: once they've picked America dry, they'll move on to the next country. A hedge fund executive quoted in The Atlantic a few years ago said, "If the transformation of the world economy lifts four people in China and India out of poverty and into the middle class, and meanwhile [that] means one American drops out of the middle class, that's not such a bad trade." ..."
"... The corporate 1% who believe that the global labor market should be tapped in order to beat American workers out of their jobs; and that corporations and the 1% who own them should be come tax-exempt organizations that profit by using cheap overseas labor to product product that is sold in the USA, and without paying taxes on the profit. Ms. Coulter calls this group of Republican Estblishmentarians "locusts: once they've picked America dry, they'll move on to the next country." ..."
"... Pretending to care about the interests of minorities. Of course, the Republican Establishment has even less appeal to minorities than to the White Middle Class (WMC) they abandoned. Minorities are no more interested in losing their jobs to foreigners or to suffer economic stagnation while the rich have their increasing wealth (most of which is earned at the expense of the middle class) tax-sheltered, than do the WMC. ..."
"... Trump has given Republicans a new lease on life. The Establishment doesn't like having to take a back seat to him, but perhaps they should understand that having a back seat in a popular production is so much better than standing outside alone in the cold. ..."
Donald Trump isn't a politician -- he's a one-man wrecking ball against our dysfunctional
and corrupt establishment. We're about to see the deluxe version of the left's favorite theme: Vote
for us or we'll call you stupid. It's the working class against the smirking class.
No pandering! The essence of Trump in personality and issues , August 23, 2016
Ms. Coulter explains the journey of myself and so many other voters into Trump's camp. It captures
the essence of Trump as a personality and Trump on the issues. If I had to sum Ms. Coulter's view
of the reason for Trump's success in two words, I'd say "No Pandering!" I've heard many people,
including a Liberal tell me, "Trump says what needs to be said."
I've voted Republican in every election going back to Reagan in 1980, except for 2012 when
I supported President Obama's re-election. I've either voted for, or financially supported many
"Establishment Republicans" like Mitt Romney and John McCain in 2008. I've also supported some
Conservative ones like Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giuliani. In this election I'd been planning to
vote for Jeb Bush, a superb governor when I lived in Florida.
Then Trump announced his candidacy. I had seen hints of that happening as far back as 2012.
In my Amazon reviews in 2012 I said that many voters weren't pleased with Obama or the Republican
Establishment. So the question became: "Who do you vote for if you don't favor the agendas of
either party's legacy candidates?" In November 2013 I commented on the book DOUBLE DOWN: GAME
CHANGE 2012 by Mark Halperin and John Heileman:
=====
Mr. Trump occupies an important place in the political spectrum --- that of being a Republican
Populist.
He understands that if we're ever going to get our economy back on its feet the wage-earning
middle class will have to prosper along with investors, who are recovering our fortunes in
the stock market.
IMO whichever party nominates a candidate like Trump that really "gets" the idea that the
economy is suffering because the middle class can't find employment at livable wages, will
be the party that rises to dominance.
Mr. Trump, despite his flakiness, at least understood that essential fact of American economic
life.
November 7, 2013
=====
Ms. Coulter says it more eloquently: "The Republican establishment has no idea how much
ordinary voters hate both parties." Like me, she's especially annoyed with Republicans, because
we think of the Republican Party as being our political "family" that has turned against us:
===== The RNC has been forcing Republican candidates to take suicidal positions forever They were
happy to get 100 percent of the Business Roundtable vote and 20 percent of the regular vote.
when the GOP wins an election, there is no corresponding "win" for the unemployed blue-collar
voter in North Carolina. He still loses his job to a foreign worker or a closed manufacturing
plant, his kids are still boxed out of college by affirmative action for immigrants, his community
is still plagued with high taxes and high crime brought in with all that cheap foreign labor.
There's no question but that the country is heading toward being Brazil. One doesn't have to
agree with the reason to see that the very rich have gotten much richer, placing them well beyond
the concerns of ordinary people, and the middle class is disappearing. America doesn't make anything
anymore, except Hollywood movies and Facebook. At the same time, we're importing a huge peasant
class, which is impoverishing what remains of the middle class, whose taxes support cheap labor
for the rich.
With Trump, Americans finally have the opportunity to vote for something that's popular.
=====
That explains how Trump won my vote --- and held on to it through a myriad of early blunders
and controversies that almost made me switch my support to other candidates.
I'm no "xenophobe isolationist" stereotype. My first employer was an immigrant from Eastern
Europe. What I learned working for him launched me on my successful career. I've developed and
sold computer systems to subsidiaries of American companies in Europe and Asia. My business partners
have been English and Canadian immigrants. My family are all foreign-born Hispanics. Three of
my college roommates were from Ecuador, Germany, and Syria.
BECAUSE of this international experience I agree with the issues of trade and immigration that
Ms. Coulter talks about that have prompted Trump's rising popularity.
First, there is the false promise that free trade with low-wage countries would "create millions
of high-paying jobs for American workers, who will be busy making high-value products for export."
NAFTA was signed in 1994. GATT with China was signed in 2001. Since then we've signed free trade
with 20 countries. It was said that besides creating jobs for Americans, that free trade would
prosper the global economy. In truth the opposite happened:
American companies used free trade with low-wage countries as an opportunity to close their
American factories and relocate the jobs to lower-paying foreign workers. Instead of creating
product and exporting it to other countries, our American companies EXPORTED American JOBS to
other countries and IMPORTED foreign-made PRODUCTS into America! Our exports have actually DECLINED
during the last five years with most of the 20 countries we signed free trade with. Even our exports
to Canada, our oldest free trade partner, are less than what they were five years ago.
We ran trade SURPLUSES with Mexico until 1994, when NAFTA was signed. The very next year the
surplus turned to deficit, now $60 billion a year. Given that each American worker produces an
average of $64,000 in value per year, that is a loss of 937,000 American jobs to Mexico alone.
The problem is A) that Mexicans are not wealthy enough to be able to afford much in the way of
American-made product and B) there isn't much in the way of American-made product left to buy,
since so much of former American-made product is now made in Mexico or China.
Trade with Japan, China, and South Korea is even more imbalanced, because those countries
actively restrict imports of American-made products. We run a 4x trade imbalance with China, which
cost us $367 billion last year. We lost $69 billion to Japan and $28 billion to South Korea. Our
exports to these countries are actually DECLINING, even while our imports soar!
Thus, free trade, except with a few fair-trading countries like Canada, Australia, and possibly
Britain, has been a losing proposition. Is it coincidence that our economy has weakened with each
trade deal we have signed? Our peak year of labor force participation was 1999. Then we had the
Y2K collapse and the Great Recession, followed by the weakest "recovery" since WWII? As Trump
would say, free trade has been a "disaster."
Why do Establishment Republicans join with Democrats in wanting to diminish the future
with the WRONG kind of "free trade" that removes jobs and wealth from the USA? As Ms. Coulter
reminds us, it is because Republican Establishment, like the Democrat establishment, is PAID by
the money and jobs they receive from big corporations to believe it. Ms. Coulter says:
===== The donor class doesn't care. The rich are like locusts: once they've picked America dry,
they'll move on to the next country. A hedge fund executive quoted in The Atlantic a few years
ago said, "If the transformation of the world economy lifts four people in China and India
out of poverty and into the middle class, and meanwhile [that] means one American drops out
of the middle class, that's not such a bad trade."
=====
Then there is immigration. My wife, son, and extended family legally immigrated to the USA
from Latin America. The first family members were recruited by our government during the labor
shortage of the Korean War. Some fought for the United States in Korea. Some of their children
fought for us in Vietnam, and some grandchildren are fighting in the Middle East. Most have
become successful professionals and business owners. They came here LEGALLY, some waiting in
queue for up to 12 years. They were supported by the family already in America until they were
on their feet.
Illegal immigration has been less happy. Illegals are here because the Democrats want new voters
and the Republicans want cheap labor. Contrary to business propaganda, illegals cost Americans
their jobs. A colleague just old me, "My son returned home from California after five years, because
he couldn't get construction work any longer. All those jobs are now done off the books by illegals."
It's the same in technology. Even while our high-tech companies are laying off 260,000 American
employees in 2016 alone, they are banging the drums to expand the importation of FOREIGN tech
workers from 85,000 to 195,000 to replace the Americans they let go. Although the H1-B program
is billed as bringing in only the most exceptional, high-value foreign engineers, in truth most
visas are issued to replace American workers with young foreigners of mediocre ability who'll
work for much less money than the American family bread-winners they replaced.
Both parties express their "reverse racism" against the White Middle Class. Democrats don't
like them because they tend to vote Republican. The Republican Establishment doesn't like them
because they cost more to employ than overseas workers and illegal aliens. According to them the
WMC is too technologically out of date and overpaid to allow our benighted business leaders to
"compete internationally."
Ms. Coulter says "Americans are homesick" for our country that is being lost to illegal immigration
and the removal of our livelihoods overseas. We are sick of Republican and Democrat Party hidden
agendas, reverse-racism, and economic genocide against the American people. That's why the Establishment
candidates who started out so theoretically strong, like Jeb Bush, collapsed like waterlogged
houses of cards when they met Donald Trump. As Ms. Coulter explains, Trump knows their hidden
agendas, and knows they are working against the best interests of the American Middle Class.
Coulter keeps coming back to Mr. Trump's "Alpha Male" personality that speaks to Americans
as nation without pandering to specific voter identity groups. She contrasts his style to the
self-serving "Republican (Establishment) Brain Trust that is mostly composed of comfortable, well-paid
mediocrities who, by getting a gig in politics, earn salaries higher than a capitalist system
would ever value their talents." She explains what she sees as the idiocy of those Republican
Establishment political consultants who wrecked the campaigns of Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz by micromanaging
with pandering.
She says the Republican Establishment lost because it served itself --- becoming wealthy by
serving the moneyed interests of Wall Street. Trump won because he is speaking to the disfranchised
American Middle Class who loves our country, is proud of our traditions, and believes that Americans
have as much right to feed our families through gainful employment as do overseas workers and
illegal aliens.
"I am YOUR voice," says Trump to the Middle Class that until now has been ignored and even
sneered at by both parties' establishments.
I've given an overview of the book here. The real delight is in the details, told as only Anne
Coulter can tell them. I've quoted a few snippets of her words, that relate most specifically
to my views on Trump and the issues. I wish there were space to quote many more. Alas, you'll
need to read the book to glean them all!
Bruce, I would also add that the Republican Establishment chose not to represent the interests
of the White Middle Class on trade, immigration, and other issues that matter to us. They chose
to represent the narrow interests of:
1. The corporate 1% who believe that the global labor market should be tapped in order
to beat American workers out of their jobs; and that corporations and the 1% who own them should
be come tax-exempt organizations that profit by using cheap overseas labor to product product
that is sold in the USA, and without paying taxes on the profit. Ms. Coulter calls this group
of Republican Estblishmentarians "locusts: once they've picked America dry, they'll move on to
the next country."
2. Pretending to care about the interests of minorities. Of course, the Republican Establishment
has even less appeal to minorities than to the White Middle Class (WMC) they abandoned. Minorities
are no more interested in losing their jobs to foreigners or to suffer economic stagnation while
the rich have their increasing wealth (most of which is earned at the expense of the middle class)
tax-sheltered, than do the WMC.
The Republican Establishment is in a snit because Trump beat them by picking up the WMC votes
that the Establishment abandoned. What would have happened if Trump had not come on the scene?
The probable result is that the Establishment would have nominated a ticket of Jeb Bush and John
Kasich. These candidates had much to recommend them as popular governors of key swing states.
But they would have gone into the election fighting the campaign with Republican Establishment
issues that only matter to the 1%. They would have lost much of the WMC vote that ultimately rallied
around Trump, while gaining no more than the usual 6% of minorities who vote Republican. It would
have resulted in a severe loss for the Republican Party, perhaps making it the minority party
for the rest of the century.
Trump has given Republicans a new lease on life. The Establishment doesn't like having
to take a back seat to him, but perhaps they should understand that having a back seat in a popular
production is so much better than standing outside alone in the cold.
It's funny how White Men are supposed to be angry. But I've never seen any White men:
1. Running amok, looting and burning down their neighborhood, shooting police and other "angry
White men." There were 50 people shot in Chicago last weekend alone. How many of those do you
think were "angry white men?" Hint: they were every color EXCEPT white.
2. Running around complaining that they aren't allowed into the other gender's bathroom, then
when they barge their way in there complain about being sexually assaulted. No, it's only "angry
females" (of any ethnicity) who barge their way into the men's room and then complain that somebody
in there offended them.
Those "angry white men" are as legendary as "Bigfoot." They are alleged to exist everywhere,
but are never seen. Maybe that's because they mostly hang out in the quiet neighborhoods of cookie-cutter
homes in suburbia, go to the lake or bar-be-que on weekends, and take their allotment of Viagra
in hopes of occassionally "getting lucky" with their wives. If they're "angry" then at least they
don't take their angry frustrations out on others, as so many other militant, "in-your-face" activist
groups do!
"... I've tuned out Warren-she has become the "red meat" surrogate for Clinton. Just because Taibbi was excellent on exposing Wall St. doesn't mean he really knows s**t about politics. I find the depiction of Trump as some kind of monster-buffoon to be simply boring and not very helpful. ..."
"... (might be the Trump Chaos bc Hillary will strategically turn our war machine on us can't believe this is as good as it gets, sighed out) ..."
"... Having the establishment, the military-industrial complex and Wall Street against him helps Trump a lot. ..."
"... You can fool part of the people all the time, and all people part of the time, but Brexit won, so will Trump, politician extraordinaire ..."
"... Given his family, a Trump presidency may look more like JFK's, where Bobby had more power than LBJ. Also, given Trump's negotiating expertise, I would certainly not believe any assertion of support he proclaims for the VP. I expect he had little choice in the matter, and that he also plans to send the VP to the hinterlands at the first opportunity. I'm unclear why so many appear to believe the VP has any influence whatsoever; I believe GWB was the only post-WW2 president who let the VP have any power. ..."
"... What is a populist? Somebody that tries to do what the majority want. Current examples: Less wars and military spending. More infrastructure spending. Less support for banks and corps (imagine how many votes trump would gain if he said 'as pres I will jail bankers that break the law' And how that repudiates Obama and both parties.) Gun control (but not possible from within the rep party) ..."
"... What is a fascist? Somebody that supports corporations, military, and military adventures. ..."
"... Actually, it sounds a whole lot like a different candidate from a different party, doesn't it? ..."
"... Neoliberal "Goodthink" flag. What this means when neoliberals say it is not let's build a better global society for all it means Corporations and our military should be able to run roughshod over the world and the people's of other countries. Exploit their citizens for cheap Labor, destroy their environment and move on. These are the exact policies of Hillary Clinton (see TPP, increase foreign wars etc.). Hillary globalism is not about global Brotherhood it's about global economic and military exploitation. Trump is nationalist non – interventionist, which leads to less global military destruction than hillary and less global exploitation. So who is a better for those outside the US, hillary the interventionist OR trump the non-interventionist? ..."
"... Look, the Clintons are criminals, and their affiliate entities, including the DNC, could be considered criminal enterprises or co-conspirators at this point. ..."
"... The very fact that Establishment, Wall St and Koch bros are behind HRC is evidence that the current 'status quo' will be continued! I cannot stand another 4 years of Hilabama. ..."
"... The striving for American empire has so totally confused the political order of the country that up is down and down is up. The idea of government for and by the people is a distant memory. Covering for lies and contradictions of beliefs has blurred any notion of principles informing public action. ..."
"... If there is any principle that matters today, it is the pursuit of money and profit reigns supreme. Trump is populist in the sense he is talking about bringing money and wealth back to the working classes. Not by giving it directly, but by forcing businesses to turn their sights back to the US proper and return to making their profits at home. In the end, it is all nostalgia and probably impossible, but working class people remember those days so it rings true. That is hope and change in action. People also could care less if he cheats on his taxes or is found out lying about how much he is worth. Once again, fudging your net worth is something working people care little about. Having their share of the pie is all that matters and Trump is tapping into that. ..."
"... The only crime Trump has committed so far is his language. Liberals like Clinton, Blair and Obama drip blood. ..."
"... The 2016 election cannot be looked at in isolation. The wars for profit are spreading from Nigeria through Syria to Ukraine. Turkey was just lost to the Islamists and is on the road to being a failed state. The EU is in an existential crisis due to Brexit, the refugee crisis and austerity. Western leadership is utterly incompetent and failing to protect its citizens. Globalization is failing. Its Losers are tipping over the apple cart. Humans are returning to their tribal roots for safety. The drums for war with Russia are beating. Clinton / Kaine are 100% Status Quo Globalists. Trump / Pence are candidates of change to who knows what. Currently I am planning on voting for the Green Party in the hope it becomes viable and praying that the chaos avoids Maryland. ..."
I've tuned out Warren-she has become the "red meat" surrogate for Clinton. Just because
Taibbi was excellent on exposing Wall St. doesn't mean he really knows s**t about politics. I
find the depiction of Trump as some kind of monster-buffoon to be simply boring and not very helpful.
for all the run around Hillary, Trump's chosen circle of allies are Wall Street and Austerity
enablers. actually, Trump chaos could boost the enablers as easily as Hillary's direct mongering.
War is Money low hanging fruit in this cash strapped era and either directly or indirectly neither
candidate will disappoint.
So I Ask Myself which candidate will the majority manage sustainability while assembling to create
different outcomes? (might be the Trump Chaos bc Hillary will strategically turn our war machine
on us can't believe this is as good as it gets, sighed out)
War is only good for the profiteers when it can be undertaken in another territory. Bringing
the chaos home cannot be good for business. Endless calls for confidence and stability in markets
must reflect the fact that disorder effects more business that the few corporations that benefit
directly from spreading chaos. A split in the business community seems to be underway or at least
a possible leverage point to bring about positive change.
Even the splits in the political class reflect this. Those that benefit from spreading chaos are
loosing strength because they have lost control of where that chaos takes place and who is directly
effected from its implementation. Blowback and collateral damage are finally registering.
Trump may be a disaster. Clinton will be a disaster. One of these two will win. I won't vote
for either, but if you put a gun to my head and forced me to choose, I'd take Trump. He's certainly
not a fascist (I think it was either Vice or Vox that had an article where they asked a bunch
of historians of fascism if he was, the answer was a resounding no), he's a populist in the Andrew
Jackson style. If nothing else Trump will (probably) not start WW3 with Russia.
And war with Russia doesn't depend just on Hillary, it depends on us in Western Europe agreeing
with it.
A laughable proposition. The official US policy, as you may recall, is
fuck the EU .
Where was Europe when we toppled the Ukrainian govt? Get back to me when you can actually spend
2% GDP on your military. At the moment you can't even control your illegal immigrants.
The political parties that survive display adaptability, and ideological consistency isn't
a requirement for that. Look at the party of Lincoln. Or look at the party of FDR.
If the Democrats decapitate the Republican party by bringing in the Kagans of this world and
Republican suburbanites in swing states, then the Republicans will go where the votes are; the
Iron Law of Institutions will drive them to do it, and the purge of the party after Trump will
open the positions in the party for people with that goal.
In a way, what we're seeing now is what should have happened to the Republicans in
2008. The Democrats had the Republicans down on the ground with Obama's boot on their neck. The
Republicans had organized and lost a disastrous war, they had lost the legislative and executive
branches, they were completely discredited ideologically, and they were thoroughly discredited
in the political class and in the press.
Instead, Obama, with his strategy of bipartisanship - good faith or not - gave them a hand
up, dusted them off, and let them right back in the game, by treating them as a legitimate opposition
party. So the Republican day of reckoning was postponed. We got various bids for power by factions
- the Tea Party, now the Liberty Caucus - but none of them came anywhere near taking real power,
despite (click-driven money-raising) Democrat hysteria.
And now the day of reckoning has arrived. Trump went through the hollow institutional shell
of the Republican Party like the German panzers through the French in 1939. And here we are!
(Needless to say, anybody - ***cough*** Ted Cruz ***cough*** - yammering about "conservative
principles" is part of the problem, dead weight, part of the dead past.) I don't know if the Republicans
can remake themselves after Trump; what he's doing is necessary for that, but may not be sufficient.
Republicans won Congress and the states because the Democrats handed them to them on a silver
platter. To Obama and his fan club meaningful power is a hot potato, to be discarded as soon as
plausible.
Having the establishment, the military-industrial complex and Wall Street against him helps
Trump a lot.
Pro-Sanders folks, blacks, and hispanics will mostly vote for Trump.
Having Gov. Pence on the ticket, core Republicans and the silent majority will vote for Trump.
Women deep inside know Trump will help their true interests better than the Clinton-Obama rinse
repeat
Young people, sick and tired of the current obviously rigged system, will vote for change.
You can fool part of the people all the time, and all people part of the time, but Brexit
won, so will Trump, politician extraordinaire
Even Michael Moore gets it
Trump has intimated that he is not going to deal with the nuts and bolts of government,
that will be Pence's job.
Given his family, a Trump presidency may look more like JFK's, where Bobby had more power
than LBJ.
Also, given Trump's negotiating expertise, I would certainly not believe any assertion of support
he proclaims for the VP. I expect he had little choice in the matter, and that he also plans to
send the VP to the hinterlands at the first opportunity. I'm unclear why so many appear to believe
the VP has any influence whatsoever; I believe GWB was the only post-WW2 president who let the
VP have any power.
Minorities will benefit at least as much as whites with infrastructure spending, which trump
says he wants to do It would make him popular, which he likes, why not believe him? And if pres
he would be able to get enough rep votes to get it passed. No chance with Hillary, who anyway
would rather spend on wars, which are mostly fought by minorities.
What is a populist? Somebody that tries to do what the majority want. Current examples:
Less wars and military spending. More infrastructure spending. Less support for banks and corps
(imagine how many votes trump would gain if he said 'as pres I will jail bankers that break the
law' And how that repudiates Obama and both parties.) Gun control (but not possible from within
the rep party)
What is a fascist? Somebody that supports corporations, military, and military adventures.
I'm saying you have a much better chance to pressure Clinton
Sorry, but this argues from facts not in evidence and closely resembles the Correct the Record
troll line (now substantiated through the Wikileaks dump) that Clinton "has to be elected" because
she is at least responsive to progressive concerns.
Except she isn't, and the degree to which the DNC clearly has been trying to pander to disillusioned
Republicans and the amount of bile they spew every time they lament how HRC has had to "veer left"
shows quite conclusively to my mind that, in fact, the opposite of what you say is true.
Also, when NAFTA was being debated in the '90s, the Clintons showed themselves to be remarkably
unresponsive both to the concerns of organized labor (who opposed it) as well as the majority
of the members of their own party, who voted against it. NAFTA was passed only with a majority
of Republican votes.
I have no way of knowing whether you're a troll or sincerely believe this, but either way,
it needs to be pointed out that the historical record actually contradicts your premise. If you
do really believe this, try not to be so easily taken in by crafty rhetoric.
BTW, I'll take Trump's record as a husband over HRC's record as a wife. He loves a woman, then
they break up, and he finds another one. This is not unusual in the US. Hillary, OTOH, "stood
by her man" through multiple publicly humiliating infidelities, including having to settle out
of court for more than $800,000, and rape charges. No problem with her if her husband was flying
many times on the "Lolita Express" with a child molester. Could be she had no idea where her "loved
one" was at the time. Do they in fact sleep in the same bed, or even live in the same house? I
don't know.
RE: calling Donald Trump a "sociopath"-this is another one of those words that is thrown around
carelessly, like "nazi" and "fascist". In the Psychology Today article "How to Spot a Sociopath",
they list 16 key behavioral characteristics. I can't see them in Trump-you could make a case for
a few of them, but not all. For example: "failure to follow any life plan", "sex life impersonal,
trivial, and poorly integrated", "poor judgment and failure to learn by experience", "incapacity
for love"-–you can't reasonably attach these characteristics to The Donald, who, indeed, has a
more impressive and loving progeny than any other prez candidate I can think of.
"I have a sense of international identity as well: we are all brothers and sisters."
Neoliberal "Goodthink" flag. What this means when neoliberals say it is not let's build
a better global society for all it means Corporations and our military should be able to run roughshod
over the world and the people's of other countries. Exploit their citizens for cheap Labor, destroy
their environment and move on. These are the exact policies of Hillary Clinton (see TPP, increase
foreign wars etc.). Hillary globalism is not about global Brotherhood it's about global economic
and military exploitation. Trump is nationalist non – interventionist, which leads to less global
military destruction than hillary and less global exploitation. So who is a better for those outside
the US, hillary the interventionist OR trump the non-interventionist?
"And not everyone feels the same way, but for most voters there is either a strong tribal loyalty
(Dem or Repub) or a weaker sense of "us" guiding the voter on that day.
Mad as I am about the Blue Dogs, I strongly identify with the Dems."
So you recognize you are a tribalist, and assume all the baggage and irrationality that tribalism
often fosters, but instead of addressing your tribalism you embrace it. What you seem to be saying
(to me)is that we should leave critical thinking at the door and become dem tribalists like you.
"But the Repubs and Dems see Wall Street issues through different cultural prisms. Republican
are more reflexively pro-business. It matters."
Hillary Clinton's biggest donors are Wallstreet and her dem. Husband destroyed glass-steagall.
Trump wants to reinstate glass-steagall, so who is more business friendly again?
"He is racist, and so he knows how to push ugly buttons."
This identity politics trope is getting so old. Both are racist just in different ways, Trump
says in your face racist things, which ensure the injustice cannot be ignored, where hillary has
and does support racist policies, that use stealth racism to incrementaly increase the misery
of minorities, while allowing the majority to pretend it's not happening.
"First, he will govern with the Republicans. Republican judges, TPP, military spending, environmental
rollbacks, etc. Trump will not overrule Repubs in Congress."
These are literally hillarys policies not trumps.
Trump: anti TPP, stop foreign interventions, close bases use money for infrastructure.
Hillary :Pro TPP, more interventions and military spending
"And no, no great Left populist party will ride to the rescue. The populist tradition (identity)
is mostly rightwing and racist in our society.
People do not change political identity like their clothes. The left tradition in the US, such
as it is, is in the Dem party."
So what you are saying is quit being stupid, populism is bad and you should vote for hillarys
neoliberalism. The democrats were once left so even if they are no longer left, we must continue
to support them if another party or candidate that is to the left isn't a democrat? Your logic
hurts my head.
Look, the Clintons are criminals, and their affiliate entities, including the DNC, could
be considered criminal enterprises or co-conspirators at this point. Those who haven't realized
that, or worse, who shill for them are willfully ignorant, amoral, or unethical. The fact that
that includes a large chunk of the population doesn't change that. I don't vote for criminals.
The very fact that Establishment, Wall St and Koch bros are behind HRC is evidence that
the current 'status quo' will be continued! I cannot stand another 4 years of Hilabama.
I hate Hillary more than Trump. I want to protest at the Establishment, which at this represented
by Hillary.
Populism (support for popular issues) is, well, popular.
Fascism (support for corps and military adventures) is, at least after our ME adventures, unpopular.
Commenters are expressing support for the person expressing popular views, such as infrastructure
spending, and expressing little support for the candidate they believe is most fascist.
Btw, Most on this site are liberals, few are reps, so to support him they have had to buck
some of their long held antipathy regarding reps.
Right, what is changing with Trump is the Republicans are going back to, say, the Eisenhower
era, when Ike started the interstate highway system, a socialist program if there ever was one.
It's a good article; this is a general observation. Sorry!
"Hate" seems to be a continuing Democrat meme, and heck, who can be for hate? So it makes sense
rhetorically, but in policy terms it's about as sensible as being against @ssh0les (since as the
good book says, ye have the @ssh0les always with you). So we're really looking at virtue signaling
as a mode of reinforcing tribalism, and to be taken seriously only for that reason. If you look
at the political class writing about the working class - modulo writers like Chris Arnade - the
hate is plain as day, though it's covered up with the rhetoric of meritocracy, taking care of
losers, etc.
Strategic hate management is a great concept. It's like hate can never be created or destroyed,
and is there as a resource to be mined or extracted. The Clinton campaign is doing a great job
of strategic hate management right now, by linking Putin and Trump, capitalizing on all the good
work done in the press over the last year or so.
For years we have been told that government should be run like a business. In truth that statement
was used as a cudgel to avoid having the government provide any kind of a safety net to its citizenry
because there was little or no profit in it for the people who think that government largess should
only be for them.
Here's the thing, if government had been run like a business, we the people would own huge
portions of Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Chase today. We wouldn't have bailed them out without
an equity stake in them. Most cities would have a share of the gate for every stadium that was
built. And rather than paying nothing to the community Walmart would have been paying a share
of their profits (much as those have dropped over the years).
I do not like Trump's business, but he truly does approach his brand and his relationships
as a business. When he says he doesn't like the trade deals because they are bad business and
bad deals he is correct. IF the well being of the United states and his populace are what you
are interested in regarding trade deals, ours are failures. Now most of us here know that was
not the point of the trade deals. They have been a spectacular success for many of our largest
businesses and richest people, but for America as a whole they have increased our trade deficit
and devastated our job base. When he says he won't go there, this is one I believe him on.
I also believe him on NATO and on the whole Russian thing. Why, because of the same reasons
I believe him on Trade. They are not winners for America as a whole. They are bad deals. Europe
is NOT living up to their contractual agreement regarding NATO. For someone who is a believer
in getting the better of the deal that is downright disgusting. And he sees no benefit in getting
into a war with Russia. The whole reserve currency thing vs. nukes is not going to work for him
as a cost benefit analysis of doing it. He is not going to front this because it is a business
loser.
We truly have the worst choices from the main parties in my lifetime. There are many reasons
Trump is a bad candidate. But on these two, he is far more credible and on the better side of
things than the Democratic nominee. And on the few where she might reasonably considered to have
a better position, unfortunately I do not for a moment believe her to be doing more than giving
lip service based on both her record and her character.
Is it your opinion that to have globalisation we must marginalize russia to the extent that
they realize they can't have utopia and make the practical choice of allowing finance capitalism
to guide them to realistic incrementally achieved debt bondage?
The Democratic Party has been inching further and further to the right. Bernie tried to arrest
this drift, but his internal populist rebellion was successfully thwarted by party elite corruption.
The Democratic position is now so far to the right that the Republicans will marginalize themselves
if they try to keep to the right of the Democrats.
But, despite party loyalty or PC slogans, the Democrat's rightward position is now so obvious
that it can be longer disguised by spin. The Trump campaign has demonstrated, the best electoral
strategy for the Republican Party is to leapfrog leftward and campaign from a less corporate position.
This has given space for the re-evaluation of party positions that Trump is enunciating, and the
result is that the Trump is running to the
left of Hillary. How weird is this?
I meant to use right and left to refer generally to elite vs popular. The issue is too big
to discuss without some simplification, and I'm sorry it has distracted from the main issue. On
the face of it, judging from the primaries, the Republican candidates who represented continued
rightward drift were rejected. (Indications are that the same thing happened in the Democratic
Party, but party control was stronger there, and democratic primary numbers will never be known).
The main point I was trying to make is that the Democratic party has been stretching credulity
to the breaking point in claiming to be democratic in any sense, and finally the contradiction
between their statements and actions has outpaced the capabilities of their propaganda. Their
Orwellian program overextended itself. Popular recognition of the disparity has caused a kind
of political "snap" that's initiated a radical reorganization of what used to be the party of
the right (or corporations, or elites, or finance, or "your description here".)
Besides confusion between which issues are right or left for Republicans or Democrats on the
national level, internationally, the breakdown of popular trust in the elites, and the failure
of their propaganda on that scale, is leading to a related worldwide distrust and rejection of
elite policies. This distrust has been percolating in pockets for some time, but it seems it's
now become so widespread that it's practically become a movement.
I suspect, however, there's a Plan B for this situation to restore the proper order. Will be
interesting to see how this plays out.
The striving for American empire has so totally confused the political order of the country
that up is down and down is up. The idea of government for and by the people is a distant memory.
Covering for lies and contradictions of beliefs has blurred any notion of principles informing
public action.
If there is any principle that matters today, it is the pursuit of money and profit reigns
supreme. Trump is populist in the sense he is talking about bringing money and wealth back to
the working classes. Not by giving it directly, but by forcing businesses to turn their sights
back to the US proper and return to making their profits at home. In the end, it is all nostalgia
and probably impossible, but working class people remember those days so it rings true. That is
hope and change in action. People also could care less if he cheats on his taxes or is found out
lying about how much he is worth. Once again, fudging your net worth is something working people
care little about. Having their share of the pie is all that matters and Trump is tapping into
that.
Clintons arrogance is worse because the transcripts probably clearly show her secretly conspiring
with bankers to screw the working people of this country. Trumps misdeeds effect his relationship
to other elites while Clintons directly effect working people.
Such a sorry state of affairs. When all that matters is the pursuit of money and profit, moving
forward will be difficult and full of moral contradictions. Populism needs a new goal. The political
machinery that gives us two pro-business hacks and an ineffectual third party has fundamentally
failed.
The business of America must be redefined, not somehow brought back to a mythical past greatness.
Talk about insanity.
"Bill Clinton has been a disaster for the Democratic Party. Send him packing."
"There's not much the Democrats can do about Mrs. Clinton. She's got a Senate seat for six
years. But there is no need for the party to look to her for leadership. The Democrats need to
regroup, re-establish their strong links to middle-class and working-class Americans, and move
on."
"You can't lead a nation if you are ashamed of the leadership of your party. The Clintons are
a terminally unethical and vulgar couple, and they've betrayed everyone who has ever believed
in them."
"As neither Clinton has the grace to retire from the scene, the Democrats have no choice but
to turn their backs on them. It won't be easy, but the Democrats need to try. If they succeed
they'll deserve the compliment Bill Clinton offered Gennifer Flowers after she lied under oath:
"Good for you." "
Amazing how the New York Times has "evolved" from Herbert's editorial stance of 15 years ago
to their unified editorial/news support for HRC's candacy,
In my view, it is not as if HRC has done anything to redeem herself in the intervening years.
It takes liberals to create a refugee crisis.
What country are we going to bomb back into the stone age this week?
We are very squeamish about offensive language.
We don't mind dropping bombs and ripping people apart with red hot shrapnel.
We are liberals.
Liberal sensibilities were on display in the film "Apocalypse Now".
No writing four letter words on the side of aircraft.
Napalm, white phosphorous and agent orange – no problem.
Liberals are like the English upper class – outward sophistication hiding the psychopath underneath.
They were renowned for their brutality towards slaves, the colonies and the English working class
(men, women and children) but terribly sophisticated when with their own.
Are you a bad language sort of person – Trump
Or a liberal, psychopath, empire builder – Clinton
The only crime Trump has committed so far is his language. Liberals like Clinton, Blair
and Obama drip blood.
Lambert strether said: my view is that the democrat party cannot be saved, but it can be seized.
Absolutely correct.
That is why Trump must be elected. Only then through the broken remains of both Parties can the
frangible Democrat Party be seized and restored.
The 2016 election cannot be looked at in isolation. The wars for profit are spreading from
Nigeria through Syria to Ukraine. Turkey was just lost to the Islamists and is on the road to
being a failed state. The EU is in an existential crisis due to Brexit, the refugee crisis and
austerity. Western leadership is utterly incompetent and failing to protect its citizens. Globalization
is failing. Its Losers are tipping over the apple cart. Humans are returning to their tribal roots
for safety. The drums for war with Russia are beating. Clinton / Kaine are 100% Status Quo Globalists.
Trump / Pence are candidates of change to who knows what. Currently I am planning on voting for
the Green Party in the hope it becomes viable and praying that the chaos avoids Maryland.
"... Because we interpreted the end of the Cold War as the ultimate vindication of America's economic system, we intensified our push toward the next level of capitalism, called globalization. It was presented as a project that would benefit everyone. Instead it has turned out to be a nightmare for many working people. Thanks to "disruption" and the "global supply chain," many American workers who could once support families with secure, decent-paying jobs must now hope they can be hired as greeters at Walmart. Meanwhile, a handful of super-rich financiers manipulate our political system to cement their hold on the nation's wealth. ..."
"... Rather than shifting to a less assertive and more cooperative foreign policy, we continued to insist that America must reign supreme. When we declared that we would not tolerate the emergence of another "peer power," we expected that other countries would blithely obey. Instead they ignore us. We interpret this as defiance and seek to punish the offenders. That has greatly intensified tensions between the United States and the countries we are told to consider our chief adversaries, Russia and China. ..."
Because we interpreted the end of the Cold War as the ultimate vindication
of America's economic system, we intensified our push toward the next level
of capitalism, called globalization. It was presented as a project that
would benefit everyone. Instead it has turned out to be a nightmare for
many working people. Thanks to "disruption" and the "global supply chain,"
many American workers who could once support families with secure, decent-paying
jobs must now hope they can be hired as greeters at Walmart. Meanwhile,
a handful of super-rich financiers manipulate our political system to cement
their hold on the nation's wealth.
Enrique Ferro's insight:
Moments of change require adaptation, but the United States is not good
at adapting. We are used to being in charge. This blinded us to the reality
that as other countries began rising, our relative power would inevitably
decline. Rather than shifting to a less assertive and more cooperative
foreign policy, we continued to insist that America must reign supreme.
When we declared that we would not tolerate the emergence of another "peer
power," we expected that other countries would blithely obey. Instead they
ignore us. We interpret this as defiance and seek to punish the offenders.
That has greatly intensified tensions between the United States and the
countries we are told to consider our chief adversaries, Russia and China.
This is downright sickening and the people who are voting for Hillary will not even care what will
happen with the USA iif she is elected.
By attacking Trump using "Khan gambit" she risks a violent backlash (And not only via Wikileaks,
which already promised to release information about her before the elections)
People also start to understand that she is like Trump. He destroyed several hundred American lifes
by robbing them, exploiting their vanity (standard practice in the USA those days) via Trump University
scam. She destroyed the whole country -- Libya and is complicit in killing Khaddafi (who, while not
a nice guy, was keeping the country together and providing be highest standard of living in Africa for
his people).
In other words she is a monster and sociopath. He probably is a narcissist too. So there is no much
phychological difference between them. And we need tight proportions to judge this situation if we are
talking about Hillary vs Trump.
As for people voting for Trump -- yes they will. I think if Hillary goes aganst Trump, the female
neoliberal monster will be trumped. She has little chances even taking into account the level of brainwashing
in the USA (which actually is close to those that existed in the USSR).
Notable quotes:
"... The reason Trump and Sanders are doing well in the US while fascists are doing well in Europe is the same reason: neoliberalism has gutted, or is in the process of gutting, societies. Workers and other formerly "safe" white collar workers are seeing their job security, income security, retirement security all go up in smoke. Neoliberals are trying to snip and cut labor protections, healthcare, environmental regulations all for corporate profit. In Europe this is all in addition to a massive refugee crisis itself brought on by neoliberalism (neocon foreign policy is required for neoliberal social policy, they go hand-in-hand). The US and NATO destabilize countries with the intent of stealing their resources and protecting their markets, cause massive refugee flows which strain social structures in Europe (which falls right into the hands of the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism). Of course the people will lean fascist. ..."
"... U.S. Government Tried to Tackle Gun Violence in 1960s ..."
"... Another key feature of fascism is territorial expansionism. As far as I am aware, none of the nationalist parties advocate invading other countries or retaking former colonies. Once again, contemporary neoliberalism is far closer to fascism. But you are correct about both Israel and Turkey – our allies. They are much closer to the genuine article. But you won't hear those complaining about the rise of fascism in Europe complaining too much about them. ..."
"... The only way they have avoided complete revolt has been endless borrowing to fund entitlements, once that one-time fix plays out the consequences will be apparent. The funding mechanism itself (The Fed) has even morphed into a neo-liberal tool designed to enrich Capital while enslaving Labor with the consequences. ..."
"... "Every society chooses how resources are allocated between capital and labor." More specifically, isn't it a struggle between various political/economic/cultural movements within a society which chooses how resources are allocated between capital and labor. ..."
"... My objection to imprecise language here isn't merely pedantic. The leftist dismissal of right wing populists like Trump (or increasingly influential European movements like Ukip, AfD, and the Front national) as "fascist" is a reductionist rhetorical device intended to marginalize them by implying their politics are so far outside of the mainstream that they do not need to be taken seriously. ..."
"... " the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism" ..."
"... The neoliberals are all too aware that the clock is ticking. In this morning's NYT, yet more talk of ramming TPP through in the lame duck. ..."
"... The roads here are deteriorating FAST. In Price County, the road commissioner said last night that their budget allows for resurfacing all the roads on a 200 year basis. ..."
"... This Trump support seems like a form of political vandalism with Trump as the spray paint. People generally feel frustrated with government, utterly powerless and totally left out as the ranks of the precariat continue to grow. Trump appeals to the nihilistic tendencies of some people who, like frustrated teens, have decided to just smashed things up for the hell of it. They think a presidency mix of Caligula with Earl Scheib would be a funny hoot. ..."
"... Someone at American Conservative, when trying to get at why it's pointless to tell people Trump will wreck the place, described him as a "hand grenade" lobbed into the heart of government. You can't scare people with his crass-ness and destructive tendencies, because that's precisely what his voters are counting on when/if he gets into government. ..."
"... In other words, the MSM's fear is the clearest sign to these voters that their ..."
"... Your phrase "Trump is political vandalism" is great. I don't think I've seen a better description. NPR this morning was discussing Trump and his relationship with the press and the issues some GOP leaders have with him. When his followers were discussed, the speakers closely circled your vandalism point. Basically they said that his voters are angry with the power brokers and leaders in DC and regardless of whether they think Trump's statements are heartfelt or just rhetoric, they DO know he will stick it to those power brokers so that's good. Vandalism by a longer phrase. ..."
"... Meritocracy was ALWAYS a delusional fraud. What you invariably get, after a couple of generations, is a clique of elitists who define merit as themselves and reproduce it ad nauseam. Who still believes in such laughable kiddie stories? ..."
"... Campaign Finance Reform: If you can't walk into a voting booth you cannot contribute, or make all elections financed solely by government funds and make private contributions of any kind to any politician illegal. ..."
"... Re-institute Glass-Steagall but even more so. Limit the number of states a bank can operate in. Make the Fed publicly owned, not privately owned by banks. Completely revise corporate law, doing away with the legal person hood of corporations and limit of liability for corporate officers and shareholders. ..."
"... Single payer health care for everyone. Allow private health plans but do away with health insurance as a deductible for business. Remove the AMA's hold on licensing of medical schools which restricts the number of doctors. ..."
"... Do away with the cap on Social Security wages and make all income, wages, capital gains, interest, and dividends subject to taxation. Impose tariffs to compensate for lower labor costs overseas and revise industry. ..."
"... Cut the Defense budget by 50% and use that money for intensive infrastructure development. ..."
"... Raise the national minimum wage to $15 and hour. ..."
"... Severely curtail the revolving door from government to private industry with a 10 year restriction on working for an industry you dealt with in any way as a government official. ..."
"... Free public education including college (4 year degree). ..."
"... Obama and Holder, allowing the banks to be above the law have them demi-gods, many of whom are psychopaths and kleptocrats, and with their newly granted status, they are now re-shaping the world in their own image. Prosecute these demi-gods and restore sanity. Don't and their greed for our things will never end until nothings left. ..."
"... This is why Hillary is so much more dangerous than trump, because she and the demi gods are all on the same page. The TPP is their holy grail so I expect heaven and earth to be moved, especially if it looks like some trade traitors are going to get knocked off in the election, scoundrels like patty murray (dino, WA) will push to get it through then line up at the feed trough to gorge on k street dough. I plan to vote stein if it's not Bernie, but am reserving commitment until I see what kind of betrayals the dems have for me, if it's bad enough I'll go with the trump hand grenade. ..."
"... Totally agree tegnost, no more democratic neoliberals -- ..."
"... "they are now re-shaping the world in their own image" Isn't this intrinsic to bourgeois liberalism? ..."
"... Two things are driving our troubles: over-population and globalization. The plutocrats and kleptocrats have all the leverage over the rest of us laborers when the population of human beings has increased seven-fold in the last 70 years, from a little over a billion to seven billions (and growing) today. They are happy to let us freeze to death behind gas stations in order for them to compete with other oligarchs in excess consumption. ..."
"... Thank you for mentioning the third rail of overpopulation. Too often, this giant category of problems is ignored, because it makes people uncomfortable. The planet is finite, resources on the planet are finite, yet the number of people keeps growing. We need to strive for a higher quality of life, not a higher quantity of people. ..."
"... The issue goes beyond "current neoliberals up for election", it is most of our political establishment that has been corrupted by a system that provides for the best politicians money can buy. ..."
"... America has always been a country where a majority of the population has been poor. With the exception of a fifty five year(1950-2005) year period where access to large quantities of consumer debt by households was deployed to first to provide a wealth illusion to keep socialism at bay, followed by a mortgage debt boom to both keep the system afloat and strip the accumulated capital of the working class, i.e. home equity, the history of the US has been one of poverty for the masses. ..."
"... Further debt was foisted on the working class in the form of military Keynesianism, generating massive fiscal deficits which are to be paid for via austerity in a neo-feudal economy. ..."
The first comment gives a window into the hidden desperation in America that is showing up in statistics
like increasing opioid addiction and suicides, rather than in accounts of how and why so many people
are suffering. I hope readers will add their own observations in comments.
We recently took three months to travel the southern US from coast to coast. As an expat for
the past twenty years, beyond the eye opening experience it left us in a state of shock. From
a homeless man convulsing in the last throes of hypothermia (been there) behind a fuel station
in Houston (the couldn't care less attendant's only preoccupation getting our RV off his premises),
to the general squalor of near-homelessness such as the emergence of "American favelas" a block
away from gated communities or affluent ran areas, to transformation of RV parks into permanent
residencies for the foreclosed who have but their trailer or RV left, to social study one can
engage while queuing at the cash registers of a Walmart before beneficiaries of SNAP.
Stopping to take the time to talk and attempt to understand their predicament and their beliefs
as to the cause of their plight is a dizzying experience in and of itself. For a moment I felt
transposed to the times of the Cold War, when the Iron Curtain dialectics fuzzed the perception
of that other world to the west with a structured set of beliefs designed to blacken that horizon
as well as establish a righteous belief in their own existential paradigm.
What does that have to do with education? Everything if one considers the elitist trend that
is slowly setting the framework of tomorrow's society. For years I have felt there is a silent
"un-avowed conspiracy", why the seeming redundancy, because it is empirically driven as a by-product
of capitalism's surge and like a self-redeeming discount on a store shelf crystalizes a group
identity of think-alike know-little or nothing frustrated citizens easily corralled by a Fox or
Trump piper. We have re-rcreated the conditions or rather the reality of "Poverty In America"
barely half a century after its first diagnostic with one major difference : we are now feeding
the growth of the "underclass" by lifting ever higher and out of reach the upward mobility ladder,
once the banner of opportunity now fallen behind the supposedly sclerotic welfare states of Europe.
So Richard Cohen now fears American voters because of Trump. Well, on Diane Reem today (NPR)
was a discussion on why fascist parties are growing in Europe. Both Cohen and the clowns on NPR
missed the forest for the trees. The reason Trump and Sanders are doing well in the US while
fascists are doing well in Europe is the same reason: neoliberalism has gutted, or is in the process
of gutting, societies. Workers and other formerly "safe" white collar workers are seeing their
job security, income security, retirement security all go up in smoke. Neoliberals are trying
to snip and cut labor protections, healthcare, environmental regulations all for corporate profit.
In Europe this is all in addition to a massive refugee crisis itself brought on by neoliberalism
(neocon foreign policy is required for neoliberal social policy, they go hand-in-hand). The US
and NATO destabilize countries with the intent of stealing their resources and protecting their
markets, cause massive refugee flows which strain social structures in Europe (which falls right
into the hands of the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism). Of course the people will lean fascist.
In the US we don't have the refugees, but the neoliberalism is further along and more damaging.
There's no mystery here or in Europe, just the natural effects of governments failing to represent
real people in favor of useless eater rich.
Make the people into commodities, endanger their washes and job security, impose austerity,
and tale in floods of refugees. Of COURSE Europeans stay leaning fascist.
According to NPR's experts, many or most of those parties are "fascist". The fascist label
is getting tossed around a LOT right now. It is slung at Trump, at UKIP, or any others. Fascist
is what you call the opposition party to the right that you oppose. Now I don't call Trump a fascist.
A buffoon, yes, even a charlatan (I still rather doubt he really originally thought he would become
the GOP nominee. Perhaps I'm wrong but, like me, many seemed to think that he was pushing his
"brand" – a term usage of which I HATE because it IS like we are all commodities or businesses
rather than PEOPLE – and that he would drop by the wayside and profit from his publicity).
Be that as it may, NPR and Co were discussing the rise of fascist/neofascist parties and wondering
why there were doing so well. Easy answer: neoliberalism + refugee hoards = what you see in Europe.
I've also blamed a large part of today's gun violence in the USA on the fruits of neoliberalism.
Why? Same reason that ugly right-wing groups (fascist or not) are gaining ground around the Western
world. Neoliberalism destroys societies. It destroys the connections within societies (the USA
in this case). Because we have guns handy, the result is mass shootings and flashes of murder-suicides.
This didn't happen BEFORE neoliberalism got its hooks into American society. The guns were there,
always have been (when I was a teen I recall seeing gun mags advertising various "assault weapons"
for sale this was BEFORE Reagan and this was BEFORE mass shootings, etc). Machine guns were much
easier to come by BEFORE the 1980s yet we didn't have mass killings with machine guns, handguns,
or shotguns. ALL that stuff is a NEW disease. A disease rooted in neoliberalism. Neoliberalism
steals your job security, your healthcare security, your home, your retirement security, your
ability to provide for your family, your ability to send your kids to college, your ability to
BUY FOOD. Neoliberalism means you don't get to work for a company for 20 years and then see the
company pay you back for that long, good service with a pension. You'll be lucky to hold a job
at any company from month-to-month now and FORGET about benefits! Healthcare? Going by the wayside
too. Workers in the past felt a bond with each other, especially within a company. Neoliberalism
has turned all workers against each other because they have to fight to gain any of the scraps
being tossed out by the rich overlords. You can't work TOGETHER to gain mutual benefit, you need
to fight each other in a zero sum game. For ME to win you have to lose. You are a commodity. A
disposable and irrelevant widget. THAT combines with guns (that have always been available!) and
you get desperate acting out: mass shootings, murder suicides, etc.
There are actual fascist parties in Europe. To name a few in one country I've followed, Ukraine,
there's Right Sector, Svoboda, and others, and that's just one country. I don't think anyone calls
UKIP fascist.
@Praedor – Your comment that Yves posted and this one are excellent. One of the most succinct
statements of neoliberalism and its worst effects that I have seen.
As to the cause of recent mass gun violence, I think you have truly nailed it. If one thinks
at all about the ways in which the middle class and lower have been squeezed and abused, it's
no wonder that a few of them would turn to violence. It's the same despair and frustration that
leads to higher suicide rates, higher rates of opiate addiction and even decreased life expectancy.
"Machine guns were much easier to come by BEFORE the 1980s yet we didn't have mass killings
with machine guns, handguns, or shotguns. ALL that stuff is a NEW disease. A disease rooted in
neoliberalism."
Easy availability of guns was seen as a serious problem long before the advent of neoliberalism.
For one example of articles about this, see U.S. Government Tried to Tackle Gun Violence in
1960s . Other examples include 1920s and 1930s gangster and mob violence that were a consequence
of Prohibition (of alcohol). While gun violence per-capita might be increasing, the population
is far larger today, and the news media select incidents of violence to make them seem like they're
happening everywhere and that everyone needs to be afraid. That, of course, instills a sense of
insecurity and fear into the public mind; thus, a fearful public want a strong leader and are
willing to accept the inconvenience and dangers of a police state for protection.
America has plenty of refugees, from Latin America
Neo-liberal goes back to the Monroe Doctrine. We used to tame our native workers with immigrants,
and we still do, but we also tame them by globalism in trade. So many rationalizations for this,
based on political and economic propaganda. All problems caused by the same cause American predatory
behavior. And our great political choice iron fist with our without velvet glove.
Germany, Belgium, France, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Turkey, Israel, Australia come to mind
(if one is allowed to participate in a European song contest, one is supposed to be part of Europe
:) They all have more or less fascist governments.
Once you realize that the ECB creates something like 60 billion euros a month, and gives nothing
to its citizens nor its nation-states, that means the money goes to corporations, which means
that the ECB, and by extension the whole EU, is a fascist construct (fascism being defined as
a government running on behalf of the corporations).
That's a fallacy. Corporatism is a feature of fascism, not the other way around.
None of the governments you mention, with the possible exception of Israel and Turkey, can
be called fascist in any meaningful sense.
Even the anti-immigration parties in the Western European countries you mention – AfD, Front
National, Vlaams Belang – only share their nationalism with fascist movements. And they are decidedly
anti-corporatist.
The problem here is one of semantics, really. You're using "fascist" interchangeably with "authoritarian",
which is a misnomer for these groups. The EU is absolutely anti-democratic, authoritarian, and
technocratic in a lot of respects, but it's not fascist. Both have corporatist tendencies, but
fascist corporatism was much more radical, much more anti-capitalist (in the sense that the capitalist
class was expected to subordinate itself to the State as the embodiment of the will of the Nation
or People, as were the other classes/corporate units). EU technocratic corporatism has none of
the militarism, the active fiscal policy, the drive for government supported social cohesion,
the ethno-nationalism, or millenarianism of Fascism.
The emergent Right parties like UKIP, FNP, etc. share far more with the Fascists, thought I'd
say they generally aren't yet what Fascists would have recognized as other Fascists in the way
that the NSDAP and Italian Fascists recognized each other -perhaps they're more like fellow travelers.
True, I posted a few minutes ago saying roughly the same thing – but it seems to have gone
to moderation.
Another key feature of fascism is territorial expansionism. As far as I am aware, none
of the nationalist parties advocate invading other countries or retaking former colonies. Once
again, contemporary neoliberalism is far closer to fascism. But you are correct about both Israel
and Turkey – our allies. They are much closer to the genuine article. But you won't hear those
complaining about the rise of fascism in Europe complaining too much about them.
When I was young, there were 4 divisions:
* who owned the means of production (public or private entities)
* who decided what those means were used for.
If it is a 'public entity' (aka government or regime) that decides what is built, we have a totalitarian
state, which can be 'communist' (if the means also belong the public entities like the government
or regional fractions of it) or 'fascist' (if the factories are still in private hands).
If it is the private owner of the production capacity who decides what is built, you get capitalism.
I don't recall any examples of private entities deciding what to do with public means of production
(mafia perhaps).
Sheldon Wolin
introduced
us to inverted totalitarism. While it is no longer the government that decides what must be
done, the private 'owners' just buy the government, the judiciary, the press, or whatever is needed
to achieve their means.
When I cite Germany, it is not so much AfD, but the 2€/hour jobs I am worried about. When I cite
Belgium, it is not the fools of Vlaams Belang, but rather the un-taxing of corporations and the
tear-down of social justice that worries me.
But Jeff, is Wolin accurate in using the term "inverted totalitarianism" to try to capture
the nature of our modern extractive bureaucratic monolith that apparently functions in an environment
where "it is no longer the government that decides what must be done..simply.."private owners
just buy the government, the judiciary, the press, or whatever is needed to achieve their means."
Mirowski argues quite persuasively that the neoliberal ascendency does not represent the retreat
of the State but its remaking to strongly support a particular conception of a market society
that is imposed with the help of the State on our society.
For Mirowski, neoliberalism is definitely not politically libertarian or opposed to strong
state intervention in the economy and society.
Inverted totalitarianism is the mirror image of fascism, which is why so many are confused.
Fascism is just a easier term to use and more understandable by all. There is not a strict adherence
to fascism going on, but it's still totalitarian just the same.
Hi
I live in Europe as well, and what to think of Germany's AfD, Greece's Golden Dawn, the Wilder's
party in the Netherlands etc. Most of them subscribe to the freeloading, sorry free trading economic
policies of neoliberalism.
There's LePen in France and the far-right, fascist leaning party nearly won in Austria. The
far right in Greece as well. There's clearly a move to the far right in Europe. And then there's
the totalitarian mess that is Turkey. How much further this turn to a fascist leaning right goes
and how widespread remains to be seen, but it's clearly underway.
Searched 'current fascist movements europe' and got these active groups from wiki.
National Bolshevik Party-Belarus
Parti Communautaire National-Européen Belgium
Bulgarian National Alliance Bulgaria
Nova Hrvatska Desnica Croatia
Ustaše Croatia
National Socialist Movement of Denmark
La Cagoule France
National Democratic Party of Germany
Fascism and Freedom Movement – Italy
Fiamma Tricolore Italy
Forza Nuova Italy
Fronte Sociale Nazionale Italy
Movimento Fascismo e Libertà Italy
Pērkonkrusts Latvia
Norges Nasjonalsosialistiske Bevegelse Norway
National Radical Camp (ONR) Poland
National Revival of Poland (NOP)
Polish National Community-Polish National Party (PWN-PSN)
Noua Dreaptă Romania
Russian National Socialist Party(formerly Russian National Union)
Barkashov's Guards Russia
National Socialist Society Russia
Nacionalni stroj Serbia
Otačastveni pokret Obraz Serbia
Slovenska Pospolitost Slovakia
España 2000 Spain
Falange Española Spain
Nordic Realm Party Sweden
National Alliance Sweden
Swedish Resistance Movement Sweden
National Youth Sweden
Legion Wasa Sweden
SPAS Ukraine
Blood and Honour UK
British National Front UK
Combat 18 UK
League of St. George UK
National Socialist Movement UK
Nationalist Alliance UK
November 9th Society UK
Racial Volunteer Force UK
"Fascism" has become the prefered term of abuse applied indiscriminately by the right thinking
to any person or movement which they want to tar as inherently objectionable, and which can therefore
be dismissed without the tedium of actually engaging with them at the level of ideas.
Most of the people who like to throw this word around couldn't give you a coherant definition
of what exactly they understand it to signify, beyond "yuck!!"
In fairness even students of political ideology have trouble teasing out a cosistent system
of beliefs, to the point where some doubt fascism is even a coherent ideology. That hardly excuses
the intellectual vacuity of those who use it as a term of abuse, however.
Precisely 3,248 angels can fit on the head of a pin. Parsing the true definition of "fascism"
is a waste of time, broadly, fascism is an alliance of the state, the corporation, and the military,
anyone who doesn't see that today needs to go back to their textbooks.
As far as the definition "neo-liberalism" goes, yes it's a useful label. But let's keep it
simple: every society chooses how resources are allocated between Capital and Labor. The needle
has been pegged over on the Capital side for quite some time, my "start date" is when Reagan busted
the air traffic union. The hideous Republicans managed to sell their base that policies that were
designed to let companies be "competitive" were somehow good for them, not just for the owners
of the means of production.
The only way they have avoided complete revolt has been endless borrowing to fund entitlements,
once that one-time fix plays out the consequences will be apparent. The funding mechanism itself
(The Fed) has even morphed into a neo-liberal tool designed to enrich Capital while enslaving
Labor with the consequences.
"Every society chooses how resources are allocated between capital and labor." More specifically,
isn't it a struggle between various political/economic/cultural movements within a society which
chooses how resources are allocated between capital and labor.
Take, for example, the late 1880s-1890s in the U.S. During that time-frame there were powerful
agrarian populists movements and the beginnings of some labor/socialist movements from below,
while from above the property-production system was modified by a powerful political movement
advocating for more corporate administered markets over the competitive small-firm capitalism
of an earlier age.
It was this movement for corporate administered markets which won the battle and defeated/absorbed
the agrarian populists.
What are the array of such forces in 2016? What type of movement doe Trump represent? Sanders?
Clinton?
fascism is an alliance of the state, the corporation, and the military, anyone who doesn't
see that today needs to go back to their textbooks
Which textbooks specifically?
The article I cited above in Vox canvasses the opinion of five serious students of fascism,
and none of them believe Trump is a fascist. I'd be most interested in knowing what you
have been reading.
As for your definition of "fascism", it's obviously so vague and broad that it really doesn't
explain anything. To the extent it contains any insight it is that public institutions (the state),
private businesses (the corporation) and the armed forces all exert significant influence on public
policy. That and a buck and and a half will get you a cup of coffee. If anything it is merely
a very crude descriptive model of the political process. It doesn't define fascism as a particular
set of beliefs that make it a distinct political ideology that can be differentiated from other
ideologies (again, see the Vox article for a discussion of some of the beliefs that are arguably
characteristic of fascist movements). Indeed by your standard virtually every state that has ever
existed has to a greater or lesser extent been "fascist".
My objection to imprecise language here isn't merely pedantic. The leftist dismissal of
right wing populists like Trump (or increasingly influential European movements like Ukip, AfD,
and the Front national) as "fascist" is a reductionist rhetorical device intended to marginalize
them by implying their politics are so far outside of the mainstream that they do not need to
be taken seriously. Given that these movements are only growing in strength as faith in traditional
political movements and elites evaporate this is likely to produce exactly the opposite result.
Right wing populism isn't going to disappear just because the left keeps trying to wish it away.
Refusing to accept this basic political fact risks condemning the left rather than "the fascists"
to political irrelevance.
I moved to a small city/town in Iowa almost 20 years ago. Then, it still had something of a
Norman Rockwell quality to it, particularly in a sense of egalitarianism, and also some small
factory jobs which still paid something beyond a bare existence.
Since 2000, many of those jobs have left, and the population of the county has declined by
about 10%. Kmart, Penney's, and Sears have left as payday/title loan outfits, pawnshops, smoke
shops, and used car dealers have all proliferated.
Parts of the town now resemble a combination of Appalachia and Detroit. Sanders easily won
the caucuses here and, no, his supporters were hardly the latte sippers of someone's imagination,
but blue collar folks of all ages.
My tale is similar to yours. About 2 years ago, I accepted a transfer from Chicagoland to north
central Wisconsin. JC Penney left a year and a half ago, and Sears is leaving in about 3-4 months.
Kmart is long gone.
I was back at the old homestead over Memorial Day, and it's as if time has stood still. Home
prices still going up; people out for dinner like crazy; new & expensive automobiles everywhere.
But driving out of Chicagoland, and back through rural Wisconsin it is unmistakeable.
2 things that are new: The roads here are deteriorating FAST. In Price County, the road
commissioner said last night that their budget allows for resurfacing all the roads on a 200 year
basis. (Yes, that means there is only enough money to resurface all the county roads if spread
out over 200 years.) 2nd, there are dead deer everywhere on the side of the road. In years past,
they were promptly cleaned up by the highway department. Not any more. Gross, but somebody has
to do the dead animal clean up. (Or not. Don't tell Snotty Walker though.)
Anyway, not everything is gloom and doom. People seem outwardly happy. But if you're paying
attention, signs of stress and deterioration are certainly out there.
This Trump support seems like a form of political vandalism with Trump as the spray paint.
People generally feel frustrated with government, utterly powerless and totally left out as the
ranks of the precariat continue to grow. Trump appeals to the nihilistic tendencies of some people
who, like frustrated teens, have decided to just smashed things up for the hell of it. They think
a presidency mix of Caligula with Earl Scheib would be a funny hoot.
You also have the more gullible fundis who have actually deluded themselves into thinking the
man who is ultimate symbol of hedonism will deliver them from secularism because he says he will.
Authoritarians who seek solutions through strong leaders are usually the easiest to con because
they desperately want to believe in their eminent deliverance by a human deus ex machina. Plus
he is ostentatiously rich in a comfortably tacky way and a TV celebrity beats a Harvard law degree.
And why not the thinking goes the highly vaunted elite college Acela crowd has pretty much made
a pig's breakfast out of things. So much for meritocracy. Professor Harold Hill is going to give
River City a boys band.
Someone at American Conservative, when trying to get at why it's pointless to tell people
Trump will wreck the place, described him as a "hand grenade" lobbed into the heart of government.
You can't scare people with his crass-ness and destructive tendencies, because that's precisely
what his voters are counting on when/if he gets into government.
In other words, the MSM's fear is the clearest sign to these voters that their
political revolution is working. Since TPTB decided peaceful change (i.e. Sanders) was a non-starter,
then they get to reap the whirlwind.
Your phrase "Trump is political vandalism" is great. I don't think I've seen a better description.
NPR this morning was discussing Trump and his relationship with the press and the issues some
GOP leaders have with him. When his followers were discussed, the speakers closely circled your
vandalism point. Basically they said that his voters are angry with the power brokers and leaders
in DC and regardless of whether they think Trump's statements are heartfelt or just rhetoric,
they DO know he will stick it to those power brokers so that's good. Vandalism by a longer phrase.
Meritocracy was ALWAYS a delusional fraud. What you invariably get, after a couple of generations,
is a clique of elitists who define merit as themselves and reproduce it ad nauseam. Who still
believes in such laughable kiddie stories?
Besides, consumers need to learn to play the long game and suck up the "scurrilous attacks"
on their personal consumption habits for the next four years. The end of abortion for four years
is not important - lern2hand and lern2agency, and lern2cutyourrapist if it comes to that. What
is important is that the Democratic Party's bourgeois yuppie constituents are forced to defend
against GOP attacks on their personal and cultural interests with wherewithal that would have
been ordinarily spent to attend to their sister act with their captive constituencies.
If bourgeois Democrats hadn't herded us into a situation where individuals mean nothing outside
of their assigned identity groups and their corporate coalition duopoly, they wouldn't be reaping
the whirlwind today. Why, exactly, should I be sympathetic to exploitative parasites such as the
middle class?
There are all good ideas. However, population growth undermines almost all of them. Population
growth in America is immigrant based. Reverse immigration influxes and you are at least doing
something to reduce population growth.
How to "reverse immigration influxes"?
Stop accepting refugees. It's outrageous that refugees from for example, Somalia,
get small business loans, housing assistance, food stamps and lifetime SSI benefits while some
of our veterans are living on the street.
No more immigration amnesties of any kind.
Deport all illegal alien criminals.
Practice "immigrant family unification" in the country of origin. Even if you have
to pay them to leave. It's less expensive in the end.
Eliminate tax subsidies to American corn growers who then undercut Mexican farmers'
incomes through NAFTA, driving them into poverty and immigration north. Throw Hillary Clinton
out on her ass and practice political and economic justice to Central America.
I too am a lifetime registered Democrat and I will vote for Trump if Clinton gets the crown.
If the Democrats want my vote, my continuing party registration and my until recently sizeable
donations in local, state and national races, they will nominate Bernie. If not, then I'm an Independent
forevermore. They will just become the Demowhig Party.
Campaign Finance Reform: If you can't walk into a voting booth you cannot contribute,
or make all elections financed solely by government funds and make private contributions of
any kind to any politician illegal.
Re-institute Glass-Steagall but even more so. Limit the number of states a bank can
operate in. Make the Fed publicly owned, not privately owned by banks.
Completely revise corporate law, doing away with the legal person hood of corporations
and limit of liability for corporate officers and shareholders.
Single payer health care for everyone. Allow private health plans but do away with
health insurance as a deductible for business. Remove the AMA's hold on licensing of medical
schools which restricts the number of doctors.
Do away with the cap on Social Security wages and make all income, wages, capital gains,
interest, and dividends subject to taxation.
Impose tariffs to compensate for lower labor costs overseas and revise industry.
Cut the Defense budget by 50% and use that money for intensive infrastructure development.
Raise the national minimum wage to $15 and hour.
Severely curtail the revolving door from government to private industry with a 10 year
restriction on working for an industry you dealt with in any way as a government official.
Free public education including college (4 year degree).
Obama and Holder, allowing the banks to be above the law have them demi-gods, many of whom
are psychopaths and kleptocrats, and with their newly granted status, they are now re-shaping
the world in their own image. Prosecute these demi-gods and restore sanity. Don't and their greed
for our things will never end until nothings left.
This is why Hillary is so much more dangerous than trump, because she and the demi gods
are all on the same page. The TPP is their holy grail so I expect heaven and earth to be moved,
especially if it looks like some trade traitors are going to get knocked off in the election,
scoundrels like patty murray (dino, WA) will push to get it through then line up at the feed trough
to gorge on k street dough. I plan to vote stein if it's not Bernie, but am reserving commitment
until I see what kind of betrayals the dems have for me, if it's bad enough I'll go with the trump
hand grenade.
Totally agree tegnost, no more democratic neoliberals -- Patty Murray (up for re-election)
and Cantwell are both trade traitors and got fast track passed.
Two things are driving our troubles: over-population and globalization. The plutocrats
and kleptocrats have all the leverage over the rest of us laborers when the population of human
beings has increased seven-fold in the last 70 years, from a little over a billion to seven billions
(and growing) today. They are happy to let us freeze to death behind gas stations in order for
them to compete with other oligarchs in excess consumption.
This deserves a longer and more thoughtful comment, but I don't have the time this morning.
I have to fight commute traffic, because the population of my home state of California has doubled
from 19M in 1970 to an estimated 43M today (if you count the Latin American refugees and H1B's).
Thank you for mentioning the third rail of overpopulation. Too often, this giant category
of problems is ignored, because it makes people uncomfortable. The planet is finite, resources
on the planet are finite, yet the number of people keeps growing. We need to strive for a higher
quality of life, not a higher quantity of people.
The issue goes beyond "current neoliberals up for election", it is most of our political
establishment that has been corrupted by a system that provides for the best politicians money
can buy.
In the 1980's I worked inside the beltway witnessing the new cadre of apparatchiks that drove
into town on the Reagan coattails full of moral a righteousness that became deviant, parochial,
absolutist and for whom bi-partisan approaches to policy were scorned prodded on by new power
brokers promoting their gospels in early morning downtown power breakfasts. Sadly our politicians
no longer serve but seek a career path in our growing meritocratic plutocracy.
America has always been a country where a majority of the population has been poor. With
the exception of a fifty five year(1950-2005) year period where access to large quantities of
consumer debt by households was deployed to first to provide a wealth illusion to keep socialism
at bay, followed by a mortgage debt boom to both keep the system afloat and strip the accumulated
capital of the working class, i.e. home equity, the history of the US has been one of poverty
for the masses.
Further debt was foisted on the working class in the form of military Keynesianism, generating
massive fiscal deficits which are to be paid for via austerity in a neo-feudal economy.
"... Money, it seems to him, has somehow changed its role. It has "increased" (is that possible, he asks?) while at the same time it has become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. It appears to seek to become an autonomous and dominating sector of economic life, functionally separated from production of real things, almost all of which seem to come from faraway places. "Real" actually begins to change its meaning, another topic more interesting still. This devotion to the world of money-making-money seems to have obsessed the lives of many of the most "important" Americans. Entire TV networks are devoted to it. They talk about esoteric financial instruments that to the ordinary citizen look more like exotically placed bets-on-credit in the casino than genuine ways to grow real-world business, jobs, wages, and family income. The few who are in position to master the game live material lives that were beyond what almost any formerly "wealthy" man or woman in Rip's prior life could even imagine ..."
"... children gone away and lost to either the relentless rootlessness of the trans-national economy or the virtual hell-world of meth and opioids and heroin and unending underemployed hopelessness. ..."
"... "If public life can suffer a metaphysical blow, the death of the labor question was that blow. For millions of working people, it amputated the will to resist." ..."
"... It's a Wonderful Life ..."
"... as educators ..."
"... OK, so I hear some of you saying, corporate America will never let this Civic Media get off the ground. My short answer to this is that corporations do what makes money for them, and in today's despairing political climate there's money to be made in sponsoring something truly positive, patriotic and constructive. ..."
"... I am paying an exorbitant subscription for the UK Financial Times at the moment. Anyway, the good news is that very regular articles are appearing where you can almost feel the panic at the populist uprisings. ..."
"... The kernel of Neoliberal Ideology: "There is no such a thing as society." (Margaret Thatcher). ..."
"... "In this postindustrial world not only is the labor question no longer asked, not only is proletarian revolution passé, but the proletariat itself seems passé. And the invisibles who nonetheless do indeed live there have internalized their nonexistence, grown demoralized, resentful, and hopeless; if they are noticed at all, it is as objects of public disdain. What were once called "blue-collar aristocrats"-skilled workers in the construction trades, for example-have long felt the contempt of the whole white-collar world. ..."
"... Or, we could replace Western liberal culture, with its tradition to consume and expand by force an unbroken chain from the Garden of Eden to Friedrich von Hayek, with the notion of maintenance and "enough". Bourgeois make-work holds no interest to me. ..."
"... My understanding of the data is that living standards increased around the world during the so-called golden age, not just in the U.S. (and Western Europe and Japan and Australia ). It could be that it was still imperialism at work, but the link between imperialism and the creation of the middle class is not straightforward. ..."
"... I thought neoliberalism was just the pogrom to make everyone – rational agents – as subscribed by our genetic / heraldic betters .. putting this orbs humans and resources in the correct "natural" order . ..."
"... Disheveled Marsupial for those thinking neoliberalism is not associated with libertarianism one only has to observe the decades of think tanks and their mouth organs roaming the planet . especially in the late 80s and 90s . bringing the might and wonders of the – market – to the great unwashed globally here libertarian priests rang in the good news to the great unwashed ..."
"... I would argue that neoliberalism is a program to define markets as primarily engaged in information processing and to make everyone into non-agents ( as not important at all to the proper functioning of markets). ..."
"... It also appears that neoliberals want to restrict democracy to the greatest extent possible and to view markets as the only foundation for truth without any need for input from the average individual. ..."
I am almost 70 years old, born and raised in New York City, still living in a near suburb.
Somehow, somewhere along the road to my 70th year I feel as if I have been gradually transported
to an almost entirely different country than the land of my younger years. I live painfully now
in an alien land, a place whose habits and sensibilities I sometimes hardly recognize, while unable
to escape from memories of a place that no longer exists. There are days I feel as I imagine a
Russian pensioner must feel, lost in an unrecognizable alien land of unimagined wealth, power,
privilege, and hyper-glitz in the middle of a country slipping further and further into hopelessness,
alienation, and despair.
I am not particularly nostalgic. Nor am I confusing recollection with sentimental yearnings
for a youth that is no more. But if I were a contemporary Rip Van Winkle, having just awakened
after, say, 30-40 years, I would not recognize my beloved New York City. It would be not just
the disappearance of the old buildings, Penn Station, of course, Madison Square Garden and its
incandescent bulb marquee on 50th and 8th announcing NYU vs. St. John's, and the WTC, although
I always thought of the latter as "new" until it went down. Nor would it be the disappearance
of all the factories, foundries, and manufacturing plants, the iconic Domino Sugar on the East
River, the Wonder Bread factory with its huge neon sign, the Swingline Staples building in Long
Island City that marked passage to and from the East River tunnel on the railroad, and my beloved
Schaeffer Beer plant in Williamsburg, that along with Rheingold, Knickerbocker, and a score of
others, made beer from New York taste a little bit different.
It wouldn't be the ubiquitous new buildings either, the Third Avenue ghostly glass erected
in the 70's and 80's replacing what once was the most concentrated collection of Irish gin mills
anywhere. Or the fortress-like castles built more recently, with elaborate high-ceilinged lobbies
decorated like a kind of gross, filthy-wealthy Versailles, an aesthetically repulsive style that
shrieks "power" in a way the neo-classical edifices of our Roman-loving founders never did. Nor
would it even be the 100-story residential sticks, those narrow ground-to-clouds skyscraper condominiums
proclaiming the triumph of globalized capitalism with prices as high as their penthouses, driven
ever upward by the foreign billionaires and their obsession with burying their wealth in Manhattan
real estate.
It is not just the presence of new buildings and the absence of the old ones that have this
contemporary Van Winkle feeling dyslexic and light-headed. The old neighborhoods have disintegrated
along with the factories, replaced by income segregated swatches of homogenous "real estate" that
have consumed space, air, and sunlight while sucking the distinctiveness out of the City. What
once was the multi-generational home turf for Jewish, Afro-American, Puerto Rican, Italian, Polak
and Bohunk families is now treated as simply another kind of investment, stocks and bonds in steel
and concrete. Mom's Sunday dinners, clothes lines hanging with newly bleached sheets after Monday
morning wash, stickball games played among parked cars, and evenings of sitting on the stoop with
friends and a transistor radio listening to Mel Allen call Mantle's home runs or Alan Freed and
Murray the K on WINS 1010 playing Elvis, Buddy Holly, and The Drifters, all gone like last night's
dreams.
Do you desire to see the new New York? Look no further than gentrifying Harlem for an almost
perfect microcosm of the city's metamorphosis, full of multi-million condos, luxury apartment
renovations, and Maclaren strollers pushed by white yuppie wife stay-at-homes in Marcus Garvey
Park. Or consider the "new" Lower East Side, once the refuge of those with little material means,
artists, musicians, bums, drug addicts, losers and the physically and spiritually broken - my
kind of people. Now its tenements are "retrofitted" and remodeled into $4000 a month apartments
and the new residents are Sunday brunching where we used to score some Mary Jane.
There is the "Brooklyn brand", synonymous with "hip", and old Brooklyn neighborhoods like Red
Hook and South Brooklyn (now absorbed into so desirable Park Slope), and Bushwick, another former
outpost of the poor and the last place I ever imagined would be gentrified, full of artists and
hipsters driving up the price of everything. Even large sections of my own Queens and the Bronx
are affected (infected?). Check out Astoria, for example, neighborhood of my father's family,
with more of the old ways than most but with rents beginning to skyrocket and starting to drive
out the remaining working class to who knows where.
Gone is almost every mom and pop store, candy stores with their egg creams and bubble gum cards
and the Woolworth's and McCrory's with their wooden floors and aisles containing ordinary blue
collar urgencies like thread and yarn, ironing boards and liquid bleach, stainless steel utensils
of every size and shape. Where are the locally owned toy and hobby stores like Jason's in Woodhaven
under the el, with Santa's surprises available for lay-away beginning in October? No more luncheonettes,
cheap eats like Nedicks with hot dogs and paper cones of orange drink, real Kosher delis with
vats of warm pastrami and corned beef cut by hand, and the sacred neighborhood "bar and grill",
that alas has been replaced by what the kids who don't know better call "dive bars", the detestable
simulacra of the real thing, slick rooms of long slick polished mahogany, a half-dozen wide screen
TV's blaring mindless sports contests from all over the world, over-priced micro-brews, and not
a single old rummy in sight?
Old Rip searches for these and many more remembered haunts, what Ray Oldenburg called the "great
good places" of his sleepy past, only to find store windows full of branded, high-priced, got-to-have
luxury-necessities (necessary if he/she is to be certified cool, hip, and successful), ridiculously
overpriced "food emporia", high and higher-end restaurants, and apparel boutiques featuring hardened
smiles and obsequious service reserved for those recognized by celebrity or status.
Rip notices too that the visible demographic has shifted, and walking the streets of Manhattan
and large parts of Brooklyn, he feels like what walking in Boston Back Bay always felt like, a
journey among an undifferentiated mass of privilege, preppy or 'metro-sexed' 20 and 30-somethings
jogging or riding bicycles like lean, buff gods and goddesses on expense accounts supplemented
by investments enriched by yearly holiday bonuses worth more than Rip earned in a lifetime.
Sitting alone on a park bench by the river, Rip reflects that more than all of these individual
things, however, he despairs of a city that seems to have been reimagined as a disneyfied playground
of the privileged, offering endless ways to self-gratify and philistinize in a clean, safe (safest
big city in U.S., he heard someone say), slick, smiley, center-of-the-world urban paradise, protected
by the new centurions (is it just his paranoia or do battle-ready police seem to be everywhere?).
Old ethnic neighborhoods are filled with apartment buildings that seem more like post-college
"dorms", tiny studios and junior twos packed with three or four "singles" roommates pooling their
entry level resources in order to pay for the right to live in "The City". Meanwhile the newer
immigrants find what place they can in Kingsbridge, Corona, Jamaica, and Cambria Heights, far
from the city center, even there paying far too much to the landlord for what they receive.
New York has become an unrecognizable place to Rip, who can't understand why the accent-less
youngsters keep asking him to repeat something in order to hear his quaint "Brooklyn" accent,
something like the King's English still spoken on remote Smith Island in the Chesapeake, he guesses
.
Rip suspects that this "great transformation" (apologies to Polanyi) has coincided, and is somehow
causally related, to the transformation of New York from a real living city into, as the former
Mayor proclaimed, the "World Capital" of financialized commerce and all that goes with it.
"Financialization", he thinks, is not the expression of an old man's disapproval but a way
of naming a transformed economic and social world. Rip is not an economist. He reads voraciously
but, as an erstwhile philosopher trained to think about the meaning of things, he often can't
get his head around the mathematical model-making explanations of the economists that seem to
dominate the more erudite political and social analyses these days. He has learned, however, that
the phenomenon of "capitalism" has changed along with his city and his life.
Money, it seems to him, has somehow changed its role. It has "increased" (is that possible,
he asks?) while at the same time it has become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. It appears
to seek to become an autonomous and dominating sector of economic life, functionally separated
from production of real things, almost all of which seem to come from faraway places. "Real" actually
begins to change its meaning, another topic more interesting still. This devotion to the world
of money-making-money seems to have obsessed the lives of many of the most "important" Americans.
Entire TV networks are devoted to it. They talk about esoteric financial instruments that to the
ordinary citizen look more like exotically placed bets-on-credit in the casino than genuine ways
to grow real-world business, jobs, wages, and family income. The few who are in position to master
the game live material lives that were beyond what almost any formerly "wealthy" man or woman
in Rip's prior life could even imagine
.
Above all else is the astronomical rise in wealth and income inequality. Rip recalls that growing
up in the 1950's, the kids on his block included, along with firemen, cops, and insurance men
dads (these were virtually all one-parent income households), someone had a dad who worked as
a stock broker. Yea, living on the same block was a "Wall Streeter". Amazingly democratic, no?
Imagine, people of today, a finance guy drinking at the same corner bar with the sanitation guy.
Rip recalls that Aristotle had some wise and cautionary words in his Politics concerning the stability
of oligarchic regimes.
Last year I drove across America on blue highways mostly. I stayed in small towns and cities,
Zanesville, St. Charles, Wichita, Pratt, Dalhart, Clayton, El Paso, Abilene, Clarksdale, and many
more. I dined for the most part in local taverns, sitting at the bar so as to talk with the local
bartender and patrons who are almost always friendly and talkative in these spaces. Always and
everywhere I heard similar stories as my story of my home town. Not so much the specifics (there
are no "disneyfied" Lubbocks or Galaxes out there, although Oxford, MS comes close) but in the
sadness of men and women roughly my age as they recounted a place and time – a way of life – taken
out from under them, so that now their years are filled with decayed and dead downtowns, children
gone away and lost to either the relentless rootlessness of the trans-national economy or the
virtual hell-world of meth and opioids and heroin and unending underemployed hopelessness.
I am not a trained economist. My graduate degrees were in philosophy. My old friends call me
an "Eric Hoffer", who back in the day was known as the "longshoreman philosopher". I have been
trying for a long time now to understand the silent revolution that has been pulled off right
under my nose, the replacement of a world that certainly had its flaws (how could I forget the
civil rights struggle and the crime of Viet Nam; I was a part of these things) but was, let us
say, different. Among you or your informed readers, is there anyone who can suggest a book or
books or author(s) who can help me understand how all of this came about, with no public debate,
no argument, no protest, no nothing? I would be very much appreciative.
I'll just highlight this line for emphasis
"there are no "disneyfied" Lubbocks or Galaxes out there, although Oxford, MS comes close) but
in the sadness of men and women roughly my age as they recounted a place and time – a way of life
– taken out from under them, so that now their years are filled with decayed and dead downtowns,
children gone away and lost to either the relentless rootlessness of the trans-national economy
or the virtual hell-world of meth and opioids and heroin and unending underemployed hopelessness."
my best friend pretty much weeps every day.
I don't have a book to recommend. I do think you identify a really underemphasized central
fact of recent times: the joint processes by which real places have been converted into "real
estate" and real, messy lives replaced by safe, manufactured "experiences." This affects wealthy
and poor neighborhoods alike, in different ways but in neither case for the better.
I live in a very desirable neighborhood in one of those places that makes a lot of "Best of"
lists. I met a new neighbor last night who told me how he and his wife had plotted for years to
get out of the Chicago burbs, not only to our city but to this specific neighborhood, which they
had decided is "the one." (This sentiment is not atypical.) Unsurprisingly, property values in
the neighborhood have gone through the roof. Which, as far as I can tell, most everyone here sees
as an unmitigated good thing.
At the same time, several families I got to know because they moved into the neighborhood about
the same time we did 15-20 years ago, are cashing out and moving away, kids off to or out of college,
parents ready (and financed) to get on to the next phase and the next place. Of course, even though
our children are all Lake Woebegoners, there are no next generations staying in the neighborhood,
except of course the ones still living, or back, at "home." (Those families won't be going anywhere
for awhile!)
I can't argue that new money in the hood hasn't improved some things. Our formerly struggling
food co-op just finished a major expansion and upgrade. Good coffee is 5 minutes closer than it
used to be. But to my wife and me, the overwhelming feeling is that we are now outsiders here
in this neighborhood where we know all the houses and the old trees but not what motivates our
new neighbors. So I made up a word for it: unsettling (adj., verb, noun).
"If public life can suffer a metaphysical blow, the death of the labor question was that
blow. For millions of working people, it amputated the will to resist."
Christopher Lash in "Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy" mentions Ray Oldenburg's
"The Great Good Places: Cafes, Coffee Shops, Community Centers, Beauty Parlors, General Stores,
Bars, Hangouts and How they Got You through the Day."
He argued that the decline of democracy is directly related to the disappearance of what he
called third places:,
"As neighborhood hangouts give way to suburban shopping malls, or, on the other hand private
cocktail parties, the essentially political art of conversation is replaced by shoptalk or personal
gossip.
Increasingly, conversation literally has no place in American society. In its absence how–or
better, where–can political habits be acquired and polished?
Lasch finished he essay by noting that Oldenburg's book helps to identify what is missing from
our then newly emerging world (which you have concisely updated):
"urban amenities, conviviality, conversation, politics–almost everything in part that makes
life worth living."
The best explainer of our modern situation that I have read is Wendell Berry. I suggest that
you start with "The Unsettling of America," quoted below.
"Let me outline briefly as I can what seem to me the characteristics of these opposite kinds
of mind. I conceive a strip-miner to be a model exploiter, and as a model nurturer I take the
old-fashioned idea or ideal of a farmer. The exploiter is a specialist, an expert; the nurturer
is not. The standard of the exploiter is efficiency; the standard of the nurturer is care. The
exploiter's goal is money, profit; the nurturer's goal is health - his land's health, his own,
his family's, his community's, his country's. Whereas the exploiter asks of a piece of land only
how much and how quickly it can be made to produce, the nurturer asks a question that is much
more complex and difficult: What is its carrying capacity? (That is: How much can be taken from
it without diminishing it? What can it produce dependably for an indefinite time?) The exploiter
wishes to earn as much as possible by as little work as possible; the nurturer expects, certainly,
to have a decent living from his work, but his characteristic wish is to work as well as possible.
The competence of the exploiter is in organization; that of the nurturer is in order - a human
order, that is, that accommodates itself both to other order and to mystery. The exploiter typically
serves an institution or organization; the nurturer serves land, household, community, place.
The exploiter thinks in terms of numbers, quantities, "hard facts"; the nurturer in terms of character,
condition, quality, kind."
I also think Prof. Patrick Deneen works to explain the roots (and progression) of decline.
I'll quote him at length here describing the modern college student.
"[T]he one overarching lesson that students receive is the true end of education: the only
essential knowledge is that know ourselves to be radically autonomous selves within a comprehensive
global system with a common commitment to mutual indifference. Our commitment to mutual indifference
is what binds us together as a global people. Any remnant of a common culture would interfere
with this prime directive: a common culture would imply that we share something thicker, an inheritance
that we did not create, and a set of commitments that imply limits and particular devotions.
Ancient philosophy and practice praised as an excellent form of government a res publica –
a devotion to public things, things we share together. We have instead created the world's first
Res Idiotica – from the Greek word idiotes, meaning "private individual." Our education system
produces solipsistic, self-contained selves whose only public commitment is an absence of commitment
to a public, a common culture, a shared history. They are perfectly hollowed vessels, receptive
and obedient, without any real obligations or devotions.
They won't fight against anyone, because that's not seemly, but they won't fight for anyone
or anything either. They are living in a perpetual Truman Show, a world constructed yesterday
that is nothing more than a set for their solipsism, without any history or trajectory."
Wow. Did this hit a nerve. You have eloquently described what was the city of hope for several
generations of outsiders, for young gay men and women, and for real artists, not just from other
places in America, but from all over the world. In New York, once upon a time, bumping up against
the more than 50% of the population who were immigrants from other countries, you could learn
a thing or two about the world. You could, for a while, make a living there at a job that was
all about helping other people. You could find other folks, lots of them, who were honest, well-meaning,
curious about the world. Then something changed. As you said, you started to see it in those hideous
80's buildings. But New York always seemed somehow as close or closer to Europe than to the U.S.,
and thus out of the reach of mediocrity and dumbing down. New York would mold you into somebody
tough and smart, if you weren't already – if it didn't, you wouldn't make it there.
Now, it seems, this dream is dreamt. Poseurs are not artists, and the greedy and smug drive
out creativity, kindness, real humor, hope.
It ain't fair. I don't know where in this world an aspiring creative person should go now,
but it probably is not there.
Americans cannot begin to reasonably demand a living wage, benefits and job security when there
is an unending human ant-line of illegals and legal immigrants willing to under bid them.
Only when there is a parity or shortage of workers can wage demands succeed, along with other
factors.
From 1925 to 1965 this country accepted hardly any immigrants, legal or illegal. We had the
bracero program where Mexican males were brought in to pick crops and were then sent home to collect
paychecks in Mexico. American blacks were hired from the deep south to work defense plants in
the north and west.
Is it any coincidence that the 1965 Great Society program, initiated by Ted Kennedy to primarily
benefit the Irish immigrants, then co-opted by LBJ to include practically everyone, started this
process of Middle Class destruction?
1973 was the peak year of American Society as measured by energy use per capita, expansion
of jobs and unionization and other factors, such as an environment not yet destroyed, nicely measured
by the The Real Progress Indicator.
Solution? Stop importing uneducated people. That's real "immigration reform".
Now explain to me why voters shouldn't favor Trump's radical immigration stands?
Maybe, but OTOH, who is it, exactly, who is recruiting, importing, hiring and training undocumented
workers to downgrade pay scales??
Do some homework, please. If businesses didn't actively go to Central and South America to
recruit, pay to bring here, hire and employ undocumented workers, then the things you discuss
would be great.
When ICE comes a-knocking at some meat processing plant or mega-chicken farm, what happens?
The undocumented workers get shipped back to wherever, but the big business owner doesn't even
get a tap on the wrist. The undocumented worker – hired to work in unregulated unsafe unhealthy
conditions – often goes without their last paycheck.
It's the business owners who manage and support this system of undocumented workers because
it's CHEAP, and they don't get busted for it.
Come back when the USA actually enforces the laws that are on the books today and goes after
big and small business owners who knowingly recruit, import, hire, train and employee undocumented
workers you know, like Donald Trump has all across his career.
This is the mechanism by which the gov't has assisted biz in destroying the worker, competition
for thee, but none for me. For instance I can't go work in canada or mexico, they don't allow
it. Policy made it, policy can change it, go bernie. While I favor immigration, in it's current
form it is primarily conducted on these lines of destroying workers (H1b etc and illegals combined)
Lucky for the mexicans they can see the american dream is bs and can go home. I wonder who the
latinos that have gained citizenship will vote for. Unlikely it'll be trump, but they can be pretty
conservative, and the people they work for are pretty conservative so no guarantee there, hillary
is in san diego at the tony balboa park where her supporters will feel comfortable, not a huge
venue I think they must be hoping for a crowd, and if she can't get one in san diego while giving
a "if we don't rule the world someone else will" speech, she can't get one anywhere. Defense contractors
and military advisors and globalist biotech (who needs free money more than biotech? they are
desperate for hillary) are thick in san diego.
I live part-time in San Diego. It is very conservative. The military, who are constantly screwed
by the GOP, always vote Republican. They make up a big cohort of San Diego county.
Hillary may not get a big crowd at the speech, but that, in itself, doesn't mean that much
to me. There is a segment of San Diego that is somewhat more progressive-ish, but it's a pretty
conservative county with parts of eastern SD county having had active John Birch Society members
until recently or maybe even ongoing.
There's a big push in the Latino community to GOTV, and it's mostly not for Trump. It's possible
this cohort, esp the younger Latino/as, will vote for Sanders in the primary, but if Clinton gets
the nomination, they'll likely vote for her (v. Trump).
I was unlucky enough to be stuck for an hour in a commuter train last Friday after Trump's
rally there. Hate to sound rude, but Trump's fans were everything we've seen. Loud, rude, discourteous
and an incessant litany of rightwing talking points (same old, same old). All pretty ignorant.
Saying how Trump will "make us great again." I don't bother asking how. A lot of ugly comments
about Obama and how Obama has been "so racially divisive and polarizing." Well, No. No, Obama
has not been or done that, but the rightwing noise machine has sure ginned up your hatreds, angers
and fears. It was most unpleasant. The only instructive thing about it was confirming my worst
fears about this group. Sorry to say but pretty loutish and very uninformed. Sigh.
part timer in sd as well, family for hillary except for nephew and niece .I keep telling my
mom she should vote bernie for their sake but it never goes over very well
Re Methland, we live in rural US and we got a not-very-well hidden population of homeless children.
I don't mean homeless families with children, I mean homeless children. Sleeping in parks in good
weather, couch-surfing with friends, etc. I think related.
Fascism is a system of political and social order intended to reinforce the unity, energy and
purity of communities in which liberal democracy stand(s) accused of producing division and decline.
. . . George Orwell reminded us, clad in the mainstream patriotic dress of their own place and
time, . . . an authentically popular fascism in the United States would be pious and anti-Black;
in Western Europe, secular and antisemitic, or more probably, these days anti-Islamic; in Russia
and Eastern Europe, religious, antisemitic, and slavophile.
Robert O. Paxton
In The Five Stages of Faschism
" that eternal enemy: the conservative manipulators of privilege who damn as 'dangerous agitators'
any man who menaces their fortunes" (maybe 'power and celebrity' should be added to fortunes)
Sinclair Lewis
It Can't Happen Here page 141
On the Boots To Ribs Front: Anyone hereabouts notice that Captain America has just been revealed
to be a Nazi? Maybe this is what R. Cohen was alluding to but I doubt it.
The four horse men are, political , social, economic and environmental collapse . Any one remember
the original Mad Max movie. A book I recommend is the Crash Of 2016 By Thom Hartmann.
From the comment, I agree with the problems, not the cause. We've increased the size and scope
of the safety net over the last decade. We've increased government spending versus GDP. I'm not
blaming government but its not neoliberal/capitalist policy either.
1. Globalization clearly helps the poor in other countries at the expense of workers in the
U.S. But at the same time it brings down the cost of goods domestically. So jobs are not great
but Walmart/Amazon can sell cheap needs.
2. Inequality started rising the day after Bretton Woods – the rich got richer everyday after
"Nixon Shock"
Hi rfam : To point 1 : Why is there a need to bring down the cost of goods? Is it because of
past outsourcing and trade agreements and FR policies? I think there's a chicken and egg thing
going on, ie.. which came first. Globalization is a way to bring down wages while supplying Americans
with less and less quality goods supplied at the hand of global corporations like Walmart that
need welfare in the form of food stamps and the ACA for their workers for them to stay viable
(?). Viable in this case means ridiculously wealthy CEO's and the conglomerate growing bigger
constantly. Now they have to get rid of COOL's because the WTO says it violates trade agreements
so we can't trace where our food comes from in case of an epidemic. It's all downhill. Wages should
have risen with costs so we could afford high quality American goods, but haven't for a long,
long time.
Globalization helps the rich here way more than the poor there. The elites get more money for
nothing (see QE before you respond, if you do, that's where the money for globalization came from)
the workers get the husk. Also the elite gets to say "you made your choices" and other moralistic
crap. The funny(?) thing is they generally claim to be atheists, which I translate into "I am
God, there doesn't need to be any other" Amazon sells cheap stuff by cheating on taxes, and barely
makes money, mostly just driving people out of business. WalMart has cheap stuff because they
subsidise their workers with food stamps and medicaid. Bringing up bretton woods means you don't
know much about money creation, so google "randy wray/bananas/naked capitalism" and you'll find
a quick primer.
The Walmart loathsome spawn and Jeff Bezos are the biggest welfare drains in our nation – or
among the biggest. They woefully underpay their workers, all while training them on how to apply
for various welfare benefits. Just so that their slaves, uh, workers can manage to eat enough
to enable them to work.
It slays me when US citizens – and it happens across the voting spectrum these days; I hear
just as often from Democratic voters as I do from GOP voters – bitch, vetch, whine & cry about
welfare abuse. And if I start to point out the insane ABUSE of welfare by the Waltons and Jeff
Bezos, I'm immediately greeted with random TRUE stories about someone who knew someone who somehow
made out like a bandit on welfare.
Hey, I'm totally sure and in agreement that there are likely a small percentage of real welfare
cheats who manage to do well enough somehow. But seriously? That's like a drop in the bucket.
Get the eff over it!!!
Those cheats are not worth discussing. It's the big fraud cheats like Bezos & the Waltons and
their ilk, who don't need to underpay their workers, but they DO because the CAN and they get
away with it because those of us the rapidly dwindling middle/working classes are footing the
bill for it.
Citizens who INSIST on focusing on a teeny tiny minority of real welfare cheats, whilst studiously
ignoring the Waltons and the Bezos' of the corporate world, are enabling this behavior. It's one
of my bugabears bc it's so damn frustrating when citizens refuse to see how they are really being
ripped off by the 1%. Get a clue.
That doesn't even touch on all the other tax breaks, tax loopholes, tax incentives and just
general all-around tax cheating and off-shore money hiding that the Waltons and Bezos get/do.
Sheesh.
"I'm immediately greeted with random TRUE stories about someone who knew someone who somehow
made out like a bandit on welfare."
is the key and a v. long term result of the application of Bernays' to political life. Its
local and hits at the gut interpersonal level 'cos the "someones" form a kind of chain of trust
esp. if the the first one on the list is a friend or a credentialed media pundit. Utterly spurious
I know but countering this with a *merely* rational analysis of how Walmart, Amazon abuse the
welfare system to gouge profits from the rest of us just won't ever, for the large majority, get
through this kind emotional wall.
I don't know what any kind of solution might look like but, somehow, we need to find a way
of seriously demonising the corporate parasites that resonates at the same emotional level as
the "welfare cheat" meme that Bill Clinton and the rest of the DLC sanctified back in the '90s.
Something like "Walmart's stealing your taxes" might work but how to get it out there in a
viral way ??
What a comment from seanseamour. And the "hoisting" of it to high visibility at the site is
a testament to the worth of Naked Capitalism.
seanseamour asks "What does that have to do with education?" and answers "Everything if one
considers the elitist trend " This question & answer all but brings tears to my eyes. It is so
utterly on point. My own experience of it, if I may say so, comes from inside the belly of the
beast. As a child and a product of America's elite universities (I have degrees from Harvard and
Yale, and my dad, Richard B. Sewall, was a beloved English prof at Yale for 42 years), I could
spend all morning detailing the shameful roles played by America's torchbearing universities –
Harvard, Yale, Stanford etc – in utterly abandoning their historic responsibility as educators
to maintaining the health of the nation's public school system.*
And as I suspect seanseymour would agree, when a nation loses public education, it loses everything.
But I don't want to spend all morning doing that because I'm convinced that it's not too late
for America to rescue itself from maelstrom in which it finds itself today. (Poe's "Maelstrom"
story, cherished by Marshall McLuhan, is supremely relevant today.)
To turn America around, I don't look to education – that system is too far gone to save itself,
let alone the rest of the country – but rather to the nation's media: to the all-powerful public
communication system that certainly has the interactive technical capabilities to put citizens
and governments in touch with each other on the government decisions that shape the futures of
communities large and small.
For this to happen, however, people like the us – readers of Naked Capitalism – need to stop
moaning and groaning about the damage done by the neoliberals and start building an issue-centered,
citizen-participatory, non-partisan, prime-time Civic Media strong enough to give all Americans
an informed voice in the government decisions that affect their lives. This Civic media would
exist to make citizens and governments responsive and accountable to each other in shaping futures
of all three communities – local, state and national – of which every one of us is a member.
Pie in the sky? Not when you think hard about it. A huge majority of Americans would welcome
this Civic Media. Many yearn for it. This means that a market exists for it: a Market of the Whole
of all members of any community, local, state and national. This audience is large enough to rival
those generated by media coverage of pro sports teams, and believe it or not much of the growth
of this Civic media could be productively modeled on the growth of media coverage of pro sports
teams. This Civic Media would attract the interest of major advertisers, especially those who
see value in non-partisan programming dedicated to getting America moving forward again. Dynamic,
issue-centered, problem-solving public forums, some modeled on voter-driven reality TV contests
like The Voice or Dancing with the Stars, could be underwritten by a "rainbow" spectrum of funders,
commericial, public, personal and even government sources.
So people take hope! Be positive! Love is all we need, etc. The need for for a saving alternative
to the money-driven personality contests into which our politics has descended this election year
is literally staring us all in the face from our TV, cellphone and computer screens. This is no
time to sit back and complain, it's a time to start working to build a new way of connecting ourselves
so we can reverse America's rapid decline.
OK, so I hear some of you saying, corporate America will never let this Civic Media get
off the ground. My short answer to this is that corporations do what makes money for them, and
in today's despairing political climate there's money to be made in sponsoring something truly
positive, patriotic and constructive. And I hear a few others saying that Americans are too
dumbed down, too busy, too polarized or too just plain stupid to make intelligent, constructive
use of a non-partisan, problem-solving Civic Media. But I would not underestimate the intelligence
of Americans when they can give their considered input – by vote, by comment or by active participation
– in public forums that are as exciting and well managed as an NFL game or a Word Series final.
I am paying an exorbitant subscription for the UK Financial Times at the moment. Anyway,
the good news is that very regular articles are appearing where you can almost feel the panic
at the populist uprisings.
Whatever system is put in place the human race will find a way to undermine it. I believe in
capitalism because fair competition means the best and most efficient succeed.
I send my children to private schools and universities because I want my own children at the
top and not the best. Crony capitalism is inevitable, self-interest undermines any larger system
that we try and impose.
Can we design a system that can beat human self-interest? It's going to be tricky.
"If that's the system, how can I take advantage of it?" human nature at work. "If that's the
system, is it working for me or not?" those at the top.
If not, it's time to change the system.
If so, how can I tweak it to get more out of it?
Neo-Liberalism
Academics, who are not known for being street-wise, probably thought they had come up with
the ultimate system using markets and numeric performance measures to create a system free from
human self-interest.
They had already missed that markets don't just work for price discovery, but are frequently
used for capital gains by riding bubbles and hoping there is a "bigger fool" out there than you,
so you can cash out with a handsome profit.
(I am not sure if the Chinese realise markets are supposed to be for price discovery at all).
Hence, numerous bubbles during this time, with housing bubbles being the global favourite for
those looking for capital gains.
If we are being governed by the markets, how do we rig the markets?
A question successfully solved by the bankers.
Inflation figures, that were supposed to ensure the cost of living didn't rise too quickly,
were somehow manipulated to produce low inflation figures with roaring house price inflation raising
the cost of living.
What unemployment measure will best suit the story I am trying to tell?
U3 – everything great
U6 – it's not so good
Labour participation rate – it hasn't been this bad since the 1970s
Anything missing from the theory has been ruthlessly exploited, e.g. market bubbles ridden
for capital gains, money creation by private banks, the difference between "earned" and "unearned"
income and the fact that Capitalism trickles up through the following mechanism:
1) Those with excess capital collect rent and interest.
2) Those with insufficient capital pay rent and interest.
I just went on a rant last week. (Not only because the judge actually LIED in court)
I left the courthouse in downtown Seattle, to cross the street to find the vultures selling
more foreclosures on the steps of the King County Administration Building, while above them, there
were tents pitched on the building's perimeter. And people were walking by just like this scene
was normal.
Because the people at the entrance of the courthouse could view this, I went over there and
began to rant. I asked (loudly) "Do you guys see that over there? Vultures selling homes rendering
more people homeless and then the homeless encampment with tents pitched on the perimeter above
them? In what world is this normal?" One guy replied, "Ironic, isn't it?" After that comment,
the Marshall protecting the judicial crooks in the building came over and tried to calm me down.
He insisted that the scene across the street was "normal" and that none of his friends or neighbors
have been foreclosed on. I soon found out that that lying Marshall was from Pierce County, the
epicenter of Washington foreclosures.
"In this postindustrial world not only is the labor question no longer asked, not only
is proletarian revolution passé, but the proletariat itself seems passé. And the invisibles who
nonetheless do indeed live there have internalized their nonexistence, grown demoralized, resentful,
and hopeless; if they are noticed at all, it is as objects of public disdain. What were once called
"blue-collar aristocrats"-skilled workers in the construction trades, for example-have long felt
the contempt of the whole white-collar world.
For these people, already skeptical about who runs things and to what end, and who are now
undergoing their own eviction from the middle class, skepticism sours into a passive cynicism.
Or it rears up in a kind of vengeful chauvinism directed at alien others at home and abroad, emotional
compensation for the wounds that come with social decline If public life can suffer a metaphysical
blow, the death of the labor question was that blow. For millions of working people, it amputated
the will to resist."
One thing I don't think I have seen addressed on this site (apologies if I have missed it!)
in all the commentary about the destruction of the middle class is the role of US imperialism
in creating that middle class in the first place and what it is that we want to save from destruction
by neo-liberalism. The US is rich because we rob the rest of the world's resources and have been
doing so in a huge way since 1945, same as Britain before us. I don't think it's a coincidence
that the US post-war domination of the world economy and the middle class golden age happened
at the same time. Obviously there was enormous value created by US manufacturers, inventors, government
scientists, etc but imperialism is the basic starting point for all of this. The US sets the world
terms of trade to its own advantage. How do we save the middle class without this level of control?
Within the US elites are robbing everyone else but they are taking what we use our military power
to appropriate from the rest of the world.
Second, if Bernie or whoever saves the middle class, is that so that everyone can have a tract
house and two cars and continue with a massively wasteful and unsustainable lifestyle based on
consumption? Or are we talking about basic security like shelter, real health care, quality education
for all, etc? Most of the stories I see seem to be nostalgic for a time when lots of people could
afford to buy lots of stuff and don't 1) reflect on origin of that stuff (imperialism) and 2)
consider whether that lifestyle should be the goal in the first place.
I went to the electronics recycling facility in Seattle yesterday. The guy at customer service
told me that they receive 20 million pounds per month. PER MONTH. Just from Seattle. I went home
and threw up.
It doesn't have to be that way. You can replace military conquest (overt and covert) with space
exploration and science expansion. Also, instead of pushing consumerism, push contentment. Don't
setup and goose a system of "gotta keep up with the Joneses!"
In the 50s(!!!) there was a plan, proven in tests and studies, that would have had humans on
the mars by 1965, out to Saturn by 72. Project Orion. Later, the British Project Daedalus was
envisioned which WOULD have put space probes at the next star system within 20 years of launch.
It was born of the atomic age and, as originally envisioned, would have been an ecological disaster
BUT it was reworked to avoid this and would have worked. Spacecraft capable of comfortably holding
100 personnel, no need to build with paper-thin aluminum skin or skimp on amenities. A huge ship
built like a large sea vessel (heavy iron/steel) accelerated at 1g (or more or slightly less as
desired) so no prolonged weightlessness and concomitant loss of bone and muscle mass. It was all
in out hands but the Cold War got in the way, as did the many agreements and treaties of the Cold
War to avoid annihilation. It didn't need to be that way. Check it out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)
All that with 1950s and 60s era technology. It could be done better today and for less than
your wars in the Middle East. Encourage science, math, exploration instead of consumption, getting
mine before you can get yours, etc.
Or, we could replace Western liberal culture, with its tradition to consume and expand
by force an unbroken chain from the Garden of Eden to Friedrich von Hayek, with the notion of
maintenance and "enough". Bourgeois make-work holds no interest to me.
My understanding of the data is that living standards increased around the world during
the so-called golden age, not just in the U.S. (and Western Europe and Japan and Australia ).
It could be that it was still imperialism at work, but the link between imperialism and the creation
of the middle class is not straightforward.
Likewise, US elites are clearly NOT robbing the manufacturing firms that have set up in China
and other low-wage locations, so it is an oversimplification to say they are "robbing everyone
else."
Nostalgia is overrated but I don't sense the current malaise as a desire for more stuff. (I
grew up in the 60s and 70s and I don't remember it as a time where people had, or craved, a lot
of stuff. That period would be now, and I find it infects Sanders' supporters less than most.)
If anything, it is nostalgia for more (free) time and more community, for a time when (many but
not all) people had time to socialize and enjoy civic life.
those things would be nice as would just a tiny bit of hope for the future, our own and the
planet's and not an expectation of things getting more and more difficult and sometimes for entirely
unnecessary reasons like imposed austerity. But being we can't have "nice things" like free time,
community and hope for the future, we just "buy stuff".
I live on the south side, in the formerly affluent south shore neighborhood. A teenager was
killed, shot in the head in a drive by shooting, at 5 pm yesterday right around the corner from
my residence. A white coworker of mine who lives in a rich northwest side neighborhood once commented
to me how black people always say goodbye by saying "be safe". More easily said than done.
I thought neoliberalism was just the pogrom to make everyone – rational agents – as subscribed
by our genetic / heraldic betters .. putting this orbs humans and resources in the correct "natural"
order .
Disheveled Marsupial for those thinking neoliberalism is not associated with libertarianism
one only has to observe the decades of think tanks and their mouth organs roaming the planet .
especially in the late 80s and 90s . bringing the might and wonders of the – market – to the great
unwashed globally here libertarian priests rang in the good news to the great unwashed
I would argue that neoliberalism is a program to define markets as primarily engaged in
information processing and to make everyone into non-agents ( as not important at all to the proper
functioning of markets).
It also appears that neoliberals want to restrict democracy to the greatest extent possible
and to view markets as the only foundation for truth without any need for input from the average
individual.
But as Mirowski argues–carrying their analysis this far begins to undermine their own neoliberal
assumptions about markets always promoting social welfare.
When I mean – agents – I'm not referring to agency, like you say the market gawd/computer does
that. I was referencing the – rational agent – that 'ascribes' the markets the right at defining
facts or truth as neoliberalism defines rational thought/behavior.
Disheveled Marsupial yes democracy is a direct threat to Hayekian et al [MPS and Friends]
paranoia due to claims of irrationality vs rationally
I have trouble understanding the focus on an emergence of fascism in Europe, focus that seems
to dominate this entire thread when, put in perspective such splinter groups bear little weight
on the European political spectrum.
As an expat living in France, in my perception the Front National is a threat to the political
establishments that occupy the center left and right and whose historically broad constituencies
have been brutalized by the financial crisis borne of unbridled anglo-saxon runaway capitalism,
coined neoliberalism. The resulting disaffection has allowed the growth of the FN but it is also
fueled by a transfer of reactionary constituencies that have historically found identity in far
left parties (communist, anti-capitalist, anarchist ), political expressions the institutions
of the Republic allow and enable in the name of plurality, a healthy exultury in a democratic
society.
To consider that the FN in France, UKIP in the UK and others are a threat to democratic values
any more that the far left is non-sensical, and I dare say insignificant compared to the "anchluss"
our conservative right seeks to impose upon the executive, legislative and judicial branches of
government.
The reality in Europe as in America is economic. The post WWII era of reconstruction, investment
and growth is behind us, the French call these years the "Trente Glorieuses" (30 glorious years)
when prosperity was felt through all societal strats, consumerism for all became the panacea for
a just society, where injustice prevailed welfare formulas provided a new panacea.
As the perspective of an unravelling of this golden era began to emerge elites sought and conspired
to consolidate power and wealth, under the aegis of greed is good culture by further corrupting
government to serve the few, ensuring impunity for the ruling class, attempting societal cohesiveness
with brash hubristic dialectics (America, the greatest this or that) and adventurism (Irak, mission
accomplished), conspiring to co-opt and control institutions and the media (to understand the
depth of this deception a must read is Jane Mayer in The Dark Side and in Dark Money).
The difference between America and Europe is that latter bears of brunt of our excess.
The 2008 Wall St / City meltdown eviscerated much of America' middle class and de-facto stalled,
perhaps definitively, the vehicle of upward mobility in an increasingly wealth-ranked class structured
society – the Trump phenomena feeds off the fatalistic resilience and "good book" mythologies
remnant of the "go west" culture.
In Europe where to varying degrees managed capitalism prevails the welfare state(s) provided the
shock absorbers to offset the brunt of the crisis, but those who locked-in on neoliberal fiscal
conservatism have cut off their nose in spite leaving scant resources to spur growth. If social
mobility survives, more vibrantly than the US, unemployment and the cost thereof remains steadfast
and crippling.
The second crisis borne of American hubris is the human tidal wave resulting from the Irak adventure;
it has unleashed mayhem upon the Middle East, Sub Saharan Africa and beyond. The current migrational
wave Europe can not absorb is but the beginning of much deeper problem – as ISIS, Boko Haram and
so many others terrorist groups destabilize the nation-states of a continent whose population
is on the path to explode in the next half century.
The icing on the cake provided by a Trump election will be a world wave of climate change refugees
as the neoliberal establishment seeks to optimize wealth and power through continued climate change
denial.
Fascism is not the issue, nationalism resulting from a self serving bully culture will decimate
the multilateral infrastructure responsible nation-states need to address today's problems.
Broadly, Trump Presidency capping the neoliberal experience will likely signal the end of the
US' dominant role on the world scene (and of course the immense benefits derived for the US).
As he has articulated his intent to discard the art of diplomacy, from soft to institutional,
in favor of an agressive approach in which the President seeks to "rattle" allies (NATO, Japan
and S. Korea for example) as well as his opponents (in other words anyone who does not profess
blind allegiance), expect that such modus operandi will create a deep schism accompanied by a
loss of trust, already felt vis-a-vis our legislature' behavior over the last seven years.
The US's newfound respect among friends and foes generated by President Obama' presidency, has
already been undermined by the GOP primaries, if Trump is elected it will dissipate for good as
other nations and groups thereof focus upon new, no-longer necessarily aligned strategic relationships,
some will form as part as a means of taking distance, or protection from the US, others more opportunist
with the risk of opponents such as Putin filling the void – in Europe for example.
Neoliberalism isn't helping, but it's a population/resource ratio thing. Impacts on social
orders occur well before raw supply factors kick in (and there is more than food supply to basic
rations). The world population has more than doubled in the last 50 years, one doesn't get that
kind of accelerated growth without profound impacts to every aspect of societies. Some of the
most significant impacts are consequent to the acceleration of technological changes (skill expirations,
automations) that are driven in no small part by the needs of a vast + growing population.
I don't suggest population as a pat simplistic answer. And neoliberalism accelerates the declining
performance of institutions (as in the CUNY article and that's been going on for decades already,
neoliberalism just picked up where neoconservatism petered out), but we would be facing issues
like homelessness, service degradation, population displacements, etc regardless of poor policies.
One could argue (I do) that neoliberalism has undertaken to accelerate existing entropies for
profit.
Thanks for soliciting reader comments on socioeconomic desperation. It's encouraging to know
that I'm not the only failure to launch in this country.
I'm a seasonal farm worker with a liberal arts degree in geology and history. I barely held
on for six months as a junior environmental consultant at a dysfunctional firm that tacitly encouraged
unethical and incompetent behavior at all levels. From what I could gather, it was one of the
better-run firms in the industry. Even so, I was watching mid-level and senior staff wander into
extended mid-life crises while our entire service line was terrorized by a badly out-of-shape,
morbidly obese, erratic, vicious PG who had alienated almost the entire office but was untouchable
no matter how many firing offenses she committed. Meanwhile I was watching peers in other industries
(especially marketing and FIRE) sell their souls in real time. I'm still watching them do so a
decade later.
It's hard to exaggerate how atrociously I've been treated by bougie conformists for having
failed/dropped out of the rat race. A family friend who got into trouble with the state of Hawaii
for misclassifying direct employees of his timeshare boiler room as 1099's gave me a panic attack
after getting stoned and berating me for hours about how I'd wake up someday and wonder what the
fuck I'd done with my life. At the time, I had successfully completed a summer job as the de facto
lead on a vineyard maintenance crew and was about to get called back for the harvest, again as
the de facto lead picker.
Much of my social life is basically my humiliation at the hands of amoral sleazeballs who presume
themselves my superiors. No matter how strong an objective case I have for these people being
morally bankrupt, it's impossible to really dismiss their insults. Another big component is concern-trolling
from bourgeois supremacists who will do awfully little for me when I ask them for specific help.
I don't know what they're trying to accomplish, and they probably don't, either. A lot of it is
cognitive dissonance and incoherence.
Some of the worst aggression has come from a Type A social climber friend who sells life insurance.
He's a top producer in a company that's about a third normal, a third Willy Loman, and a third
Glengarry Glen Ross. This dude is clearly troubled, but in ways that neither of us can really
figure out, and a number of those around him are, too. He once admitted, unbidden, to having hazed
me for years.
The bigger problem is that he's surrounded by an entire social infrastructure that enables
and rewards noxious, predatory behavior. When college men feel like treating the struggling like
garbage, they have backup and social proof from their peers. It's disgusting. Many of these people
have no idea of how to relate appropriately to the poor or the unemployed and no interest in learning.
They want to lecture and humiliate us, not listen to us.
Dude recently told me that our alma mater, Dickinson College, is a "grad school preparatory
institution." I was floored that anyone would ever think to talk like that. In point of fact,
we're constantly lectured about how versatile our degrees are, with or without additional education.
I've apparently annoyed a number of Dickinsonians by bitterly complaining that Dickinson's nonacademic
operations are a sleazy racket and that President Emeritus Bill Durden is a shyster who brainwashed
my classmates with crude propaganda. If anything, I'm probably measured in my criticism, because
I don't think I know the full extent of the fraud and sleaze. What I have seen and heard is damning.
I believe that Dickinson is run by people with totalitarian impulses that are restrained only
by a handful of nonconformists who came for the academics and are fed up with the propaganda.
Meanwhile, I've been warm homeless for most of the past four years. It's absurd to get pledge
drive pitches from a well-endowed school on the premise that my degree is golden when I'm regularly
sleeping in my car and financially dependent on my parents. It's absurd to hear stories about
how Dickinson's alumni job placement network is top-notch when I've never gotten a viable lead
from anyone I know from school. It's absurd to explain my circumstances in detail to people who,
afterwards, still can't understand why I'm cynical.
While my classmates preen about their degrees, I'm dealing with stuff that would make them
vomit. A relative whose farm I've been tending has dozens of rats infesting his winery building,
causing such a stench that I'm just about the only person willing to set foot inside it. This
relative is a deadbeat presiding over a feudal slumlord manor, circumstances that he usually justifies
by saying that he's broke and just trying to make ends meet. He has rent-paying tenants living
on the property with nothing but a pit outhouse and a filthy, disused shower room for facilities.
He doesn't care that it's illegal. One of his tenants left behind a twenty-gallon trash can full
to the brim with his own feces. Another was seen throwing newspaper-wrapped turds out of her trailer
into the weeds. They probably found more dignity in this than in using the outhouse.
When I was staying in Rancho Cordova, a rough suburb of Sacramento, I saw my next-door neighbor
nearly come to blows with a man at the light rail station before apologizing profusely to me,
calling me "sir," "man," "boss," and "dog." He told me that he was angry at the other guy for
selling meth to his kid sister. Eureka is even worse: its west side is swarming with tweakers,
its low-end apartment stock is terrible, no one brings the slumlords to heel, and it has a string
of truly filthy residential motels along Broadway that should have been demolished years ago.
A colleague who lives in Sweet Home, Oregon, told me that his hometown is swarming with druggies
who try to extract opiates from local poppies and live for the next arriving shipment of garbage
drugs. The berry farm where we worked had ten- and twelve-year-olds working under the table to
supplement their families' incomes. A Canadian friend told me that he worked for a crackhead in
Lillooet who made his own supply at home using freebase that he bought from a meathead dealer
with ties to the Boston mob. Apparently all the failing mill towns in rural BC have a crack problem
because there's not much to do other than go on welfare and cocaine. An RCMP sergeant in Kamloops
was recently indicted for selling coke on the side.
Uahsenaa's comment about the invisible homeless is spot on. I think I blend in pretty well.
I've often stunned people by mentioning that I'm homeless. Some of them have been assholes about
it, but not all. There are several cars that I recognize as regular overnighters at my usual rest
area. Thank God we don't get hassled much. Oregon is about as safe a place as there is to be homeless.
Some of the rest areas in California, including the ones at Kingsburg and the Sacramento Airport,
end up at or beyond capacity overnight due to the homeless. CalTrans has signs reminding drivers
that it's rude to hog a space that someone else will need. This austerity does not, of course,
apply to stadium construction for the Kings.
Another thing that almost slipped my mind (and is relevant to Trump's popularity): I've encountered
entrenched, systemic discrimination against Americans when I've tried to find and hold menial
jobs, and I've talked to other Americans who have also encountered it. There is an extreme bias
in favor of Mexican peasants and against Americans in the fields and increasingly in off-farm
jobs. The top quintile will be lucky not to reap the whirlwind on account of this prejudice.
"... The number one issue fueling the leave vote was immigration – a lot like Trump's wall against Mexico. The number two issue was lack of accountability of government: Leavers believe that the EU government in Brussels is unaccountable to voters. For Trump supporters, resentment towards a distant and unaccountable Washington government ranks high as well. The Brexit constituency and the Trump constituency are both motivated by the same sense of loss and vulnerability. ..."
"... In both the U.S. and the U.K., a large and growing segment of voters has not prospered in today's complex, technology-driven global economy. Their wages have stagnated and in many cases fallen. Too few good-paying jobs exist for people lacking a college degree, or even people with a college degree, if the degree is not in the right field. These people are angry, frustrated, and afraid -- and with very good reason. Both countries' governments have done little to help them adapt, and little to soothe the sting of globalization. The voter's concerns in both places are mostly the same even though these concerns have coalesced around a policy issue ("leave") in the U.K. whereas here in the U.S. they have coalesced around a candidate (Trump). ..."
"... Similarly, the elite insiders of the Republican Party and their business allies badly underestimated Trump. Establishment candidates like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush failed terribly. Now the Republican political insiders are trying to make sense of a presumptive nominee who trashes free trade, one of the fundamental principles of the party, and openly taunts one of most important emerging voting blocks. ..."
"... Perhaps the biggest reason for the impotence of today's political elites is that elites have trashed the very idea of competent and effective government for 35 years now, and the public has taken the message to heart. Ever since Reagan identified government as the problem, conservative elites have attacked the idea of government itself – rather than respecting the idea of government itself while criticizing the particular policies of a particular government. This is a crucial (and dangerous) distinction. In 1986, Reagan went on to say "the nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" ..."
In addition, the issues are similar between the two campaigns: The number
one issue fueling the leave vote was immigration – a lot like Trump's wall against
Mexico. The number two issue was lack of accountability of government: Leavers
believe that the EU government in Brussels is unaccountable to voters. For Trump
supporters, resentment towards a distant and unaccountable Washington government
ranks high as well. The Brexit constituency and the Trump constituency are both
motivated by the same sense of loss and vulnerability.
In both the U.S. and the U.K., a large and growing segment of voters
has not prospered in today's complex, technology-driven global economy. Their
wages have stagnated and in many cases fallen. Too few good-paying jobs exist
for people lacking a college degree, or even people with a college degree, if
the degree is not in the right field. These people are angry, frustrated, and
afraid -- and with very good reason. Both countries' governments have done little
to help them adapt, and little to soothe the sting of globalization. The voter's
concerns in both places are mostly the same even though these concerns have
coalesced around a policy issue ("leave") in the U.K. whereas here in the U.S.
they have coalesced around a candidate (Trump).
In both countries, political elites were caught flat-footed. Elites lost
control over the narrative and lost credibility and persuasiveness with angry,
frustrated and fearful voters. The British elites badly underestimated the intensity
of public frustration with immigration and with the EU. Most expected the vote
would end on the side of "remain," up to the very last moment. Now they are
trying to plot their way out of something they never expected would actually
happen, and never prepared for.
Similarly, the elite insiders of the Republican Party and their business
allies badly underestimated Trump. Establishment candidates like former Florida
Gov. Jeb Bush failed terribly. Now the Republican political insiders are trying
to make sense of a presumptive nominee who trashes free trade, one of the fundamental
principles of the party, and openly taunts one of most important emerging voting
blocks.
How did the elites lose control? There are many reasons: With social media
so pervasive, advertising dollars no longer controls what the public sees and
hears. With unrestricted campaign spending, the party can no longer "pinch the
air hose" of a candidate who strays from party orthodoxy.
Perhaps the biggest reason for the impotence of today's political elites
is that elites have trashed the very idea of competent and effective government
for 35 years now, and the public has taken the message to heart. Ever since
Reagan identified government as the problem, conservative elites have attacked
the idea of government itself – rather than respecting the idea
of government itself while criticizing the particular policies of a particular
government. This is a crucial (and dangerous) distinction. In 1986, Reagan went
on to say "the nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from
the government and I'm here to help.'"
Reagan booster Grover Norquist is known for saying, "I don't want to abolish
government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into
the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." Countless candidates and elected
officials slam "Washington bureaucrats" even though these "bureaucrats" were
none other than themselves. It's not a great way to build respect. Then the
attack escalated, with the aim of destroying parts of government that were actually
mostly working. This was done to advance the narrative that government itself
is the problem, and pave the way for privatization. Take the Transportation
Security Administration for example. TSA has actually done its job. No terrorist
attacks have succeeded on U.S. airplanes since it was established. But by
systematically underfunding it , Congress has made the lines painfully long,
so people hate it. Take the Post Office. Here Congress manufactured a crisis
to force service cuts, making the public believe the institution is incompetent.
But the so-called "problem" is
due almost entirely to a requirement, imposed by Congress, forcing the Postal
Service to prepay retiree's health care to an absurd level, far beyond what
a similar private sector business would have to do. A similar dynamic now threatens
Social Security. Thirty-five years have passed since Reagan first mocked the
potential for competent and effective government. Years of unrelenting attack
have sunk in. Many Americans now distrust government leaders and think it's
pointless to demand or expect wisdom and statesmanship. Today's American voters
(and their British counterparts), well-schooled in skepticism, disdain and dismiss
leaders of all parties and they are ready to burn things down out of sheer frustration.
The moment of blowback has arrived.
PK has nearly lost all of his ability to see things objectively. Ambition got him, I suppose,
or maybe he has always longed to be popular. He was probably teased and ridiculed too much in
his youth. He is something of a whinny sniveler after-all.
Then too, I doubt if PK has ever used a public restroom in the Southwest, or taken his kids
to a public park in one of the thousands of small towns where non-English speaking throngs take
over all of the facilities and parking.Or had his children bullied at school by a gang of dark-skinned
kids whose parents believe that whites took their land, or abused or enslaved their distant ansestors.
It might be germane here too... to point out that some of this anti-white sentiment gets support
and validation from the very rhetoric that Democrats have made integral to their campaigns.
As for not knowing why crime rates have been falling, the incarceration rates rose in step,
so duh, if you lock up those with propensities for crime, well, how could crime rates not fall?
And while I'm on the subject of crime, the statistical analysis that is commonly used focuses
too much on violent crime and convictions. Thus, crimes of a less serious nature, that being the
type of crimes committed by poor folks, is routinely ignored. Then too, those who are here illegally
are often transient and using assumed names, and so they are, presumably, more difficult to catch.
So, statistics are all too often not as telling as claimed.
And, though I'm not a Trump supporter, I fully understand his appeal. As would PK if he were
more travelled and in touch with those who have seen their schools, parks, towns, and everything
else turn tawdry and dysfunctional. But of course the nation that most of us live in is much different
than the one that PK knows.
> And, though I'm not a Trump supporter, I fully understand his appeal
I wonder why everybody is thinking about this problem only in terms of identity politics.
This is a wrong, self-defeating framework to approach the problem. which is pushed by neoliberal
MSM and which we should resist in this forum as this translates the problems that the nation faces
into term of pure war-style propaganda ("us vs. them" mentality). To which many posters here already
succumbed
IMHO the November elections will be more of the referendum on neoliberal globalization (with
two key issues on the ballot -- jobs and immigration) than anything else.
If so, then the key question is whether the anger of population at neoliberal elite that stole
their jobs and well-being reached the boiling point or not. The level of this anger might decide
the result of elections, not all those petty slurs that neoliberal MSM so diligently use as a
smoke screen.
All those valiant efforts in outsourcing and replacing permanent jobs with temporary to increase
profit margin at the end have the propensity to produce some externalities. And not only in the
form "over 50 and unemployed" but also by a much more dangerous "globalization of indifference"
to human beings in general.
JK Galbraith once gave the following definition of neoliberal economics: "trickle down economics
is the idea that if you feed the horse enough oats eventually some will pass through to the road
for the sparrows." This is what neoliberalism is about. Lower 80% even in so-called rich countries
are forced to live in "fear and desperation", forced to work "with precious little dignity".
Human beings are now considered consumer goods in "job market" to be used and then discarded.
As a consequence, a lot of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: "without work, without
possibilities, without any means of escape" (pope Francis).
And that inevitably produces a reaction. Which in extreme forms we saw during French and Bolsheviks
revolutions. And in less extremist forms (not involving lampposts as the placeholders for the
"Masters of the Universe" (aka financial oligarchy) and the most obnoxious part of the "creative
class" aka intelligentsia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligentsia
) in Brexit vote.
Hillary and Trump are just symbols here. The issue matters, not personalities.
...Neoliberalism is not a post-war version of capitalism. It's a post-war version of fascism.
Notable quotes:
"... drove CEO pay in large corporations up from 29 times that of the average worker in 1978 to 352 times as great in 2007. ..."
"... The unwillingness of our intellectual class generally, and academic economists in particular, to even describe, let alone confront, the totalitarian trajectory of public policy will be one of the most notable aspects historians describe when talking about our era. ..."
"... the most (in)famous members of the intellectual class – and that particularly includes academic economists – are really nothing more than employees of the creditor class paid to administer intellectual anesthetic to debt peasants who still have enough time to ask what's going wrong while they try to hold the Wolves of Wall Street at bay. ..."
"... The Neoliberal project has sought quite successfully to delegitimize republican federalist state power and legitimize corporate and wealth power in its place. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is not a post-war version of capitalism. It's a post-war version of fascism. ..."
"... What has been delegitimized are other groups or ideas to which state power has been subordinated in other times. ..."
"... This describes contemporary political economy in that the state's economic role tends to be largely confined to protection of private property and enforcement of contracts. Find a single bit of financial chicanery that isn't wrapped up in a shit contract or geared to protect the deeper pocketed side of a dispute, and I'll find a million that are. Hello protection of private property and enforcement of contracts. Enter Neoliberal State. ..."
"... Like the series chronicling the "Journey into a Libertarian Future," ..."
The most talked about economic development in the neoliberal era is rapidly rising inequality.
While Thomas Piketty's now-famous book, Capital in the 21st Century, documented the relentless rise
of the income share of the top 1%, he did not provide a convincing explanation of that development.
The neoliberal form of capitalism supplies a clear explanation. As neoliberal restructuring undermined
labor's bargaining power, the real wage stagnated while profits rose rapidly. Figure 1 shows the
big gap after 1979 between the growth rate of profit and of wages and salaries (which include managerial
salaries). That gap jumped sharply upward after 2000. Another feature of neoliberal capitalism, the
development of a market in corporate CEOs, drove CEO pay in large corporations up from 29 times
that of the average worker in 1978 to 352 times as great in 2007.
My new book The Rise and Fall of Neoliberal Capitalism explains in detail how the institutions
of neoliberal capitalism account for two other important economic developments since 1980. One was
the transformation of the financial sector from a stodgy provider of traditional loans to businesses
and households and the sale of conventional insurance into speculatively oriented companies that
developed a series of highly risky so-called "financial innovations" such as sub-prime mortgage backed
securities and credit default swaps. The most important cause of this change in the financial sector
was its deregulation, a key part of neoliberal restructuring, starting with the first bank deregulation
acts of 1980 and 1982 and culminating in the last such act in 2000. A contributing factor was the
intensifying competition of neoliberal capitalism, which drove financial institutions to more aggressively
seek the maximum possible profit, which for financial institutions always involves moving into speculative
and risky activities.
Second, a series of large asset bubbles emerged, one in each decade. The 1980s saw a bubble in
Southwestern commercial real estate, whose collapse sank a large part of the savings and loan industry.
In the second half of the 1990s a giant stock market bubble arose. And in the 2000s a still larger
bubble engulfed US real estate. The preceding period of regulated capitalism had no large asset bubbles.
The rapidly rising flow of income into corporate profit and rich households exceeded the available
productive investment opportunities, and some of that flow found its way into investment in assets,
tending to start the asset price rising. The eagerness of the deregulated financial institutions
to lend for speculative purposes enables incipient asset bubbles to grow larger and larger.
Neoliberalism and the Crisis of 2008
The three developments noted above – growing inequality, a speculative financial sector, and a
series of large asset bubbles – account for the long, if not very vigorous, economic expansions in
the US economy during 1982-90, 1991-2000, and 2001-07. The rising profits spurred economic expansion
while the risk-seeking financial institutions found ways to lend money to hard-pressed families whose
wages were stagnating or falling. The resulting debt-fueled consumer spending made long expansions
possible despite declining wages and slow growth of government spending. The big asset bubbles provided
the collateral enabling families to borrow to pay their bills.
However, this process brought trends that were unsustainable in the long-run. The debt of households
doubled relative to household income from 1980 to 2007. Financial institutions, finding limitless
profit opportunities in the wild financial markets of the period, borrowed heavily to pursue those
opportunities. As a result, financial sector debt increased from 21% of GDP in 1980 to 117% of GDP
in 2007. At the same time, financial institutions' holdings of the new high-risk securities grew
rapidly. In addition, excess productive capacity in the industrial sector gradually crept upward
over the period from 1979 to 2007, as consumer demand increasingly lagged behind the full-capacity
output level. All of these trends are documented in The Rise and Fall of Neoliberal Capitalism.
The above trends were sustainable only as long as a big asset bubble continued to inflate. However,
every asset bubble eventually must burst. When the biggest one – the real estate bubble – started
to deflate in 2007, the crash followed. As households lost the ability to borrow against their no
longer inflating home values, consumer spending dropped at the beginning 2008, driving the economy
into recession. Falling consumer demand meant more excess productive capacity, leading business to
reduce its investment in plant and equipment. The deflating housing bubble also worsened investor
expectations, further depressing investment. Finally, in the fall of 2008 the plummeting market value
of the new financial securities, which had been dependent on real estate prices, suddenly drove the
highly leveraged major commercial banks and investment banks into insolvency, bringing a financial
meltdown.
Thus, the big financial and broader economic crisis that began in 2008 can be explained based
on the way neoliberal capitalism has worked. The very same mechanisms produced by neoliberal capitalism
that brought 25 years of long expansions were bound to eventually give rise to a big bang crisis.
Triple Crisis welcomes your comments. Please share your thoughts below.
David Kotz is a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst and the
author of The Rise and Fall of Neoliberal Capitalism (Harvard University Press, 2015). This is the
first installment of a two-part series based on his book.
I highly recommend Kotz' "Russia's Path from Gorbachev to Putin." He shows how the collapse
of the Soviet economy resulted from the failure by Soviet elites to mobilize its considerable
industrial strengths within a "developmental state" model and instead to engage in looting, primarily
natural resource-based. (Yes, the familiar short-term vs. long-term mindsets.) Contrary to MSM
spew, the Soviet economy was still growing, albeit slowly, up to the point when central planning
institutions were dissolved in the late 80s. A political agenda geared to a "Never Again" destruction
of central planning capacities, a too rapid opening up of the Soviet economy to competition with
Western multinationals and simple venality has set up an lop-sided natural resource dependent
economy. His analysis is based on a collection of interviews with elite figures.
By what criteria does this describe our contemporary system of political economy? Neoliberalism
is the antithesis of capitalism. It does not believe in markets and rule of law and a limited
role for bureaucracy. It believes in limited markets and a predominant role for the bureaucracy
and a two-tiered justice system. I challenge the author to name an area of the American economy
where non-market institutions play a limited role.
The unwillingness of our intellectual class generally, and academic economists in particular,
to even describe, let alone confront, the totalitarian trajectory of public policy will be one
of the most notable aspects historians describe when talking about our era.
The "market" certainly no longer refers to competition as a dynamic in the production and distribution
goods and services. Instead, it means something more along the lines of international financial
monopolies protected by collusion between corporate captured local states, (including saturation
of executive, legislative, judicial, penal and enforcement branches of government), educational
institutions and media. I wonder if "trade deals" doesn't better describe the phenomenon that
has replaced "markets."
The unwillingness of our intellectual class generally, and academic economists in particular,
to even describe, let alone confront, the totalitarian trajectory of public policy will be
one of the most notable aspects historians describe when talking about our era.
Take a look at Michael Hudson's new book, "Killing the Host". This "unwillingness" becomes
understandable once you realize the most (in)famous members of the intellectual class – and
that particularly includes academic economists – are really nothing more than employees of the
creditor class paid to administer intellectual anesthetic to debt peasants who still have enough
time to ask what's going wrong while they try to hold the Wolves of Wall Street at bay.
The behavior of the intellectual class down through the ages is what – with notable exceptions
like Hudson, Veblen or Marx – gives intellectuals a bad reputation among the laboring cattle.
Their message is always the same – "Whatever is is right."
It's the difference between "we should use markets to efficiently allocate resources" and "Capitalists
should rule".
A nation's political system can be described by what types of power it legitimizes and delegitimizes,
and whose power it protects. No matter what we tell ourselves about our supposed political system
("constitutional federalism", "republican democracy") and economic system (Free Market Capitalism),
you can tell what we really have by looking at whose power the state protects. The Neoliberal
project has sought quite successfully to delegitimize republican federalist state power and legitimize
corporate and wealth power in its place.
If we really were in a capitalist system, the state would still actively intervene to make
sure that markets actually allocate resources efficiently. That is to say, the state would break
up monopolies and discourage rent extraction. If we really were in a representative democracy,
our elected officials' actions would hew more closely to the priorities that polls show the voters
to have.
delegitimize republican federalist state power and legitimize corporate and wealth power
in its place
I could see you going in a number of different directions, so I'm not sure whether I agree
or disagree.
From what I see, neoliberals love state power. They almost can't help themselves from
using government to interfere with citizens' lives. It is not a competition of wealth over the
state. It is a merger of state bureaucracy and private bureaucracy, a public-private partnership.
Neoliberalism is not a post-war version of capitalism. It's a post-war version of fascism.
Neoliberalism is not a post-war version of capitalism. It's a post-war version of fascism.
I think you really hit the nail on the head here. It's an important understanding to come to
before one can understand how the violence and criminality of it all play a part rather than are
some aberration.
Neoliberals do love state power, and have subordinated it to their purposes. What has been
delegitimized are other groups or ideas to which state power has been subordinated in other times.
Power does not reside in the hands of the people (thru the theoretical ability to drive out politicians
who fail to adequately safeguard our welfare). Regulatory agencies have power, but not to benefit
the interests of the people over the interests of the corporations they are supposed to regulate.
The state does not act to ensure the efficient allocation of resources, but it does act to protect
the interests of the Boardroom Class. It no longer acts to preserve checks and balances. Much
of this came through promoting the notion that the government is an illegitimate market actor
which is to blame for distorting markets (and that not distorting markets is more important than
mere values, ideals, or institutions).
The general term for the type of totalitarianism you are describing is fascism.
Until that last sentence, which does not follow from the rest. In what area of the economy
have neoliberals pushed to render government an illegitimate market actor?
It may be a leap for me to say the inroads neoliberals have made in securing state power is
built upon the premise (or propaganda) that the government is an illegitimate market actor. But
I feel the propaganda has been there for all to see for some time.
Since I was in college in the 80s, I've been bombarded with messages that when the government
seeks to help its citizens, it leads to worse results, because it distorts markets. (e.g. Reagan:
"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the Government, and I'm
here to help. "). The welfare state? Regulation? Environmental protection? Affirmative action?
I've heard or read every one of these blamed for causing or making worse the problems they are
intended to ameliorate; all because they interfere with the supposed effectiveness of untrammeled
free markets.
The net effect of all the changes to our nation while this rhetoric has been ascendant has
not been increased market efficiency, nor has it been smaller government. Instead, we have moved
to a system where protecting and promoting the interests of the Boardroom Class are the paramount
objectives of the state.
"Free markets" turns out to mean letting rich people do what they want, not promoting efficient
allocation of resources through competition and the price mechanism.
"Small government" turns out to means not allowing the government to help anyone the Boardroom
Class doesn't want helped.
"Free trade" turns out to mean subordinating government power to corporate power.
"Lower taxes" turns out to mean shifting the tax burden from corporations and the Boardroom
Class to the people the government is no longer allowed to help.
"Deregulation" means externalities are the law of the land, rather than a defect of capitalism
that could be ameliorated.
I don't disagree with the 'fascism' label. I just wanted to read out some of the ingredients.
"If we really were in a capitalist system, the state would still actively intervene " to deter
and punish financial fraud, not aid and abet it in the way that the legal and regulatory systems
do now. Campaign contributions from the biggest fraudsters, and cost-of-business fines and settlements,
have made the regulatory state the bought-off accessory after the fact and unindicted coconspirator
enabler of fraudulent financial schemes.
This describes contemporary political economy in that the state's economic role tends to
be largely confined to protection of private property and enforcement of contracts. Find a single
bit of financial chicanery that isn't wrapped up in a shit contract or geared to protect the deeper
pocketed side of a dispute, and I'll find a million that are. Hello protection of private property
and enforcement of contracts. Enter Neoliberal State.
It's all well and good to call bullshit on the bail-outs, robo-signings, illegitimate foreclosures,
HAMP runway foam, revolving doors and so on, but it's naive to suggest these practices are somehow
not really capitalist - that true Capitalism somehow doesn't do bureaucracy and that markets will
work fine if we can get the government off honest folks backs and on to policing fraud.
Today's markets aren't limited by the state so much as they are limited by monopoly power.
The state has recused itself from most everything outside of protecting those monopolies, which
makes it easy to see state intervention as bad in itself. So lift that protection - let the banks
fail; stop floating douche-bags like Elon Musk; stop foreclosures that lack a paper trail. Somehow
have a state that mostly just protects property and enforces contracts without corruption. Then
watch the rich get rich, the poor get poor, and the middle class disappear.
It takes money to make money. You can make money in a downturn. Buy low, sell high. Cash is
King. Free markets create, sustain, and grow inequality. Theory predicts it, and practice bears
it out.
it's naive to suggest these practices are somehow not really capitalist
What you're describing isn't what people who support market-based economics advocate. If we're
going to redefine capitalism so extremely, that's a perfectly fine semantics debate to have, but
then what's the point of talking about capitalism?
the state's economic role tends to be largely confined to protection of private property
and enforcement of contracts
But that's not at all descriptive of the state's role. First, the state does not protect private
property and enforcement of contracts. Rule of law has been almost completely replaced by rulers
of law. Some are more equal than others. We've been talking about a two-tiered justice system
for so long it is almost cliched at this point. Second, the state claims enormous powers beyond
the legal system. The role of government is so enormous that I am not sure you are thinking this
through. We have the largest prison system on the planet. We have the most aggressive national
security state on the planet. We have the most expensive healthcare system on the planet. We require
documents to go to work or cross the Canadian border or buy medicine. There are banking supports
and agribusiness and intellectual property and carried interest tax breaks and home mortgage interest
tax breaks and charitable contribution tax breaks and real estate development tax breaks and on
and on and on
Neoliberalism is not the antithesis of capitalism. It is yet another institutional setup that
has developed because relatively competitive capitalism is unworkable when it comes to large scale
industry. You're holding out for a form of market-based capitalism that has been completely superseded,
and not just by state-based mechanisms. There's a substantial literature – including work by Nomi
Prins, who's got a post here today, and Michael Perelman, also occasionally appearing here – on
how competition in late 19th century capitalism was regarded as too destructive by capitalists
themselves, leading to industry consolidations that were eventually bank-driven. Massive investment
commitments will not be undertaken if there's a chance they'll fail, and the logic of oligopoly
is not only straightforward but rational to some degree.
And, while we're at it, why not at least briefly consider the fate of communities of workers
who are supposed to cheerily migrate thither and yon to satisfy market-based criteria of efficiency
that equally cheerily ignore their externalized misery? Enter Polanyi and Marx.
I should add that Kotz also talks about the supersession of competitive capitalism in chapter
6 of the book Dayen extracted. Also recommended, a very succinct, useful history.
Did we read the same post? The author is talking about post-war developments, especially the
Reagan-Obama era. Government has become much more pervasive in all aspects of the economy, not
much less.
Today is 9/11. Are you aware that to this day we are still in a declared, official state of
emergency?
"the state's economic role tends to be largely confined to protection of private property and
enforcement of contracts"
if you interpret this broadly enough I suppose anything qualifies. But what we actually have
going on is not just something quaint like the "protection of private property", but of course
the massive expansion of private property (maybe it was ever thus, cue enclosure discussion).
But when they are attempting to patent things that have never been patented like medical procedures
as in the TPP, why use such unobjectionable (except to a serious socialist and even they don't
have much problem with personal property) terminology like "protection of private property" to
describe what is happening? I mean I could see people who support such things using such language
but that is all.
Ok only the essay wasn't about what is and is not "true capitalism" (which I'm not sure is
a productive line of thought, but who knows). The essay was making statements that it is very
hard to say are true in any sense like:
"Under neoliberalism, non-market institutions – such as the state, trade unions, and corporate
bureaucracies – play a limited role."
Would Katz support a radical decentralization and democratization of the modern state as well
a massive redistribution of property to private citizens giving everyone a chance to own the means
of production?
Or is he going to continue with the traditional lament of bankrupt socialist thinking that
since we are apparently unable politically to socialize the means of production we will continue
to wax nostalgic about the New Deal and be content with our serfdom–with Big Capital and Big State
running the show?
Do you think we will have massive redistribution of property short of revolution? Do you think
we need one? Sometimes a BIG does get it's foot in the door which would somewhat redistribute
money and power.
DOn't have time now, but the author mis-defines "neo-liberalism", making it out to be classical
liberalism, from which it is actually a stark depaarture. Neo-liberalism isn't about the state
withdrawing from market regulation and leaving it up to "market forces", but rather about using
the state to enforce and expand the dictates of Mr. Market, to the exclusion of any other function.
This can be seen in neo-liberalism's ignoring issues of monopoly and anti-trust, in contrast to
classical liberalism's concern with maintaining competition and suspicion of concentrated economic
power..
Things are not this complicated For example, the 2008 crisis did not happen in India because
the bank head (Rajan?) enforced a mandatory 20% cash down payment (among other things). No real
estate bubble in India.
Second, all of this starts with the ability of the banks and the state to create endless money,
so companies can make crazy investments. Solution is easy, make it expensive to make new money.
People should have a stake in the game involving real money when buying property (20% down).
The problem is wages may have stagnated so much compared to costs that it's hardly even possible
on the wages the vast majority are earning.
"Buying property" = Suburbia, "gentrification," "development?" These are all behaviors to be
credited and encouraged by "policy?" All involving assumption of large debt over long years, and
all kinds of externalities and consumptions? And "we" are to protect and foster such behaviors
as parts of the Rights of Man?
Always seemed strange to me that "growth in housing starts" is so happily cheered as a sign
of a Healthy Economy
"The most important cause of this change in the financial sector was its deregulation, a
key part of neoliberal restructuring, . A contributing factor was the intensifying competition
of neoliberal capitalism ."
Deregulation in a competitive endeavor. Yes. No one thinks taking the referees and umpires
off the playing field will result in teams self-regulating during play. Why do so many people
buy the nonsense that deregulating the financial competition field will be any different?
I think that if we consider the actual nature of capital, versus our perception of it and how
this relationship necessarily evolved over time, it would go a long way toward explaining the
economic dynamic of the last half century.
The reality is that capital functions as a glorified voucher system and as such, is a social
contract, but we think of and treat it as a commodity.
The divergence is that nothing is more detrimental to a voucher system than large numbers of
excess vouchers, but because we individually experience it as store of value, we think of it as
a form of commodity to be collected and saved.
Now there were sufficient means to maintain a fairly healthy circulation of capital, from savings
to productive investment, up to the 70's, but then this dynamic started to loosen and the excess
capital started seeping into the general economy and it caused inflation.
Presumably Volcker cured this by raising interest rates and thus reducing the flow of extra
capital into the economy, but that also further slowed the natural growth and so there was still
excess.
It wasn't until '82 that this process seemed to start working, but by that time Reaganomics
had ballooned the deficit to 200 billion and that was real money in those days. The concern voiced
publicly by economists at the time was this would crowd out private sector borrowing and further
slow the economy. Yet the reality was only Fed determined interest rates set the availability
of capital and the government was borrowing at high rates. So this served various purposes; For
one thing, it served to soak up excess capital. It created significant returns for investors and
the money was then spent on "Keynsian pump priming," which helped to get the economy going again.
The lesson apparently learned from this was not to let excess capital back into the larger
economy. For one, this required breaking up the labor movement and finding ways to store the surplus
within the investment community. Thus the explosion of the power and influence of the financial
community, as they were tasked with holding onto an ever growing percentage of the notational
wealth of the economy. Along with driving up asset prices and therefore the power of those holding
them. The momentum of this naturally knew no bounds and consequently the powers that be have run
amuck.
The lesson to learn from this is that wealth has to be stored in something other than notational
instruments and excess capital should be taxed back out of the economy, not borrowed back out.
This would definitely encourage people to develop all number of mediums of exchange and not rely
on banks to store their wealth.
For most people money is saved for very predictable reasons. Raising children, healthcare,
housing, retirement, vacations, entertainment, would be some of the most prominent reasons. So
rather than storing money in the banking system, communities could build up the infrastructure
to support these needs and consequently redevelop a public space. Which would amount to storing
wealth in a stronger community and a healthier environment.
So when this bubble does pop, it might prove to have set the stage for an advance in human
culture anyway.
"... The ideology, the fantasy of the market has penetrated so deeply into the culture that most people can imagine nothing else. ..."
"... The best insight of the change that started in 1980 that I've found is Emmanuel Todd's. "The United States itself, which was once a protector and is now a predator." Neo-liberalism is confusing. Predatory Capitalism is reality. ..."
By David Kotz, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst and
the author of The Rise and Fall of Neoliberal Capitalism (Harvard University Press, 2015). This is
the second installment of a two-part series based on his book; see the first post
here. Originally published at
Triple
Crisis.
While it is widely agreed that capitalist economies underwent significant change after around
1980, there are different interpretations of the new form of capitalism that emerged. There is no
agreement about the best organizing concept for post-1980 capitalism. Some view it as financialized
capitalism, some as globalized capitalism, and some as neoliberal capitalism. These different conceptions
of contemporary capitalism have implications for our understanding of the problems it has produced,
including the financial and economic crisis that emerged from it in 2008. Focusing on the U.S. economy,
I presented a case in
part
1 that "neoliberal capitalism" is the best overall concept for understanding the form of capitalism
that arose around 1980. Here, I deal more specifically with the shortcomings of alternative interpretations
– focused on the concepts of "financialization" and "globalization," respectively.
Why Not "Financialization"?
Some economists view "financialization" as the best overall concept for understanding contemporary
capitalism. Financialization can best be understood, however, as an outgrowth of neoliberal capitalism.
The rise in financial profit, which gave the financial sector a place of growing importance in the
economy, came quite late in the neoliberal era. As figure 2 shows, only after 1989 did financial
profit begin a long and steep climb, interrupted by a fall in the mid 1990s, and then a sharp rise
to a remarkable 40% of total profit in the early 2000s. It was only in the 2000s that financialization
fully blossomed. At that time, commentators noted, Wall Street was beginning to draw a large percentage
of elite college graduates.
The "financialization" of the U.S. economy in recent decades, important though it is, was itself
driven by neoliberal restructuring. The neoliberal institutional structure, including financial deregulation,
enabled financial institutions to appropriate a growing share of profits. Furthermore, financialization
cannot account for many of the most important economic developments in contemporary capitalism. It
cannot explain the dramatic shift in capital-labor relations from acceptance of compromise by the
capitalists to a striving by capitalists to fully dominate labor.. It cannot explain the sharp rise
in inequality. And it cannot explain the deepening globalization of capitalism.
Why Not "Globalization"?
Like financialization, "globalization" has been presented by some analysts as the best framework
for understanding the contemporary form of capitalism. Capitalism has, indeed, become significantly
more integrated on a world scale in recent decades, including the emergence of global value chains
and a truly global production process in some sectors.
The degree of globalization of capitalism has gone through ups and downs in history. Capitalism
became increasingly globalized in the decades prior to World War I. Then the cataclysm of two world
wars and the Great Depression reversed the trend, and capitalism became less globally integrated
over that period. After World War II, the process of globalization resumed, gradually at first. Around
the late 1960s, globalization accelerated somewhat measured by world exports relative to world GDP,
as figure 3 shows. After 1986 the trend became more sharply upward. Thus, in contrast to financialization,
which emerged later than neoliberalism, the globalization process in this era began before neoliberalism
emerged, although globalization accelerated in the neoliberal era, particularly after 1990.
However, many of the most important features of capitalism since 1980 cannot be understood or
explained based on globalization any more than they can be on the basis of financialization. Globalization
cannot fully explain the rapidly rising inequality in the contemporary era, which has been quite
extreme in the United States yet milder even in some other countries, such as Germany, that are more
integrated into the global economy. Globalization cannot explain the financialization process and
the rise of a speculatively-oriented financial sector, nor can it explain the series of large asset
bubbles. Like financialization, globalization has been an important feature of neoliberal capitalism,
but it is not its defining feature.
Neoliberalism as the Key Concept
Both financialization and globalization are fundamental tendencies in capitalism. Financial institutions
have an ever-present tendency to move into speculative and risky activities to gain the high profits
of such pursuits. Even more so, globalization is a tendency present from the rise of capitalism,
since the capital accumulation drive always spurs expansion across national boundaries. Then why
do these phenomena characterize one era of capitalism more than another?
Both of these tendencies can be obstructed for long periods of time, or released, depending on
the prevailing institutional form of capitalism. Financialization was held in check from the mid
1930s to 1980 by financial regulation, and globalization was hindered from World War I until the
1960s by the world wars, the Great Depression, and then the state regulation of trade and international
investment allowed under the post-World War II Bretton Woods monetary system. The neoliberal restructuring
starting in the late 1970s can explain all of the key economic developments in contemporary capitalism,
with the processes of financialization and globalization-released by neoliberal capitalism-forming
a part of the account.
These differences in analysis are important, since they represent different views of the basic
characteristics of the current era of capitalism and different diagnoses of the origins of the current
crisis. Proposals to overcome the current crisis that focus only on reigning in financialization
or reconfiguring globalization would be insufficient unless part of a restructuring that replaces
neoliberalism with something new. craazyboy
September 17, 2015 at 10:28 am
I guess for people that don't have a concise idea of what "neoliberalism" is yet, I'll offer
the following formula:
Neoliberalism = Financialization + Globalization
Additionally, Neoliberals need Neocons to keep them safe in foreign lands.
must be why neoliberals focus on trade balances: capitalism = competition = consolidation =
monopoly = trade advantages = inequality or stg like that and financialism is just hastily put
together to grease the skids
I think that even more fundamental is "marketization" as discussed by Polyani. The idea that
all of human activity (and indeed nature) can be captured and cast in some sort of market paradigm.
Underlying all these discussions is the assumption that our current market system is ok. I
don't think it is, since markets are driving society not the other way around.
We even see the curious inversion of trying to apply something called competitive free markets
(whatever that may be) to nature and evolution. Then in a fabulous logical salto mortale, in a
circular argument based on our own projections we impute that since nature runs like a market
so does society,
The analysis needs to be much deeper, at least at the level of primary social organization,
its purpose and historical social anthropology. Elinor Ostrom and her analysis of organizations
and the commons is a good start.
I appreciate this post, Yves. To name something is to control it, to own it in some sense,
it is the Rumplestiltskin, If we don't have appropriate names, then we can't think of things as
they are.
Thure, I agree with you. The ideology, the fantasy of the market has penetrated so deeply
into the culture that most people can imagine nothing else.
I'm not sure how to phrase this elegantly, it's only when we can see clearly the ideology we're
embedded in that we'll be able to see how artificial it all is, and how easily we could end it
and build something better. We have to avoid the sort of false change with radical features of
contemporary Burschenschaften types.
I think of it as death cult capitalism. For it's dependence on war making, it's consumer insatiability
in a finite world, and its cannibalization of Institutions, public and private.
Very well put! The peace and prosperity model– that many of us grew up believing that some
capitalists actually believed in– has been entirely supplanted by disaster capitalism and the
shock doctrine. :(
re "death cult capitalism," the observation attributed to Fredric Jameson that it has become
easier to imagine an apocalypse than to imagine an end to capitalism seems very true. It becomes
even more sadly ironic, or maybe just terribly sad, if you consider the likelihood that for a
significant proportion of the population the fascination with end times in a distorted way represents
their hostility to this social order. Consider how willing Hollywood is to serve up techno-buffed
apocalypse instead of films depicting anything other than blatantly criminal antagonism to society.
But then you've got the Superheroes, acting on our behalf and making us feel all the more enfeebled
in the process.
More evidence that even many simpatico economists don't understand the construction and use
of ideal types. Also, he is scrambling his US and global perspectives. And reification of markets,
which are specific human-made institutions that don't all act the same.
There is a much more straightforward institutional analysis of US and global economic changes
over the last 40 years that doesn't require such squishy "global" concepts: Fear of a loss of
competitiveness among US business (which through the 1970s was not all that global) leaders and
politicians, and a desire to crush US labor (which despite all the post-WW2 "social contract"
mumbo-jumbo has never been far below the surface) drove a restructuring of the US economy beginning
in the mid-1970s in the interests and direction of the relative (to their competitors) strengths
of US firms – financial engineering, ease of corporate restructuring, etc. The same was true in
the UK, where the real economy was even more unbalanced than in the US.
It's OK to call this neoliberalism I guess, but the notion that neoliberalism is some kind
of unshackling of "the market" is dubious. Certain markets were unshackled, others weren't, and
some (drugs, patents, copyrights, etc.) become much more "shackled," all spelled out in various
laws and regulations blessed by the US (and UK) corporate and political class (and their economist
agents). During the 1970s-1990s at least, business leaders and politicians in other countries
(Germany, Japan, Korea, China to name the most obvious) pursued other strategies that differed
substantially from what American and British elites were up to. But it turned out that there was
a lot of easy money to be made through financial engineering (compared to the harder task of delivering
useful products and services at good value), and so elites all over the globe were drawn toward
what originally was a parochial American and British strategy. Also, having a large "advanced"
countries like the US and UK pursuing "labor immiseration" made it both easier and more necessary
for other "advanced" countries to reign in labor as well.
Patents and copyrights are state granted monopoly privileges absent the usual ( think Com Ed's
need to seek approval for rate hikes ) monopoly regulation.
The ( justly ) notorious Congressionally bestowed prohibition against Medicare's ability to bargain
for decreased drug costs is a perfect example of "reverse regulation".
What about just plain old capitalism? Capitalism seeks to accumulate profit, period. If it
can do this through accumulating financial income, by expanding globally, or crushing labor it
will do it. This is what I found refreshing about Piketty's book (and Arrighi's The Long Twentieth
Century too): he demonstrated that the 1930s-early 1970s was a historical anomaly.
These discussions can be useful, but only to a point. From someone working in academia, I see
word choices like these conforming not so much to what is the best overall term, but from what
you're focusing on. Some of us focus more on processes that are closer to "financialization,"
"globalization" etc. As someone else has said above, these are just good ideal types.
Hans and Franz wan to Pump You Up! so you're not a Girly Man economy. To get pumped up you
have to lose weight and sweat.
Neoperspiratory Capitalism for all you academics. You probably wouldn't want to get near sweat
if you can help it. hahahahahah. Layin around all day doing nothing. LOL
Possibly helpful here might be the late ecologist Garrett Hardin's concept of the Problem Of
The Commons- i.e. the degrading of a common resource by unregulated extractors. While it is in
the interest of the individual extractor that the common resource not be depleted, it is very
much in his interest to maximize his individual extraction. The collapse of ocean food fish populations
provide a good example.
Think of the U.S. economy as being like the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, rich source of fish (
profits to be made selling to an affluent consumer population ) , U.S. firms as being individually
owned fishing craft, and Globalization ( producing in very low wage, low safety, low environmental
protection areas while selling in the affluent USA ) and Financialization as rendering the "fishing
craft" much more efficient.
While the the individual fishing boat captains do not intend the destruction of the common resource,
they dare not slacken their extractive efforts. Depletion ( Deindustrialization, the collapse
of the Middle Class ) inevitably ensue.
Pace Adam Smith no Invisible Hand will save the Commons.
It is Deregulation, a key element of Neolibralism that is ultimately lethal- the Commons must
become everybody's property rather than no one's.
The Commons is an aspect that is being steadily wiped out by "enclosure" (restricting access
to what used to be shared resources).
David E. Martin has an interesting take on this as it relates to human creativity–something
that conventional capitalism encourages us to "enclose" for profit, with little understanding
of how this undervalues human creativity. There's a very good recent paper that mentions this
on the M-CAM website, called "Putting
It All Together".
Globalization is just the euphemism for Colonialism.
Low rate pseudo inflation regulation of Central Banks destroys interest rate relation to risk
so no lending that is meaningful in regime since Reagan.
Monopolies rule so no competition.
First World uses other world's slave labor and countries to avoid home base environmental regulations.
So what are you talking about calling any of this capitalism. Ridiculous and ignorant. A tool
of this evil
trade.
Great post. I have been baffled by the use of the term "neoliberalization."
What about the "neocon"? Is the neocon the neoliberal who takes advantage of the negative externalities
of perpetual war? (Are there Venn diagrams that can explain these neoeconomic terms?) Indeed,
how much of our economy is driven by negative externalities? Crises begets predatory behavior,
clothed by doublespeak like "opportunity" or "creative destruction."
Yet there's nothing stopping negative externalities because they are included in GDP metrics–the
measure of economic "wellness." After 9/11, Bush reminded that we must shop. Americans are valued
as consumers.
I hate how a patient has become a "consumer" of health care. In health care, "wellness" is
just another product to consume. With neoliberalism at the heart of American economics, I can't
imagine there will ever be any real attempt rein in health care costs. We depend on sickness (real
and imagined) to keep our economy humming. "Prevention" is the tail that wags the dog as doctors
chase more and more false positives and respond to lower thresholds for "abnormalities".
The globalization piece is the narrative of "free" trade. Import cheap goods that outsource
more jobs and keep prices down to artificially lower the cost of living. The plutocrats' narrative
is that when corporations move into poor countries with jobs this levels the playing field globally.
(Never mind their tendency to uproot when those pesky citizens demand better pay and work conditions!)
This, of course, takes a huge toll on the environment when we ship goods that could easily be
manufactured here.
It means we extract more resources to create more landfills. And "waterfills" and "airfills".
We use technology to engineer our way out of our big messes. More chemicals are dumped into our
land, water and air–with trade secrets obfuscating what these chemicals are and whether they are
harmful. Fracking, glyphosate for GMOs, etc.
Can neoliberalization die of natural causes?
Maybe we can we bring it to Oregon for death with indignity? (No capital punishment in Texas
for neoliberalization pun intended.)
You see, I'm getting really worried that we've passed the tipping point when economics collision
with natural ecosystems is irreversible And that makes this mama bear really mad!
That is the only thing that is going to kill this cancer. Extraction and exploitation, extend
and pretend (ecologically) will continue until it simply cannot. THAT will lead to a massive and
near-sudden collapse of the diseased, shambling zombie that is the modern neoliberal system, and
with it the entire setup that depends on it (and a LOT of humans). No, not enough will be done
to reign in climate change, no, there will be no techno fix (though some will be tried in ultimate
desperation to keep the band playing).
Welcome the coming collapse. The fisheries will return on their own after most humans are gone
and no longer sucking them dry. The forests will return after most humans are gone and no longer
mowing them down. As the late, great George Carlin prophetically and accurately stated, "The earth
isn't going anywhere. We are."
From where I sit, one of the most important developments of the last 35 years has been the
failure to prevent the increasing power of monopolies and cartels. The increasing share of income
taken in profits by said monopolies and cartels has of course strengthened the position of capital
relative to labour.
So my preferred term for current day arrangements is cartel capitalism. If you want to be more
pejorative there is of course crony capitalism and corrupt capitalism.
Glad you highlighted economic concentration. That used to be a deservedly emphasized part of
a critical analysis of capitalism but for some reason - did we just come to accept it? - fell
to second rank or backbench status. Perhaps it got folded into the idea of "multinational corporation,"
but that concept more immediately evokes globalization and the mobility of production rather than
concentration and the power that comes with it.
Monopolies that took decades to split away, over time gradually began to reemerge. I can't
place where I saw this, but there was an article about how "Ma Bell" was split into 10-12 regional
bells. Given enough time, we're somewhat nearly back where that started.
Plus in 1994, I think, the act passed to Congress eliminating / reducing restrictions on bank
consolidation over state lines. Just from my native state, that resulted in WachFirstOvia and
Bank of America. (Granted there have been smaller start up institutions using regional executives
and regional capital).
These posts are an interesting exercise which I find to be almost entirely lacking in critical
content. What difference does it make to quibble over the name of the current disaster (neoliberalism
it is) if no real attempt is made to explain what neoliberalism is and how it came to be? Professor
Kotz's book may be very good in this regard (I haven't yet had a chance to read it), but this
effort from my vantage point does not sufficiently explain neoliberalism to those not already
familiar with it; nor does it offer anything of particular interest to those who are.
The problem of dealing with neoliberalism is, in my opinion, coming to grips with the history
and philosophy behind it - and that is not simply accomplished. Neoliberalism is philosophy based
upon deceit and deliberate obfuscation of its goals and objectives. It is not simply capitalism.
It is an orchestrated effort to control the power and wealth of the world - and it is, by and
large succeeding. Without properly understanding the forces behind and within neoliberalism, I
don't believe that it is possible to formulate any real effort to stem the tide of its successes.
It is ultimately a self-destructive formulation, but the level of that destruction may well be
something none of us wish to experience.
Anyone truly interested in understanding neoliberalism should be reading the works of Philip
Mirowski, The Road From Mont Pelerin and Never Let A Serious Crisis Go To Waste. Professor Kotz's
book may well add to this, but this posting, I am sorry to day, does not. I in no way wish do
denigrate the work of those, including Professor Kotz, at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst
as they are among the best in the nation at standing up to neoliberalism and neoclassical economics.
I just wish this could have been a more useful post.
One of the interesting facets of globalization is its dependence on government subsidies. Some
are structural, such as social programs substituting for living wages, but many are direct transfers
of assets to corporations. Special currency exchange rates, forgivable loans, government gathering
of foreign intellectual property, free land, etc, all save the companies the expected business
expenses. This is on top of import barriers, local preference buying, and other help.
The justification is, of course, greater national economic activity/jobs. Americans call this
'smokestack chasing', but here its heyday's come and gone. Partly because states and cities have
figured out the math doesn't work. The government spends far more money than they could ever hope
for in taxes, even when the whole enterprise doesn't go bust. Today, any subsidy a corporation
wrings out of the locals is usually hedged with conditions that make it at least look like an
even deal. Before, it was a matter of faith.
Without government subsidies, would the foreign trade portion of globalization exist? Foreign
ownership, like any ownership, is protected by government. And that's a choice, too. But would
'cheap labor' or 'lack of environmental laws' really make up the difference? Seems global capitalism
depends on national boundaries.
I read Mirowski's "Never Let A Serious Crisis " two years ago, and as Paul Heideman's positive
review in "www.jacobinmag" concluded, it nonetheless left me wanting for an explanation of just
how a set of ideas enamating originally from the obscure Mont Pelerin Society (however influential)
could gain such worldwide traction, and seeking perhaps a social-anthropological or political
answer to that query. In "The Making of Global Capitalism" Panitch & Gindin point unequivocally
to the "pivitol role" of US state institutions (since WW2) in orchestrating (with other elites)
opportunities and overcoming difficulties in making the world free for – what Michael Hudson would
say – is primarily US "(fiat)-capital" (since the floating exchange rate regime with dollar as
key came into effect in 1971). Given the advantage to the US of the dollar as world reserve currency;
of the role US public & private institutions in maintaining that status and thwarting any challenges;
and the role of the US military in overall guardianship, (and the advantages Panitch & Gindin
point out that these factors have given real US industry in maintaining a lead in the more advanced
technologies & industries, (and how mutually supporting all these forces are of each other)) I
am inclined towards (the intemperate!-) Paul Craig Robert's assertion that NeoLiberalism is essentially
a US imperial project. Like many imperialisms of old, it relies on well rewarded local elites
playing their part in the outposts. But the loss of dollar and/or military hegemony would surely
lead to a significant retrenchment and a major realignment of world trade & development patterns,
not to mention financial flows? Hence the struggles we see today, to retain hegemonic status.
The amazing thing is, as playwright Harold Pinter said, how this "imperialism" is accepted as
representing "freedom", "democracy", "rule of law" – even just the very longterm natural evolution
of barter, in the form of modeern "markets"!
and the real dirty secret is, Americans love every second of it. they are consuming more than
ever.
Capitalism was global from the 19th century until the 1914 when WWI broke out. Before that
time, Europe was the modern America and America was modern BRIC. From a Babylon 5 pov, this was
the beginning of the transfer from the Brits to the US as the dominate global power. The Axis
were the "Shadows" while the Allies were the Vorlons. During this period of 1914-89, capitalism
receded back into nationalism and 'perceived' threats like communism. The first breakdown in this
was the global crisis in the mid-70's when the Soviet Union got hit by a crippling blow. Another
factor was the rising American living standards coupled with mass production still mostly inhabiting
the homeland. Capitalism does not do well with rising living standards. It can't make profit amid
dwindling supplies and high living standards. In Hitlerian talk, it needs breathing room. The
late 60's the results were coming in, inflation began to accelerate in the US, driving inflation
globally. The end result was the new global period and cheap sources of production to drive consumption
in the US via debt.
The best insight of the change that started in 1980 that I've found is Emmanuel Todd's.
"The United States itself, which was once a protector and is now a predator." Neo-liberalism is
confusing. Predatory Capitalism is reality.
"... The film compares the rise of the neoconservative movement in the United States and the radical Islamist movement, drawing comparisons between their origins, and remarking on similarities between the two groups. More controversially, it argues that radical Islamism as a massive, sinister organisation, specifically in the form of al-Qaeda, is a myth, or noble lie, perpetuated by leaders of many countries-and particularly neoconservatives in the U.S.-in a renewed attempt to unite and inspire their people after the ultimate failure of more utopian ideas. ..."
Here's a little something to rouse you from your post-Thanksgiving torpor; the first part of a
three-part 2004 series by Adam Curtis called "The Power of Nightmares." The title seems strangely
a propos, what?
Here's the WikiPedia
summary:
The film compares the rise of the neoconservative movement in the United States and the
radical Islamist movement, drawing comparisons between their origins, and remarking on similarities
between the two groups. More controversially, it argues that radical Islamism as a massive, sinister
organisation, specifically in the form of al-Qaeda, is a myth, or noble lie, perpetuated by leaders
of many countries-and particularly neoconservatives in the U.S.-in a renewed attempt to unite
and inspire their people after the ultimate failure of more utopian ideas.
I'm not going to attempt to tease out any systematic implications from listening to the series
right now, but well worth the listen it is. So many old friends from back in 2003, when those whackjobs
in the Bush administration were only starting to lose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan! Random thoughts:
1)
Leo Strauss is a horrible human being, who has a lot to answer for.
3) The neocons make Henry Kissinger look like a Boy Scout.
4) Best quote: "The Soviets had developed systems that were so sophisticated that they were undetectable."
5) Sayyid Qutb, the Egyptian
Islamic theorist counterpoised by Curtis to Strauss, sees the United States "as obsessed with materialism,
violence, and sexual pleasures." What a nut job! To be fair, if the Egyptian government hadn't tortured
him, Qutb might never have come up with the
Jahiliyyah concept,
which, at least as I hear Curtis tell it, means that you're so corrupt that you can't even know you're
corrupt.
* * *
Nightmares is mostly archive footage plus a soundtrack, with Curtis narrating. So if
you want to listen to it with your morning coffee, the way one listened to NPR before it became evident
how horrid NPR is, that will work; you don't have to sit in front of the screen.
The Power of Nightmares 2: The Rise of the Politics of Fear (BBC-2004) Posted on
by
Yves Smith
"... In practice, however, neoliberalism has created a market state rather than a small state. Shrinking the state has proved politically impossible, so neoliberals have turned instead to using the state to reshape social institutions on the model of the market - a task that cannot be carried out by a small state. ..."
"... The Neoliberal State ..."
"... Neoliberals are not anarchists, who object to any kind of government, or libertarians, who want to limit the state to the provision of law and order and national defense. A neoliberal state can include a welfare state, but only of the most limited kind. Using the welfare state to realize an ideal of social justice is, for neoliberals, an abuse of power: social justice is a vague and contested idea, and when governments try to realize it they compromise the rule of law and undermine individual freedom. The role of the state should be limited to safeguarding the free market and providing a minimum level of security against poverty. ..."
"... Plant's central charge against neoliberalism is that, when stated clearly, it falls apart ..."
"... Neoliberalism and social democracy are not entirely separate political projects; they are dialectically related, the latter being a kind of synthesis of the contradictions of the former. ..."
"... But it is one thing to argue that the neoliberal state is conceptually unstable, another to suggest that social democracy is the only viable alternative. Neoconservatives have been among the sharpest critics of neoliberalism, arguing that the unfettered market is amoral and destroys social cohesion. ..."
"... Immanent criticism can show that the neoliberal theory of the state is internally contradictory. It cannot tell us how these contradictions are to be resolved - and in fact neoliberals who have become convinced that the minimal welfare state they favour is politically impossible do not usually become social democrats. Most opt for a conservative welfare state, which aims to prepare people for the labour market rather than promoting any idea of social justice. ..."
"... A more likely course of events is that social democracy will be eroded even further. ..."
"... The crisis is deep-rooted, and neoliberalism has no remedy for its own failure. ..."
"... Although the deregulated banking system may have imploded, capital remains highly mobile. Bailing out the banks has shifted the burden of toxic debt to the state, and there is a mounting risk of a sovereign debt crisis as a result. In these conditions, maintaining the high levels of public spending that social democracy requires will be next to impossible. ..."
John Gray Neoliberals
wanted to limit government, but the upshot of their policies has been a huge expansion in the power
of the state. Deregulating the financial system left banks free to speculate, and they did so with
reckless enthusiasm. The result was a build-up of toxic assets that threatened the entire banking
system. The government was forced to step in to save the system from self-destruction, but only at
the cost of becoming itself hugely indebted. As a result, the state has a greater stake in the financial
system than it did in the time of Clement Attlee. Yet the government is reluctant to use its power,
even to curb the gross bonuses that bankers are awarding themselves from public funds. The neoliberal
financial regime may have collapsed, but politicians continue to defer to the authority of the market.
Hardcore Thatcherites, and their fellow-travellers in New Labour, sometimes question whether there
was ever a time when neoliberal ideas shaped policy. Has public spending not continued to rise over
recent decades? Is the state not bigger than it has ever been? In practice, however, neoliberalism
has created a market state rather than a small state. Shrinking the state has proved politically
impossible, so neoliberals have turned instead to using the state to reshape social institutions
on the model of the market - a task that cannot be carried out by a small state.
An increase in state power has always been the inner logic of neoliberalism, because, in order
to inject markets into every corner of social life, a government needs to be highly invasive. Health,
education and the arts are now more controlled by the state than they were in the era of Labour collectivism.
Once-autonomous institutions are entangled in an apparatus of government targets and incentives.
The consequence of reshaping society on a market model has been to make the state omnipresent.
Raymond Plant is a rarity among academic political theorists, in that he has deep experience of
political life (before becoming a Labour peer he was a long-time adviser to Neil Kinnock). But he
remains a philosopher, and the central focus of The Neoliberal State is not on the ways
in which neoliberalism has self-destructed in practice. Instead, using a method of immanent criticism,
Plant aims to uncover contradictions in neoliberal ideology itself. Examining a wide variety of thinkers
- Michael Oakeshott, Friedrich Hayek, Robert Nozick, James Buchanan and others - he develops a rigorous
and compelling argument that neoliberal ideas are inherently unstable.
Neoliberals are not anarchists, who object to any kind of government, or libertarians, who
want to limit the state to the provision of law and order and national defense. A neoliberal state
can include a welfare state, but only of the most limited kind. Using the welfare state to realize
an ideal of social justice is, for neoliberals, an abuse of power: social justice is a vague and
contested idea, and when governments try to realize it they compromise the rule of law and undermine
individual freedom. The role of the state should be limited to safeguarding the free market and providing
a minimum level of security against poverty.
This is a reasonable summary of the neoliberal view of the state. Whether this view is underpinned
by any coherent theory is another matter. The thinkers who helped shape neoliberal ideas are a very
mixed bag, differing widely among themselves on many fundamental issues. Oakeshott's scepticism has
very little in common with Hayek's view of the market as the engine of human progress, for example,
or with Nozick's cult of individual rights.
It is a mistake to look for a systematic body of neoliberal theory, for none has ever existed.
In order to criticise neoliberal ideology, one must first reconstruct it, and this is exactly what
Plant does. The result is the most authoritative and comprehensive critique of neoliberal thinking
to date.
Plant's central charge against neoliberalism is that, when stated clearly, it falls apart
and is finally indistinguishable from a mild form of social democracy. Plant is a distinguished
scholar of Hegel, and his critique of neoliberalism has a strongly Hegelian flavour. The ethical
basis of the neoliberal state is a concern for negative freedom and the rule of law; but when these
ideals are examined closely, they prove either to be compatible with social democracy or actually
to require it. Neoliberalism and social democracy are not entirely separate political projects;
they are dialectically related, the latter being a kind of synthesis of the contradictions of the
former. Himself a social democrat, Plant believes that the neoliberal state is bound as a matter
of morality and logic to develop in a social-democratic direction.
But it is one thing to argue that the neoliberal state is conceptually unstable, another to
suggest that social democracy is the only viable alternative. Neoconservatives have been among the
sharpest critics of neoliberalism, arguing that the unfettered market is amoral and destroys social
cohesion. A similar view has recently surfaced in British politics in Phillip Blond's "Red Toryism".
Immanent criticism can show that the neoliberal theory of the state is internally contradictory.
It cannot tell us how these contradictions are to be resolved - and in fact neoliberals who have
become convinced that the minimal welfare state they favour is politically impossible do not usually
become social democrats. Most opt for a conservative welfare state, which aims to prepare people
for the labour market rather than promoting any idea of social justice.
If there is no reason in theory why the neoliberal state must develop in a social-democratic direction,
neither is there any reason in practice. A more likely course of events is that social democracy
will be eroded even further. The banking crisis rules out any prospect of a return to neoliberal
business-as-usual. As Plant writes towards the end of the book: "It has been argued that the central
cause of the banking crisis is a failure of regulation in relation to toxic assets . . . This, however,
completely neglects the systemic nature of the problems - a systemic structure that has itself been
developed as a result of liberalisation, that is, the creation of new assets without normal market
prices and their diffusion throughout the banking system." The crisis is deep-rooted, and neoliberalism
has no remedy for its own failure.
The upshot of the crisis is unlikely, however, to be a revival of social democracy. Although
the deregulated banking system may have imploded, capital remains highly mobile. Bailing out the
banks has shifted the burden of toxic debt to the state, and there is a mounting risk of a sovereign
debt crisis as a result. In these conditions, maintaining the high levels of public spending that
social democracy requires will be next to impossible. Neoliberalism and social democracy may
be dialectically related, but only in the sense that when the neoliberal state collapses it takes
down much of what remains of social democracy as well.
The Neoliberal State
Raymond Plant Oxford University Press, 304pp, £50
John Gray is the New Statesman's lead book reviewer. His book "False Dawn: the Delusions
of Global Capitalism", first published in 1998, has been reissued by Granta Books with a new introduction
(£8.99) His latest book is
The Soul of the Marionette: A Short Enquiry into Human Freedom .
"... Hillary Clinton and her lackeys will be taking a lot of heat for their shady actions in the primaries, get berned! ..."
"... How could Hillary be the best qualified candidate of all time??? She was a liar. Just being a woman does not automatically make you the best person ..."
"... A nice way of understanding this is the media, pollsters and pseudo liberal's use of the term popularist. This has been identified as the danger and a type of ignorance/stupidity if you just reflect for a moment it could be seen as a synonym for the majority. ..."
"... Trump' victory marks the profound failures of the political and economic system in America and across the West. It is a complete failure of the Clinton and the DNC establishment approach to politics ..."
"... The Guardian should have supported Bernie Sanders' campaign. There was a systemic failure to acknowledge and recognise the intense disillusionment and sweeping anti-establishment zeitgeist among huge numbers of the electorate both in America and Europe. ..."
How could Hillary be the
best qualified candidate of
all time??? She was a liar.
Just being a woman does not
automatically make you the
best person, there are other
honest and more competent
women.
Granted Trump isn't
ideal but Hilary was equally
divisive and assumed the
whole fiasco was about her
being the first woman to
make it into the white house
than the policy issues that
needed serious tackling.
This is a revolution against
the media and the pollsters
stuck in the washington/westminster
bubble. It was obvious to
any objective observer that
Trump was going to win.
The liberal media and the
pollsters just as in Brexit
have had an incredulous
bioptic view of what was
happening.
Not once in 18 months has
there been a serious attempt
to understand Trump's appeal
and what he was really
saying, not once.
A nice way of understanding
this is the media, pollsters
and pseudo liberal's use of
the term popularist. This
has been identified as the
danger and a type of
ignorance/stupidity if you
just reflect for a moment it
could be seen as a synonym
for the majority.
The people want change even
if it comes from Trump.
I wonder if Farage is
thinking of staying on as
leader?
Trump' victory marks the
profound failures of the
political and economic
system in America and across
the West. It is a complete
failure of the Clinton and
the DNC establishment
approach to politics.
The
Guardian should have
supported Bernie Sanders'
campaign. There was a
systemic failure to
acknowledge and recognise
the intense disillusionment
and sweeping
anti-establishment zeitgeist
among huge numbers of the
electorate both in America
and Europe.
"... I am not sure that any serious force is able to challenge American's oligarchy in a class war in modern conditions. There is no any really powerful countervailing force able to challenge status quo. ..."
"... But neoliberalism does it in its own way: humans are considered to be market actors and nothing but market actors. Every activity is viewed as a market. Everything whether person, business, or state is considered an entity that should be governed as a firm striving for market share. ..."
"... The USA foreign policy so far remains brutal expansionism, opening one country after another to large transnationals, which are the key political players under neoliberalism and definitely represent power that be in the USA along the lines of 'shadow state" thinking and inverted totalitarism model. ..."
"... While the next economic crisis is given, how the next stage of self-destruction of neoliberalism will look is fuzzy. Much depends on price and availability of oil which recently demonstrated a completely unexpected and dramatic drop. ..."
"... One thing is certain: with high oil prices neoliberal society inevitably enters "secular stagnation". But the threshold between "normal" and "high" oil prices itself is subject to revisions due to technology advances and our ability to find sustainable energy substitutes for oil. ..."
"... Electoral democracy places some limit on the excesses of plutocracy. ..."
"... You mean we can not express our will with our, or some else's money? Are we forced to borrow and spend by the plutocracy, and thus become enslaved to the rent seekers? ..."
"... Krugman quickly passes over the hypothesis that the growth in international trade was responsible for the growing the gap between the wages of college educated and non-college educated workers. But I'd like to see more empirical support for the dismissal. ..."
"... In a globalized system in which both capital and finished goods can move across borders, and in which industries have complex production chains, why couldn't it be the case the effect of this openness on developed economies is to disaggregate existing industries and then trade for, or offshore, only the lower skill components of those industries? ..."
"... Good to see these guys stumping to challenge the oligarchy. Where were they forty years ago? Oh, I forgot. We are just learning about hysteresis. Socio-political evolution is barely understood.] ..."
"... Starting in the mid-1930s, a handful of prominent American businessmen forged alliances with the aim of rescuing America--and their profit margins--from socialism and the "nanny state." Long before the "culture wars" usually associated with the rise of conservative politics, these driven individuals funded think tanks, fought labor unions, and formed organizations to market their views. These nearly unknown, larger-than-life, and sometimes eccentric personalities--such as GE's zealous, silver-tongued Lemuel Ricketts Boulware and the self-described "revolutionary" Jasper Crane of DuPont--make for a fascinating, behind-the-scenes view of American history. ..."
"... It is not just Fox. The mainstream media is just as much a part of the corporatocracy as GE or Goldman Sachs. Consolidated market power knows no bounds as long as people like you and me cannot organize ourselves into electoral solidarity. ..."
"... Fox speaks its lies to a certain set of willful fools. Fox does tell the only lies and the viewers of Fox are not the only willful fools. MULP tells a truer story when he is on his meds. ..."
"... Meanwhile, phony progressive liberals like pgl continue to champion trickle down monetary policies. With seven years of trickle down monetary policy, the results are obvious--the 1% won. As Saez found, the 1% got 58% of the gains of this 'recovery.' Meanwhile, real median household income has dropped to where it was 20 years ago. ..."
"... Yet phony liberals here continue to carry water for Wall Street, always holding out the myth that Fed policy is designed to raise workers' wages...even after seven years of evidence to the contrary. ..."
"... As always when there is conflict, there are plenty of people willing to serve as a fifth column, claiming to serve the interests of the many while actually helping the wealthy. ..."
These days, Reich offers a much darker vision, and what is in effect a call for class
war-or if you like, for an uprising of workers against the quiet class war that America's oligarchy
has been waging for decades. ...
=== end of quote ===
Looks like such calls are meaningless. I am not sure that any serious force is able to challenge
American's oligarchy in a class war in modern conditions. There is no any really powerful countervailing
force able to challenge status quo.
Neoliberal thinking still penetrates the society and even after 2008 neoliberalism remains
the dominant ideology all over the world. and the USA remain the citadel of neoliberalism and
still manages to invade smaller nations to open their markets. In a way neoliberalism is parody
on Marxism (Trotskyism for the rich) a governing rationality in which everything like In Marxism
is "economized".
But neoliberalism does it in its own way: humans are considered to be market actors and nothing
but market actors. Every activity is viewed as a market. Everything whether person, business,
or state is considered an entity that should be governed as a firm striving for market share.
Even such activities as education, dating, or exercising are viewed in market terms. The idea
is to submits them to market metrics, and governs them using market-based approaches and practices.
Humans are viewed as chunks of human capital who must constantly strive to increase their market
value or face consequences.
Unions are emasculated. Movements like Occupy are infiltrated and repressed pretty mercilessly
using all arsenal of method of police/national security state, which was preemptively created
after 9/11.
Minorities protests in impoverished cites (which often start as protests against police brutality)
are swiped under the carpet. And eventually suppressed.
The USA foreign policy so far remains brutal expansionism, opening one country after another
to large transnationals, which are the key political players under neoliberalism and definitely
represent power that be in the USA along the lines of 'shadow state" thinking and inverted totalitarism
model.
In other words like cancer transforms cells, neoliberalism transforms the whole societies into
profit making machines for top 1%.
Events of 2008 and this "Heil Mary pass" that was Bernanke monetary policy suggests that there
are already some serious cracks in the neoliberal economic model. But how and when the next stage
of self-destruction occurs is anybody guess. While the next economic crisis is given, how the
next stage of self-destruction of neoliberalism will look is fuzzy. Much depends on price and
availability of oil which recently demonstrated a completely unexpected and dramatic drop.
One thing is certain: with high oil prices neoliberal society inevitably enters "secular
stagnation". But the threshold between "normal" and "high" oil prices itself
is subject to revisions due to technology advances and our ability to find sustainable energy
substitutes for oil.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> likbez...
That was a poorly edited but still cogent summation of our current state of affairs.
Electoral democracy places some limit on the excesses of plutocracy. They must maintain some combination
of mystique behind the curtain or popular complacency towards the wizards hijinks in order for
there to be no electoral solidarity to overturn the status quo. We don't need pitchforks nor guillotines
if we stick together in the ballot box.
mulp -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
You mean we can not express our will with our, or some else's money? Are we forced to borrow and spend by the plutocracy, and thus become enslaved to the rent seekers?
Why can't we go on strike and not buy anything?
Doesn't anyone understand that high profits will not increase gdp?
Only spenders will increase gdp? And if profits are high, it will require borrow and spend to
increase gdp followed by enslavement to the rent seekers. If income inequality is high, it will
require borrow and spend to increase gdp, followed by enslavement to rent seekers.
Becoming homeless is the ultimate blow struck against the plutocrats. Living in a car board box
and eating from dumpsters drives down gdp and thus drives down profits destroying wealth.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> mulp...
You have your moments and then there are times like this.
Dan Kervick said...
Krugman quickly passes over the hypothesis that the growth in international trade was responsible
for the growing the gap between the wages of college educated and non-college educated workers.
But I'd like to see more empirical support for the dismissal. He says,
"Around 1990, trade with developing countries was still too small to explain the big
movements in relative wages of college and high school graduates that had already happened.
Furthermore, trade should have produced a shift in employment toward more skill-intensive industries;
it couldn't explain what we actually saw, which was a rise in the level of skills within industries,
extending across pretty much the entire economy."
On that second point, both older classical trade theory and "new" trade theory seem to operate
at the level of whole industries. But why? In a globalized system in which both capital and finished
goods can move across borders, and in which industries have complex production chains, why couldn't
it be the case the effect of this openness on developed economies is to disaggregate existing
industries and then trade for, or offshore, only the lower skill components of those industries?
Whether or not this impact was "too small", as Krugman says, to account for the entirety of
the big movements in relative wages, the point is not to identity a single monocausal explanation
for the changes, but to piece together a number of contributing factors that are part of the puzzle.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron said...
[When I advocate better public education the channel by which it would exert greater equality
is via political power, not just higher paying jobs.
Good to see these guys stumping to challenge the oligarchy. Where were they forty years ago?
Oh, I forgot. We are just learning about hysteresis. Socio-political evolution is barely understood.]
The Making of the Conservative Movement from the New Deal to Reagan
Kim Phillips-Fein (Author)
A narrative history of the influential businessmen who fought to roll back the New Deal.
Starting in the mid-1930s, a handful of prominent American businessmen forged alliances
with the aim of rescuing America--and their profit margins--from socialism and the "nanny
state." Long before the "culture wars" usually associated with the rise of conservative
politics, these driven individuals funded think tanks, fought labor unions, and formed
organizations to market their views. These nearly unknown, larger-than-life, and sometimes
eccentric personalities--such as GE's zealous, silver-tongued Lemuel Ricketts Boulware and
the self-described "revolutionary" Jasper Crane of DuPont--make for a fascinating,
behind-the-scenes view of American history.
The winner of a prestigious academic award for her original research on this book, Kim Phillips-Fein
is already being heralded as an important new young American historian. Her meticulous research
and narrative gifts reveal the dramatic story of a pragmatic, step-by-step, check-by-check campaign
to promote an ideological revolution--one that ultimately helped propel conservative ideas to
electoral triumph.
ilsm -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
Media is a problem!
Without the teachers' unions there is no education.
The battle of the educated mind is lost when the likes of Fox go undisputed and are sold as
news.
We have always been at war with Shiites for the Sunni oil masters.....
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> ilsm...
It is not just Fox. The mainstream media is just as much a part of the corporatocracy as GE
or Goldman Sachs. Consolidated market power knows no bounds as long as people like you and me
cannot organize ourselves into electoral solidarity.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
Fox speaks its lies to a certain set of willful fools. Fox does tell the only lies and the
viewers of Fox are not the only willful fools. MULP tells a truer story when he is on his meds.
JohnH said...
Meanwhile, phony progressive liberals like pgl continue to champion trickle down monetary policies.
With seven years of trickle down monetary policy, the results are obvious--the 1% won. As Saez
found, the 1% got 58% of the gains of this 'recovery.' Meanwhile, real median household income
has dropped to where it was 20 years ago.
Stiglitz said it well in his 'Price of Inequality:' a macroeconomic policy and a central bank
by and for the 1%.
Yet phony liberals here continue to carry water for Wall Street, always holding out the
myth that Fed policy is designed to raise workers' wages...even after seven years of evidence
to the contrary.
As always when there is conflict, there are plenty of people willing to serve as a fifth
column, claiming to serve the interests of the many while actually helping the wealthy.
JohnH -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
When someone champions policies that have overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy while claiming
that they benefit workers, what do you call them but phony?
Let's see how do pgl's policy prescriptions differ from those advocated by Wall Street banks?
- they both champion low interest rates
- they both hate taxing the wealthy to address inequality and fund stimulus
- they both have been cozy with Wall Street Democrats
- both hail from New York City.
Seem to me that pgl and Wall Street bankers have more in common than differences...
pgl -> JohnH...
"Let's see how do pgl's policy prescriptions differ from those advocated by Wall Street
banks?"
I'm for Dodd-Franks. I support higher capital ratios. I'm all in on what Liz Warren is supporting.
Now if you think the banksters agree with me on these fundamental reforms - then you are even
dumber than I give you credit for. Run along angry lying worthless stupid troll.
"... "Business must learn the lesson . . . that political power is necessary; that such power must be assiduously cultivated; and that when necessary, it must be used aggressively and with determination-without embarrassment and without the reluctance which has been so characteristic of American business." ..."
"... "Strength lies in organization, in careful long-range planning and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing available only through joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and national organizations." ..."
"... The number of corporate Political Action Committees soared from under 300 in 1976 to over 1,200 in 1980, and their spending on politics grew fivefold. In the early 1970s, businesses spent less on congressional races than did labor unions; by the mid-1970s, the two were at rough parity; by 1980, corporations accounted for three-quarters of PAC spending while unions accounted for less than a quarter. Then came Ronald Reagan's presidency, corporate control of the Republican Party, and a Republican-dominated Supreme Court and its "Citizens United" decision. ..."
Right-wing mega-donor Sheldon Adelson has just bought the biggest newspaper in Nevada, the Las Vegas
Review-Journal -- just in time for Nevada's becoming a key battleground for the presidency and for
the important Senate seat being vacated by Harry Reid. It's not quite like Rupert Murdoch's ownership
of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, but Adelson's purchase marks another step toward oligarchic
control of America – and the relative decline of corporate power.
Future historians
will note that the era of corporate power extended for about 40 years, from 1980 to 2016 or 2020.
It began in the 1970s with a backlash against Lyndon Johnson's Great Society (Medicare, Medicaid,
the EPA and OSHA). In 1971, future Supreme Court justice Lewis Powell warned corporate leaders that
the "American economic system is under broad attack," and urging them to mobilize. "Business
must learn the lesson . . . that political power is necessary; that such power must be assiduously
cultivated; and that when necessary, it must be used aggressively and with determination-without
embarrassment and without the reluctance which has been so characteristic of American business."
He went on: "Strength lies in organization, in careful long-range planning
and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of
financing available only through joint effort, and in the political power available only through
united action and national organizations."
Soon thereafter, corporations descended on Washington. In 1971, only 175 firms
had Washington lobbyists; by 1982, almost 2,500 did. Between 1974 and 1980 the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
doubled its membership and tripled its budget. In 1972, the National Association of Manufacturers
moved its office from New York to Washington, and the Business Roundtable was formed, whose membership
was restricted to top corporate CEOs.
The number of corporate Political Action Committees soared from under 300 in
1976 to over 1,200 in 1980, and their spending on politics grew fivefold. In the early 1970s, businesses
spent less on congressional races than did labor unions; by the mid-1970s, the two were at rough
parity; by 1980, corporations accounted for three-quarters of PAC spending while unions accounted
for less than a quarter. Then came Ronald Reagan's presidency, corporate control of the Republican
Party, and a Republican-dominated Supreme Court and its "Citizens United" decision.
"... Railroading Economics: The Creation of the Free Market Mythology ..."
"... The Wal-Mart Revolution ..."
"... Schnurr's speech was part of a yearlong campaign to oust Doty and thwart his efforts to implement rules that would increase auditors' accountability to investors and their independence from the companies they audit. ..."
"... Doty's efforts have floundered, in large part because Schnurr's office has used its oversight powers to block, weaken and delay them, according to a dozen current and former SEC and PCAOB officials. Schnurr's staff has also campaigned to have Doty removed from office, these people said. ..."
Continuing our series of
book reviews in time for the holiday gift-giving season, here's a quick look at Michael Perelman's
Railroading Economics, a title, and a subject, that intrigued me for two reasons. Trivially,
as readers know, I'm by way of being a
rail fan; more importantly, when I was a mere sprat, I read Matthew Josephson's Robber Barons.
Josephson's tales of
Jim Fisk watering
the stock of the Erie Railroad - "Gone where the woodbine twineth" was Fisk's answer to where the
money went - and his running buddy
Jay Gould - "I can hire one
half of the working class to kill the other half" (attributed) - trying to corner the gold market
would inoculate anyone from belief in the ideology of "perfect competition." They certainly did me.
Perelman begins (p.1):
The title of this book, Railroading Economics, has multiple meanings. The verb "railroading"
refers to the ideological straitjacket of modern economics, which teaches that the market is the
solution to all social and economic problems. The adjective "railroading" refers to the experience
of economists during the late nineteenth century when the largest industry in the country, railroading,
was experiencing terrible upheavals. Many of the leading eocnomists at the time came to grips
with the destructive nature of market forces. Competition, which according to conventional economics,
is supposed to guide business to make decisions that will benefit everybody, was driving business
into bankruptcy and common people into poverty.
That lesson was never allowed to take hold among economists. In fact, the same economists continue
to teach their students that markets work in perfect harmony, while they advised policy makers
to take quick action to put the brakes on competition. In effect, the railroad economists railroaded
economics into perpetuating a free market mythology.
This is a long and complicated story, and Perelman tells it well. Since Perelman is a radical
economist from a non-Ivy League School, reviews of his book are few and far between.
Here's one from an orthodox economist (latest book: The Wal-Mart Revolution) that to
my untutored eye seems to summarize Perelman's thesis fairly:
[Michael Perelman's new book] is a highly readable, lucidly written, and provocative account
of the evolving American economy. Moreover, readers of this site would be pleased that this is
a rare economist who draws very heavily on insights from economic history and even the history
of economic thought in reaching conclusions about the contemporary American economy. Also, the
book has lots of solid footnotes showing a serious appreciation of much of the relevant scholarly
literature of the past century or more .
According to Perelman, classical economics emerged out of an agrarian society where the presumption
of pure competition was fairly reasonable. Over time, however, massive capital-intensive businesses
evolved, notably the railroads, with very high fixed costs. The neoclassical notion that profit-maximizing
firms would produce where marginal costs equaled marginal revenue and price (in pure competition)
simply did not fit the reality of these new natural monopolies. Competition was destabilizing,
led to overinvestment, and paved the way for unscrupulous financiers like Jay Gould. In Perelman's
view, "the increasing relative importance of fixed costs means that competition would lead
to utter chaos" (p. 46). A group of "railroad economists" or corporatists understood all this,
but they were largely ignored by conventional economists who developed a "quasi-religious" and
"ideological" (p. 99) fervor towards their theoretical models, a fervor that persists today.
Perelman thinks that in pursuing competition, prices were forced so low that many railroads
were forced into bankruptcy, much as is happening in airlines today. This opens the door for the
"financial capitalists" who make money reducing competition (via mergers) and reorganizing bankrupt
companies, getting rich in the process and hurting workers of the involved companies. The Enron/WorldCom
problems of the early twenty-first century are not that different from those created by J.P. Morgan
organized mergers of a century earlier, best symbolized by the formation of U.S. Steel.
In Perelman's eyes, the instability arising from the lack of realization of the importance
of fixed costs, the machinations of financial interests, and so forth, have caused internal contradictions
in capitalism. He opines that "an economy built increasingly on finance is a disaster waiting
to happen" (p. 198), concluding "I look forward to the day when we no longer rely on competition
for monetary rewards when cooperation and social planning replace the haphazard world of the
market place" (p. 200).
Needless to say, the orthodox reviewer vehemently disagrees; readers can follow up at the link.
At this point, however, magpie-like, I want to pass on from assessing Perelman's thesis to display
a bright, shiny object I collected from the text. As the post title suggests, it's about accounting!
(Note the focus on fixed, long-lived capital; railroads have rather a lot of it.) From pp. 58-59:
What about accounting as an anchor for business rationality? Certainly, the widespread adoption
of seemingly solid accounting practices contributed to the illusion of a sound basis for business
action. Even as astute an observer as Max Weber associated accounting practices with rationality.
This attitude toward accounting is not surprising. Indeed, the erratic movements of markets disappear
in the accountant's ledgers, which exude a misleading image of straightforward calculations of
profit and loss.
First, accounts are necessarily backward-looking. Accountants must necessarily
base their calculations on historical costs, even though they can make allowances for changes
that have occurred since the original purchase. Since account books are based on historical
information, they will be better guides if the business is a relatively short-lived affair. After
all, tomorrow is more likely to resumble today than sometime in the far-off future will.
Second, the methods that accountants use to make these adjustments are necessarily based on
inexact conventions rather than precise measurements. Finally, as the dot com bubble proved [the
book was published in 2006] accountants can easily mislead even supposedly sophisticated investors.
Accounting firms even accommodated failing corporations by providing fraudulent information [of
which more below] rather than risk losing lucrative contracts.
So much for accounting. But wait! There's more!
The treatment of capital in conventional economic theory had its origins in the long-obsolete
accounting principles of early merchants. The economic environment of the early merchants' shops
conditioned later accounting practices, especially their treatment of fixed capital. Even as late
as the time of Adam Smith more than two centuries ago, fixed capital requirements were relatively
modest. Since accountants have never been able to discover a satisfactory method of handling
long-lived capital goods, accounting provides a frail foundation for business rationality in a
developed economy where long-lived fixed capital assumes great importance.
Ronald Coase once noted that an accountant would say that the cost of a machine is the depreciation
of the machine. The economist would say that "the cost of using the machine is the highest receipts
that could be obtained by the employment of the machine in some alternative use." If no alternative
exists, the cost of the machine is zero
Ideally, Coase is correct. Unfortunately, no economist can hope to calculate the highest receipts
that could be obtained. To do so would require knowledge of the future of all industries that
could possibly use the machine. As a result, economists generally either accept the accountant's
calculations in violation of their own principles or they assume away the problem of long-lived
capital goods.
Economists rarely consider this defect in economics because they avoid any serious consideration
of time in their models. Instead, in dealing with investment decisions, the models typically pretend
that investors are able to accurately foresee the future.
All that is solid melts into air. (Orthodox) economics assumes a soothsayer. And accounting provides
no basis for business rationality (at least if one is more than a shopkeeper). How does one even
begin to process that information? (Here let me welcome corrections and clarifications from readers
familiar with current accounting practice and theory.)
* * *
So what's accounting for, then? Perhaps the news flow will provide a clue. From
Reuters (but leaving out most of the detail on a sadly usual
flexian infestation):
Accounting industry and SEC hobble America's audit watchdog
The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board was set up [by Dodd-Frank] to oversee the auditing
profession after a rash of frauds. The industry got the upper hand, as the story of the board's
embattled chief shows.
James Schnurr, just two months into his job as chief accountant at the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, stood before a packed ballroom in Washington last December and upbraided
a little-known regulator.
The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or PCAOB, oversees the big firms that sign off
on the books of America's listed companies. And the board was "moving too slowly," Schnurr said,
to address auditing failures that in recent years had shaken public confidence in those firms.
These were fighting words in the decorous auditing profession, and they hit their target. PCAOB
Chairman James Doty was among those attending the annual accounting-industry gala where Schnurr
spoke. And Schnurr was Doty's new supervisor.
"This is going to get ugly," Doty said to a colleague afterward.
In his new SEC job, Schnurr now had direct authority over the PCAOB – a regulator that just
a few years earlier had derailed his C-suite ambitions at Deloitte & Touche. As deputy managing
partner at the world's largest accounting firm, Schnurr had commanded an army of auditors – until
a string of damning PCAOB critiques of Deloitte's audits led to his demotion.
Then, in August 2014, SEC Chair Mary Jo White named Schnurr to his SEC post. It was a remarkable
instance of Washington's "revolving door" for professionals moving between government and industry
[sic] jobs.
Schnurr's speech was part of a yearlong campaign to oust Doty and thwart his efforts to
implement rules that would increase auditors' accountability to investors and their independence
from the companies they audit.
Deloitte, Ernst & Young, PricewaterhouseCoopers and KPMG audit companies that account for 98
percent of the value of U.S. stock markets. During the crisis, nine major financial institutions
collapsed or were rescued by the government within months of receiving clean bills of health from
one of the Big Four. While Schnurr was deputy managing partner at Deloitte, the firm signed off
on the books of Bear Stearns, Washington Mutual and Fannie Mae. Each went bust soon after, costing
investors over $115 billion in losses.
Doty's efforts have floundered, in large part because Schnurr's office has used its oversight
powers to block, weaken and delay them, according to a dozen current and former SEC and PCAOB
officials. Schnurr's staff has also campaigned to have Doty removed from office, these people
said.
Doty's term ended on Oct. 24. He continues to serve as PCAOB chairman day-to-day, waiting for
the SEC to decide whether or not to reappoint him.
The standoff is a test of who holds sway with regulators in Washington – investors large and
small who seek better disclosure of what really goes on inside companies, or the financial-services
establishment that's supposed to serve those investors.
Why, one might almost conclude that the accounting "industry" exists to enable
accounting control fraud, rather than to prevent it - especially given the limitations that Perelman
points out. Although, to be fair, perhaps fraud is what "business rationality" is all about these
days.
* * *
So, from Perelman, we learn that accounting has severe limitations that make it unsuitable as
a basis for business rationality. Moreover, it's not suitable (in its current form, at least) for
making decisions - any decision - about long-lived, fixed capital allocation - and isn't capitalism
supposed to be all about that? And finally, if we ask what accounting is good for, we find
that it's certainly useful for enabling fraud. It's very difficult to know how deep the rot goes.
Richard Parker coined the word "neglectorate" to describe the public's alienation from the current
dysfunctional political system. Now that economists have, for the most part relegated John Maynard
Keynes to the dustbin of history, the term Dickenysian seems to be appropriate for the present conditions,
which are becoming increasingly similar to Charles Dickens' portrayal of the world he lived in. The
power of the bond market in imposing its will on supposedly independent states, suggests that bondage
may be appropriate for expressing the power of capital.
Finally, we could describe the current economic system as Crapitalism, which treats ordinary people
as crap.
"... But if the Macri administration is a throwback to the neoliberal era of Menem, it is important to remember that the current historical context is very different. Back in the 1990s, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union gave the neoliberal policies of the infamous Washington Consensus a status of unquestionable truth. Supposedly, ideology had vanished and history had come to an end. No alternative was politically possible. Since then, the 2008 global Great Recession has shown the world the perils of unfettered capitalism, and even if the "Keynesian moment" was brief and austerity policies have reasserted themselves, at least it is widely understood that the "free market" is no solution for the problems of development in a globalized economy. ..."
"... the phrase "Garbage in, Garbage out" sort of sums up the problem, I think. throughout the neoliberal world, similar events have transpired, supported importantly by a tame press. As well, if the objective of neoliberal policies is to roll back social safety nets and restore corporate or oligarchic control, then austerity like Mr. Dayan predicts has been a success. ..."
"... It is clearly not easy to dislodge the vultures, once their nests are well fortified, and the often bitter process can easily lead to the rise of an Argentine version of (God forbid) Donald Trump. ..."
"... If you're looking for an outright rejection of neoliberalism, you needn't look farther than Argentina in 2001. The people filled the streets shouting "Get Rid of Them All (leaders)" until the leading elite brought forth a leader (Néstor Kirchner) who finally got the message and reversed the Washington consensus. ..."
"... Kirchner, incidentally, had previously been a willing part of Menem's neoliberal policies in the 90s, so that just goes to show that it's not so important whom one elects, as it is the power of popular movements to get said person to do the right thing. ..."
"... Geopolitically too, the new administration seems quite happy to be a nice, well behaved member of the neoliberal club http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34914413 and promises to not bump into the furniture or scoff too many of the hors d'oeuvres. If it is content to accept crumbs from the table, crumbs is what it - and the lucky people of Argentina - will get. ..."
"... Wikileaks reported that Macri went to the US embassy at least 5 times to seek support in winning the presidency. Now, scant days after the inauguration he has cancelled the Argentine memorandum of understanding with Iran in regards to Israel's allegations that Iran was behind two bombings against Israeli/Jewish targets in Argentina in the 90s. Very possibly quid pro quo. ..."
"... It seems to me that it is increasingly difficult for Leftist, i.e., non-neoliberal economies to survive, nevermind thrive, in the world today. As the neoliberal forces have coalesced globally they are now in position to punish any nation that refuses to follow the program. ..."
"... Until the U.S. reforms itself - or maybe Western Europe - it appears small Leftist nations will have to thread a needle just to survive. ..."
"... I would like to read the author's comments on the above in more detail. I cannot figure out why on earth the Roussef admin in brazil is doing what it is doing. They've destroyed their base who won't trust them again for a decade. Will lula ride to the rescue again? I'm not sure he can pull off the same act twice. ..."
"... What I'd always concede is that, for leftist political parties, this job will always be harder. No-one really expects neoliberal or corporatist state parties to be anything other than on the take, it simply goes with the territory. Voters are pretty cynical there, and rightly so, but the cynicism is realistic. The deal is, you put up with our pilfering in return for competent administration. It's more-or-less latter-day versions of "Say what you like about Mussolini, at least he made the trains run on time". ..."
"... The left, conversely, is expected to be both honest and competent. Rightly so, but harder. ..."
"... Oh great, another TBTF banker running a central bank. That should work to someone's advantage If they are telegraphing a devaluation, what does that mean for the FX market? Seems to me a move that large can make some fortunes if one had insider info. Here's a thought, wealthy right wing argentinians go to the us dollar in a similar way to us corps leaving money offshore, to create the impression of weakness, which justifies devaluation of the peso and deregulation, in swoop the buzzards (sorry, vulture is already taken in this case) to buy up pesos at 15 for a buck, plus no repatriations! ..."
"... The devaluation of the peso is a bit more tricky than this, since every political party pushed devaluation, just in different forms. The Kirchner's policy was a slow series of micro-devaluations that kept the peso steadily decreasing against the dollar to keep exports competitive. The bulwark against speculation was (sloppily applied) capital controls that did halt a lot of capital flight, but not all. ..."
"... The fact is very few people here save in pesos, they all save in dollars or property, mainly because there is no faith in the peso. A mega devaluation does not increase faith in the currency, but it does, as you say, work out dandy for speculators. ..."
"... Foreign "investment" (direct or via compradors) and foreign military occupation (direct or by proxy) are two sides of the same coin- of conquest, dominion, oppression and exploitation. Any semblance of, or aspiration to, autonomy, is limited by the perceived needs of imperial "manifest destiny", and thus must be "de"stabilized, then "re"stabilized as a heteronomy, that "better" serves the insatiable needs of the "masters of mankind" as far as "right" v. "left", from my pov comes down to the politics of "concentration" v. "distribution" and what defines "surplus" in the context of basic needs ..."
"... A crude parallel is the "shellacking" of Obama in 2010. Sure there were people that voted for the repubs, but it was by no means out of enthusiastic support for their policies. Likewise here, the enthusiasm was somewhat muted. ..."
By Matias Vernego, Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Bucknell University, and
author of the blog Naked Keynesianism.
Cross-posted from
Triple Crisis.
The election of businessman Mauricio Macri to the presidency in Argentina signals a rightward
turn in the country and, perhaps, in South America more generally. Macri, the candidate of the right-wing
Compromiso para el cambio (Commitment to Change) party, defeated Buenos Aires province governor
Daniel Scioli (the Peronist party candidate) in November's runoff election, by less than 3% of the
vote.
... ... ...
But if the Macri administration is a throwback to the neoliberal era of Menem, it is important
to remember that the current historical context is very different. Back in the 1990s, the fall of
the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union gave the neoliberal policies of the infamous
Washington Consensus a status of unquestionable truth. Supposedly, ideology had vanished and history
had come to an end. No alternative was politically possible. Since then, the 2008 global Great Recession
has shown the world the perils of unfettered capitalism, and even if the "Keynesian moment" was brief
and austerity policies have reasserted themselves, at least it is widely understood that the "free
market" is no solution for the problems of development in a globalized economy.
...The new government does not control congress, and the election was close, signaling
a divided country. In short, society is more organized and better prepared to face the onslaught
of neoliberal policies this time around.
First, a Succinct and well organized piece. A pleasure to read.
Thank you, David Dayan.
Sad but familiar pattern of political events. The key piece of the puzzle not yet known is
if the widespread failure of austerity policies to produce the claimed results will ever trigger
an effective rejection by the voters, and if so, how long will it take? It hasn't happened yet.
A stronger working class is fine, but what is the state of sources of information in Argentina?
in a democratic system, the phrase "Garbage in, Garbage out" sort of sums up the problem,
I think. throughout the neoliberal world, similar events have transpired, supported importantly
by a tame press. As well, if the objective of neoliberal policies is to roll back social safety
nets and restore corporate or oligarchic control, then austerity like Mr. Dayan predicts has been
a success.
It is clearly not easy to dislodge the vultures, once their nests are well fortified, and
the often bitter process can easily lead to the rise of an Argentine version of (God forbid) Donald
Trump. Been there, done that.
If you're looking for an outright rejection of neoliberalism, you needn't look farther
than Argentina in 2001. The people filled the streets shouting "Get Rid of Them All (leaders)"
until the leading elite brought forth a leader (Néstor Kirchner) who finally got the message and
reversed the Washington consensus.
Kirchner, incidentally, had previously been a willing part of Menem's neoliberal policies
in the 90s, so that just goes to show that it's not so important whom one elects, as it is the
power of popular movements to get said person to do the right thing.
Geopolitically too, the new administration seems quite happy to be a nice, well behaved
member of the neoliberal club
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34914413
and promises to not bump into the furniture or scoff too many of the hors d'oeuvres. If it is
content to accept crumbs from the table, crumbs is what it - and the lucky people of Argentina
- will get.
I don't suppose Jim Haygood will be mourning the political exit of the Black Widow, but I,
in my not so humble opinion, think this new lot of ex-financiers will be worse.
In addition to the Venezuela volte-face and a different tune on the Malvinas/Falklands issue,
there is a more substantive move in the works by the new regime.
Wikileaks reported that Macri went to the US embassy at least 5 times to seek support in
winning the presidency. Now, scant days after the inauguration he has cancelled the Argentine
memorandum of understanding with Iran in regards to Israel's allegations that Iran was behind
two bombings against Israeli/Jewish targets in Argentina in the 90s. Very possibly quid pro quo.
It seems to me that it is increasingly difficult for Leftist, i.e., non-neoliberal economies
to survive, nevermind thrive, in the world today. As the neoliberal forces have coalesced globally
they are now in position to punish any nation that refuses to follow the program.
Until the U.S. reforms itself - or maybe Western Europe - it appears small Leftist nations
will have to thread a needle just to survive. Maybe China will emerge, especially possible
as the failure of America's global leadership is underscored by political instability, global
warming, florid wealth disparities, and increasing radicalization.
Erm, I can't see The Middle Kingdom coming to anyone's rescue but their own. That will be good
only for those countries whose welfare coincides with China's. Which would be, ? Pro'ly not
Argentina?
The last government, in addition to selling huge quantities of grain to China, also conducted
2 currency swaps with Beijing– all to cries of "dealing with communists!" and "selling out our
patrimony to the enemies!" from the opposition. Now that the opposition is in power, they announced
a 3rd currency swap two days after coming into office.
In 2013, China South Railway(CSR) won a 1-billion U.S. dollar contract which provides 709
carriages to renew [Argentina's] commuter system.
By the end of July 2015, all the 709 carriages had been shipped to Argentina.
A large part of Argentina's national railway system has been in disrepair or underdeveloped.
Aging infrastructure has also led to a number of accidents in the country in recent years.
China of course is looking after its own mercantilist interests. But Argentina, after allowing
its British-built railroads to decay into shambles by a century of neglect and bizarro-world service
pricing, will benefit from upgraded rail infrastructure.
I got to ride the antiquated 99-year-old Belgian-built coaches, with manually-latched wooden
doors, on Line A of the Buenos Aires subte, before they were removed from service in 2013.
Photo:
The railroad system was built by the British, nationalised by Perón in his first term, and
then slowly privatised under successive dictatorships and their "democratic" front men. The coup
de grace was Menem in the 90s but the whole system was dead well before then, ditched in favour
of the more "advanced" US interstate system.
One of the last moves of the outgoing Kirchner government was to renationalise the system.
The new Chinese cars are a delight (and the old A line was indeed fun, but moved at a snail's
pace). Argentina does not yet have the native industry to produce trains, but that was definitely
a goal, that now looks farther away.
And just for comparison's sake, the top 2 Argentine presedencies in terms of infrastructure
built were Perón's 1&2 terms, and the Kirchners. Meanwhile, the record for least km of subway
built per year in Buenos Aires history belongs to Marucio Macri. All whilst going deeply into
debt.
Fiscal responsibility comrades: it's not a neoliberal priority.
"And if it is any consolation, at least the adjustment will be done by a right-wing party,
in contrast to Brazil, where the same program, essentially, is being pushed by the Workers' Party;
and yet the right-wing forces are also trying to bring the left of center government of Dilma
Rousseff down; more on that on another post]."
I would like to read the author's comments on the above in more detail. I cannot figure
out why on earth the Roussef admin in brazil is doing what it is doing. They've destroyed their
base who won't trust them again for a decade. Will lula ride to the rescue again? I'm not sure
he can pull off the same act twice.
Unfortunately nowhere is it written that the left is automatically able to walk (adopt and
implement progressive policies aiming to improve equality not just on social issues but also economic
and financial ones) and chew gum (govern competently and effectively) at the same time.
While Roussef's (and Christina Fernandez's) hearts may have been in the right place, for Roussef
not being whiter-than-white on campaign funding and employing accountants who would not only find
out any wrong-doing but tell the Workers' Party leadership something didn't smell right - and
also what seemed pretty blatant gerrymandering via the budget - were avoidable own-goals.
What I'd always concede is that, for leftist political parties, this job will always be
harder. No-one really expects neoliberal or corporatist state parties to be anything other than
on the take, it simply goes with the territory. Voters are pretty cynical there, and rightly so,
but the cynicism is realistic. The deal is, you put up with our pilfering in return for competent
administration. It's more-or-less latter-day versions of "Say what you like about Mussolini, at
least he made the trains run on time".
The left, conversely, is expected to be both honest and competent. Rightly so, but harder.
Agreeing with what Clive said, I would also add a couple points:
1. Syriza. 'Nuff said.
2. Here in LatAm (and elsewhere) the leftist leadership has a dismal record of not understanding
economics. In the example at hand, the Kirchners 'swooped in to rescue' Argentina from the clutches
of neoliberalism. But said neoliberalism had been imposed by their own ostensibly leftist, 'populist'
Justicialist (Peronist) party under Menem (and before under Perón himself). Néstor Kirchner and
Cristina Fernández were completely on board with this because they didnt really pay too much attention
to econ policy, and privatising everything seemed like a nice liberal thing to do. Only once the
street pushed back against the Washington Consensus in 2001 did they see the potential in riding
the wave, and did a reasonably good job at it, but it's not like socialism was in their DNA from
the get-go.
With Dilma, I'd say it's the same thing. She is leftist in that she is pro-human rights, pro-equal
marriage, etc. But she does not have a really leftist economic understanding, so to her austerity
seems to fit right in with her other leftist beliefs– just as it did with say Tony Blair or Bill
Clinton.
Oh great, another TBTF banker running a central bank. That should work to someone's advantage If
they are telegraphing a devaluation, what does that mean for the FX market? Seems to me a move
that large can make some fortunes if one had insider info. Here's a thought, wealthy right wing
argentinians go to the us dollar in a similar way to us corps leaving money offshore, to create
the impression of weakness, which justifies devaluation of the peso and deregulation, in swoop
the buzzards (sorry, vulture is already taken in this case) to buy up pesos at 15 for a buck,
plus no repatriations! It's just got win written all over it when you have a central banker
who's going to revalue the currency by selling off the commons in some form or another.
The devaluation of the peso is a bit more tricky than this, since every political party
pushed devaluation, just in different forms. The Kirchner's policy was a slow series of micro-devaluations
that kept the peso steadily decreasing against the dollar to keep exports competitive. The bulwark
against speculation was (sloppily applied) capital controls that did halt a lot of capital flight,
but not all.
In the election, both candidates campaigned on lifting the capital controls and 'floating'
the peso, with Macri's team saying it would lift all controls the day after the election. Didn't
happen. Incoming FinMin Prat Gay has now said they can't go 'free-market' just yet (i.e., release
ForEx restrictions and devalue the peso in one giant swoop), but the threat is hanging over the
economy like an executioner's knife. Last month after the election, prices shot up across the
board (up to 20% increases!) as merchants speculated on expectations. It was the highest inflation
recorded in over 20 years.
The fact is very few people here save in pesos, they all save in dollars or property, mainly
because there is no faith in the peso. A mega devaluation does not increase faith in the currency,
but it does, as you say, work out dandy for speculators.
Fifteen pesos for a buck is an 'informal' gray market that exists behind capital controls.
You can physically carry hundred-dollar bills into Argentina and exchange them at the ubiquitous
"compro oro" shops. But this trade can't be done from outside the country, in size.
Second issue is that a unified exchange rate might settle somewhere between 9 and 15 pesos,
since 15 pesos is an artificial 'dollar scarcity' value produced by capital controls. If the unified
exchange rate ends up at 13, speculators lose 13% in a hurry.
That's why speculators get paid to take risks. There is no obvious, guaranteed trade, equivalent
to picking up ten-dollar bills off the sidewalk.
The buzzards I refer to would actually be the insiders in the new gov who have info not available
to speculators as a whole, but I see your point that it's not as easy as it sounds in my pretty
tale
Foreign "investment" (direct or via compradors) and foreign military occupation (direct
or by proxy) are two sides of the same coin- of conquest, dominion, oppression and exploitation.
Any semblance of, or aspiration to, autonomy, is limited by the perceived needs of imperial "manifest
destiny", and thus must be "de"stabilized, then "re"stabilized as a heteronomy, that "better"
serves the insatiable needs of the "masters of mankind" as far as "right" v. "left", from my pov
comes down to the politics of "concentration" v. "distribution" and what defines "surplus" in
the context of basic needs
Excellent question, and one not answered in the article.
In the first round of voting Macri came in second place, but he had a close enough margin to
force a one-on-one runoff with the top voted candidate, Daniel Scioli, who was representing the
outgoing Kirchner government.
Macri and the far right have generally pulled about 20% of the population at most, but he made
an alliance with the two largest opposition parties (UCR and CC), who essentially sold their souls
just to ensure the Kirchner "successor" did not win. This put Macri over the top, giving him an
advantage of less than 2%– enough to win the runoff.
Furthermore, the Kirchnerist candidate was selected from the rightwing of the party, and ran
to the right. Macri meanwhile, well aware of the precariousness of his alliance, actually ran
to the left -– reversing his previous stances and saying he would not privatise anything or eliminate
social spending. By the time of the final election, the two candidates were practically indistinguishable.
A crude parallel is the "shellacking" of Obama in 2010. Sure there were people that voted
for the repubs, but it was by no means out of enthusiastic support for their policies. Likewise
here, the enthusiasm was somewhat muted.
"... Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution ..."
"... market values to all institutions and social actors ..."
"... Harperism: How Stephen Harper and his thank tank colleagues have transformed Canada ..."
"... Political Theory, ..."
"... Dr. Michael Welton is a professor at the University of Athabasca. He is the author of Designing the Just Learning Society: a Critical Inquiry. ..."
Deciphering the meaning of Neo-liberalism as a historical force and societal form requires the energies
and know-how of a sagacious sleuth like Hercule Poirot. Wendy Brown, a philosophy professor at UCLA
(Berkeley) and author of Undoing
the Demos: Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution, has a Poirot intellectual sensibility and
acuity that sees what most of us cannot.
Those of us who have written on neo-conservative politics
and neo-liberalism as an economic form have illuminated many dimensions of "something new" that has
emerged out of the collapse of welfare state liberal democracy in the West over the last five decades.
But putting all the pieces of this intricate puzzle together and detecting not only particular
patterns but also the logic underlying neo-liberalism is a complex task.
What is the connection between the US Empire's contempt for law and truth-telling and neo-liberalism?
And how is it that citizens can be so passive in the face of evident government prevarication,
endless spinning of false narratives, the evisceration of democratic morality and countless corporate
and government scandals?
Most of us know that neo-liberalism as an economic form repudiates Keynesian welfare state economics
and was propounded by ideologues like Milton Friedman at the University of Chicago and in an earlier
day, by the dubious intellectual propagandist Friedrich von Hayek.
In popular usage, neo-liberalism conjures up a cluster of ideas adumbrated by Brown: a radically
free market, maximized competition and free trade achieved through economic de-regulation, elimination
of tariffs, a range of monetary and social policies favourable to business and indifferent toward
poverty, social deracination, cultural decimation and long-term resource depletion and environmental
destruction.
Something new and darker is at stake
But something new and darker seems to be at stake. The crux of Brown's sophisticated argument
is that the left fails to see the "political rationality that both organizes these policies
and reaches beyond the market" ("Neo-liberalism and the end of liberal democracy" [2003]). The left
analyses do not capture the "neo" of neo-liberalism because they "obscure the specifically political
register of neo-liberalism in the First World, that is, its powerful erosion of liberal democratic
institutions and practices in places like the US."
In other words, neo-liberalism agents systematically aim to radically de-democratize their societies.
The supreme triumph of corporate power in the world requires that liberal democracy be undermined.
This means that political autonomy is jettisoned. Formal rights, private property and voting are
retained, but civil liberties are re-cast as useful only for the enjoyment of private autonomy.
Social problems are de-politicized and converted into therapeutic, individualistic solutions (mostly
through consuming a special commodity). The political rationality of neo-liberalism interpellates
the governed self of the citizenry. Separated from the collectivity, this self is then absorbed into
a world of choice and need-satisfaction through consumption that is mistaken for freedom.
Aware that the mere restoration of some ragtag social welfare state spiced with a pinch of climate
change rhetoric is a dangerous delusion, Brown slices through the bramble bush of esoteric terminology
to enable us to see that "neo-liberalism carries a social analysis which, when deployed as a form
of governmentality, reaches from the soul of the citizen-subject to education policy to practices
of empire." Neo-liberal rationality "involves extending and disseminating market values to all
institutions and social actors, even as the market itself remains a distinctive player."
Neo-liberalism ruthlessly sets out to subvert democracy
Good god! This guy moved stealthily and incrementally according to a "master plan": to dismantle
Canadian democracy and free the society for total corporate domination without citizen recourse.
It was systematic! It was devilish! He did it behind closed doors and in the twilight under our noses!
Voter ignorance permits these bastards to blast the world back into the medieval era of serfdom and
anti-enlightenment beliefs and degrading practices.
This intention to subvert liberal democracy has not been fully grasped by those on the left. That's
Brown's wake-up call. And it is a salient one. It may provide us clues to understanding puzzling
elements of the contemporary world such as lying without consequences, total absence of moral principle
underpinning actions, abject inconsistency, utter hard-heartedness towards the vulnerable and contempt
for democratic deliberation and international diplomacy.
Specific characteristics of the neo-liberal political rationality
To help us sort these things out, Brown identifies the specific characteristics of this rationality.
Plunging in, Brown first points out that neo-liberal rationality configures human beings as homo
oeconomicus. All dimensions of human life are cast in terms of a market rationality. Actions
and policies are reduced to the bare question of profitability and the social production of "rational
entrepreneurial action." Our schools are re-figured to pump out little brown-shirted entrepreneurs
who know only calculation and competition.
Second, Brown states that neo-liberalism pedagogics intends to develop, disseminate, and institutionalize
such a rationality. "Far from flourishing when left alone," Brown asserts, "the economy must be directed,
buttressed, and protected by law and policy as well as by the dissemination of social norms designed
to facilitate competition, free trade, and rational economic action on the part of every member and
institution of society."
Neo-liberals only want to get the state out of providing for the security and well-being of its
citizens. They use the state apparatus to enable corporations to serve only their profit-making without
fear of legal regulation or moral demands. This means, then, that the market organizes and regulates
the state and society. Therefore:
(a) By openly responding to the needs of the market (through immigration policy or monetary and
fiscal policy), the state is released from the burden of a legitimation crisis (European critical
theorists like Claus Offe and Jurgen Habermas had raised this concern in the 1970s). The new form
of legitimation is simply economic success (it is also, I might add, the new, post-liberal democratic
morality). The old norms of crime and morality are expunged from the cultural ethos of neo-liberalism.
(b) Under neo-liberal conditions, the state itself must think and behave like a market actor.
The languages of cost-benefit analysis and calculation sweep in and consume public service and governmental
practices. Under the Harper dictatorship's thumb, gags were stuffed in the public service mouth.
(c) The health and growth of the economy is the "basis of state legitimacy both because the state
is forthrightly responsible for the health of the economy and because of the economic rationality
to which state practices have been submitted." The watchword of neo-liberalism is: "It's the economy,
stupid."
The third characteristic, then, of this depraved neo-liberal rationality (which wrenches itself
free of the constraints of the old liberal democratic paradigm) has to do with the "extension of
economic rationality to formerly non-economic domains and institutions extends to individual conduct,
or more precisely, prescribes citizen-subject conduct in a neo-liberal order." Famously, Habermas
termed this the "colonization of the lifeworld."
There is something disturbingly monstrous now before us. The classical liberal thinker Adam Smith
set out the necessity of tension between individual moral and economic actions. This crucial distinction
collapses, Brown maintains, because neo-liberalism has figured us as rational, calculating machines.
Thus, to be "morally autonomous" means that we take care of our own needs and fund our own self-projects.
Pedagogics (in schools and everyday life) orients its students to consider the costs, benefits,
and consequences of individual action. But this "responsibility for the self" gets carried to new
heights as support for the vulnerable and needy is withdrawn. They are on their own. Didn't Thatcher
say: "There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families"?
Grim news for the last defenders of deliberative democracy
For diehard defenders of active citizenship and liberal democracy, Brown's analysis is grim news.
Political citizenship is radically reduced within the neo-liberal frame to an "unprecedented degree
of passivity and political complacency."
In "American nightmare: neo-liberalism, neo-conservatism, and de-democratization," Political
Theory, 34 (6), December 2006)," Brown bemoans the "hollowing out of a democratic political
culture and the production of the undemocratic citizen. This is the citizen who loves and wants neither
freedom nor equality, even if of a liberal sort; the citizen who expects neither truth nor accountability
in governance and state action; the citizen who is not distressed by exorbitant concentrations of
political and economic power, routine abrogation of the rule of law, or distinctly undemocratic formulations
of national purpose at home and abroad." Bravo Ms. Brown!
Brown's most innovative analysis is the way she links neo-conservative religious thought and neo-liberal
economic and political rationality. She addresses the evident contradiction. "How does a project
that empties the world of meaning, that cheapens and deracinates life and openly exploits desire,
intersect with one centred on fixing and enforcing meanings, conserving certain ways of life, and
repressing and regulating desire?"
Neo-liberal political rationality and neo-conservative fundamentalist Christianity may diverge
on the level of ideas. But American Christianity (in its fundamentalist form) and neo-liberal rationality,
Brown contends, converge in the domain of political subjectivity. American fundamentalism contours
the spiritual sensibility of its adherents to submit to Divine Authority and a declarative form of
truth.
She states: "The combination of submissiveness toward a declared truth, legitimate inequality,
and fealty that seeps from religious and political rationality transforms the conditions of legitimacy
for political power; it produces subjects whose submission toward authority and loyalty are constitutive
of the theological configuration of state power sketched in Schmitt's juristic thought."
In post 9/11 America panicked and fearful citizens easily fall prey-so it sadly seems-to sacralising
the existing Neo-liberal regime. The founding myth of America as New Israel tips fundamentalists
(and others, too) toward fusing the US's malevolent actions in the world with America as instrument
of God's eternal purposes-"holy violence" to usher in the New Millennial Order.
Thus, apolitical preferences rule the day and citizens consume and idolize their families. Political
participation is not necessary; and political scientists write articles about "voter ignorance" and
weep. Critics of Habermas chide him for harbouring the illusion that voters know enough to deliberate
with each other. But this submission to the Natural Order (now God's order) of neo-liberal capitalism
is to bow down before the Golden Calf.
We appear to have entered Weber's "polar night of icy darkness" without morality, faith, heroism
and meaning. But for Brown both Weber and Marx's analyses are too teleological. Neither captures
the "discursive and practical integration" of formerly differentiated moral, economic and political
rationalities.
This perspective certainly is controversial and debateable stuff. But there is no denying that
neo-liberalism erodes "oppositional political, moral or subjective claims located outside capitalist
rationality but inside liberal democratic society, that is, the erosion of institutions, resources,
and values organized by non-market rationalities in democracies."
There is much at stake: the Left from Marx's day to ours assumed that liberal democratic societies
at least contained the formal principles of equality and freedom. This ethical gap between the norms
and social reality could elicit oppositional action to close the division and permit a form of "immanent
critique." Now Brown suggests provocatively, "Liberal democracy cannot be submitted to neo-liberal
political governmentality and survive." Indeed, "liberal democracy is going under in the present
moment, even as the flag of American 'democracy' is being placed everywhere it finds or creates soft
ground."
The Left humanist project for post-liberal democracy times
Thus, the Left Humanist movement world-wide confronts-if Brown's argument holds-a neo-liberal
rationality that in the post 9/11 period uses the idiom of liberal democracy while undermining it
in practice. The infamous cry from Paul Bremer in Iraq that it was "open for business" clearly signalled
that democratic institutions were secondary to "privatizing large portions of the economy and outsourcing
the business of policing a society in rubble, chaos, and terror occasioned by the combination of
organizing military skirmishes and armed local groups."
The only way we might fathom the post 9/11 American world of governmental deceit and a raw market
approach to political problem solving is to assume that moral principle has been banished because
the only criteria for action is whether the ends of success and profitability have been achieved.
That's all. That's it. And since morality is the foundation of legal systems, adhering to law is
abandoned as well.
There is, then, plenty of evidence for the argument of the assault on democracy. Civil liberties
have been undermined in the USA in the Homeland Security Act (and in Canada under the Harper regime),
aggressive imperial wars ventured into, the welfare state dismantled and progressive tax schemes
abolished and public education defunded.
Brown is reluctant to name this miserable concoction fascism (or neo-fascism). "Together these
phenomena suggest a transformation of American liberal democracy into a political and societal form
for which we do not yet have a name, a form organized by a combination of neo-liberal governmentality
and imperial world politics, contoured by the short run by conditions of global economics and global
security crisis."
Nonetheless, regardless of how we name this new world, the conditions we find ourselves inhabiting
at the moment must acknowledge that the "substance of many of the significant features of constitutional
and representative democracy have been gutted, jettisoned, or end-run, even as they continue to be
promulgated ideologically, serving as a foil and shield for their undoing and doing of death elsewhere."
Bitterly, Brown admits that this unprecedented nature of our time is that "basic principles and
institutions of democracy are becoming anything other than ideological shells for their opposite
as well as the extent to which these principles and institutions are being abandoned even as values
by large parts of the American people."
Thus, in order to avoid descent into acute melancholia on the part of the Left, Brown urges us
to reject the idea that we are in the "throes of a right-wing or conservative positioning with liberal
democracy but rather at the threshold of a different political formation, one that conducts and legitimizes
itself on different grounds from liberal democracy even as it does not immediately divest itself
of the name."
She maintains strongly that the Left must face the implications of losing democracy. We ought
not to run around in a frenzy raging into the polar night. We will have to dig in for the long haul
and offer an intelligent left counter-vision to the neo-liberal political and economic formation.
This will be an integral project of the reconstitution of the global left in post-liberal democracy
times.
The soft neoliberalism (or The Third Way) promoted by Clinton and Blair now is replaced with a splash
of far right nationalism. the level of anger in the bottom 99% and a refusal to accept the lies and
propaganda by the top 1% created a crisis of legitimacy for neoliberal elite. Moreover, right years
of king of "bait and switch" Obama with his typical for neoliberals unconditional love for financial
elites has revealed that change can be delivered only through radical means...
Notable quotes:
"... Of course in the age of inverted reality, spin and obfuscation, the true nature of [neo]iberals is quite the reverse. Just like the fabians they seek to divert attention from their real goals by describing themselves as mirror opposites. ..."
"... The [neo]liberal elite is nothing of the sort, they seek to control, manipulate and suppress everything which doesn't fit their hidden purpose, which is to promote the flat earth globalisation of the debt pyramid on behalf of the banking cartel and the likes of the Rothschild's. ..."
"... They are despicable creatures, full to the brim with breath-taking hypocrisy, happy to claim faux indignation over widening inequality and falling living standards while they promote the pyramid scheme of debts which causes it. They may dream of a world government with socialism for the masses and largesse for the elites, but as sure as the sun rises in the east, such concentration of power, wielded by those least suitable to hold it, would create an authoritarian tyranny like seen before. ..."
"... Essentially, Third Way liberalism as practised by Clinton and Blair, but even more so by those who followed them (Clinton and Blair were, let's not forget, populists of a sort), is predicated on the belief that you can fashion a winning mandate to govern by appealing to a consensus among middle class professionals, the liberal rich, and what they saw as a new, unideological class of 21st century workers - the socially liberal, politically apathetic, precariously situated masses who hover somewhere between traditional working class and educated middle. ..."
"... They did this by appealing to issues of social identity while reinforcing the economics of the right-wing neoliberal ushered in by Thatcher and Reagan. They were, at the same time, losing working class votes - but their analysis of the economics told them that the (in a Marxist sense) working class was an endangered species. ..."
"... 2008 exploded this fiction but its architects remain wedded to the cause. They personally enriched themselves by opening-up traditionally popular parties to the donations and interests of corporate capitalism. Look beyond Blair and the Clintons and you will see hundreds of centre-left politicians growing fat on an endless stream of corporate money: Cory Booker, Chuck Schumer, DWS, Howard Dean (in the US), Ben Bradshaw, Chris Byrne, Alastair Campbell, Jack Straw (in the UK) ..."
"... Deregulated capitalism tends to monopolies and the rise of a rentier class epitomised on Wall Street and property speculators like Donald Trump. ..."
"... Global capitalism pits workers against workers in an endless spiral of wage deflation and this fosters divisions between those whose class interests are, in fact, the same. The alienation that is an intimate part of capitalist production ..."
"... Marx also made a distinctive between productive and fictitious capital - share prices, derivatives and other financial instruments, arbitrage and all the other heinous arsenal of second-order exploitation. Neoliberalism has delivered productive capital into the arms of fictitious capital and ushered us into a world governed by nobody so much as orchestrated according to the graph-lines of the global stock markets. It has turned the spectacle from social relations mediates by images into the beating heart of how, where and why wealth moves the way that it does. The unreality has seeped into every aspect of lived experience. ..."
"... I am less despondent then I was under Obama and his smooth delivery of a hope and change always deferred. ..."
"... Or Hillary Clinton and her revolution of upper-class women with their own specific class interests. There is organising taking place right now and making demands that this system will not satisfy - because it is designed to do the exact opposite. ..."
"... I would rather speak with an alt-right troll than a liberal because one is searching for answers in the wrong place where the other glibly renders apologies for the system from which they seek to profit at the expense of those to whom they offer nothing but false sympathy. ..."
"... There is a mobilisation of anger and a refusal to accept the fictions spun by the ruling class that can potentially be harnessed for permanent change - and, moreover, 8 years of Obama and his pathological love for financial elites has revealed that radical change can be delivered only through radical means. ..."
"... But as others have said really we mean neoliberalism, not liberalism. Liberalism and capitalism are not the same thing and cant be used interchangeably, liberalism is a set of beliefs and capitalism is a set of practices which are sometimes at odds with one another. On the other hand, neoliberalism as a set of beliefs explicitly accepts the hegemony of capital and the expansion of the market economy into all areas of society and life. ..."
"... the reformist and incrementalist view of a progressive social democracy that balances state and market for the betterment of all is con. ..."
"... I don't think that Trump and Brexit mark an epochal shift; I think they are signs of disintegration. The more significant (though still not epochal!) moment was the 2008 financial crisis - and the complete failure of the political elites of Europe and America to address its fallout. This, by the way, was also far from the unforeseeable calamity that it was characterised as being in many sections of the media. Many economists and political analysts had discussed deregulation and unsustainable debt in terms of future crises; it wasn't prophesy, but a basic understanding of how unrestricted market capitalism (especially when reliant on the vicissitudes of shares/bonds/derivatives) operates. ..."
"... More broadly, I agree with you - history is not some untroubled march of the working class to freedom (alas!) It is contingent, messy and unexpected. We have agency - and we have to use it (another thing I believe has been reignited in the last 8 years). One of many ironies of the present situation is that neoliberal politicians believed that the educated precariat they were helping to create would be unideological, politically apathetic consumers - and yet it is the young who are returning the repressed in the form of unrest, economic demands, and the re-introduction of class into political discourse. ..."
"... Okay though, back to reality! That, I concede, is a very American and European perspective that does not take into account the global developments in Asia, Africa or Latin America. I actually lived in China for a while as a young man, and it struck me at the time that the society offered a possible, if bleak, template for the future - a technocratic, one-party state in which people trusted them to deliver the right decisions through a central bureaucracy but with consumer freedoms sufficient to forestall unrest. This is, perhaps, an alternative to the dissent and potentially unrest I have described - and what makes the latter imperative...? ..."
"... Oh, and what you wrote about waste is very interesting. I certainly agree that it, "efficiency" (usually code for cuts and/or transfer from public to private stewardship), are over-fetishised. In fact, ridiculously so. The waste of most governments is staggering and yet they attack only certain areas. What America squanders on its military is the most obvious of examples - or its increasingly repressive police. ..."
"... The point with Trump - and Brexit too - is not so much what it means to the man himself (or Brexit-profiteers like Boris Johnson) but how his victory gets brandished to confer legitimacy and political cover for a newly emboldened syndicate of zealously right-wing politicians and the corporate interests they represent (especially in America, where the majority of Congressional Republicans are little better than local union bosses who have been installed by the Mafia to carry their water and hold their places to exclude anyone else attaining any uncorrupted power or autonomous control). ..."
"... We are seeing this happen right now as Trump fashions his administration - there are a lot of lobbyists, reactionary financiers, neoconservative mavens, embittered figures from the intelligence community, and evangelical culture warriors suddenly footloose and demob happy after 8 years of Barack Obama and his patented brand of Fidel-loving, radical Chicago organising, spectacularly lukewarm but yet (according to Fox) apocalyptically awful, anti-American, Socialist Revolution. ..."
"... Much of the above will be familiar from Bush files - a man who was seldom happier than when sunk into his Lay-Z-Boy learning how to eat pretzels safely from Barney, his Scottish Terrier. His main role was to show up when required and gurn for the cameras, narrow his peepers and regurgitate what the teleprompter feeds him, before signing the executive orders dreamt up by his dream-team of vampyric, far-right champions of such American glories as the Vietnam War, Watergate, Iran/Contra, and more Latin American coup d'etats than even Henry Kissinger could shake his razor-studded cudgel at. ..."
"... The fact is that Trump cares about victory and basking in the light of his own self-proclaimed greatness – and now he's won. I doubt he cares nearly as much about mastering the levers of government or pursuing some overarching vision as he does about preening himself in his new role as the Winner of the World's Greatest Ever Reality TV Show. He may have thrown red meat to the crowds with the gun-toting, abortion-hating campaign rhetoric, but that is the base for every contemporary Republican's bill of fare. I don't believe he gives a tinker's cuss about those issues or any of the other poisons that constitute their arsenal of cultural pesticides. ..."
"... Like all rich people, he wants to pay as little tax as possible without breaking the law (or at least breaking it outrageously enough to attract the notice of the perennially over-worked, under-resourced IRS). ..."
"... And finally, like most rich people, he refuses to accept that governments can or should regulate transactions or industries in ways that may even slightly inhibit their unbound, irrepressible pursuit of their self-interests and unquenchable desire for more, more and yet again more. ..."
"... These basic right-wing tenets, of course, all easily translate into concrete policy - that's what the Republicans do best. ..."
"... But beyond that, there is the small matter of the world's most highly evolved and comprehensive system of state surveillance and repression - a confluence of agencies, technologies, paranoia and class war that was embraced and embellished by Obama from the moment he brought his glacial approach to change to the highest office in the land – indeed, he showed that he was quite comfortable signing off on historic erosions of constitutional freedoms provided it was endorsed by his ever-responsible friends in Langley and The Pentagon. ..."
"... So while Trump and his administration may in many ways resemble the familiar class warriors of Republican presidencies past, albeit with added evangelical vim, viciousness and vapidity courtesy of Mike Pence, let's not forget that his frequently displayed authoritarianism will have ample opportunity to be both stress-tested and to revenge itself on a plethora of opponents. ..."
"... The point, really, is to move beyond the office of the President, which is always absurdly fetishised in American politics to the detriment of scrutiny that should be directed elsewhere - at his team, his cabinet, his appointments, and his place in the web of Congressional Republicans, lobbyists and corporate money – the nexus of interests that really dictates policies and determined which political battles get fought aggressively, which cast aside. ..."
"... People will not see a new dawn, but the delirious rush to expand those chaotic, inhumane, amoral, and utterly unaccountable market forces that have already seeped far too deep into the already grotty political system. Trump is only a piece of this large and ugly tapestry – a figurehead for an army of cultural and social vandals serving alongside economic thieves and assassins. These are, moreover, the experts in how to instrumentalise economic inequality to serve the very politicians responsible for fostering the inequality in the first place and those most wedded to beliefs capable only of making matters worse for all but themselves and their donor-owners. ..."
"... But let's not be lulled by the familiarity of parts of this story. Familiar from Reagan and Bush Jnr, as well as Clinton and Obama (albeit with a more fulgent presentation and the skilled performance of sympathy to sugar the pill). ..."
"... [Neo]Liberalism is an ideology, it has many variations and even definitions for people. Arrogance, superiority, disdain, refusal to engage etc. A moral certainty more in line with doctrinal religion. ..."
"... The first question to ask is why these right wing commentators are attacking liberalism . Is it because they want a better society in which everyone gets a chance of a decent life ? Do they actually care about the people they claim to speak for - they people right at the bottom of the social scale ? ..."
"... The answer , of course, is no. They see attacking liberalism as a means of defending their own privileges which they believe liberalism and the gradual progress of recent years towards a more equal society have undermined. ..."
"... Since they are basically conning the underprivileged and cannot deliver what they promise the right will find itself driven to even more extremes of bigotry and deceit to maintain its position. The prospect is terrifying. ..."
Of course in the age of inverted reality, spin and obfuscation, the true nature of [neo]iberals
is quite the reverse. Just like the fabians they seek to divert attention from their real goals
by describing themselves as mirror opposites.
The [neo]liberal elite is nothing of the sort, they seek to control, manipulate and suppress
everything which doesn't fit their hidden purpose, which is to promote the flat earth globalisation
of the debt pyramid on behalf of the banking cartel and the likes of the Rothschild's.
They are despicable creatures, full to the brim with breath-taking hypocrisy, happy to
claim faux indignation over widening inequality and falling living standards while they promote
the pyramid scheme of debts which causes it. They may dream of a world government with socialism
for the masses and largesse for the elites, but as sure as the sun rises in the east, such concentration
of power, wielded by those least suitable to hold it, would create an authoritarian tyranny like
seen before. Power in all forms should be spread into as many hands as possible, monopolies
are always bad yet, once again, the illiberal's love a monopoly because they're not what they
seem.
tempestteacup 1d ago Guardian Pick
...You certainly have a point that the experiences in the UK and the US are different for lots
of reasons - historic alignments of the major parties, political corruption, and the different
points where class, race, gender and geographical location intersect - but the latter-day form
of liberalism tried - and failed - to do the same thing in both countries.
Essentially, Third Way liberalism as practised by Clinton and Blair, but even more so by
those who followed them (Clinton and Blair were, let's not forget, populists of a sort), is predicated
on the belief that you can fashion a winning mandate to govern by appealing to a consensus among
middle class professionals, the liberal rich, and what they saw as a new, unideological class
of 21st century workers - the socially liberal, politically apathetic, precariously situated masses
who hover somewhere between traditional working class and educated middle.
They did this by appealing to issues of social identity while reinforcing the economics
of the right-wing neoliberal ushered in by Thatcher and Reagan. They were, at the same time, losing
working class votes - but their analysis of the economics told them that the (in a Marxist sense)
working class was an endangered species. The Republicans in America willingly played into
this fantastical analysis by engaging in the culture wars - politically useful but also economically
necessary as a distraction from the growing cross-party consensus on how to enshrine, extend and
improve the means of capitalist exploitation through deregulation and debt.
2008 exploded this fiction but its architects remain wedded to the cause. They personally
enriched themselves by opening-up traditionally popular parties to the donations and interests
of corporate capitalism. Look beyond Blair and the Clintons and you will see hundreds of centre-left
politicians growing fat on an endless stream of corporate money: Cory Booker, Chuck Schumer, DWS,
Howard Dean (in the US), Ben Bradshaw, Chris Byrne, Alastair Campbell, Jack Straw (in the UK)
.
Evolutions and developments require always refreshed analysis but the basic principles by which
we subject those developments to our analysis remain fundamentally the same: capitalism is a system
by which wealth is transferred from the workers to those owning the means of production. Deregulated
capitalism tends to monopolies and the rise of a rentier class epitomised on Wall Street and property
speculators like Donald Trump.
Global capitalism pits workers against workers in an endless spiral of wage deflation and
this fosters divisions between those whose class interests are, in fact, the same. The alienation
that is an intimate part of capitalist production is carried over into the social relations
between workers and can only be short-circuited by acts of radical organising - revolution begins
with a question that the system cannot answer and ends with a demand that refuses to be denied.
Marx also made a distinctive between productive and fictitious capital - share prices,
derivatives and other financial instruments, arbitrage and all the other heinous arsenal of second-order
exploitation. Neoliberalism has delivered productive capital into the arms of fictitious capital
and ushered us into a world governed by nobody so much as orchestrated according to the graph-lines
of the global stock markets. It has turned the spectacle from social relations mediates by images
into the beating heart of how, where and why wealth moves the way that it does. The unreality
has seeped into every aspect of lived experience.
And yet, strangely, I am less despondent then I was under Obama and his smooth delivery
of a hope and change always deferred.
Or Hillary Clinton and her revolution of upper-class women with their own specific class
interests. There is organising taking place right now and making demands that this system will
not satisfy - because it is designed to do the exact opposite.
I would rather speak with an alt-right troll than a liberal because one is searching for
answers in the wrong place where the other glibly renders apologies for the system from which
they seek to profit at the expense of those to whom they offer nothing but false sympathy.
There is a mobilisation of anger and a refusal to accept the fictions spun by the ruling
class that can potentially be harnessed for permanent change - and, moreover, 8 years of Obama
and his pathological love for financial elites has revealed that radical change can be delivered
only through radical means.
joropofever -> tempestteacup 2d ago
I would agree about this idea of a vacuum being created by the political class but really I
think the political turmoil is a reflection of the economic inequality, economics shaping the
political. But as others have said really we mean neoliberalism, not liberalism. Liberalism
and capitalism are not the same thing and cant be used interchangeably, liberalism is a set of
beliefs and capitalism is a set of practices which are sometimes at odds with one another. On
the other hand, neoliberalism as a set of beliefs explicitly accepts the hegemony of capital and
the expansion of the market economy into all areas of society and life.
I think what you are saying (correct me if wrong) is that the reformist and incrementalist
view of a progressive social democracy that balances state and market for the betterment of all
is con. Marxists said this view would result in the state becoming a conduit for the accumulation
of power in the hands of capital and the gradual destruction of welfare and social institutions,
and they were right.
My question is then though is how do you achieve this transformation (though I don't know what
you would think best) without running the risk of a right-wing and nationalist hijack? History
is littered with cases where well intended left-wing revolutions and social movements helped sow
the seeds for later horrors. As you say, the prognosis and world view of the radical left and
the alt-right are not miles apart.
tempestteacup -> joropofever 2d ago
More excellent and pertinent questions!
I don't think that Trump and Brexit mark an epochal shift; I think they are signs of disintegration.
The more significant (though still not epochal!) moment was the 2008 financial crisis - and the
complete failure of the political elites of Europe and America to address its fallout. This, by
the way, was also far from the unforeseeable calamity that it was characterised as being in many
sections of the media. Many economists and political analysts had discussed deregulation and unsustainable
debt in terms of future crises; it wasn't prophesy, but a basic understanding of how unrestricted
market capitalism (especially when reliant on the vicissitudes of shares/bonds/derivatives) operates.
And I don't accept that this is an anglocentric point of view. There are crises across Europe,
although none have as yet had quite the before/after drama of the Brexit and presidential votes.
In France, the Front National are basically the second party. In Italy, the chaotic 5 Star Movement
are on the verge of toppling the prime minister and making gains elsewhere. In Hungary, Fidesz
and the borderline neo-fascist Jobbik dominate political discourse, as the Law and Justice party
have come to do in Poland. Even in Scandinavia, the Danish People's Party and True Finns have
made significant, even decisive, inroads on political discourse.
Commentators are fond of saying that the left-right divide has been scrambled. Doubtless they
would cite some of these as examples - many of the European nationalist parties I have mentioned
are in favour of strong welfare protections, and use race, country of origin, religion or ethnicity
as a dividing line. To me this does not signify the same thing - the Nazis were called National
Socialists for a reason, and while the purges of the 30s and the war brought the anti-semitic
mass murderers into the ascendancy, there were many founder-members like Strasser and Rohm who
were essentially socialists with a racial or nationalist element.
But look, you're right - the events of 2016 are, as we speak, being interpreted, exploited
and spun to the benefit of the prevailing conditions. One would expect no different - it's why
I was not surprised that the Tory bloodletting post-Brexit gave way to such a painless transition,
just as it appears to be doing in America under President-elect Trump. It's what the ruling class
do - protect their interests. What I believe has happened is that there is now a rupture within
the left (in its broadest sense) and that rupture is defined by those who believe economic change
will deliver social justice on the one hand and those who believe in cosmetic changes without
challenging the economic system.
More broadly, I agree with you - history is not some untroubled march of the working class
to freedom (alas!) It is contingent, messy and unexpected. We have agency - and we have to use
it (another thing I believe has been reignited in the last 8 years). One of many ironies of the
present situation is that neoliberal politicians believed that the educated precariat they were
helping to create would be unideological, politically apathetic consumers - and yet it is the
young who are returning the repressed in the form of unrest, economic demands, and the re-introduction
of class into political discourse.
If I may be allowed to spit-ball for a moment, this is, to my mind, a pivotal moment in history.
Those of us adults but under 40 are the last vestiges of the 20th century and its traditions of
dissent, revolt and counterculture. We are, so to speak, the children of the 1960s. And those
from the 1960s are still here - there is a living link, and in revolutionary terms, such things
matter. In a period where we could potentially prevent catastrophic, irreversible climate change,
there is no more time. It is imperative that we make our stand now, with those who lived through
the last revolutionary period in the west, to keep that flame of revolt alive - or, better yet,
to stoke it into a pyre. Because without those signal historical developments, those noble challenges,
the flame dies down and is covered in ashes....
Okay though, back to reality! That, I concede, is a very American and European perspective
that does not take into account the global developments in Asia, Africa or Latin America. I actually
lived in China for a while as a young man, and it struck me at the time that the society offered
a possible, if bleak, template for the future - a technocratic, one-party state in which people
trusted them to deliver the right decisions through a central bureaucracy but with consumer freedoms
sufficient to forestall unrest. This is, perhaps, an alternative to the dissent and potentially
unrest I have described - and what makes the latter imperative...?
tempestteacup -> joropofever 2d ago
Oh, and what you wrote about waste is very interesting. I certainly agree that it, "efficiency"
(usually code for cuts and/or transfer from public to private stewardship), are over-fetishised.
In fact, ridiculously so. The waste of most governments is staggering and yet they attack only
certain areas. What America squanders on its military is the most obvious of examples - or its
increasingly repressive police.
I was more concerned, though, with the general sustainability of a system where decisions are
made by criteria other than profit/loss, demand/supply. You're right about direct democracy (it's
been ages since I've read Raymond Williams so I'm glad you reminded me to do so again!) - but
how does that work when it comes to resources that have to be shared over large areas? Is it possible
to build, step by step, a democratic structure of shared ownership that is both responsive to
individual communities and responsible in its disposition of resources on the basis of needs rather
than profits?
tempestteacup -> ForgetThePolitics 1d ago
Sorry but I can't agree with that. Popular in terms of electoral success and populist in terms
of generating fervid support through direct, emotionally charged appeals to your audience's most
passionately held interests, fears or aspirations while adopting their language and mobilising
their energy, are two very different things. Obama was popular but not, it turned out, a populist
– despite the narrative of his early presidency, inflected as it still was with the delirious,
joyous cheers the followed his rhetorically rich but studiously vague Yes We Can barnburner (of
sorts).
The point with Trump - and Brexit too - is not so much what it means to the man himself
(or Brexit-profiteers like Boris Johnson) but how his victory gets brandished to confer legitimacy
and political cover for a newly emboldened syndicate of zealously right-wing politicians and the
corporate interests they represent (especially in America, where the majority of Congressional
Republicans are little better than local union bosses who have been installed by the Mafia to
carry their water and hold their places to exclude anyone else attaining any uncorrupted power
or autonomous control).
We are seeing this happen right now as Trump fashions his administration - there are a
lot of lobbyists, reactionary financiers, neoconservative mavens, embittered figures from the
intelligence community, and evangelical culture warriors suddenly footloose and demob happy after
8 years of Barack Obama and his patented brand of Fidel-loving, radical Chicago organising, spectacularly
lukewarm but yet (according to Fox) apocalyptically awful, anti-American, Socialist Revolution.
There are legions of pissed off, fired up kingpins from the fossil fuel industry already itching
to fire up the federal shredders fired up and set loose in the EPA. There are batallions of combat-ready,
obscenely wealthy people and dynasties for whom there is no such thing as too much, and who are
salivating just as they imagine the glorious bonfire of taxes that their Republican lackeys have
a chance to build and dance around in one of their pagan rituals of money worship and rapacity
as a fetish of a heavenly future. And they can build it on the floor of a Congress they also dominate,
before embarking on a mission to extend their current gains during the 2018 mid-terms, when several
precariously held Democratic Senate seats in otherwise Trump-friendly states will be up for re-election.
Much of the above will be familiar from Bush files - a man who was seldom happier than
when sunk into his Lay-Z-Boy learning how to eat pretzels safely from Barney, his Scottish Terrier.
His main role was to show up when required and gurn for the cameras, narrow his peepers and regurgitate
what the teleprompter feeds him, before signing the executive orders dreamt up by his dream-team
of vampyric, far-right champions of such American glories as the Vietnam War, Watergate, Iran/Contra,
and more Latin American coup d'etats than even Henry Kissinger could shake his razor-studded cudgel
at. It was their interests, energies, vendettas and connections that provided the real substance
for a presidency characterised above all by the elevation of anti-intellectualism to the level
of essential and authentic patriotic performance (preparing ground now bulldozed across by a Trump-shaped
figure reveling in the sheer winningness of it all).
The fact is that Trump cares about victory and basking in the light of his own self-proclaimed
greatness – and now he's won. I doubt he cares nearly as much about mastering the levers of government
or pursuing some overarching vision as he does about preening himself in his new role as the Winner
of the World's Greatest Ever Reality TV Show. He may have thrown red meat to the crowds with the
gun-toting, abortion-hating campaign rhetoric, but that is the base for every contemporary Republican's
bill of fare. I don't believe he gives a tinker's cuss about those issues or any of the other
poisons that constitute their arsenal of cultural pesticides.
Like all rich people, he wants to pay as little tax as possible without breaking the law
(or at least breaking it outrageously enough to attract the notice of the perennially over-worked,
under-resourced IRS). Like many rich people, he believes that his wealth is objective and
irrefutable proof of his personal excellence; that this proves how America is truly a land of
opportunity, where hard work, innovation and good old moxie can transform any Joe Schlubb on Main
Street into a millionaire princeling of the Upper West Side - thus demonstrating that social investment
in education or spending to address issues like systemic discrimination is just throwing money
at life's losers.
tempestteacup -> ForgetThePolitics 1d ago
And finally, like most rich people, he refuses to accept that governments can or should
regulate transactions or industries in ways that may even slightly inhibit their unbound, irrepressible
pursuit of their self-interests and unquenchable desire for more, more and yet again more.
These basic right-wing tenets, of course, all easily translate into concrete policy - that's
what the Republicans do best. It is what should be expected.
But beyond that, there is the small matter of the world's most highly evolved and comprehensive
system of state surveillance and repression - a confluence of agencies, technologies, paranoia
and class war that was embraced and embellished by Obama from the moment he brought his glacial
approach to change to the highest office in the land – indeed, he showed that he was quite comfortable
signing off on historic erosions of constitutional freedoms provided it was endorsed by his ever-responsible
friends in Langley and The Pentagon.
If, as would be unsurprising, public unrest spreads and civil disobedience intensifies while
Trump begin work on the familiar Republican transfer of wealth, with Black Lives Matter hardening
their resistance and resolve in the face of police brutalities now able to justify themselves
in terms of sympathetic views espoused by the incoming President himself; with white working class
voters realising that their interests have been, were always going to be, betrayed; with environmental
activists mobilised in deadly earnest and in a desperate effort to push back against potentially
catastrophic energy and industrial policies that imperil everyone's future; as young people schooled
in the Bernie campaign seek to organise and resist the excesses of a Trump presidency that few
accept as legitimately representative of them or their lives, and as the despair of the country
increases under a divisive, duplicitous and avaricious administration soaked in the very corruption
it was such a winning strategy to declaim - well, then Trump has at his fingers the shiniest forms
of repression that money and 21st century technology can provide: blanket surveillance online
and in the streets, habeas corpus perilously undermined by legislation like the NDAA, hyper-militarised
police forces trained in the use of obscenely excessive force, obscenely high sentences imposed
by one of the army of judges perversely satisfied by every extreme species of punitive justice
at their fingertips, along with prosecutors who consider the multi-year deprivation of freedom
in a brutalising prison system as a badge of professional honour, all the while dreaming up criminal
indictments that are so overzealous they look for felonies to charge the felonies with. Many warned
that the step-by-step construction of this multi-layered, barely controllable system (to complement
the steady erosion of civil liberties and constitutional rights) betrayed a potentially disastrous
lack of foresight. It would not always rest in the command of people unwilling to test its full
extent, and once you have created such possibilities in law, in storage rooms of equipment, in
training drills and operating manuals, it is only a matter of time before they will be invoked
in reality (and seldom in the exact ways they were originally intended or designed).
tempestteacup -> ForgetThePolitics 1d ago
So while Trump and his administration may in many ways resemble the familiar class warriors
of Republican presidencies past, albeit with added evangelical vim, viciousness and vapidity courtesy
of Mike Pence, let's not forget that his frequently displayed authoritarianism will have ample
opportunity to be both stress-tested and to revenge itself on a plethora of opponents. Add
in the fact that the Republicans have achieved an unexpected, clean sweep of Congress, as well
as holding an unprecedented number of governorships. They can act from a position of unparalleled
strength, and as a strength that came unexpectedly one should not be surprised if they start wielding
it recklessly. They can do so, also, after 8 years of stultification and political paralysis,
placed under restraints in order the more effectively to effectively perform their new definition
of Congressional work: obstruct everything the President attempts to do. They only receive the
occasional fun day-out to the Benghazi hearings or when they could play find the gavel during
the 2013 sequester.
So I would expect a lot of pent-up resentment, plenty of lunatic ideas and plenty of hubris
that sees no problem in airing them as if they were the wisdom of Solomon. Their opposition is
disastrously enfeebled after years of poor candidates being selected on the basis of their ability
to toe the corporate line rather than define and then achieve political goals. There is a chance
here, in other words and before demographic changes make future Republican presidential victories
more remote, to pursue their most cherished, most ideological, most shameless, lunatic, idiotic,
corrupt, destructive and irresponsible policies. Trump's bulbous slab of torso-meat, congenitally
bound to seek and fill every available limelight, can provide cover as they rip up every regulation
they see lying around or pretend to have read, slash taxes for themselves, their families, friends,
and all those fine citizens who fund their political cesspool, all the while having fun with whichever
civil liberty or egalitarian policy that catches their eye or makes them feel confused, perhaps
inadequate, with their nasty, un-American regard for systemic injustice and the imperative to
address historic wrongs.
Fresh from one of their favoured think-tanks, where charmed minds devote themselves to the
rigorous and sober analysis, the scholarly investigation of such pressing national issues as:
the best way to enjoy your money is to keep it, why the poor have only themselves to blame, and
freedom is whatever we say it is, vulpine Republican advisers can sink their teeth into racial
equality, voting rights, affirmative action, abortion rights, and whatever else Mike Pence and
friends have decided does not represent their crushingly reactionary, mind-numbingly mediocre
vision of an America without charm and sunk grotesquely in self-love, with anti-intellectualism
as a core principle and, in the end, frightened of anything that diverges from a template of respectability
designed by someone who seemingly loathes the entire human race.
None of this, however, justifies the orgy of visions competing to describe the most apocalyptic
America, commentators outdoing each other in op-ed after op-ed as they spin stories from the most
terrifying speculations or possible scenarios. I'm simply pointing out that it is not that difficult
to foresee the direction Trump's presidency will travel - or to point out where and how things
could become very nasty. The point, really, is to move beyond the office of the President,
which is always absurdly fetishised in American politics to the detriment of scrutiny that should
be directed elsewhere - at his team, his cabinet, his appointments, and his place in the web of
Congressional Republicans, lobbyists and corporate money – the nexus of interests that really
dictates policies and determined which political battles get fought aggressively, which cast aside.
The truth so far is about as desolate as one would expect – made that little bit worse by the
continued (maybe permanent?) state of delusion and the feeble platitudes dribbling out of the
by-now-almost-unsalvageable Congressional Democratic Wurlitzer of Wisdom, scarcely enough to drowned
the noise of meretricious minds whirring as they look for solutions to the only question that
really matters: how to continue mainlining the corporate donor money-dope while at the same time
presenting an appearance of interest in the left-wing changes championed by progressive Democrats
like Bernie sufficient to placate the latter along with their irritatingly rambunctious supporters.
tempestteacup -> ForgetThePolitics 1d ago
Ok, crazy - this is like a nightmare of my own making. So long! But must finished now I've
started........
Blimey, this got long - apologies. Let me offer the reader's digest, abbreviated version: Trump
and his court have thus far confirmed what was fairly obvious - that he and his new Congressional
play-mates are already pawing the ground in anticipation of the approaching adventure into their
favourite land: the magical kingdom of inexhaustible tax cuts, where every regulation can be tossed
on the fire, where protections come to you to be gutted and the public finances positively cry
out to be finagled in a giant cabaret that they can dedicate, as is their wont, to their feared
yet beloved corporate masters. They can demonstrate to their heart's content their enduring fealty
to the donor-class who bestride the nation like benevolent princes, they can lavish on them a
horn of plenty overflowing with gifts, endowments, contracts, pourboires, fortunes bilked from
the taxpayer and juggled into the pockets of these stalwart champions of American values, coy
little loopholes with diagrams for how to exploit them, and above all – first, last and always
– every asset they can think of stripping from public ownership they have been taught to believe
is merely a euphemism for Marxist-Leninism.
In the meantime, public resistance or acts of dissent, the faintest hint of mass organising
will be met with state forces of repression restrained now by little more than the frayed strands
of a mostly cut-through piece of rope. Divisions revealed, exploited and entrenched during the
election will, without serious and sustained will to extend solidarity beyond immediate interest-groups
and to learn from the experiences of others, become the permanent operative language of the entire
administration of American government. People will not see a new dawn, but the delirious rush
to expand those chaotic, inhumane, amoral, and utterly unaccountable market forces that have already
seeped far too deep into the already grotty political system. Trump is only a piece of this large
and ugly tapestry – a figurehead for an army of cultural and social vandals serving alongside
economic thieves and assassins. These are, moreover, the experts in how to instrumentalise economic
inequality to serve the very politicians responsible for fostering the inequality in the first
place and those most wedded to beliefs capable only of making matters worse for all but themselves
and their donor-owners.
But let's not be lulled by the familiarity of parts of this story. Familiar from Reagan
and Bush Jnr, as well as Clinton and Obama (albeit with a more fulgent presentation and the skilled
performance of sympathy to sugar the pill). Familiar from every interview with almost every
Republican and certainly the freshly minted, post Tea Party brand of prosperity Christian bullies
worthy of far greater anger and loathing than they often receive thanks to a perhaps deliberate
act involving a quasi-folksy clownishness – however many references, though, to the Republican
clown car cannot alter the fact that even the thickest among them is capable of being herded with
the others when it comes to voting for vicious legislation, insane tax cuts and budgets in which
each new one is more limited, more nihilistic than the one before in every respect but the military
and the ever-growing number of enormous flags that will soon follow Republican politicians around
the country to provide an immediately appropriate backdrop in case they feel the sudden need to
share their wisdom with the world or the nearest news anchor.
But while some parts are familiar, enough should be new or unknown to keep all of us looking
forward anxiously, preparing carefully, and planning intelligently for the potentially vicious
challenges ahead.
Danny Sheahan 3d ago
[Neo]Liberalism is an ideology, it has many variations and even definitions for people.
Arrogance, superiority, disdain, refusal to engage etc. A moral certainty more in line with doctrinal
religion.
These are big problems on the left/liberal platform.
Certainly not all but enough to damage it is a position.
Many, like me, who vote left are hoping that the penny will drop. It has to at some stage,
why not now?
It may not though, it would not surprise me.
tehanomander -> Danny Sheahan 3d ago
What Danny said
Supported Labour all my life probably will with reservations still ....but the disconnect is
palpable now (think Owen Smith to understand my meaning)
I voted Leave though .....so obviously now in here I'm a Trump supporter and racist xenophobe
(which always amuses my Jamaican wife when I tell her)
Keith Macdonald 3d ago \
The first question to ask is why these right wing commentators are attacking liberalism
. Is it because they want a better society in which everyone gets a chance of a decent life ?
Do they actually care about the people they claim to speak for - they people right at the bottom
of the social scale ?
Do they really want their own children to compete on equal terms with the rest of the population
for the inevitably limited number of top jobs ?
The answer , of course, is no. They see attacking liberalism as a means of defending their
own privileges which they believe liberalism and the gradual progress of recent years towards
a more equal society have undermined.
Since they are basically conning the underprivileged and cannot deliver what they promise
the right will find itself driven to even more extremes of bigotry and deceit to maintain its
position. The prospect is terrifying.
The next question is how liberals and progressives deal with this powerful onslaught. So far
we have done badly. For example Hillary Clinton clearly did not have a clue how Trump used the
constructed "reality" of shows like The Apprentice to mount a presidential campaign based on fiction
(although of course the underlying discontents are real). There is a massive amount of work to
do here.
Yes - there has been a failure to make globalisation work. I think Thomas Piketty began to
give some answers to this at
"... he changed American politics forever by demonstrating that style was more important than substance. In fact, he showed that style was everything and substance utterly unimportant. ..."
"... Conservatives used "bracket creep" to convince the middle class that reducing marginal rates on the top tax brackets along with their own would be a good idea, then with the assistance of Democrats replaced the revenue with a huge increase in FICA so that the Social Security Trust Fund could finance the deficit in the rest of the budget. The result was a huge boon to the richest, little difference for the middle class, and a far greater burden for the working poor. ..."
"... Any conversation about who the fantasy-projection "Reagan" was, misses an important reality: He was a hologram, fabricated by a kaleidoscope of various sorts of so-called "conservative" handlers and puppeteers. It was those "puppeteers" who ranged from heartlessly, stunningly "conservative" (destroya-tive), all the way further right to the kind of militaristic, macho, crackpots who have finally emerged from under their rocks at this year's "candidates." ..."
Do not contradict the memories of all the old teabaggers who desperately need the myth of Saint
Ronnie to justify their Greed is Good declining mentality and years.
When Reagan cut-and-ran on Lebanon he showed rare discretion. A lot of the puffery stuff was
B-Movie grade, but there was a lot of cross-the-aisle ventures, too.
He was a politician. The current GOP is just a bunch of white Fundie bullies, actually and
metaphorically (e.g., Carson).
Zepp -> thedono 19 Sep 2015 11:37
Well, compared to Cruz, or Santorum, or Huckabee, he's a moderate. Of course, compared to the
right people, you can describe Mussolini or Khruschev as moderates...
mastermisanthrope 19 Sep 2015 11:37
Lifelong shill
LostintheUS -> William J Rood 19 Sep 2015 11:36
Reagan underwent a political conversion when Nancy broke up his marriage with Jane Wyman and
married him.
The cold war ended while Reagan was president, but he did not win the cold war. His rhetoric
and strategy was wishful thinking - there's no way he could have had the definitive intelligence
about the entire military-political-economic that would have justified the confidence he projected.
He merely lucked out, significantly damaging the US economy by trying (and luckily succeeding)
to out-militarize the soviets.
pretzelattack -> kattw 19 Sep 2015 11:31
both clinton and obama have showed a willingness to "reform social security". try naked capitalism,
there are probably a number of articles in the archives.
LostintheUS -> piethein 19 Sep 2015 11:29
And that the emergency room federally funded program that saved his life was soon after defunded...by
him.
LostintheUS -> pretzelattack 19 Sep 2015 11:28
Many of us saw through him...I noted the senility during his speeches during his first campaign...as
did many people I knew.
Dementia masquerading as politics.
But you can't say anything negative about Saint Ronald!
Peter Davis -> Peter Davis 19 Sep 2015 11:22
I believe Reagan also is responsible for creating the Hollywood notion in American politics
and political thinking that life works just like a movie--with good guys and bad guys. And all
one needs is a gun and you can save the world. That sort of delusional thinking has been at the
heart of the modern GOP ever since.
loljahlol -> ID3732233 19 Sep 2015 11:21
Reagan did not end the Cold War. Brezhnev rule solidified the Soviet death. Their corrupt,
inefficient form of capitalism could not compete with the globalization of Western capitalism.
John78745 19 Sep 2015 11:21
There's not much nuance to Reagan. He was a coward, a bully and a loser. He got hundreds of
U.S. Marines killed then he ran from the terrorists in Beirut and on the Archille Lauro personally
creating the seeds of the morass of terrorists we now live with. He fostered the republican traditions
of sending U.S. jobs overseas at the expense of U.S. taxpayers and of invading helpless, hapless
nations, a tradition so adeptly followed by Bush I & II. He also promised that there would never
be a need for another amnesty.
I guess it's true that he talked mean to the Russians, broke unions, and helped make the military
industrial complex into the insatiable war machine that it is today. Remember murderous Iran-Contra
(a real) scandal where he and his minions worked in secret without congressional authorization
to overthrow a democratically elected government while conspiring to supply arms to the dastardly
Iranians!
We could also say that he bravely fought to save the U.S. from socialized medicine and to expunge
the tradition of free tuition for California students. Whatta hero!
thankgodimanatheist 19 Sep 2015 11:19
Reagan, the acting President, was the worst President since WWII until the Cheney/Bush debacle.
Most of the problems we face today can be directly traced to his voodoo economics, huge deficit
spending, deregulation, and in retrospect disastrous foreign policies.
LostintheUS 19 Sep 2015 11:17
"these days everyone seems to love Ronald."
Absolutely, not true. The farther along we go in time, the more Americans realize the damage
this man and his backers did to America and the world. The inversion of the tax tables, the undoing
of union laws, the polarization of Americans against each other so the plutocrats had no real
opposition and on and on. His camp stole the election in 1980 through making a back door deal
with the Iranian government to hold onto the American hostages until the election when Jimmy Carter
had negotiated an end to the hostage crisis, which was the undoing of Jimmy Carter's administration.
"Behind Carter's back, the Reagan campaign worked out a deal with the leader of Iran's radical
faction - Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini - to keep the hostages in captivity until after the
1980 Presidential election." This is, unquestionably, treason. http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/20287-without-reagans-treason-iran-would-not-be-a-problem
No, Reagan marks the downward turn for our country and has resulted in the economic and social
mess we still have not clawed our way back out of. No, Reagan is no hero, he is an American nemesis
and a traitor. Reagan raised taxes three times while slashing the tax rate of the super rich...starting
the downward spiral of the middle-class and the funneling of money toward the 1%. Thus his reputation
as a "tax cutter", yeah, if you were a multi-millionaire.
Never thought of Reagan as the first Shrub but it fits. I wonder if future pundits will sing
the Dub's praises as well. I think I'm gonna be sick for a bit.
kattw -> namora 19 Sep 2015 11:10
Pretzel is maybe talking about the 'strengthen SS' bandwagon? Perhaps? Not entirely sure myself,
but yeah - one of the major democrat platform planks is that SS should NOT be privatized, and
that if people want to invest in stocks, they can do that on their own. The whole point of SS
is to be a mattress full of cash that is NOT vulnerable to the vagaries of the market, and will
always have some cash in it to be used as needed.
SS would be totally secure, too, if congress would stop robbing it for other projects, or pay
back all they've borrowed. As it is, I wish *I* was as broke as republicans claim SS is - I wouldn't
mind having a few billion in the bank.
William J Rood 19 Sep 2015 11:08
Reagan was former president of the Screen Actors' Guild. Obviously, he thought unions for highly
educated workers were great. Meatpackers? Not so much.
RealSoothsayer 19 Sep 2015 11:04
This article does not mention the fact that in his last couple of years as President at least,
his mental state had seriously deteriorated. He could not remember his own policies, names, etc.
CBS' Leslie Stahl should be prosecuted for not being honest with her everyone when she found out.
Peter Davis 19 Sep 2015 11:04
Reagan was a failed president who nonetheless managed to convince people that he was great.
He was a professional actor, after all. And he acted his way into the White House. Most importantly,
he changed American politics forever by demonstrating that style was more important than substance.
In fact, he showed that style was everything and substance utterly unimportant. He was the
figurehead while his handlers did the dirty work of Iran-Contra, ballooning deficits, and tanking
unemployment.
nishville 19 Sep 2015 11:03
For me, he was a pioneer. He was the first sock-puppet president, starting a noble tradition
that reached its climax with W.
mbidding -> hackerkat 19 Sep 2015 11:03
In addition to:
Treasonous traitor when, as a presidential candidate, he negotiated with Khomeini to hold the
hostages till after the election.
Subverter of the Constitution via the Iran-Contra scandal.
Destroyer of social cohesion by turning JFK's famous admonishment of "ask not what your country
can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" on its head with his meme that all evil
emanates from the government and taxation represents stealing rather than a social obligation
for any civilized society that wishes to continue to develop in a sound fashion that lifts all
boats.
Incarcerator in Chief through his tough on crime and war on drugs policies, not to mention
defunding mental health care.
Pisser in Chief through his successful efforts to imbed trickle down economics as the economic
thought du jour which even its original architects, notably Stockman, now confirm is a failed
theory that we nonetheless cling to to this day.
Ignoramus in Chief by gutting real federal financial aid for higher education leading to the
obscene amounts of student debt our college students now incur.
Terrorist creator extraordinaire not only with the creation of the Latin American death squads
you note, but the creation, support, trading, and funding of the mujahedin and Bin Laden himself,
now known as the Taliban, Al Qa'ida, and ISIS, only the most notable among others.
namora -> trholland1 19 Sep 2015 10:59
That is not taking into account his greatest role for which he was ignored for a much deserved
Oscar, Golden Globe or any of the other awards passed out by the entertainment industry, President
of The United States of America. He absolutely nailed that one.
William J Rood 19 Sep 2015 10:58
Conservatives used "bracket creep" to convince the middle class that reducing marginal
rates on the top tax brackets along with their own would be a good idea, then with the assistance
of Democrats replaced the revenue with a huge increase in FICA so that the Social Security Trust
Fund could finance the deficit in the rest of the budget. The result was a huge boon to the richest,
little difference for the middle class, and a far greater burden for the working poor.
Tax brackets could have been indexed to inflation, but that wouldn't have been so great for
Reagans real supporters.
Doueman 19 Sep 2015 10:55
What sad comments by these armchair experts.
They don't gel with my experiences in North America during this period at all. When Reagan
ran for the presidency he was generally ridiculed by much of the press in the US and just about
all of the press in the UK for being a right wing fanatic, a lightweight, too old, uninformed
and even worse an actor. I found this rather curious and watched him specifically on TV in unscripted
scenarios to form my own impression as to how such a person, with supposedly limited abilities,
could possibly run for President of the US. I get a bit suspicious when organisations and individuals
protest and ridicule too much.
My reaction was that he handled himself well and gradually concluded that the mainly Eastern
liberal press in the US couldn't really stomach a California actor since they themselves were
meant to know everything. He actually was pretty well read ( visitors were later astonished to
read his multiple annotations in heavy weight books in his library). He was a clever and astute
union negotiator dealing with some of the toughest Hollywood moguls who would eat most negotiators
for dinner. He had become Governor of California and had done a fine job. I thought it was unlikely
he was the simpleton many portrayed. He couldn't be easily categorised as he embraced many good
aspects of the Democrats and the Republicans. Life wasn't so polarised then.
The US had left leaning Republicans and right wing Democrats. A political party as Churchill
noted was simply a charger to ride into action.
In my view, his presidential record was pretty remarkable. A charming, fair minded charismatic
man without the advantage of a wealthy background or influential family. The world was lucky to
have him.
raffine -> particle 19 Sep 2015 10:50
Reagan's second term was a disaster. But as someone below mentioned, conservative pundits and
their financers engaged in a campaign to make Reagan into a right-wing FDR. The most effective,
albeit bogus, claim on Reagan's behalf was that he had ended the Cold War.
jpsartreny 19 Sep 2015 14:22
Reagan is the shadow governments greatest triumph. After the adolescent Kennedy, egomaniacs
Johnson and Nixon , they needed front guys who followed orders instead .
The experiment with the peanut farmer from Georgia provided disastrous to Zebrew Brzezinski
and the liberals. The conservatives had better luck with a B- movie actor with an great talent
to read of the teleprompter.
RealSoothsayer -> semper12 19 Sep 2015 14:19
How? By talking? Gobachev brought down the USSR with his 'Glasnost' and 'Perestroika' policies.
His vision was what communist China later on achieved: mixed economy that flies a red flag. Reagan
was just an observer, absolutely nothing more. Tito of Yugoslavia was even more instrumental.
Marc Herlands 19 Sep 2015 14:17
IMHO Reagan was the second most successful president, behind FDR and ahead of LBJ. Not that
I liked anything about him, but he moved this country to the right and set the play book. He lowered
taxes on the wealthy, the corporations, capital gains, and estate taxes. He reduced growth in
programs for the poor, and made it impossible to increase their funding after his presidency because
of he left huge federal deficits caused by lowering taxes and increasing outlays on the military.
This Republican playbook still is their way of making sure that the Democrats can't give the poor
more money after they lose power. Also, he enlarged the program for deregulating industries, doing
away with antitrust laws, hindering labor laws, encouraged anti-union behavior, and did nothing
for AIDS research. He was a scoundrel who did a deal with Iran to prevent Carter from being re-elected.
He directly disobeyed Congressional laws not to intervene in Nicaragua. He set the tone for US
interventions after him.
bloggod 19 Sep 2015 14:17
Obama, Clinton, and the Bushes all hope to be forgiven for their unpardonable crimes.
Popularity is created. It is not populism, or informed consent of the pubic as approval for
more of the same collusion.
It is a One Party hoe down.
bloggod -> SigmetSue 19 Sep 2015 14:12
"they"
the indicted Sec of Defense Weinberger; the indicted head of the CIA Casey who "died" as he
was due to testify: Mcfarlane, Abrams, Clair George, Oilyver North, Richard Secord, Albert Hakim
Reagan had no genius, he had Bush-CIA and the Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, and the "immoral
majority" of anti-abortion war profiteers.
Marios Antoniou Lattimore 19 Sep 2015 13:52
I agree with everything you mentioned, and I intensely dislike Reagan YET the point of the
article wasn't that Reagan was good, it rather points to the fact that Republicans have shifted
so far to the right that Reagan would appear moderate compared to the current batch.
Rainer Jansohn pretzelattack 19 Sep 2015 13:52
Interesting had been his speeches during the Cold War.Scientists have subsumed it under "Social
Religion",a special form of political theology.Simple dialectical:UDSSR the incarnation of the
evil/hell on the other side USA :the country of God himself.A tradition in USA working until now.There
is no separation between government and church as in good old centuries sincetwo centuries resulting
from enlightening per Philosophie/Voltaire/Kant/Hume/Descartes and so on.Look at Obamas speeches/God
is always mixed in!
talenttruth 19 Sep 2015 13:49
Any conversation about who the fantasy-projection "Reagan" was, misses an important reality:
He was a hologram, fabricated by a kaleidoscope of various sorts of so-called "conservative" handlers
and puppeteers. It was those "puppeteers" who ranged from heartlessly, stunningly "conservative"
(destroya-tive), all the way further right to the kind of militaristic, macho, crackpots who have
finally emerged from under their rocks at this year's "candidates."
The fact that Reagan was going ga-ga – definitely in his second term, and likely for part of
the first – was entirely convenient for his Non-Human-Based-Crackpot-Right-Holographers, since
he had was not actually "driven" to vacuousness by a tragic mental condition (dementia) – THAT
change was merely a "short putt" – from his entire previous life.
Regarding his Great Achievement, the collapse of the Soviet Union? After decades of monstrous
over-spending by the USA's Military-Industrial-Complex, the bogus and equally insane USSR finally
bankrupted itself trying to "compete" and fell. Reagan (and his puppeteer handlers), always excellent
at Taking Credit for anything, showed up with exquisite cynical timing, and indeed Took Credit.
Lest anyone forget, Reagan got elected in 1980, via a totally illegal and stunningly immoral
"side deal" with the Iranians, in which they agreed to not release our hostages to make Carter
look like a feeble old man. Then we got Reagan who WAS a "feeble old man" (ESPECIALLY intellectually
and morally). Reagan "won," the hostages were "released" and he of course took credit for that
too.
So all these so-called "candidates" ARE the heirs of all the very worst of Ronald Reagan: they
are all simpleminded, they are totally beholden to Hidden Sociopathic Billionaires hiding behind
various curtains, and they all have NO CLUE what the word "ethics" means. Vacuous, anti-intellectual,
scheming, appealing only to morons, and puppets all. Perfect "Reaganites."
Bill Ehrhorn -> semper12 19 Sep 2015 13:32
It seems that the teabaggers and their ilk give only Reagan credit.
SigmetSue 19 Sep 2015 13:16
They called him the Teflon President because nothing ever stuck. It still doesn't. That was
his genius -- and I'm no fan.
Lattimore 19 Sep 2015 13:13
The article seems to present Reagan as an theatrical figure. I disagree. Reagan, President
of the United States, was a criminal; as such, he was among the most corrupt and anti democratic
person to hold the office POTUS. The fact that he tripled the national debt, raised taxes and
skewed the tax schedules to benifit the wealthy, are comparitively minor.
,,,
Reagan's crimes and anti democratic acts:
1. POTUS: CIA smuggling cocaine into the U.S., passing the drug to wholesalers, who then processed
the drug and distributed crack to Black communities. At the same time Reagan's "War on Crime"
insured that the Black youth who bought "Central Intelligenc Agencie's" cocaine were criminalized
and handed lengthy prison sentences.
2. POTUS supported SOUTH AMERICAN terrorist, and the genocidal atrocities commited by terrorist
in Chili, Guatamala, El Mazote, etc.
3. POTUS supported SOUTH AFRICAN apartheid, and the imprisonment of Nelson Mandela as well. Vetoing
a bill that would express condemnation of South Africa.
4. POTUS sold Arms to Iran.
5. POTUS used taxpayer dollars to influence election outcomes.
6. POTUS rigged government grants to enrich his cronies.
7. POTUS thew mental patients onto the streets.
8. POTUS supported McCarthyism, witch hunts, etc.
9. POTUS created and supported Islamic terrorist--fore runners of al Queada, ISIS, etc.
Niko2 LostintheUS 19 Sep 2015 13:12
I don't have much love for Nancy, but she did not break up this marriage, to be fair. And she
actually got rid off the extreme right wingers in Reagan's administration, like Haig and Regan,
whom she called "extra chromosome republicans". Surely she was a vain and greedy flotus with no
empathy whatsoever for people not in her Bel Air circles (I can easily imagine her, "Do I really
have to go and see these Aids-Babies, I'd rather shop at Rodeo Drive, lose the scheduler") but
she realized at an early stage that hubbies shtick-it-to-the-commies policies would do him no
favour. Maybe she's the unsung heroine of his presidency.
tommydog -> MtnClimber 19 Sep 2015 13:04
The principle subsidies to big oil are probably the strategic oil reserve and subsidies to
low income people for winter heating oil. You can choose which of those you'd like to cut. After
that you're arguing about whether exploration costs should be expensed in the year incurred or
capitalized and amortized over time.
WilliamK 19 Sep 2015 13:03
He was one of J Edgar Hoover's red baiting fascist admiring boys along with Richard Nixon and
Walt Disney used to destroy the labor unions, control the propaganda machine of Hollywood and
used to knuckle under the television networks and undermine as much as possible the New Deal polices
of Franklin Roosevelt. An actor groomed by the General Electric Corporation and their fellow travelers.
"Living better through electricity" was his mantra and he played the role of President to push
forward their right wing agenda. Now we are in new stage in our "political development" in America.
The era of the "reality television star" with Hollywood in bed with the military industrial complex,
selling guns, violence and sex to the fool hardy and their children and prime time television
ads push pharmaceutical drugs, children hear warnings of four hour erections, pop-stars flash
their tits and asses and a billionaire takes center stage as the media cashes in and goes along
for the ride. Yeah Ronnie was a second tier film star and with his little starlet Nancy by his
side become one of America's greatest salesman.
Backbutton 19 Sep 2015 12:57
LOL! Reagan was a walking script renderer, with lines written by others, and a phony because
he was just acting the part of POTUS. His speeches were all crafted, and he had good writers.
He was no Abraham Lincoln.
And now these morons running for office all want to rub off his "great communicator" fix.
Good help America!
Milwaukee Broad 19 Sep 2015 12:49
Ronald Reagan was an actor whom the depressingly overwhelming majority of American voters thought
was a messiah. They so believed in him that they re-elected him to a second term. Nothing positive
whatsoever became of his administration, yet he is still worshiped by millions of lost souls (conservatives).
Have a nice day.
Michael Williams 19 Sep 2015 12:48
The US was the world's leading creditor when Reagan took office. The US was the world's leading
debtor by the time Bush 1 was tossed out of office.
This is what Republicans cannot seem to remember.
All of the other scandals pale in comparison, even as we deal with the blowback from most of
these original, idiotic policies.
Reagan was an actor, mouthing words he barely understood, especially as his dementia progressed.
This is the exact reason the history is so poorly taught in the US.
People might make connections....
Jessica Roth 19 Sep 2015 12:46
Oh, he had holes in his brain long before the dementia. "Facts are stupid things", trees cause
pollution, and so on.
A pathetic turncoat who sold out his original party (the one that kept his dad in work throughout
the Great Depression via a series of WPA jobs) because Nancy allegedly "gave the best head in
Hollywood" and who believed that only 144,000 people were going to Heaven, presumably accounting
for his uncaring treatment of the less-well-off.
His administration was full of corruption, from Richard Allen's $1000 in an envelope (and three
wristwatches) that he claimed was an inappropriate gift for Mrs. Reagan he had "intercepted" and
then "forgotten" to report to William Casey trading over $3,000,000 worth of stocks while CIA
director. (Knowing about changes in the oil market ahead of time sure came in handy.) You had
an attorney general who took a $50,000 "severance payment" (never done before) from the board
of a corporation he resigned from to avoid conflict of interest charges and this was William French
Smith; his successor, Edwin Meese, was the one with real scandals (about the sale of his home).
Hell, Reagan himself put his ranch hand (Dennis LeBlanc) on the federal payroll as an "advisor"
to the Commerce Department. I didn't know the Commerce Dept needed "advice" on clearing wood from
St. Ronnie's ranch, but LeBlanc got a $58,500 salary out of the deal. (Roughly £98,000 at today's
prices.) Nice work if you can get it.
Meanwhile, RR "talked tough" at the Soviets (resulting in the world nearly ending in 1983 due
to a false alarm about a US nuclear attack) while propping up any rightwing dictator they could
find, from the South African racists to Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos (after they had Aquino assassinated
at the airport) to Roberto "Death Squad" D'Aubuisson in El Salvador (the man who masterminded
the assassination of Archbishop Romero while he was performing Mass).
Oh, and while Carter did a nice job of shooting himself in the foot, Reagan benefited in the
election not only from his treasonous dealings with the Iranian hostage-takers (shades of Nixon
making a deal with North Viet Nam to stall the peace talks until after the 1968 elections, promising
them better terms) but through more pedestrian means such as his campaign's stealing of Carter's
briefing book for the campaign's only debate, Reagan being coached for the debate by a supposedly
neutral journalist (George Will, of ABC and The Washington Post), who then went on television
afterwards (in the days when there were only three commercial channels) and "analysed" how successful
Reagan had been in executing his "game plan" and seeming "Presidential" without either Will or
ABC bothering to mention that Will had coached Reagan and designed the "game plan" in question.
The "liberal bias" in the media, no doubt.
Always a joke, only looking slightly better by the dross that has followed him. (Including
Bill "Third Way" Clinton and his over-£50,000,000 in post-Presidential "speaking fees" graft,
and Barack Obama, drone-murderer of children in over a dozen countries and serial-summary-executioner
of U.S. citizens. When Gordon-effing-Brown is the best that's held office on either side of the
Atlantic since 1979, you can see how this planet is in the state it's in.)
pretzelattack DukeofMelbourne 19 Sep 2015 12:45
his stand on russia was inconsistent, and he didn't cause it to collapse. his economic programs
were a failure. his foreign policy generally a disaster. he set the blueprint for the current
mess.
pretzelattack semper12 19 Sep 2015 12:38
a total crock. reagan let murdering thugs run rampant as long as they paid lip service to democracy,
the world over from africa to central america. the ussr watched this coward put 240 marines to
die in lebanon, and then cut and run, exactly the pattern he was so ready to condemn as treason
in others, and was so ready to portray as showing weakness, and you think the ussr was terrified
of him. he was a hollywood actor playing a role, and you bought it.
Tycho1961 19 Sep 2015 12:13
No President exists in a political vacuum. While he was in office, Reagan had a large Democrat
majority in the House of Representatives and a small Republican majority in the Senate. The Supreme
Court was firmly liberal. Whatever his political agenda Reagan knew he had to constructively engage
with people of both parties that were in opposition to him. If he didn't he would suffer the same
fate as Carter, marginalized by even his own party. His greatest strength was as a negotiator.
Reagan's greatest failures were when he tried to be clever and he and his advisors were found
to be rather ham handed about it.
RichardNYC 19 Sep 2015 11:57
The principal legacy of Ronald Reagan is the still prevalent view that corporate interests
supersede individual interests.
Harry Haff 19 Sep 2015 11:45
Reagan did many horrible things while in office, committed felonies and supported murderous
regimes in Central America that murdered tens of thousands of people with the blessing of the
US chief executive. he sold arms to Iran and despoiled the natural environment whenever possible.
But given those horrendous accomplishments, he could not now get a seat at the table with the
current GOP. He would be considered a RINO, that most stupid and inaccurate term, at best, and
a closet liberal somewhere down the line. The current GOP is more to the right than the politicians
in the South after the Civil War.
"... you will suffer metabolic injury so great that you will perish, as the cancer pumps out various toxins, like 'Free Market Fundamentalism', 'Western moral values' or 'Exceptionalism'. ..."
"... That is that the Rightwing Authoritarian Personality, or whatever other euphemism you care to use, suffer some or all of the well-known features of psychopathy ie the absence of human empathy and compassion, unbridled greed and narcissistic egomania, unscrupulousness and a preference for violence. ..."
"... From Obama down through Harper, Cameron, Abbott, Satanyahoo et al to the very dregs of politics and MSM propaganda, it is a vast field of human perfidy, differing only in the degree of their malevolence. ..."
Mulga Mumblebrain on September 17, 2015 · at 11:17 pm UTC
Erebus, that would be like trying to cage a cancer. If you do not then excise the cancer,
you will suffer metabolic injury so great that you will perish, as the cancer pumps out various
toxins, like 'Free Market Fundamentalism', 'Western moral values' or 'Exceptionalism'.
Cut the tumour out, plus the chemotherapy of somehow rescuing the non-malignant members of
the cancer societies from the inhuman habits inculcated in them from birth (ie gross materialism,
unbridled greed, cultural and racial superiority, addiction to crass 'tittietainment' etc) and
even a few escaping cancer cells can cause metastasis elsewhere.
What is really needed is a miracle, a 'spontaneous remission' where the individual cells in
the Western cancer suddenly transform themselves into non-malignant, human, organisms again. There
might be some good signs, such as the rise of Corbyn in the UK, the eclipse of Harper, the character
of Pope Francis, but there is a Hell of a way to go, and not much hope of success.
Mulga Mumblebrain on September 17, 2015 · at 11:07 pm UTC
David, I agree. The central problem facing humanity is that the planet has become dominated
by evil psychopaths. There is a mountain of literature that explains what one can see with one's
own eyes.
That is that the Rightwing Authoritarian Personality, or whatever other euphemism you care
to use, suffer some or all of the well-known features of psychopathy ie the absence of human empathy
and compassion, unbridled greed and narcissistic egomania, unscrupulousness and a preference for
violence.
The situation in the world today, geo-political, economic and ecological is a battle between
good and evil. Many people refuse to face that reality, because it is frightening, and presages
a dreadful global death struggle or the collapse of human civilization and probable species extinction.
But denying the hideous reality won't make it go away. What we have seen over recent decades in
Iraq, Libya, Syria, Congo etc is evil in action, and we had better acknowledge that reality.
From Obama down through Harper, Cameron, Abbott, Satanyahoo et al to the very dregs of
politics and MSM propaganda, it is a vast field of human perfidy, differing only in the degree
of their malevolence.
"... Nobody expected communism to fall apart in 1989, not a single person had any inkling what was coming, from within or without. For quite a long time previously it was wondered how it could keep on going, and it dutifully did until inertia had it's say. ..."
"... In many ways capitalism is the flipside of communism, and the latter kept us honest, but once we lost them as an arch-rival, what did we need honesty for anymore? ..."
"... The current diaspora ascending on Europe reminds me of when communism fell apart, the difference being that the bloc party then was thought of as a good thing. ..."
"... We've effectively taken over communism's role as being the dishonest player in terms of a rivalry, but there doesn't appear to be an honest rival anywhere, we're all the same now. ..."
Nobody expected communism to fall apart in 1989, not a single person had any inkling what
was coming, from within or without. For quite a long time previously it was wondered how it could
keep on going, and it dutifully did until inertia had it's say.
In many ways capitalism is the flipside of communism, and the latter kept us honest, but
once we lost them as an arch-rival, what did we need honesty for anymore?
lawyerliz wrote on Sat, 8/29/2015 - 5:45 am (in reply to...)
Yes we need an honorable enemy/rival. I don't think it will be China, but perhaps India could
make an honorable frenemy. I like Indians and we have Britain in common.
Jackdawracy wrote on Sat, 8/29/2015 - 5:47 am
The current diaspora ascending on Europe reminds me of when communism fell apart, the difference
being that the bloc party then was thought of as a good thing.
Jackdawracy wrote on Sat, 8/29/2015 - 5:49 am (in reply to...)
We've effectively taken over communism's role as being the dishonest player in terms of
a rivalry, but there doesn't appear to be an honest rival anywhere, we're all the same now.
Jackdawracy wrote on Sat, 8/29/2015 - 5:57 am (in reply to...)
Without a rivalry, the space race never gets off the ground. Liftoff would be a word with no
meaning whatsoever.
Folks in Florida right now would have an inkling of a hurricane coming from the Caribbean,
but have no idea the direction, speed, etc.
dilbert dogbert wrote on Sat, 8/29/2015 - 6:03 am (in reply to...)
Jackdawracy wrote:
In many ways capitalism is the flipside of communism, and the latter kept us honest,
but once we lost them as an arch-rival, what did we need honesty for anymore?
Been reading others making the same point. Unrestrained Capitalism, just like unrestrained
compound interest spirals out of control.
I for one welcome our new Unrestrained Capitalist Overlords!!! PS: Rents are still too damned
low!!! Impeach Now!!!
"... The buck is constantly and systematically passed to those least able to carry it – large-scale problems (e.g. national debts) are sent down the pipeline to smaller units; devolution without the resources to implement it, combined with competition for resources, choices without resources, responsibility without power, power without structure. ..."
"... "See-Judge-Act" ..."
"... resistance have happened over the last 5 years or so – views about how effective they have been vary. But as Christians, we are called to show solidarity with those who resist a dehumanising and very powerful status quo. ..."
"... And, above all, we should recognise that a very small space in which to act is not no space at all – challenging TINA – that neoliberalism is the only view on the block is itself action of a kind – sometimes opening up a space opens up new possibilities. What we shouldn‟t so, at least, is to close them down! ..."
Mar 07, 2015 | Diocese of Liverpool
Introduction: When is an economy not an economy? When it's a caravan park!
Sources – Chicago School of Economics (Friedman and Hayek) – also German „ordoliberalism‟.
First use of the word probably Freidman – 1951 essay Neoliberalism and its Prospects.
They DIFFERED but the development of their views has become the economic status quo since
the 1980s – „TINA‟ – „there is no alternative.‟
Ironic – from the 1930s to the 1950s, its theorists were dismissed by mainstream economic
thinking as cranks and mavericks
How did it get to be so influential? Interesting – one analysis - „rugby match‟ analysis –
„the think tanks passed to the journalists, who passed to the politicians, who with aid from the
think tanks run with it and score.‟
You won‟t see the term much – although the Guardian uses it! – you might see „free market,‟
or "competition" – but even if we don‟t know the term, neo-liberalism has become so much the norm
we don‟t even notice it – David Harvey: „Neo-liberalism has become incorporated into the common
sense way many of us live in, interpret and understand the world.‟ (A Brief History of Neo-Liberalism,
p 3)
But it isn‟t inevitable, natural or constructed – and many projects of practical compassion
in parishes are in response to its direct results.
So the first thing is to detach from it and NOTICE it – name the beast!
So What is It? Several key elements to what Neoliberalism is:
It affirms, above all else, the rule of the market1 - that means the unrestricted movement
of capital, goods and services.
The market is „self-regulating‟ in terms of the distribution of wealth– more wealth in the
system is supposed to equal more wealth for all – wealth distribution falls out of the system,
and in theory, there is a „trickle down‟ of wealth distribution.
The de-regulation of labour - e.g., de-unionization of labour forces, and end to wage controls.
The removal of any impediment to the moving of capital – such as regulations.
Reducing public expenditure – and in particular for utilities, common goods (water), and social
services, such as transport, health and education, by the government
Privatization of the above – of everything from water to the Internet
Increasing deregulation of the market, and allowing market forces to regulate themselves.
Changing perceptions of public and community good to individualism and individual responsibility.
Behind these features are a series of underlying assumed principles – an ideology of neo-liberalism:
2
Sustained economic growth is good in itself and the best way to human progress
Free markets would be the most efficient and socially optimal allocation of resources
Globalization is a good thing – beneficial to everyone
Privatization removes the inefficiencies of the public sector.
Governments‟ main functions should be to provide the infra structure to advance the rule of
law with respect to property rights and contracts and to ensure the market remains competitive.
So What's Wrong with it?
It is internally contradictory
There is no such thing as a free market
Even the original neoliberals recognise this – competition regulates the market – there
is no one view of what "competitive" is
The ordoliberals certainly recognise it – role of government to create the perfectly
competitive market
The view taken of competition based on price tends to monopolies, a "race to the bottom,"
and uniformity (Amazon, Sky, Apple )
Its effects are not as the theory predicted, and have often been damaging:
There has been no "trickle down" effect of wealth (in fact, wealth has redistributed upwards)
It has entailed much "creative destruction" of institutional frameworks and powers, divisions
of labour social relations, attachments to the land and habits of the heart.‟ (David Harvey,
Short History of Neo-Liberalism, p 3)
It has pushed, and is pushing, the reach of the market into ever more spheres of human
life, „the saturation of the state, political culture and the social with market rationality.‟
(Wendy Brown: American Nightmare: Neoliberalism, Neoconservatism and De-Democratization
(Political Theory 34 (2006), p 695)
It has a view of human beings as 'specks of human capital,' who can be 'plugged in'
to markets of various kinds, (or who plug themselves in)
the hero of neoliberalism is the entrepreneur – we are all becoming more and more required
to be „entrepreneurs of the self‟ – to invest in ourselves/make something of ourselves, „cultivate
and care for‟ ourselves and, increasingly – measure our performance.
The caravan park analogy –we are required to „plug ourselves in‟ – to pay the price of
doing so, and to accept the cost.
Our „belonging‟ becomes passive plugging in – rather than active participation.
Traditional forms of solidarity are wiped out.
Specks of human capital are eminently sacrificable, even if they have done all the „right
things‟ – there are no guarantees, and individuals are expected to bear the risk of their entrepreneurial
activity themselves (investing many hours in „training‟ and „upskilling,‟ often with no financial
or institutional support and with no guarantee of better employment practices – i.e. gain (more
skilled workforce) is privatized and risk is distributed downwards, labour is bound and capital
released.
Austerity politics is the natural outcome of this – people are told virtue is sacrifice
for the sake of a productive economy, but with no protection.
Despite opposition to „big government,‟ isolated and vulnerable individuals are eminently
governable, subject to new forms of power whilst having smaller and
smaller spaces in which to resist it. People are easily integrated into a project that
is quite prepared to sacrifice them.
So why is it bad for all of us?
It has redistributed wealth – upwards. Most extreme effects seen amongst the most vulnerable
– but many people are feeling the pinch in the middle. Cultural expression of neoliberalism encourages
those in the middle to „aspire‟ upwards – and demonises the most vulnerable. Not good for the
soul, even of those relatively comfortable!
An economy is not a caravan park that we plug into but a household (oeconomia) that we belong
to – with solidarities and mutuality built in – some of them unchosen. Neoliberalism cuts us off
from belonging in a way that allows us to flourish.
Its promotion of economic growth as the only good inevitably means economies built on debt
and austerity
To see people as sacrificeable specks of human capital means they are governable, isolated
and vulnerable – and the isolation and vulnerability is spreading upwards in society too (it takes
on average a year after graduation for a graduate from a "good" university to get a job)
The buck is constantly and systematically passed to those least able to carry it – large-scale
problems (e.g. national debts) are sent down the pipeline to smaller units; devolution without
the resources to implement it, combined with competition for resources, choices without resources,
responsibility without power, power without structure.
Dependency is denigrated and independence moralized – the most vulnerable are burdened morally
with failing to follow the correct processes of capital development
Lack of trust erodes community life and social relations
Physical and mental health are affected – and not just for those who are poorest, but for
those in the middle and even those at the top (see Richard Wilson and Kate Pickett:
The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everybody – London, Penguin 2009)
Education becomes narrow and instrumental
In some ways, those in the deepest peril are those who benefit from neoliberalism – „for what
will it profit them if they gain the whole world but forfeit their soul‟ (Matthew 16.26)
So what is to be done?
"See-Judge-Act"
SEE - We first need to SEE it – to name the beast - that the issues we confront daily
in parishes, in our everyday lives, and in the news do not arise by accident or as a result of
unfortunate circumstances, or the distorting lens of the media – but from the systematic application
of a particular, and very far-reaching economic theory.
JUDGE means unpicking the assumptions, watching how the ball curves; it means not just
coming up with concrete examples from our own circumstances, but relating them to the „macro‟
level – seeing how they result from larger structures and assumptions
JUDGE also means reflecting theologically on all this in the light of scripture and
tradition.
ACT – is harder – so what is to be done? It can seem impossible to do anything!
However – the very act of noticing is important. Neoliberalism‟s power derives partly from
its invisibility – we need to notice that it is happening. Various forms of
resistance have happened over the last 5 years or so – views about how effective they
have been vary. But as Christians, we are called to show solidarity with those who resist a dehumanising
and very powerful status quo.
We can – and should – continue to be involved in projects of practical compassion – and alongside
doing them, make connections with the bigger picture.
We can recognise our own complicity in neoliberalism – and disassociate from it, at least
with our heads.
We can ask critical questions whenever we have the opportunity to do so.
And, above all, we should recognise that a very small space in which to act is not no
space at all – challenging TINA – that neoliberalism is the only view on the block is itself action
of a kind – sometimes opening up a space opens up new possibilities. What we shouldn‟t so, at
least, is to close them down!
Justice will dwell in the wilderness, and righteousness abide in the fruitful field. The effect
of righteousness will be peace, and the result of righteousness quietness and trust forever. My people
will abide in a peaceful habitation, in secure dwellings, in quite resting places. (Isaiah 32.16-18)
Further Reading:
Zygmunt Bauman: Liquid Modernity (Cambridge, Polity Press 2000)
Ha-Joon Chang: 23 Things they don't tell you about capitalism (London, Penguin 2011)
"... Like most social democratic parties in Europe, their motto seems to be "fill your pockets while you can". ..."
"... Merkel has fancied herself as UN secretary general. She probably saw visions of murals of her leading down trodden women and children and "qualified" me being welcomed by a new, smiling Germany. In her vision, Merkel would be 8 feet tall wit a golden hue emerging from the far Kenedy lands of Southern Europe and beyond. The UN would have to take her. ..."
"... See what happens when the U.S. seeks regime change? You get regime change-everywhere! ..."
"... I've noticed that Merkel gets an extraordinary easy ride in the English language press ..."
"... In reality she has been a disaster for Germany and Europe. Her constant approach of taking the easy option has left Germany with a rotting infrastructure and has wrecked havoc in the European economy and European institutions. It seems that like so many who grew up behind the Iron Curtain her anti-communism has blinded her to the faults in European and Anglo-American conservatives – unlike her CD predecessors who were always much more pragmatic about power and its uses. ..."
"... Germany in many ways is operating like a company which has stopped investing in order to maximise short to medium term profits (think: Dell), which is in ironic counterpoint to its famously foresighted private companies. ..."
"... The Anglo-American world sowing doubt about the German system when we ourselves are worse on most of the metrics in question. This is especially true since one of the reasons – tax cuts in the name of groaf – is exactly what us Atlanticists have been telling the rest of the world to do. They have also started very seriously exploring public private partnership options as modeled by London and DC. ..."
"... Germany was part of the Friends of Syria. Merkel actively encouraged the war. She invited refugees through their active creation. Refugees were going to go somewhere. Why not visit their friend? Crossing the Atlantic is too difficult. ..."
"... Politicians should be held accountable for the fallout from their decisions. Merkel as chancellor of Germany could have undermined the effort to attack Syria. ..."
"... As per EU commission, 60% of the migrants have an "economic" i.e. better their life chances motivation, and counting. I would accept an humanitarian motivation, but only with the approval of the parliament, currently outstanding. ..."
"... who had already reached Hungary ..."
"... on the 13th September, Germany re-introduced border controls with Austria. Nowadays borders have closed further. ..."
"... she is a politician interested in securing short-sighted advantages to her country and patching things as they come - not a stateswoman with a vision. ..."
"... Regarding economic migrants, the missing passports, the asset-stripping to pay smugglers, etc, this is not new. Exactly the same issues were raised long ago, when the crisis was taking place in Spain and not in Greece, when corpses were washing ashore ..."
"... EU has a puppet president, and a host of other dumb institutions very eager in designing and imposing all kind of stupid legislation on member countries, but unable to speak about this migration crisis. Give me a break! And angela she is past due date already! ..."
"... I think Merkel – or perhaps, the establishment in general – will do fine. Any party seriously challenging the status quo will be declared to be racist and dissolved. Increasingly anyone objecting to the status quo will be accused of 'hate speech' – hate speech, of course, is any statement opposing government policy. ..."
"... Merkel was perfectly willing to let the Greeks starve to bail out the banks – the notion that she is in any way motivated by compassion is absurd. I hear that Merkel wants to make refugee labor available to big companies for just a euro an hour (medical care etc. to be subsidized by taxes on the middle class). ..."
"... The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Syria and Ukraine were started by the West. The Troika's imposition of austerity on Greece resulted in its borders being open to the refugees of the wars. The ruling elite want free movement of people and capital and are working to negate the powers of the democratic sovereign states. This contempt of the lower classes is the direct cause of the rise of people's nationalist movements in the West. ..."
"... Between this and the disintegration of the EU, looks like the Fourth Reich isn't going to last long either. ..."
By Mathew D. Rose, a freelance journalist in Berlin
The inexorable political decline of Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel as well as her traditional
opponents, the Social Democrats, is gathering pace. Upcoming elections in three German federal states
on 13 March have given this process a considerable fillip. Both Ms Merkel's Christian Democratic
Party and the Social Democrats are expecting some harrowing results.
It seems that each new crisis that Ms Merkel creates is more formidable than its predecessor.
Her mishandling of the refugee question – nationally and internationally – is making her conflict
with Greece last year appear like a festival of love and unity.
... ... ...
For the Social Democrats under the leadership of Sigmar Gabriel, who seems more concerned with
lining up some well remunerated jobs in advance of his retirement from politics, there is a bleak
future. Like most social democratic parties in Europe, their motto seems to be "fill your pockets
while you can". Following the debacles of the social democrats in Spain and their compatriots
in the Republic of Ireland, who appear to have gone into a death spin, the German social democrats
seem to be following in their footsteps. The party will probably struggle to receive 20 percent of
the vote at the next national election in a year's time.
Domestically Ms Merkel's party and the Social Democrats have tried to save themselves by changing
the German laws regarding refugees. Nations that were until recently considered warzones or systematically
violating human rights have been declared "safe countries of origin", making refugees from these
countries "economic migrants" to facilitate fast track extradition. Benefits for refugees are being
slashed, as well not permitting refugees to bring their families to join them in Germany.
The situation became palpably absurd, as Ms Merkel declared that refugees have to integrate themselves
in German society or leave, only then to declare that she expects them to depart as soon as the conflicts
in their nations have terminated.
Ms Merkel's real hope is purchasing the acquiescence of Turkey's president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
to stop all refugees at his own border, thus relocating the source of the current political conflict
out of Europe and into Turkey. Erdoğan, who is fighting a war against the Kurds, would appreciate
the billions of Euros on offer, as well as the EU members of NATO turning a blind eye to his pact
with ISIS. Let us have no illusions: Erdoğan is an anti-democratic and authoritarian, with nor respect
for human rights. He is on the threshold of becoming a dictator. He knows he has all the political
trumps in his hand in negotiations with Ms Merkel and will exact a commensurate price. This is only
the most recent juncture in a political disaster that spiralled out of control months ago.
Add to this the newly created mission of NATO using a fleet of warships to stop the flow of refugees
from Turkey to Greece, while negotiations continue with Erdoğan. It is cynically claimed that the
NATO force is there to arrest those smuggling the refugees. This is absurd. As everyone knows, the
smugglers put the refugees in dilapidated boats and send them off on their own. They are not cruise
operators. Thus the NATO ships are in effect sending back refugees, many of them women and children,
to Turkey. Is this what NATO was created for? Where were the NATO ships, as thousands of refugees
were drowning in the Mediterranean?
The whole affair, as with Greece before it, has become a disgrace for Europe. I doubt it would
surprise anyone, should negotiations with Turkey fail, and Ms Merkel announced that her government
was in talks with ISIS to assist in stemming the refugee threat to European Civilisation.
German leaders are infallible, so there is no way back for Ms Merkel, although there is not much
backtracking left to do. The upcoming elections in Germany could well decide her political fate in
Germany. The Christian Union would have to scramble to find a new leader for the upcoming national
elections in 2017, although that is not really a problem. The party has enough mediocre politicians
like Ms Merkel in the wings, just as capable of following the policy dictated by German and international
business interests. Germany's domestic political landscape is in flux, as in most of Europe, which
makes any predictions concerning the future precarious.
As for Ms Merkel, she will have been a victim of endemic German hubris, not content with being
the "Mutti" of Germany and the iron fist of Europe, but wanting to be a saint as well (and pocket
the Nobel Peace Prize). Unfortunately – as always – others have paid and will pay the price: the
thousands of refugees who will have died trying to reach the shelter of Europe, as well as those
that make it, but will become victims of European racism and greed, and especially of the corrupt
European political class. The great hope are the millions of decent Europeans, who know what solidarity
is and value the Humanitarianism that was born here.
Well, to be read with more than a pinch of salt . and I have too little time to depict it properly.
1. Merkel has continued her lawless activity, started with the Greek bailout 1.0 (to save French
banks, Sarkozy and German banks, in that order) with the refugee crisis. I do not know what her
motives for opening the borders were, but not to close them in time was a fatal error;
especially for the German democratic system, because there was neither the will nor the instruments
to stop her. What a blow to the cherished "basic law", exposed as an empty shell. A poisoned arrow,
slowly permeating the state of Germany, questioning the functionality of the entire German democracy.
2. Possibly a blessing in disguise, the unfolding refugee crisis (a mixture of war refugees
and economic migration) has exposed "EU solidarity" or "Merkel leads Europe" for what it always
was – the periphery needed (and needs) the German credit card to maintain the appearance of solvency
– so they temporarily bowed to the inevitable, but out of selfish interest, not overarching interest
in "solidarity"; which was a one-way street, always. So the lack of support for her should have
been no surprise for anybody, but Berlin still manages to keep up the illusion. This was fatally
complemented by the hubris not to inform anybody before the deed, thus giving all the uninformed
union members of the feeling of second or third best . not the best basis to ask for help.
3. Unbeknownst to any non-German speaker, there is a "fifths" power emerging, something akin
to a "speech police" – were any – and I mean any – criticism or resistance is labeled immediately
as "geistige Brandstiftung" (roughly mental arson), and a stereotype for right wing Nazi idea's.
A lot of words are becoming unusable [emergency,unlawful and similar], unless you want to be labeled
as "populist", right wing or worse. Consequently, there is no unbiased discussion possible, anywhere,
so a calamitous silence becomes ever more prevalent by the day. Note, that Facebook is now policed
by the subsidiary of Bertelsmann, a big German publishing house, to remove "incitement" and similar
posts.
4. Slowly some parts of the German main stream press are waking up to the fallacies caused
by the blanket invitation – the refugees coming are more or less unskilled, and thus quick integration
into the German labor market is improbable, to say the least.
5. However, the political establishment, i.e. the parties currently represented in parliament,
have lost any connection to what the populace is thinking (quietly, as per 3.) and a mutiny is
brewing even in normally patient and middle of the road guys; fueled by the wishful thinking of
all will be well. And the muddling through will continue, unless some force outside of control
of Berlin will stop it, thus exposing the inability of the "state" to keep a semblance of democracy
and to govern within the framework of the "basic law", as the parliament and the press both failed
to stop Merkel.
Honestly, I am not sure what to wish for, the continuation or the exposure of harsh reality.
About your first point, Merkel has fancied herself as UN secretary general. She probably
saw visions of murals of her leading down trodden women and children and "qualified" me being
welcomed by a new, smiling Germany. In her vision, Merkel would be 8 feet tall wit a golden hue
emerging from the far Kenedy lands of Southern Europe and beyond. The UN would have to take her.
She is a Christian Democrat. She is mediocre by definition. I doubt she could ever conceive
of her plans going wrong.
This is one of the reasons I love NC so much – nice to see something in-depth and suitably
skeptical about a country which despite its huge importance is rarely reported in real detail
in the mainstream English language press. There is often much better reporting of China or Japan
than Germany for some odd reason.
I've noticed that Merkel gets an extraordinary easy ride in the English language press
– even people from the left seem to have a sort of grudging admiration and even affection for
her. In reality she has been a disaster for Germany and Europe. Her constant approach of taking
the easy option has left Germany with a rotting infrastructure and has wrecked havoc in the European
economy and European institutions. It seems that like so many who grew up behind the Iron Curtain
her anti-communism has blinded her to the faults in European and Anglo-American conservatives
– unlike her CD predecessors who were always much more pragmatic about power and its uses.
Does anyone know good english sources regarding Hungary and Orban? They seem to be under the
same MSM cloud occluding realistic views of what's happening in Russia. But its hard to tell because
information is so thin. If its in the Times, WSJ or FT, it appears on its face to be propaganda
simply from the personalization of the country into the leader.
Which infrastructure, exactly, is rotting? I agree Germany isn't some kind of luminary leftist
paradise. But relative to us Anglo-Americans, things are working rather well there from
the perspective of social and built landscape infrastructure.
Germany has maintained its relatively healthy public sector balance mainly through massive
cuts in infrastructural spending. Its not immediately noticeable as a combination of low population
growth and high levels of investment in the post war years has left it with a very good historic
legacy. But only Spain has a lower level of public investment as a percentage of GDP as
this FT article e xplains:
Its not just transport infrastructure – the power infrastructure is creaking too, with poor
interconnectedness across the country. Housing and building stock is visibly deteriorating due
to a lack of investment. Germany in many ways is operating like a company which has stopped
investing in order to maximise short to medium term profits (think: Dell), which is in ironic
counterpoint to its famously foresighted private companies. Germany can get away with this
for a decade or more, but eventually the chickens will come home to roost in the form of huge
bills as roads and railways will require major investments to make up for the neglect.
The real problem is even worse than the total investment spend indicates. For reasons I've
never fully understood, the German building industry is notoriously bad at controlling spending,
so what they do spend is often wasted – the notorious
Brandenburg Airport in Berlin being just one example.
GDP? I would say it's a good thing Germany spends less on healthcare than we do, not a bad
thing. I just don't quite follow where you are going with this. Rotting, creaking, deteriorating,
and comparisons to Dell strike me as sensationalizing the situation. With that kind of language,
I want to see actual decrepit train stations right now, not a potential problem decades from now.
How much capex exactly does Berlin Hauptbahnhof need over the next 5 years?
It is much easier transiting Germany without a car than the US. Amtrak, for example, has two
departures a day from NYC to Chicago (Lakeshore and Capitol), and it will take you 19-21 hours
to get there. Deutsche Bahn has 9 departures from Berlin to Frankfurt, and that's only counting
morning trains with no train changes on the high speed lines. Or in speed terms, your total all
in travel is a little over 80 MPH in Germany with trains leaving regularly and a little over 40
MPH in the US where if you miss your train you get to wait another half day.
If Germany is rotting, what are the Americans doing?
I'm not sure where you get the comment on healthcare from – I was referring entirely to physical
infrastructure. And yes of course, German roads and railways are generally very good, but as that
FT article points out, this is almost entirely a legacy of 20th Century investment. And German
railways have fallen behind France, Spain and other countries in terms of speed and, most notably,
capacity. The problem with not investing consistently in physical infrastructure is that you can
get away with it for a while, but when your existing stock starts hitting the end of its 30 or
40 year design life, the bills to keep things going can be very high. A railway line can last
pretty much forever if you are constantly working on it to improve and maintain it. Neglect it
for a couple of decades and it will start to disintegrate and will need replacing in its entirety.
I brought up Dell as a well known example of a company which suffered from milking an existing
line of products without investing to compete as technology changes. Dell looked healthy and profitable
for a long while until eventually their failures caught up. I thought of them because just a
few days ago I drove past the empty shell of what was their biggest manufacturing centre. There
are plenty of other examples of course.
"Not as fast as le TGV" and "Dell level failure" strike me as radically different uses of language.
FT is behind a paywall, so I don't know the nuance of their argument, but this has a tone I
have heard in other contexts. The Anglo-American world sowing doubt about the German system
when we ourselves are worse on most of the metrics in question. This is especially true since
one of the reasons – tax cuts in the name of groaf – is exactly what us Atlanticists have been
telling the rest of the world to do. They have also started very seriously exploring public private
partnership options as modeled by London and DC.
Plus, it doesn't jibe with what is available in the English language world about German concerns.
The Germans themselves are not that concerned with a lack of megabuildings and the national pride
of having the biggest/fastest/whateverest national scale projects. Rather, the infrastructure
concerns are primarily about depreciation of local government assets, the small municipal stuff.
Finally, I thought you were talking about recent changes with Merkel and co. Now you're taking
this back many years or decades? Germany has done lots of infrastructure construction over the
past couple decades. They have a more equal society than we do. They have more efficient healthcare
than we do. These things all directly contradict widespread, catastrophic failure. That's the
connection. Even if there is room for improvement (which of course, there always is), there is
much less systemic failure compared to USUK.
I repeat what I have already stated in a
comment to a previous article: Merkel and her government did not invite refugees
to Germany. In fact, every measure taken so far had only one objective: keep as many
of those refugees as far away from Germany as possible. Hence:
1) Dublin: the rule that refugees must remain and ask for asylum in the first country of entry
to the EU - which for obvious geographical reasons happens never to be Germany.
2) Africa: (1) collapses under the massive flows of desperate people? Then bribe African countries
to prevent migrants from moving to Europe.
3) Turkey: (2) fails? Then bribe Turkey to keep refugees in camps and prevent them from crossing
the Mediterranean.
4) Hotspots: (3) is taking too much time? Then make sure that refugees are blocked at the periphery
of the EU - in Italy and Greece.
5) Quotas: re-distributed those refugees stuck in (4) and who want to go to Germany or Sweden
to somewhere else, away from Germany.
6) Countries of origin: declare countries as safe, making it possible to deport refugees quickly.
7) Subsidiary protection: if (6) does not work, ensure that asylum seekers are not treated
as full-fledged refugees, making them easier to deport once war abates.
8) If (7) does not work and refugee status must be granted, then restrict family reunification
to prevent more people coming.
And so on, and so forth. Most of those measures failed.
The fact that Merkel was forced to accept droves of refugees entering Germany is due
to three reasons:
a) There are German, EU and international laws that Germany must abide with, and that compel
the country to accept asylum seekers.
b) The Dublin-Schengen glacis in the Balkans collapsed under the sheer number of people suddenly
moving to the EU.
c) Other countries, especially poorer ones, have been so infuriated by an overbearing Germany
and its lack of solidarity in the past that they gleefully try to have Germany pick up the tab
for the crisis.
Those who criticize Merkel in Germany (and elsewhere) would face exactly the same quandary
in her position: either violate international, EU and German laws to stop refugees at the border;
or frantically try to hack some legal measure to deflect the flow of people to their country.
Germany was part of the Friends of Syria. Merkel actively encouraged the war. She invited
refugees through their active creation. Refugees were going to go somewhere. Why not visit their
friend? Crossing the Atlantic is too difficult.
Politicians should be held accountable for the fallout from their decisions. Merkel as
chancellor of Germany could have undermined the effort to attack Syria.
It looks that way to me too. More like a secret agreement between Russia, the US, France, Germany
and the UK. Russia and France would "go in" to Syria; the US and the UK would provide all the
support needed, and Germany would maintain its pacifist position by accepting the refugees. But
when the first giant wave of refugees arrived, the great humanitarian heart of the German people
had a big infarction and they started burning down refugee housing, etc. I didn't know NATO had
sent warships to turn the refugees back to Turkey, whereupon Turkey will once again launch them
away. This whole thing is shameless. The entire western world is an odious farce.
Merkel did, if involuntarily, invite a lot of migrants, and it was not covered by EU, German
or other law – see link, four professors of law, not me.
You can apply for political asylum only if you are on German soil, and I am not aware of any
neighboring state where a war is fought or persecution is prevalent – in the middle of the EU.
Geneva applies only to adjacent countries, and again – "for obvious geographic reasons" – not
applicable. So if Dublin would be applied, NONE of the migrants had a legal right to come to Germany.
As per EU commission, 60% of the migrants have an "economic" i.e. better their life chances
motivation, and counting. I would accept an humanitarian motivation, but only with the approval
of the parliament, currently outstanding.
Merkel certainly is in a quandary to square the circle of "push and pull" factors, some self-inflicted,
some admittedly not so much.
Whilst some in Germany are suffering from a pathological "need to help" (to feel better/superior)
– and thrive on "helping", there was no legal precedence to issue the "blanket invitation" on
September 4th. Period. And while the will to help war refugees from Syria and Iraq is laudable,
it has been abused by scores of people from Northern Africa, the Balkans, etc. Why do think so
many people are arriving without passports, if claiming to come from Syria is like winning the
jackpot, i.e. the right to stay and much better life chances.
Even if not imaginable for many Westerners, lot of families have sold everything, gone into
debt to sent one family member, feathered the nest of the smugglers for this hope. At the very
least there has been serious failure of communication – to manage expectations – as we all could
observe over the recent month; partly because Merkel does not dare to touch the elephant in the
room, the missing legal framework for legal economic immigration, thus the "political asylum"
is stretched beyond it's limits.
And her "plan" is defeated simply by the sheer numbers – whilst 1 million all over the EU might
have been possible, the 60-80 mio people globally in search of a better life – will be too much
for Germany alone.
The only reason for her to be still in power, other than the missing emergency brakes in the
German Democratic system, is the fear of the CDU members to loose their own position of power,
there is no vision to what could follow Merkel whilst preserving their own position.
The legal review you refer to basically amounts to recalling that Dublin allows Germany to
push asylum seekers back to Austria, which is legally the place where they must ask for refugee
status because that country allowed them to cross its territory after declining to send them back
to Hungary (or Slovenia, or ) Taking into account the fact that Germany is allowed to make individual
exceptions and not granting them "en masse", this is basically a call to dump the hot potato onto
Austria's lap.
Basically, this would be tactic (9): harp on the legal fine points and have Germany's bordering
countries deal with the refugees. Austria has already put in place a throttling mechanism to make
sure it does not have to deal with lots of cases anyway - and that although much more effective
than a zealous and pedantic application of the Dublin stipulations, this mechanism has dubious
legality.
With this, we have not left the tactic desperately followed by Merkel et al: deflect the refugees
as much as possible from Germany, and let others deal with the mess. Just as I described.
Regarding the 4th September decision (actually 5th September), it was clearly a measure to
relieve temporarily the pressure on Hungary by allowing only those refugees
who had already reached Hungary to proceed to Austria and further to Germany. The reason:
Hungary was seriously on its way to crash Schengen, Schengen was essential (for reasons already
discussed) to Germany, and Merkel was desperate to save Schengen from collapsing. It did not work:
on the 13th September, Germany re-introduced border controls with Austria. Nowadays borders
have closed further.
But a "blanket invitation"? In no way. The fact that it was interpreted in such a way by the
press and that it sucked in more refugees arriving in Greece was something Merkel could have predicted
and forestalled, but she is a politician interested in securing short-sighted advantages to
her country and patching things as they come - not a stateswoman with a vision.
Regarding economic migrants, the missing passports, the asset-stripping to pay smugglers,
etc, this is not new. Exactly the same issues were raised long ago, when the crisis was taking
place in Spain and not in Greece, when corpses were washing ashore of the Canary Islands
not on Lesbos, and when Ceuta and Melilla where being frantically fortified, not Bulgaria or Macedonia.
The only thing that has changed is that the flows have progressively move East towards Europe's
soft underbelly, and that at each stage they grew by an order of magnitude. Spain dealt with tens
of thousands of people per year, Italy with hundreds of thousands, and now we have reached the
million mark in the Balkans. All the improvised plans on quotas, hot-spots, UNHCR funding, etc,
come 20 years too late.
a) we agree the current practice is illegal. b) it might sound morally superior to "help" the
Austrians, but for whom is it the better solution? c) I maintain the "blanket invitation" was
the result, even if unintended – the appearance of "all are welcome" incentivised too many to
uproot themselves in vain d) true, the collective refusal of Germany and the rest of Europe to
deal with the (economic) immigration question for decades has contributed to the current situation
– however, Merkel's solo attempt to solve the Budapest issue, and adding insult to injury – without
informing the "partners" supposed to share the burden beforehand – was neither effective, nor
sensible, nor diplomatic. e) I wonder whether the "save Schengen" argument will survive the scrutiny
of hindsight, i.e. IMHO it does not sound credible, but I can only speculate and I will refrain.
Schengen is important to the German economy, but the price paid – utter distrust by the majority
of Germans into the government, state and press was much too high, I think. There must have been
higher stakes at play, I guess. f) Merkel wasted 5-6 month to create a proper immigration law,
differentiating the three routes, i.e. asylum, temporary war shelter due to Geneva Convention
and "economic immigration" – and to entice the rest of Europe to deal with it, as she has not
started the process to update the archaic German laws regarding sexual harassment, rape etc to
EU wide standards, the current draft is wanting – before and after Cologne. g) She burdened the
Germans with
1. with a lot of unskilled and difficult to integrate Migrants
2. destroyed whatever goodwill there was towards Germany in Europe or the world –
3. settled the country with global unease about a Germany so out of bounds, palpable for everyone
outside Berlin – years of reputation building down the drain
4. recently gave the appearance of obstinacy to stick to a plan unsuited for reality, stubbornly
ignoring the unwillingness of the other Europeans to sacrifice their countries alongside Germany
– there will be no support and no "coalition of the willing" – at least not until Merkel sees
reason and closes the borders. I do think her comment yesterday, about "migrants to not have the
right to choose where to apply for asylum" was tentatively going in the right direction, but was
certainly not strong enough to persuade desperate people not to start their journey or to go home
from Greece.
5. more or less exposed the German democratic system as incapable in dealing with this emergency
situation in a legal and democratic way
6. allowing H. Maas to accuse the ex constitutional judges of "mental arson" for voicing objections
(FAZ) – the article was just about short of telling the judges to shut up, which, as an indication
of were free speech is going, was rather frightening
And no realism or vision in sight. Deplorable, for Germany and everybody else.
Send a couple of million to the US and to Saudi Arabia. And keep expediting the rest to Germany,
with all due haste. The Balkans are indeed shutting down the borders, but given the mountainous
terrain some migrants will inevitably slip through. Personally I find it a good investment to
charter planes to Berlin and fly them directly to Madame Merkel. Because that's what hse deserves
for being a spineless puppet, and for also kissing the ring of the wanna-be sultan in Ankara.
The emperor is naked!
Who should deal with this migration crisis? EU council or angela? I mean, you have a bunch of
bureaucrats in bruxelles and EU was supposed to be led by this council? Also, EU has a puppet
president, and a host of other dumb institutions very eager in designing and imposing all kind
of stupid legislation on member countries, but unable to speak about this migration crisis. Give
me a break! And angela she is past due date already!
This post seems a little disjointed. Is the argument that Merkel specifically and Germany generally
is bad because they're not as open as they ought to be to foreign nationals? Or is the post saying
Germany is bad because they are too open to foreign nationals?
And is Germany bad because they trap Greece in an evil, domineering EMU? Or is Germany bad
because they're kicking Greece out of a great, happy EMU?
I think Merkel – or perhaps, the establishment in general – will do fine. Any party seriously
challenging the status quo will be declared to be racist and dissolved. Increasingly anyone objecting
to the status quo will be accused of 'hate speech' – hate speech, of course, is any statement
opposing government policy.
Merkel was perfectly willing to let the Greeks starve to bail out the banks – the notion
that she is in any way motivated by compassion is absurd. I hear that Merkel wants to make refugee
labor available to big companies for just a euro an hour (medical care etc. to be subsidized by
taxes on the middle class). Even a technically sophisticated economy needs quite a lot of
'unskilled' labor, and replacing a few million Germans making 15 euro/hour with refugees that
only need be directly paid a euro an hour, can make the right companies an awful lot of money.
Do the math.
And on another note: we constantly hear that more people are always better, that anyone suggesting
that opening the borders to the overpopulated third world could possibly in any way be a bad thing,
must a priori be racist. So surely bottling up all those refugees in Greece can only be wonderful?
Why not do the Greeks a favor and force them to take all the surplus populations from Syria, Iraq,
Algeria, Pakistan etc? That simply MUST be wonderful and anyone objecting must be a fascist like
Golden Dawn or Donald Trump and such hateful speech should be quashed as quickly as possible.
Because people are the ultimate resource and it doesn't matter if Greece runs out of food or fresh
water or timber or housing or electric generating capacity etc., because more people will automatically
and without delay create even more wealth despite having nothing to work with. Yes?
It is quite astonishing to read these reports but there are no explanations of the causes.
The wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, Syria and Ukraine were started by
the West. The Troika's imposition of austerity on Greece resulted in its borders being open to
the refugees of the wars. The ruling elite want free movement of people and capital and are working
to negate the powers of the democratic sovereign states. This contempt of the lower classes is
the direct cause of the rise of people's nationalist movements in the West.
There is no global left. We have only global state capitalists and
global social democrats – a pseudo left.
The countries where Marxist class analysis was supposedly adopted were not
industrial countries where "alienation" had brought the "proletariat" to an
inevitable communal mentality. The largest of these countries killed millions
in order to industrialize rapidly – pretending the goal was to get to that
state.
The terms left and right may not be adequate for those of us who want an
egalitarian society but also see many of the obstacles to egalitarianism as
human failings that are independent of and not caused by ruling elites –
although they frequently serve the interests of those elites.
Bigotry. Identity centered thinking. Neither serves egalitarianism. But
people cling to them. "I gotta look out for myself first." And so called left
thinkers constantly pontificate about "benefits" and "privileges" that some
class, sex, and race confer. Hmmm. The logic is that many of us struggling
daily to keep our jobs and pay the bills must give up something in order to be
fair, in order to build a better society. Given this thinking it is no surprise
that so many have retreated into the illusion of safety offered by identity
based thinking.
Hopefully those of us who yearn for an egalitarian movement can develop and
articulate an alternate view of reality.
"... At the end of the day Trump isn't a real national-chauvinist, the compromise term I'll settle for here instead of you-know-what. He's a backbench member of the neoliberal ruling class, and a participant in the ongoing game in which two neoliberal electoral blocs make vague rhetorical overtures toward leftism and national-chauvinism while taking turns implementing different aspects of a thoroughly neoliberal governing agenda. ..."
"... the greater danger this US election season was Democrats' decision to validate and legitimize the so-called "moderate Republicans" who for decades have been laying the groundwork for Trump and all the future Trumps to come. ..."
"... In that vein, MisterMr touches on the crucial point that fascism or national-chauvinism is a tool purposefully utilized by the liberal center to divert economic discontent that might otherwise find a home on the left. ..."
"... Politics is about priorities. You don't need a policy statement "dropping" someone to drop them. All you have to do is make them one of your lowest priorities. ..."
Patrick 12.01.16 at 6:34 pm
88
"Since the collapse of faith in neoliberalism following the Global Financial Crisis, the political
right has been increasingly dominated by tribalism. "
And the political left has been increasingly dominated by neoliberalism.
faustusnotes, to blur the divide between the neoliberal center and the socialist left is to fall
totally and completely into the trap. At the end of the day Trump isn't a real national-chauvinist,
the compromise term I'll settle for here instead of you-know-what. He's a backbench member of
the neoliberal ruling class, and a participant in the ongoing game in which two neoliberal electoral
blocs make vague rhetorical overtures toward leftism and national-chauvinism while taking turns
implementing different aspects of a thoroughly neoliberal governing agenda.
The fact that all these "never Trump" Republicans are now clamoring for roles in what's predictably
shaping up as a neoliberal administration with a national-chauvinist veneer should validate what
the left has been saying all along: that Trump as a politician is not in any meaningful sense
unprecedented, his rhetoric proceeds logically or even inevitably from the long (and bipartisan)
tradition of national-chauvinist ideology in US electoral politics, and if anything the greater
danger this US election season was Democrats' decision to validate and legitimize the so-called
"moderate Republicans" who for decades have been laying the groundwork for Trump and all the future
Trumps to come.
... ... ...
In that vein, MisterMr touches on the crucial point that fascism or national-chauvinism
is a tool purposefully utilized by the liberal center to divert economic discontent that might
otherwise find a home on the left.
"WLGR, where is the democratic policy statement that they are "dropping" the interests
of blue collar workers?"
This isn't a clear way of analyzing the problem. Politics is about priorities. You don't
need a policy statement "dropping" someone to drop them. All you have to do is make them one of
your lowest priorities.
"... Russia complies with the rule of law: they refrain from use or threat of force and rely on pacific dispute resolution, using proportional and necessary force in compliance with UN Charter Chapter VII. ..."
"... The US shits on rule of law, interpreting human rights instruments in bad faith and flouting jus cogens to maintain impunity for the gravest crimes. In the precise terms of Responsibility to Protect, the US government does not even meet the minimal test for state sovereignty: compliance with the International Bill of Human Rights, the Rome Statute, and the UN Charter. ..."
"... Naturally the US is bleeding legitimacy and international standing, and Russia is going from strength to strength. If Russia invaded, we would strew flowers and sweets. ..."
Lots of panic for the Washington regime. The clownish asshole loser that they carefully groomed
proved less repulsive than their chosen Fuehrer Clinton. Now they are distraught to see that their
enemy Russia sucks much less than the USA.
Russians get a much better deal than the US subject population. The Russian head of state has
approval ratings that US politicians scarcely dream of. Russia complies with the Paris Principles,
the gold standard for institutionalized human rights protection under international review. The USA
does not. Russia's incorruptible President keeps kleptocrats in check, while the US banana republic
installs them in high office.
Russia complies with the rule of law: they refrain from use or threat of force and rely on pacific
dispute resolution, using proportional and necessary force in compliance with UN Charter Chapter
VII.
The US shits on rule of law, interpreting human rights instruments in bad faith and flouting
jus cogens to maintain impunity for the gravest crimes. In the precise terms of Responsibility to
Protect, the US government does not even meet the minimal test for state sovereignty: compliance
with the International Bill of Human Rights, the Rome Statute, and the UN Charter.
Naturally the US is bleeding legitimacy and international standing, and Russia is going from strength
to strength. If Russia invaded, we would strew flowers and sweets.
The collapse of the USSR did Russia a world of good. Now it's time for the USA to collapse and
free America.
"... Neoliberalism marches on in the centre-left critique of Brexit: Brexit's political motivation is a racist nationalism, there is no good or practical alternative to the EU and its four freedoms of unmanaged movements of capital, people, goods. ..."
"... The essence of left neoliberalism was the collaboration of the educated, credentialed managerial classes in the plutocratic project and the abandonment of the cause of defending what used to be called the working classes and the poor from predatory capital. ..."
"... the neoliberal trap in which what passes for left politics ..."
"... Brexit may never happen or its management may be taken over by other hands in a further reversal of political fortune on one side or the other of the Channel. A Eurozone collapse can scarcely be ruled out as Italy crumbles and France chooses between a proud neoliberal unaware of that collapse thingee and a right-wing of the old school. That would create opportunities I can scarcely imagine; there might be an alternative after all. ..."
"... [I]inequality is deadly for democracy, and for the equal political status of citizens. Because the power and influence high earners derive from their income threatens such status equality, there is a strong public interest in constraining it, even if doing so raises no money at all ..."
"... "Chauvinism" is a good thought, but you can see the problem. You read all manner of implications into "tribalism" that I don't see at all, but want to read fifty years or so of usage out of "chauvinism". ..."
"... Well neo-liberalism worked for some. Guess you had to be in early enough. I wonder if Paris or Frankfurt will allow its banking jobs to be outsourced to India? ..."
I think there's a real risk of confusing two things: on the one hand, ideology, on the other a
mechanism for mobilizing political and electoral support.
Neoliberalism may be a smoking ruin intellectually, but it remains the default ideology today
across most of the political spectrum, for lack of an articulated alternative. But it's not a
good way to mobilize electoral support ("vote for me and I'll outsource your job to India"). Historically,
that mobilizing role was played by divisions of wealth and power, but with the end of class politics,
the only obvious alternative is tribalism, or whatever we want to call it, with it's message "I
represent your group interests, vote for me." On the "right" this manifests itself through the
tribalism of tradition, language, culture etc; on the "left" through the tribalism of identity
politics. You can't really construct functioning political parties around purely abstract ideas
(tolerance, for example) – you need voters. This was perfectly well demonstrated by the Clinton
election campaign, where the ideology was neoliberal, but the mobilizing device was tribalism
("you are X therefore you should vote for me").
Much of the confusion in contemporary politics, therefore, results from competitive attempts
to foist tribal identities on people, and the resistance of potential voters to this tactic. Now,
traditional mobilizing factors did have the virtue of clarity; you were objectively poor, unemployed,
property-owning, share-owning or whatever, and it was fairly obvious what the consequences of
voting for this or that party would be. In the new dispensation, the "right" is doing better at
this game at the moment than the "left" because its tribal markers (language, history, nation
etc.), whilst not uncontested or unproblematic, mean more to people than the race and gender-based
markers of the "left". Someone with black skin may not feel that that defines the way they should
vote, in preference to say, their economic interests. This is why in France, for example, the
Socialists have effectively lost an increasingly prosperous and predominantly socially conservative
immigrant vote to the Right.
"Brexit is just a symptom of growing resistance to neoliberalism, and the loss of power
of neoliberal propaganda."
Broadly agree. After all, neoliberalism (and its child, globalization) was created and is enforced
by nations, and its destruction, if that happens, must begin at the national level. My own, totally
unrealistic, hope is that if Brexit looks like happening and similar things follow elsewhere,
the EU will be frightened enough that some of the neoliberal poison will seep out, and Europe
will go back to being what it was, and always should have been. Some hope.
"Apparently, the conservative government has now abandoned its plans for further austerity
and a balanced budget. It is expected to spend an additional $187 billion over the next five years
(roughly 1.0 percent of GDP) to boost the economy and create jobs. According to the NYT, this
spending is a direct response to concerns over the plight of working class people who voted for
Brexit in large numbers.
This outcome is worth noting, because the boost to the economy from additional spending is
likely to be larger than any drag on growth as a result of leaving the European Union. This would
mean that the net effect of Brexit on growth would be positive. Of course the UK government could
have abandoned its austerity path without Brexit, but probably would not have done so. Given the
political context, working class voters who wanted to see more jobs and a stronger welfare state
likely made the right vote by supporting Brexit. This doesn't excuse the racist sentiments that
motivated many Brexit supporters, but it is important to recognize the economic story here.
There is a deeper lesson in this story. The elites that derided Brexit were largely content
with austerity policies that needlessly kept workers from getting jobs and also weakened the welfare
state. Many were willing to push nonsense economic projections of recession in order to advance
their political agenda. In this context, it is not surprising that large numbers of working class
people would reject their argument that Brexit would be bad for the UK."
Rather than rehash
my objections to "tribalism" as far as the racialized and imperialist connotations of the
term itself, drawing off of likbez @ 6 and the recent sociobiology/evopsych thread, here's another
objection: to the extent that it relies on a vague idea of modern far-right nationalism as just
a modern manifestation of some deeper general human tendency toward ingroup/outgroup moral reasoning,
it goes much too far in naturalizing far-right nationalism, making it out to be a core
aspect of immutable human nature instead of the historically contingent political and economic
phenomenon it is. (Cf.
Kevin Drum's misapprehension of the term "white supremacy" , which doesn't refer to any abstract
idea that white people are or should be superior, but the historical reality of their tangible
efforts to create and maintain a superior material position.) On a certain level fascists are
fascists because they perceive the subjugation of other races and nationalities to be in their
interest based on their understanding of how global capitalist society works, and in some sense
their understanding of the subjugation and domination necessary for capitalism to function is
much clearer than the understanding of a proverbial "bleeding-heart liberal".
Accordingly, the ideological implication of "tribalism" that the guards at Auschwitz were doing
fundamentally the same thing as the chimpanzees in 2001: A Space Odyssey , resembles what
some old bearded leftist once described as an effort "to present production as encased in eternal
natural laws independent of history, at which opportunity bourgeois relations are then quietly
smuggled in as the inviolable natural laws on which society in the abstract is founded". No, fascism
isn't inevitable, or at least it's only inevitable as long as capitalism is too.
JQ: "I don't know how I could have been clearer that the current upsurge of tribalism is
a historically contingent political and economic phenomenon arising from the collapse of neoliberalism."
Saying "the current upsurge of tribalism" isn't the same thing as saying "tribalism". The implication
of the former is that tribalism has been here all along under the surface and our modern historical
moment isn't creating it so much as uncovering it, with the "it" in question implied
to be something premodern and primitive to which we're returning or even regressing. At best it's
a vague and partial metaphor that needs to be closely monitored to avoid implying any deeper comparison,
and if it's intended in any way as a pejorative, it works via our perception of something inherently
wrong or even evil about "primitive" modes of social existence, something that demands a unilateral
civilizing intervention by the enlightened imperialists of the mind. If you're really searching
for a proper response to "tribalism", the ideology embedded in the term "tribalism" seems to itself
imply the very same kind of paternalist liberal response you otherwise seem to rightly abhor.
Here's a thought: why not "chauvinism"? Just because in recent years it's widely become shorthand
for "male chauvinism", don't forget it was originally coined for excessive and potentially bigoted
nationalism, after a (likely apocryphal) Napoleonic-era French soldier named Nicolas Chauvin.
As far as historical allusions for a tendency claimed to encompass everyone from Hitler to George
Wallace to Donald Trump, using a word derived from the dictatorial personality-cultish nationalist
reaction to the first true modern universalist revolution seems to be on solid ground, especially
compared to a word that implies continuity between racist oppression in modern nation-states and
the alleged backward savagery of the very populations being oppressed.
John Quiggin 11.29.16 at 7:41 pm
"Chauvinism" is a good thought, but you can see the problem. You read all manner of implications
into "tribalism" that I don't see at all, but want to read fifty years or so of usage out of "chauvinism".
Trying Google, I find that just about all the top hits for "tribalism" are in the sense I use,
and nearly all of the top hits for "chauvinism" are associated with male chauvinism, even in some
dictionary definitions.
Brexit has not been defined in any detail, so calling for speculation is inviting any and all
kinds of counterfactual speculative projection. That may be interesting, to the extent it reveals
worldview or even more theoretical presupposition. But, what I get from the OP and many of the
comments is that neoliberalism has not collapsed at all.
Neoliberalism marches on in the centre-left critique of Brexit: Brexit's political motivation
is a racist nationalism, there is no good or practical alternative to the EU and its four freedoms
of unmanaged movements of capital, people, goods.
The great difficulty of renegotiating the Gordian knot of regulation tying the EU together
looms large, as it would for the socio-economic class of people tasked with creating and recreating
these sorts of systems, systems of finance, administrative process and supply chain that loom
so large in our globalised economy - pay no attention to the sclerosis, please! How will we get
visas?!?
The deep and persistent poverty that scars England and the struggles of local displacement
that shadow the fantastic globalised wealth imported into the core of the Great Metropolis are
mentioned by a few commenters as a dissent (my interpretation, alternative welcome). There is
in this leftish discussion little skepticism expressed about how healthy it is that the UK is
so invested in global and European finance. What is engaged is scorn for the idea of a Tory social
conscience. (I have never seen one myself.) But what goes unmentioned is the absence of a Left
economic conscience.
Which brings me back around to question the ostensible premise of the OP, the alleged collapse
of neoliberalism. What has collapsed politically - as any reader of news headlines must surely
know - is the social democratic left. (USA, France, Italy at any moment)
The essence of left neoliberalism was the collaboration of the educated, credentialed managerial
classes in the plutocratic project and the abandonment of the cause of defending what used to
be called the working classes and the poor from predatory capital. I do not yet see the left
critique of Brexit departing from either the collaboration or the abandonment. In British politics,
the continuing civil war in the Labour Party between the old leftists and the new membership on
the one hand and the Blairite careerists in the PLP and their supporters among the cosmopolitans
would seem to furnish a stark illustration of how disabled the left is at this juncture, mere
spectators as a weak Tory Party bungles its way forward unimpeded.
Mumbling about "tribalism" says more about the neoliberal trap in which what passes for
left politics appears fatally trapped than it does about right populism.
Sure, we want to shout "fascism" but if this is the second coming of that incoherent political
tendency, it is even more farce than it was the first time around.
This very weak tea populism that is Trump or May's one nation conservatism redux is only possible,
imho, because there is no left populism to compete credibly for those "working class" constituencies,
whose political worldviews and attitudes are - shall we say, unsophisticated? Rather than compete
for the loyalty of those authoritarian followers (to use a term from political psychology), the
left organizes its own form of "tribal" identity politics around scorning them as a morally alien
out-group. And, the new (alt?) right leverages the evidence of class contempt and so on for their
own populist mobilization.
This right is not very credible as populists, but it is a matter of out running a bear in the
woods – the bear is the loss of elite legitimacy – and it has only been necessary to outrun the
left, which so far will not even tie its shoes.
Brexit may never happen or its management may be taken over by other hands in a further
reversal of political fortune on one side or the other of the Channel. A Eurozone collapse can
scarcely be ruled out as Italy crumbles and France chooses between a proud neoliberal unaware
of that collapse thingee and a right-wing of the old school. That would create opportunities I
can scarcely imagine; there might be an alternative after all.
SamChevre 11.29.16 at 9:42 pm
Discussions of Brexit, and its economic effects, continues to remind me of this Chris Bertram
post from 2014.
[I]inequality is deadly for democracy, and for the equal political status of citizens.
Because the power and influence high earners derive from their income threatens such status equality,
there is a strong public interest in constraining it, even if doing so raises no money at all .[W]e
need to shift the balance of voice in favour of the unemployed teenager and against the City trader.
Maybe not just the social democratic left. Maybe the whole left. This whole capitalist experiment
is so new, historically speaking (in its industrialised form only going back a few centuries)
we simply have no idea how it will play out long-term. Maybe what we have known as 'the left'
was simply a 'reactive formation' to initial stages of capitalism, facilitated by wars and the
early,' factory' model of capitalism. Maybe in our 'post-modern' era of capitalism (which might,
after all, last for centuries), with low unionisation, high unemployment/underemployment, massive
income inequality, slow growth, and a 'bread and circuses' media, the left simply no longer has
any political role.
After all, the collapse of the social democratic left follows in the wake of the collapse of
the radical left in the 1980s and 1990s, which (despite occasional 'dead cat bounces' as we have
seen in Greece and Spain) shows no sign of returning. And the centre (e.g. the LibDems in the
UK) died a long time ago.
As Owen Jones has been amongst the few to point out perhaps the future of Europe lies in Poland
where the left and centre have simply ceased to exist, and all of political life consists of neo-Thatcherites
fighting ethno-nationalists for a slice of the political pie.
Helen 11.29.16 at 10:07 pm
"Chauvinism" is a good thought, but you can see the problem. You read all manner of implications
into "tribalism" that I don't see at all, but want to read fifty years or so of usage out of "chauvinism".
Trying Google, I find that just about all the top hits for "tribalism" are in the sense I use,
and nearly all of the top hits for "chauvinism" are associated with male chauvinism, even in some
dictionary definitions.
Well neo-liberalism worked for some. Guess you had to be in early enough. I wonder if Paris
or Frankfurt will allow its banking jobs to be outsourced to India?
In the US, the pres-elect has just nominated a health secretary who is for killing Obamacare
while Trump's party is talking about privatizing (thereby killing) Medicare. So much for the complete
death of neo-liberlism JQ. There's always time for one final looting.
WLGR 11.29.16 at 10:30 pm
Point taken, although if we're taking our intellectual cues from mainstream definitions now,
someone should notify the laypeople confused about non-mainstream scholarly definitions of words
like "liberalism" and "racism" that they were actually right all along. From my understanding,
the typical scholarly view of "tribe" as a concept ranges from vague and essentialist on one end
(cf. "feudalism") to a racism-tinged pejorative on the other end (cf. "savage"), and in neither
case is it considered particularly respectable to deliberately orient a theory of human society
around the distinction between what is or isn't "tribal".
But if you're not necessarily convinced that the term "tribalism" is offensive in itself, another
line of attack might resemble
this :
The instinct to explain the seemingly inexplicable rise of Trump by blaming a foreign influence–or
likening it to something from non-white or Slavic countries–is as lazy as it is subtly racist.
Trump is Trump. Trump is American. His bigotry, his xenophobia, his sexism, his contempt for
the media, his desire to round up undesirables, all have American origins and American explanations.
They don't need to be "like" anything else. They are like us. While acknowledging this may
be uncomfortable, doing so would go a lot further in combating Trump than treating him as anomalous
or comparable only to those poor, backwards foreigners.
In other words, even if we assume there's nothing inherently problematic about calling groups
like the Sioux or the Igbo "tribes" (although tellingly enough it's more common for such groups
to self-identify with the term "nation") the very act of casting fascists/ethnonationalists/whatevers
in terms of a foreign type of social organization acts as a means of disavowal, intentionally
or unintentionally letting ourselves off the hook for the extent to which the evil they express
is entirely that of our own society. Which, I might add, at least somewhat resembles the ideological
maneuver of the fascists/ethnonationalists/whatevers themselves: casting the antagonism and instability
inherent to any capitalist society as the result of a foreign intruder, whose removal will render
the nation peaceful and harmonious once again. Obviously the two aren't comparable in many other
ways, but the end result in either case is to avoid facing the immanent contradictions of one's
own national identity too directly.
Correct. Many of the people (me included) who voted Green for obvious anti-Clinton reasons
were also very suspicious of Trump. So Green made sense. But all of these people now feel utterly
betrayed by Stein's greed or fronting for the Clintons. Why no New Hampshire recount? So good
job Stein, you just destroyed the only credible left alternative while the Dems are mortally wounded
on the their left flank and the Clinton mob are taking resumes for a new sheepdog to get the wayward
Sandernistas back into their stinking little corner of Hillary's big tent where they belong.
...This recount is serious business. The Greens don't have the organizational aptitude or money
to have accomplished what needed to be done within days. That indicates that Democrats/Clinton
cronies are behind this. And
the Clinton press corps have been engaged as well.
Now Stein has allowed the dems to buy her ass, one has to wonder -
why? Debs is dead at 60.
Because carreerism, because her position was always to get ahead in a major
party (not Repub. obviously), to capitalise on her popularity.
Many Greens are like that all over the OECD world. They get 'splinter support',
often quite high in votes, using seductive discourse, to then join the Top Brass
promoting "renewables" using all kinds of inclusive and enviro-friendly, vague but
marginal, leftist discourse, avoiding the 'economy' and 'real numbers' and for
that matter deeper politics e.g. "sustainable communities" , "sharing", "grass
roots initiatives", "husbanding energy", "respecting traditional ways of life",
"integrating people", "developping solar", "promoting electric cars" and
forbidding plastic bags, etc. etc.
The powerful party apparatus integrates them as a 'voice' for whatever is the
gout-du-jour memes and everyone, including the dominant energy conglomerates are
all happy. The person earns potentially well a lot.
Sorry to be so cynical and negative but I have seen Greens do this time and
time again.
I don't hate or dislike Jill Stein. Just, that is the general trend and from
what I have seen (maybe superficial) she is not different from the mold.
"... One thing not mentioned yet, is Trump getting slammed by his populist base for his Secretary of State picks, which seem to come down to Romney and Giuliani. Romney is the worst of Wall Street, a complete tool of the neoliberal program, and Giuliani has a Hillary Clinton-like record on bloated speaking fees and pay-to-play deals with his law firm, Giuliani Partners. ..."
"... That's the biggest test case to see whether Trump, like Obama before him, is going to forget about his populist base and take the carrot Wall Street is offering him. ..."
"... If Trump really wanted to shake things up, he could pick Tulsi Gabbard for Secretary of State, that would be a clever move, far better than Giuliani or Romney. ..."
One thing not mentioned yet, is Trump getting slammed by his populist base for his Secretary
of State picks, which seem to come down to Romney and Giuliani. Romney is the worst of Wall Street,
a complete tool of the neoliberal program, and Giuliani has a Hillary Clinton-like record on bloated
speaking fees and pay-to-play deals with his law firm, Giuliani Partners. Either one of those
clowns as Secretary of State would be a complete betrayal of everything Trump said he stood for
on foreign policy. Romney however is drawing howls of protest from Rust Belt Trump supporters,
because he's so pro-NAFTA, pro-TPP:
https://www.thenation.com/article/more-nafta-anyone-romney-positions-free-trade-champion/
That's the biggest test case to see whether Trump, like Obama before him, is going to forget
about his populist base and take the carrot Wall Street is offering him. Another big one
is whether John Bolton, neocon war pig just like Clinton pals Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan,
ends up with a big foreign policy role. Forget about cooperation with Russia on ISIS in that case.
So, those are some serious issues that Trump might want to distract his base from, but they're
the major issues that will determine what kind of foreign policy, economic and military, Trump
will really pursue.
As far as Jill Stein, what the hell is she doing? The biggest Green Party issue right now should
be helping block the Dakota Accesss Pipeline debacle, a consortium of short-sighted interests
aiming at exporting Bakken crude overseas, including Warren Buffett, billionaire Democratic supporter,
whose in $6 billion to DAPL via Phillips 66, and Kelcy Warren, billionaire Republican supported,
CEO of Energy Transfer Partners, another DAPL partner.
Instead she's playing some dumb political game, totally ignoring the one issue any real
"Green Party" would be focusing on right now.
P.S. If Trump really wanted to shake things up, he could pick Tulsi Gabbard for Secretary
of State, that would be a clever move, far better than Giuliani or Romney.
"... By Andrew J. Bacevich, a professor emeritus of history and international relations at Boston University. His most recent book is ..."
"... So, yes, Trump's critique of American generalship possesses merit, but whether he knows it or not, the question truly demanding his attention as the incoming commander-in-chief isn't: Who should I hire (or fire) to fight my wars? Instead, far more urgent is: Does further war promise to solve any of my problems? ..."
"... As a candidate, Trump vowed to "defeat radical Islamic terrorism," destroy ISIS, "decimate al-Qaeda," and "starve funding for Iran-backed Hamas and Hezbollah." Those promises imply a significant escalation of what Americans used to call the Global War on Terrorism. ..."
"... In that regard, his promise to "quickly and decisively bomb the hell out of ISIS" offers a hint of what is to come. ..."
"... To a very considerable extent, Trump defeated Hillary Clinton, preferred candidate of the establishment, because he advertised himself as just the guy disgruntled Americans could count on to drain that swamp. ..."
"... Were Trump really intent on draining that swamp - if he genuinely seeks to "Make America Great Again" - then he would extricate the United States from war. His liquidation of Trump University, which was to higher education what Freedom's Sentinel and Inherent Resolve are to modern warfare, provides a potentially instructive precedent for how to proceed. ..."
"... Celebrity Apprentice ..."
"... Which brings us, finally, to that third question: To the extent that deficiencies at the top of the military hierarchy do affect the outcome of wars, what can be done to fix the problem? ..."
"... The most expeditious approach: purge all currently serving three- and four-star officers; then, make a precondition for promotion to those ranks confinement in a reeducation camp run by Iraq and Afghanistan war amputees, with a curriculum designed by Veterans for Peace . Graduation should require each student to submit an essay reflecting on these words of wisdom from U.S. Grant himself: "There never was a time when, in my opinion, some way could not be found to prevent the drawing of the sword." ..."
"... this is the double failure of Washington. You might give them some credit if they were competent imperialists. But they are the worst of all worlds. They are reckless imperialists who can't even achieve their own stated aims with a modicum of competence. Real imperialists of the past would be rolling around laughing at this lot. ..."
"... They're not imperialists, they're corporatists. Graft is the object, and given that construction companies like Halliburton and mercs like Xe don't bankroll Ds, and since bombing campaigns are easy to keep up/out of the news, the money has now shifted to drones. ..."
"... I think they are imperialists in the sense that, as William Appleman Williams and others have argued, their primary orienting goal is to extend and sustain the US dominance of a world market. ..."
"... If you read what US foreign policy and military planners were saying in after WW2, that's an inescapable conclusion. Your focus on the corporation takes as a given what those planners have felt they need to strategically and militarily secure. Bacevich consistently avoids this issue and so ends up promoting a naive and implicitly hopeful view of US motives and the flexibility with which they can be pursued. ..."
"... It's really quite something to go back and read Dean Acheson testifying to a congressional committee that, unlike the Soviet Union, the US requires steady expansion of the world market to survive. He sounds like Rosa Luxemburg. ..."
"... The US is a nation of racketeers, which are perfecting the corruption of services into means of converting tax revenue into private profits. Some of these services are in fact essential, all have been – at least until recently – unassailable regardless of merit. Examples are housing, education, health care, private transportation and of course "national security". The rackets trace back to the exceptional US economic circumstances of WW2, and the leading racket was well established at the end of the Eisenhower presidency (his CYA address notwithstanding). ..."
"... For the "self-licking ice-cream cone" of military/security/intelligence/public safety expenditures to continue to grow exponentially, it is not only unnecessary for the tax-purchased services and goods to be functional, let alone deliver results – it is positively counterproductive. The question is not whether any captured government institution is dysfunctional, the question is merely whether and how the profitability it delivers to the "accounting control frauds" in charge of the incumbents can be increased. ..."
"... Success in any enterprise requires the definition of a goal. I believe that the goal of U.S. military action in MENA is two-fold: display fealty to Israel and the kings of the Arabian Peninsula; and to grow the corporate coffers of the MIC here at home. Defined in that way, the U.S. military has "hit it outta da park." Winning? Winning was a pipe dream of the likes of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Cheney knew better and took GWB along for a ride. ..."
"... I am highly suspicious that publicly stated goals of the wars were the actual targets. My take is that the actual goal has always been to keep those places in chaos; on US terms and under its control. with a safe US military base to punch those second-rate nations if necessary; By that measure, I believe both the Iraq and Afghan invasions were a success but they cannot pat each other's backs publicly. ..."
"... I think that may have been his point, albeit delivered obliquely, as in his statement that "some wars should not be fought"; his quote from Grant, "There never was a time when, in my opinion, some way could not be found to prevent the drawing of the sword", as well as elsewhere in the piece. ..."
"... Drain the swamp indeed, extricate the military from our national misadventures and retire the top brass more intent on career advancement that the true needs of the nation. Problems solved and we can move on as a nation. Will the world fall apart, if true men and women of honor step forward, I highly doubt it. ..."
"... Pretty radical stuff actually, but something that resonates with many people, people without a voice. Change will come from within the military, and it is refreshing to hear words of sanity form those inside the military system-Tulsi Gabbard for one. ..."
"... There isn't too much of an incentive to win if you're a careerist either which many of them are since the military is a giant welfare program/bureaucracy largely based on licking boots to advance. It might be nice to add another accolade to that fat stack of attendance ribbons on their chests but that's all it is. Also, even if you were super serious about winning the war look at what happened to Shinseki when he clashed with the civilian leadership over the numbers of troops needed to pacify Iraq post-war. He was marginalized and finally canned altogether. ..."
"... James P. Levy , Ph.D. FRHistS, a man who never hid behind a goddamned nom de plume ..."
"... Bacevich has made the point (as have others) that when the draft was eliminated voters no longer had skin in the game and became ambivalent which is why the founding fathers set up the system with the citizen soldier as a cornerstone principle. ..."
"... Andrew Bacevich, as usual, writes a great article. But Grant and Sherman benefited from having a war with a clear goal: destroy the Confederate army and its government. I hesitate to call anything happening with the US in the Middle East or North Africa or SE Asia a "war" of that nature. There are no clear objectives. There are no criteria for an end of the conflict. ..."
"... Instead, this looks a whole lot more like the North's occupation of the South during Reconstruction. We all know how that ended: the North had to pull itself out after an economic depression, more or less leading to a reign of terror through Jim Crow. ..."
"... You make a good, concise case for what the real objectives are for these unending expensive wars. Of course, this level of clarity re these goals are seldom stated to the populace at large. Rather we're mostly fed bullshit about terrrrists and being kept "safe" and other noodleheaded claptrap. ..."
"... Yes, as I said above, the neocons objective have been an abject failure. They display incompetence at all levels. And yet nobody pays the price. And the fact that the neocons don't try to fire the generals who failed (as numerous political leaders in the past have done) is a reflection of both their incompetence and the fact that the wars have become the ultimate in self licking ice creams. ..."
"... Ordinary people make the mistake of believing that the current crop of leaders have their interests in mind at all. They do not. If Clintons Public/Private mumbo jumbo didn't clear you of that thinking I don't know what will. ..."
"... The proper way to think about these things is the neocon plan is succeeding wonderfully but they are truly too short sighted- i.e. stupid in the long term- to understand the consequences. They understand short term profit completely and how to dispense physical power but little else. Consequences and payback are externalized in their world ..."
"... 30 years in lockup for Chelsea Manning is a warning for those, I suspect, who want to say "enough is enough." I also believe that your ability to move up the hierarchy to make those decisions to keep fighting is determined by your willingness to continue to see through the neoliberal project. ..."
"... I disagree to the extent that the ideological neocons had a very clearly stated and unambiguous strategic purpose – re-engineering the world as America's corporate playground, with any possible competitor (i.e. Russia and China) firmly penned in. This meant replacing all the mid-size States which were still refusing to be part of the Washington Consensus. ..."
"... Its no secret or mystery about what they were seeking. In this, they have failed – Afghanistan remains in chaos, Iraq is more Iran controlled than US controlled, Iran still refuses to come to heel, and Russia and China are making increasing inroads to Central Asia, eastern Europe, Africa and South America. The neocon project is slowly unravelling, with Trump hopefully about to put it out of its misery. ..."
"... There are now more people in Washington who's job depends on finding more wars to fight than there are people employed to stop wars. This is the neocons fault, but its not the neocons project – they are just useful idiots for the profiteers. ..."
"... I don't make a distinction between the neocons and the profiteers. The worst possible outcome from this neocon disaster would be for the profiteers, the rentiers, to be able to reconstitute their hold over society- or to hold onto it for that matter. What will it take, complete destruction of the biosphere for people to understand that cooperation is the only means of survival? ..."
"... Part of the problem with the U.S military is that the Army sees enemy #2 as the Air Force and Navy. Gotta get those dollars. Another problem is that the U.S fails at the oft quote dictum of Sun Tzu, know yourself and know your enemy. ..."
"... In America's defense they are great at logistics side of war. ..."
"... Generals and admirals are all adept politicians and bureaucrats. they have to be to get to that level in the structure. War-fighters, no so much, with few exceptions, https://fabiusmaximus.com/2008/01/14/millennium-challenge/ . ..."
"... It's long seemed to me one of the many failings of the species is that some of us produce wise counsel that actually looks to the horizon and beyond, like the fundamental questions articulated by Sun Tzu about whether to commit the peasants who pay for it to a prolonged foreign war with long supply lines that will bankrupt the nation - http://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html . And then the idiot few that gain, psychically or monetarily, from conflict, blow that kind of fundamental test of wisdom off and "go to war" or more accurately "send other people to hack and blast each other while the senders get rich." ..."
"... So is it just the inevitable case that Empires rise up, loot, murder, grow the usual huge corrupt capitals and the militaries to support the looting and keep the mopes in line, and finally succumb to some kind of wasting disease where all the corruption and interest-seeking honeycombs and finally collapses the structure? Is there no other way for humans to organize, because so many of us have the drive to dominate and to grab all the pleasure and stuff we can get away with? ..."
"... I've grown up hearing commentaries that echo this one as relating to our foreign policy adventures since WWII, and if you take a results oriented approach, they're probably true. But having gone to school for foreign policy work and talking to people who were involved with the foreign policy apparatus (doing the leg work, not the people at the top who basically have no idea what they're doing), I've become more and more convinced that it's simply incompetence. ..."
"... I think that the people dictating policy are basically a bunch of Tom Friedmans, who are utterly convinced that their empirically wrong views about how policy is executed are correct. Look at Iraq in the aftermath. Not only did they get not understand that the Sunnis and Shia might not have the best of intentions towards each other, but US companies aren't even getting all the plum oil contracts. Now surely a country that guarantees the security of the Iraqi elite could ensure that it's own companies got the best deals? ..."
"... First and foremost the US is the greatest spender in weapons, and why does anyone spend in weapons if there is not plan to use them? The first objective is to use the weapons and avoid piling a dusting mountain of missiles, bombs, or any other kind of armament. Many wars are mainly the testing battlefields for new weaponry. ..."
"... Spreading fear might not be the best strategy but is has clearly been one of the main objectives in some cases, particularly Iraq. ..."
"... The best case of a president looking for an excuse to use the weapons and spread fear was G.W. Bush and Iraq v2.0. The fact that Bush excuses were clumsily manufactured and exposed without shame in the UN is a feature. It means: when we decide that we will attack you nothing will stop us. No democratic control and no international rules can stop us. ..."
"... The Bush Administration arrogantly assumed that all peoples are enough alike that they can be rescued the same way as Western Europeans were - after the Nazis were driven off. This premis was an epic error for the ages. The entire Washington establishment - to include the Pentagon - and the MSM went along with this premis. In many ways they STILL buy into it. ..."
"... You never read MSM articles questioning whether Iraqis or Afghans can buy into republican democracy. The assumption is that the whole world is waiting with baited breath to achieve this Western political-cultural ideal. ..."
"... The correct solution, in 2009, was to NOT expand Afghan operations. I spent many an hour arguing the folly of said expansion. It was inevitable that after any expansion there would be a massive draw down - which would destablize the Kabul government. ..."
"... Pull out of Syria entirely. Stop funding al Nusrah - which is an acknowledged branch of al Qaeda. Egypt has entered the conflict on the side of Assad, Iran and Russia, most recently. The "White Hats" are a fraud. ..."
"... US is caught in a typical occupation trap, where they want a subservient regime that is under their control. Subservient regimes are subservient because they lack a large power base and are dependent on their foreign backers. A subservient regime with a power base does not stay subservient for long, they quickly develop an independent streak at which point you have to overthrow them and install a different, weaker regime. ..."
"... Stabilizing a subservient regime with a weak power base requires US presence and boots on the ground. A subservient regime with a strong power base that can support itself quickly stops being subservient and has to be replaced. A "victory", where US troops would not be necessary for the regime support, means loss of control over the regime. ..."
"... So US is stuck in a loop. Political considerations force them to build up a regime to a point of independence, only to have to tear it down when it looks like it might go against American interests. US military takes the blame because they have to fight the latest insurgent group CIA built up to effect regime change. ..."
"... I would never gainsay that many technocratic, careerist general officers might be looking for ways to enhance their glory and bid up their asking price for CNN slots and board positions at Lockheed Martin. But the swamp you seek to drain has an apex predator; wealthy and powerful civilians. I seem to recall some generals, Eric Shinseki and Jay Garner come to mind, who tried to bring a little truth to power and avoid the biggest mistakes of the Iraq war. ..."
"... Eisenhower's prophecy has metastasized so deeply into the body politic, only a profound change in the views of the citizenry could possibly make a difference. Short of economic or military upheaval, it's hard to see how do we do this when our best paying jobs are strategically sprinkled across the country, making every procurement and every base sacrosanct to even the most liberal, libertarian or even peace-nick politicians? So, isn't the swamp much larger that the military officer corps? Drain this one part, and it would fill back in rather quickly if that was the main thrust of our attack on this nightmare. ..."
"... I suspect Trump is headed to the White House partly because a significant number of people concluded that social upheaval will be hastened by his administration, and that the consequences, whatever they may be, will be worth bearing so that we can rebuild on the ashes of the neoliberal/neoconservative era. ..."
"... Trump played the rubes about safety with his vitriolic Anti-Muslim rhetoric. Although Trump claimed not to want to continue the wars, I seriously doubt he'll do one damn thing to make improvements in this regard. ..."
"... Only Mussolini and Goering had a leg up on MacArthur regarding bling. ..."
"... Unfolding the Future of the Long War, a 2008 RAND Corporation report, was sponsored by the US Army Training and Doctrine Command's Army Capability Integration Centre. It set out US government policy options for prosecuting what it described as "the long war" against "adversaries" in "the Muslim world," who are "bent on forming a unified Islamic world to supplant Western dominance". ..."
"... Well, the US military's performance in WW1 and WW2, often against weak opposition, was less than stunning. They won their battles with massively superior firepower, for the most part. ..."
"... But the real problem does, indeed, lie in Washington; Accepting that the US strategy in Iraq, for example, was indeed to create a pliable, pro-western democratic state, it's not clear that there was actually much the military could do when it started to unravel because of the inherent stupidity of the idea. ..."
"... Nor should we overlook the resulting body count. Since the autumn of 2001, something like 370,000 combatants and noncombatants have been killed in the various theaters of operations where U.S. forces have been active. Although modest by twentieth century standards, this post-9/11 harvest of death is hardly trivial. ..."
"... A dozen terrorism scholars gave a wide range of answers when asked to estimate how many members there are, how the numbers have changed during al Qaeda's lifespan and how many countries the group operates in. Analysts put the core membership at anywhere from 200 to 1,000 ..."
"... Instead it was scaled up into stupid endless Perpetual War without achievable objectives. In retrospect divide $5T by 200-1,000 and consider how little it may have cost if 9/11 had been treated as a criminal act by non-state actors, instead of sticking our foot into the role of destabilizing other sovereign countries, killing /antagonizing the citizens and generally fking up their countries?? ..."
"... I think the US is falling into the old imperialist trap of thinking of these places as countries with capital cities and leaders recognized as such by the population. The British had that issue in the 1770s when they captured the capital(s) of the new US but the revolution didn't stop. External superpower (French) support was able to keep the resistance functioning and the British eventually gave up. Both of those superpowers kept duking it out on other battlefields for another 30 years. ..."
"... The nearest analog to what the US is trying to do in all these places is a lot like the imposition of the Spanish Empire; total destruction of native culture and replacement with Roman forms. The places the Spanish controlled are still broken, so don't look for success in this endeavor anytime soon ..."
"... The nearest analog to what the US is trying to do in all these places is a lot like the imposition of the Spanish Empire ..."
"... Say what you want about the British Empire, but they did leave behind functioning legal and political systems in most of the countries they controlled. In India's case, they also left them a common language since there are so many languages there. Many of the countries remained in the Commonwealth after independence which is something that none of the other colonial powers achieved. ..."
"... I think the key was the British focused on empire as an extension of commerce, not ideology (they already knew they were superior, so they didn't have to prove it, which allows for pragmatism). In the end, when it was clear that they couldn't hold on, they backed out more gracefully than many other empires. ..."
"... The military-industrial complex has perfected the art of putting parts of the design, manufacturing, testing, and deployment of these programs into just about Congressional District so that everybody wants their constituents to have a shot at one part of the trough. ..."
"... This is how empires fall. Asymmetrical economic and military warfare against entrenched bureaucracies and corruption. ..."
"... Sounds like the lament of an aging mafia don that's forgotten what he's talking about is illegal. "Why can't our generals pull off a good old-fashioned smash and grab like they used to? They must be incompetent!" ..."
"... So I don't think an old-fashioned smash & grab has been the goal for a long time. For decades (ever since WWII?) we've been trying to regime change our way to the goal of every Hollywood mad scientist and super-villian: everlasting world dominance. ..."
"... So while China and Russia aim for Eurasian integration, we're all about it's disintegration. We're also determined to keep the EU from ever threatening our dominance. South America is slipping the yoke, but we haven't given up. ..."
"... Here in the "Homeland" (genuflects), on the "home front," in the domestic "battle space," it's important to realize that when the Pentagon says "full-spectrum dominance," that means us, comrades. Wall-to-wall surveillance? Check. POTUS power to execute or disappear dissidents? Check. Torture enshrined in secret laws and the public mind? Check. ..."
"... Obama never renounced FSD. AFAIK it's still the strategy. Why doesn't the esteemed colonel frame his analysis in terms of our official defense posture? Are we any closer to FSD, or not? ..."
"... I'll be impressed when the colonel starts calling our wars crimes against humanity and for their immediate cessation and full reparations. "Moar better generals" will not succeed at accomplishing a basically insane strategy. Until then, I'll file Bacevich under "modified limited hangout." ..."
"... Agreed. I was surprised, too. Of course, it's the working class children in the flyover states who join the military and go to war, and come back maimed or with PTSD to a rotten job market. So that may have been politically astute on Trump's part and, if so, good for him. ..."
"... Let's be brutally frank. The US both wants an empire, but also wants to pretend it is encouraging democracy everywhere. Objectives where the result is deceitful and duplicitous behavior. Ask the Indians about the methods, or the beneficiaries of the "Monroe Doctrine." The British wanted an empire. A simple objective. If you are not England, you are a colony, and we, the English, make the rules. At the heart of American activities is a kernel of deceit. Self determination for people, but only if you do what we say. The kernel of deceit poisons every walk of life connected to Washington. Every single one. ..."
"... The US is called the empire of chaos. It could also be called the empire of Deceit. Do as we say, but we are not taking any responsibility for you if you do what we say. Don't do what we say, and we will fund your opposition until they stuff a dagger up you ass. ..."
"... Think about Democrats using identity politics to claim religious fervor and war used to show being strong on defense. With both political parties using corruption to align power and control at home and abroad. Choosing your enemies carefully, for you will become them. ..."
"... The US military was the first part of the government to be turned into a business, the first neo-liberal institution created in America. The real problem is that the US military is run by managers and not soldiers. The Germans used to make fun of the British Army in WWI by calling it an army of lions led by donkeys. The US military is an army of lions led by managers. ..."
"... If Andrew is looking for a denouement to the Military Industrial complex then one need look no further than the British empire – specifically what made it shrink and shrivel very rapidly. WWI and WWII. The decimation of the economy and the inability to keep spending money to maintain empire is what reversed the entire machine. It will be the same with the US as well. ..."
President-elect Donald Trump's message for the nation's senior military leadership is ambiguously
unambiguous. Here is he on 60 Minutes just days after winning the election.
Trump: "We have some great generals. We have great generals."
Lesley Stahl: "You said you knew more than the generals about ISIS."
Trump: "Well, I'll be honest with you, I probably do because look at the job they've done. OK,
look at the job they've done. They haven't done the job."
In reality, Trump, the former reality show host, knows next to nothing about ISIS, one of many
gaps in his education that his impending encounter with actual reality is likely to fill. Yet
when it comes to America's generals, our president-to-be is onto something. No doubt our three-
and four-star officers qualify as "great" in the sense that they mean well, work hard, and are altogether
fine men and women. That they have not "done the job," however, is indisputable - at least if their
job is to bring America's wars to a timely and successful conclusion.
Trump's unhappy verdict - that the senior U.S. military leadership doesn't know how to win - applies
in spades to the two principal conflicts of the post-9/11 era: the Afghanistan War, now in its 16th
year, and the Iraq War, launched in 2003 and (after a brief hiatus) once more grinding on.
Yet the verdict applies equally to lesser theaters of conflict, largely overlooked by the American
public, that in recent years have engaged the attention of U.S. forces, a list that would include
conflicts in Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen.
Granted, our generals have demonstrated an impressive aptitude for moving pieces around on a dauntingly
complex military chessboard. Brigades, battle groups, and squadrons shuttle in and out of various
war zones, responding to the needs of the moment. The sheer immensity of the enterprise across
the Greater Middle East and northern Africa - the
sorties flown ,
munitions expended , the seamless deployment and redeployment of thousands of troops over thousands
of miles, the vast stockpiles of material positioned, expended, and continuously resupplied - represents
a staggering achievement. Measured by these or similar quantifiable outputs, America's military has
excelled. No other military establishment in history could have come close to duplicating the
logistical feats being performed year in, year out by the armed forces of the United States.
Nor should we overlook the resulting body count. Since the autumn of 2001, something like
370,000 combatants and noncombatants
have been killed in the various theaters of operations where U.S. forces have been active. Although
modest by twentieth century standards, this post-9/11 harvest of death is hardly trivial.
Yet in evaluating military operations, it's a mistake to confuse how much with how
well . Only rarely do the outcomes of armed conflicts turn on comparative statistics.
Ultimately, the one measure of success that really matters involves achieving war's political purposes.
By that standard, victory requires not simply the defeat of the enemy, but accomplishing the nation's
stated war aims, and not just in part or temporarily but definitively. Anything less constitutes
failure, not to mention utter waste for taxpayers, and for those called upon to fight, it constitutes
cause for mourning.
By that standard, having been "at war" for virtually the entire twenty-first century, the United
States military is still looking for its first win. And however strong the disinclination to
concede that Donald Trump could be right about anything, his verdict on American generalship qualifies
as apt.
A Never-Ending Parade of Commanders for Wars That Never End
That verdict brings to mind three questions. First, with Trump a rare exception, why have the
recurring shortcomings of America's military leadership largely escaped notice? Second, to
what degree does faulty generalship suffice to explain why actual victory has proven so elusive?
Third, to the extent that deficiencies at the top of the military hierarchy bear directly on the
outcome of our wars, how might the generals improve their game?
As to the first question, the explanation is quite simple: During protracted wars, traditional
standards for measuring generalship lose their salience. Without pertinent standards, there
can be no accountability. Absent accountability, failings and weaknesses escape notice.
Eventually, what you've become accustomed to seems tolerable. Twenty-first century Americans inured
to wars that never end have long since forgotten that bringing such conflicts to a prompt and successful
conclusion once defined the very essence of what generals were expected to do.
Senior military officers were presumed to possess unique expertise in designing campaigns and
directing engagements. Not found among mere civilians or even among soldiers of lesser rank,
this expertise provided the rationale for conferring status and authority on generals.
In earlier eras, the very structure of wars provided a relatively straightforward mechanism for
testing such claims to expertise. Events on the battlefield rendered harsh judgments, creating
or destroying reputations with brutal efficiency.
Back then, standards employed in evaluating generalship were clear-cut and uncompromising.
Those who won battles earned fame, glory, and the gratitude of their countrymen. Those who
lost battles got fired or were put out to pasture.
During the Civil War, for example, Abraham Lincoln did not need an advanced degree in strategic
studies to conclude that Union generals like John Pope, Ambrose Burnside, and Joseph Hooker didn't
have what it took to defeat the Army of Northern Virginia. Humiliating defeats sustained by
the Army of the Potomac at the Second Bull Run, Fredericksburg, and Chancellorsville made that obvious
enough. Similarly, the victories Ulysses S. Grant and William T. Sherman gained at Shiloh,
at Vicksburg, and in the Chattanooga campaign strongly suggested that here was the team to which
the president could entrust the task of bringing the Confederacy to its knees.
Today,
public drunkenness ,
petty corruption , or
sexual shenanigans with a subordinate might land generals in hot water. But as long as
they avoid egregious misbehavior, senior officers charged with prosecuting America's wars are largely
spared judgments of any sort. Trying hard is enough to get a passing grade.
With the country's political leaders and public conditioned to conflicts seemingly destined to
drag on for years, if not decades, no one expects the current general-in-chief in Iraq or Afghanistan
to bring things to a successful conclusion. His job is merely to manage the situation until
he passes it along to a successor, while duly adding to his collection of personal decorations and
perhaps advancing his career.
Today, for example, Army General John Nicholson commands U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan.
He's only the latest in a long line of senior officers to preside over that war, beginning with General
Tommy Franks in 2001 and continuing with Generals Mikolashek, Barno, Eikenberry, McNeill, McKiernan,
McChrystal, Petraeus, Allen, Dunford, and Campbell. The title carried by these officers changed
over time. So, too, did the specifics of their "mission" as Operation Enduring Freedom evolved
into Operation Freedom's Sentinel. Yet even as expectations slipped lower and lower, none of
the commanders rotating through Kabul delivered. Not a single one has, in our president-elect's
concise formulation, "done the job." Indeed, it's increasingly difficult to know what that
job is, apart from preventing the Taliban from quite literally toppling the government.
In Iraq, meanwhile, Army Lieutenant General Stephen Townsend currently serves as the - count 'em
- ninth American to command U.S. and coalition forces in that country since the George W. Bush administration
ordered the invasion of 2003. The first in that line, (once again) General Tommy Franks, overthrew
the Saddam Hussein regime and thereby broke Iraq. The next five, Generals Sanchez, Casey, Petraeus,
Odierno, and Austin, labored for eight years to put it back together again.
At the end of 2011, President Obama declared that they had done just that and terminated the U.S.
military occupation. The Islamic State soon exposed Obama's claim as specious when its militants
put a U.S.-trained Iraqi army to flight and annexed
large swathes of that country's territory. Following in the footsteps of his immediate
predecessors Generals James Terry and Sean MacFarland, General Townsend now shoulders the task of
trying to restore Iraq's status as a more or less genuinely sovereign state. He directs what
the Pentagon calls Operation Inherent Resolve, dating from June 2014, the follow-on to Operation
New Dawn (September 2010-December 2011), which was itself the successor to Operation Iraqi Freedom
(March 2003-August 2010).
When and how Inherent Resolve will conclude is difficult to forecast. This much we can,
however, say with some confidence: with the end nowhere in sight, General Townsend won't be its last
commander. Other generals are waiting in the wings with their own careers to polish.
As in Kabul, the parade of U.S. military commanders through Baghdad will continue.
For some readers, this listing of mostly forgotten names and dates may have a soporific effect.
Yet it should also drive home Trump's point. The United States may today have the world's most
powerful and capable military - so at least we are constantly told. Yet the record shows that
it does not have a corps of senior officers who know how to translate capability into successful
outcomes.
Draining Which Swamp?
That brings us to the second question: Even if commander-in-chief Trump were somehow able
to identify modern day equivalents of Grant and Sherman to implement his war plans, secret or otherwise,
would they deliver victory?
On that score, we would do well to entertain doubts. Although senior officers charged with
running recent American wars have not exactly covered themselves in glory, it doesn't follow that
their shortcomings offer the sole or even a principal explanation for why those wars have yielded
such disappointing results. The truth is that some wars aren't winnable and shouldn't be fought.
So, yes, Trump's critique of American generalship possesses merit, but whether he knows it or
not, the question truly demanding his attention as the incoming commander-in-chief isn't: Who should
I hire (or fire) to fight my wars? Instead, far more urgent is: Does further war promise to
solve any of my problems?
One mark of a successful business executive is knowing when to cut your losses. It's also the
mark of a successful statesman. Trump claims to be the former. Whether his putative business
savvy will translate into the world of statecraft remains to be seen. Early signs are not promising.
As a candidate, Trump
vowed to "defeat radical Islamic terrorism," destroy ISIS, "decimate al-Qaeda," and "starve funding
for Iran-backed Hamas and Hezbollah." Those promises imply a significant escalation of what Americans
used to call the Global War on Terrorism.
Toward that end, the incoming administration may well revive some aspects of the George W. Bush
playbook, including repopulating the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and "if it's
so important to the American people," reinstituting torture. The Trump administration will
at least consider re-imposing sanctions on countries like Iran. It may aggressively exploit
the offensive potential of cyber-weapons, betting that America's cyber-defenses will hold.
Yet President Trump is also likely to double down on the use of conventional military force.
In that regard,
his promise to "quickly and decisively bomb the hell out of ISIS" offers a hint of what is to
come. His appointment of the uber-hawkish Lieutenant General Michael Flynn as his national security
adviser and his rumored selection of retired Marine Corps General James ("Mad Dog") Mattis as defense
secretary suggest that he means what he says. In sum, a Trump administration seems unlikely
to reexamine the conviction that the problems roiling the Greater Middle East will someday, somehow
yield to a U.S.-imposed military solution. Indeed, in the face of massive evidence to the contrary,
that conviction will deepen, with genuinely ironic implications for the Trump presidency.
In the immediate wake of 9/11, George W. Bush concocted a fantasy of American soldiers liberating
oppressed Afghans and Iraqis and thereby "
draining the swamp " that served to incubate anti-Western terrorism. The results achieved
proved beyond disappointing, while the costs exacted in terms of lives and dollars squandered were
painful indeed. Incrementally, with the passage of time, many Americans concluded that perhaps
the swamp most in need of attention was not on the far side of the planet but much closer at hand
- right in the imperial city nestled alongside the Potomac River.
To a very considerable extent, Trump defeated Hillary Clinton, preferred candidate of the establishment,
because he advertised himself as just the guy disgruntled Americans could count on to drain that
swamp.
Yet here's what too few of those Americans appreciate, even today: war created that swamp in the
first place. War empowers Washington. It centralizes. It provides a rationale for
federal authorities to accumulate and exercise new powers. It makes government bigger and more
intrusive. It lubricates the machinery of waste, fraud, and abuse that causes tens of billions
of taxpayer dollars to vanish every year. When it comes to sustaining the swamp, nothing works
better than war.
Were Trump really intent on draining that swamp - if he genuinely seeks to "Make America Great
Again" - then he would extricate the United States from war. His
liquidation of Trump University, which was to higher education what Freedom's Sentinel and Inherent
Resolve are to modern warfare, provides a potentially instructive precedent for how to proceed.
But don't hold your breath on that one. All signs indicate that, in one fashion or another,
our combative next president will perpetuate the wars he's inheriting. Trump may fancy that,
as a veteran of Celebrity Apprentice (but not of military service), he possesses a special
knack for spotting the next Grant or Sherman. But acting on that impulse will merely replenish
the swamp in the Greater Middle East along with the one in Washington. And soon enough, those
who elected him with expectations of seeing the much-despised establishment dismantled will realize
that they've been had.
Which brings us, finally, to that third question: To the extent that deficiencies at the top of
the military hierarchy do affect the outcome of wars, what can be done to fix the problem?
The most expeditious approach: purge all currently serving three- and four-star officers; then,
make a precondition for promotion to those ranks confinement in a reeducation camp run by Iraq and
Afghanistan war amputees, with a curriculum designed by
Veterans for Peace . Graduation
should require each student to submit an essay reflecting on these words of wisdom from U.S. Grant
himself: "There never was a time when, in my opinion, some way could not be found to prevent
the drawing of the sword."
True, such an approach may seem a bit draconian. But this is no time for half-measures - as even
Donald Trump may eventually recognize.
As much s I have appreciated Bacevich's views over the past decade, my reaction to this is
that he's asking the wrong questions. Just what would a "victory" in these imperial interventions
look like? Does he really think our military is protecting our nation? I don't.
I believe his point is narrower. Victory in Afghanistan and Iraq would (in the eyes of the
establishment) have involved the pacification of those countries with pro-capitalist and pro-western
nominally democratic governments in charge (i.e. puppets). That is what the explicit and implicit
aim of those invasions was to be. The military was charged with achieving those ends, and they
failed (as they've failed elsewhere). And yet, even by the criteria set by the establishment,
there has been zero accountability.
And this is the double failure of Washington. You might give them some credit if they were
competent imperialists. But they are the worst of all worlds. They are reckless imperialists who
can't even achieve their own stated aims with a modicum of competence. Real imperialists of the
past would be rolling around laughing at this lot.
Thank you. Well said. You are right to make the distinction between competent, incompetent
and real imperialists. My parents came to the UK from a colony in the mid-1960s and talk about
the colonial officials they came across. It was the same with my grandparents. I have come across
the aspiring neo-cons on the make (and on the take) in the City, marking time until they can be
parachuted into a safe seat.
Few, if any, speak a foreign language and / or spent much time abroad.
They give the impression of playing chess from Tory Central Office or some "think tank", but with
other countries and lives of people they know nothing, much less care, about. As we watched Obama
being crowned in 2009, one (an aspiring Tory MP and former central office staffer) forecasted
that Obama would go down as the worst president in history and added that Bush would go down as
one of the greats. I made my excuses and went home.
They're not imperialists, they're corporatists. Graft is the object, and given that construction
companies like Halliburton and mercs like Xe don't bankroll Ds, and since bombing campaigns are
easy to keep up/out of the news, the money has now shifted to drones.
As such, they're not failing, except insofar as they are losing access to markets. And that isn't
really the case either, since the iraqi don't form a market that matters; whereas the notional
'rebuilding effort' - which did provide opportunities for looting - is/was pretty much over anyway,
once it became impossible to deny it "failed".
I think they are imperialists in the sense that, as William Appleman Williams and others have
argued, their primary orienting goal is to extend and sustain the US dominance of a world market.
If you read what US foreign policy and military planners were saying in after WW2, that's an inescapable
conclusion. Your focus on the corporation takes as a given what those planners have felt they
need to strategically and militarily secure. Bacevich consistently avoids this issue and so ends
up promoting a naive and implicitly hopeful view of US motives and the flexibility with which
they can be pursued.
It's really quite something to go back and read Dean Acheson testifying to a congressional
committee that, unlike the Soviet Union, the US requires steady expansion of the world market
to survive. He sounds like Rosa Luxemburg.
The US is a nation of racketeers, which are perfecting the corruption of services into means
of converting tax revenue into private profits. Some of these services are in fact essential,
all have been – at least until recently – unassailable regardless of merit. Examples are housing,
education, health care, private transportation and of course "national security". The rackets
trace back to the exceptional US economic circumstances of WW2, and the leading racket was well
established at the end of the Eisenhower presidency (his CYA address notwithstanding).
For the "self-licking ice-cream cone" of military/security/intelligence/public safety expenditures
to continue to grow exponentially, it is not only unnecessary for the tax-purchased services and
goods to be functional, let alone deliver results – it is positively counterproductive. The question
is not whether any captured government institution is dysfunctional, the question is merely whether
and how the profitability it delivers to the "accounting control frauds" in charge of the incumbents
can be increased.
There are many aspects of this particular proud strain of dysfunction capitalism – US weapon
exports, "foreign aid" to Israel or Saudi Arabia, support for proxy forces, actual direct expenditure
of armaments, and of course force modernization and extension are some of the many flavors. The
fuel cost alone for moving men and materiel "fuels" entire industries. It would not at all be
surprising to find that those 700 bases maintained – and expanded – are completely useless – if
not even significant liabilities – while at the same time improving the bottom line of many suppliers.
PMC's and the growing industry supporting ever-increasing logistical "needs" are another vector
of the disease. Terrorism, of course, and the market for global and domestic surveillance and
"public safety", is both a consequence and a pretext. The perfect racket produces its own justification
while profit shares increase and "product" cost decrease.
It is the privilege of the continental US that, wedged between two oceans, a colony of the
crown and a failed state, that it is largely insulated from the blowback of the various theaters
of war profiteering (this is, after all, the major advantage the national security racket has
over the competing domestic leeches). It stand to reason that the weaker the coupling to the fallout
from profitable dysfunction, the longer trends that cannot continue will.
Iraq 2003 might well have been the last time that any of the major industries involved had
any earnest intention to profit from the theater itself. Libya, Syria, Yemen etc. are in the main
write-offs, pretexts that open profit channels but not part of it. It is usually ignored that
the main issue China and Russia have with the US and its minion states is the abrogation of the
concept of sovereign nation stages, going all the way back to Clinton's interventions in the Balkans.
By accident or design, US foreign policy is one of scorched earth, preferring failed states to
nations capable of resistance. This, too, is a consequence of that "splendid insulation".
Thank you, b., for saying clearly what so many of us perceive dimly through the fog of propaganda,
and struggle to name.
Next question: is there a prayer of catalyzing a healthier political economy, or do we ordinary
people just live until we die, as best we can manage? Maybe "judiciously studying the actions"
and talking learnedly about them among our percipient selves, until even that illusion of action
is finally blocked?
"In the end, he found he could not help himself: He loved Big Brother."
The truth is that some wars aren't winnable and shouldn't be fought.
Success in any enterprise requires the definition of a goal. I believe that the goal of U.S.
military action in MENA is two-fold: display fealty to Israel and the kings of the Arabian Peninsula;
and to grow the corporate coffers of the MIC here at home. Defined in that way, the U.S. military
has "hit it outta da park." Winning? Winning was a pipe dream of the likes of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.
Cheney knew better and took GWB along for a ride.
Let us pray that President Trump's small mind and loose tongue substantially degrades the willingness
of the U.S.'s partners to continue to play along. May he make America un-great again. Amen.
In the US today, we have raised a whole generation of kids where "winning matters not." To
that extent we, and our generals – whether imperialistic or corporatistic, are all "special snowflakes"
that deserve "participation trophy's" so we don't cry and act out over not winning. I say give
all our general's another star for starting and participating in wars that can't be won to begin
with. Where participation and not winning is the objective. Three cheers: hip, hip, hooray!
I am highly suspicious that publicly stated goals of the wars were the actual targets. My take
is that the actual goal has always been to keep those places in chaos; on US terms and under its
control. with a safe US military base to punch those second-rate nations if necessary; By that
measure, I believe both the Iraq and Afghan invasions were a success but they cannot pat each
other's backs publicly.
However, they must now admit that they did not think the case of Iraq through, and the case
of Syria is a complete failure, raising the stature of Russia to a super power again, while slowly
but surely losing influence on Iraq and Egypt. But, that, arguably, could not have been realistically
expected of the generals of the time to predict.
I think that may have been his point, albeit delivered obliquely, as in his statement that
"some wars should not be fought"; his quote from Grant, "There never was a time when, in my opinion,
some way could not be found to prevent the drawing of the sword", as well as elsewhere in the
piece.
Grant's rise from drunk who couldn't get a job in 1861 and W Scott's efforts to recruit Bobby
Lee, a guy who was out of the army for years by that point, are indications the general class
was never particularly competent.
I think you need to re-read the post again. He is asking the right questions and provides a
history lesson besides. The beginning paragraphs could be interpreted as the standard, we need
victory fare, but all is designed to lead to his final prescription for action- all the while
being very diplomatic and appreciative to those who serve in the military.
Drain the swamp indeed, extricate the military from our national misadventures and retire the
top brass more intent on career advancement that the true needs of the nation. Problems solved
and we can move on as a nation. Will the world fall apart, if true men and women of honor step
forward, I highly doubt it.
Pretty radical stuff actually, but something that resonates with many people, people without
a voice. Change will come from within the military, and it is refreshing to hear words of sanity
form those inside the military system-Tulsi Gabbard for one.
Could Trump shake up the gridlock, we shall see. Like a toxic mine tailing pit, once the retaining
walls are breached, the effluence tends to spill out very quickly.
Silly question: Does the fault lie in our generals or in our commander in chief? Which leads
to another silly question: Who does our commander in chief answer to?
The generals seem to be only as effective as the policy they are prescribed to carry out. They
ultimately answer to the President. So if they're ordered to carry out an impossible task they
will obviously fail and they will kick the can down the road to save their own reputations.
There
isn't too much of an incentive to win if you're a careerist either which many of them are since
the military is a giant welfare program/bureaucracy largely based on licking boots to advance.
It might be nice to add another accolade to that fat stack of attendance ribbons on their chests
but that's all it is. Also, even if you were super serious about winning the war look at what
happened to Shinseki when he clashed with the civilian leadership over the numbers of troops needed
to pacify Iraq post-war. He was marginalized and finally canned altogether.
Yes, the good doctor should resolutely shoulder the burden of "opposition party spokesman"
and return to the fray. If we all took every slight and injury offered online to heart, there
would be nary a rational word communicated, and, we would have much recourse to the suppressed
Rogers Profanisaurus.
Besides, Upstate New York must be cold now, and the Professor spending a lot of time being housebound.
I stood in James' corner once or twice as he started lashing out, as I thought he was just
having a few bad days. It went on and I simply ran out of patience with him when he wrote his
farewell screed and signed off with:
James P. Levy , Ph.D. FRHistS, a man who never hid behind a goddamned nom de plume
It will be interesting to hear from readers if they have colleagues who are former service
men and women. There has been an influx in the City since the crisis, but they were always there
in fewer numbers. Some thrive in admin / COO roles, but many are frustrated and last no more than
a couple of years. Dad retired from the Royal Air Force in March 1991 after 25 years. He found
it difficult to settle in civilian life (employed as a doctor at St Mary's hospital in west London)
and left at the end of 1991 for a development project in southern Africa (a year or so of being
a middle class welfare junkie masquerading as a Foreign Office adviser) and twenty years working
for Persian Gulf despots around MENA.
I'm a Vietnam vet and I did respond but it has been ignored as usual. The point of my post
was that the generals do what they are ordered to do by the commander in chief and the problem
lies with whoever that is at any given time. From that flows the logical point that we elect the
commander in chief and don't really pay much attention to what he orders. The fault lies with
the electorate. Bacevich has made the point (as have others) that when the draft was eliminated
voters no longer had skin in the game and became ambivalent which is why the founding fathers
set up the system with the citizen soldier as a cornerstone principle. The president at any given
time just does what he wants and the only possible means of accountability is through the voting
booth. Our wars last stopped when the populace had skin in the game and made it extremely clear
to Nixon that we wanted an end. We have met the enemy and he is us.
The fault lies partly with the electorate, but also with Congress. For more than a decade,
Charlie Rangel has been introducing bills to reinstate the draft. Crickets from Congress.
I'm a former member of the Selective Service Board, and yes, they still exist. A draft in order
to be effective, cannot offer deferments (a la Dick Cheney) and still be fair. Only until those
who order the wars have family members (including women) subject to a draft, will we cease our
idiotic imperialist impulses.
While all you say is true, 40 years of corporate evolution in the political sphere has changed
the equation. As the last election cycle has shown, any attempt to alter current relationships
will need political activism intended to change the system not just gaining office to make slight
course corrections. We as a people are too far off course for that. The Vietnam era was a turning
point and business interests mobilized to never let that fiasco- people power- take root again.
They have been very successful in their mission, but now they have to deal with the problem of
an unwanted and underused population. The unemployable if you will.
Re-instituting the draft is no longer necessary and would be counterproductive to the corporate
mission. As long as our current standing army can be paid off, why bother with a draft, it is
no longer necessary. You avoid the military coup problem also. Our military continues to be bought
off and as long as the economic incentives supporting an excessively large military remain unchallenged,
the draft is unnecessary. Unnecessary from the maintenance of corporate power that is. Corporate
power must be minimized first, then talk of a draft will make more sense. What values are learned
in the military today? USA has ben turned into a corporate brand.
Being poor, unemployable, or one illness away form such a fate is the new skin in the game.
While national service is a force that must be worked into our social responsibilities, its true
meaning for strengthening and protecting the people has been subverted into a tool for corruption.
Voices within the military that call for a return to the ideal of a citizen soldier instead of
a mercenary warrior is what I think Bacevich has in mind.
Andrew Bacevich, as usual, writes a great article. But Grant and Sherman benefited from having a war with a clear goal: destroy the Confederate
army and its government. I hesitate to call anything happening with the US in the Middle East or North Africa or SE
Asia a "war" of that nature. There are no clear objectives. There are no criteria for an end of
the conflict.
Instead, this looks a whole lot more like the North's occupation of the South during Reconstruction.
We all know how that ended: the North had to pull itself out after an economic depression, more
or less leading to a reign of terror through Jim Crow.
The United States is trying to do Reconstruction in a whole lot of spheres and is failing at
that because it's generally an impossible enterprise.
I would disagree that there were no clear objectives. The objective was to turn Iraq and Afghanistan
and Libya, etc., in to countries like Egypt or Jordan or Indonesia – weakened pro-western (or
at least western-dependent) puppets with a sheen of democratic respectability, where US corporations
could roam free. I don't think there is any need to read anything else into the objectives – that
is the 'ideal' for the neocons, and that was their objective, both stated and unstated.
You make a good, concise case for what the real objectives are for these unending expensive
wars. Of course, this level of clarity re these goals are seldom stated to the populace at large.
Rather we're mostly fed bullshit about terrrrists and being kept "safe" and other noodleheaded
claptrap.
Given your definition, however, with which I agree, the Generals have still FAILED. And again,
where's the accountability? There is none.
Trump plans to give himself and all the other Oligarchs, and the corporations giant tax cuts.
There will be some in the middle class who experience a tax increase. Yet we're supposed to bloat
the MIC budget by some huge amount for what purpose?? So Trump can build hotels, golf courses
and casinos in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq? Not being all that snarky.
Yes, as I said above, the neocons objective have been an abject failure. They display incompetence
at all levels. And yet nobody pays the price. And the fact that the neocons don't try to fire
the generals who failed (as numerous political leaders in the past have done) is a reflection
of both their incompetence and the fact that the wars have become the ultimate in self licking
ice creams.
While a plan might not be 100% successful, I don't see how you characterize the neocon program
an abject failure. It is chugging along just fine. If waste and chaos are states of being that
directly benefit your program, they are probably 90% successful.
If war is a racket, then the good times roll on and talking about failed generals being replaced,
or accountability will be served by getting hold of better generals, those sentiments must make
them chuckle when they are discussing their private positions. Win/Win for the neocons.
Ordinary people make the mistake of believing that the current crop of leaders have their interests
in mind at all. They do not. If Clintons Public/Private mumbo jumbo didn't clear you of that thinking
I don't know what will.
The proper way to think about these things is the neocon plan is succeeding wonderfully but
they are truly too short sighted- i.e. stupid in the long term- to understand the consequences.
They understand short term profit completely and how to dispense physical power but little else.
Consequences and payback are externalized in their world. If you live in the moment, who cares
about the future. As the illuminist Karl Rove once stated, "We're an empire now, and when we act,
we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality - judiciously, as you will -
we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things
will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what
we do."
Well, people don't stay passive actors forever. Just as nature cannot absorb carelessness forever.
A day of reckoning will come- it alway does. Failure is in the mind of the beholder. It depends
on perspective. As the neocons double, tripple, quadruple down on their policies, they will be
able to ride the flaming mess into the ground. Think Clinton.
It is up to us- the sane- to realize the success of the neoliberal program and want out- or
off- or whatever phrase makes sense. In our wars of misadventure, it will be those in the military
that finally say enough is enough. If someone pulls that off, it would be viewed as the most courageous
act in decades.
In our wars of misadventure, it will be those in the military that finally say enough is
enough. If someone pulls that off, it would be viewed as the most courageous act in decades.
30 years in lockup for Chelsea Manning is a warning for those, I suspect, who want to say "enough
is enough." I also believe that your ability to move up the hierarchy to make those decisions
to keep fighting is determined by your willingness to continue to see through the neoliberal project.
I disagree to the extent that the ideological neocons had a very clearly stated and unambiguous
strategic purpose – re-engineering the world as America's corporate playground, with any possible
competitor (i.e. Russia and China) firmly penned in. This meant replacing all the mid-size States
which were still refusing to be part of the Washington Consensus.
Its no secret or mystery about
what they were seeking. In this, they have failed – Afghanistan remains in chaos, Iraq is more
Iran controlled than US controlled, Iran still refuses to come to heel, and Russia and China are
making increasing inroads to Central Asia, eastern Europe, Africa and South America. The neocon
project is slowly unravelling, with Trump hopefully about to put it out of its misery.
The issue of war profiteering is something that I see as something entirely different. What
the neocons failed to anticipate was that their Clash of Civilisations would result in a hugely
powerful military-industrial process which has become self replicating. There are now more people
in Washington who's job depends on finding more wars to fight than there are people employed to
stop wars. This is the neocons fault, but its not the neocons project – they are just useful idiots
for the profiteers.
I don't make a distinction between the neocons and the profiteers. The worst possible outcome
from this neocon disaster would be for the profiteers, the rentiers, to be able to reconstitute
their hold over society- or to hold onto it for that matter. What will it take, complete destruction
of the biosphere for people to understand that cooperation is the only means of survival?
While I agree with what you are saying, if desiring a peaceful world is on your agenda, then
every effort must be made to not allow the rentiers to take the position of, well now, we overstepped
somewhat, will do better next time.
Making neat divisions is the reason humanity is in the predicament we find ourselves in the
first place. We have dissected the whole into so many parts, it is no longer recognizable.
Modernity has been a dissecting force- a unifying force is needed.
I agree with so much of the analysis here. But why do people insist still (especially given
his recent appointments) that Trump has any interest at all in putting "it" out of our misery?
Color me skeptical.
Hey Kim, as RUKidding says, I wouldn't argue that those are clear objectives, because the generals
that are being talked about above aren't being told up front that they are working toward that
goal.
Don't get me wrong, I think you're exactly right about those being the objectives.
Those are the ultimate political goals and the ends of the wars - but generals are never given
them as objectives in this form. Concisely, the objectives of any general are threefold:
1) destroy the enemy forces;
2) break their will to fight;
3) control the territory under dispute.
They learned that at the military academy - after all, these were the fundamental principles
articulated by Carl von Clausewitz almost 200 years ago. Well, in those purely military terms, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Yemen and Syria are
total failures.
Enemy forces destroyed? They seem inexhaustible.
Territory controlled? Those countries have basically been "no-go" areas ever since war started.
Breaking the enemy's will to fight? Mmmwaaahahahahaha.
Trump is correct on this point: job not done. At all.
Glad you brought up Carl von Clausewitz. I remember the Newsweek article when Gen. Tommy Franks
said there were 9 centers of gravity in Iraq. The article took this as some type of wisdom. It
was clear that Franks hadn't even read the Cliff notes version of On War as there is only one
center of gravity according to Carl von C in which you focus your effort on.
Probably one reason when Franks was put on the Outback Steakhouse board of directors it did
so poorly and was pulled out of Canada. He was a great strategist after all /sarc.
Part of the problem with the U.S military is that the Army sees enemy #2 as the Air Force and
Navy. Gotta get those dollars. Another problem is that the U.S fails at the oft quote dictum of Sun Tzu, know yourself and
know your enemy.
The U.S seems to create the enemy they would like to fight rather than the one
that's actually there and as a nation has no sense of self anymore. They don't understand their
limitations or even their strengths it seems. It seems the Pentagon and the Gov. thinks throwing
money equals effectiveness. I'd argue that the unlimited money is the problem. Actual innovation
often stems from being limited in some way. Mother is the necessity of invention and all that.
Look the German assault teams that were born out of desperation in the final days of WWI. This
concept helped tremendously in WW2 and it wasn't unlimited money that created them.
In America's defense they are great at logistics side of war.
To further this thread as to why the generals have failed:
If the point of these wars is to install a pro-Western style (aka USA business friendly) society
and government, a point to which I agree is the reason for the US's fighting, then how, in God's
name!, are you going to do that when the point of a military is to destroy things and kill people?
(words taken from the cover of DoD's documents). The US military is not to build things and help
people! The generals are asked to do what their own training prevents them and those they direct
from doing.
Anyone remember this 2010 bit of PowerPoint-ia? "'When we understand that slide, we'll have
won the war:' US generals given baffling PowerPoint presentation to try to explain Afghanistan
mess,"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1269463/Afghanistan-PowerPoint-slide-Generals-left-baffled-PowerPoint-slide.html
(And note the Brass Balls of the contractor, PA Knowledge Group Ltd, claiming a COPYRIGHT
over this obvious work-for-hire.) This kind of stuff is the daily grist of the strategic/tactical
mill that grinds out body counts, serial deployments in search of missions, and the endless floods
of corrupt cash, destabilizing weapons and internal and external subterfuges, along with a lot
of wry humor and a large helping of despair for the Troops and the mope civilians who "stand too
close to Unlawful Enema Combatants ™".
It's long seemed to me one of the many failings of the species is that some of us produce wise
counsel that actually looks to the horizon and beyond, like the fundamental questions articulated
by Sun Tzu about whether to commit the peasants who pay for it to a prolonged foreign war with
long supply lines that will bankrupt the nation -
http://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html
. And then the idiot few that gain, psychically or monetarily, from conflict, blow that kind
of fundamental test of wisdom off and "go to war" or more accurately "send other people to hack
and blast each other while the senders get rich."
There's a fundamental problem that to me gets too little attention: What the Empire is doing
is an entirely Barmicide game.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/barmecide
Our rulers here in the Empire are pretty good at the procurement, deployment and logistical
mechanics of Milo Minderbinder's complex Enterprise, the "war as a racket" thing, the extracting
of public wealth to build shiny or stealthy or smart "systems." But as Bacevitch notes, they get
to completely escape from the consequences of Only-tool-in-the-box monomania, of applying the
big hammer of "War" to the subtle tasks of creating and maintaining a survivable space for the
species. Which patently is not the "goal" in any event. And never answered, as pointed out, is
the daring question of "what is the goal/are the goals, and what actions or refraining from actions
are likely to get there?"
The talk about "asymmetric warfare" is mostly whining about little wogs who dare to adopt the
wisdoms of other ambitious and thoughtful humans, like the Afghans and, yes, even ISIS, on how
to defeat (within the terms of the game they are playing and understand that the Empire does NOT
understand the terrain or the rules or moves) invaders and colonialists and even corporatists.
Though the latter are often victorious in the after-conflict processes, if you can't clobber your
enemy, corrupt him! works too.) There are wheels within wheels, of course, and "we mopes" in the
Imperial homeland are too busy eking out a survival locally to even try to contemplate let alone
understand the complexities of even the Middle East, let alone the Great Game being played out
again with Russia and China and the aggressive and Teutonic bosses of the Eurozone All while
the "defence" establishment figures out ever more exotic ways to kill humans, via code (genetic
and cyber) and "smart weapons" like autonomous killing robots "on land, in air, at sea "
So is it just the inevitable case that Empires rise up, loot, murder, grow the usual huge corrupt
capitals and the militaries to support the looting and keep the mopes in line, and finally succumb
to some kind of wasting disease where all the corruption and interest-seeking honeycombs and finally
collapses the structure? Is there no other way for humans to organize, because so many of us have
the drive to dominate and to grab all the pleasure and stuff we can get away with?
I've grown up hearing commentaries that echo this one as relating to our foreign policy adventures
since WWII, and if you take a results oriented approach, they're probably true. But having gone
to school for foreign policy work and talking to people who were involved with the foreign policy
apparatus (doing the leg work, not the people at the top who basically have no idea what they're
doing), I've become more and more convinced that it's simply incompetence.
I think that the people dictating policy are basically a bunch of Tom Friedmans, who are utterly
convinced that their empirically wrong views about how policy is executed are correct. Look at
Iraq in the aftermath. Not only did they get not understand that the Sunnis and Shia might not
have the best of intentions towards each other, but US companies aren't even getting all the plum
oil contracts. Now surely a country that guarantees the security of the Iraqi elite could ensure
that it's own companies got the best deals?
I think the most probable explanation is that they believed their own propaganda. They believed
that the Iraqis wanted to be a liberal democracy with a free market, and that US firms would obviously
be the most competitive in a bid for the oil contracts. People like Kerry believe in the ideas
of human rights and war crimes, condemning the Russians for bombing Aleppo even though we do the
exact same thing with a ever so slightly less flimsy justification.
Yes, again, good points, esp in re to the fact that US companies aren't even getting the plum
oil contracts. We were told by feckless Cheney via W that there would be that magical mythical
Iraqi "Oil Dividend" that would not only pay for the War on Iraq – essentially giving us back
the money we spent on it (conveniently ignoring the collateral damage of many US combatant deaths,
and many hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizen deaths, but who cares about that piddling, trifling
detail) – as well as getting more besides.
Eh? And then what? Well that Dick, Cheney, got very very rich offa US taxpayer dollars, and
no doubt some other Oligarchs did as well. But we never ever got paid back for our "investment"
in "freeing" the Iraqi's from their oppressor, Saddam.
And that salient detail was flushed down the memory hole, and duly noted, that at least the
Oligarchs did learn ONE lesson from that bullshit, which is to never ever again even go so far
as to make a promise that the hapless proles in the USA will ever see one thin dime from these
foreign misadventures.
I can't talk from personal experience but I've read plenty of foreign policy publications of
the type taken seriously by academics and politicians, and I'd agree with you. Some are laughably
stupid, they don't know the first thing about the countries they are talking about. It wasn't
just Bush jnr in 2002 who didn't know the difference between Shia and Sunni, I strongly suspect
that many 'experts' consulted had only the faintest knowledge of what they were dealing with.
There are a scary number of second and third rate intellects roaming around sharing their 'knowledge'.
I think the standard textbook for this should be Graham Greenes
'The Quiet American'
. I've always been amazed at the prescience of that book (he pretty much predicted the arc
of the Vietnam War in 1959), but I always think of the main character, Pyle, when I see yet another
Middle Eastern mess. Pyle is a generally well meaning young man with far too much power, who is
convinced by some academic that he has the key to sorting out the whole Vietnam mess. Needless
to say, lots of innocents die because of his half baked ideas. The establishment is full of Pyles,
although many I think are not quite so well meaning.
I would like to agree with you, but I don't. First and foremost the US is the greatest spender
in weapons, and why does anyone spend in weapons if there is not plan to use them? The first objective
is to use the weapons and avoid piling a dusting mountain of missiles, bombs, or any other kind
of armament. Many wars are mainly the testing battlefields for new weaponry. For that reason,
having endless localized wars can be quite useful. Besides using it, the second objective is spread
fear. I have it, I have the will to use it, and I am well trained. Spreading fear might not be
the best strategy but is has clearly been one of the main objectives in some cases, particularly
Iraq.
The best case of a president looking for an excuse to use the weapons and spread fear was G.W.
Bush and Iraq v2.0. The fact that Bush excuses were clumsily manufactured and exposed without
shame in the UN is a feature. It means: when we decide that we will attack you nothing will stop
us. No democratic control and no international rules can stop us.
'why does anyone spend in weapons if there is not plan to use them?'
And yet the U.S.'s recent, most stupendously expensive weapons systems are unusable.
Literally , they cannot be used for most practical purposes in combat.
The F-35, for instance, has trouble flying and would be bested by air fighters of the previous
generation in combat. The Littoral Combat Ship's aluminum superstructure would burn down to the
waterline if ever one were hit by a missile (among other problems). And there are other projects
that are almost equally ridiculous.
The point is, of course, that with their cost overruns and sheer unusability, these projects
continue precisely because they're stupendously profitable. The American economic system is utterly
dependent on such military Keynesianism, which is a principle means of redistribution from rich
U.S. states to small ones. And consequently we live in a world reminiscent of the world of useless
wepfash designers - weapons fashions designers - envisaged by Philip K. Dick's The Zap Gun.
One takeaway may be that the U.S. can either have the largest level of military Keynesianism
in history or win its wars. It apparently cannot do both.
Remember when Trump threatened to fire a bunch of generals? That really upset a lot of people
in Washington. Replacing a flag officer is a very complicated affair – they have a whole rotation
system set up, to move them from one job to another. That's certainly reflected in the combat
commands as well. They all need to check that box, in order to burnish their credentials. It seems
to be just achieving that rank is the real accomplishment. Measuring their performance afterward
is irrelevant – in that way, it's very similar to how CEOs are treated in the corporate world.
It would be nice if Trump fired a bunch of generals, just because we have too many of them already.
I don't see that happening, though.
Generals get removed. Mattis was retired a year early because he didn't get along with Obama. Whatever "get along'
means. Flynn left early. Remember McChrystal?
Rotation may have benefits of exposure to new areas and skill development opportunities. It
may also hide failures, and demonstrate the military equivalent of the "dance of the lemons" that
shuffles incompetent, corrupt or lazy principals around to different schools. There is more of
a meritocracy in the military, with less overt politicization, although the politics takes different
forms. I write that sadly as one from a family that supports the military and has many veterans.
American discussions about military are sidetracked easily by any number of stakeholders. Politicians
posture for patriotism (alliteration intended to elicit Porky Pig), while collecting campaign
cash. They are only the most visible of those that would shout down or hijack any objective discussion
of mission failures or weapons systems debacles such as the F-35. Their less visible neo-con enablers,
dual loyalty pundits and effective taskmasters all have their snouts in the trough and their rear
ends displayed to the citizens. If there is no other change in DC than to unmask those Acela bandits,
then many will applaud.
War is failure. Do not engage. And for dawgs sake do not arm, train, fund al Q types. I think
the last point in re Trumps way of doing things will be most telling. That would be victory.
Precisely. The US is situated in the safest neighborhood on the planet - oceans on two sides;
Canada and Mexico on the other two. All of the other dozens of nations in the western hemisphere get along just fine without a
global network of military bases and a 350-ship navy.
What the f*** is our problem? As history demonstrates, a value-subtracting global empire is
an infallible recipe for economic decline.
To try to look at the bright side, here's the thing about military people who are "uber hawkish",
or actually managed to get a nickname like "Mad Dog" . they like decisive, "clean" (funny word
to use for blowing people and the landscape to smithereens, but that's what people label it as)
engagements where bad guys are taken out and good guys rejoice.
If they are, and I'm sure they are, smart enough to see that this is exactly not what
the Middle East messes are, they may well tell Trump "let's just get our stuff and go home".
What we have been trying to do in the ME is not, and has never been (going back to before us,
the Russians in Afghanistan) anything where a military makes any sense at all. It's police+political
work at best, and despite what we've been turning the police departments into at home, police
work is very, very different from military work. Hopefully the warrior types see this, whereas
the Hillary Clintons of the world simply won't.
The US can win any standup fight. We quickly smashed the Taliban's military, and Saddam didn't
last long at all. It's the long, grinding guerrilla war that comes after that we inevitably lose.
And even there we will win 99% of the engagements (if all else fails, drop a giant bomb on them)
and yet sooner or later we'll run home with our tail between our legs.
Washington is addicted to gold-plated occupations. Whereas the only route to success is minimalist, an economy of force strategy. That also entails economy of injuries. Occupying forces ought to spend most of their time like Firemen - in their bunks back at the
barracks. That's how success was achieved in the 19th Century. ( British Empire, American nation,
French Empire. )
Such a scheme is still working wonders in South Korea. Not a whole lot of casualties that way.
Nation building is crazy all across the ummah. They won't suffer it. You would NOT believe
the amount of infrastructure blown up by our Iraqi allies - as a financial hustle.
It took forever for the American Army to figure out that the reason the power system kept crashing
was that the fellow building it up was corrupt and cashing in hugely by re-doing the same work
five times over. He would pull security off the power grid at point X so that his cousins could
dynamite the towers. Yes, he fled when the jig was up.
With his departure, the system started to work. This fiasco was an extreme embarrassement to
the US Army and the Iraqi officials. The perp had his whole clan involved. (!) Yes, this story
is suppressed. Guess why ?
1. The Generals have won. They are Generals.
2. The Military does not win wars, it prolongs the stalemate until the enemy's economy collapses.
3. With no public definition of win (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria), what is win?
4. The MIC is very lucrative. There are man, many winners there.
The Bush Administration arrogantly assumed that all peoples are enough alike that they can
be rescued the same way as Western Europeans were - after the Nazis were driven off. This premis was an epic error for the ages. The entire Washington establishment - to include the Pentagon - and the MSM went along with
this premis. In many ways they STILL buy into it.
You never read MSM articles questioning whether Iraqis or Afghans can buy into republican democracy.
The assumption is that the whole world is waiting with baited breath to achieve this Western political-cultural
ideal.
But Islam proscribes democracy, and these lands are emotionally Islamic in the extreme. When
queried, virtually every man demands Shariah law, under Islam.
Changing Afghan culture is what doomed the Soviet 'project.' So the Pentagon was not ever going
to touch cultural issues. This has proved very controvesial as Afghans practice pederasty on a
grand scale. Likewise, the NATO nations were not going to 'touch' the opium trade.
They were also wholly dependent upon Pakistan for logistics. Ultimately, a second rail route
was established at horrific expense across Russia. But no military specific goods could travel
by that route.
So the entire campaign was both necessary - to punish al Qaeda and the Taliban - and unwinnable
in a WWII sense. There never was a thought about expanding the scope of the conflict up to WWII
purportions, of course.
The problem is not that of Pentagon leadership.
The folly starts at the strategic level - straight out of the White House.
It was a mistake for Bush to be so optomistic, grandiose.
It was a mistake for Obama to run away from Iraq. A corps sized garrison force would've permitted
him enough influence to stop Maliki from sabotaging his own army - with crony appointments. (
The Shia simply did not have enough senior talent. So he over promoted his buddies and his tribe.
This set the stage for ghost soldiers and a collapse in morale across entire divisions. )
The correct solution, in 2011, was to endure - like we have in South Korea.
The correct solution, in 2009, was to NOT expand Afghan operations. I spent many an hour arguing
the folly of said expansion. It was inevitable that after any expansion there would be a massive
draw down - which would destablize the Kabul government.
The correct solution for both was a steady-state, economy of operations mode - with the US
Army largely standing idle in their barracks - letting the locals run all day to day operations.
You end up with the best of all worlds, low American casualties, low interference with the
locals, yet a psychological back-bone for young governments – – who are financial cripples.
At this time, the best route is to cut off Pakistan from all Western aid, and to entirely stop
Pakistani immigration to the West. Islamabad is as much an enemy of the West as Riyadh or Tehran.
This would also help calm Pakistan down, as it's the cultural embarrassment vis a vis the West
that's driving Pakistanis crazy. Let them interact with their blood cousins, the Hindus of India.
That'll be plenty enough modernity for Islamabad and Riyadh.
Pull out of Syria entirely. Stop funding al Nusrah - which is an acknowledged branch of al
Qaeda. Egypt has entered the conflict on the side of Assad, Iran and Russia, most recently. The "White
Hats" are a fraud.
Comparing "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan with Civil War or such conflicts confuses the issue
and shifts the responsibility from the policy makers to the military. Iraq and Afghanistan are
not wars, they are occupations and as such are unwinnable.
US is caught in a typical occupation trap, where they want a subservient regime that is under
their control. Subservient regimes are subservient because they lack a large power base and are
dependent on their foreign backers. A subservient regime with a power base does not stay subservient
for long, they quickly develop an independent streak at which point you have to overthrow them
and install a different, weaker regime.
US imposed regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan are classic examples of this. Al-Maliki in Iraq
was a marginal figure before becoming prime minister, similar to Karzai in Afghanistan. The new
leaders, Ashraf Ghani as the new Afghan president and Haider Al-Abadi as the Iraqi prime minister
are both ex-pats that only returned to the country after US occupation. Both Al-Maliki and Karzai
have been in power long enough that they were starting to develop a power base and show signs
of breaking away from the US, so they had to be replaced.
Stabilizing a subservient regime with a weak power base requires US presence and boots on the
ground. A subservient regime with a strong power base that can support itself quickly stops being
subservient and has to be replaced. A "victory", where US troops would not be necessary for the
regime support, means loss of control over the regime.
So US is stuck in a loop. Political considerations force them to build up a regime to a point
of independence, only to have to tear it down when it looks like it might go against American
interests. US military takes the blame because they have to fight the latest insurgent group CIA
built up to effect regime change.
I would never gainsay that many technocratic, careerist general officers might be looking for
ways to enhance their glory and bid up their asking price for CNN slots and board positions at
Lockheed Martin. But the swamp you seek to drain has an apex predator; wealthy and powerful civilians.
I seem to recall some generals, Eric Shinseki and Jay Garner come to mind, who tried to bring
a little truth to power and avoid the biggest mistakes of the Iraq war.
Ideologues in the administration had other plans. The first being the original sin of the war
itself, supported by a vast industry of defense, finance and media interests who knew opportunity
when they saw it. As for now, what the hell is the mission that the military is supposed to win?
I get the sense we will have our next big, proper war on account of using the military to solve
problems that no military could, like say a GWOT.
Eisenhower's prophecy has metastasized so deeply into the body politic, only a profound change
in the views of the citizenry could possibly make a difference. Short of economic or military
upheaval, it's hard to see how do we do this when our best paying jobs are strategically sprinkled
across the country, making every procurement and every base sacrosanct to even the most liberal,
libertarian or even peace-nick politicians? So, isn't the swamp much larger that the military
officer corps? Drain this one part, and it would fill back in rather quickly if that was the main
thrust of our attack on this nightmare.
I suspect Trump is headed to the White House partly because a significant number of people
concluded that social upheaval will be hastened by his administration, and that the consequences,
whatever they may be, will be worth bearing so that we can rebuild on the ashes of the neoliberal/neoconservative
era.
I sympathize, but with three college aged daughters, I was willing to work for, wait for, another
shot at a Bernie Sanders shaped attack on the system rather than throwing a Trump grenade. Trump
will only disrupt the system by accident, and absolutely unpredictably. His family's interests
are superbly served by the status quo, give or take a tax break or another busted union. It's
madness not to see his run for presidency as a vanity project run amok. If his cabinet and congress
play him right, it's pedal to the metal for the most reactionary, avaricious, vindictive and bellicose
impulses in this country.
Someone might get hurt, and with bugger all to show for it.
Isn't victory the one thing we seek to avoid ? If there were victory anywhere, it would mean "the end", and everyone knows arm sales cannot,
should not, must not, end. After all, it is the only industrial endeavor we are still good at.
Yes, well there's that as well. And that's not an insignificant issue. So again, the witless
proles are fed endless propaganda about terrrrrists and being "safe" in order to keep on keeping
on. Trump played the rubes about safety with his vitriolic Anti-Muslim rhetoric. Although Trump
claimed not to want to continue the wars, I seriously doubt he'll do one damn thing to make improvements
in this regard.
Have readers seen / thought of the amount of decorations modern US generals and admirals wear
in comparison to their WW2 equivalents? I know Uncle Sam has been in permanent war for a long
time, but does beating up Grenada and Panama count? The other lot to wear a lot of bling are the
welfare junkies occupying Buck House.
Compared to Ike and Bradley, but Beedle wrote a book where he claimed credit for single-handedly
winning the war. West Point is ultimately a self selective group which poses a set of problems.
What kind of kid wants to be a soldier for 30 to 40 years at age 16 when they need to start the
application process? No one accidentally winds up at West Point or the other academies anymore.
What kind of kid in 1810 thought he could carry on for Washington at age 16? I bet he's arrogant
and loves pomp and pageantry.
I'm convinced we need to draft the officer corp from college bound seniors.
Unfolding the Future of the Long War, a 2008 RAND Corporation report, was sponsored by the
US Army Training and Doctrine Command's Army Capability Integration Centre. It set out US government
policy options for prosecuting what it described as "the long war" against "adversaries" in
"the Muslim world," who are "bent on forming a unified Islamic world to supplant Western dominance".
Interesting. Rand was enlisted to write up a report almost a decade later on a decision that
was made in 2000 when Little George decided to run for office. Making it appear to have just evolved
into this situation today, no doubt. Remember Rumsfeld's name for the ME war in 2002 was "Odyssey
Dawn". When he first tried to call it a "Crusade" he horrified everyone and had to find something
more genteel. But Odyssey Dawn clearly says it all – it will be a very long war and it will carry
us around the world and we will stagger in confusion but in the end we will find our way. Not
the kind of war you can win by "bombing the shit out of em," as Donald might do. The victory we
will get from Odyssey Dawn will be the benefits of attrition and engagement. But the devastation
we cause will never be worth it.
Bacevich: "Yet here's what too few of those Americans appreciate, even today: war created
that swamp in the first place. War empowers Washington. It centralizes. It provides
a rationale for federal authorities to accumulate and exercise new powers. It makes government
bigger and more intrusive. It lubricates the machinery of waste, fraud, and abuse that causes
tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to vanish every year. When it comes to sustaining the
swamp, nothing works better than war."
Appreciated Bacevich's three questions, particularly the second. Far past time to come clean
on the real strategy in MENA. The mission and "the job" of military leaders has NOT been to bring
America's wars to a timely and successful conclusion. Instead, there is a strategy to balkanize
that region, keep it in chaos, keep the American people in perpetual wars and "support our troops"
mode, threaten Europeans with a flood of immigrants, assure profits for the MIC and access for
oil majors, and simply keep the military and other agencies occupied. "Winning a war" (and subsequent
occupation) in terms of "bringing conflicts to a prompt and successful conclusion" doesn't appear
to be high on the priority list of those who set the nation's geopolitical and military strategy.
Project for a New American Century indeed.
In terms of "draining the swamp" that war has created, as Bacevich points out, the names mentioned
as prospective appointees as national security adviser and defense secretary are not cause for
optimism that the incoming administration will implement policies that will lead to resolution
rather than perpetuating this mess.
Well, the US military's performance in WW1 and WW2, often against weak opposition, was less
than stunning. They won their battles with massively superior firepower, for the most part.
But
many of the same criticisms that Bacevich makes could be, and indeed were, made of the Vietnam
War, which is an odd omission from his article. If anything, the level of generalship then was
probably worse than it is today.
But the real problem does, indeed, lie in Washington; Accepting that the US strategy in Iraq,
for example, was indeed to create a pliable, pro-western democratic state, it's not clear that
there was actually much the military could do when it started to unravel because of the inherent
stupidity of the idea. At what the military call the "operational" level of war, there seems to
have been a complete thought vacuum in Washington. I can imagine successive generals asking the
political leadership "yes, but what exactly do you want me to do " and never getting
a coherent answer.
Nor should we overlook the resulting body count. Since the autumn of 2001, something like
370,000 combatants and noncombatants have been killed in the various theaters of operations where
U.S. forces have been active. Although modest by twentieth century standards, this post-9/11 harvest
of death is hardly trivial.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111903285704576560593124523206 A dozen terrorism scholars gave a wide range of answers when asked to estimate how many members
there are, how the numbers have changed during al Qaeda's lifespan and how many countries the
group operates in. Analysts put the core membership at anywhere from 200 to 1,000
My recollection is toward the low end ( towards 200ppl) at the time of GWB addle-minded decision
to pull the relatively modest special forces resources out of Tora Bora in Afghanistan that had
the AlQ Principles in the crosshairs. Instead GWB pursued a bizarre and unrelated non-sequitur
mission of tipping over SH in Iraq– allegedly because Saddam had threatened his Dad?
What was a reasonable response with explicit objectives to remedy a criminal act (as well at
the time with fairly unanimous sympathies of other Countries) could have been accomplished with
a modest Military footprint before getting the fk out of Afghanistan.
Instead it was scaled up into stupid endless Perpetual War without achievable objectives.
In retrospect divide $5T by 200-1,000 and consider how little it may have cost if 9/11 had
been treated as a criminal act by non-state actors, instead of sticking our foot into the role
of destabilizing other sovereign countries, killing /antagonizing the citizens and generally fking
up their countries??
I think the US is falling into the old imperialist trap of thinking of these places as countries
with capital cities and leaders recognized as such by the population. The British had that issue
in the 1770s when they captured the capital(s) of the new US but the revolution didn't stop. External
superpower (French) support was able to keep the resistance functioning and the British eventually
gave up. Both of those superpowers kept duking it out on other battlefields for another 30 years.
Yugoslavia was a temporary post-WW II construct based on a personality cult of Tito. When he
died, the real Yugoslavia turned out to be a bunch of tribes that really, really hated each other
and it all went to pieces.
North America is unusual with a huge moat around it other than a little isthmus at the south
end. Even so, there are millions of illegal immigrants that come over that isthmus or cross over
the southern moat (Gulf of Mexico/Caribbean) over the years. Only three countries (Mexico, US,
Canada) are in play and those borders have been stable for over a century. This was after the
US fought a massive civil war to keep that basic structure instead of having another country.
Even so, Quebec has come close to secession, Texas and California mumble about it periodically,
and Mexico effectively has a civil war with drug cartels. However, this is VERY stable compared
to nearly anywhere else in the world, so it leads us to false equivalencies about how other parts
of the world should work.
Putting in corrupt leaders with no popular support doesn't work as we have recently proved
again in Afghanistan and Iraq after having proved it previously in Vietnam and Cuba (pre-Castro).
The Afghanistan outcome may have worked better if the concept of Afghanistan disappeared and NATO
had worked with each region to come up with rational boundaries based on historical tribal alliances.
T.E. Lawrence had drawn a map like that for Iraq c.1918 but it did not fit the colonial power
requirements.. Turkey vs. the Kurds and Iran linking with the Shiites ensured that natural map
wasn't going to happen in 2003 either.
So, it is not clear what victory means in these areas. I think in many cases our concept of
victory is very different than what the locals think is acceptable. It appears that Assad, Russia,
and Iran may be "victorious" in Syria because it is clear they are willing to wipe out the village
to save it. They may find that there is nobody left there to rule though, so they will repopulate
those areas with allies, thereby probably sowing the seeds for another future war.
The nearest analog to what the US is trying to do in all these places is a lot like the imposition
of the Spanish Empire; total destruction of native culture and replacement with Roman forms. The
places the Spanish controlled are still broken, so don't look for success in this endeavor anytime
soon
The nearest analog to what the US is trying to do in all these places is a lot like the
imposition of the Spanish Empire
At least the Spanish had a quantifiable, albeit indefensible objective (resource extraction) that
drove their predatory behavior. Our quizzical form of imperialism is a net resource drag with
fuzzy morphing objectives
Say what you want about the British Empire, but they did leave behind functioning legal and
political systems in most of the countries they controlled. In India's case, they also left them
a common language since there are so many languages there. Many of the countries remained in the
Commonwealth after independence which is something that none of the other colonial powers achieved.
I think the key was the British focused on empire as an extension of commerce, not ideology
(they already knew they were superior, so they didn't have to prove it, which allows for pragmatism).
In the end, when it was clear that they couldn't hold on, they backed out more gracefully than
many other empires.
If there's one thing we can hope for in a Trump presidency, it's going to be Trump looking
at the disaster of biblical proportions that continues to unfold in the arena of government contracting.
It doesn't matter which sector his gaze falls upon, he's going to find an appalling failure in
contract negotiation: the F-35, the Zumwalt, the LCS, the KC-46, the B-21 (really, just the idea
of cost-plus contracts in general), the SLS, the FCC's Universal Service Fund, the EPA's Superfund,
the Department of Education's "Race to the Top" and "No Child Left Behind" mandates, the ACA,
the dollar value on whatever classified contract the telecommunications industry has to spy on
the American people, the private contractors presently employed by the military to perform its
duties - the list is endless.
The military-industrial complex has perfected the art of putting parts of the design, manufacturing,
testing, and deployment of these programs into just about Congressional District so that everybody
wants their constituents to have a shot at one part of the trough.
This is how empires fall. Asymmetrical economic and military warfare against entrenched bureaucracies
and corruption.
potus wants to make money giving speeches after office and also needs $$$$$$$$$$$ for his lieberry.
The merchants of death will hire him for those speeches and send money for lieberry.
The generals of today help the merchants of death make money so when the retire they can go to
work for the merchants of death.
The idea is to never win so there is always an enemy so the merchants of death can continue to
profit.
The easy way to control a country is to have chaos all the time. This makes easier to steal resources
and keep citizens from pulling their own levers of justice. We only have to look at Amerika but
other countries around the globe have the same going on. austerity for all.
The .01% would like to thank you for staying at each others throats.
I matriculated at one of the U.S. Military Service Academies. I had my share of classes on
"War Footing," "War Strategies" and "War, War, War – The Scarlet O'Hara Doctrine." (That last
one was mine and mine alone.)
And then I took the typical post-grad Naval War College assortment of "think-tanked" war symposiums.
All for naught, I must say.
Then came my time in the field. Most of my peers were good soldiers, junior officers and even
a few were leaders. But no one I knew had the stomach for the orders passed down – they were seen
just as watered-down "march-in-place" bullshit until the next wave of senior leadership flew in.
We junior officers were in the field just as much as our men – I'd say half (or more) of my
squadrons were comprised of men and women on their second, third, fourth – or more – tours of
duty. I'm so glad they didn't hear the bullshit we had to listen to. In fact, to this day, my
greatest gift to my men and women was the translation and humanizing effect of taking bullshit
orders and making them palatable for them.
No, we haven't won a war since WWII for many reasons; but, in my humble estimation, the two
biggest culprits are politics and logistics. For one, our politicians don't know what it's like
to wage war, what it's like for the combatants or the civilians seemingly always caught in the
middle. Or what the hell we're going to do in the off-chance that we win one of these puppies.
No, the Generals have not forgotten how to win wars – in fact, there are no generals
alive now who ever had the good fortune to win one. So the Generals don't know how to
win wars.
Oh, by the way – this was during Vietnam. Nothing has changed.
Glad to read a comment from someone with first hand experience. Generals know how to win conventional
wars, where success is measured based on % enemy destroyed or seizing an objective. One could
argue Norman Schwarzkopf won the 1st Gulf War, only difference is that U.S. Generals weren't left
to perform humanitarian functions after. As the author eludes to - but still doesn't stray from
attacking the competence of senior military leaders– without an objective can success be determined?
If one's mission as a Colonel is to lead a Brigade security operation on a Forward Operating Base
for a year, can he/she be successful based on the author's arbitrary standards of success? I would
argue with minimal casualties and no breaches over the year, the mission would be a success, but
these everyday successes are neglected. Accordingly, if a Component Combatant Commander leads
coalition operations in Iraq for two years with 0.05% coalition casualties and no FOBs being breached,
shouldn't that be a success?
It's too bad that General's success can't be measured like their CEO equivalents based on an
quarterly earnings, instead they have to answer to often ill-informed civilian leadership being
judged by vacant metrics and arbitrary standards by those like Bakevich. At least the military's
top executives (Generals) make about 4x their median worker's salary. These men and women could
take far better jobs in the MIC or the Corporate Realm, many I'm sure stay for noble reasons to
lead their servicemembers.
Sounds like the lament of an aging mafia don that's forgotten what he's talking about is illegal.
"Why can't our generals pull off a good old-fashioned smash and grab like they used to? They must
be incompetent!"
That's so last millennium. We've moved on, don. Smash & grabs are penny ante. Now the game
is Full-Spectrum Dominance.
So I don't think an old-fashioned smash & grab has been the goal for a long time. For decades
(ever since WWII?) we've been trying to regime change our way to the goal of every Hollywood mad
scientist and super-villian: everlasting world dominance.
What have they actually accomplished? Hard to say, from my vantage point. "Insufficient data,"
as the old Star Trek computer said.
I know that one of the main goals is to prevent there from ever being any threat to our dominance.
So while China and Russia aim for Eurasian integration, we're all about it's disintegration. We're
also determined to keep the EU from ever threatening our dominance. South America is slipping
the yoke, but we haven't given up.
At the very least, our generals are doing a smashing job of spreading chaos. And then there's
weaponized economics.
Here in the "Homeland" (genuflects), on the "home front," in the domestic "battle space," it's
important to realize that when the Pentagon says "full-spectrum dominance," that means us, comrades.
Wall-to-wall surveillance? Check. POTUS power to execute or disappear dissidents? Check. Torture
enshrined in secret laws and the public mind? Check.
On what level are the relevant decisions being made: public discourse, or top security? We're
not privy to the councils where super secret intelligence is discussed and the big decisions are
made. We're out here, on the receiving end of weapons-grade PSYOPS.
So what are we talking about, here? I don't think analyses based in kayfabe will ever arrive
at real insight. Analyzing events in terms of the cover stories meant to dupe us is much ado about
nothing.
The above article was published in 2000. Obama never renounced FSD. AFAIK it's still the strategy.
Why doesn't the esteemed colonel frame his analysis in terms of our official defense posture?
Are we any closer to FSD, or not?
But I must say, nice job of framing the debate. /s
As far as any hope for change under the new don, I don't see any. He'd have to publicly renounce
FSD, wind down the empire of bases, and find something to do with all those now in its employ,
all while "pivoting" to climate change and rejuvenating the economy, to actually respond to our
actual conditions. The Don is many things, but a martyr for peace and Mother Earth ain't one.
I'll be impressed when the colonel starts calling our wars crimes against humanity and for
their immediate cessation and full reparations. "Moar better generals" will not succeed at accomplishing
a basically insane strategy. Until then, I'll file Bacevich under "modified limited hangout."
"But can he do anything about it?" - Don't go to war without a damn good reason seems like
it might be a pretty good start. Despite his typically being all over the map on this – e.g. tough-on-terrorism-and-ISIS
– I found myself repeatedly surprised during the primary season at Trump being the only major-party
candidate – even including Bernie – to consistently talk good sense on Libya, Syria, Ukraine and
Russia.
Agreed. I was surprised, too. Of course, it's the working class children in the flyover states
who join the military and go to war, and come back maimed or with PTSD to a rotten job market.
So that may have been politically astute on Trump's part and, if so, good for him.
Andrew Bacevich is correct if one wears blinders and looks strictly at DoD Generals. The reality
is that there is a Western Imperium that is intent only on short term profits and has degenerated
into looting its own people and destroying sovereign nations. The Vietnam War showed that colonial
wars could not be fought with a conscript army. The volunteer US Army is too small to put a platoon
of soldiers in every village and town square in Afghanistan let alone Iraq. The endless wars were
unwinnable from the get go. The globalist empire is supremely efficient in looting taxpayers,
trashing Deplorables and spreading regime change campaigns across the world. The forever wars
are being fought by proxy forces with Western military support without a single thought for their
deadly consequences to make money.
Let's be brutally frank. The US both wants an empire, but also wants to pretend it is encouraging democracy everywhere.
Objectives where the result is deceitful and duplicitous behavior. Ask the Indians about the
methods, or the beneficiaries of the "Monroe Doctrine." The British wanted an empire. A simple objective. If you are not England, you are a colony,
and we, the English, make the rules. At the heart of American activities is a kernel of deceit. Self determination for people, but
only if you do what we say. The kernel of deceit poisons every walk of life connected to Washington.
Every single one.
The US is called the empire of chaos. It could also be called the empire of Deceit. Do as we
say, but we are not taking any responsibility for you if you do what we say. Don't do what we
say, and we will fund your opposition until they stuff a dagger up you ass.
I don't understand why we're in the Middle East at all. The US seems taken by the 4000 year
old, 5th grade concept of controlling the "Fertile Crescent." Why don't we just buy the oil we
want at prevailing prices.
Winning for the Boykin-ites is when the Middle East becomes Christian! lol As Smedley said.
"It's a racket."
Whatever, then there's Israel's push to steal Palestinian gas and pipe it thru Syria and Turkey
to markets in the Europe.
Think about Democrats using identity politics to claim religious fervor and war used to show
being strong on defense. With both political parties using corruption to align power and control
at home and abroad. Choosing your enemies carefully, for you will become them.
Let's just pull out of the Middle East and do everything we can to de-escalate these wars:
especially to keep the other great powers out too, unless called back in as a true UN peacekeeping
force after the locals have found a way to cool things down.
The US military was the first part of the government to be turned into a business, the first
neo-liberal institution created in America. The real problem is that the US military is run by
managers and not soldiers. The Germans used to make fun of the British Army in WWI by calling
it an army of lions led by donkeys. The US military is an army of lions led by managers.
If Andrew is looking for a denouement to the Military Industrial complex then one need look
no further than the British empire – specifically what made it shrink and shrivel very rapidly.
WWI and WWII. The decimation of the economy and the inability to keep spending money to maintain
empire is what reversed the entire machine. It will be the same with the US as well.
As long as
the dollar is high and Wall Street keeps it that way, there will be no pressure to do anything
different. When people start going hungry and jobless and start getting the bejesus bombed out
of them as happened during the blitz then they begin to understand what war truly means. In America
there has been no war for too long and the people here know nothing about war's sufferings and
privations. There was a little window via the draft during 'Nam' but that's about it. Nothing
will happen until a majority of the populace start hurting real bad.
"It's not unreasonable for people who paid into a system for decades to expect to get their
money's worth - that's not an "entitlement," that's honoring a deal. We as a society must also
make an ironclad commitment to providing a safety net for those who can't make one for themselves."
This view is also not compatible with classic neoliberalism.
"Every four years it seems U.S. voters need to be reminded how the Electoral College works and
how it serves the Republic. Prager University Foundation provides this short video on what the Electoral
College is, its purpose, how it works and why America's Founders made it a bedrock in U.S. Presidential
elections"...
The reasons for the election of Donald Trump as President of the U.S. will be analyzed and argued
about for many years to come. Undoubtedly there are U.S.-specific factors that are relevant, such
as racial divisions in voting patterns. But the election took place after the British vote to withdraw
from the European Union and the rise to power of conservative politicians in continental Europe,
so it is reasonable to ask whether globalization bears any responsibility.
Have foreign workers taken the jobs of U.S. workers? Increased trade does lead to a reallocation
of resources, as a country increases its output in those sectors where it has an advantage while
cutting back production in other sectors. Resources should flow from the latter to the former, but
in reality it can be difficult to switch employment across sectors.
Daron Acemoglu and David Autor of MIT,
David Dorn of the University of Zurich, Gordon Hanson of UC-San Diego and Brendan Price of MIT
have found that import competition from China after 2000 contributed to reductions in U.S. manufacturing
employment and weak U.S. job growth. They estimated manufacturing job losses due to Chinese competition
of 2.0 – 2.4 million.
Other studies
find similar results for workers who do not have high school degrees.
Moreover, multinational firms do shift production across borders in response to lower wages, among
other factors.
Ann E. Harrison of UC-Berkeley and Margaret S. McMillan of Tufts University looked at the hiring
practices of the foreign affiliates of U.S. firms during the period of 1977 to 1999. They found that
lower wages in affiliate countries where the employees were substitutes for U.S. workers led to more
employment in those countries but reductions in employment in the U.S. However, when employment across
geographical locations is complementary for firms that do significantly different work at home and
abroad, domestic and foreign employment rise and fall together.
Imports and foreign production, therefore, have had an impact on manufacturing employment in the
U.S. But several caveats should be raised. First, as
Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee of MIT and others have pointed out, technology has had a
much larger effect on jobs. The U.S. is the second largest global producer of manufactured goods,
but these products are being made in plants that employ fewer workers than they did in the past.
Many of the lost jobs simply do not exist any more. Second, the U.S. exports goods and services as
well as purchases them. Among the manufactured goods that account for significant shares of U.S.
exports are
machines
and engines, electronic equipment and aircraft . Third, there is inward FDI as well as outward,
and the foreign-based firms hire U.S. workers. A 2013
Congressional Research Service
study by James V. Jackson reported that by year-end 2011 foreign firms employed 6.1 million Americans,
and 37% of this employment-2.3 million jobs-was in the manufacturing sector.
More recent data
shows that employment by the U.S. affiliates of multinational companies rose to 6.4 million in
2014. Mr. Trump will find himself in a difficult position if he threatens to shut down trade and
investment with countries that both import from the U.S. and invest here.
The other form of globalization that drew Trump's derision was immigration. Most of his ire focused
on those who had entered the U.S. illegally. However, in a speech in Arizona he said that he would
set up a commission that would
roll back the number of legal migrants to "historic norms."
The
current number of immigrants (42 million) represents around 13% of the U.S. population, and 16%
of the labor force. An increase in the number of foreign-born workers depresses the wages of some
native-born workers, principally high-school dropouts, as well as other migrants who arrived earlier.
But there are other, more significant reasons for the
stagnation in
working-class wages . In addition, a reduction in the number of migrant laborers would raise
the ratio of young and retired people to workers-the dependency ratio-and endanger the financing
of Social Security and Medicare. And by increasing the size of the U.S. economy,
these workers induce expansions in investment expenditures and hiring in areas that are complementary.
The one form of globalization that Trump has not criticized, with the exception of outward FDI,
is financial. This is a curious omission, as the crisis of 2008-09 arose from the financial implosion
that followed the collapse of the housing bubble in the U.S. International financial flows exacerbated
the magnitude of the crisis. But
Trump has pledged
to dismantle the Dodd-Frank legislation, which was enacted to implement financial regulatory
reform and lower the probability of another crisis. While
Trump has criticized China for undervaluing its currency in order to increase its exports to
the U.S., most economists believe that the
Chinese currency is no longer undervalued vis-à-vis the U.S. dollar.
Did globalization produce Trump, or lead to the circumstances that resulted in
46.7% of the electorate voting
for him? A score sheet of the impact of globalization within the U.S. would record pluses and minuses.
Among those who have benefitted are consumers who purchase items made abroad at cheaper prices, workers
who produce export goods, and firms that hire migrants. Those who have been adversely affected include
workers who no longer have manufacturing jobs and domestic workers who compete with migrants for
low-paying jobs. Overall, most studies find evidence of
positive net benefits from trade . Similarly,
studies of the cost and benefits of immigration indicate that overall foreign workers make a
positive contribution to the U.S. economy.
Other trends have exerted equal or greater consequences for our economic welfare. First, as pointed
out above, advances in automation have had an enormous impact on the number and nature of jobs, and
advances in artificial intelligence wii further change the nature of work. The launch of driverless
cars and trucks, for example, will affect the economy in unforeseen ways, and more workers will lose
their livelihoods. Second, income inequality has been on the increase in the U.S. and elsewhere for
several decades. While those in the upper-income classes have benefitted most from increased trade
and finance, inequality reflects many factors besides globalization.
Why, then, is globalization the focus of so much discontent? Trump had the insight that demonizing
foreigners and U.S.-based multinationals would allow him to offer simple solutions-ripping up trade
deals, strong-arming CEOs to relocate facilities-to complex problems. Moreover, it allows him to
draw a line between his supporters and everyone else, with Trump as the one who will protect workers
against the crafty foreigners and corrupt elite who conspire to steal American jobs. Blaming the
foreign "other" is a well-trod route for those who aspire to power in times of economic and social
upheaval.
Globalization, therefore, should not be held responsible for the election of Donald Trump and
those in other countries who offer similar simplistic solutions to challenging trends. But globalization's
advocates did indirectly lead to his rise when they oversold the benefits of globalization and neglected
the downside. Lower prices at Wal-Mart are scarce consolation to those who have lost their jobs.
Moreover, the proponents of globalization failed to strengthen the safety networks and redistributive
mechanisms that allow those who had to compete with foreign goods and workers to share in the broader
benefits.
Dani Rodrik of Harvard's Kennedy School has described how the policy priorities were changed:
"The new model of globalization stood priorities on their head, effectively putting democracy to
work for the global economy, instead of the other way around. The elimination of barriers to trade
and finance became an end in itself, rather than a means toward more fundamental economic and social
goals."
The battle over globalization is not finished, and there will be future opportunities to adapt
it to benefit a wider section of society. The goal should be to place it within in a framework that
allows a more egalitarian distribution of the benefits and payment of the costs. This is not a new
task. After World War II, the Allied planners sought to revive international trade while allowing
national governments to use their policy tools to foster full employment. Political scientist
John
Ruggie of the Kennedy School called the hybrid system based on fixed exchange rates, regulated
capital accounts and government programs "
embedded liberalism
," and it prevailed until it was swept aside by the wave of neoliberal policies in the 1980s
and 1990s.
What would today's version of "embedded liberalism" look like? In the financial sector, the pendulum
has already swung back from unregulated capital flows and towards the use of capital control measures
as part of macroprudential policies designed to address systemic risk in the financial sector. In
addition,
Thomas Piketty of the École des hautes etudes en sciences (EHESS) and associate chair at the Paris
School of Economics , and author of Capital in the Twenty-first Century, has called
for a new focus in discussions over the next stage of globalization: " trade is a good thing, but
fair and sustainable development also demands public services, infrastructure, health and education
systems. In turn, these themselves demand fair taxation systems."
The current political environment is not conducive toward the expansion of public goods. But it
is unlikely that our new President's policies will deliver on their promise to return to a past when
U.S. workers could operate without concern for foreign competition or automation. We will certainly
revisit these issues, and we need to redefine what a successful globalization looks like. And if
we don't? Thomas Piketty warns of the consequences of not enacting the necessary domestic policies
and institutions: "If we fail to deliver these, Trump_vs_deep_state will prevail."
Since 1980, US manufacturing output has approximately doubled while manufacturing employment
fell by about a third.
Yes, globalization impacts the composition of output and it is a contributing factor in the
weaker growth of manufacturing output. but overall it has accounted for a very minor share of
the weakness in manufacturing employment since 1980. Productivity has been the dominant factor
driving manufacturing employment down.
JimH November 29, 2016 11:11 am
"Overall, most studies find evidence of positive net benefits from trade."
Of course they do! And in your world, studies always Trump real world experience.
Studies on trade can ignore the unemployed workers with a high school education or less. How
were they supposed to get an equivalent paying job? EDUCATION they say! A local public university
has a five year freshman graduation rate of 25%. Are those older students to eat dirt while attempting
to accumulate that education!
Studies on trade can ignore that illegal immigration increases competition for the those under
educated employees. Since 1990 there has been a rising demand that education must be improved!
That potential high school drop outs should be discouraged by draconian means if necessary. YET
we allow immigrants to enter this country and STAY with less than the equivalent of an American
high school education! Why are we spending so much on secondary education if it is not necessary!
"In Mexico, 34% of adults aged 25-64 have completed upper secondary education, much lower than
the OECD average of 76% the lowest rate amongst OECD countries."
See: http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/countries/mexico/
Trade studies can ignore the fate of a small town when its major employer shuts down and leaves.
Trade studies can assume that we are one contiguous job market. They can assume that an unemployed
worker in Pennsylvania will learn of a good paying job in Washington state, submit an application,
and move within 2 weeks. Or assume that the Washington state employer will hold a factory job
open for a month! And they can assume that moving expenses are trivial for an unemployed person.
Our trade partners have not attempted anything remotely resembling balanced trade with us.
Here are the trade deficits since 1992.
Year__________US Trade Balance with the world
1992__________-39,212
1993__________-70,311
1994__________-98,493
1995__________-96,384
1996__________-104,065
1997__________-108,273
1998__________-166,140
1999__________-258,617
2000__________-372,517
2001__________-361,511
2002__________-418,955
2003__________-493,890
2004__________-609,883
2005__________-714,245
2006__________-761,716
2007__________-705,375
2008__________-708,726
2009__________-383,774
2010__________-494,658
2011__________-548,625
2012__________-536,773
2013__________-461,876
2014__________-490,176
2015__________-500,361
From:
https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/historical/gands.pdf
AND there is the loss of the income from tariffs which had been going to the federal government!
How has that effected our national debt?
"However, when employment across geographical locations is complementary for firms that do
significantly different work at home and abroad, domestic and foreign employment rise and fall
together."
And exactly how do you think that the US government could guarantee that complementary work
at home and abroad. Corporations are profit seeking, amoral entities, which will seek profit any
way they can. (Legal or illegal)
The logical conclusion of your argument is that we could produce nothing and still have a thriving
economy. How would American consumers earn an income?
Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are RUST BELT states. Were the voters
there merely ignorant or demented? You should never ever run for elected office.
Beverly Mann November 29, 2016 12:30 pm
Meanwhile, Trump today chose non-swampy Elaine Chao, Mitch McConnell's current wife and GWBush's
former Labor Secretary, as Transportation Secretary, to privatize roads, bridges, etc.
JimH November 29, 2016 12:36 pm
The trade balances are in millions of dollars in the table in my last comment.
Global trade had a chance of success beginning in 1992. But that required a mechanism which
was very difficult to game. A mechanism like the one that the Obama administration advocated in
October 2010.
"At the meeting in South Korea's southern city of Gyeongju, U.S. officials sought to set a
cap for each country's deficit or surplus at 4% of its economic output by 2015.
The idea drew support from Britain, Australia, Canada and France, all of which are running trade
deficits, as well as South Korea, which is hosting the G-20 meetings and hoping for a compromise
among the parties.
But the proposal got a cool reception from export powerhouses such as China, which has a current
account surplus of 4.7% of its gross domestic product; Germany, with a surplus of 6.1%; and Russia,
with a surplus of 4.7%, according to IMF statistics."
See:
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/24/business/la-fi-g20-summit-20101024
That cap was probably too high. But at least the Obama administration showed some realization
that global trade was exhibiting serious unpredicted problems. Too bad that Hillary Clinton could
not have internalized that realization enough to campaign on revamping problematic trade treaties.
(And persuaded a few more of the voters in the RUST BELT to vote for her.) Elections have consequences
and voters understand that, but what choice did they have?
In your world, while American corporations act out in ways that would be diagnosed as antisocial
personality disorder in a human being, American human beings are expected to wait patiently for
decades while global trade is slowly adjusted into some practical system. (As one shortcoming
after another is addressed.)
The article states almost exactly what you 'add' in your comment:
"Imports and foreign production, therefore, have had an impact on manufacturing employment
in the U.S. But several caveats should be raised. First, as Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee
of MIT and others have pointed out, technology has had a much larger effect on jobs".
So, what gives? Is there an award today for who ever gets the biggest DUH??? If there is anything
worth adding, it would be a mention of the Ball St study that supports the author's claim but
is somehow overlooked. But your comment, well, DUH!!
=================================================
JimH,
Some good stuff there, your assessment of Economics and its penchant for ignoring variables,
and your insight which states that "studies can assume that we are one contiguous job market",
is all very true, and especially when it comes to immigration issues. I've lived most of my life
near the Southern border and when economists claim that undocumented workers are good for our
economy I can only chuckle and shake my head. I suppose I could also list all of the variables
which those economists ignore, and there are many to choose from, but, there is that quote by
Upton Sinclair: "You can't get a man to understand what his salary depends on his not understanding".
In all fairness though, The Dept. of Labor does of course have its JOLTS data, and so not all
such studies are based on broad assumptions, but Economics does have its blind spots, generally
speaking. And of course economists apply far too much effort and energy serving their political
and financial masters.
As for your comment in regards to the the trade deficit, you might want to read up a little
on the Triffin Dilemma. The essence of globalization has a lot to do with the US leadership choosing
to maintain the reserve-currency status and Triffin showed that an increasing amount of dollars
must supply the world's demand for dollars, or, global growth would falter. So, the trade deficit
since 1975 has been intentional, for that reason, and others. Of course the cost of labor in the
US was a factor too, and shipping and standards and so on. But, it is wise also, to remember that
these choices were made at time, during and just after the Viet Nam war, when military recruitment
was a very troubling issue for the leadership. And the option of good paying jobs for the working-class
was very probably seen as in conflict with military recruitment. Accordingly, the working-class
has been left with fewer options. This being accomplished in part with the historical anomaly
of high immigration quotas, (and by the tolerance for illegal immigration), during periods with
high unemployment, a falling participation-rate, inadequate infrastructure, and etc.
Ray LaPan-Love November 29, 2016 2:18 pm
JimH,
After posting my earlier comment it occurred to me that I should have recommended an article
by Tim Taylor that has some good info on the Triffin dilemma.
Also, it might be worth mentioning that you are making the common mistake of assigning blame
to an international undertaking that would be more accurately assigned to national shortcomings.
I'm referring here to what you quoted and said:
""Overall, most studies find evidence of positive net benefits from trade.""
"Of course they do! And in your world, studies always Trump real world experience".
My point being that "positive net benefits from trade" are based on just another half-baked
measurement as you suggest, but the problems which result from trade-related displacements are
not necessarily the fault of trade itself. There are in fact political options, for example, immigration
could have been curtailed about 40 years ago and we would now have about 40 million fewer citizens,
and thus there would almost certainly be more jobs available. Or, the laws pertaining to illegal
immigration could have been enforced, or the 'Employee Free Choice Act could have been passed,
or whatever, and then trade issues may have had much different impact.
Ray LaPan-Love November 29, 2016 3:12 pm
It seems worth mentioning here, that there are other more important goals that make globalization
valuable than just matters of money or employment or who is getting what. Let us not forget the
famous words of Immanuel Kant:
"the spirit of commerce . . . sooner or later takes hold of every nation, and is incompatible
with war."
coberly November 29, 2016 6:33 pm
Ray
the spirit of commerce did not prevent WW1 or WW2.
otherwise, thank you, and Jim H and Joseph Joyce for the first Post and Comments for grownups
we've had around here in some time.
Ray LaPan-Love November 29, 2016 7:03 pm
Hey Coberly, long time no see.
And yes, you are right, 'the spirit of commerce' theory has had some ups and downs. But, one
could easily and accurately argue that the effort which began with the League of Nations, and
loosely connects back to Kant's claim, has gained some ground since WW2. There has not, after-all,
been a major war since.
So, when discussing the pros and cons of globalization, that factor, as I said, is worthy of
mention. And it was a key consideration in the formation of the Bretton Woods institutions, and
in the globalization effort in general. This suggesting then that there are larger concerns than
the unemployment-rate, or the wage levels, of the working-class folks who may, or may not, have
been at the losing end of 'free-trade'.
I've been a 'labor-lefty' since the 1970s, but I am still capable of understanding that things
could have been much worse for the American working-class. Plus, if anyone must give up a job,
who better than those with a fairly well-constructed safety-net. History always has its winners
and losers, and progress rarely, if ever, comes in an even flow.
Meanwhile, those living in extreme poverty, worldwide, have dropped from 40% in 1981, to about
10% in 2015 (World Bank), so, progress is occurring. But of course much of that is now being ignored
by the din which has drowned out so many considerations that really do matter, and a great deal.
coberly November 29, 2016 8:25 pm
Ray
I am inclined to agree with you, but sometimes it's hard to see the forest for the trees. Especially
if one of those trees has fallen on you.
In general I am more interested in stopping predatory business models that really hurt people
than in creating cosmic justice.
as for the relative lack of big wars since WW2, I always thought that was because of mutual
assured destruction. I am sure Vietnam looked like a big enough war to the Vietnamese.
"... Each of these was based fundamentally upon the principle that language was the key to all power. That is, that language was not a tool that described reality but the power that created it, and s/he who controlled language controlled everything through the shaping of "discourse", as opposed to the objective existence of any truth at all ..."
"... When you globalise capital, you globalise labour. That meant jobs shifting from expensive markets to cheap. Before long the incomes of those swimming in the stream of global capital began to seriously outstrip the incomes of those trapped in old and withering Western labour markets. As a result, inflation in those markets also began to fall and so did interest rates. Thus asset prices took off as Western nation labour markets got hollowed out, and standard of living inequality widened much more quickly as a new landed aristocracy developed. ..."
"... With a Republican Party on its knees, Obama was positioned to restore the kind of New Deal rules that global capitalism enjoyed under Franklin D. Roosevelt. ..."
"... But instead he opted to patch up financialised capitalism. The banks were bailed out and the bonus culture returned. Yes, there were some new rules but they were weak. There was no seizing of the agenda. No imprisonments of the guilty. The US Department of Justice is still issuing $14bn fines to banks involved yet still today there is no justice. Think about that a minute. How can a crime be worthy of a $14bn fine but no prison time?!? ..."
"... Alas, for all of his efforts to restore Wall Street, Obama provided no reset for Main Street economics to restore the fortunes of the US lower classes. Sure Obama fought a hostile Capitol but, let's face it, he had other priorities. ..."
"... This comment is a perfect example of the author's (and Adolf Reed's) point: that the so-called "Left" is so bogged down in issues of language that it has completely lost sight of class politics. ..."
"... It's why Trump won. He was a Viking swinging an ax at nuanced hair-splitters. It was inelegant and ugly, but effective. We will find out if the hair-splitters win again in their inner circle with the Democratic Minority Leader vote. I suspect they missed the point of the election and will vote Pelosi back in, thereby missing the chance for significant gains in the mid-term elections. ..."
"... One of the great triumphs of Those Who Continue To Be Our Rulers has been the infiltration and cooptation of 'the left', hand in hand with the 'dumbing down' of the last 30+ years so few people really understand what is going on. ..."
"... That the Global Left appears to be intellectually weak regarding identity politics and "political correctness" vs. class politics, there is no doubt. But to skim over Global Corporate leverage of this attitude seems wrong to me. The right has also embraced identity politics in order to keep the 90% fully divided in order to justify it's continual economic rape of both human and physical ecology. ..."
"... Every "identity politics" charge starts here, with one group wanting a more equitable social order and the other group defending the existing power structure. Identity politics is adjusting the social order and rattling the power structure, which is why it is so effective. ..."
"... I think it can be effectively argued that Trump voters in PA, WI, OH, MI chose to rattle the power structure and you could think of that as identity politics as well. ..."
"... On the contrary, the (Neo-)Liberal establishment uses identity politics to co-opt and neutralise the left. It keeps them occupied without threatening the real power structure in the least. ..."
"... Hillary (Neoliberal establishment) has many supporters who think of themselves as 'left' or 'liberal'. The Democratic Party leadership is neither 'left' nor 'liberal'. It keeps the votes and the love of the 'liberals' by talking up harmless 'liberal' identity politics and soft peddling the Liberal power politics which they are really about. ..."
"... Just from historical perspective, the right wing had more money to forward its agenda and an OCD like affliction [biblical] to drive simple memes relentlessly via its increasing private ownership of education and media. Thereby creating an institutional network over time to gain dominate market share in crafting the social narrative. Bloodly hell anyone remember Bush Jr Christian crusade after politicizing religion to get elected and the ramifications – neocon – R2P thingy . ..."
"... Its not hard once neoliberalism became dominate in the 70s [wages and productivity diverged] the proceeds have gone to the top and everyone else got credit IOUs based mostly on asset inflation via the Casino or RE [home and IP]. ..."
"... Foucault in particular advanced a greatly expanded wariness regarding the use of power. It was not just that left politics could only lead to ossified Soviet Marxism or the dogmatic petty despotism of the left splinters. Institutions in general mapped out social practices and attendant identities to impose on the individual. His position tended to promote a distrust not only of "grand narratives" but of organizational bonds as such. As far as I can tell, the idea of people joining together to form an institution that would enhance their social power as well as allow them to become personally empowered/enhanced was something of a categorial impossibility. ..."
"... There is no global left. We have only global state capitalists and global social democrats – a pseudo left. The countries where Marxist class analysis was supposedly adopted were not industrial countries where "alienation" had brought the "proletariat" to an inevitable communal mentality. The largest of these countries killed millions in order to industrialize rapidly – pretending the goal was to get to that state. ..."
"... Bigotry. Identity centered thinking. Neither serves egalitarianism. But people cling to them. "I gotta look out for myself first." And so called left thinkers constantly pontificate about "benefits" and "privileges" that some class, sex, and race confer. Hmmm. The logic is that many of us struggling daily to keep our jobs and pay the bills must give up something in order to be fair, in order to build a better society. Given this thinking it is no surprise that so many have retreated into the illusion of safety offered by identity based thinking. ..."
"... "Simultaneously, capitalism did what it does best. It packaged and repackaged, branded and rebranded every emerging identity, cloaked in its own sub-cultural nomenclature, selling itself back to new emerging identities. Soon class was completely forgotten as the global Left dedicated itself instead to policing the commons as a kind of safe zone for a multitude of difference that capitalism turned into a cultural supermarket." ..."
"... But why does the Dem estab embrace the conservative neoliberal agenda? The Dem estab are smart people, can think on multiple levels, are not limited in scope, are not racist. So, why then does the Dem estab accept and promote the conservative GOP neoliberal economic agenda? ..."
"... Because the Dem estab isn't very smart. ..."
"... Conservative is: private property, capitalism, limited taxes and transfer payments plus national security and religion. ..."
"... Liberalism is not in opposition to any of that. Identity politics arose at the same time the Ds were purging the reds (socialists and communists) from their party. Liberalism/progressivism is an ameliorating position of conservatism (progressive support of labor unions to work within a private property/corporatist structure not to eliminate the system and replace it with public/employee ownership) Not too far, too fast, maybe toss out a few more crumbs. ..."
"... There is a foundation for identity politics on the liberal-left (see what I did there?) – it rests in the sense of moral superiority of just this liberal-left, which superiority is then patronisingly spread all over the social world – until it meets those who deny the moral superiority claim, whereupon it becomes murderous (in, of course, the name of humanity and humanitarianism). ..."
"... This is why the 1% continue to prevail over the 99%. If the 1% wasn't so incompetent this would continue forever. They know how to divide, conquer and rule the 99%, however they don't know how to run a society in a sustainable way. ..."
"... But I will say one thing for the Right over the Left: they have taken the initiative and are now the sole force for change. Granted, supporting a carnival barker for president is an act of desperation. Nevertheless he was the only option for change and the Right took it. Perhaps the Left offering little to nothing in the way of change reflects its lack of desperation. ..."
"... Excellent comment, EoinW! You just summed up years of content and commentary on this site. Obviously as the "Left" continues to defend the status quo as you describe it stops being "Left" in any meaningful way anymore. ..."
"... The Koch brothers are economically to the very right. They are socially to the left, perhaps even more socially liberal than many of your liberal friends. No joke. There's a point here, if I can figure out what it is. ..."
"... Trump isn't Right or Left. Trump is a can of gasoline and a match. His voters weren't voting for a Left or Right agenda. They were voting for a battering ram. That is why he got a pass on racist, misogynist, fascist statements that would have killed any other candidate. ..."
"... PC is a parody of the 20th Century reform movements. ..."
"... In the 70's the feminists worked against legal disabilities written into law. Since the Depression, the unions fought corporate management create a livable relationship between management and labor. Real struggles, real problems, real people. ..."
"... What's interesting is that in an article pushing class over identity. he never tried to set his class ethos in order to convince working class people or the bourgeoisie why they should listen to him. ..."
"... "This site, along with the MSM, has flown way off the handle since the election loss." ..."
"... "Our nation's problems can be remedied with one dramatic change" ..."
"... Bringing C level pay packages at major corporations in line with the real contributions of the recipients would be great. How would we do it? With laws or regulations or executive orders banning the federal government from doing business with any firm that failed to comply with some basic guidelines? ..."
"... It's an academic point right now in any event. The Trump administration – working together with the Ryan House – is not going to make legislation or sign executive orders to do anything remotely like this. Which is one of the many reasons why bashing Democrats has taken off here I suspect. This election was theirs to lose, and they did everything in their power to toss it. ..."
"... You do realize that the wealthy are both part of and connected to the legislative branch of every single country on this planet right? As long as that remains so (as it has since the dawn of humans) then good luck trying to cap any sort of hording behavior of the wealthy. ..."
"... The post-structural revolution transpired [in the U.S.] before and during the end of the Cold War just as the collapse of the Old Soviet Union denuded the global Left of its raison detre. ..."
"... Foucault was not entirely sympathetic to the Left, at least the unions, but he was trying to articulate a politics that was just as much about liberation from capitalism as classic Marxism. To that end, discourse analysis was the means to discovering those subtle articulations of power in human relations, not an end in itself as it was for, say, Barthes. ..."
"... Imagine inequality plotted on two axes. Inequality between genders, races and cultures is what liberals have been concentrating on. This is the x-axis and the focus of identity politics and the liberal left. ..."
"... On the y-axis we have inequality from top to bottom. 2014 – "85 richest people as wealthy as poorest half of the world" 2016– "Richest 62 people as wealthy as half of world's population" ..."
"... The neoliberal view L As long as everyone, from all genders, races and cultures, is visiting the same food bank this is equality. ..."
"... You can see why liberals love identity politics. ..."
"... labor is being co-opted by the right: the Republican Workers Party I think this rhymes with Fascist. But then, in a world soon to be literally scrambling for high ground and rebuilding housing for 50 million people the time honored "worker" might actually have a renaissance. ..."
"... But the simple act of writing checks cost me n-o-t-h-i-n-g in terms of time, energy, education, physical or mental exertion. ..."
"... A much more nuanced discussion of the primacy of identity politics on the Left in Britain and the US is http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/29/prospects-for-an-alt-left/ "Prospects for an Alt-Left," November 29, 2016, by Elliot Murphy, who teaches in the Division of Psychology and Language Sciences at University College, London. ..."
"... The electorate is angry (true liberals at the Dems, voters in select electoral states at "everything"). If democracy is messy, then that's what we've got; a mess. Unfortunately, it's coming at the absolutely wrong time (Climate Change, lethal policing, financial elite impunity). ..."
"... But certainly the fall of the USSR was the thing that forced capitalism's hand. At that point capitalism had no choice but to step up and prove that it could really bring a better life to the world. ..."
"... A Minsky event of biblical proportions soon followed (it only took about 10 years!) and now all is devastation and nobody has clue. But the 1990 effort could have been in earnest. Capitalists mean well but they are always in denial about the inequality they create which finally started a chain reaction in "identity politics" as reactions to the stress of economic competition bounced around in every society like a pinball machine. A tedious and insufferable game which seems to have culminated in Hillary the Relentless. I won't say capitalism is idiotic. But something is. ..."
"... Left and Right only really make sense in the context of the distribution of power and wealth, and only when there is a difference between them about that distribution. This was historically the case for more than 150 years after the French Revolution. By the mid-1960s, there was a sense that the Left was winning, and would continue to win. Progressive taxation, zero unemployment, little real poverty by today's standards, free education and healthcare . and many influential political figures (Tony Crosland for example) saw the major task of the future as deciding where the fruits of economic growth could be most justly applied. ..."
"... So until class-based politics and struggles over power and money re-start (if they ever do) I respectfully suggest that "Left" and "Right" be retired as terms that no longer have any meaning. ..."
"... powerlessness, of course, corrupts. There's always someone weaker than you, which is why identity politics is essentially a conservative, disciplining force, with a vested interest in the problems it has chosen to identify ..."
"... Identity politics is a disaster ongoing for the Democratic Party, for reasons they seem to have overlooked. First, the additional identity group is white. We already see this in the South, where 90% of the white population in many states votes Republican. ..."
"... When that spreads to the rest of the country, there will be a permanent Republican majority until the Republicans create a new major disaster. ..."
"... So soon we forget the Battle of Seattle. The Left has been opposed to globalization, deregulation, etc., all along. Partly he's talking about an academic pseudo-left, partly confusing the left with the Democrats and other "center-left," captured parties. ..."
"... I mean, Barack Obama was our first black president, but most blacks didn't do very well. George W. Bush was our first retard president, and most people with cognitive handicaps didn't do very well. ..."
"... But we can boil it all down to something even simpler and more primal: divide and conquer. ..."
Yves here. This piece gives a useful, real-world perspective on the issues discussed in
a seminal Adolph Reed article . Key section:
race politics is not an alternative to class politics; it is a class politics, the politics
of the left-wing of neoliberalism. It is the expression and active agency of a political order
and moral economy in which capitalist market forces are treated as unassailable nature. An integral
element of that moral economy is displacement of the critique of the invidious outcomes produced
by capitalist class power onto equally naturalized categories of ascriptive identity that sort
us into groups supposedly defined by what we essentially are rather than what we do. As I have
argued, following Walter Michaels and others, within that moral economy a society in which 1%
of the population controlled 90% of the resources could be just, provided that roughly 12% of
the 1% were black, 12% were Latino, 50% were women, and whatever the appropriate proportions were
LGBT people. It would be tough to imagine a normative ideal that expresses more unambiguously
the social position of people who consider themselves candidates for inclusion in, or at least
significant staff positions in service to, the ruling class.
This perspective may help explain why, the more aggressively and openly capitalist class power
destroys and marketizes every shred of social protection working people of all races, genders,
and sexual orientations have fought for and won over the last century, the louder and more insistent
are the demands from the identitarian left that we focus our attention on statistical disparities
and episodic outrages that "prove" that the crucial injustices in the society should be understood
in the language of ascriptive identity.
My take on this issue is that the neoliberal use of identity politics continue and extends the
cultural inculcation of individuals seeing themselves engaging with other in one-to-one transactions
(commerce, struggles over power and status) and has the effect of diverting their focus and energy
on seeing themselves as members of groups with common interests and operating that way, and in particular,
of seeing the role of money and property, which are social constructs, in power dynamics.
By David Llewellyn-Smith, founding publisher and former editor-in-chief of The Diplomat
magazine, now the Asia Pacific's leading geo-politics website. Originally posted at
MacroBusiness
Let's begin this little tale with a personal anecdote. Back in 1990 I met and fell in love with
a bisexual, African American ballerina. She was studying Liberal Arts at US Ivy League Smith College
at the time (which Aussies may recall was being run by our Jill Kerr Conway back then). So I moved
in with my dancing beauty and we lived happily on her old man's purse for a year.
I was fortunate to arrive at Smith during a period of intellectual tumult. It was the early years
of the US political correctness revolution when the academy was writhing through a post-structuralist
shift. Traditional dialectical history was being supplanted by a new suite of studies based around
truth as "discourse". Driven by the French post-modern thinkers of the 70s and 80s, the US academy
was adopting and adapting the ideas Foucault, Derrida and Barthe to a variety of civil rights movements
that spawned gender and racial studies.
Each of these was based fundamentally upon the principle that language was the key to all
power. That is, that language was not a tool that described reality but the power that created it,
and s/he who controlled language controlled everything through the shaping of "discourse", as opposed
to the objective existence of any truth at all .
... ... ...
The post-structural revolution transpired before and during the end of the Cold War just as the
collapse of the Old Soviet Union denuded the global Left of its raison detre. But its social justice
impulse didn't die, it turned inwards from a notion of the historic inevitability of the decline
of capitalism and the rise of oppressed classes, towards the liberation of oppressed minorities within
capitalism, empowered by control over the language that defined who they were.
Simultaneously, capitalism did what it does best. It packaged and repackaged, branded and rebranded
every emerging identity, cloaked in its own sub-cultural nomenclature, selling itself back to new
emerging identities. Soon class was completely forgotten as the global Left dedicated itself instead
to policing the commons as a kind of safe zone for a multitude of difference that capitalism turned
into a cultural supermarket.
As the Left turned inwards, capitalism turned outwards and went truly, madly global, lifting previously
isolated nations into a single planet-wide market, pretty much all of it revolving around Americana
replete with its identity-branded products.
But, of course, this came at a cost. When you globalise capital, you globalise labour. That
meant jobs shifting from expensive markets to cheap. Before long the incomes of those swimming in
the stream of global capital began to seriously outstrip the incomes of those trapped in old and
withering Western labour markets. As a result, inflation in those markets also began to fall and
so did interest rates. Thus asset prices took off as Western nation labour markets got hollowed out,
and standard of living inequality widened much more quickly as a new landed aristocracy developed.
Meanwhile the global Left looked on from its Ivory Tower of identity politics and was pleased.
Capitalism was spreading the wealth to oppressed brothers and sisters, and if there were some losers
in the West then that was only natural as others rose in prominence. Indeed, it went further. So
satisfied was it with human progress, and so satisfied with its own role in producing it, that it
turned the power of language that it held most dear back upon those that opposed the new order. Those
losers in Western labour markets that dared complain or fight back against the free movement of capital
and labour were labelled and marginalised as "racist", "xenophobic" and "sexist".
This great confluence of forces reached its apogee in the Global Financial Crisis when a ribaldly
treasonous Wall St destroyed the American financial system just as America's first ever African American
President, Barack Obama, was elected . One might have expected this convergence to result in a revival
of some class politics. Obama ran on a platform of "hope and change" very much cultured in the vein
of seventies art and inherited a global capitalism that had just openly ravaged its most celebrated
host nation.
But alas, it was just a bit of "retro". With a Republican Party on its knees, Obama was positioned
to restore the kind of New Deal rules that global capitalism enjoyed under Franklin D. Roosevelt.
A gobalisation like the one promised in the brochures, that benefited the majority via competition
and productivity gains, driven by trade and meritocracy, with counter-balanced private risk and public
equity.
But instead he opted to patch up financialised capitalism. The banks were bailed out and the
bonus culture returned. Yes, there were some new rules but they were weak. There was no seizing of
the agenda. No imprisonments of the guilty. The US Department of Justice is still issuing $14bn fines
to banks involved yet still today there is no justice. Think about that a minute. How can a crime
be worthy of a $14bn fine but no prison time?!?
Alas, for all of his efforts to restore Wall Street, Obama provided no reset for Main Street
economics to restore the fortunes of the US lower classes. Sure Obama fought a hostile Capitol but,
let's face it, he had other priorities. And so the US working and middle classes, as well as
those worldwide, were sold another pup. Now more than ever, if they said say so they were quickly
shut down as "racist", "xenophobic", or "sexist".
Thus it came to pass that the global Left somehow did a complete back-flip and positioned itself
directly behind the same unreconstructed global capitalism that was still sucking the life from the
lower classes that it always had. Only now it was doing so with explicit public backing and with
an abandon it had not enjoyed since the roaring twenties.
Which brings us back to today. And we wonder how it is that an abuse-spouting guy like Donald
Trump can succeed Barack Obama. Trump is a member of the very same "trickle down" capitalist class
that ripped the income from US households. But he is smart enough, smarter than the Left at least,
to know that the decades long rage of the middle and working classes is a formidable political force
and has tapped it spectacularly to rise to power.
And, he has done more. He has also recognised that the Left's obsession with post-structural identity
politics has totally paralysed it. It is so traumatised and pre-occupied by his mis-use of the language
of power – the "racist", "sexist" and "xenophobic" comments – that it is further wedging itself from
its natural constituents every day.
Don't get me wrong, I am very doubtful that Trump will succeed with his proposed policies but
he has at least mentioned the elephant in the room, making the American worker visible again.
Returning to that innocent Aussie boy and his wild romp at Smith College, I might ask what he
would have made of all of this. None of the above should be taken as a repudiation of the experience
of racism or sexism. Indeed, the one thing I took away from Smith College over my lifetime was an
understanding at just how scarred by slavery are the generations of African Americans that lived
it and today inherit its memory (as well as other persecuted). I felt terribly inadequate before
that pain then and I remain so today.
But, if the global Left is to have any meaning in the future of the world, and I would argue that
the global Right will destroy us all if it doesn't, then it must get beyond post-structural paralysis
and go back to the future of fighting not just for social justice issues but for equity based upon
class. Empowerment is not just about language, it's about capital, who's got it, who hasn't and what
role government plays between them.
This comment is a perfect example of the author's (and Adolf Reed's) point: that the so-called
"Left" is so bogged down in issues of language that it has completely lost sight of class politics.
Essentially, the comment vividly displays the exact methodology the author lambasts in the
piece - it hijacks the discussion about an economic issue, attempts to turn it into a mere distraction
about semantics, and in the end contributes absolutely nothing of substance to the "discourse".
It's why Trump won. He was a Viking swinging an ax at nuanced hair-splitters. It was inelegant
and ugly, but effective. We will find out if the hair-splitters win again in their inner circle with the Democratic
Minority Leader vote. I suspect they missed the point of the election and will vote Pelosi back
in, thereby missing the chance for significant gains in the mid-term elections.
One of the great triumphs of Those Who Continue To Be Our Rulers has been the infiltration
and cooptation of 'the left', hand in hand with the 'dumbing down' of the last 30+ years so few
people really understand what is going on.
Explained in more detail here if anyone interested in some truly 'out of the box' perspectives
– It's not 'the left' trying to take over the world and shut down free speech and all that other
bad stuff – it's 'the right'!! http://tinyurl.com/h4h2kay
.
Although I haven't yet read the article you posted, my "feeling" as I read this was that the
author inferred that the right was in the mix somehow, but it was primarily the fault of the left.
That the Global Left appears to be intellectually weak regarding identity politics and "political
correctness" vs. class politics, there is no doubt. But to skim over Global Corporate leverage
of this attitude seems wrong to me. The right has also embraced identity politics in order to
keep the 90% fully divided in order to justify it's continual economic rape of both human and
physical ecology.
Exactly. My guess is that this plays out somewhat like this:
Dems: This group _____ should be free to have _____ civil right.
Reps: NO. We are a society built on _____ tradition, no need to change that because it upends
our patriarchal, Christian, Caucasian power structure.
Every "identity politics" charge starts here, with one group wanting a more equitable social
order and the other group defending the existing power structure. Identity politics is adjusting
the social order and rattling the power structure, which is why it is so effective.
I think it can be effectively argued that Trump voters in PA, WI, OH, MI chose to rattle
the power structure and you could think of that as identity politics as well.
Identity politics is adjusting the social order and rattling the power structure, which
is why it is so effective.
On the contrary, the (Neo-)Liberal establishment uses identity politics to co-opt and neutralise
the left. It keeps them occupied without threatening the real power structure in the least.
When have they ever done any such thing? Vote for Hillary because she's a woman isn't even
any kind of politics it's more like marketing branding. It's the real thing. Taste great, less
filling. I'm loving it.
Hillary (Neoliberal establishment) has many supporters who think of themselves as 'left'
or 'liberal'. The Democratic Party leadership is neither 'left' nor 'liberal'. It keeps the votes
and the love of the 'liberals' by talking up harmless 'liberal' identity politics and soft peddling
the Liberal power politics which they are really about.
They exploit the happy historical accident of the coincidence of names. The Liberal ideology
was so called because it was slightly less right-wing than the Feudalism it displaced. In today's
terms however, it is not very liberal, and Neoliberalism is even less so.
If I was in charge of the DNC and wanted to commission a very cleverly written piece to exonerate
the DLC and the New Democrats from the 30 odd years of corruption and self-aggrandizement they
indulged in and laughed all the way to the Bank then I would definitely give this chap a call.
I mean, where do we start? No attempt at learning the history of neoliberalism, no attempt at
any serious research about how and why it fastened itself into the brains of people like Tony
Coelho and Al From, nothing, zilch. If someone who did not know the history of the DLC read this
piece, they would walk away thinking, 'wow, it was all happenstance, it all just happened, no
one deliberately set off this run away train'. Sometime in the 90s the 'Left' decided to just
pursue identity politics. Amazing. I would ask the Author to start with the Powell memo and then
make an investigation as to why the Democrats then and the DLC later decided to merely sit on
their hands when all the forces the Powell memo unleashed proceeded to wreak their havoc in every
established institution of the Left, principally the Universities which had always been the bastion
of the Progressives. That might be a good starting point.
Sigh . the left was marginalized and relentlessly hunted down by the right [grab bag of corporatists,
free marketers, neocons, evangelicals, and a whole cornucopia of wing nut ideologists (file under
creative class gig writers)].
Just from historical perspective, the right wing had more money to forward its agenda and
an OCD like affliction [biblical] to drive simple memes relentlessly via its increasing private
ownership of education and media. Thereby creating an institutional network over time to gain
dominate market share in crafting the social narrative. Bloodly hell anyone remember Bush Jr Christian
crusade after politicizing religion to get elected and the ramifications – neocon – R2P thingy .
Its not hard once neoliberalism became dominate in the 70s [wages and productivity diverged]
the proceeds have gone to the top and everyone else got credit IOUs based mostly on asset inflation
via the Casino or RE [home and IP].
Yes, it's interesting that the academic "left" (aka liberals), who so prize language to accurately,
and to the finest degree distinguish 'this' from 'that', have avoided addressing the difference
between 'left' and 'liberal' and are content to leave the two terms interchangable.
The reason for that is that when academic leftists attempted a more in depth critique, of one
sort or another, of the actually existing historical liberal welfare state, the liberals threw
the "New Deal-under-siege" attack at them and attempted to shut them down.
There is very little left perspective in public. All this whining about identity politics is
not left either. It is reactionary. I can think of plenty of old labor left academics who have
done a much better job of wrapping their minds around why sex, gender, and race matter with respect
to all matters economic than this incessant childish whine. The "let me make you feel more comfortable"
denialism of Uncle Tom Reed.
Right now, I would say that these reactionaries don't want to hear from the academic left any
more than New Deal liberals did. Not going to stop them from blaming them for all their problems
though.
Maybe people should shoulder their own failures for a change. As for the Trumpertantrums, I
am totally not having them.
Since the writer led off talking about an academic setting, it would be useful to flesh out
a bit more how trends in academic theoretical discussion in the 70s and 80s reflected and reinforced
what was going on politically. He refers to postructuralism, which was certainly involved, but
doesn't give enough emphasis to how deliberately poststructuralists - and here I'm lumping together
writers like Lyotard, Foucault, and Deleuze and Guattari - were all reacting to the failure of
French Maoism and Trotskyism to, as far as they were concerned, provide a satisfactory alternative
to Soviet Marxism.
As groups espousing those position flailed about in the 70s, the drive to maintain
hope in revolutionary prospects in the midst of macroeconomic stabilization and union reconciliation
to capitalism frequently brought out the worst sectarian tendencies. While writers like Andre Gorz bid adieu to the proletariat as an agent of change and tried to tread water as social democratic
reformists, the poststructuralists disjoined the critique of power from class analysis.
Foucault in particular advanced a greatly expanded wariness regarding the use of power. It
was not just that left politics could only lead to ossified Soviet Marxism or the dogmatic petty
despotism of the left splinters. Institutions in general mapped out social practices and attendant
identities to impose on the individual. His position tended to promote a distrust not only of
"grand narratives" but of organizational bonds as such. As far as I can tell, the idea of people
joining together to form an institution that would enhance their social power as well as allow
them to become personally empowered/enhanced was something of a categorial impossibility.
When imported to US academia, traditionally much more disengaged from organized politics than
their European counterparts, these tendencies flourished. Aside from being socially cut off from
increasingly anodyne political organizations, poststructuralists in the US often had backgrounds
with little orientation to history or social science research addressing class relations. To them
the experience of a much more immediate and palpable form of oppression through the use of language
offered an immediate critical target. This dovetailed perfectly with the legalistic use of state
power to end discrimination against various groups, A European disillusionment with class politics
helped to fortify an American evasion or ignorance of it.
There is no global left. We have only global state capitalists and global social democrats
– a pseudo left. The countries where Marxist class analysis was supposedly adopted were not industrial
countries where "alienation" had brought the "proletariat" to an inevitable communal mentality.
The largest of these countries killed millions in order to industrialize rapidly – pretending
the goal was to get to that state.
The terms left and right may not be adequate for those of us who want an egalitarian society
but also see many of the obstacles to egalitarianism as human failings that are independent of
and not caused by ruling elites – although they frequently serve the interests of those elites.
Bigotry. Identity centered thinking. Neither serves egalitarianism. But people cling to
them. "I gotta look out for myself first." And so called left thinkers constantly pontificate
about "benefits" and "privileges" that some class, sex, and race confer. Hmmm. The logic is that
many of us struggling daily to keep our jobs and pay the bills must give up something in order
to be fair, in order to build a better society. Given this thinking it is no surprise that so
many have retreated into the illusion of safety offered by identity based thinking.
Hopefully those of us who yearn for an egalitarian movement can develop and articulate an alternate
view of reality.
"Simultaneously, capitalism did what it does best. It packaged and repackaged, branded and
rebranded every emerging identity, cloaked in its own sub-cultural nomenclature, selling itself
back to new emerging identities. Soon class was completely forgotten as the global Left dedicated
itself instead to policing the commons as a kind of safe zone for a multitude of difference
that capitalism turned into a cultural supermarket."
"Meanwhile the global Left looked on from its Ivory Tower of identity politics and was pleased.
Capitalism was spreading the wealth to oppressed brothers and sisters, and if there were some
losers in the West then that was only natural as others rose in prominence. Indeed, it went
further. So satisfied was it with human progress, and so satisfied with its own role in producing
it, that it turned the power of language that it held most dear back upon those that opposed
the new order. Those losers in Western labour markets that dared complain or fight back against
the free movement of capital and labour were labelled and marginalised as "racist", "xenophobic"
and "sexist". "
That is not it at all. The real reason is the right wing played white identity politics starting
with the southern strategy, and those running into the waiting arms of Trump today, took the poisoned
bait. Enter Bill Clinton.
People need to start taking responsibility for their own actions, and stop blaming the academics
and the leftists and the wimmins and the N-ers.
But why does the Dem estab embrace the conservative neoliberal agenda? The Dem estab are
smart people, can think on multiple levels, are not limited in scope, are not racist. So, why
then does the Dem estab accept and promote the conservative GOP neoliberal economic agenda?
Because the Dem estab isn't very smart. I doubt more than half of them could define neoliberalism
much less describe how it has destroyed the country. They are mostly motivated by the identity
politics aspects.
Conservative is: private property, capitalism, limited taxes and transfer payments plus
national security and religion.
Liberalism is not in opposition to any of that. Identity politics arose at the same time
the Ds were purging the reds (socialists and communists) from their party. Liberalism/progressivism
is an ameliorating position of conservatism (progressive support of labor unions to work within
a private property/corporatist structure not to eliminate the system and replace it with public/employee
ownership) Not too far, too fast, maybe toss out a few more crumbs.
There is a foundation for identity politics on the liberal-left (see what I did there?)
– it rests in the sense of moral superiority of just this liberal-left, which superiority is then
patronisingly spread all over the social world – until it meets those who deny the moral superiority
claim, whereupon it becomes murderous (in, of course, the name of humanity and humanitarianism).
We live in a society where no one gets what they want. The Left sees the standard of living
fall and is powerless to stop it. The Right see the culture war lost 25 years ago and can't even
offer a public protest, let alone move things in a conservative direction. Instead we get the
agenda of the political Left to sell out at every opportunity. Plus we get the agenda of the political
Right of endless war and endless security state. Eventually the political Left and Right merge
and support the exact same things. Now when will the real Left and Right recognize their true
enemy and join forces against it? This is why the 1% continue to prevail over the 99%. If
the 1% wasn't so incompetent this would continue forever. They know how to divide, conquer and
rule the 99%, however they don't know how to run a society in a sustainable way.
But I will say one thing for the Right over the Left: they have taken the initiative and
are now the sole force for change. Granted, supporting a carnival barker for president is an act
of desperation. Nevertheless he was the only option for change and the Right took it. Perhaps
the Left offering little to nothing in the way of change reflects its lack of desperation.
After all, the Left won the culture war and continues to push its agenda to extremes(even though
such extremes will guarantee a back lash that will send people running back to their closets to
hide). The Left still has the MSM media on its side when it comes to cultural issues. Thus the
Left is satisfied with the status quo, with gorging themselves on the crumbs which fall from the
1% table. Consequently, you not only have a political Left that has sold out, you also have the
rest of the Left content to accept that sell out so long as they get their symbolic victories
over their ancient enemy – the Right.
Until the Left recognize its true enemy, the fight will only come from the Right. During that
process more people will filter from the Left to the Right as the latter will offer the only hope
for change.
I think left and right as political shorthand is too limited. Perhaps the NC commentariat could
define up and down versions of each of these political philosophies (ie. left and right) and start
to take control of the framing. Hence we would have up-left, down-left, up-right, and down-right.
I would suggest that up and down could relate to environmental viewpoints.
Just a thought that I haven't given much thought, but it would be funny (to me at least) to
be able to quantify one's political stance in terms of radians.
Excellent comment, EoinW! You just summed up years of content and commentary on this site.
Obviously as the "Left" continues to defend the status quo as you describe it stops being "Left"
in any meaningful way anymore.
This seems to assume that change is an intrinsic good, so that change produced by the right
will necessarily be improvement. Unfortunately, change for the worse is probably more likely than
change for the better under this regime. Equally unfortunately, we may have reached the point
where that is the only thing that will make people reconsider what constitutes a just society
and how to achieve it. In any case, this is where we are now.
The economic left sees its standard of living fall. The social right sees its
cultural verities fall.
The Koch brothers are economically to the very right. They are socially to the
left, perhaps even more socially liberal than many of your liberal friends. No joke. There's
a point here, if I can figure out what it is.
"He [Trump] was the only option for change and the Right took it."
You forget Bernie. The Left tried, and Bernie bowed out, not wanting to be another "Nader"
spoiler. Now, for 2020, the Left thinks it's the "their turn."
The problem is, the Left tends to blow it too (e.g. McGovern in 1972), in part because their
"language" also exudes power and tends to alienate other, more moderate, parts of the coalition
with arcane (and rather elitist) arguments from Derrida et. al.
Trump isn't Right or Left. Trump is a can of gasoline and a match. His voters weren't voting
for a Left or Right agenda. They were voting for a battering ram. That is why he got a pass on
racist, misogynist, fascist statements that would have killed any other candidate.
Trump is starting out with some rallies in the near-future. The Republicans in Congress think
they are going to play patty-cake on policy to push the Koch Brothers agenda. We are going to
see a populist who promised jobs duke it out publicly with small government austerity deficit
cutters. It will be interesting to see what happens when he calls out Republican Congressmen standing
in the way of his agenda by name.
PC is a parody of the 20th Century reform movements. I n the 60's the Black churches
and the labor unions fought Jim Crow laws and explicit institutional discrimination. In the 70's
the feminists worked against legal disabilities written into law. Since the Depression, the unions
fought corporate management create a livable relationship between management and labor. Real struggles,
real problems, real people.
[Tinfoil hat on)]
At the same time the reformist subset was losing themselves in style points, being 'nice',
and passive aggressive intimidation, the corporate community was promoting the anti-government
screech for the masses. That is, at the same time the people lost sight of government as their
counterweight to capital, the left elite was becoming the vile joke Limbaugh and the other talk
radio blowhards said they were. This may be coincidental timing, or their may be someone behind
the French connection and Hamilton Fish touring college campuses in the 80's promoting subjectivism.
It's true the question of 'how they feel' seems to loom large in discussions where social justice
used to be.
[Tinfoil hat off]
There are many words but no communication between the laboring masses and the specialist readers.
Fainting couch feminists have nothing to say to wives and mothers, the slippery redefinitions
out of non-white studies turn off people who work for a living, and the promotion of smaller and
more neurotic minorities are just more friction in a society growing steeper uphill.
"She was studying Liberal Arts at US Ivy League Smith College at the time (which Aussies may
recall was being run by our Jill Kerr Conway back then). So I moved in with my dancing beauty
and we lived happily on her old man's purse for a year."
I hate to be overly pedantic, but Smith College is one of the historically female colleges
known as the Seven Sisters: Barnard College, Bryn Mawr College, Mount Holyoke College, Radcliffe
College, Smith College, Vassar College, and Wellesley College. While Barnard is connected to Columbia,
and Radcliffe to Harvard, none of the other Sisters has ever been considered any part of the Ancient
Eight (Ivy League) schools: Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Harvard, Pennsylvania, Princeton,
and Yale.
I find it highly doubtful that someone, unaware of this elementary fact, actually lived off
a beautiful bisexual black ballerina's (wonderful alliteration!) "old man's purse," for a full
year in Northampton, MA. He may well have dated briefly someone like this, but it strains credulity
that– after a full year in this environment– he would never have learned of the distinction between
the Seven Sisters and the Ivy League.
The truth of the matter is not so important. The black ballerina riff had two functions. First
it helped push an ethos for the author of openness and acceptance of various races and sexual
orientations. This is a highly charged subject and so accusations of racism, etc, are never far
away for someone pushing class over identity.
Second it served as a nice hook to get dawgs like me to read through the whole thing; which
was a very good article. Kind of like the opening paragraph of a Penthouse Forum entry, I was
hoping that the author would eventually elaborate on what happened when she pirouetted over him
What's interesting is that in an article pushing class over identity. he never tried to set
his class ethos in order to convince working class people or the bourgeoisie why they should listen
to him.
I have never, ever known Brits to claim an "Oxbridge education" if they haven't attended either
Oxford or Cambridge. Similarly, over several decades of knowing quite well many alumnae from Wellesley,
Smith, etc. I have never once heard them speak of their colleges as "Ivy League."
I do get your point, however. Perhaps Mr. Llewellyn-Smith was deliberately writing for a non-U.S.
audience, and chose to use "Ivy League" as synonymous with "prestigious." I have seen graduates
of Stanford, for example, described as "Ivy Leaguers" in the foreign press.
I think the gradual process whereby the left, or more specifically, the middle class left,
have been consumed by an intellectually vacant went hand in hand with what I found the bizarre
abandonment of interest by the left in economics and in public intellectualism. The manner in
which the left simply surrendered the intellectual arguments over issues like taxes and privatisation
and trade still puzzles me. I suspect it was related to a cleavage between middle class left wingers
and working class activists. They simple stopped talking the same language, so there was nobody
to shout 'stop' when the right simply colonised the most important areas of public policy and
shut down all discussion.*
A related issue is I think a strong authoritarianist strain which runs through some identity
politics. Its common to have liberals discuss how intolerant the religious or right wingers are
of intellectual discussion, but even try to question some of of the shibboleths of gender/race
discussions and you can immediately find yourself labelled a misogynist/homophobe/racist. Just
see some of the things you can get banned from the Guardian CIF for saying.
This site, along with the MSM, has flown way off the handle since the election loss. Democrat-bashing
is the new pastime.
Our nation's problems can be remedied with one dramatic change:
Caps on executive gains in terms of multiples in both public and private companies of a big
enough size. For example, the CEO at most can make 50 times the average salary. Something to that
effect. And any net income gains at the end of the year that are going to be dispersed as dividends,
must proportionally reach the internal laborers as well. Presto, a robust economy.
All employees must share in gains. You don't like it? Tough. The owner will still be rich.
Historically, executives topped out at 20-30 times average salary. Now it's normal for the
number to reach 500-2,000. It's absurd. As if a CEO is manufacturing products, marketing, and
selling them all by himself/herself. As if Tim Cook assembles iPhones and iMacs by hand and sells
them. As if Leslie Moonves writes, directs, acts in, and markets each show.
Put the redistributive mechanism in the private sphere as well as in government. Then America
will be great again.
Bringing C level pay packages at major corporations in line with the real contributions of
the recipients would be great. How would we do it? With laws or regulations or executive orders
banning the federal government from doing business with any firm that failed to comply with some
basic guidelines?
It's an academic point right now in any event. The Trump administration – working together
with the Ryan House – is not going to make legislation or sign executive orders to do anything
remotely like this. Which is one of the many reasons why bashing Democrats has taken off here
I suspect. This election was theirs to lose, and they did everything in their power to toss it.
You do realize that the wealthy are both part of and connected to the legislative branch
of every single country on this planet right? As long as that remains so (as it has since the
dawn of humans) then good luck trying to cap any sort of hording behavior of the wealthy.
As someone who grew up in and participated in those discussions:
1) It was "women's studies" back then. "Gender studies" is actually a major improvement in
how the issues are examined.
2) We'd already long since lost by then, and we were looking to make our own lives better.
Creating a space where we could have good sex and a minimum of violence was better. Reagan's election,
and his re-election, destroyed the Left.
I feel like this piece could use the yellow waders as well. Instead of simply repeating myself
every time these things come up, I proffer an annotation of a important paragraph, to give a sense
of what bothers me here.
The post-structural revolution transpired [in the U.S.] before and during the end of the
Cold War just as the collapse of the Old Soviet Union denuded the global Left of its raison
detre. But its social justice impulse didn't die, [a certain, largely liberal tendency in the
North American academy] turned inwards from a notion of the historic inevitability of the decline
of capitalism and the rise of oppressed classes, towards the liberation of oppressed minorities
within capitalism[, which, if you paid close attention to what was being called for, implied
and sometimes even outright demanded clear restraints be placed upon the power of capital in
order to meet those goals], empowered by control over the [images, public statements, and widespread
ideologies–i.e. discourse {which is about more than just language}] that defined who they were.
The post-structural turn was just as much about Derrida at Johns Hopkins as it was about Foucault
trying to demonstrate the subtle and not-so-subtle effects of power in the explicit context of
the May '68 events in France. The economy ground to a halt, and at one point de Gaulle was so
afraid of a violent revolution that he briefly left the country, leaving the government helpless
to do much of anything, until de Gaulle returned shortly thereafter.
Foucault was not entirely sympathetic to the Left, at least the unions, but he was trying to
articulate a politics that was just as much about liberation from capitalism as classic Marxism.
To that end, discourse analysis was the means to discovering those subtle articulations of power
in human relations, not an end in itself as it was for, say, Barthes.
A claim is being made here regarding the "global left" that clearly comes from a parochial,
North American perspective. Indian academics, for one, never abandoned political economy for identity
politics, especially since in India identity politics, religion, regionalism, castes, etc. were
always a concern and remain so. It seems rather odd to me that the other major current in academia
from the '90s on, namely postcolonialism, is entirely left out of this story, especially when
critiques of militarism and political economy were at the heart of it.
The saddest point of the events of '68 is that looking back society has never been so equal
as at that point in time. That was more or less the time of peak working class living standard
relative to the wealthy classes. It is no accident, at least in my book, that these mostly bourgeois
student activists have a tard at the end of their name in French: soixante-huitards.
In the Sixites the "Left" had control of the economic levers or power - and by Left I mean
those interested in smaller differences between the classes. There is no doubt the Cold War helped
the working classes as the wealthy knew it was in their interest to make capitalism a showcase
of rough egalitarianism. But during the 60's the RIght held cultural sway. It was Berkeley pushing
Free Speech and Lenny Bruce trying to break boundaries while the right tried to keep the Overton
Window as tight and squeaky clean as possible.
But now the "Right" in the sense of those who want to increase the difference between rich
and poor hold economic power while the Left police culture and speech. The provocateurs come from
the right nowadays as they run roughshod over the PC police and try to smash open the racial,
gender. and sexual orientation speech restrictions put in place as the left now control the Overton
Window.
The Left and Liberal are two different things entirely.
In the UK we have three parties:
Labour – the left
Liberal – middle/ liberal
Conservative – the right
Mapping this across to the US:
Labour – X
Liberal – Democrat
Conservative – Republican
The US has been conned from the start and has never had a real party of the Left.
At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th Century US ideas changed and the view of those
at the top was that it would be dangerous for the masses to get any real power, a liberal Democratic
party would suffice to listen to the wants of the masses and interpret them in a sensible way
in accordance with the interests of the wealthy.
We don't want the masses to vote for a clean slate redistribution of land and wealth for heaven's
sake.
In the UK the Liberals were descendents of the Whigs, an elitist Left (like the US Democrats).
Once everyone got the vote, a real Left Labour party appeared and the Whigs/Liberals faded
into insignificance.
It is much easier to see today's trends when you see liberals as an elitist Left.
They have just got so elitist they have lost touch with the working class.
The working class used to be their pet project, now it is other minorities like LGBT and immigration.
Liberals need a pet project to feel self-righteous and good about themselves but they come
from the elite and don't want any real distribution of wealth and privilege as they and their
children benefit from it themselves.
Liberals are the more caring side of the elite, but they care mainly about themselves rather
than wanting a really fair society.
They call themselves progressive, but they like progressing very slowly and never want to reach
their destination where there is real equality.
The US needs its version of the UK Labour party – a real Left – people who like Bernie Sanders
way of thinking should start one up, Bernie might even join up.
In the UK our three parties all went neo-liberal, we had three liberal parties!
No one really likes liberals and they take to hiding in the other two parties, you need to
be careful.
Jeremy Corbyn is taking the Labour party back where it belongs slowly.
Imagine inequality plotted on two axes. Inequality between genders, races and cultures is what liberals have been concentrating on.
This is the x-axis and the focus of identity politics and the liberal left.
On the y-axis we have inequality from top to bottom. 2014 – "85 richest people as wealthy as poorest half of the world"
2016– "Richest 62 people as wealthy as half of world's population"
Doing the maths and assuming a straight line .
5.4 years until one person is as wealthy as poorest half of the world.
This is what the traditional left normally concentrate on, but as they have switched to identity
politics this inequality has gone through the roof. They were over-run by liberals.
Some more attention to the y-axis please.
The neoliberal view L
As long as everyone, from all genders, races and cultures, is visiting the same food bank this
is equality.
left – traditional left – y-axis inequality
liberal – elitist left – x -axis inequality (this doesn't affect my background of wealth and privilege)
labor is being co-opted by the right: the Republican Workers Party I think this rhymes with
Fascist. But then, in a world soon to be literally scrambling for high ground and rebuilding housing
for 50 million people the time honored "worker" might actually have a renaissance.
Identity politics does make democrats lose. The message needs to be economic. It can have the
caveat that various sub groups will be paid special attention to, but if identity is the only
thing talked about then get used to right wing governments.
Empowerment is not just about language, it's about capital, who's got it, who hasn't
and what role government plays between them.
Empowerment is very much about capital, but the Left has never had the cajones to
stare down and take apart the Right's view of 'capital' as some kind of magical elixir that mysteriously
produces 'wealth'.
I ponder my own experiences, which many here probably share:
First: slogging through college(s), showing up to do a defined list of tasks (a 'job', if you
will) to be remunerated with some kind of payment/salary. That was actual 'work' in order to get
my hands on very small amounts of 'capital' (i.e., 'money').
Second: a few times, I just read up on science or looked at the stock pages and did a little
research, and then wrote checks that purchased stock shares in companies that seemed to be exploring
some intriguing technologies. In my case, I got lucky a few times, and presto! That simple act
of writing a few checks made me look like a smarty. Also, paid a few bills. But the simple
act of writing checks cost me n-o-t-h-i-n-g in terms of time, energy, education, physical or mental
exertion.
Third: I have also had the experience of working (start ups) in situations where - literally!!!
- I made less in a day in salary than I'd have made if I'd simply taken a couple thousand dollars
and bought stock in the place I was working.
To summarize:
- I've had capital that I worked long and hard to obtain.
- I've had capital that took me a little research, about one minute to write a check, and brought
me a handsome amount of 'capital'. (Magic!)
- I've worked in situations in which I created MORE capital for others than I created for myself.
And the value of that capital expanded exponentially.
If the Left had a spine and some guts, it would offer a better analysis about what 'capital'
is, the myriad forms it can take, and why any of this matters.
Currently, the Left cannot explain to a whole lot of people why their hard work ended up in
other people's bank accounts. If they had to actually explain that process by which people's hard
work turned into fortunes for others, they'd have a few epiphanies about how wealth is actually
created, and whether some forms of wealth creation are more sustainable than other forms.
IMVHO, I never saw Hillary Clinton as able to address this elemental question of the nature
of wealth creation. The Left has not traditionally given a shrewd analysis of this core problem,
so the Right has been able to control this issue. Which is tragic, because the Right is trapped
in the hedge fund mentality, in the tight grip of realtors and mortgage brokers; they obsess on
assets, and asset classes, and resource extraction. When your mind is trapped by that kind of
thinking, you obsess on the tax code, and on how to use it to generate wealth for yourself. Enter
Trump.
One small correction: Smith is not an Ivy League school, it is one of the "Seven Sisters:
Ivy League:
Brown
Columbia
Cornell
Dartmouth
Harvard
Penn
Princeton
Yale
Seven Sisters:
Barnard
Bryn Mawr
Mount Holyoke
Radcliffe
Smith
Vassar
Wellesley
A much more nuanced discussion of the primacy of identity politics on the Left in Britain and
the US is
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/29/prospects-for-an-alt-left/
"Prospects for an Alt-Left," November 29, 2016, by Elliot Murphy, who teaches in the Division
of Psychology and Language Sciences at University College, London.
And let's not forget that identity politics arose in the first place because of genuine discrimination,
which still exists today. In forsaking identity politics in favor of one of class, we should not
forget the original reasons for the rise of the phenomena, however poorly employed by some of
its practitioners, and however mined by capitalism to give the semblance of tolerance and equality
while obscuring the reality of intolerance and inequality.
Trivially, I would think the last thing to do is adopt the "alt-" moniker, thereby cementing
the impression in the mind of the public that the two are in some sense similar.
The blogger Lord Keynes at Social Democracy for the 21st Century at blogspot suggests Realist
Left instead of alt-left. I think how people are using the term "identity politics" at the moment
isn't "actual anti-racism in policy and recruitment" but "pandering to various demographics to
get their loyalty and votes so that the party machine doesn't have to try and gain votes by doing
economic stuff that frightens donors, lobbyists and the media". Clinton improved the female vote
for Democratic president by 1 percentage point, and the black and Latino shares of the Republican
were unchanged from Romney in 2012. Thus, identity politics is not working when the economy needs
attention, even against the most offensive opponent.
So to repress class conflicts, the kleptocracy splintered them into opposition between racists
and POC, bigots and LGBTQ, patriarchal oppressors and women, etc., etc. The US state-authorized
parties used it for divide and rule. The left fell for it and neutered itself. Good. Fuck the
left.
Outside the Western bloc the left got supplanted with a more sensible opposition: between humans
and the overreaching state. That alternative view subsumes US-style identity politics in antidiscrimination
and cultural rights. It subsumes traditional class struggle in labor, migrant, and economic rights.
It reforms and improves discredited US constitutional rights, and integrates it all into the concepts
of peace and development. It's up and running with binding
law and authoritative
institutions
.
So good riddance to the old left and the new left.
Human rights have already replaced
them in the 80-plus per cent of the world represented by UNCTAD and the G-77. That's why the USA
fights tooth and nail to keep them out of your reach.
To All Commenters: thanks for the discussion. Many good, thoughtful ideas/perspectives.
Mine? Living in California (a minority white populace, broad economic engine, high living expenses
(and huge homeless population) and a leader in alternative energy: Trump is what happens when
you don't allow the "people" to vote for their preferred candidates (Bernie) and don't listen
to a select few voters in key electoral states (WI,MI,PA).
The electorate is angry (true liberals at the Dems, voters in select electoral states at "everything").
If democracy is messy, then that's what we've got; a mess. Unfortunately, it's coming at the absolutely
wrong time (Climate Change, lethal policing, financial elite impunity).
Hold this same election with different (multiple) candidates and the outcome is likely different.
In the end, we all need to work and demand a more fair and Just society. (Or California is likely
to secede.)
"Meanwhile the global Left looked on from its Ivory Tower of identity politics and was pleased.
Capitalism was spreading the wealth to oppressed brothers and sisters, and if there were some
losers in the West then that was only natural as others rose in prominence."
I can only imagine the glee of the wealthy feminists at Smith while they witnessed the white,
lunch pailed, working class American male thrown out of work and into the gutter of irrelevance
and despair. The perfect comeuppance for a demographic believed to be the arch-nemesis of women
and minorities. Nothing seems quite so fashionable at the moment as hating white male Republicans
that live outside of proper-thinking coastal enclaves of prosperity. Unfortunately I fail to see
how this attitude helps the country. Seems like more divide and conquer from our overlords on
high.
just more whining from the Weekly Standard. While men may have been disproportionately displaced
in jobs that require physical strength, many women (nurses?) likely lost their homes during the
Great Financial Scam and its fallout.
The enemy is a rigged political, financial, and judicial system.
Identity Politics gestated for a while before the 90s. Beginning with a backlash against Affirmative
Action in the 70s, the Left began to turn Liberal. East Coast intellectuals who were anxious they
would be precluded from entering the best schools may have been the catalyst (article from Jacobin
I think).
But certainly the fall of the USSR was the thing that forced capitalism's hand. At that
point capitalism had no choice but to step up and prove that it could really bring a better life
to the world.
A Minsky event of biblical proportions soon followed (it only took about 10 years!)
and now all is devastation and nobody has clue. But the 1990 effort could have been in earnest.
Capitalists mean well but they are always in denial about the inequality they create which finally
started a chain reaction in "identity politics" as reactions to the stress of economic competition
bounced around in every society like a pinball machine. A tedious and insufferable game which
seems to have culminated in Hillary the Relentless. I won't say capitalism is idiotic. But something
is.
"Perhaps the NC commentariat could define up and down versions of each of these political
philosophies (ie. left and right) and start to take control of the framing."
Well, I'll have a first go, since I was around at the time.
Left and Right only really make sense in the context of the distribution of power and wealth,
and only when there is a difference between them about that distribution. This was historically
the case for more than 150 years after the French Revolution. By the mid-1960s, there was a sense
that the Left was winning, and would continue to win. Progressive taxation, zero unemployment,
little real poverty by today's standards, free education and healthcare . and many influential
political figures (Tony Crosland for example) saw the major task of the future as deciding where
the fruits of economic growth could be most justly applied.
Three things happened that made the Left completely unprepared for the counter-attack in the 1970s.
First, simple complacency. When Thatcher appeared, most people thought she'd escaped from a Monty
Python sketch. The idea that she might actually take power and use it was incredible.
Secondly, the endless factionalism and struggles for power within the Left, usually over arcane
points of ideology, mixed with vicious personal rivalries. The Left loves defeats, and picks over
them obsessively, looking for someone else to blame.
Third, the influence of 1968 and the turning away from the real world, towards LSD and the New
Age, and the search for dark and hidden truths and structures of power in the world. Fueled by
careless and superficial readings of bad translations of Foucault and Derrida, leftists discovered
an entire new intellectual continent into which they could extend their wars and feuds, which
was much more congenial, since it involved eviscerating each other, rather than seriously taking
on the forces of capitalism and the state.
And that's the very short version. We've been living with the consequences ever since. The
Left has been essentially powerless, and powerlessness, of course, corrupts. There's always someone
weaker than you, which is why identity politics is essentially a conservative, disciplining force,
with a vested interest in the problems it has chosen to identify continuing, or it would have
no reason to exist.
So until class-based politics and struggles over power and money re-start (if they ever do) I
respectfully suggest that "Left" and "Right" be retired as terms that no longer have any meaning.
" powerlessness, of course, corrupts. There's always someone weaker than you, which is
why identity politics is essentially a conservative, disciplining force, with a vested interest
in the problems it has chosen to identify "
Yes. As long as the doyens of identity politics don't have any real fear of being homeless
they can happily indulge in internecine warfare. It's a lot more fun than working to get $20/hour
for a bunch of snaggle-toothed guys who kind of don't like you.
I read: "Traditional dialectical history was being supplanted by a new suite of studies based
around truth as "discourse". Driven by the French post-modern thinkers of the 70s and 80s, the
US academy was adopting and adapting the ideas Foucault, Derrida and Barthe to a variety of civil
rights movements that spawned gender and racial studies."
Of course, I have been a college professor since the late 1970s. On the other hand, I am a
physicist. The notion that truth is discourse is, in my opinion, daft, and says much about the
nature of the modern liberal arts, at least as understood by many undergraduates. I have actually
heard of the folks referenced in the above, and to my knowledge their influence in science, engineering,
technology, and mathematics–the academic fields that are in this century actually central*–is
negligible.
*Yes, I am in favor of a small number of students becoming professional historians, dramatists,
and composers, but the number of these is limited.
Identity politics is a disaster ongoing for the Democratic Party, for reasons they seem to
have overlooked. First, the additional identity group is white. We already see this in the South,
where 90% of the white population in many states votes Republican.
When that spreads to the rest
of the country, there will be a permanent Republican majority until the Republicans create a new
major disaster.
Second, some Democratic commentators appear to have assumed that if your forebearers
spoke Spanish, you can not be white. This belief is properly grouped with the belief that if your
forebearers spoke Gaelic or Italian, you were from one of the colored races of Europe (a phrase
that has faded into antiquity, but some of my friends specialize in American history of the relevant
period), and were therefore not White.
Identity politics is a losing strategy, as will it appears
be noticed by the losers only after it is too late.
An extremely important point, but overblown in a way that may reflect the author's background
and is certainly rhetorical.
So soon we forget the Battle of Seattle. The Left has been opposed to globalization, deregulation,
etc., all along. Partly he's talking about an academic pseudo-left, partly confusing the left
with the Democrats and other "center-left," captured parties.
That doesn't invalidate his point. If you want to see it in full-blown, unadorned action, try
Democrat sites like Salon and Raw Story. A factor he doesn't do justice to is the extreme self-righteousness
that accompanies it, supported, I suppose, by the very real injustices perpetrated against minorities
– and women, not a minority.
The whole thing is essentially a category error, so it would be nice to see a followup that
doesn't perpetuate the error. But it's valuable for stating the problem, which can be hard to
present, especially in the face of gales of self-righteousness.
Well said. An excellent attack on 'identity politics.'
I mean, Barack Obama was our first black president, but most blacks didn't do very well.
George W. Bush was our first retard president, and most people with cognitive handicaps didn't
do very well.
But we can boil it all down to something even simpler and more primal: divide and conquer.
"... I think tribalism is a bad term to describe this phenomenon. In reality what we see should be properly called "far right nationalism". And in several countries this is a specific flavor of far right nationalism which is called neofascism ..."
"... Brexit is just a symptom of growing resistance to neoliberalism, and the loss of power of neoliberal propaganda. Much like "Prague Spring" was in the past. ..."
"... the sustainability of modern far right nationalism depends mainly on continuation of austerity policies and uncontrolled neoliberal globalization with its outsourcing of local manufacturing, services and replacing well paying jobs with McJobs. Which cannot be stopped without betraying of fundamental tenets of neoliberalism as an ideology and economic theory. ..."
"... Thanks to "neoliberalism achievements" far right nationalism already achieved the status of mass movement with own political party(ies) in most EU countries. Trump_vs_deep_state in the USA is pretty modest demonstration of the same trend in comparison with EuroMaydan (Yanukovich government was a typical corrupt neoliberal government). And first attempts might fail (as they failed in Ukraine) ..."
Since the collapse of faith in neoliberalism following the Global Financial Crisis, the
political right has been increasingly dominated by tribalism
The sustainability of tribalism as a political force will depend, in large measure, on
the perceived success or failure of Brexit.
I see it differently. I think tribalism is a bad term to describe this phenomenon. In reality
what we see should be properly called "far right nationalism". And in several countries this is
a specific flavor of far right nationalism which is called neofascism , if we understand
neofascism as
neofascism = fascism
– physical violence as the main tool of controlling opposition
– attempts to replace parliamentary democracy with the authoritarian rule
+ some degree of acceptance of "unearned income" and financial oligarchy
+ weaker demands for social protection of middle class and Drang nach Osten
Brexit is just a symptom of growing resistance to neoliberalism, and the loss of power
of neoliberal propaganda. Much like "Prague Spring" was in the past.
And the sustainability of modern far right nationalism depends mainly on continuation of
austerity policies and uncontrolled neoliberal globalization with its outsourcing of local manufacturing,
services and replacing well paying jobs with McJobs. Which cannot be stopped without betraying
of fundamental tenets of neoliberalism as an ideology and economic theory.
Thanks to "neoliberalism achievements" far right nationalism already achieved the status
of mass movement with own political party(ies) in most EU countries. Trump_vs_deep_state in the USA is pretty
modest demonstration of the same trend in comparison with EuroMaydan (Yanukovich government was
a typical corrupt neoliberal government). And first attempts might fail (as they failed in Ukraine)
In other words neoliberalism is digging its own grave, but not the way Marx assumed.
"... Moreover, the use of labels such as "populist right" are not really helping. Populism is not an ideology. The widespread use of the term by the majority of commentators distracts from the true nature of far-right parties. ..."
"... Are we then really sure that these movements moderated their agenda? In fact, they promote a narrow concept of community, that excludes all the "different" and foreigners. ..."
"... "Our European cultures, our values and our freedom are under attack. They are threatened by the crushing and dictatorial powers of the European Union. They are threatened by mass immigration, by open borders and by a single European currency," ..."
"... The Austrian Freedom Party , on a similar line, "supports the interests of all German native speakers from the territories of the former Habsburg monarchy" and the "right of self-determination" of the German-speaking Italian bordering region of South Tyrol. ..."
"... On the other hand, Marine Le Pen, president of the French National Front, promotes a principle of "national priority" for French citizens in many areas, from welfare to jobs in the public sector. ..."
Around a decade ago, Columbia University historian Robert Paxton rightly pointed out how "a fascism
of the future - an emergency response to some still unimagined crisis - need not resemble classical
fascism perfectly in its outward signs and symbols ... the enemy would not necessarily be Jews.
An authentically popular fascism in America would be pious, anti-black, and, since September 11,
2001, anti-Islamic as well; in Western Europe it would be secular and, these days, more likely anti-Islamic
than anti-Semitic; and in Russia and Eastern Europe it would be religious, anti-Semitic, Slavophile,
and anti- Western.
New fascisms would probably prefer the mainstream patriotic dress of their own place and time."
Does any of this sound familiar across the Atlantic?
Moreover, the use of labels such as "populist right" are not really helping. Populism is not
an ideology. The widespread use of the term by the majority of commentators distracts from the true
nature of far-right parties.
Are we then really sure that these movements moderated their agenda? In fact, they promote
a narrow concept of community, that excludes all the "different" and foreigners.
There is also a sense of decline and threat that was widely exploited by interwar fascism, and
by these extreme-right parties, which - after 1945 - resisted immigration on the grounds of defending
the so-called "European civilization".
The future of Europe?
The future of European societies could, however, follow these specific lines: "Our European
cultures, our values and our freedom are under attack. They are threatened by the crushing and dictatorial
powers of the European Union. They are threatened by mass immigration, by open borders and by a single
European currency," as Marcel de Graaff, co-president of the Europe of Nations and Freedom group
in the European Parliament, declared.
Another fellow party, the Belgian
Vlaams Belang , calls for an opposition to multiculturalism. It "defends the interests of the
Dutch-speaking people wherever this is necessary", and would "dissolve Belgium and establish an independent
Flemish state. This state ... will include Brussels", the current capital of the EU institutions.
The Austrian
Freedom Party , on a similar line, "supports the interests of all German native speakers from
the territories of the former Habsburg monarchy" and the "right of self-determination" of the German-speaking
Italian bordering region of South Tyrol.
On the other hand, Marine Le Pen, president of the French National Front, promotes a principle
of "national priority" for French citizens in many areas, from welfare to jobs in the public sector.
She also wants to renegotiate the European treaties and establish a "
pan-European Union " including Russia.
At the end of these inward-looking changes, there will be no free movement of Europeans across
Europe, and this will be replaced with a reconsolidation of the sovereignty of nation states.
Resentments among regional powers might rise again, while privileges will be based on ethnic origins
- and their alleged purity. In sum, this is how Europe will probably look if one follows the "moderate"
far-right policies. The dream of building the United States of Europe will become an obsolete memory
of the past. And the old continent will be surely less similar to the post-national one which guaranteed
peace and - relative - prosperity after the disaster of World War II.
Andrea Mammone is a historian of modern Europe at Royal Holloway, University of London.
He is the author of "Transnational Neofascism in France and Italy". He is currently writing a book
on the recent nationalist turn in Europe.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect
Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
Exception of course are refugees (which one could say we have some moral responsibility to
rescue since our 15 year war in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya, Syria (since we are
bombing quite a bit in Syria), and many other places has more than done or bit fan disorder and
violence from which the refugees flee rather than die, ditto the children fleeing Mexico and Central
America where our war on (some people) who use drugs has created both right wing Governments and
drug gangs and associated violence.)
I think it is bad form when left wing sites repeat right-wing memes (falsehoods and half-truths),
particularly when the new right-wing authoritarian kleptocrats who are taking over the Government
are talking about rounding up, placing in concentration camps, and deporting millions of people,
citizens and non-citizens alike..
rickstersherpa, November 30, 2016 11:46 am
Just out curiosity, since Mr. Kimel used the example of Iran, there was a huge Iranian immigration
to the U.S. In sense they both support (since many of the these people were high skill immigrants)
and rebut his point (since they came from a culture he marks as particularly "foreign" to U.S.
culture.
http://xpatnation.com/a-look-at-the-history-of-iranian-immigrants-in-the-u-s/ It has actually
been an amazingly successful immigration, with many now millionaires (a mark of "success" that
I find rather reflects the worse part of America, the presumption by Americans, Rich, Middle,
or poor, that if you are not rich, you are nothing, a loser; but still it appears to be a marker
that Mr. Kimel is using.
Beverly Mann, November 30, 2016 3:47 pm
To add to Rickstersherpa's comments, I'll also point out that among the Muslim immigrants who've
committed acts of terrorism in this country, none to my knowledge was on welfare nor were their
parents on welfare, None.
This post is just the latest in what is now many-months-long series of white supremacist/ white
nationalist posts by Kimel, whose original bailiwick at this blog was standard left-of-center
economics but obviously is something close to the opposite now. He left the blog for two or three
years, and came back earlier this year unrecognizable and with a vengeance. Literally.
I was a blogger here for six-and-a-half years until earlier this month, and was among regulars
who comment in the Comments threads who repeatedly expressed dismay. Kimel's last few posts, lik
this one, are published directly under his name. Before that Dan Crawford and run75441 were posting
them for him and crediting him with the posts.
In my comments int those threads, I've suggested as you did here that this blogger belongs
at Breitbart, or more accurately, you say that this blog is providing the same type of voice as
Breitbart.
But at least Breitbart hasn't been known as left-of-center blog. Allowing these posts on a
blog that has misleads readers into thinking, if only for a moment, that maybe this guy's saying
something that you're missing, or not saying something that you think he's saying. It's really
jarring.
The Rage November 30, 2016 3:49 pm
Sorry, but leftists were the originators of anti-immigration. They blasted classical
liberals and their "open borders" to buy talent on the market rather than "building within"
and using the state to develop talent.
"right wing" Christians are some of the worst people in terms of helping the underground
railroad for immigrants in the US.
The Rage November 30, 2016 3:54 pm
Beverly, Breitbart loves illegal immigration and wants it to stay, indeed quite illegal.
You represent the problem of modern politics. Anyone you don't agree with, you start
making dialectical points rather than going under the hood to find out the point.
Jack November 30, 2016 4:24 pm
Kimel,
Your points leave out any consideration of the cultural variabilities of this host country.
Given that the USofA is a country made up of immigrants from a wide variety of places across
the globe I would think that there is some benefit to varying the sources of immigration
in the present given the past. Some of the cultural distinctions that you suggest as different
from our own are not homogeneous within our own culture. For example, I wouldn't choose
to live in some parts of the US because of the degree of antisemitism that I might find
even though I am what one might call an agnostic Jew. There are many Americans that don't
make that distinction.
Face it Mike, there is probably a place for just about anyone from any place that would
be suitable for their emigration within the US. We don't all have to share the same values
with the new comer. We don't share values amongst ourselves as it is. We've got large numbers
of immigrants and their off spring from the Far East, South East Asia, Africa, South America
and the middle East. We even have many Europeans. Keep in mind that that last category is
made up of people who have spent the past two thousand years trying as hard as possible
to kill one another. So who is to say what immigrant group is best for the US? We've been
moving backwards for the past several decades. Maybe we need some new blood to get thinks
going forward again.
Beverly Mann November 30, 2016 4:27 pm
Apparently you aren't able to distinguish between racist proclamations and fears unrelated
to racism and ethnicity bias masquerading as "cultural" differences, on the one hand, and immigrants
willing to work for lower wages irrespective of their race and ethnicity, on the other hand,
The Rage. Even when the writer is extremely open, clear, and repetitive about his claims.
Rickstersherpa and I are able to make that distinction, and have done so.
Beverly Mann November 30, 2016 4:34 pm
CORRECTED COMMENT: Apparently, The Rage, you aren't able to distinguish between racist proclamations
masquerading as "cultural" differences, on the one hand, and fears unrelated to racism and
ethnicity bias, that immigrants willing to work for lower wages will put downward pressure
on wages in this country, irrespective of the race and ethnicity or the immigrant willing to
work for the low wages. Even when the writer is extremely open, clear, and repetitive about
his claims.
Rickstersherpa and I are able to make that distinction, and have done so.
(Definitely a cut-and-paste issue there with that first comment, which I accidentally clicked
"Post Comment" for before it was ready for posting.)
Jack, November 30, 2016 4:45 pm
I will accept one category of immigrant for exclusion. No identifiable criminals allowed.
We haven't always done so well on that trait. So let's do a better job of excluding those seeking
admission who can be shown to be actively involved with any form of criminal behavior. That
goes for Euros, Russians, Chinese, South Americans, etc. That also includes very wealthy criminals
whose wealth is the result of their positions of authority in their home country.
"The fact that there is homegrown dysfunction isn't a good argument for importing more dysfunction."
What manner of dysfunction beyond criminality did you have in mind?
" it makes sense to be selective, both for our sake and the sake of those who are unlikely
to function well and would become alienated and unable to fend for themselves in the US." Please
define "unlikely to function well" more precisely. Remember that the goal of our immigration
quotas is to allow a reasonable balance of people from varying countries to achieve admission.
"To be blunt, some people have attitudes that allow them to function well in the West. Typically
they are dissidents in non Western countries." That statement is generally problematic. What
measure of attitude do we use here? Is it the rabble rousers that you want to give preference
to? Then why only from non Western countries?
I researched Dean's statements about austerity to try to understand why a man who opposed the
DLC would be so enthusiastic about inflicting austerity on the working class. I found part
of the answer. Dean was Vermont's governor. Dean explained to a conservative "
Squawk Box "
host why he supported austerity based on his experience as a governor.
There's a balance sheet that has to be met here and every Governor knows that, both Republicans
and Democrats. And you got to do that when you're the President.
The first sentence is correct. The second sentence is false. States do not have sovereign
currencies. The United States has a sovereign currency. A nation with a sovereign currency
is nothing like a state when it comes to fiscal policy – or a household. I cannot explain why
Dean does not understand the difference and has apparently never read an economic explanation of
the difference. But we can fill that gap. Again, I urge his supporters who have the ability
to bring serious policy matters to his attention to intervene. Dean is flat out wrong because
he does not understand sovereign currencies. The consequences of his error are terrible.
They would lock the Democratic Party into the continuing the long war on the working class through
austerity. That is a prescription for disaster for the Nation and the Democratic Party.
Progressive Democrats enlisted in the New Democrats' austerity wars because they seemed to be
politically attractive. The political narrative was as simple as it was false. The austerity
creation myth was told first by Bob Woodward in the course of writing his sycophantic ode to Greenspan
as the all-knowing "Maestro" of the economy. Bill Clinton, as President-Elect, was given an
economics lecture by Alan Greenspan. The economics lecture – from an Ayn Rand groupie – was
(shock) that austerity was good and New Deal stimulus was evil. Bill's genius was taking the
"Maestro's" words as revealed truth and turning his back on the New Deal. Bill embraced austerity.
The economy grew. Bill ran a budget surplus – the holy grail of austerity. Bill was followed
by Bush under whose administration economic growth slowed and the federal deficits reemerged.
There was a Great Recession.
The creation myth was clear. The newly virtuous New Democrats (after instruction in economics
by Saint Greenspan) embraced austerity and all was good. The vile Republicans, hypocrites all,
had renounced the true faith of austerity and they produced mountains of evil debt that caused poor
economic growth.
Dean pushed this narrative in his Squawk Talk appearance. When asked to explain the specific
Bush policies that he claimed were to blame for poor growth continuing under President Obama, Dean
went immediately and exclusively to Bush's increases in the federal "debt" to answer the question.
"The biggest ones are the deficits that were run up . The deficits were enormous."
The New Democrats' narrative, which Dean parroted, is false. One of the definitive refutations
of the Greenspan (and Robert Rubin) as Genius myth was by the economists
Michael
Meeropol and Carlos F. Liard-Muriente in 2007. Their refutation was inherently incomplete
because it was "too early" – the collapse of the housing bubble in 2007, the 2008 financial crisis
and the Great Recession were vital facts that helped reduce the myth to the level of farce.
These facts were unavailable to academic authors publishing in 2007. The authors discuss the
enormous role that the stock bubble played in the Clinton expansion, but they do not discuss the
housing bubble's contribution.
Any tale that begins with Alan Greenspan providing Bill Clinton with the secret to economic success
is justly laughable today. Clinton was our luckiest president when it came to economics.
His expansion was largely produced by the high tech stock bubble. When it collapsed, the housing
bubble, explicitly encouraged by Greenspan as a means of avoiding a severe recession, took up much
of the slack. Bush eventually inherited from Clinton a moderate recession that led inevitably
to moderately increased (not "enormous") federal deficits. The housing bubble then hyper-inflated,
bringing the economy rapidly out of the moderate recession. The hyper-inflation, of the housing
bubble, however, was driven by the three most destructive epidemics of financial fraud in history
and it caused a global financial crisis and the Great Recession. A great recession leads inevitably
to a very large increase in the federal budget deficit.
Greenspan, Bob Rubin, and Bill Clinton were lucky in their timing – for a time. The historical
record in the U.S. demonstrates that periods of material federal budget surpluses are followed with
only modest lags by depressions and, now, the Great Recession. Fortunately, such periods of
running material budget surpluses have been unusual in our history. As my colleagues have explained
in detail, the U.S., which is extremely likely to run balance of trade deficits, should typically
run budget deficits.
We all understand how attractive the myth of the virtuous and frugal Dems producing great economic
results under Clinton while the profligate Republicans produced federal deficits and poor economic
growth was to Democratic politicians. But the Dems should not spread myths no matter how politically
attractive they are. The catastrophic consequences of President Obama and Hillary Clinton coming
to believe such myths were shown when, as I have just described in several columns, they promised
to lead the long war against the working class that is austerity.
If people like Dean focused on the origins of the Clinton creation myth they would run from its
lies. The original actual creation myth is found in the book of Woodward. The brilliant
Greenspan converted the young Bill Clinton by exposing him to the one true faith (theoclassical economics)
and successfully calling on Clinton to renounce the devil (FDR) and all his work (the New Deal) and
to sit at the (far) right hand of Ayn Rand. The result was economic nirvana. Politically,
that's a terrible creation myth for Democrats to tell around the campfire – or to voters. Economically,
it's a lie, indeed, a farce.
By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One and an associate
professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Jointly published at
New Economic Perspectives Soulipsis
November 28, 2016 at 6:30 am
This is one of the arguments, the making of which I've never understood. How could Dean not
know what he's doing by supporting austerity? How could the 0.001% not know? Of course they know!
Sometimes I think hyperacademics like who can be found trolling around this website are so involved
in the prestige of their discipline that they lose track of the world of wordless import that
makes up most of reality. This is why illiterate people are sometimes very wise, they have no
choice but to remain immersed in the wisdom of the Creation. I think Black and others are wasting
their breath on explanations and urgings such as this. And I think the brutality of Daesh and
the Saudis is the brutality of the 0.001%, and it's a delusion to think they don't have the social
model that is on display in Syria planned for the domestic U.S. market. What else is the 2012
NDAA for? NSPD 51, and the National Incident Management System. It's coming, and Dean is just
a little player. He probably got photographed doing something he shouldn't've and now he's stuck.
Whatever, how could he not know? He knows. Bill Clinton doesn't or didn't know? Please.
I am no economist, but it seems to me that this power of sovereign currency (to borrow increasing
amounts indefinitely) only works so long as people believe that they will be repaid. If one continues
to to rack up an exponentially growing debt, eventually that belief will be challenged. There
are numerous areas of expenses which could be trimmed, but they generally involve a relinquishing
of our empire.
One key to maintaining the appearance of sustainability for increasing debts is making sure
much of the deficit spending is going into productive infrastructure investments. In this case
the increasing debt will be accompanied by actual growth.
It puzzles me that private parties are allowed to buy sovereign debt. It changes the debt from
sovereign to private. Making it no longer an instrument of use but of exchange. Selling sovereign
debt destroys sovereignty. Much better to force the privateers to come up with their own investments
for which they bond and trade with each other and leave sovereign money out of it. The banksters
and their ilk like George Soros, King of the Vigilantes, should be detained until they pay back
everything they embezzled. and etc. It's just too easy for banksters to buy sovereign debt (with
a commodity they are legally allowed to create at the sovereign's expense) and then demand interest
on it. So clearly Howie Dean is a ditz.
I've read similar things in comments at NC and elsewhere about California Governor Jerry Brown,
whose left wing moonbeam reputation doesn't match his big business friendly actions.
Dean has his failings, but being the first Governor to sign a Civil Unions bill, implementing
a 99%+ child health care access law, and creating a systematic way for elementary school teachers
to get resources to families with kids that are in trouble is a pretty sound Progressive legacy.
It is not clear to me that Austerity is a long war against the working class. It might be that
Austerity turns out class neutral, or even pro-working class, depending on how gov't expenditures
shortages are applied across sectors? If Austerity is a war against the working class then the
opposite of Austerity, Stimulus, necessarily is pro-working class but we have seen that Stimulus
might be used to bail out non-working class sectors leaving working class wages and employment
opportunities depressed.
I suspect it is the way it is applied. The shocking hypocrisy of the current pro-austerity
people is what jars Black I guess. I mean these same austerity people were for tax cuts for the
rich, giving trillions to Wall Street, forgiving their (real) crimes, and spending trillions more
on wars whose result was to cause misery for millions of people and make the world an even less
safe place. And then they talk about keeping a tight budget? Hell needs to add a ninth circle
for these people.
Man, I love this site. I get more out of the comments than the articles sometimes. Your paragraph
does more to encapsulate reality than do ten long pages of learned professors.
Vatch, re "Moonbeam Brown", just google
"Something's not right about this California water deal, L.A. Times"
Austerity is primarily against the working class because it is deflationary. It benefits creditors
over debtors. And creditors are invariably the wealthy (i.e. the owners of capital). A moderately
inflationary fiscal/monetary policy with a focus on full employment puts power in the hand of
workers. An austerity policy (by which I mean one which puts an emphasis on balancing the books
over employment) gives power to the owners of capital.
> But the Dems should not spread myths no matter how politically attractive they are.
All myths are not created equal. I rue the day when "myth" became pejorative.
I dare say Prof. Black lives by one. If Jung was right, and I think he was, we all do, albeit
ignorantly, as in, we ignore their functioning (even my beloved science is mythological, but that
doesn't make it untrue). And his recasting of the myth of austerity in biblical terms is as potent
as it is funny. Our denigration of myths is complete enough that Prof. Black can say the above,
and yet do some very effective countermyth-making nonetheless.
Do the high priests of economics and politics really believe their public myth-making? Or is
their a private understanding that better fits the phenomena?
I know I must sound like a broken record, but due to its regrettable unfamiliarity, this bears
repeating.
1. The first function of mythology [is] to evoke in the individual a sense of grateful,
affirmative awe before the monstrous mystery that is existence
2. The second function of mythology is to present an image of the cosmos, an image of the
universe round about, that will maintain and elicit this experience of awe. [or] to present
an image of the cosmos that will maintain your sense of mystical awe and explain everything
that you come into contact with in the universe around you.
3. The third function of a mythological order is to validate and maintain a certain sociological
system: a shared set of rights and wrongs, proprieties or improprieties, on which your particular
social unit depends for its existence.
4. The fourth function of myth is psychological. That myth must carry the individual through
the stages of his life, from birth through maturity through senility to death. The mythology
must do so in accords with the social order of his group, the cosmos as understood by his group,
and the monstrous mystery.
As we all know so well. the myth of neoliberalism is as succinct as it is brutal. "Because
markets" and "Go die," though, don't fulfill all four functions. If I had the economic and financial
chops, I'd examine Saint Alan and the Church of Neoliberalism's mythology methodically and systematically
with the intent to creatively destroy it. But that wouldn't be enough. It'd be helpful to offer
an alternative, but I don't have that, either. Fat lot of good I am.
That's why I like Prof. Black's retelling so much. It puts the absurdity of the pseudo-mythology
of neoliberalism in terms familiar enough that that absurdity stands right out.
And I also dare say what we desperately need now is a fully functioning and genuine mythology
that leads us out of neoliberal hell and into a more perfect union of nature and society. First
party to do so wins the future.
Surprised that Black refers to Dean as a "progressive voice". That has never really been the
case and it's especially not true now. Also surprised that Black supports Ellison whose foreign
policy includes support for a no- fly zone in Libya- mirroring the position held by Clinton.
I sense a connection between this and the peak oil demand article. In the '80's and beyond,
financial services have sought and gained a control economy effect with student loans and more
recently the ACA, and feel that fracking, QE and the housing bubble all fit in there somewhere
as well. Basically it boils down to being easier to make money at the top when they choose where
the income stream comes from, i.e., in the New Deal citizens got money in some form of cash payment,
from SS to welfare, and could choose to spend the money on what they wanted to spend it on, which
in turn caused uncertainty in the finance arena, not so much that they couldn't survive, but the
financiers could envision a better world for themselves, enter student loans and now any kid without
wealthy parents has a lifetime of unpayable debt, a drag on their professional income, or no advanced
education with it's implicit restriction on income, or a combo of all three. This same dynamic
led us to the ACA which is, as opposed to a medicare style plan that could potentially curtail
costs, become little more than a payment stream, a class marker, and has nothing to do with healthcare
except in the sense that high costs make indebted heath industry workers able to pay their own
student loan, and a class warfare tool such that those wealthy healthcare industroids can separate
their offspring from the herd by being able to pay for their offspring's education, as it does
with the finance industry that manages the payment stream. I don't currently see this dynamic
changing, alas but maybe the newfound vigor of the purple dems could be mobilized in this direction
if they can ignore the payoffs for doing nothing.
As to the hyper inflation comment, I think any renter who has struggled with the disruptions caused
by increased rents would say yes, that's hyperinflation, and indeed feels a lot like needing a
wheelbarrow of cash to pay.
Let's talk about reality. For most folks, more austerity is going to kill us. We are so squeezed
now that we can barely pay our bills and save our homes. We have rampant price inflation, which
both the government and the media pretend does not exist. And the latest figures for Xmas shopping
show that although more people are buying stuff, they are spending less money. If the idiots running
the country think tax breaks for the rich will boost the economy, then they have learned nothing
from the last 30 years.
ISTR hearing that, if you want to grow your business, you need to get more people to buy more
of your goods or services more often. Having more people buying less? Doesn't sound like a recipe
for success.
I'm glad someone is saying that a correct understanding of the economy is where the Democrats
need to be. Imagine the impact if a candidate ran on payroll tax relief, expanded SS and a job
guranteee.
I like Keith Ellison as well, but I can't find anything about his economic policies. If Dean's
economics are disqualifying, and Ellison suggested as an alternative, shouldn't we know if he's
an improvement?
The Democrats are going to have to completely reinvent themselves if they ever want to get
a vote or a dollar from me again.
I went to a Democratic Party whine and cheese party the other day where the local "leadership"
tried to harness some kind of crowd energy against Trump based on the mere fact that they had
a D in front of their names.
The delicious moment came in the Q&A. I waited until after the usual regurgitations of racismphobiahatethreatsdisaster
about Trump to ask my question:
"You had a winner in Bernie and your party chose that corrupt disaster Hillary–now we're supposed
to trust you to lead us?" I thought the moderator was going to have a stroke. Her face turned
an appropriate shade of blue-purple.
An agreeing buzz of people around me. It was positively sadistic watching the scrambling of
the Democratic excusemakers shuffling their papers.
It is worse than you say for the Dems. Trump has once indicated that he understands the nature
of a sovereign currency. If he wasn't bullshitting, then the Dems are in for an economic shock,
at the very least.
Thanks for this post. Great final paragraph. The DLC neolib Dems' greatest achievement has
been in presenting this terrible destruction as virtuous. 'We have to destroy the 90%'s economy
in order to save it.'
1920s/2000s – high inequality, high banker pay, low regulation, low taxes for the wealthy,
robber barons (CEOs), reckless bankers, globalisation phase
1929/2008 – Wall Street crash
1930s/2010s – Global recession, currency wars, rising nationalism and extremism
Milton Freidman used the old 1920s economics, neoclassical economics, as his base but didn't
fix any of its problems.
Wall Street did exactly the same thing.
Jim Rickards ("Currency Wars" and "The Death of Money") has explained how the removal of Glass-Steagall
allowed Wall Street to repeat 1929.
In 1929, they carried out margin lending into the US stock market to artificially inflate its
value. They packaged up these loans in the investment side of the business to sell them on.
In 2008, they carried out mortgage lending into the US housing market to artificially inflate
its value. They packaged up these loans in the investment side of the business to sell them on.
The FED responded with monetary policy that didn't work again, the "New Deal" pulled the US
out in the end.
In 1929, the FED wasn't quite so quick with monetary policy and stocks were a much more liquid
asset and so the crash was so fast no one had a chance to deal with it as it was occurring.
Monetary policy did stop the initial crash in asset prices but didn't reflate the economy;
you need a "New Deal" for that.
The only real difference.
Why are multi-nationals hoarding cash and not investing?
Oh look it's Keynes's liquidity trap, its exactly the same.
Keynes studied the Great Depression and noted monetary stimulus lead to a "liquidity trap".
Businesses and investors will not invest without the demand there to ensure their investment
will be worthwhile.
The money gets horded by investors and on company balance sheets as they won't invest.
Cutting wages to increase profit just makes the demand side of the equation worse and leads
you into debt deflation.
Then there is the dutiful austerian Angela Merkel who stated that all members of the EU had
"shared sovereignty" – and so that was why they had to tighten their belts to the last notch
so the bond buyers could be paid back?
as Thomas Frank says:
"What our modernized liberal leaders offer is not confrontation [with corporate corruption] but
a kind of therapy for those flattened by the free-market hurricane: they counsel us to accept
the inevitability of the situation."
I'm sure this is explained elsewhere but I still am perplexed; states have to pay their debts
but sovereign money-printing governments print money. So why not shift state expenses (schools,
police, garbage pickup, pensions ) to the sovereign government which can print the money to cover
the expense?
That is what that great socialist Richard Nixon did with revenue sharing. The Federal government
gave states block funding, with anti-fraud oversight. Nixon figured that lower levels of governments
had a better sense of their needs than the Feds did.
If the "best of the best" Stephanie Kelton couldn't even get Sanders to break the cycle of
mainstream economic "myths", who you gonna call ? If a simpleton like me can understand and believe
basic MMT principles, I can not imagine the "brainiacs" running the country ( or vying to run
the country) are innocent of the crime (assault with a deadly myth).
Who knows, with some luck, and he seems to be having a ton lately, the presumptive POTUS could
be that accidental MMT'er. But I'm sure he would deny that luck had anything to do with it.
Tsar Nicholas II: I know what will make them happy. They're children, and they
need a Tsar! They need tradition. Not this! They're the victims of agitators.
A Duma would make them bewildered and discontented. And don't tell me about London and Berlin.
God save us from the mess they're in!
Count Witte: I see. So they talk, pray, march, plead, petition and what do
they get? Cossacks, prison, flogging, police, spies, and now, after today, they will be shot.
Is this God's will? Are these His methods? Make war on your own people?
How long do you think they're going to stand there and let you shoot them? YOU ask ME who's
responsible? YOU ask?
Tsar Nicholas II: The English have a parliament. Our British cousins
gave their rights away. The Hapsburgs, and the Hoehenzollerns too. The Romanovs
will not. What I was given, I will give my son.
"People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material
part of their advantage. Intellectual myopia, often called stupidity, is no doubt a reason. But the
privileged also feel that their privileges, however egregious they may seem to others, are a solemn,
basic, God-given right. The sensitivity of the poor to injustice is a trivial thing compared with
that of the rich."
"... The continuing reaction of the liberal elite to the repudiation of the Democratic establishment
by their traditional constituencies of the young and working people is a wonder to behold. They thrash
back and forth between a denial of their failure, and disgust at everyone else they can blame for it.
..."
"... It is frustrating because they do not know how to extract themselves from it, admit their errors
and reform the system, without undermining the very assumptions that entitle them, in their own minds
at least, to rule as the highly honored insiders, the elect of professional accomplishment. ..."
"Listening to the leading figures of the Democratic party establishment, however, you'd never
know it. Cool contentment is the governing emotion in these circles. What they have in mind for
2016 is what we might call a campaign of militant complacency. They are dissociated from the mood
of the nation, and they do not care...
What our modernized liberal leaders offer is not confrontation [with corporate corruption]
but a kind of therapy for those flattened by the free-market hurricane: they counsel us to accept
the inevitability of the situation."
Thomas Frank
"Too many of America's elites-among the super-rich, the CEOs, and many of my colleagues in academia-have
abandoned a commitment to social responsibility. They chase wealth and power, the rest of society
be damned."
Jeffrey Sachs
"This elite-generated social control maintains the status quo because the status quo benefits
and validates those who created and sit atop it. People rise to prominence when they parrot the
orthodoxy rather than critically analyze it. Intellectual regurgitation is prized over independent
thought. Real change in politics or society cannot occur under the orthodoxy because if it did,
it would threaten the legitimacy of the professional class and all of the systems that helped
them achieve their status.
Kristine Mattis, The Cult of the Professional Class
The continuing reaction of the liberal elite to the repudiation of the Democratic establishment
by their traditional constituencies of the young and working people is a wonder to behold. They thrash
back and forth between a denial of their failure, and disgust at everyone else they can blame for
it.
It could not possibly be because of anything they might have done or failed to do. And so they
are caught in a credibility trap.
It is frustrating because they do not know how to extract themselves from it, admit their
errors and reform the system, without undermining the very assumptions that entitle them, in their
own minds at least, to rule as the highly honored insiders, the elect of professional accomplishment.
"... For various reasons these days, the entire American media is extraordinarily hostile to Russia, certainly much more so than it ever was toward the Communist Soviet Union during the 1970s and 1980s. ..."
"... Indeed, we are constantly bombarded with stories of alleged Russian conspiracies that appear to be "false positives," dire allegations seemingly having little factual basis or actually being totally ridiculous. Meanwhile, even the crudest sort of anti-Russian ..."
"... To some extent the creation of the Internet and the vast proliferation of alternative media outlets, including my own small webzine , have somewhat altered this depressing picture. So it is hardly surprising that a very substantial fraction of the discussion dominating these Samizdat-like publications concerns exactly those subjects regularly condemned as "crazy conspiracy theories" by our mainstream media organs. ..."
"... Indeed, several years ago a senior Obama Administration official argued that the free discussion of various "conspiracy theories" on the Internet was so potentially harmful that government agents should be recruited to "cognitively infiltrate" and disrupt them, essentially proposing a high-tech version of the highly controversial Cointelpro operations undertaken by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI. ..."
A year or two ago, I saw the much-touted science fiction film Interstellar , and although
the plot wasn't any good, one early scene was quite amusing. For various reasons, the American government
of the future claimed that our Moon Landings of the late 1960s had been faked, a trick aimed at winning
the Cold War by bankrupting Russia into fruitless space efforts of its own. This inversion of historical
reality was accepted as true by nearly everyone, and those few people who claimed that Neil Armstrong
had indeed set foot on the Moon were universally ridiculed as "crazy conspiracy theorists." This
seems a realistic portrayal of human nature to me.
Obviously, a large fraction of everything described by our government leaders or presented in
the pages of our most respectable newspapers-from the 9/11 attacks to the most insignificant local
case of petty urban corruption-could objectively be categorized as a "conspiracy theory" but such
words are never applied. Instead, use of that highly loaded phrase is reserved for those theories,
whether plausible or fanciful, that do not possess the endorsement stamp of establishmentarian approval.
Put another way, there are good "conspiracy theories" and bad "conspiracy theories," with the
former being the ones promoted by pundits on mainstream television shows and hence never described
as such. I've sometimes joked with people that if ownership and control of our television stations
and other major media outlets suddenly changed, the new information regime would require only a few
weeks of concerted effort to totally invert all of our most famous "conspiracy theories" in the minds
of the gullible American public. The notion that nineteen Arabs armed with box-cutters hijacked several
jetliners, easily evaded our NORAD air defenses, and reduced several landmark buildings to rubble
would soon be universally ridiculed as the most preposterous "conspiracy theory" ever to have gone
straight from the comic books into the minds of the mentally ill, easily surpassing the absurd "lone
gunman" theory of the JFK assassination.
Even without such changes in media control, huge shifts in American public beliefs have frequently
occurred in the recent past, merely on the basis of implied association. In the initial weeks and
months following the 2001 attacks, every American media organ was enlisted to denounce and vilify
Osama Bin Laden, the purported Islamicist master-mind, as our greatest national enemy, with his bearded
visage endlessly appearing on television and in print, soon becoming one of the most recognizable
faces in the world. But as the Bush Administration and its key media allies prepared a war against
Iraq, the images of the Burning Towers were instead regularly juxtaposed with mustachioed photos
of dictator Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden's arch-enemy. As a consequence, by the time we attacked Iraq
in 2003, polls revealed that some
70% of the American public believed that Saddam was personally involved in the destruction of
our World Trade Center. By that date I don't doubt that many millions of patriotic but low-information
Americans would have angrily denounced and vilified as a "crazy conspiracy theorist" anyone with
the temerity to suggest that Saddam had not been behind 9/11, despite almost no one in authority
having ever explicitly made such a fallacious claim.
These
factors of media manipulation were very much in my mind a couple of years ago when I stumbled across
a short but fascinating book published by the University of Texas academic press. The author of
Conspiracy Theory in America was Prof. Lance deHaven-Smith, a former president of the Florida
Political Science Association.
Based on an important FOIA disclosure, the book's headline revelation was that the CIA was very
likely responsible for the widespread introduction of "conspiracy theory" as a term of political
abuse, having orchestrated that development as a deliberate means of influencing public opinion.
During the mid-1960s there had been increasing public skepticism about the Warren Commission findings
that a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, had been solely responsible for President Kennedy's assassination,
and growing suspicions that top-ranking American leaders had also been involved. So as a means of
damage control, the CIA distributed a secret memo to all its field offices requesting that they enlist
their media assets in efforts to ridicule and attack such critics as irrational supporters of "conspiracy
theories." Soon afterward, there suddenly appeared statements in the media making those exact points,
with some of the wording, arguments, and patterns of usage closely matching those CIA guidelines.
The result was a huge spike in the pejorative use of the phrase, which spread throughout the American
media, with the residual impact continueing right down to the present day. Thus, there is considerable
evidence in support of this particular "conspiracy theory" explaining the widespread appearance of
attacks on "conspiracy theories" in the public media.
ORDER IT
NOW
But although the CIA appears to have effectively manipulated public opinion in order to transform
the phrase "conspiracy theory" into a powerful weapon of ideological combat, the author also describes
how the necessary philosophical ground had actually been prepared a couple of decades earlier. Around
the time of the Second World War, an important shift in political theory caused a huge decline in
the respectability of any "conspiratorial" explanation of historical events.
For decades prior to that conflict,
one of our most prominent scholars
and public intellectuals had been historian
Charles Beard , whose
influential writings had heavily focused on the harmful role of various elite conspiracies in shaping
American policy for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many, with his examples ranging
from the earliest history of the United States down to the nation's entry into WWI. Obviously, researchers
never claimed that all major historical events had hidden causes, but it was widely accepted that
some of them did, and attempting to investigate those possibilities was deemed a perfectly acceptable
academic enterprise.
However, Beard was a strong opponent of American entry into the Second World War, and he was marginalized
in the years that followed, even prior to his death in 1948. Many younger public intellectuals of
a similar bent also suffered the same fate, or were even purged from respectability and denied any
access to the mainstream media. At the same time, the totally contrary perspectives of two European
political philosophers, Karl
Popper and Leo Strauss
, gradually gained ascendancy in American intellectual circles, and their ideas became dominant
in public life.
Popper, the more widely influential, presented broad, largely theoretical objections to the very
possibility of important conspiracies ever existing, suggesting that these would be implausibly difficult
to implement given the fallibility of human agents; what might appear a conspiracy actually amounted
to individual actors pursuing their narrow aims. Even more importantly, he regarded "conspiratorial
beliefs" as an extremely dangerous social malady, a major contributing factor to the rise of Nazism
and other deadly totalitarian ideologies. His own background as an individual of Jewish ancestry
who had fled Austria in 1937 surely contributed to the depth of his feelings on these philosophical
matters.
Meanwhile, Strauss, a founding figure in modern neo-conservative thought, was equally harsh in
his attacks upon conspiracy analysis, but for polar-opposite reasons. In his mind, elite conspiracies
were absolutely necessary and beneficial, a crucial social defense against anarchy or totalitarianism,
but their effectiveness obviously depended upon keeping them hidden from the prying eyes of the ignorant
masses. His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not that they were always false, but they
might often be true, and therefore their spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning
of society. So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise undercut
the unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies.
Even for most educated Americans, theorists such as Beard, Popper, and Strauss are probably no
more than vague names mentioned in textbooks, and that was certainly true in my own case. But while
the influence of Beard seems to have largely disappeared in elite circles, the same is hardly true
of his rivals. Popper probably ranks as one of the founders of modern liberal thought, with an individual
as politically influential as left-liberal financier
George Soros claiming
to be his intellectual disciple . Meanwhile, the
neo-conservative thinkers who have totally dominated the Republican Party and the Conservative
Movement for the last couple of decades often proudly trace their ideas back to Strauss.
So, through a mixture of Popperian and Straussian thinking, the traditional American tendency
to regard elite conspiracies as a real but harmful aspect of our society was gradually stigmatized
as either paranoid or politically dangerous, laying the conditions for its exclusion from respectable
discourse.
By 1964, this intellectual revolution had largely been completed, as indicated by the overwhelmingly
positive reaction to the famous article by political scientist Richard Hofstadter critiquing
the
so-called "paranoid style" in American politics , which he denounced as the underlying cause
of widespread popular belief in implausible conspiracy theories. To a considerable extent, he seemed
to be attacking straw men, recounting and ridiculing the most outlandish conspiratorial beliefs,
while seeming to ignore the ones that had been proven correct. For example, he described how some
of the more hysterical anti-Communists claimed that tens of thousands of Red Chinese troops were
hidden in Mexico, preparing an attack on San Diego, while he failed to even acknowledge that for
years Communist spies had indeed served near the very top of the U.S. government. Not even the most
conspiratorially minded individual suggests that all alleged conspiracies are true, merely that some
of them might be.
Most of these shifts in public sentiment occurred before I was born or when I was a very young
child, and my own views were shaped by the rather conventional media narratives that I absorbed.
Hence, for nearly my entire life, I always automatically dismissed all of the so-called "conspiracy
theories" as ridiculous, never once even considering that any of them might possibly be true.
To the extent that I ever thought about the matter, my reasoning was simple and based on what
seemed like good, solid common sense. Any conspiracy responsible for some important public event
must surely have many separate "moving parts" to it, whether actors or actions taken, let us say
numbering at least 100 or more. Now given the imperfect nature of all attempts at concealment, it
would surely be impossible for all of these to be kept entirely hidden. So even if a conspiracy were
initially 95% successful in remaining undetected, five major clues would still be left in plain sight
for investigators to find. And once the buzzing cloud of journalists noticed these, such blatant
evidence of conspiracy would certainly attract an additional swarm of energetic investigators, tracing
those items back to their origins, with more pieces gradually being uncovered until the entire cover-up
likely collapsed. Even if not all the crucial facts were ever determined, at least the simple conclusion
that there had indeed been some sort of conspiracy would quickly become established.
However, there was a tacit assumption in my reasoning, one that I have since decided was entirely
false. Obviously, many potential conspiracies either involve powerful governmental officials or situations
in which their disclosure would represent a source of considerable embarrassment to such individuals.
But I had always assumed that even if government failed in its investigatory role, the dedicated
bloodhounds of the Fourth Estate would invariably come through, tirelessly seeking truth, ratings,
and Pulitzers. However, once I gradually began realizing that the media was merely
"Our American Pravda"
and perhaps had been so for decades, I suddenly recognized the flaw in my logic. If those five-or
ten or twenty or fifty-initial clues were simply ignored by the media, whether through laziness,
incompetence, or much less venial sins, then there would be absolutely nothing to prevent successful
conspiracies from taking place and remaining undetected, perhaps even the most blatant and careless
ones.
In fact, I would extend this notion to a general principle. Substantial control of the media is
almost always an absolute prerequisite for any successful conspiracy, the greater the degree of control
the better. So when weighing the plausibility of any conspiracy, the first matter to investigate
is who controls the local media and to what extent.
Let us consider a simple thought-experiment. For various reasons these days, the entire American
media is extraordinarily hostile to Russia, certainly much more so than it ever was toward the Communist
Soviet Union during the 1970s and 1980s. Hence I would argue that the likelihood of any large-scale
Russian conspiracy taking place within the operative zone of those media organs is virtually nil.
Indeed, we are constantly bombarded with stories of alleged Russian conspiracies that appear
to be "false positives," dire allegations seemingly having little factual basis or actually being
totally ridiculous. Meanwhile, even the crudest sort of anti-Russian conspiracy might easily
occur without receiving any serious mainstream media notice or investigation.
This argument may be more than purely hypothetical. A crucial turning point in America's renewed
Cold War against Russia was the passage of the 2012 Magnitsky Act by Congress, punitively targeting
various supposedly corrupt Russian officials for their alleged involvement in the illegal persecution
and death of an employee of Bill Browder, an American hedge-fund manager with large Russian holdings.
However, there's actually
quite a bit
of evidence that it was Browder himself who was actually the mastermind and beneficiary of the
gigantic corruption scheme, while his employee was planning to testify against him and was therefore
fearful of his life for that reason. Naturally, the American media has provided scarcely a single
mention of these remarkable revelations regarding what might amount to a gigantic
Magnitsky Hoax of geopolitical
significance.
To some extent the creation of the Internet and the vast proliferation of alternative media outlets,
including my own small webzine
, have somewhat altered this depressing picture. So it is hardly surprising that a very substantial
fraction of the discussion dominating these Samizdat-like publications concerns exactly those subjects
regularly condemned as "crazy conspiracy theories" by our mainstream media organs. Such unfiltered
speculation must surely be a source of considerable irritation and worry to government officials
who have long relied upon the complicity of their tame media organs to allow their serious misdeeds
to pass unnoticed and unpunished. Indeed, several years ago
a senior Obama Administration
official argued that the free discussion of various "conspiracy theories" on the Internet was
so potentially harmful that government agents should be recruited to "cognitively infiltrate" and
disrupt them, essentially proposing a high-tech version of
the highly controversial Cointelpro
operations undertaken by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI.
Until just a few years ago I'd scarcely even heard of Charles Beard,
once ranked among the towering
figures of 20th century American intellectual life . But the more I've discovered the number
of serious crimes and disasters that have completely escaped substantial media scrutiny, the more
I wonder what other matters may still remain hidden. So perhaps Beard was correct all along in recognizing
the respectability of "conspiracy theories," and we should return to his traditional American way
of thinking, notwithstanding endless conspiratorial propaganda campaigns by the CIA and others to
persuade us that we should dismiss such notions without any serious consideration.
We always ridicule the 98 percent voter support that dictatorships frequently
achieve in their elections and plebiscites, yet perhaps those secret-ballot
results may sometimes be approximately correct, produced by the sort of
overwhelming media control that leads voters to assume there is no possible
alternative to the existing regime. Is such an undemocratic situation really so
different from that found in our own country, in which our two major parties
agree on such a broad range of controversial issues and, being backed by total
media dominance, routinely split 98 percent of the vote? A democracy may
provide voters with a choice, but that choice is largely determined by the
information citizens receive from their media.
Most of the Americans who
elected Barack Obama in 2008 intended their vote as a total repudiation of the
policies and personnel of the preceding George W. Bush administration. Yet once
in office, Obama's crucial selections-Robert Gates at Defense, Timothy Geither
at Treasury, and Ben Bernanke at the Federal Reserve-were all top Bush
officials, and they seamlessly continued the unpopular financial bailouts and
foreign wars begun by his predecessor, producing what amounted to a third Bush
term.
Consider the fascinating perspective of the recently deceased Boris
Berezovsky, once the most powerful of the Russian oligarchs and the puppet
master behind President Boris Yeltsin during the late 1990s. After looting
billions in national wealth and elevating Vladimir Putin to the presidency, he
overreached himself and eventually went into exile. According to the New
York Times, he had planned to transform Russia into a fake two-party
state-one social-democratic and one neoconservative-in which heated public
battles would be fought on divisive, symbolic issues, while behind the scenes
both parties would actually be controlled by the same ruling elites. With the
citizenry thus permanently divided and popular dissatisfaction safely channeled
into meaningless dead-ends, Russia's rulers could maintain unlimited wealth and
power for themselves, with little threat to their reign. Given America's
history over the last couple of decades, perhaps we can guess where Berezovsky
got his idea for such a clever political scheme.
"... The notion that nineteen Arabs armed with box-cutters hijacked several jetliners, easily evaded our NORAD air defenses, and reduced several landmark buildings to rubble would soon be universally ridiculed as the most preposterous "conspiracy theory" ever to have gone straight from the comic books into the minds of the mentally ill, easily surpassing the absurd "lone gunman" theory of the JFK assassination. ..."
"... Conspiracy Theory in America ..."
"... Based on an important FOIA disclosure, the book's headline revelation was that the CIA was very likely responsible for the widespread introduction of "conspiracy theory" as a term of political abuse, having orchestrated that development as a deliberate means of influencing public opinion. ..."
"... Conspiracy is simply a plan or agreement by more than one person to do something evil and then the pursuit of that plan. Secrecy may be needed for the success of a conspiracy, but it is not essential to the definition. ..."
"... Another problem with elite conspiracies is that elites usually do not have to act in secret because they already are in control. For Kennedy, a centrist cold warrior, his views already reflected those of elites, maybe even more so than Johnson. ..."
"... The rise of Trump, in the face of a completely and uniformly hostile media, suggests that a large part of the American public, consciously or not, now completely rejects entire media narratives and assumes the exact opposite to be true. And they're panicking. Not knowing what to do, they double and triple down on the same fail that got them into this mess. Truly interesting times. ..."
"... Conspiracies exist. Consider the Gulf of Tonkin fabrication which certainly involved many actors and yet the general public was kept in the dark about the real facts. The results need not be rehashed yet again. There's a streak of denial in most people. They don't want to contemplate the idea that FDR may have deliberately allowed American servicemen to die at Pearl Harbor in order to get the war he wanted. Stepping back from it all to get a long distance view one can see the patterns of deceit and manipulation all throughout American political life. It's not just incidental but rather is built in. ..."
"... Thank you for inserting the word "truther" into the conversation. It has always fascinated me that someone searching for the truth about a political issue is now automatically considered a conspiracy theorist. ..."
"... For example the government says that WTC7 completely collapsed in 7 seconds due to fire. You don't need to be smart to see something is wrong here (hint: most of the structural pillars were untouched by fire). ..."
"... While perhaps not necessary, the cockpit could have been filled with a tranquilizing gas to incapacitate all the pilots and (stooge) hijackers so that they would not interfere with the remote-controlled operation of the planes. ..."
"... Remember that these "deeply religious" Muslim "hijackers" went out drinking at a strip club the night of 9/10. Both are deep sins in Islam, not something someone is going to do when they are about to meet their Maker. Most likely they thought they were participating in a drill (since, in fact on the date of 9/11, a drill was taking place, having to do with - wait for it - airplanes being hijacked and flown into buildings). ..."
"... The precision and extreme competence of the flying maneuvers is readily explained by the auto-pilot feature. ..."
A year or two ago, I saw the much-touted science fiction film Interstellar , and although
the plot wasn't any good, one early scene was quite amusing. For various reasons, the American government
of the future claimed that our Moon Landings of the late 1960s had been faked, a trick aimed at winning
the Cold War by bankrupting Russia into fruitless space efforts of its own. This inversion of historical
reality was accepted as true by nearly everyone, and those few people who claimed that Neil Armstrong
had indeed set foot on the Moon were universally ridiculed as "crazy conspiracy theorists." This
seems a realistic portrayal of human nature to me.
Obviously, a large fraction of everything described by our government leaders or presented in
the pages of our most respectable newspapers-from the 9/11 attacks to the most insignificant local
case of petty urban corruption-could objectively be categorized as a "conspiracy theory" but such
words are never applied. Instead, use of that highly loaded phrase is reserved for those theories,
whether plausible or fanciful, that do not possess the endorsement stamp of establishmentarian approval.
Put another way, there are good "conspiracy theories" and bad "conspiracy theories," with the
former being the ones promoted by pundits on mainstream television shows and hence never described
as such. I've sometimes joked with people that if ownership and control of our television stations
and other major media outlets suddenly changed, the new information regime would require only a few
weeks of concerted effort to totally invert all of our most famous "conspiracy theories" in the minds
of the gullible American public. The notion that nineteen Arabs armed with box-cutters hijacked
several jetliners, easily evaded our NORAD air defenses, and reduced several landmark buildings to
rubble would soon be universally ridiculed as the most preposterous "conspiracy theory" ever to have
gone straight from the comic books into the minds of the mentally ill, easily surpassing the absurd
"lone gunman" theory of the JFK assassination.
Even without such changes in media control, huge shifts in American public beliefs have frequently
occurred in the recent past, merely on the basis of implied association. In the initial weeks and
months following the 2001 attacks, every American media organ was enlisted to denounce and vilify
Osama Bin Laden, the purported Islamicist master-mind, as our greatest national enemy, with his bearded
visage endlessly appearing on television and in print, soon becoming one of the most recognizable
faces in the world. But as the Bush Administration and its key media allies prepared a war against
Iraq, the images of the Burning Towers were instead regularly juxtaposed with mustachioed photos
of dictator Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden's arch-enemy. As a consequence, by the time we attacked Iraq
in 2003, polls revealed that some
70% of the American public believed that Saddam was personally involved in the destruction of
our World Trade Center. By that date I don't doubt that many millions of patriotic but low-information
Americans would have angrily denounced and vilified as a "crazy conspiracy theorist" anyone with
the temerity to suggest that Saddam had not been behind 9/11, despite almost no one in authority
having ever explicitly made such a fallacious claim.
These factors of media manipulation were very much in my mind a couple of years ago when I stumbled
across a short but fascinating book published by the University of Texas academic press. The author
of
Conspiracy Theory in America was Prof. Lance deHaven-Smith, a former president of the Florida
Political Science Association.
Based on an important FOIA disclosure, the book's headline revelation was that the CIA was
very likely responsible for the widespread introduction of "conspiracy theory" as a term of political
abuse, having orchestrated that development as a deliberate means of influencing public opinion.
During the mid-1960s there had been increasing public skepticism about the Warren Commission findings
that a lone gunman, Lee Harvey Oswald, had been solely responsible for President Kennedy's assassination,
and growing suspicions that top-ranking American leaders had also been involved. So as a means of
damage control, the CIA distributed a secret memo to all its field offices requesting that they enlist
their media assets in efforts to ridicule and attack such critics as irrational supporters of "conspiracy
theories." Soon afterward, there suddenly appeared statements in the media making those exact points,
with some of the wording, arguments, and patterns of usage closely matching those CIA guidelines.
The result was a huge spike in the pejorative use of the phrase, which spread throughout the American
media, with the residual impact continuing right down to the present day. Thus, there is considerable
evidence in support of this particular "conspiracy theory" explaining the widespread appearance of
attacks on "conspiracy theories" in the public media.
But although the CIA appears to have effectively manipulated public opinion in order to transform
the phrase "conspiracy theory" into a powerful weapon of ideological combat, the author also describes
how the necessary philosophical ground had actually been prepared a couple of decades earlier. Around
the time of the Second World War, an important shift in political theory caused a huge decline in
the respectability of any "conspiratorial" explanation of historical events.
For decades prior to that conflict,
one of our most prominent scholars
and public intellectuals had been historian
Charles Beard , whose
influential writings had heavily focused on the harmful role of various elite conspiracies in shaping
American policy for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many, with his examples ranging
from the earliest history of the United States down to the nation's entry into WWI. Obviously, researchers
never claimed that all major historical events had hidden causes, but it was widely accepted that
some of them did, and attempting to investigate those possibilities was deemed a perfectly acceptable
academic enterprise.
However, Beard was a strong opponent of American entry into the Second World War, and he was marginalized
in the years that followed, even prior to his death in 1948. Many younger public intellectuals of
a similar bent also suffered the same fate, or were even purged from respectability and denied any
access to the mainstream media. At the same time, the totally contrary perspectives of two European
political philosophers, Karl
Popper and Leo Strauss
, gradually gained ascendancy in American intellectual circles, and their ideas became dominant
in public life.
Popper, the more widely influential, presented broad, largely theoretical objections to the very
possibility of important conspiracies ever existing, suggesting that these would be implausibly difficult
to implement given the fallibility of human agents; what might appear a conspiracy actually amounted
to individual actors pursuing their narrow aims. Even more importantly, he regarded "conspiratorial
beliefs" as an extremely dangerous social malady, a major contributing factor to the rise of Nazism
and other deadly totalitarian ideologies. His own background as an individual of Jewish ancestry
who had fled Austria in 1937 surely contributed to the depth of his feelings on these philosophical
matters.
Meanwhile, Strauss, a founding figure in modern neo-conservative thought, was equally harsh in
his attacks upon conspiracy analysis, but for polar-opposite reasons. In his mind, elite conspiracies
were absolutely necessary and beneficial, a crucial social defense against anarchy or totalitarianism,
but their effectiveness obviously depended upon keeping them hidden from the prying eyes of the ignorant
masses. His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not that they were always false, but they
might often be true, and therefore their spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning
of society. So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise undercut
the unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies.
Even for most educated Americans, theorists such as Beard, Popper, and Strauss are probably no
more than vague names mentioned in textbooks, and that was certainly true in my own case. But while
the influence of Beard seems to have largely disappeared in elite circles, the same is hardly true
of his rivals. Popper probably ranks as one of the founders of modern liberal thought, with an individual
as politically influential as left-liberal financier
George Soros claiming
to be his intellectual disciple . Meanwhile, the
neo-conservative thinkers who have totally dominated the Republican Party and the Conservative
Movement for the last couple of decades often proudly trace their ideas back to Strauss.
So, through a mixture of Popperian and Straussian thinking, the traditional American tendency
to regard elite conspiracies as a real but harmful aspect of our society was gradually stigmatized
as either paranoid or politically dangerous, laying the conditions for its exclusion from respectable
discourse.
By 1964, this intellectual revolution had largely been completed, as indicated by the overwhelmingly
positive reaction to the famous article by political scientist Richard Hofstadter critiquing
the
so-called "paranoid style" in American politics , which he denounced as the underlying cause
of widespread popular belief in implausible conspiracy theories. To a considerable extent, he seemed
to be attacking straw men, recounting and ridiculing the most outlandish conspiratorial beliefs,
while seeming to ignore the ones that had been proven correct. For example, he described how some
of the more hysterical anti-Communists claimed that tens of thousands of Red Chinese troops were
hidden in Mexico, preparing an attack on San Diego, while he failed to even acknowledge that for
years Communist spies had indeed served near the very top of the U.S. government. Not even the most
conspiratorially minded individual suggests that all alleged conspiracies are true, merely that some
of them might be.
Most of these shifts in public sentiment occurred before I was born or when I was a very young
child, and my own views were shaped by the rather conventional media narratives that I absorbed.
Hence, for nearly my entire life, I always automatically dismissed all of the so-called "conspiracy
theories" as ridiculous, never once even considering that any of them might possibly be true.
To the extent that I ever thought about the matter, my reasoning was simple and based on what
seemed like good, solid common sense. Any conspiracy responsible for some important public event
must surely have many separate "moving parts" to it, whether actors or actions taken, let us say
numbering at least 100 or more. Now given the imperfect nature of all attempts at concealment, it
would surely be impossible for all of these to be kept entirely hidden. So even if a conspiracy were
initially 95% successful in remaining undetected, five major clues would still be left in plain sight
for investigators to find. And once the buzzing cloud of journalists noticed these, such blatant
evidence of conspiracy would certainly attract an additional swarm of energetic investigators, tracing
those items back to their origins, with more pieces gradually being uncovered until the entire cover-up
likely collapsed. Even if not all the crucial facts were ever determined, at least the simple conclusion
that there had indeed been some sort of conspiracy would quickly become established.
However, there was a tacit assumption in my reasoning, one that I have since decided was entirely
false. Obviously, many potential conspiracies either involve powerful governmental officials or situations
in which their disclosure would represent a source of considerable embarrassment to such individuals.
But I had always assumed that even if government failed in its investigatory role, the dedicated
bloodhounds of the Fourth Estate would invariably come through, tirelessly seeking truth, ratings,
and Pulitzers. However, once I gradually began realizing that the media was merely
"Our American Pravda"
and perhaps had been so for decades, I suddenly recognized the flaw in my logic. If those five-or
ten or twenty or fifty-initial clues were simply ignored by the media, whether through laziness,
incompetence, or much less venial sins, then there would be absolutely nothing to prevent successful
conspiracies from taking place and remaining undetected, perhaps even the most blatant and careless
ones.
In fact, I would extend this notion to a general principle. Substantial control of the media is
almost always an absolute prerequisite for any successful conspiracy, the greater the degree of control
the better. So when weighing the plausibility of any conspiracy, the first matter to investigate
is who controls the local media and to what extent.
Let us consider a simple thought-experiment. For various reasons these days, the entire American
media is extraordinarily hostile to Russia, certainly much more so than it ever was toward the Communist
Soviet Union during the 1970s and 1980s. Hence I would argue that the likelihood of any large-scale
Russian conspiracy taking place within the operative zone of those media organs is virtually nil.
Indeed, we are constantly bombarded with stories of alleged Russian conspiracies that appear to be
"false positives," dire allegations seemingly having little factual basis or actually being totally
ridiculous. Meanwhile, even the crudest sort of anti-Russian conspiracy might easily occur
without receiving any serious mainstream media notice or investigation.
This argument may be more than purely hypothetical. A crucial turning point in America's renewed
Cold War against Russia was the passage of the 2012 Magnitsky Act by Congress, punitively targeting
various supposedly corrupt Russian officials for their alleged involvement in the illegal persecution
and death of an employee of Bill Browder, an American hedge-fund manager with large Russian holdings.
However, there's actually
quite a bit
of evidence that it was Browder himself who was actually the mastermind and beneficiary of the
gigantic corruption scheme, while his employee was planning to testify against him and was therefore
fearful of his life for that reason. Naturally, the American media has provided scarcely a single
mention of these remarkable revelations regarding what might amount to a gigantic
Magnitsky Hoax of geopolitical
significance.
To some extent the creation of the Internet and the vast proliferation of alternative media outlets,
including my own small webzine
, have somewhat altered this depressing picture. So it is hardly surprising that a very substantial
fraction of the discussion dominating these Samizdat-like publications concerns exactly those subjects
regularly condemned as "crazy conspiracy theories" by our mainstream media organs. Such unfiltered
speculation must surely be a source of considerable irritation and worry to government officials
who have long relied upon the complicity of their tame media organs to allow their serious misdeeds
to pass unnoticed and unpunished. Indeed, several years ago
a senior Obama Administration
official argued that the free discussion of various "conspiracy theories" on the Internet was
so potentially harmful that government agents should be recruited to "cognitively infiltrate" and
disrupt them, essentially proposing a high-tech version of
the highly controversial Cointelpro
operations undertaken by J. Edgar Hoover's FBI.
Until just a few years ago I'd scarcely even heard of Charles Beard,
once ranked among the towering
figures of 20th century American intellectual life . But the more I've discovered the number
of serious crimes and disasters that have completely escaped substantial media scrutiny, the more
I wonder what other matters may still remain hidden. So perhaps Beard was correct all along in recognizing
the respectability of "conspiracy theories," and we should return to his traditional American way
of thinking, notwithstanding endless conspiratorial propaganda campaigns by the CIA and others to
persuade us that we should dismiss such notions without any serious consideration.
Conspiracy is simply a plan or agreement by more than one person to do something evil and
then the pursuit of that plan. Secrecy may be needed for the success of a conspiracy, but it is
not essential to the definition.
Were it essential to the definition, you could never prove the existence of a conspiracy. Either
secrecy would be maintained and there would be little or no evidence or secrecy would not be maintained
and the plan would become known and by definition not be a conspiracy.
I think it's worth pointing out what I've never seen explained about that quote, a quote with
as much currency in the conspiracy theory fever swamps as any single quote has ever had. The point
of the disinformation campaign was not to manipulate the public but to manipulate the soviets.
Because our CIA analysts spent so much time unriddling the soviet media, we figured their CIA
analysts were doing the same thing with ours.
• Replies:
@AnotherLover People dismiss obviousness and redundancy, yet often both are necessary to fully
paint the picture. Where you wrote:
"The point of the disinformation campaign was not to manipulate the public but to manipulate the
soviets"
you could have been more accurate by continuing:
"by manipulating the public."
Ah, redundant and obvious to be sure, but more complete, no? Should it pacify the average prole
to know that not even their acquiescence is desired of them, but that they are useful as a disinformation
tool? Have things changed since then? Is less intelligence publicly available today? Or more?
And what lessons did the CIA learn in manipulating public opinion by domestic propaganda operations
in the meantime?
Sure, the context of the quote adds the realism it's clearly lacking as it floats by itself surrounded
by quotation marks, yet the takeaway is the same, is it not? A massive intelligence operation
designed to confuse the public with the media is what we've got on the table. Let that sink in
good and hard.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter Display
All Comments
Note: This paper was published in Political Psychology 15: 733-744, 1994. This is the original
typescript sent to the journal, it does not include any editorial changes that may have been
made. The journal itself is not available online, to my knowledge.
Belief in Conspiracy Theories
Ted Goertzel1
Running Head: Belief in Conspiracy Theories.
KEY WORDS: conspiracy theories, anomia, trust
Table Three
Means Scores of Racial/Ethnic Groups on Attitude Scales
White[W] Hispanic[H] Black[B]
Scale
Belief in Conspiracies 2.5[W] 2.8[H] 3.3[B]
Anomia 3.4[W] 3.8[H] 4.1[B]
Trust 3.7[W] 3.3[H] 3.1[B]
Note: All scales varied from 1 to 5, with 3 as a neutral score.
One of the most interesting discussions of the paper:
It is puzzling that conspiratorial thinking has been overlooked in the extensive research
on authoritarianism which has dominated quantitative work in political psychology since the
1950s. One possible explanation is that much of this work focuses on right-wing authoritarianism
(Altmeyer, 1988), while conspiratorial thinking is characteristic of alienated thinkers on
both the right and the left (Citrin, et al., 1975; Graumann, 1987; Berlet, 1992). Even more
surprisingly, however, conspiratorial thinking has not been a focus of the efforts to measure
"left-wing authoritarianism" (Stone, 1980; Eysenck, 1981; LeVasseur & Gold, 1993) or of research
with the "dogmatism" concept (Rokeach, 1960) which was intended to overcome the ideological
bias in authoritarianism measures.
On a more fundamental level, the difficulty with existing research traditions may be their
focus on the content of beliefs rather than the res[p]ondent's cognitive processes or emotional
makeup. As I have argued elsewhere (Goertzel, 1987), most studies of authoritarianism simply
ask people what they believe and then assume that these beliefs must be based on underlying
psychological processes which go unmeasured. Since these scales ask mostly about beliefs
held by those on the right, it is not surprising that they find authoritarianism to be a right-wing
phenomenon. Research with projective tests (Rothman and Lichter, 1982) and biographical materials
(Goertzel, 1992), on the other hand, has confirmed that many aspects of authoritarian thinking
can be found on both the left and the right.
One of the greatest conspiracy theories of our time is that Osama Bin Laden was responsible
for 9-11. This is refuted by the US government, despite occasional suggestions by political leaders.
From my blog, that has links:
May 21, 2016 – Another 9-11 Truther
[MORE]
In my April 16th blog post, I mentioned that former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman and
9-11 Commission co-chair Bob Graham had become a "Truther", i.e. one who openly doubts the official
9-11 story. It seems the powers that be tried to shut him up. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) openly
criticized the Obama administration for trying to strong-arm Graham, who is pushing to declassify
28 pages of the 9/11 report dealing with Saudi Arabia. He recounted how Rep. Gwen Graham (D-Fla.)
and her father, former Senator Bob Graham (D-Fla.), were detained by the FBI at Dulles International
Airport outside Washington. He said the FBI "took a former senator, a former governor, grabbed
him in an airport, hustled him into a room with armed force to try to intimidate him into taking
different positions on issues of public policy and important national policy."
Last week, another Republican member of the 9-11 Commission, former Navy Secretary John F Lehman,
said there was clear evidence that Saudi government employees were part of a support network for
the 9/11 hijackers – an allegation, congressional officials have confirmed, that is addressed
in detail in the 28 pages. Lehman said: "there was an awful lot of participation by Saudi individuals
in supporting the hijackers, and some of those people worked in the Saudi government."Events this
past year in Syria highlighted close ties between Saudi Arabia, Israel, and our CIA The 9-11
attacks generated the "Pearl Harbor" type of anger they needed to rally the American people to
support their semi-secret plan to conquer all the Arab world.
Here is a summary of events for those confused by American corporate media. Al Qaeda is not
an organization. It is a CIA computer database of armed Arab nationalists who violently oppose
western domination of the Arab world. (Al Qaeda is Arabic for database.) This database was established
by the CIA in the 1980s when our CIA trained and armed Arabs to fight the Russian occupation of
Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden (OBL) was never an official leader since it has never been a real
organization, although he did lead a large group of Arab nationalists who lived in Afghanistan.
OBL had nothing to do with 9-11, he didn't even know about it until it was reported in the
media. He was never formally accused of the attacks because there is zero evidence. OBL was a
wealthy Saudi who is said to have inspired the attacks. Our government blamed a Kuwaiti, Khalid
Shaikh Mohammad (pictured), and a dozen Saudis who died in the airplanes. These persons had never
been to Afghanistan and are said to have planned and trained for the attacks in the Philippines,
Germany, and the USA. Then why was Afghanistan invaded, and later Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Sudan,
Libya, and Yemen? But we did not invade Saudi Arabia! Instead, recall that days after 9-11 several
jets from our federal Justice Department rounded up Saudi suspects in the USA and flew them home
before FBI agents could ask them questions.
All this explains why the accused mastermind of the attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, has yet
to go to trial almost 16 years since 9-11! He has not been allowed to speak to anyone outside
the CIA Even the 9-11 Commission was not allowed to interview him. The U.S. military set up a
kangaroo court at Gitmo to hold a trial many years ago, but brave military defense lawyers keep
causing delays by insisting on a fair trial. It seems evidence is so "sensitive" that our CIA
does not want it revealed. even in a secret military court. Whenever documents are requested by
the defense, some are destroyed instead! This included all the CIA interrogations of the accused!
Our media propaganda is so prevalent that nearly all Americans think OBL was the 9-11 mastermind,
and since he is dead the case is closed. However, there is zero evidence of his involvement, something
our government has long acknowledged. Americans watched thousands of hours of television coverage
of the 9-11 attacks. Ask one if they think the accused mastermind of the attacks should be put
on trial, and they'll have no idea what you are talking about. More Americans are becoming aware
and demanding action, who are demeaned as crazy "truthers", which now include two former members
of our government's official 9-11 Commission once tasked with investigating these crimes.
The failed invasion of Syria has revealed that the Saudis, our CIA (with its defense contractor
and media allies), and Israel have been working to conquer all the Arab world and control it with
corruption and puppet dictators. Over the past couple years the Saudi government has changed hands
and this CIA-Saudi-Israeli alliance has frayed, mostly because of failures in Syria and Yemen.
Will the Saudis now be blamed for 9-11 to satisfy public demands for the truth, and to protect
other conspirators? Will this lead to a CIA-Israeli coup to take over Saudi Arabia? Or will other
high-level truthers surface and expose our nation's darkest secret?
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter Display
All Comments
Given how easy it is to create a conspiracy theory, most of them will be crazy.
Another problem with elite conspiracies is that elites usually do not have to act in secret
because they already are in control. For Kennedy, a centrist cold warrior, his views already reflected
those of elites, maybe even more so than Johnson.
The other problem is that actual criminal conspiracies by elites quite often are discovered,
such as Watergate and Iran Contra.
Given how easy it is to create a conspiracy theory, most of them will be crazy.
A statement that appears straight out of the CIA's playbook.
Another problem with elite conspiracies is that elites usually do not have to act in
secret because they already are in control.
Such control does not imply they have nothing to hide, particularly when exposure of the deed
would have damaging repercussions for them.
For Kennedy, a centrist cold warrior, his views already reflected those of elites, maybe
even more so than Johnson.
It didn't reflect that of Israel's elites.
After JFK's assassination, American foreign policy vis a vis Israel was completely reversed under
Johnson, who hung the crew of the USS Liberty out to dry.
The other problem is that actual criminal conspiracies by elites quite often are discovered,
such as Watergate and Iran Contra.
So, a conspiracy theory is a theory without media backing. There's no better recent example
of this than when the DNC emails were released by wikileaks during their convention. The story
put forth was that Russian hackers were responsible, and were trying to throw the election to
their buddy Trump. The evidence for this? Zero. And yet it became a plausible explanation in the
media, overnight.
Maybe it's true, maybe not, but if the roles had been reversed, the media would be telling
its proponents to take off their tin foil hats.
• Replies:
@art guerrilla ahhh, but 'Russkie!/squirrel!' worked, didn't it ? ? ?
virtually NOTHING about the actual content of the emails...
what was hysterical, was a followup not too long afterwards, where pelosi 'warned' that there
might be a whole raft of other emails which said bad stuff and stuff, and, um, they were -like-
probably, um, all, uh, fake and stuff...
it really is a funny tragi-comedy, isn't it ? ? ?
...then why am i crying inside... ,
@anti_republocrat Note also that the allegations immediately become "fact" because they were
reported by someone else. As Business Insider reported, "Amid mounting evidence of Russia's
involvement in the hack of the Democratic National Committee...," without any specificity whatsoever
as to what that "mounting evidence" was (most likely multiple reports in other media) never mind
that the article goes on to quote James Clapper, "...we are not quite ready yet to make a call
on attribution." WTF! Here, read it yourself: http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-dnc-hack-black-propaganda-2016-7
Totally mindless. So not only is Russia hacking, but we know it's intention is to influence US
elections!!! And now their hacking voter DBs and will likely hack our vote tabulating machines.
You can't make this s**t up.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter Display
All Comments
The British and Americans have been the victims of conspiracies (False Flag operations) for
years.
For example:
The Irgun bombing of the King David Hotel (headquarters of the British Mandate Government of
Palestine) in which Zionist activists dressed as Arabs placed milk churns filled with explosives
against the main columns of the building killing 91 people and injuring 44. Israeli prime Minister
Netanyahu, attended a celebration to commemorate the event.
Operation Susannah (Lavon Affair) where Israeli operatives impersonating Arabs bombed British
and American cinemas, libraries and educational centers in Egypt to destabilize the country and
keep British troops committed to the Middle East.
Or June 8, 1967, the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty with unmarked aircraft and torpedo boats.
34 men were killed and 171 wounded, with the attack in international waters following over nine
hours of close surveillance. When the ship failed to sink, the Israeli government concocted an
elaborate story to cover the crime. Original plan to blame the sinking with all lives lost on
the Egyptians and draw the US into the war.
Or Israelis and U.S. Zionists appearing all over the most recent WTC 9/11 "Operation" with
Israelis once again impersonating Arabs in a historic deception/terror action of a type that seems
to carry a lot of kudos with old Israeli ex-terrorist Likudniks. Israeli agents were sent to film
the historic day (as they later admitted on Israeli TV), with the celebrations including photos
of themselves with a background of the burning towers where thousands of Americans were being
incinerated.
Iraq was destroyed as a result of 9/11 but unfortunately for the conspirators, the momentum
wasn't sufficient for a general war including Iran. Also the general war would have included the
nuclear angle and justified the activation of a neo-con led Emergency Regime (dictatorship) in
the US enforced with the newly printed Patriot Act and Homeland Security troops – or maybe that's
just another Conspiracy Theory?
• Replies:
@Wizard of Oz I accept that your explanation of the attack on USS Liberty is relatively plausible
but another which runs it close is that Israel had to ensure that there was no proof left of the
true order of events which were not in accordance with the Israeli official version. So I ask
what are your sources?
Likewise, if you are saying that suicidal hijackers flew planes into buildings on 9/11 but that
it was organised by Mossad or other Israelis your story needs a lot of filling out and evidence
to be credible. Or are you merely saying the Israelis knew what was going to
happen and let it go ahead because it could be turned to their advantage? ,
@Konga So true!
But you forgot the two missiles shot from a NATO naval and HQ base in Spain towards Damascus,
shot down by the Russians (two weeks before the "agreement" on chemical weapons, remember?) and
then attributed to Israel's drills turned wrong... ,
@exiled off mainstreet The Israelis learned their false flag lesson from the Nazis, who used
concentration camp inmates dressed as Polish soldiers as part of a phony attack on the frontier
radio station "Sender Gleiwitz" a day or so before they invaded Poland. ,
@WowJustWow Come on. If you're going to false-flag 9/11, you hijack one plane. Hijacking
four planes is exactly the kind of plan that has too many moving parts to be sensible. And it
didn't go according to plan! Only three out of four planes hit their targets. If the hijackers
on United 93 had been fully subdued and found to be Israelis in funny clothes, the other three
planes would have been for nothing.
I can see the USS Liberty one though. I've never heard a plausible explanation for it.
Reply ,
@Sam Shama [Oh well, a delicious sweet dish will attract a fly as much as a gourmet.]
Kinda hinges on how people define conspiracy, doesn't it? Does a group of powerful people scheming
constitute a conspiracy, or does it need to be lizard people in the White House?
The former assuredly happens all the time. And those conspiracies are likely quite boring.
• Replies:
@Nathan Hale Correct. Of course conspiracies are real.
Among the more famous ones include:
The Watergate break-in and the coverup.
Operation Valkyrie and other plots against Hitler.
One can only hope. This time he mentioned 9/11--- so that base is covered; no need to say more
about that than that; besides I doubt even he could add to what has already been published and
posted on this site re that Big Lie. I would like to see how he weighs all the evidence on RFK's
assassination, what he would be willing to call what looks like nothing as much as what MK-Ultra
was about.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter Display
All Comments
Simplifying one "contradiction": Our elites have never been primarily anti-Russian or pro-Russian.
Since 1946 our elites have been purely GLOBALIST, and their secondary feelings toward Russia
strictly follow from this primary goal.
At first Russia was an obstacle to globalism, blocking much of the UN's efforts. Our elites
were anti-Russian. After 1962 or so, Russia became the main driver of the UN, so our elites were
pro-Russian. Since 1989, Russia has been the guiding star for ANTI-globalist forces, so our elites
are FEROCIOUSLY anti-Russian.
Mr. Unz's direct confrontation with this topic leads me to feel a sense of sentimentality or
coming full circle as my "red-pilled" experience literally started with his The Myth of American
Meritocracy a little over 2 years ago (I finally looked into the "white privilege" I was "highly
exposed" to in college).
Long story short, I was a lazy liberal beforehand, now a highly motivated conservative; nothing
helps one get their ish together better than understanding the trajectory at which our society
is heading. The Myth of American Meritocracy singularly led me to have a more open mind
in understanding how non-congruent the mainstream narrative can be with man's shared universal
reality, and having spent way too much time in school learning research methodology, I finally
applied it via whim thereafter to criminal statistics (but we know where this story ends), then
WW2, the mainstream narrative of which I grew up worshiping
For someone who, when I was naive, hung on to every word one heard or read in the countless
amount of hours I've spent in American history classes, for me to learn the hard way of Operation
Keelhaul, the Haavara Agreement, the disease epidemic, the migrant crisis (before hand), the hand
THE banksters probably played (in playing both sides), and so on, it becomes all too clear
how amazingly systematically corrupt our academic system has become. Not once did I ever hear
one smidgen about those extremely large plot points; they're so consistently implicitly left out
of the script its terrifying.
Alternating to my freshman year of high school now, when I was still naive, I complained
to our just hired 22 year old (conveniently) Jewish teacher (fresh out of the Ivy League but back
to sacrifice where he had graduated high school, he had always reminded us) over having to read
about the Little Rock 9 and Ann Frank for literally (in my case) the 4th time (each). Point is,
even when I was entirely clueless, and had no defensive instinct at all, it still didn't feel
healthy to read over and over again; I was emotionally exhausted already. I accepted their stories
at face value, faced the guilt, and just wanted to move on, yet according to my teacher I "lacked
empathy" (so if only we were taught about how the Irish were treated in the 17th we'd be fine).
It really is this kind of dwelling on the past that has been institutionalized, and its borderline
brain-washing, regardless of the said tragedy's validity.
There is one such particular event of WW2 that, once naive, I've personally cried over more
than any other historical event easily (perhaps even more than anything subjectively experienced),
much in thanks to programmed televising So what's so weird about all of this, is its like a meta-intellectual
betrayal, but with all the emotional connotations of a woman who wronged you in all the worse
ways (and she's inevitably waiting in seemingly every dark corner of history you delve into, thus
the "endless rabbit hole" you fall through). And its this implicit brand of deceit that is patently
feminine which can be inductively read from the MSM to "read the tea leaves"
I could go on and on but really I initially just wanted to thank you Mr. Unz, your publication,
and your current and past writing staff. I don't even want to imagine a world where I had never
stumbled upon your work!
Perhaps the media tried too hard, were too eager to be complicit, and now they've completely
lost the plot. The rise of Trump, in the face of a completely and uniformly hostile media,
suggests that a large part of the American public, consciously or not, now completely rejects
entire media narratives and assumes the exact opposite to be true. And they're panicking. Not
knowing what to do, they double and triple down on the same fail that got them into this mess.
Truly interesting times.
The rise of Trump, in the face of a completely and uniformly hostile media, suggests that a
large part of the American public, consciously or not, now completely rejects entire media
narratives and assumes the exact opposite to be true. And they're panicking.
Are they? Or, have they simply fired the first few rounds of easily-dispatched, easily-targeted
artillery? I do note that this is the most massive full-court press in support of the oligarchy
that I have ever seen. But, I sense that political wars have moved from the court of public opinion
and perception, into the courtyards of the moneyed elite. Inasmuch as no rich person has ever
believed that he or she has enough money and power, the national political conflict is now composed
solely of issues that affect the wealth and power of the 0.1%, which is itself segmented into
areas of economic focus and varying forms of wealth acquisition. For example, if air transport
systems threaten the wealth and power of ocean-based shipping, that competition between oligarchs
will morph into politically-expressed contexts.
I've often used the argument myself that conspiracies inevitably have short shelf lives in
the US because it was so difficult for Americans to keep secrets. The article makes a useful point
in suggesting that secret plots, even after being revealed, may nevertheless remain widely ignored.
Ideology, group-think, pack journalism etc. are powerful forces, often subconsciously at work,
preventing alternative theories from developing legs.
Though long an admirer of Karl Popper, I hadn't strongly associated him with attacks on conspiracy
theories per se. As an American "outsider" living abroad most of my adult life, I've all too often
encountered those who assumed my background alone explained an argument of mine that they didn't
like. Popper had hit the nail on the head when he wrote about
"a widespread and dangerous fashion of our time of not taking arguments seriously, and
at their face value, at least tentatively, but of seeing in them nothing but a way in which
deeper irrational motives and tendencies express themselves." It was "the attitude of
looking at once for the unconscious motives and determinants in the social habitat of the thinker,
instead of first examining the validity of the argument itself."
The powerful nazi and communist ideologies of his day assumed that one's " blood " or
" class " precluded "correct" thinking. Those politically incorrect challengers to their
own totalitarian weltanschauung were (to put it mildly) persecuted as conspirators. No doubt,
as Ron Unz notes, Popper's personal experience "contributed the depth of his feelings"
- I would say skepticism – about conspiracy claims.
But the author of the " Open Society " had an open mind and I suspect he'd find the
thesis reasonable that real conspiracies can both be uncovered and largely ignored because so
many simply opt to ignore them. In such cases, evidence and "not taking arguments seriously"
often reflects "intellectual groupieism," emotions, professional insecurities as well as venal
collective interests.
• Replies:
@Connecticut Famer "But the author of the "Open Society" had an open mind and I suspect he'd
find the thesis reasonable that real conspiracies can both be uncovered and largely ignored because
so many simply opt to ignore them. In such cases, evidence and "not taking arguments seriously"
often reflects "intellectual groupieism," emotions, professional insecurities as well as venal
collective interests."
Possibly as in the JFK case? I actually watched Lee Harvey Oswald get drilled by the man who
was later identified as Jack Ruby (real surname "Rubenstein") live on television. The minute it
happened and even at age 16 at the time I smelled a rat. Who was ultimately behind it all is something
which I can't answer and care not to speculate upon, but to this day I remain suspicious about
the circumstances surrounding Oswald's death and Ruby's subsequent dissembling. ,
@Bill Jones Nice try.
There are more so-called "conspiracy theories" claimed by the US government, CIA, and organized
Jewry than the Jews may have been killed by the Nazis. The "conspiracy theorists" like the "terrorists"
are chosen by the Zionist-controlled mainstream media.
Like the September 11, 2001 attacks, the lie that Iran's president Ahmadinejad called, WIPE
ISRAEL OFF THE MAP, is still kept alive by the Organized Jewry even though Israel's Deputy Prime
Minister Dan Meridor admitted that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never said Iran wanted
to "wipe Israel off the face of the map" in an interview with Al Jazeera in April 2012.
American investigative writer and author, Robert Parry, claimed on September 19, 2009 that
Ahmadinejad never denied Holocaust. He just challenged Israel and the western powers to allow
an open debate to find the truth behind the Zionist Holy Cow, "Six Million Died".
In reality, the only country that has been 'wiped off the map' is the 5,000-year-old Palestine
by Europe's unwanted Jews.
Iran's current president Dr. Hassan Rouhani like Dr. Ahmadinejad, is also blamed for denying
the Zionist Holy Holocaust as parroted by Wiesel, which he never did, saying it's up to historians
to decide who's lying.
• Replies:
@Moi If the Zionists can lie so much about Israeli history (e.g. The Arabs encouraged Palestinians
to flee, that the Arabs were about to attack Israel in 1967, land without a people for a people
without a land, etc.), one can only wonder about the official holocaust narrative of 6M dead,
gas chambers, etc.).
I've not read Elie Weisel's book Night, but I understand that no where does he mention gas chambers
in Auschwitz.... ,
@dahoit The only conspiracy with legs is the 70 year old Zionist one,and the only one that
matters today.
And only fellow travelers or their duped concern trolls disagree on that obvious truth.
Today's lying times says latent racism by the Danes is behind their resistance to their nation
being inundated by the refugees of the zionists war of terror.
Coming from the malevolent racist scum in history,it sure wreaks of total hypocrisy,and another
nail in divide and conquer.
Can one point out one synagogue or rabbinical statement condemning the 70 years of CCs and the
imprisonment of Gaza?
The only Jewish opponents(outside of a few dissidents),the ultra Orthodox are considered self
haters,as are the dissidents.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter Display
All Comments
I'll believe in the moon landings as soon as the Mars Rover shows all of us what Congress Woman
Shiela Jackson Lee was looking for when she asked if it could see the flags we left on the moon.
One conspiracy theory is that some of the wilder, more incredible notions of what may have
taken place are deliberately circulated so as to muddy the waters and discredit those who question
the party line. For example, outlandish claims by some that no planes were crashed on 9-11 but
were really just holograms are seized upon by supposed debunkers as being representative of all
skeptics, overshadowing the more reasonable types who question the narrative. This seems to be
quite deliberate.
The mainstream American press is the freest in the world, we've been told endlessly, and at some
point I realized that I was reading these accolades to itself in the very same press. Not the
most objective source one comes to realize. Now on the internet it seems there are those who appear
to fan out everywhere to influence the discussion, spread their slogans and shout down opposing
ideas. Paid trolls and others?
Conspiracies exist. Consider the Gulf of Tonkin fabrication which certainly involved many
actors and yet the general public was kept in the dark about the real facts. The results need
not be rehashed yet again. There's a streak of denial in most people. They don't want to contemplate
the idea that FDR may have deliberately allowed American servicemen to die at Pearl Harbor in
order to get the war he wanted. Stepping back from it all to get a long distance view one can
see the patterns of deceit and manipulation all throughout American political life. It's not just
incidental but rather is built in.
Stepping back from it all to get a long distance view one can see the patterns of deceit and
manipulation all throughout American political life. It's not just incidental but rather is
built in.
Is this built-in deceit and manipulation unique to American life, or -- beyond the usual understandings
about human nature -- is the systematic or institutionalized "deceit and manipulation" present
in all cultures? in western cultures? in some but not all cultures? If the lattermost, in which
cultures is "deceit and manipulation" less systematic and institutionalized?
Was "deceit and manipulation" institutionalized into American life from the beginning -- by the
Founders, or did USA deviate from its intended path at some point? If so, at what point? How did
it happen?
For those who haven't seen it, can I recommend Ryan Dawson's 'War by Deception':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK6VLFdWJ4I
I get the sense Ron's building up to something.
One can only hope. This time he mentioned 9/11- so that base is covered; no need to say more
about that than that; besides I doubt even he could add to what has already been published and
posted on this site re that Big Lie. I would like to see how he weighs all the evidence on RFK's
assassination, what he would be willing to call what looks like nothing as much as what MK-Ultra
was about.
• Replies:
@anonymous Pearl Harbor (covered in "Day of Deceit") is good starting point. I strongly encourage
Mr. Unz to read Robert Stinnet's book next before moving on.
FDR never intended that 2,400 Americans would die there. He just thought that if Japan "struck
first", he could justify our entry into WWII to the public. What's really fascinating (and almost
wholly unknown) is the sequence of events and headlines from December 8 to December 11, 1941,
the date Hitler declared war on the USA.
The Irgun bombing of the King David Hotel (headquarters of the British Mandate Government of Palestine)
in which Zionist activists dressed as Arabs placed milk churns filled with explosives against
the main columns of the building killing 91 people and injuring 44. Israeli prime Minister Netanyahu,
attended a celebration to commemorate the event.
Operation Susannah (Lavon Affair) where Israeli operatives impersonating Arabs bombed British
and American cinemas, libraries and educational centers in Egypt to destabilize the country and
keep British troops committed to the Middle East.
Or June 8, 1967, the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty with unmarked aircraft and torpedo boats.
34 men were killed and 171 wounded, with the attack in international waters following over nine
hours of close surveillance. When the ship failed to sink, the Israeli government concocted an
elaborate story to cover the crime. Original plan to blame the sinking with all lives lost on
the Egyptians and draw the US into the war.
Or Israelis and U.S. Zionists appearing all over the most recent WTC 9/11 "Operation" with Israelis
once again impersonating Arabs in a historic deception/terror action of a type that seems to carry
a lot of kudos with old Israeli ex-terrorist Likudniks. Israeli agents were sent to film the historic
day (as they later admitted on Israeli TV), with the celebrations including photos of themselves
with a background of the burning towers where thousands of Americans were being incinerated.
Iraq was destroyed as a result of 9/11 but unfortunately for the conspirators, the momentum wasn't
sufficient for a general war including Iran. Also the general war would have included the nuclear
angle and justified the activation of a neo-con led Emergency Regime (dictatorship) in the US
enforced with the newly printed Patriot Act and Homeland Security troops - or maybe that's just
another Conspiracy Theory?
I accept that your explanation of the attack on USS Liberty is relatively plausible but another
which runs it close is that Israel had to ensure that there was no proof left of the true order
of events which were not in accordance with the Israeli official version. So I ask what are your
sources?
Likewise, if you are saying that suicidal hijackers flew planes into buildings on 9/11 but
that it was organised by Mossad or other Israelis your story needs a lot of filling out and evidence
to be credible. Or are you merely saying the Israelis knew what was going to
happen and let it go ahead because it could be turned to their advantage?
The basic fact about the USS Liberty is that an American navy ship was attacked with the aim of
sinking it, which is an Act of War since the ship was clearly marked.
In contrast, the attacking Israeli jets and torpedo boats were unmarked (i.e. they wanted to hide
their identity), so a question is why were they unmarked if this was a standard military interception?
Whether the Israelis wanted to trigger a US attack on Egypt or hide their communications with
regard to their attack on Syria is a secondary question. The main concern of the United States
surely had to be to rescue their seamen and respond to the aggression.
And, this is where the story turns really nasty.
At least two rescue attempts were launched from US aircraft carriers nearby, but after the (obligatory)
communication to Washington, both rescue flights were cancelled within minutes on direct orders
of Secretary of Defence, Robert McNamara (source: 6th Fleet Rear Admiral Lawrence Geis speaking
in confidence to the senior Liberty survivor, Naval Security Group officer, Lieutenant Commander
David Lewis in a meeting requested by Geis).
Surviving personnel all received strict orders not say anything to anyone about the attack.
Eyewitness accounts say that 4 nuclear armed aircraft were simultaneously launched from the aircraft
carrier America on the instructions of President Johnson only to be recalled when, presumably,
the information came through that the Israelis had not succeeded in sinking the Liberty. Nuclear
weapons were not needed to defend the Liberty.
Also there was an oral history report from the American Embassy in Cairo, (now in the LBJ Library),
which notes that the Embassy received an urgent message from Washington warning that Cairo was
about to be bombed by US forces.
An investigation led by Thomas Moorer, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff held the
opinion that the Israeli motive was to draw the US into war against Egypt , through a false subterfuge
of the same type as their King David Hotel bombing and Lavon Affair operations.
Any rational person has to conclude that Johnson was virtually following Israeli orders, which
raises the question of why? Maybe they were blackmailing him with regard to something else that
was more important to him than the destruction of Cairo?
9/11 had some of the same features as other Israeli False Flag attacks against Britain and the
US, such as Israelis dressed as Arabs (framed Arabs) motivated towards tricking these countries
into military action against Arab states. In fact the Israeli involvement in 9/11 was much deeper
and more generalized as shown in investigative reporter Christopher Bollyn's book, "Solving 9-11:
The Deception That Changed the World". https://www.amazon.com/Solving-9-11-Deception-Changed-World/dp/0985322586/ref=cm_cr-mr-title
15 years later his account is supported in multiple ways from investigations in Florida (they
didn't sneak in unseen – they were highly visible and got red carpet treatment with regard to
visas etc. and they were completely incapable of flying the 9/11 airliners at the speeds and on
the trajectories seen on the day + everyone who had contact with them was visited by the F.B.I.
and told to shut up) - Source, a detailed and very interesting investigation by Daniel Hopsicker
in "Welcome to Terrorland: Mohamed Atta and the 9/11 Cover-Up in Florida. https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terrorland-Mohamed-Cover-up-Florida/dp/0975290673/ref=cm_cr-mr-title
High-rise buildings don't collapse due to fire (reason given by the US government). All high rise
fire disasters have been examined in detail, with most of them much more intense than the WTC
ones, and no building collapsed - let alone in 7 seconds and three on the same day.
These Arabs didn't fly the jets and it's now clear that the buildings were taken down by placed
explosives - the aim being to trick the US into an Iraq and Iran war and possibly launch an "Emergency"
Neo-con regime (dictatorship) in the US led by Cheney and enforced by the Patriot Act/ Homeland
security.
The other aspect here is that a government (and media) which genuinely represented the American
people would give top priority to revealing the truth about the USS Liberty and 9/11 rather than
engage in the present obfuscation, blocking, threats, smears and hiding of the truth. ,
@Alden Re: your first question about the USS Liberty. The media covered it up completely.
I was a young adult who read the newspaper every day plus Atlantic. new Republic and sometimes
Newsweek.
And I never, never heard about it until 20 years later when I began reading books about Zionism
I've read the book written by survivors. They were severely coerced to not say a word about it.
I wouldn't be surprised if they were not threatened with death if they talked. They were in the
navy remember and subject to the military code of Justice which means no ha rays corpus no access
to attorneys until the trial and other nasty things.
SolontoCroesus
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 5, 2016 at 1:24 pm GMT • 100 Words
@anonymous One conspiracy theory is that some of the wilder, more incredible notions of what
may have taken place are deliberately circulated so as to muddy the waters and discredit those
who question the party line. For example, outlandish claims by some that no planes were crashed
on 9-11 but were really just holograms are seized upon by supposed debunkers as being representative
of all skeptics, overshadowing the more reasonable types who question the narrative. This seems
to be quite deliberate.
The mainstream American press is the freest in the world, we've been told endlessly, and at some
point I realized that I was reading these accolades to itself in the very same press. Not the
most objective source one comes to realize. Now on the internet it seems there are those who appear
to fan out everywhere to influence the discussion, spread their slogans and shout down opposing
ideas. Paid trolls and others?
Conspiracies exist. Consider the Gulf of Tonkin fabrication which certainly involved many actors
and yet the general public was kept in the dark about the real facts. The results need not be
rehashed yet again. There's a streak of denial in most people. They don't want to contemplate
the idea that FDR may have deliberately allowed American servicemen to die at Pearl Harbor in
order to get the war he wanted. Stepping back from it all to get a long distance view one can
see the patterns of deceit and manipulation all throughout American political life. It's not just
incidental but rather is built in.
Stepping back from it all to get a long distance view one can see the patterns of deceit
and manipulation all throughout American political life. It's not just incidental but rather
is built in.
Is this built-in deceit and manipulation unique to American life, or - beyond the usual understandings
about human nature - is the systematic or institutionalized "deceit and manipulation" present
in all cultures? in western cultures? in some but not all cultures? If the lattermost, in which
cultures is "deceit and manipulation" less systematic and institutionalized?
Was "deceit and manipulation" institutionalized into American life from the beginning - by
the Founders, or did USA deviate from its intended path at some point? If so, at what point? How
did it happen?
Is there the possibility of redemption?
• Replies:
@Wizard of Oz It would be worth considering the different contributions to truth telling and
also honest scepticism of the Puritan and other Protestant culture, and of the Enlightenment for
a start. Some subjects were difficult - like whether there is a God for all Christians and of
course the one that must have addled many brains: slavery. ,
@John Jeremiah Smith
Is there the possibility of redemption?
Of what is "redemption" constituted? Considering that fewer than 20% of American residents during
the Revolution were actually involved in the revolt, with an estimated 40% preferring to retain
the colony under monarchy, and considering that the ethical and political awareness of the Average
American and the Average Illegal Resident Alien have gone downhill from there, can it honestly
be said that there's enough true flavor of human rights and equal access/opportunity to redeem?
,
@Mulegino1 To my mind, the real point of deviation in the history of the United States is
the Spanish American War, and the transformation of America from a tellurocratic to a thallasocratic
power. America's traditional role had been that of a vast, continental, land based power, eschewing
intervention in the affairs of Europe and the rest of the world outside the Western Hemisphere.
(This is largely the reason that the Russian Czar allied with the Union in the American Civil
War).
Our elites have never been primarily anti-Russian or pro-Russian. Since 1946 our elites have been
purely GLOBALIST, and their secondary feelings toward Russia strictly follow from this primary
goal.
At first Russia was an obstacle to globalism, blocking much of the UN's efforts. Our elites were
anti-Russian. After 1962 or so, Russia became the main driver of the UN, so our elites were pro-Russian.
Since 1989, Russia has been the guiding star for ANTI-globalist forces, so our elites are FEROCIOUSLY
anti-Russian.
I have a problem with the idea of likeminded elites who all move in srep together.
• Replies:
@Bill Jones They don't move in lockstep-(I assume you meant) together.
They do however have a series of identical interests:
Lower taxes on Capital Gains and Dividends than on Earned Income.
No barriers to entry to low-wage unskilled workers for jobs that need to be performed in the US.
No barriers to goods produced from low-wage countries, no matter what the conditions they are
produced in.
Actually, there is no symmetry in conspiracy theories as you imply.
The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret
network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed
conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.
So, just to cite one example, all of the 9/11 controlled demolition stuff is a conspiracy theory
because at first it had the government and maybe the property owners in on the secret, but then
the circle of supposed conspirators was enlarged to include the editors of Popular Mechanics after
they did their study. Or take the moon landing, which involved 'only' thousands of NASA people
until you point out that the astronauts left mirrors on the surface of the moon in a precise location,
for which astronomers around the world use laser ranging to determine the distance to the moon
down to the centimeter level. So then the astronomers who claim to do this had to be added to
the list of conspirators and liars for this theory to stand. Then of course the more you point
out, the more people who have to get added to the conspiracy, which eventually becomes all of
the television industry, and even the Soviets!
That is the reason why the so-called alternative explanations for 9/11, the moon landing, the
various assassinations, the safety of vaccines, etc, are conspiracy theories, while the mainstream
explanations are not.
The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret
network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed
conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.
LOL x 2. I think you're saying that the above is YOUR definition of "conspiracy theory", not to
be confused with any real and accurate definition of "conspiracy theory". ,
@zib but then the circle of supposed conspirators was enlarged to include the editors of
Popular Mechanics after they did their study
Nice attempt to conflate the planners and executors of the 9/11 attacks with those who run interference
for the "official" history of what happened that day. PM editors aren't "conspirators" of the
deed, they're just a mouthpiece for NIST.
Here's a link to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth's evisceration of Popular Mechanics hit
piece against skeptics of the NIST whitewash:
Let's see how you rationalize this one. If you have the cajones, that is. ,
@Boris
The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret
network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed
conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.
This is a fairly useful definition, and certainly highlights some of the pathological reasoning
that is associated with conspiracy theories. However, not all conspiracy theories will exhibit
this characteristic. Conspiracies like 9/11 that rely on scientific facts are sometimes rationalized
this way, but other conspiracies are built on suspect witness testimony or a biased interpretation
and don't require an ever-widening conspiracy. ,
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter Display
All Comments
Stepping back from it all to get a long distance view one can see the patterns of deceit and
manipulation all throughout American political life. It's not just incidental but rather is
built in.
Is this built-in deceit and manipulation unique to American life, or -- beyond the usual understandings
about human nature -- is the systematic or institutionalized "deceit and manipulation" present
in all cultures? in western cultures? in some but not all cultures? If the lattermost, in which
cultures is "deceit and manipulation" less systematic and institutionalized?
Was "deceit and manipulation" institutionalized into American life from the beginning -- by the
Founders, or did USA deviate from its intended path at some point? If so, at what point? How did
it happen?
Is there the possibility of redemption?
It would be worth considering the different contributions to truth telling and also honest
scepticism of the Puritan and other Protestant culture, and of the Enlightenment for a start.
Some subjects were difficult – like whether there is a God for all Christians and of course the
one that must have addled many brains: slavery.
Your characterization of Strauss on conspiracy has almost no basis in anything Strauss actually
wrote. I would bet that you are presenting a dumbed -down and inaccurate version of Shadia Drury's
books on Strauss, which are themselves abysmally inaccurate and libelous about Strauss.
The only place Strauss discusses conspiracy thematically that I can recall–and I have read
all his books several times, and still read them; have/do you?–is on Thoughts on Machiavelli
. Strauss does so, first and foremost, because conspiracy is a major theme of Machiavelli's
and the subject of the two longest chapters of his two most important books ( Prince 19
and Discourses III 6). Strauss further develops the idea that modern philosophy begins
as a conspiracy between Machiavelli and (some of) his readers. Strauss simply never said anything
like this:
Meanwhile, Strauss, a founding figure in modern neo-conservative thought, was equally harsh
in his attacks upon conspiracy analysis, but for polar-opposite reasons. In his mind, elite
conspiracies were absolutely necessary and beneficial, a crucial social defense against anarchy
or totalitarianism, but their effectiveness obviously depended upon keeping them hidden from
the prying eyes of the ignorant masses. His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not
that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore their spread was potentially
disruptive to the smooth functioning of society. So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed
to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies.
As for his relationship with neoconservatism, you also overstate that considerably. Yes, there
are many neoconservative Straussians. But there are also Straussian paleos, tradcons, liberatarians,
liberals, and moderates. There are many who are apolitical and interested only in abstract philosophy.
There are Straussian religious conservatives, agnostics and atheists. Christians, Jews and Muslim.
Catholic, Protestants and Mormons. The neocons just get all the attention–owing again, in part
to Drury and in part to one terrible 2003 article by James Atlas, which no one these days has
read, but quickly became THE account of neocon Straussians controlling the Bush administration,
which everyone today believes without having read, or even being aware of (have/are you?).
If "neocon" has any meaning, it means, first, a former intellectual liberal who has drifted
right. Second, a domestic policy scholar who focuses on data-driven social science. And third,
a foreign policy hawk.
None of these really apply to Strauss, who spent his who career studying political philosophy,
with an intense focus on the Greeks. He voted Dem in every election in which he could vote, until
his last, 1972, when he voted for Nixon out of Cold War concerns. You might say that makes him
a "hawk" but he never wrote any essays saying so. He simply told a few people privately that McGovern
was too naïve about the Soviets. You might also say that is evidence that he "drifted right" but
he didn't think so. He apparently considered himself a Cold War liberal until his death. As for
data-driven social science, he famously attacked it in of the very few of his writings that ever
got any attention in mainstream political science ("An Epilogue").
You may well be right about the CIA's role in popularizing the phrase "conspiracy theory."
But Leo Strauss had nothing to do with it. Or, if he did, he hid his role exceptionally well,
because there is no evidence of such in his writings.
• Replies:
@SolontoCroesus C Bradley Thompson was educated/trained as a Straussian neoconservative, then
got mugged by reality and started to re-assess his own philosophical orientation.
One of the most interesting points Thompson makes in this discussion of his book,
Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea, occurs in the Q&A segment when he demonstrates
that Strauss was, indeed, an acolyte of Nazi philosopher
Carl Schmitt
Your characterization of Strauss on conspiracy has almost no basis in anything Strauss actually
wrote. I would bet that you are presenting a dumbed -down and inaccurate version of Shadia
Drury's books on Strauss, which are themselves abysmally inaccurate and libelous about Strauss.
The only place Strauss discusses conspiracy thematically that I can recall–and I have read
all his books several times, and still read them; have/do you?....The neocons just get all
the attention–owing again, in part to Drury and in part to one terrible 2003 article by James
Atlas, which no one these days has read, but quickly became THE account of neocon Straussians
controlling the Bush administration...He apparently considered himself a Cold War liberal until
his death.
I'll candidly admit I haven't read a single one of Strauss's own books, nor even that very influential
James Atlas article you dislike so intensely. Instead, I was merely summarizing the extensive
arguments of Prof. deHaven-Smith, who, as a prominent political scientist, is presumably quite
familiar with Strauss, though I don't doubt that his views might differ considerably from your
own.
But on your second point, I do remember seeing a very amusing private letter of Strauss that came
to light about a decade or so ago. Written shortly after his arrival in America, it was addressed
to a fellow ultra-rightwing Jewish exile from Europe, and in it he praised fascism and (I think)
Nazism to the skies, arguing that their regrettable deviation into "anti-Semitism" (which had
precipitated his own personal exile from Germany) should in no way be considered a refutation
of all the other wonderful aspects of those political doctrines. This leads me to wonder if Strauss
was truly the "liberal" you suggest, or perhaps was instead engaging in exactly the sort of "ideological
crypsis" that seems such an important part of his political philosophy...
It's likely my faulty memory may have garbled important aspects of the letter I mention, and given
your expertise on Straussian issues, I'm sure you should be able to locate it and easily correct
me. ,
@Pat Casey Actually I don't think Ron is so far off. And I think, at best, you must be overeducated.
Strauss held that authentic philosophy is a conspiracy . From there, certain practical
advice about how to carry out the philosophy of the true philosopher follows. Such advice would
about seem to be how Ron said it was.
I have not read the essay by Atlas. But for the duration of the Bush Administration I did read
the Weekly Standard. I recall in particular one time when the editors recommended what books to
bring to the beach, and Bill Kristol said "anything by Leo Strauss." My impression is that the
Weekly Standard's brazen propaganda back then was the way certain editors understood themselves
to be acting like Strauss's true disciples.
Connecticut
Famer says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 5, 2016 at 2:28 pm GMT • 100 Words
@Gene Tuttle I've often used the argument myself that conspiracies inevitably have short shelf
lives in the US because it was so difficult for Americans to keep secrets. The article makes a
useful point in suggesting that secret plots, even after being revealed, may nevertheless remain
widely ignored. Ideology, group-think, pack journalism etc. are powerful forces, often subconsciously
at work, preventing alternative theories from developing legs.
Though long an admirer of Karl Popper, I hadn't strongly associated him with attacks on conspiracy
theories per se. As an American "outsider" living abroad most of my adult life, I've all too often
encountered those who assumed my background alone explained an argument of mine that they didn't
like. Popper had hit the nail on the head when he wrote about
"a widespread and dangerous fashion of our time...of not taking arguments seriously, and
at their face value, at least tentatively, but of seeing in them nothing but a way in which
deeper irrational motives and tendencies express themselves." It was "the attitude of
looking at once for the unconscious motives and determinants in the social habitat of the thinker,
instead of first examining the validity of the argument itself."
The powerful nazi and communist ideologies of his day assumed that one's " blood " or "
class " precluded "correct" thinking. Those politically incorrect challengers to their
own totalitarian weltanschauung were (to put it mildly) persecuted as conspirators. No doubt,
as Ron Unz notes, Popper's personal experience "contributed the depth of his feelings"
-- I would say skepticism – about conspiracy claims.
But the author of the " Open Society " had an open mind and I suspect he'd find the thesis
reasonable that real conspiracies can both be uncovered and largely ignored because so many simply
opt to ignore them. In such cases, evidence and "not taking arguments seriously" often
reflects "intellectual groupieism," emotions, professional insecurities as well as venal collective
interests.
"But the author of the "Open Society" had an open mind and I suspect he'd find the thesis reasonable
that real conspiracies can both be uncovered and largely ignored because so many simply opt to
ignore them. In such cases, evidence and "not taking arguments seriously" often reflects "intellectual
groupieism," emotions, professional insecurities as well as venal collective interests."
Possibly as in the JFK case? I actually watched Lee Harvey Oswald get drilled by the man who
was later identified as Jack Ruby (real surname "Rubenstein") live on television. The minute it
happened and even at age 16 at the time I smelled a rat. Who was ultimately behind it all is something
which I can't answer and care not to speculate upon, but to this day I remain suspicious about
the circumstances surrounding Oswald's death and Ruby's subsequent dissembling.
• Replies:
@Wizard of Oz I don't dismiss your intuitions as such but you hardly present a great case
for affording them much weight. What you immediately felt at age 16 watching a screen? Nope. The
fact that Jack Ruby dissembled? ,
@dahoit I was 12 and had the same feeling. Lanskys mob member shoots down any investigation
into just what happened that day. And remember Arlen Spector came up with the magic bullet theory,and
was rewarded with Congress.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
One can only hope. This time he mentioned 9/11--- so that base is covered; no need to say more
about that than that; besides I doubt even he could add to what has already been published and
posted on this site re that Big Lie. I would like to see how he weighs all the evidence on RFK's
assassination, what he would be willing to call what looks like nothing as much as what MK-Ultra
was about.
Pearl Harbor (covered in "Day of Deceit") is good starting point. I strongly encourage Mr.
Unz to read Robert Stinnet's book next before moving on.
FDR never intended that 2,400 Americans would die there. He just thought that if Japan "struck
first", he could justify our entry into WWII to the public. What's really fascinating (and almost
wholly unknown) is the sequence of events and headlines from December 8 to December 11, 1941,
the date Hitler declared war on the USA.
While Pearl Harbor meant war with Japan, it did not necessarily guarantee war with Nazi Germany.
For 72 hours, no one could be sure that Germany would declare war on us. Did FDR manipulate events
post-Pearl Harbor to ensure it did happen?
• Replies:
@Hibernian "FDR never intended that 2,400 Americans would die there."
The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret
network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed
conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.
So, just to cite one example, all of the 9/11 controlled demolition stuff is a conspiracy theory
because at first it had the government and maybe the property owners in on the secret, but then
the circle of supposed conspirators was enlarged to include the editors of Popular Mechanics after
they did their study. Or take the moon landing, which involved 'only' thousands of NASA people
until you point out that the astronauts left mirrors on the surface of the moon in a precise location,
for which astronomers around the world use laser ranging to determine the distance to the moon
down to the centimeter level. So then the astronomers who claim to do this had to be added to
the list of conspirators and liars for this theory to stand. Then of course the more you point
out, the more people who have to get added to the conspiracy, which eventually becomes all of
the television industry, and even the Soviets!
That is the reason why the so-called alternative explanations for 9/11, the moon landing, the
various assassinations, the safety of vaccines, etc, are conspiracy theories, while the mainstream
explanations are not.
The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a
secret network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network
of supposed conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.
LOL x 2. I think you're saying that the above is YOUR definition of "conspiracy theory", not
to be confused with any real and accurate definition of "conspiracy theory".
It's good to see that Mr. Beard is getting some well deserved good press. It's also good to
have people put on alert about Leo Strauss; his name should be a household word, and that of derision.
I first learned of the fool at LewRockwell.com, and I feel it's worth investigating him as
a source of the goofy neocon outlook that the world's been suffering under for decades.
"Strauss, who opposed the idea of individual rights, maintained that neither the ancient world
nor the Christian envisioned strict, absolute limits on state power.
Straussian neoconservatism is not conservatism as it has ever been understood in America or
anywhere else "
Here is a link to Carl Bernstein's definitive 1977 Rolling Stone article "CIA and the Media"
in which he addresses – and confirms – your worst fears. You are very right, and no less a figure
than Bernstein has said so for nearly four decades . . .
Here is a link to Carl Bernstein's definitive 1977 Rolling Stone article "CIA and the Media"
in which he addresses – and confirms – your worst fears. You are very right, and no less a
figure than Bernstein has said so for nearly four decades...
Thanks so much for the excellent reference to the Bernstein article, of which I hadn't been aware.
I found it fascinating, not least because of all the speculations floating around over the last
decade or two that Bernstein's famed collaborator, Bob Woodward, had had an intelligence background,
and perhaps Watergate represented a plot by elements of the CIA to remove Nixon from the White
House. As for the 25,000 word article itself, I'd suggest that people read it. Since quite a lot
of this comment-thread is already filled with debates about the supposed liberalism of Leo Strauss
and an alleged Moon Landing Hoax, I might as well provide a few of the provocative extracts:
He was very eager, he loved to cooperate." On one occasion, according to several CIA officials,
Sulzberger was given a briefing paper by the Agency which ran almost verbatim under the columnist's
byline in the Times. "Cycame out and said, 'I'm thinking of doing a piece, can you give me
some background?'" a CIA officer said. "We gave it to Cy as a background piece and Cy gave
it to the printers and put his name on it." Sulzberger denies that any incident occurred. "A
lot of baloney," he said.
Stewart Alsop's relationship with the Agency was much more extensive than Sulzberger's. One
official who served at the highest levels in the CIA said flatly: "Stew Alsop was a CIA agent."
An equally senior official refused to define Alsop's relationship with the Agency except to
say it was a formal one. Other sources said that Alsop was particularly helpful to the Agency
in discussions with, officials of foreign governments-asking questions to which the CIA was
seeking answers, planting misinformation advantageous to American policy, assessing opportunities
for CIA recruitment of well‑placed foreigners.
The New York Times. The Agency's relationship with the Times was by far its most valuable among
newspapers, according to CIA officials. From 1950 to 1966, about ten CIA employees were provided
Times cover under arrangements approved by the newspaper's late publisher, Arthur Hays Sulzberger.
The cover arrangements were part of a general Times policy-set by Sulzberger-to provide assistance
to the CIA whenever possible.
When Newsweek waspurchased by the Washington Post Company, publisher Philip L. Graham was informed
by Agency officials that the CIA occasionally used the magazine for cover purposes, according
to CIA sources. "It was widely known that Phil Graham was somebody you could get help from,"
said a former deputy director of the Agency. "Frank Wisner dealt with him." Wisner, deputy
director of the CIA from 1950 until shortly before his suicide in 1965, was the Agency's premier
orchestrator of "black" operations, including many in which journalists were involved. Wisner
liked to boast of his "mighty Wurlitzer," a wondrous propaganda instrument he built, and played,
with help from the press.) Phil Graham was probably Wisner's closest friend. But Graharn, who
committed suicide in 1963, apparently knew little of the specifics of any cover arrangements
with Newsweek, CIA sources said.
The Agency played an intriguing numbers game with the committee. Those who prepared the material
say it was physically impossible to produce all of the Agency's files on the use of journalists.
"We gave them a broad, representative picture," said one agency official. "We never pretended
it was a total description of the range of activities over 25 years, or of the number of journalists
who have done things for us." A relatively small number of the summaries described the activities
of foreign journalists-including those working as stringers for American publications. Those
officials most knowledgeable about the subject say that a figure of 400 American journalists
is on the low side of the actual number who maintained covert relationships and undertook clandestine
tasks.
From the twenty‑five files he got back, according to Senate sources and CIA officials, an unavoidable
conclusion emerged: that to a degree never widely suspected, the CIA in the 1950s, '60s and
even early '70s had concentrated its relationships with journalists in the most prominent sectors
of the American press corps, including four or five of the largest newspapers in the country,
the broadcast networks and the two major newsweekly magazines. Despite the omission of names
and affiliations from the twenty‑five detailed files each was between three and eleven inches
thick), the information was usually sufficient to tentatively identify either the newsman,
his affiliation or both-particularly because so many of them were prominent in the profession.
,
@LondonBob No coincidence that all the CIA agents involved in the JFK assassination are known
to be experts in 'black ops' and news media specialists. Jim Angleton, Cord Meyer, David Atlee
Phillips and E. Howard Hunt, who confessed his involvement, all made their names in black propaganda
or news management.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter Display
All Comments
Popper and Strauss. Neoliberal thought unites with neoconservative thought. Explicitly different
rationales, but the same goals and the same method of achieving those goals. Sounds like target
marketing of the two biggest target markets of American exceptionalism – dumb and dumber. Apparently
critical thinkers are a minority that they believe can be easily marginalized.
John Jeremiah Smith says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 5, 2016 at 2:58 pm GMT • 200 Words
@JL Perhaps the media tried too hard, were too eager to be complicit, and now they've completely
lost the plot. The rise of Trump, in the face of a completely and uniformly hostile media, suggests
that a large part of the American public, consciously or not, now completely rejects entire media
narratives and assumes the exact opposite to be true. And they're panicking. Not knowing what
to do, they double and triple down on the same fail that got them into this mess. Truly interesting
times.
Thanks, Mr. Unz, for your "small webzine".
The rise of Trump, in the face of a completely and uniformly hostile media, suggests that
a large part of the American public, consciously or not, now completely rejects entire media
narratives and assumes the exact opposite to be true. And they're panicking.
Are they? Or, have they simply fired the first few rounds of easily-dispatched, easily-targeted
artillery? I do note that this is the most massive full-court press in support of the oligarchy
that I have ever seen. But, I sense that political wars have moved from the court of public opinion
and perception, into the courtyards of the moneyed elite. Inasmuch as no rich person has ever
believed that he or she has enough money and power, the national political conflict is now composed
solely of issues that affect the wealth and power of the 0.1%, which is itself segmented into
areas of economic focus and varying forms of wealth acquisition. For example, if air transport
systems threaten the wealth and power of ocean-based shipping, that competition between oligarchs
will morph into politically-expressed contexts.
There is absolutely no concern, anywhere within the dominion of the 0.1%, with human values,
human rights, or any of that sort of ethically-principled hoo-hoo.
• Agree:
Jacques
Sheete • Replies:
@JL I suppose my comment came off somewhat like unbridled, naive optimism. Your points are
unquestionably valid, however, and I am disinclined to argue. Of course Trump represents the interests
of certain groups of elites and is not merely the essence of a popular movement. I'll be honest,
though, I'm having a tough time determining who these groups are, exactly.
Just like with Brexit, these events don't happen without powerful manipulation from somewhere
within the 0.1%. Still, it's tough for me to imagine what a Trump presidency will even look like.
Who will be in his cabinet, from what backgrounds will they come?
There is absolutely no concern, anywhere within the dominion of the 0.1%, with human values,
human rights, or any of that sort of ethically-principled hoo-hoo.
Stepping back from it all to get a long distance view one can see the patterns of deceit and
manipulation all throughout American political life. It's not just incidental but rather is
built in.
Is this built-in deceit and manipulation unique to American life, or -- beyond the usual understandings
about human nature -- is the systematic or institutionalized "deceit and manipulation" present
in all cultures? in western cultures? in some but not all cultures? If the lattermost, in which
cultures is "deceit and manipulation" less systematic and institutionalized?
Was "deceit and manipulation" institutionalized into American life from the beginning -- by the
Founders, or did USA deviate from its intended path at some point? If so, at what point? How did
it happen?
Is there the possibility of redemption?
Is there the possibility of redemption?
Of what is "redemption" constituted? Considering that fewer than 20% of American residents
during the Revolution were actually involved in the revolt, with an estimated 40% preferring to
retain the colony under monarchy, and considering that the ethical and political awareness of
the Average American and the Average Illegal Resident Alien have gone downhill from there, can
it honestly be said that there's enough true flavor of human rights and equal access/opportunity
to redeem?
The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret
network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed
conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.
LOL x 2. I think you're saying that the above is YOUR definition of "conspiracy theory", not to
be confused with any real and accurate definition of "conspiracy theory".
No what I have put is the generally accepted definition used in journalistic and sociological
works about conspiracy theory culture, e.g.
this book .
No what I have put is the generally accepted definition used in journalistic and sociological
works about conspiracy theory culture, e.g. this book.
Journalism? Sociological works? You choose to quote even bigger liars as defining "conspiracy
theory"?
"A conspiracy theory is a belief that a secret conspiracy has actually been decisive in producing
a political event or evil outcome which the theorists strongly disapprove of. The conspiracy theory
typically identifies the conspirators, provides evidence that supposedly links them together with
an evil plan to harm the body politic, and may also point to a supposed cover up by authorities
or media who should have stopped the conspiracy. The duty of the theorist is to pick from a myriad
of facts and assumptions and reassemble them to form a picture of the conspiracy, as in a jigsaw
puzzle. A theorist may publicly identify specific conspirators, and if they deny the allegations
that is evidence they have been sworn to secrecy and are probably guilty."
The great flaw in the Western system of "democratic" government is that hardly anyone knows
the meaning of the word "epistemology", let alone have any grasp of the underlying challenge of
knowing what they know, or rather knowing how little they know beyond what they know from direct
personal experience. This is a challenge made vastly more difficult in the modern age when almost
everything we know is derived not from personal experience, or from other people of whose character
and intellectual competence we have some personal knowledge, but from the arrangement of ink on
paper or of pixels on a video screen. To this problem, there is probably no solution, although
either a sharp restriction of the franchise to those of some maturity and education, or a division
of the franchise according to what each particular individual could be expected to know something
about, would be a step in the right direction.
As it is, we will, inevitably, continue to be the target of high powered manipulation by corporate
owned media and other powerful interests.
Professor Lance Haven de Smith, whose book you mention is an expert on SCADS, or state crimes
against democracy. An article by him on this topic is available
here . There is some interesting academic material about SCADs
here .
In spook circles, leaving clues is referred to as inoculation .refer to the work of Bill McGuire
in the late 50s and early 60s. For example, we here in Langley and Ft. Meade have left intact
on the internet the early picture of the 20′ entry hole left by the "757″ in the facade of the
pentagon before the explosion and complete collapse of the exterior wall ..inviting the conspiratorial
question " where are the wings, the mangled cadavers, the tail?". This is all just too easy
Highly reccomend Chris Buckley's book
"Little Green Men" The plot is that the entire UFO thing was set up after WW3 by the DOJ to keep
the money flowing. Like all Buckley's books, it's a great read.
I stopped believing in anything written in newspapers around 1966 because they were so pro
black criminal and anti police
No what I have put is the generally accepted definition used in journalistic and sociological
works about conspiracy theory culture, e.g. this book.
Journalism? Sociological works? You choose to quote even bigger liars as defining "conspiracy
theory"?
"A conspiracy theory is a belief that a secret conspiracy has actually been decisive in producing
a political event or evil outcome which the theorists strongly disapprove of. The conspiracy theory
typically identifies the conspirators, provides evidence that supposedly links them together with
an evil plan to harm the body politic, and may also point to a supposed cover up by authorities
or media who should have stopped the conspiracy. The duty of the theorist is to pick from a myriad
of facts and assumptions and reassemble them to form a picture of the conspiracy, as in a jigsaw
puzzle. A theorist may publicly identify specific conspirators, and if they deny the allegations
that is evidence they have been sworn to secrecy and are probably guilty."
you are too quick to conflate 9/11 and the moon landings
Actually, it was Unz himself who stated a while back that if we admit that one of them is possible,
then all are possible, or something more or less to that effect.
In an case, the 9/11 controlled demolition / missile / flight 93 is in a hangar in Cleveland
stuff is just as implausible as faking the moon landings. Too many people and organizations and
countries needing to be in on it, etc.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter Display
All Comments
SolontoCroesus
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 5, 2016 at 4:12 pm GMT • 100 Words
@Decius Your characterization of Strauss on conspiracy has almost no basis in anything Strauss
actually wrote. I would bet that you are presenting a dumbed -down and inaccurate version of Shadia
Drury's books on Strauss, which are themselves abysmally inaccurate and libelous about Strauss.
The only place Strauss discusses conspiracy thematically that I can recall--and I have read all
his books several times, and still read them; have/do you?--is on Thoughts on Machiavelli
. Strauss does so, first and foremost, because conspiracy is a major theme of Machiavelli's
and the subject of the two longest chapters of his two most important books ( Prince 19
and Discourses III 6). Strauss further develops the idea that modern philosophy begins
as a conspiracy between Machiavelli and (some of) his readers. Strauss simply never said anything
like this:
Meanwhile, Strauss, a founding figure in modern neo-conservative thought, was equally harsh
in his attacks upon conspiracy analysis, but for polar-opposite reasons. In his mind, elite
conspiracies were absolutely necessary and beneficial, a crucial social defense against anarchy
or totalitarianism, but their effectiveness obviously depended upon keeping them hidden from
the prying eyes of the ignorant masses. His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not
that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore their spread was potentially
disruptive to the smooth functioning of society. So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed
to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies.
As for his relationship with neoconservatism, you also overstate that considerably. Yes, there
are many neoconservative Straussians. But there are also Straussian paleos, tradcons, liberatarians,
liberals, and moderates. There are many who are apolitical and interested only in abstract philosophy.
There are Straussian religious conservatives, agnostics and atheists. Christians, Jews and Muslim.
Catholic, Protestants and Mormons. The neocons just get all the attention--owing again, in part
to Drury and in part to one terrible 2003 article by James Atlas, which no one these days has
read, but quickly became THE account of neocon Straussians controlling the Bush administration,
which everyone today believes without having read, or even being aware of (have/are you?).
If "neocon" has any meaning, it means, first, a former intellectual liberal who has drifted right.
Second, a domestic policy scholar who focuses on data-driven social science. And third, a foreign
policy hawk.
None of these really apply to Strauss, who spent his who career studying political philosophy,
with an intense focus on the Greeks. He voted Dem in every election in which he could vote, until
his last, 1972, when he voted for Nixon out of Cold War concerns. You might say that makes him
a "hawk" but he never wrote any essays saying so. He simply told a few people privately that McGovern
was too naïve about the Soviets. You might also say that is evidence that he "drifted right" but
he didn't think so. He apparently considered himself a Cold War liberal until his death. As for
data-driven social science, he famously attacked it in of the very few of his writings that ever
got any attention in mainstream political science ("An Epilogue").
You may well be right about the CIA's role in popularizing the phrase "conspiracy theory." But
Leo Strauss had nothing to do with it. Or, if he did, he hid his role exceptionally well, because
there is no evidence of such in his writings.
C Bradley Thompson was educated/trained as a Straussian neoconservative, then got mugged
by reality and started to re-assess his own philosophical orientation.
One of the most interesting points Thompson makes in this discussion of his book,
Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea, occurs in the Q&A segment when he demonstrates
that Strauss was, indeed, an acolyte of Nazi philosopher
Carl Schmitt
• Replies:
@SolontoCroesus @ 12 min, Thompson asserts that "Leo Strauss was the most important influence
on Irving Kristol's intellectual development. My book reveals for the first time the importance
of Kristol's 1952 review of
Strauss's Persecution and the Art of Writing . For me this is the Rosetta Stone . .
.for understanding the deepest layer of neoconservative political philosophy."
---
It should also be noted that Irving Kristol was sponsored by- on the payroll of - the CIA while
still in Britain. Kristol has acknowledged that CIA support got his movement off the ground. ,
@Decius No. Strauss and Schmitt were friendly in the 1930s but Strauss was critical of Schmitt's
work even then and said so. Schmitt himself said that Strauss had "seen right through" his arguments.
Strauss was no acolyte of Schmitt's, he was a greater and deeper thinker and Schmitt--something
Schmitt himself acknowledged.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
The best strategy is to foster implausible conspiracy theories to create a cloud of disinformation.
This technique was used very effectively after 9/11, such that it's very hard to discuss a coverup
without being labeled a truther.
One of the most interesting points Thompson makes in this discussion of his book,
Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea, occurs in the Q&A segment when he demonstrates
that Strauss was, indeed, an acolyte of Nazi philosopher
Carl Schmitt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Oh6DmjQaho
@ 12 min, Thompson asserts that "Leo Strauss was the most important influence on Irving Kristol's
intellectual development. My book reveals for the first time the importance of Kristol's 1952
review of
Strauss's Persecution and the Art of Writing . For me this is the Rosetta Stone . .
.for understanding the deepest layer of neoconservative political philosophy."
-
It should also be noted that Irving Kristol was sponsored by- on the payroll of – the CIA while
still in Britain. Kristol has acknowledged that CIA support got his movement off the ground.
• Replies:
@Decius So what? That's one guy. How do we even know Kristol interpreted Strauss correctly?
Kristol's concerns--data-driven social science--were not Strauss's. And so on and on.
One of the most interesting points Thompson makes in this discussion of his book,
Neoconservatism: An Obituary for an Idea, occurs in the Q&A segment when he demonstrates
that Strauss was, indeed, an acolyte of Nazi philosopher
Carl Schmitt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Oh6DmjQaho
No. Strauss and Schmitt were friendly in the 1930s but Strauss was critical of Schmitt's work
even then and said so. Schmitt himself said that Strauss had "seen right through" his arguments.
Strauss was no acolyte of Schmitt's, he was a greater and deeper thinker and Schmitt–something
Schmitt himself acknowledged.
---
It should also be noted that Irving Kristol was sponsored by- on the payroll of - the CIA while
still in Britain. Kristol has acknowledged that CIA support got his movement off the ground.
So what? That's one guy. How do we even know Kristol interpreted Strauss correctly? Kristol's
concerns–data-driven social science–were not Strauss's. And so on and on.
But all that is a re-frame anyway. The charge from Unz is that Strauss is responsible, partly,
for the way Americans think about conspiracy today because Strauss advocated for elite conspiracy.
That's false and Unz can't back it up.
The charge from Unz is that Strauss is responsible, partly, for the way Americans think about
conspiracy today because Strauss advocated for elite conspiracy. That's false and Unz can't
back it up.
5371
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 5, 2016 at 4:45 pm GMT
@Decius No. Strauss and Schmitt were friendly in the 1930s but Strauss was critical of Schmitt's
work even then and said so. Schmitt himself said that Strauss had "seen right through" his arguments.
Strauss was no acolyte of Schmitt's, he was a greater and deeper thinker and Schmitt--something
Schmitt himself acknowledged.
This is complete nonsense. Schmitt is a powerful and original thinker, Strauss a weak and derivative
one whose real sweet spot was academic politics.
• Agree:
SolontoCroesus
• Replies:
@Decius Schmitt disagreed with you. ,
@Decius At any rate it's sort of absurd to watch you people chase your tails. All that you
"know" or think you know is that Strauss is bad. But Schmitt is good. But Strauss is derivative
of Schmitt. Doesn't that make Strauss good, or Schmitt bad?
Schmitt is famous for arguing in favor of the essential particularity of politics--i.e., against
alleged neocon universalism. So if Strauss is derivative of Schmitt, how can he be a neocon universalist?
Strauss in fact agrees with Schmitt on the essential particularity of politics and says so, but
finds a deeper source, with deeper arguments, in Plato. Schmitt admitted that his own attempt
to fortify his particularism was build on the quick-sandy foundation of modern rationalism, which
Strauss taught him to see through.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
I was having a little fun with the fact that a Congress Critter thought the Mars Rover could
drive up to an American flag planted by the Astronauts on the Earth's Moon.
At any rate it's sort of absurd to watch you people chase your tails. All that you "know" or
think you know is that Strauss is bad. But Schmitt is good. But Strauss is derivative of Schmitt.
Doesn't that make Strauss good, or Schmitt bad?
Schmitt is famous for arguing in favor of the essential particularity of politics–i.e., against
alleged neocon universalism. So if Strauss is derivative of Schmitt, how can he be a neocon universalist?
Strauss in fact agrees with Schmitt on the essential particularity of politics and says so,
but finds a deeper source, with deeper arguments, in Plato. Schmitt admitted that his own attempt
to fortify his particularism was build on the quick-sandy foundation of modern rationalism, which
Strauss taught him to see through.
This is a good piece which deserved an acceptable level of mental hygiene in the comment section.
Unfortunately, two of the first nine comments are from morons spamming their "no lunar landing"
drivel.
Indeed, and absolute drivel. During the first two moon landings, I was working as an electronic
technician, aligning and tuning the radio communications antennas at one of the monitor sites.
Unless the physics of the electromagnetic Universe was altered by the conspirators, the origin
of radio transmissions from the landing crew could only have come from the Moon. Either that,
or space aliens operating a whole 'nuther conspiracy used "seekrut" technology to make it look
like signals received at every monitor station were from the Moon. If so, kudos on a boss fake-out
scheme.
"Unless the physics of the electromagnetic Universe was altered by the conspirators, the
origin of radio transmissions from the landing crew could only have come from the Moon. "
I suppose NASA could have sent an S-Band repeater to the Moon.
I suppose NASA could have sent an S-Band repeater to the Moon.
There's more than one scenario that can be assembled to explain any one or two conditions that
would have to be "covered" in order to carry out a conspiracy of deception regarding the Moon
landings. Considering the inferior level of video jiggering available at the time, it seems to
me that providing full "evidence" of the low-gravity behavior of objects, and the absolute two-color
light/shadow effects in an absence of atmosphere would be the most difficult.
The principle of parsimony becomes ascendant at some point in that Hall of Mirrors. It was easier
to go to the Moon than it was to fake it.
FDR never intended that 2,400 Americans would die there. He just thought that if Japan "struck
first", he could justify our entry into WWII to the public. What's really fascinating (and almost
wholly unknown) is the sequence of events and headlines from December 8 to December 11, 1941,
the date Hitler declared war on the USA.
While Pearl Harbor meant war with Japan, it did not necessarily guarantee war with Nazi Germany.
For 72 hours, no one could be sure that Germany would declare war on us. Did FDR manipulate events
post-Pearl Harbor to ensure it did happen?
"FDR never intended that 2,400 Americans would die there."
Did he think our forces at Pearl, lacking needed intelligence, would limit the losses to a
lesser number?
• Replies:
@anonymous So it would seem. That critical intelligence on the Japanese was deliberately kept
from Admiral Kimmel and General Short by FDR and his closest military officials is indisputable.
The question "why?" has never been answered in any meaningful sense.
But all that is a re-frame anyway. The charge from Unz is that Strauss is responsible, partly,
for the way Americans think about conspiracy today because Strauss advocated for elite conspiracy.
That's false and Unz can't back it up.
The charge from Unz is that Strauss is responsible, partly, for the way Americans think
about conspiracy today because Strauss advocated for elite conspiracy. That's false and
Unz can't back it up.
Can't back it up or has not done so, so far?
The day is young . . . the moon has not yet appeared in the eastern sky.
• Replies:
@Decius I know Strauss's books. I am guessing that Unz does not because if he did, he would
not attribute to Strauss what he did. At any rate, even if Unz does know the books, I fail to
see what passages he could cite to support the paragraph that I highlighted.
Pat Casey
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 5, 2016 at 5:11 pm GMT • 200 Words
@Wizard of Oz From my experience of actors, including amateur actors i have no problem believing
Pat Casey's old guy talking about aliens was either a scripted gig maybe for a bet, maybe to see
if he could get some money for his family or for medical treatment and the "tells" I totally discount
though it might merely be evidence that he's been telling the story for yonks and no one bothers
to pull him up on the one mentioned.
As to the demeanour of the one astronaut that I have now seen from below your comment it does
invite questions but yyou seem to be wrong about it being an occasion for celebration. It seems
to be much later when they are probably bored out of their minds and quite pissed off at being
required to perform yet again as circus ponies.
My friend knows the guy that interviewed the man about Eisenhower and area 51. He's supposed
to be the steely-eyed vet in a field full of dupes. It's possible he's a charlatan employing an
actor, but that's not what it sounds like. The one that I can't decide on is this disinformation
agent Richard Doty from the film Mirage Men. That one is worth watching.
My education into the likelihood of extraterrestrials took a quantum leap when I watched The
Pyramid Codes on netflix. Mind you that is not an idea the series puts forward-the footage of
the Pyramid they don't take tourists to see is enough to know those folks had technology we do
not have today.
For the record I believe we landed on the moon. But, the idea that we did not probably comes
from the underbelly of our own government.
"HANGZHOU, China - The image of a 5-year-old Syrian boy, dazed and bloodied after being rescued
from an airstrike on rebel-held Aleppo, reverberated around the world last month, a harrowing
reminder that five years after civil war broke out there, Syria remains a charnel house.
But the reaction was more muted in Washington, where Syria has become a distant disaster rather
than an urgent crisis. President Obama's policy toward Syria has barely budged in the last year
and shows no sign of change for the remainder of his term. The White House has faced little pressure
over the issue,
That frustrates many analysts because they believe that a shift in policy will come only when
Mr. Obama has left office. "Given the tone of this campaign, I doubt the electorate will be presented
with realistic and intelligible options, with respect to Syria," said Frederic C. Hof, a former
adviser on Syria in the administration."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/05/world/middleeast/obama-syria-foreign-policy.html?action=click&contentCollection=Europe&module=RelatedCoverage®ion=EndOfArticle&pgtype=article&_r=0
Spinning by NYT can and will form the base of a conspiracy .
The world we see are not festooned with the morbid pictures and the world has not one echo
chamber among its 7 billions that are reverberating with his sad cry .
No American taxpayer is piling pressure on Obama.
Tone of the election doesn't and shouldn't provide option on Syria . Electorates are not asking
to know what America should do.
Next president will introduce something that he wont share w and making them known before the
voters will destroy his chances.Someone shared and was evisecrated by NYT and other as Putin's
Trojan horse .
NYT is lying . But this lies can help build the necessarry platform for future wars . Another
Sarin gas? Another Harriri death? Another picture of beheadings ? Another story of North Korean
supplying nukes ? Wrongful consequences from falsehood will not cost NYT excepting a correction
years later somehere in the 5 th page. A conspiracy to hatch is something that has no consequences
for the plotters .
If Dulles were hanged for role in all the illegal things he had done in Guatemala and Iran,may
be Kennedy would have survived . But his earlier political escapades were also built on something
that were way earlier . Conspiracy keeps on coming back begging for one more round ,for one more
time .
NYT will be there claiming for the right to crow – how it has prepared the ground.
All are done openly . When resistance is mounted, Bernie Sander supporters are sent home with
flowers and a reminder to vote for Clinton because in this age all over the world America is the
exception that has heard them . With that satisfaction they can go home and vote as expected.
They are not allowed to know how the campaign marginalized Sander's chances from the get go.
Neither NYT explains how reckless Trump with nuclear code will start a nuclear war with Putin's
Russia despite being his co conspirator .
Chalabi s daughter exclaimed in early part of 2004 – We are heroes in mistakes. She won't say
it now . Conspirators would love to get the credit and be recognized . It all depends on the success
.
First Iraq war,if went bad from begining, Lantos wouldn't have been reelected . But again who
knows what media can deliver . They delivered Joe Liberman .
Some conspiracies are eventually acknowledged. For recent examples, our government finally
admitted that our CIA overthrew the government of Iran in the 1950s. The sinking of the Lusitania
because it carried tons of munitions and weapons during WW I has been mostly accepted since 1982,
after the sunken ship was discovered and searched by divers. For example, Encyclopedia Britannica:
"The Lusitania was carrying a cargo of rifle ammunition and shells (together about 173 tons),
and the Germans, who had circulated warnings that the ship would be sunk, felt themselves fully
justified in attacking a vessel that was furthering the war aims of their enemy. The German government
also felt that, in view of the vulnerability of U-boats while on the surface and the British announcement
of intentions to arm merchant ships, prior warning of potential targets was impractical."
If we truly had aggressive news competition in the USA, this story would remain in the headlines,
but of course its implications are not acceptable. However, stories about Russian hackers persist
with no hard evidence.
The rise of Trump, in the face of a completely and uniformly hostile media, suggests that a
large part of the American public, consciously or not, now completely rejects entire media
narratives and assumes the exact opposite to be true. And they're panicking.
Are they? Or, have they simply fired the first few rounds of easily-dispatched, easily-targeted
artillery? I do note that this is the most massive full-court press in support of the oligarchy
that I have ever seen. But, I sense that political wars have moved from the court of public opinion
and perception, into the courtyards of the moneyed elite. Inasmuch as no rich person has ever
believed that he or she has enough money and power, the national political conflict is now composed
solely of issues that affect the wealth and power of the 0.1%, which is itself segmented into
areas of economic focus and varying forms of wealth acquisition. For example, if air transport
systems threaten the wealth and power of ocean-based shipping, that competition between oligarchs
will morph into politically-expressed contexts.
There is absolutely no concern, anywhere within the dominion of the 0.1%, with human values, human
rights, or any of that sort of ethically-principled hoo-hoo.
I suppose my comment came off somewhat like unbridled, naive optimism. Your points are unquestionably
valid, however, and I am disinclined to argue. Of course Trump represents the interests of certain
groups of elites and is not merely the essence of a popular movement. I'll be honest, though,
I'm having a tough time determining who these groups are, exactly.
Just like with Brexit, these events don't happen without powerful manipulation from somewhere
within the 0.1%. Still, it's tough for me to imagine what a Trump presidency will even look like.
Who will be in his cabinet, from what backgrounds will they come?
There is absolutely no concern, anywhere within the dominion of the 0.1%, with human values,
human rights, or any of that sort of ethically-principled hoo-hoo.
Certainly not. What are fundamentally important questions for us are merely means to an end
for them.
Of course Trump represents the interests of certain groups of elites and is not merely the
essence of a popular movement. I'll be honest, though, I'm having a tough time determining
who these groups are, exactly.
Yes, and how many players, each with what orientation and degree of focus? The 0.1% population
contains 10,000 - 50,00o potential players, globally.
Beard was an interesting guy, but's let's not forget that his central thesis regarding the
founding of this country doesn't hold up to historical scrutiny:
Meanwhile, I think it helps to think about conspiracies philosophically - rigorous thought
can help clear up sloppy thinking (which is found in many such theories):
With respect to conspiracies, there are two equally absurd extreme views which distract from
reality: one is the childish rejection of all conspiracy theories and the other the childish belief
that every appreciable newsworthy event with a political, economic or social impact is the result
of a nefarious conspiracy. The truth, of course, is to be found in the middle.
Only a child – or its intellectual equivalent, i.e., a low information infotainment consumer
– could believe in the official version of 9/11, or the Manichean narrative of the Second World
War and the Myth of the 6 Million.
On the other hand, there is Hillary Clinton with her "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" and idiots
like Glenn Beck who believe that Vladimir Putin is seeking to conquer the world.
The charge from Unz is that Strauss is responsible, partly, for the way Americans think about
conspiracy today because Strauss advocated for elite conspiracy. That's false and Unz can't
back it up.
Can't back it up or has not done so, so far?
The day is young . . . the moon has not yet appeared in the eastern sky.
I know Strauss's books. I am guessing that Unz does not because if he did, he would not attribute
to Strauss what he did. At any rate, even if Unz does know the books, I fail to see what passages
he could cite to support the paragraph that I highlighted.
As noted, the claim sounds vaguely derivative of Drury, who hates Strauss (and gets everything
wrong) but even she doesn't quite say what Unz says.
Ron
Unz says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 5, 2016 at 5:44 pm GMT • 300 Words NEW!
@Decius Your characterization of Strauss on conspiracy has almost no basis in anything Strauss
actually wrote. I would bet that you are presenting a dumbed -down and inaccurate version of Shadia
Drury's books on Strauss, which are themselves abysmally inaccurate and libelous about Strauss.
The only place Strauss discusses conspiracy thematically that I can recall--and I have read all
his books several times, and still read them; have/do you?--is on Thoughts on Machiavelli
. Strauss does so, first and foremost, because conspiracy is a major theme of Machiavelli's
and the subject of the two longest chapters of his two most important books ( Prince 19
and Discourses III 6). Strauss further develops the idea that modern philosophy begins
as a conspiracy between Machiavelli and (some of) his readers. Strauss simply never said anything
like this:
Meanwhile, Strauss, a founding figure in modern neo-conservative thought, was equally harsh
in his attacks upon conspiracy analysis, but for polar-opposite reasons. In his mind, elite
conspiracies were absolutely necessary and beneficial, a crucial social defense against anarchy
or totalitarianism, but their effectiveness obviously depended upon keeping them hidden from
the prying eyes of the ignorant masses. His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not
that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore their spread was potentially
disruptive to the smooth functioning of society. So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed
to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies.
As for his relationship with neoconservatism, you also overstate that considerably. Yes, there
are many neoconservative Straussians. But there are also Straussian paleos, tradcons, liberatarians,
liberals, and moderates. There are many who are apolitical and interested only in abstract philosophy.
There are Straussian religious conservatives, agnostics and atheists. Christians, Jews and Muslim.
Catholic, Protestants and Mormons. The neocons just get all the attention--owing again, in part
to Drury and in part to one terrible 2003 article by James Atlas, which no one these days has
read, but quickly became THE account of neocon Straussians controlling the Bush administration,
which everyone today believes without having read, or even being aware of (have/are you?).
If "neocon" has any meaning, it means, first, a former intellectual liberal who has drifted right.
Second, a domestic policy scholar who focuses on data-driven social science. And third, a foreign
policy hawk.
None of these really apply to Strauss, who spent his who career studying political philosophy,
with an intense focus on the Greeks. He voted Dem in every election in which he could vote, until
his last, 1972, when he voted for Nixon out of Cold War concerns. You might say that makes him
a "hawk" but he never wrote any essays saying so. He simply told a few people privately that McGovern
was too naïve about the Soviets. You might also say that is evidence that he "drifted right" but
he didn't think so. He apparently considered himself a Cold War liberal until his death. As for
data-driven social science, he famously attacked it in of the very few of his writings that ever
got any attention in mainstream political science ("An Epilogue").
You may well be right about the CIA's role in popularizing the phrase "conspiracy theory." But
Leo Strauss had nothing to do with it. Or, if he did, he hid his role exceptionally well, because
there is no evidence of such in his writings.
Your characterization of Strauss on conspiracy has almost no basis in anything Strauss actually
wrote. I would bet that you are presenting a dumbed -down and inaccurate version of Shadia
Drury's books on Strauss, which are themselves abysmally inaccurate and libelous about Strauss.
The only place Strauss discusses conspiracy thematically that I can recall–and I have read
all his books several times, and still read them; have/do you? .The neocons just get all the
attention–owing again, in part to Drury and in part to one terrible 2003 article by James Atlas,
which no one these days has read, but quickly became THE account of neocon Straussians controlling
the Bush administration He apparently considered himself a Cold War liberal until his death.
I'll candidly admit I haven't read a single one of Strauss's own books, nor even that very
influential James Atlas article you dislike so intensely. Instead, I was merely summarizing the
extensive arguments of Prof. deHaven-Smith, who, as a prominent political scientist, is presumably
quite familiar with Strauss, though I don't doubt that his views might differ considerably from
your own.
But on your second point, I do remember seeing a very amusing private letter of Strauss that
came to light about a decade or so ago. Written shortly after his arrival in America, it was addressed
to a fellow ultra-rightwing Jewish exile from Europe, and in it he praised fascism and (I think)
Nazism to the skies, arguing that their regrettable deviation into "anti-Semitism" (which had
precipitated his own personal exile from Germany) should in no way be considered a refutation
of all the other wonderful aspects of those political doctrines. This leads me to wonder if Strauss
was truly the "liberal" you suggest, or perhaps was instead engaging in exactly the sort of "ideological
crypsis" that seems such an important part of his political philosophy
It's likely my faulty memory may have garbled important aspects of the letter I mention, and
given your expertise on Straussian issues, I'm sure you should be able to locate it and easily
correct me.
• Replies:
@Decius The letter you are referring to is a letter to Karl Lowith from 1933. The most sustained--not
to say serious--attempt to make it say that Strauss is coming out as a fascist has been the work
of William Altman. I don't think he even comes close to making his case.
The letter can more charitably and reasonably read as a frank acknowledgement of the failure of
Weimar liberalism and of liberalism generally precisely to take into account nationalist sentiment
but instead to "universalize" all particulars without due attention to differing conditions, circumstances,
"matter," and so on. In other words, Strauss is defending the "concept of the political" both
from liberal universalism and from the simple-minded identification of particularism (or nationalism)
with fascism. Sound familiar? All nationalist sentiment is fascism, Trump is a Nazi, and so on.
An "argument" as old as hills and which Strauss saw through immediately.
Once again, though, the tail is chased. How can Strauss be both a universalist neo-con and a particularist-nationalist-fascist
at the same time? The only common thread is: Strauss is bad.
In my view, Strauss is good. More to the point, I find stronger intellectual support in Strauss
for my own nationalist leanings and pro-Trump_vs_deep_state than I find in any other intellectual source
of any depth. I am in the minority among Straussians in thinking so, but I am not alone. Morevoer,
I think in open debate, I have a stronger case for Straussian particularism than others can make
for Straussian universalism.
And, not incidentally, none of this points to any such views on conspiracy as you put into Strauss's
mouth. ,
@Jacques Sheete While I've read nothing by Prof. deHaven-Smith, from what you've written,
he and DiLorenzo would probably agree.
Here's a short but readable eval of Strauss' ideas, and DiLorenzo is one academician whom I somewhat
trust.:
Stepping back from it all to get a long distance view one can see the patterns of deceit and
manipulation all throughout American political life. It's not just incidental but rather is
built in.
Is this built-in deceit and manipulation unique to American life, or -- beyond the usual understandings
about human nature -- is the systematic or institutionalized "deceit and manipulation" present
in all cultures? in western cultures? in some but not all cultures? If the lattermost, in which
cultures is "deceit and manipulation" less systematic and institutionalized?
Was "deceit and manipulation" institutionalized into American life from the beginning -- by the
Founders, or did USA deviate from its intended path at some point? If so, at what point? How did
it happen?
Is there the possibility of redemption?
To my mind, the real point of deviation in the history of the United States is the Spanish
American War, and the transformation of America from a tellurocratic to a thallasocratic power.
America's traditional role had been that of a vast, continental, land based power, eschewing intervention
in the affairs of Europe and the rest of the world outside the Western Hemisphere. (This is largely
the reason that the Russian Czar allied with the Union in the American Civil War).
Unfortunately, America's traditional tellurocratic role was abandonded – thanks to the likes
of Admiral ("Victory through Sea Power") Mahan, John Hay, and the loopy Teddy Roosevelt, inter
alia – and the nation went on to embrace the role of international arbiter and busybody, and became
insatiable in the pursuit of empire, with catastrophic results for the world.
Sam Shama
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 5, 2016 at 5:59 pm GMT
@5371 This is a good piece which deserved an acceptable level of mental hygiene in the comment
section. Unfortunately, two of the first nine comments are from morons spamming their "no lunar
landing" drivel. In all probability the "no nuclear weapons" clowns will also be here imminently.
Oh well, a delicious sweet dish will attract a fly as much as a gourmet.
[Oh well, a delicious sweet dish will attract a fly as much as a gourmet.]
LOL. I'll compile a mental list of both. Aren't the comments missing someone btw?
Your characterization of Strauss on conspiracy has almost no basis in anything Strauss actually
wrote. I would bet that you are presenting a dumbed -down and inaccurate version of Shadia
Drury's books on Strauss, which are themselves abysmally inaccurate and libelous about Strauss.
The only place Strauss discusses conspiracy thematically that I can recall–and I have read
all his books several times, and still read them; have/do you?....The neocons just get all
the attention–owing again, in part to Drury and in part to one terrible 2003 article by James
Atlas, which no one these days has read, but quickly became THE account of neocon Straussians
controlling the Bush administration...He apparently considered himself a Cold War liberal until
his death.
I'll candidly admit I haven't read a single one of Strauss's own books, nor even that very influential
James Atlas article you dislike so intensely. Instead, I was merely summarizing the extensive
arguments of Prof. deHaven-Smith, who, as a prominent political scientist, is presumably quite
familiar with Strauss, though I don't doubt that his views might differ considerably from your
own.
But on your second point, I do remember seeing a very amusing private letter of Strauss that came
to light about a decade or so ago. Written shortly after his arrival in America, it was addressed
to a fellow ultra-rightwing Jewish exile from Europe, and in it he praised fascism and (I think)
Nazism to the skies, arguing that their regrettable deviation into "anti-Semitism" (which had
precipitated his own personal exile from Germany) should in no way be considered a refutation
of all the other wonderful aspects of those political doctrines. This leads me to wonder if Strauss
was truly the "liberal" you suggest, or perhaps was instead engaging in exactly the sort of "ideological
crypsis" that seems such an important part of his political philosophy...
It's likely my faulty memory may have garbled important aspects of the letter I mention, and given
your expertise on Straussian issues, I'm sure you should be able to locate it and easily correct
me.
The letter you are referring to is a letter to Karl Lowith from 1933. The most sustained–not
to say serious–attempt to make it say that Strauss is coming out as a fascist has been the work
of William Altman. I don't think he even comes close to making his case.
The letter can more charitably and reasonably read as a frank acknowledgement of the failure
of Weimar liberalism and of liberalism generally precisely to take into account nationalist sentiment
but instead to "universalize" all particulars without due attention to differing conditions, circumstances,
"matter," and so on. In other words, Strauss is defending the "concept of the political" both
from liberal universalism and from the simple-minded identification of particularism (or nationalism)
with fascism. Sound familiar? All nationalist sentiment is fascism, Trump is a Nazi, and so on.
An "argument" as old as hills and which Strauss saw through immediately.
Once again, though, the tail is chased. How can Strauss be both a universalist neo-con and
a particularist-nationalist-fascist at the same time? The only common thread is: Strauss is bad.
In my view, Strauss is good. More to the point, I find stronger intellectual support in Strauss
for my own nationalist leanings and pro-Trump_vs_deep_state than I find in any other intellectual source
of any depth. I am in the minority among Straussians in thinking so, but I am not alone. Morevoer,
I think in open debate, I have a stronger case for Straussian particularism than others can make
for Straussian universalism.
And, not incidentally, none of this points to any such views on conspiracy as you put into
Strauss's mouth.
The letter you are referring to is a letter to Karl Lowith from 1933. The most sustained–not
to say serious–attempt to make it say that Strauss is coming out as a fascist has been the
work of William Altman.
Well, I decided I might as well google up the letter, and found this extended discussion in Harpers
by someone who clearly dislikes Strauss and the Neocons, with a link to a full translation of
Strauss's controversial missive.
Offhand, it does indeed seem like I misremembered some of the details. Strauss apparently didn't
seem to like the Nazis very much, but it certainly sounds like he had positive feelings towards
the Fascists. In any event, the following excerpt makes me wonder whether he was actually a "liberal,"
or merely pretended to be since his income probably depended upon liberal donors and institutions...
And, what concerns this matter: the fact that the new right-wing Germany does not tolerate
us says nothing against the principles of the right. To the contrary: only from the principles
of the right, that is from fascist, authoritarian and imperial principles, is it possible with
seemliness, that is, without resort to the ludicrous and despicable appeal to the droits imprescriptibles
de l'homme(5) to protest against the shabby abomination...There is no reason to crawl to the
cross, neither to the cross of liberalism, as long as somewhere in the world there is a glimmer
of the spark of the Roman thought.
If government doesn't believe in conspiracies, why have secret services in the first place?
Either they want to thwart conspiracies or they are creating their own or both.
belief in the fantastic is way more entertainment than belief in the mundane. that why the
history channel prefers clownish, ancient alien astronaut theorists to phd historians.
still, the unlimited universe of chance & probability assures rare events happen all the time.
in other words, improbable events – because there is infinity of them – are bound to happen with
regularity.
for instance, the author highlights the improbability of a bunch of arabs with box cutters
as the perpetrators of 9/11. he's right. taken in isolation, of all the things that might have
happened, the occurrence is rare in indeed. but, today, something that's never happened before
will happen. and tomorrow too and the day after that. but, because the occurrences may not be
as spectacular as 9/11, few will learn about them.
we believe what we want to believe. we can't know everything about anything, so there will
always be questions.
9/11, the kennedy assassination, the lunar landing, aliens built the pyramids.
what is real and what is not depends on a point of view.
Your characterization of Strauss on conspiracy has almost no basis in anything Strauss actually
wrote. I would bet that you are presenting a dumbed -down and inaccurate version of Shadia
Drury's books on Strauss, which are themselves abysmally inaccurate and libelous about Strauss.
The only place Strauss discusses conspiracy thematically that I can recall–and I have read
all his books several times, and still read them; have/do you?....The neocons just get all
the attention–owing again, in part to Drury and in part to one terrible 2003 article by James
Atlas, which no one these days has read, but quickly became THE account of neocon Straussians
controlling the Bush administration...He apparently considered himself a Cold War liberal until
his death.
I'll candidly admit I haven't read a single one of Strauss's own books, nor even that very influential
James Atlas article you dislike so intensely. Instead, I was merely summarizing the extensive
arguments of Prof. deHaven-Smith, who, as a prominent political scientist, is presumably quite
familiar with Strauss, though I don't doubt that his views might differ considerably from your
own.
But on your second point, I do remember seeing a very amusing private letter of Strauss that came
to light about a decade or so ago. Written shortly after his arrival in America, it was addressed
to a fellow ultra-rightwing Jewish exile from Europe, and in it he praised fascism and (I think)
Nazism to the skies, arguing that their regrettable deviation into "anti-Semitism" (which had
precipitated his own personal exile from Germany) should in no way be considered a refutation
of all the other wonderful aspects of those political doctrines. This leads me to wonder if Strauss
was truly the "liberal" you suggest, or perhaps was instead engaging in exactly the sort of "ideological
crypsis" that seems such an important part of his political philosophy...
It's likely my faulty memory may have garbled important aspects of the letter I mention, and given
your expertise on Straussian issues, I'm sure you should be able to locate it and easily correct
me.
While I've read nothing by Prof. deHaven-Smith, from what you've written, he and DiLorenzo
would probably agree.
Here's a short but readable eval of Strauss' ideas, and DiLorenzo is one academician whom I
somewhat trust.:
John Jeremiah Smith says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 5, 2016 at 6:29 pm GMT • 100 Words
@JL I suppose my comment came off somewhat like unbridled, naive optimism. Your points are
unquestionably valid, however, and I am disinclined to argue. Of course Trump represents the interests
of certain groups of elites and is not merely the essence of a popular movement. I'll be honest,
though, I'm having a tough time determining who these groups are, exactly.
Just like with Brexit, these events don't happen without powerful manipulation from somewhere
within the 0.1%. Still, it's tough for me to imagine what a Trump presidency will even look like.
Who will be in his cabinet, from what backgrounds will they come?
There is absolutely no concern, anywhere within the dominion of the 0.1%, with human values,
human rights, or any of that sort of ethically-principled hoo-hoo.
Certainly not. What are fundamentally important questions for us are merely means to an end for
them.
Of course Trump represents the interests of certain groups of elites and is not merely the
essence of a popular movement. I'll be honest, though, I'm having a tough time determining
who these groups are, exactly.
Yes, and how many players, each with what orientation and degree of focus? The 0.1% population
contains 10,000 – 50,00o potential players, globally.
It is my opinion that the extremely-high degree of corruption, within the mighty engine of
resource consumption and bribery that is the US government, contributes greatly to the "big picture"
of ongoing conflict among the members of the oligarchy.
I was a boy watching those transmissions you helped bring us. Thank you, Sir!
Apollo is one of the greatest human achievements, my absolute favorite historical event. I
consider myself lucky to have been alive and old enough to witness and understand it.
...
And I believe there has been in fact some conspiratorial effort over the years to promote their
idiocy, a conspiracy on the part of those who would weaken American pride and reputation.
Sure, it's certainly possible that there's been a conspiracy to promote the notion that the moon
landing was a hoax.
But it's also true that people with deep emotional attachments to things, especially inculcated
in childhood, have trouble considering and questioning certain things. And it's well known that
propaganda deliberately tries to inculcate these sort of emotional attachments in order to be
more effective.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
Pat Casey
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 5, 2016 at 6:31 pm GMT • 100 Words
@Decius Your characterization of Strauss on conspiracy has almost no basis in anything Strauss
actually wrote. I would bet that you are presenting a dumbed -down and inaccurate version of Shadia
Drury's books on Strauss, which are themselves abysmally inaccurate and libelous about Strauss.
The only place Strauss discusses conspiracy thematically that I can recall--and I have read all
his books several times, and still read them; have/do you?--is on Thoughts on Machiavelli
. Strauss does so, first and foremost, because conspiracy is a major theme of Machiavelli's
and the subject of the two longest chapters of his two most important books ( Prince 19
and Discourses III 6). Strauss further develops the idea that modern philosophy begins
as a conspiracy between Machiavelli and (some of) his readers. Strauss simply never said anything
like this:
Meanwhile, Strauss, a founding figure in modern neo-conservative thought, was equally harsh
in his attacks upon conspiracy analysis, but for polar-opposite reasons. In his mind, elite
conspiracies were absolutely necessary and beneficial, a crucial social defense against anarchy
or totalitarianism, but their effectiveness obviously depended upon keeping them hidden from
the prying eyes of the ignorant masses. His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not
that they were always false, but they might often be true, and therefore their spread was potentially
disruptive to the smooth functioning of society. So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed
to actively suppress or otherwise undercut the unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies.
As for his relationship with neoconservatism, you also overstate that considerably. Yes, there
are many neoconservative Straussians. But there are also Straussian paleos, tradcons, liberatarians,
liberals, and moderates. There are many who are apolitical and interested only in abstract philosophy.
There are Straussian religious conservatives, agnostics and atheists. Christians, Jews and Muslim.
Catholic, Protestants and Mormons. The neocons just get all the attention--owing again, in part
to Drury and in part to one terrible 2003 article by James Atlas, which no one these days has
read, but quickly became THE account of neocon Straussians controlling the Bush administration,
which everyone today believes without having read, or even being aware of (have/are you?).
If "neocon" has any meaning, it means, first, a former intellectual liberal who has drifted right.
Second, a domestic policy scholar who focuses on data-driven social science. And third, a foreign
policy hawk.
None of these really apply to Strauss, who spent his who career studying political philosophy,
with an intense focus on the Greeks. He voted Dem in every election in which he could vote, until
his last, 1972, when he voted for Nixon out of Cold War concerns. You might say that makes him
a "hawk" but he never wrote any essays saying so. He simply told a few people privately that McGovern
was too naïve about the Soviets. You might also say that is evidence that he "drifted right" but
he didn't think so. He apparently considered himself a Cold War liberal until his death. As for
data-driven social science, he famously attacked it in of the very few of his writings that ever
got any attention in mainstream political science ("An Epilogue").
You may well be right about the CIA's role in popularizing the phrase "conspiracy theory." But
Leo Strauss had nothing to do with it. Or, if he did, he hid his role exceptionally well, because
there is no evidence of such in his writings.
Actually I don't think Ron is so far off. And I think, at best, you must be overeducated. Strauss
held that authentic philosophy is a conspiracy . From there, certain practical advice about
how to carry out the philosophy of the true philosopher follows. Such advice would about seem
to be how Ron said it was.
I have not read the essay by Atlas. But for the duration of the Bush Administration I did read
the Weekly Standard. I recall in particular one time when the editors recommended what books to
bring to the beach, and Bill Kristol said "anything by Leo Strauss." My impression is that the
Weekly Standard's brazen propaganda back then was the way certain editors understood themselves
to be acting like Strauss's true disciples.
And of course now Krystol is hocking a former spook to run against Trump in Utah.
• Replies:
@Decius The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious. Yes, Bill K loves
Strauss. That really doesn't prove much about Strauss either way. I believe, though of course
cannot prove since Strauss can't speak, that Strauss would have opposed the Iraq War. He would
have seen it as imprudent and prudence is the supreme virtue of the statesman.
You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half. MODERN
philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real world. Ancient
philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with caution, moderation,
prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued his whole life for the superiority
of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other points).
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
Ron
Unz says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 5, 2016 at 6:34 pm GMT • 200 Words NEW!
@Decius The letter you are referring to is a letter to Karl Lowith from 1933. The most sustained--not
to say serious--attempt to make it say that Strauss is coming out as a fascist has been the work
of William Altman. I don't think he even comes close to making his case.
The letter can more charitably and reasonably read as a frank acknowledgement of the failure of
Weimar liberalism and of liberalism generally precisely to take into account nationalist sentiment
but instead to "universalize" all particulars without due attention to differing conditions, circumstances,
"matter," and so on. In other words, Strauss is defending the "concept of the political" both
from liberal universalism and from the simple-minded identification of particularism (or nationalism)
with fascism. Sound familiar? All nationalist sentiment is fascism, Trump is a Nazi, and so on.
An "argument" as old as hills and which Strauss saw through immediately.
Once again, though, the tail is chased. How can Strauss be both a universalist neo-con and a particularist-nationalist-fascist
at the same time? The only common thread is: Strauss is bad.
In my view, Strauss is good. More to the point, I find stronger intellectual support in Strauss
for my own nationalist leanings and pro-Trump_vs_deep_state than I find in any other intellectual source
of any depth. I am in the minority among Straussians in thinking so, but I am not alone. Morevoer,
I think in open debate, I have a stronger case for Straussian particularism than others can make
for Straussian universalism.
And, not incidentally, none of this points to any such views on conspiracy as you put into Strauss's
mouth.
The letter you are referring to is a letter to Karl Lowith from 1933. The most sustained–not
to say serious–attempt to make it say that Strauss is coming out as a fascist has been the
work of William Altman.
Well, I decided I might as well google up the letter, and found this extended discussion in
Harpers by someone who clearly dislikes Strauss and the Neocons, with a link to a full translation
of Strauss's controversial missive.
Offhand, it does indeed seem like I misremembered some of the details. Strauss apparently didn't
seem to like the Nazis very much, but it certainly sounds like he had positive feelings towards
the Fascists. In any event, the following excerpt makes me wonder whether he was actually a "liberal,"
or merely pretended to be since his income probably depended upon liberal donors and institutions
And, what concerns this matter: the fact that the new right-wing Germany does not tolerate
us says nothing against the principles of the right. To the contrary: only from the principles
of the right, that is from fascist, authoritarian and imperial principles, is it possible with
seemliness, that is, without resort to the ludicrous and despicable appeal to the droits imprescriptibles
de l'homme(5) to protest against the shabby abomination There is no reason to crawl to the
cross, neither to the cross of liberalism, as long as somewhere in the world there is a glimmer
of the spark of the Roman thought.
• Replies:
@Decius What is a liberal? That's not a troll question. Strauss was above all a Socratic and
Socratic philosophy begins with "what is" questions. One of Strauss's books is entitled Liberalism
Ancient and Modern .
Strauss was apparently a liberal in the US context in that he mostly voted for Dems. He also wrote
one acerbically critical letter to National Review.
However, a mid-20th-century American liberal may have been many things, but unpatriotic or nationalistic
they were not. When liberalism turned with McGovern, Strauss looked elsewhere, and then died a
year later, so we don't know how his political outlook would, or would not, have changed longer
term. But at least in the 40s-60s, he was quite OK with Cold War American liberals. That's perfectly
consistent with the nationalist sentiment expressed in the letter to Lowith. Also, Strauss was
appalled by the dissoluteness of Weimar--and would become appalled by the dissoluteness of the
late 1960s. But America prior was not yet dissolute. And he was appalled by Weimar's weakness.
But America pre-Vietnam was not weak. Again, perfectly consistent with the letter.
Strauss supported the Cold War because he thought the USSR was a real threat in the near term
and because he feared, on a higher plane, the imposition of "the universal and homogenous state."
He was opposed to that, whereas those to his left were for it. So was he conservative?
By reading Ron's American Pravda series of columns, I am learning things that otherwise
I would not have known. I am developing a clearer understanding of the real truth . This
is an important contribution to my understanding of of reality!
And I trust this because of the quality and earnestness of the source.
The letter you are referring to is a letter to Karl Lowith from 1933. The most sustained–not
to say serious–attempt to make it say that Strauss is coming out as a fascist has been the
work of William Altman.
Well, I decided I might as well google up the letter, and found this extended discussion in Harpers
by someone who clearly dislikes Strauss and the Neocons, with a link to a full translation of
Strauss's controversial missive.
Offhand, it does indeed seem like I misremembered some of the details. Strauss apparently didn't
seem to like the Nazis very much, but it certainly sounds like he had positive feelings towards
the Fascists. In any event, the following excerpt makes me wonder whether he was actually a "liberal,"
or merely pretended to be since his income probably depended upon liberal donors and institutions...
And, what concerns this matter: the fact that the new right-wing Germany does not tolerate
us says nothing against the principles of the right. To the contrary: only from the principles
of the right, that is from fascist, authoritarian and imperial principles, is it possible with
seemliness, that is, without resort to the ludicrous and despicable appeal to the droits imprescriptibles
de l'homme(5) to protest against the shabby abomination...There is no reason to crawl to the
cross, neither to the cross of liberalism, as long as somewhere in the world there is a glimmer
of the spark of the Roman thought.
What is a liberal? That's not a troll question. Strauss was above all a Socratic and Socratic
philosophy begins with "what is" questions. One of Strauss's books is entitled Liberalism Ancient
and Modern .
Strauss was apparently a liberal in the US context in that he mostly voted for Dems. He also
wrote one acerbically critical letter to National Review.
However, a mid-20th-century American liberal may have been many things, but unpatriotic or
nationalistic they were not. When liberalism turned with McGovern, Strauss looked elsewhere, and
then died a year later, so we don't know how his political outlook would, or would not, have changed
longer term. But at least in the 40s-60s, he was quite OK with Cold War American liberals. That's
perfectly consistent with the nationalist sentiment expressed in the letter to Lowith. Also, Strauss
was appalled by the dissoluteness of Weimar–and would become appalled by the dissoluteness of
the late 1960s. But America prior was not yet dissolute. And he was appalled by Weimar's weakness.
But America pre-Vietnam was not weak. Again, perfectly consistent with the letter.
Strauss supported the Cold War because he thought the USSR was a real threat in the near term
and because he feared, on a higher plane, the imposition of "the universal and homogenous state."
He was opposed to that, whereas those to his left were for it. So was he conservative?
Strauss transcends all these distinctions. That's not to say that they are meaningless. Indeed,
he would be the first to say that they are meaningful. But, like Tocqueville, Strauss aimed to
see not differently but further than the parties.
• Replies:
@dahoit Liberals used to say,I might not agree with what you say,but I'll defend you right
to say it.
Today they want to implant Citizenchips.
Moon landings a hoax?I doubt that,but does it matter to today's terrible times other than a sign
of American dominance in space race propaganda?
Today we send up zionist satellites(when they don't explode) and fund their citizens efforts in
militarization of space that threatens all,including US.
Unbelievable but true.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
Did he think our forces at Pearl, lacking needed intelligence, would limit the losses to a lesser
number?
So it would seem. That critical intelligence on the Japanese was deliberately kept from Admiral
Kimmel and General Short by FDR and his closest military officials is indisputable.
The question "why?" has never been answered in any meaningful sense.
In none of these cases the attacker actually killed thousands of his own soldiers, what would
be the point? ,
@anonymous Here is Admiral Kimmel himself telling us that the FDR administration in Washington
deliberately withheld vital intelligence from him, intelligence that would have saved countless
lives:
Decius
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 5, 2016 at 6:54 pm GMT • 100 Words
@Pat Casey Actually I don't think Ron is so far off. And I think, at best, you must be overeducated.
Strauss held that authentic philosophy is a conspiracy . From there, certain practical
advice about how to carry out the philosophy of the true philosopher follows. Such advice would
about seem to be how Ron said it was.
I have not read the essay by Atlas. But for the duration of the Bush Administration I did read
the Weekly Standard. I recall in particular one time when the editors recommended what books to
bring to the beach, and Bill Kristol said "anything by Leo Strauss." My impression is that the
Weekly Standard's brazen propaganda back then was the way certain editors understood themselves
to be acting like Strauss's true disciples.
And of course now Krystol is hocking a former spook to run against Trump in Utah.
The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious. Yes, Bill K loves Strauss.
That really doesn't prove much about Strauss either way. I believe, though of course cannot prove
since Strauss can't speak, that Strauss would have opposed the Iraq War. He would have seen it
as imprudent and prudence is the supreme virtue of the statesman.
You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half. MODERN
philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real world. Ancient
philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with caution, moderation,
prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued his whole life for the superiority
of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other points).
• Replies:
@utu Unless you give some evidence that Strauss was a Reptilian or at least that he was a
skeptic about the Moon landing there is no need for further discussion on Strauss here. ,
@Pat Casey
The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious.
That's not what I did. Don't do that. You seemed to be saying the neo-cons do not hail from the
school of Strauss as this Atlas fellow said they did. I was saying they do, according to them.
It was pretty obvious back then that the weekly standard was acting as an organ of the bush
administration more than a member of the media. I remember there was even a tepid discussion about
how we as journalist should feel about these fellas with one foot in the media and one foot in
the politics. Does that have anything to do with the style Strauss bespoke? My understanding is
that Strauss addressed his philosophy not to Princes but certain among the reading public. That
turns out to first of all mean political journalists who will sacrifice the integrity of their
profession for the sake of a particular kind of proud story about the USA polity and its villains.
Yes I do think people like Bill Krystol and Michael Ledeen saw themselves in terms as dramatic
as that.
You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half. MODERN
philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real world. Ancient
philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with caution, moderation,
prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued his whole life for the
superiority of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other points).
You mean I was right about Strauss having a conspiracy theory of philosophy. I didn't say
anything about the second half. I read Paul Gottfried and I agree Strauss was a ridiculous scholar.
Of course I believe you when you say in so many words that Strauss did not like philosophies that
license mass movements of true believers. Full stop right there. Now we can count back from all
them and make this an exercise in splitting hairs. What audience to be precise did Strauss exactly
have in mind? Actually I don't think he deserves that much credit; I don't think he really knew
who he was writing for.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
So as a means of damage control, the CIA distributed a secret memo to all its field offices
requesting that they enlist their media assets in efforts to ridicule and attack such critics
as irrational supporters of "conspiracy theories."
And what do you know, the term "conspiracy theories" was non-existent in books before JFK's
assassination but took off right after, according to Google's Ngram Viewer:
https://is.gd/GYioQZ
The Ukrainians were, you know, part of the same Soviet Union which failed to put a man on the
Moon.
"At any rate, attacking his ethnic background is just a cheap ad hominem argument."
No, it is pointing out what might be real motive for him to do what he is doing.
"Soros and his foundations funded, and still do presumably, scholarships and education grants
in Eastern Europe following the Soviet collapse."
And what do you think of Soros? Do you think he is a manipulator of peoples, movements, entire
governments? If so, what does it say that this guy was once on his payroll? Or do you simply temporarily
suspend one part of your world-view when it becomes inconvenient for another part of it?
In none of these cases the attacker actually killed thousands of his own soldiers, what would
be the point?
• Replies:
@exiled off mainstreet I didn't notice Gleiwitz was mentioned in another posting before I
mentioned it. I tend go along with you and suspect incompetence rather than purpose was the cause
of the Pearl Harbor disaster, though the incompetence may have included failure to adequately
warn those on the ground at Pearl Harbor. Personally, I don't back the "truther" version of the
twin towers because that would have required a broader conspiracy than I think could have succeeded.
My guess is that the neighboring building was destroyed as part of the cleanup effort. I do think,
however, that the authorities knew something was up, didn't believe it could ever succeed and
used it as a sort of Reichstag Fire incident to brush aside constitutional democracy in the US.
I also suspect that the Mossad knew more than they let on. My guess is that if Gore rather than
Bush had been in power that history would have been far different. I suspect that the anthrax
thing was more likely started by the yankee regime as a home-grown conspiracy. ,
@Hippopotamusdrome
If you want to start a war, would you want to start with great defeat and loss of your fleet?
The fleet wasn't lost. The carriers were out at sea and not sunk. Eight battleships, three cruisers
and three destroyers were damaged. Battleships were obsolete by that time in the face of aircraft.
Battleships were mainly used as AA platforms to protect carriers and to bombard airfields. ,
@Jonathan Revusky
In none of these cases the attacker actually killed thousands of his own soldiers, what would
be the point?
Well, the answer should be obvious, no? You have an existing situation in which eat least 80%
of the U.S. population is opposed to the war and you want to mobilize them. If you play chess,
there are all these openings called "gambits" where you sacrifice a pawn or two to more rapidly
mobilize your forces.
Miro23
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 5, 2016 at 7:35 pm GMT • 700 Words
@Wizard of Oz I accept that your explanation of the attack on USS Liberty is relatively plausible
but another which runs it close is that Israel had to ensure that there was no proof left of the
true order of events which were not in accordance with the Israeli official version. So I ask
what are your sources?
Likewise, if you are saying that suicidal hijackers flew planes into buildings on 9/11 but that
it was organised by Mossad or other Israelis your story needs a lot of filling out and evidence
to be credible. Or are you merely saying the Israelis knew what was going to
happen and let it go ahead because it could be turned to their advantage?
[Sorry, long reply]
The basic fact about the USS Liberty is that an American navy ship was attacked with the aim
of sinking it, which is an Act of War since the ship was clearly marked.
In contrast, the attacking Israeli jets and torpedo boats were unmarked (i.e. they wanted to
hide their identity), so a question is why were they unmarked if this was a standard military
interception?
Whether the Israelis wanted to trigger a US attack on Egypt or hide their communications with
regard to their attack on Syria is a secondary question. The main concern of the United States
surely had to be to rescue their seamen and respond to the aggression.
And, this is where the story turns really nasty.
At least two rescue attempts were launched from US aircraft carriers nearby, but after the
(obligatory) communication to Washington, both rescue flights were cancelled within minutes on
direct orders of Secretary of Defence, Robert McNamara (source: 6th Fleet Rear Admiral Lawrence
Geis speaking in confidence to the senior Liberty survivor, Naval Security Group officer, Lieutenant
Commander David Lewis in a meeting requested by Geis).
Surviving personnel all received strict orders not say anything to anyone about the attack.
Eyewitness accounts say that 4 nuclear armed aircraft were simultaneously launched from the
aircraft carrier America on the instructions of President Johnson only to be recalled when, presumably,
the information came through that the Israelis had not succeeded in sinking the Liberty. Nuclear
weapons were not needed to defend the Liberty.
Also there was an oral history report from the American Embassy in Cairo, (now in the LBJ Library),
which notes that the Embassy received an urgent message from Washington warning that Cairo was
about to be bombed by US forces.
An investigation led by Thomas Moorer, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff held
the opinion that the Israeli motive was to draw the US into war against Egypt , through a false
subterfuge of the same type as their King David Hotel bombing and Lavon Affair operations.
Any rational person has to conclude that Johnson was virtually following Israeli orders, which
raises the question of why? Maybe they were blackmailing him with regard to something else that
was more important to him than the destruction of Cairo?
9/11 had some of the same features as other Israeli False Flag attacks against Britain and
the US, such as Israelis dressed as Arabs (framed Arabs) motivated towards tricking these countries
into military action against Arab states. In fact the Israeli involvement in 9/11 was much deeper
and more generalized as shown in investigative reporter Christopher Bollyn's book, "Solving 9-11:
The Deception That Changed the World".
https://www.amazon.com/Solving-9-11-Deception-Changed-World/dp/0985322586/ref=cm_cr-mr-title
15 years later his account is supported in multiple ways from investigations in Florida (they
didn't sneak in unseen – they were highly visible and got red carpet treatment with regard to
visas etc. and they were completely incapable of flying the 9/11 airliners at the speeds and on
the trajectories seen on the day + everyone who had contact with them was visited by the F.B.I.
and told to shut up) – Source, a detailed and very interesting investigation by Daniel Hopsicker
in "Welcome to Terrorland: Mohamed Atta and the 9/11 Cover-Up in Florida.
https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terrorland-Mohamed-Cover-up-Florida/dp/0975290673/ref=cm_cr-mr-title
High-rise buildings don't collapse due to fire (reason given by the US government). All high
rise fire disasters have been examined in detail, with most of them much more intense than the
WTC ones, and no building collapsed – let alone in 7 seconds and three on the same day.
These Arabs didn't fly the jets and it's now clear that the buildings were taken down by placed
explosives – the aim being to trick the US into an Iraq and Iran war and possibly launch an "Emergency"
Neo-con regime (dictatorship) in the US led by Cheney and enforced by the Patriot Act/ Homeland
security.
The other aspect here is that a government (and media) which genuinely represented the American
people would give top priority to revealing the truth about the USS Liberty and 9/11 rather than
engage in the present obfuscation, blocking, threats, smears and hiding of the truth.
• Replies:
@nsa We here in Ft. Meade and Langley, using our vast media assets, have successfully inoculated
the public against these deviant 911 ideas. Game over....we have achieved full spectrum dominance
and total information awareness throughout 99% of the planet. ,
@Wizard of Oz Thanks. I wonder what will happen to Israel's support if and when serious money
and research and publicity is put into telling the whole Liberty story and making sure it is drummed
in.
Here is Admiral Kimmel himself telling us that the FDR administration in Washington deliberately
withheld vital intelligence from him, intelligence that would have saved countless lives:
utu
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 5, 2016 at 7:38 pm GMT
@Decius The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious. Yes, Bill K loves
Strauss. That really doesn't prove much about Strauss either way. I believe, though of course
cannot prove since Strauss can't speak, that Strauss would have opposed the Iraq War. He would
have seen it as imprudent and prudence is the supreme virtue of the statesman.
You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half. MODERN
philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real world. Ancient
philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with caution, moderation,
prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued his whole life for the superiority
of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other points).
Unless you give some evidence that Strauss was a Reptilian or at least that he was a skeptic
about the Moon landing there is no need for further discussion on Strauss here.
Erik Sieven
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 5, 2016 at 7:40 pm GMT
@Kirt Conspiracy is simply a plan or agreement by more than one person to do something evil
and then the pursuit of that plan. Secrecy may be needed for the success of a conspiracy, but
it is not essential to the definition. Were it essential to the definition, you could never prove
the existence of a conspiracy. Either secrecy would be maintained and there would be little or
no evidence or secrecy would not be maintained and the plan would become known and by definition
not be a conspiracy.
"Conspiracy is simply a plan or agreement by more than one person to do something evil and
then the pursuit of that plan." but probably everything think that what he does is good, not evil
• Replies:
@Kirt "probably everything think that what he does is good, not evil"
Yeah, that's true. I think that it was Saint Thomas Aquinas who said that evil is always done
under an aspect of good. Hence no one will consider himself a conspirator other than perhaps in
a legal sense if he is aware that what he is doing is illegal. Apart from that the charge of conspiracy
will always come from opponents; e.g. Hilly's charge of "a vast right-wing conspiracy".
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
Is Donald Trump paid by Clintons to let Hillary win? This need no big conspiracy, only Donald,
Bill, Hill and few of their closest advisors would be on the plot, and it fits the character and
modus operandi of the plotters. Any thoughts?
• Replies:
@RobinG For a while I've wondered if Hillary funded Martin O'Malley, and also Lincoln Chaffee,
just to give the illusion that there was some competition, and to give her an excuse to get media
exposure in the primaries.
Maybe the CIA used conspiracy theory but ordinary perverse humans invented it. If moon lander
deniers (and other conspiracies) were proven wrong the rest of us would be happy to see them in
public stocks and a ready supply of tomatoes.
[ ] I described how the CIA flummoxed insouciant Americans. Ron Unz gives you the intellectual
history behind of how two foreign intellectuals, Karl Popper and Leo Strauss, shoved aside the
truth-telling American intellectual, Charles Beard, who, like our founding fathers, had his finger
on government's propensity to deceive the people with conspiracies. Popper said that conspiracies
couldn't happen, and Strauss said they were necessary so that the government could pursue its
agendas despite the public's opposition.
http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-the-cia-invented-conspiracy-theories/ [ ]
art guerrilla
says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment
September 5, 2016 at 8:10 pm GMT • 100 Words
@Chief Seattle So, a conspiracy theory is a theory without media backing. There's no better
recent example of this than when the DNC emails were released by wikileaks during their convention.
The story put forth was that Russian hackers were responsible, and were trying to throw the election
to their buddy Trump. The evidence for this? Zero. And yet it became a plausible explanation in
the media, overnight.
Maybe it's true, maybe not, but if the roles had been reversed, the media would be telling its
proponents to take off their tin foil hats.
ahhh, but 'Russkie!/squirrel!' worked, didn't it ? ? ?
virtually NOTHING about the actual content of the emails
what was hysterical, was a followup not too long afterwards, where pelosi 'warned' that there
might be a whole raft of other emails which said bad stuff and stuff, and, um, they were -like-
probably, um, all, uh, fake and stuff
it really is a funny tragi-comedy, isn't it ? ? ?
then why am i crying inside
Alden
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 5, 2016 at 8:17 pm GMT • 100 Words
@Wizard of Oz I accept that your explanation of the attack on USS Liberty is relatively plausible
but another which runs it close is that Israel had to ensure that there was no proof left of the
true order of events which were not in accordance with the Israeli official version. So I ask
what are your sources?
Likewise, if you are saying that suicidal hijackers flew planes into buildings on 9/11 but that
it was organised by Mossad or other Israelis your story needs a lot of filling out and evidence
to be credible. Or are you merely saying the Israelis knew what was going to
happen and let it go ahead because it could be turned to their advantage?
Re: your first question about the USS Liberty. The media covered it up completely. I was a
young adult who read the newspaper every day plus Atlantic. new Republic and sometimes Newsweek.
And I never, never heard about it until 20 years later when I began reading books about Zionism
I've read the book written by survivors. They were severely coerced to not say a word about
it. I wouldn't be surprised if they were not threatened with death if they talked. They were in
the navy remember and subject to the military code of Justice which means no ha rays corpus no
access to attorneys until the trial and other nasty things.
I can't have an opinion about 9/11 because there is no way I can discover the truth. Silverstein's
insurance payout is just a version of a standard insurance scam.
The basic fact about the USS Liberty is that an American navy ship was attacked with the aim of
sinking it, which is an Act of War since the ship was clearly marked.
In contrast, the attacking Israeli jets and torpedo boats were unmarked (i.e. they wanted to hide
their identity), so a question is why were they unmarked if this was a standard military interception?
Whether the Israelis wanted to trigger a US attack on Egypt or hide their communications with
regard to their attack on Syria is a secondary question. The main concern of the United States
surely had to be to rescue their seamen and respond to the aggression.
And, this is where the story turns really nasty.
At least two rescue attempts were launched from US aircraft carriers nearby, but after the (obligatory)
communication to Washington, both rescue flights were cancelled within minutes on direct orders
of Secretary of Defence, Robert McNamara (source: 6th Fleet Rear Admiral Lawrence Geis speaking
in confidence to the senior Liberty survivor, Naval Security Group officer, Lieutenant Commander
David Lewis in a meeting requested by Geis).
Surviving personnel all received strict orders not say anything to anyone about the attack.
Eyewitness accounts say that 4 nuclear armed aircraft were simultaneously launched from the aircraft
carrier America on the instructions of President Johnson only to be recalled when, presumably,
the information came through that the Israelis had not succeeded in sinking the Liberty. Nuclear
weapons were not needed to defend the Liberty.
Also there was an oral history report from the American Embassy in Cairo, (now in the LBJ Library),
which notes that the Embassy received an urgent message from Washington warning that Cairo was
about to be bombed by US forces.
An investigation led by Thomas Moorer, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff held the
opinion that the Israeli motive was to draw the US into war against Egypt , through a false subterfuge
of the same type as their King David Hotel bombing and Lavon Affair operations.
Any rational person has to conclude that Johnson was virtually following Israeli orders, which
raises the question of why? Maybe they were blackmailing him with regard to something else that
was more important to him than the destruction of Cairo?
9/11 had some of the same features as other Israeli False Flag attacks against Britain and the
US, such as Israelis dressed as Arabs (framed Arabs) motivated towards tricking these countries
into military action against Arab states. In fact the Israeli involvement in 9/11 was much deeper
and more generalized as shown in investigative reporter Christopher Bollyn's book, "Solving 9-11:
The Deception That Changed the World". https://www.amazon.com/Solving-9-11-Deception-Changed-World/dp/0985322586/ref=cm_cr-mr-title
15 years later his account is supported in multiple ways from investigations in Florida (they
didn't sneak in unseen – they were highly visible and got red carpet treatment with regard to
visas etc. and they were completely incapable of flying the 9/11 airliners at the speeds and on
the trajectories seen on the day + everyone who had contact with them was visited by the F.B.I.
and told to shut up) - Source, a detailed and very interesting investigation by Daniel Hopsicker
in "Welcome to Terrorland: Mohamed Atta and the 9/11 Cover-Up in Florida. https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terrorland-Mohamed-Cover-up-Florida/dp/0975290673/ref=cm_cr-mr-title
High-rise buildings don't collapse due to fire (reason given by the US government). All high rise
fire disasters have been examined in detail, with most of them much more intense than the WTC
ones, and no building collapsed - let alone in 7 seconds and three on the same day.
These Arabs didn't fly the jets and it's now clear that the buildings were taken down by placed
explosives - the aim being to trick the US into an Iraq and Iran war and possibly launch an "Emergency"
Neo-con regime (dictatorship) in the US led by Cheney and enforced by the Patriot Act/ Homeland
security.
The other aspect here is that a government (and media) which genuinely represented the American
people would give top priority to revealing the truth about the USS Liberty and 9/11 rather than
engage in the present obfuscation, blocking, threats, smears and hiding of the truth.
We here in Ft. Meade and Langley, using our vast media assets, have successfully inoculated
the public against these deviant 911 ideas. Game over .we have achieved full spectrum dominance
and total information awareness throughout 99% of the planet.
Pat Casey
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 5, 2016 at 8:35 pm GMT • 300 Words
@Decius The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious. Yes, Bill K loves
Strauss. That really doesn't prove much about Strauss either way. I believe, though of course
cannot prove since Strauss can't speak, that Strauss would have opposed the Iraq War. He would
have seen it as imprudent and prudence is the supreme virtue of the statesman.
You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half. MODERN
philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real world. Ancient
philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with caution, moderation,
prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued his whole life for the superiority
of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other points).
The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious.
That's not what I did. Don't do that. You seemed to be saying the neo-cons do not hail from
the school of Strauss as this Atlas fellow said they did. I was saying they do, according to them.
It was pretty obvious back then that the weekly standard was acting as an organ of the bush
administration more than a member of the media. I remember there was even a tepid discussion about
how we as journalist should feel about these fellas with one foot in the media and one foot in
the politics. Does that have anything to do with the style Strauss bespoke? My understanding is
that Strauss addressed his philosophy not to Princes but certain among the reading public. That
turns out to first of all mean political journalists who will sacrifice the integrity of their
profession for the sake of a particular kind of proud story about the USA polity and its villains.
Yes I do think people like Bill Krystol and Michael Ledeen saw themselves in terms as dramatic
as that.
You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half.
MODERN philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real world.
Ancient philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with caution,
moderation, prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued his whole
life for the superiority of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other points).
You mean I was right about Strauss having a conspiracy theory of philosophy. I didn't
say anything about the second half. I read Paul Gottfried and I agree Strauss was a ridiculous
scholar. Of course I believe you when you say in so many words that Strauss did not like philosophies
that license mass movements of true believers. Full stop right there. Now we can count back from
all them and make this an exercise in splitting hairs. What audience to be precise did Strauss
exactly have in mind? Actually I don't think he deserves that much credit; I don't think he really
knew who he was writing for.
I don't think he really knew who he was writing for.
Love it.
My theory is that they basically wrote anything that came to mind so long as no one could pin
'em down to specifics, allowed them to keep paying the bills , afforded them a chance to sound
"profound," and to be somebody.
Pretty much all of the type are frauds and only fools (especially the pompous quasi-scientific,
pseudo intellectual, ones) take 'em seriously. I agree that the ancients were much more honest
but even they were recognized as BSers of high degree by the likes of Aristophanes and Lucian
of Samosata to name only two. (I named them because they make particularly entertaining reading.)
I think the 20th century should be known as the Age of Pathetic Charlatans and I'm glad it's
over. May it and the endless gaggle of cheap morons it spawned never return. ,
@Decius Kristol is a Straussian because he got a PhD in PolPhil from Harvard under Mansfield,
who is a Straussian. There is no necessary connection between Strauss's thought any of the main
tenets of Neo-conservatism. I've said, and you've all ignored, that Strauss attacked data-driven
social science, which is the original hallmark of neo-conservatism. A later hallmark (which emerged
after Strauss's death) was foreign policy hawkism. Unless you want to say that Strauss's opposition
to the USSR makes him a neo-con, in which case every Cold War liberal going back to Truman was
a neo-con. At which point the term has no meaning.
Strauss addresses scholars and potential philosophers. He has almost nothing to say about the
transient issues of his age. Based on his comments on what other thinkers had to say about war
(Thucydides above all) I believe we can infer that Strauss was generally in favor of preparedness
and wariness but otherwise anti-war in the general sense. If we may analogize the Iraq War to
the Sicilian Expedition we may say that Strauss probably would have opposed the former as imprudent,
just as he tacitly endorses T's judgement that the latter was imprudent.
Strauss openly characterizes Machiavelli's approach to philosophy as a conspiracy, using that
word, but does not say it about any other thinker. However, his teaching that philosophy is an
inherently elite and very small enterprise may be fairly characterized as a "conspiracy." however,
before modernity, the nature of the conspiracy was to protect the conspirators and the philosophic
life, not a reform campaign. that's what it becomes under modernity, which Strauss opposes. One
of Strauss's aims in writing was to revive the ancient idea of philosophy, its proper scope, and
its proper relationship to society, which he believed modernity had corrupted.
It is unfortunate that Strauss became a bogey-man to so many who have no idea what he said or
why. It happened rather recently and based on some very thin scholarship. Most of the thing people
try to pin on him are things that I and my friends oppose too. We just know they don't trace to
Strauss. In fact, the opposite is often true.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
"Only a child – or its intellectual equivalent, i.e., a low information infotainment consumer
– could believe in the official version of 9/11."
That is clearly false, as plenty of people who are smart – smarter than you actually – do in
fact believe just that.
• Replies:
@Miro23 Being smart has nothing to do with it.
For example the government says that WTC7 completely collapsed in 7 seconds due to fire. You don't
need to be smart to see something is wrong here (hint: most of the structural pillars were untouched
by fire). ,
@Miro23 Or maybe a lot of smart people pretend to believe the official 9/11 story because
that's where their interest lies. MSM journalists know for sure that articles that deviate from
the official line on 9/11 are career ending moves .
The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious.
That's not what I did. Don't do that. You seemed to be saying the neo-cons do not hail from the
school of Strauss as this Atlas fellow said they did. I was saying they do, according to them.
It was pretty obvious back then that the weekly standard was acting as an organ of the bush
administration more than a member of the media. I remember there was even a tepid discussion about
how we as journalist should feel about these fellas with one foot in the media and one foot in
the politics. Does that have anything to do with the style Strauss bespoke? My understanding is
that Strauss addressed his philosophy not to Princes but certain among the reading public. That
turns out to first of all mean political journalists who will sacrifice the integrity of their
profession for the sake of a particular kind of proud story about the USA polity and its villains.
Yes I do think people like Bill Krystol and Michael Ledeen saw themselves in terms as dramatic
as that.
You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half. MODERN
philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real world. Ancient
philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with caution, moderation,
prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued his whole life for the
superiority of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other points).
You mean I was right about Strauss having a conspiracy theory of philosophy. I didn't say
anything about the second half. I read Paul Gottfried and I agree Strauss was a ridiculous scholar.
Of course I believe you when you say in so many words that Strauss did not like philosophies that
license mass movements of true believers. Full stop right there. Now we can count back from all
them and make this an exercise in splitting hairs. What audience to be precise did Strauss exactly
have in mind? Actually I don't think he deserves that much credit; I don't think he really knew
who he was writing for.
I don't think he really knew who he was writing for.
Love it.
My theory is that they basically wrote anything that came to mind so long as no one could pin
'em down to specifics, allowed them to keep paying the bills , afforded them a chance to sound
"profound," and to be somebody.
Pretty much all of the type are frauds and only fools (especially the pompous quasi-scientific,
pseudo intellectual, ones) take 'em seriously. I agree that the ancients were much more honest
but even they were recognized as BSers of high degree by the likes of Aristophanes and Lucian
of Samosata to name only two. (I named them because they make particularly entertaining reading.)
I think the 20th century should be known as the Age of Pathetic Charlatans and I'm glad it's
over. May it and the endless gaggle of cheap morons it spawned never return.
That is clearly false, as plenty of people who are smart - smarter than you actually - do in fact
believe just that.
Being smart has nothing to do with it.
For example the government says that WTC7 completely collapsed in 7 seconds due to fire.
You don't need to be smart to see something is wrong here (hint: most of the structural pillars
were untouched by fire).
• Replies:
@Wizard of Oz I see the biggest problem about a conspiratorial explanation for the WTC 7 collapse
is motive. How does it make sense for those who wanted the big splash that hitting buildings 1
and 2 would give? The other major difficulty is the video footage of fires burning all day which
had to have heated the steel and therefore potentially weakened it to a critical point. Where's
the mystery? ,
@Mr. Anon "Being smart has nothing to do with it."
The reduction of Strauss and all his concerns to TWS is not serious.
That's not what I did. Don't do that. You seemed to be saying the neo-cons do not hail from the
school of Strauss as this Atlas fellow said they did. I was saying they do, according to them.
It was pretty obvious back then that the weekly standard was acting as an organ of the bush
administration more than a member of the media. I remember there was even a tepid discussion about
how we as journalist should feel about these fellas with one foot in the media and one foot in
the politics. Does that have anything to do with the style Strauss bespoke? My understanding is
that Strauss addressed his philosophy not to Princes but certain among the reading public. That
turns out to first of all mean political journalists who will sacrifice the integrity of their
profession for the sake of a particular kind of proud story about the USA polity and its villains.
Yes I do think people like Bill Krystol and Michael Ledeen saw themselves in terms as dramatic
as that.
You are sort of right about philosophy being a conspiracy, but wrong in the second half. MODERN
philosophy attempts to take the conspiracy public, so to speak, to act in the real world. Ancient
philosophy did not, or did so in a very limited, mitigating way, always with caution, moderation,
prudence, and a lack of messianic hopes or intentions. Strauss argued his whole life for the
superiority of the ancients to the moderns on this point (and on other points).
You mean I was right about Strauss having a conspiracy theory of philosophy. I didn't say
anything about the second half. I read Paul Gottfried and I agree Strauss was a ridiculous scholar.
Of course I believe you when you say in so many words that Strauss did not like philosophies that
license mass movements of true believers. Full stop right there. Now we can count back from all
them and make this an exercise in splitting hairs. What audience to be precise did Strauss exactly
have in mind? Actually I don't think he deserves that much credit; I don't think he really knew
who he was writing for.
Kristol is a Straussian because he got a PhD in PolPhil from Harvard under Mansfield, who is
a Straussian. There is no necessary connection between Strauss's thought any of the main tenets
of Neo-conservatism. I've said, and you've all ignored, that Strauss attacked data-driven social
science, which is the original hallmark of neo-conservatism. A later hallmark (which emerged after
Strauss's death) was foreign policy hawkism. Unless you want to say that Strauss's opposition
to the USSR makes him a neo-con, in which case every Cold War liberal going back to Truman was
a neo-con. At which point the term has no meaning.
Strauss addresses scholars and potential philosophers. He has almost nothing to say about the
transient issues of his age. Based on his comments on what other thinkers had to say about war
(Thucydides above all) I believe we can infer that Strauss was generally in favor of preparedness
and wariness but otherwise anti-war in the general sense. If we may analogize the Iraq War to
the Sicilian Expedition we may say that Strauss probably would have opposed the former as imprudent,
just as he tacitly endorses T's judgement that the latter was imprudent.
Strauss openly characterizes Machiavelli's approach to philosophy as a conspiracy, using that
word, but does not say it about any other thinker. However, his teaching that philosophy is an
inherently elite and very small enterprise may be fairly characterized as a "conspiracy." however,
before modernity, the nature of the conspiracy was to protect the conspirators and the philosophic
life, not a reform campaign. that's what it becomes under modernity, which Strauss opposes. One
of Strauss's aims in writing was to revive the ancient idea of philosophy, its proper scope, and
its proper relationship to society, which he believed modernity had corrupted.
It is unfortunate that Strauss became a bogey-man to so many who have no idea what he said
or why. It happened rather recently and based on some very thin scholarship. Most of the thing
people try to pin on him are things that I and my friends oppose too. We just know they don't
trace to Strauss. In fact, the opposite is often true.
• Replies:
@Pat Casey Thanks for that response, gave me a better perspective of the man. I guess he did
know who he was writing for. And I do think the way to write for history is to write history by
disregarding topical preoccupations, except to damn them with faint praise. I have a master like
that I always go back to on the topic I care about most.
And actually the one work of Strauss's I have picked up, years ago, is his Machiavelli; it's
one of the thousands of books I've read--- not though one of the few I finished. Brushing up just
now by way of wikipedia, it doesn't look like Strauss staked his claim strong enough, if an original
reading is what he was writing.
By the way, I know the Irishman John Toland was the first to publish on the esoteric-exoteric
distinction, and coined the term pantheist on a related occasion when he named what new beast
Spinoza had born. That was when an esoteric mode of writing was really needed, and you
will hear The Ethics called esoteric or cryptic, but I know the work well, and it is no
more esoteric than any work of genius that teaches you to read closely right at the start.
Is The Prince an esoteric work? Did it entertain a conspiracy with special readers?
I suppose only if Machiavelli had individuals in mind who might wonder were they all the while
in mind when he was writing about how to dispose of them. The point is, there's nothing profound
about observing that, it's almost common sense if you take into account the first thing about
Machiavelli's circumstance.
I won't be glib and write Strauss's method off as typically paranoid; it's creative, but bound
to be too creative by half. I think it might lead readers to have more fun than's good for learning.
,
@Wizard of Oz Fascinating. A reminder that one should five lives lived to 120 so one can lots
of stories right.... ,
@5371 You are right that Strauss's culpability for the neocons has been vastly exaggerated.
You are wrong that he is worth reading.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
That is clearly false, as plenty of people who are smart - smarter than you actually - do in fact
believe just that.
Or maybe a lot of smart people pretend to believe the official 9/11 story because that's where
their interest lies. MSM journalists know for sure that articles that deviate from the official
line on 9/11 are career ending moves .
In simple terms, MSM owners have decided that 9/11 is a taboo subject (same as USS Liberty)
and they decide what gets published.
Or maybe a lot of smart people pretend to believe the official 9/11 story because that's where
their interest lies. MSM journalists know for sure that articles that deviate from the official
line on 9/11 are career ending moves .
In simple terms, MSM owners have decided that 9/11 is a taboo subject (same as USS Liberty)
and they decide what gets published.
Well, I haven't read through all of this enormously long discussion-thread, but I happened to
notice this particular comment. Not having been an MSM journalist myself, I can't say whether
or not it's true, but a couple of interesting, possibly coincidental, examples come to mind...
In late July 2010, longtime Canadian journalist Eric Margolis was told his column would be dropped,
and just a few weeks later he published a double-length piece expressing strong doubts about 9/11,
the first time he'd articulated that position:
In 2007, the parent company of The Chicago Tribune announced it had accepted a leveraged-buyout
takeover bid by investor Sam Zell, who planned a massive wave cost-cutting layoffs, which eventually
wrecked the company. In late 2007, the Chicago Tribune suddenly ran a very long piece regarding
the Liberty Attack, about the only time I've ever seen it discussed in the MSM.
The Irgun bombing of the King David Hotel (headquarters of the British Mandate Government of Palestine)
in which Zionist activists dressed as Arabs placed milk churns filled with explosives against
the main columns of the building killing 91 people and injuring 44. Israeli prime Minister Netanyahu,
attended a celebration to commemorate the event.
Operation Susannah (Lavon Affair) where Israeli operatives impersonating Arabs bombed British
and American cinemas, libraries and educational centers in Egypt to destabilize the country and
keep British troops committed to the Middle East.
Or June 8, 1967, the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty with unmarked aircraft and torpedo boats.
34 men were killed and 171 wounded, with the attack in international waters following over nine
hours of close surveillance. When the ship failed to sink, the Israeli government concocted an
elaborate story to cover the crime. Original plan to blame the sinking with all lives lost on
the Egyptians and draw the US into the war.
Or Israelis and U.S. Zionists appearing all over the most recent WTC 9/11 "Operation" with Israelis
once again impersonating Arabs in a historic deception/terror action of a type that seems to carry
a lot of kudos with old Israeli ex-terrorist Likudniks. Israeli agents were sent to film the historic
day (as they later admitted on Israeli TV), with the celebrations including photos of themselves
with a background of the burning towers where thousands of Americans were being incinerated.
Iraq was destroyed as a result of 9/11 but unfortunately for the conspirators, the momentum wasn't
sufficient for a general war including Iran. Also the general war would have included the nuclear
angle and justified the activation of a neo-con led Emergency Regime (dictatorship) in the US
enforced with the newly printed Patriot Act and Homeland Security troops - or maybe that's just
another Conspiracy Theory?
So true!
But you forgot the two missiles shot from a NATO naval and HQ base in Spain towards Damascus,
shot down by the Russians (two weeks before the "agreement" on chemical weapons, remember?) and
then attributed to Israel's drills turned wrong
One resents (first), and eventually hates whom they have to lie to. In what regard would our
elites, in our electoral democracy, hold us voters in (by now)?
Kinda answers itself doesn't it?
How could the godfather of neocon jooies have written so many great waltzes .like the angelic
Blue Danube? You see how easy disinfo is for us here in Ft. Meade and Langley?
If USSR was also part of the plot, then whole Cold War was fake - and in this case there would
be no need for the small Apollo fake.
Sometimes, stupid conspiracy theories are just stupid conspiracy theories - or smart fakes, designed
to discredit conspirational thinking and distract them from the real conspiracies. Take your pick.
"Take your pick". I take your prick.
Do you think anyone would care/accept/believe if USSR did "reveal" the fakery? On the contrary,
it would be a point in favour of the "reality" of the landing.
Sometimes "stupid conspiracy theories" deniers are just that: stupid deniers.
Is Donald Trump paid by Clintons to let Hillary win? This need no big conspiracy, only Donald,
Bill, Hill and few of their closest advisors would be on the plot, and it fits the character and
modus operandi of the plotters. Any thoughts?
For a while I've wondered if Hillary funded Martin O'Malley, and also Lincoln Chaffee, just
to give the illusion that there was some competition, and to give her an excuse to get media exposure
in the primaries.
(Hat-tip to a friend who posits that Virginia Independent Greens are a creation of Va. Repubs.
for the same reasons.)
• Replies:
@iffen just to give the illusion that there was some competition
Popper's point about conspiracy theories really makes no sense. This is the assumption that
a conspiracy is like a start-up, one that requires lots of transparency to work because of the
need to recruit members for the conspiracy. As soon as one member disagrees, the conspiracy falls
apart.
The problem is that a conspiracy is not like a start-up. The purpose of the start-up is the
start-up itself. The purpose of the conspiracy is not the conspiracy itself. Conspiracies are
simply vehicles by which like minded people actually find each other. The secrecy is built-in
because they are like-minded.
"probably everything think that what he does is good, not evil"
Yeah, that's true. I think that it was Saint Thomas Aquinas who said that evil is always done
under an aspect of good. Hence no one will consider himself a conspirator other than perhaps in
a legal sense if he is aware that what he is doing is illegal. Apart from that the charge of conspiracy
will always come from opponents; e.g. Hilly's charge of "a vast right-wing conspiracy".
If USSR was also part of the plot, then whole Cold War was fake - and in this case there would
be no need for the small Apollo fake.
Sometimes, stupid conspiracy theories are just stupid conspiracy theories - or smart fakes, designed
to discredit conspirational thinking and distract them from the real conspiracies. Take your pick.
Why did the USSR stop at the 38th parallel upon American request?
Here is a link to Carl Bernstein's definitive 1977 Rolling Stone article "CIA and the Media" in
which he addresses - and confirms - your worst fears. You are very right, and no less a figure
than Bernstein has said so for nearly four decades . . .
Here is a link to Carl Bernstein's definitive 1977 Rolling Stone article "CIA and the Media"
in which he addresses – and confirms – your worst fears. You are very right, and no less a
figure than Bernstein has said so for nearly four decades
Thanks so much for the excellent reference to the Bernstein article, of which I hadn't been
aware. I found it fascinating, not least because of all the speculations floating around over
the last decade or two that Bernstein's famed collaborator, Bob Woodward, had had an intelligence
background, and perhaps Watergate represented a plot by elements of the CIA to remove Nixon from
the White House. As for the 25,000 word article itself, I'd suggest that people read it. Since
quite a lot of this comment-thread is already filled with debates about the supposed liberalism
of Leo Strauss and an alleged Moon Landing Hoax, I might as well provide a few of the provocative
extracts:
He was very eager, he loved to cooperate." On one occasion, according to several CIA officials,
Sulzberger was given a briefing paper by the Agency which ran almost verbatim under the columnist's
byline in the Times. "Cycame out and said, 'I'm thinking of doing a piece, can you give me
some background?'" a CIA officer said. "We gave it to Cy as a background piece and Cy gave
it to the printers and put his name on it." Sulzberger denies that any incident occurred. "A
lot of baloney," he said.
Stewart Alsop's relationship with the Agency was much more extensive than Sulzberger's.
One official who served at the highest levels in the CIA said flatly: "Stew Alsop was a CIA
agent." An equally senior official refused to define Alsop's relationship with the Agency except
to say it was a formal one. Other sources said that Alsop was particularly helpful to the Agency
in discussions with, officials of foreign governments-asking questions to which the CIA was
seeking answers, planting misinformation advantageous to American policy, assessing opportunities
for CIA recruitment of well‑placed foreigners.
The New York Times. The Agency's relationship with the Times was by far its most valuable
among newspapers, according to CIA officials. From 1950 to 1966, about ten CIA employees were
provided Times cover under arrangements approved by the newspaper's late publisher, Arthur
Hays Sulzberger. The cover arrangements were part of a general Times policy-set by Sulzberger-to
provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible.
When Newsweek waspurchased by the Washington Post Company, publisher Philip L. Graham was
informed by Agency officials that the CIA occasionally used the magazine for cover purposes,
according to CIA sources. "It was widely known that Phil Graham was somebody you could get
help from," said a former deputy director of the Agency. "Frank Wisner dealt with him." Wisner,
deputy director of the CIA from 1950 until shortly before his suicide in 1965, was the Agency's
premier orchestrator of "black" operations, including many in which journalists were involved.
Wisner liked to boast of his "mighty Wurlitzer," a wondrous propaganda instrument he built,
and played, with help from the press.) Phil Graham was probably Wisner's closest friend. But
Graharn, who committed suicide in 1963, apparently knew little of the specifics of any cover
arrangements with Newsweek, CIA sources said.
The Agency played an intriguing numbers game with the committee. Those who prepared the
material say it was physically impossible to produce all of the Agency's files on the use of
journalists. "We gave them a broad, representative picture," said one agency official. "We
never pretended it was a total description of the range of activities over 25 years, or of
the number of journalists who have done things for us." A relatively small number of the summaries
described the activities of foreign journalists-including those working as stringers for American
publications. Those officials most knowledgeable about the subject say that a figure of 400
American journalists is on the low side of the actual number who maintained covert relationships
and undertook clandestine tasks.
From the twenty‑five files he got back, according to Senate sources and CIA officials, an
unavoidable conclusion emerged: that to a degree never widely suspected, the CIA in the 1950s,
'60s and even early '70s had concentrated its relationships with journalists in the most prominent
sectors of the American press corps, including four or five of the largest newspapers in the
country, the broadcast networks and the two major newsweekly magazines. Despite the omission
of names and affiliations from the twenty‑five detailed files each was between three and eleven
inches thick), the information was usually sufficient to tentatively identify either the newsman,
his affiliation or both-particularly because so many of them were prominent in the profession.
I suppose NASA could have sent an S-Band repeater to the Moon.
There's more than one scenario that can be assembled to explain any one or two conditions that
would have to be "covered" in order to carry out a conspiracy of deception regarding the Moon
landings. Considering the inferior level of video jiggering available at the time, it seems to
me that providing full "evidence" of the low-gravity behavior of objects, and the absolute two-color
light/shadow effects in an absence of atmosphere would be the most difficult.
The principle of parsimony becomes ascendant at some point in that Hall of Mirrors. It was easier
to go to the Moon than it was to fake it.
Not to be arch, but, even with the repeater on the moon, what about the bounce echo from the tight-beam
signal coming from Earth carrying the deceptive info? ;-)
I personally think they did land on the moon, but am paying devil's advocate here .
"Not to be arch, but, even with the repeater on the moon, what about the bounce echo from
the tight-beam signal coming from Earth carrying the deceptive info? "
First, you could transvert from one range to another, so an interested party would have know
where to look for the reflection. You could uplink in another range of S-Band, or go lower to
L-band if you don't mind a little faraday rotation. Your link-budget would be just sufficient
to get a signal from the lunar repeater to Earth, but that would most likely not be enough enough
for a full round-trip of the terrestrial signal. Most of your tight beam would still pass fairly
wide abeam the moon, and that which was reflected back to Earth would be further degraded by libration
fading.
How do you get Astronauts bouncing and hammers falling in Slo-Mo? Film at 60fps, replay at
30. Ah, but you have to have a really good clean-room to keep dust off the film. Maybe that is
why videotape technology took off in the early seventies
How do you get Astronauts bouncing and hammers falling in Slo-Mo?
Yeah, the gravity effects are a BIG job. Just slo-mo-ing won't do it, because you have different
curvature of falling profile, and acceleration of gravity is different because moon-mass is less
(and non-linear ref 30fps v. 60fps.)
Pat Casey
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 5, 2016 at 11:48 pm GMT • 300 Words
@Decius Kristol is a Straussian because he got a PhD in PolPhil from Harvard under Mansfield,
who is a Straussian. There is no necessary connection between Strauss's thought any of the main
tenets of Neo-conservatism. I've said, and you've all ignored, that Strauss attacked data-driven
social science, which is the original hallmark of neo-conservatism. A later hallmark (which emerged
after Strauss's death) was foreign policy hawkism. Unless you want to say that Strauss's opposition
to the USSR makes him a neo-con, in which case every Cold War liberal going back to Truman was
a neo-con. At which point the term has no meaning.
Strauss addresses scholars and potential philosophers. He has almost nothing to say about the
transient issues of his age. Based on his comments on what other thinkers had to say about war
(Thucydides above all) I believe we can infer that Strauss was generally in favor of preparedness
and wariness but otherwise anti-war in the general sense. If we may analogize the Iraq War to
the Sicilian Expedition we may say that Strauss probably would have opposed the former as imprudent,
just as he tacitly endorses T's judgement that the latter was imprudent.
Strauss openly characterizes Machiavelli's approach to philosophy as a conspiracy, using that
word, but does not say it about any other thinker. However, his teaching that philosophy is an
inherently elite and very small enterprise may be fairly characterized as a "conspiracy." however,
before modernity, the nature of the conspiracy was to protect the conspirators and the philosophic
life, not a reform campaign. that's what it becomes under modernity, which Strauss opposes. One
of Strauss's aims in writing was to revive the ancient idea of philosophy, its proper scope, and
its proper relationship to society, which he believed modernity had corrupted.
It is unfortunate that Strauss became a bogey-man to so many who have no idea what he said or
why. It happened rather recently and based on some very thin scholarship. Most of the thing people
try to pin on him are things that I and my friends oppose too. We just know they don't trace to
Strauss. In fact, the opposite is often true.
Thanks for that response, gave me a better perspective of the man. I guess he did know who
he was writing for. And I do think the way to write for history is to write history by disregarding
topical preoccupations, except to damn them with faint praise. I have a master like that I always
go back to on the topic I care about most.
And actually the one work of Strauss's I have picked up, years ago, is his Machiavelli; it's
one of the thousands of books I've read- not though one of the few I finished. Brushing up just
now by way of wikipedia, it doesn't look like Strauss staked his claim strong enough, if an original
reading is what he was writing.
By the way, I know the Irishman John Toland was the first to publish on the esoteric-exoteric
distinction, and coined the term pantheist on a related occasion when he named what new beast
Spinoza had born. That was when an esoteric mode of writing was really needed, and you
will hear The Ethics called esoteric or cryptic, but I know the work well, and it is no
more esoteric than any work of genius that teaches you to read closely right at the start.
Is The Prince an esoteric work? Did it entertain a conspiracy with special readers?
I suppose only if Machiavelli had individuals in mind who might wonder were they all the while
in mind when he was writing about how to dispose of them. The point is, there's nothing profound
about observing that, it's almost common sense if you take into account the first thing about
Machiavelli's circumstance.
I won't be glib and write Strauss's method off as typically paranoid; it's creative, but bound
to be too creative by half. I think it might lead readers to have more fun than's good for learning.
• Replies:
@Decius First, if you are at all interested in esotericism, I cannot recommend highly enough
Philosophy Between the Lines by Meltzer. The only thing critical I can say about this book
is that, if one is really an expert in one of the thinkers that Meltzer treats, one will read
the passages on that thinker that Meltzer cites and say "So what? I've known that for years. He's
shed no new light." Which is true. But irrelevant to what he's trying to do. The book presents
an unassailable case that philosophy has been esoteric since Plato. Esotericism long predates
Spinoza and has been discussed since ancient times. Strauss simply revived a concept that had
been forgotten. Toland (who I am not that familiar with) wrote before esotericism as it were "lapsed."
Strauss says that Goethe and Lessing were the last to write this way. When Strauss revived knowledge
of esotericism in the late 1930s with the first Xenophon article, he was considered nuts.
Strauss's Machiavelli book is my favorite and I think his best. It is totally "original" in the
sense that he took a wildly new path from all previous scholarship. It has basically defined the
debate to this day. All subsequent scholarship either follows him, opposes him, or tries to ignore
him.
I would recommend in addition Strauss's book on Spinoza and especially the much later preface
that he wrote when he felt he finally understood Spinoza's esotericism.
The basic fact about the USS Liberty is that an American navy ship was attacked with the aim of
sinking it, which is an Act of War since the ship was clearly marked.
In contrast, the attacking Israeli jets and torpedo boats were unmarked (i.e. they wanted to hide
their identity), so a question is why were they unmarked if this was a standard military interception?
Whether the Israelis wanted to trigger a US attack on Egypt or hide their communications with
regard to their attack on Syria is a secondary question. The main concern of the United States
surely had to be to rescue their seamen and respond to the aggression.
And, this is where the story turns really nasty.
At least two rescue attempts were launched from US aircraft carriers nearby, but after the (obligatory)
communication to Washington, both rescue flights were cancelled within minutes on direct orders
of Secretary of Defence, Robert McNamara (source: 6th Fleet Rear Admiral Lawrence Geis speaking
in confidence to the senior Liberty survivor, Naval Security Group officer, Lieutenant Commander
David Lewis in a meeting requested by Geis).
Surviving personnel all received strict orders not say anything to anyone about the attack.
Eyewitness accounts say that 4 nuclear armed aircraft were simultaneously launched from the aircraft
carrier America on the instructions of President Johnson only to be recalled when, presumably,
the information came through that the Israelis had not succeeded in sinking the Liberty. Nuclear
weapons were not needed to defend the Liberty.
Also there was an oral history report from the American Embassy in Cairo, (now in the LBJ Library),
which notes that the Embassy received an urgent message from Washington warning that Cairo was
about to be bombed by US forces.
An investigation led by Thomas Moorer, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff held the
opinion that the Israeli motive was to draw the US into war against Egypt , through a false subterfuge
of the same type as their King David Hotel bombing and Lavon Affair operations.
Any rational person has to conclude that Johnson was virtually following Israeli orders, which
raises the question of why? Maybe they were blackmailing him with regard to something else that
was more important to him than the destruction of Cairo?
9/11 had some of the same features as other Israeli False Flag attacks against Britain and the
US, such as Israelis dressed as Arabs (framed Arabs) motivated towards tricking these countries
into military action against Arab states. In fact the Israeli involvement in 9/11 was much deeper
and more generalized as shown in investigative reporter Christopher Bollyn's book, "Solving 9-11:
The Deception That Changed the World". https://www.amazon.com/Solving-9-11-Deception-Changed-World/dp/0985322586/ref=cm_cr-mr-title
15 years later his account is supported in multiple ways from investigations in Florida (they
didn't sneak in unseen – they were highly visible and got red carpet treatment with regard to
visas etc. and they were completely incapable of flying the 9/11 airliners at the speeds and on
the trajectories seen on the day + everyone who had contact with them was visited by the F.B.I.
and told to shut up) - Source, a detailed and very interesting investigation by Daniel Hopsicker
in "Welcome to Terrorland: Mohamed Atta and the 9/11 Cover-Up in Florida. https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terrorland-Mohamed-Cover-up-Florida/dp/0975290673/ref=cm_cr-mr-title
High-rise buildings don't collapse due to fire (reason given by the US government). All high rise
fire disasters have been examined in detail, with most of them much more intense than the WTC
ones, and no building collapsed - let alone in 7 seconds and three on the same day.
These Arabs didn't fly the jets and it's now clear that the buildings were taken down by placed
explosives - the aim being to trick the US into an Iraq and Iran war and possibly launch an "Emergency"
Neo-con regime (dictatorship) in the US led by Cheney and enforced by the Patriot Act/ Homeland
security.
The other aspect here is that a government (and media) which genuinely represented the American
people would give top priority to revealing the truth about the USS Liberty and 9/11 rather than
engage in the present obfuscation, blocking, threats, smears and hiding of the truth.
Thanks. I wonder what will happen to Israel's support if and when serious money and research
and publicity is put into telling the whole Liberty story and making sure it is drummed in.
Your 9/11 version I don't buy, not least because someone suicidal/murderous had to be controlling
the planes.
• Replies:
@CalDre Your 9/11 version I don't buy, not least because someone suicidal/murderous had
to be controlling the planes.
Controlling, yes; but on-board, no. "Coincidentally", all of the planes hijacked on 9/11 were
Boeing 767s, which have a sophisticated auto-pilot system and the ability to upload custom modules
to control the auto-pilot. Just like a Predator or Reaper drone can be flown from halfway across
the planet, a 767 can be flown remotely (and in the case of 9/11, since everything was known in
advance, the entire flight pattern could have been pre-programmed into a module and uploaded in
to the aircrafts' computers).
If you look into it you will find reports of a a "mystery" large white jet flying over Washington
on the morning of 9/11. Some have identified it as a E-4B (a Boeing E-4 Advanced Airborne Command
Post), a strategic command and control military aircraft operated by the United States Air Force.
We know neither Bush nor Cheney was on that plane.
While perhaps not necessary, the cockpit could have been filled with a tranquilizing gas
to incapacitate all the pilots and (stooge) hijackers so that they would not interfere with the
remote-controlled operation of the planes.
Remember that these "deeply religious" Muslim "hijackers" went out drinking at a strip
club the night of 9/10. Both are deep sins in Islam, not something someone is going to do when
they are about to meet their Maker. Most likely they thought they were participating in a drill
(since, in fact on the date of 9/11, a drill was taking place, having to do with - wait for it
- airplanes being hijacked and flown into buildings).
Wizard
of Oz says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 6, 2016 at 12:15 am GMT
@Decius Kristol is a Straussian because he got a PhD in PolPhil from Harvard under Mansfield,
who is a Straussian. There is no necessary connection between Strauss's thought any of the main
tenets of Neo-conservatism. I've said, and you've all ignored, that Strauss attacked data-driven
social science, which is the original hallmark of neo-conservatism. A later hallmark (which emerged
after Strauss's death) was foreign policy hawkism. Unless you want to say that Strauss's opposition
to the USSR makes him a neo-con, in which case every Cold War liberal going back to Truman was
a neo-con. At which point the term has no meaning.
Strauss addresses scholars and potential philosophers. He has almost nothing to say about the
transient issues of his age. Based on his comments on what other thinkers had to say about war
(Thucydides above all) I believe we can infer that Strauss was generally in favor of preparedness
and wariness but otherwise anti-war in the general sense. If we may analogize the Iraq War to
the Sicilian Expedition we may say that Strauss probably would have opposed the former as imprudent,
just as he tacitly endorses T's judgement that the latter was imprudent.
Strauss openly characterizes Machiavelli's approach to philosophy as a conspiracy, using that
word, but does not say it about any other thinker. However, his teaching that philosophy is an
inherently elite and very small enterprise may be fairly characterized as a "conspiracy." however,
before modernity, the nature of the conspiracy was to protect the conspirators and the philosophic
life, not a reform campaign. that's what it becomes under modernity, which Strauss opposes. One
of Strauss's aims in writing was to revive the ancient idea of philosophy, its proper scope, and
its proper relationship to society, which he believed modernity had corrupted.
It is unfortunate that Strauss became a bogey-man to so many who have no idea what he said or
why. It happened rather recently and based on some very thin scholarship. Most of the thing people
try to pin on him are things that I and my friends oppose too. We just know they don't trace to
Strauss. In fact, the opposite is often true.
Fascinating. A reminder that one should five lives lived to 120 so one can lots of stories
right .
No Oswald Hypothesis Denier has ever presented a falsifiable alternative hypothesis
to Kennedy's murder.
The Oswald Hypothesis-as subtly admitted by Oliver Stone-passed the who, what, when, where,
why, and how test. It answered all the questions and was plausible according to physics, motive,
means, and opportunity. The Deniers try things like "the pristine bullet" and "magic bullet" nonsense,
but those criticisms don't stand up to criticism (for example, the bullet was not pristine at
all, and the bullet's tragectory was not magic at all, but followed a predictable downward path
through the elevated Kennedy to Connolly).
But more tellingly-no alternative plausible falsifiable hypothesis has been offered.
No who, what, when, where , why, and how. Lots of speculation and casting aspersions (LBJ! CIA!
), but no one offers a concrete hypothesis that could be tested or researched to see as plausible.
If you have a falsifiable alternative theory to the Oswald Hypothesis that satisfies the five
w's and h, please offer it here. Until you do so, the only plausible hypothesis is that Oswald
acted alone.
It's been more than 50 years people. Give us something besides that some people disliked
Kennedy (all politicians have enemies) and "eye witnesses" who keep changing their stories.
*Oh, and the KGB worked to spread Kennedy Conspiracy theories because they undermined faith
in the U.S. government and took the heat off communists for the killing. They funded some of the
conspiracy theorists and promoted them.
• Replies:
@CanSpeccy Hey Whorefinder, are you one of
Cass Sunstein's
boys , by any chance. ,
@Wizard of Oz I ask only because you may have the JFK assassination stuff well organised in
your head and up to date. What do you make of the update by Colin McLaren on the humanly plausible
conspiracy theory that the bullet which killed Kennedy was fired accidentally by a Secret Service
man standing in the car behind? Are there any knock down arguments against it? Or big holes? ,
@Robbie Oswald never fired a shot! A hidden witness for over 35 years had proof positive that
Oswald was never on the sixth floor, and therefore couldn't be a shooter. Barry Ernest has found
Victoria Adams, a witness to Kennedy's murder, on the fourth floor back staircase of the TSBD.
She testified to the Warren Commission that she and her co-worker, Sandra Styles saw nobody come
down the stairs, after she heard the final shots. Also with them was her supervisor, Dorothy Garner,
making three witnesses (or non-witnesses in this case) that totally destroy the lone nut idea
that Oswald was doing any shooting there. Adams was badgered and she felt threatened by the Warren
Commission and fearing for her life, vanished for decades until Barry Ernest found her.
So, that ends and totally disproves for all time the formerly plausible hypothesis (theory) that
Oswald killed Kennedy.
The Girl on the Stairs: The Search for a Missing Witness to the JFK Assassination by Barry
Ernest (hardcover) April 2, 2013
https://www.amazon.com/Girl-Stairs-Missing-Witness-Assassination/dp/1455617830
http://garyrevel.com/jfk/girlonstairs.html
"The Bob Wilson Interview with Author Barry Ernest 'The Girl on the Stairs: The Search for a Missing
Witness to the JFK Assassination' "
Feb. 18, 2014 (New York, NY)
#7
"There is no evidence that definitively places Oswald in the second-floor lunchroom as the shots
were being fired. If you believe what Oswald is quoted as telling police during his interrogation
sessions (12 hours that went unrecorded and without a stenographer being present), he was eating
his lunch in the first-floor domino room when the shots occurred, and then went to the second
floor to purchase a drink. This is perhaps why Vicki Adams did not see him on the stairs, why
he was so calm during the lunchroom confrontation, and why [Officer Marrion] Baker first described
Oswald as entering the lunchroom from a direction other than the back staircase. Certainly Vicki
Adams saying she was on the stairs during this critical period presented an obvious problem to
the Warren Commission's scenario, which might explain why she was the only person excluded from
time tests regarding Oswald's escape, and why corroborating witnesses to her story were ignored."
#13
"Lee Harvey Oswald was labeled as a loner, and malcontent. From what you have learned of him,
can you describe a bit about who he seems to have actually been?
He was definitely an odd fellow. But he was also smart, capable, for instance, of beating others
more advanced than he was at chess and, if you believe the official record, able to teach himself
Russian, one of the most challenging languages to learn, especially on your own. He liked the
opera and was a vociferous reader, knowledgeable in a lot of subjects. His actions in both his
military and civilian lives seem consistent with someone having a far deeper complexity than what
we have been told. Oh, and he was also a rather poor shot!"
As for the pejorative term conspiracy theory , that was conjured up by the CIA in 1964,
to counter the growing threat to the insiders' desire to promote the sole assassin idea, discredit
doubters, and shut off debate. https://projectunspeakable.com/conspiracy-theory-invention-of-cia
and http://www.jfklancer.com/CIA.html
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0292757697
"In 2013 Professor Lance Dehaven-Smith in a peer-reviewed book published by the University of
Texas Press showed that the term "conspiracy theory" was developed by the CIA as a means of undercutting
critics of the Warren Commission's report that President Kennedy was killed by Oswald. The use
of this term was heavily promoted in the media by the CIA
It is ironic that the American left is a major enforcer of the CIA's strategy to shut up skeptics
by branding them conspiracy theorists."
The public has never believed the official story that Oswald acted alone ever since the first
Gallup Poll was taken in early Dec. 1963, and continuing to this very day.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/165893/majority-believe-jfk-killed-conspiracy.aspx
"Majority in U.S. Still Believe JFK Killed in a Conspiracy" by Art Swift (Nov. 15, 2013)
Dec. 1963: 52% Conspiracy, 29% One man
1976: 81% Conspiracy, 11% One man
1983: 74% Conspiracy, 11% One man
1992: 77% Conspiracy, 10% One man
2001: 81% Conspiracy, 13% One man
2003: 75% Conspiracy, 19% One man
2013: 61% Conspiracy, 30% One man
"...According to his Marine score card (Commission Exhibit 239), Oswald was tested twice:
In December 1956, after "a very intensive 3 weeks' training period" (Warren Commission Hearings,
vol.11, p.302), Oswald scored 212: two marks above the minimum for a 'sharpshooter'.
In May 1959, he scored 191: one mark above the minimum for a 'marksman'.
"...Colonel Allison Folsom interpreted the results for the Warren Commission:
"The Marine Corps consider that any reasonable application of the instructions given to Marines
should permit them to become qualified at least as a marksman. To become qualified as a sharpshooter,
the Marine Corps is of the opinion that most Marines with a reasonable amount of adaptability
to weapons firing can become so qualified. Consequently, a low marksman qualification indicates
a rather poor "shot" and a sharpshooter qualification indicates a fairly good "shot".(Warren Commission
Hearings, vol.19, pp.17f)
Folsom agreed with his (not her) questioner that Oswald "was not a particularly outstanding shot"
(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.8, p.311)."
Phlilip F. Nelson's hardcover 2011 book, a fascinating insight into LBJ's warped and sociopathic
(also suffering from bi-polar disorder) personality hidden from the public, 1960-2011,
LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination
https://www.amazon.com/LBJ-Mastermind-Assassination-Phillip-Nelson/dp/1616083778
Bill Jones
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 6, 2016 at 1:04 am GMT
@Gene Tuttle I've often used the argument myself that conspiracies inevitably have short shelf
lives in the US because it was so difficult for Americans to keep secrets. The article makes a
useful point in suggesting that secret plots, even after being revealed, may nevertheless remain
widely ignored. Ideology, group-think, pack journalism etc. are powerful forces, often subconsciously
at work, preventing alternative theories from developing legs.
Though long an admirer of Karl Popper, I hadn't strongly associated him with attacks on conspiracy
theories per se. As an American "outsider" living abroad most of my adult life, I've all too often
encountered those who assumed my background alone explained an argument of mine that they didn't
like. Popper had hit the nail on the head when he wrote about
"a widespread and dangerous fashion of our time...of not taking arguments seriously, and
at their face value, at least tentatively, but of seeing in them nothing but a way in which
deeper irrational motives and tendencies express themselves." It was "the attitude of
looking at once for the unconscious motives and determinants in the social habitat of the thinker,
instead of first examining the validity of the argument itself."
The powerful nazi and communist ideologies of his day assumed that one's " blood " or "
class " precluded "correct" thinking. Those politically incorrect challengers to their
own totalitarian weltanschauung were (to put it mildly) persecuted as conspirators. No doubt,
as Ron Unz notes, Popper's personal experience "contributed the depth of his feelings"
-- I would say skepticism – about conspiracy claims.
But the author of the " Open Society " had an open mind and I suspect he'd find the thesis
reasonable that real conspiracies can both be uncovered and largely ignored because so many simply
opt to ignore them. In such cases, evidence and "not taking arguments seriously" often
reflects "intellectual groupieism," emotions, professional insecurities as well as venal collective
interests.
Nice try.
The Manhattan Project was successfully kept secret despite its scope and the fact that it consumed
17% of the electricity production of the entire US.
• Replies:
@Wizard of Oz So, there is a counter example - an exception???
Actually not such a good case. It was wartime in a pre Internet era and keeping their mouths
shut was emphasised as a patriotic duty for everyone. The work was carried out at remote locations
with vast resources behind it. The work was so new and esoteric that the best outsiders might
have managed was that something was going on that they didn't understand. And of course it wasn't
kept secret from our Soviet allies thanks to their spies. ,
@Gene Tuttle I did not say it was impossible for Americans to keep secrets, just "difficult."
The Manhattan Project was in a bygone era -- one in which near total war prevailed. Yet even in
that case, the Soviets knew early on what was going on. And stories appeared in the US press early
on posing prying questions about Los Alamos, a "forbidden city" where there were reports of "ordnance
and explosives" being developed and "tremendous explosions have been heard."
http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/1944-Cleveland-Press-Forbidden-City.pdf
The Irgun bombing of the King David Hotel (headquarters of the British Mandate Government of Palestine)
in which Zionist activists dressed as Arabs placed milk churns filled with explosives against
the main columns of the building killing 91 people and injuring 44. Israeli prime Minister Netanyahu,
attended a celebration to commemorate the event.
Operation Susannah (Lavon Affair) where Israeli operatives impersonating Arabs bombed British
and American cinemas, libraries and educational centers in Egypt to destabilize the country and
keep British troops committed to the Middle East.
Or June 8, 1967, the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty with unmarked aircraft and torpedo boats.
34 men were killed and 171 wounded, with the attack in international waters following over nine
hours of close surveillance. When the ship failed to sink, the Israeli government concocted an
elaborate story to cover the crime. Original plan to blame the sinking with all lives lost on
the Egyptians and draw the US into the war.
Or Israelis and U.S. Zionists appearing all over the most recent WTC 9/11 "Operation" with Israelis
once again impersonating Arabs in a historic deception/terror action of a type that seems to carry
a lot of kudos with old Israeli ex-terrorist Likudniks. Israeli agents were sent to film the historic
day (as they later admitted on Israeli TV), with the celebrations including photos of themselves
with a background of the burning towers where thousands of Americans were being incinerated.
Iraq was destroyed as a result of 9/11 but unfortunately for the conspirators, the momentum wasn't
sufficient for a general war including Iran. Also the general war would have included the nuclear
angle and justified the activation of a neo-con led Emergency Regime (dictatorship) in the US
enforced with the newly printed Patriot Act and Homeland Security troops - or maybe that's just
another Conspiracy Theory?
The Israelis learned their false flag lesson from the Nazis, who used concentration camp inmates
dressed as Polish soldiers as part of a phony attack on the frontier radio station "Sender Gleiwitz"
a day or so before they invaded Poland.
• Replies:
@anonymous If Nazis didn't exist zionists would have to invent them -- or maybe they did.
Nuland's use of Nazis in Ukraine is sure making it look more and more likely that Hitler was an
Osama bin-Laden like creation of Jews and/or the Roosevelt admin.
1. The British were past masters of all sorts of dirty tricks. Moshe Dayan learned about house
demolitions from the British when they were in charge of Mandate Palestine -- pre-1939. http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.657167
2. Jews in Poland were active participants in killing fellow Poles; from the late 1920s into the
mid-1930s Jews in Soviet participated in serious numbers in Stalin's slaughter of several million
Russians, Ukrainians, Poles. Some of the killed were Jewish. They didn't need Germans to teach
them how to kill on a mass scale, Trotsky, Lenin & Stalin were able tutors.
3. By early in 1938 The Haganeh had created Mossad al Aliyeh-bet -- zionists planted in Germany
and other European cities to shepherd Jews out of their home countries and into Palestine.
Francis Nicosia writes about it in Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany ,
@LondonBob Not forgetting the Manchurian Incident, staging events to justify a war is nothing
new. ,
@Hippopotamusdrome There is a conspiracy theory that it was really Poles.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
In none of these cases the attacker actually killed thousands of his own soldiers, what would
be the point?
I didn't notice Gleiwitz was mentioned in another posting before I mentioned it. I tend go
along with you and suspect incompetence rather than purpose was the cause of the Pearl Harbor
disaster, though the incompetence may have included failure to adequately warn those on the ground
at Pearl Harbor. Personally, I don't back the "truther" version of the twin towers because that
would have required a broader conspiracy than I think could have succeeded. My guess is that the
neighboring building was destroyed as part of the cleanup effort. I do think, however, that the
authorities knew something was up, didn't believe it could ever succeed and used it as a sort
of Reichstag Fire incident to brush aside constitutional democracy in the US. I also suspect that
the Mossad knew more than they let on. My guess is that if Gore rather than Bush had been in power
that history would have been far different. I suspect that the anthrax thing was more likely started
by the yankee regime as a home-grown conspiracy.
My guess is that if Gore rather than Bush had been in power that history would have been far
different.
Joe Lieberman was Gore's running mate.
Lieberman had the Patriot Act on a shelf waiting for an opportunity ---
While holding the chair of the "Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs," Lieberman introduced
on October 11, 2001, Senate Bill 1534, to establish the US Department of Homeland Security.
Anticipating the bill's certain passage, Lieberman gave himself automatic chairmanship after
he changed the name of his committee to, "The Senate Committee of Homeland Security and Government
Affairs."
Since then, Lieberman has been
the main force behind legislation such as:
-1- The USA Patriot Act
-2- Protect America Act
-3- National Emergency Centers Establishment Act
-4- The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation Act
-5- The Terrorist Expatriation Act, and the proposed
-6- Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act.
,
@dahoit Gore chose a likudnik as VP.Anyone thinks the response to 9-11 would have significantly
different under those 2 needs further education.
I notice the Wiz always deflects Israeli involvement.Of course they were aware,the dancing Israelis
knew it was a terror attack by dancing before the 2nd plane hit.
And what govt has been the only beneficiary of 9-11?
If one can't see that answer,they have been ziocained and lobotomized.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
And like your Pravda brethren, you are too quick to conflate 9/11 and the moon landings.
you are too quick to conflate 9/11 and the moon landings
Actually, it was Unz himself who stated a while back that if we admit that one of them is possible,
then all are possible, or something more or less to that effect.
In an case, the 9/11 controlled demolition / missile / flight 93 is in a hangar in Cleveland
stuff is just as implausible as faking the moon landings. Too many people and organizations and
countries needing to be in on it, etc.
• Replies:
@CanSpeccy biz, you obviously missed it.
Bill Jones, above , debunked your argument even before you made it. ,
@AnonCrimethink2016 Conflating the two is indeed absurd. Regarding 9/11, the government's
own conspiracy theory, that the twin towers were demolished by office fires started by the two
planes (not to mention Building 7, which fell without being struck by a plane later that day)
does not hold up under any real scrutiny; any child with a decent high school education in chemistry
and physics can see that those buildings did not and could not have collapsed due to the official
explanation, but rather, they fell due to a prepared demolition. While it is not, and may never
be clear exactly who was behind the event, the fact that key aspects of the government's narrative
are demonstrably false, and many others unsupported by independent evidence, should give any thinking
person considerable pause for thought about the events of that day, and all that has inexorably
followed in U.S. foreign policy to this very day. It is a technique of distraction frequently
used by supporters of the official conspiracy theory to raise all kinds of broad questions about
"How could such a vast conspiracy ever be kept?" etc. (Well, look at the Manhattan Project for
starters...) rather than engaging in the particulars of physical evidence and reliable eye witness
accounts that attest to the utter nonsense of the lie we've been sold lo these many years.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
Decius
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 6, 2016 at 1:51 am GMT • 300 Words
@Pat Casey Thanks for that response, gave me a better perspective of the man. I guess he did
know who he was writing for. And I do think the way to write for history is to write history by
disregarding topical preoccupations, except to damn them with faint praise. I have a master like
that I always go back to on the topic I care about most.
And actually the one work of Strauss's I have picked up, years ago, is his Machiavelli; it's
one of the thousands of books I've read--- not though one of the few I finished. Brushing up just
now by way of wikipedia, it doesn't look like Strauss staked his claim strong enough, if an original
reading is what he was writing.
By the way, I know the Irishman John Toland was the first to publish on the esoteric-exoteric
distinction, and coined the term pantheist on a related occasion when he named what new beast
Spinoza had born. That was when an esoteric mode of writing was really needed, and you
will hear The Ethics called esoteric or cryptic, but I know the work well, and it is no
more esoteric than any work of genius that teaches you to read closely right at the start.
Is The Prince an esoteric work? Did it entertain a conspiracy with special readers?
I suppose only if Machiavelli had individuals in mind who might wonder were they all the while
in mind when he was writing about how to dispose of them. The point is, there's nothing profound
about observing that, it's almost common sense if you take into account the first thing about
Machiavelli's circumstance.
I won't be glib and write Strauss's method off as typically paranoid; it's creative, but bound
to be too creative by half. I think it might lead readers to have more fun than's good for learning.
First, if you are at all interested in esotericism, I cannot recommend highly enough Philosophy
Between the Lines by Meltzer. The only thing critical I can say about this book is that, if
one is really an expert in one of the thinkers that Meltzer treats, one will read the passages
on that thinker that Meltzer cites and say "So what? I've known that for years. He's shed no new
light." Which is true. But irrelevant to what he's trying to do. The book presents an unassailable
case that philosophy has been esoteric since Plato. Esotericism long predates Spinoza and has
been discussed since ancient times. Strauss simply revived a concept that had been forgotten.
Toland (who I am not that familiar with) wrote before esotericism as it were "lapsed." Strauss
says that Goethe and Lessing were the last to write this way. When Strauss revived knowledge of
esotericism in the late 1930s with the first Xenophon article, he was considered nuts.
Strauss's Machiavelli book is my favorite and I think his best. It is totally "original" in
the sense that he took a wildly new path from all previous scholarship. It has basically defined
the debate to this day. All subsequent scholarship either follows him, opposes him, or tries to
ignore him.
I would recommend in addition Strauss's book on Spinoza and especially the much later preface
that he wrote when he felt he finally understood Spinoza's esotericism.
Yes, the Prince (and the Discourses , and Art of War , and Florentine
Histories ) are esoteric. It's too complex to argue in a comment thread. Suffice it to say
for now that the outrageous "kill that dude" teachings serve and exoteric purpose.
Strauss's Machiavelli book is my favorite and I think his best. It is totally "original" in
the sense that he took a wildly new path from all previous scholarship. It has basically defined
the debate to this day. All subsequent scholarship either follows him, opposes him, or tries
to ignore him.
Nonsense.
Maurizio Viroli has dedicated his life to scholarship on Machiavelli. He reads and understands
The Prince (and Machiavelli's other works and life) in the context in which they were written,
taking account of the finest details of Machiavelli's human, psychological, and spiritual evolution
in the course of career and writing. Viroli walks in Niccolo's footsteps; like Machiavelli, he
"puts on the garments" of 15th century Florence, and Rome, and the French and Germanic cities
where Machiavelli traveled to represent Florence.
Strauss may satisfy those inclined to engage in exercise in Talmudic argument, but Machiavelli
was Italian, Florentine, and Roman; Dante was his constant companion; he was also conversant in
Old and New Testament literature and, less extensively, with the relatively newly rediscovered
Greek philosophers.
Strauss does not understand Machiavelli's thoughts on religion because he fails to separate Niccolo's
Christian, Danteian spirituality from his disgust with the corruption of the Roman Catholic papacy
and institutional church.
If you want intellectual showmanship and hair-splitting, Strauss on Machiavelli's your man. If
you want to understand the soul of Niccolo Machiavelli and the complexities of political life
in the Florence, Italy he lived in and loved, you can't do better than Maurizio Viroli.
Machiavelli and Republicanism
http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/history/history-ideas-and-intellectual-history/machiavelli-and-republicanism?format=PB
Redeeming the Prince
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/681223
For Love of Country: An Essay on Patriotism and Nationalism
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0198293585.001.0001/acprof-9780198293583
(Strauss twists Machiavelli's love of country into an evil act because it is not universal. Yet,
as one reviewer noted of Strauss, "I would make the case that the best defense of Strauss lies
in an understanding of Aristotle and Israel." https://www.amazon.com/German-Stranger-Strauss-National-Socialism/dp/0739147382
) ,
@Pat Casey Steve weighed in on this a while back and made the point that what we have, what
has been handed down to us, that probably is the esoteric stuff. I don't think he even
mentioned in the piece how interesting it is that what we have of Aristotle seem to be lecture
notes. I suspect that is just because: Aristotle taught Alexander---the teacher knew no felt need
to live on as a writer like Plato did. One thing we can say about those lecture notes, we can
pretty well imagine they were not written in his prime, hence we're still learning how much good
stuff is there; if you know your stuff, you know as late as the late Richard Taylor that the philosopher
was yet outdoing us moderns in a point he makes like an afterthought but could not matter more.
But so anyways, what we have is the distilled Aristotle probably from his golden years; if we
also had it in any other form, it might read comparatively mercilessly for being too esoteric.
As we know him it is impossible to imagine Aristotle writing dialogues, debating other voices
; one need not name rivals when one has none and he was the King's philosopher. What you can't
say is no he was being disorganized on purpose to be esoteric, right?
But take Plato. I assume if you could read ancient Greek as well as Plato could, you would
find many a double meaning at crucial turns but I really have no idea save the gut instinct that
the man was an inspired writer when he wrote which is to say a poet. And what a poet does is let
the muse speak and summon such nice lines as "The Beauty is not the Madness/ Though my errors
and wrecks lie about me/and I am not a demigod, I cannot make it cohere." The errors that lie
about him strewn about him as it were, they lie about how good he was when he was at his
best. A tongue like a double-bladed sword says the Bible. I imagine some of Ezra Pound's radio
rants need a second listen with less tense nerves; they say the Italians suspected he was transmitting
code. Anyways. Imagine how much can be said for the stories we tell ourselves....how many former
selves does any one wind up with? you have to ask your self.
Scholasticism, well you could almost say that's all about no secret handshake shit. Make sure
them key words get nailed down and no tricks or to the tower you got cause to go.
Spinoza, oh we know exactly where his mystery lies. Edwin Curley said:
"In responding to this objection, I think I had best begin by confessing candidly that in spite
of many years of study, I still do not feel that I understand this part of the Ethics at all
adequately. I feel the freedom to confess that, of course, because I also believe that no one
else understands it adequately either"
What objection? The one that says, nothing of the mind should remain eternal after the body has
been destroyed if there is only one substance! We could have gone to grad school on this paper
is what the man said, but first pay respects to what that meant to him personally, cause he probably
escaped with his life when he did, but he knew his disciples would keep his mind alive. But seriously
I should touch this up and send it somewhere:
It must be said that the elegance of this deduction is striking. God's idea of the human body
corresponds with the mind's idea of the human body. The crucial move that turns the correspondence
into a startling claim is that God's idea expresses the essence of the body, while the mind's
idea expresses the essence of the mind. Through the initial correspondence, God's eternal essence
expressed as an idea of the body adopts the essence of the mind. Thus, when the body dies,
something of the essence of the mind remains eternal. With that, Spinoza culminates his masterpiece.
" Since what is conceived, with a certain eternal necessity, through God's essence itself,
is nevertheless something, this something that pertains to the essence of the mind will necessarily
be eternal." Besides being an Eternalist, Spinoza is also an Idealist. It fits then that he
should leave something of the mind remaining eternally, rather than what a strict Eternalist
would leave, that is, something of the mind and body. But recall that Spinoza's something that
pertains to the essence of the mind is the idea of the body . In the final analysis,
his system coheres.
That's terribly poignant too, because it shows he went back to his roots in the end: "The soul
will blame the body for its actions."
Anyways I've spent myself and who wants to talk about Nietzsche, really. That guy was an antenna
for a frequency that was broadcasting Noh drama directly into his soul while he wrote his Zarathustra,
and I don't believe he ever came back from that---he had all the inside jokes he could tell to
himself in perpetuity. But I gotta say, one time I ran into this guys blog who had let Nietzsche
drive him insane, and he had comprehensively worked out to an absolute end the thesis his whole
philosophy was to understand that a formal Matriarchy was what's good and here's why that's the
necessity. If that is true its too hysterical to ever argue with no hint of mania. So I felt bad
for the guy.
But what the other guy said rings truest to me. And I'd just add that Paul Gottfried's observation
that Strauss winds up treating a text a lot like the Deconstructions do does not entirely fail
Strauss for me. The fundamental truth to them is something every one of us around can understand:
these words we type, the ain't alive on quick lips, which is what gets some of us into more trouble
than others.
deHaven Smith is not that impressive on several counts.
one example: book opens:
"Although most Americans today reject the official (lone gunman) account of the Kennedy
assassination, they also have doubts about conspiracy theories and those who believe them.
This means the CIA program was successful, for its aim was not to sell the Warren Commission,
but to sow uncertainty about the commission's critics. Today, people are not only uncertain,
they have given up ever learning the truth. "
At least one high-profile person and an entire community that supports him does not have doubts,
has not given up.
Cyril Wecht blasted holes in Arlen Specter's "one bullet" theory in 1965. He's still at it.
In 2013, the fiftieth anniversary of JFK's assassination,
"about 500 people gathered at Duquesne University for a JFK symposium sponsored by the university's
Institute of Forensic Science and Law, which is named for Wecht. Appearances by Stone and a
doctor who tended to Kennedy brought national attention.
People sneered when they mentioned Specter's name or the single-bullet theory.
Across the state, the Single Bullet exhibit opened on Oct. 21. It's the first exhibition
in Philadelphia University's Arlen Specter Center for Public Policy. Willens, the former Kennedy
aide, delivered a speech.
Smith did not even mention Wecht or Specter and the single-bullet theory in his book. The omission
is important insofar as its inclusion would have demonstrated that for many years the populace
has been aware of the dishonesty of the US government and some have been raising their voices
against and continue to do so.
That knowledge should give encouragement to activists such as those who demand accountability
for Israel's attack on the USS Liberty and the deliberate killing of 34 US sailors and other personnel.
(Specter has been useful to the deep state in other ways: he protected Zalman Shapiro, former
head of NUMEC, from prosecution for his part in smuggling uranium to Israel.
http://israellobby.org/numec/ 0
anonymous says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 6, 2016 at 2:18 am GMT • 100 Words
@exiled off mainstreet I didn't notice Gleiwitz was mentioned in another posting before I
mentioned it. I tend go along with you and suspect incompetence rather than purpose was the cause
of the Pearl Harbor disaster, though the incompetence may have included failure to adequately
warn those on the ground at Pearl Harbor. Personally, I don't back the "truther" version of the
twin towers because that would have required a broader conspiracy than I think could have succeeded.
My guess is that the neighboring building was destroyed as part of the cleanup effort. I do think,
however, that the authorities knew something was up, didn't believe it could ever succeed and
used it as a sort of Reichstag Fire incident to brush aside constitutional democracy in the US.
I also suspect that the Mossad knew more than they let on. My guess is that if Gore rather than
Bush had been in power that history would have been far different. I suspect that the anthrax
thing was more likely started by the yankee regime as a home-grown conspiracy.
My guess is that if Gore rather than Bush had been in power that history would have been
far different.
Joe Lieberman was Gore's running mate.
Lieberman had the Patriot Act on a shelf waiting for an opportunity -
While holding the chair of the "Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs," Lieberman introduced
on October 11, 2001, Senate Bill 1534, to establish the US Department of Homeland Security.
Anticipating the bill's certain passage, Lieberman gave himself automatic chairmanship after
he changed the name of his committee to, "The Senate Committee of Homeland Security and Government
Affairs."
Since then, Lieberman has been
the main force behind legislation such as:
-1- The USA Patriot Act
-2- Protect America Act
-3- National Emergency Centers Establishment Act
-4- The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation Act
-5- The Terrorist Expatriation Act, and the proposed
-6- Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act.
Thank you Mr. Unz, for this excellent- and circumspect and salient- article.
His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not that they were always false, but they
might often be true, and therefore their spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning
of society. So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise
undercut the unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies.
I'll just add that from what I've glimmered, (I'm definitely no expert on Leo Strauss), Strauss'
philosophy contained more than just a careful consideration of 'conspiracy theories' and how they
should be handled, but that what he advocated was a small group of highly motivated elite zealots
(Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, et al) who would not just use power to control the narrative vis-a-vis
conspiracy theories, but more to the point, would be the men who would conspire to alter
the realities that required a mocking of "conspiracy theories" in the first place.
From what I understand, one of his motivating themes was that his acolytes would come to understand
that they shouldn't be guided by trite, pedestrian notions of morality when being the agents of
change in the world. And that rather, they should use his teachings as a way to see the world
as exceptional men, who would boldly do things others might shrink from, out of hackneyed notions
of probity.
Perhaps the best quote I know of to describe Straussianism (as I understand it) was made by
a man who wasn't one of his actual students, but who certainly would have been well acquainted
and worked closely with others who were; Karl Rove, when speaking to an aid:
"That's not the way the world really works anymore." He continued "We're an empire now, and when
we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality-judiciously, as you
will-we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things
will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we
do."
that quote for me, describes Straussianism to a T. And if so, certainty dovetails with what
happened during the reign of Bush-the lesser. Especially with something as audacious as 911.
That at least, is how I've seen it
As for the control of the media, I think most of your readers are certainly aware of that particular
conundrum and its consequences. It is literally impossible to be too cynical as regards our media
and government and CIA and other shenanigans, IMHO.
The Oswald Hypothesis---as subtly admitted by Oliver Stone---passed the who, what, when, where,
why, and how test. It answered all the questions and was plausible according to physics, motive,
means, and opportunity. The Deniers try things like "the pristine bullet" and "magic bullet" nonsense,
but those criticisms don't stand up to criticism (for example, the bullet was not pristine at
all, and the bullet's tragectory was not magic at all, but followed a predictable downward path
through the elevated Kennedy to Connolly).
But more tellingly---no alternative plausible falsifiable hypothesis has been offered.
No who, what, when, where , why, and how. Lots of speculation and casting aspersions (LBJ! CIA!
), but no one offers a concrete hypothesis that could be tested or researched to see as plausible.
If you have a falsifiable alternative theory to the Oswald Hypothesis that satisfies the five
w's and h, please offer it here. Until you do so, the only plausible hypothesis is that Oswald
acted alone.
It's been more than 50 years people. Give us something besides that some people disliked
Kennedy (all politicians have enemies) and "eye witnesses" who keep changing their stories.
*Oh, and the KGB worked to spread Kennedy Conspiracy theories because they undermined faith
in the U.S. government and took the heat off communists for the killing. They funded some of the
conspiracy theorists and promoted them.
"Not to be arch, but, even with the repeater on the moon, what about the bounce echo from the
tight-beam signal coming from Earth carrying the deceptive info? "
First, you could transvert from one range to another, so an interested party would have know where
to look for the reflection. You could uplink in another range of S-Band, or go lower to L-band
if you don't mind a little faraday rotation. Your link-budget would be just sufficient to get
a signal from the lunar repeater to Earth, but that would most likely not be enough enough for
a full round-trip of the terrestrial signal. Most of your tight beam would still pass fairly wide
abeam the moon, and that which was reflected back to Earth would be further degraded by libration
fading.
How do you get Astronauts bouncing and hammers falling in Slo-Mo? Film at 60fps, replay at 30.
Ah, but you have to have a really good clean-room to keep dust off the film. Maybe that is why
videotape technology took off in the early seventies ;)
How do you get Astronauts bouncing and hammers falling in Slo-Mo?
Yeah, the gravity effects are a BIG job. Just slo-mo-ing won't do it, because you have different
curvature of falling profile, and acceleration of gravity is different because moon-mass is less
(and non-linear ref 30fps v. 60fps.)
There would also be additive propagation delay in the radio signals. Pure delay, too - no compensation
would fix that in 1969.
SolontoCroesus
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 6, 2016 at 2:50 am GMT • 300 Words
@Decius First, if you are at all interested in esotericism, I cannot recommend highly enough
Philosophy Between the Lines by Meltzer. The only thing critical I can say about this book
is that, if one is really an expert in one of the thinkers that Meltzer treats, one will read
the passages on that thinker that Meltzer cites and say "So what? I've known that for years. He's
shed no new light." Which is true. But irrelevant to what he's trying to do. The book presents
an unassailable case that philosophy has been esoteric since Plato. Esotericism long predates
Spinoza and has been discussed since ancient times. Strauss simply revived a concept that had
been forgotten. Toland (who I am not that familiar with) wrote before esotericism as it were "lapsed."
Strauss says that Goethe and Lessing were the last to write this way. When Strauss revived knowledge
of esotericism in the late 1930s with the first Xenophon article, he was considered nuts.
Strauss's Machiavelli book is my favorite and I think his best. It is totally "original" in the
sense that he took a wildly new path from all previous scholarship. It has basically defined the
debate to this day. All subsequent scholarship either follows him, opposes him, or tries to ignore
him.
I would recommend in addition Strauss's book on Spinoza and especially the much later preface
that he wrote when he felt he finally understood Spinoza's esotericism.
Yes, the Prince (and the Discourses , and Art of War , and Florentine
Histories ) are esoteric. It's too complex to argue in a comment thread. Suffice it to say
for now that the outrageous "kill that dude" teachings serve and exoteric purpose.
Strauss's Machiavelli book is my favorite and I think his best. It is totally "original"
in the sense that he took a wildly new path from all previous scholarship. It has basically
defined the debate to this day. All subsequent scholarship either follows him, opposes him,
or tries to ignore him.
Nonsense.
Maurizio Viroli has dedicated his life to scholarship on Machiavelli. He reads and understands
The Prince (and Machiavelli's other works and life) in the context in which they were written,
taking account of the finest details of Machiavelli's human, psychological, and spiritual evolution
in the course of career and writing. Viroli walks in Niccolo's footsteps; like Machiavelli, he
"puts on the garments" of 15th century Florence, and Rome, and the French and Germanic cities
where Machiavelli traveled to represent Florence.
Strauss may satisfy those inclined to engage in exercise in Talmudic argument, but Machiavelli
was Italian, Florentine, and Roman; Dante was his constant companion; he was also conversant in
Old and New Testament literature and, less extensively, with the relatively newly rediscovered
Greek philosophers.
Strauss does not understand Machiavelli's thoughts on religion because he fails to separate
Niccolo's Christian, Danteian spirituality from his disgust with the corruption of the Roman Catholic
papacy and institutional church.
If you want intellectual showmanship and hair-splitting, Strauss on Machiavelli's your man.
If you want to understand the soul of Niccolo Machiavelli and the complexities of political life
in the Florence, Italy he lived in and loved, you can't do better than Maurizio Viroli.
• Replies:
@Decius First, you are wrong that Strauss thinks Machiavelli's patriotism is in itself evil.
Strauss says the exact opposite at several points. But he also says that recourse to patriotism
does not in itself excuse Machiavelli's recommendations to do evil. Strauss himself comes up with
the most persuasive justifications (which are higher than excuses) for Machiavelli's evil sayings.
But to understand Strauss's arguments, you would have to read the book and spend a lot of time
with it because it is hard.
Viroli is a scholar I respect for a lot of reasons, but not for philosophic depth. The argument
about "context" diminishes Machiavelli (and all great thinkers) by presupposing that their thought
is time-bound or that they could not think past the horizon of their time. The greatest minds
transcend their times and even create new times. There aren't very many such, but Nick was one.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
you are too quick to conflate 9/11 and the moon landings
Actually, it was Unz himself who stated a while back that if we admit that one of them is possible,
then all are possible, or something more or less to that effect.
In an case, the 9/11 controlled demolition / missile / flight 93 is in a hangar in Cleveland
stuff is just as implausible as faking the moon landings. Too many people and organizations and
countries needing to be in on it, etc.
biz, you obviously missed it.
Bill Jones, above , debunked your argument even before you made it.
• Replies:
@biz lol, "The Mahattan Project was kept a secret."
His main problem with "conspiracy theories" was not that they were always false, but they might
often be true, and therefore their spread was potentially disruptive to the smooth functioning
of society. So as a matter of self-defense, elites needed to actively suppress or otherwise
undercut the unauthorized investigation of suspected conspiracies.
I'll just add that from what I've glimmered, (I'm definitely no expert on Leo Strauss), Strauss'
philosophy contained more than just a careful consideration of 'conspiracy theories' and how they
should be handled, but that what he advocated was a small group of highly motivated elite zealots
(Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, et al) who would not just use power to control the narrative vis-a-vis
conspiracy theories, but more to the point, would be the men who would conspire to alter
the realities that required a mocking of "conspiracy theories" in the first place.
From what I understand, one of his motivating themes was that his acolytes would come to understand
that they shouldn't be guided by trite, pedestrian notions of morality when being the agents of
change in the world. And that rather, they should use his teachings as a way to see the world
as exceptional men, who would boldly do things others might shrink from, out of hackneyed notions
of probity.
Perhaps the best quote I know of to describe Straussianism (as I understand it) was made by a
man who wasn't one of his actual students, but who certainly would have been well acquainted and
worked closely with others who were; Karl Rove, when speaking to an aid:
"That's not the way the world really works anymore." He continued "We're an empire now, and when
we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality-judiciously, as you
will-we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things
will sort out. We're history's actors and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we
do."
that quote for me, describes Straussianism to a T. And if so, certainty dovetails with what happened
during the reign of Bush-the lesser. Especially with something as audacious as 911.
That at least, is how I've seen it...
As for the control of the media, I think most of your readers are certainly aware of that particular
conundrum and its consequences. It is literally impossible to be too cynical as regards our media
and government and CIA and other shenanigans, IMHO.
Thanks again sir.
Nice job. You roped the quote that ran across my mind- I swear these things are in the air.
How do you say, the ghost of Leo Strauss was moving men to do what you can't pin on his memory?
Well you said it and that settles it. Thank goodness.
• Replies:
@Decius Wait, a quote from Rove that doesn't even mention Strauss explains everything about
Strauss? Are you serious?
I gather you just need a boogeyman and Strauss is the one you've selected. Or, more accurately,
have allowed others to select for you. ,
@Rurik now this..
Now, however, Europhysics Magazine, the respected publication of the European physics community,
has published a report by four experts who say "the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion
that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition."
Wait, a quote from Rove that doesn't even mention Strauss explains everything about Strauss?
Are you serious?
I gather you just need a boogeyman and Strauss is the one you've selected. Or, more accurately,
have allowed others to select for you.
• Replies:
@Pat Casey Don't miss my longer reply, in the cue, plus this one, but put the boogeyman business
to bed and put your defenses down.... I can't say it any other way: I think the spirit of Leo
Strauss may well have moved men to move mountains and mountains otherwise called federal bureaucracies
and divisions of armies. It might explain not "everything" about Strauss but indeed whats essential
about Strauss, which is that you are right, I suspect he was special. Step back for a second
and forget that those Bush bastards were bastards and just estimate the nerve it takes to pull
off 9/11 and then go into Afghanistan and Iraq. We can all at least agree, that's somthin.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
Strauss's Machiavelli book is my favorite and I think his best. It is totally "original" in
the sense that he took a wildly new path from all previous scholarship. It has basically defined
the debate to this day. All subsequent scholarship either follows him, opposes him, or tries
to ignore him.
Nonsense.
Maurizio Viroli has dedicated his life to scholarship on Machiavelli. He reads and understands
The Prince (and Machiavelli's other works and life) in the context in which they were written,
taking account of the finest details of Machiavelli's human, psychological, and spiritual evolution
in the course of career and writing. Viroli walks in Niccolo's footsteps; like Machiavelli, he
"puts on the garments" of 15th century Florence, and Rome, and the French and Germanic cities
where Machiavelli traveled to represent Florence.
Strauss may satisfy those inclined to engage in exercise in Talmudic argument, but Machiavelli
was Italian, Florentine, and Roman; Dante was his constant companion; he was also conversant in
Old and New Testament literature and, less extensively, with the relatively newly rediscovered
Greek philosophers.
Strauss does not understand Machiavelli's thoughts on religion because he fails to separate Niccolo's
Christian, Danteian spirituality from his disgust with the corruption of the Roman Catholic papacy
and institutional church.
If you want intellectual showmanship and hair-splitting, Strauss on Machiavelli's your man. If
you want to understand the soul of Niccolo Machiavelli and the complexities of political life
in the Florence, Italy he lived in and loved, you can't do better than Maurizio Viroli.
Machiavelli and Republicanism
http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/history/history-ideas-and-intellectual-history/machiavelli-and-republicanism?format=PB
Redeeming the Prince
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/681223
For Love of Country: An Essay on Patriotism and Nationalism
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/0198293585.001.0001/acprof-9780198293583
(Strauss twists Machiavelli's love of country into an evil act because it is not universal. Yet,
as one reviewer noted of Strauss, "I would make the case that the best defense of Strauss lies
in an understanding of Aristotle and Israel." https://www.amazon.com/German-Stranger-Strauss-National-Socialism/dp/0739147382
)
First, you are wrong that Strauss thinks Machiavelli's patriotism is in itself evil. Strauss
says the exact opposite at several points. But he also says that recourse to patriotism does not
in itself excuse Machiavelli's recommendations to do evil. Strauss himself comes up with the most
persuasive justifications (which are higher than excuses) for Machiavelli's evil sayings. But
to understand Strauss's arguments, you would have to read the book and spend a lot of time with
it because it is hard.
Viroli is a scholar I respect for a lot of reasons, but not for philosophic depth. The argument
about "context" diminishes Machiavelli (and all great thinkers) by presupposing that their thought
is time-bound or that they could not think past the horizon of their time. The greatest minds
transcend their times and even create new times. There aren't very many such, but Nick was one.
If Nazis didn't exist zionists would have to invent them - or maybe they did. Nuland's use
of Nazis in Ukraine is sure making it look more and more likely that Hitler was an Osama bin-Laden
like creation of Jews and/or the Roosevelt admin.
1. The British were past masters of all sorts of dirty tricks. Moshe Dayan learned about house
demolitions from the British when they were in charge of Mandate Palestine - pre-1939.
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.657167
2. Jews in Poland were active participants in killing fellow Poles; from the late 1920s into
the mid-1930s Jews in Soviet participated in serious numbers in Stalin's slaughter of several
million Russians, Ukrainians, Poles. Some of the killed were Jewish. They didn't need Germans
to teach them how to kill on a mass scale, Trotsky, Lenin & Stalin were able tutors.
3. By early in 1938 The Haganeh had created Mossad al Aliyeh-bet - zionists planted in Germany
and other European cities to shepherd Jews out of their home countries and into Palestine.
Francis Nicosia writes about it in Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany
The CIA's Project Mockingbird had all the network news anchors using the words "conspiracy
theory" like the brainless parrots that they were. And Americans remain well brainwashed, although
it's actually hard to get anything significant done without a "conspiracy."
Pat Casey
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 6, 2016 at 5:37 am GMT • 1,000 Words
@Decius First, if you are at all interested in esotericism, I cannot recommend highly enough
Philosophy Between the Lines by Meltzer. The only thing critical I can say about this book
is that, if one is really an expert in one of the thinkers that Meltzer treats, one will read
the passages on that thinker that Meltzer cites and say "So what? I've known that for years. He's
shed no new light." Which is true. But irrelevant to what he's trying to do. The book presents
an unassailable case that philosophy has been esoteric since Plato. Esotericism long predates
Spinoza and has been discussed since ancient times. Strauss simply revived a concept that had
been forgotten. Toland (who I am not that familiar with) wrote before esotericism as it were "lapsed."
Strauss says that Goethe and Lessing were the last to write this way. When Strauss revived knowledge
of esotericism in the late 1930s with the first Xenophon article, he was considered nuts.
Strauss's Machiavelli book is my favorite and I think his best. It is totally "original" in the
sense that he took a wildly new path from all previous scholarship. It has basically defined the
debate to this day. All subsequent scholarship either follows him, opposes him, or tries to ignore
him.
I would recommend in addition Strauss's book on Spinoza and especially the much later preface
that he wrote when he felt he finally understood Spinoza's esotericism.
Yes, the Prince (and the Discourses , and Art of War , and Florentine
Histories ) are esoteric. It's too complex to argue in a comment thread. Suffice it to say
for now that the outrageous "kill that dude" teachings serve and exoteric purpose.
Steve weighed in on this a while back and made the point that what we have, what has been handed
down to us, that probably is the esoteric stuff. I don't think he even mentioned in the
piece how interesting it is that what we have of Aristotle seem to be lecture notes. I suspect
that is just because: Aristotle taught Alexander-the teacher knew no felt need to live on as a
writer like Plato did. One thing we can say about those lecture notes, we can pretty well imagine
they were not written in his prime, hence we're still learning how much good stuff is there; if
you know your stuff, you know as late as the late Richard Taylor that the philosopher was yet
outdoing us moderns in a point he makes like an afterthought but could not matter more. But so
anyways, what we have is the distilled Aristotle probably from his golden years; if we also had
it in any other form, it might read comparatively mercilessly for being too esoteric. As we know
him it is impossible to imagine Aristotle writing dialogues, debating other voices ; one
need not name rivals when one has none and he was the King's philosopher. What you can't say is
no he was being disorganized on purpose to be esoteric, right?
But take Plato. I assume if you could read ancient Greek as well as Plato could, you would
find many a double meaning at crucial turns but I really have no idea save the gut instinct that
the man was an inspired writer when he wrote which is to say a poet. And what a poet does is let
the muse speak and summon such nice lines as "The Beauty is not the Madness/ Though my errors
and wrecks lie about me/and I am not a demigod, I cannot make it cohere." The errors that lie
about him strewn about him as it were, they lie about how good he was when he was at his
best. A tongue like a double-bladed sword says the Bible. I imagine some of Ezra Pound's radio
rants need a second listen with less tense nerves; they say the Italians suspected he was transmitting
code. Anyways. Imagine how much can be said for the stories we tell ourselves .how many former
selves does any one wind up with? you have to ask your self.
Scholasticism, well you could almost say that's all about no secret handshake shit. Make sure
them key words get nailed down and no tricks or to the tower you got cause to go.
Spinoza, oh we know exactly where his mystery lies. Edwin Curley said:
"In responding to this objection, I think I had best begin by confessing candidly that in
spite of many years of study, I still do not feel that I understand this part of the Ethics
at all adequately. I feel the freedom to confess that, of course, because I also believe that
no one else understands it adequately either"
What objection? The one that says, nothing of the mind should remain eternal after the body
has been destroyed if there is only one substance! We could have gone to grad school on this paper
is what the man said, but first pay respects to what that meant to him personally, cause he probably
escaped with his life when he did, but he knew his disciples would keep his mind alive. But seriously
I should touch this up and send it somewhere:
It must be said that the elegance of this deduction is striking. God's idea of the human
body corresponds with the mind's idea of the human body. The crucial move that turns the correspondence
into a startling claim is that God's idea expresses the essence of the body, while the mind's
idea expresses the essence of the mind. Through the initial correspondence, God's eternal essence
expressed as an idea of the body adopts the essence of the mind. Thus, when the body dies,
something of the essence of the mind remains eternal. With that, Spinoza culminates his masterpiece.
" Since what is conceived, with a certain eternal necessity, through God's essence itself,
is nevertheless something, this something that pertains to the essence of the mind will necessarily
be eternal." Besides being an Eternalist, Spinoza is also an Idealist. It fits then that he
should leave something of the mind remaining eternally, rather than what a strict Eternalist
would leave, that is, something of the mind and body. But recall that Spinoza's something that
pertains to the essence of the mind is the idea of the body . In the final analysis,
his system coheres.
That's terribly poignant too, because it shows he went back to his roots in the end: "The soul
will blame the body for its actions."
Anyways I've spent myself and who wants to talk about Nietzsche, really. That guy was an antenna
for a frequency that was broadcasting Noh drama directly into his soul while he wrote his Zarathustra,
and I don't believe he ever came back from that-he had all the inside jokes he could tell to himself
in perpetuity. But I gotta say, one time I ran into this guys blog who had let Nietzsche drive
him insane, and he had comprehensively worked out to an absolute end the thesis his whole philosophy
was to understand that a formal Matriarchy was what's good and here's why that's the necessity.
If that is true its too hysterical to ever argue with no hint of mania. So I felt bad for the
guy.
But what the other guy said rings truest to me. And I'd just add that Paul Gottfried's observation
that Strauss winds up treating a text a lot like the Deconstructions do does not entirely fail
Strauss for me. The fundamental truth to them is something every one of us around can understand:
these words we type, the ain't alive on quick lips, which is what gets some of us into more trouble
than others.
I definitely check out the book, but one must be cautious when resurrecting phantoms.
I gather you just need a boogeyman and Strauss is the one you've selected. Or, more accurately,
have allowed others to select for you.
Don't miss my longer reply, in the cue, plus this one, but put the boogeyman business to bed
and put your defenses down . I can't say it any other way: I think the spirit of Leo Strauss may
well have moved men to move mountains and mountains otherwise called federal bureaucracies and
divisions of armies. It might explain not "everything" about Strauss but indeed whats essential
about Strauss, which is that you are right, I suspect he was special. Step back for a second
and forget that those Bush bastards were bastards and just estimate the nerve it takes to pull
off 9/11 and then go into Afghanistan and Iraq. We can all at least agree, that's somthin.
5371
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 6, 2016 at 6:20 am GMT
@Decius At any rate it's sort of absurd to watch you people chase your tails. All that you
"know" or think you know is that Strauss is bad. But Schmitt is good. But Strauss is derivative
of Schmitt. Doesn't that make Strauss good, or Schmitt bad?
Schmitt is famous for arguing in favor of the essential particularity of politics--i.e., against
alleged neocon universalism. So if Strauss is derivative of Schmitt, how can he be a neocon universalist?
Strauss in fact agrees with Schmitt on the essential particularity of politics and says so, but
finds a deeper source, with deeper arguments, in Plato. Schmitt admitted that his own attempt
to fortify his particularism was build on the quick-sandy foundation of modern rationalism, which
Strauss taught him to see through.
When you can pin Strauss down to a definite meaning, it is false, banal or both. He is usually
too obfuscatory to be pinned down. Schmitt is easy to understand and shows you true things you
had not thought of before.
My favourite historical conspiracy is the so-called "Gunpowder Plot," which is still, despite
all of the evidence that has been discovered in more modern times, represented in history books,
as being exclusively the work of disgruntled Catholic noblemen and their Jesuit confessors. It
was actually a government projection of the Cecil ministry, completely riddled with moles who
nurtured it along, right up until the point when it could be revealed to the public for maximum
political effect, and to the King, so that he would become more terrorified, and, thus, more dependent
upon the Cecils and their "constitutionalist" Puritan proteges. The "evidence" has, indeed, always
been in plain sight, and it has been dealt with in numerous books, such as The Gunpowder Plot,
Faith and Treason , by Antonia Fraser, and another book, entitled "God's Secret Agents,' but,
still, to this day, the myth of conspiring priests is still propagated in atavistic anti-Catholic
British history.
The Oswald Hypothesis---as subtly admitted by Oliver Stone---passed the who, what, when, where,
why, and how test. It answered all the questions and was plausible according to physics, motive,
means, and opportunity. The Deniers try things like "the pristine bullet" and "magic bullet" nonsense,
but those criticisms don't stand up to criticism (for example, the bullet was not pristine at
all, and the bullet's tragectory was not magic at all, but followed a predictable downward path
through the elevated Kennedy to Connolly).
But more tellingly---no alternative plausible falsifiable hypothesis has been offered.
No who, what, when, where , why, and how. Lots of speculation and casting aspersions (LBJ! CIA!
), but no one offers a concrete hypothesis that could be tested or researched to see as plausible.
If you have a falsifiable alternative theory to the Oswald Hypothesis that satisfies the five
w's and h, please offer it here. Until you do so, the only plausible hypothesis is that Oswald
acted alone.
It's been more than 50 years people. Give us something besides that some people disliked
Kennedy (all politicians have enemies) and "eye witnesses" who keep changing their stories.
*Oh, and the KGB worked to spread Kennedy Conspiracy theories because they undermined faith
in the U.S. government and took the heat off communists for the killing. They funded some of the
conspiracy theorists and promoted them.
I ask only because you may have the JFK assassination stuff well organised in your head and
up to date. What do you make of the update by Colin McLaren on the humanly plausible conspiracy
theory that the bullet which killed Kennedy was fired accidentally by a Secret Service man standing
in the car behind? Are there any knock down arguments against it? Or big holes?
• Replies:
@whorefinder The argument has surface plausibility merit, and would seem to resolve a lot
of the problems Oswald Deniers have with Kennedy's head movement. However, I haven't heard the
physics argument about it, or any other evidence. So I'm neutral.
That said, it isn't a popular theory because it offers nothing nefarious---just the SS screwing
up big time. So even if it were true---and I'm open to it being true---the Oswald Deniers are
far too invested in making this a deliberate mass-government coverup to listen. ,
@CanSpeccy I love the idea that JFK was killed by a stray bullet accidentally fired by a secret
service agent. It's so obvious once the truth has been pointed out.
Probably the same sort of balls-up explains 9/11. You know, missiles intended to shoot down simulated
highjacked planes in a drill on 9/11 accidentally wamming into the Pentagon and Twin Towers.
For example the government says that WTC7 completely collapsed in 7 seconds due to fire. You don't
need to be smart to see something is wrong here (hint: most of the structural pillars were untouched
by fire).
I see the biggest problem about a conspiratorial explanation for the WTC 7 collapse is motive.
How does it make sense for those who wanted the big splash that hitting buildings 1 and 2 would
give? The other major difficulty is the video footage of fires burning all day which had to have
heated the steel and therefore potentially weakened it to a critical point. Where's the mystery?
The biggest conpiracy, which most fail understand, is that the reason that there is all of
economic termoil and wars, is due to one reason and one reason only. There is no money and what
we use for transactions is the invertion of money, created by an entry of a computer. Its main
purpose is to make the issuers rich and everyone else in debt to them..Countries who don't want
to go into their debt become enemies and are villified. This illusion is reinforced by films,
media. Tax authorities. the government.
THIS IS THE BIGGEST CONSPIRACY on which all of the others are constructed. Including the socialist
satanist society built upon it. To make it work markets have to be manipulated, which they all
are.
Get rid of money and you get rid of god. liberty, personal property and everything else of value
because all values are based on nominal debt and this debt is not repayable because it has to
be borrowed to be repayed and the method of repayment doesnt exist. Fereral reserve notes are
counterfieted to create debt.
Wizard
of Oz says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 6, 2016 at 7:51 am GMT
@Connecticut Famer "But the author of the "Open Society" had an open mind and I suspect he'd
find the thesis reasonable that real conspiracies can both be uncovered and largely ignored because
so many simply opt to ignore them. In such cases, evidence and "not taking arguments seriously"
often reflects "intellectual groupieism," emotions, professional insecurities as well as venal
collective interests."
Possibly as in the JFK case? I actually watched Lee Harvey Oswald get drilled by the man who was
later identified as Jack Ruby (real surname "Rubenstein") live on television. The minute it happened
and even at age 16 at the time I smelled a rat. Who was ultimately behind it all is something
which I can't answer and care not to speculate upon, but to this day I remain suspicious about
the circumstances surrounding Oswald's death and Ruby's subsequent dissembling.
I don't dismiss your intuitions as such but you hardly present a great case for affording them
much weight. What you immediately felt at age 16 watching a screen? Nope. The fact that Jack Ruby
dissembled?
• Replies:
@AnotherLover I think dismissing intuition is for suckers. What successful businessman would
offer such advice? Intuition assembles all the information available to the organism, and it is
rarely wrong in my experience. I appreciate when people are willing to offer their gut reaction
to an event, especially knowing they are doing so in a society which trains its members to pounce
on them that would have the temerity to do so.
The Manhattan Project was successfully kept secret despite its scope and the fact that it consumed
17% of the electricity production of the entire US.
So, there is a counter example – an exception???
Actually not such a good case. It was wartime in a pre Internet era and keeping their mouths
shut was emphasised as a patriotic duty for everyone. The work was carried out at remote locations
with vast resources behind it. The work was so new and esoteric that the best outsiders might
have managed was that something was going on that they didn't understand. And of course it wasn't
kept secret from our Soviet allies thanks to their spies.
Lower taxes on Capital Gains and Dividends than on Earned Income.
No barriers to entry to low-wage unskilled workers for jobs that need to be performed in the US.
No barriers to goods produced from low-wage countries, no matter what the conditions they are
produced in.
Control of the Federal Reserve.
Tax-payer bailouts of failing institutions.
etc, etc.
If you want to get into it, I'm happy to.
I think that is a more illuminating approach than talking about elites. As Lenin very likely
said "Who? What?". The devil is indeed in the details and in details you see priorities and trade
offs.
The Oswald Hypothesis---as subtly admitted by Oliver Stone---passed the who, what, when, where,
why, and how test. It answered all the questions and was plausible according to physics, motive,
means, and opportunity. The Deniers try things like "the pristine bullet" and "magic bullet" nonsense,
but those criticisms don't stand up to criticism (for example, the bullet was not pristine at
all, and the bullet's tragectory was not magic at all, but followed a predictable downward path
through the elevated Kennedy to Connolly).
But more tellingly---no alternative plausible falsifiable hypothesis has been offered.
No who, what, when, where , why, and how. Lots of speculation and casting aspersions (LBJ! CIA!
), but no one offers a concrete hypothesis that could be tested or researched to see as plausible.
If you have a falsifiable alternative theory to the Oswald Hypothesis that satisfies the five
w's and h, please offer it here. Until you do so, the only plausible hypothesis is that Oswald
acted alone.
It's been more than 50 years people. Give us something besides that some people disliked
Kennedy (all politicians have enemies) and "eye witnesses" who keep changing their stories.
*Oh, and the KGB worked to spread Kennedy Conspiracy theories because they undermined faith
in the U.S. government and took the heat off communists for the killing. They funded some of the
conspiracy theorists and promoted them.
Oswald never fired a shot! A hidden witness for over 35 years had proof positive that Oswald
was never on the sixth floor, and therefore couldn't be a shooter. Barry Ernest has found Victoria
Adams, a witness to Kennedy's murder, on the fourth floor back staircase of the TSBD. She testified
to the Warren Commission that she and her co-worker, Sandra Styles saw nobody come down the stairs,
after she heard the final shots. Also with them was her supervisor, Dorothy Garner, making three
witnesses (or non-witnesses in this case) that totally destroy the lone nut idea that Oswald was
doing any shooting there. Adams was badgered and she felt threatened by the Warren Commission
and fearing for her life, vanished for decades until Barry Ernest found her.
So, that ends and totally disproves for all time the formerly plausible hypothesis (theory)
that Oswald killed Kennedy.
http://garyrevel.com/jfk/girlonstairs.html
"The Bob Wilson Interview with Author Barry Ernest 'The Girl on the Stairs: The Search for a Missing
Witness to the JFK Assassination' "
Feb. 18, 2014 (New York, NY)
#7
"There is no evidence that definitively places Oswald in the second-floor lunchroom as the
shots were being fired. If you believe what Oswald is quoted as telling police during his interrogation
sessions (12 hours that went unrecorded and without a stenographer being present), he was eating
his lunch in the first-floor domino room when the shots occurred, and then went to the second
floor to purchase a drink. This is perhaps why Vicki Adams did not see him on the stairs, why
he was so calm during the lunchroom confrontation, and why [Officer Marrion] Baker first described
Oswald as entering the lunchroom from a direction other than the back staircase. Certainly Vicki
Adams saying she was on the stairs during this critical period presented an obvious problem to
the Warren Commission's scenario, which might explain why she was the only person excluded from
time tests regarding Oswald's escape, and why corroborating witnesses to her story were ignored."
#13
"Lee Harvey Oswald was labeled as a loner, and malcontent. From what you have learned of him,
can you describe a bit about who he seems to have actually been?
He was definitely an odd fellow. But he was also smart, capable, for instance, of beating others
more advanced than he was at chess and, if you believe the official record, able to teach himself
Russian, one of the most challenging languages to learn, especially on your own. He liked the
opera and was a vociferous reader, knowledgeable in a lot of subjects. His actions in both his
military and civilian lives seem consistent with someone having a far deeper complexity than what
we have been told. Oh, and he was also a rather poor shot!"
"In 2013 Professor Lance Dehaven-Smith in a peer-reviewed book published by the University
of Texas Press showed that the term "conspiracy theory" was developed by the CIA as a means of
undercutting critics of the Warren Commission's report that President Kennedy was killed by Oswald.
The use of this term was heavily promoted in the media by the CIA
It is ironic that the American left is a major enforcer of the CIA's strategy to shut up skeptics
by branding them conspiracy theorists."
The public has never believed the official story that Oswald acted alone ever since the first
Gallup Poll was taken in early Dec. 1963, and continuing to this very day.
Dec. 1963: 52% Conspiracy, 29% One man
1976: 81% Conspiracy, 11% One man
1983: 74% Conspiracy, 11% One man
1992: 77% Conspiracy, 10% One man
2001: 81% Conspiracy, 13% One man
2003: 75% Conspiracy, 19% One man
2013: 61% Conspiracy, 30% One man
" According to his Marine score card (Commission Exhibit 239), Oswald was tested twice:
In December 1956, after "a very intensive 3 weeks' training period" (Warren Commission Hearings,
vol.11, p.302), Oswald scored 212: two marks above the minimum for a 'sharpshooter'.
In May 1959, he scored 191: one mark above the minimum for a 'marksman'.
" Colonel Allison Folsom interpreted the results for the Warren Commission:
"The Marine Corps consider that any reasonable application of the instructions given to Marines
should permit them to become qualified at least as a marksman. To become qualified as a sharpshooter,
the Marine Corps is of the opinion that most Marines with a reasonable amount of adaptability
to weapons firing can become so qualified. Consequently, a low marksman qualification indicates
a rather poor "shot" and a sharpshooter qualification indicates a fairly good "shot".(Warren Commission
Hearings, vol.19, pp.17f)
Folsom agreed with his (not her) questioner that Oswald "was not a particularly outstanding
shot" (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.8, p.311)."
Phlilip F. Nelson's hardcover 2011 book, a fascinating insight into LBJ's warped and sociopathic
(also suffering from bi-polar disorder) personality hidden from the public, 1960-2011,
Thank you for inserting the word "truther" into the conversation. It has always fascinated
me that someone searching for the truth about a political issue is now automatically considered
a conspiracy theorist.
The Manhattan Project was successfully kept secret despite its scope and the fact that it consumed
17% of the electricity production of the entire US.
I did not say it was impossible for Americans to keep secrets, just "difficult."
The Manhattan Project was in a bygone era - one in which near total war prevailed. Yet even
in that case, the Soviets knew early on what was going on. And stories appeared in the US press
early on posing prying questions about Los Alamos, a "forbidden city" where there were reports
of "ordnance and explosives" being developed and "tremendous explosions have been heard."
http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/1944-Cleveland-Press-Forbidden-City.pdf
Main point however, is that even when conspiracies become obvious they are often largely ignored.
Moi
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 6, 2016 at 1:07 pm GMT • 100 Words
@Rehmat There are more so-called "conspiracy theories" claimed by the US government, CIA,
and organized Jewry than the Jews may have been killed by the Nazis. The "conspiracy theorists"
like the "terrorists" are chosen by the Zionist-controlled mainstream media.
Like the September 11, 2001 attacks, the lie that Iran's president Ahmadinejad called, WIPE ISRAEL
OFF THE MAP, is still kept alive by the Organized Jewry even though Israel's Deputy Prime Minister
Dan Meridor admitted that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never said Iran wanted to "wipe
Israel off the face of the map" in an interview with Al Jazeera in April 2012.
American investigative writer and author, Robert Parry, claimed on September 19, 2009 that Ahmadinejad
never denied Holocaust. He just challenged Israel and the western powers to allow an open debate
to find the truth behind the Zionist Holy Cow, "Six Million Died".
In reality, the only country that has been 'wiped off the map' is the 5,000-year-old Palestine
by Europe's unwanted Jews.
Iran's current president Dr. Hassan Rouhani like Dr. Ahmadinejad, is also blamed for denying the
Zionist Holy Holocaust as parroted by Wiesel, which he never did, saying it's up to historians
to decide who's lying.
If the Zionists can lie so much about Israeli history (e.g. The Arabs encouraged Palestinians
to flee, that the Arabs were about to attack Israel in 1967, land without a people for a people
without a land, etc.), one can only wonder about the official holocaust narrative of 6M dead,
gas chambers, etc.).
I've not read Elie Weisel's book Night, but I understand that no where does he mention gas
chambers in Auschwitz .
• Replies:
@Rehmat Without GAS CHAMBERS the SIX MILLION DIED Holy COW becomes a HOUSE OF CARDS.
On June 29, 2016, Boston-based publishing company Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (HMH) announced that
it will publish Adolf Hitler's 'antisemite' book Mein Kampf to fund needy Jewish survivors of
Nazi era.
"The proceeds from sale of Mein Kampf will be donated to Jewish Family & Children's Service of
Greater Boston," said Andrew Russell, the publisher's director of corporate social responsibility.
The publisher had been donating money to organizations that combat anti-Semitism since 2000. Since
publication of Mein Kampf is banned in France, the job was given to HMH. The publication of the
book was opposed by several Jewish groups as result of company's recent announcement that in the
future, it will provide funds to some non-Jewish NGOs. HMH caved-in to Jewish pressure and decided
to bribe them by donating proceeds from the book to the 'evergreen' Holocaust Industry.
In September 2001, the company filed a law suit in a New York court against Jews for Jesus, accusing
the pro-Israel Evangelical group of infringing the company's copyright on its popular children's
storybook character, Curious George, which the company had been publishing for 70 years.
Interestingly, HMH is a subsidiary of Vivendi Universal, a multinational mass media company in
Paris, whose CEO is Arnaud de Puyfontaine (Jewish).
By now, hundreds of millions people around the world including some honest Jews know that Holocaust
has become a tool of the Organized Jewry to rob western nations and individuals to nurse Israel's
military machine. Germans and the 65 million American Evangelists are the biggest suckers of this
Zionist Mafia. Organized Jewry has sucked over $93 billion from German taxpayers since the 1960s.
I find it quite amusing how, in an article supporting of the existence of conspiracy theories,
so many comments consist of hurling insults at people making skeptical comments about what are
obviously very sacred cows.
People need to remember than by definition, the ratio of what you don't know to what you do
know is infinity to one. Be more open minded.
• Replies:
@NosytheDuke "They shall find it difficult, they who have taken authority as truth rather
than truth for authority".
dahoit
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 6, 2016 at 3:13 pm GMT • 100 Words
@Rehmat There are more so-called "conspiracy theories" claimed by the US government, CIA,
and organized Jewry than the Jews may have been killed by the Nazis. The "conspiracy theorists"
like the "terrorists" are chosen by the Zionist-controlled mainstream media.
Like the September 11, 2001 attacks, the lie that Iran's president Ahmadinejad called, WIPE ISRAEL
OFF THE MAP, is still kept alive by the Organized Jewry even though Israel's Deputy Prime Minister
Dan Meridor admitted that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad never said Iran wanted to "wipe
Israel off the face of the map" in an interview with Al Jazeera in April 2012.
American investigative writer and author, Robert Parry, claimed on September 19, 2009 that Ahmadinejad
never denied Holocaust. He just challenged Israel and the western powers to allow an open debate
to find the truth behind the Zionist Holy Cow, "Six Million Died".
In reality, the only country that has been 'wiped off the map' is the 5,000-year-old Palestine
by Europe's unwanted Jews.
Iran's current president Dr. Hassan Rouhani like Dr. Ahmadinejad, is also blamed for denying the
Zionist Holy Holocaust as parroted by Wiesel, which he never did, saying it's up to historians
to decide who's lying.
The only conspiracy with legs is the 70 year old Zionist one,and the only one that matters
today.
And only fellow travelers or their duped concern trolls disagree on that obvious truth.
Today's lying times says latent racism by the Danes is behind their resistance to their nation
being inundated by the refugees of the zionists war of terror.
Coming from the malevolent racist scum in history,it sure wreaks of total hypocrisy,and another
nail in divide and conquer.
Can one point out one synagogue or rabbinical statement condemning the 70 years of CCs and the
imprisonment of Gaza?
The only Jewish opponents(outside of a few dissidents),the ultra Orthodox are considered self
haters,as are the dissidents.
dahoit
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 6, 2016 at 3:21 pm GMT
@Connecticut Famer "But the author of the "Open Society" had an open mind and I suspect he'd
find the thesis reasonable that real conspiracies can both be uncovered and largely ignored because
so many simply opt to ignore them. In such cases, evidence and "not taking arguments seriously"
often reflects "intellectual groupieism," emotions, professional insecurities as well as venal
collective interests."
Possibly as in the JFK case? I actually watched Lee Harvey Oswald get drilled by the man who was
later identified as Jack Ruby (real surname "Rubenstein") live on television. The minute it happened
and even at age 16 at the time I smelled a rat. Who was ultimately behind it all is something
which I can't answer and care not to speculate upon, but to this day I remain suspicious about
the circumstances surrounding Oswald's death and Ruby's subsequent dissembling.
I was 12 and had the same feeling.
Lanskys mob member shoots down any investigation into just what happened that day.
And remember Arlen Spector came up with the magic bullet theory,and was rewarded with Congress.
CanSpeccy
says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment
September 6, 2016 at 3:22 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz I see the biggest problem about a conspiratorial explanation for the WTC 7 collapse
is motive. How does it make sense for those who wanted the big splash that hitting buildings 1
and 2 would give? The other major difficulty is the video footage of fires burning all day which
had to have heated the steel and therefore potentially weakened it to a critical point. Where's
the mystery?
There must be hundreds of millions of words accessible on the Internet discussing the collapse
of WTC Building 7. Why then foul up this discussion with the reiteration of arguments that anyone
with an interest in the specifics of 9/11 will already know or can find out elsewhere?
• Replies:
@CanSpeccy But if you really want a short, clear, definitive, irrefutable and conclusive debunking
of 9/11 Truther theories
here it is :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98 ,
@Wizard of Oz And why doesn't that apply precisely to just about everything you have posted
and how come you can't see it - or think you can get away with others not noticing?
And where have you complained about the constant reiteration of the symmetrical fall alleged impossibility,
the particles of thermite, the steel couldn't have been melted nonsense (it wasn't melting that
was the point), the forewarning to the BBC and, not least, the failure to account for the videos
of the fires burning all day in WTC 7 and what that could have resulted in.
My particular analysis of motive I have neither seen emphasised by anyone else nor answered on
UR at all. Have you? Or seen it dealt with elsewhere as you imply?
As it happens there is now an exception. Just about the first UR commenter to doubt something
like the official 9/11 story that has not only a respectably functioning intellect but has deployed
it on the issue. See posts by CalDre on this thread and my conversation with him.
No it wasn't. Stalin knew about the Manhattan project before Truman did. Learn some history.
lol, "The Mahattan Project was kept a secret."
No it wasn't. Stalin knew about the Manhattan project before Truman did. Learn some history.
Your point misses the point. Putin probably knows as much or more about the mechanics of 9/11
than Stalin knew about the mechanics of the atom bomb and the Manhattan Project. But the issue
is public knowledge, not what some individuals may know or have known.
Strauss was apparently a liberal in the US context in that he mostly voted for Dems. He also wrote
one acerbically critical letter to National Review.
However, a mid-20th-century American liberal may have been many things, but unpatriotic or nationalistic
they were not. When liberalism turned with McGovern, Strauss looked elsewhere, and then died a
year later, so we don't know how his political outlook would, or would not, have changed longer
term. But at least in the 40s-60s, he was quite OK with Cold War American liberals. That's perfectly
consistent with the nationalist sentiment expressed in the letter to Lowith. Also, Strauss was
appalled by the dissoluteness of Weimar--and would become appalled by the dissoluteness of the
late 1960s. But America prior was not yet dissolute. And he was appalled by Weimar's weakness.
But America pre-Vietnam was not weak. Again, perfectly consistent with the letter.
Strauss supported the Cold War because he thought the USSR was a real threat in the near term
and because he feared, on a higher plane, the imposition of "the universal and homogenous state."
He was opposed to that, whereas those to his left were for it. So was he conservative?
Strauss transcends all these distinctions. That's not to say that they are meaningless. Indeed,
he would be the first to say that they are meaningful. But, like Tocqueville, Strauss aimed to
see not differently but further than the parties.
Liberals used to say,I might not agree with what you say,but I'll defend you right to say it.
Today they want to implant Citizenchips.
Moon landings a hoax?I doubt that,but does it matter to today's terrible times other than a sign
of American dominance in space race propaganda?
Today we send up zionist satellites(when they don't explode) and fund their citizens efforts in
militarization of space that threatens all,including US.
Unbelievable but true.
• Replies:
@utu "Today we send up zionist satellites(when they don't explode) and fund their citizens
efforts in militarization of space that threatens all,including US." - Few days before that failed
launch Zuckerberg on NPR was talking much about FB in Africa and providing internet. I was wondering
what else was on this payload? How many satellites Israel already has?
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
whorefinder
says: • Website
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 6, 2016 at 4:45 pm GMT • 100 Words
@Wizard of Oz I ask only because you may have the JFK assassination stuff well organised in
your head and up to date. What do you make of the update by Colin McLaren on the humanly plausible
conspiracy theory that the bullet which killed Kennedy was fired accidentally by a Secret Service
man standing in the car behind? Are there any knock down arguments against it? Or big holes?
The argument has surface plausibility merit, and would seem to resolve a lot of the problems
Oswald Deniers have with Kennedy's head movement. However, I haven't heard the physics argument
about it, or any other evidence. So I'm neutral.
That said, it isn't a popular theory because it offers nothing nefarious-just the SS screwing
up big time. So even if it were true-and I'm open to it being true-the Oswald Deniers are far
too invested in making this a deliberate mass-government coverup to listen.
Rurik
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 6, 2016 at 4:51 pm GMT • 100 Words
@Pat Casey Nice job. You roped the quote that ran across my mind--- I swear these things are
in the air. How do you say, the ghost of Leo Strauss was moving men to do what you can't pin on
his memory? Well you said it and that settles it. Thank goodness.
now this..
Now, however, Europhysics Magazine, the respected publication of the European physics community,
has published a report by four experts who say "the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion
that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition."
Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.
~ Buddha
• Replies:
@El Dato Pretty weird that 28 pages have had to be sat on. Maybe someone DIDN'T tell the Saudis
that they didn't need to go all Allah Uakbar (as they were planning to since the lat 80s actually)
as we were ready to blow shit up anyway? I dunno. Missing of memos can occur. ,
@CanSpeccy
Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.
dahoit
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 6, 2016 at 4:52 pm GMT • 100 Words
@exiled off mainstreet I didn't notice Gleiwitz was mentioned in another posting before I
mentioned it. I tend go along with you and suspect incompetence rather than purpose was the cause
of the Pearl Harbor disaster, though the incompetence may have included failure to adequately
warn those on the ground at Pearl Harbor. Personally, I don't back the "truther" version of the
twin towers because that would have required a broader conspiracy than I think could have succeeded.
My guess is that the neighboring building was destroyed as part of the cleanup effort. I do think,
however, that the authorities knew something was up, didn't believe it could ever succeed and
used it as a sort of Reichstag Fire incident to brush aside constitutional democracy in the US.
I also suspect that the Mossad knew more than they let on. My guess is that if Gore rather than
Bush had been in power that history would have been far different. I suspect that the anthrax
thing was more likely started by the yankee regime as a home-grown conspiracy.
Gore chose a likudnik as VP.Anyone thinks the response to 9-11 would have significantly different
under those 2 needs further education.
I notice the Wiz always deflects Israeli involvement.Of course they were aware,the dancing Israelis
knew it was a terror attack by dancing before the 2nd plane hit.
And what govt has been the only beneficiary of 9-11?
If one can't see that answer,they have been ziocained and lobotomized.
CanSpeccy
says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment
September 6, 2016 at 5:32 pm GMT
@CanSpeccy There must be hundreds of millions of words accessible on the Internet discussing
the collapse of WTC Building 7. Why then foul up this discussion with the reiteration of arguments
that anyone with an interest in the specifics of 9/11 will already know or can find out elsewhere?
But if you really want a short, clear, definitive, irrefutable and conclusive debunking of
9/11 Truther theories here
it is :
utu
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 6, 2016 at 5:35 pm GMT • 100 Words
@dahoit Liberals used to say,I might not agree with what you say,but I'll defend you right
to say it.
Today they want to implant Citizenchips.
Moon landings a hoax?I doubt that,but does it matter to today's terrible times other than a sign
of American dominance in space race propaganda?
Today we send up zionist satellites(when they don't explode) and fund their citizens efforts in
militarization of space that threatens all,including US.
Unbelievable but true.
"Today we send up zionist satellites(when they don't explode) and fund their citizens efforts
in militarization of space that threatens all,including US." – Few days before that failed launch
Zuckerberg on NPR was talking much about FB in Africa and providing internet. I was wondering
what else was on this payload? How many satellites Israel already has?
Here is a link to Carl Bernstein's definitive 1977 Rolling Stone article "CIA and the Media" in
which he addresses - and confirms - your worst fears. You are very right, and no less a figure
than Bernstein has said so for nearly four decades . . .
No coincidence that all the CIA agents involved in the JFK assassination are known to be experts
in 'black ops' and news media specialists. Jim Angleton, Cord Meyer, David Atlee Phillips and
E. Howard Hunt, who confessed his involvement, all made their names in black propaganda or news
management.
Another problem with elite conspiracies is that elites usually do not have to act in secret because
they already are in control. For Kennedy, a centrist cold warrior, his views already reflected
those of elites, maybe even more so than Johnson.
The other problem is that actual criminal conspiracies by elites quite often are discovered, such
as Watergate and Iran Contra.
Given how easy it is to create a conspiracy theory, most of them will be crazy.
A statement that appears straight out of the CIA's playbook.
Another problem with elite conspiracies is that elites usually do not have to act in secret
because they already are in control.
Such control does not imply they have nothing to hide, particularly when exposure of the deed
would have damaging repercussions for them.
For Kennedy, a centrist cold warrior, his views already reflected those of elites, maybe
even more so than Johnson.
It didn't reflect that of Israel's elites.
After JFK's assassination, American foreign policy vis a vis Israel was completely reversed
under Johnson, who hung the crew of the USS Liberty out to dry.
The other problem is that actual criminal conspiracies by elites quite often are discovered,
such as Watergate and Iran Contra.
The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret
network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed
conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.
So, just to cite one example, all of the 9/11 controlled demolition stuff is a conspiracy theory
because at first it had the government and maybe the property owners in on the secret, but then
the circle of supposed conspirators was enlarged to include the editors of Popular Mechanics after
they did their study. Or take the moon landing, which involved 'only' thousands of NASA people
until you point out that the astronauts left mirrors on the surface of the moon in a precise location,
for which astronomers around the world use laser ranging to determine the distance to the moon
down to the centimeter level. So then the astronomers who claim to do this had to be added to
the list of conspirators and liars for this theory to stand. Then of course the more you point
out, the more people who have to get added to the conspiracy, which eventually becomes all of
the television industry, and even the Soviets!
That is the reason why the so-called alternative explanations for 9/11, the moon landing, the
various assassinations, the safety of vaccines, etc, are conspiracy theories, while the mainstream
explanations are not.
but then the circle of supposed conspirators was enlarged to include the editors of Popular
Mechanics after they did their study
Nice attempt to conflate the planners and executors of the 9/11 attacks with those who run
interference for the "official" history of what happened that day. PM editors aren't "conspirators"
of the deed, they're just a mouthpiece for NIST.
Here's a link to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth's evisceration of Popular Mechanics
hit piece against skeptics of the NIST whitewash:
Now, however, Europhysics Magazine, the respected publication of the European physics community,
has published a report by four experts who say "the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion
that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition."
Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.
~ Buddha
Pretty weird that 28 pages have had to be sat on. Maybe someone DIDN'T tell the Saudis that
they didn't need to go all Allah Uakbar (as they were planning to since the lat 80s actually)
as we were ready to blow shit up anyway? I dunno. Missing of memos can occur.
5371
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 6, 2016 at 8:29 pm GMT
@Decius Kristol is a Straussian because he got a PhD in PolPhil from Harvard under Mansfield,
who is a Straussian. There is no necessary connection between Strauss's thought any of the main
tenets of Neo-conservatism. I've said, and you've all ignored, that Strauss attacked data-driven
social science, which is the original hallmark of neo-conservatism. A later hallmark (which emerged
after Strauss's death) was foreign policy hawkism. Unless you want to say that Strauss's opposition
to the USSR makes him a neo-con, in which case every Cold War liberal going back to Truman was
a neo-con. At which point the term has no meaning.
Strauss addresses scholars and potential philosophers. He has almost nothing to say about the
transient issues of his age. Based on his comments on what other thinkers had to say about war
(Thucydides above all) I believe we can infer that Strauss was generally in favor of preparedness
and wariness but otherwise anti-war in the general sense. If we may analogize the Iraq War to
the Sicilian Expedition we may say that Strauss probably would have opposed the former as imprudent,
just as he tacitly endorses T's judgement that the latter was imprudent.
Strauss openly characterizes Machiavelli's approach to philosophy as a conspiracy, using that
word, but does not say it about any other thinker. However, his teaching that philosophy is an
inherently elite and very small enterprise may be fairly characterized as a "conspiracy." however,
before modernity, the nature of the conspiracy was to protect the conspirators and the philosophic
life, not a reform campaign. that's what it becomes under modernity, which Strauss opposes. One
of Strauss's aims in writing was to revive the ancient idea of philosophy, its proper scope, and
its proper relationship to society, which he believed modernity had corrupted.
It is unfortunate that Strauss became a bogey-man to so many who have no idea what he said or
why. It happened rather recently and based on some very thin scholarship. Most of the thing people
try to pin on him are things that I and my friends oppose too. We just know they don't trace to
Strauss. In fact, the opposite is often true.
You are right that Strauss's culpability for the neocons has been vastly exaggerated. You are
wrong that he is worth reading.
Ron
Unz says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 6, 2016 at 8:33 pm GMT • 200 Words NEW!
@Miro23 Or maybe a lot of smart people pretend to believe the official 9/11 story because
that's where their interest lies. MSM journalists know for sure that articles that deviate from
the official line on 9/11 are career ending moves .
In simple terms, MSM owners have decided that 9/11 is a taboo subject (same as USS Liberty) and
they decide what gets published.
Or maybe a lot of smart people pretend to believe the official 9/11 story because that's
where their interest lies. MSM journalists know for sure that articles that deviate from the
official line on 9/11 are career ending moves .
In simple terms, MSM owners have decided that 9/11 is a taboo subject (same as USS Liberty)
and they decide what gets published.
Well, I haven't read through all of this enormously long discussion-thread, but I happened
to notice this particular comment. Not having been an MSM journalist myself, I can't say whether
or not it's true, but a couple of interesting, possibly coincidental, examples come to mind
In late July 2010, longtime Canadian journalist Eric Margolis was told his column would be
dropped, and just a few weeks later he published a double-length piece expressing strong doubts
about 9/11, the first time he'd articulated that position:
In 2007, the parent company of The Chicago Tribune announced it had accepted a leveraged-buyout
takeover bid by investor Sam Zell, who planned a massive wave cost-cutting layoffs, which eventually
wrecked the company. In late 2007, the Chicago Tribune suddenly ran a very long piece regarding
the Liberty Attack, about the only time I've ever seen it discussed in the MSM.
Now, however, Europhysics Magazine, the respected publication of the European physics community,
has published a report by four experts who say "the evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion
that all three buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition."
Jeff Gates, author Guilt by Association
(former legal counsel to US Senate finance committee)
conspiracies Gates dabbled in: Who Killed Huey Long? (Long's death made FDR's presidency inevitable)
8 min: "I'm not comfortable calling it zionism; I'm trained as a lawyer; I call it a multigenerational
criminal gang. . . conspiracies do not hold together, neither do
12 min: "Israelis planned the 1967 war and deliberately terrorized their own people . . . 'it
was a put-up job . . . there was no attack on Israel; the Israelis took out the Egyptian air force."
14 min: "The war is being waged against the American public, they are the great victims . .
. what you do is put your people in that 'in between space;' . . . if you have a democracy based
on facts and the rule of law, then it's essential that you have access to facts in order to have
informed consent . . . this criminal gang dominates media, an 'in between' domain; pop culture,
politics, think tanks, education, to induce people to embrace a narrative that they themselves
can't really penetrate because it's the frame through which they see their world."
17 min: "Narratives are pre-staged thru pop culture - music & entertainment/movies/TV. . ."
24 min: "Assets are people who have been profiled to sufficient depth so that if you put them
into a time, place and circumstances over which you have enormous control, . . . then you know
within an acceptable range of probabilities that they will perform consistent with their profile."
Monica Lewisnky added to Bill Clinton - the outcome was predictable . . .
"Obama was identified & groomed by Betty Lou Saltzman, the dau of the UN ambassador, Pletnik
. . . [related to Danielle Pletnik??] . . . I think initially he was an asset; I think
he woke up & recognized that he was being used - I hope he woke up . . . it's a terrific challenge
to confront those who are using you . . ."
28 min –> JFK and the Council of Jewish Presidents . . . if JFK had succeeded in his demands
on Ben Gurion, we would live in a different world today; the USA & entire region would be different."
35 min: "When the 1967 war broke out [which gave rise to Israel attacking USS Liberty & killing
34 American servicemen] Matilda Krim was in the White House servicing our president. Is Wolf Blitzer
going to report that? How many American know that? None."
Gates: "A lot of the support we've gotten for this book has been from the broader Jewish community
who say Thank You for exposing this . . .Perhaps we can indict, prosecute, imprison or execute
those criminals . . .and allowing us the avenue to be ourselves . . . "
Moderator: "Well, perhaps those people who feel that way and belong to the group should be
more outspoken. I know a few but basically I can count them on one hand, from Gilad Atzmon to
Israel Shamir and a couple of others. But if this is in their interest and they feel that
their name is being misused, isn't that something which should be coming from this group, right?"
[Gates weasels a bit, then] "You have to come up with a definition of What is it to be Jewish?
Likewise, this term zionism - what sort of notion is it we're fighting? ? In this book we try
to show how the repetitive behavior patterns and the criminal templates by which this works: you
displace facts with manipulated beliefs - that's a classic . . . But it's a challenge to break
through that: people say, Well, I'm part of this community and I have a law practice, an accounting
practice, and I have to be careful . . ."
38: MOD: "We have to define it: Is it an evolutionary survival strategy? Simply the expansion
for Israel . . . If it's money and power alone . . . So it has to be defined by what is sought
by the group, right?
usw
• Replies:
@utu Thank you for the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUJx1dVX45s to Jeff Gates interview.
CanSpeccy
says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment
September 6, 2016 at 8:57 pm GMT • 100 Words
@Wizard of Oz I ask only because you may have the JFK assassination stuff well organised in
your head and up to date. What do you make of the update by Colin McLaren on the humanly plausible
conspiracy theory that the bullet which killed Kennedy was fired accidentally by a Secret Service
man standing in the car behind? Are there any knock down arguments against it? Or big holes?
I love the idea that JFK was killed by a stray bullet accidentally fired by a secret service
agent. It's so obvious once the truth has been pointed out.
Probably the same sort of balls-up explains 9/11. You know, missiles intended to shoot down
simulated highjacked planes in a drill on 9/11 accidentally wamming into the Pentagon and Twin
Towers.
Then Norad had to make up that stuff about 19 hijackers and Bin Laden to cover their arse.
You may be aware that Daniel Pipes made a study of conspiracy theories and has written books
on the subject - which I haven't read. I have however sampled his long list of articles which
can be found here:
http://www.daniel.pipes.org/topics/4/conspiracy-theories ,
@Wizard of Oz International Pravda. My phone has just received from The Economist an article
or editorial variously headed "Pepe and the Stormtroopers" and "The Normalisation of the Alt-Right".
What is remarkable is the near unanimity of the hundreds of Comments in condemning TE for its
condescending anti-Trump rant, even by those who won't vote for him.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter Display
All Comments
Such unfiltered speculation must surely be a source of considerable irritation and worry
to government officials who have long relied upon the complicity of their tame media organs
to allow their serious misdeeds to pass unnoticed and unpunished.
I doubt it. I would think the sheer volume of conspiracy theories would actually help to conceal
actual conspiracies. For instance, InfoWars could do a brilliant series on some anti-Russian conspiracy–with
impeccable reasoning and unassailable evidence. But no one in the mainstream would ever take it
seriously because of all the obvious junk they publish about 9/11 and Jade Helm and Sandy Hook.
The signal to noise ration is astonishingly small.
While, certainly, journalistic laziness or malfeasance could conceivably aid in concealing
an actual conspiracy, the fact of the matter is that almost all "conspiracy theories" that I would
identify as such are plagued by fairly obvious pathological reasoning. (9/11 truthers, for example
proclaim that "burning jet fuel can't melt steel beams!" yet this mantra is irrelevant to the
actual arguments being made by people who explain the mainstream theories.) Most conspiracies
are ignored on that level. In other words, it's not that some particular conspiracy couldn't be
true, it's that the conspiracy theory as argued by its believers is illogical or factually incorrect
on its very face.
The bad news is that the Liberty Bridge will be closed to all traffic for at least the next
week as a result of fire damage Friday to a steel beam critical to the bridge's stability.
The good news is that the vital, 55,000-vehicle-a-day bridge spanning the Monongahela River
didn't collapse Friday. That catastrophe may have been minutes away from occurring if the fire
had not been quickly extinguished to prevent further damage, PennDOT officials said at a news
conference Sunday.
"I can't tell you for sure [when a collapse might have occurred], I just know it was very tight,"
said PennDOT district bridge engineer Lou Ruzzi. "I can't tell you if it was 10 minutes, 15
minutes ... definitely less than 30 minutes."
He said temperatures exceeded 1,200 degrees from the fire that occurred early Friday afternoon.
He said it was due to errant sparks from a welder's torch that ignited plastic piping, which
then lit afire a tarp draping the bridge during its two-year, $80 million renovation project.
It took firefighters a half-hour or less to extinguish the blaze, but it already had severely
damaged a 30-foot-long steel beam - a compression chord of the deck truss that is essential
for the 88-year-old bridge's support. The fire shortened the beam and put it 6 inches out of
place, putting added pressure on all of the other chords supporting the bridge, Mr. Ruzzi said.
"It buckled and moved over" in an S shape instead of straight, he said. "The effect of that
is when you don't have a steel member like that that's straight, the forces [stabilizing the
bridge] don't go through that member correctly the way it was designed, so [they] ended up
going through other parts of the bridge. ... The worst-case scenario was the whole section
could fall."
When asked how much would fall, Mr. Ruzzi responded, "Most of the bridge," maybe 2,000 feet
of the 2,600-foot span. http://www.post-gazette.com/news/transportation/2016/09/04/Liberty-Bridge-to-be-closed-for-next-week-due-to-fire-damage/stories/201609050058
During the mid-1960s there had been increasing public skepticism about the Warren Commission
findings that a lone gunman
The problem with this theory is that the term "conspiracy theory" had been increasing in popularity
since 1957. I'm not sure why, but Google Ngram search shows the term skyrocketing before 1964
and actually leveling out (at a high level) in 1965.
The result was a huge spike in the pejorative use of the phrase, which spread throughout
the American media, with the residual impact continueing right down to the present day.
I'm not sure what the evidence is for this, but even if true, the phrase in general was already
surging in popularity. I have no doubt the CIA was trying to use the term for some end, but blaming
the CIA for its pejorative use seems unfounded unless there is some other evidence.
• Replies:
@utu The term "ground zero" was originally reserved for the center of nuclear explosion. After
9/11 it has changed. Dimitri Khalezow, the proponent of the nuclear demolition of WTC theory
Such unfiltered speculation must surely be a source of considerable irritation and worry to
government officials who have long relied upon the complicity of their tame media organs to
allow their serious misdeeds to pass unnoticed and unpunished.
I doubt it. I would think the sheer volume of conspiracy theories would actually help to conceal
actual conspiracies. For instance, InfoWars could do a brilliant series on some anti-Russian conspiracy--with
impeccable reasoning and unassailable evidence. But no one in the mainstream would ever take it
seriously because of all the obvious junk they publish about 9/11 and Jade Helm and Sandy Hook.
The signal to noise ration is astonishingly small.
While, certainly, journalistic laziness or malfeasance could conceivably aid in concealing an
actual conspiracy, the fact of the matter is that almost all "conspiracy theories" that I would
identify as such are plagued by fairly obvious pathological reasoning. (9/11 truthers, for example
proclaim that "burning jet fuel can't melt steel beams!" yet this mantra is irrelevant to the
actual arguments being made by people who explain the mainstream theories.) Most conspiracies
are ignored on that level. In other words, it's not that some particular conspiracy couldn't be
true, it's that the conspiracy theory as argued by its believers is illogical or factually incorrect
on its very face.
"burning jet fuel can't melt steel beams!"
The bad news is that the Liberty Bridge will be closed to all traffic for at least the next
week as a result of fire damage Friday to a steel beam critical to the bridge's stability.
The good news is that the vital, 55,000-vehicle-a-day bridge spanning the Monongahela River
didn't collapse Friday. That catastrophe may have been minutes away from occurring if the fire
had not been quickly extinguished to prevent further damage, PennDOT officials said at a news
conference Sunday.
"I can't tell you for sure [when a collapse might have occurred], I just know it was very
tight," said PennDOT district bridge engineer Lou Ruzzi. "I can't tell you if it was 10 minutes,
15 minutes definitely less than 30 minutes."
He said temperatures exceeded 1,200 degrees from the fire that occurred early Friday afternoon.
He said it was due to errant sparks from a welder's torch that ignited plastic piping, which
then lit afire a tarp draping the bridge during its two-year, $80 million renovation project.
It took firefighters a half-hour or less to extinguish the blaze, but it already had
severely damaged a 30-foot-long steel beam - a compression chord of the deck truss that is
essential for the 88-year-old bridge's support. The fire shortened the beam and put it 6 inches
out of place, putting added pressure on all of the other chords supporting the bridge, Mr.
Ruzzi said.
"It buckled and moved over" in an S shape instead of straight, he said. "The effect of
that is when you don't have a steel member like that that's straight, the forces [stabilizing
the bridge] don't go through that member correctly the way it was designed, so [they] ended
up going through other parts of the bridge. The worst-case scenario was the whole section
could fall."
The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret
network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed
conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.
So, just to cite one example, all of the 9/11 controlled demolition stuff is a conspiracy theory
because at first it had the government and maybe the property owners in on the secret, but then
the circle of supposed conspirators was enlarged to include the editors of Popular Mechanics after
they did their study. Or take the moon landing, which involved 'only' thousands of NASA people
until you point out that the astronauts left mirrors on the surface of the moon in a precise location,
for which astronomers around the world use laser ranging to determine the distance to the moon
down to the centimeter level. So then the astronomers who claim to do this had to be added to
the list of conspirators and liars for this theory to stand. Then of course the more you point
out, the more people who have to get added to the conspiracy, which eventually becomes all of
the television industry, and even the Soviets!
That is the reason why the so-called alternative explanations for 9/11, the moon landing, the
various assassinations, the safety of vaccines, etc, are conspiracy theories, while the mainstream
explanations are not.
The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a
secret network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network
of supposed conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.
This is a fairly useful definition, and certainly highlights some of the pathological reasoning
that is associated with conspiracy theories. However, not all conspiracy theories will exhibit
this characteristic. Conspiracies like 9/11 that rely on scientific facts are sometimes rationalized
this way, but other conspiracies are built on suspect witness testimony or a biased interpretation
and don't require an ever-widening conspiracy.
"A Stereoscopic method of verifying Apollo lunar surface images"
http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm
That's so 1990s.
Everybody knows that it's the MOON that's faked.
There isn't any. It's just a transverse parallax asynchronous stereoscopic projection onto
the upper atmosphere by the Illuminati.
So-called lunar eclipses are their way of letting each other know there's going to be a pig
roast on Jekyll Island.
Those so-called "stars" are just bits of light coming out of terrestrial volcanoes, shining
off the troposphere.
We see more of them today because there are also lasers added. People realized something was
up when some stars disappeared after Krakatoa blew up, so the powers that be had to work on an
invention to replace the stars. They keep coming up with more and more of them–viz. Hubble Space
Telescope. But in fact there is nothing but a void up there, and the earth is the center of it.
"Meteor showers" are just a clever animation. It's all just a ruse to hide the fact that there
are underground polar military encampments.
There's also not really any such thing as penguins. They were genetically engineered to serve
as diversions from the other stuff happening at the poles, because, for instance, people will
watch cute penguin GIFs for an hour while the Illuminati move people and materiel in the polar
background in plain view. But the "penguins" are an instrument of mind control that block perception.
During the mid-1960s there had been increasing public skepticism about the Warren Commission
findings that a lone gunman
The problem with this theory is that the term "conspiracy theory" had been increasing in popularity
since 1957. I'm not sure why, but Google Ngram search shows the term skyrocketing before 1964
and actually leveling out (at a high level) in 1965.
The result was a huge spike in the pejorative use of the phrase, which spread throughout the
American media, with the residual impact continueing right down to the present day.
I'm not sure what the evidence is for this, but even if true, the phrase in general was already
surging in popularity. I have no doubt the CIA was trying to use the term for some end, but blaming
the CIA for its pejorative use seems unfounded unless there is some other evidence.
The term "ground zero" was originally reserved for the center of nuclear explosion. After 9/11
it has changed. Dimitri Khalezow, the proponent of the nuclear demolition of WTC theory
claimed that dictionary entries for "ground zero" were changed after 9/11 (some changes were
done retroactively to earlier editions) to obscure the fact that term was reserved solely for
the nuclear explosion.
• Replies:
@Boris That is a good example of an aspect of a conspiracy theory that is totally wrong on
its face. The phrase "Ground zero" was used metaphorically way before September 11th, 2001. Anyone
who spent 10 minutes researching this could find prominent examples:
1997 book GROUND ZERO The Gender Wars in the Military By Linda Bird Francke
1996 book VIRUS GROUND ZERO Stalking the Killer Viruses With the Centers for Disease Control.
By Ed Regis. 244 pp. New York: Pocket Books.
TERROR IN OKLAHOMA: AT GROUND ZERO : A series of articles from the New York Times about the OKC
bombing.
"Ground Zero" 1997 NYT book review: "James Meredith's forced admission was a milestone in upending
the old order in America's most segregated state, a kind of race relations ground zero."
These come from the first few pages of results when I searched the Times. The claim that the term
"ground zero" was "reserved solely for the nuclear explosion." is obviously wring. Even if it
weren't wrong, it's silly to suggest that it couldn't have been used figuratively for the first
time after 9/11 or that its use signifies that a nuclear blast must have occurred at the WTC.
,
@Mr. Anon So, the world trade centers were brought down with nuclear weapons? Were the particle
beams fired from orbiting battle stations down for routine maintenance that day? There seems to
be no idea so stupid that a (so-called) "truther" won't entertain it.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
How do you get Astronauts bouncing and hammers falling in Slo-Mo?
Yeah, the gravity effects are a BIG job. Just slo-mo-ing won't do it, because you have different
curvature of falling profile, and acceleration of gravity is different because moon-mass is less
(and non-linear ref 30fps v. 60fps.)
There would also be additive propagation delay in the radio signals. Pure delay, too -- no compensation
would fix that in 1969.
@John Jeremiah Smith
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE
Shucks, that isn't even good conspiracy theory evidence. The video showing the "fake" is just
normal characteristics of a CCTV camera of 1969. They didn't handle spikes well, and their light-bandwidth
range was small. The "wires" that rather funny "expert" points out are retrace flares from reflection.
Jeff Gates, author Guilt by Association
(former legal counsel to US Senate finance committee)
conspiracies Gates dabbled in: Who Killed Huey Long? (Long's death made FDR's presidency inevitable)
8 min: "I'm not comfortable calling it zionism; I'm trained as a lawyer; I call it a multigenerational
criminal gang. . . conspiracies do not hold together, neither do
12 min: "Israelis planned the 1967 war and deliberately terrorized their own people . . . 'it
was a put-up job . . . there was no attack on Israel; the Israelis took out the Egyptian air force."
14 min: "The war is being waged against the American public, they are the great victims . . .
what you do is put your people in that 'in between space;' . . . if you have a democracy based
on facts and the rule of law, then it's essential that you have access to facts in order to have
informed consent . . . this criminal gang dominates media, an 'in between' domain; pop culture,
politics, think tanks, education, to induce people to embrace a narrative that they themselves
can't really penetrate because it's the frame through which they see their world."
17 min: "Narratives are pre-staged thru pop culture -- music & entertainment/movies/TV. . ."
24 min: "Assets are people who have been profiled to sufficient depth so that if you put them
into a time, place and circumstances over which you have enormous control, . . . then you know
within an acceptable range of probabilities that they will perform consistent with their profile."
Monica Lewisnky added to Bill Clinton -- the outcome was predictable . . .
"Obama was identified & groomed by Betty Lou Saltzman, the dau of the UN ambassador, Pletnik .
. . [related to Danielle Pletnik??] . . . I think initially he was an asset; I think he
woke up & recognized that he was being used -- I hope he woke up . . . it's a terrific challenge
to confront those who are using you . . ."
28 min --> JFK and the Council of Jewish Presidents . . . if JFK had succeeded in his demands
on Ben Gurion, we would live in a different world today; the USA & entire region would be different."
35 min: "When the 1967 war broke out [which gave rise to Israel attacking USS Liberty & killing
34 American servicemen] Matilda Krim was in the White House servicing our president. Is Wolf Blitzer
going to report that? How many American know that? None."
Gates: "A lot of the support we've gotten for this book has been from the broader Jewish community
who say Thank You for exposing this . . .Perhaps we can indict, prosecute, imprison or execute
those criminals . . .and allowing us the avenue to be ourselves . . . "
Moderator: "Well, perhaps those people who feel that way and belong to the group should be more
outspoken. I know a few but basically I can count them on one hand, from Gilad Atzmon to Israel
Shamir and a couple of others. But if this is in their interest and they feel that their
name is being misused, isn't that something which should be coming from this group, right?"
[Gates weasels a bit, then] "You have to come up with a definition of What is it to be Jewish?
Likewise, this term zionism -- what sort of notion is it we're fighting? ? In this book we try
to show how the repetitive behavior patterns and the criminal templates by which this works: you
displace facts with manipulated beliefs -- that's a classic . . . But it's a challenge to break
through that: people say, Well, I'm part of this community and I have a law practice, an accounting
practice, and I have to be careful . . ."
38: MOD: "We have to define it: Is it an evolutionary survival strategy? Simply the expansion
for Israel . . . If it's money and power alone . . . So it has to be defined by what is sought
by the group, right?
anti_republocrat
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 7, 2016 at 1:48 am GMT • 100 Words
@Chief Seattle So, a conspiracy theory is a theory without media backing. There's no better
recent example of this than when the DNC emails were released by wikileaks during their convention.
The story put forth was that Russian hackers were responsible, and were trying to throw the election
to their buddy Trump. The evidence for this? Zero. And yet it became a plausible explanation in
the media, overnight.
Maybe it's true, maybe not, but if the roles had been reversed, the media would be telling its
proponents to take off their tin foil hats.
Note also that the allegations immediately become "fact" because they were reported by someone
else. As Business Insider reported, "Amid mounting evidence of Russia's involvement in
the hack of the Democratic National Committee ," without any specificity whatsoever as to what
that "mounting evidence" was (most likely multiple reports in other media) never mind that the
article goes on to quote James Clapper, " we are not quite ready yet to make a call on attribution."
WTF! Here, read it yourself:
http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-dnc-hack-black-propaganda-2016-7
Totally mindless. So not only is Russia hacking, but we know it's intention is to influence
US elections!!! And now their hacking voter DBs and will likely hack our vote tabulating machines.
You can't make this s ** t up.
claimed that dictionary entries for "ground zero" were changed after 9/11 (some changes were done
retroactively to earlier editions) to obscure the fact that term was reserved solely for the nuclear
explosion.
That is a good example of an aspect of a conspiracy theory that is totally wrong on its face.
The phrase "Ground zero" was used metaphorically way before September 11th, 2001. Anyone who spent
10 minutes researching this could find prominent examples:
1997 book GROUND ZERO The Gender Wars in the Military By Linda Bird Francke
1996 book VIRUS GROUND ZERO Stalking the Killer Viruses With the Centers for Disease Control.
By Ed Regis. 244 pp. New York: Pocket Books.
TERROR IN OKLAHOMA: AT GROUND ZERO : A series of articles from the New York Times about the
OKC bombing.
"Ground Zero" 1997 NYT book review: "James Meredith's forced admission was a milestone in upending
the old order in America's most segregated state, a kind of race relations ground zero."
These come from the first few pages of results when I searched the Times. The claim that the
term "ground zero" was "reserved solely for the nuclear explosion." is obviously wring. Even if
it weren't wrong, it's silly to suggest that it couldn't have been used figuratively for the first
time after 9/11 or that its use signifies that a nuclear blast must have occurred at the WTC.
Your 9/11 version I don't buy, not least because someone suicidal/murderous had to be controlling
the planes.
Your 9/11 version I don't buy, not least because someone suicidal/murderous had to be controlling
the planes.
Controlling, yes; but on-board, no. "Coincidentally", all of the planes hijacked on 9/11 were
Boeing 767s, which have a sophisticated auto-pilot system and the ability to upload custom modules
to control the auto-pilot. Just like a Predator or Reaper drone can be flown from halfway across
the planet, a 767 can be flown remotely (and in the case of 9/11, since everything was known in
advance, the entire flight pattern could have been pre-programmed into a module and uploaded in
to the aircrafts' computers).
If you look into it you will find reports of a a "mystery" large white jet flying over Washington
on the morning of 9/11. Some have identified it as a E-4B (a Boeing E-4 Advanced Airborne Command
Post), a strategic command and control military aircraft operated by the United States Air Force.
We know neither Bush nor Cheney was on that plane.
While perhaps not necessary, the cockpit could have been filled with a tranquilizing gas to
incapacitate all the pilots and (stooge) hijackers so that they would not interfere with the remote-controlled
operation of the planes.
Remember that these "deeply religious" Muslim "hijackers" went out drinking at a strip club
the night of 9/10. Both are deep sins in Islam, not something someone is going to do when they
are about to meet their Maker. Most likely they thought they were participating in a drill (since,
in fact on the date of 9/11, a drill was taking place, having to do with – wait for it – airplanes
being hijacked and flown into buildings).
The precision and extreme competence of the flying maneuvers is readily explained by the auto-pilot
feature.
• Replies:
@Miro23 [all of the planes hijacked on 9/11 were Boeing 767s, which have a sophisticated auto-pilot
system and the ability to upload custom modules to control the auto-pilot. Just like a Predator
or Reaper drone can be flown from halfway across the planet, a 767 can be flown remotely]
It was also very fast and accurate flying on difficult trajectories + the trainee Arab pilots
down in Florida had problems with basic flying skills (see Daniel Hopsicker's book, https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terrorland-Mohamed-Cover-up-Florida/dp/0975290673/ref=cm_cr-mr-title
to get a close up look at their feeble flying abilities).
This book also has an interesting account taken from the Longboat Observer, 9/26/2001 that a group
of Arab looking men posing as journalists and claiming to have an interview appointment with George
Bush tried to gain access to him on the morning of 9/11 at the Colony Beach and Tennis Resort.
,
@Wizard of Oz A nice change to receive a reply which is so coherent and precise. I'm glad
I chose the word "controlling" in anticipation of the point you make. Now, with my limited time
and interest, I look for the easy quibble and I might have said that there were plenty of reasons
why one aircraft type was chosen..... but..... I Googled appropriately and came across the kind
of problem that the very assertive sceptics/truthers throw up. Pilots for 9/11 Truth gave physical
reasons why the WTC planes couldn't have been 767s. But a reliable seeming site said they were
767s but the other two were 757s.
I have no reason to doubt that remote control could have achieved the WTC impacts and I like
the imagination which has gone into suggesting that the 19 were duped into thinking they were
only rehearsing or reconnoitring, although that seems hard to reconcile with what is known about
UA 175. I can't see why the undoubtedly suicidal Arabs shouldn't have knowingly acted as backup
against either passenger or pilot interference and as partly trained pilots if the technology
didn't work satisfactorily. I don't know enough about Islam or its institutions to have any reason
to believe or deny that they would have lived it up in sinful ways on the eve of martyrdom which
would deliver them to paradise. Do you?
I'm afraid this is leading me to Ockham's Razor which says that partly trained Arab pilots would
do nicely as four planes flown by Al Qaeda connected jihadis would serve the plotters purposes
adequately. Of course it doesn't tell us who the plotters were. The reasoning applies to false
flag plotters who wanted a war in the ME though I don't accept that they would have been so sure
of making the connection to Saddam Hussein that they would have plotted 911 to achieve a war against
Iraq.
If the plotters were Mossad or American it would have been vital to minimise risk of exposure
and therefore failure - actually worse than failure - so it is absurd to suppose that they would
take the risk of packing any buildings with explosives - let alone WTC 7! - or risk remnants being
found in the debris. Why four planes if you are going to demolish the Twin Towers with the certainty
of controlled demolitions?
Without the unexpected total destruction of the WTC towers it made sense to plan four spectacular
but limited outrages.
So we are back with just one question at most. Who plotted and planned the events of 9/11?
,
@Jett Rucker I seem to recall that two of the planes were B-757s and the two in New York were
B-767s.
I believe that leaves your point about the planes' being remote-controllable quite intact, and
it is a proposition I myself find very persuasive, though I'm by no means entirely persuaded that
the vehicles at the scenes were commercial aircraft at all.
For example the government says that WTC7 completely collapsed in 7 seconds due to fire. You don't
need to be smart to see something is wrong here (hint: most of the structural pillars were untouched
by fire).
"Being smart has nothing to do with it."
Being smart usually has everything to do with everything. But to people like you, ignorance
opens up a world of possibilities, no matter how false or ludicrous they may be.
claimed that dictionary entries for "ground zero" were changed after 9/11 (some changes were done
retroactively to earlier editions) to obscure the fact that term was reserved solely for the nuclear
explosion.
So, the world trade centers were brought down with nuclear weapons? Were the particle beams
fired from orbiting battle stations down for routine maintenance that day? There seems to be no
idea so stupid that a (so-called) "truther" won't entertain it.
The former assuredly happens all the time. And those conspiracies are likely quite boring.
Correct. Of course conspiracies are real.
Among the more famous ones include:
The Watergate break-in and the coverup.
Operation Valkyrie and other plots against Hitler.
The overthrow of the Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954.
In the corporate world, it often seems that upper management spends a bulk of their time conspiring
against one another or entering into secret talks to sell the company to a rival, unbeknownst
to the employees or shareholders.
Controlling, yes; but on-board, no. "Coincidentally", all of the planes hijacked on 9/11 were
Boeing 767s, which have a sophisticated auto-pilot system and the ability to upload custom modules
to control the auto-pilot. Just like a Predator or Reaper drone can be flown from halfway across
the planet, a 767 can be flown remotely (and in the case of 9/11, since everything was known in
advance, the entire flight pattern could have been pre-programmed into a module and uploaded in
to the aircrafts' computers).
If you look into it you will find reports of a a "mystery" large white jet flying over Washington
on the morning of 9/11. Some have identified it as a E-4B (a Boeing E-4 Advanced Airborne Command
Post), a strategic command and control military aircraft operated by the United States Air Force.
We know neither Bush nor Cheney was on that plane.
While perhaps not necessary, the cockpit could have been filled with a tranquilizing gas to
incapacitate all the pilots and (stooge) hijackers so that they would not interfere with the remote-controlled
operation of the planes.
Remember that these "deeply religious" Muslim "hijackers" went out drinking at a strip club
the night of 9/10. Both are deep sins in Islam, not something someone is going to do when they
are about to meet their Maker. Most likely they thought they were participating in a drill (since,
in fact on the date of 9/11, a drill was taking place, having to do with - wait for it - airplanes
being hijacked and flown into buildings).
The precision and extreme competence of the flying maneuvers is readily explained by the auto-pilot
feature.
[all of the planes hijacked on 9/11 were Boeing 767s, which have a sophisticated auto-pilot
system and the ability to upload custom modules to control the auto-pilot. Just like a Predator
or Reaper drone can be flown from halfway across the planet, a 767 can be flown remotely]
This book also has an interesting account taken from the Longboat Observer, 9/26/2001 that
a group of Arab looking men posing as journalists and claiming to have an interview appointment
with George Bush tried to gain access to him on the morning of 9/11 at the Colony Beach and Tennis
Resort.
Controlling, yes; but on-board, no. "Coincidentally", all of the planes hijacked on 9/11 were
Boeing 767s, which have a sophisticated auto-pilot system and the ability to upload custom modules
to control the auto-pilot. Just like a Predator or Reaper drone can be flown from halfway across
the planet, a 767 can be flown remotely (and in the case of 9/11, since everything was known in
advance, the entire flight pattern could have been pre-programmed into a module and uploaded in
to the aircrafts' computers).
If you look into it you will find reports of a a "mystery" large white jet flying over Washington
on the morning of 9/11. Some have identified it as a E-4B (a Boeing E-4 Advanced Airborne Command
Post), a strategic command and control military aircraft operated by the United States Air Force.
We know neither Bush nor Cheney was on that plane.
While perhaps not necessary, the cockpit could have been filled with a tranquilizing gas to
incapacitate all the pilots and (stooge) hijackers so that they would not interfere with the remote-controlled
operation of the planes.
Remember that these "deeply religious" Muslim "hijackers" went out drinking at a strip club
the night of 9/10. Both are deep sins in Islam, not something someone is going to do when they
are about to meet their Maker. Most likely they thought they were participating in a drill (since,
in fact on the date of 9/11, a drill was taking place, having to do with - wait for it - airplanes
being hijacked and flown into buildings).
The precision and extreme competence of the flying maneuvers is readily explained by the auto-pilot
feature.
A nice change to receive a reply which is so coherent and precise. I'm glad I chose the word
"controlling" in anticipation of the point you make. Now, with my limited time and interest, I
look for the easy quibble and I might have said that there were plenty of reasons why one aircraft
type was chosen .. but .. I Googled appropriately and came across the kind of problem that the
very assertive sceptics/truthers throw up. Pilots for 9/11 Truth gave physical reasons why the
WTC planes couldn't have been 767s. But a reliable seeming site said they were 767s but the other
two were 757s.
I have no reason to doubt that remote control could have achieved the WTC impacts and I like
the imagination which has gone into suggesting that the 19 were duped into thinking they were
only rehearsing or reconnoitring, although that seems hard to reconcile with what is known about
UA 175. I can't see why the undoubtedly suicidal Arabs shouldn't have knowingly acted as backup
against either passenger or pilot interference and as partly trained pilots if the technology
didn't work satisfactorily. I don't know enough about Islam or its institutions to have any reason
to believe or deny that they would have lived it up in sinful ways on the eve of martyrdom which
would deliver them to paradise. Do you?
I'm afraid this is leading me to Ockham's Razor which says that partly trained Arab pilots
would do nicely as four planes flown by Al Qaeda connected jihadis would serve the plotters purposes
adequately. Of course it doesn't tell us who the plotters were. The reasoning applies to false
flag plotters who wanted a war in the ME though I don't accept that they would have been so sure
of making the connection to Saddam Hussein that they would have plotted 911 to achieve a war against
Iraq.
If the plotters were Mossad or American it would have been vital to minimise risk of exposure
and therefore failure – actually worse than failure – so it is absurd to suppose that they would
take the risk of packing any buildings with explosives – let alone WTC 7! – or risk remnants being
found in the debris. Why four planes if you are going to demolish the Twin Towers with the certainty
of controlled demolitions?
Without the unexpected total destruction of the WTC towers it made sense to plan four spectacular
but limited outrages.
So we are back with just one question at most. Who plotted and planned the events of 9/11?
• Replies:
@CalDre Pilots for 9/11 Truth gave physical reasons why the WTC planes couldn't have been
767s. Their conclusion on this point has been disputed (e.g., see "Debunked: Pilots for 9/11
Truth WTC Speeds"). I don't know what planes were involved exactly but the official story says
it was 767s and I have not yet been convinced otherwise. Regardless, a 757 is just as easily remote
controlled.
that seems hard to reconcile with what is known about UA 175 . And what is that? The
supposed call from Amy Sweeney and Betty Ong to American Airlines on an Airfone? This could be
easily faked. Bear in mind that, aside from the 19 cavedwellers, the other suspect is a CIA/Mossad
joint op, meaning, the most sophisticated intelligence and black ops outfits in history. Thus,
when exploring alternative explanations, you need to account for the capabilities of these agencies,
not that of the proverbial Joe Shmoe.
I can't see why the undoubtedly suicidal Arabs shouldn't have knowingly acted as backup
against either passenger or pilot interference and as partly trained pilots if the technology
didn't work satisfactorily. It's certainly possible they engaged in a suicide attack, but
IMO unlikely given their behavior leading up to their mission.
I don't know enough about Islam or its institutions to have any reason to believe or deny
that they would have lived it up in sinful ways on the eve of martyrdom which would deliver them
to paradise. Do you? There is a useful article entitled "The Concept of Martyrdom in Islam"
on the al-Islam website. The idea of martyrdom involes complete submission and devotion to God.
Engaging in major sins immediately before dieing for God is absolutely non-sensical. Both strip
clubs and alcohol are strictly forbidden in Islam.
I'm afraid this is leading me to Ockham's Razor . Ockham's Razos is a somewhat useful
tiebreaker in scientific theories; it is wholly inapplicable to solving crimes.
partly trained Arab pilots would do nicely as four planes flown by Al Qaeda connected jihadis
would serve the plotters purposes adequately. This may be true in theory, but in practice,
when one looks at the maneovers the planes underwent, it is questionable if even the most sophisticated
pilots could have flown the planes as the official story requires. It is impossible that untrained
civilians could have done so (and, of course, even if one were to apply Ockham's Razor, impossibile
or exceedingly improbable theories are ruled out, the tiebreaker applies to multiple theories
which equally explain the same phenomenon).
Of course it doesn't tell us who the plotters were. The reasoning applies to false flag
plotters who wanted a war in the ME though I don't accept that they would have been so sure of
making the connection to Saddam Hussein that they would have plotted 911 to achieve a war against
Iraq. There was no connection to Saddam Hussein, it was entirely fabricated (and in a quite
sophisticated manner). But if you read the PNAC (neo-cons) treatise "Rebuilding America's Defenses",
they do make reference to a "Pearl-Harbor like attack" which would allow them to implement their
agenda, which includes re-shaping the Middle East (for the benefit of Israel). These same PNAC
authors, who wrote this treatise, were in power at the time of 9/11.
If the plotters were Mossad or American it would have been vital to minimise risk of exposure
and therefore failure – actually worse than failure – so it is absurd to suppose that they would
take the risk of packing any buildings with explosives – let alone WTC 7! – or risk remnants being
found in the debris. I think it was important to their objective that the buildings collapse
so that there was a large number of casualties as well as the desired "shock and awe" effect.
And also I do not think pre-wiring the buildings was that risky: if they were caught (which they
had no reason to believe, as they would have been responsible for the investigation, which they
effectively managed to prevent - note that Cheney was one of the PNAC plotters/authors), they
most likely have a backup story that the buildings were wired after the 1995 WTC bombing attack
so that, if the building were at risk of collapse, they could bring it down safely, rather than
risk the domino effect of having a large chunk of downtown Manhattan collapse.
So we are back with just one question at most. Who plotted and planned the events of 9/11?
Clearly Israel and the Zionist neo-cons who took power 8 months before the event. Note also
that control of the WTC was handed over to Zionist Jew Silverstein from the New York Port Authority
only a few months before the event. During that time, there was a lot of nighttime work in the
"elevator shafts" - IMO, Mossad agents planting the explosives (there is of course substantial
evidence for this) - and Silverstein ended up making out like a bandit with his insurance proceeds.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
Shucks, that isn't even good conspiracy theory evidence. The video showing the "fake" is just
normal characteristics of a CCTV camera of 1969. They didn't handle spikes well, and their light-bandwidth
range was small. The "wires" that rather funny "expert" points out are retrace flares from reflection.
Frankly, I've never seen ANY good "moon landing hoax" conspiracy theory, I suppose, for people
who believe electronic devices work by magic, you can convince them of a lot of stuff.
John Jeremiah Smith says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 7, 2016 at 12:57 pm GMT • 100 Words
@Miro23 [all of the planes hijacked on 9/11 were Boeing 767s, which have a sophisticated auto-pilot
system and the ability to upload custom modules to control the auto-pilot. Just like a Predator
or Reaper drone can be flown from halfway across the planet, a 767 can be flown remotely]
It was also very fast and accurate flying on difficult trajectories + the trainee Arab pilots
down in Florida had problems with basic flying skills (see Daniel Hopsicker's book, https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terrorland-Mohamed-Cover-up-Florida/dp/0975290673/ref=cm_cr-mr-title
to get a close up look at their feeble flying abilities).
This book also has an interesting account taken from the Longboat Observer, 9/26/2001 that a group
of Arab looking men posing as journalists and claiming to have an interview appointment with George
Bush tried to gain access to him on the morning of 9/11 at the Colony Beach and Tennis Resort.
It was also very fast and accurate flying on difficult trajectories + the trainee Arab pilots
down in Florida had problems with basic flying skills
LOL. No, it wasn't. It was pure VFR on a clear day, with no FAA restrictions being observed
by the Arab pilots. A 12-year old Boy Scout could hit a tomato can with a 767 under those conditions.
• Replies:
@Miro23 There are always going to be differences of opinion on a thing like this, but Capt.
Russ Wittenberg actually flew two of these aircraft doesn't have any doubts about it:
"I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93,
the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged
to have hit the South Tower.
I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train
on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the
aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design
limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding - pulling probably
5, 6, 7 G's.
And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive
they couldn't do it." ,
@CalDre A 12-year old Boy Scout could hit a tomato can with a 767 under those conditions.
You are severely misinformed. Even though one could make arguments about the second WTC impact
(there was a super tight turn leading into the impact zone), the obvious flying miracle was the
Pentagon strike.
First it is worth making some context for the Pentagon. The Pentagon has 5 sides. One side
had been heavily reinforced and was largely empty, except for a small group of auditors
who were searching for the missing $2 trillion from the Pentagon budget that Rumsfeld had mentioned
on 9/10/01. Thus, if you wanted to do damage to the Pentagon, this was the worst place
to hit in terms of inflicting damage (though a perfect place to hit to minimize damage but coverup
the missing trillions).
Second, this side of the Pentagon was on the south side, whilst the plane was coming from the
north. Moreover, this side was down an embankment from the road above. Thus, it was by far the
most difficult part of the Pentagon to hit.
So, to recap: the side that was struck was the most protected, the least valuable, and the
hardest to hit.
What the plane did in its approach was an absolute miracle. Without slowing down to landing
speed, the plane came from the north, made a tight 180 degree turn, came down low over the road
above the Pentagon at 500 mph (so low that it clipped the light posts), stayed low to the ground
along the embankment, cruised exactly parallel to the ground once getting to the bottom
of the embankment (this is known from the 5 frames of video released by the Pentagon about a year
after 9/11, from the lack of any damage to the grass prior to the point of impact, and from the
fact the impact point was only a few feet above the ground).
Experienced pilots who have many years flying military aircraft and a decade of flying Boeings
have tried to simulate a flight path as this and were unsuccessful. Indeed some of the maneuvers
exceed the flight parameters of the Boeing involved. Imagine flying a massive, slowly responsive
plane at 500 mph down through an obstacle course and hitting an exact bullseye (pretty
much akin to painting a line on a tarmac and, at full speed (NOT landing speed), landing the plane
so the rear wheels first touch the ground on the line). For these alleged terrorists, who didn't
even practice landing a Cessna (and had never even been in a Boeing 757 or 767 cockpit), it is
entirely impossible .
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
Almost all of our fake world has the truth hidden in a way that keeps everyone arguing over
one of two lies. Did we go to the moon? Yes, of course, and other places too. Just not with the
technology and probably even the people we were deceived into thinking we did. The folks that
did go were not Japanese tourists, capturing nearly every possible moment in film. They were in
the most extreme life threatening situation of anyone in history, they weren't there to take pictures.
So they faked a few, ok nearly all. It is obvious. A grade school student can see that. The simple
use of stereo parallax proves this quite easily with nearly all the common moon photos. http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm
The government had no desire to show the Russians how we were getting there, or what we were doing
there, nor did they want to show the public what could have and probably did turn into a horror
story for many of the real astronauts. The secret space program was born, and it pretty quickly
found that the moon is not what we think it is and has more in common with a star wars death star
than a natural satellite. It was parked there, within human history. We suspected that all along.
They were told to leave it alone, so they went to Mars. They can't even pretend to tell you or
show you what is going on there, it would rip the foundational pillars out of from under all of
human history and belief.
We debate everything in this world with THIS or THAT, when the illusion is a cover for a horrifying
truth, that even the few (people who the world doesn't even know are alive) who know the truth
behind the curtain, truly, truly don't understand entirely. So what would you have them say?
The American tradition of 'conspiracy theory', goes all the way back to America's founding,
when the founding fathers wrote the Alien and Sedition Act, for fear of 'Jacobins' [jefferson
and franklin would know, as they were in paris during and participants in the french revolution].
Jacobins were Masonic, or 'lluminati', and their continuous activities led to the 'Anti-Masonic'
party. During Andrew Jackson's time, the Rothschild bankers continued to try to re-establish a
'central bank', and their non-stop conspiring eventually led to the Federal Reserve Act.
and is literally a crime to express disbelief in in 19 countries today.
not just disbelief, but simply skepticism about any single tenet of that religions doctrine
some of which, are well known and universally repudiated lies; like the soap and lampshades blood
libels. Today all scholars of that time know those were fabrications, and are not true, but if
you say in Germany what everyone knows, that there were no human skin lampshades, they'll still
send you to prison. They've already determined that "the truth is no defense"
even if you don't doubt any single tenet of the holy doctrine, but only fail to give it sufficient
sacred status in your own heart- as being of great personal significance to you, and you say that
'to me, it's only a detail of history', why that's illegal too and you'll be punished and fined,
at the very least.
it's as if they have a lot to lose if people stop genuflecting to the Jews every time someone
say "Holocaust". So much so that they're willing to demand on pain of prison that you believe
it all, or else!
Controlling, yes; but on-board, no. "Coincidentally", all of the planes hijacked on 9/11 were
Boeing 767s, which have a sophisticated auto-pilot system and the ability to upload custom modules
to control the auto-pilot. Just like a Predator or Reaper drone can be flown from halfway across
the planet, a 767 can be flown remotely (and in the case of 9/11, since everything was known in
advance, the entire flight pattern could have been pre-programmed into a module and uploaded in
to the aircrafts' computers).
If you look into it you will find reports of a a "mystery" large white jet flying over Washington
on the morning of 9/11. Some have identified it as a E-4B (a Boeing E-4 Advanced Airborne Command
Post), a strategic command and control military aircraft operated by the United States Air Force.
We know neither Bush nor Cheney was on that plane.
While perhaps not necessary, the cockpit could have been filled with a tranquilizing gas to
incapacitate all the pilots and (stooge) hijackers so that they would not interfere with the remote-controlled
operation of the planes.
Remember that these "deeply religious" Muslim "hijackers" went out drinking at a strip club
the night of 9/10. Both are deep sins in Islam, not something someone is going to do when they
are about to meet their Maker. Most likely they thought they were participating in a drill (since,
in fact on the date of 9/11, a drill was taking place, having to do with - wait for it - airplanes
being hijacked and flown into buildings).
The precision and extreme competence of the flying maneuvers is readily explained by the auto-pilot
feature.
I seem to recall that two of the planes were B-757s and the two in New York were B-767s.
I believe that leaves your point about the planes' being remote-controllable quite intact,
and it is a proposition I myself find very persuasive, though I'm by no means entirely persuaded
that the vehicles at the scenes were commercial aircraft at all.
I believe the missing planes' controls were used to fly the aircraft out into the Atlantic
(into Hurricane Erin) and carefully ditch them there in such fashion (and there IS such a fashion)
as to leave no evidence on the surface whatsoever.
It was also very fast and accurate flying on difficult trajectories + the trainee Arab pilots
down in Florida had problems with basic flying skills
LOL. No, it wasn't. It was pure VFR on a clear day, with no FAA restrictions being observed by
the Arab pilots. A 12-year old Boy Scout could hit a tomato can with a 767 under those conditions.
There are always going to be differences of opinion on a thing like this, but Capt. Russ Wittenberg
actually flew two of these aircraft doesn't have any doubts about it:
"I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight
93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged
to have hit the South Tower.
I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train
on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the
aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design
limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding - pulling probably
5, 6, 7 G's.
And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive
they couldn't do it."
It was also very fast and accurate flying on difficult trajectories + the trainee Arab pilots
down in Florida had problems with basic flying skills
LOL. No, it wasn't. It was pure VFR on a clear day, with no FAA restrictions being observed by
the Arab pilots. A 12-year old Boy Scout could hit a tomato can with a 767 under those conditions.
A 12-year old Boy Scout could hit a tomato can with a 767 under those conditions.
You are severely misinformed. Even though one could make arguments about the second WTC impact
(there was a super tight turn leading into the impact zone), the obvious flying miracle was the
Pentagon strike.
First it is worth making some context for the Pentagon. The Pentagon has 5 sides. One side
had been heavily reinforced and was largely empty, except for a small group of auditors
who were searching for the missing $2 trillion from the Pentagon budget that Rumsfeld had mentioned
on 9/10/01. Thus, if you wanted to do damage to the Pentagon, this was the worst place
to hit in terms of inflicting damage (though a perfect place to hit to minimize damage but coverup
the missing trillions).
Second, this side of the Pentagon was on the south side, whilst the plane was coming from the
north. Moreover, this side was down an embankment from the road above. Thus, it was by far the
most difficult part of the Pentagon to hit.
So, to recap: the side that was struck was the most protected, the least valuable, and the
hardest to hit.
What the plane did in its approach was an absolute miracle. Without slowing down to landing
speed, the plane came from the north, made a tight 180 degree turn, came down low over the road
above the Pentagon at 500 mph (so low that it clipped the light posts), stayed low to the ground
along the embankment, cruised exactly parallel to the ground once getting to the bottom
of the embankment (this is known from the 5 frames of video released by the Pentagon about a year
after 9/11, from the lack of any damage to the grass prior to the point of impact, and from the
fact the impact point was only a few feet above the ground).
Experienced pilots who have many years flying military aircraft and a decade of flying Boeings
have tried to simulate a flight path as this and were unsuccessful. Indeed some of the maneuvers
exceed the flight parameters of the Boeing involved. Imagine flying a massive, slowly responsive
plane at 500 mph down through an obstacle course and hitting an exact bullseye (pretty
much akin to painting a line on a tarmac and, at full speed (NOT landing speed), landing the plane
so the rear wheels first touch the ground on the line). For these alleged terrorists, who didn't
even practice landing a Cessna (and had never even been in a Boeing 757 or 767 cockpit), it is
entirely impossible .
CalDre
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 7, 2016 at 6:05 pm GMT • 800 Words
@Wizard of Oz A nice change to receive a reply which is so coherent and precise. I'm glad
I chose the word "controlling" in anticipation of the point you make. Now, with my limited time
and interest, I look for the easy quibble and I might have said that there were plenty of reasons
why one aircraft type was chosen..... but..... I Googled appropriately and came across the kind
of problem that the very assertive sceptics/truthers throw up. Pilots for 9/11 Truth gave physical
reasons why the WTC planes couldn't have been 767s. But a reliable seeming site said they were
767s but the other two were 757s.
I have no reason to doubt that remote control could have achieved the WTC impacts and I like
the imagination which has gone into suggesting that the 19 were duped into thinking they were
only rehearsing or reconnoitring, although that seems hard to reconcile with what is known about
UA 175. I can't see why the undoubtedly suicidal Arabs shouldn't have knowingly acted as backup
against either passenger or pilot interference and as partly trained pilots if the technology
didn't work satisfactorily. I don't know enough about Islam or its institutions to have any reason
to believe or deny that they would have lived it up in sinful ways on the eve of martyrdom which
would deliver them to paradise. Do you?
I'm afraid this is leading me to Ockham's Razor which says that partly trained Arab pilots would
do nicely as four planes flown by Al Qaeda connected jihadis would serve the plotters purposes
adequately. Of course it doesn't tell us who the plotters were. The reasoning applies to false
flag plotters who wanted a war in the ME though I don't accept that they would have been so sure
of making the connection to Saddam Hussein that they would have plotted 911 to achieve a war against
Iraq.
If the plotters were Mossad or American it would have been vital to minimise risk of exposure
and therefore failure - actually worse than failure - so it is absurd to suppose that they would
take the risk of packing any buildings with explosives - let alone WTC 7! - or risk remnants being
found in the debris. Why four planes if you are going to demolish the Twin Towers with the certainty
of controlled demolitions?
Without the unexpected total destruction of the WTC towers it made sense to plan four spectacular
but limited outrages.
So we are back with just one question at most. Who plotted and planned the events of 9/11?
Pilots for 9/11 Truth gave physical reasons why the WTC planes couldn't have been 767s.
Their conclusion on this point has been disputed (e.g., see "Debunked: Pilots for 9/11 Truth
WTC Speeds"). I don't know what planes were involved exactly but the official story says it was
767s and I have not yet been convinced otherwise. Regardless, a 757 is just as easily remote controlled.
that seems hard to reconcile with what is known about UA 175 . And what is that? The
supposed call from Amy Sweeney and Betty Ong to American Airlines on an Airfone? This could be
easily faked. Bear in mind that, aside from the 19 cavedwellers, the other suspect is a CIA/Mossad
joint op, meaning, the most sophisticated intelligence and black ops outfits in history. Thus,
when exploring alternative explanations, you need to account for the capabilities of these agencies,
not that of the proverbial Joe Shmoe.
I can't see why the undoubtedly suicidal Arabs shouldn't have knowingly acted as backup
against either passenger or pilot interference and as partly trained pilots if the technology
didn't work satisfactorily. It's certainly possible they engaged in a suicide attack, but
IMO unlikely given their behavior leading up to their mission.
I don't know enough about Islam or its institutions to have any reason to believe or deny
that they would have lived it up in sinful ways on the eve of martyrdom which would deliver them
to paradise. Do you? There is a useful article entitled "The Concept of Martyrdom in Islam"
on the al-Islam website. The idea of martyrdom involes complete submission and devotion to God.
Engaging in major sins immediately before dieing for God is absolutely non-sensical. Both strip
clubs and alcohol are strictly forbidden in Islam.
I'm afraid this is leading me to Ockham's Razor . Ockham's Razos is a somewhat useful
tiebreaker in scientific theories; it is wholly inapplicable to solving crimes.
partly trained Arab pilots would do nicely as four planes flown by Al Qaeda connected jihadis
would serve the plotters purposes adequately. This may be true in theory, but in practice,
when one looks at the maneovers the planes underwent, it is questionable if even the most sophisticated
pilots could have flown the planes as the official story requires. It is impossible that untrained
civilians could have done so (and, of course, even if one were to apply Ockham's Razor, impossibile
or exceedingly improbable theories are ruled out, the tiebreaker applies to multiple theories
which equally explain the same phenomenon).
Of course it doesn't tell us who the plotters were. The reasoning applies to false flag
plotters who wanted a war in the ME though I don't accept that they would have been so sure of
making the connection to Saddam Hussein that they would have plotted 911 to achieve a war against
Iraq. There was no connection to Saddam Hussein, it was entirely fabricated (and in a quite
sophisticated manner). But if you read the PNAC (neo-cons) treatise "Rebuilding America's Defenses",
they do make reference to a "Pearl-Harbor like attack" which would allow them to implement their
agenda, which includes re-shaping the Middle East (for the benefit of Israel). These same PNAC
authors, who wrote this treatise, were in power at the time of 9/11.
If the plotters were Mossad or American it would have been vital to minimise risk of exposure
and therefore failure – actually worse than failure – so it is absurd to suppose that they would
take the risk of packing any buildings with explosives – let alone WTC 7! – or risk remnants being
found in the debris. I think it was important to their objective that the buildings collapse
so that there was a large number of casualties as well as the desired "shock and awe" effect.
And also I do not think pre-wiring the buildings was that risky: if they were caught (which they
had no reason to believe, as they would have been responsible for the investigation, which they
effectively managed to prevent – note that Cheney was one of the PNAC plotters/authors), they
most likely have a backup story that the buildings were wired after the 1995 WTC bombing attack
so that, if the building were at risk of collapse, they could bring it down safely, rather than
risk the domino effect of having a large chunk of downtown Manhattan collapse.
So we are back with just one question at most. Who plotted and planned the events of 9/11?
Clearly Israel and the Zionist neo-cons who took power 8 months before the event. Note also
that control of the WTC was handed over to Zionist Jew Silverstein from the New York Port Authority
only a few months before the event. During that time, there was a lot of nighttime work in the
"elevator shafts" – IMO, Mossad agents planting the explosives (there is of course substantial
evidence for this) – and Silverstein ended up making out like a bandit with his insurance proceeds.
• Replies:
@Wizard of Oz I am amazed. I can't immediately see any obvious flaws and BS! That's a first.
Where does WTC 7 fit into that. Just a chance bonus? ,
@Wizard of Oz I was back on UA 175 difficulties and reflecting on the fakeability of a lot
of calls (said by some to have been technically impossible I recall) when I saw how the most plausible
version of your version must work out.
UA 175 was always meant to crash somewhere after a real or apparent fight with the terrorists.
(But how do you get up that fight to cover the diversion?) It's exactly the kind of distraction
I would have planned into that op. Maybe the devout Islamists on that flight - or just one or
two of them - knew that they were going to die (check night club CCTV:-) ) and maybe even knew
that UA175 was a diversion in a bigger plan.
Rehmat
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 7, 2016 at 6:15 pm GMT • 300 Words
@Moi If the Zionists can lie so much about Israeli history (e.g. The Arabs encouraged Palestinians
to flee, that the Arabs were about to attack Israel in 1967, land without a people for a people
without a land, etc.), one can only wonder about the official holocaust narrative of 6M dead,
gas chambers, etc.).
I've not read Elie Weisel's book Night, but I understand that no where does he mention gas chambers
in Auschwitz....
Without GAS CHAMBERS the SIX MILLION DIED Holy COW becomes a HOUSE OF CARDS.
On June 29, 2016, Boston-based publishing company Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (HMH) announced
that it will publish Adolf Hitler's 'antisemite' book Mein Kampf to fund needy Jewish survivors
of Nazi era.
"The proceeds from sale of Mein Kampf will be donated to Jewish Family & Children's Service
of Greater Boston," said Andrew Russell, the publisher's director of corporate social responsibility.
The publisher had been donating money to organizations that combat anti-Semitism since 2000.
Since publication of Mein Kampf is banned in France, the job was given to HMH. The publication
of the book was opposed by several Jewish groups as result of company's recent announcement that
in the future, it will provide funds to some non-Jewish NGOs. HMH caved-in to Jewish pressure
and decided to bribe them by donating proceeds from the book to the 'evergreen' Holocaust Industry.
In September 2001, the company filed a law suit in a New York court against Jews for Jesus,
accusing the pro-Israel Evangelical group of infringing the company's copyright on its popular
children's storybook character, Curious George, which the company had been publishing for 70 years.
Interestingly, HMH is a subsidiary of Vivendi Universal, a multinational mass media company
in Paris, whose CEO is Arnaud de Puyfontaine (Jewish).
By now, hundreds of millions people around the world including some honest Jews know that Holocaust
has become a tool of the Organized Jewry to rob western nations and individuals to nurse Israel's
military machine. Germans and the 65 million American Evangelists are the biggest suckers of this
Zionist Mafia. Organized Jewry has sucked over $93 billion from German taxpayers since the 1960s.
I think it's worth pointing out what I've never seen explained about that quote, a quote with
as much currency in the conspiracy theory fever swamps as any single quote has ever had. The point
of the disinformation campaign was not to manipulate the public but to manipulate the soviets.
Because our CIA analysts spent so much time unriddling the soviet media, we figured their CIA
analysts were doing the same thing with ours.
People dismiss obviousness and redundancy, yet often both are necessary to fully paint the
picture. Where you wrote:
"The point of the disinformation campaign was not to manipulate the public but to manipulate
the soviets"
you could have been more accurate by continuing:
"by manipulating the public."
Ah, redundant and obvious to be sure, but more complete, no? Should it pacify the average prole
to know that not even their acquiescence is desired of them, but that they are useful as a disinformation
tool? Have things changed since then? Is less intelligence publicly available today? Or more?
And what lessons did the CIA learn in manipulating public opinion by domestic propaganda operations
in the meantime?
Sure, the context of the quote adds the realism it's clearly lacking as it floats by itself
surrounded by quotation marks, yet the takeaway is the same, is it not? A massive intelligence
operation designed to confuse the public with the media is what we've got on the table. Let that
sink in good and hard.
AnotherLover
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 7, 2016 at 7:08 pm GMT
@moneta The biggest conpiracy, which most fail understand, is that the reason that there is
all of economic termoil and wars, is due to one reason and one reason only. There is no money
and what we use for transactions is the invertion of money, created by an entry of a computer.
Its main purpose is to make the issuers rich and everyone else in debt to them..Countries who
don't want to go into their debt become enemies and are villified. This illusion is reinforced
by films, media. Tax authorities. the government.
THIS IS THE BIGGEST CONSPIRACY on which all of the others are constructed. Including the socialist
satanist society built upon it. To make it work markets have to be manipulated, which they all
are.
Get rid of money and you get rid of god. liberty, personal property and everything else of value
because all values are based on nominal debt and this debt is not repayable because it has to
be borrowed to be repayed and the method of repayment doesnt exist. Fereral reserve notes are
counterfieted to create debt.
I think dismissing intuition is for suckers. What successful businessman would offer such advice?
Intuition assembles all the information available to the organism, and it is rarely wrong in my
experience. I appreciate when people are willing to offer their gut reaction to an event, especially
knowing they are doing so in a society which trains its members to pounce on them that would have
the temerity to do so.
Vastly outdoes the Blood Libel against the Jews, and is literally a crime to express disbelief
in in 19 countries today.
and is literally a crime to express disbelief in in 19 countries today.
not just disbelief, but simply skepticism about any single tenet of that religions doctrine
some of which, are well known and universally repudiated lies; like the soap and lampshades
blood libels. Today all scholars of that time know those were fabrications, and are not true,
but if you say in Germany what everyone knows, that there were no human skin lampshades, they'll
still send you to prison. They've already determined that "the truth is no defense"
even if you don't doubt any single tenet of the holy doctrine, but only fail to give it sufficient
sacred status in your own heart- as being of great personal significance to you, and you say that
'to me, it's only a detail of history', why that's illegal too and you'll be punished and fined,
at the very least.
it's as if they have a lot to lose if people stop genuflecting to the Jews every time someone
say "Holocaust". So much so that they're willing to demand on pain of prison that you believe
it all, or else!
In Dispatch 1035-960 mailed to station chiefs on April 1, 1967, the CIA laid out a series of
"talking points" in its memo addressing the "conspiracy theorists" who were questioning the Warren
Commission's findings on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. They include the following:
Claim that it "would be impossible to conceal" such a large-scale conspiracy.
Claim that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition.
Claim that "no significant new evidence has emerged"
Accuse theorists of falling in love with their theories.
Claimed conspiracy theorists are wedded to their theories before the evidence was in.
Accuse theorists of being politically motivated.
Accuse theorists of being financially motivated.
I have found numerous examples of these exact points being made in televised news segments,
newspapers, magazines and even some academic articles and scholarly books.
Additionally, some of the most influential and frequently-cited authors who are the most critical
of "conspiracy theorists", both academic and lay people, have very direct ties to government,
foundations and other institutions of authority.
While we can't know if the CIA was primarily responsible for the creation of the pejorative,
but what we do know from the Church Committee hearings, was that the Agency did have paid operatives
working inside major media organizations as late as the 1970s. In fact, CNN anchor Anderson Cooper
has acknowledged ties to the CIA
With recent lifting of restrictions on the government's use of domestic propaganda with the
Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, which passed as part of the 2013 National Defense Authorization
Act, I think reasonable people would expect this type of pejorative construction to resume if
in fact, it ever ceased.
I was a boy watching those transmissions you helped bring us. Thank you, Sir!
Apollo is one of the greatest human achievements, my absolute favorite historical event. I
consider myself lucky to have been alive and old enough to witness and understand it.
...
And I believe there has been in fact some conspiratorial effort over the years to promote their
idiocy, a conspiracy on the part of those who would weaken American pride and reputation.
Sure, it's certainly possible that there's been a conspiracy to promote the notion that the moon
landing was a hoax.
But it's also true that people with deep emotional attachments to things, especially inculcated
in childhood, have trouble considering and questioning certain things. And it's well known that
propaganda deliberately tries to inculcate these sort of emotional attachments in order to be
more effective.
You apparently have trouble accepting an accomplished fact that contradicts your pathetic,
childish idea of what is possible or was possible at that time.
You must not have much aptitude for physics or engineering or any hard science. I grasped it
when I was age ten in ways you still can't. It wasn't childhood wonder, as you assume. It was
a real understanding of what was being done. It was, at age ten, beyond what you even possess
now.
No one who has an understanding of physics and engineering principles thinks as you do. Yet
you write such an insightful sounding piece of armchair psychology.
The Apollo program was so far beyond your comprehension that you just have to write crap like
what you wrote to me. We are now half a century after the fact, and fools like you fall for this
garbage.
Pathetic.
For whatever reason, maybe ones Ron describes here, a conspiracy theory about Apollo has been
floated for decades. Scientifically illiterate fools fall for it.
Yes, as Ron implies, these things might be created just to drag more probable conspiracies
into the same mental swamp in the public mind.
This one conspiracy theory you fell for lies squarely in the category of the blindingly stupid.
Wizard
of Oz says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 7, 2016 at 10:40 pm GMT
@CalDre Pilots for 9/11 Truth gave physical reasons why the WTC planes couldn't have been
767s. Their conclusion on this point has been disputed (e.g., see "Debunked: Pilots for 9/11
Truth WTC Speeds"). I don't know what planes were involved exactly but the official story says
it was 767s and I have not yet been convinced otherwise. Regardless, a 757 is just as easily remote
controlled.
that seems hard to reconcile with what is known about UA 175 . And what is that? The
supposed call from Amy Sweeney and Betty Ong to American Airlines on an Airfone? This could be
easily faked. Bear in mind that, aside from the 19 cavedwellers, the other suspect is a CIA/Mossad
joint op, meaning, the most sophisticated intelligence and black ops outfits in history. Thus,
when exploring alternative explanations, you need to account for the capabilities of these agencies,
not that of the proverbial Joe Shmoe.
I can't see why the undoubtedly suicidal Arabs shouldn't have knowingly acted as backup
against either passenger or pilot interference and as partly trained pilots if the technology
didn't work satisfactorily. It's certainly possible they engaged in a suicide attack, but
IMO unlikely given their behavior leading up to their mission.
I don't know enough about Islam or its institutions to have any reason to believe or deny
that they would have lived it up in sinful ways on the eve of martyrdom which would deliver them
to paradise. Do you? There is a useful article entitled "The Concept of Martyrdom in Islam"
on the al-Islam website. The idea of martyrdom involes complete submission and devotion to God.
Engaging in major sins immediately before dieing for God is absolutely non-sensical. Both strip
clubs and alcohol are strictly forbidden in Islam.
I'm afraid this is leading me to Ockham's Razor . Ockham's Razos is a somewhat useful
tiebreaker in scientific theories; it is wholly inapplicable to solving crimes.
partly trained Arab pilots would do nicely as four planes flown by Al Qaeda connected jihadis
would serve the plotters purposes adequately. This may be true in theory, but in practice,
when one looks at the maneovers the planes underwent, it is questionable if even the most sophisticated
pilots could have flown the planes as the official story requires. It is impossible that untrained
civilians could have done so (and, of course, even if one were to apply Ockham's Razor, impossibile
or exceedingly improbable theories are ruled out, the tiebreaker applies to multiple theories
which equally explain the same phenomenon).
Of course it doesn't tell us who the plotters were. The reasoning applies to false flag
plotters who wanted a war in the ME though I don't accept that they would have been so sure of
making the connection to Saddam Hussein that they would have plotted 911 to achieve a war against
Iraq. There was no connection to Saddam Hussein, it was entirely fabricated (and in a quite
sophisticated manner). But if you read the PNAC (neo-cons) treatise "Rebuilding America's Defenses",
they do make reference to a "Pearl-Harbor like attack" which would allow them to implement their
agenda, which includes re-shaping the Middle East (for the benefit of Israel). These same PNAC
authors, who wrote this treatise, were in power at the time of 9/11.
If the plotters were Mossad or American it would have been vital to minimise risk of exposure
and therefore failure – actually worse than failure – so it is absurd to suppose that they would
take the risk of packing any buildings with explosives – let alone WTC 7! – or risk remnants being
found in the debris. I think it was important to their objective that the buildings collapse
so that there was a large number of casualties as well as the desired "shock and awe" effect.
And also I do not think pre-wiring the buildings was that risky: if they were caught (which they
had no reason to believe, as they would have been responsible for the investigation, which they
effectively managed to prevent - note that Cheney was one of the PNAC plotters/authors), they
most likely have a backup story that the buildings were wired after the 1995 WTC bombing attack
so that, if the building were at risk of collapse, they could bring it down safely, rather than
risk the domino effect of having a large chunk of downtown Manhattan collapse.
So we are back with just one question at most. Who plotted and planned the events of 9/11?
Clearly Israel and the Zionist neo-cons who took power 8 months before the event. Note also
that control of the WTC was handed over to Zionist Jew Silverstein from the New York Port Authority
only a few months before the event. During that time, there was a lot of nighttime work in the
"elevator shafts" - IMO, Mossad agents planting the explosives (there is of course substantial
evidence for this) - and Silverstein ended up making out like a bandit with his insurance proceeds.
I am amazed. I can't immediately see any obvious flaws and BS! That's a first.
Where does WTC 7 fit into that. Just a chance bonus?
Wizard
of Oz says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 7, 2016 at 11:12 pm GMT • 100 Words
@CalDre Pilots for 9/11 Truth gave physical reasons why the WTC planes couldn't have been
767s. Their conclusion on this point has been disputed (e.g., see "Debunked: Pilots for 9/11
Truth WTC Speeds"). I don't know what planes were involved exactly but the official story says
it was 767s and I have not yet been convinced otherwise. Regardless, a 757 is just as easily remote
controlled.
that seems hard to reconcile with what is known about UA 175 . And what is that? The
supposed call from Amy Sweeney and Betty Ong to American Airlines on an Airfone? This could be
easily faked. Bear in mind that, aside from the 19 cavedwellers, the other suspect is a CIA/Mossad
joint op, meaning, the most sophisticated intelligence and black ops outfits in history. Thus,
when exploring alternative explanations, you need to account for the capabilities of these agencies,
not that of the proverbial Joe Shmoe.
I can't see why the undoubtedly suicidal Arabs shouldn't have knowingly acted as backup
against either passenger or pilot interference and as partly trained pilots if the technology
didn't work satisfactorily. It's certainly possible they engaged in a suicide attack, but
IMO unlikely given their behavior leading up to their mission.
I don't know enough about Islam or its institutions to have any reason to believe or deny
that they would have lived it up in sinful ways on the eve of martyrdom which would deliver them
to paradise. Do you? There is a useful article entitled "The Concept of Martyrdom in Islam"
on the al-Islam website. The idea of martyrdom involes complete submission and devotion to God.
Engaging in major sins immediately before dieing for God is absolutely non-sensical. Both strip
clubs and alcohol are strictly forbidden in Islam.
I'm afraid this is leading me to Ockham's Razor . Ockham's Razos is a somewhat useful
tiebreaker in scientific theories; it is wholly inapplicable to solving crimes.
partly trained Arab pilots would do nicely as four planes flown by Al Qaeda connected jihadis
would serve the plotters purposes adequately. This may be true in theory, but in practice,
when one looks at the maneovers the planes underwent, it is questionable if even the most sophisticated
pilots could have flown the planes as the official story requires. It is impossible that untrained
civilians could have done so (and, of course, even if one were to apply Ockham's Razor, impossibile
or exceedingly improbable theories are ruled out, the tiebreaker applies to multiple theories
which equally explain the same phenomenon).
Of course it doesn't tell us who the plotters were. The reasoning applies to false flag
plotters who wanted a war in the ME though I don't accept that they would have been so sure of
making the connection to Saddam Hussein that they would have plotted 911 to achieve a war against
Iraq. There was no connection to Saddam Hussein, it was entirely fabricated (and in a quite
sophisticated manner). But if you read the PNAC (neo-cons) treatise "Rebuilding America's Defenses",
they do make reference to a "Pearl-Harbor like attack" which would allow them to implement their
agenda, which includes re-shaping the Middle East (for the benefit of Israel). These same PNAC
authors, who wrote this treatise, were in power at the time of 9/11.
If the plotters were Mossad or American it would have been vital to minimise risk of exposure
and therefore failure – actually worse than failure – so it is absurd to suppose that they would
take the risk of packing any buildings with explosives – let alone WTC 7! – or risk remnants being
found in the debris. I think it was important to their objective that the buildings collapse
so that there was a large number of casualties as well as the desired "shock and awe" effect.
And also I do not think pre-wiring the buildings was that risky: if they were caught (which they
had no reason to believe, as they would have been responsible for the investigation, which they
effectively managed to prevent - note that Cheney was one of the PNAC plotters/authors), they
most likely have a backup story that the buildings were wired after the 1995 WTC bombing attack
so that, if the building were at risk of collapse, they could bring it down safely, rather than
risk the domino effect of having a large chunk of downtown Manhattan collapse.
So we are back with just one question at most. Who plotted and planned the events of 9/11?
Clearly Israel and the Zionist neo-cons who took power 8 months before the event. Note also
that control of the WTC was handed over to Zionist Jew Silverstein from the New York Port Authority
only a few months before the event. During that time, there was a lot of nighttime work in the
"elevator shafts" - IMO, Mossad agents planting the explosives (there is of course substantial
evidence for this) - and Silverstein ended up making out like a bandit with his insurance proceeds.
I was back on UA 175 difficulties and reflecting on the fakeability of a lot of calls (said
by some to have been technically impossible I recall) when I saw how the most plausible version
of your version must work out.
UA 175 was always meant to crash somewhere after a real or apparent fight with the terrorists.
(But how do you get up that fight to cover the diversion?) It's exactly the kind of distraction
I would have planned into that op. Maybe the devout Islamists on that flight – or just one or
two of them – knew that they were going to die (check night club CCTV:-) ) and maybe even knew
that UA175 was a diversion in a bigger plan.
Wow I think I have a new career for my next lifetime. Would you care to buy some shares in
my FakeMarsLanding Inc float?
• Replies:
@CalDre I was back on UA 175 difficulties . Again I'm not sure what you are referring
to. UA 175 was the one that crashed into the South Tower. Did you mean the one that crashed in
Pennsylvania, UA 93?
As to the phone calls, I would note, they are also entirely consistent with the stewardesses
believing they were partaking in a drill. It is known a drill of planes being hijacked and flown
into buildings was being conducted that day. In part this drill explanation is supported by the
contention that the pilots, too, were forced to the back of a plane by a small man holding a box
cutter. The pilot was a huge ex-military guy and a pilot should never leave the cockpit, particularly
not to terrorists.
As to WTC 7, it's anyone's guess what happened there. My guess is that UA 93 was meant to crash
into that tower, but since it crashed in Pennsylvania, WTC 7 was left standing, but they hit the
"Boom" button anyway, perhaps to hide the fact that it was pre-wired, perhaps because there was
something in it they wanted destroyed, I don't have the answer, in large part because no proper
investigation was ever conducted.
You must not have much aptitude for physics or engineering or any hard science. I grasped it when
I was age ten in ways you still can't. It wasn't childhood wonder, as you assume. It was a real
understanding of what was being done. It was, at age ten, beyond what you even possess now.
No one who has an understanding of physics and engineering principles thinks as you do. Yet you
write such an insightful sounding piece of armchair psychology.
The Apollo program was so far beyond your comprehension that you just have to write crap like
what you wrote to me. We are now half a century after the fact, and fools like you fall for this
garbage.
Pathetic.
For whatever reason, maybe ones Ron describes here, a conspiracy theory about Apollo has been
floated for decades. Scientifically illiterate fools fall for it.
Yes, as Ron implies, these things might be created just to drag more probable conspiracies
into the same mental swamp in the public mind.
This one conspiracy theory you fell for lies squarely in the category of the blindingly stupid.
Unless I have missed relevant prolegomena from this Anonymous I think you have grossly overreacted
to what he/she actually wrote. In a tellingly emotional way in fact. QED?
• Replies:
@Buzz Mohawk No, no overreaction, and no QED. The "prolegomena" is all the mediocrity over
the years making it obvious that humanity is neither aware of nor worthy of its own greatest accomplishments.
UA 175 was always meant to crash somewhere after a real or apparent fight with the terrorists.
(But how do you get up that fight to cover the diversion?) It's exactly the kind of distraction
I would have planned into that op. Maybe the devout Islamists on that flight - or just one or
two of them - knew that they were going to die (check night club CCTV:-) ) and maybe even knew
that UA175 was a diversion in a bigger plan.
Wow I think I have a new career for my next lifetime. Would you care to buy some shares in my
FakeMarsLanding Inc float?
I was back on UA 175 difficulties . Again I'm not sure what you are referring to. UA
175 was the one that crashed into the South Tower. Did you mean the one that crashed in Pennsylvania,
UA 93?
As to the phone calls, I would note, they are also entirely consistent with the stewardesses
believing they were partaking in a drill. It is known a drill of planes being hijacked and flown
into buildings was being conducted that day. In part this drill explanation is supported by the
contention that the pilots, too, were forced to the back of a plane by a small man holding a box
cutter. The pilot was a huge ex-military guy and a pilot should never leave the cockpit, particularly
not to terrorists.
As to WTC 7, it's anyone's guess what happened there. My guess is that UA 93 was meant to crash
into that tower, but since it crashed in Pennsylvania, WTC 7 was left standing, but they hit the
"Boom" button anyway, perhaps to hide the fact that it was pre-wired, perhaps because there was
something in it they wanted destroyed, I don't have the answer, in large part because no proper
investigation was ever conducted.
Cheers
• Replies:
@NosytheDuke SEC evidence concerning massive fraud has been reported as having been destroyed
in WTC7 ,
@Wizard of Oz Sorry did I get that wrong? Yes you guessed right about which plane I meant.
Your answer that the charges had to be set off in WTC 7 to conceal the wiring is certainly not
crazy but not very satisfactory. Ah, but yes, the fire that burned all day was set opportunistically
after Flight 93 went AWOL.
That leaves motive for including WTC 7 in the plot at all unless there was indeed something that
had to hidden by destruction. Proof? Evidence?
There were a lot of passenger calls from Flight 93 that I was referring to. Are you amongst those
who deny the technical feasibility? One way or another there seems to be a problem there with
the conspiracy versions.
As to the phone calls, I would note, they are also entirely consistent with the stewardesses
believing they were partaking in a drill. It is known a drill of planes being hijacked and flown
into buildings was being conducted that day. In part this drill explanation is supported by the
contention that the pilots, too, were forced to the back of a plane by a small man holding a box
cutter. The pilot was a huge ex-military guy and a pilot should never leave the cockpit, particularly
not to terrorists.
As to WTC 7, it's anyone's guess what happened there. My guess is that UA 93 was meant to crash
into that tower, but since it crashed in Pennsylvania, WTC 7 was left standing, but they hit the
"Boom" button anyway, perhaps to hide the fact that it was pre-wired, perhaps because there was
something in it they wanted destroyed, I don't have the answer, in large part because no proper
investigation was ever conducted.
Cheers
SEC evidence concerning massive fraud has been reported as having been destroyed in WTC7
• Replies:
@Wizard of Oz That needs a lot of fleshing out. All the evidence - originals, copies, backups
- in one place? Maybe there is someone with proof quietly living off the pay offs for his blackmail.
What would be really unlikely however is that no one has come out with anything like "I wondered
why AB, the bossof the evidence management division was ordering all outside copies and backups
to be destroyed and found his reasons to be very unsatisfactory".
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
No, no overreaction, and no QED. The "prolegomena" is all the mediocrity over the years making
it obvious that humanity is neither aware of nor worthy of its own greatest accomplishments.
I'm not just talking about Apollo now.
• Replies:
@Wizard of Oz Another amazing experience of finding something in UR which one might agree
with - and you didn't even assault my slightly dodgy use of "prolegomena" with, for example, a
sneering accusation that I seemed to think it meant "things previously said". Mind you I would
have shown confident insouciance with the Humpty Dumpty response and diverted attention to the
misuse of "protagonist". As to which I have long been hoping to say straight-faced to an actor
"I loved your role as Deuteragonist/Tritoganist in......[The Erotic Adventures of Mickey Mouse
or some other famous recovered masterpiece]". Where does one put the accent on protagonist do
you think to further the pretence that one is a classical scholar? (Bonus question for 0 marks).
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
Literally every article I've ever read about conservatives and/or the conservative movement
within the pages of the New Yorker – and I've read going back decades, unfortunately – has judiciously
referenced 'The Paranoid Style in American Politics'.
I mean, EVERY SINGLE article regarding Republicans, conservatives and/or opposition to leftism
has the Hofstadter quote somewhere – it must be a staple on the J-School syllabi.
It seems Prof. Hofstadter was something of an adherent to the Frankfurt School nonsense – Marxism-meets-dime-store-Freud
being every New Yorker writer's stock in trade, of course
Another amazing experience of finding something in UR which one might agree with – and you
didn't even assault my slightly dodgy use of "prolegomena" with, for example, a sneering accusation
that I seemed to think it meant "things previously said". Mind you I would have shown confident
insouciance with the Humpty Dumpty response and diverted attention to the misuse of "protagonist".
As to which I have long been hoping to say straight-faced to an actor "I loved your role as Deuteragonist/Tritoganist
in [The Erotic Adventures of Mickey Mouse or some other famous recovered masterpiece]". Where
does one put the accent on protagonist do you think to further the pretence that one is a classical
scholar? (Bonus question for 0 marks).
As to the phone calls, I would note, they are also entirely consistent with the stewardesses
believing they were partaking in a drill. It is known a drill of planes being hijacked and flown
into buildings was being conducted that day. In part this drill explanation is supported by the
contention that the pilots, too, were forced to the back of a plane by a small man holding a box
cutter. The pilot was a huge ex-military guy and a pilot should never leave the cockpit, particularly
not to terrorists.
As to WTC 7, it's anyone's guess what happened there. My guess is that UA 93 was meant to crash
into that tower, but since it crashed in Pennsylvania, WTC 7 was left standing, but they hit the
"Boom" button anyway, perhaps to hide the fact that it was pre-wired, perhaps because there was
something in it they wanted destroyed, I don't have the answer, in large part because no proper
investigation was ever conducted.
Cheers
Sorry did I get that wrong? Yes you guessed right about which plane I meant.
Your answer that the charges had to be set off in WTC 7 to conceal the wiring is certainly
not crazy but not very satisfactory. Ah, but yes, the fire that burned all day was set opportunistically
after Flight 93 went AWOL.
That leaves motive for including WTC 7 in the plot at all unless there was indeed something
that had to hidden by destruction. Proof? Evidence?
There were a lot of passenger calls from Flight 93 that I was referring to. Are you amongst
those who deny the technical feasibility? One way or another there seems to be a problem there
with the conspiracy versions.
And what's the explanation for UA 93 not being adequately controlled by computer or remotely
if it was intended for WTC 7.
Excuse me, under the previous American Pravda articles by Ron, I specifically asked you to outline
the strongest evidence available that the government story on 9/11 is substantially true, i.e.
Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda etcetera.
In response, you wrote a long series of twaddles, idiotic non-sequitirs interspersed with vile
ad hominem and never produced a single piece of evidence.
NOTHING. There is a clear electronic record of this:`
and here: http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-alexander-cockburn-and-the-british-spies/#comment-1550686
I continually ask the shit eaters such as yourself what is the evidence for this government story.
You never ever every provide any! In general, you end up falling back on the ridiculous position
that the government story being the government story is proof!
Well, eventually, I always corner you on this. Always. You end up having to walk away, but never
have the minimal honesty to simply admit that you cannot produce any evidence because you have
none.
And then within a few days or so after that, you are back, quibbling with some other person asking
them to produce evidence of something or other.
I will reiterate. If you want to turn over a new leaf and be an honest, decent person, you should
do one of two things:
1. Outline what you think the strongest evidence for the government story is.
2. Admit that you have no evidence.
That needs a lot of fleshing out. All the evidence – originals, copies, backups – in one place?
Maybe there is someone with proof quietly living off the pay offs for his blackmail. What would
be really unlikely however is that no one has come out with anything like "I wondered why AB,
the bossof the evidence management division was ordering all outside copies and backups to be
destroyed and found his reasons to be very unsatisfactory".
Wizard
of Oz says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 8, 2016 at 8:11 am GMT • 200 Words
@CanSpeccy There must be hundreds of millions of words accessible on the Internet discussing
the collapse of WTC Building 7. Why then foul up this discussion with the reiteration of arguments
that anyone with an interest in the specifics of 9/11 will already know or can find out elsewhere?
And why doesn't that apply precisely to just about everything you have posted and how come
you can't see it – or think you can get away with others not noticing?
And where have you complained about the constant reiteration of the symmetrical fall alleged
impossibility, the particles of thermite, the steel couldn't have been melted nonsense (it wasn't
melting that was the point), the forewarning to the BBC and, not least, the failure to account
for the videos of the fires burning all day in WTC 7 and what that could have resulted in.
My particular analysis of motive I have neither seen emphasised by anyone else nor answered
on UR at all. Have you? Or seen it dealt with elsewhere as you imply?
As it happens there is now an exception. Just about the first UR commenter to doubt something
like the official 9/11 story that has not only a respectably functioning intellect but has deployed
it on the issue. See posts by CalDre on this thread and my conversation with him.
Acttually there is indeed a question of motive on WTC 7 (if it was demolished by explosives)
left well unanswered by anything but the supposition that there was something within that needed
to be destroyed of which there were no copies.
• Replies:
@CanSpeccy WizOz, what are you on about? I've read your comment twice and can make no sense
of it.
But here's a question about 9/11 from esteemed Unz Review contributor Paul Craig Roberts:
Who are the real conspiracy kooks, the majority who disbelieve the official lies or the minority
who believe the official lies?
True, his designation of the official story as lies is question begging, but it fairly places
the onus of responsibility for establishing what happened on 9/11 with those who uphold the official
conspiracy theory, which is now widely disbelieved.
Your answer that the charges had to be set off in WTC 7 to conceal the wiring is certainly not
crazy but not very satisfactory. Ah, but yes, the fire that burned all day was set opportunistically
after Flight 93 went AWOL.
That leaves motive for including WTC 7 in the plot at all unless there was indeed something that
had to hidden by destruction. Proof? Evidence?
There were a lot of passenger calls from Flight 93 that I was referring to. Are you amongst those
who deny the technical feasibility? One way or another there seems to be a problem there with
the conspiracy versions.
And what's the explanation for UA 93 not being adequately controlled by computer or remotely if
it was intended for WTC 7.
Proof? Evidence?
Excuse me, under the previous American Pravda articles by Ron, I specifically asked you to
outline the strongest evidence available that the government story on 9/11 is substantially true,
i.e. Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda etcetera.
In response, you wrote a long series of twaddles, idiotic non-sequitirs interspersed with vile
ad hominem and never produced a single piece of evidence.
NOTHING. There is a clear electronic record of this:`
I continually ask the shit eaters such as yourself what is the evidence for this government
story. You never ever every provide any! In general, you end up falling back on the ridiculous
position that the government story being the government story is proof!
Well, eventually, I always corner you on this. Always. You end up having to walk away, but
never have the minimal honesty to simply admit that you cannot produce any evidence because you
have none.
And then within a few days or so after that, you are back, quibbling with some other person
asking them to produce evidence of something or other.
I will reiterate. If you want to turn over a new leaf and be an honest, decent person, you
should do one of two things:
1. Outline what you think the strongest evidence for the government story is.
2. Admit that you have no evidence.
There are no other logical possibilities. What is it? 1. or 2.?
• Replies:
@Wizard of Oz Fortunately I have missed most of your agitated comments directed at me, including
the repetitious stuff which, contrary to what the preceding paragraphs led me to expect, proved
to be just you quoting yourself.
In the meantime I have come across someone who is almost unique in my experience of those whose
reaction to the official reports [note that it is or ought to be plural] on 9/11 matters is to
respond with scepticism as a minimum. CalDre with whom I have exchanged comments writes with intelligence
and civility that makes rational conversation not only possible but agreeable.
Your performances are, by contrast, a case for diagnosis. Are they attempts at persuasion by
rational argument, or at persuasion at all? On the face of it the insulting language would rule
that out unless it is understood as the kind of persuasion-by-bullying practised in the Gulag
or Lubyanka.
Well I don't get very excited by 9/11 matters and I get even less out of contemplating the
frothings of those who do, so I shall take my leave of whoever or what "Jonathan Revusky" may
be and confine any discussion of 9/11 matters to those who have demostrated at least a modicum
of rational intelligence and civility. ,
@Wizard of Oz And BTW my querying reference to proof and evidence which you used as a hook
for a generalised rant was about what might have been stored in WTC 7, without copies or backup,
that needed to be destroyed. As I pointed out there were otherwise serious problems of motive
raised by supposing WTC 7 was part of the plot. Do you condescend to detail?
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
By the looks of thsee incredibly stupid comments on 9/11 and the Holocaust, it seems doubtful
that the CIA would need to do anything more than accurately describe the fringe theories currently
in circulation.
And where have you complained about the constant reiteration of the symmetrical fall alleged impossibility,
the particles of thermite, the steel couldn't have been melted nonsense (it wasn't melting that
was the point), the forewarning to the BBC and, not least, the failure to account for the videos
of the fires burning all day in WTC 7 and what that could have resulted in.
My particular analysis of motive I have neither seen emphasised by anyone else nor answered on
UR at all. Have you? Or seen it dealt with elsewhere as you imply?
As it happens there is now an exception. Just about the first UR commenter to doubt something
like the official 9/11 story that has not only a respectably functioning intellect but has deployed
it on the issue. See posts by CalDre on this thread and my conversation with him.
Acttually there is indeed a question of motive on WTC 7 (if it was demolished by explosives) left
well unanswered by anything but the supposition that there was something within that needed to
be destroyed of which there were no copies.
WizOz, what are you on about? I've read your comment twice and can make no sense of it.
But here's a question about 9/11 from esteemed Unz Review contributor Paul Craig Roberts:
Who are the real conspiracy kooks, the majority who disbelieve the official lies or the
minority who believe the official lies?
True, his designation of the official story as lies is question begging, but it fairly places
the onus of responsibility for establishing what happened on 9/11 with those who uphold the official
conspiracy theory, which is now widely disbelieved.
Time, in other words, for a real, competent, and open, forensic investigation.
• Replies:
@Wizard of Oz I hope you understood at least that I was saying your #174 comment was at best
a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Beyond that i can't help beyond suggesting you have
a good sleep, a cold shower, and try again.
It's no use quoting PCR to me. Indeed calling him esteemed casts doubt on our sharing the same
planet as I read quite a few of his effusions and eventually joined those who had written him
down as a crank, and not even one from whom one could pick up useful or interesting facts or stimulating
cogently reasoned ideas.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
1. Outline what you think the strongest evidence for the government story is.
All of it. What kind of nonsense question is this? You can read the evidence in multiple places.
And we already know what your response is to every single bit of evidence: "The Government faked
it!"
So if someone were to say "Osama Bin Laden admitted to planinng the attack on video," you would
say "Bin Laden was a robot created by the CIA" or whatever your moronic theory is.
If someone said "We know that Atta and the other hijackers were taking flight training and
that they had meetings in Afghanistan planning the attacks," then you would say "They were rehearsing
a play!" or something that is actually somewhat dumber than that.
"There are no other logical possibilities. What is it? 1. or 2.?"
Allow me to present a third alternative:
3. Arguing with conspiracy theorists is a huge waste of time because they have no idea what
they are talking about and are so ideologically blinded that they will never accept any evidence
no matter how convincing and authoritative.
See? Even in the meta-discussion of this conspiracy, your logic is flawed.
1. Outline what you think the strongest evidence for the government story is.
All of it. What kind of nonsense question is this?
Hey, shit eater, can't you read? I didn't say "all of it". I said outline the strongest evidence
available. I worded it that way because I anticipate the shit eater response that... oh, there
is just so much evidence that you can't possibly outline it all! So I just said, "outline the
strongest evidence". NOT all of it .
What is the strongest evidence available, in your opinion that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated
from Afghanistan by a bearded religious fanatic named Osama bin Laden?
Anyway, asking for the evidence is not a "nonsense question". Well, it is if you're a shit eater,
because if you're a shit eater, you eat up whatever bullshit they throw in your general direction,
so they said it on the TV so it's true, and there is no need for any actual evidence.
I understand the shit eater mentality.
So if someone were to say "Osama Bin Laden admitted to planinng the attack on video,"
Okay, is that your answer? Is that the strongest evidence available?
If someone said "We know that Atta and the other hijackers were taking flight training and
that they had meetings in Afghanistan planning the attacks,"
Okay, that they were at the flight school is proof that they flew buildings in to skyscrapers.
That's what you're saying? Okay, is that the strongest evidence available or is it the aforementioned
videos?
As for the meetings in Afghanistan, uhh, that is claimed. What is the proof of that? They took
minutes of the meeting and we have the records? There's a recording? Or is it just that they claimed
that these meetings took place and it's just an unsubstantiated claim?
3. Arguing with conspiracy theorists is a huge waste of time because they have no idea what
they are talking about and are so ideologically blinded that they will never accept any evidence
no matter how convincing and authoritative.
Well, that's not what's happening in these exchanges. What keeps happening is that I keep asking
what the evidence is and nobody provides any.
You say the evidence is the video of Bin Laden? Well, there's expert opinion that the videos are
fake. But, in any case, if a plane flies into a building tomorrow on the other side of the world,
in China say, I could immediately put up a video claiming that I made this happen. Would that
be hard proof?
And pointing to some guys who were in a flight school, therefore they hijacked the planes... this
is not strong proof. In general, the proof cannot be equally consistent with the people people
being patsies. It's like claiming that Oswald was in the vicinity there when the thing went down.
Well, of course he was, he had to be because he was the patsy, so they could frame him. He couldn't
be off in Timbuktu at the time, because then he'd have an alibi!
You have to be able to claim the guys went to a flight school, and thus knew how to fly the plane,
because otherwise the whole story is a non-starter.
There is no proof of the story that withstands the laugh test. Anybody who has seriously looked
into this knows that.
The turning point was the beheadings last month of two US journalists by members of the Islamic
State in Iraq and the Levant, or Isis. Once videos of their killings were posted on the internet
by Isis, their deaths amounted to virtual public executions.
Bill McInturff, a Republican-aligned pollster who along with a Democratic colleague conducts the
closely watched Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, said the change in public opinion had been "sudden".
That poll showed 61 per cent of respondents thought military action against Isis was in America's
national interest." – See more at:
http://mondoweiss.net/2014/09/arabs-rouhani-matthews/#sthash.xX4Cnzub.dpuf
Do American warmongers need a theory? Anything will do. The sheeple will pass flatulence and
think they are clearing the air .
But here's a question about 9/11 from esteemed Unz Review contributor Paul Craig Roberts:
Who are the real conspiracy kooks, the majority who disbelieve the official lies or the minority
who believe the official lies?
True, his designation of the official story as lies is question begging, but it fairly places
the onus of responsibility for establishing what happened on 9/11 with those who uphold the official
conspiracy theory, which is now widely disbelieved.
Time, in other words, for a real, competent, and open, forensic investigation.
I hope you understood at least that I was saying your #174 comment was at best a case of the
pot calling the kettle black. Beyond that i can't help beyond suggesting you have a good sleep,
a cold shower, and try again.
It's no use quoting PCR to me. Indeed calling him esteemed casts doubt on our sharing the same
planet as I read quite a few of his effusions and eventually joined those who had written him
down as a crank, and not even one from whom one could pick up useful or interesting facts or stimulating
cogently reasoned ideas.
Excuse me, under the previous American Pravda articles by Ron, I specifically asked you to outline
the strongest evidence available that the government story on 9/11 is substantially true, i.e.
Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda etcetera.
In response, you wrote a long series of twaddles, idiotic non-sequitirs interspersed with vile
ad hominem and never produced a single piece of evidence.
NOTHING. There is a clear electronic record of this:`
and here: http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-alexander-cockburn-and-the-british-spies/#comment-1550686
I continually ask the shit eaters such as yourself what is the evidence for this government story.
You never ever every provide any! In general, you end up falling back on the ridiculous position
that the government story being the government story is proof!
Well, eventually, I always corner you on this. Always. You end up having to walk away, but never
have the minimal honesty to simply admit that you cannot produce any evidence because you have
none.
And then within a few days or so after that, you are back, quibbling with some other person asking
them to produce evidence of something or other.
I will reiterate. If you want to turn over a new leaf and be an honest, decent person, you should
do one of two things:
1. Outline what you think the strongest evidence for the government story is.
2. Admit that you have no evidence.
There are no other logical possibilities. What is it? 1. or 2.?
Fortunately I have missed most of your agitated comments directed at me, including the repetitious
stuff which, contrary to what the preceding paragraphs led me to expect, proved to be just you
quoting yourself.
In the meantime I have come across someone who is almost unique in my experience of those whose
reaction to the official reports [note that it is or ought to be plural] on 9/11 matters is to
respond with scepticism as a minimum. CalDre with whom I have exchanged comments writes with intelligence
and civility that makes rational conversation not only possible but agreeable.
Your performances are, by contrast, a case for diagnosis. Are they attempts at persuasion by
rational argument, or at persuasion at all? On the face of it the insulting language would rule
that out unless it is understood as the kind of persuasion-by-bullying practised in the Gulag
or Lubyanka.
Well I don't get very excited by 9/11 matters and I get even less out of contemplating the
frothings of those who do, so I shall take my leave of whoever or what "Jonathan Revusky" may
be and confine any discussion of 9/11 matters to those who have demostrated at least a modicum
of rational intelligence and civility.
Fortunately I have missed most of your agitated comments directed at me,
Uh huh, yeah right, except there is a problem with what you are saying. The problem is this: YOU
ARE LYING YOUR ASS OFF.
You did not fail to respond to my last posts because you "missed" my "agitated comments". You
failed to respond because you were cornered and had no response. Everybody who was reading the
exchange (possibly nobody or many people, I dunno...) knows this.
Specifically, you tried the sophomoric trick of trying to claim that the proof of the government's
story was that it was the government's story.
I said no dice, you can't do that and you were out of bullets and walked away. That was here:
The reason that this comment went with no reply from you was because you were cornered and could
not reply.
Or, if you can, fine. So it's just back to where were were at. Please outline the best available
evidence for the US govt story (Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda etc.) or admit that there is no real
evidence.
so I shall take my leave of whoever or what "Jonathan Revusky" may be and confine any discussion
of 9/11 matters to those who have demonstrated at least a modicum of rational intelligence
and civility.
TRANSLATION: "I will only debate with people who let me get away with murder in the debate. this
"Jonathan Revusky" doesn't let me get away with this shit, like that the government's story is
proof of the government's story so obviously I can't debate with him. Oh, I'll pretend that I
don't debate with him because of his horrible personality, though, not because I am incapable
of it..."
The issue is obviously not my deplorable personality. The issue is that I posed the completely
legitimate question of what is the best evidence available of the US govt story on 9/11. You obviously
cannot reply because there is no evidence for the story and you are trying to blow smoke to avoid
conceding that point.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
Excuse me, under the previous American Pravda articles by Ron, I specifically asked you to outline
the strongest evidence available that the government story on 9/11 is substantially true, i.e.
Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda etcetera.
In response, you wrote a long series of twaddles, idiotic non-sequitirs interspersed with vile
ad hominem and never produced a single piece of evidence.
NOTHING. There is a clear electronic record of this:`
and here: http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-alexander-cockburn-and-the-british-spies/#comment-1550686
I continually ask the shit eaters such as yourself what is the evidence for this government story.
You never ever every provide any! In general, you end up falling back on the ridiculous position
that the government story being the government story is proof!
Well, eventually, I always corner you on this. Always. You end up having to walk away, but never
have the minimal honesty to simply admit that you cannot produce any evidence because you have
none.
And then within a few days or so after that, you are back, quibbling with some other person asking
them to produce evidence of something or other.
I will reiterate. If you want to turn over a new leaf and be an honest, decent person, you should
do one of two things:
1. Outline what you think the strongest evidence for the government story is.
2. Admit that you have no evidence.
There are no other logical possibilities. What is it? 1. or 2.?
And BTW my querying reference to proof and evidence which you used as a hook for a generalised
rant was about what might have been stored in WTC 7, without copies or backup, that needed to
be destroyed. As I pointed out there were otherwise serious problems of motive raised by supposing
WTC 7 was part of the plot. Do you condescend to detail?
It's no use quoting PCR to me. Indeed calling him esteemed casts doubt on our sharing the same
planet as I read quite a few of his effusions and eventually joined those who had written him
down as a crank, and not even one from whom one could pick up useful or interesting facts or stimulating
cogently reasoned ideas.
I was saying your #174 comment was at best a case of the pot calling the kettle black
But you said it in five unintelligible paragraphs instead, perhaps to conceal that there was
no logical basis to your claim.
As for your contempt for Unz Review contributor, PCR, it makes one wonder why you hang around
here so much. Are you, perhaps, one of
Cass Sunstein's boys
?
As best I understand, this Wizard of Oz creep is some kind of elderly lawyer down in Australia.
A real sleazebag shyster type lawyer, perhaps the Aussie equivalent of Alan Dershowitz.
He has a certain bag of tricks that he uses to blow smoke. This guy is an absolutely disgusting
individual and it's really nauseating to interact with him. Maybe it's just a waste of time because
surely most everybody sees through this guy's charlatanry by now.
My approach has just been to try to corner him into admitting that he has no evidence for the
official 9/11 story. By now, he has tried every sophomoric trick, like claiming that the onus
on me to prove something to him, or then claiming that the proof of the government story is the
government story. Now, he is claiming that he won't respond because of my deplorable personality.
It's like he has a bag of tricks that he goes through. "Oh, that one didn't work, so now I'll
try this one..."
The guy really is just disgusting. A real piece of shit. But regarding your Cass Sunstein allusion,
I have no idea. It is hard to see why somebody would do what Wizard does here just on his own
dime, with this level of persistence, if there was nothing in it for him. But I dunno. It's hard
to fathom the psychology of some people.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
In the meantime I have come across someone who is almost unique in my experience of those whose
reaction to the official reports [note that it is or ought to be plural] on 9/11 matters is to
respond with scepticism as a minimum. CalDre with whom I have exchanged comments writes with intelligence
and civility that makes rational conversation not only possible but agreeable.
Your performances are, by contrast, a case for diagnosis. Are they attempts at persuasion by
rational argument, or at persuasion at all? On the face of it the insulting language would rule
that out unless it is understood as the kind of persuasion-by-bullying practised in the Gulag
or Lubyanka.
Well I don't get very excited by 9/11 matters and I get even less out of contemplating the
frothings of those who do, so I shall take my leave of whoever or what "Jonathan Revusky" may
be and confine any discussion of 9/11 matters to those who have demostrated at least a modicum
of rational intelligence and civility.
Fortunately I have missed most of your agitated comments directed at me,
Uh huh, yeah right, except there is a problem with what you are saying. The problem is this:
YOU ARE LYING YOUR ASS OFF.
You did not fail to respond to my last posts because you "missed" my "agitated comments". You
failed to respond because you were cornered and had no response. Everybody who was reading the
exchange (possibly nobody or many people, I dunno ) knows this.
Specifically, you tried the sophomoric trick of trying to claim that the proof of the government's
story was that it was the government's story.
I said no dice, you can't do that and you were out of bullets and walked away. That was here:
The reason that this comment went with no reply from you was because you were cornered and
could not reply.
Or, if you can, fine. So it's just back to where were were at. Please outline the best available
evidence for the US govt story (Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda etc.) or admit that there is no real
evidence.
so I shall take my leave of whoever or what "Jonathan Revusky" may be and confine any discussion
of 9/11 matters to those who have demonstrated at least a modicum of rational intelligence
and civility.
TRANSLATION: "I will only debate with people who let me get away with murder in the debate.
this "Jonathan Revusky" doesn't let me get away with this shit, like that the government's story
is proof of the government's story so obviously I can't debate with him. Oh, I'll pretend that
I don't debate with him because of his horrible personality, though, not because I am incapable
of it "
The issue is obviously not my deplorable personality. The issue is that I posed the completely
legitimate question of what is the best evidence available of the US govt story on 9/11. You obviously
cannot reply because there is no evidence for the story and you are trying to blow smoke to avoid
conceding that point.
• Replies:
@CanSpeccy Actually, Jonathan, WizOz is absolutely correct in identifying you - a critic of
the official 9/11 story - as a crackpot conspiracy theorist. This is simply a matter of definition,
as Ron Unz explains. CIA-inspired media usage has defined the questioning of official history
as crackpot conspiracy theorizing.
A crackpot conspiracy theory, so defined, may, of course, be entirely correct and it may be obviously
correct to a normally intelligent person presented with the relevant evidence. But it is still
consistent with current media usage to call it a crackpot conspiracy theory.
Likewise, in accordance with current media usage, any official theory is correct because it is
official, although at the same time it may be total bollocks.
1. Outline what you think the strongest evidence for the government story is.
All of it. What kind of nonsense question is this? You can read the evidence in multiple places.
And we already know what your response is to every single bit of evidence: "The Government faked
it!"
So if someone were to say "Osama Bin Laden admitted to planinng the attack on video," you would
say "Bin Laden was a robot created by the CIA" or whatever your moronic theory is.
If someone said "We know that Atta and the other hijackers were taking flight training and
that they had meetings in Afghanistan planning the attacks," then you would say "They were rehearsing
a play!" or something that is actually somewhat dumber than that.
"There are no other logical possibilities. What is it? 1. or 2.?"
Allow me to present a third alternative:
3. Arguing with conspiracy theorists is a huge waste of time because they have no idea what
they are talking about and are so ideologically blinded that they will never accept any evidence
no matter how convincing and authoritative.
See? Even in the meta-discussion of this conspiracy, your logic is flawed.
1. Outline what you think the strongest evidence for the government story is.
All of it. What kind of nonsense question is this?
Hey, shit eater, can't you read? I didn't say "all of it". I said outline the strongest
evidence available. I worded it that way because I anticipate the shit eater response that
oh, there is just so much evidence that you can't possibly outline it all! So I just said, "outline
the strongest evidence". NOT all of it .
What is the strongest evidence available, in your opinion that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated
from Afghanistan by a bearded religious fanatic named Osama bin Laden?
Anyway, asking for the evidence is not a "nonsense question". Well, it is if you're a shit
eater, because if you're a shit eater, you eat up whatever bullshit they throw in your general
direction, so they said it on the TV so it's true, and there is no need for any actual evidence.
I understand the shit eater mentality.
So if someone were to say "Osama Bin Laden admitted to planinng the attack on video,"
Okay, is that your answer? Is that the strongest evidence available?
If someone said "We know that Atta and the other hijackers were taking flight training and
that they had meetings in Afghanistan planning the attacks,"
Okay, that they were at the flight school is proof that they flew buildings in to skyscrapers.
That's what you're saying? Okay, is that the strongest evidence available or is it the aforementioned
videos?
As for the meetings in Afghanistan, uhh, that is claimed. What is the proof of that? They took
minutes of the meeting and we have the records? There's a recording? Or is it just that they claimed
that these meetings took place and it's just an unsubstantiated claim?
3. Arguing with conspiracy theorists is a huge waste of time because they have no idea what
they are talking about and are so ideologically blinded that they will never accept any evidence
no matter how convincing and authoritative.
Well, that's not what's happening in these exchanges. What keeps happening is that I keep asking
what the evidence is and nobody provides any.
You say the evidence is the video of Bin Laden? Well, there's expert opinion that the videos
are fake. But, in any case, if a plane flies into a building tomorrow on the other side of the
world, in China say, I could immediately put up a video claiming that I made this happen. Would
that be hard proof?
And pointing to some guys who were in a flight school, therefore they hijacked the planes
this is not strong proof. In general, the proof cannot be equally consistent with the people people
being patsies. It's like claiming that Oswald was in the vicinity there when the thing went down.
Well, of course he was, he had to be because he was the patsy, so they could frame him. He couldn't
be off in Timbuktu at the time, because then he'd have an alibi!
You have to be able to claim the guys went to a flight school, and thus knew how to fly the
plane, because otherwise the whole story is a non-starter.
There is no proof of the story that withstands the laugh test. Anybody who has seriously looked
into this knows that.
Arguing with a shit eater is a waste of time, because when you ask them for the evidence for
whatever bullshit they have gobbled up, they never concede that THEY SIMPLY HAVE NONE. •
Replies:
@Boris
What is the strongest evidence available, in your opinion that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated
from Afghanistan by a bearded religious fanatic named Osama bin Laden?
9/11 was a complicated plot so asking for the "strongest evidnce" doesn't even make sense.
We have video and records of guys in an organization that wanted to commit terrorism in America
arriving in America, researching how to fly commercial airplanes, showing up at the airport on
9/11 and boarding the flights. We have recordings of the hijackers picked up by ATC. We have recordings
of flight attendants calling and describing stabbings on board, and lots more calls from passengers
in flight describing what is happening. We have video of the Twin Towers being hit by airplanes.
Then the guy in charge of everything puts out a video about how great a job they did.
Yes, it would be possible to fake all of that (well, not the planes hitting the buildings). And
yet no one has ever put forth any convincing evidence that it was. Hm.
You say the evidence is the video of Bin Laden? Well, there's expert opinion that the videos
are fake.
Far more experts think it's real. I guess they are in on it?
Well, of course he was, he had to be because he was the patsy, so they could frame him.
Well now you want to argue your stupid conspiracy theory. See, any evidence that is presented
can be made into fit into some alternate theory. But those alternate theories never seem to have
any evidence backing them up.
I'm looking forward* to your discussion of the phone calls from the plane and how they were made
by CIA actors and the family members of the dead are really lizard replicants and holograms and
nukes and on and on and on.
I was saying your #174 comment was at best a case of the pot calling the kettle black
But you said it in five unintelligible paragraphs instead, perhaps to conceal that there was no
logical basis to your claim.
As for your contempt for Unz Review contributor, PCR, it makes one wonder why you hang around
here so much. Are you, perhaps, one of
Cass Sunstein's boys
?
Are you, perhaps, one of Cass Sunstein's boys?
As best I understand, this Wizard of Oz creep is some kind of elderly lawyer down in Australia.
A real sleazebag shyster type lawyer, perhaps the Aussie equivalent of Alan Dershowitz.
He has a certain bag of tricks that he uses to blow smoke. This guy is an absolutely disgusting
individual and it's really nauseating to interact with him. Maybe it's just a waste of time because
surely most everybody sees through this guy's charlatanry by now.
My approach has just been to try to corner him into admitting that he has no evidence for the
official 9/11 story. By now, he has tried every sophomoric trick, like claiming that the onus
on me to prove something to him, or then claiming that the proof of the government story is the
government story. Now, he is claiming that he won't respond because of my deplorable personality.
It's like he has a bag of tricks that he goes through. "Oh, that one didn't work, so now I'll
try this one "
The guy really is just disgusting. A real piece of shit. But regarding your Cass Sunstein allusion,
I have no idea. It is hard to see why somebody would do what Wizard does here just on his own
dime, with this level of persistence, if there was nothing in it for him. But I dunno. It's hard
to fathom the psychology of some people.
• Replies:
@CanSpeccy Oh come'n. The Wiz isn't as bad as Dershowitz.
Thing is though, there's probably not much difference between a lawyer and a professional troll.
Fortunately I have missed most of your agitated comments directed at me,
Uh huh, yeah right, except there is a problem with what you are saying. The problem is this: YOU
ARE LYING YOUR ASS OFF.
You did not fail to respond to my last posts because you "missed" my "agitated comments". You
failed to respond because you were cornered and had no response. Everybody who was reading the
exchange (possibly nobody or many people, I dunno...) knows this.
Specifically, you tried the sophomoric trick of trying to claim that the proof of the government's
story was that it was the government's story.
I said no dice, you can't do that and you were out of bullets and walked away. That was here:
The reason that this comment went with no reply from you was because you were cornered and could
not reply.
Or, if you can, fine. So it's just back to where were were at. Please outline the best available
evidence for the US govt story (Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda etc.) or admit that there is no real
evidence.
so I shall take my leave of whoever or what "Jonathan Revusky" may be and confine any discussion
of 9/11 matters to those who have demonstrated at least a modicum of rational intelligence
and civility.
TRANSLATION: "I will only debate with people who let me get away with murder in the debate. this
"Jonathan Revusky" doesn't let me get away with this shit, like that the government's story is
proof of the government's story so obviously I can't debate with him. Oh, I'll pretend that I
don't debate with him because of his horrible personality, though, not because I am incapable
of it..."
The issue is obviously not my deplorable personality. The issue is that I posed the completely
legitimate question of what is the best evidence available of the US govt story on 9/11. You obviously
cannot reply because there is no evidence for the story and you are trying to blow smoke to avoid
conceding that point.
Actually, Jonathan, WizOz is absolutely correct in identifying you - a critic of the official
9/11 story - as a crackpot conspiracy theorist. This is simply a matter of definition, as Ron
Unz explains. CIA-inspired media usage has defined the questioning of official history as crackpot
conspiracy theorizing.
A crackpot conspiracy theory, so defined, may, of course, be entirely correct and it may be
obviously correct to a normally intelligent person presented with the relevant evidence. But it
is still consistent with current media usage to call it a crackpot conspiracy theory.
Likewise, in accordance with current media usage, any official theory is correct because it
is official, although at the same time it may be total bollocks.
In fact, any theory that is quite consistently labelled a crackpot conspiracy theory by the
media is almost certainly at least in part true, since otherwise failing institutions such as
the New York Times and the PuffHo would not waste their diminishing capital of credibility
by mocking it.
• Replies:
@Wizard of Oz Well you don't rave like the frothing Revusky so I shall mention here an interesting
link to follow and that is Wikipedia on thermite. I don't remember anything about thermite reactions
at least as such from 6th form Chemistry and now realise that aluminium is frequently at the core
of thermite reactions, thereby lending support to the recently expounded theories of heating,
and explosions, which would correct the official versions. (There was about 30 tons of aluminium
in each plane from memory). I couldn't see anything about a thermite connection to demolitions.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
ogunsiron
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 8, 2016 at 9:54 pm GMT
@5371 This is a good piece which deserved an acceptable level of mental hygiene in the comment
section. Unfortunately, two of the first nine comments are from morons spamming their "no lunar
landing" drivel. In all probability the "no nuclear weapons" clowns will also be here imminently.
Oh well, a delicious sweet dish will attract a fly as much as a gourmet.
In all probability the "no nuclear weapons" clowns will also be here imminently
--
The flat earth guys might beat them to it.
1. Outline what you think the strongest evidence for the government story is.
All of it. What kind of nonsense question is this?
Hey, shit eater, can't you read? I didn't say "all of it". I said outline the strongest evidence
available. I worded it that way because I anticipate the shit eater response that... oh, there
is just so much evidence that you can't possibly outline it all! So I just said, "outline the
strongest evidence". NOT all of it .
What is the strongest evidence available, in your opinion that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated
from Afghanistan by a bearded religious fanatic named Osama bin Laden?
Anyway, asking for the evidence is not a "nonsense question". Well, it is if you're a shit eater,
because if you're a shit eater, you eat up whatever bullshit they throw in your general direction,
so they said it on the TV so it's true, and there is no need for any actual evidence.
I understand the shit eater mentality.
So if someone were to say "Osama Bin Laden admitted to planinng the attack on video,"
Okay, is that your answer? Is that the strongest evidence available?
If someone said "We know that Atta and the other hijackers were taking flight training and
that they had meetings in Afghanistan planning the attacks,"
Okay, that they were at the flight school is proof that they flew buildings in to skyscrapers.
That's what you're saying? Okay, is that the strongest evidence available or is it the aforementioned
videos?
As for the meetings in Afghanistan, uhh, that is claimed. What is the proof of that? They took
minutes of the meeting and we have the records? There's a recording? Or is it just that they claimed
that these meetings took place and it's just an unsubstantiated claim?
3. Arguing with conspiracy theorists is a huge waste of time because they have no idea what
they are talking about and are so ideologically blinded that they will never accept any evidence
no matter how convincing and authoritative.
Well, that's not what's happening in these exchanges. What keeps happening is that I keep asking
what the evidence is and nobody provides any.
You say the evidence is the video of Bin Laden? Well, there's expert opinion that the videos are
fake. But, in any case, if a plane flies into a building tomorrow on the other side of the world,
in China say, I could immediately put up a video claiming that I made this happen. Would that
be hard proof?
And pointing to some guys who were in a flight school, therefore they hijacked the planes... this
is not strong proof. In general, the proof cannot be equally consistent with the people people
being patsies. It's like claiming that Oswald was in the vicinity there when the thing went down.
Well, of course he was, he had to be because he was the patsy, so they could frame him. He couldn't
be off in Timbuktu at the time, because then he'd have an alibi!
You have to be able to claim the guys went to a flight school, and thus knew how to fly the plane,
because otherwise the whole story is a non-starter.
There is no proof of the story that withstands the laugh test. Anybody who has seriously looked
into this knows that.
Arguing with a shit eater is a waste of time, because when you ask them for the evidence for whatever
bullshit they have gobbled up, they never concede that THEY SIMPLY HAVE NONE.
What is the strongest evidence available, in your opinion that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated
from Afghanistan by a bearded religious fanatic named Osama bin Laden?
9/11 was a complicated plot so asking for the "strongest evidnce" doesn't even make sense.
We have video and records of guys in an organization that wanted to commit terrorism in America
arriving in America, researching how to fly commercial airplanes, showing up at the airport on
9/11 and boarding the flights. We have recordings of the hijackers picked up by ATC. We have recordings
of flight attendants calling and describing stabbings on board, and lots more calls from passengers
in flight describing what is happening. We have video of the Twin Towers being hit by airplanes.
Then the guy in charge of everything puts out a video about how great a job they did.
Yes, it would be possible to fake all of that (well, not the planes hitting the buildings).
And yet no one has ever put forth any convincing evidence that it was. Hm.
You say the evidence is the video of Bin Laden? Well, there's expert opinion that the videos
are fake.
Far more experts think it's real. I guess they are in on it?
Well, of course he was, he had to be because he was the patsy, so they could frame him.
Well now you want to argue your stupid conspiracy theory. See, any evidence that is presented
can be made into fit into some alternate theory. But those alternate theories never seem to have
any evidence backing them up.
I'm looking forward* to your discussion of the phone calls from the plane and how they were
made by CIA actors and the family members of the dead are really lizard replicants and holograms
and nukes and on and on and on.
[MORE]
*I am not actually looking forward to this.
9/11 was a complicated plot so asking for the "strongest evidnce" doesn't even make sense.
TRANSLATION OF SHIT-EATER SPEAK: "I have no real evidence so I'm going to pretend that the other
person is being unreasonable when he asks for some.
We have video and records of guys in an organization that wanted to commit terrorism in America...
Hey, shit eater, you ever heard of the "beg the question fallacy"? What that means is that you
can't assume the thing that you are trying to prove in your proof.
Anyway, what "videos" and "records" are you referring to specifically? It seems to me that you're
just repeating the story as proof of the story, which is, of course, what shit eaters do when
you ask them for proof of whatever bullshit.
Yes, it would be possible to fake all of that (well, not the planes hitting the buildings).
And yet no one has ever put forth any convincing evidence that it was. Hm.
Oh, you no one has ever put forth any convincing evidence that any of this is fake. Look, at this
point, there is a vast literature on this. And, yes, they have put forward VERY convincing evidence
that basically ALL OF IT is fake! In particular, the alleged phone calls from the planes that
detail the official narrative, these are very problematic, not technically possible even.
In any case, a video of a plane hitting a building is not proof that some bearded guy in Afghanistan
caused it to happen. By that reasoning, the Zapruder film of Kennedy being shot is proof that
Oswald did it. It is not.
Also, the video of a plane hitting a building is not proof that this is the cause of the
building's subsequent implosion. Particularly problematic is the third building WTC 7, which was
not hit by a plane, yet imploded in a perfectly symmetrical straight-down fashion that can only
be achieved via controlled demolition.
You say the evidence is the video of Bin Laden? Well, there's expert opinion that the videos
are fake.
Far more experts think it's real. I guess they are in on it?
Which experts think that the Bin Laden "confession videos" are real? Can you name any of these
"experts"?
In any case, anybody can say anything on a video. It's not very strong proof. I can put up a video
on youtube saying I did it.
Well now you want to argue your stupid conspiracy theory. See, any evidence that is presented
can be made into fit into some alternate theory. But those alternate theories never seem to
have any evidence backing them up.
The main alternative theory is that the buildings were prewired with explosives for a controlled
demolition. As regards WTC7, there is no reasonable doubt of this really, because the building
was not hit by a plane even. But, obviously, once you recognize that one building was pre-rigged
for controlled demolition, it becomes fairly obvious that all three were.
In any case, I did not actually propose any alternative story. I requested that you and whatever
other shit eaters tell me what they think the strongest evidence for the official story is.
There simply is not very much. It's stuff like somebody says they got a phone call from a plane
in which the person told them that such-and-such had happened. Fine, I could say I got a phone
call. There are people who will say anything for a few bucks.
I could put up a video saying I did it.
When you look at what you are presenting as evidence, it's very very weak. There's basically nothing
there.
Meanwhile, the physical evidence, that the collision of a single airliner with a building the
size of WTC1 or WTC2 is simply not going to cause what then happened. A 90-ton aluminum tube crashing
into 100,000 tons of structural steel, is simply not going to cause the latter to disintegrate.
And why a third building that is not even hit by a plane should disintegrate as a result, this
really only has one explanation, which is that the building in question was prerigged with explosives.
As best I understand, this Wizard of Oz creep is some kind of elderly lawyer down in Australia.
A real sleazebag shyster type lawyer, perhaps the Aussie equivalent of Alan Dershowitz.
He has a certain bag of tricks that he uses to blow smoke. This guy is an absolutely disgusting
individual and it's really nauseating to interact with him. Maybe it's just a waste of time because
surely most everybody sees through this guy's charlatanry by now.
My approach has just been to try to corner him into admitting that he has no evidence for the
official 9/11 story. By now, he has tried every sophomoric trick, like claiming that the onus
on me to prove something to him, or then claiming that the proof of the government story is the
government story. Now, he is claiming that he won't respond because of my deplorable personality.
It's like he has a bag of tricks that he goes through. "Oh, that one didn't work, so now I'll
try this one..."
The guy really is just disgusting. A real piece of shit. But regarding your Cass Sunstein allusion,
I have no idea. It is hard to see why somebody would do what Wizard does here just on his own
dime, with this level of persistence, if there was nothing in it for him. But I dunno. It's hard
to fathom the psychology of some people.
Oh come'n. The Wiz isn't as bad as Dershowitz.
Thing is though, there's probably not much difference between a lawyer and a professional troll.
Well, probably not, but that would mostly be because he lacks the talent.
I mean one thing that is clear about this Wizard is that this guy is really really stupid. I mean,
you ask him for proof of the government story and he tells you that the government story is proof
of the government story.
Of course, Alan Dershowitz would make the same argument basically, but it would be masked in a
more clever way. The Wizard just openly tells you that the proof of the government story is that
it's the government story. Sheesh, what a moron...
Thing is though, there's probably not much difference between a lawyer and a professional troll.
We accept the principle of cross examination when the government charges someone with a crime
and the case goes to court. What about if the case never makes it court? A crime occurs, but the
life of the accused is snatched away before a trial can commence. In those situations, if the
crime is serious enough, the government usually undertakes an investigation and issues a report
which contains the same evidence that would have been used in court.
We saw that with president Kennedys assassination, and we saw that with 911 attacks. In both
cases, the accused were dead before a trial ever started. No accused, no trial. No trial, no cross
examination. Just a report.
And we're supposed to trust the report. Believe the report. The report knows all.
But why?
Just because there's no trial doesn't mean there can't be a cross examination of the states
evidence. The only difference is that the evidence has been released in a report instead of a
court trial. Why is this evidence not a fit target for cross examination, especially by people
possessing relevant competencies? Why is that delegated to crazy, conspiracy thinking?
Without cross examination, the government has not legitimately proven it's case. Without that
challenge, we only have half the story. Criminal trials, the Constitution, and justice itself
becomes a farce. If the accused were to conveniently die before the trial, that also conveniently
negates the need to share the evidence with anyone. The government can then frame the case and
generate the proper presentation, to fix the light in order to cast the shadows and manufacture
the perceptions it wants.
Conspiracy Theorists are simply people who have the temerity to point this out and follow through
with a cross examination.
If the government itself committed a crime (or a cabal within it), how would you know?
We accept the principle of cross examination when the government charges someone with a crime
and the case goes to court.
Yeah, this is a very important point you make actually. For example, as far as I can tell, none
of the testimony provided that established the official government story on 9/11 was ever subjected
to any sort of adversarial cross-examination. Somebody says they got a phone call from a plane
and therefore it's true.
Or for example, somebody in this thread says that there are all these "experts" who say that whatever
Bin Laden video is authentic. But, as far as I can tell, these are just CIA connected "experts"
saying: "Yep, the video is real." And they're not saying it under oath, under penalty of perjury
or anything. And again, no cross-examination....
So, some guy who looks vaguely like Bin Laden is in a video chortling with glee, saying he made
this happen.
Or somebody says that there was a meeting in Afghanistan in which the attacks were discussed.
How do we know this? Oh, that's in the report... It always boils down to the notion that the government
story is true because it's the government story.
I'm not a lawyer but I think the technical term in jurisprudence for all this level of "evidence"
is that it's just "hearsay". Statements that aren't under oath and not subjected to any cross-examination...
just hearsay...
And on the basis of this, we launched a war on the other side of the world and caused the deaths
of so many people. Just some cock-and-bull story for which there is no evidence whatsoever. One
doesn't know whether to laugh or cry.
If the accused were to conveniently die before the trial, that also conveniently negates the
need to share the evidence with anyone
Wizard
of Oz says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 9, 2016 at 12:49 am GMT • 100 Words
@CanSpeccy Actually, Jonathan, WizOz is absolutely correct in identifying you - a critic of
the official 9/11 story - as a crackpot conspiracy theorist. This is simply a matter of definition,
as Ron Unz explains. CIA-inspired media usage has defined the questioning of official history
as crackpot conspiracy theorizing.
A crackpot conspiracy theory, so defined, may, of course, be entirely correct and it may be obviously
correct to a normally intelligent person presented with the relevant evidence. But it is still
consistent with current media usage to call it a crackpot conspiracy theory.
Likewise, in accordance with current media usage, any official theory is correct because it is
official, although at the same time it may be total bollocks.
In fact, any theory that is quite consistently labelled a crackpot conspiracy theory by the media
is almost certainly at least in part true, since otherwise failing institutions such as the
New York Times and the PuffHo would not waste their diminishing capital of credibility
by mocking it.
Well you don't rave like the frothing Revusky so I shall mention here an interesting link to
follow and that is Wikipedia on thermite. I don't remember anything about thermite reactions at
least as such from 6th form Chemistry and now realise that aluminium is frequently at the core
of thermite reactions, thereby lending support to the recently expounded theories of heating,
and explosions, which would correct the official versions. (There was about 30 tons of aluminium
in each plane from memory). I couldn't see anything about a thermite connection to demolitions.
I don't remember anything about thermite reactions at least as such from 6th form Chemistry
and now realise that aluminium is frequently at the core of thermite reactions, thereby lending
support to the recently expounded theories of heating, and explosions, which would correct
the official versions.
Yes, either your ignorance is profound, or your intent to divert the discussion into a nonsensical
channel is exposed.
Bulk aluminum doesn't ignite in a building fire. According to one source, aluminum must be
vaporized before it will burn and the boiling point of aluminum is 3,986 Farenheit, whereas the
adiabatic flame temperature of Kerosene in air, at around 3597 Farenheit, is 400 degrees lower.
Moreover, the jet fuel fires in the Twin Towers would likely have burned at considerably lower
temperatures due to oxygen supply limitations.
Aluminum burns readily in a thermitic compound comprising aluminum in a finely divided form
intimately mixed with an oxidizer, usually iron oxide. In the process of combustion aluminum is
oxidized, while the iron oxide is reduced to pure molten iron, which will be found in the reaction
residue in the form of iron microspheres, just as were abundant in the ash collected in the vicinity
of the Twin Towers.
What is the strongest evidence available, in your opinion that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated
from Afghanistan by a bearded religious fanatic named Osama bin Laden?
9/11 was a complicated plot so asking for the "strongest evidnce" doesn't even make sense.
We have video and records of guys in an organization that wanted to commit terrorism in America
arriving in America, researching how to fly commercial airplanes, showing up at the airport on
9/11 and boarding the flights. We have recordings of the hijackers picked up by ATC. We have recordings
of flight attendants calling and describing stabbings on board, and lots more calls from passengers
in flight describing what is happening. We have video of the Twin Towers being hit by airplanes.
Then the guy in charge of everything puts out a video about how great a job they did.
Yes, it would be possible to fake all of that (well, not the planes hitting the buildings). And
yet no one has ever put forth any convincing evidence that it was. Hm.
You say the evidence is the video of Bin Laden? Well, there's expert opinion that the videos
are fake.
Far more experts think it's real. I guess they are in on it?
Well, of course he was, he had to be because he was the patsy, so they could frame him.
Well now you want to argue your stupid conspiracy theory. See, any evidence that is presented
can be made into fit into some alternate theory. But those alternate theories never seem to have
any evidence backing them up.
I'm looking forward* to your discussion of the phone calls from the plane and how they were made
by CIA actors and the family members of the dead are really lizard replicants and holograms and
nukes and on and on and on.
*I am not actually looking forward to this.
9/11 was a complicated plot so asking for the "strongest evidnce" doesn't even make sense.
TRANSLATION OF SHIT-EATER SPEAK: "I have no real evidence so I'm going to pretend that the
other person is being unreasonable when he asks for some.
We have video and records of guys in an organization that wanted to commit terrorism in
America
Hey, shit eater, you ever heard of the "beg the question fallacy"? What that means is that
you can't assume the thing that you are trying to prove in your proof.
Anyway, what "videos" and "records" are you referring to specifically? It seems to me that
you're just repeating the story as proof of the story, which is, of course, what shit eaters do
when you ask them for proof of whatever bullshit.
Yes, it would be possible to fake all of that (well, not the planes hitting the buildings).
And yet no one has ever put forth any convincing evidence that it was. Hm.
Oh, you no one has ever put forth any convincing evidence that any of this is fake. Look, at
this point, there is a vast literature on this. And, yes, they have put forward VERY convincing
evidence that basically ALL OF IT is fake! In particular, the alleged phone calls from the planes
that detail the official narrative, these are very problematic, not technically possible even.
In any case, a video of a plane hitting a building is not proof that some bearded guy in Afghanistan
caused it to happen. By that reasoning, the Zapruder film of Kennedy being shot is proof that
Oswald did it. It is not.
Also, the video of a plane hitting a building is not proof that this is the cause of
the building's subsequent implosion. Particularly problematic is the third building WTC 7, which
was not hit by a plane, yet imploded in a perfectly symmetrical straight-down fashion that can
only be achieved via controlled demolition.
You say the evidence is the video of Bin Laden? Well, there's expert opinion that the
videos are fake.
Far more experts think it's real. I guess they are in on it?
Which experts think that the Bin Laden "confession videos" are real? Can you name any of these
"experts"?
In any case, anybody can say anything on a video. It's not very strong proof. I can put up
a video on youtube saying I did it.
Well now you want to argue your stupid conspiracy theory. See, any evidence that is presented
can be made into fit into some alternate theory. But those alternate theories never seem to
have any evidence backing them up.
The main alternative theory is that the buildings were prewired with explosives for a controlled
demolition. As regards WTC7, there is no reasonable doubt of this really, because the building
was not hit by a plane even. But, obviously, once you recognize that one building was pre-rigged
for controlled demolition, it becomes fairly obvious that all three were.
In any case, I did not actually propose any alternative story. I requested that you and whatever
other shit eaters tell me what they think the strongest evidence for the official story is.
There simply is not very much. It's stuff like somebody says they got a phone call from a plane
in which the person told them that such-and-such had happened. Fine, I could say I got a phone
call. There are people who will say anything for a few bucks.
I could put up a video saying I did it.
When you look at what you are presenting as evidence, it's very very weak. There's basically
nothing there.
Meanwhile, the physical evidence, that the collision of a single airliner with a building the
size of WTC1 or WTC2 is simply not going to cause what then happened. A 90-ton aluminum tube crashing
into 100,000 tons of structural steel, is simply not going to cause the latter to disintegrate.
And why a third building that is not even hit by a plane should disintegrate as a result, this
really only has one explanation, which is that the building in question was prerigged with explosives.
And that is why there are over 2000 professional architects and engineers who have signed the
Architechts and Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition calling for a new investigation.
Hey, shit eater, you ever heard of the "beg the question fallacy"? What that means is that
you can't assume the thing that you are trying to prove in your proof.
I am aware of that particular fallacy, fuckface.
Anyway, what "videos" and "records" are you referring to specifically?
Video surveillance of Atta at the airport. His purchase of the tickets. Money trails. And etc.
etc. etc.
Look, at this point, there is a vast literature on this.
Yes, there is a vast circle jerk of conspiracy theorists.
In particular, the alleged phone calls from the planes that detail the official narrative,
these are very problematic, not technically possible even.
Not technically possible? So the whole Airfone ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airfone ) business
was faked for years in anticipation of the deception? Our government overlords have a great deal
of foresight. And what evidence is there that the calls were faked? The Fake Calls theory is one
of the dumbest of those associated with truthers, so it doesn't surprise me to find that you are
an adherent.
The main alternative theory is that the buildings were prewired with explosives for a controlled
demolition. As regards WTC7, there is no reasonable doubt of this really, because the building
was not hit by a plane even.
Aside from various non-experts claiming that the collapse "looked like a controlled demolition"
there is no evidence for this theory. No explosives found. No wires found. Nothing. But you are
already at the "no reasonable doubt" stage? What a deep thinker you are!
A 90-ton aluminum tube crashing into 100,000 tons of structural steel, is simply not going
to cause the latter to disintegrate.
Evidence for this statement? Your feelings? Not very scientific, fuckface. ,
@Incitatus "The main alternative theory is that the buildings were prewired with explosives
for a controlled demolition. As regards WTC7, there is no reasonable doubt of this really, because
the building was not hit by a plane even. But, obviously, once you recognize that one building
was pre-rigged for controlled demolition, it becomes fairly obvious that all three were."
None dispute 9/11 was a conspiracy, but who was in it? Nineteen hijackers trained in Afghanistan
and funded by Gulf money (the govt story)? The Bush administration? Some other govt? Why?
You've obviously done a great deal of research and conclude (as you say) all WTC towers were intentionally
demolished. Please share your theory. If it was a scripted event:
• Why did WT 1 (the first tower hit) fall after WT 2? Did conspirators mix up demo timing?
• Why did they bother to take down WT 7? Wouldn't the lack of aerial impact reveal demo and conspiracy?
• How did conspirators mine 240 exterior columns on each office floor of WT 1 & 2 (±50,000 locations)
without detection? Central core columns? Freestanding columns in public view at grade? How was
it concealed from building tenants, management, maintenance staff, visitors, CoNY building inspectors,
supply services, etc? And the same in WTC 7?
• Architects and engineers from Minoru Yamasaki & Associates, Emery Roth & Sons, Worthington Skilling
Helle & Jackson, Joseph R. Loring & Assoc, Jaros Blum & Bolles, and the numerous other firms responsible
for the WTC don't appear to be part of ae911truth. Are they part of the conspiracy? Are WTC building
contractors and subcontractors part of the conspiracy? Building tenants?
• How could the same administration that ignored 9/11 warnings, bungled Katrina and screwed-up
Iraq 2003 pull off such a complex, faultless conspiracy? Why have no insiders spilled the tale?
9/11 was a complicated plot so asking for the "strongest evidnce" doesn't even make sense.
TRANSLATION OF SHIT-EATER SPEAK: "I have no real evidence so I'm going to pretend that the other
person is being unreasonable when he asks for some.
We have video and records of guys in an organization that wanted to commit terrorism in America...
Hey, shit eater, you ever heard of the "beg the question fallacy"? What that means is that you
can't assume the thing that you are trying to prove in your proof.
Anyway, what "videos" and "records" are you referring to specifically? It seems to me that you're
just repeating the story as proof of the story, which is, of course, what shit eaters do when
you ask them for proof of whatever bullshit.
Yes, it would be possible to fake all of that (well, not the planes hitting the buildings).
And yet no one has ever put forth any convincing evidence that it was. Hm.
Oh, you no one has ever put forth any convincing evidence that any of this is fake. Look, at this
point, there is a vast literature on this. And, yes, they have put forward VERY convincing evidence
that basically ALL OF IT is fake! In particular, the alleged phone calls from the planes that
detail the official narrative, these are very problematic, not technically possible even.
In any case, a video of a plane hitting a building is not proof that some bearded guy in Afghanistan
caused it to happen. By that reasoning, the Zapruder film of Kennedy being shot is proof that
Oswald did it. It is not.
Also, the video of a plane hitting a building is not proof that this is the cause of the
building's subsequent implosion. Particularly problematic is the third building WTC 7, which was
not hit by a plane, yet imploded in a perfectly symmetrical straight-down fashion that can only
be achieved via controlled demolition.
You say the evidence is the video of Bin Laden? Well, there's expert opinion that the videos
are fake.
Far more experts think it's real. I guess they are in on it?
Which experts think that the Bin Laden "confession videos" are real? Can you name any of these
"experts"?
In any case, anybody can say anything on a video. It's not very strong proof. I can put up a video
on youtube saying I did it.
Well now you want to argue your stupid conspiracy theory. See, any evidence that is presented
can be made into fit into some alternate theory. But those alternate theories never seem to
have any evidence backing them up.
The main alternative theory is that the buildings were prewired with explosives for a controlled
demolition. As regards WTC7, there is no reasonable doubt of this really, because the building
was not hit by a plane even. But, obviously, once you recognize that one building was pre-rigged
for controlled demolition, it becomes fairly obvious that all three were.
In any case, I did not actually propose any alternative story. I requested that you and whatever
other shit eaters tell me what they think the strongest evidence for the official story is.
There simply is not very much. It's stuff like somebody says they got a phone call from a plane
in which the person told them that such-and-such had happened. Fine, I could say I got a phone
call. There are people who will say anything for a few bucks.
I could put up a video saying I did it.
When you look at what you are presenting as evidence, it's very very weak. There's basically nothing
there.
Meanwhile, the physical evidence, that the collision of a single airliner with a building the
size of WTC1 or WTC2 is simply not going to cause what then happened. A 90-ton aluminum tube crashing
into 100,000 tons of structural steel, is simply not going to cause the latter to disintegrate.
And why a third building that is not even hit by a plane should disintegrate as a result, this
really only has one explanation, which is that the building in question was prerigged with explosives.
And that is why there are over 2000 professional architects and engineers who have signed the
Architechts and Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition calling for a new investigation.
Hey, shit eater, you ever heard of the "beg the question fallacy"? What that means is that
you can't assume the thing that you are trying to prove in your proof.
I am aware of that particular fallacy, fuckface.
Anyway, what "videos" and "records" are you referring to specifically?
Video surveillance of Atta at the airport. His purchase of the tickets. Money trails. And etc.
etc. etc.
Look, at this point, there is a vast literature on this.
Yes, there is a vast circle jerk of conspiracy theorists.
In particular, the alleged phone calls from the planes that detail the official narrative,
these are very problematic, not technically possible even.
Not technically possible? So the whole Airfone (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airfone
) business was faked for years in anticipation of the deception? Our government overlords
have a great deal of foresight. And what evidence is there that the calls were faked? The Fake
Calls theory is one of the dumbest of those associated with truthers, so it doesn't surprise me
to find that you are an adherent.
The main alternative theory is that the buildings were prewired with explosives for a controlled
demolition. As regards WTC7, there is no reasonable doubt of this really, because the building
was not hit by a plane even.
Aside from various non-experts claiming that the collapse "looked like a controlled demolition"
there is no evidence for this theory. No explosives found. No wires found. Nothing. But you are
already at the "no reasonable doubt" stage? What a deep thinker you are!
A 90-ton aluminum tube crashing into 100,000 tons of structural steel, is simply not going
to cause the latter to disintegrate.
Evidence for this statement? Your feelings? Not very scientific, fuckface.
Hey, shit eater, you ever heard of the "beg the question fallacy"? What that means is that
you can't assume the thing that you are trying to prove in your proof.
I am aware of that particular fallacy, fuckface.
So you say, but there is actually no sign at all that you are aware of that fallacy.
In general, I've debated with shit eaters enough to know that, as a general rule, they do not
understand the "beg the question" fallacy. Because they always, always, end up telling you that
the government story is proof of the government story. They always do. It never fails.
Video surveillance of Atta at the airport. His purchase of the tickets. Money trails. And etc.
etc. etc.
Well, you see, you don't even understand the basic parameters of the debate. You have to come
up with "proof" that is not equally consistent with the person being a patsy. You know, it's like
if you say that Lee Harvey Oswald was in the schoolbook depository building at the time of the
assassination. Well, that's just as consistent with him being a patsy as being the killer! He
has to be in approximately the right place at the right time so that you can frame him for the
crime! And the same applies here.
But you don't understand that apparently!
So, that there is a record of Atta, or somebody representing that he's Atta, purchasing the tickets,
this is just as consistent with Atta being a patsy as actually being a perpetrator. You're presenting
this as proof but it is not proof of anything. Or it's stuff like there's a video of some guy
who looks like Bin Laden saying he made this happen. I could put up a video making the same claim.
These are just airy fairy things that are not real proof of anything. And you apparently think
that it's normal that you can just launch some war and kill so many thousands of innocents based
on some story with this level of proof. It's just ridiculous.
Look, at this point, there is a vast literature on this.
Yes, there is a vast circle jerk of conspiracy theorists.
Hmm, well, have you read any of of the authors in question? David Ray Griffin, for example? Or
Webster Tarpley? Have you looked at any of the material on the Architects and Engineers for 9/11
Truth website.
I kind of doubt it. Officialdom just tells you what to think of this stuff and you've almost certainly
never checked for yourself.
Well, I know this. You're not the first shit eater I've debated with.
The Fake Calls theory is one of the dumbest of those associated with truthers, so it doesn't
surprise me to find that you are an adherent.
I simply asked you what the proof of the story was. Okay, so somebody says they got a phone
call. And that's proof. For you. Or they say that there were meetings in Afghanistan in which
the attacks were discussed. What is the proof of that? It's just the story they tell and the story
is proof of the story. You actually clearly do not understand the "beg the question" fallacy.
Now, even if the phone calls were technically possible, which I do doubt, it hardly is proof.
And certainly it is not proof of the central thesis of the government, that all of this was orchestrated
by people in faroff Afghanistan. That was the basis for the subsequent war that was launched.
Aside from various non-experts claiming that the collapse "looked like a controlled demolition"
there is no evidence for this theory. No explosives found.
Well, now it's becoming clear that you just don't know anything about this topic. Go to http://ae911truth.org/
and you'll see that the people saying this have very high levels of expertise.
As for there being no evidence for the "theory" that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, the case
is in fact overwhelming. This is simply because there is no building collapse that looks exactly
like a controlled demolition that is not, in fact, a controlled demolition. Something that symmetrical
obviously has to be engineered.
As for no proof of explosives being found, this is because they specifically did not look for
any.
A 90-ton aluminum tube crashing into 100,000 tons of structural steel, is simply not going
to cause the latter to disintegrate.
Evidence for this statement? Your feelings? Not very scientific, fuckface.
Well, go to http://ae911truth.org/ and get educated. Anybody with, let's say, a decent high school
education, who spends as much as a half day on the internet contrasting different sources, will
see that the ae911truth people are simply telling the truth. And that means that the government
story of what happened is simply impossible.
This is most absolutely clear with the WTC7, since that building was not even hit by a plane.
They are trying to claim that a building can implode in a perfectly symmetrical way from uncontrolled
fires. The building has 40-odd steel support columns that would all have to give way within the
same split second. That has to be engineered.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
Jonathan
Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment
September 9, 2016 at 2:22 am GMT • 300 Words
@BobFromTheHills We accept the principle of cross examination when the government charges
someone with a crime and the case goes to court. What about if the case never makes it court?
A crime occurs, but the life of the accused is snatched away before a trial can commence. In those
situations, if the crime is serious enough, the government usually undertakes an investigation
and issues a report which contains the same evidence that would have been used in court.
We saw that with president Kennedys assassination, and we saw that with 911 attacks. In both cases,
the accused were dead before a trial ever started. No accused, no trial. No trial, no cross examination.
Just a report.
And we're supposed to trust the report. Believe the report. The report knows all.
But why?
Just because there's no trial doesn't mean there can't be a cross examination of the states evidence.
The only difference is that the evidence has been released in a report instead of a court trial.
Why is this evidence not a fit target for cross examination, especially by people possessing relevant
competencies? Why is that delegated to crazy, conspiracy thinking?
Without cross examination, the government has not legitimately proven it's case. Without that
challenge, we only have half the story. Criminal trials, the Constitution, and justice itself
becomes a farce. If the accused were to conveniently die before the trial, that also conveniently
negates the need to share the evidence with anyone. The government can then frame the case and
generate the proper presentation, to fix the light in order to cast the shadows and manufacture
the perceptions it wants.
Conspiracy Theorists are simply people who have the temerity to point this out and follow through
with a cross examination.
If the government itself committed a crime (or a cabal within it), how would you know?
We accept the principle of cross examination when the government charges someone with a
crime and the case goes to court.
Yeah, this is a very important point you make actually. For example, as far as I can tell,
none of the testimony provided that established the official government story on 9/11 was ever
subjected to any sort of adversarial cross-examination. Somebody says they got a phone call from
a plane and therefore it's true.
Or for example, somebody in this thread says that there are all these "experts" who say that
whatever Bin Laden video is authentic. But, as far as I can tell, these are just CIA connected
"experts" saying: "Yep, the video is real." And they're not saying it under oath, under penalty
of perjury or anything. And again, no cross-examination .
So, some guy who looks vaguely like Bin Laden is in a video chortling with glee, saying he
made this happen.
Or somebody says that there was a meeting in Afghanistan in which the attacks were discussed.
How do we know this? Oh, that's in the report It always boils down to the notion that the government
story is true because it's the government story.
I'm not a lawyer but I think the technical term in jurisprudence for all this level of "evidence"
is that it's just "hearsay". Statements that aren't under oath and not subjected to any cross-examination
just hearsay
And on the basis of this, we launched a war on the other side of the world and caused the deaths
of so many people. Just some cock-and-bull story for which there is no evidence whatsoever. One
doesn't know whether to laugh or cry.
If the accused were to conveniently die before the trial, that also conveniently negates
the need to share the evidence with anyone
Well, yeah actually, in these Deep State operations, the patsies are pretty much invariably
killed. And then, of course, the government can claim whatever it wants basically. That's how
it works Of course
Thing is though, there's probably not much difference between a lawyer and a professional troll.
Both are annoying and mostly a waste of time.
Oh come'n. The Wiz isn't as bad as Dershowitz.
Well, probably not, but that would mostly be because he lacks the talent.
I mean one thing that is clear about this Wizard is that this guy is really really stupid.
I mean, you ask him for proof of the government story and he tells you that the government story
is proof of the government story.
Of course, Alan Dershowitz would make the same argument basically, but it would be masked in
a more clever way. The Wizard just openly tells you that the proof of the government story is
that it's the government story. Sheesh, what a moron
Thing is though, there's probably not much difference between a lawyer and a professional
troll.
Well, he apparently really is a lawyer down in Australia. That is what he has said, and I believe
it is true.
I mean one thing that is clear about this Wizard is that this guy is really really stupid.
I mean, you ask him for proof of the government story and he tells you that the government
story is proof of the government story.
But that's the thing. That's how truth is defined in this politically correct age. So it's by
definition, the government story is proof of the government story.
Hey, shit eater, you ever heard of the "beg the question fallacy"? What that means is that
you can't assume the thing that you are trying to prove in your proof.
I am aware of that particular fallacy, fuckface.
Anyway, what "videos" and "records" are you referring to specifically?
Video surveillance of Atta at the airport. His purchase of the tickets. Money trails. And etc.
etc. etc.
Look, at this point, there is a vast literature on this.
Yes, there is a vast circle jerk of conspiracy theorists.
In particular, the alleged phone calls from the planes that detail the official narrative,
these are very problematic, not technically possible even.
Not technically possible? So the whole Airfone ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airfone ) business
was faked for years in anticipation of the deception? Our government overlords have a great deal
of foresight. And what evidence is there that the calls were faked? The Fake Calls theory is one
of the dumbest of those associated with truthers, so it doesn't surprise me to find that you are
an adherent.
The main alternative theory is that the buildings were prewired with explosives for a controlled
demolition. As regards WTC7, there is no reasonable doubt of this really, because the building
was not hit by a plane even.
Aside from various non-experts claiming that the collapse "looked like a controlled demolition"
there is no evidence for this theory. No explosives found. No wires found. Nothing. But you are
already at the "no reasonable doubt" stage? What a deep thinker you are!
A 90-ton aluminum tube crashing into 100,000 tons of structural steel, is simply not going
to cause the latter to disintegrate.
Evidence for this statement? Your feelings? Not very scientific, fuckface.
Hey, shit eater, you ever heard of the "beg the question fallacy"? What that means is
that you can't assume the thing that you are trying to prove in your proof.
I am aware of that particular fallacy, fuckface.
So you say, but there is actually no sign at all that you are aware of that fallacy.
In general, I've debated with shit eaters enough to know that, as a general rule, they do not
understand the "beg the question" fallacy. Because they always, always, end up telling you that
the government story is proof of the government story. They always do. It never fails.
Video surveillance of Atta at the airport. His purchase of the tickets. Money trails. And
etc. etc. etc.
Well, you see, you don't even understand the basic parameters of the debate. You have to come
up with "proof" that is not equally consistent with the person being a patsy. You know, it's like
if you say that Lee Harvey Oswald was in the schoolbook depository building at the time of the
assassination. Well, that's just as consistent with him being a patsy as being the killer! He
has to be in approximately the right place at the right time so that you can frame him for the
crime! And the same applies here.
But you don't understand that apparently!
So, that there is a record of Atta, or somebody representing that he's Atta, purchasing the
tickets, this is just as consistent with Atta being a patsy as actually being a perpetrator. You're
presenting this as proof but it is not proof of anything. Or it's stuff like there's a video of
some guy who looks like Bin Laden saying he made this happen. I could put up a video making the
same claim. These are just airy fairy things that are not real proof of anything. And you apparently
think that it's normal that you can just launch some war and kill so many thousands of innocents
based on some story with this level of proof. It's just ridiculous.
Look, at this point, there is a vast literature on this.
Yes, there is a vast circle jerk of conspiracy theorists.
Hmm, well, have you read any of of the authors in question? David Ray Griffin, for example?
Or Webster Tarpley? Have you looked at any of the material on the Architects and Engineers for
9/11 Truth website.
I kind of doubt it. Officialdom just tells you what to think of this stuff and you've almost
certainly never checked for yourself.
Well, I know this. You're not the first shit eater I've debated with.
The Fake Calls theory is one of the dumbest of those associated with truthers, so it doesn't
surprise me to find that you are an adherent.
I simply asked you what the proof of the story was. Okay, so somebody says they got
a phone call. And that's proof. For you. Or they say that there were meetings in Afghanistan in
which the attacks were discussed. What is the proof of that? It's just the story they tell and
the story is proof of the story. You actually clearly do not understand the "beg the question"
fallacy.
Now, even if the phone calls were technically possible, which I do doubt, it hardly is proof.
And certainly it is not proof of the central thesis of the government, that all of this was orchestrated
by people in faroff Afghanistan. That was the basis for the subsequent war that was launched.
Aside from various non-experts claiming that the collapse "looked like a controlled demolition"
there is no evidence for this theory. No explosives found.
Well, now it's becoming clear that you just don't know anything about this topic. Go to
http://ae911truth.org/ and you'll see that
the people saying this have very high levels of expertise.
As for there being no evidence for the "theory" that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, the
case is in fact overwhelming. This is simply because there is no building collapse that looks
exactly like a controlled demolition that is not, in fact, a controlled demolition. Something
that symmetrical obviously has to be engineered.
As for no proof of explosives being found, this is because they specifically did not look for
any.
A 90-ton aluminum tube crashing into 100,000 tons of structural steel, is simply not
going to cause the latter to disintegrate.
Evidence for this statement? Your feelings? Not very scientific, fuckface.
Well, go to http://ae911truth.org/ and
get educated. Anybody with, let's say, a decent high school education, who spends as much as a
half day on the internet contrasting different sources, will see that the ae911truth people are
simply telling the truth. And that means that the government story of what happened is simply
impossible.
This is most absolutely clear with the WTC7, since that building was not even hit by a plane.
They are trying to claim that a building can implode in a perfectly symmetrical way from uncontrolled
fires. The building has 40-odd steel support columns that would all have to give way within the
same split second. That has to be engineered.
You have to come up with "proof" that is not equally consistent with the person being a patsy.
This is not how evidence works. YOU have to come up with proof that the hijackers were patsies.
I mean, your whole line is breathtakingly stupid. Now you prove that Muhammad Atta was not a shape-shifting
alien. Well, he MUST be a shape-shifting alien because you have NO evidence that he isn't one!
So, that there is a record of Atta, or somebody representing that he's Atta, purchasing the
tickets
And now you are basically admitting my shape-shifting alien theory is true!
it's normal that you can just launch some war and kill so many thousands of innocents based
on some story with this level of proof.
The war was incredibly stupid. But people do stupid things based on real-life events ALL THE TIME.
9/11 doesn't have to be fake for the war to be a horrendous idea.
I simply asked you what the proof of the story was. Okay, so somebody says they got a phone
call. And that's proof. For you.
Here there is lots of evidence. Yes, we have multiple people who say they received phone calls
from loved ones. We have multiple recordings of these phone calls. We have the phone records of
these phone calls. And we have zero evidence that any of those things are fraudulent or incorrect.
Now, even if the phone calls were technically possible, which I do doubt, it hardly is proof.
Your "doubt" just shows your ignorance. Air phones actually existed. I know my only proof is the
experience of tens of thousands of people who made calls from airplanes and the decade long existence
of two competing companies who manufactured, installed and maintained those devices. But sure,
maybe the shape-shifters did all that.
Anybody with, let's say, a decent high school education, who spends as much as a half day on
the internet contrasting different sources, will see that the ae911truth people are simply
telling the truth.
Oh, yeah, why spend years getting a degree in structural engineering when you can spend an afternoon
and have it all figured out? Look, you still think the phone calls were fake and impossible, and
you expect me to believe that you understand the nuances of a complex, dynamic process like a
building collapse? The fact is that you really, really WANT a conspiracy to exist, so you will
believe literally anything that confirms that conclusion. It makes you feel special and smart--for
once.
I know conspiracy sites exist, but for someone who shrilly demands "proof" at every turn, your
posts are extremely light on evidence. ,
@Rurik Hey JR,
I see you're having your fun with the shit eaters.
are their any who are sincerely duped?
or are they all cynical liars (like the 'wizard') desperately trying to defend the bullshit official
narrative in order to protect the real criminals and continue using that singular crime as a pretext
for destroying all of Israel's neighbors?
I recently posted a story of an 87 year old German lady who Germany has sent to prison for questioning
some of the holy and sacred tenets of the Holocaust.
when I read what you wrote here, it reminds me of her queries to the authorities for some proof
of what they claim vis-à-vis the Holocaust.
Because they always, always, end up telling you that the government story is proof of the government
story. They always do. It never fails.
"You know about it [Auschwitz] only through the grapevine-like me." This spurred Bjoern Joensson,
the presiding judge, to retort, "It is pointless holding a debate with someone who can't accept
any facts," adding: "Neither do I have to prove to you that the world is round."
her inquisitors are demanding that their official narrative, because it's the official narrative
, is prima facia proof that it's all true, because those in power say it is, sans actual evidence.
To doubt them and their narrative is literally the same as questioning if the world is round (except
that they won't put you in prison for that). No proof or evidence is necessary. Its like a modern
day Galileo where the authorities are simply able to tell everyone what is true, and we're all
supposed to fall in line. Or else.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
In none of these cases the attacker actually killed thousands of his own soldiers, what would
be the point?
If you want to start a war, would you want to start with great defeat and loss of your fleet?
The fleet wasn't lost. The carriers were out at sea and not sunk. Eight battleships, three
cruisers and three destroyers were damaged. Battleships were obsolete by that time in the face
of aircraft. Battleships were mainly used as AA platforms to protect carriers and to bombard airfields.
Nothing is more convincing though than the clear discomfort of the three astronauts on what
would normally be an occasion to celebrate.
I know what you mean. I can but believe that you can always trust a tell. For example, this is
a hell of a story:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2FyONXh22M
If that guy is lying, he deserves an academy award. At one point he mentions Ft. Belvoir "in
Maryland." Well Ft. Belvoir is in Virginia, and that small mistake strikes me as one he would
only make if he was telling the truth. The guy has lots of tells like that that you can trust,
I trust.
The definition of a conspiracy theory is an explanation of events that traces them to a secret
network, and when presented with contradictory evidence, simply enlarges the network of supposed
conspirators rather than modifying the explanation.
So, just to cite one example, all of the 9/11 controlled demolition stuff is a conspiracy theory
because at first it had the government and maybe the property owners in on the secret, but then
the circle of supposed conspirators was enlarged to include the editors of Popular Mechanics after
they did their study. Or take the moon landing, which involved 'only' thousands of NASA people
until you point out that the astronauts left mirrors on the surface of the moon in a precise location,
for which astronomers around the world use laser ranging to determine the distance to the moon
down to the centimeter level. So then the astronomers who claim to do this had to be added to
the list of conspirators and liars for this theory to stand. Then of course the more you point
out, the more people who have to get added to the conspiracy, which eventually becomes all of
the television industry, and even the Soviets!
That is the reason why the so-called alternative explanations for 9/11, the moon landing, the
various assassinations, the safety of vaccines, etc, are conspiracy theories, while the mainstream
explanations are not.
the astronauts left mirrors on the surface of the moon
It could also be a mirror on the roof of an unmanned probe.
Hey, shit eater, you ever heard of the "beg the question fallacy"? What that means is that
you can't assume the thing that you are trying to prove in your proof.
I am aware of that particular fallacy, fuckface.
So you say, but there is actually no sign at all that you are aware of that fallacy.
In general, I've debated with shit eaters enough to know that, as a general rule, they do not
understand the "beg the question" fallacy. Because they always, always, end up telling you that
the government story is proof of the government story. They always do. It never fails.
Video surveillance of Atta at the airport. His purchase of the tickets. Money trails. And etc.
etc. etc.
Well, you see, you don't even understand the basic parameters of the debate. You have to come
up with "proof" that is not equally consistent with the person being a patsy. You know, it's like
if you say that Lee Harvey Oswald was in the schoolbook depository building at the time of the
assassination. Well, that's just as consistent with him being a patsy as being the killer! He
has to be in approximately the right place at the right time so that you can frame him for the
crime! And the same applies here.
But you don't understand that apparently!
So, that there is a record of Atta, or somebody representing that he's Atta, purchasing the tickets,
this is just as consistent with Atta being a patsy as actually being a perpetrator. You're presenting
this as proof but it is not proof of anything. Or it's stuff like there's a video of some guy
who looks like Bin Laden saying he made this happen. I could put up a video making the same claim.
These are just airy fairy things that are not real proof of anything. And you apparently think
that it's normal that you can just launch some war and kill so many thousands of innocents based
on some story with this level of proof. It's just ridiculous.
Look, at this point, there is a vast literature on this.
Yes, there is a vast circle jerk of conspiracy theorists.
Hmm, well, have you read any of of the authors in question? David Ray Griffin, for example? Or
Webster Tarpley? Have you looked at any of the material on the Architects and Engineers for 9/11
Truth website.
I kind of doubt it. Officialdom just tells you what to think of this stuff and you've almost certainly
never checked for yourself.
Well, I know this. You're not the first shit eater I've debated with.
The Fake Calls theory is one of the dumbest of those associated with truthers, so it doesn't
surprise me to find that you are an adherent.
I simply asked you what the proof of the story was. Okay, so somebody says they got a phone
call. And that's proof. For you. Or they say that there were meetings in Afghanistan in which
the attacks were discussed. What is the proof of that? It's just the story they tell and the story
is proof of the story. You actually clearly do not understand the "beg the question" fallacy.
Now, even if the phone calls were technically possible, which I do doubt, it hardly is proof.
And certainly it is not proof of the central thesis of the government, that all of this was orchestrated
by people in faroff Afghanistan. That was the basis for the subsequent war that was launched.
Aside from various non-experts claiming that the collapse "looked like a controlled demolition"
there is no evidence for this theory. No explosives found.
Well, now it's becoming clear that you just don't know anything about this topic. Go to http://ae911truth.org/
and you'll see that the people saying this have very high levels of expertise.
As for there being no evidence for the "theory" that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, the case
is in fact overwhelming. This is simply because there is no building collapse that looks exactly
like a controlled demolition that is not, in fact, a controlled demolition. Something that symmetrical
obviously has to be engineered.
As for no proof of explosives being found, this is because they specifically did not look for
any.
A 90-ton aluminum tube crashing into 100,000 tons of structural steel, is simply not going
to cause the latter to disintegrate.
Evidence for this statement? Your feelings? Not very scientific, fuckface.
Well, go to http://ae911truth.org/ and get educated. Anybody with, let's say, a decent high school
education, who spends as much as a half day on the internet contrasting different sources, will
see that the ae911truth people are simply telling the truth. And that means that the government
story of what happened is simply impossible.
This is most absolutely clear with the WTC7, since that building was not even hit by a plane.
They are trying to claim that a building can implode in a perfectly symmetrical way from uncontrolled
fires. The building has 40-odd steel support columns that would all have to give way within the
same split second. That has to be engineered.
You have to come up with "proof" that is not equally consistent with the person being a
patsy.
This is not how evidence works. YOU have to come up with proof that the hijackers were patsies.
I mean, your whole line is breathtakingly stupid. Now you prove that Muhammad Atta was not a shape-shifting
alien. Well, he MUST be a shape-shifting alien because you have NO evidence that he isn't one!
So, that there is a record of Atta, or somebody representing that he's Atta, purchasing
the tickets
And now you are basically admitting my shape-shifting alien theory is true!
it's normal that you can just launch some war and kill so many thousands of innocents based
on some story with this level of proof.
The war was incredibly stupid. But people do stupid things based on real-life events ALL THE
TIME. 9/11 doesn't have to be fake for the war to be a horrendous idea.
I simply asked you what the proof of the story was. Okay, so somebody says they got a phone
call. And that's proof. For you.
Here there is lots of evidence. Yes, we have multiple people who say they received phone calls
from loved ones. We have multiple recordings of these phone calls. We have the phone records of
these phone calls. And we have zero evidence that any of those things are fraudulent or incorrect.
Now, even if the phone calls were technically possible, which I do doubt, it hardly is proof.
Your "doubt" just shows your ignorance. Air phones actually existed. I know my only proof is
the experience of tens of thousands of people who made calls from airplanes and the decade long
existence of two competing companies who manufactured, installed and maintained those devices.
But sure, maybe the shape-shifters did all that.
Anybody with, let's say, a decent high school education, who spends as much as a half day
on the internet contrasting different sources, will see that the ae911truth people are simply
telling the truth.
Oh, yeah, why spend years getting a degree in structural engineering when you can spend an
afternoon and have it all figured out? Look, you still think the phone calls were fake and impossible,
and you expect me to believe that you understand the nuances of a complex, dynamic process like
a building collapse? The fact is that you really, really WANT a conspiracy to exist, so you will
believe literally anything that confirms that conclusion. It makes you feel special and smart–for
once.
I know conspiracy sites exist, but for someone who shrilly demands "proof" at every turn, your
posts are extremely light on evidence.
This is not how evidence works. YOU have to come up with proof that the hijackers were patsies.
No, that is 180 degrees from the way things do work. If you say these guys committed the crime,
the onus is on you to say what the evidence is. In a trial, it is the prosecution that must prove
its case. All a defense lawyer has to do is show that the prosecution has not proven the guilt
of his client. That's it.
But I've been there and done that and this is just typical shit eater stuff. The shit eater always
tells you that the onus is on you to prove something to him. No, if you say these guys committed
this crime, OBVIOUSLY the onus is on you to prove it.
So, okay then you start waving your hands saying that the official story is so self-evidently
correct that anybody who questions it is just obviously crazy. So, logically, there's no getting
around this: you're tacitly saying that there is overwhelming evidence for the story. There must
be, because you're saying that the people who doubt the story are obviously crazy.
So, obviously, I ask you, like I ask any of the shit eaters, what is the evidence. Then you try
to tell me that asking for the evidence is an illegitimate trick! It's so ridiculous it's hilarious,
but you're not even the first person to say that to me. At least two or three other shit eaters
have told me over the past year that my asking for evidence is a "cheap debating trick" or something
like that! LOL.
Finally, what you've come up with as "evidence"is just such an amazing bunch of crap, frankly.
Like saying that Mohammed Atta bought a plane ticket. Well, the other passengers bought a plane
ticket, didn't they? So they must have hijacked the plane, no?
But the thing is that you don't even understand that the evidence you produce cannot be equally
consistent with the person being a patsy as actually having done it! That a plane ticket was purchased
in somebody's name. Well, that's totally consistent with an attempt to frame the person for the
crime. In any case, it's not even proof that the person even boarded the plane! I could go online
and buy a plane ticket in anybody's name to frame the person for a crime....
Just like I could put out a video saying I somehow made the planes fly into the buildings...
This is the kind of pathetic crap that you are coming up with when I ask you to outline the
strongest evidence available!
Here there is lots of evidence. Yes, we have multiple people who say they received phone calls
from loved ones.
As I said before, it's just hearsay. Besides, check this out: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/sep/02/september11.usa
Mohammed Atta's father says he got a phone call from his son the a day AFTER 9/11.
"My son called me the day after the attacks on September 12 at around midday. We spoke for
two minutes about this and that."
I guess you don't think that is true Well, Mohammed Atta Sr says he got a phone call, so by your
reasoning, he got a phone call, no?
Your "doubt" just shows your ignorance. Air phones actually existed.
Goof grief. It is such a waste of time to debate with a shit eater. You guys always try to lower
the bar to a ridiculously level. Like now, your argument is that those Airfones "existed". Nothing
more. They existed! Guns existed in 1963. Therefore Oswald got a gun and shot Kennedy.
Anyway, the problem here is that they first tried to claim that the calls were made from cell
phones and then, when it seemed apparent that the calls were not technically possible, said it
came from the seat-back phones. Except apparently, the models of plane in question did not have
the seat back phones at that point in time. This is all under dispute somewhat and is murky. Regardless,
even if the seat-back phones were there on all the planes in question, and thus, the calls were
technically possible, that certainly does not prove that the story is true. You're so many degrees
away from providing anything that resembles proof of the story!
Look, you still think the phone calls were fake and impossible,
Hey, shit eater, you should read what I wrote. I said that I doubted that they were possible.
That means I don't know for absolutely sure. Simply demonstrating that the phone calls were possible
is not proof that they really happened. A good reference on this is an article by David Ray Griffin
from a few years back on this phone calls topic:
DRG studies the various claims and the way the story changed and all the problems with it, and
based on what DRG outlines, I think a reasonable person would have very great doubts that this
whole story of the phone calls from the planes is really true. Obviously, they would need to claim
that these phone calls happened in order to establish the official story. So we're really just
about back to the notion that the official story is proof of the official story.
and you expect me to believe that you understand the nuances of a complex, dynamic process
like a building collapse?
Well, the reason you say that is because, of course, you've never studied the question. No, in
fact, there is really very little "nuance" to the question. What they are saying happened is simply
physically impossible. All you have to understand is that the steel skeleton of each steel framed
high-rise building is made up of 40-odd massive structural steel columns and the only way the
thing can fall straight down vertically is for all the columns to fail at precisely the same instant.
There is no way that this can result from fires spreading in an uncontrolled manner. At best,
you would get very asymmetrical damage. The straight-down implosion that you see with WTC7 must
be engineered. It does not take more than half a day on the internet contrasting the various arguments
and considering them to realize this. It really just does not.
I pointedly asked you what 9/11 Truth material you were familiar with. I specifically asked you
whether you had ever read anything by David Ray Griffin or Webster Tarpley, or looked at any of
the material on http://ae911truth.org
You did not answer the question. I infer that this means the answer is no. It's an easy to conclusion
to draw because you just don't really know what you're talking about. You don't even know what
the basic parameters of the debate are.
This is a point that one always reaches when debating with a shit eater. It begins to dawn on
the shit eater that he really does not know WTF he is talking about and that he is out of his
depth intellectually. So you have a fork in the road at this point. You can amp up all the insults,
"conspiracy theorist nya nya". Or you can just walk away. Whatever. But go get educated. Seriously.
Everybody can see that you don't know what you're talking. You've never studied the question and
you're just making an ass of yourself.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
Hey, shit eater, you ever heard of the "beg the question fallacy"? What that means is that
you can't assume the thing that you are trying to prove in your proof.
I am aware of that particular fallacy, fuckface.
So you say, but there is actually no sign at all that you are aware of that fallacy.
In general, I've debated with shit eaters enough to know that, as a general rule, they do not
understand the "beg the question" fallacy. Because they always, always, end up telling you that
the government story is proof of the government story. They always do. It never fails.
Video surveillance of Atta at the airport. His purchase of the tickets. Money trails. And etc.
etc. etc.
Well, you see, you don't even understand the basic parameters of the debate. You have to come
up with "proof" that is not equally consistent with the person being a patsy. You know, it's like
if you say that Lee Harvey Oswald was in the schoolbook depository building at the time of the
assassination. Well, that's just as consistent with him being a patsy as being the killer! He
has to be in approximately the right place at the right time so that you can frame him for the
crime! And the same applies here.
But you don't understand that apparently!
So, that there is a record of Atta, or somebody representing that he's Atta, purchasing the tickets,
this is just as consistent with Atta being a patsy as actually being a perpetrator. You're presenting
this as proof but it is not proof of anything. Or it's stuff like there's a video of some guy
who looks like Bin Laden saying he made this happen. I could put up a video making the same claim.
These are just airy fairy things that are not real proof of anything. And you apparently think
that it's normal that you can just launch some war and kill so many thousands of innocents based
on some story with this level of proof. It's just ridiculous.
Look, at this point, there is a vast literature on this.
Yes, there is a vast circle jerk of conspiracy theorists.
Hmm, well, have you read any of of the authors in question? David Ray Griffin, for example? Or
Webster Tarpley? Have you looked at any of the material on the Architects and Engineers for 9/11
Truth website.
I kind of doubt it. Officialdom just tells you what to think of this stuff and you've almost certainly
never checked for yourself.
Well, I know this. You're not the first shit eater I've debated with.
The Fake Calls theory is one of the dumbest of those associated with truthers, so it doesn't
surprise me to find that you are an adherent.
I simply asked you what the proof of the story was. Okay, so somebody says they got a phone
call. And that's proof. For you. Or they say that there were meetings in Afghanistan in which
the attacks were discussed. What is the proof of that? It's just the story they tell and the story
is proof of the story. You actually clearly do not understand the "beg the question" fallacy.
Now, even if the phone calls were technically possible, which I do doubt, it hardly is proof.
And certainly it is not proof of the central thesis of the government, that all of this was orchestrated
by people in faroff Afghanistan. That was the basis for the subsequent war that was launched.
Aside from various non-experts claiming that the collapse "looked like a controlled demolition"
there is no evidence for this theory. No explosives found.
Well, now it's becoming clear that you just don't know anything about this topic. Go to http://ae911truth.org/
and you'll see that the people saying this have very high levels of expertise.
As for there being no evidence for the "theory" that WTC7 was a controlled demolition, the case
is in fact overwhelming. This is simply because there is no building collapse that looks exactly
like a controlled demolition that is not, in fact, a controlled demolition. Something that symmetrical
obviously has to be engineered.
As for no proof of explosives being found, this is because they specifically did not look for
any.
A 90-ton aluminum tube crashing into 100,000 tons of structural steel, is simply not going
to cause the latter to disintegrate.
Evidence for this statement? Your feelings? Not very scientific, fuckface.
Well, go to http://ae911truth.org/ and get educated. Anybody with, let's say, a decent high school
education, who spends as much as a half day on the internet contrasting different sources, will
see that the ae911truth people are simply telling the truth. And that means that the government
story of what happened is simply impossible.
This is most absolutely clear with the WTC7, since that building was not even hit by a plane.
They are trying to claim that a building can implode in a perfectly symmetrical way from uncontrolled
fires. The building has 40-odd steel support columns that would all have to give way within the
same split second. That has to be engineered.
Hey JR,
I see you're having your fun with the shit eaters.
are their any who are sincerely duped?
or are they all cynical liars (like the 'wizard') desperately trying to defend the bullshit
official narrative in order to protect the real criminals and continue using that singular crime
as a pretext for destroying all of Israel's neighbors?
I recently posted a story of an 87 year old German lady who Germany has sent to prison for
questioning some of the holy and sacred tenets of the Holocaust.
when I read what you wrote here, it reminds me of her queries to the authorities for some proof
of what they claim vis-à-vis the Holocaust.
Because they always, always, end up telling you that the government story is proof of the
government story. They always do. It never fails.
"You know about it [Auschwitz] only through the grapevine-like me." This spurred Bjoern Joensson,
the presiding judge, to retort, "It is pointless holding a debate with someone who can't accept
any facts," adding: "Neither do I have to prove to you that the world is round."
her inquisitors are demanding that their official narrative, because it's the official narrative
, is prima facia proof that it's all true, because those in power say it is, sans actual evidence.
To doubt them and their narrative is literally the same as questioning if the world is round (except
that they won't put you in prison for that). No proof or evidence is necessary. Its like a modern
day Galileo where the authorities are simply able to tell everyone what is true, and we're all
supposed to fall in line. Or else.
To doubt them and their narrative is literally the same as questioning if the world is round
(except that they won't put you in prison for that).
Well if you're earnest enough about it, they'll probably put you in a mental hospital, which,
as the US Government converges on the Stalinist model during the forthcoming Hillary Administration,
is likely how they'll deal with 9/11 Truthers - to the sound of cheerful cackling from the likes
of the Wiz. ,
@Jonathan Revusky
I see you're having your fun with the shit eaters.
are their any who are sincerely duped?
I honestly don't know. At times, it seems like they're working from a basic playbook. Because
they always try the same basic tricks. They almost always end up claiming that the proof of the
government story is the government story. And then when you point out that it isn't, they then
turn around and say that somehow the evidence is on you to prove something.
And then if you further demand some real evidence, they'll usually just walk away. But then if
they offer evidence, then it does get hilarious. They'll invariably say that there are these videos
and Bin Laden admitted it. I could make a video saying I did it.
This Boris shit eater claimed that Mohammed Atta buying a plane ticket was proof. He also claimed
that there was video of Atta going through airport security. I looked for that and this is the
only thing I could find:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ilffe-4Tuw
I was trying to figure out how many degrees away this is from proving what needs to be proven.
Is that even Atta? Or is it just some vaguely middle eastern looking guy. Which airport is this
at? Okay, suppose it is him in the airport in question. How do we know he even got on the plane
after that? He coulda just gone to starbucks, had a coffee and then left the airport. Well, okay,
let's suppose he got on the plane. How do we know he hijacked it? And if he did hijack the plane,
how do we know that this was planned by OBL off in Afghanistan?
The number of leaps you have to make to think that this is proof of the official story is... When
you think about how they presented this whole story almost immediately and then it was off to
war. Based on this kind of thing, how could they have investigated so quickly and figured out
that the origin of the attacks was in Afghanistan?
The whole thing is such an obvious stitch-up when you look at it. ,
@Jonathan Revusky
I recently posted a story of an 87 year old German lady who Germany has sent to prison for
questioning some of the holy and sacred tenets of the Holocaust.
Yeah, it's the same kind of thing. I'm actually writing an essay about these sorts of issues because
it finally occurred to me that this is exactly like religious fundamentalism. You ask somebody
what the proof of some bible story is and the answer is that it's in the bible.
Well, what's the difference between the two things in essence? As far as I can see, the important
difference is that it doesn't really matter whether Moses shook a stick and caused the Red Sea
to part. Who cares whether somebody believes this really happened or not? But believing that uncontrolled
fires can cause a steel-framed building to collapse in a perfectly symmetrical manner -- this
is just as crazy and has far more dangerous consequence when people believe this kind of shit.
But as regards this Ursula Haverbeck matter, the German people must really be so mentally colonized
at this point to put up with this shit, putting 87 year old ladies in prison for thought crimes.
There is some really weird shit going on, you know. Have you seen this whole "burkini" business
in France? There are all these localities on the Mediterranean coast in France that are fining
Muslim women for NOT showing enough skin on the beach!
Well, probably not, but that would mostly be because he lacks the talent.
I mean one thing that is clear about this Wizard is that this guy is really really stupid. I mean,
you ask him for proof of the government story and he tells you that the government story is proof
of the government story.
Of course, Alan Dershowitz would make the same argument basically, but it would be masked in a
more clever way. The Wizard just openly tells you that the proof of the government story is that
it's the government story. Sheesh, what a moron...
Thing is though, there's probably not much difference between a lawyer and a professional troll.
Well, he apparently really is a lawyer down in Australia. That is what he has said, and I believe
it is true.
I mean one thing that is clear about this Wizard is that this guy is really really stupid.
I mean, you ask him for proof of the government story and he tells you that the government
story is proof of the government story.
But that's the thing. That's how truth is defined in this politically correct age. So it's
by definition, the government story is proof of the government story.
George Orwell unfortunately mis-dated his book 1984 , he was about 20 years too soon.
CanSpeccy
says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment
September 9, 2016 at 4:44 pm GMT • 300 Words
@Wizard of Oz Well you don't rave like the frothing Revusky so I shall mention here an interesting
link to follow and that is Wikipedia on thermite. I don't remember anything about thermite reactions
at least as such from 6th form Chemistry and now realise that aluminium is frequently at the core
of thermite reactions, thereby lending support to the recently expounded theories of heating,
and explosions, which would correct the official versions. (There was about 30 tons of aluminium
in each plane from memory). I couldn't see anything about a thermite connection to demolitions.
I don't remember anything about thermite reactions at least as such from 6th form Chemistry
and now realise that aluminium is frequently at the core of thermite reactions, thereby lending
support to the recently expounded theories of heating, and explosions, which would correct
the official versions.
Yes, either your ignorance is profound, or your intent to divert the discussion into a nonsensical
channel is exposed.
Bulk aluminum doesn't ignite in a building fire. According to one source, aluminum must be
vaporized before it will burn and the boiling point of aluminum is 3,986 Farenheit, whereas the
adiabatic flame temperature of Kerosene in air, at around 3597 Farenheit, is 400 degrees lower.
Moreover, the jet fuel fires in the Twin Towers would likely have burned at considerably lower
temperatures due to oxygen supply limitations.
Aluminum burns readily in a thermitic compound comprising aluminum in a finely divided form
intimately mixed with an oxidizer, usually iron oxide. In the process of combustion aluminum is
oxidized, while the iron oxide is reduced to pure molten iron, which will be found in the reaction
residue in the form of iron microspheres, just as were abundant in the ash collected in the vicinity
of the Twin Towers.
Oddly, it apparently never occurred to the NIST investigators of the collapse of three WTC
buildings that explosives such as thermite, a material
long used in controlled building demolitions , might have been involved in the perfect implosion
of three WTC buildings.
I see you're having your fun with the shit eaters.
are their any who are sincerely duped?
or are they all cynical liars (like the 'wizard') desperately trying to defend the bullshit official
narrative in order to protect the real criminals and continue using that singular crime as a pretext
for destroying all of Israel's neighbors?
I recently posted a story of an 87 year old German lady who Germany has sent to prison for questioning
some of the holy and sacred tenets of the Holocaust.
when I read what you wrote here, it reminds me of her queries to the authorities for some proof
of what they claim vis-à-vis the Holocaust.
Because they always, always, end up telling you that the government story is proof of the government
story. They always do. It never fails.
"You know about it [Auschwitz] only through the grapevine-like me." This spurred Bjoern Joensson,
the presiding judge, to retort, "It is pointless holding a debate with someone who can't accept
any facts," adding: "Neither do I have to prove to you that the world is round."
her inquisitors are demanding that their official narrative, because it's the official narrative
, is prima facia proof that it's all true, because those in power say it is, sans actual evidence.
To doubt them and their narrative is literally the same as questioning if the world is round (except
that they won't put you in prison for that). No proof or evidence is necessary. Its like a modern
day Galileo where the authorities are simply able to tell everyone what is true, and we're all
supposed to fall in line. Or else.
To doubt them and their narrative is literally the same as questioning if the world is round
(except that they won't put you in prison for that).
Well if you're earnest enough about it, they'll probably put you in a mental hospital, which,
as the US Government converges on the Stalinist model during the forthcoming Hillary Administration,
is likely how they'll deal with 9/11 Truthers - to the sound of cheerful cackling from the likes
of the Wiz.
You have to come up with "proof" that is not equally consistent with the person being a patsy.
This is not how evidence works. YOU have to come up with proof that the hijackers were patsies.
I mean, your whole line is breathtakingly stupid. Now you prove that Muhammad Atta was not a shape-shifting
alien. Well, he MUST be a shape-shifting alien because you have NO evidence that he isn't one!
So, that there is a record of Atta, or somebody representing that he's Atta, purchasing the
tickets
And now you are basically admitting my shape-shifting alien theory is true!
it's normal that you can just launch some war and kill so many thousands of innocents based
on some story with this level of proof.
The war was incredibly stupid. But people do stupid things based on real-life events ALL THE TIME.
9/11 doesn't have to be fake for the war to be a horrendous idea.
I simply asked you what the proof of the story was. Okay, so somebody says they got a phone
call. And that's proof. For you.
Here there is lots of evidence. Yes, we have multiple people who say they received phone calls
from loved ones. We have multiple recordings of these phone calls. We have the phone records of
these phone calls. And we have zero evidence that any of those things are fraudulent or incorrect.
Now, even if the phone calls were technically possible, which I do doubt, it hardly is proof.
Your "doubt" just shows your ignorance. Air phones actually existed. I know my only proof is the
experience of tens of thousands of people who made calls from airplanes and the decade long existence
of two competing companies who manufactured, installed and maintained those devices. But sure,
maybe the shape-shifters did all that.
Anybody with, let's say, a decent high school education, who spends as much as a half day on
the internet contrasting different sources, will see that the ae911truth people are simply
telling the truth.
Oh, yeah, why spend years getting a degree in structural engineering when you can spend an afternoon
and have it all figured out? Look, you still think the phone calls were fake and impossible, and
you expect me to believe that you understand the nuances of a complex, dynamic process like a
building collapse? The fact is that you really, really WANT a conspiracy to exist, so you will
believe literally anything that confirms that conclusion. It makes you feel special and smart--for
once.
I know conspiracy sites exist, but for someone who shrilly demands "proof" at every turn, your
posts are extremely light on evidence.
This is not how evidence works. YOU have to come up with proof that the hijackers were patsies.
No, that is 180 degrees from the way things do work. If you say these guys committed the crime,
the onus is on you to say what the evidence is. In a trial, it is the prosecution that must prove
its case. All a defense lawyer has to do is show that the prosecution has not proven the guilt
of his client. That's it.
But I've been there and done that and this is just typical shit eater stuff. The shit eater
always tells you that the onus is on you to prove something to him. No, if you say these guys
committed this crime, OBVIOUSLY the onus is on you to prove it.
So, okay then you start waving your hands saying that the official story is so self-evidently
correct that anybody who questions it is just obviously crazy. So, logically, there's no getting
around this: you're tacitly saying that there is overwhelming evidence for the story. There must
be, because you're saying that the people who doubt the story are obviously crazy.
So, obviously, I ask you, like I ask any of the shit eaters, what is the evidence. Then you
try to tell me that asking for the evidence is an illegitimate trick! It's so ridiculous it's
hilarious, but you're not even the first person to say that to me. At least two or three other
shit eaters have told me over the past year that my asking for evidence is a "cheap debating trick"
or something like that! LOL.
Finally, what you've come up with as "evidence"is just such an amazing bunch of crap, frankly.
Like saying that Mohammed Atta bought a plane ticket. Well, the other passengers bought a plane
ticket, didn't they? So they must have hijacked the plane, no?
But the thing is that you don't even understand that the evidence you produce cannot be equally
consistent with the person being a patsy as actually having done it! That a plane ticket was purchased
in somebody's name. Well, that's totally consistent with an attempt to frame the person for the
crime. In any case, it's not even proof that the person even boarded the plane! I could go online
and buy a plane ticket in anybody's name to frame the person for a crime .
Just like I could put out a video saying I somehow made the planes fly into the buildings
This is the kind of pathetic crap that you are coming up with when I ask you to outline the
strongest evidence available!
Here there is lots of evidence. Yes, we have multiple people who say they received phone
calls from loved ones.
Mohammed Atta's father says he got a phone call from his son the a day AFTER 9/11.
"My son called me the day after the attacks on September 12 at around midday. We spoke for
two minutes about this and that."
I guess you don't think that is true Well, Mohammed Atta Sr says he got a phone call, so by
your reasoning, he got a phone call, no?
Your "doubt" just shows your ignorance. Air phones actually existed.
Goof grief. It is such a waste of time to debate with a shit eater. You guys always try to
lower the bar to a ridiculously level. Like now, your argument is that those Airfones "existed".
Nothing more. They existed! Guns existed in 1963. Therefore Oswald got a gun and shot Kennedy.
Anyway, the problem here is that they first tried to claim that the calls were made from cell
phones and then, when it seemed apparent that the calls were not technically possible, said it
came from the seat-back phones. Except apparently, the models of plane in question did not have
the seat back phones at that point in time. This is all under dispute somewhat and is murky. Regardless,
even if the seat-back phones were there on all the planes in question, and thus, the calls were
technically possible, that certainly does not prove that the story is true. You're so many degrees
away from providing anything that resembles proof of the story!
Look, you still think the phone calls were fake and impossible,
Hey, shit eater, you should read what I wrote. I said that I doubted that they were
possible. That means I don't know for absolutely sure. Simply demonstrating that the phone calls
were possible is not proof that they really happened. A good reference on this is an article by
David Ray Griffin from a few years back on this phone calls topic:
DRG studies the various claims and the way the story changed and all the problems with it,
and based on what DRG outlines, I think a reasonable person would have very great doubts that
this whole story of the phone calls from the planes is really true. Obviously, they would need
to claim that these phone calls happened in order to establish the official story. So we're really
just about back to the notion that the official story is proof of the official story.
and you expect me to believe that you understand the nuances of a complex, dynamic process
like a building collapse?
Well, the reason you say that is because, of course, you've never studied the question. No,
in fact, there is really very little "nuance" to the question. What they are saying happened is
simply physically impossible. All you have to understand is that the steel skeleton of each steel
framed high-rise building is made up of 40-odd massive structural steel columns and the only way
the thing can fall straight down vertically is for all the columns to fail at precisely the same
instant. There is no way that this can result from fires spreading in an uncontrolled manner.
At best, you would get very asymmetrical damage. The straight-down implosion that you see with
WTC7 must be engineered. It does not take more than half a day on the internet contrasting the
various arguments and considering them to realize this. It really just does not.
I pointedly asked you what 9/11 Truth material you were familiar with. I specifically asked
you whether you had ever read anything by David Ray Griffin or Webster Tarpley, or looked at any
of the material on http://ae911truth.org
You did not answer the question. I infer that this means the answer is no. It's an easy to
conclusion to draw because you just don't really know what you're talking about. You don't even
know what the basic parameters of the debate are.
This is a point that one always reaches when debating with a shit eater. It begins to dawn
on the shit eater that he really does not know WTF he is talking about and that he is out of his
depth intellectually. So you have a fork in the road at this point. You can amp up all the insults,
"conspiracy theorist nya nya". Or you can just walk away. Whatever. But go get educated. Seriously.
Everybody can see that you don't know what you're talking. You've never studied the question and
you're just making an ass of yourself.
I see you're having your fun with the shit eaters.
are their any who are sincerely duped?
or are they all cynical liars (like the 'wizard') desperately trying to defend the bullshit official
narrative in order to protect the real criminals and continue using that singular crime as a pretext
for destroying all of Israel's neighbors?
I recently posted a story of an 87 year old German lady who Germany has sent to prison for questioning
some of the holy and sacred tenets of the Holocaust.
when I read what you wrote here, it reminds me of her queries to the authorities for some proof
of what they claim vis-à-vis the Holocaust.
Because they always, always, end up telling you that the government story is proof of the government
story. They always do. It never fails.
"You know about it [Auschwitz] only through the grapevine-like me." This spurred Bjoern Joensson,
the presiding judge, to retort, "It is pointless holding a debate with someone who can't accept
any facts," adding: "Neither do I have to prove to you that the world is round."
her inquisitors are demanding that their official narrative, because it's the official narrative
, is prima facia proof that it's all true, because those in power say it is, sans actual evidence.
To doubt them and their narrative is literally the same as questioning if the world is round (except
that they won't put you in prison for that). No proof or evidence is necessary. Its like a modern
day Galileo where the authorities are simply able to tell everyone what is true, and we're all
supposed to fall in line. Or else.
I see you're having your fun with the shit eaters.
are their any who are sincerely duped?
I honestly don't know. At times, it seems like they're working from a basic playbook. Because
they always try the same basic tricks. They almost always end up claiming that the proof of the
government story is the government story. And then when you point out that it isn't, they then
turn around and say that somehow the evidence is on you to prove something.
And then if you further demand some real evidence, they'll usually just walk away. But then
if they offer evidence, then it does get hilarious. They'll invariably say that there are these
videos and Bin Laden admitted it. I could make a video saying I did it.
This Boris shit eater claimed that Mohammed Atta buying a plane ticket was proof. He also claimed
that there was video of Atta going through airport security. I looked for that and this is the
only thing I could find:
I was trying to figure out how many degrees away this is from proving what needs to be proven.
Is that even Atta? Or is it just some vaguely middle eastern looking guy. Which airport is
this at? Okay, suppose it is him in the airport in question. How do we know he even got on the
plane after that? He coulda just gone to starbucks, had a coffee and then left the airport. Well,
okay, let's suppose he got on the plane. How do we know he hijacked it? And if he did hijack the
plane, how do we know that this was planned by OBL off in Afghanistan?
The number of leaps you have to make to think that this is proof of the official story is
When you think about how they presented this whole story almost immediately and then it was off
to war. Based on this kind of thing, how could they have investigated so quickly and figured out
that the origin of the attacks was in Afghanistan?
The whole thing is such an obvious stitch-up when you look at it.
I meant: the onus is on you to prove something. Finally, I guess they go through all these
various sophomoric debating tricks because that's what they've got. There is no "proof" of the
official 9/11 story that withstands the laugh test, so they always end up falling back on the
same BS, the story is proof of the story, the onus is on you to prove something to them blah blah...
Same old, same old. It's a waste of time to debate with a shit eater. ,
@Boris
This Boris shit eater claimed that Mohammed Atta buying a plane ticket was proof.
This is an obvious fucking lie.
You asked:"Anyway, what "videos" and "records" are you referring to specifically?"
I said: "Video surveillance of Atta at the airport. His purchase of the tickets. Money trails.
And etc. etc. etc."
Nowhere did I say Atta buying a plane ticket was proof, or anything similar.
I see you're having your fun with the shit eaters.
are their any who are sincerely duped?
or are they all cynical liars (like the 'wizard') desperately trying to defend the bullshit official
narrative in order to protect the real criminals and continue using that singular crime as a pretext
for destroying all of Israel's neighbors?
I recently posted a story of an 87 year old German lady who Germany has sent to prison for questioning
some of the holy and sacred tenets of the Holocaust.
when I read what you wrote here, it reminds me of her queries to the authorities for some proof
of what they claim vis-à-vis the Holocaust.
Because they always, always, end up telling you that the government story is proof of the government
story. They always do. It never fails.
"You know about it [Auschwitz] only through the grapevine-like me." This spurred Bjoern Joensson,
the presiding judge, to retort, "It is pointless holding a debate with someone who can't accept
any facts," adding: "Neither do I have to prove to you that the world is round."
her inquisitors are demanding that their official narrative, because it's the official narrative
, is prima facia proof that it's all true, because those in power say it is, sans actual evidence.
To doubt them and their narrative is literally the same as questioning if the world is round (except
that they won't put you in prison for that). No proof or evidence is necessary. Its like a modern
day Galileo where the authorities are simply able to tell everyone what is true, and we're all
supposed to fall in line. Or else.
I recently posted a story of an 87 year old German lady who Germany has sent to prison for
questioning some of the holy and sacred tenets of the Holocaust.
Yeah, it's the same kind of thing. I'm actually writing an essay about these sorts of issues
because it finally occurred to me that this is exactly like religious fundamentalism. You ask
somebody what the proof of some bible story is and the answer is that it's in the bible.
Well, what's the difference between the two things in essence? As far as I can see, the important
difference is that it doesn't really matter whether Moses shook a stick and caused the Red Sea
to part. Who cares whether somebody believes this really happened or not? But believing that uncontrolled
fires can cause a steel-framed building to collapse in a perfectly symmetrical manner - this is
just as crazy and has far more dangerous consequence when people believe this kind of shit.
But as regards this Ursula Haverbeck matter, the German people must really be so mentally colonized
at this point to put up with this shit, putting 87 year old ladies in prison for thought crimes.
There is some really weird shit going on, you know. Have you seen this whole "burkini" business
in France? There are all these localities on the Mediterranean coast in France that are fining
Muslim women for NOT showing enough skin on the beach!
I see you're having your fun with the shit eaters.
are their any who are sincerely duped?
I honestly don't know. At times, it seems like they're working from a basic playbook. Because
they always try the same basic tricks. They almost always end up claiming that the proof of the
government story is the government story. And then when you point out that it isn't, they then
turn around and say that somehow the evidence is on you to prove something.
And then if you further demand some real evidence, they'll usually just walk away. But then if
they offer evidence, then it does get hilarious. They'll invariably say that there are these videos
and Bin Laden admitted it. I could make a video saying I did it.
This Boris shit eater claimed that Mohammed Atta buying a plane ticket was proof. He also claimed
that there was video of Atta going through airport security. I looked for that and this is the
only thing I could find:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ilffe-4Tuw
I was trying to figure out how many degrees away this is from proving what needs to be proven.
Is that even Atta? Or is it just some vaguely middle eastern looking guy. Which airport is this
at? Okay, suppose it is him in the airport in question. How do we know he even got on the plane
after that? He coulda just gone to starbucks, had a coffee and then left the airport. Well, okay,
let's suppose he got on the plane. How do we know he hijacked it? And if he did hijack the plane,
how do we know that this was planned by OBL off in Afghanistan?
The number of leaps you have to make to think that this is proof of the official story is... When
you think about how they presented this whole story almost immediately and then it was off to
war. Based on this kind of thing, how could they have investigated so quickly and figured out
that the origin of the attacks was in Afghanistan?
The whole thing is such an obvious stitch-up when you look at it.
the evidence is on you to prove something.
I meant: the onus is on you to prove something. Finally, I guess they go through all
these various sophomoric debating tricks because that's what they've got. There is no "proof"
of the official 9/11 story that withstands the laugh test, so they always end up falling back
on the same BS, the story is proof of the story, the onus is on you to prove something to them
blah blah Same old, same old. It's a waste of time to debate with a shit eater.
In none of these cases the attacker actually killed thousands of his own soldiers, what would
be the point?
In none of these cases the attacker actually killed thousands of his own soldiers, what
would be the point?
Well, the answer should be obvious, no? You have an existing situation in which eat least 80%
of the U.S. population is opposed to the war and you want to mobilize them. If you play chess,
there are all these openings called "gambits" where you sacrifice a pawn or two to more rapidly
mobilize your forces.
3000 people is really just peanuts on a national level. If the result is that you get all this
outrage and suddenly the majority of the population is screaming for war, well that could be well
worth it.
So, okay then you start waving your hands saying that the official story is so self-evidently
correct that anybody who questions it is just obviously crazy.
I never said this. Being skeptical of the official story is fine. But you aren't just skeptical.
You are absolutely positive that the official story is false. You are so sure that the official
story is wrong that you heap abuse on people who haven't decided the same. For that level of certitude,
you need some actual evidence, not just your feelings about things.
So, obviously, I ask you, like I ask any of the shit eaters, what is the evidence.
Are you an actual child? You can start by reading the Wiki page and go from there. Why are
you whining that no one will show you the evidence when it is easily available? It's bizarre.
Like saying that Mohammed Atta bought a plane ticket. Well, the other passengers bought
a plane ticket, didn't they? So they must have hijacked the plane, no?
What? You make no sense at all. Obviously the plane ticket is a necessary but not sufficient
piece of evidence. No one ever argued that it was the only piece of evidence.
Well, that's totally consistent with an attempt to frame the person for the crime.
It's totally consistent with my alien shape-shifter theory too. So what? It doesn't magically
become evidence for YOUR theory.
As I said before, it's just hearsay.
It isn't hearsay. Witnesses are on the record. Recordings exist. It is backed up by documentation.
Here's one example:
Well, Mohammed Atta Sr says he got a phone call, so by your reasoning, he got a phone call,
no?
Um, no, dipshit. Atta's dad has a reason to lie–to protect his son's memory. What reason would
a dozen family members have to lie? There are also records. And recordings of some of the calls.
Like now, your argument is that those Airfones "existed". Nothing more. They existed!
Holy shit, you've reached a new level of stupid. The fact that Airfones existed means that
your "doubt" that it is technically possible to make a call from an airplane is absolutely wrong.
Hey, you don't want obvious pieces of evidence explained to you? Then don't make idiotic claims.
Except apparently, the models of plane in question did not have the seat back phones at
that point in time. This is all under dispute somewhat and is murky.
It's only murky to people like you. The fact that you doubt the phone calls when there is so
much clear evidence for them just illustrates what a huge fucking idiot you are.
based on what DRG outlines, I think a reasonable person would have very great doubts that
this whole story of the phone calls from the planes is really true.
Amazing. You swallow that article without questioning it at all. I'm sure the first reports
were of "cell phones"–since that's what people would be familiar with. The documentation is clear.
All you have to understand is that the steel skeleton of each steel framed high-rise building
is made up of 40-odd massive structural steel columns and the only way the thing can fall straight
down vertically is for all the columns to fail at precisely the same instant.
The NIST describes the process:
The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79
to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79
on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled – pulling
the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns,
the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter
support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building
above to fall downward as a single unit.
Sounds plausible to me.
No I know that your supersmart buddies have written gobs of text about how this is impossible
and how all the families of the dead who got phone calls on 9/11 were lying liars who eat babies,
but no one is listening. Do you understand that? You truthers will always be reviled in polite
society. You think it's because everyone else is a lizard person, but it's you. • Replies:
@Jonathan Revusky
I never said this. Being skeptical of the official story is fine. But you aren't just skeptical.
You are absolutely positive that the official story is false.
Hold on, let me get this straight. What you object to is not that I disbelieve the story, but
that I express certainty . But I thought you were expressing certainty that the official
story was true, no? Or maybe you're not certain... could you clarify your position now? You're
starting to sound really wishy washy.
Well, if you're saying there is strong proof for the official story, then that's basically
saying you're certain, no? Though I'm still trying to figure out what you think the proof is...
it's these alleged phone calls? That's the strongest proof you've got?
You are so sure that the official story is wrong that you heap abuse on people who haven't
decided the same. For that level of certitude, you need some actual evidence, not just your
feelings about things.
Well, there is a mountain of evidence that the official story is untrue. The strongest single
piece of physical evidence is that they claim that building 7 imploded in a perfectly symmetrical
way from office fires basically. So NIST and FEMA are clearly claiming that something happened
that is physically impossible. That is the strongest proof. And you have 2700 or so architects
and engineers who have been willing to put their name on a petition calling for a new investigation
on this basis -- that the official story is simply not physically possible.
But there is also the issue of expert testimony from pilots who state that the feat of flying
that these people allegedly pulled off is simply impossible for neophyte pilots. There is also
testimony that the civilian Boeing airliners that allegedly flew into the towers cannot even fly
at that speed at sea level. There are huge problems with the story.
There is also the problem that all the testimony about Al Qaeda's planning of the attacks came
from torturing one individual who was probably not even an Al Qaeda member. See this article:
http://www.voltairenet.org/article177178.html
Independent researchers have uncovered so many problems with the official story on so many
levels that, I think one can say pretty objectively that there is basically zero possibility that
the official story is truthful.
The only way to maintain one's status as a shit eater, and to continue believing the official
bullshit, is by being wilfully ignorant of just about every hard factual aspect of what is known!
You can start by reading the Wiki page and go from there.
What Wiki page? Oh, you mean Wikipedia? Well, I guess you don't realize that all that Wikipedia
ever does with these sorts of events, whether it's JFK or 9/11 or Charlie Hebdo or whatever, is
that the wikipedia page is just a synopsis of whatever the official story is.
Earlier, you indignantly said that you know what the "beg the question" fallacy is, but obviously
you don't. The Wikipedia page is just a synopsis of the official story. In any case, being a shit
eater basically requires you to have a very weak grasp of what "question begging" is. Because
that's what being a shit eater is. You ask a shit eater what the proof of whatever official story
is and they just repeat the official story. Or they point you to a summary of the official story
that is on wikipedia or somewhere else. It's always just self-referential question-begging.
It isn't hearsay. Witnesses are on the record. Recordings exist.
Dude, I can pick up a phone and call somebody and say that I'm in a plane and we're being hijacked.
It's really just not very strong evidence. It's like saying that some guy put up a video saying
he did it. I can put up a video on youtube saying I did it.
It is backed up by documentation. Here's one example:
Yeah, this rings a bell. A few years ago I looked through this stuff and it's really quite murky.
There's a pretty detailed analysis of those phone calls from that flight here:
It's all pretty much irrelevant really anyway, because it looks pretty clear that no passenger
airline hit the pentagon anyway! There just isn't the debris that you would expect to see, for
example. And the guy they say flew the plane, Hani Hanjour, lacked the skills to fly a single-engine
Cessna. It was a missile or some sort of drone, it appears. And, of course, all that is a far
bigger problem with that flight 77 than even these screwy phone records! I mean, if the flight
didn't even take place, to talk about their being proof that somebody made a call from the flight
in question...
Um, no, dipshit. Atta's dad has a reason to lie–to protect his son's memory.
Well, I concede that point. But the fact remains that Atta's dad may be telling the truth and
he may be lying. And the same applies to the people who say they got a phone call from somebody
on a plane. They could be telling the truth and they could be lying. And they could have plenty
strong reasons to lie too!
It's just not very strong evidence. If this is the strongest evidence that you have, I think
the debate is basically over.
It's only murky to people like you. The fact that you doubt the phone calls when there is so
much clear evidence for them just illustrates what a huge fucking idiot you are.
Well, the only reason you believe in the phone calls so firmly is because it supports what you
want to believe. You don't believe in the Atta Sr. phone call on 9/12, because it doesn't support
what you want to believe. Look at the article I linked. As evidence, it just is not very clear
at all. Generally speaking, anybody can make a phone call and claim that they are in a plane getting
hijacked.
Anybody can say they got a phone call too. And we all know that there are people who will say
anything for a few bucks. This is not hard evidence.
The fact that Airfones existed means that your "doubt" that it is technically possible to make
a call from an airplane is absolutely wrong.
Uhh, no, because not all the planes had the Airfones on them, you see. At this point in time,
for example, some flights have Wifi on them, but most don't. DRG made the point that the American
Airlines 767's in question did not have Airfones installed on them until 2002 or something like
that. But then I think somebody from the company claimed that they did, but I suspect that DRG
was right the first time, but as I said, I'm simply not sure about that. I don't know if the planes
in question had airfones on them or not. But this other problem, the expert testimony that a Boeing
767 can't even fly that fast at sea level anyway, this a much bigger problem that would trump
the whole issue of whether there were Airfones or not!
Again, in the case of Flight 77 that flew into the Pentagon, there is the bigger problem that
it does not look like any civil jet airliner flew into the Pentagon in the first place, and that
is a much bigger first order problem!
But look, as I said, unfortunately, you are a shit eater and it's a waste of time to debate
with shit eaters. I have done it enough that I can see what you do. You will automatically discount
any evidence that doesn't support the official bullshit, and then the evidence that does support
it, you'll claim that it's rock solid. So, for example, if the Atta Sr. phone call supported what
you want to believe, you'd be saying: "Oh, there's a witness and blah blah." But since it doesn't
support what you want to believe, then.
Again, you're in a very bad position if the strongest evidence you have is these phone calls!
So, do you have some piece of evidence that you think is stronger than the alleged phone calls
or is that your answer to the question I posed. "The strongest evidence for the official is these
phone calls."
I see you're having your fun with the shit eaters.
are their any who are sincerely duped?
I honestly don't know. At times, it seems like they're working from a basic playbook. Because
they always try the same basic tricks. They almost always end up claiming that the proof of the
government story is the government story. And then when you point out that it isn't, they then
turn around and say that somehow the evidence is on you to prove something.
And then if you further demand some real evidence, they'll usually just walk away. But then if
they offer evidence, then it does get hilarious. They'll invariably say that there are these videos
and Bin Laden admitted it. I could make a video saying I did it.
This Boris shit eater claimed that Mohammed Atta buying a plane ticket was proof. He also claimed
that there was video of Atta going through airport security. I looked for that and this is the
only thing I could find:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ilffe-4Tuw
I was trying to figure out how many degrees away this is from proving what needs to be proven.
Is that even Atta? Or is it just some vaguely middle eastern looking guy. Which airport is this
at? Okay, suppose it is him in the airport in question. How do we know he even got on the plane
after that? He coulda just gone to starbucks, had a coffee and then left the airport. Well, okay,
let's suppose he got on the plane. How do we know he hijacked it? And if he did hijack the plane,
how do we know that this was planned by OBL off in Afghanistan?
The number of leaps you have to make to think that this is proof of the official story is... When
you think about how they presented this whole story almost immediately and then it was off to
war. Based on this kind of thing, how could they have investigated so quickly and figured out
that the origin of the attacks was in Afghanistan?
The whole thing is such an obvious stitch-up when you look at it.
This Boris shit eater claimed that Mohammed Atta buying a plane ticket was proof.
This is an obvious fucking lie.
You asked:"Anyway, what "videos" and "records" are you referring to specifically?"
I said: "Video surveillance of Atta at the airport. His purchase of the tickets. Money trails.
And etc. etc. etc."
Nowhere did I say Atta buying a plane ticket was proof, or anything similar.
Dishonest or stupid? My answer–both.
(I see you have literal Nazi cheerleaders. Congrats.)
(I see you have literal Nazi cheerleaders. Congrats.)
Hi, shit eater. I initially glossed over this last bit about my having "Nazi cheerleaders". I
suppose you're calling Rurik here a "Nazi".
Rurik was referring to this Ursula Haverbeck case where, last year, an 87-year-old German woman
was sentenced to 10 months prison for asking questions about the Holocaust, which is a crime in
Germany, France and at least another dozen countries. Rurik (like myself) sees this as a travesty,
and thus, in your mental shit eater world, is therefore a "Nazi".
It doesn't occur to you that anybody could support Ursula Haverbeck (and others like her) simply
because they believe in free speech. If I say that it is utterly wrong to imprison somebody for
expressing certain views, does that mean logically that I share those views? No, I might share
those views or not. Or I might partially share them. The issue is the State terrorizing little
old ladies in their eighties for simply asking questions.
But, again, your approach to the question is typical of the shit eater. A shit eater always accepts
the dominant framing of any question and never thinks for himself. Occasionally people do wise
up. I myself did, but it is the exception, not the rule.
Besides, I don't think I was ever as bad a case as you are. I don't think that I was ever saying
stuff like: "Oh, we know that Mohammed Atta flew a plane into a building. He had a plane ticket!
What more proof do you need?"
This Boris shit eater claimed that Mohammed Atta buying a plane ticket was proof.
This is an obvious fucking lie.
Look, there is a clear electronic record here of what was said. I never said that you were
presenting Atta's purchase of a plane ticket as the sole proof, no. But you did offer it
as an element of proof.
You asked:"Anyway, what "videos" and "records" are you referring to specifically?"
I said: "Video surveillance of Atta at the airport. His purchase of the tickets. Money trails.
And etc. etc. etc."
Well, you were offering this as an element of proof, among other things, but NONE of the things
that you are as offering as proof really constitute a shred of evidence that Atta hijacked any
plane. It just doesn't.
Everything you are offering as proof is exactly as consistent with him being a patsy who was
framed as being an actual hijacker.
Now, as for accusing other people of dishonesty, you have said all these disparaging things
about "conspiracy theorists" and it being a "circle jerk" among other pejorative labels. At this
point, I have asked you a couple of times what 9/11 Truth literature you have actually read -
David Ray Griffin? Tarpley? The material from AE911Truth? The fact that you never answer the question
is basically an answer.
Clearly, you have not read any of it! You talk disparagingly about these "crazy conspiracy
theorists" but you don't even know what arguments any of them have made, because you have not
read any of it! I can tell you haven't. And that is really just completely deplorable and dishonest.
But I am kinda used to it. It's just typical shit eater behavior.
Nowhere did I say Atta buying a plane ticket was proof, or anything similar.
I requested proof and that was one of various elements of proof that you presented. Okay, I
guess now you realize that was a brain fart and want to retract the claim that this is proof of
any sort. Fine. Look, I'll throw you a bone. I'll even pretend that you never said that this was
proof. Okay, fine, what do I care? You never said that.
But I asked you: What is the strongest evidence available for the U.S. government story? I
mean, specifically, within a few weeks of the 9/11 event, a whole theater of war was launched
in Central Asia based on this whole tale that this was a terrorist plot that somehow originated
in Afghanistan. Fifteen years later and there are still G.I.'s in Afghanistan and they're spending
billions of dollars there every month probably. We really need to know what is the proof for this
story that was the basis for all this! Despite your claims otherwise, this is a perfectly legitimate
question. Can you shed any light on this?
9/11 was a complicated plot so asking for the "strongest evidnce" doesn't even make sense.
TRANSLATION OF SHIT-EATER SPEAK: "I have no real evidence so I'm going to pretend that the other
person is being unreasonable when he asks for some.
We have video and records of guys in an organization that wanted to commit terrorism in America...
Hey, shit eater, you ever heard of the "beg the question fallacy"? What that means is that you
can't assume the thing that you are trying to prove in your proof.
Anyway, what "videos" and "records" are you referring to specifically? It seems to me that you're
just repeating the story as proof of the story, which is, of course, what shit eaters do when
you ask them for proof of whatever bullshit.
Yes, it would be possible to fake all of that (well, not the planes hitting the buildings).
And yet no one has ever put forth any convincing evidence that it was. Hm.
Oh, you no one has ever put forth any convincing evidence that any of this is fake. Look, at this
point, there is a vast literature on this. And, yes, they have put forward VERY convincing evidence
that basically ALL OF IT is fake! In particular, the alleged phone calls from the planes that
detail the official narrative, these are very problematic, not technically possible even.
In any case, a video of a plane hitting a building is not proof that some bearded guy in Afghanistan
caused it to happen. By that reasoning, the Zapruder film of Kennedy being shot is proof that
Oswald did it. It is not.
Also, the video of a plane hitting a building is not proof that this is the cause of the
building's subsequent implosion. Particularly problematic is the third building WTC 7, which was
not hit by a plane, yet imploded in a perfectly symmetrical straight-down fashion that can only
be achieved via controlled demolition.
You say the evidence is the video of Bin Laden? Well, there's expert opinion that the videos
are fake.
Far more experts think it's real. I guess they are in on it?
Which experts think that the Bin Laden "confession videos" are real? Can you name any of these
"experts"?
In any case, anybody can say anything on a video. It's not very strong proof. I can put up a video
on youtube saying I did it.
Well now you want to argue your stupid conspiracy theory. See, any evidence that is presented
can be made into fit into some alternate theory. But those alternate theories never seem to
have any evidence backing them up.
The main alternative theory is that the buildings were prewired with explosives for a controlled
demolition. As regards WTC7, there is no reasonable doubt of this really, because the building
was not hit by a plane even. But, obviously, once you recognize that one building was pre-rigged
for controlled demolition, it becomes fairly obvious that all three were.
In any case, I did not actually propose any alternative story. I requested that you and whatever
other shit eaters tell me what they think the strongest evidence for the official story is.
There simply is not very much. It's stuff like somebody says they got a phone call from a plane
in which the person told them that such-and-such had happened. Fine, I could say I got a phone
call. There are people who will say anything for a few bucks.
I could put up a video saying I did it.
When you look at what you are presenting as evidence, it's very very weak. There's basically nothing
there.
Meanwhile, the physical evidence, that the collision of a single airliner with a building the
size of WTC1 or WTC2 is simply not going to cause what then happened. A 90-ton aluminum tube crashing
into 100,000 tons of structural steel, is simply not going to cause the latter to disintegrate.
And why a third building that is not even hit by a plane should disintegrate as a result, this
really only has one explanation, which is that the building in question was prerigged with explosives.
And that is why there are over 2000 professional architects and engineers who have signed the
Architechts and Engineers for 9/11 Truth petition calling for a new investigation.
"The main alternative theory is that the buildings were prewired with explosives for a controlled
demolition. As regards WTC7, there is no reasonable doubt of this really, because the building
was not hit by a plane even. But, obviously, once you recognize that one building was pre-rigged
for controlled demolition, it becomes fairly obvious that all three were."
None dispute 9/11 was a conspiracy, but who was in it? Nineteen hijackers trained in Afghanistan
and funded by Gulf money (the govt story)? The Bush administration? Some other govt? Why?
You've obviously done a great deal of research and conclude (as you say) all WTC towers were
intentionally demolished. Please share your theory. If it was a scripted event:
• Why did WT 1 (the first tower hit) fall after WT 2? Did conspirators mix up demo timing?
• Why did they bother to take down WT 7? Wouldn't the lack of aerial impact reveal demo and conspiracy?
• How did conspirators mine 240 exterior columns on each office floor of WT 1 & 2 (±50,000 locations)
without detection? Central core columns? Freestanding columns in public view at grade? How was
it concealed from building tenants, management, maintenance staff, visitors, CoNY building inspectors,
supply services, etc? And the same in WTC 7?
• Architects and engineers from Minoru Yamasaki & Associates, Emery Roth & Sons, Worthington Skilling
Helle & Jackson, Joseph R. Loring & Assoc, Jaros Blum & Bolles, and the numerous other firms responsible
for the WTC don't appear to be part of ae911truth. Are they part of the conspiracy? Are WTC building
contractors and subcontractors part of the conspiracy? Building tenants?
• How could the same administration that ignored 9/11 warnings, bungled Katrina and screwed-up
Iraq 2003 pull off such a complex, faultless conspiracy? Why have no insiders spilled the tale?
only the people that pulled this thing off know the exact whys and hows, and it certainly wasn't
faultless, or we all wouldn't know by now that it was an obvious inside job
what we are certain of is that the official story is a pack of lies, and that building seven didn't
implode into its basement because of office fires.
Look, there is a clear electronic record here of what was said. I never said that you were
presenting Atta's purchase of a plane ticket as the sole proof, no. But you did offer it as
an element of proof.
It's a piece of evidence. One of many. You keep asking "What's the strongest evidence?" but
that is a stupid question. It's all strong. The mastermind admitting it on tape isn't good enough
by itself, but combined with the money trail, the movements of the hijackers, the witnesses and
everything else the case is pretty clear.
Yes, they could have been patsies. Or aliens. When evidence that they are comes up, let me
know.
I never said that you were presenting Atta's purchase of a plane ticket as the sole proof,
no. But you did offer it as an element of proof.
It's a piece of evidence.
Oh, I see, here we are, the Monty Python argument shop skit approach to a discussion now. "No,
that's not evidence." "It is." "It's not."
You always reach this point when you debate with a shit eater. They just start adamantly repeating
whatever bullshit. It's like you have to tell them for the umpteenth time: " No, this turd
you have just regurgitated yet again is not chocolate mousse. "
And no, the "purchase of a plane ticket" is not proof of anything!
Basically, you're saying that there is some paper record that a plane ticket was purchased
in Atta's name. Yeah, okay, so what? This is not even proof that Atta himself purchased the ticket.
I could purchase a plane ticket in somebody's name without them even knowing about it. That a
person possesses a valid ticket, that a ticket was issued in somebody's name, that's not proof
that they ever got on the plane. And even then, that somebody was on the plane is not proof that
he hijacked it.
The purchase of the ticket is something that is so many degrees removed from being hard evidence
of anything, it is hard to see how somebody could try to make that claim. But this really brings
us to the core of the shit eater mentality.
You see, the reason that you present this kind of thing as evidence is that you've never really
thought about this question -- I mean the question what would constitute evidence. You never thought
about it because you see no need. "It's the official story, I heard it on the TeeVee, therefore
it's true."
That is how a shit eater reasons.
So it's a waste of time to try to have a "debate" with a shit eater because the shit eater
does not even understand the basic parameters of a debate, what would constitute evidence and
so forth.
You keep asking "What's the strongest evidence?" but that is a stupid question.
Well, a shit eater basically believes that asking for the evidence for any official story is stupid
because... well, it's the official story, therefore it's true. That's how a shit eater thinks.
"Hey, this is the official bullshit. Yum yum."
Of course, if you're not a shit eater, then if they tell you that somebody committed whatever
crime, the natural question is what is the strongest evidence available. And you have to think
about whether what they are presenting to you as "evidence" really is, or how strong it is.
The mastermind admitting it on tape isn't good enough by itself, but combined with the money
trail, the movements of the hijackers, the witnesses and everything else the case is pretty
clear.
Well, this is all beg the question stuff. The shit eater's "proof" of the story invariably is
based on assuming the story. "The mastermind, the hijackers..." You assume that which needs to
be demonstrated.
Most of this Al Qaeda narrative was established by torturing people, in particular, one poor
wretch by the name of Abu Zubaydah, in Guantanamo bay. I referenced one article that is, I think,
a must-read (if you really are interested in the topic, that is) here:
http://www.voltairenet.org/article177178.html
Now, regarding for example, the record of the "movements" of an alleged hijacker, like Atta,
I looked for the airport surveillance video you mentioned and it's just a joke:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6F249r7TaBo
That's a minute and a half and the narrator analyzes what is being presented as "proof" here.
It's just a total joke.
Yes, they could have been patsies. Or aliens. When evidence that they are comes up, let me
know.
Well, what would be the point? You would just continue to believe the official story anyway. Face
it, dude, you're a shit eater. A clinical case.
The evidence that these people were patsies is really pretty glaring. Take the case of Hani
Hanjour, who supposedly flew some sort of 270 degree sloping descent maneuver to hit the Pentagon,
some feat of flying that professional pilots have said they could not execute. This guy Hani was
up in some single-engine plane with a flight instructor once and the guy was so terrible (probably
mostly because he didn't really know English and didn't understand anything the instructor was
saying) that they got back on the ground and the instructor said never again!
There is a pattern here where anybody who really had any contact with any of these people saw
that they were bumbling incompetents who couldn't carry out an operation like this. When you do
minimal research on this and other similar events, the fact that the people they are pinning this
on are just patsies -- this is just glaring, it's right in your face. Lee Harvey Oswald back when,
or more recently, these Arab ethnics in France that they say did these various things.... the
fact that these people are patsies is just right in front of one's nose when you study these events
even minimally.
But when you talk with a shit eater, it's just like: "Oh, but that's the official story. It
must be true! You're a conspiracy theorist, nya nya!"
"Of course Atta flew a plane into a building. He had a ticket, dammit!!! What more proof do
you need???!!!!""
So, okay then you start waving your hands saying that the official story is so self-evidently
correct that anybody who questions it is just obviously crazy.
I never said this. Being skeptical of the official story is fine. But you aren't just skeptical.
You are absolutely positive that the official story is false. You are so sure that the official
story is wrong that you heap abuse on people who haven't decided the same. For that level of certitude,
you need some actual evidence, not just your feelings about things.
So, obviously, I ask you, like I ask any of the shit eaters, what is the evidence.
Are you an actual child? You can start by reading the Wiki page and go from there. Why are you
whining that no one will show you the evidence when it is easily available? It's bizarre.
Like saying that Mohammed Atta bought a plane ticket. Well, the other passengers bought a plane
ticket, didn't they? So they must have hijacked the plane, no?
What? You make no sense at all. Obviously the plane ticket is a necessary but not sufficient piece
of evidence. No one ever argued that it was the only piece of evidence.
Well, that's totally consistent with an attempt to frame the person for the crime.
It's totally consistent with my alien shape-shifter theory too. So what? It doesn't magically
become evidence for YOUR theory.
As I said before, it's just hearsay.
It isn't hearsay. Witnesses are on the record. Recordings exist. It is backed up by documentation.
Here's one example:
Well, Mohammed Atta Sr says he got a phone call, so by your reasoning, he got a phone call,
no?
Um, no, dipshit. Atta's dad has a reason to lie--to protect his son's memory. What reason would
a dozen family members have to lie? There are also records. And recordings of some of the calls.
Like now, your argument is that those Airfones "existed". Nothing more. They existed!
Holy shit, you've reached a new level of stupid. The fact that Airfones existed means that your
"doubt" that it is technically possible to make a call from an airplane is absolutely wrong. Hey,
you don't want obvious pieces of evidence explained to you? Then don't make idiotic claims.
Except apparently, the models of plane in question did not have the seat back phones at that
point in time. This is all under dispute somewhat and is murky.
It's only murky to people like you. The fact that you doubt the phone calls when there is so much
clear evidence for them just illustrates what a huge fucking idiot you are.
based on what DRG outlines, I think a reasonable person would have very great doubts that this
whole story of the phone calls from the planes is really true.
Amazing. You swallow that article without questioning it at all. I'm sure the first reports were
of "cell phones"--since that's what people would be familiar with. The documentation is clear.
All you have to understand is that the steel skeleton of each steel framed high-rise building
is made up of 40-odd massive structural steel columns and the only way the thing can fall straight
down vertically is for all the columns to fail at precisely the same instant.
The NIST describes the process:
The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79 to
expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on
Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled – pulling
the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns,
the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter
support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building
above to fall downward as a single unit.
Sounds plausible to me.
No I know that your supersmart buddies have written gobs of text about how this is impossible
and how all the families of the dead who got phone calls on 9/11 were lying liars who eat babies,
but no one is listening. Do you understand that? You truthers will always be reviled in polite
society. You think it's because everyone else is a lizard person, but it's you.
I never said this. Being skeptical of the official story is fine. But you aren't just skeptical.
You are absolutely positive that the official story is false.
Hold on, let me get this straight. What you object to is not that I disbelieve the story, but
that I express certainty . But I thought you were expressing certainty that the official
story was true, no? Or maybe you're not certain could you clarify your position now? You're starting
to sound really wishy washy.
Well, if you're saying there is strong proof for the official story, then that's basically
saying you're certain, no? Though I'm still trying to figure out what you think the proof is
it's these alleged phone calls? That's the strongest proof you've got?
You are so sure that the official story is wrong that you heap abuse on people who haven't
decided the same. For that level of certitude, you need some actual evidence, not just your
feelings about things.
Well, there is a mountain of evidence that the official story is untrue. The strongest single
piece of physical evidence is that they claim that building 7 imploded in a perfectly symmetrical
way from office fires basically. So NIST and FEMA are clearly claiming that something happened
that is physically impossible. That is the strongest proof. And you have 2700 or so architects
and engineers who have been willing to put their name on a petition calling for a new investigation
on this basis - that the official story is simply not physically possible.
But there is also the issue of expert testimony from pilots who state that the feat of flying
that these people allegedly pulled off is simply impossible for neophyte pilots. There is also
testimony that the civilian Boeing airliners that allegedly flew into the towers cannot even fly
at that speed at sea level. There are huge problems with the story.
There is also the problem that all the testimony about Al Qaeda's planning of the attacks came
from torturing one individual who was probably not even an Al Qaeda member. See this article:
http://www.voltairenet.org/article177178.html
Independent researchers have uncovered so many problems with the official story on so many
levels that, I think one can say pretty objectively that there is basically zero possibility that
the official story is truthful.
The only way to maintain one's status as a shit eater, and to continue believing the official
bullshit, is by being wilfully ignorant of just about every hard factual aspect of what is known!
You can start by reading the Wiki page and go from there.
What Wiki page? Oh, you mean Wikipedia? Well, I guess you don't realize that all that Wikipedia
ever does with these sorts of events, whether it's JFK or 9/11 or Charlie Hebdo or whatever, is
that the wikipedia page is just a synopsis of whatever the official story is.
Earlier, you indignantly said that you know what the "beg the question" fallacy is, but obviously
you don't. The Wikipedia page is just a synopsis of the official story. In any case, being a shit
eater basically requires you to have a very weak grasp of what "question begging" is. Because
that's what being a shit eater is. You ask a shit eater what the proof of whatever official story
is and they just repeat the official story. Or they point you to a summary of the official story
that is on wikipedia or somewhere else. It's always just self-referential question-begging.
It isn't hearsay. Witnesses are on the record. Recordings exist.
Dude, I can pick up a phone and call somebody and say that I'm in a plane and we're being hijacked.
It's really just not very strong evidence. It's like saying that some guy put up a video saying
he did it. I can put up a video on youtube saying I did it.
It is backed up by documentation. Here's one example:
Yeah, this rings a bell. A few years ago I looked through this stuff and it's really quite
murky. There's a pretty detailed analysis of those phone calls from that flight here:
It's all pretty much irrelevant really anyway, because it looks pretty clear that no passenger
airline hit the pentagon anyway! There just isn't the debris that you would expect to see, for
example. And the guy they say flew the plane, Hani Hanjour, lacked the skills to fly a single-engine
Cessna. It was a missile or some sort of drone, it appears. And, of course, all that is a far
bigger problem with that flight 77 than even these screwy phone records! I mean, if the flight
didn't even take place, to talk about their being proof that somebody made a call from the flight
in question
Um, no, dipshit. Atta's dad has a reason to lie–to protect his son's memory.
Well, I concede that point. But the fact remains that Atta's dad may be telling the truth and
he may be lying. And the same applies to the people who say they got a phone call from somebody
on a plane. They could be telling the truth and they could be lying. And they could have plenty
strong reasons to lie too!
It's just not very strong evidence. If this is the strongest evidence that you have, I think
the debate is basically over.
It's only murky to people like you. The fact that you doubt the phone calls when there is
so much clear evidence for them just illustrates what a huge fucking idiot you are.
Well, the only reason you believe in the phone calls so firmly is because it supports what
you want to believe. You don't believe in the Atta Sr. phone call on 9/12, because it doesn't
support what you want to believe. Look at the article I linked. As evidence, it just is not very
clear at all. Generally speaking, anybody can make a phone call and claim that they are in a plane
getting hijacked.
Anybody can say they got a phone call too. And we all know that there are people who will say
anything for a few bucks. This is not hard evidence.
The fact that Airfones existed means that your "doubt" that it is technically possible to
make a call from an airplane is absolutely wrong.
Uhh, no, because not all the planes had the Airfones on them, you see. At this point in time,
for example, some flights have Wifi on them, but most don't. DRG made the point that the American
Airlines 767′s in question did not have Airfones installed on them until 2002 or something like
that. But then I think somebody from the company claimed that they did, but I suspect that DRG
was right the first time, but as I said, I'm simply not sure about that. I don't know if the planes
in question had airfones on them or not. But this other problem, the expert testimony that a Boeing
767 can't even fly that fast at sea level anyway, this a much bigger problem that would trump
the whole issue of whether there were Airfones or not!
Again, in the case of Flight 77 that flew into the Pentagon, there is the bigger problem that
it does not look like any civil jet airliner flew into the Pentagon in the first place, and that
is a much bigger first order problem!
But look, as I said, unfortunately, you are a shit eater and it's a waste of time to debate
with shit eaters. I have done it enough that I can see what you do. You will automatically discount
any evidence that doesn't support the official bullshit, and then the evidence that does support
it, you'll claim that it's rock solid. So, for example, if the Atta Sr. phone call supported what
you want to believe, you'd be saying: "Oh, there's a witness and blah blah." But since it doesn't
support what you want to believe, then.
Again, you're in a very bad position if the strongest evidence you have is these phone calls!
So, do you have some piece of evidence that you think is stronger than the alleged phone calls
or is that your answer to the question I posed. "The strongest evidence for the official is these
phone calls."
Oh, and even then, how that gets you to the bearded guy in Afghanistan . • Replies:
@Incitatus "...you have 2700 or so architects and engineers who have been willing to put
their name on a petition calling for a new investigation on this basis - that the official story
is simply not physically possible."
Great point! 2700! Something must be fishy.
But how many licensed architects and engineers are there in the US? Turns out there's 105,042
+ 822,575 = 927,617 (source: AIA & NCEES). 2,700 represents 0.29% of the total number of US architects
and engineers. That means 99.71% haven't called for a new investigation.
But wait! Turns out Mr. Gage's petition is signed not only by licensed US architects and engineers,
but also by the 'degreed' (without licenses they're not legally able to call themselves architects
or engineers). It gets even better - many of the signatories are foreign (UK. Sri Lanka, Canada,
Bolivia, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Colombia, etc). Nothing wrong with that, of course. The
more, the merrier
But the base increases yet again. Linkedin estimates 3,600,000 licensed architects on earth. If
the proportion of architects to engineers is similar to the US ratio 28,191,295 engineers exist,
bringing the combined total to 31,791,295 architects and engineers worldwide.
2,700 is 0.0085% of 31,791,295. In other words, 99.9915% of worldwide architects and engineers
haven't called for a new investigation. Are they part of a conspiracy?
I have a friend and business partner in NZ, Harmon Wilfred, who is stateless as a result of
blowing the whistle on the Clintons. His information, available in this blog, could blow the Clinton
Foundation out of the water – but no one dare touch such a true conspiracy theory.
Rurik
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 10, 2016 at 12:58 am GMT • 100 Words
@Incitatus "The main alternative theory is that the buildings were prewired with explosives
for a controlled demolition. As regards WTC7, there is no reasonable doubt of this really, because
the building was not hit by a plane even. But, obviously, once you recognize that one building
was pre-rigged for controlled demolition, it becomes fairly obvious that all three were."
None dispute 9/11 was a conspiracy, but who was in it? Nineteen hijackers trained in Afghanistan
and funded by Gulf money (the govt story)? The Bush administration? Some other govt? Why?
You've obviously done a great deal of research and conclude (as you say) all WTC towers were intentionally
demolished. Please share your theory. If it was a scripted event:
• Why did WT 1 (the first tower hit) fall after WT 2? Did conspirators mix up demo timing?
• Why did they bother to take down WT 7? Wouldn't the lack of aerial impact reveal demo and conspiracy?
• How did conspirators mine 240 exterior columns on each office floor of WT 1 & 2 (±50,000 locations)
without detection? Central core columns? Freestanding columns in public view at grade? How was
it concealed from building tenants, management, maintenance staff, visitors, CoNY building inspectors,
supply services, etc? And the same in WTC 7?
• Architects and engineers from Minoru Yamasaki & Associates, Emery Roth & Sons, Worthington Skilling
Helle & Jackson, Joseph R. Loring & Assoc, Jaros Blum & Bolles, and the numerous other firms responsible
for the WTC don't appear to be part of ae911truth. Are they part of the conspiracy? Are WTC building
contractors and subcontractors part of the conspiracy? Building tenants?
• How could the same administration that ignored 9/11 warnings, bungled Katrina and screwed-up
Iraq 2003 pull off such a complex, faultless conspiracy? Why have no insiders spilled the tale?
only the people that pulled this thing off know the exact whys and hows, and it certainly wasn't
faultless, or we all wouldn't know by now that it was an obvious inside job
what we are certain of is that the official story is a pack of lies, and that building seven
didn't implode into its basement because of office fires.
• Replies:
@Incitatus I've read quite a few studies over the years, and have seen several films (ae911truth
etc). Skeptical by nature, I ask specific questions. Most who doubt the NIST scenario seem unable
to venture any guess on responsible parties, motives or exact means. 'Controlled demolition' is
all very well, but how would one go about it without betraying the conspiracy?
Two observations. The government story, however improbable, is explained in detail. One need not
believe it, but at least there's meat on the bones. The none-of-the-above crowd, however, coughs
up vague notions in lieu of any real motives, means, and methodology. Usually they offer YouTube,
ae911truth, and similar sites as the answer. Which is to say, they have no real answers at all.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
Boris and Incitatus,
I want you to know that Revusky loves you both, owing to your kind extension to him, the opportunity
to partake of his daily bread – 9/11 "truth". Poor chap's been through a bit of a lean period
lately; breadwise that is.
I'd suggest a little caution nevertheless . You see, he repeatedly calls his interlocutors,
"shit-eaters", a term he intends entirely as a fraternal invitation to a select club, of which,
the dinner menu is limited, noxious and, -not to put too fine a point on it – unnatural. But of
course he is entitled to his preferences, this being the day and age of inclusiveness and all
that, I say to each his own.
Btw he adores infinite reduction loops, and hopes one day to set foot on the moon. In the meantime
do remind him – the dosage is twice daily, ideally on an empty stomach.
I too noted JR's fixation with coprophagia. I put it down to ecological pragmatism on his part.
He produces such immense quantities of the product, he suggestively hopes others will consume
it. He must be in constant danger of exploding.
Honoré de Balzac had a great observation on conspracists:
The Irgun bombing of the King David Hotel (headquarters of the British Mandate Government of Palestine)
in which Zionist activists dressed as Arabs placed milk churns filled with explosives against
the main columns of the building killing 91 people and injuring 44. Israeli prime Minister Netanyahu,
attended a celebration to commemorate the event.
Operation Susannah (Lavon Affair) where Israeli operatives impersonating Arabs bombed British
and American cinemas, libraries and educational centers in Egypt to destabilize the country and
keep British troops committed to the Middle East.
Or June 8, 1967, the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty with unmarked aircraft and torpedo boats.
34 men were killed and 171 wounded, with the attack in international waters following over nine
hours of close surveillance. When the ship failed to sink, the Israeli government concocted an
elaborate story to cover the crime. Original plan to blame the sinking with all lives lost on
the Egyptians and draw the US into the war.
Or Israelis and U.S. Zionists appearing all over the most recent WTC 9/11 "Operation" with Israelis
once again impersonating Arabs in a historic deception/terror action of a type that seems to carry
a lot of kudos with old Israeli ex-terrorist Likudniks. Israeli agents were sent to film the historic
day (as they later admitted on Israeli TV), with the celebrations including photos of themselves
with a background of the burning towers where thousands of Americans were being incinerated.
Iraq was destroyed as a result of 9/11 but unfortunately for the conspirators, the momentum wasn't
sufficient for a general war including Iran. Also the general war would have included the nuclear
angle and justified the activation of a neo-con led Emergency Regime (dictatorship) in the US
enforced with the newly printed Patriot Act and Homeland Security troops - or maybe that's just
another Conspiracy Theory?
Come on. If you're going to false-flag 9/11, you hijack one plane. Hijacking four planes
is exactly the kind of plan that has too many moving parts to be sensible. And it didn't go according
to plan! Only three out of four planes hit their targets. If the hijackers on United 93 had been
fully subdued and found to be Israelis in funny clothes, the other three planes would have been
for nothing.
I can see the USS Liberty one though. I've never heard a plausible explanation for it.
If you're going to false-flag 9/11, you hijack one plane. Hijacking four planes is exactly
the kind of plan that has too many moving parts to be sensible.
Type "no planes 9/11" into youtube for hints on how hijacking no planes at all is even more sensible.
Some of the videos make better cases than others, but a half dozen or so appear conclusive. So
sensible is the no planes theory, that one wonders why the plotters wouldn't have thought of it.
In any case, only one plane ever made it to prime time and much of the footage exhibits disturbing
anomalies readily explained by CGI.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
Actually it is. Relatively easy. Time and money consuming but not hard, at least compare to
put robot on mars. And you not need to travel over entire surface, you can just land robot at
about same place. But such experiment is pointless because have little science value and any evidence
from it can be called fake(or be faked)
Look, there is a clear electronic record here of what was said. I never said that you were
presenting Atta's purchase of a plane ticket as the sole proof, no. But you did offer it as
an element of proof.
It's a piece of evidence. One of many. You keep asking "What's the strongest evidence?" but that
is a stupid question. It's all strong. The mastermind admitting it on tape isn't good enough by
itself, but combined with the money trail, the movements of the hijackers, the witnesses and everything
else the case is pretty clear.
Yes, they could have been patsies. Or aliens. When evidence that they are comes up, let me know.
I never said that you were presenting Atta's purchase of a plane ticket as the sole proof,
no. But you did offer it as an element of proof.
It's a piece of evidence.
Oh, I see, here we are, the Monty Python argument shop skit approach to a discussion now. "No,
that's not evidence." "It is." "It's not."
You always reach this point when you debate with a shit eater. They just start adamantly repeating
whatever bullshit. It's like you have to tell them for the umpteenth time: " No, this turd
you have just regurgitated yet again is not chocolate mousse. "
And no, the "purchase of a plane ticket" is not proof of anything!
Basically, you're saying that there is some paper record that a plane ticket was purchased
in Atta's name. Yeah, okay, so what? This is not even proof that Atta himself purchased the ticket.
I could purchase a plane ticket in somebody's name without them even knowing about it. That a
person possesses a valid ticket, that a ticket was issued in somebody's name, that's not proof
that they ever got on the plane. And even then, that somebody was on the plane is not proof that
he hijacked it.
The purchase of the ticket is something that is so many degrees removed from being hard evidence
of anything, it is hard to see how somebody could try to make that claim. But this really brings
us to the core of the shit eater mentality.
You see, the reason that you present this kind of thing as evidence is that you've never really
thought about this question - I mean the question what would constitute evidence. You never thought
about it because you see no need. "It's the official story, I heard it on the TeeVee, therefore
it's true."
That is how a shit eater reasons.
So it's a waste of time to try to have a "debate" with a shit eater because the shit eater
does not even understand the basic parameters of a debate, what would constitute evidence and
so forth.
You keep asking "What's the strongest evidence?" but that is a stupid question.
Well, a shit eater basically believes that asking for the evidence for any official story is
stupid because well, it's the official story, therefore it's true. That's how a shit eater thinks.
"Hey, this is the official bullshit. Yum yum."
Of course, if you're not a shit eater, then if they tell you that somebody committed whatever
crime, the natural question is what is the strongest evidence available. And you have to think
about whether what they are presenting to you as "evidence" really is, or how strong it is.
The mastermind admitting it on tape isn't good enough by itself, but combined with the money
trail, the movements of the hijackers, the witnesses and everything else the case is pretty
clear.
Well, this is all beg the question stuff. The shit eater's "proof" of the story invariably
is based on assuming the story. "The mastermind, the hijackers " You assume that which needs to
be demonstrated.
Most of this Al Qaeda narrative was established by torturing people, in particular, one poor
wretch by the name of Abu Zubaydah, in Guantanamo bay. I referenced one article that is, I think,
a must-read (if you really are interested in the topic, that is) here:
Now, regarding for example, the record of the "movements" of an alleged hijacker, like Atta,
I looked for the airport surveillance video you mentioned and it's just a joke:
That's a minute and a half and the narrator analyzes what is being presented as "proof" here.
It's just a total joke.
Yes, they could have been patsies. Or aliens. When evidence that they are comes up, let
me know.
Well, what would be the point? You would just continue to believe the official story anyway.
Face it, dude, you're a shit eater. A clinical case.
The evidence that these people were patsies is really pretty glaring. Take the case of Hani
Hanjour, who supposedly flew some sort of 270 degree sloping descent maneuver to hit the Pentagon,
some feat of flying that professional pilots have said they could not execute. This guy Hani was
up in some single-engine plane with a flight instructor once and the guy was so terrible (probably
mostly because he didn't really know English and didn't understand anything the instructor was
saying) that they got back on the ground and the instructor said never again!
There is a pattern here where anybody who really had any contact with any of these people saw
that they were bumbling incompetents who couldn't carry out an operation like this. When you do
minimal research on this and other similar events, the fact that the people they are pinning this
on are just patsies - this is just glaring, it's right in your face. Lee Harvey Oswald back when,
or more recently, these Arab ethnics in France that they say did these various things . the fact
that these people are patsies is just right in front of one's nose when you study these events
even minimally.
But when you talk with a shit eater, it's just like: "Oh, but that's the official story. It
must be true! You're a conspiracy theorist, nya nya!"
"Of course Atta flew a plane into a building. He had a ticket, dammit!!! What more proof do
you need???!!!!""
This is where you always end up when you debate a shit eater.
This Boris shit eater claimed that Mohammed Atta buying a plane ticket was proof.
This is an obvious fucking lie.
You asked:"Anyway, what "videos" and "records" are you referring to specifically?"
I said: "Video surveillance of Atta at the airport. His purchase of the tickets. Money trails.
And etc. etc. etc."
Nowhere did I say Atta buying a plane ticket was proof, or anything similar.
Dishonest or stupid? My answer--both.
(I see you have literal Nazi cheerleaders. Congrats.)
(I see you have literal Nazi cheerleaders. Congrats.)
Hi, shit eater. I initially glossed over this last bit about my having "Nazi cheerleaders".
I suppose you're calling Rurik here a "Nazi".
Rurik was referring to this Ursula Haverbeck case where, last year, an 87-year-old German woman
was sentenced to 10 months prison for asking questions about the Holocaust, which is a crime in
Germany, France and at least another dozen countries. Rurik (like myself) sees this as a travesty,
and thus, in your mental shit eater world, is therefore a "Nazi".
It doesn't occur to you that anybody could support Ursula Haverbeck (and others like her) simply
because they believe in free speech. If I say that it is utterly wrong to imprison somebody for
expressing certain views, does that mean logically that I share those views? No, I might share
those views or not. Or I might partially share them. The issue is the State terrorizing little
old ladies in their eighties for simply asking questions.
But, again, your approach to the question is typical of the shit eater. A shit eater always
accepts the dominant framing of any question and never thinks for himself. Occasionally people
do wise up. I myself did, but it is the exception, not the rule.
Besides, I don't think I was ever as bad a case as you are. I don't think that I was ever saying
stuff like: "Oh, we know that Mohammed Atta flew a plane into a building. He had a plane ticket!
What more proof do you need?"
Ursula Haverbeck ... ..., an 87-year-old German woman was sentenced to 10 months prison for
asking questions about the Holocaust, which is a crime in Germany, ... .... Rurik (like myself)
sees this as a travesty,
That's exactly true JR, I consider something like that an obvious travesty at the very least,
and an abomination of human reason and compassion and simple decency. She may be wrong, but by
what right do they have to tell her she's not allowed to ask questions? Fuck that shit. And fuck
the people who put her in prison. What are they so afraid of, eh? Is what I'd like to know.
He had a plane ticket! What more proof do you need?"
ahh, but JR, you're forgetting the other, shocking proof that this was Osama and his 19 henchmen..
the passport!
the magical passport that flew out of the terrorist's pocket or carry on, and through the carnage
of the plane's explosion and through the fireball and all that glass and concrete and then gently
glided down t0 the New York street, where it was quickly found before the dust fell on it and
handed to the FBI and then rushed to the MSM, where upon they all let us all know that it had
been found! so that we could all know who was responsible for this heinous attack!
I suppose Boris forgot about that unassailable evidence and proof or he would have surely mentioned
it by now. And that's not all! They found Korans in the terrorist's rental car! Did you know that?
and they caught some of the terrorists actually filming the first plane hitting the tower, and
these slimy bastards were all happy and celebrating the horrors, while the people who saw them
were aghast, at how anyone could be happy at all that death of innocent people.
err, um, wait, no, those weren't the terrorists come to think of it. Never mind that last part.
But the passport!!
that was undeniable physical evidence! Proof!
and then there was the witness, right there on the spot, to explain how the buildings collapsed
"mostly due to structural failure, because the fire was just too intense"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5y8PtfKA14
all these things were explained to us all right away. They knew it was Bin Laden within hours.
And they knew right away how the buildings fell, and had planted that "knowledge" into us all,
with videos like the Harley guy, who planted that seed in our collective conscieness. for how
hundreds of thousands of tons of steel and concrete was going to >>poof<< into so much powder..
Erebus
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 10, 2016 at 7:58 am GMT • 100 Words
@WowJustWow Come on. If you're going to false-flag 9/11, you hijack one plane. Hijacking
four planes is exactly the kind of plan that has too many moving parts to be sensible. And it
didn't go according to plan! Only three out of four planes hit their targets. If the hijackers
on United 93 had been fully subdued and found to be Israelis in funny clothes, the other three
planes would have been for nothing.
I can see the USS Liberty one though. I've never heard a plausible explanation for it.
If you're going to false-flag 9/11, you hijack one plane. Hijacking four planes is exactly
the kind of plan that has too many moving parts to be sensible.
Type "no planes 9/11″ into youtube for hints on how hijacking no planes at all is even more
sensible. Some of the videos make better cases than others, but a half dozen or so appear conclusive.
So sensible is the no planes theory, that one wonders why the plotters wouldn't have thought of
it.
In any case, only one plane ever made it to prime time and much of the footage exhibits disturbing
anomalies readily explained by CGI.
Not to answer for The Great Revusky, I'll offer some suggestions of my own:
• Why did WT 1 (the first tower hit) fall after WT 2? Did conspirators mix up demo timing?
- The 2nd tower hit failed to ignite properly. The fires were clearly in danger of going out
entirely on their own soon after being "hit". It either got brought down immediately, or would
stand as a testament to what happened.
- They may have screwed up the timing, but I doubt it. To me it looks like they made a decision
on the fly.
• Why did they bother to take down WT 7? Wouldn't the lack of aerial impact reveal demo
and conspiracy?
There were a variety of good political reasons to bring down WTC7. Let Google be your friend
on this. There's a couple of easily made guesses as to what may have happened, such as:
- It was to be brought down using the chaos of the WTC1 & 2 collapses as smokescreen, but something
went wrong with the countdown and the demolition was aborted pending repairs.
- I have a hard time believing any planes were involved at all, so your 2nd question is moot for
me, but if my guess immediately above is right, then there would have been an explosion cueing
the point of impact. Perhaps that failed to go off, leaving any CGI plane simply disappearing
into the building without leaving a trace. That would look rather weird, so they opted to bring
it down in broad daylight hoping few would notice.
• How did conspirators mine 240 exterior columns on each office floor of WT 1 & 2 (±50,000
locations) without detection? Central core columns? Freestanding columns in public view at
grade? How was it concealed from building tenants, management, maintenance staff, visitors,
CoNY building inspectors, supply services, etc? And the same in WTC 7?
They didn't, simply because there was no need to. Bringing down the central core would be all
that's needed to bring the building down. They did however, conscientiously cut the outer columns
to manageable lengths.
• Architects and engineers from Minoru Yamasaki & Associates, Emery Roth & Sons, Worthington
Skilling Helle & Jackson, Joseph R. Loring & Assoc, Jaros Blum & Bolles, and the numerous other
firms responsible for the WTC don't appear to be part of ae911truth. Are they part of the conspiracy?
Are WTC building contractors and subcontractors part of the conspiracy? Building tenants?
No, no, & (for the most part) no. There was that group of apparently Israeli "artists" that
camped out in the WTC for 4 years immediately prior to 9/11, but I don't recall whether they were
rent paying tenants. Incidentally, they had 24/7, construction access to the buildings and were
ensconced in both impact zones.
• How could the same administration that ignored 9/11 warnings, bungled Katrina and screwed-up
Iraq 2003 pull off such a complex, faultless conspiracy? Why have no insiders spilled the tale?
I don't believe the "same administration" was necessarily involved. I would posit that, for
the most part, an entirely different administration pulled it off.
Parenthetically, I'm not at all sure the "same administration bungled Katrina and screwed-up
Iraq". A case can be made that at least some segments of the Administration got exactly the results
they were looking for in both cases, but that's a different thread.
• Replies:
@Incitatus But surely those who can set up and stage-manage such a complex event without detection
wouldn't screw up? I'm unable to find much of any value stored in WTC 7. Giuliani's crisis control
center, yes, but that's hardly a reason to risk uncovering the conspiracy hours after the fall
of WTC 1 & 2..
If WTC 1 & 2 central core columns were, as you suggest, the only mining required, how was it done
without detection? Four years effort by Israeli 'artists'? Undetected? What was their motive?
You posit the exterior 14x14" steel 'cage' columns (240/floor) need not be mined but were instead
"cut...to manageable lengths." What lengths? How was it done without detection?
"- I have a hard time believing any planes were involved at all, so your 2nd question is moot
for me, but if my guess immediately above is right, then there would have been an explosion cueing
the point of impact. Perhaps that failed to go off, leaving any CGI plane simply disappearing
into the building without leaving a trace. That would look rather weird, so they opted to bring
it down in broad daylight hoping few would notice."
CGI = computer-generated-imagery? So the planes were an illusion? Did they hypnotize eyewitnesses
who saw the planes? The news crews? Etc?
Still, that's great news! Where do you suggest two friends of mine, parents of a stewardess on
American Flight 11, find their daughter? ,
@Jonathan Revusky
Not to answer for The Great Revusky,
LOL. Hi, don't worry that you are encroaching on my territory. It actually gets very very tiresome
to argue with these shit eaters. So if you want to lend a hand, that's just great.
I don't suppose it's lost on you that this "Incitatus" is some sort of professional disinfo agent.
He's coming in to pick up the slack because "Boris" started seriously self-destructing. He's got
some basic troll act that he's open-minded and so forth and just wants to know the truth...
But, of course, the whole thing is ridiculous. Here we are, 15 years after the event, and the
guy is representing that he really wants to get at the truth. Well, why didn't he read a single
book on the topic in the last decade plus? Or why didn't he ever look at any of the material on
http://ae911truth.org ?
His alleged fence-sitting position makes no sense 15 years after the event.
But I thought you were expressing certainty that the official story was true, no?
I am not absolutely certain. New evidence could sway my opinion. You don't have any.
And no, the "purchase of a plane ticket" is not proof of anything!
Imagine if there were no records that Atta had bought the tickets. Dipshits like you would
be going crazy repeating this fact from coast to coast, right? It's like you haven't done ANY
real thinking your whole life.
Imagine if there were no records that Atta had bought the tickets. Dipshits like you would
be going crazy repeating this fact from coast to coast, right?
Well, of course. What's your point?
Oh,... hold on... I see... you don't understand the difference between a necessary and a sufficient
condition.
Sheesh. I guess I should explain it to you....
Look... For example... for Lee Harvey Oswald to have assassinated JFK, he had to be in Dallas
on 11/22/1963, right? That's a necessary condition. So if you could show that he was in
New York or Miami on that day, it would be all over. Obviously he didn't do it in that case. But
no, he was in Dallas on that day. The problem is that this is a necessary condition for
him being guilty, but is certainly not sufficient .
Mohamed Atta, like anybody, could not even board the flight if he didn't have a ticket, so
if it was shown that he never had a ticket, that would be game over, like if Oswald was not even
in Dallas.
But no, Atta did have a plane ticket apparently. I assume he did. And of course, Oswald was
in Dallas at the time of the JFK assassination. The problem is that these things are simply not
proof of any sort of what needs to be proven in either case. It's a necessary , but not
a sufficient condition.
So what is going on here, Mr. Boris Shit-Eater, is that it is becoming increasingly clear that
you don't even understand the most basic things in logic, like a necessary versus a sufficient
condition. But, of course, in the shit eater mental universe, there is no need for any of that.
The MSM tells you something so therefore it's true. That's how shit eaters operate.
It's like you haven't done ANY real thinking your whole life.
Well, a shit eater basically believes that asking for the evidence for any official story
is stupid
I told you where to find the evidence. You seem to be getting dumber.
Well, what would be the point? You would just continue to believe the official story anyway.
You have zero evidence for your beliefs. Zero.
Hani Hanjour
So one flight instructor saying he was bad years before means he couldn't have gotten better?
And, of course, many pilots say that what he did was possible. Do you see how you don't apply
the same scrutiny to things that you WANT to believe?
This is how conspiracy theorists behave. Video evidence? Fake! Some pilots told me it was impossible,
so it was!
But anyway, this is getting nonsensical. How could you even tell me where to find evidence if
you don't even know what evidence is? I mean, you obviously don't understand the difference between
a necessary and a sufficient condition.
You have zero evidence for your beliefs. Zero.
You're just projecting. You are the one with no evidence for your beliefs. This is quite obvious.
Somebody asks you what the evidence is and your "evidence" is stuff like "Mohammed Atta had a
plane ticket". When you are asked for evidence (and I specifically said "the strongest evidence
available") and you're coming up with worthless crap like that, it obviously means you have no
evidence. Surely everybody sees that, no?
So one flight instructor saying he was bad years before means he couldn't have gotten better?
Years before??? Uhh, look, the incident in question was in August 2001, less than a month
before he allegedly did his top gun maneuver with a passenger jet into the Pentagon.
Hanjour began making cross-country flights in August to test security, and tried to rent a
plane from Freeway Airport in Maryland; though he was declined after exhibiting difficulty
controlling and landing a single-engine Cessna 172.[25]
The above is from the Wikipedia page devoted to Hani Hanjour, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hani_Hanjour#2001
He was not competent to fly a small Cessna in August of 2001. It was not YEARS before. You see,
you're just making up shit now.
This is like some guy who can't even pass a basic driving test in a regular car and three or four
weeks later, he is competing successfully in the Indy 500. Or driving the Grand Prix circuit.
If this was the only problem in the overall story, but it's like plot glitch #174 or something.
I mean, the whole narrative is just shot through with ridiculous stuff like this.
Some pilots told me it was impossible, so it was!
Well, as a matter of fact, I take expert testimony on questions seriously. If a professional pilot
with thousands of hours of experience flying Boeing passenger jets tells you that he himself could
not execute the maneuver, it does not take a bloody genius to realize that Hani Hanjour certainly
could not do it!
If a controlled demolition specialist in Holland, Danny Jowenko, when shown the footage of WTC
7 imploding says that this is definitely a controlled demolition, it stands to reason that it
is a controlled demolition! I don't presume to know more about flying airplanes than seasoned
professional pilots or more about building implosions than a professional demolitions expert.
Now, it's true that you have high level experts claiming the opposite, but you can generally see
that these are people who are pretty beholden to the power structure, and will feel obliged to
go along with whatever the official line is, such as the people at NIST who claim that building
7 imploded perfectly symmetrically from uncontrolled fires. These people say that because they
have to.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter Display
All Comments
It doesn't occur to you that anybody could support Ursula Haverbeck (and others like her)
simply because they believe in free speech.
Rurik denies the Holocaust and whines that Germans have been maligned because history was written
down. You are probably stupid enough to agree with him.
"Oh, we know that Mohammed Atta flew a plane into a building. He had a plane ticket! What
more proof do you need?"
You keep repeating this lie. I wonder why? Oh, you're a fucking moron. That's right.
But I thought you were expressing certainty that the official story was true, no?
I am not absolutely certain. New evidence could sway my opinion. You don't have any.
And no, the "purchase of a plane ticket" is not proof of anything!
Imagine if there were no records that Atta had bought the tickets. Dipshits like you would be
going crazy repeating this fact from coast to coast, right? It's like you haven't done ANY real
thinking your whole life.
Imagine if there were no records that Atta had bought the tickets. Dipshits like you would
be going crazy repeating this fact from coast to coast, right?
Well, of course. What's your point?
Oh, hold on I see you don't understand the difference between a necessary and a sufficient
condition.
Sheesh. I guess I should explain it to you .
Look For example for Lee Harvey Oswald to have assassinated JFK, he had to be in Dallas on
11/22/1963, right? That's a necessary condition. So if you could show that he was in New
York or Miami on that day, it would be all over. Obviously he didn't do it in that case. But no,
he was in Dallas on that day. The problem is that this is a necessary condition for him
being guilty, but is certainly not sufficient .
Mohamed Atta, like anybody, could not even board the flight if he didn't have a ticket, so
if it was shown that he never had a ticket, that would be game over, like if Oswald was not even
in Dallas.
But no, Atta did have a plane ticket apparently. I assume he did. And of course, Oswald was
in Dallas at the time of the JFK assassination. The problem is that these things are simply not
proof of any sort of what needs to be proven in either case. It's a necessary , but not
a sufficient condition.
So what is going on here, Mr. Boris Shit-Eater, is that it is becoming increasingly clear that
you don't even understand the most basic things in logic, like a necessary versus a sufficient
condition. But, of course, in the shit eater mental universe, there is no need for any of that.
The MSM tells you something so therefore it's true. That's how shit eaters operate.
It's like you haven't done ANY real thinking your whole life.
only the people that pulled this thing off know the exact whys and hows, and it certainly wasn't
faultless, or we all wouldn't know by now that it was an obvious inside job
what we are certain of is that the official story is a pack of lies, and that building seven didn't
implode into its basement because of office fires.
from there, you go down the rabbit hole
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1VtozvvG4c
I've read quite a few studies over the years, and have seen several films (ae911truth etc).
Skeptical by nature, I ask specific questions. Most who doubt the NIST scenario seem unable to
venture any guess on responsible parties, motives or exact means. 'Controlled demolition' is all
very well, but how would one go about it without betraying the conspiracy?
Two observations. The government story, however improbable, is explained in detail. One need
not believe it, but at least there's meat on the bones. The none-of-the-above crowd, however,
coughs up vague notions in lieu of any real motives, means, and methodology. Usually they offer
YouTube, ae911truth, and similar sites as the answer. Which is to say, they have no real answers
at all.
that's fine Incitatus, but all too often those roads lead down to obfuscation and conjecture.
Like why did they implode building seven? The answer is we don't know. Probably because it was
the control center for the whole operation, and they wanted to 'pull it' to erase all the evidence.
Flight 92 was probably intended to hit building seven, as the pretext for its collapse, but then
when it was shot down over Pennsylvania, they had to wing it.
But that is all conjecture. Like asking someone who doesn't buy the Warren commission's findings,
OK then 'why did they kill JFK'? Only the assassins know the answer to that question, just as
only the people responsible for 911 could answer all the detailed queries.
How did they rig the buildings surreptitiously? That is a whole gigantic side discussion, and
people are having it, and we could spend hours debating all the minutia, but to what end?
This we know. We know that building seven fell in a way that is incomprehensible based on simple
physics. Indeed, impossible. We know that right away all the authorities set about having all
the steel beams and forensic evidence of this stupendous and monumental and historic engineering
failure, shipped off to China to be melted down and destroyed before any examination could be
done by professionals. We're all supposed to just take the authorities word for it, even tho it
appears even they conducted no investigation. Building seven wasn't even mentioned in the 911
commission report. Isn't that something?!
But even more to the point Incitatus, is that several news organizations reported on the collapse
of building seven before it happened. Did you know that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOVnvFl5jZo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M26-B44qQIs
now how could they have known this event was about to happen when even now no one can explain
how or why that building came down. It's as if a news organization had reported that the first
plane had hit the WTC tower 20 minutes before it did. Don't you think there'd be some legitimate
curiosity as to how this news organization knew the first plane was going to hit, before it did?
No?
The collapse of building seven is a mystery, at the very least. An anomaly to all known laws of
physics and structural engineering, even today no one can explain it any better than the magic
bullet, that goes through Kennedy and then turns and hits Connelly a couple different times and
then ends up pristine. But now imagine if a news organization had reported on the assassination
of JFK 20 minutes before it happened.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
Well, a shit eater basically believes that asking for the evidence for any official story is
stupid
I told you where to find the evidence. You seem to be getting dumber.
Well, what would be the point? You would just continue to believe the official story anyway.
You have zero evidence for your beliefs. Zero.
Hani Hanjour
So one flight instructor saying he was bad years before means he couldn't have gotten better?
And, of course, many pilots say that what he did was possible. Do you see how you don't apply
the same scrutiny to things that you WANT to believe?
This is how conspiracy theorists behave. Video evidence? Fake! Some pilots told me it was impossible,
so it was!
I told you where to find the evidence.
Oh, you did, huh?
But anyway, this is getting nonsensical. How could you even tell me where to find evidence
if you don't even know what evidence is? I mean, you obviously don't understand the difference
between a necessary and a sufficient condition.
You have zero evidence for your beliefs. Zero.
You're just projecting. You are the one with no evidence for your beliefs. This is quite obvious.
Somebody asks you what the evidence is and your "evidence" is stuff like "Mohammed Atta had a
plane ticket". When you are asked for evidence (and I specifically said "the strongest evidence
available") and you're coming up with worthless crap like that, it obviously means you have no
evidence. Surely everybody sees that, no?
So one flight instructor saying he was bad years before means he couldn't have gotten better?
Years before??? Uhh, look, the incident in question was in August 2001, less than a
month before he allegedly did his top gun maneuver with a passenger jet into the Pentagon.
Hanjour began making cross-country flights in August to test security, and tried to rent
a plane from Freeway Airport in Maryland; though he was declined after exhibiting difficulty
controlling and landing a single-engine Cessna 172.[25]
He was not competent to fly a small Cessna in August of 2001. It was not YEARS before. You
see, you're just making up shit now.
This is like some guy who can't even pass a basic driving test in a regular car and three or
four weeks later, he is competing successfully in the Indy 500. Or driving the Grand Prix circuit.
If this was the only problem in the overall story, but it's like plot glitch #174 or something.
I mean, the whole narrative is just shot through with ridiculous stuff like this.
Some pilots told me it was impossible, so it was!
Well, as a matter of fact, I take expert testimony on questions seriously. If a professional
pilot with thousands of hours of experience flying Boeing passenger jets tells you that he himself
could not execute the maneuver, it does not take a bloody genius to realize that Hani Hanjour
certainly could not do it!
If a controlled demolition specialist in Holland, Danny Jowenko, when shown the footage of
WTC 7 imploding says that this is definitely a controlled demolition, it stands to reason that
it is a controlled demolition! I don't presume to know more about flying airplanes than seasoned
professional pilots or more about building implosions than a professional demolitions expert.
Now, it's true that you have high level experts claiming the opposite, but you can generally
see that these are people who are pretty beholden to the power structure, and will feel obliged
to go along with whatever the official line is, such as the people at NIST who claim that building
7 imploded perfectly symmetrically from uncontrolled fires. These people say that because they
have to.
• Why did WT 1 (the first tower hit) fall after WT 2? Did conspirators mix up demo timing?
- The 2nd tower hit failed to ignite properly. The fires were clearly in danger of going out entirely
on their own soon after being "hit". It either got brought down immediately, or would stand as
a testament to what happened.
- They may have screwed up the timing, but I doubt it. To me it looks like they made a decision
on the fly.
• Why did they bother to take down WT 7? Wouldn't the lack of aerial impact reveal demo and
conspiracy?
There were a variety of good political reasons to bring down WTC7. Let Google be your friend on
this. There's a couple of easily made guesses as to what may have happened, such as:
- It was to be brought down using the chaos of the WTC1 & 2 collapses as smokescreen, but something
went wrong with the countdown and the demolition was aborted pending repairs.
- I have a hard time believing any planes were involved at all, so your 2nd question is moot for
me, but if my guess immediately above is right, then there would have been an explosion cueing
the point of impact. Perhaps that failed to go off, leaving any CGI plane simply disappearing
into the building without leaving a trace. That would look rather weird, so they opted to bring
it down in broad daylight hoping few would notice.
• How did conspirators mine 240 exterior columns on each office floor of WT 1 & 2 (±50,000
locations) without detection? Central core columns? Freestanding columns in public view at
grade? How was it concealed from building tenants, management, maintenance staff, visitors,
CoNY building inspectors, supply services, etc? And the same in WTC 7?
They didn't, simply because there was no need to. Bringing down the central core would be all
that's needed to bring the building down. They did however, conscientiously cut the outer columns
to manageable lengths.
• Architects and engineers from Minoru Yamasaki & Associates, Emery Roth & Sons, Worthington
Skilling Helle & Jackson, Joseph R. Loring & Assoc, Jaros Blum & Bolles, and the numerous other
firms responsible for the WTC don't appear to be part of ae911truth. Are they part of the conspiracy?
Are WTC building contractors and subcontractors part of the conspiracy? Building tenants?
No, no, & (for the most part) no. There was that group of apparently Israeli "artists" that camped
out in the WTC for 4 years immediately prior to 9/11, but I don't recall whether they were rent
paying tenants. Incidentally, they had 24/7, construction access to the buildings and were ensconced
in both impact zones.
• How could the same administration that ignored 9/11 warnings, bungled Katrina and screwed-up
Iraq 2003 pull off such a complex, faultless conspiracy? Why have no insiders spilled the tale?
I don't believe the "same administration" was necessarily involved. I would posit that, for the
most part, an entirely different administration pulled it off.
Parenthetically, I'm not at all sure the "same administration... bungled Katrina and screwed-up
Iraq". A case can be made that at least some segments of the Administration got exactly the results
they were looking for in both cases, but that's a different thread.
But surely those who can set up and stage-manage such a complex event without detection wouldn't
screw up? I'm unable to find much of any value stored in WTC 7. Giuliani's crisis control center,
yes, but that's hardly a reason to risk uncovering the conspiracy hours after the fall of WTC
1 & 2..
If WTC 1 & 2 central core columns were, as you suggest, the only mining required, how was it
done without detection? Four years effort by Israeli 'artists'? Undetected? What was their motive?
You posit the exterior 14×14" steel 'cage' columns (240/floor) need not be mined but were instead
"cut to manageable lengths." What lengths? How was it done without detection?
"- I have a hard time believing any planes were involved at all, so your 2nd question is
moot for me, but if my guess immediately above is right, then there would have been an explosion
cueing the point of impact. Perhaps that failed to go off, leaving any CGI plane simply disappearing
into the building without leaving a trace. That would look rather weird, so they opted to bring
it down in broad daylight hoping few would notice."
CGI = computer-generated-imagery? So the planes were an illusion? Did they hypnotize eyewitnesses
who saw the planes? The news crews? Etc?
Still, that's great news! Where do you suggest two friends of mine, parents of a stewardess
on American Flight 11, find their daughter?
Oh, hold on I see you don't understand the difference between a necessary and a sufficient
condition.
You are so stupid. I already wrote this:
Obviously the plane ticket is a necessary but not sufficient piece of evidence.
See? You can't even fucking read.
I never said it was the only piece of evidence, and said explicitly that it was not sufficient.
You took it out of a list of evidence and pretended I said it was "proof," when I never even used
the word. Because you are too stupid to argue honestly.
Oh, hold on I see you don't understand the difference between a necessary and a sufficient
condition.
(Shrug.) Little children are always using big words that they have overheard adults using. It
doesn't really mean that they understand what they are saying.
But okay, look, a shit eater like you could, in the appropriate context, understand what a necessary
versus a sufficient condition is. Or you could understand what the beg the question fallacy is.
But the problem remains that, at the key moment, you are able to NOT understand it.
Because, at the key moment, the shit eater always ends up telling you (either directly or circuitously)
that the official story is proof of the official story. Never fails. Earlier you told me to go
read the page on wikipedia. Well, the page on wikipedia is just a synopsis of the official story.
I asked you for proof so you were just telling me that the official story is proof of the official
story.
I never said it was the only piece of evidence, and said explicitly that it was not sufficient.
You took it out of a list of evidence and pretended I said it was "proof,"
Well, that's a mischaracterization. The fact remains, you said that Mohammed Atta having a plane
ticket was evidence. It was in your list of evidence.
AND NO, the fact remains: THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING!
I'll tell you what it is. It is SHIT. Because that is all a shit eater ever comes up with in a
debate.
Just shit. Like... the guy bought a plane ticket so he's the hijacker ... The government
story is proof of the government story ...
I'd suggest a little caution nevertheless . You see, he repeatedly calls his interlocutors,
"shit-eaters", a term he intends entirely as a fraternal invitation to a select club, of which,
the dinner menu is limited, noxious and, -not to put too fine a point on it - unnatural. But of
course he is entitled to his preferences, this being the day and age of inclusiveness and all
that, I say to each his own.
Btw he adores infinite reduction loops, and hopes one day to set foot on the moon. In the meantime
do remind him - the dosage is twice daily, ideally on an empty stomach.
Sam,
Enjoyed your advice, which I take to heart.
I too noted JR's fixation with coprophagia. I put it down to ecological pragmatism on his part.
He produces such immense quantities of the product, he suggestively hopes others will consume
it. He must be in constant danger of exploding.
Honoré de Balzac had a great observation on conspracists:
"[they] passed sovereign judgment on society the more readily because of the inferiority
of their own status, for unappreciated men make up for their lowly position by the disdainful
eye they cast upon the world."
(I see you have literal Nazi cheerleaders. Congrats.)
Hi, shit eater. I initially glossed over this last bit about my having "Nazi cheerleaders". I
suppose you're calling Rurik here a "Nazi".
Rurik was referring to this Ursula Haverbeck case where, last year, an 87-year-old German woman
was sentenced to 10 months prison for asking questions about the Holocaust, which is a crime in
Germany, France and at least another dozen countries. Rurik (like myself) sees this as a travesty,
and thus, in your mental shit eater world, is therefore a "Nazi".
It doesn't occur to you that anybody could support Ursula Haverbeck (and others like her) simply
because they believe in free speech. If I say that it is utterly wrong to imprison somebody for
expressing certain views, does that mean logically that I share those views? No, I might share
those views or not. Or I might partially share them. The issue is the State terrorizing little
old ladies in their eighties for simply asking questions.
But, again, your approach to the question is typical of the shit eater. A shit eater always accepts
the dominant framing of any question and never thinks for himself. Occasionally people do wise
up. I myself did, but it is the exception, not the rule.
Besides, I don't think I was ever as bad a case as you are. I don't think that I was ever saying
stuff like: "Oh, we know that Mohammed Atta flew a plane into a building. He had a plane ticket!
What more proof do you need?"
You're such a hard case, it's probably incurable.
Ursula Haverbeck , an 87-year-old German woman was sentenced to 10 months prison for
asking questions about the Holocaust, which is a crime in Germany, . Rurik (like myself)
sees this as a travesty,
That's exactly true JR, I consider something like that an obvious travesty at the very least,
and an abomination of human reason and compassion and simple decency. She may be wrong, but by
what right do they have to tell her she's not allowed to ask questions? Fuck that shit. And fuck
the people who put her in prison. What are they so afraid of, eh? Is what I'd like to know.
He had a plane ticket! What more proof do you need?"
ahh, but JR, you're forgetting the other, shocking proof that this was Osama and his 19 henchmen..
the passport!
the magical passport that flew out of the terrorist's pocket or carry on, and through the carnage
of the plane's explosion and through the fireball and all that glass and concrete and then gently
glided down t0 the New York street, where it was quickly found before the dust fell on it and
handed to the FBI and then rushed to the MSM, where upon they all let us all know that it had
been found! so that we could all know who was responsible for this heinous attack!
I suppose Boris forgot about that unassailable evidence and proof or he would have surely mentioned
it by now. And that's not all! They found Korans in the terrorist's rental car! Did you know that?
and they caught some of the terrorists actually filming the first plane hitting the tower,
and these slimy bastards were all happy and celebrating the horrors, while the people who saw
them were aghast, at how anyone could be happy at all that death of innocent people.
err, um, wait, no, those weren't the terrorists come to think of it. Never mind that last part.
But the passport!!
that was undeniable physical evidence! Proof!
and then there was the witness, right there on the spot, to explain how the buildings collapsed
"mostly due to structural failure, because the fire was just too intense"
all these things were explained to us all right away. They knew it was Bin Laden within hours.
And they knew right away how the buildings fell, and had planted that "knowledge" into us all,
with videos like the Harley guy, who planted that seed in our collective conscieness. for how
hundreds of thousands of tons of steel and concrete was going to >>poof<< into so much powder..
"mostly due to structural failure, because the fire was just too intense"
The guy that wouldn't let Hanjour rent a plane w/o more lessons also said this:
Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway
Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have
pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said.
So your theory collapses. Unless the guy lied about this part, but told the truth about Hanjour
not being able to control the Cessna with much skill? You are dumb enough to believe that, so
Well, as a matter of fact, I take expert testimony on questions seriously.
Well, so you take Bernard seriously then? Or, wait, he's a government stooge who accidentally
told the truth once? Shape-shifter?
If a controlled demolition specialist in Holland, Danny Jowenko, when shown the footage
of WTC 7 imploding says that this is definitely a controlled demolition, it stands to reason
that it is a controlled demolition!
Here's a different expert's view–an expert who actually examined the evidence:
Look, I wasn't there, but the incident, as recounted, seems to be true and it happened 3 weeks
before 9/11, NOT years before, as you were trying to claim. To recap...
Hani Hanjour tried to rent a single-engine Cessna and a flight instructor went up with him and
said the guy did not have the skill to fly that plane. The single-engine Cessna.
Now, it is claimed that 3 weeks later and Hani can fly the big Boeing in a maneuver that professional
pilots with thousands of hours have said they could not do. Just to focus this, here is what the
cockpit of a Boeing 757 looks like:
The guy that wouldn't let Hanjour rent a plane w/o more lessons also said this:
Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway
Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could
have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said.
Well, c'mon, the guy doubtless came under pressure to say that the guy could have done what they
said he did. But look, obviously, if he evaluated the guy as unable to control a Cessna in August,
the guy couldn't suddenly fly a big Boeing in September! And this business that he "pointed that
plane at a building and hit it", that is not what allegedly happened with the Pentagon flight.
The plane allegedly flew this really incredible 270 degree descending loop and, in the final stretch
flew at treetop level into the exact part of the Pentagon that was hit. And as I said, you can
look at the Pilots for 9/11 Truth and see that there are professional pilots with thousands of
hours flying these Boeing airliners who say they could not fly that maneuver. So the guy supposedly
was flying one of these big planes for the first (and last) time in his life and successfully
carried off this maneuver. It's completely ridiculous bullshit, but when you're a shit eater,
it's like "mmm, yum, yum".
And really, you know, this is such an absurd argument to be having. Okay, it's obvious that if
somebody can't really control a Cessna in August of 2001, he can't do some top gun maneuver in
a big Boeing in September of 2001. But it doesn't even matter. The flight didn't even take place!
Or certainly, at the very least, there is not a shred of evidence that any Boeing airliner crashed
into the Pentagon anyway.
So, finally, whether Hani Hanjour could have flown the plane in that maneuver or not hardly matters.
The overall narrative just has so many problems in it that, even if you concede a given point
just for the sake of argument, like assume that Hani Hanjour really could fly a Boeing 757 in
this elaborate maneuver only 3 weeks after demonstrating an inability to control a Cessna, it
still doesn't matter because there is very strong reason to believe that the flight did not even
take place.
Here's a different expert's view–an expert who actually examined the evidence:
Now, I lack the expertise to be certain about these things, but I would just make the point that
if you googled up this Blanchard stuff, then you would easily find the above-linked rebuttals
as well. But since the rebuttals don't support what you want to believe, you just don't mention
them.
It's like there are phone calls, I mean testimony that somebody got a phone call, and then that
supports the official story, you say that is strong proof but if I point to testimony where Atta's
father got a phone call the day after 9/11 from his son, you immediately say Atta's father was
lying.
Your whole thing is just always going to be to cherry pick things based on what you want to believe.
That's a completely corrupted intellectual process.
The reason I am quite certain that the official narrative is untrue is that there just really
is such an accumulation of problems with the story that it really just can't be true. The Hani
Hanjour thing is like just one of literally hundreds of glitches in the story, that the guy they
say flew that plane obviously did not have the skills. That the flight instructor in question,
the Bernard guy then claimed that he did, you can see that he must have been pressured to say
that. If you can't fly a Cessna, you can't fly a Boeing 757. And besides, the conditions under
which this supposedly happened, where the guy had just murdered the pilot and taken over the plane
and his adrenaline would be sky high and he sits down and, flying this plane for the very first
time, calmly maneuvers the plane in this 270 degree looping descent.
This just didn't happen. There is no photographic or video evidence at the alleged crash site
that is consistent with a Boeing 757 having crashed there! This is all just a constructed fiction.
Anybody who studies this in any kind of intellectually honest way surely comes to that conclusion.
The only way you can believe this stuff is if you have this kind of intense emotional need to
believe it. You look at what they are saying happened cold-bloodedly and it is really just glaringly
obviously that it's all total bullshit.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter Display
All Comments
(I see you have literal Nazi cheerleaders. Congrats.)
Hi, shit eater. I initially glossed over this last bit about my having "Nazi cheerleaders". I
suppose you're calling Rurik here a "Nazi".
Rurik was referring to this Ursula Haverbeck case where, last year, an 87-year-old German woman
was sentenced to 10 months prison for asking questions about the Holocaust, which is a crime in
Germany, France and at least another dozen countries. Rurik (like myself) sees this as a travesty,
and thus, in your mental shit eater world, is therefore a "Nazi".
It doesn't occur to you that anybody could support Ursula Haverbeck (and others like her) simply
because they believe in free speech. If I say that it is utterly wrong to imprison somebody for
expressing certain views, does that mean logically that I share those views? No, I might share
those views or not. Or I might partially share them. The issue is the State terrorizing little
old ladies in their eighties for simply asking questions.
But, again, your approach to the question is typical of the shit eater. A shit eater always accepts
the dominant framing of any question and never thinks for himself. Occasionally people do wise
up. I myself did, but it is the exception, not the rule.
Besides, I don't think I was ever as bad a case as you are. I don't think that I was ever saying
stuff like: "Oh, we know that Mohammed Atta flew a plane into a building. He had a plane ticket!
What more proof do you need?"
You're such a hard case, it's probably incurable.
Of course we all grieve for Ursula. Ten months in prison. Pity. But look on the bright side.
Perhaps she'll be able to knit a few flags and armbands? Sweaters for the Eastern Front? Thermal
underpants for the SS?
you can hate her guts and her viewpoint all you want, but do you really want people put in prison
for expressing opinions you find abhorrent?
for asking questions you don't want asked?
perhaps so, if I get the tone of your comment
free speech is intended to protect the speech we all most dislike, or it's not free speech at
all, is it? It's just speech that you or I consider acceptable, and I for one don't want anyone
being the arbiter of acceptable speech or questions. Fuck no! Not Jews, not Nazis, not rightwing
religious nuts or politically correct SJWs or anyone else, thankyouverymuch.
as for her questions about the Holocaust, we already know there were no human soap factories or
human tattoo skin lampshades. These were blood libels spread against the German people to try
to justify the genocidal horrors that were visited upon millions of German civilians after the
war was over. They were an evil people are deserved it all. Exactly like what the Nazis
were saying about the Jews.
My agenda is the truth. If it's true that the Germans were running extermination camps, like Eisenhower
ran for German POWs after the war was over, then I want to know about them, and their scope and
purpose. I want to know the truth about it all, come what may, and I certainly don't want little
old ladies put in prison, (no matter what their views are), under any circumstances. I can't even
comprehend the moral cowardice of a society (or individuals) that would tolerate such a thing.
Germany is suffering women being raped in the streets by savages, but they save their prison space
for her
Rurik
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 10, 2016 at 6:13 pm GMT • 400 Words
@Incitatus I've read quite a few studies over the years, and have seen several films (ae911truth
etc). Skeptical by nature, I ask specific questions. Most who doubt the NIST scenario seem unable
to venture any guess on responsible parties, motives or exact means. 'Controlled demolition' is
all very well, but how would one go about it without betraying the conspiracy?
Two observations. The government story, however improbable, is explained in detail. One need not
believe it, but at least there's meat on the bones. The none-of-the-above crowd, however, coughs
up vague notions in lieu of any real motives, means, and methodology. Usually they offer YouTube,
ae911truth, and similar sites as the answer. Which is to say, they have no real answers at all.
I ask specific questions.
that's fine Incitatus, but all too often those roads lead down to obfuscation and conjecture.
Like why did they implode building seven? The answer is we don't know. Probably because it was
the control center for the whole operation, and they wanted to 'pull it' to erase all the evidence.
Flight 92 was probably intended to hit building seven, as the pretext for its collapse, but then
when it was shot down over Pennsylvania, they had to wing it.
But that is all conjecture. Like asking someone who doesn't buy the Warren commission's findings,
OK then 'why did they kill JFK'? Only the assassins know the answer to that question, just as
only the people responsible for 911 could answer all the detailed queries.
How did they rig the buildings surreptitiously? That is a whole gigantic side discussion, and
people are having it, and we could spend hours debating all the minutia, but to what end?
This we know. We know that building seven fell in a way that is incomprehensible based on simple
physics. Indeed, impossible. We know that right away all the authorities set about having all
the steel beams and forensic evidence of this stupendous and monumental and historic engineering
failure, shipped off to China to be melted down and destroyed before any examination could be
done by professionals. We're all supposed to just take the authorities word for it, even tho it
appears even they conducted no investigation. Building seven wasn't even mentioned in the 911
commission report. Isn't that something?!
But even more to the point Incitatus, is that several news organizations reported on the collapse
of building seven before it happened. Did you know that?
now how could they have known this event was about to happen when even now no one can explain
how or why that building came down. It's as if a news organization had reported that the first
plane had hit the WTC tower 20 minutes before it did. Don't you think there'd be some legitimate
curiosity as to how this news organization knew the first plane was going to hit, before it did?
No?
The collapse of building seven is a mystery, at the very least. An anomaly to all known laws
of physics and structural engineering, even today no one can explain it any better than the magic
bullet, that goes through Kennedy and then turns and hits Connelly a couple different times and
then ends up pristine. But now imagine if a news organization had reported on the assassination
of JFK 20 minutes before it happened.
• Replies:
@Wizard of Oz I ask you as just the latest person to assert on UR that something - in this
case the collapse of WTC 7 - is "an anomaly to all known laws of physics and structural engineering"
or similar wotds which plainly mean that such laws make the collapse without deliberate demolition
impossible....*what are your qualifations to be taken seriously on the implications of the laws
of physics and structural engineering*? I have dealt with a lot of expert witnesse and you don't
sound like one of them,not even the dodgy ones that have to be exposed and evaluated in court
every day. Indeed do you consider yourself competent to evaluate expert evidence on physics and
structural engineering like a judge assisted by the questions of counsel? If so why? Try persuading
your readers.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
you can hate her guts and her viewpoint all you want, but do you really want people put in
prison for expressing opinions you find abhorrent?
for asking questions you don't want asked?
perhaps so, if I get the tone of your comment
free speech is intended to protect the speech we all most dislike, or it's not free speech
at all, is it? It's just speech that you or I consider acceptable, and I for one don't want anyone
being the arbiter of acceptable speech or questions. Fuck no! Not Jews, not Nazis, not rightwing
religious nuts or politically correct SJWs or anyone else, thankyouverymuch.
as for her questions about the Holocaust, we already know there were no human soap factories
or human tattoo skin lampshades. These were blood libels spread against the German people to try
to justify the genocidal horrors that were visited upon millions of German civilians after the
war was over. They were an evil people are deserved it all. Exactly like what the Nazis
were saying about the Jews.
My agenda is the truth. If it's true that the Germans were running extermination camps, like
Eisenhower ran for German POWs after the war was over, then I want to know about them, and their
scope and purpose. I want to know the truth about it all, come what may, and I certainly don't
want little old ladies put in prison, (no matter what their views are), under any circumstances.
I can't even comprehend the moral cowardice of a society (or individuals) that would tolerate
such a thing.
Germany is suffering women being raped in the streets by savages, but they save their prison
space for her
you can hate her guts and her viewpoint all you want, but do you really want people put in
prison for expressing opinions you find abhorrent?
That's a rhetorical question, isn't it? The guy you're addressing is a vicious Zio-fascist scumbag.
He takes delight in somebody like Ursula Haverbeck being imprisoned for challenging Zionist power.
Look at what he wrote.
It's funny, because in his role here as professional disinfo agent, it would probably make more
sense for him to express sympathy with Ursula Haverbeck and agree with us that her imprisonment
is unjust and so on, in order to build a rapport and try to come across as even somewhat reasonable.
But the thing is that the morally degenerate zio scumbag can't help gloating over the fact that
the Zionist power structure manage to imprison this little old lady.
Scumbags will be scumbags.
This kind of thing does remind one of the kind of people you're dealing with here. That little
degenerate bastard Sam Shama is exactly like this too, you know. ,
@Incitatus I cherish free speech. But I don't live in a country that twice experienced the
catastrophic results of demagogic incitement. I trust Germans know what they're doing, but I note
your concern. And your angst over suffering. But isn't it a very selective angst?
"...even if you take them at their word, the Holocaust was done as humanely as it's was
humanly possible to kill people. Sort of like the Soylent Green euthanasia scene the violins
were playing as they were handed a towel to take a 'shower', and then the death was as benign
as could be arranged under the circumstances. And that was their worst case scenario of the
gas chambers as I remember them being shown to us as children. Compare that to Dresden, which
is undisputed and was as calculatedly cruel and sadistic as it was possible to imagine. And
then some."
"...and yet it's the Germans who everyone condemns for inhumanity."
Why, like most who mourn Dresden 1944, don't you ever mention Warsaw Sep 1939? The same number
of civilians - 20,000-25,000 - were killed. Or how about Warsaw Aug 1944 (150,000-200,000 civilians
killed)? In fact, you could say Germans pioneered civilian killing (shelling of Paris 1870-71,
bombing London in 1915, the Condor Legion and Guernica 1937, etc). They were very good at it.
You never mention it. Does only German blood count? Or do you simply want to use Dresden to legitimize
Nazi aggression?
I confess I'm also puzzled by your preoccupation for the Lebensborn - most unusual for a Norseman.
btw. You aren't by any chance Anders Behring Brevik blogging away in your prison cell? ,
@L.K Well, Rurik,
You are discussing these issues with an obvious troll, 'incitatus', a piece of filth who is here
to spread disinformation & propaganda & who obviously does not care one bit about truth or free
speech. Remember that other scumbag, 'iffen', who hoped for European style censorship to be applied
in the US?
These cretins are so obvious.
No, Rurik, the National Socialists did NOT run extermination camps.
Do u still have doubts?
As Prof.Faurisson said, on the intellectual level, the revisionists have already won.
It is just that people ain't allowed to know it... in fact, people are not allowed to even know
there is a debate on the holohoax.
Why, Rurik, do I say the holocau$t is a monstrous Hoax?
As Prof.T.Dalton wrote:
There are, in fact, three essential elements to the event called the Holocaust:
(1) intention to mass murder the Jews, by Hitler and the Nazi elite;
(2) the use of gas chambers(the extermination camps & gas vans); and
(3) the 6 million deaths.
If any one of these three should undergo substantial revision, then, technically speaking,
we no longer have "The Holocaust"-at least, not in any meaningful sense. (Broadly speaking,
of course, any mass fatality is a holocaust.) Holocaust revisionism contends that, not one,
but all three of these points are grossly in error, and thus that "The Holocaust," as such,
did not occur. Obviously, this is not to deny that a tragedy happened to the Jews, nor that
many thousands died, directly and indirectly, as a result of the war. But the conventional
account is an extreme exaggeration.
Most people are led to believe - I was one of them - in regards to the 'holocau$t', that there
is abundant proof of the alleged crime, as described above. This is absolutely NOT THE CASE.
In fact, many holocaust 'historians', I call them quacks, have actually admitted the near total
lack of material and documentary evidence.
There is, as the revisionist side has shown, an abundance of evidence refuting the official dossier,
which is basically atrocity propaganda on steroids.
One good book that covers all bases in a more accessible format is "Lectures on the Holocaust
Controversial Issues Cross Examined" by Germar Rudolf.
http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/15-loth.pdf
I never said this. Being skeptical of the official story is fine. But you aren't just skeptical.
You are absolutely positive that the official story is false.
Hold on, let me get this straight. What you object to is not that I disbelieve the story, but
that I express certainty . But I thought you were expressing certainty that the official
story was true, no? Or maybe you're not certain... could you clarify your position now? You're
starting to sound really wishy washy.
Well, if you're saying there is strong proof for the official story, then that's basically
saying you're certain, no? Though I'm still trying to figure out what you think the proof is...
it's these alleged phone calls? That's the strongest proof you've got?
You are so sure that the official story is wrong that you heap abuse on people who haven't
decided the same. For that level of certitude, you need some actual evidence, not just your
feelings about things.
Well, there is a mountain of evidence that the official story is untrue. The strongest single
piece of physical evidence is that they claim that building 7 imploded in a perfectly symmetrical
way from office fires basically. So NIST and FEMA are clearly claiming that something happened
that is physically impossible. That is the strongest proof. And you have 2700 or so architects
and engineers who have been willing to put their name on a petition calling for a new investigation
on this basis -- that the official story is simply not physically possible.
But there is also the issue of expert testimony from pilots who state that the feat of flying
that these people allegedly pulled off is simply impossible for neophyte pilots. There is also
testimony that the civilian Boeing airliners that allegedly flew into the towers cannot even fly
at that speed at sea level. There are huge problems with the story.
There is also the problem that all the testimony about Al Qaeda's planning of the attacks came
from torturing one individual who was probably not even an Al Qaeda member. See this article:
http://www.voltairenet.org/article177178.html
Independent researchers have uncovered so many problems with the official story on so many
levels that, I think one can say pretty objectively that there is basically zero possibility that
the official story is truthful.
The only way to maintain one's status as a shit eater, and to continue believing the official
bullshit, is by being wilfully ignorant of just about every hard factual aspect of what is known!
You can start by reading the Wiki page and go from there.
What Wiki page? Oh, you mean Wikipedia? Well, I guess you don't realize that all that Wikipedia
ever does with these sorts of events, whether it's JFK or 9/11 or Charlie Hebdo or whatever, is
that the wikipedia page is just a synopsis of whatever the official story is.
Earlier, you indignantly said that you know what the "beg the question" fallacy is, but obviously
you don't. The Wikipedia page is just a synopsis of the official story. In any case, being a shit
eater basically requires you to have a very weak grasp of what "question begging" is. Because
that's what being a shit eater is. You ask a shit eater what the proof of whatever official story
is and they just repeat the official story. Or they point you to a summary of the official story
that is on wikipedia or somewhere else. It's always just self-referential question-begging.
It isn't hearsay. Witnesses are on the record. Recordings exist.
Dude, I can pick up a phone and call somebody and say that I'm in a plane and we're being hijacked.
It's really just not very strong evidence. It's like saying that some guy put up a video saying
he did it. I can put up a video on youtube saying I did it.
It is backed up by documentation. Here's one example:
Yeah, this rings a bell. A few years ago I looked through this stuff and it's really quite murky.
There's a pretty detailed analysis of those phone calls from that flight here:
It's all pretty much irrelevant really anyway, because it looks pretty clear that no passenger
airline hit the pentagon anyway! There just isn't the debris that you would expect to see, for
example. And the guy they say flew the plane, Hani Hanjour, lacked the skills to fly a single-engine
Cessna. It was a missile or some sort of drone, it appears. And, of course, all that is a far
bigger problem with that flight 77 than even these screwy phone records! I mean, if the flight
didn't even take place, to talk about their being proof that somebody made a call from the flight
in question...
Um, no, dipshit. Atta's dad has a reason to lie–to protect his son's memory.
Well, I concede that point. But the fact remains that Atta's dad may be telling the truth and
he may be lying. And the same applies to the people who say they got a phone call from somebody
on a plane. They could be telling the truth and they could be lying. And they could have plenty
strong reasons to lie too!
It's just not very strong evidence. If this is the strongest evidence that you have, I think
the debate is basically over.
It's only murky to people like you. The fact that you doubt the phone calls when there is so
much clear evidence for them just illustrates what a huge fucking idiot you are.
Well, the only reason you believe in the phone calls so firmly is because it supports what you
want to believe. You don't believe in the Atta Sr. phone call on 9/12, because it doesn't support
what you want to believe. Look at the article I linked. As evidence, it just is not very clear
at all. Generally speaking, anybody can make a phone call and claim that they are in a plane getting
hijacked.
Anybody can say they got a phone call too. And we all know that there are people who will say
anything for a few bucks. This is not hard evidence.
The fact that Airfones existed means that your "doubt" that it is technically possible to make
a call from an airplane is absolutely wrong.
Uhh, no, because not all the planes had the Airfones on them, you see. At this point in time,
for example, some flights have Wifi on them, but most don't. DRG made the point that the American
Airlines 767's in question did not have Airfones installed on them until 2002 or something like
that. But then I think somebody from the company claimed that they did, but I suspect that DRG
was right the first time, but as I said, I'm simply not sure about that. I don't know if the planes
in question had airfones on them or not. But this other problem, the expert testimony that a Boeing
767 can't even fly that fast at sea level anyway, this a much bigger problem that would trump
the whole issue of whether there were Airfones or not!
Again, in the case of Flight 77 that flew into the Pentagon, there is the bigger problem that
it does not look like any civil jet airliner flew into the Pentagon in the first place, and that
is a much bigger first order problem!
But look, as I said, unfortunately, you are a shit eater and it's a waste of time to debate
with shit eaters. I have done it enough that I can see what you do. You will automatically discount
any evidence that doesn't support the official bullshit, and then the evidence that does support
it, you'll claim that it's rock solid. So, for example, if the Atta Sr. phone call supported what
you want to believe, you'd be saying: "Oh, there's a witness and blah blah." But since it doesn't
support what you want to believe, then.
Again, you're in a very bad position if the strongest evidence you have is these phone calls!
So, do you have some piece of evidence that you think is stronger than the alleged phone calls
or is that your answer to the question I posed. "The strongest evidence for the official is these
phone calls."
Oh, and even then, how that gets you to the bearded guy in Afghanistan....
" you have 2700 or so architects and engineers who have been willing to put their name on
a petition calling for a new investigation on this basis - that the official story is simply not
physically possible."
Great point! 2700! Something must be fishy.
But how many licensed architects and engineers are there in the US? Turns out there's 105,042
+ 822,575 = 927,617 (source: AIA & NCEES). 2,700 represents 0.29% of the total number of US architects
and engineers. That means 99.71% haven't called for a new investigation.
But wait! Turns out Mr. Gage's petition is signed not only by licensed US architects and engineers,
but also by the 'degreed' (without licenses they're not legally able to call themselves architects
or engineers). It gets even better – many of the signatories are foreign (UK. Sri Lanka, Canada,
Bolivia, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Colombia, etc). Nothing wrong with that, of course. The
more, the merrier
But the base increases yet again. Linkedin estimates 3,600,000 licensed architects on earth.
If the proportion of architects to engineers is similar to the US ratio 28,191,295 engineers exist,
bringing the combined total to 31,791,295 architects and engineers worldwide.
2,700 is 0.0085% of 31,791,295. In other words, 99.9915% of worldwide architects and engineers
haven't called for a new investigation. Are they part of a conspiracy?
ae911truth? Maybe Richard Gage enjoys having a nice tax-exempt slush fund for travel and lecture
fees. Maybe he enjoys gadfly celebrity his practice never delivered.
But how many licensed architects and engineers are there in the US? Turns out there's 105,042
+ 822,575 = 927,617 (source: AIA & NCEES). 2,700 represents 0.29% of the total number of US
architects and engineers. That means 99.71% haven't called for a new investigation.
Ah, the nostalgia, I haven't heard this particular shit eater argument for a while. Yeah, 99.71%
of the architects and engineers in the USA DID NOT sign the petition so therefore they all believe
the official story.
So, if a million people march on Washington tomorrow demanding the end to all the wars, that doesn't
mean anything either, because 300+ million did not march, and therefore, they are in favor of
all the wars! Obviously!
• Why did WT 1 (the first tower hit) fall after WT 2? Did conspirators mix up demo timing?
- The 2nd tower hit failed to ignite properly. The fires were clearly in danger of going out entirely
on their own soon after being "hit". It either got brought down immediately, or would stand as
a testament to what happened.
- They may have screwed up the timing, but I doubt it. To me it looks like they made a decision
on the fly.
• Why did they bother to take down WT 7? Wouldn't the lack of aerial impact reveal demo and
conspiracy?
There were a variety of good political reasons to bring down WTC7. Let Google be your friend on
this. There's a couple of easily made guesses as to what may have happened, such as:
- It was to be brought down using the chaos of the WTC1 & 2 collapses as smokescreen, but something
went wrong with the countdown and the demolition was aborted pending repairs.
- I have a hard time believing any planes were involved at all, so your 2nd question is moot for
me, but if my guess immediately above is right, then there would have been an explosion cueing
the point of impact. Perhaps that failed to go off, leaving any CGI plane simply disappearing
into the building without leaving a trace. That would look rather weird, so they opted to bring
it down in broad daylight hoping few would notice.
• How did conspirators mine 240 exterior columns on each office floor of WT 1 & 2 (±50,000
locations) without detection? Central core columns? Freestanding columns in public view at
grade? How was it concealed from building tenants, management, maintenance staff, visitors,
CoNY building inspectors, supply services, etc? And the same in WTC 7?
They didn't, simply because there was no need to. Bringing down the central core would be all
that's needed to bring the building down. They did however, conscientiously cut the outer columns
to manageable lengths.
• Architects and engineers from Minoru Yamasaki & Associates, Emery Roth & Sons, Worthington
Skilling Helle & Jackson, Joseph R. Loring & Assoc, Jaros Blum & Bolles, and the numerous other
firms responsible for the WTC don't appear to be part of ae911truth. Are they part of the conspiracy?
Are WTC building contractors and subcontractors part of the conspiracy? Building tenants?
No, no, & (for the most part) no. There was that group of apparently Israeli "artists" that camped
out in the WTC for 4 years immediately prior to 9/11, but I don't recall whether they were rent
paying tenants. Incidentally, they had 24/7, construction access to the buildings and were ensconced
in both impact zones.
• How could the same administration that ignored 9/11 warnings, bungled Katrina and screwed-up
Iraq 2003 pull off such a complex, faultless conspiracy? Why have no insiders spilled the tale?
I don't believe the "same administration" was necessarily involved. I would posit that, for the
most part, an entirely different administration pulled it off.
Parenthetically, I'm not at all sure the "same administration... bungled Katrina and screwed-up
Iraq". A case can be made that at least some segments of the Administration got exactly the results
they were looking for in both cases, but that's a different thread.
Not to answer for The Great Revusky,
LOL. Hi, don't worry that you are encroaching on my territory. It actually gets very very tiresome
to argue with these shit eaters. So if you want to lend a hand, that's just great.
I don't suppose it's lost on you that this "Incitatus" is some sort of professional disinfo
agent. He's coming in to pick up the slack because "Boris" started seriously self-destructing.
He's got some basic troll act that he's open-minded and so forth and just wants to know the truth
But, of course, the whole thing is ridiculous. Here we are, 15 years after the event, and the
guy is representing that he really wants to get at the truth. Well, why didn't he read a single
book on the topic in the last decade plus? Or why didn't he ever look at any of the material on
http://ae911truth.org ?
His alleged fence-sitting position makes no sense 15 years after the event.
But if you look at his questions, it's all misdirection. Squid ink strategy.
His alleged fence-sitting position makes no sense 15 years after the event.
Well, quite a few people I know spent the first dozen or so of those believing that the official
story is broadly true. Propaganda works. You can fool most of the people most of the time, so
giving someone the benefit of the doubt has been my practice.
But if you look at his questions, it's all misdirection. Squid ink strategy.
Yeah, his response to me made that plain, but I really liked the touch that he's apparently friends
with the ephemeral Betty Ong's dead parents! I'm guessing, of course, that he's alluding to the
mysterious Betty-with-zero-life-history-Ong. He may have been referring to the parents of Madeline
Sweeney, who's "phone call" from the same flight so contradicted Ong's that it makes one wonder
if they were on the same flight, or to one of the other (stabbed) attendants.
Uno absurdo dato, infinita sequuntur
One absurdity being given, an infinite number follow.
you can hate her guts and her viewpoint all you want, but do you really want people put in prison
for expressing opinions you find abhorrent?
for asking questions you don't want asked?
perhaps so, if I get the tone of your comment
free speech is intended to protect the speech we all most dislike, or it's not free speech at
all, is it? It's just speech that you or I consider acceptable, and I for one don't want anyone
being the arbiter of acceptable speech or questions. Fuck no! Not Jews, not Nazis, not rightwing
religious nuts or politically correct SJWs or anyone else, thankyouverymuch.
as for her questions about the Holocaust, we already know there were no human soap factories or
human tattoo skin lampshades. These were blood libels spread against the German people to try
to justify the genocidal horrors that were visited upon millions of German civilians after the
war was over. They were an evil people are deserved it all. Exactly like what the Nazis
were saying about the Jews.
My agenda is the truth. If it's true that the Germans were running extermination camps, like Eisenhower
ran for German POWs after the war was over, then I want to know about them, and their scope and
purpose. I want to know the truth about it all, come what may, and I certainly don't want little
old ladies put in prison, (no matter what their views are), under any circumstances. I can't even
comprehend the moral cowardice of a society (or individuals) that would tolerate such a thing.
Germany is suffering women being raped in the streets by savages, but they save their prison space
for her
and why? Because she's asking questions they don't want people asking
you can hate her guts and her viewpoint all you want, but do you really want people put
in prison for expressing opinions you find abhorrent?
That's a rhetorical question, isn't it? The guy you're addressing is a vicious Zio-fascist
scumbag. He takes delight in somebody like Ursula Haverbeck being imprisoned for challenging Zionist
power. Look at what he wrote.
It's funny, because in his role here as professional disinfo agent, it would probably make
more sense for him to express sympathy with Ursula Haverbeck and agree with us that her imprisonment
is unjust and so on, in order to build a rapport and try to come across as even somewhat reasonable.
But the thing is that the morally degenerate zio scumbag can't help gloating over the fact that
the Zionist power structure manage to imprison this little old lady.
Scumbags will be scumbags.
This kind of thing does remind one of the kind of people you're dealing with here. That little
degenerate bastard Sam Shama is exactly like this too, you know.
It's funny, because in his role here as professional disinfo agent, it would probably make
more sense for him to express sympathy with Ursula Haverbeck and agree with us that her imprisonment
is unjust and so on, in order to build a rapport and try to come across as even somewhat reasonable.
But the thing is that the morally degenerate zio scumbag can't help gloating over the fact
that the Zionist power structure manage to imprison this little old lady.
extremely salient insight JR
Scumbags will be scumbags.
I confess I (of all people!) sometimes wince at your colorful language, but then sometimes there's
just no other way to put it!
That little degenerate bastard Sam Shama is exactly like this too, you know.
well, I try to hold out hope for our pal Sam, but then a while back it was abundantly clear that
Sam wanted some kind of harm to come to me when I expressed sympathy for this same little old
grandma who the PTB were crushing with an iron Zio-boot for her plucky temerity
But how many licensed architects and engineers are there in the US? Turns out there's 105,042
+ 822,575 = 927,617 (source: AIA & NCEES). 2,700 represents 0.29% of the total number of US architects
and engineers. That means 99.71% haven't called for a new investigation.
But wait! Turns out Mr. Gage's petition is signed not only by licensed US architects and engineers,
but also by the 'degreed' (without licenses they're not legally able to call themselves architects
or engineers). It gets even better - many of the signatories are foreign (UK. Sri Lanka, Canada,
Bolivia, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Colombia, etc). Nothing wrong with that, of course. The
more, the merrier
But the base increases yet again. Linkedin estimates 3,600,000 licensed architects on earth. If
the proportion of architects to engineers is similar to the US ratio 28,191,295 engineers exist,
bringing the combined total to 31,791,295 architects and engineers worldwide.
2,700 is 0.0085% of 31,791,295. In other words, 99.9915% of worldwide architects and engineers
haven't called for a new investigation. Are they part of a conspiracy?
ae911truth? Maybe Richard Gage enjoys having a nice tax-exempt slush fund for travel and lecture
fees. Maybe he enjoys gadfly celebrity his practice never delivered.
But how many licensed architects and engineers are there in the US? Turns out there's 105,042
+ 822,575 = 927,617 (source: AIA & NCEES). 2,700 represents 0.29% of the total number of US
architects and engineers. That means 99.71% haven't called for a new investigation.
Ah, the nostalgia, I haven't heard this particular shit eater argument for a while. Yeah, 99.71%
of the architects and engineers in the USA DID NOT sign the petition so therefore they all believe
the official story.
So, if a million people march on Washington tomorrow demanding the end to all the wars, that
doesn't mean anything either, because 300+ million did not march, and therefore, they are in favor
of all the wars! Obviously!
Hey, how's the weather in Tel Aviv? Hot as hell, eh? Have they put air conditioning in your
office yet?
you can hate her guts and her viewpoint all you want, but do you really want people put in
prison for expressing opinions you find abhorrent?
That's a rhetorical question, isn't it? The guy you're addressing is a vicious Zio-fascist scumbag.
He takes delight in somebody like Ursula Haverbeck being imprisoned for challenging Zionist power.
Look at what he wrote.
It's funny, because in his role here as professional disinfo agent, it would probably make more
sense for him to express sympathy with Ursula Haverbeck and agree with us that her imprisonment
is unjust and so on, in order to build a rapport and try to come across as even somewhat reasonable.
But the thing is that the morally degenerate zio scumbag can't help gloating over the fact that
the Zionist power structure manage to imprison this little old lady.
Scumbags will be scumbags.
This kind of thing does remind one of the kind of people you're dealing with here. That little
degenerate bastard Sam Shama is exactly like this too, you know.
That's a rhetorical question, isn't it?
It's funny, because in his role here as professional disinfo agent, it would probably make
more sense for him to express sympathy with Ursula Haverbeck and agree with us that her imprisonment
is unjust and so on, in order to build a rapport and try to come across as even somewhat reasonable.
But the thing is that the morally degenerate zio scumbag can't help gloating over the fact
that the Zionist power structure manage to imprison this little old lady.
extremely salient insight JR
Scumbags will be scumbags.
I confess I (of all people!) sometimes wince at your colorful language, but then sometimes
there's just no other way to put it!
That little degenerate bastard Sam Shama is exactly like this too, you know.
well, I try to hold out hope for our pal Sam, but then a while back it was abundantly clear
that Sam wanted some kind of harm to come to me when I expressed sympathy for this same little
old grandma who the PTB were crushing with an iron Zio-boot for her plucky temerity
Remember that Sam?
• Replies:
@Sam Shama Oh Hello Rurik
Ursula Haverbeck, the lovely little granny which has a rap sheet longer than your arm?
According to Agence France-Presse
Haverbeck is a notorious extremist who was once chaired a far-right training center shut
down in 2008 for spreading Nazi propaganda, according to AFP. She has a rap sheet and a
suspended sentence for sedition.
The Zio-boot? You mean this one?
http://www.unz.com/article/what-obama-should-have-told-bibi/#comment-1239335
btw I see Revusky getting into his usual foamy-mouth-eyeballs-spinning routine.
you can hate her guts and her viewpoint all you want, but do you really want people put in prison
for expressing opinions you find abhorrent?
for asking questions you don't want asked?
perhaps so, if I get the tone of your comment
free speech is intended to protect the speech we all most dislike, or it's not free speech at
all, is it? It's just speech that you or I consider acceptable, and I for one don't want anyone
being the arbiter of acceptable speech or questions. Fuck no! Not Jews, not Nazis, not rightwing
religious nuts or politically correct SJWs or anyone else, thankyouverymuch.
as for her questions about the Holocaust, we already know there were no human soap factories or
human tattoo skin lampshades. These were blood libels spread against the German people to try
to justify the genocidal horrors that were visited upon millions of German civilians after the
war was over. They were an evil people are deserved it all. Exactly like what the Nazis
were saying about the Jews.
My agenda is the truth. If it's true that the Germans were running extermination camps, like Eisenhower
ran for German POWs after the war was over, then I want to know about them, and their scope and
purpose. I want to know the truth about it all, come what may, and I certainly don't want little
old ladies put in prison, (no matter what their views are), under any circumstances. I can't even
comprehend the moral cowardice of a society (or individuals) that would tolerate such a thing.
Germany is suffering women being raped in the streets by savages, but they save their prison space
for her
and why? Because she's asking questions they don't want people asking
I cherish free speech. But I don't live in a country that twice experienced the catastrophic
results of demagogic incitement. I trust Germans know what they're doing, but I note your concern.
And your angst over suffering. But isn't it a very selective angst?
" even if you take them at their word, the Holocaust was done as humanely as it's was
humanly possible to kill people. Sort of like the Soylent Green euthanasia scene the violins
were playing as they were handed a towel to take a 'shower', and then the death was as benign
as could be arranged under the circumstances. And that was their worst case scenario of the
gas chambers as I remember them being shown to us as children. Compare that to Dresden, which
is undisputed and was as calculatedly cruel and sadistic as it was possible to imagine. And
then some."
" and yet it's the Germans who everyone condemns for inhumanity."
Why, like most who mourn Dresden 1944, don't you ever mention Warsaw Sep 1939? The same number
of civilians – 20,000-25,000 – were killed. Or how about Warsaw Aug 1944 (150,000-200,000 civilians
killed)? In fact, you could say Germans pioneered civilian killing (shelling of Paris 1870-71,
bombing London in 1915, the Condor Legion and Guernica 1937, etc). They were very good at it.
You never mention it. Does only German blood count? Or do you simply want to use Dresden to legitimize
Nazi aggression?
I confess I'm also puzzled by your preoccupation for the Lebensborn – most unusual for a Norseman.
btw. You aren't by any chance Anders Behring Brevik blogging away in your prison cell?
• Replies:
@Rurik I was reading your quote and thinking to myself, wow, what insight and pure, raw humanity
from this mystery writer..
until I saw it sourced ;)
Does only German blood count?
no sir, but you see for me, even German blood counts, especially when it's women and children,
who're being burned alive to sate the insatiable hatred of a monster
anyone who burns women and children alive for the fun of it and out of sheer tribal hatred, rather
than as a military and existential imperative, is a monster in my book
if the Nazis burned women and children alive for the fun of it, then by God I tell you I would
condemn them with all of my breath, I swear it. But they didn't do that. It was the Zio-West that
did that, (just as they did at Waco, TX) and I find that difficult to live with. Sort of the way
the Norwegians treated the children of Lebensborn; monstrous and impossible to justify. So yes,
every single German soldier who considered the women of the occupied countries as their rightful
booty deserved to die, and happily, many of them did. But then to blame the children of these
trysts for the crimes of their fathers, is a stain that will besmirch the character of the Norwegian
people for generations. ,
@SolontoCroesus
Why . . . don't you ever mention Warsaw Sep 1939? The same number of civilians – 20,000-25,000
– were killed. Or how about Warsaw Aug 1944 (150,000-200,000 civilians killed)?
LOL. "I'm not a vindictive person but the old bitch does deserve to rot in prison. And I hope
she dies and burns in hell."
But I don't live in a country that twice experienced the catastrophic results of demagogic
incitement. I trust Germans know what they're doing
Ah, I see you've thought about this and realize that imprisoning 87-year-old ladies is absolutely
necessary to prevent the rise of the 4th Reich, eh?
But I wonder about this.... is imprisoning little old ladies like this likely to reduce antisemitism?
Or is it more likely to increase it?
Also, wouldn't you be concerned that imprisoning somebody for saying something, with absolutely
no attempt to rebut what the person is saying, might cause people to think that the person is
being imprisoned for telling the truth?
What do you think? Have you thought about any of this at all?
Well, of course not. You're a shit eater. You never actually think about anything! But
you could start.... it's not illegal... YET! ,
@utu If 20,000-25,000 civilians were killed during siege of Warsaw in 1939 then it is easy
to believe that 100,000-125,000 were killed in Dresden in 1945. It suffices to scale up the Warsaw
number by the number of sorties and payload Allies had over Dresden in comparison to what Germany
had over Warsaw in 1939.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
But how many licensed architects and engineers are there in the US? Turns out there's 105,042
+ 822,575 = 927,617 (source: AIA & NCEES). 2,700 represents 0.29% of the total number of US
architects and engineers. That means 99.71% haven't called for a new investigation.
Ah, the nostalgia, I haven't heard this particular shit eater argument for a while. Yeah, 99.71%
of the architects and engineers in the USA DID NOT sign the petition so therefore they all believe
the official story.
So, if a million people march on Washington tomorrow demanding the end to all the wars, that doesn't
mean anything either, because 300+ million did not march, and therefore, they are in favor of
all the wars! Obviously!
Hey, how's the weather in Tel Aviv? Hot as hell, eh? Have they put air conditioning in your office
yet?
How do you type confined in a straightjacket – do you hold a pen in your mouth and peck letters
one-by-one?
The guy that wouldn't let Hanjour rent a plane w/o more lessons also said this:
Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway
Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have
pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said.
So your theory collapses. Unless the guy lied about this part, but told the truth about Hanjour
not being able to control the Cessna with much skill? You are dumb enough to believe that, so...
Well, as a matter of fact, I take expert testimony on questions seriously.
Well, so you take Bernard seriously then? Or, wait, he's a government stooge who accidentally
told the truth once? Shape-shifter?
If a controlled demolition specialist in Holland, Danny Jowenko, when shown the footage of
WTC 7 imploding says that this is definitely a controlled demolition, it stands to reason that
it is a controlled demolition!
Here's a different expert's view--an expert who actually examined the evidence:
So is he (Circle one^):
Government stooge
Shapeshifter
Lizard man
Hologram
such as the people at NIST who claim that building 7 imploded perfectly symmetrically from
uncontrolled fires
This is another lie. I already posted a summary of what they said.
I really don't care what your response is. I know it will probably be more insanely stupid than
the last.
^Disclaimer for morons: Don't actually circle it on your monitor.
Well, so you take Bernard seriously then?
Look, I wasn't there, but the incident, as recounted, seems to be true and it happened 3 weeks
before 9/11, NOT years before, as you were trying to claim. To recap
Hani Hanjour tried to rent a single-engine Cessna and a flight instructor went up with him
and said the guy did not have the skill to fly that plane. The single-engine Cessna.
Now, it is claimed that 3 weeks later and Hani can fly the big Boeing in a maneuver that professional
pilots with thousands of hours have said they could not do. Just to focus this, here is what the
cockpit of a Boeing 757 looks like:
The guy that wouldn't let Hanjour rent a plane w/o more lessons also said this:
Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of
Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he
could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said.
Well, c'mon, the guy doubtless came under pressure to say that the guy could have done what
they said he did. But look, obviously, if he evaluated the guy as unable to control a Cessna in
August, the guy couldn't suddenly fly a big Boeing in September! And this business that he "pointed
that plane at a building and hit it", that is not what allegedly happened with the Pentagon flight.
The plane allegedly flew this really incredible 270 degree descending loop and, in the final stretch
flew at treetop level into the exact part of the Pentagon that was hit. And as I said, you can
look at the Pilots for 9/11 Truth and see that there are professional pilots with thousands of
hours flying these Boeing airliners who say they could not fly that maneuver. So the guy supposedly
was flying one of these big planes for the first (and last) time in his life and successfully
carried off this maneuver. It's completely ridiculous bullshit, but when you're a shit eater,
it's like "mmm, yum, yum".
And really, you know, this is such an absurd argument to be having. Okay, it's obvious that
if somebody can't really control a Cessna in August of 2001, he can't do some top gun maneuver
in a big Boeing in September of 2001. But it doesn't even matter. The flight didn't even take
place! Or certainly, at the very least, there is not a shred of evidence that any Boeing airliner
crashed into the Pentagon anyway.
So, finally, whether Hani Hanjour could have flown the plane in that maneuver or not hardly
matters. The overall narrative just has so many problems in it that, even if you concede a given
point just for the sake of argument, like assume that Hani Hanjour really could fly a Boeing 757
in this elaborate maneuver only 3 weeks after demonstrating an inability to control a Cessna,
it still doesn't matter because there is very strong reason to believe that the flight did not
even take place.
Here's a different expert's view–an expert who actually examined the evidence:
Now, I lack the expertise to be certain about these things, but I would just make the point
that if you googled up this Blanchard stuff, then you would easily find the above-linked rebuttals
as well. But since the rebuttals don't support what you want to believe, you just don't mention
them.
It's like there are phone calls, I mean testimony that somebody got a phone call, and then
that supports the official story, you say that is strong proof but if I point to testimony where
Atta's father got a phone call the day after 9/11 from his son, you immediately say Atta's father
was lying.
Your whole thing is just always going to be to cherry pick things based on what you want to
believe. That's a completely corrupted intellectual process.
The reason I am quite certain that the official narrative is untrue is that there just really
is such an accumulation of problems with the story that it really just can't be true. The Hani
Hanjour thing is like just one of literally hundreds of glitches in the story, that the guy they
say flew that plane obviously did not have the skills. That the flight instructor in question,
the Bernard guy then claimed that he did, you can see that he must have been pressured to say
that. If you can't fly a Cessna, you can't fly a Boeing 757. And besides, the conditions under
which this supposedly happened, where the guy had just murdered the pilot and taken over the plane
and his adrenaline would be sky high and he sits down and, flying this plane for the very first
time, calmly maneuvers the plane in this 270 degree looping descent.
This just didn't happen. There is no photographic or video evidence at the alleged crash site
that is consistent with a Boeing 757 having crashed there! This is all just a constructed fiction.
Anybody who studies this in any kind of intellectually honest way surely comes to that conclusion.
The only way you can believe this stuff is if you have this kind of intense emotional need
to believe it. You look at what they are saying happened cold-bloodedly and it is really just
glaringly obviously that it's all total bullshit.
Rurik
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 10, 2016 at 8:17 pm GMT • 200 Words
@Incitatus I cherish free speech. But I don't live in a country that twice experienced the
catastrophic results of demagogic incitement. I trust Germans know what they're doing, but I note
your concern. And your angst over suffering. But isn't it a very selective angst?
"...even if you take them at their word, the Holocaust was done as humanely as it's was
humanly possible to kill people. Sort of like the Soylent Green euthanasia scene the violins
were playing as they were handed a towel to take a 'shower', and then the death was as benign
as could be arranged under the circumstances. And that was their worst case scenario of the
gas chambers as I remember them being shown to us as children. Compare that to Dresden, which
is undisputed and was as calculatedly cruel and sadistic as it was possible to imagine. And
then some."
"...and yet it's the Germans who everyone condemns for inhumanity."
Why, like most who mourn Dresden 1944, don't you ever mention Warsaw Sep 1939? The same number
of civilians - 20,000-25,000 - were killed. Or how about Warsaw Aug 1944 (150,000-200,000 civilians
killed)? In fact, you could say Germans pioneered civilian killing (shelling of Paris 1870-71,
bombing London in 1915, the Condor Legion and Guernica 1937, etc). They were very good at it.
You never mention it. Does only German blood count? Or do you simply want to use Dresden to legitimize
Nazi aggression?
I confess I'm also puzzled by your preoccupation for the Lebensborn - most unusual for a Norseman.
btw. You aren't by any chance Anders Behring Brevik blogging away in your prison cell?
I was reading your quote and thinking to myself, wow, what insight and pure, raw humanity from
this mystery writer..
until I saw it sourced
Does only German blood count?
no sir, but you see for me, even German blood counts, especially when it's women and
children, who're being burned alive to sate the insatiable hatred of a monster
anyone who burns women and children alive for the fun of it and out of sheer tribal hatred,
rather than as a military and existential imperative, is a monster in my book
if the Nazis burned women and children alive for the fun of it, then by God I tell you I would
condemn them with all of my breath, I swear it. But they didn't do that. It was the Zio-West that
did that, (just as they did at Waco, TX) and I find that difficult to live with. Sort of the way
the Norwegians treated the children of Lebensborn; monstrous and impossible to justify. So yes,
every single German soldier who considered the women of the occupied countries as their rightful
booty deserved to die, and happily, many of them did. But then to blame the children of these
trysts for the crimes of their fathers, is a stain that will besmirch the character of the Norwegian
people for generations.
"if the Nazis burned women and children alive for the fun of it, then by God I tell you I would
condemn them with all of my breath, I swear it. But they didn't do that."
Well, Rurik, here's your chance to condemn them:
"...starting at 0800 on 25 September [1939], Luftwaffe bombers under the command of Major Wolfram
Freiherr von Richthofen conducted the largest air raid ever seen by that time, dropping 560 tons
of high explosive bombs and 72 tons of incendiary bombs, in coordination with heavy artillery
shelling by Army units."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Warsaw_in_World_War_II
Note the "72 tons of incendiary bombs." 20,000-25,000 civilians died. Surprised? Later
on, beginning August 1944 the Nazis really got busy. By January 1945 they'd leveled 85% of the
city and killed another 150,000-200,000 civilians.
How about Rotterdam May 1940? 884 civilians killed, 85,000 left homeless:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotterdam_Blitz
How about Guernica April 1937? They bombed it on market day, when packed with civilians. They
used incendiaries. 170-300 civilians died. The city was largely destroyed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Guernica
How about Lidice June 1942? 173 men executed on the spot. 203 women and 105 children taken to
concentration camps (four pregnant women were first forced to have abortions). The village was
leveled. The Nazis killed all the animals and even dug up the remains in the cemetery!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidice_massacre
How about Oradour-sur-Glane Jun 1944? 642 civilians murdered and -wait for it - women and children
deliberately burned to death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradour-sur-Glane_massacre
There are other examples. Oh those poor, poor Nazis.
I've at least skimmed through every comment on this post, and have to lament the huge drop
in quality as the thread progressed. The last 100 or so comments are embarrassing and likely to
put off anyone with an interest in the subject at hand.
I've at least skimmed through every comment on this post, and have to lament the huge drop
in quality as the thread progressed.
Well, what to do? There is some amazing stuff here. This Boris shit eater, I asked him to outline
the strongest evidence available for the official story on 9/11. He told me, among a few
other things, that Mohammed Atta had a plane ticket!
LOL. Hi, don't worry that you are encroaching on my territory. It actually gets very very tiresome
to argue with these shit eaters. So if you want to lend a hand, that's just great.
I don't suppose it's lost on you that this "Incitatus" is some sort of professional disinfo agent.
He's coming in to pick up the slack because "Boris" started seriously self-destructing. He's got
some basic troll act that he's open-minded and so forth and just wants to know the truth...
But, of course, the whole thing is ridiculous. Here we are, 15 years after the event, and the
guy is representing that he really wants to get at the truth. Well, why didn't he read a single
book on the topic in the last decade plus? Or why didn't he ever look at any of the material on
http://ae911truth.org ?
His alleged fence-sitting position makes no sense 15 years after the event.
But if you look at his questions, it's all misdirection. Squid ink strategy.
Hi,
His alleged fence-sitting position makes no sense 15 years after the event.
Well, quite a few people I know spent the first dozen or so of those believing that the official
story is broadly true. Propaganda works. You can fool most of the people most of the time, so
giving someone the benefit of the doubt has been my practice.
But if you look at his questions, it's all misdirection. Squid ink strategy.
Yeah, his response to me made that plain, but I really liked the touch that he's apparently
friends with the ephemeral Betty Ong's dead parents! I'm guessing, of course, that he's alluding
to the mysterious Betty-with-zero-life-history-Ong. He may have been referring to the parents
of Madeline Sweeney, who's "phone call" from the same flight so contradicted Ong's that it makes
one wonder if they were on the same flight, or to one of the other (stabbed) attendants.
Uno absurdo dato, infinita sequuntur
One absurdity being given, an infinite number follow.
I'm dismayed to see this sort of stupidity serving to obscure the important theme Mr. Unz is
exploring in his American Pravda series.
Well, quite a few people I know spent the first dozen or so of those believing that the official
story is broadly true. Propaganda works. You can fool most of the people most of the time,
so giving someone the benefit of the doubt has been my practice.
Yes, that's a good point. It actually took me about a decade to get to the point of just saying
openly that the official 9/11 story was total crap.
So you make a correct point. A correct general point. But in this specific case, I think there
were warning signs from the get-go that this "Incitatus" is not some honest person seeking the
truth. These guys show up and it's like they've got their schtick. They start saying they are
open-minded and seeking the truth but then it becomes apparent that they have a list of talking
points that they are trying to put out there just to confuse the matter.
There is a great piece by the Saker today. I suppose you've likely read it.
Yeah, his response to me made that plain, but I really liked the touch that he's apparently
friends with the ephemeral Betty Ong's dead parents! I'm guessing, of course, that he's alluding
to the mysterious Betty-with-zero-life-history-Ong. He may have been referring to the parents
of Madeline Sweeney,
It's actually more likely that he's acquainted with the person who invented all these characters!
,
@Incitatus
"I really liked the touch that he's apparently friends with the ephemeral Betty Ong's dead
parents!"
Nice try. Try Thomas Roger, father of twenty-four year old Jean D. Roger.
Well, c'mon, the guy doubtless came under pressure to say that the guy could have done what
they said he did.
You keep making things up.
if he evaluated the guy as unable to control a Cessna in August, the guy couldn't suddenly
fly a big Boeing in September!
Huh? His evaluation included landing. But yeah, sure they guy is lying about the part
you hate but telling the truth about the part you like. Is there any better evidence that you
are a complete moronic hack?
The plane allegedly flew this really incredible 270 degree descending loop
Yeah, professional pilots think Hanjour could have done it:
Reality: As I've explained in at least one prior column, Hani Hanjour's flying was hardly
the show-quality demonstration often described. It was exceptional only in its recklessness.
If anything, his loops and turns and spirals above the nation's capital revealed him to be
exactly the shitty pilot he by all accounts was. To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only
a bit of luck, and he got it, possibly with help from the 757's autopilot. Striking a stationary
object - even a large one like the Pentagon - at high speed and from a steep angle is very
difficult. To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared
across the Pentagon's lawn.
"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft," agrees Ken Hertz,
an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced
physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."
That sentiment is echoed by Joe d'Eon, airline pilot and host of the "Fly With Me" podcast
series. "It's the difference between a doctor and a butcher," says d'Eon.
There is no photographic or video evidence at the alleged crash site that is consistent
with a Boeing 757 having crashed there!
lol you are one of the idiots who think a missile hit the Pentagon? I should have seen that
coming. Do you believe the CGI people too? And the nuke guys?
What's really galling is that fuckers like you malign the victims and suggest they are in on
the conspiracy. It's not bad enough that they get their lives cut short, nope. You guys have to
take a shit on their ashes too.
if he evaluated the guy as unable to control a Cessna in August, the guy couldn't suddenly
fly a big Boeing in September!
Huh? His evaluation included landing.
Did you come up with this yourself or is this some talking point that was just handed to you?
YOu can read what was said, but the problem was not solely that Hani Hanjour could not
land the plane. He could not really control the plane in flight. I'm not a pilot myself,
but looking at this as a generalist, the upshot of it clearly seems to be that that Hani Hanjour
did not possess even elementary plane flying skills for a small plane in August of 2001. And then
in September of 2001 carried out a maneuver in a big Boeing jet that would be extremely difficult,
if not impossible, for someone with years of experience.
But I was thinking about this... there were four or five Arab hijackers in the plane according
to the story. How would they even know which one of them flew the plane? Anybody who made a phone
call wouldn't know the names of the various hijackers, would they? So they just tell a story and
there's no proof whatsoever of the story anyway... And then a shit eater like you, rather than
just admit the obvious, that there isn't any proof of this aspect of the story, you just start
making up shit to back up the story. Like you start by trying to claim that the incident where
he couldn't fly a Cessna was years before 9/11. No, it was 3 weeks before 9/11!
lol you are one of the idiots who think a missile hit the Pentagon?
Well, I don't know. What would be idiotic about thinking that? All I said was that there is not
a shred of evidence that a Boeing airliner really hit the Pentagon. At least I've never seen any.
What's really galling is that fuckers like you malign the victims
Oh, I'm maligning the victims, am I? And that really bothers you.... Wanting to get at the truth
of what really happened is to disrespect the victims...
you can hate her guts and her viewpoint all you want, but do you really want people put in prison
for expressing opinions you find abhorrent?
for asking questions you don't want asked?
perhaps so, if I get the tone of your comment
free speech is intended to protect the speech we all most dislike, or it's not free speech at
all, is it? It's just speech that you or I consider acceptable, and I for one don't want anyone
being the arbiter of acceptable speech or questions. Fuck no! Not Jews, not Nazis, not rightwing
religious nuts or politically correct SJWs or anyone else, thankyouverymuch.
as for her questions about the Holocaust, we already know there were no human soap factories or
human tattoo skin lampshades. These were blood libels spread against the German people to try
to justify the genocidal horrors that were visited upon millions of German civilians after the
war was over. They were an evil people are deserved it all. Exactly like what the Nazis
were saying about the Jews.
My agenda is the truth. If it's true that the Germans were running extermination camps, like Eisenhower
ran for German POWs after the war was over, then I want to know about them, and their scope and
purpose. I want to know the truth about it all, come what may, and I certainly don't want little
old ladies put in prison, (no matter what their views are), under any circumstances. I can't even
comprehend the moral cowardice of a society (or individuals) that would tolerate such a thing.
Germany is suffering women being raped in the streets by savages, but they save their prison space
for her
and why? Because she's asking questions they don't want people asking
Well, Rurik,
You are discussing these issues with an obvious troll, 'incitatus', a piece of filth who is
here to spread disinformation & propaganda & who obviously does not care one bit about truth or
free speech. Remember that other scumbag, 'iffen', who hoped for European style censorship to
be applied in the US?
These cretins are so obvious.
No, Rurik, the National Socialists did NOT run extermination camps.
Do u still have doubts?
As Prof.Faurisson said, on the intellectual level, the revisionists have already won.
It is just that people ain't allowed to know it in fact, people are not allowed to even know
there is a debate on the holohoax.
Why, Rurik, do I say the holocau$t is a monstrous Hoax?
As Prof.T.Dalton wrote:
There are, in fact, three essential elements to the event called the Holocaust:
(1) intention to mass murder the Jews, by Hitler and the Nazi elite;
(2) the use of gas chambers(the extermination camps & gas vans); and
(3) the 6 million deaths.
If any one of these three should undergo substantial revision, then, technically speaking,
we no longer have "The Holocaust"-at least, not in any meaningful sense. (Broadly speaking,
of course, any mass fatality is a holocaust.) Holocaust revisionism contends that, not one,
but all three of these points are grossly in error, and thus that "The Holocaust," as such,
did not occur. Obviously, this is not to deny that a tragedy happened to the Jews, nor that
many thousands died, directly and indirectly, as a result of the war. But the conventional
account is an extreme exaggeration.
Most people are led to believe – I was one of them – in regards to the 'holocau$t', that there
is abundant proof of the alleged crime, as described above. This is absolutely NOT THE CASE.
In fact, many holocaust 'historians', I call them quacks, have actually admitted the near total
lack of material and documentary evidence.
There is, as the revisionist side has shown, an abundance of evidence refuting the official dossier,
which is basically atrocity propaganda on steroids.
One good book that covers all bases in a more accessible format is "Lectures on the Holocaust
Controversial Issues Cross Examined" by Germar Rudolf. http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/15-loth.pdf
I think you're right about some of the trolls here, or so it seems to me
but this is the thing vis-a-vis the Holocau$t. I don't like calling the whole thing a hoax, because
then it sort of looks like you're suggesting that NONE of any of that stuff happened, when I believe
that it's clear that Jews (and many others) were systematically persecuted by the Nazis for being
Jews, and not necessarily for any crimes they committed. Just like the Japanese in the US during
the war. If they Japanese claimed there were gas chambers at the camps where they were held, then
I think it would be fair and prudent to examine those claims for veracity, just as in the case
of the Holocaust- where I don't think they had homicidal gas chambers for human extermination
purposes. But that doesn't change the fact that many people perished in those camps, and many
of them were innocent Jews, and if the Jews want to call that particular suffering a name to commemorate
it, just like what the Japanese went through, then I don't see what's wrong with that per se.
That it has become this momentous blood libel against the German people in particular and all
Gentiles in general is just another testament to the power of the lobby.
Stupid conspiracies are par for the course for Unz.com.
• Replies:
@Anonymous It's not the conspiracies that are in themselves objectionable. I'm perfectly happy
reading odd or otherwise rarely heard takes and refutations of varying quality, but when the comment
section devolves into character swipes and cursing each other out in long, near-indecipherable
diatribes, something of real value is lost.
"...even if you take them at their word, the Holocaust was done as humanely as it's was
humanly possible to kill people. Sort of like the Soylent Green euthanasia scene the violins
were playing as they were handed a towel to take a 'shower', and then the death was as benign
as could be arranged under the circumstances. And that was their worst case scenario of the
gas chambers as I remember them being shown to us as children. Compare that to Dresden, which
is undisputed and was as calculatedly cruel and sadistic as it was possible to imagine. And
then some."
"...and yet it's the Germans who everyone condemns for inhumanity."
Why, like most who mourn Dresden 1944, don't you ever mention Warsaw Sep 1939? The same number
of civilians - 20,000-25,000 - were killed. Or how about Warsaw Aug 1944 (150,000-200,000 civilians
killed)? In fact, you could say Germans pioneered civilian killing (shelling of Paris 1870-71,
bombing London in 1915, the Condor Legion and Guernica 1937, etc). They were very good at it.
You never mention it. Does only German blood count? Or do you simply want to use Dresden to legitimize
Nazi aggression?
I confess I'm also puzzled by your preoccupation for the Lebensborn - most unusual for a Norseman.
btw. You aren't by any chance Anders Behring Brevik blogging away in your prison cell?
Why . . . don't you ever mention Warsaw Sep 1939? The same number of civilians – 20,000-25,000
– were killed. Or how about Warsaw Aug 1944 (150,000-200,000 civilians killed)?
It's not the conspiracies that are in themselves objectionable. I'm perfectly happy reading
odd or otherwise rarely heard takes and refutations of varying quality, but when the comment section
devolves into character swipes and cursing each other out in long, near-indecipherable diatribes,
something of real value is lost.
What do you mean by debunking. It is in fact concisely and clearly explaining 9/11 Truth theories
castigated as conspiracy theories by the criminal rulers.
that's fine Incitatus, but all too often those roads lead down to obfuscation and conjecture.
Like why did they implode building seven? The answer is we don't know. Probably because it was
the control center for the whole operation, and they wanted to 'pull it' to erase all the evidence.
Flight 92 was probably intended to hit building seven, as the pretext for its collapse, but then
when it was shot down over Pennsylvania, they had to wing it.
But that is all conjecture. Like asking someone who doesn't buy the Warren commission's findings,
OK then 'why did they kill JFK'? Only the assassins know the answer to that question, just as
only the people responsible for 911 could answer all the detailed queries.
How did they rig the buildings surreptitiously? That is a whole gigantic side discussion, and
people are having it, and we could spend hours debating all the minutia, but to what end?
This we know. We know that building seven fell in a way that is incomprehensible based on simple
physics. Indeed, impossible. We know that right away all the authorities set about having all
the steel beams and forensic evidence of this stupendous and monumental and historic engineering
failure, shipped off to China to be melted down and destroyed before any examination could be
done by professionals. We're all supposed to just take the authorities word for it, even tho it
appears even they conducted no investigation. Building seven wasn't even mentioned in the 911
commission report. Isn't that something?!
But even more to the point Incitatus, is that several news organizations reported on the collapse
of building seven before it happened. Did you know that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOVnvFl5jZo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M26-B44qQIs
now how could they have known this event was about to happen when even now no one can explain
how or why that building came down. It's as if a news organization had reported that the first
plane had hit the WTC tower 20 minutes before it did. Don't you think there'd be some legitimate
curiosity as to how this news organization knew the first plane was going to hit, before it did?
No?
The collapse of building seven is a mystery, at the very least. An anomaly to all known laws of
physics and structural engineering, even today no one can explain it any better than the magic
bullet, that goes through Kennedy and then turns and hits Connelly a couple different times and
then ends up pristine. But now imagine if a news organization had reported on the assassination
of JFK 20 minutes before it happened.
I ask you as just the latest person to assert on UR that something – in this case the collapse
of WTC 7 – is "an anomaly to all known laws of physics and structural engineering" or similar
wotds which plainly mean that such laws make the collapse without deliberate demolition impossible .*what
are your qualifations to be taken seriously on the implications of the laws of physics and structural
engineering*? I have dealt with a lot of expert witnesse and you don't sound like one of them,not
even the dodgy ones that have to be exposed and evaluated in court every day. Indeed do you consider
yourself competent to evaluate expert evidence on physics and structural engineering like a judge
assisted by the questions of counsel? If so why? Try persuading your readers.
I have dealt with a lot of expert witnesse and you don't sound like one of them,not even the
dodgy ones that have to be exposed and evaluated in court every day.
Hey, Wizard, I earlier asked you to outline the strongest available evidence for the official
government story. You never provided any.
Well, you claimed that the official story was proof of the official story. Your specific words
were:
Normally the onus of proof would be on those who dispute the findings of a well funded official
inquiry to displace the presumption that it is substantially correct.
In other words, the official story is simply presumed to be correct. That was here: http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-alexander-cockburn-and-the-british-spies/#comment-1549520
So that tells us that your grasp of what constitutes evidence is actually fairly weak, but since
you want to flaunt your lawyerly credentials, I thought to a question...
Since your failure to outline any evidence for the official story, a commenter Boris has actualy
tried to outline some. Among other things, he claims that the fact that Mohammed Atta had a plane
ticket is evidence for the official story.
In your professional opinion, as a lawyer, do you agree that this constitutes evidence for the
official story? Yes or no? ,
@Rurik
.*what are your qualifations to be taken seriously on the implications of the laws of physics
and structural engineering*?
I rest on my laurels wiz
we've both participated on this site for some time now. In my case clearly and obviously in an
attempt to get at the truth in all things. In your case, -to obfuscate the truth- about any issue
you find inconvenient to the status quo- vis-a-vis the PTB. I believe this is obvious to everyone
here who's been paying attention at all.
What you do wiz, is scan these pages for any signs of some ingenuousness, and then you proceed
to reel them into your web, with innocent sounding queries, and then when they're engaged in an
exchange with you, you drop a manure wagon of legerdemain on their heads, obviously finding amusement
in your own 'cleverness and artfulness'. I suppose you imagine you're being cagey, but to the
rest of us you just come across as a mean-spirited, sadistic little prick.
Wizard
of Oz says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 11, 2016 at 8:56 am GMT
@Anonymous It's not the conspiracies that are in themselves objectionable. I'm perfectly happy
reading odd or otherwise rarely heard takes and refutations of varying quality, but when the comment
section devolves into character swipes and cursing each other out in long, near-indecipherable
diatribes, something of real value is lost.
Make The Comment Section Great Again.
Your #335 Comment has a ihick yellow-brown rectangular frame around it. How did you achieve
that?
I don't remember anything about thermite reactions at least as such from 6th form Chemistry
and now realise that aluminium is frequently at the core of thermite reactions, thereby lending
support to the recently expounded theories of heating, and explosions, which would correct
the official versions.
Yes, either your ignorance is profound, or your intent to divert the discussion into a nonsensical
channel is exposed.
Bulk aluminum doesn't ignite in a building fire. According to one source, aluminum must be
vaporized before it will burn and the boiling point of aluminum is 3,986 Farenheit, whereas the
adiabatic flame temperature of Kerosene in air, at around 3597 Farenheit, is 400 degrees lower.
Moreover, the jet fuel fires in the Twin Towers would likely have burned at considerably lower
temperatures due to oxygen supply limitations.
Aluminum burns readily in a thermitic compound comprising aluminum in a finely divided form
intimately mixed with an oxidizer, usually iron oxide. In the process of combustion aluminum is
oxidized, while the iron oxide is reduced to pure molten iron, which will be found in the reaction
residue in the form of iron microspheres, just as were abundant in the ash collected in the vicinity
of the Twin Towers.
Oddly, it apparently never occurred to the NIST investigators of the collapse of three WTC
buildings that explosives such as thermite, a material
long used in controlled building demolitions , might have been involved in the perfect implosion
of three WTC buildings.
The recent doco about the American chemist and Norwegian metallurgist who sought to correct
the official version by reference to aluminium as sn explosive hypothesised that it was molten
aluminium flowing down into pools of water that explained the reported explosive sounds.
You may be aware that Daniel Pipes made a study of conspiracy theories and has written books
on the subject – which I haven't read. I have however sampled his long list of articles which
can be found here:
His alleged fence-sitting position makes no sense 15 years after the event.
Well, quite a few people I know spent the first dozen or so of those believing that the official
story is broadly true. Propaganda works. You can fool most of the people most of the time, so
giving someone the benefit of the doubt has been my practice.
But if you look at his questions, it's all misdirection. Squid ink strategy.
Yeah, his response to me made that plain, but I really liked the touch that he's apparently friends
with the ephemeral Betty Ong's dead parents! I'm guessing, of course, that he's alluding to the
mysterious Betty-with-zero-life-history-Ong. He may have been referring to the parents of Madeline
Sweeney, who's "phone call" from the same flight so contradicted Ong's that it makes one wonder
if they were on the same flight, or to one of the other (stabbed) attendants.
Uno absurdo dato, infinita sequuntur
One absurdity being given, an infinite number follow.
I'm dismayed to see this sort of stupidity serving to obscure the important theme Mr. Unz is exploring
in his American Pravda series.
Well, quite a few people I know spent the first dozen or so of those believing that the
official story is broadly true. Propaganda works. You can fool most of the people most of the
time, so giving someone the benefit of the doubt has been my practice.
Yes, that's a good point. It actually took me about a decade to get to the point of just saying
openly that the official 9/11 story was total crap.
So you make a correct point. A correct general point. But in this specific case, I think there
were warning signs from the get-go that this "Incitatus" is not some honest person seeking the
truth. These guys show up and it's like they've got their schtick. They start saying they are
open-minded and seeking the truth but then it becomes apparent that they have a list of talking
points that they are trying to put out there just to confuse the matter.
There is a great piece by the Saker today. I suppose you've likely read it.
Yeah, his response to me made that plain, but I really liked the touch that he's apparently
friends with the ephemeral Betty Ong's dead parents! I'm guessing, of course, that he's alluding
to the mysterious Betty-with-zero-life-history-Ong. He may have been referring to the parents
of Madeline Sweeney,
It's actually more likely that he's acquainted with the person who invented all these characters!
Jonathan
Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment
September 11, 2016 at 11:17 am GMT • 200 Words
@Wizard of Oz I ask you as just the latest person to assert on UR that something - in this
case the collapse of WTC 7 - is "an anomaly to all known laws of physics and structural engineering"
or similar wotds which plainly mean that such laws make the collapse without deliberate demolition
impossible....*what are your qualifations to be taken seriously on the implications of the laws
of physics and structural engineering*? I have dealt with a lot of expert witnesse and you don't
sound like one of them,not even the dodgy ones that have to be exposed and evaluated in court
every day. Indeed do you consider yourself competent to evaluate expert evidence on physics and
structural engineering like a judge assisted by the questions of counsel? If so why? Try persuading
your readers.
I have dealt with a lot of expert witnesse and you don't sound like one of them,not even
the dodgy ones that have to be exposed and evaluated in court every day.
Hey, Wizard, I earlier asked you to outline the strongest available evidence for the official
government story. You never provided any.
Well, you claimed that the official story was proof of the official story. Your specific words
were:
Normally the onus of proof would be on those who dispute the findings of a well funded official
inquiry to displace the presumption that it is substantially correct.
So that tells us that your grasp of what constitutes evidence is actually fairly weak, but
since you want to flaunt your lawyerly credentials, I thought to a question
Since your failure to outline any evidence for the official story, a commenter Boris has actualy
tried to outline some. Among other things, he claims that the fact that Mohammed Atta had a plane
ticket is evidence for the official story.
In your professional opinion, as a lawyer, do you agree that this constitutes evidence for
the official story? Yes or no?
• Replies:
@Wizard of Oz I am content to wait on Rurik answering me without your participation. In the
meantime I am close to concluding that The Saker has included some pretty dodgy stuff in his new
contribution on 9/11 which I wasn't aware he claimed any special knowledge of. ,
@Erebus
Normally the onus of proof would be on those who dispute the findings of a well funded
official inquiry to displace the presumption that it is substantially correct.
"...even if you take them at their word, the Holocaust was done as humanely as it's was
humanly possible to kill people. Sort of like the Soylent Green euthanasia scene the violins
were playing as they were handed a towel to take a 'shower', and then the death was as benign
as could be arranged under the circumstances. And that was their worst case scenario of the
gas chambers as I remember them being shown to us as children. Compare that to Dresden, which
is undisputed and was as calculatedly cruel and sadistic as it was possible to imagine. And
then some."
"...and yet it's the Germans who everyone condemns for inhumanity."
Why, like most who mourn Dresden 1944, don't you ever mention Warsaw Sep 1939? The same number
of civilians - 20,000-25,000 - were killed. Or how about Warsaw Aug 1944 (150,000-200,000 civilians
killed)? In fact, you could say Germans pioneered civilian killing (shelling of Paris 1870-71,
bombing London in 1915, the Condor Legion and Guernica 1937, etc). They were very good at it.
You never mention it. Does only German blood count? Or do you simply want to use Dresden to legitimize
Nazi aggression?
I confess I'm also puzzled by your preoccupation for the Lebensborn - most unusual for a Norseman.
btw. You aren't by any chance Anders Behring Brevik blogging away in your prison cell?
Hi, Ziofascist scumbag.
I cherish free speech.
LOL. "I'm not a vindictive person but the old bitch does deserve to rot in prison. And I
hope she dies and burns in hell."
But I don't live in a country that twice experienced the catastrophic results of demagogic
incitement. I trust Germans know what they're doing
Ah, I see you've thought about this and realize that imprisoning 87-year-old ladies is absolutely
necessary to prevent the rise of the 4th Reich, eh?
But I wonder about this . is imprisoning little old ladies like this likely to reduce antisemitism?
Or is it more likely to increase it?
Also, wouldn't you be concerned that imprisoning somebody for saying something, with absolutely
no attempt to rebut what the person is saying, might cause people to think that the person is
being imprisoned for telling the truth?
What do you think? Have you thought about any of this at all?
Well, of course not. You're a shit eater. You never actually think about anything! But
you could start . it's not illegal YET!
• Replies:
@Incitatus No comment on the 20,000-25,000 killed in Warsaw Sep 1939? Silence on the 150,000-200,000
killed in Aug 1944? What a surprise!
Instead, more angry tears for poor Nazi granny Ursula. What a "great" champion of freedom you
are!
I tried to be helpful. She'll probably love knitting (red, white, and black yarn only, please).
And, since Adolf forgot the winter coats - well, you get the idea.
I have dealt with a lot of expert witnesse and you don't sound like one of them,not even the
dodgy ones that have to be exposed and evaluated in court every day.
Hey, Wizard, I earlier asked you to outline the strongest available evidence for the official
government story. You never provided any.
Well, you claimed that the official story was proof of the official story. Your specific words
were:
Normally the onus of proof would be on those who dispute the findings of a well funded official
inquiry to displace the presumption that it is substantially correct.
In other words, the official story is simply presumed to be correct. That was here: http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-alexander-cockburn-and-the-british-spies/#comment-1549520
So that tells us that your grasp of what constitutes evidence is actually fairly weak, but since
you want to flaunt your lawyerly credentials, I thought to a question...
Since your failure to outline any evidence for the official story, a commenter Boris has actualy
tried to outline some. Among other things, he claims that the fact that Mohammed Atta had a plane
ticket is evidence for the official story.
In your professional opinion, as a lawyer, do you agree that this constitutes evidence for the
official story? Yes or no?
I am content to wait on Rurik answering me without your participation. In the meantime I am
close to concluding that The Saker has included some pretty dodgy stuff in his new contribution
on 9/11 which I wasn't aware he claimed any special knowledge of.
I've at least skimmed through every comment on this post, and have to lament the huge drop
in quality as the thread progressed.
Well, what to do? There is some amazing stuff here. This Boris shit eater, I asked him to outline
the strongest evidence available for the official story on 9/11. He told me, among a few
other things, that Mohammed Atta had a plane ticket!
Of course he hijacked a plane and flew it into a building at the behest of a bearded religious
fanatic in Afghanistan! HE HAD A PLANE TICKET, DAMMIT!!!!
Of course he hijacked a plane and flew it into a building at the behest of a bearded religious
fanatic in Afghanistan! HE HAD A PLANE TICKET, DAMMIT!!!!
Well, c'mon, the guy doubtless came under pressure to say that the guy could have done what
they said he did.
You keep making things up.
if he evaluated the guy as unable to control a Cessna in August, the guy couldn't suddenly
fly a big Boeing in September!
Huh? His evaluation included landing. But yeah, sure they guy is lying about the part you
hate but telling the truth about the part you like. Is there any better evidence that you are
a complete moronic hack?
The plane allegedly flew this really incredible 270 degree descending loop
Yeah, professional pilots think Hanjour could have done it:
http://www.salon.com/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/
Reality: As I've explained in at least one prior column, Hani Hanjour's flying was hardly the
show-quality demonstration often described. It was exceptional only in its recklessness. If
anything, his loops and turns and spirals above the nation's capital revealed him to be exactly
the shitty pilot he by all accounts was. To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit
of luck, and he got it, possibly with help from the 757's autopilot. Striking a stationary
object - even a large one like the Pentagon - at high speed and from a steep angle is very
difficult. To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared
across the Pentagon's lawn.
...
"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft," agrees Ken Hertz,
an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced
physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."
That sentiment is echoed by Joe d'Eon, airline pilot and host of the "Fly With Me" podcast
series. "It's the difference between a doctor and a butcher," says d'Eon.
There is no photographic or video evidence at the alleged crash site that is consistent with
a Boeing 757 having crashed there!
lol you are one of the idiots who think a missile hit the Pentagon? I should have seen that coming.
Do you believe the CGI people too? And the nuke guys?
What's really galling is that fuckers like you malign the victims and suggest they are in on the
conspiracy. It's not bad enough that they get their lives cut short, nope. You guys have to take
a shit on their ashes too.
if he evaluated the guy as unable to control a Cessna in August, the guy couldn't suddenly
fly a big Boeing in September!
Huh? His evaluation included landing.
Did you come up with this yourself or is this some talking point that was just handed to you?
YOu can read what was said, but the problem was not solely that Hani Hanjour could not
land the plane. He could not really control the plane in flight. I'm not a pilot myself,
but looking at this as a generalist, the upshot of it clearly seems to be that that Hani Hanjour
did not possess even elementary plane flying skills for a small plane in August of 2001. And then
in September of 2001 carried out a maneuver in a big Boeing jet that would be extremely difficult,
if not impossible, for someone with years of experience.
But I was thinking about this there were four or five Arab hijackers in the plane according
to the story. How would they even know which one of them flew the plane? Anybody who made a phone
call wouldn't know the names of the various hijackers, would they? So they just tell a story and
there's no proof whatsoever of the story anyway And then a shit eater like you, rather than just
admit the obvious, that there isn't any proof of this aspect of the story, you just start making
up shit to back up the story. Like you start by trying to claim that the incident where he couldn't
fly a Cessna was years before 9/11. No, it was 3 weeks before 9/11!
lol you are one of the idiots who think a missile hit the Pentagon?
Well, I don't know. What would be idiotic about thinking that? All I said was that there is
not a shred of evidence that a Boeing airliner really hit the Pentagon. At least I've never seen
any.
What's really galling is that fuckers like you malign the victims
Oh, I'm maligning the victims, am I? And that really bothers you . Wanting to get at the truth
of what really happened is to disrespect the victims
I can't believe you came up with that shit yourself. You've got a list of talking points that
you're running through, right?
Oh, hold on I see you don't understand the difference between a necessary and a sufficient
condition.
You are so stupid. I already wrote this:
Obviously the plane ticket is a necessary but not sufficient piece of evidence.
See? You can't even fucking read.
I never said it was the only piece of evidence, and said explicitly that it was not sufficient.
You took it out of a list of evidence and pretended I said it was "proof," when I never even used
the word. Because you are too stupid to argue honestly.
Oh, hold on I see you don't understand the difference between a necessary and a sufficient
condition.
(Shrug.) Little children are always using big words that they have overheard adults using.
It doesn't really mean that they understand what they are saying.
But okay, look, a shit eater like you could, in the appropriate context, understand what a
necessary versus a sufficient condition is. Or you could understand what the beg the question
fallacy is. But the problem remains that, at the key moment, you are able to NOT understand it.
Because, at the key moment, the shit eater always ends up telling you (either directly or circuitously)
that the official story is proof of the official story. Never fails. Earlier you told me to go
read the page on wikipedia. Well, the page on wikipedia is just a synopsis of the official story.
I asked you for proof so you were just telling me that the official story is proof of the official
story.
I never said it was the only piece of evidence, and said explicitly that it was not sufficient.
You took it out of a list of evidence and pretended I said it was "proof,"
Well, that's a mischaracterization. The fact remains, you said that Mohammed Atta having a
plane ticket was evidence. It was in your list of evidence.
AND NO, the fact remains: THAT IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING!
I'll tell you what it is. It is SHIT. Because that is all a shit eater ever comes up with in
a debate.
Just shit. Like the guy bought a plane ticket so he's the hijacker The government
story is proof of the government story
You're not the first shit eater I've debated with. All you guys ever come up with is SHIT.
I have dealt with a lot of expert witnesse and you don't sound like one of them,not even the
dodgy ones that have to be exposed and evaluated in court every day.
Hey, Wizard, I earlier asked you to outline the strongest available evidence for the official
government story. You never provided any.
Well, you claimed that the official story was proof of the official story. Your specific words
were:
Normally the onus of proof would be on those who dispute the findings of a well funded official
inquiry to displace the presumption that it is substantially correct.
In other words, the official story is simply presumed to be correct. That was here: http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-alexander-cockburn-and-the-british-spies/#comment-1549520
So that tells us that your grasp of what constitutes evidence is actually fairly weak, but since
you want to flaunt your lawyerly credentials, I thought to a question...
Since your failure to outline any evidence for the official story, a commenter Boris has actualy
tried to outline some. Among other things, he claims that the fact that Mohammed Atta had a plane
ticket is evidence for the official story.
In your professional opinion, as a lawyer, do you agree that this constitutes evidence for the
official story? Yes or no?
Normally the onus of proof would be on those who dispute the findings of a well funded
official inquiry to displace the presumption that it is substantially correct.
Thanks for that Jonathan.
The Wiz, notwithstanding his loathsome obfuscation and word mincing, can occasionally cut to the
heart of the matter.
Namely, at this level of criminality, there's no such thing as a free truth.
It's funny, because in his role here as professional disinfo agent, it would probably make
more sense for him to express sympathy with Ursula Haverbeck and agree with us that her imprisonment
is unjust and so on, in order to build a rapport and try to come across as even somewhat reasonable.
But the thing is that the morally degenerate zio scumbag can't help gloating over the fact
that the Zionist power structure manage to imprison this little old lady.
extremely salient insight JR
Scumbags will be scumbags.
I confess I (of all people!) sometimes wince at your colorful language, but then sometimes there's
just no other way to put it!
That little degenerate bastard Sam Shama is exactly like this too, you know.
well, I try to hold out hope for our pal Sam, but then a while back it was abundantly clear that
Sam wanted some kind of harm to come to me when I expressed sympathy for this same little old
grandma who the PTB were crushing with an iron Zio-boot for her plucky temerity
Remember that Sam?
Oh Hello Rurik
Ursula Haverbeck, the lovely little granny which has a rap sheet longer than your arm?
According to Agence France-Presse
Haverbeck is a notorious extremist who was once chaired a far-right training center shut
down in 2008 for spreading Nazi propaganda, according to AFP. She has a rap sheet and a
suspended sentence for sedition.
btw I see Revusky getting into his usual foamy-mouth-eyeballs-spinning routine.
Jonathan,
fear not your hunger, it will be sated; coprophagic services are sought after at Upper Manhattan's
recycling plant. What hour shall I ask them to contact you?
no sir, but you see for me, even German blood counts, especially when it's women and children,
who're being burned alive to sate the insatiable hatred of a monster
anyone who burns women and children alive for the fun of it and out of sheer tribal hatred, rather
than as a military and existential imperative, is a monster in my book
if the Nazis burned women and children alive for the fun of it, then by God I tell you I would
condemn them with all of my breath, I swear it. But they didn't do that. It was the Zio-West that
did that, (just as they did at Waco, TX) and I find that difficult to live with. Sort of the way
the Norwegians treated the children of Lebensborn; monstrous and impossible to justify. So yes,
every single German soldier who considered the women of the occupied countries as their rightful
booty deserved to die, and happily, many of them did. But then to blame the children of these
trysts for the crimes of their fathers, is a stain that will besmirch the character of the Norwegian
people for generations.
"if the Nazis burned women and children alive for the fun of it, then by God I tell you
I would condemn them with all of my breath, I swear it. But they didn't do that."
Well, Rurik, here's your chance to condemn them:
" starting at 0800 on 25 September [1939], Luftwaffe bombers under the command of Major
Wolfram Freiherr von Richthofen conducted the largest air raid ever seen by that time, dropping
560 tons of high explosive bombs and 72 tons of incendiary bombs, in coordination with heavy artillery
shelling by Army units." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Warsaw_in_World_War_II
Note the "72 tons of incendiary bombs." 20,000-25,000 civilians died. Surprised? Later
on, beginning August 1944 the Nazis really got busy. By January 1945 they'd leveled 85% of the
city and killed another 150,000-200,000 civilians.
How about Guernica April 1937? They bombed it on market day, when packed with civilians. They
used incendiaries. 170-300 civilians died. The city was largely destroyed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Guernica
How about Lidice June 1942? 173 men executed on the spot. 203 women and 105 children taken
to concentration camps (four pregnant women were first forced to have abortions). The village
was leveled. The Nazis killed all the animals and even dug up the remains in the cemetery! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidice_massacre
There are other examples. Oh those poor, poor Nazis.
Don't forget your promise to "condemn them [Nazis] with all of my breath."
• Replies:
@Rurik OK, I checked out the first of your links, (and admittedly from the obviously biased
Wikipedia)
this is the kind of thing I found out
The Polish Army surrendered nearly 140,000 troops and during the siege around 18,000 civilians
of Warsaw perished. As a result of the air bombardments 10% of the city's buildings were entirely
destroyed and further 40% were heavily damaged.[1]:78
now this is what I said:
"anyone who burns women and children alive for the fun of it and out of sheer tribal hatred, rather
than as a military and existential imperative, is a monster in my book"
so what you have was strategic bombing of a city (a war crime in my book but then I never said
the Nazis were boy scouts) for a clear military objective. That's not what I'm talking about.
Imagine if Germany had already defeated the Poles, and Poland was on the brink, and had effectively
lost the war, and Warsaw was turned into a refugee city with tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands
of refugees huddling there as their last sanctuary. There would have been no military age men
there, as they would have all died in the war by now, and the city was overflowing with women
and children (and POW camps and such). OK? And then imagine the kind of people that would plan,
not just an attack in order to break the moral of the enemy, (it had already long been broken),
but rather as a calculated act of sheer inhuman cruelty, intended to burn alive every single old
man, woman and child until there was nothing left of either the people or the (beautiful, ancient
Baroque architecture and art of the) city. It was a true holocaust, intended as an act
of sadistic vengeance upon harmless people to sate an insatiable need to inflict unimaginable
suffering and cruelty for cruelties' sake. Just like Waco. And for the same reason, - they defied
the power of their 'masters', and for that, they would be made to pay.
Did the Nazis ever do anything like that? Did they ever deliberately burn hundreds of thousands
of civilians alive for no military purpose whatsoever? But just to be as cruel as possible?
I guess that's the word I'm really thinking of there. Cruelty. Because as that quote you
posted showed, the Nazis at their worst were trying to murder people as humanely as possible,
whereas the allies wanted to inflict the most suffering on the most innocent and vulnerable women
and children as possible. They wanted to burn women and children alive who were no threat and
at the virtual end of the war. What kind of people do something like that?
Reading the Old Testament, I get an idea of where they get their demonic hate from.
One on my mantras Incitatus, is that a lot of the raw hate in the world today (and certainly yesterday)
comes from religious ignorance and a cartoon version of the world that says the followers of
this religion are pure good, and the followers of that religion are pure evil. I
sort of wonder what things would be like if we'd finally lay to rest these pernicious and stone
age codified ignorance down, and joined the 21st century as rational actors...
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
His alleged fence-sitting position makes no sense 15 years after the event.
Well, quite a few people I know spent the first dozen or so of those believing that the official
story is broadly true. Propaganda works. You can fool most of the people most of the time, so
giving someone the benefit of the doubt has been my practice.
But if you look at his questions, it's all misdirection. Squid ink strategy.
Yeah, his response to me made that plain, but I really liked the touch that he's apparently friends
with the ephemeral Betty Ong's dead parents! I'm guessing, of course, that he's alluding to the
mysterious Betty-with-zero-life-history-Ong. He may have been referring to the parents of Madeline
Sweeney, who's "phone call" from the same flight so contradicted Ong's that it makes one wonder
if they were on the same flight, or to one of the other (stabbed) attendants.
Uno absurdo dato, infinita sequuntur
One absurdity being given, an infinite number follow.
I'm dismayed to see this sort of stupidity serving to obscure the important theme Mr. Unz is exploring
in his American Pravda series.
"I really liked the touch that he's apparently friends with the ephemeral Betty Ong's dead
parents!"
Nice try. Try Thomas Roger, father of twenty-four year old Jean D. Roger.
"I'm guessing, of course "
You seem to do a lot of that. No answers to simple questions. Just crackpot web-links and looney-tune
CGI plane theories you can't explain. "The Great Revusky" seems equally barren.
Nice try. Try Thomas Roger, father of twenty-four year old Jean D. Roger.
I wasn't trying. You realize, of course, that your comment was utterly meaningless. I could claim
to be the pilot Ogonowski's alter ego but it would mean nothing at all in the context of this
debate. Nothing - at - all. Get it? No? Oh well.
(re: guessing) You seem to do a lot of that.
In the case mentioned, I was mocking the silliness of your question. Do you have another example?
No answers to simple questions.
Guilty as charged. I ignore simpleton level questions. That's for, well, simpletons to exercise
themselves over. Are there any non-simpleton level questions you asked that I missed? If you have
one, I'll be pleased to entertain it.
Just crackpot web-links and looney-tune CGI plane theories you can't explain.
Hmm, you're either hallucinating or suffering some difficulty understanding the written word.
I didn't provide any web-links (crack-pot or otherwise) and I didn't try to "explain" any "CGI
theories".
Perhaps you got confused when I did say that we have "evidence" of but one of the planes, and
said evidence is full of anomalies best explicated by referring to CGI techniques. What "CGI theories"
should I have tried to explain? Are there any that would be useful here?
I've at least skimmed through every comment on this post, and have to lament the huge drop
in quality as the thread progressed.
Well, what to do? There is some amazing stuff here. This Boris shit eater, I asked him to outline
the strongest evidence available for the official story on 9/11. He told me, among a few
other things, that Mohammed Atta had a plane ticket!
Of course he hijacked a plane and flew it into a building at the behest of a bearded religious
fanatic in Afghanistan! HE HAD A PLANE TICKET, DAMMIT!!!!
Of course he hijacked a plane and flew it into a building at the behest of a bearded religious
fanatic in Afghanistan! HE HAD A PLANE TICKET, DAMMIT!!!!
No one made this argument. You're such a delicate genius on 9/11, yet you keep flogging this
straw man. What a coward.
But okay, look, a shit eater like you could, in the appropriate context, understand what
a necessary versus a sufficient condition is.
lol. I mentioned "necessary vs. sufficient," then you read it and somehow thought you came
up with it on your own and it would be a huge win for you. I'd be embarrassed and mad, too. You
are all over the place, man.
LOL. "I'm not a vindictive person but the old bitch does deserve to rot in prison. And I hope
she dies and burns in hell."
But I don't live in a country that twice experienced the catastrophic results of demagogic
incitement. I trust Germans know what they're doing
Ah, I see you've thought about this and realize that imprisoning 87-year-old ladies is absolutely
necessary to prevent the rise of the 4th Reich, eh?
But I wonder about this.... is imprisoning little old ladies like this likely to reduce antisemitism?
Or is it more likely to increase it?
Also, wouldn't you be concerned that imprisoning somebody for saying something, with absolutely
no attempt to rebut what the person is saying, might cause people to think that the person is
being imprisoned for telling the truth?
What do you think? Have you thought about any of this at all?
Well, of course not. You're a shit eater. You never actually think about anything! But
you could start.... it's not illegal... YET!
No comment on the 20,000-25,000 killed in Warsaw Sep 1939? Silence on the 150,000-200,000 killed
in Aug 1944? What a surprise!
Instead, more angry tears for poor Nazi granny Ursula. What a "great" champion of freedom you
are!
I tried to be helpful. She'll probably love knitting (red, white, and black yarn only, please).
And, since Adolf forgot the winter coats – well, you get the idea.
You really should do something about your bad case of potty mouth.
• Replies:
@utu Where did you get this "20,000-25,000 killed in Warsaw"? Polish Wiki states that the
number of dead due to aerial bombardment is impossible to establish because it cannot be separated
from number of dead due to artillery shelling. English Wiki gives the number of 20-25k as total
number of dead of 3 week siege. It also states that 10% of building were destroyed and 40% were
damaged. In Dresden over 90% of city center was destroyed. The bottom line is that Warsaw and
Dresden cannot be compared in effect, in intent and in legal terms. What happened in Warsaw was
legally not a war crime. What happened in Dresden was not the war crime only because Germany lost
the war. As Gen. LeMay said to McNamara "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as
war criminals." The first bombing of cities with intent to kill civilians in WWII was done by
RAF in the end of August 1940 during the Battle of Britain when Churchill ordered attack on Berlin
which eventually lead to Luftwaffe retaliation which diverted their effort from destroying RAF.
This is why that Battle of Britain was won by Brits. ,
@Jonathan Revusky
No comment on the 20,000-25,000 killed in Warsaw Sep 1939?
WTF!!??? Why would I have any comment on that? It has nothing to do with anything we were talking
about! Why would I have a comment about those people as opposed to some other tens of thousands
who were killed in another battle? Anyway, something like 50 million people died in WW2, so you're
suddenly asking me why I don't have a comment specifically on those people?
Instead, more angry tears for poor Nazi granny Ursula. What a "great" champion of freedom you
are!
What are you even trying to argue? That it doesn't matter that Mrs. Haverbeck is unjustly persecuted
because 20,000 Poles died 77 years ago? What does one thing have to do with the other?
Anyway, I've been thinking.... I think we should establish some regular awards for trolls.
For example, "Shit eater of the week". I think Boris has "Shit eater of the week" wrapped up.
I mean this kind of shit, like saying that the fact that Atta had a plane ticket is proof of the
official story (AND HE DID SAY IT!) this probably can't be surpassed. At least not easily.
But you deserve a prize too. I think the prize you can win is "Ziofascist scumbag of the week".
You win this for gloating over the imprisonment of an 87-year-old woman, basically just for having
opinions you don't like.
That, and insinuating that Germany has to imprison 87-year-old grannies to prevent the rise of
the Fourth Reich....
So, yes, you get a prize. You are the Ziofascist scumbag of the week. Congratulations.
By the way, though Boris is this week's shit eater of the week, I think if we make this a regular
event, the Wizard of Oz will just dominate too much. I think he should be hors concours
. we can't have the same guy winning all the time. It gets monotonous.
I think we should just give the Wizard a lifetime achievement award. Just for general shit eating
and scumbaggery and mendacity. Let's face it. The man is great, he's a champion. He deserves the
recognition.
So, congratulations. There's the question of prizes. I'm thinking...
First prize could be the book of your choice by Elie Wiesel.
utu
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 11, 2016 at 2:55 pm GMT • 100 Words
@Incitatus I cherish free speech. But I don't live in a country that twice experienced the
catastrophic results of demagogic incitement. I trust Germans know what they're doing, but I note
your concern. And your angst over suffering. But isn't it a very selective angst?
"...even if you take them at their word, the Holocaust was done as humanely as it's was
humanly possible to kill people. Sort of like the Soylent Green euthanasia scene the violins
were playing as they were handed a towel to take a 'shower', and then the death was as benign
as could be arranged under the circumstances. And that was their worst case scenario of the
gas chambers as I remember them being shown to us as children. Compare that to Dresden, which
is undisputed and was as calculatedly cruel and sadistic as it was possible to imagine. And
then some."
"...and yet it's the Germans who everyone condemns for inhumanity."
Why, like most who mourn Dresden 1944, don't you ever mention Warsaw Sep 1939? The same number
of civilians - 20,000-25,000 - were killed. Or how about Warsaw Aug 1944 (150,000-200,000 civilians
killed)? In fact, you could say Germans pioneered civilian killing (shelling of Paris 1870-71,
bombing London in 1915, the Condor Legion and Guernica 1937, etc). They were very good at it.
You never mention it. Does only German blood count? Or do you simply want to use Dresden to legitimize
Nazi aggression?
I confess I'm also puzzled by your preoccupation for the Lebensborn - most unusual for a Norseman.
btw. You aren't by any chance Anders Behring Brevik blogging away in your prison cell?
If 20,000-25,000 civilians were killed during siege of Warsaw in 1939 then it is easy to believe
that 100,000-125,000 were killed in Dresden in 1945. It suffices to scale up the Warsaw number
by the number of sorties and payload Allies had over Dresden in comparison to what Germany had
over Warsaw in 1939.
• Replies:
@Incitatus "If 20,000-25,000 civilians were killed during siege of Warsaw in 1939 then
it is easy to believe that 100,000-125,000 were killed in Dresden in 1945."
So the death toll in Warsaw '39 is reason to increase Dresden '45 dead by 4-5 times? I think you're
overestimating Allied efficiency and malice.
The Nazis published claims of 200,000 in March '45. At the very same time, city officials estimated
"no more than 25,000, a figure that subsequent investigations supported."
Incitatus
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 11, 2016 at 4:38 pm GMT • 100 Words
@utu If 20,000-25,000 civilians were killed during siege of Warsaw in 1939 then it is easy
to believe that 100,000-125,000 were killed in Dresden in 1945. It suffices to scale up the Warsaw
number by the number of sorties and payload Allies had over Dresden in comparison to what Germany
had over Warsaw in 1939.
"If 20,000-25,000 civilians were killed during siege of Warsaw in 1939 then it is easy to
believe that 100,000-125,000 were killed in Dresden in 1945."
So the death toll in Warsaw '39 is reason to increase Dresden '45 dead by 4-5 times? I think
you're overestimating Allied efficiency and malice.
The Nazis published claims of 200,000 in March '45. At the very same time, city officials estimated
"no more than 25,000, a figure that subsequent investigations supported."
The death of any, Warsaw and Dresden, was tragic. My remarks to Rurik intended to highlight
his neglect of one case and habitual celebration of the other. See also #350.
• Replies:
@utu "So the death toll in Warsaw '39 is reason to increase Dresden '45 dead by 4-5 times?
" - I do not believe that current figures for the number of dead in Dresden. I think that the
initial German estimates (>100,000) are closer to the truth than the current (≈25,000) estimates.
Warsaw and Dresden are two completely different events with different goals, strategy and tactics.
The goals in Dresden was to maximize the death toll of civilians. Part of the tactics was to start
the fire storm. While Germans in Warsaw occasionally targeted civilians but chiefly they targeted
soldiers who were defending the city, so some many civilians were killed as a result collateral
damage (the euphemism invented by allies). I do not think it is possible to overestimate the malice
that guided many actions by allies.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
"I really liked the touch that he's apparently friends with the ephemeral Betty Ong's dead
parents!"
Nice try. Try Thomas Roger, father of twenty-four year old Jean D. Roger.
"I'm guessing, of course..."
You seem to do a lot of that. No answers to simple questions. Just crackpot web-links and looney-tune
CGI plane theories you can't explain. "The Great Revusky" seems equally barren.
Nice try. Try Thomas Roger, father of twenty-four year old Jean D. Roger.
I wasn't trying. You realize, of course, that your comment was utterly meaningless. I could
claim to be the pilot Ogonowski's alter ego but it would mean nothing at all in the context of
this debate. Nothing – at – all. Get it? No? Oh well.
(re: guessing) You seem to do a lot of that.
In the case mentioned, I was mocking the silliness of your question. Do you have another example?
No answers to simple questions.
Guilty as charged. I ignore simpleton level questions. That's for, well, simpletons to exercise
themselves over. Are there any non-simpleton level questions you asked that I missed? If you have
one, I'll be pleased to entertain it.
Just crackpot web-links and looney-tune CGI plane theories you can't explain.
Hmm, you're either hallucinating or suffering some difficulty understanding the written word.
I didn't provide any web-links (crack-pot or otherwise) and I didn't try to "explain" any "CGI
theories".
Perhaps you got confused when I did say that we have "evidence" of but one of the planes, and
said evidence is full of anomalies best explicated by referring to CGI techniques. What "CGI theories"
should I have tried to explain? Are there any that would be useful here?
I think Revusky has you all wrong. You're not a real shit-eater at all. You're either a running
algorithm (however primitive) or pretending to be one. I'm guessing (!) the latter, as real algorithms
are expensive, and effective ones aren't much more expensive than ineffective ones.
In any case, only one plane ever made it to prime time and much of the footage exhibits disturbing
anomalies readily explained by CGI.
In #303
http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-the-cia-invented-conspiracy-theories/#comment-1563891
??
You did. So isn't one supposed to understand from that statement that you favour CGI expalining
what people saw, including those who viewed an impact from street level? ,
@Incitatus
"I wasn't trying."
No truer words were ever uttered. You don't really put much effort into anything, do you? Except,
of course, preening like a chicken in heat.
"You realize, of course, that your comment was utterly meaningless. I could claim to be the
pilot Ogonowski's alter ego but it would mean nothing at all in the context of this debate.
Nothing – at – all. Get it? No? Oh well."
But you claimed (#304) the planes were CGI - and than no genuine planes flew into the towers.
Well (I'm afraid to ask) what happened to the crew and passengers? You said they probably screwed
up the plane image on WTC 7, as well as the demo sequence of WTC 2 & WTC 1. You avoided answering
why WTC 7 was taken down, urging us to "let Google be your friend." Then you couldn't explain
how eyewitnesses saw your 'computer generated image' planes.
"I ignore simpleton level questions."
Why? Because you don't have any answers. QED you're not as intellegent as a simpleton.
"I didn't try to "explain" any "CGI theories"."
Let me refresh your memory (#304):
"- I have a hard time believing any planes were involved at all, so your 2nd question is moot
for me, but if my guess immediately above is right, then there would have been an explosion
cueing the point of impact. Perhaps that failed to go off, leaving any CGI plane simply disappearing
into the building without leaving a trace. That would look rather weird, so they opted to bring
it down in broad daylight hoping few would notice."
An undeniable condition, on any comments section, of any article published here, has
to be the Jonathan Revusky effect : a rapid devolvement into scatology.
Why Jonathan?
Your basic reading skills are suffering as well; as evident in your your awfully retarded,
repetitious replies to Boris.
Has the quality of your special diet declined?
P.S. : [btw Jonathan, thanks for mentioning that my approach is similar to Incitatus'. ]
• Replies:
@Incitatus Prof. Graf Alexander Parsifal von Kleve would, with little doubt, diagnose the
"Great Revusky" as suffering from an acute case of PPP: "The typical case is mild and limited
in duration. In extraordinary instances the condition deepens and persists for years, manifested
in uncontrolled anger, paranoia, infantile illusion and, of course, nearly constant confrontational
obscenity."
Sadly, there are no cures to PPP (Painfully Prolonged Puberty). Like me, you've probably contributed
to sponsored walks raising money for research. Alas, as Revusky demonstrates, it's a long way
away.
Nice try. Try Thomas Roger, father of twenty-four year old Jean D. Roger.
I wasn't trying. You realize, of course, that your comment was utterly meaningless. I could claim
to be the pilot Ogonowski's alter ego but it would mean nothing at all in the context of this
debate. Nothing - at - all. Get it? No? Oh well.
(re: guessing) You seem to do a lot of that.
In the case mentioned, I was mocking the silliness of your question. Do you have another example?
No answers to simple questions.
Guilty as charged. I ignore simpleton level questions. That's for, well, simpletons to exercise
themselves over. Are there any non-simpleton level questions you asked that I missed? If you have
one, I'll be pleased to entertain it.
Just crackpot web-links and looney-tune CGI plane theories you can't explain.
Hmm, you're either hallucinating or suffering some difficulty understanding the written word.
I didn't provide any web-links (crack-pot or otherwise) and I didn't try to "explain" any "CGI
theories".
Perhaps you got confused when I did say that we have "evidence" of but one of the planes, and
said evidence is full of anomalies best explicated by referring to CGI techniques. What "CGI theories"
should I have tried to explain? Are there any that would be useful here?
I think Revusky has you all wrong. You're not a real shit-eater at all. You're either a running
algorithm (however primitive) or pretending to be one. I'm guessing (!) the latter, as real algorithms
are expensive, and effective ones aren't much more expensive than ineffective ones.
Did you not write this?
In any case, only one plane ever made it to prime time and much of the footage exhibits
disturbing anomalies readily explained by CGI.
You did. So isn't one supposed to understand from that statement that you favour CGI expalining
what people saw, including those who viewed an impact from street level?
So isn't one supposed to understand from that statement that you favour CGI expalining what
people saw, including those who viewed an impact from street level?
No, one is supposed to understand what the statement says, and nothing besides. What eyewitnesses
on the street may or may not have seen would not normally be covered by the word "footage".
There appear to be serious problems with the available videos - FRP nose cones emerging intact
on the other side of buildings, wings disappearing behind buildings, bright flashes just prior
to impact marking the impact point, the lack of camera jitter in the plane's flight path. And
so on. These are all readily explained with reference to CGI, but difficult otherwise.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
Perhaps you got confused when I did say that we have "evidence" of but one of the planes,
and said evidence is full of anomalies best explicated by referring to CGI techniques.
The "CGI planes" hypothesis is one of the dumbest ever. Lizard people don't know how to do
CGI! lol at you.
So the death toll in Warsaw '39 is reason to increase Dresden '45 dead by 4-5 times? I think you're
overestimating Allied efficiency and malice.
The Nazis published claims of 200,000 in March '45. At the very same time, city officials estimated
"no more than 25,000, a figure that subsequent investigations supported."
The death of any, Warsaw and Dresden, was tragic. My remarks to Rurik intended to highlight his
neglect of one case and habitual celebration of the other. See also #350.
"So the death toll in Warsaw '39 is reason to increase Dresden '45 dead by 4-5 times? " – I
do not believe that current figures for the number of dead in Dresden. I think that the initial
German estimates (>100,000) are closer to the truth than the current (≈25,000) estimates. Warsaw
and Dresden are two completely different events with different goals, strategy and tactics. The
goals in Dresden was to maximize the death toll of civilians. Part of the tactics was to start
the fire storm. While Germans in Warsaw occasionally targeted civilians but chiefly they targeted
soldiers who were defending the city, so some many civilians were killed as a result collateral
damage (the euphemism invented by allies). I do not think it is possible to overestimate the malice
that guided many actions by allies.
• Replies:
@Incitatus The initial city estimate was no more than 25,000. See Müller, Rolf-Dieter; Schönherr,
Nicole; Widera, Thomas, eds. (2010), Die Zerstörung Dresdens: 13. bis 15. Februar 1945. But believe
what you wish. I'm sure many would say the Warsaw '39 and '44 estimates are also too low.
There may well have been Allied malice on the part of some. But you're remiss in not recognizing
the earlier Nazi cancer. Trust Adolf on the eve of Case White:
"Close your hearts to pity! Act brutally!..Be harsh and remorseless! Be steeled against all
signs of compassion! ...[I want] the physical annihilation of the enemy...I have put my Death's
Head formations at the lead with the command to send man, woman, and child of Polish descent and
language to their deaths, pitilessly and remorselessly." -Adolf Hitler, address to military
commanders 21 Aug 1939
Nice try. Try Thomas Roger, father of twenty-four year old Jean D. Roger.
I wasn't trying. You realize, of course, that your comment was utterly meaningless. I could claim
to be the pilot Ogonowski's alter ego but it would mean nothing at all in the context of this
debate. Nothing - at - all. Get it? No? Oh well.
(re: guessing) You seem to do a lot of that.
In the case mentioned, I was mocking the silliness of your question. Do you have another example?
No answers to simple questions.
Guilty as charged. I ignore simpleton level questions. That's for, well, simpletons to exercise
themselves over. Are there any non-simpleton level questions you asked that I missed? If you have
one, I'll be pleased to entertain it.
Just crackpot web-links and looney-tune CGI plane theories you can't explain.
Hmm, you're either hallucinating or suffering some difficulty understanding the written word.
I didn't provide any web-links (crack-pot or otherwise) and I didn't try to "explain" any "CGI
theories".
Perhaps you got confused when I did say that we have "evidence" of but one of the planes, and
said evidence is full of anomalies best explicated by referring to CGI techniques. What "CGI theories"
should I have tried to explain? Are there any that would be useful here?
I think Revusky has you all wrong. You're not a real shit-eater at all. You're either a running
algorithm (however primitive) or pretending to be one. I'm guessing (!) the latter, as real algorithms
are expensive, and effective ones aren't much more expensive than ineffective ones.
"I wasn't trying."
No truer words were ever uttered. You don't really put much effort into anything, do you? Except,
of course, preening like a chicken in heat.
"You realize, of course, that your comment was utterly meaningless. I could claim to be
the pilot Ogonowski's alter ego but it would mean nothing at all in the context of this debate.
Nothing – at – all. Get it? No? Oh well."
But you claimed (#304) the planes were CGI – and than no genuine planes flew into the towers.
Well (I'm afraid to ask) what happened to the crew and passengers? You said they probably screwed
up the plane image on WTC 7, as well as the demo sequence of WTC 2 & WTC 1. You avoided answering
why WTC 7 was taken down, urging us to "let Google be your friend." Then you couldn't explain
how eyewitnesses saw your 'computer generated image' planes.
"I ignore simpleton level questions."
Why? Because you don't have any answers. QED you're not as intellegent as a simpleton.
"I didn't try to "explain" any "CGI theories"."
Let me refresh your memory (#304):
"- I have a hard time believing any planes were involved at all, so your 2nd question is
moot for me, but if my guess immediately above is right, then there would have been an explosion
cueing the point of impact. Perhaps that failed to go off, leaving any CGI plane simply disappearing
into the building without leaving a trace. That would look rather weird, so they opted to bring
it down in broad daylight hoping few would notice."
You don't really put much effort into anything, do you?
I put my effort in 15-13 years ago. Today, indeed, I am putting less effort in. Much less in fact,
but that's because the case has effectively closed.
Well (I'm afraid to ask) what happened to the crew and passengers?
To be sure, I have no reliable information on this, though one need not overexercise their imagination
to come up with several possibilities - from sipping MaiTais in their villas in the S. Pacific,
to entombed at the bottom of the N. Atlantic, and everything in between.
But you claimed (#304) the planes were CGI – and than no genuine planes flew into the towers.
You seem to have the same reading comprehension problems as Sharma. (See my comment to him above)
Put another way, explaining a theory is not the same as using a theory to explain
what you see.
Instead, more angry tears for poor Nazi granny Ursula. What a "great" champion of freedom you
are!
I tried to be helpful. She'll probably love knitting (red, white, and black yarn only, please).
And, since Adolf forgot the winter coats - well, you get the idea.
You really should do something about your bad case of potty mouth.
Where did you get this "20,000-25,000 killed in Warsaw"? Polish Wiki states that the number
of dead due to aerial bombardment is impossible to establish because it cannot be separated from
number of dead due to artillery shelling. English Wiki gives the number of 20-25k as total number
of dead of 3 week siege. It also states that 10% of building were destroyed and 40% were damaged.
In Dresden over 90% of city center was destroyed. The bottom line is that Warsaw and Dresden cannot
be compared in effect, in intent and in legal terms. What happened in Warsaw was legally not a
war crime. What happened in Dresden was not the war crime only because Germany lost the war. As
Gen. LeMay said to McNamara "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals."
The first bombing of cities with intent to kill civilians in WWII was done by RAF in the end of
August 1940 during the Battle of Britain when Churchill ordered attack on Berlin which eventually
lead to Luftwaffe retaliation which diverted their effort from destroying RAF. This is why that
Battle of Britain was won by Brits.
"Polish Wiki states that the number of dead due to aerial bombardment is impossible to establish
because it cannot be separated from number of dead due to artillery shelling."
See #365. Your concern is that a some died from shelling rather than aerial bombing? Was their
death somehow more pleasant? Refer to my quote in #350: "560 tons of high explosive bombs and
72 tons of incendiary bombs, in coordination with heavy artillery shelling by Army units." Let
the "in coordination with heavy artillery shelling by Army units" percolate in your mind.
"In Dresden over 90% of city center was destroyed."
How about Warsaw '44? Nazis leveled 85% of the entire city (not just the center) and killed another
150,000-200,000 civilians. Maybe more, if I permit myself the same wishful thinking to which you
seem addicted. Forget about them? Oh, that's right. Probably most were humane "collateral damage"
from ground launched fire and thus unworthy of comparison.
No doubt victorious Nazis would have put LeMay & company in the dock. And a great many more. Roland
Freisler was very good at executions (21 year old student Sophie Scholl comes to mind - she was
guillotined). Pity poor Roly was killed by - you guessed it - a nasty Allied bomb 3 Feb 1945.
Life's a bitch.
Incitatus
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 11, 2016 at 6:35 pm GMT • 200 Words
@utu "So the death toll in Warsaw '39 is reason to increase Dresden '45 dead by 4-5 times?
" - I do not believe that current figures for the number of dead in Dresden. I think that the
initial German estimates (>100,000) are closer to the truth than the current (≈25,000) estimates.
Warsaw and Dresden are two completely different events with different goals, strategy and tactics.
The goals in Dresden was to maximize the death toll of civilians. Part of the tactics was to start
the fire storm. While Germans in Warsaw occasionally targeted civilians but chiefly they targeted
soldiers who were defending the city, so some many civilians were killed as a result collateral
damage (the euphemism invented by allies). I do not think it is possible to overestimate the malice
that guided many actions by allies.
The initial city estimate was no more than 25,000. See Müller, Rolf-Dieter; Schönherr, Nicole;
Widera, Thomas, eds. (2010), Die Zerstörung Dresdens: 13. bis 15. Februar 1945. But believe what
you wish. I'm sure many would say the Warsaw '39 and '44 estimates are also too low.
There may well have been Allied malice on the part of some. But you're remiss in not recognizing
the earlier Nazi cancer. Trust Adolf on the eve of Case White:
"Close your hearts to pity! Act brutally!..Be harsh and remorseless! Be steeled against
all signs of compassion! [I want] the physical annihilation of the enemy I have put my Death's
Head formations at the lead with the command to send man, woman, and child of Polish descent and
language to their deaths, pitilessly and remorselessly." -Adolf Hitler, address to military
commanders 21 Aug 1939
I don't he cared about 'collateral damage." In fact, he seems to want it. Find a similar quote
from an allied leader of similar rank and you may have a case.
Instead, more angry tears for poor Nazi granny Ursula. What a "great" champion of freedom you
are!
I tried to be helpful. She'll probably love knitting (red, white, and black yarn only, please).
And, since Adolf forgot the winter coats - well, you get the idea.
You really should do something about your bad case of potty mouth.
No comment on the 20,000-25,000 killed in Warsaw Sep 1939?
WTF!!??? Why would I have any comment on that? It has nothing to do with anything we were talking
about! Why would I have a comment about those people as opposed to some other tens of thousands
who were killed in another battle? Anyway, something like 50 million people died in WW2, so you're
suddenly asking me why I don't have a comment specifically on those people?
Instead, more angry tears for poor Nazi granny Ursula. What a "great" champion of freedom
you are!
What are you even trying to argue? That it doesn't matter that Mrs. Haverbeck is unjustly persecuted
because 20,000 Poles died 77 years ago? What does one thing have to do with the other?
Anyway, I've been thinking . I think we should establish some regular awards for trolls.
For example, "Shit eater of the week". I think Boris has "Shit eater of the week" wrapped up.
I mean this kind of shit, like saying that the fact that Atta had a plane ticket is proof of the
official story (AND HE DID SAY IT!) this probably can't be surpassed. At least not easily.
But you deserve a prize too. I think the prize you can win is "Ziofascist scumbag of the week".
You win this for gloating over the imprisonment of an 87-year-old woman, basically just for having
opinions you don't like.
That, and insinuating that Germany has to imprison 87-year-old grannies to prevent the rise
of the Fourth Reich .
So, yes, you get a prize. You are the Ziofascist scumbag of the week. Congratulations.
By the way, though Boris is this week's shit eater of the week, I think if we make this a regular
event, the Wizard of Oz will just dominate too much. I think he should be hors concours
. we can't have the same guy winning all the time. It gets monotonous.
I think we should just give the Wizard a lifetime achievement award. Just for general shit
eating and scumbaggery and mendacity. Let's face it. The man is great, he's a champion. He deserves
the recognition.
So, congratulations. There's the question of prizes. I'm thinking
First prize could be the book of your choice by Elie Wiesel.
Second prize will be two books by Elie Wiesel.
Third prize is the complete works of Elie Wiesel.
Thank you and good night.
• Replies:
@Incitatus Again, tears for Ursula stream uncontrollably down my face. What injustice! What
perfidy! That an old hate monger is called to account for breaking laws she clearly knew and willingly
violated - well , it's unthinkable!
I'm crushed at the thought that you see me complicit as the "Ziofascist scumbag of the week."
But I'm equally humbled by your favor. If I must wear the badge you've awarded me, dare I ask
who you've targeted for next weeks prize? Please be sure they measure up (you've made me feel
responsible for a tradition).
PS. To make sure of a wise choice maybe you can rent a motel room and invite servile flatterer
Erebus, nordic üntermensch Rurik, and reptilian L.K to join you in judging candidates. Arrange
your chairs in a circle. No doubt you know the rest of the drill (don't forget your Vaseline).
,
@Sam Shama Just a reminder: morning dosage on an empty stomach, prior to personal recycling.
Well, quite a few people I know spent the first dozen or so of those believing that the official
story is broadly true. Propaganda works. You can fool most of the people most of the time,
so giving someone the benefit of the doubt has been my practice.
Yes, that's a good point. It actually took me about a decade to get to the point of just saying
openly that the official 9/11 story was total crap.
So you make a correct point. A correct general point. But in this specific case, I think there
were warning signs from the get-go that this "Incitatus" is not some honest person seeking the
truth. These guys show up and it's like they've got their schtick. They start saying they are
open-minded and seeking the truth but then it becomes apparent that they have a list of talking
points that they are trying to put out there just to confuse the matter.
There is a great piece by the Saker today. I suppose you've likely read it.
Yeah, his response to me made that plain, but I really liked the touch that he's apparently
friends with the ephemeral Betty Ong's dead parents! I'm guessing, of course, that he's alluding
to the mysterious Betty-with-zero-life-history-Ong. He may have been referring to the parents
of Madeline Sweeney,
It's actually more likely that he's acquainted with the person who invented all these characters!
Betty-with-zero-life-history-Ong
It's actually more likely that he's acquainted with the person who invented all these characters!
It's odious how the victims become "invented characters" to fools like you based on zero evidence.
Here are some pictures of the dead woman whose memory you tarnish:
saying that the fact that Atta had a plane ticket is proof of the official story (AND
HE DID SAY IT!)
Then you should have no problem producing the quote.
Dude, in comment #267 above, after my asking you what the strongest evidence available for
the official story, you said (among a couple of other things that are of zero evidentiary value)
"His purchase of the tickets".
You were clearly offering that as evidence. It somehow escaped your notice that everybody else
on the flight had presumably purchased tickets as well! LOL.
But I don't get it. Don't you want your "shit eater of the week" prize? Oh, I forgot to tell
you. This week's prize for shit eater of the week is a 2017 Golda Meir nude pictorial calendar!
That's destined to be a prized collector's item.
Surely you wouldn't want to miss out on that, would you?
'It's been a bottomless pit': Airport worker who checked in Pentagon 9/11 hijackers despite the
fact they were running late reveals his 15 years of guilt and how he became a pariah among colleagues
after my asking you what the strongest evidence available for the official story
As I've already shown, you asked me "what records?" The ticket is among the records that support
the official story. It is sad that you keep lying about this. We both agree--and have from the
beginning--that the ticket is necessary, but not sufficient. You keep pretending otherwise for
some reason. Your behavior is downright weird.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter Display
All Comments
Your basic reading skills are suffering as well; as evident in your your awfully retarded, repetitious
replies to Boris.
Has the quality of your special diet declined?
P.S. : [btw Jonathan, thanks for mentioning that my approach is similar to Incitatus'. ]
Prof. Graf Alexander Parsifal von Kleve would, with little doubt, diagnose the "Great Revusky"
as suffering from an acute case of PPP: "The typical case is mild and limited in duration.
In extraordinary instances the condition deepens and persists for years, manifested in uncontrolled
anger, paranoia, infantile illusion and, of course, nearly constant confrontational obscenity."
Sadly, there are no cures to PPP (Painfully Prolonged Puberty). Like me, you've probably contributed
to sponsored walks raising money for research. Alas, as Revusky demonstrates, it's a long way
away.
Incitatus
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 11, 2016 at 10:19 pm GMT • 200 Words
@utu Where did you get this "20,000-25,000 killed in Warsaw"? Polish Wiki states that the
number of dead due to aerial bombardment is impossible to establish because it cannot be separated
from number of dead due to artillery shelling. English Wiki gives the number of 20-25k as total
number of dead of 3 week siege. It also states that 10% of building were destroyed and 40% were
damaged. In Dresden over 90% of city center was destroyed. The bottom line is that Warsaw and
Dresden cannot be compared in effect, in intent and in legal terms. What happened in Warsaw was
legally not a war crime. What happened in Dresden was not the war crime only because Germany lost
the war. As Gen. LeMay said to McNamara "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as
war criminals." The first bombing of cities with intent to kill civilians in WWII was done by
RAF in the end of August 1940 during the Battle of Britain when Churchill ordered attack on Berlin
which eventually lead to Luftwaffe retaliation which diverted their effort from destroying RAF.
This is why that Battle of Britain was won by Brits.
"Polish Wiki states that the number of dead due to aerial bombardment is impossible to establish
because it cannot be separated from number of dead due to artillery shelling."
See #365. Your concern is that a some died from shelling rather than aerial bombing? Was their
death somehow more pleasant? Refer to my quote in #350: "560 tons of high explosive bombs and
72 tons of incendiary bombs, in coordination with heavy artillery shelling by Army units." Let
the "in coordination with heavy artillery shelling by Army units" percolate in your mind.
"In Dresden over 90% of city center was destroyed."
How about Warsaw '44? Nazis leveled 85% of the entire city (not just the center) and killed
another 150,000-200,000 civilians. Maybe more, if I permit myself the same wishful thinking to
which you seem addicted. Forget about them? Oh, that's right. Probably most were humane "collateral
damage" from ground launched fire and thus unworthy of comparison.
No doubt victorious Nazis would have put LeMay & company in the dock. And a great many more.
Roland Freisler was very good at executions (21 year old student Sophie Scholl comes to mind –
she was guillotined). Pity poor Roly was killed by – you guessed it – a nasty Allied bomb 3 Feb
1945. Life's a bitch.
I have tragic news for you. The Nazis lost.
• Replies:
@Sam Shama Hi Incitatus,
At about 40% still on Shirer; something that struck me was the methodical and unemotional manner
in which Hitler and Goering went about purging their own ranks in the SA, when they became a hindrance
in their path to winning the Wehrmacht's support. At least Rohm, perverted though he was, had
the courage to defy his executioners to the very end. ,
@utu "How about Warsaw '44? Nazis leveled 85% of the entire city (not just the center) and
killed another 150,000-200,000 civilians." - It was the other way around. People were killed during
2 months of uprising. In the early stage of uprising there were many people in some quarters (like
Wola) of Warsaw massacred. But the majority of destruction of the real estate was done by looting
and demolition teams after the whole population of Warsaw was evacuated in the beginning of October
1944. The fighting and aerial and artillery bombardment are responsible for about half of that
85% number. Certainly treatment given to Warsaw, an abandoned city was a sure sign of Hitler's
madness in the finals stages of the III Reich.
It is claimed that 50,000 people of Wola were executed in the first days (August 1944) of uprising
by Russian Kaminski's SS brigade and Dirlewanger SS brigade consisting of criminals (dirty many
dozens in Americanese). There were also executions in the course of fighting but not on the mass
scale of Wola massacre. Majority of deaths were collateral damage in Americanese.
The example of Warsaw (both 1939 and 1944) can be a very strong argument for much higher casualty
rate in Dresden. The current number of 25,000 arrived by collusion of British and German historians
is too low probably by factor of five. The history of history never ends. Perhaps after Brexit
German historians will not have to be so accommodating to their British counterparts who would
really like to reduce the casualty rate in Dresden to that of Coventry.
No comment on the 20,000-25,000 killed in Warsaw Sep 1939?
WTF!!??? Why would I have any comment on that? It has nothing to do with anything we were talking
about! Why would I have a comment about those people as opposed to some other tens of thousands
who were killed in another battle? Anyway, something like 50 million people died in WW2, so you're
suddenly asking me why I don't have a comment specifically on those people?
Instead, more angry tears for poor Nazi granny Ursula. What a "great" champion of freedom you
are!
What are you even trying to argue? That it doesn't matter that Mrs. Haverbeck is unjustly persecuted
because 20,000 Poles died 77 years ago? What does one thing have to do with the other?
Anyway, I've been thinking.... I think we should establish some regular awards for trolls.
For example, "Shit eater of the week". I think Boris has "Shit eater of the week" wrapped up.
I mean this kind of shit, like saying that the fact that Atta had a plane ticket is proof of the
official story (AND HE DID SAY IT!) this probably can't be surpassed. At least not easily.
But you deserve a prize too. I think the prize you can win is "Ziofascist scumbag of the week".
You win this for gloating over the imprisonment of an 87-year-old woman, basically just for having
opinions you don't like.
That, and insinuating that Germany has to imprison 87-year-old grannies to prevent the rise of
the Fourth Reich....
So, yes, you get a prize. You are the Ziofascist scumbag of the week. Congratulations.
By the way, though Boris is this week's shit eater of the week, I think if we make this a regular
event, the Wizard of Oz will just dominate too much. I think he should be hors concours
. we can't have the same guy winning all the time. It gets monotonous.
I think we should just give the Wizard a lifetime achievement award. Just for general shit eating
and scumbaggery and mendacity. Let's face it. The man is great, he's a champion. He deserves the
recognition.
So, congratulations. There's the question of prizes. I'm thinking...
First prize could be the book of your choice by Elie Wiesel.
Second prize will be two books by Elie Wiesel.
Third prize is the complete works of Elie Wiesel.
Thank you and good night.
Again, tears for Ursula stream uncontrollably down my face. What injustice! What perfidy! That
an old hate monger is called to account for breaking laws she clearly knew and willingly violated
– well , it's unthinkable!
I'm crushed at the thought that you see me complicit as the "Ziofascist scumbag of the week."
But I'm equally humbled by your favor. If I must wear the badge you've awarded me, dare I ask
who you've targeted for next weeks prize? Please be sure they measure up (you've made me feel
responsible for a tradition).
PS. To make sure of a wise choice maybe you can rent a motel room and invite servile flatterer
Erebus, nordic üntermensch Rurik, and reptilian L.K to join you in judging candidates. Arrange
your chairs in a circle. No doubt you know the rest of the drill (don't forget your Vaseline).
Again, tears for Ursula stream uncontrollably down my face. What injustice! What perfidy! That
an old hate monger is called to account for breaking laws she clearly knew and willingly violated
– well , it's unthinkable!
Uhh, look, shit eater, here's the situation. You're a shit eater. You're surely in competition
for this week's shit eater of the week. You could dislodge Boris, who is the current reigning
shit eater of the week.
What this means, the fact that you're a shit eater, is that you NEVER think for yourself. Whatever
they tell you on the TV is the truth. That's what it means to be a shit eater. Like if you read
the Orwell novel 1984, you have the 2 minutes hate. They show a picture of the person you're supposed
to hate and all the brainwashed shit eaters scream how much they hate the person.
Like many other things in 1984, this was quite prescient. They tell you that you are supposed
to hate somebody, like Gaddafi or Saddam, or whoever, or now it's Vladimir Putin... and all the
shit eaters like you will scream how much you hate the person. Am I wrong? You are not the first
A-1-A shit eater I have interacted with. I understand the shit eater mentality.
So they show you a picture of some old lady that you are supposed to hate and so you dutifuly
hate her. And you gloat that she was sentenced to prison. Note the projection here. You say Ursula
Haverbeck is a hate monger, but of course, you are the hater. They tell you who you're supposed
to hate and you hate that person.
Because you're a shit eater. A Ziofascist shit eater, of the same sort who would gloat that
Rachel Corrie was killed for trying to helping a Palestinian family.
The other aspect of this is that, as a shit eater, you don't really value freedom of speech
at all, because you never had an idea in your head that runs counter to the established power
structure paradigm. So when you are told that somebody is a criminal for saying something that
the current power structure doesn't like, that doesn't bother you, since you never had a dissenting
idea in your head. And probably never will have one.
I mean, as a champion shit eater, you've never actually thought for yourself about anything.
You've never expressed an original or dissenting idea in your entire life. Never. If they tell
you that two planes took down three steel framed buildings, you believe it and get angry if somebody
says that is impossible.
The third aspect of this is that you are not just a shit eater. You are a Ziofascist shit eater.
So you feel this great identification with this Zionist power structure and you gloat over their
ability to imprison this old lady. You guys are drunk on your power. Of course, you yourself have
no particular power, but you have this vicarious identification with that power structure. This
is the fascist mentality. You worship a power structure because it makes you, a total worthless
nobody, feel like you're sombody.
Now, on one point, you are correct, Ursula Haverbeck is not herself that big a deal in the
overall scheme of things. I mean, the Ziofascist power structure that you adore and feel identification
with, it has caused the destruction of entire countries, like Iraq or Afghanistan, and so on.
Hundreds of thousands of deaths with millions of lives destroyed. So one little old lady in a
jail cell unjustly isn't that big a deal compared to that.
It's that she's a symbol nonetheless.
The problem that people like you have, I mean the typical Ziofascist scumbag shit eater, is
that you don't really understand that other people are not as vicious and vindictive as you are,
so you guys make these psychopathic wisecracks about this or about Rachel Corrie and you don't
quite understand how much disgust you elicit in decent, ordinary people. You just don't comprehend
it.
Why . . . don't you ever mention Warsaw Sep 1939? The same number of civilians – 20,000-25,000
– were killed. Or how about Warsaw Aug 1944 (150,000-200,000 civilians killed)?
"Polish Wiki states that the number of dead due to aerial bombardment is impossible to establish
because it cannot be separated from number of dead due to artillery shelling."
See #365. Your concern is that a some died from shelling rather than aerial bombing? Was their
death somehow more pleasant? Refer to my quote in #350: "560 tons of high explosive bombs and
72 tons of incendiary bombs, in coordination with heavy artillery shelling by Army units." Let
the "in coordination with heavy artillery shelling by Army units" percolate in your mind.
"In Dresden over 90% of city center was destroyed."
How about Warsaw '44? Nazis leveled 85% of the entire city (not just the center) and killed another
150,000-200,000 civilians. Maybe more, if I permit myself the same wishful thinking to which you
seem addicted. Forget about them? Oh, that's right. Probably most were humane "collateral damage"
from ground launched fire and thus unworthy of comparison.
No doubt victorious Nazis would have put LeMay & company in the dock. And a great many more. Roland
Freisler was very good at executions (21 year old student Sophie Scholl comes to mind - she was
guillotined). Pity poor Roly was killed by - you guessed it - a nasty Allied bomb 3 Feb 1945.
Life's a bitch.
I have tragic news for you. The Nazis lost.
Hi Incitatus,
At about 40% still on Shirer; something that struck me was the methodical and unemotional manner
in which Hitler and Goering went about purging their own ranks in the SA, when they became a hindrance
in their path to winning the Wehrmacht's support. At least Rohm, perverted though he was, had
the courage to defy his executioners to the very end.
No comment on the 20,000-25,000 killed in Warsaw Sep 1939?
WTF!!??? Why would I have any comment on that? It has nothing to do with anything we were talking
about! Why would I have a comment about those people as opposed to some other tens of thousands
who were killed in another battle? Anyway, something like 50 million people died in WW2, so you're
suddenly asking me why I don't have a comment specifically on those people?
Instead, more angry tears for poor Nazi granny Ursula. What a "great" champion of freedom you
are!
What are you even trying to argue? That it doesn't matter that Mrs. Haverbeck is unjustly persecuted
because 20,000 Poles died 77 years ago? What does one thing have to do with the other?
Anyway, I've been thinking.... I think we should establish some regular awards for trolls.
For example, "Shit eater of the week". I think Boris has "Shit eater of the week" wrapped up.
I mean this kind of shit, like saying that the fact that Atta had a plane ticket is proof of the
official story (AND HE DID SAY IT!) this probably can't be surpassed. At least not easily.
But you deserve a prize too. I think the prize you can win is "Ziofascist scumbag of the week".
You win this for gloating over the imprisonment of an 87-year-old woman, basically just for having
opinions you don't like.
That, and insinuating that Germany has to imprison 87-year-old grannies to prevent the rise of
the Fourth Reich....
So, yes, you get a prize. You are the Ziofascist scumbag of the week. Congratulations.
By the way, though Boris is this week's shit eater of the week, I think if we make this a regular
event, the Wizard of Oz will just dominate too much. I think he should be hors concours
. we can't have the same guy winning all the time. It gets monotonous.
I think we should just give the Wizard a lifetime achievement award. Just for general shit eating
and scumbaggery and mendacity. Let's face it. The man is great, he's a champion. He deserves the
recognition.
So, congratulations. There's the question of prizes. I'm thinking...
First prize could be the book of your choice by Elie Wiesel.
Second prize will be two books by Elie Wiesel.
Third prize is the complete works of Elie Wiesel.
Thank you and good night.
Just a reminder: morning dosage on an empty stomach, prior to personal recycling.
"Polish Wiki states that the number of dead due to aerial bombardment is impossible to establish
because it cannot be separated from number of dead due to artillery shelling."
See #365. Your concern is that a some died from shelling rather than aerial bombing? Was their
death somehow more pleasant? Refer to my quote in #350: "560 tons of high explosive bombs and
72 tons of incendiary bombs, in coordination with heavy artillery shelling by Army units." Let
the "in coordination with heavy artillery shelling by Army units" percolate in your mind.
"In Dresden over 90% of city center was destroyed."
How about Warsaw '44? Nazis leveled 85% of the entire city (not just the center) and killed another
150,000-200,000 civilians. Maybe more, if I permit myself the same wishful thinking to which you
seem addicted. Forget about them? Oh, that's right. Probably most were humane "collateral damage"
from ground launched fire and thus unworthy of comparison.
No doubt victorious Nazis would have put LeMay & company in the dock. And a great many more. Roland
Freisler was very good at executions (21 year old student Sophie Scholl comes to mind - she was
guillotined). Pity poor Roly was killed by - you guessed it - a nasty Allied bomb 3 Feb 1945.
Life's a bitch.
I have tragic news for you. The Nazis lost.
"How about Warsaw '44? Nazis leveled 85% of the entire city (not just the center) and killed
another 150,000-200,000 civilians." – It was the other way around. People were killed during 2
months of uprising. In the early stage of uprising there were many people in some quarters (like
Wola) of Warsaw massacred. But the majority of destruction of the real estate was done by looting
and demolition teams after the whole population of Warsaw was evacuated in the beginning of October
1944. The fighting and aerial and artillery bombardment are responsible for about half of that
85% number. Certainly treatment given to Warsaw, an abandoned city was a sure sign of Hitler's
madness in the finals stages of the III Reich.
It is claimed that 50,000 people of Wola were executed in the first days (August 1944) of uprising
by Russian Kaminski's SS brigade and Dirlewanger SS brigade consisting of criminals (dirty many
dozens in Americanese). There were also executions in the course of fighting but not on the mass
scale of Wola massacre. Majority of deaths were collateral damage in Americanese.
The example of Warsaw (both 1939 and 1944) can be a very strong argument for much higher casualty
rate in Dresden. The current number of 25,000 arrived by collusion of British and German historians
is too low probably by factor of five. The history of history never ends. Perhaps after Brexit
German historians will not have to be so accommodating to their British counterparts who would
really like to reduce the casualty rate in Dresden to that of Coventry.
It was RAF that started bombing cities with civilians being their primary targets (August 1940).
Not w/o reason V in V-1 and V-2 stands for retaliation/reprisal.
You may be aware that Daniel Pipes made a study of conspiracy theories and has written books
on the subject - which I haven't read. I have however sampled his long list of articles which
can be found here:
A bit like reviewing or recommending a movie, that you haven't watched.
I must admit though that you have a decided flair for the consistently proud display of your
ignorance.
• Replies:
@Wizard of Oz Not at all. It is much more like telling someone who is about to start research
on his doctoral thesis or is already under way on what he regards as a promising reading list
"here is another body of research and writing on the subject that you may not have considered"
(and Daniel Pipes is not a scholar that RU would be likely to have near the top of his go to list).
Moreover, if you read what I wrote before emitting you would have understood that I was saying
that, whereas I couldn't assess the merits of the books, to which I merely drew attention, I had
read some of his work in article form.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
saying that the fact that Atta had a plane ticket is proof of the official story (AND HE
DID SAY IT!)
Then you should have no problem producing the quote.
Dude, in comment #267 above, after my asking you what the strongest evidence available for the
official story, you said (among a couple of other things that are of zero evidentiary value) "His
purchase of the tickets".
You were clearly offering that as evidence. It somehow escaped your notice that everybody else
on the flight had presumably purchased tickets as well! LOL.
But I don't get it. Don't you want your "shit eater of the week" prize? Oh, I forgot to tell
you. This week's prize for shit eater of the week is a 2017 Golda Meir nude pictorial calendar!
That's destined to be a prized collector's item.
Surely you wouldn't want to miss out on that, would you?
JR, what do you think of this:
'It's been a bottomless pit': Airport worker who checked in Pentagon 9/11 hijackers despite
the fact they were running late reveals his 15 years of guilt and how he became a pariah among
colleagues
They plant these stories to convince us that these hijacked flights actually took place. Certainly
the plane that was hijacked and flew into the Pentagon is simply a phantom flight that never took
place.
Actually, I vaguely remembered another story in the same vein, where a check-in counter guy was
wracked with guilt over having checked in Mohammed Atta (who, thanks to Boris, we know for sure
hijacked a plane because he had a plane ticket).
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/11/245388/-
This guy, Michael Tuohey, was on Oprah apparently all teary eyed, saying that he sees Mohammed
Atta's face peering at him everywhere, he's haunted by it. And also that his female colleague
had already committed suicide (!) she was so wracked with guilt about having checked in Mohammed
Atta on the flight.
The story makes no damned sense, does it? In the one you cite, the guy was "ostracized" by co-workers
because he checked these guys in. WTF? What was he supposed to do? They had tickets, didn't they?
"Oh, you Ay-rabs look just like the B movie villains in yesterday's late night movie on TV, so
I'm not letting you on the flight you paid money to travel on...."
He was supposed to know that these guys were going to fly a plane into the Pentagon, a totally
unprecedented event, and therefore, his coworkers subsequently ostracize him.
These are just synthetic narratives planted to make you think all this really happened. I should
try to fish up the Michael Tuohey thing on Oprah to see if the guy is an obvious crisis actor.
Another one they do is that there are all these celebrities who claim that they were booked on
the flight but somehow missed the flight. Or some story like that. The whole idea is, again, just
to convince the public that the flights actually occurred.
In any case, only one plane ever made it to prime time and much of the footage exhibits disturbing
anomalies readily explained by CGI.
In #303
http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-how-the-cia-invented-conspiracy-theories/#comment-1563891
??
You did. So isn't one supposed to understand from that statement that you favour CGI expalining
what people saw, including those who viewed an impact from street level?
So isn't one supposed to understand from that statement that you favour CGI expalining what
people saw, including those who viewed an impact from street level?
No, one is supposed to understand what the statement says, and nothing besides. What eyewitnesses
on the street may or may not have seen would not normally be covered by the word "footage".
There appear to be serious problems with the available videos – FRP nose cones emerging intact
on the other side of buildings, wings disappearing behind buildings, bright flashes just prior
to impact marking the impact point, the lack of camera jitter in the plane's flight path. And
so on. These are all readily explained with reference to CGI, but difficult otherwise.
The biggest hoax evererpetrated is the gradual evolution of the alleged threat from Islam .
Its a multilayered multi focal interconnected open production of a vast conspiracy – achieved
without any shred of evidence or even plausible reason for the existence of any such threat .
This is a quote from an article published in 1992 and quotes 90 sources .
" In addition, think tanks studies and op-ed pieces add momentum to the official spin. Their
publication is followed by congressional hearings, policy conferences, and public press briefings.
A governmental policy debate ensues, producing studies, working papers, and eventually doctrines
and policies that become part of the media's spin. The new villain is now ready to be integrated
into the popular culture to help to mobilize public support for a new crusade. In the case of
the Green Peril, that process has been under way for several months.(13)
THE GREEN PERIL
Creating the Islamic Fundamentalist Threat
Leon T Hadar ,a former bureau chief for Jerusalem Post.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-177.html
"
WaPo, NYT, WSJ, Washington Times, ABC news and Economist all gathered the Islamic expert out of
the same offices that used to house the Soviet expert ,painted them green removed the red markings
and asked them to follow the direction . ( Well I made this up But that's exactly what happened
.)
• Replies:
@utu "The biggest hoax ever perpetrated is the gradual evolution of the alleged threat from
Islam." - Excellent point. Recently I watched few videos with Jeff Gates in which he mention influences
on Samuel Huntington and mechanism how his articles and book became bestsellers. BTW, where is
Jeff Gates?
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter Display
All Comments
No truer words were ever uttered. You don't really put much effort into anything, do you? Except,
of course, preening like a chicken in heat.
"You realize, of course, that your comment was utterly meaningless. I could claim to be the
pilot Ogonowski's alter ego but it would mean nothing at all in the context of this debate.
Nothing – at – all. Get it? No? Oh well."
But you claimed (#304) the planes were CGI - and than no genuine planes flew into the towers.
Well (I'm afraid to ask) what happened to the crew and passengers? You said they probably screwed
up the plane image on WTC 7, as well as the demo sequence of WTC 2 & WTC 1. You avoided answering
why WTC 7 was taken down, urging us to "let Google be your friend." Then you couldn't explain
how eyewitnesses saw your 'computer generated image' planes.
"I ignore simpleton level questions."
Why? Because you don't have any answers. QED you're not as intellegent as a simpleton.
"I didn't try to "explain" any "CGI theories"."
Let me refresh your memory (#304):
"- I have a hard time believing any planes were involved at all, so your 2nd question is moot
for me, but if my guess immediately above is right, then there would have been an explosion
cueing the point of impact. Perhaps that failed to go off, leaving any CGI plane simply disappearing
into the building without leaving a trace. That would look rather weird, so they opted to bring
it down in broad daylight hoping few would notice."
Not trying is one thing. Lying is quite another.
You don't really put much effort into anything, do you?
I put my effort in 15-13 years ago. Today, indeed, I am putting less effort in. Much less in
fact, but that's because the case has effectively closed.
Well (I'm afraid to ask) what happened to the crew and passengers?
To be sure, I have no reliable information on this, though one need not overexercise their
imagination to come up with several possibilities – from sipping MaiTais in their villas in the
S. Pacific, to entombed at the bottom of the N. Atlantic, and everything in between.
But you claimed (#304) the planes were CGI – and than no genuine planes flew into the towers.
You seem to have the same reading comprehension problems as Sharma. (See my comment to him
above)
Put another way, explaining a theory is not the same as using a theory to explain
what you see.
Anyhow, obviously you have no material points to make. You're using, word for word, the same
arguments I've been hearing for 15 yrs.
utu
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 12, 2016 at 4:22 am GMT
@KA The biggest hoax evererpetrated is the gradual evolution of the alleged threat from Islam
. Its a multilayered multi focal interconnected open production of a vast conspiracy - achieved
without any shred of evidence or even plausible reason for the existence of any such threat .
This is a quote from an article published in 1992 and quotes 90 sources .
" In addition, think tanks studies and op-ed pieces add momentum to the official spin. Their publication
is followed by congressional hearings, policy conferences, and public press briefings. A governmental
policy debate ensues, producing studies, working papers, and eventually doctrines and policies
that become part of the media's spin. The new villain is now ready to be integrated into the popular
culture to help to mobilize public support for a new crusade. In the case of the Green Peril,
that process has been under way for several months.(13)
THE GREEN PERIL
Creating the Islamic Fundamentalist Threat
Leon T Hadar ,a former bureau chief for Jerusalem Post.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-177.html
"
WaPo, NYT, WSJ, Washington Times, ABC news and Economist all gathered the Islamic expert out of
the same offices that used to house the Soviet expert ,painted them green removed the red markings
and asked them to follow the direction . ( Well I made this up But that's exactly what happened
.)
"The biggest hoax ever perpetrated is the gradual evolution of the alleged threat from Islam."
– Excellent point. Recently I watched few videos with Jeff Gates in which he mention influences
on Samuel Huntington and mechanism how his articles and book became bestsellers. BTW, where is
Jeff Gates?
I must admit though that you have a decided flair for the consistently proud display of your ignorance.
Not at all. It is much more like telling someone who is about to start research on his doctoral
thesis or is already under way on what he regards as a promising reading list "here is another
body of research and writing on the subject that you may not have considered" (and Daniel Pipes
is not a scholar that RU would be likely to have near the top of his go to list). Moreover, if
you read what I wrote before emitting you would have understood that I was saying that, whereas
I couldn't assess the merits of the books, to which I merely drew attention, I had read some of
his work in article form.
'It's been a bottomless pit': Airport worker who checked in Pentagon 9/11 hijackers despite the
fact they were running late reveals his 15 years of guilt and how he became a pariah among colleagues
They plant these stories to convince us that these hijacked flights actually took place. Certainly
the plane that was hijacked and flew into the Pentagon is simply a phantom flight that never took
place.
Actually, I vaguely remembered another story in the same vein, where a check-in counter guy
was wracked with guilt over having checked in Mohammed Atta (who, thanks to Boris, we know for
sure hijacked a plane because he had a plane ticket).
This guy, Michael Tuohey, was on Oprah apparently all teary eyed, saying that he sees Mohammed
Atta's face peering at him everywhere, he's haunted by it. And also that his female colleague
had already committed suicide (!) she was so wracked with guilt about having checked in Mohammed
Atta on the flight.
The story makes no damned sense, does it? In the one you cite, the guy was "ostracized" by
co-workers because he checked these guys in. WTF? What was he supposed to do? They had tickets,
didn't they? "Oh, you Ay-rabs look just like the B movie villains in yesterday's late night movie
on TV, so I'm not letting you on the flight you paid money to travel on ."
He was supposed to know that these guys were going to fly a plane into the Pentagon, a totally
unprecedented event, and therefore, his coworkers subsequently ostracize him.
These are just synthetic narratives planted to make you think all this really happened. I should
try to fish up the Michael Tuohey thing on Oprah to see if the guy is an obvious crisis actor.
Another one they do is that there are all these celebrities who claim that they were booked
on the flight but somehow missed the flight. Or some story like that. The whole idea is, again,
just to convince the public that the flights actually occurred.
Anyway, to answer your question (again) this kind of stuff is all bullshit.
• Replies:
@Boris Of course everyone else is lying according to the person who has lied brazenly multiple
times about comments written on this very page.
I look forward to jonny's next Unz.com article "The Shitting Shit-Eaters and the Shitty Shit They
Eat: How Boris Thinks a Plane Ticket Proves That Atta Wasn't a Hologram-Lizard, LOL!"
I'm crushed at the thought that you see me complicit as the "Ziofascist scumbag of the week."
But I'm equally humbled by your favor. If I must wear the badge you've awarded me, dare I ask
who you've targeted for next weeks prize? Please be sure they measure up (you've made me feel
responsible for a tradition).
PS. To make sure of a wise choice maybe you can rent a motel room and invite servile flatterer
Erebus, nordic üntermensch Rurik, and reptilian L.K to join you in judging candidates. Arrange
your chairs in a circle. No doubt you know the rest of the drill (don't forget your Vaseline).
Again, tears for Ursula stream uncontrollably down my face. What injustice! What perfidy!
That an old hate monger is called to account for breaking laws she clearly knew and willingly
violated – well , it's unthinkable!
Uhh, look, shit eater, here's the situation. You're a shit eater. You're surely in competition
for this week's shit eater of the week. You could dislodge Boris, who is the current reigning
shit eater of the week.
What this means, the fact that you're a shit eater, is that you NEVER think for yourself. Whatever
they tell you on the TV is the truth. That's what it means to be a shit eater. Like if you read
the Orwell novel 1984, you have the 2 minutes hate. They show a picture of the person you're supposed
to hate and all the brainwashed shit eaters scream how much they hate the person.
Like many other things in 1984, this was quite prescient. They tell you that you are supposed
to hate somebody, like Gaddafi or Saddam, or whoever, or now it's Vladimir Putin and all the
shit eaters like you will scream how much you hate the person. Am I wrong? You are not the first
A-1-A shit eater I have interacted with. I understand the shit eater mentality.
So they show you a picture of some old lady that you are supposed to hate and so you dutifuly
hate her. And you gloat that she was sentenced to prison. Note the projection here. You say Ursula
Haverbeck is a hate monger, but of course, you are the hater. They tell you who you're supposed
to hate and you hate that person.
Because you're a shit eater. A Ziofascist shit eater, of the same sort who would gloat that
Rachel Corrie was killed for trying to helping a Palestinian family.
The other aspect of this is that, as a shit eater, you don't really value freedom of speech
at all, because you never had an idea in your head that runs counter to the established power
structure paradigm. So when you are told that somebody is a criminal for saying something that
the current power structure doesn't like, that doesn't bother you, since you never had a dissenting
idea in your head. And probably never will have one.
I mean, as a champion shit eater, you've never actually thought for yourself about anything.
You've never expressed an original or dissenting idea in your entire life. Never. If they tell
you that two planes took down three steel framed buildings, you believe it and get angry if somebody
says that is impossible.
The third aspect of this is that you are not just a shit eater. You are a Ziofascist shit eater.
So you feel this great identification with this Zionist power structure and you gloat over their
ability to imprison this old lady. You guys are drunk on your power. Of course, you yourself have
no particular power, but you have this vicarious identification with that power structure. This
is the fascist mentality. You worship a power structure because it makes you, a total worthless
nobody, feel like you're sombody.
Now, on one point, you are correct, Ursula Haverbeck is not herself that big a deal in the
overall scheme of things. I mean, the Ziofascist power structure that you adore and feel identification
with, it has caused the destruction of entire countries, like Iraq or Afghanistan, and so on.
Hundreds of thousands of deaths with millions of lives destroyed. So one little old lady in a
jail cell unjustly isn't that big a deal compared to that.
It's that she's a symbol nonetheless.
The problem that people like you have, I mean the typical Ziofascist scumbag shit eater, is
that you don't really understand that other people are not as vicious and vindictive as you are,
so you guys make these psychopathic wisecracks about this or about Rachel Corrie and you don't
quite understand how much disgust you elicit in decent, ordinary people. You just don't comprehend
it.
And then, when there eventually is a pretty severe backlash against your Ziofascist scumbag
behavior, which I think is getting inevitable, you're going to be there with this: "Oy vey, why
do they always hate us . we're such sweet wonderful people "
KA
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 12, 2016 at 12:37 pm GMT
@utu "The biggest hoax ever perpetrated is the gradual evolution of the alleged threat from
Islam." - Excellent point. Recently I watched few videos with Jeff Gates in which he mention influences
on Samuel Huntington and mechanism how his articles and book became bestsellers. BTW, where is
Jeff Gates?
saying that the fact that Atta had a plane ticket is proof of the official story (AND HE
DID SAY IT!)
Then you should have no problem producing the quote.
Dude, in comment #267 above, after my asking you what the strongest evidence available for the
official story, you said (among a couple of other things that are of zero evidentiary value) "His
purchase of the tickets".
You were clearly offering that as evidence. It somehow escaped your notice that everybody else
on the flight had presumably purchased tickets as well! LOL.
But I don't get it. Don't you want your "shit eater of the week" prize? Oh, I forgot to tell
you. This week's prize for shit eater of the week is a 2017 Golda Meir nude pictorial calendar!
That's destined to be a prized collector's item.
Surely you wouldn't want to miss out on that, would you?
after my asking you what the strongest evidence available for the official story
As I've already shown, you asked me "what records?" The ticket is among the records that support
the official story. It is sad that you keep lying about this. We both agree–and have from the
beginning–that the ticket is necessary, but not sufficient. You keep pretending otherwise for
some reason. Your behavior is downright weird.
As I've already shown, you asked me "what records?"
WTF is your point? What was said is perfectly clear. I asked you what the strongest available
evidence was for the official story and you said there were records blah blah and I asked what
records are you talking about. OBVIOUSLY that meant what records are you talking about that
constitute proof of the official story ?
And then, among a few other equally worthless things, you said "His purchase of the tickets."
The ticket is among the records that support the official story.
Well, you see, there you go again...
Look, you are great, you are a champion shit eater and you are the reigning shit eater of the
week. BUT... let me make something clear to you, champ....
This idea that Atta having a plane ticket constitutes proof of anything really is a breathtaking
piece of bullshit. My hat is off to you. You are great. But still, you have to come up with some
new bullshit to win this week's shit eater of the week award. You cannot use the same bullshit
to win that won you last week's prize to win this week. You have to come up with some new bullshit.
I know you're up to it. You have the makings of a great champion. ,
@KA "The creation of a peril usually starts with mysterious "sources" and unnamed officials
who leak information, float trial balloons, and warn about the coming threat. Those sources reflect
debates and discussions taking place within government. Their information is then augmented by
colorful intelligence reports that finger exotic and conspiratorial terrorists and military advisers.
Journalists then search for the named and other villains. The media end up finding corroboration
from foreign sources who form an informal coalition with the sources in the U.S. government and
help the press uncover further information substantiating the threat coming from the new bad guys.
A series of leaks, signals, and trial balloons is already beginning to shape U.S. agenda and policy.
Congress is about to conduct several hearings on the global threat of Islamic fundamentalism.(14)
The Bush administration has been trying to devise policies and establish new alliances to counter
Iranian influence: building up Islamic but secular and pro-Western Turkey as a countervailing
force in Central Asia, expanding U.S. commitments to Saudi Arabia, warning Sudan that it faces
grave consequences as a result of its policies, and even shoring up a socialist military dictatorship
in Algeria.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-177
Printing a ticket and getting a Pasport ,if all that you have,then you are in the right league
. Join those in NYT,WaPo,Hoover Institue and speak to George Will, Jim Hoagland , because following
the collapse of Soviet,they have been looking for an enemy that they were finding raising its
heads in Algeria, Iran, Sudan,and even in Malayasia back in 1992.
Conspiracy theory- is absolutely commonplace but rendered a bogus term . It is common and practiced
by the government all the time . It is used by people who have agenda and find resistance to agenda
. The moment they use false narrative,weird scenario, create unknown fear and offer solution abusing
the authorities,abusing the institutional but previous records and inserting propangada preaching
journalist ( CIA had more than 400 in 1975 per Bernstein) , they are engaging in conspiracy .
It follows a script. So it has a theory to follow . It is a conspiracy theory.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
Rurik
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 12, 2016 at 1:23 pm GMT • 200 Words
@Wizard of Oz I ask you as just the latest person to assert on UR that something - in this
case the collapse of WTC 7 - is "an anomaly to all known laws of physics and structural engineering"
or similar wotds which plainly mean that such laws make the collapse without deliberate demolition
impossible....*what are your qualifations to be taken seriously on the implications of the laws
of physics and structural engineering*? I have dealt with a lot of expert witnesse and you don't
sound like one of them,not even the dodgy ones that have to be exposed and evaluated in court
every day. Indeed do you consider yourself competent to evaluate expert evidence on physics and
structural engineering like a judge assisted by the questions of counsel? If so why? Try persuading
your readers.
.*what are your qualifations to be taken seriously on the implications of the laws of physics
and structural engineering*?
I rest on my laurels wiz
we've both participated on this site for some time now. In my case clearly and obviously in
an attempt to get at the truth in all things. In your case, -to obfuscate the truth- about any
issue you find inconvenient to the status quo- vis-a-vis the PTB. I believe this is obvious to
everyone here who's been paying attention at all.
What you do wiz, is scan these pages for any signs of some ingenuousness, and then you proceed
to reel them into your web, with innocent sounding queries, and then when they're engaged in an
exchange with you, you drop a manure wagon of legerdemain on their heads, obviously finding amusement
in your own 'cleverness and artfulness'. I suppose you imagine you're being cagey, but to the
rest of us you just come across as a mean-spirited, sadistic little prick.
Now why, I ask you, would I ever feel the inclination so qualify myself to the likes of you,
eh?
• Replies:
@Wizard of Oz Unfofortunately your resting on your laurels means we've never seen them.
I could say that I was merely trying to draw out of you some positive reason for your readers
to be persuaded by the authority of your assertions. But someone might have a case for calling
me disingenuousness. After all I am 99 per cent sure that you have absolutely no qualifications
either in knowledge or reasoning power to give any authority to your confident assertions about
physics or structural engineering. So I now put THAT forward as my contribution to your readers'
ability to assess your comments in the absence of your willingness to display your professional
laurels.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
They plant these stories to convince us that these hijacked flights actually took place. Certainly
the plane that was hijacked and flew into the Pentagon is simply a phantom flight that never took
place.
Actually, I vaguely remembered another story in the same vein, where a check-in counter guy was
wracked with guilt over having checked in Mohammed Atta (who, thanks to Boris, we know for sure
hijacked a plane because he had a plane ticket).
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/11/245388/-
This guy, Michael Tuohey, was on Oprah apparently all teary eyed, saying that he sees Mohammed
Atta's face peering at him everywhere, he's haunted by it. And also that his female colleague
had already committed suicide (!) she was so wracked with guilt about having checked in Mohammed
Atta on the flight.
The story makes no damned sense, does it? In the one you cite, the guy was "ostracized" by co-workers
because he checked these guys in. WTF? What was he supposed to do? They had tickets, didn't they?
"Oh, you Ay-rabs look just like the B movie villains in yesterday's late night movie on TV, so
I'm not letting you on the flight you paid money to travel on...."
He was supposed to know that these guys were going to fly a plane into the Pentagon, a totally
unprecedented event, and therefore, his coworkers subsequently ostracize him.
These are just synthetic narratives planted to make you think all this really happened. I should
try to fish up the Michael Tuohey thing on Oprah to see if the guy is an obvious crisis actor.
Another one they do is that there are all these celebrities who claim that they were booked on
the flight but somehow missed the flight. Or some story like that. The whole idea is, again, just
to convince the public that the flights actually occurred.
Anyway, to answer your question (again) this kind of stuff is all bullshit.
Of course everyone else is lying according to the person who has lied brazenly multiple times
about comments written on this very page.
I look forward to jonny's next Unz.com article "The Shitting Shit-Eaters and the Shitty Shit
They Eat: How Boris Thinks a Plane Ticket Proves That Atta Wasn't a Hologram-Lizard, LOL!"
"if the Nazis burned women and children alive for the fun of it, then by God I tell you I would
condemn them with all of my breath, I swear it. But they didn't do that."
Well, Rurik, here's your chance to condemn them:
"...starting at 0800 on 25 September [1939], Luftwaffe bombers under the command of Major Wolfram
Freiherr von Richthofen conducted the largest air raid ever seen by that time, dropping 560 tons
of high explosive bombs and 72 tons of incendiary bombs, in coordination with heavy artillery
shelling by Army units."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Warsaw_in_World_War_II
Note the "72 tons of incendiary bombs." 20,000-25,000 civilians died. Surprised? Later
on, beginning August 1944 the Nazis really got busy. By January 1945 they'd leveled 85% of the
city and killed another 150,000-200,000 civilians.
How about Rotterdam May 1940? 884 civilians killed, 85,000 left homeless:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotterdam_Blitz
How about Guernica April 1937? They bombed it on market day, when packed with civilians. They
used incendiaries. 170-300 civilians died. The city was largely destroyed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Guernica
How about Lidice June 1942? 173 men executed on the spot. 203 women and 105 children taken to
concentration camps (four pregnant women were first forced to have abortions). The village was
leveled. The Nazis killed all the animals and even dug up the remains in the cemetery!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidice_massacre
How about Oradour-sur-Glane Jun 1944? 642 civilians murdered and -wait for it - women and children
deliberately burned to death.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oradour-sur-Glane_massacre
There are other examples. Oh those poor, poor Nazis.
Don't forget your promise to "condemn them [Nazis] with all of my breath."
OK, I checked out the first of your links, (and admittedly from the obviously biased Wikipedia)
this is the kind of thing I found out
The Polish Army surrendered nearly 140,000 troops and during the siege around 18,000 civilians
of Warsaw perished. As a result of the air bombardments 10% of the city's buildings were entirely
destroyed and further 40% were heavily damaged.[1]:78
now this is what I said:
"anyone who burns women and children alive for the fun of it and out of sheer tribal hatred,
rather than as a military and existential imperative, is a monster in my book"
so what you have was strategic bombing of a city (a war crime in my book but then I never said
the Nazis were boy scouts) for a clear military objective. That's not what I'm talking about.
Imagine if Germany had already defeated the Poles, and Poland was on the brink, and had effectively
lost the war, and Warsaw was turned into a refugee city with tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands
of refugees huddling there as their last sanctuary. There would have been no military age men
there, as they would have all died in the war by now, and the city was overflowing with women
and children (and POW camps and such). OK? And then imagine the kind of people that would plan,
not just an attack in order to break the moral of the enemy, (it had already long been broken),
but rather as a calculated act of sheer inhuman cruelty, intended to burn alive every single old
man, woman and child until there was nothing left of either the people or the (beautiful, ancient
Baroque architecture and art of the) city. It was a true holocaust, intended as an act
of sadistic vengeance upon harmless people to sate an insatiable need to inflict unimaginable
suffering and cruelty for cruelties' sake. Just like Waco. And for the same reason, – they defied
the power of their 'masters', and for that, they would be made to pay.
Did the Nazis ever do anything like that? Did they ever deliberately burn hundreds of thousands
of civilians alive for no military purpose whatsoever? But just to be as cruel as possible?
I guess that's the word I'm really thinking of there. Cruelty. Because as that quote
you posted showed, the Nazis at their worst were trying to murder people as humanely as possible,
whereas the allies wanted to inflict the most suffering on the most innocent and vulnerable women
and children as possible. They wanted to burn women and children alive who were no threat and
at the virtual end of the war. What kind of people do something like that?
Reading the Old Testament, I get an idea of where they get their demonic hate from.
One on my mantras Incitatus, is that a lot of the raw hate in the world today (and certainly
yesterday) comes from religious ignorance and a cartoon version of the world that says the followers
of this religion are pure good, and the followers of that religion are pure evil.
I sort of wonder what things would be like if we'd finally lay to rest these pernicious and stone
age codified ignorance down, and joined the 21st century as rational actors
a lot of the raw hate in the world today (and certainly yesterday) comes from religious ignorance
and a cartoon version of the world that says the followers of this religion are pure good,
and the followers of that religion are pure evil. I sort of wonder what things would be like
if we'd finally lay to rest these pernicious and stone age codified ignorance down,
and joined the 21st century as rational actors
John Henry's "Arguing with God." . . . reenacts Old Testament stories to confront uncomfortable
truths about human nature and explores the psychology of how empires are built by "Chosen People,"
"good guys" who believe they have the moral right to use military force against "bad guys."
Produced in the dramatic outdoor setting of hand-laid stone, which Henry built himself, "Arguing
with God" depicts the inevitable conflict between power and justice.
The cast is 50-actor strong, with many of the leading roles played by [Henry's neighbors and
friends]. .
after my asking you what the strongest evidence available for the official story
As I've already shown, you asked me "what records?" The ticket is among the records that support
the official story. It is sad that you keep lying about this. We both agree--and have from the
beginning--that the ticket is necessary, but not sufficient. You keep pretending otherwise for
some reason. Your behavior is downright weird.
As I've already shown, you asked me "what records?"
WTF is your point? What was said is perfectly clear. I asked you what the strongest available
evidence was for the official story and you said there were records blah blah and I asked what
records are you talking about. OBVIOUSLY that meant what records are you talking about that
constitute proof of the official story ?
And then, among a few other equally worthless things, you said "His purchase of the tickets."
The ticket is among the records that support the official story.
Well, you see, there you go again
Look, you are great, you are a champion shit eater and you are the reigning shit eater of the
week. BUT let me make something clear to you, champ .
This idea that Atta having a plane ticket constitutes proof of anything really is a breathtaking
piece of bullshit. My hat is off to you. You are great. But still, you have to come up with some
new bullshit to win this week's shit eater of the week award. You cannot use the same bullshit
to win that won you last week's prize to win this week. You have to come up with some new bullshit.
I know you're up to it. You have the makings of a great champion.
You are discussing these issues with an obvious troll, 'incitatus', a piece of filth who is here
to spread disinformation & propaganda & who obviously does not care one bit about truth or free
speech. Remember that other scumbag, 'iffen', who hoped for European style censorship to be applied
in the US?
These cretins are so obvious.
No, Rurik, the National Socialists did NOT run extermination camps.
Do u still have doubts?
As Prof.Faurisson said, on the intellectual level, the revisionists have already won.
It is just that people ain't allowed to know it... in fact, people are not allowed to even know
there is a debate on the holohoax.
Why, Rurik, do I say the holocau$t is a monstrous Hoax?
As Prof.T.Dalton wrote:
There are, in fact, three essential elements to the event called the Holocaust:
(1) intention to mass murder the Jews, by Hitler and the Nazi elite;
(2) the use of gas chambers(the extermination camps & gas vans); and
(3) the 6 million deaths.
If any one of these three should undergo substantial revision, then, technically speaking,
we no longer have "The Holocaust"-at least, not in any meaningful sense. (Broadly speaking,
of course, any mass fatality is a holocaust.) Holocaust revisionism contends that, not one,
but all three of these points are grossly in error, and thus that "The Holocaust," as such,
did not occur. Obviously, this is not to deny that a tragedy happened to the Jews, nor that
many thousands died, directly and indirectly, as a result of the war. But the conventional
account is an extreme exaggeration.
Most people are led to believe - I was one of them - in regards to the 'holocau$t', that there
is abundant proof of the alleged crime, as described above. This is absolutely NOT THE CASE.
In fact, many holocaust 'historians', I call them quacks, have actually admitted the near total
lack of material and documentary evidence.
There is, as the revisionist side has shown, an abundance of evidence refuting the official dossier,
which is basically atrocity propaganda on steroids.
One good book that covers all bases in a more accessible format is "Lectures on the Holocaust
Controversial Issues Cross Examined" by Germar Rudolf.
http://holocausthandbooks.com/dl/15-loth.pdf
I think you're right about some of the trolls here, or so it seems to me
but this is the thing vis-a-vis the Holocau$t. I don't like calling the whole thing a hoax,
because then it sort of looks like you're suggesting that NONE of any of that stuff happened,
when I believe that it's clear that Jews (and many others) were systematically persecuted by the
Nazis for being Jews, and not necessarily for any crimes they committed. Just like the Japanese
in the US during the war. If they Japanese claimed there were gas chambers at the camps where
they were held, then I think it would be fair and prudent to examine those claims for veracity,
just as in the case of the Holocaust- where I don't think they had homicidal gas chambers
for human extermination purposes. But that doesn't change the fact that many people perished in
those camps, and many of them were innocent Jews, and if the Jews want to call that particular
suffering a name to commemorate it, just like what the Japanese went through, then I don't see
what's wrong with that per se.
That it has become this momentous blood libel against the German people in particular and all
Gentiles in general is just another testament to the power of the lobby.
Controlling the world's banks and money supply and therefor all the media of consequence and
all the major politicians (and publishing houses and courts and universities, etc..) has had an
effect on things. The Eternal WarsⓊ being perhaps the most troublesome for the moment.
• Replies:
@Wizard of Oz I wouldn't be inclined to question an assertion that there are many Jews in
senior positions in investment banks but in the commercial banking sphere which I understand to
have much more to do with the money supply than the entrepreneurial investment or merchant bankers
do I am unaware of any great Jewish presence. Should I be? Who and where are they? I note that
Goldman Sachs was only an investment bank until 2009. ,
@Sam Shama
I believe that it's clear that Jews (and many others) were systematically persecuted by
the Nazis for being Jews, and not necessarily for any crimes they committed.
[...] But that doesn't change the fact that many people perished in those camps, and many of them
were innocent Jews, and if the Jews want to call that particular suffering a name to commemorate
it, just like what the Japanese went through, then I don't see what's wrong with that per se.
Rurik,
As I've said in some previous posts, you have an admirable capacity for gleaning the essence of
some important subjects. The aforementioned, more or less my own feelings about the Holocaust,
was an event which occurred in the midst of a period that saw tens of millions slaughtered. They
were certainly not just Jews. To be frank I never dwelt on the subject too much in my adult life,
[even though the real experience of what happened to my kin is very close to me - my granny, whom
I spare the ordeal these days of retelling her life events; and she holds no grudge, none at all]
i.e., until I stumbled upon the Unz Review last year. This publication seems to be rife with discussions,
of which, the ultimate goals are clear; and I needn't explicate the obvious. So again, I am completely
unfamiliar with this charge of people exploiting the Holocaust for personal gains. I really don't
know any.
Furthermore there is no blood libel on Germans. Nazis, on the other hand were 'no boy scouts'
indeed! We all relate to personal experiences. So in my case, my work brings me in contact with
a large number of Europeans and Germans. I can tell you nothing but positive things about my contacts
[on a lighter note I've dated German girls and they are a fun loving lot].
There is perhaps a grain of truth in what you say regarding what has become verboten in polite
society, and by extension in the media. I hardly think any decent, educated person would use the
'n' word e.g. Its an assault on basic humanity. So is calling an Asian, A Jew, an Arab, A muslim,
A White man or a woman by derogatory terms. Its simply not done in this day an age [more generally
I am revolted by some of the verbal obscenity that goes on here, led by Revusky, a man I lament
to admit a co-religionist] . More specifically, I am against any laws that stifle free speech
and expression. So if certain laws are oppressive, the majoritarian system that created those
in the first place, ought to be utilised to render them null and void post partum. [In the case
of Ursula H., there is more to her story than meets the eye. She had been held in contempt of
court on a few occasions, having used her age and the fragility associated with it, to provoke
the legal/judicial system, when the judges finally threw the book at her. They will brook defiance
of the law up to a certain extent and no more. Still, I understand it is galling to witness a
granny thrown in gaol for nothing more than revisionist activism. Who made those laws?]
Jews don't control the world's money supply. A person like you ought to rid yourself of this
risible notion. [Its a discussion we've had often and let's avoid it this time shall we? btw I
commented on Mike Whitney's piece apropos, and we might continue on this subject there if you
so wish]
after my asking you what the strongest evidence available for the official story
As I've already shown, you asked me "what records?" The ticket is among the records that support
the official story. It is sad that you keep lying about this. We both agree--and have from the
beginning--that the ticket is necessary, but not sufficient. You keep pretending otherwise for
some reason. Your behavior is downright weird.
"The creation of a peril usually starts with mysterious "sources" and unnamed officials who
leak information, float trial balloons, and warn about the coming threat. Those sources reflect
debates and discussions taking place within government. Their information is then augmented by
colorful intelligence reports that finger exotic and conspiratorial terrorists and military advisers.
Journalists then search for the named and other villains. The media end up finding corroboration
from foreign sources who form an informal coalition with the sources in the U.S. government and
help the press uncover further information substantiating the threat coming from the new bad guys.
A series of leaks, signals, and trial balloons is already beginning to shape U.S. agenda and
policy. Congress is about to conduct several hearings on the global threat of Islamic fundamentalism.(14)
The Bush administration has been trying to devise policies and establish new alliances to counter
Iranian influence: building up Islamic but secular and pro-Western Turkey as a countervailing
force in Central Asia, expanding U.S. commitments to Saudi Arabia, warning Sudan that it faces
grave consequences as a result of its policies, and even shoring up a socialist military dictatorship
in Algeria.
Printing a ticket and getting a Pasport ,if all that you have,then you are in the right league
. Join those in NYT,WaPo,Hoover Institue and speak to George Will, Jim Hoagland , because following
the collapse of Soviet,they have been looking for an enemy that they were finding raising its
heads in Algeria, Iran, Sudan,and even in Malayasia back in 1992.
Conspiracy theory- is absolutely commonplace but rendered a bogus term . It is common and practiced
by the government all the time . It is used by people who have agenda and find resistance to agenda
. The moment they use false narrative,weird scenario, create unknown fear and offer solution abusing
the authorities,abusing the institutional but previous records and inserting propangada preaching
journalist ( CIA had more than 400 in 1975 per Bernstein) , they are engaging in conspiracy .
It follows a script. So it has a theory to follow . It is a conspiracy theory.
Printing a ticket and getting a Pasport ,if all that you have,then you are in the right league
You are falling for Jonny's schtick:
Here are some lengthy bits from Atta's Wiki page:
On April 11, 1996, Atta signed his last will and testament at the mosque, officially declaring
his Muslim beliefs and giving 18 instructions regarding his burial.[9][40] This was the day
that Israel attacked Lebanon in Operation Grapes of Wrath, which outraged Atta. Signing the
will, "offering his life" was Atta's response.[41] The instructions in his last will and testament
reflect both Sunni funeral practices, along with some more puritanical demands from Salafism,
including asking people not "to weep and cry" or show emotion. The will was signed by el-Motassadeq
and a second individual at the mosque.[42]
After leaving Plankontor in the summer of 1997, Atta disappeared again and did not return until
1998. Atta phoned his graduate advisor in 1998, after a year of doing nothing for his thesis,
telling Machule that he had family problems at home and said, "Please understand, I don't want
to talk about this."[43][44] At the winter break in 1997, Atta left and did not return to Hamburg
for three months. He said that he went on pilgrimage to Mecca again, just 18 months after his
first time. Terry McDermott explained in Perfect Soldiers that it is highly unusual and unlikely
for someone, especially a young student, to go on Hajj again that soon. Also, three months
is an exceptionally long time, much longer than what Hajj requires. When Atta returned, he
claimed that his passport was lost and got a new one, which is a common tactic to erase evidence
of travel to places such as Afghanistan.[45] When he returned in spring 1998, after disappearing
for several months, he had grown a thick long beard, and "seemed more serious and aloof" to
those who knew him.[28]
In mid-1998, Atta worked alongside Shehhi, bin al-Shibh, and Belfas, at a warehouse, packing
computers in crates for shipping.[46] The Hamburg group did not stay in Wilhelmsburg for long.
The next winter, they moved into an apartment at Marienstrasse 54 in the borough of Harburg,
near the Technical University of Hamburg,[47] at which they enrolled. It was here that the
Hamburg cell developed and acted more as a group.[48] They met three or four times a week to
discuss their anti-American feelings and to plot possible attacks. Many al-Qaeda members lived
in this apartment at various times, including hijacker Marwan al-Shehhi, Zakariya Essabar,
and others.
In late 1999, Atta, Shehhi, Jarrah, Bahaji, and bin al-Shibh decided to travel to Chechnya
to fight against the Russians, but were convinced by Khalid al-Masri and Mohamedou Ould Slahi
at the last minute to change their plans. They instead traveled to Afghanistan over a two-week
period in late November. On November 29, 1999, Mohamed Atta boarded Turkish Airlines Flight
TK1662 from Hamburg to Istanbul, where he changed to flight TK1056 to Karachi, Pakistan.[3]
After they arrived, they were selected by Al Qaeda leader Abu Hafs as suitable candidates for
the "planes operation" plot. They were all well-educated, had experience of living in western
society, along with some English skills, and would be able to obtain visas.[41] Even before
bin al-Shibh had arrived, Atta, Shehhi, and Jarrah were sent to the House of Ghamdi near bin
Laden's home in Kandahar, where he was waiting to meet them. Bin Laden asked them to pledge
loyalty and commit to suicide missions, which Atta and the other three Hamburg men all accepted.
Bin Laden sent them to see Mohammed Atef to get a general overview of the mission, and then
they were sent to Karachi to see Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to go over specifics.[49]
German investigators said that they had evidence that Mohamed Atta trained at al-Qaeda camps
in Afghanistan from late 1999 to early 2000. The timing of the Afghanistan training was outlined
on August 23, 2002 by a senior investigator. The investigator, Klaus Ulrich Kersten, director
of Germany's federal anticrime agency, the Bundeskriminalamt, provided the first official confirmation
that Atta and two other pilots had been in Afghanistan and the first dates of the training.
Kersten said in an interview at the agency's headquarters in Wiesbaden, Germany, that Atta
was in Afghanistan from late 1999 until early 2000,[50][51] and that there was evidence that
Atta met with Osama bin Laden there.[52]
A video surfaced in October 2006 which showed bin Laden at Tarnak Farms on January 8, 2000,
and also showed Atta together with Ziad Jarrah reading their wills ten days later on January
18, 2000.[3][53]
According to official reports, Atta arrived on June 3, 2000, at Newark International Airport
from Prague. That month, Atta and Shehhi stayed in hotels and rented rooms in New York City
on a short-term basis. They continued to inquire about flight schools and personally visited
some, including Airman Flight School in Norman, Oklahoma, which they visited on July 3, 2000.
Days later, Shehhi and Atta ended up in Venice, Florida (On the Gulf Coast of South Florida).[15]
Atta and Shehhi established accounts at SunTrust Bank and received wire transfers from Ali
Abdul Aziz Ali, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's nephew in the United Arab Emirates.[15][57] On July
6, 2000, Atta and Shehhi enrolled at Huffman Aviation in Venice, Florida, where they entered
the Accelerated Pilot Program, while Ziad Jarrah took flight training from a different school
also based in Venice.[15] When Atta and Shehhi arrived in Florida, they initially stayed with
Huffman's bookkeeper and his wife in a spare room of their house. After a week, they were asked
to leave because they were rude. Atta and Shehhi then moved into a small house nearby in Nokomis
where they stayed for six months.[63][64]
Atta's flight record from Huffman
Atta began flight training on July 7, 2000, and continued training nearly every day. By the
end of July, both Atta and Shehhi did solo flights. Atta earned his private pilot certificate
in September, and then he and Shehhi decided to switch flight schools. Both enrolled at Jones
Aviation in Sarasota and took training there for a brief time. They had problems following
instructions and were both very upset when they failed their Stage 1 exam at Jones Aviation.
They inquired about multi-engine planes and told the instructor that "they wanted to move quickly,
because they had a job waiting in their country upon completion of their training in the U.S."
In mid-October, Atta and Shehhi returned to Huffman Aviation to continue training. In November
2000, Atta earned his instrument rating, and then a commercial pilot's license in December
from the Federal Aviation Administration.[15]
Atta continued with flight training, including solo flights and simulator time. On December
22, Atta and Shehhi applied to Eagle International for large jet and simulator training for
McDonnell Douglas DC-9 and Boeing 737–300 models. On December 26, Atta and Shehhi needed a
tow for their rented Piper Cherokee on a taxiway of Miami International Airport after the engine
shut down. On December 29 and 30, Atta and Marwan went to the Opa-locka Airport where they
practiced on a Boeing 727 simulator, and they obtained Boeing 767 simulator training from Pan
Am International on December 31. Atta purchased flight deck videos for Boeing 747–200, Boeing
757–200, Airbus A320 and Boeing 767-300ER models via mail-order from Sporty's Pilot Shop in
Batavia, Ohio in November and December 2000.[15]
On July 22, 2001, Mohamed Atta rented a Mitsubishi Galant from Alamo Rent A Car, putting 3,836
miles on the vehicle before returning it on July 26. On July 25, Atta dropped Ziad Jarrah off
at Miami International Airport for a flight back to Germany. On July 26, Atta traveled via
Continental Airlines to Newark, New Jersey, checked into the Kings Inn Hotel in Wayne, New
Jersey and stayed there until July 30 when he took a flight from Newark back to Fort Lauderdale.[15]
On August 4, Atta is believed to have been at Orlando International Airport waiting to pick
up suspected "20th Hijacker" Mohammed al-Qahtani from Dubai, who ended up being held by immigration
as "suspicious." Atta was believed to have used a payphone at the airport to phone a number
"linked to al-Qaeda" after Qahtani was denied entry.[75]
On August 6, Atta and Shehhi rented a 1995 white, four door Ford Escort from Warrick's Rent-A-Car,
which was returned on August 13. On August 6, Atta booked a flight on Spirit Airlines from
Fort Lauderdale to Newark, leaving on August 7 and returning on August 9. The reservation was
not used and canceled on August 9 with the reason "Family Medical Emergency". Instead, he went
to Central Office & Travel in Pompano Beach to purchase a ticket for a flight to Newark, leaving
on the evening of August 7 and schedule to return in the evening on August 9. Atta did not
take the return flight. On August 7, Atta checked into the Wayne Inn in Wayne, New Jersey and
checked out on August 9. The same day, he booked a one-way first class ticket via the Internet
on America West Flight 244 from Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport to Las Vegas.[15]
Atta traveled twice to Las Vegas on "surveillance flights" rehearsing how the 9/11 attacks
would be carried out. Other hijackers traveled to Las Vegas at different times in the summer
of 2001.
Throughout the summer, Atta met with Nawaf al-Hazmi to discuss the status of the operation
on a monthly basis.[76]
On August 23, Atta's driver license was revoked in absentia after he failed to show up in traffic
court to answer the earlier citation for driving without a license.[77] On the same day, Israeli
Mossad reportedly gave his name to the CIA as part of a list of 19 names they said were planning
an attack in the near future. Only four of the names are known for certain, the others being
Marwan al-Shehhi, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi.[78]
On September 10, 2001, Atta picked up Omari from the Milner Hotel in Boston, Massachusetts,
and the two drove their rented Nissan Altima to a Comfort Inn in South Portland, Maine; on
the way they were seen getting gasoline at an Exxon Gas Station. They arrived at 5:43 pm and
spent the night in room 232. While in South Portland, they were seen making two ATM withdrawals,
and stopping at Wal-Mart. FBI also reported that "two middle-eastern men" were seen in the
parking lot of a Pizza Hut, where Atta is known to have eaten that day.[79][80][81]
Atta and Omari arrived early the next morning, at 5:40 am, at the Portland International Jetport,
where they left their rental car in the parking lot and boarded a 6:00 am Colgan Air (US Airways
Express) BE-1900C flight to Boston's Logan International Airport.[82] In Portland, Mohamed
Atta was selected by the Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS), which required
his checked bags to undergo extra screening for explosives but involved no extra screening
at the passenger security checkpoint.[83]
The connection between the two flights at Logan International Airport was within Terminal B,
but the two gates were not connected within security. Passengers must leave the secured area,
go outdoors, cross a covered roadway, and enter another building before going through security
once again. There are two separate concourses in Terminal B; the south concourse is mainly
used by US Airways and the north one is mostly used by American Airlines. It had been overlooked
that there would still be a security screen to pass in Boston because of this distinct detail
of the terminal's arrangement. At 6:45 am, while at the Boston airport, Atta took a call from
Flight 175 hijacker Marwan al-Shehhi. This call was apparently to confirm that the attacks
were ready to begin. Atta checked in for American Airlines Flight 11, passed through security
again, and boarded the flight. Atta was seated in business class, in seat 8D. At 7:59 am, the
plane departed from Boston, carrying 81 passengers.[82]
The hijacking began at 8:14 am-15 minutes after the flight departed-when beverage service would
be starting. At this time, the pilots stopped responding to air traffic control, and the aircraft
began deviating from the planned route.[6]
Because the flight from Portland to Boston had been delayed,[85] his bags did not make it onto
Flight 11. Atta's bags were later recovered in Logan International Airport, and they contained
airline uniforms, flight manuals, and other items. The luggage included a copy of Atta's will,
written in Arabic, as well as a list of instructions, also in Arabic, such as "make an oath
to die and renew your intentions", "you should feel complete tranquility, because the time
between you and your marriage in heaven is very short", and "check your weapon before you leave
and long before you leave. You must make your knife sharp and you must not discomfort your
animal during the slaughter".[86]
As I've already shown, you asked me "what records?"
WTF is your point? What was said is perfectly clear. I asked you what the strongest available
evidence was for the official story and you said there were records blah blah and I asked what
records are you talking about. OBVIOUSLY that meant what records are you talking about that
constitute proof of the official story ?
And then, among a few other equally worthless things, you said "His purchase of the tickets."
The ticket is among the records that support the official story.
Well, you see, there you go again...
Look, you are great, you are a champion shit eater and you are the reigning shit eater of the
week. BUT... let me make something clear to you, champ....
This idea that Atta having a plane ticket constitutes proof of anything really is a breathtaking
piece of bullshit. My hat is off to you. You are great. But still, you have to come up with some
new bullshit to win this week's shit eater of the week award. You cannot use the same bullshit
to win that won you last week's prize to win this week. You have to come up with some new bullshit.
I know you're up to it. You have the makings of a great champion.
Well, obviously the ticket disproves your CGI planes theory. I've never seen a ticket for a
CGI plane. Have you?
Well, obviously the ticket disproves your CGI planes theory.
Well, it's not my theory specifically. However, as a matter of fact, I consider it pretty likely
that what we were shown on the TV on 9/11 was largely video fakery, including the collision of
the planes with the buildings.
Now, regarding Mohammed Atta's plane ticket (which I actually have never seen anyway) disproving
the video fakery theory, the answer is... NO! Atta having a plane ticket does not prove or disprove
anything in this regard.
I've done a lot of air travel, you know. The fact that you have a ticket to fly on a plane at
a certain time does not absolutely mean that you are on the plane and it takes off at that time.
Sometimes you go to the airport for a 8:00 flight and they tell you it's delayed an hour and then
they tell you it's delayed another hour. Sometimes they even cancel the flight and a representative
of the airline says they'll take care of you, putting you on a different flight to your destination.
(They'll usually give you a meal voucher to eat some shitty food in the airport to compensate
you... been there, done that.... )
Last year, I flew to Lithuania. I had a cheapo ticket from Barcelona to Vilnius. The flight was
very delayed, and then an hour before landing, they said we weren't landing in Vilnius, but in
Kaunas, and they put us all on a bus to go to Vilnius afterwards. True story. That kind of stuff
happens all the time.
The idea that, because Mohammed Atta had a ticket (so they say) this proves that the video fo
the plane hitting the tower is not fake -- this is another shit eater brain fart on your part
for sure. Each plane has like millions of parts, and each part has a unique serial number apparently.
So there ought to be quite hard proof about which specific aircraft collided with each building,
no? Yet I don't think there is any such hard proof. Like, with the Pentagon, they never show you
any recognizable plane parts. And the Shanksville crash site is ridiculous. There's really just
nothing there!
So, anyway, just for the sake of argument, even if we did conclude finally that (a) a plane definitely
hit the building, and (b) Mohammed Atta not only had a ticket but was also definitely on a plane,
there still wouldn't be hard proof that the plane that hit the building is the one Mohammed Atta
was on. If a plane did a hit a building, it could have been a completely different plane. And
it still wouldn't be proof that Mohammed Atta hijacked any plane.
Now, I'm sorry to inform you that this latest idiocy from you cannot really qualify to win this
week's shit eater of the week award. You see, it's just a variant on last week's idiocy. You say:
"He purchased a ticket" when asked for evidence for the official story. Now, when you want to
prove that the video of the plane hitting the tower is authentic, you say: "Atta purchased a ticket."
Okay, it is idiotic as well, but I think it's too derivative from the previous idiotic shit eater
statement. I think you have to come up with some entirely new idiotic shit eater statement if
you want to win this week's shit eater of the week prize.
I think you're right about some of the trolls here, or so it seems to me
but this is the thing vis-a-vis the Holocau$t. I don't like calling the whole thing a hoax, because
then it sort of looks like you're suggesting that NONE of any of that stuff happened, when I believe
that it's clear that Jews (and many others) were systematically persecuted by the Nazis for being
Jews, and not necessarily for any crimes they committed. Just like the Japanese in the US during
the war. If they Japanese claimed there were gas chambers at the camps where they were held, then
I think it would be fair and prudent to examine those claims for veracity, just as in the case
of the Holocaust- where I don't think they had homicidal gas chambers for human extermination
purposes. But that doesn't change the fact that many people perished in those camps, and many
of them were innocent Jews, and if the Jews want to call that particular suffering a name to commemorate
it, just like what the Japanese went through, then I don't see what's wrong with that per se.
That it has become this momentous blood libel against the German people in particular and all
Gentiles in general is just another testament to the power of the lobby.
Controlling the world's banks and money supply and therefor all the media of consequence and all
the major politicians (and publishing houses and courts and universities, etc..) has had an effect
on things. The Eternal WarsⓊ being perhaps the most troublesome for the moment.
I wouldn't be inclined to question an assertion that there are many Jews in senior positions
in investment banks but in the commercial banking sphere which I understand to have much more
to do with the money supply than the entrepreneurial investment or merchant bankers do I am unaware
of any great Jewish presence. Should I be? Who and where are they? I note that Goldman Sachs was
only an investment bank until 2009.
but in the commercial banking sphere which I understand to have much more to do with the money
supply than the entrepreneurial investment or merchant bankers do I am unaware of any great
Jewish presence. Should I be? Who and where are they?
well wiz, you see the money supply is determined by the Fed, and that is owned and controlled
by Jews (for Jews ; )
there used to be a distinction between investment banks and the ones whose deposits were guaranteed
by the FDIC. It was called Glass Steagall and they made that law after the Fed created the Great
Depression. But then what happened is a couple of tenacious Jews (Rubin, Summers, et al) got Bubba
to cancel out Glass and handed over the keys to our Treasury to the world's greediest swindlers.
.*what are your qualifations to be taken seriously on the implications of the laws of physics
and structural engineering*?
I rest on my laurels wiz
we've both participated on this site for some time now. In my case clearly and obviously in an
attempt to get at the truth in all things. In your case, -to obfuscate the truth- about any issue
you find inconvenient to the status quo- vis-a-vis the PTB. I believe this is obvious to everyone
here who's been paying attention at all.
What you do wiz, is scan these pages for any signs of some ingenuousness, and then you proceed
to reel them into your web, with innocent sounding queries, and then when they're engaged in an
exchange with you, you drop a manure wagon of legerdemain on their heads, obviously finding amusement
in your own 'cleverness and artfulness'. I suppose you imagine you're being cagey, but to the
rest of us you just come across as a mean-spirited, sadistic little prick.
Now why, I ask you, would I ever feel the inclination so qualify myself to the likes of you, eh?
Unfofortunately your resting on your laurels means we've never seen them.
I could say that I was merely trying to draw out of you some positive reason for your readers
to be persuaded by the authority of your assertions. But someone might have a case for calling
me disingenuousness. After all I am 99 per cent sure that you have absolutely no qualifications
either in knowledge or reasoning power to give any authority to your confident assertions about
physics or structural engineering. So I now put THAT forward as my contribution to your readers'
ability to assess your comments in the absence of your willingness to display your professional
laurels.
After all I am 99 per cent sure that you have absolutely no qualifications either in knowledge
or reasoning power to give any authority ...
you don't need a degree in engineering to see that building seven was brought down by controlled
demolition. Duh
and I have no such degree, but I am a successful businessman who builds things out of metal (and
concrete among other materials), and I understand their properties intimately. - If I didn't,
then the things I built wouldn't last and function properly and I wouldn't have managed to be
successful enough that I would waste time bantering around inanities with someone like you on
the Internet. ;)
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
Rurik
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 12, 2016 at 4:58 pm GMT • 200 Words
@Wizard of Oz I wouldn't be inclined to question an assertion that there are many Jews in
senior positions in investment banks but in the commercial banking sphere which I understand to
have much more to do with the money supply than the entrepreneurial investment or merchant bankers
do I am unaware of any great Jewish presence. Should I be? Who and where are they? I note that
Goldman Sachs was only an investment bank until 2009.
Ok, I'll play..
but in the commercial banking sphere which I understand to have much more to do with the
money supply than the entrepreneurial investment or merchant bankers do I am unaware of any
great Jewish presence. Should I be? Who and where are they?
well wiz, you see the money supply is determined by the Fed, and that is owned and controlled
by Jews (for Jews ; )
there used to be a distinction between investment banks and the ones whose deposits were guaranteed
by the FDIC. It was called Glass Steagall and they made that law after the Fed created the Great
Depression. But then what happened is a couple of tenacious Jews (Rubin, Summers, et al) got Bubba
to cancel out Glass and handed over the keys to our Treasury to the world's greediest swindlers.
I could say that I was merely trying to draw out of you some positive reason for your readers
to be persuaded by the authority of your assertions. But someone might have a case for calling
me disingenuousness. After all I am 99 per cent sure that you have absolutely no qualifications
either in knowledge or reasoning power to give any authority to your confident assertions about
physics or structural engineering. So I now put THAT forward as my contribution to your readers'
ability to assess your comments in the absence of your willingness to display your professional
laurels.
After all I am 99 per cent sure that you have absolutely no qualifications either in knowledge
or reasoning power to give any authority
you don't need a degree in engineering to see that building seven was brought down by controlled
demolition. Duh
and I have no such degree, but I am a successful businessman who builds things out of metal
(and concrete among other materials), and I understand their properties intimately. – If I didn't,
then the things I built wouldn't last and function properly and I wouldn't have managed to be
successful enough that I would waste time bantering around inanities with someone like you on
the Internet.
Boris
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 12, 2016 at 5:13 pm GMT • 2,200 Words
@KA "The creation of a peril usually starts with mysterious "sources" and unnamed officials
who leak information, float trial balloons, and warn about the coming threat. Those sources reflect
debates and discussions taking place within government. Their information is then augmented by
colorful intelligence reports that finger exotic and conspiratorial terrorists and military advisers.
Journalists then search for the named and other villains. The media end up finding corroboration
from foreign sources who form an informal coalition with the sources in the U.S. government and
help the press uncover further information substantiating the threat coming from the new bad guys.
A series of leaks, signals, and trial balloons is already beginning to shape U.S. agenda and policy.
Congress is about to conduct several hearings on the global threat of Islamic fundamentalism.(14)
The Bush administration has been trying to devise policies and establish new alliances to counter
Iranian influence: building up Islamic but secular and pro-Western Turkey as a countervailing
force in Central Asia, expanding U.S. commitments to Saudi Arabia, warning Sudan that it faces
grave consequences as a result of its policies, and even shoring up a socialist military dictatorship
in Algeria.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-177
Printing a ticket and getting a Pasport ,if all that you have,then you are in the right league
. Join those in NYT,WaPo,Hoover Institue and speak to George Will, Jim Hoagland , because following
the collapse of Soviet,they have been looking for an enemy that they were finding raising its
heads in Algeria, Iran, Sudan,and even in Malayasia back in 1992.
Conspiracy theory- is absolutely commonplace but rendered a bogus term . It is common and practiced
by the government all the time . It is used by people who have agenda and find resistance to agenda
. The moment they use false narrative,weird scenario, create unknown fear and offer solution abusing
the authorities,abusing the institutional but previous records and inserting propangada preaching
journalist ( CIA had more than 400 in 1975 per Bernstein) , they are engaging in conspiracy .
It follows a script. So it has a theory to follow . It is a conspiracy theory.
Printing a ticket and getting a Pasport ,if all that you have,then you are in the right
league
On April 11, 1996, Atta signed his last will and testament at the mosque, officially declaring
his Muslim beliefs and giving 18 instructions regarding his burial.[9][40] This was the day
that Israel attacked Lebanon in Operation Grapes of Wrath, which outraged Atta. Signing the
will, "offering his life" was Atta's response.[41] The instructions in his last will and testament
reflect both Sunni funeral practices, along with some more puritanical demands from Salafism,
including asking people not "to weep and cry" or show emotion. The will was signed by el-Motassadeq
and a second individual at the mosque.[42]
After leaving Plankontor in the summer of 1997, Atta disappeared again and did not return
until 1998. Atta phoned his graduate advisor in 1998, after a year of doing nothing for his
thesis, telling Machule that he had family problems at home and said, "Please understand, I
don't want to talk about this."[43][44] At the winter break in 1997, Atta left and did not
return to Hamburg for three months. He said that he went on pilgrimage to Mecca again, just
18 months after his first time. Terry McDermott explained in Perfect Soldiers that it is highly
unusual and unlikely for someone, especially a young student, to go on Hajj again that soon.
Also, three months is an exceptionally long time, much longer than what Hajj requires. When
Atta returned, he claimed that his passport was lost and got a new one, which is a common tactic
to erase evidence of travel to places such as Afghanistan.[45] When he returned in spring 1998,
after disappearing for several months, he had grown a thick long beard, and "seemed more serious
and aloof" to those who knew him.[28]
In mid-1998, Atta worked alongside Shehhi, bin al-Shibh, and Belfas, at a warehouse, packing
computers in crates for shipping.[46] The Hamburg group did not stay in Wilhelmsburg for long.
The next winter, they moved into an apartment at Marienstrasse 54 in the borough of Harburg,
near the Technical University of Hamburg,[47] at which they enrolled. It was here that the
Hamburg cell developed and acted more as a group.[48] They met three or four times a week to
discuss their anti-American feelings and to plot possible attacks. Many al-Qaeda members lived
in this apartment at various times, including hijacker Marwan al-Shehhi, Zakariya Essabar,
and others.
In late 1999, Atta, Shehhi, Jarrah, Bahaji, and bin al-Shibh decided to travel to Chechnya
to fight against the Russians, but were convinced by Khalid al-Masri and Mohamedou Ould Slahi
at the last minute to change their plans. They instead traveled to Afghanistan over a two-week
period in late November. On November 29, 1999, Mohamed Atta boarded Turkish Airlines Flight
TK1662 from Hamburg to Istanbul, where he changed to flight TK1056 to Karachi, Pakistan.[3]
After they arrived, they were selected by Al Qaeda leader Abu Hafs as suitable candidates for
the "planes operation" plot. They were all well-educated, had experience of living in western
society, along with some English skills, and would be able to obtain visas.[41] Even before
bin al-Shibh had arrived, Atta, Shehhi, and Jarrah were sent to the House of Ghamdi near bin
Laden's home in Kandahar, where he was waiting to meet them. Bin Laden asked them to pledge
loyalty and commit to suicide missions, which Atta and the other three Hamburg men all accepted.
Bin Laden sent them to see Mohammed Atef to get a general overview of the mission, and then
they were sent to Karachi to see Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to go over specifics.[49]
German investigators said that they had evidence that Mohamed Atta trained at al-Qaeda camps
in Afghanistan from late 1999 to early 2000. The timing of the Afghanistan training was outlined
on August 23, 2002 by a senior investigator. The investigator, Klaus Ulrich Kersten, director
of Germany's federal anticrime agency, the Bundeskriminalamt, provided the first official confirmation
that Atta and two other pilots had been in Afghanistan and the first dates of the training.
Kersten said in an interview at the agency's headquarters in Wiesbaden, Germany, that Atta
was in Afghanistan from late 1999 until early 2000,[50][51] and that there was evidence that
Atta met with Osama bin Laden there.[52]
A video surfaced in October 2006 which showed bin Laden at Tarnak Farms on January 8, 2000,
and also showed Atta together with Ziad Jarrah reading their wills ten days later on January
18, 2000.[3][53]
According to official reports, Atta arrived on June 3, 2000, at Newark International Airport
from Prague. That month, Atta and Shehhi stayed in hotels and rented rooms in New York City
on a short-term basis. They continued to inquire about flight schools and personally visited
some, including Airman Flight School in Norman, Oklahoma, which they visited on July 3, 2000.
Days later, Shehhi and Atta ended up in Venice, Florida (On the Gulf Coast of South Florida).[15]
Atta and Shehhi established accounts at SunTrust Bank and received wire transfers from Ali
Abdul Aziz Ali, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's nephew in the United Arab Emirates.[15][57] On July
6, 2000, Atta and Shehhi enrolled at Huffman Aviation in Venice, Florida, where they entered
the Accelerated Pilot Program, while Ziad Jarrah took flight training from a different school
also based in Venice.[15] When Atta and Shehhi arrived in Florida, they initially stayed with
Huffman's bookkeeper and his wife in a spare room of their house. After a week, they were asked
to leave because they were rude. Atta and Shehhi then moved into a small house nearby in Nokomis
where they stayed for six months.[63][64]
Atta's flight record from Huffman
Atta began flight training on July 7, 2000, and continued training nearly every day. By
the end of July, both Atta and Shehhi did solo flights. Atta earned his private pilot certificate
in September, and then he and Shehhi decided to switch flight schools. Both enrolled at Jones
Aviation in Sarasota and took training there for a brief time. They had problems following
instructions and were both very upset when they failed their Stage 1 exam at Jones Aviation.
They inquired about multi-engine planes and told the instructor that "they wanted to move quickly,
because they had a job waiting in their country upon completion of their training in the U.S."
In mid-October, Atta and Shehhi returned to Huffman Aviation to continue training. In November
2000, Atta earned his instrument rating, and then a commercial pilot's license in December
from the Federal Aviation Administration.[15]
Atta continued with flight training, including solo flights and simulator time. On December
22, Atta and Shehhi applied to Eagle International for large jet and simulator training for
McDonnell Douglas DC-9 and Boeing 737–300 models. On December 26, Atta and Shehhi needed a
tow for their rented Piper Cherokee on a taxiway of Miami International Airport after the engine
shut down. On December 29 and 30, Atta and Marwan went to the Opa-locka Airport where they
practiced on a Boeing 727 simulator, and they obtained Boeing 767 simulator training from Pan
Am International on December 31. Atta purchased flight deck videos for Boeing 747–200, Boeing
757–200, Airbus A320 and Boeing 767-300ER models via mail-order from Sporty's Pilot Shop in
Batavia, Ohio in November and December 2000.[15]
On July 22, 2001, Mohamed Atta rented a Mitsubishi Galant from Alamo Rent A Car, putting
3,836 miles on the vehicle before returning it on July 26. On July 25, Atta dropped Ziad Jarrah
off at Miami International Airport for a flight back to Germany. On July 26, Atta traveled
via Continental Airlines to Newark, New Jersey, checked into the Kings Inn Hotel in Wayne,
New Jersey and stayed there until July 30 when he took a flight from Newark back to Fort Lauderdale.[15]
On August 4, Atta is believed to have been at Orlando International Airport waiting to pick
up suspected "20th Hijacker" Mohammed al-Qahtani from Dubai, who ended up being held by immigration
as "suspicious." Atta was believed to have used a payphone at the airport to phone a number
"linked to al-Qaeda" after Qahtani was denied entry.[75]
On August 6, Atta and Shehhi rented a 1995 white, four door Ford Escort from Warrick's Rent-A-Car,
which was returned on August 13. On August 6, Atta booked a flight on Spirit Airlines from
Fort Lauderdale to Newark, leaving on August 7 and returning on August 9. The reservation was
not used and canceled on August 9 with the reason "Family Medical Emergency". Instead, he went
to Central Office & Travel in Pompano Beach to purchase a ticket for a flight to Newark, leaving
on the evening of August 7 and schedule to return in the evening on August 9. Atta did not
take the return flight. On August 7, Atta checked into the Wayne Inn in Wayne, New Jersey and
checked out on August 9. The same day, he booked a one-way first class ticket via the Internet
on America West Flight 244 from Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport to Las Vegas.[15]
Atta traveled twice to Las Vegas on "surveillance flights" rehearsing how the 9/11 attacks
would be carried out. Other hijackers traveled to Las Vegas at different times in the summer
of 2001.
Throughout the summer, Atta met with Nawaf al-Hazmi to discuss the status of the operation
on a monthly basis.[76]
On August 23, Atta's driver license was revoked in absentia after he failed to show up in
traffic court to answer the earlier citation for driving without a license.[77] On the same
day, Israeli Mossad reportedly gave his name to the CIA as part of a list of 19 names they
said were planning an attack in the near future. Only four of the names are known for certain,
the others being Marwan al-Shehhi, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi.[78]
On September 10, 2001, Atta picked up Omari from the Milner Hotel in Boston, Massachusetts,
and the two drove their rented Nissan Altima to a Comfort Inn in South Portland, Maine; on
the way they were seen getting gasoline at an Exxon Gas Station. They arrived at 5:43 pm and
spent the night in room 232. While in South Portland, they were seen making two ATM withdrawals,
and stopping at Wal-Mart. FBI also reported that "two middle-eastern men" were seen in the
parking lot of a Pizza Hut, where Atta is known to have eaten that day.[79][80][81]
Atta and Omari arrived early the next morning, at 5:40 am, at the Portland International
Jetport, where they left their rental car in the parking lot and boarded a 6:00 am Colgan Air
(US Airways Express) BE-1900C flight to Boston's Logan International Airport.[82] In Portland,
Mohamed Atta was selected by the Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS), which
required his checked bags to undergo extra screening for explosives but involved no extra screening
at the passenger security checkpoint.[83]
The connection between the two flights at Logan International Airport was within Terminal
B, but the two gates were not connected within security. Passengers must leave the secured
area, go outdoors, cross a covered roadway, and enter another building before going through
security once again. There are two separate concourses in Terminal B; the south concourse is
mainly used by US Airways and the north one is mostly used by American Airlines. It had been
overlooked that there would still be a security screen to pass in Boston because of this distinct
detail of the terminal's arrangement. At 6:45 am, while at the Boston airport, Atta took a
call from Flight 175 hijacker Marwan al-Shehhi. This call was apparently to confirm that the
attacks were ready to begin. Atta checked in for American Airlines Flight 11, passed through
security again, and boarded the flight. Atta was seated in business class, in seat 8D. At 7:59
am, the plane departed from Boston, carrying 81 passengers.[82]
The hijacking began at 8:14 am-15 minutes after the flight departed-when beverage service
would be starting. At this time, the pilots stopped responding to air traffic control, and
the aircraft began deviating from the planned route.[6]
Because the flight from Portland to Boston had been delayed,[85] his bags did not make it
onto Flight 11. Atta's bags were later recovered in Logan International Airport, and they contained
airline uniforms, flight manuals, and other items. The luggage included a copy of Atta's will,
written in Arabic, as well as a list of instructions, also in Arabic, such as "make an oath
to die and renew your intentions", "you should feel complete tranquility, because the time
between you and your marriage in heaven is very short", and "check your weapon before you leave
and long before you leave. You must make your knife sharp and you must not discomfort your
animal during the slaughter".[86]
A bit more than a ticket, right? You can follow the sources as you see fit. From what I've
seen, the evidence is pretty good. I always keep an open mind to new evidence, though. Keep in
mind that saying "But that could have been faked!" is not evidence. • Replies:
@Jonathan Revusky
Here are some lengthy bits from Atta's Wiki page:
I'm sorry. I don't think this is good enough to win this week's shit eater of the week. It's very
uninspired, this long copy-paste from the wikipedia page.
I mean, the wikipedia page is just a summary of the official story. So you're basically just offering
a copy-paste of the official story as proof of the official story. This is of course absolutely
typical shit eater behavior, but to win shit eater of the week, it has to be standout stuff.
Like, when I asked you what the proof of the official story and you said that Atta had purchased
a ticket, that was champion class shit eater material. This long copy-paste.... Mehh..... Nah....
You'll really have to do better.
From what I've seen, the evidence is pretty good.
What evidence are you referring to specifically? I have no idea what you're referring to... Let's
just grab something more or less randomly from all the verbiage you copy-pasted:
On August 6, Atta and Shehhi rented a 1995 white, four door Ford Escort from Warrick's Rent-A-Car,
which was returned on August 13.
I mean, look at the detail. It is very detailed evidence. He rented a 1995 Ford Escort. It wasn't
a 1994 Ford Escort. And it wasn't a 1996 Ford Escort.
Rented not from Hertz or Avis, but from "Warrick's Rent-a-car". WTF? Sounds like the people behind
this mighta been on a tight budget... rented the cheapest shitbox car, a Ford Escort, from the
most cheap-ass rental company there was...
But, okay, this is all nitpicking. The guy was a bona fide terrorist.
Well, obviously the ticket disproves your CGI planes theory.
Well, it's not my theory specifically. However, as a matter of fact, I consider it pretty likely
that what we were shown on the TV on 9/11 was largely video fakery, including the collision of
the planes with the buildings.
Now, regarding Mohammed Atta's plane ticket (which I actually have never seen anyway) disproving
the video fakery theory, the answer is NO! Atta having a plane ticket does not prove or disprove
anything in this regard.
I've done a lot of air travel, you know. The fact that you have a ticket to fly on a plane
at a certain time does not absolutely mean that you are on the plane and it takes off at that
time. Sometimes you go to the airport for a 8:00 flight and they tell you it's delayed an hour
and then they tell you it's delayed another hour. Sometimes they even cancel the flight and a
representative of the airline says they'll take care of you, putting you on a different flight
to your destination. (They'll usually give you a meal voucher to eat some shitty food in the airport
to compensate you been there, done that . )
Last year, I flew to Lithuania. I had a cheapo ticket from Barcelona to Vilnius. The flight
was very delayed, and then an hour before landing, they said we weren't landing in Vilnius, but
in Kaunas, and they put us all on a bus to go to Vilnius afterwards. True story. That kind of
stuff happens all the time.
The idea that, because Mohammed Atta had a ticket (so they say) this proves that the video
fo the plane hitting the tower is not fake - this is another shit eater brain fart on your part
for sure. Each plane has like millions of parts, and each part has a unique serial number apparently.
So there ought to be quite hard proof about which specific aircraft collided with each building,
no? Yet I don't think there is any such hard proof. Like, with the Pentagon, they never show you
any recognizable plane parts. And the Shanksville crash site is ridiculous. There's really just
nothing there!
So, anyway, just for the sake of argument, even if we did conclude finally that (a) a plane
definitely hit the building, and (b) Mohammed Atta not only had a ticket but was also definitely
on a plane, there still wouldn't be hard proof that the plane that hit the building is the one
Mohammed Atta was on. If a plane did a hit a building, it could have been a completely different
plane. And it still wouldn't be proof that Mohammed Atta hijacked any plane.
Now, I'm sorry to inform you that this latest idiocy from you cannot really qualify to win
this week's shit eater of the week award. You see, it's just a variant on last week's idiocy.
You say: "He purchased a ticket" when asked for evidence for the official story. Now, when you
want to prove that the video of the plane hitting the tower is authentic, you say: "Atta purchased
a ticket."
Okay, it is idiotic as well, but I think it's too derivative from the previous idiotic shit
eater statement. I think you have to come up with some entirely new idiotic shit eater statement
if you want to win this week's shit eater of the week prize.
That's my tentative judgment anyway. Others are free to weigh in on that
The Polish Army surrendered nearly 140,000 troops and during the siege around 18,000 civilians
of Warsaw perished. As a result of the air bombardments 10% of the city's buildings were entirely
destroyed and further 40% were heavily damaged.[1]:78
now this is what I said:
"anyone who burns women and children alive for the fun of it and out of sheer tribal hatred, rather
than as a military and existential imperative, is a monster in my book"
so what you have was strategic bombing of a city (a war crime in my book but then I never said
the Nazis were boy scouts) for a clear military objective. That's not what I'm talking about.
Imagine if Germany had already defeated the Poles, and Poland was on the brink, and had effectively
lost the war, and Warsaw was turned into a refugee city with tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands
of refugees huddling there as their last sanctuary. There would have been no military age men
there, as they would have all died in the war by now, and the city was overflowing with women
and children (and POW camps and such). OK? And then imagine the kind of people that would plan,
not just an attack in order to break the moral of the enemy, (it had already long been broken),
but rather as a calculated act of sheer inhuman cruelty, intended to burn alive every single old
man, woman and child until there was nothing left of either the people or the (beautiful, ancient
Baroque architecture and art of the) city. It was a true holocaust, intended as an act
of sadistic vengeance upon harmless people to sate an insatiable need to inflict unimaginable
suffering and cruelty for cruelties' sake. Just like Waco. And for the same reason, - they defied
the power of their 'masters', and for that, they would be made to pay.
Did the Nazis ever do anything like that? Did they ever deliberately burn hundreds of thousands
of civilians alive for no military purpose whatsoever? But just to be as cruel as possible?
I guess that's the word I'm really thinking of there. Cruelty. Because as that quote you
posted showed, the Nazis at their worst were trying to murder people as humanely as possible,
whereas the allies wanted to inflict the most suffering on the most innocent and vulnerable women
and children as possible. They wanted to burn women and children alive who were no threat and
at the virtual end of the war. What kind of people do something like that?
Reading the Old Testament, I get an idea of where they get their demonic hate from.
One on my mantras Incitatus, is that a lot of the raw hate in the world today (and certainly yesterday)
comes from religious ignorance and a cartoon version of the world that says the followers of
this religion are pure good, and the followers of that religion are pure evil. I
sort of wonder what things would be like if we'd finally lay to rest these pernicious and stone
age codified ignorance down, and joined the 21st century as rational actors...
Printing a ticket and getting a Pasport ,if all that you have,then you are in the right league
You are falling for Jonny's schtick:
Here are some lengthy bits from Atta's Wiki page:
On April 11, 1996, Atta signed his last will and testament at the mosque, officially declaring
his Muslim beliefs and giving 18 instructions regarding his burial.[9][40] This was the day
that Israel attacked Lebanon in Operation Grapes of Wrath, which outraged Atta. Signing the
will, "offering his life" was Atta's response.[41] The instructions in his last will and testament
reflect both Sunni funeral practices, along with some more puritanical demands from Salafism,
including asking people not "to weep and cry" or show emotion. The will was signed by el-Motassadeq
and a second individual at the mosque.[42]
After leaving Plankontor in the summer of 1997, Atta disappeared again and did not return until
1998. Atta phoned his graduate advisor in 1998, after a year of doing nothing for his thesis,
telling Machule that he had family problems at home and said, "Please understand, I don't want
to talk about this."[43][44] At the winter break in 1997, Atta left and did not return to Hamburg
for three months. He said that he went on pilgrimage to Mecca again, just 18 months after his
first time. Terry McDermott explained in Perfect Soldiers that it is highly unusual and unlikely
for someone, especially a young student, to go on Hajj again that soon. Also, three months
is an exceptionally long time, much longer than what Hajj requires. When Atta returned, he
claimed that his passport was lost and got a new one, which is a common tactic to erase evidence
of travel to places such as Afghanistan.[45] When he returned in spring 1998, after disappearing
for several months, he had grown a thick long beard, and "seemed more serious and aloof" to
those who knew him.[28]
In mid-1998, Atta worked alongside Shehhi, bin al-Shibh, and Belfas, at a warehouse, packing
computers in crates for shipping.[46] The Hamburg group did not stay in Wilhelmsburg for long.
The next winter, they moved into an apartment at Marienstrasse 54 in the borough of Harburg,
near the Technical University of Hamburg,[47] at which they enrolled. It was here that the
Hamburg cell developed and acted more as a group.[48] They met three or four times a week to
discuss their anti-American feelings and to plot possible attacks. Many al-Qaeda members lived
in this apartment at various times, including hijacker Marwan al-Shehhi, Zakariya Essabar,
and others.
In late 1999, Atta, Shehhi, Jarrah, Bahaji, and bin al-Shibh decided to travel to Chechnya
to fight against the Russians, but were convinced by Khalid al-Masri and Mohamedou Ould Slahi
at the last minute to change their plans. They instead traveled to Afghanistan over a two-week
period in late November. On November 29, 1999, Mohamed Atta boarded Turkish Airlines Flight
TK1662 from Hamburg to Istanbul, where he changed to flight TK1056 to Karachi, Pakistan.[3]
After they arrived, they were selected by Al Qaeda leader Abu Hafs as suitable candidates for
the "planes operation" plot. They were all well-educated, had experience of living in western
society, along with some English skills, and would be able to obtain visas.[41] Even before
bin al-Shibh had arrived, Atta, Shehhi, and Jarrah were sent to the House of Ghamdi near bin
Laden's home in Kandahar, where he was waiting to meet them. Bin Laden asked them to pledge
loyalty and commit to suicide missions, which Atta and the other three Hamburg men all accepted.
Bin Laden sent them to see Mohammed Atef to get a general overview of the mission, and then
they were sent to Karachi to see Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to go over specifics.[49]
German investigators said that they had evidence that Mohamed Atta trained at al-Qaeda camps
in Afghanistan from late 1999 to early 2000. The timing of the Afghanistan training was outlined
on August 23, 2002 by a senior investigator. The investigator, Klaus Ulrich Kersten, director
of Germany's federal anticrime agency, the Bundeskriminalamt, provided the first official confirmation
that Atta and two other pilots had been in Afghanistan and the first dates of the training.
Kersten said in an interview at the agency's headquarters in Wiesbaden, Germany, that Atta
was in Afghanistan from late 1999 until early 2000,[50][51] and that there was evidence that
Atta met with Osama bin Laden there.[52]
A video surfaced in October 2006 which showed bin Laden at Tarnak Farms on January 8, 2000,
and also showed Atta together with Ziad Jarrah reading their wills ten days later on January
18, 2000.[3][53]
According to official reports, Atta arrived on June 3, 2000, at Newark International Airport
from Prague. That month, Atta and Shehhi stayed in hotels and rented rooms in New York City
on a short-term basis. They continued to inquire about flight schools and personally visited
some, including Airman Flight School in Norman, Oklahoma, which they visited on July 3, 2000.
Days later, Shehhi and Atta ended up in Venice, Florida (On the Gulf Coast of South Florida).[15]
Atta and Shehhi established accounts at SunTrust Bank and received wire transfers from Ali
Abdul Aziz Ali, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's nephew in the United Arab Emirates.[15][57] On July
6, 2000, Atta and Shehhi enrolled at Huffman Aviation in Venice, Florida, where they entered
the Accelerated Pilot Program, while Ziad Jarrah took flight training from a different school
also based in Venice.[15] When Atta and Shehhi arrived in Florida, they initially stayed with
Huffman's bookkeeper and his wife in a spare room of their house. After a week, they were asked
to leave because they were rude. Atta and Shehhi then moved into a small house nearby in Nokomis
where they stayed for six months.[63][64]
Atta's flight record from Huffman
Atta began flight training on July 7, 2000, and continued training nearly every day. By the
end of July, both Atta and Shehhi did solo flights. Atta earned his private pilot certificate
in September, and then he and Shehhi decided to switch flight schools. Both enrolled at Jones
Aviation in Sarasota and took training there for a brief time. They had problems following
instructions and were both very upset when they failed their Stage 1 exam at Jones Aviation.
They inquired about multi-engine planes and told the instructor that "they wanted to move quickly,
because they had a job waiting in their country upon completion of their training in the U.S."
In mid-October, Atta and Shehhi returned to Huffman Aviation to continue training. In November
2000, Atta earned his instrument rating, and then a commercial pilot's license in December
from the Federal Aviation Administration.[15]
Atta continued with flight training, including solo flights and simulator time. On December
22, Atta and Shehhi applied to Eagle International for large jet and simulator training for
McDonnell Douglas DC-9 and Boeing 737–300 models. On December 26, Atta and Shehhi needed a
tow for their rented Piper Cherokee on a taxiway of Miami International Airport after the engine
shut down. On December 29 and 30, Atta and Marwan went to the Opa-locka Airport where they
practiced on a Boeing 727 simulator, and they obtained Boeing 767 simulator training from Pan
Am International on December 31. Atta purchased flight deck videos for Boeing 747–200, Boeing
757–200, Airbus A320 and Boeing 767-300ER models via mail-order from Sporty's Pilot Shop in
Batavia, Ohio in November and December 2000.[15]
On July 22, 2001, Mohamed Atta rented a Mitsubishi Galant from Alamo Rent A Car, putting 3,836
miles on the vehicle before returning it on July 26. On July 25, Atta dropped Ziad Jarrah off
at Miami International Airport for a flight back to Germany. On July 26, Atta traveled via
Continental Airlines to Newark, New Jersey, checked into the Kings Inn Hotel in Wayne, New
Jersey and stayed there until July 30 when he took a flight from Newark back to Fort Lauderdale.[15]
On August 4, Atta is believed to have been at Orlando International Airport waiting to pick
up suspected "20th Hijacker" Mohammed al-Qahtani from Dubai, who ended up being held by immigration
as "suspicious." Atta was believed to have used a payphone at the airport to phone a number
"linked to al-Qaeda" after Qahtani was denied entry.[75]
On August 6, Atta and Shehhi rented a 1995 white, four door Ford Escort from Warrick's Rent-A-Car,
which was returned on August 13. On August 6, Atta booked a flight on Spirit Airlines from
Fort Lauderdale to Newark, leaving on August 7 and returning on August 9. The reservation was
not used and canceled on August 9 with the reason "Family Medical Emergency". Instead, he went
to Central Office & Travel in Pompano Beach to purchase a ticket for a flight to Newark, leaving
on the evening of August 7 and schedule to return in the evening on August 9. Atta did not
take the return flight. On August 7, Atta checked into the Wayne Inn in Wayne, New Jersey and
checked out on August 9. The same day, he booked a one-way first class ticket via the Internet
on America West Flight 244 from Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport to Las Vegas.[15]
Atta traveled twice to Las Vegas on "surveillance flights" rehearsing how the 9/11 attacks
would be carried out. Other hijackers traveled to Las Vegas at different times in the summer
of 2001.
Throughout the summer, Atta met with Nawaf al-Hazmi to discuss the status of the operation
on a monthly basis.[76]
On August 23, Atta's driver license was revoked in absentia after he failed to show up in traffic
court to answer the earlier citation for driving without a license.[77] On the same day, Israeli
Mossad reportedly gave his name to the CIA as part of a list of 19 names they said were planning
an attack in the near future. Only four of the names are known for certain, the others being
Marwan al-Shehhi, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi.[78]
On September 10, 2001, Atta picked up Omari from the Milner Hotel in Boston, Massachusetts,
and the two drove their rented Nissan Altima to a Comfort Inn in South Portland, Maine; on
the way they were seen getting gasoline at an Exxon Gas Station. They arrived at 5:43 pm and
spent the night in room 232. While in South Portland, they were seen making two ATM withdrawals,
and stopping at Wal-Mart. FBI also reported that "two middle-eastern men" were seen in the
parking lot of a Pizza Hut, where Atta is known to have eaten that day.[79][80][81]
Atta and Omari arrived early the next morning, at 5:40 am, at the Portland International Jetport,
where they left their rental car in the parking lot and boarded a 6:00 am Colgan Air (US Airways
Express) BE-1900C flight to Boston's Logan International Airport.[82] In Portland, Mohamed
Atta was selected by the Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System (CAPPS), which required
his checked bags to undergo extra screening for explosives but involved no extra screening
at the passenger security checkpoint.[83]
The connection between the two flights at Logan International Airport was within Terminal B,
but the two gates were not connected within security. Passengers must leave the secured area,
go outdoors, cross a covered roadway, and enter another building before going through security
once again. There are two separate concourses in Terminal B; the south concourse is mainly
used by US Airways and the north one is mostly used by American Airlines. It had been overlooked
that there would still be a security screen to pass in Boston because of this distinct detail
of the terminal's arrangement. At 6:45 am, while at the Boston airport, Atta took a call from
Flight 175 hijacker Marwan al-Shehhi. This call was apparently to confirm that the attacks
were ready to begin. Atta checked in for American Airlines Flight 11, passed through security
again, and boarded the flight. Atta was seated in business class, in seat 8D. At 7:59 am, the
plane departed from Boston, carrying 81 passengers.[82]
The hijacking began at 8:14 am-15 minutes after the flight departed-when beverage service would
be starting. At this time, the pilots stopped responding to air traffic control, and the aircraft
began deviating from the planned route.[6]
Because the flight from Portland to Boston had been delayed,[85] his bags did not make it onto
Flight 11. Atta's bags were later recovered in Logan International Airport, and they contained
airline uniforms, flight manuals, and other items. The luggage included a copy of Atta's will,
written in Arabic, as well as a list of instructions, also in Arabic, such as "make an oath
to die and renew your intentions", "you should feel complete tranquility, because the time
between you and your marriage in heaven is very short", and "check your weapon before you leave
and long before you leave. You must make your knife sharp and you must not discomfort your
animal during the slaughter".[86]
A bit more than a ticket, right? You can follow the sources as you see fit. From what I've seen,
the evidence is pretty good. I always keep an open mind to new evidence, though. Keep in mind
that saying "But that could have been faked!" is not evidence.
Here are some lengthy bits from Atta's Wiki page:
I'm sorry. I don't think this is good enough to win this week's shit eater of the week. It's
very uninspired, this long copy-paste from the wikipedia page.
I mean, the wikipedia page is just a summary of the official story. So you're basically just
offering a copy-paste of the official story as proof of the official story. This is of course
absolutely typical shit eater behavior, but to win shit eater of the week, it has to be standout
stuff.
Like, when I asked you what the proof of the official story and you said that Atta had purchased
a ticket, that was champion class shit eater material. This long copy-paste . Mehh .. Nah .
You'll really have to do better.
From what I've seen, the evidence is pretty good.
What evidence are you referring to specifically? I have no idea what you're referring to Let's
just grab something more or less randomly from all the verbiage you copy-pasted:
On August 6, Atta and Shehhi rented a 1995 white, four door Ford Escort from Warrick's Rent-A-Car,
which was returned on August 13.
I mean, look at the detail. It is very detailed evidence. He rented a 1995 Ford Escort. It
wasn't a 1994 Ford Escort. And it wasn't a 1996 Ford Escort.
Rented not from Hertz or Avis, but from "Warrick's Rent-a-car". WTF? Sounds like the people
behind this mighta been on a tight budget rented the cheapest shitbox car, a Ford Escort, from
the most cheap-ass rental company there was
But, okay, this is all nitpicking. The guy was a bona fide terrorist.
" He rented a 1995 Ford Escort, Godammit!!! WHAT MORE PROOF DO YOU CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS
NEED!!!!???? "
The Polish Army surrendered nearly 140,000 troops and during the siege around 18,000 civilians
of Warsaw perished. As a result of the air bombardments 10% of the city's buildings were entirely
destroyed and further 40% were heavily damaged.[1]:78
now this is what I said:
"anyone who burns women and children alive for the fun of it and out of sheer tribal hatred, rather
than as a military and existential imperative, is a monster in my book"
so what you have was strategic bombing of a city (a war crime in my book but then I never said
the Nazis were boy scouts) for a clear military objective. That's not what I'm talking about.
Imagine if Germany had already defeated the Poles, and Poland was on the brink, and had effectively
lost the war, and Warsaw was turned into a refugee city with tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands
of refugees huddling there as their last sanctuary. There would have been no military age men
there, as they would have all died in the war by now, and the city was overflowing with women
and children (and POW camps and such). OK? And then imagine the kind of people that would plan,
not just an attack in order to break the moral of the enemy, (it had already long been broken),
but rather as a calculated act of sheer inhuman cruelty, intended to burn alive every single old
man, woman and child until there was nothing left of either the people or the (beautiful, ancient
Baroque architecture and art of the) city. It was a true holocaust, intended as an act
of sadistic vengeance upon harmless people to sate an insatiable need to inflict unimaginable
suffering and cruelty for cruelties' sake. Just like Waco. And for the same reason, - they defied
the power of their 'masters', and for that, they would be made to pay.
Did the Nazis ever do anything like that? Did they ever deliberately burn hundreds of thousands
of civilians alive for no military purpose whatsoever? But just to be as cruel as possible?
I guess that's the word I'm really thinking of there. Cruelty. Because as that quote you
posted showed, the Nazis at their worst were trying to murder people as humanely as possible,
whereas the allies wanted to inflict the most suffering on the most innocent and vulnerable women
and children as possible. They wanted to burn women and children alive who were no threat and
at the virtual end of the war. What kind of people do something like that?
Reading the Old Testament, I get an idea of where they get their demonic hate from.
One on my mantras Incitatus, is that a lot of the raw hate in the world today (and certainly yesterday)
comes from religious ignorance and a cartoon version of the world that says the followers of
this religion are pure good, and the followers of that religion are pure evil. I
sort of wonder what things would be like if we'd finally lay to rest these pernicious and stone
age codified ignorance down, and joined the 21st century as rational actors...
a lot of the raw hate in the world today (and certainly yesterday) comes from religious
ignorance and a cartoon version of the world that says the followers of this religion are pure
good, and the followers of that religion are pure evil. I sort of wonder what things would
be like if we'd finally lay to rest these pernicious and stone age codified ignorance
down, and joined the 21st century as rational actors
John Henry's "Arguing with God." . . . reenacts Old Testament stories to confront uncomfortable
truths about human nature and explores the psychology of how empires are built by "Chosen People,"
"good guys" who believe they have the moral right to use military force against "bad guys."
Produced in the dramatic outdoor setting of hand-laid stone, which Henry built himself, "Arguing
with God" depicts the inevitable conflict between power and justice.
The cast is 50-actor strong, with many of the leading roles played by [Henry's neighbors
and friends]. .
(Max Blumenthal played Adam, aka "guys just wanna have fun" in a recent presentation of
John Henry's play.)
but in the commercial banking sphere which I understand to have much more to do with the money
supply than the entrepreneurial investment or merchant bankers do I am unaware of any great
Jewish presence. Should I be? Who and where are they?
well wiz, you see the money supply is determined by the Fed, and that is owned and controlled
by Jews (for Jews ; )
there used to be a distinction between investment banks and the ones whose deposits were guaranteed
by the FDIC. It was called Glass Steagall and they made that law after the Fed created the Great
Depression. But then what happened is a couple of tenacious Jews (Rubin, Summers, et al) got Bubba
to cancel out Glass and handed over the keys to our Treasury to the world's greediest swindlers.
Well, obviously the ticket disproves your CGI planes theory.
Well, it's not my theory specifically. However, as a matter of fact, I consider it pretty likely
that what we were shown on the TV on 9/11 was largely video fakery, including the collision of
the planes with the buildings.
Now, regarding Mohammed Atta's plane ticket (which I actually have never seen anyway) disproving
the video fakery theory, the answer is... NO! Atta having a plane ticket does not prove or disprove
anything in this regard.
I've done a lot of air travel, you know. The fact that you have a ticket to fly on a plane at
a certain time does not absolutely mean that you are on the plane and it takes off at that time.
Sometimes you go to the airport for a 8:00 flight and they tell you it's delayed an hour and then
they tell you it's delayed another hour. Sometimes they even cancel the flight and a representative
of the airline says they'll take care of you, putting you on a different flight to your destination.
(They'll usually give you a meal voucher to eat some shitty food in the airport to compensate
you... been there, done that.... )
Last year, I flew to Lithuania. I had a cheapo ticket from Barcelona to Vilnius. The flight was
very delayed, and then an hour before landing, they said we weren't landing in Vilnius, but in
Kaunas, and they put us all on a bus to go to Vilnius afterwards. True story. That kind of stuff
happens all the time.
The idea that, because Mohammed Atta had a ticket (so they say) this proves that the video fo
the plane hitting the tower is not fake -- this is another shit eater brain fart on your part
for sure. Each plane has like millions of parts, and each part has a unique serial number apparently.
So there ought to be quite hard proof about which specific aircraft collided with each building,
no? Yet I don't think there is any such hard proof. Like, with the Pentagon, they never show you
any recognizable plane parts. And the Shanksville crash site is ridiculous. There's really just
nothing there!
So, anyway, just for the sake of argument, even if we did conclude finally that (a) a plane definitely
hit the building, and (b) Mohammed Atta not only had a ticket but was also definitely on a plane,
there still wouldn't be hard proof that the plane that hit the building is the one Mohammed Atta
was on. If a plane did a hit a building, it could have been a completely different plane. And
it still wouldn't be proof that Mohammed Atta hijacked any plane.
Now, I'm sorry to inform you that this latest idiocy from you cannot really qualify to win this
week's shit eater of the week award. You see, it's just a variant on last week's idiocy. You say:
"He purchased a ticket" when asked for evidence for the official story. Now, when you want to
prove that the video of the plane hitting the tower is authentic, you say: "Atta purchased a ticket."
Okay, it is idiotic as well, but I think it's too derivative from the previous idiotic shit eater
statement. I think you have to come up with some entirely new idiotic shit eater statement if
you want to win this week's shit eater of the week prize.
That's my tentative judgment anyway. Others are free to weigh in on that...
However, as a matter of fact, I consider it pretty likely that what we were shown on the
TV on 9/11 was largely video fakery
Yeah, well that's completely stupid and contradicted by hundreds of witnesses. Is there any
stupid conspiracy you DON'T believe? Let's try to keep the lengths of these posts manageable.
Yeah, well that's completely stupid and contradicted by hundreds of witnesses.
Hundreds of people? Really? You mean, hundreds of people saw one or more planes fly into a building
with their own two eyes, i.e. NOT on the TV like the rest of us?
Is that true? I doubt it but I cannot prove that it is untrue.
I'm sorry. I don't think this is good enough to win this week's shit eater of the week. It's very
uninspired, this long copy-paste from the wikipedia page.
I mean, the wikipedia page is just a summary of the official story. So you're basically just offering
a copy-paste of the official story as proof of the official story. This is of course absolutely
typical shit eater behavior, but to win shit eater of the week, it has to be standout stuff.
Like, when I asked you what the proof of the official story and you said that Atta had purchased
a ticket, that was champion class shit eater material. This long copy-paste.... Mehh..... Nah....
You'll really have to do better.
From what I've seen, the evidence is pretty good.
What evidence are you referring to specifically? I have no idea what you're referring to... Let's
just grab something more or less randomly from all the verbiage you copy-pasted:
On August 6, Atta and Shehhi rented a 1995 white, four door Ford Escort from Warrick's Rent-A-Car,
which was returned on August 13.
I mean, look at the detail. It is very detailed evidence. He rented a 1995 Ford Escort. It wasn't
a 1994 Ford Escort. And it wasn't a 1996 Ford Escort.
Rented not from Hertz or Avis, but from "Warrick's Rent-a-car". WTF? Sounds like the people behind
this mighta been on a tight budget... rented the cheapest shitbox car, a Ford Escort, from the
most cheap-ass rental company there was...
But, okay, this is all nitpicking. The guy was a bona fide terrorist.
" He rented a 1995 Ford Escort, Godammit!!! WHAT MORE PROOF DO YOU CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS
NEED!!!!???? "
"He rented a 1995 Ford Escort, Godammit!!! WHAT MORE PROOF DO YOU CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS
NEED!!!!????"
You think the planes were CGI. Your opinion is worthless. I shall now only respond to you with
dismissive YouTube clips.
Well, you get all testy because supposedly I'm misquoting you (though I don't see where) and you
call me a liar and all that. No possibility in your mind that I misread what you said. No, I must
be willfully lying. Except I'm not. If I misquoted something you said, I can tell you it was an
honest mistake'.
Anyway, I never stated that I was certain the planes were pure CGI. Neither did Erebus. What
I said was that I was fairly certain that no hijacked Boeing airliners hit any buildings. Possibly
some other aircraft did, like a military drone. I'm just not sure.
So when you say above that I think the planes were CGI, you are saying something that I never
said exactly.
But, look, this is where we're at. You say the official story is a correct version of what
happened. The natural question is what the best evidence for this is. You claimed that this was
a stupid question! But that, of course, was champion shit eater nonsense.
Asking what the best evidence is, that's the most natural question there is. It's not a stupid
thing to ask. So, if you admit (and I think you have tacitly admitted it) that Atta possessing
a plane ticket is not really of any evidentiary value, then what have you got?
Again: what is the strongest evidence available, in your opinion, that the official US government
story is truthful?
In particular, a key part of the story is that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, and that
was used as the cassus belli for a war that was launched. What specifically is the best evidence
available that 9/11 had anything to do with faroff Afghanistan?
We're still in Afghanistan. So it's still a very relevant, topical question and quoting long
extracts of.... SHIT.... from wikipedia telling us that Mohammed Atta rented a Ford Escort or
whatever other irrelevant crap they are trying to snow us with... -- that doesn't cut it man,
that is decidedly unserious, dude.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
However, as a matter of fact, I consider it pretty likely that what we were shown on the TV
on 9/11 was largely video fakery
Yeah, well that's completely stupid and contradicted by hundreds of witnesses. Is there any stupid
conspiracy you DON'T believe? Let's try to keep the lengths of these posts manageable.
Yeah, well that's completely stupid and contradicted by hundreds of witnesses.
Hundreds of people? Really? You mean, hundreds of people saw one or more planes fly into a
building with their own two eyes, i.e. NOT on the TV like the rest of us?
Is that true? I doubt it but I cannot prove that it is untrue.
However, the onus is logically on you to present some evidence for this. Do you have any?
Hundreds of people? Really? You mean, hundreds of people saw one or more planes fly into a
building with their own two eyes, i.e. NOT on the TV like the rest of us?
Millions of people live in New York.
Look, you know what's easier than faking 40-odd videos with CGI and paying/planting lots of witnesses
and praying that no one squeals and hoping no one finds your planes and hoping that no one videotaped
the non-plane crash, and dropping a bunch of airplane debris from...somewhere? It's just crashing
a plane into a building. That is so easy compared to your ludicrous scenario. The reason that
you find whatever 9/11 CGI video you've seen convincing is because you just don't understand much
about the evidence you're watching. And you show this behavior with the other evidence too, focusing
in on car rentals. I don't know why that's in his Wiki page, but no one says it's important or
vital.
I mean, I fully intended to just keep mocking you because your persona is so grating, but...I'm
just out of juice here. I mean, honestly, you're probably a nice guy. I don't know. I think you're
confused on some things, but we're all confused about some things, and I understand you don't
trust the government. I don't either--it just seems like there's this disconnect, that you let
your distrust carry you away. I don't know, it just feels sad piling onto you at this point. And
not in a sense that you're pathetic, but just in the sense that there's no common language here
at all. We see logic and evidence in very different ways, at least when it comes to these topics.
And you are not alone, lots of people believe these things. From my point of view, that's terrifying
not because of 9/11 but because if people give in to their own biases when evaluating the world,
then that has massive implications. That's one of the reasons I seek out places like Unz: to always
challenge my own thinking. That's why I'm sitting here, slowing down and thinking about things
you've written.
If you said Bush and Cheney knew exactly what the hijackers were going to do, I might, at times,
share that suspicion. But that's an unproveable conjecture with only a bit of evidence hinting
at the possibility. I'm okay with never knowing. It sucks, but here we are.
"He rented a 1995 Ford Escort, Godammit!!! WHAT MORE PROOF DO YOU CRAZY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS
NEED!!!!????"
You think the planes were CGI. Your opinion is worthless. I shall now only respond to you with
dismissive YouTube clips.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN9LdTkR85Q
You think the planes were CGI.
Well, you get all testy because supposedly I'm misquoting you (though I don't see where) and
you call me a liar and all that. No possibility in your mind that I misread what you said. No,
I must be willfully lying. Except I'm not. If I misquoted something you said, I can tell you it
was an honest mistake'.
Anyway, I never stated that I was certain the planes were pure CGI. Neither did Erebus. What
I said was that I was fairly certain that no hijacked Boeing airliners hit any buildings. Possibly
some other aircraft did, like a military drone. I'm just not sure.
So when you say above that I think the planes were CGI, you are saying something that I never
said exactly.
But, look, this is where we're at. You say the official story is a correct version of what
happened. The natural question is what the best evidence for this is. You claimed that this was
a stupid question! But that, of course, was champion shit eater nonsense.
Asking what the best evidence is, that's the most natural question there is. It's not a stupid
thing to ask. So, if you admit (and I think you have tacitly admitted it) that Atta possessing
a plane ticket is not really of any evidentiary value, then what have you got?
Again: what is the strongest evidence available, in your opinion, that the official US government
story is truthful?
In particular, a key part of the story is that the plot was hatched in Afghanistan, and that
was used as the cassus belli for a war that was launched. What specifically is the best evidence
available that 9/11 had anything to do with faroff Afghanistan?
We're still in Afghanistan. So it's still a very relevant, topical question and quoting long
extracts of . SHIT . from wikipedia telling us that Mohammed Atta rented a Ford Escort or whatever
other irrelevant crap they are trying to snow us with - that doesn't cut it man, that is decidedly
unserious, dude.
Yeah, well that's completely stupid and contradicted by hundreds of witnesses.
Hundreds of people? Really? You mean, hundreds of people saw one or more planes fly into a building
with their own two eyes, i.e. NOT on the TV like the rest of us?
Is that true? I doubt it but I cannot prove that it is untrue.
However, the onus is logically on you to present some evidence for this. Do you have any?
Hundreds of people? Really? You mean, hundreds of people saw one or more planes fly into
a building with their own two eyes, i.e. NOT on the TV like the rest of us?
Millions of people live in New York.
Look, you know what's easier than faking 40-odd videos with CGI and paying/planting lots of
witnesses and praying that no one squeals and hoping no one finds your planes and hoping that
no one videotaped the non-plane crash, and dropping a bunch of airplane debris from somewhere?
It's just crashing a plane into a building. That is so easy compared to your ludicrous scenario.
The reason that you find whatever 9/11 CGI video you've seen convincing is because you just don't
understand much about the evidence you're watching. And you show this behavior with the other
evidence too, focusing in on car rentals. I don't know why that's in his Wiki page, but no one
says it's important or vital.
I mean, I fully intended to just keep mocking you because your persona is so grating, but I'm
just out of juice here. I mean, honestly, you're probably a nice guy. I don't know. I think you're
confused on some things, but we're all confused about some things, and I understand you don't
trust the government. I don't either–it just seems like there's this disconnect, that you let
your distrust carry you away. I don't know, it just feels sad piling onto you at this point. And
not in a sense that you're pathetic, but just in the sense that there's no common language here
at all. We see logic and evidence in very different ways, at least when it comes to these topics.
And you are not alone, lots of people believe these things. From my point of view, that's terrifying
not because of 9/11 but because if people give in to their own biases when evaluating the world,
then that has massive implications. That's one of the reasons I seek out places like Unz: to always
challenge my own thinking. That's why I'm sitting here, slowing down and thinking about things
you've written.
If you said Bush and Cheney knew exactly what the hijackers were going to do, I might, at times,
share that suspicion. But that's an unproveable conjecture with only a bit of evidence hinting
at the possibility. I'm okay with never knowing. It sucks, but here we are.
Anyway, I hereby retract all the nasty things I've said to you and wish you the best. Sure
I could be lying, but I hope you'll consider that it's sincere. Unless you ARE an actual Nazi,
in which case I meant every word.
• Replies:
@KA Israeli did warn about potential attack by terrorist on US soil. But Israel packaged the
entire information mixing with Saddam Hussen and likely terrorism from Iraqi administration. against
US .That made sure that the entire information would be treated as disinformation ,because no
one in intelligence ever believed
that Saddam would attack US on its soil or anywhere .
"The Telegraph has learnt that two senior experts with Mossad, the Israeli military intelligence
service, were sent to Washington in August to alert the CIA and FBI to the existence of a cell
of as many of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation.
"ISRAELI intelligence officials say that they warned their counterparts in the United States last
month that large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were
imminent.
""They had no specific information about what was being planned but linked the plot to Osama bin
Laden and told the Americans that there were strong grounds for suspecting Iraqi involvement,"
said a senior Israeli security official."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1340698/Israeli-security-issued-urgent-warning-to-CIA-of-large-scale-terror-attacks.html
Still it should not have been ignored . Why was it ignored? ,
@Jonathan Revusky
Hundreds of people? Really? You mean, hundreds of people saw one or more planes fly into
a building with their own two eyes, i.e. NOT on the TV like the rest of us?
Millions of people live in New York.
(Sigh....)
You really are such a dishonest shit eater, dude. The question is not how many people live in
New York. Sure, there are millions of people in New York, but just for starters, how many of those
people at a given point in time have a clear line of sight to be looking at the right point on
the building? Like, some people are sitting in a car and only have a view of the car in front
of them basically. Or they are in an office with no window or a window that just has a view of
the next building....
Of those who could be looking at the building, how many of them actually were looking in that
direction? I mean, people are busy, they have things to do. They have their work and so on. They're
not all just staring at a building thinking a plane is going to crash into it, you know. The people
living it in real time don't know a plane is going to crash into a building, so they wouldn't
be looking in that direction. Especially the first building that was allegedly hit, if you just
happened to be looking that direction and see it, it would be a huge happenstance sort of thing,
no? But even the second one.... who is going to be staring at the other building, thinking that
ANOTHER plane is going to hit that one?
I simply posed a legitimate question, which is how many people claim they saw a plane hit a building
-- and, of course, I mean, NOT on TV! I don't know the answer to the question, honestly. I think
it's quite a low number, frankly. I've heard it said that it's easy to find somebody who knows
somebody who saw a plane hit a building, but it's pretty much impossible to find a person who
themselves saw it happen. Probably some people say they saw it direct but then if you press them,
they admit that they saw it on the TV like everybody else.
Anyway, you said "hundreds of people saw this". Where did you get that figure, I wonder...
Oh shit.... I see.... You pulled it out of your ass. You just made it up!
Gee, that's pretty deplorable really, you know. Just to be making up facts in what is supposed
to be a serious conversation.
DAMN! YOU JUST MADE THAT UP!!! THAT IS REALLY COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE!!!
YOU REALLY ARE A LITTLE LYING SHIT EATING BASTARD!!!
Now, I do have to say that I think I have expressed myself on this before.... I don't like liars.
It's really not just some pretense. I really really do not like liars LIKE YOU. I really really
don't! And I particularly don't like it when a pathological liar who just makes up shit repeatedly
calls ME a LIAR!
That is really pretty scummy and is completely unacceptable.
Look, you know what's easier than faking 40-odd videos with CGI and paying/planting lots of
witnesses and praying that no one squeals and hoping no one finds your planes and hoping that
no one videotaped the non-plane crash, and dropping a bunch of airplane debris from somewhere?
It's just crashing a plane into a building.
OH, GOOD GRIEF..... WTF is your problem? Did your momma repeatedly drop you when you were little?
I mean, on the head?
Uhh, yeah, right. Crashing a plane into a building is so damned easy. Or getting somebody to fly
a plane into a building is easy.... Sheesh....
You know, really, I honestly don't think so.... I do not think the Israeli civil service pay scale
is quite good enough to get anybody to fly a plane into a building....
But hold on, that's it! I think you've got this week's shit eater of the week award wrapped up!
"Why make a fake video? It's just so easy to get people to fly planes into a building for real!
No problem!!!!"
Shit, I think you surpassed yourself. That is really champion shit eater bullshit! SUPERSTAR YOU
ARE!!!
I knew you had talent, but my god, this is epoch making. I can't believe I am really conversing
with such a fucking idiot. I mean, you really must be one in a million! YES, it's just so easy
to fly a plane into a building, or convince somebody to fly a plane into a building!!!
I guess that's why there are no stuntmen working in Hollywood. If you need a scene where somebody
falls off a tall building to their death, why pay stuntmen or special effects people to fake the
scene??? NO!!!! You just pay somebody to jump off the building to their death for real, because
THAT'S EASIER!!!
MY GOD! YOU JUST MADE MY DAY! YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT!!!!! BAW HA HAAAAAH!!!!!
Anyway, I hereby retract all the nasty things I've said to you and wish you the best.
Okay, dude, you have made me laugh and I should thank you for that. BUT.... if the above is supposed
to be some sort of apology for calling me a liar repeatedly and stuff like this, I can't really
accept it. It's not good enough.
This business where you say there are "hundreds" of people who saw the plane hit the building
(with their naked eyes, NOT on TV), you just made that up and that is completely unacceptable.
You need to explicitly apologize for that for me to even think about a reset of our relationship.
In general, you would also have to just stop being such a complete shit eater. It might be hard,
I know. I myself didn't stop being a shit eater from one day to the next.
But at this point, there ought to be a recognition of the problem and then a sense that you're
making an effort.
This latest champion shit eater stuff that there is no need to fake a video because it's easy
to get somebody to fly a plane into a building... you must have, in AA terms "hit bottom" now.
That's just such ridiculous SHIT that I don't think it can be surpassed. I mean, actually, I thought
the nonsense that Atta had a ticket, therefore the official story is truth, that this was insurpassable,
and I was wrong. You surpassed that. This latest thing is far more dazzling, breathtaking in its
idiocy.
Hundreds of people? Really? You mean, hundreds of people saw one or more planes fly into a
building with their own two eyes, i.e. NOT on the TV like the rest of us?
Millions of people live in New York.
Look, you know what's easier than faking 40-odd videos with CGI and paying/planting lots of witnesses
and praying that no one squeals and hoping no one finds your planes and hoping that no one videotaped
the non-plane crash, and dropping a bunch of airplane debris from...somewhere? It's just crashing
a plane into a building. That is so easy compared to your ludicrous scenario. The reason that
you find whatever 9/11 CGI video you've seen convincing is because you just don't understand much
about the evidence you're watching. And you show this behavior with the other evidence too, focusing
in on car rentals. I don't know why that's in his Wiki page, but no one says it's important or
vital.
I mean, I fully intended to just keep mocking you because your persona is so grating, but...I'm
just out of juice here. I mean, honestly, you're probably a nice guy. I don't know. I think you're
confused on some things, but we're all confused about some things, and I understand you don't
trust the government. I don't either--it just seems like there's this disconnect, that you let
your distrust carry you away. I don't know, it just feels sad piling onto you at this point. And
not in a sense that you're pathetic, but just in the sense that there's no common language here
at all. We see logic and evidence in very different ways, at least when it comes to these topics.
And you are not alone, lots of people believe these things. From my point of view, that's terrifying
not because of 9/11 but because if people give in to their own biases when evaluating the world,
then that has massive implications. That's one of the reasons I seek out places like Unz: to always
challenge my own thinking. That's why I'm sitting here, slowing down and thinking about things
you've written.
If you said Bush and Cheney knew exactly what the hijackers were going to do, I might, at times,
share that suspicion. But that's an unproveable conjecture with only a bit of evidence hinting
at the possibility. I'm okay with never knowing. It sucks, but here we are.
Anyway, I hereby retract all the nasty things I've said to you and wish you the best. Sure I could
be lying, but I hope you'll consider that it's sincere. Unless you ARE an actual Nazi, in which
case I meant every word. :)
Israeli did warn about potential attack by terrorist on US soil. But Israel packaged the entire
information mixing with Saddam Hussen and likely terrorism from Iraqi administration. against
US .That made sure that the entire information would be treated as disinformation ,because no
one in intelligence ever believed
that Saddam would attack US on its soil or anywhere .
"The Telegraph has learnt that two senior experts with Mossad, the Israeli military intelligence
service, were sent to Washington in August to alert the CIA and FBI to the existence of a cell
of as many of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation.
"ISRAELI intelligence officials say that they warned their counterparts in the United States
last month that large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland
were imminent.
Still it should not have been ignored . Why was it ignored?
• Replies:
@utu "Still it should not have been ignored . Why was it ignored?" - Because it did not happen
or their mission was disinfo cover up. ,
@Wizard of Oz Thanks for that link to the Telegraph story. It incidentally offers an explanation
for Cheney's urging the CIA to come up with an Iraq connection as shown in the PBS doco "The Secret
History of ISIS". After all if Mossad had been ahead of the CIA on the main plot they might well
be right about Iraq. It will be a long time before we will know whether Mossad believed there
was an Iraqi connection. ,
@Jonathan Revusky
Still it should not have been ignored . Why was it ignored?
With all due respect, I think you have some conceptual gaps in your understanding of these sorts
of psy ops.
A big component of a synthetic narrative is what you could call preparing the terrain or foreshadowing.
I tend to use the word "prefiguration".
I don't say this to offend you, but I just don't think you have too much concept of prefiguration
. You see it in other psy ops, like with Charlie Hebdo, the event was prefigured with
these other things where Muslims were supposed to be so outraged about some cartoons.
All this stuff that the various government agencies were receiving warnings "Osama Bin Laden about
to attack America" -- this is all synthetic prefiguration . Can't you see that? Just think
about it.
What you then get are these narratives about how the various agencies were "incompetent" because
they ignored all these "warnings" and blah blah.
Actually, the key thing to get out of this is the Mossad did, I guess, play a role in prefiguring
the attacks by putting out these "friendly warnings" (LOL) that OBL is gonna come get you and
ya dee da..... I mean, once you understand what basically happened, you can see this stuff for
what it is.
That is all a red herring and then they create these cookie crumb trails that lead nowhere, or
lead to Saudi Arabia or whatever.... which is basically nowhere, in terms of figuring out who
really did 9/11.
I think you're right about some of the trolls here, or so it seems to me
but this is the thing vis-a-vis the Holocau$t. I don't like calling the whole thing a hoax, because
then it sort of looks like you're suggesting that NONE of any of that stuff happened, when I believe
that it's clear that Jews (and many others) were systematically persecuted by the Nazis for being
Jews, and not necessarily for any crimes they committed. Just like the Japanese in the US during
the war. If they Japanese claimed there were gas chambers at the camps where they were held, then
I think it would be fair and prudent to examine those claims for veracity, just as in the case
of the Holocaust- where I don't think they had homicidal gas chambers for human extermination
purposes. But that doesn't change the fact that many people perished in those camps, and many
of them were innocent Jews, and if the Jews want to call that particular suffering a name to commemorate
it, just like what the Japanese went through, then I don't see what's wrong with that per se.
That it has become this momentous blood libel against the German people in particular and all
Gentiles in general is just another testament to the power of the lobby.
Controlling the world's banks and money supply and therefor all the media of consequence and all
the major politicians (and publishing houses and courts and universities, etc..) has had an effect
on things. The Eternal WarsⓊ being perhaps the most troublesome for the moment.
I believe that it's clear that Jews (and many others) were systematically persecuted
by the Nazis for being Jews, and not necessarily for any crimes they committed.
[...] But that doesn't change the fact that many people perished in those camps, and many of them
were innocent Jews, and if the Jews want to call that particular suffering a name to commemorate
it, just like what the Japanese went through, then I don't see what's wrong with that per se.
Rurik,
As I've said in some previous posts, you have an admirable capacity for gleaning the essence of
some important subjects. The aforementioned, more or less my own feelings about the Holocaust,
was an event which occurred in the midst of a period that saw tens of millions slaughtered. They
were certainly not just Jews. To be frank I never dwelt on the subject too much in my adult life,
[even though the real experience of what happened to my kin is very close to me - my granny, whom
I spare the ordeal these days of retelling her life events; and she holds no grudge, none at all]
i.e., until I stumbled upon the Unz Review last year. This publication seems to be rife with discussions,
of which, the ultimate goals are clear; and I needn't explicate the obvious. So again, I am completely
unfamiliar with this charge of people exploiting the Holocaust for personal gains. I really don't
know any.
Furthermore there is no blood libel on Germans. Nazis, on the other hand were 'no boy scouts'
indeed! We all relate to personal experiences. So in my case, my work brings me in contact with
a large number of Europeans and Germans. I can tell you nothing but positive things about my contacts
[on a lighter note I've dated German girls and they are a fun loving lot].
There is perhaps a grain of truth in what you say regarding what has become verboten in polite
society, and by extension in the media. I hardly think any decent, educated person would use the
'n' word e.g. Its an assault on basic humanity. So is calling an Asian, A Jew, an Arab, A muslim,
A White man or a woman by derogatory terms. Its simply not done in this day an age [more generally
I am revolted by some of the verbal obscenity that goes on here, led by Revusky, a man I lament
to admit a co-religionist] . More specifically, I am against any laws that stifle free speech
and expression. So if certain laws are oppressive, the majoritarian system that created those
in the first place, ought to be utilised to render them null and void post partum. [In the case
of Ursula H., there is more to her story than meets the eye. She had been held in contempt of
court on a few occasions, having used her age and the fragility associated with it, to provoke
the legal/judicial system, when the judges finally threw the book at her. They will brook defiance
of the law up to a certain extent and no more. Still, I understand it is galling to witness a
granny thrown in gaol for nothing more than revisionist activism. Who made those laws?]
Jews don't control the world's money supply. A person like you ought to rid yourself of this
risible notion. [Its a discussion we've had often and let's avoid it this time shall we? btw I
commented on Mike Whitney's piece apropos, and we might continue on this subject there if you
so wish]
As I've said in some previous posts, you have an admirable capacity for gleaning the essence
of some important subjects. ... ...This publication seems to be rife with discussions, of which,
the ultimate goals are clear; and I needn't explicate the obvious.
I will take the first part as a complement and offer my gratitude at your graciousness in offering
it. Since we don't always see eye to eye, so to speak. As for the second part, I'm not sure what
the obvious is. If it's to demean or downplay the suffering of your loved one, then I don't think
that's what anyone is trying to do. But I do think I get your gist.
So again, I am completely unfamiliar with this charge of people exploiting the Holocaust for
personal gains. I really don't know any.
not for personal gain per se. Although I'm sure there are some who're guilty of that. Rather it's
to benefit a amorphous idea that is most succinctly described as "What's good for the Jews". And
as we all know, there have been myriad benefits to be gleaned (both by Israel in particular and
Jews in general) from the guilt and sympathy people have felt for 'the Jews' vis-a-vis the Holocaust.
Furthermore there is no blood libel on Germans. Nazis, on the other hand were 'no boy scouts'
indeed!
a little while back I was watching a show with my previous girlfriend, CSI or some such. And the
story line was beginning to look as if it was the Wolfowitz's who were guilty of an unspeakably
heinous crime. They also had an adopted child who was of German ancestry. I didn't have to watch
the show to remark to my gal that it would end up that the Wolfowitz's were innocent, but even
I was surprised that -as it turned out- that it was (shock, shock) the adopted but now grown boy
who was guilty, - that as the investigators were discussing the solution to the crime, the one
mentioned to the other, well I guess what happened is 'the nature won out over the nurture'. IOW
all Germans are congenitally evil, even when they're raised in an eternally forgiving Jewish household.
That for me was Hollywood in a nutshell.
We all relate to personal experiences. So in my case, my work brings me in contact with a large
number of Europeans and Germans. I can tell you nothing but positive things about my contacts
[on a lighter note I've dated German girls and they are a fun loving lot].
I like em too. Brash and brassy and tough. And you're right, we all see things though the prism
of our own life experiences and perspectives. I'm sure that had I grown up hearing about how Germans
murdered and tried to genocide my people, that such a thing would necessarily have an effect on
me. Just as if I were a black man and heard nothing else but what the white man had done to my
ancestors, or more to the point, how he was relentlessly holding me down, or all the other narratives
and paradigms that we all marinate in, all have an effect on our psyches and view points. This
is true.
There is perhaps a grain of truth in what you say regarding what has become verboten in polite
society, and by extension in the media. I hardly think any decent, educated person would use
the 'n' word e.g. Its an assault on basic humanity.
well I've used it, but then I never pretended to be a member of polite society. Hardly. There
are some people whom I would refer to as niggers. Not Obama, certainly not. He's not a nigger
in my book. An empty suit and a war criminal, sure. A racist and a Marxist, yea, but not a nigger.
For me a nigger is a low-life POS, black or white. And who revels in being a low-life POS. The
animals who perpetrated the crimes notoriously reviled as the 'Wichita Massacre' are straight
up niggers, in my book. Same with the sub-human animals who murdered Channon Christian.
Niggers to a T. I don't shrink from using words that describe something in such a succinct, if
jarring way. And I also am not trying to write for the NYT. I'm here writing simply for the purpose
of conveying what I consider to be an honest and ingenuous search for the truth.
Its an assault on basic humanity. So is calling an Asian, A Jew, an Arab, A muslim, A White
man or a woman by derogatory terms.
oh Lord Sam, that's soo politically correct. Have some fun for God's sake. Trust me, African Americans
can take being called the 'n' word. I've never known a people to use a word with such alacrity
as a Negro uses the word 'nigger'. It's like the Irish with the word 'fuck'. Take those words
away from them and they'd be mute. I've been called a 'redneck, hillbilly, cracker', even a CIS,
and it's like water off a ducks back. I didn't even get 'triggered'. We need to grow a little
thicker bark I think today. Everyone's so sensitive.
led by Revusky
JR is passionate. When he goes on about lurid description of anatomy, I'm not put off at all.
(even if I confess I am occasionally put off by relentless flame wars) I remember how the Priss
talked about how Ann Coulter had 'the Jews' dick in her mouth and she was using too much teeth
at times, and I had to laugh. Come on Sam, get out of your Etonian linguistic straight jacket.
Break the bonds of puritan parameters on your discourse. You'll breath and write freer, and how
could that ever be a bad thing? [see Hunter S., Thomson]
In the case of Ursula H., there is more to her story than meets the eye. She had been held
in contempt of court on a few occasions,
oh my gosh! say it isn't so!!!
to provoke the legal/judicial system
gasp!
They will brook defiance of the law up to a certain extent and no more
it troubles me Sam, that you would write such a thing and not see the glaring tyrannical undertones
of such a statement.
Who made those laws?]
umm.. Western governments under Zionist occupation?
Jews don't control the world's money supply. A person like you ought to rid yourself of this
risible notion.
not Jews per se Sam. Not my colleagues at work or my dentist or neighbors or relatives or friends.
No, they sure don't. But there are a few Jews who wield inordinate power over the financial markets
of the Western world, Sam. Like the Rothscild agents, known as the "Russian" oligarchs who looted
the wealth and reasources of Russia proper. Those Jews Sam, do control money supplies and markets
and banks and control Wall Street and the Fed and the Treasury and other influential institutions
of the world's money supply. And I suspect that you're more or less aware of all of that Sam.
But for this kind of thing to be common knowledge, would not necessarily be "good for the Jews",
now would it Sam? Perhaps people might start to wonder why we need to have a Goldman Sachs boy
holding the keys to the US Treasury. Or running the unaccountable Federal Reserve Bank. Eh Sam?
and we might continue on this subject there if you so wish]
utu
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 13, 2016 at 2:59 am GMT
@KA Israeli did warn about potential attack by terrorist on US soil. But Israel packaged the
entire information mixing with Saddam Hussen and likely terrorism from Iraqi administration. against
US .That made sure that the entire information would be treated as disinformation ,because no
one in intelligence ever believed
that Saddam would attack US on its soil or anywhere .
"The Telegraph has learnt that two senior experts with Mossad, the Israeli military intelligence
service, were sent to Washington in August to alert the CIA and FBI to the existence of a cell
of as many of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation.
"ISRAELI intelligence officials say that they warned their counterparts in the United States last
month that large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were
imminent.
""They had no specific information about what was being planned but linked the plot to Osama bin
Laden and told the Americans that there were strong grounds for suspecting Iraqi involvement,"
said a senior Israeli security official."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1340698/Israeli-security-issued-urgent-warning-to-CIA-of-large-scale-terror-attacks.html
Still it should not have been ignored . Why was it ignored?
"Still it should not have been ignored . Why was it ignored?" – Because it did not happen or
their mission was disinfo cover up.
After all I am 99 per cent sure that you have absolutely no qualifications either in knowledge
or reasoning power to give any authority ...
you don't need a degree in engineering to see that building seven was brought down by controlled
demolition. Duh
and I have no such degree, but I am a successful businessman who builds things out of metal (and
concrete among other materials), and I understand their properties intimately. - If I didn't,
then the things I built wouldn't last and function properly and I wouldn't have managed to be
successful enough that I would waste time bantering around inanities with someone like you on
the Internet. ;)
I almost pay you a compliment at #201 on The Saker's 9/11 thread
Wizard
of Oz says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 13, 2016 at 5:22 am GMT • 100 Words
@KA Israeli did warn about potential attack by terrorist on US soil. But Israel packaged the
entire information mixing with Saddam Hussen and likely terrorism from Iraqi administration. against
US .That made sure that the entire information would be treated as disinformation ,because no
one in intelligence ever believed
that Saddam would attack US on its soil or anywhere .
"The Telegraph has learnt that two senior experts with Mossad, the Israeli military intelligence
service, were sent to Washington in August to alert the CIA and FBI to the existence of a cell
of as many of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation.
"ISRAELI intelligence officials say that they warned their counterparts in the United States last
month that large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were
imminent.
""They had no specific information about what was being planned but linked the plot to Osama bin
Laden and told the Americans that there were strong grounds for suspecting Iraqi involvement,"
said a senior Israeli security official."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1340698/Israeli-security-issued-urgent-warning-to-CIA-of-large-scale-terror-attacks.html
Still it should not have been ignored . Why was it ignored?
Thanks for that link to the Telegraph story. It incidentally offers an explanation for Cheney's
urging the CIA to come up with an Iraq connection as shown in the PBS doco "The Secret History
of ISIS". After all if Mossad had been ahead of the CIA on the main plot they might well be right
about Iraq. It will be a long time before we will know whether Mossad believed there was an Iraqi
connection.
It will be a long time before we will know whether Mossad believed there was an Iraqi connection.
Oh, well, this is all just total bullshit. But hey, what can one expect from some pathetic old
Aussie shit eater who thinks that the proof of the official story is that it's the official story?
The Iraqi regime was completely transparent to U.S. intelligence. They had an asset right at the
top of the government, at the cabinet level, for example, somebody who would have known whether
Iraq had WMD or not. And they surely had informers throughout the Iraqi government, it was totally
infiltrated. If U.S. Intelligence knew what was going on in Iraq, you can be pretty damned sure
that Mossad knew whatever they did.
The whole idea that Mossad or CIA sincerely believed that Saddam Hussein had something to do with
9/11, this is complete nonsense, of course. Everybody who knows anything knows that at this point.
Of course, you don't know anything, which is why you don't know that.
This is another characteristic of a shit eater. They just manage, year after year, to remain ignorant
of the most basic facts that are available. ,
@KA Saddam was just a 'neighborhood bully,' Netanyahu says– 13 years after saying Saddam threatened
'security of our entire world' -
to AEI's Pletka
"Mind you, Saddam was horrible, horrible. Brutal killer. So was Qaddafi. There's no question about
that. I had my own dealings with each of them. But I do want to say that they were in many ways,
neighborhood bullies. That is, they tormented their immediate environment. But they were not wedded
to a larger goal. The militant Islamists–either Iran leading the militant Shi'ites with their
proxies Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad and Hamas Or the militant Sunnis led by ISIS they have a
larger goal in mind Their goal is not the conquest of the Middle East. It's the conquest of the
world. It's unbelievable, people don't believe "
Hold on a second. Thirteen years ago in testimony to Congress, Netanyahu said that Saddam did
represent a threat to the entire world. Excerpts (thanks to Jim Lobe at lobelog):
Mossad is ventriloquizing through the malleable vocal cord of these psychopath
That Mossad gave the 9pre 911 information to US . Telegraph as stenographer reported it
They are still doing and Telegraph is still reporting ,
@KA "Netanyahu was alarmed by the signals from both Tehran and Washington in the summer of
1997 indicating interest in reducing tensions between the two countries. That would have represented
a real threat to Israel's political and strategic interests, and he was determined to cut it short.
Netanyahu's response was to start to begin sending messages to Iran through other governments
that Israel would carry out pre-emptive strikes against Iranian missile development sites unless
it stopped its ballistic missile programme."
Another wide open evident building and spreading of conspiracy involving intelligence,media foreign
entities .
Just as Soviet disappearance gave rise to fervent creation of " Green Peril' from Malayasia to
Sudan, the disappearance of tension between Iran and US in 1997 made the Netanyhu ( the whole
Israeli regime) go off the deep end . They started conjuring of Shi crescent , worldwide Iranian
sleeper cells , Yellow Robbon, " Wiping off the map" , killing American soldiers, sending terrorist
to Western Hemisphere and latest addition to that Money - driven garbled claims is the ransom.
Israel needs an enemy and wants America to fight . American politicians ,some stupid Evangelics,
and CNN. FOC drink that Kool Aid first thing in morning . Conspiracy goes unchecked. Unscrutinized
,unquestioned .
Actually conspiracy factory is so active,it churns out periodically predictably and consisyently
one letter head organization after another like Israeli Project,David Project,ECI FDD Campus Watch
who have usually one particular lie to promote at a given time before conjuring up another lie
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
Jonathan
Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment
September 13, 2016 at 2:15 pm GMT • 300 Words
@KA Israeli did warn about potential attack by terrorist on US soil. But Israel packaged the
entire information mixing with Saddam Hussen and likely terrorism from Iraqi administration. against
US .That made sure that the entire information would be treated as disinformation ,because no
one in intelligence ever believed
that Saddam would attack US on its soil or anywhere .
"The Telegraph has learnt that two senior experts with Mossad, the Israeli military intelligence
service, were sent to Washington in August to alert the CIA and FBI to the existence of a cell
of as many of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation.
"ISRAELI intelligence officials say that they warned their counterparts in the United States last
month that large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were
imminent.
""They had no specific information about what was being planned but linked the plot to Osama bin
Laden and told the Americans that there were strong grounds for suspecting Iraqi involvement,"
said a senior Israeli security official."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1340698/Israeli-security-issued-urgent-warning-to-CIA-of-large-scale-terror-attacks.html
Still it should not have been ignored . Why was it ignored?
Still it should not have been ignored . Why was it ignored?
With all due respect, I think you have some conceptual gaps in your understanding of these
sorts of psy ops.
A big component of a synthetic narrative is what you could call preparing the terrain or foreshadowing.
I tend to use the word "prefiguration".
I don't say this to offend you, but I just don't think you have too much concept of prefiguration
. You see it in other psy ops, like with Charlie Hebdo, the event was prefigured with
these other things where Muslims were supposed to be so outraged about some cartoons.
All this stuff that the various government agencies were receiving warnings "Osama Bin Laden
about to attack America" - this is all synthetic prefiguration . Can't you see that? Just
think about it.
What you then get are these narratives about how the various agencies were "incompetent" because
they ignored all these "warnings" and blah blah.
Actually, the key thing to get out of this is the Mossad did, I guess, play a role in prefiguring
the attacks by putting out these "friendly warnings" (LOL) that OBL is gonna come get you and
ya dee da .. I mean, once you understand what basically happened, you can see this stuff for what
it is.
That is all a red herring and then they create these cookie crumb trails that lead nowhere,
or lead to Saudi Arabia or whatever . which is basically nowhere, in terms of figuring out who
really did 9/11.
Well, in short, this whole branch of the conversation of "why they ignored the warnings" is
amounts to falling for a constructed distraction.
Jonathan
Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment
September 13, 2016 at 2:23 pm GMT • 200 Words
@Wizard of Oz Thanks for that link to the Telegraph story. It incidentally offers an explanation
for Cheney's urging the CIA to come up with an Iraq connection as shown in the PBS doco "The Secret
History of ISIS". After all if Mossad had been ahead of the CIA on the main plot they might well
be right about Iraq. It will be a long time before we will know whether Mossad believed there
was an Iraqi connection.
It will be a long time before we will know whether Mossad believed there was an Iraqi connection.
Oh, well, this is all just total bullshit. But hey, what can one expect from some pathetic
old Aussie shit eater who thinks that the proof of the official story is that it's the official
story?
The Iraqi regime was completely transparent to U.S. intelligence. They had an asset right at
the top of the government, at the cabinet level, for example, somebody who would have known whether
Iraq had WMD or not. And they surely had informers throughout the Iraqi government, it was totally
infiltrated. If U.S. Intelligence knew what was going on in Iraq, you can be pretty damned sure
that Mossad knew whatever they did.
The whole idea that Mossad or CIA sincerely believed that Saddam Hussein had something to do
with 9/11, this is complete nonsense, of course. Everybody who knows anything knows that at this
point. Of course, you don't know anything, which is why you don't know that.
This is another characteristic of a shit eater. They just manage, year after year, to remain
ignorant of the most basic facts that are available.
Hundreds of people? Really? You mean, hundreds of people saw one or more planes fly into a
building with their own two eyes, i.e. NOT on the TV like the rest of us?
Millions of people live in New York.
Look, you know what's easier than faking 40-odd videos with CGI and paying/planting lots of witnesses
and praying that no one squeals and hoping no one finds your planes and hoping that no one videotaped
the non-plane crash, and dropping a bunch of airplane debris from...somewhere? It's just crashing
a plane into a building. That is so easy compared to your ludicrous scenario. The reason that
you find whatever 9/11 CGI video you've seen convincing is because you just don't understand much
about the evidence you're watching. And you show this behavior with the other evidence too, focusing
in on car rentals. I don't know why that's in his Wiki page, but no one says it's important or
vital.
I mean, I fully intended to just keep mocking you because your persona is so grating, but...I'm
just out of juice here. I mean, honestly, you're probably a nice guy. I don't know. I think you're
confused on some things, but we're all confused about some things, and I understand you don't
trust the government. I don't either--it just seems like there's this disconnect, that you let
your distrust carry you away. I don't know, it just feels sad piling onto you at this point. And
not in a sense that you're pathetic, but just in the sense that there's no common language here
at all. We see logic and evidence in very different ways, at least when it comes to these topics.
And you are not alone, lots of people believe these things. From my point of view, that's terrifying
not because of 9/11 but because if people give in to their own biases when evaluating the world,
then that has massive implications. That's one of the reasons I seek out places like Unz: to always
challenge my own thinking. That's why I'm sitting here, slowing down and thinking about things
you've written.
If you said Bush and Cheney knew exactly what the hijackers were going to do, I might, at times,
share that suspicion. But that's an unproveable conjecture with only a bit of evidence hinting
at the possibility. I'm okay with never knowing. It sucks, but here we are.
Anyway, I hereby retract all the nasty things I've said to you and wish you the best. Sure I could
be lying, but I hope you'll consider that it's sincere. Unless you ARE an actual Nazi, in which
case I meant every word. :)
Hundreds of people? Really? You mean, hundreds of people saw one or more planes fly into
a building with their own two eyes, i.e. NOT on the TV like the rest of us?
Millions of people live in New York.
(Sigh .)
You really are such a dishonest shit eater, dude. The question is not how many people live
in New York. Sure, there are millions of people in New York, but just for starters, how many of
those people at a given point in time have a clear line of sight to be looking at the right point
on the building? Like, some people are sitting in a car and only have a view of the car in front
of them basically. Or they are in an office with no window or a window that just has a view of
the next building .
Of those who could be looking at the building, how many of them actually were looking in that
direction? I mean, people are busy, they have things to do. They have their work and so on. They're
not all just staring at a building thinking a plane is going to crash into it, you know. The people
living it in real time don't know a plane is going to crash into a building, so they wouldn't
be looking in that direction. Especially the first building that was allegedly hit, if you just
happened to be looking that direction and see it, it would be a huge happenstance sort of thing,
no? But even the second one . who is going to be staring at the other building, thinking that
ANOTHER plane is going to hit that one?
I simply posed a legitimate question, which is how many people claim they saw a plane hit a
building - and, of course, I mean, NOT on TV! I don't know the answer to the question, honestly.
I think it's quite a low number, frankly. I've heard it said that it's easy to find somebody who
knows somebody who saw a plane hit a building, but it's pretty much impossible to find a person
who themselves saw it happen. Probably some people say they saw it direct but then if you press
them, they admit that they saw it on the TV like everybody else.
Anyway, you said "hundreds of people saw this". Where did you get that figure, I wonder
Oh shit . I see . You pulled it out of your ass. You just made it up!
Gee, that's pretty deplorable really, you know. Just to be making up facts in what is supposed
to be a serious conversation.
DAMN! YOU JUST MADE THAT UP!!! THAT IS REALLY COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE!!!
YOU REALLY ARE A LITTLE LYING SHIT EATING BASTARD!!!
Now, I do have to say that I think I have expressed myself on this before . I don't like liars.
It's really not just some pretense. I really really do not like liars LIKE YOU. I really really
don't! And I particularly don't like it when a pathological liar who just makes up shit repeatedly
calls ME a LIAR!
That is really pretty scummy and is completely unacceptable.
Look, you know what's easier than faking 40-odd videos with CGI and paying/planting lots
of witnesses and praying that no one squeals and hoping no one finds your planes and hoping
that no one videotaped the non-plane crash, and dropping a bunch of airplane debris from somewhere?
It's just crashing a plane into a building.
OH, GOOD GRIEF .. WTF is your problem? Did your momma repeatedly drop you when you were little?
I mean, on the head?
Uhh, yeah, right. Crashing a plane into a building is so damned easy. Or getting somebody to
fly a plane into a building is easy . Sheesh .
You know, really, I honestly don't think so . I do not think the Israeli civil service pay
scale is quite good enough to get anybody to fly a plane into a building .
But hold on, that's it! I think you've got this week's shit eater of the week award wrapped
up!
"Why make a fake video? It's just so easy to get people to fly planes into a building for
real! No problem!!!!"
Shit, I think you surpassed yourself. That is really champion shit eater bullshit! SUPERSTAR
YOU ARE!!!
I knew you had talent, but my god, this is epoch making. I can't believe I am really conversing
with such a fucking idiot. I mean, you really must be one in a million! YES, it's just so easy
to fly a plane into a building, or convince somebody to fly a plane into a building!!!
I guess that's why there are no stuntmen working in Hollywood. If you need a scene where somebody
falls off a tall building to their death, why pay stuntmen or special effects people to fake the
scene??? NO!!!! You just pay somebody to jump off the building to their death for real, because
THAT'S EASIER!!!
MY GOD! YOU JUST MADE MY DAY! YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT!!!!! BAW HA HAAAAAH!!!!!
Anyway, I hereby retract all the nasty things I've said to you and wish you the best.
Okay, dude, you have made me laugh and I should thank you for that. BUT . if the above is supposed
to be some sort of apology for calling me a liar repeatedly and stuff like this, I can't really
accept it. It's not good enough.
This business where you say there are "hundreds" of people who saw the plane hit the building
(with their naked eyes, NOT on TV), you just made that up and that is completely unacceptable.
You need to explicitly apologize for that for me to even think about a reset of our relationship.
In general, you would also have to just stop being such a complete shit eater. It might be
hard, I know. I myself didn't stop being a shit eater from one day to the next.
But at this point, there ought to be a recognition of the problem and then a sense that you're
making an effort.
This latest champion shit eater stuff that there is no need to fake a video because it's easy
to get somebody to fly a plane into a building you must have, in AA terms "hit bottom" now. That's
just such ridiculous SHIT that I don't think it can be surpassed. I mean, actually, I thought
the nonsense that Atta had a ticket, therefore the official story is truth, that this was insurpassable,
and I was wrong. You surpassed that. This latest thing is far more dazzling, breathtaking in its
idiocy.
So if you've hit bottom now as a shit eater, you can only go up from here. But . dude you've
got a long ways to go
I don't want to be part of this crazy shouting match, but I saw the second plane hit. We were
all watching the towers after the 1st impact, hell there must have been about 100 spectators gathered
around the street level around 500 yards or a bit less away from the Tower ground esplanade, paused.
The second impact came in less than I'd say 20 mins! We stuck around for another 10 mins until
fire dept. came in numbers and cops together started driving people away.What are you talking
about TV man?!!
Jonathan
Revusky says: • Website Show Comment Next New Comment
September 13, 2016 at 7:01 pm GMT
@Anonymous I don't want to be part of this crazy shouting match, but I saw the second plane
hit. We were all watching the towers after the 1st impact, hell there must have been about 100
spectators gathered around the street level around 500 yards or a bit less away from the Tower
ground esplanade, paused. The second impact came in less than I'd say 20 mins! We stuck around
for another 10 mins until fire dept. came in numbers and cops together started driving people
away.What are you talking about TV man?!!
I saw the second plane hit
That's interesting. Could you provide your name and some contact details so that we could talk
to you and assess how credible this is?
Yes sure, that's all I need a bunch of crazies calling me up about 9/11 "truth". Take my post
for what it is worth to you, I don't care about your "how credible this is" test either. And yeah,
there WERE hundreds of people watching it!
I believe that it's clear that Jews (and many others) were systematically persecuted by
the Nazis for being Jews, and not necessarily for any crimes they committed.
[...] But that doesn't change the fact that many people perished in those camps, and many of them
were innocent Jews, and if the Jews want to call that particular suffering a name to commemorate
it, just like what the Japanese went through, then I don't see what's wrong with that per se.
Rurik,
As I've said in some previous posts, you have an admirable capacity for gleaning the essence of
some important subjects. The aforementioned, more or less my own feelings about the Holocaust,
was an event which occurred in the midst of a period that saw tens of millions slaughtered. They
were certainly not just Jews. To be frank I never dwelt on the subject too much in my adult life,
[even though the real experience of what happened to my kin is very close to me - my granny, whom
I spare the ordeal these days of retelling her life events; and she holds no grudge, none at all]
i.e., until I stumbled upon the Unz Review last year. This publication seems to be rife with discussions,
of which, the ultimate goals are clear; and I needn't explicate the obvious. So again, I am completely
unfamiliar with this charge of people exploiting the Holocaust for personal gains. I really don't
know any.
Furthermore there is no blood libel on Germans. Nazis, on the other hand were 'no boy scouts'
indeed! We all relate to personal experiences. So in my case, my work brings me in contact with
a large number of Europeans and Germans. I can tell you nothing but positive things about my contacts
[on a lighter note I've dated German girls and they are a fun loving lot].
There is perhaps a grain of truth in what you say regarding what has become verboten in polite
society, and by extension in the media. I hardly think any decent, educated person would use the
'n' word e.g. Its an assault on basic humanity. So is calling an Asian, A Jew, an Arab, A muslim,
A White man or a woman by derogatory terms. Its simply not done in this day an age [more generally
I am revolted by some of the verbal obscenity that goes on here, led by Revusky, a man I lament
to admit a co-religionist] . More specifically, I am against any laws that stifle free speech
and expression. So if certain laws are oppressive, the majoritarian system that created those
in the first place, ought to be utilised to render them null and void post partum. [In the case
of Ursula H., there is more to her story than meets the eye. She had been held in contempt of
court on a few occasions, having used her age and the fragility associated with it, to provoke
the legal/judicial system, when the judges finally threw the book at her. They will brook defiance
of the law up to a certain extent and no more. Still, I understand it is galling to witness a
granny thrown in gaol for nothing more than revisionist activism. Who made those laws?]
Jews don't control the world's money supply. A person like you ought to rid yourself of this
risible notion. [Its a discussion we've had often and let's avoid it this time shall we? btw I
commented on Mike Whitney's piece apropos, and we might continue on this subject there if you
so wish]
cheers.
Hey Sam,
As I've said in some previous posts, you have an admirable capacity for gleaning the essence
of some important subjects. This publication seems to be rife with discussions, of which,
the ultimate goals are clear; and I needn't explicate the obvious.
I will take the first part as a complement and offer my gratitude at your graciousness in offering
it. Since we don't always see eye to eye, so to speak. As for the second part, I'm not sure what
the obvious is. If it's to demean or downplay the suffering of your loved one, then I don't think
that's what anyone is trying to do. But I do think I get your gist.
So again, I am completely unfamiliar with this charge of people exploiting the Holocaust
for personal gains. I really don't know any.
not for personal gain per se. Although I'm sure there are some who're guilty of that. Rather
it's to benefit a amorphous idea that is most succinctly described as "What's good for the Jews".
And as we all know, there have been myriad benefits to be gleaned (both by Israel in particular
and Jews in general) from the guilt and sympathy people have felt for 'the Jews' vis-a-vis the
Holocaust.
Furthermore there is no blood libel on Germans. Nazis, on the other hand were 'no boy scouts'
indeed!
a little while back I was watching a show with my previous girlfriend, CSI or some such. And
the story line was beginning to look as if it was the Wolfowitz's who were guilty of an unspeakably
heinous crime. They also had an adopted child who was of German ancestry. I didn't have to watch
the show to remark to my gal that it would end up that the Wolfowitz's were innocent, but even
I was surprised that -as it turned out- that it was (shock, shock) the adopted but now grown boy
who was guilty, – that as the investigators were discussing the solution to the crime, the one
mentioned to the other, well I guess what happened is 'the nature won out over the nurture'. IOW
all Germans are congenitally evil, even when they're raised in an eternally forgiving Jewish household.
That for me was Hollywood in a nutshell.
We all relate to personal experiences. So in my case, my work brings me in contact with
a large number of Europeans and Germans. I can tell you nothing but positive things about my
contacts [on a lighter note I've dated German girls and they are a fun loving lot].
I like em too. Brash and brassy and tough. And you're right, we all see things though the prism
of our own life experiences and perspectives. I'm sure that had I grown up hearing about how Germans
murdered and tried to genocide my people, that such a thing would necessarily have an effect on
me. Just as if I were a black man and heard nothing else but what the white man had done to my
ancestors, or more to the point, how he was relentlessly holding me down, or all the other narratives
and paradigms that we all marinate in, all have an effect on our psyches and view points. This
is true.
There is perhaps a grain of truth in what you say regarding what has become verboten in
polite society, and by extension in the media. I hardly think any decent, educated person would
use the 'n' word e.g. Its an assault on basic humanity.
well I've used it, but then I never pretended to be a member of polite society. Hardly. There
are some people whom I would refer to as niggers. Not Obama, certainly not. He's not a nigger
in my book. An empty suit and a war criminal, sure. A racist and a Marxist, yea, but not a nigger.
For me a nigger is a low-life POS, black or white. And who revels in being a low-life POS. The
animals who perpetrated the crimes notoriously reviled as the 'Wichita Massacre' are straight
up niggers, in my book. Same with the sub-human animals who murdered Channon Christian.
Niggers to a T. I don't shrink from using words that describe something in such a succinct, if
jarring way. And I also am not trying to write for the NYT. I'm here writing simply for the purpose
of conveying what I consider to be an honest and ingenuous search for the truth.
Its an assault on basic humanity. So is calling an Asian, A Jew, an Arab, A muslim, A White
man or a woman by derogatory terms.
oh Lord Sam, that's soo politically correct. Have some fun for God's sake. Trust me, African
Americans can take being called the 'n' word. I've never known a people to use a word with such
alacrity as a Negro uses the word 'nigger'. It's like the Irish with the word 'fuck'. Take those
words away from them and they'd be mute. I've been called a 'redneck, hillbilly, cracker', even
a CIS, and it's like water off a ducks back. I didn't even get 'triggered'. We need to grow a
little thicker bark I think today. Everyone's so sensitive.
led by Revusky
JR is passionate. When he goes on about lurid description of anatomy, I'm not put off at all.
(even if I confess I am occasionally put off by relentless flame wars) I remember how the Priss
talked about how Ann Coulter had 'the Jews' dick in her mouth and she was using too much teeth
at times, and I had to laugh. Come on Sam, get out of your Etonian linguistic straight jacket.
Break the bonds of puritan parameters on your discourse. You'll breath and write freer, and how
could that ever be a bad thing? [see Hunter S., Thomson]
In the case of Ursula H., there is more to her story than meets the eye. She had been held
in contempt of court on a few occasions,
oh my gosh! say it isn't so!!!
to provoke the legal/judicial system
gasp!
They will brook defiance of the law up to a certain extent and no more
it troubles me Sam, that you would write such a thing and not see the glaring tyrannical undertones
of such a statement.
Who made those laws?]
umm.. Western governments under Zionist occupation?
Jews don't control the world's money supply. A person like you ought to rid yourself of
this risible notion.
not Jews per se Sam. Not my colleagues at work or my dentist or neighbors or relatives or friends.
No, they sure don't. But there are a few Jews who wield inordinate power over the financial markets
of the Western world, Sam. Like the Rothscild agents, known as the "Russian" oligarchs who looted
the wealth and reasources of Russia proper. Those Jews Sam, do control money supplies and markets
and banks and control Wall Street and the Fed and the Treasury and other influential institutions
of the world's money supply. And I suspect that you're more or less aware of all of that Sam.
But for this kind of thing to be common knowledge, would not necessarily be "good for the Jews",
now would it Sam? Perhaps people might start to wonder why we need to have a Goldman Sachs boy
holding the keys to the US Treasury. Or running the unaccountable Federal Reserve Bank. Eh Sam?
and we might continue on this subject there if you so wish]
It will be a long time before we will know whether Mossad believed there was an Iraqi connection.
Oh, well, this is all just total bullshit. But hey, what can one expect from some pathetic old
Aussie shit eater who thinks that the proof of the official story is that it's the official story?
The Iraqi regime was completely transparent to U.S. intelligence. They had an asset right at the
top of the government, at the cabinet level, for example, somebody who would have known whether
Iraq had WMD or not. And they surely had informers throughout the Iraqi government, it was totally
infiltrated. If U.S. Intelligence knew what was going on in Iraq, you can be pretty damned sure
that Mossad knew whatever they did.
The whole idea that Mossad or CIA sincerely believed that Saddam Hussein had something to do with
9/11, this is complete nonsense, of course. Everybody who knows anything knows that at this point.
Of course, you don't know anything, which is why you don't know that.
This is another characteristic of a shit eater. They just manage, year after year, to remain ignorant
of the most basic facts that are available.
I don't understand your point. I doubt you have one, but if you do, you'll have to flesh it
out more.
• Replies:
@Wizard of Oz We may believe that we have worked out what Mossad knew and be able to give
the reasons for our inferences but to get to the point of "knowing" something requires more than
one's personal certainties or confdence in thd high probabilities. It requires for example that
archives have been opened and the most respected scholars say that it is remarkable but they don't
seem to have been doctored and this, that and the other now becomes clear in a way it wasn't before.
Of course new mysteries or uncertainties can open up. E.g. one can imagine that, if Churchill's
1930s debts were not hitherto known about and it was just disclosed by letters that would make
people say they didn't just believe but "knew" he had been insolvent *and* that the South African
Jewish mining magnate had fixed up his debts, then some might start speculating about hitherto
unsuspected Jewish influence on his attitude to Hitler.
I believe that it's clear that Jews (and many others) were systematically persecuted by
the Nazis for being Jews, and not necessarily for any crimes they committed.
[...] But that doesn't change the fact that many people perished in those camps, and many of them
were innocent Jews, and if the Jews want to call that particular suffering a name to commemorate
it, just like what the Japanese went through, then I don't see what's wrong with that per se.
Rurik,
As I've said in some previous posts, you have an admirable capacity for gleaning the essence of
some important subjects. The aforementioned, more or less my own feelings about the Holocaust,
was an event which occurred in the midst of a period that saw tens of millions slaughtered. They
were certainly not just Jews. To be frank I never dwelt on the subject too much in my adult life,
[even though the real experience of what happened to my kin is very close to me - my granny, whom
I spare the ordeal these days of retelling her life events; and she holds no grudge, none at all]
i.e., until I stumbled upon the Unz Review last year. This publication seems to be rife with discussions,
of which, the ultimate goals are clear; and I needn't explicate the obvious. So again, I am completely
unfamiliar with this charge of people exploiting the Holocaust for personal gains. I really don't
know any.
Furthermore there is no blood libel on Germans. Nazis, on the other hand were 'no boy scouts'
indeed! We all relate to personal experiences. So in my case, my work brings me in contact with
a large number of Europeans and Germans. I can tell you nothing but positive things about my contacts
[on a lighter note I've dated German girls and they are a fun loving lot].
There is perhaps a grain of truth in what you say regarding what has become verboten in polite
society, and by extension in the media. I hardly think any decent, educated person would use the
'n' word e.g. Its an assault on basic humanity. So is calling an Asian, A Jew, an Arab, A muslim,
A White man or a woman by derogatory terms. Its simply not done in this day an age [more generally
I am revolted by some of the verbal obscenity that goes on here, led by Revusky, a man I lament
to admit a co-religionist] . More specifically, I am against any laws that stifle free speech
and expression. So if certain laws are oppressive, the majoritarian system that created those
in the first place, ought to be utilised to render them null and void post partum. [In the case
of Ursula H., there is more to her story than meets the eye. She had been held in contempt of
court on a few occasions, having used her age and the fragility associated with it, to provoke
the legal/judicial system, when the judges finally threw the book at her. They will brook defiance
of the law up to a certain extent and no more. Still, I understand it is galling to witness a
granny thrown in gaol for nothing more than revisionist activism. Who made those laws?]
Jews don't control the world's money supply. A person like you ought to rid yourself of this
risible notion. [Its a discussion we've had often and let's avoid it this time shall we? btw I
commented on Mike Whitney's piece apropos, and we might continue on this subject there if you
so wish]
cheers.
Still, I understand it is galling to witness a granny thrown in gaol for nothing more than
revisionist activism. Who made those laws?
You cannot possibly be that stupid.
Maybe you're trying to win the shit eater of the week prize. I mentioned that 2017 Golda Meir
nude pictorial calendar and that must have really incentivized you
KA
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 14, 2016 at 3:10 am GMT • 200 Words
@Wizard of Oz Thanks for that link to the Telegraph story. It incidentally offers an explanation
for Cheney's urging the CIA to come up with an Iraq connection as shown in the PBS doco "The Secret
History of ISIS". After all if Mossad had been ahead of the CIA on the main plot they might well
be right about Iraq. It will be a long time before we will know whether Mossad believed there
was an Iraqi connection.
Saddam was just a 'neighborhood bully,' Netanyahu says– 13 years after saying Saddam threatened
'security of our entire world' –
to AEI's Pletka
"Mind you, Saddam was horrible, horrible. Brutal killer. So was Qaddafi. There's no question
about that. I had my own dealings with each of them. But I do want to say that they were in many
ways, neighborhood bullies. That is, they tormented their immediate environment. But they were
not wedded to a larger goal. The militant Islamists–either Iran leading the militant Shi'ites
with their proxies Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad and Hamas Or the militant Sunnis led by ISIS
they have a larger goal in mind Their goal is not the conquest of the Middle East. It's the conquest
of the world. It's unbelievable, people don't believe "
Hold on a second. Thirteen years ago in testimony to Congress, Netanyahu said that Saddam did
represent a threat to the entire world. Excerpts (thanks to Jim Lobe at lobelog):
Mossad is ventriloquizing through the malleable vocal cord of these psychopath
That Mossad gave the 9pre 911 information to US . Telegraph as stenographer reported it
They are still doing and Telegraph is still reporting
KA
says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 14, 2016 at 3:37 am GMT • 300 Words
@Wizard of Oz Thanks for that link to the Telegraph story. It incidentally offers an explanation
for Cheney's urging the CIA to come up with an Iraq connection as shown in the PBS doco "The Secret
History of ISIS". After all if Mossad had been ahead of the CIA on the main plot they might well
be right about Iraq. It will be a long time before we will know whether Mossad believed there
was an Iraqi connection.
"Netanyahu was alarmed by the signals from both Tehran and Washington in the summer of 1997
indicating interest in reducing tensions between the two countries. That would have represented
a real threat to Israel's political and strategic interests, and he was determined to cut it short.
Netanyahu's response was to start to begin sending messages to Iran through other governments
that Israel would carry out pre-emptive strikes against Iranian missile development sites unless
it stopped its ballistic missile programme."
Another wide open evident building and spreading of conspiracy involving intelligence,media
foreign entities .
Just as Soviet disappearance gave rise to fervent creation of " Green Peril' from Malayasia to
Sudan, the disappearance of tension between Iran and US in 1997 made the Netanyhu ( the whole
Israeli regime) go off the deep end . They started conjuring of Shi crescent , worldwide Iranian
sleeper cells , Yellow Robbon, " Wiping off the map" , killing American soldiers, sending terrorist
to Western Hemisphere and latest addition to that Money – driven garbled claims is the ransom.
Israel needs an enemy and wants America to fight . American politicians ,some stupid Evangelics,
and CNN. FOC drink that Kool Aid first thing in morning . Conspiracy goes unchecked. Unscrutinized
,unquestioned .
Actually conspiracy factory is so active,it churns out periodically predictably and consisyently
one letter head organization after another like Israeli Project,David Project,ECI FDD Campus Watch
who have usually one particular lie to promote at a given time before conjuring up another lie
• Replies:
@Wizard of Oz Truths which are less than whole truths are usually much more effective than
lies and I would expect Mossad manipulators to be aware of that. But it is btw. My purpose in
replying is merely to make my view clear that the story of forewarning in The Telegraph story
may well have been one that was related to Cheney after 9/11 and which made him inclined to believe
what was also said about Iraq. It doesn't mean that he wasn't already predisposed to depose Saddam
Hussein but it alters the context somewhat.
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
Why can't I find a second reference to this audio interview literally anywhere (otherwise I
would've used a different source)? Shouldn't this be the audio clip that sinks Trump's Presidential
hopes? This should be the biggest news story of the year, but systematic silence is all as usual
you are too quick to conflate 9/11 and the moon landings
Actually, it was Unz himself who stated a while back that if we admit that one of them is possible,
then all are possible, or something more or less to that effect.
In an case, the 9/11 controlled demolition / missile / flight 93 is in a hangar in Cleveland
stuff is just as implausible as faking the moon landings. Too many people and organizations and
countries needing to be in on it, etc.
Conflating the two is indeed absurd. Regarding 9/11, the government's own conspiracy theory,
that the twin towers were demolished by office fires started by the two planes (not to mention
Building 7, which fell without being struck by a plane later that day) does not hold up under
any real scrutiny; any child with a decent high school education in chemistry and physics can
see that those buildings did not and could not have collapsed due to the official explanation,
but rather, they fell due to a prepared demolition. While it is not, and may never be clear exactly
who was behind the event, the fact that key aspects of the government's narrative are demonstrably
false, and many others unsupported by independent evidence, should give any thinking person considerable
pause for thought about the events of that day, and all that has inexorably followed in U.S. foreign
policy to this very day. It is a technique of distraction frequently used by supporters of the
official conspiracy theory to raise all kinds of broad questions about "How could such a vast
conspiracy ever be kept?" etc. (Well, look at the Manhattan Project for starters ) rather than
engaging in the particulars of physical evidence and reliable eye witness accounts that attest
to the utter nonsense of the lie we've been sold lo these many years.
Wizard
of Oz says:
Show Comment Next New Comment
September 14, 2016 at 12:53 pm GMT • 100 Words
@KA "Netanyahu was alarmed by the signals from both Tehran and Washington in the summer of
1997 indicating interest in reducing tensions between the two countries. That would have represented
a real threat to Israel's political and strategic interests, and he was determined to cut it short.
Netanyahu's response was to start to begin sending messages to Iran through other governments
that Israel would carry out pre-emptive strikes against Iranian missile development sites unless
it stopped its ballistic missile programme."
Another wide open evident building and spreading of conspiracy involving intelligence,media foreign
entities .
Just as Soviet disappearance gave rise to fervent creation of " Green Peril' from Malayasia to
Sudan, the disappearance of tension between Iran and US in 1997 made the Netanyhu ( the whole
Israeli regime) go off the deep end . They started conjuring of Shi crescent , worldwide Iranian
sleeper cells , Yellow Robbon, " Wiping off the map" , killing American soldiers, sending terrorist
to Western Hemisphere and latest addition to that Money - driven garbled claims is the ransom.
Israel needs an enemy and wants America to fight . American politicians ,some stupid Evangelics,
and CNN. FOC drink that Kool Aid first thing in morning . Conspiracy goes unchecked. Unscrutinized
,unquestioned .
Actually conspiracy factory is so active,it churns out periodically predictably and consisyently
one letter head organization after another like Israeli Project,David Project,ECI FDD Campus Watch
who have usually one particular lie to promote at a given time before conjuring up another lie
Truths which are less than whole truths are usually much more effective than lies and I would
expect Mossad manipulators to be aware of that. But it is btw. My purpose in replying is merely
to make my view clear that the story of forewarning in The Telegraph story may well have been
one that was related to Cheney after 9/11 and which made him inclined to believe what was also
said about Iraq. It doesn't mean that he wasn't already predisposed to depose Saddam Hussein but
it alters the context somewhat.
International Pravda. My phone has just received from The Economist an article or editorial
variously headed "Pepe and the Stormtroopers" and "The Normalisation of the Alt-Right". What is
remarkable is the near unanimity of the hundreds of Comments in condemning TE for its condescending
anti-Trump rant, even by those who won't vote for him.
"American media is extraordinarily hostile to Russia, certainly much more so than it ever was
toward the Communist Soviet Union during the 1970s and 1980s. " LOL were you even alive then!
I don't understand your point. I doubt you have one, but if you do, you'll have to flesh it out
more.
We may believe that we have worked out what Mossad knew and be able to give the reasons for
our inferences but to get to the point of "knowing" something requires more than one's personal
certainties or confdence in thd high probabilities. It requires for example that archives have
been opened and the most respected scholars say that it is remarkable but they don't seem to have
been doctored and this, that and the other now becomes clear in a way it wasn't before. Of course
new mysteries or uncertainties can open up. E.g. one can imagine that, if Churchill's 1930s debts
were not hitherto known about and it was just disclosed by letters that would make people say
they didn't just believe but "knew" he had been insolvent *and* that the South African Jewish
mining magnate had fixed up his debts, then some might start speculating about hitherto unsuspected
Jewish influence on his attitude to Hitler.
Still there are serious differences between believing and knowing even if the lines are fuzzy
because no empirical fact is 100 per cent certain.
So as a means of damage control, the CIA distributed a secret memo to all its field offices
requesting that they enlist their media assets in efforts to ridicule and attack such critics
as irrational supporters of "conspiracy theories."
And what do you know, the term "conspiracy theories" was non-existent in books before JFK's assassination
but took off right after, according to Google's Ngram Viewer: https://is.gd/GYioQZ
I see that someone has updated a document about that:
"... Fascism is authoritarian political ideology that promotes nationalism and glorifies the state.
It is a totalitarian in orientation, meaning that those benefiting from the system work to exclude any
challenges to state hegemony. Generally state leaders prefer a single-party state, but nascent fascism
can exist in a two-party state, as in the United States with one party attempting to dominate politically
in order to bring to the fore the essentialist views of its leaders. ..."
"... They want a solidified nation that fights degeneration and decadence as defined by them. They
seek a rebirth of and a return to traditional values. In the modern context it is politically incorrect
to openly espouse an ideal of racial purity, so neo-fascists stress the need for cultural unity based
on ancestry and past values as idealized in their exclusionist ideology. ..."
"... In fascism a strong leader is sought to exemplify and promote this singular collective identity.
This leader and his cohort are committed to maintain national strength and are willing to wage war and
create systems of national security, such as the Patriot Act, to keep the nation unified and powerful.
Opposition to the state and its idealized values is defined as heretical. Militarism is defined as being
essential to maintaining the nation's power and the military industrial complex becomes sacrosanct in
the pursuit of national defense. ..."
"... Neo-fascist rhetoric is being propagated during a time when global capitalism is creating a
gaping chasm between the super rich and the masses of humanity, ecological degradation and widespread
violence. ..."
Fascism is authoritarian political ideology that promotes nationalism and glorifies the state.
It is a totalitarian in orientation, meaning that those benefiting from the system work to exclude
any challenges to state hegemony. Generally state leaders prefer a single-party state, but nascent
fascism can exist in a two-party state, as in the United States with one party attempting to dominate
politically in order to bring to the fore the essentialist views of its leaders.
Today this
force is the Republican Party, now infiltrated by Tea Party radicals. Those views stress past values,
nationalist spirit and strong cultural unity. Neo-fascists tend to exclude ideas and changes that
they see as threatening their cherished value system.
They want a solidified nation that fights degeneration and decadence as defined by them. They
seek a rebirth of and a return to traditional values. In the modern context it is politically incorrect
to openly espouse an ideal of racial purity, so neo-fascists stress the need for cultural unity based
on ancestry and past values as idealized in their exclusionist ideology.
Nonetheless, in the United States this idealized viewpoint has overtones of racism and tends to
focus around Christianity as the source of needed values. For instance, one slogan of the Tea Party
is "Regular Folks United – The Bully Pulpit for Regular Folks." Irregulars need not apply.
In fascism a strong leader is sought to exemplify and promote this singular collective identity.
This leader and his cohort are committed to maintain national strength and are willing to wage war
and create systems of national security, such as the Patriot Act, to keep the nation unified and
powerful. Opposition to the state and its idealized values is defined as heretical. Militarism is
defined as being essential to maintaining the nation's power and the military industrial complex
becomes sacrosanct in the pursuit of national defense.
In present-day America such neo-fascist ideas are combatively percolating in national politics
and are exemplified in the rhetoric of such radical figures as Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Ron Paul,
Rush Limbaugh and Michele Bachmann.
Neo-fascist rhetoric is being propagated during a time when global capitalism is creating
a gaping chasm between the super rich and the masses of humanity, ecological degradation and widespread
violence. Furthermore, global capitalism is advancing at a time when, according to Oxfam, by
2050, the global population is forecast to rise by one-third to more than 9 billion, while demand
for food will rise even higher – by 70 percent – as more prosperous economies demand more calories
and crop production continues to fall relative to population.
The British charity projects that prices of staple foods could more than double in the next 20
years, pushing millions of people deeper into poverty. The effects of a combination of population
growth and the growing numbers of unemployed and impoverished people in the world is creating international
crises, most recently in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Bahrain and Yemen; but the emergency is global and
we face a crisis of humanity. The world is a powder keg and the fuse is burning.
Fascists use this time of great upheavals and uncertainties as their raison d'etre to return
to an imagined world where such problems did not exist. Uneducated people are prone to heed their
simplistic slogans and ideas.
"... Labor market monopsony is the idea that when there isn't enough competition among businesses, it is bad news for workers. When an industry includes only a few big companies, they don't have to compete with one another as hard to attract employees - and so end up paying their workers less than they would if there were true competition. It's the flip side of how monopoly power lets companies charge higher prices to consumers. ..."
... it's also worth examining a 21-page briefing paper issued on Oct. 25 by Obama White House
economists about an important concept with a forbidding name: labor market monopsony. The paper
is a prime example of the direction left-of-center economic policy is going, evident not just in
the Obama administration's second-term priorities but in a range of work at liberal think tanks
and in Mrs. Clinton's own economic proposals.
Labor market monopsony is the idea that when there isn't enough competition among businesses,
it is bad news for workers. When an industry includes only a few big companies, they don't have
to compete with one another as hard to attract employees - and so end up paying their workers
less than they would if there were true competition. It's the flip side of how monopoly power
lets companies charge higher prices to consumers.
It's an idea that has a long lineage in economic thought but has been barely discussed in
mainstream policy-making circles until recently. Every year since 1947, White House economists
have issued the "Economic Report of the President," describing in great detail the United States'
strengths and challenges. The phrase "labor market monopsony" appears not once in tens of
thousands of pages.
The talk of monopsony is part of a shift in the policy tools that many left-of-center economic
thinkers see as most promising for addressing the economic challenges of poor and middle-class
Americans. Rather than focusing on policies that amount to redistribution - tax rates, the social
welfare system - they are looking at how the rules of the economic game shape people's outcomes.
Some use a term for this set of policies coined by the Yale political scientist Jacob Hacker:
predistribution policy. This is policy that shapes how the market works in the first place, as
opposed to redistribution policy, which assumes a free market will generate growth and then uses
taxes and spending to give a lift to the economy's losers.
To understand the dueling approaches, think of a professional sports league that finds that
richer, big-market teams are consistently at an advantage, making games less entertaining. One
approach would be to tack on a few extra points to the small-market team's score when it plays a
larger rival. That's the equivalent of redistribution.
, focusing on the suspicious lapses and lacunae
in our media narratives.
The underlying political strategy behind these efforts
may already be apparent, and I've sometimes suggested it here and there. But I
finally decided I might as well explicitly outline the reasoning in a memo as
provided below.
The Mainstream Media is the Crucial Opposing Force
Groups advocating policies opposed by the American establishment should
recognize that the greatest obstacle they face is usually the mainstream media.
Ordinary political and ideological opponents surely exist, but these are
usually inspired, motivated, organized, and assisted by powerful media support,
which also shapes the perceived framework of the conflict. In Clauswitzian terms,
the media often constitutes the strategic "center of gravity" of the opposing
forces.
The Media Should Be Made a Primary Target
If the media is the crucial force empowering the opposition, then it should be
regarded as a primary target of any political strategy. So long as the media
remains strong, success may be difficult, but if the influence and credibility of
the media were substantially degraded, then the ordinary opposing forces would
lose much of their effectiveness. In many respects, the media creates reality, so
perhaps the most effective route toward changing reality runs through the media.
Discrediting the Media Anywhere Weakens It Everywhere
The mainstream media exists as a seamless whole, so weakening or discrediting
the media in any particular area automatically reduces its influence everywhere
else as well.
The elements of the media narrative faced by a particular anti-establishment
group may be too strong and well-defended to attack effectively, and any such
attacks might also be discounted as ideologically motivated. Hence, the more
productive strategy may sometimes be an indirect one, attacking the media
narrative elsewhere, at points where it is much weaker and less well-defended. In
addition, winning those easier battles may generate greater credibility and
momentum, which can then be applied to later attacks on more difficult fronts.
A Broad Alliance May Support the Common Goal of Weakening the Media
Once we recognize that weakening the media is a primary strategic goal, an
obvious corollary is that other anti-establishment groups facing the same
challenges become natural, if perhaps temporary, allies.
Such unexpected tactical alliances may drawn from across a wide range of
different political and ideological perspectives-Left, Right, or otherwise-and
despite the component groups having longer-term goals that are orthogonal or even
conflicting. So long as all such elements in the coalition recognize that the
hostile media is their most immediate adversary, they can cooperate on their
common effort, while actually gaining additional credibility and attention by the
very fact that they sharply disagree on so many other matters.
The media is enormously powerful and exercises control over a vast expanse of
intellectual territory. But such ubiquitous influence also ensures that its local
adversaries are therefore numerous and widespread, all being bitterly opposed to
the hostile media they face on their own particular issues. By analogy, a large
and powerful empire is frequently brought down by a broad alliance of many
disparate rebellious factions, each having unrelated goals, which together
overwhelm the imperial defenses by attacking simultaneously at multiple different
locations.
A crucial aspect enabling such a rebel alliance is the typically narrow focus
of each particular constituent member. Most groups or individuals opposing
establishment positions tend to be ideologically zealous about one particular
issue or perhaps a small handful, while being much less interested in others.
Given the total suppression of their views at the hands of the mainstream media,
any venue in which their unorthodox perspectives are provided reasonably fair and
equal treatment rather than ridiculed and denigrated tends to inspire considerable
enthusiasm and loyalty on their part. So although they may have quite conventional
views on most other matters, causing them to regard contrary views with the same
skepticism or unease as might anyone else, they will usually be willing to
suppress their criticism at such wider heterodoxy so long as other members of
their alliance are willing to return that favor on their own topics of primary
interest.
Assault the Media Narrative Where It is Weak Not Where It Is Strong
Applying a different metaphor, the establishment media may be regarded as a
great wall that excludes alternative perspectives from the public consciousness
and thereby confines opinion to within a narrow range of acceptable views.
Certain portions of that media wall may be solid and vigorously defended by
powerful vested interests, rendering assaults difficult. But other portions,
perhaps older and more obscure, may have grown decrepit over time, with their
defenders having drifted away. Breaching the wall at these weaker locations may be
much easier, and once the barrier has been broken at several points, defending it
at others becomes much more difficult.
ORDER IT NOW
For example, consider the consequences of demonstrating that the established
media narrative is completely false on some major individual event. Once this
result has been widely recognized, the credibility of the media on all other
matters, even totally unrelated ones, would be somewhat attenuated. Ordinary
people would naturally conclude that if the media had been so wrong for so long on
one important point, it might also be wrong on others as well, and the powerful
suspension of disbelief that provides the media its influence would become less
powerful. Even those individuals who collectively form the corpus of the media
might begin to entertain serious self-doubts regarding their previous certainties.
The crucial point is that such breakthroughs may be easiest to achieve in
topics that seem merely of historical significance, and are totally removed from
any practical present-day consequences.
Reframe Vulnerable "Conspiracy Theories" as Effective "Media Criticism"
Over the last few decades, the political establishment and its media allies
have created a powerful intellectual defense against major criticism by investing
considerable resources in stigmatizing the notion of
so-called "conspiracy theories."
This harsh pejorative term is applied to any
important analysis of events that sharply deviants from the officially-endorsed
narrative, and implicitly suggests that the proponent is an disreputable fanatic,
suffering from delusions, paranoia, or other forms of mental illness. Such
ideological attacks often effectively destroy his credibility, allowing his actual
arguments to be ignored. A once-innocuous phrase has become politically
"weaponized."
However, an effective means of circumventing this intellectual defense
mechanism may be to adopt a meta-strategy of reframing such "conspiracy theories"
as "media criticism."
Under the usual parameters of public debate, challenges to established
orthodoxy are treated as "extraordinary claims" that must be justified by
extraordinary evidence. This requirement may be unfair, but it constitutes the
reality in many public exchanges, based upon the framework provided by the
allegedly impartial media.
Since most of these controversies involve a wide range of complex issues and
ambiguous or disputed evidence, it is often extremely difficult to conclusively
establish any unorthodox theory, say to a confidence level of 95% or 98%.
Therefore, the media verdict is almost invariably "Case Not Proven" and the
challengers are judged defeated and discredited, even if they actually appear to
have the preponderance of evidence on their side. And if they vocally contest the
unfairness of their situation, that exact response is then subsequently cited by
the media as further proof of their fanaticism or paranoia.
However, suppose that an entirely different strategy were adopted. Instead of
attempting to make a case "beyond any reasonable doubt," proponents merely provide
sufficient evidence and analysis to suggest that there is a 30% chance or a 50%
chance or a 70% chance that the unorthodox theory is true. The very fact that no
claim of near certainty is being advanced provides a powerful defense against any
plausible accusations of fanaticism or delusional thinking. But if the issue is of
enormous importance and-as is usually the case-the unorthodox theory has been
almost totally ignored by the media, despite apparently having at least a
reasonable chance of being true, then the media may be effectively attacked and
ridiculed for its laziness and incompetence. These charges are very difficult to
refute and since no claim is being made that the unorthodox theory has necessarily
been proven correct, merely that it might possibly be correct, any
counter-accusations of conspiratorial tendencies would fall flat.
Indeed, the only means the media might have of effectively rebutting those
charges would be to explore all the complex details of the issue (thereby helping
to bring various controversial facts themselves to much wider attention) and then
argue that there is only a negligible chance that the theory might be correct,
perhaps 10% or less. Thus, the usual presumptive burden is completely reversed.
And since most members of the media are unlikely to have ever paid much serious
attention to the subject, their ignorant presentation may be quite weak and
vulnerable to a knowledgeable deconstruction. Indeed, the most likely scenario is
that the media will just continue to totally ignore the entire dispute, thereby
reinforcing those plausible accusations of laziness and incompetence.
Individuals distressed by media failings on a controversial topic often accuse
the media and its individual representatives of being biased, corrupted, or
quietly under the control of powerful forces allied with the establishment
position. These charges may sometimes be correct and sometimes not, but they are
usually quite difficult to prove, except in the minds of existing true-believers,
and they do carry the taint of "paranoia." On the other hand, claiming that media
failings are due to venial sins such as laziness and incompetence are just as
likely to be correct, and these charges are much less likely to risk a backlash.
Finally, once the media itself has become the primary target of the criticism,
it automatically loses its status as a neutral outside arbitrator and no longer
has as much credibility in proclaiming the winning side of the debate.
The Advantage of Flooding Media Defense Zones
Individuals who challenge the prevailing media narrative with unorthodox claims
are often reluctant to raise too many such controversial claims simultaneously
lest they be ridiculed as "crazy," with all their views summarily dismissed.
In most cases, this may be the correct strategy to pursue, but if handled
properly, an exact opposite approach might sometimes be quite effective. So long
as the overall presentation is framed as media criticism and no inordinate weight
is attached to the validity of any of the particular claims being presented,
attacking along a very broad front, perhaps including dozens of entirely
independent items, may "flood the zone" of the media, saturating and overwhelming
existing defenses. Or as suggested in a quote widely misattributed to Stalin,
"Quantity has a quality all its own."
Consider the example of entertainer Bill Cosby. Over the years, one or two
individual women had come forward claiming that he had drugged and raped them, and
the charges had been largely ignored as unsubstantiated or implausible. However,
over the last year or two, the dam suddenly burst and a total of nearly sixty
separate women came forward, all making identical accusations, and although there
seems little hard evidence in any of the particular cases, virtually every
observer now concedes that the charges are likely to be true.
Suppose it is established that there is a reasonable likelihood that the media
completely missed and ignored an important matter that should have been
investigated and reported. The impact is not necessarily substantial, and many
individuals stubbornly wedded to a belief in their establishment media narratives
might even resist admitting the possibility that the media had seriously erred in
that particular situation.
However, suppose instead that several dozen such separate examples could be
established, each strongly suggesting a serious error or omission on the part of
the media. At that point, ideological defenses would crumble and nearly everyone
would quietly acknowledge that many, perhaps even most, of the accusations were
probably true, producing an enormous credibility gap for the mainstream media. The
credibility defenses of the media would have been saturated and overcome.
The key point is that all of the particular items should be presented as
reasonable-likelihood cases, and indicative of media shortcomings rather than
being proven or necessarily as important issues in and of themselves. By remaining
aloof and somewhat agnostic regarding any individual item, there is little risk of
being tagged as fanatic or monomaniacal for raising a multitude of them.
My American Pravda Series and
Unz Review
Webzine as Examples
The political/media strategy outlined above was the central motivation behind
my
American Pravda
articles and
Unz Review
webzine.
For example, in the original
2013
American Pravda
article
I raised over half a dozen enormous
media lapses, all of them now universally acknowledged: Enron's collapse, the Iraq
War WMDs, the Madoff Swindle, the Cold War spies, and various others. Having
thereby set the stage by presenting this admitted pattern of major failure,
demonstrating that a considerable suspension of disbelief was warranted, I then
extended the discussion to three or four important additional examples, none of
them yet acknowledged, but all of them perfectly plausible. Perhaps as a
consequence, the article received
reasonably good attention
including by elements of the mainstream media
itself, who are often willing to acknowledge the errors of their class so long as
these are presented persuasively and in a responsible manner.
Following that piece, I intermittently produced additional elements in the
series, some more comprehensive than others, and am now embarking upon
a regular series
.
The
McCain/POW examples
in the series perfectly illustrate the strategy I have
suggested above. The Vietnam War ended over forty years ago, the POWs have
probably all been dead for decades, and even John McCain is in the very twilight
of his career. The practical significance of raising the scandal or providing
evidence establishing its likelihood is virtually nil. But if it were to become
widely recognized that our entire media successfully covered up such a massive
scandal for so many years, the credibility of the media would have suffered a
devastating blow. Several such blows and it would be in ruins. Meanwhile, the
powerful vested interests that once so vigorously maintained the official
narrative in that area are long gone, and the orthodox case has few remaining
defenders in the media, greatly increasing the likelihood of an eventual
breakthrough and victory.
A similar strategy in broader form is applied by my
Unz
Review
alternative media webzine, which hosts numerous
different writers, columnists, and bloggers, all tending to
sharply challenge the establishment media narrative along a wide
variety of different axes and issues, some of them conflicting.
By raising serious doubts about the omissions and errors of our
mainstream media in so many different areas, the goal is to
weaken the perceived credibility of the media, leading readers
to consider the possibility that large elements of the
conventional narrative may be entirely incorrect.
"... Bannon is targeted because the left knows he is dangerous. ..."
"... Internally Bannon is the keeper of the Trump flame and must be a protector of the Trump agenda. ..."
"... To be a great president Trump must deliver on his core promises of sealing our boarders, recharging economy, renegotiating the detrimental globalist trade deals upgrading veterans healthcare to be the finest in the world, creating a job boom in our inner cities while conducting a foreign policy that keeps us out of war while entering a new period of detente and hardheaded negotiations with Putin and the Russians that will enable us to work in coordination to crush our mutual enemy ISIS. ..."
Bannon is targeted because the left knows
he is dangerous. Bannon has a keen understanding of alternative media and the Internet. Bannon
understands the greater cultural divides and developments in the electorate which made the Trump
victory possible. Bannon also knows that the Trump administration must not be co-opted by the
party establishment types or the neocons who's war policies Trump disagrees with. Internally Bannon
is the keeper of the Trump flame and must be a protector of the Trump agenda.
To be a great president Trump must deliver
on his core promises of sealing our boarders, recharging economy, renegotiating the detrimental
globalist trade deals upgrading veterans healthcare to be the finest in the world, creating a
job boom in our inner cities while conducting a foreign policy that keeps us out of war while
entering a new period of detente and hardheaded negotiations with Putin and the Russians that
will enable us to work in coordination to crush our mutual enemy ISIS.
"... In recent years, George W. Bush assumed the power to kidnap, torture, and assassinate any individual, anywhere in the world, at any time, without even a pretense of due process. Upon replacing Bush, Barack Obama legitimized Bush's kidnapping and torture (by refusing to prosecute the perpetrators or provide recourse to the victims) while enthusiastically embracing the power to assassinate at will. Noam Chomsky said Obama has trashed the 800-year-old Magna Carta, which King John of England would have approved of. ..."
"... Can there be anything more dictatorial than the power of a single individual to kill and make war at will? While American presidents thankfully do not have the power to unilaterally impose taxes, pass legislation, or incarcerate without charges inside U.S. borders, the illegitimate authority they do possess to carry out unrestrained violence across the world is unquestionably one feature of a dictator. ..."
"... There has not been a single American president since World War II that has not exceeded his constitutional authority by committing crimes that would meet the standard by which officials were convicted and executed at the Nuremberg trials. ..."
The Imperial Presidency of the United States has evolved over the last century to the point that
the executive holds certain powers that can be considered dictatorial. Arguably, the most consequential
decision in politics is to wage war. The Constitution specifically reserves this right for Congress.
The President, as Commander-in-Chief, directs the wars that Congress declares. However, starting
with Truman's intervention in the Korean War in 1950 and continuing with invasions of Vietnam, Grenada,
Iraq and Afghanistan and the bombings of dozens more countries, the President's ability to unilaterally
initiate war with a sovereign nation has been normalized. Congress has not declared war since 1941
despite the fact the U.S. military has intervened in nearly every corner of the world.
In recent years, George W. Bush assumed the power to kidnap, torture, and assassinate any individual,
anywhere in the world, at any time, without even a pretense of due process. Upon replacing Bush,
Barack Obama legitimized Bush's kidnapping and torture (by refusing to prosecute the perpetrators
or provide recourse to the victims) while enthusiastically embracing the power to assassinate at
will. Noam Chomsky said Obama has trashed the 800-year-old Magna Carta, which King John of England
would have approved of.
Can there be anything more dictatorial than the power of a single individual to kill and make
war at will? While American presidents thankfully do not have the power to unilaterally impose taxes,
pass legislation, or incarcerate without charges inside U.S. borders, the illegitimate authority
they do possess to carry out unrestrained violence across the world is unquestionably one feature
of a dictator.
There has not been a single American president since World War II that has not exceeded his constitutional
authority by committing crimes that would meet the standard by which officials were convicted and
executed at the Nuremberg trials.
Roosevelt's Executive Order 9066 to imprison Japanese Americans in concentration camps was a flagrant
violation of the Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law.
Truman's firebombing of Tokyo, nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and invasion of Korea
violated provisions of multiple treaties that are considered the "supreme law of the land" per Article
VI of the U.S. Constitution.
Eisenhower's use of the CIA to overthrow democratically elected presidents in Iran and Guatemala,
as well as the initiation of a terrorist campaign against Cuba, violated the UN Charter, another
international treaty that the Constitution regards as the supreme law of the land.
Kennedy was guilty of approving the creation of a mercenary army to invade Cuba, as well as covert
warfare in Vietnam. Johnson massively escalated U.S. military involvement in Vietnam with the introduction
of ground troops, which he fraudulently justified to the public through misrepresentation of the
Gulf of Tonkin incident.
Succeeding Johnson, Nixon waged a nearly genocidal air campaign against not only Vietnam but Cambodia
and Laos, killing hundreds of thousands of people, destroying ecosystems across Indochina, and leaving
an unfathomable amount of
unexploded ordnance
, which continues to kill and maim hundreds of people each year.
Ford covertly supported the South African invasion of Angola and overtly supported the Indonesian
invasion of East Timor. Carter continued support of the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, as well
as providing military support to military dictatorships in Guatemala and El Salvador. Reagan oversaw
the creation and operation of a terrorist army in Nicaragua, sponsored military dictatorships throughout
Central America, and directly invaded Grenada.
Bush the Elder invaded Panama and Iraq. Clinton oversaw sanctions in Iraq that killed as many
as 1 million people, carried out an air war from 15,000 feet against Serbia, and bombed a pharmaceutical
plant in Sudan that produced medications for half the country. Bush the Lesser invaded and occupied
Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama continued both of those wars, as well as dramatically expanding the drone
assassination program in as many as seven countries.
So I beg to differ with Blow and anyone else who claims the presidency deserves respect. Any institution
or position that permits such illegal and immoral actions unchecked should be eradicated and replaced
with some alternative that does not allow such concentration of power in the hands of a single person.
"... BHO was hired to read speeches as they all have been, since Reagan, at least. The System filters out anyone with a genuinely positive agenda, a mind of his/her own and a corruption-free (secret) history. We should be focused on the Unelected (ie Actual) Rulers instead. ..."
"... For Obama – read Kissinger/Brzezinski change his mind for him – it seems to me – to lay the diplomatic groundwork for Trump to pivot away from a 'unipolar' world (where the American hegemon is in direct conflict with Russia and China – the classic Cold War scenario) – to the 'multipartner' world – where America foments chaos, then under a banner of shared responsibility draws in Russia and China and lets them fight it out like two moles in a bag over the Middle East. America then picks off the last one standing. ..."
"... Obama, Cameron, Johnson, H. Clinton, Nuland, McCain, Holland, Poroshenko, Merkel, the WMSM – the list of the damned goes on and on ..."
"... "constant since I first came into office" Indeed you have Mr President, a constant disappointment, a constant liar, a constant weakling who failed to stand up to the US Jewish lobby, a constant war criminal, in fact a complete and total constant failure. Bravo! ..."
"
Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors - not out of strength
but out of weakness.
Economist interview, 2 August 2014
"
But I do think it's important to keep perspective. Russia doesn't make anything. Immigrants aren't
rushing to Moscow in search of opportunity. The life expectancy of the Russian male is around 60
years old. The population is shrinking. And so we have to respond with resolve in what are effectively
regional challenges that Russia presents. We have to make sure that they don't escalate where suddenly
nuclear weapons are back in the discussion of foreign policy. And as long as we do that, then I think
history is on our side.
State of the Union Address, 20 January 2015
"
Last year, as we were doing the hard work of imposing sanctions along with our allies, as we were
reinforcing our presence with frontline states, Mr. Putin's aggression it was suggested was a masterful
display of strategy and strength. That's what I heard from some folks. Well, today, it is America
that stands strong and united with our allies, while Russia is isolated with its economy in tatters.
That's how America leads - not with bluster, but with persistent, steady resolve. (Applause.)
Part Two: Maybe not
Washington, 18 October 2016
"
The bottom line is, is that we think that Russia is a large important country with a military that
is second only to ours, and has to be a part of the solution on the world stage, rather than part
of the problem.
Part Three: Powerful, Worldwide
Berlin, 17 November 2016
"
With respect to Russia, my principal approach to Russia has been constant since I first came into
office. Russia is an important country. It is a military superpower. It has influence in the region
and it has influence around the world. And in order for us to solve many big problems around the
world, it is in our interest to work with Russia and obtain their cooperation.
BHO was hired to read speeches as they all have been, since Reagan, at least. The System filters
out anyone with a genuinely positive agenda, a mind of his/her own and a corruption-free (secret)
history. We should be focused on the Unelected (ie Actual) Rulers instead.
For Obama – read Kissinger/Brzezinski change his mind for him – it seems to me – to lay the
diplomatic groundwork for Trump to pivot away from a 'unipolar' world (where the American hegemon
is in direct conflict with Russia and China – the classic Cold War scenario) – to the 'multipartner'
world – where America foments chaos, then under a banner of shared responsibility draws in Russia
and China and lets them fight it out like two moles in a bag over the Middle East. America then
picks off the last one standing.
Not much of a plan – especially as Russia and China are both 'eyes wide open' – but it is the
best the two senile old twats – who are both overdue in the mortuary – can come up with. Obama
of course has no mind of his own. Trumps pick for Secretary of State may indicate his.
Kissinger once said that "the elderly are useless eaters" – maybe it is time for him to take his
own counsel and move on. Perhaps he could take Soros and Brzezinski with him?
What a lesson this man has been.
Came in with soaring rhetoric, a promise of a new beginning, and a Nobel peace prize.
Failed to deliver on any of these, but did deliver:
Death by drone, without trial
Death by military misadventure in the middle east
Death of a civil economy via unaccountable military spending
And now trying to 'burnish' his 'legacy' of lies. With more lies.
At least Russia's Putin, ruthless as he is, does seem to have a moral compass
"constant since I first came into office" Indeed you have Mr President, a constant disappointment,
a constant liar, a constant weakling who failed to stand up to the US Jewish lobby, a constant
war criminal, in fact a complete and total constant failure. Bravo!
"... The term conspiracy theorist was developed by the CIA in the mid-1960s to ridicule those who believed there was a wide government role in the assassination of President Kennedy. It has been used ever since to describe legitimate researchers into Iran-Contra, 9/11, and other deep state crimes. ..."
Mohsen Abdelmoumen : According to you, when we see the numerous demonstrations anti-Trump
in the United States after the election of Donald Trump at the presidency, are we witnessing a colored
revolution?
Wayne Madsen: It is classic Soros-funded color revolution. Soros is financing MoveOn.org, Black
Lives Matter, Demos, and other of his groups to turn out protesters and is even running ads in papers
looking for paid drivers and protest coordinators.
In your very relevant books devoted to George Soros: "Soros: Quantum of Chaos", you reveal the
true face of this figure who is the spearhead of several destabilization operations in the world.
From where does all the power come that this criminal holds and why is he untouchable?
Soros is very wealthy and actually a frontman for an even more powerful and wealthy person, Evelyn
de Rothschild, along with his family. They are all the true puppet masters of the world.
Soros remains a major element in the anti-Trump device. Can Trump resist him?
Trump is actually now being surrounded by people who will serve in his administration who will
be loyal to the Soros-Rothschild puppet masters and certainly not to Trump.
Can we say that the occult world is more powerful than legal institutions?
Secret societies with their crazy rituals have been the bane of human existence since the time
of the Sanhedrin and Pharisees in Palestine and the Dionysian cults of the Nile Valley and the Mediterranean
region.
In your book " ISIS is US - The Shocking Truth Behind the Army of Terror", you detail
the relations between the USA and ISIS/Daesh. What is the triggering element that has put you on
this trail?
Trump's national security adviser retired Lt Gen Michael Flynn revealed that the US was supporting
ISIS and then he was forced to resign. My own sources in the Middle East confirmed this long before
Flynn made his public statement and was fired as Defense Intelligence Agency chief by Obama.
You mention Western Sahara and the involvement of the Clintons in a deal with the Kingdom of Morocco
while this case is under the authority of UN. Aren't the Clintons outlaws such Bonnie and Clyde by
supporting Morocco against the Sahrawi people and the UN's resolutions?
The Clintons received at least $12 million from the Moroccan government in return for buying their
loyalty to Morocco's agenda, which includes permanently annexing Western Sahara as the "Southern
Province." Morocco and Israel share the same policy on annexing illegally-occupied territories.
According to your diverse very interesting analysis, can we assert that the World Government or
the false prophets of the New World Order are the real decision-makers of this world?
I mentioned a few already, Soros/Rothschild. Others are the Bilderbergs, Bohemian Club, and the
Council on Foreign Relations and their counterparts.
You know very well some American intelligence agencies like the NSA. Do these intelligence agencies
serve the US' interests or, rather, the oligarchy's interests?
The CIA has always served the interests of Wall Street. NSA now serves the interests of the global
security network it leads.
You were an officer in the US Navy. Was the whistleblower you are today born after your military
career or before?
Before. I was an FBI-Navy whistleblower in 1982 and helped to uncover a major pedophile ring in
the US Navy that reached into the Reagan-Bush White House and was ultimately exposed in The Washington
Times in 1988-89. My whistleblowing cost me my Navy career, however, and a subsequent series of fairly
bad jobs.
In the recent US election, we saw the mass media bankruptcy despite their manipulations and their
fake polls. Didn't one of the pillars of world oligarchy collapse under our eyes? Don't we witness
a historic moment announcing the end of the New World Order and its purely capitalist product, globalization?
99 percent of major newspapers endorsed Clinton. Many alternative news sources supported Trump.
We are seeing a massive shift away from newspapers and corporate TV and websites to the alternative
media, of which WayneMadsenReport.com has been prominent since its founding in 2005.
Snowden has denounced the Prism program and you have denounced Echelon, both of which serve the
interests of the world's oligarchic caste. What is known is not only the immersed part of the iceberg?
What is still relatively unknown is the close cooperation between NSA and private companies like
Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook, and major telecommunications companies. It is much greater than
even Snowden's documents describe.
The quantity and especially the quality of your reports reveal to us a world unknown by millions
of human beings. How all these truths have been hidden?
The major media cooperates with the government in covering up news events.
I advise everyone to read the Wayne Madsen Report as well as your books and follow your various
interventions in the alternative media. How do you explain that we, who are resisting to what I call
the fascist oligarchic caste, are called conspiracy theorists? Is this concept the only
weapon of the fascist imperialists to reduce to silence all those who resist them and to reinforce
the ranks of those whose who have been brainwashed?
The term conspiracy theorist was developed by the CIA in the mid-1960s to ridicule those who believed
there was a wide government role in the assassination of President Kennedy. It has been used ever
since to describe legitimate researchers into Iran-Contra, 9/11, and other deep state crimes.
Your book " The Star and The Sword " is one of the few to talk about intimate and opaque
links between the Zionist entity of Israel and Saudi Arabia. You claim that they organize false flag
attacks, including the 9/11. What is the origin and nature of this Israeli-Saudi strategic alliance?
Do you think that the JASTA law will succeed or will it be countered by the Zionist allies of Saudi
Arabia? Do the fact that the USA and the Westerners turn a blind eye on the criminal war led by the
Saudis to Yemen isn't due to the weight of the lobby Zionist?
The Zionist-Wahhabi/Saudi alliance goes back to Ibn Saud who wrote the British and Zionist leaders
that he did not oppose a Jewish homeland in Palestine so long as it did not lay claim to Saudi territory
on the eastern shore of the Gulf of Aqaba. The relationship has always been close, except for the
time of King Faisal, who was conveniently shot in the face and killed by a relative.
Do you undergo pressure or threats in relation to the remarkable work you do? If so, how do you
live it?
I was forced to move my domicile from Washington because the outgoing Obama administration put
pressure on some media organizations I did work for. These included RT (contributor agreement canceled)
and Al Jazeera America (which is now defunct).
The FBI entered my apartment in Washington at least twice and I've had three visits by them at
my new home in Florida. I was informed of 3 personal threats in Washington. I ignore all these pressures and continue to exercise the freedom of the press. Are you optimistic or do you think that the Satanist project of the oligarchy still has a nuisance
capacity that can plunge the world into chaos?
As with cockroaches, which detest light, the shadow figures of covert power cannot stand what
is known as the disinfectant of sunshine. Light has always fought against darkness and will continue
to do so.
Interview realized by Mohsen Abdelmoumen
Wayne Madsen is an American journalist, television news commentator, online editor of Wayne
Madsen Report.com , investigative journalist and author specializing intelligence and international
affairs.Starting in 1997, after his military service as a U.S. Navy lieutenant assigned to Anti-Submarine
Warfare duties and to the National Security Agency as a COMSEC analyst, he applied his military intelligence
training to investigative journalism.He has since written for many daily, weekly, and monthly publications
including The Progressive , The Village Voice , Counterpunch , Philadelphia
Inquirer , Houston Chronicle , Allentown Morning Call , Juneau Empire ,
Cleveland Plain Dealer , Real Clear Politics , Danbury Newstimes , Newsday
and many others.Throughout his journalistic career, he has been a television commentator on many
programs, including 60 Minutes , Russia Today , Press TV , and many others.He
has been a frequent political and national security commentator on Fox News and has also appeared
on ABC , NBC , CBS , PBS , CNN , BBC , Al Jazeera , and MS-NBC .
He has been invited to testify as a witness before the US House of Representatives, the UN Criminal
Tribunal for Rwanda, and a terrorism investigation judicial inquiry of the French government. Wayne
Madsen has some thirty-five years experience in security issues. As a U.S. Naval Officer, he managed
one of the first computer security programs for the U.S. Navy. He subsequently worked for the National
Security Agency, the Naval Data Automation Command, Department of State, RCA Corporation, and Computer
Sciences Corporation. Wayne Madsen was a Senior Fellow for the Electronic Privacy Information Center
(EPIC), a privacy public advocacy organization. Mr. Madsen is a member of the National Press Club.
Wayne Madsen is the author of The Handbook of Personal Data Protection (London: Macmillan,
1992), an acclaimed reference book on international data protection law; Genocide and Covert Operations
in Africa 1993-1999 (Edwin Mellen Press, 1999); co-author of America's Nightmare: The Presidency
of George Bush II ( Dandelion, 2003); Forbidden Truth: U.S.-Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy,
Saudi Arabia and the Failed Search for bin Laden ; author of Jaded Tasks: Big Oil, Black
Ops & Brass Plates ; Overthrow a Fascist Regime on $15 a Day ; The star and the sword
; The Manufacturing of a President: the CIA's Insertion of Barack H. Obama, Jr. into the White
House ; L'Affaire Petraeus ; and National Security Agency Surveillance: Reflections
and Revelations ; Soros: Quantum of Chaos (2015); Unmasking ISIS: The Shocking Truth
(2016).
SergeyL
1h ago
1
2
The problem is not a populism but western democracy which is
a new religion, and as any religion it's intolerant to any
opposite opinion. I can bet what if you will kill all
Russians and all who are not western you will split and
start fight between yourselves like Christianity or Islam
did before.
Reply
Share
Share on
Facebook
Facebook
Share on
Twitter
Twitter
|
Pick
Report
Tongariro1
2h ago
1
2
We have not had an election to put a populist government
into power in the UK. We had a referendum on the specific
issue of EU membership. Even in the USA, they have elected a
populist president, but Congress had much the same political
complexion as it has had in times past. There is no campaign
of any note in the UK to reduce aid.
The vulnerability of
aid programmes to the whims of just two countries reveals a
greater weakness - too few other countries contribute too
little.
If the UN were to act more effectively to meet its core
objective - "to maintain international peace and security" -
then there would be less need for aid. Increasingly, the
role of the UN seems to be to lament the failings of the
west and other developed nations in preventing carnage,
whilst doing little to tackle the perpetrators or bring
about peace. Syria is a prime example of catastrophic
failure.
Reply
Share
Share on
Facebook
Facebook
Share on
Twitter
Twitter
|
Pick
Report
PrinceVlad
2h ago
2
3
If western populism leads to more isolationist foreign
policies, there will be fewer refugees. Wouldn't this be a
good thing?
Reply
Share
Share on
Facebook
Facebook
Share on
Twitter
Twitter
|
Pick
Report
John Chaloner
3h ago
10
11
According to the linked table in the article, the UK
provides significantly more aid than France, Italy and
Germany combined.
Drain that swamp and then come back with the begging bowl
Reply
Share
Share on
Facebook
Facebook
Share on
Twitter
Twitter
|
Pick
Report
Laurence Johnson
4h ago
6
7
Humanitarian aid became political a long time ago and
nothing to do with populists. What is incredible is whilst
the West was creating the tragedy with one hand, the
taxpayers were left to pick up the tab of attempting to fix
it all up.
Refugees are on the whole the result of Western
intervention, subversive and open in other nations
democratic systems, or indeed other nations despotic
systems.
The world has changed in 2016, people have become far
wiser to what has been going on and the costs of intervening
in projecting what we perceive to be democracy in our eyes
has cost many lives, and many trillions of dollars.
Oh and stop the financial oppression of your workers, who
are being squeezed in the pocket like never before in this
globalist world!
What's this Crown Agents.....so transparent!
Reply
Share
Share on
Facebook
Facebook
Share on
Twitter
Twitter
|
Pick
Report
Tsugunder
5h ago
6
7
"even if the US and UK do not decrease aid contributions,
there is still a risk that they would allow humanitarian
action to fall prey to politics."
Is this a sick joke? From the Marshall Plan on, Western
governmental aid (with the possible exception of
Scandinavian donors) has been consistently and unashamedly
political, with disastrous results.
Sub-Saharan Africa, where the number of aid workers is
higher than the complement of colonial administrators in the
bygone era, is a case in point: "Since 1960, western
governments have pumped more than $1 trillion in aid into
the region, with the remarkable result that GDP per capita
has declined."
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/07/imperialism-is-back-and-this-time-its-politically-correct
/
It's not 'Western populism' that threatens humanitarian
action globally but its instrumentalisation by the likes of
the US and the UK.
Reply
Share
Share on
Facebook
Facebook
Share on
Twitter
Twitter
|
Pick
Report
radsatser
5h ago
2
3
" they will jeopardise not only their jobs,"
For them neocon/neoliberal propaganda 24/7 is OK, but anti-neoliberalism, anti-neoconservatism information, which sometimes is pro-Russian propaganda is not.
Viva to McCarthyism! The hint is that you do not have a choice -- Big Brother is watching you like
in the USSR. Anti-Russian propaganda money in action. It is interesting that Paul Craig Roberts who
served in Reagan administration is listed as "left-wing"... Tell me who is your ally (
Bellingcat) and I will tell who you are...
As Moon of Alabama noted "I wholeheartedly
recommend to use the list
that new anonymous censorship entity provides as your new or additional "Favorite Bookmarks" list. It
includes illustrious financial anti-fraud sites like Yves Smith's
Naked Capitalism ,
Wikileaks , well informed libertarian sites
like Ron Paul and
AntiWar.com and leftish old timers like
Counterpunch . Of general (non-mainstream)
news sites Consortiumnews , run by Robert
Parry who revealed the Iran-contra crimes, is included as well as
Truthdig and
Truth-out.org ."
Extended list is here
It a real horror to see how deep pro Russian propaganda penetrated the US society ;-) This newly minted
site lists as allies, and with such allies you can reliably tell who finance it
Look like some guys from Soviet Politburo propaganda department make it to the USA :-) The site
definitely smells with
McCarthyism -- the practice
of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence. Which
was the standard way of suppressing dissidents in the USSR. So this is really "Back in the
USSR" type of sites.
But the list definitely has value: the sites listed are mostly anti-establishment, anti status-quo, anti-neocon/neolib sites not so much pro-Russian.
After all Russia is just another neoliberal state, although they deviate from Washington consensus
and do not want to be a puppet of the USA, which is the key requirement for the full acceptable into
the club of "Good neoliberal states". Somehow this list can be called
the list of anti US Imperialism sites or anti--war sites. And this represents the value of the list as people may
not know about their existence.
The new derogatory label for the establishment for information they don't want you to see has become
"fake news." Conspiracy theories do nto work well anymore. That aqures some patina of respectability
with age :-). "Since the election's "surprise" outcome, the corporate media has railed against their
alternative competitors
labeling them as "fake" while their own frequently flawed, misleading, and false stories are touted
as "real" news. World leaders have now begun calling out "fake news" in a desperate attempt to lend
legitimacy to the corporate media, which continues to receive dismal approval ratings from the American
public. Out-going US president Barack Obama
was the first to speak out against the danger of "misinformation," though he failed to mention the
several instances where he himself
lied and spread misinformation to the American public."
The most crazy inclusion is probably Baltimore Gazette. Here how editors define its mission: "Baltimore Gazette is Baltimore's oldest
US news source and one of the longest running
daily newspapers published in the United States. With a focus on local content, the Gazette thrives
to maintain a non-partisan newsroom making their our content the most reliable source available in print and
across the web."
PropOrNot is an independent team of concerned American citizens (an
independent from whom? Concerned about what ? Looks like they are very dependent and so so
much concerned, Playing pro-establishment card is always safe game -- NNB) with a wide range of backgrounds
and expertise, including professional experience in computer science, statistics, public policy,
and national security affairs. We are currently volunteering time and skills to identify propaganda
- particularly Russian propaganda - targeting a U.S. audience. We collect public-record information
connecting propaganda outlets to each other and their coordinators abroad, analyze what we find,
act as a central repository and point of reference for related information, and organize efforts
to oppose it. 2 We formed PropOrNot as an effort to prevent propaganda from distorting U.S. political
and policy discussions (they want it to be distorted in their own
specific pro-neoliberal way --NNB).
We hope to strengthen our cultural immune systems against hostile influence (there is another
name for that -- it is usually called brainwashing --NNB) and improve public
discourse generally. However, our immediate aim at this point is to empower the American voter and
decrease the ability of Russia to influence the ensuing American election.
paulcraigroberts.org --
this is the fierce anti-establishment site which was created by former highly placed
official in Reagan administration Paul Craig Roberts.
ronpaulinstitute.org --
major libertarian anti-war site of former presidential candidate Ron Paul, who in the past was
the only candidate with realistic and anti-neocon foreign policy platorm. Highly recommended.
National security state gone rogue is fascism. Frankly, I don't see evidence of huge abuse
of US liberties. But I do see our foreign policy distorted by a counter-terror obsession
Notable quotes:
"... the government's interpretation of that law ..."
"... "One reports a crime; and one commits a crime." ..."
"... but does not include differences of opinion concerning public policy matters ..."
Two weeks ago, the Guardian began publishing a series of eye-opening revelations about the National
Security Agency and its surveillance
efforts both in the United States
and overseas. These stories raised long-moribund and often-ignored questions about the pervasiveness
of government surveillance and the extent to which privacy rights are being violated by this secret
and seemingly unaccountable security apparatus.
However, over the past two weeks, we've begun to get a clearer understanding of the story and
the implications of what has been published – informed in part by a new-found (if forced upon them)
transparency from the intelligence community. So here's one columnist's effort to sort the wheat
from the chaff and offer a few answers to the big questions that have been raised.
These revelations are a big deal, right?
To fully answer this question, it's important to clarify the revelations that have sparked such
controversy. The Guardian (along with the Washington Post) has broken a number of stories, each of
which tells us very different things about what is happening inside the US government around matters
of surveillance and cyber operations. Some are relatively mundane, others more controversial.
The story that has shaped press coverage and received the most attention was the first one – namely,
the publication of a judicial order from the
Fisa court to Verizon that
indicated the US is "hoovering" up millions of phone records (so-called "metadata") into a giant
NSA database. When it broke, the
story was quickly portrayed as a frightening tale of government overreach and violation of privacy
rights. After all, such metadata – though it contains no actual content – can be used rather easily
as a stepping-stone to more intrusive forms of surveillance.
But what is the true extent of the story here: is this picture of government Big Brotherism correct
or is this massive government surveillance actually quite benign?
First of all, such a collection of data is not, in and of itself, illegal. The
Obama administration
was clearly acting within the constraints of federal law and received judicial approval for this
broad request for data. That doesn't necessarily mean that the law is good or that the
government's interpretation of that law is not too broad, but unlike the Bush "warrantless wiretapping"
stories of several years ago, the US government is here acting within the law.
The real question that should concern us is one raised by the
TV writer David Simon in a widely cited blogpost looking at the issues raised by the Guardian's
reporting, namely:
"Is government accessing the data for the legitimate public safety needs of the society, or
are they accessing it in ways that abuse individual liberties and violate personal privacy – and
in a manner that is unsupervised."
We know, for example, that the NSA is required to abide by laws that prevent the international
targeting of American citizens (you can
read more about that
here). So, while metadata about phone calls made can be used to discover information about the
individuals making the calls, there are "minimization" rules, procedures and laws that guide the
use of such data and prevent possible abuse and misuse of protected data.
Sure, the potential for abuse exists – but so, too, does the potential for the lawful use of metadata
in a way that protects the privacy of individual Americans – and also assists the US government in
pursuit of potential terrorist suspects. Of course, without information on the specific procedures
used by the NSA to minimize the collection of protected data, it is impossible to know that no laws
are being broken or no abuse is occurring.
In that sense, we have to take the government's word for it. And that is especially problematic
when you consider the Fisa court decisions authorizing this snooping are secret and the congressional
intelligence committees tasked with conducting oversight tend to be toothless.
But assumptions of bad faith and violations of privacy by the US government are just that assumptions.
When President Obama says that the NSA is not violating privacy rights because it would be against
the law, we can't simply disregard such statements as self-serving. Moreover, when one considers
the privacy violations that Americans willingly submit to at airports, what personal data they give
to the government in their tax returns, and what is regularly posted voluntarily on Facebook, sent
via email and searched for online, highly-regulated data-mining by the NSA seems relatively tame.
One of the key questions that have emerged over this story is the motivation of the leaker in
question, Edward Snowden. In
his initial public interview, with Glenn Greenwald on 9 June, Snowden explained his actions,
in part, thus:
"I'm willing to sacrifice because I can't in good conscience allow the US government to destroy
privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance
machine they're secretly building."
Now, while one can argue that Snowden's actions do not involve personal sacrifice, whether they
are heroic is a much higher bar to cross. First of all, it's far from clear that the US government
is destroying privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world.
Snowden may sincere about being "valiant for truth", but he wouldn't be the first person to believe
himself such and yet be wrong.
Second, one can make the case that there is a public interest in knowing that the US is collecting
reams of phone records, but where is the public interest – and indeed, to Snowden's own justification,
the violation of privacy – in leaking a presidential directive on cyber operations or leaking that
the US is spying on the Russian president?
The latter is both not a crime it's actually what the NSA was established to do! In his
recent online chat hosted by the Guardian, Snowden suggested that the US should not be spying
on any country with whom it's not formally at war. That is, at best, a dubious assertion, and one
that is at odds with years of spycraft.
On the presidential directive on cyber operations, the damning evidence that Snowden revealed
was that President Obama has asked his advisers to create a list of potential targets for cyber operations
– but such planning efforts are rather routine contingency operations. For example, if the
US military drew up war
plans in case conflict ever occurred between the US and North Korea – and that included offensive
operations – would that be considered untoward or perhaps illegitimate military planning?
This does not mean, however, that Snowden is a traitor. Leaking classified data is a serious offense,
but treason is something else altogether.
The problem for Snowden is that he has now also
leaked classified information about ongoing US intelligence-gathering efforts to foreign governments,
including China and Russia. That may be crossing a line, which means that the jury is still out on
what label we should use to describe Snowden.
Shouldn't Snowden be protected as a whistleblower?
This question of leakers v whistleblowers has frequently been conflated in the public reporting
about the NSA leak (and many others). But this is a crucial error. As Tara Lee, a lawyer at the law
firm DLA Piper, with expertise in defense industry and national security litigation said to me there
is an important distinction between leakers and whistleblowers, "One reports a crime; and one
commits a crime."
Traditionally (and often technically), whistleblowing refers to specific actions that are taken
to bring to attention illegal behavior, fraud, waste, abuse etc. Moreover, the US government provides
federal employees and contractors with the protection to blow the whistle on wrongdoing. In the case
of Snowden, he could have gone to the inspector general at the Department of Justice or relevant
congressional committees.
From all accounts, it appears that he did not go down this path. Of course, since the material
he was releasing was approved by the Fisa court and had the sign-off of the intelligence committee,
he had good reason to believe that he would have not received the most receptive hearing for his
complaints.
Nevertheless, that does not give him carte blanche to leak to the press – and certainly doesn't
give him carte blanche to leak information on activities that he personally finds objectionable but
are clearly legal. Indeed, according to the
Intelligence Community
Whistleblower Protection Act (ICWPA), whistleblowers can make complaints over matter of what
the law calls "urgent concern", which includes "a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of
law or executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operations of an
intelligence activity involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinion
concerning public policy matters [my italics]."
In other words, simply believing that a law or government action is wrong does not give one the
right to leak information; and in the eyes of the law, it is not considered whistleblowing. Even
if one accepts the view that the leaked Verizon order fell within the bounds of being in the "public
interest", it's a harder case to make for the presidential directive on cyber operations or the eavesdropping
on foreign leaders.
The same problem is evident in the incorrect description of
Bradley Manning as
a whistleblower. When you leak hundreds of thousands of documents – not all of which you reviewed
and most of which contain the mundane and not illegal diplomatic behavior of the US government –
you're leaking. Both Manning and now Snowden have taken it upon themselves to decide what
should be in the public domain; quite simply, they don't have the right to do that. If every government
employee decided actions that offended their sense of morality should be leaked, the government would
never be able to keep any secrets at all and, frankly, would be unable to operate effectively.
So, like Manning, Snowden is almost certainly not a whistleblower, but rather a leaker. And that
would mean that he, like Manning, is liable to prosecution for leaking classified material.
Are Democrats hypocrites
over the NSA's activities?
A couple of days ago, my Guardian colleague, Glenn Greenwald made the following assertion:
"The most vehement defenders of NSA surveillance
have been, by far, Democratic (especially Obama-loyal) pundits. One of the most significant
aspects of the Obama legacy has been the transformation of Democrats from pretend-opponents of
the Bush "war on terror" and national security state into their biggest proponents."
This is regular line of argument from Glenn, but it's one that, for a variety of reasons, I believe
is not fair. (I don't say this because I'm an Obama partisan – though I may be called one for writing
this.)
First, the lion's share of criticism of these recent revelations has come, overwhelmingly, from
Democrats and, indeed, from many of the same people, including Greenwald, who were up in arms when
the so-called warrantless wiretapping program was revealed in 2006. The reality is that outside a
minority of activists, it's not clear that many Americans – Democrats orRepublicans –
get all that excited about these types of stories. (Not that this is necessarily a good thing.)
Second, opposition to the Bush program was two-fold: first, it was illegal and was conducted with
no judicial or congressional oversight; second, Bush's surveillance policies did not occur in a vacuum
– they were part of a pattern of law-breaking, disastrous policy decisions and Manichean rhetoric
over the "war on terror". So, if you opposed the manner in which Bush waged war on the "axis of evil",
it's not surprising that you would oppose its specific elements. In the same way, if you now support
how President Obama conducts counter-terrorism efforts, it's not surprising that you'd be more inclined
to view specific anti-terror policies as more benign.
Critics will, of course, argue – and rightly so – that we are a country of laws first. In which
case it shouldn't matter who is the president, but rather what the laws are that govern his or her
conduct. Back in the world of political reality, though, that's not how most Americans think of their
government. Their perceptions are defined in large measure by how the current president conducts
himself, so there is nothing at all surprising about Republicans having greater confidence in a Republican
president and Democrats having greater confidence in a Democratic one, when asked about specific
government programs.
Beyond that, simply having greater confidence in President Obama than President Bush to wield
the awesome powers granted the commander-in-chief to conduct foreign policy is not partisanship.
It's common sense.
George Bush was, undoubtedly,
one of the two or three worst foreign policy presidents in American history (and arguably, our worst
president, period). He and Dick Cheney habitually broke the law, including but not limited to the
abuse of NSA surveillance. President Obama is far from perfect: he made the terrible decision to
surge in Afghanistan, and
he's fought two wars of dubious legality in Libya and Pakistan, but he's very far from the sheer
awfulness of the Bush/Cheney years.
Unless you believe the US should have no NSA, and conduct no intelligence-gathering in the fight
against terrorism, you have to choose a president to manage that agency. And there is nothing hypocritical
or partisan about believing that one president is better than another to handle those responsibilities.
Has NSA surveillance prevented terrorist attacks, as claimed?
In congressional testimony this week, officials from the Department of Justice and the
NSA argued that surveillance efforts stopped "potential terrorist events over 50 times since
9/11". Having spent far too many years listening to public officials describe terrifying terror plots
that fell apart under greater scrutiny, this assertion sets off for me a set of red flags (even though
it may be true).
I have no doubt that NSA surveillance has contributed to national security investigations, but
whether it's as extensive or as vital as the claims of government officials is more doubtful. To
be honest, I'm not sure it matters. Part of the reason the US government conducts NSA surveillance
in the first place is not necessarily to stop every potential attack (though that would be nice),
but to deter potential terrorists from acting in the first place.
Critics of the program like to argue that "of course, terrorists know their phones are being tapped
and emails are being read", but that's kind of the point. If they know this, it forces them to choose
more inefficient means of communicating, and perhaps to put aside potential attacks for fear of being
uncovered.
We also know that not every terrorist has the skills of a Jason Bourne. In fact, many appear to
be not terribly bright, which means that even if they know about the NSA's enormous dragnet, it doesn't
mean they won't occasionally screw up and get caught.
Yet, this gets to a larger issue that is raised by the NSA revelations.
When is enough counter-terrorism enough?
Over the past 12 years, the US has developed what can best be described as a dysfunctional relationship
with terrorism. We've become obsessed with it and with a zero-tolerance approach to stopping it.
While the former is obviously an important goal, it has led the US to take steps that not only undermine
our values (such as torture), but also make us weaker (the invasion of
Iraq, the surge in Afghanistan,
etc).
To be sure, this is not true of every anti-terror program of the past dozen years. For example,
the US does a better job of sharing intelligence among government agencies, and of screening those
who are entering the country. And military efforts in the early days of the "war on terror" clearly
did enormous damage to al-Qaida's capabilities.
In general, though, when one considers the relatively low risk of terrorist attacks – and the
formidable defenses of the United States – the US response to terrorism has been one of hysterical
over-reaction. Indeed, the balance we so often hear about when it comes to protecting privacy while
also ensuring security is only one part of the equation. The other is how do we balance the need
to stop terrorists (who certainly aspire to attack the United States) and the need to prevent anti-terrorism
from driving our foreign policy to a disproportionate degree. While the NSA revelations might not
be proof that we've gone too far in one direction, there's not doubt that, for much of the past 12
years, terrorism has distorted and marred our foreign policy.
Last month, President Obama gave a seminal speech at the National Defense University, in which
he essentially declared the "war on terror" over. With troops coming home from Afghanistan, and drone
strikes on the decline, that certainly seems to be the case. But as the national freakout over the
Boston Marathon bombing – and the extraordinary over-reaction of a city-wide lockdown for one wounded
terrorist on the loose – remind us, we still have a ways to go.
Moreover, since no politician wants to find him- or herself in a situation after a terrorist attack
when the criticism "why didn't you do more?" can be aired, that political imperative of zero tolerance
will drive our counterterrorism policies. At some point, that needs to end.
In fact, nine years ago, our current secretary of state, John Kerry, made this exact point; it's
worth reviewing his words:
"We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives,
but they're a nuisance I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end
illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on
the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that
you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''
What the NSA revelations should spark is not just a debate on surveillance, but on the way we
think about terrorism and the steps that we should be willing to take both to stop it and ensure
that it does not control us. We're not there yet.
Re: How many Billions / Trillions are spent on these services?
The wonderful thing about living in a "Keynesian" perpetually increasing debt paradise is you
NEVER have to say you can't afford anything. (Well, unless you want to say it, but if you do it's
just political bullshit).
So, to answer your question... A "Keynesian" never asks how much, just how much do you want.
"When one considers the privacy violations that Americans willingly submit to at airports,
what personal data they give to the government in their tax returns, and what is regularly posted
voluntarily on Facebook, sent via email and searched for online, highly-regulated data-mining
by the NSA seems relatively tame."
Dear Sir: Please post your email addresses, bank accounts, and passwords. We'd like to look
at everything.
"When one considers the privacy violations that Americans willingly submit to at airports,
what personal data they give to the government in their tax returns, and what is regularly
posted voluntarily on Facebook, sent via email and searched for online [...]"
Wow! I don't really care about my personal email. I do care about all political activists,
journalists, lawyers etc. That a journalist would support Stasi style surveillance state is astonishing.
I wish I had the time to go through this article and demolish it sentence by sentence as it
so richly deserves, but at the moment I don't. Instead, might I suggest to the author that he
go to the guardian archive, read every single story about this in chronological order and then
read every damn link posted in the comment threads on the three most recent stories.
Most especially the links in the comment threads. If after that, he cannot see why we "civil
libertarian freaks" are not just outraged, but frightened, he frankly lacks both historical knowledge
and any ability to analyze the facts that are staring him in the face. I can't believe I am going
to have to say this again but here goes: YOU do not get to give away my contitutional rights,
Mr. Cohen.
I don't give a shit how much you trust Obama compared to dubya. The Bill of Rights states in
clear, unambiguous language what the Federal government may NOT do do its citizens no matter WHO
is president.
Michael Cohen Frankly, I don't see evidence of huge abuse of US liberties.
Well of course you wont see them.
But the abuses are very probably already happening on a one to one basis in the same shadows in
which the intelligence was first gathered.
President-elect Donald Trump recently had an 'off the record' meeting with members of the American
press, aka mainstream media. Such events are not unusual for presidents and future presidents, but
according to a variety anonymous sources, Donald Trump has not extended an olive branch to media
figures who displayed their open bias against him throughout the campaign. >
According to The Hill, Trump said that being in front of the mainstream media was like, "Being
in front of a fucking firing squad". Other sources claim he repeatedly said that he was in a
"room full of liars". If he indeed said either of those things, it is difficult to disagree
with such an assessment. He also claimed that he "hated" CNN, feelings which seem self-evidently
mutual.
According to the generally anti-Trump Politico, the President-elect blasted NBC for using unflattering
photographs of him throughout their coverage.
Whether or not these reports are fully accurate is beside the point. Frankly, why would one trust
off the record comments from people who publicly slandered Trump on the record and did so without
a hint of shame.
What is more significant is what Trump said about his use of social media during his lengthy interview
on CBS's 60 Minutes. Here, Trump said that social media is an effective way to bypass big-media
and speak directly to the public. He also stated that it is a quick, cheap and effective way to clarify
misstatements made by the mainstream media.
This is unequivocally true and it is heartening. To think that a small smartphone has the ability
to reach as many and at times even more people than the mainstream media with their millions of dollars
worth of cameras, microphones, lights, sets, drivers, vehicles, offices and staff, is a sign that
the world is no longer beholden to the arrogant gatekeepers of news, perhaps better referred to as
"fake news".
Donald Trump was indeed given a very unfair time by the media and he has no reason to forget nor
forgive. He also has no reason to placate them, and frankly due to the power of new-media, online
media and his own highly effective use of social media, he doesn't need them.
They are relics of the past and he is a symbol of the future.
Steven Barry
The alt-media is the samizdat (google it) of the internet age. The genie is out of the
bottle and there is no putting it back.
Simon
Excellent. Yet even 'IF' the reports of this meeting are exaggerated, there is a fact that
is undeniable; The new President is holding Court in his own palace, on top of his own castle,
in New York.
All the supplicants are coming to him. Even the Japanese Prime minister. He sits there in the
economic capital of the USA rather than being in Washington - where presumably something like
the HQ of the Republican Party would be the more normal venue for a president-elect.
Far away in the DC Swamp (which voted 94% Hillary) the politicians, the hacks, the lobbyists
the 'professionals' are in panic - there's no way to meet him, no way to do lunch at 30mins
notice. All they have is the tragic ghost of BHO wandering around the White House, but the
glitz the zeitgeist the locus is now at Trump Tower. Every day we see its lobby and the golden
lift in the news.
Many believe nothing will change, but so far there are plenty signs that it has.
tom > Simon
Let's hope the Trump Tower doesn't get 9/11'd.
le-DeplorableFroggy > tom
As long as the Mossad terrorists are kept OUT of the US from now on, and every zionist
stooge is either locked up or thrown OUT of this country, NO more israHell/Mossad false flags
in the US.
● How Ehud Barak Pulled Off 9-11 - (bollyn dot com/how-ehud-barak-pulled-off-9-11-2)
● MADE IN ISRAEL - 9-11 and the Jewish Plot Against America PDF - (shop.americanfreepress dot
net/store/c/25-Israel.html)
● 9-11 EVIL - Israel's Central Role in the September 11, 2001, Terrorist Attacks - (shop.americanfreepress
dot net/store/c/25-Israel.html)
● Get the Hell Out of Our Country! Parts 1 to 5 - (veteranstoday dot
com/2015/02/05/get-the-hell-out-of-our-country/)
● Israel a cornered rat - "In 10 years there will be no more Israel" - Henry 'Balloonie'
Kizzinger - (darkmoon dot me/2014/israel-a-cornered-rat/)
● Netanyahu tells ministers not to talk to Trump's people - (theuglytruth.wordpress dot
com/2016/11/21/netanyahu-tells-ministers-not-to-talk-to-trumps-people/#more-162166)
7.62x54r • 3 days ago
US media ( and other NATO media ) are propagandists. The US Big 6 should have their
licenses yanked for putting forth a flawed and wholly dishonest product. Screw them.
FRIEDMAN: What do you see as America's role in the world? Do you believe that the role
TRUMP: That's such a big question.
FRIEDMAN: The role that we played for 50 years as kind of the global balancer, paying more for
things because they were in our ultimate interest, one hears from you, I sense, is really shrinking
that role.
TRUMP: I don't think we should be a nation builder. I think we've tried that. I happen to think
that going into Iraq was perhaps I mean you could say maybe we could have settled the civil war,
O.K.? I think going into Iraq was one of the great mistakes in the history of our country. I think
getting out of it - I think we got out of it wrong, then lots of bad things happened, including the
formation of ISIS. We could have gotten out of it differently.
FRIEDMAN: NATO, Russia?
TRUMP: I think going in was a terrible, terrible mistake. Syria, we have to solve that problem
because we are going to just keep fighting, fighting forever. I have a different view on Syria than
everybody else. Well, not everybody else, but then a lot of people. I had to listen to [Senator]
Lindsey Graham, who, give me a break. I had to listen to Lindsey Graham talk about, you know, attacking
Syria and attacking, you know, and it's like you're now attacking Russia, you're attacking Iran,
you're attacking. And what are we getting? We're getting - and what are we getting? And I have some
very definitive, I have some very strong ideas on Syria. I think what's happened is a horrible, horrible
thing. To look at the deaths, and I'm not just talking deaths on our side, which are horrible, but
the deaths - I mean you look at these cities, Arthur, where they're totally, they're rubble, massive
areas, and they say two people were injured. No, thousands of people have died. O.K. And I think
it's a shame. And ideally we can get - do something with Syria. I spoke to Putin, as you know, he
called me, essentially
UNKNOWN: How do you see that relationship?
TRUMP: Essentially everybody called me, all of the major leaders, and most of them I've spoken
to.
FRIEDMAN: Will you have a reset with Russia?
TRUMP: I wouldn't use that term after what happened, you know, previously. I think - I would love
to be able to get along with Russia and I think they'd like to be able to get along with us. It's
in our mutual interest. And I don't go in with any preconceived notion, but I will tell you, I would
say - when they used to say, during the campaign, Donald Trump loves Putin, Putin loves Donald Trump,
I said, huh, wouldn't it be nice, I'd say this in front of thousands of people, wouldn't it be nice
to actually report what they said, wouldn't it be nice if we actually got along with Russia, wouldn't
it be nice if we went after ISIS together, which is, by the way, aside from being dangerous, it's
very expensive, and ISIS shouldn't have been even allowed to form, and the people will stand up and
give me a massive hand. You know they thought it was bad that I was getting along with Putin or that
I believe strongly if we can get along with Russia that's a positive thing. It is a great thing that
we can get along with not only Russia but that we get along with other countries.
JOSEPH KAHN, managing editor: On Syria, would you mind, you said you have a very strong idea about
what to do with the Syria conflict, can you describe that for us?
TRUMP: I can only say this: We have to end that craziness that's going on in Syria. One of the
things that was told to me - can I say this off the record, or is everything on the record?
isn't impressed with Trump's national security appointments so far. Here he comments on Flynn's
views:
Iran is another subject on which Flynn displays far more simplistically expressed emotion than
any careful attention to facts and the pros and cons of U.S. policy options. His attitude is demonstrated
in
Congressional testimony in June 2015, which can be fairly summarized as saying that Iran is
bad in every respect and we should have no dealings with it on anything. (Jim Lobe
has
collated some of the lowlights from this statement). Flynn stated that "regime change in Tehran
is the best way to stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program"-with no further elaboration on how
this would be brought about, leaving us to suppose that it is the Iraq 2003 model. He has given
no indication since then of dropping his blanket opposition to the negotiated agreement that limits
Iran's nuclear program and has successfully been in operation for more than a year, nor does he
show any awareness of the U.S. intelligence community's public judgment that Iran had stopped
any nuclear weapons program several years before he was testifying.
Among other things, Flynn claims to know that "Iran has every intention of building a nuclear
weapon" despite the fact that their government abandoned any attempt to do so over a decade ago.
He claims that Iran's government has stated this intention "many times," but the truth is that their
government has consistently denied ever seeking to build such a weapon. Many of the things that Flynn
asserts in his testimony are demonstrably untrue, but they are part of a pattern of consistently
exaggerating the threat from Iran and ignoring evidence that contradicts his alarmist assessments.
Later in his testimony, he says this about Iran's relations with certain other states:
Just look at the cooperation with North Korea, China and Russia. Connect those dots, and you
get the outline of a global alliance aimed at the U.S., our friends, and our allies.
This is not a case of "connecting dots" at all. It is an invention of an "alliance" where none
exists on the basis of some very weak evidence. There is some limited cooperation between these states,
but they are not allies nor do they regularly work together as if they were. We see in Flynn's testimony
a nod towards the imaginary global "alliance" that Flynn and Ledeen concoct in their book (here is
a
video of the co-authors talking about the book from earlier this year), so this is a view that
he already held over a year ago. That brings me back to the conclusion I
reached over the summer when I first started writing about Flynn:
The fact that he believes (or claims to believe) things as obviously false global "alliance"
of villains should make it clear that he is happy to indulge and recycle extremely dangerous and
foolish ideological talking points. That's not someone any of us should want working in or advising
a future administration.
Unfortunately, he will be advising the next president in a very influential position, and we should
have no illusions about the quality of advice Flynn will be giving him.
Title is pretty misleading. It is neoliberals who are snake oil sellers. In no way FDR was
a snake oil seller.
Notable quotes:
"... People aren't so much voting _for_ snake oil as _against_ the status quo. ..."
"... False analogies. Time for "change", no expectation of "hope" from the bomber* who got the Nobel peace prize. 'Snake oil'+ from both sides in 2016. Add a dash of corruption and rigged system. The corrupt snake oil sales pitch who lost to the unorganized snake oil sales pitch. ..."
"... From my prospective the donkey-s were pushing more of the same conservative party-line straight from 1928. The publicans had deep vested interest in the same failed approach to culture, society, economy, and finance. The same except for one of its hopeful candidates who saw the problem, some of the remedies, and a path towards the control tower using the popular but outdated methods of pandering to our most disgusting instincts of evil. Sure! ..."
"... Snake oil salesmen, eh? One only has to read Minsky on the neoclassical assumptions or, for that matter, Milton Friedman on why nonsense is perfectly fine to know who the big league snake oil salesmen have been. People voting for Brexit and Trump were voting for anything but the snake oil status quo. ..."
"... The Establishment isn't delivering so you get populists on the left and right. ..."
"... Make me think of the Middle East where the West destroyed the communists and socialists and so all that was left was the military-backed authoritarians and the mosques with their "snake oil." ..."
"... "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people" ..."
"... Seems it to difficult to admit globalization damaged US workers, so the fall back is to call workers gullible and racist. ..."
Clearly Keynes and FDR were snake-oil salesmen. The Progressive New Deal Era (1932-80) being the
biggest economic muckup in the history of humanity!
Thankfully Friedman came along and made America and the world great again. (Just a slight kink
in the model: the global economy teetering on the verge of collapse into fascist revolutions and
world war. Nothing a little free-market medicine can't nip in the bud!)
False analogies.
Time for "change", no expectation of "hope" from the bomber* who got the Nobel peace prize.
'Snake oil'+ from both sides in 2016. Add a dash of corruption and rigged system. The corrupt snake oil sales pitch who lost to the unorganized snake oil sales pitch.
If the faux left don't get some logic it needs to be replaced by a leftie of the Trump brand.
have become "homogeneous", while Lebanon has not thrived as a nation
"
~~steve randy waldman~
Populist Politicians
From the steve quotation you can guess that USA has thrived thus all our long list of ethnicity-s
are mutually dissolving each into the other. As interbreeding proceeds you can see the evidence
within Gaussian distribution of each ethnic feature. We are now a nation of one people.
If it then follows that the recent election was not merely all things racism, what was the
focus of the candidates?
From my prospective the donkey-s were pushing more of the same conservative party-line straight
from 1928. The publicans had deep vested interest in the same failed approach to culture, society,
economy, and finance. The same except for one of its hopeful candidates who saw the problem, some
of the remedies, and a path towards the control tower using the popular but outdated methods of
pandering to our most disgusting instincts of evil. Sure!
His vision is incomplete. He is still searching for the answers, but he is certain that we
cannot return to the cold war of 1950. Will he rediscover deflation, full reserve banking, green
transportation, a gentler approach to the Luddites?
We need to support his search for a more sustainable USA, a more sustainable planet, a more
sustainable
Snake oil salesmen, eh?
One only has to read Minsky on the neoclassical assumptions or, for that matter, Milton Friedman
on why nonsense is perfectly fine to know who the big league snake oil salesmen have been. People
voting for Brexit and Trump were voting for anything but the snake oil status quo.
There are populists and then there are demagogues masquerading as populists. Stamp out the
populists with constant ridicule from the crackpot realists and all that will be left are the
demagogues who style themselves as populists.
As my old Bronx doctor, Seymour Tenzer, put it: "All these histories are bullshit -- I got
punched in the chest; that's why I've got a lump." [:-)]
Trump's victory is down to the disappearance of the $800 job for the $400 job. That subtracted
from the vote in the black ghettos – and added to the vote in the white ghettos -- both ghettos
being far off the radar screen of academic liberals like Hill and O.
I notice the white ghettos because that is me. My old taxi job (much too old now at 72 3/4)
was "in-sourced" all over the world to drivers who would work for remarkably less (than the not
so great incomes we native born eked out). Today's low skilled jobs go to native and foreign born
who willing to show up for $400 (e.g., since Walmart gutted supermarket contracts). Fast food
strictly to foreign born who will show up for $290 a week (min wage $400, 1968 -- when per cap
income half today's).
Don't expect the 100,000 out of maybe 200,000 Chicago gang age males to show up for a life
time of $400/wk servitude. Did I mention, manufacturing was down to 6% of employment 15 years
ago -- now 4% (disappearing like farm labor, mostly robo; look to health care for the future?)?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gang-wars-at-the-root-of-chicagos-high-murder-rate/
6% union density at private employers = 20/10 BP which starves every healthy process in the
social body = disappearance of collective bargaining and its institutional concomitants which
supply political funding and lobbying equal to oligarchs plus most all the votes ...
... votes: notice? 45% take 10% of overall income -- 45% earn $15/hr or less -- a lot of votes.
The Establishment isn't delivering so you get populists on the left and right. Would Dillow or
SWL call Corbyn and Sanders snake oil salesmen?
The centrists do. The corrupt corporate media makes a point to do that.
Make me think of the Middle East where the West destroyed the communists and socialists and
so all that was left was the military-backed authoritarians and the mosques with their "snake
oil."
"Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul
of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people"
But as an investigation published by Truthout in 2011
revealed , the target list that JSOC used for its "night raids" and other operations to kill
supposed Taliban was based on a fundamentally flawed methodology that was inherently incapable of
distinguishing between Taliban insurgents and civilians who had only tangential contacts with the
Taliban organization. And it was Flynn who devised that methodology.
The "night raids" on Afghan homes based on Flynn's methodology caused so much Afghan anger toward
Americans that Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan, acknowledged the problem
of Afghan antagonism toward the entire program publicly in a March 2010 directive.
The system that led to that Afghan outrage began to take shape in Iraq in 2006, when Flynn, then-intelligence
chief for JSOC, developed a new methodology for identifying and locating al-Qaeda and Shia Mahdi
Army members in Iraq. Flynn revealed the technologies used in Iraq in an
unclassified article published in 2008.
At the center of the system was what Flynn called the "Unblinking Eye," referring to 24-hour drone
surveillance of specific locations associated with "known and suspected terrorist sites and individuals."
The drone surveillance was then used to establish a "pattern of life analysis," which was the main
tool used to determine whether to strike the target. We now know from reports of drone strikes in
Pakistan that killed entire groups of innocent people that "pattern of life analysis" is frequently
a matter of guesswork that is completely wrong.
Flynn's unclassified article also revealed that "SIGINT" (signals intelligence), i.e., the monitoring
of cell phone metadata, and "geo-location" of phones were the other two major tools used in Flynn's
system of targeting military strikes. JSOC was using links among cell phones to identify suspected
insurgents.
Flynn's article suggested that the main emphasis in intelligence for targeting in Iraq was on
providing analysis of the aerial surveillance visual intelligence on a target to help decide in real
time whether to carry out a strike on it.
But when McChrystal took command of US forces in Afghanistan in mid-2009 and took Flynn with him
as his intelligence chief, Flynn's targeting methodology changed dramatically. JSOC had already begun
to carry out "night raids" in Afghanistan -- usually attacks on private homes in the middle of the
night -- and McChrystal wanted to increase the tempo of those raids. The number of night raids
increased from 20 per month in May 2009 to 90 per month six months later. It reached an average
of
more than 100 a month in the second half of 2009 and the first half of 2010.
At this point, the targets were no longer Taliban commanders and higher-ups in the organization.
They included people allegedly doing basic functions such as logistics, bomb-making and propaganda.
In order to rapidly build up the highly secret "kill/capture" list (called the "Joint Prioritized
Effects List," or JPEL) to meet McChrystal's demands for more targets, Flynn used a technique called
"link analysis." This technique involved the use of software that allowed intelligence analysts to
see the raw data from drone surveillance and cell phone data transformed instantly into a "map" of
the insurgent "network." That "map" of each network associated with surveillance of a location became
the basis for adding new names to the JPEL.
Flynn could increase the number of individual "nodes" on that map by constantly adding more cell
phone metadata for the computer-generated "map" of the insurgency. Every time JSOC commandos killed
or captured someone, they took their cell phones to add their metadata to the database. And US intelligence
also gathered cell phone data from the population of roughly 3,300 suspected insurgents being held
in the Afghan prison system, who were allowed to use mobile phones freely in their cells.
What the expansion of cell phone data surveillance meant was that an ever-greater proportion of
the targets on Flynn's "kill/capture list" were not identified at all, except as mobile phone numbers.
As Matthew Hoh, who served as the senior US civilian official in Zabul Province until he quit in
protest in September 2009, explained to me, "When you are relying on cell phones for intelligence,
you don't get the names of those targeted."
There was no requirement for any effort to establish the actual identity of the targets listed
as cell phone numbers in order to guard against mistakes.
What made Flynn's methodology for expanding the kill/capture list even riskier was that there
was no requirement for any effort to establish the actual identity of the targets listed as cell
phone numbers in order to guard against mistakes.
Using such a methodology in the Afghan socio-political context guaranteed that a high proportion
of those on the kill/capture list were innocent civilians. As former deputy to the European Union
special representative to Afghanistan Michael Semple (one of the few genuine experts in the world
on the Taliban movement) explained to me, most Afghans in the Pashtun south and east of Afghanistan
"have a few Taliban commander numbers saved to their mobile phone contacts" as a "survival mechanism."
Nader Nadery, a commissioner of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission in 2010, estimated
that the total civilian deaths for all 73 night raids about which the commission had complaints that
year was 420. But the commission acknowledged that it didn't have access to most of the districts
dominated by the Taliban. So the actual civilian toll may well have been many times that number --
meaning that civilians may have accounted for more than half of the 2,000 alleged "Taliban" killed
in JSOC's operations in 2010.
The percentage of innocent people among those who were captured and incarcerated was even higher.
In December 2010, the US command in Afghanistan leaked to a friendly blogger that 4,100 "Taliban"
had been captured in the previous six months. But an unclassified February 5, 2011, internal document
of the Combined Joint Inter-Agency Task Force responsible for detention policy in Afghanistan, which
I obtained later in 2011, showed that only 690 Afghans were admitted to the US detention facility
at Parwan during that six-month period. Twenty percent of those were later released upon review of
their files. So alleged evidence of participation in the Taliban insurgency could not have existed
for more than 552 people at most, or 14 percent of the total number said to have been captured. But
many of those 552 were undoubtedly innocent as well.
basarov •
9 hours ago
Porter is either a paid CIA/dimocrat party shill or perhaps extraordinarily stupid.
It was OBAMA who implemented the vaunted 'surge" and flooded Afghanistan with an extra 30,000
US mercenaries. And I believe that obama was the US leader in 2009. To whine about a 3 star general,
under orders to carry out an obama policy and then blame Trump by association reminds one of a
3 year old trying to make sense of Kabuki....surreal or simply delusional?
We see that america needs a police state oligarchy; americans cannot distinguish between bovine
excreta and caviar.
And so did the American people by sitting in the passive bubble of patriotism while we continue
to scorch the Earth with imperialism abroad while having a surveillance state at home. We are
ALL guilty!
Ultimately, isn't it Obama, as commander-in-chief, who's responsible for the dirty work of his
team of assassins in JSOC? As far as I know, Obama is not out of office yet...
I don't know why we are there or in Iraq. It was the Saudi families and Saudi funding that created
the terrorism of 9-11. It was the Bush Admin NeoCons and the Neoliberal philosopy that created
the longest war in our history. It is entirely coincidental that this war like Vietnam inflicts
its greatest toll on a bunch of impoverished villagers.
Thanks for mentioning Viet Nam. Flynn appears to have been cut from the same cloth as Gen. Wm.
Westmoreland, who first brought us "victory" by body count.
"... If Trump hadn't settled on Make America Great Again for a slogan, he could have easily run on "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it any more!" ..."
"... Nobody wants news any more, says Christensen, as she ruthlessly lays out a template for the coming age of "disinfotainment" and canned news-porn. ..."
Network at 40: the flawed satire that predicted Trump and cable 'news porn'. Prescient and powerful,
the film foreshadowed the likes of Bill O'Reilly with its 'mad as hell' protagonists and the climate
of American anger that birthed Trump
Does this sound familiar? "The American people are turning us off. They've been clobbered by Vietnam,
Watergate, the inflation, the depression. They've turned off, shot up the American people want
someone to articulate their rage." And how about this? "There is no America. There is no democracy.
There is only IBM and ITT, and ATT and DuPont, Dow, Union-Carbide and Exxon. The world is a business
it has been ever since man crawled up out of the slime."
Change the historical events, change the names of the conglomerates, and these speeches could
have been written yesterday morning about, or by, President-elect Donald J Trump. He is Network screenwriter
Paddy Chayefsky's nightmare made real, his blistering satire come completely true just in time for
the film's 40th anniversary this week. If Trump hadn't settled on Make America Great Again for
a slogan, he could have easily run on "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it any more!"
Network is like a time machine: when it was released four decades ago this week it more or less
accurately predicted the state of media as it is 40 years later. It mourns the original golden age
of television – the 1950s – of which Paddy Chayefsky was a major and emblematic figure, but it partakes
of all that era's shortcomings, too: overstatement, speechifying, ranting, self-indulgent writing,
sledgehammer subtlety.
Trump could have easily run on a slogan of 'I'm as mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it any
more!'
It also, nonetheless, looks startlingly like a work that would fit snugly into the current golden
age of television alongside shows like The Newsroom and Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. The creator
of those shows, Aaron Sorkin, even went so far as to invoke Chayefsky when he received his screenwriting
Oscar for The Social Network.
Network's most famous virtue is its extreme and eerie prescience about where the news media
would go in the next decades. Howard Beale, "the mad prophet of the airwaves", lurks behind
any number of real-life media ranters and screamers of our own time, from Bill O'Reilly to Sean Hannity,
Glenn Beck to Alex Jones.
Faye Dunaway's carnivorous network suit Diana Christensen – Sammy Glick via Tracy Flick – is derived
from young TV execs of the 1970s who were accused of infantilizing the medium. People like NBC daytime
programmer Lin Bolen and Fred Silverman, who serially headed all three networks, in particular. Network
takes the side of the old against the young, seeing youth as a destructive, insatiable, Darwinian
force that will ultimately usurp William Holden's ageing newsroom chief Max Schumacher.
Nobody wants news any more, says Christensen, as she ruthlessly lays out a template for the
coming age of "disinfotainment" and canned news-porn. The first step of which is to bring the
independent news division under the heel of network entertainment programming. What Shumacher dreams
up in a drunken haze as a joke, she makes reality – or reality television, as it had yet to be known.
'It is a pre-digital realm of rotary phones, filing cabinets, steno pads and typewriters; the
newsroom is an exact match for the newsroom in All the President's Men '
Another of Network's accidental byproducts is the nostalgia one feels right from its opening shot
of four TV network news anchors – three real, one fictional. In those pre-Fox years, of course, there
were only three networks, and they underpinned what was left of the American consensus after Goldwater
and Nixon, Vietnam and Watergate. It is a pre-digital realm of rotary phones, filing cabinets, steno
pads and typewriters; the newsroom is an exact match for the newsroom in All the President's Men,
also released during the bicentennial, and the idealistic yin to Network's pessimistic yang.
And the mid-1970s was almost insane enough to obviate satire entirely. Network is embedded in
the very real world of 1975, satire notwithstanding. We hear of "the Lennon deportation", the two
recent assassination attempts on President Gerald Ford, the Opec price hike, and the Patty Hearst
kidnapping. Indeed, the movie mentions multiple heiress-terrorists and offers us one of its own,
played by Kathy Cronkite, daughter of Walter, America's most trusted anchorman.
Forty years later, Network is half a masterpiece. At more or less the one-hour mark, right after
the mad-as-hell speech and 60 minutes of very sure-footed satire, it loses all steam and caves in
on itself. Chayefsky falls prey to all the spell-it-out vices of the golden age of television, and
one can imagine it all in black-and-white, being broadcast in 1956. Character names aren't exactly
subtle: Robert Duvall's shark-like executive, prone to budget-slashing, is named Hackett, while the
affair between Dunaway and Holden plays like bad Philco Playhouse dross.
Everybody gets a chance to yell at great length, and with the exception of Duvall (who is here
turned up to maximum Charlie-Don't-Surf!), few of them carry it off well. Even Mr Jensen's apocalyptic
bollocking of Peter Finch ("Valhalla, Mr Beale, Please sit down ") seems faintly risible now. And
the dialogue betrays a working-class autodidact's over-fondness for Big Words: "multivariant", "auspicatory",
"eraculate", "intractable and adamantine"!
Chayefsky, a creature of postwar television, despises what it has become (he'd quit TV in disgust
in 1960). The young are all vacant, amoral gargoyles. The black characters are near-racist caricatures
puking up demented Marxist-Leninist verbiage while eating fried chicken and cradling machine guns.
Satire repeatedly merges with spite and contempt – for characters and audience – putting Network
up there with A Face in the Crowd in the never-ending war between Hollywood and upstart television.
But still, there is that breathtaking, unnerving prescience, which makes one sorry that three
of Network's principal architects – Chayefsky, Finch and Holden – were dead long before it became
apparent. And there is this, from Finch-Beale, a line that reaches straight across 40 years of time
and grabs us by the throat: " This tube is the most awesome goddamn force in the whole godless
world, and woe is us if it ever falls into the hands of the wrong people! " Perhaps it's
too late.
From a bonanza of free airtime to an overt media campaign against him, Donald Trump was a candidate
covered like no other. But were journalists unwitting accomplices in his election? And where does
the industry go from here?
"... In the last 100+ years, there has never been an alternative world that wasn't thoroughly infiltrated by the mainstream world. ..."
"... the Russians remain the scappiest goat of all http://theduran.com/war-with-russia-us-politicians-close-to-approving-no... ..."
"... You mean Hillary didn't win? Pre-election night Woof Bitzer said 98% chance.... wtf?! ..."
"... This "fake news" bullshit isn't going to gain any traction. As soon as folks find their favorite alt site on the list, it'll just confirm what most already know. ..."
"... Presstitute lamestream media ..."
"... I've found the inverse also applies, that is, when something peculiar or seemingly significant is reported then quickly sent 'down the memory hole' it usually has great importance. ..."
They kept telling the American people Hillary Clinton was going to win the election; and in every
way they could think of, they told the American people this was a good idea.
Then, on election night, they, the media, crashed.
The results came in.
The media went into deep shock.
As protests and riots then spread across America, the media neglected to mention a) they'd been
bashing Trump because he said he might not accept the outcome of the vote, and b) here were large
numbers of people on the Democrat side who weren't accepting the outcome of the vote.
A new campaign had to be launched.
Suddenly, on cue, it was: Hillary Clinton lost because "fake news" about her had been spread around
during the campaign.
Fake news sites. That was the reason.
These "fake sites" had to be punished. Somehow. They had to be defamed. Blocked. Censored.
Here is an excerpt from a list of "fake news" sites suggested by one professor. The list is circulating
widely on the Web: Project Veritas; Infowars; Breitbart; Coast To Coast AM; Natural News; Zero Hedge;
The Daily Sheeple; Activist Post; 21st Century Wire.
Free speech? Bill of Rights? Never heard of it.
Excuse me. "We won't know what to protect?" Meaning what to favor, what to promote, what to lie
about? Meaning only some speech is free?
Obama is way, way behind the curve. Thousands of websites and blogs have been exposing major media
as fake for years. I started nomorefakenews.com
in 2001.
If Google, Facebook, and Twitter keep expanding their censorship of "disfavored messages," they're
going to pay a price. More and more users will go elsewhere.
The facade of the major media is getting thinner. You can see a glow of rage and resentment behind
it. They're desperately looking for revenge on the millions and millions of people who are deserting
them and laughing at them.
They presumed too much. They presumed they had us in the palm of their hand. We were their property.
We were transfixed by their authority.
All that is going away. Bye, bye.
The big shift is accelerating. Independent media are in the ascendance. Understand that. Recognize
it.
The impossible is happening.
Fake news sites? Please. The major media are the biggest fakes the world has ever seen. Their
anchors and star reporters are bloviating cranks. They're dinner-theater actors.
Over the years, I've talked to some of them. I've warned them of their coming troubles. They were
miles away from believing me. Now, they're starting to sweat blood.
Major media news for America is still basically manufactured in New York and Washington-plus occasional
outbursts from Hollywood creatures who bemoan the decline of inclusive liberalism, as they expand
their gun-toting security staffs and dig deeper bunkers. The New York-Washington axis exists in a
self-serving bubble, which has now taken serious punctures. The delusional attacks against "fake
sites" underlines how out of touch these elites are with the rest of the country.
Independent media outlets are winning. They won't be stopped.
When the people who now head the tech giants were growing up, they were heralding the Internet
as a new era of free information-exchange. But now that they find themselves working with the government
in the Surveillance State, they're fronting for censorship. In fact, they're showing they were never
for freedom. That was a pose all along. They were, from the beginning, agents of repression. They
can try to stop independent media now, but they will fail.
Fake web sites? What about fake companies? What about Google, Facebook, Twitter? Behind their
happy-happy messages, they were built to propagandize, profile, and control.
Understand this: major media have a rock-bottom article of faith. It is: "We own the news."
They can't give it up. They'll never give it up. It fuels everything they do. It's the substance
and core of their attitude.
As their ship goes down below the waves, they'll be chanting it. "We own the news."
But they don't. In truth, they never did. For a time, they managed to sell that delusion to the
people.
That time is drawing to a close.
The elite political class and their media minions fear more than independent news countering their
own news. For obvious reasons, every civilization down through history has had its own monopolistic
media, its central "broadcasting system." Its controlled outlet. But now, The One has become Many.
That is the threat.
The rapid proliferation of The Many is an unpredictable X-factor.
The population is waking up to decentralized media. Instead of the hypnotic attachment to one
basic information source - the habit of a lifetime - the public is learning to handle multiple sources.
Therefore, the hypnotic spell is being broken and dissolved.
This is the basic problem for the elites.
How can they reinstate the trance?
By trying to censor the Internet? By creating a sudden war or other disaster, briefly "unifying"
the country? These are not permanent solutions, particularly since more and more people understand
such maneuvers and their true aims.
Awake is awake. Putting the genie back in the bottle - particularly when major media denizens
aren't very bright, as evidenced by their latest "fake news" scam - is on the order of trying to
perform a piece of stage magic after the audience has already learned how it's done.
Of course, the media clowns will try. And in the process, they'll further expose themselves and
actually assist in the awakening.
Here is how bad the prog media SUCKS and they say nary a word. Obama tweeted out "I'm extremely
proud of the fact that over 8 years we have not had the kinds of scandals that have plagued other
administrations."
This "fake news" bullshit isn't going to gain any traction. As soon as folks find their favorite
alt site on the list, it'll just confirm what most already know.
I would rather have a 1,000 points of light than the MSM --
the proliferation of news, fact - editorial based news sites will usher in a new age of education
for the American public - it does not matter if they are fake or not - sooner or later they will
figure it out what is real - the lack of concentration and focus on the MSM will produce ..........more
and deeper truth
The best part of Nov 8th was watching Wolf Blitzer proving himself an idiot on live television.
The degree of certitude, the degree of distrust of facts his own people were putting forward,
was a great bit of theater. I was waiting for him to say why he was so convinced that things would
somehow swing back to his version of reality. What did he think it meant when 40k people waited
in the cold at 1 am in Grand Rapids? what a maroon. There is no recovering your reputation as
an expert after such an epic fail.
Alternatives do mature and go through cycles. Lean/raw to fat/lazy. There's always new alternatives.
You can't wait for the alternative to find you. It starts with high quality education and non-stop
desire for knowledge. Dig for the alternative.
"The fact that we will not reestablish [another] Walter Cronkite, because of technology... does
not mean we can't have people who are trusted. Brian Williams is sitting here, Charlie Gibson
and Katie Couric..."
-- Rockefeller/CFR media control roundtable, Sep 2009, sponsored by Time-Warner and moderated
by Christiane Amanpour
They'll find some way to place the blame. If nothing else, all the losers in the MSM stick
together. Informed individuals will always be informed individuals. The "Snowflakes" are an entire
issue unto themselves.
The very first filter I apply to the MSM is the degree to which the same voice and story is being
repeated. The more they speak in unison, the more likely what I'm hearing is a lie.....or at best
a severely distorted 'truth '.
Trayvon the thug - only showing a picture taken when he was 12 instead of a recent one (which
they had access to) when he was 18 showing a muscled up tatted up thug
Actually EDITING the 911 call to make it appear the "White Hispanic" was a raging psycho racist
I find it funny in a way people will allow the media to shit in their mouth repeatedly - and
I've no tolerance for them. Far as I'm concerned they're garbage.
Oh, and I made sweet sweet money betting on Trump to win the election from a bunch of libtards
- some gave me odds!!!
And more than one said "are you really going to take my money?"
Yes, friend DO YOU UNDERSTAND HOW A BET WORKS? Do you have any honor at all?!
I've found the inverse also applies, that is, when something peculiar or seemingly significant
is reported then quickly sent 'down the memory hole' it usually has great importance.
Bonus situation for the Establishment ... Only we hard core tin foil types are aware of the
info at all, thus easily ridiculed and dismissed.
Charlie Rose is a member of the Rockefeller/CFR along with Margaret Warner (CFR director), Jim
Lehrer, and Judy Woodruff to name a few. See member lists at cfr dot org.
"... I was one of those recounting the votes by hand and when all was said and done we wound up counting over 100 votes more than the machines had counted and we only recounted ballots that contained votes for the 2nd and 3rd place candidates so there were potentially and quite probably an even higher number of ballots that weren't counted the first time around. A rough estimate is that 1-2% of the initial votes weren't counted at all by the machines. ..."
"... The ballots that were initially counted weren't marked in any way so we had no way of knowing which ballots had been previously counted by the machines and which hadn't however we were able to make some educated guesses after looking through thousands of ballots. ..."
"... After the recount we picked up some votes but not enough to change the results which was actually pretty reassuring as the extra votes tallied were in the same proportion for each candidate to what the machines initially tallied which is what you'd expect over a large sample size. ..."
"... What we found is that while these particular machines did accurately count the ballots they were able to count, they cannot count all of them due to user error which is pretty difficult to eradicate – some people simply won't follow directions properly no matter how clear they are. ..."
"... We caught some flak when asking for the recount about the presumed large cost to the taxpayer however the cost turned out to be minimal. Each candidate had 8 volunteers plus 8 more election clerks who were paid $11/hr by the city to supervise the volunteers. Our 8 teams of 3 managed to go through around 12K ballots in about 5 hours. ..."
"... The solution is to have all ballots for every election counted by hand in public immediately after the polls close. It isn't rocket science, it's not that expensive and it's the only way to ensure that everyone's vote is actually counted. ..."
Regarding recounts, when the total vote difference is in the single digit thousands in large states
where hundreds of thousands or more votes were cast, the candidates shouldn't have to ask for a recount,
it should be mandatory*.
I've been asking my city to do a recount to verify the accuracy of the machines for several years
and was told that the state law would not allow for a recount simply for accuracy's sake (unbelievable!)
and the only way for a recount to happen would be after a close election.
Well my significant other stood for election in a city race this year, and how ironic, came within
about 50 votes of winning and we got to ask for a recount! This was an odd race where voters chose
two out of seven candidates for the two open seats. One candidate won by a clear margin and 2nd and
3rd place were separated by about 50 votes. I was one of those recounting the votes by hand and when
all was said and done we wound up counting over 100 votes more than the machines had counted and
we only recounted ballots that contained votes for the 2nd and 3rd place candidates so there were
potentially and quite probably an even higher number of ballots that weren't counted the first time
around. A rough estimate is that 1-2% of the initial votes weren't counted at all by the machines.
The ballots that were initially counted weren't marked in any way so we had no way of knowing
which ballots had been previously counted by the machines and which hadn't however we were able to
make some educated guesses after looking through thousands of ballots.
We found quite a few where
people 'x'ed or drew a line through the circle rather than filling it in according to instructions
and others where people had voted for one candidate, crossed it out, and then voted for someone else.
We suspected these were the types of ballots that the machines were not able to count.
Also when
I had served as an election clerk several years ago I noticed that the ticker on the machine that
is supposed to count the number of ballots fed into it would not count a ballot if it was fed into
the machine too quickly after the previous one so this may have been another reason some ballots
didn't get counted the first time.
There were also reports on election day that some machines temporarily
malfunctioned (one had been accidentally unplugged) which may have caused other votes not to be counted.
After the recount we picked up some votes but not enough to change the results which was actually
pretty reassuring as the extra votes tallied were in the same proportion for each candidate to what
the machines initially tallied which is what you'd expect over a large sample size.
What we found
is that while these particular machines did accurately count the ballots they were able to count,
they cannot count all of them due to user error which is pretty difficult to eradicate – some people
simply won't follow directions properly no matter how clear they are.
We caught some flak when asking for the recount about the presumed large cost to the taxpayer
however the cost turned out to be minimal. Each candidate had 8 volunteers plus 8 more election clerks
who were paid $11/hr by the city to supervise the volunteers. Our 8 teams of 3 managed to go through
around 12K ballots in about 5 hours.
The solution is to have all ballots for every election counted by hand in public immediately after
the polls close. It isn't rocket science, it's not that expensive and it's the only way to ensure
that everyone's vote is actually counted.
* Lest anyone accuse me of trying to get Clinton in, I say all of this as someone who would rather
be shot in the face by Dick Cheney than cast a ballot for any of the Clinton's or their spawn, legitimate
or otherwise.
Former Congressman and Libertarian icon Ron Paul has warned that 'shadow government' neocons could
orchestrate a 'false flag' incident in order to drag new president Donald Trump into a fresh war.
"I don't how anybody can say they know what is going to happen," Paul told
The Daily Caller, referring to Trump's foreign policy.
"All we need is a false flag and an accident and everybody will be for teaching them a lesson,"
Paul said, warning that such an event could trigger new foreign entanglement.
"The neocons always talked about it before 9/11 they kept saying, 'we aren't going to get our
program in until we have a Pearl Harbor event,'" the former congressman stated, stopping short of
saying he believes those attacks were staged.
"I think other countries could use false flags." Paul also added.
Paul also warned that a shadow government will continue to operate when Trump is president, just
as it did during Obama's time in office.
"Obama probably was much more attune to a different foreign policy of less aggression but why
then does he do it?" Paul said.
"I think there's the shadow government, the military-industrial complex, the CIA, and all the
things that can be done because they just melt away and they do exactly what the establishment says."
the former Congressman added.
Paul warned that those within the shadow government are seeking to influence Trump now.
"He's very friendly with a lot of them right now, he's talking to them," Paul said, adding that
"We don't have a final answer, we have to wait to see who get's appointed."
"He doesn't talk about blowback and coming out of these countries. He has a better policy with
Russia but I think he still is talking with the neoconservatives." Paul also stated.
"The deep state is very very powerful and they have a lot of control," Paul said, adding "That
is one of my big issues about how shadow government is so powerful in all administrations."
Earlier this month, Paul
issued the same warnings, saying that neocons and shadow government figures are going to attempt
to infiltrate and influence Trump's presidency and prevent him from achieving successful change.
"The Trump campaign, meanwhile, delved into message tailoring, sentiment manipulation and
machine learning." - Oh, please, this sounds like a stereotypical Google-centric view of things.
They of course left out the most important part of the campaign, the key to its inception, which
could be described in terms like "The Trump campaign, meanwhile, actually noticed the widespread
misery and non-recovery in the parts of the US outside the elite coastal bubbles and DC beltway,
and spotted a yuuuge political opportunity." In other words, not sentiment manipulation – that
was, after all, the Dem-establishment-MSM-wall-street-and-the-elite-technocrats' "America is already
great, and anyone who denies it is deplorable!" strategy of manufactured consent – so much as
actual *reading* of sentiment. Of course if one insisted on remaining inside a protective elite
echo chamber and didn't listen to anything Trump or the attendees actually said in those huge
flyover-country rallies that wasn't captured in suitably outrageous evening-news soundbites, it
was all too easy to believe one's own hype.
" former secretary of state Henry Kissinger, who has known Trump socially for decades and
is currently advising the president-elect on foreign policy issues " - I really, really hope this
is just Hammerin' Hank tooting his own horn, as he and his sycophants in the FP establishment
and MSM are wont to do.
"Trump dumps the TPP: conservatives rue strategic fillip to China" (Guardian)
Another wedge angle for Trumps new-found RINO "friends" to play. Trump will have as many problems
with Ayn Ryan Congress as Obama/Clinton on economic issues.
"The TPP excludes China, which declined to join, proposing its own rival version, the Regional
Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which excludes the US." You see, it is all China's
fault. No info presented on why China "declined" to join.
And if Abe's Japan were really an independent country, they'd pick up the TPP baton and sell
it to China.
Former Congressman and Libertarian icon Ron Paul has warned that 'shadow government' neocons could
orchestrate a 'false flag' incident in order to drag new president Donald Trump into a fresh war.
"I don't how anybody can say they know what is going to happen," Paul told
The Daily Caller, referring to Trump's foreign policy.
"All we need is a false flag and an accident and everybody will be for teaching them a lesson,"
Paul said, warning that such an event could trigger new foreign entanglement.
"The neocons always talked about it before 9/11 they kept saying, 'we aren't going to get our
program in until we have a Pearl Harbor event,'" the former congressman stated, stopping short of
saying he believes those attacks were staged.
"I think other countries could use false flags." Paul also added.
Paul also warned that a shadow government will continue to operate when Trump is president, just
as it did during Obama's time in office.
"Obama probably was much more attune to a different foreign policy of less aggression but why
then does he do it?" Paul said.
"I think there's the shadow government, the military-industrial complex, the CIA, and all the
things that can be done because they just melt away and they do exactly what the establishment says."
the former Congressman added.
Paul warned that those within the shadow government are seeking to influence Trump now.
"He's very friendly with a lot of them right now, he's talking to them," Paul said, adding that
"We don't have a final answer, we have to wait to see who get's appointed."
"He doesn't talk about blowback and coming out of these countries. He has a better policy with
Russia but I think he still is talking with the neoconservatives." Paul also stated.
"The deep state is very very powerful and they have a lot of control," Paul said, adding "That
is one of my big issues about how shadow government is so powerful in all administrations."
Earlier this month, Paul
issued the same warnings, saying that neocons and shadow government figures are going to attempt
to infiltrate and influence Trump's presidency and prevent him from achieving successful change.
Donald Trump's unorthodox US presidential transition continued on Monday when he held talks with
one of the most prominent supporters of leftwing Democrat Bernie Sanders.
The president-elect's first meeting of the day at Trump Tower in New York was with Tulsi Gabbard,
a Democratic maverick who endorsed the socialist Sanders during his unsuccessful primary battle with
Hillary Clinton.
... ... ...
At first glance Gabbard, who is from Hawaii and is the first Hindu member of the US Congress,
seems an unlikely counsellor. She resigned from the Democratic National Committee to back Vermont
senator Sanders and formally nominated him for president at the party convention in July, crediting
him with starting a "movement of love and compassion", although by then Clinton's victory was certain.
But the Iraq war veteran has also expressed views that might appeal to Trump, criticising Obama,
condemning interventionist wars in Iraq and Libya and taking a hard line on immigration. In 2014,
she called for a rollback of the visa waiver programme for Britain and other European countries with
what she called "Islamic extremist" populations.
In October last year she tweeted: "Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 and must be defeated. Obama won't
bomb them in Syria. Putin did. #neverforget911." She was then among 47 Democrats who joined Republicans
to pass a bill mandating a stronger screening process for refugees from Iraq and Syria coming to
the US.
"... Judging by the people who Trump has appointed, it is looking like an ugly situation for the US. If he actually hires people like John Bolton, we will know that a betrayal was certain. While I think that it is probable that he is the lesser evil, he was supposed to avoid neoconservatives and Wall Street types (that Clinton associates herself with). ..."
"... I think it would be a mistake to attribute too much "genius" to Trump and Kushner. It sounds like Kushner exhibited competence, and that's great. But Trump won in great measure because Democratic Party governance eviscerated those communities. ..."
"... This is akin to how Obama got WAY too much credit for being a brilliant orator. People wanted change in '08 and voted for it. That change agent betrayed them, so they voted for change again this time. Or, more accurately, a lot of Obama voters stayed home, the Republican base held together, and Trump's team found necessary little pockets of ignored voters to energize. But that strategy would never have worked if not for Obama's and Clinton's malfeasance and incompetence. Honestly, Hillary got closer to a win that she had a right to. That ought to be the real story. ..."
Does anyone else get the overwhelming impression that the US is heading for an impending collapse
or serious decline at least, unless it puts a fight it against the status quo?
Judging by the people who Trump has appointed, it is looking like an ugly situation for
the US. If he actually hires people like John Bolton, we will know that a betrayal was certain.
While I think that it is probable that he is the lesser evil, he was supposed to avoid neoconservatives
and Wall Street types (that Clinton associates herself with).
I find it amazing how tone deaf the Clinton campaign and Democratic Establishment are. Trump
and apparently his son in law, no matter what else, are political campaigning geniuses given their
accomplishments. For months people were criticizing their lack of experience in politics like
a fatal mistake..
I think that no real change is going to happen until someone authentically left wing takes
power or if the US collapses.
I think it would be a mistake to attribute too much "genius" to Trump and Kushner. It sounds
like Kushner exhibited competence, and that's great. But Trump won in great measure because Democratic
Party governance eviscerated those communities.
This is akin to how Obama got WAY too much credit for being a brilliant orator. People
wanted change in '08 and voted for it. That change agent betrayed them, so they voted for change
again this time. Or, more accurately, a lot of Obama voters stayed home, the Republican base held
together, and Trump's team found necessary little pockets of ignored voters to energize. But that
strategy would never have worked if not for Obama's and Clinton's malfeasance and incompetence.
Honestly, Hillary got closer to a win that she had a right to. That ought to be the real story.
It is not clear to me what exactly a collapse entails. The US doesn't have obvious lines to
fracture across, like say the USSR did. (I suppose an argument could be made for "cultural regions"
like the South, Cascadia etc separating out, but it seems far less likely to happen, even in the
case of continuing extreme economic duress and breakdown of democracy/civil rights).
The US is and has been in a serious decline, and will probably continue.
"... Suspension of the rules is a procedure generally used to quickly pass non-controversial bills in the United States House of Representatives .such as naming Post Offices " ..."
"... "We cannot delay action on Syria any further . if we don't get this legislation across the finish line in the next few weeks, we are back to square one." ..."
"... "the brave Syrian defector known to the world as Caesar, who testified to us the shocking scale of torture being carried out within the prisons of Syria." ..."
"... "The administration has decided not to decide. And that itself, unfortunately, has set a course where here we sit and watch and the violence only worsens. Mr. Speaker, America has been sitting back and watching these atrocities for far too long. Vital U.S. national security interests are at stake." ..."
"... "Four years ago I thought we should have aided the Free Syrian Army. They came to us in Washington and begged us for help they were simply looking for weaponry. I really believe if we had given it to them, the situation in Syria would have been different today." ..."
"... "We're going into the New Year 2017, Assad still clings to power, at the expense of killing millions of his citizens." ..."
"... "The world has witnessed this terrible tragedy unfold before our eyes. Nearly half a million Syrians killed. Not soldiers – men, women, children killed." ..."
"... "It is the sense of Congress that– ..."
"... (1) Bashar al-Assad's murderous actions against the people of Syria have caused the deaths of more than 400,000 ..."
"... civilians " ..."
"... "committing crimes against humanity and war crimes against civilians including murder, torture and rape. No one has been spared from this targeting, even children." ..."
"... "We (previously) heard the testimony of Raed Saleh of the Syrian White Helmets. These are the doctors, nurses and volunteers who actually, when the bombs come, run towards the areas that have been hit in order to try to get the injured civilians medical treatment They have lost over 600 doctors and nurses." ..."
"... "It is Russia, it is Hezbollah, that are the primary movers of death and destruction it is the IRGC fighters from Iran ..."
"... "Yes, we want to go after Assad's partners in violence along with Iranian and Hezbollah forces ..."
"... "the Syrian regime . often plays a useful role for US and Israeli interests." ..."
"... "We always wanted [President] Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran the greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc." ..."
"
Suspension of the rules is a procedure generally used to quickly pass non-controversial bills
in the United States House of Representatives .such as naming Post Offices "
In this case, the resolution calls for evaluating and developing plans for a"No Fly Zone" which
is an act of war. This is obviously controversial and it seems clear the resolution should have been
debated and discussed under normal rules with a normal amount of Congressional presence and debate.
The motivation for bypassing normal rules and rushing the bill through without debate was articulated
by the bill's author and ranking Democrat Eliot Engel, who said:
"We cannot delay action on Syria any further . if we don't get this legislation across
the finish line in the next few weeks, we are back to square one."
The current urgency may be related to the election results, since Trump has spoken out against
"regime change" foreign policy. As much as they are critical of Obama for not doing more, Congressional
neoconservatives are concerned about the prospect of a President who might move toward peace and
away from war.
The Caesar Fraud
HR5732 is titled the "Caesar Syria Civilian Protection Act". Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Ed
Royce (R-Ca) explained that the resolution is named after "the brave Syrian defector known to
the world as Caesar, who testified to us the shocking scale of torture being carried out within the
prisons of Syria."
In reality, the Caesar story was a
grand deception involving the CIA with funding from Qatar to sabotage the 2014 Geneva negotiations.
The 55,000 photos which were said to show 11,000 torture victims have never been publicly revealed.
Only a tiny number of photos have been publicized.
However, in 2015 Human Rights Watch was granted access to view the entire set. They revealed that
almost one half the photos show the opposite of what was claimed: instead of victims tortured by
the Syrian government, they actually show dead Syrian soldiers and civilian victims of car bombs
and other terror attacks!
The "Caesar" story, replete with masked 'defector', was one of the early propaganda hoaxes regarding
Syria.
False Claims that the US has been doing nothing
One of the big lies regarding Syria is that the US has been inactive. Royce says:
"The administration has decided not to decide. And that itself, unfortunately, has set
a course where here we sit and watch and the violence only worsens. Mr. Speaker, America has been
sitting back and watching these atrocities for far too long. Vital U.S. national security interests
are at stake."
The ranking Democrat Eliot Engel said:
"Four years ago I thought we should have aided the Free Syrian Army. They came to us in
Washington and begged us for help they were simply looking for weaponry. I really believe if
we had given it to them, the situation in Syria would have been different today."
This is nonsense. The US was actively coordinating, training and supplying armed opposition groups
beginning in late 2011. When the Qadaffi government was toppled in Fall 2011, the CIA oversaw the
theft of the Libyan armories and shipment of weapons to Syrian armed opposition as documented in
the
Defense Intelligence Agency report of October 2012.
These weapons transfers were secret. For the public record it was acknowledged that the US was
supplying communications equipment to the armed opposition while Saudi Arabia and Qatar were supplying
weaponry. This is one reason that Saudi purchases of weapons skyrocketed during this time period;
they were buying weapons to replace those being shipped to the armed opposition in Syria. It was
very profitable for US arms manufacturers.
Huge weapons transfers to the armed opposition in Syria have continued to the present. This past
Spring, Janes Defense
reported the details of a U.S. delivery of 2.2 million pounds of ammunition, rocket launchers
and other weaponry to the armed opposition.
Claims that the US has been inactive are baseless. In reality the US has done everything short
of a direct attack on Syria. And the US military is starting to cross that barrier. On September
17 the US air coalition did a direct attack on the Syrian Army in Deir Ezzor, killing 80 Syrian soldiers
and enabling ISIS to launch an attack on the position.
Claims that it was a "mistake" are highly dubious.
The claims by Congressional hawks that the US has been 'inactive' in the Syrian conflict are part
of the false narrative suggesting the US must "do something" which leads to a No Fly Zone and full
scale war. Ironically, these calls for war are masked as "humanitarian". And never do the proponents
bring up the case of Libya where the US and NATO "did something": destroyed the government and left
chaos.
Congress as a Fact-Free House of Propaganda
With only a handful of representatives present and no debate, the six Congress members engaged
in unrestrained propaganda and misinformation. The leading Democrat, Eliot Engel, said "We're
going into the New Year 2017, Assad still clings to power, at the expense of killing millions of
his citizens."
That number is way off anyone's charts.
Rep Kildee said "The world has witnessed this terrible tragedy unfold before our eyes. Nearly
half a million Syrians killed. Not soldiers – men, women, children killed."
The official text of the resolution says:
"It is the sense of Congress that– (1) Bashar al-Assad's murderous actions against the people of Syria have caused the deaths
of more than 400,000 civilians "
The above accusations – from "millions of citizens" to "half a million" to "400,000 civilians"
– are all preposterous lies.
Credible
estimates of casualties in the Syrian conflict range from 300,000 to 420,000. The opposition
supporting Syrian Observatory for Human Rights estimates the documented 2011-2016 death toll as follows:
killed pro Syrian forces – 108,000
killed anti government forces – 105,000
killed civilians – 89,000
In contrast with Congressional and media claims, civilians comprise a minority of the total death
count and the largest casualty group is those fighting in defense of the the Syrian state. These
facts are ignored and never mentioned because they point to the reality versus the propaganda narrative
which allows the USA and allies to continue funding terrorism and a war of aggression against Syria.
The Congressional speakers were in full self-righteous mode as they accused the Syrian government
of "committing crimes against humanity and war crimes against civilians including murder, torture
and rape. No one has been spared from this targeting, even children."
A naive listener would never know that the Syrian government is primarily fighting the Syrian
branch of Al-Qaeda, including thousands of foreigners supplied and paid by foreign governments.
The Congressional speakers go on to accuse the Syrian military of "targeting" hospitals, schools
and markets. A critical listener might ask why they would do that instead of targeting the Al-Qaeda
terrorists and their allies who launch dozens and sometimes hundreds of
hell cannon missiles into government held Aleppo every day.
The Congressional propaganda fest would not be complete without mention of the "
White
Helmets ". House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce said:
"We (previously) heard the testimony of Raed Saleh of the Syrian White Helmets. These are
the doctors, nurses and volunteers who actually, when the bombs come, run towards the areas that
have been hit in order to try to get the injured civilians medical treatment They have lost over
600 doctors and nurses."
This is more Congressional nonsense.
There are no nurses or doctors associated with the White Helmets. The organization was created
by the USA and UK and heavily promoted by a "
shady PR firm ". The White Helmets operate solely in areas controlled by Nusra and associated
terrorist groups. They do some rescue work in the conflict zone but their main role is in the information
war
manipulating public opinion.
The White Helmets actively promote US/NATO intervention through a No Fly Zone. Recently the White
Helmets has become a major source of claims of innocent civilian victims in east Aleppo. Given the
clear history of the White Helmets, these claims should be treated with skepticism. What exactly
is the evidence?
The same skepticism needs to be applied to video and other reports from the Aleppo Media Center.
AMC is a creation of the
Syrian Expatriates Organization whose address on K Street, Washington DC indicates it is a US
marketing operation.
What is really going on?
The campaign to overthrow the Syrian government is failing and there is possibility of a victory
for the Syrian government and allies. The previous flood of international jihadi recruits has dried
up. The Syrian Army and allies are gaining ground militarily and negotiating settlements or re-locations
with "rebels" who previously terrorized Homs, Darraya (outer Damascus) and elsewhere.
In Aleppo, the Syrian army and allies are tightening the noose around the armed opposition in
east Aleppo. This has caused alarm among neoconservative lawmakers devoted to Israel, Saudi Arabia
and U.S. empire. They are desperate to prevent the Syrian government from finally eliminating the
terrorist groups which the West and allies have promoted for the past 5+ years.
"Pro Israel" groups have been major campaigners for the passage of HR5732. The name of Simon
Wiesenthal is even invoked in the resolution. With crocodile tears fully flowing, Rabbi Lee Bycel
wrote "
Where is the Conscience of the World? " as he questioned why the "humanitarian" HR5732 was not
passed earlier.
Israeli interests are one of the primary forces sustaining and promoting the conflict. Syria is
officially at war with Israel which continues to occupy the Syrian Golan Heights; Syria has been
a key ally of the Lebanese resistance; and Syria has maintained its alliance with Iran.
In 2010 Secretary of State
Clinton urged Syria to break relations with Hezbollah, reduce relations with Iran and come to
settlement with Israel. The Syrian refusal to comply with these Washington demands was instrumental
in solidifying Washington's
hostility .
Congressional proponents of HR5732 make clear the international dimension of the conflict. Royce
explains:
"It is Russia, it is Hezbollah, that are the primary movers of death and destruction it
is the IRGC fighters from Iran ."
Engel echoes the same message:
"Yes, we want to go after Assad's partners in violence along with Iranian and Hezbollah
forces ."
These statements are in contrast with the analysis of some writers who believe Israel is not deeply
opposed to the Damascus government. For example Phyllis Bennis recently
wrote that belief in an "arc of resistance" has been "long debunked" and that "the Syrian
regime . often plays a useful role for US and Israeli interests."
It's remarkable that this faulty analysis continues to be propounded. In words and deeds Israel
has made its position on Syria crystal clear. Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren
explained in an interview:
"We always wanted [President] Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who
weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran the greatest danger to Israel
is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad
regime as the keystone in that arc."
If the Syrian government and allies continue to advance in Aleppo, Deir Ezzor, outer Damascus
and the south, the situation will come to a head. The enemies of Syria – predominately the USA, Gulf
Countries, NATO and Israel – will come to a decision point. Do they intervene directly or do they
allow their regime project to collapse?
HR5732 is an effort to prepare for direct intervention and aggression.
One thing is clear from the experience of Libya: Neoconservatives do not care if they leave a
country in chaos. The main objective is to destabilize and overthrow a government which is too independent.
If the USA and allies cannot dominate the country, then at least they can destroy the contrary authority
and leave chaos.
What is at stake in Syria is whether the USA and allies – Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc. are able
to destroy the last secular and independent Arab country in the region and whether the US goal of
being the sole superpower in the world prevails.
The rushed passing of HR5732 without debate is indicative that:
– "regime change" proponents have not given up their war on Syria;
– they seek to escalate US aggression;
– the US Congress is a venue where blatant lies are said with impunity and where violent actions
are advanced behind a cynical and amoral veneer of "humanitarianism" and crocodile tears.
Luckily a neocon is not going to be heading to the United Nations, and Power, who championed US
"humanitarian wars" is being shown the exit door and it could not come soon enough.
... ... ...
In what has been dubbed a "remarkable" shift in the president-elect's mindset, Trump's selection
of Haley caps a dramatic year for their political relationship. They started 2016 with a fight and
are ending it as allies in a nascent Trump administration, suggesting that far from bearing grudges
Trump is willing to reconcile in the name of national interests.
"... the media is not in competition with talking about disenchantment over globalisation and de-industrialisation, but a complement to it. ..."
"... This piece is right on the money and nails the ultimate failure of our modern corporate media. ..."
"... Modern corporate media is in existence to make more money, not to serve society. Whatever makes (the collective) us more likely to pay attention to the media is what the media will serve up. With the failure of old style media we have to be concerned whether an actual informed political discourse will be possible. ..."
"... These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America http://www.morriscreative.com/6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america/ ..."
"... People are looking for scapegoats and the corrupt corporate media are misleading them, along with politicians. Why are they looking for scapegoats? Not simply because they're wealthy racist Trump supporters who long for the good old days, as the center-left is telling us. ..."
"... The corrupt corporate media was incredibly unfair to both Bernie Sanders and Jeremby Corbyn but the Blairites and Clinton supporters were okay with that. Sanders was quite good on calling out the media. We need more of that. ..."
"... "We know that erecting trade barriers is harmful: the only question is whether in this case it will be pretty harmful or very harmful"...to whom? To the elites? Or to those who voted for Brexit? ..."
"... Instead of constantly harping on the illusory 'free trade is a free lunch for all,' 'liberal' economists need to start taking responsibility for not emphasizing or even acknowledging that free trade is not a panacea...it has real downsides for many...and real benefits mostly for elites that negotiated the deals. ..."
"... Too many were severely harmed by off shoring and illegal immigration. ..."
This could be the subtitle of the
talk
I will be giving later today. I will have more to say in later posts, plus a link to the
full text..., but I thought I would make this important point here about why I keep going on about
the media. In thinking about Brexit and Trump, talking about the media is not in competition with
talking about disenchantment over globalisation and de-industrialisation, but a complement to it.
I don't blame the media for this disenchantment, which is real enough, but for the fact that it is
leading people to make choices which are clearly bad for society as a whole, and in many cases will
actually make them worse off. They are choices which in an important sense are known to be wrong.
Modern corporate media is in existence to make more money, not to serve society. Whatever
makes (the collective) us more likely to pay attention to the media is what the media will serve
up. With the failure of old style media we have to be concerned whether an actual informed political
discourse will be possible.
Case in Point: Fake Media. As documented in the WaPo yesterday, two unemployed restaurant workers (McDonalds?) made a
fortune with their fake news website that collected ad revenue from the likes of Facebook. They
didn't bother with any facts; just published stories they knew would attract right wing extremists.
They really worked at their craft using specific language and formats to draw in eyeballs.
It worked beyond their wildest expectations and they won't even discuss how much money they made.
Something tells me there might be a bit of "fake news" creation going on in those shops, eh? But
no, let's pull out our hair over some 20-year-old with a Facebook feed. And -- censor! For the
greater good, naturally.
"In thinking about Brexit and Trump, talking about the media is not in competition with talking
about disenchantment over globalisation and de-industrialisation, but a complement to it."
People are looking for scapegoats and the corrupt corporate media are misleading them, along
with politicians. Why are they looking for scapegoats? Not simply because they're wealthy racist Trump supporters
who long for the good old days, as the center-left is telling us.
The corrupt corporate media was incredibly unfair to both Bernie Sanders and Jeremby Corbyn
but the Blairites and Clinton supporters were okay with that. Sanders was quite good on calling
out the media. We need more of that.
The SyFy Channel has a new series called Incorporated about a dystopian America set in 2074 where
global climate change has wrecked havoc on politics and society. Giant multinational corporations
have stepped in and taken over for governments as America's class divisions have sharpened between
the haves and the have-nots. You can watch the first episode online.
Globalization is not Pareto improving. Maybe it could be done in a way that is, but until then,
the "media" is correct to paint a disenchanting picture
Pareto improving assumes we compensates those who lose from globalization. This is well known.
What else is well known is we have a terrible track record on this score.
"We know that erecting trade barriers is harmful: the only question is whether in this case it
will be pretty harmful or very harmful"...to whom? To the elites? Or to those who voted for Brexit?
Instead of constantly harping on the illusory 'free trade is a free lunch for all,' 'liberal'
economists need to start taking responsibility for not emphasizing or even acknowledging that
free trade is not a panacea...it has real downsides for many...and real benefits mostly for elites
that negotiated the deals.
Why do 'liberal' economists insist on invalidating the life experience of so many?
Wisdom implies giving a good look to the consequences, and taking measures to ameliorate those
negative. Too many were severely harmed by off shoring and illegal immigration. These weren't
without consequences and maybe not even, on balance, gainful.
In the future, let those best able to make any necessary sacrifices and adjustments.
As my old Bronx doctor, Seymour Tenzer, put it: "All these histories are bullshit -- I got punched
in the chest; that's why I've got a lump."
Trump's victory is down to the disappearance of the $800 [a week] job for the $400 job. That subtracted
from the vote in the black ghettos – and added to the vote in the white ghettos -- both ghettos
being far off the radar screen of academic liberals like Hill and O.
I notice the white ghettos because that is me. My old taxi job (much too old now at 72 3/4)
was "in-sourced" all over the world to drivers who would work for remarkably less (than the not
so great incomes we native born eked out). Today's low skilled jobs go to native and foreign born
who willing to show up for $400 (e.g., since Walmart gutted supermarket contracts). Fast food
strictly to foreign born who will show up for $290 a week (min wage $400, 1968 -- when per cap
income half today's).
Don't expect the 100,000 out of maybe 200,000 Chicago gang age males to show up for a life
time of $400/wk servitude. Did I mention, manufacturing was down to 6% of employment 15 years
ago -- now 4% (disappearing like farm labor, mostly robo; look to health care for the future?)?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gang-wars-at-the-root-of-chicagos-high-murder-rate/
6% union density at private employers = 20/10 BP which starves every healthy process in the
social body = disappearance of collective bargaining and its institutional concomitants which
supply political funding and lobbying equal to oligarchs plus most all the votes ...
... votes: notice? 45% take 10% of overall income -- 45% earn $15/hr or less -- a lot of votes.
A crisis of legitimacy . People are fed up with politics. Do not blame globalisation for
that. Sep 27th 2001 | From the print edition. Timekeeper. Add this article to ...
Legitimacy: Legitimation Crises and Its Causes - Political Science Notes www.politicalsciencenotes.com/
legitimacy / legitimacy -legitimation- crises -and-its.../797
Causes of Legitimation Crisis : There are several causes or aspects of legitimation crisis
. Habermas and several other neo-Marxists, after studying all the aspects of capitalist
societies, have concluded that a number of factors are responsible for the legitimation crisis
The Global Crisis of Legitimacy . Geopolitical Weekly. May 4, 2010 | 08:56 GMT. Print. Text
Size. By George Friedman. Financial panics are an integral part of ...
by GE Reyes - 2010 -
Cited by 1 -
Related articles Theoretical basis of crisis of legitimacy and implications for less
developed countries: Guatemala as a case of study. TENDENCIAS. Revista de la Facultad de ...
by A Mattelaer - 2014 -
Related articles Mar 21, 2014 - generalised crisis in legitimacy , our democracies
face a crisis of legitimation: political choices are in dire need of an explanatory narrative
that.
The Legitimacy Crisis | RealClearPolitics www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/05/08/the_
legitimacy _ crisis _126530.html
May 8, 2015 - American government - at all levels - is losing the legitimacy it needs to
function. Or, perhaps, some segments of the government have ...
The third dimension of the crisis that I identify is the crisis of legitimacy of US hegemony.
This, I think, is as serious as the other two crises, since, as an admirer of ...
The Crisis of Legitimacy in Africa. Abiola Irele ▫ Summer 1992. A bleak picture emerges
from today's Africa. One glaring aspect is the material deprivation ...
The Imperial Presidency of the United States has evolved over the last century to the point that
the executive holds certain powers that can be considered dictatorial. Arguably, the most consequential
decision in politics is to wage war. The Constitution specifically reserves this right for Congress.
The President, as Commander-in-Chief, directs the wars that Congress declares. However, starting
with Truman's intervention in the Korean War in 1950 and continuing with invasions of Vietnam, Grenada,
Iraq and Afghanistan and the bombings of dozens more countries, the President's ability to unilaterally
initiate war with a sovereign nation has been normalized. Congress has not declared war since 1941
despite the fact the U.S. military has intervened in nearly every corner of the world in the years
since.
In recent years, George W. Bush assumed the power to kidnap, torture, and assassinate any
individual, anywhere in the world, at any time, without even a pretense of due process. Upon replacing
Bush, Barack Obama legitimized Bush's kidnapping and torture (by refusing to prosecute the perpetrators
or provide recourse to the victims) while enthusiastically embracing the power to assassinate at
will. Noam Chomsky has said this represents Obama trashing the 800-year-old Magna Carta, which King
John of England would have approved of.
Can there be anything more dictatorial than the power of a single individual to kill and make
war at will? While American presidents thankfully do not have the power to unilaterally impose taxes,
pass legislation, or incarcerate without charges inside U.S. borders, the illegitimate authority
they do possess to carry out unrestrained violence across the world is unquestionably a dictatorial
feature.
There has not been a single American president since World War II that has not exceeded his constitutional
authority by committing crimes that would meet the standard by which officials were convicted and
executed at the Nuremberg trials.
Roosevelt's Executive Order 9066 to imprison Japanese Americans in concentration camps was a flagrant
violation of the Fifth Amendment right not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law.
Truman's firebombing of Tokyo, nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and invasion of Korea
violated provisions of multiple treaties that are considered the "supreme law of the land" per Article
VI of the U.S. Constitution.
Eisenhower's use of the CIA to overthrow democratically elected presidents in Iran and Guatemala,
as well as the initiation of a terrorist campaign against Cuba, violated the UN Charter, another
international treaty that the Constitution regards as the supreme law of the land.
Kennedy was guilty of approving the creation of a mercenary army to invade Cuba, as well as covert
warfare in Vietnam. Johnson massively escalated U.S. military involvement in Vietnam with the introduction
of ground troops, which he fraudulently justified through misrepresentation of the Gulf of Tonkin
incident.
Succeeding Johnson, Nixon waged a nearly genocidal air campaign against not only Vietnam but Cambodia
and Laos, killing hundreds of thousands of people, destroying ecosystems across Indochina, and leaving
an unfathomable amount of unexploded ordnance, which continues to kill and maim hundreds of people
each year.
Ford covertly supported the South African invasion of Angola and overtly supported the Indonesian
invasion of East Timor. Carter continued supporting the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, as well
as providing financial and military support to military dictatorships in Guatemala and El Salvador.
Reagan oversaw the creation and operation of a terrorist army in Nicaragua, sponsored military dictatorships
throughout Central America, and directly invaded Grenada.
Bush the Elder invaded Panama and Iraq. Clinton oversaw sanctions in Iraq that killed as many
as 1 million people, carried out an air war that indiscriminately pulverized civilian targets from
15,000 feet in Serbia, and bombed a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan that produced medications for half
the country. Bush the Lesser invaded and occupied Afghanistan and Iraq. Obama continued both of those
wars, as well as dramatically expanding the drone assassination program in as many as seven countries.
So I beg to differ with Blow and anyone else who claims the presidency deserves respect. Any institution
or position that permits such illegal and immoral actions unchecked should be eradicated and replaced
with some alternative that does not.
Liberal Clinton defender Matt Yglesias argues that from a historical perspective, Trump is uniquely
dangerous. "(P)ast presidents," Yglesias writes, "have simply been restrained by restraint. By a
belief that there are certain things one simply cannot try or do."
It is hard to take such vacuous proclamations with a straight face. As we have seen, every single
American president since at least WWII has engaged in serious violations of international and domestic
law to cause death, destruction and misery across the world, from murdering individuals without due
process to unleashing two nuclear bombs on civilian populations in a defeated country that was seeking
to surrender.
When Trump assumes the presidency, he will inherit a frightening surveillance/military/incarceration
apparatus that includes a targeted killing program; a vast NSA domestic and international spying
network; a death squad (the Joint Special Operations Command); and an extralegal system for indefinite
kidnapping and imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay.
Partisans see a problem only when the presidency is in the "wrong" hands. If Obama is at the helm,
liberals are fine with unconstitutional mass surveillance or killing an American citizen without
charge or trial every now and then. Conservatives trusted Bush to warrantlessly surveill Americans,
but were outraged at the Snowden revelations.
Principled opponents recognize that no one should be trusted with illegitimate authority. The
hand-wringing and hyperventilation by liberals about the dangers of a Trump presidency ring hollow
and hypocritical.
American presidents long ago became the equivalent of elected monarchs, beyond the democratic
control of the those they purportedly serve. The occupant of the office is able to substitute his
own judgments and whims for a universally applicable set of laws and limits on the exercise of power.
It is what Dolores Vek describes as "actually existing fascism." Both parties have contributed to
it, the media has normalized it, and the public has accepted its creation and continued existence
without rebelling against it. It's time to stop treating the presidency itself with respect and start
actively delegitimizing it.
This unadmitted ignorance was previously displayed for those with eyes to see it in the Libya debacle,
perhaps not coincidentally Clinton's pet war. Cast by the Obama White House as a surgical display
of "smart power" that would defend human rights and foster democracy in the Muslim world, the 2011
Libyan intervention did precisely the opposite. There is
credible evidence that the U.S.-led NATO campaign prolonged and exacerbated the humanitarian
crisis, and far from creating a flourishing democracy, the ouster of strongman Muammar Qaddafi led
to a power vacuum into which ISIS and other rival unsavories surged.
The 2011 intervention and the follow-up escalation in which we are presently entangled were both
fundamentally informed by "the underlying belief that military force will produce stability and that
the U.S. can reasonably predict the result of such a campaign," as Christopher Preble has argued
in a must-read Libya analysis
at Politico . Both have proven resoundingly wrong.
Before Libya, Washington espoused the same false certainty in advance of intervention and nation-building
Iraq and Afghanistan. The rhetoric around the former was particularly telling: we would find nuclear
weapons and "be greeted as liberators,"
said Vice President
Dick Cheney. The whole thing would take five months or less,
said Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld. It would be a
"cakewalk." As months dragged into years of nation-building stagnation, the ignored truth became
increasingly evident: the United States cannot reshape entire countries without obscene risk and
investment, and even when those costly commitments are made, success cannot be predicted with certainty.
Nearly 14 years later, with Iraq demonstrably more violent and less stable than it was before
U.S. intervention, wisdom demands we reject Washington's recycled snake oil.
Recent polls (let alone the anti-elite backlash Trump's
win represents ) suggest Americans are ready to do precisely that. But a lack of public enthusiasm
has never stopped Washington from hawking its fraudulent wares-this time in the form of yet-again
unfounded certainty that escalating American intervention in Syria is a sure-fire solution to that
beleaguered nation's woes.
We must not let ourselves be fooled. Rather, we "should understand that we don't need to overthrow
distant governments and roll the dice on what comes after in order to keep America safe," as Preble,
reflecting on Libya,
contends . "On the contrary, our track record over the last quarter-century shows that such interventions
often have the opposite effect."
And as for the political establishment, let Trump's triumph be a constant reminder of the necessity
of expecting the unexpected and proceeding with due (indeed, much overdue) prudence and restraint
abroad. If Washington so grossly misunderstood the direction of its own heartland-without the muddling,
as in foreign policy, of massive geographic and cultural differences-how naïve it is to believe that
our government can successfully play armed puppet-master over an entire region of the world?
Bonnie Kristian is a fellow at Defense Priorities. She is a weekend editor at The Week
and a columnist at Rare , and her writing has also appeared at Time , Politico
, Relevant , The Hill , and other outlets.
That "Navy ship that broke down in the Panama Canal" - it cost $4.4 *billion* dollars. And
there is a second one just finishing construction with a third coming in at the basement bargain
price of $3.7B:
The Zumwalt cost more than $4.4bn and was commissioned in October in Maryland. It also suffered
a leak in its propulsion system before it was commissioned. The leak required the ship to remain
at Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia longer than expected for repairs.
The ship is part of the first new class of warship built at Bath Iron Works in more than
25 years.
The second Zumwalt-class destroyer, which also cost more than $4.4bn, was christened in
a June ceremony during which US Rep Bruce Poliquin called it an "extraordinary machine
of peace and security". The third ship is expected to cost a bit less than $3.7bn.
Well, I understand that these are magnificent "machines of peace and security" but it seems
rather a shame that some of that money couldn't be spent on delivering, say, clean water to residents
of Flint and elsewhere.
US Dems and Republicans both:
Money for ENDLESS WAR - no problem!
Money for housing, health, education, environment - how the hell can we find money for that?
River
Given that the ammo is one million a shell, $3.7 billion is a bargain of sorts.
It isn't a shame that money couldn't be used elsewhere. It's a God Damn outrage.
PlutoniumKun
Well, not quite a million, but $800,000 a shell according to Stars and Stripes magazine. And each
ship is supposed to carry 600 of them. The Zumwelt is basically a very expensive mobile artillery
ship, with no clear military purpose. The Navy have pretty much confirmed this by cancelling the
system (there were originally to be 38 of them). The worst thing is that despite it having no clear
purpose and costing vast sums of money, nobody seems willing to call anyone to account for having
blown billions on an entirely worthless defence system.
"... Why would Obama normally have been thrilled to "start bringing down the deficit?" A budget deficit by a nation with a sovereign currency such as the U.S. is normal statistically and typically desirable when we have a negative balance of trade. No, it is not a "fact" that stimulus "added another $1 trillion to our national debt." Had we not adopted a stimulus program the debt would have grown even larger as our economy fell even more deeply into the Great Recession. ..."
"... Obama admits that stimulus was desirable. He knows that his economists believed that if the stimulus had been larger and lasted longer it would have substantially speeded the recovery. One of the most important reasons why dramatically increased government fiscal spending (stimulus) is essential in response to a Great Recession for a depression is that the logical and typical consumer response to such a downturn is for "families across the country" to "tighten their belts" by reducing spending. That reduces already inadequate demand, which leads to prolonged downturns. Economists have long recognized that it is essential for the government to do the opposite when consumers "tighten their belts" by greatly increasing spending. To claim that it is "common sense" to "do the same" – exacerbate the inadequate demand – because it is a "tough decision" makes a mockery of logic and economics. It is a statement of economic illiteracy leading to a set of policy decisions sure to harm the economy and the Democratic Party. In particular, it guaranteed a nightmare for the working class. ..."
"... No, no, no. I can feel the pain of my colleagues that are scholars in modern monetary theory (MMT). The U.S. has a sovereign currency. We can "pay" a trillion dollar debt by issuing a trillion dollars via keystrokes by the Fed. What Obama meant was that he would propose (over time) to increase taxes and reduce federal spending by one trillion dollars. Such an austerity plan would harm the recovery and reduce important government services. Again, the working class were sure to be the primary victims of Obama's self-inflicted austerity. ..."
"... First, the metaphor is economically illiterate and harmful. A government with a sovereign currency is not a "cash-strapped family." It is not, in any meaningful way, "like" a "cash-strapped family." Indeed, the metaphor logically implies the opposite – that it is essential that because the government is not like a "cash-strapped family" only it can spend in a counter-cyclical fashion (stimulus) to counter the perverse effect of "cash-strapped famil[ies]" cutting back their spending due to the Great Recession. ..."
"... Let's take this slow. In a recession, consumer demand is grossly inadequate so firms fire workers and unemployment increases. We need to increase effective demand. As a recession hits and workers see their friends fired or reduced to part-time work, a common reaction is for workers to reduce their debts, which requires them to reduce consumption. Consumer consumption is the most important factor driving demand, so this effect, which economists call the paradox of thrift, can deepen the recession. Workers are indeed cash-strapped. Governments with sovereign currencies are, by definition, not cash-strapped. They can and should engage in extremely large stimulus in order to raise effective demand and prevent the recession from deepening. Workers will tend to reduce their spending in a pro-cyclical fashion that makes the recession more severe. Only the government can spend in a counter-cyclical fashion that will make the recession less severe and lengthy. ..."
"... The Democrats have to stop attacking Republicans for running federal budget deficits. I know it's political fun and that the Republicans are hypocritical about budget deficits. Deficits are going to be "massive" when an economy the size of the U.S. suffers a Great Recession. We have had plenty of "massive" deficits during our history under multiple political parties. None of this has ever led to a U.S. crisis. We have had some of our strongest growth while running "massive" deficits. Conversely, whenever we have adopted server austerity we have soon suffered a recession. In 1937, when FDR listened to his inept economists and inflicted austerity, the strong recovery from the Great Depression was destroyed and the economy was thrust back into an intense Great Depression. ..."
"... As to the debt "commission" to solve our "debt crisis," it was inevitable that such a commission would be dominated by Pete Peterson protégés and that they would demand austerity and an assault on the federal safety net. That would be a terrible response to the Great Recession and the primary victims of the commission's policies would be the working class. ..."
"... For a nation with a sovereign currency, there is nothing good about the "record surpluses in the 1990s." Such substantial surpluses have occurred roughly nine times in U.S. history and each has been followed shortly by a depression or the Great Recession. This does not prove causality, but it certainly recommends caution. Similarly, "pay-as-you-go" has been the bane of Democratic Party efforts to help the American people. Only a New Democrat like Obama would call for the return of the anti-working class "pay-as-you-go" rules. ..."
"... No. It wouldn't have damaged our markets, increased interest rates or jeopardized our recovery. We had just run an empirical experiment in contrast to the Eurozone. Stimulus greatly enhanced our recovery, while interest rates were at historical lows, and led to surging financial markets. Austerity had done the opposite in the eurozone. ..."
"... Let's try actual common sense instead of metaphors that are economically illiterate. Let's try real economics. Let's stop talking about "mountains of debt" as if they represented a crisis for the U.S. and stop ignoring the tens of millions of working class Americans and Europeans whose lives and families were treated as austerity's collateral damage and were not even worth discussing in Obama's ode to the economic malpractice of austerity. Austerity is the old tired battle that we repeat endlessly to the recurrent cost of the working class. ..."
By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One and an associate professor
of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Jointly published at
New Economic Perspectives
I've come back recently from Kilkenny, Ireland where I participated in the seventh annual Kilkenomics
– a festival of economics and comedy. The festival is noted for people from a broad range of economic
perspectives presenting their economic views in plain, blunt English. Kilkenomics VII began two days
after the U.S. election, so we added some sessions on President-elect Trump's fiscal policy views.
Trump had no obvious supporters among this diverse group of economists, so the audience was surprised
to hear many economists from multiple nations take the view that his stated fiscal policies could
be desirable for the U.S. – and the global economy, particularly the EU. We all expressed the caution
that no one could know whether Trump would seek to implement the fiscal policies on which he campaigned.
Most of us, however, said that if he wished to implement those policies House Speaker Paul Ryan would
not be able to block him. I opined that congressional Republicans would rediscover their love of
pork and logrolling if Trump implemented his promised fiscal policies.
The audience was also surprised to hear two groups of economists explain that Hillary Clinton's
fiscal policies remained pure New Democrat (austerity forever) even as the economic illiteracy of
those policies became even clearer – and even as the political idiocy of her fiscal policies became
glaringly obvious. Austerity is one of the fundamental ways in which the system is rigged against
the working class. Austerity was the weapon of mass destruction unleashed in the New Democrats' and
Republicans' long war on the working class. The fact that she intensified and highlighted her intent
to inflict continuous austerity on the working class as the election neared represented an unforced
error of major proportions. As the polling data showed her losing the white working class by staggering
amounts, in the last month of the election, the big new idea that Hillary pushed
repeatedly was a promise that if she were elected she would inflict continuous austerity on the
economy. "I am not going to add a penny to the national debt."
The biggest losers of such continued austerity would as ever be the working class. She also famously
insulted the working class as "deplorables." It was a bizarre approach by a politician to the plight
of tens of millions of Americans who were victims of the New Democrats' and the Republicans' trade
and austerity policies. As we presented these facts to a European audience we realized that in attempting
to answer the question of what Trump's promised fiscal policies would mean if implemented we were
also explaining one of the most important reasons that Hillary Clinton lost the white working class
by such an enormous margin.
Readers of New Economic Perspectives understand why UMKC academics and non-academic supporters
have long shown that austerity is typically a self-destructive policy brought on by a failure to
understand how money works, particularly in a nation like the U.S. with a sovereign currency. We
have long argued that the working class is the primary victim of austerity and that austerity is
a leading cause of catastrophic levels of inequality. Understanding sovereign money is critical also
to understanding why the federal government can and should serve as a job guarantor of last resort.
People, particularly working class men, need jobs, not simply incomes to feel like successful adults.
The federal jobs guarantee program is not simply economically brilliant it is politically brilliant,
it would produce enormous political support from the working class for whatever political party implemented
it.
At Kilkenomics we also used Hillary's devotion to inflicting continuous austerity on the working
class to explain to a European audience how dysfunctional her enablers in the media and her campaign
became. The fact that Paul Krugman was so deeply in her pocket by the time she tripled down on austerity
that he did not call her out on why austerity was terrible economics and terrible policy shows us
the high cost of ceasing to speak truth to power. The fact that no Clinton economic adviser had the
clout and courage to take her aside and get her to abandon her threat to inflict further austerity
on the working class tells us how dysfunctional her campaign team became. I stress again that Tom
Frank has been warning the Democratic Party for over a decade that the policies and the anti-union
and anti-working class attitudes of the New Democrats were causing enormous harm to the working class
and enraging it. But anyone who listened to Tom Frank's warnings was persona non grata in
Hillary's campaign. In my second column in this series I explain that Krugman gave up trying to wean
Hillary Clinton from her embrace of austerity's war on the working class and show that he remains
infected by a failure to understand the nature of sovereign currencies.
What the economists were saying about Trump at Kilkenomics was that there were very few reliable
engines of global growth. China's statistics are a mess and its governing party's real views of the
state of the economy are opaque. Japan just had a good growth uptick, but it has been unable to sustain
strong growth for over two decades. Germany refuses, despite the obvious "win-win" option of spending
heavily on its infrastructure needs to do so. Instead, it persists in running trade and budget surpluses
that beggar its neighbors. England is too small and only Corbyn's branch of Labour and the SNP oppose
austerity. "New Labour" supporters, most of the leadership of the Labour party, like the U.S. "New
Democrats" that served as their ideological model, remain fierce austerity hawks.
That brings us to what would have happened if America's first family of "New Democrats" – the
Clintons – had won the election. The extent to which the New Democrats embraced the Republican doctrine
of austerity became painfully obvious under President Obama. Robert Rubin dominated economic policy
under President Clinton. The Clinton/Gore administration was absolutely dedicated toward austerity.
The administration was the lucky beneficiary of the two massive modern U.S. bubbles – tech stocks
and housing – that eventually produced high employment. Indeed, when the tech bubble popped the economy
was saved by the hyper-inflation of the housing bubble. The housing bubble collapsed on the next
administration's watch, allowing the Clintons and Rubinites to spread the false narrative that their
policies produced superb economic results.
When we think of the start of the Obama administration, we think of the stimulus package. In one
sense this is obvious. The only economically literate response to a Great Recession is massive fiscal
stimulus. When Republicans control the government and confront a recession they always respond with
fiscal stimulus in the modern era. Obama's stimulus plan was not massive, but it sounded like a large
number to the public. Two questions arise about the stimulus plan. Why was Obama willing to implement
it given his and Rubin's hostility to stimulus? Conversely, why, given the great success of the stimulus
plan, did Obama abandon stimulus within months?
Rubin and his protégés had a near monopoly on filling the role of President Obama's key economic
advisors. Larry Summers is a Rubinite, but he is infamous for his ego and he is a real economist
from an extended family of economists. Summers was certain in his (self-described) role as the President's
principal economic adviser to support a vigorous program of fiscal stimulus because the Obama administration
had inherited the Great Recession. Summers knew that any other policy constituted economics malpractice.
Christina Romer, as Chair of the President's Council of Economic Advisers and Jared Bernstein, Vice
President Biden's chief economist, were both real economists who strongly supported the need for
a powerful program of fiscal stimulus. Each of these economists warned President Obama that his stimulus
package was far too small relative to the massive depths of the Great Recession.
Rubin's training was as a lawyer, not as an economist, so Summers was not about to look to Rubin
for economic advice. In fairness to Rubin, he was rarely so stupid as to reject stimulus as the appropriate
initial response to a recession. He
supported President
Bush's 2001 stimulus package in response to a far milder recession and President Obama's 2009 stimulus
package. Rubin does not deserve much fairness. By early 2010, while Rubin admitted that stimulus
is typically the proper response to a recession and that the 2009 stimulus package was successful,
he opposed adding to the stimulus package in
2010 even though he knew that Obama's 2009 stimulus package was, for political reasons, far smaller
than the administration's economists knew was needed.
Here's ex-Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin–one of the chief architects of the global financial
crisis–articulating the position of his proteges at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Robert Rubin: "Putting another major stimulus on top of already huge deficits and rising debt-to-GDP
ratios would have risks. And further expansion of the Federal Reserve Board's balance sheet could
create significant problems . Today's economic conditions would ordinarily be met with expansionary
policy, but our fiscal and monetary conditions are a serious constraint, and waiting too long
to address them could cause a new crisis .
In the spirit of Kilkenomics, we were blunt about the austerity assault that Rubin successfully
argued Obama should resume against America's working class beginning in early 2010. It was inevitable
that it would weaken and delay the recovery. Tens of millions of Americans would leave the labor
force or remain underemployed and even underemployed for a decade. The working class would bear the
great brunt of this loss. In modern America this kind of loss of working class jobs is associated
with mental depression, silent rage, meth, heroin, and the inability of working class males and females
to find a marriage partner, and marital problems. It is a prescription for inflicting agony – and
it is a toxic act of politics.
Prior to becoming a de facto surrogate for Hillary and ceasing to speak truth to her
and to America,
Paul Krugman captured the gap between the Obama administration's perspective and that of most
of the public.
According to the independent committee that officially determines such things, the so-called
Great Recession ended in June 2009, around the same time that the acute phase of the financial
crisis ended. Most Americans, however, disagree. In a March 2014 poll, for example, 57 percent
of respondents declared that the nation was still in recession.
The type of elite Democrats that the New Democrats idealized – the officers from big finance,
Hollywood, and high tech – recovered first and their recovery was a roaring success. Obama, and eventually
Hillary, adopted the mantra that America was already great. Our unemployment rates, relative to the
EU nations forced to inflict austerity on their economies, is much lower. But the Obama/Hillary mantra
was a lie for scores of millions of American workers, including virtually all of the working class
and much of the middle class. As Hillary repeated the mantra they concluded that she was clueless
about and indifferent to their suffering. As we emphasized in Kilkenny, Obama and Hillary were not
simply talking economic nonsense, they were committing political self-mutilation.
Krugman used to make this point forcefully.
[T]he American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, aka the Obama stimulus surely helped end the
economy's free fall. But the stimulus was too small and too short-lived given the depth of the
slump: stimulus spending peaked at 1.6 percent of GDP in early 2010 and dropped rapidly thereafter,
giving way to a regime of destructive fiscal austerity. And the administration's efforts to help
homeowners were so ineffectual as to be risible.
Timothy Geithner, a proponent of austerity, is famous for remarking that he only took only one
economics class – and did not understand it. In the same review of Geithner's book by Krugman that
I have been quoting, Krugman gives a concise summary of Geithner's repeated lies about his supposed
support for a larger stimulus. Jacob Lew, the Rubinite who Obama chose as Geithner's successor as
Treasury Secretary, was also trained as a lawyer and is equally fanatic in favoring austerity. In
2009, no one with any credibility in economics within the Obama administration could serve as an
effective spokesperson for austerity as the ideal response to the Great Recession.
But Romer, Summers, and Bernstein experienced the same frustration as 2009 proceeded. The problem
was not simply the Rubinites' fervor for the self-inflicted wound of austerity – the fundamental
problem was President Obama. Obama's administration was littered with Rubinites because Obama was
a New Democrat who believed that Rubin's love of austerity and trade deals was an excellent policy.
Of course, he had campaigned on the opposite policy positions, but that was simply political and
Obama promptly abandoned those campaign promises. Fiscal stimulus ceased to be an administration
priority as soon as the stimulus bill was enacted. Romer and Summers recognized the obvious and soon
made clear that they were leaving. Bernstein retained Biden's support, but he was frozen out of influence
on administration fiscal policies by the Rubinites.
By 2010, the fiscal stimulus package had begun to accelerate the U.S. recovery. Romer left the
administration in late summer 2010. Summers left at the end of 2010. Bill Daley (also trained as
a lawyer) became Obama's chief of staff in early 2011. Timothy Geithner, and finally Jacob Lew dominated
Obama administration fiscal policy from late 2010 to the end of the administration in alliance with
Daley and other Rubinite economists. It may be important to point out the obvious – Obama chose to
make each of these appointments and there is every reason to believe that he appointed them because
he generally shared their views on austerity. In the first 60 days of his presidency he went before
a Congressional group of New Democrats and told them "
I am a New Democrat ."
Obama began pushing for the fiscal "grand bargain" in 2010. The "grand bargain" would have pushed
towards austerity and begun unraveling the safety net. As such, it was actually the grand betrayal.
Obama's administration began telling the press that Obama viewed achieving such a deal with the Republicans
critical to his "legacy." There were two major ironies involving the grand bargain. Had it been adopted
it would have thrown the U.S. back into recession, made Obama a one-term president, and led to even
more severe losses for the Democratic Party in Congress and at the state level. The other irony was
that it was the Tea Party that saved Obama from Obama's grand betrayal by continually demanding that
Obama agree to inflict more severe assaults on the safety net.
Obama adopted Lew's famous, economically illiterate line and featured it is in his State of the
Union Address as early as January 2010. What follows is a lengthy quotation from that address. I
have put my critiques in italics after several paragraphs. Obama's switch from stimulus to austerity
was Obama's most important policy initiative in his January 2010
State of the Union Address .
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
January 27, 2010
Remarks by the President in State of the Union Address
Now - just stating the facts. Now, if we had taken office in ordinary times, I would have liked
nothing more than to start bringing down the deficit. But we took office amid a crisis. And our
efforts to prevent a second depression have added another $1 trillion to our national debt. That,
too, is a fact.
Why would Obama normally have been thrilled to "start bringing down the deficit?" A budget
deficit by a nation with a sovereign currency such as the U.S. is normal statistically and typically
desirable when we have a negative balance of trade. No, it is not a "fact" that stimulus "added another
$1 trillion to our national debt." Had we not adopted a stimulus program the debt would have grown
even larger as our economy fell even more deeply into the Great Recession.
I'm absolutely convinced that was the right thing to do. But families across the country are
tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same.
(Applause.) So tonight, I'm proposing specific steps to pay for the trillion dollars that it took
to rescue the economy last year.
Obama admits that stimulus was desirable. He knows that his economists believed that if the
stimulus had been larger and lasted longer it would have substantially speeded the recovery. One
of the most important reasons why dramatically increased government fiscal spending (stimulus) is
essential in response to a Great Recession for a depression is that the logical and typical consumer
response to such a downturn is for "families across the country" to "tighten their belts" by reducing
spending. That reduces already inadequate demand, which leads to prolonged downturns. Economists
have long recognized that it is essential for the government to do the opposite when consumers "tighten
their belts" by greatly increasing spending. To claim that it is "common sense" to "do the same"
– exacerbate the inadequate demand – because it is a "tough decision" makes a mockery of logic and
economics. It is a statement of economic illiteracy leading to a set of policy decisions sure to
harm the economy and the Democratic Party. In particular, it guaranteed a nightmare for the working
class.
No, no, no. I can feel the pain of my colleagues that are scholars in modern monetary theory
(MMT). The U.S. has a sovereign currency. We can "pay" a trillion dollar debt by issuing a trillion
dollars via keystrokes by the Fed. What Obama meant was that he would propose (over time) to increase
taxes and reduce federal spending by one trillion dollars. Such an austerity plan would harm the
recovery and reduce important government services. Again, the working class were sure to be the primary
victims of Obama's self-inflicted austerity.
Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. (Applause.)
Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be
affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family,
we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't. And if I have
to enforce this discipline by veto, I will. (Applause.)
First, the metaphor is economically illiterate and harmful. A government with a sovereign
currency is not a "cash-strapped family." It is not, in any meaningful way, "like" a "cash-strapped
family." Indeed, the metaphor logically implies the opposite – that it is essential that because
the government is not like a "cash-strapped family" only it can spend in a counter-cyclical fashion
(stimulus) to counter the perverse effect of "cash-strapped famil[ies]" cutting back their spending
due to the Great Recession.
Let's take this slow. In a recession, consumer demand is grossly inadequate so firms fire
workers and unemployment increases. We need to increase effective demand. As a recession hits and
workers see their friends fired or reduced to part-time work, a common reaction is for workers to
reduce their debts, which requires them to reduce consumption. Consumer consumption is the most important
factor driving demand, so this effect, which economists call the paradox of thrift, can deepen the
recession. Workers are indeed cash-strapped. Governments with sovereign currencies are, by definition,
not cash-strapped. They can and should engage in extremely large stimulus in order to raise effective
demand and prevent the recession from deepening. Workers will tend to reduce their spending in a
pro-cyclical fashion that makes the recession more severe. Only the government can spend in a counter-cyclical
fashion that will make the recession less severe and lengthy.
We will continue to go through the budget, line by line, page by page, to eliminate programs
that we can't afford and don't work. We've already identified $20 billion in savings for next
year. To help working families, we'll extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record
deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, for investment fund managers, and for
those making over $250,000 a year. We just can't afford it. (Applause.)
Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we'll still face the massive deficit
we had when I took office. More importantly, the cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security
will continue to skyrocket. That's why I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled
on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. (Applause.) This can't be one
of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have
to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline.
The Democrats have to stop attacking Republicans for running federal budget deficits. I know
it's political fun and that the Republicans are hypocritical about budget deficits. Deficits are
going to be "massive" when an economy the size of the U.S. suffers a Great Recession. We have had
plenty of "massive" deficits during our history under multiple political parties. None of this has
ever led to a U.S. crisis. We have had some of our strongest growth while running "massive" deficits.
Conversely, whenever we have adopted server austerity we have soon suffered a recession. In 1937,
when FDR listened to his inept economists and inflicted austerity, the strong recovery from the Great
Depression was destroyed and the economy was thrust back into an intense Great Depression.
As to the debt "commission" to solve our "debt crisis," it was inevitable that such a commission
would be dominated by Pete Peterson protégés and that they would demand austerity and an assault
on the federal safety net. That would be a terrible response to the Great Recession and the primary
victims of the commission's policies would be the working class.
Now, yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I'll
issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem
on to another generation of Americans. (Applause.) And when the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate
should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason for why we had record surpluses in
the 1990s. (Applause.)
For a nation with a sovereign currency, there is nothing good about the "record surpluses
in the 1990s." Such substantial surpluses have occurred roughly nine times in U.S. history and each
has been followed shortly by a depression or the Great Recession. This does not prove causality,
but it certainly recommends caution. Similarly, "pay-as-you-go" has been the bane of Democratic Party
efforts to help the American people. Only a New Democrat like Obama would call for the return of
the anti-working class "pay-as-you-go" rules.
Now, I know that some in my own party will argue that we can't address the deficit or freeze
government spending when so many are still hurting. And I agree - which is why this freeze won't
take effect until next year - (laughter) - when the economy is stronger. That's how budgeting
works. (Laughter and applause.) But understand –- understand if we don't take meaningful steps
to rein in our debt, it could damage our markets, increase the cost of borrowing, and jeopardize
our recovery -– all of which would have an even worse effect on our job growth and family incomes.
No. It wouldn't have damaged our markets, increased interest rates or jeopardized our recovery.
We had just run an empirical experiment in contrast to the Eurozone. Stimulus greatly enhanced our
recovery, while interest rates were at historical lows, and led to surging financial markets. Austerity
had done the opposite in the eurozone.
From some on the right, I expect we'll hear a different argument -– that if we just make fewer
investments in our people, extend tax cuts including those for the wealthier Americans, eliminate
more regulations, maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem
is that's what we did for eight years. (Applause.) That's what helped us into this crisis. It's
what helped lead to these deficits. We can't do it again.
Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it's time
to try something new. Let's invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt. Let's
meet our responsibility to the citizens who sent us here. Let's try common sense. (Laughter.)
A novel concept.
Let's try actual common sense instead of metaphors that are economically illiterate. Let's
try real economics. Let's stop talking about "mountains of debt" as if they represented a crisis
for the U.S. and stop ignoring the tens of millions of working class Americans and Europeans whose
lives and families were treated as austerity's collateral damage and were not even worth discussing
in Obama's ode to the economic malpractice of austerity. Austerity is the old tired battle that we
repeat endlessly to the recurrent cost of the working class.
Trump is Not Locked into Austerity
I note the same caution we gave in Ireland – we don't know whether President Trump will seek to
implement his economic proposals. Trump has proposed trillions of dollars in increased spending on
infrastructure and defense and large cuts in corporate taxation. In combination, this would produce
considerable fiscal stimulus for several years. The point we made in Ireland is that if he seeks
to implement his proposals (a) we believe he would succeed politically in enacting them and (b) they
would produce stimulus that would have a positive effect on the near and mid-term economy of the
U.S. Further, because the eurozone is locked into a political trap in which there seems no realistic
path to abandoning the self-inflicted wound of continuous austerity, Trump represents the eurozone's
most realistic hope for stimulus.
Final Cautions
Each of the economists speaking on these subjects in Kilkenny opposed Trumps election and believe
it will harm the public. Fiscal stimulus is critical, but it is only one element of macroeconomics
and no one was comfortable with Trump's long-term control of the economy. I opined, for example,
that Trump will create an exceptionally criminogenic environment that will produce epidemics of control
fraud. The challenge for progressive Democrats and independents is to break with the New Democrats'
dogmas. Neither America nor the Democratic Party can continue to bear the terrible cost of this unforced
error of economics, politics, and basic humanity. I fear that the professional Democrats assigned
the task of re-winning the support of the white working class do not even have ending the New Democrats'
addiction to austerity on their radar. They are probably still forbidden to read Tom Frank.
Seems to me that Ryan is not Trump's principal impediment, that Trump knows this, and that
the battle lines are already in the process of being drawn. Veiled threat?.. or, "Let's make a
deal"?
"In addition, with the debt-to-GDP ratio at around 77 percent there is not a lot of fiscal
space should a shock to the economy occur, an adverse shock that did require fiscal stimulus,"
she said.
Sovereign currency defense appears to be the primary job for the US both domestically and internationally.
There is a house of cards tenuous aspect to the US policies, with looming questions about
the ongoing stability of the domestic economy and society. Threats to that sovereign position
would seem to be present over the long term from China in particular. To what extent does currency
defense justify any manner of harmful policies, certainly given the perceived ends justify
the means tacit assumptions?
"(and maybe we could replace the insulting euphemism "low information voters" with "differently-informationed
voters." Or something)."
How about "insufficiently bamboozled voters"?
aab
Given that all these nice, affluent women voters who apparently had NO IDEA much of the country
has been ravaged by Democratic Party policies, they are the people who should have the "low information"
label hung around their necks for the foreseeable future. They also seem to have very little understanding
how how elections work, how American government works, etc.
Low Information, High Credential voters (LIHC): ugly acronym, uglier impact.
"... The above is based on factual knowledge and experience, not on political agendas or paid "analyst" propaganda. One hopes that younger journalists will learn from it. ..."
"... The keyword here is 'paid'. If journalist is actually doing his job, he is fired. Everyone you see on the Wests mass media is a paid mouthpiece, regardless if he/she likes it or not, they have no choice, thats the reality of "independent press" nowadays. ..."
"... My view: Fake News is an American Tradition. ..."
"... The fake news regarding Syria and Iraq, the omission of news regarding Daesh and al-Qaeda atrocities and the complete silence as to why the Americans refuse to join with the Russians in eradicating the terrorist threat all stem from the fact that 90% of the US media is controlled by six mega-corporations, whose ownership and editorial direction are pro-Zionist. ..."
"... Any journalist or opinion writer who refuses to toe the editorial line is banished and becomes a pariah. ..."
While I am still knocked out somewhat by a nasty influenza let me recommend Elijah Magnier's most
recent piece on the "fake news" and "fake analyst" media:
The wars in Syria and Iraq celebrated the unfortunate end of the "free and independent press"
and the rise of the "neo-analysts". They sit in far-off lands, with no ground knowledge of the
war, collecting information and analysing the colourful bin of social networking sites.
They have even the temerity to believe they can dictate to the US administration what measures
should be taken, who to support and, as if they had mastered the "art of war", they even push
for a nuclear war with Russia.
On Syria:
According to the US State Department and to the western press, over 90 hospitals were totally
destroyed in eastern Aleppo in the last months at the rate of almost one destroyed hospital per
day. And every day we hear "the last hospital has been totally destroyed". The only problem with
this figure is the statistic released by the Syrian Ministry of Health stating that "on the entire
Syrian territory, there are only 88 hospitals".
...
[W]hen jihadists and rebels start a large scale attack against Syrian Army forces and their allies,
the media stand by, waiting for results. If the regime begins a military operation hospitals are
destroyed and civilians are killed in the first hour of the battle. Rarely do militants die in
mainstream media.
The above is based on factual knowledge and experience, not on political agendas or
paid "analyst" propaganda. One hopes that younger journalists will learn from it.
The keyword here is 'paid'. If journalist is actually doing his job, he is fired. Everyone
you see on the Wests mass media is a paid mouthpiece, regardless if he/she likes it or not, they
have no choice, thats the reality of "independent press" nowadays.
My view: Fake News is an American Tradition. "American Blood on American Soil" was trumpeted
loudly to justify the Mexican War; "Battleship Maine Sunk In Cuban Harbor" was the media call
for war with the crumbling Spanish Empire; "Pearl Harbor Bombed" was the catalyst for going to
war in 1941. Each of them were false flag events to justify war.
Nothing has changed
EXCEPT
That now people do not need to have outfits like the NYTimes, NBC, CBS, CNN, et al trumpet
the news to cause people to support the empire ... . Alternatives exist ... until the guv'ment
of the 1% and the media they own make the alternatives hard, if not impossible, to learn from.
Yeah, despite the flu, B continues to make the world aware ...
The fake news regarding Syria and Iraq, the omission of news regarding Daesh and al-Qaeda
atrocities and the complete silence as to why the Americans refuse to join with the Russians in
eradicating the terrorist threat all stem from the fact that 90% of the US media is controlled
by six mega-corporations, whose ownership and editorial direction are pro-Zionist.
Any journalist or opinion writer who refuses to toe the editorial line is banished and
becomes a pariah.
Pretty interesting that Trump had to go off the record to talk about how to stop the craziness
in Syria, in fear of betraying some "secret" issue".
JOSEPH KAHN, managing editor: On Syria, would you mind, you said you have a very strong idea about
what to do with the Syria conflict, can you describe that for us?
TRUMP: I can only say this: We have to end that craziness that's going on in Syria. One of
the things that was told to me - can I say this off the record, or is everything on the record?
SULZBERGER: No, if you want to
TRUMP: I don't want to violate, I don't want to violate a
SULZBERGER: If you want to go off the record, we have agreed you can go off the record. Ladies
and gentlemen, we are off the record for this moment.
thanks b! i always appreciate the articles from elijah magnier... i was looking at his site just
the other day, but it was before this was posted.. it is an excellent article, but i doubt any
mainstream media type will try to aspire to this level of journalism... as @1 harry points out
- they would be fired if they actually reported anything other then propaganda!
@5 mina... did i miss something? has s. power been removed from her role as usa propaganda
mouthpiece at the un?
Mina@4 - "...can I say this off the record, or is everything on the record?..."
I kind of wish some journalist would act like one someday and flat out say,
"Look, you don't get to suspend reality, not even for a second. Everything your say is on the
record 100% of the time - that's my damn job. If you say something to me 'off the record' and
I agree, then you are making me complicit in a corruption of the public trust. I'll either
be deceptive or lying by reporting only part of the truth. What idiot would ever read a news
article and believe its contents if they knew that some information was being withheld from
them for some unknown reason? If you need to 'adjust' the facts I present as complete with
secret, off-the-record facts, then that wouldn't be journalism - it would be propaganda or
tabloid garbage."
Their problem has been that the alt news has gained more attention from the MSM goons. And with
that attention has come more scrutiny of MSM and more credibility for the alt news. It's not just
the MSM that has received more scrutiny but the powers behind the thrones. They don't like that
and hence the attacks on the messengers.
Magnier hit the nail on the head of the coverage of Syria. No real war news and any attacks
on our favored rebels are attacks on hospitals and children ... when they're not barrel bombs
... which in turn had replaced chemical weapons attacks. That last one ended with Russian/Syrian
efforts to get rid of the weapons.
More manufactured dissent for all examples than wishful thinking, but yes, they wished for their
puppet dupe HRC as POTUS, their trepidation towards America First and Donald Trump seems so far
well founded.
He is now announcing women and women minorities for his cabinet, further defanging the ziomonsters
poison pen against him.
The snake is in the grass; Guardian says votes in 3 states troublesome.
They never sleep.
2;Stop the nonsensical America hatred huh? Yeah, its possible the Mexican War was a fraud,
but would the citizens there(MN,AZ,Cal) wish to live in Mexico? I highly highly doubt that. And
the evidence for or against MW causastion is very flimsy and vague(1846 was like that).
The Maine did sink, and however it was sunk is the issue, but I agree it was most definitely
used as propaganda for war, a war that stared US on the road to imperial perdition.
And Pearl harbor a false flag?
No, it might have been provoked, but it was Japan who jumped headlong and perilously into the
maelstrom that Yamamoto warned against. They were a warlord cult who needed to be curbed, btw,
although the end result was terrible.
"Why you fool, it's the educated reader who CAN be gulled. All our difficulty comes with the others.
When did you meet a workman who believes the papers? He takes it for granted that they're all
propaganda and skips the leading articles. He buys his paper for the football results and the
little paragraphs about girls falling out of windows and corpses found in Mayfair flats. He is
our problem. We have to recondition him. But the educated public, the people who read the high-brow
weeklies, don't need reconditioning. They're all right already. They'll believe anything." --
C.S. Lewis
I was in the news business for several years, having been a newspaper reporter, editor, managing
editor and publisher. Over many years I worked for five different newspapers in five different
states.
I started out many, many years ago. During all that time the reporter's "creed" that you simulated
was in fact the way that we were required to operate.
I constantly have difficulty believing what passes for "reporting" these days. I have not watched
network news nor read newspapers for years now, and keep searching the interwebs for more and
more reliable information sources. The numbers of those who do the same will grow, and as they
do the power of the presstitutes will fade further and further into forgotten history.
Good riddance -- though I'm sad for the good old days when I got my start as a journalist.
A big part of the problem with the MSM is that with so many newspapers and TV stations falling
under the control of huge media corporation giants like News Corporation whose objectives and
goals are nothing more than profit, profit and more profit, what used to be half-decent institutions
like The New York Times, The Washington Post and The Guardian - well, one assumes they were half-decent
to begin with - have been under pressure to increase sales revenues and profits, and cut costs
to their utmost.
The result is that good journalists, analysts and editors have been sacked and replaced by
cheap stenographers, and the culture that used to exist in newsrooms that valued the pursuit of
truth and facts and teaching the next generation of reporters the same and carry on with valued
traditions and ethics has been destroyed. In its place is a voracious competitive pseudo-culture
with no ethics and rewarding and encouraging a mercenary spirit, at once apparently submissive
yet bullying and voracious.
The cost-cutting extends to removing reporters from the frontline in Lebanon and Syria or wherever
else things are happening and changing rapidly, and sticking them in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem where
they are fed Israeli propaganda and told to repeat it.
@8 mina.. thanks... sounds like they have the usual wonderful selection to choose from.. erik
princes sister - yikes! when will the usa change it's name to blackwater or academie group as
the case may be? i guess when a country is so in bed with the military industrial complex / banks
- it is only a matter of time where they have to do a name change!
Last winter the Asian flu was *really* bad. Thought I would die. Of course, if you HAVE any thoughts
with the flu, then you're not going to die. Two folks I know got the Asian flu this winter, one
is on a respirator and heart-lung machine, friends. Flu shots only help spread the plague. Isolation,
rest and exercise is the remedy.
The doctors say it's 'avian flu', but we know that 'flu' was really due to GMO corn dumping
to Russia and Central America and Viet Nam, the GMO corn destroying the gut of chickens it was
fed too, as GMO corn was DESIGNED to do, (just like it did with 'swine flu') then the chickens
became host to human influenza in their weakened state, now we have a real killer. Go ahead, match
the GMO corn dumping countries to their reports of avian flu. The match is a 100% correlation.
So, of course, the first announcement after the Kiev Coup by the Israeli junta leaders was
a massive ag lands privatization contract to Israel's Monsanto Seed, for GMO, which means plans
for the coup and lands privatization was planned well before Maidan, you don't just write
a big contract like that one week after a coup. If they can plan a takeover like that, think of
what they're doing now.
Probably all that Monsanto GMO corn (maize) being fed to Ukrainian chickens is migrating the
avian flu into Germany for this winter's flu season, and they'll call it some 'H342X' label, so
nobody puts two and two together on the back-trace genomics, and folks will get sicker than sh*t
and wonder why the 'flu' is so bad, so some division of Bayer can launch another influenza vaccination
program, lol.
Monsanto GMO is the cause, flu the vector, and Bayer is the for-profit 'solution'.
No laughing matter, folks. This winter protect yourself. Eat well, rest, exercise. And for
gods sake, wear your rubbers when you go out, lol. An associate in China high up in the medical
research establishment has found prostate and ovarian (and esophageal) cancers are all related
and are probably spread by a virus. Nice. So some division of Bayer can launch another cervical
warts vaccination program, neh?
They really don't give a f*ck about you, at least until next April 15th comes due.
Back to topic: it still amazes me than with the hundred thousands of Syrians in Europe and
in Lebanon/Turkey/Jordan etc. we don't see ANY documentaries where representative number of ppl
are interviewed to tell what happened in their area. It seems that this might be part of the new
"Putin-makes-the-winner" effect on elections (Fillon had said he would talk with Syria/Iran/Russia
to solve the conflict and he instantly jumped and won the first round). Ppl are not stupid and
they know in many generations of DNA that the first think is to stop the war, because that costs
and spreads.
There have been two constants in his campaign: "stomp the weaker" and "lovin' Putin". That's
it.
"lovin' Putin" is a propaganda trick which enforces a certain judgment on the US-Russia relations.
You should better stay above this level in this blog.
Putin was and remains an obstacle on building global neoliberal empire governed by the USA. So
hate toward him by Washington establishment is quite natural. Nothing personal, just business. In
other words, demonization of Putin and hysterical anti-Russian campaign (including Hillary attempt
to convert Democratic Party into a War party) is just a sign of disapproval of Washington his lack
of desire to convert Russia into yet another vassal state.
The key question here is not whether Trump will be able to pursue isolationist agenda and improve
the US relationship with Russia. The key question is whether he will allowed to do that and resist
strong attempts to co-opt him into the standard set of neocon policies, which Washington pursued
for several decades.
His "Contract with America" does not cover foreign policy issues except rejection of TPP, NAFTA
and like.
The hypothesis that he will pursue isolationist agenda is undermined by the amount of Iran hawks
in his close circle.
My impression is that his administration will try to bait Russia in order to prevent any strengthening
of China-Russia alliance which was the main blowback of Obama policies toward Russia.
Also under Trump the USA might be more selective as running six concurrent conflicts (Afghanistan,
Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Ukraine) which during Obama administration proved to be pretty expensive.
Libya is now a failed state. In Ukraine the standard of living dropped to the level of $2 per day
for the majority of population and the country became yet another debt slave, always balancing on
the wedge of bankruptcy. And costs for the USA are continuing to mount in at least three of the six
countries mentioned ( profits extracted in Ukraine and Iraq partially offset that). It is unclear
whether Trump administration will continue this Obama policy of multiple unilateral engagements but
I think is that during Trump administration the resistance to the USA unilateral interventionism
will be stronger as neoliberalism itself became much less attractive ideology. Which is more difficult
to "export". Similar to the fact that "communism" was more difficult to export after 60th by the
USSR. In a way, after 2008 it is a "damaged good" notwithstanding its recent victories in Brazil
and Argentina. See for example discussion at: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/22/does-clintons-defeat-mean-the-decline-of-us-interventionism/
The South has understood where the North has not: the selective nature of humanitarian interventions
reflects their punitive nature; sanctions go to non-client regimes; interventions seem to be a
new excuse for the hegemonic ambitions of the United States and its allies; they are a new rationale
for NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union; they are a way to suppress Russia and deprive
it of its zones of influence. (3)
What a far-sighted motion was that of the coalition of the countries of the Third World (G77)
at the Havana Summit in 2000! It declared its rejection of any intervention, including humanitarian,
which did not respect the sovereignty of the states concerned. (4) This was nothing other than
a rejection of the Clinton Doctrine, announced in 1999, in the wake of the war of Kosovo, which
made "humanitarian intervention" the new bedrock, or perhaps the new facade, of the foreign policy
of the United States. It was the same policy followed and developed by Hillary Clinton during
her tenure as secretary of state. (5)
But, of course, we can only guess how Trump administration will behave.
"... Did the United States not know that intervening in "the lands of Islam" would act as a catalyst for Jihad? Was it
by chance that the United States intervened only in secular states, turning them into manholes of religious extremism? Is
it a coincidence that these interventions were and are often supported by regimes that sponsor political Islam? Conspiracy
theory, you say? No, these are historical facts. ..."
"... The South has understood where the North has not: the selective nature of humanitarian interventions reflects their
punitive nature; sanctions go to non-client regimes; interventions seem to be a new excuse for the hegemonic ambitions of
the United States and its allies; they are a new rationale for NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union; they are a way
to suppress Russia and deprive it of its zones of influence. (3) ..."
"... What a far-sighted motion was that of the coalition of the countries of the Third World (G77) at the Havana Summit
in 2000! It declared its rejection of any intervention, including humanitarian, which did not respect the sovereignty of
the states concerned. (4) This was nothing other than a rejection of the Clinton Doctrine, announced in 1999, in the wake
of the war of Kosovo, which made "humanitarian intervention" the new bedrock, or perhaps the new facade, of the foreign policy
of the United States. It was the same policy followed and developed by Hillary Clinton during her tenure as secretary of
state. (5) ..."
"... At the moment of this writing, any speculation as to the policy choices of Trump's foreign policy is premature.
..."
"... Like Donald Trump, George W. Bush was a conservative Republican non-interventionist. He advocated "America First,"
called for a more subdued foreign policy and adopted Colin Powell's realism "to attend without stress" (7) with regard to
the Near and Middle East. But his policy shifted to become the most aggressive and most brutal in the history of the United
States. Many international observers argue that this shift came as a response to the September 11 attacks, but they fail
to note that the aggressive germs already existed within Bush's cabinet and advisers: the neo-conservatives occupied key
functions in his administration. ..."
"... Up until now, Trump's links with the neo-cons remain unclear. The best-known neo-cons, Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol,
and Robert Kagan, appear to have lost their bet by supporting Hillary Clinton's candidacy. But others, less prominent or
influential, seem to have won it by supporting Trump: Dick Cheney, Norman Podhoretz, and James Woolsey, his adviser and one
of the architects of the wars in the Middle East. ..."
"... it is more realistic to suppose that as long as the United States has interests in the countries of the South and
the Near and Middle East, so long it will not hesitate to intervene. ..."
"... In this context, Trump's defeat and Clinton's accession are not sufficient reasons to declare the decline of interventionism
-- the end of an era and the beginning of another. ..."
"... (Translated from the French by Luciana Bohne) ..."
If the discourse of humanitarianism seduced the North, it has not been so in the South, even less in the Near and Middle
East, which no longer believe in it. The patent humanitarian disasters in Kosovo, Iraq, Libya, and Syria have disillusioned
them.
It is in this sense that Trump's victory is felt as a release, a hope for change, and a rupture from the policy of Clinton,
Bush, and Obama. This policy, in the name of edifying nations ("nation building"), has destroyed some of the oldest nations
and civilizations on earth; in the name of delivering well-being, it has delivered misery; in the name of liberal values,
it has galvanized religious zeal; in the name of democracy and human rights, it has installed autocracies and Sharia law.
Who is to blame?
Did the United States not know that intervening in "the lands of Islam" would act as a catalyst for Jihad? Was it
by chance that the United States intervened only in secular states, turning them into manholes of religious extremism?
Is it a coincidence that these interventions were and are often supported by regimes that sponsor political Islam? Conspiracy
theory, you say? No, these are historical facts.
Can the United States not learn from history, or does it just doom itself to repeat it? Does it not pose itself the
question of how al-Qaeda and Daesh originated? How did they organize themselves? Who trained them? What is their mobilizing
discourse? (1) Why is the US their target? None of this seems to matter to the US: all it cares about is
projecting its own idealism. (2)
The death of thousands of people in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya or Syria, has it contributed to the well being of these
peoples? Or does the United States perhaps respond to this question in the manner of Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton's
Secretary of State, who regretted the death of five-hundred-thousand Iraqi children, deprived of medications by the American
embargo, to conclude with the infamous sentence, "[But] it was worth it "?
Was it worth it that people came to perceive humanitarian intervention as the new crusades? Was it worth it that they
now perceive democracy as a pagan, pre-Islamic model, abjured by their belief? Was it worth it that they now perceive modernity
as deviating believers from the "true" path? Was it worth that they now perceive human rights as human standards as contrary
to the divine will? Was it worth it that people now perceive secularism as atheism whose defenders are punishable by beheading?
Have universal values become a problem rather than a solution? What then to think of making war in their name? Has humanitarian
intervention become punishment rather than help?
The South has understood where the North has not: the selective nature of humanitarian interventions reflects their
punitive nature; sanctions go to non-client regimes; interventions seem to be a new excuse for the hegemonic ambitions
of the United States and its allies; they are a new rationale for NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union; they are
a way to suppress Russia and deprive it of its zones of influence. (3)
What a far-sighted motion was that of the coalition of the countries of the Third World (G77) at the Havana Summit
in 2000! It declared its rejection of any intervention, including humanitarian, which did not respect the sovereignty of
the states concerned. (4) This was nothing other than a rejection of the Clinton Doctrine, announced in 1999, in the wake
of the war of Kosovo, which made "humanitarian intervention" the new bedrock, or perhaps the new facade, of the foreign
policy of the United States. It was the same policy followed and developed by Hillary Clinton during her tenure as secretary
of state. (5)
The end of interventionism?
But are Clinton's defeat and Trump's accession to power sufficient reasons to declare the decline of interventionism?
Donald Trump is a nationalist, whose rise has been the result of a coalition of anti-interventionists within the Republican
Party. They professe a foreign policy that Trump has summarized in these words: "We will use military force only in cases
of vital necessity to the national security of the United States. We will put an end to attempts of imposing democracy
and overthrowing regimes abroad, as well as involving ourselves in situations in which we have no right to intervene."
(6)
But drawing conclusions about the foreign policy of the United States from unofficial statements seems simplistic.
At the moment of this writing, any speculation as to the policy choices of Trump's foreign policy is premature.
One can't predict his policy with regard to the Near and Middle East, since he has not yet even formed his cabinet.
Moreover, presidents in office can change their tune in the course of their tenure. The case of George W. Bush provides
an excellent example.
Like Donald Trump, George W. Bush was a conservative Republican non-interventionist. He advocated "America First,"
called for a more subdued foreign policy and adopted Colin Powell's realism "to attend without stress" (7) with regard
to the Near and Middle East. But his policy shifted to become the most aggressive and most brutal in the history of the
United States. Many international observers argue that this shift came as a response to the September 11 attacks, but they
fail to note that the aggressive germs already existed within Bush's cabinet and advisers: the neo-conservatives occupied
key functions in his administration. (8)
Up until now, Trump's links with the neo-cons remain unclear. The best-known neo-cons, Paul Wolfowitz, William Kristol,
and Robert Kagan, appear to have lost their bet by supporting Hillary Clinton's candidacy. But others, less prominent or
influential, seem to have won it by supporting Trump: Dick Cheney, Norman Podhoretz, and James Woolsey, his adviser and
one of the architects of the wars in the Middle East.
These indices show that nothing seems to have been gained by the South, still less by the Near and Middle East. There
appears to be no guarantee that the situation will improve.
The non-interventionism promised by Trump may not necessarily equate to a policy of isolationism. A non-interventionist
policy does not automatically mean that the United States will stop protecting their interests abroad, strategic or otherwise.
Rather, it could mean that the United States will not intervene abroad except to defend their own interests,
unilaterally -- and perhaps even more aggressively. Such a potential is implied in Trump's promise to increase
the budget for the army and the military-industrial complex. Thus, it is more realistic to suppose that as long as
the United States has interests in the countries of the South and the Near and Middle East, so long it will not hesitate
to intervene.
In this context, Trump's defeat and Clinton's accession are not sufficient reasons to declare the decline of interventionism
-- the end of an era and the beginning of another. The political reality is too complex to be reduced to statements
by a presidential candidate campaigning for election, by an elected president, or even by a president in the course of
performing his office.
No one knows what the future will bring.
Marwen Bouassida is a researcher in international law at North African-European relations, University of Carthage,
Tunisia. He regularly contributes to the online magazine Kapitalis.
"... Harris later learned that the lever machine companies and technicians had all been convicted of election fraud, going back to the 1880s, all over the US. Lever machine tampering was also discovered not long ago that changed election results, resulting from a single "miscalibrated" machine that it turned out had been producing anomalous results for over a decade. ..."
[Response to Ulysses' comment] This begs the question of whether those votes were cast or counted accurately. In my early days
of learning about election fraud (particularly at the Black Box Voting.org website and discussion threads), a topic that came
up time and again was that there was extensive history of election fraud associated with union elections. IIRC, as electronic
voting machines were being actively promoted, one of the avid supporters of using these methods was trade unions.
Harris later learned that the lever machine companies and technicians had all been convicted of election fraud, going back
to the 1880s, all over the US. Lever machine tampering was also discovered not long ago that changed election results, resulting
from a single "miscalibrated" machine that it turned out had been producing anomalous results for over a decade. Richard
Hayes Phillips in his lectures and book about the theft
of the OH 2004 election (and thus the presidency) describes with detail how one of the methods used was altering the punch cards
or sending voters to the wrong precinct machine, so their ballot would end up with undervotes or overvotes and not be counted.
It would be interesting to know about the election procedures for that union election, particularly the Canadian vote. Was
it on machines? Paper? How secure was the chain of custody of the ballots?
The Imperial Presidency of the United States has evolved over the last century to the point that
the executive holds certain powers that can be considered dictatorial. Arguably, the most consequential
decision in politics is to wage war. The Constitution specifically reserves this right for Congress.
Notable quotes:
"... The anger against outsourcing jobs is very real and very dangerous for current corrupt neocon/neolib elite in Washington with their dream of global dominance and global neoliberal empire spanning all countries on all continents much like Trotsky dreamed about global Communist empire. ..."
"... The key information about his real intention would be the candidate for the Secretary of State. But even here uncertainty will remain. For example, it is not completely clear to me that if Bolton would be appointed he will be able to pursue the policies of his neocon past. After all Trump has distinct authoritarian inclinations and Bolton is not stupid enough not to understand that. ..."
"... Hopefully his foreign policy will be less jingoistic that Obama foreign policy. "Our goal is peace and prosperity, not war," said Trump, "unlike other candidates, war and aggression will not be my first instinct." ..."
"... "lovin' Putin" is a propaganda trick which enforces a certain judgment on the US-Russia relations ..."
"... Putin was and remain an obstacle on building global neoliberal empire governed by the USA. So hate toward him by Washington establishment is quite natural. Nothing personal, just business. In other words, demonization of Putin and hysterical anti-Russian campaign (including Hillary attempt to convert Democratic Party into a War party) is just a sign of disapproval of Washington his lack of desire to convert Russian into yet another vassal state. ..."
"... The key question here is not whether Trump will be able to pursue isolationist agenda and improve the US relationship with Russia. The key question is whether he will allowed to do that and resist strong attempts to co-opt him into standard set of neocon policies, which Washington pursued for several decades. ..."
"... Any idea that he will peruse isolationist agenda is undermined by the amount of Iran hawks in his close circle. ..."
"... My impression is that his administration will try to bait Russia in order to prevent any strengthening of China-Russia alliance which was the main blowback of Obama policies toward Russia. ..."
"... This was nothing other than a rejection of the Clinton Doctrine, announced in 1999, in the wake of the war of Kosovo, which made "humanitarian intervention" the new bedrock, or perhaps the new facade, of the foreign policy of the United States. It was the same policy followed and developed by Hillary Clinton during her tenure as secretary of state. (5) ..."
"... The US Empire has been nice to the Russians before. It was called detente and caused almost (not quite) as much hysteria in war-mongering (proto-neoconservative) circles as Trump's 'neo-detente' is causing now. However, the proviso is (and always was) that the warmongering could be ramped up again any time the Americans chose, and of course it was again under Reagan. ..."
"... From the point of view of American imperialism, Trump's plan to (temporarily) be nice to Russia makes a lot of strategic sense: as you point out, under Obama American imperial forces were becoming increasingly overstretched. In any case, for historical reasons, Russia (white, capitalist, Christian) doesn't make as good an enemy as the mysterious dark forces of 'Radical Islam'. ..."
"... So I am guessing under Trump we will see temporary rapprochement with Russia in the East, and more concentration on command and control of the Middle East. I am also guessing Obama's 'Pivot to China' will be allowed to quietly continue. It's also likely the US' policy of quietly picking off 'weak links' in the 'pink tide' in South American (cf Brazil, Honduras) will continue. ..."
"... For the moment I take great comfort in the hostility Trump displayed to Eliot Cohen and his ilk – https://twitter.com/EliotACohen/status/798512852931788800 ..."
"... "After exchange w Trump transition team, changed my recommendation: stay away. They're angry, arrogant, screaming "you LOST!" Will be ugly." ..."
Trump first and foremost is the symptom, not cause of crisis of neoliberalism in the USA. Ideology
is dead, like Bolshevism was dead soon after the end of WWII in the USSR.
Trump has two major path of his governance. He might try relying on nationalist insurgence
his election provoked and squeeze the "deep state" and neocon cabal in Washington, or he will
be co-opted by Republican brass. He probably understand that his positioning during election campaign
as a fighter against globalization and neoliberalism excesses in the USA is the key link that
provides political support for his administration. And throwing a couple on neocons or banksters
against the wall would be a populist gesture well received by American public.
The anger against outsourcing jobs is very real and very dangerous for current corrupt
neocon/neolib elite in Washington with their dream of global dominance and global neoliberal empire
spanning all countries on all continents much like Trotsky dreamed about global Communist empire.
My feeling is that a lot of people are really ready to fight for Trump and that creates for
problem for the "deep state", if Trump "indoctrination" by Washington establishment fails.
Past revolts in some US cities are just the tip of the iceberg. Obama lost not only his legacy
with Trump election. He lost his bid to keep all members of top 1% and first of all financial
oligarchy that drives the events on 2008 unaccountable.
So "accountability drive" which will be interpreted by neoliberals as "witch hunt" might well
be in the cards. I encourage everybody in this blog to listen to the following Trump election
advertisement.
Also I would not assume that he is a newcomer to political games. Real estate business is very
a political activity. So a more plausible hypothesis is that he is a gifted politician both by
nature and due to on the job training received in his occupation.
His idea of creating a circle of advisors who compete with each other and thus allow him to
be the final arbiter of major decisions is not new. He is not hostile to conflicts within his
inner circle.
The key information about his real intention would be the candidate for the Secretary of
State. But even here uncertainty will remain. For example, it is not completely clear to me that
if Bolton would be appointed he will be able to pursue the policies of his neocon past. After
all Trump has distinct authoritarian inclinations and Bolton is not stupid enough not to understand
that.
Hopefully his foreign policy will be less jingoistic that Obama foreign policy. "Our goal
is peace and prosperity, not war," said Trump, "unlike other candidates, war and aggression will
not be my first instinct."
There have been two constants in his campaign: "stomp the weaker" and "lovin' Putin".
That's it.
"lovin' Putin" is a propaganda trick which enforces a certain judgment on the US-Russia
relations . You should better stay above this level in this blog.
Putin was and remain an obstacle on building global neoliberal empire governed by the USA.
So hate toward him by Washington establishment is quite natural. Nothing personal, just business.
In other words, demonization of Putin and hysterical anti-Russian campaign (including Hillary
attempt to convert Democratic Party into a War party) is just a sign of disapproval of Washington
his lack of desire to convert Russian into yet another vassal state.
The key question here is not whether Trump will be able to pursue isolationist agenda and
improve the US relationship with Russia. The key question is whether he will allowed to do that
and resist strong attempts to co-opt him into standard set of neocon policies, which Washington
pursued for several decades.
His "Contract with America" does not cover foreign policy issues except rejection of TPP, NAFTA
and like.
Any idea that he will peruse isolationist agenda is undermined by the amount of Iran hawks
in his close circle.
My impression is that his administration will try to bait Russia in order to prevent any
strengthening of China-Russia alliance which was the main blowback of Obama policies toward Russia.
Also under Trump the USA might be more selective as running six concurrent conflicts (Afghanistan,
Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Ukraine). Which during Obama administration proved to be pretty expensive.
Libya is now a failed state. In Ukraine the standard of living dropped to the level of $2 per
day for the majority of population and the country became yet another debt slave, always balancing
on the wedge of bankruptcy. And costs for the USA are continuing to mount in at least three of
the six countries mentioned ( profits extracted in Ukraine and Iraq partially offset that). It
is unclear whether Trump administration will continue this Obama policy of multiple unilateral
engagements but I think is that during Trump administration the resistance to the USA unilateral
interventionism will be stronger as neoliberalism itself became much less attractive ideology.
Which is more difficult to "export". Similar to the fact that "communism" was more difficult to
export after 60th by the USSR. In a way, after 2008 it is a "damaged good" notwithstanding its
recent victories in Brazil and Argentina. See for example discussion at:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/22/does-clintons-defeat-mean-the-decline-of-us-interventionism/
The South has understood where the North has not: the selective nature of humanitarian interventions
reflects their punitive nature; sanctions go to non-client regimes; interventions seem to be
a new excuse for the hegemonic ambitions of the United States and its allies; they are a new
rationale for NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union; they are a way to suppress Russia
and deprive it of its zones of influence. (3)
What a far-sighted motion was that of the coalition of the countries of the Third World
(G77) at the Havana Summit in 2000! It declared its rejection of any intervention, including
humanitarian, which did not respect the sovereignty of the states concerned. (4) This was
nothing other than a rejection of the Clinton Doctrine, announced in 1999, in the wake of the
war of Kosovo, which made "humanitarian intervention" the new bedrock, or perhaps the new facade,
of the foreign policy of the United States. It was the same policy followed and developed by
Hillary Clinton during her tenure as secretary of state. (5)
But, of course, we can only guess how Trump administration will behave.
'The key question here is not whether Trump will be able to pursue isolationist agenda and
improve the US relationship with Russia. The key question is whether he will allowed to do
that and resist strong attempts to co-opt him into standard set of neocon policies, which Washington
pursued for several decades.'
The US Empire has been nice to the Russians before. It was called detente and caused almost
(not quite) as much hysteria in war-mongering (proto-neoconservative) circles as Trump's 'neo-detente'
is causing now. However, the proviso is (and always was) that the warmongering could be ramped
up again any time the Americans chose, and of course it was again under Reagan.
From the point of view of American imperialism, Trump's plan to (temporarily) be nice to
Russia makes a lot of strategic sense: as you point out, under Obama American imperial forces
were becoming increasingly overstretched. In any case, for historical reasons, Russia (white,
capitalist, Christian) doesn't make as good an enemy as the mysterious dark forces of 'Radical
Islam'.
So I am guessing under Trump we will see temporary rapprochement with Russia in the East,
and more concentration on command and control of the Middle East. I am also guessing Obama's 'Pivot
to China' will be allowed to quietly continue. It's also likely the US' policy of quietly picking
off 'weak links' in the 'pink tide' in South American (cf Brazil, Honduras) will continue.
'Trump: foreign policy continuity rather than change' may well be a typical graduate thesis
in 30 years' time.
I'm curious how Trump will deal with Erdogan. Erdogan seems to have all the tact and subtlety
of an angry Bison and with Trump's thin skin, there is bound to be a conflict at some stage. And
Erdogan is not Christian.
"... Many of these people voted for Obama in 2012. The reason they abandoned the Democrats this time is that they hadn't seen any improvement in their lives in the last 4 years. When Trump said Clinton was in the pocket of Wall Street, they agreed. They were right: she is. ..."
"... Berlusconi allied himself both with the nascent Lega and the remains of the neo-fascist MSI, members of which went on to hold high positions in his governments. The effects of this alliance were seen in spectacular fashion at the Genoa G8 meeting, which was used very effectively to outlaw street protest or at least to rebrand anyone protesting against government as 'extremist' (he similarly labelled anyone to his left as 'communist'). ..."
"... The Guardian's Trump nervous breakdown continues apace.... what would you talk about if he didn't exist?? ..."
"... As far as the part of non-deplorable voters are concerned, it is relatively clear what they want: economic security and perspective rather than the choice between unemployment and MacJobs, public services working reasonably well rather than garbage piling up in the streets, respectable political culture rather than corruption and nepotism. ..."
"... Obviously, and not without reason, the confidence of many voters in the ability of the political establishment has faded to a degree allowing exploitation by tycoons presented as 'can-do' strongmen. Neither crying nor shouting at the voters nor agreeing that the N-word is ok will change that. ..."
"... Trump wasn't as bad as Berlusconi however at the end of the day ordinary people are more concerned about their jobs, their own local economies, their hospitals, schools, local taxes, housing costs so in that respect they look to see change not the same oppressive status quo ..."
"... It's why Sarkozy was rejected yesterday outright as people don't want a fake offer and the neoliberal Establishment serving corporates, a bent media and banking interests at the cost to themselves and their families. ..."
Berlusconi was Italy's longest serving post war PM. Like Bill Clinton he was a talented totally
corrupt, sexually obsessed politician.
Derrick Hibbett
9m ago
People voted for Trump for a variety of reasons. Some wanted abortion made illegal, some were
KKK racists. It is pointless trying to "understand their concerns"; they will never support the
left.
Others voted for Trump because they believe he provide them with a secure job, with a salary
which allows them to support themselves and their families.
Many of these people voted for
Obama in 2012. The reason they abandoned the Democrats this time is that they hadn't seen any
improvement in their lives in the last 4 years. When Trump said Clinton was in the pocket of Wall
Street, they agreed. They were right: she is.
The problem is that in the absence of a strong labour movement they were prey to a trickster
who has no intention of challenging the corporations.
nadaward
22m ago
Something the article doesn't mention was Berlusconi's bringing of the far right out of the
political cupboard.
Berlusconi allied himself both with the nascent Lega and the remains of the neo-fascist MSI,
members of which went on to hold high positions in his governments. The effects of this alliance
were seen in spectacular fashion at the Genoa G8 meeting, which was used very effectively to outlaw
street protest or at least to rebrand anyone protesting against government as 'extremist' (he
similarly labelled anyone to his left as 'communist').
I'm not sure that apart from a sort of desire for privatization of the state apparatus Berlusconi
has or had strong political views. I think questions such as immigration were used in an instrumental
fashion.
It's often said that Berlusconi also brought what in Italy is called the language of the 'Bar
Sport' into the political arena. In other words he cancelled the veneer of respectability in political
language, with great help from the Lega. There was a sort of 'naughty boy' factor involved in
this taboo breaking that had enormous appeal outside of the 'educated classes'. People suddenly
felt entitled to let it all hang out and say what they wanted. A sort of nine-year stag night.
The more people objected to his version of 'pussy grabbing' the more they could be successfully
labelled stuck-up do-gooders.
On the question of the Church and its complicity, I think that had a lot to do with the conservative
papacies of the times.
pfcbg
23m ago
I love Donald Donny T. He is a phenomenal leader. Unlike Hillary, he isn't going to ally himself
with Islamists of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but in fact, might crush them. I love Donald Donny T.
He might unite with Russia crush Islamists.
qpdarloboy
25m ago
Berlusconi was a front man for the mafia. It's no coincidence that Forza Italia was launched
immediately after the judicial investigations into corruption in the existing political parties
looked set to wipe out the mafia's hold over Italian politics
Nick Pers
32m ago
it seems like the title of this article is inverted, Trump is like Berlusconi not the other
way around. At least chronologically Berlusconi's political engagement was much prior to Trump
and even on the financial level according to Forbes magazine Berlusconi is more than twice richer
than Trump and obviously had much more media influence, but I do not see how the contrary is true
as the title seems to suggest????
Hurrellr
1h ago
The Guardian's Trump nervous breakdown continues apace.... what would you talk about if
he didn't exist??
Actually perhaps nervous breakdown is the wrong metaphor, perhaps its
more like an orgasm ... he hits the sweet spot, you can protest endlessly... years and years
lie ahead of you blathering on about Trump being the devil. The ultimate orgasmic showcasing
of virtue. Christmas has come early!
carlygirl
2h ago
While it has received scant attention, Trump has also promised to repeal a 1954 ban that
prevents tax-exempt organisations like churches from getting involved in politics, a change
that could give churches an even more powerful role in US politics.
Pure idiocy. Putting cults that believe in 'invisible men' in charge of political policy - it
would be like the Taliban taking control of Afghanistan.
pollyp57 -> carlygirl
22m ago
The American religious right has a great deal in common with the Taliban - they aren't mad
keen on science, they want to impose their own version of social control and they both
absolutely agree that women should lip up and get on with the housework.
Peter Krall
2h ago
try and seriously understand what his voters want
What is this supposed to mean? Understanding that some deplorables feel terrorised by the
'p.c.-police' if using the N-word is deprecated and bowing to them? Sorry, no! It may be
possible to win the votes of these people by pursuing Trump's/Berlusconi's agenda but if this
agenda is to be pursued: why not just let them do it?
As far as the part of non-deplorable voters are concerned, it is relatively clear what
they want: economic security and perspective rather than the choice between unemployment and
MacJobs, public services working reasonably well rather than garbage piling up in the streets,
respectable political culture rather than corruption and nepotism.
Understanding this is the easy part. The problem is delivering.
Obviously, and not
without reason, the confidence of many voters in the ability of the political establishment
has faded to a degree allowing exploitation by tycoons presented as 'can-do' strongmen.
Neither crying nor shouting at the voters nor agreeing that the N-word is ok will change that.
Streatham
2h ago
And don't let's forget Berlusconi's pal Blair, he of the 'eye-catching initiatives' like
the destruction of Iraq. Trump and Berlusconi together will never be responsible for as much
evil as the billionaire Blair - close friend as well, of course, of Bill 'The Sleaze' Clinton.
SpiderJerusalem01
2h ago
People aren't that concerned with tabloid journalism. They worry about jobs, taxes, the
economy. You know, the real stuff. But then, when you don't have those worries I guess you can
indulge in fluff pieces.
That's why the jig is up for you elitists. The world is changing, and not in your favour. Heh.
Dimitri
3h ago
Of course this whole nightmare can be avoided if the electoral collage actually decides to
select the candidate who won the popular vote by over a million and a half...'such stuff as
dreams are made on.'...
tictactom -> Dimitri
3h ago
Careful. You'll get ticked off for listening to MSM propaganda talking like that!
FishDog -> Dimitri
3h ago
They will state by state.
Somefing Looms -> Dimitri
2h ago
Clinton stole votes in several large urban areas - those where the returns were abnormally
slow to be returned.
imo, Clinton lost the popular vote by millions if a true vote were recorded.
But, even if she didn't, without the Electoral College, a handful of states and even large
cities would be choosing the POTUS every term in perpetuity, irrespective of the wishes of
those elsewhere in the county.
Why do you think that's a good idea?
shaftedpig
3h ago
Trump wasn't as bad as Berlusconi however at the end of the day ordinary people are
more concerned about their jobs, their own local economies, their hospitals, schools, local
taxes, housing costs so in that respect they look to see change not the same oppressive status
quo
.
It's why Sarkozy was rejected yesterday outright as people don't want a fake
offer and the neoliberal Establishment serving corporates, a bent media and banking interests
at the cost to themselves and their families.
If you want to know who the culprit
politicos are look at people like Schauble who are openly threatening us and the democracy we
voted for. This guy wasn't even elected by us but feels he has a right to dictate to us as one
of his political ancestors once tried.
"... Reince Priebus is an establishment insider. He did NOTHING to help Trump get elected until toward the very end of the campaign. ..."
"... On the other hand, Stephen Bannon is probably a very good pick. He headed Breitbart.com, which is one of the premier "alt-right" media outlets that has consistently led the charge against the globalist, anti-freedom agenda of the political establishment in Washington, D.C. Albeit, Bannon is probably blind to the dangers of Zionism and is, therefore, probably naïve about the New World Order. I don't believe anyone can truly understand the New World Order without being aware of the role that Zionism plays in it. ..."
"... To be honest, the possible appointments of Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, John Bolton and especially Newt Gingrich are MORE than troubling. Rudy Giuliani is "Mr. Police State," and if he is selected as the new attorney general, the burgeoning Police State in this country will go into hyperdrive. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is already warning us about this. Chris Christie is a typical New England liberal Republican. His appointment to any position bodes NOTHING good. And John Bolton is a Bush pro-war neocon. But Newt Gingrich is the quintessential insider, globalist, and establishment hack. ..."
"... Newt Gingrich is a HIGH LEVEL globalist and longtime CFR member. He is the consummate neocon. And he has a brilliant mind (NO morals, but a brilliant mind--a deadly combination, for sure). ..."
"... You cannot drain the swamp by putting the very people who filled the swamp back in charge. And that's exactly what Trump would be doing if he appoints Gingrich to any high-level position in his administration. ..."
"... Trump is already softening his position on illegal immigration, on dismantling the EPA, on repealing Obamacare, on investigating and prosecuting Hillary Clinton, etc. ..."
"... What we need to know right now is that WE CANNOT GO TO SLEEP. We cannot sit back in lethargy and complacency and just assume that Donald Trump is going to do what he said he would do. If we do that, we might as well have elected Hillary Clinton, because at least then we would be forever on guard against her forthcoming assaults against our liberties. ..."
"... The difference in this election is that Donald Trump didn't run against the Democrats; he ran against the entire Washington establishment, including the Republican establishment. Hopefully that means that the people who supported and voted for Trump will NOT be inclined to go into political hibernation now that Trump is elected. ..."
After my post-election column last week, a lady wrote to me and said, "I have confidence he [Trump]
plans to do what is best for the country." With all due respect, I don't! I agree wholeheartedly
with Thomas Jefferson. He said, "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence
in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
If Donald Trump is going to be anything more than just another say-anything-to-get-elected phony,
he is going to have to put raw elbow grease to his rhetoric. His talk got him elected, but it is
going to be his walk that is going to prove his worth.
And, as I wrote last week, the biggest indicator as to whether or not he is truly going to follow
through with his rhetoric is who he selects for his cabinet and top-level government positions. So
far, he has picked Reince Priebus as White House chief of staff and Stephen Bannon as White House
chief strategist.
Reince Priebus is an establishment insider. He did NOTHING to help Trump get elected until
toward the very end of the campaign. He is the current chairman of the Republican National Committee.
If that doesn't tell you what he is, nothing will. Trump probably picked him because he is in so
tight with House Speaker Paul Ryan (a globalist neocon of the highest order) and the GOP establishment,
thinking Priebus will help him get his agenda through the GOP Congress. But ideologically, Priebus
does NOT share Trump's anti-establishment agenda. So, this appointment is a risk at best and a sell-out
at worst.
On the other hand, Stephen Bannon is probably a very good pick. He headed Breitbart.com, which
is one of the premier "alt-right" media outlets that has consistently led the charge against the
globalist, anti-freedom agenda of the political establishment in Washington, D.C. Albeit, Bannon
is probably blind to the dangers of Zionism and is, therefore, probably naïve about the New World
Order. I don't believe anyone can truly understand the New World Order without being aware of the
role that Zionism plays in it.
To be honest, the possible appointments of Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, John Bolton and
especially Newt Gingrich are MORE than troubling. Rudy Giuliani is "Mr. Police State," and if he
is selected as the new attorney general, the burgeoning Police State in this country will go into
hyperdrive. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is already warning us about this. Chris Christie is
a typical New England liberal Republican. His appointment to any position bodes NOTHING good. And
John Bolton is a Bush pro-war neocon. But Newt Gingrich is the quintessential insider, globalist,
and establishment hack.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the globalist elite gave Newt Gingrich the assignment
of cozying up to (and "supporting") Trump during his campaign with the sole intention of being in
a position for Trump to think he owes Gingrich something so as to appoint him to a key cabinet post
in the event that he won. Gingrich could then weave his evil magic during a Donald Trump presidential
administration.
Newt Gingrich is a HIGH LEVEL globalist and longtime CFR member. He is the consummate neocon.
And he has a brilliant mind (NO morals, but a brilliant mind--a deadly combination, for sure).
If Donald Trump does not see through this man, and if he appoints him as a cabinet head in his administration,
I will be forced to believe that Donald Trump is clueless about "draining the swamp." You cannot
drain the swamp by putting the very people who filled the swamp back in charge. And that's exactly
what Trump would be doing if he appoints Gingrich to any high-level position in his administration.
Trump is already softening his position on illegal immigration, on dismantling the EPA, on
repealing Obamacare, on investigating and prosecuting Hillary Clinton, etc. Granted, he hasn't
even been sworn in yet, and it's still way too early to make a true judgment of his presidency. But
for a fact, his cabinet appointments and his first one hundred days in office will tell us most of
what we need to know.
What we need to know right now is that WE CANNOT GO TO SLEEP. We cannot sit back in lethargy
and complacency and just assume that Donald Trump is going to do what he said he would do. If we
do that, we might as well have elected Hillary Clinton, because at least then we would be forever
on guard against her forthcoming assaults against our liberties.
There is a reason we have lost more liberties under Republican administrations than Democratic
ones over the past few decades. And that reason is the conservative, constitutionalist, Christian,
pro-freedom people who should be resisting government's assaults against our liberties are sound
asleep because they trust a Republican President and Congress to do the right thing -- and they give
the GOP a pass as our liberties are expunged piece by piece. A pass they would NEVER give to a Democrat.
The difference in this election is that Donald Trump didn't run against the Democrats; he
ran against the entire Washington establishment, including the Republican establishment. Hopefully
that means that the people who supported and voted for Trump will NOT be inclined to go into political
hibernation now that Trump is elected.
I tell you again: this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change the course of a nation. Frankly,
if this opportunity is squandered, there likely will not be another one in most of our lifetimes.
"... Reince Priebus is an establishment insider. He did NOTHING to help Trump get elected until toward the very end of the campaign. ..."
"... On the other hand, Stephen Bannon is probably a very good pick. He headed Breitbart.com, which is one of the premier "alt-right" media outlets that has consistently led the charge against the globalist, anti-freedom agenda of the political establishment in Washington, D.C. Albeit, Bannon is probably blind to the dangers of Zionism and is, therefore, probably naïve about the New World Order. I don't believe anyone can truly understand the New World Order without being aware of the role that Zionism plays in it. ..."
"... To be honest, the possible appointments of Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, John Bolton and especially Newt Gingrich are MORE than troubling. Rudy Giuliani is "Mr. Police State," and if he is selected as the new attorney general, the burgeoning Police State in this country will go into hyperdrive. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is already warning us about this. Chris Christie is a typical New England liberal Republican. His appointment to any position bodes NOTHING good. And John Bolton is a Bush pro-war neocon. But Newt Gingrich is the quintessential insider, globalist, and establishment hack. ..."
"... Newt Gingrich is a HIGH LEVEL globalist and longtime CFR member. He is the consummate neocon. And he has a brilliant mind (NO morals, but a brilliant mind--a deadly combination, for sure). ..."
"... You cannot drain the swamp by putting the very people who filled the swamp back in charge. And that's exactly what Trump would be doing if he appoints Gingrich to any high-level position in his administration. ..."
"... Trump is already softening his position on illegal immigration, on dismantling the EPA, on repealing Obamacare, on investigating and prosecuting Hillary Clinton, etc. ..."
"... What we need to know right now is that WE CANNOT GO TO SLEEP. We cannot sit back in lethargy and complacency and just assume that Donald Trump is going to do what he said he would do. If we do that, we might as well have elected Hillary Clinton, because at least then we would be forever on guard against her forthcoming assaults against our liberties. ..."
"... The difference in this election is that Donald Trump didn't run against the Democrats; he ran against the entire Washington establishment, including the Republican establishment. Hopefully that means that the people who supported and voted for Trump will NOT be inclined to go into political hibernation now that Trump is elected. ..."
After my post-election column last week, a lady wrote to me and said, "I have confidence he [Trump]
plans to do what is best for the country." With all due respect, I don't! I agree wholeheartedly
with Thomas Jefferson. He said, "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence
in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
If Donald Trump is going to be anything more than just another say-anything-to-get-elected phony,
he is going to have to put raw elbow grease to his rhetoric. His talk got him elected, but it is
going to be his walk that is going to prove his worth.
And, as I wrote last week, the biggest indicator as to whether or not he is truly going to follow
through with his rhetoric is who he selects for his cabinet and top-level government positions. So
far, he has picked Reince Priebus as White House chief of staff and Stephen Bannon as White House
chief strategist.
Reince Priebus is an establishment insider. He did NOTHING to help Trump get elected until
toward the very end of the campaign. He is the current chairman of the Republican National Committee.
If that doesn't tell you what he is, nothing will. Trump probably picked him because he is in so
tight with House Speaker Paul Ryan (a globalist neocon of the highest order) and the GOP establishment,
thinking Priebus will help him get his agenda through the GOP Congress. But ideologically, Priebus
does NOT share Trump's anti-establishment agenda. So, this appointment is a risk at best and a sell-out
at worst.
On the other hand, Stephen Bannon is probably a very good pick. He headed Breitbart.com, which
is one of the premier "alt-right" media outlets that has consistently led the charge against the
globalist, anti-freedom agenda of the political establishment in Washington, D.C. Albeit, Bannon
is probably blind to the dangers of Zionism and is, therefore, probably naïve about the New World
Order. I don't believe anyone can truly understand the New World Order without being aware of the
role that Zionism plays in it.
To be honest, the possible appointments of Rudy Giuliani, Chris Christie, John Bolton and
especially Newt Gingrich are MORE than troubling. Rudy Giuliani is "Mr. Police State," and if he
is selected as the new attorney general, the burgeoning Police State in this country will go into
hyperdrive. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is already warning us about this. Chris Christie is
a typical New England liberal Republican. His appointment to any position bodes NOTHING good. And
John Bolton is a Bush pro-war neocon. But Newt Gingrich is the quintessential insider, globalist,
and establishment hack.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the globalist elite gave Newt Gingrich the assignment
of cozying up to (and "supporting") Trump during his campaign with the sole intention of being in
a position for Trump to think he owes Gingrich something so as to appoint him to a key cabinet post
in the event that he won. Gingrich could then weave his evil magic during a Donald Trump presidential
administration.
Newt Gingrich is a HIGH LEVEL globalist and longtime CFR member. He is the consummate neocon.
And he has a brilliant mind (NO morals, but a brilliant mind--a deadly combination, for sure).
If Donald Trump does not see through this man, and if he appoints him as a cabinet head in his administration,
I will be forced to believe that Donald Trump is clueless about "draining the swamp." You cannot
drain the swamp by putting the very people who filled the swamp back in charge. And that's exactly
what Trump would be doing if he appoints Gingrich to any high-level position in his administration.
Trump is already softening his position on illegal immigration, on dismantling the EPA, on
repealing Obamacare, on investigating and prosecuting Hillary Clinton, etc. Granted, he hasn't
even been sworn in yet, and it's still way too early to make a true judgment of his presidency. But
for a fact, his cabinet appointments and his first one hundred days in office will tell us most of
what we need to know.
What we need to know right now is that WE CANNOT GO TO SLEEP. We cannot sit back in lethargy
and complacency and just assume that Donald Trump is going to do what he said he would do. If we
do that, we might as well have elected Hillary Clinton, because at least then we would be forever
on guard against her forthcoming assaults against our liberties.
There is a reason we have lost more liberties under Republican administrations than Democratic
ones over the past few decades. And that reason is the conservative, constitutionalist, Christian,
pro-freedom people who should be resisting government's assaults against our liberties are sound
asleep because they trust a Republican President and Congress to do the right thing -- and they give
the GOP a pass as our liberties are expunged piece by piece. A pass they would NEVER give to a Democrat.
The difference in this election is that Donald Trump didn't run against the Democrats; he
ran against the entire Washington establishment, including the Republican establishment. Hopefully
that means that the people who supported and voted for Trump will NOT be inclined to go into political
hibernation now that Trump is elected.
I tell you again: this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to change the course of a nation. Frankly,
if this opportunity is squandered, there likely will not be another one in most of our lifetimes.
Interesting idea of defense against cultural revolution... Infiltration...
Notable quotes:
"... "In 1999 [Surkov] was invited to join Yeltsin's presidential administration and began carving out a central role for himself as the architect of Russia's new `post-factual politics', eventually becoming a special advisor to Putin. (..) ..."
Your description sounds almost exactly like what Vladislav Surkov is doing in Russia. Surkov
does things like pay fascists and anti-fascists to stage rallies then he announces that he's doing
this.
The result? Confusion among Putin's enemies about what's real and what's not, about what's
actually happening and what's just theater. It becomes impossible to enact a strategy against
Putin's policies when no one is sure what's really going on.
"In 1999 [Surkov] was invited to join Yeltsin's presidential administration and began carving
out a central role for himself as the architect of Russia's new `post-factual politics', eventually
becoming a special advisor to Putin. (..)
"According to Russian novelist Eduard Limonov, Surkov's stage management of power struggles
has `turned Russia into a wonderful postmodernist theatre, where he experiments with old and new
political models.'"
Is Trump just in it for the attention and is ready to outsource everything else?
James Wimberley 11.21.16 at 3:44 pm
Nicolas Sarkozy, as President of France, had a strategy of keeping his opponents off balance
by constantly announcing new policies and initiatives. This is not an exact match but at least
a parallel to Trump's manipulation of the media by a stream of novel outrageous statements and
tweets.
"... Former associates complain of Flynn's political tunnel vision that could wreak havoc in the Middle East. His consulting company, the Flynn Intel Group, appears to lobby for the Turkish government and Flynn recently wrote an article calling for all-out US support for Turkey, who Washington has been trying to stop launching a full scale invasion of Syria and Iraq. ..."
Flynn notoriously sees Islamic militancy not only as a danger, but as an existential threat to
the US. He tweeted earlier this year that "fear of Muslims is RATIONAL".
There is an obsessive, self-righteous quality to Flynn's approach that led him to join chants
of "lock her up" in reference to Hillary Clinton during election rallies. Former associates complain
of Flynn's political tunnel vision that could wreak havoc in the Middle East. His consulting company,
the Flynn Intel Group, appears to lobby for the Turkish government and Flynn recently wrote an article
calling for all-out US support for Turkey, who Washington has been trying to stop launching a full
scale invasion of Syria and Iraq. Unsurprisingly, the Turkish president welcomed Trump's election
with enthusiasm and sharply criticised protests against it in the US (something that would be swiftly
dealt with by police water cannon in Turkey).
A striking feature of the aspirants for senior office under Trump is a level of personal greed
high even by the usual standards of Washington. Trump famously campaigned under the slogan "Drain
the Swamp" and castigated official corruption, but it is turning out that the outflow pipe from swamp
is the entry point of the new administration.
Michael Flynn, expected to advise Donald Trump on counterproductive killing operations misleading
labeled "national security," is generally depicted as a lawless
torturer and assassin. But, whether for partisan reasons or otherwise, he's a lawless torturer
and assassin who has blurted out some truths he shouldn't be allowed to forget.
"Lt. Gen. Flynn, who since leaving the DIA has become an outspoken critic of the Obama administration,
charges that the White House relies heavily on drone strikes for reasons of expediency, rather
than effectiveness. 'We've tended to say, drop another bomb via a drone and put out a headline
that "we killed Abu Bag of Doughnuts" and it makes us all feel good for 24 hours,' Flynn said.
'And you know what? It doesn't matter. It just made them a martyr, it just created a new reason
to fight us even harder.'"
"When you drop a bomb from a drone you are going to cause more damage than you are going to
cause good. The more weapons we give, the more bombs we drop, that just fuels the conflict."
Will Flynn then advise Trump to cease dropping bombs from drones? Or will he go ahead and advise
drone murders, knowing full well that this is counterproductive from the point of view of anyone
other than war profiteers?
From the same report:
"Asked . . . if drone strikes tend to create more terrorists than they kill, Flynn . . . replied:
'I don't disagree with that,' adding: 'I think as an overarching strategy, it is a failed strategy.'"
So Trump's almost inevitable string of drone murders will be conducted under the guidance of a
man who knows they produce terrorism rather than reducing it, that they endanger the United States
rather than protecting it. In that assessment, he agrees with the vast majority of Americans who
believe that the wars of the past
15 years have made the United States less safe, which is the view of numerous other
experts as well.
Flynn, too, expanded his comments from drones to the wars as a whole:
"What we have is this continued investment in conflict. The more weapons we give, the more
bombs we drop, that just fuels the conflict. Some of that has to be done but I am looking for
the other solutions."
Flynn also, like Trump, accurately cites the criminal 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq as critical to
the creation of ISIS:
"Commenting on the rise of ISIL in Iraq, Flynn acknowledged the role played by the US invasion
and occupation of Iraq. 'We definitely put fuel on a fire,' he told Hasan. 'Absolutely there
is no doubt, history will not be kind to the decisions that were made certainly in 2003. Going
into Iraq, definitely it was a strategic mistake."
So there will be no advice to make similar strategic mistakes that are highly profitable to the
weapons industry?
Flynn, despite perhaps being a leading advocate of lawless imprisonment and torture, also admits
to the counterproductive nature of those crimes:
"The former lieutenant general denied any involvement in the litany of abuses carried out by
JSOC interrogators at Camp Nama in Iraq, as revealed by the
New York Times and
Human Rights Watch, but admitted the US prison system in Iraq in the post-war period 'absolutely'
helped radicalise Iraqis who later joined Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and its successor organisation,
ISIL."
Recently the International Criminal Court teased the world with the news that it might possible
consider indicting US and other war criminals for their actions in Afghanistan. One might expect
all-out resistance to such a proposal from Trump and his gang of hyper-nationalist war mongers, except
that . . .
"Flynn also called for greater accountability for US soldiers involved in abuses against Iraqi
detainees: 'You know I hope that as more and more information comes out that people are held accountable
History is not going to look kind on those actions and we will be held, we should be held, accountable
for many, many years to come.'"
Let's not let Flynn forget any of these words. On Syria he has blurted out some similar facts
to those Trump has also articulated:
"Publicly commenting for the first time on a previously-classified August 2012
Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) memo,
which had predicted 'the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality
in Eastern Syria ( ) this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want' and confirmed
that 'the Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood, and [Al Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving
the insurgency in Syria,' the former DIA chief told Head to Head that 'the [Obama] Administration'
didn't 'listen' to these warnings issued by his agency's analysts. 'I don't know if they turned
a blind eye,' he said. 'I think it was a decision, I think it was a willful decision.'"
Let that sink in. Flynn is taking credit for having predicted that backing fighters in Syria could
lead to something like ISIS. And he's suggesting that Obama received this information and chose to
ignore it.
Now, here's a question: What impact will "bombing the hell" out of people have? What good will
"killing their families" do? Spreading nukes around? "Stealing their oil"? Making lists of and banning
Muslims? Is it Flynn's turn to willfully ignore key facts and common sense in order to "advise" against
his better judgment a new president who prefers to be advised to do what he was going to do anyway?
Or can Flynn be convinced to apply lessons learned at huge human cost to similar situations going
forward even with a president of a different party, race, and IQ?
At least with Trump I expect him to talk crap but
Obama talks crap as well when he should know better:
The values that we talked about -- the values of democracy, and free speech, and international
norms, and rule of law, respecting the ability of other countries to determine their own destiny
and preserve their sovereignty and territorial integrity -- those things are not something
that we can set aside.
"... The various accounts present an array of neoconservative thinkers-notably Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, and Walter Slocombe-who implemented their own policies rather than those of the president they served. Moreover, one of the major influences on these policies was the Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi, who had thought he would be put in charge of postwar Iraq, having "been led to believe that by Perle and Feith," as General Garner related to the journalist Thomas Ricks. And while the responsibility for what happened ultimately lies with George W. Bush-who, to his credit, avers as much in his own memoir-this episode demonstrates how knowledgeable mid-level advisors can hijack the American presidency to suit their own goals. ..."
"... Regarding the de-Baathification order, both Bremer and Feith have written their own accounts of the week leading up to it, and the slight discrepancy between their recollections is revealing in what it tells us about Bremer-and consequently about Wolfowitz and Libby for having selected him. At first blush, Bremer and Feith's justifications for the policy appear to dovetail, each comparing postwar Iraq to postwar Nazi Germany. ..."
"... Simply put, Bremer was tempted by headline-grabbing policies. He was unlikely to question any action that offered opportunities to make bold gestures, which made him easy to influence. Indeed, another quality of Bremer's professional persona that conspicuously emerges from accounts of the period is his unwillingness to think for himself. His memoir shows that he was eager to put Jay Garner in his place from the moment he arrived in Iraq, yet he was unable to defend himself on his own when challenged by Garner, who-according to Bob Woodward in his book State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III -was "stunned" by the disbanding order. Woodward claims that when Garner confronted Bremer about it, "Bremer, looking surprised, asked Garner to go see Walter B. Slocombe." ..."
"... To help untangle these problems, I was fortunate to have Walt Slocombe as Senior Adviser for defense and security affairs. A brilliant former Rhodes Scholar from Princeton and a Harvard-educated attorney, Walt had worked for Democratic administrations for decades on high-level strategic and arms control issues. ..."
"... Although a Democrat, he has maintained good relations with Wolfowitz and is described by some as a 'Democratic hawk,'" a remark that once again places Wolfowitz in close proximity to Bremer and the disbanding order. ..."
"... This further illustrates the disconnect between what was decided by the NSC in Washington in March and by the CPA in Iraq in May. In his memoir, Feith notes that although he supported the disbanding policy, "the decision became associated with a number of unnecessary problems, including the apparent lack of interagency review." ..."
"... I should have insisted on more debate on Jerry's orders, especially on what message disbanding the army would send and how many Sunnis the de-Baathification would affect. Overseen by longtime exile Ahmed Chalabi, the de-Baathification program turned out to cut much deeper than we expected, including mid-level party members like teachers. ..."
"... Perle echoed this view two years later when he told Vanity Fair , "Huge mistakes were made they were not made by neoconservatives, who had almost no voice in what happened, and certainly almost no voice in what happened after the downfall of the regime in Baghdad." ..."
In May 2003, in the wake of the Iraq War and the ousting of Saddam Hussein, events took place
that set the stage for the current chaos in the Middle East. Yet even most well-informed Americans
are unaware of how policies implemented by mid-level bureaucrats during the Bush administration unwittingly
unleashed forces that would ultimately lead to the juggernaut of the Islamic State.
The lesson is that it appears all too easy for outsiders working with relatively low-level appointees
to hijack the policy process. The Bay of Pigs invasion and Iran-Contra affair are familiar instances,
but the Iraq experience offers an even better illustration-not least because its consequences have
been even more disastrous.
The cast of characters includes President George W. Bush; L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer, the first civilian
administrator of postwar Iraq; Douglas Feith, Bush's undersecretary of defense for policy; Paul Wolfowitz,
Bush's deputy secretary of defense; I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Richard
B. Cheney (and Cheney's proxy in these events); Walter Slocombe, who had been President Clinton's
undersecretary of defense for policy, and as such was Feith's predecessor; Richard Perle, who was
chairman of Bush's defense policy board; and General Jay Garner, whom Bremer replaced as the leader
of postwar Iraq.
On May 9, 2003, President Bush appointed Bremer to the top civilian post in Iraq. A career diplomat
who was recruited for this job by Wolfowitz and Libby, despite the fact that he had minimal experience
of the region and didn't speak Arabic, Bremer arrived in Baghdad on May 12 to take charge of the
Coalition Provisional Authority, or CPA. In his first two weeks at his post, Bremer issued two orders
that would turn out to be momentous. Enacted on May 16, CPA Order Number 1 "de-Baathified" the Iraqi
government; on May 23, CPA Order Number 2 disbanded the Iraqi army. In short, Baath party members
were barred from participation in Iraq's new government and Saddam Hussein's soldiers lost their
jobs, taking their weapons with them.
The results of these policies become clear as we learn about the leadership of ISIS. The Washington
Post , for example, reported in April that "almost all of the leaders of the Islamic State are
former Iraqi officers." In June, the New York Times identified a man "believed to be the head
of the Islamic State's military council," Fadel al-Hayali, as "a former lieutenant colonel in the
Iraqi military intelligence agency of President Saddam Hussein." Criticism of de-Baathification and
the disbanding of Iraq's army has been fierce, and the contribution these policies made to fueling
extremism was recognized even before the advent of the Islamic State. The New York Times reported
in 2007:
The dismantling of the Iraqi Army in the aftermath of the American invasion is now widely regarded
as a mistake that stoked rebellion among hundreds of thousands of former Iraqi soldiers and made
it more difficult to reduce sectarian bloodshed and attacks by insurgents.
This year the Washington Post summed up reactions to both orders when it cited a former
Iraqi general who asked bluntly, "When they dismantled the army, what did they expect those men to
do?" He explained that "they didn't de-Baathify people's minds, they just took away their jobs."
Writing about the disbanding policy in his memoir, Decision Points , George W. Bush acknowledges
the harmful results: "Thousands of armed men had just been told they were not wanted. Instead of
signing up for the new military, many joined the insurgency."
Yet in spite of the wide-ranging consequences of these de-Baathification and disbanding policies,
they-and the decision-making processes that led to them-remain obscure to most Americans. What is
more, it is unclear whether Bush himself knew about these policies before they were enacted. In November
2003, the Washington Post claimed, "Before the war, President Bush approved a plan that would
have put several hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers on the U.S. payroll and kept them available to provide
security." There had apparently been two National Security Council meetings, one on March 10 and
another on March 12, during which the president approved a moderate de-Baathification policy and
a plan, as reported by the New York Times ' Michael R. Gordon, to "use the Iraqi military
to help protect the country." (The invasion of Iraq began on March 19.) President Bush later told
biographer Robert Draper that "the policy was to keep the army intact" but it "didn't happen."
So the question remains: if CPA Orders 1 and 2 weren't Bush's policies, whose were they? In 2007,
Doug Feith told the Los Angeles Times that "until everybody writes memoirs and all the researchers
look at the documents, some of these things are hard to sort out. You could be in the thick of it
and not necessarily know all the details." Now that the memoirs have been written, it is time to
establish just who the policymakers were in May 2003.
The various accounts present an array of neoconservative thinkers-notably Feith, Paul Wolfowitz,
and Walter Slocombe-who implemented their own policies rather than those of the president they served.
Moreover, one of the major influences on these policies was the Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi, who had
thought he would be put in charge of postwar Iraq, having "been led to believe that by Perle and
Feith," as General Garner related to the journalist Thomas Ricks. And while the responsibility for
what happened ultimately lies with George W. Bush-who, to his credit, avers as much in his own memoir-this
episode demonstrates how knowledgeable mid-level advisors can hijack the American presidency to suit
their own goals.
♦♦♦
At the start of May 2003, the chief administrative entity in Iraq was the Office of Reconstruction
and Humanitarian Assistance (OHRA), which was replaced shortly thereafter by the CPA under Bremer.
The head of OHRA was General Garner, who worked "under the eyes of senior Defense Department aides
with direct channels to Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz and Under Secretary for Policy
Douglas J. Feith," according to the Washington Post . For his part, Garner strongly favored
a policy of maintaining the Iraqi army, and preparations towards this end began almost a year earlier.
For instance, Colonel John Agoglia told the New York Times that "Starting in June 2002 we
conducted targeted psychological operations using pamphlet drops, broadcasts and all sorts of means
to get the message to the regular army troops that they should surrender or desert and that if they
did we would bring them back." The Times reported earlier that under Garner's leadership,
"Top commanders were meeting secretly with former Iraqi officers to discuss the best way to rebuild
the force and recall Iraqi soldiers back to duty when Mr. Bremer arrived in Baghdad with his plan."
In the same story, the Times claimed that "The Bush administration did not just discuss
keeping the old army. General Garner's team found contractors to retrain it." Bremer, however, showed
up with policy ideas that diverged sharply from Garner's.
In his memoir, Bremer names the officials who approached him for his CPA job. He recounts telling
his wife that:
I had been contacted by Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and by
Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense. The Pentagon's original civil administration in 'post-hostility'
Iraq-the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, ORHA-lacked expertise in high-level
diplomatic negotiations and politics. I had the requisite skills and experience for that position.
Regarding the de-Baathification order, both Bremer and Feith have written their own accounts of
the week leading up to it, and the slight discrepancy between their recollections is revealing in
what it tells us about Bremer-and consequently about Wolfowitz and Libby for having selected him.
At first blush, Bremer and Feith's justifications for the policy appear to dovetail, each comparing
postwar Iraq to postwar Nazi Germany.
Bremer explains in a retrospective Washington Post op-ed,
"What We Got Right in Iraq," that "Hussein modeled his regime after Adolf Hitler's, which controlled
the German people with two main instruments: the Nazi Party and the Reich's security services. We
had no choice but to rid Iraq of the country's equivalent organizations." For his part, Feith goes
a step further, reasoning in his memoir War and Decision that the case for de-Baathification
was even stronger because "The Nazis, after all, had run Germany for a dozen years; the Baathists
had tyrannized Iraq for more than thirty."
Regarding the order itself, Bremer writes,
The day before I left for Iraq in May, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith presented
me with a draft law that would purge top Baathists from the Iraqi government and told me that
he planned to issue it immediately. Recognizing how important this step was, I asked Feith to
hold off, among other reasons, so I could discuss it with Iraqi leaders and CPA advisers. A week
later, after careful consideration, I issued this 'de-Baathification' decree, as drafted by the
Pentagon.
In contrast, Feith recalls that Bremer asked him to wait because "Bremer had thoughts of his own
on the subject, he said, and wanted to consider the de-Baathification policy carefully. As the new
CPA head, he thought he should announce and implement the policy himself."
The notion that he "carefully" considered the policy in his first week on the job, during which
he also travelled halfway around the globe, is highly questionable. Incidentally, Bremer's oxymoronic
statement-"a week later, after careful consideration"-mirrors a similar formulation of Wolfowitz's
about the disbanding order. Speaking to the Washington Post in November 2003, he said that
forming a new Iraqi army is "what we're trying to do at warp speed-but with careful vetting of the
people we're bringing on."
Simply put, Bremer was tempted by headline-grabbing policies. He was unlikely to question any
action that offered opportunities to make bold gestures, which made him easy to influence. Indeed,
another quality of Bremer's professional persona that conspicuously emerges from accounts of the
period is his unwillingness to think for himself. His memoir shows that he was eager to put Jay Garner
in his place from the moment he arrived in Iraq, yet he was unable to defend himself on his own when
challenged by Garner, who-according to Bob Woodward in his book State of Denial: Bush at War,
Part III -was "stunned" by the disbanding order. Woodward claims that when Garner confronted
Bremer about it, "Bremer, looking surprised, asked Garner to go see Walter B. Slocombe."
What's even more surprising is how Bremer doesn't hide his intellectual dependence on Slocombe.
He writes in his memoir:
To help untangle these problems, I was fortunate to have Walt Slocombe as Senior Adviser for
defense and security affairs. A brilliant former Rhodes Scholar from Princeton and a Harvard-educated
attorney, Walt had worked for Democratic administrations for decades on high-level strategic and
arms control issues.
In May 2003, the Washington Post noted of Slocombe that "Although a Democrat, he has maintained
good relations with Wolfowitz and is described by some as a 'Democratic hawk,'" a remark that once
again places Wolfowitz in close proximity to Bremer and the disbanding order. Sure enough, in November
2003 the Washington Post reported:
The demobilization decision appears to have originated largely with Walter B. Slocombe, a former
undersecretary of defense appointed to oversee Iraqi security forces. He believed strongly in
the need to disband the army and felt that vanquished soldiers should not expect to be paid a
continuing salary. He said he developed the policy in discussions with Bremer, Feith and Deputy
Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz. 'This is not something that was dreamed up by somebody at
the last minute and done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad. It was discussed,' Slocombe
said. 'The critical point was that nobody argued that we shouldn't do this.'
Given that the president agreed to preserve the Iraqi army in the NSC meeting on March 12, Slocombe's
statement is evidence of a major policy inconsistency. In that meeting, Feith, at the request of
Donald Rumsfeld, gave a PowerPoint presentation prepared by Garner about keeping the Iraqi army;
in his own memoir, Feith writes, "No one at that National Security Council meeting in early March
spoke against the recommendation, and the President approved Garner's plan." But this is not what
happened. What happened instead was the reversal of Garner's plan, which Feith attributes to Slocombe
and Bremer:
Bremer and Slocombe argued that it would better serve U.S. interests to create an entirely
new Iraqi army: Sometimes it is easier to build something new than to refurbish a complex and
badly designed structure. In any event, Bremer and Slocombe reasoned, calling the old army back
might not succeed-but the attempt could cause grave political problems.
Over time, both Bremer and Slocombe have gone so far as to deny that the policies had any tangible
effects. Bremer claimed in the Washington Post that "Virtually all the old Baathist ministers
had fled before the decree was issued" and that "When the draftees saw which way the war was going,
they deserted and, like their officers, went back home." Likewise Slocombe stated in a PBS interview,
"We didn't disband the army. The army disbanded itself. What we did do was to formally dissolve
all of the institutions of Saddam's security system. The intelligence, his military, his party structure,
his information and propaganda structure were formally disbanded and the property turned over to
the Coalition Provisional Authority."
Thus, according to Bremer and Slocombe's accounts, neither de-Baathification nor disbanding the
army achieved anything that hadn't already happened. When coupled with Bremer's assertion of "careful
consideration in one week" and Wolfowitz's claim of "careful vetting at warp speed," Bremer and Slocombe's
notion of "doing something that had already been done" creates a strong impression that they are
hiding something or trying to finesse history with wordplay. Perhaps Washington Post journalist
Rajiv Chandrasekaran provides the best possible explanation for this confusion in his book Imperial
Life in the Emerald City , when he writes, "Despite the leaflets instructing them to go home,
Slocombe had expected Iraqi soldiers to stay in their garrisons. Now he figured that calling them
back would cause even more problems." Chandrasekaran adds, "As far as Slocombe and Feith were concerned,
the Iraqi army had dissolved itself; formalizing the dissolution wouldn't contradict Bush's directive."
This suggests that Slocombe and Feith were communicating and that Slocombe was fully aware of the
policy the president had agreed to in the NSC meeting on March 12, yet he chose to disregard it.
♦♦♦
Following the disastrous decisions of May 2003, the blame game has been rife among neoconservative
policymakers. One of those who have expended the most energy dodging culpability is, predictably,
Bremer. In early 2007, he testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and
the Washington Post reported: "Bremer proved unexpectedly agile at shifting blame: to administration
planners ('The planning before the war was inadequate'), his superiors in the Bush administration
('We never had sufficient support'), and the Iraqi people ('The country was in chaos-socially, politically
and economically')."
Bremer also wrote in May 2007 in the Washington Post , "I've grown weary of being a punching
bag over these decisions-particularly from critics who've never spent time in Iraq, don't understand
its complexities and can't explain what we should have done differently." (This declaration is ironic,
given Bremer's noted inability to justify the disbanding policy to General Garner.) On September
4, 2007, the New York Times reported that Bremer had given the paper exculpatory letters
supposedly proving that George W. Bush confirmed the disbanding order. But the Times concluded,
"the letters do not show that [Bush] approved the order or even knew much about it. Mr. Bremer referred
only fleetingly to his plan midway through his three-page letter and offered no details." Moreover,
the paper characterized Bremer's correspondence with Bush as "striking in its almost nonchalant
reference to a major decision that a number of American military officials in Iraq strongly opposed."
Defending himself on this point, Bremer claimed, "the policy was carefully considered by top civilian
and military members of the American government." And six months later Bremer told the paper, "It
was not my responsibility to do inter-agency coordination."
Feith and Slocombe have been similarly evasive when discussing President Bush's awareness of the
policies. The Los Angeles Times noted that "Feith was deeply involved in the decision-making
process at the time, working closely with Bush and Bremer," yet "Feith said he could not comment
about how involved the president was in the decision to change policy and dissolve the army. 'I don't
know all the details of who talked to who about that,' he said." For his part, Slocombe told PBS's
"Frontline,"
What happens in Washington in terms of how the [decisions are made]-'Go ahead and do this,
do that; don't do that, do this, even though you don't want to do it'-that's an internal Washington
coordination problem about which I know little. One of the interesting things about the job from
my point of view-all my other government experience basically had been in the Washington end,
with the interagencies process and setting the priorities-at the other end we got output. And
how the process worked in Washington I actually know very little about, because the channel was
from the president to Rumsfeld to Bremer.
It's a challenge to parse Slocombe's various statements. Here, in the space of two sentences,
he claims both that his government experience has mostly been in Washington and that he doesn't know
how Washington works. As mentioned earlier, he had previously told the Washington Post that
the disbanding order was not "done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad"-in other words, the
decision was made in Washington. The inconsistency of his accounts from year to year, and even in
the same interview, adds to an aura of concealment.
This further illustrates the disconnect between what was decided by the NSC in Washington in March
and by the CPA in Iraq in May. In his memoir, Feith notes that although he supported the disbanding
policy, "the decision became associated with a number of unnecessary problems, including the apparent
lack of interagency review."
The blame game is nowhere more evident than in a 2007 Vanity Fair article entitled "Neo
Culpa," which was previewed online just before the 2006 midterm elections. Writer David Rose spoke
with numerous neoconservatives, who roundly censured George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Rumsfeld,
and Bremer for the chaos in Iraq. Speaking broadly about the Bush administration, Adelman said, "They
turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era." And Perle complained, "The
decisions did not get made that should have been. They didn't get made in a timely fashion, and the
differences were argued out endlessly. At the end of the day, you have to hold the president responsible."
Yet Perle's reflection on the timeliness of decisions conflicts with President Bush's account
rather strikingly. In his memoir, Bush writes:
I should have insisted on more debate on Jerry's orders, especially on what message disbanding
the army would send and how many Sunnis the de-Baathification would affect. Overseen by longtime
exile Ahmed Chalabi, the de-Baathification program turned out to cut much deeper than we expected,
including mid-level party members like teachers.
In June 2004, Bill Kristol was already censuring the president for his "poor performance," musing
that his school of thought has been collateral damage in a mismanaged foreign policy: neoconservatism,
he wrote, "has probably been weakened by the Bush administration's poor performance in implementing
what could be characterized as its recommended foreign policy." Kristol argued that "This failure
in execution has been a big one. It has put the neoconservative 'project' at risk. Much more important,
it has put American foreign policy at risk." Perle echoed this view two years later when he told
Vanity Fair , "Huge mistakes were made they were not made by neoconservatives, who had almost
no voice in what happened, and certainly almost no voice in what happened after the downfall of the
regime in Baghdad."
This downplaying of neoconservative influence in "what happened after the downfall of the regime
in Baghdad" is curious, and Perle is not the only person to have tried it. Max Boot, writing in the
same 2004 collection as Kristol, does the same thing when, after naming Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby,
Elliott Abrams, and Perle as neoconservatives who served Bush, he argues:
Each of these policy-makers has been an outspoken advocate for aggressive and, if necessary,
unilateral action by the United States to promote democracy, human rights, and free markets, and
to maintain U.S. primacy around the world. While this list seems impressive, it also reveals that
the neocons have no representatives in the administration's top tier.
But apparently it didn't matter that there were no neoconservatives in top positions-not when
one considers the knowledge and prior government experience of Vice President Cheney, the neoconservatives'
sponsor. In A World Transformed , George H.W. Bush writes of Cheney that he "knew how policy
was made." Barton Gellman observes in Angler , his book about Cheney: "Most of the government's
work, Cheney knew, never reached the altitude of Senate-confirmed appointees. Reliable people in
mid-level posts would have the last word on numberless decisions about where to spend or not spend
money, whom to regulate, how to enforce." In the end avoiding the highest positions in the administration
makes it all the more easy to dodge blame.
♦♦♦
Americans are painfully familiar with stories like this one, in which a coterie of advisors takes
policy in a dangerous direction with little or no knowledge on the part of the president. But the
case of the Iraq War and the decisions that followed the toppling of Saddam Hussein has a unique
importance-because we are still living with the consequences, and others are dying for them.
Democrats may be tempted to dismiss all that happened in the Bush years as simply the other party's
fault. Republicans have a comforting myth of their own in the belief that President Bush's 2007 "surge"
of U.S. forces into Iraq ended the country's instability, which only returned after President Obama
fully withdrew troops from Iraq in 2011. But as the role of Walter Slocombe-the Democratic counterpart
to Doug Feith in more ways than one-illustrates, Clintons no less than Bushes are susceptible to
this personnel problem.
Republicans, meanwhile, should consider retired Lt. Col. Gian Gentile's verdict that "the reduction
in violence" in Iraq in 2007 "had more to do with the Iraqis than the Americans," specifically with
the Sunni tribesmen's newfound willingness to fight (for a price) alongside Americans against al-Qaeda
and with Moqtada al-Sadr's de-escalation of Shi'ite activity. But regardless of what the surge did
or did not contribute to quelling the bloodshed in Iraq, the intensity of the civil war that raged
there in the first place was in considerable part a product of misguided de-Baathification and disbanding
policies-and the Islamic State today depends on the military and intelligence forces that Bremer,
Feith, and Slocombe casually dismissed.
When you have the wrong diagnosis, you risk coming to the wrong solution, no matter how clever
you think you are. As the GOP candidates for the 2016 presidential election have made their campaigns
official, they have been pummeled with hindsight questions about the Iraq War and ISIS, and no one
has a harder time facing this than Jeb Bush. In order to correctly address what to do about the Islamic
State, it is important to acknowledge what specifically went wrong with decision-making in the Iraq
War.
This episode highlights a weakness in the executive branch that is ripe for exploitation under
any administration. When the neoconservative Frank Gaffney, speaking about George W. Bush, told
Vanity Fair , "This president has tolerated, and the people around him have tolerated, active,
ongoing, palpable insubordination and skullduggery that translates into subversion of his policies,"
it seems incredible to think that he failed to see the irony of his assertion. But for those who
have a deep understanding of how the government works, it is quite possible to undermine a president,
then step back and pretend to have had minimal involvement, and finally stand in judgment. But now
that the story is known, the American people can be the judges.
John Hay is a former executive branch official under Republican administrations.
"In a sense – it was analogous with 9/11 nobody in the State Department wanted the consulate
to be at risk of being overrun by terrorists anymore than nobody in the intelligence community
or DOD wanted the Twin Towers and the Pentagon to suffer hits. Of course, Benghazi was 0.01% as
significant a tactical failure as 9/11 was but the failure was due to people who had been properly
assigned responsibilities not doing their job."
1. I am not sure what your point is here. Whether anyone wanted the events to occur is not
really the question. The issue is simly the behavior of the staff at the embassy in relation to
their superiors. The Sec. of State failed to respond to a request for more security. That is her
fault – directly. She took no steps based on the record. She ignored the real time assessments.
That is not the executive's fault. That is hers. Period. That isn't a tactical failure, that is
a supply failure. That is a leadership failre. It is not as if she was not inflrmed.
2. The Pres. of the US cannot be held directly accountable for 9/11 because neither the previous
admin. not the releveant organizations informed of very specicif data sets that have changed the
history of that day.
The failure rests:
a. the previous admin
b. the agencies responsible for immigration management
the FBI
c. CIA
d the airlines
Well as previously noted. Back to your tactical failure. Well, Libya was foolish on its face.
We shuld have informed the UK that under the circumstances further destabilizing the region would
be distaterous at best. The tactical problem, weponizing fighters over who we had no command and
control. Here again, the utter failure of the State Dept. and the CIA to comprehend who the players
were and their capabilities. There's plenty more, but let's leave it at that - again, a major
player was the Sec of State. The same could said of Egypt, Syria all areas in which the supposed
expertise would come from the CIA and the State Deprtment - That's on Sec. Hillary Clinton – directly.
That even playing the tactical and strategic game you intend to muddy the waters of responsibility
with were explicated - the fault lies on her desk.
"If only the brilliant neocon plan to invade and reform the middle east had been carried out
by competent neocons! Peace and democracy would be flowing the Tigris by now!"
" it appears all too easy for outsiders working with relatively low-level appointees to hijack
the policy process "
Especially when you have a president who's more interested in taking time off and clearing
brush, purposely allowing others to do his job. An administration with real leadership at the
top is not nearly so vulnerable to this kind of hijacking.
Irresponsible people in responsible positions, such as the neocons so note, the bankers who bet
the farm with our money, and pols on the take for reelection largesse need to do time.
"If only the brilliant neocon plan to invade and reform the middle east had been carried out by
competent neocons! Peace and democracy would be flowing the Tigris by now!"
I am not sure you are reading the same article I read. I guess one could make the case you
are advancing if they addressed some specifics, but that is not the case.
But there are credible reasons to beleive that the occupation would have been vastly different,
despite the civil conflict that had broken as the Us military rolled toward Bagdad.
Hay insinuates that there were things that could have been done AFTER the invasion that would
have prevented problems.
This is problematic.
The real army under Saddam Hussein, the Republican Guard, was Sunni. Shiites were used as the
fodder.
A Sunni army was not going to follow orders from a Shiite ruler - a Shiite ruler being the
inevitable result of elections. And a Shiite ruler was not going to tolerate a Sunni army or police
forces.
Bremer must have recognized this eventually, and went for a strategy of kicking the can down
the road.
I refer you to an article by General Odom some years back, and point out with regard to this
article Myth Number 2.
In May 2003, in the wake of the Iraq War and the ousting of Saddam Hussein, events took place
that set the stage for the current chaos in the Middle East. Yet even most well-informed Americans
are unaware of how policies implemented by mid-level bureaucrats during the Bush administration
unwittingly unleashed forces that would ultimately lead to the juggernaut of the Islamic State.
The lesson is that it appears all too easy for outsiders working with relatively low-level
appointees to hijack the policy process. The Bay of Pigs invasion and Iran-Contra affair are familiar
instances, but the Iraq experience offers an even better illustration-not least because its consequences
have been even more disastrous.
The cast of characters includes President George W. Bush; L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer, the first
civilian administrator of postwar Iraq; Douglas Feith, Bush's undersecretary of defense for policy;
Paul Wolfowitz, Bush's deputy secretary of defense; I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to
Vice President Richard B. Cheney (and Cheney's proxy in these events); Walter Slocombe, who had
been President Clinton's undersecretary of defense for policy, and as such was Feith's predecessor;
Richard Perle, who was chairman of Bush's defense policy board; and General Jay Garner, whom Bremer
replaced as the leader of postwar Iraq.
On May 9, 2003, President Bush appointed Bremer to the top civilian post in Iraq. A career
diplomat who was recruited for this job by Wolfowitz and Libby, despite the fact that he had minimal
experience of the region and didn't speak Arabic, Bremer arrived in Baghdad on May 12 to take
charge of the Coalition Provisional Authority, or CPA. In his first two weeks at his post, Bremer
issued two orders that would turn out to be momentous. Enacted on May 16, CPA Order Number 1 "de-Baathified"
the Iraqi government; on May 23, CPA Order Number 2 disbanded the Iraqi army. In short, Baath
party members were barred from participation in Iraq's new government and Saddam Hussein's soldiers
lost their jobs, taking their weapons with them.
The results of these policies become clear as we learn about the leadership of ISIS. The
Washington Post , for example, reported in April that "almost all of the leaders of the Islamic
State are former Iraqi officers." In June, the New York Times identified a man "believed
to be the head of the Islamic State's military council," Fadel al-Hayali, as "a former lieutenant
colonel in the Iraqi military intelligence agency of President Saddam Hussein." Criticism of de-Baathification
and the disbanding of Iraq's army has been fierce, and the contribution these policies made to
fueling extremism was recognized even before the advent of the Islamic State. The New York
Times reported in 2007:
The dismantling of the Iraqi Army in the aftermath of the American invasion is now widely
regarded as a mistake that stoked rebellion among hundreds of thousands of former Iraqi soldiers
and made it more difficult to reduce sectarian bloodshed and attacks by insurgents.
This year the Washington Post summed up reactions to both orders when it cited a former
Iraqi general who asked bluntly, "When they dismantled the army, what did they expect those men
to do?" He explained that "they didn't de-Baathify people's minds, they just took away their jobs."
Writing about the disbanding policy in his memoir, Decision Points , George W. Bush acknowledges
the harmful results: "Thousands of armed men had just been told they were not wanted. Instead
of signing up for the new military, many joined the insurgency."
Yet in spite of the wide-ranging consequences of these de-Baathification and disbanding policies,
they-and the decision-making processes that led to them-remain obscure to most Americans. What
is more, it is unclear whether Bush himself knew about these policies before they were enacted.
In November 2003, the Washington Post claimed, "Before the war, President Bush approved
a plan that would have put several hundred thousand Iraqi soldiers on the U.S. payroll and kept
them available to provide security." There had apparently been two National Security Council meetings,
one on March 10 and another on March 12, during which the president approved a moderate de-Baathification
policy and a plan, as reported by the New York Times ' Michael R. Gordon, to "use the Iraqi
military to help protect the country." (The invasion of Iraq began on March 19.) President Bush
later told biographer Robert Draper that "the policy was to keep the army intact" but it "didn't
happen."
So the question remains: if CPA Orders 1 and 2 weren't Bush's policies, whose were they? In
2007, Doug Feith told the Los Angeles Times that "until everybody writes memoirs and all
the researchers look at the documents, some of these things are hard to sort out. You could be
in the thick of it and not necessarily know all the details." Now that the memoirs have been written,
it is time to establish just who the policymakers were in May 2003.
The various accounts present an array of neoconservative thinkers-notably Feith, Paul Wolfowitz,
and Walter Slocombe-who implemented their own policies rather than those of the president they
served. Moreover, one of the major influences on these policies was the Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi,
who had thought he would be put in charge of postwar Iraq, having "been led to believe that by
Perle and Feith," as General Garner related to the journalist Thomas Ricks. And while the responsibility
for what happened ultimately lies with George W. Bush-who, to his credit, avers as much in his
own memoir-this episode demonstrates how knowledgeable mid-level advisors can hijack the American
presidency to suit their own goals.
♦♦♦
At the start of May 2003, the chief administrative entity in Iraq was the Office of Reconstruction
and Humanitarian Assistance (OHRA), which was replaced shortly thereafter by the CPA under Bremer.
The head of OHRA was General Garner, who worked "under the eyes of senior Defense Department aides
with direct channels to Rumsfeld, Deputy Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz and Under Secretary for Policy
Douglas J. Feith," according to the Washington Post . For his part, Garner strongly favored
a policy of maintaining the Iraqi army, and preparations towards this end began almost a year
earlier. For instance, Colonel John Agoglia told the New York Times that "Starting in June
2002 we conducted targeted psychological operations using pamphlet drops, broadcasts and all sorts
of means to get the message to the regular army troops that they should surrender or desert and
that if they did we would bring them back." The Times reported earlier that under Garner's
leadership, "Top commanders were meeting secretly with former Iraqi officers to discuss the best
way to rebuild the force and recall Iraqi soldiers back to duty when Mr. Bremer arrived in Baghdad
with his plan."
In the same story, the Times claimed that "The Bush administration did not just discuss
keeping the old army. General Garner's team found contractors to retrain it." Bremer, however,
showed up with policy ideas that diverged sharply from Garner's.
In his memoir, Bremer names the officials who approached him for his CPA job. He recounts telling
his wife that:
I had been contacted by Scooter Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, and
by Paul Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense. The Pentagon's original civil administration
in 'post-hostility' Iraq-the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, ORHA-lacked
expertise in high-level diplomatic negotiations and politics. I had the requisite skills
and experience for that position.
Regarding the de-Baathification order, both Bremer and Feith have written their own accounts
of the week leading up to it, and the slight discrepancy between their recollections is revealing
in what it tells us about Bremer-and consequently about Wolfowitz and Libby for having selected
him. At first blush, Bremer and Feith's justifications for the policy appear to dovetail, each
comparing postwar Iraq to postwar Nazi Germany. Bremer explains in a retrospective Washington
Post op-ed, "What We Got Right in Iraq," that "Hussein modeled his regime after Adolf Hitler's,
which controlled the German people with two main instruments: the Nazi Party and the Reich's security
services. We had no choice but to rid Iraq of the country's equivalent organizations." For his
part, Feith goes a step further, reasoning in his memoir War and Decision that the case
for de-Baathification was even stronger because "The Nazis, after all, had run Germany for a dozen
years; the Baathists had tyrannized Iraq for more than thirty."
Regarding the order itself, Bremer writes,
The day before I left for Iraq in May, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith presented
me with a draft law that would purge top Baathists from the Iraqi government and told me that
he planned to issue it immediately. Recognizing how important this step was, I asked Feith
to hold off, among other reasons, so I could discuss it with Iraqi leaders and CPA advisers.
A week later, after careful consideration, I issued this 'de-Baathification' decree, as drafted
by the Pentagon.
In contrast, Feith recalls that Bremer asked him to wait because "Bremer had thoughts of his
own on the subject, he said, and wanted to consider the de-Baathification policy carefully. As
the new CPA head, he thought he should announce and implement the policy himself."
The notion that he "carefully" considered the policy in his first week on the job, during which
he also travelled halfway around the globe, is highly questionable. Incidentally, Bremer's oxymoronic
statement-"a week later, after careful consideration"-mirrors a similar formulation of Wolfowitz's
about the disbanding order. Speaking to the Washington Post in November 2003, he said that
forming a new Iraqi army is "what we're trying to do at warp speed-but with careful vetting of
the people we're bringing on."
Simply put, Bremer was tempted by headline-grabbing policies. He was unlikely to question any
action that offered opportunities to make bold gestures, which made him easy to influence. Indeed,
another quality of Bremer's professional persona that conspicuously emerges from accounts of the
period is his unwillingness to think for himself. His memoir shows that he was eager to put Jay
Garner in his place from the moment he arrived in Iraq, yet he was unable to defend himself on
his own when challenged by Garner, who-according to Bob Woodward in his book State of Denial:
Bush at War, Part III -was "stunned" by the disbanding order. Woodward claims that when Garner
confronted Bremer about it, "Bremer, looking surprised, asked Garner to go see Walter B. Slocombe."
What's even more surprising is how Bremer doesn't hide his intellectual dependence on Slocombe.
He writes in his memoir:
To help untangle these problems, I was fortunate to have Walt Slocombe as Senior Adviser
for defense and security affairs. A brilliant former Rhodes Scholar from Princeton and a Harvard-educated
attorney, Walt had worked for Democratic administrations for decades on high-level strategic
and arms control issues.
In May 2003, the Washington Post noted of Slocombe that "Although a Democrat, he has
maintained good relations with Wolfowitz and is described by some as a 'Democratic hawk,'" a remark
that once again places Wolfowitz in close proximity to Bremer and the disbanding order. Sure enough,
in November 2003 the Washington Post reported:
The demobilization decision appears to have originated largely with Walter B. Slocombe,
a former undersecretary of defense appointed to oversee Iraqi security forces. He believed
strongly in the need to disband the army and felt that vanquished soldiers should not expect
to be paid a continuing salary. He said he developed the policy in discussions with Bremer,
Feith and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz. 'This is not something that was dreamed
up by somebody at the last minute and done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad. It was
discussed,' Slocombe said. 'The critical point was that nobody argued that we shouldn't do
this.'
Given that the president agreed to preserve the Iraqi army in the NSC meeting on March 12,
Slocombe's statement is evidence of a major policy inconsistency. In that meeting, Feith, at the
request of Donald Rumsfeld, gave a PowerPoint presentation prepared by Garner about keeping the
Iraqi army; in his own memoir, Feith writes, "No one at that National Security Council meeting
in early March spoke against the recommendation, and the President approved Garner's plan." But
this is not what happened. What happened instead was the reversal of Garner's plan, which Feith
attributes to Slocombe and Bremer:
Bremer and Slocombe argued that it would better serve U.S. interests to create an entirely
new Iraqi army: Sometimes it is easier to build something new than to refurbish a complex and
badly designed structure. In any event, Bremer and Slocombe reasoned, calling the old army
back might not succeed-but the attempt could cause grave political problems.
Over time, both Bremer and Slocombe have gone so far as to deny that the policies had any tangible
effects. Bremer claimed in the Washington Post that "Virtually all the old Baathist ministers
had fled before the decree was issued" and that "When the draftees saw which way the war was going,
they deserted and, like their officers, went back home." Likewise Slocombe stated in a PBS interview,
"We didn't disband the army. The army disbanded itself. What we did do was to formally dissolve
all of the institutions of Saddam's security system. The intelligence, his military, his party
structure, his information and propaganda structure were formally disbanded and the property turned
over to the Coalition Provisional Authority."
Thus, according to Bremer and Slocombe's accounts, neither de-Baathification nor disbanding
the army achieved anything that hadn't already happened. When coupled with Bremer's assertion
of "careful consideration in one week" and Wolfowitz's claim of "careful vetting at warp speed,"
Bremer and Slocombe's notion of "doing something that had already been done" creates a strong
impression that they are hiding something or trying to finesse history with wordplay. Perhaps
Washington Post journalist Rajiv Chandrasekaran provides the best possible explanation
for this confusion in his book Imperial Life in the Emerald City , when he writes, "Despite
the leaflets instructing them to go home, Slocombe had expected Iraqi soldiers to stay in their
garrisons. Now he figured that calling them back would cause even more problems." Chandrasekaran
adds, "As far as Slocombe and Feith were concerned, the Iraqi army had dissolved itself; formalizing
the dissolution wouldn't contradict Bush's directive." This suggests that Slocombe and Feith were
communicating and that Slocombe was fully aware of the policy the president had agreed to in the
NSC meeting on March 12, yet he chose to disregard it.
♦♦♦
Following the disastrous decisions of May 2003, the blame game has been rife among neoconservative
policymakers. One of those who have expended the most energy dodging culpability is, predictably,
Bremer. In early 2007, he testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee,
and the Washington Post reported: "Bremer proved unexpectedly agile at shifting blame:
to administration planners ('The planning before the war was inadequate'), his superiors in the
Bush administration ('We never had sufficient support'), and the Iraqi people ('The country was
in chaos-socially, politically and economically')."
Bremer also wrote in May 2007 in the Washington Post , "I've grown weary of being a
punching bag over these decisions-particularly from critics who've never spent time in Iraq, don't
understand its complexities and can't explain what we should have done differently." (This declaration
is ironic, given Bremer's noted inability to justify the disbanding policy to General Garner.)
On September 4, 2007, the New York Times reported that Bremer had given the paper
exculpatory letters supposedly proving that George W. Bush confirmed the disbanding order. But
the Times concluded, "the letters do not show that [Bush] approved the order or even knew
much about it. Mr. Bremer referred only fleetingly to his plan midway through his three-page letter
and offered no details." Moreover, the paper characterized Bremer's correspondence with
Bush as "striking in its almost nonchalant reference to a major decision that a number of American
military officials in Iraq strongly opposed." Defending himself on this point, Bremer claimed,
"the policy was carefully considered by top civilian and military members of the American government."
And six months later Bremer told the paper, "It was not my responsibility to do inter-agency coordination."
Feith and Slocombe have been similarly evasive when discussing President Bush's awareness of
the policies. The Los Angeles Times noted that "Feith was deeply involved in the decision-making
process at the time, working closely with Bush and Bremer," yet "Feith said he could not comment
about how involved the president was in the decision to change policy and dissolve the army. 'I
don't know all the details of who talked to who about that,' he said." For his part, Slocombe
told PBS's "Frontline,"
What happens in Washington in terms of how the [decisions are made]-'Go ahead and do this,
do that; don't do that, do this, even though you don't want to do it'-that's an internal Washington
coordination problem about which I know little. One of the interesting things about the job
from my point of view-all my other government experience basically had been in the Washington
end, with the interagencies process and setting the priorities-at the other end we got output.
And how the process worked in Washington I actually know very little about, because the channel
was from the president to Rumsfeld to Bremer.
It's a challenge to parse Slocombe's various statements. Here, in the space of two sentences,
he claims both that his government experience has mostly been in Washington and that he doesn't
know how Washington works. As mentioned earlier, he had previously told the Washington Post
that the disbanding order was not "done at the insistence of the people in Baghdad"-in other
words, the decision was made in Washington. The inconsistency of his accounts from year to year,
and even in the same interview, adds to an aura of concealment.
This further illustrates the disconnect between what was decided by the NSC in Washington in
March and by the CPA in Iraq in May. In his memoir, Feith notes that although he supported the
disbanding policy, "the decision became associated with a number of unnecessary problems, including
the apparent lack of interagency review."
The blame game is nowhere more evident than in a 2007 Vanity Fair article entitled "Neo
Culpa," which was previewed online just before the 2006 midterm elections. Writer David Rose spoke
with numerous neoconservatives, who roundly censured George W. Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Rumsfeld,
and Bremer for the chaos in Iraq. Speaking broadly about the Bush administration, Adelman said,
"They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the postwar era." And Perle complained,
"The decisions did not get made that should have been. They didn't get made in a timely fashion,
and the differences were argued out endlessly. At the end of the day, you have to hold the president
responsible."
Yet Perle's reflection on the timeliness of decisions conflicts with President Bush's account
rather strikingly. In his memoir, Bush writes:
I should have insisted on more debate on Jerry's orders, especially on what message disbanding
the army would send and how many Sunnis the de-Baathification would affect. Overseen by longtime
exile Ahmed Chalabi, the de-Baathification program turned out to cut much deeper than we expected,
including mid-level party members like teachers.
In June 2004, Bill Kristol was already censuring the president for his "poor performance,"
musing that his school of thought has been collateral damage in a mismanaged foreign policy: neoconservatism,
he wrote, "has probably been weakened by the Bush administration's poor performance in implementing
what could be characterized as its recommended foreign policy." Kristol argued that "This failure
in execution has been a big one. It has put the neoconservative 'project' at risk. Much more important,
it has put American foreign policy at risk." Perle echoed this view two years later when he told
Vanity Fair , "Huge mistakes were made they were not made by neoconservatives, who had
almost no voice in what happened, and certainly almost no voice in what happened after the downfall
of the regime in Baghdad."
This downplaying of neoconservative influence in "what happened after the downfall of the regime
in Baghdad" is curious, and Perle is not the only person to have tried it. Max Boot, writing in
the same 2004 collection as Kristol, does the same thing when, after naming Wolfowitz, Feith,
Libby, Elliott Abrams, and Perle as neoconservatives who served Bush, he argues:
Each of these policy-makers has been an outspoken advocate for aggressive and, if necessary,
unilateral action by the United States to promote democracy, human rights, and free markets,
and to maintain U.S. primacy around the world. While this list seems impressive, it also reveals
that the neocons have no representatives in the administration's top tier.
But apparently it didn't matter that there were no neoconservatives in top positions-not when
one considers the knowledge and prior government experience of Vice President Cheney, the neoconservatives'
sponsor. In A World Transformed , George H.W. Bush writes of Cheney that he "knew how policy
was made." Barton Gellman observes in Angler , his book about Cheney: "Most of the government's
work, Cheney knew, never reached the altitude of Senate-confirmed appointees. Reliable people
in mid-level posts would have the last word on numberless decisions about where to spend or not
spend money, whom to regulate, how to enforce." In the end avoiding the highest positions in the
administration makes it all the more easy to dodge blame.
♦♦♦
Americans are painfully familiar with stories like this one, in which a coterie of advisors
takes policy in a dangerous direction with little or no knowledge on the part of the president.
But the case of the Iraq War and the decisions that followed the toppling of Saddam Hussein has
a unique importance-because we are still living with the consequences, and others are dying for
them.
Democrats may be tempted to dismiss all that happened in the Bush years as simply the other
party's fault. Republicans have a comforting myth of their own in the belief that President Bush's
2007 "surge" of U.S. forces into Iraq ended the country's instability, which only returned after
President Obama fully withdrew troops from Iraq in 2011. But as the role of Walter Slocombe-the
Democratic counterpart to Doug Feith in more ways than one-illustrates, Clintons no less than
Bushes are susceptible to this personnel problem.
Republicans, meanwhile, should consider retired Lt. Col. Gian Gentile's verdict that "the reduction
in violence" in Iraq in 2007 "had more to do with the Iraqis than the Americans," specifically
with the Sunni tribesmen's newfound willingness to fight (for a price) alongside Americans against
al-Qaeda and with Moqtada al-Sadr's de-escalation of Shi'ite activity. But regardless of what
the surge did or did not contribute to quelling the bloodshed in Iraq, the intensity of the civil
war that raged there in the first place was in considerable part a product of misguided de-Baathification
and disbanding policies-and the Islamic State today depends on the military and intelligence forces
that Bremer, Feith, and Slocombe casually dismissed.
When you have the wrong diagnosis, you risk coming to the wrong solution, no matter how clever
you think you are. As the GOP candidates for the 2016 presidential election have made their campaigns
official, they have been pummeled with hindsight questions about the Iraq War and ISIS, and no
one has a harder time facing this than Jeb Bush. In order to correctly address what to do about
the Islamic State, it is important to acknowledge what specifically went wrong with decision-making
in the Iraq War.
This episode highlights a weakness in the executive branch that is ripe for exploitation under
any administration. When the neoconservative Frank Gaffney, speaking about George W. Bush, told
Vanity Fair , "This president has tolerated, and the people around him have tolerated,
active, ongoing, palpable insubordination and skullduggery that translates into subversion of
his policies," it seems incredible to think that he failed to see the irony of his assertion.
But for those who have a deep understanding of how the government works, it is quite possible
to undermine a president, then step back and pretend to have had minimal involvement, and finally
stand in judgment. But now that the story is known, the American people can be the judges.
John Hay is a former executive branch official under Republican administrations.
"In a sense – it was analogous with 9/11 nobody in the State Department wanted the consulate
to be at risk of being overrun by terrorists anymore than nobody in the intelligence community
or DOD wanted the Twin Towers and the Pentagon to suffer hits. Of course, Benghazi was 0.01% as
significant a tactical failure as 9/11 was but the failure was due to people who had been properly
assigned responsibilities not doing their job."
1. I am not sure what your point is here. Whether anyone wanted the events to occur is not
really the question. The issue is simly the behavior of the staff at the embassy in relation to
their superiors. The Sec. of State failed to respond to a request for more security. That is her
fault – directly. She took no steps based on the record. She ignored the real time assessments.
That is not the executive's fault. That is hers. Period. That isn't a tactical failure, that is
a supply failure. That is a leadership failre. It is not as if she was not inflrmed.
2. The Pres. of the US cannot be held directly accountable for 9/11 because neither the previous
admin. not the releveant organizations informed of very specicif data sets that have changed the
history of that day.
The failure rests:
a. the previous admin
b. the agencies responsible for immigration management
the FBI
c. CIA
d the airlines
Well as previously noted. Back to your tactical failure. Well, Libya was foolish on its face.
We shuld have informed the UK that under the circumstances further destabilizing the region would
be distaterous at best. The tactical problem, weponizing fighters over who we had no command and
control. Here again, the utter failure of the State Dept. and the CIA to comprehend who the players
were and their capabilities. There's plenty more, but let's leave it at that - again, a major
player was the Sec of State. The same could said of Egypt, Syria all areas in which the supposed
expertise would come from the CIA and the State Deprtment - That's on Sec. Hillary Clinton – directly.
That even playing the tactical and strategic game you intend to muddy the waters of responsibility
with were explicated - the fault lies on her desk.
"If only the brilliant neocon plan to invade and reform the middle east had been carried out
by competent neocons! Peace and democracy would be flowing the Tigris by now!"
" it appears all too easy for outsiders working with relatively low-level appointees to hijack
the policy process "
Especially when you have a president who's more interested in taking time off and clearing
brush, purposely allowing others to do his job. An administration with real leadership at the
top is not nearly so vulnerable to this kind of hijacking.
Irresponsible people in responsible positions, such as the neocons so note, the bankers who bet
the farm with our money, and pols on the take for reelection largesse need to do time.
"If only the brilliant neocon plan to invade and reform the middle east had been carried out by
competent neocons! Peace and democracy would be flowing the Tigris by now!"
I am not sure you are reading the same article I read. I guess one could make the case you
are advancing if they addressed some specifics, but that is not the case.
But there are credible reasons to beleive that the occupation would have been vastly different,
despite the civil conflict that had broken as the Us military rolled toward Bagdad.
Hay insinuates that there were things that could have been done AFTER the invasion that would
have prevented problems.
This is problematic.
The real army under Saddam Hussein, the Republican Guard, was Sunni. Shiites were used as the
fodder.
A Sunni army was not going to follow orders from a Shiite ruler - a Shiite ruler being the
inevitable result of elections. And a Shiite ruler was not going to tolerate a Sunni army or police
forces.
Bremer must have recognized this eventually, and went for a strategy of kicking the can down
the road.
I refer you to an article by General Odom some years back, and point out with regard to this
article Myth Number 2.
Bush was 100% at fault. He chose to appoint Rumsfeld and Cheney as top members of his administration.
These were strong-willed men who had both served his father well. The problem was Bush Jr. was
not his father. The old man was older and more experienced than either of his underlings AND he
was the President. As a result these strong personalities were truly subordinate to Bush Sr. Both
men were older and vastly more experienced than the son, and he was no match for them.
Hence the Iraq policy was not a coherent policy set by the office of the POTUS but many strategies,
often conflicting, because POTUS was absent. Some (Garner) were working to replace Saddam with
someone better, leaving the government in place, to facilitate a quick exit. Others (Bremer) thought
they were working to establish a capitalist democracy in the Middle East. And some I suppose some
(Kay) thought the war had been about WMDs.
Wah wah, Bush was a victim. Yeepers. My takeaway: the minions, advisors, apparatchik melt away,
and Bush- as those before him, and inevitably those to follow – somehow are also given a free
pass through plausible deniability. No man is an island, and one only need look at an aerial photo
of DC to realize that there are a LOT of moving parts, many folks with impact, and a ton money
floating around to lubricate the whole deal. Little Versailles on the Potomac , with lethal global
consequences.
It is crucially important that we identify, fire, and shame those whose bad faith, corruption,
and/or incompetence did so much to wreck the Middle East and damage America.
Articles like this are a step in that direction. Please publish more of them.
I knew the moment that Bush chose Cheney as his vp back in 00 that we were going to go to war
and Bush's humble foreign policy was going to be flushed down the toilet.
The heading of "The Deciders" claims that "The disastrous Iraq policies that led to ISIS were
not President Bush's."
You're joking?
How were these pivotal, publicly-announced policies not Bush's?
Bush was President!
The May 16, 2003 CPA Order Number 1 "de-Baathified" the Iraqi government and the May 23, CPA
Order Number 2 disbanded the Iraqi army. "In short, Baath party members were barred from participation
in Iraq's new government and Saddam Hussein's soldiers lost their jobs, taking their weapons with
them."
John Hay says that considering the discussions of these two areas of Iraq occupation policy
at two National Security Council meetings, (March 10 and March 12) "it is unclear whether Bush
himself knew about these policies before they were enacted."
But when two such vitally important polices were announced on May 16th and May 23rd, if the
President had seen that the announced policies were contrary to the policies he favored – and
that Order Number 1 and Order Number 2 represented in effect a mid-level mutiny within his administration's
chain of command – it was certainly Bush's duty as President to immediately rescind those policies
and to fire all of those responsible.
But President Bush didn't rescind the policies.
He didn't fire those who had issued policies allegedly contrary to his own.
Instead, he said nothing contrary to either CPA Order Number 1 or CPA Order Number 2 and allowed
the orders to stand.
I have no idea why the heading of this John Hay article claims that "the disastrous Iraq policies
that led to ISIS were not President Bush's" when in fact those policies WERE President Bush's.
I said at the time, it was obvious these clueless people were re-living WWII, and that it was
completely inappropriate, as are most historical comparisons. Rumsfeld even looked and talked
like someone out of the 1940s. It was comical in a sad sort of way. Virtually everyone in Saddam's
government was required to be a Baathist, down to the lowest levels. And there simply was not
the depth of education in the general population to be able to throw out an entire government,
including all of the working bureaucrats and to be able to quickly recruit new qualified people
and ramp up a new government effectively. It was not a developed country like Germany or Japan.
And just think about it. People who had spent their working lives in the Iraq government were
dumped out on the streets. And we thought they would consider us liberators?
When the story of America is written it will say that the fall came, not due to external aggression,
but to our own banal incompetence, prideful ignorance and hubris ..
Another way of saying we get the government we deserve and we're gonna' get it; good and hard.
So your point is that George "I am the Decider" Bush should not be blamed because all of the people
that he hand-picked and then trusted implicitly with no oversight are the ones who really screwed
up, is that it?
Don't get me wrong – I'm all in favor of naming the names of all the advisors down the line,
and holding them appropriately responsible (seeing as how they all continue to be employed as
advisors to the current candidates); but that in no way lets W off the hook for his own incompetence
as a leader.
"Political progress has come to a near standstill, and most of the established benchmarks for
progress – including provincial elections, the passage of de-Baathification laws, and a plan for
oil revenue-sharing – are far from reach." – Democrat House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, January
10, 2008.
Two days before the Iraqi parliament unanimously passed the "Accountability and Justice" de-Baathification
law.
I'd say this puts culpability for the Iraq debacle squarely in the laps of every voter who cast
a ballot for GW Bush in 2000.
After all – not only Bush's lack of foreign policy experience, but his inability to really
speak in depth on foreign policy during the campaign, constituted huge red flags. Yet voters lined
up to vote for this man who not only was inexperienced but seemed disinterested in foreign policy
– a complete lightweight – because as I heard over and over they were confident that he would
surround himself with "smart people" who would guide him.
So basically – everyone who voted for Bush deliberately voted for those self-same "smart people",
instead of the highly experienced and clearly well informed Gore, had served in Vietnam, had served
on the House Intelligence Committee (and introduced and arms control plan), had sat on the Senate
Homeland Security and Armed Services Committees, and had a record of trying to pull US support
for Saddam back in the 80's, when the Reagan Administration was still sending arms and money (Reagan
threatened a veto of his bill).
The GOP voters chose Bush knowing full well that guys like Bremer, Feith, Wolfowitz, Libby,
Pearle, and of course Cheney were going to be the ones doing all the heavy lifting on our foreign
policy.
Whether he knew it or not Bush '43 inherited a mess left by his father and Clinton. All of those
PNAC members believed they could subjugate Iraq and the rest would fall in line were mistaken.
The men and women who died in the Middle East from 1990 thru today were wasted.
I think the headline and tagline actually do a disservice to this otherwise excellent article.
They bring the reader in with the assumption that the author is trying exculpate Bush by distancing
him from these terrible policies, but that assumed intent is not borne out by the actual text
("while the responsibility for what happened ultimately lies with George W. Bush "). I think this
is a very informative chronicle of how government can be co-opted by mid-level bureaucrats, and
perhaps a title change might better reflect this focus.
There is great irony in the claim that Bush's de-Baathification policies in Iraq were inspired
by the de-Nazification policies in postwar Germany. For one of the lessons of that era was that
the policy of removing all Nazi Party members from positions of authority was foolish and made
governing Germany unmanageable. In due course, the policy of de-Nazification was loosened and
many functionaries of the Hitler regime, who had been NSDAP members but not ideologues and were
happy to serve the new order as they had been the old, were put in positions of authority and
the transition out of Allied Military Government and the restoration of a functioning German state,
a member of the anti-Soviet alliance, in the West was successfully accelerated. It was only late
in the Twentieth Century, with the rise of the neo-cons in American politics, that this history
was revised and the wisdom of even bringing ex-Nazi scientists to the U.S., who enabled us to
develop a new generation of weapons and win the "space race" with the Soviet Union, began to be
questioned. Magnanimity to the defeated in battle has always been the mark of a wise ruler. Incessant
reproaches for past sins is a prescription for unending division and strife in any society which
tolerates it.
I agree with those above who note that Bush was no more ignorant of the policies being implemented
by his government in Iraq than were the American people who heard it reported. He has no excuse
for not countermanding orders which were not his. He is responsible for all of them.
This was without a doubt Bush's fault and his decision. He was just not intellectually strong
enough to challenge or question the expertise of others. So he just let things flow as they did
without giving them the resistance and or rejections.
By pure coincidence I have been reading Woodward's book State of Denial mentioned in this article
for the last several weeks and the key players don't share the view that Bush was left out of
these decisions. It's a very compelling read.
If you've read Greg Palast's 2006 book "Armed Madhouse", where he talked about the State Department's
and National Security Council's pre-9/11 Plan A (which would have kept the Baathist power structure
pretty much intact) and the neocons' post-9/11 Plan B (which purged the Baathists from the military
and government), then you already know about all of this.
I vividly remember being laughed at, as far back as 2002, when I asserted that this entire bit
of inevitable, impending foolishness was due to half of Bush's Cabinet being drawn from the ranks
of PNAC.
The media (CNN, FOX, MSNBC, et al) only report the "news" that is "print to fit." They have
no knowledge of the truth (or no desire to report it).
Project for the New American Century . . . it isn't difficult; simply spend some time reading
the contents of their website. Why NOT learn all you can about the members of the President's
Cabinet?
The mainstream media isn't going to do it. It's up to us.
Saddam had left a Mao-styled revolution of guerilla nature in place before the invasion even started.
The work of Ali Ballout a journalist confirmed this in 2003. http://www.antiwar.com/orig/ballout1.html
There was no manner of invasion and occupation which would not have resulted in some type of
multi-pronged insurgencies and medium if not long term chaos.
Yes, the neocons assumed none of this, but they don't care much as long as they are not charged
with war crimes, their specific reputations are not harmed, and Israel is not threatened.
I absolutely hate the entire premise of the Iraq war but to play devil's advocate, are Conservative
non-interventionists saying that it would have been a success had we kept Saddam's army intact?
Certainly disbanding it was a disaster but I kind of shudder at the thought that this war can
somehow be justified on the basis that the occupation was simply botched.
On November 4, 1960 a group of us from my high school went to hear Dr. Wernher von Braun, who
was a featured speaker at the 76th Annual Convention of the Virginia Education Association in
Richmond. At the time von Braun was serving as director of the newly formed Marshall Space Flight
Center where he was the chief architect of the Saturn V launch vehicle, the superbooster that
would eventually propel the Apollo spacecraft to the Moon.
Dr. von Braun gave a very inspiration address and those in our group – most of whom were already
interested in a career in math, the sciences, and engineering-were thrilled.
The next week in school some of the teaching staff discussed with some of us who had attended
the speech the fact that Dr. von Braun had worked in Germany's rocket development program, where
he helped design and develop the V-2 at Peenemünde; during that time he had been a member of the
Nazi Party and the SS and had at times been involved in the selection and supervision of some
of the forced labor that was used in the V-2 program at Peenemünde. We all knew that, obviously,
Dr. von Braun and other German rocket scientists brought to the US after the war were exceptions
to the general US/Allied policy of de-Nazification. We, both students and teachers, had such an
interesting series of discussions with speakers on both sides of the issue.
William Dalton writes that "in due course, the policy of de-Nazification was loosened and many
functionaries of the Hitler regime, who had been NSDAP members but not ideologues and were happy
to serve the new order as they had been the old, were put in positions of authority and the transition
out of Allied Military Government and the restoration of a functioning German state."
I agree with two important points that William Dalton makes:
(1) "Magnanimity to the defeated in battle has always been the mark of a wise ruler. Incessant
reproaches for past sins is a prescription for unending division and strife in any society which
tolerates it."
(2) "There is great irony in the claim that Bush's de-Baathification policies in Iraq were
inspired by the de-Nazification policies in postwar Germany."
Without the de-Baathification, we may have ended up with a stable Iraqi government. That means
one that would now be headed by someone similar to Saddam Hussein. Until the people of Iraq can
resolve their differences – and they don't show any evidence of approaching this point – only
a despotic ruler can keep any order. The problem is that we don't want order. We want to chase
idealistic dreams. If we had any rational assessment of the situation in the Middle East, we wouldn't
have gone there in the first place. So the de-Baathification was logically consistent with the
misguided nature of our overall mission.
It is useful to remember the real goal behind deBaathification. And it wasn't because it was strategic
from a military/security standpoint. It was strategic from a purely ideological standpoint.
After WWII, the US government forced both Japan and Germany to accept labor unions, which had
been anathema in both nations prior to the war. Strong welfare provisions were incorporated into
both countries laws by the occupation authorities. And what do you know – both countries flourished
economically in the coming decades.
The Bush Administration was filled with Heritage vetted appointees who wanted Iraq to be a
new model – of what would happen if you took all the Heritage wet dreams and stick them into a
country and the moribund economy after the last decade of sanctions took off? It was to be a perfect
laboratory to demonstrate that right wing economic policies were the way to go. A flat tax, sale
of government assets to private companies, opening Iraq up to international corporations with
little or no regulation, dismantling Saddam's socialist economic infrastructure – these were seemingly
prioritized more by the people the Bush Administration sent to Iraq that security concerns. Dedication
to Heritage/free market principles was valued for Reconstruction authorities over knowledge and
experience in Middle Eastern geopolitics.
And you had to deBaathify Iraq, totally cleanse the government of Baathist officials and laws,
to make the Heritage Foundation's dream come true. In their mind, the deck was stacked – oil revenues
would guarantee success for their experiment, and provide a counter-narrative to the post-war
economic successes of Germany and Japan.
Alas – supply side economics can never fail – it can only be failed. See Kansas today.
"You're the one we voted for
So you must take the blame
For handing out authority
To men who were insane"
And again – those who voted for Bush in 2000 absolutely knew he was going to be handing out
that authority. They knowingly turned our foreign policy over to those "bureaucrats".
"Mr. Bush has unabashedly shown his dependence on Ms. Rice Ms. Rice's role is all the more
critical because Mr. Bush doesn't like to read briefing books on the nuts-and-bolts of national
security, and his lack of experience in foreign affairs has raised questions about his preparedness
for the White House. "
"While the junior Bush may lack his father's resume - CIA director, ambassador to China, architect
of the Gulf War victory - George W. has inherited some of his father's top aides, and with little
experience of his own, Bush says he will rely on their advice. "
"Mr Bush has shown little interest in getting to know the world beyond Texas, where he is governor,
having travelled abroad only three times in his adult life, excluding visits to neighbouring Mexico.
He has not even visited Canada. This means that Mr Bush, if he takes the White House, will inevitably
rely on more seasoned advisers in formulating America's future defence and foreign policy."
"I'd say this puts culpability for the Iraq debacle squarely in the laps of every voter who cast
a ballot for GW Bush in 2000."
I voted for G.W Bush for the Executive Office. And I have no issues taking responsibility for
my vote. I will also take responsibility for my failure in convincing him not to support:
1. the long term application of the PA
2. Invading Afghanistan as opposed to treating the matter as a course of law, thereby putting
the processes of the FBI, in conjunction with the State Department and if need be, the CIA, Special
Ops. – using an incision instead of a cudgel.
3. Not invading Iraq at all
I completely and utterly failed. That failure resides quite deep in my being. However, being
a conservative is not really responsible for the decisions made. In fact, if anything conservative
thought would have steered a far different course.
_____________________
I do not think for a minute that the author is denying where the ultimate responsibility lies.
To say that the "buck" stops at the executive office goes without saying.
The article dissects the failure to its managers. It's like Benghazi. Sure the executive must
ultimately bare responsibility. However, understanding how the director of the State Department
mismanaged matters is important in understanding government. Especially in terms of accountability.
And at its core is one of the reasons that big government (scale and efficiency) is problematic
to any organization. The ability of senior and midlevel managers to avoid responsibility for their
choices by blaming the upper echelons.
The lines of ownership get blurred through weak "delegated" accountability. It's similar to
the arguments made about 9/11. Nothing in the Admin. was available for them to act in CONUS on
the actors involved because that information was not passed on by the agencies that had it. The
general "hair on fire" threat analysis did not include known terrorists that had made it to the
US. It did not include data that the same were learning to fly airliners minus landing and take
offs(?). Any of the knowledgeable agencies could have acted minus direct involvement of the WH,
but they did not. Those agencies: CIA, FBI, State Department and the airlines application of "no
fly lists".
Sure September 11 occurred while Pres. Bush was in office, but there is a reason why one delegates
authority.
As to Iraq, absolutely, heads should have rolled. All of which is a matter of management style
within an organizations culture and environment. And on a scale this large - anyone who doesn't
comprehend that vital errors are only covered by chance more often than not, doesn't get this
article in my view.
I will skip the sad tales of the Iraqi government being Nazi's, by way of Chalabi and company.
But an examination of large scale conflicts, such as WWII, for example will reveal managerial
disasters that cost lost lives needlessly.
The Iraq example has one over riding reality. We never should invaded in the first place. Here
I think the Pres. ignored his instincts. My opinion despite the "cowboy" image, Pres. Bush is
not a decisive gunslinger and given the 9/11 scenarios. He needn't have been. I think no small
number of choices were undermined by others.
While I certainly appreciate sanctimonious retorts. The emotional anger and dismay experienced
by most of the country played no small roll in the decisions, including that of no small number
of democrats and liberals.
Forget the WH and Congress, trying explaining in sane language why actions taken should not
have been to members of the public was tantamount to treason.
So taking a cue from the vote for Pres. Bush to blame. How about anyone who supported the use
of the military in both campaigns.
The article makes telling points against Bremer, Feith, et al., but that does not and should not
absolve GWB. He was President, and the buck stopped with him.
I would add two points. First that wars are always messy affairs. Anyone who talks of surgical
wars is either a fool or a fraud (if not both). Second, this whole chain of events started with
GHW Bush's decision to go to war in 1990.
Rock Sash, I don't know if you were responding to my post but just in case you were thank you,
it provides a good explanation. In short, the more rational management of Iraq leads us closer
to the pre-invasion Iraq version of Iraq which of course means that we should not have invaded.
No one is suggesting that Saddam was a good guy and in fact, now that they have been birthed,
I wish the current govt of Iraq well. As someone who respects the sovereignty of nations I am
appalled at those who want to meddle further in Iraq by partitioning their country into three
separate countries to fix a problem that we created because we don't like that the Shiites are
the majority and are predictably aligned with Iran. No, let's leave them alone and let them re-take
the Sunni portion of Iraq and try to re-integrate it back into their country. If we meddle and
try to create 'Sunnistan' then the geniuses in our country are going to discover that it will
be harder than they think to keep it from becoming ISI(S-) 2.
If this is true, then clearly the inmates were running the asylum. And still are i.e. Benghazi.
And it was probably always thus, no matter whose administration was in charge. This suggests the
presence of some deep-seated structural problems not only within the Executive Department but
with the very way in which we presume to govern ourselves as a country.
@Connecticut Farmer If this is true, then clearly the inmates were running the asylum.
It seems to me that inmates running the asylum has been a feature of GOP foreign policy for
awhile (eg – Iran/Contra and Ollie North April Glaspie's assurances to Saddam that his border
dispute with Kuwait was not a concern to the US )
OTOH – Benghazi? I don't get the connection, except in that these days conservatives seem to
want to link Benghazi to everything.
"Conservative non-interventionists" worthy of the name would not attempt to justify the war,
period.
As far as voters owning a share of the guilt, I believe anyone who votes for candidates of
either of the corrupt duopoly rather than helping build alternative parties run the likely risk
of sharing
in any unjustified intervention ultimately carried out.
Granted this belief rests on the assumption both the GOP and Dems are either irredeemable or a
viable multiparty system is necessary to nudge them into redemption.
@ balconesfault who wrote: "After WWII, the US government forced both Japan and Germany to accept
labor unions, which had been anathema in both nations prior to the war. Strong welfare provisions
were incorporated into both countries laws by the occupation authorities."
You're right, balconesfault, that the "socialists" of the National Socialist German Workers
Party - like the "socialists" of the Union of Soviet "Socialist" Republics - banned membership
in all unions that were not under government control and they outlawed all strikes.
But you're wrong, balconesfault, with respect to Nazi welfare provisions. One of the means
by which the Nazis maintained strong popular support was through a generous welfare state that
particularly benefitted German lower classes. Hitler implemented price and rent controls, higher
corporate taxes, much higher taxes on capital gains, and subsidies to German farmers to protect
them from weather and price fluctuations. The Nazi government increased pension benefits substantially
and put in place a state-run health care system.
baconesfault – "After WWII, the US government forced both Japan and Germany to accept labor unions,
which had been anathema in both nations prior to the war. Strong welfare provisions were incorporated
into both countries laws by the occupation authorities. And what do you know – both countries
flourished economically in the coming decades."
Why must you always look at the world through donkey colored glasses?
Actually, the rejection of the US imposed economic straight jacket, which included price controls
is credited by economists in Germany for the economic success in Germany. The fathers of Ordo-liberalism,
Franz Bohm, Walter Euken, Ludwig Erhard, and others pushed these reforms. Erhard in particular,
as Economics minister defied the occupation authority and abolished the price controls and other
economic controls that were in place, and at the same time introduced the deutsche mark, replacing
the reichsmark. A hard money policy is a tenet of Ordoliberalism. They reject the concept of economic
stimulus.
Ordo-liberalism is a system that is a "third way" system between classical liberalism and the
socialist system. Its based on free market economics, but the adherents believe government is
required to ensure free markets remain free from monopolies and other manipulations that may occur
that would destroy a free market. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordoliberalism
@Johann Actually, the rejection of the US imposed economic straight jacket, which included
price controls is credited by economists in Germany for the economic success in Germany. The fathers
of Ordo-liberalism, Franz Bohm, Walter Euken, Ludwig Erhard, and others pushed these reforms.
OK – that's nice. You still did nothing to address the thesis.
The honey theory of Iraqi reconstruction stems from the most cherished belief of the war's
ideological architects: that greed is good. Not good just for them and their friends but good
for humanity, and certainly good for Iraqis. Greed creates profit, which creates growth, which
creates jobs and products and services and everything else anyone could possibly need or want.
The role of good government, then, is to create the optimal conditions for corporations to pursue
their bottomless greed, so that they in turn can meet the needs of the society. The problem is
that governments, even neoconservative governments, rarely get the chance to prove their sacred
theory right: despite their enormous ideological advances, even George Bush's Republicans are,
in their own minds, perennially sabotaged by meddling Democrats, intractable unions, and alarmist
environmentalists.
Iraq was going to change all that. In one place on Earth, the theory would finally be put
into practice in its most perfect and uncompromised form. A country of 25 million would not be
rebuilt as it was before the war; it would be erased, disappeared. In its place would spring forth
a gleaming showroom for laissez-faire economics, a utopia such as the world had never seen. Every
policy that liberates multinational corporations to pursue their quest for profit would be put
into place: a shrunken state, a flexible workforce, open borders, minimal taxes, no tariffs, no
ownership restrictions.
Great comments. I'll reiterate what I said previously about the general topic:
I don't think there are enough sane "mid-level" Republicans in DC to properly staff any incoming
administration, even a Paul one. I know that sounds harsh, but I know it in my gut, is that fair?
By all available lights, Cheney/Rumsfeld types and their lackeys still dominate the GOP on foreign
policy, hell, if even the Democrats are compromised, it is beyond me how anyone can believe that
a newly moderate and sensible GOP foreign policy staff has magically materialized in the last
eight years but is somehow still keeping largely silent. Where are they? Where's the proof that
the risks have been mitigated?
@Kurt Gayle But you're wrong, balconesfault, with respect to Nazi welfare provisions.
I did not say that the Nazi's did not have a welfare state (although they did limit beneficiaries
to those of Aryan blood). I merely noted that the reconstruction authorities incorporated strong
welfare provisions into the post-war laws of Germany and Japan, and that those countries economies
(and quality of life) flourished in subsequent years.
baconesfault – I don't think we are in much disagreement regarding the disaster that was Iraq's
occupation. I do not take issue with the fact that the Iraq economic disaster was set up by the
Bush administration. I don't think it was a failure of capitalism though. It was a long term Christmas
present for major corporations. And according to a friend of mine who was there as a civilian
working for the US Army Corps of Engineers, it was worse than crony capitalism. Outright theft
by contractors was rampant and purposely overlooked. I would not call that a failure of capitalism.
It was a predictable result of crony capitalism corruption and the lack of the rule of law.
"Benghazi? I don't get the connection, except in that these days conservatives seem to want to
link Benghazi to everything."
I am unclear if you understand the concept here. It is not generally referred to as surgical
warfare, though I get why you use the term. It's surgical "strike".
Those uses of force with very specific objectives and generally limitted goals. Ten tears too
late and anti-climatic at best, the capture of Bin Laden would be considred such an operation.
The Benghazi matter is simple. The executive in the WH delegatese State Deapt operations to
the Sec of State. While he is ultimately responsible because he sits at the head. The immediate
responsibility rests with those to whom he delegates authority. The Embassy personnnel send tepetaed
dispatches that the security environment in Libya id deteriorating and doing so quickly. They
dispatch the need for help. The State department misjudges, mischaracterizes or ignors the on
the scene damage reports and the call for help. Instead choosing to focus on the political response
to Libyan violence. Embassy is attacked and personnel are killed.
The Sec of State is immediately responsible. We now no so much more based on the details of
events. That anyone in the State Department should be ashamed for blaiming the matter on internet
videos or anything else other than our support for a rebellion, that backfired.
On the larger question, to accountability - Executives can mullify the impact by taking corrective
action and or holding his delegates responsible. I think the perception here is that no one has
been held accountable in either admin.
Perhaps, Sec. Clinton lost her position at the state department as consequence. But the accountability
for failed leadership in several disasterous foreign policy advances seems to be a bid for the
WH. Which begs the question - what does accountability mean.
In either admin. it seems to hold no value. I think the article demonstrates the issues very
well.
Very interesting article. I understand that it is not an apology or an excuse for W. Rather, it
is a deconstruction of the antics of what The Economist once referred to as "this most inept of
administrations".
It makes sense. So much attention is paid to the Executive that not enough is paid to the coterie
that comes with him. In W's case the was Cheney, Rove and those whom Bush Sr. referred to as "the
crazies in the basement".
Considering the role that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith et al played in ginning
up the war, it is not surprising that they and their cohort proceeded to screw it up once they
got it.
It was ill conceived and poorly executed and rightly stands as our most disastrous foreign
policy bungle ever. The fact that the authors still refuse to believe that it was ill conceived,
only poorly executed, shows what their judgement is worth. Nothing.
@EliteCommInc – I think the confusion I have here is over accountability for strategy, versus
accountability for tactics.
The de-Baathification of Iraq was a strategy. It was an enormous, ground changing plan, and
one would expect accountability for this to run directly to the Chief Executive, not only for
the giving responsibility for designing the strategy, but for approving the strategy itself.
Similarly, for the examples I brought up – Iran/Contra was a strategy. Selling weapons to Iran
and using money to fund insurgents in Nicaragua wasn't simply a matter of tactics. Again, it was
the responsibility of the POTUS to know this was going on, and Reagan failed on this count. Whether
or not the US had an interest in preserving the integrity of Kuwait's borders with Iraq was a
strategy, and not simply a tactic, and the President should have been involved in approving any
communications with Saddam on that point.
Benghazi was a tactical failure. In a sense – it was analogous with 9/11 nobody in the State
Department wanted the consulate to be at risk of being overrun by terrorists anymore than nobody
in the intelligence community or DOD wanted the Twin Towers and the Pentagon to suffer hits. Of
course, Benghazi was 0.01% as significant a tactical failure as 9/11 was but the failure was
due to people who had been properly assigned responsibilities not doing their job.
To the extent that someone dropped the ball with Benghazi, this wasn't due to mid-level bureaucrats
making their own policies independent of the POTUS. Our involvement in Libya itself was a strategy,
and Mr. Larison has repeatedly pointed out how it's a shame that the Benghazi committee has microfocused
on the tactics of protecting the consulate and the responsibility for failure to do so, rather
than on the strategy that put our diplomatic personnel in the middle of that tinderbox in the
first place.
That said, President Obama has clearly taken responsibility for the strategy. Our air cover
for Libyan rebels, and our subsequent diplomatic efforts, are on his plate.
Excuse me, but I knew before! the invasion that toppling Hussein and installing a Shiite regime
would unsettle that country and lead to civil war. I erred in thinking the civil war part would
happen sooner than it has. I am simply an informed housewife and librarian. George Bush should
have known, too, without any advisers telling him. Don't give me the both sides do it malarkey.
In the above cases within the strategy or tactic, it's remains the case of indivual failure.
________________
"The fact that the authors still refuse to believe that it was ill conceived, only poorly executed,
shows what their judgement is worth. Nothing."
In one of my rare defenses, I think you are dancing with an unknown. Whether the Iraq invasion
was wise or not is not really part of the question here. While one can acknowledge it's overall
veracity, ther is value in examining the details of what transpired afterwards that made matters
worse.
And i think disbanding the military was a huge contributor to subsequent events. And obviously
so. For the message was that members of the military were essentially now enemies of the state
they once fought to protect and as such they were on their own aort from state function. Excuse
me but departing weapons in hand to fight back against any reprisals or making the efforts of
the US and their newly established system makes perfect sense.
AHd they not disbanded the military which includes the admin. bureacracy, despite the head
having been dismantled would have vital foundational systems in place upon which basic services
would have remained functional, including and not the least of which was running water, electricty
and basic policing.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the invasion. Making assessments about subsequent decisions
and implementation are valuable in understanding what happened during the occupation. No doubt
that Iraqis patrolling the streets, who the people, the language, customs and had some legtmate
established authority would have been less problematic than US servicemen and, especially women
playingthat role.
"... With Trump, exactly the same thing has happened as with my Five Star Movement, which was born of the Internet: the media were taken aback and asked us where we were before. We gathered millions of people in public squares and they marvelled. We became the biggest movement in Italy and journalists and philosophers continued to say that we were benefitting from people's dissatisfaction. ..."
"... the amateurs are the ones conquering the world and I'm rejoicing in it because the professionals are the ones who have reduced the world to this state. Hillary Clinton, Obama and all the rest have destroyed democracy and their international policies. ..."
"... If that's the case, it signifies that the experts, economists and intellectuals have completely misunderstood everything, especially if the situation is the way it is ..."
"... Brexit and Trump are signs of a huge change. If we manage to understand that, we'll also get to face it." ..."
"... Until now, these anti-establishment movements have come face-to-face with their own limits: as soon as they come to power they seem to lose their capabilities and reason for being. Alexis Tsipras, in Greece, for example ..."
"... President Juncker suggested modifying the code of ethics and lengthening the period of abstinence from any private work for former Commission members to three years. Is that enough? ..."
"... I have serious doubts about a potential change in the code of ethics being made by a former minister of a tax haven. ..."
"... We've always maintained this idea of total autonomy in decision-making, but we united over the common idea of a different Europe, a mosaic of autonomies and sovereignties. ..."
"... If he wants to hold a referendum on the euro, he'll have our support. If he wants to leave the Fiscal Stability Treaty – the so-called Fiscal Compact – which was one of our battles, we'll be there ..."
"... Renzi's negotiating power will also depend on the outcome of the constitutional referendum in December. We'll see whether he sinks or swims. ..."
"... Neoliberal Trojan Horse Obama has quite a global legacy. ..."
"... Maybe it's time for the Europeans to stop sucking American cock. Note that we barely follow your elections. It's time to spread your wings and fly. ..."
"... "The Experts* Destroyed The World" - Beppe Grillo. Never a truer word spoken, Beppe! YOU DA MAN!!! And these "Experts" - these self-described "ELITE" - did so - and are STILL doing so WITH MALICIOUS INTENT - and lining their pockets every fking step of the way! ..."
"... As the Jason Statham character says in that great Guy Richie movie "Revolver": "If there's ONE thing I've learnt about "Experts", it's that they're expert in FUCK ALL!" ..."
"... Apart from asset-stripping the economy & robbing the populace blind that is - and giving their countries away to the invader so indigenous populations cant fight back... or PURPOSELY angling for WW3 to hide their criminality behind the ULTIMATE & FINAL smokescreen. ..."
"... It NATO collapses so will the Euro project. The project was always American from the start. In recent years it has become a mechanism by which the Poles (and other assorted Eastern Europeans) can extract war guarantees out of the USA, UK and France. It is a total mess and people like Grillo add to the confusion by their flawed analysis. ..."
Whatever the reason, we agree with the next point he makes, namely the overthrow of "experts" by
amateurs.
euronews: "Do you think appealing to people's emotions is enough to get elected?
Is that a political project?"
Beppe Grillo: "This information never ceases to make the rounds: you don't
have a political project, you're not capable, you're imbeciles, amateurs And yet, the
amateurs are the ones conquering the world and I'm rejoicing in it because the professionals are
the ones who have reduced the world to this state. Hillary Clinton, Obama and all the rest have
destroyed democracy and their international policies. If that's the case, it signifies
that the experts, economists and intellectuals have completely misunderstood everything, especially
if the situation is the way it is. If the EU is what we have today, it means the European
dream has evaporated. Brexit and Trump are signs of a huge change. If we manage to understand
that, we'll also get to face it."
Bingo, or as Nassim Taleb put its, the "Intellectual-Yet-Idiot"
class. It is the elimination of these so-called "experts", most of whom have PhDs or other letters
next to their name to cover their insecurity, and who drown every possible medium with their endless,
hollow, and constantly wrong chatter, desperate to create a self-congratulatory echo
chamber in which their errors are diluted with the errors of their "expert" peers,
that will be the biggest challenge for the world as it seeks to break away from the legacy of a fake
"expert class" which has brought the entire world to its knees, and has unleashed the biggest political
tsunami in modern history.
One thing is certain: the "experts" won't go quietly as the "amateurs" try to retake what is rightfully
theirs.
... ... ...
Beppe Grillo, Leader of the Five Star Movement
"It's an extraordinary turning point. This corn cob – we can also call Trump that in a nice way –
doesn't have particularly outstanding qualities. He was such a target for the media, with such terrifying
accusations of sexism and racism, as well as being harassed by the establishment – such as the New
York Times – but, in the end, he won.
"That is a symbol of the tragedy and the apocalypse of traditional information. The television
and newspapers are always late and they relay old information. They no longer anticipate anything
and they're only just understanding that idiots, the disadvantaged, those who are marginalised –
and there are millions of them – use alternative media, such as the Internet, which passes under
the radar of television, a medium people no longer use.
"With Trump, exactly the same thing has happened as with my Five Star Movement, which was
born of the Internet: the media were taken aback and asked us where we were before. We gathered millions
of people in public squares and they marvelled. We became the biggest movement in Italy and journalists
and philosophers continued to say that we were benefitting from people's dissatisfaction. We'll
get into government and they'll ask themselves how we did it."
euronews
"There is a gap between giving populist speeches and governing a nation."
Beppe Grillo
"We want to govern, but we don't want to simply change the power by replacing it with our own. We
want a change within civilisation, a change of world vision.
"We're talking about dematerialised industry, an end to working for money, the start of working
for other payment, a universal citizens revenue. If our society is founded on work, what will happen
if work disappears? What will we do with millions of people in flux? We have to organise and manage
all that."
euronews
"Do you think appealing to people's emotions is enough to get elected? Is that a political project?"
Beppe Grillo
"This information never ceases to make the rounds: you don't have a political project, you're
not capable, you're imbeciles, amateurs
"And yet, the amateurs are the ones conquering the world and I'm rejoicing in it because the
professionals are the ones who have reduced the world to this state. Hillary Clinton, Obama and all
the rest have destroyed democracy and their international policies.
"If that's the case, it signifies that the experts, economists and intellectuals have completely
misunderstood everything, especially if the situation is the way it is. If the EU is what we
have today, it means the European dream has evaporated. Brexit and Trump are signs of a huge
change. If we manage to understand that, we'll also get to face it."
euronews
"Until now, these anti-establishment movements have come face-to-face with their own limits:
as soon as they come to power they seem to lose their capabilities and reason for being. Alexis Tsipras,
in Greece, for example "
Beppe Grillo
"Yes, I agree."
euronews
"Let's take the example of Podemos in Spain. They came within reach of power, then had to backtrack.
Why?"
Beppe Grillo
"Because there's an outdated way of thinking. Because they think power is managed by forming coalitions
or by making agreements with others.
"From our side, we want to give the tools to the citizens. We have an information system called
Rousseau, to which every Italian citizen can subscribe for free. There they can vote in regional
and local elections and check what their local MPs are proposing. Absolutely any citizen can even
suggest laws in their own name.
"This is something never before directly seen in democracy and neither Tsipras nor Podemos have
done it."
euronews
"You said that you're not interested in breaking up the European Union, but rather in profoundly
changing it. What can a small group of MEPs do to put into motion such great change?"
Beppe Grillo
"The little group of MEPs is making its voice heard, but there are complications In parliament,
there are lobby groups and commissions. Parliament decides, but at the same time doesn't decide.
"We do what we can, in line with our vision of a world based on a circular economy. We put forward
the idea of a circular economy as the energy of the future and the proposal has been adopted by the
European parliament."
euronews
"One hot topic at the Commission at the moment is the problem of the conflicts of interest concerning
certain politicians.
"President Juncker suggested modifying the code of ethics and lengthening the period of abstinence
from any private work for former Commission members to three years. Is that enough?"
Beppe Grillo
"I have serious doubts about a potential change in the code of ethics being made by a former
minister of a tax haven."
euronews
"You don't think the Commission is legitimate?"
Beppe Grillo
"Absolutely not. Particularly because it's a Commission that no one has actually elected. That's
what brought us closer to Nigel Farage: a democracy coming from the people."
euronews "You don't regret being allied with Farage?"
Beppe Grillo
"It was an alliance of convenience, made to give us enough support to enter parliament. We've
always maintained this idea of total autonomy in decision-making, but we united over the common idea
of a different Europe, a mosaic of autonomies and sovereignties.
"I'm not against Europe, but I am against the single currency. Conversely, I am for the idea of
a common currency. The words are important: 'common' and 'single' are two different concepts.
"In any case, the UK has demonstrated something that we in Italy couldn't even dream of: organising
a clear 'yes-no' referendum."
euronews
"That is 'clear' in terms of the result and not its consequences. In reality, the population is torn.
Many people's views have done u-turns."
Beppe Grillo
"Whatever happens, the responsibility returns entirely to the British. They made the decision."
euronews
"Doesn't it bother you that Italy's Prime Minister Matteo Renzi is playing the spoilsport in Europe?
Criticising European institutions was your battle horse and now he is flexing his muscles in Brussels."
Beppe Grillo
"Renzi has to do that. But he's just copying me and in doing so, strengthens the original."
euronews
"Whatever it may be, his position at the head of the government can get him results."
Beppe Grillo
"Very well. If he wants to hold a referendum on the euro, he'll have our support. If he wants
to leave the Fiscal Stability Treaty – the so-called Fiscal Compact – which was one of our battles,
we'll be there."
euronews
"In the quarrel over the flexibility of public accounts due to the earthquake and immigration, who
are you supporting?"
Beppe Grillo "On that, I share Renzi's position. I have nothing against projects and ideas. I have preconceptions
about him. For me, he is completely undeserving of confidence."
euronews
"Renzi's negotiating power will also depend on the outcome of the constitutional referendum in
December. We'll see whether he sinks or swims."
Beppe Grillo
"It's already lost for him."
euronews
"If he doesn't win, will you ask for early elections?"
Beppe Grillo
"Whatever happens, we want elections because the government as it stands is not legitimate and, as
a consequence, neither are we.
"From this point onwards, the government moves forward simply by approving laws based on how urgent
they are. And 90 percent of laws are approved using this method. So what good will it do to reform
the Senate to make the process quicker?"
euronews
"Can you see yourself at the head of the Italian government?"
Beppe Grillo
"No, no. I was never in the race. Never."
euronews
"So, Beppe Grillo is not even a candidate to become prime minister or to take on another official
role, if one day the Five Star Movement was to win the elections?"
Beppe Grillo
"The time is fast approaching."
euronews
"Really? A projection?"
Beppe Grillo
"People just need to go and vote. We're sure to win."
BabaLooey -> Nemontel •Nov 21, 2016 6:27 AM
euronews: "You don't think the Commission is legitimate?"
Beppe Grillo: "Absolutely not. Particularly because it's a Commission that no one has
actually elected. That's what brought us closer to Nigel Farage: a democracy coming from the people."
BOILED DOWN - THAT IS ALL THAT NEEDS TO BE SAID.
Blackhawks •Nov 21, 2016 3:15 AM
Neoliberal Trojan Horse Obama has quite a global legacy. People all over the world
are voting for conmen and clowns instead of his endorsed candidates and chosen successor. Having
previously exposed the "intellectual-yet-idiot" class, Nassim Taleb unleashes his acerbic
tone in 3 painfully "real news" tweets on President Obama's legacy...
Obama:
Protected banksters (largest bonus pool in 2010)
"Helped" Libya
Served AlQaeda/SaudiBarbaria(Syria & Yemen) https://t.co/bcNMhDgmuo
Maybe it's time for the Europeans to stop sucking American cock. Note that we barely follow
your elections. It's time to spread your wings and fly.
Yen Cross -> LetThemEatRand •Nov 21, 2016 3:27 AM
Amen~ The" European Toadies" should also institute " term limits" so those Jean Paul & Draghi][JUNKERS[]-
technocratic A-Holes can be done away with!
NuYawkFrankie •Nov 21, 2016 5:07 AM
"The Experts* Destroyed The World" - Beppe Grillo. Never a truer word spoken, Beppe! YOU
DA MAN!!! And these "Experts" - these self-described "ELITE" - did so - and are STILL doing so
WITH MALICIOUS INTENT - and lining their pockets every fking step of the way!
As the Jason Statham character says in that great Guy Richie movie "Revolver": "If there's
ONE thing I've learnt about "Experts", it's that they're expert in FUCK ALL!"
Apart from asset-stripping the economy & robbing the populace blind that is - and giving
their countries away to the invader so indigenous populations cant fight back... or PURPOSELY
angling for WW3 to hide their criminality behind the ULTIMATE & FINAL smokescreen.
Yep -THAT is how F'KING sick they are. These, my friends, are your "Experts", your self-decribed
"Elite" - and Soros is at the head of the parade.
lakecity55 -> NuYawkFrankie •Nov 21, 2016 6:18 AM
You know the old saying, "an expert's a guy from more than 20 miles outside of town."
tuetenueggel •Nov 21, 2016 5:17 AM
Which experts do you mean Beppe ?
All I Kow is that those "experts" are too stupid to piss a hole in the snow.
Oettinger ( not even speaking his mother tongue halfways correct )
Jean clown Juncker ( always drunk too is a kind of well structured day )
Schulz capo (who was too stupid as mayor of a german village so they fucked him out)
Hollande ( lefts are always of lower IQ then right wing people )
Blair ( war criminal )
and thousands more not to be named her ( due to little space availlable )
caesium •Nov 21, 2016 6:35 AM
It NATO collapses so will the Euro project. The project was always American from the start.
In recent years it has become a mechanism by which the Poles (and other assorted Eastern Europeans)
can extract war guarantees out of the USA, UK and France. It is a total mess and people like Grillo
add to the confusion by their flawed analysis.
The bedrock of Italy was always the Catholic faith which the country has abandoned. "The Faith
is Europe and Europe is the Faith" said Hilaire Belloc. A reality that Grillo is unable to grasp.
"... But he has simultaneously opposed the agreement with Iran on its nuclear programme and criticised Barack Obama for pulling the last US troops out of Iraq in 2011 (though in fact this was under an agreement signed by George W Bush). ..."
"... The US army and air force is today heavily engaged in Iraq and Syria and that is not going to end with Obama's departure. In contradiction to Trump's non-interventionism, leading members of his foreign policy team such as John Bolton, the belligerent former US ambassador to the UN, has been advocating a war with Iran since 2003. Bolton proposes carving out a Sunni state in northern Iraq and eastern Syria, a plan in which every sentence betrays ignorance and misjudgements about the forces in play on the ground. As a recipe for deepening the conflict in the region, it could scarcely be bettered. ..."
"... There have always been crackpots in Washington, sometimes in high office, but the number of dangerous people who have attached themselves to the incoming administration may be higher today than at any time in American history. ..."
"... Optimists have been saying this week that Trump is less ideological than he sounds and, in any case, the US ship of state is more like an ocean liner than a speedboat making it difficult to turn round. They add privately that not all the crooks and crazies will get the jobs they want. ..."
In theory, Trump is a non-interventionist; opposed to US military involvement in the Middle East
and North Africa, he wants to bring the war in
Syria to an end. But he has simultaneously opposed the agreement with Iran on its nuclear programme
and criticised Barack Obama for pulling the last US troops out of Iraq in 2011 (though in fact this
was under an agreement signed by George W Bush).
But Bush and
Obama were both non-interventionists when first elected – until the course of events, and the
enthusiasm of the Washington foreign policy establishment for foreign military ventures, changed
all that.
The US army and air force is today heavily engaged in Iraq and Syria and that is not going to
end with Obama's departure. In contradiction to Trump's non-interventionism, leading members of his
foreign policy team such as John Bolton, the belligerent former US ambassador to the UN, has been
advocating a war with Iran since 2003. Bolton proposes carving out a Sunni state in northern Iraq
and eastern Syria, a plan in which every sentence betrays ignorance and misjudgements about the forces
in play on the ground. As a recipe for deepening the conflict in the region, it could scarcely be
bettered.
There have always been crackpots in Washington, sometimes in high office, but the number of dangerous
people who have attached themselves to the incoming administration may be higher today than at any
time in American history.
Optimists have been saying this week that Trump is less ideological than he sounds and, in any
case, the US ship of state is more like an ocean liner than a speedboat making it difficult to turn
round. They add privately that not all the crooks and crazies will get the jobs they want.
Unfortunately, much the same could have been said of George W Bush when he came into office before
9/11. It is precisely such arrogant but ill-informed opportunists who can most easily be provoked
by terrorism into a self-destructive overreaction. Isis is having a good week.
"... CNN is Paul's biggest alleged culprit, with nine entries, followed by the NY Times and MSNBC, with six each. The NY Times has recently come under fire from President-elect Donald Trump, who accuses them of being "totally wrong" on news regarding his transition team, while describing them as "failing." ..."
"... CNN's Wolf Blitzer is also amongst those named on the list. In an email from the Democratic National Committee (DNC) released by WikiLeaks, the DNC staff discusses sending questions to CNN for an interview with Donald Trump. ..."
"... So-called 'fake news' has been recently attacked by US President Barack Obama, who claimed that false news shared online may have played a role in Donald Trump's victory in the US presidential election. ..."
"This list contains the culprits who told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and
lied us into multiple bogus wars,"according to a report on his website, Ron Paul Liberty Report.
Paul claims the list is sourced and "holds a lot more water" than a list previously released by
Melissa Zimdars, who is described on Paul's website as "a leftist feminist professor."
"These are the news sources that told us 'if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,'"
he said. "They told us that Hillary Clinton had a 98% of winning the election. They tell us in
a never-ending loop that 'The economy is in great shape!'"
Paul's list includes the full names of the "fake news" journalists as well as the publications
they write for, with what appears to be hyperlinks to where the allegations are sourced from.
In most cases, this is WikiLeaks, but none of the hyperlinks are working at present, leaving the
exact sources of the list unknown.
CNN is Paul's biggest alleged culprit, with nine entries, followed by the NY Times and MSNBC,
with six each. The NY Times has recently come under fire from President-elect Donald Trump, who
accuses them of being "totally wrong" on news regarding his transition team, while describing
them as "failing."
The publication hit back, however, saying their business has increased since his election,
with a surge in new subscriptions.
CNN's Wolf Blitzer is also amongst those named on the list. In an email from the Democratic
National Committee (DNC) released by WikiLeaks, the DNC staff discusses sending questions to CNN
for an interview with Donald Trump.
Also listed is NY Times journalist Maggie Haberman, whom leaked emails showed working closely
with Clinton's campaign to present the Democratic candidate in a favorable light.
So-called 'fake news' has been recently attacked by US President Barack Obama, who claimed
that false news shared online may have played a role in Donald Trump's victory in the US presidential
election.
Facebook head Mark Zuckerberg has now said that the social media site may begin entrusting
third parties with filtering the news.
"Russian security firm says iPhone secretly logs all your phone calls"
By Mike Wehner...Nov 17, 2016...10:36 AM
"A Russian security firm is casting doubt on just how big of an ally Apple is when it comes to
consumer privacy. In a new report, the company alleges that Apple's iCloud retains the entire call
history of every iPhone for as long as four months, making it an easy target for law enforcement
and surveillance.
The firm, Elcomsoft, discovered that as long as a user has iCloud enabled, their call history
is synced and stored. The log includes phone numbers, dates and durations of the calls, and even
missed calls, but the log doesn't stop there; FaceTime call logs, as well as calls from apps that
utilize the "Call History" feature, such as Facebook and WhatsApp, are also stored.
There is also apparently no way to actually disable the feature without disabling iCloud entirely,
as there is no toggle for call syncing.
"We offer call history syncing as a convenience to our customers so that they can return calls
from any of their devices," an Apple spokesperson told The Intercept via email."Device data is encrypted
with a user's passcode, and access to iCloud data including backups requires the user's Apple ID
and password. Apple recommends all customers select strong passwords and use two-factor authentication."
But security from unauthorized eyes isn't what users should be worrying about, according to former
FBI agent and computer forensics expert Robert Osgood. "Absolutely this is an advantage [for law
enforcement]," Osgood told The Intercept. ""Four months is a long time [to retain call logs]. It's
generally 30 or 60 days for telecom providers, because they don't want to keep more [records] than
they absolutely have to."
If the name Elcomsoft sounds familiar, it's because the company's phone-cracking software was
used by many of the hackers involved in 2014's massive celebrity nudes leak. Elcomsoft's "Phone Breaker"
software claims the ability to crack iCloud backups, as well as backup files from Microsoft OneDrive
and BlackBerry."
Neoliberal MSM campaign against Trump didn't stop at all after the election. Important to monitor
that. So much at stake.
Notable quotes:
"... The amount of libtard hystericals getting about is unbelievable. They really were under a deep, deep [neoliberal] MSM spell. The denial and anger phase looks very nasty. ..."
"... the usa state dept is so knee high in bullshit, along with the majority of media related people, right on down to the gutter as expressed thru the NYT, WAPO and WSJ - they can't see straight, even if it's pointed out to them.. ..."
"... yes - begin with the wmds of saddam and continue on in that rut - it is what American presidents do now.. is there a chance trump will be different? he is going against the grain and it will be an uphill slog, but it would be good if the naysayers gave the guy as chance. ..."
"... The finance sector and the medias that they support are having problems digesting the 105 millions wasted on Hillary. Then how many readers have decided that MSM was a waste of money and cancelled their subscriptions? Who takes seriouly CNN or the NYT or the Guardian who have hysterically supported their pathetic candidate by demonizing Trump? ..."
"... People have become highly suspicious of news and 'analysis' from the MSM... Trump has opened the eyes of the americans to the manipulation of information that the MSM commonly practiced and is not usually exposed. It has now been exposed and the relation with the media will never be the same anymore. They have lost their credibility for a long long time ..."
"... Interesting alternative news search engine www.goodgopher.com ..."
"... I once counted on a very liberal and heavily viewed liberal website 26 anti-Trump stories. One or two positive Hillary stories all claiming support for her because she had a vagina. AT the end of the day, more people knew more about Trump than Clinton. ..."
"... One position that people probably knew about Hillary was that she hated Putin (and China). ..."
"... And apparently on the one position she really staked her election, people who voted didn't give a shit. The voters in WI, PA, MI, Ohio, and FL certainly did not seem to care. ..."
"... Klein was unsurprised to see Mrs. Clinton playing the blame game after the election. "Have you ever known Hillary to take responsibility for anything?" he asked ..."
"... The US has voted against global hegemony. That was their choices. A do or die effort for global hegemon under Clinton, or a controlled descent to a regional power/world power among others under Trump. Though the neo-con passengers are in a panic and may cause the aircraft to crash rather than glide in for a controlled landing. Either way I don't care, so long as the US goes down. ..."
Hey, calm down there buddy. Deep breaths, in with the good, out with the bad. The votes are
in. The Don won. Rigged MSM polls didn't hurt The Don, they hurt Hillary - no one got out of bed
to go to the races. Game over.
You gotta lighten up a little there old soldier... If Trump could win, against all odds, against
the money, against the media collusion, against the establishment, against the neocons, against
rampant neoliberalism, against the bookies, against his own party...then surely that is a sign
that democracy is alive and kicking, right...? Go grab a beer.
The amount of libtard hystericals getting about is unbelievable. They really were under
a deep, deep [neoliberal] MSM spell. The denial and anger phase looks very nasty.
thanks b, for hammering away at this.. it bears repeating.. as @3 karlof1 points out and which
i pointed out on the previous thread - the usa state dept is so knee high in bullshit, along
with the majority of media related people, right on down to the gutter as expressed thru the NYT,
WAPO and WSJ - they can't see straight, even if it's pointed out to them..
yes - begin with the wmds of saddam and continue on in that rut - it is what American presidents
do now.. is there a chance trump will be different? he is going against the grain and it will
be an uphill slog, but it would be good if the naysayers gave the guy as chance.
@6 perimetr.. indeed, if you've seen one jackass, you've seen them all.. our local resident
troll ron showalter fits the bill plaguing moa for the time being..
The finance sector and the medias that they support are having problems digesting the 105
millions wasted on Hillary. Then how many readers have decided that MSM was a waste of money and
cancelled their subscriptions? Who takes seriouly CNN or the NYT or the Guardian who have hysterically
supported their pathetic candidate by demonizing Trump?
People have become highly suspicious of news and 'analysis' from the MSM... Trump has opened
the eyes of the americans to the manipulation of information that the MSM commonly practiced and
is not usually exposed. It has now been exposed and the relation with the media will never be
the same anymore. They have lost their credibility for a long long time
Yes, b. It is very frustrating when the media (which brags about being "most trusted news source")
takes things Trump has said and then twists them. He said that some illegals bring crime (and
some are good people) and this has been twisted to him saying illegal immigrants (as in ALL) are
bad guys. And they're still doing it.
But now Google and Facebook have said they're going after fake news as in their own version
of censorship. And youre right that real bad news on Clinton has been ignored or minimized like
her accomplishment with Libya or that industry gave her campaign 25 times as much as to Trump's.
"...is there a chance trump will be different? he is going against the grain and it will
be an uphill slog, but it would be good if the naysayers gave the guy as chance..."
There is every chance. This is because the MSM is operating against Trump in a way that the
MSM should have been operating against G.W.Bush, against Obama's covert war abroad and
upon his own people.
Where was the MSM in collective outcry when Barry'O signed the NDAA into effect a minute before
midnight one New Years Eve...? Indefinite detention without charge for all...!! What a greasy
fukker...but not a peep from the MSM. All very hush-hush...all very fascist. Corporate media...corporate
anything...all on board. And liberals are proud of this guy...? What a snake.
But The Don won't be able to get away with that in his 1st term. No no. Only today it was reported
he took a dump before eating a ham sandwich instead of talking to the press at lunchtime. This
is news. (?)
The 4th Estate retain special freedoms that are meant to be a check upon power. Over the years
they have been slowly eroded. Obama's war on whistle-blowers' was pretty sadistic... but, under
Hillary the medsubversion of the MSM would have been complete.
Hysterical libtards don't understand the bullet they just dodged... and the MSM will either
have total faith lost or find it's adversarial balance on power.
Good point Maddie. I too reckon Don will have to allow the spirits to calm down a bit to create
some space for some real chistkas behind the curtains.
Hiring an "ex" Goldman Sachs bitch boy or two for a couple of top spots might create such an
environment of plausible revolution denial, while keeping the banksterim calm, at least for a
while. Everything needs to look legit for the first year or two. I'd personally start with cleaning
up the supreme court - that Ginsburg lizard needs to be replaced with someone a bit less foreign
loyalty-ish, dual citizen-ish let's say.
The only downsides is that the most short-fused among the Tea Party-ists might get the cold
feet real early, even feel betrayed. Which, as long as kept under check with symbolic anti-illegal
moves, and going a bit tougher on the Saudis (is there anyone with half a working brain that genuinely
believes Trump has anything against Latinos, even "illegal" ones, in general?).
In the short to medium run, even support for Bibi's fascist day to day excesses might increase.
The Zio frog must be calmed down first, and only then slowly microwaved.
Manta 11.18.16 at 10:39 am
If a news source get some confidential information, the criterion on whether to publish it or
not should be: "1) is it true? 2) is it (reasonably) complete? 3) is it of interest to the public?"
The identity of the source is relevant only to decide 1) and 2) (for instance, if a candidate
campaign passes some information about the opponent, the news source should investigate more carefully
about 1) and 2) )
On that score, Wikileaks did the right thing in publishing the Clinton email dump.
It fitted the criteria: as far as I know, Hillary never tried to claim that they were forged (but
see the bbc article linked below), and if some emails that would have given more background were
missing , she could have released them.
The alternative for Wikileaks would have been "we got a ton of information about a candidate,
but we will not publish it because it may damage her".
"Rather than face up to the fact that Hillary Clinton has little appeal outside of Goldman
Sachs and whatever the Project for a New American Century is called these days, Democrats are
cursing Sanders fans, third-party voters, and non-voters with a hatred usually reserved for vegans.
Since they can only imagine their own upper-middle class lives orbiting major urban centers, the
loudest Democrats think that everyone who's not exactly like them is a racist, woman-hating cretin,
and hope " that
they be educated and moved to the vicinity of the major hubs in the northeast and western
parts, that they die off [or] that a country would attack the United States and obliterate them."
Those leftist critiques of Obama or Clinton that do manage to penetrate this fantasy-world
get angrily dismissed as right-wing media conspiracy theories or Kremlin propaganda. And finally,
as with any good whitewash, liberals are going to pretend that Donald Trump represents something
totally alien and uniquely menacing, as though Obama hasn't done everything Trump says he will.
And now, as soon as humanity has its first shot at finally being rid of the Clintons, and taking
a small step back from the brink of ultimate atomic horror, these people want to gnash their teeth
about America finally becoming fascist.
Fuck them.
If Trump is a fascist, them countless prominent American liberals are too, chief among them
the widely beloved Barack Obama. Contemporary America doesn't look like Nazi Germany for the simple
reason that it isn't Nazi Germany (J. Sakai argues that "
Settlerism filled
the space that fascism normally occupies"). What the Democrats offer is a slightly more "woke
fascism," in which the slave-owning settlers are remade in entertainment media
as cool black guys , with all the "problematic" racist history elided via a harmonious multi-ethnic
makeover.
It's worth noting that Donald Trump makes overtures to the same woke fascism as Obama and Clinton:
after the Pulse nightclub massacre, Trump promised to defend "
the LGBTQ
community " from foreign attackers. In other words, Trump and Clinton alike promise a typically
colonialist defense of liberal values like gay rights from the swarthy hordes.
So color me unim-fucking-pressed that now that a blatantly villainous Republican is headed
for the White House, everyone is talking about a united front against fascism. Of course, given
that the vast majority of the newly radicalized loved and still love the child-murdering
white supremacist Barack Obama, what we're talking about is a just another united front against
the GOP.
I know it's ancient history to be talking about the Bush years, just like it's hopelessly passé
to unironically talk about "imperialism" in 2016, but please indulge me. I remember back when
George W. Bush was president, torturing people around the world, "shredding the Constitution,"
attacking Iraq and Afghanistan and threatening Iran with nukes. At the time, it was pretty common,
even popular and fashionable, to call the president a fascist. Even on TV! Everyone who wasn't
a Republican was radical: it seemed like Democrats and communists alike could gripe over everything
from a stolen Florida election to the invasion of Iraq.
Then sometime around 2007, a neoliberal and fundamentally conservative mediocrity named Barack
Obama showed up, and while he made a lot of noise about how different he was, there was almost
nothing of substance to back it up. Once he was president, all the stuff that was proof of George
W.'s fascism became a trifling issue, a simple mistake, or a regrettable necessity when Obama
did it. As Obama continued George Bush's legacy, and as Dick Cheney came out in support of Hillary
Clinton, liberals stopped thinking of the Bush administration as a fascist criminal enterprise
and started seeing it through Sorkin-colored glasses, with a
George Bush-Michelle Obama hug at the twilight of the Obama presidency marking the decisive
transition."
At least with Trump I expect him to talk crap but
Obama talks crap as well when he should know better:
The values that we talked about -- the values of democracy, and free speech, and international
norms, and rule of law, respecting the ability of other countries to determine their own destiny
and preserve their sovereignty and territorial integrity -- those things are not something
that we can set aside.
The unbridled hypocrisy makes me want to puke.
Erelis | Nov 17, 2016 11:09:40 PM | 50
Ironically, major mass media play a critical role in the Clinton loss even though it was fully
in for Clinton. In attacking literally everything Trump said 24/7, people learned about his positions.
But this did not leave much oxygen left in the room for Clinton's (phony) positions. Sort of an
archetypal news day was how terrible Trump was on cutting taxes. Well, there, you know what Trump
stood for. The countervailing stories were that Trump and his followers were sexist, racist, and
Putin puppets, so vote for Hillary. What did she stand for again? I once counted on a very
liberal and heavily viewed liberal website 26 anti-Trump stories. One or two positive Hillary
stories all claiming support for her because she had a vagina. AT the end of the day, more people
knew more about Trump than Clinton.
One position that people probably knew about Hillary was that she hated Putin (and China).
Wikileaks counted the most mentioned subjects in the debates and it was Putin and Russia.
That was on Clinton. And apparently on the one position she really staked her election, people
who voted didn't give a shit. The voters in WI, PA, MI, Ohio, and FL certainly did not seem to
care.
likklemore | Nov 18, 2016 12:00:07 AM | 56
@ jawbonw 52 I posted another comment that ended up a no show. It could be the link to the piece
at Breitbart. In this radio interview Ed Klein is with b. He had 5 top reasons for HRC's lost:
[.] Klein laid out his top five reasons for why Hillary Clinton lost the election: "Number
one, Hillary. Number two, Hillary. Number three, Hillary. Number four, Hillary. Number five,
Hillary."[.]
Klein was unsurprised to see Mrs. Clinton playing the blame game after the election.
"Have you ever known Hillary to take responsibility for anything?" he asked.[.]
"At every turn of her life, she's pointed accusing fingers at other people for her own self-made
problems. This certainly, this campaign, she was the general of the campaign. She lost the
war. She should take the responsibility," he said.
And Ed Klein does not see Chelsea continuing the dynasty. She doubled down on her mother's dna.
Peter AU | Nov 18, 2016 2:14:46 AM | 59
The US has voted against global hegemony. That was their choices. A do or die effort for global
hegemon under Clinton, or a controlled descent to a regional power/world power among others under
Trump. Though the neo-con passengers are in a panic and may cause the aircraft to crash rather
than glide in for a controlled landing. Either way I don't care, so long as the US goes down.
Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the
government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success
of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, controlled press and a mere token opposition
party.
1. Dummy up . If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.
2. Wax indignant . This is also known as the "how dare you" gambit.
3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news
blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors."
4. Knock down straw men . Deal only with the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Even better,
create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors and give them lead play when you appear to debunk
all the charges, real and fanciful alike.
5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nut," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot" and,
of course, "rumor monger." You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people
you have thus maligned.
6. Impugn motives . Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not
really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to
make money.
7. Invoke authority . Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.
8. Dismiss the charges as "old news."
9. Come half-clean . This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hang-out
route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively
harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back
position quite different from the one originally taken.
10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.
11. Reason backward , using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction,
troublesome evidence is irrelevant. For example: We have a completely free press. If they know of
evidence that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma
City bombing they would have reported it. They haven't reported it, so there was no prior knowledge
by the BATF. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a
press that would report it.
12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely.
13. Change the subject . This technique includes creating and/or reporting a distraction.
"... J is for Junk Economics: A Survivor's Guide to Economic Vocabulary in an Age of Deception. ..."
"... The stock market has gone up since 2008 in America, in Europe, all over the world because the central banks have flooded the economy with creating new money. They didn't create the money to hire workers. They didn't create the money to build infrastructure, they didn't create the money to invest in the economy. They didn't create the money to pay off the mortgages of people who had junk mortgages and were exploitive. They didn't create the money to write of student loans. All the money that was created, every penny, was created to give to the banks. To the Wall Street banks at 0.1% interests to create reserves at the Federal Reserve so that the banks could then lend out money and what did they do to ' who did they lend it to? ..."
"... Well they lent to corporate [raiders]. So, part of the reason the stock market has gone up is that corporate [raiders] have borrowed very inexpensively 1%, say from a bank, and bought companies whose dividend rates are 3% or 4 or 5% and they get what's called the arbitrage, the difference ..."
"... As a result of paying interest to the banks and this borrowed money, you don't have to pay income tax on it because this is counted as a cost of doing business, not as a cost of takeover. ..."
"... The first thing they do is tighten working condition. They work the labor harder. They let the labor force go. When people retire, they don't hire new workers. They just work the remaining workers all the more. So, what's happened isn't a new investment. It's just the opposite. It's disinvestment. It's asset stripping. What creates the stock market going up is not capital formation. It's asset stripping. When Donald Trump calls that wealth creation, it means his wealth- meaning the money he's been able to make. But that money has been made by making the economy poorer. ..."
"... Well they don't explain why it's not you. The reason they're living better is what used to be called a transfer payment. Something that is not really earned but it's just a transfer of income like from a rent when a landlord will raise the rent, all of a sudden, same house, nobody's invested more. Nobody's saying oh your rent's going up about $50 a month this month. No that's a transfer payment. You just have to pay more. The landlord didn't do anything to earn that more money. He just found that he's able to squeeze more money out of you. ..."
"... So today when people talk about widows and orphans, they mean millionaires [widows and orphans,]. When they talk about the low interest rates that capitalists aren't making to get rich enough, that's really hurting the pension funds. ..."
"... So, you have the economic vocabulary turning into vocabulary of deception. So, I go over what this vocabulary is and what the concepts are and I also talk about what the original concepts were in classical economics. Everyone from Adam Smith, John Stewart Mill, they were all reforms. What they wanted to reform was getting rid of this parasitic landlord class that had conquered England in 1066 and it's the heirs of the military of the warlords ended up taking the land and just making everybody pay them and all of their descendants for not doing anything. Just for being conquered. ..."
Economist Michael Hudson explains how economic terms like capital gains are deployed to mislead
the public about who is benefiting from economic policy and where wealth is going Michael Hudson
is a Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City.
He is the author of The Bubble and Beyond and Finance Capitalism and its Discontents
. His most recent book is titled Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage
Destroy the Global Economy .
SHARMINI PERIES, TRNN: Welcome back to the Real News Network. I'm Sharmini Peries coming to
you from Baltimore.
Today I'm being joined in our Baltimore studio by economist Michael Hudson. Michael has a new
book out J is for Junk Economics: A Survivor's Guide to Economic Vocabulary in an Age of Deception.
Michael is a distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri,
Kansas City. Thanks so much for joining us Michael.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Good to be here in your Baltimore studio.
PERIES: Thank you. So Michael, in the first segment we spoke more generally in terms of how people
are misled through our policy makers in Washington in particular. But give us some specific examples
of some of the terms used to mislead us.
HUDSON: Well take the word capital gains. People originally think capital gaisn, you have the
image of industry growing and innovation taking place. There's an indication as if somehow when real
estate and housing prices go up, everybody's getting richer. When the stock prices go up, the economies
got richer. So Hillary Clinton was able ot say, look at how the stock market soared in the last 8
years thanks to Mr. Obama.
Well the stock market has soared but now the employees working conditions for the stock market.
Most of these capital gains don't simply reflect what the textbooks say. The textbooks say, well
a company's worth whatever it's expected future earnings are. So the reason stocks are going up and
bonds are going up and real estate is rents are going to go up and profits are going up and the economy
is expanding and everybody's getting richer. But that's not why the stock market goes up at all.
The stock market has gone up since 2008 in America, in Europe, all over the world because
the central banks have flooded the economy with creating new money. They didn't create the money
to hire workers. They didn't create the money to build infrastructure, they didn't create the money
to invest in the economy. They didn't create the money to pay off the mortgages of people who had
junk mortgages and were exploitive. They didn't create the money to write of student loans. All the
money that was created, every penny, was created to give to the banks. To the Wall Street banks at
0.1% interests to create reserves at the Federal Reserve so that the banks could then lend out money
and what did they do to ' who did they lend it to?
Well they lent to corporate [raiders]. So, part of the reason the stock market has gone up
is that corporate [raiders] have borrowed very inexpensively 1%, say from a bank, and bought companies
whose dividend rates are 3% or 4 or 5% and they get what's called the arbitrage, the difference.
So all of a sudden you have the take over a company with borrowed money. As a result of paying
interest to the banks and this borrowed money, you don't have to pay income tax on it because this
is counted as a cost of doing business, not as a cost of takeover.
The first thing they do is tighten working condition. They work the labor harder. They let
the labor force go. When people retire, they don't hire new workers. They just work the remaining
workers all the more. So, what's happened isn't a new investment. It's just the opposite. It's disinvestment.
It's asset stripping. What creates the stock market going up is not capital formation. It's asset
stripping. When Donald Trump calls that wealth creation, it means his wealth- meaning the money he's
been able to make. But that money has been made by making the economy poorer.
So, when people talk about the economy, they have to realize that it's actually money layers.
Not everybody is a millionaire working on Wall Street. Some people actually have to work for paychecks
and out of their paychecks they have to pay rising healthcare costs, rising money to the banks, rising
debt service. They have to borrow more money just to break even. Their rents are going way up to
larger portions of their income.
So, what people are actually left with to spend is maybe 25 to 30% of their income on goods and
services after paying taxes and after paying the FIRE sector (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate). Whether
it's housing insurance or mortgage insurance. So there's an idea of distracting people. Don't think
of your condition. Think of how the overall economy is doing. But don't think of the economy as an
overall unit. Think of the stock market as the economy. Think of the rich people as the economy.
Look at the yachts that are made. Somebody's living a lot better. Couldn't it be you?
Well they don't explain why it's not you. The reason they're living better is what used to
be called a transfer payment. Something that is not really earned but it's just a transfer of income
like from a rent when a landlord will raise the rent, all of a sudden, same house, nobody's invested
more. Nobody's saying oh your rent's going up about $50 a month this month. No that's a transfer
payment. You just have to pay more. The landlord didn't do anything to earn that more money. He just
found that he's able to squeeze more money out of you.
So squeezing money out of you to make money for a [inaud.] class and that was a word that used
to be used 100 years ago, the [inaud.] were people who lived on rents. They were coupon clippers,
they were landlords, they were the idle rich who inherited money and somehow you have like even the
words widows and orphans. People say you have to provide large capital gains, meaning debt financed
asset price inflation so that the widows and orphans can survive. The widows and orphans are all
living on trust funds. Or they're living on alimony. Or they're living on inherited wealth. People
forget that before 1900, widows and orphans used to be poor people. We're talking Charles Dickens
type novels. Widows and orphans were the people who needed welfare. They weren't the millionaires.
So today when people talk about widows and orphans, they mean millionaires [widows and orphans,].
When they talk about the low interest rates that capitalists aren't making to get rich enough, that's
really hurting the pension funds. Our hearts bleed for the workers. Their hearts aren't bleeding
for the workers. They're trotting out pension funds in front of their factotums to say, make the
pension funds richer and behind them, the fact is that 75% of all the stocks and bonds are really
owned by just a small percentage of the American population they're really talking about themselves.
So, you have the economic vocabulary turning into vocabulary of deception. So, I go over what
this vocabulary is and what the concepts are and I also talk about what the original concepts were
in classical economics. Everyone from Adam Smith, John Stewart Mill, they were all reforms. What
they wanted to reform was getting rid of this parasitic landlord class that had conquered England
in 1066 and it's the heirs of the military of the warlords ended up taking the land and just making
everybody pay them and all of their descendants for not doing anything. Just for being conquered.
You could say that the carry over of this today. The rent that people have to pay, the money they
have to pay the banks instead of having a public option. That's the price they still have to pay
for being conquered. The group that I'm working with is trying to promote public options. We're trying
to promote public banking that would provide credit cards, banking services, [vanilla] services at
a fraction of the price that Chase Manhattan or Citi Bank or Bank of America charges.
Yea all these charges that people pay are economically unnecessary. There's no real cost behind
them. There's no value behind them. So, they're what the classical economist called empty pricing.
Prices with no real cost value. What they called fictitious capital. Capital that clings on junk
mortgage borrowers that actually ' the pretense that all these debts can be paid but it's all fictitious
because everybody knows at least on Wall Street everybody knows that debts can't be paid. That somebody
has to default and Wall Street's plan is well make the government reimburse us like the bailouts
that happened in 2008 so that we don't lose, let's pass all of the loss onto the tax payers without
changing the banks, without throwing our guys in jail even though these were fraudulent mortgages.
PERIES: And the government itself doesn't pay its debt.
HUDSON: That's right. The whole idea is that it doesn't. At least if it does pay the debt, it
only pays ' there are two kinds of debts that the governments have. They have a debt to the bond
holders and they do pay that. They have a debt to the social security recipients. Hillary promised
she was going to cut back social security. She was going to cut back social spending and social security
and medical care so that the government would have enough money to pay her backers on Wall Street.
So she was Obama's legacy. A standing for Wall Street.
A stand in is a politician who can deliver her constituency to her Wall Street backers and that's
what a politician does in America. You get a constituency; you make them believe your promises and
then you turn them over to your financial campaign backers. That's what politics has become and that's
as much an art of deception as economics is.
PERIES: Now Donald Trump is proposing to spend trillions of dollars in terms of infrastructure
development in this country. That sounds very good. Of course, in the immediate future that means
jobs for people. But what is the problem with that kind of infrastructure development in the long
term and what kind of plan is he thinking of when he's thinking infrastructure development?
HUDSON: There are many ways of building infrastructure. The way Donald Trump would like, he's
like to spend like aa hundred million dollars building a new bridge in the highway. Then he would
like to sell it, privatize it to a private buy like himself for 10 million dollars. So, the government
would spend a huge amount of money that could've been used for a free bridge or a free road. He'll
then sell it for 10 million dollars to a private owner and then the private owner will put a toll
booth up and charge money for coming across and make a mint.
This is what happened in England under Margaret Thatcher. This is called Thatcherism and it's
what destroyed the English economy. It's what's destroying the European economy and turning Europe
into a dead zone. So, you could do infrastructure in the way of a giveaway. A real infrastructure
would be the government would indeed pay for rebuilding this. But the whole idea of what mad America
rich in the 19th century was the government will develop this infrastructure and it will provide
these services freely to the population. Because if you begin to charge people for bridges and for
roads and for parking meters as is in Chicago and for everything else that's being privatized, you're
going to have even higher costs of living and the wages are going to go up and it will be even harder
to compete with foreign countries and to make exports because nobody can afford to pay the prices
that the American workers have to pay just to live and export in competition with Asia or even Europe
or Germany.
Germany doesn't have all of these costs. Germany has very low rental charges. Maybe 10-15% of
your income. Not 40% as here. Low priced public health, free autobahn to drive on. Not at all like
this. So, Donald Trump wants essentially to double the cost of living for everybody and give the
capital away to his republican backers and essentially leave the whole country unemployed but the
1% is going to be very, very rich.
PERIES: Right. Now let's go back to some specific examples in terms of the kind of infrastructure
that Donald Trump wants to build. So, he wants to build new airports. He says our airports are outdated.
He wants to build new roads and new bridges and build a wall over the US-Mexico border. All of these
are considered infrastructure. In the past we've been told that public-private partnerships are actually
a good thing. It even sounds good, public-private partnerships for the betterment of society. But
it really isn't and in terms of myth making, where does this take us?
HUDSON: The word public partnership it's really a one way partnership. The private, tells the
government what to do. All of the costs are born by the government. All of the risks and the profits
go to the private sector. It really means we're creating an opportunity for banks to make a killing
on making loans for all of this will be financed by bank credit. That banks or bond holders are going
to be paid very high interest rates on.
The government could create all this money the same way banks do. The government has computer
keyboards which is how a bank creates money. They could create their own money without having to
pay interests to anyone. They could either charge the airlines for it or they could provide the airports
more freely but public partnerships are designed to quadruple or quintuple the actual costs of doing
business and pretend that this is in the public interests instead of just in the interests of the
banks and the corporate insiders that the banks are willing to leave money to.
If you look at investigative journalists looked at just one horror story after another of private
public partnerships. Look at London's railroads. Look at what England did with the railroads. Water.
Public Private partnership for water. People now have to pay huge amounts just to get water in England,
that used to be free. The transportation quality goes down. The price goes way up. So the partnership
is a very exploited. We're not talking about equal partnership. We're talking about a dominate submissive
sadomasochistic partnership.
PERIES: Then this point you were making about the government can print all the money they want
if they want to invest it in infrastructure and own that infrastructure, they can make money to then
pay back the treasury if they need to. But instead they're going to borrow the money from these banks
and then be indebted. So is this kind of debt a bad thing?
HUDSON: Well the debt is bad when you have to repay it. All new money is a kind of debt. All money
is created on a computer. You can look at it in terms of a balance sheet. When you create, when you
go into a bank and you want a loan, the bank will give you a bank deposit and you'll sign a promissory
note. The bank has an asset and you have a debt to the bank and you can spend your deposit anyway.
But the bank charges money for all of this. The government can do the same thing. The Federal Reserve
and the Treasury. The Treasury can just print, issue a 1 trillion dollar coin for instance. Give
it to the Federal Reserve and the Fed can issue notes about it. You could call to claim whatever
you want. It's all constitutional because you can assign any level price you want to a coin. All
money is just created artificially.
So, it's a monopoly it's a legal privilege and for thousands of years from Mesopotamia through
Greece and Rome, all the money was created by the temples to make sure that it was honest money.
But it was all privatized after over thousands of years of history and now banks charge for something
that the government can do for free.
PERIES: Michael, for Donald Trump and the Republicans, they are against creating debt aren't they?
HUDSON: No. They know that most people are afraid of going into debt. Because if you go into debt
you actually have to repay it. Government debt doesn't have to be repaid. If you repaid government
debt, there wouldn't be anymore money. What they're really looking for is - the way to cut debt is
by cutting the deficit and what we want to cut is social security. We want to a sort of downsize
it. Hillary wanted to put it into the stock market. We want to pay less social spending. We want
less medical care. We want to spend less money on the 95% of the population so all the money gets
spent on the top 5%.
So, they're really against what debt is spent for. They're against democratic debt. They're against
democracy. What they really want is oligarchic debt which used to be state socialism. Government
will only give money to the banks. They're all for the kind of debt that is the bank bailout in 2008.
They're all for giving money to Wall Street. They're all for giving subsidies to Donald Trump for
building his buildings in New York and enabling him to make a killing. They're just against giving
debt to the workers or to the middle class or to the cities or to anyone who's not one of the 5%.
PERIES: Alright so this is the kind of austerity plan that Paul Ryan '
HUDSON: Austerity is the word.
PERIES: - is trying to promote that he wants Donald Trump to sign onto.
HUDSON: Right.
PERIES: Alright Michael I thank you so much for joining us today. And thank you for joining us
on the Real News Network.
End
DISCLAIMER: Please note that transcripts for The Real News Network are typed from a
recording of the program. TRNN cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.
Take one sentence from your cited passage: "When they (Who are 'they'? The nearest plural noun
is 'millionaires'. The next nearest is 'widows and orphans'. The next is 'people'. I think Prof
Hudson means 'people' as the antecedent, because they are talking about widows and orphans at
the start of the previous sentence. Let's go with that assumption.) talk about the low interest
rates that capitalists arent (sic) making to get rich enough, thats (sic) really hurting the pension
funds."
Who are the "people" talking about the low interest rates? What is meant by "low interest rates
that capitalists aren't making to get rich enough"? If the widows and orphans are now the millionaires
for whom large capital gains are needed for their survival, my guess Hudson means that the millionaires
cannot rely on interest income, because that has been suppressed in order to allow the banks to
make low interest mortgage loans. That is for the debt financed housing industry's asset price
inflation.
That sector is supposed to be the engine of recovery, a questionable recovery to be sure. The
pension funds that used to be able to rely on interest income to finance its future obligations
do not have that any longer. The funds have been investing in the equity market and some in the
derivative market through hedge funds. The funds are an excuse for the asset price inflation of
the stock market brought on by Fed policy.
The Fed is saying that in order for the pension funds to meet their obligations, asset prices
must be inflated to make the equity positions profitable.
It's a Ponzi scheme, a house of cards. When the next card is put in place, it may topple the
entire flimsy structure. Omitted from the discussion is the global position of the US dollar,
whose value is inflated by the damage that neoliberal policies have done to Europe's economy and
the euro.
I sympathize with the Professor's effort to explain a conspiratorial web of policies by the
Fed, the banks, the real estate industry, and the MIC (mostly implied) to support an economic
system based on the economic viability of an economy that is not productive of consumer goods
and services, an economy based on the imports, an economy dedicated to global hegemony based on
huge military expenditures.
This non-productive, US economy depletes the savings of those who still have them and places
at great risk the economic security of what used to be called the middle-class.
Oh, well, goedelite, your contribution clears up whatever confusion I had about MH's passage.
I'm being sarcastic, of course. But your valiant effort is much appreciated. ;=)
The good folks at TRNN should remind MH that the Real News is, I presume, for the general public
-- real people not egghead economists. He must find a way to connect with us in a clear, concise,
and coherent way. In listening to Michael, his spoken words don't seem able to keep pace with
his racing, out-of-control brain.
Go easy on us mere mortals, Professor Hudson.
As I understood him he spoke correctly: If the cost of living goes up, employers, in having to
at least maintain a workforce, will have to pay their employers more. But this makes it harder
for companies to export their goods, which leads to attrition of the workforce which he spoke
of earlier.
What I think you recognized is that 'real wages' go down.
Anyway, it's clear that this is unsustainable. Murray Rothbard called this economic system
a Ponzi Scheme.
I'm pretty sure that he meant to say wages go down. So, I agree with you. One other thing is that
countries like Brazil seemed not to understand that putting up toll booths (literally) on their
roads was not the best most cost effective way to go about this. Here in California we do have
toll bridges, but toll roads. We pay for our road maintenance through excise taxes on gas and
tires. And it's a state function.
The big lie from Trump and others is referring to a corporate tax rate of 35%. Corporations are
now paying far less in income taxes than at any time in the past 80 years. Companies including
Apple and GE and Chevron and Verizon are paying no income taxes. Income taxes and fees (which
includes payroll taxes and social security payments) are a way to have the government extract
income and wealth from workers and their families and pass it along to those in the unreal economy
who derive their income and wealth as rentiers or in the finance industry that turns equity into
debt for millions of Americans. 40% of what is counted as part of the GDP in the United States
is debt servicing which provides no real goods or real services and is only a transfer of wealth
from the working classes to the one percent. That is why when government economists talk about
the economy growing they are not talking about the true economic situation of workers and their
families who are in no better shape today than they were in 2008 when the economy collapsed thanks
to the massive fraud perpetrated by people in the banking and finance and insurance and mortgage
companies, none of who were tried for their criminal actions and none went to jail (unlike many
of the participants in the Savings & Loan industry collapse under Reagan).
Trillions of dollars were stolen by the same people that are serving in the Treasury Department
and in the Federal Reserve and the government (executive, supreme court, congress) is run by Wall
Street for Wall Street. Millenials would be wise to emigrate to a country with a less corrupt
government and people approaching retirement would do well to emigrate as well to a country where
the cost of living is lower and the odds of a climate change disaster is less than in much of
the Unites States.
This development of infrastructure as a public private partnership is the dark flip side of a
new deal economy. What it means as Hudson points out is essentially public money used to fund
the building programs, then passing the profit making over to a private company.
The strong ties of Wall Street to the Democratic party seems to have reached the end of its
credibility with the public. The money now has flipped to a more authoritarian control. This is
a familiar shift throughout history when the strings of control begin to show, when the veil begins
to be lifted and the liberal establishment loses its credibility, wham! their is a shift to fascism.
Worryingly this shift is usually followed by war. Which forces a kind of 'reset' both economically
and politically.
This whole sequence, the rise of a faux liberal elite,(who really just serve moneyed masters)
then a slow discrediting of that elite as their real motives are slowly revealed, then an angered
public backlash, which importantly (this is important to understand) is still controlled by the
moneyed classes. Resulting in a rise of authoritarianism and an insular tribal outlook often characterized
by racism...in other words fascism.
That's certainly an integral part of it. Michael Hudson just focused his analysis on what one
aspect* of what "capital gains" really means: it's the gains made by corporate raiders after money
is printing for their sake, who then go on to essentially partake in asset stripping.
The authoritarian part you bring up is the flip side of the coin: given the resulting damage
to the general economy, for the corporate raiders to continue their raiding they'll have to keep
the people in tight control.
* That aspect is what's "traditionally" called the "economic" side, as opposed the social side.
That's the tradition, anyway, that the capitalist pigs have been trying so hard to indoctrinate
us with. If I recall correctly, Amartya Sen is the first (only?) "Nobel Prize" winning
economist who defined "economics" to include the impact on the people's quality of life.
"... The Demon In Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations In Free Societies . ..."
"... Brave New World ..."
"... The Demon In Democracy ..."
"... he explains how Poland cast off the bonds of communism only to find that liberal democracy imposed similar interdictions on free thought and debate: ..."
"... Very quickly the world became hidden under a new ideological shell and the people became hostage to another version of the Newspeak but with similar ideological mystifications. Obligatory rituals of loyalty and condemnations were revived, this time with a different object of worship and a different enemy. ..."
"... The new commissars of the language appeared and were given powerful prerogatives, and just as before, mediocrities assumed their self-proclaimed authority to track down ideological apostasy and condemn the unorthodox - all, of course, for the glory of the new system and the good of the new man. ..."
"... Media - more refined than under communism - performed a similar function: standing at the forefront of the great transformation leading to a better world and spreading the corruption of the language to the entire social organism and all its cells. ..."
"... Trump's victory seems logical as a continuation of a more general process that has been unveiling in the Western World: Hungary, Poland, Brexit, possible political reshufflings in Germany, France, Austria, etc. ..."
"... More and more people say No ..."
"... What seems to be common in the developments in Europe and the US is a growing mistrust towards the political establishment that has been in power for a long time. People have a feeling that in many cases this is the same establishment despite the change of the governments. ..."
"... This establishment is characterized by two things: first, both in the US and in Europe (and in Europe even more so) its representatives unabashedly declare that there is no alternative to their platform, that there is practically one set of ideas - their own - every decent person may subscribe to, and that they themselves are the sole distributors of political respectability; second, the leaders of this establishment are evidently of the mediocre quality, and have been such long enough for the voters to notice. ..."
"... Because the ruling political elites believe themselves to steer the society in the only correct political course it should take, and to be the best quality products of the Western political culture, they try to present the current conflict as a revolt of the unenlightened, confused and manipulated masses against the enlightened elites. ..."
"... The new aristocrats are full of contempt for the riffraff, do not mince words to bully them, use foul language, break the rules of decency - and doing all this does not make them feel any less aristocratic. ..."
"... When eight years ago America elected as their president a completely unknown and inexperienced politician, and not exactly an exemplar of political virtue to boot, this choice was universally acclaimed as the triumph of political enlightenment, and the president was awarded the Nobel Prize in advance, before he could do anything (not that he did anything of value afterwards). The continuation of this politics by Hillary Clinton for another eight years would have elevated this establishment and their ideas to an even stronger position with all deplorable consequences. ..."
"... Many Christians are understandably relieved that the state's ongoing assault on the churches and on religious liberty in the name of sex-and-gender ideology, will probably be halted under the new president. ..."
"... Q: Trump is a politician of the nationalist Right, but he is not a conservative in any philosophical or cultural sense. ..."
"... Had the vote gone only a bit differently in some states, today we would be talking about the political demise of American conservatism. Instead, the Republican Party is going to be stronger in government than it has been in a very long time - but the party has been shaken to its core by Trump's destruction of its establishment. Is it credible to say that Trump destroyed conservatism - or is it more accurate to say that the Republican Party, through its own follies, destroyed conservatism as we have known it, and opened the door for the nationalist Trump? ..."
"... The new generations of the neocons gave up on big ideas while the theocons, old or new, never managed to have a noticeable impact on the Republican mainstream. ..."
"... The Demon in Democracy ..."
"... Today the phrase "more Europe" does not mean "more classical education, more Latin and Greek, more knowledge about classical philosophy and scholasticism", but it means giving more power to the European Commission. No wonder an increasing number of people when they hear about Europe associate it with the EU, and not with Plato, Thomas Aquinas or Johann Sebastian Bach. ..."
"... Considering that in every Western country education has been, for quite a long time, in a deep crisis and that no government has succeeded in overcoming this crisis, a mere idea of bringing back classical education into schools in which young people can hardly read and write in their own native language sounds somewhat surrealist. ..."
"... The results of the elections must have shaken the EU elites, and from that point of view Trump's victory was beneficial for those Europeans like myself who fear the federalization of the European Union and its growing ideological monopoly. There is more to happen in Europe in the coming years so the hope is that the EU hubris will suffer further blows and that the EU itself will become more self-restrained and more responsive to the aspirations of European peoples. ..."
Legutko is a Polish philosopher and politician who was active in the anti-communist resistance.
He is most recently the author of
The Demon In Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations In Free Societies . In this post from September,
I said that reading the book - which is clearly and punchily written - was like
taking a red pill - meaning that it's hard to see our own political culture the same way after
reading Legutko. His provocative thesis is that liberal democracy, as a modern political philosophy,
has a lot more in common with that other great modern political philosophy, communism, than we care
to think. He speaks as a philosopher who grew up under communism, who fought it as a member of Solidarity,
and who took part in the reconstruction of Poland as a liberal democracy. It has been said that the
two famous inhuman dystopias of 20th century English literature - Orwell's 1984 and Huxley's
Brave New World - correspond, respectively, to Soviet communism and mass hedonistic technocracy.
Reading Legutko, you understand the point very well.
In
this post , I quote several passages from The Demon In Democracy . Among them, these
paragraphs in which he explains how Poland cast off the bonds of communism only to find that
liberal democracy imposed similar interdictions on free thought and debate:
Very quickly the world became hidden under a new ideological shell and the people became
hostage to another version of the Newspeak but with similar ideological mystifications. Obligatory
rituals of loyalty and condemnations were revived, this time with a different object of worship
and a different enemy.
The new commissars of the language appeared and were given powerful prerogatives, and just
as before, mediocrities assumed their self-proclaimed authority to track down ideological apostasy
and condemn the unorthodox - all, of course, for the glory of the new system and the good of the
new man.
Media - more refined than under communism - performed a similar function: standing at the
forefront of the great transformation leading to a better world and spreading the corruption of
the language to the entire social organism and all its cells.
And:
If the old communists lived long enough to see the world of today, they would be devastated
by the contrast between how little they themselves had managed to achieve in their antireligious
war and how successful the liberal democrats have been. All the objectives the communists set
for themselves, and which they pursued with savage brutality, were achieved by the liberal democrats
who, almost without any effort and simply by allowing people to drift along with the flow of modernity,
succeeded in converting churches into museums, restaurants, and public buildings, secularizing
entire societies, making secularism the militant ideology, pushing religions to the sidelines,
pressing the clergy into docility, and inspiring powerful mass culture with a strong antireligious
bias in which a priest must be either a liberal challenging the Church of a disgusting villain.
After the US election, Prof. Legutko agreed to answer a few questions from me via e-mail. Here
is our correspondence:
RD:What do you think of Donald Trump's victory, especially in context of Brexit
and the changing currents of Western politics?
RL: In hindsight, Trump's victory seems logical as a continuation of a more general
process that has been unveiling in the Western World: Hungary, Poland, Brexit, possible political
reshufflings in Germany, France, Austria, etc. What this process, having many currents and
facets, boils down to is difficult to say as it appears more negative than positive. More
and more people say No , whereas it is not clear what exactly they are in favor of.
What seems to be common in the developments in Europe and the US is a growing mistrust
towards the political establishment that has been in power for a long time. People have a feeling
that in many cases this is the same establishment despite the change of the governments.
This establishment is characterized by two things: first, both in the US and in Europe
(and in Europe even more so) its representatives unabashedly declare that there is no alternative
to their platform, that there is practically one set of ideas - their own - every decent person
may subscribe to, and that they themselves are the sole distributors of political respectability;
second, the leaders of this establishment are evidently of the mediocre quality, and have been
such long enough for the voters to notice.
Because the ruling political elites believe themselves to steer the society in the only
correct political course it should take, and to be the best quality products of the Western political
culture, they try to present the current conflict as a revolt of the unenlightened, confused and
manipulated masses against the enlightened elites. In Europe it sometimes looks like an attempt
to build a new form of an aristocratic order, since a place in the hierarchy is allotted to individuals
and groups not according to their actual education, or by the power of their minds, or by the
strength of their arguments, but by a membership in this or that class. The new aristocrats
are full of contempt for the riffraff, do not mince words to bully them, use foul language, break
the rules of decency - and doing all this does not make them feel any less aristocratic.
It is, I think, this contrast between, on the one hand, arrogance with which the new aristocrats
preach their orthodoxy, and on the other, a leaping-to-the-eye low quality of their leadership
that ultimately pushed a lot of people in Europe and the US to look for alternatives in the world
that for too long was presented to them as having no alternative.
When eight years ago America elected as their president a completely unknown and inexperienced
politician, and not exactly an exemplar of political virtue to boot, this choice was universally
acclaimed as the triumph of political enlightenment, and the president was awarded the Nobel Prize
in advance, before he could do anything (not that he did anything of value afterwards). The continuation
of this politics by Hillary Clinton for another eight years would have elevated this establishment
and their ideas to an even stronger position with all deplorable consequences.
For an outside observer like myself, America after the election appears to be divided
but in a peculiar way. On the one side there is the Obama-Clinton America claiming to represent
what is best in the modern politics, more or less united by a clear left-wing agenda whose aim
is to continue the restructuring of the American society, family, schools, communities, morals.
This America is in tune with what is considered to be a general tendency of the modern world,
including Europe and non-European Western countries. But there seems to exist another America,
deeply dissatisfied with the first one, angry and determined, but at the same time confused and
chaotic, longing for action and energy, but unsure of itself, proud of their country's lost greatness,
but having no great leaders, full of hope but short of ideas, a strange mixture of groups and
ideologies, with no clear identity or political agenda. This other America, if personified, would
resemble somebody not very different from Donald Trump.
Q: Trump won 52 percent of the Catholic vote, and over 80 percent of the white Evangelical
Christian vote - this, despite the fact that he is in no way a serious Christian, and, on evidence
of his words and deeds, is barely a Christian at all. Many Christians are understandably
relieved that the state's ongoing assault on the churches and on religious liberty in the name
of sex-and-gender ideology, will probably be halted under the new president. From your
perspective, should US Christians be hopeful about their prospects under a Trump presidency, or
instead wary of being tempted by a false prophet?
A: Christians have been the largest persecuted religious group in the non-Western world, but
sadly they have also been the largest victimized religious group in those Western countries that
have contracted a disease of political correctness (which in practice means almost all of them).
Some Western Christians, including the clergy, abandoned any thought of resistance and not only
capitulated but joined the forces of the enemy and started disciplining their own flock. No wonder
that many Christians pray for better times hoping that at last there will appear a party or a
leader that could loosen the straitjacket of political correctness and blunt its anti-Christian
edge. It was then to be expected that having a choice between Trump and Clinton, they would turn
to the former. But is Trump such a leader?
Anti-Christian prejudices have taken an institutional and legal form of such magnitude that
no president, no matter how much committed to the cause, can change it quickly. Today in America
it is difficult even to articulate one's opposition to political correctness because the public
and private discourse has been profoundly corrupted by the left-wing ideology, and the American
people have weaned themselves from any alternative language (and so have the Europeans). Any movement
away from this discourse requires more awareness of the problem and more courage than Trump and
his people seem to have. What Trump could and should do, and it will be a test of his intentions,
are three things.
First, he should refrain from involving his administration in the anti-Christian actions, whether
direct or indirect, thus breaking off with the practice of his predecessor. Second, he should
nominate the right persons for the vacancies in the Supreme Court. Third, he should resist the
temptation to cajole the politically correct establishment, as some Republicans have been doing,
because not only will it be a bad signal, but also display naïvete: this establishment is never
satisfied with anything but an unconditional surrender of its opponents.
Whether these decisions will be sufficient for American Christians to launch a counteroffensive
and to reclaim the lost areas, I do not know. A lot will depend on what the Christians will do
and how outspoken they will be in making their case public.
Q: Trump is a politician of the nationalist Right, but he is not a conservative in any
philosophical or cultural sense.Had the vote gone only a bit differently in some states,
today we would be talking about the political demise of American conservatism. Instead, the Republican
Party is going to be stronger in government than it has been in a very long time - but the party
has been shaken to its core by Trump's destruction of its establishment. Is it credible to say
that Trump destroyed conservatism - or is it more accurate to say that the Republican Party, through
its own follies, destroyed conservatism as we have known it, and opened the door for the nationalist
Trump?
A: Conservatism has always been problematic in America, where the word itself has acquired
more meanings, some of them quite bizarre, than in Europe. A quite common habit, to give an example,
of mentioning libertarianism and conservatism in one breath, thereby suggesting that they are
somehow essentially related, is proof enough that a conservative agenda is difficult for the Americans
to swallow. If I am not mistaken, the Republican Party has long relinquished, with very few exceptions,
any closer link with conservatism. If conservatism, whatever the precise definition, has something
to do with a continuity of culture, Christian and Classical roots of this culture, classical metaphysics
and anthropology, beauty and virtue, a sense of decorum, liberal education, family, republican
paideia, and other related notions, these are not the elements that constitute an integral part
of an ideal type of an Republican identity in today's America. Whether it has been different before,
I am not competent to judge, but certainly there was a time when the intellectual institutions
somehow linked to the Republican Party debated these issues. The new generations of the neocons
gave up on big ideas while the theocons, old or new, never managed to have a noticeable impact
on the Republican mainstream.
Given that there is this essential philosophical weakness within the modern Republican identity,
Donald Trump does not look like an obvious person to change it by inspiring a resurgence of conservative
thinking. I do not exclude however, unlikely as it seems today, that the new administration will
need – solely for instrumental reasons – some big ideas to mobilize its electorate and to give
them a sense of direction, and that a possible candidate to perform this function will be some
kind of conservatism. Liberalism, libertarianism and saying 'no' to everything will certainly
not serve the purpose. Nationalism looks good and played its role during two or three months of
the campaign, but might be insufficient for the four (eight?) years that will follow.
Q: Though the Republicans will soon have their hands firmly on the levers of political power,
cultural institutions - especially academia and the news and entertainment media - are still thoroughly
progressive. In The Demon in Democracy , you write that "it is hard to imagine freedom
without classical philosophy and the heritage of antiquity, without Christianity and scholasticism
[and] many other components of the entire Western civilization." How can we hope to return to
the roots of Western civilization when the culture-forming institutions are so hostile to it?
A: It is true that we live at a time of practically one orthodoxy which the majority of intellectuals
and artists piously accept, and this orthodoxy - being some kind of liberal progressivism - has
less and less connection with the foundations of Western civilization. This is perhaps more visible
in Europe than in the US. In Europe, the very term "Europe" has been consistently applied to the
European Union. Today the phrase "more Europe" does not mean "more classical education, more
Latin and Greek, more knowledge about classical philosophy and scholasticism", but it means giving
more power to the European Commission. No wonder an increasing number of people when they hear
about Europe associate it with the EU, and not with Plato, Thomas Aquinas or Johann Sebastian
Bach.
It seems thus obvious that those who want to strengthen or, as is more often the case, reintroduce
classical culture in the modern world will not find allies among the liberal elites. For a liberal
it is natural to distance himself from the classical philosophy, from Christianity and scholasticism
rather than to advocate their indispensability for the cultivation of the Western mind. After
all, these philosophies – they would say - were created in a pre-modern non-democratic and non-liberal
world by men who despised women, kept slaves and took seriously religious superstitions. But it
is not only the liberal prejudices that are in the way. A break-up with the classical tradition
is not a recent phenomenon, and we have been for too long exposed to the world from which this
tradition was absent.
There is little chance that a change may be implemented through a democratic process. Considering
that in every Western country education has been, for quite a long time, in a deep crisis and
that no government has succeeded in overcoming this crisis, a mere idea of bringing back classical
education into schools in which young people can hardly read and write in their own native language
sounds somewhat surrealist. A rule that bad education drives out good education seems to
prevail in democratic societies. And yet I cannot accept the conclusion that we are doomed to
live in societies in which neo-barbarism is becoming a norm.
How can we reverse this process then? In countries where education is primarily the responsibility
of the state, it is the governments that may - hypothetically at least - have some role to play
by using the economic and political instruments to stimulate the desired changes in education.
In the US – I suspect - the government's role is substantially more reduced. So far however the
European governments, including the conservative ones, have not made much progress in reversing
the destructive trend.
The problem is a more fundamental one because it touches upon the controversy about what constitutes
the Western civilization. The liberal progressives have managed to impose on our minds a notion
that Christianity, classical metaphysics, etc., are no longer what defines our Western identity.
A lot of conservatives – intellectuals and politicians – have readily acquiesced to this notion.
Unless and until this changes and our position of what constitutes the West becomes an integral
part of the conservative agenda and a subject of public debate, there is not much hope things
can change. The election of Donald Trump has obviously as little to do with Scholasticism or Greek
philosophy as it has with quantum mechanics, but nevertheless it may provide an occasion to reopen
an old question about what makes the American identity and to reject a silly but popular answer
that this identity is procedural rather than substantive. And this might be a first step to talk
about the importance of the roots of the Western civilization.
You have written that "liberalism is more about struggle with non-liberal adversaries than
deliberation with them." Now even some on the left admit that its embrace of political correctness,
multiculturalism, and so-called "diversity," is partly responsible for Trump's victory. How do
Brexit and Trump change the terms of the political conversation, especially now that it has been
shown that there is no such thing as "the right side of history"?
Liberalism, despite its boastful declarations to the contrary, is not and has never been about
diversity, multiplicity or pluralism. It is about homogeneity and unanimity. [Neo]Liberalism wants
everyone and everything to be [neo]liberal, and does not tolerate anyone or anything that is not
liberal. This is the reason why the [neo]liberals have such a strong sense of the enemy. Whoever
disagrees with them is not just an opponent who may hold different views but a potential or actual
fascist, a Hitlerite, a xenophobe, a nationalist, or – as they often say in the EU – a populist.
Such a miserable person deserves to be condemned, derided, humiliated and abused.
The Brexit vote could have been looked at as an exercise in diversity and, as such, dear to
every pluralist, or empirical evidence that the EU in its present form failed to accommodate diversity.
But the reaction of the European elites was different and predictable – threats and condemnations.
Before Brexit the EU reacted in a similar way to the non-[neo][neo]liberals winning elections
in Hungary and then in Poland, the winners being immediately classified as fascists and the elections
as not quite legitimate. The [neo]liberal mindset is such that accepts only those elections and
choices in which the correct party wins.
I am afraid there will be a similar reaction to Donald Trump and his administration. As long
as the [neo]liberals set the tone of the public debate, they will continue to bully both those
who, they say, were wrongly elected and those who wrongly voted. This will not stop until it becomes
clear beyond any doubt that the changes in Europe and in the US are not temporary and ephemeral
and that there is a viable alternative which will not disappear with the next swing of the democratic
pendulum. But this alternative, as I said before, is still in the process of formation and we
are not sure what will be the final result.
There will be elections in several key European nations next year - Germany and France, in
particular. What effect do you expect Trump's victory to have on European voters? How do you,
as a Pole, view Trump's fondness for Vladimir Putin?
From a European perspective, Clinton's victory would have meant a tremendous boost to the EU
bureaucracy, its ideology and its "more Europe" strategy. The forces of the self-proclaimed Enlightenment
would have gone ecstatic and, consequently, would have made the world even more unbearable not
only for conservatives. The results of the elections must have shaken the EU elites, and from
that point of view Trump's victory was beneficial for those Europeans like myself who fear the
federalization of the European Union and its growing ideological monopoly. There is more to happen
in Europe in the coming years so the hope is that the EU hubris will suffer further blows and
that the EU itself will become more self-restrained and more responsive to the aspirations of
European peoples.
"The fact that he made some warm remarks about Putin during the campaign does not make me happy."
You would think an advocate against the Western liberal establishment would view Putin favorably,
as Pat Buchanan does. I guess old nationalist rivalries trump sticking it to the snooty elitists
in this case.
[NFR: Are you serious? Legutko's country was occupied and tyrannized by the Soviets for
nearly 50 years. Poland has had to worry about Russian imperialism for much longer than that,
as a matter of national survival. Any Pole that doesn't worry about Putin's ambitions is nuts.
- RD]
"it may provide an occasion to reopen an old question about what makes the American identity and
to reject a silly but popular answer that this identity is procedural rather than substantive"
That's a good assessment, from an outside observer.
However, his anti-Russian views appear to be driven by his own Polish nationalism and past
Warsaw Pact Soviet imperialism, the latter ideologically and practically as dead as Josef Stalin,
and objectivity thus distorted, are much less clear. Imagine, welcoming a foreign imperial occupation
– one tied to the very liberal order he critiques so effectively.
I think that anti-interventionists, cheered by those Trump campaign statements questioning
the NATO mission post-communism, and defense cost bearing so that clients become real allies instead,
or not, are far more objectively considerate of Americans' interests through a drawdown from aggressive
globalist/militarist hegemony, than his understandable but very subjective Polish parochial prejudices.
re education: Andrew Pudewa for Secretary of Education! (Seriously, he said on FB he has some
idea what he'd do if he could get that post.)
re Russia: Hillary's rhetoric must not have translated very well over there At any rate, if
the Poles are so scared of Russian attack, they can train their own sons to defend them. Or maybe
they should just learn to get along with their neighbors.
"The liberal progressives have managed to impose on our minds a notion that Christianity, classical
metaphysics, etc., are no longer what defines our Western identity."
I'm sorry, but this is a lunatic idea. Too bad it is the lynchpin of all "new right" thought.
You want to return to some imaginary West in which nothing happened in intellectual life after
about 1650.
It would take a book to properly refute Legutko and I am not inclined to do the work of writing
one but to put it simply, he has no knowledge of how Americans think. Americans are, at heart,
pragmatists. We don't care about ideology and most of the time we don't bother much with religion
either except to give polite lip service to it. It has no claim on the American soul.
Americans are at heart easy going people who have no use for either the loons of Liberalism
or Conservatism. Right now it is the Liberals, with their particular brand of silliness that are
out of favor. A few years ago it was Conservatives that no one wanted for next door neighbors.
The things Legutko writes of Americans could not care less about.
The American embrace of Putin is simply the result of American disgust with Europe, a continent
populated by a peculiar species of coward and ungrateful wretch, a museum that produces nothing
of any value any more and is governed by self-righteous morons who have nothing better to do with
their time than to lecture the infinitely more intelligent Americans. The American attitude towards
Europe is, "To Hell with it." In such an environment, of course we are willing to let Putin have
the damned place and the Devil give him good office. Trump, with his expressed contempt for the
opinions of foreign leaders, especially the Europeans, fits this perfectly.
I think an acceptable deal could be reached with Russia.
You have to think about it from their perspective: They have lost all power and influence not
only in the territories that Stalin seized, but also in many that were in the traditional sphere
of the Russian Empire. They view extension of Western influence and NATO into these territories
as an act of aggression and American aggrandizement. The loss of Ukraine is the cruelest cut of
all, because Kiev is the cradle of Russian Orthodox civilization.
Russian nationalists loathe Gorbachev, in part because he could easily have negotiated a deal
enforcing neutrality in formally Soviet-dominated territories as Soviet troops were withdrawn.
Instead, from their point of view, he gave it all away for nothing and left the Motherland open
to encirclement.
There is plainly space for a deal that would include security guarantees for Russia's neighbors
but also mandatory neutrality. Russia would take that deal. So far at least, we wouldn't, because
US policymakers want encirclement and domination in the region.
Let's see if Trump rethinks this. Russia is very imperfect, but we face much bigger and more
important threats. We'd be better off forging an alliance with Russia if we can.
Mr. Legutko is a member of PiS, the party which currently rules Poland. Immediately after coming
to power they turned all public TV Stations into Government mouthpieces, and practically shut
down the supreme court.
Communism is not a "political philosophy"; it's an economic theory. If they guy actually called
it a political theory (he may not have; those may be Rod's words, written in haste) then he's
no more worth listening to than a astronomer who asserts that the sun and planet revolve around
the Earth.
"this establishment is never satisfied with anything but an unconditional surrender of its opponents."
The Right should have learned this lesson with the Regan Amnesty. "A Deal is never a Deal"
with the left. For the Left, any comprise is just an opportunity to move sidelines yard markers.
Rod, do yourself a huge favor and if you don't have it already, pick up a copy of C. Lasch's
posthumous book The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy. For some reason
I'd missed this one along the way, but I bought a copy recently and started it over the weekend.
He wrote it in the early 90's, but it's so on-target you'd think it was written yesterday. The
introduction alone is worth the price of the book - obviously he did not have Trump, or even a
Trump-like character in mind, but his observations on conservatism, liberalism, populism, etc.,
are head-shakingly accurate. Not to be missed.
"he explains how Poland cast off the bonds of communism only to find that liberal democracy imposed
similar interdictions on free thought and debate."
I am sorry, but I have travelled throughout Eastern Europe before and after the fall of communism.
Anyone who tells me that liberal democracy there (where it exists) imposes "similar interdictions
on free thought and debate" is just not to be taken seriously.
This is an article I would have posted on Facebook if the tag line were not so inflammatory that
it would go unread and in fact do more harm than good.
This makes perfect sense . . . or it's utter nonsense. The problem is Donald Trump is a wild card.
No one knows exactly how Trump will play or be played. If Trump accepts the role of Head of State,
leaving the details of governing to others (Pense, Ryan, McConnell, whomever) there might be some
consistency. A conservative agenda (as Americans have come to know it) will be possible.
But if the Donald Trump who has displayed zero substantive knowledge about anything decides
to actually govern (or worse yet, sporadically and whimsically govern) then in the immortal words
of Bette Davis: "Fasten your seat belts! It's going to be a bumpy night."
Legutko is going to be disappointed but, I suspect, not surprised when Trump simply throws open
the door. And then asks Putin if he can get the base construction contracts.
I'm reminded of the lyrics in a song by The Who: "Meet the new boss, Same as the old boss." The
song title is "We won't get fooled again." Good luck with that.
Maybe there is just something in the nature of humans which compels us to want to impose our
biases, beliefs, and visions of society and the future upon those around us. Maybe it just boils
down to eventual fatigue from constantly arguing with people who will never end up agreeing to
your point of view: the simple solution has always been to make your opponents shut up. Failing
that, we resort to locking them up, or driving them out, or ultimately killing them.
With regard to this quote:
"Whether these decisions will be sufficient for American Christians to launch a counteroffensive
and to reclaim the lost areas, I do not know. A lot will depend on what the Christians will do
and how outspoken they will be in making their case public."
I'm not sure how to take this. Is he merely hoping to carve out some space for Christians to
co-exist with a larger secular majority. Or does he still harbor hope of restoring Christianity
as a central element of Western Culture, against the resistance of the secularists? If the latter
is his dream, I would point out that using institutional and political power to re-impose Christianity
upon the masses is no different that what the Left is doing now impose its preferred set of beliefs.
He would just be looking for a new Boss, if you will.
With regard to the European Project: It is worth remembering that European Nationalism resulted
many centuries of warfare between contending powers on the continent. It culminated in two world
wars, the second of which left most of that area of the world in ruins. The original motivation
for the European Union was to end that cycle of warfare, by more tightly linking together the
economies of these nations.
Now we see a resurgence of Russian Nationalism, with that country seeking to expand its sphere
of influence again, and gleefully egging on the Nationalists in Western Europe, with the hope
of finishing off the NATO military alliance. As emotionally satisfying as it might be to stop
the drive toward further unification and uniformity, a return to something worse is clearly possible.
Now Legutko clearly believes that the European Union and NATO were failing at the task of restraining
Russian imperialism anyway. From a Eastern European perspective, that is probably true. But if
you look around the conservative blogosphere, it isn't hard to find self described conservatives
who see that as a pragmatic necessity. They say it was a mistake to expand NATO, that those countries
were always naturally in the Russian sphere of influence, and coping with that reality it their
problem, and not our problem. The irony is that the more nationalistic and less global we become
in our perspective, the less likely we are to help protect Legutko's homeland from its larger,
aggressive neighbor to the East.
This guy derides the neocons, but on Russia, he is as bad or worse than them. How is Russia an
imperial nation when they have stood by and let NATO expand to their doorstep when the US promised
it would go no further east than Berlin? How is it imperialist that they secured their military
foothold in Crimea (killing no one I might add) against a US backed, fascist coup against the
democratically elected government of Ukraine?
[NFR: I think you should consider
the history of Poland
in the 19th and 20th centuries - especially from 1945 through 1989 - if you want to understand
why Poles worry about Russian imperialism. - RD]
I loathe the election of Trump and what it will do here (so much so, that our family will likely
move to Switzerland, where my wife is from and in which my 3 daughters all have citizenship),
but one of the quite reasonable things that Trump has said is that "If we got along with Russia,
it wouldn't be a bad thing."
I don't think that means letting Putin do whatever he wants, and I have zero or sub-zero faith
that Trump will implement anything like a sensible approach to whatever Putin does, but trying
to get along with Russia is not crazy.
At any rate, if the Poles are so scared of Russian attack, they can train their own sons to
defend them. Or maybe they should just learn to get along with their neighbors.
These beastly Poles. Always provoking their Russian and German neighbors.
Legato embraces his own set of traumatic, reactionary 'isms' which, like most 'isms', are covered
with a patina of light philosophy to make them seem like the wisdom of the ages. I'm not sure
he's entirely comfortable with the outcomes of the Enlightenment
[NFR: Of course he's not! Neither am I. Where you been? - RD]
We've seen the make-shift "fake news" list created by a
leftist feminist professor. Well, another fake news list has been revealed
and this one holds a lot more water.
This list contains the culprits who told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and lied
us into multiple bogus wars. These are the news sources that told us "if you like your doctor, you
can keep your doctor." They told us that Hillary Clinton had a 98% of winning the election. They
tell us in a never-ending loop that "The economy is in great shape!"
Trump essentially betrayed Flynn, who tried to did the billing of Kushner and persuade Russia to abstain from anti-Israel vote.
Notable quotes:
"... The big takeaways from this book is the (1) systemic manipulation of intelligence analysts' conclusions to fit political narratives (I have personally seen my work modified to "soften" the message/conclusions for x, y, or z reasons) and (2) Radical Islam is not a new phenomenon that spawned as a response to "American imperialism" as often preached from the lecterns of western universities. ..."
"... There is no love lost between Lt Gen Flynn and President Obama, and Flynn's frustration with Obama's lack of leadership is clear throughout this work. ..."
"... General Flynn is a career Army combat intelligence officer with extensive hard experience mostly in the Middle East, a lifetime Democrat, who seems to understand and is able to clearly and concisely define the threat of Radical Islam (NOT all Islam) far better than both the Bush ("W") and Obama administrations politicos in Washington were willing to hear or accept. ..."
"... in contrast to what his detractors might opine, General Flynn is speaking of Radical Islam as a "tribal cult," and not taking aim at the religion itself. ..."
"... The general's comments on human intelligence and interrogation operations being virtually nonexistent makes one wonder if all the Lessons Learned that are written after every conflict and stored away are then never looked at again - I suspect it's true. ..."
"... My unit, the 571st MI Detachment of the 525th MI Group, ran agents (HUMINT) throughout I Corps/FRAC in Vietnam. The Easter Offensive of 1972 was actually known and reported by our unit before and during the NVA's invasion of the South. We were virtually the only intelligence source available for the first couple of weeks because of weather. Search the internet for The Easter Offensive of 1972: A Failure to Use Intelligence. ..."
"... I totally concur with Lt. General, Michael T. Flynn, US Army, (ret), that any solution to "Radical Islamic Terrorism" today has to also resolve the ideology issue, along side the other recommendations that he discusses in his book. ..."
"... Provocative, bellicose, rhetorical, and patriotic, the author leaves the reader wondering if his understanding of the enemy is hubris or sagacity. Much of that confusion can be attributed to conditioning as a an American and seeing prosecution of American wars as apolitical and astrategic. General Flynn's contribution to the way forward, "Field of Fight" is certainly political and at a minimum operational strategy. His practical experience is normative evidence to take him at his word for what he concludes is the next step to deal with radicals and reactionaries of political Islam. ..."
"... One paradox that he never solved was his deliberate attempt to frame terrorist as nothing more that organized crime, but at the same respect condemn governments that are "Islamic Republics," whom attempt to enforce the laws as an ineffective solution, and attempting to associate the with the other 1.6 billion Muslims by painting them as "Radical Islam." ..."
When I had heard
in the news that Lt Gen Flynn might be chosen by Donald Trump as his Vice Presidential nominee,
I was quick to do some research on Flynn and came across this work. Having worked in the intelligence
community myself in the past several years, I was intrigued to hear what the previous director
of the DIA had to say. I have read many books on the topic of Islam and I am glad I picked this
up.
The big takeaways from this book is the (1) systemic manipulation of intelligence analysts'
conclusions to fit political narratives (I have personally seen my work modified to "soften" the
message/conclusions for x, y, or z reasons) and (2) Radical Islam is not a new phenomenon that
spawned as a response to "American imperialism" as often preached from the lecterns of western
universities.
If you have formed your opinion of Islam and the nature of the West's fight in the Middle East
on solely what you hear in the main steam media (all sides), you would do well to read this book
as a starting point into self-education on an incredibly complex topic.
There is no love lost between Lt Gen Flynn and President Obama, and Flynn's frustration
with Obama's lack of leadership is clear throughout this work. Usually this political opining
in a work such as this is distracting, but it does add much-needed context to decisions and events.
That said, Lt Gen Flynn did a great job addressing a complex topic in plain language. While this
is not a seminal work on
General Flynn is a career Army combat intelligence officer with extensive hard experience mostly
in the Middle East, a lifetime Democrat, who seems to understand and is able to clearly and concisely
define the threat of Radical Islam (NOT all Islam) far better than both the Bush ("W") and Obama
administrations politicos in Washington were willing to hear or accept.
He supports what he can
tell us with citations. Radical Islam has declared war on Western democracies, most of all on
the US. Its allies include Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, and others. Their war against us
is a long-term effort, and our politicians (except Trump?) don't want to hear it. We need to demand
that our politicos prepare for this assault and start taking wise, strong steps to defeat it.
Western Europe may already have been fatally infiltrated by "refugees" who will seek to Islamize
it, and current birth rates suggest that those nations will have Muslim majorities in 20 years.
General Flynn details what we must do to survive the assault. I bought the Kindle version and
began reading it, but then paid more for the audible version so that I could get through it faster.
Please buy and read this book!
Looking Inward First, is What Generates the Strategy-Shifting Process. Flynn Gets This. Few
Others Do.
To begin with, I will say that the book is not exactly what one might expect from a recently
retired General. For starters, there were numerous spelling errors, an assortment of colloquialisms
and some instances in which the prose took on a decidedly partisan tone. The means of documenting
sources was something akin to a blog-posting, in that he simply copied and pasted links to pages,
right into the body of the work. I would have liked to have seen a more thoroughly researched
and properly cited work. All of this was likely due to the fact that General Flynn released his
book in the days leading up to Donald J. Trump's announcement of his Vice Presidential pick. As
Flynn is apparently a close national security advisor to Trump, I can understand why his work
appears to be somewhat harried. Nonetheless, I think that the book's timeliness is useful, as
the information it contains might be helpful in guiding Americans' election choices. I also think
that despite the absence of academic rigor, it makes his work more accessible. No doubt, this
is probably one of Mr. Trump's qualities and one that has catapulted him to national fame and
serious consideration for the office he seeks. General Flynn makes a number of important points,
which, despite my foregoing adverse commentary, gives me the opportunity to endorse it as an essential
read.
In the introductory chapter, General Flynn lays out his credentials, defines the problem, and
proceeds to inform the reader of the politically guided element that clouds policy prescriptions.
Indeed, he is correct to call attention to the fact that the Obama administration has deliberately
exercised its commanding authority in forbidding the attachment of the term "Islam" when speaking
of the threat posed by extremists who advocate and carry out violence in the religion's name.
As one who suffered at the hands of the administration for speaking truth to power, he knows all
too well what others in the Intelligence Community (IC) must suffer in order to hold onto their
careers.
In chapter one, he discusses where he came from and how he learned valuable lessons at home
and in service to his country. He also gives the reader a sense of the geopolitical context in
which Radical Islamists have been able to form alliances with our worst enemies. This chapter
also introduces the reader to some of his personal military heroes, as he delineates how their
mentorship shaped his thinking on military and intelligence matters. A key lesson to pay attention
to in this chapter is what some, including General Flynn, call 'politicization of intelligence.'
Although he maintains that both the present and previous administration have been guilty of this,
he credits the Bush administration with its strategic reconsideration of the material facts and
a search for better answers. (He mentions this again in the next chapter on p.42, signifying this
capability as a "leadership characteristic" and later recalls the president's "insight and courage"
on p. 154.)
Chapter two of The Field of Fight features an excellent summary of what transpires in a civil
war and the manner in which Iraqis began to defect from al-Qa'ida and cooperate with U.S. forces.
In this task, he explains for the layperson what many scholars do, but in far fewer pages. Again,
this makes his work more accessible. He also works through the process of intelligence failures
that are, in his opinion, produced by a superordinate policy failure housed in the upper echelons
of the military structure. In essence, it was a misperception (willful or not) that guided thinking
about the cause of the insurgency, that forbade an ability to properly address it with a population-centric
Counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy. He pays homage to the adaptability and ingenuity of General
Stanley McChrystal's Task Force 714, but again mentions the primary barrier to its success was
bureaucratic in nature.
The main thrust of chapter 3, aptly named "The Enemy Alliance," is geared toward tying together
the earlier assertion in chapter regarding the synergy between state actors like Iran, North Korea,
Syria, and the like. It has been documented elsewhere, but the Iranian (non-Arab Shi'a) connection
to the al-Qa'ida (Arab Sunni) terrorist organization can't be denied. Flynn correctly points out
how the relationship between strange bedfellows is not new in the Middle East. He briefly discusses
how this has been the case since the 1970s, with specific reference to the PLO, Iran, Syria, Hamas,
Hezbollah, Bosnia and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's. He also references President Obama's "curious sympathy"
(p. 92) for enemies in places such as Venezuela and Cuba.
General Flynn then reminds readers of some facts that have either been forgotten, or virtually
unknown, by most Americans. Namely, the role that Saddam Hussein actually played with regard to
the recruitment of foreign terrorists, the internal policies of appeasement for Islamists in his
army and the support he lent to Islamists in other countries (e.g., Egypt, Sudan and Afghanistan).
He also reminds the readers of the totalitarian mindset that consumes Islamist groups, such as
al-Qa'ida and the Islamic State. All the while, and in contrast to what his detractors might opine,
General Flynn is speaking of Radical Islam as a "tribal cult," and not taking aim at the religion
itself. This chapter is perhaps the most robust in the book and it is the sort of reading that
every American should do before they engage in conversations about the nature of political Islam.
Chapter four is a blueprint for winning what used to be called the 'global war on terror.' Although
such a phraseology is generally laughed at in many policy circles, it is clear, as General Flynn
demonstrates, that some groups and countries are locked in combat with us and our partners in
the West. Yet, as he correctly points out, the Obama administration isn't willing to use global
American leadership in order to defeat those who see us, and treat us, as their collective enemy.
General Flynn's prescription includes four strategic objectives, which I won't recite here, as
I'm not looking to violate any copyright laws. The essence of his suggestions, however, starts
with an admission of who the enemy is, a commitment to their destruction, the abandonment of any
unholy alliances we have made over the years, and a counter-ideological program for combating
what is largely an ideologically-based enemy strong suit. He points to some of the facts that
describe the dismal state of affairs in the Arab world, the most damning of which appear on pages
127-128, and then says what many are afraid to say on page 133: "Radical Islam is a totalitarian
political ideology wrapped in the Islamic religion." Nonetheless, Flynn discusses some of the
more mundane and pecuniary sources of their strength and the means that might be tried in an effort
to undermine them.
The concluding chapter of General Flynn's work draws the reader's attention to some of the works
of others that have been overlooked. He then speaks candidly of the misguided assumptions that,
coupled with political and bureaucratic reasons, slows adaptation to the changing threat environment.
Indeed, one of the reasons that I found this book so refreshing is because that sort of bold introspection
is perhaps the requisite starting point for re-thinking bad strategies. In fact, that is the essence
of both the academic and practical work that I have been doing for years. I highly recommend this
book, especially chapter 3, for any student of the IC and the military sciences.
It's ironic that the general wrote about Pattern Analysis, when DIA in late-1971 warned that
the Ho Chi Minh Trail was unusually active using this technique.
The general's comments on human intelligence and interrogation operations being virtually nonexistent
makes one wonder if all the Lessons Learned that are written after every conflict and stored away
are then never looked at again - I suspect it's true.
My unit, the 571st MI Detachment of the 525th MI Group, ran agents (HUMINT) throughout I Corps/FRAC
in Vietnam. The Easter Offensive of 1972 was actually known and reported by our unit before and
during the NVA's invasion of the South. We were virtually the only intelligence source available
for the first couple of weeks because of weather. Search the internet for The Easter Offensive
of 1972: A Failure to Use Intelligence.
At a time when so much is hanging in the balance, General Flynn's book plainly
lays out a strategy for not only fighting ISIS/ISIL but also for preventing totalitarianism from
spreading with Russia, North Korea and Cuba now asserting themselves - again.
Sadly, because there is some mild rebuke towards President Obama, my fear is people who should
read this book to gain a better understanding of the mind of the jihadist won't because they don't
like their president being called out for inadequate leadership. But the fact remains we are at
war with not just one, but several ideologies that have a common enemy - US! But this book is
not about placing blame, it is about winning and what it will take to defeat the enemies of freedom.
We take freedom for granted in the West, to the point where, unlike our enemies, we are no
longer willing to fight hard to preserve those freedoms. General Flynn makes the complicated theatre
of fighting Radical Islam easier to understand. His experience in explaining how we can and have
won on the battlefield gives me great comfort, but also inspires me to want to help fight for
the good cause of freedom.
My sincerest hope is that both Trump and Clinton will read this book and then appoint General
Flynn as our next Defense Secretary!
I totally concur with Lt. General, Michael T. Flynn, US Army, (ret), that any solution to "Radical
Islamic Terrorism" today has to also resolve the ideology issue, along side the other recommendations
that he discusses in his book. All of the radical fighting that has taken place in the world,
ever since the beginning evolution of the Islamic religion over 1400 years ago, has revolved around
radical interpretations of the Qur'an.
Until there is an Islamic religious reformation, there
will never be a lasting resolution to the current "Radical Islamic Terrorist" problem. It is a
religious ideology interpretation issue. Until that interpretation is resolved within the Islamic
world, there will always be continuing radical interpretation outbreaks, from within the entire
Islamic world, against all other forms of non-Islamic religions and their evolving cultures.
If
you require further insight, recommend you read " Heretic, Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now"
, by Ayaan Hirisi Ali. DCC
Provocative, bellicose, rhetorical, and patriotic, the author leaves the
reader wondering if his understanding of the enemy is hubris or sagacity. Much of that confusion
can be attributed to conditioning as a an American and seeing prosecution of American wars as
apolitical and astrategic. General Flynn's contribution to the way forward, "Field of Fight" is
certainly political and at a minimum operational strategy. His practical experience is normative
evidence to take him at his word for what he concludes is the next step to deal with radicals
and reactionaries of political Islam.
One paradox that he never solved was his deliberate attempt to frame terrorist as nothing more
that organized crime, but at the same respect condemn governments that are "Islamic Republics,"
whom attempt to enforce the laws as an ineffective solution, and attempting to associate the with
the other 1.6 billion Muslims by painting them as "Radical Islam."
As if there is any relationship
to relationship to Islam other than it is the predominant religion in a majority of the area where
they commit their criminal activity. As if the political war with terrorist is a function of a
label that is of itself a oversimplification of the issues. Indeed, suggesting it is a nothing
more than 'political correctness" and ignoring the possibility that it might be a function of
setting the conditions in an otherwise polygon of political justice. This argument alone is evidence
of the his willingness to develop domestic political will for war with a simple argument. Nevertheless,
as a national strategy, it lacks the a foundational argument to motivate friendly regional actors
who's authority is founded on political Islam.
In 2008 a national election was held and the pyrrhic nature of the war in Iraq adjudicated
via the process of democratic choice that ended support for continued large scale conventional
occupation. That there is some new will to continue large scale conventional occupation seems
unlikely, and as a democratic country, leaders must find other means to reach the desired end
state, prosecuting contiguous operations to suppress, neutralize, and destroy "ALL" who use terrorism
to expand and enforce their political will with a deliberate limited wars that have methodological
end states. Lastly, sounding more like a General MacArther, the General Flynn's diffuse strategy
seems to ignore the most principles of war deduced by Von Clausewitz and Napoleon: Concentration
of force on the objective to be attacked. Instead, fighting an ideology "Radical Islam" seems
more abstract then any splatter painting of modern are in principle form it suggests a commitment
to simplicity to motivate our nation to prepare for and endure the national commitment to a long
war.
Since we can all agree there is no magical solution, then normative pragmatism of the likes
that General. Flynn's assessment provides, must be taken into account in an operation and tactical
MDMP. Ignoring and silencing Subject Matter Experts (SME's) will net nothing more than failure,
a failure that could be measured in innocent civilian lives as a statistical body count. I could
see General Flynn's suggestions and in expertise bolstering a movement to establish a CORP level
active duty unit to prepare, plan, and implemented in phases 0, IV, & V (JP 5-0) . Bear in mind,
Counter Insurgency (COIN) was never considered a National strategy but instead at tactical strategy
and at most an operational strategy.
Several times in its nearly 250 years of existence our Nation has been at
a crossroads. Looking back on our War for Independence, the Civil War, and WWII we know the decisions
made in those tumultuous times forever altered the destiny of our Republic.
We are once again at one of those crossroads where the battle lines have been drawn, only this
time in an asymmetrical war between western democracy and the radical Islamists and nation states
who nurture them. In his timely book Field of Fight, Lt. General Michael T. Flynn provides a unique
perspective on this war and what he believes are some of the steps necessary to meet this foe.
Field of Fight begins as an autobiography in which the author gives you a sense of who he is
as a man and a soldier. This background information then provides the reader with a better perspective
through which to evaluate his analysis of the challenges we face as well as the course of action
he believes we need to take to meet those challenges.
The following are a few of the guidelines General Flynn proposes for developing a winning strategy
in our war with radical Islam and other potential foes:
1. Properly assess your environment and clearly define your enemy;
2. Face reality – for politicians, this is never an easy thing to do;
3. Understand the social context and fabric of the operational environment;
4. Recognize who's in charge of the enemy's forces.
In Field of Fight General Flynn makes the case that we are losing this war with radical Islam
because our nation's leadership has failed to develop a winning strategy. Further he opines that
our current leaders lack the clarity of vision and moral certitude that understands American democracy
is a "better way", that not all forms of human government are equal, and that there are principled
reasons worth fighting for - the very basic of those being, "life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness."
I'll admit I'm concerned about the future of our country. As a husband and a father of five
I wonder about the world we leaving for our children to inherit. I fear we have lost our moral
compass thus creating a vacuum in which human depravity as exemplified by today's radical Islamists
thrives.
Equally concerning to me is what happens when the pendulum swings the other way. Will we have
the moral and principled leaders to check our indignation before it goes too far? When that heart
rending atrocity which is sure to come finally pushes the American people to white hot wrath who
will hold our own passions in check? In a nation where Judeo-Christian moral absolutes are an
outdated notion what will keep us from becoming that which we most hate?
As I stated at the start of this review, today we are at a crossroads. Once again our nation
needs principled men and women in positions of leadership who understand the Field of Fight as
described by General Flynn and have the wisdom and courage to navigate this battlefield.
* * *
In summary, although I don't agree with everything written in this book I found it to be an
educational read which will provided me with much food for thought over the coming months. As
a representative republic choosing good leadership requires that we as citizens understand the
problems and challenges we face as a nation. Today radical Islam is one of those challenges and
General Flynn's book Field of Fight: How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its
Allies gives a much needed perspective on the subject.
Gen Flynn has been in the news a lot lately. He apparently did not get on well in DC with his
views on fighting terrorism. That is very relevant now as we are seeking better ways to fight
ISIS and terror in general. I read his book today to learn what is on his mind. Flynn had a lot
of experience starting in the 82nd Airborne and was almost always in intelligence work. Army intelligence
is narrowly focused - where is the enemy, how many of them are there, how are they armed and what
is the best way to destroy them. Undoubtedly he was good at this. However, that is not the kind
of intelligence we need to defeat ISIS. Flynn's book shows no sign of cultural awareness, which
is the context by which we must build intelligence about our opponent. In Iraq, he did learn the
difference between who was Sunni and who was Shia but that was it. He shows no sign of any historical
knowledge about these groups and how they think and live. In looking at Afghanistan, he seems
unaware of the various clans and languages amongst different people. The 2 primary languages of
Afghanistan are Pashto and Dari. Dari is essentially the same as Farsi, so the Persian influence
has been strong in the country for a long time. Flynn seems totally unaware. Intelligence in his
world is obtained from interrogation and captured documents. They are processed fast and tell
him who their next target should be. This kind of work is not broad enough to give him a strategic
background. He sees USA's challenges in the world as a big swath of enemies that are all connected
and monolithic. North Korea, China, Iran, Russia, Syria, ISIS, and so forth. All need to be dealt
with in a forceful manner. He never seems to think about matching resources with objective.
This monlithic view of our opponents is obviously wrong. Pres George W Bush tried it that way
with the Axis of Evil. The 1950's Cold War was all built in fear of the monolithic Soviet Union
and China. All these viewpoints were failures.
Flynn does not see it though. In the book, Flynn says invading Iraq in 2003 might have been the
wrong choice. He would have invaded Iran. The full Neocon plan was for 7 countries in 5 years,
right after knocking down Iraq, then we would do the same to Iran. I hope we have lost a lot of
that hubris by now. But with poor vision by leaders like Flynn, we might get caught up again in
this craziness.
To beat ISIS and Al Qaeda type groups we need patience and allies. We have to dry up the source
of the terrorists that want to die. That will be done with a combination of cultural outreaches
as well as armed force.
I am sure the Presidential candidates will both see that Flynn does not have that recipe. Where
is a General that does? We have often made this mistake. Sixty Six years ago, we felt good that
Gen Douglas MacArthur "knew the Oriental mind" and he would guid us to victory in Korea. That
ended up as a disaster at the end of 1950. I think we are better off at working with leaders that
understand the people that are trying to terrorize us. Generals don't develop those kinds of empathic
abilities.
"... "Bolton is a longtime member of the failed Washington elite that Trump vowed to oppose, hell-bent on repeating virtually every foreign policy mistake the U.S. has made in the last 15 years - particularly those Trump promised to avoid as president," ..."
"... "It's important that someone who was an unrepentant advocate for the Iraq War, who didn't learn the lessons of the Iraq War, shouldn't be the secretary of state for a president who says Iraq was ..."
Senator Rand Paul said Tuesday in an
op-ed for Rare that he would oppose President-elect Donald Trump's rumored selection of former
U.N. Ambassador John Bolton as Secretary of State.
"Bolton is a longtime member of the failed Washington elite that Trump vowed to oppose, hell-bent
on repeating virtually every foreign policy mistake the U.S. has made in the last 15 years - particularly
those Trump promised to avoid as president,"
Paul wrote citing U.S. interventions in Iraq and Libya
that Trump has criticized but that Bolton strongly advocated.
Reports since have indicated that former New York City mayor and loyal Trump ally, Rudy Giuliani
is being considered for the post.
The Washington Post's David Weigel
reports , "Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a newly reelected member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
said this morning that he was inclined to oppose either former U.N. ambassador John Bolton or former
New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani if they were nominated for secretary of state."
"It's important that someone who was an unrepentant advocate for the Iraq War, who didn't learn
the lessons of the Iraq War, shouldn't be the secretary of state for a president who says Iraq
was a big lesson," Paul told the Post. "Trump said that a thousand times. It would be a
huge mistake for him to give over his foreign policy to someone who [supported the war]. I mean,
you could not find more unrepentant advocates of regime change."
"... "How many people sleep better knowing that the Baltics are part of NATO? They don't make us safer, in fact, quite the opposite . We need to think really hard about these commitments," said William Ruger, vice president of research and policy at the Charles Koch Institute. ..."
"... A prominent member of the outsiders is Rand Paul, skeptic of Bush's foreign policy, who has criticized Bolton in the last few days. Paul on Tuesday blasted Bolton in an op-ed in Rare as "a longtime member of the failed Washington elite that Trump vowed to oppose." ..."
"... However, neo-cons are bad at losing, so they have redoubled efforts to land one of their own next to Trump. Lindsey Graham, a prominent foreign policy hawk in the Senate, issued an endorsement of Bolton on Thursday, saying: "He understands who our friends and enemies are. We see the world in very similar ways." ..."
"... He also slammed Paul's criticism of Bolton: "You could put the number of Republicans who will follow Rand Paul's advice on national security in a very small car. Rand is my friend but he's a libertarian and an outlier in the party on these issues." ..."
"... Meanwhile, the biggest warmonger, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, who has not said who he'd like to see in Trump's cabinet, laid down a marker on Tuesday by warning the future Trump administration against trying to seek an improved relationship with adversary Russia. "When America has been at its greatest, it is when we have stood on the side those fighting tyranny. That is where we must stand again," he warned. ..."
"... MENA is the most important, perhaps the only leverage that the US has to hold the global reserve currency. As long as the US retain the world's money, the US can finance its debt while collecting rent worldwide. Also, the US can export its inflation. ..."
"... No US President can, or will willingly let these three to fail, because the collapse will be horrifying. ..."
"... the U.S. Empire has globalised its reach as an instrument of the deep state and its oligarchy of owner/operators. Ostensibly to bring democracy to the oppressed, its real purpose was to enrich the rent-seekers on the MIC value chain and to protect and serve the private globalist interests who were the clients of the deep state. National funds flow has always been net outbound, and not the other way around, as in any successful precendent for empire. This continues to be true to this day because of the influence the wealthy rent-seekers on this value chain have over the federal government. Simple as that. ..."
"... Raytheon, Lockheed and Boeing are corporate sponsors of the Rockefeller/CFR. James Woolsey, Stephen Hadley, John Bolton, Eliot Cohen and John McCain are CFR members. Also Bill Clinton, Janet Yellen, John Paulson, Lloyd Blankfein and George Soros. See member lists at cfr dot org. Cohen, Bolton, Woolsey, and McCain were also members of PNAC. ..."
"... Yes. Out of NATO, stop the endless pointless wars in the M.E., embrace George Washington and avoiding "foreign entaglements." ..."
"... Agree...but, easier said than done. A large component of our economy is wholly dependent on government funded MIC and arms sales. Dependency on government spending as large part of our economy has seeped into nearly every aspect of our market place. ..."
"... There is a problem with the long term approach...is that the every attempt will be made to stop such a transition in its tracks. Even if it means world war. ..."
"... With modern travel and communications neither policy would work any longer but I'll take nationalism. Bottom line on hawks, the budget is busted out! Cant afford guns and butter anymore. ..."
"... The empire building has made all but a few a lot poorer and the majority on earth more miserable. I am not naive, I know violence is sometimes necessary, but eternal offence as a strategy ensures enemies will find ways to focus on that top dog and beat you. Beside what I think or believe about foreign policy, it doesn't matter we are broke in affording empire. Period. ..."
"... You guys crazy or sumpthin? You want full employment at good wages? All out War is your best bet. No messy "fixing" anything, just flip the switch and off you go. Draft all those troublemakers, turn them into cannon fodder, crank up the printing presses and happy days are here again. ..."
"... What is with you people? It is almost like Saudi Arabia doesn't exist and doesn't buy our politicians. It is almost as if Hillary Clinton never existed, nor her Saudi asset girlfriend (yes, married to an Israeli asset). Look, if you're going to blame the Jews every time, also blame the Wahhabis. And then you might want to also say fuck you to the British who are responsible for both nations. ..."
"... Look, if you're going to blame the Jews every time, also blame the Wahhabis ..."
"... Wahabism/Salafism has been used since Reagan as a weapon for covert war. Saudi Petrodollars recycle back to the U.S. MIC as they pass through the CIA Hillary Clinton approved very large increases in weapons to the Saudi's especially as they funded the Clinton machine. Clintons are CFR agents, and that has a heavy jewish illuminst influence. ..."
"... In what fucking dimension do people this fucking incompetent still have jobs, let alone credibility? Preposterous that they even still have jobs. The US has blown 5-6 trillion on losing one war after the other, has caused massive disorder and chaos in the Mideast to absolutely no one's benefit except Israel, or so Israel believes, and destabilized the entire region to the point that a WWIII could erupt at any moment. ..."
"... Disaster and incompetence at this level can only be rewarded with sackings and terminations across the board. But no, not in the US. The public is more preooccupied with fictional racists and Donald's bawdy pussy talk. ..."
"... Trump has been provided an easy litmus test, who has ever advocated deposing Assad must be rejected, not because Assad is such a great guy, but because those who would replace him are radical islamists all. Russia could be cultivated as a friend and do more for world peace than the Arab world which has a fatal jihad disease. ..."
"... The presidency is more of a ceremonial position now. If the deep state doesn't like the president, it can simply fire him, as it did with Kennedy (and arguably Nixon). It can also make his life a living hell or force a foreign policy showdown as it did with Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs. ..."
"... Controlled demolitions take weeks of planning and preparation. So the implication is that someone planned the WTC7 collapse weeks in advance. WTC7 held a number of offices, including offices of the SEC. Many files were destroyed. ..."
In late October, when it was still conventional wisdom that Hillary was "guaranteed" to win the presidency, the WaPo explained that
among the neo-con, foreign policy "elites" of the Pentagon, a feeling of calm content had spread: after all, it was just a matter
of time before the "pacifist" Obama was out, replaced by the more hawkish Hillary.
As the
WaPo reported , "there is one corner of Washington where Donald Trump's scorched-earth presidential campaign is treated as a
mere distraction and where bipartisanship reigns. In the rarefied world of the Washington foreign policy establishment, President
Obama's departure from the White House - and the possible return of a more conventional and hawkish Hillary Clinton - is being met
with quiet relief ."
The Republicans and Democrats who make up the foreign policy elite are laying the groundwork for a more assertive American
foreign policy via a flurry of reports shaped by officials who are likely to play senior roles in a potential Clinton White House.
Oops.
Not only did the "foreign policy" elite get the Trump "scorched-earth distraction" dead wrong, it now has to scramble to find
what leverage - if any - it has in defining Trump's foreign policy. Worse, America's warmongers are now waging war (if only metaphorically:
we all know they can't wait for the real thing) against libertarians for direct access to Trump's front door, a contingency they
had never planned for.
As The Hill reported
earlier , "a battle is brewing between the GOP foreign policy establishment and outsiders over who will sit on President-elect
Donald Trump's national security team. The fight pits hawks and neoconservatives who served in the former Bush administrations against
those on the GOP foreign policy edges."
Taking a page out of Ron Paul's book, the libertarians, isolationists and realists see an opportunity to pull back America's commitments
around the world, spend less money on foreign aid and "nation-building," curtail expensive military campaigns and troop deployments,
and intervene militarily only to protect American interests. In short: these are people who believe that human life, and the avoidance
of war, is more valuable than another record quarter for Raytheon, Lockheed or Boeing.
On the other hand, the so-called establishment camp, many of whom disavowed Trump during the campaign, is made up of the same
people who effectively ran Hillary Clinton's tenure while she was Secretary of State, fully intent on creating zones of conflict,
political instability and outright war in every imaginable place, from North Africa to Ukraine. This group is pushing for Stephen
Hadley, who served as national security adviser under George W. Bush. Another Bush ally, John Bolton whose name has been floated
as a possible secretary of State, also falls into this camp.
According to The Hill, other neo-con, establishment candidates floated include Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob
Corker (R-Tenn.), outgoing Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), rising star Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), and senior fellow at conservative think-tank
American Enterprise Institute and former Sen. Jim Talent (R-Mo.).
"These figures all generally believe that the United States needs to take an active role in the world from the Middle East to
East Asia to deter enemies and reassure allies."
In short, should this group prevail, it would be the equivalent of 4 more years of HIllary Clinton running the State Department.
The outsider group sees things differently.
They want to revamp American foreign policy in a different direction from the last two administrations. Luckily, this particular
camp is also more in line with Trump's views questioning the value of NATO, a position that horrified many in the establishment camp.
"How many people sleep better knowing that the Baltics are part of NATO? They don't make us safer, in fact, quite the opposite
. We need to think really hard about these commitments," said William Ruger, vice president of research and policy at the Charles
Koch Institute.
A prominent member of the outsiders is Rand Paul, skeptic of Bush's foreign policy, who has criticized Bolton in the last
few days. Paul on Tuesday blasted Bolton in an op-ed in Rare as "a longtime member of the failed Washington elite that Trump vowed
to oppose."
... ... ...
However, neo-cons are bad at losing, so they have redoubled efforts to land one of their own next to Trump. Lindsey Graham,
a prominent foreign policy hawk in the Senate, issued an endorsement of Bolton on Thursday, saying: "He understands who our friends
and enemies are. We see the world in very similar ways."
He also slammed Paul's criticism of Bolton: "You could put the number of Republicans who will follow Rand Paul's advice on
national security in a very small car. Rand is my friend but he's a libertarian and an outlier in the party on these issues."
Funny, that's exactly what the experts said about Trump's chances of winning not even two weeks ago.
Meanwhile, the biggest warmonger, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, who has not said who he'd like to
see in Trump's cabinet, laid down a marker on Tuesday by warning the future Trump administration against trying to seek an improved
relationship with adversary Russia. "When America has been at its greatest, it is when we have stood on the side those fighting tyranny.
That is where we must stand again," he warned.
Luckily, McCain - whose relationship with Trump has been at rock bottom ever since Trump's first appearance in the presidential
campaign - has zero impact on the thinking of Trump.
Furthermore, speaking of Russia, Retired Amy Col. Andrew Bacevich said there needs to be a rethink of American foreign policy.
He said the U.S. must consider whether Saudi Arabia and Pakistan qualify as U.S. allies, and the growing divergence between the U.S.
and Israel. "The establishment doesn't want to touch questions like these with a ten foot pole," he said at a conference on Tuesday
hosted by The American Conservative, the Charles Koch Institute, and the George Washington University Department of Political Science.
Furthermore, resetting the "deplorable" relations with Russia is a necessary if not sufficient condition to halt the incipient
nuclear arms build up that has resulted of the recent dramatic return of the Cold War. As such, a Trump presidency while potentially
a failure, may be best remember for avoiding the launch of World War III. If , that is, he manages to prevent the influence of neo-cons
in his cabinet.
And then there are the wildcards: those Trump advisers who are difficult to peg into which camp they fall into. One example is
retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, who was selected by Trump as his national security
adviser. Flynn is a "curious case," said Daniel Larison, senior editor at The American Conservative. The retired Army general has
said he wants to work with Russia, but also expressed contrary views in his book "Field of Fight."
According to Larison, Flynn writes of an "enemy alliance" against the U.S. that includes Russia, North Korea, China, Iran, Syria,
Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, al-Qaida, Hezbollah, and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. From that standpoint, he is about
as "establishment" as they come.
It's also not crystal clear which camp Giuliani falls into. The former mayor is known as a fierce critic of Islamic extremism
but has scant foreign policy experience.
Most say what is likely is change.
"Change is coming to American grand strategy whether we like it or not,' said Christopher Layne, Robert M. Gates Chair in National
Security at Texas A&M University.
"I think we are overdue for American retrenchment. Americans are beginning to suffer from hegemony fatigue," he said.
And, let's not forget, the tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children who are droned to death every year by anonymous
remote-control operators in the US just so the US can pursue its global hegemonic interest. They most certainly have, and unless
something indeed changes, will continue to suffer, leading to even more resentment against the US, and even more attacks against
US citizens around the globe, and on US soil. Some call them terrorism, others call them retaliation.
Help me here with this word (or whatever it means) REALISTS :
Article: Ron Paul's book, the libertarians, isolationists and REALISTS see an opportunity . to intervene militarily only to
protect American interests.
So dear Libertarians, as I am about to show you two examples, but the list is long, that you have a problem, because of (US)
reality:
1) You are told by the left and right massmedia that the US is something like that: King of natural gas. We'll be the world
exporter. That we have enough natural gas for 100 years, or some nonsense like that. But here is the REALITY :
US "still" had to import almost 1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in 2015.
2) Again, you might hear from the left and right massmedia that: US is shale this. US is shale that, even that shale is not
oil, but some form of kerogen. In any event, here' the reality: US crude oil imports, by Millions of Barrels a Day: 2014: 7,344
2015: 7,363 As of July 2016: 8,092 (MBD)
Key Point (in my opinion): Libertarians, you can't have both of best worlds -two incomparable believes. You have to chose,
otherwise you'll be a hypocrite while being a neocon as well.
MENA is the most important, perhaps the only leverage that the US has to hold the global reserve currency. As long as the
US retain the world's money, the US can finance its debt while collecting rent worldwide. Also, the US can export its inflation.
No US President can, or will willingly let these three to fail, because the collapse will be horrifying.
This construction of the U.S. empire is a myth. Unlike the British, Spanish, French, Portuguese, or any other empire throughout
history you care to name, the construction of the U.S. Empire has been a drastic net drain on U.S. finances.
Unlike any preceding
empire, which invaded other lands in search of wealth and captured client states to monetize added value, the U.S. Empire
has globalised its reach as an instrument of the deep state and its oligarchy of owner/operators. Ostensibly to bring democracy
to the oppressed, its real purpose was to enrich the rent-seekers on the MIC value chain and to protect and serve the private
globalist interests who were the clients of the deep state. National funds flow has always been net outbound, and not the other
way around, as in any successful precendent for empire. This continues to be true to this day because of the influence the wealthy
rent-seekers on this value chain have over the federal government. Simple as that.
In the process, the USA has been hollowed out from the inside, and risks imminent collapse. The greatest hope we can hold out
for a Trump presidency is a recognition of the truth of this. Bannon gets close sometimes, but I still have my doubts that there
is true recognition of just how dire these current circumstances are. In this, people like Ron Paul are right on target - to save
the Republic, the Empire and its enabling institutions (like the Fed) must go.
Raytheon, Lockheed and Boeing are corporate sponsors of the Rockefeller/CFR. James Woolsey, Stephen Hadley, John Bolton, Eliot
Cohen and John McCain are CFR members. Also Bill Clinton, Janet Yellen, John Paulson, Lloyd Blankfein and George Soros. See member
lists at cfr dot org. Cohen, Bolton, Woolsey, and McCain were also members of PNAC.
Michael Flynn's book "Field of Fight" is co-authored by neocon Michael Ledeen, defender of Israel and
promoter of "universal fascism" . Ledeen
is a member of the "Foundation for Defense of Democracies" where Trump advisor James Woolsey is chairman. Woolsey, Clinton's ex-CIA
director, is also a member of the "Flynn Intel Group".
Agree...but, easier said than done. A large component of our economy is wholly dependent on government funded MIC and arms
sales. Dependency on government spending as large part of our economy has seeped into nearly every aspect of our market place.
The gov expansion into and control of the economy has so distorted the markets, and created so much dependency that we are
now in a situation where without it, our economy collapses. It would take decades to fix this problem without collapsing the economy
while you are doing it...
However, we would still feel the pain as we transition the economy. There is a problem with the long term approach...is
that the every attempt will be made to stop such a transition in its tracks. Even if it means world war.
With modern travel and communications neither policy would work any longer but I'll take nationalism. Bottom line on hawks,
the budget is busted out! Cant afford guns and butter anymore.
The empire building has made all but a few a lot poorer and the majority on earth more miserable. I am not naive, I know
violence is sometimes necessary, but eternal offence as a strategy ensures enemies will find ways to focus on that top dog and
beat you. Beside what I think or believe about foreign policy, it doesn't matter we are broke in affording empire. Period.
You guys crazy or sumpthin? You want full employment at good wages? All out War is your best bet. No messy "fixing" anything,
just flip the switch and off you go. Draft all those troublemakers, turn them into cannon fodder, crank up the printing presses
and happy days are here again.
Only those doped up hippies worry about nukes. Don't listen to them.
I hear you do not like yo read, but you must read this ZH post that neatly summarizes the NeoCon influence in Wash. which has
run it's course with little tangible returns and many negative debt outcomes including loss of millions of lives . Time to change
or face world condemnation worse than Germany received after WWII. America has always been regarded as a savior Nation until the
Neocons took over Wash. for narrow corporate, DOD and foreign interests.
You have now heard all the arguments and must decide---compromise will only lead to more strife and possible economic collapse.
This is the most important decision of your Presidency ---all other decisions and promises depend on this one.
Fuck those stinking neo-con bastards. We are not going to be fighting Israel's wars again. This is the United States, not Israel,
no matter how much jew money controls congress and no matter how much jew money controls the media. I hope Trump understands this
very clearly.
What is with you people? It is almost like Saudi Arabia doesn't exist and doesn't buy our politicians. It is almost as if
Hillary Clinton never existed, nor her Saudi asset girlfriend (yes, married to an Israeli asset). Look, if you're going to blame
the Jews every time, also blame the Wahhabis. And then you might want to also say fuck you to the British who are responsible
for both nations.
The reason "Islamophobia" is even a thing is because Saudis paid Jewish SJWs to make it a thing, all while they pay WASPs like
Bolton to go apeshit on non-Wahhabi Muslims.
Yes, before you even start, I'm aware of the claims that the Saudis are some sort of "crypto-Jews". Whatever. They need to
be named regardless.
I don't recall the US fighting any wars that would directly benefit Saudi Arabia. Sure, the Saudis have a lot of money, but they
are just a bunch of camel-fuckers who got rich because they are sitting on oil. They are still a bunch of dumb camel-fuckers.
They don't have any nukes. I imagine the Saudis do nothing without the approval of the CIA Israel is a whole different story.
Look, if you're going to blame the Jews every time, also blame the Wahhabis
Let's deconstruct this statement shall we:
1971 Nixon goes off gold standard. Why? Deficit spending on Vietnam War was causing European Central Banks to hold dollars
they didn't want. They bought gold with it rather than mainstreet American goods. This then started depleting American Gold...especially
to France.
1973 Nixon sends his special JEW Kissinger to Saudi. Why? To make the petrodollar a world standard.
The Saudi Kissinger deal: Saudi gets protection by American War Machine, they get to Cartelize with OPEC, they get transhipment
protection by U.S. Navy, Saudi Illegitimate Coup is OK'd and sanctioned by the West, they get front line American Gear. Today
that gear includes the latest Jets and AWAC's.
What does America get, especially the Western Illuminist Bankers? All Saudi Petrodollars are to cycle into Western Capital
Market, including Western Banks. Saudi's are to buy TBILLs with their petrodollars. All oil is to be priced in dollars, to then
create demand for said dollars. Saudi's do not get to own a powerful financial center. (Can you name me a powerful Saudi bank?)
Our Jewish friends are not stupid and have been running the money game since forever.
The Coup for Saudi was actually a British MI6 project. If you trace MI6 back in time, it was an arm of Bank of England. BOE
was brought into existence by Jewish Capital out of Amsterrrdaaaamn.
Wahabism/Salafism has been used since Reagan as a weapon for covert war. Saudi Petrodollars recycle back to the U.S. MIC
as they pass through the CIA Hillary Clinton approved very large increases in weapons to the Saudi's especially as they funded
the Clinton machine. Clintons are CFR agents, and that has a heavy jewish illuminst influence.
So- absolutely, the Salafists are on the side of our Illuminist friends.
The Shites, especially those of Iran/Persia - have had their "funds" absconded with and/or locked up.
So, which side of Islam has our Jewish Illuminist Cabal masters selected?
if you can post some reliable source material to support your post I'd like the see it. it generally tracks with my understanding
but i could use some solid source material.
if you can post some reliable source material to support your post I'd like the see i
Google 1973 Saudi Kissinger deal:
For BOE the sources are more obscure. I personally have tracked them through time using population statistics and the like.
I need to write a book, so I can quote myself.
BOE, Cromwell, the Orange Kings - the usurpation of England, are all related by way of Stock Market Capital in Amersterdamn.
You can trace our Jewish friends arrival in Amersterdamn with their loss of East West Mechanism (silver gold exchange rates on
the caravan routes). They lost it to the portuguese when Vasco de Gama discovered the Sourthern route.
The person who best cataloged these maneuvers was an american Alexander Del Mar - a great monetary historian. Look for his
books.
This stuff will take you years of effort, and I applaud anyone who takes it on.
For the circulation of dollars during Vietnam War, See Hudson's books... especially Super Imperialism
Dr. Bonzo •Nov 19, 2016 11:04 PM
The Republicans and Democrats who make up the foreign policy elite are laying the groundwork for a more assertive American
foreign policy via a flurry of reports shaped by officials who are likely to play senior roles in a potential Clinton White
House.
In what fucking dimension do people this fucking incompetent still have jobs, let alone credibility? Preposterous that
they even still have jobs. The US has blown 5-6 trillion on losing one war after the other, has caused massive disorder and chaos
in the Mideast to absolutely no one's benefit except Israel, or so Israel believes, and destabilized the entire region to the
point that a WWIII could erupt at any moment.
Disaster and incompetence at this level can only be rewarded with sackings and terminations across the board. But no, not
in the US. The public is more preooccupied with fictional racists and Donald's bawdy pussy talk.
A nation of fucking morons. I swear.
Victor999 -> Dr. Bonzo •Nov 20, 2016 4:09 AM
You answered your own question....Israel is the first priority of American foreign policy - always.
Chaos is precisely what Israel ordered in order to weaken central governments of the ME and destroy their military capability.
WWIII? Doesn't matter in the least for Israel who will quietly stand aside and let the goyim fight it out, and then pick up the
remains. We're all fucking morons for allowing the Jews to take over our money supply, our government, our intelligence services,
our media - and hide themselves under the protective cloak of liberalism, political correctness and 'anti-Semitism' to shut down
all rational debate and guard them against 'discriminatory' practices.
Neochrome •Nov 19, 2016 11:06 PM
First of all, McStain should STFU, we'll send a nurse to change his depends, no need to get all cranky.
Giuliani's foreign expertise comes down apparently to be so "brave" to kick down Serbs when they are down and to proclaim to
their face that they have deserved to be bombarded.
Bolton is exactly opposite of everything that Trump campaigned on.
Again, Mitt doesn't look half-bad considering the alternatives...
Kagemusho •Nov 19, 2016 11:13 PM
The Elite always signal their intent through the Traditional Media...like this:
Empire or Not? A Quiet Debate Over U.S. Role
by Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post, 21 August 2001
https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/linkscopy/empireOrNot.html
You will find the bastards were planning for war and just needed their Pearl Harbor 2 in order to launch it. The same PNAC,
Office of Special Plans NeoCon nutcases that want to get close to Trump were talking so glibly and blithely about 'empire'. I
knew even then that this was the Elite signaling intent, and we all know what happened a few weeks later. This article should
provide the benefit of hindsight when considering Cabinet postings. These NeoCon Israel-Firster assholes belong in prison for
war crimes!
Salzburg1756 •Nov 19, 2016 11:16 PM
neocon = Israel-Firster
If Trump disempowers them, he will be a great/good president.
the.ghost.of.22wmr -> Salzburg1756 •Nov 20, 2016 12:18 AM
Trump has been provided an easy litmus test, who has ever advocated deposing Assad must be rejected, not because Assad
is such a great guy, but because those who would replace him are radical islamists all. Russia could be cultivated as a friend
and do more for world peace than the Arab world which has a fatal jihad disease.
The Kurds have served our shared interests well , but like all Muslims have no real interest in becoming westernized and will
turn on us once they have achieved their goals.
UnschooledAustr... -> dunce •Nov 20, 2016 1:50 AM
You are wrong about the Kurds. Besides the Alevites the only sane people in this mess called the islamic world.
shovelhead -> dunce •Nov 20, 2016 9:35 AM
The Kurds are an ethnic identity, not a religious one. While most are of an Islamic rootstock, the are Kurds of various religious
beliefs. The Kurds are fighting for an autonomous region where all religions can co-exist without one being dominant and forcing
others to conform.
The Kurds problem is they are not physically separated by geography like Sicily, who falls under the Italian State but are
still distinctly Sicilian in language and culture while the outside world sees them as Italian.
The Kurds problem is that someone in Europe drew a line on a map without consulting them whether they wanted their traditional
homeland to be divided between three different countries.
Dabooda •Nov 20, 2016 12:37 AM
BERNIE SANDERS would be a genius choice for Secretary of State. A kick in the teeth to the Clintonistas and the neocons, an
olive branch to liberals of good will, and a hilarious end to the American civil war that the MSM and Soros are trying to drum
up. Bernie's foreign policy was the only thing I
liked about him.
sinbad2 -> Dabooda •Nov 20, 2016 1:02 AM
What a fantastic idea, political genius.
UnschooledAustr... -> Dabooda •Nov 20, 2016 1:30 AM
I - non-US citizen living in the US - frequently argued that I would have loved seeing Bernie run as VP for Trump.
Not a lot of people who got it. You did.
BTW: Fuck Soros.
Big Ben •Nov 20, 2016 12:51 AM
The presidency is more of a ceremonial position now. If the deep state doesn't like the president, it can simply fire him,
as it did with Kennedy (and arguably Nixon). It can also make his life a living hell or force a foreign policy showdown as it
did with Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs.
Incidentally, I've been looking at some websites that claim that the 911 attacks could not have happened the way the government
claimed. There were actually THREE buildings that collapsed: the North and South Towers and WTC7 which was never hit by an airplane.
The government claims it collapsed due to fires, but a whole bunch of architects and structural engineers say that isn't possible.
And if you look at the video of the collapse, it looks like a perfect controlled demolition. There have been a number of large
fires in steel framed skyscrapers and none of them has caused a collapse. And even if a fire somehow managed to produce a collapse,
it would create a messy uneven collapse where the parts with the hottest fires collapse first.
Controlled demolitions take weeks of planning and preparation. So the implication is that someone planned the WTC7 collapse
weeks in advance. WTC7 held a number of offices, including offices of the SEC. Many files were destroyed.
Also Steven Jones, a retired BYU physics professor and other scientists have found particles of thermite in the dust from the
North and South tower collapses. Thermite is an incendiary used to cut steel. This suggests that the collapse of the the North
and South Towers was also caused by something other than an airplane collision.
I have seen claims that GW Bush's younger brother was a high executive in the company that handled WTC security.
So were the 9/11 attacks a preplanned event designed to create support for the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq?
95% or more of the individuals Trump is considering for his administration, including those
already picked have a deep-seated obsession with Iran. This is very troubling. It's going to lead
to war and not a regular war where 300,000 people die. This is a catastrophic error in judgment
I don't give a sh...t who makes such an error, Trump or the representative from Kalamazoo! This
is so bad that it disqualifies whatever else appears positive at this time.
And one more deeply disturbing thing; Pompeo, chosen to head the CIA has threatened Ed Snowden
with the death penalty, if Snowden is caught, and now as CIA Director he can send operatives to
chase him down wherever he is and render him somewhere, torture him to find out who he shared
intelligence with and kill him on the spot and pretend it was a foreign agent who did the job.
He already stated before he was assigned this powerful post that Snowden should be brought back
from Russia and get the death penalty for treason.
Pompeo also sided with the Obama Administration on using U. S. military force in Syria against
Assad and wrote this in the Washington Post: "Russia continues to side with rogue states
and terrorist organizations, following Vladimir Putin's pattern of gratuitous and unpunished affronts
to U.S. interests,".
That's not all, Pompeo wants to enhance the surveillance state, and he too wants to tear up
the Iran deal.
Many of you here are extremely naïve regarding Trump.
b's speculation has the ring of truth. I've often wondered if Trump was encouraged to run
by a deep-state faction that found the neocons to be abhorrent and dangerous.
Aside: I find those who talk about "factions" in foreign policy making to be un-credible.
Among these were those that spoke of 'Obama's legacy'. A bullshit concept for a puppet.The
neocons control FP. And they could only be unseated if a neocon-unfriendly President
was elected.
Trump is turning animosity away from Russia and toward Iran. But I doubt that it will result
in a shooting war with Iran. The 'deep-state' (arms industry and security agencies) just wants
a foreign enemy as a means of ensuring that US govt continues to fund security agencies and
buy arms.
And really, Obama's "peace deal" with Iran was bogus anyway. It was really just a
placeholder until Assad could be toppled. Only a small amount of funds were released to Iran,
and US-Iranian relations have been just as bad as they were before the "peace deal". So all
the hand-wringing about Trump vs. Iran is silly.
What is important is that with Iran as the nominal enemy du jour plus Trump's campaign
pledge to have the "strongest" military (note: every candidate was for a strong military),
the neocons have no case to make that Trump is weak on defense.
And so it is interesting that those that want to undermine Trump have resorted to the claim
that he is close to Jews/Zionists/Israel or even Jewish himself. Funny that Trump wasn't
attacked like that before the election, huh?
The profound changes and profound butt-hurt lead to the following poignant questions:
>> Have we just witnessed a counter-coup?
>> Isn't it sad that, in 2016(!), the only
check on elites are other elite factions? An enormous cultural failure that has produced a
brittle social fabric.
>> If control of NSA snooping power is so crucial, why would ANY ruling block ever allow
the another to gain power?
Indeed, the answer to this question informs one's view on whether the anti-Trump
protests are just Democratic Party ass-covering/distraction or a real attempt at a 'color
revolution'.
"... Trump's main problem in this respect is that the diversity of viewpoints within the military, the NSA or other government agencies might already be too narrow and he needs a Republican version of Stephen Cohen who has always advocated for engagement with Russia, along with other people from outside Washington DC but with experience in state legislatures for the various departments. ..."
"... I agree and I suspect Trump regards Putin as a fellow CEO and perhaps the best one on the planet. ..."
"... A more fundamental problem is that the US has not yet reached rock bottom. So, its delusions remain strong. Trump, as said before, may be a false dawn unless the bottom is closer than suspected and he has new allies (perhaps foreign allies). ..."
It is not about politics, but Trump's peculiar management style, Timofey Bordachev, Director
of the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies of the Faculty of World Economy
and International Affairs at Russia's High School of Economics, told RIA Novosti.
"Those who have been studying the business biography of the newly elected president have
noted that he has always played off his high-ranking employees against each other. While doing
so he remained above the fight," he said.
And
Gevorg Mirzayan, an assistant professor of the Political Science department at the Financial
University in Moscow pointed out two purposes for the nominations.
The above brings rationality to the diverse selections made by Trump.
However, the black swan event will be an economic collapse (fast or protracted over several
years). That will be the defining event in the Trump presidency. I have no inkling how he or those
who may replace him would respond.
I had guessed myself that Trump was going to run the government as a business corporation. Surrounding
himself with people of competing viewpoints, and hiring on the basis of experience and skills
(and not on the basis of loyalty, as Hillary Clinton might have done) would be two ways Trump
can change the government and its culture. Trump's main problem in this respect is that the diversity
of viewpoints within the military, the NSA or other government agencies might already be too narrow
and he needs a Republican version of Stephen Cohen who has always advocated for engagement with
Russia, along with other people from outside Washington DC but with experience in state legislatures
for the various departments.
If running the US government as a large mock business enterprise brings a change in its culture
so it becomes more open and accountable to the public, less directed by ideology and identity
politics, and gets rid of people engaged in building up their own little empires within the different
departments, then Trump might just be the President the US needs at this moment in time.
Interesting that Russian academics have noted the outlines of Trump's likely cabinet and what
they suggest he plans to do, and no-one else has. Does this imply that Americans and others in
the West have lost sight of how large business corporations could be run, or should be run, and
everyone is fixated on fake "entrepreneurship" or "self-entrepreneur" (whatever that means) models
of running a business where it's every man, woman, child and dog for itself?
I agree and I suspect Trump regards Putin as a fellow CEO and perhaps the best one on the planet.
Trump may have noted how Putin did an incredible turnaround of Russia and it all started with
three objectives: restore the integrity of the borders, rebuild the industrial base and run off
the globalists/liberals/kreakles. I am certainly not the first one to say this and I think that
there is a lot of basis for that analysis. However, Trump will have a far more difficult challenge
and frankly I don't think he has enough allies or smarts to pull it off.
A more fundamental problem is that the US has not yet reached rock bottom. So, its delusions
remain strong. Trump, as said before, may be a false dawn unless the bottom is closer than suspected
and he has new allies (perhaps foreign allies).
The heads of the Pentagon and the nation's intelligence community have recommended to President Obama that the director of
the National Security Agency, Adm. Michael S. Rogers, be removed.
The recommendation, delivered to the White House last month, was made by Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and Director
of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., according to several U.S. officials familiar with the matter.
...
The news comes as Rogers is being considered by President-Elect Donald Trump to be his nominee for DNI, replacing Clapper as
the official who oversees all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies. In a move apparently unprecedented for a military officer, Rogers,
without notifying superiors, traveled to New York to meet with Trump on Thursday at Trump Tower.
Adm. Michael S. Rogers recently claimed in
reference to the hack of the Democratic National Council emails that Wikileaks spreading them is "a conscious effort by a nation-state
to attempt to achieve a specific effect." He obviously meant Russia.
Compare that with his boss James Clapper who very recently
said
(again) that the "intelligence agencies don't have good insight on when or how Wikileaks obtained the hacked emails."
Emails of the DNC and of Clinton's consigliere John Podesta were hacked and leaked. Additionally emails from Clinton's private
email server were released. All these influenced the election in favor of Trump.
Wikileaks boss Assange
says he does not know where the emails come from but he does not think they came from Russia.
Clapper and Carter wanted Rogers fired because he was generally disliked at the NSA, because two big breaches in the most secret
Tailored Access Organization occurred on
his watch even after the Snowden case and because he blocked, with the help of Senator McCain, plans to split the NSA into a spying
and a cyber war unit.
Now let me spin this a bit.
Rogers obviously knew he was on the to-be-fired list and he had good relations with the Republicans.
Now follows some plausible speculation:
Some Rogers trusted dudes at the NSA (or in the Navy cyber arm which Rogers earlier led) hack into the DNC, Podesta emails
and the Clinton private email server. An easy job with the tools the NSA provides for its spies. Whoever hacked the emails then
pushes what they got to Wikileaks (and DCleaks , another "leak" outlet). Wikileaks
publishes what it gets because that is what it usually does. Assange also has various reasons to hate Clinton. She was always
very hostile to Wikileaks. She allegedly even
mused of killing Assange by a drone strike.
Rogers then accuses Russia of the breach even while the rest of the spying community finds no evidence for such a claim. That
is natural to do for a military man who grew up during the cold war and may wish that war (and its budgets) back. It is also a
red herring that will never be proven wrong or right unless the original culprit is somehow found.
Next we know - Trump offers Rogers the Clapper job. He would replace the boss that wanted him fired.
Rogers support for the new cold war will also gain him favor with the various weapon industries which will eventually beef
up his pension.
Some of the above is speculation. But it would make sense and explain the quite one-sided wave of leaks we saw during this
election cycle.
Even if it isn't true it would at least be a good script for a Hollywood movie on the nastiness of the inside fighting in Washington
DC.
Let me know how plausible you find the tale.
Posted by b on November 19, 2016 at 02:14 PM |
Permalink
Not sure about the speculation. There's justification for military spending beyond the cold war. Actually, the cold war
could be sacrificed in order to re-prioritize military spending.
In any case, Trump's proposed picks are interesting. I especially like the idea of Dana Rohrabacher as Secretary of State
if it comes to pass.
One thing for sure .... there's been so much 'fail' with the Obama years that there's an abundance of low-hanging fruit
for Trump to feather his cap with success early on, which will give him a template for future successes. That depends largely
on who his picks for key posts are, but there has seldom been so much opportunity for a new President as the one that greets
Trump.
It's there to be had. Let's hope that Trump doesn't blow it.
Sounds about right and this just means a new criminal class has taken over the beltway. That doesn't do anything for us citizens,
just more of the same.
Everything is on schedule and please there's nothing to see here.
I wonder if Rogers' statement appearing to implicate Russian government hackers in leaking DNC information to Wikileaks at
that link to Twitter was made after the Democratic National Convention itself accused Russia of hacking into its database.
In this instance, knowing when Rogers made his statement and when the DNC made its accusation makes all the difference.
If someone at the NSA had been leaking information to Wikileaks and Rogers knew of this, then the DNC blaming Russia for
the leaked information would have been a godsend. All Rogers had to do then would be to keep stumm and if questioned, just
say a "nation state" was responsible. People can interpret that however they want.
Any of the scenarios you mention could be right. The one thing that is certain - Russia was not the culprit. Not because Russians
would not be inclined to hack - I think it is plausible that everyone hacks everyone (as someone said) - but Russians would
not likely go to Wikileaks to publicize their prize. They'd keep it to themselves... in that way, they are probably like LBJ,
who knew that Nixon had sabotaged the end-of-war negotiations in Paris in 1968, but said nothing for fear of shocking the "system"
and the people's trust in it... (didn't work out too well in the end, though). Putin was right when he said (referring to the
2016 US election) that it all should somehow be ... more dignified.
Makes me wonder who populates the Anonymous group of loosely affiliated hackers and if they were used. The tale has probability;
it would be even more interesting if the motive could be framed within the hacker's fulfilling its oath of obligation to the
Constitution. Le Carre might be capable of weaving such a tale plausibly. But what about the Russia angle? IMO, Russia had
the biggest motive to insure HRC wouldn't become POTUS despite all its denials and impartiality statements. Quien Sabe? Maybe
it was Chavez's ghost who did all the hacking; it surely had an outstanding motive.
I'll add some color on Rogers in another post, but I just want to preface any remarks with one overriding aspect of the leaks.
From the details of most of these leaks, speculation on tech blogs (and as far as anyone knows for certain):
There are many parties that had great incentive to acquire and leak the emails, but I have to insist with the utmost conviction
(without a string of expletives) that a junior high school kid could have performed the same feat using hacking tools
easily found on the internet . There was absolutely nothing technically sophisticated or NSA-like in someone's ability
to get into the DNC server or grab Podesta's emails. It was a matter of opportunity and poor security. If anyone has a link
to any other reasoning, I would love to see it. The DNC and Hillary leaks (among other hacks) were due to damn amateurish security
practices. The reason you don't outsource or try to get by on the cheap for systems/network security is to reduce the risk
of this happening to an acceptable cost/benefit level.
So the presumption of Wikileaks source being (or needing to be) a state actor with incredibly sophisticated hacking tools
is utter nonsense. Yes, it could have been the Russian FSB or any one of the five-eyes intelligence agencies or the U.S. Defense
Intelligence Agency. But it could have just as plausibly been Bart Simpson
pwning the DNC from Springfield Elementary School and sending
everything to Wikileaks, "Cool, I just REKT the Clintons!"
WikiLeaks doesn't care if the leak comes from the head of a western intel agency or a bored teenager in New Jersey. It cares
that the material is authentic and carefully vets the content, not the source. At least until they kidnapped Assange and took
over WikiLeaks servers a couple of weeks ago, but that's for a different tin-foil hat thread.
Carol Davidek-Waller | Nov 19, 2016 3:18:02 PM |
7
Is Trump that much of a deep thinker? Rebellious teenager who chooses anyone that the last administration didn't like seems
more plausible to me. It doesn't matter who they are or what their record is. I don't think Trump plans to surrender any of
his undeserved power to anyone. He'll be running the whole show. They'll do what he wants or be shown the door.
rufus (aka "rufie") the MoA Hillbot uses a new persona - "Ron Showalter" - to attack Trump post-election. rufie/Ron conducts
a false flag attack on MoA (making comments that are pages long) so that his new persona can claim that his anti-Trump
views are being attacked by someone using his former persona.
I generally dislike "theories" that go too much into speculation, -- however this one sounds actually quite plausible!
As for "Russia did it", this was obvious bullshit right from the start, not least because of what GoraDiva #4 says: I think it is plausible that everyone hacks everyone (as someone said) - but Russians would not likely go to Wikileaks to
publicize their prize. They'd keep it to themselves
Allegations against Russia worked on confusing different levels: hacking -- leaking -- "rigging".
This picture encapsulates IMO the full absurdity this election campaign had come down to:
MSM constantly bashing Trump for "lies", "post-factual", "populist rage", "hate speech", -- while themselves engaging in the
same on an even larger level, in a completely irresponsible way that goes way beyond "bias", "preference" or even "propaganda".
I understand (and like) the vote for Trump mainly as a call to "stop this insanity!"
~~~
Some more on the issue:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/10/really-really-upset-foreign-office-security-services/ I left Julian [Assange] after midnight. He is fit, well, sharp and in good spirits. WikiLeaks never reveals or comments
upon its sources, but as I published before a fortnight ago, I can tell you with 100% certainty that it is not any Russian
state actor or proxy that gave the Democratic National Committee and Podesta material to WikiLeaks.
The following week, two cybersecurity firms, Fidelis Cybersecurity and Mandiant, independently corroborated Crowdstrike's
assessment that Russian hackers infiltrated DNC networks, having found that the two groups that hacked into the DNC used malware
and methods identical to those used in other attacks attributed to the same Russian hacking groups.
But some of the most compelling evidence linking the DNC breach to Russia was found at the beginning of July by Thomas
Rid, a professor at King's College in London, who discovered an identical command-and-control address hardcoded into the DNC
malware that was also found on malware used to hack the German Parliament in 2015. According to German security officials,
the malware originated from Russian military intelligence. An identical SSL certificate was also found in both breaches.
Sooooo .... these "traces" all show known Russian methods (whether true or not). If they are known they can be faked and
used by someone else.
Now who is the no. 1 organisation, worldwide, in having and being capable to use such information?
@b, your speculation gets better and better the more one thinks about it.
I'm out of my depth on cyber forensics, but would the NSA, and thus Clapper, know who hacked and leaked these documents? Or
would the NSA be in the dark, as they suggest?
Just watched Oliver Stone's "Snowden". Awesome. Can't believe after seeing it that Clapper has survived all these years. Just
another Hoover.
thanks b.. i like the idea of it being an inside job.. makes a lot of sense too.
i like @3 jens question about the timing as a possible aid to understanding this better.
@4 gordiva comment - everyone hacks everyone comment..ditto. it's another form of warfare and a given in these times..
i agree with @6 paveway, and while it sounds trite, folks who don't look after their own health can blame all the doctors..
the responsibility for the e mail negligence rests with hillary and her coterie of bozos..
@7 carol. i agree.
@8 jr.. did you happen to notice a few posts missing from the thread from yesterday and who it was that's been removed?
hint : poster who made the comment "more popcorn" is no longer around. they have a new handle today..
@20 manne.. you can say whatever you want and be speculative too, but i don't share your view on assange knowing who leaked
it..
Except that you have to consider the targeting. I've suspected an insider all along, given the pre-packaged spin points coordinated
with the release vectors. Not that the Russies, Pakistanis, or Chinese wouldn't know more about the US than the US knows about
itself, but the overall nuance really hits the anti-elitist spurned sidekick chord. This clashes a bit with b's interagency
pissing match scenario, but, then again, you step on the wrong tail... Someone didn't get their piece of pie, or equally valid,
someone really really disapproves of the pie's magnitude and relative position on the table.
Curious how Weenergate led to the perfectly timed 650K emails on that remarkably overlooked personal device.
@20 Manne
Yes I think on this case Assange does know, if I remember correctly, he spoke to RT and said something to the effect of 'it's
not Russia, we don't reveal our sources but if the DNC found out who it was they would have "egg on their faces"' ...and easy
access, copy, paste, send job, my hunch it was the DNC staffer who was suicided.
Its what Assange himself says, do your homework, as someone else said here, Wikileaks wont reveal the source, that doesnt
mean they dont know who leaked it.
Is Trump that much of a deep thinker? Rebellious teenager who chooses anyone that the last administration didn't like seems
more plausible to me. It doesn't matter who they are or what their record is. I don't think Trump plans to surrender any of
his undeserved power to anyone. He'll be running the whole show. They'll do what he wants or be shown the door.
Posted by: Carol Davidek-Waller | Nov 19, 2016 3:18:02 PM | 7
I agree.
Trump's got charm and a good memory and doesn't need to be a deep thinker in order to network efficiently and listen carefully.
Nor does he need to be a mathematician to figure out that 1 + 1 = 2.
Has anyone else got the feeling that much of the panic inside Washington is due to the possibility that the crimes of the Obama
administration might be exposed?
One of the most uncanny moments I've experienced watching the Syria crisis unfold is seeing the "Assad gasses his people"
operation launched, fail miserably, then - mostly - interest is lost. I know: the lie, once asserted, has done most of its
work already, debunked or not. I also understand that the western press is so in the tank for the establishment, so "captured"
that it shouldn't surprise anyone that no follow up is offered. My point is, rather, that if you think back over just the Ukrainian
and Syrian debacle the amount of dirt that could be exposed by a truly anti-establishment figure in the White House is mind
boggling.
Just off the top of my head:
- the sabotage of the deal to save the Ukrainian constitutional order brokered by Putin, Merkel and Hollande c/o of the
excuisitely timed and staged sniper shootings (otherwise known as the "most obvious coup in history")
- the farce that is the MH17 inquiry (and the implication: another false flag operation with a cut-out that killed, what was
it, 279 innocents?)
- the Kherson pogrom and the Odessa massacre
- the targeting of both Libya and Syria with outright lies and with all the propaganda perfectly reflecting the adage that,
in dis- info operations, the key is to accuse your enemies of all the crimes you are committing or planning to
- highlights of the above might include: Robert Ford's emails scheming to create "paranoia" in Damascus while completely justifying
same; the "rat-lines" and Ghoutta gas operation; the farcically transparent White Helmets Psy-op *
And on and on...
If you or the institution that pays you had a closet full to bursting with skeletons like this and you were facing an incoming
administration that seems to relish and flaunt it's outsider status wouldn't you be freaking out?
To ice the cake the latest Freudian slip is the crusade against "fake news." Seriously, if I were in their shoes that's
the last phrase I would want people ruminating over. I think it was R. D. Laing who said "we always speak the truth." One way
or another.
* This comes with the delicious irony that the operation's own success offers proof of the adage that sometimes you can succeed
too well. The fact that the Omran photo was plastered across every paper in the west is good evidence of how completely "fake"
our news has become. My favourite is this farcical interview between Amanpour and Lavrov:
https://youtu.be/Tx8kiQyEkHc
@27 Oddlots
Most of those are pretty easy picking under a firm rule of law - plenty of underling rats willing to squeal with even gentle
pressure, I'm sure.
His legacy is horrific.
Obama taught constitutional law for 12 years... It would be sweet, sweet poetry to see him nailed... his 'white papers',
formed in secret courts that no one can see, no oversight in the light of day... phony legal documents that allowed him to
incinerate fellow humans via drone without charge, without trial...
95% or more of the individuals Trump is considering for his administration, including those already picked have a deep-seated
obsession with Iran. This is very troubling. It's going to lead to war and not a regular war where 300,000 people die. This
is a catastrophic error in judgment I don't give a sh...t who makes such an error, Trump or the representative from Kalamazoo!
This is so bad that it disqualifies whatever else appears positive at this time.
And one more deeply disturbing thing; Pompeo, chosen to head the CIA has threatened Ed Snowden with the death penalty, if
Snowden is caught, and now as CIA Director he can send operatives to chase him down wherever he is and render him somewhere,
torture him to find out who he shared intelligence with and kill him on the spot and pretend it was a foreign agent who did
the job. He already stated before he was assigned this powerful post that Snowden should be brought back from Russia and get
the death penalty for treason.
Pompeo also sided with the Obama Administration on using U. S. military force in Syria against Assad and wrote this in the
Washington Post: "Russia continues to side with rogue states and terrorist organizations, following Vladimir Putin's pattern
of gratuitous and unpunished affronts to U.S. interests,".
That's not all, Pompeo wants to enhance the surveillance state, and he too wants to tear up the Iran deal.
Many of you here are extremely naïve regarding Trump.
James @21 I noticed the different handle but b hasn't commented on the attack. I assumed that this meant that b didn't know
for sure who did the attack.
As I wrote, rufus/Ron made himself the prime suspect when he described the attack as an attempt to shut down his anti-Trump
message. Some of us thought that it might be a lame attempt to discredit rufus but only "Ron" thought that the attack was related
to him.
If one doesn't believe - as I do - that Ron = rufus then you might be less convinced that rufus did the deed.
Yes, it is important to remember that Assange, though he did not state that he knew who provided the DNC emails, implied
that he did, and further implied--but did not state--that it was Seth Rich. Assange's statement came shortly after Rich's death
by shooting. Assange stated he specifically knew people had people had risked their lives uploading material, implying that
they had in fact lost them.
b's speculation has the ring of truth. I've often wondered if Trump was encouraged to run by a deep-state faction that found
the neocons to be abhorrent and dangerous.
Aside: I find those who talk about "factions" in foreign policy making to be un-credible. Among these were those that spoke
of 'Obama's legacy'. A bullshit concept for a puppet.The neocons control FP. And they could only be unseated if a neocon
-unfriendly President was elected.
Trump is turning animosity away from Russia and toward Iran. But I doubt that it will result in a shooting war with Iran. The
'deep-state' (arms industry and security agencies) just wants a foreign enemy as a means of ensuring that US govt continues
to fund security agencies and buy arms.
And really, Obama's "peace deal" with Iran was bogus anyway. It was really just a placeholder until Assad could be toppled.
Only a small amount of funds were released to Iran, and US-Iranian relations have been just as bad as they were before the
"peace deal". So all the hand-wringing about Trump vs. Iran is silly.
What is important is that with Iran as the nominal enemy du jour plus Trump's campaign pledge to have the "strongest" military
(note: every candidate was for a strong military) , the neocons have no case to make that Trump is weak on defense.
And so it is interesting that those that want to undermine Trump have resorted to the claim that he is close to Jews/Zionists/Israel
or even Jewish himself. Funny that Trump wasn't attacked like that before the election, huh?
The profound changes and profound butt-hurt lead to the following poignant questions:
>> Have we just witnessed a counter-coup?
>> Isn't it sad that, in 2016(!), the only check on elites are other elite factions? An enormous cultural failure that
has produced a brittle social fabric.
>> If control of NSA snooping power is so crucial, why would ANY ruling block ever allow the another to gain power?
Indeed, the answer to this question informs one's view on whether the anti-Trump protests are just Democratic Party ass-covering/distraction
or a real attempt at a 'color revolution'.
b said also.."Rogers support for the new cold war will also gain him favor with the various weapon industries which will
eventually beef up his pension."
That's the long game for most of the "Hawks" in DC. Perpetual war is most profitable.
What is important is that with Iran as the nominal enemy du jour plus Trump's campaign pledge to have the "strongest"
military (note: every candidate was for a strong military), the neocons have no case to make that Trump is weak on defense.
Oh please! Trump is stacking his cabinet with Iran-obsessed Islam haters! Nominal enemy , my ass! And was every candidate
for spending a Trillion more on defense??? Did you even read Trump's plan to build up the military?
You do Netanyahu proud with your deflection. What? Nothing regarding Pompeo's blistering comments on Russia or Ed Snowden?
Why are you trying to diminish the threat to Iran with the hawks, Islam-haters, and Iran-obsessed team that Trump cobbled
together so far?
Trump's Israel adviser David Friedman is known to be more extreme than even Netanyahu.
No doubt Netanyahu has unleashed an army of IDF hasbara to crush criticism of Trump and his Iran-obsessed cabinet because
he must be elated with his choices and wants to make them palatable to the American sheeple.
Netanyahu is the first leader Trump spoke with on the phone. Trump praised Netanyahu from day one. PNAC and Clean Break
were war manifestos for rearranging the Middle East with the ultimate goal of toppling Iran.
Trump and his cabinet are all about tearing up the deal and assuming a much more hostile position with Iran. Tearing up
the deal is a precursor to a casus belli. What more proof is there that Trump is doing the bidding of Zionist Neocons??? Oh,
but you don't want more, do you?
As chipnik noted in a comment, Iran is one of the only countries that is yet to be under the control of private finance
(see my latest Open Thread comments, please)
I personally see all this as obfuscation covering for throwing Americans under the bus by the global plutocrats. The elite
can see, just like us, that the US empire's usefulness is beyond its "sold by" date and are acting accordingly. America and
its Reserve Currency status are about to crash and the elites are working to preserve their supra-national private finance
base of power/control while they let America devolve to who knows what level.
Too much heat and not enough light here...or if you prefer, the noise to signal ratio is highly skewed to noise.
Crimes involving moral turpitude have an inherent quality of baseness, vileness, or depravity with respect to a person's
duty to another or to society in general.
Given the above Trump would not be allowed to immigrate to the US.....just saying...
the shadowbrokers say they have NSA malware/tools and to prove it after their auction was met with crickets riding tumbleweeds
they released some teaser info on NSA servers used for proxy attacks and recon. of course a few just happened to be "owned"
boxes in russia (and china and some other places for that matter). add their russian IP addresses to some (mostly useless)
sigantures associated with supposedly russian-designed malware and you've got some good circumstantial evidence.
also: an email address associated with one or more attacks is from a russian site/domain but whoever registered was directed
to the .com domain instead of the .ru one. this probably means someone got sloppy and didn't remember to check their DNS for
fail.
in general these hacks look less like russians and more like someone who wants to look like russians. the overpaid consultants
used by the DNC/clinton folks can put "bear" in the names and claim that a few bits of cyrillic are a "slam dunk" but all the
"evidence" is easily faked. not that anyone in the "deep state" would ever fake anything.
Trump is turning animosity away from Russia and toward Iran.
I worry about it as well. Trump said he'll tear up nuclear agreement, and the people he is choosing also have rabid anti-Iranian
agenda.
Nice start for Trump:
Thursday US House voted to stop civilian aircraft sales to Iran by both Boeing and Airbus.
Few days before - US extending economic sanctions against Iran through 2026.
Of course Trump can block it, but will he? Even if he does, he might blackmail Iran for something in return, etc. Iran is
by no means off the hook for neocons and Israel, and I wouldnt be surprised if Trump follows the suit.
Trump will (or might) have better relations with Russia, but this cordiality doesnt extend to Iran. Or as Jackrabbit says,
US neocons will simply switch the targeted state and Iran may soon become "worse threat to humanity than ISIS", again.
I doubt separating the animosity towards Russia and Iran is even possible. Truth be told his comments towards Russia during
the election seemed more like he was woefully unaware of the reality of the Russo-American situation in the Mideast than about
being ready to negotiate major US power positions and accept Russia as anything more than enemy. Sounded very off the cuff
to me. Maybe he thought he'd 'get along great with Putin' at the time but after realizing later that means making nice with
Iran and giving up a large measure of US influence in the MENA he has reconsidered and taken the party line. It'd certainly
be understandable for a noncareer politician. I'd imagine he'd be more interested now in currying favour with the MIC and the
typical Republican party hawks than with Russia/Putin given his statements on military spending. Back when I saw him bow down
at the altar of AIPAC earlier in the season I had trouble reconciling that with how he hoped to improve relationships with
Russia at the same time given their radical differences wrt their allies. He's made a lot of those type of statements too,
it was hard to read where he stood on most any issue during election season.
I imagine as he's brought into the fold and really shown the reality of how US imperialist power projection he'll change
his mind considerably. I think we, as readers and amateur analysts of this type of material, take for granted how hard some
of this knowledge is to come by without looking for it directly. When we hear someone is going to make nice with Russia we
want to think "well he says that as he must surely recognize the insanity and destructive forces at work." Maybe it's more
of a case where the person speaking actually thinks we're in Syria to fight ISIS - that they have very little grasp of how
things really work over there.
In my eyes the names he's been considering are reason for much worry for those hoping Trump would be the one to usher in
a multipolar world and end the cold war. I never had much hope in that regard (but I'm still praying for the best).
Putin has been supporting right-wing movements across the West in order to weaken NATO
Care to back this statement with arguments, examples ar a link to an excellent article?
Looking at most of "New Europe", it's the other way around ... fascist states allied with Nazi Germany against communism,
participating in massacres of Jewish fellow citizens and functioning as a spearhead for US intelligence against communism after
the defeat of Nazi Germany – see Gladio. Now used by the CIA in the
coup d'état in Ukraine in Februari 2014.
Ahhh ... searched for it myself, a paper written earlier in 2016 ... how convenient!
Policy set by the Atlantic Council years ago:
make Russia a pariah state . Written
about it many times. BS and more western propaganda. The West has aligned itself with jihadists across the globe, Chechnya
included. Same as in Afghanistan, these terrorists were called "freedom fighters". See John McCain in northern Syria with same
cutthroats.
Absolutely outrageous! See her twitter account with followers/participants
Anne Applebaum and former and now discredited Poland's FM
Radoslaw Sikorski .
"Emails of the DNC and of Clinton's consigliere John Podesta were hacked and leaked. Additionally emails from Clinton's private
email server were released. All these influenced the election in favor of Trump."
Not necessarily so. An informal poll of people in blue collar flyover country about their voting intentions prior to the
election expressed 4 common concerns
i) The risk of war.
ii) The Obamacare disaster especially recent triple digit percent increase in fees.
iii) Bringing back jobs.
iv) Punishing the Democrat Party for being indistinguishable from the Republicans.
We shouldn't take Trump's bluster at face value. For example, Trump said that he'd eliminate Obamacare. Now he has backed
off that saying that some elements of Obamacare are worthwhile.
That the Israeli head of state is one of the first foreign leaders that any President-elect speaks to is no surprise. That
you harp on what is essentially nonsense is telling.
In my view Trump is not anti-Jewish. He is anti-neocon/anti-Zionist. As Bannon said, America has been getting f*cked.
To ice the cake the latest Freudian slip is the crusade against "fake news."
i see it more as another mindfucking meme than a Freudian slip. another paean to Discordia, the goddess of chaos. we've
lived with 'fake news,' heretofore advertised by reliable sources , since forever. baptizing this bastardized melange
only sinks us deeper into dissonant muck.
One would hope if that is true - Trump recognises this and fires him as well rather than promoting him.
However, if he were instrumental in getting Trump elected it is understandable if Trump decided to promote him.
It's well-known and clear Trump rewards those who have done him favours.
Let us hope it is not true.
The first thing Trump must do when elected is declassify all material related to MH17. This can be done in late January/
February as one of his first orders of business.
It's important to do this quickly - at least before the Dutch Elections in March 2017.
#MH17truth
If Trump does this he will do a number of things.
1 - Likely reveal that it was the Ukrainians who were involved in shooting down MH17. I say likely because it's possible
this goes deeper than just Ukraine - if that's the case - more the better.
2. He will destroy the liar Porky Poroshenko and his corrupt regime with him. He will destroy Ukraine's corrupt Government's
relationship with Europe.
3. He will destroy the sell-out traitor to his own people Mark Rutte of Netherlands. This will ensure an election win for
a key Trump ally - Geert Wilders.
If Rutte is discredited for using the deaths of 200 Dutch citizens for his own political gain - he is finished and might
end up in jail.
4. He will destroy Merkel utterly. Her chances of re-election (which she just announced she will stand!) will be utterly
destroyed.
5. He will restory Russia-USA relations in an instant.
Trump must also do this ASAP because this is the kind of thing that could get him killed if he doesn't do it ASAP when he's
inaugurated.
Of course - until then - he should keep his mouth shut about it - but the rest of us should be shouting it all around the
Internet.
And very well documented, too. Sort of like the theory that 9/11 was carried out by the Boy Scouts of America. After all,
the boost in jingoism and faux-patriotism gave the BSA a boost in revenue and membership, so that pretty well proves it, eh?
And if you dig deep enough I'm sure you'll find that on 9/10 the BSA shorted their stocks in United.
Totally agree Oddlots and that is why Trump must be on the front foot immediately.
Exposing MH17 and destroying Poroshenko, Rutte & Merkel - and Biden & Obama by the way and a bunch of others is absolutely
key.
Blow MH17 skyhigh and watch Russia-USA relations be restored in a nanosecond.
It will be especially sweet to watch the Dutch traitor to his own people Rutte destroyed in the midst of an election campaign
such that he might end up in jail charged with treason and replaced by Geert Wilders - the Dutch Donald Trump if ever there
was one - within a matter of weeks.
However, a word of caution, it is precisely because of these possibilities that there has to be a high chance Trump will
be assassinated.
Pence would not walk that line. Not at all.
There is no doubt Trump's life is in danger. I hope he has enough good people around him who will point the finger in the
right direction if and when it happens.
I think it's a bit of a stretch. First of all, there are other, deeper areas of investigative matters concerning previous governments
of the US, impeachable offenses and international crimes - remember when Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table? Not to
mention, what did happen in Benghazi and why? It wouldn't matter who did that hacking of those emails- it's a bit like the
exposure of the White House tapes in Nixon's presidency. We didn't worry about who revealed that - we went to the issues themselves.
I think that is what Trump is doing as he brings people to his home for conversations. It is the opposite of Obama's 'moving
forward, not looking back'. Trump is going to look back. It's not about reinstating the cold war; it's about gathering information.
I think Saudi Arabia are the ones who should be scared. Trump has implied before he knows who is responsible for September
11.
My guess is he wants to expose Saudi Arabia and the Bush Family.
Ever wondered why the Bushes hate and appear frightened of Trump? Because they understand he will expose their complicity
in September 11 and potentially have them locked up.
Or perhaps he'll let Dubya off claiming he didn't know in return for a favour and lock up Dick Cheney instead. Quite possible.
The Saudis will get thrown down the river and lose any assets they hold in US Dollars - a significant amount I believe!
Sucks to be a Saudi Royal right about now - they better liquidate their US assets ASAP if they have any brains.
Retired UK ambassador Craig Murray said on his Web site, after meeting with Assange and then traveling to Washington where
he met with former NSA officials, that he was 100 percent sure that Wikileaks's source was not the Russians and also suggested
that the leaks came from inside the U.S. government.
@24 jr.. i found the rs guy to be quite repugnant..rufus never came across quite the same way to me, but as always - i could
be wrong! i see pac is gone today and been replaced with another name, lol.. and the beat goes on.. b has deleted posts and
must be getting tired of them too.
@31 manne.. thanks.. does that rule out an insider with the nsa/cia as well?
@34 fecklessleft.. i agree with your last paragraph..
@36 yonatan.. i agree with that alternative take myself..
@40 jules.. would be nice to see happen, but most likely an exercise in wishful thinking.. sort of the same with your @44
too.. the saudis need to be taken down quite a few notches.. the usa/israel being in bed with the headchopper cult has all
the wrong optics for suggesting anything positive coming from usa/israel..
b says 'Next we [can speculate] - Trump offers Rogers the Clapper job. He would replace the boss that wanted him fired.' There,
fixed it.
There appears to be a growing canyon in the intelligence world with some wanting to rid the Office of the National Intelligence
agency altogether, while others are lobbying for it to remain.
Remember when Obama referred to the rise of the Islamic State as the 'JV team'? That nonchalant attitude by Obama towards
the growing threat of the head choppers in Iraq and Syria was squarely placed on senior management within the intelligence
community -
"Two senior analysts at CENTCOM signed a written complaint sent to the Defense Department inspector general in July alleging
that the reports, some of which were briefed to President Obama, portrayed the terror groups as weaker than the analysts
believe they are. The reports were changed by CENTCOM higher-ups to adhere to the administration's public line that the
U.S. is winning the battle against ISIS and al Nusra, al Qaeda's branch in Syria, the analysts claim."
Who knows, Rogers may very well have been one in senior management who encouraged these 50 analysts to come forward. Maybe
the IG investigation is wrapping up and at least internally, the senior management who made intel reports to Obama full of
'happy talk' have been identified and are now leaving on their own.
We shouldn't take Trump's bluster at face value. For example, Trump said that he'd eliminate Obamacare. Now he has backed
off that saying that some elements of Obamacare are worthwhile.
For crying out loud! I don't give a rat's ass about Obamacare when he outlined a plan to boost the military by a trillion
dollars and stacks his cabinet with crazy Iran-obsessed hawks who want to start a world war over effing Iran! And you're deflecting
this with freakin' Obamacare -- It's speaks volumes about your credibility!
Trump is anti-Zionist??? Ha! His adviser to Israel David Friedman is an extreme right-wing Zionist! Or do you just prefer
to completely ignore fact and reality???
And Mike Pence and Mike Pompeo can't stand Putin and their comments and record are there - FACT!
And Trump didn't only tell Hillary he was going to build up the military; he outlined it later in his plan with facts and
figures and it's going to cost about a Trillion dollars, so quit comparing it to a gradual phasing out of Obamacare!
Okay, you know what? I see right through your little game. Unless you have something cogent with factual backup; I don't
wanna read your responses based on pure fantasy and deflection. I look at the cold, hard facts and reality. I look at who Trump
is surrounding himself with rabid Islam-haters obsessed with going after Iran and extremist Zionist loons and hawks like Pompeo
and Pence making disturbing comments on Russia and Snowden and Trump's plan. So quit pretending you're not trying to obscure
fact with fiction meant to deceive!
"...and not a regular war where 300,000 people die..."
- Regular? So, you're calling an aggression on Syria just a 'Regular' war, on par with the course? The very least the Americans
have to do, including those given the 'Nobel Peace Prize' (a bloody joke if there ever was one)? And those regular wars are
needed to, what, regularly feed and the US MIC Beast? So... Obama and Hillary were just getting on with the inevitable?
Your other observations regarding Pompeo are more meaningful, but I think you underestimate the power of groupthink under
the Clinton-Bush-Obama continuous administration complex. Anyway, if Pompeo doesn't wish to get "reassigned", he might be better
off unmounting the neocon horse mindset and getting on better with the Tea Party dogma, where the enemies of thy enemies are
more likely to be seen as friends then frenemies.
#34 Feckless Left
In a sense you are right, he is not a career politician and he might be underestimating the depth of the abyss. Yet, he
has far more street cred than you seem to be giving him credit for. An honest, naive idealist, he is certainly not...
Circe, I have addressed your panic about Iran in another thread and you failed to reply so again:
"Even if true that the future administration would shift its focus against Iran, what can they accomplish militarily against
it? Nought. SAA & ISA would send militias to support Iran, nothing would prevent Russia from using Hamedan airbase just as
it uses Hmeimim and deploy S-400 et al systems to bolster Iran's already existing ones. Plus on what grounds politically could
they intervene? Nobody is buying Bibi's "Bomb" bs seriously anymore. Forget it, with Syria prevailing Iran is safe.."
Oddlots #21. insightful. you ignored the entire list on the financial side, but they are linked through the profound mutual
support between Israel and Wall Street.
I have been really surprised at the lack of discussion of BHO's impromptu post-election tour of Germany and Greece. It seems
to me Egypt flipped and it was met with silence, because WashDC must be secured before the neocons can respond. But the two
countries that are game-set-match are Germany and Greece. The Greek navy with German support is a great power in the Mediterranean.
How convenient to keep them at each other's throats for a decade. I think BHO was trying desperately to keep them onside. But
he would either have to promise them something that he can no longer deliver after Jan 20th...or he has to clue them in to
a different timeline than the one we think is playing out. Anyone have a idea why the Prez had to go and talk to Merkel and
Tsipras *without intermediaries?*
Having now founded a central bank in every nation of the world, the Khazars have defeated the Pope and the Caliphate. Only
Iran and North Korea don't have a Khazar central bank. And only Iran has the last stash of crown jewels and gold bullion that
the Khazars don't already control.
They want Iran as part of Greater Israel, and they hate Russia for driving them out after the fall of the Soviet Union.
The Khazars control the American Union under a Red/Blue Star. Just talking ethnics, not race, religion or creed, since Hebrew
is a religion of pure commercial convenience for the Khazars.
US and IL are therefore aligned against IR and RU. Now we can get rid of all the race, religion or creed crap, and talk
New Math set theory: {US,IL} ≠ {IR,RU}
Who are {US,IL} sanctions against? {IR,RU}. In this new Trump' Administration: {TA} ⊆ {US,IL}, and {TA} ⊄ {IR,RU}. From
a chess perspective, Putin just got Kieningered, because the Khazars would have everyone believe that {TA} ❤ {RU}, when in
reality, {TA} ∩ {RU} = {Ø}.
I'm fully expecting a radical change in rhetoric coming from Mr. Trump and his new team, but little else. The REAL movers and
shakers who run the U$A have everything moving their direction right now, so why change? I expect "the Donald" to do as he's
told, like every other POTUS in modern history. They'll let him screw the workers, but, not the REAL owners of the U$A( 1%).
You don't know? Before he died, my father told me a trick. Once the bloom was off their marriage, his wife would deliberately
provoke his heavy-handed management of the family, by doing whatever he didn't want. So he learned to always 'go crazy' over
things, knowing that's exactly what she would do to spite him, ...and in that way, using 'reverse psychology', the Khazars
would have you believe that they hate Trump, and Trump loves Russia. They're just putting the Maidan gears into motion.
If Trump is considering Mitt Romney for SoS then you can bet his policy towards Russia will be hostile because the only reason
Trump would put someone between himself and Putin, who repeatedly called Russia, America's No. 1 enemy, is because he wants
a bad cop on Russia in the State Department, in spite of his supposed good cop remarks regarding Putin. In other words, he
wants someone who can put it straight to Putin so he himself can pretend to be the good cop. If Trump were being honest regarding
a softening in policy with Russia do you really believe he would ever consider someone like Romney for SoS??? Again, Mitt Romney
has made the most scathing comments of anyone against Putin, and then calling Russia the number one geopolitical enemy of
the U.S. . Many on the Democratic and even Republican side felt he went overboard and many have since called his comment
prophetic and today Romney feels vindicated.
Many analysts on the Democratic side and Republican side are calling Romney prophetic since he made that statement on Russia
before Russia messed with U.S. plans for Syria.
So, my point is this; it's possible, it's very possible that, Mike Pompeo, Trump's choice for CIA Director, who also has
a hostile position towards Russia asked Trump to consider Romney because he know doubt also believes that Romney proved good
foresight with that comment regarding Russia and urged Trump to give Romney a meeting.
My 2nd point is this: quit trying to make Trump into what he's not when he's spelling it all out for you in black and white!
It doesn't look good. This picture that's starting to develop is looking worse by the day. Look at who he's surrounding
himself with; look at his actions and forget about his words. This man has sold ice to the eskimos in his business dealings.
Look at the facts. Trump is not who you think he is and just because he made some comments favorable in Putin's regard doesn't
mean he's not going to turn around and stick it to Putin a year or maybe a few years down the line. Kissinger told Fareed Zakaria
today on GPS: One should not insist in nailing Trump to positions he took during the campaign.
I already wrote that I believe Trump is using this fake softer strategy to get Russia to look sideways on a coming Resolution
to invade Iran and then he's going to deal with Putin and Russia.
If Trump picks someone like Romney for State; he'll have 3 individuals in the most important cabinet positions dealing with
foreign policy and foreign enemies who will be hostile to Russia: VP, CIA Director and SoS. Therefore he would be sending his
bad cop to deal with Russia and sending a message to Putin like: Don't put your money on whatever I said during the campaign,
my positions are changing for the empire's benefit and strategic interests. And even if he doesn't choose Mitt, because on
Breitbart where his base convenes they're up in arms about this meeting, I would still be wary of his direction because of
the picks he's made already; the majority of his cabinet so far want war with Iran and his VP and CIA Director can't stand
Putin and then looking at who's advising him, rabid Neocon Zionists like James Woolsey and David Friedman.
Look at what Trump does, who he's meeting with, who he's choosing to surround himself with and quit hanging on what he said,
because talk is cheap, especially coming from someone who's now in the inner circle of American power.
@55
Please don't give me one measly Cohen tweet as fact! The entire Zionist Organization of America came to Bannon's defense
and he will be attending their gala! It's been made public everywhere; so quit obscuring the truth.
@54
Yes, Russia could come to Iran's defense considering Iran allowed for Russia's use of that air base for Syria and rescued
one of the two Russian pilots shot down by Turkey, and is fighting al-Nusra shoulder to shoulder with Russia, but the empire
has something up its sleeve to stop Russia from coming to the defense of Iran, should the U.S. and Israel decide to circumvent
the Security Council. Something stinks; Trump is top loading his cabinet with crazy, Iran-obsessed hawks and his VP and CIA
Direct also have no love for Putin. They're planning something against Iran and I know they're going to do something to tie
Putin's hands. Something's up and it's going to lead to war beyond Syria. Look the Russians are already depleting resources
in Syria; already that puts Russia in a weakened position. I don't know what they're planning but it's not good. The picture
unfolding with Trump's cabinet is very disturbing.
There's another aspect and maybe it's significant and maybe not that could influence a change in Trump's position on Russia
that would have also made him take the extreme step of meeting with Romney while considering the SoS position. Trump is getting
the highest level of security briefings now that he's President-elect. You wanna bet that Russia and Putin are mentioned in
over 50% of those briefings and ISIS, Iran and others get the other 50% collectively???
Hasbara hysteria to undermine Trump. Unrelenting bullshit and innuendo.
What was Bannon talking about when he said that America is getting f*cked? Globalism vs. Nationalism. Who equates nationalism
with nazism? Zionists. Who is butt-hurt over Trump Presidency? Zionists and neocons.
Yep, describes your weak deception to a T! ...like I'm going to hang on Bannon's word as gospel when he's going to be wining
and dining with Zionists at the ZOA gala.
Oh, and one more thing: Zionists, FYI, relate very well with nationalists and supremacists since they got their own nationalist,
supremacist operation in ISRAEL! So I'm only too sure they'll be commiserating and exchanging ideas on how best to secure their
nationalist, supremacist vision for the empire. There's a whole lot of common ground for them to cover during the gala, and
YOU CAN'T AND DIDN'T DENY THAT BANNON IS ATTENDING THE ZIONIST GALA! Did you???
So again, quit dogging me, quit presuming I'm some undercover hasbara, that maybe you are, and spare me the bullshit.
As if we didn't need anymore proof of where Trump is taking the U.S.: Trump tweeted a comment highly praising General James
Mattis after their meeting considering him for Secretary of Defense. This is a major, major red flag signalling a very troubling
direction in Trump's foreign policy.
Mattis served for two years as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. Although, he served under Obama, he was against the Iran
deal and considers Iran more dangerous that ISIS!
Mattis is nicknamed "mad-dog mattis" for a reason: he is an extreme hawk and he is MIC incorporated.
But here's the kicker, Mattis like Pompeo, Pence and Romney has also made blistering comments against Russia, stating that
Putin wants to break up NATO, sent "dogs and thugs" into Georgia and has been very critical of Putin's actions in Ukraine and
Syria.
At the beginning of the primaries, Neocons wanted Mattis as a candidate for the Presidency on the Republican side. I like
how the following article describes just how much Neocon war hawks salivated over the thought of Mattis in the White House:
Well folks, Mattis, the darling of Neocons, will be in the White House next to Trump advising him on war strategy! And worst
of all this mad-dog Neocon war hawk is going to run the Pentagon, oversee a trillion-dollar military expansion and command
the next world war!
So are you convinced yet that Trump is perpetuating the Neocon PNAC/Clean Break plan or are you still totally blind???
@34 fl, 'In my eyes the names he's been considering are reason for much worry for those hoping Trump would be the one to usher
in a multipolar world and end the cold war. I never had much hope in that regard (but I'm still praying for the best).'
Trump is in it for Trump. He's a solipsist. We and our 'real world' doesn't exist for Trump. He lives in Trump Tower. The
only things he cares about are his personal interests. He'll put in people to 'run the government' who will insulate him and
his interests from the consequences of their actions and that'll keep him happy and them in their jobs, no matter the consequences
for our 'imaginary' real world. We're back to the mad Caesars. Our government has been steadily walking away from us since
Bush XLI. It's on the run now, we're up to Nero. We 'barbarians' need to take care of our real world in its absence, prepare
ourselves to pick up the pieces when it's become so unrecognizable that it's finally disappeared.
"... Thank you for this very good link. The swamp cant be drained with an election, the society has been infested and corrupt beyond redemption. There can't be a revolution either, because no charismatic figure could lead it, and the majority of the people prefer to bury their head in the sand. ..."
"... It'd be nice to think that the coming devolution won't be an exact repeat, e.g. a neo-Dark Age for hundreds of years, but who can say? Maybe science and philosophy won't be entirely lost this time around. But of course all speculation is rendered nul and void IF we have WW3 ..."
"... If Trump appoints any vetted neocons to high positions in his administration, he runs the risk of synchronized resignations if he decides to move closer to Russia. ..."
"... Fake Libertarians need to understand that Radical islam is a problem not because of America's wars in the Middle East or NATO. Radical islam is inherently violent. India has been a victim of this virus since the 8th century! India never invaded any country. ..."
Thank you for this very good link. The swamp cant be drained with an election, the society has
been infested and corrupt beyond redemption. There can't be a revolution either, because no charismatic
figure could lead it, and the majority of the people prefer to bury their head in the sand.
What will eventually happen is an economic implosion and chaos. The "elite" won't be able to
finance a repressive force since their "electronic money" will not be trusted, and everything
will fall apart.
And years after, small communities will gradually re-emerge since there will
be a need to protect the people with a local police force. But the notion of a super-state or
even more of a NWO will not survive, after an initial depopulation we'll have something similar
than what you had at the begining of the middle age, a life organized around small independant
comunities of 3,000 or 5,000 people.
Very close to my thinking ... and a precedent is the demize of the Roman Empire, when Europe devolved
into numerous small feudal regions, such as in England for over a thousand years, i.e after numerous
internal wars, such as the Wars of the Roses and the reign of Henry VIII, it wasn't until the
1600s and the so-called "Enlightenment" that England was unified ... and it wasn't until the 1700s
that Scotland was conquered and "Great Britain" existed, also having incorporated Wales and Ireland,
with at least Eire having gained independence during the 1920s, Wales never being really integrated,
nor Scotland now moving away from the centre of the whole shebang ... London always.
It'd be nice to think that the coming devolution won't be an exact repeat, e.g. a neo-Dark
Age for hundreds of years, but who can say? Maybe science and philosophy won't be entirely lost
this time around. But of course all speculation is rendered nul and void IF we have WW3 despite,
or because(?) of Trump and similar phenonema in the West.
If Trump appoints any vetted neocons to high positions in his administration, he runs the risk
of synchronized resignations if he decides to move closer to Russia.
And when that is picked up by the arch deceivers at the WaPo, NYT, WSJ etc, it will be embarrassing
for Mr Trump and for the foreign policy he campaigned on.
Mr. Trump, please move closer to Russia - Putin has longed for sane dialogue with the US for the
last 8 or more years and has gotten the cold shoulder.
Fake Libertarians need to understand that Radical islam is a problem not because of America's
wars in the Middle East or NATO. Radical islam is inherently violent. India has been a victim
of this virus since the 8th century! India never invaded any country.
Islam fundamentally is incompatible with a modern society.
"... The good news is that Hillary Clinton won't be starting World War III. Also, at least for now and probably forever, we are rid of the two most noxious political families in recent American history, the Bushes and the Clintons. ..."
"... For this, thank Donald Trump. Remember him on Thanksgiving Day. ..."
"... The Clintons didn't do the Bushes in; Trump did. Then, a few months later, he took care of the Clintons. Three cheers to him for that! ..."
"... Will any more good come from the Donald's doings? The prospects are dimming. But if he does try to deliver on some of the positions he took during the campaign, there is a chance. ..."
"... And his views on relations with Russia and China, regime change wars, and imperial overreach, as best they can be ascertained, are a lot wiser and less lethal than hers. These are not so much left-right issues as matters of common sense. ..."
"... Clinton's overriding concern was and always has been to maintain and expand American world domination - in the face of economic decline, and at no matter what cost. Trump wants, or says he wants, to do business with other countries in the way that he did with sleaze ball real estate moguls and network executives, people like himself. He wants to make deals. ..."
"... Better that, though, than a foreign policy dedicated to keeping America the world's hegemon. That is the foreign policy establishment's aim; it is therefore Clinton's too. It is the way of perpetual war. Trump's way is far from ideal, but it is less wasteful, less onerous and less reckless. ..."
"... During the campaign, Trump would sometimes speak out against banksters and financiers, especially the too-big-to-fail and too-big-to-jail kind. For some time, though, the "populist" billionaire has been signaling to his class brothers and sisters in the financial "industry" that he is more likely to deregulate than to regulate their machinations. ..."
"... Many of the rich and heinous were skeptical of Trump's candidacy at first; because he is such a loose cannon. But now that he has won, the bastards are sucking up; and glee is returning to Wall Street. ..."
"... Trump is now starting too to allay the fears of the movers and shakers of the National Security State. He still has a way to go, however. We can therefore still hope that they are right to worry. What is bad for them is good for the country. ..."
"... Clinton's defeat also seems to have unnerved their counterparts in European capitals, at NATO headquarters in Brussels, and in Japan, South Korea and other countries where the presence of the American military has been very very good for the few at the top, and disastrous for ordinary people. ..."
"... Trump may not be quite the "isolationist" that some people think, but he has said repeatedly that the countries America "protects" should pay their own way. ..."
"... Then there is Israel. Trump thinks that the blank check the ethnocratic settler state already gets from the United States isn't nearly enough. So much for allies paying their own way! ..."
"... However, even if Trump leaves America's perpetual war regime and its military alliances intact, some good could come just from him being at the helm – not so much because, as a wheeler and dealer, he would be less inclined actually to start wars than has become the norm, but because he is vile enough, and enough of an embarrassment, to undermine America's prestige, hastening the day when the hegemon is a hegemon no more. ..."
"... This is "exceptional," all right, but not in the way that exponents of "American exceptionalism" like Obama and Clinton have in mind. Perhaps their commitment to that illusion has something to do with the zeal with which those two, along with many others, are now promoting a fallback position. ..."
"... Obama especially has been trumpeting the claim that, in the Land of the Free, when an election is over and the incumbent – or, as in this case, the continuator of his "legacy" - is out, we Americans transfer power not just peacefully but also cordially. Since this is the norm in much of the world these days, since there is nothing "exceptional" about it, it is not clear how this makes our "democracy" a model for the world. But leave that aside. ..."
"... Whatever the explanation, it was remarkable how he had taken it upon himself to make nice with Trump even before the dust had settled. What a feat of moral and psychological abasement! ..."
"... After all, the Donald has never had a kind word to say about the President; indeed, his line, from Day One, has been that Obama's presidency is illegitimate. ..."
"... As it turned out, Hillary, the role model, is teaching a less edifying lesson: that when you flub badly, blame everybody but yourself. What a piece of work that woman is! If FBI Director James Comey had done nothing that she could blame her failure on, it would be Jill Stein or Julian Assange, or most likely (and most far-fetched) of all, Vladimir Putin - anybody but her or her husband or the corporate-infested rotting hulk that the Democratic Party has become. ..."
"... The neoliberal world order that the Clintons did so much to fashion, and that Hillary was poised to take over and extend, is heading for a crash. Americans had better watch out. There are no soft landings for hegemons that insist on continuing to dominate the world after their time has passed. ..."
"... A soft landing would be a blessing, though – for the peoples of the world and for the American people. It would spare a lot of people a lot of grief. ..."
"... Until its Clintonism is expunged that opposition is not the Democratic Party. Far too many liberals, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren among them, thought that it was – and look where that got us. ..."
The good news is that Hillary Clinton won't be starting World War III. Also, at least for now
and probably forever, we are rid of the two most noxious political families in recent American history,
the Bushes and the Clintons.
For this, thank Donald Trump. Remember him on Thanksgiving Day.
Thank corporate media too. They loved Hillary, but they loved advertising revenue more; and the
Donald was a godsend for their bottom lines. They showered him with enough free publicity to elect
a dozen buffoons.
Not long ago, when only the tabloids were reporting on Trump, it looked like the 2016 election
would be a Hillary versus Jeb Bush affair that would do in one or the other of their respective dynasties,
but not both.
It didn't work out that way, however. The Clintons didn't do the Bushes in; Trump did. Then, a
few months later, he took care of the Clintons. Three cheers to him for that!
***
Will any more good come from the Donald's doings? The prospects are dimming. But if he does try
to deliver on some of the positions he took during the campaign, there is a chance.
... ... ...
On trade policy, though, job creation, and infrastructure development, the positions Trump took
during the campaign beat anything Hillary promised. Trump outflanked her from the left.
And his views on relations with Russia and China, regime change wars, and imperial overreach,
as best they can be ascertained, are a lot wiser and less lethal than hers. These are not so much
left-right issues as matters of common sense.
Clinton's overriding concern was and always has been to maintain and expand American world domination
- in the face of economic decline, and at no matter what cost. Trump wants, or says he wants, to
do business with other countries in the way that he did with sleaze ball real estate moguls and network
executives, people like himself. He wants to make deals.
The Trump way is, as they say, "transactional." The idea is to wheel and deal on a case-by-case
basis, with no further, non-pecuniary end in view.
In the real estate world and in network television, that would mean wringing as much money out
of each transaction as possible. What it would mean in world affairs is unclear – except perhaps
to those who think that "making America great again" isn't meaningless cant.
Better that, though, than a foreign policy dedicated to keeping America the world's hegemon. That
is the foreign policy establishment's aim; it is therefore Clinton's too. It is the way of perpetual
war. Trump's way is far from ideal, but it is less wasteful, less onerous and less reckless.
During the campaign, Trump would sometimes speak out against banksters and financiers, especially
the too-big-to-fail and too-big-to-jail kind. For some time, though, the "populist" billionaire has
been signaling to his class brothers and sisters in the financial "industry" that he is more likely
to deregulate than to regulate their machinations.
This will become even clearer once Trump settles on key Cabinet posts and on his economic advisors.
It is already plain, though, that the modern day counterparts of Theodore Roosevelt's "malefactors
of great wealth" have little to fear; they and Trump are joined by indissoluble bonds of class-consciousness
and solidarity.
Many of the rich and heinous were skeptical of Trump's candidacy at first; because he is such
a loose cannon. But now that he has won, the bastards are sucking up; and glee is returning to Wall
Street.
There is no doubt about it: whoever voted for the Donald for "populist" reasons is an out and
out chump.
Trump is now starting too to allay the fears of the movers and shakers of the National Security
State. He still has a way to go, however. We can therefore still hope that they are right to worry.
What is bad for them is good for the country.
Clinton's defeat also seems to have unnerved their counterparts in European capitals, at NATO
headquarters in Brussels, and in Japan, South Korea and other countries where the presence of the
American military has been very very good for the few at the top, and disastrous for ordinary people.
Trump may not be quite the "isolationist" that some people think, but he has said repeatedly that
the countries America "protects" should pay their own way.
If he means it, then more power to him. The United States and the rest of the world would be well
rid of the American dominated military alliances now in place; NATO most of all. However, having
talked with him, Obama is now telling the Europeans that Trump is fine with NATO. Time will tell.
Then there is Israel. Trump thinks that the blank check the ethnocratic settler state already
gets from the United States isn't nearly enough. So much for allies paying their own way!
However, even if Trump leaves America's perpetual war regime and its military alliances intact,
some good could come just from him being at the helm – not so much because, as a wheeler and dealer,
he would be less inclined actually to start wars than has become the norm, but because he is vile
enough, and enough of an embarrassment, to undermine America's prestige, hastening the day when the
hegemon is a hegemon no more.
This would be good for most Americans, and good for the world.
The election he won has already done a lot to explode the idea, more widely believed at home than
abroad, that American "democracy" is somehow a model for the world.
What an odd idea! Leaving aside the inordinate influence of private money - political corruption
that a "conservative" Supreme Court regards as Constitutionally protected free speech - and the fact
our two major parties have concocted an electoral duopoly system that stifles even mildly reformist
political expression, in what kind of model can Clinton garner at least two million more votes than
Trump yet still lose the election?
More glaringly undemocratic yet, Democrats routinely garner more votes than Republicans in House
and Senate races, but only sometimes control either chamber. In the final years of the Obama presidency,
Democrats controlled neither one. A fine model indeed!
When he, like everyone else, was sure that he would lose, Trump would rail against how the system
is "rigged." It was rigged – by Clinton and Company against Bernie Sanders. It was hardly rigged
against Trump; at least not in any way that mattered. Quite to the contrary, the system worked to
Trump's advantage to such an extent that, unlike Hillary, he didn't need to cheat.
And what a system it is! After wasting prodigious quantities of money, time, and effort over more
than a year and a half, it produced a contest between two of the most appalling and unpopular candidates
ever to disgrace the political scene.
This is "exceptional," all right, but not in the way that exponents of "American exceptionalism"
like Obama and Clinton have in mind. Perhaps their commitment to that illusion has something to do
with the zeal with which those two, along with many others, are now promoting a fallback position.
Obama especially has been trumpeting the claim that, in the Land of the Free, when an election
is over and the incumbent – or, as in this case, the continuator of his "legacy" - is out, we Americans
transfer power not just peacefully but also cordially. Since this is the norm in much of the world
these days, since there is nothing "exceptional" about it, it is not clear how this makes our "democracy"
a model for the world. But leave that aside.
Perhaps Obama had no overriding propaganda purpose in mind, and was only being gracious. Whatever
the explanation, it was remarkable how he had taken it upon himself to make nice with Trump even
before the dust had settled. What a feat of moral and psychological abasement!
After all, the Donald has never had a kind word to say about the President; indeed, his line,
from Day One, has been that Obama's presidency is illegitimate. Trump launched his campaign for the
White House by championing birther nonsense, and it has been all downhill from there.
Nevertheless, if Obama wants to take the high ground, he should go for it. As Hillary's campaign
ads made clear, children need role models who are as unlike Trump as can be. Obama won't be fooling
anybody about the "exceptional" magnanimity of American democracy; that ship sailed long ago. But
a class act on his part now might at least be good for the kids.
Obama is better positioned for that than Hillary, even though one of the few remotely plausible
arguments for voting for her was that a woman President would be good for little girls – because
it would show them that, like little boys, they could someday achieve the highest office in the land.
Trump cut the ground out from that argument too - by devaluing the office.
As it turned out, Hillary, the role model, is teaching a less edifying lesson: that when you flub
badly, blame everybody but yourself. What a piece of work that woman is! If FBI Director James Comey
had done nothing that she could blame her failure on, it would be Jill Stein or Julian Assange, or
most likely (and most far-fetched) of all, Vladimir Putin - anybody but her or her husband or the
corporate-infested rotting hulk that the Democratic Party has become.
***
The neoliberal world order that the Clintons did so much to fashion, and that Hillary was poised
to take over and extend, is heading for a crash. Americans had better watch out. There are no soft
landings for hegemons that insist on continuing to dominate the world after their time has passed.
A soft landing would be a blessing, though – for the peoples of the world and for the American
people. It would spare a lot of people a lot of grief.
Is it possible that, through sheer inadvertence, Trump could get us there? It is too soon, at
this point to say what the chances are, but, by Inauguration Day, if not before, we should have a
good idea.
Since Trump knows little and cares less about governance, and since he is unfit for the job the
Electoral College will bestow upon him, it will be up to the people he appoints to do, or not do,
what he said he wanted to do during the campaign.
On that score, the news so far has been, to say the least, troubling.
Being as sure as everyone else that Trump would lose and therefore that they were not harming
their careers by dissing the Donald – that they were instead making a cost free political statement
that would benefit their careers in the long run - nearly all the usual suspects that a Republican
President-elect might call upon when setting up a new administration rejected Trump a long time ago.
Predictably, many of them want back in now, but the Donald is nothing if not vengeful.
Therefore Trump's "transition team" will have no choice but to scrape the very bottom of the barrel.
Even Sarah Palin has been mentioned. Even John Bolton.
We already now that Reince Priebus of the RNC, the Republican National Committee, will be Trump's
Chief of Staff and that Stephen Bannon, of Breitbart News, champion of the white nationalist "alt-right,"
will be his "chief strategist and senior counselor" - one mainstream mediocrity and one shameless
epigone of "the darker angels of our nature," as a later-day Lincoln might call them.
Eight years ago, when Obama's appointments also seemed hard to make sense of, pop historians would
go on about how, like Lincoln, Obama, in his infinite wisdom, was assembling "a team of rivals."
So far, no one has found anything similarly complimentary to say about what Trump and his inner circle
are up to. The news oozing out of Trump Tower is too repugnant to spin.
And the reasons for this are too evident to hide. They stem from Trump's egomania and insecurity.
He is therefore now doing what others like him in similar circumstances have done before: making
loyalty not just the main thing, but the only thing.
***
Too bad for the Donald that governments are bigger and more multi-faceted than real estate operations.
The "deep state" must be fed, and there aren't nearly enough people around who have a clue about
what needs to be done whose loyalty Trump doesn't doubt.
The evidence suggests too that Trump considers himself too important to worry about anything but
the "commanding heights" of his administration; and that he is eager to delegate the authority to
pick and choose underlings. If that authority can be delegated to someone he so far trusts, and whose
office carries an air of political legitimacy, then so much the better.
Enter Mike Pence.
In recent years, it has become practically an axiom of American presidential politics that by
their choices of Vice Presidents, ye shall know them.
Anyone who is not quite sure what a dodo John McCain is, should reflect on Sarah Palin. And as
if the support Obama got from Wall Street and corporate media wasn't enough to show which side he
was on, his choice of Joe Biden for a running mate ought to have sealed the deal.
Did Hillary really take a progressive turn, as she and her handlers wanted people to think when
they still feared the wrath of Sanders' supporters? By picking Tim Kaine to run with her, she settled
that question. How more eloquently could she have expressed contempt not just for people feeling
the Bern, but also for everyone less retrograde than she!
The best that can be said of the Vice President-elect, who famously described himself as "a Christian,
a conservative, and a Republican in that order," is that he is a rock solid reactionary - in the
Dick Cheney mold, with a little of Scott Walker, Wisconsin's union busting Governor, thrown in.
That, after kicking Chris Christie out, Trump chose him to head his transition-team, suggests
that the Trump administration will be less disruptive of ordinary Republican imbecility than those
of us who are looking for silver linings in Trump's victory would like.
We who underestimated the enormity of Hillary Clinton's ineptitude, and who still can't quite
understand how any Democrat, even she, could lose to Donald Trump, were, and are, of one mind with
Trump voters on that: many of them too were hoping that Trump would destroy or mortally wound the
GOP. We will have to wait a while longer for that now.
Ironically, the silver lining is that now the onus will be on Trump – for having given the Republican
Party new life. That should teach those Trump voters who thought they were sending a message to the
GOP establishment. It should also cause them to turn on Trump sooner than Clinton voters would have
turned on her, and a lot sooner than millions of Obama supporters came to realize how wrong-headed
Obamaphilia was.
By winning, Trump has placed himself in an untenable situation.
He cannot even begin to implement the agenda his base thought he would while relying only on his
children and the handful of Republicans he knows and doesn't have it in for. But neither can he throw
himself on the mercy of the establishment Republicans he ran against. That would go against his every
instinct; and, as a man without principles or convictions, instincts are all he has.
Also, it would cost him his base.
He therefore has no choice but to muddle on as best he can, disappointing everyone.
Obama ended up disappointing a lot of people too. When he ran in 2008, the people who voted for
"hope" and "change" found that what they got was the same old same old.
Now many Trump voters want change. They have fewer illusions; they don't expect their candidate
to usher in a Golden Age; few of them even like the Donald. All they wanted was not Hillary and in
her stead something, anything, different from what Democrats and Republicans have been handing them
for as long as they could remember. They too will find that what they voted into office was what
they thought they were voting out.
Therefore, they too will despair and, when the time comes, revolt. But it will be worse this time
because the President they voted into office is dangerously unhinged. Whatever else he may be, Obama
is cautious, thoughtful, and emotionally mature; Trump, though shrewd and adept at self-promotion,
is an ignoramus with the emotional maturity of a teenage boy.
When the people who put him in office realize this, as they very soon will, watch out!
Don't feel sorry for him, though. Whether or not his villainy is heartfelt or only a huckster-politician's
gimmick, he merits all the condemnation his detractors can muster.
And although many of the people who voted for him felt that there was no other way to tell the
political class how justifiably pissed off they are, don't feel sorry for them either.
Corporate media and the Commission on Presidential Debates and the National Committees of the
Democratic and Republic Parties saw to it that most voters wouldn't take third party alternatives
seriously, even if they somehow found out about them at all.
But to express contempt for Hillary, they didn't have to vote for Trump. For example, they could
have voted only in down-ticket contests, and not for President; or they could have not voted at all.
Better that than voting for someone associated, fairly or not, with nativism, racism and Islamophobia.
***
The tragic fact is that our democracy, or lack of it, made "deplorables" of us all. Trump enthusiasts
are the worst, though, for different and less reprehensible reasons, Clinton enthusiasts too have
a lot to answer for too. So do all the lesser evil and faute de mieux voters on both sides.
And so do those who didn't bother to vote, whether out of conviction, indifference or laziness, and
those of use who put integrity above efficacy by voting, as I did, for Jill Stein, or for Gary Johnson.
Once it became clear that the election would be between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, all
was lost. Even trying to jack up the Stein vote to the point where the Greens could get federal funding
next time around was a fool's errand. This was clear from the moment Bernie Sanders made good on
his pledge to support the Democratic ticket. Those of us who thought otherwise were deceiving ourselves.
In the circumstances, is there anything to do now except put it all behind us and move on?
The answer is emphatically Yes.
The first order of business now is to do all we can to protect the people whose vulnerability
Trump exploits and endangers: Muslims and undocumented Latinos, above all; to fight back in solidarity
with them – against Trump and his minions and against the miscreants in the larger society whose
nativism, racism, Islamophobia, homophobia and sexism Trump has unleashed.
If Trump starts deporting people, the deportations must do all we can to stop him - by any means
necessary. If he starts registering Muslims, we must insist on being registered too.
We must never lose sight, however, of the underlying cause of the Trump phenomenon – the Clintonite
(neoliberal, liberal imperialist, anti-working class) turn in American, especially Democratic Party,
politics.
Without making the mistake of going over to the opposite extreme, by forsaking the progressive
side of identity politics, the Clintonite turn must be reversed, as quickly and definitively as possible.
And so, the struggles ahead must be waged simultaneously on two fronts: in the first instance,
against reactionaries of the Trumpian sort and against reactionary Trumpian initiatives, but also
against the politics of Hillary and Bill and those who think like them.
Each day brings news of opposition in the streets; and plans are afoot for massive demonstrations
around Inauguration Day. This is all well and good. But it must not be forgotten that when there
are no effective means for achieving political ends, actions become merely expressive, and often
turn out badly. Even when the level of repression is minimal, there is always a backlash; and, when
militant energies are exhausted, quiescence generally follows.
Therefore act, but also think! And learn not just from experience, but also from the enemy.
House and Senate Republicans are, as a rule, more loathsome than their Democratic Party counterparts,
and they are not the brightest bulbs on the tree. But, through sheer obstinacy, they were able to
prevail over a popular, albeit weak, President, and to block all but his most timid initiatives.
The emerging anti-Trump resistance can learn a lot from their example.
Needless to say, House and Senate Democrats are ill equipped to do anything of the sort; they
are worse than useless. Many, maybe most, of them are no less politically retrograde than their Republican
counterparts, and they are all a lot less capable of keeping a President at bay through obstinacy
alone.
But if they will not, or cannot, follow the lead of their Republican colleagues, "we, the people"
can.
We can obstruct, obstruct, and obstruct some more.
But with a difference! House and Senate Republicans wanted only to cause Obama's presidency to
fail. We can do better than that.
Insofar as his administration actually does do some of the comparatively progressive things that
Trump promised it would, "we, the people" should support it, even as we do our best to keep Trump
and his followers from succumbing to their nefarious, quasi-fascist inclinations.
There is no time to lose. It is very likely that Trump's team, once it takes shape, will start
off with some spectacularly execrable displays of malice – intended to show that the Donald is indeed
a man of his word.
Trump has already said that he intends, right off, to deport some two to three million "illegal"
aliens.
Had Deporter-in-Chief Obama been taken on in the past, stopping Trump now would be a less daunting
task. But it can still be done – if the opposition is sufficiently militant and united.
Until its Clintonism is expunged that opposition is not the Democratic Party. Far too many liberals,
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren among them, thought that it was – and look where that got us.
The opposition now, though huge, has no party – except perhaps the Greens, and they are still
too marginal to count. Rectifying this situation is a matter of the utmost urgency, nearly as important,
even in the short run, as defending the victims of the new order that the failed, Clintonized Democratic
Party has foisted upon us.
Join the
debate on Facebook
ANDREW LEVINE is a Senior Scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, the author most recently
of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and
POLITICAL
KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His
most recent book is
In Bad
Faith: What's Wrong With the Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University
of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College
Park. He is a contributor to
Hopeless:
Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). More articles by:
Andrew Levine
"... To do so would be madness. President-Elect Donald Trump appears to recognize that Syria is not America's responsibility. Unfortunately, Vice President-Elect Mike Pence, as well as some of those mentioned for top administration positions, take a more militaristic perspective. Trump should announce that his administration will not get involved in Syria's civil war in any way. ..."
"... President Barack Obama spent five years resisting pressure for direct military intervention. But he appointed war supporters John Kerry, Samantha Power, Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton to manage his foreign policy. Kerry acknowledged to a group of Syrian refugees in Beirut that he and other officials had advocated use of force but "lost the argument." ..."
"... However, rather than clearly set a policy of non-involvement, President Obama attempted intervention-lite. The administration failed in both its major objectives: oust Bashar al-Assad as president and empower "moderate" opponents. ..."
"... Republican warrior wannabes claim that Washington could have provided just the right form of aid to just the right groups at just the right time and thereby created a liberal, democratic, united Syria allied with America. ..."
"... In Syria the Obama administration has pursued incompatible objectives and combatants. Washington remains committed to ousting the Assad regime, which remains the most important barrier to a triumph by the Islamic State. NATO ally Turkey spent the civil war's early years accommodating so-called Daesh, and now is battling Kurdish fighters, who have been America's staunchest allies against ISIS. ..."
"... America's Gulf allies led by Saudi Arabia largely abandoned the campaign against the Islamic State in favor of a brutal attack on Yemen, dragging the U.S. into a dangerous proxy war with Iran. ..."
"... Washington must set priorities. Washington Post columnist Jackson Diehl argued that Russia "has proved that a limited use of force could change the political outcome, without large costs." However, that's because Moscow has one objective: keep Assad in power. Washington has a half dozen or more conflicting goals, none of are important enough to warrant the use of force. ..."
"... Nor could the conflict be settled without using extraordinary force. Merely fudging the balance of military power won't end the killing. If jihadist groups took control after Assad's collapse and his allies' withdrawal, Washington would face pressure to "do something" to protect Alawites, Christians and perhaps even "moderate" insurgents and their supporters. The U.S. has neither the responsibility nor the resources to police the globe. ..."
"... Finally, the administration has unfinished business involving anti-American radicals, the Islamic State and al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra/al-Sham. But Assad's ouster would empower both groups. They remain primarily insurgents which can be dealt with on the ground by the surrounding nations which they most threaten. ..."
"... Donald Trump had only just been declared president-elect when those controlled U.S. foreign policy began urging him to conform to their disastrous designs in the Middle East. However, Trump appears to have learned from the past. He told the Wall Street Journal: "I've had an opposite view of many people regarding Syria." ..."
"... I agree, Trump should stay out of the Middle East and start building the infrastructure for this third world country called the United States. As for John Kerry, Samantha Power, Susan Rice, and Hillary Clinton, they are so over and yesterday's news in the fast pace of social media. ..."
"... But their war mongering attitudes will carry a heavy burden when it comes to political history; this foursome was responsible for many civilian deaths are they responsible for the use of drones and every other killing machine that make the USA, as Eisenhower said the Military Industrial Complex. ..."
"... now it is time for the USA to cut all IRS tax benefits for the religion business and use that for new airports and railroads. If someone wants to worship a God in an untaxed temple, make them pay an admission tax like when you go to the movies. ..."
The U.S. presidential election mercifully has ended. But global conflict continues. And American
politicians are still attempting to drag America into another tragic, bloody Middle Eastern conflict.
To do so would be madness. President-Elect Donald Trump appears to recognize that Syria is
not America's responsibility. Unfortunately, Vice President-Elect Mike Pence, as well as some of
those mentioned for top administration positions, take a more militaristic perspective. Trump should
announce that his administration will not get involved in Syria's civil war in any way.
President Barack Obama spent five years resisting pressure for direct military intervention.
But he appointed war supporters John Kerry, Samantha Power, Susan Rice and Hillary Clinton to manage
his foreign policy. Kerry acknowledged to a group of Syrian refugees in Beirut that he and other
officials had advocated use of force but "lost the argument."
However, rather than clearly set a policy of non-involvement, President Obama attempted intervention-lite.
The administration failed in both its major objectives: oust Bashar al-Assad as president and empower
"moderate" opponents. However, administration officials still have not given up. Even as the
American people were voting on Obama's successor his appointees were pushing "kinetic actions against
the regime," reported anonymous sources. The president remains at odds with his own appointees.
Republican warrior wannabes claim that Washington could have provided just the right form
of aid to just the right groups at just the right time and thereby created a liberal, democratic,
united Syria allied with America. Even today Thanassis Cambanis of the Century Foundation argues
the U.S. should "use its resources to manage conflicts like Syria's." That sounds good, but when
was the last time Washington "managed" anything well in the Middle East?
Even with a quick military victory Washington got Iraq disastrously wrong, empowering Iran while
triggering the very sectarian conflict which spawned the Islamic State. U.S. intervention in Libya
left chaos and conflict in its wake. American policymakers demonstrate no facility for global social
engineering.
In Syria the Obama administration has pursued incompatible objectives and combatants. Washington
remains committed to ousting the Assad regime, which remains the most important barrier to a triumph
by the Islamic State. NATO ally Turkey spent the civil war's early years accommodating so-called
Daesh, and now is battling Kurdish fighters, who have been America's staunchest allies against ISIS.
The U.S. has trained and armed so-called moderate insurgents, who have had only limited combat
success, often surrendering, along with their U.S.-supplied equipment, to radical forces. One half
billion dollar training program generated barely three score insurgents, most of whom were promptly
killed or captured.
Former Obama official Derek Chollet said the administration hoped its aid to insurgents would
give Washington "leverage" in dealing with its Sunni "allies." Yet the latter have manipulated America
to serve their interests, pressing Washington to oust the Assad regime while supporting radical insurgent
groups opposed by the U.S. After providing symbolic aid in the early days, America's Gulf allies
led by Saudi Arabia largely abandoned the campaign against the Islamic State in favor of a brutal
attack on Yemen, dragging the U.S. into a dangerous proxy war with Iran.
Extremist forces have threatened U.S. military personnel embedded with Syrian fighters. Arab and
Kurdish insurgents trained and armed by Washington recently battled each other. Shia militias fighting
with the Baghdad government against ISIS in Iraq are opposing U.S.-backed Sunni insurgents in Syria.
Baghdad and Ankara neared war over Turkey's intervention in northern Iraq. Any attacks on Assad's
forces threaten Russian military personnel and hardware.
... ... ...
Washington must set priorities. Washington Post columnist Jackson Diehl argued that Russia
"has proved that a limited use of force could change the political outcome, without large costs."
However, that's because Moscow has one objective: keep Assad in power. Washington has a half dozen
or more conflicting goals, none of are important enough to warrant the use of force.
Syria's civil war does not implicate any of Washington's traditional Middle Eastern interests,
most importantly Israel and oil. America's chief concern should be the Islamic State, not Assad regime.
Candidate Trump correctly opined: "our far greater problem is not Assad, it's ISIS."
Advocates of regime change claim that only through Assad's ouster can Daesh be defeated. However,
the existing government remains the biggest military barrier to the radicals. Moreover, the group
grew out of Iraq's sectarian war and would continue to promote its "caliphate" in a post-Assad Syria.
Alas, history is full of examples-Soviet Union, Nicaragua and Iran, among others-in which brutal
radicals defeat decent liberals after they together depose a hated dictator. Unless the U.S. is willing
to occupy the country, impose a new government, and remain until the state is rebuilt, the worst
Syrians are likely to control a post-Assad future. And the results could be ugly even if Washington
stuck around, as in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Retired Gen. John Allen and author Charles R. Lister argued that "the credibility of the United
States as the leader and defender of the free world must be salvaged." But the Syrian tragedy has
little to do with "the free world": brutal civil wars have occurred since the dawn of mankind. And
Washington's chief duty is to defend America, not referee other nations' conflicts.
Yet ivory tower warriors continue to urge greater U.S. military involvement. Some propose targeting
Russia with additional sanctions, which would not likely dissuade Moscow from acting on behalf of
what it perceives as its important interests. However, further penalties would discourage cooperation
even where the two nations' interests coincided.
Another option is more training and better weapons for so-called moderates. Yet even President
Obama admitted that there were few past cases when support for insurgents "actually worked out well."
In a recent interview President-Elect Trump contended that "we have no idea who these people are"
and as a candidate complained that "they end up being worse" than the regime.
The reality is nuanced-Syria's insurgents span the spectrum-but the administration's experience
has been a cruel disappointment. An anonymous American official admitted to the Washington Post:
U.S.-backed forces are "not doing any better on the battlefield, they're up against a more formidable
adversary, and they're increasingly dominated by extremists." There's no reason to expect better
under the new administration.
Indeed, noted the BBC, "many of the more moderate rebel groups that the U.S. backs have formed
a strategic alliance with Jabhat Fatah al-Sham [formerly al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra] and now fight
alongside it." Weapons previously provided to the moderates often ended up in the hands of more radical
forces. Greater aid might prolong the fighting but would be unlikely to give the "good guys" victory.
Providing anti-aircraft missiles would threaten Russian as well as Syrian aircraft, risking a significant
escalation if Moscow responded with greater force. And any leakage to radical jihadists could result
in attacks on Western airliners.
Establishing a "no-fly" and/or "safe" zone has become a panacea for many U.S. policymakers, including
former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It is an obvious way to appear to do something. However,
protecting civilians in this way would simultaneously immunize combatants-attracting insurgents who
would use such areas as a sanctuary, encouraging further regime and Russian attacks.
Moreover, Washington would have to do more than simply declare such a zone to exist. Enforcing
it would be an act of war requiring continuous military action. U.S. officials have estimated that
the effort would take hundreds of aircraft, thousands of personnel and hundreds of millions of dollars
or more a month. Washington would have to destroy the Syrian anti-air defense system, no simple task.
Indeed, in one of her conversations revealed by Wikileaks, Hillary Clinton acknowledged that imposing
a no fly zone would "kill a lot of Syrians" and "a lot of civilians."
A true "no-fly" zone also would require preventing Russian air operations as well. Trump complained
to the Wall Street Journal that by attacking Assad "we end up fighting Russia, fighting Syria." Moscow
officials have warned against strikes that would threaten Russian military personnel; Moscow already
has introduced its advanced S-300 and S-400 anti-aircraft missile systems. Nevertheless, several
GOP presidential candidates advocated downing Russian aircraft, if necessary. Yet it would be mad
to commit an unprovoked act of war against a nuclear-armed power over a third nation's conflict in
which the U.S. has no substantial interest. Moscow would not likely yield peacefully.
Why let this declining power "push around the United States, which has the world's biggest economy"
and "greatest military," asked Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen? Because Moscow has far more
at stake and as a result is willing to accept greater costs and take greater risks than is America.
Worse, Moscow would feel pressure to maintain its credibility and preserve its international status
against an overbearing United States.
The result could be the very conflict America and the Soviet Union avoided during the entire Cold
War. One anonymous U.S. official told the Washington Post: "You can't pretend you can go to war against
Assad and not go to war against Russia." During the campaign Trump warned: "you're going to end up
in World War Three over Syria if we listen to Hillary Clinton," since fighting Syria would mean "fighting
Syria, Russia and Iran."
Direct military intervention also would be possible, but would raise the stakes dramatically.
Special operations forces, drones, airstrikes, and even an Iraq-style invasion all are possible.
But none would enjoy sustained public or allied support or end the ongoing murder and mayhem. Victory,
whatever that meant, would simply trigger a new round of fighting for dominance in a post-Assad Syria,
as occurred in Iraq. And conflict with Moscow could not easily be avoided.
How would any of this serve U.S. interests? The American people have no meaningful stake in the
outcome. The Assad regime's fate is largely irrelevant to Washington. For nearly a half century under
both Bashar al-Assad and his father, Hafez, who ruled previously, Damascus was hostile to the U.S.
But Syria lost more than it won and never posed a threat to America or impeded Washington's dominance
in the Middle East. Once the country dissolved into civil war the Assad regime's ability to harm
others essentially disappeared. Even if the government survives, its influence will be much diminished
for years.
Washington worries about instability, but the U.S. has created greater chaos through its foolish
war-making in the Mideast. Obviously, ending the Syrian civil war would be best for everyone, but
a jihadist victory, likely if Assad is defeated, would threaten American interests more than continuing
instability. Sen. John McCain, among others, claims that Assad's survival guarantees continuation
of the war, but Washington cannot halt the conflict and is best served by staying out of the bloody
imbroglio.
"Moderate" insurgents would be angered by Washington's withdrawal, but they are unlikely ever
to gain power. America might lose its "leverage" over such nominal allies as Riyadh and Ankara, but
there is little evidence that Washington has gained anything from its supposed influence. Indeed,
Saudi Arabia has essentially abandoned the fight against the Islamic State and Turkey is more often
attacking Kurds than Daesh.
Even if Assad fell, Washington would have no control over what followed. Without ongoing American
support, the so-called "moderates" would do no better against the radical forces than they have done
against the Syrian army. The hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died after the Bush administration
blew up the country demonstrate that good intentions are an insufficient basis for U.S. policy.
Clinton criticized "the ambitions and the aggressiveness of Russia" in Syria. But Moscow's objectives
there do not threaten America. Russia's alliance with Syria goes back decades. Washington should
do what is in America's interest, not what is against Russia's interest.
Of course, Syria is a humanitarian horror. But the civil war is not as bad as other conflicts
largely ignored by the U.S., such as the mass slaughter in the Democratic Republic of the Congo during
the late 1990s and early 2000s. Moreover, Syria is not genocide, a la Rwanda or Cambodia, but a civil
war, in which a most of the dead are combatants, and from all sides. The bombing of civilian areas
is horrific, but hardly a new military tactic, and one which Washington has only recently come to
reject.
Nor could the conflict be settled without using extraordinary force. Merely fudging the balance
of military power won't end the killing. If jihadist groups took control after Assad's collapse and
his allies' withdrawal, Washington would face pressure to "do something" to protect Alawites, Christians
and perhaps even "moderate" insurgents and their supporters. The U.S. has neither the responsibility
nor the resources to police the globe.
Finally, the administration has unfinished business involving anti-American radicals, the
Islamic State and al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra/al-Sham. But Assad's ouster would empower both groups.
They remain primarily insurgents which can be dealt with on the ground by the surrounding nations
which they most threaten.
Donald Trump had only just been declared president-elect when those controlled U.S. foreign
policy began urging him to conform to their disastrous designs in the Middle East. However, Trump
appears to have learned from the past. He told the Wall Street Journal: "I've had an opposite view
of many people regarding Syria."
The incoming administration should announce that the U.S. is staying out. Syria is a tragedy beyond
America's control. Only the battling local factions and regional parties can reach a stable settlement.
Washington should seek to make the best of a bad situation and encourage negotiations to end the
killing and limit the activities of Islamic radicals.
Michael Grace 2 days ago
I agree, Trump should stay out of the Middle East and start building the infrastructure
for this third world country called the United States. As for John Kerry, Samantha Power, Susan
Rice, and Hillary Clinton, they are so over and yesterday's news in the fast pace of social media.
But their war mongering attitudes will carry a heavy burden when it comes to political
history; this foursome was responsible for many civilian deaths are they responsible for the use
of drones and every other killing machine that make the USA, as Eisenhower said the Military Industrial
Complex.
Syria was a beautiful country, safe to visit, and it is the victim of greed and religion. The
latter probably being the worst thing man has ever created. The Christian, Judaic, and Muslim
malarky about a judgemental "God in the sky." has brought 2000 years of wrath, now it is time
for the USA to cut all IRS tax benefits for the religion business and use that for new airports
and railroads. If someone wants to worship a God in an untaxed temple, make them pay an admission
tax like when you go to the movies.
waky wake 2 days ago
@ Doug Bandow [:-{) I agree with your suggestion to the President-Elect Donald Trump and will
put additional emphasizes on it !!!STAY OUT OF SYRIA AT ALL COST!!! I think Pence was probably
the best choice Trump could have made for his VP, but maybe he needs to put him and one or two
of his other "have to have" team members in a box and keep them there.
I voted for "The Donald"
to do three things he said he was going to do. 1} Regain control of our southern borders {BUILD
THE WALL}, to include repatriating recent illegal intruders. 2} Renegotiate, resend, or cancel
NAFTA, TPP and TTIP. 3} To totally transform our Foreign Policy objectives and focus, including
but not limited to removing our military forces from the ME and non-NATO eastern European theaters
and requiring our NATO and Asian-pacific partners to more consistently cover their portion of
the tab, for providing their protection.
After that, I'm willing to cut him some slack. That being
said, adding the infrastructure rebuild efforts he mentioned being initiated, would guarantee
my vote for a second Trump term.
Darren Bruin 2 days ago
BRAVO, the author has it 1,000% correct. It is asinine for the USA to get involved in Syria
while wasting taxpayer's dollars as well as risking war with Russia. All for absolutely nothing
to do with America's interests. While I did not vote for him I have high hope that Trump will
keep to his promise and keep the USA out of Syria.
Trung Jen 2 days ago
Agree. Cant destroy something then leave what chaos that was created in our wake. If in the
name of humanitarian goals, there are countless other missions to intervene. Politics/power shouldn't
be hiding behind any veil
Parham Noori-Esfandiari a day ago
The problem is that U.S think-tanks that advise concessive U.S administration for long turn
planning for U.S dominance do not have good intentions for the world. If some country claims leadership
for the world it has to look what is good for the world but not what is good for bunch of criminal
special interest. How many Islamic countries have been destroyed? Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria,
and Yemen and .. How could the rulers in U.S and Western countries be Angels toward their own
people when they are demons toward other nations? It seems like Trump wants to build up his nation
and avoiding damage to the others. We have to wait how successful he will be against special interest
groups to achieve his goals.
wootendw 2 hours ago
Bashar Assad is a secular Alawite married to a British born/raised Sunni. Both the husband
and wife are highly intelligent. Bashar is an ophthalmologist; his wife, Asmi, has a degree in
computer science and French literature and has worked as an investment banker. Bashar Assad is
not his father (who sent troops to fight against Saddam during Iraq I). He accepted the Syrian
Presidency because his older brother, groomed to replace Hafez, was killed. Compared to other
ME leaders like Qatar's and Saudi Arabia's (whom the USG arms) the Assads are a decent couple.
Yet, for 10 years, our deceitful, murderous foreign policy establishment has been vilifying them
and trained terrorists to overthrow them. Yes, ISIS is a creation of the USG through its proxies,
Turkey and the Gulf States. Please, Mr Trump, leave Syria alone and let its people choose their
own leader even if it's Assad. This is the Russian position and the morally correct one.
With well-known blogger Jennifer Rubin Trump also raises red flags with his Flynn pick. She
writes :
Flynn's personal testiness, unhinged zealousness, rash judgment and anti-Muslim hysteria
echo Trump's deficiencies.
As far as I remember Jennifer Rubin was always a great friend of Muslims, wasn't she?
So, what's going on? Maybe with his statement that the creation of an ISIS caliphate in Syria
and Iraq happened due to a "willful decision" in Washington he hasn't made himself not only friends?
I think that he wants to talk with Russia couldn't be it, because virtually nobody I know would
prefer throwing nuclear missiles at each other instead.
For people not familiar with Flynn I think an interview with Flynn by Sophie Shevardnadze from
about a year ago can give some answers on what kind of worldview Flynn holds:
Trumps pick of Flynn not only raised red föags with Jennifer Rubin, but with the Washington Post
"Editorial Board" aka Fred Hiatt, too. The Post's View it's called, the title is "
Trump has made some dangerous appointments ," under the title is a picture of Flynn and then
the Washington Post states:
Mr. Flynn has attracted attention with his rhetorical assaults on Islam and Muslims. He
has described Islam as not a religion but a "political ideology" that hides "behind what we
call freedom of religion." He once tweeted that "Fear of Muslims is RATIONAL." the appointments
of Mr. Flynn and Mr. Pompeo suggest a turn toward policies that could deeply alienate U.S.
Muslim allies, including Sunni states whose assistance is critically needed to forge political
alternatives to the terrorists in Iraq and Syria The general has accepted payment from
the Russian propaganda network RT, and his consulting firm has lobbied for a businessman close
to Turkey's autocratic president.
So, if I may summarize that stance of the Washiongton Post. Mike Flynn is so anti-islamic,
that he "could deeply alienate U.S. Muslim allies, including Sunni states whose assistance is
critically needed to forge political alternatives to the terrorists in Iraq and Syria" – and his
biggest sins are being on RT and lobbying for Erdogan – who happens to be the president of the
most important U.S. Muslim ally, and of course Turkey is a Sunni majority state.
The Washington Post can't decide: is Flynn ugly because he's anti-muslim or is he ugly because
he's too cozy with muslim president Erdogan. It seems to me proof that the neocon Washington Post
is hiding why they are really against Flynn.
Whether it is criminal to aid Al Qaeda terrorists – who also happen to be the enemy in the
war on terror – may be a decision for courts. But I remember well the chants of "Lock her up"
and it looks to me some people are scared it could happen – and not only to her.
'The End of Political Judaism and the Israel Lobby/Jewish Lobby Alt Right Movement' – The Israel Lobby's famous 'Islamophobia Cottage Industry' IS the 'Alt Right' birthplace – and
Steve Bannon is a poster child for a 'Alt Right Pro-Israel' fascist
Why do Steve Bannon and Frank Gaffney and other Israeli Firsters/Kahanists/Neocons get along
so famously? Because they are both 'Alt Right' everybody clear? 'Alt Right Pro-Israel' targets
MUSLIMS not Jews. Everybody got it?
'Alt Right Pro-Israel' IS the Islamophobia cottage industry of the Israeli Lobby/Jewish Lobby/Neocons
in the US – they promote racism TOWARDS Muslims, not Jews
Dermer is having to explain Bannon to the rest of the Diaspora and America because they don't
get it – Bannon ain't anti-semitic, he's 'Alt Right Pro-Israel' – in fact he LOVES Israel – just
like Breivik Anders Breivik or Mike Huckabee or Gaffney or John Bolton or Pam Geller or Chuck
Krauthammer or Naftali Bennett or Yvet Lieberman etc, etc
Time to break America's trance SNAP! SNAP!
Israel itself is 'Alt Right' – as well as all the Neocons
David Horowitz, Pam Geller, Frank Gaffney, Cliff May, Anders Breivik, Charles Krauthammer,
Geert Wilders, and Neocons writ large are all part of it and they have one thing in common – they
target Muslims NOT Jews and love Israel
The Islamophobia industry is worldwide now and heavily promoted by the Israeli Lobby and Israel.
(David Horowitz donated $20K to Geert Wilder's party in 2014, Anders Breivik blogged at Pam Gellers
site/Gates of Vienna and admired Avigdor Lieberman and Israel)
The 'Alt Right' movement is a part of the Islamophobia Cottage industry of the Israel Lobby
of the US and they identify with extreme Right Wing Israel (Bibi, Bennett, Lieberman and the rest
of the true blue Kahanists)
This new fascism is CREATED by the Jewish Lobby/Israel Lobby/Neocons (and Israel) and targets
Muslims NOT Jews.
Yes Virigina, it's Israeli Lobby-CREATED fascism towards Muslims, NOT Jews. The Israeli Lobby
is famous for it – Gaffney is a poster child for it.
International 'Alt Right' fascists like Wilders and Breivik hate Muslims NOT Jews
Israel is 'Alt Right' – they hate Muslims NOT Jews
Neocons like Frank Gaffney are 'Alt Right' – they hate Muslims not Jews
Why do Steve Bannon and Frank Gaffney get along? Because they are both 'Alt Right'
.
'Alt Righters' LOVE 'Neocons', these are INTERCHANGEABLE TERMS in my mind, or perhaps even clearer,
Alt Right is synonymous with 'Kahanist'
Why is the Trump appointments/campaign getting stuffed with 'Alt Right' type and 'extreme right
wing Pro-Israel' appointments? Yep, you got it
The American Israel Lobby/Jewish Lobby/Neocons target Muslims (Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Palestine)
NOT Jews
The Israelis target Muslims (Iraq, Iran, Syria, Palestine, the rest of their Clean Break targets)
NOT Jews
The International Islamophobes (LePen, Geert Wilders, Breivik, etc) target Muslims NOT Jews
Trump appointments are STUFFED with both the 'Alt Right' Gen Flynn, Mike Pompeo, Bannon – as
well as the Kahanist/extreme Right Wing Israeli Kahanist-type picks like David Friedman, Greenblatt,
maybe Frank Gaffney, etc.
They all get along and they all go watch 'Homeland' together to get their 'Alt Right Kahanist'
rocks off (Pompeo just met the 'Homeland' producers at Mike Rodger's house this week- can't make
it up)
Time to get this one fact clear – these new fascists ALL target Muslims, not Jews. The targets
of the Alt Right are MUSLIMS not Jews, and it's promoted by the Jewish Lobby/Israel Lobby
The collapse of Political Judaism in Israel (Zionism as practiced by it's Israeli enthusiasts,
which is Apartheid) and in America (the 'Alt Right Movement and it's Israeli Lobby/Jewish Lobby/Neocon
supporters') is in motion
When America's High Schoolers find out Trump and his 'Alt Right are really the 'Kahanist Alt
Right' it's gonna happen even faster.
"... "I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision," ..."
"... "the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [Al- Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria," ..."
"... "the West, Gulf countries and Turkey." ..."
"... "If the situation unravels, there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime." ..."
"... "dire consequences" ..."
"... "ISI (the Islamic State of Iraq) could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards of unifying Iraq and the protection of its territory," ..."
The US didn't interfere with the rise of anti-government jihadist groups in Syria that finally degenerated
into Islamic State, claims the former head of America's Defense Intelligence Agency, backing a secret
2012 memo predicting their rise. Trends
Islamic State
An interview with retired Lieutenant
General Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), given to Al Jazeera's
Mehdi Hasan, confirms earlier suspicions that Washington was monitoring jihadist groups emerging
as opposition in Syria.
The classified DIA
report presented in August 2012, stated that "the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI
[Al- Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria," being supported by
"the West, Gulf countries and Turkey."
The document recently declassified through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), analyses the
situation in Syria in the summer of 2012 and predicts: "If the situation unravels, there is the
possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria and
this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian
regime."
The report warns of "dire consequences" of this scenario, because it would allow Al-Qaeda
to regain its positions in Iraq and unify the jihadist Sunni forces in Iraq, Syria and the rest of
the Sunnis in the Arab world against all other Muslim minorities they consider dissenters.
"ISI (the Islamic State of Iraq) could also declare an Islamic State through its union with
other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards of unifying
Iraq and the protection of its territory," the DIA report correctly predicted at the time.
Those groups eventually emerged as Islamic State (IS formerly ISIS/ISIL) and Al-Nusra Front, an Islamic
group loyal to Al-Qaeda.
"... Why doesn't the White House just shut the fuck up ..."
"... And as one of its sources, dear old Aunty BBC quotes "a volunteer with the White Helmets Civil Defence force" who told the AFP news agency that he had "never heard such intense artillery bombardments". ..."
"... Recycling the same bullshit as used to justify the first Iraq war. Every time there is a war, babies are trotted out to justify escalation and slaughter. By the million. This baby ploy works on the suckers every time... ..."
Premature babies in Aleppo have been removed from their incubators after air strikes destroyed
hospitals across the city, prompting condemnation of the Syrian government and Russia by the US
and the UN.
Harrowing video footage shows tiny babies being removed from their incubators in a smoke-filled
ward, with nurses reduced to tears as they detach the tubing providing support and wrap the babies
in blankets.
Now where have I heard a similar story before? .
Why doesn't the White House just shut the fuck up or, failing that, send a drone flying off
to Moscow so as to zap the Evil One and any bystanders in his vicinity?
"The Syrian regime and its allies, Russia in particular, bear responsibility for the immediate
and long-term consequences these actions have caused in Syria and beyond" - said Susan Rice, of
course.
And as one of its sources, dear old Aunty BBC quotes "a volunteer with the White Helmets Civil
Defence force" who told the AFP news agency that he had "never heard such intense artillery bombardments".
Aleppo must be one of the most intensely scrutinized area on earth – drones, satellites, radars
and electronic sensors of every type by both US and Russia. Yet, the DOS (Department of Shit?)
exclusively relies on the "Observer" dude in London and other miscreants for their claims of sinister
Russian air strikes. The DOS needs a 'tard wrangler for these various groups.
The other possibility is that Russia has perfected stealth on every wavelength including visible
light and have zero-noise jet engines.
Recycling the same bullshit as used to justify the first Iraq war. Every time there is a war,
babies are trotted out to justify escalation and slaughter. By the million. This baby ploy works
on the suckers every time...
"... Governmentally, libertarianism fares slightly better, but even then its copy/pasting leads to a political body that cannot effectively govern in any respect. Libertarians are often said to want "small government" -- which, were it true, is a noble cause -- but libertarianism demands virtually private government, which is definitionally oxymoronic. ..."
"... Regarding tranquility, libertarianism would remove all noise and behavioral ordinances, as that restricts freedom on a personal level (again, falling back to the absolute "free market" parody). ..."
"... There are aspects of libertarianism which are commendable. In the broadest sense, their desires for less centralized government control over the economy, providence, and society are commendable, as most of today's governments are, by the reckoning of the Founders, entirely totalitarian. ..."
"... Libertarianism is most often characterized as being for a completely free market–ending all government subsidies and letting any business, no matter the size or category, fail if its practices lead to failure. Libertarians even fail at free market orthodoxy. There is no free market. Markets operate within parameters set by law. Money itself can push prices... for example, housing prices were pushed during bubble. Bond prices were pushed with QE. ..."
"... Inelastic markets especially are being privatized by neo-liberal orthodoxy, this then creates a perpetual toll-booth rent extraction for the owners. For example, if ports are owned and not regulated, then the "owners" can take whatever fees they want, which then drives up price. If you have a ship, are you going to sail to the next "competing" port? There are no competing ports, as it is a natural monopoly... a natural geological feature. ..."
"... So, libertarianism, even in the economic sense is sophomoric, and doesn't deal with economic reality. ..."
"... The best economic system delivers the lowest PRICE to the most people. To do this, the best system must strip out economic rent... which is unearned income. Libertarianism does not even comprehend rent extraction. ..."
"... with now over 300 millions, many packed into large metropolitan areas, depending on its definition, a 'libertarian' utopia', as it were, in practical terms is simply out of reach. Unless everybody all at once becomes divinely perfected beings, which on paper is pretty much the only way to avoid government ..."
The problem with libertarianism as an ideology is that it lacks a full two-thirds of what encompasses
a system of belief. Libertarianism is an economic policy masquerading as a political ideology.
Economy, society, and government comprise the full range of ideological belief, but libertarianism
is exclusively an economic school of thought. Economics alone does not a civilization make.
Libertarianism, economically, feels rather agreeable. A man is entitled to the sweat of his
brow and the fruits of his labor. A man has no obligation–legal or moral–to strangers, nor to
his neighbors save such behaviors that would make them reciprocate and do well by him. This is
why libertarians eschew welfare for systems that would provide jobs to those on welfare so that
they may provide for themselves. Libertarianism is most often characterized as being for a completely
free market–ending all government subsidies and letting any business, no matter the size or category,
fail if its practices lead to failure.
But that is where libertarianism ends. No regard for social behaviors has been made, and so
when libertarians in the political scene are forced to speak of social issues, their only reply
is to copy their economic doctrines, change applicable words, and paste them into place with
disastrous results. They have translated their wholly free market economy into a wholly free market
for the purchase of product. Any product. Under libertarianism, any drug of any sort would be
available to anyone with enough currency to procure it, and the price of the drug would be dictated,
of course, by the free market. Heroin, ecstasy, marijuana, morphine, vicodin–all drugs–available
without script or restriction of quantity. Any and all behaviors–sodomy, pederasty, pedophilia,
bestiality–all acceptable. Private ownership of nuclear weaponry -- as well as the raw materials
to build and distribute such -- legal. Libertarianism's utter lack of regard for social protection
makes it a nigh-genocidal ideology.
Governmentally, libertarianism fares slightly better, but even then its copy/pasting leads
to a political body that cannot effectively govern in any respect. Libertarians are often said
to want "small government" -- which, were it true, is a noble cause -- but libertarianism demands
virtually private government, which is definitionally oxymoronic. To give an example of libertarianism's
lack of government, a typical criticism in this aspect is, "Who would build the roads?"
The US Constitution stipulates that the government must "establish Justice, insure domestic
Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings
of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." Government organization and implementation of national
infrastructure falls under both defense and welfare. Regarding tranquility, libertarianism
would remove all noise and behavioral ordinances, as that restricts freedom on a personal level
(again, falling back to the absolute "free market" parody).
There are aspects of libertarianism which are commendable. In the broadest sense, their
desires for less centralized government control over the economy, providence, and society are
commendable, as most of today's governments are, by the reckoning of the Founders, entirely totalitarian.
However, libertarianism fails to comprehend that there is a healthy scope of government–indeed
that general well-being is a charge of government itself–and fails in the one thing in which it
purports to believe: the freedom of the individual to pursue success, protected -- not from failure
-- but from the syndicates, cabals, and individuals who would seek to take that from him.
MEFOBILLS -> Tallest Skil •Nov 19, 2016 11:09 PM
Nice job...
Libertarianism is most often characterized as being for a completely free market–ending
all government subsidies and letting any business, no matter the size or category, fail if its
practices lead to failure. Libertarians even fail at free market orthodoxy. There is no free market.
Markets operate within parameters set by law. Money itself can push prices... for example, housing
prices were pushed during bubble. Bond prices were pushed with QE.
There are different kinds of markets: elastic, inelastic, and mixed. If these markets were
completely free, then they would be free for predators to take rents.
Inelastic markets especially are being privatized by neo-liberal orthodoxy, this then creates
a perpetual toll-booth rent extraction for the owners. For example, if ports are owned and not
regulated, then the "owners" can take whatever fees they want, which then drives up price. If
you have a ship, are you going to sail to the next "competing" port? There are no competing ports,
as it is a natural monopoly... a natural geological feature.
So, libertarianism, even in the economic sense is sophomoric, and doesn't deal with economic
reality.
The best economic system delivers the lowest PRICE to the most people. To do this, the
best system must strip out economic rent... which is unearned income. Libertarianism does not
even comprehend rent extraction.
Their intents are good, but good intentions are not good science.
MEFOBILLS -> Falcon49 •Nov 20, 2016 9:48 AM
Libertarians believe in a free market...but, that cannot truly exist in today's system which
is structured as a predatory system.
It is hard to let go of a belief system... I get that. Libertarianism is very narrow in its
scope.
The only sector of the market that Libertarianism can apply to is elastic markets. Only there
in this one sector... is where price competiton prevails.
Even then in this one sector - there can be predatory manipulations. For example, when China
exported baby formula with Melamine in it. That then made the baby food lower priced. Lower prices
should be free market competition.. right? But, then end result was really fraud, and said fraud
ended up killing babies.
Humans are rent-seekers. Humans want to take passive income. This taking of passive income
makes for uneven trading relations. How long do the rent seekers want to take passive income?
In the case of banksters, they want to take usury forever, and for their families. The Rothchilds
even have cousin marriage for crying out loud, that way they can keep it in the family.
Ergo, there has to be limits in any system, where certain behaviors are out of bounds. Only
law, done in advance can code for morality. Free markets are not god. Free markets do not code
for morality.
The very predatory nature Libertarians ascribe to governments is created by the same paradigms
they espouse. I call this a form of insanity. Free markets mean rent taking. Predators then usurp
government to continue their rents.
This is the cycle of history descriped by Aristotle. Rents, then Oligarchs. Oligarchs then
One King. This one King becomes the King because he can save the people from their debts and taxes.
Then the one King has to give freedoms to allow war. These freedoms then return back to some form
of democracy to then start the cycle again.
If one even bothers to find the roots of Libertarianism, one will find shady "banking" and
Austrian aristocracy working together. This further goes back to Kings using Jews as tax collectors.
Like I said, libertarians are well meaning dupes who don't even know their own history.
Libertarianism is a dialectic designed to lead one astray.
inosent -> Tallest Skil •Nov 20, 2016 1:16 AM
your post is getting mixed reviews. i think it is quite good, but i dont see a clear separation
between the state and society. and defining a term like libertarianism isnt easy, which might
account for the down votes. wasn't it Paine who said "Government, even in its best state, is but
a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one. ..."
with now over 300 millions, many packed into large metropolitan areas, depending on its
definition, a 'libertarian' utopia', as it were, in practical terms is simply out of reach. Unless
everybody all at once becomes divinely perfected beings, which on paper is pretty much the only
way to avoid government
Regrettably some form of disinterested civil govt arguably must be present.
What remains is to define the term, and figure out how to structure it to maximize the reward
and benefit to those who generally find themselves within the zip code of a credible moral character
(not a licentious freak) and puts the heat on their negative counterparts.
A limited agency with a narrowly defined purpose that is not and cannot be subversive to the
interests of productive ppl, and should be so strictly constructed as to negate even the remotest
manipulations of the machiavellianites, as well as construct an impenetrable barrier to keep them
out.
Today, and for sometime it has been the zio-jew-cabal, but tomorrow it could take on a different
form in pursuit of some other unholy and destructive agenda. and i think if the constitution had
not been so fatally composed, we might have averted a lot of trouble.
Trump position is somewhat misrepresented. In his speeches he also points out to dominance of financial
oligarchy and predatory behaviour of corporation outsourcing jobs to countries with cheaper labour.
Notable quotes:
"... A cult of "action for action's sake ..."
"... Now, let's look at Trump. His campaign revolves around one theme: That the United States is weak,
that it loses, and that it needs leadership to become "great again." "We don't have victories anymore,"
he said in his
announcement
speech . "When was the last time anybody saw us beating, let's say, China in a trade deal? They
kill us. When do we beat Mexico at the border? They're laughing at us, at our stupidity."
..."
One of the most-read takes on fascism comes from Italian philosopher and novelist Umberto Eco
in an essay for the New York Review of Bookstitled "
Ur-Fascism ."
Eco emphasizes the extent to which fascism is ad hoc and opportunistic. It's "philosophically out
of joint," he writes, with features that "cannot be organized into a system" since "many of them
contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanacticism."
With that said, it is true that there are fascist movements, and it's also true that when you strip
their cultural clothing-the German paganism in Nazism, for example-there are common properties. Not
every fascist movement shows all of them, but-Eco writes-"it is enough that one of them be present
to allow fascism to coagulate around it." Eco identifies 14, but for this column, I want to focus
on seven. They are: A cult of "action for action's sake ," where "thinking is a form of
emasculation"; an intolerance of "analytical criticism," where disagreement is condemned; a profound
"fear of difference," where leaders appeal against "intruders"; appeals to individual and social
frustration and specifically a "frustrated middle class" suffering from "feelings of political humiliation
and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups"; a nationalist identity set against internal
and external enemies (an "obsession with a plot"); a feeling of humiliation by the "ostentatious
wealth and force of their enemies"; a "popular elitism" where "every citizen belongs to the best
people of the world" and underscored by contempt for the weak; and a celebration of aggressive (and
often violent) masculinity.
... ... ...
Now, let's look at Trump. His campaign revolves around one theme: That the United States is weak,
that it loses, and that it needs leadership to become "great again." "We don't have victories anymore,"
he said in his
announcement
speech . "When was the last time anybody saw us beating, let's say, China in a trade deal? They
kill us. When do we beat Mexico at the border? They're laughing at us, at our stupidity."
He continued:
"The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else's problems," and "Our enemies are getting
stronger and stronger by the way, and we as a country are getting weaker." This includes unauthorized
immigrants, and now refugees, whom he attacks as a menace to ordinary Americans. The former, according
to Trump, take jobs and threaten American safety-"They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime.
They're rapists."-while the latter are a "Trojan horse." But Trump promises action. He will cut new
deals and make foreign competitors subordinate. He will deport immigrants and build a wall on the
border, financed by Mexico. He will bring "
spectacular " economic growth. And Trump isn't an ideologue; he's an opportunist who borrows
freely from both parties.
... ... ...
Alone and disconnected, this rhetoric isn't necessarily fascist... In the Europe of the 1920s and
'30s, fascist parties organized armed gangs to intimidate political opponents. Despite assaults at
Trump events, that still seems unlikely....
"... He's proud that the first job offer-to former Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn for national security adviser-went to a "registered Democrat," and that the country is going to see "a lot of interesting choices." Mr. Trump "knows how to mix and match, get the best out of people, and I think it says something about what a historic figure he could be." ..."
"... I never went on TV one time during the campaign. Not once. You know why? Because politics is war. General Sherman would never have gone on TV to tell everyone his plans. ..."
"... Breitbart is the most pro-Israel site in the United States ..."
Stephen K. Bannon in a rare interview talks with Kimberley A. Strassel of the Wall Street Journal
about the winning campaign of Donald J. Trump and his part in helping the president-elect accomplish
his vision for America. Bannon also refutes charges of being antisemitic or a white nationalist saying
the allegations, "just aren't serious. It's a joke."
... ... ... Why does he think that leftists are so fixated on him? "They were ready to coronate
Hillary Clinton. That didn't happen, and I'm one of the reasons why. So, by the way, I wear these
attacks as an emblem of pride." Mr. Bannon believes Mr. Trump to be uniquely suited to make the
case, as "one of the best political orators in American history, rated with William Jennings Bryan."
He's proud that the first job offer-to former Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn for national security
adviser-went to a "registered Democrat," and that the country is going to see "a lot of interesting
choices." Mr. Trump "knows how to mix and match, get the best out of people, and I think it says
something about what a historic figure he could be."
I never went on TV one time during the campaign. Not once. You know why? Because politics is
war. General Sherman would never have gone on TV to tell everyone his plans.
"Breitbart is the most pro-Israel site in the United States"
"... Put together, these two trends have served the purposes of the highly centralized State and the globalized market that has resulted in an unprecedented concentration of power and wealth. ..."
"... The liberal left and significant portions further left tend to celebrate a negative cultural and sexual liberty while the Liberal right tends to celebrate an economic and political negative liberty. ..."
"... It ends up bringing about exactly the kinds of intolerant [neo]liberalis m(blatantly on display these days) it ascribes to all non-liberal positions. ..."
"The Archdruid report is useful but Greer should read Thomas Frank. Then he will stop conflating
"Left" and "Liberal."
The "Left" as well as the center-left/center-right (Hillary/traditional conservative Republican
crowd) both are strong supporters of a social-cultural liberalism, that since the 1960s has
heavily promoted individual rights and an equality of opportunity for self-expression.
The "Right" since at least the early 1980s( along with the Hillary crowd) has supported
an economic political liberalism that champions "free markets" liberated from the bureaucratic
State.
Put together, these two trends have served the purposes of the highly centralized State
and the globalized market that has resulted in an unprecedented concentration of power and wealth.
The liberal left and significant portions further left tend to celebrate a negative cultural
and sexual liberty while the Liberal right tends to celebrate an economic and political negative
liberty.
The Left's defense of existing negative liberty (and not being willing to think beyond it)
ends up undermining all modes of freedom because it tends to shut down debate about substantive
ends.
It ends up bringing about exactly the kinds of intolerant [neo]liberalis m(blatantly on
display these days) it ascribes to all non-liberal positions.
Is there anyplace for a positive concept of liberty in 2016?
"... Here Ackerman ranks the USA with Belarus and Singapore on the democracy scale and indeed explicitly characterizes it as a Russian-like "soft authoritarian" regime. I've always thought the USA possessed a distinct "Russkieness" to it, not surprising for a continent-country with a historic background of relative labor shortage and rich in natural resources. ..."
"... Yes, we are a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual empire of continental scope, that acquired contiguous territory by accretion, ruled by a decadent police state. There are many similarities, including waiting in line a a lot, ..."
Laugh line: "But Russia also diverges sharply from the U.S. on values like democracy, freedom of
speech, international sovereignty and territorial integrity, he noted."
Obama, and everyone, needs to read Seth Ackerman's piece on the reality of the US political
system up on Jacobin:
Here Ackerman ranks the USA with Belarus and Singapore on the democracy scale and indeed
explicitly characterizes it as a Russian-like "soft authoritarian" regime. I've always thought the
USA possessed a distinct "Russkieness" to it, not surprising for a continent-country with a historic
background of relative labor shortage and rich in natural resources.
However, I think the USA's political restrictiveness *does* directly stem for the founders and
their constitution. It's an 18th C vintage Whig clique constitution in neo-classical dress.
> I've always thought the USA possessed a distinct "Russkieness"
Yes, we are a multi-ethnic, multi-lingual empire of continental scope, that acquired
contiguous territory by accretion, ruled by a decadent police state. There are many similarities,
including waiting in line a a lot,
and mordant humor.
JSM was struck by the same line in the Jacobin piece. 'Authoritarian democracy' was making the
rounds in the primaries.
When Jill Stein can be zip-tied to a chair for hours on end, all for merely attending the 2012
presidential debates, why quibble about whether parties are banned by law, or as in the US, laws
'not directly intended' to achieve that
de facto
result, ruling power conspiracies, and
arbitrary police action.
"... For one thing, many vested interests don't want the Democratic party to change. Most of the money it raises ends up in the pockets of political consultants, pollsters, strategists, lawyers, advertising consultants and advertisers themselves, many of whom have become rich off the current arrangement. They naturally want to keep it. ..."
"... For another, the Democratic party apparatus is ingrown and entrenched. Like any old bureaucracy, it only knows how to do what it has done for years. Its state and quadrennial national conventions are opportunities for insiders to meet old friends and for aspiring politicians to make contacts among the rich and powerful. Insiders and the rich aren't going to happily relinquish their power and perquisites, and hand them to outsiders and the non-rich. ..."
"... I have been a Democrat for 50 years – I have even served in two Democratic administrations in Washington, including a stint in the cabinet and have run for the Democratic nomination for governor in one state – yet I have never voted for the chair or vice-chair of my state Democratic party. That means I, too, have had absolutely no say over who the chair of the Democratic National Committee will be. To tell you the truth, I haven't cared. And that's part of the problem. ..."
"... Finally, the party chairmanship has become a part-time sinecure for politicians on their way up or down, not a full-time position for a professional organizer. In 2011, Tim Kaine (who subsequently became Hillary Clinton's running mate in the 2016 election) left the chairmanship to run, successfully, for the Senate from Virginia. ..."
"... The chair then went to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, a Florida congresswoman who had co-chaired Clinton's bid for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008. This generated allegations in the 2016 race that the Democratic National Committee was siding with Clinton against Bernie Sanders – allegations substantiated by leaks of emails from the DNC. ..."
"... So what we now have is a Democratic party that has been repudiated at the polls, headed by a Democratic National Committee that has become irrelevant at best, run part-time by a series of insider politicians. It has no deep or broad-based grass-roots, no capacity for mobilizing vast numbers of people to take any action other than donate money, no visibility between elections, no ongoing activism. ..."
For one thing, many vested interests don't want the Democratic party to change. Most of the
money it raises ends up in the pockets of political consultants, pollsters, strategists, lawyers,
advertising consultants and advertisers themselves, many of whom have become rich off the current
arrangement. They naturally want to keep it.
For another, the Democratic party apparatus is ingrown and entrenched. Like any old bureaucracy,
it only knows how to do what it has done for years. Its state and quadrennial national conventions
are opportunities for insiders to meet old friends and for aspiring politicians to make contacts
among the rich and powerful. Insiders and the rich aren't going to happily relinquish their power
and perquisites, and hand them to outsiders and the non-rich.
Most Americans who call themselves Democrats never hear from the Democratic party except when
it asks for money, typically through mass mailings and recorded telephone calls in the months leading
up to an election. The vast majority of Democrats don't know the name of the chair of the Democratic
National Committee or of their state committee. Almost no registered
Democrats have any idea
how to go about electing their state Democratic chair or vice-chair, and, hence, almost none have
any influence over whom the next chair of the Democratic National Committee may be.
I have been a Democrat for 50 years – I have even served in two Democratic administrations
in Washington, including a stint in the cabinet and have run for the Democratic nomination for governor
in one state – yet I have never voted for the chair or vice-chair of my state Democratic party. That
means I, too, have had absolutely no say over who the chair of the Democratic National Committee
will be. To tell you the truth, I haven't cared. And that's part of the problem.
Nor, for that matter, has Barack Obama cared. He basically ignored the Democratic National Committee
during his presidency, starting his own organization called Organizing for America. It was originally
intended to marshal grass-roots support for the major initiatives he sought to achieve during his
presidency, but morphed into a fund-raising machine of its own.
Finally, the party chairmanship has become a part-time sinecure for politicians on their way
up or down, not a full-time position for a professional organizer. In 2011, Tim Kaine (who subsequently
became Hillary Clinton's running mate in the 2016 election) left the chairmanship to run, successfully,
for the Senate from Virginia.
The chair then went to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, a Florida congresswoman who had co-chaired
Clinton's bid for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008. This generated allegations in
the 2016 race that the Democratic National Committee was siding with Clinton against Bernie Sanders
– allegations substantiated by leaks of emails from the DNC.
So what we now have is a Democratic party that has been repudiated at the polls, headed by
a Democratic National Committee that has become irrelevant at best, run part-time by a series of
insider politicians. It has no deep or broad-based grass-roots, no capacity for mobilizing vast numbers
of people to take any action other than donate money, no visibility between elections, no ongoing
activism.
"... He's proud that the first job offer-to former Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn for national security adviser-went to a "registered Democrat," and that the country is going to see "a lot of interesting choices." Mr. Trump "knows how to mix and match, get the best out of people, and I think it says something about what a historic figure he could be." ..."
"... I never went on TV one time during the campaign. Not once. You know why? Because politics is war. General Sherman would never have gone on TV to tell everyone his plans. ..."
"... Breitbart is the most pro-Israel site in the United States ..."
Stephen K. Bannon in a rare interview talks with Kimberley A. Strassel of the Wall Street Journal
about the winning campaign of Donald J. Trump and his part in helping the president-elect accomplish
his vision for America. Bannon also refutes charges of being antisemitic or a white nationalist saying
the allegations, "just aren't serious. It's a joke."
... ... ... Why does he think that leftists are so fixated on him? "They were ready to coronate
Hillary Clinton. That didn't happen, and I'm one of the reasons why. So, by the way, I wear these
attacks as an emblem of pride." Mr. Bannon believes Mr. Trump to be uniquely suited to make the
case, as "one of the best political orators in American history, rated with William Jennings Bryan."
He's proud that the first job offer-to former Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn for national security
adviser-went to a "registered Democrat," and that the country is going to see "a lot of interesting
choices." Mr. Trump "knows how to mix and match, get the best out of people, and I think it says
something about what a historic figure he could be."
I never went on TV one time during the campaign. Not once. You know why? Because politics is
war. General Sherman would never have gone on TV to tell everyone his plans.
"Breitbart is the most pro-Israel site in the United States"
The Republican brass degenerated into a bunch to neocon racketeers who want to impoverish regular Americans. That's why Trump won.
Notable quotes:
"... Indeed, in an October 1991 letter to Patrick J. Buchanan, Regnery claimed that Americans had been hornswoggled into supporting
the war by "the President and those who form public opinion." ..."
"... Everywhere he looked, the media-newspapers, network radio and television news, magazines, and journals-all seemed locked in
a [neo]liberal consensus. . . . If conservatives were going to claw their way back in from the outside, they were going to need to first
find a way to impair and offset liberals in the media. ..."
IN DECEMBER 1953, Henry Regnery convened a meeting in Room 2233 in New York City's Lincoln Building. Regnery, a former Democrat
and head of Regnery Publishing, had moved sharply to the Right after he became disillusioned with the New Deal. His guests included
William F. Buckley Jr.; Frank Hanighen, a cofounder of Human Events ; Raymond Moley, a former FDR adviser who wrote a book
called After Seven Years that denounced the New Deal; and John Chamberlain, a lapsed liberal and an editorial writer for the
Wall Street Journal . Regnery had not called these men together merely to discuss current events. He wanted to reshape them.
"The side we represent controls most of the wealth in this country," he said. "The ideas and traditions we believe in are those which
most Americans instinctively believe in also." So why was liberalism in the ascendant? Regnery explained that media bias was the
problem. Anywhere you looked, the Left controlled the commanding heights-television, newspapers and universities. It was imperative,
Regnery said, to establish a "counterintelligence unit" that could fight back.
In her superb Messengers of the Right , Nicole Hemmer examines the origins of conservative media. Hemmer, who is an assistant
professor at the University of Virginia, has performed extensive archival research to illuminate the furthest recesses of the Right,
complementing earlier works like Geoffrey Kabaservice's Rule and Ruin . She provides much new information and penetrating
observations about figures such as Clarence Manion, William Rusher and Henry Regnery. Above all, she shows that there has been a
remarkable consistency to the grievances and positions, which were often one and the same, of the conservative movement over the
decades.
According to Hemmer, the modern Right first took shape in the form of the America First Committee. A number of leading conservatives
saw little difference between Adolf Hitler and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Regnery recollected that "both Hitler and Roosevelt-each in
his own way -- were masters of the art of manipulating the masses."
Indeed, in an October 1991 letter to Patrick J. Buchanan, Regnery claimed that Americans had been hornswoggled into supporting
the war by "the President and those who form public opinion." Others such as the gifted orator Clarence Manion, a former FDR
acolyte, joined the America First Committee in 1941. After the war, Manion became the dean of the Notre Dame Law School and wrote
a book called The Key to Peace , which argued that limited government was the key to American greatness, not a quest to "take
off for the Mountains of the Moon in search of ways and means to pacify and unify mankind."
While serving in the Eisenhower administration, he also became a proponent of the Bricker Amendment, which would have subjected
treaties signed by the president to ratification by the states. Eisenhower demanded his resignation. An embittered Manion, Hemmer
writes, concluded that columnists such as James Reston, Marquis Childs, and Joseph and Stewart Alsop had effectively operated as
a united front to ruin him.
Everywhere he looked, the media-newspapers, network radio and television news, magazines, and journals-all seemed locked in
a [neo]liberal consensus. . . . If conservatives were going to claw their way back in from the outside, they were going to need to first
find a way to impair and offset liberals in the media.
In 1954, the Manion Forum of Opinion , which aired on several dozen radio stations, was born. It soon became a popular
venue that allowed Manion, who was cochair of a political party called For America, to inveigh against the depredations of liberalism
and preach the conservative gospel.
... ... ...
With the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, the conservative media seemed to have arrived. But as Hemmer notes, a New Right generation
of activists that included figures such Terry Dolan of the National Conservative Political Action Committee and Jerry Falwell of
the Moral Majority had arrived that did not have much in common with the older conservative generation. She points out that leaders
of the New Right backed Republican congressman Phil Crane, then former Texas governor John Connally, only supporting Reagan during
the general election. Buckley and his cohort, Hemmer writes, saw the New Right paladins as "Johnnies-come-lately to the movement,
demanding rigorous fealty to social issues that had only recently become the drivers of politics." Hemmer might have noted that,
although Reagan has since become a conservative icon, George F. Will and Norman Podhoretz, among others, lamented what they viewed
as Reagan's concessive posture towards Mikhail Gorbachev.
Jacob Heilbrunn is editor of the National Interest.
It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all
need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part.
Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberalism has been disastrous for the Rust Belt, and I think we need to envision a new future for what was once the country's industrial heartland, now little more than its wasteland ..."
"... The question of what the many millions of often-unionized factory workers, SMEs which supplied them, family farmers (now fully industrialized and owned by corporations), and all those in secondary production and services who once supported them are to actually do in future to earn a decent living is what I believe should really be the subject of debate. ..."
"... two factors (or three, I guess) have contributed to this state of despair: offshoring and outsourcing, and technology. ..."
"... Medicaid, the CHIP program, the SNAP program and others (including NGOs and private charitable giving) may alleviate some of the suffering, but there is currently no substitute for jobs that would enable men and women to live lives of dignity – a decent place to live, good educations for their children, and a reasonable, secure pension in old age. Near-, at-, and below-minimum wage jobs devoid of any benefits don't allow any of these – at most, they make possible a subsistence life, one which requires continued reliance on public assistance throughout one's lifetime. ..."
"... In the U.S. (a neoliberal pioneer), poverty is closely linked with inequality and thus, a high GINI coefficient (near that of Turkey); where there is both poverty and a very unequal distribution of resources, this inevitably affects women (and children) and racial (and ethnic) minorities disproportionately. The economic system, racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not separate, stand-alone issues; they are profoundly intertwined. ..."
"... But really, if you think about it, slavery was defined as ownership, ownership of human capital (which was convertible into cash), and women in many societies throughout history were acquired as part of a financial transaction (either through purchase or through sale), and control of their capital (land, property [farmland, herds], valuables and later, money) often entrusted to a spouse or male guardian. All of these practices were economically-driven, even if the driver wasn't 21st-century capitalism. ..."
"... Let it be said at once: Trump's victory is primarily due to the explosion in economic and geographic inequality in the United States over several decades and the inability of successive governments to deal with this. ..."
"... Both the Clinton and the Obama administrations frequently went along with the market liberalization launched under Reagan and both Bush presidencies. At times they even outdid them: the financial and commercial deregulation carried out under Clinton is an example. What sealed the deal, though, was the suspicion that the Democrats were too close to Wall Street – and the inability of the Democratic media elite to learn the lessons from the Sanders vote. ..."
"... Regional inequality and globalization are the principal drivers in Japanese politics, too, along with a number of social drivers. ..."
"... The tsunami/nuclear meltdown combined with the Japanese government's uneven response is an apt metaphor for the impact of neo-liberalism/globalization on Japan; and on the US. I then explained that the income inequality in the US was far more severe than that of Japan and that many Americans did not support the export of jobs to China/Mexico. ..."
"... I contend that in some hypothetical universe the DNC and corrupt Clinton machine could have been torn out, root and branch, within months. As I noted, however, the decision to run HRC effectively unopposed was made several years, at least, before the stark evidence of the consequences of such a decision appeared in sharp relief with Brexit. ..."
"... Just as the decline of Virginia coal is due to global forces and corporate stupidity, so the decline of the rust belt is due to long (30 year plus) global forces and corporate decisions that predate the emergence of identity politics. ..."
"... It's interesting that the clear headed thinkers of the Marxist left, who pride themselves on not being distracted by identity, don't want to talk about these factors when discussing the plight of their cherished white working class. ..."
"... The construction 'white working class' is a useful governing tool that splits poor people and possible coalitions against the violence of capital. Now, discussion focuses on how some of the least powerful, most vulnerable people in the United States are the perpetrators of a great injustice against racialised and minoritised groups. Such commentary colludes in the pathologisation of the working class, of poor people. Victims are inculpated as the vectors of noxious, atavistic vices while the perpetrators get off with impunity, showing off their multihued, cosmopolitan C-suites and even proposing that their free trade agreements are a form of anti-racist solidarity. Most crucially, such analysis ignores the continuities between a Trumpian dystopia and our satisfactory present. ..."
"... Race-thinking forecloses the possibility of the coalitions that you imagine, and reproduces ideas of difference in ways that always, always privilege 'whiteness'. ..."
"... Historical examples of ethnic groups becoming 'white', how it was legal and political decision-making that defined the present racial taxonomy, suggest that groups can also lose or have their 'whiteness' threatened. CB has written here about how, in the UK at least, Eastern and Southern Europeans are racialised, and so refused 'whiteness'. JQ has written about southern white minoritisation. Many commentators have pointed that the 'white working class' vote this year looked a lot like a minority vote. ..."
"... Given the subordination of groups presently defined as 'white working class', I wonder if we could think beyond ethnic and epidermal definition to consider that the impossibility of the American Dream refuses these groups whiteness; i.e the hoped for privileges of racial superiority, much in the same way that African Americans, Latin Americans and other racialised minorities are denied whiteness. Can a poor West Virginian living in a toxified drugged out impoverished landscape really be defined as a carrier of 'white privilege'? ..."
"... I was first pointed at this by the juxtapositions of racialised working class and immigrants in Imogen Tyler's Revolting Subjects – Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain but this below is a useful short article that takes a historical perspective. ..."
"... In a 1990 essay, the late Yale political scientist Juan Linz observed that "aside from the United States, only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional continuity under presidential government - but Chilean democracy broke down in the 1970s." ..."
"... Linz offered several reasons why presidential systems are so prone to crisis. One particularly important one is the nature of the checks and balances system. Since both the president and the Congress are directly elected by the people, they can both claim to speak for the people. When they have a serious disagreement, according to Linz, "there is no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved." The constitution offers no help in these cases, he wrote: "the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate." ..."
"... In a parliamentary system, deadlocks get resolved. A prime minister who lacks the backing of a parliamentary majority is replaced by a new one who has it. If no such majority can be found, a new election is held and the new parliament picks a leader. It can get a little messy for a period of weeks, but there's simply no possibility of a years-long spell in which the legislative and executive branches glare at each other unproductively.' ..."
"... In any case, as I pointed out before, given that the US is increasingly an urbanised country, and the Electoral College was created to protect rural (slave) states, the grotesque electoral result we have just seen is likely to recur, which means more and more Presidents with dubious democratic legitimacy. Thanks to Bush (and Obama) these Presidents will have, at the same time, more and more power. ..."
"... To return to my original question and answer it myself: I'm forced to conclude that the Democrats did not specifically address the revitalization – rebirth of the Rust Belt in their 2016 platform. Its failure to do so carried a heavy cost that (nearly) all of us will be forced to pay. ..."
"... This sub seems to have largely fallen into the psychologically comfortable trap of declaring that everyone who voted against their preferred candidate is racist. It's a view pushed by the neoliberals, who want to maintain he stranglehold of identity politics over the DNC, and it makes upper-class 'intellectuals' feel better about themselves and their betrayal of the filthy, subhuman white underclass (or so they see it). ..."
"... You can scream 'those jobs are never coming back!' all you want, but people are never going to accept it. So either you come up with a genuine solution (instead of simply complaining that your opponents solutions won't work; you're partisan and biased, most voters won't believe you), you may as well resign yourself to fascism. Because whining that you don't know what to do won't stop people from lining up behind someone who says that they do have one, whether it'll work or not. Nobody trusts the elite enough to believe them when they say that jobs are never coming back. Nobody trusts the elite at all. ..."
"... You sound just like the Wiemar elite. No will to solve the problem, but filled with terror at the inevitable result of failing to solve the problem. ..."
"... One brutal fact tells us everything we need to know about the Democratic party in 2016: the American Nazi party is running on a platform of free health care to working class people. This means that the American Nazi Party is now running to the left of the Democratic party. ..."
"... Back in the 1930s, when the economy collapsed, fascists appeared and took power. Racists also came out of the woodwork, ditto misogynists. Fast forward 80 years, and the same thing has happened all over again. The global economy melted down in 2008 and fascists appeared promising to fix the problems that the pols in power wouldn't because they were too closely tied to the existing (failed) system. Along with the fascists, racists gained power because they were able to scapegoat minorities as the alleged cause of everyone's misery. ..."
"... None of this is surprising. We have seen it before. Whenever you get a depression in a modern industrial economy, you get scapegoating, racism, and fascists. We know what to do. The problem is that the current Democratic party isn't doing it. ..."
"... . It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part. ..."
"... This hammered people on the bottom, disproportionately African Americans and especially single AA mothers in America. It crushed the blue collar workers. It is wiping out the savings and careers of college-educated white collar workers now, at least, the ones who didn't go to the Ivy League, which is 90% of them. ..."
"... Calling Hillary an "imperfect candidate" is like calling what happened to the Titanic a "boating accident." Trump was an imperfect candidate. Why did he win? ..."
"... "The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph of Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians." ..."
"... "It is not an exaggeration to say that the Democratic Party is in shambles as a political force. Not only did it just lose the White House to a wildly unpopular farce of a candidate despite a virtually unified establishment behind it, and not only is it the minority party in both the Senate and the House, but it is getting crushed at historical record rates on the state and local levels as well. Surveying this wreckage last week, party stalwart Matthew Yglesias of Vox minced no words: `the Obama years have created a Democratic Party that's essentially a smoking pile of rubble.' ..."
"... "One would assume that the operatives and loyalists of such a weak, defeated and wrecked political party would be eager to engage in some introspection and self-critique, and to produce a frank accounting of what they did wrong so as to alter their plight. In the case of 2016 Democrats, one would be quite mistaken." ..."
"... Foreign Affairs ..."
"... "At the end of World War II, the United States and its allies decided that sustained mass unemployment was an existential threat to capitalism and had to be avoided at all costs. In response, governments everywhere targeted full employment as the master policy variable-trying to get to, and sustain, an unemployment rate of roughly four percent. The problem with doing so, over time, is that targeting any variable long enough undermines the value of the variable itself-a phenomenon known as Goodhart's law. (..) ..."
"... " what we see [today] is a reversal of power between creditors and debtors as the anti-inflationary regime of the past 30 years undermines itself-what we might call "Goodhart's revenge." In this world, yields compress and creditors fret about their earnings, demanding repayment of debt at all costs. Macro-economically, this makes the situation worse: the debtors can't pay-but politically, and this is crucial-it empowers debtors since they can't pay, won't pay, and still have the right to vote. ..."
"... "The traditional parties of the center-left and center-right, the builders of this anti-inflationary order, get clobbered in such a world, since they are correctly identified by these debtors as the political backers of those demanding repayment in an already unequal system, and all from those with the least assets. This produces anti-creditor, pro-debtor coalitions-in-waiting that are ripe for the picking by insurgents of the left and the right, which is exactly what has happened. ..."
"... "The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss and racism. It's also driven by the global economy itself. This is a global phenomenon that marks one thing above all. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun." ..."
"... They want what their families have had which is secure, paid, benefits rich, blue collar work. ..."
"... trump's campaign empathized with that feeling just by focusing on the factory jobs as jobs and not as anachronisms that are slowly fading away for whatever reason. Clinton might have been "correct", but these voters didn't want to hear "the truth". And as much as you can complain about how stupid they are for wanting to be lied to, that is the unfortunate reality you, and the Democratic party, have to accept. ..."
"... trump was offering a "bailout" writ large. Clinton had no (good) counteroffer. It was like the tables were turned. Romney was the one talking about "change" and "restructuring" while Obama was defending keeping what was already there. ..."
"... "Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course - the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html ..."
"... Clinton toward the end offered tariffs. But the trump campaign hit back with what turned out to be a pretty strong counter attack – ""How's she going to get tough on China?" said Trump economic advisor Peter Navarro on CNN's Quest Means Business. He notes that some of Clinton's economic advisors have supported TPP or even worked on it. "" ..."
The question is no longer her neoliberalism, but yours. Keep it or throw it away?
I wish this issue was being seriously discussed. Neoliberalism has been disastrous for
the Rust Belt, and I think we need to envision a new future for what was once the country's industrial
heartland, now little more than its wasteland (cf. "flyover zone" – a pejorative term which
inhabitants of the zone are not too stupid to understand perfectly, btw).
The question of what the many millions of often-unionized factory workers, SMEs which supplied
them, family farmers (now fully industrialized and owned by corporations), and all those in secondary
production and services who once supported them are to actually do in future to earn a decent
living is what I believe should really be the subject of debate.
As noted upthread, two factors (or three, I guess) have contributed to this state of despair:
offshoring and outsourcing, and technology. The jobs that have been lost will not return,
and indeed will be lost in ever greater numbers – just consider what will happen to the trucking
sector when self-driving trucks hit the roads sometime in the next 10-20 years (3.5 million truckers;
8.7 in allied jobs).
Medicaid, the CHIP program, the SNAP program and others (including NGOs and private charitable
giving) may alleviate some of the suffering, but there is currently no substitute for jobs that
would enable men and women to live lives of dignity – a decent place to live, good educations
for their children, and a reasonable, secure pension in old age. Near-, at-, and below-minimum
wage jobs devoid of any benefits don't allow any of these – at most, they make possible a subsistence
life, one which requires continued reliance on public assistance throughout one's lifetime.
In the U.S. (a neoliberal pioneer), poverty is closely linked with inequality and thus,
a high GINI coefficient (near that of Turkey); where there is both poverty and a very unequal
distribution of resources, this inevitably affects women (and children) and racial (and ethnic)
minorities disproportionately. The economic system, racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not separate,
stand-alone issues; they are profoundly intertwined.
I appreciate and espouse the goals of identity politics in all their multiplicity, and also
understand that the institutions of slavery and sexism predated modern capitalist economies.
But really, if you think about it, slavery was defined as ownership, ownership of human capital
(which was convertible into cash), and women in many societies throughout history were acquired
as part of a financial transaction (either through purchase or through sale), and control of their
capital (land, property [farmland, herds], valuables and later, money) often entrusted to a spouse
or male guardian. All of these practices were economically-driven, even if the driver wasn't 21st-century
capitalism.
Also: Faustusnotes@100
For example Indiana took the ACA Medicaid expansion but did so with additional conditions that
make it worse than in neighboring states run by democratic governors.
And what states would those be? IL, IA, MI, OH, WI, KY, and TN have Republican governors. Were
you thinking pre-2014? pre-2012?
To conclude and return to my original point: what's to become of the Rust Belt in future? Did
the Democratic platform include a New New Deal for PA, OH, MI, WI, and IA (to name only the five
Rust Belt states Trump flipped)?
" Let it be said at once: Trump's victory is primarily due to the explosion in economic
and geographic inequality in the United States over several decades and the inability of successive
governments to deal with this.
Both the Clinton and the Obama administrations frequently went along with the market liberalization
launched under Reagan and both Bush presidencies. At times they even outdid them: the financial
and commercial deregulation carried out under Clinton is an example. What sealed the deal, though,
was the suspicion that the Democrats were too close to Wall Street – and the inability of the
Democratic media elite to learn the lessons from the Sanders vote. "
What should have been one comment came out as 4, so apologies on that front.
I spent the last week explaining the US election to my students in Japan in pretty much the
terms outlined by Lilla and PIketty, so I was delighted to discover these two articles.
Regional inequality and globalization are the principal drivers in Japanese politics, too,
along with a number of social drivers. It was therefore very easy to call for a show of hands
to identify students studying here in Tokyo who are trying to decide whether or not to return
to areas such as Tohoku to build their lives; or remain in Kanto/Tokyo – the NY/Washington/LA
of Japan put crudely.
I asked students from regions close to Tohoku how they might feel if the Japanese prime minister
decided not to visit the region following Fukushima after the disaster, or preceding an election.
The tsunami/nuclear meltdown combined with the Japanese government's uneven response is an
apt metaphor for the impact of neo-liberalism/globalization on Japan; and on the US. I then explained
that the income inequality in the US was far more severe than that of Japan and that many Americans
did not support the export of jobs to China/Mexico.
I then asked the students, particularly those from outlying regions whether they believe Japan
needed a leader who would 'bring back Japanese jobs' from Viet Nam and China, etc. Many/most agreed
wholeheartedly. I then asked whether they believed Tokyo people treated those outside Kanto as
'inferiors.' Many do.
Piketty may be right regarding Trump's long-term effects on income inequality. He is wrong,
I suggest, to argue that Democrats failed to respond to Sanders' support. I contend that in
some hypothetical universe the DNC and corrupt Clinton machine could have been torn out, root
and branch, within months. As I noted, however, the decision to run HRC effectively unopposed
was made several years, at least, before the stark evidence of the consequences of such a decision
appeared in sharp relief with Brexit.
Also worth noting is that the rust belts problems are as old as Reagan – even the term dates
from the 80s, the issue is so uncool that there is a dire straits song about it. Some portion
of the decline of manufacturing there is due to manufacturers shifting to the south, where the
anti Union states have an advantage. Also there has been new investment – there were no Japanese
car companies in the us in the 1980s, so they are new job creators, yet insufficient to make up
the losses. Just as the decline of Virginia coal is due to global forces and corporate stupidity,
so the decline of the rust belt is due to long (30 year plus) global forces and corporate decisions
that predate the emergence of identity politics.
It's interesting that the clear headed thinkers of the Marxist left, who pride themselves
on not being distracted by identity, don't want to talk about these factors when discussing the
plight of their cherished white working class. Suddenly it's not the forces of capital and
the objective facts of history, but a bunch of whiny black trannies demanding safe spaces and
protesting police violence, that drove those towns to ruin.
And what solutions do they think the dems should have proposed? It can't be welfare, since
we got the ACA (watered down by representatives of the rust belt states). Is it, seriously, tariffs?
Short of going to an election promising w revolution, what should the dems have done? Give us
a clear answer so we can see what the alternative to identity politics is.
basil 11.19.16 at 5:11 am
Did this go through?
Thinking with WLGR @15, Yan @81, engels variously above,
The construction 'white working class' is a useful governing tool that splits poor people
and possible coalitions against the violence of capital. Now, discussion focuses on how some of
the least powerful, most vulnerable people in the United States are the perpetrators of a great
injustice against racialised and minoritised groups. Such commentary colludes in the pathologisation
of the working class, of poor people. Victims are inculpated as the vectors of noxious, atavistic
vices while the perpetrators get off with impunity, showing off their multihued, cosmopolitan
C-suites and even proposing that their free trade agreements are a form of anti-racist solidarity.
Most crucially, such analysis ignores the continuities between a Trumpian dystopia and our satisfactory
present.
I get that the tropes around race are easy, and super-available. Privilege confessing is very
in vogue as a prophylactic against charges of racism. But does it threaten the structures that
produce this abjection – either as embittered, immiserated 'white working class' or as threatened
minority group? It is always *those* 'white' people, the South, the Working Class, and never the
accusers some of whom are themselves happy to vote for a party that drowns out anti-war protesters
with chants of USA! USA!
Race-thinking forecloses the possibility of the coalitions that you imagine, and reproduces
ideas of difference in ways that always, always privilege 'whiteness'.
--
Historical examples of ethnic groups becoming 'white', how it was legal and political decision-making
that defined the present racial taxonomy, suggest that groups can also lose or have their 'whiteness'
threatened. CB has written here about how, in the UK at least, Eastern and Southern Europeans
are racialised, and so refused 'whiteness'. JQ has written about southern white minoritisation.
Many commentators have pointed that the 'white working class' vote this year looked a lot like
a minority vote.
Given the subordination of groups presently defined as 'white working class', I wonder
if we could think beyond ethnic and epidermal definition to consider that the impossibility of
the American Dream refuses these groups whiteness; i.e the hoped for privileges of racial superiority,
much in the same way that African Americans, Latin Americans and other racialised minorities are
denied whiteness. Can a poor West Virginian living in a toxified drugged out impoverished landscape
really be defined as a carrier of 'white privilege'?
I was first pointed at this by the juxtapositions of racialised working class and immigrants
in Imogen Tyler's Revolting Subjects – Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain but
this below is a useful short article that takes a historical perspective.
The 'racialisation' of class in Britain has been a consequence of the weakening of 'class'
as a political idea since the 1970s – it is a new construction, not an historic one.
.
This is not to deny the existence of working-class racism, or to suggest that racism is
somehow acceptable if rooted in perceived socio-economic grievances. But it is to suggest that
the concept of a 'white working class' needs problematizing, as does the claim that the British
working-class was strongly committed to a post-war vision of 'White Britain' analogous to the
politics which sustained the idea of a 'White Australia' until the 1960s.
Yes, old, settled neighbourhoods could be profoundly distrustful of outsiders – all outsiders,
including the researchers seeking to study them – but, when it came to race, they were internally
divided. We certainly hear working-class racist voices – often echoing stock racist complaints
about over-crowding, welfare dependency or exploitative landlords and small businessmen, but
we don't hear the deep pathological racial fears laid bare in the letters sent to Enoch Powell
after his so-called 'Rivers of Blood' speech in 1968 (Whipple, 2009).
But more importantly, we also hear strong anti-racist voices loudly and clearly. At Wallsend
on Tyneside, where the researchers were gathering their data just as Powell shot to notoriety,
we find workers expressing casual racism, but we also find eloquent expressions of an internationalist,
solidaristic perspective in which, crucially, black and white are seen as sharing the same
working-class interests.
Racism is denounced as a deliberate capitalist strategy to divide workers against themselves,
weakening their ability to challenge those with power over their lives (shipbuilding had long
been a very fractious industry and its workers had plenty of experience of the dangers of internal
sectarian battles).
To be able to mobilize across across racialised divisions, to have race wither away entirely
would, for me, be the beginning of a politics that allowed humanity to deal with the inescapable
violence of climate change and corporate power.
*To add to the bibliography – David R. Roediger, Elizabeth D. Esch – The Production of Difference
– Race and the Management of Labour, and Denise Ferreira da Silva – Toward a Global Idea of Race.
And I have just been pointed at Ian Haney-López, White By Law – The Legal Construction of Race.
FWIW 'merica's constitutional democracy is going to collapse.
Some day - not tomorrow, not next year, but probably sometime before runaway climate change
forces us to seek a new life in outer-space colonies - there is going to be a collapse of the
legal and political order and its replacement by something else. If we're lucky, it won't be violent.
If we're very lucky, it will lead us to tackle the underlying problems and result in a better,
more robust, political system. If we're less lucky, well, then, something worse will happen .
In a 1990 essay, the late Yale political scientist Juan Linz observed that "aside from
the United States, only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional
continuity under presidential government - but Chilean democracy broke down in the 1970s."
Linz offered several reasons why presidential systems are so prone to crisis. One particularly
important one is the nature of the checks and balances system. Since both the president and the
Congress are directly elected by the people, they can both claim to speak for the people. When
they have a serious disagreement, according to Linz, "there is no democratic principle on the
basis of which it can be resolved." The constitution offers no help in these cases, he wrote:
"the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly
legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate."
In a parliamentary system, deadlocks get resolved. A prime minister who lacks the backing
of a parliamentary majority is replaced by a new one who has it. If no such majority can be found,
a new election is held and the new parliament picks a leader. It can get a little messy for a
period of weeks, but there's simply no possibility of a years-long spell in which the legislative
and executive branches glare at each other unproductively.'
Given that the basic point is polarisation (i.e. that both the President and Congress have
equally strong arguments to be the the 'voice of the people') and that under the US appalling
constitutional set up, there is no way to decide between them, one can easily imagine the so to
speak 'hyperpolarisation' of a Trump Presidency as being the straw (or anvil) that breaks the
camel's back.
In any case, as I pointed out before, given that the US is increasingly an urbanised country,
and the Electoral College was created to protect rural (slave) states, the grotesque electoral
result we have just seen is likely to recur, which means more and more Presidents with dubious
democratic legitimacy. Thanks to Bush (and Obama) these Presidents will have, at the same time,
more and more power.
nastywoman @ 150
Just study the program of the 'Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschland' or the Program of 'Die
Grünen' in Germany (take it through google translate) and you get all the answers you are looking
for.
No need to run it through google translate, it's available in English on their site. [Or one
could refer to the Green Party of the U.S. site/platform, which is very similar in scope and overall
philosophy. (www.gp.org).]
I looked at several of their topic areas (Agricultural, Global, Health, Rural) and yes, these
are general theses I would support. But they're hardly policy/project proposals for specific regions
or communities – the Greens espouse "think global, act local", so programs and projects must be
tailored to individual communities and regions.
To return to my original question and answer it myself: I'm forced to conclude that the
Democrats did not specifically address the revitalization – rebirth of the Rust Belt in their
2016 platform. Its failure to do so carried a heavy cost that (nearly) all of us will be forced
to pay.
This sub seems to have largely fallen into the psychologically comfortable trap of declaring
that everyone who voted against their preferred candidate is racist. It's a view pushed by the
neoliberals, who want to maintain he stranglehold of identity politics over the DNC, and it makes
upper-class 'intellectuals' feel better about themselves and their betrayal of the filthy, subhuman
white underclass (or so they see it).
I expect at this point that Trump will be reelected comfortably. If not only the party itself,
but also most of its activists, refuse to actually change, it's more or less inevitable.
You can scream 'those jobs are never coming back!' all you want, but people are never going
to accept it. So either you come up with a genuine solution (instead of simply complaining that
your opponents solutions won't work; you're partisan and biased, most voters won't believe you),
you may as well resign yourself to fascism. Because whining that you don't know what to do won't
stop people from lining up behind someone who says that they do have one, whether it'll work or
not. Nobody trusts the elite enough to believe them when they say that jobs are never coming back.
Nobody trusts the elite at all.
You sound just like the Wiemar elite. No will to solve the problem, but filled with terror
at the inevitable result of failing to solve the problem.
One brutal fact tells us everything we need to know about the Democratic party in 2016:
the American Nazi party is running on a platform of free health care to working class people.
This means that the American Nazi Party is now running to the left of the Democratic party.
Folks, we have seen this before. Let's not descend in backbiting and recriminations, okay?
We've got some commenters charging that other commenters are "mansplaining," meanwhile we've got
other commenters claiming that it's economics and not racism/misogyny. It's all of the above.
Back in the 1930s, when the economy collapsed, fascists appeared and took power. Racists
also came out of the woodwork, ditto misogynists. Fast forward 80 years, and the same thing has
happened all over again. The global economy melted down in 2008 and fascists appeared promising
to fix the problems that the pols in power wouldn't because they were too closely tied to the
existing (failed) system. Along with the fascists, racists gained power because they were able
to scapegoat minorities as the alleged cause of everyone's misery.
None of this is surprising. We have seen it before. Whenever you get a depression in a
modern industrial economy, you get scapegoating, racism, and fascists. We know what to do. The
problem is that the current Democratic party isn't doing it.
Instead, what we're seeing is a whirlwind of finger-pointing from the Democratic leadership
that lost this election and probably let the entire New Deal get rolled back and wiped out. Putin
is to blame! Julian Assange is to blame! The biased media are to blame! Voter suppression is to
blame! Bernie Sanders is to blame! Jill Stein is to blame! Everyone and anyone except the current
out-of-touch influence-peddling elites who currently have run the Democratic party into the ground.
We need the feminists and the black lives matter groups and we also need the green party people
and the Bernie Sanders activists. But everyone has to understand that this is not an isolated
event. Trump did not just happen by accident. First there was Greece, then there was Brexit, then
there was Trump, next it'll be Renzi losing the referendum in Italy and a constitutional crisis
there, and after that, Marine Le Pen in France is going to win the first round of elections. (Probably
not the presidency, since all the other French parties will band together to stop her, but the
National Front is currently polling at 40% of all registered French voters.) And Marine LePen
is the real deal, a genuine full-on out-and-out fascist. Not a closet fascist like Steve Bannon,
LePen is the full monty with everything but a Hugo Boss suit and the death's heads on the cap.
Does anyone notice a pattern here?
This is an international movement. It is sweeping the world . It is the end of neoliberalism
and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp
out the authoritarian part.
Feminists, BLM, black bloc anarchiest anti-globalists, Sandernistas, and, yes, the former Hillary
supporters. Because it not just a coincidence that all these things are happening in all these
countries at the same time. The bottom 90% of the population in the developed world has been ripped
off by a managerial and financial and political class for the last 30 years and they have all
noticed that while the world GDP was skyrocketing and international trade agreements were getting
signed with zero input from the average citizen, a few people were getting very very rich but
nobody else was getting anything.
This hammered people on the bottom, disproportionately African Americans and especially
single AA mothers in America. It crushed the blue collar workers. It is wiping out the savings
and careers of college-educated white collar workers now, at least, the ones who didn't go to
the Ivy League, which is 90% of them.
And the Democratic party is so helpless and so hopeless that it is letting the American Nazi
Party run to the left of them on health care, fer cripes sake! We are now in a situation
where the American Nazi Party is advocating single-payer nationalized health care, while the former
Democratic presidential nominee who just got defeated assured everyone that single-payer "will
never, ever happen."
C'mon! Is anyone surprised that Hillary lost? Let's cut the crap with the "Hillary
was a flawed candidate" arguments. The plain fact of the matter is that Hillary was running mainly
on getting rid of the problems she and her husband created 25 years ago. Hillary promised criminal
justice reform and Black Lives Matter-friendly policing policies - and guess who started the mass
incarceration trend and gave speeches calling black kids "superpredators" 20 years ago? Hillary
promised to fix the problems with the wretched mandate law forcing everyone to buy unaffordable
for-profit private insurance with no cost controls - and guess who originally ran for president
in 2008 on a policy of health care mandates with no cost controls? Yes, Hillary (ironically, Obama's
big surge in popularity as a candidate came when he ran against Hillary from the left, ridiculing
helath care mandates). Hillary promises to reform an out-of-control deregulated financial system
run amok - and guess who signed all those laws revoking Glass-Steagal and setting up the Securities
Trading Modernization Act? Yes, Bill Clinton, and Hillary was right there with him cheering the
whole process on.
So pardon me and lots of other folks for being less than impressed by Hillary's trustworthiness
and honesty. Run for president by promising to undo the damage you did to the country 25 years
ago is (let say) a suboptimal campaign strategy, and a distinctly suboptimal choice of presidential
candidate for a party in the same sense that the Hiroshima air defense was suboptimal in 1945.
Calling Hillary an "imperfect candidate" is like calling what happened to the Titanic a
"boating accident." Trump was an imperfect candidate. Why did he win?
Because we're back in the 1930s again, the economy has crashed hard and still hasn't recovered
(maybe because we still haven't convened a Pecora Commission and jailed a bunch of the thieves,
and we also haven't set up any alphabet government job programs like the CCC) so fascists and
racists and all kinds of other bottom-feeders are crawling out of the political woodwork to promise
to fix the problems that the Democratic party establishment won't.
Rule of thumb: any social or political or economic writer virulently hated by the current Democratic
party establishment is someone we should listen to closely right now.
Cornel West is at the top of the current Democratic establishment's hate list, and he has got
a great article in The Guardian that I think is spot-on:
"The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph
of Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded
to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians."
Glenn Greenwald is another writer who has been showered with more hate by the Democratic establishment
recently than even Trump or Steve Bannon, so you know Greenwald is saying something important.
He has a great piece in The Intercept on the head-in-the-ground attitude of Democratic
elites toward their recent loss:
"It is not an exaggeration to say that the Democratic Party is in shambles as a political
force. Not only did it just lose the White House to a wildly unpopular farce of a candidate despite
a virtually unified establishment behind it, and not only is it the minority party in both the
Senate and the House, but it is getting crushed at historical record rates on the state and local
levels as well. Surveying this wreckage last week, party stalwart Matthew Yglesias of Vox minced
no words: `the Obama years have created a Democratic Party that's essentially a smoking pile of
rubble.'
"One would assume that the operatives and loyalists of such a weak, defeated and wrecked
political party would be eager to engage in some introspection and self-critique, and to produce
a frank accounting of what they did wrong so as to alter their plight. In the case of 2016 Democrats,
one would be quite mistaken."
Last but far from least, Scottish economist Mark Blyth has what looks to me like the single
best analysis of the entire global Trump_vs_deep_state tidal wave in Foreign Affairs magazine:
"At the end of World War II, the United States and its allies decided that sustained mass
unemployment was an existential threat to capitalism and had to be avoided at all costs. In response,
governments everywhere targeted full employment as the master policy variable-trying to get to,
and sustain, an unemployment rate of roughly four percent. The problem with doing so, over time,
is that targeting any variable long enough undermines the value of the variable itself-a phenomenon
known as Goodhart's law. (..)
" what we see [today] is a reversal of power between creditors and debtors as the anti-inflationary
regime of the past 30 years undermines itself-what we might call "Goodhart's revenge." In this
world, yields compress and creditors fret about their earnings, demanding repayment of debt at
all costs. Macro-economically, this makes the situation worse: the debtors can't pay-but politically,
and this is crucial-it empowers debtors since they can't pay, won't pay, and still have the right
to vote.
"The traditional parties of the center-left and center-right, the builders of this anti-inflationary
order, get clobbered in such a world, since they are correctly identified by these debtors as
the political backers of those demanding repayment in an already unequal system, and all from
those with the least assets. This produces anti-creditor, pro-debtor coalitions-in-waiting that
are ripe for the picking by insurgents of the left and the right, which is exactly what has happened.
"In short, to understand the election of Donald Trump we need to listen to the trumpets blowing
everywhere in the highly indebted developed countries and the people who vote for them.
"The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss and racism.
It's also driven by the global economy itself. This is a global phenomenon that marks one thing
above all. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun."
You don't live here, do you? I'm really asking a genuine question because the way you are framing
the question ("SPECIFICS!!!!!!) suggests you don't. (Just to show my background, born and raised
in Australia (In the electoral division of Kooyong, home of Menzies) but I've lived in the US
since 2000 in the midwest (MO, OH) and currently in the south (GA))
If this election has taught us anything it's no one cared about "specifics". It was a mood,
a feeling which brought trump over the top (and I'm not talking about the "average" trump voter
because that is meaningless. The average trunp voter was a republican voter in the south who the
Dems will never get so examining their motivations is immaterial to future strategy. I'm talking
about the voters in the Upper Midwest from places which voted for Obama twice then switched to
trump this year to give him his margin of victory).
trump voters have been pretty clear they don't actually care about the way trump does (or even
doesn't) do what he said he would do during the campaign. It was important to them he showed he
was "with" people like them. They way he did that was partially racialized (law and order, islamophobia)
but also a particular emphasis on blue collar work that focused on the work. Unfortunately these
voters, however much you tell them they should suck it up and accept their generations of familial
experience as relatively highly paid industrial workers (even if it is something only their fathers
and grandfathers experienced because the factories were closing when the voters came of age in
the 80s and 90s) is never coming back and they should be happy to retrain as something else, don't
want it. They want what their families have had which is secure, paid, benefits rich, blue
collar work.
trump's campaign empathized with that feeling just by focusing on the factory jobs as jobs
and not as anachronisms that are slowly fading away for whatever reason. Clinton might have been
"correct", but these voters didn't want to hear "the truth". And as much as you can complain about
how stupid they are for wanting to be lied to, that is the unfortunate reality you, and the Democratic
party, have to accept.
The idea they don't want "government help" is ridiculous. They love the government. They just
want the government to do things for them and not for other people (which unfortunately includes
blah people but also "the coasts", "sillicon valley", etc.). Obama won in 2008 and 2012 in part
due to the auto bailout.
trump was offering a "bailout" writ large. Clinton had no (good) counteroffer. It was like
the tables were turned. Romney was the one talking about "change" and "restructuring" while Obama
was defending keeping what was already there.
"Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the
automakers will stay the course - the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable
labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses.
Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html
So yes. Clinton needed vague promises. She needed something more than retraining and "jobs
of the future" and "restructuring". She needed to show she was committed to their way of life,
however those voters saw it, and would do something, anything, to keep it alive. trump did that
even though his plan won't work. And maybe he'll be punished for it. In 4 years. But in the interim
the gop will destroy so many things we need and rely on as well as entrench their power for generations
through the Supreme Court.
But really, it was hard for Clinton to be trusted to act like she cared about these peoples'
way of life because she (through her husband fairly or unfairly) was associated with some of the
larger actions and choices which helped usher in the decline.
Clinton toward the end offered tariffs. But the trump campaign hit back with what turned
out to be a pretty strong counter attack – ""How's she going to get tough on China?" said Trump
economic advisor Peter Navarro on CNN's Quest Means Business. He notes that some of Clinton's
economic advisors have supported TPP or even worked on it. ""
Both Republican Party and Democratic party degenerated into the racket. Neoliberal racket. It really goes back to
what Eric Hoffer
said: "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into
a
racket ." It's a racket.
Notable quotes:
"... That's because I assumed that everybody realized that America standing up to the Soviet Union was, in some sense, a nationalist resistance. Americans just didn't want to be conquered by Russians. ..."
"... In contrast to all that, Donald Trump said: ..."
"... I view the word conservative as a derivative of the word conserve. We want to converse our money. We want to conserve our wealth We want to conserve our country. We want to save our country. ..."
"... it turned out that American Conservatism was just a transitional phase. And now it's over. ..."
"... terrified of the neoconservatives who didn't like the emphasis on immigration because of their own ethnic agenda, and he was very inclined to listen to the Congressional Republicans, who didn't want to talk about immigration because they are terrified too-because they are cowards, basically-and also because they have big corporate donors . And, I think that is part of the explanation. ..."
"... I think that goes to what happened to the American Conservative Movement. It wasn't tortured; it was bought . It was simply bought . I think the dominance of the Donorist class and the Donorist Party is one of the things that has emerged analytically within the past 10 years. ..."
"... So I think that is the reason for the end of the American Conservative Movement. It really goes back to what Eric Hoffer said: "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket ." It's a racket. ..."
"... But the good news is, as John Derbyshire said a few minutes ago, that ultimately Conservatism -- or Rightism -- is a personality type. It underlies politics and it will crop up again-just as, to our astonishment, Donald Trump has cropped up. ..."
The core of conservatism, it seems to me, is this recognition and acceptance of the elemental emotions.
Conservatism understands that it is futile to debate the feelings of the
mother for her child-or such human instincts as the bonds of
tribe
,
nation , even
race . Of course, all are painfully vulnerable to deconstruction by rationalistic intellectuals-but
not, ultimately, to destruction. These commitments are Jungian rather than Freudian, not irrational
but a-rational-beyond the reach of reason.
This is one of the problems, by the way, with the American Conservative Movement. I was completely
astonished when it fell apart at the end of the Cold War -- I never thought it would. That's
because I assumed that everybody realized that America standing up to the Soviet Union was, in some
sense, a nationalist resistance. Americans just didn't want to be
conquered by Russians.
But, it turned out that there were people who had joined the anti-Communist coalition who
harbored messianic fantasies about
"global democracy" and and America as the first
"universal nation" (i.e. polity. Nation-states must have a specific ethnic core.) They also had
uses for the American military which hadn't occurred to me. But they didn't care about America-about
America as a nation-state, the political expression of a particular people, the Historic American
Nation. In fact, in some cases, it made them feel uneasy.
I thought about this this spring when Trump was debating in New Hampshire. ABC's John Muir asked
three candidates: "What does it mean to be Conservative?"
I'm going to quote from John Kasich:
blah, blah, blah, blah. Balanced budgets-tax cuts-jobs-"but once we have economic growth I believe
we have to reach out to people who live in the shadows." By this he meant, not illegal aliens, although
he did
favor Amnesty , but "the mentally ill, the drug addicted, the working poor [and] our friends
in the minority community."
That's because the Republican Party has lots of friends in the minority community.
Marco Rubio said:
it's about three things. The first is conservatism is about limited government, especially
at the federal level It's about free enterprise And it's about a strong national defense. It's
about believing, unlike Barack Obama, that the world is a safer and a better place when America
is the strongest military and the strongest nation on this planet. That's conservatism.
Kasich and Rubio's answers, of course, are not remotely "conservative" but utilitarian, economistic,
classical liberal. Note that Rubio even felt obliged to justify "strong national defense" in universalistic,
Wilsonian terms: it will make the world "a safer and a better place."
In contrast to all that, Donald Trump said:
I view the word conservative as a derivative of the word conserve. We want to converse
our money. We want to conserve our wealth We want to conserve our country. We want to save our
country.
Now, this caused a considerable amount of harrumphing among Conservative Inc. intellectuals and
various Republican politicians. Somebody called
John Hart , who writes a
thing called Opportunity Lives -has anybody heard of it? It's a very well-funded
Libertarianism Inc. website in Washington. Nobody has heard of it? Good. Hart said:
Trump's answer may have been how conservatives described themselves once: in 1957. But today's
modern conservative movement isn't a hoarding or protectionist philosophy. Conservatism isn't
about conserving; it's about growth.
"Growth"? Well, I don't think so. And not just because I remember
1957 . As I said,I think it turned out that American Conservatism was just a transitional
phase. And now it's over.
Why did it end? After
Buckley purged John O'Sullivan and all of us
immigration patriots from
National
Review in 1997, we spent a lot of time thinking about why he had done this. And there were
a lot of complicated psychological explanations: Bill was getting old, he was
jealous of his successor, the new Editor, John O'Sullivan, he was terrified of the
neoconservatives who didn't like the emphasis on immigration because of their
own ethnic
agenda, and he was very inclined to listen to the Congressional Republicans, who didn't want
to talk about immigration because they are terrified too-because they are cowards, basically-and
also because they have
big corporate donors . And, I think that is part of the explanation.
But
there was a similar discussion in the 1950s and 1960s, which I'm old enough to remember, about why
the Old Bolsheviks all
testified against themselves in the treason trials during
Stalin's Great
Purge . They all admitted to the most fantastic things-that they had been spies for the Americans
and the British and the capitalist imperialists all along, that they'd plotted to assassinate Comrade
Stalin. And there were all kinds of discussions as to why this was, and in fact a wonderful novel,
Darkness At Noon [
PDF
] by
Arthur Koestler , one of the
most remarkable novels in the last century, describing the exquisite psychological process by
which an old Bolshevik in prison came to the conclusion that he was going to have to say all these
things in the long-term interest of the Revolution.
Do you agree about Darkness At Noon , Paul? [ Paul Gottfried indicates assent
]
In other words, there is no complex
psychological explanation : they were just tortured. I think that goes to what happened to the
American Conservative Movement. It wasn't tortured; it was
bought . It was simply
bought . I think the dominance of the
Donorist class and the
Donorist Party is one of the things that has
emerged analytically within the past 10 years.
When I was first writing about American politics and got involved in American politics–and
I started by working for John Ashbrook (not
Ashcroft , Ash brook
) against
Nixon in 1972 –nobody thought about donors. We have only gradually become conscious of them.
And their absolute dominant role, and their ability to prohibit policy discussions, has really only
become clear in the last five to ten years.
I think, in retrospect, with
Buckley
, who
subsidized his lifestyle out of the National Review to a scandalous extent, that there
was some financial transaction. I think that now.
It's an open secret that
Rich Lowry did not want to come out and with
this anti-Trump issue that they published earlier this year, but he was
compelled to do it. That's not the type of thing that Lowry would normally do. He wouldn't take
that kind of risk, he's a courtier, he would never take the risk of not being invited to ride in
Trump's limousine in the case that Trump won. But, apparently, someone forced him to do it. And I
think that someone was a
donor and I think I know who it was.
So I think that is the reason for the end of the American Conservative Movement. It really
goes back to what
Eric Hoffer
said: "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates
into a
racket ." It's a racket.
But the good news is, as
John Derbyshire said a few
minutes ago, that ultimately Conservatism -- or Rightism -- is a personality type. It underlies politics
and it will crop up again-just as, to our astonishment, Donald Trump has cropped up.
"... Another tactic is to discourage international companies from doing business with Iran, an effort coordinated by the Iran Project of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a premier anti-JCPOA lobbying center supported by Sheldon Adelson, a prominent donor to the Republicans and Trump. For instance, the FDD took a lead in denouncing the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) for easing controls on dollar transactions between Iran and foreign banks and companies. ..."
"... With so much at stake, Iranians followed the American election with great interest. The Hezb-e Etedal va Toseh (Moderation and Development Party) of President Hassan Rouhani and Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani has the most to lose from the Trump presidency. ..."
"... Rouhani came to power in 2013 with a promise to fix the Iranian economy broken by years of mismanagement and sanctions. He managed to push through the JCPOA with assurances that the economic benefits would outweigh the cost of giving up the nuclear project-so much so that the Moderation and Development Party gained a majority in the 2016 parliamentary election. ..."
"... Even a cursory perusal of the Rouhani-affiliated media, such as Iran, Etemad and Arman newspapers, among others, indicates more than a passing level of anxiety about his chances in the wake of Trump's election. ..."
"... Rouhani's normalization plan, more than the JCPOA, puts the moderates on a collision course with the Revolutionary Guards and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The former are incensed about Rouhani's new banking regulations, while the latter opposes the type of broad opening to the world that the moderates are pushing. The supreme leader is known to worry that liberalization and Westernization would further undermine the corroding legitimacy of the theocratic state. Not surprisingly, hard-liners have reacted to Trump's victory with glee. Depicting Trump's election as "a victory of the insane over the liar," Kayhan, representing the Supreme Leader, called Trump "a shredder of the JCPOA, an agreement which had zero benefit for Iran." Javan, a mouthpiece for the Revolutionary Guards, wrote that Trump is better for Iran because he would undermine the credibility of the moderates. ..."
"... The hotly disputed ballistic-missile tests conducted by the Revolutionary Guards in the past year would also come under a review by the new administration; Congress is already crafting legislation that would further sanction implicated countries, companies and individuals. Even small infringements-like the recent incident in which the IAEA reported Iran exceeding the amount of heavy water allowed under the deal-can trigger more measures. ..."
"... Under Obama, such disputes were resolved by a special team of State Department and National Security Council officials, working with the IAEA. Whether the Trump administration would retain the team is doubtful, especially as such a move would be opposed by Bolton or other hard-liners, should they join the administration. Bolton, who accused the IAEA of covering up for Iran, would be most likely press for a more vigilant oversight of Iran's compliance, creating additional friction. This, in turn, can trigger potentially damaging developments. Under the JCPOA terms, Iran is not due additional sanction relief until 2023, but the president is required to sign periodical waivers on sanctions that are on the books if Iran is judged to be in compliance. By refusing to issue the waivers, the Trump administration would essentially abrogate American participation in the accord. ..."
Overlooked in the speculations about Trump's future decisions is the dominant role that Congress
would play in shaping American policy toward the JCPOA. In 2015, in conjunction with the government
of Israel and the Israel lobby in Washington, congressional Republicans mounted an unprecedented
but ultimately an unsuccessful campaign to derail the deal. Still, the lobby and its congressional
patrons have not abandoned their effort to limit the economic benefits of the deal to Iran. One effective
tool is new sanctions-generating legislation. Lawmakers from the House Republican Israel Caucus introduced
several bills which would, among others provisions, extend the Iran Sanctions Act due to expire in
December 2016, block the sale of eighty Boeing planes to Iran and prohibit the Export-Import Bank
from financing business with Iran. Unlike President Obama, President-elect Trump is not expected
to veto the anti-Iran legislation, setting a relatively low bar for its passage.
... ... ...
Another tactic is to discourage international companies from doing business with Iran, an
effort coordinated by the Iran Project of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), a premier
anti-JCPOA lobbying center supported by Sheldon Adelson, a prominent donor to the Republicans and
Trump. For instance, the FDD took a lead in denouncing the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign
Assets Control (OFAC) for easing controls on dollar transactions between Iran and foreign banks and
companies.
After initially banning all dollar-denominated transactions, OFAC reversed itself authorizing
such dealings provided they are not processed by the American financial system. In yet another effort
to spur international business with Iran, OFAC declared that foreign companies could transact business
with non-sanctioned Iranian companies even if a sanctioned entity held a minority share of its assets.
The Treasury also relaxed the requirement that foreign companies contracting with Iranian counterparts
do automatic due intelligence. Since the Revolutionary Guards have operated numerous ventures with
legitimate entities, the FDD decried this step as "green-lighting" business with the Guards.
... ... ...
With so much at stake, Iranians followed the American election with great interest. The Hezb-e
Etedal va Toseh (Moderation and Development Party) of President Hassan Rouhani and Ayatollah Akbar
Hashemi Rafsanjani has the most to lose from the Trump presidency.
Rouhani came to power in 2013 with a promise to fix the Iranian economy broken by years of
mismanagement and sanctions. He managed to push through the JCPOA with assurances that the economic
benefits would outweigh the cost of giving up the nuclear project-so much so that the Moderation
and Development Party gained a majority in the 2016 parliamentary election. There is little
doubt that a serious reduction of the economic benefits accruing from the deal would hurt Rouhani's
chances in the 2017 presidential election. Even a cursory perusal of the Rouhani-affiliated media,
such as Iran, Etemad and Arman newspapers, among others, indicates more than a passing level of anxiety
about his chances in the wake of Trump's election.
... ... ...
Under Obama, such disputes were resolved by a special team of State Department and National Security
Council officials, working with the IAEA. Whether the Trump administration would retain the team
is doubtful, especially as such a move would be opposed by Bolton or other hard-liners, should they
join the administration. Bolton, who accused the IAEA of covering up for Iran, would be most likely
press for a more vigilant oversight of Iran's compliance, creating additional friction. This, in
turn, can trigger potentially damaging developments. Under the JCPOA terms, Iran is not due additional
sanction relief until 2023, but the president is required to sign periodical waivers on sanctions
that are on the books if Iran is judged to be in compliance. By refusing to issue the waivers, the
Trump administration would essentially abrogate American participation in the accord.
Even without a formal abrogation, an aggressive American policy would make it hard for Rouhani
to protect all the aspects of JCPOA-mandated compliance. Hard-liners may be encouraged by the fact
that the EU, Russia and China are not likely to agree on snapping back sanctions, because they would
hold the Trump administration responsible for disrupting flourishing trade with Tehran. It is virtually
impossible to predict whether Iran, under a hard-line leadership, would resume its nuclear project.
It is equally difficult to foresee whether an Obama-type coalition behind the JCPOA could be recreated
in the future, should the need arise.
A Trump administration could let Tehran's hard-liners sabotage the JCPOA.
Farhad Rezaei
November 16, 2016
Rouhani's normalization plan, more than the JCPOA, puts the moderates on a collision course
with the Revolutionary Guards and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The former are incensed about Rouhani's
new banking regulations, while the latter opposes the type of broad opening to the world that the
moderates are pushing. The supreme leader is known to worry that liberalization and Westernization
would further undermine the corroding legitimacy of the theocratic state. Not surprisingly, hard-liners
have reacted to Trump's victory with glee. Depicting Trump's election as "a victory of the insane
over the liar," Kayhan, representing the Supreme Leader, called Trump "a shredder of the JCPOA, an
agreement which had zero benefit for Iran." Javan, a mouthpiece for the Revolutionary Guards, wrote
that Trump is better for Iran because he would undermine the credibility of the moderates.
... ... ...
The hotly disputed ballistic-missile tests conducted by the Revolutionary Guards in the past
year would also come under a review by the new administration; Congress is already crafting legislation
that would further sanction implicated countries, companies and individuals. Even small infringements-like
the recent incident in which the IAEA reported Iran exceeding the amount of heavy water allowed under
the deal-can trigger more measures.
Under Obama, such disputes were resolved by a special team of State Department and National
Security Council officials, working with the IAEA. Whether the Trump administration would retain
the team is doubtful, especially as such a move would be opposed by Bolton or other hard-liners,
should they join the administration. Bolton, who accused the IAEA of covering up for Iran, would
be most likely press for a more vigilant oversight of Iran's compliance, creating additional friction.
This, in turn, can trigger potentially damaging developments. Under the JCPOA terms, Iran is not
due additional sanction relief until 2023, but the president is required to sign periodical waivers
on sanctions that are on the books if Iran is judged to be in compliance. By refusing to issue the
waivers, the Trump administration would essentially abrogate American participation in the accord.
Even without a formal abrogation, an aggressive American policy would make it hard for Rouhani
to protect all the aspects of JCPOA-mandated compliance. Hard-liners may be encouraged by the fact
that the EU, Russia and China are not likely to agree on snapping back sanctions, because they would
hold the Trump administration responsible for disrupting flourishing trade with Tehran. It is virtually
impossible to predict whether Iran, under a hard-line leadership, would resume its nuclear project.
It is equally difficult to foresee whether an Obama-type coalition behind the JCPOA could be recreated
in the future, should the need arise.
Dr. Farhad Rezaei is a research fellow at Middle East Institute, Sakarya University, Turkey.
He is the author of the forthcoming Iran's Nuclear Program: A Study in Nuclear Proliferation and
Rollback (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016).
First of all – turns out Ed Lucas' personal pleasure object (aka "The
Economist") has no idea, who are the Chinese. Second – the depiction of MLP
is uncanonical! I protest! We, human masses, demand more canonical depiction
of Marine Le Pen!
Reply
"... " Like [Andrew] Jackson's populism, we're going to build an entirely new political movement ," he says. "It's everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I'm the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout the world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all jacked up. We're just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks . It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution - conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement." ..."
"... Nobody in the Democratic party listened to his speeches, so they had no idea he was delivering such a compelling and powerful economic message. He shows up 3.5 hours late in Michigan at 1 in the morning and has 35,000 people waiting in the cold. When they got [Clinton] off the donor circuit she went to Temple University and they drew 300 or 400 kids." ..."
"... Bannon on Murdoch: "Rupert is a globalist and never understood Trump" ..."
"... " The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f-ed over . If we deliver-" by "we" he means the Trump White House "-we'll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we'll govern for 50 years. That's what the Democrats missed, they were talking to these people with companies with a $9 billion market cap employing nine people. It's not reality. They lost sight of what the world is about ." ..."
"... ... I'd say, IMO, Steve Bannon is more than an excellent choice for President Trump's team ... Bannon's education, business, work and military experience speaks highly of his abilities ... I wish the MSM would stop labelling him a white nationalist and concentrate on his successful accomplishments and what he could contribute to Trump's cabinet. ..."
Bannon next discusses the "battle line" inside America's great divide.
He absolutely - mockingly - rejects the idea that this is a racial line. "I'm not a white nationalist,
I'm a nationalist. I'm an economic nationalist, " he tells me. " The globalists gutted the American
working class and created a middle class in Asia. The issue now is about Americans looking to
not get f-ed over . If we deliver-" by "we" he means the Trump White House "-we'll get 60 percent
of the white vote, and 40 percent of the black and Hispanic vote and we'll govern for 50 years.
That's what the Democrats missed, they were talking to these people with companies with a $9 billion
market cap employing nine people. It's not reality. They lost sight of what the world is about
."
Bannon's vision: an "entirely new political movement", one which drives the conservatives crazy.
As to how monetary policy will coexist with fiscal stimulus, Bannon has a simple explanation: he
plans to "rebuild everything" courtesy of negative interest rates and cheap debt throughout the world.
Those rates may not be negative for too long.
" Like [Andrew] Jackson's populism, we're going to build an entirely new political movement
," he says. "It's everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I'm the
guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout the
world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Ship yards, iron works, get them all
jacked up. We're just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks . It will be
as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution - conservatives, plus populists,
in an economic nationalist movement."
How Bannon describes Trump: " an ideal vessel"
It is less than obvious how Bannon, now the official strategic brains of the Trump operation,
syncs with his boss, famously not too strategic. When Bannon took over the campaign from Paul
Manafort, there were many in the Trump circle who had resigned themselves to the inevitability
of the candidate listening to no one . But here too was a Bannon insight: When the campaign seemed
most in free fall or disarray, it was perhaps most on target. While Clinton was largely absent
from the campaign trail and concentrating on courting her donors, Trump - even after the leak
of the grab-them-by-the-pussy audio - was speaking to ever-growing crowds of thirty-five or forty
thousand. "He gets it, he gets it intuitively," says Bannon, perhaps still surprised he has found
such an ideal vessel. "You have probably the greatest orator since William Jennings Bryan, coupled
with an economic populist message and two political parties that are so owned by the donors that
they don't speak to their audience. But he speaks in a non-political vernacular, he communicates
with these people in a very visceral way. Nobody in the Democratic party listened to his speeches,
so they had no idea he was delivering such a compelling and powerful economic message. He shows
up 3.5 hours late in Michigan at 1 in the morning and has 35,000 people waiting in the cold. When
they got [Clinton] off the donor circuit she went to Temple University and they drew 300 or 400
kids."
Bannon on Murdoch: "Rupert is a globalist and never understood Trump"
At that moment, as we talk, there's a knock on the door of Bannon's office, a temporary, impersonal,
middle-level executive space with a hodgepodge of chairs for constant impromptu meetings. Sen.
Ted Cruz, once the Republican firebrand, now quite a small and unassuming figure, has been waiting
patiently for a chat and Bannon excuses himself for a short while. It is clear when we return
to our conversation that it is not just the liberal establishment that Bannon feels he has triumphed
over, but the conservative one too - not least of all Fox News and its owners, the Murdochs. "They
got it more wrong than anybody," he says. " Rupert is a globalist and never understood Trump.
To him, Trump is a radical. Now they'll go centrist and build the network around Megyn Kelly."
Bannon recounts, with no small irony, that when Breitbart attacked Kelly after her challenges
to Trump in the initial Republican debate, Fox News chief Roger Ailes - whom Bannon describes
as an important mentor, and who Kelly's accusations of sexual harassment would help topple in
July - called to defend her. Bannon says he warned Ailes that Kelly would be out to get him too
.
Finally, Bannon on how he sees himself in the administration:
Bannon now becomes part of a two-headed White House political structure, with Reince Priebus
- in and out of Bannon's office as we talk - as chief of staff, in charge of making the trains
run on time, reporting to the president, and Bannon as chief strategist, in charge of vision,
goals, narrative and plan of attack, reporting to the president too. Add to this the ambitions
and whims of the president himself, and the novel circumstance of one who has never held elective
office, the agenda of his highly influential family and the end runs of a party significant parts
of which were opposed to him, and you have quite a complex court that Bannon will have to finesse
to realize his reign of the working man and a trillion dollars in new spending.
"I am," he says, with relish, "Thomas Cromwell in the court of the Tudors."
" The globalists gutted the American working class and created a middle class in Asia.
The issue now is about Americans looking to not get f-ed over . If we deliver-" by "we" he
means the Trump White House "-we'll get 60 percent of the white vote, and 40 percent of the
black and Hispanic vote and we'll govern for 50 years. That's what the Democrats missed, they
were talking to these people with companies with a $9 billion market cap employing nine people.
It's not reality. They lost sight of what the world is about ."
... I'd say, IMO, Steve Bannon is more than an excellent choice for President Trump's team
... Bannon's education, business, work and military experience speaks highly of his abilities
... I wish the MSM would stop labelling him a white nationalist and concentrate on his successful
accomplishments and what he could contribute to Trump's cabinet.
........ from wiki ...
Stephen Kevin Bannon was born on November 27, 1953, in Norfolk, Virginia into a working-class,
Irish Catholic, pro-Kennedy, pro-union family of Democrats. He graduated from Virginia Tech in
1976 and holds a master's degree in National Security Studies from Georgetown University. In 1983,
Bannon received an M.B.A. degree with honors from Harvard Business School.
Bannon was an officer in the United States Navy, serving on the destroyer USS Paul F. Foster
as a Surface Warfare Officer in the Pacific Fleet and stateside as a special assistant to the
Chief of Naval Operations at the Pentagon.
After his military service, Bannon worked at Goldman Sachs as an investment banker in the Mergers
& Acquisitions Department. In 1990, Bannon and several colleagues from Goldman Sachs launched
Bannon & Co., a boutique investment bank specializing in media. Through Bannon & Co., Bannon negotiated
the sale of Castle Rock Entertainment to Ted Turner. As payment, Bannon & Co. accepted a financial
stake in five television shows, including Seinfeld. Société Générale purchased Bannon & Co. in
1998.
In 1993, while still managing Bannon & Co., Bannon was made acting director of Earth-science
research project Biosphere 2 in Oracle, Arizona. Under Bannon, the project shifted emphasis from
researching space exploration and colonization towards pollution and global warming. He left the
project in 1995.
After the sale of Bannon & Co., Bannon became an executive producer in the film and media industry
in Hollywood, California. He was executive producer for Julie Taymor's 1999 film Titus. Bannon
became a partner with entertainment industry executive Jeff Kwatinetz at The Firm, Inc., a film
and television management company. In 2004, Bannon made a documentary about Ronald Reagan titled
In the Face of Evil. Through the making and screening of this film, Bannon was introduced to Peter
Schweizer and publisher Andrew Breitbart. He was involved in the financing and production of a
number of films, including Fire from the Heartland: The Awakening of the Conservative Woman, The
Undefeated (on Sarah Palin), and Occupy Unmasked. Bannon also hosts a radio show (Breitbart News
Daily) on a Sirius XM satellite radio channel.
Bannon is also executive chairman and co-founder of the Government Accountability Institute,
where he helped orchestrate the publication of the book Clinton Cash. In 2015, Bannon was ranked
No. 19 on Mediaite's list of the "25 Most Influential in Political News Media 2015".
Bannon convinced Goldman Sachs to invest in a company known as Internet Gaming Entertainment.
Following a lawsuit, the company rebranded as Affinity Media and Bannon took over as CEO. From
2007 through 2011, Bannon was chairman and CEO of Affinity Media.
Bannon became a member of the board of Breitbart News. In March 2012, after founder Andrew
Breitbart's death, Bannon became executive chairman of Breitbart News LLC, the parent company
of Breitbart News. Under his leadership, Breitbart took a more alt-right and nationalistic approach
towards its agenda. Bannon declared the website "the platform for the alt-right" in 2016. Bannon
identifies as a conservative. Speaking about his role at Breitbart, Bannon said: "We think of
ourselves as virulently anti-establishment, particularly 'anti-' the permanent political class."
The New York Times described Breitbart News under Bannon's leadership as a "curiosity of the
fringe right wing", with "ideologically driven journalists", that is a source of controversy "over
material that has been called misogynist, xenophobic and racist." The newspaper also noted how
Breitbart was now a "potent voice" for Donald Trump's presidential campaign.
Bannon: " The globalists gutted the American working class ..the Democrats were talking
to these people with companies with a $9 billion market cap employing nine people. It's not reality.
They lost sight of what the world is about ."
Well said. Couldn't agree more.
Bannon: " Like [Andrew] Jackson's populism, we're going to build an entirely new political
movement I'm the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan.
Dear Mr. Bannon, it has to be way more than $1trillion in 10 years. Obama's $831 billion American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) didn't make up the difference for all the job lost
in 2007/08. Manufacturing alone lost about 9 million jobs since 1979, when it peaked.
Trump needs to go Ronald Reagan 180% deficit spending. If Trump runs 100% like Obama, Trump
will fail as well.
The author mixes the notion of populism as a social protest against the excesses of the rule of
the current oligarchy, which enpoverish common people, with neofascism and far right nationalism, which are now popular forms of expression of this
protest
SANTIAGO – Many of the men and women who turned out for the annual meeting of the International
Monetary Fund in early October were saying something like this: "Imagine if the Republicans had nominated
someone with the same anti-trade views as Trump, minus the insults and the sexual harassment. A populist
protectionist would be headed to the White House."
The underlying view is that rising populism on the right and the left, both in the United States
and in Europe, is a straightforward consequence of globalization and its unwanted effects: lost jobs
and stagnant middle-class incomes. Davos men and women hate this conclusion, but they have embraced
it with all the fervor of new converts.
Yet there is an alternative – and more persuasive – view: while economic stagnation helps push
upset voters into the populist camp, bad economics is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition
for bad politics. On the contrary, argues Princeton political scientist
Jan-Werner
Mueller in his new book
: populism is a "permanent shadow" on representative democracy.
Populism is not about taxation (or jobs or income inequality). It is about representation – who
gets to speak for the people and how.
Advocates of democracy make some exalted claims on its behalf. As Abraham Lincoln put it at
Gettysburg
, it is "government of the people, by the people, for the people." But modern representative
democracy – or any democracy, for that matter – inevitably falls short of these claims. Voting in
an election every four years for candidates chosen by party machines is not exactly what Lincoln's
lofty words call to mind.
What populists offer, Mueller says, is to fulfill what the Italian democratic theorist Norberto
Bobbio calls the broken promises of democracy. Populists speak and act, claims Mueller, " as if
the people could develop a singular judgment,... as if the people were one,... as if
the people, if only they empowered the right representatives, could fully master their fates."
Populism rests on a toxic triad: denial of complexity, anti-pluralism, and a crooked version
of representation.
Most of us believe that social choices (Build more schools or hospitals? Stimulate or discourage
international trade? Liberalize or restrict abortion?) are complex, and that the existence of a plurality
of views about what to do is both natural and legitimate. Populists deny this. As
Ralf Dahrendorf
once put it, populism is simple; democracy is complex. To populists, there is only one right
view – that of the people.
If so, the complex mechanisms of liberal democracy, with its emphasis on delegation and representation,
are all unnecessary. No need for parliaments endlessly debating: the unitary will of the people can
easily be expressed in a single vote. Hence populists' love affair with plebiscites and referenda.
Brexit, anyone?
And not just anyone can represent the people. The claim is to exclusive representation. Remember
Trump's boast in his address
to the Republican National Convention: "I alone can fix it."
Politics is always about morality, Aristotle told us. But populists favor what Mueller calls a
particular moralistic interpretation of politics . Those who hold the right view about the
world are moral; the rest are immoral, lackeys of a corrupt elite. That was exactly the rhetoric
of the late Venezuelan ruler Hugo Chávez. When that failed, and when Chávez's sank his country's
economy, there was always US imperialism to blame. So populism is a kind of identity politics. It
is always us against them .
Viewed in this light, populism is not a useful corrective to a democracy captured by technocrats
and elites, as Marine Le Pen, Rafael Correa, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, or assorted Western intellectuals
want you to believe. On the contrary, it is profoundly anti-democratic, and hence a threat to democracy
itself.
What is to be done? My take (the prescription is my own, not Mueller's) is that democrats must
(and can) beat populists at their own game. The toxic triad can become salutary.
First, acknowledge complexity. The only thing that upsets voters as much as being lied to is being
treated like babies. People who lead challenging lives know that the world is complex. They do not
mind being told that. They appreciate being spoken to as the grownups they are.
Second, do not treat diversity of views and identities as a problem calling for a technocratic
solution. Rather, make respect for such diversity a profoundly moral feature of society. The fact
that we are not all the same and we can still get along is a tremendous democratic achievement. Make
the case for it. And do not fall for the tired cliché that reason is for democrats and emotion is
for populists. Make the case for pluralistic democracy in a way that inspires and stirs emotion.
Third, defend – and update – representation. Leave delegation to complex technical matters. Take
advantage of modern technologies to bring other choices – particularly those having to do with the
fabric of daily life – closer to voters. Tighten campaign finance laws, regulate lobbying better,
and enforce affirmative-action measures to ensure that representatives are of the people and work
for the people.
These measures alone will not ensure that all of democracy's broken promises are fulfilled. But
we cannot expect a single set of simple actions to solve a complex problem. Nor can we believe that
we alone can fix it.
If we believed that, we would be populists. For the sake of democracy, that is precisely what
we should not be.
Andrés Velasco, a former presidential candidate and finance minister of Chile, is Professor
of Professional Practice in International Development at Columbia University's School of International
and Public Affairs. He has taught at Harvard University and New York University, and is the author
of numerous studies on international economics and development.
"... The economic point is that globalisation has boosted trade and overall wealth, but it has also created a dog eat dog world where western workers compete with, and lose jobs to, people far away who will do the work for much less. ..."
"... But neither Trump nor Farage have shown any evidence of how realistically they can recreate those jobs in the west. And realistically god knows how you keep the wealth free trade and globalisation brings but avoid losing the good jobs? At least the current mess has focused attention on the question and has said that patience has run out. ..."
"... Compared to the real economic problems, the identity politics is minor, but it is still an irritant that explains why this revolution is coming from the right not from the left. ..."
"... And what "age" has that been Roy? The "age" of: climate change, gangster bankers, tax heavens, illegal wars, nuclear proliferation, grotesque inequality, the prison industrial complex to cite just a few. That "age"? ..."
"... the right wing press detest one kind of liberalism, social liberalism, they hate that, but they love economic liberalism, which has done much harm to the working class. ..."
"... Most of the right wing press support austerity measures, slashing of taxes and, smaller and smaller governments. Yet apparently, its being socially liberal that is the problem ..."
A crucial point "WWC men aren't interested in working at McDonald's for $15 per hour instead
of $9.50. What they want is... steady, stable, full-time jobs that deliver a solid middle-class
life."
The economic point is that globalisation has boosted trade and overall wealth, but it has
also created a dog eat dog world where western workers compete with, and lose jobs to, people
far away who will do the work for much less.
But neither Trump nor Farage have shown any evidence of how realistically they can recreate
those jobs in the west. And realistically god knows how you keep the wealth free trade and globalisation
brings but avoid losing the good jobs? At least the current mess has focused attention on the
question and has said that patience has run out.
Compared to the real economic problems, the identity politics is minor, but it is still
an irritant that explains why this revolution is coming from the right not from the left.
If you're white and male it's bad enough losing your hope of economic security, but then to
be repeatedly told by the left that you're misogynist, racist, sexist, Islamophobic, transgenderphobic
etc etc is just the icing on the cake. If the author wants to see just how crazy identity politics
has become go to the Suzanne Moore piece from yesterday accusing American women of being misogynist
for refusing to vote for Hillary. That kind of maniac 'agree with me on everything or you're a
racist, sexist, homophobe' identity politics has to be ditched.
Reply
Funny, I've been a white male my whole life and not once have I been accused of being a misogynist,
racist, sexist, Islamophobic, or transgenderphobic. I didn't think being a white male was so difficult
for some people...
Reply
"Are we turning our backs on the age of enlightenment?".
And what "age" has that been Roy? The "age" of: climate change, gangster bankers, tax heavens,
illegal wars, nuclear proliferation, grotesque inequality, the prison industrial complex to cite
just a few. That "age"?
I agree hardly an age of enlightenment. My opinion... the so called Liberal Elite are responsible
for many of the issues in the list. The poor and the old in this country are not being helped
by the benefits system. Yet the rich get richer beyond the dreams of the ordinary man.
I would
pay more tax if I thought it might be spent more wisely...but can you trust politicians who are
happy to spend 50 billion on a railway line that 98% of the population will never use.
No solutions from me ...an old hippy from the 60s "Love and peace man " ...didn't work did
it :)
I have come under the impression that the right wing press detest one kind of liberalism,
social liberalism, they hate that, but they love economic liberalism, which has done much harm
to the working class.
Most of the right wing press support austerity measures, slashing of taxes and, smaller
and smaller governments. Yet apparently, its being socially liberal that is the problem.
Speaking to foreign heads of state without briefing papers from neocon bottom feeders from the State
Department might be a wise move.
And meaningful contact with such the nation's foreign policy professionals as
Samantha Paul or Victoria Nuland
is probably impossible ;-).
"...turning a blind eye to Russia's designs on Ukraine and its support for the Assad regime
in Syria." might be what is really needed for the USA foreigh policy.
Like his new boss, Flynn appears very comfortable with the current Russian regime, working with
Russia Today , the Kremlin's propaganda TV network. He apparently
received classified intelligence briefings while running a lobbying firm for foreign clients.
He seems to favor working with Russia to combat Islamist terrorists while turning a blind eye
to Russia's designs on Ukraine and its support for the Assad regime in Syria.
... ... ..
In the brief time since he won the election, Trump's first call with a world leader was not
with a trusted US ally but with the Egyptian dictator President al-Sisi. He sat with prime minister
Abe of Japan this week, but his aides told the Japanese
not
to believe every word Trump said.
He met with the populist right wing British politician Nigel Farage before meeting the British
prime minister Theresa May. But he somehow found time to meet with several Indian
real estate developers to discuss his property interests with them, and the Trump Organization
signed a
Kolkata deal on Friday.
Amid his many interactions with foreign powers, Trump is speaking without briefing papers from
the State Department because his transition team is in such chaos that they have yet to establish
meaningful contact with the nation's foreign policy professionals.
"... "How many people sleep better knowing that the Baltics are part of NATO? They don't make us
safer, in fact, quite the opposite. We need to think really hard about these commitments," said William
Ruger, vice president of research and policy at the Charles Koch Institute. ..."
"... Bolton has come under criticism from Sen. Rand Paul Rand Paul Battle brews over Trump's foreign
policy Steve Bannon - what do you actually know about him? America's public servants: Our last, best
hope MORE (R-Ky.), who was a skeptic of Bush's foreign policy. ..."
"... Paul on Tuesday blasted Bolton in an op-ed in Rare as "a longtime member of the failed Washington
elite that Trump vowed to oppose." ..."
... The outsider group sees things differently. They want to revamp American foreign policy in
a different direction from the last two administrations. The second camp is also more in line
with Trump's views questioning the value of NATO, a position that horrified many in the establishment
camp.
"How many people sleep better knowing that the Baltics are part of NATO? They don't make
us safer, in fact, quite the opposite. We need to think really hard about these commitments,"
said William Ruger, vice president of research and policy at the Charles Koch Institute.
Paul on Tuesday blasted Bolton in an op-ed in
Rare as "a longtime member of the failed Washington elite that Trump vowed to oppose."
...military historian and Retired Amy Col. Andrew Bacevich said there needs to be a rethink
of American foreign policy. He said the U.S. must consider whether Saudi Arabia and Pakistan qualify
as U.S. allies, and the growing divergence between the U.S. and Israel.
"The establishment doesn't want to touch questions like these with a ten foot pole," he said
at a conference on Tuesday hosted by The American Conservative, the Charles Koch Institute, and
the George Washington University Department of Political Science.
With some Trump advisers, it's not clear which camp they fall into. One example is retired
Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, who may become Trump's
national security adviser.
Flynn is a "curious case," said Daniel Larison, senior editor at The American Conservative.
The retired Army general has said he wants to work with Russia, but also expressed contrary views
in his book "Field of Fight."
According to Larison, Flynn writes of an "enemy alliance" against the U.S. that includes Russia,
North Korea, China, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, al-Qaida, Hezbollah, and
the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
It's also not crystal clear which camp Giuliani falls into. The former mayor is known as a
fierce critic of Islamic extremism but has scant foreign policy experience.
Most say what is likely is change.
"Change is coming to American grand strategy whether we like it or not,' said Christopher Layne,
Robert M. Gates Chair in National Security at Texas A&M University.
"I think we are overdue for American retrenchment. Americans are beginning to suffer from hegemony
fatigue," he said.
The Defense Department
reports
that as of Aug. 31, the total cost of operations related to defeating ISIS is $9.3 billion and
the average daily cost is $12.3 million.
Printer-friendly version
Even if ISIS loses Mosul and Raqqa, and Trump increases resources for the fight against the group,
the terrorist danger won't go away, experts say. Indeed, like it or not, Trump will have to confront
a complex "day after" scenario that has proved stubbornly enduring.
"ISIS is not the problem, but a symptom of the problem," said Kenneth Pollack, a Middle East policy
expert at the Brookings Institution, in an interview with The Daily Signal. "If you've learned anything
over recent time, you can't get rid of terrorism by just killing terrorists, if you don't address
the underlying grievances. Even if you kill them all, they will come back the next day."
2. Afghanistan War:
...The U.S. continued military efforts in Afghanistan were underscored this weekend, when a suicide
bomber snuck into the main American military base in the country, killing four Americans. The Taliban,
the long-running Islamic group waging war against Afghanistan's government, took credit for the attack.
Indeed, this grinding 15-year war, and the U.S. contribution to it, shows no signs of ending anytime
soon.
3. Ukraine-Russia War:
... ... ..
Trump has not criticized Russia for its action in Ukraine, and has hinted he would accept the
annexation of Crimea.
The Republican-led House, meanwhile, approved a resolution for the U.S. to provide lethal arms
to the Ukrainian government, but the White House has resisted, saying that it would only encourage
more violence.
Based on his public comments, it seems unlikely Trump will escalate the U.S. involvement in Ukraine,
and perhaps back off from its current role.
4. Saudi Arabia-Yemen War:
... ... ...
The Houthis ousted Yemen's government and forced its U.S.-backed president, Abed Mansour Hadi,
to flee to Saudi Arabia. The Houthis receive support from Iran, Saudi Arabia's rival in the Middle
East.
Obama decided to intervene in the fight because he wanted to reassure the U.S.' commitment to
Saudi Arabia, a longtime ally that was troubled by the nuclear deal with Iran. In addition, the U.S.
is concerned the chaos in Yemen could benefit the country's al-Qaeda affiliate.
About 10,000 people, nearly half civilians, have been killed in the war, most of them by the Saudi
military coalition, according to the United Nations.
5. Campaigns Against Terrorists in Africa:
What's Happening Now:
Obama has described his efforts to destroy al-Qaeda's core leadership as one of the successes
of his national security policy. But the terrorist threat has spread to new regions in recent years,
prompting a U.S. military response, and Trump will have to decide how to proceed.
Unrelated campaigns in Libya and Somalia are prime examples of the diffuse threat.
In Libya, the U.S. has conducted more than 360 airstrikes in support of pro-government forces
trying to expel ISIS from the coastal Libyan city, Sirte. A small number of U.S. special operations
forces are also providing on-the-ground support.
"... "I'm thinking that Donald Trump seems a realistic and a pragmatist man," retired Gen. Ilker Basburg, a former chief of staff of the Turkish military, told reporters Wednesday. "I think he will open a direct link with the central Syrian government." ..."
"... However, Trump has said the main U.S. goal in Syria is the defeat of the Islamic State group and not the future of the Syrian government. He said the ouster of Arab strongmen in Egypt, Yemen and Libya have served to destabilize the Middle East and led to the rise of Islamic extremists. ..."
"... On Wednesday, Erdogan announced Turkish-backed forces were close to retaking al-Bab, a city about 20 miles east of Aleppo, from the Islamic State group. Turkey believes the capture of al-Bab as strategically important because it keeps Kurdish forces from taking it and consolidating their territory in northern Syria along the Turkish border. ..."
A former top Turkish general said Donald Trump's election could hasten the end of the Syrian
civil war by opening the door to negotiations with the Syrian government of President Bashar
Assad.
"I'm thinking that Donald Trump seems a realistic and a pragmatist man," retired Gen. Ilker
Basburg, a former chief of staff of the Turkish military, told reporters Wednesday. "I think he
will open a direct link with the central Syrian government."
The United States and Turkey have demanded that Assad step down as part of any agreement to end
the five-year Syrian war.
However, Trump has said the main U.S. goal in Syria is the defeat of the Islamic State group
and not the future of the Syrian government. He said the ouster of Arab strongmen in Egypt, Yemen
and Libya have served to destabilize the Middle East and led to the rise of Islamic extremists.
Basburg's views do not reflect those of the Turkish government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan. In
fact, Basburg was imprisoned for life in 2013 for conspiring against the Turkish government but
the courts overturned the conviction in 2014.
Nevertheless, Basburg said Turkey's interests in Syria have evolved since the war began in 2011,
in large part because of the role of Kurdish militants, whom the Turks consider an enemy. But the
Kurds are supported by the United States, Turkey's longtime ally. Turkey was alarmed when a
Kurdish-dominated rebel alliance seized the border city of Manbij from the Islamic State group.
On Wednesday, Erdogan announced Turkish-backed forces were close to retaking al-Bab, a city
about 20 miles east of Aleppo, from the Islamic State group. Turkey believes the capture of al-Bab
as strategically important because it keeps Kurdish forces from taking it and consolidating their
territory in northern Syria along the Turkish border.
Basburg said Turkey's top concern is having a secure border with Syria. With the United States
and Turkey re-evaluating their interests in Syria, he was optimistic a new administration "will
make some different policy."
"We have to work with [the current Syrian] government. Today, [it's] Assad. Tomorrow, somebody
else might be head of the government," he said.
Basburg also said Russia and Iran would also need to be involved in the negotiations.
"Turkey and the United States have been old friends," Basburg said, but U.S. ties to the Kurdish
forces have led to questions about that relationship.
"... This "regime change" U$A foreign policy, has been implemented around the globe for many many years now, all in the interests of big corporate profits, and global hegemony. The sad truth seems to be, there are no signs its about to change. ..."
"... No, you will not be seeing "Maidan". Middle America white (and not only) working class men are extremely well armed and are really angry still. So, if this rioting will come to Washington, who says that good ole' Ford Truck can not run over mountain bike of Tesla? Once the shooting starts (hopefully not) it will be a totally different game than Kiev "Maidan". There is also a trend, call it a hunch--most of US combat veterans from US endless wars tend to lean towards people like Trump. ..."
"... The coming conflict is between globalism and nationalism. The basic problem is numbers. Rule by monopolistic global corporations, at best, supports 20% of the population in the short term. It enriches the ruling elite and their servants and improvises everyone else. In the long term, climate change or a nuclear war, brought on by the blind needs of greed, will end the world as we know it. Brexit and the Trump Presidency proved that globalism and democracy are incompatible. For globalism to proceed in the middle term, it will require a surveillance police state, total propaganda, reeducation camps and the shutdown of this bar. ..."
"... Americans don't care who is devastated and destroyed by 'globalization' ... other than themselves. ..."
Although it is hilarious to see the Hillary supporters throwing a massive tantrum about 'fake
news,' it does make it clear just how powerful having direct access to information is in negating
money, mainstream media capture and control, and government propaganda.
I don't know how much the new Trump presidency will change the US intelligence agency culture.
But one has to assume they are apoplectic over their failure in Syria. Billions of dollars and
years wasted all because people have direct access to information unfiltered out of Syria.
It should have a completely unremarkable US regime change operation:
Send in the NGOs to agitate locals
Make promises of support for attacks on the government by the sole world superpower
Get selectively edited footage of your collaborators on the ground being attacked by the
government(after they attacked the government)
Pump out mass amounts of propaganda based off that footage: "Simple farmers rising up to
overthrow a brutal regime!"
Wield the tremendous economic power of the US to ensure the vast majority of smaller countries
are on board with military action sanctioned by the UN
Flood the country with arms for anyone no matter how crazy to attack the government
Fake chemical attacks, US intelligence agency compromised UN reports and inspectors, etc.
All of that derailed by nothing more than people having direct access to information uncensored
out of Syria.
I think it is safe to assume the US intelligence agencies are actively working on ways to make
it illegal or impossible for anyone to publish, share, or consume 'unauthorized' information from
countries that are targets of regime change.
The easiest way would be to designate any source of information not actively working with or
approved by the US intelligence agencies will be increasingly labeled as 'terror propaganda' and
US social media and Internet providers will be required to censor or shutdown any such sources.
This "regime change" U$A foreign policy, has been implemented around the globe for many
many years now, all in the interests of big corporate profits, and global hegemony. The sad truth
seems to be, there are no signs its about to change.
I was watching a travelogue program on PBS. The trip was to Cuba. The narrator traveled by train
across the country. A train line that was originally built in the 1870s by Spain to divide the
country for defensive and control purposes. The locomotives pulling the passenger cars were 1950s
USA manufactured vintage and date to a time when our Federal Government had good economic relations
with the Batista Regiem.
When I think of the cruel and unusual economic punishment dished out to Cuba by our Federal
Government all I can see is a bunch of financially poor peasants who bear the brunt of U.S. economic
warfare. Just as in the Middle East and now Europe economic sanction wars hurt the farmer, the
small business operator, the basic family unit, etc., while rich people get richer. Isn't it about
time to back off on the economic war against Cuba and the rest of the Planet? Our collective cruelty
seems to know no bounds?
Bernhard, I should think most of us reading and commenting here have pretty much accepted the
result of the US presidential elections and are glad that Killer Klinton's ambitions have crashed
and her future seems to be in a white house with steel bar columns and uniformed prison guards.
The focus is now on President-elect Donald Trump's likely cabinet appointments, who are the
most likely choices for critical positions like Defense Secretary and State Secretary, what the
process is and how that is being carried out (or not carried out), and what that says about Trump's
leadership and decision-making style, how he plans on being President and whether his choices
are the right choices for his agenda (if it is genuine) of reforming the political culture on
Capitol Hill, or "draining the swamp".
If indeed Trump is intent on bringing changes to Capitol Hill, then there's a strong likelihood
that the Soros-funded "Color Revolution" rioting around the US East and West Coasts will come
to Washington and we'll be seeing a re-enactment of the Kiev Maidan events there.
@2 stevens..thanks for your comments. lets hope open access to information continues.. the signs
of this happening don't look great, but they remain open still.. thankfully, moa is one of many
sites where sharing info is of great benefit and continues..
meanwhile obama, merkel, hollandaze and their italian counterpart have all agreed to continue
for another year, the sanctions on russia over ukraine.. the bozo head for nato jens stalenbread
or however his name is spelled, continues on with the disingenuous musings of an old king about
to reenact a version of humpty dumpty..
meanwhile the witch hunt on acedemics, or anyone associated with gulen continues in turkey..
erdogan was visiting pakistan the past few days and i happened to read this on the usa state dept
daily transcript from yesterday in the form of a question.
Question :"Turkish President Erdogan is in Pakistan today, and he publicly suggested to Pakistan
that the West was behind ISIS in order to hurt Muslims, quote, "It is certain that Western countries
are standing by Daesh. Now Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and many others are suffering from terrorism
and separatist terrorism."What's your comment on that? Do you think it's a reasonable statement?
MR KIRBY: No, I do not."
it is pretty funny how these daily press briefings highlight usa propaganda in such a distinct
and colourful manner.. fortunately the odd journalist asks questions that lift the veil that is
constantly being thrown out by these same masters of propaganda..
If indeed Trump is intent on bringing changes to Capitol Hill, then there's a strong likelihood
that the Soros-funded "Color Revolution" rioting around the US East and West Coasts will come
to Washington and we'll be seeing a re-enactment of the Kiev Maidan events there.
No, you will not be seeing "Maidan". Middle America white (and not only) working class
men are extremely well armed and are really angry still. So, if this rioting will come to Washington,
who says that good ole' Ford Truck can not run over mountain bike of Tesla? Once the shooting
starts (hopefully not) it will be a totally different game than Kiev "Maidan". There is also a
trend, call it a hunch--most of US combat veterans from US endless wars tend to lean towards people
like Trump.
The coming conflict is between globalism and nationalism. The basic problem is numbers. Rule
by monopolistic global corporations, at best, supports 20% of the population in the short term.
It enriches the ruling elite and their servants and improvises everyone else. In the long term,
climate change or a nuclear war, brought on by the blind needs of greed, will end the world as
we know it. Brexit and the Trump Presidency proved that globalism and democracy are incompatible.
For globalism to proceed in the middle term, it will require a surveillance police state, total
propaganda, reeducation camps and the shutdown of this bar.
As a retired officer of the U.S. Navy, I would be very disappointed if a majority of the officer
corps supported Hillary. It would be very disappointing if they put their increased chances of
promotion in new wars over the good of the country. Disappointing, but not exactly surprising.
It's great that there's some dialog between Trump and Putin. I think at least Western Syria will
be cleansed of jihadis as a result.
But Trump might be a little more hard nosed in the future. After the tensions are dialed down
and having the score at basically Russia 1, US 0, he's not going to be so pliable. He sure as
fuck isn't going to throw Israel under a bus. He's not going to roll over on all American commitments
in the region.
Trump's been getting a complete rundown on the big picture. It's no secret that until recently
he couldn't have found Damascus on a map. Now he knows about the Shiite Crescent and how the arms
can flow from Iran to Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon in volumes like never before and how upsetting
that is for Israel.
Now there's action towards taking Raqqa by the Kurds and who knows who else. The US and its
posse will provide the air cover and logistics plus lots of special ops once it kicks in. I'm
surprised the Kurds bit again after taking it up the arse from the US a couple of months ago They're
not going all in right now as things are ongoing in Mosul and will be for a while. But you don't
hear Assad and the Russians squawking much about it. It's like they both know that parts of Eastern
Syria are bye-bye.
Trump's good will towards Russia certainly doesn't extend to Iran. And no American will ever
call Hezbollah anything bur a terrorist organization after the Marine barracks truck bombing in
Beirut all those years ago. If Putin and Trump are going to come to a general understanding in
the ME there's going to have to be some give and take.
Putin's done quite a turnaround in taking Russia from a pariah state a couple of years ago
to the player on the world sage that it is now. It's looking good for him to keep his man in power
in Syria and to establish a permanent presence in the ME with Khmeimim and Tartus. Once Trump
is fully up to speed on the totality of American interests in the region he is bound by his office
not to walk away from them. There will have to be some serious deal-making.
Putin's done quite a turnaround in taking Russia from a pariah state a couple of years ago
to the player on the world sage that it is now.
Your timeline is a bit off. The coming of Putin was a direct result of NATO's 1999 aggression
against Yugoslavia, while War of 08-08-08 was the start of Russia's return into big league. So,
it is not a "couple of years". Results of War of 080808 actually stunned DC's neocon interventionist
cabal.
Buzzfeed did some analysis on Social media generated fake news during the election. An awful
lot of it was simply false. You can look at some of those headlines and judge for yourself.
Ironically, Paul Horner (guy behind "fake news empire" I linked in prior post) said:
He said he didn't do it for ideological reasons. "I hate Trump," he told The Post. "I thought
I was messing with the campaign, maybe I wasn't messing them up as much as I wanted - but I
never thought he'd actually get elected."
Just happens 70% + of fake news this election cycle (according to Buzzfeed) was anti-Clinton.
....and how the arms can flow from Libya and Zio-Ukraine to ISIS in Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon
in volumes like never before and how 'upsetting'(sic) that is for Israel.
Yeah, 'upsetting' to the Israel Likud former-Soviet mafia which fully supports ISIS and maintains
'Hezbullah' straw dog, to keep UN forces out of Greater Israel and torpedo the Two-State Solution
and the Right-of-Return agreements which Netanyahu freely boasted he lied about supporting.
MoA isn't another Likud psyop disinformation campaign for the new Trump-Israel First Regime.
Remember it was your team's counterfeit Yellow Cake Big Lie that assassinated the Baathists, and
paved the way for Shi'ia's defensive action against the Bush-Cheney IL Wahhabi's usurpers and
crusaders. You theory will do much better on Breitbart.
@2 Stevens, 'All of that derailed by nothing more than people having direct access to information
uncensored out of Syria.'
The US/GCC/NATO were on track and heading in for the kill before Russia stepped in. Americans
don't care who is devastated and destroyed by 'globalization' ... other than themselves.
Bernie's candidacy was proof of that: not a word on foreign policy. All the information in the
world won't change that. Americans don't put people living outside the US in the same category
as themselves. God put them all those others 'out there' to be killed by Americans ... when they
'need' killin'.
Italian Referendum next up - Renzi on the way out?
In a sense it's a bit of a pity because to me Renzi seems the least objectionable of the leaders
of the EU Big 6 - Merkel, Hollande, May, Rajoy, Rutte & Renzi.
He actually looks good when compared to the rest of them!
The House Foreign Affairs Committee pushing for war. This is what Trump has to deal with....
"The bill also sets the stage for the implementation of so-called safe zones and a no-fly zone
over Syria. It requires the administration to "submit to the appropriate congressional committee"
a report that "assesses the potential effectiveness, risks and operational requirements of the
establishment and maintenance of a no-fly zone over part of all of Syria." Further, the bill calls
for the administration to detail the "operational and legal requirements for US and coalition
air power to establish a no-fly zone in Syria."
P. Bret Chiafalo, a Washington State elector who has already declared his opposition to Hillary Clinton,
and Micheal Baca of Colorado have launched what they've dubbed "Moral Electors," an attempt to persuade
37 of their Republican colleagues to bail on Trump - just enough to block Trump's election and leave
the final decision to the House of Representatives. They have the support of a
third elector , Washington State's Robert Satiacum.
Story Continued Below
"This is a longshot. It's a Hail Mary," Chiafalo said in a phone interview. "However, I do see
situations where - when we've already had two or three [Republican] electors state publicly they
didn't want to vote for Trump. How many of them have real issues with Donald Trump in private?" Chiafalo,
a self-described "regular nerdy dude who works for Microsoft" and Baca, a grad student and Marine
Corps veteran, insist they're not seeking the election of Clinton - or even a Democrat. Both, in
fact, had already been considering voting against her when the Electoral College meets in five weeks.
Rather, they intend to encourage Republican electors to write in Mitt Romney or John Kasich. If enough
agree, the election would be sent to the House of Representatives, which would choose from among
the top three vote-getters.
Both men acknowledge that their effort is unlikely to succeed.
In the United States, rising inequality has been a fact of life at least since the 1970s, when
the relatively equitable distribution of economic benefits from the early post-World War II era started
to become skewed. In the late 1990s, when digital technologies began to automate and disintermediate
more routine jobs, the shift toward higher wealth and income inequality became turbocharged.
Globalization played a role. In the 20 years before the 2008 financial crisis, manufacturing employment
in the US rapidly declined in every sector except pharmaceuticals, even as added value in manufacturing
rose. Net jobs loss was kept roughly at zero only because employment in services increased.
In fact, much of the added value in manufacturing actually comes from services such as product
design, research and development, and marketing. So, if we account for this value-chain composition,
the decline in manufacturing – the production of tangible goods – is even more pronounced.
Economists have been tracking these trends for some time. Massachusetts Institute of Technology
economist David Autor and his colleagues have
carefully documented
the impact of globalization and labor-saving digital technologies on routine jobs. More recently,
French economist
Thomas
Piketty 's international bestseller,
Capital in
the Twenty-First Century , dramatically widened our awareness of wealth inequality and described
possible underlying forces driving it. The brilliant, award-winning young economists
Raj Chetty and
Emmanuel Saez have enriched the discussion
with new research. And I have
written about some of the structural economic shifts associated with these problems.
Eventually, journalists picked up on these trends, too, and it would now be hard to find anyone
who has not heard of the "1%" – shorthand for those at the top of the global wealth and income scales.
Many people now worry about a bifurcated society: a thriving global class of elites at the top and
a stressed-out class comprising everyone else. Still, despite these long trends, the political and
policy status quo remained largely unchallenged until 2008.
To understand why it took politics so long to catch up to economic realities, we should look at
incentives and ideology. With respect to incentives, politicians have not been given a good enough
reason to address unequal distribution patterns. The US has relatively weak campaign-finance limits,
so corporations and wealthy individuals – neither of which generally prioritizes income redistribution
– have contributed a disproportionate share to politicians' campaign war chests.
Ideologically, many people are simply suspicious of expansive government. They recognize inequality
as a problem, and in principle they support government policies that provide high-quality education
and health-care services, but they do not trust politicians or bureaucrats. In their eyes, governments
are inefficient and self-interested at best, and dictatorial and oppressive at worst.
All of this began to change with the rise of digital technologies and the Internet, but especially
with the advent of social media. As US President Barack Obama showed in the 2008 election cycle –
followed by Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump in the current cycle – it is now possible to finance
a very expensive campaign without "big money."
As a result, there is a growing disconnect between big money and political incentives; and while
money is still a part of the political process, influence itself no longer belongs exclusively to
corporations and wealthy individuals. Social-media platforms now enable large groups of people to
mobilize in ways reminiscent of mass political movements in earlier eras. Such platforms may have
reduced the cost of political organizing, and thus candidates' overall dependence on money, while
providing an efficient alternative fund-raising channel.
This new reality is here to stay, and, regardless of who wins the US election this year, anyone
who is unhappy with high inequality will have a voice, the ability to finance it, and the power to
affect policymaking. So, too, will other groups that focus on similar issues, such as environmental
sustainability, which has not been a major focus in the current US presidential campaign (the three
debates between the candidates included no discussion of climate change, for example), but surely
will be in the future.
All told, digital technology is shuffling economic structures and rebalancing power relationships
in the world's democracies – even in institutions once thought to be dominated by money and wealth.
A large, newly influential constituency should be welcomed. But it cannot be a substitute for
wise leadership, and its existence does not guarantee prudent policies. As political priorities continue
to rebalance, we will need to devise creative solutions to solve our hardest problems, and to prevent
populist misrule. One hopes that this is the course we are on now.
Michael Spence, a Nobel laureate in economics, is Professor of Economics at NYU's Stern
School of Business, Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Senior Fellow
at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, Academic Board Chairman of the Asia Global Institute
in Hong Kong, and Chair of the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on New Growth Models. He
was the chairman of the independent Commission on Growth and Development, an international body that
from 2006-2010 analyzed opportunities for global economic growth, and is the author of
The Next Convergence – The Future of Economic
Growth in a Multispeed World
Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make
the Rich Richer
By Dean Baker
Introduction: Trading in Myths
In winter 2016, near the peak of Bernie Sanders' bid for the Democratic presidential
nomination, a new line became popular among the nation's policy elite: Bernie Sanders is
the enemy of the world's poor. Their argument was that Sanders, by pushing trade policies
to help U.S. workers, specifically manufacturing workers, risked undermining the well-being
of the world's poor because exporting manufactured goods to the United States and other
wealthy countries is their path out of poverty. The role model was China, which by
exporting has largely eliminated extreme poverty and drastically reduced poverty among its
population. Sanders and his supporters would block the rest of the developing world from
following the same course.
This line, in its Sanders-bashing permutation, appeared early on in Vox, the
millennial-oriented media upstart, and was quickly picked up elsewhere (Beauchamp 2016).
After all, it was pretty irresistible. The ally of the downtrodden and enemy of the rich
was pushing policies that would condemn much of the world to poverty.
The story made a nice contribution to preserving the status quo, but it was less
valuable if you respect honesty in public debate.
The problem in the logic of this argument should be apparent to anyone who has taken an
introductory economics course. It assumes that the basic problem of manufacturing workers
in the developing world is the need for someone who will buy their stuff. If people in the
United States don't buy it, then the workers will be out on the street and growth in the
developing world will grind to a halt. In this story, the problem is that we don't have
enough people in the world to buy stuff. In other words, there is a shortage of demand. But
is it really true that no one else in the world would buy the stuff produced by
manufacturing workers in the developing world if they couldn't sell it to consumers in the
United States? Suppose people in the developing world bought the stuff they produced
raising their living standards by raising their own consumption.
That is how the economics is supposed to work. In the standard theory, general shortages
of demand are not a problem. Economists have traditionally assumed that economies tended
toward full employment. The basic economic constraint was a lack of supply. The problem was
that we couldn't produce enough goods and services, not that we were producing too much and
couldn't find anyone to buy them. In fact, this is why all the standard models used to
analyze trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership assume trade doesn't affect
total employment. Economies adjust so that shortages of demand are not a problem.
In this standard story (and the Sanders critics are people who care about textbook
economics), capital flows from slow-growing rich countries, where it is relatively
plentiful and so gets a low rate of return, to fast-growing poor countries, where it is
scarce and gets a high rate of return.
[Figure 1-1] Theoretical and actual capital flows.
So the United States, Japan, and the European Union should be running large trade
surpluses, which is what an outflow of capital means. Rich countries like ours should be
lending money to developing countries, providing them with the means to build up their
capital stock and infrastructure while they use their own resources to meet their people's
basic needs.
This wasn't just theory. That story accurately described much of the developing world,
especially Asia, through the 1990s. Countries like Indonesia and Malaysia were experiencing
rapid annual growth of 7.8 percent and 9.6 percent, respectively, even as they ran large
trade deficits, just over 2 percent of GDP each year in Indonesia and almost 5 percent in
Malaysia.
These trade deficits probably were excessive, and a crisis of confidence hit East Asia
and much of the developing world in the summer of 1997. The inflow of capital from rich
countries slowed or reversed, making it impossible for the developing countries to sustain
the fixed exchange rates most had at the time. One after another, they were forced to
abandon their fixed exchange rates and turn to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for
help.
Rather than promulgating policies that would allow developing countries to continue the
textbook development path of growth driven by importing capital and running trade deficits,
the IMF made debt repayment a top priority. The bailout, under the direction of the Clinton
administration Treasury Department, required developing countries to switch to large trade
surpluses (Radelet and Sachs 2000, O'Neil 1999).
The countries of East Asia would be far richer today had they been allowed to continue
on the growth path of the early and mid-1990s, when they had large trade deficits. Four of
the five would be more than twice as rich, and the fifth, Vietnam, would be almost 50
percent richer. South Korea and Malaysia would have higher per capita incomes today than
the United States.
[Figure 1-2] Per capita income of East Asian countries, actual vs. continuing on 1990s
growth path.
In the wake of the East Asia bailout, countries throughout the developing world decided
they had to build up reserves of foreign exchange, primarily dollars, in order to avoid
ever facing the same harsh bailout terms as the countries of East Asia. Building up
reserves meant running large trade surpluses, and it is no coincidence that the U.S. trade
deficit has exploded, rising from just over 1 percent of GDP in 1996 to almost 6 percent in
2005. The rise has coincided with the loss of more than 3 million manufacturing jobs,
roughly 20 percent of employment in the sector.
There was no reason the textbook growth pattern of the 1990s could not have continued.
It wasn't the laws of economics that forced developing countries to take a different path,
it was the failed bailout and the international financial system. It would seem that the
enemy of the world's poor is not Bernie Sanders but rather the engineers of our current
globalization policies.
There is a further point in this story that is generally missed: it is not only the
volume of trade flows that is determined by policy, but also the content. A major push in
recent trade deals has been to require stronger and longer patent and copyright protection.
Paying the fees imposed by these terms, especially for prescription drugs, is a huge burden
on the developing world. Bill Clinton would have much less need to fly around the world for
the Clinton Foundation had he not inserted the TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights) provisions in the World Trade Organization (WTO) that require developing
countries to adopt U.S.-style patent protections. Generic drugs are almost always cheap -
patent protection makes drugs expensive. The cancer and hepatitis drugs that sell for tens
or hundreds of thousands of dollars a year would sell for a few hundred dollars in a free
market. Cheap drugs would be more widely available had the developed world not forced TRIPS
on the developing world.
Of course, we have to pay for the research to develop new drugs or any innovation. We
also have to compensate creative workers who produce music, movies, and books. But there
are efficient alternatives to patents and copyrights, and the efforts by the elites in the
United States and other wealthy countries to impose these relics on the developing world is
just a mechanism for redistributing income from the world's poor to Pfizer, Microsoft, and
Disney. Stronger and longer patent and copyright protection is not a necessary feature of a
21st century economy.
In textbook trade theory, if a country has a larger trade surplus on payments for
royalties and patent licensing fees, it will have a larger trade deficit in manufactured
goods and other areas. The reason is that, in theory, the trade balance is fixed by
national savings and investment, not by the ability of a country to export in a particular
area. If the trade deficit is effectively fixed by these macroeconomic factors, then more
exports in one area mean fewer exports in other areas. Put another way, income gains for
Pfizer and Disney translate into lost jobs for workers in the steel and auto industries....
It includes this interesting piece on international trade:
"I'll start with my favorite, the complaint that the trade policy advocating by Warren
and Sanders would hurt the poor in the developing world, or to use their words:
"And their ostensible protection of American workers leaves no room to consider the welfare
of poor people elsewhere in the world."
I like this one because it turns standard economic theory on its head to advance the
interests of the rich and powerful. In the economic textbooks, rich countries like the
United States are supposed to be exporting capital to the developing world. This provides
them the means to build up their capital stock and infrastructure, while maintaining the
living standards of their populations. This is the standard economic story where the
problem is scarcity.
But to justify trade policies that have harmed tens of millions of U.S. workers, either
by costing them jobs or depressing their wages, the Post discards standard economics and
tells us the problem facing people in the developing world is that there is too much stuff.
If we didn't buy the goods produced in the developing world then there would just be a
massive glut of unsold products.
In the standard theory the people in the developing world buy their own stuff, with rich
countries like the U.S. providing the financing. It actually did work this way in the
1990s, up until the East Asian financial crisis in 1997. In that period, countries like
Malaysia, Vietnam, and Indonesia were growing very rapidly while running large trade
deficits. This pattern of growth was ended by the terms of the bailout imposed on these
countries by the U.S. Treasury Department through the International Monetary Fund.
The harsh terms of the bailout forced these and other developing countries to reverse
the standard textbook path and start running large trade surpluses. This post-bailout
period was associated with slower growth for these countries. In other words, the poor of
the developing world suffered from the pattern of trade the Post advocates. If they had
continued on the pre-bailout path they would be much richer today. In fact, South Korea and
Malaysia would be richer than the United States if they had maintained their pre-bailout
growth rate over the last two decades. (This is the topic of the introduction to my new
book, Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make
the Rich Richer, it's free.)"
Not sure that I fully agree with him, but I do agree that trade imbalances and
mercantilism is a large part of the problem.
The Washington Post editorial page decided to lecture readers * on the meaning of
progressivism. Okay, that is nowhere near as bad as a Trump presidency, but really, did we
need this?
The editorial gives us a potpourri of neo-liberal (yes, the term is appropriate here)
platitudes, all of which we have heard many times before and are best half true. For
framing, the villains are Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren who it tells us "are
embracing principles that are not genuinely progressive."
I'll start with my favorite, the complaint that the trade policy advocating by Warren
and Sanders would hurt the poor in the developing world, or to use their words:
"And their ostensible protection of American workers leaves no room to consider the
welfare of poor people elsewhere in the world."
I like this one because it turns standard economic theory on its head to advance the
interests of the rich and powerful. In the economic textbooks, rich countries like the
United States are supposed to be exporting capital to the developing world. This provides
them the means to build up their capital stock and infrastructure, while maintaining the
living standards of their populations. This is the standard economic story where the
problem is scarcity.
But to justify trade policies that have harmed tens of millions of U.S. workers, either
by costing them jobs or depressing their wages, the Post discards standard economics and
tells us the problem facing people in the developing world is that there is too much stuff.
If we didn't buy the goods produced in the developing world then there would just be a
massive glut of unsold products.
In the standard theory the people in the developing world buy their own stuff, with rich
countries like the U.S. providing the financing. It actually did work this way in the
1990s, up until the East Asian financial crisis in 1997. In that period, countries like
Malaysia, Vietnam, and Indonesia were growing very rapidly while running large trade
deficits. This pattern of growth was ended by the terms of the bailout imposed on these
countries by the U.S. Treasury Department through the International Monetary Fund.
The harsh terms of the bailout forced these and other developing countries to reverse
the standard textbook path and start running large trade surpluses. This post-bailout
period was associated with slower growth for these countries. In other words, the poor of
the developing world suffered from the pattern of trade the Post advocates. If they had
continued on the pre-bailout path they would be much richer today. In fact, South Korea and
Malaysia would be richer than the United States if they had maintained their pre-bailout
growth rate over the last two decades. (This is the topic of the introduction to my new
book, "Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to
Make the Rich Richer," ** it's free.)
It is also important to note that the Post is only bothered by forms of protection that
might help working class people. The United States prohibits foreign doctors from
practicing in the United States unless they complete a U.S. residency program. (The total
number of slots are tightly restricted with only a small fraction open to foreign trained
doctors.) This is a classic protectionist measure. No serious person can believe that the
only way for a person to be a competent doctor is to complete a U.S. residency program. It
costs the United States around $100 billion a year ($700 per family) in higher medical
expenses. Yet, we never hear a word about this or other barriers that protect the most
highly paid professionals from the same sort of international competition faced by
steelworkers and textile workers.
Moving on, we get yet another Post tirade on Social Security.
"You can expand benefits for everyone, as Ms. Warren favors. Prosperous retirees who
live mostly off their well-padded 401(k)s will appreciate what to them will feel like a
small bonus, if they notice it. But spreading wealth that way will make it harder to find
the resources for the vulnerable elderly who truly depend on Social Security.
"But demographics - the aging of the population - cannot be wished away. In the 1960s,
about five taxpayers were helping to support each Social Security recipient, and the
economy was growing about 6 percent annually. Today there are fewer than three workers for
each pensioner, and the growth rate even following the 2008 recession has averaged about 2
percent . On current trends, 10 years from now the federal government will be spending
almost all its money on Medicare, Social Security and other entitlements and on interest
payments on the debt, leaving less and less for schools, housing and job training. There is
nothing progressive about that."
There are all sorts of misleading or wrong claims here. First, the economy did not grow
"about 6 percent annually" in the 1960s. There were three years in which growth did exceed
6.0 percent, and it was a very prosperous decade, but growth only averaged 4.6 percent from
1960 to 1970.
I suppose we should be happy that the Post is at least getting closer to the mark. A
2007 editorial *** praising The North American Free Trade Agreement told readers that
Mexico's GDP "has more than quadrupled since 1987." The International Monetary Fund data
**** put the gain at 83 percent. So by comparison, they are doing pretty good with the 6
percent growth number for the sixties.
But getting to the demographics, we did go from more than five workers for every retiree
to less than three today, and this number is projected to fall further to around 2.0
workers per retiree in the next fifteen years. This raises the obvious question, so what?
The economy did not collapse even as we saw the fall from 5 workers per retiree to less
than 3, so something really really bad happens when it falls further? We did raise taxes to
cover the additional cost and we will probably have to raise taxes in the future.
We get that the Post doesn't like tax increases (no one does), but this hardly seems
like the end of the world. The Social Security Trustees project ***** that real wages will
rise on average by more than 34 percent over the next two decades. Suppose we took back
5–10 percent of these projected wage gains through tax increases (still leaving workers
with wages that are more than 30 percent higher than they are today), what is the big
problem?
Of course most workers have not seen their wages rise in step with the economy's growth
over the last four decades. This is a huge issue which is the sort of thing that
progressives should be and are focusing on. But the Post would rather distract us with the
possibility that at some point in the future we may be paying a somewhat higher Social
Security tax.
The Post's route for savings is also classic misdirection. It tells how about
high-living seniors who get so much money from their 401(k)s they don't even notice their
Social Security checks. Only a bit more than 4.0 percent of the over 65 population has
non-Social Security income of more than $80,000 a year. If the point is to have substantial
savings from means-testing it would be necessary to hit people with incomes around $40,000
a year or even lower. That is not what most people consider wealthy.
We could have substantial savings on Medicare by pushing down the pay of doctors and
reducing the prices of drugs and medical equipment. The latter could be done by
substituting public financing for research and development for government granted patent
monopolies (also discussed in Rigged). These items would almost invariably be cheap in a
free market. But the Post seems uninterested in ways to save money that could affect the
incomes of the rich.
One can quibble with whether the current benefits for middle income people are right or
should be somewhat higher or lower, but it is ridiculous to argue that raising them $50 a
month, as proposed by Senator Warren, will break the bank.
Then we have the issue of free college. The Post raises the issue, pushed by Senator
Sanders in his presidential campaign, and then tells readers:
"Our answer - we would argue, the progressive answer - is that there are people in
society with far greater needs than that upper-middle-class family in Fairfax County that
would be relieved of its tuition burden at the College of William & Mary if Mr. Sanders got
his wish."
There are two points to be made here. First there is extensive research ****** showing
that many children from low- and moderate-income families hugely over-estimate the cost of
college, failing to realize that they would be eligible for financial aid that would make
it free or nearly free. This means that the current structure is preventing many relatively
disadvantaged children from attending college. Arguably better education on the
opportunities to get aid would solve this problem, but the problem has existed for a long
time and better education has not done much to change the picture thus far.
The second point is that the process of determining eligibility for aid is itself
costly. Many children have divorced parents, with a non-custodial parent often not anxious
to pay for their children's college. Perhaps it is appropriate that they should pay, but
forcing payment is not an easy task and it doesn't make sense to make the children in such
situations suffer.
In many ways, the free college solution is likely to be the easiest, with the tax coming
out of the income of higher earners, the vast majority of whom will be the beneficiaries of
this policy. There are ways to save on paying for college. My favorite is limiting the pay
of anyone at a public school to the salary of the president of the United States ($400,000
a year). We can also deny the privilege of tax exempt status to private universities or
other non-profits that don't accept a similar salary cap. These folks can pay their top
executives whatever they want, but they shouldn't ask the taxpayers to subsidize their
exorbitant pay packages.
There is one final issue in the column worth noting. At one point it makes a pitch for
the virtues of economic growth then tells readers:
"It's not in conflict with the goal of redistribution."
At least some of us progressive types are not particularly focused on "redistribution."
The focus of my book and much of my other writing is on the way that the market has been
structured to redistribute income upward, compared with the structures in place in the
quarter century after World War II. Is understandable that people who are basically very
satisfied with this upward redistribution of market income would not want this rigging of
the market even to be discussed, but serious progressives do.
Although I like much of what
Dean Baker, I don't like his term "loser liberalism", nor do I think his de-emphasis on
redistribution useful. Au contraire, I think talking about redistribution is absolutely
essential if we are to move to sustainable world. We can no longer be certain that per
person GDP growth will be sufficient to be able to ignore distribution or to rely on
"predistribution".
The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive
By Dean Baker
Upward Redistribution of Income: It Didn't Just Happen
Money does not fall up. Yet the United States has experienced a massive upward
redistribution of income over the last three decades, leaving the bulk of the workforce
with little to show from the economic growth since 1980. This upward redistribution was not
the result of the natural workings of the market. Rather, it was the result of deliberate
policy, most of which had the support of the leadership of both the Republican and
Democratic parties.
Unfortunately, the public and even experienced progressive political figures are not
well informed about the key policies responsible for this upward redistribution, even
though they are not exactly secrets. The policies are so well established as conventional
economic policy that we tend to think of them as incontrovertibly virtuous things, but each
has a dark side. An anti-inflation policy by the Federal Reserve Board, which relies on
high interest rates, slows growth and throws people out of work. Major trade deals hurt
manufacturing workers by putting them in direct competition with low-paid workers in the
developing world. A high dollar makes U.S. goods uncompetitive in world markets.
Almost any economist would acknowledge these facts, but few economists have explored
their implications and explained them to the general public. As a result, most of us have
little understanding of the economic policies that have the largest impact on our jobs, our
homes, and our lives. Instead, public debate and the most hotly contested legislation in
Congress tend to be about issues that will have relatively little impact.
This lack of focus on crucial economic issues is a serious problem from the standpoint
of advancing a progressive agenda....
What is the Democratic Party's former constituency of labor and progressive reformers to do?
Are they to stand by and let the party be captured in Hillary's wake by Robert Rubin's Goldman
Sachs-Citigroup gang that backed her and Obama?
The 2016 election sounded the death knell for the identity politics. Its aim was to persuade
voters not to think of their identity in economic terms, but to think of themselves as women or
as racial and ethnic groups first and foremost, not as having common economic interests. This
strategy to distract voters from economic policies has obviously failed...
This election showed that voters have a sense of when they're being lied to. After eight years of
Obama's demagogy, pretending to support the people but delivering his constituency to his
financial backers on Wall Street. 'Identity politics' has given way to the stronger force of
economic distress. Mobilizing identity politics behind a Wall Street program will no longer
work."
President Barack Obama said Wednesday that America's election of Donald Trump and the U.K.'s
vote to leave the European Union reflect a political uprising in the West over economic
inequities spawned by leaders' mishandling of globalization.
"... Already, motor-vehicle manufacturers ship an automotive transmission back and forth across the US-Mexican border several times in the course of production. At some point, unpacking that production process still further will reach the point of diminishing returns. ..."
"... The story for cross-border flows of financial capital is even more dramatic. Gross capital flows – the sum of inflows and outflows – are not just growing more slowly; they are down significantly in absolute terms from 2009 levels. ..."
"... ... cross-border bank lending and borrowing that have fallen. Foreign direct investment – financial flows to build foreign factories and acquire foreign companies – remains at pre-crisis levels. ..."
"... This difference reflects regulation. Having concluded, rightly, that cross-border bank lending is especially risky, regulators clamped down on banks' international operations. ..."
Does Donald Trump's election as United States president mean that globalization is dead, or are
reports of the process' demise greatly exaggerated? If globalization is only partly incapacitated,
not terminally ill, should we worry? How much will slower trade growth, now in the offing, matter
for the global economy?
World trade growth would be slowing down, even without Trump in office. Its growth was already
flat in the first quarter of 2016, and it fell
by nearly 1% in the second quarter. This continues a prior trend: since 2010, global trade has
grown at an annual rate of barely 2%. Together with the fact that worldwide production of goods and
services has been rising by more than 3%, this means that the trade-to-GDP ratio has been falling,
in contrast to its steady upward march in earlier years.
... the resurgent protectionism manifest in popular opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership
(TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP),
Causality in economics may be elusive, but in this case it is clear. So far, slower trade growth
has been the result of slower GDP growth, not the other way around.
This is particularly evident in the case of investment spending, which has
fallen sharply since
the global financial crisis. Investment spending is trade-intensive, because countries rely disproportionately
on a relatively small handful of producers, like Germany, for technologically sophisticated capital
goods.
In addition, slower trade growth reflects China's economic deceleration. Until 2011 China was
growing at double-digit rates, and Chinese exports and imports were growing even faster. China's
growth has now slowed by a third, leading to slower growth of Chinese trade.
China's growth miracle, benefiting a fifth of the earth's population, is the most important economic
event of the last quarter-century. But it can happen only once. And now that the phase of catch-up
growth is over for China, this engine of global trade will slow.
The other engine of world trade has been global supply chains. Trade in parts and components has
benefited from falling transport costs, reflecting containerization and related advances in logistics.
But efficiency in shipping is unlikely to continue to improve faster than efficiency in the production
of what is being shipped. Already, motor-vehicle manufacturers ship an automotive transmission
back and forth across the US-Mexican border several times in the course of production. At some point,
unpacking that production process still further will reach the point of diminishing returns.
The story for cross-border flows of financial capital is even more dramatic. Gross capital
flows – the sum of inflows and outflows – are not just growing more slowly; they are down significantly
in absolute terms from 2009 levels.
... cross-border bank lending and borrowing that have fallen. Foreign direct investment –
financial flows to build foreign factories and acquire foreign companies – remains at pre-crisis
levels.
This difference reflects regulation. Having concluded, rightly, that cross-border bank lending
is especially risky, regulators clamped down on banks' international operations.
In response, many banks curtailed their cross-border business. But, rather than alarming anyone,
this should be seen as reassuring, because the riskiest forms of international finance have been
curtailed without disrupting more stable and productive forms of foreign investment.
We now face the prospect of the US government revoking the Dodd-Frank Act and rolling back the
financial reforms of recent years. Less stringent financial regulation may make for the recovery
of international capital flows. But we should be careful what we wish for.
"... Pompeo was close to Trump's running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who served with Pompeo in the House. Last month, Pompeo helped prepare Pence for the vice presidential debate with Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia. ..."
"... Pompeo is a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence and one of the most vocal critics of the Obama administration's nuclear deal with Iran. ..."
"... He's a supporter of the National Security Agency's controversial bulk data collection program and sought to restore the agency's access to the data it had already collected under the Patriot Act from its inception through late last year. ..."
"... He was elected to Congress in 2010 on a wave of tea party support and with backing from the Koch Industries political action committee. The Wichita-based conglomerate's PAC is well known for its support of conservative candidates. ..."
"... Though Pompeo is generally known for his opposition to Obama administration policies, he's occasionally given heat to some fellow Republicans. Last year, his name was floated as a potential rival to Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin to become House speaker. ..."
"... Pompeo has sponsored numerous bills that would maintain or increase sanctions on Iran over its nuclear weapons program. He's been a staunch opponent of the deal negotiated by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry that eases sanctions in exchange for dismantling the nuclear weapons program. ..."
"... Pompeo has served on the House Select Benghazi Committee. ..."
"... When the committee released its report on the attack in June, Pompeo and Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio released a separate report that was even more sharply critical of Clinton's handling of the affair. They wrote that Clinton intentionally misled Americans about the nature of the attack because Obama was up for re-election. ..."
"... Pompeo has made some controversial statements about Muslims. Weeks after the Boston marathon bombing in 2013, in a speech on the House floor, he not only accused Islamic faith leaders of not doing enough to condemn terrorist attacks, but also suggested they might be encouraging them. ..."
"... Couldn't give a fiddlers fuck about the issues of global warming at this stage and crisis we now face. I just want to know if the asshole is stupid enough to use NATO to get energy for this Country that neither we nor the Saudi's have any longer. ..."
"... If Trump is smart he will engage detente with the Russians at the expense of all of his war mongering staff. ..."
"... Looks like Trump decided to sell us down the river rather than drain the swamp. And now we're caught between his thugs and an army of crazy children in the streets. ..."
"... The buck still stops with Trump and he isn't even in office yet for anyone to judge him fairly. For me that means he gets a year or two. Further, he's a smart guy and I never assumed he was going to bring in 4000+ newbies into his administration. The fucking wheels would lock up immediately. He knows this. He needs competent, loyal people in these roles, period. ..."
"... Trump is already showing himself through his choices. This guy is a hard liner in the push for the govt to trample the constitution and treat the citizens like serfs. ..."
"... The advantage of the Trump win is the exposure that has already happened. The Ds and Rs have been exposed. MSM has been exposed for extreme bias. The rats that double down on their anti-Trump rhetoric think they are hiding their own crimes when really they are exposing themselves for all the world to see. The "Love Trumps Hate" protestors are exposing all their own hypocrisy for all the world to see. ..."
"... Appointing a member of the Bengazhi committee to run the CIA means Hillary is completely FUCKED though. That's a bonus, a big one. ..."
Moments after Donald Trump offered the Attorney General spot to senator Jeff Sessions (which he promptly
accepted), it was announced that Trump had also picked rep. Mike Pompeo as CIA director, who likewise
accepted.
Trump has offered position of CIA director to US Rep Mike Pompeo and Pompeo has accepted -transition
official
The selection of Pompeo, a three-term Republican from Wichita, started earlier this week when
he met with Donald Trump, according to the president-elect's transition team. Now we know what the
meetings were about. Courtesy of
McClatchy , here is profile of the new director of America's top spy agency:
* * *
Pompeo originally supported Florida Sen. Marco Rubio's presidential bid. Like most of his Kansas
colleagues, Pompeo backed Trump when it was clear the New York real-estate developer would become
the Republican presidential nominee, though not enthusiastically.
But Pompeo was close to Trump's running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who served with Pompeo
in the House. Last month, Pompeo helped prepare Pence for the vice presidential debate with Sen.
Tim Kaine of Virginia.
The most prominent Kansas elected official to endorse Trump early on was Secretary of State Kris
Kobach, now a member of the Trump transition team and a possible candidate for U.S. Attorney General.
Republican Gov. Sam Brownback and recently defeated Rep. Tim Huelskamp are both potential picks
for agriculture secretary.
Pompeo is a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence and one of the most vocal
critics of the Obama administration's nuclear deal with Iran.
He's a supporter of the National Security Agency's controversial bulk data collection program
and sought to restore the agency's access to the data it had already collected under the Patriot
Act from its inception through late last year.
He's a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and Harvard Law School. He's also a
member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Pompeo, who grew up in the traditionally Republican enclave of Orange County, California, founded
Thayer Aerospace, a company that made parts for commercial and military aircraft. After selling Thayer,
he became president of Sentry International, a company that manufactures and sells equipment used
in oil fields.
He was elected to Congress in 2010 on a wave of tea party support and with backing from the Koch
Industries political action committee. The Wichita-based conglomerate's PAC is well known for its
support of conservative candidates.
Though Pompeo is generally known for his opposition to Obama administration policies, he's occasionally
given heat to some fellow Republicans. Last year, his name was floated as a potential rival to Rep.
Paul Ryan of Wisconsin to become House speaker.
Earlier this year, he briefly flirted with a primary challenge to Kansas Sen. Jerry Moran after
the state's junior senator appeared to break with Senate Republican opposition to Obama's Supreme
Court nomination of Merrick Garland.
Joe Romance, an associate professor of political science at Fort Hays State University, said it
makes sense for Pompeo to consider a job in the executive branch, given the way the stage is set
from Kansas to Washington in the next several years.
"He's ambitious," Romance said. "Jerry Moran just got reelected. Roberts is not up until 2020.
So where do you need to move? And I don't think Ryan's going anywhere as speaker. So why not?"
Pompeo has sponsored numerous bills that would maintain or increase sanctions on Iran over
its nuclear weapons program. He's been a staunch opponent of the deal negotiated by President Barack
Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry that eases sanctions in exchange for dismantling the nuclear
weapons program.
In February, Pompeo and two of his Republican House colleagues unsuccessfully sought visas to
monitor the country's elections.
When Iran detained a group of American sailors earlier whose ship had wandered into its territorial
waters earlier this year, Pompeo introduced a bill requiring the Obama administration to investigate
whether Iran violated the Geneva Convention. It didn't become law. The sailors were not harmed, and
the Navy later concluded that the sailors had entered Iran's waters by mistake.
Pompeo has served on the House Select Benghazi Committee. The special panel was created in 2014 to probe the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Libya that killed
four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. One of its key targets was former Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton, on whose watch the attack had occurred.
When the committee released its report on the attack in June, Pompeo and Republican Rep. Jim Jordan
of Ohio released a separate report that was even more sharply critical of Clinton's handling of the
affair. They wrote that Clinton intentionally misled Americans about the nature of the attack because
Obama was up for re-election.
"Officials at the State Department, including Secretary Clinton, learned almost in real time that
the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack," Pompeo and Jordan wrote. "With the presidential election
just 56 days away, rather than tell the American people the truth and increase the risk of losing
an election, the administration told one story privately and a different story publicly."
Pompeo has made some controversial statements about Muslims. Weeks after the Boston marathon bombing
in 2013, in a speech on the House floor, he not only accused Islamic faith leaders of not doing enough
to condemn terrorist attacks, but also suggested they might be encouraging them.
"When the most devastating terrorist attacks on America in the last 20 years come overwhelmingly
from people of a single faith, and are performed in the name of that faith, a special obligation
falls on those that are the leaders of that faith," Pompeo said. " Instead of responding, silence
has made these Islamic leaders across America potentially complicit in these acts and more importantly
still, in those that may well follow."
But last month, three militiamen were arrested in western Kansas in an alleged plot to blow up
an apartment complex that's home to Somali Muslim refugees.
Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said statements like
Pompeo's were detrimental to policies that keep all Americans safe.
"We believe it's counterproductive to our nation's safety and security because they will act based
on their faulty perceptions of Muslims and Islam," Hooper said, "and will not carry out policies
based on accurate and balanced information."
Yep... Like all the rest that pass through the "revolving doors" of D.C. he'll feather his nest
and continue "killing some folks" and "torturing some folks".
Only not in Syria or Ukraine -that is for certain!
some of his opinions are concerning but a quick bio read in wikipedia showed some pretty well
reasoned unorthodox stances.
he's not a global warming sycophant, nor particularly doctrinaire in things energy. but a bulk
collection fan..I was really hoping for someone with a track record of following the fourth amendment.
Couldn't give a fiddlers fuck about the issues of global warming at this stage and crisis
we now face. I just want to know if the asshole is stupid enough to use NATO to get energy for
this Country that neither we nor the Saudi's have any longer.
We'll know these cocksuckers are sincere when they tell us the truth about the "riches of bakken
oil" is 10 years and not 100 and that the systemic looting operation in the ME using our military
is counter productive given the tradeoff of war with the Russians and the accumulated debt to
fund our misadventures that will never find a buyer!
Let me preface this by saying I find bulk collection totally an affront to the constitution, however
"private" companies already have bulk collection in place. It's only the slightest catalyst from
there to the government requiring the companies hand over all that data. I'm surprised people
advocate for bulk data openly, when they know the hurdle to cross to access private databases
is very low. And that whole shooter's phone charade where Apple "stood up" to the FBI was so much
bluster when both sides likely already had the capability that they claimed not to have.
The "hurdle" is even lower than you state. The only "hurdle" is whether they can openly use that
data in court. They already have it all. All the data goes through collection "checkpoints."
Looks like Trump decided to sell us down the river rather than drain the swamp. And now we're
caught between his thugs and an army of crazy children in the streets.
This is why I would have preferred seeing Hillary win despite the fact that I voted for Trump.
It felt like a con and a con it was, apparently.
When was it anything but a con. Madness, when you keep doing the same thing again and again and
expecting a different result. The deep state has you suckered, and you still think its the land
of the free. Reality is relative to your perception. Its an extension of what you want to believe.
You live with your delusions, no one elses.
Nice we can all be deluded together. I don't mind this choice its not for the CIA director to
decide what is constitutional or not, that is for the Supreme court so we the people must challenge
the collection and use of the collected data in the Supreme court. The CIA director is to obey
the Law as it is presented to him.
That's not how the CIA works. They do a mea culpa, then 10 years later the same mea culpa. The
spooks were behind torture and secret prisons during the Bush admin, they're behind the not torture
that doesn't happen in prisons that we don't admit to. Only the language changed. We all pretend
to be offended when we find out that unspeakable acts are being committed in our names, or we
deny it - that's been working for the left for 2 terms.
The buck still stops with Trump and he isn't even in office yet for anyone to judge him fairly.
For me that means he gets a year or two. Further, he's a smart guy and I never assumed he was
going to bring in 4000+ newbies into his administration. The fucking wheels would lock up immediately.
He knows this. He needs competent, loyal people in these roles, period.
Time will tell on this. If his appointments start going apeshit like OBungler's did, then we
have a real problem. For individual citizens the choice is clear, hope for the best and keep planning
for the worst, which is what I've been doing for the last 12 years+. If you and your family are
not prepared for some major disruptions to your way of life and basic daily sustenance, then you
better get on it.
Lastly, the deep state is NEVER going away either. Not even sure they can be curbed. I honestly
don't have an answer for that one yet except to be prepared to completely and totally unplug from
everything, and become 'invisible, passive and benign' to the system itself at some point.
I logged in to thank you for this Voice Of Reason post. I don't know just what people expected.
Was he supposed to start appointing random biker dudes to cabinet posts? Come on. To some extent
one must work with the system if one is to have any hope of making changes to it.
Like baba looey keeps saying, let the man work, FFS.
Do people demand a really just system? Well, we'll arrange it so that they'll be satisfied
with one that's a little less unjust ... They want a revolution, and we'll give them reforms --
lots of reforms; we'll drown them in reforms. Or rather, we'll drown them in promises of reforms,
because we'll never give them real ones either!!
Trump is already showing himself through his choices. This guy is a hard liner in the push
for the govt to trample the constitution and treat the citizens like serfs. But Trump's supporters
are ok with it because it is "their guy" doing it, just like the Dems/liberals/whatever were ok
with Obama shredding the constitution and killing hundreds of thousands because Obama was "their
guy".
The velvet glove will come off soon and you will only have the iron fist.
With Trump, perhaps 60%. I'm happy with that, and will try not to bitch about the 40%.
Don't get me wrong... Putting HRC in a coffin, is a wonderful thing... But my sensibilities
tell me that 'DRAINING A SWAMP' is too much of a task for Donald Trump (or anyone else)...
Drain the swamp indeed! I can't believe people thought the Donald would change anything! Same
shit different color(literally and figuratively) douchebags!
Billy: Who is going to help Trump drain the swamp? The current swamp monsters? Why would they
want to ruin their own home? That was always the problem.
Either way, I am glad he got in. You knew you were going nowhere with Hillary. If Trump fails
then he will prove that outsiders are no good either. The election started out looking like insider
vs insider - Clinton vs Bush. That was a good reason for all the voters to stay home, or to write
"Me" or "None of the Above" on their ballots - for those who had paper ballots.
If Trump was a Conspiracy then his job was to make the plebs think they had a choice, to drag
them to the voting booth, to create the illusion of legitimacy for the new government. If Trump
can not change anything then the next "outsider" will have to put on an even bigger show and let
us remember, this election will be a hard act to follow. My biggest fear is post-election amnesia,
everything is already forgotten, let alone remembered in four years time. Is Wikileaks still chugging
away? Where is that fantastic leak that would supposedly send Hillary straight to jail? What came
of the Podesta emails? Are his spirits truly cooked? Are all the FBI investigations to be forgotten?
Come the next election, are we really going to see crimes greater than the Comet Pizza allegations
bubble to the surface? If the alleged crimes of the past year, and especially the last month or
week, are forgotten, does that mean they were simply elaborate theatre? Will people remember this
past year and, come the next election, declare "Well, look what happened in 2016! If that meant
nothing, then how on earth could any other news mean anything? Refuse to participate in the show."
The advantage of the Trump win is the exposure that has already happened. The Ds and Rs
have been exposed. MSM has been exposed for extreme bias. The rats that double down on their anti-Trump
rhetoric think they are hiding their own crimes when really they are exposing themselves for all
the world to see. The "Love Trumps Hate" protestors are exposing all their own hypocrisy for all
the world to see.
Worst thing about this election? I paid attention. Politicians lie, especially in the lead
up to an election. Everything they say can be safely ignored. Damn shame I got sucked into paying
attention to this one - for the first time in my life. But now, in order to gain the attention
of people who think like me, the next election will have to have theatrics of an order of magnitude
greater than this one. Scary, eh! ;)
Not every pick trump makes it going to please everyone. Trump is a hardliner on fighting Terrorism,
that means you aren't going to get Assange/Snowden love-ins, or someone trying to destroy the
intelligence overreach of the US. Appointing a member of the Bengazhi committee to run the
CIA means Hillary is completely FUCKED though. That's a bonus, a big one.
The guy is Half-TeaParty, with NeoCon leanings towards fighting terrorism. Trump is going to
be libertarian on War and Interventionism, but Neo-Con on Islamic Terror.
None of that has to do with "not draining the swamp"
Perfect example of why all this SHIT is going to continue! Terrorism is an idea. It is the PERFECT
tool for govts to exert control.
"Islamic Terror?" CIA started it all and the western propaganda machine has churned it into
something that morons suck up.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous
to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
- H.L. Mencken
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be
led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. H.
L. Mencken
Read more at:
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/hlmencke101109.html
Neocon Invasion of Team Trump Fully Underway Trump must stop neocon takeover of his administration
Wayne Madsen
The purge of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie loyalists from the Donald Trump presidential
transition team has little to do with Christie's Bridgegate scandal and everything to do with
a battle between Bush-era neoconservatives and national security realists for control over key
departments of the Trump administration.
It appears that Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner , the publisher of the New York Observer and
someone who is aligned with the Likud Party of Israel, is now the de facto chair of the Trump
transition team , especially when it comes to national security matters.
Vice President-elect Mike Pence, the official chairman of the team, is concentrating on domestic
policy appointments, such as the rumored appointment of Texas Senator Ted Cruz as Attorney General.
Kushner fired Christie and Christie loyalist, former House Intelligence Committee chairman
Mike Rogers, from the transition team and replaced them with the discredited neocon Frank Gaffney
of the Center for Security Policy.
It is likely that Gaffney will seek to bring a host of neocons who championed the U.S. invasion
of Iraq into the Trump administration.
Also fired was Matthew Freedman, another Christie loyalist. Kushner never liked Christie because
as a federal prosecutor in north Jersey, Christie successfully prosecuted Kushner's father, real
estate tycoon Charles Kushner, who received a prison sentence at Christie's urging.
Where one finds the likes of Gaffney, former CIA director James Woolsey, also a member of the
Trump transition team, and John Bolton, rumored to be in consideration for Secretary of State
or deputy Secretary of State, one will find the other neocons who drove the United States into
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
These include Richard Perle, who claimed U.S. troops invading Iraq would be met with Iraqis
throwing "flowers and candy." This editor wrote the following about Perle's fatuous claim in a
March 31, 2003, article for CounterPunch: "Perle's military experience does not permit him to
distinguish between flowers and candy and bullets and mortar rounds."
There is someone far more sinister than Gaffney, Bolton, and Perle chomping at the bit to join
the new administration.
Wayne Madsen Reports has learned from multiple knowledgeable sources that the proponent of
neo-fascism, Michael Ledeen, is working closely with former Defense Intelligence Agency chief
Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, to ensure that as many neocons from the Bush 43 and Reagan eras find senior
positions in the Trump administration.
Flynn co-authored a book with Ledeen that was released in July and titled, "The Field of Flight:
How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies."
The book represents typical neocon pabulum more than it does realism.
In July, Kushner's Observer, unsurprisingly, published a five-star review of the book.
Flynn, who distinguished himself admirably by suggesting that the Obama administration was
coddling the Islamic State and its allied jihadists in Syria, appears not to recognize that it
has long been the desire of neocons like Ledeen, Perle, Woolsey, and Bolton to divide the Arab
nation-states into warring factions so that Israel can hold ultimate sway over the entire Middle
East.
Breitbart launched his site in 2007 from Jerusalem, its a Mossad front.
Most of the posters in the begining were Jews and Christian Zionists. They started to use white
nationalists during the primary like they used them in Ukraine, then purged.
+1 Once I saw the zionists rubbing shoulders in the thicket of Trump's cabinet, I was hoping for
a 50/50 split. But I dare say the zionist neocons' takeover is complete. Mike Pompous-Ass is pure
MIC through and through (See Thayer Aerospace).
Another zionist cunt with Israel-first mentality whose only dubious virutes are hatred of muslims
and Hillary.
Zero change in domestic and foreign intelligence policies from Hitlery who was planning to
go to war with Iran by way of war against the Russo-Syrian alliance.
Any stupid fucker who is a proponent of blanket surveillance is a fucking traitor to every
values in individual freedom and rights that I hold dear.
The non-Semitic majority of Israel want to demonize the true Semitics (Arabs) by disparaging Islam
in order to steal their land and its resources. Since they cannot or do not want to do all of
the killing themselves, they use Christians to do their dirty work. The US Christian political
leaders (e.g. Pence/Pompeo) have been targetted by Israel:
One of the keys to AIPAC's success is its education arm, the American Israel Education Foundation
(AIEF). AIEF sponsors trips to Israel for Members of Congress and their staffs, and uses these
trips generally relay Likud's view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In all, AIEF spent $2,035,233
sponsoring congressional trips to Israel in 2011, according to data my blog,
Republic Report , gathered through
the Legistorm database. In contrast, the more moderate Israel lobby J Street - which
launched in 2008 to provide an alternative to AIPAC's hawkish advocacy - spent
only $45,954 on congressional trips to Israel. J Street's trips,
included more extensive
meetings with Palestinians and Israeli human rights groups. Which means that J Street was,
in this area, outspent by a factor of 44: 1 in 2011.
Republic Report has plotted this
data into the following chart:
Look at the itinerary
(requires free registration with Legistorm) of a nine-day, $20,000 AIEF trip Rep. Mike Pompeo
(R-KS) took in August 2011. During his trip, Pompeo was treated to meals, information sessions,
tours, and other activities with mostly hawkish high-ranking Israeli officials, academics, and
non-profit leaders. The sessions included "Terror from Gaza and Sinai" and "Hamas Next Door."
During the nine days, only an hour was spent with Palestinian officials, with a short meeting
scheduled in with Salam Fayyad, a Palestinian Authority Prime Minister
widely viewed as highly sympathetic to the Israeli government.
What you say is in fact true. But it's the "coordination" that takes place between government
and industry with that information that is lethal. When NSA "cherry picks" and manipulates that
date to remove it's "rivals" (perceived or otherwise) and uses the Justice Department acting as
the "stick", you know anything becomes possible!
"... I gather our President lectured our President Elect on the necessity to stand up to Russia. (My first thought is that like that stupid charitable campaign to Stand Up to Cancer!, another place where the phrase was either meaningless or foolhardy.) ..."
"... IF Russia ever started actually interfering in our relations with our neighbors or attempted to get us thrown out of our legal bases in foreign nations, I would say that Barack Obama might have a point. Since we are the party guilty of such actions, he would do better to clean up his own administration's relations with Russia, apologize to Russia, and then STFU. ..."
"... 'Obama Urges Trump to Maintain Pointless, Hyper-Aggresive Encirclement of Russia Strategy, Acknowledge Nuclear Apocalypse "Inevitable"' ..."
"... In the best of circumstances, Obama in his post-presidency will be akin to Jimmy Carter and stay out of politics, less or less. (I think he has exhausted all trust and value.) If he goes the Jimmy Carter route; he is bound to do worse and will fade away. I don't think he'll go the Clinton route unless Michelle tries to run for office. ..."
"... The good people of the US are awaiting DHS' final report on Russia's attempts to hack our elections. We deserve as much. ..."
"... If there's any basis to the allegations it's about time someone provided it. Up till now it's been unfounded assertions. Highly suspect at that. ..."
"... My guess is the whole Russian boogeyman was a ploy to attract those "moderate Republicans" who liked Romney. ..."
"... "My hope is that the president-elect coming in takes a similarly constructive approach, finding areas where we can cooperate with Russia where our values and interests align, but that the president-elect also is willing to stand up to Russia when they are deviating from our values and international norms," Obama said. "But I don't expect that the president-elect will follow exactly our approach." ..."
"... Yes, because "U.S. values" as defined by the actions of the last 16 years have been so enlightened and successful and because the U.S. is a sterling example of adhering to international norms ..."
"... Just how deluded, ignorant or sociopathic does a person need to be that they can say things like that without vomiting? ..."
I gather our President lectured our President Elect on the necessity to stand up to Russia.
(My first thought is that like that stupid charitable campaign to Stand Up to Cancer!, another
place where the phrase was either meaningless or foolhardy.)
IF Russia ever started actually interfering in our relations with our neighbors or attempted
to get us thrown out of our legal bases in foreign nations, I would say that Barack Obama might
have a point. Since we are the party guilty of such actions, he would do better to clean up his
own administration's relations with Russia, apologize to Russia, and then STFU.
Which I am sure he will do once everyone recognizes that that is the appropriate thing to do.
But as we well know everyone else will have to do the heavy lifting of figuring that out before
he will even acknowledge the possibility.
In the best of circumstances, Obama in his post-presidency will be akin to Jimmy Carter
and stay out of politics, less or less. (I think he has exhausted all trust and value.) If he
goes the Jimmy Carter route; he is bound to do worse and will fade away. I don't think he'll go
the Clinton route unless Michelle tries to run for office.
In this case, Obama is probably too vain and Michelle being the saner of the two might rein
him in? Best of any world would, as you say, STFU. (As the Ex Prez. Obamamometer, that is probably
not in the cards.)
Maybe he will end up like Geo Bush, sitting in the bathtub drooling while he paints childish
self-portraits
Or maybe he will end up like OJ, where he tries to go hang out with all his cool friends and they
tell him to get lost
Ppl still mention him as a master orator, etc. Lots of post presidency speaking engagements
I suppose. I'd prefer him not to but then again if he makes enough annually from it to beat the
Clintons we might get the satisfaction of annoying them
"My hope is that the president-elect coming in takes a similarly constructive approach,
finding areas where we can cooperate with Russia where our values and interests align, but that
the president-elect also is willing to stand up to Russia when they are deviating from our values
and international norms," Obama said. "But I don't expect that the president-elect will follow
exactly our approach." What Obama is saying is he wants Russia to join America in bombing
hospitals, schools, children, doctors, public facilities like water treatment plants, bridges,
weddings, homes, and civilians to list just few – while arming and supporting terrorists for regime
change. And if anyone points this out, Russia like the US is supposed to say "I know you are but
what am I?"
Yes, because "U.S. values" as defined by the actions of the last 16 years have been so
enlightened and successful and because the U.S. is a sterling example of adhering to international
norms
Just how deluded, ignorant or sociopathic does a person need to be that they can say things
like that without vomiting?
Is this the same Russia that just hacked our election and subverted our fine democracy? Why,
President Obama, I believe it behooves you to stand up to Russia yourself. Show President-Elect
Trump how it is done sir!
Hasan (Interviewer) (From 11.15 onwards into the interview): "In 2012, your agency was
saying, quote: "The Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qaeda in Iraq [(which ISIS arose
out of)], are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria." In 2012, the US was helping
coordinate arms transfers to those same groups. Why did you not stop that if you're worried
about the rise of Islamic extremism?"
Flynn: "Well I hate to say it's not my job,
but my job was to ensure that the accuracy of our intelligence that was being presented was
as good as it could be, and I will tell you, it goes before 2012. When we were in Iraq, and
we still had decisions to be made before there was a decision to pull out of Iraq in 2011,
it was very clear what we were going to face."
Hasan (Interviewer): You are basically saying that even in government at the time,
you knew those groups were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it,
but who wasn't listening?"
Flynn: "I think the administration."
Hasan (Interviewer): "So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?"
Flynn: "I don't know if they turned a blind eye. I think it was a decision, a willful
decision."
Hasan (Interviewer): "A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists,
Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?"
Flynn: "A willful decision to do what they're doing You have to really ask the President
what is it that he actually is doing with the policy that is in place, because it is very,
very confusing."
Former US Intelligence Chief Admits Obama Took "Willful Decision" to Support ISIS Rise
"... Pompeo was close to Trump's running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who served with Pompeo in the House. Last month, Pompeo helped prepare Pence for the vice presidential debate with Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia. ..."
"... Pompeo is a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence and one of the most vocal critics of the Obama administration's nuclear deal with Iran. ..."
"... He's a supporter of the National Security Agency's controversial bulk data collection program and sought to restore the agency's access to the data it had already collected under the Patriot Act from its inception through late last year. ..."
"... He was elected to Congress in 2010 on a wave of tea party support and with backing from the Koch Industries political action committee. The Wichita-based conglomerate's PAC is well known for its support of conservative candidates. ..."
"... Though Pompeo is generally known for his opposition to Obama administration policies, he's occasionally given heat to some fellow Republicans. Last year, his name was floated as a potential rival to Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin to become House speaker. ..."
"... Pompeo has sponsored numerous bills that would maintain or increase sanctions on Iran over its nuclear weapons program. He's been a staunch opponent of the deal negotiated by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry that eases sanctions in exchange for dismantling the nuclear weapons program. ..."
"... Pompeo has served on the House Select Benghazi Committee. ..."
"... When the committee released its report on the attack in June, Pompeo and Republican Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio released a separate report that was even more sharply critical of Clinton's handling of the affair. They wrote that Clinton intentionally misled Americans about the nature of the attack because Obama was up for re-election. ..."
"... Pompeo has made some controversial statements about Muslims. Weeks after the Boston marathon bombing in 2013, in a speech on the House floor, he not only accused Islamic faith leaders of not doing enough to condemn terrorist attacks, but also suggested they might be encouraging them. ..."
"... Couldn't give a fiddlers fuck about the issues of global warming at this stage and crisis we now face. I just want to know if the asshole is stupid enough to use NATO to get energy for this Country that neither we nor the Saudi's have any longer. ..."
"... If Trump is smart he will engage detente with the Russians at the expense of all of his war mongering staff. ..."
"... Looks like Trump decided to sell us down the river rather than drain the swamp. And now we're caught between his thugs and an army of crazy children in the streets. ..."
"... The buck still stops with Trump and he isn't even in office yet for anyone to judge him fairly. For me that means he gets a year or two. Further, he's a smart guy and I never assumed he was going to bring in 4000+ newbies into his administration. The fucking wheels would lock up immediately. He knows this. He needs competent, loyal people in these roles, period. ..."
"... Trump is already showing himself through his choices. This guy is a hard liner in the push for the govt to trample the constitution and treat the citizens like serfs. ..."
"... The advantage of the Trump win is the exposure that has already happened. The Ds and Rs have been exposed. MSM has been exposed for extreme bias. The rats that double down on their anti-Trump rhetoric think they are hiding their own crimes when really they are exposing themselves for all the world to see. The "Love Trumps Hate" protestors are exposing all their own hypocrisy for all the world to see. ..."
"... Appointing a member of the Bengazhi committee to run the CIA means Hillary is completely FUCKED though. That's a bonus, a big one. ..."
Moments after Donald Trump offered the Attorney General spot to senator Jeff Sessions (which he promptly
accepted), it was announced that Trump had also picked rep. Mike Pompeo as CIA director, who likewise
accepted.
Trump has offered position of CIA director to US Rep Mike Pompeo and Pompeo has accepted -transition
official
The selection of Pompeo, a three-term Republican from Wichita, started earlier this week when
he met with Donald Trump, according to the president-elect's transition team. Now we know what the
meetings were about. Courtesy of
McClatchy , here is profile of the new director of America's top spy agency:
* * *
Pompeo originally supported Florida Sen. Marco Rubio's presidential bid. Like most of his Kansas
colleagues, Pompeo backed Trump when it was clear the New York real-estate developer would become
the Republican presidential nominee, though not enthusiastically.
But Pompeo was close to Trump's running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who served with Pompeo
in the House. Last month, Pompeo helped prepare Pence for the vice presidential debate with Sen.
Tim Kaine of Virginia.
The most prominent Kansas elected official to endorse Trump early on was Secretary of State Kris
Kobach, now a member of the Trump transition team and a possible candidate for U.S. Attorney General.
Republican Gov. Sam Brownback and recently defeated Rep. Tim Huelskamp are both potential picks
for agriculture secretary.
Pompeo is a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence and one of the most vocal
critics of the Obama administration's nuclear deal with Iran.
He's a supporter of the National Security Agency's controversial bulk data collection program
and sought to restore the agency's access to the data it had already collected under the Patriot
Act from its inception through late last year.
He's a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and Harvard Law School. He's also a
member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Pompeo, who grew up in the traditionally Republican enclave of Orange County, California, founded
Thayer Aerospace, a company that made parts for commercial and military aircraft. After selling Thayer,
he became president of Sentry International, a company that manufactures and sells equipment used
in oil fields.
He was elected to Congress in 2010 on a wave of tea party support and with backing from the Koch
Industries political action committee. The Wichita-based conglomerate's PAC is well known for its
support of conservative candidates.
Though Pompeo is generally known for his opposition to Obama administration policies, he's occasionally
given heat to some fellow Republicans. Last year, his name was floated as a potential rival to Rep.
Paul Ryan of Wisconsin to become House speaker.
Earlier this year, he briefly flirted with a primary challenge to Kansas Sen. Jerry Moran after
the state's junior senator appeared to break with Senate Republican opposition to Obama's Supreme
Court nomination of Merrick Garland.
Joe Romance, an associate professor of political science at Fort Hays State University, said it
makes sense for Pompeo to consider a job in the executive branch, given the way the stage is set
from Kansas to Washington in the next several years.
"He's ambitious," Romance said. "Jerry Moran just got reelected. Roberts is not up until 2020.
So where do you need to move? And I don't think Ryan's going anywhere as speaker. So why not?"
Pompeo has sponsored numerous bills that would maintain or increase sanctions on Iran over
its nuclear weapons program. He's been a staunch opponent of the deal negotiated by President Barack
Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry that eases sanctions in exchange for dismantling the nuclear
weapons program.
In February, Pompeo and two of his Republican House colleagues unsuccessfully sought visas to
monitor the country's elections.
When Iran detained a group of American sailors earlier whose ship had wandered into its territorial
waters earlier this year, Pompeo introduced a bill requiring the Obama administration to investigate
whether Iran violated the Geneva Convention. It didn't become law. The sailors were not harmed, and
the Navy later concluded that the sailors had entered Iran's waters by mistake.
Pompeo has served on the House Select Benghazi Committee. The special panel was created in 2014 to probe the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Libya that killed
four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens. One of its key targets was former Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton, on whose watch the attack had occurred.
When the committee released its report on the attack in June, Pompeo and Republican Rep. Jim Jordan
of Ohio released a separate report that was even more sharply critical of Clinton's handling of the
affair. They wrote that Clinton intentionally misled Americans about the nature of the attack because
Obama was up for re-election.
"Officials at the State Department, including Secretary Clinton, learned almost in real time that
the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack," Pompeo and Jordan wrote. "With the presidential election
just 56 days away, rather than tell the American people the truth and increase the risk of losing
an election, the administration told one story privately and a different story publicly."
Pompeo has made some controversial statements about Muslims. Weeks after the Boston marathon bombing
in 2013, in a speech on the House floor, he not only accused Islamic faith leaders of not doing enough
to condemn terrorist attacks, but also suggested they might be encouraging them.
"When the most devastating terrorist attacks on America in the last 20 years come overwhelmingly
from people of a single faith, and are performed in the name of that faith, a special obligation
falls on those that are the leaders of that faith," Pompeo said. " Instead of responding, silence
has made these Islamic leaders across America potentially complicit in these acts and more importantly
still, in those that may well follow."
But last month, three militiamen were arrested in western Kansas in an alleged plot to blow up
an apartment complex that's home to Somali Muslim refugees.
Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, said statements like
Pompeo's were detrimental to policies that keep all Americans safe.
"We believe it's counterproductive to our nation's safety and security because they will act based
on their faulty perceptions of Muslims and Islam," Hooper said, "and will not carry out policies
based on accurate and balanced information."
Yep... Like all the rest that pass through the "revolving doors" of D.C. he'll feather his nest
and continue "killing some folks" and "torturing some folks".
Only not in Syria or Ukraine -that is for certain!
some of his opinions are concerning but a quick bio read in wikipedia showed some pretty well
reasoned unorthodox stances.
he's not a global warming sycophant, nor particularly doctrinaire in things energy. but a bulk
collection fan..I was really hoping for someone with a track record of following the fourth amendment.
Couldn't give a fiddlers fuck about the issues of global warming at this stage and crisis
we now face. I just want to know if the asshole is stupid enough to use NATO to get energy for
this Country that neither we nor the Saudi's have any longer.
We'll know these cocksuckers are sincere when they tell us the truth about the "riches of bakken
oil" is 10 years and not 100 and that the systemic looting operation in the ME using our military
is counter productive given the tradeoff of war with the Russians and the accumulated debt to
fund our misadventures that will never find a buyer!
Let me preface this by saying I find bulk collection totally an affront to the constitution, however
"private" companies already have bulk collection in place. It's only the slightest catalyst from
there to the government requiring the companies hand over all that data. I'm surprised people
advocate for bulk data openly, when they know the hurdle to cross to access private databases
is very low. And that whole shooter's phone charade where Apple "stood up" to the FBI was so much
bluster when both sides likely already had the capability that they claimed not to have.
The "hurdle" is even lower than you state. The only "hurdle" is whether they can openly use that
data in court. They already have it all. All the data goes through collection "checkpoints."
Looks like Trump decided to sell us down the river rather than drain the swamp. And now we're
caught between his thugs and an army of crazy children in the streets.
This is why I would have preferred seeing Hillary win despite the fact that I voted for Trump.
It felt like a con and a con it was, apparently.
When was it anything but a con. Madness, when you keep doing the same thing again and again and
expecting a different result. The deep state has you suckered, and you still think its the land
of the free. Reality is relative to your perception. Its an extension of what you want to believe.
You live with your delusions, no one elses.
Nice we can all be deluded together. I don't mind this choice its not for the CIA director to
decide what is constitutional or not, that is for the Supreme court so we the people must challenge
the collection and use of the collected data in the Supreme court. The CIA director is to obey
the Law as it is presented to him.
That's not how the CIA works. They do a mea culpa, then 10 years later the same mea culpa. The
spooks were behind torture and secret prisons during the Bush admin, they're behind the not torture
that doesn't happen in prisons that we don't admit to. Only the language changed. We all pretend
to be offended when we find out that unspeakable acts are being committed in our names, or we
deny it - that's been working for the left for 2 terms.
The buck still stops with Trump and he isn't even in office yet for anyone to judge him fairly.
For me that means he gets a year or two. Further, he's a smart guy and I never assumed he was
going to bring in 4000+ newbies into his administration. The fucking wheels would lock up immediately.
He knows this. He needs competent, loyal people in these roles, period.
Time will tell on this. If his appointments start going apeshit like OBungler's did, then we
have a real problem. For individual citizens the choice is clear, hope for the best and keep planning
for the worst, which is what I've been doing for the last 12 years+. If you and your family are
not prepared for some major disruptions to your way of life and basic daily sustenance, then you
better get on it.
Lastly, the deep state is NEVER going away either. Not even sure they can be curbed. I honestly
don't have an answer for that one yet except to be prepared to completely and totally unplug from
everything, and become 'invisible, passive and benign' to the system itself at some point.
I logged in to thank you for this Voice Of Reason post. I don't know just what people expected.
Was he supposed to start appointing random biker dudes to cabinet posts? Come on. To some extent
one must work with the system if one is to have any hope of making changes to it.
Like baba looey keeps saying, let the man work, FFS.
Do people demand a really just system? Well, we'll arrange it so that they'll be satisfied
with one that's a little less unjust ... They want a revolution, and we'll give them reforms --
lots of reforms; we'll drown them in reforms. Or rather, we'll drown them in promises of reforms,
because we'll never give them real ones either!!
Trump is already showing himself through his choices. This guy is a hard liner in the push
for the govt to trample the constitution and treat the citizens like serfs. But Trump's supporters
are ok with it because it is "their guy" doing it, just like the Dems/liberals/whatever were ok
with Obama shredding the constitution and killing hundreds of thousands because Obama was "their
guy".
The velvet glove will come off soon and you will only have the iron fist.
With Trump, perhaps 60%. I'm happy with that, and will try not to bitch about the 40%.
Don't get me wrong... Putting HRC in a coffin, is a wonderful thing... But my sensibilities
tell me that 'DRAINING A SWAMP' is too much of a task for Donald Trump (or anyone else)...
Drain the swamp indeed! I can't believe people thought the Donald would change anything! Same
shit different color(literally and figuratively) douchebags!
Billy: Who is going to help Trump drain the swamp? The current swamp monsters? Why would they
want to ruin their own home? That was always the problem.
Either way, I am glad he got in. You knew you were going nowhere with Hillary. If Trump fails
then he will prove that outsiders are no good either. The election started out looking like insider
vs insider - Clinton vs Bush. That was a good reason for all the voters to stay home, or to write
"Me" or "None of the Above" on their ballots - for those who had paper ballots.
If Trump was a Conspiracy then his job was to make the plebs think they had a choice, to drag
them to the voting booth, to create the illusion of legitimacy for the new government. If Trump
can not change anything then the next "outsider" will have to put on an even bigger show and let
us remember, this election will be a hard act to follow. My biggest fear is post-election amnesia,
everything is already forgotten, let alone remembered in four years time. Is Wikileaks still chugging
away? Where is that fantastic leak that would supposedly send Hillary straight to jail? What came
of the Podesta emails? Are his spirits truly cooked? Are all the FBI investigations to be forgotten?
Come the next election, are we really going to see crimes greater than the Comet Pizza allegations
bubble to the surface? If the alleged crimes of the past year, and especially the last month or
week, are forgotten, does that mean they were simply elaborate theatre? Will people remember this
past year and, come the next election, declare "Well, look what happened in 2016! If that meant
nothing, then how on earth could any other news mean anything? Refuse to participate in the show."
The advantage of the Trump win is the exposure that has already happened. The Ds and Rs
have been exposed. MSM has been exposed for extreme bias. The rats that double down on their anti-Trump
rhetoric think they are hiding their own crimes when really they are exposing themselves for all
the world to see. The "Love Trumps Hate" protestors are exposing all their own hypocrisy for all
the world to see.
Worst thing about this election? I paid attention. Politicians lie, especially in the lead
up to an election. Everything they say can be safely ignored. Damn shame I got sucked into paying
attention to this one - for the first time in my life. But now, in order to gain the attention
of people who think like me, the next election will have to have theatrics of an order of magnitude
greater than this one. Scary, eh! ;)
Not every pick trump makes it going to please everyone. Trump is a hardliner on fighting Terrorism,
that means you aren't going to get Assange/Snowden love-ins, or someone trying to destroy the
intelligence overreach of the US. Appointing a member of the Bengazhi committee to run the
CIA means Hillary is completely FUCKED though. That's a bonus, a big one.
The guy is Half-TeaParty, with NeoCon leanings towards fighting terrorism. Trump is going to
be libertarian on War and Interventionism, but Neo-Con on Islamic Terror.
None of that has to do with "not draining the swamp"
Perfect example of why all this SHIT is going to continue! Terrorism is an idea. It is the PERFECT
tool for govts to exert control.
"Islamic Terror?" CIA started it all and the western propaganda machine has churned it into
something that morons suck up.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous
to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
- H.L. Mencken
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be
led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. H.
L. Mencken
Read more at:
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/hlmencke101109.html
Neocon Invasion of Team Trump Fully Underway Trump must stop neocon takeover of his administration
Wayne Madsen
The purge of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie loyalists from the Donald Trump presidential
transition team has little to do with Christie's Bridgegate scandal and everything to do with
a battle between Bush-era neoconservatives and national security realists for control over key
departments of the Trump administration.
It appears that Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner , the publisher of the New York Observer and
someone who is aligned with the Likud Party of Israel, is now the de facto chair of the Trump
transition team , especially when it comes to national security matters.
Vice President-elect Mike Pence, the official chairman of the team, is concentrating on domestic
policy appointments, such as the rumored appointment of Texas Senator Ted Cruz as Attorney General.
Kushner fired Christie and Christie loyalist, former House Intelligence Committee chairman
Mike Rogers, from the transition team and replaced them with the discredited neocon Frank Gaffney
of the Center for Security Policy.
It is likely that Gaffney will seek to bring a host of neocons who championed the U.S. invasion
of Iraq into the Trump administration.
Also fired was Matthew Freedman, another Christie loyalist. Kushner never liked Christie because
as a federal prosecutor in north Jersey, Christie successfully prosecuted Kushner's father, real
estate tycoon Charles Kushner, who received a prison sentence at Christie's urging.
Where one finds the likes of Gaffney, former CIA director James Woolsey, also a member of the
Trump transition team, and John Bolton, rumored to be in consideration for Secretary of State
or deputy Secretary of State, one will find the other neocons who drove the United States into
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
These include Richard Perle, who claimed U.S. troops invading Iraq would be met with Iraqis
throwing "flowers and candy." This editor wrote the following about Perle's fatuous claim in a
March 31, 2003, article for CounterPunch: "Perle's military experience does not permit him to
distinguish between flowers and candy and bullets and mortar rounds."
There is someone far more sinister than Gaffney, Bolton, and Perle chomping at the bit to join
the new administration.
Wayne Madsen Reports has learned from multiple knowledgeable sources that the proponent of
neo-fascism, Michael Ledeen, is working closely with former Defense Intelligence Agency chief
Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, to ensure that as many neocons from the Bush 43 and Reagan eras find senior
positions in the Trump administration.
Flynn co-authored a book with Ledeen that was released in July and titled, "The Field of Flight:
How We Can Win the Global War Against Radical Islam and Its Allies."
The book represents typical neocon pabulum more than it does realism.
In July, Kushner's Observer, unsurprisingly, published a five-star review of the book.
Flynn, who distinguished himself admirably by suggesting that the Obama administration was
coddling the Islamic State and its allied jihadists in Syria, appears not to recognize that it
has long been the desire of neocons like Ledeen, Perle, Woolsey, and Bolton to divide the Arab
nation-states into warring factions so that Israel can hold ultimate sway over the entire Middle
East.
Breitbart launched his site in 2007 from Jerusalem, its a Mossad front.
Most of the posters in the begining were Jews and Christian Zionists. They started to use white
nationalists during the primary like they used them in Ukraine, then purged.
+1 Once I saw the zionists rubbing shoulders in the thicket of Trump's cabinet, I was hoping for
a 50/50 split. But I dare say the zionist neocons' takeover is complete. Mike Pompous-Ass is pure
MIC through and through (See Thayer Aerospace).
Another zionist cunt with Israel-first mentality whose only dubious virutes are hatred of muslims
and Hillary.
Zero change in domestic and foreign intelligence policies from Hitlery who was planning to
go to war with Iran by way of war against the Russo-Syrian alliance.
Any stupid fucker who is a proponent of blanket surveillance is a fucking traitor to every
values in individual freedom and rights that I hold dear.
The non-Semitic majority of Israel want to demonize the true Semitics (Arabs) by disparaging Islam
in order to steal their land and its resources. Since they cannot or do not want to do all of
the killing themselves, they use Christians to do their dirty work. The US Christian political
leaders (e.g. Pence/Pompeo) have been targetted by Israel:
One of the keys to AIPAC's success is its education arm, the American Israel Education Foundation
(AIEF). AIEF sponsors trips to Israel for Members of Congress and their staffs, and uses these
trips generally relay Likud's view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In all, AIEF spent $2,035,233
sponsoring congressional trips to Israel in 2011, according to data my blog,
Republic Report , gathered through
the Legistorm database. In contrast, the more moderate Israel lobby J Street - which
launched in 2008 to provide an alternative to AIPAC's hawkish advocacy - spent
only $45,954 on congressional trips to Israel. J Street's trips,
included more extensive
meetings with Palestinians and Israeli human rights groups. Which means that J Street was,
in this area, outspent by a factor of 44: 1 in 2011.
Republic Report has plotted this
data into the following chart:
Look at the itinerary
(requires free registration with Legistorm) of a nine-day, $20,000 AIEF trip Rep. Mike Pompeo
(R-KS) took in August 2011. During his trip, Pompeo was treated to meals, information sessions,
tours, and other activities with mostly hawkish high-ranking Israeli officials, academics, and
non-profit leaders. The sessions included "Terror from Gaza and Sinai" and "Hamas Next Door."
During the nine days, only an hour was spent with Palestinian officials, with a short meeting
scheduled in with Salam Fayyad, a Palestinian Authority Prime Minister
widely viewed as highly sympathetic to the Israeli government.
What you say is in fact true. But it's the "coordination" that takes place between government
and industry with that information that is lethal. When NSA "cherry picks" and manipulates that
date to remove it's "rivals" (perceived or otherwise) and uses the Justice Department acting as
the "stick", you know anything becomes possible!
Dimitri Simes is highly questionable historian, mostly producing neocon-charged junk...
But some observation about reckless application of the US dominant position in the world after
dissolution of the USSR to crush small countries and control their resources (especially oil)
by neocon worth reading.
Notable quotes:
"... George H. W. Bush administration did not want to deprive the mujahideen of total victory by granting a role to the Soviet Union's Afghan clients. ..."
"... As late as 1999, during a period of strained U.S.-Russia relations following NATO airstrikes in Serbia, Vladimir Putin proposed U.S.-Russia cooperation against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It took until after 9/11, well after Islamist extremism had metastasized throughout the Greater Middle East, for the George W. Bush administration to agree to work in concert with Moscow in Afghanistan. ..."
"... the Obama administration called for the ouster of Bashar al-Assad's secular authoritarian regime in Damascus ..."
"... in Libya, where the administration decapitated a repressive regime that had made peace with the United States without planning-or even intending-to assist in establishing order and security on the ground. ..."
"... Few policies have alarmed Moscow as much as NATO's expansion. Just as George F. Kennan predicted in a letter to the National Interest ..."
"... After the Cold War, each state chose to disenfranchise the vast majority of its Russian-speaking population as well as other minority groups. Because post-independence Estonia and Latvia were continuations of states that existed between the First and Second World Wars, they asserted, only the descendants of those citizens could become citizens of the new states. Even many third-generation residents-meaning both they and their parents were born in Estonia or Latvia-were given second-class status, denied many jobs and deprived of participation in national politics. ..."
Nov 18, 2016 | nationalinterest.org
...U.S. interventions have contributed to the menace of radicalism. Indeed, Al Qaeda's origins
in Afghanistan are inseparable from U.S. support for radical Islamist fighters resisting the
Soviet invasion and U.S. decisions about post-Soviet Afghanistan. Toward the end of the war,
Mikhail Gorbachev's Soviet government proposed negotiations to establish a coalition government
in Kabul. Sensing Moscow's weak position, the usually pragmatic George H. W. Bush administration
did not want to deprive the mujahideen of total victory by granting a role to the Soviet Union's
Afghan clients. Once Boris Yeltsin's post-Soviet Russia ceased military support for the Kabul
regime, Washington got its wish. Yet the incoming Clinton administration did little to fill the
vacuum and allowed the Taliban to assume power and harbor Al Qaeda.
As late as 1999, during a
period of strained U.S.-Russia relations following NATO airstrikes in Serbia, Vladimir Putin
proposed U.S.-Russia cooperation against the Taliban and Al Qaeda. It took until after 9/11, well
after Islamist extremism had metastasized throughout the Greater Middle East, for the George W.
Bush administration to agree to work in concert with Moscow in Afghanistan.
Likewise, U.S. policy in Iraq has contributed to new and unnecessary threats. Saddam
Hussein was a genocidal dictator, but had no ties to anti-American terrorist groups that could
justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq, particularly in the absence of weapons of mass
destruction. Nevertheless, if it was a mistake to go into Iraq in the first place, it was no less
a mistake to abandon a weak government with limited control of its own territory and a recent
history of violent internal conflict.
Outside Iraq, as instability spread from Tunisia to Egypt, Syria and Libya, the Obama
administration called for the ouster of Bashar al-Assad's secular authoritarian regime in
Damascus. U.S. officials were trying to promote stability on one side of the Iraq-Syria border
and regime change on the other-without investing much in either. That ISIS or a group like it
would emerge from this was entirely predictable.
The same can be said of other U.S. choices in the Middle East, as in Libya, where the
administration decapitated a repressive regime that had made peace with the United States without
planning-or even intending-to assist in establishing order and security on the ground. Why were
U.S. and NATO officials surprised that Libya became simultaneously safe for terrorists and unsafe
for many of its citizens, who then fled to Europe?
... ... ...
Few policies have alarmed Moscow as much as NATO's expansion. Just as George F. Kennan
predicted in a letter to the National Interest in 1998, NATO's relentless expansion
along Russia's borders fed a nationalist and militaristic mood across the country's political
spectrum. A bold move as this almost literally moved NATO to the suburbs of St. Petersburg,
incorporating Estonia and Latvia into NATO was especially difficult for Moscow to stomach.
Although today more than 25 percent of Estonia and Latvia's populations are ethnically Russian,
this figure was significantly higher at the time of the Soviet collapse. After the Cold War, each
state chose to disenfranchise the vast majority of its Russian-speaking population as well as
other minority groups. Because post-independence Estonia and Latvia were continuations of states
that existed between the First and Second World Wars, they asserted, only the descendants of
those citizens could become citizens of the new states. Even many third-generation
residents-meaning both they and their parents were born in Estonia or Latvia-were given
second-class status, denied many jobs and deprived of participation in national politics.
Demographics produced political reality in the form of nationalist and anti-Russian
governments. Granting those governments NATO membership confirmed Moscow's suspicions that NATO
remained what it was during the Cold War: an anti-Russian alliance. Worse for the United States,
Washington and its allies extended their security umbrella to these states without assessing how
to defend them short of war with a major nuclear power. Even if U.S. policy was guided by a
genuine desire to ensure independence for these long-suffering nations, it was unreasonable to
think that Washington could expand NATO-not to mention, promise Georgia and Ukraine eventual
membership-without provoking Moscow's countermove.
Few recall that Vladimir Putin originally sought to make Russia a major part of a united
Europe. Instead, NATO expansion predictably fueled an us-versus-them mentality in Moscow,
encouraging worst-case thinking about U.S. intentions. Russian leaders now see rearmament and the
search for new allies as appropriate responses to a U.S. policy that is clearer in its
denunciations of Russia than in its contributions to American national security.
Indeed, how can the United States benefit from new dividing lines in Europe reminiscent of the
Cold War? For that matter, how can Latvia or Estonia become more secure as frontline states in a
confrontation with an adversarial Russia?
The recent collapse of U.S.-Russia diplomacy in Syria has only worsened this problem.
Moscow had essentially accepted U.S. and Western sanctions as a fact of life following its
annexation of Crimea and, for two years, sought to demonstrate that Russia remained open for
business on key international issues. However, this posture-an essential ingredient in Russia's
support for the Iran nuclear deal-appears to be evaporating and its principal advocate, Foreign
Minister Sergey Lavrov, now says that so long as the sanctions remain in effect, Russia will no
longer work with the United States where it is to America's advantage.
AMERICA-RUSSIA tensions are particularly troubling given how maladroitly Washington has
approached its other major rival. In contrast to Russia, China is a full-scale superpower with a
robust economy and an impressive culture of innovation. Given its underlying strengths, U.S.
policy could not realistically have prevented China's emergence as a leading power in the
Asia-Pacific region. Still, this does not excuse Washington's ongoing failure to develop a
thoughtful long-term approach to the Chinese challenge.
... ... ...
For all their differences, however, Chinese and Russian leaders share the perception
that U.S. policy-including Washington's support for their neighbors-amounts to a containment
regime designed to keep them down. This perception is not insignificant. Beijing and Moscow can
profoundly complicate the conduct of U.S. security and foreign policy without a formal alliance
or overt hostility to America. Consider today's realities, including China-Russia diplomatic
coordination in the UN Security Council, a more permissive Russian attitude toward the transfer
of advanced weapons systems to China, and increasingly large and complex joint military
maneuvers. And this may only be the beginning.
... ... ...
If the next president pursues a new strategy, he or she should expect resistance from
America's entrenched foreign-policy establishment. Recent fiascos from Iraq to Libya have been
bipartisan affairs, and many will seek to defend their records. Similarly, foreign-policy elites
in both parties have internalized the notion that "American exceptionalism" is a license to
intervene in other countries and that "universal aspirations" guarantee American success.
Despite the presence of many individuals of common sense and integrity in government, U.S.
leaders have too often forgotten that jumping off a cliff is easier than climbing back to safety.
Notwithstanding the election of some well-informed and thoughtful individuals to the Senate and
House of Representatives, the Congress has largely abdicated its responsibility to foster serious
debate on foreign policy and has failed to fulfill its constitutional role as a check on
executive power. The mainstream media has become an echo chamber for a misbegotten and misguided
consensus.
Dimitri K. Simes, publisher and CEO of the National Interest, is president of the
Center for the National Interest. Pratik Chougule is managing editor of the National Interest.
Paul J. Saunders is executive director of the Center for the National Interest.
Ellison is a dud, Bernie tweets support for Schumer "there's nobody I know better prepared
and more capable of leading our caucus than Chuck Schumer"!
Well there's a good chunder maker in that statement eh? Hope dashed!
There are no doubt many who are better informed, more progressive and principled, more remote
from Wall Street and oligarchic capture than Chuck Schumer and Ellison. So there you have it –
this is reform in the Democrats after a crushing defeat.
Vale democrats, and now the journey becomes arduous with these voices to smother hope. A new
party is urgently needed (I know how difficult that is) and these voices of the old machine need
to be ignored for the sake of sanity.
"... Now you are worried about yourselves, but there are only the dead and their survivors left
for whom you didn't speak up for. Give me one reason why anybody should worry about you, who seem to
believe that only you count because you are Americans. My very best wishes for your precious safety
and comfort and may you continue to look in the mirror and see no one there. Trust me, a mirror does
not lie. ..."
"... https://youtu.be/G0R09YzyuCI Collapse of Complex Societies by Dr. Joseph Tainter ..."
"... Eliminate the social cancer of private finance and unfettered inheritance or continue to repeat
history to assured extinction. ..."
I understand some of you are very worried about the election of Donald Trump. But I want you
think about this:
First they went for Yugoslavia, and you didn't worry: a country died
Then they went for Afghanistan and you didn't worry: 220,000 Afghans have died.
Then, they went for Iraq, and you didn't worry: 1 million Iraqis died.
Then they went for Libya, and you didn't worry: 30,000 to 50,000 people died. Did you worry
when Qaddafi was murdered with a bayonet up his rectum? No. And someone even laughed.
Then they went for Ukraine, and you didn't worry: 10,000 people died and are dying.
Then they went for Syria, and you didn't worry: 250,000 people died
Then they went for Yemen: over 6,000 Yemenis have been killed and another 27,000 wounded.
According to the UN, most of them are civilians. Ten million Yemenis don't have enough to eat,
and 13 million have no access to clean water. Yemen is highly dependent on imported food, but
a U.S.-Saudi blockade has choked off most imports. The war is ongoing.
Then there is Somalia , and you don't worry
Then there are the countries that reaped the fallout from the collapse of Libya. Weapons looted
after the fall of Gaddafi fuel the wars in Mali, Niger, and the Central African Republic.
Now you are worried about yourselves, but there are only the dead and their survivors left
for whom you didn't speak up for. Give me one reason why anybody should worry about you, who seem
to believe that only you count because you are Americans. My very best wishes for your precious
safety and comfort and may you continue to look in the mirror and see no one there. Trust me,
a mirror does not lie.
Sincerely,
One who does not worry about you.
PS By the way the butcher bill I am here presenting is very conservative on the body count
and does not include the wounded, the homeless, the refugees, or the cost of the wars to you,
who continue to believe that before Trump the world was a nice and comfortable place--for you.
@ 33 Great comment, but remember the tribe. French revolution, Marxism, Russian revolution, Israel,
neoliberalism. I am from the hard "Grapes of Wrath" left. Marxism was a brilliant Jewish ploy
to split the left, then identity politics. Oh, they are so clever and we are so dumb...
Nice continuation of the Killary Pac comment. I want to take it further.
Since the Marxism ploy to split the left the folks that own private finance have developed/implemented
another ploy to redirect criticism of themselves/their tools by adding goyim to the fringes of
private finance to make it look like a respectable cornerstone of our "civilization".
Oh, they are so clever and we are so dumb...
Eliminate the social cancer of private finance and unfettered inheritance or continue to
repeat history to assured extinction.
"President-elect Donald Trump has named retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn as his new
national security adviser, according to a close source. The former DIA chief has been criticized
in US circles for refusing to take an anti-Russian stance."
"... We [Russia] have never initiated sanctions. These [sanctions] don't prevent us from building dialogue and continuing the dialogue on matters that are of interest to us, to Russia ..."
"... Russian President Vladimir Putin and outgoing US President Obama are likely to talk informally on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific summit in the Peruvian capital of Lima, Peskov said on Friday. ..."
"... The two administrations have not agreed on any separate meetings, but we can assume that President Putin and President Obama will cross paths on the sidelines of the forum and will talk ..."
"... "Russia, breaking international law. Turmoil in North Africa and the Middle East. The refugee and migration crisis. International terrorism. Hybrid warfare. And cyber-attacks," ..."
US President Barack Obama and EU leaders have agreed to keep anti-Russian sanctions in place for
a further year over the situation in Ukraine.
President Obama, who is on his final official visit to Europe, met with the leaders of Germany,
France, Italy, Spain and the UK on Friday.
Among the main topics on the agenda were extending sanctions against Russia, cooperation within
the framework of NATO, the rise of Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) in Iraq and Syria, and
possible new anti-Russian sanctions over Moscow's actions in Syria.
"The leaders also affirmed the importance of continued cooperation through multilateral institutions,
including NATO," the White House added.
Sanctions won't stop Russia from improving its dialogue and ties with other countries, Kremlin
spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.
"We [Russia] have never initiated sanctions. These [sanctions] don't prevent us from building
dialogue and continuing the dialogue on matters that are of interest to us, to Russia," Peskov
said.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and outgoing US President Obama are likely to talk informally
on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific summit in the Peruvian capital of Lima, Peskov said on Friday.
"The two administrations have not agreed on any separate meetings, but we can assume that
President Putin and President Obama will cross paths on the sidelines of the forum and will talk,"
Peskov said.
Also on Friday, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg gave a speech at an event hosted by the
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF), where he said that Europe and the United States
"are close economic and trade partners" and mentioned potential threats for the alliance. "Russia,
breaking international law. Turmoil in North Africa and the Middle East. The refugee and migration
crisis. International terrorism. Hybrid warfare. And cyber-attacks," said Stoltenberg, listing
the perceived dangers.
"... "Top US intelligence official: I submitted my resignation" As of January 20th or so. When he was going to be gone anyway. Just had to get his name in the news one more time. ..."
"... Clapper has been like a difficult to eradicate sexually transmitted disease in the intelligence community. Unfortunately, I suspect he may have already infected others who will remain and pass it around. ..."
"Top US intelligence official: I submitted my resignation" As of January 20th or so. When he was going to be gone anyway. Just had to get his name in the news one more time.
Clapper has been like a difficult to eradicate sexually transmitted disease in the intelligence
community. Unfortunately, I suspect he may have already infected others who will remain and pass
it around.
"... Even when I was there, which was prior to their entry into the EU and NATO, but after the ascension of Putin, the Estonians put their museum about the deportations directly across from the Russian Embassy and hung a banner across the street with a hammer and sickle with "No people, no problem" written in Estonian. That's not the action of a people who are afraid. ..."
I was part of the second panel at TAC's foreign policy conference yesterday on U.S.-Russian
relations. Here are the remarks I gave:
U.S.-Russian relations are worse than they have been at any point since the end of the Cold
War, and both governments have defined their interests in Syria and Ukraine in such a way that
it is difficult to see how they will improve in the near future unless one of them changes its
positions. We can't control how Moscow interprets its interests in these places, but we can reassess
and modify how we think about ours.
Great powers always have some competing and conflicting interests, and so the task of wise
political leaders is to distinguish between disputes over what are ultimately tangential interests
and those that genuinely touch on matters of vital importance and then to find ways to manage
disputes over the latter without stumbling into armed conflict.
####
More at the link. There was also on interesting comment to the article:
VikingLS ,
November 17, 2016 at 8:25 pm
"Not exactly sure that the Baltic States would be terribly reassured by a more relaxed US attitude
toward Russia."
I lived in the Baltics for a while, I like it there, but to be blunt, so what?
Even when I was there, which was prior to their entry into the EU and NATO, but after the
ascension of Putin, the Estonians put their museum about the deportations directly across from
the Russian Embassy and hung a banner across the street with a hammer and sickle with "No people,
no problem" written in Estonian. That's not the action of a people who are afraid.
Honestly, given that the Baltic states also benefit from being a jumping off point for people
who want to do business in Russia, but not be in Russia, they'd be better off if the situation
deescalated.
From a Comparative Linguist POV, it will be a shame really to see those 2 ancient Indo-Aryan languages
(Lith and Latv) die out. But without Communist curation, those languages are doomed, unfortunately.
Oh well, at least they have been properly written down, again mostly thanks to the Communists,
before all people stop speaking and writing them.
"... It is frustrating that Piketty sticks to the "if only we gave the right incentives to this system" approach for combating both hyper-globalization and global warming. THIS DOES NOT WORK. The reason we are in this mess today is not because there weren't enough well-intentioned people running the system – it is that the system deliberately selects against ..."
"... But then again, he titled his book "Capital" without ever having read Marx. ..."
"... This is not to say that the movement to raise awareness about TPP and its ilk was not useful – the point is that there is no useful feedback mechanism between the political elite and the electorate... The link between the state and civil society is fundamentally broken. ..."
"... Sometimes you just need the right incentive. I propose this one: the opportunity to stay out of prison! ..."
It is frustrating that Piketty sticks to the "if only we gave the right incentives to this
system" approach for combating both hyper-globalization and global warming. THIS DOES NOT WORK.
The reason we are in this mess today is not because there weren't enough well-intentioned people
running the system – it is that the system deliberately selects against such people.
He laments the inefficacy of the Paris Accord and CETA and suggests instead to create more
institutions? More bureaucratic positions and trade clauses?
And who exactly will undertake such
a thing, the corporate lobbyists and billionaires? Or the civil society movements that had such
an impact on elites that it required a Trump victory to finally dump the TPP?*
But then again, he titled his book "Capital" without ever having read Marx.
*This is not to say that the movement to raise awareness about TPP and its ilk was not
useful – the point is that there is no useful feedback mechanism between the political elite
and the electorate... The link between the state and civil society is fundamentally
broken.
I hate/have to say this but it is very typical in the French spirit of things to propose a
new administrative entity to address any perceived problem instead of the Anglo-Saxon approach
of looking at which entity caused the problem and needs to be removed. Call it the negative liberty/positive
liberty dialectic if you like.
It's a culture issue. You fix culture by removing the bad apples (prosecution) and making the
incentives survivable for decent people (because it is more fun, at the end of the day, to be
a good person).
"... For over a decade now, Chicago has been the epicenter of the fashionable trend of "privatization"-the transfer of the ownership or operation of resources that belong to all of us, like schools, roads and government services, to companies that use them to turn a profit. Chicago's privatization mania began during Mayor Richard M. Daley's administration, which ran from 1989 to 2011. Under his successor, Rahm Emanuel, the trend has continued apace. For Rahm's investment banker buddies, the trend has been a boon. For citizens? Not so much. ..."
"... the English word "privatization" derives from a coinage, Reprivatisierung, formulated in the 1930s to describe the Third Reich's policy of winning businessmen's loyalty by handing over state property to them. ..."
"... As president, Bill Clinton greatly expanded a privatization program begun under the first President Bush's Department of Housing and Urban Development. "Hope VI" aimed to replace public-housing high-rises with mixed-income houses, duplexes and row houses built and managed by private firms. ..."
"... The fan was Barack Obama, then a young state senator. Four years later, he cosponsored a bipartisan bill to increase subsidies for private developers and financiers to build or revamp low-income housing. ..."
"... However, the rush to outsource responsibility for housing the poor became a textbook example of one peril of privatization: Companies frequently get paid whether they deliver the goods or not (one of the reasons investors like privatization deals). For example, in 2004, city inspectors found more than 1,800 code violations at Lawndale Restoration, the largest privately owned, publicly subsidized apartment project in Chicago. Guaranteed a steady revenue stream whether they did right by the tenants or not-from 1997 to 2003, the project generated $4.4 million in management fees and $14.6 million in salaries and wages-the developers were apparently satisfied to just let the place rot. ..."
PGL on Chicago's parking meters. Yes Democratic Mayor Daley made a bad deal. If Trump does invest in infrastructure is this the kind of thing he'll be doing, selling off public
assets and leasing them back again, aka privatization?
Seems like two different things. Here's an In These Time article from January 2015 by the smart Rick Perlstein.
Welcome to Rahm Emanuel's Chicago, the privatized metropolis of the future.
BY RICK PERLSTEIN
In June of 2013, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel made a new appointment to the city's seven-member
school board to replace billionaire heiress Penny Pritzker, who'd decamped to run President Barack
Obama's Department of Commerce. The appointee, Deborah H. Quazzo, is a founder of an investment firm
called GSV Advisors, a business whose goal-her cofounder has been paraphrased by Reuters as saying-is
to drum up venture capital for "an education revolution in which public schools outsource to private
vendors such critical tasks as teaching math, educating disabled students, even writing report cards."
GSV Advisors has a sister firm, GSV Capital, that holds ownership stakes in education technology
companies like "Knewton," which sells software that replaces the functions of flesh-and-blood teachers.
Since joining the school board, Quazzo has invested her own money in companies that sell curricular
materials to public schools in 11 states on a subscription basis.
In other words, a key decision-maker for Chicago's public schools makes money when school boards
decide to sell off the functions of public schools.
She's not alone. For over a decade now, Chicago has been the epicenter of the fashionable
trend of "privatization"-the transfer of the ownership or operation of resources that belong to all
of us, like schools, roads and government services, to companies that use them to turn a profit.
Chicago's privatization mania began during Mayor Richard M. Daley's administration, which ran from
1989 to 2011. Under his successor, Rahm Emanuel, the trend has continued apace. For Rahm's investment
banker buddies, the trend has been a boon. For citizens? Not so much.
They say that the first person in any political argument who stoops to invoking Nazi Germany automatically
loses. But you can look it up: According to a 2006 article in the Journal of Economic Perspectives,
the English word "privatization" derives from a coinage, Reprivatisierung, formulated in the
1930s to describe the Third Reich's policy of winning businessmen's loyalty by handing over state
property to them.
In the American context, the idea also began on the Right (to be fair, entirely independent of
the Nazis)-and promptly went nowhere for decades. In 1963, when Republican presidential candidate
Barry Goldwater mused "I think we ought to sell the TVA"-referring to the Tennessee Valley Authority,
the giant complex of New Deal dams that delivered electricity for the first time to vast swaths of
the rural Southeast-it helped seal his campaign's doom. Things only really took off after Prime Minister
Margaret Thatcher's sale of U.K. state assets like British Petroleum and Rolls Royce in the 1980s
made the idea fashionable among elites-including a rightward tending Democratic Party.
As president, Bill Clinton greatly expanded a privatization program begun under the first
President Bush's Department of Housing and Urban Development. "Hope VI" aimed to replace public-housing
high-rises with mixed-income houses, duplexes and row houses built and managed by private firms.
Chicago led the way. In 1999, Mayor Richard M. Daley, a Democrat, announced his intention to tear
down the public-housing high-rises his father, Mayor Richard J. Daley, had built in the 1950s and
1960s. For this "Plan for Transformation," Chicago received the largest Hope VI grant of any city
in the nation. There was a ration of idealism and intellectual energy behind it: Blighted neighborhoods
would be renewed and their "culture of poverty" would be broken, all vouchsafed by the honorable
desire of public-spirited entrepreneurs to make a profit. That is the promise of privatization in
a nutshell: that the profit motive can serve not just those making the profits, but society as a
whole, by bypassing inefficient government bureaucracies that thrive whether they deliver services
effectively or not, and empower grubby, corrupt politicians and their pals to dip their hands in
the pie of guaranteed government money.
As one of the movement's fans explained in 1997, his experience with nascent attempts to pay private
real estate developers to replace public housing was an "example of smart policy."
"The developers were thinking in market terms and operating under the rules of the marketplace,"
he said. "But at the same time, we had government supporting and subsidizing those efforts."
The fan was Barack Obama, then a young state senator. Four years later, he cosponsored a bipartisan
bill to increase subsidies for private developers and financiers to build or revamp low-income housing.
However, the rush to outsource responsibility for housing the poor became a textbook example
of one peril of privatization: Companies frequently get paid whether they deliver the goods or not
(one of the reasons investors like privatization deals). For example, in 2004, city inspectors found
more than 1,800 code violations at Lawndale Restoration, the largest privately owned, publicly subsidized
apartment project in Chicago. Guaranteed a steady revenue stream whether they did right by the tenants
or not-from 1997 to 2003, the project generated $4.4 million in management fees and $14.6 million
in salaries and wages-the developers were apparently satisfied to just let the place rot.
Meanwhile, the $1.6 billion Plan for Transformation drags on, six years past deadline and still
2,500 units from completion, while thousands of families languish on the Chicago Housing Authority's
waitlist.
Be that as it may, the Chicago experience looks like a laboratory for a new White House
pilot initiative, the Rental Assistance Demonstration Program (RAD), which is set to turn over some
60,000 units to private management next year. Lack of success never seems to be an impediment where
privatization is concerned.
Does Finance care about bigotry?
Finance has a history of recognizing bigotry and promoting it if it makes loans more predictable.
Home values could drop if too many blacks moved to a neighborhood so finance created red-lining
to protect their investments while promoting bigotry.
Finance is all in favor of tearing down minority neighborhoods or funding polluters in those neighborhoods
to protect investments in gated communities and white sundown towns.
Finance is often part of the problem, not the solution.
All of what you say is true but I have some contrarian/devil's advocate thoughts.
Some finance people are smart and have an enlightened self-interest. Think of Robert Rubin,
George Soros or Warren Buffet. They often back Democrats. Think of Chuck Schumer. Think of Hillary
Clinton's speeches to the banks.
Finance often knocks down walls and will back whatever makes a profit. Often though as you
say it conforms to prejudice and past practices, like red-lining.
I think of the lines from the Communist Manifesto:
"The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal,
idyllic relations. It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to his
"natural superiors", and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest,
than callous "cash payment". It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour,
of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation.
It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible
chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom - Free Trade. In one word,
for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless,
direct, brutal exploitation.
The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to
with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of
science, into its paid wage labourers."
But the cash nexus isn't enough spiritually or emotionally and when living standards stagnate
or decline, anxious people retreat into tribalism.
When I first glances at your question I immediately answered your query like you everyone here
did, 'no, finance does not care about bigotry except to the degree finance can profit from it.'
Then I realized there are too many assumptions contained in your question for me to respond
b/c I was thinking inside the box and not taking in all that impacts Finance and bigotry.
Your question assumes "Finance" is Private and for profit. But that is not true is it, since
there is Public, NGO, Charity, Socialistic, Communistic, et. al., Finance.
And, then there is the problem with the word "bigotry."
Your post makes clear to me that you are referring to American bigotry in housing, but that
means you ignore that "bigotry" exists largely from ones individual perspective, which we know
depends upon from where one sees it.
What I mean by that is Russia, China, Syria, Turkey, Iran, etc., all see and proclaim bigotry
in the USA but deny bigotry in their own countries.
If your point is simply that America Finance discriminates against people of color in Housing
or that such discrimination perpetuates bigotry then no one can disagree with you, imo, however,
your implication that that is done to perpetuate bigotry and racism is probably false since Finance
is amoral, looking to secure profit, and not out to discriminate against a particular group such
as people of color as long as they can profit.
"... "He spoke of the need to reform our trade deals so they aren't raw deals for the American people," she said. "He said he will not cut Social Security benefits. He talked about the need to address the rising cost of college and about helping working parents struggling with the high cost of child care. He spoke of the urgency of rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and putting people back to work. He spoke to the very real sense of millions of Americans that their government and their economy has abandoned them. And he promised to rebuild our economy for working people." ..."
"... And economic populists really care about race gender etc, we just think that focusing on social justice as a priority over economic equality inevitably leads to Trump or someone like him. ..."
"... I don't know who Clinton might represent more than American feminists, and they, or at least the ones over thirty with power and wealth, certainly seemed to feel possessive and empowered by her campaign and possible election. ..."
"... And white American feminists could not even get 50% of white working class women nationwide, and I suspect the numbers are even worse in the Upper Midwest swing states. In comparison, African-Americans delivered as always, 90% of their vote, across all classes and educational levels. Latinos delivered somewhere around 60-70%. ..."
"... You seem to have just ignored what Val, small, Helen, faustusnotes have been saying and inserted a straw man into the conversation. No you don't have to be a Marxist to worry about social discrimination, but being sensitive to social discrimination does make you sensitive to injustice in general. Who exactly are these people you are talking about? ..."
"... Over the past decade, a small but growing movement has realized that the Rube Goldberg neoliberalism of Obamacare–and many other parts of modern Democratic policy–is not sustainable. I've come to that conclusion painfully and slowly. I've taught the law for six years, and each year I get better at explaining how its many parts work, and fit together." ..."
"... I offered in an earlier comment, that the left looks askance at identity politics because of the recuperation of these – gender emancipation, anti-racism and anti-colonial struggles – by capital and the state. engels, above has offered Nancy Fraser linked here. ..."
"... I have no argument with the notion that Clinton was an imperfect candidate. Almost all candidates are (even a top-notch one like Obama) ..."
The idea that people who are against capitalism (or neoliberalism, if you want) are also not
generally against patriarchy and racist colonialism ( as a system ) is obviously false.
On the contrary it's people who are 'into' identity politics who generally are not against
these things (again, as a system). People who are into identity politics are against racism and
sexism, sure, but seem to have little if any idea as to why these ideas came into being and what
social purposes they serve: they seem to think they are just arbitrary lifestyle choices, like
not liking people with red hair, or preferring The Beatles to the Rolling Stones or something.
And if this is true, all we have to do is 'persuade' people not to 'be racist' or 'be sexist'
and then the problem goes away. Hence dehistoricised (and, let's face it, depoliticised) 'political
correctness'. which seems to insist that as long as you don't, personally , call any African-American
the N word and don't use the C word when talking about women, all problems of racism and sexism
will be solved.
The inability to look at History, and social structures, and the history of social structures,
and the purpose of these structures as a pattern of domination, inevitably leads to Clintonism
(or, in the UK, Blairism), which, essentially, equals 'neoliberalism plus don't use the N word'.
I'm not going to argue directly with people because some people are obviously a bit angry about
this but the question is not whether or not sexism or homophobia are good things (they obviously
aren't): the question is whether or not fighting against these things are necessarily left-wing,
and the answer is: depends on how you do it. For example, in both cases we have seen right-wing
feminism ('spice girls feminism') and right wing gay rights (cf Peter Thiel, Milo Yiannopoulos)
which sees 'breaking the glass ceiling' for women and gays as being the key point of the struggle.
I know Americans got terribly excised about having the first American female President and that's
understandable for its symbolic value, but here in the UK we now have our second female Prime
Minister.
So what? Who gives a shit? What's changed (not least, what's changed for women?)?. Nothing.
Eventually you are going to get your first female President. You will probably even someday
get your first gay President. Both of them may be Republicans. Think about that.
What's wrong with -(from the NYT):
'Democrats, who lost the White House and made only nominal gains in the House and Senate, face
a profound decision after last week's stunning defeat: Make common cause where they can with Mr.
Trump to try to win back the white, working-class voters he took from them
– while always reminding the people that F face von Clownstick actually is a Fascistic Racist
Birther.
and at the same time (from E. Warren):
"He spoke of the need to reform our trade deals so they aren't raw deals for the American
people," she said. "He said he will not cut Social Security benefits. He talked about the need
to address the rising cost of college and about helping working parents struggling with the
high cost of child care. He spoke of the urgency of rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure
and putting people back to work. He spoke to the very real sense of millions of Americans that
their government and their economy has abandoned them. And he promised to rebuild our economy
for working people."
Straw man much, hidari? Just to pick a random example of someone who thinks these things are important,
Ursula le guin Sure she's never made any state,nets about systematic oppression, and economic
systems? The problem you have when you try to claim that these ideas "cameo to being" through
social and structural factors is that you're wrong.
Everyone knows rape is as old as sex, the idea it's a product of a distorted economic system
is a fiction produced by Beardy white dudes to shut the girls up until after the revolution.
Which is exactly what you "reformers" of liberalism, who think it has lost its way in the maze
of identity politics, want to do. Look at the response of people like rich puchalsky to BLM –
trying to pretend it's equivalent to the system of police violence directed against occupy, as
if violence against white people for protesting is the same as e murder of black people simply
for being in public.
It's facile, it's shallow and it's a desperate attempt to stop the Democratic Party being forced
to respond to issues outside the concerns of white rust belt men – it's no coincidence that this
uprising g of shallow complaints against identity politics from the hard left occurs at the same
time we see a rust belt reaction against the new left. And the reaction from the hard left will
be as destructive for the dems as the rust belt reaction is for the country.
nastywoman 11.17.16 at 8:04 am
– and what a 'feast' for historians this whole 'deal' must be?
– as there are all kind of fascinating thought experiment around this man who orders so loudly and
in fureign language a Pizza on you-tube.
And wasn't it time that our fellow Americans find out that Adolf Hitler not only ordered Pizza
or complained about his I-Phone – NO! – that he also is very upset that Trump also won the erection?
And there are endless possibilities for histerical conferences about who is the 'Cuter Fascist
– or what Neo Nazis in germany sometimes like to discuss: What if Hitler only would have done 'good'
fascistic things?
Wouldn't he be the role model for all of US?
Or – as there are so many other funny hypotheticals
1) And economic populists really care about race gender etc, we just think that focusing on social
justice as a priority over economic equality inevitably leads to Trump or someone like him.
2) I don't know who Clinton might represent more than American feminists, and they, or at least
the ones over thirty with power and wealth, certainly seemed to feel possessive and empowered
by her campaign and possible election.
And white American feminists could not even get 50% of white working class women nationwide,
and I suspect the numbers are even worse in the Upper Midwest swing states. In comparison, African-Americans
delivered as always, 90% of their vote, across all classes and educational levels. Latinos delivered
somewhere around 60-70%.
American feminism has catastrophically, an understatement, failed over the last couple
generations, and class had very much to do with it, upper middle class advanced degreed liberal
women largely followed Clinton's model, leaned in, and went for the bucks rather than reaching
ou to their non-college sisters in the Midwest. Kinda like Mao staying in Shanghai, or Lenin in
Zurich and expecting the Feminist Revolution to happen in the countryside while they profit.
Feminism, also playing to its base of upper middle class women, has also shifted its focus
from economic and labor force issues, to a range of social and sexuality issues that are of
less concern to most women. Personally, I feel betrayed. The male-female wage gap has not narrow
appreciably since the 1990s, glass ceilings are still in place and, for me most importantly,
horizontal sex segregation in the market for jobs that don't require a college degree, where
roughly 2/3 of American women compete, is unabated. I looked at the most recent BLS stats for
occupations by gender recently. Of the two aggregated categories of occupations that would
be characterized as 'blue collar' work, women represent a little over 2 and 3 percent respectively.
For specific occupations under those categories more than half (eyeballing) don't even include
a sufficient number of women to report.
Again, it isn't hard to see why. Upper middle class women can easily imagine themselves, or
their daughters, needing abortions. The possibility that that option would not be available is
a real fear. They do not worry that they or their daughters would be stuck for most of their adult
lives cashiering at Walmart, working in a call center, or doing any of the other boring, dead-end
pink-collar work which are the only options most women have. And they don't even think of blue-collar
work.
Which Marxists always have expected and why we strongly prefer that the UMC and bourgeois be
kept out of the Party. It's called opportunism and is connected to reformism, IOW, wanting to
keep the system, just replace the old bosses with your owm.
You backed the war-mongering plutocrat and handed the world to fascism. Can you show responsibility
and humility for even a week?
You seem to have just ignored what Val, small, Helen, faustusnotes have been saying and inserted
a straw man into the conversation. No you don't have to be a Marxist to worry about social discrimination,
but being sensitive to social discrimination does make you sensitive to injustice in general.
Who exactly are these people you are talking about?
reason 11.17.16 at 8:43 am
Of course Hidari might have had a point if he was making an argument
about campaign strategy and emphasis, but he seems to be saying more that that, or are I wrong?
Over the past decade, a small but growing movement has realized that the
Rube Goldberg neoliberalism of Obamacare–and many other parts of modern Democratic policy–is not
sustainable. I've come to that conclusion painfully and slowly. I've taught the law for six years,
and each year I get better at explaining how its many parts work, and fit together."
basil 11.17.16 at 9:09 am
I offered in an earlier comment, that the left looks askance at identity
politics because of the recuperation of these – gender emancipation, anti-racism and anti-colonial
struggles – by capital and the state.
engels, above has offered Nancy Fraser linked here.
CT's really weird on identity. Whose work are we thinking through? 'Gender'and 'Race' are political
constructions that are most explicitly economic in nature. There were no black people before racism
made certain bodies available for the inhumanity of enslavement, and thus the enrichment of the slaver
class. Commentators oughtn't, I don't think, write as if there are actually existing black and white
people. As Dorothy Roberts – Fatal Invention: How Science, Politics, and Big Business Re-Create Race
in the 21st Century (and Paul Gilroy – Against Race: Imagining Political Culture beyond the Color
Line, and Karen and Barbara Fields – Racecraft: The Soul of Inequality in American Life, etc put
it, it is racism that creates and naturalises race. Of course liberalism's logics of governance,
the necessity of making bodies available for control and exploitation constantly reproduce and entrench
race (and gender).
I offered that racialised people, particularly those gendered as women/queer, the ones who have
been refused whiteness, are also super suspicious of these deployments of identity politics, especially
by non-subjugated persons who've a political project for which they are weaponising subordinated
identities. It really is abusive and exploitative.
We must listen better. As the racialised and gendered are pointing out, it is incredible that
it has taken the threat of Trump, and now their ascension for liberals to tune in to the violence
waged against racialised, gendered, queer lives and bodies by White Supremacy. History will remember
that #BLM (like the record deportations, the Clintons' actual-existing-but-to-liberals invisible
border wall, the Obamacare farce in the OP, de Blasio's undocumented persons list, Rahm in Chicago,
the employment of David Brock, Melania's nudes, the crushing poverty of racialised women, the exploitation
of those violated by Trump, the re-invasion and desecration of Native American territory) happened
under a liberal presidency. That liberal presidency responded to BLM with a Blue Lives Matter law.
This is evidence of liberalism's inherently violent attitude towards those it pretends to care about.
All this preceded Trump.
If you are for gender emancipation or anti-race/racism, be against these all the time, not just
to tar your temporary electoral foes. Be feminist when dancing Yemenis gendered as women – some of
the poorest, most vulnerable humans – are droned at weddings. Be feminist when Mexico's farmers gendered
as women are dying at NAFTA's hand. Be feminist when poor racialised queer teens are dying in the
streets as you celebrate the right of wealthy gays to marry. Be feminist and reject people who've
got multiple sexual violence accusations against them and those who help them cover these up and
shame the victims. Be feminist and anti-racist and reject people who glory in making war on poor
defenceless people. Be feminist and anti-racist and reject white nationalists gendered female who
call racialised groups 'super-predators' to court racists. Reject people who say of public welfare
improvements – it will never, ever happen, this is not Denmark. The people who need those services
the most are vulnerable humans, racialised and gendered as women. Never say that politicians who
put poor migrants in cages on isolated islands are nice people. They absolutely aren't. Some of this
is really easy.
These puerile rhetorical gestures reveal the people for whom 2:30 a.m. on Wednesday was simply
a glass ceiling left unbroken by a woman who launched a massive Yemeni bombing campaign. Perhaps
as a mechanic of coping, it has become incredibly sexy for a certain class of liberals to dodge
any responsibility for the lives they, too, have compromised. They aren't the same ones who have
to worry about who will be the first person to call them a terrorist faggot ..For the rest of
us, the victory of this fascist is a confirmation of the biases we have known all along, no matter
public liberal consciousness's inabilities to wrangle them into submission."
– and just a suggestion I have learned from touring the rust belt – waaay before it was as 'fashionable'
as it is right now.
While we in some hotel room in Scranton fought our Ideological fights -(we had a French Camera
Assistant who insisted that America one day will elect 'a Fascist like Hitler') –
the mechanic we had scheduled to interview about his Camaro SS for the next day – had exchanged
all the spark plucks of his car.
bob mcmanus above, I really think social justice and economic justice are bound together, and that Universal Healthcare,
for example, as a fundamental right is a basic feminist and anti-racist goal. Most particularly because
the vulnerability of these groups, their economic hardship, their very capacity to live, to survive
is at stake in a marketised health care system.
Racialised outcomes for ACA.
Similarly with marketised higher education and skills training. How cynical that HRC used HBCUs
to argue that racialised people would suffer from free public tertiary education!
Dorothy Roberts' work for example has interesting perspectives on how race is created in part
through the differentiated access to healthcare. They discuss how this plays out for both maternal
and child mortality, and for breast cancer survival. 'Oh, the evidence shows that racialised women
are more vulnerable to x condition'. Exactly, because a racist and marketised system denies them
necessary healthcare.
A funny thing about the new comment moderation regime is that you can get two people posting in
rapid succession saying pretty much opposite things like me then Hidari. It seems as if (although
again it's not very clear) Hidari is suggesting capitalism created sexism and racism? Or something
like that? I'm definitely on better ground there though: patriarchy and sexism predate capitalism.
In fairness though, I think I understand what Hidari and engels are getting at. I know lots
of young people, women and people of colour, who probably fit their description in a way. They
are young, smart, probably a bit naive, and at least some of them probably from privileged backgrounds.
They appear driven by desire to succeed in a hierarchical academic system that still tends to
be dominated by white men at the upper levels, and they don't seem to question the system much,
at least not openly.
But can I just mention, some of our hosts here are actually fairly high up in that system.
Why aren't they being attacked as liberals or proponents of "identity politics"? Why is it only
when women or people of colour try to succeed in that very same academic system that it becomes
so wrong?
Another Nick, yes I can comment on that. I think it's fascinating that the old beardy leftists
and berniebros are fixated on Lena Dunham. Who else is fixated on Lena Dunham? The right bloggers,
who are inflamed with rage at everything she does. Who else is fixated on identity politics? The
right bloggers, who present it as everything wrong with the modern left, PC gone mad, censorship
etc. You guys should get together and have a party – you're made for each other.
Also, the Democrats don't have a "celebrity campaign mascot." So what are you actually talking
about?
basil @ 64
basil what in any conceivable world makes you think that feminists on CT don't know about the
issues you're talking about? I work in a school of public health and my entire work consists of
trying to address those sorts of issues, plus ecological sustainability.
Seriously this has all gone beyond straw-wo/manning. Some people here are talking to others
who exist only in their minds or something. The world's gone mad.
engels 11.17.16 at 12:06 pm
Umm Val and FaustusNoted, which part of-
identity politics isn't the same thing as feminism, anti-racism, LGBT politics, etc. They're
all needed now more than ever.
-was unclear to you?
I DON'T want to live in a world in which 'patriarchy and racism' are okay, I want to live in a
world in which America has a real Left, which represents the working class (black, white, gay, straight,
female, male-like other countries do to a greater lesser degree), and which is the only thing that
has a shot at stopping its descent into outright fascism.
it often gets thrown around as a kind of all-encompassing epithet
Point taken-but there's really nothing I can do to stop other people misusing terms (until
the Dictatorship of the Prolerariat anyway :) )
Cranky Observer 11.17.16 at 12:27 pm
= = = faustnotes @ 4:14 am The reason these conservative Dems come from those states is
that those states don't support radical welfare provisions – they don't want other people getting
a free lunch, and value personal responsibility over welfarism. = = =
As long as you don't count enormous agricultural, highway, postal service, and military base subsidies
as any form of "welfare", sure. And that's not even counting the colossal expenditures on military
force and bribes in the Middle East to keep the diesel-fuel-to-corn unroofed chemical factory (i.e.
farming) industry running profitably. Apparently the Republicans who hate the US Postal Service with
a vengeance, for example, are unaware that in 40% of the land area of the United States FedEx, UPS,
etc turn over the 'last hundred mile' delivery to the USPS.
Ps I'm kind of surprised this thread has been allowed to go on so long but I'm going to bow out
now-feel free to continue trying to smear me behind my back
bob mcmanus 11.17.16 at 12:35 pm
Would a real leftist let her daughter marry a hedge-fund trader?
I suppose they are a step above serial killers and child molesters, but c'mon. Quotes from Wiki,
rearranged in chronological order.
Beginning in the early 1990s, Mezvinsky used a wide variety of 419 scams. According to a federal
prosecutor, Mezvinsky conned using "just about every different kind of African-based scam we've ever
seen."[11] The scams promise that the victim will receive large profits, but first a small down payment
is required. To raise the funds needed to front the money for the fraudulent investment schemes he
was being offered, Mezvinsky tapped his network of former political contacts, dropping the name of
the Clinton family to convince unwitting marks to give him money.[12]
In March 2001, Mezvinsky was indicted and later pleaded guilty to 31 of 69 felony charges of bank
fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud
"In July 2010, Mezvinsky married Chelsea Clinton in an interfaith ceremony in Rhinebeck, New York.[12]
The senior Clintons and Mezvinskys were friends in the 1990s ; their children met on a Renaissance
Weekend retreat in Hilton Head Island, South Carolina."
Subsequent to his graduations, he worked for eight years as an investment banker at Goldman Sachs
before leaving to join a private equity firm, but later quit. In 2011, he co-founded a Manhattan-based
hedge fund firm, Eaglevale Partners, with two longtime partners, Bennett Grau and Mark Mallon.[1][8]
In May 2016, The New York Times reported that the Eaglevale Hellenic Opportunity Fund is said to
have lost nearly 90 percent of its value, [which equated to a 90% loss to investors] and sources
say it will be shutting down.[9][10] Emails discovered as part of Wikileaks' release of the "Podesta
emails" seemed to indicate that Mezvinsky had used his ties to the Clinton family to obtain investors
for his hedge fund through Clinton Foundation events.
Marcotte, Sady Doyle, Valenti, the Clinton operatives knew this stuff.
Prioritizing women's liberation over economic populism, just a little bit, doesn't quite cover
it. Buying fully into the most rapacious aspects of predatory capitalism is more lie it.
If Clinton is your champion, and I am still seeing sads at Jezebel, you have zero credilibity
on economic issues. She's one of the worst crooks to ever run for President. And we will see how
Obama fares on his immediate switch from President to his ambition to be a venture capitalist for
Silicon Valley. I'll bet Obama gets very very lucky!
Val @49 &
"they (at some confused and probably not fully conscious level) do seem to assume that violence
and oppression of women and people of colour never used to happen when white men (including white
working class men) had 'good jobs' .. patriarchy and racism predate neoliberalism by centuries."
"patriarchy and sexism predate capitalism."
I think this framing is misleading, because you're historically comparing forms of oppression
with economic systems, rather than varieties of one or the other.
Wouldn't the more relevant comparison be something like: patriarchy and sexism are coeval with
classism and economic inequality?
What concretely are racism and sexism, after all, but ideologies dependent upon power inequalities,
and what are those but inequalities of social position (man, father) and wealth and ownership
that make possible that power difference? How could sexism or racism have existed without class
or inequality?
novakant 11.17.16 at 1:32 pm
I have no argument with the notion that Clinton was an imperfect candidate. Almost all
candidates are (even a top-notch one like Obama)
Strawman (I have heard a lot of times before):
nobody criticizes Clinton for being imperfect, people criticize her for being a terrible, terrible
candidate and the DNC establishment for supporting this terrible, terrible candidate: she lost
against TRUMP for goodness' sake.
bob mcmanus: "In March 2001, Mezvinsky was indicted and later pleaded guilty to 31 of 69 felony
charges of bank fraud, mail fraud, and wire fraud "
Well, either I'm shocked to discover that Clinton was involved in her daughter's husband's
father's crimes some 20 years ago, or you've demonstrated that Clinton's daughter married a man
whose father was a crook. I'm guessing the latter, though I'm left wondering WTF that has to do
with Clinton's character.
engels 11.17.16 at 2:03 pm
One more:
"we cannot ignore the fact that the vast majority of white men and a majority of white women,
across class lines, voted for a platform and a message of white supremacy, Islamophobia, misogyny,
xenophobia, homophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-science, anti-Earth, militarism, torture, and policies
that blatantly maintain income inequality. The vast majority of people of color voted against
Trump, with black women registering the highest voting percentage for Clinton of any other demographic
(93 percent). It is an astounding number when we consider that her husband's administration oversaw
the virtual destruction of the social safety net by turning welfare into workfare, cutting food
stamps, preventing undocumented workers from receiving benefits, and denying former drug felons
and users access to public housing; a dramatic expansion of the border patrol, immigrant detention
centers, and the fence on Mexico's border; a crime bill that escalated the war on drugs and accelerated
mass incarceration; as well as NAFTA and legislation deregulating financial institutions.
"Still, had Trump received only a third of the votes he did and been defeated, we still would
have had ample reason to worry about our future.
"I am not suggesting that white racism alone explains Trump's victory. Nor am I dismissing
the white working class's very real economic grievances. It is not a matter of disaffection versus
racism or sexism versus fear. Rather, racism, class anxieties, and prevailing gender ideologies
operate together, inseparably, or as Kimberlé Crenshaw would say, intersectionally."
https://bostonreview.net/forum/after-trump/robin-d-g-kelley-trump-says-go-back-we-say-fight-back
Bob, a real feminist would not tell her daughter who to marry.
You claim to be an intersectional feminist but you say things like this, and you blamed feminists
for white dudes voting for trump. Are you a parody account?
Michael Sullivan 11.17.16 at 2:41 pm
Mclaren @ 25 "As for 63.7% home ownership stats in 2016, vast numbers of those "owned" homes
were snapped up by giant banks and other financial entities like hedge funds which then rented
those homes out. So the home ownership stats in 2016 are extremely deceptive."
There may be ways in which the home ownership statistic is deceptive or fuzzy, but it's hard
for me to imagine this being one of them.
The definition you seem to imply for home ownership (somebody somewhere owns the home) would
result in by definition 100% home ownership every year.
I'm pretty sure that the measure is designed to look at whether one of the people who live
in a home actually owns it. Ok, let's stuff the pretty sure, etc. and use our friend google. So
turns out that the rate in question is the percentage of households where one of the people in
the household owns the apartment/house. If some banker or landlord buys a foreclosure and then
rents the house out, that will be captured in the homeownership rate.
Where that rate may understate issues is that it doesn't consider how many people are in a
household. So if lots of people are moving into their parent's basements, or renting rooms to/from
unrelated people in their houses, those people won't be counted as renters or homeowners, since
the rate tracks households, not people. Where that will be captured is in something called the
headship rate, and represents the ratio of households to adults. That number dropped by about
1.5% between the housing bust and the recession, and appears to be recovering or at worst near
bottom (mixed data from two different surveys) as of 2013. So, yes, the drop in home ownership
rate is probably understated (hence the headline of my source article below) somewhat, but not
enormously as you imply, and the difference is NOT foreclosures - unless they are purchased by
another owner occupier, they DO show up in the home ownership rate. The difference is larger average
households: more adults living with other adults.
engels @70, "I DON'T want to live in a world in which 'patriarchy and racism' are okay, I want
to live in a world in which America has a real Left, which represents the working class (black,
white, gay, straight, female, male-like other countries do to a greater lesser degree), and which
is the only thing that has a shot at stopping its descent into outright fascism."
So many prominent people and such a large majority of voters have be so completely wrong, so
many times, on everything, for a year that I really am not confident about making any strong political
claims anymore. However, it has opened me to possibilities I wouldn't have previously considered.
One is this: I'm beginning to wonder (not believe, wonder), if a lot of working class and lower-to-middle
middle class Americans, including a lot of the ones who didn't vote or who switched from Obama
to Trump (not including those who were always on the right) would already be on board, or in the
long run be able of getting on board, with the picture Engels paints at 70.
That possibility seems outrageous because we assume this general group are motivated *primarily*
by resentment against women and people of color. But the more I read news stories that directly
interview them–not the rally goers, but the others–the more it seems that they will side with
*almost anyone* who they think is on their side, and *against anyone* who they think has contempt
or indifference for them. Put another way: they are driven by equal opportunity resentment to
whatever prejudices serve their resentment, rather than by a deeply engrained, fixed, rigid, kind
of prejudice. (I have in mind a number of recent articles, but one thing that struck me is interviews
with racially diverse factory workers, with Latinos and women, who voted for Trump.)
I also begin to wonder if there is as much, if not more, resistance to wide solidarity among
the left than among this group of voters who aren't really committed to either party. I begin
to think that many on the left are strongly, deeply, viscerally opposed to the middle range working
class, period, and not *just* to the racism and sexism that are all too often found there. I worry
the Democrats' class contempt, their conservative disgust for their social, educational, professional,
and economic inferiors is growing–partly based in reasonable disgust at the horrendous excesses
of the right, but partly class-based, pathological, and subterranean, independent of that reasonable
side.
I say this not to justify Trump voters or non-voters or to vilify Democrats, but actually with
a bit of optimism. For a very long time even many on the far left has looked at the old Marxist
model of wide solidarity among the proletariat with skepticism. But I'm wondering if that skepticism
is still justified. I wonder if what stands in the way of a truly diverse working class movement
is not the right but the left. If they're ready, and we've not been paying attention.
Are we really faced with a working class that rejects diversity? Are we really opposing to
them a professional class that truly accepts diversity? Isn't there a kind of popular solidarity
appearing, in awkward and sometimes ugly ways, that is destroying the presumptions of that opposition?
engels 11.17.16 at 3:32 pm Cornel West:
In short, the abysmal failure of the Democratic party to speak to the arrested mobility and
escalating poverty of working people unleashed a hate-filled populism and protectionism that threaten
to tear apart the fragile fiber of what is left of US democracy. And since the most explosive
fault lines in present-day America are first and foremost racial, then gender, homophobic, ethnic
and religious, we gird ourselves for a frightening future. What is to be done? First we must try
to tell the truth and a condition of truth is to allow suffering to speak. For 40 years, neoliberals
lived in a world of denial and indifference to the suffering of poor and working people and obsessed
with the spectacle of success. Second we must bear witness to justice. We must ground our truth-telling
in a willingness to suffer and sacrifice as we resist domination. Third we must remember courageous
exemplars like Martin Luther King Jr, who provide moral and spiritual inspiration as we build
multiracial alliances to combat poverty and xenophobia, Wall Street crimes and war crimes, global
warming and police abuse – and to protect precious rights and liberties .
Val: "It seems as if (although again it's not very clear) Hidari is suggesting capitalism created
sexism and racism? Or something like that? I'm definitely on better ground there though, patriarchy
and sexism predate capitalism."
If Hidari is coming from a more-or-less mainline contemporary Marxist position, this is a misunderstanding
of their argument, which is no more a claim that capitalism "created sexism and racism" than it
would be a claim that capitalism created class antagonism. What's instead being suggested is that
just as capitalism has systematized a specific form of class antagonism (wage laborer vs.
capitalist) as a perceived default whose hegemony and expansion shapes our perception of all other
potential antagonisms as anachronistic exceptions, so it has done the same with specific forms
of sexism and racism, the forms we might call "patriarchy" and "white supremacy". In fact the
argument is typically that antagonisms like white vs. POC and man vs. woman function as normalized
exceptions to the normalized general antagonism of wage laborer vs. capitalist, a space where
the process known since Marx as "primitive accumulation" can take place through the dispossession
of women and POC (up to and including the dispossession of their very bodies) in what might otherwise
be considered flagrant violation of liberal norms.
As theorists like
Rosa Luxemburg and
Silvia Federici
have elaborated, this process of accumulation is absolutely essential to the continued functioning
of capitalism - the implication being that as much as capitalism and its ideologists pretend to
oppose oppressions like racism and sexism, it can never actually destroy these oppressions without
destroying its own social basis in the process. Hence neoliberal "identity politics", in which
changing the composition of the ruling elite (now the politician shaking hands with Netanyahu
on the latest multibillion-dollar arms deal can be a black guy with a Muslim-sounding name! now
the CEO of a company that employs teenaged girls to stitch T-shirts for 12 hours a day can be
a woman!) is ideologically akin to wholesale liberation, functions not as a way to destroy racism
and sexism but as a compromise gambit to preserve them.
Another Nick 11.17.16 at 4:01 pm f
austusnotes, I asked if you could comment on the "identity politics" behind the Dem choice
of Lena Dunham for celebrity campaign mascot. ie. their strategy. What they were planning and
thinking? And how you think it played out for them?
Not a list of your favourite boogeymen.
"So what are you actually talking about?"
I was attempting to discuss the role of identity politics in the Clinton campaign. I asked
about Dunham because she was the most prominent of the celebrities employed by the Clinton campaign
to deploy identity politics. ie. she appeared most frequently in the media on their behalf.
Not seeing much discussion about actual policies there, economic or otherwise. It's really
just an entire interview based on identity politics. With bonus meta-commentary on identity politics.
Lena blames "white women, so unable to see the unity of female identity, so unable to look
past their violent privilege, and so inoculated with hate for themselves," for the election loss.
Why didn't the majority of white women vote for Hillary? Because they "hate themselves".
"... The New Deal did not seek to overthrow the plutocracy, but it did seek to side-step and disable
their dominance. ..."
"... It seems to me that while neoliberalism on the right was much the same old same old, the neoliberal
turn on the left was marked by a measured abandonment of this struggle over the distribution of income
between the classes. In the U.S., the Democrats gradually abandoned their populist commitments. In Europe,
the labour and socialist parties gradually abandoned class struggle. ..."
"... When Obama came in, in 2008 amid the unfolding GFC, one of the most remarkable features of
his economic team was the extent to which it conceded control of policy entirely to the leading money
center banks. Geithner and Bernanke continued in power with Geithner moving from the New York Federal
Reserve (where he served as I recall under a Chair from Goldman Sachs) to Treasury in the Obama Administration,
but Geithner's Treasury was staffed from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Citibank. The crisis served
to concentrate banking assets in the hands of the top five banks, but it seemed also to transfer political
power entirely into their hands as well. Simon Johnson called it a coup. ..."
"... Here's the thing: the globalization and financialization of the economy from roughly 1980 drove
both increasingly extreme distribution of income and de-industrialization. ..."
"... It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy consequences
were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability. Matt Stoller has identified
this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility for
economic performance and outcomes. Globalization and financialization were just "forces" that just happened,
in a meteorological economics. ..."
"... This was not your grandfather's Democratic Party and it was a Democratic Party that could aid
the working class and the Rust Belt only within fairly severe and sometimes sharply conflicting constraints.
..."
"... No one in the Democratic Party had much institutional incentive to connect the dots, and draw
attention to the acute conflicts over the distribution of income and wealth involved in financialization
of the economy (including financialization as a driver of health care costs). And, that makes the political
problem that much harder, because there are no resources for rhetorical and informational clarity or
coherence. ..."
"... If Obama could not get a very big stimulus indeed thru a Democratic Congress long out of power,
Obama wasn't really trying. And, well-chosen spending on pork barrel projects is popular and gets Congressional
critters re-elected. So, again, if the stimulus is small and the Democratic Congress doesn't get re-elected,
Obama isn't really trying. ..."
"... Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism, because
it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference. ..."
At the center of Great Depression politics was a political struggle over the distribution of
income, a struggle that was only decisively resolved during the War, by the Great Compression.
It was at center of farm policy where policymakers struggled to find ways to support farm incomes.
It was at the center of industrial relations politics, where rapidly expanding unions were seeking
higher industrial wages. It was at the center of banking policy, where predatory financial practices
were under attack. It was at the center of efforts to regulate electric utility rates and establish
public power projects. And, everywhere, the clear subtext was a struggle between rich and poor,
the economic royalists as FDR once called them and everyone else.
FDR, an unmistakeable patrician in manner and pedigree, was leading a not-quite-revolutionary
politics, which was nevertheless hostile to and suspicious of business elites, as a source of
economic pathology. The New Deal did not seek to overthrow the plutocracy, but it did seek
to side-step and disable their dominance.
It seems to me that while neoliberalism on the right was much the same old same old, the
neoliberal turn on the left was marked by a measured abandonment of this struggle over the distribution
of income between the classes. In the U.S., the Democrats gradually abandoned their populist commitments.
In Europe, the labour and socialist parties gradually abandoned class struggle.
In retrospect, though the New Deal did use direct employment as a means of relief to good effect
economically and politically, it never undertook anything like a Keynesian stimulus on a Keynesian
scale - at least until the War.
Where the New Deal witnessed the institution of an elaborate system of financial repression,
accomplished in large part by imposing on the financial sector an explicitly mandated structure,
with types of firms and effective limits on firm size and scope, a series of regulatory reforms
and financial crises beginning with Carter and Reagan served to wipe this structure away.
When Obama came in, in 2008 amid the unfolding GFC, one of the most remarkable features
of his economic team was the extent to which it conceded control of policy entirely to the leading
money center banks. Geithner and Bernanke continued in power with Geithner moving from the New
York Federal Reserve (where he served as I recall under a Chair from Goldman Sachs) to Treasury
in the Obama Administration, but Geithner's Treasury was staffed from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan
Chase and Citibank. The crisis served to concentrate banking assets in the hands of the top five
banks, but it seemed also to transfer political power entirely into their hands as well. Simon
Johnson called it a coup.
I don't know what considerations guided Obama in choosing the size of the stimulus or its composition
(as spending and tax cuts). Larry Summers was identified at the time as a voice of caution, not
"gambling", but not much is known about his detailed reasoning in severely trimming Christina
Romer's entirely conventional calculations. (One consideration might well have been worldwide
resource shortages, which had made themselves felt in 2007-8 as an inflationary spike in commodity
prices.) I do not see a case for connecting stimulus size policy to the health care reform. At
the time the stimulus was proposed, the Administration had also been considering whether various
big banks and other financial institutions should be nationalized, forced to insolvency or otherwise
restructured as part of a regulatory reform.
Here's the thing: the globalization and financialization of the economy from roughly 1980
drove both increasingly extreme distribution of income and de-industrialization. Accelerating
the financialization of the economy from 1999 on made New York and Washington rich, but the same
economic policies and process were devastating the Rust Belt as de-industrialization. They were
two aspects of the same complex of economic trends and policies. The rise of China as a manufacturing
center was, in critical respects, a financial operation within the context of globalized trade
that made investment in new manufacturing plant in China, as part of globalized supply chains
and global brand management, (arguably artificially) low-risk and high-profit, while reinvestment
in manufacturing in the American mid-west became unattractive, except as a game of extracting
tax subsidies or ripping off workers.
It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy consequences
were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability. Matt Stoller has identified
this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility
for economic performance and outcomes. Globalization and financialization were just "forces" that
just happened, in a meteorological economics.
It is conceding too many good intentions to the Obama Administration to tie an inadequate stimulus
to a Rube Goldberg health care reform as the origin story for the final debacle of Democratic
neoliberal politics. There was a delicate balancing act going on, but they were not balancing
the recovery of the economy in general so much as they were balancing the recovery from insolvency
of a highly inefficient and arguably predatory financial sector, which was also not incidentally
financing the institutional core of the Democratic Party and staffing many key positions in the
Administration and in the regulatory apparatus.
This was not your grandfather's Democratic Party and it was a Democratic Party that could
aid the working class and the Rust Belt only within fairly severe and sometimes sharply conflicting
constraints.
No one in the Democratic Party had much institutional incentive to connect the dots, and
draw attention to the acute conflicts over the distribution of income and wealth involved in financialization
of the economy (including financialization as a driver of health care costs). And, that makes
the political problem that much harder, because there are no resources for rhetorical and informational
clarity or coherence.
The short version of my thinking on the Obama stimulus is this: Keynesian stimulus spending is
a free lunch; it doesn't really matter what you spend money on up to a very generous point, so
it seems ready-made for legislative log-rolling. If Obama could not get a very big stimulus
indeed thru a Democratic Congress long out of power, Obama wasn't really trying. And, well-chosen
spending on pork barrel projects is popular and gets Congressional critters re-elected. So, again,
if the stimulus is small and the Democratic Congress doesn't get re-elected, Obama isn't really
trying.
Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism,
because it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference.
Great comment. Simply great. Hat tip to the author !
Notable quotes:
"… The New Deal did not seek to overthrow the plutocracy, but it did seek to side-step and
disable their dominance. …"
"… It seems to me that while neoliberalism on the right was much the same old same old, the
neoliberal turn on the left was marked by a measured abandonment of this struggle over the distribution
of income between the classes. In the U.S., the Democrats gradually abandoned their populist
commitments. In Europe, the labour and socialist parties gradually abandoned class struggle. …"
"… When Obama came in, in 2008 amid the unfolding GFC, one of the most remarkable features
of his economic team was the extent to which it conceded control of policy entirely to the leading
money center banks. Geithner and Bernanke continued in power with Geithner moving from the
New York Federal Reserve (where he served as I recall under a Chair from Goldman Sachs) to Treasury
in the Obama Administration, but Geithner's Treasury was staffed from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan
Chase and Citibank. The crisis served to concentrate banking assets in the hands of the top
five banks, but it seemed also to transfer political power entirely into their hands as well.
Simon Johnson called it a coup. … "
"… Here's the thing: the globalization and financialization of the economy from roughly 1980
drove both increasingly extreme distribution of income and de-industrialization. …"
"… It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy consequences
were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability. Matt Stoller has identified
this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility
for economic performance and outcomes. Globalization and financialization were just "forces"
that just happened, in a meteorological economics. …"
"… This was not your grandfather's Democratic Party and it was a Democratic Party that could
aid the working class and the Rust Belt only within fairly severe and sometimes sharply conflicting
constraints. …"
"… No one in the Democratic Party had much institutional incentive to connect the dots, and
draw attention to the acute conflicts over the distribution of income and wealth involved in financialization
of the economy (including financialization as a driver of health care costs). And, that makes
the political problem that much harder, because there are no resources for rhetorical and informational
clarity or coherence. …"
"… If Obama could not get a very big stimulus indeed thru a Democratic Congress long out of
power, Obama wasn't really trying. And, well-chosen spending on pork barrel projects is popular
and gets Congressional critters re-elected. So, again, if the stimulus is small and the Democratic
Congress doesn't get re-elected, Obama isn't really trying. …"
"… Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism,
because it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference.
…"
"... The revulsion towards Trump is strongest among those with little to no work or life experience. Just about everything they know about the world has been programmed into them by electronic media. Their entire lives, from how they stand or walk to their barely audible interior monologues, are molded by electronic media. Their skulls are electronic media echo chambers. ..."
According to a Nielsen study, the average American adult consumes 10:39 hours of electronic media
per day in 2016, up a full hour from 2015. Each year, it increases. At 13:17 hours, blacks expose
themselves to the most, with Asians the least at 5:31 hours.
During many cross-country train trips,
I've always noticed that the calmest and most content people in the lounge car were the Amish, those
with no cravings for electronic media. Their children, in particular, were always impressively serene.
Instead of hunching over a private movie, or being plugged to detonating beats that irritated everyone
nearby, the Amish enjoyed each other's company. Not wedded to gadgets, they bantered or sat in silence
while contemplating this earth, unfurling outside the window.
Minus sleep and work, you only have about eight hours for all other activities. If someone spends
all his available time watching TV, listening to music or staring at his stupid phone, he'll act
and react according to his programming, wouldn't you think?
After Trump won the presidency, young Americans all over the country hit the streets in protest.
High school students walked out of class en masse to march. Colleges organized counseling sessions
and even cry-ins. It's quite telling, this uniform dismay. Schools indoctrinate, and colleges teach
you how to self-censor.
The revulsion towards Trump is strongest among those with little to no work or life experience.
Just about everything they know about the world has been programmed into them by electronic media.
Their entire lives, from how they stand or walk to their barely audible interior monologues, are
molded by electronic media. Their skulls are electronic media echo chambers.
If it's cool, they're hooked. Who cares about contradictions? In 2012, Lady Gaga visited Julian
Assange at his de facto London prison. In 2013, she performed at an inaugural ball for Obama's campaign
staff. Gaga is also a long-time supporter of the Clintons. Gaga's fans, then, can admire her for
siding with both Assange and his vicious persecuters. Hillary on Assange, "Can't we just drone this
guy?"
Doped up with songs and slogans, the media-drugged can't even register contradictions in real
time.
In 2011, the Clintons threw a bash for themselves at the Hollywood Bowl. With an all-star lineup,
the Decade of Difference Concert celebrated their tremendous role in improving the world. No doubt
thinking of NAFTA, Kenny Chesney sang "Beer in Mexico."
The United States should threaten Russia with military force in order to contain the Kremlin's growing
power on the international stage, a top candidate to become Donald Trump's Secretary of State has
said.
Rudy Giuliani, the former New York Mayor
who is believed to be the front runner to head Mr Trump's
State Department, made the comments at a Washington event sponsored by the
Wall Street Journal
.
In
quotes | The Trump - Putin relationship
Putin on Trump:
"He is a very flamboyant man, very talented, no doubt about
that He is an absolute leader of the presidential race, as we see it today. He says that
he wants to move to another level of relations, to a deeper level of relations with Russia.
How can we not welcome that? Of course we welcome it." -
December 2015
Trump on Putin:
"It is always a great honour to be so nicely complimented by a
man so highly respected within his own country and beyond." -
December 2015
"I think I would just get along very well with Putin. I just
think so. People say what do you mean? I just think we would." -
July 2015
"I have no relationship with [Putin] other than he called me a
genius. He said Donald Trump is a genius and he is going to be the leader of the party and
he's going to be the leader of the world or something. He said some good stuff about me I
think I'd have a good relationship with Putin, who knows." -
February 2016
"I have nothing to do with Putin, I have never spoken to him, I
don't know anything about him, other than he will respect me." -
July 2016
"I would treat Vladimir Putin firmly, but there's nothing I can
think of that I'd rather do than have Russia friendly as opposed to how they are right now
so that we can go and knock out Isis together with other people. Wouldn't it be nice if we
actually got along?" -
July 2016
"The man has very strong control over a country. It's a very
different system and I don't happen to like the system, but certainly, in that system, he's
been a leader." -
September 2016
"Well I think when [Putin] called me brilliant, I'll take the
compliment, okay?" -
September 2016
"... News that Trump might work 4 days a week as President, or at least work the same work week as Congress does, would suggest he plans on running a lean government. ..."
"... A counter-argument that could be put forward is that the Presidency doesn't (and shouldn't) define the office-holder's life and the Clintons themselves are an example of what can happen if the Presidency consumes their lives ..."
"... If it's Trump's intention to reform the political culture in Washington and make it more accountable to the public, and bring the Presidency closer to the public, then defining the maximum limits of the position on his time and sticking to them, perhaps through delegating roles and functions to his cabinet secretaries, is one path to reform. ..."
My impression is that Donald Trump is planning or at least thinking of running the government
as a business, choosing people as cabinet secretaries on the basis of past experience and on what
they would bring to the position, as opposed to choosing cabinet secretaries because they have
been loyal yes-people (as Hillary Clinton would have done)
News that Trump might work 4 days a week as President, or at least work the same work week
as Congress does, would suggest he plans on running a lean government. At present the prevailing
attitude among Washington insiders and the corporate media is that Trump is not really that interested
in being President and isn't committed to the job 24/7.
A counter-argument that could be put forward is that the Presidency doesn't (and shouldn't)
define the office-holder's life and the Clintons themselves are an example of what can happen
if the Presidency consumes their lives: it can damage the individuals and in Hillary Clinton's
case, cut her off so much from ordinary people that it disqualifies her from becoming President
herself.
If it's Trump's intention to reform the political culture in Washington and make it more accountable
to the public, and bring the Presidency closer to the public, then defining the maximum limits
of the position on his time and sticking to them, perhaps through delegating roles and functions
to his cabinet secretaries, is one path to reform.
Castigating the US electorate as accomplices and facilitators of wars, or at best describing it as
ignorant sheep herded by political elites, speaks only to a partial reality; in public opinion polls,
even in ones weighted overwhelmingly to the center-right, the American people consistently opposse
militarism and wars, past and present.
The right and Left, each in their own way, fail to grasp the contradiction that define US political
life, namely, the profound gap between the American public and the Washington elite on questions
of war and peace, and the electoral process which results in the perpetuation of militarism. We will
proceed to analyze the most recent polling of US public opinion and then turn to the electoral outcomes.
In the second part we will discuss the contradictions and raise several ways in which the contradiction
can be resolved.
... ... ...
Analysis and Perspectives
On all major issues of foreign policy pertaining to war and peace, the political elite is far
more bellicose than the US public; far more likely to ignore wars that threaten national security;
more likely to violate the Constitution;and are committed to increasing military spending even as
it reduces social programs.
The political elites are more likely to intervene or become "entangled" in Middle East wars, against
the opinion of majoritarian popular opinion. No doubt the decidedly oligarchical military-industrial
complexes, Israeli power configuration and mass media publicists, are far more influential than the
pro-democracy public.
The future portends the political elites' continuation of military policies, increasing security
threats and diminishing public representation.
Some Hypothesis on the Contradiction between Popular Opinion and Electoral Outcomes
There is clearly a substantial gap between the majority of Americans and the political elite regarding
the military's role overseas, wars, constitutional prerogives, the demonization of Russia, the deployment
of US troops to Syria and the US entanglement in Middle East wars, which it is understood to be Israel.
Yet it is also a fact that the US electorate votes for the two major political parties that supports
wars, back Middle East alliances with warring states, Saudi Arabia and Israel,and sanction Russia
as the main threat to US security.
ORDER IT NOW
Several hypotheses regarding this contradiction should be considered.
1. Close to 50% of the electorate abstain from voting in Presidential and Congressional elections,
which most likely includes those Americans that oppose the US military role overseas. In other words
the war parties 'win' elections with 25% or less of the electorate.
2. The fact that the mass media vehemently supports one or the other of the two war parties probably
influences a minority of the electorate which votes in the elections. However, critics of the mass
media have exaggerated their influence because they fail to explain why the majority of the American
public respondents are in contrary to the mass media and oppose their militarist propaganda.
3. Many of the anti-militarism Americans who decide to vote for war parties may be choosing the
lesser evil. They may decide there are possible degrees of war mongering.
4. Americans who oppose militarism may decide to vote for militarist politicians for reasons other
than overseas wars. For example, majoritarian Americans may vote for a militarist politician who
secures financing for local infrastructure programs, or dairy subsidies or promises of employment,
or lowering the public debt or opposing corrupt incumbents.
5. Americans opposed to militarism may be deceived by demagogic war party presidential candidates
who promise peace and who, once in power, escalate wars.
6. Likewise, 'identity politics' can divert anti-militarist voters into supporting war party candidates
who claim office because of their race, ethnicity, gender, loyalties to overseas states and sexual
preference.
7. The war parties block anti-militarist parties from access to the mass media, especially during
electoral debates viewed by tens of millions. War parties establish onerous restrictions for registering
anti-militarist parties, voters with non-violent prison records or lacking photo identification or
transport to voting sites or time-off from work. In other words the electoral process is rigged and
imposes 'forced voting' and abstention: limited choices obligate abstention or voting for war parties.
Only if elections were open and democratic, where anti-militarist parties were allowed equal rights
to register and debate in the mass media, and where financial campaigns are equalized will the contradictions
between anti-militarist majorities and voters for pro-war elites be resolved.
"... I can recall tales of insecure Eastern European Jewish immigrants pretending to be WASPS. ..."
"... To be blunt, Barack Obama was less "a president" than a talented actor playing at being presidential. ..."
"... Those of us who have encountered this deception are usually aware of its tell-tale signs, though, to be fair, it may have been diligently practiced for so long that it has become a "real" element of the perpetrator's core personality. For those unfamiliar with this deception, let me now offer a brief catalogue of these tactics. ..."
"... Central is the careful management of outward physical appearances. In theatrical terms, these are props and depending on circumstances, this might be a finely tailored suit, wingtip shoes, a crisp white shirt, a smart silk tie and all the rest that announce business-like competence. ..."
"... Mastering "white" language is equally critical and in the academy this includes everything from tossing around trendy terms, for example, "paradigmatic," to displaying what appears to be a mastering of disciplinary jargon. Recall how the Black Panthers seduced gullible whites with just a sprinkling of Marxist terminology. ..."
"... I recall one (white) colleague who gave a little speech praising a deeply flawed dissertation written by a black assistant professor up for tenure. He told the assembled committee that her dissertation reminded him of Newton's Principia Mathematica (can't make that stuff up). ..."
"... Obama as President repeatedly exhibits these characteristics. It is thus hardly accidental that he relies extensively on canned Teleprompter speeches. According to one compilation published in January 2013, Obama has used Teleprompters in 699 speeches during his first term in office. There is also his aversion to informal off-the-cuff discussions with the press and open mike who-knows-what-will-happen "Town Hall" meetings. Obama is also the first president I've ever seen who often favors a casual blue jacket monogrammed "President of the United States." ..."
"... I suspect that deep down Obama recognizes that almost everything is an act not unlike Eddy Murphy playing Professor Sherman Klump in The Nutty Professor . It is no wonder, then, that his academic records (particularly his SAT scores) are sealed and, perhaps even more important, many of his fellow college students and colleagues at the University of Chicago where he briefly taught constitutional law cannot recall him. It is hard to imagine Obama relishing the prospect of going head-to-head with his sharp-witted Chicago colleagues. ..."
"... As a mulatto raised by white grandparents in Hawaii, Obama is not a black American, with no cultural ties to black Americans and slavery, yet he later learned to throw out a black accent to fool the fools. As Stephen Colbert once observed, white Americans love Obama because he was raised the right way, by white people. That was intended as humor, but ..."
"... Obama has leased an ultra-expensive house in an exclusive neighborhood in DC just like the corrupt Bill Clinton prior to his multi-million dollar speaking and influence peddling efforts. Obama will not return to Chicago to help poor blacks, like Jimmy Carter did elsewhere after he left office. Obama doesn't need an Oscar, he got a Nobel Peace Prize for the same act. ..."
"... Congratulations on noticing what it takes to be a successful politician in ANY "Western" democracy. It doesn't matter if you are black, white, aquamarine or candy-striped, or whether you are a college professor, an "economist", or a "businessman". It's all bluff and acting. ..."
"... The single most critical element of a successful con is not the hucksters appearance, or mannerisms, or even the spiel, it is simply making the con something that the sucker wants to believe. ..."
"... I recognized Obama's type not from academia, but from corporate America. He was the token black higher up. He's smart enough not to obviously do something requiring termination (get drunk and harass a colleague at an office party, shred important document, etc.), and his mistakes can be blamed on team failures, so he gets "black guy's tenure"-a middle or upper management position after only a few years. ..."
"... This critique applies to almost every Presidential candidate, regardless of ethnicity. ..."
"... The most successful recent President was a former professional actor and thus well suited for the position. The latest President-elect is also a savvy media figure, and yet mocked for his obvious lack of intellectual heft. But in his case, he's not acting, it's reality TV. ..."
"... PS. Maybe some Jews around Trump are beginning to feel that China is the real danger to US power in the long run. So, what US should really do is patch things up with Russia for the time being, drive a wedge between China and Russia, and use Russia against China and then go after Russia. ..."
"... Really! Go after Russia? And how would you do that and why? What would "going after Russia" look like? What about the "horrific Rape of Russia" you spoke of? China and Russia have business to conduct, they're quite through with us, our dollar and our Fed. We'll be lucky if they allow us a piece of the action. Instead of Russia>China>Russia machinations, we might want to figure out strategies for doing some other business than patronizing our arms manufacturers. Hey, cap Jewish influence in the courts and business if you wish, but keeping the U.S. in an endless state of war, economic and otherwise is zero sum and worse for the little people. ..."
"... I've called him that for years. And Dubya was possibly our first "legacy" president: chosen entirely based on whom he's related to not on any individual qualities that would suit him for such a high office. Had Dubya been raised by regular people, he would have probably ended up as a hardware store manager. ..."
"... Amen to all. The whole deal is a fraud. All successful politicians are imposters, people who've mastered the art of deception. I'd go even further and say that the majority of "authority figures" are probably parasites and frauds to one degree or another. ..."
"... Overall, the current president has been a deception, a trivial self-absorbed person whose main concern has been himself turned outward onto issues of race and sexual orientation ..."
"... American politics at this level is fake. Everything is orchestrated, attire is handpicked, speeches are written by professionals and read off the teleprompter, questions from the public are actually from plants and rehearsed prior, armies of PR people are at work everywhere, journalists are just flunky propagandists, ..."
"... He will be the subject of future dissertations about the failure of the American political process and the influence of media and third parties like Soros. ..."
As the troubled Obama presidency winds down, the inevitable question is why so many people, including
a few smart ones were so easily fooled. How did a man with such a fine pedigree-Columbia, Harvard-who
sounded so brilliant pursue such political capital wasting and foolish policies as forcing schools
to discipline students by racial quotas? Or obsessing over allowing the transgendered to choose any
bathroom? And, of the utmost importance, how can we prevent another Obama?
I'll begin simply: Obama is an imposter, a man who has mastered the art of deception as a skilled
actor deceives an audience though in the case of Obama, most of the audience refused to accept that
this was all play-acting. Even after almost eight years of ineptitude, millions still want to believe
that he's the genuine article-an authentically super-bright guy able to fix a flawed America. Far
more is involved than awarding blacks the intellectual equivalent of diplomatic immunity.
When Obama first appeared on the political scene I immediately recognized him as an example of
the "successful" black academic who rapidly advances up the university ladder despite minimal accomplishment.
Tellingly, when I noted the paucity of accomplishment of these black academic over-achievers to trusted
professorial colleagues, they agreed with my analysis adding that they themselves had seen several
instances of this phenomenon, but admittedly failed to connect the dots.
Here's the academic version of an Obama. You encounter this black student who appears a liberal's
affirmative action dream come true -- exceptionally articulate with no trace of a ghetto accent, well-dressed,
personable (no angry "tude"), and at least superficially sufficient brain power to succeed even in
demanding subjects. Matters begin splendidly, but not for long. Almost invariably, his or her performance
on the first test or paper falls far below expectations. A research paper, for example was only "C"
work (though you generously awarded it a "B") and to make matters worse, it exhibited a convoluted
writing style, a disregard for logic, ineptly constructed references and similar defects. Nevertheless,
you accepted the usual litany of student excuses -- his claim of over-commitment, the material was unfamiliar,
and this was his first research paper and so on. A reprieve was granted.
But the unease grows stronger with the second exam or paper, often despite your helpful advice
on how to do better. Reality grows depressing -- what you see is not what you get and lacks any reasonable
feel-good explanation. The outwardly accomplished black student is not an Asian struggling with English
or a clear-cut affirmation action admittee in over his head. That this student may have actually
studied diligently and followed your advice only exacerbates the discomfort.
To repeat, the way to make sense out this troubling situation is to think of this disappointing
black student as a talented actor who has mastered the role of "smart college student." He has the
gift of mimicry, conceivably a talent rooted in evolutionary development among a people who often
had to survive by their wits (adaptive behavior captured by the phrase "acting white" or "passing").
This gift is hardly limited to blacks. I can recall tales of insecure Eastern European Jewish immigrants
pretending to be WASPS.
But what if the observer was unaware of it being only a theatrical performance and took the competence
at face value? Disaster. Russell Crowe as the Nobel Prize winning John Nash in A
Beautiful Mind
might give a stunning performance as a brilliant economist, but he would not last a minute
if he tried to pass himself off as the real thing at a Princeton economic department seminar.
To be blunt, Barack Obama was less "a president" than a talented actor playing at being presidential.
Those of us who have encountered this deception are usually aware of its tell-tale signs,
though, to be fair, it may have been diligently practiced for so long that it has become a "real"
element of the perpetrator's core personality. For those unfamiliar with this deception, let me now
offer a brief catalogue of these tactics.
Central is the careful management of outward physical appearances. In theatrical terms, these
are props and depending on circumstances, this might be a finely tailored suit, wingtip shoes, a
crisp white shirt, a smart silk tie and all the rest that announce business-like competence.
Future college or foundation president here we come (Obama has clearly mastered this sartorial ploy).
But for those seeking an appointment as a professor, this camouflage must be more casual but, whatever
the choice, there cannot be any hint of "ghetto" style, i.e., no flashy jewelry, gold chains, purple
"pimpish" suits, or anything else that even slightly hints of what blacks might consider authentic
black attire.
Mastering "white" language is equally critical and in the academy this includes everything
from tossing around trendy terms, for example, "paradigmatic," to displaying what appears to be a
mastering of disciplinary jargon. Recall how the Black Panthers seduced gullible whites with just
a sprinkling of Marxist terminology. Precisely citing a few obscure court cases or administrative
directives can also do the trick. Further add certain verbal styles common among professors or peppering
a presentation with correctly pronounced non-English words. I recall a talk by one black professor
from the University of Chicago who wowed my colleagues by just using-and correctly so-a few Yiddish
expressions.
Ironically, self-defined conservatives are especially vulnerable to these well-crafted performances.
No doubt, like all good thinking liberals, they desperately want to believe that blacks are just
as talented as whites so an Obama-like figure is merely the first installment of coming racial equality.
The arrival of this long-awaited black also provides a great opportunity to demonstrate that being
"conservative" does not certify one as a racist. Alas, this can be embarrassing and comical if over-done.
I recall one (white) colleague who gave a little speech praising a deeply flawed dissertation
written by a black assistant professor up for tenure. He told the assembled committee that her dissertation
reminded him of Newton's Principia Mathematica (can't make that stuff up).
Alas, the deception usually unravels when the imposter confronts a complicated unstructured situation
lacking a well-defined script, hardly surprising given the IQ test data indicate that blacks usually
perform better on items reflecting social norms, less well on abstract, highly "g" loaded items.
In academic job presentations, for example, a job candidate's intellectual limits often become apparent
during the Q and A when pressed to wrestle with technical or logical abstractions that go beyond
the initial well-rehearsed talk. Picture a job candidate who just finished reading a paper being
asked whether the argument is falsifiable or how causality might be established? These can be killer
questions that require ample quick footed intellectual dexterity and often bring an awkward silence
as the candidate struggles to think on his feet (these responses may rightly be judged far more important
than what is read from a paper). I recall one genuinely bewildered black job candidate who explained
a complicated measurement choice with "my Ph.D. advisor, a past president of the American Political
Science Association told me to do it this way."
Obama as President repeatedly exhibits these characteristics. It is thus hardly accidental
that he relies extensively on canned Teleprompter speeches. According to
one compilation published in January 2013, Obama has used Teleprompters in 699 speeches during
his first term in office. There is also his aversion to informal off-the-cuff discussions with the
press and open mike who-knows-what-will-happen "Town Hall" meetings. Obama is also the first president
I've ever seen who often favors a casual blue jacket monogrammed "President of the United States."
Perhaps the best illustration of these confused, often rambling moments occurs when he offers
impromptu commentary on highly charged, fast-breaking race-related incidents such as the Louis Henry
Gates
dustup
in Cambridge , Mass ("the police acted stupidly") and the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown shootings.
You could see his pained look as he struggles with being a "good race man" while simultaneously struggling
to sort out murky legal issues. This is not the usual instances of politicians speaking evasively
to avoid controversy; he was genuinely befuddled.
Similar signs of confused thinking can also be seen in other spontaneous remarks, the most famous
example might be his comment about those Americans clinging to their guns and Bibles. What was he
thinking? Did he forget that both gun and Bible ownership are constitutionally protected and the
word "cling" in this context suggests mental illness? Woes to some impertinent reporter who challenged
the President to clarify his oft-repeated "the wrong side of history" quip or explain the precise
meaning of, "That's not who were are"? "Mr. President, can you enlighten us on how you know you are
on the Right Side of History"?
I suspect that deep down Obama recognizes that almost everything is an act not unlike Eddy Murphy
playing Professor Sherman Klump in The Nutty
Professor . It is no wonder, then, that his academic records (particularly his SAT scores)
are sealed and, perhaps even more important, many of his fellow college students and colleagues at
the University of Chicago where he briefly taught constitutional law cannot recall him. It is hard
to imagine Obama relishing the prospect of going head-to-head with his sharp-witted Chicago colleagues.
Further add his lack of a publication in the Harvard Law Review, a perk as the President
of the Law Review (not Editor) and the credible
evidence that his two autobiographies where ghost written after their initial rejection as unsuitable
for publication. All and all, a picture emerges of an individual who knows he must fake it to convince
others of his intellectual talents, and like a skilled actor he has spent years studying the role
of "President." President Obama deserves an Academy award (which, of course would also be a step
toward diversity, to boot) for his efforts.
Carlton Meyer says: • Website
November 16, 2016 at 5:31 am GMT • 300 Words
This is why I often referred to Obama as a "Pentagon spokesman." Did you know his proposed
military budgets each year were on average higher than Bush or Reagan? People forget that is
first objective as President was to close our torture camp in Cuba. He could have issued an
Executive Order and have it closed in one day. DOJ aircraft could fly all the inmates away within
two hours before any court could challenge that, if they dared. It remains open.
Yet when Congress refused to act to open borders wider, he issued an Executive Order to grant
residency to five million illegals. And under Soros direction, he sent DoJ attack dogs after any
state or city that questioned the right of men who want to use a ladies room.
As a mulatto raised by white grandparents in Hawaii, Obama is not a black American, with no
cultural ties to black Americans and slavery, yet he later learned to throw out a black accent to
fool the fools. As Stephen Colbert once observed, white Americans love Obama because he was
raised the right way, by white people. That was intended as humor, but
Obama has leased an ultra-expensive house in an exclusive neighborhood in DC just like the
corrupt Bill Clinton prior to his multi-million dollar speaking and influence peddling efforts.
Obama will not return to Chicago to help poor blacks, like Jimmy Carter did elsewhere after he
left office. Obama doesn't need an Oscar, he got a Nobel Peace Prize for the same act.
3.anon says:
November 16, 2016 at 5:34 am GMT • 100 Words
What to make of the Michael Eric Dysons and the Cornell Wests of the world ?? How do they rise up the ranks of academia , become darlings of talk shows and news panels , all
the while dressed and speaking ghetto with zero talent or interest in appearing white . And zero
academic competency ??
6.CCZ, November 16, 2016 at 6:08 am GMT
Our first affirmative action President? I have yet to hear that exact description, even in a
nation with 60 million deplorable "racist" voters.
8.Tom Welsh, November 16, 2016 at 7:00 am GMT • 100 Words
Congratulations on noticing what it takes to be a successful politician in ANY "Western"
democracy. It doesn't matter if you are black, white, aquamarine or candy-striped, or whether you
are a college professor, an "economist", or a "businessman". It's all bluff and acting.
Why does anyone still find this surprising?
11.Alfa158, November 16, 2016 at 7:56 am GMT • 100 Words
The single most critical element of a successful con is not the hucksters appearance, or
mannerisms, or even the spiel, it is simply making the con something that the sucker wants to
believe. White people were desperate for a Magic Negro and they got one. Black people ended up
suffering from deteriorating economics and exploding intramural murder rates.
12.whorefinder, November 16, 2016 at 8:02 am GMT • 300 Words
Strikes a chord with me, and with Clint Eastwood (recall the 2012 RNC, where Eastwood mocked
Obama as an "empty chair").
I recognized Obama's type not from academia, but from corporate America. He was the token black
higher up. He's smart enough not to obviously do something requiring termination (get drunk and
harass a colleague at an office party, shred important document, etc.), and his mistakes can be
blamed on team failures, so he gets "black guy's tenure"-a middle or upper management position
after only a few years.
He then makes sure he shows up every weekday at 9am, but he's out the door at 5pm-and no weekends
for him. He's there for "diversity" drives and is prominently featured on the company brochures,
and might even be given an award or honorary title every few years to cover him, but he never
brings in clients or moves business positively in anyway. But he's quick to take the boss up on
the golfing trips. In short, he's realized he's there to be the black corporate shield, and
that's all he does. He's a lazy token and fine with being lazy.
It's why Obama had little problem letting Pelosi/Reid/Bill Clinton do all the heavy lifting on
Obamacare–not only was Obama out of his depth, he was just plain ol' fine with being out of his
depth, because someone else would do it for him. So he went golfing instead.
This is also why that White House press conference where Bill Clinton took over for him halfway
speaks volumes. Obama literally had no problem simply walking away from his presidential duties
to go party-because someone else would do it for him, as they always had.
It's also why he seems so annoyed when asked about the race rioting going on as a result of his
administration's actions. Hey, why do you think I gotta do anything? I just show up and people
tell me I did a great job!
13.Ramona, November 16, 2016 at 8:04 am GMT
It's been said for years that Obama amounts to no more than a dignified talk show host. The
observation has merit. Oscar-wise, though, only for ironic value.
15.Realist, November 16, 2016 at 9:50 am GMT • 100 Words
@Anon
"I think Obama is pretty smart if not genius. His mother was no dummy, and his father seems to
have been pretty bright too, and there are smart blacks."
Ann Dunham had a PhD in anthropology from a run of the mill university where she literally
studied women textile weaving in third world countries. Pure genius .right.
16.Fran Macadam, November 16, 2016 at 9:54 am GMT • 100 Words
This critique applies to almost every Presidential candidate, regardless of ethnicity. So few of
them have been other than those playing a role assigned by their donors. The most successful
recent President was a former professional actor and thus well suited for the position. The
latest President-elect is also a savvy media figure, and yet mocked for his obvious lack of
intellectual heft. But in his case, he's not acting, it's reality TV.
17.Jim Christian says:
November 16, 2016 at 9:59 am GMT • 200 Words @Anon
PS. Maybe some Jews around Trump are beginning to feel that China is the real danger to US power
in the long run. So, what US should really do is patch things up with Russia for the time being,
drive a wedge between China and Russia, and use Russia against China and then go after Russia.
Really! Go after Russia? And how would you do that and why? What would "going after Russia" look
like? What about the "horrific Rape of Russia" you spoke of? China and Russia have business to
conduct, they're quite through with us, our dollar and our Fed. We'll be lucky if they allow us a
piece of the action. Instead of Russia>China>Russia machinations, we might want to figure out
strategies for doing some other business than patronizing our arms manufacturers. Hey, cap Jewish
influence in the courts and business if you wish, but keeping the U.S. in an endless state of
war, economic and otherwise is zero sum and worse for the little people.
20.timalex, November 16, 2016 at 11:58 am GMT
Americans voted for and elected Obama because it made them feel virtuous in their mind and in the
eyes of the world. Obama has always been a psychopath. Psychopaths are good at lying and hiding things,even when
Presidents.
21.The Alarmist , November 16, 2016 at 12:03 pm GMT
So, you're saying he was an affirmative action hire.
22.Anon, November 16, 2016 at 12:28 pm GMT
Yeah and every white person in a position of power and privilege is "authentically intelligent".
America is a society run by and for phonies.
23.War for Blair Mountain, November 16, 2016 at 12:32 pm GMT • 100 Words
Barack Obama is a creation of the Cold War. His father was imported into the US through an
anti-commie Cold War foreign student program for young Africans. Barack Obama's nonwhite Democratic Party Voting Bloc would not exist if the 1965 Immigration
Reform Act had not been passed. The 1965 Immigration Reform Act was another creation of the
anti-commie Cold War Crusade.
The anti-commie Cold War Crusade has been a Death sentence for The Historic Native Born White
American Majority.
It is now time to rethink the Cold War .very long overdue..
24.AndrewR, November 16, 2016 at 12:55 pm GMT • 100 Words
@CCZ
I've called him that for years. And Dubya was possibly our first "legacy" president: chosen entirely based on whom he's related
to not on any individual qualities that would suit him for such a high office. Had Dubya been raised by regular people, he would have probably ended up as a hardware store
manager.
25.Rehmat, November 16, 2016 at 1:36 pm GMT • 100 Words
I think after wining Nobel Peace Award without achieving peace anywhere in the world – Obama
deserve Oscar more than Nobel Prize for equating Holocaust as a religion with Christianity and
Islam in his speech at the UNGA in September 2012.
Oscar has a long tradition to award top slot for every Holocaust movie produced so far.
"There's no business like Shoah business," says YIVO Institute for Jewish Research, established
by Max Weinreich in Lithuania in 1925.
More than 70 movies and documentary on Jewish Holocaust have been produced so far to keep
Whiteman's guild alive. Holocaust Industry's main purpose is to suck trillions of dollars and
moral support for the Zionist entity. Since 1959 movie, The Diary of Anne Frank, 22 Holocaust
movies have won at least one Oscar ..
27.jacques sheete says: November 16, 2016 at 2:20 pm GMT • 200 Words
@Tom Welsh
Amen to all. The whole deal is a fraud. All successful politicians are imposters, people who've mastered the
art of deception. I'd go even further and say that the majority of "authority figures" are probably parasites and
frauds to one degree or another.
I enjoy democracy immensely. It is incomparably idiotic, and hence incomparably amusing. Does it
exalt dunderheads, cowards, trimmers, frauds, cads? Then the pain of seeing them go up is
balanced and obliterated by the joy of seeing them come down. Is it inordinately wasteful,
extravagant, dishonest? Then so is every other form of government: all alike are enemies to
laborious and virtuous men. Is rascality at the very heart of it? Well, we have borne that
rascality since 1776, and continue to survive. In the long run, it may turn out that rascality is
necessary to human government, and even to civilization itself – that civilization, at bottom, is
nothing but a colossal swindle.
- H. L. Mencken, Last Words (1926)
28.anonymous, November 16, 2016 at 2:34 pm GMT • 200 Words
The bar was set ridiculously low by his predecessor the village idiot Bush who could barely
put together a coherent sentence. After eight years of disaster people were hoping for
something different. Having a deranged person like McCain as his opposition certainly helped.
What choice did the American people have?
He received a Nobel Peace prize for absolutely nothing although I admit his reluctance to
barge into Syria was quite welcome. How many wars would we be in had the war-crazed McCain
gotten into office?
Overall, the current president has been a deception, a trivial self-absorbed person
whose main concern has been himself turned outward onto issues of race and sexual orientation.
American politics at this level is fake. Everything is orchestrated, attire is
handpicked, speeches are written by professionals and read off the teleprompter, questions
from the public are actually from plants and rehearsed prior, armies of PR people are at work
everywhere, journalists are just flunky propagandists, expressions of emotion are
calculated, the mass media is the property of the billionaire and corporate class and reflects
their interests, and so on down the line. The masses of Americans are just there to be managed
and milked. Look back at the history of the US: When haven't they been lying to us?
29.nsa, November 16, 2016 at 2:44 pm GMT • 100 Words
President is a very easy job. Almost anyone could fake it even actors, peanut farmers,
mulatto community organizers, illegitimate offspring of trailer park whores, haberdashers,
developers, soldiers, irish playboys, bicycle riding dry drunks, low rent CA shysters, daft
professors.
Play lots of golf. Hot willing young pussy available for the asking. Anyone call you a
name, have them audited. Invite pals onto the gravy train. Everyone kissing your ass and
begging for favors. Media nitwits hanging on every word. Afterwards, get filthy rich making
speeches and appearances. Tough job .
30.Anonymous, November 16, 2016 at 3:03 pm GMT • 100 Words
Manchurian Candidate, or Kenyan Candidate? Whatever he may be called, our current White
House resident is a colossal joke perpetrated on the world. Whoever covered all his tracks did
a masterful task. He will be the subject of future dissertations about the failure of the
American political process and the influence of media and third parties like Soros.
32.Lorax, November 16, 2016 at 3:17 pm GMT
Obama's grandfather, Stanley Armour Dunham, was a "furniture salesman," for which role he
deserved an Oscar as well. It takes real acting ability to
pull off a lifetime career in Intelligence Service:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/08/07/obama's-cia-pedigree/
34.JoeFour, November 16, 2016 at 3:56 pm GMT
@AndrewR
"Had Dubya been raised by regular people, he would have probably ended up as a hardware
store manager."
AndrewR, I know you didn't mean it, but you have just insulted all of the thousands of
hardware store managers in this country.
"... So remember, if Iraqis die by the hundreds of thousands – Birthpangs of Democracy. By pure coincidence, the top three donors to McCain's Campaigns: Defense Electronics, For-profit Education, Misc Defense ..."
He graduated at the bottom of his class, successfully got shot down in the Nam, and lobbied
for Iraq, a war that cost thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and
trillions of dollars, and now he's back to promote his favorite activity when he's not involved
it in: warfare. Johnny "Rotten Judgement" McCain:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/donald-trump-transition.html?_r=0
"Senator John McCain issued a blunt warning on Tuesday to President-elect Trump and his emerging
foreign policy team: Don't try another "reset" with President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia. During
the campaign, Mr. Trump described Mr. Putin as a strong leader and suggested that the United States
and Russia might join forces in fighting the Islamic State. Mr. Putin congratulated Mr. Trump
on his election in a phone call on Monday and discussed working together to combat terrorism and
resolve the crisis in Syria, according to the Kremlin's account. That was too much for Mr. McCain,
the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who cautioned the incoming administration
not to be taken in by "a former K.G.B. agent." "When America has been at its best, it's when
we've stood w/ those fighting tyranny- that's where we must stand again" McCain tweeted "The
Obama administration's last attempt at resetting relations with Russia culminated in Putin's invasion
of Ukraine and military intervention in the Middle East," Mr. McCain, the newly re-elected Arizona
Republican, said in a statement."
Got it everyone? Obama's reset in 2008 caused Ukraine in 2014. Because as we all know, nothing
really happened between 2008 and 2014. There was coup in Ukraine, no Arab Spring, nothing.
"At the very least, the price of another 'reset' would be complicity in Putin and Assad's butchery
of the Syrian people," he added. "This is an unacceptable price for a great nation. When America
has been at its greatest, it is when we have stood on the side of those fighting tyranny. That
is where we must stand again."
So remember, if Iraqis die by the hundreds of thousands – Birthpangs of Democracy. By pure
coincidence, the top three donors to McCain's Campaigns: Defense Electronics, For-profit Education,
Misc Defense
"... Clinton's defeat is more than anything else a rejection of Obama. Obama descended into the fray to bolster her campaign and witnessed the rejection of his own presidency. Conquered, in the 2008 electoral campaign, with a pledge of support not only for Wall Street but also "Main Street", that is, the ordinary citizen. Since then, the middle class has witnessed its conditions deteriorate, the rate of poverty has increased while the rich have become even richer. Now, marketing himself as the champion of the middle class, the billionaire outsider, Donald Trump, has won the presidency. ..."
"... As her e-mails make clear, when she was Secretary of State, she convinced President Obama to engage in war to demolish Libya and to roll out the same operation against Syria. She was the one to promote the internal destabilization of Venezuela and Brazil and the US "Pivot to Asia" – an anti-Chinese manoeuvre. And yet again, she also used the Clinton Foundation as a vehicle to prepare the terrain in Ukraine for the Maidan Square putsch which paved the way for Usa/Nato escalation against Russia. ..."
"... Given that all this has not prevented the relative decline of US power, it is up to the Trump Administration to correct its shot, while keeping its gaze fixed on the same target. There is no air of reality to the hypothesis that Trump intends to abandon the system of alliances centered around US-led Nato. ..."
"... Trump could seek an agreement with Russia, an additional objective of which would be to pull it away from China. China: against which Trump announces economic measures, accompanied by an additional strengthening of US military presence in the Asia-Pacific region. ..."
"... Here you have the colossal financial groups that dominate the economy (the share value alone of the companies listed on Wall Street is higher than the entire US national income). ..."
"... Then you have the multinationals whose economic dimensions exceed those of entire states and which delocalize production to countries offering cheap labour. The knock-on effect? Domestically, factories will close and unemployment will increase, which will in turn lead to the conditions of the US middle class becoming even worse. ..."
"... It is 21st century capitalism, which the USA expresses in its most extreme form, that increasingly polarizes the rich and poor. 1% of the global population has more than the other 99%. The President[-elect], Trump, belongs to the class of the superrich. ..."
Clinton's defeat is more than anything else a rejection of Obama. Obama descended into the
fray to bolster her campaign and witnessed the rejection of his own presidency. Conquered, in the
2008 electoral campaign, with a pledge of support not only for Wall Street but also "Main Street",
that is, the ordinary citizen. Since then, the middle class has witnessed its conditions deteriorate,
the rate of poverty has increased while the rich have become even richer. Now, marketing himself
as the champion of the middle class, the billionaire outsider, Donald Trump, has won the presidency.
How will this change of guard at the White House change US foreign policy? Certainly, the core
objective of remaining the dominant global power will remain untouched. [Yet] this position is increasing
fragile. The USA is losing ground both within the economic and the political domains, [ceding] it
to China, Russia and other "emerging countries". This is why it is throwing the sword onto the scale.
This is followed by a series of wars where Hillary Clinton played the [lead] protagonist.
As her authorized biography reveals, she was the one as First Lady, to convince the President,
her consort, to engage in war to destroy Yugoslavia, initiating a series of "humanitarian interventions"
against "dictators" charged with "genocide".
As her e-mails make clear, when she was Secretary of State, she convinced President Obama
to engage in war to demolish Libya and to roll out the same operation against Syria. She was the
one to promote the internal destabilization of Venezuela and Brazil and the US "Pivot to Asia" –
an anti-Chinese manoeuvre. And yet again, she also used the Clinton Foundation as a vehicle to prepare
the terrain in Ukraine for the Maidan Square putsch which paved the way for Usa/Nato escalation against
Russia.
Given that all this has not prevented the relative decline of US power, it is up to the Trump
Administration to correct its shot, while keeping its gaze fixed on the same target. There is no
air of reality to the hypothesis that Trump intends to abandon the system of alliances centered around
US-led Nato. But he will of course thump his fists on the table to secure a deeper commitment,
particularly on military expenditure from the allies.
Trump could seek an agreement with Russia, an additional objective of which would be to pull
it away from China. China: against which Trump announces economic measures, accompanied by an additional
strengthening of US military presence in the Asia-Pacific region.
Such decisions, that will surely open the door for further wars, do not depend on Trump's warrior-like
temperament, but on centres of power wherein lies the matrix of command on which the White House
itself depends.
Here you have the colossal financial groups that dominate the economy (the share value alone
of the companies listed on Wall Street is higher than the entire US national income).
Then you have the multinationals whose economic dimensions exceed those of entire states and
which delocalize production to countries offering cheap labour. The knock-on effect? Domestically,
factories will close and unemployment will increase, which will in turn lead to the conditions of
the US middle class becoming even worse.
Then you have the giants of the war industry that extract profit from war.
It is 21st century capitalism, which the USA expresses in its most extreme form, that increasingly
polarizes the rich and poor. 1% of the global population has more than the other 99%. The President[-elect],
Trump, belongs to the class of the superrich.
"... We are talking factories, not mere workshops, more specifically the plants for the production of all sorts of rather serious means of mass destruction. Clearly, this is a well-established industrial production, these are the targets for today's strikes. And they will continue. ..."
Russian Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft-carrying cruiser has begun combat operations in Syria,
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said Tuesday.
"Today, we started a major operation to launch massive strikes on Daesh and al-Nusra Front
targets in the Idlib and Homs provinces [in Syria]," Shoigu said at Russian President Vladimir
Putin's meeting with the ministry's leadership and defense enterprises.
Russian Admiral Grigorovich frigate targeted terrorists in Syria with Kalibr cruise missile
strikes, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said Tuesday.
The NGO faux whining about Aleppo will increase but in a few months they may lose their chief
audience and facilitator.
At a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and the top leadership of the Russian
Armed Forces, Shoigu said the following:
Today at 10:30 and 11:00 we launched a large-scale operation against the positions of Islamic
State and Al-Nusra [terrorist groups] in the provinces of Idlib and Homs.
The main targets of the strikes are warehouses with ammunition, [terrorist] gatherings and
terrorist training centers, as well as plants for the production of various kinds of weapons
of mass destruction.
We are talking factories, not mere workshops, more specifically the plants for the production
of all sorts of rather serious means of mass destruction. Clearly, this is a well-established
industrial production, these are the targets for today's strikes. And they will continue.
"... Alexei Ulyukayev is a well-known economic liberal, with a career dating back to the turbulent market reforms of the 1990s ..."
"... "The arrest was big news on Russia's state-run TV channels." ..."
"... Yesterday RBK economic channel (pro-liberast independent one) could not shut up – they were talking only about this. Ekho Moscvy was hysterical, as if it was not the crook arrested, but Lucavichev rabbi robbed and killed in his synagogue. ..."
"... "News of the minister's arrest sparked a mixture of shock and bewilderment." ..."
"... "Alexei Ulyukayev is a well-known economic liberal, with a career dating back to the turbulent market reforms of the 1990s." ..."
"... So… to become a "liberal victim of the Regime" instead of "Regime's lackey" you must steal lots of money and get caught? A-okey! ..."
"... It's also charming when the article uses the tired cliché "some think" or "some people consider this" as a way of legitimizing their own speculations. ..."
The arrest was big news on Russia's state-run TV channels.
However, sources told the Novaya Gazeta website that Mr Ulyukayev himself did not take any
money, contradicting earlier reports, and there was no video footage of his arrest. [Novaya Gazeta
said that? Well what a surprise! - ME]
The economy ministry described the arrest as "strange and surprising".
Show of state strength or payback? By Sarah Rainsford, BBC News, Moscow
News of the minister's arrest sparked a mixture of shock and bewilderment.
A stream of commentators on state TV have been telling viewers that this means that
no-one is untouchable, or above the law. Even ministers.
So on one level, the FSB operation is a clear show of state strength. A message to senior officials
and far beyond.
But elsewhere there are doubts, and questions about the possible politics behind this.
Alexei Ulyukayev is a well-known economic liberal, with a career dating back to the turbulent
market reforms of the 1990s.
He's against increasing state-control of the economy and opposed the Bashneft privatisation
deal which was led by a close and powerful ally of President Putin.
So some suggest this could be a dramatic form of payback. More effective, than simply sacking
him.
Others see a symbolic blow to the liberal camp in government.
[my stress]
State TV! State TV! State TV!
D'ya hear me? - State TV!!!!!!!
Unlike the British Broadcasting Corporation, of course.
"The arrest was big news on Russia's state-run TV channels."
Yesterday RBK economic channel (pro-liberast independent one) could not shut up – they were
talking only about this. Ekho Moscvy was hysterical, as if it was not the crook arrested, but
Lucavichev rabbi robbed and killed in his synagogue.
"News of the minister's arrest sparked a mixture of shock and bewilderment."
Mainly a good cheer and hope that other liberal ministers will soon follow in his steps.
"Alexei Ulyukayev is a well-known economic liberal, with a career dating back to the turbulent
market reforms of the 1990s."
So… to become a "liberal victim of the Regime" instead of "Regime's lackey" you must steal
lots of money and get caught? A-okey!
It's also charming when the article uses the tired cliché "some think" or "some people consider
this" as a way of legitimizing their own speculations.
"... Do you think Trump was serious when he called for a Russia détente? ..."
"... PC: He might be. It's not so stupid. To some degree, that's what we already have had: negotiations
and an attempted ceasefire with the Russians. You can justify that by saying that if there is going
to be any peace agreement in Syria, it has to be negotiated by the biggest players which are the U.S.
and Russia. They may not be enough to do it, they may not be able to control allies or proxies or something.
[But] that's sort of feasible. ..."
"... it's evident that within the U.S. government, different parts of the government have different
policies; you know, the CIA arming various rebel factions, the Pentagon tried this. But the idea of
arming factions that were supposedly moderate not only hasn't worked but it's been disastrous, it's
been a joke. Whatever the state of the Syrian political opposition, the armed opposition is dominated
by Islamists and has been a long time. So that might continue but I don't think it'll make much difference.
When it comes to troops, soldiers, on the ground cooperating with the U.S., of course, the Pentagon
did find people but it was the Kurds and various proxies supported by the Kurds. ..."
"... I don't think it works that way at the moment because they tend to think of Americans, Europeans,
not just non-Muslims but non-believers in that sort of Wahhabi variant of Islam that they believe in.
So to them all the world's an enemy, whether it's a Shia Muslim who's worthy of immediate death or Yazidis,
who many are enslaved. ..."
"... Now we're getting to-the fighting is in East Mosul and that's full of people. This is an important
question that's going to come up now in the next few weeks. The Iraqi army isn't making that much progress
over the last week in those areas, so what'll they do? One option is much more bombing and disregard
the civilian casualties. If that happens then the number of civilian casualties will soar vastly from
what it is now. ..."
Above all, what's the relationship to Iran? That's one thing Trump is very committed to, was denouncing
the Iran deal. Now, does that fall apart? Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies would be very pleased
if it did fall apart. If that falls apart then that further destabilizes the region and gives an
incentive to the Iranians to maybe increase their intervention [in Iraq] and Syria. It has all sorts
of repercussions.
That's probably the most menacing thing, is whether the deal Obama did with the Iranians is dropped
by Trump, which would probably delight the Israelis, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies. That's
the most destabilizing thing that could happen and is perhaps the most likely thing that could happen.
KK: What effect would killing the Iran deal have on the war against ISIS?
PC: There has always been this funny mixture particularly in Iraq, of public rivalry and private
cooperation between the Iranian army and the U.S. because for a long time they had the same enemies-initially
in Saddam Hussein and then al-Qaeda in Iraq. You had a Shia government [in Iraq] supported by the
U.S. after 2005 but it was also supported by Iran. They wanted to increase their influence and limit
that of America but they had the same friends and the same enemies. The degree of cooperation would
depend somewhat on this nuclear deal and has increased because of this nuclear deal.
Also the current government of Iran that is committed to this deal could fall apart. It's all
very negative if that goes.
KK: If Trump tears up the agreement, will there be a government more like Ahmadinejad's in
Iran?
PC: That's one thing that could happen…a tougher U.S. line on Iran provokes the whole Shia coalition
against the U.S., makes them look more towards war than diplomacy.
KK: Do you think Trump was serious when he called for a Russia détente?
PC: He might be. It's not so stupid. To some degree, that's what we already have had: negotiations
and an attempted ceasefire with the Russians. You can justify that by saying that if there is going
to be any peace agreement in Syria, it has to be negotiated by the biggest players which are the
U.S. and Russia. They may not be enough to do it, they may not be able to control allies or proxies
or something. [But] that's sort of feasible.
It's also true that policies such as Hillary Clinton's -- or just the people around her who were
talking about fighting Islamic State and fighting, getting rid of Assad-were never feasible. There
isn't a moderate opposition faction that could've fought both. It barely exists. The problem about
this is, what Trump has said, these are not defined policies. We don't know who the guys who are
meant to implement them are. So it's pretty incoherent.
KK: Do you think these attempts to arm the rebels will continue to happen?
PC: Yeah, it's evident that within the U.S. government, different parts of the government
have different policies; you know, the CIA arming various rebel factions, the Pentagon tried this.
But the idea of arming factions that were supposedly moderate not only hasn't worked but it's been
disastrous, it's been a joke. Whatever the state of the Syrian political opposition, the armed opposition
is dominated by Islamists and has been a long time. So that might continue but I don't think it'll
make much difference. When it comes to troops, soldiers, on the ground cooperating with the U.S.,
of course, the Pentagon did find people but it was the Kurds and various proxies supported by the
Kurds.
KK: Has Trump's victory helped jihadis in Syria in Iraq?
PC: Potentially it could, but I don't think it works that way at the moment because they tend
to think of Americans, Europeans, not just non-Muslims but non-believers in that sort of Wahhabi
variant of Islam that they believe in. So to them all the world's an enemy, whether it's a Shia Muslim
who's worthy of immediate death or Yazidis, who many are enslaved. One of the things about the
siege of Mosul, down the road from where I am, is that there are different armies-all of whom are
enemies of the Islamic state and all hate each other -- besieging the place at the moment.
Now potentially, [if] Muslims start getting kicked out, if some people get killed and so forth,
yeah that would play to their advantage. Any sort of communal punishment of Muslims anywhere is something
that they can take advantage of in their propaganda. The degree to which that's successful and helps
them of course depends on the degree of the communal punishment to which Muslims are subject.
KK: Do you think the numbers we're seeing are vastly understated with respect to civilian casualties
arising from the coalition airstrikes on ISIS territory?
PC: They're probably understated; whether they're vastly understated I don't know. Areas I've
been to between here and Mosul, most of the villages were uninhabited ever since ISIS took them over
in 2014. There weren't many people living there, so they could bomb these ISIS positions without
killing many civilians.
Now we're getting to-the fighting is in East Mosul and that's full of people. This is an important
question that's going to come up now in the next few weeks. The Iraqi army isn't making that much
progress over the last week in those areas, so what'll they do? One option is much more bombing and
disregard the civilian casualties. If that happens then the number of civilian casualties will soar
vastly from what it is now.
KK: Could Trump pursue that option?
PC: Potentially, yeah, they could up the bombing, particularly in places like Mosul. But it's
too early to say.
Dr Liam Fox, Boris Johnson, Sir Michael Fallon, and Priti Patel issued a joint rejection
The Government has rejected calls by two parliamentary committees for it to stop the sale of
British bombs to Saudi Arabia's armed forces in Yemen.
Saudi forces have been widely accused of committing war crimes during the campaign in the country,
where reports on the ground suggest they have blown up international hospitals, funerals, schools,
and weddings.
Despite the reported incidents and the worsening humanitarian situation in the country since
the bombardment began, the UK has signed off £3.3 billion in arms sales to the country since the
start of the offensive….
####
What's not to like about supping from the Wahabbi cup?
"... Outgoing representative Randy Forbes of Virginia, a contender to be secretary of the Navy in
the new administration, recently said that the president elect would employ "an international defense
strategy that is driven by the Pentagon and not by the political National Security Council… Because
if you look around the globe, over the last eight years, the National Security Council has been writing
that. And find one country anywhere that we are better off than we were eight years [ago], you cannot
find it." ..."
"... Such a plan might actually blunt armed adventurism, since it was war-weary military officials
who reportedly pushed back against President Obama's plans to escalate Iraq War 3.0. ..."
"... Under President Obama, the U.S. has waged war in or carried out attacks on at least eight nations
- Afghanistan, Iran , Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, and Syria. A Clinton presidency promised
more, perhaps markedly more, of the same - an attitude summed up in her infamous comment about the late
Libyan autocrat Muammar Gaddafi: " We came, we saw, he died ." ..."
"... "Trump does not believe in war. He sees war as bad, destructive, death and a wealth destruction."...
..."
As Clinton's future in the Oval Office evaporated, leaving only a whiff of her stale dreams, I saw
all the foreign-policy certainties, all the hawkish policies and military interventions, all the
would-be bin Laden raids and drone strikes she'd preside over as commander-in-chief similarly vanish
into the ether.
With her failed candidacy went the
no-fly
escalation in Syria that she was sure to pursue as president with the vigor she had applied to
the disastrous
Libyan intervention of 2011 while secretary of state. So, too, went her continued pursuit of
the now-nameless war on terror, the attendant "
gray-zone " conflicts - marked by small contingents of U.S. troops, drone strikes, and
bombing campaigns - and all those
munitions she would ship to
Saudi Arabia
for its war in Yemen.
As the life drained from Clinton's candidacy, I saw her rabid pursuit of a
new Cold War start to wither and Russo-phobic comparisons of Putin's rickety Russian petro-state
to Stalin's Soviet Union begin to die. I saw the end, too, of her Iron Curtain-clouded vision of
NATO, of her blind faith in an alliance more in line with 1957 than 2017.
As Clinton's political fortunes collapsed, so did her Israel-Palestine policy - rooted in the
fiction that American and Israeli security interests overlap - and her commitment to what was clearly
an unworkable "peace process." Just as, for domestic considerations, she would blindly support that
Middle Eastern nuclear power, so was she likely to follow President Obama's
trillion-dollar path to modernizing America's nuclear arsenal. All that, along with her sure-to-be-gargantuan
military budget requests, were scattered to the winds by her ringing defeat.
... ... ....
...would he follow the dictum of candidate Trump who
said , "The current strategy of toppling regimes, with no plan for what to do the day after,
only produces power vacuums that are filled by terrorists."
Outgoing representative Randy Forbes of Virginia, a contender to be secretary of the Navy
in the new administration, recently said that the president elect would
employ
"an international defense strategy that is driven by the Pentagon and not by the political National
Security Council… Because if you look around the globe, over the last eight years, the National Security
Council has been writing that. And find one country anywhere that we are better off than we were
eight years [ago], you cannot find it."
Such a plan might actually blunt armed adventurism, since it was war-weary military officials
who reportedly
pushed back against President Obama's plans to escalate Iraq War 3.0.
According to some Pentagon-watchers, a potentially hostile bureaucracy might also put the brakes
on even fielding a national security team in a timely fashion.
While Wall Street investors seemed convinced that the president elect would be good for defense
industry giants like Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics, whose stocks
surged in the wake of Trump's win, it's unclear whether that indicates a belief in more armed
conflicts or simply more bloated military spending.
Under President Obama, the U.S. has waged war in or carried out attacks on at least eight
nations - Afghanistan,
Iran , Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, and Syria. A Clinton presidency promised more,
perhaps markedly more, of the same - an attitude summed up in her infamous comment about the late
Libyan autocrat Muammar Gaddafi: "
We came, we saw, he died ."
Trump advisor Senator Jeff Sessions
said
, "Trump does not believe in war. He sees war as bad, destructive, death and a wealth destruction."...
"... Trump has blamed George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for helping to create ISIS - but should add John Bolton to that list, who essentially agreed with all three on our regime change debacles. ..."
"... In 2011, Bolton bashed Obama "for his refusal to directly target Gaddafi" and declared, "there is a strategic interest in toppling Gaddafi… But Obama missed it." In fact, Obama actually took Bolton's advice and bombed the Libyan dictator into the next world. Secretary of State Clinton bragged , "We came, we saw, he died." ..."
"... All nuance is lost on the man. The fact that Russia has had a base in Syria for 50 years doesn't deter Bolton from calling for all out, no holds barred war in Syria. Bolton criticized the current administration for offering only a tepid war. For Bolton, only a hot-blooded war to create democracy across the globe is demanded. ..."
"... Bolton would not understand this because, like many of his generation, he used every privilege to avoid serving himself. Bolton said, with the threat of the Vietnam draft over his head, that "he had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy." ..."
"... But he's seems to be okay with your son or daughter dying wherever his neoconservative impulse leads us ..."
Bolton was one of the loudest advocates of overthrowing Saddam Hussein and still stupefyingly insists
it was the right call 13 years later. "I still think the decision to overthrow Saddam was correct,"
Bolton
said
just last year.
Trump, rightly, believes that decision was a colossal mistake that destabilized the region. "Iraq
used to be no terrorists," Trump said in 2015. "(N)ow it's the Harvard of terrorism."
"If you look at Iraq from years ago, I'm not saying he was a nice guy, he was a horrible guy,"
Trump said of Saddam Hussein, "but it was a lot better than it is right now."
Trump has said U.S. intervention in Iraq in 2003 "helped to throw the region into chaos and gave
ISIS the space it needs to grow and prosper." In contrast, Bolton has
said explicitly that he wants to repeat Iraq-style regime change in Syrian and Iran.
You can't learn from mistakes if you don't see mistakes.
Trump has blamed George W. Bush,
Barack
Obama and Hillary Clinton for helping to create ISIS - but should add John Bolton to that list,
who essentially agreed with all three on our regime change debacles.
In 2011, Bolton
bashed Obama "for his refusal to directly target Gaddafi" and declared, "there is a strategic
interest in toppling Gaddafi… But Obama missed it." In fact, Obama actually took Bolton's advice
and bombed the Libyan dictator into the next world. Secretary of State Clinton
bragged , "We came, we saw, he died."
When Trump was asked last year if Libya and the region would be more stable today with Gaddafi
in power, he
replied "100 percent." Mr. Trump is
100 percent right .
No man is more out of touch with the situation in the Middle East or more dangerous to our national
security than Bolton.
All nuance is lost on the man. The fact that Russia has had a base in Syria for 50 years doesn't
deter Bolton from calling for all out, no holds barred war in Syria. Bolton criticized the current
administration for offering only a tepid war. For Bolton, only a hot-blooded war to create democracy
across the globe is demanded.
Woodrow Wilson would be proud, but the parents of our soldiers should be mortified. War should
be the last resort, never the first. War should be understood to be a hell no one wishes for. Dwight
Eisenhower
understood
this when he wrote, "I hate war like only a soldier can, the stupidity, the banality, the futility."
Bolton would not understand this because, like many of his generation, he used every privilege
to avoid serving himself. Bolton said, with the threat of the Vietnam draft over his head, that "he
had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy."
But he's seems to be okay with your son or
daughter dying wherever his neoconservative impulse leads us: "Even before the Iraq War, John Bolton
was a leading brain behind the neoconservatives' war-and-conquest agenda," notes
The American Conservative's Jon Utley.
At a time when Americans thirst for change and new thinking, Bolton is an old hand at failed foreign
policy.
"... Instead, by some accounts, we will quite possibly be getting Newt Gingrich, Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani, John Bolton, Sarah Palin, Jose Rodriguez, Michael Ledeen, and Michael Flynn. Bolton, who is being tagged as a possible secretary of state, would be a one-man reactionary horror show, making one long for the good old days of Condi Rice and Madeleine Albright. ..."
"... It is reported that associates from the conservative Heritage Foundation have been tasked with the search for suitable national-security candidates as part of the transition team. One candidate to head the CIA is Jose Rodriguez, who back under W headed the agency's torture program. ..."
"... The White House could, however, de facto scuttle the agreement by imposing new sanctions on Iran and continuing to apply pressure on Iranian banks and credit through Washington's influence over international financial markets. ..."
"... Someone has to try to convince Trump that the Iranian agreement is good for everyone involved, including Israel and the United States. ..."
"... The president-elect is largely ignorant of the world and its leaders, so he has relied on a mixed bag of foreign-policy advisors. Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, appears to be the most prominent. Flynn is associated with arch-neocon Michael Ledeen, and both are rabid about Iran, with Flynn suggesting that nearly all the unrest in the Middle East should be laid at Tehran's door. Ledeen is, of course, a prominent Israel-firster who has long had Iran in his sights. Their solution to the Iran problem would undoubtedly entail the use of military force against the Islamic Republic. Given what is at stake in terms of yet another Middle Eastern war and possible nuclear proliferation, it is essential that Donald Trump hear some alternative views. ..."
"... There are other foreign-policy areas as well where Trump will undoubtedly be receiving bad advice and would benefit from a broader vision. ..."
"... The Trump Asia policy, meanwhile, consists largely of uninformed and reactionary positions that would benefit from a bit of fresh air provided through access to alternative viewpoints. ..."
I would very much like to see the White House revert to a George Marshall type of foreign policy,
in which the United States would use its vast power wisely rather than punitively. As Donald Trump
knows little of what makes the world go round, senior officials and cabinet secretaries will play
a key role in framing and executing policy. One would like to see people like Jim Webb, Chas Freeman,
Andrew Bacevich, or even TAC 's own Daniel Larison in key government positions, as one might
thereby rely on their cool judgment and natural restraint to guide the ship of state. But that is
unfortunately unlikely to happen.
Instead, by some accounts, we will quite possibly be getting Newt Gingrich, Chris Christie, Rudy
Giuliani, John Bolton, Sarah Palin, Jose Rodriguez, Michael Ledeen, and Michael Flynn. Bolton, who
is being tagged as a possible secretary of state, would be a one-man reactionary horror show, making
one long for the good old days of Condi Rice and Madeleine Albright. There are also lesser, mostly
neocon luminaries lining up for supporting roles, résumés ready at hand. To be sure, we won't be
seeing the Kagans, Eliot Cohen, Eric Edelman, or Michael Hayden, who defected to Hillary in dramatic
fashion, but there are plenty of others who are polishing up their credentials and hoping to let
bygones be bygones. They are eager to return to power and regain the emoluments that go with high
office, so they will now claim to be adaptable enough to work for someone they once described as
unfit to be president.
It is
reported that associates from the conservative Heritage Foundation have been tasked with the
search for suitable national-security candidates as part of the transition team. One candidate to
head the CIA
is Jose Rodriguez, who back under W headed the agency's torture program. Another
former CIA officer who is a particularly polarizing figure and is apparently being looked at
for high office is Clare Lopez, who has claimed that the Obama White House is infiltrated by the
Muslim Brotherhood. Lopez is regarded by the Trump team as "one of the intellectual thought leaders
about why we have to fight back against radical Islam." She has long been associated with the
Center for Security
Policy , headed by Frank Gaffney, a fanatical hardliner who
believes that Saddam Hussein
was involved in both the 1993 World Trade Center attack and the Oklahoma City bombing, that Americans
for Tax Reform head Grover Norquist is a secret agent of the Muslim Brotherhood, that Gen. David
Petraeus has "submitted to Sharia," and that the logo of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency reveals
"official U.S. submission to Islam" because it "appears ominously to reflect a morphing of the Islamic
crescent and star."
But if Rodriguez and Lopez and others like them can be either discarded or kept in a closet somewhere,
let us hope for the best. If Trump appoints competent senior officials, they might actually undertake
a serious review of what America does around the world. Such an examination would be appropriate,
as Trump has more or less promised to shake things up. He has indicated that he would abandon the
policy of humanitarian intervention so loved by President Barack Obama and his advisors, and has
signaled that he will not be pursuing regime change in Syria. He will also seek détente with Russia,
a major shift from the increasingly confrontational policy of the past eight years.
Donald Trump rejects arming rebels as in Syria because we know little about whom we are dealing
with and increasingly find that we cannot control what develops from the relationship. He is against
foreign aid in principle, particularly to countries like Pakistan where the U.S. is strongly disliked.
These are all positive steps, and the new administration should be encouraged to pursue them. The
White House might also want to consider easing the United States out of Afghanistan through something
like the negotiated Paris Peace talks arrangement that ended Vietnam. Fifteen years of conflict with
no end in sight: Afghanistan is a war that is unwinnable.
Apart from several easy-to-identify major issues,
Trump's
foreign policy is admittedly quite sketchy, and he has not always been consistent in explaining
it. He has been slammed, appropriately enough, for being simple minded in saying that he would "bomb
the [crap] out of ISIS" and that he is willing to put 30,000 soldiers on the ground if necessary
to destroy the terrorist group, but he has also taken on the Republican establishment by specifically
condemning the George W. Bush invasion of Iraq. He has more than once indicated that he is not interested
in being either the world's policeman or a participant in new wars in the Middle East. He has repeatedly
stated that he supports NATO, but not as a blunt instrument designed to irritate Russia. He would
work with Putin to address concerns over Syria and Eastern Europe. He would demand that NATO countries
spend more for their own defense and also help pay for the maintenance of U.S. bases, which many
argue to be long overdue.
Trump's controversial call to stop all Muslim immigration has been rightly condemned, but he has
somewhat moderated that stance to focus on travelers and immigrants from countries that have been
substantially radicalized or where anti-American sentiment is strong. And the demand to take a second
look at some potential visitors or residents is not unreasonable in that the current process for
vetting new arrivals in this country is far from transparent and apparently not very effective.
Beyond platitudes, the Obama administration has not been very forthcoming on what might be done
to fix the entire immigration process, but Trump is promising to put national security and border
control first. If Trump were to receive good advice on the issue, he would indeed tighten border
security and gradually move to repatriate most illegal immigrants, but he would also look at the
investigative procedures used to examine the backgrounds and intentions of refugees and asylum seekers
who come in through other resettlement programs. The United States has an obligation to help genuine
refugees from countries that have been shattered through Washington's military interventions, but
it also has a duty to know exactly whom it is letting in.
Trump is also critical of the Iran nuclear agreement and the steps to normalize relations with
Cuba, the two most notable foreign-policy successes of the Obama administration. Any change in the
latter would have relatively little impact on the United States, but the Iran deal is important as
it stopped potential proliferation by Iran, which likely would have produced a nuclear arms race
in the Middle East. Trump has called the agreement "horrible" because it stopped short of total capitulation
by Tehran and has pledged to "renegotiate it," which might prove impossible given that the pact had
five other signatories. Iran would in any event refuse to make further concessions, particularly
as it would no longer be prepared to accept assurances that Washington would comply with any agreement.
The White House could, however, de facto scuttle the agreement by imposing new sanctions
on Iran and continuing to apply pressure on Iranian banks and credit through Washington's influence
over international financial markets. If enough pressure were applied, Iran could rightly claim that
the U.S. had failed to comply with the agreement and withdraw from it, possibly leading to an accelerated
nuclear-weapons program justified on the basis of self-defense. It is precisely the outcome that
many hardliners both in Washington and Iran would like to see, as it would invite a harsh response
from the White House, ending any possibility of an accord over proliferation.
Someone has to try to convince Trump that the Iranian agreement is good for everyone involved,
including Israel and the United States. Even though such a suggestion is unlikely to come from the
current group of advisors, who are strongly anti-Iranian, a good argument might be made based on
what Trump himself has been urging vis-à-vis Syria, stressing that ISIS is America's real enemy and
Iran is a major partner in the coalition that is actively fighting the terrorist group. As in the
case of Russia, it makes sense to cooperate with Iran when it is in our interest, and it also is
desirable to prolong the process, delaying Iran's possible decision to acquire a nuclear capability.
Working with Iran might even make the country's leadership less paranoid and would reduce the motivation
to acquire a weapon in the first place, an argument analogous to Trump's observations about dealing
with Russia.
But it all comes down to the type of "expert" advice Trump gets. The president-elect is largely
ignorant of the world and its leaders, so he has relied on a mixed bag of foreign-policy advisors.
Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, appears to be the most prominent.
Flynn is associated with arch-neocon Michael Ledeen, and both are rabid about Iran, with Flynn suggesting
that nearly all the unrest in the Middle East should be laid at Tehran's door. Ledeen is, of course,
a prominent Israel-firster who has long had Iran in his sights. Their solution to the Iran problem
would undoubtedly entail the use of military force against the Islamic Republic. Given what is at
stake in terms of yet another Middle Eastern war and possible nuclear proliferation, it is essential
that Donald Trump hear some alternative views.
There are other foreign-policy areas as well where Trump will undoubtedly be receiving bad advice
and would benefit from a broader vision. He has said that he would be an even-handed negotiator between
Israel and the Palestinians, but he has also declared that he is strongly pro-Israel and would move
the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem-which is a bad idea, not in America's interest, even if Benjamin Netanyahu
would like it. It would produce serious blowback from the Arab world and would inspire a new wave
of terrorism directed against the U.S. Someone should explain to Mr. Trump that there are real consequences
to pledges made in the midst of an acrimonious electoral campaign.
The Trump Asia policy, meanwhile, consists largely of uninformed and reactionary positions that
would benefit from a bit of fresh air provided through access to alternative viewpoints. In East
Asia, Trump has said he would encourage Japan and South Korea to develop their own nuclear arsenals
to deter North Korea. That is a very bad idea, a proliferation nightmare, but Trump evidently eased
away from that position during
a recent phone call to the president of South Korea. Trump would also prefer that China intervene
in North Korea and make Kim Jong Un "step down." He would put pressure on China to stop devaluing
its currency because it is "bilking us of billions of dollars" and would also increase U.S. military
presence in the region to limit Beijing's expansion in the South China Sea.
It is to be hoped that Donald Trump and his transition team will be good listeners over the next
60 days. Positions staked out during a heated campaign do not equate to policy and should be regarded
with considerable skepticism. American foreign policy, and by extension U.S. interests, have suffered
for 16 years under the establishment-centric but nevertheless quite different groupthinks prevailing
in the Bush and Obama White Houses. It is time for a little fresh advice.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National
Interest.
"... "Welcome to the world of strategic analysis," Ivan Selin used to tell his team during the Sixties, "where we program weapons that don't work to meet threats that don't exist." Selin, who would spend the following decades as a powerful behind-the-scenes player in the Washington mandarinate, was then the director of the Strategic Forces Division in the Pentagon's Office of Systems Analysis. "I was a twenty-eight-year-old wiseass when I started saying that," he told me, reminiscing about those days. "I thought the issues we were dealing with were so serious, they could use a little levity." ..."
"Welcome to the world of strategic analysis," Ivan Selin used to tell his team during the
Sixties, "where we program weapons that don't work to meet threats that don't exist." Selin, who
would spend the following decades as a powerful behind-the-scenes player in the Washington mandarinate,
was then the director of the Strategic Forces Division in the Pentagon's Office of Systems Analysis.
"I was a twenty-eight-year-old wiseass when I started saying that," he told me, reminiscing about
those days. "I thought the issues we were dealing with were so serious, they could use a little
levity."
####
While I do have some quibbles with the piece (RuAF pilots are getting much more than 90 hours
a year flight time & equipment is overrated and unaffordable in any decent numbers), it is pretty
solid.
"... I know what it is like to have to juggle creditors to make it through a week. I know what it is like to have to swallow my pride and constantly dun people to pay me so that I can pay others. ..."
"... I know what it is like to dread going to the mailbox, because there will always be new bills to pay but seldom a check with which to pay them. I know what it is like to have to tell my daughter that I didn't know if I would be able to pay for her wedding; it all depended on whether something good happened. And I know what it is like to have to borrow money from my adult daughters because my wife and I ran out of heating oil ..."
"... Two-thirds of Americans would have difficulty coming up with the money to cover a $1,000 emergency, according to an exclusive poll released Thursday, a signal that despite years after the Great Recession, Americans' finances remain precarious as ever. ..."
"... These difficulties span all incomes, according to the poll conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Three-quarters of people in households making less than $50,000 a year and two-thirds of those making between $50,000 and $100,000 would have difficulty coming up with $1,000 to cover an unexpected bill. ..."
"... Even for the country's wealthiest 20 percent - households making more than $100,000 a year - 38 percent say they would have at least some difficulty coming up with $1,000 ..."
"... Chronicle for Higher Education: ..."
"... Meanwhile, 91% of all the profits generated by the U.S. economy from 2009 through 2012 went to the top 1%. As just one example, the annual bonuses (not salaries, just the bonuses) of all Wall Street financial traders last year amounted to 28 billion dollars while the total income of all minimum wage workers in America came to 14 billion dollars. ..."
"... "Between 2009 and 2012, according to updated data from Emmanuel Saez, overall income per family grew 6.9 percent. The gains weren't shared evenly, however. The top 1 percent saw their real income grow by 34.7 percent while the bottom 99 percent only saw a 0.8 percent gain, meaning that the 1 percent captured 91 percent of all real income. ..."
"... Adjusting for inflation and excluding anything made from capital gains investments like stocks, however, shows that even that small gains for all but the richest disappears. According to Justin Wolfers, adjusted average income for the 1 percent without capital gains rose from $871,100 to $968,000 in that time period. For everyone else, average income actually fell from $44,000 to $43,900. Calculated this way, the 1 percent has captured all of the income gains." ..."
"... There actually is a logic at work in the Rust Belt voters for voted for Trump. I don't think it's good logic, but it makes sense in its own warped way. The calculation the Trump voters seem to be making in the Rust Belt is that it's better to have a job and no health insurance and no medicare and no social security, than no job but the ACA (with $7,000 deductibles you can't afford to pay for anyway) plus medicare (since most of these voters are healthy, they figure they'll never get sick) plus social security (most of these voters are not 65 or older, and probably think they'll never age - or perhaps don't believe that social security will be solvent when they do need it). ..."
"... It's the same twisted logic that goes on with protectionism. Rust Belt workers figure that it's better to have a job and not be able to afford a Chinese-made laptop than not to have a job but plenty of cheap foreign-made widgets you could buy if you had any money (which you don't). That logic doesn't parse if you run through the economics (because protectionism will destroy the very jobs they think they're saving), but it can be sold as a tweet in a political campaign. ..."
"... The claim "Trump's coalition is composed of overt racists and people who are indifferent to overt racism" is incomplete. Trump's coalition actually consists of 3 parts and it's highly unstable: [1] racists, [2] plutocrats, [3] working class people slammed hard by globalization for whom Democrats have done little or nothing. ..."
"... The good news is that Trump's coalition is unstable. The plutocrats and Rust Belters are natural enemies. ..."
"... Listen to Steve Bannon, a classic stormfront type - he says he wants to blow up both the Democratic and the Republican party. He calls himself a "Leninist" in a recent interview and vows to wreck all elite U.S. institutions (universities, giant multinationals), not just the Democratic party. ..."
"... Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism, because it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference. ..."
Eric places the blame for this loss squarely on economics, which, it seems to me, gets the analysis
exactly right. And the statistics back up his analysis, I believe.
It's disturbing and saddening to watch other left-wing websites ignore those statistics and
charge off the cliff into the abyss, screaming that this election was all about racism/misogyny/homophobia/[fill
in the blank with identity politics demonology of your choice]. First, the "it's all racism" analysis
conveniently lets the current Democratic leadership off the hook. They didn't do anything wrong,
it was those "deplorables" (half the country!) who are to blame. Second, the identity politics
blame-shifting completely overlooks and short-circuits any real action to fix the economy by Democratic
policymakers or Democratic politicians or the Democratic party leadership. That's particularly
convenient for the Democratic leadership because these top-four-percenter professionals "promise
anything and change nothing" while jetting between Davos and Martha's Vineyard, ignoring the peons
who don't make $100,000 or more a year because the peons all live in flyover country.
"Trump supporters were on average affluent, but they are always Republican and aren't numerous
enough to deliver the presidency (538 has changed their view in the wake of the election result).
Some point out that looking at support by income doesn't show much distinctive support for Trump
among the "poor", but that's beside the point too, as it submerges a regional phenomenon in a
national average, just as exit polls do. (..)
"When commentators like Michael Moore and Thomas Frank pointed out that there was possibility
for Trump in the Rust Belt they were mostly ignored or, even more improbably, accused of being
apologists for racism and misogyny. But that is what Trump did, and he won. Moreover, he won with
an amateurish campaign against a well-funded and politically sophisticated opponent simply because
he planted his flag where others wouldn't.
"Because of the obsession with exit polls, post-election analysis has not come to grips with
the regional nature of the Trump phenomenon. Exit polls divide the general electorate based on
individual attributes: race, gender, income, education, and so on, making regional distinctions
invisible. Moreover, America doesn't decide the presidential election that way. It decides it
based on the electoral college, which potentially makes the characteristics of individual states
decisive. We should be looking at maps, not exit polls for the explanation. Low black turnout
in California or high Latino turnout in Texas do not matter in the slightest in determining the
election, but exit polls don't help us see that. Exit polls deliver a bunch of non-explanatory
facts, in this election more than other recent ones." http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2016/11/11/23174/
"Donald Trump performed best on Tuesday in places where the economy is in worse shape, and
especially in places where jobs are most at risk in the future.
"Trump, who in his campaign pledged to be a voice for `forgotten Americans,' beat Hillary Clinton
in counties with slower job growth and lower wages. And he far outperformed her in counties where
more jobs are threatened by automation or offshoring, a sign that he found support not just among
workers who are struggling now but among those concerned for their economic future."
Meanwhile, the neoliberal Democrats made claims about the economy that at best wildly oversold
the non-recovery from the 2009 global financial meltdown, and at worst flat-out misrepresented
the state of the U.S. economy. For example, president Obama in his June 1 2016 speech in Elkhart
Indiana, said:
"Now, one of the reasons we're told this has been an unusual election year is because people
are anxious and uncertain about the economy. And our politics are a natural place to channel
that frustration. So I wanted to come to the heartland, to the Midwest, back to close to my
hometown to talk about that anxiety, that economic anxiety, and what I think it means. (..)
America's economy is not just better than it was eight years ago - it is the strongest, most
durable economy in the world. (..) Unemployment in Elkhart has fallen to around 4 percent.
(Applause.) At the peak of the crisis, nearly one in 10 homeowners in the state of Indiana
were either behind on their mortgages or in foreclosure; today, it's one in 30. Back then,
only 75 percent of your kids graduated from high school; tomorrow, 90 percent of them will.
(Applause.) The auto industry just had its best year ever. (..) So that's progress.(..) We
decided to invest in job training so that folks who lost their jobs could retool. We decided
to invest in things like high-tech manufacturing and clean energy and infrastructure, so that
entrepreneurs wouldn't just bring back the jobs that we had lost, but create new and better
jobs By almost every economic measure, America is better off than when I came here at the
beginning of my presidency. That's the truth. That's true. (Applause.) It's true. (Applause.)
Over the past six years, our businesses have created more than 14 million new jobs - that's
the longest stretch of consecutive private sector job growth in our history. We've seen the
first sustained manufacturing growth since the 1990s."
None of this is true. Not is a substantive sense, not in the sense of being accurate, not in
the sense of reflecting the facts on the ground for real working people who don't fly their private
jets to Davos.
The claim that "America's economy is the strongest and most durable economy in the world" is
just plain false. China has a much higher growth rate, at 6.9% nearly triple the U.S.'s - and
America's GDP growth is trending to historic long-term lows, and still falling. Take a look at
this chart of the Federal Reserve board's projections of U.S. GDP growth since 2009 compared with
the real GDP growth rate:
"[In the survey] [t]he Fed asked respondents how they would pay for a $400 emergency. The answer:
47 percent of respondents said that either they would cover the expense by borrowing or selling
something, or they would not be able to come up with the $400 at all. Four hundred dollars! Who
knew?
"Well, I knew. I knew because I am in that 47 percent.
" I know what it is like to have to juggle creditors to make it through a week. I know
what it is like to have to swallow my pride and constantly dun people to pay me so that I can
pay others. I know what it is like to have liens slapped on me and to have my bank account
levied by creditors. I know what it is like to be down to my last $5-literally-while I wait for
a paycheck to arrive, and I know what it is like to subsist for days on a diet of eggs.
I know what it is like to dread going to the mailbox, because there will always be new
bills to pay but seldom a check with which to pay them. I know what it is like to have to tell
my daughter that I didn't know if I would be able to pay for her wedding; it all depended on whether
something good happened. And I know what it is like to have to borrow money from my adult daughters
because my wife and I ran out of heating oil ."
" Two-thirds of Americans would have difficulty coming up with the money to cover a $1,000
emergency, according to an exclusive poll released Thursday, a signal that despite years after
the Great Recession, Americans' finances remain precarious as ever.
" These difficulties span all incomes, according to the poll conducted by The Associated
Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Three-quarters of people in households making less
than $50,000 a year and two-thirds of those making between $50,000 and $100,000 would have difficulty
coming up with $1,000 to cover an unexpected bill.
" Even for the country's wealthiest 20 percent - households making more than $100,000 a
year - 38 percent say they would have at least some difficulty coming up with $1,000 .
"`The more we learn about the balance sheets of Americans, it becomes quite alarming,' said
Caroline Ratcliffe, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute focusing on poverty and emergency savings
issues."
The rest of Obama's statistics are deceptive to the point of being dissimulations - unemployment
has dropped to 4 percent because so many people have stopped looking for work and moved into their
parents' basements that the Bureau of Labor Statistics no longer counts them as unemployed. Meanwhile,
the fraction of working-age adults who are not in the workforce has skyrocketed to an all-time
high. Few homeowners are now being foreclosed in 2016 compared to 2009 because the people in 2009
who were in financial trouble all lost their homes. Only rich people and well-off professionals
were able to keep their homes through the 2009 financial collapse. Since 2009, businesses did
indeed create 14 million new jobs - mostly low-wage junk jobs, part-time minimum-wage jobs that
don't pay a living wage.
"The deep recession wiped out primarily high-wage and middle-wage jobs. Yet the strongest employment
growth during the sluggish recovery has been in low-wage work, at places like strip malls and
fast-food restaurants.
"In essence, the poor economy has replaced good jobs with bad ones."
And the jobs market isn't much better for highly-educated workers:
New research released Monday says nearly half of the nation's recent college graduates work
jobs that don't require a degree.
The report, from the Center for College Affordability and Productivity, concludes that while
college-educated Americans are less likely to collect unemployment, many of the jobs they do have
aren't worth the price of their diplomas.
The data calls into question a national education platform that says higher education is better
in an economy that favors college graduates.
Don't believe it? Then try this article, from the Chronicle for Higher Education:
Approximately 60 percent of the increase in the number of college graduates from 1992 to
2008 worked in jobs that the BLS considers relatively low skilled-occupations where many participants
have only high school diplomas and often even less. Only a minority of the increment in our
nation's stock of college graduates is filling jobs historically considered as requiring a
bachelor's degree or more.
As for manufacturing, U.S. manufacturing lost 35,000 jobs in 2016, and manufacturing employment
remains 2.2% below what it was when Obama took office.
Meanwhile, 91% of all the profits generated by the U.S. economy from 2009 through 2012
went to the top 1%. As just one example, the annual bonuses (not salaries, just the bonuses) of
all Wall Street financial traders last year amounted to 28 billion dollars while the total income
of all minimum wage workers in America came to 14 billion dollars.
"Between 2009 and 2012, according to updated data from Emmanuel Saez, overall income per
family grew 6.9 percent. The gains weren't shared evenly, however. The top 1 percent saw their
real income grow by 34.7 percent while the bottom 99 percent only saw a 0.8 percent gain, meaning
that the 1 percent captured 91 percent of all real income.
Adjusting for inflation and excluding anything made from capital gains investments like
stocks, however, shows that even that small gains for all but the richest disappears. According
to Justin Wolfers, adjusted average income for the 1 percent without capital gains rose from $871,100
to $968,000 in that time period. For everyone else, average income actually fell from $44,000
to $43,900. Calculated this way, the 1 percent has captured all of the income gains."
Does any of this sound like "the strongest, most durable economy in the world"? Does any of
this square with the claims by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that "By almost every economic
measure, America is better off "? The U.S. economy is only better off in 2016 by disingenuous
comparison with the stygian depths of the 2009 economic collapse.
Hillary Clinton tied herself to Barack Obama's economic legacy, and the brutal reality for
working class people remains that the economy today has barely improved for most workers to what
it was in 2009, and is in many ways worse. Since 2009, automation + outsourcing/offshoring has
destroyed whole classes of jobs, from taxi drivers (wiped out by Uber and Lyft) to warehoues stock
clerks (getting wiped out by robots) to paralegals and associates at law firms (replaced by databases
and legal search algorithms) to high-end programmers (wiped out by an ever-increasing flood of
H1B via workers from India and China).
Yet vox.com continues to run article after article proclaiming "the 2016 election was all about
racism." And we have a non-stop stream of this stuff from people like Anne Laurie over at balloon-juice.com:
"While the more-Leftist-than-thou "progressives" - including their latest high-profile figurehead
- are high-fiving each other in happy anticipation of potential public-outrage gigs over the next
four years, at least some people are beginning to push back on the BUT WHITE WORKING CLASS HAS
ALL THE SADS!!! meme so beloved of Very Serious Pundits."
That's the ticket, Democrats double down on the identity politics, keep telling the pulverized
middle class how great the economy is. Because that worked so well for you this election.
= = = mclaren@9:52 am: The rest of Obama's statistics are deceptive to the point of being
dissimulations -[ ] Only rich people and well-off professionals were able to keep their homes
through the 2009 financial collapse. = = =
Some food for thought in your post, but you don't help your argument with statements such as
this one. Rich people and well-off professionals make up at most 10% of the population. US homeownership
rate in 2005 was 68.8%, in 2015 is 63.7. That's a big drop and unquestionably represents a lot
of people losing their houses involuntarily. Still, even assuming no "well-off professionals"
lost their houses in the recession that still leaves the vast majority of the houses owned by
the middle class. Which is consistent with foreclosure and sales stats in middle class areas from
2008-2014. Remember that even with 20% unemployment 80% of the population still has a job.
Similarly, I agree that the recession and job situation was qualitatively worse than the quantitative
stats depicted. Once you start adding in hidden factors not captured by the official stats, though,
where do you stop? How do you know the underground economy isn't doing far better than it was
in the boom years of the oughts, thus reducing actual unemployment? Etc.
Finally, you need to address the fundamental question: assuming all you say is true (arguendo),
how does destroying the Affordable Care Act, Social Security, and Medicare help those in the economically
depressed areas? I got hit bad by the recession myself. Know what helped from 2010 forward? Knowing
that I could change jobs, keep my college-age children on my spouse's heath plan, not get hit
with pre-existing condition fraud, and that if worse came to worse in a couple years I would have
the plan exchange to fall back on. Kansas has tried the Ryan/Walker approach, seen it fail, doubled
down, and seen that fail 4x as badly. Now we're going to make it up on unit sales by trying the
Ryan plan nationally? How do you expect that to "work out for you"?
WLGR 11.16.16 at 4:11 pm
mclaren @ 7: "high-end programmers (wiped out by an ever-increasing flood of H1B via workers
from India and China)"
I'm on board with the general thrust of what you're saying, but this is way, way over
the line separating socialism from barbarism. The fact that
it's not even true is beside the point, as is the (quite frankly) fascist metaphor of "flood"
to describe human fucking beings traveling in search of economic security, at least as long as
you show some self-awareness and contrition about your language. Some awareness about the insidious
administrative structure of the H1-B program would also be nice - the way it works is, an individual's
visa status more or less completely depends on remaining in the good graces of their employer,
meaning that by design these employees have no conceivable leverage in any negotiation
over pay or working conditions, and a program of unconditional residency without USCIS as a de
facto strikebreaker would have much less downward pressure on wages - but anti-immigration rhetoric
remaining oblivious to actual immigration law is par for the course.
No, the real point of departure here from what deserves to be called "socialism" is in the
very act of blithely combining effects of automation (i.e. traditional capitalist competition
for productive efficiency at the expense of workers' economic security) and effects of offshoring/outsourcing/immigration
(i.e. racialized fragmentation of the global working class by accident of birth into those who
"deserve" greater economic security and those who don't) into one and the same depiction of developed-world
economic crisis. In so many words, you're walking right down neoliberal capitalism's ideological
garden path: the idea that it's not possible to be anticapitalist without being an economic nationalist,
and that every conceivable alternative to some form of Hillary Clinton is ultimately reducible
to some form of Donald Trump. On the contrary, those of us on the socialism side of "socialism
or barbarism" don't object to capitalism because it's exploiting American workers , we
object because it's exploiting workers , and insisting on this crucial point against all
chauvinist pressure ("workers of all lands , unite!") is what fundamentally separates our
anticapitalism from the pseudo-anticapitalism of fascists.
Maclaren: I'm with you. I well remember Obama and his "pivot to deficit reduction" and "green
shoots" while I was screaming at the TV 'No!! Not Now!"
And then he tried for a "grand bargain" with the Reps over chained CPI adjustment for SS, and
he became my active enemy. I was a Democrat. Where did my party go?
Just chiming in here: The implicit deal between the elites and the hoi polloi was that the economy
would be run with minimal competence. Throughout the west, those elites have broken faith with
the masses on that issue, and are being punished for it.
I'm less inclined to attach responsibility to Obama, Clinton or the Democratic Party than some.
If Democrats had their way, the economy would have been managed considerably more competently.
Always remember that the rejection of the elites wasn't just a rejection of Democrats. The
Republican elite also took it in the neck.
I'll also dissent from the view that race wasn't decisive in this election. Under different
circumstances, we might have had Bernie's revolution rather than Trump's, but Trump's coalition
is composed of overt racists and people who are indifferent to overt racism.
I find the discussions over identity politics so intensely frustrating. A lot of people
on the left have gone all-in on self-righteous anger
Identity politics (and to some extent probably the rhetorical style that goes with it) isn't
a 'left' thing, it's a liberal thing. It's a bête noire for many on the left-see eg. Nancy Fraser's
work.
The Anglo/online genus what you get when you subtract class, socialism and real-world organisation
from politics and add in a lot of bored students and professionals with internet connections in
the context of a political culture (America's) that already valorises individual aggression to
a unique degree.
As polticalfoorball @15 says. The Democrats just didn't have the political muscle to deliver on
those things. There really is a dynamic thats been playing out: Democrats don't get enough governing
capacity because they did poorly in the election, which means their projects to improve the economy
are neutered or allowed through only in a very weakened form. Then the next election cycle the
neuterers use that failure as a weapon to take even more governing capacity away. Its not a failure
of will, its a failure to get on top of the political feedback loop.
@15 politicalfootball 11.16.16 at 5:27 pm
"Throughout the west, those elites have broken faith with the masses on that issue, and are being
punished for it."
Could you specify some "elite" that has been punished?
'the economic theories and programs ascribed to John M. Keynes and his followers; specifically
: the advocacy of monetary and fiscal programs by government to increase employment and spending'
– and if it is done wisely – like in most European countries before 2000 it is one of the least
'braindead' things.
But with the introduction of the Euro – some governmental programs – lead (especially in Spain)
to horrendous self-destructive housing and building bubbles – which lead to the conclusion that
such programs – which allow 'gambling with houses' are pretty much 'braindead'.
Or shorter: The quality of Keynesianism depends on NOT doing it 'braindead'.
Cranky Observer in #11 makes some excellent points. Crucially, he asks: "Finally, you need to
address the fundamental question: assuming all you say is true (arguendo), how does destroying
the Affordable Care Act, Social Security, and Medicare help those in the economically depressed
areas?"
There actually is a logic at work in the Rust Belt voters for voted for Trump. I don't
think it's good logic, but it makes sense in its own warped way. The calculation the Trump voters
seem to be making in the Rust Belt is that it's better to have a job and no health insurance and
no medicare and no social security, than no job but the ACA (with $7,000 deductibles you can't
afford to pay for anyway) plus medicare (since most of these voters are healthy, they figure they'll
never get sick) plus social security (most of these voters are not 65 or older, and probably think
they'll never age - or perhaps don't believe that social security will be solvent when they do
need it).
It's the same twisted logic that goes on with protectionism. Rust Belt workers figure that
it's better to have a job and not be able to afford a Chinese-made laptop than not to have a job
but plenty of cheap foreign-made widgets you could buy if you had any money (which you don't).
That logic doesn't parse if you run through the economics (because protectionism will destroy
the very jobs they think they're saving), but it can be sold as a tweet in a political campaign.
As for 63.7% home ownership stats in 2016, vast numbers of those "owned" homes were snapped
up by giant banks and other financial entities like hedge funds which then rented those homes
out. So the home ownership stats in 2016 are extremely deceptive. Much of the home-buying since
the 2009 crash has been investment purchases. Foreclosure home purchases for rent is now a huge
thriving business, and it's fueling a second housing bubble. Particularly because in many ways
it repeats the financially frothy aspects of the early 2000s housing bubble - banks and investment
firms are issuing junks bonds based on rosy estimates of ever-escalating rents and housing prices,
they use those junk financial instruments (and others like CDOs) to buy houses which then get
rented out at inflated prices, the rental income gets used to fund more tranches of investment
which fuels more buy-to-rent home buying. Rents have already skyrocketed far beyond incomes on
the East and West Coast, so this can't continue. But home prices and rents keep rising. There
is no city in the United States today where a worker making minimum wage can afford to rent a
one-bedroom apartment and have money left over to eat and pay for a car, health insurance, etc.
If home ownership were really so robust, this couldn't possibly be the case. The fact that rents
keep skyrocketing even as undocumented hispanics return to Mexico in record numbers while post-9/11
ICE restrictions have hammered legal immigration numbers way, way down suggests that home ownership
is not nearly as robust as the deceptive numbers indicate.
Political football in #15 remarks: "I'll also dissent from the view that race wasn't decisive
in this election. Under different circumstances, we might have had Bernie's revolution rather
than Trump's, but Trump's coalition is composed of overt racists and people who are indifferent
to overt racism."
Race was important, but not the root cause of the Trump victory. How do we know this? Tump
himself is telling us. Look at Trump's first announced actions - deport 3 million undocumented
immigrants who have committed crimes, ram through vast tax cuts for the rich, and end the inheritance
tax.
If Trump's motivation (and his base's motivation) was pure racism, Trump's first announced
action would be something like passing laws that made it illegal to marry undocumented workers.
His first act would be to roll back the legalization of black/white marriage and re-instate segregation.
Trump isn't promising any of that.
Instead Trump's (bad) policies are based around enriching billionaires and shutting down immigration.
Bear in mind that 43% of all new jobs created since 2009 went to immigrants and you start to realize
that Trump's base is reacting to economic pressure by scapegoating immigrants, not racism by itself.
If it were pure racism we'd have Trump and Ryan proposing a bunch of new Nuremberg laws. Make
it illegal to have sex with muslims, federally fund segregated black schools and pass laws to
force black kids to get bussed to them, create apartheid-style zones where only blacks can live,
that sort of thing. Trump's first announced actions involve enriching the fantastically wealthy
and enacting dumb self-destructive protectionism via punitive immigration control. That's protectionism
+ class war of the rich against everyone else, not racism. The protectionist immigration-control
+ deportation part of Trump's program is sweet sweet music to the working class people in the
Rust Belt. They think the 43% of jobs taken by immigrants will come back. They don't realize that
those are mostly jobs no one wants to do anyway, and that most of those jobs are already in the
process of getting automated out of existence.
The claim "Trump's coalition is composed of overt racists and people who are indifferent
to overt racism" is incomplete. Trump's coalition actually consists of 3 parts and it's highly
unstable: [1] racists, [2] plutocrats, [3] working class people slammed hard by globalization
for whom Democrats have done little or nothing.
Here's an argument that may resonate: the first two groups in Trump's coalition are unreachable.
Liberal Democrats can't sweet-talk racists out of being racist and we certainly have nothing to
offer the plutocrats. So the only part of Trump's coalition that is really reachable by liberal
Democrats is the third group. Shouldn't we be concentrating on that third group, then?
The good news is that Trump's coalition is unstable. The plutocrats and Rust Belters are
natural enemies. Since the plutocrats are perceived as running giant corporations that import
large numbers of non-white immigrants to lower wages, the racists are not big fans of that group
either.
Listen to Steve Bannon, a classic stormfront type - he says he wants to blow up both the
Democratic and the Republican party. He calls himself a "Leninist" in a recent interview and vows
to wreck all elite U.S. institutions (universities, giant multinationals), not just the Democratic
party.
Why? Because the stormfront types consider elite U.S. institutions like CitiBank as equally
culpable with Democrats in supposedly destroying white people in the U.S. According to Bannon's
twisted skinhead logic, Democrats are allegedly race traitors for cultural reasons, but big U.S.
corporations and elite institutions are supposedly equally guilty of economic race treason by
importing vast numbers of non-white immigrants via H1B visas, by offshoring jobs from mostly caucasian-populated
red states to non-white countries like India, Africa, China, and by using elite U.S. universities
to trawl the world for the best (often non-white) students, etc. Bannon's "great day of the rope"
includes the plutocrats as well as people of color.
These natural fractures in the Trump coalition are real, and Democrats can exploit them to
weaken and destroy Republicans. But we have to get away from condemning all Republicans as racists
because if we go down that route, we won't realize how fractured and unstable the Trump coalition
really is.
The short version of my thinking on the Obama stimulus is this: Keynesian stimulus spending is
a free lunch; it doesn't really matter what you spend money on up to a very generous point, so
it seems ready-made for legislative log-rolling. If Obama could not get a very big stimulus indeed
thru a Democratic Congress long out of power, Obama wasn't really trying. And, well-chosen spending
on pork barrel projects is popular and gets Congressional critters re-elected. So, again, if the
stimulus is small and the Democratic Congress doesn't get re-elected, Obama isn't really trying.
Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism,
because it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference.
Ps. Should prob add that identity politics isn't the same thing as feminism, anti-racism, LGBT
politics, etc. They're all needed now more than ever.
What we don't need more of imo is a particular liberal/middle-class form of those things with
particular assumptions (meritocratic and individualist), epistemology (strongly subjectivist)
and rhetorical style (which often aims humiliating opponents from a position of relative knowledge/status
rather than verbal engagement).
I don't know why I'm even having to say this, as it's so obvious. The "leftists" (for want of
a better word) and feminists who I know are also against neoliberalism. They are against the selloff
of public assets to enterprises for private profit. They want to see a solution to the rapidly
shrinking job market as technology replaces jobs (no, it's not enough for the Heroic Workers to
Seize the Means of Production – the means of production are different now and the solution is
going to have to be more complex than just "bring back manufacturing" or "introduce tariffs".)
They want to roll back the tax cuts for the rich which have whittled down our revenue base this
century. They want corporations and the top 10% to pay their fair share, and concomitantly they
want pensioners, the unemployed and people caring for children to have a proper living wage.
They support a universal "single payer" health care system, which we social democratic squishy
types managed to actually introduce in the 1970s, but now we have to fight against right wing
governments trying to roll it back They support a better system of public education. They support
a science-based approach to climate change where it is taken seriously for the threat it is and
given priority in Government policy. They support spending less on the Military and getting out
of international disputes which we (Western nations) only seem to exacerbate.
This is not an exhaustive list.
Yet just because the same people say that the dominant Western countries (and my own) still
suffer from institutionalised racism and sexism, which is not some kind of cake icing but actually
ruin lives and kill people, we are "all about identity politics" and cannot possibly have enough
brain cells to think about the issues I described in para 1.
The slow recovery was only one factor. Wages have been stagnant since Reagan. And honestly,
if a white Republican president had stabilized the economy, killed Osama Bin Laden and got rid
of pre-existing condition issue with healthcare, the GOP would be BRAGGING all over it. Let's
remember that we have ONE party that has been devoted to racist appeals, lying and putting party
over country for decades.
Obama entered office as the economy crashed over a cliff. Instead of reforming the banks and
punishing the bankers who engaged in fraudulent activities, he waded into healthcare reform. Banks
are bigger today than they were in 2008. And tell me again, which bankers were punished for the
fraud? Not a one All that Repo 105 maneuvering, stuffing the retirement funds with toxic assets
– etc. and so on – all of that was perfectly legal? And if legal, all of that was totally bonusable?
Yes! In America, such failure is gifted with huge bonuses, thanks to the American taxpayer.
Meanwhile, homeowners saw huge drops the value of their homes. Some are still underwater with
the mortgage. It's a shame that politicians and reporters in DC don't get out much.
Concurrently, right before the election, ACA premiums skyrocketed. If you are self-insured,
ACA is NOT affordable. It doesn't matter that prior to ACA, premiums increased astronomically.
Obama promised AFFORDABLE healthcare. In my state, we have essentially a monopoly on health insurance,
and the costs are absurd. But that's in part because the state Republicans refused to expand Medicaid.
Don't underestimate HRC's serious issues. HRC had one speech for the bankers and another for
everyone else. Why didn't she release the GS transcripts? When did the Democrats become the party
of Wall Street?
She also made the same idiotic mistake that Romney did – disparage a large swathe of American
voters (basket of deplorables is this year's 47%.)
And then we had a nation of voters intent on the outsider. Bernie Sanders had an improbable
run at it – the Wikileaks emails showed that the DNC did what they could to get rid of him as
a threat.
Well America has done and gone elected themselves an outsider. Lucky us.
"... Of course, the DNC was too busy trying to blow the Sanders campaign to smithereens and Hillary decided that comforting the Democrat Party's donor base was more important than attracting working class voters in the Rust Belt. ..."
I read all of these points and conclude that Bernie Sanders would have defeated Trump in the
general election. Sanders would have held all of the Democratic strongholds, and he would have
beaten Trump in the Midwest.
Of course, the DNC was too busy trying to blow the Sanders campaign to smithereens and
Hillary decided that comforting the Democrat Party's donor base was more important than attracting
working class voters in the Rust Belt.
This is evidence that the elites in the Democrat Party would rather lose with a ' made ' candidate
than win with an outsider.
"... The "my way" or the highway rhetoric from Clinton supporters on the campaign was sickening. When Bush was called a warmonger for Iraq, that was fine. When Clinton was called a warmonger for Iraq and Libya, the Clintonites went on the offensive, often throwing around crap like "if she was a man, she wouldn't be a warmonger!" ..."
"... On racism: "what I can say, from personal experience, is that the racism of my youth was always one step removed. I never saw a family member, friend, or classmate be mean to the actual black people we had in town. We worked with them, played video games with them, waved to them when they passed. What I did hear was several million comments about how if you ever ventured into the city, winding up in the "wrong neighborhood" meant you'd get dragged from your car, raped, and burned alive. Looking back, I think the idea was that the local minorities were fine as long as they acted exactly like us." ..."
"... I'm telling you, the hopelessness eats you alive. And if you dare complain, some liberal elite will pull out their iPad and type up a rant about your racist white privilege. Already, someone has replied to this with a comment saying, "You should try living in a ghetto as a minority!" Exactly. To them, it seems like the plight of poor minorities is only used as a club to bat away white cries for help. Meanwhile, the rate of rural white suicides and overdoses skyrockets. Shit, at least politicians act like they care about the inner cities." ..."
"... And the rural folk are called a "basket of deplorables" and other names. If you want to fight racism, a battle that is Noble and Honorable, you have to understand the nuances between racism and hopelessness. The wizard-wannabe idiots are a tiny fringe. The "deplorables" are a huge part of rural America. If you alienate them, you're helping the idiots mentioned above. ..."
Erm, atheist groups are known to target smaller Christian groups with lawsuits. A baker was sued
for refusing to bake a cake for a Gay Wedding. She was perfectly willing to serve the couple,
just not at the wedding. In California we had a lawsuit over a cross in a park. Atheists threatened
a lawsuit over a seal. Look, I get that there are people with no life out there, but why are they
bringing the rest of us into their insanity, with constant lawsuits. There's actually a concept
known as "Freedom from Religion" – what the heck? Can you imagine someone arguing about "Freedom
from Speech" in America? But it's ok to do it to religious folk! And yes, that includes Muslims,
who had to fight to build a Mosque in New York. They should've just said it was a Scientology
Center
The "my way" or the highway rhetoric from Clinton supporters on the campaign was sickening.
When Bush was called a warmonger for Iraq, that was fine. When Clinton was called a warmonger
for Iraq and Libya, the Clintonites went on the offensive, often throwing around crap like "if
she was a man, she wouldn't be a warmonger!"
The problem with healthcare in the US deserves its own thread, but Obamacare did not fix it;
Obamacare made it worse, especially in the rural communities. The laws in schools are fundamentally
retarded. A kid was suspended for giving a friend Advil. Another kid suspended for bringing in
a paper gun. I could go on and on. A girl was expelled from college for trying to look gangsta
in a L'Oreal mask. How many examples do you need? Look at all of the new "child safety laws" which
force kids to leave in a bubble. And when they enter the Real World, they're fucked, so they pick
up the drugs. In cities it's crack, in farmvilles it's meth.
Hillary didn't win jack shit. She got a plurality of the popular vote. She didn't win it, since
winning implies getting the majority. How many Johnson votes would've gone to Trump if it was
based on popular vote, in a safe state? Of course the biggest issue is the attack on the way of
life, which is all too real. I encourage you to read this, in order to understand where they're
coming from:
http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/
"Nothing that happens outside the city matters!" they say at their cocktail parties, blissfully
unaware of where their food is grown. Hey, remember when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans? Kind
of weird that a big hurricane hundreds of miles across managed to snipe one specific city and
avoid everything else. To watch the news (or the multiple movies and TV shows about it), you'd
barely hear about how the storm utterly steamrolled rural Mississippi, killing 238 people and
doing an astounding $125 billion in damage. But who cares about those people, right? What's newsworthy
about a bunch of toothless hillbillies crying over a flattened trailer? New Orleans is culturally
important. It matters. To those ignored, suffering people, Donald Trump is a brick chucked through
the window of the elites. "Are you assholes listening now?"
On racism: "what I can say, from personal experience, is that the racism of my youth was always
one step removed. I never saw a family member, friend, or classmate be mean to the actual black
people we had in town. We worked with them, played video games with them, waved to them when they
passed. What I did hear was several million comments about how if you ever ventured into the city,
winding up in the "wrong neighborhood" meant you'd get dragged from your car, raped, and burned
alive. Looking back, I think the idea was that the local minorities were fine as long as they
acted exactly like us."
"They're getting the shit kicked out of them. I know, I was there. Step outside of the city,
and the suicide rate among young people fucking doubles. The recession pounded rural communities,
but all the recovery went to the cities. The rate of new businesses opening in rural areas has
utterly collapsed."
^ That, I'd say, is known as destroying their lives. Also this:
"In a city, you can plausibly aspire to start a band, or become an actor, or get a medical
degree. You can actually have dreams. In a small town, there may be no venues for performing arts
aside from country music bars and churches. There may only be two doctors in town - aspiring to
that job means waiting for one of them to retire or die. You open the classifieds and all of the
job listings will be for fast food or convenience stores. The "downtown" is just the corpses of
mom and pop stores left shattered in Walmart's blast crater, the "suburbs" are trailer parks.
There are parts of these towns that look post-apocalyptic.
I'm telling you, the hopelessness eats you alive. And if you dare complain, some liberal elite
will pull out their iPad and type up a rant about your racist white privilege. Already, someone
has replied to this with a comment saying, "You should try living in a ghetto as a minority!"
Exactly. To them, it seems like the plight of poor minorities is only used as a club to bat away
white cries for help. Meanwhile, the rate of rural white suicides and overdoses skyrockets. Shit,
at least politicians act like they care about the inner cities."
And the rural folk are called a "basket of deplorables" and other names. If you want to fight
racism, a battle that is Noble and Honorable, you have to understand the nuances between racism
and hopelessness. The wizard-wannabe idiots are a tiny fringe. The "deplorables" are a huge part
of rural America. If you alienate them, you're helping the idiots mentioned above.
"... What Is Lost by Burying the Trans-Pacific Partnership? – The New York Times : "The Americans will have to explain their failure on the trade agreement to foreign leaders gathered in Lima, Peru, while China's leader, Xi Jinping, is there seeking progress toward an emerging alternative to the Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, known as R.C.E.P., which includes China, Japan and 14 other Asian countries but excludes the United States. ..."
"... 'In the absence of T.P.P., countries have already made it clear that they will move forward in negotiating their own trade agreements that exclude the United States,' Mr. Obama's Council of Economic Advisers wrote days before the election. 'These agreements would improve market access and trading opportunities for member countries while U.S. businesses would continue to face existing trade barriers.'" ..."
"... Foreign leaders and foreign populations hated the TPP because it wasn't a trade deal; it was a giveaways-to-big-corporations deal full of stuff about extending copyrights for Mickey Mouse and so on. ..."
I don't know enough about the finer points of the TPP to be for or against it.
But this article suggests that there are plans to exclude the US if it doesn't choose to be
a factor in world affairs.
What Is Lost by Burying the Trans-Pacific Partnership? – The New York Times : "The Americans
will have to explain their failure on the trade agreement to foreign leaders gathered in Lima,
Peru, while China's leader, Xi Jinping, is there seeking progress toward an emerging alternative
to the Trans-Pacific Partnership - the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership, known as R.C.E.P.,
which includes China, Japan and 14 other Asian countries but excludes the United States.
'In the absence of T.P.P., countries have already made it clear that they will move forward
in negotiating their own trade agreements that exclude the United States,' Mr. Obama's Council
of Economic Advisers wrote days before the election. 'These agreements would improve market access
and trading opportunities for member countries while U.S. businesses would continue to face existing
trade barriers.'"
Foreign leaders and foreign populations hated the TPP because it wasn't a trade deal; it was a
giveaways-to-big-corporations deal full of stuff about extending copyrights for Mickey Mouse and
so on.
China's trade deal is an *actual* trade deal and as such much more popular. We could join *it*.
"... "Class first" amongst men of the left has always signaled "ME first." What else could it mean? ..."
"... So "Black Lives Matter" actually means "Black Lives Matter First". Got it. So damn tired of identity politics. ..."
"... Meanwhile, in the usual way of such things, #BlackLivesMatter hashtag activism became fashionable, as the usual suspects were elevated to celebrity status by elites. Nothing, of course, was changed in policy, and so in a year or so, matters began to bubble on the ground again. ..."
"... I'm not tired of identity politics. I'm just tired of some identity-groups accusing other identity-groups of "identity-politics". I speak in particular of the Identity Left. ..."
"... Identity politics, any identity, is going to automatically split voters into camps and force people to 'pick' a side. ..."
"... The Faux Feminism of Hillary Rodham Clinton, I and many other writers argued that the bourgeois feminism Clinton represents works against the interests of the vast majority of women. This has turned out to be even more true than we anticipated. That branding of feminism has delivered to us the most sexist and racist president in recent history: Donald Trump. ..."
"... Hillary spoke to the million-dollar feminists-of-privilege who identified with her multi-million dollar self and her efforts to break her own Tiffany Glass ceiling. And she worked to get many other women with nothing to gain to identify with Hillary's own breaking of Hillary's own Tiffany Glass ceiling. ..."
"... For me (at least) the essence of the "Left" is justice. When we speak of Class we are putting focus on issues of economic justice. Class is the material expression of economic (and therefore political) stratification. Class is the template for analysing the power dynamics at play in such stratification. ..."
"... in the absence of economic justice, it's very difficult to obtain ANY kind of justice - whether such justice be of race, gender, legal, religious or sexual orientation. ..."
"... I find it indicative that the 1% (now) simply don't care one way or another about race or gender etc, PROVIDED it benefits or, has no negative effects on their economic/political interests. ..."
"... "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." ..."
"... In ship sinking incidents, where a lot of people are dumped in the water, many adopt the strategy of trying to use others as flotation devices, pushing them under while the "rich class" tootle off in the lifeboats. Sounds like a winner, all right. ..."
"... The rich class has enlisted the white indentured servants as their Praetorian Guard. The same play as after Bacon's Rebellion. ..."
"... Is what is actually occurring another Kristallnacht, or the irreducible susurrus of meanness and idiocy that is part of every collection of humans? It would be nice not to get suckered into elevating the painful minima over the importance of getting ordinary people to agree on a real common enemy, and organizing to claim and protect. ..."
"... If even one single banker had gone to jail for the mess (fed by Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II) that blew up in 2008, we would be having a different conversation. We are in a huge legitimacy crisis, in part because justice was never served on those who made tens of millions via fraud. ..."
"... The Malignant Overlords - the King or Queen, the Financial Masters of the Universe,, the tribal witch doctor- live by grazing on the wealth of the natural world and the productivity of their underlings. There are only a few thousand of them but they control finance and the Money system, propaganda organizations (in the USA called the Media) land and agriculture, "educational" institutions and entire armies of Homeland Insecurity police. ..."
"... Under them there are the sycophants– generals and officers, war profiteers and corporate CEO's, the intelligentsia, journalists, fake economists, and entertainment and sports heroes who grow fat feasting on the morsels left over after the .0001% have fed. And far below the Overlords are the millions of professional Bureaucrats whose job security requires unquestioning servitude. ..."
"... Race, gender identity, religion, etc. are the false dichotomies by which the oligarchs divide us. Saudi princes, African American millionaires, gay millionaires etc. are generally treated the same by the oligarchs as wasp millionaires. The true dichotomy is class, that is the dichotomy which dare not speak its name. ..."
"... For Trump it was so easy. He just says something that could be thought of as racist and then his supporters watch as the media morphs his words, removes context, or just ignores any possible non-racist motivations for his words. ..."
"... Just read the actual Mexican- rapists quote. Completely different then reported by the media. Fifteen years ago my native born Mexican friend said almost exactlly the same thing. ..."
"... whilst his GOP colleagues publicly recoiled in horror, there is no question that Trump was merely making explicit what Republicans had been doing for decades – since the days of Nixon in 1968. The dog whistle was merely replaced by a bull horn. ..."
"... Yes, class identity can be a bond that unites. However, in the US the sense of class identity remains underdeveloped. In fact, it is only with the Sanders campaign that large swaths of the American public have had practical and sustained exposure to the concept of class as a political force. For most of the electorate, the language of class is still rather alien, particularly since the "equality of opportunity" narrative even now is not completely overthrown. ..."
"... It seems inevitable that populist sentiment, which both Sanders and Trump have used to electoral advantage, will spill over into a variety of economic nationalism. ..."
"... Obama was a perfect identity candidate, i.e., not only capable of getting the dem nomination, but the presidency and than not jailing banksters NO MATTER WHAT THEY DID, OR WILL DO… ..."
"... One truism about immigration, to pick a topical item, is that uncontrolled immigration leads to overwhelming an area whether city, state or country. Regardless of how one feels about the other aspects of immigration, there are some real, unacknowledged limits to the viability of the various systems that must accommodate arrivals, particularly in the short term. Too much of a perceived ..."
"... There is an entrenched royal court, not unlike Versailles in some respects, where the sinecures, access to the White House tennis court (remember Jimmy Carter and his forest for the trees issues) or to paid "lunches in Georgetown" or similar trappings. Inflow of populist or other foreign ideas behind the veil of media and class secrecy represents a threat to overwhelm, downgrade (Sayeth Yogi Berra: It is so popular that nobody goes there anymore) or remove those perks, and to cause some financial, psychic or other pain to the hangers-on. ..."
"... Pretty soon, word filters out through WikiLeaks, or just on the front page of a newspaper in the case of the real and present corruption (What do you mean nobody went to jail for the frauds?). In those instances, the tendency of a populace to remain aloof with their bread and circuses and reality shows and such gets strained. ..."
"... Some people began noticing and the cognitive dissonance became to great to ignore no matter how many times the messages were delivered from on high. That led to many apparent outbursts of rational behavior ..."
if poor whites were being shot by cops at the rate urban blacks are, they would be screaming
too. blm is not a corporate front to divide us, any more than acorn was a scam to help election
fraud.
It's lazy analysis to suggest Race was a contributing factor. On the fringes, Trump supporters
may have racial overtones, but this election was all about class. I applaud sites like NC in continually
educating me. What you do is a valuable service.
"We won't need a majority of the dying "white working class" in our present and future feminine,
multiracial American working class. Just a minority."
Indeed, this site has featured links to articles elaborating the demographic composition of
today's "working class". And yet we still have people insisting that appeals to the working class,
and policies directed thereof, must "transcend" race and gender.
And, of course this "class first" orientation became a bone of contention between some loud
mouthed "men of the left" during the D-Party primary and "everyone else" and that's why the "Bernie
Bro" label stuck. It didn't help the Sanders campaign either.
"Class first" amongst men of the left has always signaled "ME first." What else could it
mean?
This is, actually, complicated. It's a reasonable position that black lives don't
matter because they keep getting whacked by cops and the cops are never held accountable. Nobody
else did anything, so people on the ground stood up, asserted themselves, and as part
of that created #BlackLivesMatter as an online gathering point; all entirely reasonable. #AllLivesMatter
was created, mostly as deflection/distraction, by people who either didn't like the movement,
or supported cops, and of course if all lives did matter to this crowd, they would have
done something about all the police killings in the first place.
Meanwhile, in the usual way of such things, #BlackLivesMatter hashtag activism became fashionable,
as the usual suspects were elevated to celebrity status by elites. Nothing, of course, was changed
in policy, and so in a year or so, matters began to bubble on the ground again.
Activist time (we might say) is often slower than electoral time. But sometimes it's faster;
see today's Water Cooler on the #AllOfUs people who occupied Schumer's office (and high time,
too). To me, that's a very hopefully sign. Hopefully, not a bundle of groups still siloed by identity
(and if that's to happen, I bet that will happen by working together. Nothing abstract).
I'm not tired of identity politics. I'm just tired of some identity-groups accusing other
identity-groups of "identity-politics". I speak in particular of the Identity Left.
"We won't need a majority of the dying "white working class" in our present and future
feminine, multiracial American working class. Just a minority."
That statement is as myopic a vision as the current political class is today. The statement
offends another minority, or even a possible majority. Identity politics, any identity, is
going to automatically split voters into camps and force people to 'pick' a side.
In False Choices: The Faux Feminism of Hillary Rodham Clinton, I and many other writers
argued that the bourgeois feminism Clinton represents works against the interests of the vast
majority of women. This has turned out to be even more true than we anticipated. That branding
of feminism has delivered to us the most sexist and racist president in recent history: Donald
Trump.
I wonder if there is an even simpler more colorful way to say that. Hillary spoke to the
million-dollar feminists-of-privilege who identified with her multi-million dollar self and her
efforts to break her own Tiffany Glass ceiling. And she worked to get many other women with nothing
to gain to identify with Hillary's own breaking of Hillary's own Tiffany Glass ceiling.
If the phrase "Tiffany Glass ceiling" seems good enough to re-use, feel free to re-use it one
and all.
For me (at least) the essence of the "Left" is justice. When we speak of Class we are putting
focus on issues of economic justice. Class is the material expression of economic (and therefore
political) stratification. Class is the template for analysing the power dynamics at play in such
stratification.
Class is the primary political issue because it not only affects everyone, but in the absence
of economic justice, it's very difficult to obtain ANY kind of justice - whether such justice
be of race, gender, legal, religious or sexual orientation.
I find it indicative that the 1% (now) simply don't care one way or another about race or gender
etc, PROVIDED it benefits or, has no negative effects on their economic/political interests.
"Just how large a spike in hate crime there has been remains uncertain, however. Several reports
have been proven false, and Potok cautioned that most incidents reported to the Southern Poverty
Law Center did not amount to hate crime.
All us ordinary people are insecure. Planet is becoming less habitable, war everywhere, ISDS
whether we want it or not, group sentiments driving mass behaviors with extra weapons from our
masters, soil depletion, water becoming a Nestle subsidiary, all that. But let us focus on maintaining
our favored position as more insecure than others, with a "Yes, but" response to what seems to
me the fundamental strategic scene:
"There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war,
and we're winning."
Those mostly white guys, but a lot of women too, the "rich classs," are ORGANIZED, they have
a pretty simple organizing principle ("Everything belong us") that leads to straightforward strategies
and tactics to control all the levers and fulcrums of power. The senators in Oregon are "on the
right side" of a couple of social issues, but they both are all in for "trade deals" and other
big pieces of the "rich class's" ground game. In ship sinking incidents, where a lot of people
are dumped in the water, many adopt the strategy of trying to use others as flotation devices,
pushing them under while the "rich class" tootle off in the lifeboats. Sounds like a winner, all
right.
The comparison with 9/11 is instructive. That is not minimizing hate crimes. Within days after
9/11, my Sikh neighbor was assaulted and called a "terrorist". He finally decided to stop wearing
a turban, cut his hair, and dress "American". My neighborhood was not ethnically tense, but it is ethnically diverse, and my neighbor had
never seen his assailant before.
Yes, the rich classes are organized…organized to fleece us with unending wars. But don't minimize
other people's experience of what constitutes a hate crime.
In 1875, the first step toward the assassination of a black, "scalawag", or "carpetbagger"
public official in the South was a friendly visit from prominent people asking him to resign,
the second was night riders with torches, the third was night riders who killed the public official.
Jury nullification (surprise, surprise) made sure that no one was punished at the time. In 1876,
the restoration of "home rule' in Southern states elected in a bargain Rutherford B. Hayes, who
ended Reconstruction and the South entered a period that cleansed "Negroes, carpetbaggers, and
scalawags" from their state governments and put the Confederate generals and former plantation
owners back in charge. That was then called The Restoration. Coincidence that that is the name
of David Horowitz's conference where Donna Brazile was hobnobbing with James O'Keefe?
The rich class has enlisted the white indentured servants as their Praetorian Guard. The
same play as after Bacon's Rebellion.
Not minimizing - my very peaches-and-cream Scots-English daughter is married to a gentleman
from Ghana whose skin tones are about as dark as possible.
the have three beautiful children, and are fortunate to live in an area that is a hotbed of
"tolerance." I have many anecdotes too.
Do anecdotes = reality in all its complexity? Do anecdotes = policy? Is what is
actually occurring another Kristallnacht, or the irreducible susurrus of meanness and idiocy
that is part of every collection of humans? It would be nice not to get suckered into
elevating the painful minima over the importance of getting ordinary people to agree on a real
common enemy, and organizing to claim and protect.
If even one single banker had gone to jail for the mess (fed by Bush I, Clinton, and Bush
II) that blew up in 2008, we would be having a different conversation. We are in a huge legitimacy
crisis, in part because justice was never served on those who made tens of millions via fraud.
When there's no justice, its as if the society's immune system is not functioning.
Expect more strange things to appear, almost all of them aimed at sucking the remaining resources
out of the system with the knowledge that they'll never face consequences for looting. The fact
that they're killing the host does not bother them.
Corruption is both cause & effect of gross wealth inequities. Of course to the 1% it's not
corruption so much as merely what is owed as of a right to the privileged. (Thus, the most fundamental
basis of liberal democracy turns malignant: that ALL, even rulers & law makers are EQUALLY bound
by the Law).
The Malignant Overlords - the King or Queen, the Financial Masters of the Universe,, the
tribal witch doctor- live by grazing on the wealth of the natural world and the productivity of
their underlings. There are only a few thousand of them but they control finance and the Money
system, propaganda organizations (in the USA called the Media) land and agriculture, "educational"
institutions and entire armies of Homeland Insecurity police.
Under them there are the sycophants– generals and officers, war profiteers and corporate
CEO's, the intelligentsia, journalists, fake economists, and entertainment and sports heroes who
grow fat feasting on the morsels left over after the .0001% have fed. And far below the Overlords
are the millions of professional Bureaucrats whose job security requires unquestioning servitude.
Once upon a time there was what was known as the Middle Class who taught school or built things
in factories, made mortgage payments on a home, and bought a new Ford every other year. But they
now are renters, moving from one insecure job in one state to an insecure one across the country.
How else are they to maintain their sense of self-worth except by identifying a tribe that is
under them? If the members of the inferior tribe look just like you they might actually be more
successful and not a proper object of scorn. But if they have a black or brown skin and speak
differently they are the perfect target to make you feel that your life is not a total failure.
It's either that or go home and kick the dog or beat the wife. Or join the Army where you can
go kill a few foreigners and will always know your place in the hierarchy.
Class "trumps" race, but racial prejudice has its roots far back in human social history as
a tribal species where the "other" was always a threat to the tribe's existence.
Anyone who thinks it is only class and not also race is wearing some very strange blinders
No one with any sense is saying that, Katharine, and constantly bringing it up as some kind
of necessary argument (which, you may recall, was done as a way of trying to persuade people of
color Sanders wasn't working for them in the face of his entire history) perpetuates the falsehood
dichotomy that it has to be one or the other.
I can understand the desire to reduce the problems to a single issue that can then be subjected
to our total focus, but that's what's been done for the last fifty years; it doesn't work. Life
is too complex and messy to be fixed using magic pills, and Trump's success because those who've
given up hope of a cure are still enormously vulnerable to snake oil.
Race, gender identity, religion, etc. are the false dichotomies by which the oligarchs divide
us. Saudi princes, African American millionaires, gay millionaires etc. are generally treated
the same by the oligarchs as wasp millionaires. The true dichotomy is class, that is the dichotomy
which dare not speak its name.
yes, racism still exist, but the Democrats want to make it the primary issue of every election
because it is costs them nothing. I've never liked the idea of race based reparations because
they seem like another form of racism.
However, if the neolibs really believe racial disparity
and gender issues are the primary problems, why don't they ever support reparations or a large
tax on rich white people to pay the victims of racism and sexism and all the other isms?
Perhaps
its because that would actually cost them something. I think what bothers most of the Trumpets
out here in rural America is not race but the elevation of race to the top of the political todo
list.
For Trump it was so easy. He just says something that could be thought of as racist and
then his supporters watch as the media morphs his words, removes context, or just ignores any
possible non-racist motivations for his words.
Just read the actual Mexican- rapists quote. Completely
different then reported by the media. Fifteen years ago my native born Mexican friend said almost exactlly the same thing. Its a trap the media walks right into. I think most poor people of whiteness
do see racism as a sin, just not the only or most awful sin. As for Trump being a racist, I think
he would have to be human first.
… whilst his GOP colleagues publicly recoiled in horror, there is no question that Trump
was merely making explicit what Republicans had been doing for decades – since the days of Nixon
in 1968. The dog whistle was merely replaced by a bull horn.
Spot-on statement. Was watching Fareed Zakaria (yeah, I know, but he makes legit points from
time to time) and was pleasantly surprised that he called Bret Stephens, who was strongly opposed
to Trump, out on this. To see Stephens squirm like a worm on a hook was priceless.
"…what divides people rather than what unites people…"
Yes, class identity can be a bond that unites. However, in the US the sense of class identity
remains underdeveloped. In fact, it is only with the Sanders campaign that large swaths of the
American public have had practical and sustained exposure to the concept of class as a political
force. For most of the electorate, the language of class is still rather alien, particularly since
the "equality of opportunity" narrative even now is not completely overthrown.
Sanders and others on an ascendant left in the Democratic Party - and outside the Party - will
continue to do the important work of building a sense of class consciousness. But more is needed,
if the left wants to transform education into political power. Of course, organizing and electing
candidates at the local and state level is enormously important both to leverage control of local
institutions and - even more important - train and create leaders who can effectively use the
tools of political power. But besides this practical requirement, the left also needs to address
- or co-opt, if you will - the language of economic populism, which sounds a lot like economic
nationalism.
It seems inevitable that populist sentiment, which both Sanders and Trump have used to
electoral advantage, will spill over into a variety of economic nationalism. Nationalist
sentiment is the single most powerful unifying principle available, certainly more so than the
concept of class, at least in America. I don't see that changing anytime soon, and I do see the
Alt-Right using nationalism as a lever to try to coax the white working class into their brand
of identity politics. But America's assimilationist, "melting pot" narrative continues to be attractive
to most people, even if it is under assault in some quarters. So I think moving from nationalism
to white identity politics will not so easy for the Alt-Right. On the other hand, picking up the
thread of economic nationalism can provide the left with a powerful tool for bringing together
women, minorities and all who are struggling in this economy. This becomes particularly important
if it is the case that technology already makes the ideal of full (or nearly full) employment
nothing more than a chimera, thus forcing the question of a guaranteed annual income. Establishing
that kind of permanent safety net will only be possible in a polity where there are firm bonds
between citizens and a marked sense of responsibility for the welfare of all.
And if the Democratic Party is honest, it will have to concede that even the popular incumbent
President has played a huge role in contributing to the overall sense of despair that drove people
to seek a radical outlet such as Trump. The Obama Administration rapidly broke with its Hope and
"Change you can believe in" the minute he appointed some of the architects of the 2008 crisis
as his main economic advisors, who in turn and gave us a Wall Street friendly bank bailout that
effectively restored the status quo ante (and refused to jail one single banker, even though many
were engaged in explicitly criminal activity).
====================================================================
For those who think its just Hillary, its not. There is no way there will ever be any acknowledgement
of Obama;s real failures – he will no more be viewed honestly by dems than he could be viewed
honestly by repubs. Obama was a perfect identity candidate, i.e., not only capable of getting
the dem nomination, but the presidency and than not jailing banksters NO MATTER WHAT THEY DID,
OR WILL DO…
I imagine Trump will be one term, and I imagine we return in short order to our nominally different
parties squabbling but in lock step with regard to their wall street masters…
Democrats seem to be the more visible or clumsy in their attempts to govern themselves and
the populace, let alone understand their world. By way of illustration, consider the following.
One truism about immigration, to pick a topical item, is that uncontrolled immigration leads to
overwhelming an area whether city, state or country. Regardless of how one feels about the other
aspects of immigration, there are some real, unacknowledged limits to the viability of the various
systems that must accommodate arrivals, particularly in the short term. Too much of a perceived
good thing may be hazardous to one's health. Too much free stuff exhausts the producers,
infrastructure and support networks.
To extend and torture that concept further, just because, consider the immigration of populist
ideas to Washington. There is an entrenched royal court, not unlike Versailles in some respects,
where the sinecures, access to the White House tennis court (remember Jimmy Carter and his forest
for the trees issues) or to paid "lunches in Georgetown" or similar trappings. Inflow of populist
or other foreign ideas behind the veil of media and class secrecy represents a threat to overwhelm,
downgrade (Sayeth Yogi Berra: It is so popular that nobody goes there anymore) or remove those
perks, and to cause some financial, psychic or other pain to the hangers-on.
Pretty soon, word filters out through WikiLeaks, or just on the front page of a newspaper in
the case of the real and present corruption (What do you mean nobody went to jail for the frauds?).
In those instances, the tendency of a populace to remain aloof with their bread and circuses and
reality shows and such gets strained.
Some people began noticing and the cognitive dissonance
became to great to ignore no matter how many times the messages were delivered from on high. That
led to many apparent outbursts of rational behavior (What, you sold my family and me out and reduced
our prospects, so why should we vote for a party that takes us for granted, at best), which would
be counter-intuitive by some in our media.
On PRI's The World, Sarah Chase, author of "Thieves of State: Why Corruption Threatens Global
Security" finally addresses why corruption threatens U.S. security specifically.
I kept waiting for her to get to the U.S. throughout her book, but she really only hinted.
Now she is more forthright. Apparently she was waiting for permission from Sanders, Trump and
70% of the American electorate.
"... Where the Democrats went wrong CNBC. Obama: "[O]ne of the issues that Democrats have to be clear on is that given population distribution across the country, we have to compete everywhere, we have to show up everywhere." Throwing Clinton under the bus… ..."
"... he means just showing up, telling people what they want to hear, then doing whatever the hell you want after getting elected. Not one word about actually meeting peoples needs. EFF OBAMA and the DEMOCRATIC PARTY!! ..."
"... If you didn't read this (linked yesterday), you should consider both reading and sharing far and wide. The entire system is designed to be anti-representative. ..."
"... Don't just get/stay mad, quit expecting a bunch of gangsters to function democratically. ..."
Where the Democrats went wrong CNBC. Obama: "[O]ne of the issues that Democrats have to be
clear on is that given population distribution across the country, we have to compete everywhere,
we have to show up everywhere." Throwing Clinton under the bus…
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I yelled at the radio after hearing this, because he means just showing up, telling people what
they want to hear, then doing whatever the hell you want after getting elected. Not one word about
actually meeting peoples needs. EFF OBAMA and the DEMOCRATIC PARTY!!
If you didn't
read this (linked yesterday), you should consider both reading and sharing far and wide. The
entire system is designed to be anti-representative.
Don't just get/stay mad, quit expecting a
bunch of gangsters to function democratically. Get out of their box.
"... The funny thing is that they've so learned to love the smell of their own farts (or propaganda) that they internalized an image of enlightened progressivism for themselves. This Trump election was probably the first clue that their self image is faulty and not widely shared by others. They are not taking it well. ..."
NYTimes still blames race on Trump's winning over Obama supporters in Iowa:
Trump clearly sensed the fragility of the coalition that Obama put
together - that the president's support in heavily white areas was built not
on racial egalitarianism but on a feeling of self-interest. Many white
Americans were no longer feeling that belonging to this coalition benefited
them.
Racial egalitarianism wasn't the reason for white support for Obama in 2008
and 2012 in Iowa. It reflected racial egalitarianism, but that support had to
do with perceived economic self-interest, just as the switch to Trump in 2016
did.
And what on earth is wrong with self-interest as a reason for voting?
Right. These corporatists use identity politics as a stalking horse to
rob the public blind, and then they spew invectives about racism and
mysogony wherever the public stops buying the bullcrap.
The funny thing is that they've so learned to love the smell of their own
farts (or propaganda) that they internalized an image of enlightened
progressivism for themselves. This Trump election was probably the first
clue that their self image is faulty and not widely shared by others. They
are not taking it well.
"... Judging by the volume of complaints from Clinton sycophants insisting that people did not get behind Clinton or that it was purely her gender, they won't. Why would anyone get behind Clinton save the 1%? Her policies were pro-war, pro-Wall Street, and at odds with what the American people needed. Also, we should judge based on policy, not gender and Clinton comes way short of Sanders in that regard – in many regards, she is the antithesis of Sanders. ..."
"... "Establishment Democrats have nobody but themselves to blame for this one. The only question is whether or not they are willing to take responsibility" I disagree. In my view, it is not a question at all. They have never taken responsibility for anything, and they never will. ..."
"... What would make Democrats focus on the working class? Nothing. They have lost and brought about destruction of the the Unions, which was the Democratic Base, and have become beholden to the money. The have noting in common with the working class, and no sympathy for their situation, either. ..."
"... What does Bill Clinton, who drive much of the policy in the '90s, and spent his early years running away form the rural poor in Arkansas (Law School, Rhodes Scholarship), have in common with working class people anywhere? ..."
"... Iron law of institutions applies. Position in the D apparatus is more important than political power – because with power come blame. ..."
"... I notice Obama worked hard to lose majorities in the house and Senate so he could point to the Republicans and say "it was their fault" except when he actually wanted something, and made it happen (such as TPP). ..."
"... Agreed with the first but not the second. It's typical liberal identity politics guilt tripping. That won't get you too far on the "white side" of Youngstown Ohio. ..."
"... Also suspect that the working-class, Rust-Belt Trump supporters will soon be thrown under the bus by their Standard Bearer, if the Transition Team appointments are any indicator: e.g. Privateers at SSA. ..."
"... My wife teaches primary grades in an inner city school. She has made it clear to me over the years that the challenges her children are facing are related to poverty, not race. She sees a big correlation between the financial status of a family and its family structure (one or more parents not present or on drugs) and the kids' success in school. Race is a minor factor. ..."
"... The problem with running on a class based platform in America is, well, it's America; and in good ol' America, we are taught that anyone can become a successful squillionare – ya know, hard work, nose-to-the-grindstone, blah, blah, blah. ..."
"... The rags to riches American success fable is so ingrained that ideas like taxing the rich a bit more fall flat because everyone thinks "that could be me someday. Just a few house flips, a clever new app, that ten-bagger (or winning lottery ticket) and I'm there" ("there" being part of the 1%). ..."
"... The idea that anyone can be successful (i.e. rich) is constantly promoted. ..."
"... I think this fantasy is beginning to fade a bit but the "wealth = success" idea is so deeply rooted in the American psyche I don't think it will ever fade completely away. ..."
"... If you spend time in hardscrabble, white upstate New York, or eastern Kentucky, or my own native West Texas, and you take an honest look at the welfare dependency, the drug and alcohol addiction, the family anarchy - which is to say, the whelping of human children with all the respect and wisdom of a stray dog - you will come to an awful realization. It wasn't Beijing. It wasn't even Washington, as bad as Washington can be. It wasn't immigrants from Mexico, excessive and problematic as our current immigration levels are. It wasn't any of that. ..."
"... Nothing happened to them. There wasn't some awful disaster. There wasn't a war or a famine or a plague or a foreign occupation. Even the economic changes of the past few decades do very little to explain the dysfunction and negligence - and the incomprehensible malice - of poor white America. So the gypsum business in Garbutt ain't what it used to be. There is more to life in the 21st century than wallboard and cheap sentimentality about how the Man closed the factories down. ..."
"... The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die. Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs. Forget your goddamned gypsum, and, if he has a problem with that, forget Ed Burke, too. The white American underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used heroin needles. Donald Trump's speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin. ..."
"... White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America ..."
"... Poor or Poorer whites have been demonised since the founding of the original Colonies, and were continuously pushed west to the frontiers by the ruling elites of New England and the South as a way of ridding themselves of "undesirables", who were then left to their own resources, and clung together for mutual assistance. ..."
"... White trash is a central, if disturbing, thread in our national narrative. The very existence of such people – both in their visibility and invisibility – is proof that American society obsesses over the mutable labels we give to the neighbors we wish not to notice. "They are not who we are". But they are who we are and have been a fundamental part of our history, whether we like it or not". ..."
"... "To be sure, Donald Trump did make a strong appeal to racists, homophobes, and misogynists " ..."
"... working class white women ..."
"... Obama is personally likeable ..."
"... History tells us the party establishment will move further right after election losses. And among the activist class there are identity purity battles going on. ..."
"... Watch as this happens yet again: "In most elections, U.S. politicians of both parties pretend to be concerned about their issues, then conveniently ignore them when they reach power and implement policies from the same Washington Consensus that has dominated the past 40 years." That is why we need a strong third party, a reformed election system with public support of campaigns and no private money, and free and fair media coverage. But it ain't gonna happen. ..."
"... Obviously, if the Democrats nominate yet another Clintonite Obamacrat all over again, I may have to vote for Trump all over again . . . to stop the next Clintonite before it kills again. ..."
Ultimately the Establishment Democrats have nobody but themselves to blame for this one. The
only question is whether or not they are willing to take responsibility for what happened.
Judging by the volume of complaints from Clinton sycophants insisting that people did not
get behind Clinton or that it was purely her gender, they won't. Why would anyone get behind Clinton
save the 1%? Her policies were pro-war, pro-Wall Street, and at odds with what the American people
needed. Also, we should judge based on policy, not gender and Clinton comes way short of Sanders
in that regard – in many regards, she is the antithesis of Sanders.
Class trumps race, to make a pun. If the left doesn't take the Democratic Party back and clean
house, I expect that there is a high probability that 2020's election will look at lot like the
2004 elections.
I'd recommend someone like Sanders to run. Amongst the current crop, maybe Tulsi Gabbard or
Nina Turner seem like the best candidates.
"Establishment Democrats have nobody but themselves to blame for this one. The only question
is whether or not they are willing to take responsibility" I disagree. In my view, it is not a
question at all. They have never taken responsibility for anything, and they never will.
What would make Democrats focus on the working class? Nothing. They have lost and brought
about destruction of the the Unions, which was the Democratic Base, and have become beholden to
the money. The have noting in common with the working class, and no sympathy for their situation,
either.
What does Bill Clinton, who drive much of the policy in the '90s, and spent his early years
running away form the rural poor in Arkansas (Law School, Rhodes Scholarship), have in common
with working class people anywhere?
The same question applies to Hillary, to Trump and the remainder of our "representatives" in
Congress.
Without Unions, how are US Representatives from the working class elected?
What we are seeing is a shift in the US for the Republicans to become the populist party. They
already have the churches, and with Trump they can gain the working class – although I do not
underestimate the contempt help by our elected leaders for the Working Class and poor.
The have forgotten, if they ever believed: "There, but for the grace of God, go I".
Iron law of institutions applies. Position in the D apparatus is more important than political
power – because with power come blame.
I notice Obama worked hard to lose majorities in the house and Senate so he could point
to the Republicans and say "it was their fault" except when he actually wanted something, and
made it happen (such as TPP).
We know that class and economic insecurity drove many white people to vote for Trump. That's
understandable. And now we are seeing a rise in hate incidents inspired by his victory. So obviously
there is a race component in his support as well. So, if you, white person, didn't vote for Trump
out of white supremacy, would you consider making a statement that disavows the acts of extremist
whites? Do you vow to stand up and help if you see people being victimized? Do you vow not to
stay silent when you encounter Trump supporters who ARE obviously in thrall to the white supremacist
siren call?
Agreed with the first but not the second. It's typical liberal identity politics guilt
tripping. That won't get you too far on the "white side" of Youngstown Ohio.
And I wouldn't worry about it. When I worked at the at the USX Fairless works in Levittown
PA in 1988, I was befriended by one steelworker who was a clear raving white supremacist racist.
(Actually rather nonchalant about about it). However he was the only one I encountered who was
like this, and eventually I figured out that he befriended a "newbie" like me because he had no
friends among the other workers, including the whites. He was not popular at all.
I've always thought that Class, not Race, was the Third Rail of American Politics, and that
the US was fast-tracking to a more shiny, happy feudalism.
Also suspect that the working-class, Rust-Belt Trump supporters will soon be thrown under
the bus by their Standard Bearer, if the Transition Team appointments are any indicator: e.g.
Privateers at SSA.
My wife teaches primary grades in an inner city school. She has made it clear to me over
the years that the challenges her children are facing are related to poverty, not race. She sees
a big correlation between the financial status of a family and its family structure (one or more
parents not present or on drugs) and the kids' success in school. Race is a minor factor.
She also makes it clear to me that the Somali/Syrian/Iraqi etc. immigrant kids are going to
do very well even though they come in without a word of English because they are working their
butts off and they have the full support of their parents and community. These people left bad
places and came to their future and they are determined to grab it with both hands. 40% of her
class this year is ENL (English as a non-native language). Since it is an inner city school, they
don't have teacher's aides in the class, so it is just one teacher in a class of 26-28 kids, of
which a dozen struggle to understand English. Surprisingly, the class typically falls short of
the "standards" that the state sets for the standardized exams. Yet many of the immigrant kids
end up going to university after high school through sheer effort.
Bullying and extreme misbehavior (teachers are actually getting injured by violent elementary
kids) is largely done by kids born in the US. The immigrant kids tend to be fairly well-behaved.
On a side note, the CSA at our local farmer's market said they couldn't find people to pick
the last of their fall crops (it is in a rural community so a car is needed to get there). So
the food bank was going out this week to pick produce like squash, onions etc. and we were told
we could come out and pick what we wanted. Full employment?
The problem with running on a class based platform in America is, well, it's America; and
in good ol' America, we are taught that anyone can become a successful squillionare – ya know,
hard work, nose-to-the-grindstone, blah, blah, blah.
The rags to riches American success fable is so ingrained that ideas like taxing the rich
a bit more fall flat because everyone thinks "that could be me someday. Just a few house flips,
a clever new app, that ten-bagger (or winning lottery ticket) and I'm there" ("there" being part
of the 1%).
The idea that anyone can be successful (i.e. rich) is constantly promoted.
I think this fantasy is beginning to fade a bit but the "wealth = success" idea is so deeply
rooted in the American psyche I don't think it will ever fade completely away.
I'm recalling (too lazy to find the link) a poll a couple years ago that showed the number
of American's identifying as "working class" increased, and the number as "middle class" decreased.
It is both. And it is a deliberate mechanism of class division to preserve power. Bill Cecil-Fronsman,
Common Whites: Class and Culture in Antebellum North Carolina identifies nine classes
in the class structure of a state that mixed modern capitalist practice (plantations), agrarian
YOYO independence (the non-slaveowning subsistence farms), town economies, and subsistence (farm
labor). Those classes were typed racially and had certain economic, power, and social relations
associated with them. For both credit and wages, few escaped the plantation economy and being
subservient to the planter capitalists locally.
Moreover, ethnic identity was embedded in the law as a class marker. This system was developed
independently or exported through imitation in various ways to the states outside North Carolina
and the slave-owning states. The abolition of slavery meant free labor in multiple senses and
the capitalist use of ethnic minorities and immigrants as scabs integrated them into an ethnic-class
system, where it was broad ethnicity and not just skin-color that defined classes. Other ethnic
groups, except Latinos and Muslim adherents, now have earned their "whiteness".
One suspects that every settler colonial society develops this combined ethnic-class structure
in which the indigenous ("Indians" in colonial law) occupy one group of classes and imported laborers
or slaves or intermixtures ("Indian", "Cape Colored" in South Africa) occupy another group of
classes available for employment in production. Once employed, the relationship is exactly that
of the slaveowner to the slave no matter how nicely the harsh labor management techniques of 17th
century Barbados and Jamaica have been made kinder and gentler. But outside the workplace (and
often still inside) the broader class structure applies even contrary to the laws trying to restrict
the relationship to boss and worker.
Blacks are not singling themselves out to police; police are shooting unarmed black people
without punishment. The race of the cop does not matter, but the institution of impunity makes
it open season on a certain class of victims.
It is complicated because every legal and often managerial attempt has been made to reduce
the class structure of previous economies to the pure capitalism demanded by current politics.
So when in a post Joe McCarthy, post-Cold War propaganda society, someone wants to protest
the domination of capitalism, attacking who they perceive as de facto scabs to their higher incomes
(true or not) is the chosen mode of political attack. Not standing up for the political rights
of the victims of ethnically-marked violence and discrimination allows the future depression of
wages and salaries by their selective use as a threat in firms. And at the individual firm and
interpersonal level even this gets complicated because in spite of the pressure to just be businesslike,
people do still care for each other.
This is a perennial mistake. In the 1930s Southern Textile Strike, some organizing was of both
black and white workers; the unions outside the South rarely stood in solidarity with those efforts
because they were excluding ethnic minorities from their unions; indeed, some locals were organized
by ethnicity. That attitude also carried over to solidarity with white workers in the textile
mills. And those white workers who went out on a limb to organize a union never forgot that failure
in their labor struggle. It is the former textile areas of the South that are most into Trump's
politics and not so much the now minority-majority plantation areas.
It still is race in the inner ring suburbs of ethnically diverse cities like St. Louis that
hold the political lock on a lot of states. Because Ferguson to them seems like an invasion of
the lower class. Class politics, of cultural status, based on ethnicity. Still called by that
19h century scientific racism terminology that now has been debunked - race - Caucasoid, Mongoloid,
Negroid. Indigenous, at least in the Americas, got stuck under Mongoloid.
You go organize the black, Latino, and white working class to form unions and gain power, and
it will happen. It is why Smithfield Foods in North Carolina had to negotiate a contract. Race
can be transcended in action.
Pretending the ethnic discrimination and even segregation does not exist and have its own problems
is political suicide in the emerging demographics. Might not be a majority, but it is an important
segment of the vote. Which is why the GOP suppressed minority voters through a variety of legal
and shady electoral techniques. Why Trump wants to deport up to 12 million potential US citizens
and some millions of already birthright minor citizens. And why we are likely to see the National
Labor Review Board gutted of what little power it retains from 70 years of attack. Interesting
what the now celebrated white working class was not offered in this election, likely because they
would vote it down quicker because, you know, socialism.
Your comment reminded me of an episode in Seattle's history.
Link . The
unions realized they were getting beat in their strikes, by scabs, who were black. The trick was
for the unions to bring the blacks into the union. This was a breakthrough, and it worked in Seattle,
in 1934. There is a cool mural the union commissioned by,
Pablo O'Higgins , to
celebrate the accomplishment.
Speaking of class, and class contempt , one must recall the infamous screed published
by National Review columnist Kevin Williamson early this year, writing about marginalised white
people here is a choice excerpt:
If you spend time in hardscrabble, white upstate New York, or eastern Kentucky, or my
own native West Texas, and you take an honest look at the welfare dependency, the drug and
alcohol addiction, the family anarchy - which is to say, the whelping of human children with
all the respect and wisdom of a stray dog - you will come to an awful realization. It wasn't
Beijing. It wasn't even Washington, as bad as Washington can be. It wasn't immigrants from
Mexico, excessive and problematic as our current immigration levels are. It wasn't any of that.
Nothing happened to them. There wasn't some awful disaster. There wasn't a war or a famine
or a plague or a foreign occupation. Even the economic changes of the past few decades do very
little to explain the dysfunction and negligence - and the incomprehensible malice - of poor
white America. So the gypsum business in Garbutt ain't what it used to be. There is more to
life in the 21st century than wallboard and cheap sentimentality about how the Man closed the
factories down.
The truth about these dysfunctional, downscale communities is that they deserve to die.
Economically, they are negative assets. Morally, they are indefensible. Forget all your cheap
theatrical Bruce Springsteen crap. Forget your sanctimony about struggling Rust Belt factory
towns and your conspiracy theories about the wily Orientals stealing our jobs. Forget your
goddamned gypsum, and, if he has a problem with that, forget Ed Burke, too. The white American
underclass is in thrall to a vicious, selfish culture whose main products are misery and used
heroin needles. Donald Trump's speeches make them feel good. So does OxyContin.
Now it's not too much of a stretch of the imagination to state that Williamson's animus can
be replicated amongst many of the moneyed elite currently pushing and shoving their way into a
position within the incoming Trump Administration. The Trump campaign has openly and cynically
courted and won the votes of white people similar to those mentioned in Williamson's article,
and who – doubtlessly – will be stiffed by policies vigourously opposed to their welfare that
will be enacted during the Trump years. The truly intriguing aspect of the Trump election is:
what will be the consequences of further degradation of the "lower orders' " quality of life by
such actions? Wholesale retreat from electoral politics? Further embitterment and anger NOT toward
those in Washington responsible for their lot but directed against ethnic and racial minorities
"stealing their jawbs" and "getting welfare while we scrounge for a living"? I sincerely doubt
whether the current or a reconstructed Democratic Party can at all rally this large chunk of white
America by posing as their "champions" the class divide in the US is as profound as the racial
chasm, and neither major party – because of internal contradictions – can offer a credible answer.
[In addition to the growing inequality and concomitant wage stagnation for the middle and working
classes, 9/11 and its aftermath has certainly has contributed to it as well, as, making PEOPLE
LONG FOR the the Golden Age of Managerial Capitalism of the post-WWII era,]
Oh yeah, I noticed a big ol' hankerin' for that from the electorate. What definition could
the author be using for Managerial Capitalism that could make it the opposite of inequality? The
fight for power between administration and shareholders does not lead to equality for workers.
[So this gave force to the idea that the government was nothing but a viper's nest full of
crony capitalist enablers,]
I don't think it's an 'idea' that the govt is crony capitalists and enablers. Ds need to get
away from emotive descriptions. Being under/unemployed, houseless, homeless, unable to pay for
rent, utilities, food . aren't feelings/ideas. When that type of language is used, it comes across
as hand waving. There needs to be a shift of talking to rather than talking about.
If crony capitalism is an idea, it's simply a matter for Ds to identify a group (workers),
create a hierarchy (elite!) and come up with a propaganda campaign (celebrities and musicians
spending time in flyover country-think hanging out in coffee shops in a flannel shirt) to get
votes. Promise to toss them a couple of crumbs with transfer payments (retraining!) or a couple
of regulations (mandatory 3 week severance!) and bring out the obligatory D fall back- it would
be better than the Rs would give them. On the other hand, if it's factual, the cronies need to
be stripped of power and kicked out or the nature of the capitalist structure needs to be changed.
It's laughable to imagine liberals or progressives would be open to changing the power and nature
of the corporate charter (it makes me smile to think of the gasps).
The author admits that politicians lie and continue the march to the right yet uses the ACA,
a march to the right, as a connection to Obama's (bombing, spying, shrinking middle class) likability.
[[But emphasizing class-based policies, rather than gender or race-based solutions, will achieve
more for the broad swathe of voters, who comprehensively rejected the "neo-liberal lite" identity
politics]
Oops. I got a little lost with the neo-liberal lite identity politics. Financialized identity
politics? Privatized identity politics?
I believe women and poc have lost ground (economic and rights) so I would like examples of
successful gender and race-based (liberal identity politics) solutions that would demonstrate
that identity politics targeting is going to work on the working class.
If workers have lost power, to balance that structure, you give workers more power (I predict
that will fail as unions fall under the generic definition of corporatist and the power does not
rest with the members but with the CEOs of the unions – an example is a union that block the members
from voting to endorse a candidate, go against the member preference and endorse the corporatist
candidate), or you remove power from the corporation. Libs/progs can't merely propose something
like vesting more power with shareholders to remove executives as an ameliorating maneuver which
fails to address the power imbalance.
[This is likely only to accelerate the disintegration of the political system and economic
system until the elephant in the room – class – is honestly and comprehensively addressed.]
For a thorough exposition of lower-class white America from the inception of the Republic to
today, a must-read is Nancy Isenberg's White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in
America . Poor or Poorer whites have been demonised since the founding of the original
Colonies, and were continuously pushed west to the frontiers by the ruling elites of New England
and the South as a way of ridding themselves of "undesirables", who were then left to their own
resources, and clung together for mutual assistance.
Thus became the economic and cultural subset of "crackers", "hillbillies", "rednecks", and
later, "Okies", a source of contempt and scorn by more economically and culturally endowed whites.
The anti-bellum white Southern aristocracy cynically used poor whites as cheap tenant farming,
all the while laying down race-based distinctions between them and black slaves – there is always
someone lower on the totem pole, and that distinction remains in place today. Post-Reconstruction,
the South maintained the cult of white superiority, all the while preserving the status of upper-class
whites, and, by race-based public policies, assured lower-class whites that such "superiority"
would be maintained by denying the black populations access to education, commerce, the vote,
etc. And today, "white trash", or "trailer trash", or poorer whites in general are ubiquitous
and as American as apple pie, in the North, the Midwest, and the West, not just the South. Let
me quote Isenberg's final paragraph of her book:
White trash is a central, if disturbing, thread in our national narrative. The very
existence of such people – both in their visibility and invisibility – is proof that American
society obsesses over the mutable labels we give to the neighbors we wish not to notice. "They
are not who we are". But they are who we are and have been a fundamental part of our history,
whether we like it or not".
Presenting a plan for the future, which has a chance to be supported by the electorate, must
start with scrupulous, unwavering honesty and a willingness to acknowledge inconvenient facts.
The missing topic from the 2016 campaigns was declining energy surpluses and their pervasive,
negative impact on the prosperity to which we feel entitled. Because of the energy cost of producing
oil, a barrel today represents a declining fraction of a barrel in terms of net energy. This is
the major factor in sluggish economic performance. Failing to make this case and, at the same
time, offering glib and vacuous promises of growth and economic revival, are just cynical exercises
in pandering.
Our only option is to mange the coming decline in a way that does not descend into chaos and
anarchy. This can only be done with a clear vision of causes and effects and the wisdom and courage
to accept facts. The alternative is yet more delusions and wishful thinking, whose shelf life
is getting shorter.
To be fair to the article, Marshall did in fact say:
"To be sure, Donald Trump did make a strong appeal to racists, homophobes, and misogynists
"
IMO the point Marshall is making that race was not the primary reason #DJT
won. And I concur.
This is borne out by the vote tallies which show that the number of R voters from 2012 to 2016
was pretty much on the level (final counts pending):
2016 R Vote: 60,925,616
2012 R Vote: 60,934,407
(Source:
US Election Atlas )
Stop and think about this for a minute. Every hard core racist had their guy this
time around; and yet, the R's could barely muster the same amount of votes as Mittens
in 2012. This is huge, and supports the case that other things contributed far more than just
race.
Class played in several ways:
Indifference/apathy/fatigue: Lambert posted some data from Carl Beijer on this yesterday in his
Clinton Myths piece yesterday.
Anger: #HRC could not convince many people who voted for Bernie that she was interested in his
outreach to the working class. More importantly, #HRC could not convince working class white
women that she had anything other than her gender and Trump's boorishness as a counterpoint
to offer.
Outsider v Insider: Working class people skeptical of political insiders rejected #HRC.
If black workers were losing ground and white workers were gaining, one could indeed claim
that racism is a problem. However, both black and white workers are losing ground – racism simply
cannot be the major issue here. It's not racism, it's class war.
The fixation on race, the corporate funding of screaming 'black lives matter' agitators, the
crude attempts to tie Donald Trump to the KKK (really? really?) are just divide and conquer, all
over again.
Whatever his other faults, Donald Trump has been vigorous in trying to reach out to working
class blacks, even though he knew he wouldn't get much of their vote and he knew that the media
mostly would not cover it. Last I heard, he was continuing to try and reach out, despite the black
'leadership' class demanding that he is a racist. Because as was so well pointed out here, the
one thing the super-rich fear is a united working class.
Divide and conquer. It's an old trick, but a powerful one.
Suggestion: if (and it's a big if) Trump really does enact policies that help working class
blacks, and the Republicans peel away a significant fraction of the black vote, that would set
the elites' hair on fire. Because it would mean that the black vote would be in play, and the
Neoliberal Democrats couldn't just take their votes for granted. And wouldn't that be a thing.
that was good for 2016. I will look to see if he has stats for other years. i certainly agree
that poor whites are more likely to be shot; executions of homeless people by police are one example.
the kind of system that was imposed on the people of ferguson has often been imposed on poor whites,
too. i do object to the characterization of black lives matter protestors as "screaming agitators";
that's all too reminiscent of the meme of "outside agitators" riling up the local peaceful black
people to stand up for their rights that was characteristically used to smear the civil rights
movement in the 60's.
I might not have much in common at all with certain minorities, but it's highly likely that
we share class status.
That's why the status quo allows identity politics and suppresses class politics.
Having been around for sometime, I often wonder what The Guardian is going on about in the
UK as it is supposed to be our left wing broadsheet.
It isn't a left I even recognised, what was it?
I do read it to try and find out what nonsense it is these people think.
Having been confused for many a year, I think I have just understood this identity based politics
as it is about to disappear.
I now think it was a cunning ploy to split the electorate in a different way, to leave the
UK working class with no political outlet.
Being more traditional left I often commented on our privately educated elite and private schools
but the Guardian readership were firmly in favour of them.
How is this left?
Thank god this is now failing, get back to the old left, the working class and those lower
down the scale.
It was clever while it lasted in enabling neoliberalism and a neglect of the working class,
but clever in a cunning, nasty and underhand way.
Thinking about it, so many of these recent elections have been nearly 50% / 50% splits, has
there been a careful analysis of who neoliberalism disadvantages and what minorities need to be
bought into the fold to make it work in a democracy.
Women are not a minority, but obviously that is a big chunk if you can get them under your
wing. The black vote is another big group when split away and so on.
Brexit nearly 50/50; Austria nearly 50/50; US election nearly 50/50.
So, 85% of Blacks vote Hillary against Sanders (left) and 92% vote Hillary against Trump (right),
but is no race. It's the class issue that sends them to the Clintons. Kindly explain how.
Funny think about likeability, likeable people can be real sh*ts. So I started looking into
hanging out with less likeable people. I found that they can be considerably more appreciative
of friendship and loyalty, maybe because they don't have such easy access to it.
Entertainment media has cautiously explored some aspect so fthis, but in politics, "nice" is
still disproportionately values, and not appreciated as a possible flag.
Watch out buddy. They are onto you. I have seen some comments on democratic party sites claiming
the use of class to explain Hillary's loss is racist. The democratic party is a goner. History
tells us the party establishment will move further right after election losses. And among the
activist class there are identity purity battles going on.
Watch as this happens yet again: "In most elections, U.S. politicians of both parties pretend
to be concerned about their issues, then conveniently ignore them when they reach power and implement
policies from the same Washington Consensus that has dominated the past 40 years." That is why
we need a strong third party, a reformed election system with public support of campaigns and
no private money, and free and fair media coverage. But it ain't gonna happen.
Well it certainly won't happen by itself. People are going to have to make it happen. Here
in Michigan we have a tiny new party called Working Class Party running 3 people here and there.
I voted for two of them. If the Democrats run somebody no worse than Trump next time, I will be
free to vote Working Class Party to see what happens.
Obviously, if the Democrats nominate yet another Clintonite Obamacrat all over again, I
may have to vote for Trump all over again . . . to stop the next Clintonite before it kills again.
"... when "capitalism" failed to remedy class inequity, in fact worked to cause it, propaganda took over and focused on all sorts of things that float around the edges of class like race, opportunity, civil rights, etc – but not a word about money. ..."
"... "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." ..."
"... "The reason the elites don't like class politics is that the class division that forms against their class, once organized, is large enough to take them on." ..."
"... Class divides the 99% from the small elite who lead both political parties. That makes it an explosive threat. I'm speaking of actual economic class, not the media BS of pork rinds and NASCAR versus brie and art museums. ..."
"... I've always maintained that Class is the real third rail of American politics, and the US is fast tracking to a shiny, prettified version of feudalism. ..."
"... There are two elephants in the room, class and technology. Both are distorted by those in power in order to ensure their continued rule. It seems to me the technology adopted by a society determines its class structure. ..."
"... Add to that HRC's neocon foreign policy instincts ..."
"... This goes beyond corruption. It is one thing to be selling public infrastructure construction contracts to crony capitalist contributors (in the Clintons' case do we call them philanthropists?) – entirely another to be selling guns and bombs used by Middle Eastern despots to grind down (IOW blow up, murder) opposition to their corrupt regimes. ..."
"... In fact, most of Western Civilization (sic?) seems to be happy with the status quo of a 'post-industrial' America as the "exceptional nation" whose only two functions are consuming the world's wealth and employing military Keynesianism to maintain a global social order based on money created ex nihilo by US and international bankers and financiers. ..."
"... What we are witnessing is a political crisis because the system is geared against the citizen. ..."
"... And journalists/media are complicit. Where is the cutting investigative journalism? There is none – the headlines should be screaming it. Thanks God (or whoever) for blogs like these. ..."
"... Sooo, they spent a generation telling the white worker that he was a racist, sexist bigot, mocking his religion, making his kids read "Heather Has Two Mommies" in school, and blaming him for economic woes caused in New York and DC. ..."
"... Tryng lately to get my terminology straight, and I think the policies you itemized should be labeled neoliberal, not liberal/progressive. Neoliberalism seems to be the one that combines the worst features of the private sector with the worst features of the public sector, without the good points of either one. ..."
when "capitalism" failed to remedy class inequity, in fact worked to cause
it, propaganda took over and focused on all sorts of things that float around
the edges of class like race, opportunity, civil rights, etc – but not a
word about money.
That's why Hillary was so irrelevant and boring. If class
itself (money) becomes a topic of discussion, the free-market orgy will be
seen as a last ditch effort to keep the elite in a class by themselves by
"trading" stuff that can just as easily be made domestically, and just not
worth the effort anymore.
Identity politics divides just as well as class politics. It simply divides
into smaller (less powerful) groups. The reason the elites don't like class politics is that the class division that forms against their
class, once organized, is large enough to take them on.
"The reason the elites don't like class politics is that the class
division that forms against their class, once organized, is large enough
to take them on."
I believe there is another aspect to the shift we are seeing, and it
is demographics.
Specifically deplorable demographics.
It should be noted that the deplorable generation, gen x, are very much a mixed racial cohort.
They have not participated in politics much because they have been under attack since they were
children. They have been ignored up to now.
Deplorable means wretched, poor.
This non participation is what has begun to change, and will accelerate for the next 20 years
and beyond.
Demographically speaking, with analysis of the numbers right now are approximately…
GEN GI and Silent Gen – 22,265,021
Baby Boomers 50,854,027
Gen X 90,010,283
Millenials 62,649,947 18 Years to 34
25,630,521 (12-17 Years old)
Total 88,280,468
Artist Gen 48,820,896 and growing…
* Using the Fourth Turning Cultural Demographic Measurement vs. the politically convenient,
MSM supported, propaganda demographics. They would NEVER do such a thing right? Sure.
Class divides the 99% from the small elite who lead both political parties.
That makes it an explosive threat. I'm speaking of actual economic class, not the media BS of pork rinds and NASCAR versus brie and
art museums.
Hi Yves – great post!
I've always maintained that Class is the real third rail
of American politics, and the US is fast tracking to a shiny, prettified version
of feudalism.
I suspect that the working-class Trump voters in the Rust Belt will eventually disappointed in their
standard bearer, Transition Team staffing is any indication: e.g. Privateers back at SSA.
In the post-Reconstruction South poor whites and blacks alike were the victims
of political and legal institutions designed to create a divided and disenfranchised
work force for the benefit of landlords, capitalists and corporations. Poor whites
as well as poor blacks were ensnared in a system of sharecropping and debt peonage.
Poll taxes, literacy tests and other voter restrictions disenfranchised blacks
and almost all poor whites creating an electorate dominated by a white southern
gentry class.
Martin Luther King, Jr. clarified this at the end of his address at the conclusion of the Selma March
on March 25, 1965.
…You see, it was a simple thing to keep the poor white masses working for near-starvation wages in
the years that followed the Civil War. Why, if the poor white plantation or mill worker became dissatisfied
with his low wages, the plantation or mill owner would merely threaten to fire him and hire former Negro
slaves and pay him even less. Thus, the southern wage level was kept almost unbearably low.
Toward the end of the Reconstruction era, something very significant happened. That is what was known
as the Populist Movement. The leaders of this movement began awakening the poor white masses and the
former Negro slaves to the fact that they were being fleeced by the emerging Bourbon interests. Not
only that, but they began uniting the Negro and white masses into a voting bloc that threatened to drive
the Bourbon interests from the command posts of political power in the South.
To meet this threat, the southern aristocracy began immediately to engineer this development of a segregated
society…. If it may be said of the slavery era that the white man took the world and gave the Negro
Jesus, then it may be said of the Reconstruction era that the southern aristocracy took the world and
gave the poor white man Jim Crow. He gave him Jim Crow. And when his wrinkled stomach cried out for
the food that his empty pockets could not provide, he ate Jim Crow, a psychological bird that told him
that no matter how bad off he was, at least he was a white man, better than the black man. And he ate
Jim Crow. And when his undernourished children cried out for the necessities that his low wages could
not provide, he showed them the Jim Crow signs on the buses and in the stores, on the streets and in
the public buildings. And his children, too, learned to feed upon Jim Crow, their last outpost of psychological
oblivion.
Thus, the threat of the free exercise of the ballot by the Negro and the white masses alike resulted
in the establishment of a segregated society. They segregated southern money from the poor whites; they
segregated southern mores from the rich whites; they segregated southern churches from Christianity;
they segregated southern minds from honest thinking; and they segregated the Negro from everything.
That's what happened when the Negro and white masses of the South threatened to unite and build a great
society: a society of justice where none would prey upon the weakness of others; a society of plenty
where greed and poverty would be done away; a society of brotherhood where every man would respect the
dignity and worth of human personality.
There are two elephants in the room, class and technology. Both are distorted
by those in power in order to ensure their continued rule. It seems to me the technology
adopted by a society determines its class structure.
So much of todays discussion revolves around justifying the inappropriate use of
technology, it seems inevitable that only a major breakdown of essential technological
systems will afford the necessary space to address growing social problems.
E.F. Schumacher addressed all this in the 70's with his work on appropriate technologies. Revisiting
the ideas of human scale systems offers a way to actively and effectively deal with todays needs while
simultaneously trying to change larger perspectives and understanding of the citizenry. While Schumacher's
work was directed at developing countries, the impoverishment of the working class makes it relevant
in the US today.
Addressing our technology question honestly will lead to more productive changes in class structure
than taking on the class issue directly. Direct class confrontation is violent. Adopting human scale
technology is peaceful. In the end what stands for a good life will win out. I'm working for human scale.
Thought experiment: If you opposed Clarence Thomas and Sarah Palin does that
make you a racist and a sexist?
Or, is it only when someone votes against a supposed liberal? And when Hillary
supported Cuomo over Teachout for NY Governor, none of her supporters labeled her
a Cuomobros.
Hillary received millions fewer votes than Obama because she was a seriously flawed candidate who
could not muster any excitement. The only reason she received 60 million is because she was running
against Trump. The play on identity politics was pure desperation.
"So this gave force to the idea that
the government was nothing but a viper's nest full
of crony capitalist enablers
, which in turn helped to unleash populism on the right (the
Left being marginalised or co-opted by their Wall Street/Silicon Valley donor class). And this
gave us Trump.
Add to that HRC's neocon foreign policy instincts
, which could have got
us in a war with Russia and maybe the American electorate wasn't so dumb after all."
I voted for Hillary, but it was not easy.
I agree that identity politics of the DNC variety have passed their pull date. Good riddance.
Here's another thought experiment: were voters who chose Obama over Hillary
in the 2008 primary sexists? Were Hillary's voters racists?
I don't think you give the Democratic establishment enough credit for obtuseness by characterizing
their identity politics play as "desperation". I have several sisters who were sucked in by Hillary's
"woman" card, and it made them less than receptive to hearing about her record of pay-for-play, proxy
warmongering, and baseless Russia-bashing.
And it turned people like me – who would choose a woman over a man, other things being equal –
into sexists for not backing Hillary (I voted for Stein).
Yes. If Hillary had been elected I felt like we would have been played by someone
who is corrupt and with no real interest in the working/middle class. We would
have slogged through another 4 years with someone who arrogantly had both a private
and public position and had no real interest in climate change (she was very pro
fracking), financial change (giving hour long $250,000 speeches to banks) or health
care (she laughed at the idea of single payer although that's what most people
want).
Sanders had opposite views on these 3 issues and would have been an advocate of real change which
is why he was so actively opposed by the establishment and very popular with the people as evidenced
by his huge rallies.
Trump was seen by many as the only real hope for some change. As mentioned previously we've already
seen 2 very beneficial outcomes of his being elected by things calming down with Syria and Russia and
with TPP apparently being dead in the water.
Another positive could be a change in the DOJ to go after white collar criminals of which we have
a lot.
Climate change is I think an important blind spot but he has shown the capacity to be flexible and
not as much of an ideologue as some. It's possible that as he sees some of his golf courses go under
water he could change his mind. It can be helpful if someone in power changes his mind on an important
issue as this can relate better to other doubters to come to the same conclusion.
Getting back to class I watched the 2003 movie Seabiscuit a few days ago. This film was set in the
depression period and had clips of FDR putting people back to work. It emphasized the dignity that this
restored to them. It's a tall order but I think that's what much of Trump's base is looking for.
Whilst I agree with the points made, there is a BIG miss for me.
Unless I missed it – where are the comments on corruption? This is not a partisan point of view,
but to make the issue entirely focussed on class misses the point that the game is rigged.
Holder, an Obama pick, unless I am mistaken, looked the other way when it came to investigating and
prosecuting miscreants on Wall Street. The next in line for that job was meeting Bill behind closed
so that Hillary could be kept safe. Outrageous.
The Democratic party's attempts to make this an issue about race is so obviously a crass attempt
at manipulation that only the hard of thinking could swallow it.
The vote for Trump was a vote against corrupt insiders. Maybe he will turn out to be the same.
To your point; dumbfounded that a country that proposes to be waging a "War on Drugs" pardons
home grown banking entities that laundered money for drug dealers.
If you or I attempted such foolishness – we'd be incarcerate in a heartbeat.
Monty Python (big fan), at it's most silly and sophomoric – could not write this stuff…
Yep – para 7. A bit of a passing reference to the embedded corruption
and payola for congress and the writing of laws by lobbyists.
And yes, war on drugs is pretty much a diversionary tactic to give the impression that the
rule of law is still in force. It is for you an me……. for the connected, corrupt, not so much!
This goes beyond corruption. It is one thing to be selling public infrastructure
construction contracts to crony capitalist contributors (in the Clintons' case
do we call them philanthropists?) – entirely another to be selling guns and
bombs used by Middle Eastern despots to grind down (IOW blow up, murder) opposition
to their corrupt regimes.
In fact, most of Western Civilization (sic?) seems
to be happy with the status quo of a 'post-industrial' America as the "exceptional
nation" whose only two functions are consuming the world's wealth and employing
military Keynesianism to maintain a global social order based on money created
ex nihilo by US and international bankers and financiers.
This conspiracy has emerged from the Podesta emails. It was Clinton conspiring with mainstream
media to elevate Trump and then tear him down. We have to now look at all the media who endorsed
Hillary as simply corrupt. Simultaneously, Hillary said that Bernie had to be ground down to the
pulp. Further leaked emails showed how the Democratic National Committee sabotaged Sanders' presidential
campaign. It was Hillary manipulating the entire media for her personal gain. She obviously did
not want a fair election because she was too corrupt.
What is very clear putting all the emails together, the rise of Donald Trump was orchestrated
by Hillary herself conspiring with mainstream media, and they they sought to burn him to the ground.
Their strategy backfired and now this is why she has not come out to to speak against the violence
she has manipulated and inspired.
It seems to be clear the Democratic Party needs to purge itself of the Clinton – Obama influence.
Is Sanders' suggestion for the DNC head a good start or do we need to look elsewhere?
What are are getting now are attempts by the Dems (and let me state here I am not fan of the
Repubs – the distinction is a false one) to point to anything other than the problem that is right
in front of them.
What we are witnessing is a political crisis because the system is geared against the citizen.
And journalists/media are complicit. Where is the cutting investigative journalism? There is
none – the headlines should be screaming it. Thanks God (or whoever) for blogs like these.
There has been a coup I believe. The cooperation and melding of corporate and political power,
and the interchange of power players between the two has left the ordinary person nowhere to go.
This is not a left vs right, Dem vs Repub argument. Those are distinctions are there to keep us
busy and to provide the illusion.
Chris Hedges likend politics to American Pro Wrestling – that is what we are watching!
The idea that a guy who ran casinos in New Jersey, and whose background was
too murky to get a casino license in Nevada, will be the one to clean up corruption
in DC is a level of gullibility beyond my comprehension.
a lot of people out there need 10 baggers. I sure do.
Why work? I mean really. It sucks but what's your choice? The free market solution is to kill yourself
- that's what slaves could have done. If you don't like slavery, then just kill yourself! Why complain?
You're your own boss of "You Incorporated" and you can choose who to work for! Even nobody.
the 10-bagger should be just for billionaires. Even a millionaire has a hard time because there's
only so much you can lose before you're not a millionaire. Then you might have to work!
If most jobs didn't suck work wouldn't be so bad. That's the main thing, make jobs that don't suck
so you don't drown yourself in tattoos and drugs. It's amazing how many people have tattoos. Drugs are
less "deplorable" haha. Some are good - like alcohol, Xanax, Tylenol, red wine, beer, caffeine, sugar,
donuts, cake, cookies, chocolate. Some are bad, like the shlt stringy haired meth freaks take. If they
had good jobs it might give them something better to do,
How do you get good jobs and not shlt jobs? That's not entirely self evident. In the meantime, the
10 bagger at least gets you some breathing room so you can think about it. Even if you think for free,
it's OK since you don't have to work. Working gets in the way of a lot of stuff that you'd rather be
doing. Like nothing,
The amazing thing is this: no matter how much we whinge, whine, bitch moan, complain, rant, rail,
fulminate, gripe, huarrange (that mght be speled wrong), incite, joculate, kriticize, lambaste, malign,
naysay, prevaricate, query, ridicule, syllogize, temporize, ululate (even Baudelaire did that I red
on the internet), yell and (what can "Z" be? I don't want to have to look something up I'm too lazy,
how about "zenophobiasize" hahahahahahahah,
The amazing thing is: million of fkkkers want to come here and - get this! - THEY WON'T COMPLAIN
ABOUT ANY OF THE SHT WE DO!
""By making him aware he has more in common with the black steel workers by
being a worker, than with the boss by being white."
Sooo, they spent a generation telling the white worker that he was a racist, sexist bigot, mocking
his religion, making his kids read "Heather Has Two Mommies" in school, and blaming him for economic
woes caused in New York and DC.
Actually, too many white workers are racist, sexist, and think everyone is
a rabid Christian just like them. I ought to know because I live in red rural
Pennsylvania. I'm not mocking you folks, but I am greatly pissed off that you
just don't mind your own damn business and stop trying to force your beliefs
on others. And I don't want to hear that liberals are forcing their beliefs
on others; we're just asking you follow our laws and our Constitution when it
comes to liberty and justice for all.
And for every school that might have copies of "Heather Has Two Mommies," I can give you a giant
list of schools that want to ban a ton of titles because some parent is offended. One example is
the classic "Brave New World" by Aldus Huxley. "Challenged in an Advanced Placement language composition
class at Cape Henlopen High School in Lewes, Del. (2014). Two school board members contend that while
the book has long been a staple in high school classrooms, students can now grasp the sexual and
drug-related references through a quick Internet search." Source: Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom,
May 2014, p. 80.
Quick internet search, my ass. Too many conservatives won't even use the internet to find real
facts because that would counter the right-wing meme.
And for every school that might have copies of "Heather Has Two Mommies,"
I can give you a giant list of schools that want to ban a ton of titles
because some parent is offended.
And for every liberal/progressive politician, I can give a you basket of shitty policies, such
as charter schools, shipping jobs overseas, cutting social security, austerity, the grand bargain,
Obamacare, drones, etc.
Great. So the library has a copy of "Heather Has Two Mommies." Or not. Who cares? The United
Colors of Benetton worldview doesn't matter a fig when I'm trying to pay for rising health care,
rent, College education, retirement costs, etc.
Tryng lately to get my terminology straight, and I think the policies
you itemized should be labeled neoliberal, not liberal/progressive. Neoliberalism
seems to be the one that combines the worst features of the private sector
with the worst features of the public sector, without the good points
of either one.
It seems to me that you're referencing a certain historical model
of "liberal" that doesn't, nay, cannot exist anymore. A No-True-Scotsman
fallacy, as I see it.
We can only deal with what we have in play, not some pure historical
abstraction.
But for the sake of argument, let's say that a distinction can be made between neoliberal
and "real" liberalism. Both entities, however you want to differentiate/describe them, serve
as managers to capital. In other words, they just want to manage things, to fiddle with
the levers at the margin.
We need a transfer of power, not a new set of smart managers.
The right has spent a generation supporting rabidly bigoted media like Rush
Limbaugh and Fox News making sure the white working class blame all their ills
on immigrants, minorities, feminists and stirring up a Foaming Outrage of the
Week at what some sociology professor said at a tiny college somewhere.
Kiss up, kick down authoritarianism. It's never the fault of the people with all the money and
all the power who control their economic lives.
Nearly 60% (58.3%) of the population in Ukraine lives below the poverty line, according to data of
the M.V. Ptukha Institute of Demography and Social Surveys, the National Academy of Science of Ukraine.
In 2015, this indicator was half as much – 28.6%. "The poverty index has increased twofold along
with the actual cost of living," says Svetlana Polyakova , the leading research fellow at the Living
Standard Department at the Demography Institute. "In addition, within the past year, we saw a growth
of the poverty level defined by the UN criteria for estimation of internationally comparable poverty
line in Central and Eastern Europe."
The highest poverty line was registered among the families having at least one child – 38.6% and
pensioners – 23%. The situation may deteriorate this year. According to the State Service of Statistics,
savings of Ukrainians in April-June fell by 5.297billion hryvnias (more than $200 million at the
current exchange rate).
The cost of living in Ukraine in 2016 makes up 1,544 hryvnias (about $60).
Earlier, Prime Minister of Ukraine Volodymyr Groysman said the previous policy of populism and
"money printing and distribution to people" made the country weaker and the people poorer.
While focusing on preserving ObamaCare and other achievements of the Obama administration that are
threatened by a Donald Trump presidency, the DA's agenda includes panels on rethinking polling and
the left's approach to winning the working-class vote. The group will also stress funneling cash
into state legislative policy initiatives and races where Republicans took over last week.
President-elect Donald Trump has said his first 100 days will be dedicated to restoring "honesty,
accountability and change to Washington" through the following seven steps:
A Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress
A hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition (exempting
military, public safety, and public health)
A requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated
A five year ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave
government service
A lifetime ban on the White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government
A complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections
Cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America's
water and environmental infrastructure
Billionaire George Soros immediately had fingers of blame pointing at him for the anti-Trump riots
and protests that swept the nation since Nov. 9, as
his group MoveOn.org has organized most of them .
The billionaire committed
$25 million to boosting the Clinton campaign and other Democratic candidates and causes in 2016.
"... Well, I will say this about President-Elect Trump, so far so good. Media justifiably discredited, neocons sucking air, Democratic Party doubling down on the stupid and self-destructing by selling out to Soros, what's not to like? ..."
"... I was happy to hear that the old liberal Trump still exists. ..."
"... I still have not heard any rumors about Lt. Gen. Flynn. I am very interested to know where he is assigned. I thought he would have 2nd pick after Sessions so either DoD, CIA or Head of the NSC. ..."
"... As a lifelong liberal who voted for Trump primarily to keep to the warmongering wackjob Clinton out of power the early moves by Trump are promising. ..."
... co-founded the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which was a center for prominent
neoconservatives. He has been a member of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, a committee
of civilians and retired military officers that the U.S. Secretary of Defense may call upon for
advice, that was instituted during the administration of President George W. Bush. He was put
on the board after acquaintance Richard Perle put forward his name. Cohen has referred to the
War on Terrorism as "World War IV". In the run-up to the 2003 Invasion of Iraq, he was a member
of Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a group of prominent persons who pressed for an invasion.
It's over. Donald Trump, a man utterly unfit for the position by temperament, values and policy
preferences, will be the Republican nominee for president. He will run against Hillary Clinton,
who is easily the lesser evil ...
Mr. Trump's temperament, his proclivity for insult and deceit and his advocacy of unpredictability
would make him a presidential disaster - especially in the conduct of foreign policy, where clarity
and consistency matter.
...
Hillary Clinton is far better: She believes in the old consensus and will take tough lines on
China and, increasingly, Russia.
Cohen
in
The American Interest on November 10 2016 (immediately after Trump won):
Trump may be better than we think. He does not have strong principles about much, which means
he can shift. He is clearly willing to delegate legislation to Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell.
And even abroad, his instincts incline him to increase U.S. strength-and to push back even against
Russia if, as will surely happen, Putin double-crosses him. My guess is that sequester gets rolled
back, as do lots of stupid regulations, and experiments in nudging and nagging Americans to behave
the way progressives think they should.
Cohen on Twitter November 15 2016
Eliot A Cohen @EliotACohen
After exchange w Trump transition team, changed my recommendation: stay away. They're angry,
arrogant, screaming "you LOST!" Will be ugly.
Retweets 3,719 Likes 3,204
5:07 AM - 15 Nov 2016
I find the above very funny. How could that turncoat think he would be greeted by the Trump organization
with anything but derision? Cohen believed he and his ilk would be welcome with candies and roses
after insulting Trump in all major media? Who is the arrogant one in the above?
While the papers are full of (badly) informed rumors about who will get this or that position
in a Trump administration let's keep in mind that 90% of such rumors are just self promotions by
people like Cohen who shill for the rumored job. That is why I will not write about John Bolton or
Rudy Giuliani as coming Secretary of State. Both are possible (unqualified) candidates. But others
are just as likely to get that position. We will only know who it is after the official release.
Meanwhile Trump yesterday had a
phonecall with the Russian President Putin. They discussed bilateral relations, Syria and fighting
terrorism. Today the Russian and Syrian military started the long expected big campaign against the
"moderate" al-Qaeda in east-Aleppo city and Idleb governate. Air strikes on east-Aleppo had been
held back for 28 days. Today missiles and cruise missiles were launched against fixed targets and
dozens of carrier and land launched airplanes
attacked Nusra position on the various front and in its rear. Long range bombers flown from Russia
joined the campaign. Trump seems to have voiced no objections to this offensive.
The Russian military has upped its air defense in Syria. Additional to the S-400 system around
its airport in Latakia seven S-300 systems were deployed as a screen against U.S. cruise missile
attacks. These are joined by rehabilitated Syrian S-200 system and Pantsyr S-1 short range systems
for point defense. This should be enough to deter any stupid idea the Pentagon hawks, or dumb neocons
like Eliot Cohen, might have.
Posted by b on November 15, 2016 at 12:13 PM |
Permalink
Well, I will say this about President-Elect Trump, so far so good. Media justifiably discredited,
neocons sucking air, Democratic Party doubling down on the stupid and self-destructing by selling
out to Soros, what's not to like?
A lot sure to come, no doubt. But for now, go Donald!
I've never known a president-elect to have such an effect right after an election. It's like a
house of cards falling.
Hell, at this rate, Trump may be able to declare 'mission accomplished' before even taking
office!!! j/k :)
Thank you for this summary. Trump will be a mixed bag especially in domestic politics. I was happy
to hear that the old liberal Trump still exists. He may appoint an openly gay man to a Cabinet
position (I do not know if this is tokenism or not). If his appointments follow policy then I
think a lot of Clinton crybabies in the streets will have a harder time gaining traction with
the social justice warriors.
I sometimes used Cohen's WWIV statement to see how strongly a person held their neo-conservative
positions. Only a few knew what I was talking about during the 2nd Iraq War. I'm glad that is
he gone. I hope Trump can pull in some realists but I do not know where these people exist anymore.
People like that are typically weeded out at lower levels.
I still have not heard any rumors about Lt. Gen. Flynn. I am very interested to know where
he is assigned. I thought he would have 2nd pick after Sessions so either DoD, CIA or Head of
the NSC.
Ironic, shifting the balance of power over Syria means denial of both a successful coalition air
campaign as well as opportunity for stupid bait operation to create pretext for retaliation. Queen
against wall of pawns.
1
Timelines are the most valuable tool of all in outing ponderous idiots. Thanks, b.
Here's one for idiot Paul Krugman.
Nov09 (day after election) – PK: The markets are in free-fall, the recession has begun, it
will "never" end.
Reality: the markets were going thought the roof. Dow Jones went straight up and past it's
previous high.
Nov11 – PK: I have rethought what I said on Nov09 and there's a chance the markets will take
the elections results well.
Nov14 – PK: After giving my Nov09 prediction some thought, I "quickly" retracted it.
Yeah, you moran. You retracted it after seeing it was 180 degrees wrong and everyone can now
see that your fear-mongering about markets was just more of your bullshit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2
b: "That is why I will not write about John Bolton or Rudy Giuliani as coming Secretary of State.
Both are possible (unqualified) candidates. "
You just did.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3.
b: "Today the Russian and Syrian military started the long expected big campaign against the "moderate"
al-Qaeda in east-Aleppo city and Idleb governate."
I don't know about Aleppo. Here's RT earlier today:
" The Russian military has launched a large-scale operation against terrorists stationed in
Homs and Idlib provinces of Syria, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said on Tuesday."
/snip
"Journalists asked presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov about the possibility of the operation
which started on Tuesday to be expanded to include Aleppo. 'Aleppo has not been mentioned in
the report of the defense minister; it concerned other areas – Homs and Idlib [provinces],'
Peskov told the press.
/snip
"Russian jets have not been in the vicinity of Aleppo for the last 28 days"
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-aleppo-idUSKBN13A16O
Intense air strikes resumed in rebel-held districts of eastern Aleppo after a weeks-long pause
on Tuesday, killing at least three people, residents and a war monitor said.
Syrian state television said the Damascus government's air force took part in strikes against
"terrorist strongholds" in Aleppo's Old City while Russia said it had struck Islamic State and
former Nusra Front sites elsewhere in Syria, without mentioning Aleppo.
The bombardment appeared to mark the end of a pause in strikes on targets inside the city declared
by Syria's government and Russia on Oct 18.
~~~
On Monday and early Tuesday, air strikes hit hospitals in three towns and villages in rebel-held
areas to the west of Aleppo, putting them all out of action. Damascus and Moscow both deny targeting
hospitals.
Other strikes, including some by suspected Russian cruise missiles, hit Saraqeb in Idlib, a province
near Aleppo where many of the rebel factions have a large presence.
Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said on Tuesday Russia had launched attacks in Idlib and
Homs provinces using missiles and jets from the country's only aircraft carrier, which recently
arrived in the eastern Mediterranean.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-israel-russia-mideast-idUSKBN13A2CN?il=0 Russia has long-term ambitions in the Middle East: Israeli official
By Luke Baker | JERUSALEM
Israel should be concerned about the deepening disconnect between Russia's aims in the Middle
East and its own goals, according to a senior Israeli official who held high-level meetings in
Moscow last week.
Avi Dichter, chairman of Israel's foreign affairs and defense committee and the former head of
the Shin Bet intelligence agency, said Russia's views on Iran, Syria's Bashar al-Assad and the
Lebanese militia Hezbollah were in sharp contrast to Israel's and a growing source of potential
conflict.
While he said Moscow appreciates the good ties it has with Israel and takes the diplomatic relationship
seriously, it won't hesitate to impose actions that serve its interests on any countries in the
Middle East, including Israel.
"The gap between us and them is large and disturbing," Dichter said in summing up discussions
with senior members of Russia's upper and lower houses of parliament, the deputy defense minister
and the deputy head of national security.
"Russia thinks and acts as a superpower and as such it often ignores Israeli interest when
it doesn't coincide with the Russian interest," he said.
Wow, more insightful analysis about the US!!!! FAIL.
Um, James Woolsey of PNAC was Trump's advisor. He was also financially backed by Adelson who
is one of the people who FUNDS the neocons or are we not going to talk about the neocon's Zionist
roots?
Gee, b, could the neocons have everyone in their pocket or do thoughts like that get in the
way of your devotion to this fascist girl-raping piece of garbage, Trump?
I can't remember, did Berlusconi send a shiver down your spine as well, b?
Here is another example of folks trying get in front of the Trump train and turn it into a parade.
"Trump has pledged to change things in Washington -- about draining the swamp. He is going
to need some people to help guide him through the swamp -- how do you get in and how do you get
out? We are prepared to help do that."
-former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, speaking on behalf of Squire Patton Boggs, the lobbying
firm he works for
Nuland has managed to "burrow" herself - convert their political slot to permanent one at Foggy
Bottom since Strobe Talbot after Bill Clinton's terms.
There are quite a few Israel firsters like her: Jeffrey Feltman is another one.
What have the poor people of Outer Mongolia ever done to deserve this: "Does this mean that Victoria
Nuland will be fired? Actually, can she be fired? or at at least transferred to the embassy in
Outer Mongolia?" I think all of the neo-cons should replace current prisoners at Gitmo, along
with BOTH Clintons, Obama, G W Bush, Cheney, et al. Then subjected to all sorts of 'information
gathering techniques' ...
Ha ha.
Obama has called a press conference to deliver a lecture about the consequences of a descent into
'tribalism'.
One hopes that Bibi and the pro-"Israel" crowd are paying attention...
Let's hope that all the radical rabbinical right-wing fascists like Cohen and Nuland and Bolton
can be pressed to death with stones at Foggy Bottom Swamp.
Very tiny stones, lol. Like Death of 3,035,795,900,000 Cuts they impose on US.
I did some math on Mil.Gov.Fed. There are 6,800 banks in the US, and an average bank robbery
in the US nets ~$10,000. If every bank in the US was robbed every 10 minutes, of every day, throughout
every month, for the entire year, that would equal the yearly depredation of our last life savings
by OneParty of Mil.Gov.Fed.
That's 6,800 211A police bank robbery calls, every 10 minutes, forever, and that doesn't include
$T a year interest-only forever payments on their odious 'debt'.
Maybe pressed to death with damp pig dung would be more appropriate for them.
"Thank you for this summary. Trump will be a mixed bag especially in domestic politics. I was
happy to hear that the old liberal Trump still exists. He may appoint an openly gay man to a Cabinet
position (I do not know if this is tokenism or not). If his appointments follow policy then I
think a lot of Clinton crybabies in the streets will have a harder time gaining traction with
the social justice warriors."
Yes.
As a lifelong liberal who voted for Trump primarily to keep to the warmongering wackjob
Clinton out of power the early moves by Trump are promising.
As someone who lived lived through the 1980s I remember how telling people how concerned and
fearful you were of nuclear war was most something you did in an attempt to make yourself look
'deep'.
This past six month have been the first time in my life where I was found myself really being
afraid. Sitting in my safe home that has never been touched by war it has been a sobering shock
of just how close the frantic push for all out war with Russia by Clinton and her army of neocon
cronies infesting the US government came to killing tens or hundreds of millions of people.
It is going to be a painful four years for a large number of liberal issues but the avoidance
of the horror of an actual all out war between two nuclear powers is worth the pain on many social
and environmental issues.
...
I hope Trump can pull in some realists but I do not know where these people exist anymore. People
like that are typically weeded out at lower levels.
...
Posted by: AnEducatedFool | Nov 15, 2016 12:39:17 PM | 4
Don't fret. Trump is a gifted personnel picker with a flair for innovation.
In 1980 he (very unfashionably) appointed a woman as the construction project manager for Trump
Tower, a task she performed with remarkable expertise.
Bacevich for Secretary of State!
Or at least Secretary of Defense.
Would be great to see Chas Freeman nominated for Sec/State but
GOP/Neocons/Zionists blocked him from lesser post under Obama.
Here we have Woolsey quoting and adopting Cohen's WWIV theory (I wonder who they think the
parties will be for WWIII) and Woolsey has even referred to Cohen as my friend just this
month!
I have adopted Eliot Cohen's formulation, distinguished professor at Johns Hopkins School
for Advanced International Studies, that we are in World War IV, World War III having been the
Cold War. And I think Eliot's formulation fits the circumstances really better than describing
this as a war on terrorism.
Yes, I do think you get your news from the MSM and what is worse is that you actually believe
it just like b.
Gee, do you think that having all of the neocons tell the MSM - and thus you - that they really
support HRC had anything to do with how much you, b and the other bedwetters p!ssed themselves
about OMG!1!! WWIII!!1!!1 especially as those announcements came out in March - now listen closely
- when HRC WAS RUNNING AGAINST BS?
Why, that sure was fuel to the fire for Bernie-bros, huh?
By deception thou shall wage war, huh?
Gee, I can't think of a worse poison pill for a fake-left Democratic candidate than to have
the endorsements of the neocons, can you? Why, that might even sway some easily fooled MSM-imbibers
as to whose string the neocons might end up pulling in the end, huh?
Why, maybe do ya think they might sway even more people by PUBLICLY tweeting about just HOW
MUCH they still hate that dastardly Trump, y'know, the same guy who was backed by the world's
richest Zionist Jew and who was advised by James Woosley throughout his campaign?
No one - but especially Israeli-backing neocons - would never think to use subterfuge to get
their way, huh?
But you and b and all the rest here don't pay attention to the MSM, huh? You all just happened
to have been parroting the "neocons love HRC" line that was first found in the MSM, huh?
Names have been floated for this and that positions in the Trump Administration but I haven't
seen Pat Buchanan been named for anything; or have I skipped too much comments? I rather think
much of Buchanan's world views are in line with Trump's, and he should make a sensible Secretary
of State.
Norm MacDonald the Canadian humorist was fired from Saturday Night Live in 1998 for allegedly
telling to many O.J. Simpson jokes. This 25 minute compilation video illustrates that the real
reason was most likely that Norm made fun of the Clinton's life of crime by actually stating their
crime spree facts disguised as humor?
Maybe Putin told Trump "the sooner we (Russia, Syria, etc. clear out Al Qaeda, the sooner we deal
with ISIS". An offer Trump would be an idiot to refuse, not that I think he's an idiot. Hopefully,
the moronic BS we had to put up with from Obama, Cameron, Hollande, The Grauniad, New York Times,
etc. about how Russia, Syria, weren't attacking ISIS but were attacking "moderate" Al Qaeda will
soon go away.
"Vice President-elect Mike Pence is the best person to shape the transition effort, with the president-elect's
input, Trump spokesman Jason Miller said."
"... On Sunday's "60 Minutes," Trump said: "You know, we've been fighting this war for 15 years. … We've spent $6 trillion in the Middle East, $6 trillion - we could have rebuilt our country twice. And you look at our roads and our bridges and our tunnels … and our airports are … obsolete." ..."
"... They want to confront Vladimir Putin, somewhere, anywhere. They want to send U.S. troops to the eastern Baltic. They want to send weapons to Kiev to fight Russia in Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea. ..."
"... At the end of the Cold War, however, with the Soviet Empire history and the Soviet Union having disintegrated, George H.W. Bush launched his New World Order. His son, George W., invaded Iraq and preached a global crusade for democracy "to end tyranny in our world." ..."
"... Result: the Mideast disaster Trump described to Lesley Stahl, and constant confrontations with Russia caused by pushing our NATO alliance right up to and inside what had been Putin's country. ..."
"... The opportunity is at hand for Trump to reconfigure U.S. foreign policy to the world we now inhabit, and to the vital interests of the United States. ..."
However Donald Trump came upon the foreign policy views he espoused, they were as crucial to his
election as his views on trade and the border.
Yet those views are hemlock to the GOP foreign policy elite and the liberal Democratic interventionists
of the Acela Corridor. Trump promised an "America First" foreign policy rooted in the national interest, not in nostalgia.
The neocons insist that every Cold War and post-Cold War commitment be maintained, in perpetuity.
On Sunday's "60 Minutes," Trump said: "You know, we've been fighting this war for 15 years. …
We've spent $6 trillion in the Middle East, $6 trillion - we could have rebuilt our country twice.
And you look at our roads and our bridges and our tunnels … and our airports are … obsolete."
Yet the War Party has not had enough of war, not nearly.
They want to confront Vladimir Putin, somewhere, anywhere. They want to send U.S. troops to the
eastern Baltic. They want to send weapons to Kiev to fight Russia in Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea.
They want to establish a no-fly zone and shoot down Syrian and Russian planes that violate it,
acts of war Congress never authorized.
They want to trash the Iran nuclear deal, though all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies told us, with
high confidence, in 2007 and 2011, Iran did not even have a nuclear weapons program.
Other hardliners want to face down Beijing over its claims to the reefs and rocks of the South
China Sea, though our Manila ally is talking of tightening ties to China and kicking us out of Subic
Bay.
In none of these places is there a U.S. vital interest so imperiled as to justify the kind of
war the War Party would risk.
Trump has the opportunity to be the president who, like Harry Truman, redirected U.S. foreign
policy for a generation.
After World War II, we awoke to find our wartime ally, Stalin, had emerged as a greater enemy
than Germany or Japan. Stalin's empire stretched from the Elbe to the Pacific.
In 1949, suddenly, he had the atom bomb, and China, the most populous nation on earth, had fallen
to the armies of Mao Zedong.
As our situation was new, Truman acted anew. He adopted a George Kennan policy of containment
of the world Communist empire, the Truman Doctrine, and sent an army to prevent South Korea from
being overrun.
At the end of the Cold War, however, with the Soviet Empire history and the Soviet Union having
disintegrated, George H.W. Bush launched his New World Order. His son, George W., invaded Iraq and
preached a global crusade for democracy "to end tyranny in our world."
A policy born of hubris.
Result: the Mideast disaster Trump described to Lesley Stahl, and constant confrontations with
Russia caused by pushing our NATO alliance right up to and inside what had been Putin's country.
How did we expect Russian patriots to react?
The opportunity is at hand for Trump to reconfigure U.S. foreign policy to the world we now inhabit,
and to the vital interests of the United States.
What should Trump say?
As our Cold War presidents from Truman to Reagan avoided World War III, I intend to avert Cold
War II. We do not regard Russia or the Russian people as enemies of the United States, and we
will work with President Putin to ease the tensions that have arisen between us.
For our part, NATO expansion is over, and U.S. forces will not be deployed in any former republic
of the Soviet Union.
While Article 5 of NATO imposes an obligation to regard an attack upon any one of 28 nations
as an attack on us all, in our Constitution, Congress, not some treaty dating back to before most
Americans were even born, decides whether we go to war.
The compulsive interventionism of recent decades is history. How nations govern themselves
is their own business. While, as JFK said, we prefer democracies and republics to autocrats and
dictators, we will base our attitude toward other nations upon their attitude toward us.
No other nation's internal affairs are a vital interest of ours.
Europeans have to be awakened to reality. We are not going to be forever committed to fighting
their wars. They are going to have to defend themselves, and that transition begins now.
In Syria and Iraq, our enemies are al-Qaida and ISIS. We have no intention of bringing down
the Assad regime, as that would open the door to Islamic terrorists. We have learned from Iraq
and Libya.
Then Trump should move expeditiously to lay out and fix the broad outlines of his foreign policy,
which entails rebuilding our military while beginning the cancellation of war guarantees that have
no connection to U.S. vital interests. We cannot continue to bankrupt ourselves to fight other countries'
wars or pay other countries' bills.
The ideal time for such a declaration, a Trump Doctrine, is when the president-elect presents
his secretaries of state and defense.
"... Earning your living in finance or the related co-dependent fields such as economics, business management, certain areas of law and, most especially, information technology, you quickly pick up on the cult mentality that pervades it. ..."
"... When, like so many of us, you're desperate to try to cling onto some semblance of middle class status, you're an easy and, although I'd strongly qualify this statement, understandable, target for buying into the group-think. ..."
"... " Markets " do not " demand " anything. ..."
"... But a "market" can - at the very most, through the use of pricing signals - induce actors to consider entering into a transaction. ..."
"... They provided credit to low income customers because it was insanely profitable. The reason it was insanely profitable was that the loans to the low income customers could be securitised and the commissions the banks earned on the sale of those securities paid for massive bonus pools which directly benefitted bank employees. ..."
"... Yes, I'd always be the first to agree with the proverb "In Heaven you get justice, here on Earth we have the law". The law and our legal systems are not perfect. But they are not that shabby either. ..."
"... If it is regulatory interventions, rather than criminal indictments, that the Streetwise Professor is referring to, the banks can and do leave no political stone unturned in their efforts to water down, delay and neuter regulatory bodies. Look , if you can do so without wincing, at what has happened to the SEC. ..."
"... It wasn't a " pre-crisis political bargain " that caused the Global Financial Crisis. It was financial innovation that was supposed to "free" the financial services industry to allow it to soar to ever greater heights, heights that couldn't be reached with cumbersome "legacy" thinking. If that sounds a lot like Mike Hearn's Blockchain justifications, it's because it is exactly the same thing. ..."
"... Innovation must never be viewed only through separate, disconnected lenses of "technology", "politics", "ethics", "economics", "power relationships" and "morality". Each specific innovation is subject to and either lives or dies by the interplay between these forces." ..."
"... I agree - however, "I don't mind people doing dangerous things" should require a little elucidation. What you likely meant to say was you don't mind people doing dangerous things, WITHIN REASON. ..."
"... Also, there is the rank unwillingness on the part of regulators to, you know, actually do their jobs. I can no longer count the number of times Yellen has sat in front of the Senate banking committee like a deer in headlights ..."
"... Excellent points, I thought that the Bush Wars were initiated to alleviate an oncoming recession as well as ensure W's reelection ..."
"... It did take them a while to get the pieces in place, the Banksters Real Estate Fraud Appraisals were identified as early as 2000, then the Banksters Fraudulent Loans peaked in 2006, and then we had the Banksters Fraudulent Reps and Warranties . ..."
"... Ah, the neo-liberals and the libertarians make their arguments by redefining terms and eliding facts. Once the audience agrees that up is down, why then their arguments are reasonable, dispassionate, and offered in dulcet tones of humble sincerity and objectivity. ..."
"... What a pleasure, then, to read your cold water smack-down of their confidence game. Perhaps they believed their own nonsense. Who knows. ..."
"... A third consequence of modern-day liberals' unquestioning, reflexive respect for expertise is their blindness to predatory behavior if it comes cloaked in the signifiers of professionalism. ..."
"... The difference in interpretation carries enormous consequences: Did Wall Street commit epic fraud, or are they highly advanced professionals who fell victim to epic misfortune? modern day liberals pretty much insist on the later view . Wall Street's veneer of professionalism is further buttressed by its technical jargon, which the financial industry uses to protect itself from the scrutiny of the public ..."
Earning your living in finance or the related co-dependent fields such as economics, business
management, certain areas of law and, most especially, information technology, you quickly pick up
on the cult mentality that pervades it.
When, like so many of us, you're desperate to try to cling onto some semblance of middle class
status, you're an easy and, although I'd strongly qualify this statement, understandable, target
for buying into the group-think. Or at least going along with it on the promise of continued
employment. While I'm letting myself off the hook in the process, I think that's forgivable. I and
others like me need the money. Besides, in our spare time, we might try to atone for our misdeeds
by using whatever means we have available, such as contributing to Naked Capitalism in whatever way
we can, to try to set the record straight.
Not quite so easily forgivable, though, are the members of an altogether different cadre who don't
give the impression of having to live paycheck to paycheck. What is it that motivates them? Why do
they willingly devise clever - and, I have to say it, some are exceptionally adept - ruses to defend
and further the causes of our élites?
... ... ...
As readers with not-so-long memories will recall, in the run-up to the Global Financial Crisis,
the TBTFs did indeed exercise the " FU Option ". As asset prices for the securities they held
fell precipitously, they held more and more of those assets on their balance sheets, refusing to
- or unable to - off-load them into a market that was shunning them. Eventually their capital cushions
were so depleted because of this, they became insolvent. Staring catastrophe in the face, governments
were put into a double-bind by the TBTFs: Rescue us through bail-outs or stand by and see our societies
suffer major collateral damage (bank runs, a collapse of world trade, ruining of perfectly good and
solvent businesses with the likelihood of mass unemployment and civil unrest).
In that situation, who was the " U " who was being " F "'ed? It was governments
and the public.
Faced with an asymmetry of power, in a reverse of the scenario painted by the Streetwise Professor
for OTC trading (where a notional seller tells a theoretical buyer they can go to Hell if they don't
want to pay the price the seller is asking), governments - and us - found themselves on the buy-side
of an " FU Option ". "F the-rest-of-us By Necessity" was a better description as we were
turned into forced buyers of what no other "market participant" would touch.
My dear Professor, allow me to give you , if I may risk the label of being impudent,
a lesson. If I am selling my prized Diana, Princess of Wales tea cups in a yard sale and you make
me a offer for them, that - I'm sure we'd agree on this point - is an OTC transaction. There's no
exchange (mercifully) for Diana, Princess of Wales tea cups. I put a price sticker on them. If you
want them, you pay the price I'm asking. Or else, you make me a different offer. If you don't pay
the price I want, or I don't accept the price you're offering, we do, indeed, have a genuine "
FU Option " scenario. But if instead my mother-in-law threatens to saw your face off with her
cheese grater if you don't buy my Diana, Princess of Wales tea cups at the price shown on the sticker,
then we no longer have an OTC transaction. We have extortion. See the difference?
That's not all. The piece discusses the differences between a proposed smart-contract based settlement
compared with a centralised counterparty which brings up some very valid points. But then it makes
a serious blunder which is introduced with some subtly but is all the more dangerous because of it.
I'll highlight the problem:
So the proposal does some of the same things as a CCP, but not all of them, and in fact omits
the most important bits that make central clearing central clearing. To the extent that these other
CCP services add value–or regulation compels market participants to utilize a CCP that offers these
services–market participants will choose to use a CCP, rather than this service. It is not a perfect
substitute for central clearing, and will not disintermediate central clearing in cases where the
services it does not offer and the functions it does not perform are demanded by market participants
, or by regulators.
Did you catch what is the most troubling thing in that paragraph? The technicalities of it are
fine, but the bigger framing is perilous. "Market participants" is given agency. And put on the same
level as actions taken by regulators. This is at best unintentionally misleading and at worse an
entirely deliberate falsehood.
The fallacious thinking which caused it is due to a traditional economist's mind-set. But this
mind-set is hopelessly wrong and every time we encounter it, we must challenge it. Regardless of
what other progressive goodies it is being bundled up with.
" Markets " do not " demand " anything.
A regulator or central bank can demand that a bank hold more capital and open its books
to check the underlying asset quality. The CFPB can demand that Wells Fargo stops opening fake accounts.
Even I can demand a pony. The power structures, laws, enforcement and levels of trust (to name the
main constraints) governing who is demanding what from whom determine how likely they will be to
have their demands met.
But a "market" can - at the very most, through the use of pricing signals - induce actors
to consider entering into a transaction. The pricing signal cannot make any potential
actor participate in that transaction. Not, probably, that it would have helped her much, but Hillary
Clinton could have created a market for left-wing bloggers to shill for Obamacare by offering Lambert
$1million to start churning out pro-ACA posts on his blog. But that market which Hillary could create
could not "demand" Lambert accept her offer. Lambert would not take that, or any other monetary amount,
and would never enter such a transaction. Markets have limits.
Whether unintentionally or by design, we have a nice example of bait and switch in the Streetwise
Professor's Blockchain article. If you run a critique of Blockchain, you'll likely attract an anti-libertarian
audience. It's a classic example of
nudge theory . If you can
lure readers in with the promise of taking a swipe at disruptive innovation nonsense but then lead
them to being suckered into a reinforcement of failed conventional free-market hogwash, that can
be a powerful propaganda tool.
But perhaps the Blockchain feature was an aberration, just a one-off? No.
Take, for example, this feature
on Deutsche Bank from earlier this month which I'll enter as Exhibit B - It's not the TBTFs Fault,
the Regulators / Governments / Some Guy / Made Us Do It
I'll leave the worst 'til last, but for now let's start with this little treasure:
the pre-crisis political bargain was that banks would facilitate income redistribution
policy by provide credit to low income individuals. This seeded the crisis (though like any complex
event, there were myriad other contributing causal factors), the political aftershocks of which
are being felt to this day. Banking became a pariah industry, as the very large legal settlements
extracted by governments indicate.
No, Streetwise Professor, banks did not provide credit to low income individuals as part of some
"political bargain". They provided credit to low income customers because it was insanely profitable.
The reason it was insanely profitable was that the loans to the low income customers could be securitised
and the commissions the banks earned on the sale of those securities paid for massive bonus pools
which directly benefitted bank employees.
Almost unimaginable wealth could be generated by individuals (the Naked Capitalism archive details
the full sordid story of the likes of Magnetar). The fact that this would all blow up eventually
was certainly predicable and even known by many actors in the prevailing milieu but they didn't care.
They knew they'd have already set themselves up for life financially even after just a few years
in that "game". Politics, for once, had nothing to do with it, save perhaps that regulators, which
are the politicians' responsibility, should have been better able to spot what was going on.
But the Streetwise Professor is only just getting started with the counterfactual misinformation:
It is definitely desirable to have mechanisms to hold financial malfeasors accountable,
but the Deutsche episode illustrates several difficulties. The first is that even the biggest
entities can be judgment proof, and imposing judgments on them can have disastrous economic externalities.
Another is that there is a considerable degree of arbitrariness in the process, and the results
of the process. There is little due process here, and the risks and costs of litigation mean that
the outcome of attempts to hold bankers accountable is the result of a negotiation between the
state and large financial institutions that is carried out in a highly politicized environment
in which emotions and narratives are likely to trump facts. There is room for serious doubt about
the quality of justice that results from this process.
A casual skim could leave the reader with the impression that the Streetwise Professor is lamenting,
rightly, the persistency of the TBTF model. But there's something really dastardly being concocted
here - the notion that in our societies, the rule of law is always and inevitably fallible and not
fit for the purpose of bringing errant TBTFs to justice. And that, if a case is brought against a
TBTF like Deutsche, then it can't help but become a political football.
Yes, I'd always be the first to agree with the proverb "In Heaven you get justice, here on
Earth we have the law". The law and our legal systems are not perfect. But they are not that shabby
either. Any quick parse through the judgments which the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.K. Supreme
Court or the European Court of Justice (to name only a few) hand down on complex cases - often running
to hundreds or even a thousand pages - demonstrates that courts can and do consider fairly and justly
the evidence that prosecutors present and make balanced rulings. And banks can utilize the same legal
safeguards that the law provides - they're not likely to be short of good legal advice options. Trying,
as the Steetwise Professor does, to claim that the TBTFs can't get justice is an insult to our judicial
systems and acceptance of this notion followed by any routine repetition serves to undermine faith
in the rule of law.
If it is regulatory interventions, rather than criminal indictments, that the Streetwise Professor
is referring to, the banks can and do leave no political stone unturned in their efforts to water
down, delay and neuter regulatory bodies.
Look , if you can do so without wincing, at
what has happened to the SEC.
It wasn't a " pre-crisis political bargain " that caused the Global Financial Crisis. It was
financial innovation that was supposed to "free" the financial services industry to allow it to soar
to ever greater heights, heights that couldn't be reached with cumbersome "legacy" thinking. If that
sounds a lot like Mike Hearn's Blockchain justifications, it's because it is exactly the same thing.
In summary, when you throw brickbats at a fellow blogger, it seems to me that you have a moral
obligation to put your cards on the table, to explain your motivations. I don't have to write for
a living ("just as well", I hear forbearing readers shout back). I don't take a penny from Naked
Capitalism's hard-wrung fundraisers, although Yves has generously offered a very modest stipend in
line with other contributors, I cannot conscientiously take anything for what I submit. I write in
the hope that I have some small insights that would help to undo some of the damage which big finance
has done to our cultures, our shared values and our aspirations for what we hope the future will
be for us and others.
That's what motivates me, anyway. After reading his output, I'm really still not at all sure what
is motivating the Streetwise Professor. Certainly there is nothing at all to suggest that he is interested
in rebuking or revising any of the traditional thought-forms which pass for the so-called science
of economics. Conventional economic theory is the ultimate in betrayal of the use of rational methodology
to provide air-cover for élite power grabs. It'll take more than a refutation of Blockchain spin
to convince me that the Streetwise Professor is ready to kick away the more odious ladders - like
being a professional economist - that have given him the leg-ups to the lofty perch he enjoys occupying.
About Clive
Survivor of nearly 30 years in a TBTF bank. Also had the privilege of working in Japan,
which was great, selling real estate, which was an experience bordering on the psychedelic.
View all posts by Clive →
I disagree on the first bit. Even at this blog, Yves mentiones not quite rarely the dangers
of tight coupling. The central exchanges create exactly that. Yes, the FU option of OTC is dangerous.
But then, everything is dangerous, and if I have to choose between tight coupling dangerous option
and loose coupling one, I'll chose the lose coupling one.
The problem is that the regulators refused to recognise that the institutions gamed the regulations
– moving stuff from trading to banking books. It is recognised now, under the new regulation,
although I still have some doubts about its effectivness.
To me all the para says is: markets demand services, and CCP don't offer them – and don't have
to. Regulators demand services (to be offered by CCP), and CCP deliver.
And sorry, I also disagree with your "markets participants demand". The text says "services
[ ] are demanded [by potential clients and by regulators]". I can't honestly see what's the problem
with that. Of course, regulatory demand, and a client demand are two different things – the former
you ignore at your peril, the second you can ignore to your heart's content.
But markets (or, I'd say agents that want to purchase – or sell) _always_ demand something,
and always offer something – otherwise there would not be any market or exchange of services (it
doesn't have to be there even with offer and demand, but in the absence of one it definitely won't
be there).
You could happily change the word to "require" "want" etc. and the meaning of the para would
remain unchanged.
The problem I had with the notion that OTC reduces tight coupling is that it gives the appearance
of reducing tight couple but doesn't actually do this. While "the market" is functioning within
its expected parameters, OTC is less tightly coupled than an Exchange. But as we saw first-hand
in the GFC, those markets function, right up until the point where they don't. By continuing to
function, or certainly giving the appearances of continuing to be functioning, they hide the stresses
which are building up within them but no-one can see. Unless you are deeply plumbed in to the
day-to-day operational activities of the OTC market and can spot signs - and that's all they are,
signs, you don't get to take a view of the whole edifice - you simply don't have a clue. There
were, at most, only a couple of dozen people in the organisation itself and outside it who knew
that my TBTF was a day away from being unable to open for business. That was entirely down to
information asymmetry and that asymmetry was 100% down to OTC prevalence.
And all the while TBTF isn't fixed, then as soon as the OTC market(s) fall off a cliff, the
public provision backstops can be forced to kick in. Yes, everything is dangerous. I don't mind
people doing dangerous things. But I do mind an awful lot being asked to pick up the pieces when
their dangerous things blow up in their faces and they expect me to sort the mess out. If that
is the dynamic, and to me, it most definitely is, then I want the actors who are engaged in the
dangerous things to be highly visible, I want them right where I can see them. Not hiding their
high-risk activities in an OTC venue that I'm not privy to.
And I stick by my objection to the - what I can't see how it isn't being deliberate - fuzziness
or obfuscation about who gets to "demand" and who is merely allowed "invite" parties to a transaction
to either perform or not perform of their own volition. This isn't an incidental semantic about
vocabulary. It goes to the heart of what's wrong with the Streetwise Professor's assessment of
innovation.
Innovation must never be viewed only through separate, disconnected lenses of "technology",
"politics", "ethics", "economics", "power relationships" and "morality". Each specific innovation
is subject to and either lives or dies by the interplay between these forces. My biggest lambaste
of the Streetwise Professor's commentaries is that he examines them only in terms of "technology"
and "economics". In doing so, he reaches partial and inaccurate conclusions.
A 10 year old child might "demand", "require", "ask for", "insist", "claim a right to have"
(use whatever word or phrase you like there) a gun and live ammunition. But they are not, and
should not be, permitted to enter into a transaction to obtain the said gun and ammo based only
on the availability of the technology and the economics that would allow them to satisfy the seller's
market clearing sale price if they saved their pocket money for a sufficient amount of time. The
other forces I listed in my above paragraph are also involved, and just as well.
"Innovation must never be viewed only through separate, disconnected lenses of "technology",
"politics", "ethics", "economics", "power relationships" and "morality". Each specific innovation
is subject to and either lives or dies by the interplay between these forces."
Very well said. I would argue further that "power relationships" structure how all the other
lenses actually operate. In the early sixteenth century the power relationship between the Church,
and Martin Luther, was such that the latter had an opening to redefine "morality"– in such a way
that the Pope's moral opinion was eventually no longer dispositive for Protestants.
In other words, the French invasion of Italy, late in the fifteenth century, weakened the papal
states enough to allow for defiance.
That last sentence, is of course a gross over-simplification! Anyone wishing to know the nitty-gritty
details of how foreign domination over the Italian peninsula was established by the middle of
the sixteenth century should read Machiavelli and Guicciardini.
The latter author's appeal to skepticism, when interpreting the actions and motivations of
powerful people, rings very true five centuries later:
" perché di accidenti tanto memorabili si intendino i consigli e i fondamenti; i quali spesso
sono occulti, e divulgati il più delle volte in modo molto lontano da quell che è vero."
"Yes, everything is dangerous. I don't mind people doing dangerous things. But I do mind an
awful lot being asked to pick up the pieces when their dangerous things blow up in their faces".
I agree - however, "I don't mind people doing dangerous things" should require a little
elucidation. What you likely meant to say was you don't mind people doing dangerous things, WITHIN
REASON.
And let's face it, much of the prior GFC behaviour was unreasonably dangerous. As it turned
out, not that dangerous to its perpetrators .
Danger, like risk, is a cost-benefit calculation. When that calculation ONLY includes benefits
for its originator & suppresses any (real & calculatable) cost for the community it's already
looking suspiciously like an unreasonable danger .
The problem is that the regulators refused to recognise that the institutions gamed the
regulations – moving stuff from trading to banking books. It is recognised now, under the new
regulation, although I still have some doubts about its effectivness.
Also, there is the rank unwillingness on the part of regulators to, you know, actually
do their jobs. I can no longer count the number of times Yellen has sat in front of the Senate
banking committee like a deer in headlights as Warren tries to get her to give anything like
a straight answer as to why, to this day, many if not most TBTFs have no rapid selloff/solvency
plan (which is required by the Dodd-Frank law) or why those banks that fail their stress tests
(again and again) suffer no consequences as a result.
How is any of this supposed to work when so many are clearly acting in bad faith?
Earning your living in finance or the related co-dependent fields such as economics, business
management, certain areas of law and, most especially, information technology, you quickly
pick up on the cult mentality that pervades it.
If you do not subscribe to the "cult mentality," although I'd prefer to call it a dogma, because
it is a unswerving belief in an unproven fact in the face of evidence the fact is not only unproven,
but wrong, one is "not a team player" and then penalized.
If these libertarian want "open markets" and innovation they have to shed the human response
to proof. In their behavior they are no better than the medieval pope, and his court, who did
not want to believe a the earth travels around the sun.
Medieval popes were probably more open to Pythagorean/Copernican cosmologies than early 17th
century Jesuits (i.e. Bellarmine); the opposition of the latter to Galileo had nothing to do with
science and everything to do with Protestantism and Protestant biblical interpretation. Bellarmine
was wrong and what happened to Galileo was shameful. But many of the best astronomers of the time
were in fact Jesuits, and the traditional way the story is told is inaccurate on almost every
level (and a product of late 19th century Italian nationalism).
this was very interesting stuff. Since a lot of things were coming together in the 90s and
2000s that were all connected in a mess too big to understand simply as immoral banking (freeing
up capital like that was crazy but there must have been a reason to try it besides windfall profiteering
and flat-out gambling), I imagine the following: Greenspan and the TBTFs knew returns were diminishing
and set out to do something about it. Because growth and expanding markets were the only thing
that could keep up with a demand by pension funds (and then little Bush's idiotic war) for a minimum
8% return. But growth was slowing down so the situation required clever manipulations and incomprehensible
things like financial derivatives. Makes sense to me. And if this is even partially true then
there was a political mandate all mixed up with the GFC. The banks really did crazy stuff, but
with the blessing of the Fed. Later when Bernanke said about QE and nirp: "now we are in uncharted
territory" he was fibbing – the Fed had been in uncharted territory, trying to make things work,
for almost 20 years. And failing.
Excellent points, I thought that the Bush Wars were initiated to alleviate an oncoming
recession as well as ensure W's reelection
It did take them a while to get the pieces in place, the Banksters Real Estate Fraud Appraisals
were identified as early as 2000, then the Banksters Fraudulent Loans peaked in 2006, and then
we had the Banksters Fraudulent Reps and Warranties .
WORSE then a bunch of Used Car Salesman, but what else would you expect from people who KEEP
the State Income taxes withheld from their employees checks
This bug can manifest itself for arrays whose length (in elements) is 230 or greater (roughly
a billion elements). This was inconceivable back in the '80s, when Programming Pearls was written,
but it is common these days at Google and other places. In Programming Pearls, Bentley says
"While the first binary search was published in 1946, the first binary search that works correctly
for all values of n did not appear until 1962." The truth is, very few correct versions have
ever been published, at least in mainstream programming languages.
Sorting is, or ought to be, basic blocking and tackling. Very smart, not corrupt people worked
on this. And yet, 2006 – 1946 = 60 years later, bugs are still being discovered.
The nice thing about putting your cash in a coffee can in the back yard is that it won't evaporate
because some hacker gets clever about big numbers.
Ah, the neo-liberals and the libertarians make their arguments by redefining terms and
eliding facts. Once the audience agrees that up is down, why then their arguments are reasonable,
dispassionate, and offered in dulcet tones of humble sincerity and objectivity.
What a pleasure, then, to read your cold water smack-down of their confidence game. Perhaps
they believed their own nonsense. Who knows.
What is the Streetwise Professor's (note the word "professor") real view? Has he thought much
about it or simply imbibed his "owners'" views, making him a useful tool. I don't know.
From the book "Listen, Liberal."
" A third consequence of modern-day liberals' unquestioning, reflexive respect for expertise
is their blindness to predatory behavior if it comes cloaked in the signifiers of professionalism.
Take the sort of complexity we saw in the financial instruments that drove the last financial
crisis. For old-school regulators, I am told, undue financial complexity was an indication of
likely fraud. But for the liberal class, it is the opposite: an indicator of sophistication. Complexity
is admirable in its own right. The difference in interpretation carries enormous consequences:
Did Wall Street commit epic fraud, or are they highly advanced professionals who fell victim to
epic misfortune? modern day liberals pretty much insist on the later view . Wall Street's veneer
of professionalism is further buttressed by its technical jargon, which the financial industry
uses to protect itself from the scrutiny of the public. "
-Thomas Frank
"... Knowing how angry the working class has become, the deep state could not install Hillary, for that would have been a tiresome rehash of another Clinton presidency. With NAFTA, Bill launched the job offshoring that has wrecked this country, and those most affected by it, working class whites, know damn well who's responsible. The Clinton brand has become anathema to middle America. ..."
"... On the foreign front, America's belligerence will not ease up under a Trump presidency, for without a hyper kinetic military to browbeat and bomb, the world will stop lending us money. The US doesn't just wage wars to fatten the military banking complex, but to prop up the US Dollar and prevent our economy from collapsing. The empire yields tangible benefits for even the lowliest Americans. ..."
Michele
Paccione / Shutterstock.com
Universally, Trump was depicted as an anti-establishment candidate. Washington and Wall Street
hated him, and the media were deployed to vilify him endlessly. If they could not discredit Trump
enough, surely they would steal the election from him. Some even suggested Trump would be assassinated.
Acting the part, Trump charged repeatedly that the election was rigged, and he was right, of course.
During the primaries, Hillary Clinton received debate questions in advance from CNN. More seriously,
30 states used voting machines that could easily be hacked.
A leaked tape of Trump making obscene comments about groping women became further proof that the
establishment was out to get him. In spite of all this, Trump managed to win by a landslide, so what
happened?
To steal an American election, one only needs to tamper with votes in two or three critical states,
and since Hillary didn't win, we must conclude that she was never the establishment's chosen puppet.
As Trump claimed, the fix was in, all right, except that it was rigged in his favor, as born out
by the fact.
While everybody else yelped that Trump would never be allowed to win, I begged to differ. After
the Orlando false flag shooting on June 12th, 2016, I wrote:
In 2008, Obama was touted as a political outsider who will hose away all of the rot and bloody
criminality of the Bush years. He turned out to be a deft move by our ruling class. Though fools
still refuse to see it, Obama is a perfect servant of our military banking complex. Now, Trump
is being trumpeted as another political outsider.
A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while serving as
a magnet for liberal anger. This will buy our ruling class time as they continue to wage war abroad
while impoverishing Americans back home. Like Obama, Trump won't fulfill any of his election promises,
and this, too, will be blamed on bipartisan politics.
On September 24th, I doubled down:
Mind-fucked, most Americans can't even see that an American president's only task is to disguise
the deep state's intentions. Chosen by the deep state to explain away its crimes, our president's
pronouncements are nearly always contradicted by the deep state's actions. While the president
talks of peace, democracy, racial harmony, prosperity for Main Street and going after banksters,
etc., the deep state wages endless war, stages meaningless elections, stokes racial hatred, bankrupts
nearly all Americans and enables massive Wall Street crimes, etc.
Only the infantile will imagine the president as any kind of savior or, even more hilariously,
anti-establishment. Since the deep state won't even tolerate a renegade reporter at, say, the
San Jose Mercury News, how can you expect a deep state's enemy to land in the White House?! It
cannot happen.
A presidential candidate will promise to fix all that's wrong with our government, and this
stance, this appearance, is actually very useful for the deep state, for it gives Americans hope.
Promising everything, Obama delivered nothing. So who do you think is being primed by the deep
state to be our next false savior?
Who benefits from false flag terrorist attacks blamed on Muslims? Who gains when blacks riot?
Why is the Democratic Party propping up a deeply-despised and terminally ill war criminal? More
personable Bernie Sanders was nixed by the deep state since it had another jester in mind.
The first presidential debate is Monday. Under stress, Hillary's eyes will dart in separate
directions. Coughing nonstop for 90 minutes, her highness will hack up a gazillion unsecured emails.
Her head will jerk spasmodically, plop onto the floor and, though decapitated, continue to gush
platitudes and lies. "A Very Impressive Performance," CNBC and CNN will announce. Come November,
though, Trump will be installed because his constituency needs to be temporarily pacified. The
deep state knows that white people are pissed.
The media were out to get Trump, pundits from across the political spectrum kept repeating, but
the truth is that the media made Trump. Long before the election, Trump became a household name,
thanks to the media.
Your average American can't name any other real estate developer, casino owner or even his own
senators, but he has known Trump since forever. For more than a decade, Trump was a reality TV star,
with two of his children also featured regularly on The Apprentice. Trump's "You're fired" and his
hair became iconic. Trump appeared on talk shows, had cameo roles in movies and owned the Miss Universe
pageant. In 2011, Obama joked that Trump as president would deck out the White House in garish fashion,
with his own name huge on the façade. The suave, slick prez roasted Trump again in 2016. Trump has
constantly been in the limelight.
It's true that during the presidential campaign, Trump received mostly negative press, but this
only ramped up support among his core constituency. Joe Sixpacks had long seen the media as not just
against everything they cherished, but against them as people, so the more the media attacked Trump,
the more popular he became among the white working class.
Like politicians, casinos specialize in empty promises. Trump, then, is a master hustler, just
like Obama, and with help from the media, this New York billionaire became a darling of the flyover
states. Before his sudden transformation, Trump was certainly an insider. He donated $100,000 to
the Clinton Foundation, and Bill and Hillary attended his third wedding. Golf buddies, The Donald
and Bill were also friends with one Jeffrey Epstein, owner of the infamous Lolita Express and a sex
orgy, sex slave island in the Caribbean.
In 2002, New York Magazine published "Jeffrey Epstein: International Money of Mystery." This asskissing
piece begins, "He comes with cash to burn, a fleet of airplanes, and a keen eye for the ladies-to
say nothing of a relentless brain that challenges Nobel Prize-winning scientists across the country-and
for financial markets around the world."
Trump is quoted, "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with.
It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger
side. No doubt about it-Jeffrey enjoys his social life."
Bill Clinton shouts out, "Jeffrey is both a highly successful financier and a committed philanthropist
with a keen sense of global markets and an in-depth knowledge of twenty-first-century science. I
especially appreciated his insights and generosity during the recent trip to Africa to work on democratization,
empowering the poor, citizen service, and combating HIV/AIDS."
Epstein gushes back, "If you were a boxer at the downtown gymnasium at 14th Street and Mike Tyson
walked in, your face would have the same look as these foreign leaders had when Clinton entered the
room. He is the world's greatest politician."
Even during a very nasty election campaign, Trump stayed clear of Clinton's association with
Epstein because he himself had been chummy with the convicted pervert. Trump also never brought up
the Clintons' drug running in Mena or the many mysterious deaths of those whose existence inconvenienced
their hold on power.
With eight years in the White House, plus stints as a senator then secretary of state, Clinton
is considered the ultimate insider. Though a novice politician, Trump is also an insider, and it's
a grand joke of the establishment that they've managed to convince Joe Sixpacks everywhere that Trump
will save them.
Knowing how angry the working class has become, the deep state could not install Hillary,
for that would have been a tiresome rehash of another Clinton presidency. With NAFTA, Bill launched
the job offshoring that has wrecked this country, and those most affected by it, working class whites,
know damn well who's responsible. The Clinton brand has become anathema to middle America.
While Clinton says America is already great, Trump promises to make America great again, but the
decline of the US will only accelerate. Our manufacturing base is handicapped because American workers
will not put up with Chinese wages, insanely long hours or living in cramped factory dormitories.
In a global economy, those who can suck it up best get the jobs.
On the foreign front, America's belligerence will not ease up under a Trump presidency, for
without a hyper kinetic military to browbeat and bomb, the world will stop lending us money. The
US doesn't just wage wars to fatten the military banking complex, but to prop up the US Dollar and
prevent our economy from collapsing. The empire yields tangible benefits for even the lowliest Americans.
With his livelihood vaporized, the poor man does not care for LGBT rights, the glass ceiling or
climate change. Supplementing his wretched income with frequent treks to the church pantry, if not
blood bank, he needs immediate relief. It's a shame he's staking his hopes on an imposter.
The deep state ushered in Trump because he's clearly their most useful decoy. As the country hopes
in vain, the crooked men behind the curtain will go on with business as usual. Trump is simply an
Obama for a different demographic. Nothing will change for the better.
Linh Dinh is the author of two books of stories, five of poems, and a novel,
Love Like Hate
. He's tracking our deteriorating socialscape through his frequently updated photo blog,
Postcards from the End of America
.
Liberal democracy has always depended on its relationships with an illiberal Other of one
sort or another, and all too often "liberal progressivism" merely means responding to such
relationships in one's own society, the capitalist exploitation of a domestic proletariat,
by "outsourcing" our illiberal tendencies to consist largely of the imperial domination
and subjugation of foreigners.
(Which can even happen inside one's own borders, as long as it remains suitably "illegal";
notice how much less ideologically problematic it is to document the presence and labor of
the most brutally exploited migrant workers in e.g. China or the Gulf Arab states than in more
liberal societies like the US or EU.)
It's the height of either hypocrisy or obliviousness for those who consider themselves
liberal progressives to then act surprised when the people charged with carrying out this domination
and subjugation on our behalf - our Colonel Jessups, if you will - demand that we stop hiding
our society's illiberal underbelly and acknowledge/celebrate it for what it is , a demand
that may be the single most authentic marker of the transition from liberalism to fascism.
In Pareto "elite rotation" terms, the election of Trump definitely means rotation of the US
neoliberal elite. "Status quo" faction of the elite was defeated due to backlash over globalization
and disappearance of meaningful well-paid jobs, with mass replacement of them by McJobs and temps/contractors.
Whether openness about domination and subjugation is an "authentic marker of the transition
from [neo]liberalism to fascism" remains to be seen, unless we assume that this transition (to
the National Security State) already happened long ego.
In a way illegal immigrants in the USA already represented stable and growing "new slaves"
class for decades. Their existence and contribution to the US economy was never denied or suppressed.
And even Greenspan acknowledged that Iraq war was about oil. So Trump put nothing new on the table
other then being slightly more blunt.
Neoliberalism and neo-imperialism show pretty much the contradictions of the older globalist
orders (late 19th c), they are just now distributed so as re-intensify the differences, the combined
etc, and concentrate the accumulation.
And elites are fighting over the spoils.
Yes, neoliberalism and neo-imperialism are much better and more precise terms, then fuzzy notions
like "liberal progressivism" . May be we should use Occam razor and discard the term "[neo]liberal
progressivism". The term "soft neoliberals" is IMHO good enough description of the same.
As for contradictions of the "older globalist orders (late 19th c)" the key difference is that
under neoliberalism armies play the role of "can opener" and after then the direct occupation were
by-and-large replaced with financial institutions and with indirect
"debt slavery". In many cases neoliberal subjugation is achieved via color revolution mechanism,
without direct military force involved.
Neo-colonialism creates higher level of concentration of risks due to the greed of financial
elite which was demonstrated in full glory in 2008. As such it looks less stable then old colonialism.
And it generates stronger backlash, which typically has elements of anti-Americanism, as we see in
Philippines now. Merkel days might also be numbered.
Also TBTF banks are now above the law as imposing judgments on them after the crisis can have
disastrous economic externalities. At the same time the corruption of regulators via revolving door
mechanisms blocks implementing meaningful preventive regulatory reforms.
In other words, like with Soviet nomenklatura, with the neoliberal elite we see the impossibility
of basic change, either toward taming the TBTF or toward modification of an aggressive
neocolonial foreign policy
with its rampant militarism.
British diplomat John Glubb wrote a book called "The Fate of Empires and Search For Survival."
Glubb noted that the average age of empires since the time of ancient Assyria (859-612 B.C.)
is 250 years. Only the Mameluke Empire in Egypt and the Levant (1250-1517) made it as far as
267 years. America is 238 years old and is exhibiting signs of decline. All empires begin,
writes Glubb, with the age of pioneers, followed by ages of conquest, commerce, affluence,
intellect and decadence. America appears to have reached the age of decadence, which Glubb
defines as marked by "defensiveness, pessimism, materialism, frivolity, an influx of foreigners,
the welfare state, [and] a weakening of religion."
The most important is probably the fact that the ideology of the current US empire -- neoliberalism
(called here "liberal progressivism") -- became discredited after 2008. What happened after the
collapse of the Marxist ideology with the USSR is well known. It took 46 years (if we assume that
the collapse started in 1945 as the result of victory in WWII, when the Soviet army has a chance
to see the standard of living in Western countries). Why the USA should be different ? Decline
of empires is very slow and can well take a half a century. Let's say it might take 50 years from
9/11 or October 2008.
One telling sign is the end of "American hegemony" in the global political sphere. One telling
sign is the end of "American hegemony" in the global political sphere. As Lupita hypothesized
here Trump might be the last desperate attempt to reverse this process.
Another, the deterioration of the standard of living of the USA population and declining infrastructure,
both typically are connected with the overextension of empire. In Fortune (
http://fortune.com/2015/07/20/united-states-decline-statistics-economic/
) Jill Coplan lists 12 signs of the decline.
Trump election is another sign of turmoil. The key message of his election is "The institutions
we once trusted deceived us" That includes the Democratic Party and all neoliberal MSM. Like was
the case with the USSR, the loss of influence of neoliberal propaganda machine is a definite sign
of the decline of empire.
Degeneration of the neoliberal political elite that is also clearly visible in the current set
of presidential candidates might be another sign. Hillary Clinton dragged to the car on 9/11 commemorative
event vividly reminds the state of health of a couple of members of Soviet Politburo .
"... The affluent and rich voted for Clinton by a much broader margin than they had voted for the Democratic candidate in 2012. Among those with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000, Clinton benefited from a 9-point Democratic swing. Voters with family incomes above $250,000 swung toward Clinton by 11 percentage points. The number of Democratic voters amongst the wealthiest voting block increased from 2.16 million in 2012 to 3.46 million in 2016-a jump of 60 percent. ..."
"... Clinton's electoral defeat is bound up with the nature of the Democratic Party, an alliance of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus with privileged sections of the upper-middle class based on the politics of race, gender and sexual orientation ..."
"... Over the course of the last forty years, the Democratic Party has abandoned all pretenses of social reform, a process escalated under Obama. Working with the Republican Party and the trade unions, it is responsible for enacting social policies that have impoverished vast sections of the working class, regardless of race or gender. ..."
The elections saw a massive shift in party support among the poorest and wealthiest voters. The share
of votes for the Republicans amongst the most impoverished section of workers, those with family
incomes under $30,000, increased by 10 percentage points from 2012. In several key Midwestern states,
the swing of the poorest voters toward Trump was even larger: Wisconsin (17-point swing), Iowa (20
points), Indiana (19 points) and Pennsylvania (18 points).
The swing to Republicans among the $30,000 to $50,000 family income range was 6 percentage points.
Those with incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 swung away from the Republicans compared to 2012
by 2 points.
The affluent and rich voted for Clinton by a much broader margin than they had voted for the
Democratic candidate in 2012. Among those with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000, Clinton benefited
from a 9-point Democratic swing. Voters with family incomes above $250,000 swung toward Clinton by
11 percentage points. The number of Democratic voters amongst the wealthiest voting block increased
from 2.16 million in 2012 to 3.46 million in 2016-a jump of 60 percent.
Clinton was unable to make up for the vote decline among women (2.1 million), African Americans
(3.2 million), and youth (1.2 million), who came overwhelmingly from the poor and working class,
with the increase among the rich (1.3 million).
Clinton's electoral defeat is bound up with the nature of the Democratic Party, an alliance
of Wall Street and the military-intelligence apparatus with privileged sections of the upper-middle
class based on the politics of race, gender and sexual orientation.
Over the course of the last forty years, the Democratic Party has abandoned all pretenses
of social reform, a process escalated under Obama. Working with the Republican Party and the trade
unions, it is responsible for enacting social policies that have impoverished vast sections of the
working class, regardless of race or gender.
They are afraid to call neoliberalism with it proper name and inverted alternative label "liberal
progressivism" instead. The content makes more sense if you substitute a proper term, which is done below.
Notable quotes:
"... In Great Britain it's all the fault of the guys who sold Range Rover and Jaguar to some Indians – and the Mini, Bentley and even Rolls Royce to the Germans – and instead of keeping on building stuff we all became either Bankers or Real Estate Agents – with the exceptions of everybody who doesn't have a job – or has a job he no like or get's payed bad. ..."
"... And do you know that there is this old American Indian saying that you can't eat money? ..."
"... The strategy for the 40 year-period since the final gasps of formal imperialism has been to use the military only just enough to ensure a playing field on which the educated elite can press their advantage. And of course use the educated elite to develop better weapons. ..."
"... Trump_vs_deep_state increasingly sounds like a viable strategy; start more and bigger wars so that valor is favored over cleverness. Win those wars, and take tribute from the defeated, instead of paying to rebuild them. If you change a regime, change it to a dictatorship; only a dictator can pay tribute. ..."
"... this has been posted on other threads, but to get a sense of the scale of the problem, have a look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWMmBG3Z4DI ignoring of course everything that Wendy Schiller has to say ..."
"... What we are faced with here is a fundamental revolt against all 'neoliberal' trans-national organisations and entities: indeed against globalisation itself, which is why I suspect that in the long run Trump is simply waking up and smelling the coffee when he hints that the EU and Nato have no future (in the very long term the UN itself might be doomed). ..."
"... But apart from these outliers, as Owen Jones argued recently, for most European countries the future might be Poland, where the left has simply ceased to exist and all elected parties are right wing. ..."
"... The story isn't the 1% (well, it is, but not solely) but probably the top 10% (not only in income but educational attainment). ..."
"... I hope the [neo]liberal order survives and is improved, but, tbh, at this stage liberals (for a broad definition) need to start thinking seriously about how they're going to make it work for more people. And if they can't, but continue to get bogged down in the trivial nonsense that makes up so much of liberal politics these days (not personalising this to the OP or anyone here, but in general about contemporary politics) then they deserve to lose. ..."
"... Their reputations as liberals rests mostly on supporting social justice issues. I do not mean to minimize the importance of social justice but for these senators it carries no cost or risk. But when it comes to issues of income inequality, foreign policy (remember those defense contractors), substantive action on climate change or single-payer health care they are nowhere to be found. They will fight on trade issues, both being supporters of TPP, validating the view that they don't care about people working outside of liberal enclaves. ..."
"... The illiberal reality of periods of supposedly liberal governance are, then, quite beside the point. It is about "neoliberalism" (admittedly as wooly a term as they come) as a political narrative, project and agenda-this has fallen apart. ..."
"... [Neo]Liberal politics descended into moralism-smug condescension-instead of addressing people's fears at their root. ..."
The other day,
an article
by Chris Deerin , a writer for the Scottish Daily Mail, appeared on my twitter timeline, retweeted
and endorsed by several people I respect. The article argued Trump and Brexit mean that "neoliberalism"
have lost and that "the model that has more or less dominated Western politics for the past three
decades is defunct. It could not be more dead." "We" misused that hegemony and are responsible for
our own downfall:
We used our hegemony to take down barriers and borders, to connect and build, to (yes) line
our own pockets and smugly luxuriate in the goodness of our ideas and intentions. Meantime, we
forgot about those who weren't able to take part, who weren't benefiting, to whom free trade and
open borders meant greater hardship and uneasy cultural compromises. Or, let's be honest, we didn't
forget – we just chose to conveniently ignore. We stopped asking for their permission, ploughed
on through the warning signs, and fell off the end of the road.
Now "liberal" is a funny old word, mostly used as an insult these days by the Jacobin crowd on
the one hand and conservatives on the other. Still, I can't help but feel that my politics is being
condemned here as infeasible and dead whilst wondering whether it is in fact true that I've enjoyed
such "hegemony" for the past 30 years, because that certainly doesn't gel with my experience. To
get pedantic about it, 30 years takes us back to 1986. Mrs Thatcher was still in power in the UK
and her most illiberal single measure, Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 was still in the
future, outlawing British local authorities from "promoting" homosexuality. In the United States,
Ronald Reagan still had a few years to go, and would then be replaced by former CIA Director George
H.W. Bush. So whenever this neoliberal hegemony started, it was considerably more recently. Presumably,
in the US it starts with Bill Clinton - a man not without his illiberal side - but then gets interrupted
by George W. Bush, whose neoliberalism included Guantanamo and waterboarding, before "normal service'
got re-established by Barack Obama. In the UK, you could make a plausible case that some kind of
"neoliberalism" took power with Tony Blair in 1997 and then ran on all the way to 2010, though the
use of the word "liberal" to describe the attitudes and policies of successive Labour Home Secretaries
such as Straw, Blunkett, Clarke and Reid would be curious. In the United States, the past 30 years
has seen a massive expansion of the prison population, hardly the mark of neoliberalism
Since the article specifically identifies immigration as one of the areas of neoliberal triumph
during this period, it might be worth directing some attention there. Whilst the opening of the UK
to migration from new accession EU countries is a big element that supports the claim, pretty much
everything else in UK policy in the area does not. As the
Migration Observatory reported recently , British immigration law added 89 new types of immigration
offences from 1999 to 2016, compared with only 70 that were introduced between 1905 and 1998. There
was a massive increase in immigration detention in the UK over the same period and in recent years
a series of moral panics about "foreign criminals" that have led to a serious erosion of the rule
of law for some sections of society. Citizenship deprivation has become much more common, and is
now used to punish not only those taking up arms against the state but also some criminals. A tightening
of the spousal visa regime in the UK has separated tens of thousands of children from their parents
and prevented many British citizens from living on the territory with their partner of choice. Meanwhile
in the US, deportations of irregular migrants including people who entered the United States as small
children, disfigured the Obama administration. My Facebook is full of people up in arms about Donald
Trump saying he'll deport 2-3 million, but
where were they when Obama deported 2.5 million? neoliberalism, it would be nice to try some.
And from a social and economic justice perspective, the neoliberal agenda has gone backwards rather
than forwards over much of the period. The Rawlsian ideal of society as a system of co-operation
that both guarantees basic liberties but ensures that society works for the benefit of everyone,
and especially the least advantaged, looks further away now than it did in the 1970s. The "well ordered
society", in some respects recognizably the philosophical expression of the New Deal looks unimaginablly
distant from our present condition. Now political philosophers worry about the relevance of "ideal
theory", which can seem like a Byzantine discussion of the architecture of castles made of chocolate:
back then a fair society seemed almost close enough to touch.
(Not that there haven't been gains also over the past 30 years. Though Section 28 was a setback,
the cause of equality for women and LBGT people has advanced a lot, and in both the UK and the US
we now enjoy equal marriage, an idea unthinkable at the beginning of the period. Racial equality
presents a more mixed picture, notwithstanding the election of Obama.)
So what Deerin's article actually means by "neoliberalism" is a set of policies of free trade,
deregulation and privatization, pursued aggressively by governments of all stripes over the past
thirty years. These have indeed failed people, and policies of austerity coupled with bailouts for
the banks have enraged the voters, so that many people, nostalgic for a more equal and more functional
society but confused about who to blame, have channelled their resentments against immigrants and
minorities.
I wouldn't want to be misunderstood here. What is coming is far far worse than what we've had.
For all of their many faults, Blair, the Clintons, Obama, and even, occasionally, Bush and Cameron
paid lip-service to ideals of freedom and equality, to the rule of law, to the various international
treaties and obligations their countries were parties to, even as they often worked in practice to
evade them. Clinton practised interdiction of refugees on the high seas, but stayed committed to
the letter of the Refugee Convention. Cameron denied poor people access to justice and removed "foreign
criminals" to distant countries without due process, but he included the "rule of law" in the roster
of "British values". In the next period I expect a lot less of the shameful hypocrisy and a great
deal more shameless assertion of power against people who have the wrong skin colour or the wrong
class or live in the wrong country. But what has got us to where we are is not "liberalism"... it
is the systematic neglect of liberal respect for the rights of individuals coupled with the brutal
assertion of deregulation and privatization...
Obviously Mr. Deerin is, on its face, utilizing a very disputable definition of "liberal."
However, I think a stronger case could be made for something like Mr. Deerin's argument, although
it doesn't necessarily get to the same conclusion.
My observation is that the New Class (professionals, lobbyists, financiers, teachers, engineers,
etc.) have ruled the country in recent decades. For much of the twentieth century this class
was in some tension with corporations, and used their skills at influencing government policy
to help develop and protect the welfare state, since they needed the working class as a counterweight
to the natural influence of corporate money and power. However, somewhere around 1970 I think
this tension collapsed, since corporate managers and professionals realized that they shared the
same education, background and interests.
Vive la meritocracy. This "peace treaty" between former rivals allowed the whole newly enlarged
New Class to swing to the right, since they really didn't particularly need the working class
politically anymore. And since it is the hallmark of this class to seek prestige, power and money
while transferring risk away from themselves, the middle class and blue collar community has been
the natural recipient. Free trade (well, for non-professionals, anyway), neoliberalism, ruthless
private equity job cutting, etc., etc. all followed very naturally. The re-alignment of the Democratic
Party towards the right was a natural part of this evolution.
I think the 90% or so of the community who are not included in this class are confused and
bewildered and of course rather angry about it. They also sense that organized politics in
this country – being chiefly the province of the New Class – has left them with little leverage
to change any of this. Watching the bailouts and lack of prosecutions during the GFC made
them dimly realize that the New Class has very strong internal solidarity – and since somebody
has to pay for these little mistakes, everyone outside that class is "fair game."
So in that sense–to the extent that you define liberal as the ideology of the New Class
(neoliberal, financial-capitalistic, big corporate-friendly but opposed to non-meritocratic biases
like racism, sexism, etc.) is "liberalism", I think it is reasonable to say that it has bred resistance
and anger among the "losers." As far as having "failed", well, we'll see: the New Class still
controls almost all the levers of power. It has many strategies for channeling lower-class anger
and I think under Trump we'll see those rolled out.
Let me be clear, I'm not saying Donald Trump is leading an insurgency against the New Class
– but I think he tapped into something like one and is riding it for all he can, while not really
having the slightest idea what he's doing.
Perhaps some evolution in "the means of production" or in how governments are influenced
will ultimately develop to divide or downgrade the New Class, and break its lock on the corridors
of power, but I don't see it on the horizon just yet. If anyone else does, I'd love to hear more
about it.
nastywoman 11.13.16 at 9:48 pm ( )
It's not our fault I agree -(whatever these politics words are you used to call us)
In Great Britain it's all the fault of the guys who sold Range Rover and Jaguar to some
Indians – and the Mini, Bentley and even Rolls Royce to the Germans – and instead of keeping on
building stuff we all became either Bankers or Real Estate Agents – with the exceptions of everybody
who doesn't have a job – or has a job he no like or get's payed bad.
And in the United States of Trump it's even worst. There everything is either Made in China
or Made in Germany and Americans are just people who flip Hamburgers with Facebook and Google
and a few Bankers and a lot more people in Real Estate.
And do you know that there is this old American Indian saying that you can't eat money?
And now the people who got nothing to eat got so mad that all these Americans running around asking
each other whose fault it is.
And I think it's still the fault of the Germans because they now have our Rollses and Bentleys
and they sell them cars to the Americans and Trump for sure has some kind of Bently -(perhaps
even a Continental) and then the people say it's the fault of some political things.
If neoliberalism means political correctness, social constructivism (about gender, race,
etc), identity politics, and mass immigration then of course it has grown in influence over the
past 30 years. It is wilful blindness to say otherwise.
RichardM 11.13.16 at 10:21 pm
To give a view from somewhere up past low orbit, where the globe is the size of a boardgame,
it comes down to this. The US, or perhaps the 5 eyes countries, are a faction. That faction has
two assets that cause it it favor ceetain strategies. One asset is the most advanced military,
the other the best high-end educational system.
The strategy for the 40 year-period since the final gasps of formal imperialism has been
to use the military only just enough to ensure a playing field on which the educated elite can
press their advantage. And of course use the educated elite to develop better weapons.
This strategy is falling apart because the educated are no longer willing to volunteer effort
out of patriotism to develop better weapons; hence the F35. And because those who have plenty
of patriotism, but no particular globally-marketable skills, are offered no narrative that empowers
them, only insulting welfare.
Trump_vs_deep_state increasingly sounds like a viable strategy; start more and bigger wars so that
valor is favored over cleverness. Win those wars, and take tribute from the defeated, instead
of paying to rebuild them. If you change a regime, change it to a dictatorship; only a dictator
can pay tribute.
Arrest your domestic political opponents, or simply have them killed, and you don't need to
worry about meeting the demands of anyone outside your support base. So you have more money to
spend on weapons, even if they are not as high tech: F17s and A10s are enough to beat anyone without
nukes.
That change of strategy is what people mean when they say the end of 'liberal progressivism';
the end of the period where the educated were a key strategic resource.
The centre-left has done particularly bad in this new political situation. The centre
right has held up ok. The far right, is obviously doing fantastically. The far left continues
to trundle along, with some occasional successes (Greece, Nepal) although revolts are quickly
crushed, as they always are, with the remnants of the centre-left collaborating with the centre
and far right to crush it (cf also what's happening to Corbyn). (the 'pink tide' in South America
is also of course fast receding now that Venezuela has run into problems, what with the American
backed coups in Brazil and Honduras). And the centre ground per se has simply evaporated.
What we are faced with here is a fundamental revolt against all 'neoliberal' trans-national
organisations and entities: indeed against globalisation itself, which is why I suspect that in
the long run Trump is simply waking up and smelling the coffee when he hints that the EU and Nato
have no future (in the very long term the UN itself might be doomed). It's noticeable that
on the very very few occasions that the left has won power and actually prospered (e.g. Scotland)
it's very closely aligned, not to traditional internationalism, but to nationalism. CF also Plaid
Cymru which might yet become a force to be reckoned with.
But apart from these outliers, as Owen Jones argued recently, for most European countries
the future might be Poland, where the left has simply ceased to exist and all elected parties
are right wing.
The reasons for this trend are long and complicated (mainly economic, but also cultural), but
trends tend to keep on developing until something pretty harsh stops them: the trend towards totalitarianism
in the 1920s and 1930s was only stopped by WW2: can we really imagine such a cataclysm now, and
are we prepared to pay that price simply so that social democracy might yet again prosper afterwards?
We might not have a choice: WW3 might be upon us sooner than we think. As I pointed out in previous
threads the decline of Empires can be as dangerous as their rise and now that the American Empire
is now unarguably in decline sharks will start to circle: indeed they are already doing so.
Another point is this: 'Just consider a country like Bangladesh. It's a low-lying coastal plain;
it has hundreds of millions of people. As the sea level rises slightly, those people are going
to have to flee. New the chief environmental scientist of Bangladesh recently warned that tens
of millions of people are going to have to flee in the coming years, just from sea level rising.
And he made an interesting comment. He said that if we lived in a just world, these people would
be admitted into the rich countries, the United States, England, and others, because those are
the countries that are responsible for it, and have the capacity to absorb them.
If we think we have an immigrant crisis today, which is non-existent, what is it going to be
like when tens of millions of people are fleeing from rising sea levels? And that's just the beginning.
Just keep to South Asia. The water supply of South Asia comes mostly from glaciers in the Himalaya
Mountains. They are melting. What happens when they disappear? Thea are melting pretty fast. There
goes the water supply for South Asia. Couple of billion people. In India alone, right now, there
are already, about, estimated, 300 million people who barely have access to water. What's going
to happen to them? It's all over the place. Our coastal cities are going to disappear, and the
extreme weather events will increase'. (
http://www.jungundnaiv.de/2016/10/23/noam-chomsky-the-alien-perspective-episode-284-english/
)
Please note this is going to happen: it's now inevitable. Nothing can stop it. In 100 years
time there will be not millions but tens of millions, hundreds of millions of people in the Global
South who will be on the move to the North. And who, politically, will benefit from this? Not
the left.
I have noticed that people on the left don't like talking about this, because they have been
deluding themselves for decades that it won't happen.Well, it will, and it's time to start worrying
about how to keep the progressive flame alive in the increasingly bleak decades that lie ahead
(just to be clear, I don't mean, specifically the next 20 years time, when things will probably
hold together, I mean the 2nd half of the 21st century and beyond).
The other point is to look at the nature of the crisis. People look back to 1930 or even 1848.
Actually the left has not been in such a weak state since maybe the 1820s, and unlike then, there
is no clear path back to power, no clear way forward. I am not saying that I have any solutions,
but we should start by admitting the scale of the disaster and not comforting ourselves with false
hopes (of the 'if only Clinton had done this things would have been alright').
So we really need to rethink things from first principles and, to get back to topic of the
OP think about how to defend liberal values, when the entire trend of history seems to be turning
away form those values, and in a time of severe ecological crisis. We also need to think about
how to apply so to speak supranational values when the supranational entities which previously
instantiated those values no longer exist (or no longer exist in the shape they are in now).
bob mcmanus 11.13.16 at 10:40 pm
"Liberal progressive" is a redundancy. These words have histories: Richard Kline from Naked
Capitalism
Liberals, Progressives, and Radicals 2011, mostly America but some UK references
Posted without comment, wanting to reread both Kline and Bertram.
I am a very minor part of the Jacobin crowd, but today I think I will visit The New Inquiry
at the right and read what their crew of minority women have to say. And I want to mention race
in every comment.
I'm not sure if the distinction between various definitions of [neo]liberalism matters so much.
There's a lot I don't like about contemporary '[neo]liberalism' (in that I would favor a more
redistributionist and social democratic system), but I think I should be classified as someone
broadly in support of the current 'system' (which is to say pro EU, pro an open(ish) global economy,
sympathetic towards immigration etc) I don't get everything I want, but who does?
I get more
than most, and the current order works towards me and my ilk (younger, with access to third level,
ability to move for jobs so on and so forth).
I am not speaking for CB or his preferences here, but I think my profile could be generalised
from. We *are* catered towards. Look at the differences in labor market participation and unemployment
rates between people with differing levels of education. Look at whose values are represented
in the media. Look at whose policy preferences are represented in the political system. The
story isn't the 1% (well, it is, but not solely) but probably the top 10% (not only in income
but educational attainment).
I hope the [neo]liberal order survives and is improved, but, tbh, at this stage liberals
(for a broad definition) need to start thinking seriously about how they're going to make it work
for more people. And if they can't, but continue to get bogged down in the trivial nonsense that
makes up so much of liberal politics these days (not personalising this to the OP or anyone here,
but in general about contemporary politics) then they deserve to lose.
Dr. Hilarius 11.13.16 at 11:38 pm
Meyer at 4 says it well. In my own deep-blue state of Washington, we have two Democratic senators.
They have safe seats and don't face any realistic challenges from the right given voter demographics.
Yet I expect only the most tepid and symbolic action by them to resist Trump's likely policies.
They are already so tied to large corporate interests, including defense contractors, that they
will find ample opportunity for compromise, usually getting nothing of substance in return.
Their reputations as liberals rests mostly on supporting social justice issues. I do not
mean to minimize the importance of social justice but for these senators it carries no cost or
risk. But when it comes to issues of income inequality, foreign policy (remember those defense
contractors), substantive action on climate change or single-payer health care they are nowhere
to be found. They will fight on trade issues, both being supporters of TPP, validating the view
that they don't care about people working outside of liberal enclaves.
Too many liberal politicians sold out to lip service on identity politics while refusing to
antagonize their corporate supporters by pushing for economic changes which might have defused
some of the anger and alienation behind Trump's victory.
[Neo]Liberal politics has failed liberal principles-is that not the point?
The illiberal reality of periods of supposedly liberal governance are, then, quite beside
the point. It is about "neoliberalism" (admittedly as wooly a term as they come) as a political
narrative, project and agenda-this has fallen apart.
[Neo]Liberal politics descended into moralism-smug condescension-instead of addressing people's
fears at their root.
When it comes to countering extremism, [neo]liberal politicians and academics
alike are revealed as clueless and spent. Shaming the shameful just doesn't work. Not on
its own at least. But this is all that the establishmentarian [neo]liberal elite (for this is
not altogether imaginary) have to offer. Condemnation without persuasion, which can only follow
from an understanding of causation.
Hidari #9
"As I pointed out in previous threads the decline of Empires can be as dangerous as their rise
and now that the American Empire is now unarguably in decline sharks will start to circle: indeed
they are already doing so."
How is the American Empire in decline? And how do we measure its decline? Maybe the question
sounds naive, but I see lots of comments in threads here and there about purported U.S. decline
with no explanation for said conclusion.
"... The second argument is the Bayesian vs frequentist debate on the foundations of probability theory, which has roots that go back centuries. Not that it matters, but I am in the Bayes-Laplace-Jeffreys-Jaynes camp. Evidently the author is a frequentist. But it is a vastly bigger intellectual issue than how some pollsters blew it and can't be settled in a blog post by someone proclaiming The Truth. ..."
"... It's no secret that U.S. election results can't be audited - the integrity of the data is unknowable - and is subject to pre-election manipulation, in the form of widespread voter suppression. Post-election manipulation of vote totals also can't be discounted, because in many election districts it wouldn't be difficult and motive exists. ..."
"... The general nature of humans is to "freak out" about big things and demand stuff like Brexit, then "calm down" and leave things roughly like they are maybe with a few touch-ups around the edges.* (This is the simplified basis of my "Brexit not gonna happen" stance. ..."
"... But this is saying that people at the last moment decided the status quo was so bad they realized they just had to make a very scary leap into something new. That, if true, says quite a lot about the status quo. ..."
"... "The Bradley effect" is the idea people are lying to pollsters. The problem is modeling, and unlike a few years ago, Gallup and others no longer do their daily tracking polls which give a better picture of the electorate. In the absence of a clear view of the electorate, the pollsters make up who will vote based on preconceived notions. ..."
"... I think this is a good point. My understanding of the polling methodology is that they sample the electorate then break their sampled voters into demographic bins, then they weight the bins based on expected participation by demographic to get a final expected vote. ..."
"... Putting blame for voter 'apathy' on Clinton's treatment of the Democratic base that supported Sanders, probably the most activist part of the party, or on Clinton's pivot to 'suburban republicans', or on the FBI, or Clinton's disastrous foreign policy record, or Clinton's unprecedentedly low favorability and trustworthiness numbers is difficult, but all of those problems were foreseen by Sanders supporters as well as by the DNC, but were ignored by the latter. That those problems were likely to depress turnout, which Democrats need to win elections was also fairly obvious, which is why I never believed the polls and believed Trump was indeed likely to win. ..."
"... Polling organizations are really political organizations that get paid to influence public opinion rather than measure it. Their models are garbage. It's a complete joke of an industry. ..."
I have a very different explanation of why the pollsters got it so wrong. My argument is based on
two statements which I hope to convince you of: That the pollsters were not actually using anything
resembling scientific methodology when investigating the polls. Rather they were simply tracking
the trends and calibrating their commentary in line with them. Not only did this not give us a correct
understanding of what was going on but it also gave us no real new information other than what the
polls themselves were telling us. I call this the redundancy argument . That the pollsters
were committing a massive logical fallacy in extracting probability estimates from the polls (and
whatever else they threw into their witches' brew models). In fact they were dealing with a singular
event (the election) and singular events cannot be assigned probability estimates in any non-arbitrary
sense. I call this the logical fallacy argument .
Let us turn to the redundancy argument first. In order to explore the redundancy argument I will
lay out briefly the type of analysis that I did on the polls during the election. I can then contrast
this with the type of analysis done by pollsters. As we will see, the type of analysis that I was
advocating produced new information while the type of approach followed by the pollsters did not.
While I do not claim that my analysis actually predicted the election, in retrospect it certainly
helps explain the result – while, on the other hand, the pollsters failed miserably.
... ... ...
Probability theory requires that in order for a probability to be assigned an event must be repeated
over and over again – ideally as many times as possible. Let's say that I hand you a coin. You have
no idea whether the coin is balanced or not and so you do not know the probability that it will turn
up heads. In order to discover whether the coin is balanced or skewed you have to toss it a bunch
of times. Let's say that you toss it 1000 times and find that 900 times it turns up heads. Well,
now you can be fairly confident that the coin is skewed towards heads. So if I now ask you what the
probability of the coin turning up heads on the next flip you can tell me with some confidence that
it is 9 out of 10 (900/1000) or 90%.
Elections are not like this because they only happen once. Yes, there are multiple elections every
year and there are many years but these are all unique events. Every election is completely unique
and cannot be compared to another – at least, not in the mathematical space of probabilities. If
we wanted to assign a real mathematical probability to the 2016 election we would have to run the
election over and over again – maybe 1000 times – in different parallel universes. We could then
assign a probability that Trump would win based on these other universes. This is silly stuff, of
course, and so it is best left alone.
So where do the pollsters get their probability estimates? Do they have access to an interdimensional
gateway? Of course they do not. Rather what they are doing is taking the polls, plugging them into
models and generating numbers. But these numbers are not probabilities. They cannot be. They are
simply model outputs representing a certain interpretation of the polls. Boil it right down and they
are just the poll numbers themselves recast as a fake probability estimate. Think of it this way:
do the odds on a horse at a horse race tell you the probability that this horse will win? Of course
not! They simply tell you what people think will happen in the upcoming race. No one knows the actual
odds that the horse will win. That is what makes gambling fun. Polls are not quite the same – they
try to give you a snap shot of what people are thinking about how they will vote in the election
at any given point in time – but the two are more similar than not. I personally think that this
tendency for pollsters to give fake probability estimates is enormously misleading and the practice
should be stopped immediately. It is pretty much equivalent to someone standing outside a betting
shop and, having converted all the odds on the board into fake probabilities, telling you that he
can tell you the likelihood of each horse winning the race.
There are other probability tricks that I noticed these pollsters doing too.
... ... ...
The Catechism of the Catholic Church in discussing the first commandment repeats the condemnation
of divination: "All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring
up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to 'unveil' the future. Consulting horoscopes, astrology,
palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums
all conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings,
as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. These practices are generally considered mortal sins.
Of course I am not here to convert the reader to the Catholic Church. I am just making the point
that many institutions in the past have seen the folly in trying to predict the future and have warned
people against it. Today all we need say is that it is rather silly. Although we would also not go
far wrong by saying, with the Church, that "recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over
time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings". That is a perfectly good secular
lesson.
I would go further still. The cult of prediction plays into another cult: the cult of supposedly
detached technocratic elitism. I refer here, for example, to the cult of mainstream economics with
their ever mysterious 'models'. This sort of enterprise is part and parcel of the cult of divination
that we have fallen prey to but I will not digress too much on it here as it is the subject of a
book that I will be publishing in mid-December 2016 – an overview of which can be found
here . What knowledge-seeking people should be pursuing are tools of analysis that can help them
better understand the world around us – and maybe even improve it – not goat entrails in which we
can read future events. We live in tumultuous times; now is not the time
The second argument is the Bayesian vs frequentist debate on the foundations of probability
theory, which has roots that go back centuries. Not that it matters, but I am in the Bayes-Laplace-Jeffreys-Jaynes
camp. Evidently the author is a frequentist. But it is a vastly bigger intellectual issue than
how some pollsters blew it and can't be settled in a blog post by someone proclaiming The Truth.
Bayesian analysis is frequently cited as an alternative to frequentist schools, although
only with prior awareness of the ontological challenges. Bwaaaaaaak!
The Philster is back! Dude, you've been gone a while.
If your title says we shouldn't listen to you, that might discourage readers before they read.
That's a Bayesian prior. LOL. Sort of anyway.
The probability of us reading, given the admonition not to read = the probability of the admonition
given the probability of us reading, divided by the probability of us reading. Or something like
that. ;-)
When i do the math I get lost. I'll read it later. Right now i can't
It's no secret that U.S. election results can't be audited - the integrity of the data
is unknowable - and is subject to pre-election manipulation, in the form of widespread voter suppression.
Post-election manipulation of vote totals also can't be discounted, because in many election districts
it wouldn't be difficult and motive exists.
The arguments above are convincing in principle, but when the outcomes against which we measure
polling predictions can't even be verified….
Letting others debate Bayesian models… this stood out:
> This suggested to me that all of those that were going to vote Remain had decided early on
and the voters that decided later and closer to the election date were going to vote Leave
Wow. Just wow. The general nature of humans is to "freak out" about big things and demand
stuff like Brexit, then "calm down" and leave things roughly like they are maybe with a few touch-ups
around the edges.* (This is the simplified basis of my "Brexit not gonna happen" stance.)
But this is saying that people at the last moment decided the status quo was so bad they
realized they just had to make a very scary leap into something new. That, if true, says quite
a lot about the status quo.
*Yes I've been married for quite a long time now. Why do you ask? :)
After some discussions about 'the inverse Bradley effect' some months ago, the press had been
strangely silent about the effect and whether it applied to Trump. Theoretically, Trump, more
than any other candidate I can name, should have enjoyed better support in the election than he
was polling, as people were uncomfortable admitting that he was their preference for fear of condescension
from pollsters. Ross Perot–to whom Trump is often compared– enjoyed a five point advantage 'inverse
Bradley effect' in 1992 over his last and best poll numbers. Bill Clinton experienced a straight
up 'Bradley effect' in both of his Presidential victories (off three points from his polling,
as I recall), though he still did well enough to win.
Nate Silver had an article that pretty much outlined what happened in the election back on
Sept 15th. I'm not sure why he isn't referring to this as a fig leaf today, perhaps because so
much of the rest of his reporting predicted Clinton's victory.
"The Bradley effect" is the idea people are lying to pollsters. The problem is modeling,
and unlike a few years ago, Gallup and others no longer do their daily tracking polls which give
a better picture of the electorate. In the absence of a clear view of the electorate, the pollsters
make up who will vote based on preconceived notions.
The LaT poll was very close this cycle and last cycle for the right reasons. Why didn't people
lie to them? Are they special? They used a cross section of the country as a sample based on the
census. They continued to talk to non voters or people who claimed to be non voters. They recognized
people turning their backs on Team Blue. In 2012, they predicted the decline of the white vote
for Team Blue and the rally of support from minorities because they talked to people.
In the case of the famed "Bradley effect," the pollsters in that race didn't account for high
republican turnout in connection to a statewide referendum expecting the usual city council turnout.
The Republicans simply weren't counted. The "lying" of secret racists excuse was cooked up by
pollsters and Bradley's campaign to avoid accountability for not working hard enough.
I don't know if this fits in, but this what I've been pondering.
For most of my life so far, lack of turnout has been assumed to be the result of 'voter apathy'.
It looks to me as if the democratic party's behavior this year, especially in suppressing the
Sanders campaign, had the ultimate effect of creating negative motivation on the part of many
otherwise democratic voters, who were excoriated with the warning that any vote not-for-HRC was
a vote for Trump.
It would seem that many of those voters accepted that reality, and by refusing to show up at
the polls, did indeed vote for Trump.
From my perspective, this is both a complete repudiation of the Third-Way politics of the Clintons,
and the beginning of a sea change.
What I'm saying is that we no longer have voter apathy to blame, but real evidence of deepening
engagement, which hopefully bodes well for Bernie's new project OR.
This wasn't a mysterious failure to excite voters, it was an obvious and monumental case of
ignoring the wishes of the electorate, and reaping a just reward.
In the end, faced with the prospect of the SOS, voters elected to take a chance on Change,
and this included many who could not bring themselves to vote for someone who obviously did not
respect them, and for whom they held no respect.
I don't know how much of the poor turnout over the past 2 decades was ever "your usual poor
turnout". Third Way servitors to the powerful were never beloved of the people, except perhaps
for the charismatic Bill Clinton. And there were many of us who never understood the love for
him.
Not voting has long been a conscious decision for many Americans, and when it's a conscious
decision, it's essential a vote.
I think this is a good point. My understanding of the polling methodology is that they
sample the electorate then break their sampled voters into demographic bins, then they weight
the bins based on expected participation by demographic to get a final expected vote. The
expected participation by demographic can really only be based on turnout from previous elections,
though presumably pollsters tweak things to account for expected differences, like assuming women
or latinos will be more motivated to vote in this election. If the actual turnout doesn't match
the pollsters expectation, as happened in this election, where many traditional democratic demographics
appeared to be demotivated, then the polls will all be systematically inaccurate.
Putting blame for voter 'apathy' on Clinton's treatment of the Democratic base that supported
Sanders, probably the most activist part of the party, or on Clinton's pivot to 'suburban republicans',
or on the FBI, or Clinton's disastrous foreign policy record, or Clinton's unprecedentedly low
favorability and trustworthiness numbers is difficult, but all of those problems were foreseen
by Sanders supporters as well as by the DNC, but were ignored by the latter. That those problems
were likely to depress turnout, which Democrats need to win elections was also fairly obvious,
which is why I never believed the polls and believed Trump was indeed likely to win.
And of course another major factor is that the polls were seemingly sponsored by media
organizations which have pretty openly declared their opposition to Trump. The obvious suspicion
was, then, that the polls were intended as campaign propaganda rather than objective information,
and were tweaked (via turnout models?) to make Hillary seem inevitable. I also believed this was
likely to lead to complacency among democrats, since Republicans are very reliable voters, and
Trump-inspired indies would not believe anything coming from the MSM anyway.
Most people I dared to explain this too were incredulous, and tended to write it off as more
of my characteristic weird logic… and now they are shocked, the idiots.
Polling organizations are really political organizations that get paid to influence public
opinion rather than measure it. Their models are garbage. It's a complete joke of an industry.
Actually that just under 2 percent win in the national polls is going to be correct. Also many
polls were vert close in PA were close as was FL and NC . Very few were done in Michigan which
AP may never call because it is close enough for a recount. In the national number it looks like
a 1 or 2 win
I thought the media and the both campaigns got it so wrong because they think everyone everywhere
is on Facebook and Twitter. The people that helped elect the Trumpeter aren't on social media
and didn't exist to those in power.
"... Because the following talking points prevent a (vulgar) identity politics -dominated Democrat Party from owning its loss, debunking them is then important beyond winning your Twitter wars. I'm trying to spike the Blame Cannons! ..."
"... Remember, Trump won Wisconsin by a whisker. So for this talking point to be true, we have to believe that black voters stayed home because they were racist, costing Clinton Wisconsin. ..."
"... These former Obama strongholds sealed the election for Trump. Of the nearly 700 counties that twice sent Obama to the White House, a stunning one-third flipped to support Trump . ..."
"... The Obama-Trump counties were critical in delivering electoral victories for Trump. Many of them fall in states that supported Obama in 2012, but Trump in 2016. In all, these flipped states accounted for 83 electoral votes. (Michigan and New Hampshire could add to this total, but their results were not finalized as of 4 p.m. Wednesday.) ..."
"... And so, for this talking point to be true, we have to believe that counties who voted for the black man in 2012 were racist because they didn't vote for the white women in 2016. Bringing me, I suppose, to sexism. ..."
"... These are resilient women, often working two or three jobs, for whom boorish men are an occasional occupational hazard, not an existential threat. They rolled their eyes over Trump's unmitigated coarseness, but still bought into his spiel that he'd be the greatest job producer who ever lived. Oh, and they wondered why his behaviour was any worse than Bill's. ..."
"... pink slips have hit entire neighbourhoods, and towns. The angry white working class men who voted in such strength for Trump do not live in an emotional vacuum. They are loved by white working class women – their wives, daughters, sisters and mothers, who participate in their remaindered pain. I t is everywhere in the interviews. "My dad lost his business", "My husband hasn't been the same since his job at the factory went away" . ..."
"... So, for this talking point to be true, you have to believe that sexism simultaneously increased the male vote for Trump, yet did not increase the female vote for Clinton. Shouldn't they move in opposite directions? ..."
"... First, even assuming that the author's happy but unconscious conflation of credentials with education is correct, it wasn't the "dunces" who lost two wars, butchered the health care system, caused the financial system to collapse through accounting control fraud, or invented the neoliberal ideology that was kept real wages flat for forty years and turned the industrial heartland into a wasteland. That is solely, solely down to - only some , to be fair - college-educated voters. It is totally and 100% not down to the "dunces"; they didn't have the political or financial power to achieve debacles on the grand scale. ..."
"... Second, the "dunces" were an important part of Obama's victories ..."
"... Not only has polling repeatedly underplayed the importance of white voters without college degrees, it's underplayed their importance to the Obama coalition: They were one-third of Obama votes in 2012. They filled the gap between upper-class whites and working-class nonwhites. Trump gained roughly 15 percentage points with them compared to Romney in 2012. ..."
"... "No, you are ignorant! You threw away the vote and put Trump in charge." Please, it will be important to know what derogatory camp you belong in when the blame game swings into full gear. *snark ..."
"... 'Stupid' was the word I got very tired of in my social net. Two variant targets: ..."
"... 1) Blacks for not voting their interests. The responses included 'we know who our enemies are' and 'don't tell me what to think.' ..."
"... Mostly it was vs rural, non-college educated. iirc, it was the Secretary of Agriculture, pleading for funds, who said the rural areas were where military recruits came from. A young fella I know, elite football player on elite non-urban HS team, said most of his teammates had enlisted. So they are the ones getting shot at, having relatives and friends come back missing pieces of body and self. ..."
"... My guy in the Reserves said the consensus was that if HRC got elected, they were going to war with Russia. Not enthused. Infantry IQ is supposedly average-80, but they know who Yossarian says the enemy is, e'en if they hant read the book. ..."
This post is not an explainer about why and how Clinton lost (and Trump won). I think we're going
to be sorting that out for awhile. Rather, it's a simple debunking of common talking points by Clinton
loyalists and Democrat Establishment operatives; the sort of talking point you might hear on Twitter,
entirely shorn of caveats and context. For each of the three talking points, I'll present an especially
egregious version of the myth, followed by a rebuttals.
How Trump won the presidency with razor-thin margins in swing states
Of the more than 120 million votes cast in the 2016 election, 107,000 votes in three states
[Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania] effectively decided the election.
Of course, America's first-past-the-post system and the electoral college amplify small margins
into decisive results. And it was the job of the Clinton campaign to find those 107,000 votes and
win them;
the Clinton operation turned out to be weaker than anyone would have imagined when
it counted . However, because Trump has what might be called an institutional mandate - both
the executive and legislative branches and soon, perhaps, the judicial - the narrowness of his margin
means he doesn't have a popular mandate. Trump has captured the state, but by no means civil society;
therefore, the opposition that seeks to delegitimize him is in a stronger position than it may realize.
Hence the necessity for reflection; seeking truth from facts, as the saying goes. Because
the following talking points prevent a
(vulgar) identity politics -dominated Democrat Party from owning its loss, debunking them is
then important beyond winning your Twitter wars. I'm trying to spike the Blame Cannons!
Trump's win is a reminder of the incredible, unbeatable power of racism
The subtext here is usually that if you don't chime in with vehement agreement, you're a racist
yourself, and possibly a racist Trump supporter. There are two reasons this talking point is false.
First, voter caring levels dropped from 2012 to 2016, especially among black Democrats
.
Carl
Beijer :
From 2012 to 2016, both men and women went from caring about the outcome to not caring.
Among Democratic men and women, as well as Republican women, care levels dropped about 3-4
points; Republican men cared a little less too, but only by one point. Across the board, in
any case, the plurality of voters simply didn't care.
Beijer includes the following chart (based on Edison exit polling cross-referenced with total
population numbers from the US Census):
Beijer interprets:
White voters cared even less in 2016 then in 2012, when they also didn't care; most of that
apathy came from white Republicans compared to white Democrats, who dropped off a little less.
Voters of color, in contrast, continued to care – but their care levels dropped even more,
by 8 points (compared to the 6 point drop-off among white voters). Incredibly, that drop was
driven entirely by a 9 point drop among Democratic voters of color which left Democrats
with only slim majority 51% support; Republicans, meanwhile, actually gained support
among people of color.
Urban areas, where black and Hispanic voters are concentrated along with college-educated
voters, already leaned toward the Democrats, but Clinton did not get the turnout from these
groups that she needed. For instance, black voters did not show up in the same numbers they
did for Barack Obama, the first black president, in 2008 and 2012.
Remember, Trump won Wisconsin by a whisker. So for this talking point to be true, we have to
believe that black voters stayed home because they were racist, costing Clinton Wisconsin.
Second, counties that voted for Obama in 2012 voted for Trump in 2016 .
The Washington Post :
These former Obama strongholds sealed the election for Trump. Of the nearly 700 counties that twice sent Obama to the White House,
a stunning one-third flipped to support Trump
.
The Obama-Trump counties were critical in delivering electoral victories for Trump. Many
of them fall in states that supported Obama in 2012, but Trump in 2016. In all, these flipped
states accounted for 83 electoral votes. (Michigan and New Hampshire could add to this total,
but their results were not finalized as of 4 p.m. Wednesday.)
Here's the chart:
And so, for this talking point to be true, we have to believe that counties who voted for the
black man in 2012 were racist because they didn't vote for the white women in 2016. Bringing me,
I suppose, to sexism.
Talking Point: Clinton was Defeated by Sexism
Here's an article showing the talking point from
Newsweek :
This often vitriolic campaign was a national referendum on women and power.
(The subtext here is usually that if you don't join the consensus cluster, you're a sexist
yourself, and possibly a sexist Trump supporter). And if you only look at the averages this claim
might seem true :
On Election Day, women responded accordingly, as Clinton beat Trump among women 54 percent
to 42 percent. They were voting not so much for her as against him and what he brought to the
surface during his campaign: quotidian misogyny.
There are two reasons this talking point is not true. First, averages conceal, and what
they conceal is class . As you read further into the article, you can see it fall apart:
In fact, Trump beat Clinton among white women 53 percent to 43 percent, with
white women without college degrees going for [Trump]
two to one .
So, taking lack of a college degree as a proxy for being working class, for Newsweek's claim
to be true, you have to believe that working class women don't get a vote in their referendum,
and for the talking point to be true, you have to believe that working class women are sexist.
Which leads me to ask: Who died and left the bourgeois feminists in Clinton's base in charge of
the definition of sexism, or feminism? Class traitor
Tina Brown is worth repeating:
Here's my own beef. Liberal feminists, young and old, need to question the role they played
in Hillary's demise. The two weeks of media hyperventilation over grab-her-by-the-pussygate,
when the airwaves were saturated with aghast liberal women equating Trump's gross comments
with sexual assault, had the opposite effect on multiple women voters in the Heartland.
These are resilient women, often working two or three jobs, for whom boorish men are an
occasional occupational hazard, not an existential threat. They rolled their eyes over Trump's
unmitigated coarseness, but still bought into his spiel that he'd be the greatest job producer
who ever lived. Oh, and they wondered why his behaviour was any worse than Bill's.
Missing this pragmatic response by so many women was another mistake of Robbie Mook's campaign
data nerds. They computed that America's women would all be as outraged as the ones they came
home to at night. But pink slips have hit entire neighbourhoods, and towns. The angry white
working class men who voted in such strength for Trump do not live in an emotional vacuum.
They are loved by white working class women – their wives, daughters, sisters and mothers,
who participate in their remaindered pain. I t is
everywhere in the interviews. "My dad lost his business", "My husband hasn't been the same
since his job at the factory went away" .
Second, Clinton in 2016 did no better than Obama in 2008 with women (although she did
better than Obama in 2012). From
the New York Times analysis of the exit polls, this chart...
So, for this talking point to be true, you have to believe that sexism simultaneously increased
the male vote for Trump, yet did not increase the female vote for Clinton. Shouldn't they move
in opposite directions?
Talking Point: Clinton was Defeated by Stupidity
Here's an example of this talking point from
Foreign Policy , the heart of The Blob. The headline:
Trump Won Because Voters Are Ignorant, Literally
And the lead:
OK, so that just happened. Donald Trump always enjoyed massive support from uneducated,
low-information white people. As Bloomberg Politics reported back in August, Hillary Clinton
was enjoying a giant 25 percentage-point lead among college-educated voters going into the
election. (Whether that trend held up remains to be seen.) In contrast, in the 2012 election,
college-educated voters just barely favored Barack Obama over Mitt Romney. Last night we saw
something historic: the dance of the dunces. Never have educated voters so uniformly rejected
a candidate. But never before have the lesser-educated so uniformly supported a candidate.
The subtext here is usually that if you don't accept nod your head vigorously, you're stupid,
and possibly a stupid Trump supporter. There are two reasons this talking point is not true.
First, even assuming that the author's happy but unconscious conflation of credentials with
education is correct, it wasn't the "dunces" who lost two wars, butchered the health care
system, caused the financial system to collapse through accounting control fraud, or invented
the neoliberal ideology that was kept real wages flat for forty years and turned the industrial
heartland into a wasteland. That is solely, solely down to - only some , to be fair
- college-educated voters. It is totally and 100% not down to the "dunces"; they didn't have the
political or financial power to achieve debacles on the grand scale.
Second, the "dunces" were an important part of Obama's victories. From
The Week :
Not only has polling repeatedly underplayed the importance of white voters without college
degrees, it's underplayed their importance to the Obama coalition: They were one-third of Obama
votes in 2012. They filled the gap between upper-class whites and working-class nonwhites.
Trump gained roughly 15 percentage points with them compared to Romney in 2012.
So, to believe this talking point, you have to believe that voters who were smart when they
voted for Obama suddenly became stupid when it came time to vote for Clinton. You also have to
believe that credentialed policy makers have an unblemished record of success, and that only they
are worth paying attention to.
By just about every metric imaginable, Hillary Clinton led one of the worst presidential campaigns
in modern history. It was a profoundly reactionary campaign, built entirely on rolling back the
horizons of the politically possible, fracturing left solidarity, undermining longstanding left
priorities like universal healthcare, pandering to Wall Street oligarchs, fomenting nationalism
against Denmark and Russia, and rehabilitating some of history's greatest monsters – from Bush
I to Kissinger. It was a grossly unprincipled campaign that belligerently violated FEC Super PAC
coordination rules and conspired with party officials on everything from political attacks to
debate questions. It was an obscenely stupid campaign that all but ignored Wisconsin during the
general election, that pitched Clinton to Latino voters as their abuela, that centered an entire
high-profile speech over the national menace of a few thousand anime nazis on Twitter, and that
repeatedly deployed Lena Dunham as a media surrogate.
Which is rather like running a David Letterman ad in a Pennsylvania steel town. It must have seemed
like a good idea in Brooklyn. After all, they had so many celebrities to choose from.
* * *
All three talking points oversimplify. I'm not saying racism is not powerful; of course it is.
I'm not saying that sexism is not powerful; of course it is. But monocausal explanations in an election
this close - and in a country this vast - are foolish. And narratives that ignore economics and erase
class are worse than foolish; buying into them will cause us to make the same mistakes over and over
and over again.[1] The trick will be to integrate multiple causes, and that's down to the left; identity
politics liberals don't merely not want to do this; they actively oppose it. Ditto their opposite
numbers in America's neoliberal fun house mirror, the conservatives.
NOTES
[1] For some, that's not a bug. It's a feature.
NOTE
You will have noticed that I haven't covered economics (class), or election fraud at all. More
myths are coming.
Lambert Strether has been blogging, managing online communities, and doing system administration
24/7 since 2003, in Drupal and WordPress. Besides political economy and the political scene, he blogs
about rhetoric, software engineering, permaculture, history, literature, local politics, international
travel, food, and fixing stuff around the house. The nom de plume "Lambert Strether" comes from Henry
James's The Ambassadors: "Live all you can. It's a mistake not to." You can follow him on Twitter
at @lambertstrether. http://www.correntewire.com
"No, you are ignorant! You threw away the vote and put Trump in charge." Please, it will be
important to know what derogatory camp you belong in when the blame game swings into full gear.
*snark
'Stupid' was the word I got very tired of in my social net. Two variant targets:
1) Blacks
for not voting their interests. The responses included 'we know who our enemies are' and 'don't
tell me what to think.'
2) Mostly it was vs rural, non-college educated. iirc, it was the Secretary of Agriculture,
pleading for funds, who said the rural areas were where military recruits came from. A young fella
I know, elite football player on elite non-urban HS team, said most of his teammates had enlisted.
So they are the ones getting shot at, having relatives and friends come back missing pieces of
body and self.
My guy in the Reserves said the consensus was that if HRC got elected, they were going
to war with Russia. Not enthused. Infantry IQ is supposedly average-80, but they know who Yossarian
says the enemy is, e'en if they hant read the book.
"... There are some who believe the elites are actually splintered into numerous groups and that domestic US elites have positioned themselves against the banking elites in London's City. ..."
"... US elites are basically in the employ of a handful of families, individuals and institutions in our view. It is confusing because it is hard to tell if Hillary, for instance, is operating on her own accord or at the behest of higher and more powerful authorities. ..."
"... It is probably a combination of both but at root those who control central banks are managing the world's move towards globalism. ..."
"... The vote to propel Trump to the US presidency reflects a profound backlash against open markets and borders, and the simmering anger of millions of blue-collar white and working-class people who blame their economic woes on globalisation and multiculturalism. ..."
"... If indeed Trump's election has damped the progress of TPP, and TTIP, this is a huge event. As we've pointed out, both agreements effectively substituted technocratic corporatism for the current sociopolitical model of "democracy." ..."
"... one of the elite's most powerful, operative memes today is "populism vs. globalism" ..."
"... No matter what, the reality of these two events, the victories of both Trump and Brexit, stand as signal proof that elite stratagems have been defeated, at least temporarily. Though whether these defeats have been self-inflicted as part of a change in tactics remains to be seen. ..."
Was Trump's victory actually created by the very globalist elites that Trump is supposed to have
overcome? There are some who believe the elites are actually splintered into numerous groups and
that domestic US elites have positioned themselves against the banking elites in London's City.
We
see no fundamental evidence of this.
The world's real elites in our view may have substantive histories in the hundreds and
thousands of years. US elites are basically in the employ of a handful of families,
individuals and institutions in our view. It is confusing because it is hard to tell if Hillary,
for instance, is operating on her own accord or at the behest of higher and more powerful
authorities.
It is probably a combination
of both but at root those who control central banks are managing the world's move towards globalism.
History easily shows us who these groups are – and they are not located in America.
This is a cynical perspective to be sure, and certainly doesn't remove the impact of Trump's victory
or his courage in waging his election campaign despite what must surely be death threats to himself
and his family..
But if true, this perspective corresponds to predictions that we've been making for nearly a decade
now, suggesting that sooner or later elites – especially those in London's City – would have to "take
a step back."
More:
The vote to propel Trump to the US presidency reflects a profound backlash against open markets
and borders, and the simmering anger of millions of blue-collar white and working-class people
who blame their economic woes on globalisation and multiculturalism.
"There are a few parallels to Switzerland – that the losers of globalisation find somebody
who is listening to them," said Swiss professor and lawyer Wolf Linder, a former director of the
University of Bern's political science institute.
"Trump is doing his business with the losers of globalisation in the US, like the Swiss People's
Party is doing in Switzerland," he said. "It is a phenomenon which touches all European nations."
... ... ...
If indeed Trump's election has damped the progress of TPP, and TTIP, this is a huge event. As
we've pointed out, both agreements effectively substituted technocratic corporatism for the current
sociopolitical model of "democracy." The elites were trying to move toward a new
model of world control with these two agreements. ...
Additionally, one of the elite's most powerful, operative memes today is "populism vs. globalism"
that seeks to contrast the potentially freedom-oriented events of Trump and Brexit to the discarded
wisdom of globalism. See
here and
here.
No matter what, the reality of these two events, the victories of both Trump and Brexit, stand
as signal proof that elite stratagems have been defeated, at least temporarily. Though whether these
defeats have been self-inflicted as part of a change in tactics remains to be seen.
Conclusion: But the change has come. One way or another the Internet and tens of millions or people
talking, writing and acting has forced new trends. This can be hardly be emphasized enough. Globalism
has been at least temporarily redirected.
Editor's Note: The Daily Bell is giving away a silver coin and a silver "white paper" to subscribers.
If you enjoy DB's articles and want to stay up-to-date for free, please subscribe
here .
The analysis is flawed in that it fails to understand the context for power and influence in the
western alliance. The Crowns in contest are seeking coordinated domination through political proxy,
i.e. the force behind the EU and the UN. The problem is the most influential crown was not in
a mind to destroy the fabric of their civilization and more importantly to continue to bail-out
the "socialist" paradises in the continent and beyond. Britannia has its own socialism to support
much less that of the world.
Trump represents keeping the Colony in line with a growing interest in keeping traditions intact
and in more direct control of Anglo values. Europe has this insane multi-culturalism that is fundamentally
incompatible with a "free" and robust civilization. The whole goal of detente with China was to
convert them to our values via proxy institutions and that is working in the long-run. In the
short-run, the Empire must reunite and solidify its value bulwark against the coming storm from
China and to a lesser extend from the expanded EU states. Russia is playing out on its own.
In his first post-election
interview , Bernie Sanders
has declared to
should-be-disgraced Wolf Blitzer that Trump seeking to indict Hillary Clinton for her crimes
would be "an outrage beyond belief".
When asked if President Obama should pardon Hillary Clinton, Sanders seems almost confused as
to why a pardon would even be needed.
Blitzer notes that Ford pardoned Nixon before he could be charged, to which Bernie seemed again
incredulous as to the comparison was even being made.
He goes on to state:
That a winning candidate would try to imprison the losing candidate – that's what dictatorships
are about, that's what authoritarian countries are about. You do not imprison somebody you ran
against because you have differences of opinion. The vast majority of the American people would
find it unacceptable to even think about those things.
Either Senator Sanders is a drooling idiot, or he is being willfully obtuse.
No one wants to imprison Hillary Clinton because of her opinion. They want to imprison Hillary Clinton because she has committed criminal actions that any other
person lacking millions of dollars and hundreds of upper-echelon contacts would be imprisoned for.
Apparently, according to progressive hero Bernie Sanders, holding the elites to the same level
of justice as the peons is undemocratic, authoritarian, and perhaps even dictatorial!
Enough with the damn emails?
Enough with any hope that the Democrats have retained a minute shred of credibility.
"... Elite fragmentation is the core dynamic in play in America. The Neoliberal class, personified by the Clintons and the rest of the incestuous Washington Elite (Demopublicans), has used the self-serving corporate media to whip up a frenzy of hysteria that is ultimately aimed at the Elite camp that opposes their self-aggrandizement at the expense of the nation. ..."
"... The financial coup d'etat occurred in the presidency of Democrat Bill Clinton , when the Glass-Steagall Act was repealed, freeing the predatory financial elites to plunder the nation. ..."
"... Presidents G.W. Bush and Obama institutionalized the coup by bailing out the banks post-2008. ..."
"... The mainstream media in America is a corporate-owned media, or in the case of PBS, corporate-funded via sponsorships. Advertising rates are set by the size of the audience and the number of hours they consume the broadcast/feed. ..."
If you want to stop being played as a chump, turn off the CNN/MSM and disengage from the self-referential
social media distraction.
Let's start by asking: if Trump had lost and his supporters had angrily taken to the streets,
destroying private property and threatening police officers while proclaiming "not my president,"
would the mainstream media have characterized the rioters differently than it has the pro-Clinton
rioters?
Any fair-minded observer knows the answer is yes: the CNN/MSM would have lambasted the "rioting
deplorables" as "what's wrong with America."
Substitution is a useful tool to expose bias. How come the CNN/mainstream corporate media isn't
declaring the pro-Clinton rioters "deplorables"?
This tells us something else is going on here. I want to explain what's really going on, but first
we need to run a simple experiment:
Turn off CNN, PBS, CBS et al., your Twitter and Facebook feeds, etc. for seven days, and live
solely in the media-free real world for a week. If you're truly interested in understanding what's
really going on in America, then come back in a week and read the rest of the essay.
Have you pulled out the CNN/MSM/social media fearmongering/propaganda dripline for a few days?
This is a necessary step, as we shall soon see.
Everyone who is consuming CNN/MSM/ self-referential social media every waking hour is being played
as chumps. Start by asking yourself: cui bono --to whose benefit? Who is benefiting from the ceaseless
fearmongering of the CNN/social-media-parroting mainstream corporate media?
(Longtime readers know I start any analysis by asking cui bono .)
Two Power Elites have benefited enormously from the ceaseless media fearmongering: the owners
of the corporate media spewing the fearmongering, and the Neoliberal camp of the Ruling Elite.
The hysterical tone of the fearmongering serves the agenda of the Neoliberals, who are desperate
to maintain their grip on power.
As I have endeavored to explain over the past few years, America's Deep State no longer enjoys
a monolithic unity of world-view and narrative. The Deep State has fragmented into two conflicted
camps: the Neonconservatives, who espouse the globalist, interventionist foreign policy manifestation
of Neoliberalism, and a smaller, more forward-looking camp that understands Neoliberalism is actively
undermining our national security and our core national interests.
This split in the Deep State extends into the entire Ruling Elite. Thus we have the currently
dominant globalist Neoliberal camp personified by the Clintons, the Corporatocracy that has funded
them, the clubby Washington Elites (Demopublicans) and the Neocon camp of the Deep State.
The opposing camp of Elite "outsiders" is viewed as the enemy which threatens the wealth and power
of the self-serving Neoliberal Elites. Longtime readers have seen many accounts here over the years
that explain the key dynamic of Elite fragmentation: as self-serving personal aggrandizement poisons
the values of public service, the Elite splinters into a parasitic, predatory self-serving majority
and an Elite minority that sees the inevitable dissolution of the empire should the self-serving
few continue their predation of the many.
Here are a few of the many essays I've posted on this key dynamic. Please read a few of these
for context if you missed them the first time around:
Elite fragmentation is the core dynamic in play in America. The Neoliberal class, personified
by the Clintons and the rest of the incestuous Washington Elite (Demopublicans), has used the self-serving
corporate media to whip up a frenzy of hysteria that is ultimately aimed at the Elite camp that opposes
their self-aggrandizement at the expense of the nation.
This war within America's Power Elite is for all the marbles. This explains the absurd urgency
of the CNN/MSM fearmongering propaganda.
Let's deconstruct one of the many hysterical claims of the CNN/MSM: Trump's victory is a coup
d'etat. This absurd claim is akin to "the Martians are coming!" Right out of the gate, it is a clueless
mis-use of the term coup d'etat. If you actually want to understand the term, as opposed to using
it to whip up hysteria that profits the Corporate owners of CNN/MSM, then start by reading the 1968
classic
Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook by Edward Luttwak, and then move on to
The Quiet Coup by Simon Johnson (2010).
The financial coup d'etat occurred in the presidency of Democrat Bill Clinton , when the Glass-Steagall
Act was repealed, freeing the predatory financial elites to plunder the nation.
Presidents G.W. Bush and Obama institutionalized the coup by bailing out the banks post-2008.
So who does all the fearmongering benefit? The CNN/MSM, which profited immensely, and the Neoliberal
Elite, which distracted the populace from the fatal consequences of its dominance.
The mainstream media in America is a corporate-owned media, or in the case of PBS, corporate-funded
via sponsorships. Advertising rates are set by the size of the audience and the number of hours they
consume the broadcast/feed.
The MSM's fearmongering propaganda greatly expanded the number of eyeballs glued to their product
and increased the duration of consumers' time spent online. This increase in audience/duration has
been immensely profitable to the corporate media, which has relied on fearmongering to drive audience
since 9/11.
Consider this email from correspondent M.K. on his family's media consumption:
"I was struck awake this morning at 4 am with the realization that the left tried to win by selling
fear. I don't mean this in a hyperbolic way... I mean they purposefully, willfully planned to sell
fear as a tool to get the vote out. At first I didn't see the connection, but my subconscious did...
I'm a Agorist/Voluntarist and don't vote, because I don't wish to consent to my own enslavement...
you know the drill. On the day of voting my father (76) texted me to urge me to vote, because "my
children's future was at stake". This seemed odd to me, because it had never happened before and
he followed up with some more fearful statement.
The day after the election, my daughter, who tends to also be level headed, texted me the following:
"Uh oh... what does this mean for our country?". I tried to calm them both, but they were exceedingly
fearful.
I watched in amazement at the "cry ins", demonstrations other outward pouring of sadness, hate
and fear. Thus, I awoke and realized that both my father and daughter watch CNN. I really do believe
that they were programmed.... This was planned and executed exceedingly well.
As you realize, "fear is the enemy" or "fear is the opposite of love". Pick your quote, but it's
a powerful tool and it has been used to club my loved ones."
We can summarize the fanning of mass hysteria thusly: hyper-connectedness to a self-referential
corporate/elite-controlled media produces a fear-based mass hysteria.
This fear-based mass hysteria is the perfect mechanism to distract a populace from the reality
of a self-serving Elite that profits from their serfdom. Please glance at these four charts, which
tell a simple but profound truth:
Productivity has risen for 36 years, but the gains from that massive increase in wealth has been
captured by the few at the top of the wealth/power pyramid. If you want to understand who benefited
from the CNN/MSM fearmongering propaganda distraction, study these four charts.
The income of the bottom 95% has stagnated while productivity/wealth soared.
The gains flowed to the top .1% in wealth and the top 5% in income:
The self-serving Neoliberal Elite's CNN/mainstream media did a magnificent job of profiting from
fearmongering while distracting the serfs from their immiseration. If you want to stop being played
as a chump, turn off the CNN/MSM and disengage from the self-referential social media distraction.
After having ignored my facebook account virtually since I created it, I have finally gotten around
to having it removed. I have never sent a single "tweet" since most originate from people who
are plainly twits. Which is to say the like of narcissistic Hlllary voters.
The echo chamber in the funhouse should be left to snowflakes who need safespaces for lack
of accommodation by the real world, which is rapidly passing them by as they continue to indulge
their delusional group trance.
"As one lobbyist told me (in 2007), "Twenty-five years ago… it was 'just keep the government
out of our business, we want to do what we want to,' and gradually that's changed to 'how can
we make the government our partners?' It's gone from 'leave us alone' to 'let's work on this together
.'" Another corporate lobbyist recalled,"When they started, [management] thought government relations
did something else. They thought it was to manage public relations crises, hearing inquiries...
My boss told me, you've taught us to do things we didn't know could ever be done."
As companies became more politically active and comfortable during the late 1980s and the 1990s,
their lobbyists became more politically visionary. For example, pharmaceutical companies had long
opposed the idea of government adding a prescription drug benefit to Medicare, on the theory that
this would give government bargaining power through bulk purchasing, thereby reducing drug industry
profits. But sometime around 2000, industry lobbyists dreamed up the bold idea of proposing and
supporting what became Medicare Part D-a prescription drug benefit, but one which explicitly forbade
bulk purchasing-an estimated
$205 billion benefit
to companies over a 10-year period.
What makes today so very different from the 1970s is that corporations now have the resources
to play offense and defense simultaneously on almost any top-priority issue. When I surveyed corporate
lobbyists on the reasons why their companies maintained a Washington office, the top reason was
"to protect the company against changes in government policy." On a one-to-seven scale, lobbyists
ranked this reason at 6.2 (on average). But closely behind, at 5.7, was "Need to improve ability
to compete by seeking favorable changes in government policy."
Lost control of the Senate
Lost control of the House of Representatives
Lost control of dozens of state legislatures and Governorships.
The Republicans control 36 States of America - One more and they could in theory amend the Constitution.
In Wisconsin (notionally Democrat) the Legislature and Governor are both Republican controlled.
And Clinton didn't even campaign there when it was pretty obvious the State was not trending towards
her.
Most commenters do not realise that it is neoliberalism that caused the current suffering of
working people in the USA and elsewhere...
Notable quotes:
"... Working class wages destroyed. The wages of the low paid lowered. Ordinary people robbed of holiday and sickness pay. Working people priced out of ever owning their own home. Our city centers socially cleansed of the working class. Poor people forced to fight like rats in sacks with even poorer foreigners for jobs, housing, school places and social and health services. ..."
"... Keep going mate. Continue to pump out that snobbish attitude because every time you do you've bagged Mr Trump, Mr Farage and Ms LePen another few votes. ..."
"... I recall a time when any suggestion that immigration may be too high was silenced by cries of racism, eventually that label was misused so often that it lost its potency, one gets the sense that this trend for dubbing those who hold certain opinions as somehow unintelligent will go the same way. People are beginning to see through this most hateful tactic of the Modern Left. ..."
"... Which is why I think Mr D'Ancona and many others are wrong to say that Farage and Trump will face the whirlwind when voters realise that their promises were all unachievable. The promises were much less important than the chance to slap the political world in the face. Given another chance, a lot of voters will do the same again. ..."
"... I think the author completely misses the most salient point from the two events he cites: simply that the *vast* majority of people have become completely disenfranchised with the utter corruption that is mainstream politics today. ..."
"... It doesn't matter who is voted in, the status quo [big business and the super-rich get wealthier whilst the middle is squeezed and the poorest are destroyed] remains. ..."
"... The votes for Brexit and Trump are as much a rejection of "establishment" as anything else. Politicians in both countries heed these warnings at their peril... ..."
"... The majority of the people are sick and tired of PC ism and the zero hour, minimum wage economy that both Britain and America have suffered under "globalisation". And of the misguided "[neo]liberal" agenda of much of the media which simply does not speak to or for society. ..."
"... People in western democracies are rising up through the ballot box to defeat PC [neo]liberalism and globalisation that has done so much to impoverish Europe and America morally and economically. To the benefit of the tax haven corporates. ..."
"... Globalisation disembowelled American manufacturing so the likes of Blair and the Clintons could print money. The illimitable lives they destroyed never entered their calculus. ..."
"... I have stood in the blue lane in Atlanta waiting for my passport to be processed; in the adjoining lane was a young British female student (so she said to the official). The computer revealed she had overstayed her visa by 48 hours the last time she visited. She was marched out by two armed tunics to the next plane home. That's how Europeans get treated if they try to enter America illegally. Why the demented furor over returning illegal Hispanics or anyone else? ..."
Surely the people who voted for Trump and Farage are too stupid to realise the sheer,
criminal folly of their decision...
thoughtcatcher -> IanPitch 12h ago
Working class wages destroyed. The wages of the low paid lowered. Ordinary people
robbed of holiday and sickness pay. Working people priced out of ever owning their own home.
Our city centers socially cleansed of the working class. Poor people forced to fight like rats
in sacks with even poorer foreigners for jobs, housing, school places and social and health
services.
But yeah, they voted against the elite because they are "stupid".
attila9000 -> IanPitch 11h ago
I think at some point a lot of them will realize they have been had, but then they will
probably just blame immigrants, or the EU. Anything that means they don't have to take
responsibility for their own actions. It would appear there is a huge pool of people who can
be conned into acting against their own self interest.
jonnyoyster -> IanPitch 11h ago
Keep going mate. Continue to pump out that snobbish attitude because every time you do
you've bagged Mr Trump, Mr Farage and Ms LePen another few votes. Most people don't
appreciate being talked down to and this arrogant habit of calling those who hold views
contrary to your own 'stupid' is encouraging more and more voters to ditch the established
parties in favour of the new.
I recall a time when any suggestion that immigration may be too high was silenced by
cries of racism, eventually that label was misused so often that it lost its potency, one gets
the sense that this trend for dubbing those who hold certain opinions as somehow unintelligent
will go the same way. People are beginning to see through this most hateful tactic of the
Modern Left.
DilemmataDocta -> IanPitch 11h ago
A lot of the people who put their cross against Brexit or Trump weren't actually voting for
anything. They were just voting against this, that or the other thing about the world that
they disliked. It was voting as a gesture.
Which is why I think Mr D'Ancona and many others are wrong to say that Farage and Trump
will face the whirlwind when voters realise that their promises were all unachievable. The
promises were much less important than the chance to slap the political world in the face.
Given another chance, a lot of voters will do the same again.
Sproggit 12h ago
I think the author completely misses the most salient point from the two events he
cites: simply that the *vast* majority of people have become completely disenfranchised with
the utter corruption that is mainstream politics today.
It doesn't matter who is voted in, the status quo [big business and the super-rich get
wealthier whilst the middle is squeezed and the poorest are destroyed] remains.
The votes for Brexit and Trump are as much a rejection of "establishment" as anything
else. Politicians in both countries heed these warnings at their peril...
NotoBlair 11h ago
OMG, the lib left don't Geddit do they?
The majority of the people are sick and tired of PC ism and the zero hour, minimum wage
economy that both Britain and America have suffered under "globalisation". And of the
misguided "[neo]liberal" agenda of much of the media which simply does not speak to or for
society.
People in western democracies are rising up through the ballot box to defeat PC [neo]liberalism
and globalisation that has done so much to impoverish Europe and America morally and
economically. To the benefit of the tax haven corporates.
The sour grapes bleating of the lib left who refuse to accept the democratic will of the
people is a movement doomed failure.
Frankincensedabit 11h ago
Malign to whom? Wall Street and people who want us all dead?
Globalisation disembowelled American manufacturing so the likes of Blair and the Clintons
could print money. The illimitable lives they destroyed never entered their calculus.
I have stood in the blue lane in Atlanta waiting for my passport to be processed; in the
adjoining lane was a young British female student (so she said to the official). The computer
revealed she had overstayed her visa by 48 hours the last time she visited. She was marched
out by two armed tunics to the next plane home. That's how Europeans get treated if they try
to enter America illegally. Why the demented furor over returning illegal Hispanics or anyone
else?
I likely wouldn't have voted at all. But all my life the occupants of the White House
represented the interests of those nobody could ever identify. The owners of the media and the
numbered accounts who took away the life-chances of U.S. citizens by the million and called
any of them who objected a thick white-trash bigot. Whatever Trump is, he will be different.
That is why watching President-elect Trump's choices for his foreign policy team is so important.
If he chooses primarily alumni of the Bush administration, we can be fairly certain that there
will be few, if any, beneficial changes in Washington's security strategy. Indeed, it could conceivably
be even more interventionist than that pursued by the Clinton, Bush or Obama administrations.
The main difference might be that it would be conducted unilaterally rather than multilaterally,
especially if someone like John Bolton gets a key position.
If on the other hand, Trump begins to pick advisers who have little or no previous government
service, it would be an encouraging step. Watch for appointments from realist enclaves like Defense
Priorities, the Independent Institute and others. Also watch for the appointment of individual unorthodox
or "rogue" scholars from such places as Notre Dame University, George Mason University, the Lyndon
B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, and (ironically) the Bush School
at Texas A&M University. Such moves would indicate that Trump was choosing new blood and really intending
to make a meaningful change in the direction of U.S. foreign policy.
"... It's not just corporate lobbyists who are playing early, visible roles in the new power structure. Some of Trump's biggest political donors are shaping the incoming administration, including Rebekah Mercer, a daughter of billionaire Robert Mercer, who is figuring prominently in behind-the-scenes discussions, according to people familiar with the transition. ..."
"... Mercer is among four major donors appointed by Trump Friday to a 16-person executive committee overseeing his transition. The others are campaign finance chairman Steven Mnuchin, New York financier Anthony Scaramucci and Silicon Valley investor Peter Thiel. ..."
The chant echoed through Donald Trump's boisterous rallies leading up to Election Day: "Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp! Drain
the swamp!"
"We are fighting for every citizen that believes that government should serve the people, not the donors and not the special interests,"
the billionaire real estate developer promised exuberant supporters at his last campaign rally in Manchester, N.H.
But just days later, there is little evidence that the president-elect is seeking to restrain wealthy interests from having access
and influence in his administration.
It's not just corporate lobbyists who are playing early, visible roles in the new power structure. Some of Trump's biggest political
donors are shaping the incoming administration, including Rebekah Mercer, a daughter of billionaire Robert Mercer, who is figuring
prominently in behind-the-scenes discussions, according to people familiar with the transition.
Mercer is among four major donors appointed by Trump Friday to a 16-person executive committee overseeing his transition. The
others are campaign finance chairman Steven Mnuchin, New York financier Anthony Scaramucci and Silicon Valley investor Peter Thiel.
Meanwhile, top campaign fundraisers and a raft of lobbyists tied to some of the country's wealthiest industries have been put
in charge of hiring and planning for specific federal agencies. They include J. Steven Hart, chairman of the law and lobbying shop
Williams & Jensen; Michael McKenna, an energy company lobbyist who is overseeing planning for the Energy Department; and Dallas fundraiser
Ray Washburne, was has been tapped to oversee the Commerce Department.
Billionaires who served as Trump's policy advisers, such as Oklahoma oil executive Harold Hamm, are under consideration for Cabinet
positions.
LOL .
LOL
. So how about a new chant for protesters: DRAIN THE SWAP!?
... ... ...
UPDATE:
Asked about the tensions, and about Kushner's role in the leadership change at the transition team, Trump spokesman Jason Miller
said, "Anybody seeing today's news about the appointment of Vice President-elect Mike Pence to run the Presidential Transition
Team realizes that President-elect Donald J. Trump is serious about changing Washington whether the town likes it or not. This
might ruffle the delicate sensitivities of the well-heeled two-martini lunch set, but President-elect Trump isn't fighting for
them, he's fighting for the hard-working men and women outside the Beltway who don't care for insider bickering."
It's not uncommon for rivalries to emerge inside campaigns and administrations as advisers jockey to place allies in key roles
and advance their policy priorities. But the level of internecine conflict during Trump's drive toward the GOP nomination was
so extreme that it sometimes resulted in conflicting directives for even simple hiring and spending decisions.
Eight years ago, President Obama had a chance to change the warmongering direction that outgoing
President Bush and the U.S. national-security establishment had led America for the previous eight
years. Obama could have said, "Enough is enough. America has done enough killing and dying. I'm going
to lead our country in a different direction - toward peace, prosperity, and harmony with the people
of the world." He could have ordered all U.S. troops in the Middle East and Afghanistan to return
home. He could have ended U.S. involvement in the endless wars that Bush, the Pentagon, and the CIA
spawned in that part of the world. He could have led America in a new direction.
Instead, Obama decided to stay Bush's course, no doubt believing that he, unlike Bush, could win
the endless wars that Bush had started. It was not to be. He chose to keep the national-security
establishment embroiled in Afghanistan and Iraq. Death and destruction are Obama's legacy, just as
they were Bush's.
Obama hoped that Hillary Clinton would protect and continue his (and Bush's) legacy of foreign
death and destruction. Yesterday, a majority of American voters dashed that hope.
Will Trump change directions and bring U.S. troops home? Possibly not, especially given he is
an interventionist, just as Clinton, Bush, and Obama are. But there is always that possibility, especially
since Trump, unlike Clinton, owes no allegiance to the U.S. military-industrial complex, whose survival
and prosperity depends on endless wars and perpetual crises.
If Clinton had been elected, there was never any doubt about continued U.S. interventionism in
Afghanistan and the Middle East. Not only is she a died-in-the-wool interventionist, she would have
been owned by the national-security establishment. She would have done whatever the Pentagon, CIA,
and NSA wanted, which would have automatically meant endless warfare - and permanent destruction
of the liberty and prosperity of the American people.
It's obvious that Americans want a new direction when it comes to foreign policy. That's partly
what Trump's election is all about. Americans are sick and tired of the never-ending wars in Afghanistan,
Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere. That includes military families, especially the many who
supported Trump, Gary Johnson, or Jill Stein. Americans are also tired of the out of control spending
and debt that come with these wars. By electing Trump, it is obvious that Americans are demanding
a change on foreign policy.
Imagine the benefits to American society if Trump were to change directions on foreign policy.
No more anti-American terrorist blowback, which would mean no more war on terrorism. That means the
restoration of a sense of normality to American lives. No more TSA checkpoints at airports. No more
mass surveillance schemes to "keep us safe." No more color coded warnings. No more totalitarian power
to round up Americans, put them into concentration camps or military dungeons, and torture them.
No more power to assassinate people, including Americans. In other words, the restoration of American
civil liberties and privacy.
The Middle East is embroiled in civil wars - wars that have been engendered or magnified by U.S.
interventionism. Continued interventionism in an attempt to fix the problems only pours gasoline
on the fires. The U.S. government has done enough damage to Afghanistan and the Middle East. It has
already killed enough people, including those in wedding parties, hospitals, and neighborhoods. Enough
is enough.
Will Trump be bad on immigration and trade? Undoubtedly, but Clinton would have been bad in
those areas too. Don't forget, after all, that Obama has become America's greatest deporter-in-chief,
deporting more illegal immigrants than any U.S. president in history. Clinton would have followed
in his footsteps, especially in the hope of protecting his legacy. Moreover, while Trump will undoubtedly
begin trade wars, Clinton would have been imposing sanctions on people all over the world whose government
failed to obey the commands of the U.S. government. A distinction without a difference.
Another area for hope under a Trump presidency is with respect to the drug war, one of the most
failed, destructive, and expensive government programs in history. Clinton would have followed in
Bush's and Obama's footsteps by keeping it in existence, if for no other reason than to cater to
the army of DEA agents, federal and state judges, federal and state prosecutors, court clerks, and
police departments whose existence depends on the drug war.
While Trump is a drug warrior himself, he doesn't have the same allegiance to the vast drug-war
bureaucracy that Clinton has. If we get close to pushing this government program off the cliff -
and I am convinced that it is on the precipice - there is a good chance that Trump will not put much
effort into fighting its demise. Clinton would have fought for the drug war with every fiber of her
being.
There is another possible upside to Trump's election: The likelihood that Cold War II will
come to a sudden end. With Clinton, the continuation of the new Cold War against Russia was a certainty.
In fact, Clinton's Cold War might well have gotten hot very quickly, given her intent to establish
a no-fly zone over Syria where she could show how tough she is by ordering U.S. warplanes to shoot
down Russian warplanes. There is no telling where that would have led, but it very well might have
led to all-out nuclear war, something that the U.S. national-security establishment wanted with the
Soviet Union back in the 1960s under President Kennedy.
The danger of war with Russia obviously diminishes under a President Trump, who has said that
he favors friendly relations with Russia, just as Kennedy favored friendly relations with the Soviet
Union and Cuba in the months before he was assassinated.
Indeed, given Trump's negative comments about NATO, there is even the possibility of a dismantling
of that old Cold War dinosaur that gave us the crisis in Ukraine with Russia.
How about it, President-Elect Trump? While you're mulling over your new Berlin Wall on the Southern
(and maybe Northern) border and your coming trade wars with China, how about refusing to follow
the 16 years of Bush-Obama when it comes to U.S. foreign interventionism? Bring the troops home.
Lead America in a different direction, at least insofar as foreign policy is concerned - away from
death, destruction, spending, debt, loss of liberty and privacy, and economic impoverishment and
toward freedom, peace, prosperity, and harmony.
"
TRYING" ???...That's a JOKE, Right? Gingrich, Giuliani, etc, etc, These Neocons
already have a lot of the wild cards and 'Trump Cards'...Closet Globalists, even though they
probably wouldn't admit it.
Reference Carroll Quigley and Craig Hulet if you really want to get the REAL skinny!
The chant echoed through Donald Trump's boisterous rallies leading up to Election Day: "Drain
the swamp! Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!"
"We are fighting for every citizen that believes that government should serve the people, not
the donors and not the special interests," the billionaire real estate developer promised exuberant
supporters at his last campaign rally in Manchester, N.H.
But just days later, there is little evidence that the president-elect is seeking to restrain
wealthy interests from having access and influence in his administration.
It's not just corporate lobbyists who are playing early, visible roles in the new power structure.
Some of Trump's biggest political donors are shaping the incoming administration, including Rebekah
Mercer, a daughter of billionaire Robert Mercer, who is figuring prominently in behind-the-scenes
discussions, according to people familiar with the transition.
Mercer is among four major donors appointed by Trump Friday to a 16-person executive committee
overseeing his transition. The others are campaign finance chairman Steven Mnuchin, New York financier
Anthony Scaramucci and Silicon Valley investor Peter Thiel.
Meanwhile, top campaign fundraisers and a raft of lobbyists tied to some of the country's wealthiest
industries have been put in charge of hiring and planning for specific federal agencies. They
include J. Steven Hart, chairman of the law and lobbying shop Williams & Jensen; Michael McKenna,
an energy company lobbyist who is overseeing planning for the Energy Department; and Dallas fundraiser
Ray Washburne, was has been tapped to oversee the Commerce Department.
Billionaires who served as Trump's policy advisers, such as Oklahoma oil executive Harold Hamm,
are under consideration for Cabinet positions.
LOL .
LOL . So how about a new chant for protesters: DRAIN THE SWAP!?
... ... ...
UPDATE:
Asked about the tensions, and about Kushner's role in the leadership change at the transition
team, Trump spokesman Jason Miller said, "Anybody seeing today's news about the appointment of
Vice President-elect Mike Pence to run the Presidential Transition Team realizes that President-elect
Donald J. Trump is serious about changing Washington whether the town likes it or not. This might
ruffle the delicate sensitivities of the well-heeled two-martini lunch set, but President-elect
Trump isn't fighting for them, he's fighting for the hard-working men and women outside the Beltway
who don't care for insider bickering."
It's not uncommon for rivalries to emerge inside campaigns and administrations as advisers
jockey to place allies in key roles and advance their policy priorities. But the level of internecine
conflict during Trump's drive toward the GOP nomination was so extreme that it sometimes resulted
in conflicting directives for even simple hiring and spending decisions.
I was one of the millions of people that believed in you. Believed what you said. Heard you.
You got "hired" by 60 MILLION people. WE are your boss. YOU BECAME THE EMPLOYEE.
Something you are not used to.
I myself convinced nearly 20 people to vote for you over these last two years. Know what I
said?
"He's NOT a politician. He's a business man. He's an outsider – something Washington, D.C.
SORELY needs. He's NOT the same 'business as usual' guy. Mr. Trump will change things for the
better in Washington. Clean it up. Make peace with Russia – not war. Trump is a BUILDER – not
a destroyer. He'll negotiate FAIR deals with countries. Install sensible immigration policies.
Reverse the stranglehold on health care policies that have bankrupted millions." I made them see
how biased the media was against you. How they lied by omission – and sometimes outright lied
about you. (To a person, they NO LONGER WATCH, TRUST, OR HEED the media anymore.)
He'll change the culture of Washington – because that's EXACTLY WHAT IT NEEDS. CHANGE."
Washington has become a den of vipers. Self-enriching criminals that have sucked the life blood
out of US – YOUR EMPLOYERS . The phrase; "You're FIRED" must be repeated often to MANY people
over the next few years. People that have engorged themselves because of the previous employees,
who have mismanaged the nation, and lied to it's people.
Your very words from your speeches that convinced us to hire you. Your platform. Your slogans;
"Make America Great Again." "I'll take back this country for you".
You said that to 60 MILLION of us – and we hired you based on it.
We hired you because we're SICK AND TIRED OF CAREER POLITICIANS. We hired you because we are
sick of the GREED, DUPLICITY, THE CORRUPTION of Congress and the past administrations that have
enriched the elite, while robbing from the American taxpayer.
Already, the public has noticed that you have had a LOT of the old-guard/same ol' same ol'
Republican Washington "insiders" advising you. We understand that you will need some guidance
in the first few months. All "apprentices" do.
However, we, as your employers, will NOT TOLERATE THE SAME OL' SAME OL' ANYMORE.
We hired YOU to do the right THINGS. "Drain The Swamp" "Take Our Country BACK".
Commencing January 21, 2017, that's exactly what we demand of you – our new employee.
WE WILL WANT RESULTS. ACTIONS. CHANGE.
WE WILL WANT INVESTIGATIONS. ARRESTS. PROSECUTIONS OF THE PEOPLE THAT WRONGED THIS NATION.
STOLE FROM IT. CORRUPTED IT. DAMAGED IT.
Just like you monitored your "apprentices", and judged them on their performances, WE ARE JUDGING
YOU. And we are NOT going to be fooled, like the oppositions legions were and are; by a biased
media that lies to them. No one is going to get a "pass" anymore. Especially like your immediate
predecessor.
That's over.
On January 21, 2017, your official duties commence.
it was just yesterday that I had posted the following to a friend... very similar.
I know, well the Internet people that elected him may and can put tremendous pressure on him
to do the right thing... And I expect that to happen...I expect the people to demand through social
media that they keep their promises and that they do what they are told by the people that elected
them.....can you imagine the damage that could happen if the trump supporters starting to Diss
him because he didn't do what he was told by the people that elected him.
I think in the very near future countries will be run by the people of the country via the
Internet where everybody's voice counts and the people that want to share their voice will be
the actual leaders of the country and the people that want to watch sports and stick their head
in the sand will be sheeple.
I think referendums will be a much more common item
I wrote that in the hopes that someone on the "TTT" (Trump Transition Team) reads it, and maybe,
maybe, shows Trump himself.
We all know he trolls different sites - and I'll bet he trolls ZH.
I agree with you; the "internet people" elected him. The "alt-right" (which IS the new media)
elected him.
If we had no internet, and had to rely on the MSM, Clinton would have been elected.
Or worse.
But they are now the "old guard ". It is funny....sickening...and sad to watch them flail away
like they have relevancy -
THEY don't.
In a big way, this election was a wake up call to THEM (like the NYT piece on here shows),
to clean up THEIR act.
NO MORE business as usual. CFR meets and Washington insider parties of poo.
I actually DID convince 18 people to switch from Clinton to Trump (really, it was 12 from Cruz/Bush/Sanders,
and 6 outright flip Clinton to Trump).. and ALL of them HAD been a daily staple of watching the
MSM.
Getting them to stop was akin to getting a smoker off cigarettes. Some still do - but they
NOW know how the MSM LIES.
(One way I showed them? A tape on YouTube of 60 Minutes "editing techniques", linked below,
which REALLY opened some eyes)
The video embedded in this thread - when Ann Coulter was on Bill Maher and got mocked for her
backing Trump - in several instances - was me in 2014 and 2015. I got laughed at by many for coming
out for Trump back then.
However, what I wrote is true. I literally changed 18 people into Trump supporters from then
to now.
The reasons are many - but the MAIN one is;
I'm. PISSED. OFF.
I'm angry as to the mis-management, lies and over-regulation that has killed the little guy
in businesses. I'm angry as to the lies and deceit from the bought of main stream media. A whole
LOT of other reasons as well.
I am giving free reign for anyone here to re-post this on ANY internet forum they want; Brietbart,
Drudge, and ANY online newspaper comment op-ed section they wish.
I only am a commenter here. I choose not to become one on any other forum.
Please copy and paste it anywhere you'd like.
I'm just a little guy. A "peon". However, I did work hard for Trump. I expect no compensation.
No recognition.
I DO expect Trump however - to DO WHAT he said. As a political outsider.
I am concerned as to the vipers, old guard Washington insiders, and of course, the Deep State
- along with Israel - getting to Trump.
WE didn't elect them. We elected HIM.
So please - have at it. Post away.
I hope my post inspires others to do their own "Apprentice" type open letters to Trump.
He needs to hear from us (and I bet he does troll ZH and other finanical sites.)
That is why watching President-elect Trump's choices for his foreign policy team is so important.
If he chooses primarily alumni of the Bush administration, we can be fairly certain that there
will be few, if any, beneficial changes in Washington's security strategy. Indeed, it could conceivably
be even more interventionist than that pursued by the Clinton, Bush or Obama administrations.
The main difference might be that it would be conducted unilaterally rather than multilaterally,
especially if someone like John Bolton gets a key position.
If on the other hand, Trump begins to pick advisers who have little or no previous government
service, it would be an encouraging step. Watch for appointments from realist enclaves like Defense
Priorities, the Independent Institute and others. Also watch for the appointment of individual unorthodox
or "rogue" scholars from such places as Notre Dame University, George Mason University, the Lyndon
B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, and (ironically) the Bush School
at Texas A&M University. Such moves would indicate that Trump was choosing new blood and really intending
to make a meaningful change in the direction of U.S. foreign policy.
Looks like Secretary of State shortlist is dominated by neocons. A couple of candidates would make
Hillary Clinton proud... the head of CIA is an informal head of shadow government and as such
is also very important. Allen Dulles example should still be remembered by all presidents, if
they do not want to repeat the face of JFK ....
(There are 5 women on the list, including Sarah Palin & NH's Kelly Ayotte, demonstrating that
ilsm has some influence.
For Sec/Defense - seriously. Alternatively for UN Ambassador. Right.)
Thomas Barrack Jr. Founder, chairman and executive chairman of Colony Capital; private equity
and real estate investor
Jeb Hensarling Representative from Texas and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee
Steven Mnuchin Former Goldman Sachs executive and Mr. Trump's campaign finance chairman
Tim Pawlenty Former Minnesota governor
Defense Secretary
Kelly Ayotte Departing senator from New Hampshire and member of the Senate Armed Services
Committee
Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn Former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (he would need
a waiver from Congress because of a seven-year rule for retired officers)
Stephen J. Hadley National security adviser under George W. Bush
Jon Kyl Former senator from Arizona
Jeff Sessions Senator from Alabama who is a prominent immigration opponent
Attorney General
Chris Christie New Jersey governor
Rudolph W. Giuliani Former New York mayor
Jeff Sessions Senator from Alabama
Interior Secretary
Jan Brewer Former Arizona governor
Robert E. Grady Gryphon Investors partner
Harold G. Hamm Chief executive of Continental Resources, an oil and gas company
Forrest Lucas President of Lucas Oil Products, which manufactures automotive lubricants, additives
and greases
Sarah Palin Former Alaska governor
Agriculture Secretary
Sam Brownback Kansas governor
Chuck Conner Chief executive officer of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
Sid Miller Texas agricultural commissioner
Sonny Perdue Former Georgia governor
Commerce Secretary
Chris Christie New Jersey governor
Dan DiMicco Former chief executive of Nucor Corporation, a steel production company
Lewis M. Eisenberg Private equity chief for Granite Capital International Group
Labor Secretary
Victoria A. Lipnic Equal Employment Opportunity commissioner and work force policy counsel
to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce
Health and Human Services Secretary
Dr. Ben Carson Former neurosurgeon and 2016 presidential candidate
Mike Huckabee Former Arkansas governor and 2016 presidential candidate
Bobby Jindal Former Louisiana governor who served as secretary of the Louisiana Department
of Health and Hospitals
Rick Scott Florida governor and former chief executive of a large hospital chain
Energy Secretary
James L. Connaughton Chief executive of Nautilus Data Technologies and former environmental
adviser to President George W. Bush
Robert E. Grady Gryphon Investors partner
Harold G. Hamm Chief executive of Continental Resources, an oil and gas company
Education Secretary
Dr. Ben Carson Former neurosurgeon and 2016 presidential candidate
Williamson M. Evers Education expert at the Hoover Institution, a think tank
Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Jeff Miller Retired chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee
Homeland Security Secretary
Joe Arpaio Departing sheriff of Maricopa County, Ariz.
David A. Clarke Jr. Milwaukee County sheriff
Michael McCaul Representative from Texas and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee
Jeff Sessions Senator from Alabama
White House Chief of Staff
Stephen K. Bannon Editor of Breitbart News and chairman of Mr. Trump's campaign
Reince Priebus Chairman of the Republican National Committee
E.P.A. Administrator
Myron Ebell A director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a prominent climate change
skeptic
Robert E. Grady Gryphon Investors partner who was involved in drafting the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990
Jeffrey R. Holmstead Lawyer with Bracewell L.L.P. and former deputy E.P.A. administrator in
the George W. Bush administration
U.S. Trade Representative
Dan DiMicco Former chief executive of Nucor Corporation, a steel production company, and
a critic of Chinese trade practices
U.N. Ambassador
Kelly Ayotte Departing senator from New Hampshire and member of the Senate Armed Services
Committee
Richard Grenell Former spokesman for the United States ambassador to the United Nations during
the George W. Bush administration
CIA Director / Director of National Intelligence
Michael T. Flynn Former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency
Peter Hoekstra Former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee
Mike Rogers Former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee
Frances Townsend Former homeland security adviser under George W. Bush
National Security Adviser
Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn Former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency
Trump's Hires Will Set Course of His Presidency
http://nyti.ms/2eNUfRg
NYT - MARK LANDLER =- Nov 12
WASHINGTON - "Busy day planned in New York," President-elect Donald J. Trump said on Twitter
on Friday morning, two days after his astonishing victory. "Will soon be making some very important
decisions on the people who will be running our government!"
If anything, that understates the gravity of the personnel choices Mr. Trump and his transition
team are weighing.
Rarely in the history of the American presidency has the exercise of choosing people to fill
jobs had such a far-reaching impact on the nature and priorities of an incoming administration.
Unlike most new presidents, Mr. Trump comes into office with no elective-office experience, no
coherent political agenda and no bulging binder of policy proposals. And he has left a trail of
inflammatory, often contradictory, statements on issues from immigration and race to terrorism
and geopolitics.
In such a chaotic environment, serving a president who is in many ways a tabula rasa, the appointees
to key White House jobs like chief of staff and cabinet posts like secretary of state, defense
secretary and Treasury secretary could wield outsize influence. Their selection will help determine
whether the Trump administration governs like the firebrand Mr. Trump was on the campaign trail
or the pragmatist he often appears to be behind closed doors. ...
"... Washington insiders attempt to capture Trump and influence his positions, policies and decisions. ..."
"... Trump will likely form a very small team of offshoots of himself, people whom he trusts implicitly, in order to extend his capacity to choose people who will adhere to and execute his agenda. ..."
"... The presidency is an establishment and Washington is another. By being elected, Trump struck a blow at the members of the establishment who will be packing their bags while weeping over their losses (see here and here .) ..."
"... The Obama establishment is dead. The Democratic establishment is dead, at least for 4 years. There was a time, a very brief time under the Articles of Confederation, when Americans recognized the evils of the establishment and avoided instituting one. ..."
What happens next in Washington? Trump fills out his administration.
At the same time, Washington insiders attempt to capture Trump and influence his positions,
policies and decisions. The presidency is an institution, not a man, not a president. The presidency
is a network of enormous power with Trump now at its center.
Washington insiders who live and breathe politics are now in a race for positions of power and
influence. They hanker and vie for appointments. Trump must make appointments. He cannot operate
alone. He must delegate power to make decisions. He cannot monitor all information pertinent to every
issue in which the government has a hand.
The presidency is not 100 percent centralized. Decision-making power is allocated to levels below
the president himself and to levels surrounding him. It also lies outside the presidency in Congress.
Trump has his ideas and desires for actions, but their realization depends on the people he appoints.
He loses control and locks himself in with every appointment that he makes. People around him want
his power and want to influence him. They have a heavy influence on what he hears, whom he sees,
the options presented to him, and the evaluations of competing personnel. Trump will likely form
a very small team of offshoots of himself, people whom he trusts implicitly, in order to extend his
capacity to choose people who will adhere to and execute his agenda.
Power in Washington is not simply the apparatus of administering the presidency that will take
up headlines for the next few months. After the U.S. Treasury robs the tax-paying Americans, new
robbers (the Lobby) appear to rob the Treasury using every device they can get away with. There is
a second contingent, the power-seekers. Those who covet the exercise of power unceasingly work toward
their own narrow aims. As long as Washington remains the place that concentrates unbelievably large
amounts of money and powers, it will remain the swamp that Trump has promised to drain but won't.
He cannot drain it, not without destroying Washington's power and he cannot accomplish that, nor
does he even hint that he wants to accomplish that. His stated aims are the redirection of money
and powers, not their elimination for the sake of a greater justice, a greater right, and a truly
greater people and country.
The presidency is an establishment and Washington is another. By being elected, Trump struck
a blow at the members of the establishment who will be packing their bags while weeping over their
losses (see
here and
here .)
But elections do not strike the roots of the presidency, the establishment or Washington. Neither
will demonstrations against Trump.
The Obama establishment is dead. The Democratic establishment is dead, at least for 4 years.
There was a time, a very brief time under the Articles of Confederation, when Americans recognized
the evils of the establishment and avoided instituting one.
This gave way almost immediately (in 1787) to the constitutional seed that planted the enormous
tree that now cuts out the sun of justice from American lives. A domestic war failed to uproot that
tree. Long live the establishment, the Union, the American state, and may they be possessed of immense
powers over our lives - these became the social and political reality. Trump isn't going to change
it. He's a president administering a presidency. He's at the top of the heap. His credo is still
"Long Live the Establishment!"
"... Trump can renegotiate that Iranian treaty but he should never change the result: Iran loses its sanctions and joins the rest of the trading world. ditto with Russia. I have a feeling after trump has a long talk with Putin the Iranian deal will look somewhat different. ..."
Trump can renegotiate that Iranian treaty but he should never change the result: Iran loses its
sanctions and joins the rest of the trading world. ditto with Russia. I have a feeling after trump
has a long talk with Putin the Iranian deal will look somewhat different.
the last thing, the very fucking last thing, trump needs to do is start adopting the neocon,
Zionist, Israeli first agenda after the total opposite of those fucks elected him.
"... Washington insiders attempt to capture Trump and influence his positions, policies and decisions. ..."
"... Trump will likely form a very small team of offshoots of himself, people whom he trusts implicitly, in order to extend his capacity to choose people who will adhere to and execute his agenda. ..."
"... The presidency is an establishment and Washington is another. By being elected, Trump struck a blow at the members of the establishment who will be packing their bags while weeping over their losses (see here and here .) ..."
"... The Obama establishment is dead. The Democratic establishment is dead, at least for 4 years. There was a time, a very brief time under the Articles of Confederation, when Americans recognized the evils of the establishment and avoided instituting one. ..."
What happens next in Washington? Trump fills out his administration.
At the same time, Washington insiders attempt to capture Trump and influence his positions,
policies and decisions. The presidency is an institution, not a man, not a president. The presidency
is a network of enormous power with Trump now at its center.
Washington insiders who live and breathe politics are now in a race for positions of power and
influence. They hanker and vie for appointments. Trump must make appointments. He cannot operate
alone. He must delegate power to make decisions. He cannot monitor all information pertinent to every
issue in which the government has a hand.
The presidency is not 100 percent centralized. Decision-making power is allocated to levels below
the president himself and to levels surrounding him. It also lies outside the presidency in Congress.
Trump has his ideas and desires for actions, but their realization depends on the people he appoints.
He loses control and locks himself in with every appointment that he makes. People around him want
his power and want to influence him. They have a heavy influence on what he hears, whom he sees,
the options presented to him, and the evaluations of competing personnel. Trump will likely form
a very small team of offshoots of himself, people whom he trusts implicitly, in order to extend his
capacity to choose people who will adhere to and execute his agenda.
Power in Washington is not simply the apparatus of administering the presidency that will take
up headlines for the next few months. After the U.S. Treasury robs the tax-paying Americans, new
robbers (the Lobby) appear to rob the Treasury using every device they can get away with. There is
a second contingent, the power-seekers. Those who covet the exercise of power unceasingly work toward
their own narrow aims. As long as Washington remains the place that concentrates unbelievably large
amounts of money and powers, it will remain the swamp that Trump has promised to drain but won't.
He cannot drain it, not without destroying Washington's power and he cannot accomplish that, nor
does he even hint that he wants to accomplish that. His stated aims are the redirection of money
and powers, not their elimination for the sake of a greater justice, a greater right, and a truly
greater people and country.
The presidency is an establishment and Washington is another. By being elected, Trump struck
a blow at the members of the establishment who will be packing their bags while weeping over their
losses (see
here and
here .)
But elections do not strike the roots of the presidency, the establishment or Washington. Neither
will demonstrations against Trump.
The Obama establishment is dead. The Democratic establishment is dead, at least for 4 years.
There was a time, a very brief time under the Articles of Confederation, when Americans recognized
the evils of the establishment and avoided instituting one.
This gave way almost immediately (in 1787) to the constitutional seed that planted the enormous
tree that now cuts out the sun of justice from American lives. A domestic war failed to uproot that
tree. Long live the establishment, the Union, the American state, and may they be possessed of immense
powers over our lives - these became the social and political reality. Trump isn't going to change
it. He's a president administering a presidency. He's at the top of the heap. His credo is still
"Long Live the Establishment!"
"... Real foreign policy positions will only emerge with the formation of a Trump cabinet when it becomes clear who will be in charge. ..."
"... But, if future policies remain unknowable, super-charged American nationalism combined with economic populism and isolationism are likely to set the general tone. ..."
"... This sort of aggressive nationalism is not unique to Trump. All over the world nationalism is having a spectacular rebirth in countries from Turkey to the Philippines. It has become a successful vehicle for protest in Britain, France, Germany, Austria and Eastern Europe. ..."
"... The most serious wars in which the US is already militarily involved are in Iraq and Syria and here Trump's comments during the campaign suggest that he will focus on destroying Isis, recognise the danger of becoming militarily over-involved and look for some sort of cooperation with Russia as the next biggest player in the conflict. This is similar to what is already happening. ..."
"... Trump's instincts generally seem less well-informed but often shrewd, and his priories have nothing to do with the Middle East. ..."
"... The region has been the political graveyard for three of the last five US presidents: Jimmy Carter was destroyed by the consequences of the Iranian revolution; Ronald Reagan was gravely weakened by the Iran-Contra scandal; and George W Bush's years in office will be remembered chiefly for the calamities brought on by his invasion of Iraq. Barack Obama was luckier and more sensible, but he wholly underestimated the rise of Isis until it captured Mosul in 2014. ..."
...the election campaign was focused almost exclusively on American domestic politics with voters
showing little interest in events abroad. This is unlikely to change.
Governments around the world can see this for themselves, though this will not stop them badgering
their diplomats in Washington and New York for an inkling as to how far Trump's off-the-cuff remarks
were more than outrageous attempts to dominate the news agenda for a few hours. Fortunately, his
pronouncements were so woolly that they can be easily jettisoned between now and his inauguration. Real foreign policy positions will only emerge with the formation of a Trump cabinet when it becomes
clear who will be in charge.
But, if future policies remain unknowable, super-charged American nationalism combined with
economic populism and isolationism are likely to set the general tone.Trump has invariably portrayed
Americans as the victims of the foul machinations of foreign countries who previously faced no real
resistance from an incompetent self-serving American elite.
This sort of aggressive nationalism is not unique to Trump. All over the world nationalism
is having a spectacular rebirth in countries from Turkey to the Philippines. It has become a successful
vehicle for protest in Britain, France, Germany, Austria and Eastern Europe.Though Trump is
frequently portrayed as a peculiarly American phenomenon, his populist nationalism has a striking
amount in common with that of the Brexit campaigners in Britain or even the chauvinism of President
Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey. Much of this can be discounted as patriotic bombast, but in all cases
there is a menacing undercurrent of racism and demonisation, whether it is directed against illegal
immigrants in the US, asylum seekers in the Britain or Kurds in south east Turkey.
In reality, Trump made very few proposals for radical change in US foreign policy during the election
campaign, aside from saying that he would throw out the agreement with Iran on its nuclear programme
– though his staff is now being much less categorical about this, saying only that the deal must
be properly enforced. Nobody really knows if Trump will deal any differently from Obama with the
swathe of countries between Pakistan and Nigeria where there are at least seven wars raging – Afghanistan,
Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia and South Sudan – as well as four serious insurgencies.
The most serious wars in which the US is already militarily involved are in Iraq and Syria and
here Trump's comments during the campaign suggest that he will focus on destroying Isis, recognise
the danger of becoming militarily over-involved and look for some sort of cooperation with Russia
as the next biggest player in the conflict. This is similar to what is already happening.
Hillary Clinton's intentions in Syria, though never fully formulated, always sounded more interventionist
than Trump's. One of her senior advisers openly proposed giving less priority to the assault on Isis
and more to getting rid of President Bashar al-Assad. To this end, a third force of pro-US militant
moderates was to be raised that would fight and ultimately defeat both Isis and Assad. Probably this
fantasy would never have come to pass, but the fact that it was ever given currency underlines the
extent to which Clinton was at one with the most dead-in-the-water conventional wisdom of the foreign
policy establishment in Washington.
President Obama developed a much more acute sense of what the US could and could not do in the
Middle East and beyond, without provoking crises exceeding its political and military strength. Its
power may be less than before the failed US interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan following 9/11,
but it is still far greater than any other country's. Currently, it is the US which is successfully
coordinating the offensive against Isis's last strongholds in Mosul and Raqqa by a multitude of fractious
parties in Iraq and Syria. It was never clear how seriously one should have taken Clinton's proposals
for "safe zones" and trying to fight Isis and Assad at the same time, but her judgements on events
in the Middle East since the Iraq invasion of 2003 all suggested a flawed idea of what was feasible.
Trump's instincts generally seem less well-informed but often shrewd, and his priories have
nothing to do with the Middle East.Past US leaders have felt the same way, but they usually
end up by being dragged into its crises one way or other, and how they perform then becomes the test
of their real quality as a leader. The region has been the political graveyard for three of
the last five US presidents: Jimmy Carter was destroyed by the consequences of the Iranian
revolution; Ronald Reagan was gravely weakened by the Iran-Contra scandal; and George W Bush's
years in office will be remembered chiefly for the calamities brought on by his invasion of Iraq.
Barack Obama was luckier and more sensible, but he wholly underestimated the rise of Isis until
it captured Mosul in 2014.
(Reprinted from
The Independent by permission of author or representative)
"... if the rumors are true and Trump nominates John Bolton as secretary of state, it's almost unfathomable to believe that Washington would continue to certify that Tehran is meeting its nuclear commitments. ..."
"... This is the same guy who, during the tail-end of the P5+1 negotiating process for an interim, placeholder accord, wrote in the New York Times that the United States needed to bomb Iran's facilities or at least support the Israelis so they could do it themselves. ..."
"... John Bolton for SoS? Criminality! ..."
"... If the hardest core neocons are brought directly into the highest echelons of American government and institute the kinds of policies mentioned in this article there will be much destruction, and when the dust settles there will be a popularly mandated realignment of EU countries away from fast allegiance with the US, and finally, a functioning alternative monetary and financial system revolving around the BRICS countries. ..."
Trump's ambivalence and wishy-washiness isn't much comfort for people who worked on the negotiation
tirelessly over a matter of years. Richard Nephew, the former sanctions official who helped put in
place and implement nuclear-related economic restrictions on the Iranians,
strongly believes that the JCPOA is a dead deal walking and will be slowly strangled to death
as soon as Trump is sworn in. In many ways, he could be right;
if the rumors are true and Trump nominates
John Bolton as secretary of state, it's almost unfathomable to believe that Washington would continue
to certify that Tehran is meeting its nuclear commitments.
This is the same guy who, during the tail-end
of the P5+1 negotiating process for an interim, placeholder accord,
wrote in the New York Times that the United States needed to bomb Iran's facilities or
at least support the Israelis so they could do it themselves.
If the hardest core neocons are brought directly into the highest echelons of American
government and institute the kinds of policies mentioned in this article there will be much destruction,
and when the dust settles there will be a popularly mandated realignment of EU countries away
from fast allegiance with the US, and finally, a functioning alternative monetary and financial
system revolving around the BRICS countries.
It doesn't have to happen, but if Trump brings in fire breathing nut jobs like Bolton, it WILL
happen. Non-the-less, I do predict that Trump will be greatly coopted by "the establishment" he
vilified and that the public largely hates. It's an irresistible force that will only be brought
down with general social collapse.
We face the greatest challenges to our security in a generation. This is no time to question
the value of the partnership between Europe and the United States.
Britain is facing a diplomatic crisis with the US over Donald Trump's plans to forge an
alliance with Vladimir Putin and bolster the Syrian regime.
In a significant foreign policy split, officials admitted that Britain will have some "very
difficult" conversations with the President-elect in coming months over his approach to Russia.
I don't think it will be difficult for the US president-elect to tell the UK government where
to go.
Donald Trump's plans to forge an alliance with Vladimir Putin and bolster the Syrian regime. When
did he ever say he had any such plans? But now they are a fact in being, thanks to the Torygraph.
Britain has evolved into an expert panicker.
"... Trump, to a degree previously matched only by such outlier presidential candidates as Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, is challenging Washington's conventional wisdom that America must dominate the globe. ..."
"... He also criticized nation-building. "We have a country that's in bad shape," he reasonably allowed: "I just think we have to rebuild our country." ..."
"... Fifth, foreign policy is ultimately about domestic policy. "War is the health of the state," Randolph Bourne presciently declared a century ago. There is no bigger big government program war, no graver threat to civil liberties than perpetual conflict with the homeland the battlefield, no greater danger to daily life than blowback from military overreach. ..."
Still, Trump, to a degree previously matched only by such outlier presidential candidates as Ron
Paul and Dennis Kucinich, is challenging Washington's conventional wisdom that America must dominate
the globe. The "usual suspects" who manage foreign policy in every administration, Republican and
Democrat, believe that the U.S. must cow every adversary, fight every war, defend every ally, enforce
every peace, settle every conflict, pay every bill, and otherwise ensure that the lion lies down
with the lamb at the end of time, if not before.
Not Donald Trump. He recently shocked polite war-making society in the nation's capital when he
criticized NATO, essentially a welfare agency for Europeans determined to safeguard their generous
social benefits. Before the Washington Post editorial board he made the obvious point that "NATO
was set up at a different time." Moreover, Ukraine "affects us far less than it affects other countries
in NATO, and yet we're doing all of the lifting." Why, he wondered? It's a good question.
His view that foreign policy should change along with the world scandalized Washington policymakers,
who embody Public Choice economics, which teaches that government officials and agencies are self-interested
and dedicated to self-preservation. In foreign policy that means what has ever been must ever be
and everything is more important today than in the past, no matter how much circumstances have changed.
Trump expressed skepticism about American defense subsidies for other wealthy allies, such as
South Korea and Saudi Arabia as well as military deployments in Asia. "We spent billions of dollars
on Saudi Arabia and they have nothing but money," he observed. Similarly, he contended, "South Korea
is very rich, great industrial country, and yet we're not reimbursed fairly for what we do."
He also criticized nation-building. "We have a country that's in bad shape," he reasonably allowed:
"I just think we have to rebuild our country."
Unlike presidents dating back at least to George H.W. Bush, Trump appears reluctant to go to war.
He opposed sending tens of thousands of troops to fight the Islamic State: "I would put tremendous
pressure on other countries that are over there to use their troops." Equally sensibly, he warned
against starting World War III over Crimea or useless rocks in East Asian seas. He made a point that
should be obvious at a time of budget crisis: "We certainly can't afford to do this anymore."
... ... ...
Fifth, foreign policy is ultimately about domestic policy. "War is the health of the state,"
Randolph Bourne presciently declared a century ago. There is no bigger big government program war,
no graver threat to civil liberties than perpetual conflict with the homeland the battlefield, no
greater danger to daily life than blowback from military overreach.
"
TRYING" ???...That's a JOKE, Right? Gingrich, Giuliani, etc, etc, These Neocons
already have a lot of the wild cards and 'Trump Cards'...Closet Globalists, even though they
probably wouldn't admit it.
Reference Carroll Quigley and Craig Hulet if you really want to get the REAL skinny!
Looks like Secretary of State shortlist is dominated by neocons. A couple of candidates would make
Hillary Clinton proud... the head of CIA is an informal head of shadow government and as such
is also very important. Allen Dulles example should still be remembered by all presidents, if
they do not want to repeat the face of JFK ....
(There are 5 women on the list, including Sarah Palin & NH's Kelly Ayotte, demonstrating that
ilsm has some influence.
For Sec/Defense - seriously. Alternatively for UN Ambassador. Right.)
Thomas Barrack Jr. Founder, chairman and executive chairman of Colony Capital; private equity
and real estate investor
Jeb Hensarling Representative from Texas and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee
Steven Mnuchin Former Goldman Sachs executive and Mr. Trump's campaign finance chairman
Tim Pawlenty Former Minnesota governor
Defense Secretary
Kelly Ayotte Departing senator from New Hampshire and member of the Senate Armed Services
Committee
Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn Former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (he would need
a waiver from Congress because of a seven-year rule for retired officers)
Stephen J. Hadley National security adviser under George W. Bush
Jon Kyl Former senator from Arizona
Jeff Sessions Senator from Alabama who is a prominent immigration opponent
Attorney General
Chris Christie New Jersey governor
Rudolph W. Giuliani Former New York mayor
Jeff Sessions Senator from Alabama
Interior Secretary
Jan Brewer Former Arizona governor
Robert E. Grady Gryphon Investors partner
Harold G. Hamm Chief executive of Continental Resources, an oil and gas company
Forrest Lucas President of Lucas Oil Products, which manufactures automotive lubricants, additives
and greases
Sarah Palin Former Alaska governor
Agriculture Secretary
Sam Brownback Kansas governor
Chuck Conner Chief executive officer of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
Sid Miller Texas agricultural commissioner
Sonny Perdue Former Georgia governor
Commerce Secretary
Chris Christie New Jersey governor
Dan DiMicco Former chief executive of Nucor Corporation, a steel production company
Lewis M. Eisenberg Private equity chief for Granite Capital International Group
Labor Secretary
Victoria A. Lipnic Equal Employment Opportunity commissioner and work force policy counsel
to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce
Health and Human Services Secretary
Dr. Ben Carson Former neurosurgeon and 2016 presidential candidate
Mike Huckabee Former Arkansas governor and 2016 presidential candidate
Bobby Jindal Former Louisiana governor who served as secretary of the Louisiana Department
of Health and Hospitals
Rick Scott Florida governor and former chief executive of a large hospital chain
Energy Secretary
James L. Connaughton Chief executive of Nautilus Data Technologies and former environmental
adviser to President George W. Bush
Robert E. Grady Gryphon Investors partner
Harold G. Hamm Chief executive of Continental Resources, an oil and gas company
Education Secretary
Dr. Ben Carson Former neurosurgeon and 2016 presidential candidate
Williamson M. Evers Education expert at the Hoover Institution, a think tank
Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Jeff Miller Retired chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee
Homeland Security Secretary
Joe Arpaio Departing sheriff of Maricopa County, Ariz.
David A. Clarke Jr. Milwaukee County sheriff
Michael McCaul Representative from Texas and chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee
Jeff Sessions Senator from Alabama
White House Chief of Staff
Stephen K. Bannon Editor of Breitbart News and chairman of Mr. Trump's campaign
Reince Priebus Chairman of the Republican National Committee
E.P.A. Administrator
Myron Ebell A director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a prominent climate change
skeptic
Robert E. Grady Gryphon Investors partner who was involved in drafting the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990
Jeffrey R. Holmstead Lawyer with Bracewell L.L.P. and former deputy E.P.A. administrator in
the George W. Bush administration
U.S. Trade Representative
Dan DiMicco Former chief executive of Nucor Corporation, a steel production company, and
a critic of Chinese trade practices
U.N. Ambassador
Kelly Ayotte Departing senator from New Hampshire and member of the Senate Armed Services
Committee
Richard Grenell Former spokesman for the United States ambassador to the United Nations during
the George W. Bush administration
CIA Director / Director of National Intelligence
Michael T. Flynn Former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency
Peter Hoekstra Former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee
Mike Rogers Former chairman of the House Intelligence Committee
Frances Townsend Former homeland security adviser under George W. Bush
National Security Adviser
Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn Former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency
Trump's Hires Will Set Course of His Presidency
http://nyti.ms/2eNUfRg
NYT - MARK LANDLER =- Nov 12
WASHINGTON - "Busy day planned in New York," President-elect Donald J. Trump said on Twitter
on Friday morning, two days after his astonishing victory. "Will soon be making some very important
decisions on the people who will be running our government!"
If anything, that understates the gravity of the personnel choices Mr. Trump and his transition
team are weighing.
Rarely in the history of the American presidency has the exercise of choosing people to fill
jobs had such a far-reaching impact on the nature and priorities of an incoming administration.
Unlike most new presidents, Mr. Trump comes into office with no elective-office experience, no
coherent political agenda and no bulging binder of policy proposals. And he has left a trail of
inflammatory, often contradictory, statements on issues from immigration and race to terrorism
and geopolitics.
In such a chaotic environment, serving a president who is in many ways a tabula rasa, the appointees
to key White House jobs like chief of staff and cabinet posts like secretary of state, defense
secretary and Treasury secretary could wield outsize influence. Their selection will help determine
whether the Trump administration governs like the firebrand Mr. Trump was on the campaign trail
or the pragmatist he often appears to be behind closed doors. ...
SUBSCRIBE for Latest ECONOMIC CRISIS ECONOMIC NEWS MONETARY INFORMATION OIL MARKET PETROL MARKET
DOLLAR VALUE ECONOMIC FLUCTUATIONS ECONOMIC GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT GLOBAL MARKET COLLAPSE GOLD SILVER
FINANCIAL INVESMENT GLOBAL RESET BITCOIN AGENDA 21 GLOBAL RESET DAVOS 2016 GLOBAL RESET NEW WORLD
ORDER
"... he Clinton camp, the media and the pollsters missed what we had anticipated as "not Clinton". A basic setting in a part of the "left" electorate that remember who she is and what she has done and would under no circumstances vote for her. Clinton herself pushed the "bernie bros" and "deplorables" into that camp. This was a structural change that was solely based in the personality of the candidate. ..."
"... Even then polls and their interpretation will always only capture a part of the story. Often a sound grasp of human and cultural behavior will allow for better prediction as all polls. As my friend the statistician say: "The best prognostic instrument I have even today is my gut." ..."
"... NeverHillary turned out to be bigger than NeverTrump. Hillary got less than 6 million votes compared to Obama. Trump got nearly as much as Romney. ..."
"... A good indicator was the size of the crowds each candidate drew to their rallies. Clinton tended to show more "bought" TV-ready extras. Bernie blew the walls out at his rallies, as did Trump. You can't look at that and say the polls are even close to accurate. ..."
"... When the Democrats unleashed thugs on Trump supporters while the media studiously looked away, it was not sensible to openly identify with Trump. ..."
"... On Wednesday after the election, I heard an interview with a woman reporter who worked with the 538 polling group. She said that it was impossible for most reporters to really investigate how voters in certain areas of the country were feeling about the election bcz newspapers and other news organizations, including the Big Broadcasters, did not have the ability to pay for enough reporters to actually talk to people. ..."
"... the Los Angeles Times polls were correct (although the paper was pro-Clinton); can't get the link now, but they explained how they weighted their polls on the basis of the enthusiasm displayed for the preferred candidate, and Trump supporters were more "charged" ..."
"... I read many stories about how the polls were fixed for Clinton for months before the election. ..."
"... The pollsters took the % of voters from the Obama election but they also added more Democrats than were representative in the 2012 election, thereby skewing the polls for Clinton. Many believed that the reason they did this was to try to manipulate the voting machines in Clinton's favour and have the polls match the result. ..."
"... i go back to what my sociology of the media instructor said.. polls are for massaging people's brains.. unless one knows who pays for them and what goes into them, they are just another propaganda tool for use.. ..."
"... It has been known for a long time in the polling world that polling numbers are getting more and more unreliable because fewer and fewer people are willing to complete polls. ..."
"... theory would also explain the newspaper polls largely rigged to correspond to the planned vote theft, as well as the idiotic magnitude of overconfidence seen in the Pol-Est/MS Media/Wall Street complex. ..."
"... 1. IBD/TIPP (A collaboration of Investors Business Daily and TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence). TechnoMetrica was consistent throughout – final poll for election day had Trump leading by 2%. Also predicted the last presidential elections back to 2004. ..."
"... This election candidates' crowd draw was a good indicator. It was very difficult to pre-program the Diebold machines. MSM polls were in the bag for Hillary, had her ahead. It backfired. ..."
"... A bit about polling methodology explains the bias we've seen this election cycle. Typically, the polling samples are not big enough to be representative, so the results are corrected (weighted) based on the participant responses. The polls assume certain turnout percentages for different groups (Democrats, Republicans, Independents, rural, urban, ethnicity, gender etc.). A lot of the polls were weighting the polls with turnouts similar to 2012, corrected for the expected demographic changes over the last 4 years. ..."
"... Poll weighing is a tricky business. This is why most polling has a 4% error margin, so it does not produce as accurate picture as is typically presented by the media. The error is not randomly distributed, it is closely related to the poll weighting. The weighting error was favouring Clinton in the polls as it assumed higher Democratic turnout, which ended up not being the case, she underperformed 2012 significantly and lost the election. ..."
"... Are the polls done to discover "what's up", or are they done to project the view that one side is winning? ..."
"... I go with the second view. That's what the 'corrections' are all about. The 'corrections' need to be dropped completely ..."
"... This. There was a Wikiliks Podesta email in whdich Clinton operatives discussed oversampling certain groups to inflate the poll in her favor. ..."
"... Hmm ... what can I say that no-one else has already said except to observe that the polling and the corporate media reporting the polling statistics were in another parallel universe and the people supposedly being polled (and not some over-sampled group in Peoria, Iowa, who could predict exactly what questions would be asked and knew what answers to give) live on planet Earth? ..."
"... I most certainly did not predict Trump would win. But I did question the polls. What I questioned a few weeks ago was the margin of victory for Hillary. ..."
"... This is because most of the polls were weighting more Democratic (based on the 2012 election), which overestimated Clinton's support. ..."
"... So the difference between the poll and the actual result is 1.2% in favour of Trump (1.7% lead to Clinton in poll vs. 0.5% in the election). All are well within the error of the poll, so 1.2% difference between the election and the poll is well within the stated 3% error margin of the poll. ..."
"... You assume public polls are conducted by impartial actors who wish to inform and illuminate..... your assumption is incorrect. ..."
"... The New York Times recent admission that it writes the narrative first, then builds the story to suit says about everything for me regarding polls. ..."
"... According to reports, the first leader Trump spoke to on the phone after his election victory was the Egyptian president, Abdel Fatah al-Sisi. Sisi congratulated him on the election victory, a spokesman for the Egyptian leader said. ..."
"... It may be unfortunate, but I can see Trump & Erdogan getting along very well. Although, if they bring Putin into that triumvirate that could actually be very beneficial for the Middle East. ..."
Today I discussed the U.S. election with a friend who studied and practices statistics. I asked
about the failure of the polls in this years presidential election. Her explanation: The polls are
looking at future events but are biased by the past. The various companies and institutions adjust
the polls they do by looking at their past prognoses and the real results of the past event. They
then develop correcting factors, measured from the past, and apply it to new polls. If that correcting
factor is wrong, possibly because of structural changes in the electorate, then the new polls will
be corrected with a wrong factor and thus miss the real results.
Polls predicting the last presidential election were probably off by 3 or 5 points towards the
Republican side. The pollsters then corrected the new polls for the Clinton-Trump race in favor of
the Democratic side by giving that side an additional 3-5 points. They thereby corrected the new
polls by the bias that was poll inherent during the last race.
But structural changes, which we seem to have had during this election, messed up the result.
Many people who usually vote for the Democratic ticket did not vote for Clinton. The "not Clinton"
progressives, the "bernie bros" and "deplorables" who voted Obama in the last election stayed home,
voted for a third party candidate or even for Trump. The pollsters did not anticipate such a deep
change. Thus their correction factor was wrong. Thus the Clinton side turned out to be favored in
polls but not in the relevant votes.
Real polling, which requires in depth-in person interviews with the participants, does not really
happen anymore. It is simply to expensive. Polling today is largely done by telephone with participants
selected by some database algorithm. It is skewed by many factors which require many corrections.
All these corrections have some biases that do miss structural changes in the underlying population.
The Clinton camp, the media and the pollsters missed what we had anticipated as "not Clinton".
A basic setting in a part of the "left" electorate that remember who she is and what she has done
and would under no circumstances vote for her. Clinton herself pushed the "bernie bros" and "deplorables"
into that camp. This was a structural change that was solely based in the personality of the candidate.
If Sanders would have been the candidate the now wrong poll correction factor in favor of Democrats
would likely have been a correct one. The deep antipathy against Hillary Clinton in a decisive part
of the electorate was a factor that the pseudo-science of cheap telephone polls could not catch.
More expensive in depth interviews of the base population used by a pollster would probably have
caught this factor and adjusted appropriately.
There were some twenty to thirty different entities doing polls during this election cycle. Five
to ten polling entities, with better budgets and preparations, would probably have led to better
prognoses. Some media companies could probably join their poll budgets, split over multiple companies
today, to have a common one with a better analysis of its base population.One that would have anticipated
"not Hillary".
Unless that happens all polls will have to be read with a lot of doubt. What past bias is captured
in these predictions of the future? What are their structural assumptions and are these still correct?
What structural change might have happened?
Even then polls and their interpretation will always only capture a part of the story. Often
a sound grasp of human and cultural behavior will allow for better prediction as all polls. As my
friend the statistician say: "The best prognostic instrument I have even today is my gut."
An equally interesting question about polls: what about the exit polls? If Greg Palast and others
are right, exit polls indicate that the voting was rigged. What does your statistics friend think
about that?
After the 1948 election, statisticians started to get rid of the quota sampling for electoral
polls. After this election, it's time to reassess Statistics.
A good indicator was the size of the crowds each candidate drew to their rallies. Clinton
tended to show more "bought" TV-ready extras. Bernie blew the walls out at his rallies, as did
Trump. You can't look at that and say the polls are even close to accurate.
I suspect that the future of polling isn't as dire as you're painting it, b. There was huge anti-Trump
bias in the Jew-controlled Christian-West Media from the beginning of the campaign. You drew attention
to negative MSM bias yourself in the post which pointed out how consistently wrong the Punditocracy
had been in predicting the imminent failure of the Trump campaign - thereby rubbing their noses
in their own ineptitude and tomfoolery.
One factor which seemed important to me was occasionally hilighted at regular intervals by
commenters here at MoA... The (apparent) fact that Trump addressed more, and bigger, crowds than
Mrs Clinton. I accepted those claims as fact, and didn't bother to check their veracity. But nevertheless
crowd size and frequency seems to have played a pivotal role in the outcome (as one would expect
in a political campaign).
Exit polls have provided checks on the accuracy of the vote count -- but are liable to the same
problem as the opinion pols, people who don't admit to their real position.
I'm not surprised that the polls fail badly in this presidential election. When the Democrats
unleashed thugs on Trump supporters while the media studiously looked away, it was not sensible
to openly identify with Trump. Even Trump was saying so through out the campaign.The Democrats
together with their media partners truly believed that Donald Trump's alleged character flaws
would be enough to win the election. Despite the fact that it was obvious to anyone without a
blinker on that the momentum was on the side of Trump all along. Obama's phenomenon of 08 was
nothing compared to Trump's phenomenon of this year, but because neither the MSM nor the Pollsters
liked him they transferred their biases to their jobs. In any case I'm sure happy that the result
of the election turned out different from the skewed prognosis.
On Wednesday after the election, I heard an interview with a woman reporter who worked with
the 538 polling group. She said that it was impossible for most reporters to really investigate
how voters in certain areas of the country were feeling about the election bcz newspapers and
other news organizations, including the Big Broadcasters, did not have the ability to pay for
enough reporters to actually talk to people.
Since statistics had worked so well, and were cheaper to deal with, they won the day. And lost
the battle.
Now, most people at this site seemed to base their decisions of whom to vote for based on stands
on issues and known actions of the various candidates. But, even so, we probably paid attention
to the polling results. I know I took into consideration that Hillary would win big in NJ, leaving
me free to vote for Jill Stein. Based on known actions of Trump I could not vote for him, even
tho' I hoped he would kill TPP and have better relations with Russia. I feared and still do fear
his nominations to the Supreme Court. (I am not religious, but if I were I would pray daily, perhaps
hourly, for the continued good health of the Justices Kennedy, GInsburg, and Breyer. I would hope
the other Dem appointed justices would take care to avoid, oh, small airplanes....
Would Hillary have adjusted her campaign if she could have seen the rising disappointment of
the working class Dems (even middle class to higher income Dems)? I don't know. I do know that
her husband ran his first campaign on the famous "It's the economy, stupid" reminder.
Somehow, I don't think it would have registered enough.
And Obama ran on Hope and Change, but was always the Corporatist Dem Wall Street wanted. What
a waste. And now we have four more years of doing essentially nothing aboug climate change. It
was have been a strategy to put off even regulatory actions to lessen CO2 emissions until near
the end of his second term, but, dang, it makes it easier for Trump to negate those efforts.
Again, what a waste. But I didn't vote for Obama for either term bcz I saw that his actions
as IL state senator and as US senator were always looking out for the Big Money, Big Corporations,
and seldom worked for anyone below the middle class, more the top of the middle class.
A long explanatory report which signifies nothing critical. "The polls were wrong??" No. The polls
reported by MSM were wrong.
Big time, including from those from Clinton loving CBC here in Canada, which for an extended
time was reporting Hillary with an 11% lead. That number was far beyond any minor adjustments,
for sure.
There were polls, such as Rasmussen, itself suspected of fiddling, which were reporting ups
and downs of 2%, and ended up tied election day.
So, please schemers, please do not try to cover up the MSM's deliberate attempt to influence
results by using garbage numbers. Figures can lie, and liars can sure figure.
the Los Angeles Times polls were correct (although the paper was pro-Clinton); can't get the
link now, but they explained how they weighted their polls on the basis of the enthusiasm displayed
for the preferred candidate, and Trump supporters were more "charged"
I disagree with your friend, b. I read many stories about how the polls were fixed for Clinton
for months before the election.
The pollsters took the % of voters from the Obama election but they also added more Democrats
than were representative in the 2012 election, thereby skewing the polls for Clinton. Many believed
that the reason they did this was to try to manipulate the voting machines in Clinton's favour
and have the polls match the result. I think that Trump crying foul so early got them worried
that they might be caught. Remember, voting machines in 14 states are run by companies affiliated
with Soros.
i go back to what my sociology of the media instructor said.. polls are for massaging people's
brains.. unless one knows who pays for them and what goes into them, they are just another propaganda
tool for use..
It has been known for a long time in the polling world that polling numbers are getting more
and more unreliable because fewer and fewer people are willing to complete polls.
I have a weird conspiracy hypothesis that I mainly made up on my own;
The last FBI "reopening" and the quick subsequent "close-down" felt all too counter-intuitive
and silly, when examined solely based on their face value.
However, what if there was more to this? What if this was a final threat from FBI to the Soros-Clinton
mafia to "quickly unrig the voting machines" OR we will arrest the lot of you? Which, once the
promises were made by "allow fair play", required FBI to pull back as their part of the deal?
This - admittedly conspiracy - theory would also explain the newspaper polls largely rigged
to correspond to the planned vote theft, as well as the idiotic magnitude of overconfidence seen
in the Pol-Est/MS Media/Wall Street complex.
I find it interesting b that you and your friend didn't seem to talk at all about the polling
questions....at least that you shared with us. It is my experience and education that even with
a "beauty contest" that we just had, that the structure of the polling questions make all the
difference in how people being polled respond.
Polls are funded by parties with agendas and the questions, assumptions and biases are baked
in to the result......IMO, they are all worthless or worse than that because folks see them, like
the media as being something of an authority figure and therefore believable which we know is
total BS.
Polls are just another propaganda tool of those rich enough to use them in their quiver of
control.
Timid Trumpists is the major factor, I would think. A factor already well known in UK. People
who are going to vote for a non-PC solution hesitate to admit it to poll questions.
All of the above is true, but - in addition - polls are used to manipulate campaigns.
People sympathize with someone who is considered a winner and when someone is considered likely
to lose people lose interest.
To get the vote out polls have to be tight. In addition to that polls are used to motivate
donors. In the end there has to be a reason pollsters get paid.
But even if polls would be done for purely scientific reasons, this election was impossible
to poll. The correct question would have been "Do you hate/fear candidate x enough to motivate
you to queue for voting for canditate y, or are you too disgusted to bother at all"
In the end, it was not the wrong polls that sank Clinton but the strategy to leave the anti-elitist
populist stuff to Trump and - unsuccessfully concentrate on winning the elitist Republican anti
Trump vote. That way she lost more of the Democrat Sanders vote than she could gain right wing.
The other factor was her reliance on television ads and media ties (they all backed her), a
reluctance to talk to large audiences and an inability to communicate via social media.
It is possible though she never had a chance against a well established reality show brand.
The good news is that after this election campaigns will be done mainly low cost social media.
The bad news is that these campaigns will be more fact free than ever and that the age of independent
quality newspapers is over.
So, you're saying that the age of independent quality newspapers has just ended, like about
now. Interesting pov...
Somehow, the last few years of the MSM coverage of the NATO-Salafist War on Syria have had
me convinced that the "independent quality newspapers" have become a*rse-wipe material a long
time ago. Instead, we get the Sorosoid ZioTakfirism.
But, yeah, maybe it's all Trump's fault. Hey I also blame Hezbollah for kicking Yisrael's arse
north of Litani in 2006. If they didn't piss of the Yivrim this much, maybe they wouldn't have
punitively collapsed the faith in the Western Society from the inside.
Ultimately, it's all Putin's fault. He started it all by beating the pro-Saudi Chechens into
a pulp back in 1999, and started the NATOQAEDA self-destruction.
1. IBD/TIPP (A collaboration of Investors Business Daily and TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence).
TechnoMetrica was consistent throughout – final poll for election day had Trump leading by 2%.
Also predicted the last presidential elections back to 2004.
Methodology
"Traditional Telephone method" includes cell –live interviews by Region; Age; Gender; Race;
Income; Education; Party; Ideology; Investor; Area Type; Parental Status; White – men, women;
Black/Hispanic; Women-single, married; Household description –Upper/Middle-Middle, Working, Lower;
Religion; Union Household; Intensity of Support.
This election candidates' crowd draw was a good indicator. It was very difficult to pre-program
the Diebold machines. MSM polls were in the bag for Hillary, had her ahead. It backfired.
Is Newsweek embarrassed yet? They forgot some history. Truman-Dewey. Madam President! How appropriate.
Some of b's posts regarding US politics seems naive but I chalk that up to his not being American.
But this technocratic excuse for the polling is just wrong. b, what happened to your skeptical
view of Western media????
virgile @ 9: An excerpt: " It was about the union men who refused to sell out their futures and
vote for a Democrat who is an agent of the One Percent."
And now, I fear, they still have no future.
James @ 15 said.." polls are for massaging people's brains.. unless one knows who pays for
them and what goes into them, they are just another propaganda tool for use..
How true..
Trumps choices for his cabinet don't leave much room for positive change, for the millions
of disaffected voters who put him in office. We'll see!
A bit about polling methodology explains the bias we've seen this election cycle. Typically,
the polling samples are not big enough to be representative, so the results are corrected (weighted)
based on the participant responses. The polls assume certain turnout percentages for different
groups (Democrats, Republicans, Independents, rural, urban, ethnicity, gender etc.). A lot of
the polls were weighting the polls with turnouts similar to 2012, corrected for the expected demographic
changes over the last 4 years.
Poll weighing is a tricky business. This is why most polling has a 4% error margin, so
it does not produce as accurate picture as is typically presented by the media. The error is not
randomly distributed, it is closely related to the poll weighting. The weighting error was favouring
Clinton in the polls as it assumed higher Democratic turnout, which ended up not being the case,
she underperformed 2012 significantly and lost the election.
It is important to stress that the election results ended up within the margin of error
(+-4%). The polls were not wrong, it is the media and the analyst who over-interpreted the data
and gave Clinton the win where she did not have a statistically significant (<4%) lead. This is
why if Nate Silver at 538 was consistently writing that the polls in many of the swing states
were within the error margin, although favouring Clinton, and their election prediction still
gave Trump a ~30% chance of victory. Other analysts were more careless (hello Huffington Post)
and even made fun of 538 for giving Trump any chance of victory.
There is no way to make more accurate polling for the future elections as the accuracy of the
poll is tied in to poll weighing, which is guesswork (although somewhat educated by the historical
data). Short of forcing everyone to vote, election-to-election turnout will change and affect
the accuracy of the polls.
Instead of interpreting every single of those Polls as plausibly biased on one side, why don't
you take the entire population of Western MSM Polls, and see if their median predicted outcome
vs actual final outcome difference is statistically significant?
I'd say you'd find their entire population to be likely biased at least to six-sigma level.
(I have no time to show this myself, just proposing someone's hypothesis, as a research idea
for someone's M Sci thesis for example)
I have lived in the D.C. area for the past 22 years with a land line phone and am listed in the
White Pages. I have never been called by a pollster, although I am often called by political campaigns.
I do not know anyone who has been called by a pollster.
More expensive in depth interviews of the base population used by a pollster would probably
have caught this factor and adjusted appropriately.
No more 'adjustments' allowed. A desire to actually discover the lay of the land and to publish
it is what's required. Good luck on getting that from the political class and/or their captive
msm. Everything they do is a lie, calculated to keep themselves in power.
The polls were obviously blatantly skewed towards urban Blue zones, and did not include working
adults in Red zones, then were 'massaged' by reporting media in clearly a Rodham-paid PAC marketing
campaign to brand the sheeples 'Wear Rodham!'
Only Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight even came close, but he had to rely on those same skewed
polls. After all, since 1990, you can buy a CD set of American voting records by street address,
it's not rocket science to be able to 'algo' that into a 'poll' that skews whichever way the highest
bidder's (Rodham) quants tell you to. https://www.facebook.com/viralthread/videos/598130190359668/
As if on cue, or something. All of a sudden, S.U.R.P.R.I.S.E,… a litany of polls released today
show Donald Trump ahead in key battleground states (Ohio and Florida), and tied –or closer
than the margin of error– in new national polls…. […]
Remember what we stated on October 20th: […]
The real battle is the battle for your mind. The peak U.S. media false polling cycle is
thankfully in the rear-view mirror.
It was because I followed that right-wing blog that I ignored all polls other than the LA Times
tracking poll. (I didn't know about the IBD/TIPP poll until after the election.)
Hmm ... what can I say that no-one else has already said except to observe that the polling
and the corporate media reporting the polling statistics were in another parallel universe and
the people supposedly being polled (and not some over-sampled group in Peoria, Iowa, who could
predict exactly what questions would be asked and knew what answers to give) live on planet Earth?
I most certainly did not predict Trump would win. But I did question the polls. What I questioned
a few weeks ago was the margin of victory for Hillary.
There were two big variables that the pollsters had to guess at. One was the voter turnout
numbers for those precincts that had many working class people with a high school or less education
level. As it turns out those people came out in higher numbers than they have in elections over
the past two decades. The other was voter turnout for many precincts that supported Obama in 2008
and 2012. What happened here was many of those voters who did turn out voted for Trump, instead
of the Democrat. There was a third uncertainty here that no on has yet figured out. That was those
people who would never admit to a stranger that they were going to vote for Trump and simply lied
to the pollster.
In any case those three uncertainties worked in directions that none of the pollsters really
picked up on.
This is because most of the polls were weighting more Democratic (based on the 2012 election),
which overestimated Clinton's support. For example, the Rasmussen poll, which traditionally
weights more Republican, gave Clinton 1.7% lead, 44.8% to 43.1% (3% margin of error), so fairly
close to the election results (47.3% to 47.8%).
So the difference between the poll and the actual result is 1.2% in favour of Trump (1.7%
lead to Clinton in poll vs. 0.5% in the election). All are well within the error of the poll,
so 1.2% difference between the election and the poll is well within the stated 3% error margin
of the poll.
When you mention 6 sigma, you really don't really know what you are talking about. Typical
polling error is 3 - 4% and the election result was within this error for most polls in all of
the states. Standard deviation (sigma) that you mention is a random uncertainty associated with
a measurement and it does not apply here. As I tried to convey, the errors in polling tend to
be systematic, not random, because they are tied to weighting of the polls, not to the sample
of the population as this is mostly corrected by the weighting. So because most of the MSM polls
use similar weighting methodology based on the same historical data, they will all be off, there
will be no random distribution of some for Trump, some for Clinton. Weighing based on different
historical data skews the whole picture one way, it's not a random error. This is why pollster
slap a relatively large 3 - 4% error on their polls, it is meant to cover any systematic bias
of the weighting as well as random errors.
those three uncertainties worked in directions that none of the pollsters really picked
up on.
Have a loook at the
LA Times
tracking poll . It had Trump ahead by 3.2% on election day, which is close to the margin of
error. The graph there is interesting, because dates of various events, such as the debates are
marked. The poll figures moved in response to those events as one would expect.
Before the election, the people who do that poll said that they did best at predicting the
2012 election. Oh, in a
post about the
election's outcome, Alexander Dugin singled out that poll for praise.
I have a better idea--how about we stop the stupid polling altogether since there is only one
poll that really matters? Then the media would have to focus on the issues rather than the horserace.
Oh, the humanity!
Hypothesis A - that it's all explainable by random distribution of their samples.
If you use Hypotethesis A, and then disprove it in it's own game (be it 3, or 6 sigma), then
you have to suggest an alternative.
I don't know what the alternative is. I don't even claim I do. But you can more easily disprove
the veracity that the polls could have mostly been non-biased by showing that hypothesis is unlikely
to be RIGHT. That's where sigmas make absolute sense.
Furthermore, what you are proving here is that the POPULATION of ALL COMBINED polls has a mean
that must be different from the POPULATION of all actual voters, not of disproving the polls one
by one.
I think you've totally ignored my point, you keep looking at individual polls as trees, I am
looking at the poll forest and saying the entire forest is buggered if almost all polls erred
on one side, regardless of their individual margins of error.
The New York Times recent admission that it writes the narrative first, then builds the story
to suit says about everything for me regarding polls. 'Hey, my editor needs someone to come
out and say something, can you say this...?' <-- Now, if that is standard practice in journalism
at 'the paper of record', then skewing polls to suit a common agenda is a given, again in my opinion.
This of course is great news for sites like MofA.
Also impossible to capture The Don's campaign playing the electoral college system like an
old mandolin, as it turns out. 306 Trump bts 232 Hillary it looks like in the wash up. That's
old school work rate doing the job. Fair play. Great to see all the student debt laden brainwashed
libtards out there doing there nut. They don't even know what a bullet they dodged + shite like
the TPP is now dead. Some gratitude.
Hopefully in 2020 there are some more scientific polls like the USC Dornslife/LA Times poll,
each having their own differing methodologies preferably. This should give the punters a better
'feel' for the electorate.
In other news...
Assange is being interviewed tomorrow by Swedush police (for the 2nd time I should add). There
are and were no charges laid. I suspect their will be no charges brought tomorrow.
...so what happened...? Did The Rule of Law just...magically appear...?
The most extraordinary thing I learned about polls is that exit polls are altered as soon as the
official election or primary vote is in-- to match it.
According to reports, the first leader Trump spoke to on the phone after his election victory
was the Egyptian president, Abdel Fatah al-Sisi. Sisi congratulated him on the election victory,
a spokesman for the Egyptian leader said.
Ireland's government said the taoiseach, Enda Kenny, had a 10-minute call with Trump, and
was invited to visit the White House on St Patrick's Day.
Mexico's president, Enrique Peña Nieto, has said he and Trump agreed in their call to meet
before Trump takes office, while Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, was invited to
the White House.
Other leaders to have a chat with Trump so far include the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip
Erdoğan, India's prime minister, Narendra Modi, the Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe – they
reportedly talked for 20 minutes and agreed to meet soon in New York – and South Korea's president,
Park Geun-hye.
Australia's prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, was reported to have chatted with Trump about
security and trade in their call.
No surprises there.
It may be unfortunate, but I can see Trump & Erdogan getting along very well. Although,
if they bring Putin into that triumvirate that could actually be very beneficial for the Middle
East.
Concur with all your points. And yes, the timing of the Swedes finally deciding to interview
Assange is funny.
I never thought that Hillary would become president, btw., from the moment she declared
for 2016. Which is not to say that I was not concerned that the demonization of Trump might throw
the election. We'll never know, but it is possible that Trump wouldn't have won without Wikileaks.
And the two sets of leaks were very well timed.
To return to polls. It's not just most media polls that were off. The Clinton campaign's internal
polls were off, too. They didn't have much doubt that they would win. (The same thing happened
with Romney of course, but in their case, their internal polls differed from the media polls.)
Apparently, they really did believe they have a firewall, with redundancies no less.
"A spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin is suggesting President-elect Donald Trump begin
rebuilding the U.S.-Kremlin relationship by urging NATO to withdraw forces from the Russian border.
Dmitry Peskov told the Associated Press that such a move "would lead to a kind of detente in Europe."...
...Peskov said in the interview that the NATO presence does not make Russia feel "safe."
"Of course, we have to take measures to counter," he said.
In a separate interview with the Associated Press on Thursday, Peskov insisted that Crimea, the
region of Ukraine annexed by the Kremlin in 2014, is part of Russia.
"No one in Russia - never - will be ready to start any kind of discussion about Crimea," he said,
refusing to call it "annexation."..."
By John Cassidy conviniently forget that Hillary was/is a neocon warmonger, perfectly
cable of unleashing WWIII. Instead he pushes "Comey did it" bogeyman"...
EMichael and im1dc would rather have their head in the sand. We were told confidently by Clinton
surrogates like Krugman and DeLong that Brexit wouldn't happen again.
Since Tuesday night, there has been a lot of handwringing about how the media, with all its fancy
analytics, failed to foresee Donald Trump's victory. The Times alone has published three articles
on this theme, one of which ran under the headline "How Data Failed Us in Calling an Election." On
social media, Trump supporters have been mercilessly haranguing the press for getting it wrong.
Clearly, this was a real issue. It's safe to say that most journalists, myself included, were
surprised by Tuesday's outcome. That fact should be acknowledged. But journalists weren't the only
ones who were shocked. As late as Tuesday evening, even a senior adviser to Trump was telling the
press that "it will take a miracle for us to win."
It also shouldn't be forgotten that, in terms of the popular vote, Clinton didn't lose on Tuesday.
As of 6:30 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, a tally by CNN showed that Hillary Clinton had received 60,617,062
votes, while Trump got 60,118,567. The margin in her favor-now at 498,495-is likely to grow as the
remaining votes are counted in California. At the end of the day, Clinton may end up ahead by two
per cent of the total votes cast. If the United States had a direct system of voting, Clinton would
have been the one at the White House on Thursday meeting with President Obama. But, of course, Trump
won the Electoral College. If the final count in Michigan remains in his favor, Trump will end up
with three hundred and six Electoral College votes, to Clinton's two hundred and twenty-six.
Still, as journalists and commentators, we all knew the rules of the game: if Trump got to two
hundred and seventy votes in the Electoral College, he'd be President. Why did so few observers predict
he'd do it? Many Trump supporters insist it was East Coast insularity and ideological bias, and many
in the media are now ready to believe that. To be sure, it's easy to get sucked into the media bubble.
But there are also strong professional incentives for journalists to get things right. Why did that
prove so difficult this year?
It wasn't because journalists weren't legging it to Michigan or Wisconsin or West Virginia. In
this magazine alone, a number of writers-including Larissa MacFarquhar, Evan Osnos, George Packer,
and George Saunders-published long, reported pieces about the Trump phenomenon in different parts
of the country. Many other journalists spent a lot of time talking with Trump supporters. I'd point
you to the work of ProPublica's Alec MacGillis and the photojournalist Chris Arnade, but they were
just two among many. So many, in fact, that some Clinton supporters, such as Eric Boehlert, of Media
Matters, regularly complained about it on social media.
To the extent that there was a failure, it was a failure of analysis, rather than of observation
and reporting. And when you talk about how the media analyzed this election, you can't avoid the
polls, the forecasting models, and the organizing frames-particularly demographics-that people used
to interpret the incoming data.
It was clear from early in the race that Trump's electoral strategy was based on appealing
to working-class whites, particularly in the Midwest. The question all along was whether, in the
increasingly diverse America of 2016, there were enough alienated working-class whites to propel
Trump to victory.
Some analysts did suggest that there might be. Immediately after the 2012 election, Sean Trende,
of Real Clear Politics, pointed out that one of the main reasons for Mitt Romney's defeat was that
millions of white voters stayed home. Earlier this year, during the Republican primaries, Trende
returned to the same theme, writing, "The candidate who actually fits the profile of a 'missing white
voter' candidate is Donald Trump."
The Times' Nate Cohn was another who took Trump's strategy seriously. In June, pointing to
a new analysis of Census Bureau data and voter-registration files, Cohn wrote, "a growing body of
evidence suggests that there is still a path, albeit a narrow one, for Mr. Trump to win without gains
among nonwhite voters." As recently as Sunday, Cohn repeated this point, noting that Trump's "strength
among the white working class gives him a real chance at victory, a possibility that many discounted
as recently as the summer."
Among analysts and political demographers, however, the near-consensus of opinion was that Trump
wouldn't be able to turn back history. Back in March, I interviewed Ruy Teixeira, the co-author of
an influential 2004 book, "The Emerging Democratic Majority," which highlighted the growing number
of minority voters across the country, particularly Hispanics. Drawing on his latest data, Teixeira,
who is a senior fellow at the Century Foundation and the Center for American Progress, offered some
estimates of how many more white working-class voters Trump would need to turn out to flip states
like Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. "It's not crazy," he said. "But I think it would be very hard
to pull off."
Trump managed it, though. He enjoyed a thirty-nine-point advantage among whites without college
degrees, according to the network exit poll, compared to the twenty-six-point advantage Romney saw
in 2012. "What totally tanked the Democrats was the massive shift in the white non-college vote against
them, particularly in some of the swing states," Teixeira told me by telephone on Thursday. "And
that by itself is really enough to explain the outcome."
In the lead-up to the election, the possibility of Clinton winning the popular vote while losing
the Electoral College was well understood but, in hindsight, not taken seriously enough. In mid-September,
David Wasserman, an analyst at the Cook Political Report, laid out a scenario in which turnout among
white non-college voters surged and turnout among some parts of the Democratic coalition, particularly
African-Americans, fell. "Clinton would carry the popular vote by 1.5 percentage points," Wasserman
wrote. "However, Trump would win the Electoral College with 280 votes by holding all 24 Romney states
and flipping Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa and Maine's 2nd Congressional District."
In the days and weeks leading up to the election, FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver also considered
the possibility of Clinton winning the popular vote and losing the election. But he, Wasserman, and
others who looked at the matter believed this was an unlikely outcome. On Tuesday, the FiveThirtyEight
forecasting model estimated that the probability of such a scenario happening was about one in ten.
There was a straightforward reason for all the skepticism about Trump's chances: when you looked
at the state-level polling, it looked like Clinton's "blue wall" was holding. Take Wisconsin, which
turned out to be a state that Trump won. The Huffington Post's polling database lists the results
of more than thirty polls that were taken in the Badger State since June: Trump didn't lead in any
of them. Three of the final four surveys showed Clinton ahead by six points or more, and the Huffpollster
poll average put her lead at 6.3 percentage points. Trump carried the state by one point. In other
key states, the pattern was similar. The final Huffington Post poll averages showed Trump losing
by nearly six points in Michigan, and by four points in Pennsylvania.
In a public statement issued on Wednesday, the American Association for Public Opinion Research
said bluntly, "The polls clearly got it wrong this time." The organization announced that it had
already put together a panel of "survey research and election polling experts" tasked with finding
some answers. Several possible explanations have already been floated.
First, it's possible there was a late swing to Trump among undecided voters, which the state polls,
in particular, failed to pick up. Another possibility is that some Trump voters didn't tell the pollsters
about their preferences-the "shy Trump supporter" hypothesis.
A third theory, which I suspect may be the right one, is that a lot of Trump voters refused
to answer the pollsters' calls in the first place, because they regarded them as part of the same
media-political establishment that Trump was out railing against on the campaign trail. Something
like this appears to have happened in Britain earlier this year, during the run-up to the Brexit
referendum. Turnout wound up being considerably higher than expected among lower-income voters in
the north of England, particularly elderly ones, and that swung the result.
Whatever went wrong with the polls in this country, they inevitably colored perceptions. "The
reason it surprised me was because, like everyone else, I was taken in by those pesky polls," Teixeira
told me. "It didn't look like, by and large, that he was running up as big a margin as he needed
among non-college whites."
The prediction models didn't help things. On Tuesday morning, FiveThirtyEight's "polls-only"
prediction model put the probability of Clinton winning the presidency at 71.4 per cent. And that
figure was perhaps the most conservative one. The Times' Upshot model said Clinton had an eighty-five
per cent chance of winning, the Huffington Post's figure was ninety-eight per cent, and the Princeton
Election Consortium's estimate was ninety-nine per cent.
These numbers had a big influence on how many people, including journalists and political professionals,
looked at the election. Plowing through all the new polls, or even keeping up with all the state
and national poll averages, can be a time-consuming process. It's much easier to click on the latest
update from the model of your choice. When you see it registering the chances of the election going
a certain way at ninety per cent, or ninety-five per cent, it's easy to dismiss the other outcome
as a live possibility-particularly if you haven't been schooled in how to think in probabilistic
terms, which many people haven't.
The problem with models is that they rely so much on the polls. Essentially, they aggregate
poll numbers and use some simulation software to covert them into unidimensional probabilistic forecasts.
The details are complicated, and each model is different, but the bottom line is straightforward:
when the polls are fairly accurate-as they were in 2008 and 2012-the models look good. When the polls
are off, so are the models.
Silver, to his credit, pointed this out numerous times before the election. His model also allowed
for the possibility that errors in the state polls were likely to be correlated-i.e., if the polls
in Wisconsin got it wrong, then most likely the Michigan polls would get it wrong, too. This was
a big reason why FiveThirtyEight's model consistently gave Trump a better chance of winning than
other models did. But the fact remains that FiveThirtyEight, like almost everyone else, got the result
wrong.
I got it wrong, too. Unlike in 2012, I didn't make any explicit predictions this year. But based
on the polls and poll averages-I didn't look at the models much-I largely accepted the conventional
wisdom that Clinton was running ahead of Trump and had an enduring advantage in the Electoral College.
In mid-October, after the "Access Hollywood" tape emerged, I suggested that Trump was done.
Clearly, he wasn't. In retrospect, the F.B.I. Director James Comey's intervention ten days before
the election-telling Congress that his agency was taking another look at e-mails related to Clinton's
private server-may have proved decisive. The news seems to have shifted the national polls against
Clinton by at least a couple of points, and some of the state polls-in Ohio, Florida, North Carolina,
and other places-also moved sharply in Trump's direction. Without any doubt, it energized Republicans
and demoralized Democrats.
One thing we know for sure, however, is that in mid-October, even some of the indicators that
the Trump campaign relied on were sending out alarm signals. "Flash back three weeks, to October
18," Bloomberg News's Joshua Green and Sasha Issenberg reported on Thursday. "The Trump campaign's
internal election simulator, the 'Battleground Optimizer Path to Victory,' showed Trump with a 7.8
percent chance of winning. That's because his own model had him trailing in most of the states that
would decide the election, including the pivotal state of Florida."
Of course, neither the Battleground Optimizer Path to Victory software nor I knew that fate, in
the form of Comey, was about to take a hand.
"... It's a cliche to say that the cushiest positions of influence in any US administration go to figures who were seen to have brought something to the table during the campaign. ..."
"... a lot of high-ranking neoconservatives are expecting the exact opposite, figuring that they can step right into positions of power and influence despite openly campaigning against Trump. ..."
"... There are more than a few people who would normally be in line for top positions in a Republican White House, but who were very publicly part of the "Never Trump" crowd, attacking him throughout the primary and the general election. These same people are now making public their "willingness" to work with Trump. ..."
"... In other words, they want the usual spoils of victory, but having positioned themselves as so firmly in opposition to Trump's worldview, and to Trump in general, it's not at all clear how willing Trump's transition team is to consider such candidates for important positions. ..."
"... For many of the neocons, this is likely less about getting cushy jobs or fancy titles and more about ensuring that the US remains aggressively interventionist abroad. Indeed, many of these people split with Trump in the first place over concerns he was insufficiently hawkish, and now want jobs that would put them in a position to shift his new administration in those same hawkish directions. ..."
There are more than a few people who would normally be in line for top positions in a Republican
White House, but who were very publicly part of the "Never Trump" crowd, attacking him throughout
the primary and the general election. These same people are now making public their "willingness"
to work with Trump.
In other words, they want the usual spoils of victory, but having positioned themselves as
so firmly in opposition to Trump's worldview, and to Trump in general, it's not at all clear how
willing Trump's transition team is to consider such candidates for important positions.
The early indications are that a lot of the foreign policy-related positions are going to be led
by high-ranking former military officials who backed Trump's candidacy, with officials noting that
long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have left them with a lot of such officials to choose from.
For many of the neocons, this is likely less about getting cushy jobs or fancy titles and
more about ensuring that the US remains aggressively interventionist abroad. Indeed, many of these
people split with Trump in the first place over concerns he was insufficiently hawkish, and now want
jobs that would put them in a position to shift his new administration in those same hawkish directions.
"... What happened? Why is this clique's triumphant return to power erupting in massive scandal this time around? Probably because we are living in an era during which much that was mysterious is suddenly becoming clear. Probably because Trump's "silent majority" suddenly saw before them someone they had been waiting for for a long time – a man ready to defend their interests. ..."
"... Perhaps also it is because the middle class is choking on its growing exasperation with the "elite caste" occupying its native country. And it finally became clear to the sober-minded American patriots in law enforcement that the return to power of the people responsible for the current global chaos could be a big threat to the US and rest of the world. Because, in the end, everyone has children and no one wants a new world war. ..."
Today Trump represents an entirely new party made up of half of the American electorate, and they
are ready for action. And whatever the eventual political structure of this new model, this is what
is shaping America's present reality. Moreover, this does not seem like such a unique situation.
It rather appears to be the final chapter of some ancient story, in which the convoluted plotlines
finally take shape and find resolution.
The circumstances are increasingly reminiscent of 1860, when Lincoln's election so enraged the
South that those states began agitating for secession. Trump is today symbolic of a very real American
tradition that during
the Civil War (1860-1865) ran headlong into American revolutionary liberalism for the first time.
Right up until World War I traditional American conservatism wore the guise of "isolationism."
Prior to WWII it was known as "non-interventionism." Afterward, that movement attempted to use
Sen. Joseph
McCarthy to battle the left-liberal stranglehold. And in the 1960s it became the primary target
of the "counter-cultural revolution."
Its last bastion was
Richard
Nixon , whose fall was the result of an unprecedented attack from the left-liberal press in 1974.
And this is perhaps the example against which we should compare the present-day Trump and his current
fight.
And by the way, the crimes of Hillary Clinton, who has failed to protect state secrets and has
repeatedly been caught lying under oath, clearly outweigh the notorious Watergate scandal that led
to Nixon's forced resignation under threat of impeachment. But the liberal American media remains
silent, as if nothing has happened.
By all indications it is clear that we are standing before a truly epochal moment. But before
turning to the future that might await us, let's take a quick glance at the history of conflict between
revolutionary liberalism and traditional white conservatism in the US.
***
Immediately after WWII, an attack on two fronts was launched by the party of "expansionism" (we'll
call it that). The Soviet Union and Communism were designated the number one enemy. Enemy number
two (with less hype) was traditional American conservatism. The war against traditional "Americanism"
was waged by several intellectual fringe groups simultaneously.
The country's cultural and intellectual life was under the absolute control of a group known as
the " New York
Intellectuals ." Literary criticism as well as all other aspects of the nation's literary life
was in the hands of this small group of literary curators who had emerged from the milieu of a Trotskyist-communist
magazine known as the
Partisan Review (PR). No one could become a professional writer in the America of the 1950s and
1960s without being carefully screened by this sect.
The foundational tenets of American political philosophy and sociology were composed by militants
from the Frankfurt School
, which had been established during the interwar period in Weimar Germany and which moved to
the US after the National Socialists took power. Here, retraining their sights from communist to
liberal, they set out to design a "theory of totalitarianism" in addition to their concept of an
"authoritarian personality" – both hostile to "democracy."
The "New York Intellectuals" and representatives of the Frankfurt School became friends, and
Hannah Arendt , for example, was an
authoritative representative of both sects. This is where future neocons (Norman Podhoretz, Eliot
A. Cohen, and Irving Kristol) gained their experience. The former leader of the Trotskyist Fourth
International and godfather of the neocons,
Max Shachtman , held a place
of honor in the "family of intellectuals."
The anthropological school of Franz Boas and Freudianism reigned over the worlds of psychology
and sociology at that time. The Boasian approach in psychology argued that genetic, national, and
racial differences between individuals were of no importance (thus the concepts of "national culture"
and "national community" were meaningless).
Psychoanalysis also became fashionable, which primarily aimed to supplant traditional church institutions
and become a type of quasi-religion for the middle class.
The common denominator linking all these movements was anti-fascism. Did something look fishy
in this? But the problem was that the traditional values of the nation, state, and family were all
labeled "fascist." From this standpoint, any white Christian man aware of his cultural and national
identity was potentially a "fascist."
Kevin MacDonald, a professor of psychology at California State University, analyzed in detail
the seizure of America's cultural, political, and mental landscape by these "liberal sects" in his
brilliant book The Culture
of Critique , writing:
"The New York Intellectuals, for example, developed ties with elite universities, particularly
Harvard, Columbia, the University of Chicago, and the University of California-Berkeley, while
psychoanalysis and anthropology became well entrenched throughout academia.
"The moral and intellectual elite established by these movements dominated intellectual
discourse during a critical period after World War II and leading into the countercultural revolution
of the 1960s."
It was precisely this intellectual milieu that spawned the countercultural revolution of the 1960s.
Riding the wave of these sentiments, the new
Immigration and Nationality Act was passed in 1965, encouraging this phenomenon and facilitating
the integration of immigrants into US society. The architects of the law wanted to use the celebrated
melting pot to "dilute" the "potentially fascist" descendants of European immigrants by making use
of new ethno-cultural elements.
The 60s revolution opened the door to the American political establishment to representatives
from both wings of the expansionist "party" – the neo-liberals and the neo-conservatives.
Besieged by the left-liberal press in 1974, Richard Nixon resigned under threat of impeachment.
In the same year the US Congress passed the
Jackson-Vanik
Amendment (drafted by Richard
Perle ), which emerged as a symbol of the country's "new political agenda" – economic war against
the Soviet Union using sanctions and boycotts.
At that same time the "hippie generation" was joining the Democratic Party on the coattails of
Senator George McGovern's campaign . And that was when Bill Clinton's smiling countenance first
emerged on the US political horizon.
And the future neo-conservatives (at that time still disciples of the Democratic hawk Henry "Scoop"
Jackson) began to slowly edge in the direction of the Republicans.
In 1976, Mr. Rumsfeld and his fellow neo-conservatives resurrected the
Committee
on the Present Danger , an inter-party club for political hawks whose goal became the launch
of an all-out propaganda war against the USSR.
Former Trotskyists and followers of Max Shachtman (Kristol, Podhoretz, and Jeane Kirkpatrick)
and advisers to Sen. Henry Jackson (Paul Wolfowitz, Perle, Elliott Abrams, Charles Horner, and Douglas
Feith) joined Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and other "Christian" politicians with the intention
of launching a "campaign to transform the world."
This is where the neocons' "nonpartisan ideology" originated. And eventually today's "inalterable
US government" hatched from this egg.
American politics began to acquire its current shape during the Reagan era. In economics this
was seen in the policy of neoliberalism (politics waged in the interests of big financial capital)
and in foreign policy – in a strategy consisting of "holy war against the forces of evil." The Nixon-Kissinger
tradition of foreign policy (which viewed the Soviet Union and China as a normal countries with which
is essential to find common ground) was entirely abandoned.
The collapse of the USSR was a sign of the onset of the final phase of the "neocon revolution."
At that point their protégé, Francis Fukuyama, announced the "end of history."
***
As the years passed, the influence of the neo-conservatives (in politics) and neoliberals (in
economics) only expanded. Through all manner of committees, foundations, "think tanks," etc., the
students of Milton Friedman and Leo Strauss (from the departments of economics and political science
at the University of Chicago) penetrated ever more deeply into the inner workings of the Washington
power machine. The apotheosis of this expansion was the presidency of George W. Bush, during which
the neocons, having seized the primary instruments of power in the White House, were able to plunge
the country into the folly of a war in the Middle East.
By the end of the Bush presidency this clique was the object of universal hatred throughout the
US. That's why the middle-ground, innocuous figure of Barack Obama, a Democrat, was able to move
into the White House for the next eight years. The neocons stepped down from their central rostrums
of power and returned to their "influential committees." It is likely that this election was intended
to facilitate the triumphant return of the neoconservative-neoliberal paradigm all wrapped up in
"new packaging." For various reasons, the decision was made to assign this role to Hillary Clinton.
But it seems that at the most critical moment the flimsy packaging ripped open
What happened? Why is this clique's triumphant return to power erupting in massive scandal this
time around? Probably because we are living in an era during which much that was mysterious is suddenly
becoming clear. Probably because Trump's "silent majority" suddenly saw before them someone they
had been waiting for for a long time – a man ready to defend their interests.
Perhaps also it is because the middle class is choking on its growing exasperation with the "elite
caste" occupying its native country. And it finally became clear to the sober-minded American patriots
in law enforcement that the return to power of the people responsible for the current global chaos
could be a big threat to the US and rest of the world. Because, in the end, everyone has children
and no one wants a new world war.
How will this new conservative revolt against the elite end? Will Trump manage to "drain the swamp
of Washington, DC" as he has promised, or he will end up as the system's next victim? Very soon we
can finally get an answer to these questions.
Donald Trump's success or failure as the next US president will
largely depend on his ability to keep his independence from the "shadow government" and elite
structures that shaped the policies of previous administrations, former presidential candidate
Ron Paul told RT.
[...]
"
Unfortunately, there has been several neoconservatives that
are getting closer to Trump. And if gets his advice from them then I do not think that is a good
sign,
" Paul told the host of RT's Crosstalk show Peter Lavelle.
The retired Congressman said that people voted for Trump because
he stood against the deep corruption in the establishment, that was further exposed during the
campaign by WikiLeaks, and because of his disapproval of meddling in the wider Middle East.
"
During the campaign, he did talk a little bit about backing
off and being less confrontational to Russia and I like that. He criticized some the wars in the
Middle East at the same time. He believes we should accelerate the war against ISIS and terrorism,
"
Paul noted.
[...]
"
But quite frankly there is an outside source which we refer
to as the 'deep state' or the 'shadow government'. There is a lot of influence by people which
are actually more powerful than our government itself, our president,
" the congressman said.
"
Yes, Trump is his own guy, more so than most of those who
have ever been in before. We hope he can maintain an independence and go in the right direction.
But I fear the fact that there is so much that can be done secretly, out of control of our apparent
government and out of the view of so many citizens,
" he added.
More:
https://www.rt.com/usa/366404-trump-ron-paul-crosstalk/
"... No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities to disrupt Trump during Obama's lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent of the speed at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one in 2004 and the other, ten years later, in 2014. ..."
"... The Soros-financed Russian singing group "Pussy Riot" released on YouTube an anti-Trump music video titled "Make America Great Again". The video went "viral" on the Internet. The video, which is profane and filled with violent acts, portrays a dystopian Trump presidency. Following the George Soros/Gene Sharp script to a tee, Pussy Riot member Nadya Tolokonnikova called for anti-Trump Americans to turn their anger into art, particularly music and visual art. The use of political graffiti is a popular Sharp tactic. The street protests and anti-Trump music and art were the first phase of Soros's Purple Revolution in America ..."
" No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political
operations launched their activities to disrupt Trump during Obama's lame-duck period and thereafter.
The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent of the speed at which protesters hit the
streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one in 2004
and the other, ten years later, in 2014.
As the Clintons were embracing purple in New York, street demonstrations, some violent, all
coordinated by the Soros-funded Moveon.org and "Black Lives Matter", broke out in New York, Los
Angeles, Chicago, Oakland, Nashville, Cleveland, Washington, Austin, Seattle, Philadelphia, Richmond,
St. Paul, Kansas City, Omaha, San Francisco, and some 200 other cities across the United States.
The Soros-financed Russian singing group "Pussy Riot" released on YouTube an anti-Trump music
video titled "Make America Great Again". The video went "viral" on the Internet. The video, which
is profane and filled with violent acts, portrays a dystopian Trump presidency. Following the
George Soros/Gene Sharp script to a tee, Pussy Riot member Nadya Tolokonnikova called for anti-Trump
Americans to turn their anger into art, particularly music and visual art. The use of political
graffiti is a popular Sharp tactic. The street protests and anti-Trump music and art were the
first phase of Soros's Purple Revolution in America."
He will be staging them as long as he has enough health to try. Of course he is not the only player.
Soros is just one of the agents of western imperialism.
Reply
"... No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities to disrupt Trump during Obama's lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent of the speed at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one in 2004 and the other, ten years later, in 2014. ..."
"... One of Trump's political advertisements, released just prior to Election Day, stated that George Soros, Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen, and Goldman Sachs chief executive officer Lloyd Blankfein, are all part of "a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities". Soros and his minions immediately and ridiculously attacked the ad as "anti-Semitic". President Trump should be on guard against those who his campaign called out in the ad and their colleagues. Soros's son, Alexander Soros, called on Trump's daughter, Ivanka, and her husband Jared Kushner, to publicly disavow Trump. Soros's tactics not only seek to split apart nations but also families. Trump must be on guard against the current and future machinations of George Soros, including his Purple Revolution. ..."
Defeated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is not about to "go quietly into that good night". On the morning
after her surprising and unanticipated defeat at the hands of Republican Party upstart Donald Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her husband,
former President Bill Clinton, entered the ball room of the art-deco New Yorker hotel in midtown Manhattan and were both adorned
in purple attire. The press immediately noticed the color and asked what it represented. Clinton spokespeople claimed it was to represent
the coming together of Democratic "Blue America" and Republican "Red America" into a united purple blend. This statement was a complete
ruse as is known by citizens of countries targeted in the past by the vile political operations of international hedge fund tycoon
George Soros.
The Clintons, who both have received millions of dollars in campaign contributions and Clinton Foundation donations from Soros,
were, in fact, helping to launch Soros's "Purple Revolution" in America. The Purple Revolution will resist all efforts by the Trump
administration to push back against the globalist policies of the Clintons and soon-to-be ex-President Barack Obama. The Purple Revolution
will also seek to make the Trump administration a short one through Soros-style street protests and political disruption.
It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of
Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation
faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care. However, House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said he will continue hearings in the Republican-controlled Congress on Hillary Clinton, the
Clinton Foundation, and Mrs. Clinton's aide
Huma Abedin
. President Trump should not allow himself to be distracted by these efforts. Chaffetz was not one of Trump's most loyal supporters.
America's globalists and interventionists are already pushing the meme that because so many establishment and entrenched national
security and military "experts" opposed Trump's candidacy, Trump is "required" to call on them to join his administration because
there are not enough such "experts" among Trump's inner circle of advisers.
Discredited neo-conservatives from George W. Bush's White House, such as Iraq war co-conspirator Stephen Hadley, are being mentioned
as someone Trump should have join his National Security Council and other senior positions. George H. W. Bush's Secretary of State
James Baker, a die-hard Bush loyalist, is also being proffered as a member of Trump's White House team.
There is absolutely no reason for Trump to seek the advice from old Republican fossils like Baker, Hadley, former Secretaries
of State Rice and Powell, the lunatic former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and others. There are plenty of Trump
supporters who have a wealth of experience in foreign and national security matters, including those of African, Haitian, Hispanic,
and Arab descent and who are not neocons, who can fill Trump's senior- and middle-level positions.
Trump must distance himself from sudden well-wishing neocons, adventurists, militarists, and interventionists and not permit them
to infest his administration. If Mrs. Clinton had won the presidency, an article on the incoming administration would have read as
follows:
"Based on the militarism and foreign adventurism of her term as Secretary of State and her husband Bill Clinton's two terms
as president, the world is in store for major American military aggression on multiple fronts around the world. President-elect
Hillary Clinton has made no secret of her desire to confront Russia militarily, diplomatically, and economically in the Middle
East, on Russia's very doorstep in eastern Europe, and even within the borders of the Russian Federation. Mrs. Clinton has dusted
off the long-discredited 'containment' policy ushered into effect by Professor George F. Kennan in the aftermath of World War.
Mrs. Clinton's administration will likely promote the most strident neo-Cold Warriors of the Barack Obama administration, including
Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, a personal favorite of Clinton".
President-elect Trump cannot afford to permit those who are in the same web as Nuland, Hadley, Bolton, and others to join his
administration where they would metastasize like an aggressive form of cancer. These individuals would not carry out Trump's policies
but seek to continue to damage America's relations with Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, and other nations.
Not only must Trump have to deal with Republican neocons trying to worm their way into his administration, but he must deal with
the attempt by Soros to disrupt his presidency and the United States with a Purple Revolution
No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their
activities to disrupt Trump during Obama's lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent
of the speed at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one
in 2004 and the other, ten years later, in 2014.
As the Clintons were embracing purple in New York, street demonstrations, some violent, all coordinated by the Soros-funded Moveon.org
and "Black Lives Matter", broke out in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Oakland, Nashville, Cleveland, Washington, Austin, Seattle,
Philadelphia, Richmond, St. Paul, Kansas City, Omaha, San Francisco, and some 200 other cities across the United States.
The Soros-financed Russian singing group "Pussy Riot" released on YouTube an anti-Trump music video titled "Make America Great
Again". The video went "viral" on the Internet. The video, which is profane and filled with violent acts, portrays a dystopian Trump
presidency. Following the George Soros/Gene Sharp script to a tee, Pussy Riot member Nadya Tolokonnikova called for anti-Trump Americans
to turn their anger into art, particularly music and visual art. The use of political graffiti is a popular Sharp tactic. The street
protests and anti-Trump music and art were the first phase of Soros's Purple Revolution in America.
President-elect Trump is facing a two-pronged attack by his opponents. One, led by entrenched neo-con bureaucrats, including former
Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff,
and Bush family loyalists are seeking to call the shots on who Trump appoints to senior national security, intelligence, foreign
policy, and defense positions in his administration. These neo-Cold Warriors are trying to convince Trump that he must maintain the
Obama aggressiveness and militancy toward Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and other countries. The second front arrayed against
Trump is from Soros-funded political groups and media. This second line of attack is a propaganda war, utilizing hundreds of anti-Trump
newspapers, web sites, and broadcasters, that will seek to undermine public confidence in the Trump administration from its outset.
One of Trump's political advertisements, released just prior to Election Day, stated that George Soros, Federal Reserve chair
Janet Yellen, and Goldman Sachs chief executive officer Lloyd Blankfein, are all part of "a global power structure that is responsible
for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets
of a handful of large corporations and political entities". Soros and his minions immediately and ridiculously attacked the ad as
"anti-Semitic". President Trump should be on guard against those who his campaign called out in the ad and their colleagues. Soros's
son, Alexander Soros, called on Trump's daughter, Ivanka, and her husband Jared Kushner, to publicly disavow Trump. Soros's tactics
not only seek to split apart nations but also families. Trump must be on guard against the current and future machinations of George
Soros, including his Purple Revolution.
WikiLeaks series on deals involving
Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons
and was President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also owns the
Podesta Group with his brother Tony, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for
American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank.
globinfo freexchange
A letter under the title "Stay out of Syria" from
Jon Soltz
, an Iraq War Veteran and founder
of VoteVets.org, to John Podesta in May, 2013, confirms the multiple, serious warnings that the
Clinton/Podesta complex
had received about
the implications of the US involvement on Syrian mess.
Soltz's warnings couldn't be more clear. He points that "
arming
and training the Syrian rebels is a misguided and dangerous idea
" and that he helped to train
the Iraqi Army, and "
their concern is that many of the anti-Assad forces are the same terrorists
they've fought before and who continue to target them
". He also writes that "
there is no
winning scenario when we get involved in other nations' civil wars and proxy wars
".
Most important parts of the short letter:
Earlier this week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
voted 15-3 in favor of arming and training the Syrian rebels. This is a misguided and dangerous
idea. I helped to train the Iraqi Army during my second tour, and their concern is that
many
of the anti-Assad forces are the same terrorists they've fought before and who continue to target
them
. Plus, as Senator Tom Udall noted,
once we introduce weapons, we have zero control
over them
. The United States "could turn over the weapons we're talking about and next day
they end up in the hands of al-Qaida." Three Senators voted against the bill in committee, but
we need you to send a strong message to the other 97 that you oppose intervention in Syria's civil
war.
Moreover,
there is no winning scenario when we get involved
in other nations' civil wars and proxy wars
. On this point, Senator Chris Murphy said it best:
"We have failed over and over again in our attempts to pull the strings of Middle Eastern politics."
Let's not make the same mistake again.
Full letter:
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/59165
Recall that, another letter from Clinton email
series, released also by WikiLeaks, proves that
Hillary had been seriously warned about the
oncoming Syrian chaos
,
already since 2011.
Apparently, the Clinton/Podesta complex completely ignored those
serious warnings. Hillary and her team are totally responsible for doing nothing to prevent, or
at least restrict, the Middle East chaos.
Donald Trump's success or failure as the next US president will
largely depend on his ability to keep his independence from the "shadow government" and elite
structures that shaped the policies of previous administrations, former presidential candidate
Ron Paul told RT.
[...]
"
Unfortunately, there has been several neoconservatives that
are getting closer to Trump. And if gets his advice from them then I do not think that is a good
sign,
" Paul told the host of RT's Crosstalk show Peter Lavelle.
The retired Congressman said that people voted for Trump because
he stood against the deep corruption in the establishment, that was further exposed during the
campaign by WikiLeaks, and because of his disapproval of meddling in the wider Middle East.
"
During the campaign, he did talk a little bit about backing
off and being less confrontational to Russia and I like that. He criticized some the wars in the
Middle East at the same time. He believes we should accelerate the war against ISIS and terrorism,
"
Paul noted.
[...]
"
But quite frankly there is an outside source which we refer
to as the 'deep state' or the 'shadow government'. There is a lot of influence by people which
are actually more powerful than our government itself, our president,
" the congressman said.
"
Yes, Trump is his own guy, more so than most of those who
have ever been in before. We hope he can maintain an independence and go in the right direction.
But I fear the fact that there is so much that can be done secretly, out of control of our apparent
government and out of the view of so many citizens,
" he added.
More:
https://www.rt.com/usa/366404-trump-ron-paul-crosstalk/
"... No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities to disrupt Trump during Obama's lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent of the speed at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one in 2004 and the other, ten years later, in 2014. ..."
"... One of Trump's political advertisements, released just prior to Election Day, stated that George Soros, Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen, and Goldman Sachs chief executive officer Lloyd Blankfein, are all part of "a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities". Soros and his minions immediately and ridiculously attacked the ad as "anti-Semitic". President Trump should be on guard against those who his campaign called out in the ad and their colleagues. Soros's son, Alexander Soros, called on Trump's daughter, Ivanka, and her husband Jared Kushner, to publicly disavow Trump. Soros's tactics not only seek to split apart nations but also families. Trump must be on guard against the current and future machinations of George Soros, including his Purple Revolution. ..."
Defeated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is not about to "go quietly into that good night". On the morning
after her surprising and unanticipated defeat at the hands of Republican Party upstart Donald Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her husband,
former President Bill Clinton, entered the ball room of the art-deco New Yorker hotel in midtown Manhattan and were both adorned
in purple attire. The press immediately noticed the color and asked what it represented. Clinton spokespeople claimed it was to represent
the coming together of Democratic "Blue America" and Republican "Red America" into a united purple blend. This statement was a complete
ruse as is known by citizens of countries targeted in the past by the vile political operations of international hedge fund tycoon
George Soros.
The Clintons, who both have received millions of dollars in campaign contributions and Clinton Foundation donations from Soros,
were, in fact, helping to launch Soros's "Purple Revolution" in America. The Purple Revolution will resist all efforts by the Trump
administration to push back against the globalist policies of the Clintons and soon-to-be ex-President Barack Obama. The Purple Revolution
will also seek to make the Trump administration a short one through Soros-style street protests and political disruption.
It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of
Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation
faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care. However, House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said he will continue hearings in the Republican-controlled Congress on Hillary Clinton, the
Clinton Foundation, and Mrs. Clinton's aide
Huma Abedin
. President Trump should not allow himself to be distracted by these efforts. Chaffetz was not one of Trump's most loyal supporters.
America's globalists and interventionists are already pushing the meme that because so many establishment and entrenched national
security and military "experts" opposed Trump's candidacy, Trump is "required" to call on them to join his administration because
there are not enough such "experts" among Trump's inner circle of advisers.
Discredited neo-conservatives from George W. Bush's White House, such as Iraq war co-conspirator Stephen Hadley, are being mentioned
as someone Trump should have join his National Security Council and other senior positions. George H. W. Bush's Secretary of State
James Baker, a die-hard Bush loyalist, is also being proffered as a member of Trump's White House team.
There is absolutely no reason for Trump to seek the advice from old Republican fossils like Baker, Hadley, former Secretaries
of State Rice and Powell, the lunatic former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and others. There are plenty of Trump
supporters who have a wealth of experience in foreign and national security matters, including those of African, Haitian, Hispanic,
and Arab descent and who are not neocons, who can fill Trump's senior- and middle-level positions.
Trump must distance himself from sudden well-wishing neocons, adventurists, militarists, and interventionists and not permit them
to infest his administration. If Mrs. Clinton had won the presidency, an article on the incoming administration would have read as
follows:
"Based on the militarism and foreign adventurism of her term as Secretary of State and her husband Bill Clinton's two terms
as president, the world is in store for major American military aggression on multiple fronts around the world. President-elect
Hillary Clinton has made no secret of her desire to confront Russia militarily, diplomatically, and economically in the Middle
East, on Russia's very doorstep in eastern Europe, and even within the borders of the Russian Federation. Mrs. Clinton has dusted
off the long-discredited 'containment' policy ushered into effect by Professor George F. Kennan in the aftermath of World War.
Mrs. Clinton's administration will likely promote the most strident neo-Cold Warriors of the Barack Obama administration, including
Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, a personal favorite of Clinton".
President-elect Trump cannot afford to permit those who are in the same web as Nuland, Hadley, Bolton, and others to join his
administration where they would metastasize like an aggressive form of cancer. These individuals would not carry out Trump's policies
but seek to continue to damage America's relations with Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, and other nations.
Not only must Trump have to deal with Republican neocons trying to worm their way into his administration, but he must deal with
the attempt by Soros to disrupt his presidency and the United States with a Purple Revolution
No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their
activities to disrupt Trump during Obama's lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent
of the speed at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one
in 2004 and the other, ten years later, in 2014.
As the Clintons were embracing purple in New York, street demonstrations, some violent, all coordinated by the Soros-funded Moveon.org
and "Black Lives Matter", broke out in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Oakland, Nashville, Cleveland, Washington, Austin, Seattle,
Philadelphia, Richmond, St. Paul, Kansas City, Omaha, San Francisco, and some 200 other cities across the United States.
The Soros-financed Russian singing group "Pussy Riot" released on YouTube an anti-Trump music video titled "Make America Great
Again". The video went "viral" on the Internet. The video, which is profane and filled with violent acts, portrays a dystopian Trump
presidency. Following the George Soros/Gene Sharp script to a tee, Pussy Riot member Nadya Tolokonnikova called for anti-Trump Americans
to turn their anger into art, particularly music and visual art. The use of political graffiti is a popular Sharp tactic. The street
protests and anti-Trump music and art were the first phase of Soros's Purple Revolution in America.
President-elect Trump is facing a two-pronged attack by his opponents. One, led by entrenched neo-con bureaucrats, including former
Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff,
and Bush family loyalists are seeking to call the shots on who Trump appoints to senior national security, intelligence, foreign
policy, and defense positions in his administration. These neo-Cold Warriors are trying to convince Trump that he must maintain the
Obama aggressiveness and militancy toward Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and other countries. The second front arrayed against
Trump is from Soros-funded political groups and media. This second line of attack is a propaganda war, utilizing hundreds of anti-Trump
newspapers, web sites, and broadcasters, that will seek to undermine public confidence in the Trump administration from its outset.
One of Trump's political advertisements, released just prior to Election Day, stated that George Soros, Federal Reserve chair
Janet Yellen, and Goldman Sachs chief executive officer Lloyd Blankfein, are all part of "a global power structure that is responsible
for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets
of a handful of large corporations and political entities". Soros and his minions immediately and ridiculously attacked the ad as
"anti-Semitic". President Trump should be on guard against those who his campaign called out in the ad and their colleagues. Soros's
son, Alexander Soros, called on Trump's daughter, Ivanka, and her husband Jared Kushner, to publicly disavow Trump. Soros's tactics
not only seek to split apart nations but also families. Trump must be on guard against the current and future machinations of George
Soros, including his Purple Revolution.
"... Ideally, the next step would be for Trump and Putin to meet, with all their key ministers, in a long, Camp David like week of negotiations in which everything, every outstanding dispute, should be put on the table and a compromise sought in each case. Paradoxically, this could be rather easy: the crisis in Europe is entirely artificial, the war in Syria has an absolutely obvious solution, and the international order can easily accommodate a United States which would " deal fairly with everyone, with everyone - all people and all other nations " and " seek common ground, not hostility; partnership, not conflict ". ..."
"... The truth is that the USA and Russia have no objective reasons for conflict – only ideological issues resulting directly from the insane ideology of messianic imperialism of those who believe, or pretend to believe, that the USA is an "indispensable nation". What the world wants – needs – is the USA as a *normal* nation. ..."
"... The worst case? Trump could turn out to be a total fraud. I personally very much doubt it, but I admit that this is possible. More likely is that he just won't have the foresight and courage to crush the Neocons and that he will try to placate them. If he does so, they will instead crush him. It is a fact that while administrations have changed every 4 or 8 years, the regime in power has not, and that US internal and foreign policies have been amazingly consistent since the end of WWII. Will Trump finally bring not just a new administration but real "regime change"? I don't know. ..."
"... Alexander Solzhenitsyn used to say that regimes can be measured on a spectrum which ranges from regimes whose authority is their power and regimes whose power in in their authority. In the case of the USA we now clearly can see that the regime has no other authority than its power and that makes it both illegitimate and unsustainable. ..."
"... Finally, whether the US elites can accept this or not, the US Empire is coming to an end. ..."
"... With Hillary, we would have had a Titanic-like denial up to the last moment which might well have come in the shape of a thermonuclear mushroom over Washington DC. Trump, however, might use the remaining power of the USA to negotiate the US global draw-down thereby getting the best possible conditions for his country. ..."
So it has happened: Hillary did not win! I say that instead of saying that "Trump won" because
I consider the former even more important than the latter. Why? Because I have no idea whatsoever
what Trump will do next. I do, however, have an excellent idea of what Hillary would have done: war
with Russia. Trump most likely won't do that. In fact, he specifically said in his acceptance speech:
I want to tell the world community that while we will always put America's interests first,
we will deal fairly with everyone, with everyone - all people and all other nations. We will seek
common ground, not hostility; partnership, not conflict .
And Putin's reply was immediate:
We heard the statements he made as candidate for president expressing a desire to restore relations
between our countries. We realise and understand that this will not be an easy road given the
level to which our relations have degraded today, regrettably. But, as I have said before, it
is not Russia's fault that our relations with the United States have reached this point.
Russia is ready to and seeks a return to full-format relations with the United States. Let
me say again, we know that this will not be easy, but are ready to take this road, take steps
on our side and do all we can to set Russian-US relations back on a stable development track.
This would benefit both the Russian and American peoples and would have a positive impact on
the general climate in international affairs, given the particular responsibility that Russia
and the US share for maintaining global stability and security.
This exchange, right there, is enough of a reason for the entire planet to rejoice at the defeat
of Hillary and the victory of Trump.
Will Trump now have the courage, willpower and intelligence to purge the US Executive from the
Neocon cabal which has been infiltrating it for decades now? Will he have the strength to confront
an extremely hostile Congress and media? Or will he try to meet them halfway and naively hope that
they will not use their power, money and influence to sabotage his presidency?
I don't know. Nobody does.
One of the first signs to look for will be the names and backgrounds of the folks he will appoint
in his new administration. Especially his Chief of Staff and Secretary of State.
I have always said that the choice for the lesser evil is morally wrong and pragmatically misguided.
I still believe that. In this case, however, the greater evil was thermonuclear war with Russia and
the lesser evil just might turn out to be one which will gradually give up the Empire to save the
USA rather than sacrifice the USA for the needs of the Empire. In the case of Hillary vs Trump the
choice was simple: war or peace.
Trump can already be credited with am immense achievement: his campaign has forced the US corporate
media to show its true face – the face of an evil, lying, morally corrupt propaganda machine. The
American people by their vote have rewarded their media with a gigantic "f*ck you!" – a vote of no-confidence
and total rejection which will forever demolish the credibility of the Empire's propaganda machine.
I am not so naive as to not realize that billionaire Donald Trump is also one of the 1%ers, a
pure product of the US oligarchy. But neither am I so ignorant of history to forget that elites
do turn on each other , especially when their regime is threatened. Do I need to remind anybody
that Putin also came from the Soviet elites?!
Ideally, the next step would be for Trump and Putin to meet, with all their key ministers,
in a long, Camp David like week of negotiations in which everything, every outstanding dispute, should
be put on the table and a compromise sought in each case. Paradoxically, this could be rather easy:
the crisis in Europe is entirely artificial, the war in Syria has an absolutely obvious solution,
and the international order can easily accommodate a United States which would " deal fairly with
everyone, with everyone - all people and all other nations " and " seek common ground, not hostility;
partnership, not conflict ".
The truth is that the USA and Russia have no objective reasons for conflict – only ideological
issues resulting directly from the insane ideology of messianic imperialism of those who believe,
or pretend to believe, that the USA is an "indispensable nation". What the world wants – needs –
is the USA as a *normal* nation.
The worst case? Trump could turn out to be a total fraud. I personally very much doubt it,
but I admit that this is possible. More likely is that he just won't have the foresight and courage
to crush the Neocons and that he will try to placate them. If he does so, they will instead crush
him. It is a fact that while administrations have changed every 4 or 8 years, the regime in power
has not, and that US internal and foreign policies have been amazingly consistent since the end of
WWII. Will Trump finally bring not just a new administration but real "regime change"? I don't know.
Make no mistake – even if Trump does end up disappointing those who believed in him what happened
today has dealt a death blow to the Empire. The "Occupy Wall Street" did not succeed in achieving
anything tangible, but the notion of "rule of the 1%" did emerge from that movement and it stayed.
This is a direct blow to the credibility and legitimacy of the entire socio-political order
of the USA: far from being a democracy, it is a plutocracy/oligarchy – everybody pretty much accepts
that today. Likewise, the election of Trump has already proved that the US media is a prostitute
and that the majority of the American people hate their ruling class. Again, this is a direct blow
to the credibility and legitimacy of the entire socio-political order. One by one the founding
myths of the US Empire are crashing down and what remains is a system which can only rule by force.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn used to say that regimes can be measured on a spectrum which ranges
from regimes whose authority is their power and regimes whose power in in their authority. In the
case of the USA we now clearly can see that the regime has no other authority than its power and
that makes it both illegitimate and unsustainable.
Finally, whether the US elites can accept this or not, the US Empire is coming to an end.
With Hillary, we would have had a Titanic-like denial up to the last moment which might well
have come in the shape of a thermonuclear mushroom over Washington DC. Trump, however, might use
the remaining power of the USA to negotiate the US global draw-down thereby getting the best possible
conditions for his country. Frankly, I am pretty sure that all the key world leaders realize
that it is in their interest to make as many (reasonable) concessions to Trump as possible and work
with him, rather than to deal with the people whom he just removed from power.
If Trump can stick to his campaign promises he will find solid and reliable partners in
Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping. Neither Russia nor China have anything at all to gain from a confrontation
or, even less so, a conflict with the USA. Will Trump have the wisdom to realize this and use it
for the benefit of the USA? Or will he continue with his anti-Chinese and anti-Iranian rhetoric?
Donald Trump's proposal for $1 trillion worth of new infrastructure construction relies entirely
on private financing, which industry experts say is likely to fall far short of adequately funding
improvements to roads, bridges and airports.
The president-elect's infrastructure plan largely boils down to a tax break in the hopes of
luring capital to projects. He wants investors to put money into projects in exchange for tax
credits totaling 82% of the equity amount. His plan anticipates that lost tax revenue would be
recouped through new income-tax revenue from construction workers and business-tax revenue from
contractors, making the proposal essentially cost-free to the government.
Mr. Trump has made a $1 trillion infrastructure investment over 10 years one of his first priorities
as president, promising in his victory speech early Wednesday morning to "rebuild our highways,
bridges, tunnels, airports, schools, hospitals."
The Trump team's $1 trillion infrastructure investment plan over 10 years is laid out in a
description of the proposal on the website (#) of Peter Navarro, an adviser to Mr. Trump and a
public-policy professor at the University of California, Irvine. A presidential transition website
that went up this week (*) said Mr. Trump planned to invest $550 billion in infrastructure, without
offering details on where that funding would come from. Top Trump aides couldn't be reached to
comment on the proposal.
Experts and industry officials, though, say there are limits to how much can be done with private
financing. Because privately funded projects need to turn a profit, they are better suited for
major projects such as toll roads, airports or water systems and less appropriate for routine
maintenance, such as repaving a public street, they say.
Officials also doubt that the nation's aging infrastructure can be updated without a significant
infusion of public dollars. ...
"... Some of those applications are coming from the #NeverTrump crowd, the source said, and include former national security officials who signed one or more of the letters opposing Trump. ..."
"... Fifty GOP national security experts signed an August letter saying Trump "would put at risk our country's national security and well-being" because he "lacks the character, values and experience" to occupy the Oval Office, making him "the most reckless president in American history." ..."
"... Another bipartisan letter cited concern about potential foreign conflicts of interest Trump might encounter as president, and called on him to disclose them by releasing his tax returns. Trump has refused to do so, saying he is under audit and will make the returns public only once that is done. ..."
The extraordinary repudiation -- partly based on Trump's rejection of basic US foreign policy
tenets, including support for close allies -- helped spark the hashtag #NeverTrump. Now, a source
familiar with transition planning says that hard wall of resistance is crumbling fast.
There are "boxes" of applications, the source said. "There are many more than people realize."
Some of those applications are coming from the #NeverTrump crowd, the source said, and include
former national security officials who signed one or more of the letters opposing Trump. "Mea
culpas" are being considered -- and in some cases being granted, the source said -- for people who
did not go a step further in attacking Trump personally.
... ... ...
Fifty GOP national security experts signed an August letter saying Trump "would put at risk
our country's national security and well-being" because he "lacks the character, values and experience"
to occupy the Oval Office, making him "the most reckless president in American history."
Another bipartisan letter cited concern about potential foreign conflicts of interest Trump might
encounter as president, and called on him to disclose them by releasing his tax returns. Trump has
refused to do so, saying he is under audit and will make the returns public only once that is done.
It remains to be seen what kind of team Trump will pull together, how many "NeverTrumpers" will apply
for positions and to what degree the President-elect will be willing to accept them.
There's a fight underway within the Trump transition team about whether to consider "never Trumpers"
for jobs, one official tells CNN. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who is leading the transition
team, has been working to persuade Trump and other top officials to consider Republicans who openly
opposed his campaign. That has caused some friction with those who see no place for people who didn't
support their candidate.
"... America's globalists and interventionists are already pushing the meme that because so many establishment and entrenched national
security and military "experts" opposed Trump's candidacy, Trump is "required" to call on them to join his administration because there
are not enough such "experts" among Trump's inner circle of advisers. ..."
"... Discredited neo-conservatives from George W. Bush's White House, such as Iraq war co-conspirator Stephen Hadley, are being
mentioned as someone Trump should have join his National Security Council and other senior positions. George H. W. Bush's Secretary
of State James Baker, a die-hard Bush loyalist, is also being proffered as a member of Trump's White House team. ..."
"... There is absolutely no reason for Trump to seek the advice from old Republican fossils like Baker, Hadley, former Secretaries
of State Rice and Powell, the lunatic former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and others. There are plenty of Trump
supporters who have a wealth of experience in foreign and national security matters, including those of African, Haitian, Hispanic,
and Arab descent and who are not neocons, who can fill Trump's senior- and middle-level positions. ..."
"... Trump must distance himself from sudden well-wishing neocons, adventurists, militarists, and interventionists and not permit
them to infest his administration. ..."
"... PNAC: Project for New American Century. The main neocon lobby, it focused first on invading Iraq. Founded 1997, by William
Kristol & Robert Kagan. First action: open letter to Clinton advocating Iraq war. Members in the Iraq-War clique: Cheney, Rumsfeld,
Wolfowitz, Feith, BOLTON, Libby, Abrams, Wurmser, Perle. ..."
"... HE PROMISED he would appoint a special prosecutor, PROMISED... ..."
"... Trump should reverse the McCain Feingold bill. That would take some wind out of Soros' sails, at least temporarily because
that was Soros' bill. He wanted campaign finance reform which actually meant that he wanted to control campaign finance through 501C3
groups, or foundations such as Open Society, Moveon.org, Ella Baker society, Center for American progress, etc. He has a massive web
of these organizations and they fund smaller ones and all kinds of evil. ..."
"... Tyler, please rerun this! How George Sorros destroys countries, profits from currency trading, convinces the countries to privatize
its assets, buys them and then sells them for yet another profit: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-07-08/how-george-soros-singlehandedly...
..."
"... We know so little about Trump ... he's neoCon friendly to start with (remember he hired neoCon Grandee James Woolsey as an
advisor)... and remember too Trump is promising his own war against Iran ... ..."
"... JFK was gunned down in front of the whole world. ..."
"... If Trump really is a nationalist patriot he'll need to innoculate the Population about the Deep State... they in turn will
unleash financial disintegration and chaos, a Purple Revolution and then assassinate Trump (or have his own party impeach him) ..."
"... Organizing a means to receive the protestors' complaints may co-opt any organized effort to disrupt good political interaction
and it will also separate out the bad elements cited by Madsen. ..."
Defeated Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton is not about to "go quietly into that good night". On the morning
after her surprising and unanticipated defeat at the hands of Republican Party upstart Donald Trump, Mrs. Clinton and her husband,
former President Bill Clinton, entered the ball room of the art-deco New Yorker hotel in midtown Manhattan and were both adorned
in purple attire. The press immediately noticed the color and asked what it represented. Clinton spokespeople claimed it was to represent
the coming together of Democratic "Blue America" and Republican "Red America" into a united purple blend. This statement was a complete
ruse as is known by citizens of countries targeted in the past by the vile political operations of international hedge fund tycoon
George Soros.
The Clintons, who both have received millions of dollars in campaign contributions and Clinton Foundation donations from Soros,
were, in fact, helping to launch Soros's "Purple Revolution" in America. The Purple Revolution will resist all efforts by the Trump
administration to push back against the globalist policies of the Clintons and soon-to-be ex-President Barack Obama. The Purple Revolution
will also seek to make the Trump administration a short one through Soros-style street protests and political disruption.
It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation of
Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when the nation
faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care. However, House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said he will continue hearings in the Republican-controlled Congress on Hillary Clinton, the
Clinton Foundation, and Mrs. Clinton's aide
Huma Abedin
. President Trump should not allow himself to be distracted by these efforts. Chaffetz was not one of Trump's most loyal supporters.
America's globalists and interventionists are already pushing the meme that because so many establishment and entrenched national
security and military "experts" opposed Trump's candidacy, Trump is "required" to call on them to join his administration because
there are not enough such "experts" among Trump's inner circle of advisers.
Discredited neo-conservatives from George W. Bush's White House, such as Iraq war co-conspirator Stephen Hadley, are being
mentioned as someone Trump should have join his National Security Council and other senior positions. George H. W. Bush's Secretary
of State James Baker, a die-hard Bush loyalist, is also being proffered as a member of Trump's White House team.
There is absolutely no reason for Trump to seek the advice from old Republican fossils like Baker, Hadley, former Secretaries
of State Rice and Powell, the lunatic former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and others. There are plenty of Trump
supporters who have a wealth of experience in foreign and national security matters, including those of African, Haitian, Hispanic,
and Arab descent and who are not neocons, who can fill Trump's senior- and middle-level positions.
Trump must distance himself from sudden well-wishing neocons, adventurists, militarists, and interventionists and not permit
them to infest his administration. If Mrs. Clinton had won the presidency, an article on the incoming administration would have
read as follows:
"Based on the militarism and foreign adventurism of her term as Secretary of State and her husband Bill Clinton's two terms
as president, the world is in store for major American military aggression on multiple fronts around the world. President-elect
Hillary Clinton has made no secret of her desire to confront Russia militarily, diplomatically, and economically in the Middle
East, on Russia's very doorstep in eastern Europe, and even within the borders of the Russian Federation. Mrs. Clinton has dusted
off the long-discredited 'containment' policy ushered into effect by Professor George F. Kennan in the aftermath of World War.
Mrs. Clinton's administration will likely promote the most strident neo-Cold Warriors of the Barack Obama administration, including
Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland, a personal favorite of Clinton".
President-elect Trump cannot afford to permit those who are in the same web as Nuland, Hadley, Bolton, and others to join his
administration where they would metastasize like an aggressive form of cancer. These individuals would not carry out Trump's policies
but seek to continue to damage America's relations with Russia, China, Iran, Cuba, and other nations.
Not only must Trump have to deal with Republican neocons trying to worm their way into his administration, but he must deal with
the attempt by Soros to disrupt his presidency and the United States with a Purple Revolution
No sooner had Trump been declared the 45th president of the United States, Soros-funded political operations launched their activities
to disrupt Trump during Obama's lame-duck period and thereafter. The swiftness of the Purple Revolution is reminiscent of the speed
at which protesters hit the streets of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, in two Orange Revolutions sponsored by Soros, one in 2004 and
the other, ten years later, in 2014.
As the Clintons were embracing purple in New York, street demonstrations, some violent, all coordinated by the Soros-funded Moveon.org
and "Black Lives Matter", broke out in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Oakland, Nashville, Cleveland, Washington, Austin, Seattle,
Philadelphia, Richmond, St. Paul, Kansas City, Omaha, San Francisco, and some 200 other cities across the United States.
The Soros-financed Russian singing group "Pussy Riot" released on YouTube an anti-Trump music video titled "Make America Great
Again". The video went "viral" on the Internet. The video, which is profane and filled with violent acts, portrays a dystopian Trump
presidency. Following the George Soros/Gene Sharp script to a tee, Pussy Riot member Nadya Tolokonnikova called for anti-Trump Americans
to turn their anger into art, particularly music and visual art. The use of political graffiti is a popular Sharp tactic. The street
protests and anti-Trump music and art were the first phase of Soros's Purple Revolution in America.
President-elect Trump is facing a two-pronged attack by his opponents. One, led by entrenched neo-con bureaucrats, including former
Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Agency director Michael Hayden, former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff,
and Bush family loyalists are seeking to call the shots on who Trump appoints to senior national security, intelligence, foreign
policy, and defense positions in his administration. These neo-Cold Warriors are trying to convince Trump that he must maintain the
Obama aggressiveness and militancy toward Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, and other countries. The second front arrayed against
Trump is from Soros-funded political groups and media. This second line of attack is a propaganda war, utilizing hundreds of anti-Trump
newspapers, web sites, and broadcasters, that will seek to undermine public confidence in the Trump administration from its outset.
One of Trump's political advertisements, released just prior to Election Day, stated that George Soros, Federal Reserve chair
Janet Yellen, and Goldman Sachs chief executive officer Lloyd Blankfein, are all part of "a global power structure that is responsible
for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets
of a handful of large corporations and political entities". Soros and his minions immediately and ridiculously attacked the ad as
"anti-Semitic". President Trump should be on guard against those who his campaign called out in the ad and their colleagues. Soros's
son, Alexander Soros, called on Trump's daughter, Ivanka, and her husband Jared Kushner, to publicly disavow Trump. Soros's tactics
not only seek to split apart nations but also families. Trump must be on guard against the current and future machinations of George
Soros, including his Purple Revolution.
"It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation
of Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when
the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care."
None of those "pressing issues" involve the DOJ or the FBI.
Investigate, prosecute and jail Hillary Clinton and her crew.
Trump is going to need a hostage or two to deal with these fucks.
News for the Clintons, The R's and D's already united to vote against Hillary.
I do not understand why they think street protests will bring down a POTUS? And that would be acceptable in a major nation.
Why isn't the government cracking down the separatists in Oregon, California, and elsewhere? They are not accepting the legal
outcome of an election. They are calling for illegal secession. (Funny in 1861 this was a cause for the federal government to
attack the joint and seveal states of the union.) If a group of whites had protested Obama's election in 2008?
The people living in Kalispell are reviled and ridiculed for their separatist views. Randy Weaver and family for not accepting
politically correct views. And so on.
This is getting out of hand. There will be no walking this back.
Purple is the color of royalty! Are these fuckers proclaiming themselves as King and Queen of America? If so, get the executioner
and give them a "French Haircut"!
"Yes. And who are the neocons really? Progressives. Neocon is a label successfully used by criminal progressives to shield
their brand."
Well let's go a little bit deeper in examing the 'who' thing:
"The neoconservative movement, which is generally perceived as a radical (rather than "conservative") Republican right,
is, in reality, an intellectual movement born in the late 1960s in the pages of the monthly magazine Commentary , a media arm
of the American Jewish Committee , which had replaced the Contemporary Jewish Record in 1945. The Forward , the oldest American
Jewish weekly, wrote in a January 6th, 2006 article signed Gal Beckerman: " If there is an intellectual movement in America
to whose invention Jews can lay sole claim, neoconservatism is it.... "
The idea of arresting the Clinton Crime, Fraud and Crime Family would be welcomed. BUT, who is going to arrest them? Loretta Lynch,
James Comey, WHO? The problem here is that our so called "authorities" are all in the same bed. The tentacles of the Eastern Elite
Establishment are everywhere in high office, academia, the media, Big Business, etc. The swamp is thoroughly infested with this
elite scum of those in the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, Chatham House, Club of Rome,
Committee of 300, Jason Society and numerous other private clubs of the rich, powerful and influential. The Illuminati has been
exposed, however they aren't going down lightly. They still have massive amounts of money, they own the media and the banking
houses. Some have described it as MIMAC, the Military Industrial Media Academic Complex. A few months ago here at Zero Hedge,
there was an article which showed a massive flow chart of the elites and their organization
They could IF and WHEN Trump gets to Washington after 20 Jan 2017, simply implode the economy and blame t it on Trump. Sort
of what happened to Herbert Hoover in the late 1920's. Unfortunately the situation in the US will continue to deteriorate. George
Soros, a major financial backer of Hillary will see to that. Soros is a Globalist and advocate of one world government. People
comment that Soros should be arrested. I agree, BUT who is going to do that?
Agree. I think Trump will yank all the "aid" to Israel as well as "aid" to the Islamic murderers of the Palitrashian human garbage
infesting the area. This "aid" money is simply a bribe to keep both from killing each other. F**k all of them. None of our business
what they do.
We got progressives ( lots and lots of Jews in that group) who are the enemy of mankind and then we got Islam who are also
the enemy of mankind. Why help either of them? Makes no sense.
Soros is hated in Israel and has never set foot there but his foundations have done such harm that a bill was recently passed
to ban foreign funding of non profit political organizations
The fact that we all have to worry about the CIA killing a President Elect simply because the man puts America first, really says
it all.
The Agency is Cancer. Why are we even waiting for them to kill another one of our people to act? There should be no question
about the CIA's future in the US.
Dissolved & dishonored. Its members locked away or punished for Treason. Their reputation is so bad and has been for so long,
that the fact that you joined them should be enough to justify arrest and Execution for Treason, Crimes Against Humanity & Crimes
Against The American People.
There are entirely way too many Intelligence Agencies. Plus the Contractors, some of who shouldn't have high level clearance to
begin with which the US sub contracts the Intel / work out to.
For Fucks sake, Government is so incompetent it can't even handle it own Intel.
Something along the lines of Eurpoe's Five Eyes would be highly effective.
Fuck those Pure Evil Psychopaths at the CIA They're nothing more than a bunch of Scum Fuck murdering, drug running, money laundering
Global Crime Syndicate.
The FBI is still investigating the Clinton Foundation, Trump needs to encourage that through backdoor channels. Soro's needs to
be investigated, he has been tied to a conspiracy to incite violence, this needs to be documented and dealt with. Trump can not
ignore this guy. If any of these investigations come back with a recommendation to indict then that process needs to be started.
Take the fight to them, they are vulnerable!
Make a National APB Warrent for the apprehension & arrest of George Sooros for inciting violence, endsrgerimg the public & calling
for the murder of our Nations Police through funding of the BLM Group.
Have every Law Informent Agency in the Nation on alert. Also, issue a Bounty in the Sum of $5,000,000 for his immediate apprehension.
Trump needs to replace FBI chickenshits & sellouts with loyal people then get the FBI counter-terrorism to investigate and shut
down Soros & the various agencies instigating the riots. It's really simple when you quit over-thinking a problem. It's domestic
terrorism. It's the FBI's job to stop it.
I read what Paul said this morning and thought, despite Paul's hostility to Trump during the primaries most likely due to his
son, Rand's loss, that Paul gave good advice to Trump.
Let's face it Donald Trump is a STOP GAP measure. And demographic change over the next 4 years makes his re-election very, very
UNLIKELY. If he keeps his campaign promises he will be a GREAT president. However as ZH reported earlier he appears to be balking
from repealing Obamacare, I stress the word APPEARS.
Let us give him a chance. This is all speculation. His enemies are DEADLY as they were once they got total control in Russia,
they killed according to Solzhenitsyn SIXTY-SIX MILLION Russian Christians. The descendants of those Bolsheviks are VERY powerful
in the USSA. They control the Fed, Hollyweird, Wall Street, the universities...
Much of the media and advertising exist by pushing buttons that trigger appropriate financially lucrative reflexes in their
audiences, from pornography to romantic movies to team sports. Media profits are driven by competition over how best to push
those buttons. But the effort to produce politically and racially cuckolded Whites adds a layer of complexity: What buttons
do you push to make Whites complicit in their own racial and cultural demise?
Actually, there are a whole lot of them, which shouldn't be surprising. This is a very sophisticated onslaught, enabled
by control over all the moral, intellectual, and political high ground by the left. With all that high ground, there are a
lot of buttons you can push.
Our enemies see this as a pathetic last gasp of a moribund civilization and it is quite true for our civilization is dying.
Identity Christians describe this phase as Jacob's Troubles and what the secular Guillaume Faye would, I think, describe as the
catastrophe required to get people motivated. The future has yet to be written, however I cannot help but think that God's people,
the White people, are stirring from their slumber.
"PNAC: Project for New American Century. The main neocon lobby, it focused first on invading Iraq. Founded 1997, by William
Kristol & Robert Kagan. First action: open letter to Clinton advocating Iraq war. Members in the Iraq-War clique: Cheney, Rumsfeld,
Wolfowitz, Feith, BOLTON, Libby, Abrams, Wurmser, Perle.
JINSA, The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. "explaining the link between U.S. national security and Israel's
security" Served on JINSA's Advisory Board: Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, BOLTON, Perle."
If Trump has probable cause on the Soros crimes, have his DoJ request a warrant for all of Soros's communications via the NSA,
empanel a grand jury, indict the bastard, and throw his raggedy ass in prison. It would be hard for him to run his retarded purple
revolution when he's getting ass-raped by his cell mate.
I agree. Thing is, I think as president he can simply order the NSA to cough up whatever they have, just like Obama could have
done at any point. The NSA is part of the Defense Department, right? What am I missing here?
But in respect to Soro's money and the Dalas shooting or other incited events, there should be a grand jury empanelled and
then charges brought against him. I think nothing short of him hiding in an embassy with all his money blocked by Swift is justice
for the violence that he funded.
It is doubtful that President Trump's aides will advise the new president to carry out a diversionary criminal investigation
of Mrs. Clinton's private email servers and other issues related to the activities of the Clinton Foundation, especially when
the nation faces so many other pressing issues, including jobs, immigration, and health care. However, House Oversight and
Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz said he will continue hearings in the Republican-controlled Congress on
Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and Mrs. Clinton's aide Huma Abedin. President Trump should not allow himself to be
distracted by these efforts. Chaffetz was not one of Trump's most loyal supporters.
And so it begins; I really hope that this is just some misinformation/disinformation, because HE PROMISED he would appoint
a special prosecutor, PROMISED...
The likes of Bill Kristol, Ben Shapiro and Jonah Goldberg get to catch up on their Torah for the forseeable future but the likes
of Lloyd Blankfein will probably get to entertain the court since they have probably crossed paths doing business in NYC. The
"real conservative" deeply introspective, examine-my-conscience crowd screwed themselves to the wall, god love them.
Trump should reverse the McCain Feingold bill. That would take some wind out of Soros' sails, at least temporarily because
that was Soros' bill. He wanted campaign finance reform which actually meant that he wanted to control campaign finance through
501C3 groups, or foundations such as Open Society, Moveon.org, Ella Baker society, Center for American progress, etc. He has a
massive web of these organizations and they fund smaller ones and all kinds of evil.
We know so little about Trump ... he's neoCon friendly to start with (remember he hired neoCon Grandee James Woolsey as an
advisor)... and remember too Trump is promising his own war against Iran ... (just in case you confused him with Mother Theresa)..
But then again JFK took office with a set of initiatives that were far more bellicose and provocative (like putting huge Jupiter
missile launchers on the USSR border in Turkey)... once he saw he light and fired the pro Nazi Dulles Gang , JFK was gunned
down in front of the whole world.
If Trump really is a nationalist patriot he'll need to innoculate the Population about the Deep State... they in turn will
unleash financial disintegration and chaos, a Purple Revolution and then assassinate Trump (or have his own party impeach him)
I'm guessing though that deep down Trump is quite comfortable with a neoCon cabinet... hell he already offered Jamie Diamon
the office of Treasry Secretary... no doubt a calculated gesture to signal compliance with the Deep State.
The Clintons do not do things by accident. Coordination of colors at the concession speech was meant for something. Perhaps the
purple revolution or maybe they want to be seen as royals. It doesn't really matter why they did it; the fact is they are up to
something. They will not agree to go away and even if they offered to just disappear with their wealth we know they are dishonest.
They will come back... that is what they do.
They must be stripped of power and wealth. This act must be performed publicly.
In order to succeed Mr. Trump I suggest you task a group to accomplish this result. Your efforts to make America great again
may disintegrate just like Obamacare if you allow the Clintons and Co. to languish in the background.
The protestors are groups of individuals who may seek association for any number of reasons. One major reason might be the loss
of hope for a meaningful and prosperous life. We should seek out and listen to the individuals within these groups. If they are
truly desirous of being heard they will communicate what they want without use of violence. Perhaps individuals join these protest
groups because they do not have a voice.
Organizing a means to receive the protestors' complaints may co-opt any organized effort to disrupt good political interaction
and it will also separate out the bad elements cited by Madsen.
The articles reporting that Mr. Trump has changed his response to the protestors is a good effort to discover the protestors'
complaints and channel their energy into beneficial political activity. Something must be done quickly though, before the protests
get out of hand, for if that happens the protestors will be criminals and no one will want to work with them.
In order to make America great again we need input from all of America. Mr. Trump you can harness the energy of these protestors
and let them know they are a part of your movement.
Classical economists are experts on today's capitalism, it is 18th and 19th Century capitalism, it's how it all started.
Adam Smith would think we are on the road to ruin.
"But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and fall with the declension of the society.
On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going
fastest to ruin."
Exactly the opposite of today's thinking, what does he mean?
When rates of profit are high, capitalism is cannibalizing itself by:
1) Not engaging in long term investment for the future
2) Paying insufficient wages to maintain demand for its products and services.
Got that wrong as well.
Adam Smith wouldn't like today's lobbyists.
"The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great
precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous,
but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of
the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions,
both deceived and oppressed it."
AMERICAN SPRING: She practiced overseas in Tunisia, Algeria, Oman, Jordan, Libya, Egypt... Now it's time to apply the knowledge
in her own country!
lakecity55 -> CoCosAB •Nov 12, 2016 7:53 AM
Really good chance these subversive operations will continue. Soros has plenty of money. Trump will have to do some rough stuff,
but he needs to, it's what we hired him for.
NATO strategists are reportedly planning for a scenario in which Trump orders US troops out of Europe,
as the shock result of the US presidential election sinks in, spreading an atmosphere of uncertainty.
According to Spiegel magazine,
strategists from NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg's staff have drafted a secret report
which includes a worst-case scenario in which Trump orders US troops to withdraw from Europe and
fulfills his threat to make Washington less involved in European security. Read more
German
defense minister says Trump should be firm with Russia as NATO stood by US after 9/11
"For the first time, the US exit from NATO has become a threat" which would mean the end
of the bloc, a German NATO officer told the magazine.
During his campaign, Trump repeatedly slammed NATO, calling the alliance "obsolete." He
also suggested that under his administration, the US may refuse to come to the aid of NATO allies
unless they "pay their bills" and "fulfill their obligations to us."
"We are experiencing a moment of the highest and yet unprecedented uncertainty in the transatlantic
relationship," said Wolfgang Ischinger, former German ambassador in Washington and head of the
prominent Munich Security Conference. By criticizing the collective defense, Trump has questioned
the basic pillar of NATO as a whole, Ischinger added.
The president-elect therefore has to reassure the European allies that he remains firm on the
US commitment under Article 5 of the NATO charter prior to his inauguration, the top diplomat stressed.
Earlier this week, Stoltenberg lambasted Trump's agenda, saying: "All allies have made a solemn
commitment to defend each other. This is something absolutely unconditioned."
Fearing that Trump would not appear in Brussels even after his inauguration, NATO has re-scheduled
its summit – expected to take place in early 2017 – to next summer, Spiegel said.
The report might reflect current moods within the EU establishment as well, as Jean-Claude Juncker,
President of the European Commission, has called on the member states to establish Europe's own military.
Washington "will not ensure the security of the Europeans in the long term... we have to do this
ourselves," he argued on Thursday.
If Trump is serious about reducing the number of US troops stationed in Europe, large NATO countries
like Germany have little to offer, Spiegel said. Even major member states' militaries lack units
able to replace the Americans, which in turn may trigger debate on strengthening NATO's nuclear arm,
a sensitive issue in most European countries for domestic reasons.
Still, an increase in defense spending has already been approved by the Europeans following pressure
from the outgoing US administration. Over the past few days in Brussels, representatives of NATO
states have been working on the so-called "Blue Book," a secret strategy paper which stipulates
each member's contribution in the form of troops, aircraft, warships, and heavy armor until 2032,
Spiegel reported.
The document stipulates an increase in each NATO members' military spending by one percent of
each nation's GDP, in addition to the current two percent.
Uncertainty over Trump's NATO policy seems to be taking its toll; Germany, one of the largest
military powers in Europe, plans to allocate 130 billion euros ($140bn) to military expenditures
by 2030, but the remarkable figure may be a drop in the ocean.
"No one knows yet if the one percent more would be enough," the German NATO officer told Spiegel.
Nevertheless, the US is continuing to deploy troops to eastern Europe, justifying the move with
the need to protect the region from "assertive Russia." Earlier this week, the largest arms
shipment yet, 600 containers, arrived in Germany to supply the US armored and combat aviation brigades,
expected to
deploy
in Europe by January 2017.
"... Better relations with Russia will encourage them to venture into Europe? How does that work? The more friendly they are with us, I'd think the less they'd want to upset us and destroy those gains. The alternative might end up in a war with Russia. Yeah, that's great! Good grief, CNN. ..."
"... " ultranationalistic rhetoric". This sensationalist hyperbole is wrecking our language. Being against intervening in other countries affairs is not being "ultranationalistic" ..."
"... When you [neo]liberals living in your bubble fly over middle America, over all the small towns, farms, factories and coal miners that you often forget about. Just remember that there is a big middle finger pointing up at you. ..."
"... Well now a substancial portion of Americans know that free trade isn't so good. When it started to hit home for non working class folks, eyes opened up. ..."
Flynn, like Trump, sees Russian president Vladimir Putin as someone the US can do business
with. In December, Flynn attended a banquet in Moscow where he sat next to Putin. He also has
appeared on the Kremlin TV mouthpiece, Russia Today (which Flynn has compared to CNN).
If Flynn is Trump's national security advisor or secretary of defense we can expect him to push
for a closer relationship with the Russians; a punitive policy on Iran -- and a more aggressive
war on Islamist militants around the world. These views mesh well with what we have heard from
Donald Trump on the campaign trail.
Daniel, 35 minutes ago
Mr. Bergen : "American Islamists, Flynn claims, are trying to create "an Islamic state
right here at home" by pushing to "gain legal standing for Sharia." Flynn cited no evidence
for this claim." !!!?? Really ?? "German court lets off 'Sharia police' patrol in Wuppertal"
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35059488
SimpleStupid
Not a bad article up until the last paragraph. Better relations with Russia will
encourage them to venture into Europe? How does that work? The more friendly they are with us,
I'd think the less they'd want to upset us and destroy those gains. The alternative might end
up in a war with Russia. Yeah, that's great! Good grief, CNN.
And "derail the deal that prevents Iran from developing nuclear weapons"? What is this,
backwards day?
Ron Lane
" ultranationalistic rhetoric". This sensationalist hyperbole is wrecking our language.
Being against intervening in other countries affairs is not being "ultranationalistic"
hanklmarcus
Iraq was a failure , But attacking IRAN will not be ??????????? FOOLS
CNN User
When you [neo]liberals living in your bubble fly over middle America, over all the
small towns, farms, factories and coal miners that you often forget about. Just remember that
there is a big middle finger pointing up at you.
We don't accept your values and are tired of having ours oppressed.
LizardKing
@Lenny Good - Ukraine should clearly be dominated by Russia and who gives a s t about
Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Call me when Russia is threatening Poland
Dwright :
Well now a substancial portion of Americans know that free trade isn't so good. When it
started to hit home for non working class folks, eyes opened up.
"... Mark Leibovich of the Times magazine gave the Clinton campaign significant input and review into a fawning profile of the candidate. "Pleasure doing business!" campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri wrote him at the conclusion of the process. ..."
"... Ezra Klein, the boy wonder editor-in-chief of Vox, is considered to be the campaign's most reliable mouthpiece, as seen in a March 23, 2015 email in which Clintonistas were wondering which journalist it could call upon to push out a campaign storyline they were then concocting. "I think that person…is Ezra Klein," wrote Palmieri. "And we can do it with him today." ..."
"... In a July email, Neera Tanden, Hillary's longtime friend, aide, and attack puppet, strategized with Podesta about "recruiting brown and women pundits" and pushing pro-Hillary media figures such as MSNBC's Joan Walsh and Klein's colleague at Vox, Matthew Yglesias, to be even more faithful stenographers. "They can be emboldened," she wrote, as if these two loyalist PR assets needed any further encouragement. ..."
"... Trump's threats to expand libel laws and to sue journalists are genuinely scary, but Hillary displays similar contempt for journalists. In September, she gave her first formal press conference in more than nine months - virtually this entire presidential campaign. And as the Podesta emails show, the Clintonistas happily work hand in glove with pliant surrogates but operate in quite a different, and dishonest, way with critics. ..."
"... The Clinton-Giustra partnership had been written about but no U.S. journalists had traveled to Colombia to see what the Foundation has done there. In fact, with few exceptions, the Clinton Foundation's claims about the good it has done overseas have been unexamined. ..."
"... Furthermore, I had "misled" the Foundation in the past so "we have every reason to be suspicious of his intentions and doubt he would give our facts a fair hearing," he wrote. "Other news organizations have handled this material differently, always checking with us prior to publication, giving us an opportunity to respond." (Giving us the opportunity to edit and approve, is what he should have written.) In the end, Fusion updated the story and posted an editorial note saying that it had not met its standards. ..."
"... Second, of course I'm biased against the Clinton Foundation and the Clintons, on the basis of evidence and reporting. I've never bothered to hide my feelings, in public, on social media, or in my articles, because I believe that all reporters are biased and readers are smart enough to know that, and that the pretense of objectivity is itself dishonest. What makes a journalist honest is holding all sides to the same standard of criticism, no matter what your own views. ..."
"... Third, and most important, I repeatedly sought comment from the Clinton Foundation. This may seem like a minor matter but the fact that the foundation lied about that shows that it not only seeks out well-trained pet reporters as surrogates, but keeps tabs on and actively seeks to undermine its "enemies." ..."
The destruction of the industrial heartland due to Democratic-driven trade policies, shrinking salaries that force many Americans to work two and three jobs to support their families, the staggering rise in health care costs under Obamacare, widespread economic insecurity that has fueled a national opioid epidemic, and Hillary's trigger-happy views are highly rational reasons for any voter to consider casting a ballot for Trump. So, too, are fears that Clinton's election would lead to an entrenchment of institutionalized corruption and corporate political power. (If Hillary wins and Chuck Schumer takes over as Senate Majority Leader, Wall Street will get its every dream through Congress.)
There's nothing secret about the media's anti-Trump stance. A formal declaration of war was launched on August 7, when Jim Rutenberg, the New York Times media columnist, wrote a story under the headline, "Trump Is Testing the Norms of Objectivity in Journalism." Rutenberg wrote that journalists were in a terrible bind trying to stay objective because Trump, among other things, "cozies up to anti-American dictators," has "put financial conditions on the United States defense of NATO allies," and that his foreign policy views "break with decades-old …consensus."
And worst of all is Rutenberg's statement about the role of journalists. "All governments are
run by liars and nothing they say should be believed," I.F. Stone once wrote. "Journalism is printing
what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations," said George Orwell.
For those two self-evident reasons, being "oppositional" is the only place political journalists
should ever be, no matter who is in power or who is campaigning.
But for Rutenberg and the New York Times being oppositional is only "uncomfortable" when it comes
to covering Hillary Clinton. It didn't seem uncomfortable at all when it came to running a story
about Trump's taxes based on three pages of a decades-old tax return that was sent anonymously or
when it ran another story with the headline, "The 282 People, Places and Things Donald Trump Has
Insulted on Twitter: A Complete List."
All during the campaign we have watched Hillary Clinton rehearse campaign themes and, almost as
if by magic, the media amplifying those themes in seeming lockstep. The hacked emails from Clinton
campaign chairman John Podesta have demonstrated that this was not mere happenstance, but, at least
in part, resulted from direct coordination between the Clintonistas and the press.
Mark Leibovich of the Times magazine gave the Clinton campaign significant input and review into
a fawning profile of the candidate. "Pleasure doing business!" campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri
wrote him at the conclusion of the process.
The Clintonistas had an equally pleasurable relationship with the Times's Maggie Haberman, who,
it was said in one email, "We have had… tee up stories for us before and have never been disappointed."
Haberman even apparently read Palmieri an entire story prior to publication "to further assure me,"
Palmieri wrote.
Ezra Klein, the boy wonder editor-in-chief of Vox, is considered to be the campaign's most reliable
mouthpiece, as seen in a March 23, 2015 email in which Clintonistas were wondering which journalist
it could call upon to push out a campaign storyline they were then concocting. "I think that person…is
Ezra Klein," wrote Palmieri. "And we can do it with him today."
In a July email, Neera Tanden, Hillary's longtime friend, aide, and attack puppet, strategized
with Podesta about "recruiting brown and women pundits" and pushing pro-Hillary media figures such
as MSNBC's Joan Walsh and Klein's colleague at Vox, Matthew Yglesias, to be even more faithful stenographers.
"They can be emboldened," she wrote, as if these two loyalist PR assets needed any further encouragement.
In the same email, Tanden wrote that when New York mayor Michael Bloomberg was "having problems"
with the Times he called publisher Arthur Schulzburger [sic] to arrange a coffee to complain about
the newspaper's reporting and that their chat "changed the coverage moderately but also aired the
issues in the newsroom so people were more conscious of it."
Unfortunately, she added, "Arthur is
a pretty big wuss" so he wouldn't do more to help out Bloomberg without additional prodding.
To get real results to change the Times's coverage of the 2016 campaign, "Hillary would have to
be the one to call" Sulzberger - a rather astonishing remark that begs a million questions about
the Times' election reporting.
Politico reporter Glenn Thrush apologized to Podesta for writing a story draft that he feared
was too critical. "I have become a hack I will send u the whole section that pertains to u," he wrote.
"Please don't share or tell anyone I did this Tell me if I fucked up anything." On bended knee would
have been more dignified.
Trump's threats to expand libel laws and to sue journalists are genuinely scary, but Hillary displays
similar contempt for journalists. In September, she gave her first formal press conference in more
than nine months - virtually this entire presidential campaign. And as the Podesta emails show, the
Clintonistas happily work hand in glove with pliant surrogates but operate in quite a different,
and dishonest, way with critics.
Which leads me to my own recent experience writing about the Clinton Foundation's abysmal programs
in Colombia, where it has worked closely with Frank Giustra, reportedly the foundation's largest
donor. Giustra, a Canadian stock market manipulator who was known as the "Poison Dwarf" because of
his tiny stature - he's a little north of 5 feet- and tendency to make tons of money at the expense
of small investors, invested heavily in Colombia in oil, gold, and
timber. He made a fortune while companies he was affiliated with ruthlessly exploited workers
and
reportedly raped and pillaged the environment.
The Clinton-Giustra partnership had been written about but no U.S. journalists had traveled to
Colombia to see what the Foundation has done there. In fact, with few exceptions, the Clinton Foundation's
claims about the good it has done overseas have been unexamined.
I spent 10 days in Colombia last May and spoke to unionists, workers, environmentalists, Afro-Colombians
and entrepreneurs - exactly the people who the foundation brags about helping on its website- as
well as three left-leaning senators who champion the poor. They were overwhelmingly negative, and
in many cases disparaging, about the Clinton Foundation and Giustra, who was deeply involved with
an oil company, Pacific Rubiales, that recently went spectacularly bankrupt and which worked with
the Army to smash a strike after workers revolted over miserable pay and working conditions.
Bill Clinton had a friendly relationship with Pacific Rubiales too, and in 2012 the two men golfed
together at a charitable event for the foundation sponsored by the oil company. Colombia's president,
whose niece got a plush job as "Sustainability
Manager" for Pacific Rubiales, golfed with Bill.
I had wanted to write the Colombia story for months but, as is often the case in journalism today,
couldn't find a media outlet to pay for the trip. A friend steered me to the American Media Institute
(AMI), a conservative non-profit, which funded the trip.
AMI arranged for the story to run in Politico, but it killed an early version. I then pitched
it to Fusion,
which ran it on October 13. It immediately generated a furious reaction from the Clinton camp,
starting off with a series of tweets by Angel Urena, Bill Clinton's spokesman. Then the Foundation
tried to get Fusion to take the story off its website.
On October 14, Craig Minassian, a Clinton Foundation spokesman, sent a 14-page letter to Fusion,
CC-ing foundation officials, Urena and Mark Gunton of the Clinton-Giustra Enterprise Partnership.
The first few pages attacked me, citing past articles about the Clinton Foundation and a series of
"vulgar" tweets I'd posted about Hillary Clinton and her supporters, including Clinton's long-time
surrogate Joe Conason, author of
Man of the World, a rapturous book about Bill Clinton's post-presidency. (Conason is also former
executive editor of the Observer.)
It also complained about factual errors and cited the funding from AMI as being evidence that
the story was a right wing plot. In fact, I set up the trip with the help of fixer in Colombia, picked
people to interview, and there was no political intrusion into the story. Ironically, a conservative
non-profit paid for a piece that defended unions, the poor, women, and Afro-Colombians.
Mostly the dossier contained unverifiable Clinton Foundation propaganda and references to positive
press stories about the foundation, like one in pro-Hillary Vox titled "The key question on the Clinton
Foundation is whether it saved lives. The answer is clearly yes." A central component of the foundation's
attack - which Urena played heavily on his Twitter feed -was that I had never attempted to reach
the Clinton Foundation or campaign for comment.
Furthermore, I had "misled" the Foundation in the past so "we have every reason to
be suspicious of his intentions and doubt he would give our facts a fair hearing," he wrote. "Other
news organizations have handled this material differently, always checking with us prior to publication,
giving us an opportunity to respond." (Giving us the opportunity to edit and approve, is what he
should have written.) In the end, Fusion updated the story and posted an editorial note saying that
it had not met its standards.
OK, let me acknowledge my mistakes and provide a little further information. First off, the Fusion
story did contain a number of errors. My name is on the story so I have to take responsibility.
Fine. None of the mistakes was intentional and I spent endless hours prior to publication trying
to ensure everything was accurate. There is nothing more embarrassing as a journalist than having
to make corrections. I screwed up. But I stand by the story's on-the-ground reporting from Colombia
and the conclusions about the Clinton Foundation's meager results there.
Second, of course I'm biased against the Clinton Foundation and the Clintons, on the basis of
evidence and reporting. I've never bothered to hide my feelings, in public, on social media, or in
my articles, because I believe that all reporters are biased and readers are smart enough to know
that, and that the pretense of objectivity is itself dishonest. What makes a journalist honest is
holding all sides to the same standard of criticism, no matter what your own views.
I'm equally biased against Donald Trump and have written a number of critical articles about him
and described him in equally vulgar and unflattering terms. The only reasons I haven't written about
Trump more is that I had pitches about him turned down - including one about his revolting comments
about women, which I shopped around unsuccessfully last spring during the GOP primaries - and because
I believed (and still do) that Hillary Clinton is likely to be elected president, which makes her
a bigger target.
Third, and most important, I repeatedly sought comment from the Clinton Foundation. This may seem
like a minor matter but the fact that the foundation lied about that shows that it not only seeks
out well-trained pet reporters as surrogates, but keeps tabs on and actively seeks to undermine its
"enemies."
In August, when the piece was at Politico, I sent a detailed email to the foundation, to Hillary's
campaign and to the CGEP seeking comment. There was nothing coy about it. I wrote, in part:
I'm currently writing a piece about the foundations' activities in Colombia, where I recently
spent 10 days, and interviewed dozens of people…I truly want to hear your side of this story,
which thus far appears to be utterly appalling. While the Foundation and presidential candidate
Hilary Clinton have effusively and repeatedly expressed their concerns for the poor and organized
labor - and in Colombia specifically mention a deep concern for Afro-Colombians - I found no evidence
of that on the ground.
Unionists, Afro-Colombians, elected officials and impoverished people in the slums of Bogota
and Cartagena are unanimous: the Clinton Foundation…has played no role at all in helping Colombia's
poor or even worse, it has played a negative role.
I've tried unsuccessfully to get comment from you in the past about other stories but wanted
to reach out once again in the hopes that you might be able to reply to some simple straightforward
questions.
In fact, this was the fifth time in the past year that I wrote about the foundation and it only
replied once, prior to publication of the first story. Furthermore, I sought comment at the Clinton
Foundation in Colombia and at several of its projects in Bogota and Cartagena, and no one could talk
to me or provide even minimal information. (For example, why does the Clinton Foundation run a private
equity fund out of its Bogota office? What does that have to do with its charitable efforts?)
Should I have reached out to the foundation again after the story moved to Fusion? Perhaps, but
another reporter who had been working on the Colombia story had attempted to get comment from the
foundation and received no reply. The foundation (and the Clinton campaign) was given ample opportunity
to reply and chose not to. I have a strong suspicion that if Thrush or Klein or Haberman or one of
its other pet journalists had asked for comment they would have had no problem.
The 2016 election has exposed like nothing in modern times the desperate need for political reform
in this country.
A sweeping Pacific trade pact meant to bind the U.S.and Asia effectively died Friday, as Republican
and Democratic leaders in Congress told the White House they won't advance it in the election's aftermath,
and Obama administration officials acknowledged it has no way forward now.
The failure to pass the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership-by far the biggest trade agreement
in more than a decade-is a bitter defeat for President Barack Obama, whose belated but fervent support
for freer trade divided his party and complicated the campaign of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
The White House had lobbied hard for months in the hope of moving forward on the pact if Mrs.
Clinton had won.
The deal's collapse, which comes amid a rising wave of antitrade sentiment in the U.S., also dents
American prestige in the region at a time when China is flexing its economic and military muscles.
Just over a year ago, Republicans were willing to vote overwhelmingly in support of Mr. Obama's
trade policy. But as the political season approached and voters registered their concerns by supporting
Donald J. Trump, the GOP reacted coolly to the deal Mr. Obama's team reached with Japan and 10 others
countries just over a year ago in Atlanta. ...
"... What's bought [sic] us to this stage is a policy – whether it's been intentional or unintentional or a mixture of both – of divide and rule, where society is broken down into neat little boxes and were told how to behave towards the contents of each one rather than, say, just behaving well towards all of them. ..."
"... And this right here is why neoliberalism = identity politics and why both ought to be crushed ruthlessly. ..."
Well, that makes a lot of sense for a very good reason: racism was essentially created in the
British colonies first in the Americas (read: Virginia) in the 17th and 18th centuries. Slavery
became synomous with race, i.e., only Africans and their colonial descendants could be legally
enslaved. Before, pretty much anyone could be a slave, including the destitute, or religious "others"
(Irish, especially), or war captives (Native peoples, Muslims, etc.). In the colonies, this new
racialized legal definition of slavery created a very real divide in the lower orders and working
classes – specifically, race was a way to divide enslaved people away from indentured servants
and landless peasants. (you could say it also created what is now called "white privilege," putting
white people one notch above black slaves, in legal terms). Look into the Virginia slave codes,
Bacon's Rebellion, etc. They literally invented race-thinking to divide the lower classes and
protect the colonial social hierarchy and its economy. It's where "racism" began, arguably.
This was the British empire we're talking about here. And you mentioned India…under British
colonial rule. If interested, the classic text on this is Edward Morgan's "American Slavery, American
Freedom." It's a must-read for all Americans and those interested in US/imperial history, or the
history of slavery writ large. Must read, as in top ten histories of all time. Not coincidentally,
the British became more interested in Asia after their American colonists got all uppity, demanded
their political autonomy, and created their own empire in the Americas. British historians of
empire call this the empire's "swing to the east." This happened in the latter part of the 18th
century.
The old divide and conquer. A cynic might suggest this is exactly the strategy of the corporate
Dems. Assimilation–what used to be called "the melting pot"–is their enemy.
What's bought [sic] us to this stage is a policy – whether it's been intentional
or unintentional or a mixture of both – of divide and rule, where society is broken down into
neat little boxes and were told how to behave towards the contents of each one rather than,
say, just behaving well towards all of them.
And this right here is why neoliberalism = identity politics and why both ought to be crushed
ruthlessly.
I've been reading the Grauniad , as it used to be affectionately known because of its frequent misprints, for nearly
fifty years, and I don't think I've ever found it as unreadable (not to mention smug and self-righteous) as it is today. Its earnest
and hectoring tone was always easy to parody ("Guardian Woman" had become a standing joke by the 1980s) but over the last few
years of reading it on the internet from abroad I am no longer sure what I actually read and what my subconscious invented in
the form of parody (was there really a headline like "Why is the Football Association Failing Transexual Goalkeepers?" or did
I just dream it?") If you want a classic example of a once distinguished publication ruined by identity politics, that would be
my nomination. (To be fair, the Independent 's coverage has been an order of magnitude worse.)
The real French equivalent of the Guardian by the way is Libération which has followed a similar, but even worse
trajectory, and specialises these days in front-page vilification of anyone who transgresses correct identity group thinking –
most recently the philosopher Michel Onfray who dared to make a few critical remarks about radical islam. Le Monde is a
neoliberal and neoconservative rag these days, but less unreadable than Libé.
Oh tempora, oh mores!
I now feel the same about The Economist, I used to read it for education, starting at Uni in 1967. It appears to me now to
be a Neo Liberal mouthpiece.
The Economist Group is owned by the Cadbury, Rothschild, Schroder, Agnelli and other family interests as well as a number of
staff and former staff shareholders.
I'll take your word about the French newspapers. I fled from the Lib after about 2 minutes perusal recently – it had been years
(many, many) since I read it.
And I just don't see that much difference between the guardian's neoliberalism and Le Monde's but, then again, I only dip into
Le Monde about once a week. Science articles are the only thing I read in any depth.
"... Uh, no. The Democratic party didn't demolish itself. It engaged willfully and knowingly in a radical makeover in the 90's. It wanted to be the political arm-candy of wall st. and global capital. Trump is one of the results. He is equally the result of a completely callow and hateful Republican party that never missed a chance to side with overweening wealth, power, and authority. ..."
"... And of course they didn't. The signs were there and have been perfectly transparent for some time now. Liberals, technocrats, and smart people might want to try on epistemic humility for a change to see how and why Brexit and Trump are deeply connected (besides or in addition to the blindingly shallow and obvious insight that "racists and sexists are racist and sexist"). From this they might begin to reevaluate what concrete coalitions are actually possible, whose interests they actually want to represent, and what problems they actually want to solve. ..."
"... There is a group dynamic when you try to use shaming as a main tool of control. Democrats failed to watch out for those who got hit hard by globalism–instead retreating into their increasingly expensive cities. ..."
The U.S. Democratic Party pretty much demolished itself. The process was in motion for a long time
and involved a lot of self-deception among its partisans about its declining credibility as the party
of the people and the devisive turn its rhetoric on racism and feminism had taken in covering for
its economic betrayals.
A tip of my hat to Kidneystones. I was wrong in my judgments about how the dynamics would add
up. He was right.
Uh, no. The Democratic party didn't demolish itself. It engaged willfully and knowingly
in a radical makeover in the 90's. It wanted to be the political arm-candy of wall st. and global
capital. Trump is one of the results. He is equally the result of a completely callow and hateful
Republican party that never missed a chance to side with overweening wealth, power, and authority.
BTW: I posted this in Bertram's thread on Brexit back in June (6/24/16 8.23 pm).
"And so it begins. First Brexit, the election of Trump is likely to be the next big 'shock.'
Who knows what else might happen in the intervening months. The global managers would do well
to start cramming for the test (standardized of course) in political theology that is coming–though
I have little doubt they won't."
And of course they didn't. The signs were there and have been perfectly transparent for
some time now. Liberals, technocrats, and smart people might want to try on epistemic humility
for a change to see how and why Brexit and Trump are deeply connected (besides or in addition
to the blindingly shallow and obvious insight that "racists and sexists are racist and sexist").
From this they might begin to reevaluate what concrete coalitions are actually possible, whose
interests they actually want to represent, and what problems they actually want to solve.
"I'm not sure why kidneystones should be thanked, or even congratulated. Before the new
comments policy here, his contributions were pretty consistently nasty, personally insulting,
and contemptuous of those with whom he disagreed. That his candidate won the election does
not seem a sufficient reason to forget his past behavior here."
This is an excellent example of a feature of [neo]liberal culture that is surely related to
this loss: [neo]liberals have become incapable of detaching evaluation generally from moral evaluation
specifically.
To complement Kidneystones on the accuracy of his predictions is not to complement his morals
or his rhetorical style or his political endorsements. To even complement him on his ability to
understand, even in a sympathetic way, the motivations of Trump supporters is not to complement
those supporters or endorse their motives.
We can complement Kidneystones for not having had his head in the sand about the reasons Trump
won, even if he has his head in the sand about what the consequences will be. And we'd do better
to try to get the rest of the democrats' heads out of the sand as soon as possible, so we can
stop using magical solutions against those oncoming consequences.
It is time for the left to become a reality based community again. And that begins by stopping
making excuses for what is at the end of the day a largely self incurred loss.
There is a group dynamic when you try to use shaming as a main tool of control. Democrats
failed to watch out for those who got hit hard by globalism–instead retreating into their increasingly
expensive cities.
Many of those people, but not all, are racist.
Clinton's general message was "more of the same" which wasn't going to help them.
The message of most of the elite media and political class was "more of the same, and if you
vote for him you're a racist".
Politics is tribal. Instead of trying to make them part of our tribe through inclusion and
signs that we were going to improve their lives, we tried to cleave them from the Republican tribe
by calling them racist.
That might have worked in concert with actively trying to get them in our tribe, but when you
are trying to call 50% of the population racist, the shame factor isn't likely to be successful.
The election was close. Winning over even a tiny portion of those people would have added up
to a win.
So go after those people.
You can choose to be sanctimonious about lumping them in with hardcore racists, or you can
try to woo them and win. You probably can't do both.
@ OP
> We should take seriously the risk of a Trump presidency ending in a large international conflict.
Actually, pretty much the only good thing about Trump's win is that it doesn't seem likely
to produce a large international conflict *quite* as soon as a HRC victory. An HRC presidency
appeared to entail a no-fly zone in Syria or an attack on the Syrian regime, meaning literally
an attack on the Russians, and certainly would have included an intensification of the existing
confrontation with Russia in the Middle East and Eastern Europe. Therefore, it already seemed
disquietingly likely to end in a 'large international conflict', and more specifically in a direct
military confrontation with a nuclear power. Impressively, many talking heads representing the
mainstream conventional wisdom have claimed that what is dangerous is, instead, *not antagonising
Russia enough*: war is peace and peace is war (of course, this has to do with the fact that in
their alternative reality, Russia is the side that initiated the conflicts in Georgia and Ukraine,
as well as being about to invade the Baltics and Poland any minute now).
It is a testament to the madness of the course taken by the FP establishment that in this respect,
even a profoundly stupid and narcissistic wannabe tough guy exhibiting open disregard for human
rights and lives actually appeared a little bit less immediately dangerous than said 'reasonable'
establishment. Trump is still very scary, of course, and may well do everything wrong that Clinton
possibly could have done and then some more (even just letting Mike Pence call the shots in FP
would probably be enough to produce that effect). Things being as they are, all my hope for the
next four years is that Trump is a conman, but not a madman, and that he is just playing a madman
on TV (Godwin calling: 'You know about whom else they said this?'). I'd like to believe that he
wouldn't have survived in business cheating people for so long if he didn't possess at least a
modicum of common sense and self-preservation instinct, which would help him to avoid completely
catastrophic or suicidal moves in his bravado. Or, perhaps, the FP equivalent of his bankruptcies
will be that he causes a catastrophic conflict and then scoots off and hides in a 'yuge' bunker,
while others pay the price of his idiocy. Well, I never claimed that the situation looked good.
>Trump wants jobs for everyone, which is a good thing – although he only mentioned jobs in
public infrastructure works, which sounds like predominantly jobs for men. But then we know how
much he cares about women's interests.
If he truly launches such a deeply non-Republican, FDR-style policy, that would be an incredible
and very positive precedent that should be welcomed, even if the gender distribution of the jobs
leaves something to be desired. I still suspect that whatever he is saying now, in practice, he
simply won't do anything that deviates from Republican orthodoxy, and that would be terrible enough.
That's the path of least resistance, and it will be especially tempting for someone who is, in
the end of the day, not really a politician by vocation.
the soi disant left proposed Sanders and Corbin who, with all their defects, seem reasonable
candidate for a party that would care about these matters.
It just happens that the "progressive" parties did not like those proposals, and preferred
to push for Clinton in USA and to commit suicide in UK.
Trump is just the symptom not the disease. But the biggest cause of the disease is the two party
system. You (Americans) need to find a way to get rid of it.
Two parties are plenty. We just need at least one party that can actually engage the working-but-worried
members of the broad middle class. Trump offers one path there, but even the GOP don't seem too
interested in taking it. I think that there are other ones, and that the Democrats need to look
at them.
In a winner takes all system you are bound to end up with a two party system. If you have a direct
election of a President you eventually end up with a two party system. See what happened in Canada,
they had 3 parties with roughly 30, 30, 40% support each. Since the Conservatives were the 40%
they had 100% of the power for a long time. The only alternative to a two party system, is to
get rid of the winner takes all system and use the European model where the majority of legislators
are allocated by proportion of votes (nationally) and the leader of the executive branch is elected
by parliament.
The US Constitution needs better provisions for electoral democracy. The two party system is good
enough if kept honest.
1. End private campaign financing or at least end Super PACs (Citizen United decision) and
allow only private contributions of $100 or less per donor/candidate/election combination.
2. End gerrymandering.
3. Reasonable (12 to 20 years combined in both chambers) legislative term limits.
4. Ranked/preferential/instant runoff voting.
5. Popular petition and referendum to overturn SCOTUS.
Yeah, voting needs to be all about picking the most extreme winners possible to screw over
the maximum number of losers. It needs to be a bidding system to find the smallest faction that
can win based on promising to screw over the largest number while still winning.
A change that is the most republican democratic is approval voting. Candidates run seeking
to get the greatest approval possible, 99%, by speaking and acting in 99% of the people's interests.
That means no losers, by that also means no winners.
In an election, you vote for everyone you approve of, whether none, one, five, all of those
running. I would have "none" on the ballot directly or implicitly, by rerunning any election with
a totally new slate if no candidate fails to get votes from 50% plus 1. Ideally, all candidates
get 70% of voters to approve of them, with the winner getting 90% or 85%.
After all, once the election is over, the person selected will represent everyone, so everyone
is forced by law to approve of his legal actions.
Actually Ranked/preferential/instant runoff voting may allow people to vote their extreme ambitions,
but winning is relegated to the candidates that are least objectionable overall very much like
the intent of your approval voting. Everyone you misunderstand is not necessarily an ogre. You
just get too much of a reflection of yourself when you look at the ideas of others. Either that
or your capacity to comprehend the language is strikingly inferior to your ability to mangle it
with your eccentric pronouncements.
If we're talking wish lists, I don't see why we can't also radically increase the size of Congress
(more, smaller districts), and end the anachronism of lifelong terms for federal judges (lengthy,
not lifetime, terms are more than enough to assure independence).
Actually, I was going for a list that you could build a voting constituency behind that would
forsake partisan loyalty to use anti-incumbency as a solidarity rallying cry for the purpose of
literally extorting Congress to take desired action. That said, your ideas are as good as any
on a first cut. Ultimately the supporting voting constituency would need to decide.
I just picked from popular favorites that I was familiar with and then tested them here for
reactions off and on over the years. Many of our commenters want to have nothing to do with Constitutional
reform either because they are afraid of shaking the tree or because they believe it impossible.
The linchpin to achieving success is the critical mass necessary to deny most incumbents reelection.
The resistance to that proposition becomes less with each new Congress. Picking a list is as easy
as floating all the ideas and discarding any that would significantly rock the coalition of reformist
voters. Even if only one such reform passes the final test then it is still better than what we
got. Also, successfully demonstrating the power over Congress embodied in blocking reelection
would be empowering to the electorate for many years to come.
We have one party advocating free lunch social and economic policy.
On social policy, the conservative theory is tolerance takes away individual liberty, and true
liberty means you as an individual must be able to exclude, harm, kill, or otherwise screw over
anyone different from you because conservatives are superior individuals favored by God. White
people owning black people is in the bible and thus a god given right of white Christian men,
just as Jefferson wrote in the Constitution. (That Jefferson was not in American when it was written
is denied by conservatives, as is the far greater influence of Washington and Hamilton, both shaped
by the need for strong Federal power to tax and spend based on both running a war and then building
a nation. And ironically, Jefferson acted as president far more like Obama than like the small
government weak Federal advocate than he wrote of and that conservatives exaggerate.)
And on economics, the Republicans are pure free lunch. You as consumer will get rich by low
wages and zero government spending and zero regulation because that will mean you get rich with
slave labor producing goods your sell to rich consumers at high profit. Because after all, you
conservative workers are superior to all workers who vote for Democrats and join unions fighting
for higher wages and benefits.
As Republicans won elections based on their free lunch policies, liberals were marginalized
in the Democratic Party. Instead, progressives argued the Democrats needed to adopt better and
bigger free lunch policies.
Obama has been criticized for being a liberal instead of an angry black progressive revolutionary
who put blacks in power all over government so they can make black people rich by screwing white
people. That Obama treated everyone as having equal rights has outraged all the progressive activists.
In their view, they elected Obama to serve them, and he squandered the chance to screw over everyone
else. Blacks should have had the power to screw over whites and browns. Gays should have had the
power to jail every homophobe, etc.
Clinton is evil because she told Bernie TANSTAAFL just like those evil liberals.
Bernie promised to tax the rich to create millions of government jobs, I assume, so no worker
gets exploited by evil Wall Street corporations, and Bernie promises that he will be able to destroy
the rich, their wealth, and keep taxing them to pay for all the government that will serve only
workers.
Bernie promised to stop climate change by taxing the burning of fossil fuels to build alternatives
and subsidizing workers so they pay no more for every, plus give them lots of other benefits,
even after all the fossil fuel corporations are bankrupt because no one is burning fossil fuels.
After all, if a carbon tax generates a trillion dollars in revenue today, it will generate
a trillion dollars in revenue when all cars and homes have switched to electric power and stopped
burning fossil fuels. $100 a ton tax on 10 billion tons is the same as a $100 tax on 10 million
tons in terms of revenue according to progressives.
According to progressives, the Laffer curve is 1000% lie, and tax revenue will keep increasing
the higher the tax rate no matter how high the tax rate. But that's exactly identical to the conservative
claim that tax revenue will increase the lower the tax rate, and tax revenue is highest at zero
percent.
Bernie argues that only when you elect people who reject party politics, and all those elected
work to support only their community, will government be the most effective and powerful, because
when you agree to tax everyone but your voters and give free stuff to only your voters, can taxes
that tax everyone and no one, to fund giving free stuff to everyone and no one, be made into law,
with zero compromise.
Bernie and Trump are identities, just promising different winners they will screw different
losers.
Neither support parties, and neither can be supported by any feasible political party representing
more than the half the size of thone who will be the winners under their respective winners.
Do you think health care workers will support Bernie slashing their pay, or putting them out
of jobs? Wall Street profits and rent seeking are certainly less than 2% of the 16-18% of gdp
for health care, and most of that goes to paying workers. Bernie advocates killing jobs just as
much as Trump advocates killing jobs - deregulation only kills jobs, never creates jobs, unless
creating thieves is creating jobs, but not paying workers to cut health care costs also kills
jobs.
"I would love to share, my liberal friend, in your sense of incredulity about the election
of Donald Trump to the presidency of United States. I would love to stand with you in the sense
of woundedness that, while certainly painful up front, carries with it the secondary compensation
of a warm and nurturing solidarity. I would love to sit with you and fulminate in righteous anger
about the unparalleled vulgarity and cruelty of Trump and his followers.
As much as I'd like to do these things, I won't.
Why?
Because I know you, perhaps better than you even dare to know yourself. I know you well because
I have watched you with great and detailed care over the last three decades and have learned,
sadly, that you are as much if not more about image and self-regard as any of the laudable values
you claim to represent.
I have watched as you accommodated yourself to most of the retrograde social forces you claim
to abhor. I have seen you be almost completely silent before the world's greatest evil, unprovoked
war, going so far as to embrace as your presidential candidate this year a person who cold-bloodedly
carried out the complete destruction of Libya, a real country with real people who love their
children like you and me, in order-as the Podesta emails make clear-to further her personal political
ambitions.
I watched as you stood silent before this same person's perverse on-camera celebration of the
murder by way of a bayonet thrust to the anus of the leader of that once sovereign country, and
before the tens of thousand of deaths, and hundreds of thousands of refugees, that war provoked.
I watched during the last eight years as you sought refuge in the evanescent qualities of skin
color and smooth speechmaking so as to not to confront the fact that your "liberal" president
was almost totally lacking in actionable convictions regarding the values you claim to be about.
I watched as you didn't say a peep as he bailed out bankers, pursued whistleblowers and deported
desperate and downtrodden immigrants in heretofore unimaginable numbers.
And I didn't hear the slightest complaint (unlike those supposedly stupid and primitive libertarians)
as he arrogated to himself the right to kill American citizens in cold blood as he and he alone
deemed fit.
I monitored you as you not only completely normalized Israel's methodical erasure of the Palestinian
people and their culture, but made cheering enthusiastically for this campaign of savagery the
ultimate litmus test for social and political respectability within your ranks.
I watched as you breezily dispatched the memories of the millions of innocent people destroyed
by U.S. military aggression around the world and damaged police brutality here at home in order
to slavishly imitate the unceasing orgy of uniform worship set in motion by the right and its
media auxiliaries in the wake of September 11th, 2001.
In short, since 1992, I have watched as you have transformed a current of social thought once
rooted in that most basic an necessary human sentiment-empathy-into a badge of cultural and educational
superiority. And because feeling good about yourself was much more important to you than actually
helping the afflicted, you signed off, in greater or lesser measure to almost all of the life-sapping
and dignity-robbing measures of the authoritarian right.
And now you want me to share in your sense of shock and incredulity?
No, thanks, I'll save my tears for all of the people, ideas and programs you heedlessly abandoned
along the road to this day. "
Leaving aside black boxes, the Electoral College, swing state skewing and cumulative winner-take-allism
transformed an estimated TWO MILLION vote popular vote margin into a 306-232 electoral vote romp
for the LOSER.
As Leonard Cohen wrote, "Democracy is coming to the U.S.A."
It's coming from the sorrow in the street,
the holy places where the races meet;
from the homicidal bitchin'
that goes down in every kitchen
to determine who will serve and who will eat.
From the wells of disappointment
where the women kneel to pray
for the grace of God in the desert here
and the desert far away:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
The sad reality is that 46% of Americans simply did not vote, and most of them were Democratic
voters. Trump is winning with fewer votes than Romney got. When you run an uninspiring candidate
with high negatives, this is what happens.
With all the propaganda, emotion, idolizing 'experience', lusting for a first woman, and poor
pk whining he is a (I see him faux) librul a vote is never informed nor would it assure the "right"
outcome whomever might define that.
I am older than either Dr. Thoma or Dr. Krugman and have been retired for some years. I also believe
Mr. Trump, Speaker Ryan, and Leader McConnell, will do exactly what they said they would do. My
life will get much harder particularly with the end of Medicare and cuts to Social Security. I
do not see a chance of this improving in my lifetime. I have no illusions that anything I say
or do will change the direction just set. Dropping out seems to be the best course to save my
sanity.
Trump was in my city the night before election day, and I saw his speech on youtube... He made
a pretty clear campaign promise to protect medicare and social security.
Trump has been known both to ignore his promises but also to take revenge on those who say bad
things about him. My guess is that at some point in time he will smack Ryan badly by blocking
one of Ryans signature pieces. Privatizing social security might be the right issue for that revenge.
However, the destruction/privatization of social security and medicare is unlikely to make it
past a filibuster in the senate. It may not even be able to pass a straight majority in the senate.
McConnell may get rid of the filibuster but just like Reed hesitated to do so (knowing how often
the political winds change) my guess is that he may erode it further but not dare to totally get
rid of it. After all even though it may allow you to get all your "dream legislations" through,
it also will allow the other side to reverse all that you passed - and then get all their dream
legislation through as soon as the pendulum swings back.
I have no illusions that anything I say or do will change the direction just set. Dropping out
seems to be the best course to save my sanity.
[ Why should what a person says or does be predicated on being effective in ways that are impossible
to know? Saying and doing what is gratifying as such, when a person is able, would seem to be
or should be enough. ]
Dropping out is the worst thing you can do. That leave the other side emboldened and empowered.
If you worry what a president Trump and a GOP house + senate can do to your future, you need to
fight; not give up.
Fred, you and I and the others in the 55 and older group(maybe 60) will catch a break on SS and
Medicare.
If they can privatize it, they will build it on promises to those not in our age group that
it will be a "super terrific" change while insisting that those of our age group will keep the
benefits cause they will never, ever vote GOP again if they are taken away.
"When Trump was elected, I felt like I had failed..."
On the contrary, Paul, you succeeded beyond your wildest dreams. By equating pro-labor "populism"
with nativist, revanchist "populism" you succeeded in obstructing truly progressive economic policy
initiatives such as shorter working time.
By ridiculing Wm. Greider's prescient 1990s warnings about the consequences of neoliberal globalization
as the ravings of an "accidental theorist" you succeeded in preserving an expert consensus that
everything was fine and nothing could go wrong.
By relentlessly harping on Gerald Friedman's analysis of Bernie Sanders's economic program,
you succeeded in persuading rust belt voters that There Is No Alternative to the infallible wisdom
of the past and present Chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers.
You succeeded in scoring so many goals that I am almost hesitant to tell you that they were
in the wrong end of the field. Please, though, have a look at my open letter to you from May 2011
to which you did not reply. Perhaps your only failure, among all those myriad successes.
Next: how shall we define the whale, by his obvious externals, so as conspicuously to label
him for all time to come. To be short, then, a whale is a spouting fish with a horizontal tail.
There you have him....
I am writing to you because three times over the last 14 months your authority has been invoked
to me on behalf of the assertion that people who advocate shorter working time as a remedy for
unemployment are guilty of a "lump-of-labor fallacy" assumption that there is only a fixed quantity
of work in the world. As did John Maynard Keynes, I believe that working less is one of "three
ingredients of a cure" for unemployment. I find it odd to learn that I (and presumably Keynes)
am thereby assuming a palpable absurdity: that the amount of work to be done is invariant.
I have researched the history of the fallacy claim and published two scholarly articles on
it and I have documented rather glaring discrepancies in the often-repeated claim. Because your
authority on the alleged fallacy is so frequently cited, I would be extremely grateful if you
would consider the evidence I outline below and respond to it. I believe the history is curious
enough to be entertaining and thought provoking, whether or not you are persuaded by my presentation.
A column by you that has been held up to me as authoritative appeared in The New York Times
on October 7, 2003. It was titled "Lumps of Labor." The first paragraph states as follows:
"Economists call it the 'lump of labor fallacy.' It's the idea that there is a fixed amount
of work to be done in the world, so any increase in the amount each worker can produce reduces
the number of available jobs. (A famous example: those dire warnings in the 1950's that automation
would lead to mass unemployment.) As the derisive name suggests, it's an idea economists view
with contempt, yet the fallacy makes a comeback whenever the economy is sluggish."
When Trump was elected, I felt like I had failed...
-- Mark Thoma
[ Who assuredly did not fail, quite the opposite. What Mark Thoma has been doing is a wild
success. Picasso painted or sketched or sculpted or constructed daily for decades. The work was
successful as such, the effectiveness is only measured by the self-satisfaction with the work
and the satisfaction of viewers of the work. ]
Picasso painted Guernica as a protest against war waged on Guernica. The painting became famous
and symbolic enough that a tapestry of the Guernica hangs outside of the United Nations Security
Council.
When Secretary of State Colin Powell went to the UN Security Council to make the case for waging
war on Iraq, the tapestry of Guernica was covered over. Sad, but no matter in that Picasso had
created a plea for peace that would endure even though there would be no peace in Iraq.
No matter, your writing is necessary and successful just as well. The criticism strikes me as
justified, but what it is beyond that is properly instructive.
It will indeed be interesting to see if Krugman and other 'liberals' can eventually acknowledge
their role in enabling a system that pissed so many off. It's not just his incessant boosterism
for a lousy candidate, even before a single vote had been cast in the primaries. It is also his
incessant boosterism of policies that overwhelmingly benefited the investor class and damaged
workers.
Krugman can talk all he wants about the truth...but the truth is that Democrats have been ignoring
workers for a long, long time.
Pavlina R. Tcherneva: "Democrats have not had an economic policy of their own for nearly half
a century, just an 'inferior' version of what Republicans usually champion-tax cuts on the wealthy,
dismantling the public safety-net, 'fighting' inflation by creating unemployment, market liberalization
and deregulation across the board, which among other things brought us a colossal financial sector
that has cannibalized the productive economy."
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2016/11/economic-consequences-donald-trump.html
Krugman was a major 'very serious person' promoting Republican-lite policies...
"It's an idea economists view with contempt..." -- Paul Krugman
June 24, "Lumps of Brexit"
"So it turns out the establishment telling people they are a bunch of foolish xenophobes is
not an effective electoral strategy. I wonder if the DNC is paying attention? I doubt it."
"Do you hear that, voters? The experts view your ideas with contempt. They brag about viewing
your ideas with contempt. They plagiarize each other bragging about how much contempt they have
for your ideas. Now what are going to do about it? Just ignore them?"
A scary thought just occurred to me. I believe the double austerity (monetary,fiscal) of the past
8 years played an huge role in getting us where we are.
Monetary hawks in particular basically jammed the investment markets in economic areas where
margins were already thin, meaning rural and less educated and inexperienced groups fell into
unemployment, hardship and misery for long periods of time.
Even if, unemployment wise, things were getting better in the end, these people were suffering
for years through no fault of their own. It wasn't clear things had changed enough to prevent
it from happening again. How much does unemployment set the average rural household back. Loosing
40000 a year for 8 years is 240000. Even if they now had a job they were starting out 240000 behind
in their career and it seemed like things could deteriorate again and vulnerable regions would
again be hit the hardest.
I don know how Trump is going to manage the economy, but many have pointed out that he may
not be an austerian.
Of course Trump doesn't have all the power, other republicans may push back on spending and
inflation but he seems to be good at manipulating others to get what he wants.
What if, despite the other things he is likely going to screw up, his policies end up being
very stimulative and the economy ends up doing very well? What if it ends up being like those
destructive wars that nonetheless boost the economy?
This might give legitimacy to his presidency and to other people like him.
There might not be anything we can do now. The monetary hawks should have been dealt with way
before. The government should have put much more emphasis on the unemployment part of the Fed
dual mandate and maybe raise the inflation target. By giving the opportunity to Trump to fix this
incredibly damaging yet easily fixable problem, he may have been set up for success. His success
could mean being stuck with people like him for a long time.
The only way to create real lasting growth is to change income and wealth distributions. Both
Regan and Bush II had economic growth, but not spectacularly- considering their increases in national
debt. Reagan presided over a 4-fold increase in national debt but had decent, not spectacular,
economic growth.
It is very unfortunate that the GOPsters blocked additional stimulus because they wanted Obama
(the nation) to fail for political reasons. The exact same infrastructure program that would have
been a great win-win-win 4 years ago (and was blocked by GOPsters), will likely be instituted
under Trump. Unfortunately, at this point we are close to full employment so the stimulus will
likely cause wage inflation and the Fed will raise rates in response to that. So we will not be
able to finance it by 0% interest and the growth effects of the infrastructure program will be
tempered by the Fed.
Isn't it likely that the Republicans are going to open the spigots and give Trump a couple of
years of "prosperity"? Republican "devotion" to "fiscal sanity" has been one of the most transparent
horseshit ploys of the last 25 years. Anyway, it seems like an obvious ploy to grease the skids
for the next midterm elections.
If that kind of short-term ploy leads to more constraints and difficulties later -- that's
**another** bonus. That means down the road we can stoke even more cynicism about public action.
"See? Government can't do anything! Told ya!"
Have Dems figured this out yet? To listen to them, I'm not sure.
Don't be so hard on yourself. This election was not about policy and being informed.
Almost the entire economic profession was unprecedentedly united against Trump. Rarely do you
have universal agreement among economists, but they agreed Trump would be terrible. Even Mankiw
said no to Trump.
Despite this, almost half of the voting population thought Trump would be better for the economy.
Then there were factors outside of Hilary's control. Since this was a marginal "victory" for
Trump, the Comey comment, the one-sided attack from wikileaks, and the years of hammering away
at non-scandals over email and Benghazi could have easily had marginal impacts enough to tilt
the election to Trump.
The exit polling I've seen this morning suggests that even most Trump supporters thought that
Clinton would be better for the economy than Trump. The election wasn't about that. Economic obviously
has a lot to do with how people feel, but the enormous anger of the Trump electorate had more
to do with cultural despair than dollars and cents. The decline of white Christian America wasn't
cooked up at Davos by a neoliberal cabal. Its causes lie in the relative decline of American power,
demographic changes, and the gradual triumph of secularization. This is an economics blog so perhaps
it's inevitable that everything gets seen here as depending on economics, but Trump didn't win
because Paul Krugman accused somebody of the lump of labor fallacy.
Most polls I saw put Trump anywhere to 40%-50% among all voters.
There was a lot of anger among Trump supporters. Some of the anger was because of demographics.
Some of it economics. Some of it against the establishment. Some of it was being angry for the
sake of being angry.
The deplorables did come out of the woodwork, but I don't think they alone put him power. There
is just not enough of them. They are loud and a minority. Sadly, the rest of the supporters were
largely complicit in their despicable behavior and it was not enough to sway them.
Given the tight margins in elections like this you can pick and choose half a dozen "causes" for
the Trump win. One thing that struck me was that compared to the 2012 election Trump had less
votes than Romney, but Hillary had much less than Obama. So it was about the balance between firing
up voters on your side and turning off voters on the other side.
Just a thought, can you name a Rep president who was in office when taxes on the super wealthy
were used to provide direct aid to the poorest in the country?
The biggest mistake made by many liberals and progressives is to think that there is no meaningful
difference between the two parties. That mistake may have destroyed the global climate by putting
Bush/Cheney in the white house rather than Gore. What damage it will do this time around is yet
to be determined, but I am not optimistic. Those morons need to grow up and understand that in
a two party system nobody gets even most of what they want.
This is a conversation I have with my 20 year old son who was passionate for Bernie. I kept telling
him if you think it is bad now just wait when a Republican gets in the White House (and with majorities
in congress no less!) Apparently it is OK to burn it all down in pursuit of the ideal which is
a very immature view of people who have no responsibilities or who do not have enough compassion
for the old, poor, disabled, homeless or sick people of this world. Republican policies crush
people in those categories and we are all in one of those categories at some point in our lives.
This is BS, most Democrats believe in the building up the working class. Republicans and Democrats
who might as well be Republicans never fight for the working class and actually conspire to make
their lives worse off.
"most Democrats believe in the building up the working class"
Sorry, but as far as I can tell, while it's true that professional Dems enjoy **talking about**
"building up the working class", they're not all that keen on actually doing anything about it.
Why can't all those rednecks learn JavaScript and live fat off of web design? Stupid rubes....
(That link may seem a bit
confusing. Ya gotta scroll down.)
Chuck Schumer backs Keith Ellison
to head of the D.N.C.
Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the incoming Democratic leader, threw his weight behind
Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota on Friday to be the new chairman of the Democratic National
Committee, the clearest sign yet that, in defeat, the party will move to the left.
After losing the working-class Rust Belt to Mr. Trump, Democrats could have recruited an industrial-region
populist like Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio, who represents the Youngstown area. But Senator
Bernie Sanders of Vermont quickly backed Mr. Ellison, who is black, Muslim and an ardent progressive.
Two former governors, Howard Dean of Vermont and Martin O'Malley of Maryland, also expressed
interest Friday in being the party's new committee chairman.
Mark, thank you for your work here - I have learned a lot and deeply appreciate your efforts.
You have already done a great deal and helped to change the discourse. My thoughts from the Bush
presidency in 2007 are at the link from my name.
I grew up in a police state (apartheid South Africa) and was constantly oppressed by the awareness
that I wasn't doing enough, could not do enough, to stop the evil. Eventually it's necessary to
learn how "to care and not to care". Do what little I could, let it go and go to sleep, get up
and try again.
As I said in today's column, nobody who thought Trump would be a disaster should change his
or her mind because he won the election. He will, in fact, be a disaster on every front. And I
think he will eventually drag the Republican Party into the abyss along with his own reputation;
the question is whether he drags the rest of the country, and the world, down with him.
But it's important not to expect this to happen right away. There's a temptation to predict
immediate economic or foreign-policy collapse; I gave in to that temptation Tuesday night, but
quickly realized that I was making the same mistake as the opponents of Brexit (which I got right).
So I am retracting that call, right now. It's at least possible that bigger budget deficits will,
if anything, strengthen the economy briefly. More detail in Monday's column, I suspect.
On other fronts, too, don't expect immediate vindication. America has a vast stock of reputational
capital, built up over generations; even Trump will take some time to squander it.
The true awfulness of Trump will become apparent over time. Bad things will happen, and he
will be clueless about how to respond; if you want a parallel, think about how Katrina revealed
the hollowness of the Bush administration, and multiply by a hundred. And his promises to bring
back the good old days will eventually be revealed as the lies they are.
But it probably won't happen in a year. So the effort to reclaim American decency is going
to have to have staying power; we need to build the case, organize, create the framework. And,
of course, never forget who is right.
It's going to be a long time in the wilderness, and it's going to be awful. If I sound calm
and philosophical, I'm not - like everyone who cares, I'm frazzled, sleepless, depressed. But
we need to be stalwart.
Don't set your goals to high. The election of Trump is not something you alone could have prevented
- it is a collective failure of the progressive and fact-based community. Whatever you did it
pulled in the right direction. It's just that the load was to heavy and the forces pulling in
the other direction to strong. If you stop pulling it will be that more difficult for those of
us who continue the good fight.
I stopped fully reading Krugman's links in February. He has become illogical and filing
fallacies of argument (first sentence examples) based on blind loyalty to a personality party
that is not in the tiniest bit worse than the GOP.
His writings with the most of the NYT, mainstream media etc made me conclude they are a
Stalinist press machine.
There is an on-line petition up that directs the Electoral College to consider just the popular
vote of this weeks election, and when the time comes (Dec 19), cast their votes for Hillary Clinton.
"... The Democrats don't represent the blue collar class anymore, but neither do the Republicans. Republicans supported NAFTA, CAFTA and China joining the WTO. They were the architects of the modern economy. The forerunners that the Clinton Democrats emulated. They were major advocates of deregulation of the financial sector, weakening of anti-trust laws, the destruction of the social safety net, and the crippling of labor unions. They created the wealth gap under Ronald Reagan. TPP might be considered Obama's project, but a Republican Congress fast-tracked it. ..."
The Democrats don't represent the blue collar class anymore, but neither do the Republicans.
Republicans supported NAFTA, CAFTA and China joining the WTO. They were the architects of the
modern economy. The forerunners that the Clinton Democrats emulated. They were major advocates
of deregulation of the financial sector, weakening of anti-trust laws, the destruction of the
social safety net, and the crippling of labor unions. They created the wealth gap under Ronald
Reagan. TPP might be considered Obama's project, but a Republican Congress fast-tracked it.
This was less about which party better represents the working class than it was about which
personality and rhetoric the working class preferred. Trump was talking about illegal immigration,
trade policy, manufacturing jobs, rigged politics and sycophantic media, while Clinton was talking
about incremental changes to subsidize childcare. If it had been Sanders and Jeb! it would've
gone the other way, for much the same reasons.
The analysis is correct more of less , the issue here is class , the Republicans and Democrats
are the two wings of the same party. The party of property and money and the powerful , the
vote for Trump is one of those events that happens much like Obama being elected twice after
the Republicans stole the two previous elections via the supreme court and election fraud. It
can happen but the system remains the same , there is no serious challenge to the supremacy of
the ruling class.
The one analysis you will not hear in the media is a class one and if it
is then it will be howled down lest it gain currency and the wage slaves realise they have
been conned yet again , Trump is not unusual in his attitudes or views , it's just that the
campaign gave them wide publicity.
In the UK the same kind of thing has happened to Labour , they lost Scotland and the 2010
election and the remain vote because ordinary working people are tired just as they are in the
US of seeing the rich get every richer and their own living standards fall and nothing in the
future but more pain and misery. They vote UKIP/SNP here as a cry in the wilderness and they
voted for Trump for the same reason because they aren't what they've had before , the real
problem will come when the right wing populists have been in power for a while and nothing has
really improved.
"... HiIlary Clinton is a perfect enemy of Trump. She has become rich in office, and as Harry Truman said "anyone who gets rich in politics is a crook". She has dedicated her life to political power at the top while growing ever wealthier from its use. And she loves foreign wars. She has supported a long line of eco-genocidal attacks and bombings of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine, all of them still in motion and waiting for her to be escalated further. ..."
"... Know a man by his enemies. Trump has countless enemies, but most of them march to the drums of endless wars of aggression and care less about the casualties of tens of millions of lost good jobs in America. Most are neo-liberals in fact, the bipartisan doctrine of dispossession of citizens and foreign wars to grow the system further. The worst have been Washington servants of the world corporate machine looting the world. They above all condemn his peace overtures to Russia and his promise to repeal NAFTA – both unspeakable heresies on the US public stage until Trump's movement against them. ..."
"... Where Trump agrees with the US money-and-war party is on Israel and Iran. He started with a policy of more neutrality towards the Israel-Palestine conflict, but soon backed out when the attack-dogs went into action with a $50 million gift for his campaign from a wealthy Zionist at the same time. Then he declared " Israel is America". So Trump can proclaim opposite positions without a blink, including on the continuous war crimes of Israel supported by the US. ..."
"... When you join the dots to Trump preaching a policy revolt against the insatiable corporate jaws feeding on trillions of dollars of public budgets in Washington, the underlying meaning emerges. He wants to stop the non-productive transnational corporations from feasting on the public purse. At the beginning after 2008, he even dared to recognize that Wall Street should be nationalized, as it once was by the American Revolution, Abraham Lincoln and FDR's Federal Reserve. This would be as big a turn of US government in the people's interests as stopping ruinous foreign wars. ..."
"... Trump also once said that the US "must be neutral, an honest broker" on the Israel-Palestine conflict – as unspeakable as it gets in US politics. Big Pharma was also called out with "$400 billion to be saved by government negotiation of prices". He even confronted the more powerful HMO's with the possibility of a "one-payer system" far better than the Obamacare pork-barrel for ever higher insurance premiums. ..."
HiIlary Clinton is a perfect enemy of Trump. She has become rich in office, and as Harry Truman
said "anyone who gets rich in politics is a crook". She has dedicated her life to political power
at the top while growing ever wealthier from its use. And she loves foreign wars. She has supported
a long line of eco-genocidal attacks and bombings of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine,
all of them still in motion and waiting for her to be escalated further.
Know a man by his enemies. Trump has countless enemies, but most of them march to the drums of
endless wars of aggression and care less about the casualties of tens of millions of lost good jobs
in America. Most are neo-liberals in fact, the bipartisan doctrine of dispossession of citizens and
foreign wars to grow the system further. The worst have been Washington servants of the world corporate
machine looting the world. They above all condemn his peace overtures to Russia and his promise to
repeal NAFTA – both unspeakable heresies on the US public stage until Trump's movement against them.
HiIlary Clinton is a perfect enemy of Trump. She has become rich in office, and as Harry Truman
said "anyone who gets rich in politics is a crook". She has dedicated her life to political power
at the top while growing ever wealthier from its use. And she loves foreign wars. She has supported
a long line of eco-genocidal attacks and bombings of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine,
all of them still in motion and waiting for her to be escalated further.
She wants a return to this bombing in Syria as a "free-fly zone" – free for US and NATO bombers
– just as she led Libya's destruction from 2011 on. She abuses Russia and slanders Putin at every
opportunity and she supported the neo-Nazi coup overthrowing the elected government of Ukraine and
the civil war since. She has done nothing but advocate or agree to endless US-led war crimes without
any life gain but only mass murder, social ruin and terror which she ignores. Like her mentor Madeleine
Allbright , even the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children in Iraq by Clinton-led bombing are
"worth the price".
Where Trump agrees with the US money-and-war party is on Israel and Iran. He started with
a policy of more neutrality towards the Israel-Palestine conflict, but soon backed out when the attack-dogs
went into action with a $50 million gift for his campaign from a wealthy Zionist at the same time.
Then he declared " Israel is America". So Trump can proclaim opposite positions without a blink,
including on the continuous war crimes of Israel supported by the US.
Trump also bellows against on the giveaway of many billions of US money to Iran and prefers to
bomb their nuclear facilities as Israel wants, and has already done in Syria. He does not tell his
audience that all of this US money is Iran's money being returned to it from its US seizure
in exchange for its nuclear disarmament never suggested for Israel which has enough nuclear weaponry
to blow up the whole Middle East and beyond. Trump too is not to be trusted when it suits his run
to be US President. Yet even here Trump still holds to his position that use of nuclear weapons means
"game over". Clinton and the bipartisan money-and-war party express no such constraint.
Why the Establishment Hates Trump, But Will Accept Him
All of them have reason to hate Trump for a more basic reason. He is seemingly alone in the money-media-military
establishment to publicly deplore the rigged electoral system in which big money and media rule –
formerly unspeakable in the press and political discussion on stage. Trump has even voiced suspicion
of the 9-11 killing spectacle and the "six-trillion- dollar" haemorrhage of US money on Middle East
and Afghanistan wars propelled and justified by 9-11 from 2001 on.
Yet here again the problem is that Trump backs off as soon as he thinks he will not be able to
sell it. This is the art of political lying at which Trump, like Reagan, is a master. But the hard-line
difference between Trump and Reagan and neo-con-lib rulers over the last 30 years is deep – Trump's
denunciation of NAFTA and willingness to have peace with other nations not bowing to Uncle Sam.
Before Trump, job-destroying edicts of transnational global corporations and captive states called
'free trade' have been anathema to oppose in official society. But Trump sticks to his heretical
position. Right up to the election he has promised a "35% tariff" on products of US factories that
disemploy workers to get cheaper labor elsewhere. No-one in the US political establishment has risked
such a position, or blamed these corporate-rights treaties for hollowing out American society itself.
It is apostasy in the corporate 'free press'.
Trump is still hated for such deviations from the official corporate-state line. But the haters
cannot say this. They stick to the politically correct repudiations, and call him "racist", "sexist",
"bigot" and so on even if the conclusion does follow from what he says or does. Selected instances
are the ruling fallacy here.
Trump and the Media-Lie System
Trump is unique in calling out the major mass media as continuous purveyors of lies and propaganda
– although he centers it on himself and not global corporate rule across borders which they worship.
Anyone not doing so is excommunicated from the press. This profound disorder is never allowed into
the mass media as an issue, and Trump never raises it. He too is a believer, but one who sees the
life costs of the sacrifice-workers rule inside the US. He also advocates job-creating public spending
on physical infrastructure which is as crucial to his movement as it was to FDR. It is no longer
taboo inside the dumkopfen party
Trump is a first. Never before has anyone been able to denounce the mass media framing, half-truths
and fabrications and still come out stronger The onslaught of ideological assassination by
a hireling intelligentsia and media of record like the New York Times has always succeeded
before. Trump reacts only as it affects his own position, but his raw defiance right into the cameras
has been eye-popping and unique in America.
This may be Trump's most remarkable achievement. He has been slandered and demonized more than
Russia's Putin, and Russia-baiting him with McCarthy-like accusations of collaboration with Putin
has been part of the attack by Hillary and the press. Yet passionate voter support of Trump has still
grown in the face of all this denunciation by the political establishment.
An underlying revolution in thinking has occurred. Trump has tapped the deep chords of worker
rage at dispossession by forced corporate globalization, criminally disastrous Middle East wars,
and trillions of dollars of bailouts to Wall Street. He never connects the dots on stage. But by
Clinton's advocacy of all of them, she has made them her own and will go down because of it.
Trump's unflinching vast ego and media savvy have been what she and the political establishment
are too corrupted to defeat, The underlying contradiction that now raises its head pits the mass
media against the President of the United States himself – against the long sacred office of the
commander-in-chief of US power across the world, precisely what he is proposing to pacify with friendly
relations instead of ruinous war invasions as in Iraq. Many observers think that Wall Street and
big money won't let it happen. Or that Trump will like others before him will be determined by the
office. Or that Clinton's billion dollars of PAC money will succeed work in the end. But the meaning
is out and cannot be reversed out of sight.
Whatever happens next in this saga it will be ground-shaking. The worst that can happen to Trump's
enemies is that he wins despite the all-fronts attack. They define his underlying meaning, just as
the Enemy they construct abroad defines them. If he loses, there will be a carnival of the money-war-media
party pretending a healing of the great division that has come to view. But this is not a Republican-Democrat
division. It is as deep as all the lost jobs and lives since 2001, and it is ultimately grounded
in the tens of millions of dispossessed people which the life-blind global market system and its
wars have imposed on America too.
The Great Division Will Not Go Away
Trump is the closest to an egomaniac that has ever run for the presidential office. If he were
not, he could not have withstood the public shaming heaped upon him by the political establishment
and dominant media everywhere.
But the tens of millions of Americans for whom Trump speaks tend to have one thing in common more
than anything else. They have been dispossessed and smeared by the neo-con/ neo-liberal alliance
that has taken or traded away their life security and belittled them with political correctness –
the establishment's patronizing diversion from their fallen state.
All the while, the ruling money party behind the media and the wars is system-driven to seek limitlessly
more money under masks of 'free trade' and "America's interests abroad'. The majority is left behind
as the sacrificial living dead. Multiplying transnational money sequences of the very rich have bled
the world into a comatose state, and perpetual wars against the next Enemy of the cancerous system
have sown chaos across the world.
Trump at least starts remission by seeing a criminally blind rule and chaos inside America itself.
Before his campaign, there was helplessness against the invading wars and money sequences always
profiting from the global ruin. The reality has been taboo to see in public. Only entertainments
have appeared in ever new guises as the corporate money-and-war machine has rolled and careened on
across all borders, now marching East through Ukraine into Russia, Brazil to Venezuela to the Caribbean,
from the Congo to the South China Sea.
The Trump entertainment, the most watched in the world, may be the long bridge to taking down
the neo-liberal pillars of majority dispossession and war-criminal state.
Trump is the Opposite to Reagan in Policy Directions
On the face of it, Trump is an ideal leader for US empire. He is like Ronald Reagan on steroids.
His long practiced camera image, his nativist US supremacism, his down-home talk, and his reality-show
confidence all go one better. He is America come to meet itself decades down the road as its pride
slips away in third-world conditions.
But unlike Reagan and Bush who spoke to the rich becoming richer, Trump speaks to the losing white
working class and those who have come to hate the money-corrupted Washington forging the policies
of dispossession Reagan started.
Washington has since ignored and patronized their plight over 30 years. Trump's constituency has
been the disposable rejects from the corporate global system that it is rigged from top to bottom
with rights only for the profits of transnational abroad and bought politicians at home.
The Trump constituency may have no clear idea of this inner logic of the system. But they directly
experience the unemployment, underemployment, ever lower pay, deprived pensions, degraded living
conditions, public squalor, contempt from official society, and no future for their children.
At the surface level, what drives them mad is the 'political correctness' that diverts all attention
from their plight to pant-suit 'feminists' getting a leg up, racial rights with no life substance,
sexual queers they had been conditioned to abhor, and other symbols of oppression changed as the actually ruling system of dispossession becomes inexorably worse all the
way down to their grand children.
Here too Hillary Clinton has been an embodiment of the smug ideology of the system that bleeds
the unseen job-deprived into powerless humiliation: an existential crisi where the secure jobs and
goods of US life have been stripped from them in continuous eviction from the American way with no
notice.
While Trump's narrative is that the American Dream seeks recovery again, the dominant media and
political elite relentlessly denounce him for his message. He gives lots of ammunition to them. His
most popular line is "build the wall", "build the great wall" between Mexico and the US. No political
correctness cares that the biggest source of near-slave labor for the big businesses of the US South
is Mexican 'illegals', and Trump himself never mentions this. He prefers to blame the Mexican illegals
themselves for drugs, rape and violence, the standard lie of blame-the-poorer for your problems.
Trump also wants to tax their slim earnings to pay for the wall. This is the still running sore of
America beneath the lost jobs.
Trump has thus attracted lots of votes. But many non-ignorant people too recognise that the tens
of millions of illegal migrants seeking work in the richer USA cannot continue in any country with
borders, or any nation that seeks to keep worker wages up not down by lower priced labor flooding
in. The legal way must be the only way if the law of nations is to exist and working people are to
be secure from dispossession by starvation wages illegal migrants can be hired for. Borders are,
few notice, the very target of the carcinogenic neo-liberal program.
Of course the political discourse never gets to this real and complex economic base of the problem.
Nor does Trump. His choral promise is "'l'll fix it. Believe me". But something deeper than demagoguery
and blaming the weak is afoot here. An untapped historic resentment is boiling up from underneath
which has long been unspeakable on the political stage. Trump has mined it and proposed a concrete
solution – one grand gate through which immigrants must pass.
Is this really racist? It is rather that Trump is very good at bait and switch. From his now deserted
promise to halve the Pentagon's budget to getting the Congress off corporate-donation payrolls, now
by fixed congressional terms, the public wealth that the politicians and corporate lobbies stand
to lose from a Trump presidency is very disturbing to them. The Mexican wall does not fit the borderless
neo-liberal program either. But all of it is welcome to citizens' ears. That is why the establishment
hates Trump for exposing all these issues long kept in the closet and covered over by politically
correct identity politics.
On the other hand, Trump leaves the halving of the Pentagon's budget behind as soon as he sees
the massive private money forces against it. It is Reagan in reverse. He now promises hundreds of
billions more to the military – but he still opposes foreign wars. That might even do it. But this
most major issue of the election has been completely ignored by the media and opposing politicians
alike. It is the historic core of his bid for the presidency.
Yet the US political establishment across parties cannot yet even conceive it so used are they
to the Reagan-led war state, the military corporate lobbies paying them off in every Senate seat,
anti-union policies at macro as well as micro levels, and always designated foreign enemies to bomb
for resistance. "Say Uncle" said Reagan to the Sandinistas when they asked what could stop the mercenary
killers paid by US covert drug running from bombing their harbours, schools and clinics.
Trump is going the opposite direction in foreign affairs, but the establishment commentators call
it "isolationist" to discredit it. Clinton talks of overcoming the divisions in America, but has
never mentioned holding back on foreign wars. On the contrary, she approves more war power against
Russia and in Syria and in the Ukraine. This is the biggest danger that no media covers – ever more
ruinous US wars on other continents. The formula is old and Reagan exemplified it. Russia is portrayed
as the evil threat to justify pouring up to two billion dollars-a-day of public money into the US
war-for-profit machine occupying across the world, now prepping for China.
But the bipartisan war party backed by Wall Street is going down if Trump's policy can prevail.
This may be the salvation of America and the world, but it is silenced up to election day.
Trump Against the Special Interests
At the beginning g of his public campaign, Trump's policy claims threatened almost every big lobby
now in control of US government purse strings. And these policies grounded in no more foreign wars
which have already cost over 'six trillion dollars' of US public money. At the same time, the country's
physical infrastructures degrade on all levels, and its people's lives are increasingly impoverished
and insecure for the majority. Trump promises to rebuild them all.
Yet the cut-off of hundreds of billions of public giveaways to the Big Corps that Trump advocated
did not end here. It hit almost every wide-mouthed transnational corporate siphon into the US Treasury,
taxpayers' pockets and the working majority of America. Masses of American citizens increasingly
without living wages and benefits and in growing insecurity listened to what the political establishment
and corporate media had long silenced.
Trump raised the great dispossession into the establishment's face, and this is why he will win.
"In the souls of the people the grapes of wrath are filling and growing heavy, growing heavy for
the vintage"."The grapes of wrath have risen from the long painful stripping of the people's livelihoods,
their social substance and their cities by corporate globalization selecting for the limitless enrichment
of the few living off an ever-growing takes from public coffers and the impoverishment of America's
working citizens. A primal rage has united them across party lines in the public person of Donald
Trump.
Can he deliver? Well he certainly has shown the guts necessary to do so, most uniquely in facing
down the corporate media and Washington politicians.
Looking Past the Victory
The issue still remains that Trump does not promise any fixing of the greatest transfer of wealth
to the very rich in history that Reagan started. This great transfer of wealth includes his own.
We may recall that his model Ronald Reagan started this Great Dispossession to "make America great
again" too.
Now Trump has promised a massive tax cut to the rich and private capital gains as Reagan did.
In the meantime nothing has been less talked about in election commentary than the globally powerful
interests Trump promised to rein back from the public troughs bleeding the country's capacities to
build for and to employ its people. On this topic, there has been only silence from the media and
politicians, and retreating vague generalizations from Trump.
At the beginning, he not only went after the foreign wars, but the sweetheart deals of the government
with Big Pharma, the health insurance racket, lobby-run foreign policy, off-shore tax evasion, and
global trade taking jobs in the tens of millions from home workers. This is why the establishment
so universally hated him. Most of their private interests in looting public wealth were named. He
reversed the tables on the parasite rich in Washington lobbying and gobbling up public money faster
than it could be bribed, printed and allocated to their schemes – except on real estate, his own
big money 'special interest' not centered in Washington. Indeed Trump loves 'eminent domain', state
seizure of people's private property for big developers like him.
This is where Trump joins hands with those depending on the deep system corruptions he has promised
to reverse. He even asked, in his loud way, how these huge private interests go on getting away with
a corporate-lobby state transferring ever more public wealth and control to them at the expense of
the American working majority and their common interest as Americans. But it had all pretty well
slid away by election day except the hatred of self-enriching Washington fixers like Hillary, Mexican
illegals, the Obamacare new charges (with no mention of the HMO's doing it), and the disrespect for
people bearing arms by the second-amendment right.
Do we have here the familiar positional determinism where political and economic class
leaders desert what they promised as they enter into elected office or have sold the goods?
Yet the victory Trump is about to reap is far from empty for America and the world if he keeps
to the promises he made. The money-and media-rigged elections have stayed front and center where
no-one in official politics dared say it before. The black-hole of US foreign wars has above all
has remained his historic target.
His entire strategy has been based on getting public attention, and he is a master at it. He is
unbuyably rich, has energy beyond a rock star, and is the most watched person in America across the
country and the world for months on end. He can't be shut up. Media stigmatization and slander without
let-up do not work as always before.
Trump is also capable of meeting perhaps the world's most important challenges, holding back the
global US war machine from perpetual eco-genocidal aggression and investing back into public infrastructure
and workers' productive jobs.
Most importantly, Trump challenges "the Enemy" cornerstone of US ideology when he says "wouldn't
it be nice to get along with Russia and China for a change?" And as he said to Canada whose branch-plant
corporate state still plays minion to its US corporate masters, "congratulations. You have become
independent".
As for Trump's much publicized 'denial of climate change, it is not really accurate. He has said
little on the topic, but has expressed his opposition to "bullshit government spending" on preventing
climate. So does James Lovelock, the famous global ecologist behind 'the Gaia hypothesis '. Certainly
the green-wash hoaxes of the private corporations (and Al Gore) becoming much richer than before
on solutions that do not work to prevent the global market-led climate destabilization do need more
astute appraisal.
When you join the dots to Trump preaching a policy revolt against the insatiable corporate
jaws feeding on trillions of dollars of public budgets in Washington, the underlying meaning emerges.
He wants to stop the non-productive transnational corporations from feasting on the public purse.
At the beginning after 2008, he even dared to recognize that Wall Street should be nationalized,
as it once was by the American Revolution, Abraham Lincoln and FDR's Federal Reserve. This would
be as big a turn of US government in the people's interests as stopping ruinous foreign wars.
Trump also once said that the US "must be neutral, an honest broker" on the Israel-Palestine
conflict – as unspeakable as it gets in US politics. Big Pharma was also called out with "$400 billion
to be saved by government negotiation of prices". He even confronted the more powerful HMO's with
the possibility of a "one-payer system" far better than the Obamacare pork-barrel for ever higher
insurance premiums.
Trump is no working-class hero. He has long been a predatory capitalist with all the furies of
greed, egoism and self-promotion that the ruling system selects for. But he is not rich from foreign
wars of aggression, or from exporting the costs of labor to foreign jurisdictions with subhuman standards.
He has not been getting richer or more smug by seeking high office in a context of saturating slander
and denunciation from official society. He has initiated a long overdue recognition of parasite capitalism
eating out and wasting the life capacities of the US itself as well as the larger world.
Trump has now won the first major step that his enemies declared inconceivable, and he can now
do what he has promised 'in the place where the buck stops'.
Prof. John McMurtry is author of The Cancer Stage of Capitalism: From Crisis to Cure (available
from University of Chicago Press) and an elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada.
The headline is "Did third-party candidates Jill Stein and Gary Johnson lose Clinton the election?"
and the short answer is no, but Chalabi takes the time to point out the reasoning behind the answer.
Thanks for the link. Don't get me wrong, there are 1 or 2 writers still worth reading and some
articles that actually provide content.
It's just that, overall, the jist the of paper seems to have established a deliberate policy
of contradictory messaging to cloud important issues, or momentarily providing balance to only
later use the apparent balance a to push a one-sided agenda.
The Blairite faction's attack on Corbyn and the guardian's coverage comes to mind. It was pure
hack journalism. The political careerists were so obviously in league with the hack journalist
careerists.
Apart from the Science & Tech stuff I've really only been reading the Graun recently (esp since
its utterly scandalous treatment of Corbyn (*)) for the Thomas Frank pieces. Is he publishing
these anywhere else on-line ?
(*) They're probably kicking themselves for not labeling them as `deplorables' & letting the
Clinton team get to this phrase first.
The fact is that the world has gotten along just as well without a hegemon as with one (assuming
that America really holds something like such a position right now), and perhaps better, and that
most of the colossal wreckage of our last century came from one set of powers either trying to preserve
their hegemony or seize that hegemony from those who possessed it. It is not a worthy or admirable
goal for any people, and it usually only spells ruin for the would-be hegemon and everyone else.
An American refusal to be the hegemon will not mean pandemonium and chaos in the world (no more than
there already is, at any rate). It will, in all likelihood, force other regional powers to reassess
their own responsibilities (if we must use this patronising and ridiculous language) for their own
areas.
This process might involve some violence in certain parts of the world as regional powers impose
their goals on neighbours, but this will generally be no more than the general, global violence resisting
the general, global dominance of one state in perpetuity. Some pro-imperialist and interventionist
talking heads often refer to a "global counterinsurgency" when speaking of terrorism. But there cannot
be a global counterinsurgency if one ceases to claim practical lordship over the earth.
One of the greatest weaknesses of the hegemonist or imperialist/interventionist view is that it
has so completely failed to take account of the fruits of the collapse of the Soviet bloc. (The other
great weakness is the presumption that the world must fall apart without American, i.e., their tutelage.)
The fruits of the fall of the USSR have been largely positive, at least in terms of international
affairs. The erstwhile chaos and complexity of the world is simply a return to normality in international
relations before the massive artifice of the two power blocs. Anarchy and economic exploitation broke
out in Russia in the 1990s, thanks largely to the shock therapy it received from Western "friends,"
but in most of the world the old Soviet areas of control and influence enjoyed more or less stable
and relatively moderate governments. The wars in Yugoslavia are often held up as an example of the
future nature of conflict in this century, but what this ignores is that these wars were largely
the exception to the experience of states in the wake of the Cold War. It also ignores that the Balkan
wars were in no small part manufactured and encouraged by outside powers to advance old, Great Power
goals of dominance.
Mr. Ferguson's answer for the relatively peaceful, post-Soviet world is more domination by the
winning bloc to ensure…the peace and stability that already exist in much of the world. We heard
much the same thing before the invasion of Iraq: we must invade to ensure regional stability! Then
we heard that the stability in the Near East was the wrong kind of stability, and it needed to go
anyway. But stability is simply the codeword for domination, and where the empire does not dominate
there must, of necessity, be instability.
"... Prioritizing foreign over domestic policy, Jackson's former aides Richard Perle , Douglas Feith , and Elliott Abrams - along with some fellow travelers like Paul Wolfowitz - eventually shifted their allegiance to the right-wing Republican Ronald Reagan. They formed an important pro-Israel, "peace through strength" nucleus within the new president's foreign policy team. ..."
John Feffer Director, Foreign Policy
In Focus and Editor, LobeLog Much has been made of the swing in political allegiances of neoconservatives
in favor of Hillary Clinton.
As a group, Washington's neocons are generally terrified of Trump's unpredictability and his flirtation
with the alt-right. They also support Clinton's more assertive foreign policy (not to mention her
closer relationship to Israel). Perhaps, too, after eight long years in the wilderness, they're daydreaming
of an appointment or two in a Clinton administration.
This group of previously staunch Republicans, who believe in using American military power to
promote democracy, build nations, and secure U.S. interests abroad, have defected in surprising numbers.
Washington Post columnist
Robert Kagan , the Wall Street Journal 's
Bret Stephens , and the
Foreign
Policy Initiative 's
James Kirchick have all endorsed Clinton. Other prominent neocons like The National Review
's William Kristol
, the Wall Street Journal 's
Max Boot , and SAIS's
Eliot Cohen have rejected
Trump but not quite taken the leap to supporting Clinton.
A not particularly large or well-defined group, neoconservatives have attracted a disproportionate
amount of attention in this election. For the Trump camp, these Republican defectors merely prove
that the elite is out to get their candidate, thus reinforcing his outsider credentials (never mind
that Trump initially
wooed neocons like Kristol).
For the left , the neocons are flocking to support a bird of their feather, at least when it
comes to foreign policy, which reflects badly on Clinton. The mainstream media, meanwhile, is attracted
to the man-bites-dog aspect of the story (news flash: members of the vast right-wing conspiracy support
Clinton!).
As we come to the end of the election campaign, which has been more a clash of personalities than
of ideologies, the neocon defections offer a much more interesting storyline. As the Republican Party
potentially coalesces around a more populist center, the neocons are the canary in the coal mine.
Their squawking suggests that the American political scene is about to suffer a cataclysm. What will
that mean for U.S. foreign policy?
A History of Defection
The neoconservative movement began within the Democratic Party. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a Democrat
from Washington State, carved out a new position in the party with his liberal domestic policies
and hardline Cold War stance. He was a strong booster of civil rights and environmental legislation.
At the same time, he favored military build-up and a stronger relationship with Israel. He was also
dismayed with the Nixon administration's détente with the Soviet Union.
Prioritizing foreign over domestic policy, Jackson's former aides
Richard Perle
, Douglas Feith
, and Elliott
Abrams - along with some fellow travelers like
Paul Wolfowitz
- eventually shifted their allegiance to the right-wing Republican Ronald Reagan. They formed
an important pro-Israel, "peace through strength" nucleus within the new president's foreign policy
team.
At the end of the Reagan era, their commitment to such policies as regime change in the Middle
East, confrontation with Russia, and opposition to multilateral institutions like the United Nations
brought them into conflict with realists in the George H.W. Bush administration. So many of them
defected once again to support Bill Clinton.
Writes
Jim Lobe:
A small but not insignificant number of them, repelled by George H.W. Bush's realpolitik, and
more specifically his Middle East policy and pressure on then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir to
join the Madrid peace conference after the first Gulf War, deserted the party in 1992 and publicly
endorsed Bill Clinton. Richard Schifter, Morris Amitay of the Jewish Institute for National Security
Affairs, Angier Biddle Duke, Rita Freedman of the Social Democrats USA, neocon union leaders John
Joyce and Al Shanker, Penn Kemble of the Institute for Religion and Democracy, James Woolsey,
Marty Peretz of The New Republic, and Joshua Muravchik of the American Enterprise Institute all
signed a much-noted ad in The New York Times in August 1992 endorsing Clinton's candidacy. Their
hopes of thus being rewarded with top positions in a Clinton administration were crushed.
The flirtation with Clinton's Democratic Party was short-lived. Woolsey, Schifter, and Kemble
received appointments in the Clinton administration, but the neocons in general were unhappy with
their limited influence, Clinton's (albeit inconsistent) multilateralism, and the administration's
reluctance to intervene militarily in Rwanda, Somalia, and Bosnia. Disenchantment turned to anger
and then to organizing. In 1997, many of the same people who worked for Scoop Jackson and embraced
Ronald Reagan put together
the Project for the New American Century in an effort to preserve and expand America's post-Cold
War unilateral power.
A handful of votes in Florida in 2000 and the attacks on September 11 the following year combined
to give the neocons a second chance at transforming U.S. foreign policy. Dick Cheney became perhaps
the most powerful vice president in modern American history, with Scooter Libby as his national security
adviser. Donald Rumsfeld became secretary of defense, with Paul Wolfowitz as his deputy and Feith
as head of the policy office. Elliott Abrams joined the National Security Council, and so on. Under
their guidance, George W. Bush abandoned all pretense of charting a more modest foreign policy and
went on a militarist bender.
The foreign policy disasters of the Bush era should have killed the careers of everyone involved.
Unfortunately, there are plenty of think tanks and universities that value access over intelligence
(or ethics) - and even the most incompetent and craven administration officials after leaving office
retain their contacts (and their arrogance).
Those who worry that the neocons will be rewarded for their third major defection - to Reagan,
to Bill Clinton, and now to Hillary Clinton - should probably focus elsewhere. After all, the Democratic
nominee this year doesn't have to go all the way over to the far right for advice on how to construct
a more muscular foreign policy. Plenty of mainstream think tanks - from
the Center for a New American Security on the center-right to the leftish
Center for American Progress - are offering their advice on how to "restore balance" in how the
United States relates to the world. Many of these positions - how to push back against Russia, take
a harder line against Iran, and ratchet up pressure on Assad in Syria - are not very different from
neocon talking points.
But the defections do herald a possible sea change in party alignment. And that will influence
the trajectory of U.S. foreign policy.
The Walking Dead
The Republican Party has been hemorrhaging for nearly a decade. The Tea Party dispatched many
party centrists - Jim Leach, Richard Lugar - who once could achieve a measure of bipartisanship in
Congress. The overwhelming whiteness of the party, even before the ascendance of Trump, made it very
difficult to recruit African Americans and Latinos in large numbers. And now Trump has driven away
many of the professionals who have served in past Republican administrations, including the small
clique of neoconservatives.
What remains is enough to win state and local elections in certain areas of the country. But it's
not enough to win nationally. Going forward, with the further demographic shift away from white voters,
this Republican base will get older and smaller. Moreover, on foreign policy, the Trumpistas are
leading the party in a
nationalist,
apocalyptic direction that challenges the party leadership (in emphasis if not in content).
It's enough to throw dedicated Republicans into despair. Avik Roy, who was an advisor to the presidential
campaigns of Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney, and Rick Perry,
told
This American Life :
I think the Republican Party is a lost cause. I don't think the Republican Party is capable
of fixing itself, because the people who are most passionate about voting Republican today are
the Trump voters. And what politician is going to want to throw those voters away to attract some
unknown coalition of the future?
One of his Republican compatriots, Rob Long, had this to say on the podcast about how anti-Trump
survivors who stick with the party will navigate the post-election landscape:
It'll be like The Walking Dead, right? We're going to try to come up with bands of people and
walk across the country. And let's not get ourselves killed or eaten and hook up with people we
think are not insane or horrible or in some way murderous.
Coming out of this week's elections, here's my guess of what will happen. The Republican Party
will continue to be torn apart by three factions: a dwindling number of moderates like Susan Collins
(R-ME), right-wing fiscal conservatives like Paul Ryan (R-WI), and burn-the-house-down Trumpsters
like Jeff Sessions (R-AL). Foreign policy won't be much of an issue for the party because it will
be shut out of the White House for 12 years running and will focus instead on primarily domestic
questions. Perhaps the latter two categories will find a way to repair their breach; perhaps the
party will split in two; perhaps Trump supporters will engineer a hostile takeover.
The Democratic Party, meanwhile, may suffer as a result of its success. After all, how can a single
party play host to both Bernie Sanders and
Robert Kagan ?
How can the party promote both guns and butter? How can Hillary Clinton preserve Obama's diplomatic
successes - the Iran deal, the Cuba détente, the efforts to contain climate change - and be more
assertive militarily? Whatever unity the party managed during the elections will quickly fall apart
when it comes to governing.
In one sense, Clinton may well resurrect the neocon legacy by embracing a more or less progressive
domestic policy (which would satisfy the Sanderistas) and a more hawkish foreign policy (which would
satisfy all the foreign policy mandarins from both parties who supported her candidacy).
At the same time, a new political axis is emerging: internationalists vs. insularists, with the
former gathering together in the Democratic Party and the latter seeking shelter in a leaky Republican
Party. But this categorization conceals the tensions within each project. Internationalists include
both fans of the UN and proponents of unilateral U.S. military engagement overseas. Insularists,
who have not turned their back on the world quite as thoroughly as isolationists, include both xenophobic
nationalists and those who want to spend war dollars at home.
The trick of it for progressives is to somehow steal back the Democratic Party from the aggressive
globalists and recapture those Trump voters who are tired of supporting war and wealthy transnational
corporations. Or, perhaps in the wake of the Republican Party's collapse, progressives could create
a new party that challenges Clinton and the neocons.
One thing is for certain, however. With a highly unpopular president about to take office and
one of the major political parties on life support, the current political moment is highly unstable.
Something truly remarkable could emerge. Or voters in 2020 might face something even more monstrous
than what has haunted this election cycle.
"... the more credible explanation is: 1) Barack Obama very eloquently promised Hope and Change in 2008 and 2012. 2) Barack Obama systematically broke his promises of hope and change. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton promised to continue Obama's policies. 4) Working people who had voted for Obama in the hope that he truly would change things lost patience and got sick of Democrats who (in the words of one millenial) "promise everything and change nothing." ..."
"... Populism is the real explanation for Trump's victory. ...he talked about stopping the globalization that's destroying the American middle class and ending our crazy endless unwinnable foreign wars. By contrast, Hillary Clinton gave $225,000 speeches to Goldman Sachs hedge fund traders in which she said the "banker-bashing so popular within both parties was unproductive and indeed foolish." ..."
Raven Oathill in #145 says: "Oh, for examples of Trumpian fascism I forgot advocating torture
…"
Barack Obama continued Bush-era torture, only slightly differently. Obama restricted torture
to Appendix M of the CIA's interrogation manual - that's the manual that the CIA created by studying
the Chinese communist's Mao-era thought reform torture methods. Appendix M prohibits cutting and
beating in favor of sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, cold, noise assault, and other methods
like the water drip method. These forms of torture leave no marks but drive people insane or destroy
their minds as surely as the standard three weeks of non-stop beatings favored in Lubyanka.
Let's not forget that the American president who began our current ride on the torture carousel
was Bill Clinton, who initiated "extraordinary rendition" (AKA fly prisoners to third world countries
in CIA chartered Lear jets and let third world dictators torture the victims for us).
The problem with the smug top-4% narrative of the Democratic elite's professional class that "It's
all about racism!" is that many of the counties in red states that went heavily for Trump in this
election went even more heavily for Bernie Sanders. A lot of states that voted for Trump in this
election voted for Obama in the last election.
What, did those Rust Belt states suddenly decide to not become racist when Obama ran, and then
became racist again when Trump ran? How does that work? "A black guy is running for president, so
I'm going to stop being a racist and vote for him. Oh, wait, now a white guy is running for president,
so I'm going to become a racist again." Does that make sense?
No, the more credible explanation is: 1) Barack Obama very eloquently promised Hope and Change
in 2008 and 2012. 2) Barack Obama systematically broke his promises of hope and change.
3) Hillary Clinton promised to continue Obama's policies. 4) Working people who had voted for
Obama in the hope that he truly would change things lost patience and got sick of Democrats who (in
the words of one millenial) "promise everything and change nothing."
Populism is the real explanation for Trump's victory. ...he talked about stopping the globalization
that's destroying the American middle class and ending our crazy endless unwinnable foreign wars.
By contrast, Hillary Clinton gave $225,000 speeches to Goldman Sachs hedge fund traders in which
she said the "banker-bashing so popular within both parties was unproductive and indeed foolish."
Meanwhile Bill Clinton dismissed the American population's rage at the bankers who crashed the
world economy with the comment: `"You could take Lloyd Blankfein in an alley and slit his throat,
and it would satisfy them for about two days," Clinton said. "Then the blood lust would rise again."'
Did I mention that Hillary's daughter Chelsea is married to former Goldman Sachs hedge fund
manager Mark Mezvinsky? They recently bought a pre-WW I ten million dollar townhouse overlooking
Madison Square Park. So much for Chelsea's "zero dollar salary." I don't know a lot of people with
a salary of zero dollars who can afford to buy 10.5 million dollar apartments in the upper West Side
of New York. Do you?
Hillary has wooed defense contractors with the love that dare not speak its name (the love
of foreign intervention, AKA burning brown babies by the bushel-load) and she has promised lots more
endless unwinnable wars around the globe, disguised as the sound-bite "America needs a more assertive
foreign policy."
`"It is clear that she is behind the use of force in anything that has gone on in this cabinet.
She is a Democratic hawk and that is her track record. That's the flag she's planted," said Gordon
Adams, a national security budget expert who was an associate director in President Bill Clinton's
Office of Management and Budget.
`Karen Kwiatkowski, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who has spent her post-service days
protesting the war policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, is more blunt.
"Interventionism is a business and it has a constituency and she is tapping into it," she
tells TAC. "She is for the military industrial complex, and she is for the neoconservatives."'
By way of contrast, here's Donald Trump giving a speech on foreign policy:
"Unfortunately, after the Cold War, our foreign policy veered badly off course. We failed to
develop a new vision for a new time. In fact, as time went on, our foreign policy began to make
less and less sense. Logic was replaced with foolishness and arrogance, and this led to one foreign
policy disaster after another. We went from mistakes in Iraq to Egypt to Libya, to President Obama's
line in the sand in Syria. Each of these actions have helped to throw the region into chaos, and
gave ISIS the space it needs to grow and prosper.
"It all began with the dangerous idea that we could make Western democracies out of countries
that had no experience or interest in becoming a Western Democracy. We tore up what institutions
they had and then were surprised at what we unleashed. Civil war, religious fanaticism; thousands
of American lives, and many trillions of dollars, were lost as a result. The vacuum was created
that ISIS would fill. Iran, too, would rush in and fill the void, much to their unjust enrichment.
Our foreign policy is a complete and total disaster. No vision, no purpose, no direction, no strategy."
Do I believe that Trump meant any of that? Of course not. Did Trump change his foreign policy
stance five minutes after he gave that speech? Probably. Is the rest of that Trump foreign policy
speech crazy and counterfactual? Obviously - especially the part where Trump claims that America's
military is underfunded (!)
But the point here is that Trump actually at least talked about these screwups. He talked about
America's mad wars around the globe. He talked about how American leaders couldn't stop getting into
endless unwinnable foreign quagmires after the Cold War ended. Every ordinary American knows this
stuff. But no one in Washington was talking about it - except Trump. Hillary, who voted for the Iraq
war of 2003 and tried to convince president Obama to bomb Iran rather than negotiate, certainly never
wanted to mention any of these inconvenient problems. And our beloved president Obama's response
was "America is already great." Torture? Endless wars? Collapsing middle class? Burgeoning poverty?
Skyrocketing child malnutrition? Bankers asset-stripping the economy? No problem, America is already
great. Enjoy!
Sanders and Trump were the only candidates who talked about American corporations shipping
jobs overseas. Sanders and Trump were the only candidates who talked about bankers looting the population
and crashing the world economy and paying themselves bonuses out of the publicly-funded bailout money.
Sanders and Trump were the only candidates who talked about how globalization is destroying the U.S.
middle class.
The professionals with advanced degrees who make $80,000 a year or more (the top 4% of the
American population) are the ones who control the Democratic party today. And they made sure
Sanders never got the nomination. These self-styled Big Brains have decided to treat ordinary working
folks and peons who have a mere bachelor's degree and no professional credential (Ma, PhD, M.D.,
LLD, JD) the same way Jim Crow Southerners used to treat black people.
Everyone without an advanced degree is now treated by the leaders of the Democratic party as
one of "those people," ungrateful curs who have the unbelievable gall to criticize their betters.
"Those people" have the insufferable temerity to question the wiser and smarter and far more wealthy
doyens of the Democratic party, the masterminds with professional credentials, the geniuses who assure
them that the TPP is spiffy and globalization is absolutely marvy-doo and global wage arbitrage is
just dreamy.
To the professional class top-4% who run the Democratic party, working people and scum with a
mere bachelor's degree are inferior creatures, not ready for self-governance. "Those people" must
be guided by a superior breed, the elites with advanced degrees, those wise enough to have gotten
things right by invading Iraq. And deregulating the banks. And making sure Bernie Sanders never got
the Democratic nomination. And writing those marvelous zero-hours work contracts that let employers
force employees to call in every morning to see if they get a shift that day.
"Those people" without advanced degrees need careful management, since they have no impulse
control, they're filthy and smelly, they're really animals who can't help drinking and carousing
and breeding. "Those people" never had the discipline to get a masters or an M.D., so they need a
firm hand, and the strict guidance of the All-Powerful Market to keep them in check. Sound familiar?
Sort of like, oh, say, Deep South slaveowners talking about their slaves circa 1840?
Populism. That's the reason why Trump won. ... he's the only one of the two presidential candidates
who sounded any genuinely populist notes during the campaign. When Hillary was asked if she wanted
to break up the too-big-to-fail banks, she said "no." When Hillary was asked about foreign wars,
she lapsed into the old "indispensable nation" crap. When Hillary was asked about single-payer health
care she called it "something that will never, ever happen."
The people loyal to the Syrian government
are happy
with Donald Trump winning the U.S. election:
At the passport counter, a Syrian officer's face lit up when he saw an American
traveler.
"Congratulations on your new president!" he exclaimed, giving an energetic thumbs
up. Mr. Trump, he said, would be "good for Syria."
The first significant step of the new administration comes while Trump is not even in
offices. Obama, selfishly concerned with his historic legacy, suddenly makes a 180
degree turn and starts to implement Trump polices. Lets consider the
initial position
:
Asked about Aleppo in an October debate with Clinton, Trump said it was a
humanitarian disaster but the city had "basically" fallen. Clinton, he said, was
talking in favor of rebels without knowing who they were.
The rebels fighting Assad in western Syria include nationalists fighting under the
Free Syrian Army banner, some of them trained in a CIA-backed program, and jihadists
such as the group formerly known as the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front.
The Obama administration, through the CIA led by Saudi asset John Brennan, fed
weapons, training and
billions of dollars
to "moderate rebels". These then
turned around
(vid) and either gave the CIA gifts to al-Qaeda in Syria (aka Jabhat al Nusra) or joined
it themselves. The scheme was
no secret
at
all
and Russia as well as Syria pointed this out several times. The Russian foreign
Minister Lavrov negotiated with the U.S. secretary of State Kerry who promised to
separate the "moderate rebels" from al-Qaeda. But Kerry never delivered. Instead he
falsely accuse Russia
of committing atrocities that never happened. The CIA kept the
upper hand within the Obama administration and continued its nefarious plans.
That changed the day the president-elect Trump set foot into the White House. While
Obama met Trump in the oval office, new policies, prepared beforehand, were launched.
The policies were held back until after the election and would likely not have been
revealed or implemented if Clinton had won.
The U.S. declared that from now on it
will fight
against al-Qaeda in Syria:
President Obama has
ordered the Pentagon to find and kill the leaders of an
al-Qaeda-linked group in Syria
that the administration had largely ignored
until now and that has been at the vanguard of the fight against the Syrian
government, U.S. officials said.
That shift is
likely to accelerate once President-elect Donald Trump takes
office. ... possibly in direct cooperation with Moscow
.
...
U.S. officials who opposed the decision to go after al-Nusra's wider leadership
warned that the United States would effectively be doing the Assad government's
bidding by weakening a group on the front line of the counter-Assad fight.
...
Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and other Pentagon leaders initially resisted the
idea of devoting more Pentagon surveillance aircraft and armed drones against al-Nusra.
Ash Carter is, together with John Brennan, the major anti-Russian force in the Obama
administration. He is a U.S. weapon industry promoter and the anti-Russia campaign,
which helps to sell U.S. weapons to NATO allies in Europe, is largely of his doing. He
saw al-Qaeda in Syria as a
welcome proxy force
against Russia.
But Obama has now shut down that policy. We are not yet sure that this is for good
but the above Washington Post account is
not the
only signal
:
rg the lg | Nov 11, 2016 11:02:07 AM |
5
Obama shifting policy is probably to protect his legacy from the reality that the US
promotes chaos as a national goal. It is also a cynical attempt to pre-empt any Trump
induced success in Syria?
The good news is that there is rioting in the
DuhMurriKKKan streets as a consequence of Trump being elected rather than Clinton ...
and all this time we were supposed to be afraid of Trump-ites hitting the streets if
their guy lost. I don't recall anyone suggesting there would be Clintonistas on the
streets if Trump won.
It is telling that the WaPo article emphasizes that "limited" US airstrikes are being
conducted and only after notifying Ru. IOW Putin has established a de facto no-fly
zone. He is now controlling where and when USG flies in Syria.
DTDuck now starts his balancing act; we'll soon know if he's got what it takes to
be a leader. He can't kiss Putin's ass without helping Assad. He can't help Assad and
kiss Bibi's ass. And yet he's already kissing Bibi's ass. Syria is about Yisrael.
Always has been. If DTDuck can come down on both sides of that fence, he's a genius.
And maybe he is. DTDuck has just proven that he doesn't need the MSM or AIPAC's
shekels to get elected. That means the iJews won't be able control him unless they
threaten him and his family physically. He's one dangerous dude as far as Ertz
Yisrael goes. But so was JFK.
I'm quite certain that Obama is playing his "Trump" card as a last-ditch effort to
encourage the Russians to delay their impending (full spectrum) offensive and keep
them off-balance for a few more days/ weeks and thus give his 'Russian quagmire'
dream another 40 winks. According to Al Jazeera, the Yanks are saying that they'll be
restricting the scope of their attacks on 'Terrorist Leaders' in Syria to drone
surveillance and strikes. Al Jaz's reporter was speaking to their Washington
correspondent and one of them (not sure which) mentioned that the US won't be sending
in boots or manned aircraft without the permission of the Syrian Govt. So, if nothing
else, this probably spells the end of any present or future (illegal) military
involvement by AmeriKKKa's Christian allies in Syria.
So imo, overall, it's a crock and a trick - small bikkies with a high risk of
Yankee treachery. If the Yankees were sincere (cough, cough) they'd cooperate
directly with Syria/Russia and agree on who's in charge of the joint mission. And if
the Russians are sincere they'll ask the Yankees to respect Syria's sovereignty and
stay out of Syria.
Inasmuch as the CIA has a very good idea where the leaders of al-Nusrah front are,
this is ostensibly a directive to bomb the CIA Will the US campaign against al-Nusrah
inexplicably fail?
Jack Smith: Clinton won the election. The electoral college overturns the popular
vote of course...unless the electors keep faith with democracy, and vote for the
winner?
A clean up operation maybe? Who knows what kind of dirt those moder...oops terrorist
leaders may have and who they could probably implicate. With Hillary in the white
house, any info that may come from them, could easily go under the carpet as
propaganda. Who knows what Trump could do?
This should make it untenable for the other colonial powers in NATO to keep
supporting AQ as well. So hopefully we have seen the end of any more white helmets
and other propaganda and we won't hear any more from that idiot sitting in his
basement in the UK that all the MSM take as the new messiah of truth. Maybe Ken Roth
will lose his job lose his job to.
@12 The democrats were perfectly fine with the
electoral college when it was going to work for them so they can STFU.
"According to the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Joseph
Dunford, after meeting with his Turkish counterpart, that "The coalition and Turkey
will work together on the long-term plan for seizing, holding and governing Raqqa."
b - please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but are you suggesting those
millions of Saudi/Qatari/Israeli dollars that personally enriched the Clinton's,
funded their private family foundation and bankrolled the DNC machine to anoint ONLY
Queen Clinton BOUGHT the necessary United States influence (CIA, Military, State, WH,
DNC) to ensure U.S. foreign policy 'stay the course no matter the damned
consequences' in Syria? Russia? Ukraine? until November 8 when she was to be crowned?
And now that she and her diabolical neocon pals have lost the opportunity to rip
apart the Middle East the U.S. client states - the Saudi's, Qatari's and Israeli's -
are taking there marbles back and going home b/c the new guy refuses to play their
way?
Might this provocative suggestion also account for the record breaking U.S. arms
sales to the Saudi's and Israeli's this year in preparation for that 'all hell would
break loose WWIII' she, her neocon pals and the Saudi's, Israeli's and Qatari's were
all lusting after.
Might this suggestion also account for Adelson's buying Trump's silence, loyalty
to Israel? We'll see how far Trump goes, but here's a link to his Israeli policy
position pre 11/8 -
http://bit.ly/2fIqhir
(the joint statement is posted at Medium. I posted a bit.ly
link b/c I feared the Medium link would have blown out the thread)
Finally, Giuliani's advice that the FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation
stay the course when asked about Obama pardoning the almost crowned Queen, make's a
great deal more sense, that is, if I'm reading your underlying suggestion correctly,
b.
P.S. - I can't help but to remain curious why we didn't see more leaked emails
from the Podesta stash between Hillary, John and maybe Obama, but at least Hillary
and John. After all, he kept nearly 60k emails on his gmail account and few that were
released dealt with foreign policy/donors/deals. Maybe a get out of the Ecuadorian
Embassy card is being played? Absolutely delicious if my reading into b's post today
is correct.
Everything potentially happening in Syria now revolves around Turkey and Russia.
Either Erdogan will invade with Turkish troops/armor to carve off his Kurdish buffer
zone/concentration camp in northern Syria, or he won't. Russia will either let them
or it won't.
The Turkmen/Al Zenki FSA head-choppers are over-extended and can't take al Bab (or
ar Raqqa) by themselves anymore. They will either be abandoned (which I don't think
will happen) to die at the hands of the Kurds and SAA, or they'll be reinforced by
the invading Turkish Army to 'finish' the creation of
Turkmeneli
(or as much as they can grab). The U.S. will sit on the sidelines and
watch, with the occasional coalition air strikes to make it look like we still matter
- at least as much as Russia.
Worst case: the Turks abandon the FSA/Al Zenki head-choppers because they don't
want to start WWIII with Russia. The U.S. will turn into Al Zenki's air force and
'support' their land-grabbing. CJTF-OIR commander Townsend will send the 101st to ar
Raqqa and maybe Deir Ez Zor to clean up our mess, but then pull out and abandon Syria
(the WW III thing) to roving gangs of well-armed head-choppers. It will be a
hell-hole of violence, but since no ISIS-held territory will be left on the map,
we'll declare victory and 'Mission: Accomplished!" just like we did in Afghanistan
and Iraq.
Putin: "Do you now realize what you have done?"
Americans: "Huh? Do you mean us? Hey - look over there! SQUIRREL!"
What I DO like about this story is that it's a Golden Opportunity for Vlad to test
Trump's sincerity BEFORE he becomes POTUS. I'd like Russia to start slaughtering
Obama's Ter'rists in Syria, en masse, tomorrow morning. It's a reliable way to find
out how much 'daylight' there is between the Trump Doctrine and the Obama Doctrine -
keeping in mind that this slice of Hopie Changie-ness has nothing whatsoever to do
with President-elect Trump.
@11 Hoarsewhisperer - I think it's unrealistic to expect the US simply to leave
Syria. The loss of face would be appalling, and it's unnecessary. If in fact the US
is coordinating with Russia and Syria, there's no loss of face, and Russia has always
accommodated the US presence in all its public pronouncements, conditional on that
coordination.
I think b's take makes sense - there were two sets of plans on
Obama's desk, and these moves are the Trump set.
There remains that school of thought long speculating that part of the US
"deep state" for lack of a better term, supported Trump as the man to reverse some of
these disastrous policies that simply can no longer win, and which must be walked
back from with as much tough face-saving as possible.
Personally, I'm curious to see what Trump's support turns out to be in the serving
military. Since I'm no expert, I'd like to see analysis one day that shows a war
between the Pentagon and the CIA, with the soldiers winning, and choosing Trump.
With all that said, today I break my silence, in order to comment briefly on the 2016 US presidential
election in the aftermath of Trump's victory. At the beginning of this presidential campaign, I thought
Donald Trump's candidacy might be a publicity stunt; like a bombastic prime time reality show. But
I was aware that the hard-core neocon, war mongering Hilary Clinton was the real danger, in terms
of foreign policy and international politics. Her policies and past crimes are completely in-line
with the current US-imperial agenda of endless war and military might, and this makes her
far
far more
dangerous than Trump. It also made her far more likely to win the election, I presumed.
His extreme outrageousness and egomania aside, I felt from the outset that Trump is perceived as
a threat to the global corporate, militarized establishment and its political allies, and that this
is the real reason he has been demonized adhominem by the political establishment and the media in
the US, across party lines. Most democratic and republican politicians and media pundits are part
of the global establishment machine.
Trump's greatest crime seemed to be his unwillingness to acquiesce to the global establishment.
His views on foreign policy, military spending and economic and trade policy demonstrate this. Because
of his apparent threat to the global military industrial, US-led, global banking/war empire, I was
certain that the deep state and global elites simply would not allow him to win. Even if they had
to rig the elections in an already rigged political system, I was certain they would not "let him"
win.
Now that he has, I'm not sure what to think, especially considering FBI director Comey's sudden
flip flop and condemnation of Clinton, reopening the investigation into the Clinton email (email
Gate) scandal, in the eleventh hour. Does the FBI wish to see Trump in office? If so, what does that
mean about his threat to the establishment? Is Trump the beginning of the end of the global establishment
or is he just a revision, a new direction, a preparation for a new iteration of the status quo? Of
course, Trump is part of the elite given his immense wealth and corporate muscle. But as the Centre
for Research on Globalization explains, the elites are not a monolith [1], and there may be divisions
and factions within the global elite that do indeed oppose the present and historical direction of
the global establishment. Is that what Trump represents, the division within the global power structure?
Does he have friends in high places that wish to revamp the current global militarized corporate
and banking oligarchy? Or, is he but its latest iteration of it? Is he a gateway to what is to come–Martial
Law, etc [2]? It remains to be seen.
For now, I'm guardedly optimistic about the new direction that economic policy and US foreign
policy could take under his presidency. If he is willing (and able) to rein in either, then he will
have surpassed the broken promises of the previous US administration. He has stated numerous times
that he opposes many elements of the war on terror (the invasion of Libya, current US operations
in Syria and attempts to oust the existing regime, covert support of ISIS by the US, etc) and the
military industrial complex. And while he is no doubt a capitalist, he is more of the old-school
nationalist capitalist or protectionist-isolationist kind, not the neoliberal
global capitalism
that has put everyone out of work. This alone made Trump better than Hilary, so to speak. But the
fact that he is no doubt part of the economic elite and that he was able to win at all, despite resistance
from all sides of the political and media spectrum (both democratic and republican), raises questions.
President-elect Donald J. Trump, who campaigned against the corrupt power of special interests,
is filling his transition team with some of the very sort of people who he has complained have
too much clout in Washington: corporate consultants and lobbyists.
Jeffrey Eisenach, a consultant who has worked for years on behalf of Verizon and other telecommunications
clients, is the head of the team that is helping to pick staff members at the Federal Communications
Commission.
Michael Catanzaro, a lobbyist whose clients include Devon Energy and Encana Oil and Gas, holds
the "energy independence" portfolio.
Michael Torrey, a lobbyist who runs a firm that has earned millions of dollars helping food
industry players such as the American Beverage Association and the dairy giant Dean Foods, is
helping set up the new team at the Department of Agriculture.
What? No steelworker? No auto-plant worker? Not even a family farmer? Might y'all have been
had ?
Who'd a thunk?
Bernie and Elizabeth to the rescue.
Now, please . Now .
But, hey, white blue collar folks: You get what you vote for. The problem for me is that I
get what you vote for. I said roughly 540 times here at AB in the last year: Trump isn't conquering
the Republican Party; he's the Republican Party's Trojan Horse. What was that y'all were saying about
wanting change so badly? Here it is.
Welcome to the concept of
industry regulatory capture
. Perfected to a science, and jaw-droppingly brazen.
LOL . Funny, but Bernie talked about this. Some of you listened. Then. Elizabeth Warren has talked
about it, a lot. Some of you listened. Back then. But she wasn't running for president. Hillary Clinton
was, instead. And
she couldn't talk about it because she had needed all those speaking fees , all the way up to
about a minute before she announced her candidacy.
Aaaaand, here come the judges. And of course the justices. Industry regulatory capture of the
judicial-branch variety.
I called this one right, in the title of
this post yesterday . I mean, why even wait until the body is buried? No reason at all.
So he thinks. But what if he's wrong?
Anyway can't wait for the political cartoons showing Trump on Ryan's lap, with Ryan's arm showing
reaching up under Trump's suit jacket.
It's effing asinine . Everyone's entitled to their little personal delusions, but why the
obsessiveness about this patent silliness? What is exactly is the emotional hold that Hillary Clinton
holds on these people? It's climate-change-denial-like.
Elizabeth Warren would have beaten Donald Trump in a landslide. So would have Bernie Sanders.
And brought in a Democratic-controlled Senate and House. Because both would have run a remarkably
campaign, under normal standards, not a special low bar.
An
organizational chart of Trump's transition team shows it to be crawling with corporate lobbyists,
representing such clients as Altria, Visa, Coca-Cola, General Electric, Verizon, HSBC, Pfizer,
Dow Chemical, and Duke Energy. And K Street is
positively
salivating over all the new opportunities they'll have to deliver goodies to their clients
in the Trump era. Who could possibly have predicted such a thing?
The answer is, anyone who was paying attention. Look at the people Trump is
considering
for his cabinet, and you won't find any outside-the-box thinkers burning to work for the little
guy. It's a collection of Republican politicians and corporate plutocrats - not much different
from who you'd find in any Republican administration.
And from reader EMichael in the Comments thread to this post about 35 minutes ago:
OH, it will be worse than that, much worse.
Bank regulation will go back to the "glory days" of the housing bubble, and Warren's CFPB will
be toast.
Buddy of mine works HR for a large bank. He has been flooded with resumes from current employees
of the CFPB the last couple of days.
Yup. HSBC ain't in that list for nothing. But, not to worry. Trump's kids will pick up lots of
real estate on the (real) cheap, after the crash. Their dad will give them all the tips, from experience.
And the breaking news this afternoon is that Pence–uh-ha;
this Mike Pence –has
replaced Christie as transition team head. Wanna bet that Comey told Trump today that Christie is
likely to be indicted in Bridgegate?
Next up, although down the road a few months: rumors that a grand jury has been convened to try
to learn how, exactly, Giuliani got all that info from inside the FBI two weeks ago. Once the FBI
inspector general completes his investigation. Or once New York's attorney general, Eric Schneiderman,
begins looking into violations of NY state criminal law.
"... my equation of Neoliberalism (or Post-Capitalism) = Wall Street + Identity Politics generated by the dematerialization of Capital. CDO's are nothing but words on paper or bytes in the stream; and identity politics has much less to do with the Body than the culture and language. Trumpists were interpellated as White by the Democrats and became ideological. Capital is Language. ..."
"... "Sanders and Trump inflamed their audiences with searing critiques of Capitalism's unfairness. Then what? Then Trump's response to what he has genuinely seen is, analytically speaking, word salad. Trump is sound and fury and garble. Yet - and this is key - the noise in his message increases the apparent value of what's clear about it. The ways he's right seem more powerful, somehow, in relief against the ways he's blabbing." ..."
"... But Trump's people don't use suffering as a metric of virtue. They want fairness of a sort, but mainly they seek freedom from shame. Civil rights and feminism aren't just about the law after all, they are about manners, and emotions too: those "interest groups" get right in there and reject what feels like people's spontaneous, ingrained responses. People get shamed, or lose their jobs, for example, when they're just having a little fun making fun. Anti-PC means "I feel unfree. ..."
"... The Trump Emotion Machine is delivering feeling ok, acting free. Being ok with one's internal noise, and saying it, and demanding that it matter. Internal Noise Matters. " my emp ..."
I thought someone above talked about Trump's rhetoric
1) Tom Ferguson at Real News Network post at Naked Capitalism says (and said in 2014) that
the Democratic coalition of Wall Street (Silicon Valley) + Identity Politics is imploding, because
it can't deliver populist goodies without losing part of it's core base.
Noted no for that, but for my equation of Neoliberalism (or Post-Capitalism) = Wall Street
+ Identity Politics generated by the dematerialization of Capital. CDO's are nothing but words
on paper or bytes in the stream; and identity politics has much less to do with the Body than
the culture and language. Trumpists were interpellated as White by the Democrats and became ideological.
Capital is Language.
2) Consider the above an intro to
Lauren
Berlant at the New Inquiry "Trump or Political Emotions" which I think is smart. Just a phrase
cloud that stood out for me. All following from Berlant, except parenthetical
It is a scene where structural antagonisms - genuinely conflicting interests - are described
in rhetoric that intensifies fantasy.
People would like to feel free. They would like the world to have a generous cushion for all
their aggression and inclination. They would like there to be a general plane of okayness governing
social relations
( Safe Space defined as the site where being nasty to those not inside is admired and approved.
We all have them, we all want them, we create our communities and identities for this purpose.)
"Sanders and Trump inflamed their audiences with searing critiques of Capitalism's unfairness.
Then what? Then Trump's response to what he has genuinely seen is, analytically speaking, word
salad. Trump is sound and fury and garble. Yet - and this is key - the noise in his message
increases the apparent value of what's clear about it. The ways he's right seem more powerful,
somehow, in relief against the ways he's blabbing."
(Wonderful, and a comprehension of New Media I rarely see. Cybernetics? Does noise increase
the value of signal? The grammatically correct tight argument crowd will not get this. A problem
I have with CT's new policy)
"You watch him calculating, yet not seeming to care about the consequences of what he says,
and you listen to his supporters enjoying the feel of his freedom. "
(If "civil speech" is socially approved signal, then noise = freedom and feeling. Every two
year old and teenage guitarist understands)
"But Trump's people don't use suffering as a metric of virtue. They want fairness of a
sort, but mainly they seek freedom from shame. Civil rights and feminism aren't just about the
law after all, they are about manners, and emotions too: those "interest groups" get right in
there and reject what feels like people's spontaneous, ingrained responses. People get shamed,
or lose their jobs, for example, when they're just having a little fun making fun. Anti-PC means
"I feel unfree."
The Trump Emotion Machine is delivering feeling ok, acting free. Being ok with one's internal
noise, and saying it, and demanding that it matter. Internal Noise Matters. " my emp
Noise again. Berlant worth reading, and thinking about.
What's bought [sic] us to this stage is a policy – whether it's been intentional
or unintentional or a mixture of both – of divide and rule, where society is broken down into
neat little boxes and were told how to behave towards the contents of each one rather than,
say, just behaving well towards all of them.
And this right here is why neoliberalism = identity politics and why both ought to be crushed
ruthlessly.
"... Specifically, she adduced the Clinton Foundation, with its $600,000 salary to Chelsea Clinton, and Hillary's receipt of cash from Saudi Arabia and Morocco, as well as complaining about Benghazi and something that I took to be death panels. ..."
I talked to an elated Trump voter today. She had little to say about Trump, other than "Give
him a chance." No, her elation was at the defeat of Hillary, and the attendant possibility that
opened up to get rid of the corruption in Washington. Specifically, she adduced the Clinton
Foundation, with its $600,000 salary to Chelsea Clinton, and Hillary's receipt of cash from Saudi
Arabia and Morocco, as well as complaining about Benghazi and something that I took to be death
panels.
@138 The woman is wrong. Chelsea Clinton was not paid $600 k from the Clinton Foundation.
Chelsea Clinton was paid $600 k per year from 2011 by NBC for 'work' as a special correspondent,
whilst also pocketing $300 k per year plus stock options as a 'board member' of IAC. Chelsea's
speaking fees were a mere $65 k per.
The NYT offers a more severe critique of the IAC board deal readable by clicking through
the links. There will be those who see nothing improper about a fifth-estate firm paying a 31
year-old graduate student $600 k, or awarding her a board seat and stock options at $300k. Others
may disagree, and perhaps with some good reason.
The defeat of the democratic candidate by a rodeo clown is a slap in the face. Contra Manta
@71 I do not believe that anything less than a slap in the face of this order would be enough
to jar the successful and well-fed out of their state of complacency and indifference to the plight
of both the blacks and whites left behind by 8 years of Democratic rule, and far longer when we're
talking about urban African-Americans.
As noted, I believe the Republican candidate to be far and away the more sober, safer choice
both on domestic and foreign policy. Now we'll find out.
Thanks for the kind words to Rich, Bruce, T, bob mc, and others.
With President-elect Trump's victory last night, the last hopes of the Obama administration passing
the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) during the lame duck session of Congress have evaporated. The
passage of the TPP through Congress was dependent upon support from members of the Republican majority,
and there is no realistic prospect that they will now pass the deal given their elected President's
firmly expressed opposition to it. Even if they did so, the new President would presumably veto the
pact's implementing legislation.
President-elect Donald J. Trump, who campaigned against the corrupt power of special interests,
is filling his transition team with some of the very sort of people who he has complained have
too much clout in Washington: corporate consultants and lobbyists.
Jeffrey Eisenach, a consultant who has worked for years on behalf of Verizon and other telecommunications
clients, is the head of the team that is helping to pick staff members at the Federal Communications
Commission.
Michael Catanzaro, a lobbyist whose clients include Devon Energy and Encana Oil and Gas, holds
the "energy independence" portfolio.
Michael Torrey, a lobbyist who runs a firm that has earned millions of dollars helping food
industry players such as the American Beverage Association and the dairy giant Dean Foods, is
helping set up the new team at the Department of Agriculture.
What? No steelworker? No auto-plant worker? Not even a family farmer? Might y'all have been
had ?
Who'd a thunk?
Bernie and Elizabeth to the rescue.
Now, please . Now .
But, hey, white blue collar folks: You get what you vote for. The problem for me is that I
get what you vote for. I said roughly 540 times here at AB in the last year: Trump isn't conquering
the Republican Party; he's the Republican Party's Trojan Horse. What was that y'all were saying about
wanting change so badly? Here it is.
Welcome to the concept of
industry regulatory capture
. Perfected to a science, and jaw-droppingly brazen.
LOL . Funny, but Bernie talked about this. Some of you listened. Then. Elizabeth Warren has talked
about it, a lot. Some of you listened. Back then. But she wasn't running for president. Hillary Clinton
was, instead. And
she couldn't talk about it because she had needed all those speaking fees , all the way up to
about a minute before she announced her candidacy.
Aaaaand, here come the judges. And of course the justices. Industry regulatory capture of the
judicial-branch variety.
I called this one right, in the title of
this post yesterday . I mean, why even wait until the body is buried? No reason at all.
So he thinks. But what if he's wrong?
Anyway … can't wait for the political cartoons showing Trump on Ryan's lap, with Ryan's arm showing
reaching up under Trump's suit jacket.
It's effing asinine . Everyone's entitled to their little personal delusions, but why the
obsessiveness about this patent silliness? What is exactly is the emotional hold that Hillary Clinton
holds on these people? It's climate-change-denial-like.
Elizabeth Warren would have beaten Donald Trump in a landslide. So would have Bernie Sanders.
And brought in a Democratic-controlled Senate and House. Because both would have run a remarkably
campaign, under normal standards, not a special low bar.
An
organizational chart of Trump's transition team shows it to be crawling with corporate lobbyists,
representing such clients as Altria, Visa, Coca-Cola, General Electric, Verizon, HSBC, Pfizer,
Dow Chemical, and Duke Energy. And K Street is
positively
salivating over all the new opportunities they'll have to deliver goodies to their clients
in the Trump era. Who could possibly have predicted such a thing?
The answer is, anyone who was paying attention. Look at the people Trump is
considering
for his cabinet, and you won't find any outside-the-box thinkers burning to work for the little
guy. It's a collection of Republican politicians and corporate plutocrats - not much different
from who you'd find in any Republican administration.
And from reader EMichael in the Comments thread to this post about 35 minutes ago:
OH, it will be worse than that, much worse.
Bank regulation will go back to the "glory days" of the housing bubble, and Warren's CFPB will
be toast.
Buddy of mine works HR for a large bank. He has been flooded with resumes from current employees
of the CFPB the last couple of days.
Yup. HSBC ain't in that list for nothing. But, not to worry. Trump's kids will pick up lots of
real estate on the (real) cheap, after the crash. Their dad will give them all the tips, from experience.
And the breaking news this afternoon is that Pence–uh-ha;
this Mike Pence –has
replaced Christie as transition team head. Wanna bet that Comey told Trump today that Christie is
likely to be indicted in Bridgegate?
Next up, although down the road a few months: rumors that a grand jury has been convened to try
to learn how, exactly, Giuliani got all that info from inside the FBI two weeks ago. Once the FBI
inspector general completes his investigation. Or once New York's attorney general, Eric Schneiderman,
begins looking into violations of NY state criminal law.
The Donald's victory is on the Dem estab who rigged the primaries. It's on the MSM who acted as Hillary's surrogate and cheerleader
and who slandered Sanders' voters at every opportunity. And they're STILL slandering Sanders' voters. More important for the Dem
estab to keep control of the party than to win against the GOP. Bernie would'a beat Trump, imo.
But not "respectable" coat tails. Remember, the Democratic Party is the "respectable" left, not those hooligan socialists that
want to make bosses and workmen peers (ew).
Ironically, "respectability" is an intrinsically far-right notion in the first place.
Ah, yes, The Nation! I have had a subscription for decades (it was much better in Cockburn's
day) and have long marveled that they raise money by having cruises where wealthy donors can schmooze
with columnists or special contributors, and apparently see no conflict between this and their
professed political values. (Come cruise the Caribbean and see the dear natives and talk about
social justice? Ugh!) They do still sometimes produce good articles, but their lack of connection
with the world outside their bubble seems to be growing.
As for the amazingly stupid "whiteness" article (and I did not vote for Trump), Vanden Heuvel
should hang her head in shame. Her own husband has styled the neocon (and therefore HIllary) policy
toward Russia as something close to lunacy. Which is to say there were plenty of reasons to vote
against Hillary other than "whiteness." In fact a more accurate statement about most white people
and race is that they probably don't think about it much at all. Call this insensitive if you
like, but ignoring a problem and contributing to it are not the same things. After all the author
of the Nation article clearly hasn't spent a lot of time thinking about Russia, Syria, Libya,
or Hillary's victims. Nevertheless I'll refrain from calling him a bigot.
Nor did I, but given his thesis, that doesn't matter. I'm still complicit. Another interesting
consequence of his thesis is that Hillary Clinton is also complicit. But 'complicity' implies
agency – one cannot be unconsciously complicit since 'being complicit' means 'knowingly helping
helping others to commit a crime or other wrong doing'.
Speaking of extending the sense of a term, the 'white supremacy' trope is suffering from overuse.
First of all, there really are white supremacists. You can Google it. But like 'antisemitic' once
it is applied generally as a term of abuse it loses its force – it suffers semantic inflation.
Jill Stein's running mate, Ajamu Baraka suggested in a blog post that Bernie Sanders had a commitment
to Eurocentrism and normalized white supremacy . Calling Bernie Sanders a white supremacist
is really rendering the term meaningless.
"... As open-minded and tolerant [neo]liberals purport to be, they are more moralistic than they realize. They can't for the life of them understand why enlightened California should not count more than degenerate Texas; their contempt towards the heartland and jokes about withdrawing the franchise from the rednecks is revealing of their vacuous elitism. Their willingness to flee the country and protest now that their chosen political instrument was rejected is a testament to their complete political flaccidity. As much as a broad coalition must be built to push the world to the Left, these people deserved to lose and hurt. The problem is they won't learn, and the world will be a disaster by the time they are forced to realize their errors. ..."
I was talking to my parents (not very well-versed in political theory) about how liberals really
have no true convictions other than their fragile faith in the universality of moral values. My
friends are literally convulsing from having to resolve the following contradictions in their
minds:
a) their hatred and misunderstanding of Trump's victory,
b) straight up animosity towards anyone perceived to have supported Trump or not supported Hillary
(the latter being the same as the former for them), and
c) reiterating their faith in democracy and "respecting" everyone's right to democratic expression.
As open-minded and tolerant [neo]liberals purport to be, they are more moralistic than
they realize. They can't for the life of them understand why enlightened California should not
count more than degenerate Texas; their contempt towards the heartland and jokes about withdrawing
the franchise from the rednecks is revealing of their vacuous elitism. Their willingness to flee
the country and protest now that their chosen political instrument was rejected is a testament
to their complete political flaccidity. As much as a broad coalition must be built to push the
world to the Left, these people deserved to lose and hurt. The problem is they won't learn, and
the world will be a disaster by the time they are forced to realize their errors.
As a non-American in America, this election has been supremely clarifying to me about the true
nature of the educated, enlightened West[en elite]. But I am also thankful for having come closer
to my true convictions mostly because of the coverage and comments at NC. You guys rock!
Apparently, the Donald's victory on Tuesday is 'on' white people whether they voted for him
or not! In voting for DT, white people did not vote against their interests; rather they voted
for the one thing they value above all else – their whiteness. At the Nation:
And please note that I am not including any qualifiers. For working-class whites. Or whites
from Rust Belt cities. Or white men. Or white people who didn't graduate from college-or rural
whites, or Midwestern whites, or Southern whites. Or whites disillusioned with Washington.
Or whites who hate Clinton. Or whites who felt ignored by politicians. This is on all white
people-who are complicit even if they didn't vote for Trump.
Does this mean I would not be a white supremacist if Hillary had won? Seems to me that if we
had elected Hillary a whole rainbow coalition of people would have been complicit in bringing
to power a white, neo-liberal war hawk who have shortly launched attacks both economic and military
both here and abroad.
Naw, "white supremacist" is a thing, an indelible genetic Magic Marker evidenced by having
skin tones that are actually cream, tan, peach and an assortment of pastels, shading to gray-green
as death approaches or fiery red if overexposed to the cleansing power of natural (or tanning-bed)
light, and any such creature who voted Democrat did so purely out of fear of retribution… /s
Exactly. Except I'd expand that to say the complicity extends far beyond Trump voters, to those
whites who voted against Sanders in the primary, and indeed to *everyone* who did. Yes, those
black church ladies voting lockstep in the early primaries for the only candidate who could lose
to Trump did their part for the white supremacist cause as well, albeit as unwittingly as many
of the others.
Thus, the author of that piece, Damon Young, who I'll assume from reading it was a Clinton
supporter, was it turns out equally complicit as well but obviously lacking in sufficient self-awareness
to see it.
"Yes, there exists a difference between allies and racial antagonists. They are not the
same. But those allies obviously haven't done enough collectively to repudiate the mindsets
existing in their families and among their friends…
"Millions of white voters have shown us that nothing existing on earth or in heaven or hell
matters more to them than being white , and whichever privileges-real or fabricated, concrete
or spiritual-existing as White in America provides."
First, such exit polling as I have seen indicates it is not that white people turned out in
droves to vote for Trump; it is rather the case that people of color DIDN'T turn out in droves
to vote for Clinton. Second. it is rather a tall order for us "allies" to convince other
folks' friends and family of anything – not always but mostly within one's own circle values
are largely shared. Although I certainly have had my share of exchanges affirming the legitimacy
of Black Lives Matter with commenters here who would deny it.
But heavens, all the snark on this site about Van Jones yesterday? Folks, this stuff is heartfelt.
See Ta-Nehisi Coates' Between the World and Me. The seemingly hysterical outcry of fear
above has to be understood within the context of the history of this country. Can anyone seriously
doubt that as the demographics change the fight to preserve power/status for those who traditionally
held it will intensify? Who gives up power voluntarily?
We are going through a seismic change and it could well get ugly, and those who have been on
the receiving end of ugly for generations are terrified, truly terrified. I got quite the dressing
down from an African American friend who is furious I didn't vote for Clinton. I stood my ground,
but with compassion. In the end, the browns inevitably will prevail, and let us hope they are
kinder to whites than whites have been to them over the centuries.
Just wondering, is there anywhere a source of reliable media writers that we can rely on?
A small list to start with:
– Glenn Greenwald
– Naomi Klein
– Thomas Frank
– Chris Hedges
Need a full list of people that we can trust to give us an honest breakdown.
What is the quality of coverage at the Al Jaazera English network and RT? Any alt media sites
you guys trust?
This election has a been a serious eye opener. A lot of supposedly left leaning sites proved
to be little more than Clinton bots – the Daily Kos being the most visible example but there have
been others.
Everybody on your list is usually pretty good, but no one is on all the time. It's totally
possible to be right about a lot things and woefully blind to others. See Matt Taibbi, Christopher
Hitchens, etc. It's always important to not assume someone knows what they're talking about just
because that's been the case in the past. No matter the source, you always gotta think it through
yourself.
That said, this site (obviously) and anything by Bill Black, Michael Hudson, The Real News
Network, or Laura Flanders is a good bet for real news. And that's just for starters….
Chris Arnade, Michael Tracey, Carl Beijer, Stephanie Kelton, Francis McKenna, Adolph Reed,
Corey Robin, Jimmy Dore, Benjamin Dixon, Erica Garner, Dan Froomkin.
Mmm…. these days it's a rare type of journalist who won't fall on earth void of sense, nor
drop to earth dead of mind! Agree with those listed by NC commenters but would also include the
following below. Why?
None of them (rarely?) prostrate themselves upon the ground………they instead bravely choose to behold
the earth in all its' darkest extremities. For they are a crazy bunch of hellacious mortals piercing
our gloom with much added sparkle and stars….
International Business Times – David Sirota and his colleagues
The Young Turks – Cenk Uygur, Ana Kasparian (a formidable young lady!) et al
The Empire Files with Abby Martin (another formidable young lady!)
Watching the Hawks – Tabetha Wallace (as with Ana and Abby!), Tyrel Ventura etc.
The Intercept – Lee 'BIG' Fang, Jeremy Scahill, and the rest of the team
There are also a few typically labeled right-wingers IMHO who are good too, not least because
they remain sane and surprisingly impartial for the most part compared to their batty brethren!
Otherwise I'd suggest the non-English language media for a decent lay of the USA…
While Cenk can be hard on the ears when in all caps rants, TYT is really quite informative
and entertaining. Dore on a tear complete with parenthetical remarks manages to compress a lot
of detail in a short time. He makes comedy central look sick/dead.
I don't know, just watched a few of their recent videos. Michael Shure is the epitome of the
clueless identity politics liberal, sneering about all the 'people in overalls with pitchforks'
who voted for Trump, and John Iadarola seems convinced the only possible reason non-college educated
white men under 45 could have voted for Trump is because they hate women. Pathetic.
Both the WSJ and the National Review appear to thankfully give some out-of-the-box latitude
to their teams at times to present some impartial, well-researched and well-written journalism.
Don't read everything in either journal but I haven't seen any "sneering of people in overalls
with pitchforks" from either journal.
Is there really an answer to this? I mean, everyone we "ostensibly" seem to trust seems to
have a blind spot somewhere.
Glenn Greenwald is great, but has some issues with releasing Snowden documents (which I think
Cryptome has discussed), plus there's always the issue of what angle Pierre Omydar is pushing.
Chris Hedges seems to have a an overly soft heart for religion in general and was overly apologetic
in my mind to Islam after 9/11, which I think Sam Harris did a good job of pointing out the flaws
in his, not logic, but rather "faith."
But then Sam Harris has some serious issues with wanting to use nuclear weapons against religious
fundamentalists too… (There's a good podcast interview between Dan Carlin and Sam on you tube
where Dan I think exposes some of Sam's blind spots.)
Chomsky, of course, has the problem of LOTE-ism by telling everyone to hold their noses and
vote for Hillary.
I say something along the lines of trust, but verify…or trust no one (at the heart of it all)
when it comes to journalistic sources, experts or other thinkers.
I don't think it could ever be a matter of just following "trusted" sources as you might not
always be able to know when they've been compromised or change their viewpoints and subtly/slowly
alter their reporting to fit their new perspective or paradigm.
Sometimes it's not even subtle, like when Christopher Hitchens went all in with Shrub on invading
Iraq & Middle East adventurism.
It's mostly about critical thinking skills and putting pieces together using varied sources,
even those that might disgust you simply because they force your to look at issues from other
perspectives.
I wonder if it isn't a bit risky to create such lists, though I admit my daily reading implicitly
relies on one. Nobody, even well-intentioned, can be guaranteed always reliable, nor is someone
who really annoys you sometimes always going to be wrong. Facts matter, with sources if they are
not in the category of general knowledge, and clear reasoning, and a willingness to consider other
points of view when they are offered with some substantiation–all the sorts of things that characterize
our hosts and some of the most knowledgeable and thoughtful commenters here.
When I was in seventh or eighth grade we had "current events" in which you had to bring in
a news article from one of the newspapers, present its information, and give your preliminary
critique, which opened up discussion from the floor, with questions about whether the article
was giving all the information or seemed to give inappropriate weight to one point of view without
factual support, etc. Judging by letters in my local paper, I suspect this practice died long
ago, as many people don't understand that opinion and bias on the editorial page are both permissible
and to be expected, but yet others fail to see them in articles.
Sometimes for kicks or because of recent developments, I look for news sources in another area
or country, for which I have sometimes found this site useful:
Either use advanced browsing or scroll down to the map and pick your area. You can quickly
find out which papers you're capable of reading and then apply your critical thinking skills to
try to assess the target audience, possible backing, bias, etc. It's an interesting exercise,
and sometimes preferable to getting the "expert" opinion of someone in this country who really
doesn't know the subject as well as he claims to.
holy cow, i wrote the longest reply i've written in years and it went poof!
anywho…Thank You Kathrine for the reminder that skills that seem to come naturally, can always
use a bit of dusting off. Thanks for the link, luv aby.
Chris Savage, Ellen Nakashima, Carol Rosenberg, Mark Ames, John Dolan aka Gary Brecher aka
The War Nerd, James Risen, Ray MacGovern, Robert Parry, Michael Winship, Bill Moyers, Charles
P. Piece.
Various good suggestions have certainly been made by other posters, but I should like to commend
the value of visiting other sites where you may encounter views that are not homogeneous with
yours. If I may, I would submit that this very narrowness of field of vision was part and parcel
of the collapse of the Democrat party's fortunes; when one lives in an echo chamber, where all
that is on offer is confirmation bias, and all other viewpoints are believed to
"... EXCELLENT article on the "unbearable smugness" of the media from a CBS political correspondent/managing director: ..."
"... great piece, and the comments are scathing. what I don't get is why they don't mention that beyond being insular and smug, the journos are also corporate-owned agents of the 1%. ..."
"... Yesterday I watched Rachel Maddow patronizingly begin a lesson on what things make America America – how we know we're here and nowhere else in the world. I had to turn it off toot sweet when she with a completely straight face enumerated a "free" press as one of those things. ..."
"... Not state owned, eh? But you are corporate owned, same difference. Why did MSNBC not report at all on opposition to the TPP – wouldn't have anything to do with being owned by ComCast now, would it? ..."
"... Years ago I liked her, now she is the poster child for smug. ..."
Personally, this tin-foil hatter believes the rating is -19%.
To get that number, one has to rig the poll though (by including people not longer living or
not born yet)…e.g. 1,000 people live in this town, and of them, 1,190 disapprove.
great piece, and the comments are scathing. what I don't get is why they don't mention that
beyond being insular and smug, the journos are also corporate-owned agents of the 1%.
I broke my ban on MSM the night of the election and have been "slipping" a bit.
Yesterday I
watched Rachel Maddow patronizingly begin a lesson on what things make America America – how we
know we're here and nowhere else in the world. I had to turn it off toot sweet when she with a
completely straight face enumerated a "free" press as one of those things.
Not state owned, eh? But you are corporate owned, same difference. Why did MSNBC not report
at all on opposition to the TPP – wouldn't have anything to do with being owned by ComCast now,
would it?
Years ago I liked her, now she is the poster child for smug.
"... I watched the election coverage over at R/T. I haven't watched a lamestream media broadcast of any kind for about 15 years, other than being a captive audience member at the airport, but toward the end of the night I tuned in to MSNBC and CNN. The funereal mood at these two "networks" was pretty over-the-top. The smug look on Rachel Maddow's face was priceless. ..."
I watched the election coverage over at R/T. I haven't watched a lamestream media broadcast
of any kind for about 15 years, other than being a captive audience member at the airport, but
toward the end of the night I tuned in to MSNBC and CNN. The funereal mood at these two "networks"
was pretty over-the-top. The smug look on Rachel Maddow's face was priceless.
I really thought
all of the talking heads were going to break out into tears. It was quite a disturbing scene.
They all looked like special little snowflakes who had just had something stolen from them. The
hubris was unbelievable. The coverage over at R/T was a breath of fresh air, in comparison. The
anchors were professional, they understand clearly and with articulation described how and why
the election went the way it did. R/T clearly "gets it" and did a bang-up job on election night
2016. Good job,, R/T.
Donald Trump's victory in the US Presidential election confirms what was already apparent from
the Brexit referendum and the Canadian parliamentary elections of 2015: Russophobia loses
elections.
As Donald Trump savours his victory Western elites
everywhere should take note of one overriding fact: Russophobia loses elections.
There have now been two elections in the West
in which Russia bashing and Putin bashing have taken centre stage.
These were the Brexit Referendum in Britain and the US Presidential
election.
In both elections the Western media and Western
governments united in claiming – and did so relentlessly – that Putin and Russia
were trying to influence the result in their favour.
They did not say that because they believed it.
There was never the slightest evidence it was the case.
On both occasions the claim was in fact false.
They said it because they are themselves viscerally
Russophobic, and they assume Western electorates are too.
In the case of the US Presidential election this
was taken to absurd, indeed ridiculous lengths.
Not only was Donald Trump – one of the most
archetypical Americans in existence – called ludicrously "the Siberian candidate",
but US Intelligence even
published a disgracefully dishonest statement
– which
the
FBI refused to sign
– which actually alleged that the
Russians were meddling in the election in order to influence its outcome by
providing hacked information to Wikileaks.
As for Donald Trump's policies towards Russia –
which amount to nothing more than the sensible suggestion that it is better to
have a civilised dialogue with another country which is a nuclear superpower
rather than engage in pointless confrontations with it – they have been distorted
and misrepresented to a ludicrous degree.
Even today, after Donald Trump has won, Jonathan
Freedland in the Guardian was at it again, making this fantastic comment in an
article
"Think of the anxiety this morning in Riga,
Vilnius or Tallinn. In the summer, Trump told the New York Times he did not
believe in Nato's core principle: that an attack on one member should be met by
a response from all. He seemed to see Nato as a mafia protection racket: unless
the little guys paid up, they should be left undefended. Vladimir Putin –
Trump's hero, admired as the very model of a leader by the president-elect of
the United States – will not need more of a hint than that.
The Russian
dictator will surely see his opportunity to invade one or more Baltic states
and expand his empire. President Trump would only admire the macho swagger of
such a move
."
(bold italics added)
So what happens when this "invasion" doesn't take
place (which it won't)?
Will Jonathan
Freedland apologise to Donald Trump (the man who in the article he calls an
"unstable bigot, sexual predator and compulsive liar") and Vladimir Putin ('the
Russian dictator")?
Will he admit he
was wrong about them all along?
I am
not holding my breath…..
Indeed the Putin bashing and Russia bashing during
this election have been so relentless that at times it has felt as if Hillary
Clinton was actually running against Vladimir Putin rather than Donald Trump.
"…….the British Remain campaign's attempt to use
Putin as a scarecrow to frighten British voters into voting Remain was a total
failure.
There is no evidence it
persuaded a single British voter to change their vote.
I predict the same will be true in the US
election.
Though Britain and the US
are very different societies, I think the liberal elite in both countries is
making the same mistake: they think non-elite people (ie. the great mass of
voters) are as obsessed by Putin as they are.
I doubt this is the case.
I think most British and US voters broadly accept the elite's claims
about Putin: that he is corrupt, ruthless and authoritarian.
However my impression is that this goes hand in hand with a grudging
though cynical respect for him as a strong leader who is not to be messed
with.
More to the point I don't think they think much
about him or consider him or Russia dangerous.
On the contrary they see jihadi terrorism – which unlike Russia has
actually carried out terrorist attacks on US and EU soil – as the enemy, and
are open to the idea floated by Putin and Trump of the US and Russia joining
forces to fight this common enemy.
Issues like Ukraine and the Baltic States by contrast are remote and far away
and barely interest them.
As for the idea that such an extremely American
figure as Donald Trump – whom US voters have come to know and form a view about
over several decades – could possibly be a Russian agent, that is just too
farfetched for most voters.
Unless Hillary Clinton is careful she
could find that by banging on about Putin she is losing the voters' attention.
This whilst Donald Trump talks about issues voters genuinely care about
such as immigration, law and order and jobs
."
(bold italics added)
So it has proved.
Indeed rarely has a prediction I have made about an election been so
entirely and comprehensively vindicated.
It is probably asking too much to expect of the
West's liberal elite that they will now drop their visceral Russophobia.
It is probably too hardwired in them for that.
However the politicians amongst them should at
least wake up to the fact that after more than two years of the most stupendous
and intense anti-Russia media campaign I can remember (and my memory extends back
to the Cold War) electoral campaigns based on it have all failed.
Even before the Brexit referendum the warning signs
were already there with the unexpected defeat in the October 2015 parliamentary
elections in Canada of Stephen Harper, possibly the most outspokenly Russophobic
leader of the pre-1991 West.
The
results of the Brexit referendum and of the US Presidential election settle the
issue.
To be clear the fact that Russophobia loses
elections does not reflect the success of Russia's mythical "information war" or
the supposedly sinister power of RT (whose coverage of the US Presidential
election has by the way been both faultless and fair).
What it
reflects is the good sense and tough minded practicality of Western
electorates.
Quite simply, for a Western politician who wants to
win an election, Russophobia is a passport to nowhere.
The sooner they realise this, the better for them and for the world in
general.
Mutinous DNC Staffers Rage At Donna Brazile: "You Are Part Of The Problem... You Let This Happen"
Tyler Durden Nov 11, 2016 2:55 PM 0 SHARES Liar, cheat, and fired CNN contributor Donna Brazile faced
an angry crowd on Thursday night ... as Democratic Party officials held their first staff meeting since Hillary Clinton was crushed
by the "least qualified candidate for President ever."
As The Huffington Post reports, Donna Brazile, the interim leader of the Democratic National Committee, was giving what one
attendee described as "a rip-roaring speech" to about 150 employees, about the need to have hope for wins going forward, when
a staffer identified only as Zach stood up with a question.
"Why should we trust you as chair to lead us through this?" he asked, according to two people in the room. "You backed a
flawed candidate, and your friend [former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz] plotted through this to support your own gain
and yourself."
Some DNC staffers started to boo and some told him to sit down. Brazile began to answer, but Zach had more to say.
"You are part of the problem," he continued, blaming Brazile for clearing the path for Trump's victory by siding with Clinton
early on . "You and your friends will die of old age and I'm going to die from climate change. You and your friends let this
happen, which is going to cut 40 years off my life expectancy."
Zach gathered his things and began to walk out. When Brazile called after him, asking where he was going, he told her to
go outside and "tell people there" why she should be leading the party.
Two DNC staffers confirmed the exchange, and Brazile appeared to confirm the exchange also...
"As you can imagine, the individual involved is a member of the staff and I personally do not wish to discuss our internal
meetings."
Brazile could move to stay on as chair after March, but Thursday's meeting shows at least some party officials want fresh blood
at the top.
"The party is at a crossroads. They have been using the same playbook for decades, and now, they won't let anyone else come
in and change it up," said one former longtime DNC staffer, who requested anonymity to speak freely.
"The fact that Democrats just sat through a devastating defeat and now have to trust the leadership that not only contributed
to Clinton's loss, but the crushing 2014 midterm losses, well, what do they expect?"
Mutiny at the DNC? And where does Brazile go now? No TV network will hire a proven liar and cheat. There's no Democratic campaign
for her to jump to like Wasserman-Schultz... So Brazile will probably find herself worling at The Clinton Foundation.
Yet the mainstream media will persist in explaining the Trump disaster in terms of race or
gender issues, never in terms of economic class.
This is how they keep us divided.
The Democrats did a fine job of stomping out any enthusiasm by sabotaging
Bernie Sanders.
The DNC became a wholly owned subsidiary of Clinton Family Inc. starting
in about 2008. Control the rulemakers/money flow, and you can control who
the nominee is. At least that is the conventional thinking, and Clinton Inc.
is nothing if not conventional.
To buy the DNC, she chose to go to the Wall Street banksters, and others.
Essentially an "up front" bribe. No smoking gun needed to be created. They
knew what they were paying for, without it being said.
(I'm curious to see how many "donations" the Clinton Foundation receives,
now that she's been pushed out on an ice floe.)
They never anticipated a challenger who didn't need the DNC, or it's
cash.
They ignored the stats showing how many people wouldn't vote for Hillary
Clinton under any circumstance. Just call them racist/sexist/dumbazz hicks,
and call them "deplorables". Ask Mitt Romney how that worked out for him.
She lost an election to DONALD TRUMP. Even without the airwaves filled
with Republican attack ads. (Lack of RNC enthusiasm for Trump? Or a
recognition that Hillary's negatives couldn't be covered in a 30 second
commercial?).
If it wasn't for the Clinton's collective ego, and lust for power/money
(after all, we all now that in the current state of affairs, the moneyed
class drives policy), we'd all (well, all of us who don't live in the
rarefied air of the 1%ers/Banksters) be celebrating the upcoming
inauguration of President Sanders.
"[Trump] has many tools to reverse the post World War II consensus on liberalizing U.S. trade
without needing congressional approval. For instance, he can withdraw from the North American Free
Trade Agreement, as he has threatened to do, by simply notifying the U.S.' Nafta partners, Mexico
and Canada, and waiting six months. Withdrawing from the World Trade Organization, which sets rules
for global trading and enforces tariffs, has a similar provision" [
Wall
Street Journal
, "Donald Trump Will Need to Leverage Size, Power of U.S. Economy to Remake Global
Trading System"]. "'Our major trading partners are far more likely to cooperate with an America resolute
about balancing its trade than they are likely to provoke a trade war,' wrote Trump economic advisers
Peter Navarro [
here
]
of the University of California-Irvine and investor Wilbur Ross in September. 'This is true for one
very simple reason: America's major trading partners are far more dependent on American markets than
America is on their markets.'"
TPP: "To take effect, TPP must be ratified by February 2018 by at least six countries that account
for 85 percent of the 12 members' aggregate economic output. This effectively means that the U.S.
and Japan, the world's third-largest economy and the second-largest that is a signatory nation, must
both be on board" [
DC
Velocity
].
TPP: "Mr. Trump's win also seals the fate of President Barack Obama's 12-nation trade agreement,
the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP. The president-elect blamed the TPP on special interests who
want to "rape" the country" [
Wall
Street Journal
, "Donald Trump Win to Upend Trade Policy"]. "Mr. Obama had hoped to work with
Republican lawmakers to pass the TPP during the 'lame duck' session of Congress after the election,
where they faced an uphill battle even if Tuesday's vote had favored Hillary Clinton, who previously
backed the TPP negotiations. Now Republicans have little incentive to bring the TPP to a vote, since
Mr. Trump could easily threaten to unravel the deal when he takes office and block its implementation,
as well as punish lawmakers who vote for it."
TPP: "Donald Trump's historic victory Tuesday has killed any chance of Congress voting on President
Barack Obama's signature Asia-Pacific trade agreement while raising the odds of a damaging trade
confrontation with China - just two ways a Trump presidency could upend the global trading system
and usher in a new era of U.S. protectionism, analysts say" [
Politico
].
"'This is the end of globalization is we knew it … because what the U.S. is going to do is certainly
going to impact other countries' and their decisions on negotiations,' Gary Hufbauer, a senior fellow
at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, told Politico. 'TPP is now in the history
dustbin for sure,' Hufbauer said."
TPP: "House GOP election outcomes will be key as House Speaker Paul Ryan decides whether to bring
the TPP to a vote in the lame-duck session with GOP voters strongly against and the GOP 's high-donor
base demanding action. With an eye to conservative GOP threats to withhold support for his speakership
and a possible 2020 presidential run, Ryan's decision is complicated. Whether the TPP will get a
lame-duck vote is his call. Beyond whether he can muster the votes of representatives who weathered
the wrath of trade voters in this cycle and worry about the 2018 primaries lies the longer-term implications
of his even trying to do so with the GOP voter base so intensely against the pact" [Lori Wallach,
Eyes on Trade
].
In the wreckage of Hillary Clinton's unexpected loss, liberal lawmakers and advocacy groups have started plotting a major overhaul
of the Democratic National Committee, with the aim of using the staid organization to reconnect the party with working-class voters
it lost to President-elect Donald Trump.
Much of the talk since Tuesday's election has focused on selecting a new chairman, with the most frequently mentioned successor
being Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who backed the primary bid of Sen. Bernie
Sanders (I-Vt.).
On Thursday afternoon, former Vermont governor Howard Dean (D) offered his service for a second tenure as DNC chairman, saying
on Twitter: "The dems need organization and focus on the the young. Need a fifty State strategy and tech rehab. I am in for chairman
again."
Evil Incarnate1956
I think the Republicans should get down on their knees and give thanks to God for Barack Obama. I'm serious.
He did great at getting himself elected, and he had some coattails when he was on the ballot. When he wasn't on the ballot,
the Dems' election performance has been one unmitigated disaster after another- midterm epic-fails in 2010 and 2014, and Tuesday's
election the frosting on the cake.
Where is the Democrats' bench strength? Where is their future? Besides Barack Obama, the face of their party today is Hillary
Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Steny Hoyer.
Obama, by cramming Obamacare down people's throats against their will, and his executive order overreach, has taken a wrecking
ball to the Democrat Party.
I hope the Democrats will adopt a strategy to continue the trend.
NewbieWaDoobie
Neat trick.....if you were to take the overtones of the media at large and the messaging coming from the HRC camp you can easily
see why she lost the rust belt. I worked as a carpenter in South Bend, IN from about 2002-2008 and she was never going to win
those people without a MESSAGE....when did she ELEVATE AND STUMP HARD for income equality and the platform....NEVER!!!! It
was against her principles and the interests of the people who surrounded her and the DNC.....FOOLS!!!!!
Neoliberalism is DEAD....even the IMF, published a report on this back in June 2016....take a look at Glen Greenwald's piece
while you're at it.
The GOP has the White House, the Senate and the House, the 33 state Governerships and, for the next 30 years, the US Supreme Court
(once Trump picks the next 3 Justices).
It seems to me that early voting should be abolished, voter photo ID SHOULD BE required by
law in all states.
Also to keep things as clean as possible there should be a media "NO FLY ZONE" on polling outcomes
until ALL POLLS are closed in all states.
So much wag the dog it is just disgusting.
Praying for justice.
roddcarlson -> Scuba Steve •Nov 8, 2016 1:16 PM
The early vote (aka the mail in ballots) were compromised. Right the FBI kept sacking the Dems
with mail in ballot forms, it must've been like a drug bust all those voting confetti sitting
there like paper dollars. Dems crying you are hindering our right to vote! Hopefully the later
day voting goes in our favor, but considering Soros electioneering electronics machines with no
way to track it may not.
If we lose the vote then America is cooked literally. But the vote was cooked books if it does
happen, so we won't be judged for that. What we as a nation may be judged for is severe apathy
and embracement of things for our personal gain years earlier where it was obviously wrong. We
should have never let these politicians get away with things like Iraq after learning there were
no WMD. Or free trade that was exporting our manufacturing base to every totalitarian government
abroad. Or our keeping up with the Jones by bigger and bigger mortgages we could barely afford
the old one. Or uncontrolled immigration. We should have put our foot down a long time ago and
made these uppers fear like Vietnam the whole thing was unstable and going to capsize on their
butts.
But I can pretty much tell you that Americans (true ones) aren't guilty of this electioneering.
The invader Mexicans and other parasites think they are somehow going to get on top of this thing.
You know I still love them to this day. I remember falling down some stairs carrying a heavy desk,
while some legal Mexican American citizens came and picked me up and then helped carry the desk
too. So I'm not judging people individually based on their skin or ethnic background, I however
am not foolish to say there is a problem of means here either. Hope all the invader Mexicans like
Mexico II where they get to live out of cardboard boxes and railroad cars, because they killed
the American host and now get their very own Mexican culture that is wholly immoral here too.
Well don't worry because you get a taste of this Hillary invasion as well, with your nemesis the
Muslims she is going to import in here. You see parasite never stop loving bigger problems for
the host.
If we lose this election white people need to start taking care of their own. I've had many
races that were my best of friends, and I'm not at all going to say I hate those people I will
never hate them. But the white people are under attack by a systematic attempt to dispossess them
from people like Soros. We still hold the reigns of economic power, even in our weakened state.
We can still peacefully (hopefully) use that power to say no to the 3rd world takeover of our
country.
Again early vote may mean nothing given the found stuffed cheated ballots at Dem headquarters.
But do not think that we accept this NWO takeover, we've overlooked many previous incursion that
has let it get this bad but no more even with a Hillary win.
jcaz -> Ghost of PartysOver •Nov 8, 2016 12:02 PM
Bullshit.
The line I stood in this am was Trump up and down- everyone unhappy with the prospect of more
of the same corrupt shit.
Not buying this story.
Ghost of PartysOver d jcaz •Nov 8, 2016 12:14 PM
It is really pretty easy to understand. Wall Street, including all the Hedge Funds, Banks ....
have bought and paid for HRC. They control her. Wall Street will get what it wants which is more
of the same; market manipulation, inside dealings, payoffs, lack of perp walks. You name it. This
is a very good scenario for those bastards. Hence markets will rally.
Trump on the other hand will lock those bastards up. Markets will fall.
Pres HRC means outstanding next QTR reports and of course bonuses. Any illegal activity will
be met with a slap on the wrist (Corzine ring a bell)
Pres Trump means reigning in the the crap and the next QTR report will not be so rosy. And
bonuses will be much, much lower. Any illegal activity will be met with a perp walk.
" An anonymous Iraqi official recently stated that front line troops "always see US helicopters
flying over the ISIL-controlled areas and dropping weapons and urgent aids for them.", Iraq, ISIS,
Mosul, Operation Inherent Resolve, Saudi Arabia, United States, Weapons,"
.,. ... ...
Iraqi militia commander Uday al-Khaddran reported the weapons after capturing former Islamic State
positions.
According to GeoPolitics Alert , the weapons are of Saudi origin, and are by no means an isolated
incident. Iraqi forces have reported Saudi and even American supplied ISIS weaponry and food shipments
since the war began. Militiamen believe the weapons are, in part, being transported by the Turkish
government.
US manufactured missiles were also allegedly retrieved from the cleared IS area's. In this case,
according to Reports Afrique , Iraqi commanders believe the weapons were
dropped to ISIS by coalition planes . Such claims, once again, have circulated throughout the
war.
In 2015, Iraqi commanders reported they'd begun shooting down coalition craft seen aiding the
group. Iraq's parliament disclosed that year that
two British planes seen aiding the enemy were shot down,
with wreckage photographed . The government of Iraq called on western leaders to claim the crash,
but no response ever came.
Commander Al-Khaddran also accuses the Turks of sending advisors to aid in IS artillery, and other
operations. Since these kinds of reports first surfaced nearly two years ago, they've been largely
disregarded. It's only recently, with Hillary Clinton's email leaks allegedly confirming Saudi Arabia
funds ISIS, that the mainstream can re-examine these reports.
Turkish special forces operatives
have been stationed outside Mosul for months now without Iraq's approval. Turkey's prime minister
was brazen in telling Iraqi's leadership to "know your place" when asked to pull troops out. American
officials, who also train Syrian rebels in Turkey–the majority of which are linked to jihadist groups–approve
of the forces in northern Iraq. All of these operations, from rebel training to Turkish troop deployments,
have coincided with
a brutal government crackdown on Turkish media .
Clinton was emailing her campaign chairman in 2014, advocated for pressure on Saudi Arabia because
they "are providing clandestine financial and logistical support to ISIL and other radical Sunni
groups in the region." Saudi government officials,
Daily Caller reports , has donated over $25 million to the Clinton Foundation.
"... We know those in Washington with a vested interest in maintaining a US empire overseas will fight to the end to keep the financial gravy train flowing. The neocons and the liberal interventionists will continue to preach that we must run the world or everything will fall to ruin. But this election and many recent polls demonstrate that their time has passed. They may not know it yet, but their failures are too obvious and Americans are sick of paying for them. ..."
Regardless of How America Votes, Americans Want a Different Foreign Policy
,
Print This | Share This
I have said throughout this presidential campaign that it doesn't matter much which candidate
wins. Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are authoritarians and neither can be expected to roll
back the leviathan state that destroys our civil liberties at home while destroying our economy and
security with endless wars overseas. Candidates do not matter all that much, despite what the media
would have us believe. Ideas do matter, however. And regardless of which of these candidates is elected,
the battle of ideas now becomes critical.
The day after the election is our time to really focus our efforts on making the case for a peaceful
foreign policy and the prosperity it will bring. While we may not have much to cheer in Tuesday's
successful candidate, we have learned a good deal about the state of the nation from the campaigns.
From the surprising success of the insurgent Bernie Sanders to a Donald Trump campaign that broke
all the mainstream Republican Party rules – and may have broken the Republican Party itself – what
we now understand more clearly than ever is that the American people are fed up with politics as
usual. And more importantly they are fed up with the same tired old policies.
Last month a fascinating poll was conducted by the Center for the National Interest and the Charles
Koch Institute. A broad ranging 1,000 Americans were asked a series of questions about US foreign
policy and the 15 year "war on terror." You might think that after a decade and a half, trillions
of dollars, and thousands of lives lost, Americans might take a more positive view of this massive
effort to "rid the world of evildoers," as then-president George W. Bush promised. But the poll found
that only 14 percent of Americans believe US foreign policy has made them more safe! More than 50
percent of those polled said the next US president should use less force overseas, and 80 percent
said the president must get authorization from Congress before taking the country to war.
These results should make us very optimistic about our movement, as it shows that we are rapidly
approaching the "critical mass" where new ideas will triumph over the armies of the status quo.
We know those in Washington with a vested interest in maintaining a US empire overseas will fight
to the end to keep the financial gravy train flowing. The neocons and the liberal interventionists
will continue to preach that we must run the world or everything will fall to ruin. But this election
and many recent polls demonstrate that their time has passed. They may not know it yet, but their
failures are too obvious and Americans are sick of paying for them.
What is to be done? We must continue to educate ourselves and others. We must resist those who
are preaching "interventionism-lite" and calling it a real alternative. Claiming we must protect
our "interests" overseas really means using the US military to benefit special interests. That is
not what the military is for. We must stick to our noninterventionist guns. No more regime change.
No more covert destabilization programs overseas. A solid defense budget, not an imperial military
budget. US troops home now. End US military action in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and so on.
Just come home.
Americans want change, no matter who wins. We need to be ready to provide that alternative.
By Daniel
Larison James Traub gamely
tries to convince us (and himself) that Clinton's foreign policy won't be as aggressive and meddlesome
as she says it will be, but he undermines his argument when he says this:
As a senator and later secretary of state, she rarely departed from the counsel of senior military
officials. She was far more persuaded of the merits of Gen. David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal's
counterinsurgency plan for Afghanistan, which would have sent an additional 40,000 troops there,
than Obama was and maybe even more than then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates was. She rarely departed
from Gates on any significant issue. Of course, the one time she did so was on Libya, where she
advocated intervention and he did not [bold mine-DL]. On Syria, Clinton may have to choose between
her own expressed commitments and a Pentagon that is far more cautious and more inclined to see
mishap than are civilian interventionists. I wonder how Kagan-esque she will be in the White House.
Less so, perhaps, than she was as secretary of state.
In other words, when military officers recommended a larger escalation, she agreed with them,
and when Gates didn't support intervention she didn't agree. Clinton was fine with advice from the
military when it meant supporting deeper involvement, but she broke with Gates when he didn't want
to take sides in a foreign war. That isn't a picture of someone who consistently heeds military advice,
but rather someone who always opts for the more aggressive option available at the time. It doesn't
make much sense that Clinton as president would be less "Kagan-esque" than she was as a member of
Obama's Cabinet. As president, she will have considerable leeway to do as she sees fit, Congress
will be pathetically quiescent as usual, and most of the foreign policy establishment will be encouraging
her to do more in Syria and elsewhere. Clinton will be predisposed to agree with what they urge her
to do, and in the last twenty years she has never seen a military intervention that she thought was
unnecessary or too risky. Why is that suddenly going to change when she has the power of the presidency?
In virtually every modern case, a new president ends up behaving more hawkishly than expected based
on campaign rhetoric. All of the pressures and incentives in Washington push a president towards
do-somethingism, and Clinton has typically been among the least resistant to the demand to "do something"
in response to crises and conflicts, so why would we think she would become more cautious once she
is in office? I can understand why many of her supporters wish that to be the case, but it flies
in the face of all the available evidence, including most of what we know about how Washington works.
Traub makes a number of predictions at the end of his article:
She will not make dumb mistakes. She will reassure every ally who needs reassurance. She will
try to mute China's adventurism in the South China Sea without provoking a storm of nationalism.
She'll probably disappoint the neocons. She won't go out on any limbs. She won't shake the policymaking
consensus.
I don't know where this confidence in Clinton's good judgment comes from, but it seems misplaced.
I suppose it depends on what you think smart foreign policy looks like, but there is a fair amount
of evidence from Clinton's own record that she is quite capable of making dumb mistakes.
That doesn't just apply to her vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq and her backing for intervention
in Libya, but could also refer to her support for sending weapons to Ukraine, her endorsement of
"no-fly" and safe zones in Syria, her preference for more sanctions on Iran while negotiations were
still taking place, and her belief that the U.S. has to bomb another country to retain its "credibility."
All of these are mistakes, and some are quite dumb.
It isn't at all reassuring to know that Clinton will "reassure every ally who needs reassurance,"
because in practice that means indulging bad behavior from reckless clients and rewarding them with
more aid and weapons. Earlier in the article, Traub seems to understand that enabling the Saudis
is a bad idea:
This last policy, which for Clinton will come under the heading of "alliance management," would
only deepen the violence and sectarian strife rending the region. She would be better advised
to tell the Saudis that the United States will reduce its support of their war effort unless they
make serious efforts toward a lasting cease-fire.
That would certainly be wiser than offering uncritical backing of their intervention, but what
is the evidence that Clinton thinks U.S. support for the war on Yemen needs to be curtailed? Yemen
has been devastated in no small part because of Obama's willingness to "reassure" the Saudis and
their allies. What other countries will be made to suffer so Clinton can keep them happy? Clinton
may disappoint neocons, but then they are disappointed by anything short of preventive war. Even
if Clinton's foreign policy isn't aggressive enough to satisfy them, it is likely to be far more
aggressive than necessary.
"... It is shockingly disappointing that MOA, this otherwise intelligent incisive, a deeply intellectual and factual blog's readership exhibit a trait common to overall American anti-intellectual sheeple constituency as Gore Vidal posited decades ago, having no shame expressing their utter confusion and ignorance about one fundamental fact of reality they are facing. ..."
"... Those political puppets, stooges of oligarchy are no alternatives to the calcified imperial system itself, they never have been and they never will. They are new/old faces of the same old 240 y.o. Anglo-American imperial regime based on ancient and modern slavery and they already declared it by submitting to it via pledging to run in this farcical rigged electoral fallacy. ..."
It is shockingly disappointing that MOA, this otherwise intelligent incisive, a deeply intellectual
and factual blog's readership exhibit a trait common to overall American anti-intellectual sheeple
constituency as Gore Vidal posited decades ago, having no shame expressing their utter confusion
and ignorance about one fundamental fact of reality they are facing.
THE FACT: The US elections are a staged political farce with NO MATERIAL IMPACT on the US imperial
policies, domestic or international WHATSOEVER. And that's the fact based on rock solid empirical
evidences also MOA proliferates that only a mental patient can deny.
SO WHAT THE F.U.CK ALL OF YOU PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT? "Voting" for this or that? NONSENSE;
Those political puppets, stooges of oligarchy are no alternatives to the calcified imperial
system itself, they never have been and they never will. They are new/old faces of the same old
240 y.o. Anglo-American imperial regime based on ancient and modern slavery and they already declared
it by submitting to it via pledging to run in this farcical rigged electoral fallacy.
All at the end will openly pledge unwavering support for the regime and their rotten deeply
corrupted parties while abandoning their gullible voters.
Supporters of any of these plastic puppets of oligarchy not unlike a cargo cult, are impatient,
nervous, excited and scared sitting and waiting before an impregnable curtain of political deceit,
lies and manipulation by the ruling elite in front of their wide shut eyes , turning to magic,
superstition, appeasement, making up stories, poems out of their incoherent utterances filed with
tautologies, innuendos and absurd, begging for mercy or praying for a caprice of good will to
save them ultimately in a form of fake, meaningless political turds passing as empty "political"
platform promises while blatantly abandoning their unalienable rights to independence, self-determination
and democratic system of people's rule, based on equality in the law, and one voter one vote principle,
for a role of a meddlesome spectators to their own execution.
THE FACT: The democratic electoral system worth participating does not exist in the US but
none of the candidates would utter this truth as long as they can benefit from the fraud and that
includes third parties. If this was a true change or revolution, that we desperately need, honest
leaders would not run their campaign within the corrupted system set up by and for two oligarchic
parties but they would decry and utterly reject it.
Think people, all the so-called candidates even third party candidates are just nibbling on
the behemoth of abhorrent and brutal US imperial power mostly with utterances that they never
intended to follow if they wanted to survive terror of the US security apparatus, while peddling
the lies about small incremental changes and stealing ours and our children future by asking us
to wait, be patient, and begging ruling elite for mercy and may be for some crumbs from an oligarchs'
table after they are not able to gorge themselves anymore with our blood sweat and tears.
Unfortunately, this time as well, millions of irrational, desperate and helpless in their daily
lives electoral zombies such as those, under a spell of exciting political masquerade, regrettably
also on this blog, will be aligning themselves with one or the other anointed by establishment
winner [whoever it will be] of a meaningless popularity/beauty contest, in a delusional feat of
transference of a fraction of elite's power to themselves just for a second of a thrill of illusion
of power, illusion of feelings that something depends on me, that I can make a difference, a delusion
of holding skies from falling and by that saving the world common among paranoid mental patients.
And they will continue to authorize their own suicide mission, since even baseless, continually
disproved hope of Sisyphus, of any chance of influencing of the political realm via means of begging
is the last thing that dies.
THE LOUD POLITICAL BOYCOTT OF THIS FARCE, UTTER REJECTION OF THIS FACADE OF DEMOCRATIC CHOICE,
REJECTION OF ANY POLITICAL LEGITIMACY OF THIS SORRY SPECTACLE IS THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE AVAILABLE
TO ANY DECENT PERSON, INDEPENDENT, SOVEREIGN CITIZEN WHO TAKES A MORAL STAND REJECTING ENSLAVEMENT
RIGHT HERE AND RIGHT NOW.
THE REST WILL JUST PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEIR OWN CHAINS.
"... "Yet commentators who have been ready and willing to attribute Donald Trump's success to anger, authoritarianism, or racism rather than policy issues have taken little note of the extent to which Mr. Sanders's support is concentrated not among liberal ideologues but among disaffected white men." ... ..."
"... poor pk a leader of the Stalinist press ..."
"... the surprising success of Bernie Sanders -- a Brooklyn-born, Jewish socialist -- in the primaries is solid proof that the electorate was open to a coherent argument for genuine progressive change, and that a substantial portion of that electorate is not acting on purely racist and sexist impulses, as so many progressive commentators say. ..."
"... "I will live my life calmly and my children will be just fine. I will live my life calmly and my children will be just fine." That assumes you're about 85 years old...and don't have long to live! ..."
"... Laid out by whom? By the commercial "media" hype machine that has 12-16 hours of airtime to fill every day with the as sensationalized as possible gossip (to justify the price for the paid advertisements filling the remaining hours). ..."
"... Killary Clinton got no closer than Ann Arbor this weekend, a message! ..."
"... Mr. Krugman forgot to list the collusion of the DNC and the Clinton campaign to work against Sanders. ..."
"... putting crooked in the same sentence as Clinton or DNC is duplicative wording. This mortification is brought to US by the crooked and the stalinist press that calls crooked virtue. ..."
"... Krugman did so much to help create the mass of white working class discontent that is electing Trump. Krugman and co cheering on NAFTA/PNTR/WTO etc, US deindustrialization, collapse of middle class... ..."
"... Hopefully the working class masses will convince our rulers to abandon free trade before every last factory is sold off or dismantled and the US falls to the depths of a Chad or an Armenia. ..."
The Truth About the Sanders Movement
By Paul Krugman
In short, it's complicated – not all bad, by any means, but not the pure uprising of idealists
the more enthusiastic supporters imagine.
The political scientists Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels have an illuminating discussion
of Sanders support. The key graf that will probably have Berniebros boiling is this:
"Yet commentators who have been ready and willing to attribute Donald Trump's success to
anger, authoritarianism, or racism rather than policy issues have taken little note of the extent
to which Mr. Sanders's support is concentrated not among liberal ideologues but among disaffected
white men." ...
[ Yes, I do find defaming people by speculation or stereotype to be beyond saddening. ]
The fact that Obama either won, or did so much better than Hillary appears to be doing with, the
white working-class vote in so many key battleground states, as well as the surprising success
of Bernie Sanders -- a Brooklyn-born, Jewish socialist -- in the primaries is solid proof that
the electorate was open to a coherent argument for genuine progressive change, and that a substantial
portion of that electorate is not acting on purely racist and sexist impulses, as so many progressive
commentators say.
And her opponent was/is incapable of debating on substance, as there was/is neither coherence
nor consistency in any part of his platform -- nor that of his party....
Question is, will Krugman be able to move on after the election...and talk about something useful?
Like how to get Hillary to recognize and deal with inequality...
Barbara Ehrenreich: "Forget fear and loathing. The US election inspires projectile vomiting. The
most sordid side of our democracy has been laid out for all to see. But that's only the beginning:
whoever wins, the mutual revulsion will only intensify... With either Clinton or Trump, we will
be left to choke on our mutual revulsion."
"I will live my life calmly and my children will be just fine. I will live my life calmly
and my children will be just fine." That assumes you're about 85 years old...and don't have long
to live!
Laid out by whom? By the commercial "media" hype machine that has 12-16 hours of airtime to
fill every day with the as sensationalized as possible gossip (to justify the price for the paid
advertisements filling the remaining hours).
Something interesting today.... President Obama came to Michigan. I fully expected him to speak
in Detroit with a get out the vote message. Instead he is in Ann Arbor, speaking to an overwhelmingly
white and white-collar audience. On a related note, the Dems have apparently written off
the white blue collar vote in Michigan, even much of the union vote. the union leaders are pro
Clinton, but the workers not so much. Strange year.
The real danger of serious election-rigging: electronic voting machines. How do we know the machine
*really* recorded everyone's votes correctly? (Did any Florida county ever give Al Gore negative
something votes?)
That's a big subject but you are right, that is the biggest risk of significant fraud. Not just
the voting machines, but the automatic counting systems. Other forms of possible election fraud
are tiny by comparison.
Here is the transcript from 60 Minutes about the Luntz focus group rancor. Instructive to read
about the depth of feeling in case you didn't see the angry, disgusted faces of citizens.
putting crooked in the same sentence as Clinton or DNC is duplicative wording. This mortification
is brought to US by the crooked and the stalinist press that calls crooked virtue.
Before the 1970s the US was both rich and protectionist - no look at our horrible roads and hopeless
people - the miracle of free trade! : ,
November 07, 2016 at 07:13 PM
Krugman did so much to help create the mass of white working class discontent that is electing
Trump. Krugman and co cheering on NAFTA/PNTR/WTO etc, US deindustrialization, collapse of
middle class...
Hopefully the working class masses will convince our rulers to abandon free trade before
every last factory is sold off or dismantled and the US falls to the depths of a Chad or an Armenia.
"... We don't want World War 3 with Russia. We want our factories and jobs back, we would like to spend $1 trillion a year on infrastructure instead of blowing up yet another Middle Eastern nation. ..."
"... Fuck Hillary, Fuck the neolibcons, Fuck al-CIAda, Fuck the fascist banksters who eat our children for breakfast. ..."
"... Vote Trump in swing states. Vote Jill everywhere else. ..."
The heartland of the US is RED, solid RED.
The neolibcons are printing up their Newsweek mags with Madam President on the cover.
They don't have a clue about how pissed off the people in the "flyover states" are.
Fuck their rigged polls and lying news.
Sure Trump is behind or neck-and-neck . . . Just like we have 5% unemployment.
As long as you don't count the 1/3 of working age people who DON"T HAVE A JOB.
The deplorables can think of 650,000 reasons why Hillary should be in PRISON, even if the FBI
can't.
We don't want World War 3 with Russia. We want our factories and jobs back, we would like
to spend $1 trillion a year on infrastructure instead of blowing up yet another Middle Eastern
nation.
Fuck Hillary, Fuck the neolibcons, Fuck al-CIAda, Fuck the fascist banksters who eat our
children for breakfast.
Do not blow shit up, like the political system, without a clear idea where the pieces will
land and how you will put them back together. Crisis would benefit the right, not the left, given
the current correlation of class and political forces.
The best result. sadly, would be a resounding win for Mrs. Clinton. As the comment at 11 shows,
anything less than a crushing defeat will enable the alt-right and embolden the most reactionary
and nativist elements in society.
The notion that worsening conditions will automatically produce progressive revolution is a
pipe-dream. Beaten-down folks struggling to survive don't have the time or energy to organize.
Vote your conscience, your hopes. Takingg the long view, I am again voting, as I have for years,
for the Socialist Workers Party.
"... What America objects to in Russia is that Americans couldn't buy control of their oil, couldn't buy control of their natural resources, couldn't buy control of their public utilities and charge economic rents and continue to make Russia the largest stock market boom in the world as it was from 1994 through 1998 when there was the crisis. ..."
"... So the conflict is not one of economic systems. It's simply that America wants to control other countries and keep other countries within the dollar orbit. And what that means is that if the whole world saves in the form of dollars, that means saving by buying Treasury bonds. ..."
"... And other countries are trying to withdraw from this and America says, "Well, we can smash you." ..."
"... There really is no alternative, and that's the objective of control: to create a society in which there is no choice. That's what a free market [myth] is really all about: preventing any choice by the people except what the government gives them. ..."
"... has the illusion of choice in choosing either between which is the lesser evil. They get to vote for the lesser evil when it's all really the same process. ..."
> Ashcroft: What sort of president then will Hillary Clinton be?
> Hudson: A dictator. She… a vindictive dictator, punishing her enemies, appointing neocons in the secretary
of state, in the defense department, appointing Wall Street people in the Treasury and the Federal Reserve,
and the class war will really break out very explicitly. And she'll-as Warren Buffet said, there is
a class war and we're winning it.
> Ashcroft: As in the one percent are winning it.
> Hudson: The one percent are winning it. And she will try to use the rhetoric to tell people: "Nothing
to see here folks. Keep on moving," while the economy goes down and down and she cashes in as she's
been doing all along, richer and richer, and if she's president, there will not be an investigator of
the criminal conflict of interest of the Bill Clinton Foundation, of pay-to-play. You'll have a presidency
in which corporations who pay the Clintons will be able to set policy. Whoever has the money to buy
the politicians will buy control of policy because elections have been privatized and made part of the
market economy in the United States. That's what the Citizens United Supreme Court case was all about.
> Hudson: Well, after 1991 when the Soviet Union broke up, it really went neoliberal. And Putin is basically
a neoliberal. So there's not a clash of economic systems as there was between capitalism and communism.
What America objects to in Russia is that Americans couldn't buy control of their oil, couldn't buy
control of their natural resources, couldn't buy control of their public utilities and charge economic
rents and continue to make Russia the largest stock market boom in the world as it was from 1994 through
1998 when there was the crisis.
So the conflict is not one of economic systems. It's simply that America
wants to control other countries and keep other countries within the dollar orbit. And what that means
is that if the whole world saves in the form of dollars, that means saving by buying Treasury bonds.
And that means lending all of the balance-of-payments surplus that Russia or China or other countries
look at, by lending it to the U.S. Treasury, which will use that money to militarily encircle these
countries and threaten to do to any country that seeks to withdraw from the dollar system exactly what
they did to Iraq or Libya or Afghanistan, or now Syria.
And other countries are trying to withdraw from
this and America says, "Well, we can smash you." No country's going to invade any other country. There's
not going to be a military draft in any country 'cause the students; the population would rise up. Nobody's
going to invade, and you can't control or occupy a country if you don't have an army. So the only thing
that America can do-or any country can do militarily-is drop bombs.
And that's sort of the equivalent
of, just like the European Central Bank told Greece, "We'll close down your banks and the ATM machines
will be empty," America will say, "Well, we'll bomb you, make you look like Syria and Libya if you don't
turn over your oil, your pipelines, your utilities to American buyers so we can charge rents; we can
be the absentee landlords. We can conquer the world financially instead of militarily. We don't need
an army; we can use finance. And the threat of military warfare and bombing you to achieve things."
Other countries are trying to stay free of the mad bomber, and it's all about who's going to control
the world's natural resources: water, real estate, utilities-not a question of economic systems so much
anymore.
> Well, President Obama, even though he's a tool of Wall Street, at least he says, "It's not worth blowing
up the world to fight in the near east." Hillary says, "It is worth pushing the world back to the Stone
Age if they don't let us and me, Hillary, tell the world how to behave." That's a danger of the world
and that's why the Europeans should be terrified of a Hillary presidency and terrified of the direction
that America is doing, saying, "We want to control the world." It's not control the world through a
different economic philosophy. It's to control the world through ownership of their land, natural resources
and essentially, governments and monetary systems. That's really what it's all about. And the popular
press is not doing a good job of explaining that context, but I can assure you, that's what they're
talking about in Russia, China and South America.
> There really is no alternative, and that's the objective of control: to create a society in which
there is no choice. That's what a free market [myth] is really all about: preventing any choice by the people
except what the government gives them. That's what the Austrian school was all about in the 1920s, waging
war and assassination against the labor leaders and the socialists in Vienna, and that's what the free
marketers in Chile were all about in the mass assassinations of labor leaders, university professors,
intellectuals, and that's exactly the situation in America today without the machine guns, because the
population doesn't really feel that it has any alternative, but has the illusion of choice in choosing
either between which is the lesser evil. They get to vote for the lesser evil when it's all really the
same process.
"... The American people don't know very much about war even if Washington has been fighting on multiple fronts since 9/11. The continental United States has not experienced the presence a hostile military force for more than 100 years and war for the current generation of Americans consists largely of the insights provided by video games and movies. The Pentagon's invention of embedded journalists, which limits any independent media insight into what is going on overseas, has contributed to the rendering of war as some kind of abstraction. Gone forever is anything like the press coverage of Vietnam, with nightly news and other media presentations showing prisoners being executed and young girls screaming while racing down the street in flames. ..."
"... Given all of that, it is perhaps no surprise that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, neither of whom has served in uniform, should regard violence inflicted on people overseas with a considerable level of detachment. ..."
"... They both share to an extent the dominant New York-Washington policy consensus view that dealing with foreigners can sometimes get a bit bloody, but that is a price that someone in power has to be prepared to pay. One of Hillary's top advisers, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, famously declared that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to U.S. led sanctions were "worth it." ..."
"... Hillary Clinton and her advisors, who believe strongly in Washington's leadership role globally and embrace their own definition of American exceptionalism, have been explicit in terms of what they would do to employ our military power. ..."
"... She would be an extremely proactive president in foreign policy, with a particular animus directed against Russia. ..."
"... Hillary has received support from foreign policy hawks, including a large number of formerly Republican neocons, to include Robert Kagan, Michael Chertoff, Michael Hayden, Eliot Cohen and Eric Edelman. James Stavridis, a retired admiral who was once vetted by Clinton as a possible vice president, recently warned of "the need to use deadly force against the Iranians. ..."
"... Hillary believes that Syria's president Bashar al-Assad is the root cause of the turmoil in that country and must be removed as the first priority. . It is a foolish policy as al-Assad in no way threatens the United States while his enemy ISIS does and regime change would create a power vacuum that will benefit the latter. ..."
"... Hillary has not recommended doing anything about Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, all of which have at one time or another for various reasons supported ISIS, but she is clearly no friend of Iran, which has been fighting ISIS. ..."
"... One of Hillary's advisors, former CIA acting Director Michael Morell, has called for new sanctions on Tehran and has also recently recommended that the U.S. begin intercepting Iranian ships presumed to be carrying arms to the Houthis in Yemen. ..."
"... Hillary's dislike for Russia's Vladimir Putin is notorious. Syria aside, she has advocated arming Ukraine with game changing offensive weapons and also bringing Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, which would force a sharp Russian reaction. One suspects that she might be sympathetic to the views expressed recently by Carl Gershman in a Washington Post op-ed that received curiously little additional coverage in the media. Gershman is the head of the taxpayer funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which means that he is a powerful figure in Washington's foreign-policy establishment. NED has plausibly been described as doing the sorts of things that the CIA used to do. ..."
"... She would increase U.S. military presence in the South China Sea to deter any further attempts by Beijing to develop disputed islands and would also "ring China with defensive missiles," ostensibly as "protection" against Pyongyang but also to convince China to pressure North Korea over its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. One wonders what Beijing might think about being surrounded by made-in-America missiles. ..."
The American people don't know very much about war even if Washington has been fighting on
multiple fronts since 9/11. The continental United States has not experienced the presence a hostile
military force for more than 100 years and war for the current generation of Americans consists largely
of the insights provided by video games and movies. The Pentagon's invention of embedded journalists,
which limits any independent media insight into what is going on overseas, has contributed to the
rendering of war as some kind of abstraction. Gone forever is anything like the press coverage of
Vietnam, with nightly news and other media presentations showing prisoners being executed and young
girls screaming while racing down the street in flames.
Given all of that, it is perhaps no surprise that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, neither
of whom has served in uniform, should regard violence inflicted on people overseas with a considerable
level of detachment. Hillary is notorious for her assessment of the brutal killing of Libya's
Moammar Gaddafi, saying "We came, we saw, he died." They both share to an extent the dominant
New York-Washington policy consensus view that dealing with foreigners can sometimes get a bit bloody,
but that is a price that someone in power has to be prepared to pay. One of Hillary's top advisers,
former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, famously declared that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi
children due to U.S. led sanctions were "worth it."
In the election campaign there has, in fact, been little discussion of the issue of war and peace
or even of America's place in the world, though Trump did at one point note correctly that implementation
of Hillary's suggested foreign policy could escalate into World War III. It has been my contention
that the issue of war should be more front and center in the minds of Americans when they cast their
ballots as the prospect of an armed conflict in which little is actually at stake escalating and
going nuclear could conceivably end life on this planet as we know it.
With that in mind, it is useful to consider what the two candidates have been promising. First,
Hillary, who might reasonably be designated the Establishment's war candidate though she carefully
wraps it in humanitarian "liberal interventionism." As Senator and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton
has always viewed a foreign crisis as an opportunity to use aggressive measures to seek a resolution.
She can always be relied upon to "do something," a reflection of the neocon driven Washington foreign
policy consensus.
Hillary Clinton and her advisors, who believe strongly in Washington's leadership role globally
and embrace their own definition of American exceptionalism, have been explicit in terms of what
they would do to employ our military power.
She would be an extremely proactive president in foreign policy, with a particular animus
directed against Russia. And, unfortunately, there would be little or no pushback against the
exercise of her admittedly poor instincts regarding what to do, as was demonstrated regarding Libya
and also with Benghazi. She would find little opposition in Congress and the media for an extremely
risky foreign policy, and would benefit from the Washington groupthink that prevails over the alleged
threats emanating from Russia, Iran, and China.
Hillary has received support from foreign policy hawks, including a large number of formerly
Republican neocons, to include Robert Kagan, Michael Chertoff, Michael Hayden, Eliot Cohen and Eric
Edelman. James Stavridis, a retired admiral who was once vetted by Clinton as a possible vice president,
recently warned of "the need to use deadly force against the Iranians. I think it's coming.
It's going to be maritime confrontation and if it doesn't happen immediately, I'll bet you a dollar
it's going to be happening after the presidential election, whoever is elected."
Hillary believes that Syria's president Bashar al-Assad is the root cause of the turmoil in
that country and must be removed as the first priority. . It is a foolish policy as al-Assad in no
way threatens the United States while his enemy ISIS does and regime change would create a power
vacuum that will benefit the latter. She has also called for a no-fly zone in Syria to protect
the local population as well as the insurgent groups that the U.S. supports, some of which had been
labeled as terrorists before they were renamed by current Secretary of State John Kerry. Such a zone
would dramatically raise the prospect of armed conflict with Russia and it puts Washington in an
odd position vis-à-vis what is occurring in Syria. The U.S. is not at war with the Syrian government,
which, like it or not, is under international law sovereign within its own recognized borders. Damascus
has invited the Russians in to help against the rebels and objects to any other foreign presence
on Syrian territory. In spite of all that, Washington is asserting some kind of authority to intervene
and to confront the Russians as both a humanitarian mission and as an "inherent right of self-defense."
Hillary has not recommended doing anything about Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, all of which
have at one time or another for various reasons supported ISIS, but she is clearly no friend of Iran,
which has been fighting ISIS. As a Senator, she threatened to "totally obliterate" Iran but
she has more recently reluctantly supported the recent nuclear agreement with that country negotiated
by President Barack Obama. But she has nevertheless warned that she will monitor the situation closely
for possible violations and will otherwise pushback against activity by the Islamic Republic. As
one of her key financial supporters is Israeli Haim Saban, who has said he is a one issue guy and
that issue is Israel, she is likely to pursue aggressive policies in the Persian Gulf. She has also
promised to move America's relationship with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to a "new level" and
has repeatedly declared that her support for Israel is unconditional.
One of Hillary's advisors, former CIA acting Director Michael Morell, has called for new sanctions
on Tehran and has also recently recommended that the U.S. begin intercepting Iranian ships presumed
to be carrying arms to the Houthis in Yemen. Washington is not at war with either Iran or Yemen
and the Houthis are not on the State Department terrorist list but our good friends the Saudis have
been assiduously bombing them for reasons that seem obscure. Stopping ships in international waters
without any legal pretext would be considered by many an act of piracy. Morell has also called for
covertly assassinating Iranians and Russians to express our displeasure with the foreign policies
of their respective governments.
Hillary's dislike for Russia's Vladimir Putin is notorious. Syria aside, she has advocated
arming Ukraine with game changing offensive weapons and also bringing Ukraine and Georgia into NATO,
which would force a sharp Russian reaction. One suspects that she might be sympathetic to the views
expressed recently by Carl Gershman in a Washington Post op-ed that received curiously little additional
coverage in the media. Gershman is the head of the taxpayer funded National Endowment for Democracy
(NED), which means that he is a powerful figure in Washington's foreign-policy establishment. NED
has plausibly been described as doing the sorts of things that the CIA used to do.
After making a number of bumper-sticker claims about Russia and Putin that are either partially
true, unproven or even ridiculous, Gershman concluded that "the United States has the power to contain
and defeat this danger. The issue is whether we can summon the will to do so." It is basically a
call for the next administration to remove Putin from power-as foolish a suggestion as has ever been
seen in a leading newspaper, as it implies that the risk of nuclear war is completely acceptable
to bring about regime change in a country whose very popular, democratically elected leadership we
disapprove of. But it is nevertheless symptomatic of the kind of thinking that goes on inside the
beltway and is quite possibly a position that Hillary Clinton will embrace. She also benefits from
having the perfect implementer of such a policy in Robert Kagan's wife Victoria Nuland, her extremely
dangerous protégé who is currently Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs
and who might wind up as Secretary of State in a Clinton Administration.
Shifting to East Asia, Hillary sees the admittedly genuine threat from North Korea but her response
is focused more on China. She would increase U.S. military presence in the South China Sea to
deter any further attempts by Beijing to develop disputed islands and would also "ring China with
defensive missiles," ostensibly as "protection" against Pyongyang but also to convince China to pressure
North Korea over its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. One wonders what Beijing might think
about being surrounded by made-in-America missiles.
Trump's foreign policy is admittedly quite sketchy and he has not always been consistent. He has
been appropriately enough slammed for being simple minded in saying that he would "bomb the crap
out of ISIS," but he has also taken on the Republican establishment by specifically condemning the
George W. Bush invasion of Iraq and has more than once indicated that he is not interested in either
being the world's policeman or in new wars in the Middle East. He has repeatedly stated that he supports
NATO but it should not be construed as hostile to Russia. He would work with Putin to address concerns
over Syria and Eastern Europe. He would demand that NATO countries spend more for their own defense
and also help pay for the maintenance of U.S. bases.
Trump's controversial call to stop all Muslim immigration has been rightly condemned but it contains
a kernel of truth in that the current process for vetting new arrivals in this country is far from
transparent and apparently not very effective. The Obama Administration has not been very forthcoming
on what might be done to fix the entire immigration process but Trump is promising to shake things
up, which is overdue, though what exactly a Trump Administration would try to accomplish is far from
clear.
Continuing on the negative side, Trump, who is largely ignorant of the world and its leaders,
has relied on a mixed bag of advisors. Former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency General Michael
Flynn appears to be the most prominent. Flynn is associated with arch neocon Michael Ledeen and both
are rabid about Iran, with Flynn suggesting that nearly all the unrest in the Middle East should
be laid at Tehran's door. Ledeen is, of course, a prominent Israel-firster who has long had Iran
in his sights. The advice of Ledeen and Flynn may have been instrumental in Trump's vehement denunciation
of the Iran nuclear agreement, which he has called a "disgrace," which he has said he would "tear
up." It is vintage dumb-think. The agreement cannot be canceled because there are five other signatories
to it and the denial of a nuclear weapons program to Tehran benefits everyone in the region, including
Israel. It is far better to have the agreement than to scrap it, if that were even possible.
Trump has said that he would be an even-handed negotiator between Israel and the Palestinians
but he has also declared that he is strongly pro-Israel and would move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem,
which is a bad idea, not in America's interest, even if Netanyahu would like it. It would produce
serious blowback from the Arab world and would inspire a new wave of terrorism directed against the
U.S.
Regarding the rest of the Middle East, Trump would prefer strong leaders, i.e. autocrats, who
are friendly rather than chaotic reformers. He rejects arming rebels as in Syria because we know
little about whom we are dealing with and find that we cannot control what develops. He is against
foreign aid in principle, particularly to countries like Pakistan where the U.S. is strongly disliked.
In East Asia, Trump would encourage Japan and South Korea to develop their own nuclear arsenals
to deter North Korea. It is a very bad idea, a proliferation nightmare. Like Hillary, he would prefer
that China intervene in North Korea and make Kim Jong Un "step down." He would put pressure on China
to devalue its currency because it is "bilking us of billions of dollars" and would also increase
U.S. military presence in the region to limit Beijing's expansion in the South China Sea.
So there you have it as you enter the voting booth. President Obama is going around warning that
"the fate of the world is teetering" over the electoral verdict, which he intends to be a ringing
endorsement of Hillary even though the choice is not nearly that clear cut. Part of the problem with
Trump is that he has some very bad ideas mixed in with a few good ones and no one knows what he would
actually do if he were president. Unfortunately, it is all too clear what Hillary would do.
"... Islamic State(IS), the defender of Mosul, is a paper tiger, blown out of all proportion by western media. IS is, as this writer has been saying for years, an armed mob made up of 20-something malcontents, religious fanatics, and modern-day anarchists. At its top is a cadre of former Iraqi Army officers with military experience. ..."
"... These former officers of Saddam Hussain are bent on revenge for the US destruction of their nation and the lynching of its late leader. But IS rank and file has no military training, little discipline, degraded communications, and ragged logistics. ..."
"... In fact, today's Islamic State is what the Ottoman Empire used to term, 'bashi-bazouks," a collection of irregular cut-throats and scum of the gutter sent to punish and terrorize enemies by means of torture, rapine, looting and arson. ..."
"... Western and Kudish auxiliary forces have been sitting 1.5 hours drive from Mosul and the IS town of Raqqa for over a year. Instead, western – mainly US – warplanes have been gingerly bombing around these targets in what may be an effort to convince breakaway ISIS to rejoin US-led forces fight the Damascus regime. ..."
"... Note that ISIS does not appear to have ever attacked Israel though it is playing an important role in the destruction of Syria. Some reports say Israel is providing logistic and medical support for IS. ..."
"... The siege of Mosul is being played up by western media as a heroic second Stalingrad. Don't be fooled. IS has only 3-5,000 lightly armed fighters in Mosul and Raqqa, maybe even less. The leaders of IS are likely long gone. IS has few heavy weapons, no air cover at all, and poor communications. Its rag-tag fighters will run out of ammunitions and explosives very quickly. ..."
"... Encircling Mosul are at least 50,000 western-led soldiers, backed by heavy artillery, rocket batteries, tanks, armored vehicles and awesome air power ..."
"... The western imperial forces are composed of tough Kurdish pasha merga fighters, Iraqi army and special forces, some Syrian Kurds, Iranian 'volunteers' irregular forces and at least 5,000 US combat troops called "advisors", plus small numbers of French, Canadian and British special forces. Hovering in the background are some thousands of Turkish troops, supported by armor and artillery ready to 'liberate' Iraq – which was once part of the Ottoman Empire. ..."
As a former soldier and war correspondent who has covered 14 conflicts, I look at all the media hoopla
over tightening siege of Mosul, Iraq and shake my head. This western-organized "liberation" of Mosul
is one of the bigger pieces of political-military theater that I've seen.
Islamic State(IS),
the defender of Mosul, is a paper tiger, blown out of all proportion by western media. IS is, as
this writer has been saying for years, an armed mob made up of 20-something malcontents, religious
fanatics, and modern-day anarchists. At its top is a cadre of former Iraqi Army officers with military
experience.
These former officers of Saddam Hussain are bent on revenge for the US destruction of their
nation and the lynching of its late leader. But IS rank and file has no military training, little
discipline, degraded communications, and ragged logistics.
In fact, today's Islamic State is what the Ottoman Empire used to term, 'bashi-bazouks," a
collection of irregular cut-throats and scum of the gutter sent to punish and terrorize enemies by
means of torture, rapine, looting and arson.
What has amazed me about the faux western war against ISIS is its leisurely nature, lack of élan,
and hesitancy. In my view, ISIS was mostly created by the US and its allies as a weapon to be used
against Syria's government – just as the Afghan mujahadin were used by the US and the Saudis to overthrow
the Soviet-backed Afghan government. Israel tried the same tactics by helping create Hamas in Palestine
and Hezbullah in Lebanon. Both were cultivated to split the PLO.
ISIS is an ad hoc movement that wants to punish the West and the Saudis for the gross carnage
they have inflicted on the Arab world.
Western and Kudish auxiliary forces have been sitting 1.5 hours drive from Mosul and the IS
town of Raqqa for over a year. Instead, western – mainly US – warplanes have been gingerly bombing
around these targets in what may be an effort to convince breakaway ISIS to rejoin US-led forces
fight the Damascus regime.
Note that ISIS does not appear to have ever attacked Israel though it is playing an important
role in the destruction of Syria. Some reports say Israel is providing logistic and medical support
for IS.
The siege of Mosul is being played up by western media as a heroic second Stalingrad. Don't
be fooled. IS has only 3-5,000 lightly armed fighters in Mosul and Raqqa, maybe even less. The leaders
of IS are likely long gone. IS has few heavy weapons, no air cover at all, and poor communications.
Its rag-tag fighters will run out of ammunitions and explosives very quickly.
Encircling Mosul are at least 50,000 western-led soldiers, backed by heavy artillery, rocket
batteries, tanks, armored vehicles and awesome air power
The western imperial forces are composed of tough Kurdish pasha merga fighters, Iraqi army
and special forces, some Syrian Kurds, Iranian 'volunteers' irregular forces and at least 5,000 US
combat troops called "advisors", plus small numbers of French, Canadian and British special forces.
Hovering in the background are some thousands of Turkish troops, supported by armor and artillery
ready to 'liberate' Iraq – which was once part of the Ottoman Empire.
For the US, current military operations in Syria and Iraq are the realization of an imperialist's
fondest dream: native troops led by white officers, the model of the old British Indian Raj. Washington
arms, trained, equips and financed all its native auxiliaries.
The IS is caught in a dangerous dilemma. To be a political movement, it was delighted to control
Iraq's second largest city. But as a guerilla force, it should not have holed up in an urban area
where it was highly vulnerable to concentrated air attack and being surrounded. This is what's happening
right now.
In the mostly flat Fertile Crescent with too few trees, ground forces are totally vulnerable to
air power, as the recent 1967, 1973 Israel-Arab wars and 2003 Iraq wars have shown. Dispersion and
guerilla tactics are the only hope for those that lack air cover.
IS forces would best advised to disperse across the region and continue their hit-and-run attacks.
Otherwise, they risk being destroyed. But being mostly bloody-minded young fanatics, IS may not heed
military logic and precedent in favor of making a last stand in the ruins of Mosul and Raqqa
When this happens, western leaders will compete to claim authorship of the faux crusade against
the paper tiger of ISIS.
"... Bush I and II, Mitt Romney, the neocons and the GOP commentariat all denounced Trump as morally and temperamentally unfit. Yet, seven of eight Republicans are voting for Trump, and he drew the largest and most enthusiastic crowds of any GOP nominee. ..."
"... How could the Republican establishment advance anew the trade and immigration policies that their base has so thunderously rejected? ..."
"... Do mainstream Republicans think that should Trump lose a Bush Restoration lies ahead? The dynasty is as dead as the Romanovs. ..."
"... The media, whose reputation has sunk to Congressional depths, has also suffered a blow to its credibility. ..."
"... Its hatred of Trump has been almost manic, and WikiLeaks revelations of the collusion between major media and Clintonites have convinced skeptics that the system is rigged and the referees of democracy are in the tank. ..."
"... But it is the national establishment that has suffered most. The Trump candidacy exposed what seems an unbridgeable gulf between this political class and the nation in whose name it purports to speak. ..."
"... Middle America believes the establishment is not looking out for the nation but for retention of its power. And in attacking Trump it is not upholding some objective moral standard but seeking to destroy a leader who represents a grave threat to that power. ..."
"... Moreover, they see the establishment as the quintessence of hypocrisy. Trump is instructed to stop using such toxic phrases as "America First" and "Make America Great Again" by elites... ..."
"... While a Trump victory would create the possibility of a coalition of conservatives, populists, patriots and nationalists governing America, should he lose, America's future appears disunited and grim. ..."
Herewith, a dissent. Whatever happens Tuesday, Trump has made history and has forever changed American
politics.
Though a novice in politics, he captured the Party of Lincoln with the largest turnout
of primary voters ever, and he has inflicted wounds on the nation's ruling class from which it may
not soon recover.
Bush I and II, Mitt Romney, the neocons and the GOP commentariat all denounced Trump as morally
and temperamentally unfit. Yet, seven of eight Republicans are voting for Trump, and he drew the
largest and most enthusiastic crowds of any GOP nominee.
Not only did he rout the Republican elites, he ash-canned their agenda and repudiated the wars
into which they plunged the country.
Trump did not create the forces that propelled his candidacy. But he recognized them, tapped into
them, and unleashed a gusher of nationalism and populism that will not soon dissipate.
Whatever happens Tuesday, there is no going back now.
How could the Republican establishment advance anew the trade and immigration policies that
their base has so thunderously rejected?
How can the GOP establishment credibly claim to speak for a party that spent the last year cheering
a candidate who repudiated the last two Republican presidents and the last two Republican nominees?
Do mainstream Republicans think that should Trump lose a Bush Restoration lies ahead? The
dynasty is as dead as the Romanovs.
The media, whose reputation has sunk to Congressional depths, has also suffered a blow to
its credibility.
Its hatred of Trump has been almost manic, and WikiLeaks revelations of the collusion between
major media and Clintonites have convinced skeptics that the system is rigged and the referees of
democracy are in the tank.
But it is the national establishment that has suffered most. The Trump candidacy exposed what
seems an unbridgeable gulf between this political class and the nation in whose name it purports
to speak.
Consider the litany of horrors it has charged Trump with.
He said John McCain was no hero, that some Mexican illegals are "rapists." He mocked a handicapped
reporter. He called some women "pigs." He wants a temporary ban to Muslim immigration. He fought
with a Gold Star mother and father. He once engaged in "fat-shaming" a Miss Universe, calling her
"Miss Piggy," and telling her to stay out of Burger King. He allegedly made crude advances on a dozen
women and starred in the "Access Hollywood" tape with Billy Bush.
While such "gaffes" are normally fatal for candidates, Trump's followers stood by him through
them all.
Why? asks an alarmed establishment. Why, in spite of all this, did Trump's support endure? Why
did the American people not react as they once would have? Why do these accusations not have the
bite they once did?
Answer. We are another country now, an us-or-them country.
Middle America believes the establishment is not looking out for the nation but for retention
of its power. And in attacking Trump it is not upholding some objective moral standard but seeking
to destroy a leader who represents a grave threat to that power.
Trump's followers see an American Spring as crucial, and they are not going to let past boorish
behavior cause them to abandon the last best chance to preserve the country they grew up in.
These are the Middle American Radicals, the MARs of whom my late friend Sam Francis wrote.
They recoil from the future the elites have mapped out for them and, realizing the stakes, will
overlook the faults and failings of a candidate who holds out the real promise of avoiding that future.
They believe Trump alone will secure the borders and rid us of a trade regime that has led to
the loss of 70,000 factories and 5 million manufacturing jobs since NAFTA. They believe Trump is
the best hope for keeping us out of the wars the Beltway think tanks are already planning for the
sons of the "deplorables" to fight.
Moreover, they see the establishment as the quintessence of hypocrisy. Trump is instructed
to stop using such toxic phrases as "America First" and "Make America Great Again" by elites...
... ... ...
While a Trump victory would create the possibility of a coalition of conservatives, populists,
patriots and nationalists governing America, should he lose, America's future appears disunited and
grim.
But, would the followers of Donald Trump, whom Hillary Clinton has called "racist, sexist, homophobic,
xenophobic, Islamophobic … bigots," to the cheers of her media retainers, unite behind her should
she win?
No. Win or lose, as Sen. Edward Kennedy said at the Democratic Convention of 1980, "The work goes
on, the cause endures."
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book "The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon
Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority."
That's how
paranoia
works. We project onto a feared "other" our own unacceptable desires. In Putin's
case, it's our unacceptable wish to incinerate him and all Russians with him that
we may rule the world.
Not out of avarice, mind you. Or so the
noble lie
goes. But out of
our selfless compassion. Our
Christian
compassion, if that floats your
boat. Yes, indeed. We selfless, exceptional Americans are willing to bear the
heavy burden of world hegemony–not for all the power and wealth it brings us.
Perish the thought! But for the peace and prosperity our rule will bestow on all
the colored peoples of the earth–drop by drop–beneath us.
That's what our leaders tell us. And that's what the mainstream media echo
back to us–again and again and again. That we're the best. The greatest. The
goodest. The purest. We act always only for others. Our motives can never be
questioned. For Americans alone can judge what is good and what is evil. We're
like God in that way. That's why Americans ate so much from the Tree of Knowledge
in the first place!
Continue reading
→
Posted on
March 7, 2016
by
comehomeamerica
by
Joe Scarry
I think if you asked most people, they would say that (a) war is deeply
ingrained in society; and (b) society over and over again decides to engage
in war.
There is a growing discourse around point (a): people are starting
to unpack the idea that "war is deeply ingrained in society," and growing in
understanding that this is not the same as saying "war is part of human
nature."
I worry that there is less insight around point (b). At least in the
United States, I think people continue to believe that war is a societal
choice. I think this is not true.
In theory our Constitution is all about
the people
- through
Congress - maintaining control over the decision to go to war. As it stands
now, as a practical matter, that's not really what's happening.
I invite people to study the graph of historical US military spending
below. It shows that there was a time when military spending went up when
the US began to engage in a specific war, and then went back down after that
war. Later, that pattern changed.
Posted on
March 7, 2016
by
comehomeamerica
by
Joe Scarry
I think if you asked most people, they would say
that (a) war is deeply ingrained in society; and (b)
society over and over again decides to engage in
war.
There is a growing discourse around point
(a): people are starting to unpack the idea that
"war is deeply ingrained in society," and growing in
understanding that this is not the same as saying
"war is part of human nature."
I worry that there is less insight around point
(b). At least in the United States, I think people
continue to believe that war is a societal choice. I
think this is not true.
In theory our Constitution is all about
the
people
- through Congress - maintaining control
over the decision to go to war. As it stands now, as
a practical matter, that's not really what's
happening.
I invite people to study the graph of historical
US military spending below. It shows that there was
a time when military spending went up when the US
began to engage in a specific war, and then went
back down after that war. Later, that pattern
changed.
It is very interesting to consider
why
this change occurred. (Perhaps that's a topic for a
later blog post or two.)
But I think the more fundamental point is:
at
some point
US society
stopped being the
"decider" about war.
The US began to engage in
war, and more war, and more war . . . but
US
society
was no longer really making that
decision in any real way.
(Think about US military action during your
lifetime. In what ways, if any, did society at large
determine what happened?)
If we confront this reality, what might this
cause us to do differently?
(Think about US military action during your lifetime. In what ways, if
any, did society at large determine what happened?)
If we confront this reality, what might this cause us to do differently?
That's why a British court has effectively overturned the results of the Brexit vote – in
a lawsuit brought by a hedge fund manager and former model – and thrown the fate of the country
into the hands of pro-EU Tories, and their Labor and Liberal Democrat collaborators.
This stunning reversal was baked in to the legislation that enabled the referendum to begin
with, and is par for the course as far as EU referenda are concerned: in 1992,
Danish voters rejected the EU, only to have the Euro-crats demand a rematch with a "modified"
EU treaty which won narrowly. There have been repeated attempts to modify the modifications,
which have all failed. Ireland voted against both the Lisbon Treaty and the Nice Treaty, only
to have the issue brought up again until the "right" result was achieved.
"... I think Mormons are ticked over Romney losing in 2012 and blame Evangelicals ask when there was fear Evangelicals wouldn't vote for a Mormon. Romney did as well as a non Mormon robber baron would have done in 2012. Trump trashing Romney annoyed Mormons who probably aren't going to get another shot at the Oval Office any time soon. ..."
"... the Romney, Will, Kristol, McCain, Graham, Paulson, Blankfein NEVER TRUMP brigades are up to their sleazy behinds in the Clinton Foundation FRAUD. ..."
"... The Foundation is under very very strict rules but has ignored all of them, putting all their contributors at risk. If Trump wins – a grand jury will have all the necessary ammunition to bring down a whole lot of people, here and abroad. ..."
Shouldn't Utah be considered a swing state in 2016? Some Mormons are unhappy with aspects of
Trump's behavior, and wild card McMullin is a member of the LDS church.
Nate Silver's site gives Trump an overwhelming advantage in Utah, but I still think that surprises
are possible. See this article (which admittedly also shows a significant polling advantage for
Trump):
An Emerson College poll released on November 3 shows him at 28 percent to Trump's 40 percent
and Clinton's 20 percent.
Jason Perry, the director of Utah's bipartisan Hinckley Institute, says there is a large
percentage of voters who do not even know who McMullin is, "but they know who he is not. He's
not Trump, and he's not Hillary".
With 67 percent of Utah voters viewing Trump unfavourably according to a Monmouth University
poll, voting for the Republican candidate does not appear to sit well with Utah's value-minded
voters.
…
Becky Rasmussen, 37, of Highland City, is one such voter who could not see herself voting for
Trump, in part because of her Mormon faith.
While she also sees Clinton as unfit for the presidency, Trump, she says, is "completely
morally bankrupt …You see framed in his office him on the cover of Playboy Magazine".
…
But Porter Goodman, 28, from Provo – who believes that voting for McMullin "is the only way
to not throw away your vote" – says it is not his Mormon beliefs that cause him to view Trump
as having a "lack of morality".
"I say he lacks morality because he lies and because he abuses other people with his words
and actions," Goodman says. "Savour the magnificent irony of Trump supporters who say, 'Yeah,
Trump may be a pathological liar, but set that aside and focus on the great things he says
he'll do as president."
I think Mormons are ticked over Romney losing in 2012 and blame Evangelicals ask when there
was fear Evangelicals wouldn't vote for a Mormon. Romney did as well as a non Mormon robber baron
would have done in 2012. Trump trashing Romney annoyed Mormons who probably aren't going to get
another shot at the Oval Office any time soon.
Nate doesn't do a why or how of trends and just focuses on raw numbers based on previous polls.
It's why he never landed a baseball job when other Stat geeks did. If there was an usual trend
in Utah, Nate would miss it.
The key issue is are Mormons "Republicans" or "conservative" when they describe themselves.
If their identity is "conservative," I could see them not voting for Trump. If being a "Republican"
matters, they will vote. They voted for McCain, and the fundies hated that guy.
the Romney, Will, Kristol, McCain, Graham, Paulson, Blankfein NEVER TRUMP brigades are up to
their sleazy behinds in the Clinton Foundation FRAUD.
The Foundation is under very very strict rules but has ignored all of them, putting all their
contributors at risk. If Trump wins – a grand jury will have all the necessary ammunition to bring
down a whole lot of people, here and abroad.
It's the great untold story of this election. IT's also the spit and glue that holds the Clinton
coalition of media, government, Wall St, Dems and Goper royalty together in this fight to the
death to keep a "friendly" administration in DC. This is kill or be killed time.
"... I also read other written and printed media because I think it is important to expose yourself to points of view you find uncomfortable – and how can you tell other people their newspapers etc are lying to them and misleading them if you do not dip into them from time to time to confirm that is indeed the case? ..."
"... The Economist has thrown any semblance of impartiality out the window the last couple years. Sign of the times, I guess. ..."
"... One angle is how feckless Democrats sought to give up regulatory power because they wanted to duck responsibility for mistaken decisions. ..."
In this context, abuse is a positive thing. Both Jebbie and the mainstream press needed abusing!
Now look at them! They're earning it more than ever! In other news….RealClear give some space to a pro-ColoradoCare writer. Very nice to see!
I still read both the FT and Economist. The FT still has some good pieces in it, even if it
is diminished from pre-Crash days when Gillian Tett was the person to read. And the book reviews
in the Economist can be worth reading, though it is a pale shadow of the journal it used to be.
I also read other written and printed media because I think it is important to expose yourself
to points of view you find uncomfortable – and how can you tell other people their newspapers
etc are lying to them and misleading them if you do not dip into them from time to time to confirm
that is indeed the case?
Are the Economist's reviews of the 'an important work' type that get featured on the cover,
even though the publication continues to ignore every insight and alternative idea presented in
the book reviewed?
Stoller is paraphrasing his review of Greta Krippner's Capitalizing on Crisis, which
sounds well worth a read.
It is. One angle is how feckless Democrats sought to give up regulatory power because they
wanted to duck responsibility for mistaken decisions. Why run risks ironing out business cycles
when you can collect campaign contributions for venerating Alan Greenspan?
"... political correctness functions like a despotic regime. It is an oppressiveness that spreads its edicts further and further into the crevices of everyday life. ..."
"... Mr. Steele, a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, is the author of "Shame: How America's Past Sins Have Polarized Our Country" (Basic Books, 2015). ..."
The current election-regardless of its outcome-reveals something tragic in the way modern conservatism
sits in American life. As an ideology-and certainly as a political identity-conservatism is less
popular than the very principles and values it stands for. There is a presumption in the culture
that heartlessness and bigotry are somehow endemic to conservatism, that the rigors of freedom and
capitalism literally require exploitation and inequality - this despite the fact that so many liberal
policies since the 1960s have only worsened the inequalities they sought to overcome.
In the broader American culture-the mainstream media, the world of the arts and entertainment,
the high-tech world, and the entire enterprise of public and private education-conservatism suffers
a decided ill repute.
...And this is oppressive for conservatives because it puts them in the position of being a bit
embarrassed by who they really are and what they really believe.
Deference has been codified in American life as political correctness. And political correctness
functions like a despotic regime. It is an oppressiveness that spreads its edicts further and further
into the crevices of everyday life. We resent it, yet for the most part we at least tolerate
its demands. But it means that we live in a society that is ever willing to cast judgment on us,
to shame us in the name of a politics we don't really believe in. It means our decency requires a
degree of self-betrayal.
And into all this steps Mr. Trump, a fundamentally limited man but a man with overwhelming charisma,
a man impossible to ignore. The moment he entered the presidential contest America's long simmering
culture war rose to full boil. Mr. Trump was a non-deferential candidate. He seemed at odds with
every code of decency. He invoked every possible stigma, and screechingly argued against them all.
He did much of the dirty work that millions of Americans wanted to do but lacked the platform to
do.
Thus Mr. Trump's extraordinary charisma has been far more about what he represents than what he
might actually do as the president. He stands to alter the culture of deference itself.
... ... ...
Societies, like individuals, have intuitions. Donald Trump is an intuition. At least on the level
of symbol, maybe he would push back against the hegemony of deference-if not as a liberator then
possibly as a reformer...
Mr. Steele, a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, is the author of
"Shame: How America's Past Sins Have Polarized Our Country" (Basic Books, 2015).
Tuesday on Fox News Channel, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump offered
his thoughts on how the campaign proceeded as Election Day has finally come.
SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
One of his criticisms was how the polls had been handled, which he called in
some cases "phony" and "purposefully wrong."
Partial transcript as follows:
DOOCY: A couple of weeks ago you know it was revealed that part of Hillary
Clinton's game plan was to try, you know, to talk up the polls and make it seem
like the show's over, no way you can win. Then of course the polls for the most
part right now are too close to call. Ultimately though do you think the polls
that we've seen over the last week or two, going back, are wrong because the
pollsters are not factoring in how many Democrats are going to be voting for
you?
You know all this early voting stuff, they say well this many Democrats
requested ballots, this many Republicans. And also just the gigantic number of
Republicans who have turned out to see you, the enthusiasm level. Do you think
those things the pollsters are getting wrong?
TRUMP:
I do think a lot of the polls are purposefully wrong. I think I
can almost tell you by the people that do it. The media is very dishonest,
extremely dishonest. And I think a lot of the polls are phony. I don't even
think they interview people.
DOOCY: Right.
TRUMP:
I think they just put out phony numbers. I do think this, after
the debates, I think my numbers really started to go up well. And then I did a
series over the last two weeks, only of you know, really important speeches I
think. 20,000, 25,000 people, 31,000 people were showing up to these speeches.
You saw yesterday, you saw the kind of crowds we're getting. I said
something's happening here. Something incredible is happening here. And tell
you the enthusiasm and the love in those rooms, in those arenas, they're really
arenas, I mean in New Hampshire last night it was a tremendous arena, beautiful
arena. And same thing, we had a big convention center last night in Michigan.
But they're packed. I mean we have thousands of people.
DOOCY: Right.
TRUMP: We had last night in Michigan we had 10,000 people outside that
couldn't get in.
DOOCY: Wow.
EARHARDT: Wow.
TRUMP: 10,000 people. It's been amazing. So I said something's happening.
Something's really going on.
This important article was first published by Global Research in
November 2004 in relation to the 2004 presidential race.
A 'president' who takes office through fraud and usurpation can
make no legitimate claim to exercise the stolen power of his office.
Imagine the sensation that would have ensued if a United States
Senator had declared, less than three weeks after the 2004 U.S.
presidential election, that "It is now apparent that a concerted and
forceful program of election-day fraud and abuse was enacted with
either the leadership or co-operation of governmental authorities."
The story would have made banner headlines around the world.
As a matter of fact, on November 22, 2004, BBC News attributed
these very words to Republican Senator Richard Lugar. However, Lugar
was speaking in his capacity as Chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign
Relations Committee-and he was referring, not to the U.S. presidential
election of November 2, but to the Ukrainian presidential election of
November 21, 2004.
The primary evidence for Lugar's charge of electoral fraud is a
striking divergence between exit poll data and official vote tallies.
As it happens, wide divergences of just this kind have also been a
feature of two other important recent elections: the Venezuelan recall
referendum over President Chávez's mandate held on August 15, as well
as the U.S. presidential election of November 2. In all three cases
there is substantial evidence of fraud-though the dishonesty appears
to be very differently distributed. In brief: the Venezuelan election
was clean and the exit poll flagrantly dishonest; the Ukrainian vote
tallies and exit polling seem both to have been in various ways
corrupted; the American election, despite the Bush Republicans' pose
as international arbiters of integrity, was manifestly stolen, while
the U.S. exit polling was professionally conducted (and though it was
subsequently tampered with, accurate results had in the mean time been
made public).
Hugo Chávez's landslide victory in August was a surprise only to
the hostile U.S. corporate press, which had represented the Venezuelan
election campaign as a dead heat: the last opinion poll prior to the
referendum in fact showed Chávez leading by a wide margin, with 50
percent of registered voters to the opposition's 38 percent. In the
official tally, Chávez won 58.26 percent of the votes, while 41.74
percent were cast against him. International observers, including the
Organization of American States and the Carter Center, declared that
the election had been fair: in ex-U.S. President Jimmy Carter's words,
"any allegations of fraud are completely unwarranted" (see Rosnick).
But on election day the leading New York polling firm Penn, Schoen
& Berland disgraced itself by releasing (before the polls closed, and
hence in violation of Venezuelan law) a purportedly authoritative exit
poll, with a claimed margin of error "under +/-1%," according to which
Chávez had been defeated, gaining a mere 41 percent of the vote to the
opposition's 59 percent. The exit polling, it emerged, had been
conducted-though not in Chavista neighbourhoods, where the pollsters
did not venture (Gindin [15 Aug. 2004])-by an opposition group named
Súmate, which had been formed to agitate for a recall referendum, and
whose leadership had been implicated in the 2002 anti-Chávez coup.
Súmate appears to have been largely funded by the U.S. National
Endowment for Democracy (NED), which has been aptly described as "the
CIA's 'civilian arm'" (Chossudovsky [28 Nov. 2004]), and by the CIA
itself (see "Súmate"); in the period leading up to the election,
Venezuelan opposition groups like Súmate received altogether more than
$20 million from the U.S., including over $3 million funneled through
the NED (see
www.venezuelafoia
).
As had been understood prior to the event (see Stinard [10 Aug.
2004]), fraudulent exit polling was part of a concerted U.S.-backed
project of delegitimizing and destabilizing the government of a
geopolitically important oil-producing nation. Had the election been
less of a landslide, and had it not been conducted with what appears
to have been scrupulous correctness, the plan might have succeeded.
Ukraine is likewise recognized as a country of pivotal geopolitical
importance (see Aslund [12 May 2004], Chin [26 Nov. 2004], and
Oliker); it is a key element in the U.S.'s Silk Road Strategy for
domination of central Asia (see Chossudovsky,
War and
Globalization
, pp. 65-75). Here the election results were much
closer, and have been more vigorously contested. Viktor Yanukovych,
the candidate favoured by Ukraine's Russian neighbours, was declared
the winner, with 49.4 percent of the vote to the Western-leaning
Viktor Yushchenko's 46.7 percent. But Yushchenko and his
party-supported by a growing chorus of Western commentators and
governments-have cried foul.
While the Ukrainian exit poll figures publicized in the Western
media do support claims of electoral fraud, the exit polls themselves
are not above suspicion. The most widely disseminated claim has been
that an authoritative exit poll showed Yushchenko to have won the
election with a 6 percent lead; Yanukovych's governing party would
thus have stolen the election, fraudulently swinging the vote by 8.7
percent. According to better-informed reports, however, two distinct
exit polls were conducted. One of these, organized by the right-wing
U.S. think-tank Freedom House and the U.S. Democratic Party's National
Democratic Institute (NDI), and carried out by the Kyiv Democratic
Initiatives Foundation (see Vasovic), perhaps as part of a group
calling itself the Exit Pollconsortium (see Kubiniec), found that
Yushchenko won 54 percent of the vote to Yanukovych's 43 percent. (It
may be this poll that is referred to by the University of British
Columbia's Centre for Public Opinion and Democracy in its claim that
"an exit poll conducted by independent research firms" showed
Yushchenko to have won by 54 to 42 percent.) The other national exit
poll, based on interviews rather than questionnaires, was conducted by
Sotsis Company and the Social Monitoring Center, and gave Yushchenko
49.4 percent of the vote to Yanukovych's 45.9 percent.
It is not my purpose to attempt an unraveling of the complexities
of the Ukrainian election. The British Helsinki Human Rights Group has
challenged the validity of the exit polls, claiming that in at least
one city the exit pollsters were open Yushchenko supporters, and did
not observe proper methodological protocols (see "Ukraine: 2nd
Round"). While Western observers have reported major irregularities in
the government's conduct of the election, Michel Chossudovsky and Ian
Traynor have on the other hand adduced strong evidence of
interventions in the Ukrainian electoral process by U.S. governmental
and quasi-governmental agencies that resemble the same agencies'
interventions in Serbia, Georgia, Belarus, and Venezuela. The voter
turnout figures of 96 percent recorded in Yanukovych strongholds in
eastern Ukraine are strongly indicative of fraud; so likewise may be
"the 90% pro-Yushchenko results declared in western Ukraine," where
the British Helsinki Group observed that Yushchenko's opposition party
"exercised disproportionate control over the electoral process in many
places." I would like merely to suggest that the interview-based exit
poll which gave Yushchenko a 3.5 percent lead over Yanukovych-and
hence indicated an irregular swing of 6.2 percent in the latter's
favour-is more likely to have been properly conducted than the exit
poll which was organized by Freedom House and the NDI, and which may
well have been marked by Súmate-type improprieties.
Let us turn to the American presidential election, where the same
kind of data has encouraged similar suspicions-though thanks to the
soothing ministrations of the U.S. corporate media, with nothing
resembling the massive public outcry in Ukraine. George W. Bush was
hailed the winner on November 2, with 51 percent of the vote to John
Kerry's 48 percent. But there are good reasons to be skeptical of the
official vote tallies. The last wave of national exit polls published
on the evening of November 2-polls which appear to have been duly
weighted to correct for sampling imbalances-showed Kerry, not Bush,
leading by 51 to 48 percent (see 'Mystery Pollster'). A divergence of
6 percent between weighted exit polls and the official numbers is a
strong indicator of electoral fraud.
At the decisive point, moreover, the divergence between the exit
poll results and the vote tally was wider still (see S. Freeman [21
Nov. 2004]). Prior to the election, political analysts identified
Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania as the three key swing states: the
candidate who carried these states, or a majority of them, would win
the election.
Bush won Florida, with 52.1 percent of the vote to Kerry's 47.1
percent. (This tally, by the way, diverges by 4.9 percent in Bush's
favour from the state exit poll, which gave Bush a paper-thin 0.1
percent lead.) Kerry won Pennsylvania, with 50.8 percent of the vote
to Bush's 48.6 percent. (Here again the vote tally differs in Bush's
favour from the exit poll results-this time by 6.5 percent.)
That left Ohio as the deciding state, the one on which the national
election results depended. George W. Bush won Ohio, according to the
official vote tally, with 51 percent of the vote to John Kerry's 48.5
percent. The divergence in this case between the vote tally and the
exit poll, which showed Kerry as winning by 52.1 percent to Bush's
47.9 percent, is fully 6.7 percent.
Is it possible that these three divergences in Bush's favour
between exit polls and vote tallies could have occurred by chance? I
wouldn't bet on it. Dr. Steven Freeman of the University of
Pennsylvania's Center for Organizational Dynamics has calculated that
the odds against these statistical anomalies occurring by chance are
662,000 to 1 (S. Freeman [21 Nov. 2004]).
Or are exit polls perhaps just not as reliable as people think? Dr.
Freeman has an answer to this question as well. In the last three
national elections in Germany, the differential between the exit polls
and the vote tallies was, on average, 0.27 percent; and in the last
three elections to the European Parliament, the differential in
Germany was 0.44 percent (S. Freeman [21 Nov. 2004]). Professionally
conducted exit polls are highly accurate-which is why they have been
used (in some cases more honestly than in Venezuela and Ukraine) as a
measure of electoral integrity in places where improprieties have been
anticipated. The U.S. exit polls were conducted by Mitofsky
International, a survey research company founded by Warren J.
Mitofsky, who as the company's website proclaims "created the Exit
Poll research model" and "has directed exit polls and quick counts
since 1967 for almost 3,000 electoral contests. He has the distinction
of conducting the first national presidential exit polls in the United
States, Russia, Mexico and the Philippines. His record for accuracy is
well known" (see "National Election Pool").
The fact that Mitofsky International systematically altered the
U.S. presidential exit poll data early on the morning of November 3,
contaminating the exit poll figures by conflating them with the vote
tally percentages, has quite rightly become a matter of controversy
(see Keefer [5 Nov. 2004], and Olbermann, "Zogby Vs. Mitofsky"). But
there seems no reason to doubt that the Mitofsky exit poll data made
available by the CNN website on the evening of November 2 was
professionally gathered.
Mightn't one propose, as a last resort, that Bush's
election-winning divergence of 6.7 percent between the Ohio exit poll
results and the Ohio vote tally was, at any rate, somewhat less
scandalous than the 13.7 percent swing Yanukovych's party was blamed
for by the Freedom House-NDI exit poll? (Ignore, if you like, the
lesser 6.2 percent swing indicated by the Sotsis and Social Monitoring
exit poll-which, if accurate, shows the Freedom House-NDI poll to be
skewed in Yushchenko's favour by fully 7.5 percent.) But if stealing
elections is like knocking off banks, the fact that one practitioner
can dynamite the vault of the central bank and get away with it, while
his less fortunate compeer draws unwanted attention by blowing out all
of the windows of the neighbourhood Savings-and-Loan, doesn't make the
former any less a bank robber than the latter.
The parallels between the Ukrainian and the U.S. presidential
elections extend beyond the exit poll divergences. Ballot-box stuffers
appear to have achieved a 96 percent turnout in parts of eastern
Ukraine, with turnout figures in some areas exceeding 100 percent.
There is evidence of similar indiscretions on the part of Bush's
electoral fraud teams. Twenty-nine precincts in a single Ohio county
reported more votes cast than there are registered voters-to a
cumulative total of over 93,000 votes (see Rockwell). And in six
Florida counties the total number of votes reported to have been cast
exceeded by wide margins the total number of registered voters (see
Newberry). Senator John McCain, manifesting the same stunning lack of
irony as other Republican spokesmen, has weighed in on the issue: "IRI
[the International Republican Institute] found that in a number of
polling stations, the percentage of votes certified by the Central
Election Commission exceeded 100% of total votes. This is simply
disgraceful" (see "McCain"). McCain is of course referring to eastern
Ukraine; when it comes to Florida or Ohio, he keeps his eyes wide
shut.
The question of advance indications of electoral fraud offers a
final point of comparison. In the United States, as in Ukraine (where
international observers described the polls and vote-counts in
previous elections as deeply flawed), electoral fraud was widely
anticipated prior to the 2004 presidential election. As the materials
itemized in the first three sections of this Reading List make clear,
the electronic voting technologies in use in the U.S. were widely
denounced by electronic security experts months and even years in
advance, as permitting, indeed facilitating, electoral fraud; there is
clear evidence that the 2000 election and the 2002 mid-term elections
were marked by large-scale fraud on the part of the Bush Republicans;
and U.S. computer scientists and informed analysts warned insistently
that fraud on an unprecedented scale was likely to occur in this
year's election.
How has it been possible for the massive ironies arising out of the
similarities between the elections in the U.S. and Ukraine to pass
unobserved in the corporate media? Have the media been simple-mindedly
buttering their bread on both sides? If so, it is a habit that makes
for messy eating. On November 20, an article in
The Washington
Post
informed those who might question the U.S. election that
"Exit Polls Can't Always Predict Winners, So Don't Expect Them To"
(Morin). Two days later,
The Washington Post
carried breaking
news of the early election results from Ukraine-and quoted a purported
election-stealer who holds exactly the same opinion of exit polls:
"'These polls don't work,' said Gennady Korzh, a spokesman for
Yanukovych. 'We will win by 3 to 5 percent. And remember, if Americans
believed exit polls, and not the actual count, John Kerry would be
president'" (see Finn).
Key Issues and Evidence of Electoral Fraud in the US
Mainstream media assessments of the integrity of the 2004 U.S.
presidential election have tended to focus on particular and local
problems-computer errors or 'glitches' for the most part-that came to
light on the day of the election or shortly afterwards. Naturally
enough, the fact that these problems were noticed, and in some cases
corrected, works if anything to enhance public confidence in the
integrity of the electoral system.
The stance of the mainstream media is inadequate in at least two
respects. First, some of the 'problems' were not mere accidents, but
open and flagrant violations of democratic principles. Prominent among
these was the election-night 'lockdown' of the Warren County, Ohio
administrative building, on wholly spurious grounds of a 'terrorist
threat': as a result, the public, the press, and the local legal
counsel for the Kerry-Edwards campaign were prevented from witnessing
the vote count (see Solvig & Horn, and Olbermann [8 Nov. 2004]). This
maneuver generated widespread outrage: Warren County's Republicans may
perhaps have 'misoverestimated' the degree to which previous
conveniently timed 'terror alerts' and Osama bin Laden's late-October
Jack-in-the-Box act had tamed the electorate.
But more importantly, while 'problems' and 'glitches' have commonly
been covered by the corporate media as local issues, they can be
recognized as belonging to a larger pattern. As James Paterson's
compelling analysis of
The Theft of the 2004 US Election
makes
clear, Republican intentions were evident well before the election.
And as Joseph Cannon has remarked, "An individual problem can be
dismissed as a glitch. But when error after error
after error
favors
Bush and not a single 'accident' favors Kerry, we've left
glitch-land."
There is widespread evidence, which goes well beyond any mere
accumulation of local problems, that "glitch-land" is indeed far
behind us. The landscape to which the 2004 U.S. presidential election
belongs includes the murky swamps of Tammany Hall-style
election-fixing-and the still more sinister morasses of 'Jim Crow' as
well.
It has been reported that Republican-controlled counties in Ohio
and elsewhere sought to reduce the African-American vote by
deliberately curtailing the numbers of polling stations and voting
machines in working-class precincts: large numbers of would-be voters
were effectively disenfranchised by line-ups that were many hours long
(see Fitrakis [7, 16, 22 Nov. 2004]). The Republican Party's purging
of African Americans from voters' lists gained the 2000 election for
George W. Bush (see Conyers [21 Aug. 2001]); as informed observers had
anticipated (Palast [1 Nov. 2004], King & Palast), this shameful
illegality was repeated in 2004 on a wider scale. Large-scale
polling-station challenges were used to further slow the voting, and
to turn the new provisional ballots into a mechanism for effectively
disenfranchising minority voters. In the swing state of Ohio this
year, it appears that fully 155,000 voters-most of them
African-Americans-were obliged as a result of polling-station
challenges to cast provisional ballots (see Palast [12 Nov. 2004],
Solnit). Although it is becoming clear that the great majority of
these citizens were legally entitled to vote (see Williams), the
likelihood that their votes will be fairly counted, or that Ohio's
Republican Secretary of State Ken Blackwell will permit them to be
included in the official tally, remains slender. The effect of this
Jim Crow mechanism appears to be compounded by racially-biased
judgments of ballot spoilage. As Greg Palast reports, 54 percent of
all ballots judged 'spoiled' in the 2000 election in Florida were cast
by African-American voters, and similarly scandalous percentages are
expected in key states this time round. Nor have African Americans
been the sole victims of these tactics: it appears that in New Mexico,
where Hispanics' ballots are five times more likely to be laid aside
as 'spoiled' than those of white voters, 13,000 Hispanics were
effectively disenfranchised by means of provisional ballots (Palast
[12 Nov. 2004]). Bush won New Mexico by less than half that number of
votes.
But it is the co-presence of other forms of corruption, in addition
to all these, that establishes the difference between an election
dirtied by illegalities, and one that was not merely soiled and
distorted by fraud but actually stolen. The evidence presented within
the texts listed here suggests with gathering strength that the Karl
Rovian maneuvers alluded to above were supplemented on November 2,
2004 by less conspicuous-and yet decisive-manipulations of the
machines that recorded and tabulated the votes.
How precisely this apparent manipulation may have been carried out
in different jurisdictions-by rigging machines in advance to
mis-record or delete votes, by configuring proprietary software so as
to allow 'back-door' access for unrestrained vote-tampering, or by
hacking into the notoriously insecure vote-tabulation systems-remains
as yet undetermined. However, the evidence has been coming to light
with surprising rapidity.
As observers and analysts noted at once, troubling discrepancies
were apparent between the exit poll results published by CNN on the
evening of November 2 and the official vote tallies (see DeHart,
Dodge, S. Freeman, Otter, and Simon). No less disturbing, as I
observed in my article on the subject, is the fact that the exit poll
data was systematically tampered with early on November 3 to make the
figures conform to the vote tallies. At 1:41 a.m. EST on November 3,
for example, the Ohio exit poll was altered: Kerry, who had previously
been shown as leading Bush by 4 percent in that state, was now
represented in the revised exit poll as trailing him by 2.5 percent.
And yet the number of respondents in the poll had increased from 1,963
to only 2,020. An additional 57 respondents-a 2.8 percent increase-had
somehow produced a 6.5 percent swing from Kerry to Bush. At 1:01 a.m.
EST on November 3, the Florida exit poll was likewise altered: Kerry,
who had previously been shown in a near dead heat with Bush, now
trailed him by 4 percent. In this case, the number of respondents rose
only from 2,846 to 2,862. A mere 16 respondents-0.55 percent of the
total-produced a 4 percent swing to Bush.
However, the key exit-poll issue remains the divergence between the
November 2 exit polls and the vote tallies. Steven Freeman concluded,
in the first draft of his judicious study of the November 2 exit poll
data, that "Systematic fraud or mistabulation is a premature
conclusion, but the election's unexplained exit poll discrepancies
make it an unavoidable hypothesis, one that is the responsibility of
the media, academia, polling agencies, and the public to investigate"
(S. Freeman [11 Nov, 2004]).
Other evidence points toward a strengthening, indeed to a
substantial confirmation of this "unavoidable hypothesis" of
systematic fraud. Some of this evidence has been emerging from the
swing state of North Carolina, and from the two key swing states of
Florida and Ohio-either one of which, had John Kerry won it, would
have made him the acknowledged President-elect.
In North Carolina, the tell-tale marks of electronic electoral
fraud have been brought to light by an analyst who publishes at the
Democratic
Underground
site under the name of 'ignatzmouse'. ("Ignatz,"
remember, is the name of the mouse who in the
Krazy Kat
cartoons
smacks the unhappy cat with the inevitable brick. That pesky mouse is
once again on target.)
What gives the game away in the North Carolina election data is the
disparity within the presidential and senatorial vote-counts between
the so-called "absentee" votes-a category that apparently includes the
early voting data as well as votes cast by citizens living abroad and
military personnel-and the polling-day votes cast on November 2.
In the race for Governor, 30 percent of the votes cast for the
Republican and the Democratic candidate alike were absentee votes; the
other 70 percent were cast on November 2. The Democrat won with 55.6
percent of both the absentee and the polling-day votes. In most of the
other statewide races in the North Carolina election there were
similarly close correlations between absentee and polling-day votes.
For example, Democrats won the post of Lieutenant Governor, with 55.7
percent of absentee and 55.5 percent of polling-day votes; the post of
Secretary of State, with 58 percent of absentee and 57 percent of
polling-day votes; and the post of Attorney General, with 56.7 percent
of absentee and 55.2 percent of polling-day votes. In three other
statewide races, and in the voting for three constitutional
amendments, the correlation between absentee and polling-day votes
remains very close (though tight races for three other positions in
the state administration were won by Republicans with polling-day
swings in favour of the Republican candidates of 4.2, 5.2, and 5.4
percent respectively).
Given the close correlations between absentee and polling-day votes
in ten of the thirteen statewide races, the senate result looks
suspicious: the Democrat's narrow lead in the absentee voting became a
clear defeat on November 2, with a 6.4 percent swing in the
polling-day votes to the Republican. And the presidential results look
more seriously implausible. In the absentee votes, Kerry trailed by 6
percent, a result that 'ignatzmouse' remarks "is consistent with the
pre-election polls and most importantly with the exit polls of
November 2
nd
." But in the election day voting, there was a
further swing of fully 9 percent to Bush. Bush led in the absentee
votes (30 percent of the total) by 52.9 percent to Kerry's 46.9
percent; but on polling day he took 57.3 percent of the remaining
votes, while Kerry received 42.3 percent. In the absence of any other
explanation, these figures point to electronic fraud-and, more
precisely, to "a 'date-specific' alteration in the software, a hack,
or a specific [software] activation just prior to the election."
The Florida evidence is, if anything, more flagrant. On November
18, Professor Michael Hout of the University of California at Berkeley
released a statistical study indicating that electronic voting
technology had produced a very substantial distortion of the
presidential vote tally in Florida. According to the analyses
conducted by Hout and his team, irregularities associated with
electronic voting machines accounted for at least 130,000 votes in
Bush's lead over Kerry in Florida-and possibly twice that much. (The
uncertainty stems from the fact that the machines may have awarded
Bush "ghost votes" which increased his tally without reducing Kerry's,
or they may have misattributed Kerry votes as Bush votes. As Hout
explains, the disparities "amount to 130,000 votes if we assume a
'ghost vote' mechanism and twice that-260,000 votes-if we assume that
a vote misattributed to one candidate should have been counted for the
other.")
Hout's results have not gone unchallenged (see Strashny); obviously
enough, the validity of statistical analyses depends on the extent to
which all possible causal factors have been accounted for. But other
data indicates that the 'haunting' of Florida's electronic voting
tabulators was if anything more serious than Hout and his associates
believe. As I have already noted, in six Florida counties the number
of votes purportedly cast exceeded the number of registered voters-by
a cumulative total of 188,885 (see Newberry). These are apparently
"ghost votes," and unless we're willing to assume a level of electoral
participation resembling those claimed by totalitarian states like
Ceaucescu's Romania or Saddam Hussein's Iraq, a significant percentage
of the other votes cast in these counties must also represent the
electoral choice not of human beings but of Republican hackers.
Further evidence which may help to identify the agents involved in
Florida's electronic voting fraud has in fact begun to emerge. Brandon
Adams, for example, has noted striking divergences among Florida
voters according to the makes and models of the voting machines they
used in different counties; and a heavy hacking of vote-tabulation
systems used in conjunction with the older optical-scan voting
machines is now well-established (see Paterson).
Moreover, statistically-based work is being complemented by
acquisitions of direct material evidence. In Volusia County, one of
Florida's six most seriously 'haunted' counties, where 19,306 more
votes were cast than there are registered voters, Bev Harris's
BlackBoxVoting team caught county election officials red-handed on
November 16 in the act of trashing original polling-place tapes which
BlackBoxVoting had asked for in a Freedom of Information request. In
addition to filming the behaviour of county officials, her team was
able to establish that some copies of the tapes that officials had
prepared to give them in response to the Freedom of Information Act
request had been falsified in favour of George W. Bush-in one precinct
alone by hundreds of votes (see Harris [18 Nov. 2004], Hartmann [19
Nov. 2004]). The Volusia County materials provide proof, moreover,
that the GEMS central vote-tabulation system, which was supposedly
"stand-alone" and non-networked, was remotely accessed during the
election (Harris [24 Nov. 2004]).
Ohio, remember, was the deciding state. John Kerry conceded the
election after calculating that the some 155,000 provisional ballots
cast in Ohio would not suffice-even if they were properly counted, and
even if, as expected, they were very largely cast by Kerry
supporters-to overturn the tallied results, according to which Bush
had won the state by 136,483 votes.
However, the exit poll data indicates that it was Kerry who won the
state, and by a comfortable margin. Once again, there is substantial
evidence of electronic electoral fraud. Teed Rockwell found, after
careful study of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections website, that
twenty-nine precincts in this county "reported votes cast IN EXCESS of
the number of registered voters-at least 93,136 extra votes total."
The same website he studied (
http://boe.cuyahogacounty.us/BOE/results/currentresults1.htm#top
)
also repays further study, for Rockwell's tallying of 'ghost votes' is
in fact conservative. To cite just one example, Brook Park City is
listed as having 14,491 registered voters, of whom it is claimed that
fully 14,458 exercised their civic duty and cast ballots-for a
turn-out rate of 99.4 percent. I leave it to the curious to discover
how many of these high-minded but possibly nonexistent citizens
supported their incumbent President.
Those who want to pursue the questions of vote fraud and
suppression in Ohio may also want to consult the studies carried out
by Richard Philips, whose work, together with the data available on
the websites of Cuyahoga and other counties, provides depressing
evidence of successful vote suppression in urban precincts. (It has
been estimated that vote suppression tactics may have cost Kerry
45,000 votes across the whole state of Ohio [see Bernstein].)
The Green Party and Libertarian Party presidential candidates,
belatedly followed by the Kerry/Edwards campaign, have called for a
recount in Ohio. But if Ohio's Republican Secretary of State Blackwell
permits no more than a recount, without a rigorous audit of the
electronic voting machines and tabulators as well, the numbers for a
reversal of the election results are probably not there. On the
optimistic assumption that a fair count of the 155,000 provisional
ballots would result in 10 percent of them being disqualified and 70
percent of the remainder being validated as Kerry votes, those ballots
might reduce Bush's lead in Ohio by as much as 55,800 votes. However,
it seems unlikely that a recount, including a re-examination of the
more than 96,000 Ohio votes (most of them cast on old punch-card
machines) that were discarded as spoiled, would turn up the almost
81,000 additional Kerry votes that would still be needed.
Together with the principle that every duly cast vote must be
counted, advocates for democracy need to assert another complementary
principle: the principle that votes cast not in polling booths, but in
the hard drives of voting-tabulation machines; and not by citizens,
but rather by ghosts summoned into existence by Republican hackers'
nimble fingers, have no business getting counted, and should be
removed from the tally.
The effect of turning a 'Ghostbuster' computer-auditing team like
Bev Harris's BlackBoxVoting organization loose on the Ohio results, to
carry out a serious audit of any polling precinct and computer-log
data that hasn't already been quietly destroyed, might well be
startling. For while a simple recount would probably leave Kerry
trailing by several tens of thousands of votes, a thorough
computer-audit 'exorcism' of the vote tallies, should such a thing
ever be permitted, might well lead to a reversal of the national
election results.
Whatever the finally certified results may be, a larger informing
context should not be forgotten. The regime of George W. Bush has made
no secret of its scorn for the American Constitution and Bill of
Rights, its hostility to any notion of international law, its
contemptuous dismissal of the decent opinion of humankind both at home
and abroad, its contempt, in the most inclusive sense, for truth.
Bush has claimed that the 2004 election gave him "capital"-which he
now will not hesitate to spend. An early instance of this expenditure
has been the assault on the city of Fallujah, and a compounding of the
manifold war crimes of which Bush and those who serve him are already
guilty.
But what is this "capital"? As the evidence is revealing with
growing clarity, the 2004 presidential election was not in fact a
victory for Bush, but rather the occasion for an insolent usurpation.
A 'president' who takes office through fraud and usurpation can
make no legitimate claim to exercise the stolen power of his office.
As the knowledge of his offence becomes ever more widely
disseminated, he may yet come, like Shakespeare's Macbeth, "[to] feel
his title / Hang loose upon him, like a giant's robe / Upon a dwarfish
thief."
This neocon propagandists (or more correctly neocon provocateur) got all major facts wrong. And
who unleashed Flame and
Stuxnet I would like to ask him.
Was it Russians? And who invented the concept of "color revolution" in which influencing of election
was the major part of strategy ? And which nation instituted the program of covert access to email boxes
of all major webmail providers? He should study the history of malware and the USA covert operations
before writing this propagandist/provocateur opus to look a little bit more credible...
Notable quotes:
"... Email, a main conduit of communication for two decades, now appears so vulnerable that the nation seems to be wondering whether its bursting inboxes can ever be safe. ..."
The 2016 presidential race will be remembered for many ugly moments, but the most lasting historical
marker may be one that neither voters nor American intelligence agencies saw coming: It is the first
time that a foreign power has unleashed cyberweapons to disrupt, or perhaps influence, a United States
election.
And there is a foreboding sense that, in elections to come, there is no turning back.
The steady drumbeat of allegations of Russian troublemaking - leaks from stolen emails and probes
of election-system defenses - has continued through the campaign's last days. These intrusions, current
and former administration officials agree, will embolden other American adversaries, which have been
given a vivid demonstration that, when used with some subtlety, their growing digital arsenals can
be particularly damaging in the frenzy of a democratic election.
"Most of the biggest stories of this election cycle have had a cybercomponent to them - or the
use of information warfare techniques that the Russians, in particular, honed over decades," said
David Rothkopf, the chief executive and editor of Foreign Policy, who has written two histories of
the National Security Council. "From stolen emails, to WikiLeaks, to the hacking of the N.S.A.'s
tools, and even the debate about how much of this the Russians are responsible for, it's dominated
in a way that we haven't seen in any prior election."
The magnitude of this shift has gone largely unrecognized in the cacophony of a campaign dominated
by charges of groping and pay-for-play access. Yet the lessons have ranged from the intensely personal
to the geostrategic.
Email, a main conduit of communication for two decades, now appears so vulnerable that the
nation seems to be wondering whether its bursting inboxes can ever be safe. Election systems,
the underpinning of democracy, seem to be at such risk that it is unimaginable that the United States
will go into another national election without treating them as "critical infrastructure."
But President Obama has been oddly quiet on these issues. He delivered a private warning to President
Vladimir V. Putin of Russia during their final face-to-face encounter two months ago, aides say.
Still, Mr. Obama has barely spoken publicly about the implications of foreign meddling in the election.
His instincts, those who have worked with him on cyberissues say, are to deal with the problem by
developing new norms of international behavior or authorizing covert action rather than direct confrontation.
After a series of debates in the Situation Room, Mr. Obama and his aides concluded that any public
retaliation should be postponed until after the election - to avoid the appearance that politics
influenced his decision and to avoid provoking Russian counterstrikes while voting is underway. It
remains unclear whether Mr. Obama will act after Tuesday, as his aides hint, or leave the decision
about a "proportional response" to his successor.
Cybersleuths, historians and strategists will debate for years whether Russia's actions reflected
a grand campaign of interference or mere opportunism on the part of Mr. Putin. While the administration
has warned for years about the possibility of catastrophic attacks, what has happened in the past
six months has been far more subtle.
Russia has used the techniques - what they call "hybrid war," mixing new technologies with old-fashioned
propaganda, misinformation and disruption - for years in former Soviet states and elsewhere in Europe.
The only surprise was that Mr. Putin, as he intensified confrontations with Washington as part of
a nationalist campaign to solidify his own power amid a deteriorating economy, was willing to take
them to American shores.
The most common theory is that while the Russian leader would prefer the election of Donald J.
Trump - in part because Mr. Trump has suggested that NATO is irrelevant and that the United States
should pull its troops back to American shores - his primary motive is to undercut what he views
as a smug American sense of superiority about its democratic processes.
Madeleine K. Albright, a former secretary of state who is vigorously supporting Hillary Clinton,
wrote recently that Mr. Putin's goal was "to create doubt about the validity of the U.S. election
results, and to make us seem hypocritical when we question the conduct of elections in other countries."
If so, this is a very different use of power than what the Obama administration has long prepared
the nation for.
Four years ago, Leon E. Panetta, the defense secretary at the time, warned of an impending "cyber
Pearl Harbor" in which enemies could "contaminate the water supply in major cities or shut down the
power grid across large parts of the country," perhaps in conjunction with a conventional attack.
"... From the surprising success of the insurgent Bernie Sanders to a Donald Trump campaign that broke all the mainstream Republican Party rules – and may have broken the Republican Party itself – what we now understand more clearly than ever is that the American people are fed up with politics as usual. And more importantly they are fed up with the same tired old policies. ..."
"... These results should make us very optimistic about our movement, as it shows that we are rapidly approaching the "critical mass" where new ideas will triumph over the armies of the status quo. ..."
"... We know those in Washington with a vested interest in maintaining a US empire overseas will fight to the end to keep the financial gravy train flowing. The neocons and the liberal interventionists will continue to preach that we must run the world or everything will fall to ruin. ..."
"... We must resist those who are preaching "interventionism-lite" and calling it a real alternative. Claiming we must protect our "interests" overseas really means using the US military to benefit special interests. That is not what the military is for. We must stick to our non-interventionist guns. No more regime change. No more covert destabilization programs overseas. A solid defense budget, not an imperial military budget. US troops home now. End US military action in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and so on. Just come home. ..."
I have said throughout this presidential campaign that it doesn't matter much which candidate
wins. Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are authoritarians and neither can be expected to roll
back the leviathan state that destroys our civil liberties at home while destroying our economy and
security with endless wars overseas. Candidates do not matter all that much, despite what the media
would have us believe. Ideas do matter, however. And regardless of which of these candidates is elected,
the battle of ideas now becomes critical.
The day after the election is our time to really focus our efforts on making the case for a peaceful
foreign policy and the prosperity it will bring. While we may not have much to cheer in Tuesday's
successful candidate, we have learned a good deal about the state of the nation from the campaigns.
From the surprising success of the insurgent Bernie Sanders to a Donald Trump campaign that broke
all the mainstream Republican Party rules – and may have broken the Republican Party itself – what
we now understand more clearly than ever is that the American people are fed up with politics as
usual. And more importantly they are fed up with the same tired old policies.
Last month a fascinating poll was conducted by the Center for the National Interest and the Charles
Koch Institute. A broad ranging 1,000 Americans were asked a series of questions about US foreign
policy and the 15 year "war on terror." You might think that after a decade and a half, trillions
of dollars, and thousands of lives lost, Americans might take a more positive view of this massive
effort to "rid the world of evil-doers," as then-president George W. Bush promised. But the poll
found that only 14 percent of Americans believe US foreign policy has made them more safe! More than
50 percent of those polled said the next US president should use less force overseas, and 80 percent
said the president must get authorization from Congress before taking the country to war.
These results should make us very optimistic about our movement, as it shows that we are rapidly
approaching the "critical mass" where new ideas will triumph over the armies of the status quo.
We know those in Washington with a vested interest in maintaining a US empire overseas will
fight to the end to keep the financial gravy train flowing. The neocons and the liberal interventionists
will continue to preach that we must run the world or everything will fall to ruin. But this
election and many recent polls demonstrate that their time has passed. They may not know it yet,
but their failures are too obvious and Americans are sick of paying for them.
What is to be done? We must continue to educate ourselves and others. We must resist those
who are preaching "interventionism-lite" and calling it a real alternative. Claiming we must protect
our "interests" overseas really means using the US military to benefit special interests. That is
not what the military is for. We must stick to our non-interventionist guns. No more regime change.
No more covert destabilization programs overseas. A solid defense budget, not an imperial military
budget. US troops home now. End US military action in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and so on.
Just come home.
Americans want change, no matter who wins. We need to be ready to provide that alternative.
After all, Clinton is not going to make it into the Oval Office unless she can secure the votes of
those who backed the far-more progressive Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries.
Clinton's camp have wielded various sticks to beat these voters into submission. Not least they
have claimed that a refusal to vote for Clinton is an indication of one's
misogyny . But it has not been an easy task. Actor Susan Sarandon, for example, has
stated that she is not going to "vote with my vagina". As she notes, if the issue is simply about
proving one is not anti-women, there is a much worthier candidate for president who also happens
to be female: Jill Stein, of the Green Party.
Sarandon, who supported Sanders in the primaries, spoke for a vast swath of voters excluded by
the two-party system when she told BBC Newsnight:
I am worried about the wars, I am worried about Syria, I am worried about all of these things
that actually exist. TTP [Trans-Pacific Partnership] and I'm worried about fracking. I'm worrying
about the environment. No matter who gets in they don't address these things because money has
taken over our system.
Given that both Donald Trump and Clinton represent big money – and big money only – Clinton's
supporters have been forced to find another stick. And that has been the "lesser evil" argument.
Clinton may be bad, but Trump would be far worse. Voting for a non-evil candidate like Jill Stein
– who has no hope of winning – would split the progressive camp and ensure Trump, the more evil candidate,
triumphs. Therefore, there is a moral obligation on progressive voters to back Clinton, however bad
her track record as a senator and as secretary of state.
There is nothing new about this argument. It had been around for decades, and has been corralling
progressives into voting for Democratic presidents who have still advanced US neoconservative policy
goals abroad and neoliberal ones at home.
America's pseudo-democracy
So is it true that Clinton is the lesser-evil candidate? To answer that question, we need to examine
those "policy differences" with Trump.
On the negative side, Trump's platform poses a genuine threat to civil liberties. His bigoted,
"blame the immigrants" style of politics will harm many families in the US in very tangible ways.
Even if the inertia of the political system reins in his worst excesses, as is almost certain, his
inflammatory rhetoric is sure to damage the façade of democratic discourse in the US – a development
not to be dismissed lightly. Americans may be living in a pseudo-democracy, one run more like a plutocracy,
but destroying the politics of respect, and civil discourse, could quickly result in the normalisation
of political violence and intimidation.
On the plus side, Trump is an isolationist, with little appetite for foreign entanglements. Again,
the Washington policy elites may force him to engage abroad in ways he would prefer not to, but his
instincts to limit the projection of US military power on the international stage are likely to be
an overall good for the world's population outside the US. Any diminishment of US imperialism is
going to have real practical benefits for billions of people around the globe. His refusal to demonise
Vladimir Putin, for example, may be significant enough to halt the gradual slide towards a nuclear
confrontation with Russia, either in Ukraine or in the Middle East.
Clinton is the mirror image of Trump. Domestically, she largely abides by the rules of civil politics
– not least because respectful discourse benefits her as the candidate with plenty of political experience.
The US is likely to be a more stable, more predictable place under a Clinton presidency, even as
the plutocratic elite entrenches its power and the wealth gap grows relentlessly.
Abroad, however, the picture looks worse under Clinton. She has been an enthusiastic supporter
of all the many recent wars of aggression launched by the US, some declared and some covert. Personally,
as secretary of state, she helped engineer the overthrow of Col Muammar Gaddafi. That policy led
to an outcome – one that was entirely foreseeable – of Libya's reinvention as a failed state, with
jihadists of every stripe sucked into the resulting vacuum. Large parts of Gadaffi's arsenal followed
the jihadists as they exported their struggles across the Middle East, creating more bloodshed and
heightening the refugee crisis. Now Clinton wants to intensify US involvement in Syria, including
by imposing a no-fly zone – or rather, a US and allies-only fly zone – that would thrust the US into
a direct confrontation with another nuclear-armed power, Russia.
In the cost-benefit calculus of who to vote for in a two-party contest, the answer seems to be:
vote for Clinton if you are interested only in what happens in the narrow sphere of US domestic politics
(assuming Clinton does not push the US into a nuclear war); while if you are a global citizen worried
about the future of the planet, Trump may be the marginally better of two terribly evil choices.
(Neither, of course, cares a jot about the most pressing problem facing mankind: runaway climate
change.)
So even on the extremely blinkered logic of Clinton's supporters, Clinton might not be the winner
in a lesser-evil presidential contest.
Mounting disillusion
But there is a second, more important reason to reject the lesser-evil argument as grounds for
voting for Clinton.
Trump's popularity is a direct consequence of several decades of American progressives voting
for the lesser-evil candidate. Most Americans have never heard of Jill Stein, or the other three
candidates who are not running on behalf of the Republican and Democratic parties. These candidates
have received no mainstream media coverage – or the chance to appear in the candidate debates – because
their share of the vote is so minuscule. It remains minuscule precisely because progressives have
spent decades voting for the lesser-evil candidate. And nothing is going to change so long as progressives
keep responding to the electoral dog-whistle that they have to keep the Republican candidate out
at all costs, even at the price of their own consciences.
Growing numbers of Americans understand that their country was "stolen from them", to use a popular
slogan. They sense that the US no longer even aspires to its founding ideals, that it has become
a society run for the exclusive benefit of a tiny wealthy elite. Many are looking for someone to
articulate their frustration, their powerlessness, their hopelessness.
Two opposed antidotes for the mounting disillusionment with "normal politics" emerged during the
presidential race: a progressive one, in the form of Sanders, who suggested he was ready to hold
the plutocrats to account; and a populist one, in the form of Trump, determined to deflect anger
away from the plutocrats towards easy targets like immigrants. As we now know from Wikileaks' release
of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta's emails, the Democats worked hard to rig their own primaries
to make sure the progressive option, Sanders, was eliminated. The Republicans, by contrast, were
overwhelmed by the insurrection within their own party.
The wave of disaffection Sanders and Trump have been riding is not going away. In fact, a President
Clinton, the embodiment of the self-serving, self-aggrandising politics of the plutocrats, will only
fuel the disenchantment. The fixing of the Democratic primaries did not strengthen Clinton's moral
authority, it fuelled the kind of doubts about the system that bolster Trump. Trump's accusations
of a corrupt elite and a rigged political and media system are not merely figments of his imagination;
they are rooted in the realities of US politics.
Trump, however, is not the man to offer solutions. His interests are too close aligned to those
of the plutocrats for him to make meaningful changes.
Trump may lose this time, but someone like him will do better next time – unless ordinary Americans
are exposed to a different kind of politician, one who can articulate progressive, rather regressive,
remedies for the necrosis that is rotting the US body politic. Sanders began that process, but a
progressive challenge to "politics as normal" has to be sustained and extended if Trump and his ilk
are not to triumph eventually.
The battle cannot be delayed another few years, on the basis that one day a genuinely non-evil
candidate will emerge from nowhere to fix this rotten system. It won't happen of its own. Unless
progressive Americans show they are prepared to vote out of conviction, not out of necessity, the
Democratic party will never have to take account of their views. It will keep throwing up leaders
– in different colours and different sexes – to front the tiny elite that runs the US and seeks to
rule the world.
The author is a neocon...
Intermediate-Range Nuclear
Forces (INF) Treaty was deeply unfair as it did not eliminated see based missiles, only ground based
one. It is essentially a trap Gorbachov went into.
Notable quotes:
"... On the American side, the weapon of immediate concern is a new version of the AGM-86B air-launched cruise missile, usually carried by B-52 bombers. Also known as the Long-Range Standoff Weapon (LRSO) ..."
"... No wonder former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry called on President Obama to cancel the ALCM program in a recent Washington Post op-ed piece. "Because they… come in both nuclear and conventional variants," he wrote, "cruise missiles are a uniquely destabilizing type of weapon." And this issue is going to fall directly into the lap of the next president. ..."
By Michael T. Klare, a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and
the author, most recently, of The Race
for What's Left . A documentary movie version of his book Blood and Oil is available
from the Media Education Foundation . Follow him on Twitter at @mklare1. Originally published
at TomDispatch
... ... ..
With passions running high on both sides in this year's election and rising fears about Donald
Trump's impulsive nature and Hillary Clinton's hawkish one, it's hardly surprising that the "nuclear
button" question has surfaced repeatedly throughout the campaign. In one of the more pointed exchanges
of the first presidential debate, Hillary Clinton declared that Donald Trump lacked the mental composure
for the job. "A man who can be provoked by a tweet," she
commented , "should not have his fingers anywhere near the nuclear codes." Donald Trump has reciprocated
by charging that Clinton is too prone to intervene abroad. "You're going to end up in World War III
over Syria," he told
reporters in Florida last month.
For most election observers, however, the matter of personal character and temperament has dominated
discussions of the nuclear issue, with partisans on each side insisting that the other candidate
is temperamentally unfit to exercise control over the nuclear codes. There is, however, a more important
reason to worry about whose finger will be on that button this time around: at this very moment,
for a variety of reasons, the "nuclear threshold" - the point at which some party to a "conventional"
(non-nuclear) conflict chooses to employ atomic weapons - seems to be
moving dangerously lower.
Not so long ago, it was implausible that a major nuclear power - the United States, Russia, or
China - would consider using atomic weapons in any imaginable conflict scenario. No longer. Worse
yet, this is likely to be our reality for years to come, which means that the next president will
face a world in which a nuclear decision-making point might arrive far sooner than anyone would have
thought possible just a year or two ago - with potentially catastrophic consequences for us all.
No less worrisome, the major nuclear powers (and some smaller ones) are all in the process of
acquiring new nuclear arms, which could, in theory, push that threshold lower still. These include
a variety of cruise missiles and other delivery systems capable of being used in "limited" nuclear
wars - atomic conflicts that, in theory at least, could be confined to just a single country or one
area of the world (say, Eastern Europe) and so might be even easier for decision-makers to initiate.
The next president will have to decide whether the U.S. should actually produce weapons of this type
and also what measures should be taken in response to similar decisions by Washington's likely adversaries.
Lowering the Nuclear Threshold
During the dark days of the Cold War, nuclear strategists in the United States and the Soviet
Union conjured up elaborate conflict scenarios in which military actions by the two superpowers and
their allies might lead from, say, minor skirmishing along the Iron Curtain to full-scale tank combat
to, in the end, the use of "battlefield" nuclear weapons, and then city-busting versions of the same
to avert defeat. In some of these scenarios, strategists hypothesized about wielding "tactical" or
battlefield weaponry - nukes powerful enough to wipe out a major tank formation, but not Paris or
Moscow - and claimed that it would be possible to contain atomic warfare at such a devastating but
still sub-apocalyptic level. (Henry Kissinger, for instance, made his reputation by preaching this
lunatic doctrine in his first book, Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy .) Eventually, leaders
on both sides concluded that the only feasible role for their atomic arsenals was to act as deterrents
to the use of such weaponry by the other side. This was, of course, the concept of "
mutually assured
destruction ," or - in one of the most classically apt acronyms of all times: MAD. It would,
in the end, form the basis for all subsequent arms control agreements between the two superpowers.
Anxiety over the escalatory potential of tactical nuclear weapons peaked in the 1970s when the
Soviet Union began deploying the
SS-20 intermediate-range
ballistic missile (capable of striking cities in Europe, but not the U.S.) and Washington responded
with plans to deploy nuclear-armed, ground-launched cruise missiles and the
Pershing-II ballistic missile
in Europe. The announcement of such plans provoked massive antinuclear demonstrations across Europe
and the United States. On December 8, 1987, at a time when worries had been growing about how a nuclear
conflagration in Europe might trigger an all-out nuclear exchange between the superpowers, President
Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev signed the
Intermediate-Range Nuclear
Forces (INF) Treaty.
That historic agreement - the first to eliminate an entire class of nuclear delivery systems -
banned the deployment of ground-based cruise or ballistic missiles with a range of 500 and
5,500 kilometers and required the destruction of all those then in existence. After the collapse
of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation inherited the USSR's treaty obligations and pledged to
uphold the INF along with other U.S.-Soviet arms control agreements. In the view of most observers,
the prospect of a nuclear war between the two countries practically vanished as both sides made deep
cuts in their atomic stockpiles in accordance with already existing accords and then signed others,
including the
New START , the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty of 2010.
... ... ...
To put this in perspective, Russian leaders ardently believe that they are the victims of a
U.S.-led drive by NATO to encircle their country and diminish its international influence. They
point, in particular, to the
build-up
of NATO forces in the Baltic countries, involving the semi-permanent deployment of combat battalions
in what was once the territory of the Soviet Union, and in apparent violation of
promises made to Gorbachev in 1990 that NATO would not do so. As a result, Russia has been bolstering
its defenses in areas bordering Ukraine and the Baltic states, and
training its troops for a possible clash with the NATO forces stationed there.
... ... ...
On the American side, the weapon of immediate concern is a
new version of the AGM-86B air-launched cruise missile, usually carried by B-52 bombers. Also
known as the Long-Range Standoff Weapon (LRSO), it is, like the Iskander-M, expected to be deployed
in both nuclear and conventional versions, leaving those on the potential receiving end unsure what
might be heading their way.
In other words, as with the Iskander-M, the intended target might assume the worst in a crisis,
leading to the early use of nuclear weapons. Put another way, such missiles make for
twitchy trigger fingers
and are likely to lead to a heightened risk of nuclear war, which, once started, might in turn
take Washington and Moscow right up the escalatory ladder to a planetary holocaust.
No wonder former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry
called on President Obama to cancel the ALCM program in a recent Washington Post op-ed
piece. "Because they… come in both nuclear and conventional variants," he wrote, "cruise missiles
are a uniquely destabilizing type of weapon." And this issue is going to fall directly into the lap
of the next president.
scanning it, it keeps referring to the obama administration's beliefs about russia, and
claims by american officials. given the hysteria about putin allegedly hacking the us election,
and the propaganda surrounding the war on terror, i'm reluctant to rely on this kind of evidence.
But even Hillary Clinton, for all her experience as secretary of state, is
likely to have a hard time grappling with the pressures and dangers that are likely to arise
in the years ahead, especially given that her inclination is to toughen U.S. policy toward
Russia.
"Even" is a little rich, given that the Clinton campaign has systematically - I hate to
use the word, but - demonized* Putin. One can regard the political class as cynically able to
turn on a dime when the election is done, but Clinton has also induced her base of "NPR
tote baggers" to buy in, and the more massive base is harder to turn. And then of course the neo-cons
have gone over to her, and they certainly know which side their bread has blood on.
So, if Clinton wins, the dominant faction of the Democrat Party is - from the leadership
through the nomenklatura to the base - committed to a "muscular" foreign policy, including a "No
Fly Zone" in Syria, where shooting down a Russian plane would be an act of war, so far as Russia
is concerned. (In the last debate, Clinton pointedly didn't answer what she would do in that eventuality.)
It is what it is. We are where we are.
NOTE * I mean, come on. Trump and Comey as Putin's agents of influence? Beyond bizarre.
UPDATE One of the salient features of the bureaucratic infighters who brought about World War
I is their utter mediocrity; see
this review of The Sleepwalkers , a diplomatic history of how World War I came out. If you
want to see real mediocrity in today's terms, read the Podesta emails.
Agreed. Klare's order of presentation creates a questionable sense of causality by talking
first about Russian tech and strategy and then about what appear to be US responses. For example,
my understanding of recent developments of low yield nuclear weapons - I'm thinking of the "dial
a bomb" - has the US once again opening up a new strategic front the Russians feel compelled to
duplicate. His discussion of the Iskander M similarly elides the question of how the Russians
think about the B52-based cruise missiles the US has had for years.
He also seems to lose track of a point he introduces by referring to Kissinger's advocacy of
the use of low yield nukes. Kissinger's book came out in 1957, and afair only the US had battlefield
nuclear missile delivery systems back in early 60s. After Kissinger gained power in the Nixon
administration, they both thought that it was useful to look rationally irrational, to set out
a logic for dangerous policies in order to make opponents fearful of a catastrophic reaction.
The Russians are likely doing the same thing. I'm sure, too, that talking of a low first use threshold
is a way to split Europe from the US.
This article on nuclear strategy makes no mention of the single most destabilizing thing
that happened in nuclear affairs in this century: the USA's unilateral abrogation of the ABM Treaty.
How could the author make such an omission?
The biggest nuclear problem we face is that there are "serious" military and political leaders
in the USA who think that their new ABM systems will allow them to burst the shackles of assured-destruction,
and thus to actively employ escalation dominance as a foreign policy tool..
The author puts too much emphasis on anti-cities warfare at a pre-strategic level. A strike
will be more likely to be an EMP anti-infrastructure strike. In modern societies, one doesn't
need to kill people to break their resolve. Disrupting the provision of electricity, mobile, cable
and internet connection is amply enough to eliminate the appetite for overseas military adventures.
The nukes run on a dead-man switch. If one EMP's "everything", the periodic "please do not
launch today, sir"-signal will not reach the silos/submarines and missiles will launch automatically.
We can be pretty sure that the last missiles launched will be salted with some "well, fuck
you too!"-concoction to create massive fallout and maybe even some bio-weapons on top for all
those weakened immune systems (from the gamma radiation). The USSR did a lot of very high quality
research on biological weapons, obviously, everyone else has whatever they had in the 1980's.
People who ingest radioactive dust are goners sooner or later. Sooner with bio-weapons on top
of the radiation poisoning.
People, especially people "on top" who should be informed and know better, yet still think
ABM systems work effectively for any other purpose than moving billions of USD to into the pockets
of defense industry cronies, are simply deluded. Even with cooked tests, where the speed and trajectory
of the opposition missile is known to the missile defence in advance, the odds of an intercept
are low.
Why would the elites not want to win, compared to the first 70 years of the nuclear age?
They are like 70-80 years old, geriatrics already, soon diaper-cases. All thes powerful people
are in a desparate race with time to "set things right", before they lose all of their faculties
(or start smelling of poo so no-one invites them anymore).
Even more troubling, Russia has adopted a military doctrine that favors the early use
of nuclear weapons if it faces defeat in a conventional war, and NATO is considering comparable
measures in response. The nuclear threshold, in other words, is dropping rapidly.
Of course this is the exact mirror image of the US policy during the Cold War. We relied
on the threat of "theater nuclear war" to deter the huge Soviet conventional forces that NATO
had little chance of stopping with conventional forces. Of course the Germans joked that the definition
of a "theater" nuclear weapon was one that went off in Germany.
Does the Right Hold the Economy Hostage to Advance Its Militarist Agenda?
That's one way to read Tyler Cowen's New York Times column * noting that wars have often been
associated with major economic advances which carries the headline "the lack of major wars may
be hurting economic growth." Tyler lays out his central argument:
"It may seem repugnant to find a positive side to war in this regard, but a look at American
history suggests we cannot dismiss the idea so easily. Fundamental innovations such as nuclear
power, the computer and the modern aircraft were all pushed along by an American government eager
to defeat the Axis powers or, later, to win the Cold War. The Internet was initially designed
to help this country withstand a nuclear exchange, and Silicon Valley had its origins with military
contracting, not today's entrepreneurial social media start-ups. The Soviet launch of the Sputnik
satellite spurred American interest in science and technology, to the benefit of later economic
growth."
This is all quite true, but a moment's reflection may give a bit different spin to the story.
There has always been substantial support among liberals for the sort of government sponsored
research that he describes here. The opposition has largely come from the right. However the right
has been willing to go along with such spending in the context of meeting national defense needs.
Its support made these accomplishments possible.
This brings up the suggestion Paul Krugman made a while back (jokingly) that maybe we need
to convince the public that we face a threat from an attack from Mars. Krugman suggested this
as a way to prompt traditional Keynesian stimulus, but perhaps we can also use the threat to promote
an ambitious public investment agenda to bring us the next major set of technological breakthroughs.
1. Baker's peaceful spending scenario is not likely because of human nature.
2. Even if Baker's scenario happened, a given dollar will be used more efficiently in a war.
If there is a threat of losing, you have an incentive to cut waste and spend on what produces
results.
3. The United States would not exist at all if we had not conquered the territory.
US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting
Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security
By Neta C. Crawford
Summary
Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as governments prepare for, wage, and
recover from them by replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the infrastructure
destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare to have a precise accounting of the costs of war
- especially of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the costs by surveying the
major categories of spending.
As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend
more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria
and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year 2016). To this total should be added the approximately
$65 billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense and State Department have requested
for the next fiscal year, 2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested for the
Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and estimated spending on veterans in future years. When
those are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches $4.79 trillion.
But of course, a full accounting of any war's burdens cannot be placed in columns on a ledger....
Donald Trump said on Tuesday that Hillary Clinton's plan for Syria would "lead to world war three"
because of the potential for conflict with military forces from nuclear-armed Russia.
In an interview focused largely on foreign policy, the Republican presidential nominee said defeating
Islamic State was a higher priority than persuading than Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, to step
down, playing down a long-held goal of US policy.
Trump questioned how his Democratic opponent would negotiate with Russia's president Vladimir
Putin after having demonized him; blamed Barack Obama for a downturn in US relations with the Philippines
under its new president, Rodrigo Duterte;
bemoaned a lack of Republican unity behind his candidacy
and said he would easily win the election if the party leaders supported him.
"If we had party unity, we couldn't lose this election to Hillary Clinton," he said.
On Syria's civil war, Trump said Clinton could drag the US into a world war with a more aggressive
posture toward resolving the conflict.
Clinton has called for the establishment of a no-fly zone and "safe zones" on the ground to
protect noncombatants. Some analysts fear that protecting those zones could bring the US bring into
direct conflict with Russian fighter jets.
"What we should do is focus on Isis. We should not be focusing on Syria," said Trump as he
dined on fried eggs and sausage at his Trump National Doral golf resort. "You're going to end up
in world war three over Syria if we listen to Hillary Clinton," Trump said.
"You're not fighting Syria any more, you're fighting Syria, Russia and Iran, all right? Russia
is a nuclear country, but a country where the nukes work as opposed to other countries that talk,"
he said.
Trump said Assad is much stronger now than he was three years ago. He said getting Assad to leave
power was less important than defeating Isis.
"Assad is secondary, to me, to Isis," he said.
On Russia, Trump again knocked Clinton's handling of US-Russian relations while secretary
of state and said her harsh criticism of Putin raised questions about "how she is going to go back
and negotiate with this man who she has made to be so evil", if she wins the presidency.
On the deterioration of ties with the Philippines, Trump aimed his criticism at Obama, saying
the president "wants to focus on his golf game" rather than engage with world leaders.
Since assuming office, Duterte has expressed open hostility towards the US, rejecting criticism
of his violent anti-drug clampdown, using an expletive to describe Obama and telling the US not to
treat his country "like a dog with a leash".
The Obama administration has expressed optimism that the two countries can remain firm allies.
Trump said Duterte's latest comments showed "a lack of respect for our country".
"... In the presidential debates, Clinton talked of establishing a "no-fly zone" or a "safe zone" inside Syria. However, it is hard to see how that would be done without risking a direct clash with Russia, with all the risks that entails. The generals at the Pentagon, who have long argued against the feasibility of establishing such a zone, would work hard to block such a scheme. A Clinton White House is also likely to explore ways of increasing the flow of arms to moderate opposition groups. ..."
"... Trump has indicated that he would seek to work with Assad and Putin in a combined fight against Isis, and has not voiced criticism of the bombardment of rebel-held areas such as eastern Aleppo. That policy would also have heavy costs. The Syrian opposition and the Gulf states would see it as a betrayal, and the new administration would have to deal with the reality that neither the regime nor Russia has much immediate interest in fighting Isis. ..."
"... Trump is likely to take the opposite approach. He avoided criticism of Russia for its actions in Ukraine, hinted he might accept the annexation of Crimea, and ignored US intelligence findings that Moscow was behind the hacking of Democratic party's email. ..."
"... Trump has suggested, by contrast, that Nato is obsolete and questioned whether its security commitments in Europe are worth what the US is currently spending on them. ..."
"... Clinton first supported the TPP and then criticised it in the face of the primary challenge from Bernie Sanders. Her reservations may prolong the negotiations, but she is ultimately expected to pursue and seek completion of the ambitious multilateral trade deals. ..."
"... Trump built his campaign on opposition to all such deals , which he has characterised as inherently unfavourable to the US. He has promised to seek bilateral trade deals on better terms and to punish other countries deemed to be trading unfairly with sanctions, ignoring the threat of retaliation. ..."
Within his or her first year in office, a new US president would also face a direct challenge
to US power in the western Pacific. The Chinese programme of laying claim to reefs and rocks in
the South China Sea and turning them into naval and air bases gives Beijing potential control
over some the busiest shipping lanes in the world. US influence is under further threat by the
rise of Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines, who has
threatened to eject US troops , casting doubt on his predecessor's agreement to allow new
permanent American presence.
Clinton's likely policy will be to continue Obama's faltering "pivot to Asia", and to prioritise
restoring the faith of US allies in the region that Washington will help them resist Chinese attempts
to dominate the South China Sea. It is a policy that is held hostage to some extent by Duterte's
ultimate intentions, and it could lead to a rapid escalation of tension in the region.
Trump has pointed to the Chinese reef-building programme as a reflection of US weakness but has
not said what he would do about it. He has focused more on the threat posed to the US by its trade
relations with China. In the transactional model of foreign relations Trump favours, he
could
agree to turn a blind eye to creeping Chinese takeover in the South China Sea in exchange for
a bilateral trade deal with Beijing on better terms.
Syria
A new US president will arrive in office at a time of significant military advances against
Islamic State in Syria and
neighbouring Iraq, but diminishing options when it comes to helping shape the opposition battle
against the Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian backers. It is possible that the rebel stand
in Aleppo will have fallen by then, giving the regime the upper hand and postponing yet again
any hopes of a political transition.
In the presidential debates, Clinton
talked of establishing a "no-fly zone" or a "safe zone" inside Syria. However, it is hard to
see how that would be done without risking a direct clash with Russia, with all the risks that entails.
The generals at the Pentagon, who have long argued against the feasibility of establishing such a
zone, would work hard to block such a scheme. A Clinton White House is also likely to explore ways
of increasing the flow of arms to moderate opposition groups.
Trump has indicated that he would seek to work with Assad and Putin in a combined fight against
Isis, and has not voiced criticism of the bombardment of rebel-held areas such as eastern Aleppo.
That policy would also have heavy costs. The Syrian opposition and the Gulf states would see it as
a betrayal, and the new administration would have to deal with the reality that neither the regime
nor Russia has much immediate
interest in fighting Isis.
Russia and Ukraine
A Clinton administration is expected to take a tougher line with Moscow than the Obama White House,
all the more so because of the
substantial evidence of the Kremlin's efforts to try to intervene in the US presidential election
in her opponent's favour. Clinton could well seek to take a leadership role in negotiations with
Moscow over Ukraine and the stalled Minsk peace process, which have hitherto been left to Germany
and France. She could also opt to send lethal aid to Ukraine as a way of increasing US leverage.
Trump is likely to take the opposite approach. He avoided criticism of Russia for its
actions in Ukraine, hinted he might accept the annexation of Crimea, and ignored US
intelligence findings that Moscow was behind the hacking of Democratic party's email. A
Trump administration is unlikely to contest Russian enforcement of its influence in eastern
Ukraine.
Europe and Nato
Clinton aides have signalled consistently that one of her priorities would be to show US willingness
to shore up EU and Nato cohesion,
and will attend summits of both organisations in February.
Trump has suggested, by contrast, that Nato is obsolete and questioned whether its security commitments
in Europe are worth what the US is currently spending on them. He said he would check whether US
allies "fulfilled their obligation to us" before
coming to their defence , calling into question the purpose of the defence pact. Later in the
campaign, he changed tack, saying he would seek to strengthen the alliance, but a win for Trump on
Tuesday would nonetheless deepen anxiety in eastern European countries, such as the Baltic states,
that a US-led Nato would come to their defence in the face of Russian encroachment.
Trade
The two major free trade projects of the Obama administration, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership with Europe (TTIP) and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) with the countries on the
Pacific rim, will probably still be under negotiation when the new president comes into office, giving
him or her the option of killing or completing them.
Clinton
first supported the TPP and then criticised it in the face of the primary challenge from Bernie
Sanders. Her reservations may prolong the negotiations, but she is ultimately expected to pursue
and seek completion of the ambitious multilateral trade deals.
Trump built his campaign on
opposition to all such deals , which he has characterised as inherently unfavourable to the US.
He has promised to seek bilateral trade deals on better terms and to punish other countries deemed
to be trading unfairly with sanctions, ignoring the threat of retaliation.
The War Party called the Peace Party Nazis in 1941, Communists in 1951, Soviet dupes in 1961,
dirty hippies in 1971 … must I go on? In 2011, those who heed George Washington's counsel to seek
"peace and harmony with all" will be called mullah-headed appeasers of Irano-fascism.
We live in an age in which one is free to view pornography that would make de Sade wince and gore
that would make Leatherface retch, yet we have less "free speech," as the Founders would have conceived
it, than ever before. The range of permissible political opinions has narrowed to encompass the rat-hair's
breadth separating Mitt Romney from Joe Lieberman, and woe betide the straggler who wanders away
from the cage.
Blame war. Blame TV. Blame the nationalization of political discourse, as regional variations
and individual peculiarities are washed away by the generic slime of poli-talk shows. Radicals-even
naïve Tea Partiers or idealistic left-wing kids-are dehumanized in ways unthinkable when America
was a free country. No one was barred from the conversation back when there was a conversation. No
dispatch ever read, "Wingnut Henry David Thoreau today issued a manifesto from his compound near
Walden Pond…"
... ... ...
The squeezing out even of establishment dissent-especially since 9/11-has left us with an antiwar
movement so feeble it makes the Esperanto lobby look like the AARP. Enter the new organization Come
Home, America, its name taken from the magnificent 1972 acceptance speech delivered by George McGovern
in the last unscripted Democratic convention.
Discussed in recent issues of this magazine, Come Home, America is based on the now decidedly
radical premise that young men and women belong home, with their families and in their communities,
rather than fighting needless wars on the other side of the globe. I am a small part of what I hope
will become a chorus of patriotic dissent ringing from Main Street and Copperhead Road and Martin
Luther King Boulevard, from farm and church and coffeehouse.
"... Well, two can play at tendentiousness. I'd say that American populism, in its various guises, has been distinguished by three basic beliefs: ..."
"... Concentrated wealth and power are pernicious, so widespread distribution of both is the proper condition; ..."
"... War and militarism are ruinous to the republic and to the character (not to mention physical health) of the people; and ..."
"... Ordinary people can be trusted to make their own decisions. ..."
"... The Democratic candidate this time around is the most hawkish nominee of her party since LBJ in 1964 and its most pro-Wall Street standard bearer since John W. Davis in 1924. She is, in every way, including her "the peasants are revolting" shtick, the compleat anti-populist. ..."
"... Place-based populism, seeded in love, defends a people against the powerful external forces that would crush or corrupt or subjugate them. It's Jane Jacobs and her "bunch of mothers" fighting Robert Moses on behalf of Greenwich Village. It's the people of Poletown, assisted by Ralph Nader, defending their homes and churches against the depredations of General Motors and the execrable Detroit Mayor Coleman Young. It's parents-whether in South Boston, Brooklyn, or rural America-championing their local schools against berobed bussers, education bureaucrats, and Cold War consolidators. ..."
With every generational populist efflorescence (those who disapprove call it a "recrudescence")
two things are guaranteed:
First, the prosy men with leaden eyes of the New York Times will rouse themselves from
complacent torpor into a Cerberus-like defense of the ruling class against the intruder. The Times
of 1896 on William Jennings Bryan (a "cheap and shallow … blatherskite" with an "unbalanced and
unsound mind," though whether or not Bryan was "insane," the Times editorialist of 1896 conceded,
"is a question for expert alienists") is no different than the Times in 2016 on Donald Trump.
For his part, Trump probably thinks Bryan's Cross of Gold would make a classy adornment to the Mar-a-Lago
Club chapel.
The second certainty is that middlebrow thumb-suckers and chin-pullers will invoke midcentury
historian Richard Hofstadter, whose 1964 essay that refuses to die, "The Paranoid Style in American
Politics," ascribed dissent from the Cold War Vital Center consensus to mental illness. In your guts,
as LBJ backers said of Barry Goldwater, you know he's nuts.
Or they'll quote Hofstadter's The Age of Reform , winner of the Pulitzer Prize-always a
bad sign-in which populism is merely "the simple virtues and unmitigated villainies of a rural melodrama"
writ large, and it ulcerates with "nativist phobias," "hatred of Europe and Europeans," and resentment
of big business, intellectuals, the Eastern seaboard, the other bulwarks of Time-Life culture,
circa 1955. (Only a Vital Centurion could believe that wishing to refrain from killing Europeans
in wars is evidence of "hatred of Europe and Europeans.")
Well, two can play at tendentiousness. I'd say that American populism, in its various guises,
has been distinguished by three basic beliefs:
Concentrated wealth and power are pernicious, so
widespread distribution of both is the proper condition;
War and militarism are ruinous to the
republic and to the character (not to mention physical health) of the people; and
Ordinary people
can be trusted to make their own decisions.
The Democratic candidate this time around is the most hawkish nominee of her party since LBJ in
1964 and its most pro-Wall Street standard bearer since John W. Davis in 1924. She is, in every way,
including her "the peasants are revolting" shtick, the compleat anti-populist.
But Hillary's awfulness should not obscure the truth that a healthy populism requires anchorage.
It must be grounded in a love of the particular-one's block, one's town, one's neighbors (of all
shapes and sizes and colors)-or else it is just a grab bag of resentments, however valid they may
be.
An unmoored populism leads to scapegoating and the sputtering fury of the impotent. Breeding with
nationalism, it submerges local loyalties and begets a blustering USA! USA! twister of nothingness.
From out of that whirlwind spin the faux-populists of the Beltway Right: placeless mountebanks
banking the widow's mite in Occupied Northern Virginia. To a man they are praying for a Hillary Clinton
victory, which would be the Clampetts' oil strike and the winning Powerball ticket all rolled into
one. President Clinton the Second would be the most lucrative hobgoblin for the ersatz populists
of Birther Nation since Teddy Kennedy crossed his last bridge.
Place-based populism, seeded in love, defends a people against the powerful external forces that
would crush or corrupt or subjugate them. It's Jane Jacobs and her "bunch of mothers" fighting Robert
Moses on behalf of Greenwich Village. It's the people of Poletown, assisted by Ralph Nader, defending
their homes and churches against the depredations of General Motors and the execrable Detroit Mayor
Coleman Young. It's parents-whether in South Boston, Brooklyn, or rural America-championing their
local schools against berobed bussers, education bureaucrats, and Cold War consolidators.
For a span in the early 1990s, Jerry Brown dabbled in populism. Alas, the protean Brown, once
returned to California's governorship, became his father, the numbingly conventional liberal hack
Pat Brown, though the chameleonic Jesuit may have one final act left him, perhaps as a nonagenarian
desert ascetic.
A quarter-century ago, Brown spoke of the populists' struggle against "a global focus over which
we have virtually no control. We have to force larger institutions to operate in the interest of
local autonomy and local power. Localism, if you really take it seriously, is going to interrupt
certain patterns of modern growth and globalism."
The harder they come, the harder they fall, as Jimmy Cliff sang.
The two self-styled populists who made 2016 interesting never so much as glanced at, let alone
picked up, the localist tool recommended by Jerry Brown in one of his previous lives. Their populism,
dismissive of the local, is hollow. It's all fury and no love. But tomorrow, as a Georgia lady once
wrote, is another day.
This is a excellent interview covering many topics discussed here
regarding ME, USA, geopolitics, Turkeys mission, etc. Its from the Bulgarian perspective.
"Interview conducted by Antoinette Kiselincheva with Boyan Chukov, former adviser on Foreign Policy
and National Security in two governments of the Republic of Bulgaria, former diplomat in Paris and Madrid,
foreign intelligence officer."
"...Q: Does the US seriously they want to deal with DAESH or is it just a show? Because it is funny
to observe how a country which claims to have the most powerful army in the world, lost so much time
in a hopeless effort to chase away a handful of jihadis.
BC: The attack on Mosul can be seen through the prism of globalization. There is another hypothesis.
Do not forget that in June 2014, the city was handed over to the jihadists without a fight. The special
forces of the United States left to the terrorists heavy military equipment, armor, ammunition, some
very badly guarded bases for supply, and half a billion dollars in cash in several banks in Mosul. So
DAESH procured modern weapons and considerable financial resources. Now they are looking for a decorative
victory in Mosul to maintain globalism and Pan-Americanism in the face of Hillary Clinton. This is the
reason to believe information that about 1.2 billion dollars is offered to bribe the leaders of the
jihadists to leave Mosul.
Analysts believe that the goal is not primarily to transfer jihadists from Mosul to Aleppo and Rakka,
but for DAESH fighters to be transferred to northern Afghanistan, where weapons are stored in seven
(again) poorly protected US bases. There are serious suspicions that the US special forces will once
more try to play in Afghanistan, the elegant scheme of June 2014 in Mosul, with the transfer of weapons
in a theatrical way. The placement of DAESH in Afghanistan will allow the jihadists to deploy an offensive
line on Herat-Mara with the task to reaching the port of Turkmenbashi (Krasnovodsk) in Turkmenistan
and to continue their offensive along the Caspian Sea toward Kazakhstan and the Russian Volga region."
US national interest automatically receive a soteriological status (Soteriology – the
notion of salvation through Christ), US universality and value system becomes a
sacred and religious complex,"spiritual obviousness" and a "moral imperative."
I see this 'Christian' emphasis in most all Russian propaganda. Katehon is only the
most obvious of them all. Soteriology is the notion of the salvation of society through
religion, and it was perfected in India, if not invented there, and was adapted to
Thailand, as Christine Gray detailed in
Thailand: The Soteriological State in the 1970s
, in order to enable the exploitation
of the people by the apparatchiks in Bangkok and AC/DC for their distinct purposes.
The collapse of the Syrian state is required by the US to finally trigger chaos in
the Middle East, which the Caliphate will then bring across Eurasia and Europe. This
will allow Washington to eliminate alternative military, political and economic
centers, primarily Russia and China. Consequently by wreaking havoc in Asia and
Africa, and as a result of structures organized by Soros, Europe fell into a very
difficult migrant situation (because of the betrayal of European elites). Further
terrorist acts by jihadists in major European countries, worsened the economic
attractiveness of the European economy. The dollar system in the world, is in
critical condition and can not withstand the debt overload. A war in Syria is a handy
tool to destabilize the American competitors in the economic race. This is why
Beijing out of the role of a neutral observer in the Syrian crisis. In Syria there
are 1000 fighters of the Chinese special forces, pursuing and destroying jihadists of
Uighur origin. An agreement was signed between Damascus and Beijing. Chinese presence
on Syrian territory like that of the Russians and Iranians is in line with
international law.
Stark as it is ... if it looks like a duck ... the peoples of the individual European
nations need to get hold of themselves and exit, or destroy an re-create the EU. It has
been suborned by the USA and they are in the USA'a sights as clearly as are Russia and
China.
No matter which of the 'effective' candidates is elected on Tuesday ... the only
thing that will be communicated by his/her election is the impotence of the US populace
when it comes to reigning in the neo-con putsch there that has brought all this death,
devastation, destruction, and deceit about.
And certainly it is no reach to envision the US destroying Erdogan at this point, and
adding Turkey to it's list of states destroyed in the name of 'democracy and freedom'.
"...when Putin came to power in 1999-2000 he inherited a system completely designed
and controlled by the USA. During the Eltsin years, Russian ministers had much less
power than western 'advisers' who turned Russia into a US colony. In fact, during the
1990s, Russia was at least as controlled by the USA as Europe and the Ukraine are today.
And the results were truly catastrophic: Russia was plundered from her natural wealth,
billions of dollars were stolen and hidden in western offshore accounts, the Russian
industry was destroyed, a unprecedented wave of violence, corruption and poverty drowned
the entire country in misery and the Russian Federation almost broke up into many small
statelets. It was, by any measure, an absolute nightmare, a horror comparable to a major
war. Russia was about to explode and something had to be done.
Two remaining centers of power, the oligarchs and the ex-KGB, were forced to seek a
solution to this crisis and they came up with the idea of sharing power: the former
would be represented by Anatolii Medvedev and the latter by Vladimir Putin. Both sides
believed that they would keep the other side in check and that this combination of big
money and big muscle would yield a sufficient degree of stability.
I call the group behind Medvedev the "Atlantic Integrationists" and the people behind
Putin the "Eurasian Sovereignists". The former wants Russia to be accepted by the West
as an equal partner and fully integrate Russia into the AngloZionist Empire, while the
latter want to fully "sovereignize" Russia and then create a multi-polar international
system with the help of China and the other BRICS countries.
What the Atlantic Integrationists did not expect is that Putin would slowly but
surely begin to squeeze them out of power: first he cracked down on the most notorious
oligarchs such as Berezovskii and Khodorkovskii, then he began cracking down on the
local oligarchs, gubernatorial mafias, ethnic mobsters, corrupt industry officials, etc.
Putin restored the "vertical [axis]of power" and crushed the Wahabi insurgents in
Chechnia. Putin even carefully set up the circumstances needed to get rid of some of the
worst ministers such as Serdiukov and Kudrin. But what Putin has so far failed to do is
to
Reform the Russian political system
Replace the 5th columnists in and around the Kremlin
Reform the Russian economy"
Yes. I'm a little shy of the Saker, though. He has his own enthusiasms. I
agree that the Russian Central Bank is a knot that needs to be untied ... but what
central bank isn't?
Somebody - the poster by that 'original' name - posted a link to
How Harvard Lost Russia
, detailing the corruption of the Harvard team sent to Russia
to 'help' after the collapse. I view Medvedev and 'Atlanticist' cronies as of the same
ilk.
There was an amazing 'report' by Medvedev, printed at the Kremlin site, of the
corruption entailed in the last Russian election, all against his party, of course. I
wonder if that isn't how Medvedev himself didn't get his seat?
"The Plan is for the United States to rule the world. The overt theme is
unilateralism, but it is ultimately a story of domination. It calls for the United
States to maintain its overwhelming superiority and prevent new rivals from rising up
to challenge it on the world stage. It calls for dominion over friends and enemies
alike. It says not that the United States must be more powerful, or most powerful,
but that it must be absolutely powerful." Vice-President Dick Cheney – West Point
lecture, June 2002
Still on course ...
@99 b4
I think that Putin is not so much a neo-liberal - you cannot be serious ... 'if you
are to believe Western press' - as buried under the snow-job of Western 'economics'.
They give Nobel Prizes for Western economic snow, and he's not the only one intimidated
by it, the only one who still believes 'There Is No Alternative'. The Chinese are on the
same page ... they seem to be enjoying it, though.
Raqqa is in dispute. Mike Whitney
agrees with you
. I wait to see ...
Harvard team sent to Russia to 'help' after the collapse...
History repeats itself.
First as a tragedy, and then as a farce. Western (and Polish) expert help reforming the
economy of Ukraine. Polish detractors wonder if even the Volhynia massacres justify this
kind of retribution.
for anyone who missed all that, here is john helmers last article on the crazy couple
who tried to conquer poland with neo con stupid-ness..
http://johnhelmer.net/?p=13866
According to a new Wikileaks email, Bernie Sanders was just a Manchurian candidate and a
Clinton puppet all along. We finally have confirmation of what we have suspected since Bernie
said "people are sick of hearing about your damn emails" all the way back in 2015 during one
debate. That was a big give-away and a huge red flag which many have raised back then but now we
finally have irrefutable proof that Bernie Sanders was just a SCAM candidate and a con artist.
"... it's easy to imagine a President Trump refusing to heed our own highest court, which, as President Andrew Jackson observed, has no way, other than respect of institutions, to enforce its decisions. ..."
"... It's easy to carp like this but the sclerotic elite in charge of the country has failed to address demographic concerns, and has stamped out any politically incorrect thoughts as being signs of baseness. ..."
"... Now they are so upset that a challenger has arisen. It's unfortunate that this particular challenger has no background in government and will probably harm our economic growth with his lack of skill, but the elites will have to eat the cake they baked. ..."
"... Economists told us that free trade deals and open borders would make us prosperous and yet that hasn't happens. ..."
"... The technicians running trade policy, monetary policy and fiscal policy haven't held up their end of the bargain. ..."
"... Wealth and power has been redistributed upwards. ..."
"... The union movement has been destroyed in outright class war. ..."
"... The corporate media spread lies and distraction. It induces both apathy and a rat race/dog-eat-dog mentality. ..."
"... Consider how far we've moved right, so that Nixon e.g. would be considered hopelessly and radically leftist today. Given that, moving left should be one of the first things you consider. ..."
"... Yes, we've seen right wing policies killing jobs and steering wealth to the wealthy, and that's bad policy. But unfortunately it seems it's always possible to do *worse*. ..."
"... Trump's policies would double down on wealth transfer, while he spouts the typical RW mantra of "(my dopey policy which would destroy jobs) would be good for jobs." ..."
"... Economic growth fueled by foreign oil is nice while it lasts but what will happen to the country when the oil runs out or we are forced to fight a war that disrupts the supply? ..."
More Jobs, a Strong Economy, and a Threat to Institutions : ...Institutions are significant
to economists, who have come to see that countries become prosperous not because they have bounteous
natural resources or an educated population or the most advanced technology but because they have
good institutions. Crucially, formal structures are supported by informal, often unstated, social
agreements. A nation not only needs courts; its people need to believe that those courts can be
fair. ...
Over most of history, a small élite confiscated wealth from the poor. Subsistence farmers lived
under rules designed to tax them so that the rulers could live in palaces and pay for soldiers
to maintain their power. Every now and then, though, a system appeared in which leaders were forced
to accommodate the needs of at least some of their citizens. ... The societies with the most robust
systems for forcing the powerful to accommodate some of the needs of the powerless became wealthier
and more peaceful. ... Most nations without institutions to check the worst impulses of the rich
and powerful stay stuck in poverty and dysfunction. ...
This year's Presidential election has alarmed economists for several reasons. No economist,
save one , supports Donald J. Trump's stated economic plans, but an even larger concern is
that, were he elected, Trump would attack the very institutions that have provided our economic
stability. In his campaign, Trump has shown outright contempt for courts, free speech, international
treaties, and many other pillars of the American way of life. There is little reason to think
that, if granted the Presidency, Trump would soften his stand. ...
...it's easy to imagine a President Trump refusing to heed our own highest court, which, as
President Andrew Jackson observed, has no way, other than respect of institutions, to enforce
its decisions. No one knows what Trump would do as President, but, based on his statements on
the campaign trail, it's possible to imagine a nation where people have less confidence in the
courts, the military, and their rights to free speech and assembly. When this happens, history
tells us, people stop dreaming about what they could have if they invest in education, new businesses,
and new ideas. They focus, instead, on taking from others and holding tightly to what they've
already amassed. Those societies, without the institutions that protect us from our worst impulses,
become poorer, uglier, more violent. That is how nations fail.
It's easy to carp like this but the sclerotic elite in charge of the country has failed to address
demographic concerns, and has stamped out any politically incorrect thoughts as being signs of
baseness.
Now they are so upset that a challenger has arisen. It's unfortunate that this particular
challenger has no background in government and will probably harm our economic growth with his
lack of skill, but the elites will have to eat the cake they baked.
"No one knows what Trump would do as President, but, based on his statements on the campaign trail,
it's possible to imagine a nation where people have less confidence in the courts, the military,
and their rights to free speech and assembly. When this happens, history tells us, people stop
dreaming about what they could have if they invest in education, new businesses, and new ideas.
They focus, instead, on taking from others and holding tightly to what they've already amassed.
Those societies, without the institutions that protect us from our worst impulses, become poorer,
uglier, more violent. That is how nations fail."
This is all true but let's provide a little more context than the totebaggers' paint-by-numbers
narrative.
Economists told us that free trade deals and open borders would make us prosperous and
yet that hasn't happens.
The technicians running trade policy, monetary policy and fiscal policy haven't held up
their end of the bargain.
Wealth and power has been redistributed upwards.
The union movement has been destroyed in outright class war.
The corporate media spread lies and distraction. It induces both apathy and a rat race/dog-eat-dog
mentality.
The Democratic Party has been moved to right as the middle class has struggled.
And more and more people become susceptible to demagogues like Trump as Democrats try to play
both sides of the fence, instead of standing foresquarely behind the job class.
Let's hope we don't find out what Trump does if elected. My guess is that he'd delegate foreign
and domestic policy to Mike Pence as Trump himself would be free to pursue his own personal grudges
via whatever means are available.
Alex S -> Peter K.... , -1
As we can see here, through leftist glasses, the only possible remedy for solving a problem is
moving left.
Consider how far we've moved right, so that Nixon e.g. would be considered hopelessly and radically
leftist today.
Given that, moving left should be one of the first things you consider.
Consider how far we've moved right, so that Nixon e.g. would be considered hopelessly and radically
leftist today.
Given that, moving left should be one of the first things you consider.
Yes, we've seen right wing policies killing jobs and steering wealth to the wealthy, and that's
bad policy. But unfortunately it seems it's always possible to do *worse*.
Trump's policies would
double down on wealth transfer, while he spouts the typical RW mantra of "(my dopey policy which
would destroy jobs) would be good for jobs."
Tim Harford made a good case for trust accounting
for 99% of the difference in per capita GNP between the US and Somalia.
""If you take a broad enough definition of trust, then it would explain basically all the difference
between the per capita income of the United States and Somalia," ventures Steve Knack, a senior
economist at the World Bank who has been studying the economics of trust for over a decade. That
suggests that trust is worth $12.4 trillion dollars a year to the U.S., which, in case you are
wondering, is 99.5% of this country's income (2006 figures). If you make $40,000 a year, then
$200 is down to hard work and $39,800 is down to trust.
How could that be? Trust operates in all sorts of ways, from saving money that would have to
be spent on security to improving the functioning of the political system. But above all, trust
enables people to do business with each other. Doing business is what creates wealth." goo.gl/t3OqHc
Presidents and the US Economy: An Econometric Exploration
By Alan S. Blinder and Mark W. Watson
Abstract
The US economy has performed better when the president of the United States is a Democrat rather
than a Republican, almost regardless of how one measures performance. For many measures, including
real GDP growth (our focus), the performance gap is large and significant. This paper asks why.
The answer is not found in technical time series matters nor in systematically more expansionary
monetary or fiscal policy under Democrats. Rather, it appears that the Democratic edge stems mainly
from more benign oil shocks, superior total factor productivity (TFP) performance, a more favorable
international environment, and perhaps more optimistic consumer expectations about the near-term
future.
Economic growth fueled by foreign oil is nice while it lasts but what will happen to the country
when the oil runs out or we are forced to fight a war that disrupts the supply?
I was in college in the mid 1970's and we asked this question a lot. Some think this worry has
gone away. I don't agree with those types. Which is why a green technology investment drive makes
a lot of sense for so many reasons.
Quote from the paper you linked to: "Arguably, oil shocks have more to do with US foreign policy
than with US economic policy-the two Gulf Wars being prominent examples. That said, several economists
have claimed that US monetary policy played an important role in bringing on the oil shocks. See,
for example, Barsky and Kilian (2002)."
Do We Really Know that Oil Caused the Great Stagflation? A Monetary Alternative
By Robert B. Barsky and Lutz Kilian
Abstract
This paper argues that major oil price increases were not nearly as essential a part of the
causal mechanism that generated the stagflation of the 1970s as is often thought. There is neither
a theoretical presumption that oil supply shocks are stagflationary nor robust empirical evidence
for this view. In contrast, we show that monetary expansions and contractions can generate stagflation
of realistic magnitude even in the absence of supply shocks. Furthermore, monetary fluctuations
help to explain the historical movements of the prices of oil and other commodities, including
the surge in the prices of industrial commodities that preceded the 1973/74 oil price increase.
Thus, they can account for the striking coincidence of major oil price increases and worsening
stagflation.
My quote dragged on too long. I should have ended it with the first sentence. Monetary policy
could play a role but foreign policy could still be the biggest factor.
"Former Fed Vice Chairman Alan Blinder said he's skeptical that fiscal policy will be loosened
a great deal if Clinton wins the election, as seems likely based on recent voter surveys.
"She is promising not to make budget deficits bigger by her programs," said Blinder, who is
now a professor at Princeton University. "Whatever fiscal stimulus there is ought to be small
enough for the Fed practically to ignore it."
PGL told us that Hillary's fiscal program would be YUGE.
Dean Baker in "Rigged" * reminds me of the lasting limits to growth that appear to follow the
sacrifice of growth, especially to the extent of allowing a recession, for the sake of budget
balancing during a time of surrounding economic weakness:
Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich
Richer
By Dean Baker
Introduction: Trading in Myths
In winter 2016, near the peak of Bernie Sanders' bid for the Democratic presidential nomination,
a new line became popular among the nation's policy elite: Bernie Sanders is the enemy of the
world's poor. Their argument was that Sanders, by pushing trade policies to help U.S. workers,
specifically manufacturing workers, risked undermining the well-being of the world's poor because
exporting manufactured goods to the United States and other wealthy countries is their path out
of poverty. The role model was China, which by exporting has largely eliminated extreme poverty
and drastically reduced poverty among its population. Sanders and his supporters would block the
rest of the developing world from following the same course.
This line, in its Sanders-bashing permutation, appeared early on in Vox, the millennial-oriented
media upstart, and was quickly picked up elsewhere (Beauchamp 2016). After all, it was pretty
irresistible. The ally of the downtrodden and enemy of the rich was pushing policies that would
condemn much of the world to poverty.
The story made a nice contribution to preserving the status quo, but it was less valuable if
you respect honesty in public debate.
The problem in the logic of this argument should be apparent to anyone who has taken an introductory
economics course. It assumes that the basic problem of manufacturing workers in the developing
world is the need for someone who will buy their stuff. If people in the United States don't buy
it, then the workers will be out on the street and growth in the developing world will grind to
a halt. In this story, the problem is that we don't have enough people in the world to buy stuff.
In other words, there is a shortage of demand. But is it really true that no one else in the world
would buy the stuff produced by manufacturing workers in the developing world if they couldn't
sell it to consumers in the United States? Suppose people in the developing world bought the stuff
they produced raising their living standards by raising their own consumption.
That is how the economics is supposed to work. In the standard theory, general shortages of
demand are not a problem. Economists have traditionally assumed that economies tended toward full
employment. The basic economic constraint was a lack of supply. The problem was that we couldn't
produce enough goods and services, not that we were producing too much and couldn't find anyone
to buy them. In fact, this is why all the standard models used to analyze trade agreements like
the Trans-Pacific Partnership assume trade doesn't affect total employment. Economies adjust so
that shortages of demand are not a problem.
In this standard story (and the Sanders critics are people who care about textbook economics),
capital flows from slow-growing rich countries, where it is relatively plentiful and so gets a
low rate of return, to fast-growing poor countries, where it is scarce and gets a high rate of
return....
It is yuuuuge - and no I did not say anything of the sort. Rather I noted it would be less than
1% of GDP. This is what I get for trying to get the facts right. It gets too complicated for you
even when we simplify things so you get angry and start screaming "liar". Grow up.
Per capta GDP grew from $51,100 to $51,400 between July 1 2015 and July 1 2016. This 0.6% growth
does not seem to me to be a statistic supporting claims of improving employment and improving
wage growth.
Dean has suggested in one of his commentaries that wage growth may be an artifact of a decline
in the quality of health insurance coverage. Wage growth is not figured net of increased outlays
for deductibles and copays related to changes in health insurance. PPACA discourages low deductible
and low copay health plans by placing a "Cadillac tax" on them, or at least threatening to do
so. The consequent rise in wage workers' outlays for copays and deductibles are not captured in
the statistics that claim to measure wage gains. This results in an income transfer from the well
to the sick, but can produce statistics that can be interpreted in politically convenient ways
by those so inclined
I get why the plans are taxed. I don't believe that the results of that policy have been beneficial
for the bulk of the population. Most of the good done by PPACA was done by the expansion of Medicaid
eligibility. I believe that requiring the working poor people to settle for high deductible high
copay policies has had the practical effect of requiring them to choose between adequate medical
and further impoverishment. I do not believe that the PPACA could not have been financed in a
way less injurious to the working poor. As the insurers have been unable to make money in this
deal, the hospital operators seem to have been the only winners in that their bad debt problems
have been ameliorated.
"people stop dreaming about what they could have if they invest in education, new businesses,
and new ideas"
And this is entirely rational, as in the situation described, the fruits of their efforts will
likely be siphoned from their pockets by the elites and generally rent-seekers with higher social
standing and leverage, or at best their efforts will amount to too little to be worth the risk
(including the risk of wasting one's time i.e. opportunity cost). It also becomes correspondingly
harder to convince and motivate others to join or fund any worthwhile efforts. What also happens
(and has happened in "communism") is that people take their interests private, i.e. hidden from
the view of those who would usurp or derail them.
"Those who witness extreme social collapse at first hand seldom describe any deep revelation about
the truths of human existence. What they do mention, if asked, is their surprise at how easy it
is to die.
The pattern of ordinary life, in which so much stays the same from one day to the next, disguises
the fragility of its fabric. How many of our activities are made possible by the impression of
stability that pattern gives? So long as it repeats, or varies steadily enough, we are able to
plan for tomorrow as if all the things we rely on and don't think about too carefully will still
be there. When the pattern is broken, by civil war or natural disaster or the smaller-scale tragedies
that tear at its fabric, many of those activities become impossible or meaningless, while simply
meeting needs we once took for granted may occupy much of our lives.
What war correspondents and relief workers report is not only the fragility of the fabric,
but the speed with which it can unravel. As we write this, no one can say with certainty where
the unraveling of the financial and commercial fabric of our economies will end. Meanwhile, beyond
the cities, unchecked industrial exploitation frays the material basis of life in many parts of
the world, and pulls at the ecological systems which sustain it.
Precarious as this moment may be, however, an awareness of the fragility of what we call civilisation
is nothing new.
'Few men realise,' wrote Joseph Conrad in 1896, 'that their life, the very essence of their
character, their capabilities and their audacities, are only the expression of their belief in
the safety of their surroundings.' Conrad's writings exposed the civilisation exported by European
imperialists to be little more than a comforting illusion, not only in the dark, unconquerable
heart of Africa, but in the whited sepulchres of their capital cities. The inhabitants of that
civilisation believed 'blindly in the irresistible force of its institutions and its morals, in
the power of its police and of its opinion,' but their confidence could be maintained only by
the seeming solidity of the crowd of like-minded believers surrounding them. Outside the walls,
the wild remained as close to the surface as blood under skin, though the city-dweller was no
longer equipped to face it directly.
Bertrand Russell caught this vein in Conrad's worldview, suggesting that the novelist 'thought
of civilised and morally tolerable human life as a dangerous walk on a thin crust of barely cooled
lava which at any moment might break and let the unwary sink into fiery depths.' What both Russell
and Conrad were getting at was a simple fact which any historian could confirm: human civilisation
is an intensely fragile construction. It is built on little more than belief: belief in the rightness
of its values; belief in the strength of its system of law and order; belief in its currency;
above all, perhaps, belief in its future.
Once that belief begins to crumble, the collapse of a civilisation may become unstoppable.
That civilisations fall, sooner or later, is as much a law of history as gravity is a law of physics.
What remains after the fall is a wild mixture of cultural debris, confused and angry people whose
certainties have betrayed them, and those forces which were always there, deeper than the foundations
of the city walls: the desire to survive and the desire for meaning."
Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich
Richer By Dean Baker
Introduction: Trading in Myths
In winter 2016, near the peak of Bernie Sanders' bid for the Democratic presidential nomination,
a new line became popular among the nation's policy elite: Bernie Sanders is the enemy of the
world's poor. Their argument was that Sanders, by pushing trade policies to help U.S. workers,
specifically manufacturing workers, risked undermining the well-being of the world's poor because
exporting manufactured goods to the United States and other wealthy countries is their path out
of poverty. The role model was China, which by exporting has largely eliminated extreme poverty
and drastically reduced poverty among its population. Sanders and his supporters would block the
rest of the developing world from following the same course.
This line, in its Sanders-bashing permutation, appeared early on in Vox, the millennial-oriented
media upstart, and was quickly picked up elsewhere (Beauchamp 2016). After all, it was pretty
irresistible. The ally of the downtrodden and enemy of the rich was pushing policies that would
condemn much of the world to poverty.
The story made a nice contribution to preserving the status quo, but it was less valuable if
you respect honesty in public debate.
The problem in the logic of this argument should be apparent to anyone who has taken an introductory
economics course. It assumes that the basic problem of manufacturing workers in the developing
world is the need for someone who will buy their stuff. If people in the United States don't buy
it, then the workers will be out on the street and growth in the developing world will grind to
a halt. In this story, the problem is that we don't have enough people in the world to buy stuff.
In other words, there is a shortage of demand. But is it really true that no one else in the world
would buy the stuff produced by manufacturing workers in the developing world if they couldn't
sell it to consumers in the United States? Suppose people in the developing world bought the stuff
they produced raising their living standards by raising their own consumption.
That is how the economics is supposed to work. In the standard theory, general shortages of
demand are not a problem. Economists have traditionally assumed that economies tended toward full
employment. The basic economic constraint was a lack of supply. The problem was that we couldn't
produce enough goods and services, not that we were producing too much and couldn't find anyone
to buy them. In fact, this is why all the standard models used to analyze trade agreements like
the Trans-Pacific Partnership assume trade doesn't affect total employment. Economies adjust so
that shortages of demand are not a problem.
In this standard story (and the Sanders critics are people who care about textbook economics),
capital flows from slow-growing rich countries, where it is relatively plentiful and so gets a
low rate of return, to fast-growing poor countries, where it is scarce and gets a high rate of
return....
More Jobs, a Strong Economy, and a Threat to Institutions : ...Institutions are significant
to economists, who have come to see that countries become prosperous not because they have bounteous
natural resources or an educated population or the most advanced technology but because they have
good institutions. Crucially, formal structures are supported by informal, often unstated, social
agreements. A nation not only needs courts; its people need to believe that those courts can be
fair. ...
Over most of history, a small élite confiscated wealth from the poor. Subsistence farmers lived
under rules designed to tax them so that the rulers could live in palaces and pay for soldiers
to maintain their power. Every now and then, though, a system appeared in which leaders were forced
to accommodate the needs of at least some of their citizens. ... The societies with the most robust
systems for forcing the powerful to accommodate some of the needs of the powerless became wealthier
and more peaceful. ... Most nations without institutions to check the worst impulses of the rich
and powerful stay stuck in poverty and dysfunction. ...
This year's Presidential election has alarmed economists for several reasons. No economist,
save one , supports Donald J. Trump's stated economic plans, but an even larger concern is
that, were he elected, Trump would attack the very institutions that have provided our economic
stability. In his campaign, Trump has shown outright contempt for courts, free speech, international
treaties, and many other pillars of the American way of life. There is little reason to think
that, if granted the Presidency, Trump would soften his stand. ...
...it's easy to imagine a President Trump refusing to heed our own highest court, which, as
President Andrew Jackson observed, has no way, other than respect of institutions, to enforce
its decisions. No one knows what Trump would do as President, but, based on his statements on
the campaign trail, it's possible to imagine a nation where people have less confidence in the
courts, the military, and their rights to free speech and assembly. When this happens, history
tells us, people stop dreaming about what they could have if they invest in education, new businesses,
and new ideas. They focus, instead, on taking from others and holding tightly to what they've
already amassed. Those societies, without the institutions that protect us from our worst impulses,
become poorer, uglier, more violent. That is how nations fail.
It's easy to carp like this but the sclerotic elite in charge of the country has failed to address
demographic concerns, and has stamped out any politically incorrect thoughts as being signs of
baseness. Now they are so upset that a challenger has arisen. It's unfortunate that this particular
challenger has no background in government and will probably harm our economic growth with his
lack of skill, but the elites will have to eat the cake they baked.
"No one knows what Trump would do as President, but, based on his statements on the campaign trail,
it's possible to imagine a nation where people have less confidence in the courts, the military,
and their rights to free speech and assembly. When this happens, history tells us, people stop
dreaming about what they could have if they invest in education, new businesses, and new ideas.
They focus, instead, on taking from others and holding tightly to what they've already amassed.
Those societies, without the institutions that protect us from our worst impulses, become poorer,
uglier, more violent. That is how nations fail."
This is all true but let's provide a little more context than the totebaggers' paint-by-numbers
narrative.
Economists told us that free trade deals and open borders would make us prosperous and
yet that hasn't happens.
The technicians running trade policy, monetary policy and fiscal policy haven't held up
their end of the bargain.
Wealth and power has been redistributed upwards.
The union movement has been destroyed in outright class war.
The corporate media spread lies and distraction. It induces both apathy and a rat race/dog-eat-dog
mentality.
The Democratic Party has been moved to right as the middle class has struggled.
And more and more people become susceptible to demagogues like Trump as Democrats try to play
both sides of the fence, instead of standing foresquarely behind the job class.
Let's hope we don't find out what Trump does if elected. My guess is that he'd delegate foreign
and domestic policy to Mike Pence as Trump himself would be free to pursue his own personal grudges
via whatever means are available.
As Bernie Sanders's campaign demonstrated, there is still hope. In fact hope is growing.
Lucky for us Sanders campaigned hard for Hillary, knowing what the stakes are.
Given the way people like PGL treated Sanders during the campaign and given what Wikileaks
showed, I doubt the reverse would have been true had Sanders won the primary.
The reverse would have been true, because we Democrats would have voted party above all else and
especially in this election year. Remember "party" the thing that Bernie supporters and Bernie
himself denigrated? I believe the term
"elites" was used more than once to describe the party faithful.
Alex S -> Peter K.... , -1
As we can see here, through leftist glasses, the only possible remedy for solving a problem is
moving left.
Consider how far we've moved right, so that Nixon e.g. would be considered hopelessly and radically
leftist today.
Given that, moving left should be one of the first things you consider.
Does the Right Hold the Economy Hostage to Advance Its Militarist Agenda?
That's one way to read Tyler Cowen's New York Times column * noting that wars have often been
associated with major economic advances which carries the headline "the lack of major wars may
be hurting economic growth." Tyler lays out his central argument:
"It may seem repugnant to find a positive side to war in this regard, but a look at American
history suggests we cannot dismiss the idea so easily. Fundamental innovations such as nuclear
power, the computer and the modern aircraft were all pushed along by an American government eager
to defeat the Axis powers or, later, to win the Cold War. The Internet was initially designed
to help this country withstand a nuclear exchange, and Silicon Valley had its origins with military
contracting, not today's entrepreneurial social media start-ups. The Soviet launch of the Sputnik
satellite spurred American interest in science and technology, to the benefit of later economic
growth."
This is all quite true, but a moment's reflection may give a bit different spin to the story.
There has always been substantial support among liberals for the sort of government sponsored
research that he describes here. The opposition has largely come from the right. However the right
has been willing to go along with such spending in the context of meeting national defense needs.
Its support made these accomplishments possible.
This brings up the suggestion Paul Krugman made a while back (jokingly) that maybe we need
to convince the public that we face a threat from an attack from Mars. Krugman suggested this
as a way to prompt traditional Keynesian stimulus, but perhaps we can also use the threat to promote
an ambitious public investment agenda to bring us the next major set of technological breakthroughs.
1. Baker's peaceful spending scenario is not likely because of human nature.
2. Even if Baker's scenario happened, a given dollar will be used more efficiently in a war.
If there is a threat of losing, you have an incentive to cut waste and spend on what produces
results.
3. The United States would not exist at all if we had not conquered the territory.
US Budgetary Costs of Wars through 2016: $4.79 Trillion and Counting
Summary of Costs of the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Homeland Security
By Neta C. Crawford
Summary
Wars cost money before, during and after they occur - as governments prepare for, wage, and
recover from them by replacing equipment, caring for the wounded and repairing the infrastructure
destroyed in the fighting. Although it is rare to have a precise accounting of the costs of war
- especially of long wars - one can get a sense of the rough scale of the costs by surveying the
major categories of spending.
As of August 2016, the US has already appropriated, spent, or taken on obligations to spend
more than $3.6 trillion in current dollars on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Syria
and on Homeland Security (2001 through fiscal year 2016). To this total should be added the approximately
$65 billion in dedicated war spending the Department of Defense and State Department have requested
for the next fiscal year, 2017, along with an additional nearly $32 billion requested for the
Department of Homeland Security in 2017, and estimated spending on veterans in future years. When
those are included, the total US budgetary cost of the wars reaches $4.79 trillion.
But of course, a full accounting of any war's burdens cannot be placed in columns on a ledger....
Yes, we've seen right wing policies killing jobs and steering wealth to the wealthy, and that's
bad policy. But unfortunately it seems it's always possible to do *worse*. Trump's policies would
double down on wealth transfer, while he spouts the typical RW mantra of "(my dopey policy which
would destroy jobs) would be good for jobs." Tim Harford made a good case for trust accounting
for 99% of the difference in per capita GNP between the US and Somalia.
""If you take a broad enough definition of trust, then it would explain basically all the difference
between the per capita income of the United States and Somalia," ventures Steve Knack, a senior
economist at the World Bank who has been studying the economics of trust for over a decade. That
suggests that trust is worth $12.4 trillion dollars a year to the U.S., which, in case you are
wondering, is 99.5% of this country's income (2006 figures). If you make $40,000 a year, then
$200 is down to hard work and $39,800 is down to trust.
How could that be? Trust operates in all sorts of ways, from saving money that would have to
be spent on security to improving the functioning of the political system. But above all, trust
enables people to do business with each other. Doing business is what creates wealth." goo.gl/t3OqHc
Presidents and the US Economy: An Econometric Exploration
By Alan S. Blinder and Mark W. Watson
Abstract
The US economy has performed better when the president of the United States is a Democrat rather
than a Republican, almost regardless of how one measures performance. For many measures, including
real GDP growth (our focus), the performance gap is large and significant. This paper asks why.
The answer is not found in technical time series matters nor in systematically more expansionary
monetary or fiscal policy under Democrats. Rather, it appears that the Democratic edge stems mainly
from more benign oil shocks, superior total factor productivity (TFP) performance, a more favorable
international environment, and perhaps more optimistic consumer expectations about the near-term
future.
Economic growth fueled by foreign oil is nice while it lasts but what will happen to the country
when the oil runs out or we are forced to fight a war that disrupts the supply?
I was in college in the mid 1970's and we asked this question a lot. Some think this worry has
gone away. I don't agree with those types. Which is why a green technology investment drive makes
a lot of sense for so many reasons.
Economic growth fueled by foreign oil is nice while it lasts but what will happen to the country
when the oil runs out or we are forced to fight a war that disrupts the supply?
[ Having read and reread this question, I do not begin to understand what it means. There is
oil here, there is oil all about us, there is oil in Canada and Mexico and on and on, and the
supply of oil about us is not about to be disrupted by any conceivable war and an inconceivable
war is never going to be fought. ]
Economic growth fueled by foreign oil is nice while it lasts but what will happen to the country
when the oil runs out or we are forced to fight a war that disrupts the supply?
[ My guess is that this is a way of scarily pitching for fracking for oil right in my garden,
but I like my azealia bushes and mocking birds. ]
Quote from the paper you linked to: "Arguably, oil shocks have more to do with US foreign policy
than with US economic policy-the two Gulf Wars being prominent examples. That said, several economists
have claimed that US monetary policy played an important role in bringing on the oil shocks. See,
for example, Barsky and Kilian (2002)."
Do We Really Know that Oil Caused the Great Stagflation? A Monetary Alternative
By Robert B. Barsky and Lutz Kilian
Abstract
This paper argues that major oil price increases were not nearly as essential a part of the
causal mechanism that generated the stagflation of the 1970s as is often thought. There is neither
a theoretical presumption that oil supply shocks are stagflationary nor robust empirical evidence
for this view. In contrast, we show that monetary expansions and contractions can generate stagflation
of realistic magnitude even in the absence of supply shocks. Furthermore, monetary fluctuations
help to explain the historical movements of the prices of oil and other commodities, including
the surge in the prices of industrial commodities that preceded the 1973/74 oil price increase.
Thus, they can account for the striking coincidence of major oil price increases and worsening
stagflation.
My quote dragged on too long. I should have ended it with the first sentence. Monetary policy
could play a role but foreign policy could still be the biggest factor.
"Former Fed Vice Chairman Alan Blinder said he's skeptical that fiscal policy will be loosened
a great deal if Clinton wins the election, as seems likely based on recent voter surveys.
"She is promising not to make budget deficits bigger by her programs," said Blinder, who is
now a professor at Princeton University. "Whatever fiscal stimulus there is ought to be small
enough for the Fed practically to ignore it."
PGL told us that Hillary's fiscal program would be YUGE.
Dean Baker in "Rigged" * reminds me of the lasting limits to growth that appear to follow the
sacrifice of growth, especially to the extent of allowing a recession, for the sake of budget
balancing during a time of surrounding economic weakness:
Rigged: How Globalization and the Rules of the Modern Economy Were Structured to Make the Rich
Richer
By Dean Baker
Introduction: Trading in Myths
In winter 2016, near the peak of Bernie Sanders' bid for the Democratic presidential nomination,
a new line became popular among the nation's policy elite: Bernie Sanders is the enemy of the
world's poor. Their argument was that Sanders, by pushing trade policies to help U.S. workers,
specifically manufacturing workers, risked undermining the well-being of the world's poor because
exporting manufactured goods to the United States and other wealthy countries is their path out
of poverty. The role model was China, which by exporting has largely eliminated extreme poverty
and drastically reduced poverty among its population. Sanders and his supporters would block the
rest of the developing world from following the same course.
This line, in its Sanders-bashing permutation, appeared early on in Vox, the millennial-oriented
media upstart, and was quickly picked up elsewhere (Beauchamp 2016). After all, it was pretty
irresistible. The ally of the downtrodden and enemy of the rich was pushing policies that would
condemn much of the world to poverty.
The story made a nice contribution to preserving the status quo, but it was less valuable if
you respect honesty in public debate.
The problem in the logic of this argument should be apparent to anyone who has taken an introductory
economics course. It assumes that the basic problem of manufacturing workers in the developing
world is the need for someone who will buy their stuff. If people in the United States don't buy
it, then the workers will be out on the street and growth in the developing world will grind to
a halt. In this story, the problem is that we don't have enough people in the world to buy stuff.
In other words, there is a shortage of demand. But is it really true that no one else in the world
would buy the stuff produced by manufacturing workers in the developing world if they couldn't
sell it to consumers in the United States? Suppose people in the developing world bought the stuff
they produced raising their living standards by raising their own consumption.
That is how the economics is supposed to work. In the standard theory, general shortages of
demand are not a problem. Economists have traditionally assumed that economies tended toward full
employment. The basic economic constraint was a lack of supply. The problem was that we couldn't
produce enough goods and services, not that we were producing too much and couldn't find anyone
to buy them. In fact, this is why all the standard models used to analyze trade agreements like
the Trans-Pacific Partnership assume trade doesn't affect total employment. Economies adjust so
that shortages of demand are not a problem.
In this standard story (and the Sanders critics are people who care about textbook economics),
capital flows from slow-growing rich countries, where it is relatively plentiful and so gets a
low rate of return, to fast-growing poor countries, where it is scarce and gets a high rate of
return....
It is yuuuuge - and no I did not say anything of the sort. Rather I noted it would be less than
1% of GDP. This is what I get for trying to get the facts right. It gets too complicated for you
even when we simplify things so you get angry and start screaming "liar". Grow up.
Per capta GDP grew from $51,100 to $51,400 between July 1 2015 and July 1 2016. This 0.6% growth
does not seem to me to be a statistic supporting claims of improving employment and improving
wage growth.
Dean has suggested in one of his commentaries that wage growth may be an artifact of a decline
in the quality of health insurance coverage. Wage growth is not figured net of increased outlays
for deductibles and copays related to changes in health insurance. PPACA discourages low deductible
and low copay health plans by placing a "Cadillac tax" on them, or at least threatening to do
so. The consequent rise in wage workers' outlays for copays and deductibles are not captured in
the statistics that claim to measure wage gains. This results in an income transfer from the well
to the sick, but can produce statistics that can be interpreted in politically convenient ways
by those so inclined
I get why the plans are taxed. I don't believe that the results of that policy have been beneficial
for the bulk of the population. Most of the good done by PPACA was done by the expansion of Medicaid
eligibility. I believe that requiring the working poor people to settle for high deductible high
copay policies has had the practical effect of requiring them to choose between adequate medical
and further impoverishment. I do not believe that the PPACA could not have been financed in a
way less injurious to the working poor. As the insurers have been unable to make money in this
deal, the hospital operators seem to have been the only winners in that their bad debt problems
have been ameliorated.
"people stop dreaming about what they could have if they invest in education, new businesses,
and new ideas"
And this is entirely rational, as in the situation described, the fruits of their efforts will
likely be siphoned from their pockets by the elites and generally rent-seekers with higher social
standing and leverage, or at best their efforts will amount to too little to be worth the risk
(including the risk of wasting one's time i.e. opportunity cost). It also becomes correspondingly
harder to convince and motivate others to join or fund any worthwhile efforts. What also happens
(and has happened in "communism") is that people take their interests private, i.e. hidden from
the view of those who would usurp or derail them.
"Those who witness extreme social collapse at first hand seldom describe any deep revelation about
the truths of human existence. What they do mention, if asked, is their surprise at how easy it
is to die.
The pattern of ordinary life, in which so much stays the same from one day to the next, disguises
the fragility of its fabric. How many of our activities are made possible by the impression of
stability that pattern gives? So long as it repeats, or varies steadily enough, we are able to
plan for tomorrow as if all the things we rely on and don't think about too carefully will still
be there. When the pattern is broken, by civil war or natural disaster or the smaller-scale tragedies
that tear at its fabric, many of those activities become impossible or meaningless, while simply
meeting needs we once took for granted may occupy much of our lives.
What war correspondents and relief workers report is not only the fragility of the fabric,
but the speed with which it can unravel. As we write this, no one can say with certainty where
the unraveling of the financial and commercial fabric of our economies will end. Meanwhile, beyond
the cities, unchecked industrial exploitation frays the material basis of life in many parts of
the world, and pulls at the ecological systems which sustain it.
Precarious as this moment may be, however, an awareness of the fragility of what we call civilisation
is nothing new.
'Few men realise,' wrote Joseph Conrad in 1896, 'that their life, the very essence of their
character, their capabilities and their audacities, are only the expression of their belief in
the safety of their surroundings.' Conrad's writings exposed the civilisation exported by European
imperialists to be little more than a comforting illusion, not only in the dark, unconquerable
heart of Africa, but in the whited sepulchres of their capital cities. The inhabitants of that
civilisation believed 'blindly in the irresistible force of its institutions and its morals, in
the power of its police and of its opinion,' but their confidence could be maintained only by
the seeming solidity of the crowd of like-minded believers surrounding them. Outside the walls,
the wild remained as close to the surface as blood under skin, though the city-dweller was no
longer equipped to face it directly.
Bertrand Russell caught this vein in Conrad's worldview, suggesting that the novelist 'thought
of civilised and morally tolerable human life as a dangerous walk on a thin crust of barely cooled
lava which at any moment might break and let the unwary sink into fiery depths.' What both Russell
and Conrad were getting at was a simple fact which any historian could confirm: human civilisation
is an intensely fragile construction. It is built on little more than belief: belief in the rightness
of its values; belief in the strength of its system of law and order; belief in its currency;
above all, perhaps, belief in its future.
Once that belief begins to crumble, the collapse of a civilisation may become unstoppable.
That civilisations fall, sooner or later, is as much a law of history as gravity is a law of physics.
What remains after the fall is a wild mixture of cultural debris, confused and angry people whose
certainties have betrayed them, and those forces which were always there, deeper than the foundations
of the city walls: the desire to survive and the desire for meaning."
"... fundamentally antiracism and other identitarian programs are not only the left wing of neoliberalism
but active agencies in its imposition of a notion of the boundaries of the politically thinkable " ..."
"... Feminism…? gender discrimination….? racial equality ? …. racism ? Yes, OK, looks good, let's
see what works best for us…. ..."
"... There is still the issue that some professions are more prestigious or lucrative than others
and attract many individuals with a skill set that would better serve other functions. ..."
"... Valuing people for who they are and integrating them into the social order implies that they
have something to contribute and that they have a responsibility for making things better for others,
not just making themselves more comfortable in public. ..."
"... The idea that we have progressed past prior barbarisms … we have forgotten that "the past is
prologue" among other things. ..."
"... This label of progressivism is just so coy and unconvincing in the face of neoliberalism's
full spectrum dominance of all facets of society and culture. ..."
"... I know Reagan was no conservative and Thatcher lost all moorings as an enlightened Tory as
the "project" became all consuming to the detriment of all else. The Tory today isn't conservative –
far from it – a real ideolgical zealot for the promotion of "me, myself and (at most) my class" in most
cases. ..."
"... Is Progressivism just a balm for those who want to feel good about themselves but don't want
to do think about anything in particular? In fact, it is just a cover for I'm ok, screw you pal when
the chips are down? ..."
"These responses [show] how fundamentally antiracism and other identitarian programs
are not only the left wing of neoliberalism but active agencies in its imposition of a notion
of the boundaries of the politically thinkable "
Yes: there we have it.
Neoliberalism (unlike conservatism, often mistaken for each other) has NO social/cultural
values…or, perhaps, more precisely, it has ANY social/cultural values which directly/indirectly
advance the 0.1%'s Will to wealth & power. (Likely, "wealth" is redundant, as it's a manifestation
of power). Neoliberalism is powerful, like all great "evils" because it is completely protean.
( It makes the Nazi's look child-like & naive: after all, the Nazi's actually "believed"
in certain things… [ evil nonsense, but that's not the point at the moment].
Feminism…? gender discrimination….? racial equality ? …. racism ? Yes, OK, looks good,
let's see what works best for us….
I often wonder if liberalism goes hand in hand with the availability of energy and resources…
shrink these and witness a surge in all types of discrimination.
You will notice that genocides are closely tied to the availability and distribution of
resources… we humans seem to be masters at inventing all kinds of reasons to explain why we deserve
the loot and not others.
There is still the issue that some professions are more prestigious or lucrative than others
and attract many individuals with a skill set that would better serve other functions. And
we do this under the guise that we can do whatever we want if we try hard enough.
There is a difference between PC and truly valuing every individual in society no matter their
job or profession.
There is a difference between PC and truly valuing every individual in society no matter
their job or profession.
This.
Mere inclusiveness, while not in itself a bad thing–being aware of other people's circumstances
is simply polite–it doesn't really get you much further past where you already are and in large
part can be satisfied with better rhetoric (or better PR, if you insist on being cynical about
such things), all the while capitalism goes on its merry way, because no real pressure to change
has been applied. Valuing people for who they are and integrating them into the social order
implies that they have something to contribute and that they have a responsibility for making
things better for others, not just making themselves more comfortable in public.
What so often gets lost in these conversations about safe spaces and what have you is that
we should have a sense of shared responsibility, responding TO others' circumstances while also
being responsible FOR the conditions that oppress us all to greater and lesser degrees.
In other words, it's about checking your privilege AND seizing the means of production, because
without the second one, the first just ends up being mere window dressing.
EATF – I really like these. I'll be sad when they conclude!
The idea that we have progressed past prior barbarisms … we have forgotten that "the past
is prologue" among other things. Progressives think that if we completely forget the past,
then the memes that created the sins of the past will become unthinkable, that like interrupted
family violence, a chain will be broken and we can heal. Such people don't believe in the existence
of Evil.
As a socialist, what I miss is the conservative (small c) conversation in our daily affairs.
This label of progressivism is just so coy and unconvincing in the face of neoliberalism's
full spectrum dominance of all facets of society and culture. The conservative gave voice
and depth to our internal doubts about how the future was all brite and new – at least the few
conservatives I knew.
I wonder would a conservative voice (seemingly non-existent any more) have argued for a more
instructive change from industrialisation into what we've now become – might they have mitigated
the course and provided pointers to alternatives?
Maybe they did and I wasn't listening.
I know Reagan was no conservative and Thatcher lost all moorings as an enlightened Tory
as the "project" became all consuming to the detriment of all else. The Tory today isn't conservative
– far from it – a real ideolgical zealot for the promotion of "me, myself and (at most) my class"
in most cases.
Is Progressivism just a balm for those who want to feel good about themselves but don't
want to do think about anything in particular? In fact, it is just a cover for I'm ok, screw you
pal when the chips are down?
I never really liked Disney films as a kid and I certainly don't like them now – but each to
their own.
I'm glad you're making these points. The arc of the story mirrors a number of conversations
I've been having lately with people from poor, white, rural backgrounds. The insistence by good
liberals of making a show of their concern for, and outrage over, both major and minor affronts
to people of color, women, LGBTQI people, etc., while at the same time making jokes about toothless,
inbred trailer-trash, is starting to really piss some people off. These are not conservative people.
These are people to the left of Chomsky.
For some reason, you can slander and shame poor white folks all you want…oh yeah, it's because
they're deplorable racist, fundamentalist Christians who vote for evil Republicans and probably
don't even have a GED, much less a college degree…so f- 'em. The good liberals, on the other hand,
are highly-educated, fundamentalist secular humanists, who've been to college and vote for evil
Democrats…which makes them God's chosen people, apparently. The rest are blasphemers, barely even
human, and deserve whatever they get.
Until we make a real commitment to both listening to everyone's suffering and then to doing
practical things, now, to remedy that suffering, we'll be doomed to Dollary Clump elections and
divide-and-conquer tactics forever after. Let's not go down that road, how about? How's about
let's try treating each other with respect and compassion for once, just to see how it goes? Every
other way lies damnation, imho.
Sorry: I'm not buying this episode: For instance, maybe the reason for the stress on smartness
is plain old class warfare.
The U.S. slavishly follows English fashions, and one of the fashions in England (with which
we have that Special Relationship) is that the upper classes made sure that their kids got into
Eton, Cambridge, Oxford–the whole self-perpetuating educational system of the Pythonesque English
"smart" twit.
So the U S of A has imitated its betters in producing a lot of Tony Blairs. Exhibit A: Chelsea
Clinton.
This has little to do with smartness. It is all about class privilege. (Which has little
to do with postmodernism and its supposed piercing insights.)
The title- Neoliberalisms Boarder Guard" – and this quote:
"Looking now at the other two principles – postmodernism and suffering – Wendy Brown
foretold that, as foci, they would be unable to coexist. Since the time of her prediction,
the balance between the two has shifted dramatically, and it has become clear that Brown was
rooting for the losing side. "
combine to make me wonder. Does liberalism simply accommodate itself to the prevailing ruling
power structure, regardless of that structure's philosophy? Is liberalism today a philosophy or
a social emollient? Desirable social traits do not challenge the ruling neoliberal philosophy,
although they make create a nice space within neoliberalism.
Not buying this episode: "High profile instances of genocide and torture don't appear every
day, and commitment flags without regular stimulation. And so we have taken seriously at least
one idea from postmodernism, the fascination with slight conceptual nuances, and the faith or
fear that these nuances can produce enormously consequential effects."
Oh really?
This sentence is on the order of, Who speaks of the Armenians?
Guantanamo is high profile. Homan Square is high profile. Yemen is genocide. What are the Dakota
Pipeline protests about? Genocide. Your bourgeois eyeglasses just don't allow you to look. It
has nothing to do with micro-aggressions.
Sanders had non-aggression pact with Clinton who had "leverage" to enforce it Robby Mook
("re47") email reveals https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/47397#efmAAAAB2 …
Robert.
@robbiemakestees · Nov 4
@wikileaks the plot thickens. He basically handed her this nomination. What did he honestly
think was gonna happen?
Twitter has gone ballistic - anyone posting anything reasonably credible related to Clintons/Pedophilia/Lolita
Express/Epstein have their accounts deleted. 0HOUR1___ was blown away minutes after posting Bill
Clinton's Secret Service agent's connection to pedophilia/human trafficking. Any hashtags that associate
the Clintons with their circle of occult friends or pedophilia are removed from the 'Trending' statistics,
e.g., #spiritcooking
@0HOUR1__'s re-tweets can still be found (for now) using this Twitter
search .
And @0HOUR1__ has created yet another account and is posting again under
https://twitter.com/0hour . 2,200 followers
for an account 38 minutes old. His/her recently deleted account had 15k followers. I don't care if
this person is just making stuff up or not - CENSORSHIP = EVIL.
Whether the Clintons have real connections to Satanism/pedophilia or not can't be determined with
what little information has come out so far. What IS interesting is how aggressively Twitter and
Facebook are censoring rumors and innuendo based on a growing number of verifiable connections. I
have never seen them delete accounts as fast as they are now. So instead of allowing the conversations
to develop and the facts to unfold (or reason and critical thinking come into play), the message
Twitter and Facebook are sending to U.S. citizens is that you are not allowed to think for yourselves.
You must be protected from 'dangerous' thoughts. The MSM will decide if something is newsworthy or
not. You should go out and vote, but you are not allowed to base that decision on anything but MSM-approved
opinions. No 'little-people opinions' are welcome or permitted (unless they're anti-Trump).
And, oh yeah... the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Stazi warnings about Al Qaeda attacks
next week are rumors and innuendo based on 'secret information' they have that has constantly proven
to be wrong (unless DHS/FBI were the ones behind the fake attacks). So any re-reporting of DHS terrorizing
the population to 'keep them safe' is OK - you should heed their warnings. But any information/rumors
that the peons have that they could use to keep from electing a not-so-safe Satanist/pedophile/child-trafficker
should be censored. You must not have this opinion because it is not approved.
No Independent Thoughts - Obey - Believe - Consume - Conform - Vote
"... Trump has by mere existance dragged the shadow state out of the shadows. Sweet know thy enemy for they will always be thy enemy. Off to restock me popcorn ... 1 week supply will do after that forget it it will be long past popcorn. dinkum Nov 5, 2016 8:27 PM , We were taught at the kitchen table that the "Current Tax Payment Act of 1943", aka employee withholding taxes, would allow the shadow government dominate over the de jure government. Reason given was that the easier to not have to save money themselves to pay taxes, the less interest taxpayers would have in government. Every year, often in April, my Dad would say that he earned the first dollar for our family that year. Now, about 2 or 3 generations later with celebrations for lowering of the labor participation rates below 63%, shadow government is protected by those either not knowing or unable to know how to register to vote. Ripe pickings for One World Government advocates. Seems most Americans do not understand the concept of independence and have little or no interest in understanding. RaceToTheBottom Nov 5, 2016 8:17 PM , I'm sorry, but I am going to love pointing out to you Trumpsters that it makes absolutely no difference who gets elected, the State still wins..... ..."
"... I haven't voted for the main election in probably 20 years, except in the primary for Ron Paul. I figure 1 minute of my time for a lottery ticket is worth the shot. But yeah I don't think we should go full Nazi mania about the guy, or be like the Obamaites with their messiah. ..."
"... There are alot of people probably unhealthy optimistic about the guy. ..."
"... We are winning because we are breaking people's stockholm syndromes. Apathy is a bad thing, even if the vote is rigged it's better to stay positive that something can be done. Because something can always be done if people want it bad enough. ..."
In previous elections, well, what's the difference really between Bush and Gore? Bush and Kerry?
They went to the same school, and take orders from the same masters. This election is different.
Trump is a real 'trump' card. What does this word mean? It's an ironic name for the candidate who
intentionally or not opened the shadow government for the world to see.
2 : a sound of or as if of trumpeting <the trump of doom>
1 a : a card of a suit any of whose cards will win over a card that is not of this suit -called
also trump card
b : the suit whose cards are trumps for a particular hand -often used in plural
2 : a decisive overriding factor or final resource -called also trump card
3 : a dependable and exemplary person
There are multiple game-changers here, and although Trump himself personally deserves the credit
for being the punching bag at a huge personal sacrifice, Trump himself is not the primary cause of
this paradigm shift. He's just the catalyst, and in the right place at the right time.
As explained eloquently by Peter Thiel, if it's not Trump this time , it will be someone else
next time, or some alternative non-career politician who represents the same things that Trump does.
In fact, Trump probably doesn't know half of what he's getting himself into. He can be the first
President that ushers in a new age of 'reality' (for lack of a better word).
First let's give credit where credit is due. What has made this possible is sites like Zero Hedge,
and more importantly Wikileaks. Clinton Foundation as a model for pay-for-play politics was certainly
not invented by the Clintons, or the Bushes. In fact, in America's Romanesque ideology, a good metaphor
is the business of the Roman empire. Most Roman senators were in fact, super rich.
The Romans really
invented the system of power politics, where politics became big business. The Greeks were too philosophical
and practical to make a business out of it. While the Greeks spent all night debating what is the
prime mover, Romans seized territory, built roads and bridges, and most importantly - got rich.
The country is less a melting pot today, but a stew of competing ethnic, racial, and social
divisions
National, state, and local debt loads are unsustainable
Our elementary and secondary educational system ranks behind many of the other industrialized
countries, even as the costs of a post-secondary education require students to assume thousands
of dollars in personal student loan debt
Our national infrastructure – roads and bridges – is falling apart from neglect and lack
of maintenance even as our electronic infrastructure lags many of our international competitors
Our healthcare system is the most expensive in the world, but mediocre by many world standards
Political corruption is rife and influence is based by the size of financial donation to
the political party and candidate
Many political observers believe that in the era of rampant partisanship, America's system
of checks and balances in government is no longer operative
The growing disparity income inequality creates class tension and social stress
Combine this with various Roman symbolism, in Washington DC, and in the cult sects the Elite participate
in (various forms of the Occult) - a picture emerges of a "New Rome" which may be have been the Illuminati
plan all along for America. But the problem is that, the corruption, the debasement of the currency
(today, we have Quantitative Easing) it can't continue. It's a simple problem of physics, the laws
of gravity cannot be violated. The value of the US Dollar is guaranteed to crash. There's no question
about it. It's because of the math and structure of the debt based money system. The future, is Bitcoin
- not the Clinton Foundation. Clinton Foundation is a representation of how the Elite evolved from
a direct rule class system during Medieval Europe to a 'Shadow Government' system that we use today.
Now many ZH readers and traders know this for a long time. What this election has done, is popularized
and exposed this 'shadow government' which really is an entire 'shadow system' because it's not only
about the government. For example in Forex business, on the surface, banks are cashing checks and
loaning money. But 'behind the scenes' they are involved in much more sinister, often illegal, activities.
And the bank fraud cases have been eye-popping, record setting, numbers like "$5.6 Billion" .
Washington DC is a big customer of the banks, of the Elite. But by far, not the only one. And certainly
not the most powerful. It's just what the public thinks. The President of the United States. It's
a powerful person. No, it's not. Presidents (at least, previously) have been mostly puppets that
take orders from "Shadow People" - Presidents have become like Actors and accordingly, our most popular
President, Ronald Reagan, was an actor. A good actor. Everyone loves an actor! But remember what
an ACTOR does - an actor reads his lines, and pretends very convincingly. Actors are not script writers,
producers, artists - they are the only part of the creative process that's not creative. Real insiders
in Hollywood for example know the real genius to making magic are the writers, producers, music composers
like Ennio Morricone. Who is that? Ennio Morricone is a "Shadow Person" - this is the REAL genius
and creative talent behind the Hollywood machine. That background music, it's not something just
thrown together by some executives. Ennio Morricone is a musical genius, he works behind the scenes,
99% of people never heard of him. But we've all heard about some jerks like Robert DeNiro, who are
paid to make fools of themselves and make foolish and childish statements about Trump and how the
Establishment is good and you should enjoy how the system services your account even though you live
worse every year and it hurts when they do it.
As we wait for the grand finale to the play we call "Politics" enjoy this composition, let it
be the background music you remember as the Shadow People are exposed this next week. Turn off your
TVs and listen to something that can actually increase your IQ! Yes - it's true!
Now for the real test of the Election. Now that the Shadow System has been exposed, will people
openly accept it? There's no more conspiracy theories, most of the facts are now available online
for all to see. Will they turn a blind eye - and vote for the Establishment? How deep does the programming
go? VERY DEEP, if you are on meds and have a TV.
We were taught at the kitchen table that the "Current Tax Payment Act of 1943", aka employee withholding
taxes, would allow the shadow government dominate over the de jure government. Reason given was
that the easier to not have to save money themselves to pay taxes, the less interest taxpayers
would have in government.
Every year, often in April, my Dad would say that he earned the first dollar for our family
that year.
Now, about 2 or 3 generations later with celebrations for lowering of the labor participation
rates below 63%, shadow government is protected by those either not knowing or unable to know
how to register to vote. Ripe pickings for One World Government advocates.
Seems most Americans do not understand the concept of independence and have little or no interest
in understanding.
Voting by mail ballot was easy enough for me to do. Took about 1 minute of my time. Assuming it
doesn't make a difference I'm out 1 minute. But just what if it does matter and it changed the
direction and course we find ourselves on? I haven't voted for the main election in probably 20
years, except in the primary for Ron Paul. I figure 1 minute of my time for a lottery ticket is
worth the shot. But yeah I don't think we should go full Nazi mania about the guy, or be like
the Obamaites with their messiah.
There are alot of people probably unhealthy optimistic about the guy. But as the above comment,
I think the election sure has been entertaining seeing all the bad info come out.
As a Ron Paul
supporter, it's like confirmation that us uniquely different types that everyone thought we were
when we talked about the whole thing being rigged and economics and the war mongering has wings
and been lifted by Trump. Believe me it took Trump for my mother-in-law to see what is going on.
People always were reserved to believe that it was this depraved. I'm sure you are right Clinton
might be just the tip of the iceberg. But even if Clinton goes to jail for conspiring against
Americans considering her terrible lists of crimes against us, that would be well worth it. This
is all about making people believe that conspiracies happen, it took Enron for me to wake up.
What comes next if not Trump is real change, one way or another things are not going back to the
old way.
We are winning because we are breaking people's stockholm syndromes. Apathy is a bad
thing, even if the vote is rigged it's better to stay positive that something can be done. Because
something can always be done if people want it bad enough.
So you will lose like you were always going to lose ... yupper, dam straight, same game same
play, YOY decade after decade.
But all those standing before you, from FBI to MSM, be you DOJ or the Clinton Crime family.
YOU NOW KNOW WHO YOUR FUCKING ENEMY IS because they all crawled out from under the rock.
That was the next step in this game ... know thy enemy for he always knew who you were but
you in kindness now know them. Worse for them is actually your realisation of the truth.
So I ask this question when you were born are you more or less worthy a human being than an
elite child?
I was thinking the same thing. All those foundations that help fund PBS are behind a lot of the
crap we see in America today. And he doesn't mention the biggest source of corruption - the federal
reserve and our banking system. Who owns all those corporations? The owners of the big banks -
those that make up the federal reserve.
P.S. I vote NO FRNs aka US dollars; NO Euros; NO Yens; NO Saudi Rials; NO Chinese Yuans; NO
British pounds; NO Russian roubles; and NO Israeli Shekels.
"... Clearly the Oligarchy does not want Donald Trump in the White House as they are unsure that they could control him, and Hillary is their agent. ..."
"... With the reopening of the FBI investigation of Hillary and related scandals exploding all around her, election theft is not only more risky but also less likely to serve the Oligarchy's own interests. ..."
"... Image as well as money is part of Oligarchic power. The image of America takes a big hit if the American people elect a president who is currently under felony investigation. ..."
"... Moreover, a President Hillary would be under investigation for years. With so much spotlight on her, she would not be able to serve the Oligarchy's interests. She would be worthless to them, and, indeed, investigations that unearthed various connections between Hillary and oligarchs could damage the oligarchs. ..."
"... In other words, for the Oligarchy Hillary has moved from an asset to a liability. ..."
"... In the speech, Vanfosson said while Donald Trump, a "part-time reality star and full-time bigot," doesn't care about student loan debt, neither does Clinton. "She is so trapped in the world of the elite," Vanfosson said. "She has completely lost grip of what it's like to be an average person." ..."
"... Vanfosson said the only thing Clinton cares about is the billionaires that fund her election. The student added there was no point in voting for the "lesser of two evils." ..."
"... "She would be worthless to them," They would love all the focus on her and not on their work. Their work will continue regardless of who is president. It becomes easier if the president is HillBillery, but it will happen either way. ..."
"... "Something about this was backward. A gay white man and a white woman asking a multi-billionaire how he knows the system is rigged and insisting it's not. Does that sound right to you?" ..."
"... They asked him how he knows the system is rigged and he said, 'Because I take advantage of it.'" ..."
"... Can The Oligarchy Still Steal The Presidential Election? Yes. But in the words of the economic-philosopher The Bernanke "It would be... disorderly." ..."
"... everything they do is for the children! ..."
"... Can they steal the election? They have to try. Their life depends on it. This is big time. Deep State has trillions and decades invested in this election. ..."
"... Thoughtful and interesting take as always by PCR. They may not want Trump, but better to delay their plans than let HRC blow them up by being under the ultimate spotlight. ..."
"... Thinking that this will not be a video game with the better hackers winning is probably either not paying attention or in some kind of "democracy speaks" denial. ..."
"... Roberts is right, of course. The rigged polls and media bias were prelude to the rigged election. ..."
The election was set up to be stolen from Trump. That was the purpose of the polls rigged by overweighting
Hillary supporters in the samples. After weeks of hearing poll results that Hillary was in the lead,
the public would discount a theft claim. Electronic voting makes elections easy to steal, and I have
posted explanations by election fraud experts of how it is done.
Clearly the Oligarchy does not want Donald Trump in the White House as they are unsure that
they could control him, and Hillary is their agent.
With the reopening of the FBI investigation of Hillary and related scandals exploding all
around her, election theft is not only more risky but also less likely to serve the Oligarchy's own
interests.
Image as well as money is part of Oligarchic power. The image of America takes a big hit if
the American people elect a president who is currently under felony investigation.
Moreover, a President Hillary would be under investigation for years. With so much spotlight
on her, she would not be able to serve the Oligarchy's interests. She would be worthless to them,
and, indeed, investigations that unearthed various connections between Hillary and oligarchs could
damage the oligarchs.
In other words, for the Oligarchy Hillary has moved from an asset to a liability.
A Hillary presidency could put our country into chaos. I doubt the oligarchs are sufficiently
stupid to think that once she is sworn in, Hillary can fire FBI Director Comey and shut down the
investigation. The last president that tried that was Richard Nixon, and look where that got him.
Moreover, the Republicans in the House and Senate would not stand for it. House Committee on oversight
and Government Reform chairman Jason Chaffetz has already declared Hillary to be "a target-rich environment.
Even before we get to day one, we've got two years worth of material already lined up." House Speaker
Paul Ryan said investigation will follow the evidence.
If you were an oligarch, would you want your agent under this kind of scrutiny? If you were Hillary,
would you want to be under this kind of pressure?
What happens if the FBI recommends the indictment of the president? Even insouciant Americans
would see the cover-up if the attorney general refused to prosecute the case. Americans would lose
all confidence in the government. Chaos would rule. Chaos can be revolutionary, and that is not good
for oligarchs.
Moreover, if reports can be believed, salacious scandals appear to be waiting their time on stage.
For example, last May Fox News reported:
"Former President Bill Clinton was a much more frequent flyer on a registered sex offender's
infamous jet than previously reported, with flight logs showing the former president taking at
least 26 trips aboard the "Lolita Express" - even apparently ditching his Secret Service detail
for at least five of the flights, according to records obtained by FoxNews.com.
"Clinton's presence aboard Jeffrey Epstein's Boeing 727 on 11 occasions has been reported,
but flight logs show the number is more than double that, and trips between 2001 and 2003 included
extended junkets around the world with Epstein and fellow passengers identified on manifests by
their initials or first names, including "Tatiana." The tricked-out jet earned its Nabakov-inspired
nickname because it was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young
girls."
Fox News reports that Epstein served time in prison for "solicitation and procurement of minors
for prostitution. He allegedly had a team of traffickers who procured girls as young as 12 to service
his friends on 'Orgy Island,' an estate on Epstein's 72-acre island, called Little St. James, in
the U.S. Virgin Islands."
This kind of behavior seems reckless even for Bill and Hillary, who are accustomed to getting
away with everything. Nevertheless, if you are an oligarch already worried about the reopened Hillary
email case and additional FBI investigations, such as the one into the Clinton Foundation, and concerned
about what else might emerge from the 650,000 emails on former US Rep. Weiner's computer and the
NYPD pedophile investigation, putting Hillary in the Oval Office doesn't look like a good decision.
At this point, I would think that the Oligarchy would prefer to steal the election for Trump ,
instead of from him, rather than allow insouciant Americans to destroy America's reputation by choosing
a person under felony investigations for president of the United States.
Being the "exceptional nation" takes on new meaning when there is a criminal at the helm.
If Hillary gets elected and it's rigged, then her "win" is invalid and her election is illegitimate.
Most peoples of most countries are not obligated to obey an illegitimately crookedly elected leader.
That's some of the reason why countries have revolts, civil unrest, etc.
... Vanfosson was scheduled to give a speech about Sanders and Clinton supporters uniting,
but instead gave a speech about "how terrible Hillary is."
In the speech, Vanfosson said while Donald Trump, a "part-time reality star and full-time
bigot," doesn't care about student loan debt, neither does Clinton.
"She is so trapped in the world of the elite," Vanfosson said. "She has completely lost grip
of what it's like to be an average person."
Vanfosson said the only thing Clinton cares about is the billionaires that fund her election.
The student added there was no point in voting for the "lesser of two evils."
"She would be worthless to them," They would love all the focus on her and not on their
work. Their work will continue regardless of who is president. It becomes easier if the president
is HillBillery, but it will happen either way.
Dave Chappell apparently criticized how the media "twisted" what Trump said when he made
lewd remarks about grabbing women in a caught-on-tape conversation in 2005 with former Access
Hollywood anchor Billy Bush.
" Sexual assault? It wasn't. He said, 'And when you're a star, they let you do it.' That phrase
implies consent," Chappelle
reportedly said . "I just don't like the way the media twisted that whole thing. Nobody questioned
it."
The 43-year-old comic praised Trump's performance during the second presidential debate, specifically
how he handled the harsh line of questions from moderators Anderson Cooper and Martha Raddatz.
"Something about this was backward. A gay white man and a white woman asking a multi-billionaire
how he knows the system is rigged and insisting it's not. Does that sound right to you?"
Chappelle reportedly asked the crowd at the famous Cutting Room comedy club. "It didn't seem right
to me. And here's how you know Trump is the most gangsta candidate ever. They asked him how
he knows the system is rigged and he said, 'Because I take advantage of it.'"
Government needs the trust of the people. PERIOD! If it is not there, the Gov. and its scharade
is over. Hillary and the Clintons are over! If they still put her in, they are all done. All the
MAGA people won't stop once the election is over. It will cascade beyond that and split the country.
They can't have that.
The military as much as Obama has gutted it in the past 8 years, is for Trump. Obama forgot
that it takes 2 or more generations, complete dumbass. They still listen to their parents. The
Obama's don't want the rope that Hilary will get. They are all about self interests, their own.
It's much worse than just Epstein and his Nab O kov-named pimping jet. The Clintons have gone
out of their way at least twice to secure the release of
proven
and
probable child sex trafficking outfits.
Many disaster relief and aid organizations in the poorest countries are fronts for pedophiles
and sex traffickers, and I know this from extensive personal experience in the Third World. The
Clintons and their Foundation are the largest spiders in this global web.
Can they steal the election? They have to try. Their life depends on it. This is big time.
Deep State has trillions and decades invested in this election.
For all my pessimism lately I'm with the majority here. Trump-slide! Back to the shadow!
Thoughtful and interesting take as always by PCR. They may not want Trump, but better to delay
their plans than let HRC blow them up by being under the ultimate spotlight.
I want to see the hacking of the election go fubar with the votes blipping up and down like a
penny stock. Lead changes every 2 minutes by increments of no less than 5% per quote. All the
while CNN pretends like its normal.
Thinking that this will not be a video game with the better hackers winning is probably either
not paying attention or in some kind of "democracy speaks" denial.
How can one cabal steal from itself? Ollie got no factions, Paulie. Gots Meadowlands and 20# sacks
of limestone. Y'know... fertilizer.
Lies. Choose your own path, as God enabled you to do. You are created here, for this purpose.
Do your best.
If the Cunt becomes president, we all better get ready to put our 'pod faces' on... If the Rodent
gets 'selected', I wonder if she will keep the Obonzo's on as servants?
Roberts is right, of course. The rigged polls and media bias were prelude to the rigged election.
Hillary's corruption and Bill's perversions are in the spotlight. It will only get much worse
with nypd and the fbi ready to fight. Plus, she's incompetent, violent, and hated by a lot of
people. Her election alone could incite WW3 within a few months. Trump on the other hand, will
have a "conversion" if elected and a cautious foreign policy will follow. Careers will move along
in DC and Trump will find the job easy. Harmony .... maybe for a few years.
I abhor violence nowadays but for a guy like Epstein and his pals, I would surely make an exception.
As I'm sure would many otherwise in favor of legal justice. Pedophiles do not deserve justice.
Only punishment.
I must say I like PCR a lot but he seems to be crafting a narrative to fit his desires on this
one.
Let's be real here.
There was a massive scandal in England very much like this and it largely went all of nowhere.
It hit brick walls after a few players were outed and then fizzled out.
It cuts to the heart of money and power this kind of thing.
The corruption isn't just there for mere corruption sake.
One Ring to rule them all,
One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them.
The gist of what I'm saying is this.
Oh yeah they can rig it and Oh hell yeah they will rig it.
THEY HAVE TO because the alternative is to let Trump in there and let some normal human beings
have the power to unravel this all.
The problem is we are likely to be ASTONISHED at how deep and wide this is.
Literally ASTONISHED to the point of shaking the foundations of what everyone believes in.
So yeah the stakes are huge they will rig it and I pray that I am wrong.
The fake polls are evaporating right before our eyes. Hell, even CNN and the alphabets are starting
to back off. Not saying this is proof, but it meshes...
Whatever happens with this election I am punching out of this insane process. We are ruled by
California, New York, Illinois Pennsylvania and Florida and the ghettos therein. Signing up to
be tax cattle and just taking it is masochistic as is aligning oneself with people too lazyor
timid to even boycott Amazon or stage a tax revolt.
Yep taxation without representation all over again. In theory we have it, but in practical reality
we don't. The bible tells the story in revelation. Most everyone will be deceived only a few will
move away and they will be mercilessly hunted and persecuted. Lovely shit.
Here's something you probably never saw or heard about in the west. This is Putin answering questions
regarding ISIS from a US journalist at the Valdai International Discussion Club in late 2014.
from the U.S.. much love for you Putin. you really opened the eyes of many, even in our country.
this man is the definition of president and the u.s hasnt had one for over 40 years... smh.
As an American I can say that all of this is very confusing. However, one thing I believe is
true, Obama and Hillary are the worst thing to ever happen to my country !!!! Average Americans
don't want war with Russia. Why would we ?? The common people of both countries don't deserve
this !!!!
+Emanuil Penev Obama is a human puppet who chose to be controlled, He is therefore culpable
for his action of supporting Islamic terrorists. Right now Islamic invasion of western countries
is the real problem. The USA is now under the control of Obama the Muslim Trojan horse who wants
the world to be under the rule of an Islamic empire. USA's military action in the Middle East
is the result of USA being under occupation by a Muslim Trojan horse that wants to create tidal
waves of Muslim refugees harboring Muslim radicals and terrorists for invading Europe and the
USA. Watch video (copy and paste for search) *From Europe to America The Caliphate Muslim Trojan
Horse The USA is a victim, not a culprit, in the Muslim invasion of western counties. Obama and
his cohorts are the culprits.
basically Russia wants to be friends with America again and America ain't having it. they have
the capabilities to set up shop all around the world. it's like putting guard towers in everyone's
lawn just in case somebody wants commit crime. but you never see inside the towers or know who
is in them but they have giant guns mounted on them ready to kill. that's how Putin feels. I mean
I get it but every other country has nukes. get rid of the nukes and the missile defense will
go away. if the situation were reversed it would be out president voicing this frustration. but
Putin said it, America is a good example of success that's what Russia needs to do is be more
like America. they have been doing it in the last year or so. I think America will come around
and we will have good relations with Russia again. so wait... did we support isis as being generally
isis or support all Qaeda / Saddam's regime which lead to isis??
The US supported multiple Rebel Groups that fought against Syria, they armed them, gave them
money, and members of those groups split up and formed more Rebel groups or joined different ones.
ISIS (at the time, not as large) was supported by the rebel groups the US armed and they got weapons
and equipment from said Rebel Groups, even manpower as well.. That is how ISIS came to be the
threat it is today.
putin doesnt view the us as a threat to russia..?? he has said countless times that he considers
the us as a threat.. and that russian actions are a result of us aggression
US people are a threat for all the world because they are not interested in politics, they
don't want to know truth, they believe to their one-sided media and allow their government and
other warmongers in the US military industry to do whatever they wish all over the world. US politics
are dangerous and lead to a new big war where US territory won't stay away this time. It''s time
for Americans to understand it. If you allow your son to become a criminal, don't be surprised
that your house will be burned some day.
Obama and Clinton are progressive evil cunts funded by Soros. Their decision making is calculated
and they want these horrendous results because it weakens the US and benefits globalism. Putin
kicked the globalists the fuck out, and when Trump wins he will do the same! They are scared shitless.
TRUMP/PENCE 2016
With a stupid and warmongering opponent such as the USA, Russia do not need to construct a
narrative or think out some elaborate propaganda. Russia simply needs to speak the truth. And
this is why the US and its puppets hates Russia and Putin so much.
"... An awful lot of people out there think we live in a one-party state-that we're ruled by what is coming to be called the "Uniparty." ..."
"... There is a dawning realization, ever more widespread among ordinary Americans, that our national politics is not Left versus Right or Republican versus Democrat; it's we the people versus the politicians. ..."
"... Donald Trump is no nut. If he were a nut, he would not have amassed the fortune he has, nor nurtured the capable and affectionate family he has. ..."
"... To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss. ..."
"... Trump has all the right instincts. And he's had the guts and courage-and, just as important, the money -to do a thing that has badly needed doing for twenty years: to smash the power of the real nuts in the GOP Establishment. ..."
A couple of remarks in
Professor Susan
McWillams' recent Modern Age piece celebrating the 25th anniversary of Christopher Lasch's
1991 book
The True and Only Heaven , which analyzed the cult of progress in its American manifestation,
have stuck in my mind. Here's the first one:
McWilliams adds a footnote to that: The 19 percent figure is from 2012, she says. Then she tells
us that in 1964, 64 percent of Americans agreed with the same statement.
Wow. You have to think that those two numbers, from 64 percent down to 19 percent in two generations,
tell us something important and disturbing about our political life.
Second McWilliams quote:
In 2016 if you type the words "Democrats and Republicans" or "Republicans and Democrats" into
Google, the algorithms predict your next words will be "are the same".
I just tried this, and she's right. These guesses are of course based on the frequency with which
complete sentences show up all over the internet. An awful lot of people out there think we live
in a one-party state-that we're ruled by what is
coming to be called the "Uniparty."
There is a dawning realization, ever more widespread among ordinary Americans, that our national
politics is not Left versus Right or Republican versus Democrat; it's we the people
versus the politicians.
Which leads me to a different lady commentator: Peggy Noonan, in her October 20th Wall Street
Journal column.
The title of Peggy's piece was:
Imagine
a Sane Donald Trump . [
Alternate link ]Its gravamen:
Donald Trump has shown up the Republican Party Establishment as totally out of touch with their base,
which is good; but that he's bat-poop crazy, which is bad. If a sane Donald Trump had done
the good thing, the showing-up, we'd be on course to a major beneficial correction in our national
politics.
It's a good clever piece. A couple of months ago on Radio Derb I offered up one and a half cheers
for Peggy, who gets a lot right in spite of being a longtime Establishment Insider. So it
was here. Sample of what she got right last week:
Mr. Trump's great historical role was to reveal to the Republican Party what half of its
own base really thinks about the big issues. The party's leaders didn't know! They were shocked,
so much that they indulged in sheer denial and made believe it wasn't happening.
The party's leaders accept more or less open borders and like big trade deals. Half the base
does not! It is longtime GOP doctrine to cut entitlement spending. Half the base doesn't want
to, not right now! Republican leaders have what might be called assertive foreign-policy impulses.
When Mr. Trump insulted George W. Bush and nation-building and said he'd opposed the Iraq invasion,
the crowds, taking him at his word, cheered. He was, as they say, declaring that he didn't want
to invade the world and invite the world. Not only did half the base cheer him, at least half
the remaining half joined in when the primaries ended.
End of pause. OK, so Peggy got some things right there. She got a lot wrong, though
Start with the notion that Trump is crazy. He's a nut, she says, five times. His brain is "a TV
funhouse."
Well, Trump has some colorful quirks of personality, to be sure, as we all do. But he's no nut.
A nut can't be as successful in business as Trump has been.
I spent 32 years as an employee or contractor, mostly in private businesses but for two years
in a government department. Private businesses are intensely rational, as human affairs go-much more
rational than government departments. The price of irrationality in business is immediate and plainly
financial. Sanity-wise, Trump is a better bet than most people in high government positions.
Sure, politicians talk a good rational game. They present as sober and thoughtful on the Sunday
morning shows.
Look at the stuff they believe, though. Was it rational to respond to the collapse of the U.S.S.R.
by moving NATO right up to Russia's borders? Was it rational to expect that post-Saddam Iraq would
turn into a constitutional democracy? Was it rational to order insurance companies to sell healthcare
policies to people who are already sick? Was the Vietnam War a rational enterprise? Was it rational
to respond to the 9/11 attacks by massively increasing Muslim immigration?
Make your own list.
Donald Trump displays good healthy patriotic instincts. I'll take that, with the personality quirks
and all, over some earnest, careful, sober-sided guy whose head contains fantasies of putting the
world to rights, or flooding our country with unassimilable foreigners.
I'd add the point, made by many commentators, that belongs under the general heading: "You don't
have to be crazy to work here, but it helps." If Donald Trump was not so very different from run-of-the-mill
politicians-which I suspect is a big part of what Peggy means by calling him a nut-would he have
entered into the political adventure he's on?
Thor Heyerdahl sailed across the Pacific on a hand-built wooden raft to prove a point, which
is not the kind of thing your average ethnographer would do. Was he crazy? No, he wasn't. It was
only that some feature of his personality drove him to use that way to prove the point he
hoped to prove.
And then there is Peggy's assertion that the Republican Party's leaders didn't know that half
the party's base were at odds with them.
Did they really not? Didn't they get a clue when the GOP lost in 2012, mainly because millions
of Republican voters didn't turn out for Mitt Romney? Didn't they, come to think of it, get the glimmering
of a clue back in 1996, when Pat Buchanan won the New Hampshire primary?
Pat Buchanan is in fact a living counter-argument to Peggy's thesis-the "sane Donald Trump" that
she claims would win the hearts of GOP managers. Pat is Trump without the personality quirks. How
has the Republican Party treated him ?
Our own
Brad Griffin , here at VDARE.com on October 24th, offered a couple more "sane Donald Trumps":
Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. How did they fare with the GOP Establishment?
Donald Trump is no nut. If he were a nut, he would not have amassed the fortune he
has, nor nurtured the capable and affectionate family he has. Probably he's less well-informed
about the world than the average pol. I doubt he could tell you what
the capital of Burkina Faso is. That's secondary, though. A President has people to look up that
stuff for him. The question that's been asked more than any other about Donald Trump is not, pace
Peggy Noonan, "Is he nuts?" but, "
Is he conservative? "
I'm sure he is. But my definition of "conservative" is temperamental, not political. My touchstone
here is the sketch of the conservative temperament given to us by the English political philosopher
Michael Oakeshott :
To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried
to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the
near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present
laughter to utopian bliss.
That fits Trump better than it fits any liberal you can think of-better also than many senior
Republicans.
For example, it was one of George W. Bush's senior associates-probably Karl Rove-who scoffed at opponents
of Bush's delusional foreign policy as "the reality-based community." It would be hard to think of
a more un -Oakeshottian turn of phrase.
Trump has all the right instincts. And he's had the guts and courage-and, just as important,
the money -to do a thing that has badly needed doing for twenty years: to smash the power
of the real nuts in the GOP Establishment.
I thank him for that, and look forward to his Presidency.
Pretty good Trump ad tying together his themes of Hillary's corruption and globalism. Rather than
just attack Hillary over idiosyncratic scandals, he's pulling together the threads of how Hillary's
ideology and self-interest support each other.
It's funny how Trump is developing a more coherent big picture framework.
My recollection of Romney's campaign is that he generally lacked an intellectual framework for
tying together his a la carte issues.
With McCain, he had Invade the World / Invite the World. Sure, it doesn't make much sense, but
at least it's an ethos.
Romney, though, was a more reasonable man than McCain, so he was kind of stuck in nowhere land
in the middle.
In contrast to the remarkable spectacle of Donald Trump, of all people, evolving into an insightful
critic of the conventional wisdom of the zeitgeist , Hillary's big intellectual breakthrough
in 2016 was realizing how much she really hates people who don't vote for her due to their
irredeemable deplorableness.
That doesn't mean, however, the details will necessarily work together for Trump. For example,
industrial protectionism was likely pretty good for America on the whole during the "infant industries"
era (to quote the non-rap Alexander Hamilton). But you didn't really want to see how the sausage
is made. Tariff battles in Congress tended to gross out everybody who wasn't a hired lobbyist or
wardheeler.
Jerry Pournelle has proposed a modest tariff (e.g., 10%) on everything, no exceptions, as a way
around the corruption problem. Of course, that's the opposite approach to Trump's Art of the Deal
inclinations.
"... He opened his remarks by bashing Donald Trump on student loan debt, but then surprisingly turned to bashing Hillary Clinton from her own stage. "Unfortunately, Hillary doesn't really care about this issue either," Vanfosson said. "The only thing she cares about is pleasing her donors, the billionaires who fund her campaign. The only people that really trust Hillary are Goldman Sachs, CitiGroup can trust Hillary, the military industrial complex can trust Hillary. Her good friend Henry Kissinger can trust Hillary." ..."
"... "She is so trapped in the world of the elite that she has completely lost grip on what it's like to be an average person," Vanfosson continued. "She doesn't care. Voting for another lesser of two evils, there's no point." ..."
Just a few days before the general election, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Rodham
Clinton and her running mate Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) still can't unite her party. Supporters of
Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, her Democratic primary rival, are disrupting her campaign's
efforts to take on GOP nominee Donald J. Trump, and in Iowa on Saturday one prominent Sanders
backer was actually escorted out of a Clinton campaign event for urging those present not to vote
for Clinton-for which he was cheered by the crowd.
Kaleb Vanfosson, the president of Iowa State University's Students for Bernie chapter, bashed
Hillary Clinton and told rally-goers at her own campaign event not to vote for her. He was
cheered.
He opened his remarks by bashing Donald Trump on student loan debt, but then surprisingly
turned to bashing Hillary Clinton from her own stage. "Unfortunately, Hillary doesn't really care
about this issue either," Vanfosson said. "The only thing she cares about is pleasing her donors,
the billionaires who fund her campaign. The only people that really trust Hillary are Goldman
Sachs, CitiGroup can trust Hillary, the military industrial complex can trust Hillary. Her good
friend Henry Kissinger can trust Hillary."
The crowd at the Clinton-Kaine event erupted in applause.
"She is so trapped in the world of the elite that she has completely lost grip on what
it's like to be an average person," Vanfosson continued. "She doesn't care. Voting for another
lesser of two evils, there's no point."
At that point, a Clinton staffer rushed on stage and grabbed the young man by the arm to
escort him off the stage and out of the event.
"... WikiLeaks series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of
the Clintons and was President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also owns the Podesta Group with his brother
Tony, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank. ..."
"... if President Obama signs this terrible legislation that blatantly validates Bernie's entire campaign message about Wall Street
running our government, this will give Bernie a huge boost and 10,000 -20,000 outraged citizens (who WILL turn up because they will
be so angry at the President for preemption vt) will be marching on the Mall with Bernie as their keynote speaker. " ..."
"... But Hirshberg does not stop here. In order to persuade Podesta about the seriousness of the matter, he claims that " It will
be terrible to hand Sanders this advantage at such a fragile time when we really need to save our $$$ for the Trump fight. " ..."
WikiLeaks series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the
Clintons and was President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also owns the Podesta Group with his brother
Tony, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank.
Hirshberg writes to a familiar person, as he was mentioned at the time as a possible 2008 Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate,
requesting Obama should not pass the Roberts bill because " if President Obama signs this terrible legislation that blatantly
validates Bernie's entire campaign message about Wall Street running our government, this will give Bernie a huge boost and 10,000
-20,000 outraged citizens (who WILL turn up because they will be so angry at the President for preemption vt) will be marching on
the Mall with Bernie as their keynote speaker. "
But Hirshberg does not stop here. In order to persuade Podesta about the seriousness of the matter, he claims that " It will
be terrible to hand Sanders this advantage at such a fragile time when we really need to save our $$$ for the Trump fight. "
doublespeak (noun): deliberately ambiguous or obscure language designed to
mislead, for example the military expression collateral damage instead of civilian
deaths and injuries
Wall Street and the Pentagon greeted the onset of 2016 as a 'banner year', a glorious turning
point in the quest for malleable regimes willing to sell-off the most lucrative economic resources,
to sign off on onerous new debt to Wall Street and to grant use of their strategic military bases
to the Pentagon.
Brazil and Argentina, the most powerful and richest countries in South America and the Philippines,
Washington's most strategic military platform in Southeast Asia, were the objects of intense US political
operations in the run-up to 2016.
In each instance, Wall Street and the Pentagon secured smashing successes leading to premature
ejaculations over the 'new golden era' of financial pillage and unfettered military adventures. Unfortunately,
the early ecstasy has turned to agony: Wall Street made easy entries and even faster departures once
the 'honeymoon' gave way to reality. ; The political procurers persecuted center-left incumbents
but, were soon to have their turn facing prosecution. The political prostitutes, who had decreed
the sale of sovereignty, were replaced by nationalists who would turn the bordello back into a sovereign
nation state.
This essay outlines the rapid rise and dramatic demise of these erstwhile 'progeny' of Wall Street
and the Pentagon in Argentina and Brazil, and then reviews Washington's shock and awe as the newly
elected Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte embraced new ties with China while proclaiming, 'We
are no one's 'tuta' (puppy dog)!'
Argentina and Brazil: Grandiose Schemes and Crapulous Outcomes
The international financial press was ecstatic over the election of President Mauricio Macri in
Argentina and the appointment of former Wall Street bankers to his cabinet. They celebrated the ouster
of the 'evil populists', accusing them of inflating economic results, reneging on debt obligations
and discouraging foreign lenders and investors. Under the Macri regime all market obstacles were
to be removed and all the bankers trembled with anticipation at the 'good times' to come.
After taking office in December 2015, President Macri unleashed the 'animal instincts' of the
market and the carrion birds flocked in. US 'vulture funds' scooped up and demanded payment for on
old Argentine debt 'valued' at $3.5 billion – constituting a 1,000% return on their initial investment.
A devaluation of the peso of 50% tripled inflation and drove down wages by 20%.
Firing over 200,000 public sector employees, slapping 400% price increases on utilities and transport,
driving small and medium size firms into bankruptcy and enraged consumers into the streets ended
the honeymoon with the Argentine electorate quite abruptly. This initial massive dose of free enterprise
'medicine' was prescribed by the local and Wall Street bankers and investors who had promised a new
golden era for capitalism!
Now that he had banished the 'populists', Macri was free to tap into the international financial
markets. Argentina raised $16.5 billion from a bond sale taken up by the big bankers and speculators,
mostly from Wall Street, who were eager to cash in on the high rates in the belief that there was
no risk with their champion President Macri at the helm. Wall Street based its giddy predictions
on a mere three-month experience with Mauricio!
But then… some of the hedge fund managers began to raise questions about the viability of Mauricio
Macri's presidency. Instead of reducing the fiscal deficit, Macri began to increase public spending
to offset mass discontent over his triple digit increases in utility fees and transportation, the
mass layoffs in the public sector and the slashing of pension funds.
The major banks had counted on the abrupt devaluation of the currency to invest in the export
sector, but instead they were confronted with a sudden 11% appreciation of the peso and a skyrocketing
inflation of 40% leading to high interest rates. As a result, the economy fell even deeper in recession
exceeding minus 3% for the year.
While most Wall Street bankers still retain some faith in the Macri regime, they are not willing
to fork-over the kind of cash that might allow this increasingly unpopular regime to survive. What
keep Wall Street on board the sinking ship are the political and ideological commitments rather than
any objective assessment of their protégée's dismal economic performance. Wall Street counts on free
market bankers appointed to the ministries, the massive purge of social services (health and education)
personnel and the lucrative bond sales to cover the burgeoning deficit. They hope the vast increase
in profits resulting from increased utility fees and the sharp cuts in salaries, pensions and subsidies
will ultimately lead them into the promised land.
Wall Street has expressed dismay over Macri's failure to stimulate growth – in fact GDP is falling.
Furthermore, their 'golden boy' failed to attract productive investments. Instead thousands of Argentine
small and medium businesses have 'gone under' as consumer spending tanked and extortionate tariffs
were slapped on vital public utilities and transport – devastating profits. Inflation has undermined
the purchasing power of the vast majority of households. Wall Street speculators, concentrating on
fixed-rate peso denominated debt, are at risk of losing their shirts.
In other words, the administration's 'free enterprise' regime is based largely on attracting foreign
loans, plundering the national treasury, firing tens of thousands of public sector workers and slashing
spending on social services and business-friendly subsidies. Macri has yet to generate any large-scale
investment in new innovative productive sectors, which might sustain long-term growth.
Already facing growing discontent and a general strike of private and public sector workers, the
'bankers' regime' lacks the political links with the trade unions to neutralize the growing opposition.
ORDER IT NOW
To hold back the growing tidal wave of discontent, President Macri had to betray his overseas
investors by boosting fiscal spending, which has had little or no impact on the national economy.
Wall Street's hopes that President Mauricio Macri would inaugurate a 'golden era' of free market
capitalism lasted less than a year and is turning into a real fiasco. Rising foreign debt, economic
depression and class warfare ensures Macri's rapid demise.
Brazil: Wall Street's Three Month 'Whirl-Wind' Honeymoon
Most of the current elected members of the Brazilian Congress, Senate and the recently-installed
(rather than elected) President, as well as his cabinet, are in trouble: The hero, Michael Temer
and his argonauts, chosen by Wall Street to privatize the Brazilian economy and usher in another
'golden dawn' for finance capital, now all face criminal changes, arrest and long prison sentences
for money laundering, bribery, fraud, tax evasion and corruption.
In less than four months, the entire political edifice constructed to impeach the elected President
Dilma Rousseff and then de-nationalize key sectors of the economy, is shaking. So much for the financial
press's proclamation of a new era of "business friendly" policies in Brazilia.
The pundits, politicians, journalists and editors, who prematurely celebrated the appointment
of Michael Temer to the Presidency by legislative coup, now have to face a new reality. The key to
understanding the rapid collapse of the New Right project in Brazil lies in the growing 'rap sheets'
of the very same politicians who engineered the ouster of Rousseff.
Eduardo Cunha, the ex-president of the Congress in Brasilia, used his influence to ensure the
super majority of Congressional votes for the impeachment. Cunha was godfather to ensuring the appointment
of Michael Temer as interim president.
Cunha's influence and control over the Congress was based on his wide network of bribes and corruption
involving over a hundred members of congress, including the newly anointed President Temer.
Once Cunha secured the ouster of Rousseff, the Brazilian elite washed their collective hands of
the 'fixer', overwhelmed by the stench of his corruption. In September 2016, Cunha was suspended
from Congress and lost his immunity. One month later, he was arrested on over a dozen charges, including
fraud and tax evasion. It was public knowledge that Cunha had squirreled away a 'tidy nest' of over
$70 million in Swiss banks.
Cunha directed (extorted) public and private firms to finance the campaigns of many of his political
colleagues. He had intervened to secure bribes for President Temer, his foreign minister and even
the next presidential hopeful, Jose Serra. One of the most powerful representatives of the new regime,
Moreira Franco, Grand Wizard of the Privatization Program, was 'in hock' to Cunha.
As all this has come to light, Cunha has been negotiating a plea bargain with the prosecutor and
judges in return for his 'singing' a few arias. He is facing over a hundred years in jail; his wife
and daughter face trial; Eduardo Cunha is prepared to talk and finger political leaders to save his
own neck. Most knowledgeable observers and judicial experts fully expect Cunha to bring down the
Temer Administration with him and devastate the leadership of Temer's Brazilian Democratic Movement
Party, as well as ex-president Fernando Henrique Cardoso's Brazilian Social Democratic Party.
The Brazilian elite, Wall Street bankers and their mass media propagandists, who wrote and directed
the impeachment plot scenario are now discredited and bereft of political front men. Their expectations
of a new 'golden era of free market capitalism' in Brazil has turned into a political mad scramble
with every politico and corporate leader desperate to save his own skin and illicit fortune by denouncing
each other.
With the demise of the 'Brazilian takeover', Wall Street and Washington are bereft of key markets
and allies in Latin America.
The Philippines: The Duterte turn from the US to China
In April 2014, Washington 'secured' an agreement granting access to five strategic military bases
in the Philippines critical to its 'pivot to target' China. Under the outgoing President 'Noynoy'
Aquino, Jr. the Pentagon believed it had an 'iron-clad' agreement to organize the Philippines as
its satrap and military springboard throughout Southeast Asia. Washington even prodded the Aquino
government to bring its Spratly Island dispute with China before the obscure Permanent Court of Arbitration
in the Hague. Washington anticipated using the Court's 'favorable' ruling as a pretext to confront
the Chinese.
All this has changed with the June 2016 ascent to the Presidency of Rodrigo Duterte: In only four
months, all Washington's imperial designs had been swept off the table. By October 21, 2016 President
Duterte announced he would end military exercises with Washington because they threatened Philippine
sovereignty and made his country vulnerable to a military confrontation with China. He promised to
end sea patrols of disputed waters that the US uses to harass China in the South China Sea.
In advance of the Philippines President's meeting with China, he had already declared that he
would not press the Dutch-based ruling over the South China Sea island dispute against Beijing but
rely on diplomacy and compromise. During the China meeting President Duterte declared that the two
countries would engage in a constructive dialogue to resolve the Spratly Islands as well as other
outstanding issues. The 'agreement' over US access to bases in the Philippines was put in doubt as
the President declared "a separation from the US" and promised long-term, large scale economic and
investment ties with China. Undergirding the Philippines pivot to China were 13 trade and investment
agreements worth more than $20 billion, covering financing of infrastructure, transport, social projects,
tourism, industry and agriculture.
The military base agreement, signed by the notoriously servile ex-President Aquino without Congressional
approval, was review by the Philippine Supreme Court and can be revoked by the new President Duterte
by decree.
Inside of four months, the US strategy of armed encirclement and intervention against China has
been dealt a major blow. The newly emerging China-Philippines linkage strikes a fatal blow to Washington's
overtly militarist 'pivot' against China.
Conclusion
2016 opened with great fanfare: The defeat of the two major center-left governments (Argentina
and Brazil) and the advent of hard-right US-backed regimes would inaugurate a 'golden era of free
market capitalism'. This promised to usher in a prolonged period of profit and pillage by rolling
back 'populist' reforms and creating a bankers paradise. In Southeast Asia, US officials and pundits
would proclaim another 'golden era', this time of rampant militarism, encircling and provoking China
on its vital sea lanes, and operating from five strategic military bases obtained through a Philippine
Presidential decree by an unpopular and recently replaced puppet, 'Noynoy' Aquino, Jr.
These dreams of 'golden eras' lasted a few months before objective reality intruded.
By the autumn of 2016 the rightist regimes had been replaced in the Manila by a colorful ardent
nationalist, while the 'banker boys' in Brasilia faced prison, and the 'Golden Boys' of Buenos Aires
were mired in deep crisis. The notion of an easy Rightist restoration was based on several profound
misunderstandings:
The belief that the reversal of social reforms and denial of popular demands would smoothly
give way to an explosion of foreign financing and investment was shattered when private bond purchases
profited the financial sector but did not bring in large-scale productive investment. Devaluation
of the currency was followed by skyrocketing inflation, which led to fiscal deficits and the loss
of business confidence.
Washington's promotion of 'corruption investigations' started with prosecuting democratically
elected center-left politicians and ended up with the arrest of Wall Street's own protégés encompassing
the entire right-wing political class and decimating the 'Golden' regimes.
The belief that long-term hegemonic relations, based on client regimes in Asia, could resist
the attraction of signing trade and investment agreements with the rising Chinese mega-economy,
while sacrificing vital economic development, and relegating their masses to more stagnation and
unemployment, collapsed with the massive electoral of nationalist Rodrigo Duterte as President
of the Philippines.
In fact, these and other political assessments among the decision makers in Washington and on
Wall Street were proven wrong leading to a strategic retreat of the empire in both Latin America
and Asia. The policy failures were not merely 'mistakes' but the inevitable results of changing structural
conditions embedded in a declining empire.
These decisions were based on a calculus of power, rooted in class and national relations that
may have held true two decades ago. At the dawn of the new millennium the US still dominated Asia
and China was not yet an economic alternative for its neighbors eager for investment. Washington
could and did dictate policy in Southeast Asia.
Twenty years ago, the US had the economic leverage to sustain the neoliberal policies of the Washington
Consensus throughout Latin America.
Today the US continues to pursue policies based on anachronistic power relations, seeming to ignore
the fact that China is now a world power and a viable economic trade and investment alternative successfully
competing for markets and influence in Asia. Washington is failing to compete in that marketplace
and, therefore, can no longer rely on docile client state.
Washington cannot effectively control and direct large-scale capital flows to shore-up its newly
installed rightist regimes in Argentina and Brazil as they crumble under their own corruption and
incompetence. Meanwhile the world is watching a domestic US economy, mired in stagnation with its
own political elites torn by corruption and scandals at the highest level, and staging the most bizarre
presidential campaign in its history. Corruption has become the mode of governing under conditions
of deregulation and rule by political warlords. Political allegiance to the empire and open doors
to foreign pillage do not attract capital when those making political decisions are facing prison
and the business 'doormen' are busy stuffing their suitcases with cash and making a mad-dash for
the airports!
For Wall Street and the Pentagon, Latin America and Asia are lost opportunities – betrayals to
be mourned at the officers clubs and exclusive Manhattan restaurants. For the people in mass social
movements these are emerging opportunities for struggle and change.
The strenuous US effort to rebuild its empire in Latin America and Southeast Asia has suffered
a rapid succession of blows. Washington can still seize power but it lacks the talent and the favorable
conditions to hold it.
The vision of a Brazilian state, build on the edifice of the privatized oil giant, Petrobras,
and the political incarceration of its left adversaries, with foreign capital attracted and seduced
by political procurers, pimps and prostitutes, has ended in a debacle.
In this vacuum, it will be up to the new governments and peoples' movements to seize the opportunity
to advance their struggles and explore political and economic alternatives. The aborted rightist
power grab inadvertently has done the peoples' movements a great favor by exposing and ousting the
corrupt and compromised center-left regimes opening the door for a genuine anti-imperialist transformation.
Actress Susan Sarandon on Thursday tore into the Democratic National Committee (DNC), calling it "completely corrupt." "After
my experience in the primary, it's very clear to me the DNC is gone," she
told CNN's Carol Costello .
"Every superdelegate is a lobbyist. The way that the system is set up in terms of trying of having superdelegates - you could
win a state and not get the delegates. It's crazy."
"Look, Bernie has said 'don't ever listen to me if I tell you how to vote,' " she said.
"What [Sanders] did is show people that they counted. He brought them hope. He's supporting a lot of candidates. It's very important
to go and vote down the ticket."
"I think we've been voting the lesser of two evils for too long. The good news is everybody's so frustrated that at least we're
awake."
Sarandon on Monday
endorsed Green
Party nominee Jill Stein.
"It's clear a third-party is necessary and viable at this time," she said in a letter posted on Stein's campaign website. "And
this is the first step in accomplishing that end."
"... I'll be interested to see how much Hillary tries to "work with Republicans" when it comes to foreign or domestic policy, as she's promising on the campaign trail. ..."
"... In a recent interview Biden was talking about how his "friends" in the Senate like McCain, Lindsy Graham, etc. - the sane ones who hate Trump - have to come out in support of the Republican plan to block Clinton from nominating a Supreme Court judge, because of if they don't, the Koch brothers will primary them. ..."
"... While I agree that the Republican party has been interested in whatever argument will win elections and benefit their donor class, doesn't the Democratic Party also have a donor class? Haven't Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton had a close relationship with some business interests? Did anyone go to jail after the asset bubble? Did welfare reform work or simply shift the problem out of view? How complicit are the Democrats in the great risk shift? ..."
"... I would think the scorched earth politics of the neoliberals required Democrats to shift to the right if they ever hoped to win an election, again. That is what it has looked like to me. The American equivalent of New Labor in Britain. So, we have a more moderate business-interest group of Democrats and a radical business-interest group of Republicans during the past 40 years. I think Kevin Phillips has made this argument. ..."
"... Our grand experimental shift back to classical theory involved supply side tax cuts, deregulation based on the magic of new finance theory, and monetarist pro-financial monetary policy. All of which gave us the masquerade of a great moderation that ended in the mother of all asset bubbles. While we shredded the safety net. ..."
"... Now the population is learning the arguments about free trade magically lifting all boats up into the capitalist paradise has blown up. We've shifted the risk onto the working population and they couldn't bear it. ..."
"... Economists lied to the American people about trade and continue to lie about the issue day in and day out. Brainwashing kids with a silly model called comparative advantage. ..."
This is all true but Krugman always fails to tell the other side of the story.
I'll be interested to see how much Hillary tries to "work with Republicans" when it comes
to foreign or domestic policy, as she's promising on the campaign trail.
The centrists always do this to push through centrist, neoliberal "solutions" which anger the
left.
In a recent interview Biden was talking about how his "friends" in the Senate like McCain,
Lindsy Graham, etc. - the sane ones who hate Trump - have to come out in support of the Republican
plan to block Clinton from nominating a Supreme Court judge, because of if they don't, the Koch
brothers will primary them.
Let's hope Hillary does something about campaign finance reform and Citizen United and takes
a harder line against obstructionist Republicans.
While I agree that the Republican party has been interested in whatever argument will win
elections and benefit their donor class, doesn't the Democratic Party also have a donor class?
Haven't Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton had a close relationship with some business
interests? Did anyone go to jail after the asset bubble? Did welfare reform work or simply shift
the problem out of view? How complicit are the Democrats in the great risk shift?
I would think the scorched earth politics of the neoliberals required Democrats to shift
to the right if they ever hoped to win an election, again. That is what it has looked like to
me. The American equivalent of New Labor in Britain. So, we have a more moderate business-interest
group of Democrats and a radical business-interest group of Republicans during the past 40 years.
I think Kevin Phillips has made this argument.
Our grand experimental shift back to classical theory involved supply side tax cuts, deregulation
based on the magic of new finance theory, and monetarist pro-financial monetary policy. All of
which gave us the masquerade of a great moderation that ended in the mother of all asset bubbles.
While we shredded the safety net.
Now the population is learning the arguments about free trade magically lifting all boats
up into the capitalist paradise has blown up. We've shifted the risk onto the working population
and they couldn't bear it.
Perhaps the less partisan take-way would be - is it possible for any political candidate to
get elected in this environment without bowing to the proper interests? How close did Bernie get?
And, how do we fix it without first admitting that the policies of both political parties have
not really addressed the social adjustments necessary to capture the benefits of globalization?
We need an evolution of both political parties - not just the Republicans. If we don't get it,
we can expect the Trump argument to take even deeper root.
Economists lied to the American people about trade and continue to lie about the issue day
in and day out. Brainwashing kids with a silly model called comparative advantage. East Asian
economists including Ha Joon Chang among others debunked comparative advantage and Ricardianism
long ago.
Manufacturing is everything. It is all that matters. We needed tariffs yesterday. Without them
the country is lost.
"... With the reopening of the FBI investigation of Hillary and related scandals exploding all around her, election theft is not only more risky but also less likely to serve the Oligarchy's own interests. ..."
"... A Hillary presidency could put our country into chaos. I doubt the oligarchs are sufficiently stupid to think that once she is sworn in, Hillary can fire FBI Director Comey and shut down the investigation. The last president that tried that was Richard Nixon, and look where that got him. ..."
"... If you were an oligarch, would you want your agent under this kind of scrutiny? If you were Hillary, would you want to be under this kind of pressure? ..."
"... "Clinton's presence aboard Jeffrey Epstein's Boeing 727 on 11 occasions has been reported, but flight logs show the number is more than double that, and trips between 2001 and 2003 included extended junkets around the world with Epstein and fellow passengers identified on manifests by their initials or first names, including "Tatiana." The tricked-out jet earned its Nabakov-inspired nickname because it was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young girls." ..."
Yes they can ;-). that's how two party system is functioning by default. Rank-and-file are typically
screwed. the only exception is so called "revolutionary situation", when the elite lost legitimacy
and can't dictate its will on the people below.
November 4, 2016
The election was set up to be stolen from Trump. That was the purpose of the polls rigged by overweighting
Hillary supporters in the samples. After weeks of hearing poll results that Hillary was in the
lead, the public would discount a theft claim. Electronic voting makes elections easy to steal,
and I have posted explanations by election fraud experts of how it is done.
Clearly the Oligarchy does not want Donald Trump in the White House as they are unsure that
they could control him, and Hillary is their agent.
With the reopening of the FBI investigation of Hillary and related scandals exploding all
around her, election theft is not only more risky but also less likely to serve the Oligarchy's
own interests.
Image as well as money is part of Oligarchic power. The image of America takes a big hit if
the American people elect a president who is currently under felony investigation.
Moreover, a President Hillary would be under investigation for years. With so much spotlight
on her, she would not be able to serve the Oligarchy's interests. She would be worthless to them,
and, indeed, investigations that unearthed various connections between Hillary and oligarchs could
damage the oligarchs.
In other words, for the Oligarchy Hillary has moved from an asset to a liability.
A Hillary presidency could put our country into chaos. I doubt the oligarchs are sufficiently
stupid to think that once she is sworn in, Hillary can fire FBI Director Comey and shut down the
investigation. The last president that tried that was Richard Nixon, and look where that got him.
Moreover, the Republicans in the House and Senate would not stand for it. House Committee
on oversight and Government Reform chairman Jason Chaffetz has already declared Hillary to be
"a target-rich environment. Even before we get to day one, we've got two years worth of material
already lined up." House Speaker Paul Ryan said investigation will follow the evidence.
If you were an oligarch, would you want your agent under this kind of scrutiny? If you
were Hillary, would you want to be under this kind of pressure?
What happens if the FBI recommends the indictment of the president? Even insouciant Americans
would see the cover-up if the attorney general refused to prosecute the case. Americans would
lose all confidence in the government. Chaos would rule. Chaos can be revolutionary, and that
is not good for oligarchs.
Moreover, if reports can be believed, salacious scandals appear to be waiting their time on
stage. For example, last May Fox News reported:
"Former President Bill Clinton was a much more frequent flyer on a registered sex offender's
infamous jet than previously reported, with flight logs showing the former president taking at
least 26 trips aboard the "Lolita Express" - even apparently ditching his Secret Service detail
for at least five of the flights, according to records obtained by FoxNews.com.
"Clinton's presence aboard Jeffrey Epstein's Boeing 727 on 11 occasions has been reported,
but flight logs show the number is more than double that, and trips between 2001 and 2003 included
extended junkets around the world with Epstein and fellow passengers identified on manifests by
their initials or first names, including "Tatiana." The tricked-out jet earned its Nabakov-inspired
nickname because it was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young
girls."
Fox News reports that Epstein served time in prison for "solicitation and procurement of minors
for prostitution. He allegedly had a team of traffickers who procured girls as young as 12 to
service his friends on 'Orgy Island,' an estate on Epstein's 72-acre island, called Little St.
James, in the U.S. Virgin Islands."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/13/flight-logs-show-bill-clinton-flew-on-sex-offenders-jet-much-more-than-previously-known.html
Some Internet sites, the credibility of which is unknown to me, have linked Hillary to these flights.
http
"... With the reopening of the FBI investigation of Hillary and related scandals exploding all around her, election theft is not only more risky but also less likely to serve the Oligarchy's own interests. ..."
"... A Hillary presidency could put our country into chaos. I doubt the oligarchs are sufficiently stupid to think that once she is sworn in, Hillary can fire FBI Director Comey and shut down the investigation. The last president that tried that was Richard Nixon, and look where that got him. ..."
"... If you were an oligarch, would you want your agent under this kind of scrutiny? If you were Hillary, would you want to be under this kind of pressure? ..."
"... "Clinton's presence aboard Jeffrey Epstein's Boeing 727 on 11 occasions has been reported, but flight logs show the number is more than double that, and trips between 2001 and 2003 included extended junkets around the world with Epstein and fellow passengers identified on manifests by their initials or first names, including "Tatiana." The tricked-out jet earned its Nabakov-inspired nickname because it was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young girls." ..."
Yes they can ;-). that's how two party system is functioning by default. Rank-and-file are typically
screwed. the only exception is so called "revolutionary situation", when the elite lost legitimacy
and can't dictate its will on the people below.
November 4, 2016
The election was set up to be stolen from Trump. That was the purpose of the polls rigged by overweighting
Hillary supporters in the samples. After weeks of hearing poll results that Hillary was in the
lead, the public would discount a theft claim. Electronic voting makes elections easy to steal,
and I have posted explanations by election fraud experts of how it is done.
Clearly the Oligarchy does not want Donald Trump in the White House as they are unsure that
they could control him, and Hillary is their agent.
With the reopening of the FBI investigation of Hillary and related scandals exploding all
around her, election theft is not only more risky but also less likely to serve the Oligarchy's
own interests.
Image as well as money is part of Oligarchic power. The image of America takes a big hit if
the American people elect a president who is currently under felony investigation.
Moreover, a President Hillary would be under investigation for years. With so much spotlight
on her, she would not be able to serve the Oligarchy's interests. She would be worthless to them,
and, indeed, investigations that unearthed various connections between Hillary and oligarchs could
damage the oligarchs.
In other words, for the Oligarchy Hillary has moved from an asset to a liability.
A Hillary presidency could put our country into chaos. I doubt the oligarchs are sufficiently
stupid to think that once she is sworn in, Hillary can fire FBI Director Comey and shut down the
investigation. The last president that tried that was Richard Nixon, and look where that got him.
Moreover, the Republicans in the House and Senate would not stand for it. House Committee
on oversight and Government Reform chairman Jason Chaffetz has already declared Hillary to be
"a target-rich environment. Even before we get to day one, we've got two years worth of material
already lined up." House Speaker Paul Ryan said investigation will follow the evidence.
If you were an oligarch, would you want your agent under this kind of scrutiny? If you
were Hillary, would you want to be under this kind of pressure?
What happens if the FBI recommends the indictment of the president? Even insouciant Americans
would see the cover-up if the attorney general refused to prosecute the case. Americans would
lose all confidence in the government. Chaos would rule. Chaos can be revolutionary, and that
is not good for oligarchs.
Moreover, if reports can be believed, salacious scandals appear to be waiting their time on
stage. For example, last May Fox News reported:
"Former President Bill Clinton was a much more frequent flyer on a registered sex offender's
infamous jet than previously reported, with flight logs showing the former president taking at
least 26 trips aboard the "Lolita Express" - even apparently ditching his Secret Service detail
for at least five of the flights, according to records obtained by FoxNews.com.
"Clinton's presence aboard Jeffrey Epstein's Boeing 727 on 11 occasions has been reported,
but flight logs show the number is more than double that, and trips between 2001 and 2003 included
extended junkets around the world with Epstein and fellow passengers identified on manifests by
their initials or first names, including "Tatiana." The tricked-out jet earned its Nabakov-inspired
nickname because it was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young
girls."
Fox News reports that Epstein served time in prison for "solicitation and procurement of minors
for prostitution. He allegedly had a team of traffickers who procured girls as young as 12 to
service his friends on 'Orgy Island,' an estate on Epstein's 72-acre island, called Little St.
James, in the U.S. Virgin Islands."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/13/flight-logs-show-bill-clinton-flew-on-sex-offenders-jet-much-more-than-previously-known.html
Some Internet sites, the credibility of which is unknown to me, have linked Hillary to these flights.
http
Thomas Frank
writes in The Guardian that the WikiLeaks emails to and from Hillary Clinton's campaign manager
John Podesta "offer an unprecedented view into the workings of the elite, and how it looks after
itself." They provide "a window into the soul of the Democratic party and into the dreams and thoughts
of the class to whom the party answers."
This genre of Podesta email, in which people try to arrange jobs for themselves or their kids,
points us toward the most fundamental thing we know about the people at the top of this class: their
loyalty to one another and the way it overrides everything else. Of course Hillary Clinton staffed
her state department with investment bankers and then did speaking engagements for investment banks
as soon as she was done at the state department. Of course she
appears to think that any kind of
bank reform should "come from the industry itself". And of course no elite bankers were ever prosecuted
by the Obama administration. Read these emails and you understand, with a start, that the people
at the top tier of American life all know each other. They are all engaged in promoting one another's
careers, constantly.
Everything blurs into everything else in this world. The state department, the banks, Silicon
Valley, the nonprofits, the "Global CEO Advisory Firm"
that
appears to have solicited donations for the Clinton Foundation. Executives here go from foundation
to government to thinktank to startup. There are honors. Venture capital. Foundation grants. Endowed
chairs. Advanced degrees. For them the door revolves. The friends all succeed. They break every boundary.But
the One Big Boundary remains. Yes, it's all supposed to be a meritocracy. But if you aren't part
of this happy, prosperous in-group – if you don't have John Podesta's email address – you're out.
"... The emails currently roiling the US presidential campaign are part of some unknown digital collection amassed by the troublesome Anthony Weiner, but if your purpose is to understand the clique of people who dominate Washington today, the emails that really matter are the ones being slowly released by WikiLeaks from the hacked account of Hillary Clinton's campaign chair John Podesta. ..."
"... "What is remarkable is that, in the party of Jackson and Bryan and Roosevelt, smiling financiers now seem to stand on every corner, constantly proffering advice about this and that". ..."
"... Do they want more of the same + the Clinton's insatiable appetite for self-enrichmentand that permanent insincere smile? If not, why not give Trump a chance. If they don't like him, kick him out in four years' time. ..."
"... My feeling is this sort of behaviour has its equivalents throughout history and that when it peaks we have upheaval and decline. ..."
"... "Yes, it's all supposed to be a meritocracy. But if you aren't part of this happy, prosperous in-group – if you don't have John Podesta's email address – you're out." ..."
"... Of course you are quite correct, the Democratic Party is a fraud for working people and a collection of self serving elitist. If you have a solution to solve why people keep voting for them I would love to hear it. ..."
"... I am sure the people of Syria and Libya are grateful to these amazing people for destroying their countries and stealing their resources. ..."
"... What's left is a pretty ugly, self-righteous and corrupt crowd. Their attacks on Comey have been despicable, beneath contempt and absurd. I think they're going to lose and they will deserve to. ..."
"... "Former National Endowment for the Arts chairman Bill Ivey says a leaked e-mail to Clinton deputy John Podesta did not reveal a 'master plan' for maintaining political power via 'an unaware and compliant citizenry.'" ..."
"... I use work in these circles and the soul crushing thing is that elites look out for themselves and their careers and have no real personality, morals, values, character, backbone and certainly no interest in the people. They have personalities of wet fish and are generally cowardice and an embarrassment to mankind. In sort a waste of space ..."
The emails currently roiling the US presidential campaign are part of some unknown digital
collection amassed by the troublesome Anthony Weiner, but if your purpose is to understand the clique
of people who dominate Washington today, the emails that really matter are the ones being slowly
released by WikiLeaks from the hacked account of Hillary Clinton's campaign chair John Podesta.
They are last week's scandal in a year running over with scandals, but in truth their significance
goes far beyond mere scandal: they are a window into the soul of the Democratic party and into the
dreams and thoughts of the class to whom the party answers.
The class to which I refer is not rising in angry protest; they are by and large pretty satisfied,
pretty contented. Nobody takes road trips to exotic West Virginia to see what the members of this
class looks like or how they live; on the contrary, they are the ones for whom such stories are written.
This bunch doesn't have to make do with a comb-over TV mountebank for a leader; for this class, the
choices are always pretty good, and this year they happen to be excellent.
They are the comfortable and well-educated mainstay of our modern Democratic party. They are also
the grandees of our national media; the architects of our software; the designers of our streets;
the high officials of our banking system; the authors of just about every plan to fix social security
or fine-tune the Middle East with precision droning. They are, they think, not a class at all but
rather the enlightened ones, the people who must be answered to but who need never explain themselves.
...I think the WikiLeaks releases furnish us with an opportunity to observe the upper reaches
of the American status hierarchy in all its righteousness and majesty.
The dramatis personae of the liberal class are all present in this amazing body of work: financial
innovators. High-achieving colleagues attempting to get jobs for their high-achieving children. Foundation
executives doing fine and noble things. Prizes, of course, and high academic achievement.
...Hillary's ingratiating speeches to Wall Street are well known of course, but what is remarkable
is that, in the party of Jackson and Bryan and Roosevelt, smiling financiers now seem to stand on
every corner, constantly proffering advice about this and that. In one now-famous email chain, for
example, the reader can watch current US trade representative Michael Froman, writing from a Citibank
email address in 2008, appear to name President Obama's cabinet even before the great hope-and-change
election was decided (incidentally, an important clue to understanding why that greatest of zombie
banks was never put out of its misery).
The far-sighted innovators of Silicon Valley are also here in force, interacting all the time
with the leaders of the party of the people. We watch as Podesta appears to email Sheryl Sandberg.
He makes plans to visit Mark Zuckerberg (who, according to one missive, wants to "learn more about
next steps for his philanthropy and social action"). Podesta exchanges emails with an entrepreneur
about an ugly race now unfolding for Silicon Valley's seat in Congress; this man, in turn, appears
to forward to Podesta the remarks of yet another Silicon Valley grandee, who complains that one of
the Democratic combatants in that fight was criticizing billionaires who give to Democrats. Specifically,
the miscreant Dem in question was said to be:
"… spinning (and attacking) donors who have supported Democrats. John Arnold and Marc Leder
have both given to Cory Booker, Joe Kennedy, and others. He is also attacking every billionaire
that donates to [Congressional candidate] Ro [Khanna], many whom support other Democrats as well."
Attacking billionaires! In the year 2015! It was, one of the correspondents appears to write,
"madness and political malpractice of the party to allow this to continue".
There are wonderful things to be found in this treasure trove when you search the gilded words
"Davos" or "Tahoe".
... ... ...
Then there is the apparent nepotism, the dozens if not hundreds of mundane emails in which petitioners
for this or that plum Washington job or high-profile academic appointment politely appeal to Podesta
– the ward-heeler of the meritocratic elite – for a solicitous word whispered in the ear of a powerful
crony.
This genre of Podesta email, in which people try to arrange jobs for themselves or their kids,
points us toward the most fundamental thing we know about the people at the top of this class: their
loyalty to one another and the way it overrides everything else. Of course Hillary Clinton staffed
her state department with investment bankers and then did speaking engagements for investment banks
as soon as she was done at the state department. Of course she appears to think that any kind of
bank reform should "come from the industry itself". And of course no elite bankers were ever prosecuted
by the Obama administration. Read these emails and you understand, with a start, that the people
at the top tier of American life all know each other. They are all engaged in promoting one another's
careers, constantly.
Everything blurs into everything else in this world. The state department, the banks, Silicon
Valley, the nonprofits, the "Global CEO Advisory Firm" that appears to have solicited donations for
the Clinton Foundation. Executives here go from foundation to government to thinktank to startup.
There are honors. Venture capital. Foundation grants. Endowed chairs. Advanced degrees. For them
the door revolves. The friends all succeed. They break every boundary.
But the One Big Boundary remains. Yes, it's all supposed to be a meritocracy. But if you aren't
part of this happy, prosperous in-group – if you don't have John Podesta's email address – you're
out.
It's all polyarchy,plutocracy and powerful lobbyists for the arms and finance industries. The
average US citizen counts for nothing. The higher up on the socio-economic scale you are, the
more you count. Except for a brainwashed vote once every 4 years.
From today's Guardian…
"US politics tends to be portrayed as driven by geopolitical interests rather than personalities,
and so most ordinary Russians assume that little will change, whoever wins."
"And nothing will change for the average US citizen, just like in Britain. Looks like most ordinary
Russians have got it spot on.
And as if that were not enough, the elections are 'rigged' in various ways.
Americans have a great responsibility not only to their country but to other so-called advanced
western democracies which follow they US model. A radical change in US politics to bring it in line
with genuine concern for the interests of the average citizen would greatly assist efforts here on
the other side of the Atlantic to do the same.
Astonishing that registered Democrats rejected one of the cleanest politicians in modern US
history in order to nominate the Queen of Wall St. What do they hope to gain from expanded corporate
globalism and entrenchment of the corporate coup d'etat at home?
Except that it was the same party grandees (Super-delegates - the very word sticks in your
throat no?) who all but confirmed Clinton's appointment before a single ballot was cast by the
party rank and file.
"What is remarkable is that, in the party of Jackson and Bryan and Roosevelt, smiling financiers
now seem to stand on every corner, constantly proffering advice about this and that".
Spot on. There's amnesia today about where the Democratic party historically stood in regard
to Wall Street and its interests.
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
community standards
. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see
our FAQs .
Real issues - like economic well-being for all - have been replaced by Democrats with mindless
identity politics. Clinton is literally running on "I will spend half a billion to reduce bullying",
on unisex bathrooms, and more women of color everywhere.
Is that what democracy should be all about? FDR and other real Democrats would die laughing
if they would see these current "progressive liberals" - they stand for nothing, they are a total
waste of time, as Obama so amply demonstrated.
The warning signals were screaming months ago and the mass media concocted a smear campaign against
Sanders because he wasn't owned and he was the wrong gender.
Sanders would have destroyed Trump in this election.
Yes he did endorse her. Because it is customary for the losing candidate(s) in the nomination
race to do so. He said he would endorse her if she won, right from the start of the process. For
the patently obvious reason, which he repeated again and again, that even a compromised HRC is
far better than Donald Trump.
And he kept his word, but not before he did his level best during the convention to get some
decent policies jammed into the Democratic Party platform.
And if the same sort of leakage had come from the Republicans you'd see exactly the same patronage
and influence peddling. If there's one area of politics that remains truly bipartisan it's the
gravitational pull of large sums of money.
We even read the pleadings of a man who wants to be invited to a state dinner at the White
House and who offers, as one of several exhibits in his favor, the fact that he "joined the DSCC
Majority Trust in Martha's Vineyard (contributing over $32,400 to Democratic senators) in July
2014".
Then there is the apparent nepotism, the dozens if not hundreds of mundane emails in which
petitioners for this or that plum Washington job or high-profile academic appointment politely
appeal to Podesta – the ward-heeler of the meritocratic elite – for a solicitous word whispered
in the ear of a powerful crony.
Something timeless about it all, isn't there? Like reading an account of court life in the
era of Charles II.
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
community standards
. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see
our FAQs .
There's nothing revelatory in the fact that this is happening among the Democrats, there is surely
a carbon copy going on with the Republicans! But somehow I don't think Wikileaks will be releasing
anything about that, until the GoP happens to do something that steps on Putin's toes...
We'll find out the truth about how Wikileaks operates one day. The alignment between Wikileaks
releases and interests of Russian foreign policy became suspicious a long time before you read
on Breitbart that Clinton made it up. And I wasn't in any way denying or diminishing the activities
described in the article. There are just better articles out there, which consider corruption
in "the system" from all sides - which is exactly how it should be viewed, not more of this divide
and conquer bullshit.
It is clear that rigging had taken place in the Democrat primaries, Bernie Sanders was more popular
with a big chunk of the electorate including the young, here in the Guardian few people had a
bad word to say about him, compare that to Hillary who's only strong point seems to be that she
is a safer choice than Trump.
I'm not so sure anymore either. For the world, maybe Trump is better in the end (ofc Clinton is
by far better for the US). I knew what a hawk Clinton is but seeing her "obliterate Iran" comments
made me think she might be even more dangerous than I thought.
The corollary is, Trump is the only candidate that Hillary can beat. That bares some thinking
over, I believe, especially in the light of the way we know the political system and the Democrats
in particular work. Oh well . . .
It didn't matter so much when the right-wing parties were puppets of billionaires.
The political crisis arrived when the supposedly "left-wing" parties sold out to them too.
At which point, democratic choice evaporated.
Financial interests have today captured the entire body-politic of Britain and America, and
it really doesn't matter which party you vote for - Goldman Sachs will call the shots regardless.
And they see you as simply a cash-cow to be milked for the benefit of the very rich, themselves
included.
Your general point is broadly accurate - however I would have second thoughts before singling
out Goldman Sachs any more than say Morgan Stanley , Citigroup or Bank of America.
I think he meant Goldman Sachs as a term for the larger banking group of interests (as you listed).
Some call them the 'white shoe boys'. Everyone knows the banks control everything now.
you've got it the wrong way round....it's the groups you mention that plead NOT speak with politicians.
Please don't include those running hospitals and universities with the worldwide business and
finance mafia.
"This genre of Podesta email, in which people try to arrange jobs for themselves or their kids,
points us toward the most fundamental thing we know about the people at the top of this class:
their loyalty to one another and the way it overrides everything else."
This is quite a mundane observation. To which social group does a tendency for in-group loyalty
NOT apply? I think what it actually shows is that high status people mix together and are more
confident in using such forms of communication with powerful people (with whom they assume a connection)
for personal gain. Hardly surprising. And also only applies to the sample - those who emailed
- rather than the general class. That is, it's a bad sample because it is self selecting, and
therefore says something more about people who are willing to communicate in this way, rather
than their broader class.
So to be clear, I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. One is about how often you are loyal
to your group, and the other is about the nature of loyalty itself.
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
community standards
. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see
our FAQs .
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
community standards
. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see
our FAQs .
That the people at the very top of their industry and professions know each other and communicate
with each other is hardly a surprise. Nor is it bad - it helps the world to function. Nor is it
necessarily corrupt provided they operate within the law. What is important is that getting to
the top of these professions is an opportunity open to everyone with the ability and the drive.
That, sadly, is not the case. Nepotism does not help either.
These people at the top of their professions have a track-record of abysmal failure. Goldman Sachs,
Citigroup and the other banks should have been allowed to collapse in 2008, as fitting punishment
for their greed and incompetence. Instead, they used their paid-for access to the Bush White House
to demand and acquire a trillion-dollar bailout.
[neo]Liberal may be a dirty word to call someone in America but the author of this piece seems
unaware it doesn't work quite the same way the other side of the Atlantic. May I suggest panty-waisted
pointy-head instead?
Better yet: Globalist. Its an underlying theme that we have seen unite the Clintons and Bush/Romney
families in this election cycle...we now know who the enemy is, and they have infiltrated both
the Democrats and the Republicans. They have a secret badge they wear pledging an allegiance to
a higher power: the Clinton/Bush/Romney families are the jack-booted thugs of the American globalists.
The more the administrative class' borderless "humanism" aligns with the oligarchy's desire for
cheap labor, the less objectionable those cuddly persons become.
It's very easy to make a case that HRC is unfit for the presidency... Except for the fact the
alternative is Trump. A clique arranges matters for themselves and the electorate is basically
told to go to hell.
What is over there is on it's way over here if it hasn't happened already. You can build big
corporations with a flourishing financial sector or you can build a nation. I would say choose
but you don't get a choice.
Good job in presenting Hillary as the poor victim, when she has the whole weight of the neo-liberal
media-banking system behind her... Next up in Orwell land...
"Along with the concept of American Dream runs the notion that every man and woman is entitled
to an opinion and to one vote, no matter how ridiculous that opinion might be or how uninformed
the vote. It could be that the Borderer Presbyterian tradition of "stand up and say your rightful
piece" contributed to the American notion that our gut-level but uninformed opinions are some
sort of unvarnished foundational political truths.
I have been told that this is because we redneck working-class Scots Irish suffer from what
psychiatrists call "no insight".
Consequently, we will never agree with anyone outside our zone of ignorance because our belligerent
Borderer pride insists on the right to be dangerously wrong about everything while telling those
who are more educated to "bite my ass!"
― Joe Bageant, Deer Hunting with Jesus: Dispatches from America's Class War
A meritocracy always crashes and crushes its actors and puppet masters whenever merit is neither
exhibited nor warranted ...... for then is it too much alike a fraudulent ponzi to be anything
else.
What Americans need to ask themselves is: Are they happy with things as they are after 8 years
of Obama? Do they want more of the same + the Clinton's insatiable appetite for self-enrichmentand
that permanent insincere smile? If not, why not give Trump a chance. If they don't like him, kick
him out in four years' time.
Are Americans happy with things as they are after 8 years of a Republican Congress stonewalling
every attempt to improve things for ordinary people, even shutting down the whole government in
pursuit of their partisan agenda? The childish antics of our 'democratic representatives' have
diminished the ideals of democracy and would sink even further with Trump, who could do a lot
of damage in four years.
Bit ironic, given your user name "noteasilyfooled". You are aware that Donald Trump (in spite
of several attempts to lose his fortune) is a billionaire?
It has been ongoing through out history, ancient Greece and the beginning of democracy, Romans,
Kings, Queens, courts and courtiers. Is it really a surprise that if you do not have a Harvard
MBA, you won't rise through the ranks of Goldman's and McKinsey? It's no different here in England,
£50,000 and up to dine with Dave and George last year.
Most of the population trusts who they elect to do the jobs they themselves would not do or
could not do, it's steeped in history that the well educated take the helm. Politics is nepotism
and money has always played a very large part, for every party, not just the democrats. Let's
not pretend the republicans are innocent saints in all of this, if Wikileaks were to delve into
their actions there would be a shit storm, remember the NRA is part and parcel of the Republican
party.
Most of the population trusts who they elect to do the jobs they themselves would not do or
could not do
Not sure we do .. We're totally apathetic and cynical in regards to politics, and certainly
those who put themselves forward mostly aren't up to the job but are seemingly unemployable elsewhere;
look no further than the last PM and his idiot chum, and now the current PM and her front bench.
Would you employ 'em?..
Ehm, sorry, no. Remember there is a word, democracy , which is taken to mean that governments
act according to the wishes of the people who elected them. Your petty partisanship is blinding
you.
They are the comfortable and well-educated mainstay of our modern Democratic party. They
are also the grandees of our national media; the architects of our software; the designers
of our streets; the high officials of our banking system; the authors of just about every plan
to fix social security or fine-tune the Middle East with precision droning. They are, they
think, not a class at all but rather the enlightened ones, the people who must be answered
to but who need never explain themselves.
This is across the WHOLE of the West no matter whether right leaning or left leaning.
The really interesting question is whether it has always been like this (and we just don't have
the emails to prove it) or whether this is a fairly new phenomenon. My feeling is this sort
of behaviour has its equivalents throughout history and that when it peaks we have upheaval and
decline.
The current malaise goes back a long way but was catalysed by the end of the Cold War. Because
the West 'won' with a system of liberal capitalist democracy, politics took a back seat to business
interests. The Clintonian and Blairite 'third way' was billed as a practical compromise but the
reality was an abdication of politics. Into this vacuum stepped the kind of self-serving elite
the Podesta emails reveal. Arrangements are starting to break down and Michael Gove's much derided
statement that people have 'had enough of experts' is actually the most insightful thing that
has been said about 21st Century politics so far.
Yes, yes, Thomas. But one click on your name reveals an approach to these elections which about
as unbiased against Clinton as Comley's - it's pretty clear who you want to win.
Among other things, if Trump wins, though, there will be war in Europe within 2 years, as Putin
grabs the Baltic states and the USA sits back, arms folded - you heard it here first.
And by electing Trump, we are trying to fuck up all of the people you mention in your article
above. We can't completely, but through things like term limits we can make Washington a city
full of strangers to them. It is much more difficult to deal with strangers in the "back room"
as you can't trust them.
We need to make Washington as inaccessible to those folks as it is to Main Street America.
We have to break America for these globalist elites before America will work for Main Street
again.
Because the American oligarchy has now turned globalist, their goals are now contrary to those
of the American people, and that's why all Hillary has is empty slogans like "I'll fight for you"
while Trump is saying tangible things like "I'll build a wall" and "I'll renegotiate or tear up
NAFTA."
We are done with them, and this is just getting started.
"Yes, it's all supposed to be a meritocracy. But if you aren't part of this happy, prosperous
in-group – if you don't have John Podesta's email address – you're out."
What's particularly interesting is to contrast the main-chance sleaziness of their internal jockeying
with the overwhelming self-righteousness of their pronouncements on public issues. No wonder the
voters want revenge.
Of course you are quite correct, the Democratic Party is a fraud for working people and a
collection of self serving elitist. If you have a solution to solve why people keep voting for
them I would love to hear it.
I think the point is that all politics is the same, democrat or republican. These people are self
serving leeches on the rest of society and they have us thanking them for it......well in the
USA they have you mindlessly chanting USA USA USA over and over again but you get my drift.
Wikileaks doesn't get 'directed'. It's very likely the leaks are from the inside of the Clinton
campaign. They've been very sloppy and not very tech savvy by all accounts.
That such a state of affairs exists is no surprise at all, especially as the whole proclaimed
basis of society in America is designed to produce it exactly.
They may couch it in different terms and dress it up to look like 'democracy and freedom',
but it is a selfish, greedy stampede where only the lucky or the nasty succeed.
We are forever told that anyone can achieve the 'American dream', but it is a complete myth.
The idea that if everyone just puts in the effort they could all live in limitless luxury is such
a false illusion you wonder why it hasn't been buried along with believing the world is flat and
the sun is a god.
no they don't! The freedom and democracy is just bullshot that cons the populace to not see that
it's really "nick all your stuff under the threat of violence". They're gangsters. That's all
they do.
Seriously? Your story is powerful people associate with each other and do each other favours?
Absent a pure dictatorship, that's how power works. Even then, I happen to know you're inferring
too much design in some of the events you describe.
This genre of Podesta email, in which people try to arrange jobs for themselves or their
kids, points us toward the most fundamental thing we know about the people at the top of this
class: their loyalty to one another and the way it overrides everything else.
We all know how people in power act in their own interests and that goes for both Parties, not
only the one singled out in this article.
What is less clear is how all this hysteria about personalities makes any difference to ordinary
people whose interests have been entirely sidelined in this election circus. Where is the discussion
about how Americans can get affordable healthcare, or a job that pays more than the minimum, or
how to respond to climate change, for instance?
The US presidential race signifies the way the political process has become irrevocably debased.
The e-mails merely highlight the cynicism of politicians who long ago ceded power to the financial
and corporate world.
Politicians don't really understand the complexities of finance, in the same way they are unable
to fathom the Middle east, or even what life has become like for huge swathes of the American
population. At the same time politicians have long ceased to be the engine of social progress,
in fact more often than not their policies are more likely to do great harm rather than good.
If anybody is surprised by the general tenor of these e-mails I assume they must have been
the sort of children who were heartbroken when one day their parents gently sat them down to break
it to them that Santa was actually Daddy in an oversized red suit.
" The dramatis personae of the liberal class are all present in this amazing body of work:
financial innovators. High-achieving colleagues attempting to get jobs for their high-achieving
children. Foundation executives doing fine and noble things. Prizes, of course, and high academic
achievement."
I am sure the people of Syria and Libya are grateful to these amazing people for destroying
their countries and stealing their resources.
Just look over here as former politicians get on the gravy train as they lose their seats or retire.
As for the Eton alumni - closer than the mafia ....
Yes ...just look at thsi stunning revent incisive Guardian journam=lism that has helped break
this open
"But if she wins, what an added bonus that, as the first woman to enter the White House, she
will also step through the door as by far the most qualified and experienced arrival there for
generations."
"Forget the FBI cache; the Podesta emails show how America is run"
First, no, no one in his right mind should forget the FBI cache which very likely contains
evidence of serious crimes by Clinton.
At the very least, they can prove she did not comply with subpoenas and destroyed evidence
and lied to the FBI.
Second, yes, the Podesta e-mails do show us something of how America is run, but the picture
is far from complete.
We've not had a enough look into the Clinton Foundation and its intertwining with the affairs
of a very senior official and the President himself.
One very much suspects Hillary of playing "pay for play" with foreign governments, much the
kind of corruption the US loves to accuse less-developed countries of.
After all, when the Clintons were in the White House, fund-raising gimmicks reached unprecedented
levels. President Bill came up with the offer of a sleep-over in the Lincoln Bedroom for rich
supporters who coughed up a $250,000 campaign contribution.
There are many indications, but no hard proof, of just how corrupt this foundation is. One
analyst who has spent some time studying it has called it a huge criminal scheme.
Let's not forget that Julian Assange, the man who gave us the Podesta material, has promised
revelations "which could put Hillary in jail" before the election.
You're right of course. All of politics is about doing favors for people high and low, you scratch
my back and I'll scratch yours. In the entire article the one real scandalous thing is that it
quotes from hacked personal emails that no on but those who wrote them have a right to see.
If anyone thinks that the immediate solution to not backing this type of behavior from one of
the major political parties is to elect a huckster riding the wave of righteous revulsion to all
of this, then they deserve everything that they will get when said huckster gets to the pinnacle
of power.
The solution does not lie with the other major political party either, boy would I love to
see a release of emails detailing how that organization is run. It is already in collapse due
to the eroding corruption resulting in downright robbery of the people, and on-going bigotry and
constant war-mongering to rob the world of its assets.
Nothing will happen to change any of this unless a realistic third party based on true service
to the people of this country gains national acceptance. The best thing that could come from these
emails and the fracturing of the Republican party would be that all disillusioned and disgruntled
citizens unite to form this third party. This will take the emergence of some genuine, selfless
leadership, but I have hopes that this can and will happen.
Otherwise, the future is not rosy, and one day we may look back at this hateful campaign with
nostalgia.
We have our own elite clubs in this country some of which have been here for centuries. All members
regardless of Party are connected through elite school networks and by of course the class system
which is copper fastened to keep the great unwashed out. Corruption, nepotism and cronyism are
all present here too even if concealed by the veil of respectability and having the right postcode.
From the comfort of their clubs, their marble homes and granite banks they rob the people of Britain
and the world.
I'd recommend reading "The Unwinding - An Inner History of the new America" by George Packer who
dissects this very well via potted biographies of several real people. The book also covers it's
opposite - the rising unemployment, de-industrialisation, repossessions and other themes. A very
useful background for understanding this election and whatever comes after. And a good read too
which can't always be said about such books.
Trump supporters say that Trump is not a politician or part of the Washington "establishment"
but he has built his empire by buying politicians for years. His flock is so fooled.
As someone who started in poverty and rose to do well through lots of hard work and lots of good
luck, the "revelation" that this country is controlled by a smug elite is not news. I may be liberal
but I have no illusions about the elitism and exclusionism that ruling cadres always exhibit.
And if I could achieve one thing, politically, in this lifetime it would be to break the back
of privilege in this country and on this planet forever, and make true meritocracy -- not cronyism,
not nepotism, not herdeitary wealth and power -- the ONLY determinant of success.
Then setup/ join a grassroots party.
I would like to see a pan-European, non-ideological party which will focus on getting people out
of the debt economy into economic and financial freedom. The price of housing and transportation
and education needs to be addressed. There needs to be less government, fewer MPs and more room
for people who create value and employment. There is a lot of innovation out there online for
example, but the mass of people are not being exposed to these options. A
This is how the rich, powerful and landed interest in all societies work. Constitutional democracy
was supposed to counter it`s worst excesses.
Voters everywhere understand how their governments have been subverted and that is why politicians
are mistrusted.
I was confused by your spelling for a second - David Icke.
One theory states that society would have had to crate a similar model if Icke hadn't provided
us with one. It is also, probably, better to blame alien overlords to human ones.
This is a pretty tame assessment. The more I see about HRC (who I once respected, not that long
ago) the more angry and saddened I feel. The Dems have lost their connection with the people they
were meant to represent. What's left is a pretty ugly, self-righteous and corrupt crowd. Their
attacks on Comey have been despicable, beneath contempt and absurd. I think they're going to lose
and they will deserve to.
The funniest thing about the comments of this article is the people who claim that electing Trump
will be different somehow. Trump will demolish the system, Trump will shake things up! Please!
Trump IS a part of this system, a system that has two clubs, A and B. Each club has its interests
and each club wants to elect a figure that would represent its interests. Moreover, clubs A and
B really work together, they are two groups of shareholders that are sometimes in disagreement
in the distribution of profit, but at the bottom line they are working for the same goal, the
enrichment of themselves and their associates. You have to be very naive to believe that POTUS,
a mere public relations figure, would be allowed to make any significiant executive decisions
in this company. That's not what a public relations officer does. The real decisions are with
the executives of the club, and they are not elected, they are admitted into the club. The real
question, however, is if it can be otherwise, if it has ever been otherwise, can we conceive of
a system that would be different. This should be the concern of all political experts, scientists
and journalists.
Yeah but he's going to build a wall, lock her up, tear up trade agreements with the neighbours,
bar Muslims from coming to the USA, create millions of well-paid jobs, open up loads of coal mines,
have a trade war with China, end lobbying, establish limited terms (if only a president could
have a third term) and sue umpteen women for alleging sexual assault.
"Just a bunch of expensive suits deciding on what's best for the world (and themselves)"
That's the wrong emphasis based on the points made in this article; surely it is "Just a bunch
of expensive suits deciding on what's best for the themselves (and the world)".
sanders said it and trump, an insider of independent means, are both right about the Clinton duo's
sleazy corruption. thank you Wikileaks, thank you perv Weiner, thank you Huma for sharing (one
of your) computers with your sex-fiend husband. thank you for sharing your total honesty and high
morality, all deserving that we citizens pay your pensions and salaries.
Its taken a while but i think I've decided. I genuinely want Clinton to lose, i think Trump will
be a disastrous president and the worst in history by far, and worse then Clinton.
That said
Clinton and the DNC deserve to lose for the horrific way they treated Sanders in the nomination
to see Clinton crowned the candidate... she does not deserve to win and i cannot face that smug
arrogant speech which will come if she does much less the next 4-8 years.
Lobbying, influence then a thin line to break into corruption and the system being run for the
selfish interest of the tiny few against the majority. The US is no exception to this, it is just
done more subtly with a smokescreen and sleight of hand.
I'm not sure where the "news" is in this piece. The same rules of engagement apply during Republican
administrations. The same rules of engagement apply in every administration in every country in
every part of our benighted World .... and, sadly, always have done. The only response to the
article that I can think of is that eternally useful Americanism ... "No s**t Sherlock."
it is the elite - both right and left wing who have accumulated all the power, know each other
very well and have one aim in life - to retain the power and priviledge for themselves, their
families and their peers - whether that is by social class, university, religion and yes race.
Bitter - you bet people are bitter - ignorant people who don't see they are all much of the same.
It's all about the power and the money that they have, you don't and you don't seem to care. Actually
you probably do have right power, money, class and race hence the pathetically flippant comment.
Well he's already aware of media bias and that a Deep State exists quietly in the background so
it will be interesting to see what happens after the election.
Brilliant. Absolutely and positively the best piece on the subject I have read. As an American,
once a cable installer who visited all the cliche homes of social-strata USA, I find a ray of
hope ij what you write. It is a hope that Americans will just admit the unbelievable folly of
Hillary Clinton as a choice for dog catcher, much less Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces.
For God's sake, or the sake of Howard Hughes even, this group would nuke Idaho for not approving
of a transexual-animal wedding ceremony, let along disagreeing on healthcare. You have framed
and illuminated a portrait of the macabre aristocracy now in charge. I hope more people read this.
Neither of the two main political parties have a candidate worth anyone's time. The choice
is between a sexual predator and a serial liar to see who will lead the richest most powerful
country on the face of the earth and these two are what the parties have puked up for us to choose
between. I cant imagine a general or admiral sitting in front of either of these two specimens
and thinking themselves proud to be led by them.
This entire cycle is a disgrace, vote for Hillary, impeach her in a year stick Kaine in as
a caretaker and then have a proper election in 2020, its the only sane way out of this disaster.
"Sexual predator", really? You mean like Bill Cosby and Bill Clinton, 2 men with RAPE accusations
following them around for decades? All Trump did was kiss women in show biz and beauty contests,
and they LET him. I guess you never saw Richard Dawson on Family Feud?
You know damn well, people who get to the top in so called western capitalist representative democracy,
only represent themselves. The very idea they care about the people in general is totally demolished
by observing the evidence, how countries function and where the money flows to and where from.
The people are no better than domesticated cattle being led out to graze and brought back in
the evening to be milked. Marx was right when he talked about wage slavery. The slavers are those
in the legislatures of the west.
I really like Thomas Frank, author of the brilliant Pity the Billionaire.
I can't help feeling here that he's really softballed the the US elite (the Democrats in this
case) by only mildly calling them on their epic corruption.
If seen from Main street, is it any wonder the US electorate have in their millions turned aournd
and said "no, you're not going to ensnare us again with your bullshit promises because you want
our vote, you are the problem and we're going to kick YOU out"
I mean how many times can they hope to fool the electorate with bought and paid for contestants,
all the while with the media having their back. When the media is as corrupt and 'owned' as the
US mainstream media, people look elsewhere and there they find voices that are far far more critical
of what their awful rulers get up to.
Trump and Clinton have been friends for years. So the electorate is fooled once again. Every time
the public start to get wind of what's going on, the establishment just adds another layer to
the onion. By the time the hoi polloi catch up, they've siphoned tens of billions, hundreds of
billions for themselves, and created all new distractions and onion layers for the next election.
People are undeniably stupid.
This confirms the existence of a shadow government, made up of rich and powerful industrialists
and bankers who control the way elections results turn out, so that they can help themselves.
From their standpoint, Trump will be a wart in their rear end, because he basically lacks the
sophistication needed to hide excretion under the carpet and walk over it smiling. He is already
full of it and therefore is of no use to them. They did not expect him to come this far. There
is a first time surprise for everything. They did not expect Sanders to gain momentum either.
But they managed to contain it, phew! Now with Clinton, they can continue with their merry ways,
earning billions more, settings fires across the globe and making more profits out them. It is
not just the Democratic party that is full of stench. It includes the other party as well. Right
wing and left wing belong to the same bird. All the campaign for voting, right to vote, participate
etc. are just window wash. American democracy is buried deep in the Arlington cemetery. What runs
now is Plutocracy, whose roots have cracked through the foundations and pillars of this country.
Either a bloody revolution will happen one day soon or America will go the way of Brazil.
The US public are pretty happy generally with extra-judicial killing (we call that murder in
the UK, remember this for later on in the post), seems little concern about the on-record comments
of Clinton regarding Libya.
In fact the on-record comments of Clinton generally, that doesn't even involve hacked email
accounts, are absolutely damning to most Europeans.
However.. here in the UK what passes for satire comedy TV shows have rigorously stuck to the
line Trump is an idiot, Clinton is a democrat.
I can understand their fascination with Trump.. he's an easy target.. but nobody in the UK media
seems to have the balls to call out the fact that Clinton is neck deep in 'extra judicial killing',
which I find odd.. More importantly I find this to be an absolutely damning indictment of British
media. This organ not withstanding.
Interesting, but this just tells of the usual cronyism and nepotism; unedifying as it is. We see
very little here though of her true masters; i.e. Goldman Sachs; or more specifically the people
who own GS who are Hiliary's puppet masters. I would be more worried about Hiliarys ambition apparently
to push for a conflict with Russia; a conflict that serves the Military industrial complex and
the bankers that own it. DT may be a Narcicist but as Michael Moore says; "the enemy of my enemy....."
It's all supposed to be a meritocracy. But if you aren't part of this happy, prosperous
in-group – if you don't have XYZ's email address – you're out.
Great article that makes you think as a reader. For instance, though more ethical, it makes
you wonder how things are different in the BBC or The Guardian, or NYT, or other powerful organisations.
How far does merit count, how far does having the right background, how far not rocking the boat?
Hopefully the article will inspire others to look into the leaderships of American politics where
"everything blurs into everything in this world'.
The most shocking emails to me were the ones that revealed the Democratic Party had a substantial
role in creating and organizing groups like Catholics United, with the intent of using them to
try to liberalize the Catholic Church on issues like abortion and same sex marriage.
The same people who (rightly) cried foul over GW Bush crossing the church/state divide apparently
had no problem doing the same thing when it suited their agenda. I tend to vote Democratic, but
I don't know if I can continue to do that in the future. This kind of thing should not be happening
in America.
With a constitution like that of the US, with its establishment parties sharing a bought and sold
executive evey few years, and in the absence of representative parliamentary democracy, the psuedo
macarthyist insinuations of this article are as civilized as it can get.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3599
"And as I've mentioned, we've all been quite content to demean government, drop civics and in
general conspire to produce an unaware and compliant citizenry. The unawareness remains strong
but compliance is obviously fading rapidly. This problem demands some serious, serious thinking
- and not just poll driven, demographically-inspired messaging."
And there is the thinking of the elite rolled into a few sentences.
"Former National Endowment for the Arts chairman Bill Ivey says a leaked e-mail to Clinton
deputy John Podesta did not reveal a 'master plan' for maintaining political power via 'an unaware
and compliant citizenry.'"
One might think that after reading this article, that a liberal/progressive like me would hate
the Democratic Party and all of the elites in it. Well, you would be right (no pun intended),
but the folks that I really despise are on the GOP side of the equation.
My animosity begins with Eisenhower, who turned the Dulles brother lose on the world to start
so many of the fires that still rage today. Then came Nixon, with his "southern strategy", to
turn the hate and racism that existed in America since its founding into a political philosophy
that only an ignorant, half-assed Hollywood actor could fully weaponize. Then there was GWB who
threw jet fuel onto the still smoldering ashes left from the Dulles boys.
(And if you think you can throw LBJ back at me, consider that he saw no way out of Vietnam
simply because he knew the right was accuse him of being soft on communism - and so the big fool
pushed ever deeper into the Big Muddy.)
And the toxic fumes from those blazes then drifted over Donald J Trump and his fellow 16 clown
car occupants - all trying to out-hate each other.
There is simply no alternative to the Democratic Party because the GOP represents hate, misogyny,
racism, and the zombie legions that catered to the corporatocracy and the Christian right. It
was such a winning strategy that the Democratic Party created the Democratic Leadership Council
(DLC) - led by the likes of the Clinton's who out-repug'd the Repugnants, and stole their corporate
lunches. And this is what we have left (no pun intended).
First, Frank misunderstood Kansas. Now he says he was blind to the reality of the Democratic party
until the Podesta emails enlightened him. He's right though that the Democrats are never out of
power whether they win or lose elections (although it's always more convenient to win them, even
with a Clinton and the knowledge that he or she means nasty baggage to come). Republicans have
a lock on country clubs; Dems have a lock on government.
i understand that the republicans make up most of the governor positions as well as state houses
plus the fed. senate and congress...that is why america is now a banana republic [re: see the
fbi interference] and is why america is now an embarassment...run as it is by the republican duck
dynasty intellectual class. stay tuned as fascism follows. please don't stand close to me...you're
an american and embarrassing....
Trust me, middle and lower-class people also try to let eachother know that their kids need a
job, and can you help out. And I don't mind the bank exec promoting the dinner of locally grown/caught
produce with the tastesful wine pairing. Certainly pretty twee, but otherwise pretty normal.
What should be concentrated on is the amount of "OMG, they are complaining about billionaires!"
whining in these emails, and the amount of manipulative news cycle management and duplicitous
skullduggery that takes place.
And how about a law that prevents the Clintons from even stepping on Martha's Vineyard for
at least 4-5 years?
In all, a somewhat depressing but predictable confirmation that the Democratic party has embraced
the donor class to the extent that the donors are now the party's true constituents.
A self-interested, self-promoting, self-protecting "Elite" seeks to control and dominate. Clinton
is clearly integral to this abhorrent system. The USA is in desperate need of change yet the political
system is the antidote to any change. Trump is not the answer. Americans should be very worried.
The only benefit to Trump winning is that both parties will be blown up and recreated with new,
fresh faces - and Trump will be impeached within months.
Why isn't Trump the answer? No one can give me a valid rational reason. He is one of the few who
has shone light on the Swamp and is bringing the woke corrupt world down.
that elite you speak of happen to be your fellow americans and live on your street..unless of
course you live in a trailer park..in which case stop your whining and get yourself an education
and a better job instead of spending all your time watching wrestling and celebrity apprentice
and moaning about the elite...i notice trump hired his stupid kids instead of cracker jack executives...i
guess thats some of the nepotism you're crying about....ya rube.
Trump is different though. He socialized in these environments...the politicians...use hit him
up for donations....gossip too him about the goings on even try and sleep with him .
Trump does not drink so at these events he probably heard unlimited stories maybe even Bill Clinton
bragged to him.
For what ever reason he wants to bring
This scum down. Maybe they disgust him like they disgust us?
'This genre of Podesta email, in which people try to arrange jobs for themselves or their kids,
' I ss written as evidence of nepotism. But there is no mention of whether or not these requests
were successful. Nepotism requires that the person requesting the favour is granted it.
lol no she doesn't. she doesnt want single payer, neither did obama. she doesnt want a liberal
supreme court. she doesn't want the minimum wage raised to 15. she may support race gender lbgt
"fairness" as long as it is to her political advantage. but when it isn't, she will throw anybody
under the bus.
"Read these emails and you understand, with a start, that the people at the top tier of
American life all know each other. They are all engaged in promoting one another's careers,
constantly."
As long as that class division exists, nothing will ever change, and that class will never
relinquish that division of their own accord.
How different is this from anywhere else on the planet? There will always be " elites" composed
of well connected and/or powerful and/ or wealthy and/or famous people.
I have a good job in a good firm and i am inundated by emails from clients or their friends
trying to place their offspring. I decline politely, blame HR and PC, express my sincerest regrets
and delete.
As for wealthy and powerful people enjoying holidays in the company of other wealthy and powerful
people, so what? I spend my holiday with my friends and my friends tend to have the same professional
middle class background and outlook.
She should have said ."You guys are a bunch of cowardly, greedy, malformed humans. You are the
cream of everything wrong with society today.. And the worse of it all is,. you know it too. I
can smell it in this very room."
That's what!
If we followed the likes of Frank Democrats would be out of power for ever.
No, these Democrats would merely be members of the Republican Party, honestly declaring that the
people with money make the rules to benefit themselves. What's the moral point of being in power
if you have to be just as bad as the opposing party in order to stay in power?
I use work in these circles and the soul crushing thing is that elites look out for themselves
and their careers and have no real personality, morals, values, character, backbone and certainly
no interest in the people. They have personalities of wet fish and are generally cowardice and
an embarrassment to mankind. In sort a waste of space
A meritocracy wouldn't have such hob-nobbing going on for positions of power. There'd be no reason
to ask for special consideration for 'Johnny' -- since he would already have risen to the top
based on his own MERIT. So I don't understand why this author keeps insisting that this is a meritocracy
when the evidence is so clearly and so obviously the opposite.
Once upon a time these emails would have been front and centre of Guardian reporting, headline
news and leader columns, now a single opinion article tucked away from the front page. Truly the
gatekeepers have lost just as much credibility as the political class that they shill for.
It is well known that there is a deep state operating in America, if you want to learn something
instead of sneering and being ignorant, you could do worse than reading books such as these:
This is happening in America, which has always claimed that there are no classes here and everything
is done according to merit. So, yes, it's exactly like the triad you mention and it is the more
offensive for occurring in a country that expressly repudiates it.
That article adds up to zero, it does not tell us anything. There are people with networks, and
people promote other people they know. Nothing peculiar about this, it works like this in every
walk of life. By and large people with high stakes will choose other people who they know can
get very hard jobs done, otherwise their project becomes a failure. Can other talented people
break into these networks? They can and they do.
he's pretty powerful yes. he just runs interference for clinton controlled foundations as far
as i know, but i'm sure he will help out the big banks if called upon. your comment reeks of dishonesty.
The Democrats are as bad if not worse than the Republicans at deceit, manipulation of the media,
leaking false information, feeding out a narrative etc..
Its basically become like an arms race between the 2 parties to win by any means necessary
because they are so polarized.
The system needs to be overhauled and changed because its not fit for the 21st century. The
UK political system too needs to modernise because its creaking as well.
Frank (What's the matter with Frank? Frank) misses the point. completely. The amazing thing about
all these emails is how absolutely squeaky clean Podesta is. How many of us could say the same
if our personal emails from the last 10 years were blasted all over the internet?!? Not one --
not one! -- example of intemperate language, of bias, of unchained passions, of immaturity. I'm
proud to be his fellow citizen and would gladly let him serve as Chief of Staff again if he so
chose. Go Italian-Americans!
The Democratic Party faces exactly the same problem as the Labour Party in the UK.
They are both parties which are supposed to represent the interests of the working class and
middle class but they have been infiltrated by corrupt right wing groups lining their own pockets
and representing the interests of the oligarchy.
The Labour and Democratic parties need to work together to get these poisonous people out of
their organisations before they destroy they destroy them from within.
This is all fascinating, and disturbing, but sadly, not a surprise.
It also isn't restricted to the upper echelons of political parties either.
It is no coincidence we hear the same comedians/pundits/writers on Radio Four every week.
It is no coincidence we see the same people on tv.
It is no coincidence the sons and daughters of sons and daughters of the people who went to certain
universities go the same universities.
It is no coincidence certain arts grants go to a certain group of people a lot more than they
go to others.
It is no coincidence that European grants go to the same small groups of people running organisations.
I'll wager it is no coincidence at the Guardian certain people get work experience and internships.
Its the way the world works, and it stinks.
Great essay. It is hard to get all the thoughts about the elite into words when so much anger
and confusion exist now that all lines have blurred. No longer left and right, but top to bottom.
Whereas the world is mostly very grey for the bulk of us, these emails shed a light very clearly
on what is black and white and green all over for a few who are really in control. This election
has certainly pulled back the curtain and left everyone exposed. For so long Americans could pretend
there was virtue and dignity in the "democratic" foundation of our politics, but now with absolute
certainly we can see that it is not so and likely never was. No pretending anymore.
The class to which I refer is not rising in angry protest; they are by and large pretty satisfied,
pretty contented. Nobody takes road trips to exotic West Virginia to see what the members of this
class looks like or how they live; on the contrary, they are the ones for whom such stories are
written. This bunch doesn't have to make do with a comb-over TV mountebank for a leader; for this
class, the choices are always pretty good, and this year they happen to be excellent.
They are the comfortable and well-educated mainstay of our modern Democratic party. They
are also the grandees of our national media; the architects of our software; the designers of
our streets; the high officials of our banking system; the authors of just about every plan to
fix social security or fine-tune the Middle East with precision droning. They are, they think,
not a class at all but rather the enlightened ones, the people who must be answered to but who
need never explain themselves.
This is a good point. A lot of people who torpedoed Bernie Sanders' campaign against Hillary
Clinton in the primaries seem to be comfortable with little or no political change. They do not
seem willing to admit that the political and economic system in the US (and elsewhere) is fundamentally
broken, and effectively is in ruins.
You' re saying that one bad effect of hacks is that email security will be improved and it will
be harder to have secure communications. In effect, you hate the idea that the NSA can read our
emails, but you're worried that the Russians won't be able to. Personally, I don't want either
the government or Wikileaks to invade my privacy. You apparently think that data theft is OK as
long as Julian Assange does it.
That's an ahistorical understanding of the party. Yes, in the runup to the Civil War, the 'Democratic'
party was the party of proto-white supremacists, slave owners, and agriculturalists. But the party
system as it exists today with its alignment of Dems = liberal and Republicans = conservative
came into being around/after 1968. Claiming that today's 'Democrats' voted against slavery is
like claiming that today's 'Republicans' are worthy of being lauded for being abolitionists -
which would be high hypocrisy given their habits of racism and black voter suppression.
Righteousness and majesty...They are, they think, not a class at all but rather the enlightened
ones, the people who must be answered to but who need never explain themselves.
Exactly what Bernie Sanders was against, just think what 'could' have happened if he were the
nominee. The question is when will the email explicitly showing Clinton undermining him come out?
Hillary deserves every bit of what is coming out against her, she asked for it, she wants the
power and celebrity, but it comes with some pretty ugly stuff. As Mr. Sanders said, she is very
'ambitious', an understatement. If nothing comes out to prove her malice against Mr. Sanders,
I will always be convinced it is there somewhere. Now because of what the Democrats did against
him that was proven and oh by the way 'the Russians did it', we have her running neck and neck
with Trump. They asked for it, they got it.
Why is it that literally all Western democracies have developed totally incapable and immoral
political elites at the same time who seem to be lacking any kind of ethical compass?
It is blatantly obvious in the USA where both candidates are almost equally abysmal, but for
different reasons. But the same is also true in Germany, Great Britain, France and most other
Western countries I can judge on. How did that happen? Where are the politicians who are doing
the job for other reasons than self-fulfillment and ideology?
Trump, Clinton, May, Johnson, Farage, Hollande, Sarkozy, Le Pen, Merkel, Gabriel, Petry ...
and the rest are all product of a political system that is in a deep crisis. And this comes from
someone who has always and will always believe in democracy as such. But how can we finally get
better representatives of our political system again?
What the writer is describing and what the e-mails reveal, is, for anyone with half a brain not
too dumbed down by partisanship; is the structure of a system that isn't democracy at all, but
clearly an oligarchy. The super-rich rule and the rest are occasionaly alowed to vote for a candidate
chosen by the rich, giving the illusion of democracy.
Yup, that about sums it up. Yet in the case the choice is truly awful.
And whilst we are here let's remember that the European Parliament is very democratic. The
US system or the UK System would never allow so many nut jobs from UKIP, FN, Lega Nord and various
other facists have a voice. The EU parliament is very representative.
Good read. Money is like manure and if you spread it around it does a lot of good. But if you
pile it up in one place, like Silicon Valley or the banks, eventually it will smell pretty bad
and attract a lot of flies, like the one that seems attracted to Hillary.
You get some idea of just how batty the US electoral campaign system is when you consider that
John Podesta is the guy who has hinted at 'exposing' the US government 'cover up' of UFOs...and
even got Hillary Clinton making statements about looking into Area 51. Well, that's the vote of
all the multitude of conspiracy loons nicely in the bag -- It only shows just how desperate the
campaigns are.
world history has always provided that the wealthy look after themselves. What's new? Here, both
American candidates are wealthy. But Clinton appears to want to look after others and other will
look at and after her. I'm not sure what Trump can look after, perhaps his business dealings and
bankruptcy triumphs, and lawsuits. Perhaps America is going through a new type of revolution,
generational and the massive entry of the post-industrial age in America. How many Americans are
screaming for the past, while at least one U.S. automakers shifts some of their factories to Mexico
- e.g., Chrysler.
We get the candidates we deserve, in any so-called democracy. The west worships money and glitz
and celebrity, willingly watches "reality" TV, and in general can aspire to nothing better than
material superiority over the neighbours. The U.S., with its pathetic "American Dream," is the
most egregious victim of its own obsessions. Bernie Sanders, who in Canada, Britain, or western
Europe would be considered centrist, is vilified as a raving socialist. Genuinely well-disposed
people with a more humane alternative political vision lack the necessary millions to gain public
attention. And so one is left with Business-as-Usual Hillary Clinton (mendacious elitist one-percenter)
or the duplicitous demagogue Donald Trump (mendacious vulgar one-percenter).
The internet should be a democratic forum for intelligent discussion of alternatives but has
become largely the province of trolls and wingnuts. We should be able to do better.
I'm with MarkusKraut; not because of what the e-mails have discovered - I suspect we all suspected
this kind of machinery from BOTH parties - but because their discovery is entirely one-sided.
What does it prove? That the Republicans are any better? Or that Don is any more qualified to
be president than he was two weeks ago?
No. It proves one thing, and one thing only - that Republicans keep secrets better than
Dems do. At least the important ones.
And I say that as someone who was a security administrator for ten years. And I can guarantee
you one thing (and one thing only): The Russians would NOT have got past any e-mail server that
I built.
My worry is now not who gets elected - this was always a ship of fools - or who's to blame
(although I'm sure we'll be told in the first "hundred days"), but what it means for democracy.
And don't worry, I'm not going to try to equate democracy with Hillary (although I still support
her); but about secrecy .
E-mail has always been the most likely medium to be cracked (the correct term for illegal
hacking), and secrecy is anathema to democracy - always was, and always will be.
And having been caught with their pants down, I'd like to see the Democratic party, win or lose
this election, to say that ALL future e-mails will be a matter of public record. And challenge
the GOP to do the same.
Unfortunately, it'll simply be viewed as a failure of security that any administrator like
me could tell you is almost impossible, and they'll simply buy better servers for 2020.
I've never felt any of the mail to be particularly surprising, but merely a demonstration of what
a NeoLiberal society, run by money, looks like at a more granular level. I won't vote for a Trump,
but living in California I can vote Green without having to pull the lever for a Clinton. If California
goes Trump, then every other state in the nation will have swirled down the drain with him.
In the book 'Who Rules America" written by William Domhoff, first published in 1967, it laid out
how the ruling class sits on each others boards of directors, (which he called 'interlocking directorates",
inhabits certain think tanks and organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations or political
parties, goes to the same clubs, intermarries, and knows one another. I.E. the ruling class is
a coherent group of HUMAN BEINGS. People think they are some abstract, nameless wonder. They are
not. Podesta's e-mails, as Frank rightly notices, show the Democratic Party elite. Another set
will show the Republican Party elite, and how BOTH link to each other.
We are talking about the biggest war mongering outfit on the planet. An election. This ship is
being driven by assholes no one elected...and as per, walk away with money and knighthoods while
the fabric of our society is unravelling. Store water and tinned goods...or good luck on the help
line
Good comment except for the needless hand-wringing about reading "private" e-mails. The freak
show that is the 2016 US general election is yet another clear sign that neo-liberalism is a scam
run for and by bankers, corporate CEOs, kooky tech billionaires, corrupt politicians and other
wealthy and amoral sociopaths.
The media has become their propaganda arm and the divide between what people experience and
see and what the media tells them is happening grows ever wider. Alternative media outlets (although
some of these, such as VICE, are neo-lib shills also) and organisations like WikiLeaks are more
important than ever as they still speak truth to power. Even some dissidents and media 'agitators'
are coming down on the side of the establishment - I am thinking Snowden, Greenwald and Naomi
Klein all of whom have wagged their fingers at Julian Assange for doing a job the media used to
do.
A good rule of thumb that tells you who the establishment worries about is looking at who is
repeatedly denounced in the media. Trump, Assange and Putin currently have the powers that be
worried because they are giving them the proverbial two fingers (or one finger, depending on which
side of the Atlantic you are on) and exposing the rotten framework of lies and corruption that
hold the rickety system together. Media darlings like Snowden present no real threat and are tolerated,
even celebrated.
My analysis is that Trump would not be permitted to win. Why do I say that? Because he has had every
establishment off his side. Trump does not have one establishment, maybe with the exception of the
Evangelicals, if you can call them an establishment," said Assange. "Banks, intelligence, arms companies,
foreign money, etc. are all united behind Hillary Clinton. And the media as well. Media owners, and
the journalists themselves."
He is right, but the same was said about Brexit.
Cognitive Dissonance -> 1980XLS •Nov 4, 2016 8:10 AM
It seems the Shadow Government has decided to go full banana republic.
The sad fact is the vast majority of people simply don't believe this could happen 'here'.
Joe Davola -> two hoots •Nov 4, 2016 9:09 AM
In my opinion, the biggest thing to come out of these emails is the complete manipulation
of the "news". The only thing I can attribute it to is that the media are just another form
of the free-stuff crowd, because it's not as if Hillary offers a shining beacon of ideology. It's
easy to write stories when they're written for you, and it appears that you're really smart because
you "got the scoop".
Sure the Saudi angle is quite damning, but for most that's just too deep and difficult to piece
together - unless the news breaks it down to simple sound bytes (or an emoji). Heck, without Tyler
combing these dumps and lining them up with the overall picture of what was going down at the
time, it would be easy to just get swamped in the sheer volume. Much like the "we've printed out
50,000 emails" wasn't intended to help the investigation, it was intended to bog the process down.
Mike in GA -> I am a Man I am Forty •Nov 4, 2016 8:28 AM
Trump has pushed back on every issue that the establishment has thrown at him. Wikileaks has
helped with their steady drip of revealing emails giving us all a behind-the-scenes look at the
everyday thoughts of our "Leaders". The corruption, collusion and outright criminality thus exposed
could only have been accomplished by Trump - certainly no establishment Uniparty candidate would
so fearlessly take on the daily goring of everyone else's ox.
Now exposed, this corruption and criminality HAS to be addressed and can only be addressed
by an outsider, change-agent president. The opportunity to clean house so substantially does not
present itself often and may never again. If properly executed, the halls of power could largely
be purged of the criminal class so endemic in the wikileaked emails.
This is where it gets pretty hairy for Trump, and for America. These criminals, living large,
very large, on the taxpayer, will not go silently into the night. They will pull out every stop
to stop Trump or at least limit the damage. People will start dying a little faster in DC now.
Can anyone explain why that 55 y/o Major General, about to get the promotion of his lifetime
into the Air Force Missile Command would commit suicide? And why it took 2 months for the AF to
rule it a "suicide"? Rumor says he became privy to domestic EMP contingency plans and was unwilling
to comply.
When assassination becomes a tool of the ruling party, the Party has come to town.
"... The Saudis, the Qataris, the Moroccans, the Bahrainis, particularly the first two, are giving all this money to the Clinton Foundation, while Hillary Clinton is secretary of state, and the State Department is approving massive arms sales, particularly Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... this notorious jihadist group, called ISIL or ISIS, is created largely with money from people who are giving money to the Clinton Foundation? ..."
John Pilger: The Saudis, the Qataris, the Moroccans, the Bahrainis,
particularly the first two, are giving all this money to the Clinton Foundation, while
Hillary Clinton is secretary of state, and the State Department is approving massive
arms sales, particularly Saudi Arabia.
Julian Assange: Under Hillary Clinton – and the Clinton emails
reveal a significant discussion of it – the biggest-ever arms deal in the world was made
with Saudi Arabia: more than $80 billion. During her tenure, the total arms exports from
the US doubled in dollar value.
JP: Of course, the consequence of that is that this notorious
jihadist group, called ISIL or ISIS, is created largely with money from people who are
giving money to the Clinton Foundation?
For the first time a presidential candidate, admittedly from a fringe party, is calling for a
reexamination of 9/11. Jill Stein of the Green Party has recognized that exercises in which the United
States government examines its own behavior are certain to come up with a result that basically exonerates
the politicians and the federal bureaucracy. This has been the case since the Warren Commission report
on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, which, inter alia, failed to thoroughly investigate
key players like Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby and came up with a single gunman scenario in spite
of considerable evidence to the contrary.
When it comes to 9/11, I have been reluctant to enter the fray largely because I do not have the
scientific and technical chops to seriously assess how buildings collapse or how a large passenger
airliner might be completely consumed by a fire. In my own area, of expertise, which is intelligence,
I have repeatedly noted that the Commission investigators failed to look into the potential foreign
government involvement in the events that took place that day. Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan
just for starters may have been involved in or had knowledge relating to 9/11 but the only investigation
that took place, insofar as I can determine, was a perfunctory look at the possible Saudi role, the
notorious 28 pages, which have recently been released in a redacted form.
A friend recently recommended that I take a look at a film on 9/11 that was first produced
back in 2005. It is called
Loose Change 9/11
and is available on Amazon Video or in DVD form as well as elsewhere in
a number of updated versions. The first version reportedly provides the most coherent account, though
the later updates certainly are worth watching, add significantly to the narrative, and are currently
more accessible.
Loose Change
is an examination of the inconsistencies in the standard 9/11 narrative, a
subject that has been thoroughly poked and prodded in a number of other documentaries and books,
but it benefits from the immediacy of the account and the fresh memories of the participants in the
events who were interviewed by the documentary's director Dylan Avery starting in 2004. It also includes
a bit of a history lesson for the average viewer, recalling Hitler's Reichstag fire, Pearl Harbor
and the Gulf of Tonkin incident, all of which were essentially fraudulent and led to the assumption
of emergency powers by the respective heads of state.
The underlying premise of most 9/11 revisionism is that the United States government, or at
least parts of it, is capable of almost anything.
Loose Change
describes how leading hawkish
Republicans were, as early as 2000, pushing to increase U.S. military capabilities so that the country
would be able to fight multi-front wars. The signatories of the neocon Project for the New American
Century paper observed that was needed was a catalyst to produce a public demand to "do something,"
that "something" being an event comparable to Pearl Harbor. Seventeen signatories of the document
wound up in senior positions in the Bush Administration.
The new Pearl Harbor turned out to be 9/11.
Given developments since 9/11 itself, to include
the way the U.S. has persisted in going to war and the constant search for enemies worldwide to justify
our own form of Deep State government, I would, to a large extent, have to believe that PNAC was
either prescient or perhaps, more diabolically, actively engaged in creating a new reality.
That is not to suggest that either then or now most federal employees in the national security
industry were part of some vast conspiracy but rather an indictment of the behavior and values of
those at the top of the food chain, people who are characteristically singularly devoid of any ethical
compass and base their decisions largely on personal and peer group ambition.
9/11 Truthers are characteristically very passionate about their beliefs, which is part of their
problem in relating to a broader public. They frequently demand full adherence to their version of
what passes for reality.
In my own experience of more than twenty years on the intelligence side
of government I have frequently found that truth is in fact elusive, often lying concealed in conflicting
narratives.
This is, I believe,
the strength of
Loose Change
as it identifies and challenges
inconsistencies in the established account without pontificating and, even though it has a definite
point of view and draws conclusions, it avoids going over to the dark side and speculating on any
number of the wilder "what-if" scenarios.
I recommend that readers watch
Loose Change
as it runs through discussions of U.S. military
exercises and inexplicable stand-downs that occurred on 9/11, together with convincing accounts of
engineering and technical issues related to how the World Trade Center and WTC7 collapsed. Particularly
intriguing are the initial eyewitness accounts from the site of the alleged downing of UA 93 in Pennsylvania,
a hole in the ground that otherwise showed absolutely no evidence of a plane having actually crashed.
Nor have I ever seen any traces of a plane in photos taken at the Pentagon point of impact.
The film describes the subsequent investigative failures that took place, perhaps deliberately
and arranged from inside the government, and concludes that the event amounts to an "American coup"
which changed the United States both in terms of its domestic liberties and its foreign policy.
After watching the film, one must accept that there are numerous inconsistencies that emerge
from any examination of the standard narrative promoted by the 9/11 Commission and covered up by
every White House since 2001. The film calls the existing corpus of government investigations into
9/11 a lie, a conclusion that I would certainly agree with.
The consequences of 9/11 are indeed more important than the event itself. Even those who have
come to accept the established narrative would have to concede that "that day of infamy" changed
America for the worse, as the film notes. While the United States government had previously engaged
in illegal activity directed against for suspected spies, terrorists and a variety of international
criminals, wholesale surveillance of what amounts to the entire population of the country was a new
development brought in by the Patriot Acts. And, for the first time, secret prisons were set up overseas
and citizens were arrested without being charged and held indefinitely. Under the authority of the
Military Commissions Act tribunals were established to try those individuals who were suspected of
being material supporters of terrorism, "material supporters" being loosely interpreted to make arrest,
prosecution and imprisonment easier.
More recently, executive authority based on the anti-terror legislation has been used to execute
American citizens overseas and, under the Authorization to Use Military Force, to attack suspects
in a number of countries with which the United States is not at war. This all takes place with hardly
a squeak from Congress or from the media. And when citizens object to any or all of the above they
are blocked from taking action in the courts by the government's invocation of State Secrets Privilege,
claiming that judicial review would reveal national secrets. Many believe that the United States
has now become a precursor police state, all as a result of 9/11 and the so-called War on Terror
which developed from that event.
So who benefited from 9/11? Clearly the executive branch of the government itself, which has
seen an enormous expansion in its power and control over both the economy and people's lives, but
there are also other entities like the military industrial complex, the Pentagon and intelligence
agencies, and the financial services sector, all of which have gained considerably from the anti-terror
largesse coming from the American taxpayer. Together these entities constitute an American Deep State,
which controls both government and much of the private sector without ever being mentioned or seriously
contested.
Suggesting government connivance in the events of 9/11 inevitably raises the question of who exactly
might have ordered or carried out the attacks if they were in fact not fully and completely the work
of a handful of Arab hijackers? The film suggests that one should perhaps consider the possibility
of a sophisticated "false flag" operation, by which we mean that the apparent perpetrators of the
act were not, in fact, the drivers or originators of what took place. Blowing up huge buildings and
causing them to pancake from within, if indeed that is what took place, is the work of governments,
not of a handful of terrorists. Only two governments would have had that capability, the United States
itself and also Israel, unfortunately mentioned only once in passing in the film, a state player
heavily engaged in attempting to bring America into its fight with the Arab world, with Benjamin
Netanyahu subsequently
saying that
"We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and
Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq swung American public opinion in our favor."
To be honest I would prefer not to think that 9/11 might have been an inside job, but I am
now convinced that a new 9/11 Commission is in order, one that is not run and guided by the government
itself.
If it can be demonstrated that the attacks carried out on that day were quite possibly
set up by major figures both inside and outside the political establishment it might produce such
a powerful reaction that the public would demand a reversal of the laws and policies that have so
gravely damaged our republic. It is admittedly unlikely that anything like that could ever take place,
but it is at least something to hope for.
NosytheDuke, October 25, 2016 at 4:36 am GMT • 100 Words
Only by constantly repeating to all and sundry the blatant falsehoods, frauds and meddling
that are evident which absolutely contradict the official narrative of what happened can a tipping
point be reached and the demands for a new, open and independent investigation be the unavoidable
topic in political and social life.
Only after a new, open and independent investigation and a ruthless holding to account of those
responsible has taken place can America go about its business of being great because it is good.
Good luck with that.
3.MarkinLA, October 25, 2016 at 4:39 am GMT • 200 Words
Remember Korean Air flight 007. At that time the conspiracy theory was that the US and South
Korean governments got the pilot to invade Soviet air space while the Space Shuttle was in the
vicinity along with the electronic surveillance plane that crossed KAL007′s path in order to light
up USSR air defenses and collect data.
Whether it was true or not, the Reagan administration used it to vilify the USSR and push it's
hawkish agenda.
9/11 doesn't have to have been done by the government for Deep State entities to take advantage.
Any preplanning of what to do afterward could also be explained by them knowing what was going
to happen (ala Pearl Harbor) and letting it happen. There were plenty of intelligence reports
in the commission proceedings that have indicated something was up but not acted upon. They didn't
have an admiral they could blame like they did at Pearl so the whole system was blamed which made
expanding the security apparatus so much easier.
Too few people know, that the New York Times itself, a few weeks before the NYC towers fell,
photographed 'Israeli art students' (!) working in-between the walls of the those towers, amidst
stacks of boxes with certain markings which … identify the box contents as components of bomb
detonators
World Trade Center's Infamous
91st-Floor Israeli 'Art Student' Project
Also, too few people know that Osama Bin Laden himself denied being involved in the 11 Sep.
2001 NYC towers destruction, & that the 'Osama Bin Laden' videos & tapes shown for several years
afterwards, are clearly-proven fakes with actors
The claimed discoverer of those 'bin Laden' videos & tapes – allegedly scouring the 'Jihadi
YouTubes' for material no one else 'finds' – is Israeli-American Rita Katz of the laughable 'SITE'
– 'Search for International Terrorist Entities'
Dissident US military-intel veterans tell us:
" The truth about [Osama] Bin Laden, that his last known communication was December 3rd, 2001,
received by the CIA / NSA intercept facility in Doha, in which he accused American Neocons of
staging 9-11.
" This was less than two weeks before his death, as reported in Egypt, Pakistan, India, Iran
and even by Fox News, until Rita Katz brought him back to life in the guise of a Mercedes repair
shop owner of Somali parentage living in Haifa, Israel.
" The new short, fat Bin Laden, who lost his ability to speak Oxford English, continued to
drop audio tapes in the dumpster behind Katz's Brooklyn apartment for years, until his frozen
corpse was dumped into the Indian Ocean. "
- Gordon Duff, Veterans Today
Hans Vogel,
October 25, 2016 at 9:07 am GMT
If I recall correctly, it was Thierry Meyssan who in 2002 in his book La terrible imposture
first suggested that 9/11 was a coup. John Kerry's brother-in-law Sarkozy later forced Meyssan
into exile, because he was becoming a nuisance to the US and their French puppets.
Rehmat, October 25, 2016 at 12:35 pm GMT • 200 Words
Dr. Giraldi is missing the point. While Washington and Zionist-controlled mainstream media
had blamed the Taliban, Pakistan, Iran, and lately Saudi Arabia – they never mentioned the 800-pound
Gorilla – the Zionist regime.
The most vilified person had been head of Pakistan's intelligence chief, Lt. Gen. Hamid Gul,
who pointed his finger to Israel Mossad two weeks after the 9/11 – even before media ridiculously
blamed Osama Bin Laden in order to invade and occupy Afghanistan – a country which did not had
a single tank, helicopter, fighter jet or even a commercial plane to defend itself from the so-called
ONLY WORLD POWER.
Hamid Gul's claim on September 26, 2001, is now supported by thousands of scientists, scholars,
politicians, architects and even a Jewish member of the so-called 9/11 COMISSION, Philip Zelikow
(Zionist Jew) admitted in 2004 that America invaded Iraq in 2003 because Saddam Hussein became
an existential threat to the Zionist entity.
In December 2001, US historian Michael Collins Piper claimed that the so-called "19 Arab hijackers"
could have been Israeli agents.
On September 10, 2016, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts posted an article, entitled, 9/11: 15 years of
a transparent lie.
Nine-Eleven Conspiracy Exam (Note: This was written when Israel was the most popular culprit.
Some questions may need to be changed to reflect changes in guilt. Failure to answer all questions
will result in a grade of F.)
Was the US government solely responsible for the attacks? yes___no___Don't know___
Was Israel solely responsible for the attacks? yes___no___Don't know___
Did Israel and the US government together engineer the attacks? yes___no___Don't know___
Was neither Israel nor the US government responsible? yes___no___Don't know___
Were Saudis involved in any way in the plot? yes___no___Don't know___
If Israel was responsible, did the CIA know? yes___no___Don't know___
Was President Bush, through the CIA or otherwise, aware of the Israeli participation, making
the President and the CIA part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___
Did AA77 hit the Pentagon. yes___no___Don't know___
Essay question: If no, What happened to AA77? ____________ Don't know___
If not AA77, did a missile hit the Pentagon? yes___no___Don't know___
If a missile, was ws it fired by the US military, making the military part of the conspiracy?
yes___no___Don't know___
If no, fired by whom? ____________ Don't know___
Did the NTSB fake the data from the flight data recorders, making it part of the conspiracy?
yes___no___Don't know___
Were the Towers destroyed by a controlled demolition? yes___no___Don't know___
Did aircraft hit the the Towers? yes___no___Don't know___
If so, who flew them? ____________ Don't know__
Essay question: Why both controlled demolition and aircraft? Ignore this question if the
two were not used together
Essay question: If a controlled demolition, describe the placement and quantities needed,
and the source of your information.
Was the FBI involved in the cover-up, and therefore part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't
know___
Was Larry Silverstein, owner of the Towers, part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___
Did the media cover up the conspiracy, thereby making them part of it? yes___no___Don't
know___
Essay question: If Israel was involved, should America bomb Tel Aviv?
Diogenes,
October 25, 2016 at 2:24 pm GMT
9/11 was an amazing sociological event for what it can tell us about human psychology. The
vast majority of people uncritically swallowed the official explanation, a few critical observers
cast suspicions on the official story, then a group of chronically suspicious people, known as
conspiracy theorists, who believe the government cannot be trusted had a cause celebre, then a
group of anti conspiracy theorists and pro-government reactionaries devoted their energies to
discredit the 9/11 Truthers while the vast majority of people are as a result confused and paralyzed
into indecision and apathy. I will take note of who in these comments are 9/11 naysayers and observe
what they say about other controversial topics!
The underlying premise of most 9/11 revisionism is that the United States government, or
at least parts of it, is capable of almost anything.
we now know that they set the Waco compound on fire, and that they were firing machine guns
into the only exit once the flames had engulfed the building. Bodies were piled up at the site
of the exit that the coroner ruled were homicide deaths from bullet wounds. Homicides that our
government committed. Most American yawn at such news. 'Those people (including the children)
were 'whackos'.
Recently our government has murdered or maimed or displaced millions upon millions of innocent
men, women and children in the Middle East, and destroyed several countries, all based on by now
well-established lies. Most Americans yawn at such knowledge. Those people 'hate our freedom'.
Our government is also running a permanent torture camp. A 'Ministry of Love', or Minluv, in
Orwell's Newspeak parlance.
The signatories of the neocon Project for the New American Century paper observed that was
needed was a catalyst to produce a public demand to "do something," that "something" being
an event comparable to Pearl Harbor. Seventeen signatories of the document wound up in senior
positions in the Bush Administration.
the "something" that these neocon Zionists demanded from their "new Pearl Harbor like event"
was for America to set about destroying all Muslim nations considered inconvenient to Israel.
Without the 'event', Americans just were not willing to sacrifice their children to the Zionist
cause.
One of the central figures demanding that America act in Israel's interest was a one Phillip
D. Zelikow. A neocon insider extraordinaire.
This from his Wiki page:
In the November–December 1998 issue of Foreign Affairs, he co-authored an article Catastrophic
Terrorism, with
Ashton B. Carter
, and John M. Deutch, in which they speculated that if
the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center had succeeded, "the resulting horror and chaos would
have exceeded our ability to describe it. Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed
event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime
and undermine America's fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949.
Like Pearl Harbor, the event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United
States might respond with draconian measures scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance
of citizens, detention of suspects and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either
future terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks. Belatedly, Americans would judge their leaders
negligent for not addressing terrorism more urgently." [24]
Yes,
that
Ashton Carter, our current Secretary of Defense. And John Deutch was the director
of the CIA at one time. (perhaps Mr. Giraldi knows of him)
This Jewish neocon war mongering Zionist who called for a Peal Harbor like event to catalyze
Americans to go to war for Israel, ended up being the executive director of the 911 Commission.
The same 911 Commission that is universally recognized as a fraud and a cover up. Even by some
of the men who were on it.
I'm going to stop here. My head simply swims from the sheer evil of these people.
Miro23,
October 25, 2016 at 3:20 pm
@Fred Reed
A simpler 9/11 questionnaire for Fred;
"Did right wing elements in Israel close to Likud, and US Neocons close to the Bush administration
engineer the attacks to enable the Iraq war?" Yes____ No____ Don't know____
Essay question: Are there any similarities between these events and other False Flag attacks
aimed at Great Britain and the US such as 1) The King David Hotel bombing 2) Operation Susannah
– Lavon Affair 3) USS Liberty?
9/11 Family Members, Jersey Girls, and member of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee Lorie Van
Auken and Mindy Kleinberg released a report showing how poorly the 9/11 Commission answered their
questions:
The September Eleventh Advocates (Jersey Girls) have released a multitude of press releases
over the years bringing attention to and calling into question certain aspects of 9/11:
Here are the 9/11 Family Steering Committee's list of unanswered questions. The final statement
from the 9/11 Family Steering Committee states "the report did not answer all of our questions…":
Here are all of the different statements released by the 9/11 Family Steering Committee during
the time of the 9/11 Commission. They show extremely well the corruption and compromise within
the 9/11 Commission:
@Fred Reed
Nine-Eleven Conspiracy Exam (Note: This was written when Israel was the most popular culprit.
Some questions may need to be changed to reflect changes in guilt. Failure to answer all questions
will result in a grade of F.)
Was the US government solely responsible for the attacks? yes___no___Don't know___
Was Israel solely responsible for the attacks? yes___no___Don't know___
Did Israel and the US government together engineer the attacks? yes___no___Don't know___
Was neither Israel nor the US government responsible? yes___no___Don't know___
Were Saudis involved in any way in the plot? yes___no___Don't know___
If Israel was responsible, did the CIA know? yes___no___Don't know___
Was President Bush, through the CIA or otherwise, aware of the Israeli participation, making the
President and the CIA part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___
Did AA77 hit the Pentagon. yes___no___Don't know___
Essay question: If no, What happened to AA77? ____________ Don't know___
If not AA77, did a missile hit the Pentagon? yes___no___Don't know___
If a missile, was ws it fired by the US military, making the military part of the conspiracy?
yes___no___Don't know___
If no, fired by whom? ____________ Don't know___
Did the NTSB fake the data from the flight data recorders, making it part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't
know___
Were the Towers destroyed by a controlled demolition? yes___no___Don't know___
Did aircraft hit the the Towers? yes___no___Don't know___
If so, who flew them? ____________ Don't know__
Essay question: Why both controlled demolition and aircraft? Ignore this question if the two were
not used together
Essay question: If a controlled demolition, describe the placement and quantities needed, and
the source of your information.
Was the FBI involved in the cover-up, and therefore part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___
Was Larry Silverstein, owner of the Towers, part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___
Did the media cover up the conspiracy, thereby making them part of it? yes___no___Don't know___
Essay question: If Israel was involved, should America bomb Tel Aviv?
Was the US government solely responsible for the attacks? yes___no___Don't know___
no, Israel was also responsible
Was Israel solely responsible for the attacks? yes___no___Don't know___
No, elements in the US gov and controlled media were also responsible
Did Israel and the US government together engineer the attacks? yes___no___Don't know___
not governments per se, but
elements
in those governments. Like "the orders still stand"
Dick Cheney, but certainly not all the assorted minions of the US or Israeli governments.
Was neither Israel nor the US government responsible? yes___no___Don't know___
not governments per se. If you restrict the question to this broadly defined blanket condemnation,
then the answer would be 'yes'.
Were Saudis involved in any way in the plot? yes___no___Don't know___
there's zero reason for thinking so
If Israel was responsible, did the CIA know? yes___no___Don't know___
at the highest levels, yes, but there again, that certainly doesn't mean every single employee
Was President Bush, through the CIA or otherwise, aware of the Israeli participation, making
the President and the CIA part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___
Don't know
Did AA77 hit the Pentagon. yes___no___Don't know___
there's no evidence of it. And if it had, they'd show us one of the scores (hundreds?) of videos
Essay question: If no, What happened to AA77? ____________ Don't know___
the reason the flights were wildly diverted was probably to land the planes, liquidate the
passengers and crew, and then send up specially outfitted jets for the purpose of crashing into
the towers. (as the pretext for them to collapse, as the pretext to start the Eternal Wars for
Israel and to turn us all into Palestinians)
If not AA77, did a missile hit the Pentagon? yes___no___Don't know___
it looks like it
If a missile, was ws it fired by the US military, making the military part of the conspiracy?
yes___no___Don't know___
Don't know. And again, it wouldn't be "the military", as in some monolithic entity that is
fully aware of everything that "it' does. There are fringe sub-sets of the military that are often
engaged in illegal and covert ops.
If no, fired by whom? ____________ Don't know___
Don't know
Did the NTSB fake the data from the flight data recorders, making it part of the conspiracy?
yes___no___Don't know___
what data?!
From what I understand, we have not been made privy to any of the information on any of the
flight data recorders. If you're aware of any data from the flight data recorders then you should
give us a link!
Were the Towers destroyed by a controlled demolition? yes___no___Don't know___
yes
it's *obvious* that building seven was thus demolished, and so it follows that the other two
were also.
Did aircraft hit the the Towers? yes___no___Don't know___
two of them, yes. The third was not hit by a plane, it simply plopped down in nicely cut pieces
ready for shipment to China.
If so, who flew them? ____________ Don't know__
In all likelihood, remote control. Check out the comptroller of the Pentagon at the time and
his sundry organizations. Nice little rabbit hole of its own.
Essay question: Why both controlled demolition and aircraft? Ignore this question if the
two were not used together
horror
they needed to horrify and anger the American people to rally us to war on Israel's neighbors.
(+ there was the added benefit to lucky Larry of a few billion shekels and an opportunity to get
rid of a couple of financial boondoggles. Such a deal!)
Essay question: If a controlled demolition, describe the placement and quantities needed,
and the source of your information.
this is silly
we don't need to know the exact caliber of bullet that hit JFK to know that the government
and Warren commission was lying. And they likely used military type crap that we're not even privy
to. Come on Fred.
Was the FBI involved in the cover-up, and therefore part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't
know___
elements, sure
like the people that went around and collected all the videos that might have showed what hit
the Pentagon. Certainly the people at the top were and are privy to the crime and cover up. Just
like with JFK.
Was Larry Silverstein, owner of the Towers, part of the conspiracy? yes___no___Don't know___
Yes, of course he was
Did the media cover up the conspiracy, thereby making them part of it? yes___no___Don't
know___
not your local channel seven, but the media as it's controlled from the top, and lie about
EVERTYING. Yes Fred, that media was complicit. And still are. And are the ones that are going
to hand the reins of this nations to Hillary Clinton. That media, you betcha.
Essay question: If Israel was involved, should America bomb Tel Aviv?
of course not. There again you're being silly Fred.
what America should do is the same thing is should (and still needs to) do as regards the other
cowardly and treacherous false flag that *elements* in the Israeli government and security forces
were responsible for- the attack on the USS Liberty. We should have a real investigation that
ferrets out these uber-criminals and brings them to justice.
911 was a coup to turn the US into Israel's rabid dog in the Levant. And create a police state
for any Americans that object, even with our very own torture camp. Isn't that something?
You should write about it someday Fred. I can't think of a person more suited to mock the American
idea of the free and the brave running a torture camp for goat herders and Afghans who don't want
America making them free too.
as for 911, all you have to know is that building seven was an obvious controlled demolition.
From there it doesn't matter if George Dubya Bush was in on it or what type of materials specifically
were used to bring the buildings down. That shit is all academic. We know they lied, and are lying.
Only a deluded fool or moral coward (or worse) would pretend to themselves otherwise once he's
seen the irrefutable evidence that they're lying.
There are multiple ways to engineer a "False Flag" attack:
1. You do it yourself, flying someone else's "flag" and hope no one notices. (Very primitive
… rarely works unless you are a wooden frigate at sea attacking enemy maritime commerce.)
2. You hire someone else to do it and hope none of them get caught. (Moderately primitive …
but it worked for awhile in the Kennedy assassination.)
3. You infiltrate a hostile terrorist organization, take control, and redirect it to the attack.
(Very difficult to do … but this was done in the NATO-sponsored Gladio terrorist attacks in Europe
in the 1960s as well as the Black Hand attacks that precipitated WWI.)
4. You infiltrate a hostile terrorist organization, discover what they have planned, and QUIETLY
remove all of YOUR obstacles that would otherwise have prevented the attack. (This is the best
if you can pull it off since you leave no fingerprints. You might, as in 911, be accused of incompetent
but, okay, you missed that one, so what!)
BTW: #4 doesn't mean you don't help the terrorists with a little demolition work to make sure
the spectacle unfolds as planned. You really need grand firework displays in these things to get
them the attention they deserve.
Si1ver1ock, October 25, 2016 at 5:04 pm GMT
For those just coming into the 911 Truth movement, you should probably look at the hard evidence
first to see if it merits further consideration. After that, you can go to he circumstantial evidence.
The question isn't whether this theory or that theory is absolutely correct. The question is whether
there is sufficient cause for a new investigation. I never hear a good argument from the anti-Truth
crowd as to why we shouldn't have another investigation.
We want a new investigation. They don't want one. Why?
Miro23, October 25, 2016 at 7:17 pm GMT
A key to instant identification of the faith-based C-theorist is the loud claim that
"steel-framed buildings" don't collapse as a result of fire. Fact is, yes they do - known,
verified, fully-explained using real, verifiable data.
Here's a list of steel framed high rises and other high rises that experienced major fires:
– One New York Plaza, New York. 50 stories steel. Dropped beams on 33rd & 34th floors.
– Alexis Nihon Plaza, Montreal. 15 stories steel. Partial collapse on 11th floor.
– Windsor Tower, Madrid. 29 stories steel/concrete. Partial collapse.
– One Meridian Plaza, Philadelphia. 38 stories. No collapse.
– Broadgate Phase 8, London. 14 stories. No collapse.
– First Interstate Bank, Los Angeles. 62 stories. No collapse.
– MGM Grand Hotel, Las Vegas. 26 stories. No collapse.
– Joelma Building, Sao Paulo. 25 stories. No collapse.
– Andraus Building, Sao Paulo. 31 stories. No collapse.
These fires were much longer lasting and more intense than the WTC fires and none of these
buildings experienced a complete collapse.
Can you give a list of modern steel frame 20 storey+ buildings similar to WTC 1, 2 & 7 that have
experienced a complete collapse due to fire – known and verified.
I have repeatedly noted that the Commission investigators failed to look into the potential
foreign government involvement in the events that took place that day. Israel, Saudi Arabia,
and Pakistan just for starters may have been involved in or had knowledge relating to 9/11
but the only investigation that took place, insofar as I can determine, was a perfunctory look
at the possible Saudi role, the notorious 28 pages, which have recently been released in a
redacted form.
It might have been worth checking out Israel a bit more closely. They have been running False
Flag operations against the British and the US for years, aimed at engaging them in war against
Arab states. For example:
The Irgun bombing of the King David Hotel (headquarters of the British Mandate Government of
Palestine) in which Zionists dressed as Arabs placed milk churns filled with explosives against
the main columns of the building killing 91 people and injuring 44. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu
attended a celebration to commemorate the event.
Operation Susannah (Lavon Affair) where Israeli operatives impersonating Arabs bombed British
and American cinemas, libraries and educational centres in Egypt to destabilize the country and
keep British troops committed to the Middle East.
Or on June 8th 1967, the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty with unmarked aircraft and torpedo
boats. 34 men were killed and 171 wounded, with the attack in international waters following nine
hours of close surveillance. When the ship failed to sink, the Israeli government concocted an
elaborate story to cover the crime. Original plan to blame the sinking with all lives lost on
the Egyptians and draw the US into the 6 Day War.
Or Israelis and U.S. Zionists appearing all over the more recent WTC 9/11 "Operation" with
Israelis once again impersonating Arabs in a historic deception/terror action of a type that carries
a lot of kudos with old ex-terrorist Likudniks. In any event, Israelis were sent to film the historic
day (as they later admitted on Israeli TV), with the celebrations including photos of themselves
with a background of the burning towers.
CanSpeccy
says: • Website October 25, 2016 at 9:57 pm GMT •
@War for Blair Mountain
add in the fact that the steel support beams only had to be softened not melted to cause catastrophic
structural failure.
You are absolutely correct about that. If the beams had melted, or even softened, then the building
would have collapsed. But not straight down at near free-fall speed into its own footprint, while
crushing all the concrete to dust.
If the columns had melted, or merely softened, they would not have melted or softened uniformly
across the the building, so the result would have been an asymetric collapse resulting in the
top of the building toppling over and crashing onto the roof of adjacent buildings. The portion
of the building beneath the fire zone would have been left standing.
Pretty much my response. Something, I know not what, is amiss with Our Favorite Expatriate.
Not being sure of what really happened in an event this pivotal is a reason to proceed with
further discussion and investigation- not to shut it down.
The most successful, by far, commando operation in history performed flawlessly by a bunch
of guys with boxcutters directed by cell phone by a fugitive hiding out in a cave in Afghanistan
?
On the the face of it, that matches the goofiest of any of the conspiracy theories.
On the the face of it, that [the theory about 19 guys with box-cutters under the direction
of fugitive in a cave in Afghanistan] matches the goofiest of any of the conspiracy theories.
And even the members of the 9/11 Commission have admitted they don't really believe it.
Thus:
The co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton)
said
that the CIA (and likely the White House) "obstructed our investigation".
"... The emails currently roiling the US presidential campaign are part of some unknown digital collection amassed by the troublesome
Anthony Weiner, but if your purpose is to understand the clique of people who dominate Washington today, the emails that really matter
are the ones being slowly released by WikiLeaks from the hacked account of Hillary Clinton's campaign chair John Podesta. ..."
The emails currently roiling the US presidential campaign are part of some unknown digital collection amassed by the troublesome
Anthony Weiner, but if your purpose is to understand the clique of people who dominate Washington today, the emails that really matter
are the ones being slowly released by WikiLeaks from the hacked account of Hillary Clinton's campaign chair John Podesta. They
are last week's scandal in a year running over with scandals, but in truth their significance goes far beyond mere scandal: they
are a window into the soul of the Democratic party and into the dreams and thoughts of the class to whom the party answers.
The class to which I refer is not rising in angry protest; they are by and large pretty satisfied, pretty contented. Nobody takes
road trips to exotic West Virginia to see what the members of this class looks like or how they live; on the contrary, they are the
ones for whom such stories are written. This bunch doesn't have to make do with a comb-over TV mountebank for a leader; for this
class, the choices are always pretty good, and this year they happen to be excellent.
They are the comfortable and well-educated mainstay of our modern Democratic party. They are also the grandees of our national
media; the architects of our software; the designers of our streets; the high officials of our banking system; the authors of just
about every plan to fix social security or fine-tune the Middle East with precision droning. They are, they think, not a class at
all but rather the enlightened ones, the people who must be answered to but who need never explain themselves.
"... 46 percent of likely voters believe the news media is "the primary threat that might try to change the election results." ..."
"... Our news is all manipulation of facts, distortions, ommissions and outright lies. All set to serve an official narrative created by some cabal. ..."
These are some pretty damning results for the mainstream media. Not only does the American public
see the media as a bigger threat to election results than Russian hackers, it's not even close.
Voters fear the media far more than Russian hackers when it comes to tampering with election
results.
According to a
Suffolk
University/USA Today poll , 46 percent of likely voters believe the news media is "the primary
threat that might try to change the election results."
The national political establishment was the second most-suspected group at 21 percent, and
another 13 percent were undecided.
Foreign interests, including "Russian hackers," ranked fourth with 10 percent and "local political
bosses" came in last with 9 percent of likely voters as the main threat to truthful election results.
With all the controversy and scandal on Hillary emerging from Wikileaks and the new FBI investigation
of the Clinton Foundation this is what Fox News was focused on yesterday; the poll numbers and
defending Hillary and slamming Donald J. Trump.
Fuck the crooked MSM and I am officially vowing to become a dedicated RT viewer. Our news is
all manipulation of facts, distortions, ommissions and outright lies. All set to serve an
official narrative created by some cabal. Fuck them all!!!
Just look at this partial list of major Clinton donors below. Fuck Hillary she deserves to
be in jail not running for president!
The list of donors to the Clinton campaign includes many of the most powerful media institutions
in the country - among the donors:
Comcast (which owns NBC, and its cable sister channels, such
as MSNBC);
James Murdoch of News Corporation (owner of Fox News and its sister stations, among
many other media holdings);
Time Warner (CNN, HBO, scores of other channels);
Bloomberg;
Reuters;
Viacom;
Howard Stringer (of CBS News);
AOL (owner of Huffington Post);
Google;
Twitter;
The Washington
Post Company;
George Stephanopoulos (host of ABC News' flagship Sunday show);
"... Hillary led us to disaster in Iraq, in Syria, in Libya. ... Hillary and our failed Washington establishment have spent $6 trillion on wars in the Middle East, and now it's worse than it's ever been before. ..."
"... Okay, folks. She – I'll tell you what. She will get us into World War III. She will get us into World War III. I will tell you that. She's incompetent. She will get us into World War III. ..."
"... The arrogant political class never learns. They keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again. They keep telling the same lies. They keep producing the same failed results. ..."
"... Clinton on the other hand has a proven record of being a proactive hawk. She is willing to go to war and to kill people because the U.S. can. ..."
"... She is a political animal totally dependent on her sponsors. Economically she is pro-banks, pro-big-business and for further deregulation. A neoliberal. ..."
"... She is willing to go to war and to kill people because the U.S. can. ..."
"... That works only on the third world hellholes. The problem with Hillary (and her circle) is that they don't really know the difference between those hellholes and a thing called in US military lingo "near-peer" or "peer". They say that they know but they don't, neither does most of "academe". ..."
"... IMO, this vote is the only way to hold her to account. Once she is in, the Clinton machine will be using "We the People" as door mats. ..."
"... On domestic policy and economic policy, both candidates are abominable. Hillary is, even there I would argue, more dangerous because she actually understands the implications and effects of her policy positions and still holds them. ..."
"... On foreign policy, I have to agree that Hillary is far more dangerous. Even if Trump ditches his rational foreign policy positions for the standard inside-the-beltway neoconservatism, he has the advantage of being inept. ..."
"... clinton has spent her entire adult life avoiding accountability. a cursory glance at the behavior of her cultish followers shows that anyone trying to hold her to any standard gets screeched out of the room (never mind getting on any mainstream news channel). every time she screws up it's "someone else's fault". it's putin or the FBI or some variety of "bro". ..."
"... george carlin's "who owns you" should be required viewing for every US voter. ..."
"... The O'Bomber evidently said he doesn't understand Trump's popularity ... It isn't that Trump is popular it is that, due in part to the O'Bomber himself, the Killary is viewed as anathema. ..."
"... If elected Hillary would have as much contempt for the electorate as she had for her staff. ..."
"... In an e-mail sent from Comcast after Clinton was interviewed by NBC's Matt Lauer, Lauer came under fire after questioning Hillary on the e-mails, according to the technical crew after the show Hillary proceeded to pick up a full glass of water and throw it at the face of her assistant and then the screaming started, she was in full meltdown, she came apart literally unglued, she is the most foul mouthed woman I've ever heard, and that voice at screech level…"If that f-ing bastard wins we all hang from nooses! Lauer's finished and if I lose its all on your heads for screwing this up". She screamed "she'd get that f-ing Lauer fired for this". ..."
"... Donna Brazile was singled out by Clinton.."I'm so sick of your face, you stare at the wall like a brain dead buffalo while letting that fucking Lauer get away with this. What are you good for really? Get the f–k to work janitoring this mess.. do I make myself clear". ..."
"... Hope the Americans don't vote that psychopath Clinton in, if they do keep her away from that football. ..."
"... Oh well my twenty cents worth is that Trump doesn't have enough legislative support to do anything too drastic externally. ..."
"... The real issue of both candidates is their vice asshole nominee, cos I reckon which ever creep wins impeachment will be just around the corner. Of course Hillary is more likely to be impeached the open fbi investigation combined with an almost certain rethug majority in senate and a certain one in Congress means her odds of lasting the distance are not great. ..."
"... Trump has a lot of work to do to prevent the rethug 'leadership' taking a big bung from the sponsors to impeach him for some misdeed or another. ..."
"... There is absolutely no point in listening to what any modern pol says, the reality they peddle is mutable, changing according to their needs. Such types can only be measured by what they have done in the past & in the case of Mrs Clinton that is a farrago of broken promises & sell outs to her sponsors. ..."
"... I voted for Trump, despite being thoroughly on the left. Trump's vilification by the globalist elite means that he has to be doing something right. ..."
"... When a normal person tries to be a politician, they sound like Trump because normal people give themselves away when they stretch the truth. It's the dangerous psychos who sound good-natured and reasonable, because they can lie and don't feel a thing when they do it. ..."
"... Hmmmm. Do all the Hillbottoms like pizza parties? With beans and eggs. And lots of cheese. Remember, remember the 5th of November. The pedo-queen won't EVER forget the date. Tick-tock. ..."
For me, as a non U.S. person, the major issues of the U.S. presidential elections is always foreign
policy. There Trump is not hawkish at all. He has somewhat confused, unlearned blustering positions
on foreign policy but is basically a cautious, risk averse businessman. He consistently criticizes
the war mongering in Washington DC. Hillary Clinton is a run-of-the-mill warmongering neoconservative
compatible with the imperial "mainstream" of the power centers in Washington and elsewhere.
Trump has called up this contrast again and again (as
do I). In
a speech (vid at 53:20 min) in Grand Rapids Michigan on October 31 he again highlights these
points. Some excerpts (taken from
this partial transcript part 9, 10):
Hillary led us to disaster in Iraq, in Syria, in Libya. ... Hillary and our failed Washington
establishment have spent $6 trillion on wars in the Middle East, and now it's worse than it's
ever been before.
Had Obama and others gone to the beach, Obama could have gone to the golf course, we would
have been in much better shape.
We shouldn't have gone into the war, and she thinks I'm a hawk. Oh, Donald Trump.
...
Imagine if some of the money had been spent, $6 trillion in the Middle East, on building new schools
and roads and bridges right here in Michigan.
Now Hillary, trapped in her Washington bubble, that's blind to the lessons, wants to start
a shooting war in Syria in conflict with a nuclear armed Russia that could drag us into a World
War III.
Okay, folks. She – I'll tell you what. She will get us into World War III. She will get
us into World War III. I will tell you that. She's incompetent. She will get us into World War
III.
The arrogant political class never learns. They keep repeating the same mistakes over and
over again. They keep telling the same lies. They keep producing the same failed results.
Trump may well be lying when he says he does not seek a conflict with Russia or anyone else. Trump
surely lies on other issues. But those are mostly rather obvious lies and some are even a bit comical.
He is playing Reagan on economic issues, promising tax cuts that can not be financed (and which Reagan
had to take back in the end when he introduced the
biggest
tax hike ever). On many issues we do not know what Trump is really planning to do (or if he plans
at all). But he has never given the impression that he is hawkish or willing to incite a war.
Clinton on the other hand has a proven record of being a proactive hawk. She is willing to go
to war and to kill people because the U.S. can.
She is a political animal totally dependent on her sponsors. Economically she is pro-banks, pro-big-business
and for further deregulation. A neoliberal. The only "liberal" standpoints she has are on some hyped
identity issues relevant only for a very tiny group of people like transgenders. She told her real
voters, the people who pay her, that her public standpoint on many issues
is different from the one she will pursue. She did not mean that what she will pursue will be
less hawkish than her public stand, or that she will be more progressive on economic issues than
she openly claims.
Clinton assures us that Trump is
Putin's puppet who
will start a nuclear World War III with Russia. She doesn't say how that computes. Will Putin
order Trump to give him asylum in Washington while Moscow and Washington get nuked?
With Trump the U.S. would get a president who is a pretty unknown factor but, in my judgment,
a less dangerous one to the U.S. and the world than Clinton. With her the next useless and deadly
wars are practically guaranteed.
... ... ..
The citizens of the United States now have an opportunity to hold Secretary of State Clinton to
account for her " We came,
we saw, he died " war on Libya and for escalating the war on Syria. The militaristic (and failed)
pivot to Asia, the "regime changes" putsches in Honduras and Ukraine and the deterioration of relations
with Russia are also to a large part her work. Should the voters reward her for all the death, misery
and new dangers she created as Secretary of State by making her President?
... ... ...
Posted by b on November 3, 2016 at 03:22 PM |
Permalink
She is willing to go to war and to kill people because the U.S. can.
That works only on the third world hellholes. The problem with Hillary (and her circle)
is that they don't really know the difference between those hellholes and a thing called in US
military lingo "near-peer" or "peer". They say that they know but they don't, neither does most
of "academe".
In addition to Goldman, Mnuchin also worked at Soros Fund Management, whose founder, George
Soros, has funded many left-leaning causes. Where it gets even more bizarre is that Mnuchin has
donated frequently to Democrats, including to Clinton and Barack Obama.
On domestic policy and economic policy, both candidates are abominable. Hillary is, even there
I would argue, more dangerous because she actually understands the implications and effects of
her policy positions and still holds them. Trump doesn't seem to have anything more than a thin
grasp over any policy matter. He might get into office and forget about his giant tax cut.
On foreign policy, I have to agree that Hillary is far more dangerous. Even if Trump ditches
his rational foreign policy positions for the standard inside-the-beltway neoconservatism, he
has the advantage of being inept.
no idea why you value this guy's opinion...typical FP neoliberal yuppie nonsense. the fact that
he thinks anyone can or will "hold her accountable" after she gets voted in makes me wonder if
he can even tie his own shoelaces. as for "immoral", that just tells me he places "locker room
talk" at a lower moral realm than participation in genocide and plutocratic plunder.
how did that "hold me accountable" thing work out from 2008-2012? and when the voters had a
chance to hold obama accountable for his first term what did they do? voted him in again and then
went back to four years of paying zero attention to the world around them unless the MSM gave
them an occasional Two Minute Hate or some "tragedy" they were instructed to feel sad about.
clinton has spent her entire adult life avoiding accountability. a cursory glance at the
behavior of her cultish followers shows that anyone trying to hold her to any standard gets screeched
out of the room (never mind getting on any mainstream news channel). every time she screws up
it's "someone else's fault". it's putin or the FBI or some variety of "bro".
george carlin's "who owns you" should be required viewing for every US voter. not
only will she say anything to get elected but once she's in will laugh at the notion of anyone
telling her what to do. she has nothing but contempt for all voters and i wouldn't be surprised
if she held her own supporters even lower. how can you respect a group that has so little respect
for themselves or the truth?
On foreign policy, I have to agree that Hillary is far more dangerous. Even if Trump ditches
his rational foreign policy positions for the standard inside-the-beltway neoconservatism,
he has the advantage of being inept.
Are you suggesting that Obama and what he has in his admin currently are not-inept? I believe
last generation of American competent foreign policy professionals "died out" with Bill Clinton's
Admin arrival. For the last 20+ year US foreign policy "establishment", including its "academe"
and "analytical" branches, which work in concert with intelligence services is an embodiment of
incompetence and is a definition of unmitigated disaster.
The O'Bomber evidently said he doesn't understand Trump's popularity ... It isn't that Trump is
popular it is that, due in part to the O'Bomber himself, the Killary is viewed as anathema.
My hope is that IF Killary wins a revolution is sparked by simple disgust at how venal she
is ... or that IF Trump wins the dems (dims) provoke a disturbance that grows into a bloody damned
mess.
Maybe, just maybe, the blood in the streets will be deep enough to make shoes squish with each
step.
In the meantime, we've had light (really slight) showers here on the Llano Estacado.
if the choice is between which of the two is the better liar - i go with hillary... as a consequence,
if i was in the usa, i would be voting trump or green depending on the location..
and, as you note - ..."as a non U.S. person, the major issues of the U.S. presidential elections
is always foreign policy." and which one of the candidates is always talking russia 24/7 while
claiming to serve the interests of the indoctrinated usa public? one would have to be brain dead
to vote for hillary, in spite of what the lying msm says... a friend here in canada - an american
living in canada - informed me this morning that he saw a poll saying that 9 out of 10 canucks
would like to cut off relations with the usa if trump is elected.. kid you not.. i told him i
was the other 10% and that i would like to cut off relations with the usa if hillary is elected!
If elected Hillary would have as much contempt for the electorate as she had for her staff.
In an e-mail sent from Comcast after Clinton was interviewed by NBC's Matt Lauer, Lauer
came under fire after questioning Hillary on the e-mails, according to the technical crew after
the show Hillary proceeded to pick up a full glass of water and throw it at the face of her assistant
and then the screaming started, she was in full meltdown, she came apart literally unglued, she
is the most foul mouthed woman I've ever heard, and that voice at screech level…"If that f-ing
bastard wins we all hang from nooses! Lauer's finished and if I lose its all on your heads for
screwing this up". She screamed "she'd get that f-ing Lauer fired for this".
Donna Brazile was singled out by Clinton.."I'm so sick of your face, you stare at the wall
like a brain dead buffalo while letting that fucking Lauer get away with this. What are you good
for really? Get the f–k to work janitoring this mess.. do I make myself clear".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NfFAaPZqs8
Hope the Americans don't vote that psychopath Clinton in, if they do keep her away from that
football. The nuclear football (also known as the atomic football, the president's emergency
satchel, the button, the black box, or just the football) is a briefcase, the contents of which
are to be used by the President of the United States to authorize a nuclear attack
"...With Trump the U.S. would get a president who is a pretty unknown factor but, in my judgment,
a less dangerous one to the U.S. and the world than Clinton. With her the next useless and deadly
wars are practically guaranteed..
b,
Excellent piece, I hold the same opinion of Trump, I'm undecided whether to throw my lot in
with Trump or Jill Stein. Vote for Stein won't help her in California, Hillary too far ahead.
But vote for Stein may help the Green Party, the 5% need to be in future public debates.
Even if I'm wrong and vote for Trump, Dem will obstructs Trump in every twists and turns, just
they did to GW Bush. Whom should I vote?
Oh well my twenty cents worth is that Trump doesn't have enough legislative support to do
anything too drastic externally. yeah yeah I undertsand that as 'C in C' he can find an excuse
to blow the world away but since there's not a dollar in that and most of his energy is gonna
be directed at copping a good earner, he's not gonna waste time, energy or electoral capital shooting
the shit outta unwhites - unlike his predecessor or his opponent.
Of course there will be a rush of greedy rethug assholes trying to line up for jobs in a trump
administration but trump being who he is will rely heavily on yes men as he always has - he doesn't
trust anyone sufficiently to delegate and lacks the ability to build a clinton style organisation
full of rats ratting each other out to give him the checks & balances he would need to delegate
effectively.
Some ambitious rethugs will definitely take it upon themselves to operate for 'sponsors' in
spite of the donald but he must be used to that coming as he does from that grey area between
gangsterism and allegedly 'legitimate' business. He won't appreciate types who cop an earn without
paying him an 80% cut, so hopefully DC's exponents of 'wet work' will be kept busy purging the
trump administration and won't have time to be sticking their noses into other nations and purging
them.
The real issue of both candidates is their vice asshole nominee, cos I reckon which ever
creep wins impeachment will be just around the corner. Of course Hillary is more likely to be
impeached the open fbi investigation combined with an almost certain rethug majority in senate
and a certain one in Congress means her odds of lasting the distance are not great.
Trump has a lot of work to do to prevent the rethug 'leadership' taking a big bung from
the sponsors to impeach him for some misdeed or another. Remember this is the mob that got
the other Clinton for copping a bj - hardly presidential (in the weird hypocritical amerikan view)
but not illegal unless the whole rape culture thing is used and that I suspect even now to be
a step too far for rednecked rethugs.
Trump is more likely to meet with an accident or suffer heart failure but the means don't really
matter the reality is that in either case the veeps are highly likely to come into play.
In that case Kain & Pence - from what I can discern they are standard American hawks complete
with the required ignorance of the big wide world, assured sense of American exceptionalism and
love of watching what they cannot comprehend explode in a pink miasma of human body parts.
And they know how to keep sponsors happy which is why they were picked in the first place -
so however bad things are gonna get under ClintonInc or theDonald the only certainty is that they
will eventually get even worse.
US President Barack Obama has lashed out at Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's
supporters, saying his popularity among working-class Americans is "frustrating."
@h #40 "They are about governance. They are about policy positions"
Yeah right that must be why yer hero has done so much to avoid talking policy over the last
12 months. ClintonInc attacked the bernie idjit personally just as they have with trump. That
wouldn't be so important if anyone could trust ClintonInc to abide by stated dem policy but this
is a low life scumsucking mob of no-hopers who put themselves on offer to the highest bidder -
whatever the titular head of ClintonInc has said in the past or will say and do in the future
is irrelevant to the eternal now - how much are you offering continuum - where she lives.
There is absolutely no point in listening to what any modern pol says, the reality they
peddle is mutable, changing according to their needs. Such types can only be measured by what
they have done in the past & in the case of Mrs Clinton that is a farrago of broken promises &
sell outs to her sponsors.
Although we didn't discuss it, and so I can't guarantee that de Mesquita would agree, lesser
evilism as a voting strategy is stupid PROVIDED that the evils are of roughly the same level.
When it comes to foreign policy, I don't think that's true at all of Hillary vs. Trump. Hillary
is MUCH more evil than Trump. Furthermore, Hillary's "evil" in this regard involves a greater
chance of war with amply nuclear armed Russia. We're therefore dealing with an existential threat.
Yeah, she finally dialed that back, somewhat, at her last debate with Trump. (Now she says she'll
negotiate a no-fly zone with Russia.) That's good news, if it's really true that she was essentially
bluffing about the no-fly zone in Syria. But if there's a 5% chance she wasn't bluffing/lying,
then that 5% chance of an existentially threatening war scenario still relegates her to the "You
must be kidding" category, in my eyes.
I'm voting for Trump, and make no apologies for doing so.
It's too bad that Trump is SO inept as a politician. While he's improved, he hasn't impressed,
overall, with his snail's pace of improvement. He even botched the de facto coddling of ISIS oil
caravans, spouting wild allegations of Obama and Hillary "founding" ISIS. IMO, if he had used
his ample TV exposure to expose the Obama Admin's cozy, benign tolerance of ISIS, in it's early
stages, Obama would be so toxic that a) he could not help Hillary, much at all and b) Obama's
toxicity would rub off on Hillary. Trump could have used this horror story to virtually guarantee
him a win. Instead he turned lemonade into a lemon, and still hasn't figured out what an opportunity
he blew, nor how to recover.
@46 h, ' If you're an American and you hold the position that the U.S. founding documents were
built to support 'Oligarchy' I must ask, b/c you opened the door as to where you ever learned
such nonsense.'
I've been so pissed off at Mrs M.A.D. that i've avoided listening to the Der Drumpenfuerher. I
listened to a bit of his lunchtime speeches on Fuchs news today. The man is ape shit nuts. Immigration
policy is both foreign & domestic policy. US biz needs cheap "illegals" & Trump knows this. His
"round up the illegals," along w/his doubling down on the drug war, is all about the further militarization
of US society. He will double down on dismantling public education, use the loathsome ACA to further
assaults on Medicare/S.S. He will "cut corporate taxes to rebuild the inner cities," etc., etc.
There is so little difference on these issues you might as well flip a coin.
on FP, he said, "I will stop China from building 'fortresses' (sic) in the S China Sea." oh
yeah, he's really going to be some radical departure from Obomba and the "pivot to Asia". The
MSM so studiously lies about what the current admin is really up to that some things Trump says
sound judicious. Like comments on the M.E. & defeating ISIS. and what do those comments mean?
they mean doing the exact same shit we are doing right now. so much for saving "trillions." "we
will rebuild our military." you know what that means. Does he ever talk specifically about US/NATO
vs Russia, Ukraine, the Russian border, etc.? of course not. his "be nice to Putin" act is a bunch
of BS in response to Mrs. MAD's goading & insulting Putin in order to save her political ass.
good luck Average American. It does not matter in the slightest who wins: you & the world lose.
Might not have been the right decision, but I voted for Trump, despite being thoroughly on the
left. Trump's vilification by the globalist elite means that he has to be doing something right.
I'll also give this to him: he sounds like a sleaze most of the time, and this is a good thing
because it means he's a normal human being. When a normal person tries to be a politician, they
sound like Trump because normal people give themselves away when they stretch the truth. It's
the dangerous psychos who sound good-natured and reasonable, because they can lie and don't feel
a thing when they do it.
Hmmmm. Do all the Hillbottoms like pizza parties? With beans and eggs. And lots of cheese.
Remember, remember the 5th of November. The pedo-queen won't EVER forget the date. Tick-tock.
Further to throwing Comey under the bus yesterday, Obama had this to say:
"I trust her," Obama said. "I know her. And I wouldn't be supporting her if I didn't have absolute
confidence in her integrity."
No amount of Bleach-bit can remove that yellow streak running down his back and straight through
the entirety of his 'legacy'. Not once did he come down on the side opposite entrenched power
– in fact, we can now add major 'obstruction of justice' to his prior litany of failures to prosecute
white collar criminals as the basis for its own section, splitting criminal activity into two
parts, one domestic, the other for a raft of war crimes.
And yes, about the only thing "liberal" about Clinton involves identity politics. But if she is
elected, all of her supporters who used identity politics based attacks to smear Bernie Sanders
and his supporters (along with a good dose of that against Trump also) are going to be in for
a very rude awakening.
How easily in particular the gay and black communities forget the administration
of Bill Clinton and what he and Hillary did.
Just as a start, Clinton ignored the identity crowd by picking somebody for VP that the identity
crowd spent the previous year smearing the Sanders campaign over: Kaine is your prototypical straight
privileged white male who has failed upwards.
And not a peep from the identity crowd especially
black leaders who more than any other group put Clinton over the top (forgetting the cheating
for a moment). One of the early Wikileak revelations was a memo to Congressional candidates how
to marginalize BLM if they were ever confronted.
If BLM acts up and damages her politically, a President Hillary will smash the leaders and
movement in the same Obama violently smashed OWS
.
She will honor her "feminist" supporters by
appointing the most violent and virulent warmongering women into positions of power so they too
can like the men can decide which black and brown women and children to bomb.
She will stab in
the back such early supporters as SEIU by refusing to support min. wage increases. And women are
disproportionately the base of min. wage workers. She supports Simpson-Bowles as revealed by Wikileaks
and the Cat Food Commission recommended cutting social security. Guess which groups that will
really hurt? Maybe the next groveling task for John Lewis will be to attack people who are against
Hillary cutting social security.
"... it seems to me that the effort to differentiate race-based from culturally based ultranationalism is still tangled in the weeds of a colloquial understanding of "race" and "racism". ..."
"... Populations can be racialized according to literally any conceivable physical, social, or cultural characteristic ..."
"... unlike with Quiggin's definition of tribalism @ 32, racism is explicitly a political and economic phenomenon to use a particular ingroup/outgroup differentiation as a way to systematically disenfranchise and subjugate the outgroup ..."
it seems to me that the effort to differentiate race-based from culturally based ultranationalism
is still tangled in the weeds of a colloquial understanding of "race" and "racism".
Populations can be racialized according to literally any conceivable physical, social, or
cultural characteristic - the idea that it can only depend on specific differentiating factors
like one's melanin count or descent from Charlemagne or whatever is itself a racist idea, an attempt
to reify particular forms of racism as rooted in some immutable aspect of "the way things are".
Although from my understanding Ukrainian citizenship like that in most of Europe is primarily
determined by jus sanguinis, and like most of Europe it's still deep in the muck of racial discrimination
toward e.g. the Roma, so unless I'm misreading things it seems like a stretch to put too much distance
between Ukraine (or Europe in general) and even a very colloquial sense of "ethnonationalism".
It can be articulated more explicitly by outright fascists or more obliquely by mainstream
centrist parties, but it's still there.
And as long as we're talking about academic definitions of racism (I'm partial to the definition
proffered by Ruth Wilson Gilmore, "the state-sanctioned or extralegal production and exploitation
of group-differentiated vulnerability to premature death", although
Emmett Rensin's obnoxiously thorough definition is also good) funnily enough they tend to point
at something pretty much identical to what Quiggin appears to mean by "tribalism".
Except unlike with Quiggin's definition of tribalism @ 32, racism is explicitly a political
and economic phenomenon to use a particular ingroup/outgroup differentiation as a way to systematically
disenfranchise and subjugate the outgroup
Which seems like the only reason we'd bother talking about it as a specific mass political movement
at all.
And again, as annoying as it is to have pigheaded reactionaries accuse us of twisting language
and "playing the race card" and so on, putting up with this noise is preferable to sacrificing useful
concepts like racism and fascism from one's everyday understanding of the world, and it's certainly
preferable to swapping out the terms in question for a racially charged term like "tribalism".
"... When Hillary was Secretary of State, she convinced Obama to authorize a covert operation in Libya (which included sending in special forces and arming terrorist groups) in preparation for a US/Nato aeronaval attack. ..."
"... Clinton's emails that subsequently came to light, prove what the real motive for war might be: blocking Gaddafi's plan to harness Libya's sovereign funds to establish independent financial organizations, located within the African Union and an African currency that could serve as an alternative to the dollar and the CFA franc. ..."
"... Immediately after razing the State of Libya, the US and Nato brought in the Gulf Monarchies and set about a covert operation to destroy the State of Syria by infiltrating it with special forces and terrorist groups that gave birth to Isis. ..."
"... "the best way to help Israel is to help the rebellion in Syria that has now lasted for more than a year" (i.e. from 2011). How? By mounting the case that the use of force is a sina qua non to make Basshar Assad fold, so as to endanger his life and that of his family". ..."
"... "wrecking Assad would not only be a huge advantage for the security of the State of Israel, but would also go a long way to reducing Israel's justifiable fear that it will lose its nuclear monopoly". ..."
From time to time, it is in the interests of the Western media and political establishment to
do a bit of "political cleansing".
Thus the West pulls out some skeleton from the closet. A British Parliamentary Committee has criticized
David Cameron for authorizing the use of force in Libya when he was Prime Minister in 2011. However
the basis for criticism was not the war of aggression per se (even though it erased from the map
a sovereign state) but rather the fact that war was entered into without an adequate "intelligence"
foundation and also because there was no plan for "reconstruction" [
1 ].
The same mistake was made by President Obama: thus he declared last April that Libya was his "biggest
regret", not because he used US-led Nato forces to reduce it to smithereens but because he had failed
to plan for "the day after". At the same time, Obama has confirmed his support for Hillary Clinton
who is now running for president. When Hillary was Secretary of State, she convinced Obama to authorize
a covert operation in Libya (which included sending in special forces and arming terrorist groups)
in preparation for a US/Nato aeronaval attack.
Clinton's emails that subsequently came to light, prove what the real motive for war might be:
blocking Gaddafi's plan to harness Libya's sovereign funds to establish independent financial organizations,
located within the African Union and an African currency that could serve as an alternative to the
dollar and the CFA franc.
Immediately after razing the State of Libya, the US and Nato brought in the Gulf Monarchies and
set about a covert operation to destroy the State of Syria by infiltrating it with special forces
and terrorist groups that gave birth to Isis.
An e mail from Clinton, one of the many the Department of State was compelled to de-classify following
the uproar triggered by the disclosures on Wikileaks, proves what one of the key objectives of the
operation still underway. In an e mail dated 31 December 2012, declassified as "case no: F – 2014
– 20439, Doc No. CO5794998", Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, wrote [
2 ]:
"It is Iran's strategic relationship with the Bashar Assad regime that allows Iran to threaten Israel's
security – not through a direct attack but through its allies in Lebanon such as the Hezbollah."
She then emphasizes that:
"the best way to help Israel is to help the rebellion in Syria that has now lasted for more than
a year" (i.e. from 2011). How? By mounting the case that the use of force is a sina qua non to make
Basshar Assad fold, so as to endanger his life and that of his family".
And Clinton concludes:
"wrecking Assad would not only be a huge advantage for the security of the State of Israel, but would
also go a long way to reducing Israel's justifiable fear that it will lose its nuclear monopoly".
So, the former Secretary of State admits what officially is not said. That Israel is the only
country in the Middle East to possess nuclear weapons [
3 ].
The support given by the Obama Administration to Israel over and above some disagreements (more
formal than substantive) is confirmed by the agreement signed on 14 September at Washington under
which the United States agrees to supply Israel over a ten year period with weapons of the latest
design for a value of 38 billion dollars through an annual financing of 3.3 billion dollars plus
half a million for "missile defense".
In the meantime, after the Russian intervention scuppered the plan to engage in war to demolish
Syria from within, the US obtains a "truce" (which it immediately violated), launching at the same
time a fresh attack in Libya, in the sheepskin of humanitarian operations that Italy participates
in with its "para-medics".
Meanwhile Israel, lurking in the background, strengthens its nuclear monopoly so precious to Clinton.
"... The support Trump has enjoyed is directly tied to the frustration many across the country feel toward Washington and its entrenched leaders, and they shouldn't expect that sentiment to dissipate regardless of whether Trump or Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton wins at the ballot box on Nov. 8, he said. ..."
Billionaire tech investor Peter Thiel reiterated his support for Republican presidential nominee
Donald Trump Monday morning, telling a room of journalists that a Washington outsider in the White
House would recalibrate lawmakers who have lost touch with the struggles of most Americans.
Thiel said it was "both insane and somehow inevitable" that political leaders would expect this presidential
election to be a contest between "political dynasties" that have shepherded the country into two
major financial crises: the tech bubble burst in the early 2000s, and the housing crisis and economic
recession later that decade.
The support Trump has enjoyed is directly tied to the frustration many across the country feel
toward Washington and its entrenched leaders, and they shouldn't expect that sentiment to dissipate
regardless of whether Trump or Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton wins at the ballot box on Nov.
8, he said.
"What Trump represents isn't crazy and it's not going away," he said.
I'd actually argue the opposite. Thousands of people are turning to Trump as a cynical form of
rebellion. They think that voting for him will be interesting/fun. If you were to ask them how
a Hillary Clinton presidency would seriously make their lives worse, they'd have nothing serious
to answer. At best they might say that they'll be fine, but that the rest of the country would
suffer, and then spout of a bunch of nonsense as to why that would be. It's a luxury to be so
reckless, which is where America is right now. If millions of lives literally depended on the
outcome of this election, people would be much more careful about how they plan to vote.
"... Let's hope that Mr. Assange is saving the best for last, and delivers the coup de grace to the warmongering sociopathic harpy and she melts down like the wicked witch of the west. ..."
"... Either way, methinks that a great mass of unwashed deplorables may just rise up and sweep the authoritarian orange barbarian into power. ..."
The stench of desperation and corruption is surrounding the Dems like the piles of rotting
corpses Obama and Clinton have stacked up in Libya and Syria.
Let's hope that Mr. Assange is saving the best for last, and delivers the coup de grace
to the warmongering
sociopathic harpy and she melts down like the wicked witch of the west.
Either way, methinks that a great mass of unwashed deplorables may just rise up and sweep
the
authoritarian orange
barbarian into power.
Which is why I'm stocking up on ribeyes, scotch, and ammo for next week. Should Trump prevail,
I give better than even odds that the leftist chimps will, literally, go
berserk .
Presenting...the Clinton IT Department! This has not been an especially ennobling election.
Or a rewarding one. Or even entertaining. Pretty much everything about 2016 has been boorish and
grotesque. But finally it is time to laugh.
This has not been an especially ennobling election. Or a rewarding one. Or even entertaining.
Pretty much everything about 2016 has been boorish and grotesque. But finally it is time to laugh.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present the Clinton IT department.
Over the weekend we finally found out how Clinton campaign honcho John Podesta's emails were hacked.
But first a couple disclaimers:
1) Yes, it's unpleasant to munch on the fruit of the poisoned tree. But this isn't a court of
law and you can't just ignore information that's dragged into the public domain.
2) We're all vulnerable to hackers. Even if you're a security nut who uses VPNs and special email
encryption protocols, you can be hacked. The only real security is the anonymity of the herd. Once
a hacker targets you, specifically, you're toast.
I'm a pretty tech-savvy guy and if the Chinese decided to hack my emails tonight, you'd have everything
I've ever written posted to Wikileaks before the sun was up tomorrow.
But that is … not John Podesta's situation.
What happened was this: On March 19, Podesta got what looked--kind of, sort of--like an email
from Google's Gmail team. The email claimed that someone from the Ukraine had tried to hack into
Podesta's Gmail account and that he needed to change his password immediately.
This is what's called a "phishing" scam, where hackers send legitimate-looking emails that, when
you click on the links inside them, actually take you someplace dangerous. In Podesta's case, there
was a link that the email told him to click in order to change his password.
This was not an especially good bit of phishing.
Go have a look yourself. The email calls Podesta by his first name. It uses bit.ly as a link
shortener. Heck, the subject line is the preposterous "*someone has your password*". Why would Google
say "someone has your password?" They wouldn't. They'd say that there had been log-in attempts that
failed two-step authentication, maybe. Or that the account had been compromised, perhaps. If you've
spent any time using email over the last decade, you know exactly how these account security emails
are worded.
And what's more, you know that you never click on the link in the email. If you get a notice from
your email provider or your bank or anyone who holds sensitive information of yours saying that your
account has been compromised, you leave the email, open your web browser, type in the URL of the
website, and then manually open your account information. Again, let me emphasize: You never click
on the link in the email!
But what makes this story so priceless isn't that John Podesta got fooled by an fourth-rate phishing
scam. After all, he's just the guy who's going to be running Hillary Clinton's administration. What
does he know about tech? And Podesta, to his credit, knew what he didn't know: He emailed the Clinton
IT help desk and said, Hey, is this email legit?
And the Clinton tech team's response was: Hell yes!
No, really. Here's what they said: One member of the team responded to Podesta by saying "The
gmail one is REAL." Another answered by saying "This is a legitimate email. John needs to change
his password immediately."
It's like the Clinton IT department is run by 90-year-old grandmothers. I half-expect the next
Wikileaks dump to have an email from one Clinton techie to another asking for help setting their
VCR clock.
As the other guy likes to say, "only the best people."
"... In a sense Neoliberalism/Neoconservatism (neoconservatives are neoliberals with a gun) is recklessly revolutionary in old Marx's sense - it destroys the existing bonds that hold the society together. ..."
"the Left (or what passes for it in the US) is as much to blame as the Right
in that they haven't offered real substantive alternatives to the NeoLib/NeoCon
orthodoxy that seems to dominate US policymaking."
That's a very apt observation, especially in the part "the Left (or what
passes for it in the US) is as much to blame as the Right ".
The key question here" "Is neoliberalism a flavor of conservatism or not?".
Or it is some perversion of the left? I doubt that "Neolib/Neocon orthodoxy"
that is really completely dominant in the USA can be viewed as a flavor of
conservatism. IMHO it's actually more resembles Trotskyism with its idea of
"world revolution" and classic Marxist slogan "Working Men of All Countries,
Unite!"
The first slogan was replaced with "Permanent neoliberal revolution" and
"New American Militarism" that we saw in action in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Georgia,
Ukraine. They are eager to bring the neoliberal revolution into other countries
on the tips of bayonets.
The second was replaced by the slogan "Transnational corporate and financial
elites unite". Instead of Congresses of "Communist International" we have
similar congresses of financial oligarchy and neoliberal politicians like in
Davos.
In a sense Neoliberalism/Neoconservatism (neoconservatives are neoliberals
with a gun) is recklessly revolutionary in old Marx's sense - it destroys the
existing bonds that hold the society together.
Still in other sense it resembles " the ancien regime", especially in the
USA :
The opening chapters of Maistre's Considerations on France
are an unrelenting assault on the three pillars of the ancien regime:
the aristocracy, the church, and the monarchy. Maistre divides the
nobility into two categories: the treasonous and the clueless. The
clergy is corrupt, weakened by its wealth and lax morals. The monarchy is soft and lacks the will to punish. Maistre dismisses all three
with a line from Racine: "Now see the sad fruits your faults pro-duced, / Feel the blows you have yourselves induced."5
If we equate "ancien regime" with the neoliberalism, the quote suddenly
obtains quite modern significance. It does have a punch. Now we see Trump
supporters attacking neoliberalism with the same intensity. And we can
definitely divide the USA financial oligarchy into "the treasonous" and "the
clueless." While neoliberal MSM are as corrupt as "ancien regime" clergy, if
not more.
Like in the past there is a part of the USA conservatives that bitterly
oppose neoliberalism (paleoconservatives).
The key problem here is that as there is no real left (in European sense) in
the USA, the challenge to neoliberalism arose from the right. Trump with all
his warts is definitely anti-globalization candidate. That's why we see such a
hysteria in neoliberal MSM about his candidacy.
"... Among the more prominent exchanges released in the latest, 27th, Wikileaks release of Podesta emails is a thread from March 2016 which discusses a Politico article tilted " Clintonites: How we beat Bernie on trade ", and which reports that " Clinton faced internal pressure from her Brooklyn headquarters to oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal she helped craft as secretary of State ." ..."
Among the more prominent exchanges released in the latest, 27th, Wikileaks release of Podesta
emails is a thread from
March 2016 which discusses a Politico article tilted "
Clintonites: How we beat Bernie on trade ", and which reports that " Clinton faced internal pressure
from her Brooklyn headquarters to oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal she helped craft
as secretary of State ."
Senior Clinton strategist, Joel Benenson, is quoted in the piece as saying:
"Voters agree that we have to compete and win in a global economy and that means we have to
make things in the United States that we can sell to 95 percent of the world's consumers who happen
to live outside of the United States. What the data from the exit polls says is these voters were
more aligned with her fundamental view of trade ."
* * *
Clinton instead pushed back on Sanders' opposition to the Export-Import Bank, and doubled down
on the idea that America needs to compete and win in the global economy.
"We engaged with him on trade more forcefully," Benenson said. In the end, " I guess he came
off as an economic isolationist."
The article prompted Gene Sperling, former economic policy assistant to both Bill Clinton and
Obama to say:
" Do not get our spin here. Why we not hyping claw back, ROO, out front on steel, tough enforcement
on China?! Was this just her not talking to any of us and off on her own take?(But Joel is in
there ) please clarify."
To which, a clearly angry Tanden replies:
"Is Joel off reservation? Does he not get that this story makes Hillary seem politically craven
at best or a liar at worse? Or if this is campaign position, can I object ?"
She then adds: " Hard to say she believes what she says when Joel is spinning that she doesn't
mean what she is out there saying. Her language was pretty tough last week. "
Finally, she concludes that " Sanders or trump can move on this. "
Fighting against total of the big ghetto states is a bitch. Looks like Trump
needs to run the table as in FL,OH,GA,NC,AZ,CO,IA,NV. Not impossible but
something resembling a real kill shot from Wikileaks sure would help.
I have always believed that Trump is actually the elites choice and that
they have been practicing reverse psychology on the voters.
Nothing that
has happened during this 'selection' season has put me off of that hypothesis.
I told my husband months ago that there would be an October/November surprise
and that Trump may very well end up in the White House. Hillary is just too
broken to be able to pull it off. I've heard his economic policy speeches:
privatize social security, etc., and they all line up with just what the elites
have wanted for a long time. I know most ZHers don't feel this way, but
politics is a bitch, my friends. Let the down voting commence.
Your theory is actually a theory - In
politics NOTHING happens by chance.
Mark Twain said: If voting really mattered- They wouldn't let us do it!
I honestly believe that the PTB have every election sewn up through
controlled opposition- yet Trump would move us to Totalitarianism at a much
slower rate than the HitlerBeast. The Political Overton Window has shifted
hard to the left over the last 30 years. Both parties are to the left of
John F. Kennedy, sadly. Lesser of two evils is the new name of the game!
Evidence doesn't support your theory Rob. Ask yourself why every news
organization in the English speaking world is busy trashing Trump? Odd way
to for the elites to show support.
I'm an establishment hater and long to see Clinton's get their due, so support
Trump by default. What I think is instructive, if nothing else interesting, is
Brandon Smith's POV on Trump's potential "victory". The chess board is
fascinating, but may not be R's and D's playing the game at all. For the
planned crash, they'd rather have the "isolationist" (falsely painted term)
than the Globalist at the helm for blame. "See?? Its these same Brexit and
Trump voting "isolationist"! We need the SDR and the Big Boys back in
charge!".......still, I'd have a thrill run up my leg to watch a long-time
crook get her just comeuppance....
BREAKING: Steve Pieczenik.com from infowars and youtube videos:
2:40 in; Unedited
"We've initiated a counter coup through Assange and Wikileaks."
Comey's action reflected a response to the Silent Coup.
"We're going to stop you from making HRC President of the U.S."
Massive corruption under Clinton Foundation.
"I am just a small part of something bigger than myself."
"Brave men and women in the FBI, CIA,Director of Intelligence, Military
Intelligence and 15 other intelligence agencies who were sick and tired of
seeing this corruption in the White House, Justice Department, Intelligence
Services (so we) decided that there was something we had to do to save the
Republic so we initiated a Counter Coup through Julian Assange through emails
that we gave to him in order to undermine Hillary and Bill Clinton."
Pieczenik indicated this "Second American Revolution" had no guns, wapons, or
intent to kill or harm." He says the Counter Coup is made up of veterans in the
intelligence service like (himself.) He asserts that they will make sure Obama
leaves office without a pardon or any other "act of treason."
The coup "wants a peaceful transition."
Pieczenik said this is a "moment of history occurring right now."
I'm sick of hearing about this Pieczenik guy. It's been non-stop here at ZH
lately. There's no way this Tribe member is up to any good with his
counter-coup distraction.
What happens when states like Maryland, New Jersey, Colorado and Iowa vote for
Trump (because they didn't bother to rig in those areas), but Hilary still
"wins" in super battle ground states like Ohio and Pennsylvania because those
elections were rigged?
REPORTERS RSVP (28) 1. ABC – Liz Kreutz 2. AP – Julie Pace 3. AP - Ken Thomas 4. AP - Lisa Lerer 5. Bloomberg - Jennifer Epstein
6. Buzzfeed - Ruby Cramer 7. CBS – Steve Chagaris 8. CNBC - John Harwood 9. CNN - Dan Merica 10. Huffington Post - Amanda Terkel
11. LAT - Evan Handler 12. McClatchy - Anita Kumar 13. MSNBC - Alex Seitz-Wald 14. National Journal - Emily Schultheis 15. NBC
– Mark Murray 16. NPR - Mara Liassion 17. NPR – Tamara Keith 18. NYT - Amy Chozik 19. NYT - Maggie Haberman 20. Politico - Annie
Karni 21. Politico - Gabe Debenedetti 22. Politico - Glenn Thrush 23. Reuters - Amanda Becker 24. Washington Post - Anne Gearan
25. Washington Post – Phil Rucker 26. WSJ - Colleen McCain Nelson 27. WSJ - Laura Meckler 28. WSJ - Peter Nicholas
Pigeon •Nov 3, 2016 9:49 AM
It bothers me these stories are constantly prefaced with the idea that Wikileaks is saving Trump's bacon. Hillary wouldn't
even be close if the press weren't in the tank for her. How about Wikileaks evening the playing field with REAL STORIES AND
FACTS?
Thiel also criticized the media's coverage of Trump's bombastic remarks. He said that while the
media takes Trump's remarks "literally" but not "seriously," he believes Trump supporters take them
seriously but not literally. In short, Trump isn't actually going to impose religious tests on
immigrants or build a wall along the Mexican border, as he has repeatedly said, but will simply
pursue "saner, more sensible" immigration policies.
"His larger-than-life persona attracts a lot of attention. Nobody would suggest that Donald Trump is
a humble man. But the big things he's right about amount to a much needed dose of humility in our
politics," Thiel said.
While the Silicon Valley tech corridor and suburbs around Washington have thrived in the last
decade or more, many other parts of the country have been gutted by economic and trade policies
that closed manufacturing plants and shipped jobs overseas, Thiel said, reiterating a previous
talking point.
"Most Americans don't live by the Beltway or the San Francisco Bay. Most Americans haven't
been part of that prosperity," Thiel said Monday. "It shouldn't be surprising to see people vote
for Bernie Sanders or for Donald Trump, who is the only outsider left in the race."
Thiel later said he had hoped the presidential race might come down to Sanders and Trump, two
outsiders with distinct views on the root cause of the nation's economic malaise and the best
course of action to fix it. "That would have been a very different sort of debate," he said.
Thiel's prepared remarks seemed more of an admonishment of the state of the country today than a
ringing endorsement of Trump's persona and policies. He decried high medical costs and the lack
of savings baby boomers have on hand. He said millennials are burdened by soaring tuition costs
and a poor outlook on the future. Meanwhile, he said, the federal government has wasted trillions
of dollars fighting wars in Africa and the Middle East that have yet to be won.
Trump is the only candidate who shares his view that the country's problems are substantial and
need drastic change to be repaired, Thiel said. Clinton, on the other hand, does not see a need
for a hard reset on some of the country's policies and would likely lead the U.S. into additional
costly conflicts abroad, he said.
A self-described libertarian, Thiel amassed his fortune as the co-founder of digital payment
company PayPal and data analytics firm Palantir Technologies. He has continued to add to that
wealth through venture capital investments in companies that include Facebook, Airbnb, Lyft and
Spotify, among many others.
"... Demonstration uses a real voting system and real vote databases and takes place in seconds across multiple jurisdictions. Over 5000 subcontractors and middlemen have the access to perform this for any or all clients. ..."
Just cause nobody is voting for her won't stop em. What counts the vote matters:
"A real-time demo of the most devastating election theft mechanism yet found, with context
and explanation.
Demonstration uses a real voting system and real vote databases and takes place
in seconds across multiple jurisdictions. Over 5000 subcontractors and middlemen have the access
to perform this for any or all clients.
"it's also a kind of conspiracy theory that Tony Blair lied to the people about the
case for going to war in Iraq".
The words "a kind of" are being used in an extremely vague and attenuated state. Rather a large
number of people would interpret your meaning as "not in the slightest". Or are you trying to
insinuate, I would not say argue, that Tony Blair told the truth the people about the case for
going to war in Iraq?
I ask as one who supported Labour before the Iraq war, which I see as criminally dishonest to
a degree I would not have previously thought possible.
"... The problem with racism underground has been clear for sometime: the racists tell themselves that they're clear-thinkers resisting the group think of the politically-correct mob. ..."
Cynically: is there a need to do anything? As long as the right is the (now out of the closet)
home of racism, they've marginalized themselves. Open question: does the neoliberal-lite party
have any incentive to cater to the left?
The problem with racism underground has been clear for sometime: the racists tell themselves
that they're clear-thinkers resisting the group think of the politically-correct mob.
I've thought for some time that there would be some value in an anti-racism FAQ: no one bothers
to argue against racists (beyond shouting "racist!") so everyone is rusty on what the data actually
shows.
The point of this is not necessarily to convince racists that they're wrong (good luck with
that), but to shake their conviction that the anti-racists are the ones out of touch with reality.
I would start with the excellent "Intelligence, Genes & Success" (subtitled: "Scientists Respond
to _The Bell Curve_").
Cynically: is there a need to do anything? As long as the right is the (now out
of the closet) home of racism, they've marginalized themselves.
Open
question: does the neoliberal-lite party have any incentive to cater to the
left?
The problem with racism underground has been clear for sometime:
the racists tell themselves that they're clear-thinkers resisting the group
think of the politically-correct mob.
I've thought for some time that there would be some value in an anti-racism
FAQ: no one bothers to argue against racists (beyond shouting "racist!") so
everyone is rusty on what the data actually shows.
The point of this is not necessarily to convince racists that they're wrong
(good luck with that), but to shake their conviction that the anti-racists are
the ones out of touch with reality.
I would start with the excellent "Intelligence, Genes & Success" (subtitled:
"Scientists Respond to _The Bell Curve_").
Trump mirrors resentment with the current political culture. Unfortunately very few readers in this
forum understand that the emergence of Trump as a viable candidate in the current race, the candidate
who withstand 24x7 air bombarment by corrupt neoliberabl MSM (like Guardian ;-) signify deep crisis
of neoliberalsm and neoliberal globalization.
Notable quotes:
"... "What Madison could not have foreseen was the extent to which unconstrained campaign finance and a sophisticated lobbying industry would come to dominate an entire nation, regardless of its size." ..."
"... That's it – finance and sophisticated lobbying. And you can add to that mass brainwashing at election campaigns by means of choice language and orchestration as advised by cognitive scientists who are expressly recruited for this purpose. Voters remain largely unaware of the mind control they are undergoing. And of course the essential prerequisite for all of this is financial power. ..."
"... Now read again in this light Gore Vidal's famous pronouncement… "Any American who is prepared to run for president should automatically by definition be disqualified from ever doing so." ..."
"... Worse still, the political spectrum runs from right to right. To all intents and purposes, one single party, the US Neoliberal party, with 2 factions catering for power and privilege. Anything to the left of that is simply not an available choice for voters. ..."
"... Americans have wakened up to the fact that they badly need a government which caters for the needs of the average citizen. In their desperation some will still vote for Trump warts and all. This for the same sorts of reasons that Italians voted for Berlusconi, whose winning slogan was basically 'I am not a politician'. ..."
"... The right choice was Bernie Sanders. Sadly, not powerful enough. So Americans missed the boat there. But at least there was a boat to miss this time around. You can be sure that similar future boats will be sunk well in advance. Corporate power has learnt its lesson and the art of election rigging has now become an exact science. ..."
"... Donald Trump, Brexit and Le Pen are all in their separate ways rejections of the dogma of liberalism, social and economic, that has dominated the West for the past three decades. ..."
"... In 2010, Chomsky wrote : ..."
"... The United States is extremely lucky.....if somebody comes along who is charismatic and honest this country is in real trouble because of the frustration, disillusionment, the justified anger and the absence of any coherent response. ..."
"... Dangerous times. The beauty of democracy is we get what we deserve ..."
"... The worst thing about Donald Trump is that he's the man in the mirror. ..."
"... He is the distillation of all that we have been induced to desire and admire. ..."
"... I thought that he is the mirror image, the reverse, of the current liberal consensus. A consensus driven by worthy ideals but driven too far, gradually losing acceptance and with no self correcting awareness. ..."
"... Trump is awful - but by speaking freely he challenges the excesses of those who would limit free speech. Trump is awful - but by demonising minorities he challenges those who would excuse minorities of all responsibility. Trump is awful - but by flaunting his wealth he challenges those who keep their connections and wealth hidden for the sake of appearances. ..."
"... Trump is awful because the system is out of balance. He is a consequence, not a cause. ..."
"... Voting for Trump is voting for peace. Voting for Clinton is voting for WW3. ..."
"... It's quite clearly because Hillary as President is an utterly terrifying prospect. When half the population would rather have Trump than her, it must be conceded that she has some serious reputational issues. ..."
"... Personally, I'd take Trump over Hillary if I was a US citizen. He may be a buffoon but she is profoundly dangerous, probably a genuine psychopath and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the Presidency. Sanders is the man America needs now, though, barring one of Hillary's many crimes finally toppling her, it's not going to happen... ..."
"... The true constitution is plutocracy tempered by scandal ..."
"... And the shame is we seem to be becoming desensitized to scandal. We cannot be said to live in democracies when our political class are so obviously bought by the vastly rich. ..."
"... One of the things it says is that people are so sick of Identity Politics from the Left and believe the Left are not very true to the ideals of what should be the Left. ..."
"... When the people who are supposed to care about the poor and working joes and janes prefer to care about the minorities whose vote they can rely on, the poor and the working joes and janes will show their frustration by supporting someone who will come along and tell it as it is, even if he is part of how it got that way. ..."
"... People throughout the world have awoken to the Left being Right Light but with a more nauseating moral superiority complex. ..."
"... he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his caste, the caste that runs the global economy and governs our politics ..."
"... 'Encouraged by the corporate media, the Republicans have been waging a full-spectrum assault on empathy, altruism and the decencies we owe to other people. Their gleeful stoving in of faces, their cackling destruction of political safeguards and democratic norms, their stomping on all that is generous and caring and cooperative in human nature, have turned the party into a game of Mortal Kombat scripted by Breitbart News.' ..."
"... Many years ago in the British Military, those with the right connections and enough money could buy an officer's commission and rise up the system to be an incompetent General. As a result, many battles were mismanaged and many lives wasted due to the incompetent (wealthy privileged few) buying their way to the top. American politics today works on exactly the same system of wealthy patronage and privilege for the incompetent, read Clinton and Trump. Until the best candidates are able to rise up through the political system without buying their way there then the whole corrupt farce will continue and we will be no different to the all the other tin pot republics of the world. ..."
"... There's the "culture wars" aspect. Many people don't like being told they are "deplorable" for opposing illegal (or even legal) immigration. They don't like being called "racist" for disagreeing with an ideology. ..."
"... I like the phrase Monbiot ends with - "He is our system, stripped of its pretences" - it reminds me of a phrase in the Communist Manifesto - but I don't think it's true. "Our" system is more than capitalism, it's culture. And Clinton is a far more "perfect representation" of the increasingly censorious, narrow [neo]liberal culture which dominates the Western world. ..."
"... Finally, Monbiot misses the chance to contrast Clinton's and Trump's apparent differences with regard to confronting nuclear-armed Russia over the skies of Syria. It could be like 1964 all over again - except in this election, the Democrat is the nearest thing to Barry Goldwater. ..."
"... As a life-long despiser of all things Trump, I cannot believe that I am saying this: Trump is good for world peace. ..."
"... I fully agree with Monbiot, American democracy is a sham - the lobby system has embedded corruption right in the heart of its body politic. Lets be clear here though, whatever is the problem with American democracy can in theory at least be fixed, but Trump simply can not and moreover he is not the answer ..."
"... His opponent, war child and Wall Street darling can count her lucky stars that the media leaves her alone (with husband Bill, hands firmly in his pockets, nodding approvingly) and concentrates on their feeding frenzy attacking Trump on sexual allegations of abusing women, giving Hillery, Yes, likely to tell lies, ( mendacious, remember when she claimed to be under enemy fire in Bosnia? remember how evasive she was on the Benghazi attack on the embassy) Yes Trump is a dangerous man running against an also extremely dangerous woman. ..."
"... Extremely interesting reference to the Madison paper, but the issue is less about the size of the electorate, and more about the power that the election provides to the victor. ..."
"... Democracy in the US is so corrupted by money that it is no longer recognisable as democracy. You can kick individual politicians out of office, but what do you do when the entire structure of politics is corrupt? ..."
"... When you look at speeches and conversations and debates with the so-called bogeyman, Putin, he is not at all in a league as low and vile as portrayed and says many more sensible things than anybody cares to listen to, because we're all brainwashed. We are complicit in wars (now in Syria) and cannot see why we have to connive with terrorists, tens of thousands of them, and they get supported by the war machine and friends like Saudis and Turkey which traded for years with ISIS. ..."
"... Clinton the war hawk, and shows us we are only capable of seeing one side and project all nastiness outward while we can feel good about ourselves by hating the other. ..."
"... It fits the Decline of an Empire image as it did in other Falls of Civilizations. ..."
"... Trump spoke to the executives at Ford like no one before ever has. He told them if they moved production to Mexico (as they plan to do) that he would slap huge tariffs on their cars in America and no one would buy them. ..."
"... What happens in Syria could be important to us all. Clinton doesn't hide her ambition to drive Assad from power and give Russia a kicking. It's actually very unpopular although the media doesn't like to say so; it prefers to lambast Spain for re-fueling Russian war ships off to fight the crazed Jihadists as if we supported the religious fanatics that want to slaughter all Infidels! There is an enormous gulf between what ordinary people want and the power crazy Generals in the Pentagon and NATO. ..."
"... USA has got itself in an unholy mess . It's politicians no longer work for the people . Their paymasters care not if life in Idaho resembles Dantes inferno . Trump has many faults but being "not Hilary" is not one of them. The very fact he is disliked by all the vested interests should make you take another look. And remember , the American constitution has many checks and balances , a President has a lot less power than most people imagine. ..."
"... Like many on the right, the left have unthinkingly accepted a narrative of an organized, conspiratorial system run by an elite of politicians and plutocrats. The problem with this narrative is it suggests politics and politicians are inherently nefarious, in turn suggesting there are no political solutions to be sought to problems, or anything people can do to challenge a global system of power. As Monbiot asks: "You can kick individual politicians out of office, but what do you do when the entire structure of politics is corrupt?" Well, what indeed? ..."
"... I don't think you need to believe in an organised conspiracy and I don't see any real evidence that George Monbiot does. The trouble is that the corporate and political interests align in a way that absorbs any attempt to challenge them and the narrative has been written that of course politics is all about economics and of course we need mighty corporations to sustain us. ..."
"... Not long after the start of the presidential campaign I began to reflect that in Trump we are seeing materializing before us the logical result of the neoliberal project ..."
"... The Republican party essentially offered their base nothing – that was the problem. ..."
"... They couldn't offer all the things that ordinary Americans want – better and wider Medicaid, better and wider social security, tax increases on the rich, an end to pointless foreign wars and the American empire. ..."
"... The Democrats have largely the same funding base, but they at least deliver crumbs – at least a nod to the needs of ordinary people through half-hearted social programmes. ..."
"... Trump is imperfect because he wants normal relations rather than war with Russia. No, Hillary Clinton is the ultimate representation of the system that is abusing us. What will occur when Goldman Sachs and the military-industrial complex coalition get their, what is it, 5th term in office would be a great subject of many Guardian opinion pieces, actually. But that will have to wait till after November 8. ..."
"... And, of course, we also have Hillary's Wall Street speeches -- thanks to Wikileaks we have the complete transcripts, in case Guardian readers are unaware. They expose the real thinking and 'private positions' of the central character in the next episode of 'Rule by Plutocracy'. ..."
"... The democrats is the party practicing hypocrisy, pretending that they somehow representing the interest of the working class. They are the ones spreading lies and hypocrisy and manipulating the working class everyday through their power over the media. Their function is to appease the working class. The real obstacle for improving conditions for the working class historically has always been the Democratic party, not the Republican party. ..."
"... In what concerns foreign politics, Trump some times seems more reasonable than Clinton and the establishment. Clinton is the best coached politician of all times. She doesn't know that she's coached. She just followed the most radical groups and isn't able to question anything at all. The only thing that the coaches didn't fix until now is her laughing which is considered even by her coaches as a sign of weirdness. ..."
"... Western economies are now so beholden to the patronage of the essentially stateless multinational, it has become a political imperative to appease their interests - it's difficult to see a future in which an administration might resist this force, because at its whim, national economies face ruination. In light of such helplessness our political representatives face an easier path in simply accepting their lot as mere administrators who will tinker at the margins [and potentially reap the rewards of a good servant], rather than hold to principle and resist an overwhelming force. ..."
"... "Trump personifies the traits promoted by the media and corporate worlds he affects to revile; the worlds that created him. He is the fetishisation of wealth, power and image in a nation where extrinsic values are championed throughout public discourse. His conspicuous consumption, self-amplification and towering (if fragile) ego are in tune with the dominant narratives of our age." ..."
"... Yes, they don't care any more if we see the full extent of their corruption as we've given up our power to do anything about it. ..."
"... It was once very common to see Democratic politicians as neighbors attending every community event. They were Teamsters, pipe fitters, and electricians. And they were coaches and ushers and pallbearers. Now they are academics and lawyers and NGO employees and managers who pop up during campaigns. The typical income of the elected Democrats outside their government check is north of $100,000. They don't live in, or even wander through, the poorer neighborhoods. So they are essentially clueless that government services like busses are run to suit government and not actual customers. ..."
"... Yea, 15 years of constant wars of empire with no end in sight has pretty much ran this country in the ground. ..."
"... We all talk about how much money is wasted by the federal government on unimportant endeavors like human services and education, but don't even bat an eye about the sieve of money that is the Pentagon. ..."
"... Half a trillion dollars for aircraft carriers we don't need and are already obsolete. China is on the verge of developing wickedly effective anti-ship missiles designed specifically to target these Gerald R. Ford-class vessels. You might as well paint a huge bull's-eye on these ships' 4-1/2 acre flight deck. ..."
"... There are plenty more examples of this crap and this doesn't even include the nearly TWO trillion dollars we've spent this past decade-and-a-half on stomping flat the Middle East and large swaths of the Indian subcontinent. ..."
"... And all this time, our nation's infrastructure is crumbling literally right out from underneath us and millions upon millions of children and their families experience a daily struggle just to eat. Eat?! In the "greatest," wealthiest nation on earth and we prefer to kill people at weddings with drones than feed our own children. ..."
"... I'd like to read an unbiased piece about why the media narrative doesn't match the reality of the Trump phenomenon. He is getting enormous crowds attend his rallies but hardly any coverage of that in the filtered news outlets. Hillary, is struggling to get anyone turn up without paying them. There is no real enthusiasm. ..."
"... The buzzwords and tired old catch phrases and cliches used by the left to suppress any alternative discussion, and divert from their own misdemeanors are fooling no one but themselves. Trump supporters simply don't care any more how Hillary supporters explain that she lied about dodging sniper fire. Or the numerous other times she and her cohorts have been caught out telling fibs. ..."
"... Very true. Throughout history the rich, the powerful, the landed, ennobled interest and their friends in the Law and money changing houses have sought to control governments and have usually succeeded. ..."
"... In the Media today the rich are fawned over by sycophantic journalists and programme makers. These are the people who make the political weather and create the prevailing narratives. ..."
"... Working class people fancied themselves to above the common herd and thought themselves part of some elite. ..."
"... It's quite disturbing the lengths this paper will go to in order to slur and discredit Trump, labelling him dangerous and alluding to the sexual assault allegations. This even goes so far to a very lengthy article regarding Trumps lack of knowledge on the Rumbelows Cup 25 years ago. ..."
"... Whereas very little examination is made into Hillary Clinton's background which includes serious allegation of fraud and involvement in assisting in covering up her husband's alleged series of rapes. There are also issues in the wikileaks emails that merit analysis as well as undercover tapes of seioau issues with her campaign team. ..."
"... One of the most important characteristics of the so-called neoliberalism is its negative selection. While mostly successfully camouflaged, that negative selection is more than obvious this time, in two US presidential candidates. It's hard to imagine lower than those two. ..."
"... Well, OK George. Tell me: if Trump's such an establishment candidate, then why does the whole of the establishment unanimously reject him? Is it normal for Republicans (such as the Bushes and the neocons) to endorse Democrats? Why does even the Speaker of the House (a Republican) and even, on occasion, Trump's own Vice-Presidential nominee seem to be trying to undermine his campaign? If Trump is really just more of the same as all that came before, why is he being treated different by the MSM and the political establishment? ..."
"... Obviously, there's something flawed about your assumption. ..."
"... Trump has exposed the corruption of the political system and the media and has promised to put a stop to it. By contrast, Clinton is financed by the very banks, corporates and financial elites who are responsible for the corruption. This Trump speech is explicit on what we all suspected is going on. Everybody should watch it, irrespective of whether they support him or not! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tab5vvo0TJw ..."
"... "I know a lot of people in Michigan that are planning to vote for Trump and they don't necessarily agree with him. They're not racist or redneck, they're actually pretty decent people and so after talking to a number of them I wanted to write this. ..."
"... Donald Trump came to the Detroit Economic Club and stood there in front of Ford Motor executives and said "if you close these factories as you're planning to do in Detroit and build them in Mexico, I'm going to put a 35% tariff on those cars when you send them back and nobody's going to buy them." It was an amazing thing to see. No politician, Republican or Democrat, had ever said anything like that to these executives, and it was music to the ears of people in Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin - the "Brexit" states. ..."
"... Mrs Clinton is also the product of our political culture. A feminist who owes everything to her husband and men in the Democratic Party. A Democrat who started her political career as a Republican; a civil right activist who worked for Gerry Goldwater, one of last openly racist/segregationist politicians. A Secretary of State who has no clue about, or training in, foreign policy, and who received her position as compensation for losing the election. A pacifist, who has never had a gun in her hands, but supported every war in the last twenty years. A humanist who rejoiced over Qaddafi's death ("we came, we won, he is dead!") like a sadist. ..."
"... One thing that far right politics offers the ordinary white disaffected voter is 'pay back', it is a promised revenge-fest, putting up walls, getting rid of foreigners, punishing employers of foreigners, etc., etc. All the stuff that far right groups have wet dreams about. ..."
"... Because neoliberal politics has left a hell of a lot of people feeling pissed off, the far right capitalizes on this, whilst belonging to the same neoliberal dystopia so ultimately not being able to make good on their promises. Their promises address a lot of people's anger, which of course isn't really about foreigners at all, that is simply the decoy, but cutting through all the crap to make that clear is no easy task, not really sure how it can be done, certainly no political leader in the western hemisphere has the ability to do so. ..."
"... Wrong as always. Trump *is* an outsider. He's an unabashed nationalist who's set him up against the *actual* caste that governs our politics: Neo-liberal internationalists with socially trendy left-liberal politics (but not so left that they don't hire good tax lawyers to avoid paying a fraction of what they are legally obliged to). ..."
"... Best represented in the Goldman Sachs executives who are donating millions to Hillary Clinton because they are worried about Trump's opposition to free trade, and they know she will give them *everything* they want. ..."
"... Trumps the closest thing we're gotten to a genuine threat to the system in a long, long time, so of course George Monbiot and the rest of the Guardian writers has set themselves against him, because if you're gonna be wrong about the EU, wrong about New Labour, wrong about social liberalism, wrong about immigration, why change the habit of a lifetime? ..."
"... Lies: Emails, policy changes based on polls showing a complete lack of conviction, corporate collusion, Bosnia, Clinton Foundation, war mongering, etc. Racist stereotypes: Super predators. Misogyny: Aside from her laughing away her pedophile case and allegedly threatening the women who came out against Bill, you've also got this sexist gem "Women are the primary victims of war". ..."
"... Alleged gropings: Well she's killed people by texting. So unless your moral compass is so out of whack that somehow a man JOKING about his player status in private is worse than Clinton's actions throughout her political career, then I guess you could make the case that Clinton at least doesn't have this skeleton in her closet. ..."
"... Refusal to accept democratic outcomes: No. He's speaking out against the media's collusion with the democratic party favoring Clinton over every other nominee, including Bernie Sanders. He's talking about what was revealed in the DNC leaks and the O'Keefe tapes that show how dirty the tactics have been in order to legally persuade the voting public into electing one person or the other. ..."
"... When do the conspiracy theories about the criminality of his opponent no longer count as conspiracies? When we have a plethora of emails confirming there is indeed fire next to that smoke, corruption fire, collusion fire, fire of contempt for the electorate. When we have emails confirming the Saudi Arabians are actually funding terrorist schools across the globe, emails where Hilary herself admits it, but will not say anything publicly about terrorism and Saudi Arabia, what's conspiracy and what's reality? ..."
"... Is it because Saudi Arabia funded her foundation with $23 million, or because it doesn't fit with her great 'internationalists' global agenda? ..."
"... Yep trump is a buffoon, but the failure of all media to deliver serious debate means the US is about to elect someone probably more dangerous than trump, how the hell can that be ..."
"... Nothing wrong with a liberal internationalist utopia, it sounds rather good and worth striving for. It's just that what they've been pushing is actually a neoliberal globalist nirvana for the 1 per cent ..."
"... The problem is the left this paper represents were bought off with the small change by neoliberalism, and they expect the rest of us to suck it up so the elites from both sides can continue the game ..."
"... we near the end of the neoliberal model. That the USA has a choice between two 'demopublicans' is no choice at all. ..."
"... This is the culmination of living in a post-truth political world. Lies and smears, ably supported by the corporate media and Murdoch in particular means that the average person who doesn't closely follow politics is being misinformed. ..."
"... The complete failure of right wing economic 'theories' means they only have lies, smears and the old 'divide and conquer' left in their arsenal. 'Free speech' is their attempt to get lies and smears equal billing with the truth. All truth on the other hand must be suppressed. All experts and scientists who don't regurgitate the meaningless slogans of the right will be ignored, traduced, defunded, disbanded or silenced by law. ..."
"... Not so much an article about Trump as much as a rant. George Monbiot writes with the utter conviction of one who mistakenly believes that his readers share his bigotry. When he talks about the 'alleged gropings' or the 'alleged refusal to accept democratic outcomes', that is exactly what they are 'alleged'. ..."
"... The Democratic Party has been dredging up porn-stars and wannabe models who now make claims that Trump tried to 'kiss them without asking'. ..."
"... The press also ignored the tapes of the DNC paying thugs to cause violence at Trump rallies, the bribes paid to the Clintons for political favours and the stealing of the election from Bernie Sanders. Trump is quite right to think the 'democratic outcome' is being fixed. Not only were the votes for Sanders manipulated, but Al Gore's votes were also altered and manipulated to ensure a win for Bush in the 2000 presidential election. The same interests who engineered the 2000 election have switched from supporting the Republican Party to supporting Clinton. ..."
"... Great article. The neoliberals have been able to control the narrative and in doing so have managed to scapegoat all manner of minority groups, building anger among those disaffected with modern politics. Easy targets - minorities, immigrants, the poor, the disadvantaged and the low-paid workers. ..."
"... The real enemy here are those sitting atop the corporate tree, but with the media controlled by them, the truth is never revealed. ..."
America's fourth president, James Madison, envisaged the United States constitution as representation
tempered by competition between factions. In the 10th federalist paper, written in 1787, he argued
that large republics were better insulated from corruption than small, or "pure" democracies, as
the greater number of citizens would make it "more difficult for unworthy candidates to practise
with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried". A large electorate would
protect the system against oppressive interest groups. Politics practised on a grand scale would
be more likely to select people of "enlightened views and virtuous sentiments".
Instead, the US – in common with many other nations – now suffers the worst of both worlds: a
large electorate dominated by a tiny faction. Instead of republics being governed, as Madison feared,
by "the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority", they are beholden to the not-so-secret
wishes of an unjust and interested minority. What Madison could not have foreseen was the extent
to which unconstrained campaign finance and a sophisticated lobbying industry would come to dominate
an entire nation, regardless of its size.
For every representative, Republican or Democrat, who retains a trace element of independence,
there are three sitting in the breast pocket of corporate capital. Since the supreme court decided
that there should be no effective limits on campaign finance, and, to a lesser extent, long before,
candidates have been reduced to tongue-tied automata, incapable of responding to those in need of
help, incapable of regulating those in need of restraint, for fear of upsetting their funders.
Democracy in the US is so corrupted by money that it is no longer recognisable as democracy. You
can kick individual politicians out of office, but what do you do when the entire structure of politics
is corrupt? Turn to the demagogue who rages into this political vacuum, denouncing the forces he
exemplifies. The problem is not, as Trump claims, that the election will be stolen by ballot rigging.
It is that the entire electoral process is stolen from the American people before they get anywhere
near casting their votes. When Trump claims that the little guy is being screwed by the system, he's
right. The only problem is that he is the system.
The political constitution of the United States is not, as Madison envisaged, representation tempered
by competition between factions. The true constitution is plutocracy tempered by scandal. In other
words, all that impedes the absolute power of money is the occasional exposure of the excesses of
the wealthy.
greatapedescendant 26 Oct 2016 4:11
A good read thanks. Nothing I really disagree with there. Just a few things to add and restate.
"What Madison could not have foreseen was the extent to which unconstrained campaign
finance and a sophisticated lobbying industry would come to dominate an entire nation, regardless
of its size."
That's it – finance and sophisticated lobbying. And you can add to that mass brainwashing
at election campaigns by means of choice language and orchestration as advised by cognitive scientists
who are expressly recruited for this purpose. Voters remain largely unaware of the mind control
they are undergoing. And of course the essential prerequisite for all of this is financial power.
Now read again in this light Gore Vidal's famous pronouncement… "Any American who is prepared
to run for president should automatically by definition be disqualified from ever doing so."
Which recalls Madison over 200 years before… "The truth is that all men having power ought
to be mistrusted."
What the US has is in effect is not a democracy but a plutocracy run by a polyarchy. Which
conserves some democratic elements. To which the US president is largely an obedient and subservient
puppet. And which openly fails to consider the needs of the average US citizen.
Worse still, the political spectrum runs from right to right. To all intents and purposes,
one single party, the US Neoliberal party, with 2 factions catering for power and privilege. Anything
to the left of that is simply not an available choice for voters.
Americans have wakened up to the fact that they badly need a government which caters for
the needs of the average citizen. In their desperation some will still vote for Trump warts and
all. This for the same sorts of reasons that Italians voted for Berlusconi, whose winning slogan
was basically 'I am not a politician'. Though that didn't work out too well. No longer able
to stomach more of the same, voters reach the stage of being willing to back anyone who might
bring about a break with the status quo. Even Trump.
The right choice was Bernie Sanders. Sadly, not powerful enough. So Americans missed the
boat there. But at least there was a boat to miss this time around. You can be sure that similar
future boats will be sunk well in advance. Corporate power has learnt its lesson and the art of
election rigging has now become an exact science.
UltraLightBeam 26 Oct 2016 4:11
Donald Trump, Brexit and Le Pen are all in their separate ways rejections of the dogma
of liberalism, social and economic, that has dominated the West for the past three decades.
The Guardian, among others, laments the loss of 'tolerance' and 'openness' as defining qualities
of our societies. But what's always left unsaid is: tolerance of what? Openness to what? Anything?
Everything?
Is it beyond the pale to critically assess some of the values brought by immigration, and to
reject them? Will only limitless, unthinking 'tolerance' and 'openness' do?
Once self-described 'progressives' engage with this topic, then maybe we'll see a reversal
in the momentum that Trump and the rest of the right wing demagogues have built up.
The United States is extremely lucky.....if somebody comes along who is charismatic
and honest this country is in real trouble because of the frustration, disillusionment, the
justified anger and the absence of any coherent response.
Dangerous times. The beauty of democracy is we get what we deserve.
DiscoveredJoys -> morelightlessheat 26 Oct 2016 6:11
The most telling part for me was:
The worst thing about Donald Trump is that he's the man in the mirror.
Except that instead of
He is the distillation of all that we have been induced to desire and admire.
I thought that he is the mirror image, the reverse, of the current liberal consensus. A consensus
driven by worthy ideals but driven too far, gradually losing acceptance and with no self correcting
awareness.
Trump is awful - but by speaking freely he challenges the excesses of those who would limit
free speech. Trump is awful - but by demonising minorities he challenges those who would excuse
minorities of all responsibility. Trump is awful - but by flaunting his wealth he challenges those
who keep their connections and wealth hidden for the sake of appearances.
Trump is awful because the system is out of balance. He is a consequence, not a cause.
Gman13 26 Oct 2016 4:25
Voting for Trump is voting for peace. Voting for Clinton is voting for WW3.
These events will unfold if Hillary wins:
1. No fly zone imposed in Syria to help "moderate opposition" on pretence of protecting civilians.
2. Syrian government nonetheless continues defending their country as terrorists shell Western
Aleppo.
3. Hillary's planes attack Syrian government planes and the Russians.
4. Russia and Syria respond as the war escalates. America intensifies arming of "moderate opposition"
and Saudis.
5. America arms "rebels" in various Russian regions who "fight for democracy" but this struggle
is somehow hijacked by terrorists, only they are not called terrorists but "opposition"
6. Ukranian government is encouraged to restart the war.
7. Iran enters the war openly against Saudi Arabia
8. Israel bombs Iran
9. Cornered Russia targets mainland US with nuclear weapons
10. Etc.
snakebrain -> Andthenandthen 26 Oct 2016 6:54
It's quite clearly because Hillary as President is an utterly terrifying prospect. When
half the population would rather have Trump than her, it must be conceded that she has some serious
reputational issues.
If Hillary and the DNC hadn't fixed the primaries, we'd now be looking at a Sanders-Trump race,
and a certain Democrat victory. As it is, it's on a knife edge as to whether we get Trump or Hillary.
Personally, I'd take Trump over Hillary if I was a US citizen. He may be a buffoon but
she is profoundly dangerous, probably a genuine psychopath and shouldn't be allowed anywhere near
the Presidency. Sanders is the man America needs now, though, barring one of Hillary's many crimes
finally toppling her, it's not going to happen...
jessthecrip 26 Oct 2016 4:29
Well said George.
The true constitution is plutocracy tempered by scandal
And the shame is we seem to be becoming desensitized to scandal. We cannot be said to live
in democracies when our political class are so obviously bought by the vastly rich.
Remko1 -> UnevenSurface 26 Oct 2016 7:43
You're mixing up your powers. legislative, executive and judicial are the powers of law. Money
and business are some of the keys to stay in command of a country. (there's also military, electorate,
bureaucracy etc.)
And if money is not on your side, it's against you, which gets quite nasty if your main tv-stations
are not state-run.
For example if the EU would (theoretically of course) set rules that make corruption more difficult
you would see that commercial media all over the EU and notoriously corrupted politicians would
start making propaganda to leave the EU. ;)
yamialwaysright chilledoutbeardie 26 Oct 2016 4:38
One of the things it says is that people are so sick of Identity Politics from the Left
and believe the Left are not very true to the ideals of what should be the Left.
When the people who are supposed to care about the poor and working joes and janes prefer
to care about the minorities whose vote they can rely on, the poor and the working joes and janes
will show their frustration by supporting someone who will come along and tell it as it is, even
if he is part of how it got that way.
People throughout the world have awoken to the Left being Right Light but with a more nauseating
moral superiority complex.
Danny Sheahan -> chilledoutbeardie 26 Oct 2016 5:25
That many people are so desperate for change that even being a billionaire but someone outside
the political elite is going to appeal to them.
Tom1Wright 26 Oct 2016 4:32
I find this line of thinking unjust and repulsive: the implication that Trump is a product
of the political establishment, and not an outsider, is to tar the entire Republican party and
its supporters with a great big flag marked 'racist'. That is a gross over simplification and
a total distortion.
UnevenSurface -> Tom1Wright 26 Oct 2016 5:05
But that's not what the article said at all: I quote:
he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his caste, the caste that runs
the global economy and governs our politics
No mention of the GOP.
Tom1Wright -> UnevenSurface 26 Oct 2016 5:14
and I quote
'Encouraged by the corporate media, the Republicans have been waging a full-spectrum
assault on empathy, altruism and the decencies we owe to other people. Their gleeful stoving
in of faces, their cackling destruction of political safeguards and democratic norms, their
stomping on all that is generous and caring and cooperative in human nature, have turned the
party into a game of Mortal Kombat scripted by Breitbart News.'
HindsightMe 26 Oct 2016 4:33
the truth is there is an anti establishment movement and trump just got caught up in the ride.
He didnt start the movement but latched on to it. While we are still fixated on character flaws
the undercurrent of dissatisfaction by the public is still there. Hillary is going to have a tough
time in trying to bring together a divided nation
leadale 26 Oct 2016 4:37
Many years ago in the British Military, those with the right connections and enough money
could buy an officer's commission and rise up the system to be an incompetent General. As a result,
many battles were mismanaged and many lives wasted due to the incompetent (wealthy privileged
few) buying their way to the top. American politics today works on exactly the same system of
wealthy patronage and privilege for the incompetent, read Clinton and Trump. Until the best candidates
are able to rise up through the political system without buying their way there then the whole
corrupt farce will continue and we will be no different to the all the other tin pot republics
of the world.
arkley leadale 26 Oct 2016 5:48
As Wellington once said on reading the list of officers being sent out to him,
"My hope is that when the enemy reads these names he trembles as I do"
Some would argue however that the British system of bought commissions actually made the army
more effective in part because many competent officers had to stay in the field roles of platoon
and company commanders rather than get staff jobs and through the fact that promotion on merit
did exist for non-commissioned officers but there was a block on rising above sergeant.
Some would argue that the British class system ensured that during the Industrial Revolution
charge hands and foremen were appointed from the best workers but there was no way forward from
that, the result being that the best practices were applied through having the best practitioners
in charge at the sharp end.
rodmclaughlin 26 Oct 2016 4:37
"he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his caste, the caste that runs the global
economy and governs our politics."
Obviously, Donald Trump is not an "outsider" in the economic
sense. Trump definitely belongs to the ruling "caste", or rather, "class". But he is by no means
the perfect representative of it. "The global economy", or rather, "capitalism", thrives better
with the free movement of (cheap) labour than without it. Economically, poor Americans would be
better off with more immigration control.
And there's more too it than economics. There's the "culture wars" aspect. Many people
don't like being told they are "deplorable" for opposing illegal (or even legal) immigration.
They don't like being called "racist" for disagreeing with an ideology.
I like the phrase Monbiot ends with - "He is our system, stripped of its pretences" - it
reminds me of a phrase in the Communist Manifesto - but I don't think it's true. "Our" system
is more than capitalism, it's culture. And Clinton is a far more "perfect representation" of the
increasingly censorious, narrow [neo]liberal culture which dominates the Western world.
Finally, Monbiot misses the chance to contrast Clinton's and Trump's apparent differences
with regard to confronting nuclear-armed Russia over the skies of Syria. It could be like 1964
all over again - except in this election, the Democrat is the nearest thing to Barry Goldwater.
nishville 26 Oct 2016 4:40
As a life-long despiser of all things Trump, I cannot believe that I am saying this: Trump
is good for world peace. He might be crap for everything else but I for one will sleep much
better if he is elected POTUS.
dylan37 26 Oct 2016 4:40
Agree, for once, with a piece by George. Trump is nothing new - we've seen his kind of faux-outsider
thing before, but he's amplifying it with the skills of a carnival barker and the "what me?" shrug
of the everyman - when we all know he's not. The election result can't be rigged because the game
is fixed from the start. A potential president needs millions of dollars behind them to even think
about running, and then needs to repay those bought favours once in office. Trump may just win
this one though - despite the polls, poor human qualities and negative press - simply because
he's possibly tapped into a rich seam of anti-politics and a growing desire for anything different,
even if it's distasteful and deplorable. It's that difference that might make the difference,
even when it's actually just more of the same. It's all in the packaging.
greenwichite 26 Oct 2016 4:41
Donald Trump is a clumsy, nasty opportunist who has got one thing right - people don't want globalisation.
What people want, is clean, high-tech industries in their own countries, that automate the
processes we are currently offshoring. They would rather their clothes were made by robots in
Rochdale than a sweat-shop in India.
Same goes for energy imports: we want clean, local renewables.
What people don't want is large, unpleasant multinational corporations negotiating themselves
tax cuts and "free trade" with corrupt politicians like Hillary Clinton.
Just my opinion, of course...
TheSandbag -> greenwichite 26 Oct 2016 4:50
Your right about globalisation, but I think wrong about the automation bit. People want Jobs because
its the only way to survive currently and they see them being shipped to the country with the
easiest to exploit workforce. I don't think many of them realize that those jobs are never coming
back. The socioeconomic system we exist in doesn't work for 90% of the population who are surplus
to requirements for sustaining the other 10%.
Shadenfraude 26 Oct 2016 4:43
I fully agree with Monbiot, American democracy is a sham - the lobby system has embedded corruption
right in the heart of its body politic. Lets be clear here though, whatever is the problem with
American democracy can in theory at least be fixed, but Trump simply can not and moreover he is
not the answer.
... ... ...
oddballs 26 Oct 2016 5:24
Trump threatened Ford that if they closed down US car plants and moved them to Mexico he would
put huge import tariffs on their products making them to expensive.
Export of jobs to low wage countries, how do you think Americans feel when they buy 'sports
wear, sweater, t-shirts shoes that cost say 3 $ to import into the US and then get sold for20
or 50 times as much, by the same US companies that moved production out of the country.
The anger many Americans feel how their lively-hoods have been outsourced, is the lake of discontent
Trump is fishing for votes.
His opponent, war child and Wall Street darling can count her lucky stars that the media
leaves her alone (with husband Bill, hands firmly in his pockets, nodding approvingly) and concentrates
on their feeding frenzy attacking Trump on sexual allegations of abusing women, giving Hillery,
Yes, likely to tell lies, ( mendacious, remember when she claimed to be under enemy fire in Bosnia?
remember how evasive she was on the Benghazi attack on the embassy)
Yes Trump is a dangerous man running against an also extremely dangerous woman.
onepieceman 26 Oct 2016 5:31
Extremely interesting reference to the Madison paper, but the issue is less about the size
of the electorate, and more about the power that the election provides to the victor.
One positive outcome that I hope will come of all of this is that people might think a little
more carefully about how much power an incoming president (or any politician) should be given.
The complacent assumption about a permanently benign government is overdue for a shakeup.
peccadillo -> Dean Alexander 26 Oct 2016 5:43
Democracy in the US is so corrupted by money that it is no longer recognisable as democracy.
You can kick individual politicians out of office, but what do you do when the entire structure
of politics is corrupt?
Having missed that bit, I wonder if you actually read the article.
tater 26 Oct 2016 5:46
The sad thing is that the victims of the corrupt economic and political processes are the small
town folk who try to see Trump as their saviour. The globalisation that the US promoted to expand
its hegemony had no safeguards to protect local economies from mega retail and finance corporations
that were left at liberty to strip wealth from localities. The Federal transfer payments that
might have helped compensate have been too small and were either corrupted pork barrel payments
or shameful social security payments. For a culture that prides itself on independent initiative
and self sufficiency this was always painful and that has made it all the easier for the lobbyists
to argue against increased transfer payments and the federal taxes they require. So more money
for the Trumps of this world.
And to the future. The US is facing the serious risk of a military take over. Already its foreign
policy emanates from the military and the corruption brings it ever closer to the corporations.
If the people don't demand better the coup will come.
MrMopp 26 Oct 2016 6:12
There's a reason turnout for presidential elections is barely above 50%.
Wised up, fed up Americans have long known their only choice is between a Coke or Pepsi President.
Well, this time they've got a Dr. Pepper candidate but they still know their democracy is just
a commodity to be bought and sold, traded and paraded; their elections an almost perpetual presidential
circus.
That a grotesque like Trump can emerge and still be within touching distance of the Whitehouse
isn't entirely down to the Democrats disastrous decision to market New Clinton Coke. Although
that's helped.
The unpalatable truth is, like Brexit, many Americans simply want to shake things up and shake
them up bigly, even if it means a very messy, sticky outcome.
Anyone with Netflix can watch the classic film, "Network" at the moment. And it is a film of
the moment.
"I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a depression.
Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's worth. Banks
are going bust. Shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter. Punks are running wild in the street
and there's nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there's no end to it. We know the
air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat, and we sit watching our TVs while some local
newscaster tells us that today we had fifteen homicides and sixty-three violent crimes, as if
that's the way it's supposed to be.
We know things are bad - worse than bad. They're crazy. It's like everything everywhere is
going crazy, so we don't go out anymore. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we are living
in is getting smaller, and all we say is: 'Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms.
Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials and I won't say anything. Just leave
us alone.'
Well, I'm not gonna leave you alone. I want you to get MAD! I don't want you to protest. I
don't want you to riot - I don't want you to write to your congressman, because I wouldn't know
what to tell you to write. I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and
the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first you've got to get mad. [shouting]
You've got to say: 'I'm a human being, god-dammit! My life has value!'
So, I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to
get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell: I'M AS MAD
AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!
I want you to get up right now. Sit up. Go to your windows. Open them and stick your head out
and yell - 'I'm as mad as hell and I'm not gonna take this anymore!' Things have got to change.
But first, you've gotta get mad!...You've got to say, I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO
TAKE THIS ANYMORE! Then we'll figure out what to do about the depression and the inflation and
the oil crisis. But first, get up out of your chairs, open the window, stick your head out, and
yell, and say it: I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!"
And that was in 1976. A whole lot of shit has happened since then but essentially, Coke is
still Coke and Pepsi is still Pepsi.
Forty years later, millions are going to get out of their chairs. They are going to vote. For
millions of Americans of every stripe, Trump is the "I'M AS MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE
THIS ANYMORE", candidate.
And he's in with a shout.
André De Koning 26 Oct 2016 6:13
Trump is indeed the embodiment of our collective Shadow (As Jung called this unconscious side
of our Self). It does reflect the degeneration of the culture we live in where politics has turned
into a travesty; where all projections of this side are on the Other, the usual other who we can
collectively dislike. All the wars initiated by the US have started with a huge propaganda programme
to hate and project our own Shadow on to this other. Often these were first friends, whether in
Iran or Iraq, Libya: as soon as the oil was not for ""us" , they were depicted as monsters who
needed action: regime change through direct invasion and enormous numbers of war crimes or through
CIA programmed regime change, it all went according to shady plans and manipulation and lies lapped
up by the masses.
When you look at speeches and conversations and debates with the so-called bogeyman, Putin,
he is not at all in a league as low and vile as portrayed and says many more sensible things than
anybody cares to listen to, because we're all brainwashed. We are complicit in wars (now in Syria)
and cannot see why we have to connive with terrorists, tens of thousands of them, and they get
supported by the war machine and friends like Saudis and Turkey which traded for years with ISIS.
The Western culture has become more vile than we could have imagined and slowly, like the frog
in increasingly hot water, we have become used to neglecting most of the population of Syria and
focusing on the rebel held areas, totally unaware of what has happened to the many thousands who
have lived under the occupation by terrorists who come from abroad ad fight the proxy war for
the US (and Saudi and the EU). Trump dares to embody all this, as does Clinton the war hawk,
and shows us we are only capable of seeing one side and project all nastiness outward while we
can feel good about ourselves by hating the other.
It fits the Decline of an Empire image as it did in other Falls of Civilizations.
tashe222 26 Oct 2016 6:28
Lots of virtue signalling from Mr. M.
Trump spoke to the executives at Ford like no one before ever has. He told them if they
moved production to Mexico (as they plan to do) that he would slap huge tariffs on their cars
in America and no one would buy them.
Trump has said many stupid things in this campaign, but he has some independence and is not
totally beholden to vested interests, and so there is at least a 'glimmer' of hope for the future
with him as Potus.
Yes, when the Archdruid first posted that it helped me understand some of the forces that were
driving Trump's successes. I disagree with the idea that voting for Trump is a good idea because
it will bring change to a moribund system. Change is not a panacea and the type of change he is
likely to bring is not going to be pleasant.
Hanwell123 -> ArseButter 26 Oct 2016 6:59
What happens in Syria could be important to us all. Clinton doesn't hide her ambition to
drive Assad from power and give Russia a kicking. It's actually very unpopular although the media
doesn't like to say so; it prefers to lambast Spain for re-fueling Russian war ships off to fight
the crazed Jihadists as if we supported the religious fanatics that want to slaughter all Infidels!
There is an enormous gulf between what ordinary people want and the power crazy Generals in the
Pentagon and NATO.
unsubscriber 26 Oct 2016 6:43
George always writes so beautifully and so tellingly. My favourite sentence from this column is:
Their gleeful stoving in of faces, their cackling destruction of political safeguards and democratic
norms, their stomping on all that is generous and caring and cooperative in human nature, have
turned the party into a game of Mortal Kombat scripted by Breitbart News.
Cadmium 26 Oct 2016 6:51
Trump is not a misogynist, look the word up. He may be crude but that's not the same thing. He
also represents a lot more people than a tiny faction. He is also advocating coming down on lobbying,
which is good. He may be a climate change denier but that's because a lot of his supporters are,
he'd probably change if they did. The way to deal with it is with rational argument, character
assassination is counterproductive even if he himself does it. Although he seems to do it as a
reaction rather than as an attack. He probably has a lot higher chance of winning than most people
think since a lot of people outside the polls will feel represented by him and a lot of those
included in the polls may not vote for Hilary.
ID4755061 26 Oct 2016 6:52
George Monbiot is right. Trump is a conduit for primal stuff that has always been there and never
gone away. All the work that has been done to try to change values and attitudes, to make societies
more tolerant and accepting and sharing, to get rid of xenophobia and racism and the rest, has
merely supressed all these things. Also, while times were good (that hasn't been so for a long
time) most of this subterranean stuff got glossed over most of the time by some kind of feel good
factor and hope for a better future.
But once the protections have gone, if there is nothing to feel good about or there is little
hope left, the primitive fear of other and strange and different kicks back in. It's a basic survival
instinct from a time when everything around the human species was a threat and it is a fundamental
part of us and Trump and Palin at al before him have got this, even if they don't articulate it
this way, and it works and it will always work. It's a pure emotional response to threat that
we can't avoid, the only way out of it, whihc many of use use, is to use our intellects to challenge
the kick of emotion and see it for what it is and to understand the consequences of giving it
free reign. It's this last bit that Trump, Palin, Farage and their ilk just don't get and never
will, we aill always be fighting this fight.
PotholeKid 26 Oct 2016 6:56
Political culture includes the Clintons and Bushes, the Democratic party and Republican party.
exploring that culture using the DNC and Podesta leaks as reference, paints a much better picture
of the depth of depravity this culture represents..Trump is a symptom and no matter how much the
press focuses on maligning his character. The Clintons share a huge responsibility for the corruption
of the system. Mr. Monbiot would serve us well by looking at solutions for cleaning up the mess,
what Trumps likes to call "Draining the swamp"
lonelysoul72 26 Oct 2016 6:59
Trump for me , he is horrendous but Clinton is worse.
nooriginalthought 26 Oct 2016 7:06
"Democracy in the U.S. is so corrupted by money it is no longer recognisable as democracy."
Sounds like a quote from Frank Underwood. To catch a thief sometimes you need the services of
a thief. With a fair degree of certainty we can be sure a Clinton administration will offer us
continuity .
If that is what you think the world needs fine.
If you believe globalization to be of benefit only to the few .
If you believe Russia has no rights to a sphere of influence on its boarders.
If you believe America's self appointed role as world policemen a disaster.
If you believe trade agreements a backdoor to corporate control.
If your just pissed off with politicians .
Your probably going to vote Trump. Looking forward to a long list of articles here in November
prophecies of Armageddon a la brexit. You liberal lefties , you'll never learn. If you want to
know what people are thinking , you got to get out of the echochamber.
nooriginalthought -> aurlius 26 Oct 2016 7:45
Sorry , hate having to explain myself to the dim witted.
USA has got itself in an unholy mess . It's politicians no longer work for the people .
Their paymasters care not if life in Idaho resembles Dantes inferno .
Trump has many faults but being "not Hilary" is not one of them. The very fact he is disliked
by all the vested interests should make you take another look.
And remember , the American constitution has many checks and balances , a President has a lot
less power than most people imagine.
Pinkie123 26 Oct 2016 7:21
While it is impossible to credibly disagree with the general thrust of this, some of Monbiot's
assumptions exemplify problems with left-wing thinking at the moment.
But those traits ensure that he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his
caste, the caste that runs the global economy and governs our politics. He is our system, stripped
of its pretences.
Like many on the right, the left have unthinkingly accepted a narrative of an organized,
conspiratorial system run by an elite of politicians and plutocrats. The problem with this narrative
is it suggests politics and politicians are inherently nefarious, in turn suggesting there are
no political solutions to be sought to problems, or anything people can do to challenge a global
system of power. As Monbiot asks: "You can kick individual politicians out of office, but what
do you do when the entire structure of politics is corrupt?" Well, what indeed?
I think Monbiot a principled, intelligent left-wing commentator, but at the same time he epitomises
a left-wing retreat into pessimism in the face of a putatively global network of power and inevitable
environmental catastrophe. In reality, while there is no shortage of perfidious, corrupt corporate
interests dominating global economies, there is no organized system or shadowy establishment -
only a chaotic mess rooted in complex political problems. Once you accept that reality, then it
becomes possible to imagine political solutions to the quandaries confronting us. Rather than
just railing against realities, you can envision a new world to replace them. And a new kind of
world is something you very rarely get from the left these days. Unlike the utopian socialists
of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, there is little optimism or imagination - just anger,
pessimism and online echo chambers of 'clictivists'.
Like the documentarian Adam Curtis says, once you conclude that all politics is corrupt then
all you can do is sit there impotently and say: 'Oh dear'.
deltajones -> Pinkie123 26 Oct 2016 8:12
I don't think you need to believe in an organised conspiracy and I don't see any real evidence
that George Monbiot does. The trouble is that the corporate and political interests align in a
way that absorbs any attempt to challenge them and the narrative has been written that of course
politics is all about economics and of course we need mighty corporations to sustain us.
Even the left has largely taken on that narrative and it's seen as common sense. Challenging
this belief system is the toughest job that there is and we see that in the howling indignation
hurled at Jeremy Corbyn if he makes the slightest suggestion of nationalisation of the railways,
for instance.
ianfraser3 26 Oct 2016 7:29
Not long after the start of the presidential campaign I began to reflect that in Trump
we are seeing materializing before us the logical result of the neoliberal project, the ultimate
shopping spree, buy an election.
furiouspurpose -> IllusionOfFairness 26 Oct 2016 8:08
The Republican party essentially offered their base nothing – that was the problem.
They couldn't offer all the things that ordinary Americans want – better and wider Medicaid,
better and wider social security, tax increases on the rich, an end to pointless foreign wars
and the American empire. None of these things were acceptable to their funders so that only
left emotional issues – anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-god, pro-gun. And all of the emotional issues
are on the wrong side of history as the US naturally grows more politically progressive. So the
Republican party couldn't even deliver on the emotionally driven agenda. I think their base realised
that they were being offered nothing – and that's why they turned to Trump. Perhaps a fascist
blowhard could bulldoze the system to deliver on the emotional side of the offer. That's why Trump
broke through
The Democrats have largely the same funding base, but they at least deliver crumbs – at
least a nod to the needs of ordinary people through half-hearted social programmes. In the
end the African Americans decided that Hillary could be relied upon to deliver some crumbs – so
they settled for that. That's why Sanders couldn't break through.
fairleft 26 Oct 2016 7:55
Trump is imperfect because he wants normal relations rather than war with Russia. No, Hillary
Clinton is the ultimate representation of the system that is abusing us. What will occur when
Goldman Sachs and the military-industrial complex coalition get their, what is it, 5th term in
office would be a great subject of many Guardian opinion pieces, actually. But that will have
to wait till after November 8.
Such commentary would be greatly aided the Podesta emails, which enlighten us as to the mind
and 'zeitgeist' of the HIllary team. And, of course, we also have Hillary's Wall Street speeches
-- thanks to Wikileaks we have the complete transcripts, in case Guardian readers are unaware.
They expose the real thinking and 'private positions' of the central character in the next episode
of 'Rule by Plutocracy'.
But, of course, opinion columns and think pieces on the Real Hillary and the Podesta emails
will have to wait ... forever.
toffee1 26 Oct 2016 7:58
Trump shows the true face of the ruling class with no hypocrisy. He is telling us the truth.
If we have a democracy, we should have a party representing the interests of the business class,
why not. The democrats is the party practicing hypocrisy, pretending that they somehow representing
the interest of the working class. They are the ones spreading lies and hypocrisy and manipulating
the working class everyday through their power over the media. Their function is to appease the
working class. The real obstacle for improving conditions for the working class historically has
always been the Democratic party, not the Republican party.
Kikinaskald Cadmium 26 Oct 2016 8:39
In fact presidents don't usually have much affect, they're prey to their advisors. Generally true.
But Obama was able to show that he was able to distance himself up to a certain point from what
was around him. He was aware of the power of the establishment and of their bias. So, when the
wave against Iran was as strong as never before, he made a deal with Iran. He also didn't want
to intervene more actively in Syria and even in what concerns Russia, he seems to have moderate
positions.
In what concerns foreign politics, Trump some times seems more reasonable than Clinton
and the establishment. Clinton is the best coached politician of all times. She doesn't know that
she's coached. She just followed the most radical groups and isn't able to question anything at
all. The only thing that the coaches didn't fix until now is her laughing which is considered
even by her coaches as a sign of weirdness.
Kikinaskald -> J.K. Stevens 26 Oct 2016 9:09
She is considered to be highly aggressive, she pushed for the bombing of a few countries and
intervening everywhere..
Unfortunately all politics in the west is based on a similar model with our own domestic landscape
perhaps most closely resembling that in the US. We've always been peddled convenient lies of course,
but perhaps as society itself becomes more polarised [in terms of distribution of wealth and the
social consequences of that], the dissonance with the manufactured version of reality becomes
ever sharper. It is deeply problematic because traditional popular media is dominated by the wealthy
elite and the reality it depicts is as much a reflection of the consensual outlook of that elite
as it is deliberate, organised mendacity [although there's plenty of that too].
Western economies are now so beholden to the patronage of the essentially stateless multinational,
it has become a political imperative to appease their interests - it's difficult to see a future
in which an administration might resist this force, because at its whim, national economies face
ruination. In light of such helplessness our political representatives face an easier path in
simply accepting their lot as mere administrators who will tinker at the margins [and potentially
reap the rewards of a good servant], rather than hold to principle and resist an overwhelming
force.
Meanwhile the electorate is become increasingly disaffected by this mainstream of politics
who they [rightly] sense is no longer truly representative of their interests in any substantive
way. To this backdrop the media has made notable blunders in securing the status quo. It has revealed
the corruption and self-seeking of many in politics and promoted the widespread distrust of mainstream
politicians for a variety of reasons. While the corruption is real and endemic, howls of protest
against political 'outsiders' from this same press is met with with the view that the political
establishment cannot be trusted engendered by the same sources.
The narrative for Brexit is somewhat similar. For many years the EU was the whipping boy for
all our ills and the idea that it is fundamentally undemocratic in contrast to our own system,
so unchallenged that it is taken for fact, even by the reasonably educated. Whilst I'm personally
deflated and not a little worried by our exit, it comes as little surprise that a distorted perspective
on the EU has led to a revolt against it.
There are of course now very many alternative narratives to those which are the preserve of
monied media magnates, but they're disparate, fractured and unfocused.
Only the malaise has any sort of consistency about it and it is bitterly ironic that figures
like Trump and Farage can so effectively plug into that in the guise of outsiders, to offer spurious
alternatives to that which is so desperately needed. It's gloomy stuff.
Western economies are now so beholden to the patronage of the essentially stateless
multinational, it has become a political imperative to appease their interests - it's difficult
to see a future in which an administration might resist this force, because at its whim, national
economies face ruination. In light of such helplessness our political representatives face
an easier path in simply accepting their lot as mere administrators who will tinker at the
margins [and potentially reap the rewards of a good servant], rather than hold to principle
and resist an overwhelming force.
I have been an advocate of this point for a long time.There is a saying in politics in America
that'' the only difference between a Democrat and a Republican is the speed at which they drop
to their knees when big business walks into the room''.
How it is going to be stopped or indeed if there is the will to do so,I do not know. The proponents
and those who have most to lose have been incredibly successful in propagating the myth that 'you
to can have what I have'and have convinced a sizeable minority that there is no alternative.
Until that changes and is exposed for the illusion that it is ,we are I fear heading for something
far worse than we have now.
"Trump personifies the traits promoted by the media and corporate worlds he affects
to revile; the worlds that created him. He is the fetishisation of wealth, power and image
in a nation where extrinsic values are championed throughout public discourse. His conspicuous
consumption, self-amplification and towering (if fragile) ego are in tune with the dominant
narratives of our age."
Because this is who we are and this is how we role. We got on rickety ships and braved the
cowardly waters to reach these shores, with tremendous realworld uncertainty and absolute religious
zeal. We are the manly men and womanly women who manifested our destiny, endured the cruel nature
naturing, and civilized the wild wild west, at the same time preserving our own wildness and rugged
individualism. Why should we go all soft and namby-pamby with this social safety nonsense? Let
the roadkills expire with dignified indignity on the margins of the social order. We will bequeath
a glorious legacy to the Randian ubermenschen who will inherit this land from us. They will live
in Thielian compounds wearing the trendiest Lululemons. They will regularly admonish their worses
with chants of: "Do you want to live? Pay, pal". If we go soft, if we falter, how will we ever
be able to look in the eye the ghosts of John Wayne, Marion Morrison, Curtis LeMay, Chuck Heston,
Chuck Norris, and the Great Great Ronnie Himself? Gut-check time folks, suck it up and get on
with the program.
"The political constitution of the United States is not, as Madison envisaged, representation
tempered by competition between factions. The true constitution is plutocracy tempered by scandal."
The Founders had a wicked sense of humor. They set up the structure of various branches so
as to allow for the possibility of a future take-over by the Funders. That leaves room for the
exorbitant influence of corporations and wealthy individuals and the rise of the Trumps, leading
to the eventual fall into a Mad Max world.
"Yes, [Trump] is a shallow, mendacious, boorish and extremely dangerous man. But those traits
ensure that he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his caste, the caste that
runs the global economy and governs our politics. He is our system, stripped of its pretences."
It is irrelevant if everyone sees the emperor/system has no clothes, it quite enjoys walking
around naked now that it has absolute power.
'It is irrelevant if everyone sees the emperor/system has no clothes, it quite enjoys
walking around naked now that it has absolute power.'
Yes, they don't care any more if we see the full extent of their corruption as we've given
up our power to do anything about it.
chiefwiley -> Luftwaffe 26 Oct 2016 9:31
It was once very common to see Democratic politicians as neighbors attending every community
event. They were Teamsters, pipe fitters, and electricians. And they were coaches and ushers and
pallbearers. Now they are academics and lawyers and NGO employees and managers who pop up during
campaigns.
The typical income of the elected Democrats outside their government check is north of $100,000.
They don't live in, or even wander through, the poorer neighborhoods. So they are essentially
clueless that government services like busses are run to suit government and not actual customers.
It's sort of nice to have somebody looking after our interests in theory, but it would
be at least polite if they deemed to ask us what we think our best interests are. Notice the nasty
names and attributes being hurled at political "dissidents," especially around here, and there
should be little wonder why many think the benevolent and somewhat single minded and authoritarian
left is at least part of their problems.
ghstwrtrx7 -> allblues 26 Oct 2016 14:02
Yea, 15 years of constant wars of empire with no end in sight has pretty much ran this
country in the ground.
We all talk about how much money is wasted by the federal government on unimportant endeavors
like human services and education, but don't even bat an eye about the sieve of money that is
the Pentagon.
Half a trillion dollars for aircraft carriers we don't need and are already obsolete. China
is on the verge of developing wickedly effective anti-ship missiles designed specifically to target
these Gerald R. Ford-class vessels. You might as well paint a huge bull's-eye on these ships'
4-1/2 acre flight deck.
And then there there's the most egregious waste of money our historically over-bloated defense
budget has ever seen: The Lockheed-Martin F-35 Lightening II Joint Strike Fighter. Quite a mouthful,
isn't? When you hear how much this boondoggle costs the American taxpayer, you'll choke: $1.5
Trillion, with a t. What's even more retching is that aside from already being obsolete, it doesn't
even work.
There are plenty more examples of this crap and this doesn't even include the nearly TWO
trillion dollars we've spent this past decade-and-a-half on stomping flat the Middle East and
large swaths of the Indian subcontinent.
And all this time, our nation's infrastructure is crumbling literally right out from underneath
us and millions upon millions of children and their families experience a daily struggle just
to eat. Eat?! In the "greatest," wealthiest nation on earth and we prefer to kill people at weddings
with drones than feed our own children.
I can't speak for anyone else other than myself, but that, boys and girls, has a decided miasma
of evil about it.
transplendent 26 Oct 2016 9:49
I'd like to read an unbiased piece about why the media narrative doesn't match the reality
of the Trump phenomenon. He is getting enormous crowds attend his rallies but hardly any coverage
of that in the filtered news outlets. Hillary, is struggling to get anyone turn up without paying
them. There is no real enthusiasm.
If Hillary doesn't win by a major landslide (and I mean BIGLY) as the MSM would lead us to
believe she is going to, it could be curtains for the media, as what little credibility that is
not already swirling around the plughole will disappear down it once and for all.
The buzzwords and tired old catch phrases and cliches used by the left to suppress any
alternative discussion, and divert from their own misdemeanors are fooling no one but themselves.
Trump supporters simply don't care any more how Hillary supporters explain that she lied about
dodging sniper fire. Or the numerous other times she and her cohorts have been caught out telling
fibs.
leftofstalin 26 Oct 2016 10:06
Sorry George YOU and the chattering classes you represent are the reason for the rise of the
far right blinded by the false promises of new labour and it's ilk the working classes have been
demonized as striking troublemakers benefit frauds racists uneducated bigots etc etc and going
by the comments on these threads from remainders you STILL don't understand the psyche of the
working class
Gary Ruddock 26 Oct 2016 10:07
When Obama humiliated Trump at that dinner back in 2011 he may have set a course for his own
destruction. Lately, Obama does not appear anywhere near as confident as he once did.
Perhaps Trump has seen the light, seen the error of his ways, maybe he realizes if he doesn't
stand up against the system, then no one will.
transplendent 26 Oct 2016 10:38
Trump's only crime, is he buys into the idea of national identity and statehood (along with
every other nation state in the world mind you), and Hillary wants to kick down the doors and
hand over the US to Saudi Arabia and any international vested interest who can drop a few dollars
into the foundation coffers. I can't see Saudi Arabia throwing open the doors any day soon, unless
it is onto a one way street.
N.B. The Russians are not behind it.
gjjwatson 26 Oct 2016 11:10
Very true. Throughout history the rich, the powerful, the landed, ennobled interest and
their friends in the Law and money changing houses have sought to control governments and have
usually succeeded.
In the Media today the rich are fawned over by sycophantic journalists and programme makers.
These are the people who make the political weather and create the prevailing narratives.
I remember when President Reagan railed against government whilst he was in office, he said
the worst words a citizen could hear were "I`m from the government, I`m here to help you".
Working class people fancied themselves to above the common herd and thought themselves
part of some elite.
All of this chimes of course with American history and it`s constitution written by slave owning
colonists who proclaimed that "all men are created equal".
bonhiver 26 Oct 2016 12:10
It's quite disturbing the lengths this paper will go to in order to slur and discredit
Trump, labelling him dangerous and alluding to the sexual assault allegations. This even goes
so far to a very lengthy article regarding Trumps lack of knowledge on the Rumbelows Cup 25 years
ago.
Whereas very little examination is made into Hillary Clinton's background which includes
serious allegation of fraud and involvement in assisting in covering up her husband's alleged
series of rapes. There are also issues in the wikileaks emails that merit analysis as well as
undercover tapes of seioau issues with her campaign team.
Whereas it is fair to criticise Trump for a lot of stuff it does appear that there is no attempt
at balance as Clinton's faults appear to get covered up om this paper.
Whereas I can not vote in the US elections and therefore the partisan reporting has no substantive
effect on how I may vote or act it is troubling that a UK newspaper does not provide the reader
with an objective as possible reporting on the presidential race.
It suggests biased reporting elsewhere.
thevisitor2015 26 Oct 2016 12:46
One of the most important characteristics of the so-called neoliberalism is its negative
selection. While mostly successfully camouflaged, that negative selection is more than obvious
this time, in two US presidential candidates. It's hard to imagine lower than those two.
seamuspadraig 26 Oct 2016 13:37
Well, OK George. Tell me: if Trump's such an establishment candidate, then why does the
whole of the establishment unanimously reject him? Is it normal for Republicans (such as the Bushes
and the neocons) to endorse Democrats? Why does even the Speaker of the House (a Republican) and
even, on occasion, Trump's own Vice-Presidential nominee seem to be trying to undermine his campaign?
If Trump is really just more of the same as all that came before, why is he being treated different
by the MSM and the political establishment?
Obviously, there's something flawed about your assumption.
CharlesPDXOr -> seamuspadraig 26 Oct 2016 13:58
I think the answer to your question is in the article: because Trump has brought the truth
of the monied class into the open. He is a perfect example of all that class is and tries to pretend
it is not. And when the commoners see this in front of them, a whole lot of them are disgusted
by it. That doesn't sit well back in the country club and the boardroom, where they work so hard
to keep all of that behind closed doors. They hate him because he is one of them and is spilling
the beans on all of them.
bill9651 26 Oct 2016 13:01
Trump has exposed the corruption of the political system and the media and has promised to
put a stop to it. By contrast, Clinton is financed by the very banks, corporates and financial
elites who are responsible for the corruption. This Trump speech is explicit on what we all suspected
is going on. Everybody should watch it, irrespective of whether they support him or not!
Michael Moore explaining why a lot of people like him
"I know a lot of people in Michigan that are planning to vote for Trump and they don't necessarily
agree with him. They're not racist or redneck, they're actually pretty decent people and so after
talking to a number of them I wanted to write this.
Donald Trump came to the Detroit Economic Club and stood there in front of Ford Motor executives
and said "if you close these factories as you're planning to do in Detroit and build them in Mexico,
I'm going to put a 35% tariff on those cars when you send them back and nobody's going to buy
them." It was an amazing thing to see. No politician, Republican or Democrat, had ever said anything
like that to these executives, and it was music to the ears of people in Michigan and Ohio and
Pennsylvania and Wisconsin - the "Brexit" states.
You live here in Ohio, you know what I'm talking about. Whether Trump means it or not, is kind
of irrelevant because he's saying the things to people who are hurting, and that's why every beaten-down,
nameless, forgotten working stiff who used to be part of what was called the middle class loves
Trump. He is the human Molotov Cocktail that they've been waiting for; the human hand grande that
they can legally throw into the system that stole their lives from them. And on November 8, although
they lost their jobs, although they've been foreclose on by the bank, next came the divorce and
now the wife and kids are gone, the car's been repoed, they haven't had a real vacation in years,
they're stuck with the shitty Obamacare bronze plan where you can't even get a fucking percocet,
they've essentially lost everything they had except one thing - the one thing that doesn't cost
them a cent and is guaranteed to them by the American constitution: the right to vote.
They might be penniless, they might be homeless, they might be fucked over and fucked up it doesn't
matter, because it's equalized on that day - a millionaire has the same number of votes as the
person without a job: one. And there's more of the former middle class than there are in the millionaire
class. So on November 8 the dispossessed will walk into the voting booth, be handed a ballot,
close the curtain, and take that lever or felt pen or touchscreen and put a big fucking X in the
box by the name of the man who has threatened to upend and overturn the very system that has ruined
their lives: Donald J Trump.
They see that the elite who ruined their lives hate Trump. Corporate America hates Trump. Wall
Street hates Trump. The career politicians hate Trump. The media hates Trump, after they loved
him and created him, and now hate. Thank you media: the enemy of my enemy is who I'm voting for
on November 8.
Yes, on November 8, you Joe Blow, Steve Blow, Bob Blow, Billy Blow, all the Blows get to go
and blow up the whole goddamn system because it's your right. Trump's election is going to be
the biggest fuck you ever recorded in human history and it will feel good."
Michael Moore
Debreceni 26 Oct 2016 14:15
Mrs Clinton is also the product of our political culture. A feminist who owes everything
to her husband and men in the Democratic Party. A Democrat who started her political career as
a Republican; a civil right activist who worked for Gerry Goldwater, one of last openly racist/segregationist
politicians. A Secretary of State who has no clue about, or training in, foreign policy, and who
received her position as compensation for losing the election. A pacifist, who has never had a
gun in her hands, but supported every war in the last twenty years. A humanist who rejoiced over
Qaddafi's death ("we came, we won, he is dead!") like a sadist.
Both candidates have serious weaknesses. Yet Trump is very much an American character, his
vices and weaknesses are either overlooked, or widely shared, secretively respected and even admired
(even by those who vote against him). Clinton's arrogance, elitism and hypocrisy, coupled with
her lack of talent, charisma and personality, make her an aberration in American politics.
BabylonianSheDevil03 26 Oct 2016 15:26
One thing that far right politics offers the ordinary white disaffected voter is 'pay back',
it is a promised revenge-fest, putting up walls, getting rid of foreigners, punishing employers
of foreigners, etc., etc. All the stuff that far right groups have wet dreams about.
Farage used the same tactics in the UK. Le Pen is the same.
Because neoliberal politics has left a hell of a lot of people feeling pissed off, the
far right capitalizes on this, whilst belonging to the same neoliberal dystopia so ultimately
not being able to make good on their promises. Their promises address a lot of people's anger,
which of course isn't really about foreigners at all, that is simply the decoy, but cutting through
all the crap to make that clear is no easy task, not really sure how it can be done, certainly
no political leader in the western hemisphere has the ability to do so.
ProseBeforeHos 26 Oct 2016 15:45
"But those traits ensure that he is not an outsider but the perfect representation of his caste,
the caste that runs the global economy and governs our politics."
Wrong as always. Trump *is* an outsider. He's an unabashed nationalist who's set him up
against the *actual* caste that governs our politics: Neo-liberal internationalists with socially
trendy left-liberal politics (but not so left that they don't hire good tax lawyers to avoid paying
a fraction of what they are legally obliged to).
Best represented in the Goldman Sachs executives who are donating millions to Hillary Clinton
because they are worried about Trump's opposition to free trade, and they know she will give them
*everything* they want.
Trumps the closest thing we're gotten to a genuine threat to the system in a long, long
time, so of course George Monbiot and the rest of the Guardian writers has set themselves against
him, because if you're gonna be wrong about the EU, wrong about New Labour, wrong about social
liberalism, wrong about immigration, why change the habit of a lifetime?
aofeia1224 26 Oct 2016 16:09
"What is the worst thing about Donald Trump? The lies? The racist stereotypes? The misogyny?
The alleged gropings? The apparent refusal to accept democratic outcomes?"
Lies: Emails, policy changes based on polls showing a complete lack of conviction, corporate
collusion, Bosnia, Clinton Foundation, war mongering, etc.
Racist stereotypes: Super predators. Misogyny: Aside from her laughing away her pedophile case
and allegedly threatening the women who came out against Bill, you've also got this sexist gem
"Women are the primary victims of war".
Alleged gropings: Well she's killed people by texting. So unless your moral compass is
so out of whack that somehow a man JOKING about his player status in private is worse than Clinton's
actions throughout her political career, then I guess you could make the case that Clinton at
least doesn't have this skeleton in her closet.
Refusal to accept democratic outcomes: No. He's speaking out against the media's collusion
with the democratic party favoring Clinton over every other nominee, including Bernie Sanders.
He's talking about what was revealed in the DNC leaks and the O'Keefe tapes that show how dirty
the tactics have been in order to legally persuade the voting public into electing one person
or the other.
Besides that, who cares about his "refusal" to accept the outcome? The American people protested
when Bush won in 2000 saying it was rigged. Same goes with Obama saying the same "anti democratic"
shit back in 2008 in regards to the Bush Administration.
Pot call kettle black
caravanserai 26 Oct 2016 16:16
Republicans are crazy and their policies make little sense. Neo-conservatism? Trickle down
economics? Getting the poor to pay for the mess created by the bankers in 2008? Trump knows what
sells to his party's base. He throws them red meat. However, the Democrats are not much better.
They started to sell out when Bill Clinton was president. They pretend to still be the party of
the New Deal, but they don't want to offend Wall Street. US democracy is in trouble.
rooolf 26 Oct 2016 16:24
When do the conspiracy theories about the criminality of his opponent no longer count as
conspiracies? When we have a plethora of emails confirming there is indeed fire next to that smoke,
corruption fire, collusion fire, fire of contempt for the electorate. When we have emails confirming
the Saudi Arabians are actually funding terrorist schools across the globe, emails where Hilary
herself admits it, but will not say anything publicly about terrorism and Saudi Arabia, what's
conspiracy and what's reality?
Is it because Saudi Arabia funded her foundation with $23 million, or because it doesn't
fit with her great 'internationalists' global agenda?
Either way there seems to be some conspiring of some sort
When is it no longer theory? And where does the guardian fit into this corrupted corporate
media idea?
Yep trump is a buffoon, but the failure of all media to deliver serious debate means the
US is about to elect someone probably more dangerous than trump, how the hell can that be
What the author overlooks is the media's own complicity in allowing this to develop
Unfortunately the corruption of the system is so entrenched it takes an abnormality like trump
to challenge it
Hard to believe, but trump is a once in a lifetime opportunity to shake shit up, not a pleasant
one, in fact a damn ugly opportunity, but the media shut him down, got all caught up in self preservation
and missed the opportunity
it what comes next that is scary
BScHons -> rooolf 26 Oct 2016 17:09
Nothing wrong with a liberal internationalist utopia, it sounds rather good and worth striving
for. It's just that what they've been pushing is actually a neoliberal globalist nirvana for the
1 per cent
rooolf BScHons 26 Oct 2016 17:17
Totally agree
The problem is the left this paper represents were bought off with the small change by
neoliberalism, and they expect the rest of us to suck it up so the elites from both sides can
continue the game
Talking about the environment and diversity doesn't cut it
mrjonno 26 Oct 2016 17:02
Well said as ever George. Humanity is in a total mess as we near the end of the neoliberal
model. That the USA has a choice between two 'demopublicans' is no choice at all.
I would go further in your analysis - media controlled by these sociopaths has ensured that our
society shares the same values - we are a bankrupt species as is.
As long as you are here to provide sensible analysis, along with Peter Joseph, I have hope
that we can pull out of the nosedive that we are currently on a trajectory for.
Thank you for your sane input into an otherwise insane world. Thank you Mr Monbiot.
annedemontmorency 26 Oct 2016 19:08
We'll ignore the part about the inability to accept democratic outcomes since that afflicts
so many people and organisations - Brexit , anyone?
More to the point is how the summit of US politics produces candidates like Trump and Clinton.
Clinton is suffering the same damage the LibDems received during their coalition with the Tories
.Proximity to power exposed their inadequacies and hypocrisy in both cases.
Trump - unbelievably - remains a viable candidate but only because Hillary Clinton reeks of
graft and self interest.
The obvious media campaign against Trump could also backfire - voters know a hatchet job when
they see one - they watch House of Cards.
But politics is odd around the whole world.
The Guardian is running a piece about the Pirate party in Iceland.
Why go so far? - the most remarkable coup in recent politics was UKIP forcing a vote on the
EU which it not only won it did so in spite of only ever having ONE MP out of 630.
Trump may be America's UKIP - he resembles them in so many ways.
ID6209069 26 Oct 2016 20:35
It's possible that something like this was inevitable, in a nation which is populated by "consumers"
rather than as citizens. There are "valuable demographics" versus those that aren't worthy of
the attention of the constant bombardment of advertising. I jokingly said last year that as I
was turning 55 last year, I am no longer in the 'coveted 29-54 demo'. My worth as a consumer has
been changed merely by reaching a certain age, so I now see fewer ads about cars and electronics
and more about prescription medicines. The product of our media is eyeballs, not programs or articles.
The advertising is the money maker, the content merely a means of luring people in for a sales
pitch, not to educate or inform. If that structure sells us a hideous caricature of a successful
person and gives him political power, as long as the ad dollars keep rolling in.
GreyBags 26 Oct 2016 21:19
This is the culmination of living in a post-truth political world. Lies and smears, ably
supported by the corporate media and Murdoch in particular means that the average person who doesn't
closely follow politics is being misinformed.
The complete failure of right wing economic 'theories' means they only have lies, smears
and the old 'divide and conquer' left in their arsenal. 'Free speech' is their attempt to get
lies and smears equal billing with the truth. All truth on the other hand must be suppressed.
All experts and scientists who don't regurgitate the meaningless slogans of the right will be
ignored, traduced, defunded, disbanded or silenced by law.
We see the same corrupted philosophy in Australia as well.
JamesCameron 7d ago
Yet Trump, the "misogynist, racist and bigot"' has more women in executive and managerial positions
than any comparable company, pays these women the same or more than their male counterparts and
fought the West Palm Beach City Council to be allowed to open his newly purchased club to blacks
and Jews who had been banned until then. I suspect his views do chime with Americans fed up with
political correctness gone mad as well as the venality of the administration of Barak Obama, a
machine politician with dodgy bagmen from Chicago – the historically corrupt city in Illinois,
the most corrupt state in the Union. Finally, unlike The Hilary, he has actually held down a job,
worked hard and achieved success and perhaps they are more offended by what she does than what
he says.
aucourant 7d ago
Not so much an article about Trump as much as a rant. George Monbiot writes with the utter
conviction of one who mistakenly believes that his readers share his bigotry. When he talks about
the 'alleged gropings' or the 'alleged refusal to accept democratic outcomes', that is exactly
what they are 'alleged'.
The Democratic Party has been dredging up porn-stars and wannabe models who now make claims
that Trump tried to 'kiss them without asking'. This has become the nightly fare of the mainstream
media in the USA. At the same time the media ignores the destruction of Clinton's emails, the
bribing of top FBI officials who are investigating the destroyed tapes and the giving of immunity
to all those who aided Clinton in hiding and destroying subpoenaed evidence.
The press also ignored the tapes of the DNC paying thugs to cause violence at Trump rallies,
the bribes paid to the Clintons for political favours and the stealing of the election from Bernie
Sanders. Trump is quite right to think the 'democratic outcome' is being fixed. Not only were
the votes for Sanders manipulated, but Al Gore's votes were also altered and manipulated to ensure
a win for Bush in the 2000 presidential election. The same interests who engineered the 2000 election
have switched from supporting the Republican Party to supporting Clinton.
Anomander64 6d ago
Great article. The neoliberals have been able to control the narrative and in doing so
have managed to scapegoat all manner of minority groups, building anger among those disaffected
with modern politics. Easy targets - minorities, immigrants, the poor, the disadvantaged and the
low-paid workers.
The real enemy here are those sitting atop the corporate tree, but with the media controlled
by them, the truth is never revealed.
mochilero7687 5d ago
Perhaps next week George will write in detail about all the scandals Hildabeast has caused
and been involved in over the past 40 years - which have cost the US govt tens of millions of
dollars and millions of man hours - but I won't be holding my breath.
"... The roster of retired military officers endorsing Hillary Clinton in September glittered with decoration and rank. One former general led the American surge in Anbar, one of the most violent provinces in Iraq. Another commanded American-led allied forces battling the Taliban in Afghanistan . Yet another trained the first Iraqis to combat Islamic insurgents in their own country. ..."
"... After 15 years at war, many who served in Iraq or Afghanistan are proud of their service but exhausted by its burdens. They distrust the political class that reshaped their lives and are frustrated by how little their fellow citizens seem to understand about their experience. ..."
"... "When we jump into wars without having a real plan, things like Vietnam and things like Iraq and Afghanistan happen," said William Hansen, a former Marine who served two National Guard tours in Iraq. "This is 16 years. This is longer than Vietnam." ..."
The roster of retired military officers endorsing
Hillary Clinton in September glittered with decoration and rank. One former general led the American
surge in Anbar, one of the most violent provinces in Iraq. Another commanded American-led allied
forces battling the Taliban in
Afghanistan . Yet another trained the first Iraqis to combat Islamic insurgents in their own
country.
But as Election Day approaches, many veterans are instead turning to
Donald
J. Trump , a businessman who avoided the Vietnam draft and has boasted of gathering foreign policy
wisdom by watching television shows.
Even as other voters abandon Mr. Trump, veterans remain among his most loyal supporters, an unlikely
connection forged by the widening gulf they feel from other Americans.
After 15 years at war, many who served in Iraq or Afghanistan are proud of their service but
exhausted by its burdens. They distrust the political class that reshaped their lives and are frustrated
by how little their fellow citizens seem to understand about their experience.
Perhaps most strikingly, they welcome Mr. Trump's blunt attacks on America's entanglements overseas.
"When we jump into wars without having a real plan, things like Vietnam and things like Iraq
and Afghanistan happen," said William Hansen, a former Marine who served two National Guard tours
in Iraq. "This is 16 years. This is longer than Vietnam."
In small military towns in California and North Carolina, veterans of all eras cheer Mr. Trump's
promises to fire officials at the
Department of Veterans Affairs . His attacks on political correctness evoke their frustrations
with tortured rules of engagement crafted to serve political, not military, ends. In Mr. Trump's
forceful assertion of strength, they find a balm for wounds that left them broken and torn.
"He calls it out," said Joshua Macias, a former Navy petty officer and fifth-generation veteran
who lives in the Tidewater region of Virginia, where he organized a "Veterans for Trump" group last
year. "We have intense emotion connected to these wars. The way it was politicized, the way they
changed the way we fight in a war setting - it's horrible how they did that."
In ''A Burden Too Heavy to Put Down,'' * David Brooks
writes, ''Inevitably, there will be atrocities'' committed by
our forces in Iraq. Did he forget to add that they must be
prosecuted?
War crimes are indeed more likely if influential
commentators foreshadow impunity for perpetrators of the
''brutal measures our own troops will have to adopt.''
The choice is not between committing war crimes and
retreating ''into the paradise of our own innocence.'' A
third option is for the United States to strive to avoid
complicity.
It is untrue that ''we have to take morally hazardous
action.'' Those who choose it, or urge others to, cannot
evade or distribute responsibility by asserting that ''we
live in a fallen world.''
If HRC wins, we have war with Russia, including possibly WW3. That makes environmental issues
moot.
Separately, HRC will not even agree to a carbon tax, she lobbied for two giant polluting coal
plants in South Africa, and she promotes fracking worldwide.
"... Do we acknowledge that the soft neoliberals in control of the coalition that includes the inchoate left also "exploit racist and tribalist political support while pursuing the interests of wealth and capital, at the expense of the (disproportionately non-white) poor."? They do it with a different style and maybe with some concession to economic melioration, as well as supporting anti-racist and feminist policy to keep the inchoate left on board, but . . . ..."
"... I seriously doubt a human social phenomenon as broad and universal as "identifying with an in-group against an out-group", if this is how y'all intend to define "tribalism", can be made narrow enough to usefully describe a specific tendency in modern capitalist politics. ..."
"... According to a study of Alan Krueger that examined prime-age men (ages 25–54) who are not working or looking for work – there are alone about 7 million (lost) workers -- (and their wives and relatives) – many of them supposedly dropped out of the labor force altogether and reporting 'pain' that keeps them from taking jobs. ..."
"... "The soft neoliberals, it seems to me, are using anti-racism to discredit economic populism and its motivations, using the new politics of the right as a foil." ..."
"... I think the notion that racism is somehow regional in the US ..."
"... Populations can be "racialized" according to literally any conceivable physical, social, or cultural characteristic - the idea that it can only depend on specific differentiating factors like one's melanin count or descent from Charlemagne or whatever is itself a racist idea, an attempt to reify particular forms of racism as rooted in some immutable aspect of "the way things are". ..."
"... As in voting behavior the dividing lines are NOT so much anymore between left and right, but more between a liberal, cosmopolitan bourgeoisie in the center and on both edges populists who are propagating partitioning and protectionism. ..."
John, I agree that tribalism is a huge force in politics, but the way you have defined it describes
a huge portion of how people on all sides vote. All sorts of research shows that a majority of
people seem to use the rubric "what do people of my affiliation believe" to reach conclusions
and then defend them rather than following any particular chain of logic about the actual question.
So I'm not sure what kind of differentiation work the term is doing.
On the other hand I think you're definitely on to something about the change of formerly stable
political orders, and I'm not sure I can identify what it is either. I sort of see what you are
trying to do with the in-group/out-group thing. Those impulses always existed, so I wonder what
has changed? Is it assimilation norms that have weakened? Economic loss or the fear of it in the
'in group'? Fear of going from an 'in group' to an 'out group'? Combination of those?
bruce wilder 10.30.16 at 9:34 pm
The success of [civil rights and anti-apartheid] movements did not end racism, but drove
it underground, allowing neoliberals to exploit racist and tribalist political support while
pursuing the interests of wealth and capital, at the expense of the (disproportionately non-white)
poor.
That coalition has now been replaced by one in which the tribalists and racists are dominant.
For the moment at least, [hard] neoliberals continue to support the parties they formerly controlled,
with the result that the balance of political forces between the right and the opposing coalition
of soft neoliberals and the left has not changed significantly.
There's an ambiguity in this narrative and in the three-party analysis.
Do we acknowledge that the soft neoliberals in control of the coalition that includes the
inchoate left also "exploit racist and tribalist political support while pursuing the interests
of wealth and capital, at the expense of the (disproportionately non-white) poor."? They do it
with a different style and maybe with some concession to economic melioration, as well as supporting
anti-racist and feminist policy to keep the inchoate left on board, but . . .
The new politics of the right has lost faith in the hard neoliberalism that formerly furnished
its policy agenda of tax cuts for the rich, war in the Middle East and so on, leaving the impure
resentment ungoverned and unfocused, as you say.
The soft neoliberals, it seems to me, are using anti-racism to discredit economic populism
and its motivations, using the new politics of the right as a foil.
The problem of how to oppose racism and tribalism effectively is now entangled with soft neoliberal
control of the remaining party coalition, which is to say with the credibility of the left party
as a vehicle for economic populism and the credibility of economic populism as an antidote for
racism or sexism. (cf js. @ 1,2)
The form of tribalism used to mobilize the left entails denying that an agenda of economic
populism is relevant to the problems of sexism and racism, because the deplorables must be deplored
to get out the vote. And, because the (soft) neoliberals in charge must keep economic populism
under control to deliver the goods to their donor base.
"That doesn't mean that we should maintain the long-standing taboo on using the word
"racist" to describe such people."
Whether you 'should' or 'shouldn't' largely depends on which country you are in; the US has
sufficient minorities able to vote that a 'wide' definition of racism is almost certainly a net
vote-winner.
The UK, Australia, etc. don't. So they have to rely on opposition to racism on moral grounds,
which in turn depends on using a narrow definition.
Alternatively, you could be talking in an academic context, independent of any particular country's
politics, in which case I would imagine that using different words for different things would
be minimally confusing.
LFC 10.30.16 at 10:50 pm Alesis @19
Race is the foundational organizing principle of American life
There is no such thing as "the foundational organizing principle of American life." There are
conflicting ideologies, a conflicting set of histories, and a conflicting set of regional traditions,
plus founding documents that are subject to conflicting interpretations. There are certain experiences
that might be presumed to shape some sort of common collective memory, but nowadays even that
is debatable.
As one who has lived for more than fifty years in the United States, rather than just a few
years here and there as John Quiggin has, I assure him that racism has not been driven underground
here. It has died as a mass sentiment capable of serving as a power base for such figures as Lyndon
Johnson, George Wallace, or Jimmy Carter.
All had to change their tune to retain or increase their power, and that was about half
a century ago. No aspiring politician could get started today making the kind of racial appeals
they did at the beginning of their political careers, and in the cases of Johnson and Wallace
for a long time thereafter.
There is no mass sentiment for re-establishing separate drinking fountains, toilets, dining
areas, schools, etc. by race or for repealing the Civil War-era amendments to the Constitution.
I even hear rumors that Americans may be receptive to the idea of electing a black President.
My suggestion is to tackle the pandering by the rich party for the poor's votes by appealing
to racism, rather than the racism itself. "You're being played" may work better than "you're wrong".
I also think that the severity continuum of racism needs to be emphasized. We pretty much all
exhibit minor solecisms as we overcome features of our culture and upbringing. When a gentle correction
triggers complaints about monstrous PC allegations, I recommend a response like "Hey, it's no
biggie. You're not Hitler. Why are you taking a dive?"
"Tribalism" in the sense it's being used here has nothing to do with "primitive" tribes; it's
a reference to the ancient Roman tribes (the origin of the word) and the similar Greek phylai,
which were essentially arbitrary groupings of citizens which struggled amongst each other because
of group identification despite all being of the same ethnic group and nation. If there's a better
word for this, it isn't ethnonationalism or fascism.
Omega Centauri 10.31.16 at 1:19 am
I think poor to outright horrific epistemology in public discussion creates the basis for a
lot of bad politics. Many have described our current time as a post-truth era. There have been
some efforts towards fact-checking, but these seem to be simple refutations of facts, like Trump
saying
that he didn't say X, when we can play a two-day old tape of him in fact saying X. Part of the
manifestation of "tribalism", is the holding of in-group shibboleths, and the failure to critically
examine them -- for fear that that might weaken their role as weaponized-memes. That and our
politics has severely degenerated into character assassination, much of it unfounded. So we can't
even have a semi-rational discussion about issues, as political actors have to expend all their
efforts fending off attempts to assassinate their reputation, and to level even more damaging
attacks against their enemies.
So we have to start reclaiming decent epistemological practices in our public discussion. I
don't think this is going to be an easy or a quick process. But without it, we are highly vulnerable
to emotion based movements and their demagogues. Graham's conspiracy theory observations, as well
as those of bob@4 and loki@12, are symptoms of this degeneration of epiestemology.
John Quiggin 10.31.16 at 1:44 am
nastywoman @21 The idea that "the working class" has gone over to Trump is oversold. In US
political discussion, "working class" is used to mean "no college degree" which isn't at all the
same thing: it includes lots of small business owners, for example, and is also correlated with
age.
The terminology appears to be driven by data. Education level is objective and easily elicited,
whereas social class is not.
Mike Furlan 10.31.16 at 1:50 am
Racism (and sexism), something described by Tom Magliozzi's "Non Impediti Ratione Cogitationis-Unencumbered
by the Thought Process" is impervious to argumentation. I've lost a lot of friends driven mad
first by the Kenyan, and now by that "nasty woman."
Imagine a future scenario of yet another financial crisis the pushes unemployment above 30%
and mere words will certainly fail you.
My hope is to build communities of loving people, so that we are not picked off one at a time
as we compose blog posts.
The great problem progressives face is that many , if not most of the working class really
don't want social justice , they want to be the fat cats. And when they don't join the ranks
of the fat cats they are easily convinced that this is because the liberals are stealing from
them to give to the "welfare" people. Trump has expanded to include hordes of invading Mexicans
and Muslims.
Bob Zannelli 10.31.16 at 2:20 am
"There is no such thing as "the foundational organizing principle of American life." There
are conflicting ideologies, a conflicting set of histories, and a conflicting set of regional
traditions, plus founding documents that are subject to conflicting interpretations. There
are certain experiences that might be presumed to shape some sort of common collective memory,
but nowadays even that is debatable."
the credibility of the left party as a vehicle for economic populism and the credibility
of economic populism as an antidote for racism or sexism. (cf js. @ 1,2)
1. I have no fucking idea what you got out of my comments, but just to be very clear, I would
almost certainly support, and strongly, almost all _policies_ that you're likely to classify as
"economically populist". (I prefer a term like "socially equitable"-in a material sense, not talking
about symbolic stuff or the politics of recognition here. But e.g. I think repeal of the Hyde
Amendment should go under exactly the same heading as minimum wage increases, trade deals with
strong labor protections, etc.-which kind of thing gets lost when people talk about "economic
populism".)
On the _politics_ you and I each think the other one is dead wrong, and both of us already
know this, and neither of us is about to give half an inch, so I don't think there's much point
in pursuing the argument. But…
2. …Entirely leaving aside racism for a minute, when has it ever seemed plausible that "economic
populism" would be an effective counter to entrenched sexism? This makes no sense to me whatsoever.
--
Re WLGR
In contrast to a true petite bourgeoisie, which has no historical memory of the full
trauma of capitalist expropriation, a labor aristocracy on some level is aware that its economically
secure position relative to the still-fully-dispossessed global working class depends on accepting
and defending the racist/nationalist logic of imperial expropriation
I'll have to think about more. My first instinct is to say - there's something to this, but
the contrast is significantly less sharp than that (in both directions), but I need to think it
out more.
WLGR 10.31.16 at 4:18 am
I seriously doubt a human social phenomenon as broad and universal as "identifying with
an in-group against an out-group", if this is how y'all intend to define "tribalism", can be made
narrow enough to usefully describe a specific tendency in modern capitalist politics.
It would be absurd to claim that nobody who isn't a fascist/racist/ethnonationalist/etc. determines
their political priorities on some level according to ingroup/outgroup morality - speaking from
experience in a US context, cosmopolitan liberals' disdain for "rubes"/"hicks"/"rednecks" from
"flyover country" (probably the very people "tribalist" is intended to denote) could itself be
described as "tribalist" in the sense you mean it, as for that matter could many socialists' disdain
for liberals, or economists' disdain for sociologists, or old-money politicos' disdain for nouveau-riche
boors like Donald Trump, or whatever.
People seem to be shying away from the idea that what defines so-called "tribalists" as a political
force in developed capitalist nation-states is "tribalism" regarding a particular aspect of their
worldview, namely race and nationality. I get that this is a contortion to avoid the politically
charged act of calling people "racists" or "fascists" (although it's perplexing that so many people
here have surrendered to reactionaries' bizarre contention that using these terms even when they're
suitably descriptive is somehow foul play) but insinuating a categorical deficiency of basic human
social consciousness compared to the categorically more enlightened social consciousness of the
accuser is hardly any less insulting, even before you get into the racial implications of the
term itself.
The best comparison I can think of is the way so-called "New Atheists" tend to group their
ideological taxonomy according to the distinction between "rational" and "irrational": both of
these are such thoroughly universal aspects of human thought and behavior that it can only be
monumental hubris to characterize "rationality" as the very cornerstone of one's worldview and
"irrationality" as the very cornerstone of an opponent's. A weaker and more defensible claim of
rationality about a very particular aspect of one's worldview, such as the existence of deities,
leaves open the possibility of irrationality in other aspects of their worldview, such as the
alleged existential threat of Islam (about which many "rationalist" "New Atheists" are famously
paranoid and reactionary). Now imagine the term "irrational" has been used for centuries as a
sloppily interchangeable pejorative for various targets of systematic marginalization, oppression,
enslavement, and genocide.
I would say that after talking to people the republican base is the coalition of
1. Plutocrats
2. Single issue abortion voters
3. Conspiracy theorists and religious conspiracy theorists (end times prophecy mixed with conspiracy)
4. True believers – that is free market types who believe that top end tax cuts and cutting minimum
wage actually help the poor
5. Basket of deplorables you racist/mysoginest you name it
Type 1, 4 and some of 2 have been pealed off the R coalition during the trump campaign due
to how shocking a candidate Trump is. However, type 3 and 5 are more energized than ever. If there
was an effective way to counter type 3 republican voters their coalition would reduce by maybe
half. I know that sounds like a lot but I've lived in the south and have a lot of friends there.
Conspiracy is more powerful than people realize
nastywoman 10.31.16 at 4:57 am
'The idea that "the working class" has gone over to Trump is oversold.'
Not if we count all 'the workers' – who follow and will vote for Trump because he promised
them to bring their jobs back -(with fascistic solutions)
According to a study of Alan Krueger that examined prime-age men (ages 25–54) who are not
working or looking for work – there are alone about 7 million (lost) workers -- (and their wives
and relatives) – many of them supposedly dropped out of the labor force altogether and reporting
'pain' that keeps them from taking jobs.
These workers – a lot of them who had lost their jobs by US companies outsourcing or terminating
their jobs altogether after the economical collapse of 2008 – are a 'traditional constituency'
of the left – and they should have been supported much better and NOT 'picked up' by Trump.
The link actually takes you to page 2 of the Grenville article. He cites Hochschild on page
1: 'Arlie Hochschild's "Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right"
captures the intractability of the discontent: "'You are patiently standing in a long line' for
something you call the American dream. You are white, Christian, of modest means, and getting
along in years. You are male. There are people of color behind you, and 'in principle you wish
them well.' But you've waited long, worked hard, 'and the line is barely moving.'
Then 'Look! You see people cutting in line ahead of you!' Who are these interlopers? 'Some
are black,' others 'immigrants, refugees.'
They get affirmative action, sympathy and welfare - 'checks for the listless and idle.' The government
wants you to feel sorry for them."
@50 WLGR "….rational" and "irrational": both of these are such thoroughly universal aspects
of human thought and behavior that it can only be monumental hubris to characterize "rationality"
as the very cornerstone of one's worldview and "irrationality" as the very cornerstone of an opponent's."
Agreed. Happens here all the time, or used to.
I tend to agree with what WLGR is saying about 'tribalists'. What porpoise @43 said is
interesting historically, but I don't think it removes the overlay from later colonial and imperial
associations of 'tribes' with 'primitives'/inferiors. So I don't think tribalism is a good word
here, but not sure what would be a better one.
'Cultural nationalism' seems to come closest, at least in the Australian and British contexts
I'm familiar with, because the so-called 'tribalists' seem to be people who have a strong idea
about who are the 'right kind' of Australians (or Britons), and it is a mixture of cultural and
racial/ethnic characteristics.
Here in Australia, it is certainly possible for people from non-Anglo backgrounds to be at
least conditionally accepted by the 'tribalists' if they appear to embrace the tribalists' idea
of Aussie culture (although it's conditional because the 'tribalists' who are 'accepting' the
non-Anglo immigrants unconsciously see their ability to pass judgement as related to their own
Anglo/white background, I think). Complicated, I am getting tied in knots, but I agree tribalist
isn't the best word.
Porpoise @43: I'm slightly puzzled by your version of classical history.
Yes, the Romans had tribes, dating from the very beginning of their history; these *were* seen
as relating to what you refer to as "primitive tribes", and according to at least one ancient
source reflected the original composition of the Roman people from Latins, Sabines and Etruscans.
Yes, by the late Republic these were largely (not entirely) arbitrary divisions of more or
less homogeneous citizens – but by that date there's no evidence that I'm aware of that they served
any purpose other than organising voting in the comitia tributa; certainly no struggles because
of group identification.
ZM 10.31.16 at 7:45 am bruce wilder,
"The soft neoliberals, it seems to me, are using anti-racism to discredit economic populism
and its motivations, using the new politics of the right as a foil."
I think economic populism is problematic really, depending on what policy settings you mean
by "economic populism" I guess.
I remember thinking Australia could have more protectionist policies and that would be a solution
to some of our economic issues, but then I did an economics group project with a woman from Singapore,
and I realised a country like Singapore would be much worse off if other countries resorted to
protectionism as a response to the financial crisis, and I was being unfair thinking more protectionist
policy was the answer.
I don't think that the economic populism of the post-war era is really something we want
to return to - in Australia at least it was connected to the racist White Australia Policy which
was dismantled over time by 1973 and also to sexist policies that benefited male wage earners
with the "living wage" but prevented women from taking up certain jobs or from working after marriage
and that sort of thing.
Also in the post-war era Australia benefitted from trade networks with the UK as part of the
Commonwealth, but I presume that some other countries didn't benefit from that set of international
trade agreements (although I have never looked into what the international trade settings were
to know which countries overall benefited and which countries disbenefited).
I don't think returning to economic populism is a solution. There were a lot of problems,
both within countries with racism and sexism, and also between countries with unfair international
trade agreements.
Any solution to current problems has to be equitable within the nation, and fair between
nations. If economic populism is the answer it has to be a transformed economic populism that
is capable of that, and also of managing our global and local environmental problems.
Also at the moment the Australian federal government is doing the "Racism. It Stops With Me" campaign
around Australia trying to encourage everyday Australians to speak out against racism when they
encounter it in their daily lives. I hope the US government does something similar if Trump loses
the election, I really think anti-racism is better off being bi-partisan, and its a bad long term
strategy by either main party in America to use race to divide voters.
I think the notion that racism is somehow regional in the US or that their are "conflicting
histories" is pitch perfect example of the difficulty of keeping race in American life in focus
I mentioned in my comment.
There is no region of the US in which race did not play a foundation role. No history of the
US which does not rest in the disenfranchisement of "lower races". From Oregon to Florida. From
New York to California.
From 1700 to 2016 this is an American constant and we will continue to the "Shocked! Shocked!"
That more Trump's arise until we recognize that.
> The terminology appears to be driven by data. Education level is objective and easily elicited,
whereas social class is not.
Race too, of course.
It doesn't seem like it would be beyond the power of a single guy who wanted to write a book
to bring a torch and see if there is anything interesting hidden where the lampposts don't shine.
The raw data seems to be available[1], it just needs correlating with polls. That's a 2-3 man
year project, probably doable within a 5 digit budget.
I think I agree that "conspiracy theory" is a strong element in current politics. It
has been for a while, of course. See for example Richard Hofstadter's The Paranoid Style in
American Politics .
In a democratic system, any party hoping to win has to somehow persuade the voters to vote
for them and not the other party. Hence impugning the judgment or moral character of the opposing
party is one of the obvious strategies. Accusing the other party of actually being crooks (as
opposed to merely making poor decisions, or decisions that benefit some group other than the voters
one wishes to court) takes this a step further. Once a party had taken the "they're a bunch of
crooks" move, it would be surprising if they didn't leap at the chance when they can make a credible
and specific allegation of lawbreaking by their opponent, instead of just relying on non-specific
"would you buy a used car from this man?" rhetoric. ("man" -> "woman" if we're talking about Hilary
Clinton rather than Richard Nixon, but the same principle holds)
The current round of populism seems to go further still, in attributing crookedness not just
to their political opponents but to just about everyone involved in the entire system, e.g. by
alleging that the election might be fraudulent.
The term "conspiracy theory" often has rather dismissive or perjorative connotations, but I
think this basic political pattern could exist even if the opposing party were actually in fact
crooks.
[And over here in the UK, it's also a kind of conspiracy theory that Tony Blair lied to the
people about the case for going to war in Iraq. It's less obvious what Blair could actually be
charged with criminally (as opposed to Hilary Clinton), but that hasn't stopped people calling
for his head … possibly in a literal, rather than metaphorical, sense]
Omega Centauri 10.31.16 at 1:19 am (#44): great comment, puts the finger on the problem, and deserves
engagement. Unfortunately, all I have to offer are solutions from science-fiction: reliable lie-detectors
and benign A.I. government. But how to avoid the obvious misuses and bad side-tracks on the way
to utopian deployment of such technologies is beyond me. The Internet already gives us the ability
to do our own fact-checking and analysis of issues, but it seems more effective at spreading lies.
MPAVictoria 10.31.16 at 2:29 pm
Unions, unions, and more unions are the answer to the question of what the left should be doing
going forward. Union members are more likely to:
– Vote
– Volunteer in support of progressive campaigns and causes
– Support progressive economic AND social policies
The left's strategy going forward MUST include efforts to increase union density.
js, I guess the most important caveat re: the US (along with other settler societies) is that
many Euro-Americans never actually went through proletarianization themselves, but probably would
have been pushed into the working class they'd stayed in Europe through the heyday of capitalist
industrialization, so they left Europe and joined the metaphorical shock troops of settler-colonialism
in order to avoid it. The important point is that the combined spoils of settler-colonial expropriation,
racial/national hierarchy, and continuing imperialist exploitation in the Third World have largely
spared the much-ballyhooed "white working class" (i.e. labor aristocracy) from the abject poverty
capitalism invariably wreaks on the working class proper - and on some level these people realize
that as long as capitalism exists, this economic safety net is only really justifiable if there's
some fundamental hierarchy of humanity dictating that they as a group deserve to be offered better
lives than the people trying to "steal their jobs" and so on. The extent to which different people
in different situations are compelled to articulate this ideology in fully conscious ways is another
matter, but when they are, terms like "racist", "ethnonationalist", and "fascist" are entirely
descriptive and not the least bit inappropriate.
For anybody who hasn't heard of it, the book Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat
is an accessible exposition of this kind of viewpoint (and for anybody who takes a glance
and can't get past smarming at the crude typesetting and nonstandard semantic choices e.g. "Amerika",
just grow up).
WLGR 10.31.16 at 3:52 pm
likbez @ 16,
it seems to me that the effort to differentiate race-based from culturally based ultranationalism
is still tangled in the weeds of a colloquial understanding of "race" and "racism".
Populations can be "racialized" according to literally any conceivable physical, social,
or cultural characteristic - the idea that it can only depend on specific differentiating factors
like one's melanin count or descent from Charlemagne or whatever is itself a racist idea, an attempt
to reify particular forms of racism as rooted in some immutable aspect of "the way things are".
Although from my understanding Ukrainian citizenship like that in most of Europe is primarily
determined by jus sanguinis, and like most of Europe it's still deep in the muck of racial discrimination
toward e.g. the Roma, so unless I'm misreading things it seems like a stretch to put too much
distance between Ukraine (or Europe in general) and even a very colloquial sense of "ethnonationalism".
It can be articulated more explicitly by outright fascists or more obliquely by mainstream centrist
parties, but it's still there.
And as long as we're talking about academic definitions of racism (I'm partial to the definition
proffered by Ruth Wilson Gilmore, "the state-sanctioned or extralegal production and exploitation
of group-differentiated vulnerability to premature death", although
Emmett Rensin's obnoxiously thorough definition is also good) funnily enough they tend to
point at something pretty much identical to what Quiggin appears to mean by "tribalism". Except
unlike with Quiggin's definition of tribalism @ 32, racism is explicitly a political and economic
phenomenon to use a particular ingroup/outgroup differentiation as a way to systematically
disenfranchise and subjugate the outgroup , which seems like the only reason we'd bother talking
about it as a specific mass political movement at all. And again, as annoying as it is to have
pigheaded reactionaries accuse us of twisting language and "playing the race card" and so on,
putting up with this noise is preferable to sacrificing useful concepts like racism and fascism
from one's everyday understanding of the world, and it's certainly preferable to swapping out
the terms in question for a racially charged term like "tribalism".
Mike Furlan 10.31.16 at 1:50 am @ 46: '… My hope is to build communities of loving people, so that we are not picked off one at a
time as we compose blog posts.'
Or at least tolerant people who are positive about relationships with the Others even though
they may err. Surely this would be a requirement for achieving equality, because otherwise you
have the good people and the bad people, and the good people would have to defeat, rule over,
or maybe even exterminate the bad people. P. J. O'Rourke once wrote that the reason Evangelicals
adhere to the Republican Party (and Black people to the Democrats) is that that is the party which,
while it doesn't do much for them, doesn't hate them. We have seen that expressed in the recent
past not only with Trump's success but with the 'basket of deplorables'. Even a petrochemical
plant poisoning your back yard may be preferable to submitting to the power of those who openly
despise you and your kind.
But a lot of people want to fight.
John Quiggin 10.31.16 at 8:33 pm
Kurt Schuler @41 This seems an odd choice of post on which to claim special authority as a
US resident, given that it's about developments common throughout the developed world, and refers
to Australia and the UK, as well as the US.
The idea that "the working class" has gone over to Trump is oversold. In US political discussion,
"working class" is used to mean "no college degree" which isn't at all the same thing: it includes
lots of small business owners, for example, and is also correlated with age.
Right. This is why I think petty bourgeois (petit bourgeois if you want to be all fancy
and French about it) is a better term.
nastywoman 10.31.16 at 9:43 pm
In conclusion this analysis is still based on a traditional understanding of left and right
which doesn't exist anymore in most European countries – as concerning the most important issues
like globalization and protectionism the radical left and the radical right seem to agree.
And so the the traditional understanding of left and right is often used for justification
of the own political position, while it is less and less helpful to explain voting behavior.
As in voting behavior the dividing lines are NOT so much anymore between left and right,
but more between a liberal, cosmopolitan bourgeoisie in the center and on both edges populists
who are propagating partitioning and protectionism.
This is true not only for Europe but also for the United States of Trump – aka the once 'United
States of America' -(if this currently very popular joke in Europe is allowed?)
"... With US belief in "conspiracy theory" over 50 percent (see our previous article here ) elites are showing increasingly concern that they have lost control of their narrative. ..."
"... The article explains that if people grow paranoid about government, then the "norms" of government will collapse. ..."
"... The article also has parallels to an article we analyzed recently here by Cass Sunstein. His Bloomberg editorial suggested that nothing was more important from a political standpoint than returning "civility" to Congress and politics generally. ..."
"... The NeoCons will take the United States in the same direction it is going until its' bust. Endless war, run down infrastructure and poverty is the future. Tax receipts are falling fast and government can't pay the big bills with service sector jobs. ..."
"... Decommissioning the plethora of foreign airbases and dismantling NATO would see the Bankster/MIC die a death. Gotta starve those beasts pronto. ..."
"... "Conspiracy theory is called "paranoid politics" in this article but it amounts to the same thing." ..."
"... "conspiracy theory" ..."
"... "paranoid" ..."
"... "we should" ..."
"... "paranoid politics" ..."
"... "good" ..."
"... necessarily controlled ..."
"... "The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost invariably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And if he is not romantic personally, he is apt to spread discontent among those who are." ..."
With US belief in "conspiracy theory" over 50 percent (see our previous article
here ) elites are showing increasingly concern that they have lost control of their narrative.
This article again illustrates elite push back. The article explains that if people grow paranoid
about government, then the "norms" of government will collapse.
Conspiracy theory is called "paranoid politics" in this article but it amounts to the same thing.
The article also has parallels to an article we analyzed recently
here
by Cass Sunstein. His Bloomberg editorial suggested that nothing was more important from a political
standpoint than returning "civility" to Congress and politics generally.
This article runs along the same lines: Negative perceptions of the US government can make the
process of "governing" dysfunctional.
Herdee •Nov 1, 2016 12:13 AM
The NeoCons will take the United States in the same direction it is going until its' bust.
Endless war, run down infrastructure and poverty is the future. Tax receipts are falling fast
and government can't pay the big bills with service sector jobs.
WTFUD •Oct 31, 2016 11:14 PM
Major Civil Unrest is required in the USSofA to alleviate the pressure on Russia, the Elites'
would be bogeyman. The rest of the world would benefit too.
Decommissioning the plethora of foreign airbases and dismantling NATO would see the Bankster/MIC
die a death. Gotta starve those beasts pronto.
PoasterToaster •Oct 31, 2016 10:30 PM
Bankers hiding behind "government" and using the moral authority it carries in people's heads
to carry out their dirty deeds. But now the people have seen behind the curtain and the dope at
the controls has been found wanting. Writing is on the wall for them and they know it.
"The rise of paranoid politics could make America ungovernable"
We in America aren't supposed to be "governed". And our state of mind is none of your goddamned
business.
One of the most delightful ironies (to those with a sufficiently macabre sense of humour) is that
declassified CIA documents from the 1960s have proven that the mass media promotion of the
"conspiracy theory" meme was deliberately developed by the CIA, using their media assets.
Many people have developed ways to discuss the relatively slim differences between being "paranoid"
versus being realistic. After several decades of enjoying the luxury to
spend most of my time attempting to understand the political processes, my conclusion has always
been that THE MORE I LEARNED, THE WORSE IT GOT.
It is barely possible to exaggerate the degree to which "we should" seriously consider
"paranoid politics" as being the most realistic. Governments
are only "good" in the sense that they are the biggest forms of organized crime,
dominated by the best organized gangs of criminals. In my view, that conclusion can both
be derived from the basic principles of the ways that general energy systems operate, as well
as empirically confirmed by an overwhelming abundance of well-documented evidence. Indeed, more
rational evidence and logical arguments result in that any deeper analysis of politics ALWAYS
discovers and demonstrates the ways that civilization is necessarily controlled
by applications of the methods of organized crime, whose excessive successfulness are more and
more spinning out of control.
As H.L. Menchen stated:
"The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out
for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost invariably
he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and
intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And if he is not romantic
personally, he is apt to spread discontent among those who are."
The important things which most governments DO,
that are "dishonest, insane and intolerable,"
are ENFORCE FRAUDS by private banks.
Given those social FACTS, it is barely possible to develop a sufficiently
"paranoid politics," to encompass the degree to which the existing
political economy, based upon enforcing frauds, is being driven by advancing technologies
towards becoming exponentially more fraudulent. The problem is NOT that some
people are becoming too critical, but that the majority of them have not yet become critical enough
... "We need" to go beyond being merely superficially cynical, in order to become profoundly
cynical enough to perhaps cope with how and why governments ARE the biggest forms of organized
crime, dominated by the best organized gangs of criminals.
In my view, most of the content published on Zero Hedge, which engages in various
superficially correct analyses of those problems, tends to never engage in deeper levels of analysis,
due to the degree to which the resulting conclusions are way worse than anything which could be
adequately admitted and addressed. Rather, it is barely possible to exaggerate the degree to which
one is justifiably paranoid about the ways that the ruling classes in
Globalized Neolithic Civilization are becoming increasingly psychotic psychopaths:
THE EXCESSIVE SUCCESSFULNESS OF CONTROLLING CIVILIZATION
BY APPLICATIONS OF THE VARIOUS METHODS OF ORGANIZED CRIME
HAS RESULTED IN CIVILIZATION MANIFESTING CRIMINAL INSANITY!
Radical Marijuana -> medium giraffe •Nov 1, 2016 12:25 AM
Yes, mg, the CIA, in ways which were, of course, ILLEGAL, attempted to discredit those who
did not believe the official story regarding the assination of President Kennedy.
The most relevant conclusion of that documentary was that, at the highest levels, there is
no difference, because they blend together, between organized crime and government agencies such
as the CIA, which was effectively the American branch of the secret police employed by the international
bankers.
"... The military-industrial complex is alive and well, and it's gobbling up your tax dollars. Through good times and bad, regardless of what's actually happening in the world, one thing is certain: In the long run, the Pentagon budget won't go down. ..."
"... Pillar one supporting that edifice: ideology. As long as most Americans accept the notion that it is the God-given mission and right of the United States to go anywhere on the planet and do more or less anything it cares to do with its military, you won't see Pentagon spending brought under real control. Think of this as the military corollary to American exceptionalism-or just call it the doctrine of armed exceptionalism, if you will. ..."
"... The second pillar supporting lavish military budgets (and this will hardly surprise you): the entrenched power of the arms lobby and its allies in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill. The strategic placement of arms production facilities and military bases in key states and Congressional districts has created an economic dependency that has saved many a flawed weapons system from being unceremoniously dumped in the trash bin of history. ..."
"... Take as an example the M-1 tank, which the Army actually wanted to stop buying. Its plans were thwarted by the Ohio congressional delegation, which led a fight to add more M-1s to the budget in order to keep the General Dynamics production line in Lima, Ohio, up and running. In a similar fashion, prodded by the Missouri delegation, Congress added two different versions of Boeing's F-18 aircraft to the budget to keep funds flowing to that company's St. Louis area plant. ..."
"... The one-two punch of an environment in which the military can do no wrong, while being outfitted for every global task imaginable, and what former Pentagon analyst Franklin "Chuck" Spinney has called " political engineering ," has been a tough combination to beat. ..."
"... The overwhelming consensus in favor of a "cover the globe" military strategy has been broken from time to time by popular resistance to the idea of using war as a central tool of foreign policy. In such periods, getting Americans behind a program of feeding the military machine massive sums of money has generally required a heavy dose of fear. ..."
"... As Wayne Biddle has noted in his seminal book Barons of the Sky , the US aerospace industry produced an astonishing 300,000-plus military aircraft during World War II. Not surprisingly, major weapons producers struggled to survive in a peacetime environment in which government demand for their products threatened to be a tiny fraction of wartime levels. ..."
"... With the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Washington decisively renewed its practice of responding to perceived foreign threats with large-scale military interventions. That quick victory over Iraqi autocrat Saddam Hussein's forces in Kuwait was celebrated by many hawks as the end of the Vietnam-induced malaise. Amid victory parades and celebrations, President George H.W. Bush would enthusiastically exclaim : "And, by God, we've kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all." ..."
"... In reality, he underestimated the Pentagon's ability to conjure up new threats. Military spending did indeed drop at the end of the Cold War, but the Pentagon helped staunch the bleeding relatively quickly before a "peace dividend" could be delivered to the American people. Instead, it put a firm floor under the fall by announcing what came to be known as the "rogue state" doctrine . ..."
"... Take Lockheed Martin Vice President Bruce Jackson, for example. In 1997, he became a director of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and so part of a gaggle of hawks including future Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, future Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and future Vice President Dick Cheney. In those years, PNAC would advocate the overthrow of Saddam Hussein as part of its project to turn the planet into an American military protectorate. ..."
"... The Afghan and Iraq wars would prove an absolute bonanza for contractors as the Pentagon budget soared. Traditional weapons suppliers like Lockheed Martin and Boeing prospered, as did private contractors like Dick Cheney's former employer , Halliburton, which made billions providing logistical support to US troops in the field. ..."
"... Recent terror attacks against Western targets from Brussels, Paris, and Nice to San Bernardino and Orlando have offered the national security state and the Obama administration the necessary fear factor that makes the case for higher Pentagon spending so palatable. This has been true despite the fact that more tanks, bombers , aircraft carriers , and nuclear weapons will be useless in preventing such attacks. ..."
The military-industrial complex is alive and well, and it's gobbling up your tax dollars.
Through good times and bad, regardless of what's actually happening in the world, one thing is
certain: In the long run, the Pentagon budget won't go down.
It's not that that budget has never been reduced. At pivotal moments, like the end of World War
II as well as war's end in Korea and Vietnam, there were indeed temporary downturns, as there was
after the Cold War ended. More recently, the
Budget Control Act of 2011
threw a monkey wrench into the Pentagon's plans for funding that would go ever onward and upward
by putting a cap on the money Congress could pony up for it. The remarkable thing, though, is not
that such moments have occurred, but how modest and short-lived they've proved to be.
Take the current budget. It's down slightly from its peak in 2011, when it reached the highest
level since World War II, but this year's budget for the Pentagon and related agencies is nothing
to sneeze at. It comes in at roughly
$600 billion -
more
than the peak year of the massive arms build-up initiated by President Ronald Reagan back in
the 1980s. To put this figure in perspective: Despite troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan dropping
sharply over the past eight years, the Obama administration has still managed to
spend
more on the Pentagon than the Bush administration did during its two terms in office.
What accounts for the Department of Defense's ability to keep a stranglehold on your tax dollars
year after endless year?
Pillar one supporting that edifice: ideology. As long as most Americans accept the
notion that it is the God-given
mission and right of the United States to go anywhere on the planet and do more or less anything
it cares to do with its military, you won't see Pentagon spending brought under real control. Think
of this as the military corollary to American exceptionalism-or just call it the doctrine of armed
exceptionalism, if you will.
The second pillar supporting lavish military budgets (and this will hardly surprise you): the
entrenched power of the arms lobby and its allies in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill. The strategic
placement of arms production facilities and military bases in key states and Congressional districts
has created an economic dependency that has saved many a flawed weapons system from being unceremoniously
dumped in the trash bin of history.
Lockheed Martin, for instance, has put together a handy
map of how its troubled
F-35 fighter jet has created 125,000 jobs in 46 states. The
actual figures are, in fact, considerably lower, but the principle holds: Having subcontractors
in dozens of states makes it harder for members of Congress to consider cutting or slowing down even
a failed or failing program. Take as an example the M-1 tank, which the Army actually wanted to stop
buying. Its plans were thwarted by the Ohio congressional delegation, which led a
fight to add more M-1s to the budget in order to keep the General Dynamics production line in
Lima, Ohio, up and running. In a similar fashion, prodded by the Missouri delegation, Congress
added two different versions of Boeing's F-18 aircraft to the budget to keep funds flowing to
that company's St. Louis area plant.
The one-two punch of an environment in which the military can do no wrong, while being outfitted
for every global task imaginable, and what former Pentagon analyst Franklin "Chuck" Spinney has called
"
political engineering ," has been a tough combination to beat.
"SCARE THE HELL OUT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE"
The overwhelming consensus in favor of a "cover the globe" military strategy has been broken from
time to time by popular resistance to the idea of using war as a central tool of foreign policy.
In such periods, getting Americans behind a program of feeding the military machine massive sums
of money has generally required a heavy dose of fear.
For example, the last thing most Americans wanted after the devastation and hardship unleashed
by World War II was to immediately put the country back on a war footing. The demobilization of millions
of soldiers and a sharp cutback in weapons spending in the immediate postwar years rocked what President
Dwight Eisenhower would later dub
the "military-industrial complex."
As Wayne Biddle has noted in his seminal book
Barons
of the Sky , the US aerospace industry
produced an astonishing 300,000-plus military aircraft during World War II. Not surprisingly,
major weapons producers struggled to survive in a peacetime environment in which government demand
for their products threatened to be a tiny fraction of wartime levels.
Lockheed President Robert Gross was terrified by the potential impact of war's end on his company's
business, as were many of his industry cohorts. "As long as I live," he
said
, "I will never forget those short, appalling weeks" of the immediate postwar period. To be clear,
Gross was appalled not by the war itself, but by the drop off in orders occasioned by its end. He
elaborated in a 1947 letter to a friend: "We had one underlying element of comfort and reassurance
during the war. We knew we'd get paid for anything we built. Now we are almost entirely on our own."
The postwar doldrums in military spending that worried him so were reversed only after the American
public had been fed a steady, fear-filled diet of anti-communism.
NSC-68 , a secret memorandum the National Security Council prepared for President Harry Truman
in April 1950, created the template for a policy based on the global "containment" of communism and
grounded in a plan to encircle the Soviet Union with US military forces, bases, and alliances. This
would, of course, prove to be a strikingly expensive proposition. The concluding paragraphs of that
memorandum underscored exactly that point,
calling for a "sustained buildup of US political, economic, and military strength… [to] frustrate
the Kremlin design of a world dominated by its will."
Senator Arthur Vandenberg put the thrust of this new Cold War policy in far simpler terms when
he bluntly
advised President Truman to "scare the hell out of the American people" to win support for a
$400 million aid plan for Greece and Turkey. His suggestion would be put into effect not just for
those two countries but to generate support for what President Eisenhower would later
describe
as "a permanent arms establishment of vast proportions."
Industry leaders like Lockheed's Gross were poised to take advantage of such planning. In a draft
of a 1950 speech, he
noted , giddily enough, that "for the first time in recorded history, one country has assumed
global responsibility." Meeting that responsibility would naturally mean using air transport to deliver
"huge quantities of men, food, ammunition, tanks, gasoline, oil and thousands of other articles of
war to a number of widely separated places on the face of the earth." Lockheed, of course, stood
ready to heed the call.
The next major challenge to armed exceptionalism and to the further militarization of foreign
policy came after the disastrous Vietnam War, which drove many Americans to question the wisdom of
a policy of permanent global interventionism. That phenomenon would be
dubbed the "Vietnam syndrome" by interventionists, as if opposition to such a military policy
were a disease, not a position. Still, that "syndrome" carried considerable, if ever-decreasing,
weight for a decade and a half, despite the Pentagon's Reagan-inspired arms build-up of the 1980s.
With the 1991 Persian Gulf War, Washington decisively renewed its practice of responding to perceived
foreign threats with large-scale military interventions. That quick victory over Iraqi autocrat Saddam
Hussein's forces in Kuwait was
celebrated by many hawks as the end of the Vietnam-induced malaise. Amid
victory parades and celebrations,
President George H.W. Bush would enthusiastically
exclaim : "And, by God,
we've kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all."
However, perhaps the biggest threat since World War II to an "arms establishment of vast proportions"
came with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, also in 1991. How to mainline
fear into the American public and justify Cold War levels of spending when that other superpower,
the Soviet Union, the primary threat of the previous nearly half-a-century, had just evaporated and
there was next to nothing threatening on the horizon? General Colin Powell, then chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, summed up the fears of that moment within the military and the arms complex
when he
said , "I'm running out of demons. I'm running out of villains. I'm down to Castro and Kim Il-sung."
In reality, he underestimated the Pentagon's ability to conjure up new threats. Military spending
did indeed drop at the end of the Cold War, but the Pentagon helped staunch the bleeding relatively
quickly before a "peace dividend" could be delivered to the American people. Instead, it put a firm
floor under the fall by announcing what came to be known as the
"rogue state"
doctrine . Resources formerly aimed at the Soviet Union would now be focused on "regional hegemons"
like Iraq and North Korea.
FEAR, GREED, AND HUBRIS WIN THE DAY
After the 9/11 attacks, the rogue state doctrine morphed into the "Global War on Terror" (GWOT),
which neoconservative pundits soon labeled "
World War IV ." The
heightened fear campaign that went with it, in turn, helped sow the seeds for the 2003 invasion of
Iraq, which was promoted by
visions of mushroom clouds rising over American cities and a
drumbeat of Bush administration
claims (all false) that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and ties to al-Qaeda.
Some administration officials including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld even
suggested that Saddam was like Hitler, as if a modest-sized Middle Eastern state could somehow
muster the resources to conquer the globe.
The administration's propaganda campaign would be supplemented by the work of right-wing corporate-funded
think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. And no one should
be surprised to learn that the military-industrial complex and its money, its lobbyists, and its
interests were in the middle of it all. Take Lockheed Martin Vice President Bruce Jackson, for example.
In 1997, he became a director of the Project
for the New American Century (PNAC) and so part of a gaggle of hawks including future Deputy
Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, future Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and future Vice
President Dick Cheney. In those years, PNAC would advocate the overthrow of Saddam Hussein as part
of its project to turn the planet into an American military protectorate. Many of its members would,
of course, enter the Bush administration in crucial roles and become architects of the GWOT and the
invasion of Iraq.
The Afghan and Iraq wars would prove an absolute
bonanza for contractors as the Pentagon budget soared. Traditional weapons suppliers like Lockheed
Martin and Boeing prospered, as did private contractors like Dick Cheney's
former employer , Halliburton, which made billions providing logistical support to US troops
in the field. Other major beneficiaries included firms like
Blackwater and
DynCorp , whose employees guarded US facilities and oil pipelines while training Afghan and Iraqi
security forces. As much as
$60 billion of the funds funneled to such contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan would be "wasted,"
but not from the point of view of companies for which waste could generate as much profit as a job
well done. So Halliburton and its cohorts weren't complaining.
On entering the Oval Office, President Obama would ditch the term GWOT in favor of "countering
violent extremism"-and then essentially settle for a no-name global war. He would shift gears from
a strategy focused on large numbers of "boots on the ground" to an emphasis on
drone strikes , the use of
Special Operations forces , and
massive
transfers of arms to US allies like Saudi Arabia. In the context of an increasingly militarized
foreign policy, one might call Obama's approach "politically sustainable warfare," since it involved
fewer (American) casualties and lower costs than Bush-style warfare, which peaked in Iraq at more
than 160,000 troops and a comparable number of private contractors.
Recent terror attacks against Western targets from Brussels, Paris, and Nice to San Bernardino
and Orlando have offered the national security state and the Obama administration the necessary fear
factor that makes the case for higher Pentagon spending so palatable. This has been true despite
the fact that more tanks, bombers ,
aircraft carriers
, and
nuclear
weapons will be useless in preventing such attacks.
The majority of what the Pentagon spends, of course, has nothing to do with fighting terrorism.
But whatever it has or hasn't been called, the war against terror has proven to be a cash cow for
the Pentagon and contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon.
The "war budget"-money meant for the Pentagon but not included in its regular budget-has been
used to add on tens of billions of dollars more. It has proven to be an effective "
slush fund " for weapons and activities that have nothing to do with immediate war fighting and
has been the Pentagon's preferred method for evading the caps on its budget imposed by the Budget
Control Act. A Pentagon spokesman admitted as much recently by
acknowledging that more than half of the $58.8 billion war budget is being used to pay for non-war
costs.
The abuse of the war budget leaves ample room in the Pentagon's main budget for items like the
overpriced, underperforming F-35 combat aircraft, a plane that, at a
price tag of $1.4 trillion over its lifetime, is on track to be the most expensive weapons program
ever undertaken. That slush fund is also enabling the Pentagon to spend billions of dollars in seed
money as a down payment on the department's proposed
$1 trillion
plan to buy a new generation of nuclear-armed bombers, missiles, and submarines. Shutting it
down could force the Pentagon to do what it likes least: live within an actual budget rather continuing
to push its top line ever upward.
Although rarely discussed due to the focus on Donald Trump's abominable behavior and racist rhetoric,
both candidates for president are in favor of increasing Pentagon spending. Trump's "
plan " (if one can call it that) hews closely to a blueprint developed by the Heritage Foundation
that, if implemented, could increase Pentagon spending by a cumulative $900 billion over the next
decade. The size of a
Clinton buildup is less clear, but she has also pledged to work toward lifting the caps on the
Pentagon's regular budget. If that were done and the war fund continued to be stuffed with non-war-related
items, one thing is certain: The Pentagon and its contractors will be sitting pretty.
As long as fear, greed, and hubris are the dominant factors driving Pentagon spending, no matter
who is in the White House, substantial and enduring budget reductions are essentially inconceivable.
A wasteful practice may be eliminated here or an unnecessary weapons system cut there, but more
fundamental change would require taking on the fear factor, the doctrine of armed exceptionalism,
and the way the military-industrial complex is embedded in Washington.
Only such a culture shift would allow for a clear-eyed assessment of what constitutes "defense"
and how much money would be needed to provide it. Unfortunately, the military-industrial complex
that Eisenhower warned Americans about more than 50 years ago is alive and well, and gobbling up
your tax dollars at an alarming rate.
"... Few dispute that a significant subset of any given population is going to regard in-group/out-group distinctions along the highly imprecise lines of 'race' and ethnicity, or religion. The question, for some, is what percentage? ..."
"... Grenville regards understanding the opposition to globalization by the Trump constituency as essential. If we are discussing America, we do not need to look to illegal immigration, or undocumented workers to find hostility to out-group immigrants along religious and ethnic lines. ..."
"... These tendencies are thrown into sharper relief when this hostility is directed towards successfully assimilated immigrants of a different color who threaten the current occupants of a space – witness the open racism and hostility displayed towards Japanese immigrants on the west coast 1900-1924, or so. A similar level of hostility is sometimes/often displayed towards Koreans. The out-grouping in Japan is tiered and extends to ethnicity and language of groups within the larger Japanese community, as it does in the UK, although not as commonly along religious lines as it does elsewhere. ..."
I read an interesting piece in the Nikkei, hardly an left-leaning publication citing Arlie
Hochschild's "Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right."
Doubtless some here would like to see more misery heaped upon those who do not look to the
Democratic party as saviors, but Hochschild is rarely regarded as a defender of the American right.
Few dispute that a significant subset of any given population is going to regard in-group/out-group
distinctions along the highly imprecise lines of 'race' and ethnicity, or religion. The question,
for some, is what percentage?
The Nikkei article by Stephen Grenville concludes: Over the longer term, the constituency for
globalization has to be rebuilt, the methodology for multilateral trade agreements has to be revived…"
Grenville regards understanding the opposition to globalization by the Trump constituency
as essential. If we are discussing America, we do not need to look to illegal immigration, or
undocumented workers to find hostility to out-group immigrants along religious and ethnic lines.
These tendencies are thrown into sharper relief when this hostility is directed towards
successfully assimilated immigrants of a different color who threaten the current occupants of
a space – witness the open racism and hostility displayed towards Japanese immigrants on the west
coast 1900-1924, or so. A similar level of hostility is sometimes/often displayed towards Koreans.
The out-grouping in Japan is tiered and extends to ethnicity and language of groups within
the larger Japanese community, as it does in the UK, although not as commonly along religious
lines as it does elsewhere.
Generally, I think John is right. The term 'racist' no longer carries any of the stigma
it once held in part because the term is deployed so cynically and freely as to render it practically
meaningless. HRC and Bill and their supporters (including me, at one time) are racists for as
long as its convenient and politically expedient to call them racists. Once that moment has passed,
the term 'racist' is withdrawn and replaced with something like Secretary of State, or some other
such title.
I've no clear 'solution' other than to support a more exact and thoughtful discussion of the
causes of fear and anxiety that compels people to bind together into in-groups and out-groups,
and to encourage the fearful to take a few risks now and again.
The attack on Iraq, the attack on Libya, the attack on Syria happened because the leader in each
of these countries was not a puppet of the West. The human rights record of a Saddam or a Gaddafi
was irrelevant. They did not obey orders and surrender control of their country.
The same fate awaited Slobodan Milosevic once he had refused to sign an "agreement" that demanded
the occupation of Serbia and its conversion to a market economy. His people were bombed, and he was
prosecuted in The Hague. Independence of this kind is intolerable.
As WikLeaks has revealed, it was only when the Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad in 2009 rejected
an oil pipeline, running through his country from Qatar to Europe, that he was attacked.
From that moment, the CIA planned to destroy the government of Syria with jihadist fanatics –
the same fanatics currently holding the people of Mosul and eastern Aleppo hostage.
Why is this not news? The former British Foreign Office official Carne Ross, who was responsible
for operating sanctions against Iraq, told me: "We would feed journalists factoids of sanitised intelligence,
or we would freeze them out. That is how it worked."
The West's medieval client, Saudi Arabia – to which the US and Britain sell billions of dollars'
worth of arms – is at present destroying Yemen, a country so poor that in the best of times, half
the children are malnourished.
"... HEDGES: Well what feeds the hatred toward the west has nothing to do with Donald Trump. It has to do with the one-thousand-pound iron fragmentation bombs and cruise missiles and 155 artillery shells that are being dropped all over areas that ISIS controls. ..."
"... That is a far more potent engine of rage than anything Trump says and I think sometimes we forget what we' re doing and the state terror that is delivered day in and day out on Muslims in areas that have been opened up by these failed states because of our military adventurism in countries like Libya and Iraq. ..."
"... : Chris the recently released WikiLeaks indicate that Hillary Clinton is involved in conspiring in maintaining Israels nuclear dominance in the region and containing Irans nuclear development program. ..."
"... Yea, I mean shes quite upfront. I have to give her credit on that in terms of her militantly pro-Israel stance. She of course has courted quite successfully wealthy pro-Israeli donors attacking the Boycott Divestment Sanctions Movement. ..."
"... So one of the dangers of Clinton and shes called for a no fly zone over Syria. Well, people forget that when you institute a no fly zone, that is patrolled and that requires very heavy presence of US forces. ..."
HEDGES: Well what feeds the hatred toward the west has nothing to do with Donald Trump. It
has to do with the one-thousand-pound iron fragmentation bombs and cruise missiles and 155 artillery
shells that are being dropped all over areas that ISIS controls.
That is a far more potent engine of rage than anything Trump says and I think sometimes we
forget what we' re doing and the state terror that is delivered day in and day out on Muslims in areas
that have been opened up by these failed states because of our military adventurism in countries
like Libya and Iraq.
PERIES: So connect those two for us. Give us some examples of how the war on terror in the Middle
East, Syria in particular, is causing this kind of islamophobia here and our hesitancy about doing
humanitarian work by accepting refugees that are fleeing these wars and how it manifests itself in
the form of islamophobia here.
HEDGES: Well, islamophobia here is a doctrine that plays quite conveniently into the goals of
the corporate state in the same way that anti-communism once played into the goals of our capitalist
democracy. So the caricature of threats from the Muslim world independent of the actual possibility
of those threats has especially since 9/11, one of the corner stones of the argument that has been
used by the security and surveillance state to strip us of basic civil liberties, including for instance,
under the Obama administration, misinterpreting the 2001 authorization to use military force act
as giving the executive branch to right to assassinate American citizens. Of course I'm talking about
Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16-year-old son.
So the rise of islamophobia has been largely independent of anything Muslims have done other than
perhaps initially the attacks of 9/11. The continued over 15 years of indiscriminate violence, industrial
violence, delivered on whole swaps of the Muslim world has stirred up the kind of hornet' s nest that
we' re seeing enraged not only among Muslims in the Muslim world but Muslims in Europe and many other
parts of the globe who despite Clinton' s rhetoric see this as a war against Muslims. I think that
although she speaks in kind of a softer and more tolerate tone, Clinton has been one of the main
architects of the attacks for instance in Libya that have given or empowered or given rise to groups
like ISIS. While Clinton' s rhetoric is certainly more palatable, she has been an enthusiastic supporter
that we are going to bomb our way into peace in the Muslim world.
PERIES: Chris give us a sense of the climate created by what both candidates eluded to that Muslims
in this country has to help us in terms of identifying potential terrorists and any kind of activities
in the community that might feed terrorists attacks here. What does this do to a society?
HEDGES: Well it turns us into a society of informers. I think we have to acknowledge how pervasive
the harassment is of Muslim Americans when they go through the airport, intrusive invasions of their
privacy by Homeland Security, the FBI, and others. We have to acknowledge that almost all of the
homegrown terrorist attacks that the FBI have broken have been orchestrated by the FBI usually with
people of marginal means and sometimes marginal intelligence being prodded and often provided supposed
equipment to carry out terrorist attacks. The racial profiling that has gone on coupled with the
rhetoric and this is very dangerous because if you take already an alienated youth and subject it
to this kind of unrelenting harassment, then you provide a recipe for homegrown radicalism.
So yes it' s once again an effort in this case on part of the Trump rhetoric to blame the Muslims
for not only their own victimhood but for terrorist attacks that are being driven by jihadist whom
the vast majority, 99 plus percent of the Muslim world has no contact with and probably very little
empathy for, I mean there' s 4 to 5 million Muslims, I think I have that right, in the United States.
Most of them have integrated quite successfully into American. Unlike in Britain because Muslim immigrants
in the United States whereas in Europe, France, they came over as laborers, we largely absorbed Muslim
professional classes, doctors, engineers, and others and the Muslim community in the United States
is pretty solidly middle class and professional.
... ... ...
PERIES: Chris the recently released WikiLeaks indicate that Hillary Clinton
is involved in conspiring in maintaining Israels nuclear dominance in the region and containing
Irans nuclear development program. Your comments on those WikiLeaks.
HEDGES:Yea, I mean shes quite upfront. I have to give her credit on that in terms of
her militantly pro-Israel stance. She of course has courted quite successfully wealthy
pro-Israeli donors attacking the Boycott Divestment Sanctions Movement. And she has and will
continue what are considered Israeli interests in the region which are not our interest. Israel
pushed very heavily for an invasion of Iraq as a way to destroy a powerful state within the
region. That did not serve our interests at all. In fact, it elevated to the dominant position
within the region, Iran and out of these vacuums gave birth to these jihadist groups and got us
embroiled in wars that we can never win.
So one of the dangers of Clinton and shes called for a no fly zone over Syria. Well, people
forget that when you institute a no fly zone, that is patrolled and that requires very heavy
presence of US forces. Not just air forces but ground stations, radar stations,
anti-aircraft missile batteries. Shes quite openly calling for a further escalation for American
involvement in the Syrian quagmire which of course again we did so much to create by along with
our allies, the Saudis and Qataris and others pumping so many arms in them. I think we gave a
billion dollars worth of arms to Syrian rebels as if you can control where those arms go, just in
the last year.
"Jen you probably have more on this but it looks like POTUS just said he found out HRC was using her personal email when he
saw it in the news we need to clean this up – he has emails from her – they do not say state.gov"
"How is that not classified?" Huma Abedin to FBI when shown email between Clinton & Obama using his pseudonym. Abedin then
expressed her amazement at the president's use of a pseudonym and asked if she could have a copy of the email."
I can't state how huge this is, it's a cover up involving the President of the United States. There are a lot of emails implying
this, but this email states it very clearly so anyone can understand. The email proves obstruction of justice and shows how they
lied to the FBI, and likely perjury of Congress. This at the very least proves intent by her Chief of Staff.
Obama used executive privilege on their correspondence. Cheryl Mills (who was given immunity) states they need to "clean up"
the Clinton/Obama e-mails because they lacked state.gov.
Additionally, Obama on video publicly denied knowing
about the server. He also claimed on video that he learned
about the secret server through the news like everyone else. The corruption goes all the way to the top! Obama is lying to the
American public.
Hillary Clinton set up her private server to hide her pay to play deals discovered throughout these leaks, and to prevent FOIA
(Freedom of Information Act) requests.
Paul Combetta was hired to modify the email headers that referred to a VERY VERY VIP individual, i.e. change the name of who
it was from. If you
read Stonetear/Combetta
story , it's easy to see this is exactly what he was attempting. He wanted to change header information on already sent mail
to show "state.gov" instead of Hillary's private email address. Multiple people informed him of the infeasibility (and illegality)
of it, so somewhere in the next 6 days it was decided that simply eradicating them was the only option left.
The FBI said they could not find intent of trying to break the law, therefore no recommendation of prosecution. This email
proves, in plain language, that there was intention, and knowingly broke the law.
Ask yourselves: why would they both be communicating on a secret server to each other? Why not through normal proper channels?
What were they hiding? We may soon find out
(Source: The Top 100 Most
Damaging WikiLeaks )
_ _ _
For the uninitiated this breakdown essentially says that President Barack Obama is stone-cold guilty of crimes and cover-ups that
would make Watergate look like a walk in the park .
In fact, Obama is so deeply involved with the criminal workings of State that he had no choice but to lie about his knowledge
of Clinton's private server and personal email account. This is why Emailgate is so HUGE- it's a massive cover-up of the greatest
crimes EVER committed by the US Government . And Obama lied his way all through the never-ending conspiratorial saga. As follows:
IMO the whole flight crew of the U.S. aircraft along with their three back-end commanders need
to be permanently removed from flying status. And the aircraft's mission liaison at CENTCOM needs
to be reamed as well.
The Clinton administration was bombing Iraq three times a week during 1999 and 2000 at a cost
of over $2 billion a year. Regardless of who the next president was going to be, I think you could
make a strong case that they were going to war in Iraq.
Yes ($2b p/yr bombing), and as the Counterpunch article states plenty of Gore quotes to "make
strong case".
My view: GWB admin "sold" Iraq to us not just because of WMD, but as response to
declarations
Sadaam was behind 9/11. Whole admin, Rice/Rummy/Cheney said this all the time, every where they
could. Limbaugh, FOX... 24/7 saturation promoting this. I remember many "anonymous" quotes in Pentagon
saying Rummy was running around after towers were hit saying "how can we tie this to Iraq".
Wolfowitz was "architect" of Iraq "liberation"... he'd been promoting this back to early PNAC
days. Wolfy was too "nuts" even for Bush Sr., got canned early on in his admin. Throw in Feith, Elliot
Abrams and the rest, GWB was surrounded with ultra neo-con, hard line Likud'niks who really didn't
give a rip about the US. Iraq was about Israel's "security", and those guys had been writing about
it for years.
None of them would have been in a Gore administration. And Gore's statements in CounterPunch,
they do speak for themsleves. But I'm not sure he wasn't trying to just be a good soldier, let Junior
have his way.
Another thing: Blix had full access in Iraq. Outside of US, he was highly regarded. Here, the
24/7 neo-con media machine I mentioned above never let up on Blix. He was a "low life" "old Europe"
bureaucrat... it was brutal. Really, really 'animal farm' brutal.
Bush's UN "in your face" (either with us or against us) speech clearly designed to bully Security
Counsel, Powell's "clear and convincing evidence" which was all bull shit & concocted by Cheney's
office... none of this would have existed in Gore Whitehouse, and I'd put down a good bet Gore would
have been very content to trust and allow Blix to finish his work. Gore just didn't have all these
ulterior motives.
One of the most memorable things in my mind of single minded purpose driving Wolfowitz/Feith etc.
and the sickness behind it... I don't recall the timeline precisely, but I think not long after Junior
announced "mission accomplished", among other things Bremmer had a big press brew-haa-haa introducing
their "occupying authority" new flag for their "liberated" Iraq: it was almost a replica of Israel's
flag. I don't have links, but maybe others recall this. It was a big, nuclear power backed fuck-you
to Iraq and the middle east saying "hey, what do you think of that m****er f***ers!!!!".
I can't imagine any of that from Gore. Bush was an entirely malleable, unaccomplished adolescent
completely manipulated by the Likud neo-cons. Gore had clear ideas what he wanted to do (whatever
one thinks about that) and didn't demonstrate any of Bush's reckless stupidity.
So anyway, really academic exercise now, but Gore never demonstrated the kind of utter non-sensical,
insanely radical (I'd say christian based psychopathic behavior & words) that came out of GWB's mouth
and his entire admin. I can't imagine these crazies would have had any presence whatsoever in his
administration. And Gore's dedication and "sweat equity" towards Climate change and renewables...
whatever people think of that, sure as hell wasn't borne from being bought-and-paid-for by the fossil
fuel industry. GWB's admin was, top to bottom. Plenty of evidence to suggest getting Iraq's oil fields
was big part of their calculus to "liberate".
So just academic at this point, but that's my own view FWIW.
"... "…the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other
radical Sunni groups in the region." ..."
"... "Clintons should know better than to raise money from folks whose primary concern has been supporting the NIAC, a notorious
supporter of the Radical Islamic Mullahs. "The Clinton's have thrown principle out the window in exchange for cold hard cash…putting
money ahead of principle." ..."
"... If these revelations don't completely terminate Hillary Clinton's candidacy, certainly four straight years of Congressional
Emailgate hearings will, should she outright steal the election from Donald Trump on November 8th, or shortly thereafter. ..."
"…the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and
other radical Sunni groups in the region."
"Clintons should know better than to raise money from folks whose primary concern has been supporting the NIAC, a notorious
supporter of the Radical Islamic Mullahs. "The Clinton's have thrown principle out the window in exchange for cold hard cash…putting
money ahead of principle."
Hillary's Chief of Staff admits in the 2nd link that foreign interests sway Hillary to do what they want her to do (money for
mandatory appearances). She also admits that the "Friend of Hillary" list is available and rentable to people who want to influence,
but that it's too sensitive to talk in email.
This leak shows Hillary knows Saudis and Qatar are funding ISIS, which is an enemy of the state. After knowing this, Hillary
accepted tens of millions in donations from these terrorist-funding governments (of course they are getting something back in
return). She also supported arms deals to them.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar commit horrible acts under Sharia law, including throwing gay people off of buildings, persecuting Christians,
Jews, and atheists, and making it legal to rape and beat women. They are the
leading funders of Hillary and her campaign through the Clinton Foundation.
If these revelations don't completely terminate Hillary Clinton's candidacy, certainly four straight years of Congressional
Emailgate hearings will, should she outright steal the election from Donald Trump on November 8th, or shortly thereafter.
Trump was commenting on the revelation by Wikileaks on Monday that CNN commentator Donna Brazile, who is now the chair of the Democratic
National Committee, had been caught again passing debate questions from the network to the Clinton campaign during the Democratic
primary.
Brazile had been exposed earlier doing the same - passing a question to the Clinton campaign in advance of a town hall debate
against Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT).
At the time, Brazile was not yet DNC chair, but was a regular CNN contributor.
CNN
fired Brazile on Monday, releasing a statement: ""We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions
with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor."
Again, if you really believed that Hillary ever had a 12 point lead over Trump I've got
news for you. Functionally tied even with a +8 Dem oversampling. Brace for a Trumpslide.
This was even BEFORE the FBI announcement.
I found a
surprisingly good article on BBC news this morning addressing whether Trump can pull off
the election. The poor predictions of Brexit vote outcome have clearly raised concerns
about polling accuracy. A key point was that "Some 2.8 million people - about 6% of the
electorate - who had not voted for decades, if ever, turned up at the polling stations on
23 June and almost all of them voted to leave the EU."
The article covers a broad range of issues raising uncertainty in elections like the
impact of cellphone use and the increasing reluctance of the public to answer surveys.
It suggests that there is probably more uncertainty in all of the presidential race
polling than is being admitted – with some emphasis on the limits of "proprietary 'likely
voter' models used by most polling companies. The article ends quoting Nate Silver
suggesting that many pollsters have not factored enough uncertainty into their models..
"... Now the threat is real; and for the foreseeable future we will have to live with and seek to reduce two closely interlinked dangers: the direct and potentially apocalyptic threat posed by terrorists, mainly (though by no means exclusively) based in the Muslim world, and the potential strengthening of those terrorists' resolve by misguided US actions. ..."
"... The most unilateralist Administration in modern American history has been forced to recognise, in principle at least, the country's pressing need for allies ..."
"... Apart from the fact that most European armies are useless when it comes to serious warfare, they are already showing great unwillingness to give the US a blank cheque for whatever military action the Bush Administration chooses to take. ..."
"... A strong sense of righteousness has always been present in the American tradition; but until 11 September, an acute sense of victimhood and persecution by the outside world was usually the preserve of the paranoid Right. ..."
"Who says we share common values with the Europeans? They don't even go to church!" Will the atrocities
of September 11 push America further to the right or open a new debate on foreign policy and the
need for alliances? In this exclusive online essay from the London Review of Books, Anatol Lieven
considers how the cold war legacy may affect the war on terrorism
Not long after the Bush Administration took power in January, I was invited to lunch at a glamorous
restaurant in New York by a group of editors and writers from an influential American right-wing
broadsheet. The food and wine were extremely expensive, the decor luxurious but discreet, the clientele
beautifully dressed, and much of the conversation more than mildly insane. With regard to the greater
part of the world outside America, my hosts' attitude was a combination of loathing, contempt, distrust
and fear: not only towards Arabs, Russians, Chinese, French and others, but towards 'European socialist
governments', whatever that was supposed to mean. This went with a strong desire - in theory at least
- to take military action against a broad range of countries across the world.
Two things were particularly striking here: a tendency to divide the world into friends and enemies,
and a difficulty verging on autism when it came to international opinions that didn't coincide with
their own - a combination more appropriate to the inhabitants of an ethnic slum in the Balkans than
to people who were, at that point, on top of the world.
Today Americans of all classes and opinions have reason to worry, and someone real to fear and
hate, while prolonged US military action overseas is thought to be inevitable. The building where
we had lunch is now rubble. Several of our fellow diners probably died last week, along with more
than six thousand other New Yorkers from every walk of life. Not only has the terrorist attack claimed
far more victims than any previous such attack anywhere in the world, but it has delivered a far
more damaging economic blow. Equally important, it has destroyed Americans' belief in their country's
invulnerability, on which so many other American attitudes and policies finally rested.
This shattering blow was delivered by a handful of anonymous agents hidden in the wider population,
working as part of a tightly-knit secret international conspiracy inspired by a fanatical and (to
the West) deeply 'alien' and 'exotic' religious ideology. Its members are ruthless; they have remarkable
organisational skills, a tremendous capacity for self-sacrifice and self-discipline, and a deep hatred
of the United States and the Western way of life. As Richard Hofstader and others have argued, for
more than two hundred years this kind of combination has always acted as a prompt for paranoid and
reactionary conspiracy theories, most of them groundless.
Now the threat is real; and for the foreseeable future we will have to live with and seek to reduce
two closely interlinked dangers: the direct and potentially apocalyptic threat posed by terrorists,
mainly (though by no means exclusively) based in the Muslim world, and the potential strengthening
of those terrorists' resolve by misguided US actions.
The latter danger has been greatly increased by the attacks. The terrorists have raised to white
heat certain smouldering tendencies among the American Right, while simultaneously - as is usually
the case at the start of wars - pushing American politics and most of its population in a sharply
rightward direction; all of which has taken place under an unexpectedly right-wing Administration.
If this leads to a crude military response, then the terrorists will have achieved part of their
purpose, which was to provoke the other side to indiscriminate retaliation, and thereby increase
their own support.
It is too early to say for sure how US strategies and attitudes will develop. At the time of writing
Afghanistan is the focus, but whatever happens there, it isn't clear whether the US Administration
will go on to launch a more general campaign of military pressure against other states which have
supported terrorist groups, and if so, what states and what kind of military pressure? US policy
is already pulled in two predictable but contradictory directions, amply illustrated in the op-ed
pages of US newspapers and in debates within the Government.
The most unilateralist Administration in modern American history has been forced to recognise,
in principle at least, the country's pressing need for allies. There are the beginnings, too, of
a real public debate on how US policy needs to be changed and shaped to fight the new 'war'. All
this is reminiscent of US attitudes and behaviour at the start of the Cold War, when Communism was
identified as the central menace to the US and to Western capitalism and democracy in general.
On the other hand, the public desire for revenge has strengthened certain attitudes - especially
in the Republican Party and media, as well as parts of the Administration - which, if they prevail,
will not only be dangerous in themselves, but will make the search for real allies difficult. And
real allies are essential, above all in the Arab and Muslim worlds. In the longer run, only the full
co-operation of Arab regimes - along with reform and economic development - can prevent the recruitment,
funding and operations of Arab-based terrorist groups.
As for Europe, British military support may be unconditional, but most European countries - Russia
among them - are likely to restrict their help to intelligence and policing. Apart from the fact
that most European armies are useless when it comes to serious warfare, they are already showing
great unwillingness to give the US a blank cheque for whatever military action the Bush Administration
chooses to take.
Yet a blank cheque is precisely what the Administration, and the greater part of US public opinion,
are asking for. This is Jim Hoagland, veteran establishment foreign correspondent and commentator,
in the generally liberal Washington Post:
"Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and many of the other Arab states Powell hopes to recruit for the bin
Laden posse have long been part of the problem, not part of the solution to international terrorism.
These states cannot be given free passes for going through the motions of helping the United States.
And European allies cannot be allowed to order an appetiser of bin Laden and not share in the costs
of the rest of a meal cooked in hell."
If this is the Post, then the sentiments in the right-wing press and the tabloids can well be
imagined. Here is Tod Lindberg, the editor of Policy Review, writing in the Washington Times:
"The United States is now energetically in the business of making governments pick a side: either
with us and against the terrorists, or against us and with them... Against the category of enemy
stands the category of 'friend'. Friends stand with us. Friends do whatever they can to help. Friends
don't, for example, engage in commerce with enemies, otherwise they aren't friends."
A strong sense of righteousness has always been present in the American tradition; but until 11
September, an acute sense of victimhood and persecution by the outside world was usually the preserve
of the paranoid Right. Now it has spread and, for the moment at least, some rather important ideas
have almost vanished from the public debate: among them, that other states have their own national
interests, and that in the end nothing compels them to help the US; that they, too, have been the
victims of terrorism - in the case of Britain, largely funded from groups in the United States -
but have not insisted on a right of unilateral military retaliation (this point was made by Niall
Ferguson in the New York Times, but not as yet in any op-ed by an American that I have seen); and
that in some cases these states may actually know more about their own part of the world than US
intelligence does.
Beyond the immediate and unforeseeable events in Afghanistan - and their sombre implications for
Pakistan - lies the bigger question of US policy in the Arab world. Here, too, Administration policy
may well be a good deal more cautious than the opinions of the right-wing media would suggest - which
again is fortunate, because much opinion on this subject is more than rabid. Here is AM Rosenthal
in the Washington Times arguing that an amazing range of states should be given ultimatums to surrender
not only alleged terrorists but also their own senior officials accused by the US of complicity:
"The ultimatum should go to the governments of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Sudan and
any other devoted to the elimination of the United States or the constant incitement of hatred against
it... In the three days the terrorists consider the American ultimatum, the residents of the countries
would be urged 24 hours a day by the United States to flee the capital and major cities, because
they would be bombed to the ground beginning the fourth."
Rosenthal isn't a figure from the lunatic fringe ranting on a backwoods radio show, but the former
executive editor of the New York Times, writing in a paper with great influence in the Republican
Party, especially under the present Administration.
No Administration is going to do anything remotely like this. But if the Secretary of State, Colin
Powell, has emerged as the voice of moderation, with a proper commitment to multilateralism, other
voices are audible, too. Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defence, has spoken of "ending states
which support terrorism", and in the case of Iraq, there are those who would now like to complete
the work of the Gulf War and finish off Saddam Hussein.
Here, too, the mood of contempt for allies contributes to the ambition. Thus Kim Holmes, vice-president
of the right-wing Heritage Foundation, argued that only deference to America's Arab allies prevented
the US from destroying the Iraqi regime in 1991 (the profound unwillingness of Bush Senior to occupy
Iraq and take responsibility for the place also played its part in the decision): "To show that this
war is not with Islam per se, the US could be tempted to restrain itself militarily and accommodate
the complex and contradictory political agendas of Islamic states. This in turn could make the campaign
ineffectual, prolonging the problem of terrorism."
Getting rid of Saddam Hussein is not in itself a bad idea. His is a pernicious regime, a menace
to his own people and his neighbours, as well as to the West. And if the Iraqi threat to the Gulf
States could be eliminated, US troops might be withdrawn from Saudi Arabia: it was their permanent
stationing on the holy soil of Islam that turned Osama bin Laden from an anti-Soviet mujahid into
an anti-American terrorist.
But only if it were to take place in the context of an entirely new policy towards Palestine would
the US be able to mount such a campaign without provoking massive unrest across the Arab world; and
given what became of promises made during the Gulf War, there would first of all have to be firm
evidence of a US change of heart. The only borders between Israel and Palestine which would have
any chance of satisfying a majority of Palestinians and Arabs - and conforming to UN resolutions,
for what they are worth - would be those of 1967, possibly qualified by an internationalisation of
Jerusalem under UN control. This would entail the removal of the existing Jewish settlements in the
Occupied Territories, and would be absolutely unacceptable to any imaginable Israeli Government.
To win Israeli agreement would require not just US pressure, but the threat of a complete breach
of relations and the ending of aid.
There may be those in the Administration who would favour adopting such an approach at a later
stage. Bush Sr's was the most anti-Israeli Administration of the past two generations, and was disliked
accordingly by the Jewish and other ethnic lobbies. His son's is less beholden to those lobbies than
Clinton's was. And it may be that even pro-Israeli US politicians will at some point realise that
Israel's survival as such is not an issue: that it is absurd to increase the risk to Washington and
New York for the sake of 267 extremist settlers in Hebron and their comrades elsewhere.
Still, in the short term, a radical shift is unlikely, and an offensive against Iraq would therefore
be dangerous. The attacks on New York and the Pentagon and the celebrations in parts of the Arab
world have increased popular hostility to the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular,
a hostility assiduously stoked by Israeli propaganda. But when it comes to denouncing hate crimes
against Muslims - or those taken to be Muslims - within the US, the Administration has behaved decently,
perhaps because they have a rather sobering precedent in mind, one which has led to genuine shame:
the treatment of Japanese Americans during world war two.
This shame is the result of an applied historical intelligence that does not extend to the Arab
world. Americans tend - and perhaps need - to confuse the symptoms and the causes of Arab anger.
Since a key pro-Israel position in the US has been that fundamental Palestinian and Arab grievances
must not be allowed legitimacy or even discussed, the only explanation of Arab hostility to the US
and its ally must be sought in innate features of Arab society, whether a contemporary culture of
anti-semitism (and anti-Americanism) sanctioned by Arab leaderships, or ancient 'Muslim' traditions
of hostility to the West.
All of which may contain some truth: but the central issue, the role of Israeli policies in providing
a focus for such hatred, is overwhelmingly ignored. As a result, it is extremely difficult, and mostly
impossible, to hold any frank discussion of the most important issue affecting the position of the
US in the Middle East or the open sympathy for terrorism in the region. A passionately held nationalism
usually has the effect of corrupting or silencing those liberal intellectuals who espouse it. This
is the case of Israeli nationalism in the US. It is especially distressing that it should afflict
the Jewish liberal intelligentsia, that old bedrock of sanity and tolerance.
An Administration which wanted a radical change of policy towards Israel would have to generate
a new public debate almost from scratch - which would not be possible until some kind of tectonic
shift had taken place in American society. Too many outside observers who blame US Administrations
forget that on a wide range of issues, it is essentially Congress and not the White House or State
Department which determines foreign policy; this is above all true of US aid. An inability or unwillingness
to try to work on Congress, as opposed to going through normal diplomatic channels, has been a minor
contributory factor to Britain's inability to get any purchase on US policy in recent years.
The role of Congress brings out what might be called the Wilhelmine aspects of US foreign and
security policy. By that I do not mean extreme militarism or a love of silly hats, or even a shared
tendency to autism when it comes to understanding the perceptions of other countries, but rather
certain structural features in both the Wilhemine and the US system tending to produce over-ambition,
and above all a chronic incapacity to choose between diametrically opposite goals. Like Wilhelmine
Germany, the US has a legislature with very limited constitutional powers in the field of foreign
policy, even though it wields considerable de facto power and is not linked either institutionally
or by party discipline to the executive. The resulting lack of any responsibility for actual consequences
is a standing invitation to rhetorical grandstanding, and the pursuit of sectional interests at the
expense of overall policy.
Meanwhile, the executive, while in theory supremely powerful in this field, has in fact continually
to woo the legislature without ever being able to command its support. This, too, encourages dependence
on interest groups, as well as a tendency to overcome differences and gain support by making appeals
in terms of overheated patriotism rather than policy. Finally, in both systems, though for completely
different reasons, supreme executive power had or has a tendency to fall into the hands of people
totally unsuited for any but the ceremonial aspects of the job, and endlessly open to manipulation
by advisers, ministers and cliques.
In the US, this did not matter so much during the Cold War, when a range of Communist threats
- real, imagined or fabricated - held the system together in the pursuit of more or less common aims.
With the disappearance of the unifying threat, however, there has been a tendency, again very Wilhelmine,
to produce ambitious and aggressive policies in several directions simultaneously, often with little
reference at all to real US interests or any kind of principle.
The new 'war against terrorism' in Administration and Congressional rhetoric has been cast as
just such a principle, unifying the country and the political establishment behind a common goal
and affecting or determining a great range of other policies. The language has been reminiscent of
the global struggle against Communism, and confronting Islamist radicalism in the Muslim world does,
it's true, pose some of the same challenges, on a less global scale, though possibly with even greater
dangers for the world.
The likelihood that US strategy in the 'war against terrorism' will resemble that of the Cold
War is greatly increased by the way Cold War structures and attitudes have continued to dominate
the US foreign policy and security elites. Charles Tilly and others have written of the difficulty
states have in 'ratcheting down' wartime institutions and especially wartime spending. In the 1990s,
this failure on the part of the US to escape its Cold War legacy was a curse, ensuring unnecessarily
high military spending in the wrong fields, thoroughly negative attitudes to Russia, 'zero-sum' perceptions
of international security issues in general, and perceptions of danger which wholly failed, as we
now see, to meet the real threats to security and lives.
The idea of a National Missile Defense is predicated on a limited revival of the Cold War, with
China cast in the role of the Soviet Union and the Chinese nuclear deterrent as the force to be nullified.
Bush's foreign and security team is almost entirely a product of Cold War structures and circumscribed
by Cold War attitudes (which is not true of the President himself, who was never interested enough
in foreign policy; if he can get his mind round the rest of the world, he could well be more of a
free-thinker than many of his staff).
The collapse of the Communist alternative to Western-dominated modernisation and the integration
(however imperfect) of Russia and China into the world capitalist order have been a morally and socially
ambiguous process, to put it mildly; but in the early 1990s they seemed to promise the suspension
of hostility between the world's larger powers. The failure of the US to make use of this opportunity,
thanks to an utter confusion between an ideological victory and crudely-defined US geopolitical interests,
was a great misfortune which the 'war against terrorism' could in part rectify. Since 11 September,
the rhetoric in America has proposed a gulf between the 'civilised' states of the present world system,
and movements of 'barbaric', violent protest from outside and below - without much deference to the
ambiguities of 'civilisation', or the justifications of resistance to it, remarked on since Tacitus
at least.
How is the Cold War legacy likely to determine the 'war against terrorism'? Despite the general
conviction in the Republican Party that it was simply Reagan's military spending and the superiority
of the US system which destroyed Soviet Communism, more serious Cold War analysts were always aware
that it involved not just military force, or the threat of it, but ideological and political struggle,
socio-economic measures, and state-building. The latter in particular is an idea for which the Bush
team on their arrival in office had a deep dislike (if only to distance themselves from Clinton's
policies), but which they may now rediscover. Foreign aid - so shamefully reduced in the 1990s -
was also a key part of the Cold War, and if much of it was poured into kleptocratic regimes like
Mobutu's, or wasted on misguided projects, some at least helped produce flourishing economies in
Europe and East Asia.
The Republican Party is not only the party of Goldwater and Reagan, but of Eisenhower, Nixon and
Kissinger. Eisenhower is now almost forgotten by the party. 'Eisenhower Republicans', as they refer
to themselves, are usually far closer to Tony Blair (or perhaps more accurately, Helmut Schmidt)
than anyone the Republican Party has seen in recent years, and I'd wager that the majority of educated
Americans have forgotten that the original warning about the influence of the 'military industrial
complex' came from Eisenhower.
Kissinger is still very much alive, however, and his history is a reminder that one aspect of
the American capacity for extreme ruthlessness was also a capacity for radical changes of policy,
for reconciliation with states hitherto regarded as bitter enemies, and for cold-blooded abandonment
of close allies and clients whose usefulness was at an end. It would not altogether surprise me if
we were now to see a radical shift towards real co-operation with Russia, and even Iran.
In general, however, the Cold War legacies and parallels are discouraging and dangerous. To judge
by the language used in the days since 11 September, ignorance, demonisation and the drowning out
of nuanced debate indicate that much of the US establishment can no more tell the difference between
Iran and Afghanistan than they could between China and the Soviet Union in the early 1960s - the
inexcusable error which led to the American war in Vietnam. The preference for militarised solutions
continues (the 'War on Drugs', which will now have to be scaled back, is an example). Most worryingly,
the direct attack on American soil and American civilians - far worse than anything done to the US
in the Cold War - means that there is a real danger of a return to Cold War ruthlessness: not just
in terms of military tactics and covert operations, but in terms of the repulsive and endangered
regimes co-opted as local American clients.
The stakes are, if anything, a good deal higher than they were during the Cold War. Given what
we now know of Soviet policymaking, it is by no means clear that the Kremlin ever seriously contemplated
a nuclear strike against America. By contrast, it seems likely that bin Laden et al would in the
end use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons if they could deliver them.
There is also the question of the impact of US strategies (or, in the case of Israel, lack of
them) on the unity of the West - assuming that this is of some importance for the wellbeing of humanity.
However great the exasperation of many European states with US policy throughout the Cold War, the
Europeans were bound into the transatlantic alliance by an obvious Soviet threat - more immediate
to them than it was to the US. For the critical first decade of the Cold War, the economies of Europe
were hopelessly inferior to that of the US. Today, if European Governments feel that the US is dragging
them into unnecessary danger thanks to policies of which they disapprove, they will protest bitterly
- as many did during the Cold War - and then begin to distance themselves, which they could not afford
to do fifty years ago.
This is all the more likely if, as seems overwhelmingly probable, the US withdraws from the Balkans
- as it has already done in Macedonia - leaving Europeans with no good reason to require a US military
presence on their continent. At the same time, the cultural gap between Europeans and Republican
America (which does not mean a majority of Americans, but the dominant strain of policy) will continue
to widen. 'Who says we share common values with the Europeans?' a senior US politician remarked recently.
'They don't even go to church!' Among other harmful effects, the destruction of this relationship
could signal the collapse of whatever hope still exists for a common Western approach to global environmental
issues - which would, in the end, pose a greater danger to humanity than that of terrorism.
· Anatol Lieven is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington
DC.
Why thousands of emails were forwarded to unsecured computer shared by Abedin with her husband?
How they were forwarded, were they forwarded individually or as a batch operation ?
How many of them are those 30K deleted by Hillary "private" emails ?
Does this batch contains any of previously discovered classified emails?
What was the purpose of forwarding those emails to home computer.
Notable quotes:
"... Somebody at the F.B.I. must have picked up on the fact that the "FIX" was exposed hence on Friday an announcement was made by the F.B.I. that they had found further e-mails, I suspect that all the e-mails will have to be re-examined in the light of the lenient views taken by some F.B. I. Officers taken at the first pass or some more deletions will of necessity have to take place. ..."
"... Meanwhile Clinton is shouting and screaming at the F.B.I. because she now knows that a new fix will be very difficult or impossible in the light of the revealed information and her "charity donations" of over $800,000 have not only been wasted but have exposed her flank! ..."
"... ...the agents discovered the existence of tens of thousands of emails, some of them sent between Ms. Abedin and other Clinton aides, according to senior law enforcement officials ..."
"... Nevertheless, how do you forward tens of thousands of emails? I don't think it can be a batch operation, they must have been forwarded individually. And what of the 30,000 destroyed (by Clinton) emails? ..."
"... "We don't know what this means yet except that it's a real bombshell. And it is unthinkable that the Director of the FBI would take this action lightly, that he would put this letter forth to the Congress of the United States saying there is more information out there about classified e-mails and call it to the attention of congress unless it was something requiring serious investigation. So that's where we are..." ..."
The other day I was reading an article which was talking about two "charity donations" given to the wife of an F.B.I. Officer
involved in the e-mail investigation by "friends of the Clinton's".
The article was very low key it's author briefly wondered if the officer concerned should have excused himself from the investigation.
I also thought it strange that the officers interest had not been declared. Some time later I was reading about details concerning
the e-mails sent from Clinton's staff to members of the F.B.I. ,basically what was happening was that the security rating of the
information contained in non deleted mails was being talked down, at which point for me at least alarm bells were ringing loud
and clear but I did not expect there to be any reaction. O.K. So I'm that cynical.
Somebody at the F.B.I. must have picked up on the fact that the "FIX" was exposed hence on Friday an announcement was made
by the F.B.I. that they had found further e-mails, I suspect that all the e-mails will have to be re-examined in the light of
the lenient views taken by some F.B. I. Officers taken at the first pass or some more deletions will of necessity have to take
place.
Meanwhile Clinton is shouting and screaming at the F.B.I. because she now knows that a new fix will be very difficult or
impossible in the light of the revealed information and her "charity donations" of over $800,000 have not only been wasted but
have exposed her flank!
My Fellow Americans - Here is what the NYT is reporting in contrast to the WaPost's email count of more than 1,000, in terms of
an actual number of emails to be reviewed:
"...the agents discovered the existence of tens of thousands of emails, some of them sent between Ms. Abedin and other
Clinton aides, according to senior law enforcement officials."
Subsequently, that could change what the initial investigation by the Bureau had to look at this summer, and the understanding
that all of the parties acknowledge that about 30k emails were deleted. So the "tens of thousands" may be duplicates or perhaps
copies of the "thumb-drive" that one of HRC's lawyers was said to have been given?
At any rate, this must bring into play at least 18 U.S. Code § 2071 - Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally - and raise
the question about whether conflicting DOJ internal "policy" has any affect on any of the Administration's current or former appointees,
in terms of their "oath of office" or moving forward. And that would bring 5 U.S. Code § 3331 - Oath of office - into play as
well as the 5-year statute of limitations.
We're likely still "Doomed" - so don't get too happy just yet, because EPA could still disallow "draining" anything as a result
of the Clean Water Act, as amended.
CanardNoir 2:41 PM EDT
And here's the Sec. 2071 reason "why":
(b) "Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and
unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United
States..."
[Edited] Lynch had to recuse herself after meeting with Bill Clinton. Had there not been information showing intent to violate
espionage laws, Comey would have never acted. The fact is she is a criminal and cannot be elected . Image an elected Hillary who
is impeached. The USA deserves better than a this and must turn the Clintons out to pasture forever.
The FBI used to be a respected agency. Now, not so much. Working for, and in collusion with Obama, Loretta Lynch, the Clinton's
and the media makes their "investigation" suspect, to say the least.
Hillary "will say anything and do anything" (Obama's words, not mine) to get elected. Trying to blame her malfeasance on the
FBI is simply stupid. She is so obsessed with money and power that she openly states "I have spent my life helping children and
women". Right. Like when she was an 8 year Senator who only introduced 3 bills naming a couple highways and a bank. Her followers
are dupes and dunces and we can only hope they don't outnumber rationally thinking people.
To think that Weiner and who knows who else had access to U.S. National Security information on the Weiner/Abedin computer.
Sure sounds like the FBI is after Abedin not Clinton.
Dems loved Comey when he slapped Clinton on the wrist for playing loose with U.S. National Security on her email server. Now
those same Dems want to burn Comey at the stake.
Let's not forget how Comey has come to be such a respected official http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...
In vivid testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, Comey said he alerted FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and raced,
sirens blaring, to join Ashcroft in his hospital room, arriving minutes before Gonzales and Card. Ashcroft, summoning the strength
to lift his head and speak, refused to sign the papers they had brought. Gonzales and Card, who had never acknowledged Comey's
presence in the room, turned and left.
ad_icon
The sickbed visit was the start of a dramatic showdown between the White House and the Justice Department in early 2004 that,
according to Comey, was resolved only when Bush overruled Gonzales and Card. But that was not before Ashcroft, Comey, Mueller
and their aides prepared a mass resignation, Comey said. The domestic spying by the National Security Agency continued for several
weeks without Justice approval, wheresthechow
2:27 AM EST The Clinton's are just so amazing in their cavalier above-the-law attitude that they can't even renovate their
house without breaking the law.
Mr. Weiner has not aged well.....and it is not over....avoid park benches do not visit remote areas.....People you and I know
may have a Boat moored in a slip at a Dock or a Yacht club that's Normal Americana....Yet A.G.Loretta Lynch was waiting on the
Tarmac in her Jet Plane as Bill Clinton leaves His Jet Plane to chat with Loretta ....this is an area of privilege far above yacht
club status....and this meeting broke several laws very quickly...so the A.G. has no authority to comment on what the head of
F.B.I. has done regarding The Weiner Email discovery and whatever Bill had swindled for future favors or past I.O.U's has now
become a waste of AA jet fuel for the,"IN", crowd.....Hillary is starting to look a little like Mr.Weiner; facial tension ,gaunt,hollow
cheeks,terse lips,Bill was supposed to take care of all this....right?Now Mr. Comey had taken the J. Edgar Hoover pledge to Serve
and protect and that would have been us under all other circumstances.....but he has to be loyal to his associates for they are
the top 2% of the entire population and they deserve to be treated as the most important the bureau has....what transpired on
the first pass left them in Mayberry P.D. limbo and will never happen could someone help Loretta Lynch to see the light or the
exit sign ....Please
711810943 10/29/2016 10:56 PM EST
Yep, we're definitely talking about the battle of the twin dumpster fires here...
Celebrity gossip trumps policy, if you'll forgive the expression. But what can you expect in a country that can name three
Kardashian sisters, but not one foreign head of state.
Hmmm... Those deck chairs need rearranging... See ya...
Laptop or PC is property of US once claissified info discovered. 18USC 798, right? Who says a warrant is needed to seize, protect?
No so. And, for sure, they will read, use of which may or may not be impeded thereby. Still, there is allot to investigate, incl.
numerous apparent violations of ethics in govt. act, etc, failures to disclose gifts / income, etc.
The Clintons run a morally corrupt RICO that holds itself above the law. With Obama's support, the Justice Dept., IRS, FBI,
State Dept. have aided and abetted the Clinton corruption of our government. This illustrates Hayek's point in The Road To Serfdom
that when very powerful government institutions are created, "the worst rise to the top". Public power and money attract the least
scrupulous, least honest, most power hungry, and most determined. Though Clinton's cabal publicly poses themselves as humanitarian
progressives, the Doug Band statement of operations among Teneo, CGI, the Foundation, and the Clintons presents the underlying
purpose of selling influence and the crony capital structure devised to split the proceeds. The Clinton Foundation operates outside
the law. So where's the MSM, the IRS, the FBI, Justice...what justice?
To think that Weiner and who knows who else had access to U.S. National Security information on the Weiner/Abedin computer.
Sure sounds like the FBI is after Abedin not Clinton.
Dems loved Comey when he slapped Clinton on the wrist for playing loose with U.S. National Security on her email server. Now
those same Dems want to burn Comey at the stake.
Let's not forget how Comey has come to be such a respected official http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...
In vivid testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, Comey said he alerted FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III and raced,
sirens blaring, to join Ashcroft in his hospital room, arriving minutes before Gonzales and Card. Ashcroft, summoning the strength
to lift his head and speak, refused to sign the papers they had brought. Gonzales and Card, who had never acknowledged Comey's
presence in the room, turned and left.
ad_icon
The sickbed visit was the start of a dramatic showdown between the White House and the Justice Department in early 2004 that,
according to Comey, was resolved only when Bush overruled Gonzales and Card. But that was not before Ashcroft, Comey, Mueller
and their aides prepared a mass resignation, Comey said. The domestic spying by the National Security Agency continued for several
weeks without Justice approval, he said.
"I was angry," Comey testified. "I thought I just witnessed an effort to take advantage of a very sick man, who did not have
the powers of the attorney general because they had been transferred to me."
[Edited] In a previous release of information as a result of a Freedom of Information suit, it became known that Huma Abedin
had forwarded emails from Clinton's private email server, to Ms. Abedin's personal yahoo email account.
The new bit of news today, is that the FBI found TENS OF THOUSANDS of Clinton related emails on Weiner's (shared with Abedin?)
laptop. I understand that Mrs. Clinton was SOS for four years.
Nevertheless, how do you forward tens of thousands of emails? I don't think it can be a batch operation, they must have
been forwarded individually. And what of the 30,000 destroyed (by Clinton) emails?
The only thing that makes sense, is that the newly discovered emails include some of the missing emails. As Carl Bernstein
(one of the two original Post reporters who broke the Watergate story, which led to Nixon's resignation) said yesterday:
"We don't know what this means yet except that it's a real bombshell. And it is unthinkable that the Director of the
FBI would take this action lightly, that he would put this letter forth to the Congress of the United States saying there is
more information out there about classified e-mails and call it to the attention of congress unless it was something requiring
serious investigation. So that's where we are..."
"... A key justification of the Bush administration's purported strategy of 'democratising' the Middle East is the argument that democracies are pacific, and that Muslim democracies will therefore eventually settle down peacefully under the benign hegemony of the US. ..."
"... The president's title of 'commander-in-chief' is used by administration propagandists to suggest, in a way reminiscent of German militarists before 1914 attempting to defend their half-witted Kaiser, that any criticism of his record in external affairs comes close to a betrayal of the military and the country. ..."
"... The new American militarism is the handiwork of several disparate groups that shared little in common apart from being intent on undoing the purportedly nefarious effects of the 1960s. Military officers intent on rehabilitating their profession; intellectuals fearing that the loss of confidence at home was paving the way for the triumph of totalitarianism abroad; religious leaders dismayed by the collapse of traditional moral standards; strategists wrestling with the implications of a humiliating defeat that had undermined their credibility; politicians on the make; purveyors of pop culture looking to make a buck: as early as 1980, each saw military power as the apparent answer to any number of problems. ..."
"... Two other factors have also been critical: the dependence on imported oil is seen as requiring American hegemony over the Middle East; and the Israel lobby has worked assiduously and with extraordinary success to make sure that Israel's enemies are seen by Americans as also being those of the US. ..."
"... And let's not forget the role played by the entrenched interests of the military itself and what Dwight Eisenhower once denounced as the 'military-industrial-academic complex'. ..."
"... The security elites are obviously interested in the maintenance and expansion of US global military power, if only because their own jobs and profits depend on it. ..."
"... To achieve wider support in the media and among the public, it is also necessary to keep up the illusion that certain foreign nations constitute a threat to the US, and to maintain a permanent level of international tension. ..."
"... They would include the element of messianism embodied in American civic nationalism, with its quasi-religious belief in the universal and timeless validity of its own democratic system, and in its right and duty to spread that system to the rest of the world. ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Important sections of contemporary US popular culture are suffused with the language of militarism. ..."
"... Red Storm Rising ..."
"... Indeed, a portrait of US militarism today could be built around a set of such apparently glaring contradictions: the contradiction, for example, between the military coercion of other nations and the belief in the spreading of 'freedom' and 'democracy'. Among most non-Americans, and among many American realists and progressives, the collocation seems inherently ludicrous. But, as Bacevich brings out, it has deep roots in American history. Indeed, the combination is historically coterminous with Western imperialism. Historians of the future will perhaps see preaching 'freedom' at the point of an American rifle as no less morally and intellectually absurd than 'voluntary' conversion to Christianity at the point of a Spanish arquebus. ..."
"... Today, having dissolved any connection between claims to citizenship and obligation to serve, Americans entrust their security to a class of military professionals who see themselves in many respects as culturally and politically set apart from the rest of society. ..."
"... British power was far from unlimited. The British Empire could use its technological superiority, small numbers of professional troops and local auxiliaries to conquer backward and impoverished countries in Asia and Africa, but it would not have dreamed of intervening unilaterally in Europe or North America. ..."
"... As Iraq – and to a lesser extent Afghanistan – has demonstrated, the US can knock over states, but it cannot suppress the resulting insurgencies, even one based in such a comparatively small population as the Sunni Arabs of Iraq. ..."
"... Recognizing this, the army is beginning to imitate ancient Rome in offering citizenship to foreign mercenaries in return for military service – something that the amazing Boot approves, on the grounds that while it helped destroy the Roman Empire, it took four hundred years to do so. ..."
"... The fact that the Democrats completely failed to do this says a great deal about their lack of political will, leadership and capacity to employ a focused strategy. ..."
The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War by
Andrew Bacevich
Oxford, 270 pp, £16.99, August 2005, ISBN 0 19 517338 4
A key justification of the Bush administration's purported strategy of 'democratising' the
Middle East is the argument that democracies are pacific, and that Muslim democracies will therefore
eventually settle down peacefully under the benign hegemony of the US. Yet, as Andrew Bacevich
points out in one of the most acute analyses of America to have appeared in recent years, the United
States itself is in many ways a militaristic country, and becoming more so:
at the end of the Cold War, Americans said yes to military power. The skepticism about arms
and armies that informed the original Wilsonian vision, indeed, that pervaded the American experiment
from its founding, vanished. Political leaders, liberals and conservatives alike, became enamoured
with military might.
The ensuing affair had, and continues to have, a heedless, Gatsby-like aspect, a passion pursued
in utter disregard of any consequences that might ensue.
The president's title of 'commander-in-chief' is used by administration propagandists to suggest,
in a way reminiscent of German militarists before 1914 attempting to defend their half-witted Kaiser,
that any criticism of his record in external affairs comes close to a betrayal of the military and
the country. Compared to German and other past militarisms, however, the contemporary American
variant is extremely complex, and the forces that have generated it have very diverse origins and
widely differing motives:
The new American militarism is the handiwork of several disparate groups that shared little
in common apart from being intent on undoing the purportedly nefarious effects of the 1960s. Military
officers intent on rehabilitating their profession; intellectuals fearing that the loss of confidence
at home was paving the way for the triumph of totalitarianism abroad; religious leaders dismayed
by the collapse of traditional moral standards; strategists wrestling with the implications of
a humiliating defeat that had undermined their credibility; politicians on the make; purveyors
of pop culture looking to make a buck: as early as 1980, each saw military power as the apparent
answer to any number of problems.
Two other factors have also been critical: the dependence on imported oil is seen as requiring
American hegemony over the Middle East; and the Israel lobby has worked assiduously and with extraordinary
success to make sure that Israel's enemies are seen by Americans as also being those of the US.
And let's not forget the role played by the entrenched interests of the military itself and
what Dwight Eisenhower once denounced as the 'military-industrial-academic complex'.
The security elites are obviously interested in the maintenance and expansion of US global
military power, if only because their own jobs and profits depend on it. Jobs and patronage
also ensure the support of much of the Congress, which often authorizes defense spending on weapons
systems the Pentagon doesn't want and hasn't asked for, in order to help some group of senators and
congressmen in whose home states these systems are manufactured. To achieve wider support in
the media and among the public, it is also necessary to keep up the illusion that certain foreign
nations constitute a threat to the US, and to maintain a permanent level of international tension.
That's not the same, however, as having an actual desire for war, least of all for a major conflict
which might ruin the international economy. US ground forces have bitter memories of Vietnam, and
no wish to wage an aggressive war: Rumsfeld and his political appointees had to override the objections
of the senior generals, in particular those of the army chief of staff, General Eric Shinseki, before
the attack on Iraq. The navy and air force do not have to fight insurgents in hell-holes like Fallujah,
and so naturally have a more relaxed attitude.
To understand how the Bush administration was able to manipulate the public into supporting the
Iraq war one has to look for deeper explanations. They would include the element of messianism
embodied in American civic nationalism, with its quasi-religious belief in the universal and timeless
validity of its own democratic system, and in its right and duty to spread that system to the rest
of the world. This leads to a genuine belief that American soldiers can do no real wrong because
they are spreading 'freedom'. Also of great importance – at least until the Iraqi insurgency rubbed
American noses in the horrors of war – has been the development of an aesthetic that sees war as
waged by the US as technological, clean and antiseptic; and thanks to its supremacy in weaponry,
painlessly victorious. Victory over the Iraqi army in 2003 led to a new flowering of megalomania
in militarist quarters. The amazing Max Boot of the Wall Street Journal – an armchair commentator,
not a frontline journalist – declared that the US victory had made 'fabled generals such as Erwin
Rommel and Heinz Guderian seem positively incompetent by comparison'. Nor was this kind of talk restricted
to Republicans. More than two years into the Iraq quagmire, strategic thinkers from the Democratic
establishment were still declaring that 'American military power in today's world is practically
unlimited.'
Important sections of contemporary US popular culture are suffused with the language of militarism.
Take Bacevich on the popular novelist Tom Clancy:
In any Clancy novel, the international order is a dangerous and threatening place, awash with
heavily armed and implacably determined enemies who threaten the United States. That Americans
have managed to avoid Armageddon is attributable to a single fact: the men and women of America's
uniformed military and its intelligence services have thus far managed to avert those threats.
The typical Clancy novel is an unabashed tribute to the skill, honor, extraordinary technological
aptitude and sheer decency of the nation's defenders. To read Red Storm Rising is to
enter a world of 'virtuous men and perfect weapons', as one reviewer noted. 'All the Americans
are paragons of courage, endurance and devotion to service and country. Their officers are uniformly
competent and occasionally inspired. Men of all ranks are faithful husbands and devoted fathers.'
Indeed, in the contract that he signed for the filming of Red October, Clancy stipulated
that nothing in the film show the navy in a bad light.
Such attitudes go beyond simply glorying in violence, military might and technological prowess.
They reflect a belief – genuine or assumed – in what the Germans used to call Soldatentum:
the pre-eminent value of the military virtues of courage, discipline and sacrifice, and explicitly
or implicitly the superiority of these virtues to those of a hedonistic, contemptible and untrustworthy
civilian society and political class. In the words of Thomas Friedman, the ostensibly liberal foreign
affairs commentator of the ostensibly liberal New York Times, 'we do not deserve these people.
They are so much better than the country they are fighting for.' Such sentiments have a sinister
pedigree in modern history.
In the run-up to the last election, even a general as undistinguished as Wesley Clark could see
his past generalship alone as qualifying him for the presidency – and gain the support of leading
liberal intellectuals. Not that this was new: the first president was a general and throughout the
19th and 20th centuries both generals and more junior officers ran for the presidency on the strength
of their military records. And yet, as Bacevich points out, this does not mean that the uniformed
military have real power over policy-making, even in matters of war. General Tommy Franks may have
regarded Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense, as 'the stupidest fucking guy on the planet',
but he took Feith's orders, and those of the civilians standing behind him: Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld
and the president himself. Their combination of militarism and contempt for military advice recalls
Clemenceau and Churchill – or Hitler and Stalin.
Indeed, a portrait of US militarism today could be built around a set of such apparently glaring
contradictions: the contradiction, for example, between the military coercion of other nations and
the belief in the spreading of 'freedom' and 'democracy'. Among most non-Americans, and among many
American realists and progressives, the collocation seems inherently ludicrous. But, as Bacevich
brings out, it has deep roots in American history. Indeed, the combination is historically coterminous
with Western imperialism. Historians of the future will perhaps see preaching 'freedom' at the point
of an American rifle as no less morally and intellectually absurd than 'voluntary' conversion to
Christianity at the point of a Spanish arquebus.
Its symbols may be often childish and its methods brutish, but American belief in 'freedom' is
a real and living force. This cuts two ways. On the one hand, the adherence of many leading intellectuals
in the Democratic Party to a belief in muscular democratization has had a disastrous effect on the
party's ability to put up a strong resistance to the policies of the administration. Bush's messianic
language of 'freedom' – supported by the specifically Israeli agenda of Natan Sharansky and his allies
in the US – has been all too successful in winning over much of the opposition. On the other hand,
the fact that a belief in freedom and democracy lies at the heart of civic nationalism places certain
limits on American imperialism – weak no doubt, but nonetheless real. It is not possible for the
US, unlike previous empires, to pursue a strategy of absolutely unconstrained Machtpolitik.
This has been demonstrated recently in the breach between the Bush administration and the Karimov
tyranny in Uzbekistan.
The most important contradiction, however, is between the near worship of the military in much
of American culture and the equally widespread unwillingness of most Americans – elites and masses
alike – to serve in the armed forces. If people like Friedman accompanied their stated admiration
for the military with a real desire to abandon their contemptible civilian lives and join the armed
services, then American power in the world really might be practically unlimited. But as Bacevich
notes,
having thus made plain his personal disdain for crass vulgarity and support for moral rectitude,
Friedman in the course of a single paragraph drops the military and moves on to other pursuits.
His many readers, meanwhile, having availed themselves of the opportunity to indulge, ever so
briefly, in self-loathing, put down their newspapers and themselves move on to other things. Nothing
has changed, but columnist and readers alike feel better for the cathartic effect of this oblique,
reassuring encounter with an alien world.
Today, having dissolved any connection between claims to citizenship and obligation to
serve, Americans entrust their security to a class of military professionals who see themselves
in many respects as culturally and politically set apart from the rest of society.
This combination of a theoretical adulation with a profound desire not to serve is not of course
new. It characterized most of British society in the 19th century, when, just as with the US today,
the overwhelming rejection of conscription – until 1916 – meant that, appearances to the contrary,
British power was far from unlimited. The British Empire could use its technological superiority,
small numbers of professional troops and local auxiliaries to conquer backward and impoverished countries
in Asia and Africa, but it would not have dreamed of intervening unilaterally in Europe or North
America.
Despite spending more on the military than the rest of the world combined, and despite enjoying
overwhelming technological superiority, American military power is actually quite limited. As
Iraq – and to a lesser extent Afghanistan – has demonstrated, the US can knock over states, but it
cannot suppress the resulting insurgencies, even one based in such a comparatively small population
as the Sunni Arabs of Iraq. As for invading and occupying a country the size of Iran, this is
coming to seem as unlikely as an invasion of mainland China.
In other words, when it comes to actually applying military power the US is pretty much where
it has been for several decades. Another war of occupation like Iraq would necessitate the restoration
of conscription: an idea which, with Vietnam in mind, the military detests, and which politicians
are well aware would probably make them unelectable. It is just possible that another terrorist attack
on the scale of 9/11 might lead to a new draft, but that would bring the end of the US military empire
several steps closer. Recognizing this, the army is beginning to imitate ancient Rome in offering
citizenship to foreign mercenaries in return for military service – something that the amazing Boot
approves, on the grounds that while it helped destroy the Roman Empire, it took four hundred years
to do so.
Facing these dangers squarely, Bacevich proposes refocusing American strategy away from
empire and towards genuine national security. It is a measure of the degree to which imperial thinking
now dominates US politics that these moderate and commonsensical proposals would seem nothing short
of revolutionary to the average member of the Washington establishment.
They include a renunciation of messianic dreams of improving the world through military force,
except where a solid international consensus exists in support of US action; a recovery by Congress
of its power over peace and war, as laid down in the constitution but shamefully surrendered in recent
years; the adoption of a strategic doctrine explicitly making war a matter of last resort; and a
decision that the military should focus on the defense of the nation, not the projection of US power.
As a means of keeping military expenditure in some relationship to actual needs, Bacevich suggests
pegging it to the combined annual expenditure of the next ten countries, just as in the 19th century
the size of the British navy was pegged to that of the next two largest fleets – it is an index of
the budgetary elephantiasis of recent years that this would lead to very considerable spending reductions.
This book is important not only for the acuteness of its perceptions, but also for the identity
of its author. Colonel Bacevich's views on the military, on US strategy and on world affairs were
profoundly shaped by his service in Vietnam. His year there 'fell in the conflict's bleak latter
stages long after an odor of failure had begun to envelop the entire enterprise'. The book is dedicated
to his brother-in-law, 'a casualty of a misbegotten war'.
Just as Vietnam shaped his view of how the US and the US military should not intervene in the
outside world, so the Cold War in Europe helped define his beliefs about the proper role of the military.
For Bacevich and his fellow officers in Europe in the 1970s and 1980s, defending the West from possible
Soviet aggression, 'not conquest, regime change, preventive war or imperial policing', was 'the American
soldier's true and honorable calling'.
In terms of cultural and political background, this former soldier remains a self-described Catholic
conservative, and intensely patriotic. During the 1990s Bacevich wrote for right-wing journals, and
still situates himself culturally on the right:
As long as we shared in the common cause of denouncing the foolishness and hypocrisies of the
Clinton years, my relationship with modern American conservatism remained a mutually agreeable
one But my disenchantment with what passes for mainstream conservatism, embodied in the Bush
administration and its groupies, is just about absolute. Fiscal irresponsibility, a buccaneering
foreign policy, a disregard for the constitution, the barest lip service as a response to profound
moral controversies: these do not qualify as authentically conservative values.
On this score my views have come to coincide with the critique long offered by the radical
left: it is the mainstream itself, the professional liberals as well as the professional conservatives,
who define the problem The Republican and Democratic Parties may not be identical,
but they produce nearly identical results.
Bacevich, in other words, is skeptical of the naive belief that replacing the present administration
with a Democrat one would lead to serious changes in the US approach to the world. Formal party allegiances
are becoming increasingly irrelevant as far as thinking about foreign and security policy is concerned.
Bacevich also makes plain the private anger of much of the US uniformed military at the way in
which it has been sacrificed, and its institutions damaged, by chickenhawk civilian chauvinists who
have taken good care never to see action themselves; and the deep private concern of senior officers
that they might be ordered into further wars that would wreck the army altogether. Now, as never
before, American progressives have the chance to overcome the knee-jerk hostility to the uniformed
military that has characterized the left since Vietnam, and to reach out not only to the soldiers
in uniform but also to the social, cultural and regional worlds from which they are drawn. For if
the American left is once again to become an effective political force, it must return to some of
its own military traditions, founded on the distinguished service of men like George McGovern, on
the old idea of the citizen soldier, and on a real identification with that soldier's interests and
values. With this in mind, Bacevich calls for moves to bind the military more closely into American
society, including compulsory education for all officers at a civilian university, not only at the
start of their careers but at intervals throughout them.
Or to put it another way, the left must fight imperialism in the name of patriotism. Barring a
revolutionary and highly unlikely transformation of American mass culture, any political party that
wishes to win majority support will have to demonstrate its commitment to the defense of the country.
The Bush administration has used the accusation of weakness in security policy to undermine its opponents,
and then used this advantage to pursue reckless strategies that have themselves drastically weakened
the US. The left needs to heed Bacevich and draw up a tough, realistic and convincing alternative.
It will also have to demonstrate its identification with the respectable aspects of military culture.
The Bush administration and the US establishment in general may have grossly mismanaged the threats
facing us, but the threats are real, and some at least may well need at some stage to be addressed
by military force. And any effective military force also requires the backing of a distinctive military
ethic embracing loyalty, discipline and a capacity for both sacrifice and ruthlessness.
In the terrible story of the Bush administration and the Iraq war, one of the most morally disgusting
moments took place at a Senate Committee hearing on 29 April 2004, when Paul Wolfowitz – another
warmonger who has never served himself – mistook, by a margin of hundreds, how many US soldiers had
died in a war for which he was largely responsible. If an official in a Democratic administration
had made a public mistake like that, the Republican opposition would have exploited it ruthlessly,
unceasingly, to win the next election. The fact that the Democrats completely failed to do this
says a great deal about their lack of political will, leadership and capacity to employ a focused
strategy.
Because they are the ones who pay the price for reckless warmongering and geopolitical megalomania,
soldiers and veterans of the army and marine corps could become valuable allies in the struggle to
curb American imperialism, and return America's relationship with its military to the old limited,
rational form. For this to happen, however, the soldiers have to believe that campaigns against the
Iraq war, and against current US strategy, are anti-militarist, but not anti-military. We have needed
the military desperately on occasions in the past; we will definitely need them again.
"... The United States is already the most militaristic country in recent history and the danger is that during Hillary Clinton administration it might become even more militaristic. ..."
"... Even in this slightly more academic then usual forum we have dozen or so of open jingoistic crazies who are so brainwashed that dutifully reproduce the worst excesses of the neocon/neoliberal propaganda about Russia and evil Putin regime. And do not care one bit about the real strategic interests on the US and its population, which are somewhat different from interests of weapon manufactures, transnational corporations and financial oligarchy. ..."
"... And this traditional since the collapse of the USSR for American "helecentric" view on foreign policy, when the USA is the center of the world order and other states just rotate around it on various orbits, is very difficult to discard. The US population is by-and-large-completely brainwashed into this vision. ..."
"... The De Facto US/Al Qaeda Alliance: Buried deep inside Saturday's New York Times was a grudging acknowledgement that the U.S.-armed "moderate" rebels in Syria are using their U.S. firepower to back an Al Qaeda offensive. ..."
"... Though Al Qaeda got the ball rolling on America's revenge wars in the Middle East 15 years ago by killing several thousand Americans and others in the 9/11 attacks, the terrorist group has faded into the background of U.S. attention, most likely because it messes up the preferred "good guy/bad guy" narrative regarding the Syrian war. ..."
"... For instance, the conflict in Aleppo between Syrian government forces and rebels operating primarily under Al Qaeda's command is treated in the Western media as simply a case of the barbaric Assad and his evil Russian ally Vladimir Putin mercilessly bombing what is portrayed as the east Aleppo equivalent of Disney World, a place where innocent children and their families peacefully congregate until they are targeted for death by the Assad-Putin war-crime family ..."
"... The photos sent out to the world by skillful rebel propagandists are almost always of wounded children being cared for by the "White Helmet" rebel civil defense corps, which has come under growing criticism for serving as a public-relations arm of Al Qaeda and other insurgents. (There also are allegations that some of the most notable images have been staged, like a fake war scene from the 1997 dark comedy, "Wag the Dog.") ..."
The security elites are obviously interested in the maintenance and expansion of US global
military power, if only because their own jobs and profits depend on it. Jobs and patronage
also ensure the support of much of the Congress, which often authorizes defense spending on
weapons systems the Pentagon doesn't want and hasn't asked for, in order to help some group
of senators and congressmen in whose home states these systems are manufactured. To achieve
wider support in the media and among the public, it is also necessary to keep up the illusion
that certain foreign nations constitute a threat to the US, and to maintain a permanent level
of international tension.
Russia was chosen by neocons for the role of scapegoat as it does want to become a vassal country
and represents an obstacle on establishing the US world hegemony by being the nuclear armed state.
Even in this slightly more academic then usual forum we have dozen or so of open jingoistic
crazies who are so brainwashed that dutifully reproduce the worst excesses of the neocon/neoliberal
propaganda about Russia and evil Putin regime. And do not care one bit about the real strategic
interests on the US and its population, which are somewhat different from interests of weapon
manufactures, transnational corporations and financial oligarchy.
Hillary worldview includes messianism of Southern Baptist variety, a flavor of American nationalism
based on quasi-religious belief in the universal and timeless validity of the USA [pseudo]democratic
system, and in its right and duty to spread that system to the rest of the world.
So her election meads continued megalomania in militarist quarters while the infrastructure
crumbles under the growing costs on maintaining the global neoliberal empire ruled by the USA.
And this traditional since the collapse of the USSR for American "helecentric" view on
foreign policy, when the USA is the center of the world order and other states just rotate around
it on various orbits, is very difficult to discard. The US population is by-and-large-completely
brainwashed into this vision.
Opposition to the US militarism is almost non-existent due contemporary US popular culture
infused with the language of militarism and American exceptionalism. As Bacevich on noted:
In any Clancy novel, the international order is a dangerous and threatening place, awash
with heavily armed and implacably determined enemies who threaten the United States. That Americans
have managed to avoid Armageddon is attributable to a single fact: the men and women of America's
uniformed military and its intelligence services have thus far managed to avert those threats.
The typical Clancy novel is an unabashed tribute to the skill, honor, extraordinary technological
aptitude and sheer decency of the nation's defenders. To read Red Storm Rising is to enter
a world of 'virtuous men and perfect weapons', as one reviewer noted. 'All the Americans are
paragons of courage, endurance and devotion to service and country. Their officers are uniformly
competent and occasionally inspired. Men of all ranks are faithful husbands and devoted fathers.'
Indeed, in the contract that he signed for the filming of Red October, Clancy stipulated that
nothing in the film show the navy in a bad light.
So while the election of Trump is a very dangerous experiment with its own considerable risks,
especially on domestic front, the election of Hillary would be a tragedy.
The De Facto US/Al Qaeda Alliance: Buried deep inside Saturday's New York Times was
a grudging acknowledgement that the U.S.-armed "moderate" rebels in Syria are using their U.S.
firepower to back an Al Qaeda offensive.
By Robert Parry
A curious aspect of the Syrian conflict – a rebellion sponsored largely by the United States
and its Gulf state allies – is the disappearance in much of the American mainstream news media
of references to the prominent role played by Al Qaeda in seeking to overthrow the secular
Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad.
There's much said in the U.S. press about ISIS, the former "Al Qaeda in Iraq" which splintered
off several years ago, but Al Qaeda's central role in commanding Syria's "moderate" rebels
in Aleppo and elsewhere is the almost unspoken reality of the Syrian war. Even in the U.S.
presidential debates, the arguing between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton
has been almost exclusively about ISIS, not Al Qaeda.
Though Al Qaeda got the ball rolling on America's revenge wars in the Middle East 15
years ago by killing several thousand Americans and others in the 9/11 attacks, the terrorist
group has faded into the background of U.S. attention, most likely because it messes up the
preferred "good guy/bad guy" narrative regarding the Syrian war.
For instance, the conflict in Aleppo between Syrian government forces and rebels operating
primarily under Al Qaeda's command is treated in the Western media as simply a case of the
barbaric Assad and his evil Russian ally Vladimir Putin mercilessly bombing what is portrayed
as the east Aleppo equivalent of Disney World, a place where innocent children and their families
peacefully congregate until they are targeted for death by the Assad-Putin war-crime family.
The photos sent out to the world by skillful rebel propagandists are almost always of
wounded children being cared for by the "White Helmet" rebel civil defense corps, which has
come under growing criticism for serving as a public-relations arm of Al Qaeda and other insurgents.
(There also are allegations that some of the most notable images have been staged, like a fake
war scene from the 1997 dark comedy, "Wag the Dog.")
Rare Glimpse of Truth
Yet, occasionally, the reality of Al Qaeda's importance in the rebellion breaks through,
even in the mainstream U.S. media, although usually downplayed and deep inside the news pages,
such as the article * in Saturday's New York Times by Hwaida Saad and Anne Barnard describing
a rebel offensive in Aleppo. It acknowledges:
"The new offensive was a strong sign that rebel groups vetted by the United States were
continuing their tactical alliances with groups linked to Al Qaeda, rather than distancing
themselves as Russia has demanded and the Americans have urged. The rebels argue that they
cannot afford to shun any potential allies while they are under fire, including well-armed
and motivated jihadists, without more robust aid from their international backers." (You might
note how the article subtly blames the rebel dependence on Al Qaeda on the lack of "robust
aid" from the Obama administration and other outside countries – even though such arms shipments
violate international law.)
What the article also makes clear in a hazy kind of way is that Al Qaeda's affiliate, the
recently renamed Nusra Front, and its jihadist allies, such as Ahrar al-Sham, are waging the
brunt of the fighting while the CIA-vetted "moderates" are serving in mostly support roles.
The Times reported:
"The insurgents have a diverse range of objectives and backers, but they issued statements
of unity on Friday. Those taking part in the offensive include the Levant Conquest Front, a
militant group formerly known as the Nusra Front that grew out of Al Qaeda; another hard-line
Islamist faction, Ahrar al-Sham; and other rebel factions fighting Mr. Assad that have been
vetted by the United States and its allies."
The article cites Charles Lister, a senior fellow and Syria specialist at the Middle East
Institute in Washington, and other analysts noting that "the vast majority of the American-vetted
rebel factions in Aleppo were fighting inside the city itself and conducting significant bombardments
against Syrian government troops in support of the Qaeda-affiliated fighters carrying out the
brunt of front-line fighting."
Lister noted that 11 of the 20 or so rebel groups conducting the Aleppo "offensive have
been vetted by the CIA and have received arms from the agency, including anti-tank missiles.
"In addition to arms provided by the United States, much of the rebels' weaponry comes from
regional states, like Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, Mr. Lister said, including truck-borne
multiple-rocket launcher systems and Czech-made Grad rockets with extended ranges."
The U.S./Al Qaeda Alliance
In other words, the U.S. government and its allies have smuggled sophisticated weapons into
Syria to arm rebels who are operating in support of Al Qaeda's new military offensive against
Syrian government forces in Aleppo. By any logical analysis, that makes the United States an
ally of Al Qaeda....
The success of [civil rights and anti-apartheid] movements did not end racism, but drove
it underground, allowing neoliberals to exploit racist and tribalist political support while
pursuing the interests of wealth and capital, at the expense of the (disproportionately non-white)
poor.
That coalition has now been replaced by one in which the tribalists and racists are dominant.
For the moment at least, [hard] neoliberals continue to support the parties they formerly controlled,
with the result that the balance of political forces between the right and the opposing coalition
of soft neoliberals and the left has not changed significantly.
There's an ambiguity in this narrative and in the three-party analysis.
Do we acknowledge that the soft neoliberals in control of the coalition that includes the inchoate
left also "exploit racist and tribalist political support while pursuing the interests of wealth
and capital, at the expense of the (disproportionately non-white) poor."? They do it with a different
style and maybe with some concession to economic melioration, as well as supporting anti-racist
and feminist policy to keep the inchoate left on board, but . . .
The new politics of the right has lost faith in the hard neoliberalism that formerly furnished
its policy agenda of tax cuts for the rich, war in the Middle East and so on, leaving the impure
resentment ungoverned and unfocused, as you say.
The soft neoliberals, it seems to me, are using anti-racism to discredit economic populism
and its motivations, using the new politics of the right as a foil.
The problem of how to oppose racism and tribalism effectively is now entangled with soft neoliberal
control of the remaining party coalition, which is to say with the credibility of the left party
as a vehicle for economic populism and the credibility of economic populism as an antidote for
racism or sexism. (cf js. @ 1,2)
The form of tribalism used to mobilize the left entails denying that an agenda of economic
populism is relevant to the problems of sexism and racism, because the deplorables must be deplored
to get out the vote. And, because the (soft) neoliberals in charge must keep economic populism
under control to deliver the goods to their donor base.
"... Even if experience has shown it's futile, I still feel compelled to repeat the point that "tribalism" is a racist and imperialist pejorative ..."
"... "tribalism" is used to describe the very same racist ideological currents that give the term its rhetorical power in the first place. ..."
"... In essence, anything that relies on identification with an in-group against those outside the group. In that sense, nearly all of Trump's support base is tribalist, while only some could be described as racist/white nationalist. ..."
"... The term "Tribalism" implicitly stresses the ethnic/racial component in the complex phenomena that modern nationalism represents. That's a major weakness. ..."
"... Even in modern Ukrainian nationalism cultural elements are stronger then ethnic. ..."
"... 'Cultural nationalism' seems to come closest, at least in the Australian and British contexts I'm familiar with, because the so-called 'tribalists' seem to be people who have a strong idea about who are the 'right kind' of Australians (or Britons), and it is a mixture of cultural and racial/ethnic characteristics. ..."
"... Populations can be racialized according to literally any conceivable physical, social, or cultural characteristic - the idea that it can only depend on specific differentiating factors like one's melanin count or descent from Charlemagne or whatever is itself a racist idea, an attempt to reify particular forms of racism as rooted in some immutable aspect of "the way things are". ..."
"... "the state-sanctioned or extralegal production and exploitation of group-differentiated vulnerability to premature death" ..."
"... Except unlike with Quiggin's definition of tribalism @ 32, racism is explicitly a political and economic phenomenon to use a particular ingroup/outgroup differentiation as a way to systematically disenfranchise and subjugate the outgroup , which seems like the only reason we'd bother talking about it as a specific mass political movement at all. ..."
Even if experience has shown it's futile, I still feel compelled to repeat the point that
"tribalism" is a racist and imperialist pejorative (basically
this imagery condensed into a single signifier) that shouldn't play such a pivotal role in
any remotely serious understanding, let alone one in which "tribalism" is used to describe
the very same racist ideological currents that give the term its rhetorical power in the first
place.
As described in an earlier thread about all of this, my preference would be not to beat around
the bush and go with "fascism" plain and simple, and even if one isn't comfortable making that
assertion directly, "ethnonationalism" seems like it could play an equivalent role to "tribalism"
in this analysis with little or no extra clarification needed. Call me crazy but this seems like
a pretty minor lexical sacrifice to make for combating racist imagery in one's own language.
Call me crazy but this seems like a pretty minor lexical sacrifice to make for combating
racist imagery in one's own language.
likbez 10.30.16 at 12:05 pm
@16
"ethnonationalism" seems like it could play an equivalent role to "tribalism" in this analysis
with little or no extra clarification needed.
While I agree that "tribalism" a bad term that clouds the issue, I think the form of nationalism
that prevails now can be called "cultural nationalism" not "ethnonationalism". In a sense "cultural
nationalism" is more inclusive, but it can be as radical as national socialism in the past. American
exceptionalism is a good example of this type of nationalism.
John Quiggin 10.30.16 at 7:33 pm
@WLGR I'm happy to reconsider terminology. But I've been using "tribalism" for a kind of politics
that's not necessary as extreme as ethno-nationalism, let alone fascism.
In essence, anything that relies on identification with an in-group against those outside
the group. In that sense, nearly all of Trump's support base is tribalist, while only some could
be described as racist/white nationalist.
likbez 10.30.16 at 7:39 pm
@20
The term "Tribalism" implicitly stresses the ethnic/racial component in the complex phenomena
that modern nationalism represents. That's a major weakness.
Even in modern Ukrainian nationalism cultural elements are stronger then ethnic.
I tend to agree with what WLGR is saying about 'tribalists'.
What porpoise @43 said is interesting historically, but I
don't think it removes the overlay from later colonial and
imperial associations of 'tribes' with
'primitives'/inferiors. So I don't think tribalism is a good
word here, but not sure what would be a better one.
'Cultural nationalism' seems to come closest, at least in
the Australian and British contexts I'm familiar with,
because the so-called 'tribalists' seem to be people who have
a strong idea about who are the 'right kind' of Australians
(or Britons), and it is a mixture of cultural and
racial/ethnic characteristics.
Here in Australia, it is certainly possible for people
from non-Anglo backgrounds to be at least conditionally
accepted by the 'tribalists' if they appear to embrace the
tribalists' idea of Aussie culture (although it's conditional
because the 'tribalists' who are 'accepting' the non-Anglo
immigrants unconsciously see their ability to pass judgement
as related to their own Anglo/white background, I think).
Complicated, I am getting tied in knots, but I agree
tribalist isn't the best word.
WLGR
10.31.16 at
3:52 pm
likbez @ 16,
It seems to me that the effort to differentiate race-based from
culturally based ultranationalism is still tangled in the weeds of a colloquial
understanding of "race" and "racism".
Populations can be racialized
according to literally any conceivable physical, social, or cultural
characteristic - the idea that it can only depend on specific differentiating
factors like one's melanin count or descent from Charlemagne or whatever is
itself a racist idea, an attempt to reify particular forms of racism as rooted
in some immutable aspect of "the way things are".
Although from my understanding Ukrainian citizenship like that in most of
Europe is primarily determined by jus sanguinis, and like most of Europe it's
still deep in the muck of racial discrimination toward e.g. the Roma, so unless
I'm misreading things it seems like a stretch to put too much distance between
Ukraine (or Europe in general) and even a very colloquial sense of "ethnonationalism".
It can be articulated more explicitly by outright fascists or more obliquely by
mainstream centrist parties, but it's still there.
And as long as we're talking about academic definitions of racism (I'm
partial to the definition proffered by Ruth Wilson Gilmore, "the
state-sanctioned or extralegal production and exploitation of
group-differentiated vulnerability to premature death", although
Emmett Rensin's obnoxiously thorough definition
is also good) funnily
enough they tend to point at something pretty much identical to what Quiggin
appears to mean by "tribalism".
Except unlike with Quiggin's definition of tribalism @ 32, racism is
explicitly a political and economic phenomenon to use a particular ingroup/outgroup
differentiation as a way to systematically disenfranchise and subjugate the
outgroup , which seems like the only reason we'd bother talking about it as
a specific mass political movement at all.
And again, as annoying as it is to have pigheaded reactionaries accuse us of
twisting language and "playing the race card" and so on, putting up with this
noise is preferable to sacrificing useful concepts like racism and fascism from
one's everyday understanding of the world,
How the US ensures that its weapons and equipment don't
fall into Al-Qa`idah hands
"American and other Western intelligence officials have
expressed concern that some of the more than 100 rebel
formations fighting inside Syria may have ties to Al Qaeda
that they could exploit as security worsens in the country or
after the collapse of the government.... A small number of
CIA officers have been operating secretly in southern
Turkey for several weeks, helping allies decide which Syrian
opposition fighters across the border will receive weapons to
fight the government." * I am assured that the US has a
fool-proof system at hand.
The CIA operatives ask the person
in question: are you with Al-Qa`idah? If the person says no,
he is told: take the weapons and money and run. If he says
yes, he is told: not good. Take the money and weapons and run
but don't use them against us one day, OK?
Weeks before the Obama administration and other Western
nations recognized a new Syrian opposition coalition as "the
legitimate representative" of the Syrian people, Syrian
rebels were receiving training in the use of light and heavy
weapons with the backing of the Jordanian, British and U.S.
governments, participants in the training have told
McClatchy....
By November, another rebel said, the training had expanded
to anti-tank weapons and Stinger anti-aircraft missiles.... *
This is from Raqqah in Syria. * The main square there has
been renamed Prophet Muhammad Square, and a giant flag of
Al-Qa`idah is posted. And do you still need a fortune teller
to tell you how things are going in Syria?
What this article really reveals is that Western media
were deliberately or ignorantly spreading the notion that
Syrian rebels were desperate for arms and ammunition and that
they were getting no external support whatsoever when tons
(literally, tons) of shipments were arriving to them from as
early as 2012.
*
"The groups demanded to raise the prophet's banner - solid
black with 'There is no god but God.' " * Somebody needs to
tell the New York Times that what it calls the "prophet's
banner" is none other than the flag of Al-Qa`idah. What an
informed paper.
I am dying to know this: Who are the "secular opposition
groups supported by the West" who are fighting in Syria? Give
me one name, or one unit? Who?
"The weapons, including automatic rifles, rocket-propelled
grenades and ammunition are funneled mostly across the
Turkish border by way of a shadowy network of intermediaries
overseen mainly by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, American officials
said. Even that limited effort is being revamped in the wake
of evidence that most arms sent to Syrian opposition fighters
are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists, not to the more
secular opposition groups supported by the West." *
"Some Syrians who seek a more secular revolution blame the
lack of Western support for driving the rebellion into the
arms of the extremists". * So if only NATO would bomb Syria
there would be more secularism as in the Islamist state of
new Libya? Where do you get those people?
Until recently, if someone suggested that Al-Qa`idah is
present in Syria, he/she would be accused of being a shabbiha
* for the Assad regime. But when the New York Times says it,
** it becomes true.
"... Though Al Qaeda got the ball rolling on America's revenge wars in the Middle East 15 years ago by killing several thousand Americans and others in the 9/11 attacks, the terrorist group has faded into the background of U.S. attention, most likely because it messes up the preferred "good guy/bad guy" narrative regarding the Syrian war. ..."
"... For instance, the conflict in Aleppo between Syrian government forces and rebels operating primarily under Al Qaeda's command is treated in the Western media as simply a case of the barbaric Assad and his evil Russian ally Vladimir Putin mercilessly bombing what is portrayed as the east Aleppo equivalent of Disney World, a place where innocent children and their families peacefully congregate until they are targeted for death by the Assad-Putin war-crime family. ..."
"... The photos sent out to the world by skillful rebel propagandists are almost always of wounded children being cared for by the "White Helmet" rebel civil defense corps, which has come under growing criticism for serving as a public-relations arm of Al Qaeda and other insurgents. (There also are allegations that some of the most notable images have been staged, like a fake war scene from the 1997 dark comedy, "Wag the Dog.") ..."
"... The new offensive was a strong sign that rebel groups vetted by the United States were continuing their tactical alliances with groups linked to Al Qaeda, rather than distancing themselves as Russia has demanded and the Americans have urged. ..."
"... What the article also makes clear in a hazy kind of way is that Al Qaeda's affiliate, the recently renamed Nusra Front, and its jihadist allies, such as Ahrar al-Sham, are waging the brunt of the fighting while the CIA-vetted "moderates" are serving in mostly support roles. ..."
"... "the vast majority of the American-vetted rebel factions in Aleppo were fighting inside the city itself and conducting significant bombardments against Syrian government troops in support of the Qaeda-affiliated fighters carrying out the brunt of front-line fighting." ..."
"... "offensive have been vetted by the CIA and have received arms from the agency, including anti-tank missiles. … ..."
"... "In addition to arms provided by the United States, much of the rebels' weaponry comes from regional states, like Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, Mr. Lister said, including truck-borne multiple-rocket launcher systems and Czech-made Grad rockets with extended ranges." ..."
"... In other words, the U.S. government and its allies have smuggled sophisticated weapons into Syria to arm rebels who are operating in support of Al Qaeda's new military offensive against Syrian government forces in Aleppo. By any logical analysis, that makes the United States an ally of Al Qaeda.... ..."
Buried deep inside Saturday's New York Times was a grudging acknowledgement that the U.S.-armed
"moderate" rebels in Syria are using their U.S. firepower to back an Al Qaeda offensive.
A curious aspect of the Syrian conflict – a rebellion sponsored largely by the United States and
its Gulf state allies – is the disappearance in much of the American mainstream news media of references
to the prominent role played by Al Qaeda in seeking to overthrow the secular Syrian government of
Bashar al-Assad.
There's much said in the U.S. press about ISIS, the former "Al Qaeda in Iraq" which splintered
off several years ago, but Al Qaeda's central role in commanding Syria's "moderate" rebels in Aleppo
and elsewhere is the almost unspoken reality of the Syrian war. Even in the U.S. presidential debates,
the arguing between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton has been almost exclusively
about ISIS, not Al Qaeda.
Though Al Qaeda got the ball rolling on America's revenge wars in the Middle East 15 years
ago by killing several thousand Americans and others in the 9/11 attacks, the terrorist group has
faded into the background of U.S. attention, most likely because it messes up the preferred "good
guy/bad guy" narrative regarding the Syrian war.
For instance, the conflict in Aleppo between Syrian government forces and rebels operating
primarily under Al Qaeda's command is treated in the Western media as simply a case of the barbaric
Assad and his evil Russian ally Vladimir Putin mercilessly bombing what is portrayed as the east
Aleppo equivalent of Disney World, a place where innocent children and their families peacefully
congregate until they are targeted for death by the Assad-Putin war-crime family.
The photos sent out to the world by skillful rebel propagandists are almost always of wounded
children being cared for by the "White Helmet" rebel civil defense corps, which has come under growing
criticism for serving as a public-relations arm of Al Qaeda and other insurgents. (There also are
allegations that some of the most notable images have been staged, like a fake war scene from the
1997 dark comedy, "Wag the Dog.")
Rare Glimpse of Truth
Yet, occasionally, the reality of Al Qaeda's importance in the rebellion breaks through, even
in the mainstream U.S. media, although usually downplayed and deep inside the news pages, such as
the article * in Saturday's New York Times by Hwaida Saad and Anne Barnard describing a rebel offensive
in Aleppo. It acknowledges:
"The new offensive was a strong sign that rebel groups vetted by the United States were
continuing their tactical alliances with groups linked to Al Qaeda, rather than distancing themselves
as Russia has demanded and the Americans have urged. …
The rebels argue that they cannot afford to shun any potential allies while they are under
fire, including well-armed and motivated jihadists, without more robust aid from their international
backers."
(You might note how the article subtly blames the rebel dependence on Al Qaeda on the lack of
"robust aid" from the Obama administration and other outside countries – even though such arms shipments
violate international law.)
What the article also makes clear in a hazy kind of way is that Al Qaeda's affiliate, the
recently renamed Nusra Front, and its jihadist allies, such as Ahrar al-Sham, are waging the brunt
of the fighting while the CIA-vetted "moderates" are serving in mostly support roles. The Times
reported:
"The insurgents have a diverse range of objectives and backers, but they issued statements
of unity on Friday. Those taking part in the offensive include the Levant Conquest Front, a militant
group formerly known as the Nusra Front that grew out of Al Qaeda; another hard-line Islamist
faction, Ahrar al-Sham; and other rebel factions fighting Mr. Assad that have been vetted by the
United States and its allies."
The article cites Charles Lister, a senior fellow and Syria specialist at the Middle East Institute
in Washington, and other analysts noting that "the vast majority of the American-vetted rebel
factions in Aleppo were fighting inside the city itself and conducting significant bombardments against
Syrian government troops in support of the Qaeda-affiliated fighters carrying out the brunt of front-line
fighting."
Lister noted that 11 of the 20 or so rebel groups conducting the Aleppo "offensive have been
vetted by the CIA and have received arms from the agency, including anti-tank missiles. …
"In addition to arms provided by the United States, much of the rebels' weaponry comes from
regional states, like Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, Mr. Lister said, including truck-borne multiple-rocket
launcher systems and Czech-made Grad rockets with extended ranges."
The U.S./Al Qaeda Alliance
In other words, the U.S. government and its allies have smuggled sophisticated weapons into
Syria to arm rebels who are operating in support of Al Qaeda's new military offensive against Syrian
government forces in Aleppo. By any logical analysis, that makes the United States an ally of Al
Qaeda....
"... Now the threat is real; and for the foreseeable future we will have to live with and seek to reduce two closely interlinked dangers: the direct and potentially apocalyptic threat posed by terrorists, mainly (though by no means exclusively) based in the Muslim world, and the potential strengthening of those terrorists' resolve by misguided US actions. ..."
"... The most unilateralist Administration in modern American history has been forced to recognise, in principle at least, the country's pressing need for allies ..."
"... Apart from the fact that most European armies are useless when it comes to serious warfare, they are already showing great unwillingness to give the US a blank cheque for whatever military action the Bush Administration chooses to take. ..."
"... A strong sense of righteousness has always been present in the American tradition; but until 11 September, an acute sense of victimhood and persecution by the outside world was usually the preserve of the paranoid Right. ..."
"Who says we share common values with the Europeans? They don't even go to church!" Will the atrocities
of September 11 push America further to the right or open a new debate on foreign policy and the
need for alliances? In this exclusive online essay from the London Review of Books, Anatol Lieven
considers how the cold war legacy may affect the war on terrorism
Not long after the Bush Administration took power in January, I was invited to lunch at a glamorous
restaurant in New York by a group of editors and writers from an influential American right-wing
broadsheet. The food and wine were extremely expensive, the decor luxurious but discreet, the clientele
beautifully dressed, and much of the conversation more than mildly insane. With regard to the greater
part of the world outside America, my hosts' attitude was a combination of loathing, contempt, distrust
and fear: not only towards Arabs, Russians, Chinese, French and others, but towards 'European socialist
governments', whatever that was supposed to mean. This went with a strong desire - in theory at least
- to take military action against a broad range of countries across the world.
Two things were particularly striking here: a tendency to divide the world into friends and enemies,
and a difficulty verging on autism when it came to international opinions that didn't coincide with
their own - a combination more appropriate to the inhabitants of an ethnic slum in the Balkans than
to people who were, at that point, on top of the world.
Today Americans of all classes and opinions have reason to worry, and someone real to fear and
hate, while prolonged US military action overseas is thought to be inevitable. The building where
we had lunch is now rubble. Several of our fellow diners probably died last week, along with more
than six thousand other New Yorkers from every walk of life. Not only has the terrorist attack claimed
far more victims than any previous such attack anywhere in the world, but it has delivered a far
more damaging economic blow. Equally important, it has destroyed Americans' belief in their country's
invulnerability, on which so many other American attitudes and policies finally rested.
This shattering blow was delivered by a handful of anonymous agents hidden in the wider population,
working as part of a tightly-knit secret international conspiracy inspired by a fanatical and (to
the West) deeply 'alien' and 'exotic' religious ideology. Its members are ruthless; they have remarkable
organisational skills, a tremendous capacity for self-sacrifice and self-discipline, and a deep hatred
of the United States and the Western way of life. As Richard Hofstader and others have argued, for
more than two hundred years this kind of combination has always acted as a prompt for paranoid and
reactionary conspiracy theories, most of them groundless.
Now the threat is real; and for the foreseeable future we will have to live with and seek to reduce
two closely interlinked dangers: the direct and potentially apocalyptic threat posed by terrorists,
mainly (though by no means exclusively) based in the Muslim world, and the potential strengthening
of those terrorists' resolve by misguided US actions.
The latter danger has been greatly increased by the attacks. The terrorists have raised to white
heat certain smouldering tendencies among the American Right, while simultaneously - as is usually
the case at the start of wars - pushing American politics and most of its population in a sharply
rightward direction; all of which has taken place under an unexpectedly right-wing Administration.
If this leads to a crude military response, then the terrorists will have achieved part of their
purpose, which was to provoke the other side to indiscriminate retaliation, and thereby increase
their own support.
It is too early to say for sure how US strategies and attitudes will develop. At the time of writing
Afghanistan is the focus, but whatever happens there, it isn't clear whether the US Administration
will go on to launch a more general campaign of military pressure against other states which have
supported terrorist groups, and if so, what states and what kind of military pressure? US policy
is already pulled in two predictable but contradictory directions, amply illustrated in the op-ed
pages of US newspapers and in debates within the Government.
The most unilateralist Administration in modern American history has been forced to recognise,
in principle at least, the country's pressing need for allies. There are the beginnings, too, of
a real public debate on how US policy needs to be changed and shaped to fight the new 'war'. All
this is reminiscent of US attitudes and behaviour at the start of the Cold War, when Communism was
identified as the central menace to the US and to Western capitalism and democracy in general.
On the other hand, the public desire for revenge has strengthened certain attitudes - especially
in the Republican Party and media, as well as parts of the Administration - which, if they prevail,
will not only be dangerous in themselves, but will make the search for real allies difficult. And
real allies are essential, above all in the Arab and Muslim worlds. In the longer run, only the full
co-operation of Arab regimes - along with reform and economic development - can prevent the recruitment,
funding and operations of Arab-based terrorist groups.
As for Europe, British military support may be unconditional, but most European countries - Russia
among them - are likely to restrict their help to intelligence and policing. Apart from the fact
that most European armies are useless when it comes to serious warfare, they are already showing
great unwillingness to give the US a blank cheque for whatever military action the Bush Administration
chooses to take.
Yet a blank cheque is precisely what the Administration, and the greater part of US public opinion,
are asking for. This is Jim Hoagland, veteran establishment foreign correspondent and commentator,
in the generally liberal Washington Post:
"Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and many of the other Arab states Powell hopes to recruit for the bin
Laden posse have long been part of the problem, not part of the solution to international terrorism.
These states cannot be given free passes for going through the motions of helping the United States.
And European allies cannot be allowed to order an appetiser of bin Laden and not share in the costs
of the rest of a meal cooked in hell."
If this is the Post, then the sentiments in the right-wing press and the tabloids can well be
imagined. Here is Tod Lindberg, the editor of Policy Review, writing in the Washington Times:
"The United States is now energetically in the business of making governments pick a side: either
with us and against the terrorists, or against us and with them... Against the category of enemy
stands the category of 'friend'. Friends stand with us. Friends do whatever they can to help. Friends
don't, for example, engage in commerce with enemies, otherwise they aren't friends."
A strong sense of righteousness has always been present in the American tradition; but until 11
September, an acute sense of victimhood and persecution by the outside world was usually the preserve
of the paranoid Right. Now it has spread and, for the moment at least, some rather important ideas
have almost vanished from the public debate: among them, that other states have their own national
interests, and that in the end nothing compels them to help the US; that they, too, have been the
victims of terrorism - in the case of Britain, largely funded from groups in the United States -
but have not insisted on a right of unilateral military retaliation (this point was made by Niall
Ferguson in the New York Times, but not as yet in any op-ed by an American that I have seen); and
that in some cases these states may actually know more about their own part of the world than US
intelligence does.
Beyond the immediate and unforeseeable events in Afghanistan - and their sombre implications for
Pakistan - lies the bigger question of US policy in the Arab world. Here, too, Administration policy
may well be a good deal more cautious than the opinions of the right-wing media would suggest - which
again is fortunate, because much opinion on this subject is more than rabid. Here is AM Rosenthal
in the Washington Times arguing that an amazing range of states should be given ultimatums to surrender
not only alleged terrorists but also their own senior officials accused by the US of complicity:
"The ultimatum should go to the governments of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria, Sudan and
any other devoted to the elimination of the United States or the constant incitement of hatred against
it... In the three days the terrorists consider the American ultimatum, the residents of the countries
would be urged 24 hours a day by the United States to flee the capital and major cities, because
they would be bombed to the ground beginning the fourth."
Rosenthal isn't a figure from the lunatic fringe ranting on a backwoods radio show, but the former
executive editor of the New York Times, writing in a paper with great influence in the Republican
Party, especially under the present Administration.
No Administration is going to do anything remotely like this. But if the Secretary of State, Colin
Powell, has emerged as the voice of moderation, with a proper commitment to multilateralism, other
voices are audible, too. Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defence, has spoken of "ending states
which support terrorism", and in the case of Iraq, there are those who would now like to complete
the work of the Gulf War and finish off Saddam Hussein.
Here, too, the mood of contempt for allies contributes to the ambition. Thus Kim Holmes, vice-president
of the right-wing Heritage Foundation, argued that only deference to America's Arab allies prevented
the US from destroying the Iraqi regime in 1991 (the profound unwillingness of Bush Senior to occupy
Iraq and take responsibility for the place also played its part in the decision): "To show that this
war is not with Islam per se, the US could be tempted to restrain itself militarily and accommodate
the complex and contradictory political agendas of Islamic states. This in turn could make the campaign
ineffectual, prolonging the problem of terrorism."
Getting rid of Saddam Hussein is not in itself a bad idea. His is a pernicious regime, a menace
to his own people and his neighbours, as well as to the West. And if the Iraqi threat to the Gulf
States could be eliminated, US troops might be withdrawn from Saudi Arabia: it was their permanent
stationing on the holy soil of Islam that turned Osama bin Laden from an anti-Soviet mujahid into
an anti-American terrorist.
But only if it were to take place in the context of an entirely new policy towards Palestine would
the US be able to mount such a campaign without provoking massive unrest across the Arab world; and
given what became of promises made during the Gulf War, there would first of all have to be firm
evidence of a US change of heart. The only borders between Israel and Palestine which would have
any chance of satisfying a majority of Palestinians and Arabs - and conforming to UN resolutions,
for what they are worth - would be those of 1967, possibly qualified by an internationalisation of
Jerusalem under UN control. This would entail the removal of the existing Jewish settlements in the
Occupied Territories, and would be absolutely unacceptable to any imaginable Israeli Government.
To win Israeli agreement would require not just US pressure, but the threat of a complete breach
of relations and the ending of aid.
There may be those in the Administration who would favour adopting such an approach at a later
stage. Bush Sr's was the most anti-Israeli Administration of the past two generations, and was disliked
accordingly by the Jewish and other ethnic lobbies. His son's is less beholden to those lobbies than
Clinton's was. And it may be that even pro-Israeli US politicians will at some point realise that
Israel's survival as such is not an issue: that it is absurd to increase the risk to Washington and
New York for the sake of 267 extremist settlers in Hebron and their comrades elsewhere.
Still, in the short term, a radical shift is unlikely, and an offensive against Iraq would therefore
be dangerous. The attacks on New York and the Pentagon and the celebrations in parts of the Arab
world have increased popular hostility to the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular,
a hostility assiduously stoked by Israeli propaganda. But when it comes to denouncing hate crimes
against Muslims - or those taken to be Muslims - within the US, the Administration has behaved decently,
perhaps because they have a rather sobering precedent in mind, one which has led to genuine shame:
the treatment of Japanese Americans during world war two.
This shame is the result of an applied historical intelligence that does not extend to the Arab
world. Americans tend - and perhaps need - to confuse the symptoms and the causes of Arab anger.
Since a key pro-Israel position in the US has been that fundamental Palestinian and Arab grievances
must not be allowed legitimacy or even discussed, the only explanation of Arab hostility to the US
and its ally must be sought in innate features of Arab society, whether a contemporary culture of
anti-semitism (and anti-Americanism) sanctioned by Arab leaderships, or ancient 'Muslim' traditions
of hostility to the West.
All of which may contain some truth: but the central issue, the role of Israeli policies in providing
a focus for such hatred, is overwhelmingly ignored. As a result, it is extremely difficult, and mostly
impossible, to hold any frank discussion of the most important issue affecting the position of the
US in the Middle East or the open sympathy for terrorism in the region. A passionately held nationalism
usually has the effect of corrupting or silencing those liberal intellectuals who espouse it. This
is the case of Israeli nationalism in the US. It is especially distressing that it should afflict
the Jewish liberal intelligentsia, that old bedrock of sanity and tolerance.
An Administration which wanted a radical change of policy towards Israel would have to generate
a new public debate almost from scratch - which would not be possible until some kind of tectonic
shift had taken place in American society. Too many outside observers who blame US Administrations
forget that on a wide range of issues, it is essentially Congress and not the White House or State
Department which determines foreign policy; this is above all true of US aid. An inability or unwillingness
to try to work on Congress, as opposed to going through normal diplomatic channels, has been a minor
contributory factor to Britain's inability to get any purchase on US policy in recent years.
The role of Congress brings out what might be called the Wilhelmine aspects of US foreign and
security policy. By that I do not mean extreme militarism or a love of silly hats, or even a shared
tendency to autism when it comes to understanding the perceptions of other countries, but rather
certain structural features in both the Wilhemine and the US system tending to produce over-ambition,
and above all a chronic incapacity to choose between diametrically opposite goals. Like Wilhelmine
Germany, the US has a legislature with very limited constitutional powers in the field of foreign
policy, even though it wields considerable de facto power and is not linked either institutionally
or by party discipline to the executive. The resulting lack of any responsibility for actual consequences
is a standing invitation to rhetorical grandstanding, and the pursuit of sectional interests at the
expense of overall policy.
Meanwhile, the executive, while in theory supremely powerful in this field, has in fact continually
to woo the legislature without ever being able to command its support. This, too, encourages dependence
on interest groups, as well as a tendency to overcome differences and gain support by making appeals
in terms of overheated patriotism rather than policy. Finally, in both systems, though for completely
different reasons, supreme executive power had or has a tendency to fall into the hands of people
totally unsuited for any but the ceremonial aspects of the job, and endlessly open to manipulation
by advisers, ministers and cliques.
In the US, this did not matter so much during the Cold War, when a range of Communist threats
- real, imagined or fabricated - held the system together in the pursuit of more or less common aims.
With the disappearance of the unifying threat, however, there has been a tendency, again very Wilhelmine,
to produce ambitious and aggressive policies in several directions simultaneously, often with little
reference at all to real US interests or any kind of principle.
The new 'war against terrorism' in Administration and Congressional rhetoric has been cast as
just such a principle, unifying the country and the political establishment behind a common goal
and affecting or determining a great range of other policies. The language has been reminiscent of
the global struggle against Communism, and confronting Islamist radicalism in the Muslim world does,
it's true, pose some of the same challenges, on a less global scale, though possibly with even greater
dangers for the world.
The likelihood that US strategy in the 'war against terrorism' will resemble that of the Cold
War is greatly increased by the way Cold War structures and attitudes have continued to dominate
the US foreign policy and security elites. Charles Tilly and others have written of the difficulty
states have in 'ratcheting down' wartime institutions and especially wartime spending. In the 1990s,
this failure on the part of the US to escape its Cold War legacy was a curse, ensuring unnecessarily
high military spending in the wrong fields, thoroughly negative attitudes to Russia, 'zero-sum' perceptions
of international security issues in general, and perceptions of danger which wholly failed, as we
now see, to meet the real threats to security and lives.
The idea of a National Missile Defense is predicated on a limited revival of the Cold War, with
China cast in the role of the Soviet Union and the Chinese nuclear deterrent as the force to be nullified.
Bush's foreign and security team is almost entirely a product of Cold War structures and circumscribed
by Cold War attitudes (which is not true of the President himself, who was never interested enough
in foreign policy; if he can get his mind round the rest of the world, he could well be more of a
free-thinker than many of his staff).
The collapse of the Communist alternative to Western-dominated modernisation and the integration
(however imperfect) of Russia and China into the world capitalist order have been a morally and socially
ambiguous process, to put it mildly; but in the early 1990s they seemed to promise the suspension
of hostility between the world's larger powers. The failure of the US to make use of this opportunity,
thanks to an utter confusion between an ideological victory and crudely-defined US geopolitical interests,
was a great misfortune which the 'war against terrorism' could in part rectify. Since 11 September,
the rhetoric in America has proposed a gulf between the 'civilised' states of the present world system,
and movements of 'barbaric', violent protest from outside and below - without much deference to the
ambiguities of 'civilisation', or the justifications of resistance to it, remarked on since Tacitus
at least.
How is the Cold War legacy likely to determine the 'war against terrorism'? Despite the general
conviction in the Republican Party that it was simply Reagan's military spending and the superiority
of the US system which destroyed Soviet Communism, more serious Cold War analysts were always aware
that it involved not just military force, or the threat of it, but ideological and political struggle,
socio-economic measures, and state-building. The latter in particular is an idea for which the Bush
team on their arrival in office had a deep dislike (if only to distance themselves from Clinton's
policies), but which they may now rediscover. Foreign aid - so shamefully reduced in the 1990s -
was also a key part of the Cold War, and if much of it was poured into kleptocratic regimes like
Mobutu's, or wasted on misguided projects, some at least helped produce flourishing economies in
Europe and East Asia.
The Republican Party is not only the party of Goldwater and Reagan, but of Eisenhower, Nixon and
Kissinger. Eisenhower is now almost forgotten by the party. 'Eisenhower Republicans', as they refer
to themselves, are usually far closer to Tony Blair (or perhaps more accurately, Helmut Schmidt)
than anyone the Republican Party has seen in recent years, and I'd wager that the majority of educated
Americans have forgotten that the original warning about the influence of the 'military industrial
complex' came from Eisenhower.
Kissinger is still very much alive, however, and his history is a reminder that one aspect of
the American capacity for extreme ruthlessness was also a capacity for radical changes of policy,
for reconciliation with states hitherto regarded as bitter enemies, and for cold-blooded abandonment
of close allies and clients whose usefulness was at an end. It would not altogether surprise me if
we were now to see a radical shift towards real co-operation with Russia, and even Iran.
In general, however, the Cold War legacies and parallels are discouraging and dangerous. To judge
by the language used in the days since 11 September, ignorance, demonisation and the drowning out
of nuanced debate indicate that much of the US establishment can no more tell the difference between
Iran and Afghanistan than they could between China and the Soviet Union in the early 1960s - the
inexcusable error which led to the American war in Vietnam. The preference for militarised solutions
continues (the 'War on Drugs', which will now have to be scaled back, is an example). Most worryingly,
the direct attack on American soil and American civilians - far worse than anything done to the US
in the Cold War - means that there is a real danger of a return to Cold War ruthlessness: not just
in terms of military tactics and covert operations, but in terms of the repulsive and endangered
regimes co-opted as local American clients.
The stakes are, if anything, a good deal higher than they were during the Cold War. Given what
we now know of Soviet policymaking, it is by no means clear that the Kremlin ever seriously contemplated
a nuclear strike against America. By contrast, it seems likely that bin Laden et al would in the
end use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons if they could deliver them.
There is also the question of the impact of US strategies (or, in the case of Israel, lack of
them) on the unity of the West - assuming that this is of some importance for the wellbeing of humanity.
However great the exasperation of many European states with US policy throughout the Cold War, the
Europeans were bound into the transatlantic alliance by an obvious Soviet threat - more immediate
to them than it was to the US. For the critical first decade of the Cold War, the economies of Europe
were hopelessly inferior to that of the US. Today, if European Governments feel that the US is dragging
them into unnecessary danger thanks to policies of which they disapprove, they will protest bitterly
- as many did during the Cold War - and then begin to distance themselves, which they could not afford
to do fifty years ago.
This is all the more likely if, as seems overwhelmingly probable, the US withdraws from the Balkans
- as it has already done in Macedonia - leaving Europeans with no good reason to require a US military
presence on their continent. At the same time, the cultural gap between Europeans and Republican
America (which does not mean a majority of Americans, but the dominant strain of policy) will continue
to widen. 'Who says we share common values with the Europeans?' a senior US politician remarked recently.
'They don't even go to church!' Among other harmful effects, the destruction of this relationship
could signal the collapse of whatever hope still exists for a common Western approach to global environmental
issues - which would, in the end, pose a greater danger to humanity than that of terrorism.
· Anatol Lieven is a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington
DC.
"... Grenville regards understanding the opposition to globalization by the Trump constituency as essential. If we are discussing America, we do not need to look to illegal immigration, or undocumented workers to find hostility to out-group immigrants along religious and ethnic lines. ..."
"... These tendencies are thrown into sharper relief when this hostility is directed towards successfully assimilated immigrants of a different color who threaten the current occupants of a space – witness the open racism and hostility displayed towards Japanese immigrants on the west coast 1900-1924, or so. A similar level of hostility is sometimes/often displayed towards Koreans. The out-grouping in Japan is tiered and extends to ethnicity and language of groups within the larger Japanese community, as it does in the UK, although not as commonly along religious lines as it does elsewhere. ..."
"... European workers have done much better in the new global economy.(The problems in Europe center around mass migration of people who resist assimilation and adoption of a Humanistic world view.) The answer is simple and horrifying. ..."
"... A large percentage of American workers consistently vote against their own interest which has allowed the republican party in service to a powerful elite billionaire class ..."
"... The combination of these reliable cadre of deplorables , controlled by faux news and hate radio , and the lack of political engagement by the low income Americans , has essentially turned power over to the billionaire class. ..."
I read an interesting piece in the Nikkei, hardly an left-leaning publication citing Arlie
Hochschild's "Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right."
Doubtless some here would like to see more misery heaped upon those who do not look to the
Democratic party as saviors, but Hochschild is rarely regarded as a defender of the American right.
Few dispute that a significant subset of any given population is going to regard in-group/out-group
distinctions along the highly imprecise lines of 'race' and ethnicity, or religion. The question,
for some, is what percentage?
The Nikkei article by Stephen Grenville concludes: Over the longer term, the constituency for
globalization has to be rebuilt, the methodology for multilateral trade agreements has to be revived…"
Grenville regards understanding the opposition to globalization by the Trump constituency
as essential. If we are discussing America, we do not need to look to illegal immigration, or
undocumented workers to find hostility to out-group immigrants along religious and ethnic lines.
These tendencies are thrown into sharper relief when this hostility is directed towards
successfully assimilated immigrants of a different color who threaten the current occupants of
a space – witness the open racism and hostility displayed towards Japanese immigrants on the west
coast 1900-1924, or so. A similar level of hostility is sometimes/often displayed towards Koreans.
The out-grouping in Japan is tiered and extends to ethnicity and language of groups within
the larger Japanese community, as it does in the UK, although not as commonly along religious
lines as it does elsewhere.
Generally, I think John is right. The term 'racist' no longer carries any of the stigma
it once held in part because the term is deployed so cynically and freely as to render it practically
meaningless. HRC and Bill and their supporters (including me, at one time) are racists for as
long as its convenient and politically expedient to call them racists. Once that moment has passed,
the term 'racist' is withdrawn and replaced with something like Secretary of State, or some other
such title.
I've no clear 'solution' other than to support a more exact and thoughtful discussion of the
causes of fear and anxiety that compels people to bind together into in-groups and out-groups,
and to encourage the fearful to take a few risks now and again.
I've no clear 'solution' other than to support a more exact and thoughtful discussion of the causes
of fear and anxiety that compels people to bind together into in-groups and out-groups, and to
encourage the fearful to take a few risks now and again.
Here's my take on this. The question
to ask is why has this happened? European workers have done much better in the new global
economy.(The problems in Europe center around mass migration of people who resist assimilation
and adoption of a Humanistic world view.) The answer is simple and horrifying.
A large percentage of American workers consistently vote against their own interest which
has allowed the republican party in service to a powerful elite billionaire class form a
reliable cadre of highly visible and highly vocal deplorables which even though slightly less
than half the population of those who bother to vote have virtually shut down democratic safeguards
which could have mitigated what has happened due to globalization. The combination of these
reliable cadre of deplorables , controlled by faux news and hate radio , and the lack of political
engagement by the low income Americans , has essentially turned power over to the billionaire
class.
... ... ...
Alesis 10.30.16 at 12:13 pm
A strategy that doesn't work inside the tent is DOA outside it. As it stands many liberals (largely
white and this is an important distinction) share with the right a deep discomfort with acknowledging
the centrality of racism to American politics.
Race is the foundational organizing principle
of American life and it represents a considerable strain to keep it in focus. Donald Trump will
win the majority of white voters as the racial resentment coalition has since the 1930s. An effective
strategy for the long term is focused on breaking that near century long hold.
I'd suggest the direct approach. Call racism what it is and ask white voters directly what
good it has done for them lately. Did railing against Mexican rapists brings any jobs back?
Briefly, it seems Podesta received an email "You need to change your password", asked for professional advice from his
staff if it was legit, was told "Yes, you DO need to change your password", but then clicked on the link in the original email,
which was sent him with malicious intent, as he suspected at first and then was inappropriately reassured about - rather than
on the link sent him by the IT staffer.
Result - the "phishing" email got his password info, and the world now gets to see all his emails.
Personally, my hope is that Huma and HRC will be pardoned for all their crimes, by Obama, before he leaves office.
Then I hope that Huma's divorce will go through, and that once Hillary is sworn in she will at last be courageous enough to
divorce Bill (who actually performed the Huma-Anthony Weiner nuptials - you don't have to make these things up).
Then it could happen that the first same-sex marriage will be performed in the White House, probably by the minister of DC's
Foundry United Methodist Church, which has a policy of LBGQT equality. Or maybe Hillary, cautious and middle-of-the-road as usual,
will go to Foundry UMC sanctuary for the ceremony, recognizing that some Americans' sensibilities would be offended by having
the rite in the White House.
As Nobel Laureate Bob Dylan wrote, "Love is all there is, it makes the world go round, love and only love, it can't be denied.
No matter what you think about it, you just can't live without it, take a tip from one who's tried."
I am now
convinced that the Oligarchy that rules America intends to steal the presidential
election.
In the past, the oligarchs have not cared which candidate won as the
oligarchs owned both. But they do not own Trump.
Most likely you are unaware of what Trump is telling people as the media does not
report it.
A person who speaks like this
...
...is not endeared to the oligarchs.
Who are the oligarchs?
Wall Street and the mega-banks
too big to fail and their agent
the Federal Reserve, a federal agency that put 5 banks ahead of millions of troubled
American homeowners who the federal reserve allowed to be flushed down the toilet. In
order to save the mega-banks' balance sheets from their irresponsible behavior, the
Fed has denied retirees any interest income on their savings for eight years, forcing
the elderly to draw down their savings, leaving their heirs, who have been displaced
from employment by corporate jobs offshoring, penniless.
The military/security complex
which has spent trillions of our
taxpayer dollars on 15 years of gratuitous wars based entirely on lies in order to
enrich themselves and their power.
The
neoconservartives
whose crazed ideology of US world hegemony
thrusts the American people into military conflict with Russia and China.
The US global corporations that sent American jobs to China and India
and elsewhere in order to enrich the One Percent with higher profits from
lower labor costs.
Agribusiness
(Monsanto et.al.), corporations that poison the
soil, the water, the oceans, and our food with their GMOs, hebicides, pesticides, and
chemical fertilizers, while killing the bees that pollinate the crops.
The extractive industries
-energy, mining, fracking, and
timber-that maximize their profits by destroying the environment and the water
supply.
The Israel Lobby that controls US Middle East policy
and is
committing genocide against the Palestinians just as the US committed genocide
against native Americans. Israel is using the US to eliminate sovereign countries
that stand in Israell's way.
What convinces me that the Oligarchy intends to steal the election is the
vast difference between the presstitutes' reporting and the facts on the ground.
According to the presstitutes, Hillary is so far ahead that there is no point in
Trump supporters bothering to vote. Hillary has won the election before the vote.
Hillary has been declared a 93% sure winner.
I am yet to see one Hillary yard sign, but Trump signs are everywhere. Reports I
receive are that Hillary's public appearances are unattended but Trumps are so heavily
attended that people have to be turned away. This is a report from a woman in Florida:
"Trump has pulled huge numbers all over FL while campaigning here this
week. I only see Trump signs and sickers in my wide travels. I dined at a Mexican
restaurant last night. Two women my age sitting behind me were talking about how they
had tried to see Trump when he came to Tallahassee. They left work early, arriving at
the venue at 4:00 for a 6:00 rally. The place was already over capacity so they were
turned away. It turned out that there were so many people there by 2:00 that the
doors had to be opened to them. The women said that the crowds present were a mix of
races and ages".
I know the person who gave me this report and have no doubt whatsoever as to its
veracity.
I also receive from readers similiar reports from around the country.
This is how the theft of the election is supposed to work:
The media
concentrated in a few corporate hands has gone all out to convince not only Americans
but also the world, that Donald Trump is such an unacceptable candidate that he has lost
the election before the vote.
By controllng the explanation, when the election is stolen those who challenge the
stolen election are without a foundartion in the media. All media reports will say that
it was a run away victory for Hillary over the misogynist immigrant-hating Trump.
And liberal, progressive opinion will be relieved and off guard as Hillary takes us
into nuclear war.
That the
Oligarchy intends to steal the election from the American people
is verified by the officially reported behavior of the voting machines in early voting
in Texas. The NRP presstitutes have declared that Hillary is such a favorite that even
Repulbican Texas is up for grabs in the election.
If this is the case, why was it necessary for the voting machines to be
programmed to change Trump votes to Hillary votes?
Those voters who noted
that they voted Trump but were recorded Hillary complained. The election officials,
claiming a glitch (which only went one way), changed to paper ballots. But who will
count them? No "glitches" caused Hillary votes to go to Trump, only Trump votes to go to
Hillary.
The most brilliant movie of our time was The Matrix.
This movie
captured the life of Americans manipulated by a false reality, only in the real America
there is insufficient awareness and no Neo, except possibly Donald Trump, to challenge
the system. All of my life I have been trying to get Americans of all stripes-academics,
scholars, journalists, Republicans, Democrats, right-wing, left-wing, US
Representatives, US Senators, Presidents, corporate moguls and brainwashed Americans and
foreigners-out of the false reality in which they exist.
In the United States today a critical presidential election is in process in which
not a single important issue is addressed. This is total failure.
Democracy,
once the hope of the world, has totally failed in the United States of America.
* * *
And following today's FBI headlines, the manipulation is about to go to '11' to
ensure the Oligarch's president-of-choice wins in November.
"... But I saw a particular Hillary surrogate on CNN go apopletic, pounding the desk, holding her head in her hands, insisting "IT DOESN'T EXIST!!! THERE IS NO VOTER FRAUD!!!!" Carol Costello agreed, emphatically, with her vocabulary of all-knowing nods and tilting her head 11 degrees to the right in sympathetic affirmation. ..."
On March 26, 2014, three investigators from Maryland's Office of the State Prosecutor sat at my dining
room table and showed me a signature on a photocopy taken from a D.C. poll book. The scrawl looked
more like a seismograph reading and was so unrecognizable that it took me a minute to realize that
I was looking at it upside down. Turning the picture over didn't make it much better.
"No, that's not my handwriting," I told them.
Somebody had clearly voted using my name. But why? And how did state officials figure it out?
In-person voter impersonation is vanishingly rare, as
many studies have shown. The claims put forth by Donald Trump that voter fraud in places like
Philadelphia could rig the election against him have very little evidence behind them,
according to election experts
.
Absentee ballot fraud – people violating state laws on the distribution, collection and submission
of mail ballots – is the more likely and more commonly prosecuted crime. Even for these kinds of
scams, a definitive total of cases is hard to come by since voting records are maintained by several
thousand different local governments.
But I saw a particular Hillary surrogate on CNN go apopletic, pounding the desk, holding her
head in her hands, insisting "IT DOESN'T EXIST!!! THERE IS NO VOTER FRAUD!!!!" Carol Costello
agreed, emphatically, with her vocabulary of all-knowing nods and tilting her head 11 degrees
to the right in sympathetic affirmation.
If Carol and the Hillary surrogate agree there is no voter fraud, the only logical conclusion
is that Derek Willis is a liar and ProPublica is in bed with the Russians.
how many dead people are registered voters? 2,8 million, more?? How about how many ILLEGALS are
registered to vote?? UNKNOWN!
How many computer voter machines have been hacked?? Unknown.. and oddly, they all "dead, illegals,
rigged machines" all vote for hillary/democrats!
Concerning the listing of voter fraud cases compiled by the Heritage Foundation, it's remarkable
for a) how few cases there actually are (several hundred out of literally millions of votes cast)
and b) how many of the cases involved elected officials or their relatives attempting to influence
their own elections.
So, if you look at the compilation rationally, it's a non-event. You can be sure that tax fraud
is much more common, and almost certainly, does much more damage to our democracy. Somehow, that
doesn't seem to concern the legislatures as much. Just doesn't make good headlines.
"One way to make that job easier is to keep accurate voter lists. An accurate voter list makes
it less likely than mistakes will occur at the polls." ....Or, we could have a national Voter
ID registry, but NYT Democrats such as yourself think IDs are somehow inherently racist. Go figure?
This is retail voter fraud, not wholesale voter fraud. Believe me. I
I'm from Louisiana. I know
the difference between wholesale and retail voter fraud.
Wholesale voter fraud is when we vote
the nursing homes and rig the voting machines to skip votes for people we want to lose and break
all the voting machines in precincts that we know will go for the candidate we want to lose and
kick people off the voter rolls in precincts that we know will go for the candidate we want to
lose.
Retail is when you buy individual votes. Retail is inefficient, problematic (how do you
keep thousands of people you paid to vote fraudulently from leaking the information to someone
who goes to the cops?) and isn't how you rig elections.
Wholesale is where you go for vote rigging,
and right now the Republican Party is the king of wholesale, with voter ID to make sure the "wrong"
people don't vote, cutbacks in early voting hours in minority districts, etc. to try to suppress
the votes of the "wrong" people.
"... In line with the Corruption theme, check out the election fraud documentation at Fraction Magic – Short Version video recently released. It shows manipulation of actual vote files (Statement of Votes Cast) and how locations selected for audit were not tampered with. ..."
In line with the Corruption theme, check out the election fraud documentation at
Fraction Magic – Short Version
video recently released. It shows manipulation of actual vote files (Statement of Votes Cast)
and how locations selected for audit were not tampered with.
The hero of the story is Bennie Smith, a soft-spoken Memphis TN-based genius who has skills
in computer programming and databases; accounting; and political demographic analysis. By luck
those are the same skills that convicted felon Jeffrey Dean had. (Dean wrote the software for
the Diebold voting machines–and I've been told they can now prove that Dean was the originator
of the fractionalized vote-counting software for the central tabulators.)
A longer version of the video is due out in days–in the meantime, the 9 min. excerpt on the
Short Version is amazing. Check out the tips at the end–how the public can help.
Viable third party s
almost impossible in "first after the post" regime... That are
usually poached by iether Republican or Democrats who act as spoilers.
I don't mean to sound critical, but I don't see why you regard
Stein or the Greens as naturally being at a higher level than their
current 2% in the polls. The Greens were only on the ballots of 36 or
37 states until last month. Unlike the major parties, they have pretty
much no "get out the vote" apparatus. They are also not a national
party. Lambert who has dealt with them to a degree in Maine can give
you details as to some of the symptoms of dysfunction he has seen at
close range.
Ralph Nader in 2000 was a nationally recognized name, unlike Stein.
There was a lot of disenchantment re Gore for being a 3rd term Clinton
candidate, with Gore having mixed success in distancing himself from
the Clintons, and being a wooden campaigner. And Bush was correctly
seen as a lightweight. Even with those advantages, and ballot access
in 43 states (v. I believe 45 or 46 now), Nader got 2.8% of the vote.
The Greens have had almost a generation to build the party since
then, and a financial crisis that devastated the middle class. I don't
see any evidence of them using the opportunity that the abject
performance of the Dems has presented to them. The Dems have lost
seats in Congress, they've lost governorships, more and more people
identify as independents. Yet the Greens have made no progress despite
these tailwinds.
I can see the argument for voting for Stein as virtue signaling and
a protest vote and perhaps preferable to a write in (as in you are
telling TPTB that there is sentiment to the left of where the legacy
parties sit). My antipathy for the Greens is that they've failed
abjectly at upping their game. See Richard Kline on "Progressively
Losing". They strike me as a classic example of wanting to be morally
correct and having zero interest in governing. So as long as you see
your vote as a communications tool and don't harbor unwarranted
optimism about the Greens, I don't see anything wrong in voting for
them.
"... So we have a traitor as POTUS that is not only corrupt, but compromised...and a woman that is a serial liar, perjured herself multiple times at the Hearing whom is running for POTUS. ..."
WASHINGTON - Senior Justice Department officials warned the FBI that Director James B. Comey's
decision to notify Congress about renewing the investigation into Hillary Clinton's private
email server was not consistent with long-standing practices of the department, according to
officials familiar with the discussions.
"Comely went off the farm all on his own and must answer for his actions. Simple as that."
IMHO that's extremely naïve. Such a "career limiting move"(CLM) in Washington-speak almost
never done "on his own". Exception are whistleblowers like William Binney, who already decided
for themselves that "this is the last stand" and are ready to face consequences.
Few Washington bureaucrats want to became outcasts within the administration, even the lame
duck administration. Bureaucracy, at the end, is just another flavor of a political coalition
and they tend to cling to power by whatever means possible including criminal.
Moreover, Comey so far was viewed as an "Obama man" who abruptly squashed the "emailgate"
investigation instead of expanding it investigating Bill Clinton for his "accidental" meeting
with Loretta Lynch and possibly putting the old fogey on the bench for the obstruction of justice.
And who at the end granted immunity to all key members of Clinton entourage including Huma Abedin
who proved to be, security wise, not the sharpest tool in the shed.
The only plausible explanation that I see is that Comey action reflects a deep split within
the USA elite including internal cracks and pressure within FBI brass (possibly from rank-and-file
investigators, who understand what's going on) as for viability Hillary as the next POTUS.
I would ask you a very simple question: do you really want a POTUS that has, say, 80% probability
to be impeached by the House during the first year of his/her administration?
And any security specialist will tell you that Hillary creation of "shadow IT" within the
State Department is a crime. The behavior that would never be tolerated not only in super-secretive
State Department (which recently assumed some functions previously performed by CIA), but in any
large corporation.
It also might well be that there are new highly compromising evidence (not necessary from
Wiener case) which changed the "grand calculation".
Wikileaks needs to get this out (I have not verified the info sent to me last night):
So here's the REAL story.
Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to retrieve US made Stinger
missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission.
Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi.
Then some of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military.
It was July 25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own Stingers,
but the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had to
land anyway.
An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache
of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA
Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the
rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the stand down orders
given to multiple commando teams.
It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus
wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft.
Then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK'd the
BS talking points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video.
Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about,
why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama,
two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video,
even though everyone knew it was not.
Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy without
Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing
the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe Bergdahl was just a
pawn...everyone KNEW he was a traitor.
So we have a traitor as POTUS that is not only corrupt, but compromised...and a woman
that is a serial liar, perjured herself multiple times at the Hearing whom is running for
POTUS.
Only the Dems, with their hands out, palms up, will support her. Perhaps this is why
no military aircraft was called in because the administration knew our enemies had Stingers.
"... FBI agents looking at Weiners weiner on his laptop, sees tons of Huma emails and Clinton emails, turn and tell their boss they are disgusted with all this and he needs to disrupt her winning office or they are going public. That's what happened! ..."
"... I think you are spot on with that observation. Comey was forced to tell Congress the Clinton e-mail investigation was being reopened. If he did not then sure as hell the existence of those e-mails on the Weiner computer would be leaked. ..."
"... I agree, it is all puppet theatre with some humor added. The more outrageous the more believable, right? ..."
"... It achieves some "unity" around Trump when there wasn't enough going down the home stretch, it became OBVIOUS she's not a winner, which anyone with half a brain has known since she announced? So maybe they are pulling the plug and she's been beat officially? Which leaves the question is Trump for real? ..."
"... I must say, fake or not he fought hard? I like Trump. I hope he realizes if he did decide to do GOOD, he could become very powerful. Why these leaders get to these positions and give it all up for a little greed is beyond me? They could be 10 times more powerful by just being GOOD? You've got the money Trump, if your GOOD, you'll obtain the power? Trump has some political capital and makes him more attractive to the establishment. My guess is, im being too optimistic for good things to happen? I hope Im wrong. ..."
"... The Clintons are a great success story. They never set out to be legal, only not to get sent to jail. By this standard they have succeeded. They have wealth and power and are 2 of the most admired people on earth. Lawyers and fines are just businesses expenses. ..."
"... I want to share my intentions with my fellow ZH Bloggers and Patriots, beginning today, I am going to be sending a series of communications directly to Paul Ryan by using his WEBSITE found at the following URL: http://www.speaker.gov/contact ..."
"... I plan to both encourage and challenge the Speaker. I know many on ZH look at Paul Ryan as a hypocrite. I understand why you may hold this position. I too am very disappointed with recent REPUBLICAN positions and communications. However, now is the time to unite as "WE THE PEOPLE". All of the data is suggesting that leadership within US Government Agencies is corrupted by special interests and their own fleshly nature. We see evidence of TREASON everywhere. But I believe brighter days lie ahead for America at least in the short term. ..."
"... AMERICA has lost her way and this needs to be corrected. ..."
FBI agents looking at Weiners weiner on his laptop, sees tons of Huma emails and Clinton emails, turn and tell their boss
they are disgusted with all this and he needs to disrupt her winning office or they are going public. That's what happened!
I think you are spot on with that observation. Comey was forced to tell Congress the Clinton e-mail investigation was being
reopened. If he did not then sure as hell the existence of those e-mails on the Weiner computer would be leaked.
I agree, it is all puppet theatre with some humor added. The more outrageous the more believable, right?
It achieves some "unity" around Trump when there wasn't enough going down the home stretch, it became OBVIOUS she's not
a winner, which anyone with half a brain has known since she announced? So maybe they are pulling the plug and she's been beat
officially? Which leaves the question is Trump for real?
I must say, fake or not he fought hard? I like Trump. I hope he realizes if he did decide to do GOOD, he could become very
powerful. Why these leaders get to these positions and give it all up for a little greed is beyond me? They could be 10 times
more powerful by just being GOOD? You've got the money Trump, if your GOOD, you'll obtain the power? Trump has some political
capital and makes him more attractive to the establishment. My guess is, im being too optimistic for good things to happen? I
hope Im wrong.
I've been burned so many times by BIG GOV. both DEM & REP? I just cant trust anyone that is near it?
They take lots of ideas from ZH these days, and its not good..... ZH offers them the ideas, the power, and the creativity of
the crowd. They use it against us, a very powerful tool.
The Clintons are a great success story. They never set out to be legal, only not to get sent to jail. By this standard they
have succeeded. They have wealth and power and are 2 of the most admired people on earth. Lawyers and fines are just businesses
expenses.
I want to share my intentions with my fellow ZH Bloggers and Patriots, beginning today, I am going to be sending a series
of communications directly to Paul Ryan by using his WEBSITE found at the following URL:
http://www.speaker.gov/contact
I plan to both encourage and challenge the Speaker. I know many on ZH look at Paul Ryan as a hypocrite. I understand why
you may hold this position. I too am very disappointed with recent REPUBLICAN positions and communications. However, now is the
time to unite as "WE THE PEOPLE". All of the data is suggesting that leadership within US Government Agencies is corrupted by
special interests and their own fleshly nature. We see evidence of TREASON everywhere. But I believe brighter days lie ahead for
America at least in the short term.
AMERICA has lost her way and this needs to be corrected.
I encourage everyone who reads this message to send a note to the SPEAKER encouraging him to do four things:
Get on board the TRUMP/PENCE train no matter what it takes which includes eating "HUMBLE PIE".
Go after Hillary R. Clinton and press for swift and immediate justice.
Enforce existing laws for TREASON that are on the books.
Do whatever it takes to ensure the integrity of the American POTUS Election process. MAKE OUR VOTE COUNT.
I plan to do this today and will be sending the speaker notes and comments from ZH.
If everyone contacts the SPEAKER, he will get the POINT.
GOD's SPEED in whatever you decide to do as a CITIZEN of these UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
"... Time is running short for President Obama to make good on his 2009 promise "to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons," for which he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Yet as both the Wall Street Journal and New York Times recently reported, Obama's advisers may have just nixed the single most important reform advocated by arms control advocates: a formal pledge that the United States will never again be the first country to use nuclear weapons in a conflict. ..."
"... Two-thirds of adult Americans surveyed support such a policy. So do 10 U.S. senators who wrote President Obama in July, proposing a no-first-use declaration to "reduce the risk of accidental nuclear conflict" and seeking cut-backs in his trillion dollar plan for nuclear modernization over the next 30 years. ..."
"... In a 2007 manifesto, Carter, Moniz, and other centrist Democratic foreign policy experts rejected the old claim that nuclear weapons are still needed to deter non-nuclear attacks. ..."
"... They also gave strong implicit support to a no-first-use doctrine, stating that "nuclear weapons must be seen as a last resort, when no other options can ensure the security of the U.S. and its allies." ..."
"... "Using nuclear weapons first against Russia and China would endanger our and our allies' very survival by encouraging full-scale retaliation," he and a colleague wrote. "Such use against North Korea would be likely to result in the blanketing of Japan and possibly South Korea with deadly radioactive fallout." ..."
"... As two senior officials at the Arms Control Association observed recently in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists , "Among other advantages, a clear US no-first-use policy would reduce the risk of Russian or Chinese nuclear miscalculation during a crisis by alleviating concerns about a devastating US nuclear first-strike. ..."
"... Why would anyone believe the US would not strike first with nukes, pledge or no pledge? This country has lied so much. Nobody cares anymore. To Americans there are worse things in the world than slaughtering millions of people in war by "mistake", and that's the prospect of not looking tough. ..."
"... Before considering the relative merits of a "no first use" policy for nuclear weapons, it would first be necessary to consider whether words like "policy" actually mean anything relative to the U.S. history of the last seventy years. ..."
"... The US has embarked on a military adventure, "a long war", which threatens the future of humanity. US-NATO weapons of mass destruction are portrayed as instruments of peace. Mini-nukes are said to be "harmless to the surrounding civilian population". Pre-emptive nuclear war is portrayed as a "humanitarian undertaking". ..."
"... Overkill has been part of the American war strategy for some time and could be a sign of fear-inspired paranoia. People with a lot to lose are prone to magnifying threats. ..."
The U.S. threat to launch a first-strike nuclear attack has little real strategic value – though
it poses a real risk to human survival – but President Obama fears political criticism if he changes
the policy, as Jonathan Marshall explains.
Time is running short for President Obama to make good on his 2009
promise "to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons," for which he won
the Nobel Peace Prize. Yet as both the
Wall Street Journal and
New York Times recently reported, Obama's advisers may have just nixed the single most important
reform advocated by arms control advocates: a formal pledge that the United States will never again
be the first country to use nuclear weapons in a conflict.
Ever since President Truman ordered two atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945, the United States
has reserved the right to initiate nuclear war against an overwhelming conventional, chemical or
biological attack on us or our allies. But peace advocates - and more than a few senior military
officers - have long warned that resorting to nuclear weapons would ignite a global holocaust, killing
hundreds of millions
of people .
President Barack Obama uncomfortably accepting the Nobel Peace Prize from Committee Chairman
Thorbjorn Jagland in Oslo, Norway, Dec. 10, 2009. (White House photo)
In a
talk to the annual meeting of the Arms Control Association on June 6, Deputy National Security
Advisor Benjamin Rhodes promised that President Obama would continue to review ways to achieve his
grand vision of a nuclear-free world during his last months in office. Obama was
reportedly considering a "series of executive actions" to that end, including a landmark shift
to a "no first use" policy.
Two-thirds of adult Americans surveyed
support such a policy. So do 10 U.S. senators who
wrote President Obama in July, proposing a no-first-use declaration to "reduce the risk of accidental
nuclear conflict" and seeking cut-backs in his
trillion dollar plan for nuclear modernization over the next 30 years.
But Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz (who oversees the
nuclear stockpile), and Secretary of State John Kerry all warned during a National Security Council
meeting in July that declaring a policy of "no first use" would alarm America's allies, undercut
U.S. credibility, and send a message of weakness to the Kremlin at a time of tense relations with
Russia.
Yet until they took charge of giant bureaucracies whose funding depends on keeping the threat
of nuclear war alive, both Carter and Moniz were on record supporting "a new strategy for
reducing nuclear threats" and achieving security "at significantly lower levels of nuclear forces
and with less reliance on nuclear weapons in our national security strategy."
In a 2007 manifesto, Carter, Moniz, and other centrist Democratic foreign policy experts rejected
the old claim that nuclear weapons are still needed to deter non-nuclear attacks.
"Nuclear weapons are much less credible in deterring conventional, biological, or chemical weapon
attacks," they wrote. "A more effective way of deterring and defending against such non-nuclear attacks
– and giving the President a wider range of credible response options – would be to rely on a robust
array of conventional strike capabilities and strong declaratory policies."
They also gave strong implicit support to a no-first-use doctrine, stating that "nuclear weapons
must be seen as a last resort, when no other options can ensure the security of the U.S. and its
allies."
Risk of Overreaction
Why does a no-first-use policy matter? In a New York Times
column last month, Gen. James Cartwright, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and
head of the United States Strategic Command, emphasized the folly of introducing nuclear weapons
into any conflict.
"Using nuclear weapons first against Russia and China would endanger our and our allies' very
survival by encouraging full-scale retaliation," he and a colleague wrote. "Such use against North
Korea would be likely to result in the blanketing of Japan and possibly South Korea with deadly radioactive
fallout."
A policy of no first use, backed up by a reconfiguration of U.S. nuclear forces to reduce their
offensive capabilities, would lower the chance of a rival nuclear power rushing to launch early in
a crisis and unleashing World War III. Today some nuclear powers like Russia have their forces on
hair-trigger alert for fear of being wiped out by a U.S. surprise attack; as a result, the world
is just one
false alarm away from all-out nuclear war.
As two senior officials at the Arms Control Association
observed recently
in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists , "Among other advantages, a clear US no-first-use
policy would reduce the risk of Russian or Chinese nuclear miscalculation during a crisis by alleviating
concerns about a devastating US nuclear first-strike.
"Such risks could grow in the future as Washington develops cyber offensive capabilities that
can confuse nuclear command and control systems, as well as new strike capabilities and strategic
ballistic missile interceptors that Russia and China believe may degrade their nuclear retaliatory
potential."
They also discounted the claim that U.S. allies such as Japan or Korea would rebel against such
a change of policy: "They are highly likely to accept such a decision, since no first use will in
no way weaken US military preparedness to confront non-nuclear threats to their security. . . Many
US allies, including NATO members Germany and the Netherlands, support the adoption of no-first-use
policies by all nuclear-armed states."
Warnings by nuclear hawks that a common-sense doctrine of no-first-use would undercut U.S. "credibility"
or project "weakness" are simply business-as-usual attempts by national security bureaucrats to inflate
threats and keep the war machine in high gear. If they succeed in blocking reform, America and the
rest of the world will remain at real risk of annihilation through accidental nuclear escalation.
The question now is whether President Obama will listen to the fear-mongers in his cabinet, or
remember
what he said in May at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial: "Among those nations like my own that hold
nuclear stockpiles, we must have the courage to escape the logic of fear and pursue a world without
them."
I almost forgot about the "Obama gets a Nobel Prize" joke.
Why would anyone believe the US would not strike first with nukes, pledge or no pledge?
This country has lied so much. Nobody cares anymore. To Americans there are worse things in the
world than slaughtering millions of people in war by "mistake", and that's the prospect of not
looking tough.
exiled off mainstreet September 8, 2016 at 1:10 pm
Unfortunately, nuclear blackmail is central to the Yankee imperium maintaining its claim on
total power. It is Lord Acton's absolute power on steroids. The demonization of Putin on behalf
the harpy's campaign by many whom at one time themselves showed skepticism of the power structure
reveals the complete moral and intellectual bankruptcy of exponents of the Yankee regime.
F. G. Sanford September 8, 2016 at 4:09 pm
Before considering the relative merits of a "no first use" policy for nuclear weapons, it
would first be necessary to consider whether words like "policy" actually mean anything relative
to the U.S. history of the last seventy years.
I don't even have to mention "conspiracy theories" in order to illustrate the point. Gulf of
Tonkin, Operation Phoenix, MK Ultra, Bay of Pigs, Operation Northwoods, subversion of the Paris
Peace Talks, Watergate, October Surprise, Iran Contra, the Church Committee findings, The House
Select Committee on Assassinations, Cointelpro, numerous regime changes and illegal wars – including
the falsified case for invasion of Iraq – all highlight the complete lawlessness of the U.S.A.
According to international law, The Constitution, numerous treaties and United States public
law, there should be no first use of CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS. Their "first use" constitutes war of
aggression, "The Supreme International Crime" according to Chief Nuremberg Prosecutor, Robert
H. Jackson. What has been missing in the United States for the last seventy years is simply SPECIFICATION
OF CHARGES. All seven of the (known) countries in which we are currently conducting hostile military
operations constitute examples of illegal wars based on our own Constitution and International
Law. Retaliation against the United States for conducting these wars, should some country be willing
or able, WOULD NOT BE ILLEGAL. Keep in mind, we haven't "won" a war since WWII unless you count
Grenada. Even then, you'd have to ignore the fact that the Russians practically, if not politically,
won WWII.
I realize the good intentions of the author, and I respect his credentials, but this analysis
represents the typical tendency in the U.S. to devolve discourse into specks of sand while drowning
in quicksand. It contributes to official propaganda without realization or intent. SPECIFICATION
OF CHARGES is the topic no journalist seems willing to tackle. Let me give an example. When the
2000 Florida vote recount was underway, Jeb Bush got on the phone to the five biggest law firms
in the state and told them not to represent Al Gore. THAT IS A FELONY. But, rather than discuss
SPECIFICATION OF CHARGES, American journalists were content to stand by and watch an unindicted
felon run for the highest office in the land. After finding out that his brother lied to us, they
abrogated their duty and stood by while he was reelected…by another statistically impossible election
result.
Americans may be oblivious to all this, but the rest of the world certainly isn't. They don't
believe a damn thing we say. That will only worsen with the election of a bona fide war monger
in November. NOBODY overseas believes ANY of our "official" narratives. We've stirred up trouble
in the Middle East and Eastern Europe. Now, we're working on the Asian Pacific. Europe is overrun
by a refugee crisis we created. Does any rational person not see the risk posed by these unfettered
abuses? Since they cannot match us conventionally, and they see no end to the onslaught of disastrous
U.S. foreign intervention, at least two countries are likely to view a nuclear "first strike"
as their only hope to salvage some semblance of national sovereignty. If anyone has read this
far, thanks for listening. I'm at the point of giving up on further commentary; it all looks pretty
hopeless at this point.
Bill Bodden September 8, 2016 at 5:22 pm
Excellent points.
Joe Tedesky September 9, 2016 at 12:11 am
F.G. We all get fed up and frustrated with our country's sad performances it displays on our world's
stage, but whatever you do don't quit posting commentaries. This evening I was going over archived
articles on this site from the past, and you were one of the commenters going back to around 2011
or maybe it was 2012, but no matter you were there. What I do like about this site, is it is an
oasis in a desert when it comes to the commenters, and you are one of them I totally enjoy. Oh,
and the articles are priceless.
Now, what gets me going of late, isn't just how treaties mean nothing to our American government,
but how things come and go,,and then disappear down a black news hold. For instance, back in 2014
the torture files were brought up in our news media. The Panetta Review, and all that kind of
garbage was finally being exposed. That was until the whole thing vanished like it never existed.
Kind of like going to war to find WMD's, and then when we find there are none, well we just up
and go on about our way, as if nothing ever happened.
The U.S. doesn't respect treaties, and there is never anyone to hold to accountability. We
are the nation who creates the reality. As you have heard, we are the nation who is indispensable
and exceptional. Your either with us, or against us. Another nations sovereignty doesn't mean
a thing when it comes to waging war, if we are right well then we are right. There are no questions
to be answered. What law is there, what legal system can enforce any law national or international,
when it comes to what America does?
To all the commenters on this site, I can't say how much it means to me, to not only comment
here, but more importantly what a pleasure it is to read all your comments and take in the knowledge
I get by reading what you all have to say. Even the comments I don't agree with often leave food
for thought…so yes I'm thanking everyone.
We need more not less of the unblinkered and sober assessments like this one you have educated
and enlightened us with here.
Now is not a good time to allow Dr. Feelgood to run amok especially with faux concern governing
the passing contests and ego driven games that endanger not only people, but every living creature
on the planet, except perhaps cock roaches… the only ones who will benefit from an unfettered
nuclear policy of when in doubt go nuclear……
Abe September 10, 2016 at 10:27 pm
The US has embarked on a military adventure, "a long war", which threatens the future of humanity.
US-NATO weapons of mass destruction are portrayed as instruments of peace. Mini-nukes are said
to be "harmless to the surrounding civilian population". Pre-emptive nuclear war is portrayed
as a "humanitarian undertaking".
Thank you….the piece about Jeb Bush near the end was, something that I didn't know. The paragraph
about the "Specifications of charges" was another aspect of which I've never seen mentioned. I
really enjoy well written posts where I can keep filling in bits of the big picture ,as I call
it.
M. September 8, 2016 at 4:32 pm
Nuclear war preparedness and the use of nuclear weapons have already affected so many and will
continue to do so. Nuclear waste disposal alone is a huge problem. Since a nuclear war, limited
or otherwise, will affect the entire world one way or another, it would seem that all nations
should be brought together to have S.A.L.T.- like talks, not just the current nuclear powers,
but the presumed and potential nuclear powers, as well as those nations who will in all likelihood
never have them. Everyone on the planet has a stake in this. It could lead to great reductions
in other kinds of weapons, and possibly, to the most important discussion of all – how to have
and maintain real peace in the world. It isn't too late for President Obama to remember what he
said in Hiroshima, as Mr. Marshall stated, and not too late for him to be a true leader and to
act on those words.
Bill Bodden September 8, 2016 at 5:36 pm
Overkill has been part of the American war strategy for some time and could be a sign of fear-inspired
paranoia. People with a lot to lose are prone to magnifying threats.
Obama's recent remarks referring to the insane bombing of Laos that was an example of Nixon's
madness brought reminders of this lunacy. "Over 270 million cluster bombs were dropped on Laos
during the Vietnam War (210 million more bombs than were dropped on Iraq in 1991, 1998 and 2006
combined); up to 80 million did not detonate." –
http://legaciesofwar.org/about-laos/secret-war-laos/
– That was probably more than a dozen cluster bombs for each Laotian – man, woman and child.
In addition to suggesting this was insanity on the part of the Nixon-Kissinger administration
it probably also indicates gross incompetence or a lack of moral courage on the part of the leadership
in the Air Force.
"... Like all modern presidents, Obama quickly learned the political economy of the entrenched nuclear establishment, committing a trillion dollars to the "modernization" of the arsenal and its delivery systems 30 years beyond his presidency. ..."
"... Such staggering expenditures are, however, even more unlikely to purchase the order and security that Secretary Carter promised than when Mumford issued his warning. That was well before thousands of thermonuclear weapons waited on hair-trigger alert for the order to launch or a glitch that would do so without an order. ..."
"... In his recently published book My Journey At the Nuclear Brink, Bill Clinton's Defense Secretary William Perry detailed the numerous close calls by which the world has dodged partial or all-out Armageddon and claimed that the likelihood of disaster is growing rather than diminishing. Most of these events are unknown to the public. ..."
"... Obama changed the US nuclear weapon policy by adopting "first strike doctrine". ..."
"... That, along with aggressive moves to install anti missile systems (which are of dual use and can be retrofitted with offensive weapons) in Poland, Romania and South Korea changed the strategic balance in the USA favor. ..."
Almost goofily, behind Official Washington's latest
warmongering "group think," the U.S. has plunged into a New
Cold War against Russia with no debate about the enormous
costs and the extraordinary risks of nuclear annihilation.
By Gray Brechin
When Lewis Mumford heard that a primitive atomic bomb had
obliterated Hiroshima, the eminent urban and technology
historian experienced "almost physical nausea." He instantly
understood that humanity now had the means to exterminate
itself.
On March 2, 1946, seven months later, he published an
essay titled "Gentlemen: You Are Mad!" Not only did madmen,
Mumford insist, "govern our affairs in the name of order and
security," but he called his fellow Americans equally mad for
viewing "the madness of our leaders as if it expressed a
traditional wisdom and common sense" even as those leaders
readied the means for "the casual suicide of the human race."
In the 70 years since the Saturday Review of Literature
published Mumford's warning, that madness has grown to be
normative so that those who question the cost, safety and
promised security of the nuclear stockpile are regarded as
the Trojans did Cassandra - if they are noticed at all.
"The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that when the
president gives the order it must be followed," insisted
Hillary Clinton in the third presidential debate as a means
of affirming her own - rather than her opponent's -
qualifications to give that order. "There's about four
minutes between the order being given and the people
responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so."
Four minutes to launch is a minute more than the three to
midnight at which the Doomsday Clock now stands. Clinton no
doubt calculated that voters would be more comfortable with
her own steady finger on the nuclear trigger. I can think of
no better proof of Mumford's contention than the fact that
those voters would give any individual the power to abruptly
end life on Earth unless it is that her statement went
unremarked by those keeping score.
The Nobel Mistake
Less than nine months into Barack Obama's presidency,
Norway's Nobel Institute bestowed the Nobel Peace Prize on
him largely on the strength of his pledge during his first
major foreign policy speech in Prague to rid the world of
nuclear weapons. In a 2015 memoir, former secretary of the
Institute Geir Lundestad expressed remorse for doing so,
saying "We thought that it would strengthen Obama and it
didn't have that effect."
Like all modern presidents, Obama quickly learned the
political economy of the entrenched nuclear establishment,
committing a trillion dollars to the "modernization" of the
arsenal and its delivery systems 30 years beyond his
presidency.
As Obama prepared to leave office, his Defense Secretary
Ashton Carter rejected pleas for reducing the stockpile and
announced that the Pentagon planned to spend $108 billion
over five years to "correct decades of underinvestment in
nuclear deterrence … dating back to the Cold War." The last
Cold War, that is.
Such staggering expenditures are, however, even more
unlikely to purchase the order and security that Secretary
Carter promised than when Mumford issued his warning. That
was well before thousands of thermonuclear weapons waited on
hair-trigger alert for the order to launch or a glitch that
would do so without an order.
In his recently published book My Journey At the Nuclear
Brink, Bill Clinton's Defense Secretary William Perry
detailed the numerous close calls by which the world has
dodged partial or all-out Armageddon and claimed that the
likelihood of disaster is growing rather than diminishing.
Most of these events are unknown to the public.
Former head of the U.S. Strategic Command General James
Cartwright bolstered Perry's claim when he told a San
Francisco audience that "It makes no sense to keep our
nuclear weapons online 24 hours a day" since "You've either
been hacked and are not admitting it, or you're being hacked
and don't know it." One of those hackers, he said, could get
lucky.
A Non-existent Debate
When Hillary Clinton was asked at a town hall event in
Concord, New Hampshire, if she would reduce expenditures for
nuclear arms and rein in the corporations that sell the
government those weapons, she replied "I think we are overdue
for a very thorough debate in our country about what we need
and how we are willing to pay for it."
Such a debate has never been held and - given the peril,
complexity and cost of nuclear technology - it is never
likely to happen unless a president of exceptional courage
and independence demands it. The profits of weapons
production are simply too great and few of the prospective
victims understandably want to dwell on the unthinkable when
so much more diverting entertainment is available on their
Smartphones.
Nuclear weapons by their nature are inimical to
transparency and thus to the public discussion, control and
democracy they ostensibly protect. Nor does Doomsday make for
winning dinner banter.
The Brookings Institute in 1998 published a study of the
cumulative costs of nuclear weapons entitled Atomic Audit. It
put the bill to date at $5.5 trillion, virtually none of
which was known by the public or even to members of Congress
or the President. The cost simply grew and continues to grow
in the dark, precluding spending on so much else that might
otherwise return in public works and services to those who
unwittingly pay for the weapons while also mitigating the
causes of war abroad....
Dr. Gray Brechin is the Project Scholar of the Living New
Deal University at the UC Berkeley Department of Geography.
That, along with aggressive moves to install anti missile
systems (which are of dual use and can be retrofitted with
offensive weapons) in Poland, Romania and South Korea changed
the strategic balance in the USA favor.
I wonder how Russia and China would react on this.
Currently they still stick to "no first use" principle.
Russia and China would react on this. Currently they still
stick to "no first use" principle.
"
A Fate Worse Than Death
During the inquisition Catholic Priests logically assumed
that living within a community of Jews would be a fate worse
than death thus chose death instead of integration. Sure!
They didn't need to kill all the Jews. They only needed to
kill the ones that didn't convert to Christianity during
their stint with torture.
During the final weeks of Second World War Victory, 33rd
President decided that the American Voters would consider
life with Japanese a fate worse than death thus resolved to
kill off bunch of them even though the execution had nothing
to do with final victory. Hell!
A simple blockade of the industrial island nation would
have starved Japanese of raw materials enough to send the
Japanese straight back to the stone ages thus render them
harmless in less than 2 years. Hell!
The blockade was already in place.
During the Cold War our leaders decided that American
Voters would find it a fate worse than death to be conquered
by communists, a fate worse than death to live without
capitalism. Decided, then fabricated thousands of nuclear
devices, enough devices to provide the kind of strontium
isotope fall out that would allow cockroaches to survive but
render all of humanity forever extinct .
Today, by contrast, we see that Russian Communism has
imploded, Chinese Communism has morphed into Bankster/Capitalism,
and Vietnamese Communism is not trying to subjugate the
World.
In other words, the fear of being conquered does not
logically indicate the need for WoMD, weapons of mass
destruction that could annihilate the entire human race.
Yet the Democrats continue to follow in the foot steps of
33rd President, continue to walk in his footprints. Hell!
What I do not get is how one can call himself/herself a democrat and be jingoistic monster.
That's the problem with Democratic Party and its supporters. Such people for me are DINO ("Democrats
only in name"). Closet neocons, if you wish. The level of militarism in the current US society
and MSM is really staggering. anti-war forces are completely destroyed (with the abandonment of
draft) and are limited for libertarians (such as Ron Paul) and paleoconservatives. There is almost
completely empty space on the left. Dennis Kucinich is one of the few exceptions
(see
http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2016/10/27/must-read-of-the-day-dennis-kucinich-issues-extraordinary-warning-on-d-c-s-think-tank-warmongers/
)
I think that people like Robert Kagan, Victoria Nuland and Dick Cheney can now proudly join
Democratic Party and feel themselves quite at home.
BTW Hillary is actually very pleasant with people of the same level. It's only subordinates,
close relatives and Security Service agents, who are on the receiving end of her wrath. A typical
"kiss up, kick down personality".
The right word probably would not "nasty", but "duplicitous".
Or "treacherous" as this involves breaking of previous agreements (with a smile) as the USA
diplomacy essentially involves positioning the country above the international law. As in "I am
the law".
Obama is not that different. I think he even more sleazy then Hillary and as such is more difficult
to deal with. He also is at his prime, while she is definitely past hers:
== quote ==
Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday it was hard for him to work with the current
U.S. administration because it did not stick to any agreements, including on Syria.
Putin said he was ready to engage with a new president however, whoever the American people
chose, and to discuss any problem.
== end of quote ==
Syria is an "Obama-approved" adventure, is not it ? The same is true for Libya. So formally
he is no less jingoistic then Hillary, Nobel Peace price notwithstanding.
Other things equal, it might be easier for Putin to deal with Hillary then Obama, as she
has so many skeletons in the closet and might soon be impeached by House.
"... She [Hillary Clinton] has concurrently this Clinton Foundation business, where she is granting special favors, special partnerships, special government contracts, weapons deals, etc., to Clinton Foundation donors. So, there's just a lot here that represents how the economic and political elite are very much represented, I think, by both of these candidates, and underscores why it's really important for us to exercise our power in a democracy . ..."
"... To present a no-fly zone here as a solution is extremely dangerous. A no-fly zone means we are going to war with Russia, because it means we will be shooting down planes in the sky in order to create this no-fly zone, which is where Russia has a commitment to defending the Assad government. So, remember, there was a ceasefire, which was very hard-won, and that ceasefire was destroyed by the action of the Americans bombing, apparently by mistake, although some people say not by mistake, but it was our bombing of the Syrian troops that destroyed that ceasefire . ..."
"... That was our part, the U.S., in allowing the nuclear arms race to re-engage . Mikhail Gorbachev, the former premier of the Soviet Union, said last week that we are now at a more dangerous period regarding nuclear war than we have ever been. So, it's really important for the warmongers in the Democratic and Republican parties to be cooling their jets now and for us to be moving forward towards a weapons embargo and a freeze on the funding of those countries that are continuing to fund terrorist enterprises . ..."
'There was a ceasefire, which was very hard-won, and that ceasefire was destroyed by the action
of the Americans bombing, apparently by mistake, although some people say not by mistake, but it
was our bombing of the Syrian troops that destroyed that ceasefire'
Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! explains again the process, in this second presidential debate:
" We spend the rest of today's show airing excerpts of the Donald Trump-Hillary Clinton debate
and give Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein a chance to respond to the same questions
posed to the major-party candidates. Again, Dr. Stein and Libertarian presidential candidate Gary
Johnson were excluded from the debate under stringent rules set by the Commission on Presidential
Debates, which is controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties. We invited both Stein and
Johnson to join us on the program; only Stein took us up on the offer. "
In this last part of the second debate, Jill Stein, again, was the only presidential candidate
that told the whole truth to the American people without hesitation.
Concerning the Syrian mess and the Russian intervention, Hillary Clinton showed again why she
is the most dangerous to be the next US president. She avoided again to admit the huge responsibility
of the US intervention and their allies in Libya and the Middle East which created absolute chaos.
She blamed again the Russians, although - as Jill Stein stated very correctly - it was the US that
destroyed the hard-won ceasefire in Syria. Hillary showed again her absolute devotion to the neocon/neoliberal
agenda, therefore, start a war with Russia. She showed again how dangerous she is.
On the contrary, Jill Stein stated very clearly that war with Russia is out of question.
Key points:
She [Hillary Clinton] has concurrently this Clinton Foundation business, where she is granting
special favors, special partnerships, special government contracts, weapons deals, etc., to Clinton
Foundation donors. So, there's just a lot here that represents how the economic and political elite
are very much represented, I think, by both of these candidates, and underscores why it's really
important for us to exercise our power in a democracy . We have a right to know who we can vote
for, as well as a right to vote.
Syria is a disaster, and it's a very complicated disaster. It is a civil war. It is a proxy war
among many nations. It is a pipeline war also between Russia and the Gulf states, who are competing
to run their pipelines with fracked gas into Europe across Syria. So, this is a very complicated
situation, and there is a hornets' nest, a real circular firing squad of alliances here that's, you
know, extremely, extremely complicated.
To present a no-fly zone here as a solution is extremely dangerous. A no-fly zone means we
are going to war with Russia, because it means we will be shooting down planes in the sky in order
to create this no-fly zone, which is where Russia has a commitment to defending the Assad government.
So, remember, there was a ceasefire, which was very hard-won, and that ceasefire was destroyed by
the action of the Americans bombing, apparently by mistake, although some people say not by mistake,
but it was our bombing of the Syrian troops that destroyed that ceasefire .
We need to redouble our efforts here. And we need to acknowledge that war with Russia is not an
option. There are 2,000 nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert. And who was it that dropped out of
the nuclear arms control? That was George Bush. That was our part, the U.S., in allowing the
nuclear arms race to re-engage . Mikhail Gorbachev, the former premier of the Soviet Union, said
last week that we are now at a more dangerous period regarding nuclear war than we have ever been.
So, it's really important for the warmongers in the Democratic and Republican parties to be cooling
their jets now and for us to be moving forward towards a weapons embargo and a freeze on the funding
of those countries that are continuing to fund terrorist enterprises .
"... Moreover, thousands of emails were erased from her server, even after she had reportedly been sent a subpoena from Congress to retain them. During her first two years as secretary of state, half of her outside visitors were contributors to the Clinton Foundation. Yet there was not a single quid pro quo, Clinton tells us. ..."
"... Pat is oh-so right: "This election is not over." In fact it's likely that Donald Trump will continue to surge and will win on November 8th. ..."
"... Remember: Many of the polls claiming to show statistically significant Clinton leads were commissioned by the same corrupt news organizations that have worked for months to bias their news coverage in an attempt to throw the election to Clinton. ..."
"... The problem facing the donor class and the party elites is that Trump supporters are not swayed by the media bias. A recent Gallup poll shows Americans trust in journalists to be at its lowest level since Gallup began asking the question. ..."
"... Americans are savvy to the media's rigging of election reporting. Election Day, Nov. 8th, will show that the dishonest reporting of the mainstream media and the cooked samplings of their polls were all for naught. ..."
"... More years of bank favoritism, corporate socialism, political corruption, failed social programs, deindustrialization, open borders lawlessness, erosion of liberties, interventionism and wage stagnation is all adding more steam to the pressure cooker. ..."
"... A Trump presidency would back the pressure off, a Clinton presidency would be a disaster. ..."
"... Why does PJB, of all people, cling to the abhorrent notion that presidential "greatness" is defined by territorial aggrandizement through war? ..."
"... Unfortunately, that new evidence of the Clinton Criminal Enterprise (CCE) caused nary a ripple in the MSM. It was merely noted in the Crony lapdog Washington Post and then quickly submerged into the bottom of the content swamp. The Clinton WikiLeaks documents and the James O'Keefe corruption videos are marginalized or not even acknowledged to exist by the various MSM outlets. ..."
"... Hillary is probably guilty of a lot of things. However, evidence from the counter-media and/or Congress means nothing to the MSM. In fact the MSM will actually conjure up a multitude of baseless red herrings to protect Hillary. E.g., the Trump as Putin puppet meme as a diversion away from documented Clinton corruption. ..."
"... The anti-Hillary elements can only mutually reinforce in their internet ghettos. Those ghettos do not provide enough political leverage to move against a President Hillary no matter how compelling the evidence of the Clinton's collective criminality. In that context, Hillary will be politically inoculated by the protective MSM against Republican congressional inquiries and attacks. ..."
"... Hillary's presidency will almost certainly be a catastrophe because it will manifest the haggard, corrupt, cronied-up, parasitic and mediocre qualities of the hack sitting in the Oval Office. Expect a one term fiasco and then Hillary will stumble out of the White House as even more of a political and personal wreck. ..."
Moreover, thousands of emails were erased from her server, even after she had reportedly been
sent a subpoena from Congress to retain them. During her first two years as secretary of state, half
of her outside visitors were contributors to the Clinton Foundation. Yet there was not a single quid
pro quo, Clinton tells us.
Yesterday's newspapers exploded with reports of how Bill Clinton aide Doug Band raised money for
the Clinton Foundation, and then hit up the same corporate contributors to pay huge fees for Bill's
speeches.
What were the corporations buying if not influence? What were the foreign contributors buying,
if not influence with an ex-president, and a secretary of state and possible future president?
Did none of the big donors receive any official favors?
"There's a lot of smoke and there's no fire," says Hillary Clinton.
Perhaps, but there seems to be more smoke every day.
If once or twice in her hours of testimony to the FBI, to a grand jury, or before Congress, Clinton
were proven to have lied, her Justice Department would be obligated to name a special prosecutor,
as was Nixon's.
And, with the election over, the investigative reporters of the adversary press, Pulitzers beckoning,
would be cut loose to go after her.
The Republican House is already gearing up for investigations that could last deep into Clinton's
first term.
There is a vast trove of public and sworn testimony from Hillary, about the server, the emails,
the erasures, the Clinton Foundation. Now, thanks to WikiLeaks, there are tens of thousands of emails
to sift through, and perhaps tens of thousands more to come.
What are the odds that not one contains information that contradicts her sworn testimony? Rep.
Jim Jordan contends that Clinton may already have perjured herself.
And as the full-court press would begin with her inauguration, Clinton would have to deal with
the Syrians, the Russians, the Taliban, the North Koreans, and Xi Jinping in the South China Sea-and
with Bill Clinton wandering around the White House with nothing to do.
This election is not over. But if Hillary Clinton wins, a truly hellish presidency could await
her, and us.
Pat is oh-so right: "This election is not over." In fact it's likely that Donald Trump will continue
to surge and will win on November 8th.
Remember: Many of the polls claiming to show statistically significant Clinton leads were commissioned
by the same corrupt news organizations that have worked for months to bias their news coverage
in an attempt to throw the election to Clinton.
On the other hand, several polls with a history of accuracy have consistently shown either
a Trump lead or a statistical dead-heat.
The problem facing the donor class and the party elites is that Trump supporters are not swayed
by the media bias. A recent Gallup poll shows Americans trust in journalists to be at its lowest
level since Gallup began asking the question.
Americans are savvy to the media's rigging of election reporting. Election Day, Nov. 8th, will
show that the dishonest reporting of the mainstream media and the cooked samplings of their polls
were all for naught.
Thus, fortunately, the American people will avoid the spectacle of a "truly hellish" Clinton
presidency.
More years of bank favoritism, corporate socialism, political corruption, failed social programs,
deindustrialization, open borders lawlessness, erosion of liberties, interventionism and wage
stagnation is all adding more steam to the pressure cooker.
A Trump presidency would back the pressure off, a Clinton presidency would be a disaster.
James Polk, no charmer, was a one-term president, but a great one, victorious in the Mexican
War, annexing California and the Southwest, negotiating a fair division of the Oregon territory
with the British.
Why does PJB, of all people, cling to the abhorrent notion that presidential "greatness" is
defined by territorial aggrandizement through war?
The only people responsible for that "cloud" are conservatives. If you wish to prevent the horrid
fate that you're describing, Pat, you need to apologize and concede that these investigations
are groundless. You can't say "where there's smoke, there's fire" if we can all see your smoke
machine.
The Visigoths will continue their advance on Rome by the millions. The Supreme Court and Fed will
shy away from diversity in their numbers. The alternative media will go bonkers, but to no avail.
The military will provide employment (endless wars) to those displaced by a permissive immigration
policy. Elizabeth I – will look down (up) in envy.
Re: "Yesterday's newspapers exploded with reports of how Bill Clinton aide Doug Band raised
money for the Clinton Foundation, and then hit up the same corporate contributors to pay huge
fees for Bill's speeches."
Unfortunately, that new evidence of the Clinton Criminal Enterprise (CCE) caused nary a ripple
in the MSM. It was merely noted in the Crony lapdog Washington Post and then quickly submerged
into the bottom of the content swamp. The Clinton WikiLeaks documents and the James O'Keefe corruption
videos are marginalized or not even acknowledged to exist by the various MSM outlets.
Hillary is probably guilty of a lot of things. However, evidence from the counter-media and/or
Congress means nothing to the MSM. In fact the MSM will actually conjure up a multitude of baseless
red herrings to protect Hillary. E.g., the Trump as Putin puppet meme as a diversion away from
documented Clinton corruption.
The anti-Hillary elements can only mutually reinforce in their internet ghettos. Those ghettos
do not provide enough political leverage to move against a President Hillary no matter how compelling
the evidence of the Clinton's collective criminality. In that context, Hillary will be politically
inoculated by the protective MSM against Republican congressional inquiries and attacks.
Hillary's presidency will almost certainly be a catastrophe because it will manifest the haggard,
corrupt, cronied-up, parasitic and mediocre qualities of the hack sitting in the Oval Office.
Expect a one term fiasco and then Hillary will stumble out of the White House as even more of
a political and personal wreck.
Agree with Pat though that it's going to be a wild ride for the rest of us – straight down.
P.S. A Republican Congress does have the power of the purse and could shave away Clinton's
Imperial use of the executive branch. But the feckless Congress has never been intelligent enough
to utilize that power effectively.
SteveM makes excellent points about the mainstream media cover-up of the Wikileaks revelations:
"Unfortunately, that new evidence of the Clinton Criminal Enterprise (CCE) caused nary a ripple
in the MSM. It was merely noted in the Crony lapdog Washington Post and then quickly submerged
into the bottom of the content swamp. The Clinton WikiLeaks documents and the James O'Keefe corruption
videos are marginalized or not even acknowledged to exist by the various MSM outlets."
Alex Pfeiffer (The Daily Caller) expands upon SteveM's critique in "The Anatomy Of A Press
Cover-Up." Great stuff:
@William N. Grigg: "Why does PJB, of all people, cling to the abhorrent notion that presidential
"greatness" is defined by territorial aggrandizement through war?"
Yes, that's one aspect of PJB's thought that has long disturbed me. Granted, PJB is a nationalist,
and I can see why an old-fashioned nationalist would admire Polk. But PJB also advocates an "enlightened
nationalism." There's nothing enlightened about stealing someone else's land. Frankly, I fail
to see how Polk's actions are any different from Hitler's actions a century later. I don't want
to offend anyone but, I'm sorry… this needs to be said.
I greatly admire Pat Buchanan, but this article is rather ridiculous.
"If once or twice in her hours of testimony to the FBI, to a grand jury, or before Congress,
Clinton were proven to have lied, her Justice Department would be obligated to name a special
prosecutor, as was Nixon's."
Translation: "I want revenge for Watergate."
Look, I admire Nixon. I think he was one of our greatest Presidents. I really mean that. I
also think that he was unfairly subjected to a witch hunt and that there was no valid reason for
him to have faced the prospect of impeachment (and the same is true, in my view, for both of the
Presidents who were actually impeached, interestingly enough). Nixon should have been allowed
to finish his second term.
I think Hillary Clinton is also facing a witch hunt. I don't agree with her foreign policy
views or with many of her domestic policy views, but this vicious attempt by the GOP to take her
down needs to stop. There is no evidence that she is any more corrupt than anybody else.
And, in any case, if she gets elected, she will be entitled to serve as President. To deliberately
try to sabotage her Presidency by hounding her with these investigations would be to show profound
contempt for democratic norms.
Enough already. I don't support Clinton or Trump. Jill Stein is my gal now. But I hope that
whoever wins does a great job and that all goes well for them. Nothing else would be in the best
interests of the country or the world.
"Remember: Many of the polls claiming to show statistically significant Clinton leads were commissioned
by the same corrupt news organizations that have worked for months to bias their news coverage
in an attempt to throw the election to Clinton.
On the other hand, several polls with a history of accuracy have consistently shown either a Trump
lead or a statistical dead-heat."
We heard this in 2012. Go back and read the Free Republic election night thread to see how
such comforting thoughts came crashing down as the night went on. Then read the posts today…all
the exact same people saying all the exact same things.
For a society to work well and to succeed, the good-will (trust and support) of it's productive,
tax-paying citizens is of paramount importance. The corrupt politics in DC for the last 25 years
has used up this good-will. Only few trust these elitists , as evidenced by the success of
the socialist, Sanders, and Trump.
With the election of the corrupt, lying, unaccomplished politician, the legitimacy of the
D.C. "Leaders" will be gone. It would be a disaster!
" She would enter office as the least-admired president in history, without a vision or a mandate.
She would take office with two-thirds of the nation believing she is untruthful and untrustworthy.
"
Funny you should go there. Sure, HRC has historically high unfavorability ratings. Fact: DJT's
unfavorability ratings are even higher. Check any reasonably non-partisan site such as RCP or
538.
Pretty much all the negatives about HRC are trumped by Trump. His flip-flopping makes hers
look amateur: he used to be a pro-choice Democrat; has publicly espoused admiration for HRC and
declared that WJC was unfairly criticized for his transgressions. Integrity: he's stiffed countless
businesses, small and large; he's been sued by his own lawyers for non-payment. Character: he
behaves like a child, 'nuff said.
Corruption: his daddy illegally bailed him out of a financial jam; Trump's foundation makes
the Clintons' look legit by comparison.
With HRC, the GOP had a huge chance to take back the WH: she has plenty of genuine baggage
to go along with the made-up stuff. However the GOP managed to nominate the one candidate who
makes her transgressions appear tolerable. The end result is that a significant number of moderate
Republicans are supporting no one, Johnson, or even HRC. Trump is so toxic that very few progressive
Dems will stray from HRC, despite being horrified by her corporate connections.
Re today: The FBI is not investigating her server. Servers don't send emails on their own. They
are investigating Hillary Clinton. They just don't like to say that. I wonder if it's in order
to – once again – announce Hillary's "innocence," just before the end of early voting and voting
day. We'll see.
For those interested in a functional government, note that this is three straight elections
– over twelve years – where the incoming president is a priori deemed illegitimate, regardless
of the scale of the victory, and the opposing political party has no interest in working with
that president.
In fact, some senators and representatives (Cruz, Gowdy, Issa, etc.) seem to take joy and pride
in noting the extent and length of these investigations, regardless of what they find. It is the
very process of governmental obstruction they seek, not necessarily justice or truth.
Could we have a new historic first if Hillary wins, the First Woman President to be impeached
by Congress? And the first couple in the history of the Republic to both be impeached?
At some point the Republicans have to be for something. I suppose they will be tempted to go after
Ms. Clinton for what she has elided or attempted to, but I think that is a major mistake. You
wrote: "Yet the hostility Clinton would face the day she takes office would almost seem to ensure
four years of pure hell.
The reason: her credibility, or rather her transparent lack of it."
There are a few assumptions in this – first, that any investigations into her past behavior
will be impartial. True or not, the impression will be hard to pull off – I expect they will easily
be framed as misogynist. And some most likely will be, so it takes a bit of thought and study
to determine which are motivated by misogyny and which are not. News cycles are too fast for that
sort of reflection, and in any event more or less all the major papers and television networks
are in her camp, so can't really expect journalism out of them anymore. It will be a called a
misogynist, partisan investigation and that will be the end of it.
Second, it assumes that the people doing the investigation have credibility. That's a big if
– the GOP went from Bush 43's two terms of military adventurism, increasing income inequality
and economic catastrophe to no introspection or admission of error in the ensuing 8 years of apparently
mindless, vindictive opposition. That is a long time of being kind of – well – less than thoughtful.
And it's had tremendous costs. Mr. Obama presents as a decent man in his profiles, but he was
very inexperienced when elected and in my opinion has more or less been bumbling around for almost
8 years now, kind of like Clouseau in those old Pink Panther movies. Only a lot of people of died,
lost their homes or have seen their communities consumed by despair. Government has been very
ineffective for many Americans, and the Republicans have a lot to answer for with the way they've
chosen to spend their time and direct their energy over the last 8 years. It's been a waste going
after Obama, and going after Clinton will just be more of the same.
And the last assumption is that with all that might be going on in the next few years, this
is important. Ms. Clinton has made some statements, some good, some bad. The bad, though, are
remarkably bad – she's for invading a Middle Eastern country and establishing control over their
airspace, as an example. In 2017. It's pure crazy. She has Democratic support. Hate to think if
she is elected the Republicans will be focusing on email.
"... It takes a village of idiots to raise a few more idiots. And that village gets paid. And that cost sink generates more resource and administrative cost sinks. So the nominal costs declared are the tip of a larger boondoggle iceberg. ..."
"... I know this may be too simplistic a question for someone with the brilliance of Hillary Clinton and our current Military leaders, but would someone explain to me why we need to essentially recruit and train people for a civil war? ..."
So if HRC triples that, we will graduate roughly 150 soldiers at the price of 10 million
each, if I'm doing my figures correctly. Maybe they should hire contingent faculty and graduate
students to handle the 101 courses, they might get the same results for cheaper.
If you want to know more about Division 30, as this training program's fighting unit is
called, read the wiki page
, which has some great gems like:
In September 2015, a second group of Division 30 rebels with 12 Toyota pick-up trucks,
medium machine guns and ammunition crossed the Syrian-Turkish border and ended up giving
up much of their weaponry and ammunition to the Al-Nusra Front in order to secure passage
farther into Syria.[13][14]
By the end of September 2015, General Lloyd Austin, head of US Central Command, said
the remaining members of Division 30 were limited in number, "We're talking four or five".
Division 30's current whereabouts are unknown after they allegedly stopped receiving funding
and supplies from the U.S.[3]
I can't even keep track of my coworkers, I have no idea how they can possibly say, "Oh yeah,
there's four or five of them left".
Maybe they should hire contingent faculty and graduate students to handle the 101 courses,
they might get the same results for cheaper.
I'd like to suggest web-based training instead. I mean, we have no problem with remote-controlled
drone assasinations, surely a cost-effective distance learning program isn't too much to ask.
Maybe they should hire contingent faculty and graduate students to handle the 101 courses,
they might get the same results for cheaper
I'd like to suggest web-based training instead. I mean, we have no problem with remote-controlled
drone assassinations. Surely a distance-learning, interactive training curriculum for our designated
freedom fighters isn't too much to ask. Add in a posttest and certification levels and you've
got a Common Core for Democracy.
As I recall from reading Seymour Hersh on this….the program was set up as a replacement
for the CIA's program to supply rebels, but the Pentagon lost the fight, partially on this.
Both programs are still running.
You missed the bit where one of our lovely "moderate" groups released video of beheading
sick children in hospital beds, and that as a result we were planning to "review" our support
of them. I'm sure that "review" is going well, in fact I think they should put McCain in charge
of it, after all he knows these "moderates" personally and was filmed sharing lots of yuks
and high-fives with them.
It takes a village of idiots to raise a few more idiots. And that village gets paid. And
that cost sink generates more resource and administrative cost sinks. So the nominal costs
declared are the tip of a larger boondoggle iceberg.
I know this may be too simplistic a question for someone with the brilliance of Hillary
Clinton and our current Military leaders, but would someone explain to me why we need to essentially
recruit and train people for a civil war?
If this war is one that the people have been driven
to engage in, wouldn't the real problem be picking the best of the multitudes of volunteers
who are dedicated to freeing their country? I seem to remember there being a pretty good number
of people behind the US Civil War, the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, etc. Sure
there was coercion as well, but that was internal not external. Perhaps their problems is not
the execution of the 'training', but the fact that they are trying to instigate an unwanted
civil war.
Just a thought, but I do think the Press might want to explore that possible aspect. Because
as a betting woman, I'd say the odds are that a whole lot of Americans who have thought about
this have come to the same conclusion I have. This isn't about what SYRIANS want.
Or the racism of the middle class. People are tribal and arguably it is baked into our DNA.
That doesn't excuse the mental laziness of trafficking in stereotypes but one could make a case
that racism is as much a matter of ignorance as of evil character.
Obama with his "bitter clingers" and HIllary with her "deplorables" are talking about people
about whom they probably know almost nothing.
One of the long ago arguments for school integration was that propinquity fosters mutual understanding.
This met with a lot of resistance. And for people like our Pres and would be Pres a broader view
of the electorate would be inconvenient.
Neoconservatism
The Autobiography of an Idea
By Irving Kristol
Irving Kristol has been a formidable presence in American intellectual life for over forty
years. After an early stint as an editor at Commentary, he helped to start three other influential
magazines -- Encounter, in 1953; The Public Interest, in 1965; and The National Interest, in 1985.
A Trotskyist in his student days, Kristol has moved in stages to the right, first becoming
a liberal anticommunist, then a conservative antiliberal. At one point in this evolution, in the
early 1970s, he embraced the label "neoconservative," which the socialist Michael Harrington had
introduced as a pejorative. Since then he has happily made himself so entirely synonymous with
neoconservatism that he now offers his latest collection of essays as its, not his, "autobiography."
But a label is not necessarily evidence of a coherent philosophy, or of a living one. As Kristol
himself acknowledges, neoconservatism has been swallowed by the larger conservative movement--[neoliberalism movement and ideology --NNB].
And his own views have evolved far beyond what he and others originally conceived as neoconservatism.
Several of his early collaborators at The Public Interest, notably Daniel Bell and Daniel Patrick
Moynihan, have long since parted ways. And well they might, considering the tone and substance
of Kristol's writing in recent years.
When neoconservatism first took shape in the late 1960s and '70s, it seemed to be different
from the older varieties of the American right. The Public Interest, and Kristol himself, accepted
the New Deal, but rejected the political and cultural currents of the '60s.
Yet even with
respect to the policies of that era, their stance was meliorism, not repudiation. They presented
themselves as defending the achievements of a capitalist civilization, often positively described
as liberal and secular, from the assaults of a radicalized liberalism. Nearly all were from New
York, most were Jewish, and they carried with them a sensibility that was urban and modern, even
when arguing on behalf of moral and cultural standards that were traditional or, to use Kristol's
preferred term, "bourgeois."
People who know neoconservatism only from that era might therefore be surprised to read
Kristol's recent fulminations against "secular humanism" and his praise of Christian fundamentalism.
Remembering the calm civility of his earlier essays, they might especially fasten on the following
passage from an article, written in 1993, with which Kristol concludes his new book: "So far from
having ended, my cold war has increased in intensity, as sector after sector of American life
has been ruthlessly corrupted by the liberal ethos.... Now that the other 'Cold War' is over,
the real cold war has begun." ...
The Myth of the Powell Memo
A secret note from a future Supreme Court justice did not give rise to today's conservative infrastructure.
Something more insidious did.
By Mark Schmitt
At one end of a block of Massachusetts Avenue in Washington, D.C., sometimes known as "Think
Tank Row"-the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Brookings Institution are neighbors-a
monument to intellectual victory has been under reconstruction for a year. It will soon be the
home of the American Enterprise Institute, a 60,000-square-foot Beaux-Arts masterpiece where Andrew
Mellon lived when he was treasury secretary during the 1920s. AEI purchased the building with
a $20 million donation from one of the founders of the Carlyle Group, a private-equity firm.
Right Moves
The Conservative Think Tank in American Political Culture Since 1945
By Jason Stahl
In the story of the rise of the political right in America since the late 1970s, think tanks,
and sometimes the glorious edifices in which they are housed, have played an iconic role. The
Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the libertarian Cato Institute, along
with their dozens of smaller but well-funded cousins, have seemed central to the "war of ideas"
that drove American policy in the 1980s, in the backlash of 1994, in the George W. Bush era, and
again after 2010.
For the center left, these institutions have become role models. While Brookings or the Urban
Institute once eschewed ideology in favor of mild policy analysis or dispassionate technical assessment
of social programs, AEI and Heritage seemed to build virtual war rooms for conservative ideas,
investing more in public relations than in scholarship or credibility, and nurturing young talent
(or, more often, the glib but not-very-talented). Their strategy seemed savvier. Conservative
think tanks nurtured supply-side economics, neoconservative foreign policy, and the entire agenda
of the Reagan administration, which took the form of a twenty-volume tome produced by Heritage
in 1980 called Mandate for Leadership.
In the last decade or so, much of the intellectual architecture of the conservative think tanks
has been credited to a single document known as the Powell Memo. This 1971 note from future Supreme
Court Justice Lewis Powell to a Virginia neighbor who worked at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce urged
business to do more to respond to the rising "New Left," countering forces such as Ralph Nader's
nascent consumer movement in the courts, in media, and in academia....
DeDude -> anne... , -1
The part where the neo-con-men get the scientific process wrong is where they begin with the conclusion,
before they even collect any facts. And then they whine that Universities are full of Liberals.
No they are full of scientists - and they are supposed to be.
In the aftermath of one of the most memorable (c)october shocks in presidential campaign history, Wikileaks continues its ongoing
broadside attack against the Clinton campaign with the relentless Podesta dump, by unveiling another 596 emails in the latest Part
22 of its Podesta release, bringing the total emails released so far to exactly 36,190, leaving less than 30% of the total dump left
to go.
As usual we will go parse through the disclosure and bring you some of the more notable ones.
* * *
In a February 2012 email from Chelsea Clinton's
NYU alias, [email protected], to Podesta and Mills, Bill and Hillary's frustrated
daughter once again points out the "frustration and confusion" among Clinton Foundation clients in the aftermath of the previously
noted scandals plaguing the Clinton consultancy, Teneo:
Over the past few days a few people from the Foundation have reached out to me frustrated or upset about _____ (fill in the
blank largely derived meetings Friday or Monday). I've responded to all w/ essentially the following (ie disintermediating myself,
again, emphatically) below. I also called my Dad last night to tell him of my explicit non-involvement and pushing all back to
you both and to him as I think that is indeed the right answer. Thanks
Sample: Please share any and all concerns, with examples, without pulling punches, with John and Cheryl as appropriate and
also if you feel very strongly with my Dad directly. Transitions are always challenging and to get to the right answer its critical
that voices are heard and understood, and in the most direct way - ie to them without intermediation. Particularly in an effort
to move more toward a professionalism and efficiency at the Foundation and for my father - and they're the decision-makers, my
Dad most of all
I have moved all the sussman money from unity '09 to cap and am reviewing the others . I will assess it and keep you informed
Something else for the DOJ to look into after the elections, perhaps?
* * *
And then there is this email from August 2015
in which German politician Michael Werz advises John Podesta that Turkish president Erdogan "is making substantial investments in
U.S. to counter opposition (CHP, Kurds, Gulenists etc.) outreach to policymakers" and the US Government.
John, heard this second hand but more than once. Seems Erdogan faction is making substantial investments in U.S. to counter
opposition (CHP, Kurds, Gulenists etc.) outreach to policymakers and USG. Am told that the Erdogan crew also tries to make inroads
via donations to Democratic candidates, including yours. Two names that you should be aware of are *Mehmet Celebi* and *Ali Cinar*.
Happy to elaborate on the phone, provided you are not shopping at the liquor store.
This should perhaps explain why the US has so far done absolutely nothing to halt Erdogan's unprecedented crackdown on "coup plotters"
which has seen as many as 100,000 workers lose their jobs, be arrested, or otherwise removed from Erdogan's political opposition.
Polling offers some
clues . Last week, George Washington University
released the results of a survey of 1,000 adults who said they were registered and likely
to vote. Only 29% of those who said that they would vote for Clinton said their vote was intended
to stop Trump from getting to the White House. By contrast, 43% of Trump voters said their decision
was a defensive vote against Clinton.
That doesn't necessarily get us any closer to forecasting the results. It's a fact that voter
turnout will shape this election outcome but it's much harder to predict how human nature might affect
that turnout. What drives people to action more – support for a set of values or fear of the alternatives?
Love or hate?
"... The international community considers backroom corporate trade deals as one example of the general problem of fragmentation. The US government tries to end-run the UN Charter with NATO. It tries to end-run ILO conventions with the WTO. It tries to end-run economic and social rights with ISDS. It tries to end-run sovereign debt principles (e.g. A/69/L.84) with the Paris Club and the IMF. In response, the international community has been working to synthesize the different legal regimes in an objective way. ..."
"... Corporate special pleading gets subsumed in old-time diplomacy, finding common ground, so the pitched-battle narrative is absent, but when Zayas comes out and says ISDS cannot negate human rights, this is the context. They're trying to preserve a non-hierarchical regime in which the only absolute is the purposes and principles of the UN: peace and development, which comes down to human rights. ..."
The international community considers backroom corporate trade deals as one example of
the general problem of fragmentation. The US government tries to end-run the UN Charter with NATO.
It tries to end-run ILO conventions with the WTO. It tries to end-run economic and social rights
with ISDS. It tries to end-run sovereign debt principles (e.g. A/69/L.84) with the Paris Club
and the IMF. In response, the international community has been working to synthesize the different
legal regimes in an objective way.
Corporate special pleading gets subsumed in old-time diplomacy, finding common ground,
so the pitched-battle narrative is absent, but when Zayas comes out and says ISDS cannot negate
human rights, this is the context. They're trying to preserve a non-hierarchical regime in which
the only absolute is the purposes and principles of the UN: peace and development, which comes
down to human rights.
when bloomberg was having problems w the times he called Arthur schulzburger and asked
for coffee. He made the case that they were treating him like a billionaire dilettante instead
of Third term mayor. It changed the coverage moderately but also aired the issues in the newsroom
so people were more conscious of it. But Arthur is a pretty big wuss so he's not going to do
a lot more than that.
Hillary would have to be the one to call.
He also thinks the brown and women pundits can shame the times and others on social
media. So cultivating Joan Walsh, Yglesias, Allen, perry bacon, Greg Sargent , to
defend her is helpful. They can be emboldened. Fwiw - I pushed pir to do this a yr ago.
I'm guessing Harvard graduate Matt Yglesias is thrilled to find out that Clintonland views
his usefulness primary through the prism of his skin color, particularly given that his family
background not actually all that "brown."
"... Like it or not, extending the voting period is actually the best solution to that particular problem, which is why cutting back on early voting is so popular in those same suppressive GOP-run states. ..."
"... The status quo election day polling station method requires one to take notes on these 50+ offices. The mail ballot allows one to "skip the middle step of taking notes", & directly mark the ballot. ..."
"... I think it is more convenient, but who can guarantee that all ballots make it to their final resting place untampered or at all? ..."
"The real answer is to make Election Day a national holiday. Why the heck not?"
Because it wouldn't solve the problem and, indeed, would likely work against those same voters
the GOP has been trying to suppress-the working poor. Because holiday or not, people are going
to have to work, and many if not most aren't aware they're entitled to time to go vote without
sacrificing pay provided they put in for it ahead of time.
Like it or not, extending the voting period is actually the best solution to that particular
problem, which is why cutting back on early voting is so popular in those same suppressive GOP-run
states.
IMHO mail ballots are useful, especially given ballots with 50+ offices to vote for, many of
them nonpartisan judges.
The status quo election day polling station method requires one to take notes on these 50+
offices. The mail ballot allows one to "skip the middle step of taking notes", & directly mark
the ballot.
I think it is more convenient, but who can guarantee that all ballots make it to their final
resting place untampered or at all? That seems like asking for more trouble. Going out for a walk,
drive, or free shuttle during what should be a multiple weekend day period should not be a big
deal for most (and for those who can't walk, etc there are mail in ballots).
I'm in favor of more holidays for more holidays sake and it will make it easier for some people
to get to the polls, but yea holiday or not people will have to work is the truth. And yes other
than emergency workers like medical professionals it does tend to be poorer people that work holidays.
On September 5, 2006, Eli Chomsky was an editor and staff writer for the Jewish Press, and Hillary
Clinton was running for a shoo-in re-election as a U.S. senator. Her trip making the rounds of editorial
boards brought her to Brooklyn to meet the editorial board of the Jewish Press.
The tape was never
released and has only been heard by the small handful of Jewish Press staffers in the room. According
to Chomsky, his old-school audiocassette is the only existent copy and no one has heard it since
2006, until today when he played it for the Observer.
The tape is 45 minutes and contains much that is no longer relevant, such as analysis of the re-election
battle that Sen. Joe Lieberman was then facing in Connecticut. But a seemingly throwaway remark about
elections in areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority has taken on new relevance amid persistent
accusations in the presidential campaign by Clinton's Republican opponent Donald Trump that the
current election
is "rigged."
Speaking to the Jewish Press about the January 25, 2006, election for the second Palestinian Legislative
Council (the legislature of the Palestinian National Authority), Clinton weighed in about the result,
which was a resounding victory for Hamas (74 seats) over the U.S.-preferred Fatah (45 seats).
"I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think
that was a big mistake," said Sen. Clinton. "And if we were going to push for an election, then we
should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win."
2006 Audio Emerges of Hillary Clinton Proposing Rigging Palestine Election
Unearthed tape: 'We should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win'
On September 5, 2006, Eli Chomsky was an editor and staff writer for the Jewish Press, and Hillary
Clinton was running for a shoo-in re-election as a U.S. senator. Her trip making the rounds of editorial
boards brought her to Brooklyn to meet the editorial board of the Jewish Press.
The tape was never released and has only been heard by the small handful of Jewish Press staffers
in the room. According to Chomsky, his old-school audiocassette is the only existent copy and no
one has heard it since 2006, until today when he played it for the Observer.
The tape is 45 minutes and contains much that is no longer relevant, such as analysis of the re-election
battle that Sen. Joe Lieberman was then facing in Connecticut. But a seemingly throwaway remark about
elections in areas controlled by the Palestinian Authority has taken on new relevance amid persistent
accusations in the presidential campaign by Clinton's Republican opponent Donald Trump that the
current election
is "rigged."
Speaking to the Jewish Press about the January 25, 2006, election for the second Palestinian Legislative
Council (the legislature of the Palestinian National Authority), Clinton weighed in about the result,
which was a resounding victory for Hamas (74 seats) over the U.S.-preferred Fatah (45 seats).
"I do not think we should have pushed for an election in the Palestinian territories. I think
that was a big mistake," said Sen. Clinton. "And if we were going to push for an election, then we
should have made sure that we did something to determine who was going to win."
Chomsky recalls being taken aback that "anyone could support the idea-offered by a national
political leader, no less-that the U.S. should be in the business of fixing foreign elections."
Some eyebrows were also raised when then-Senator Clinton appeared to make a questionable moral
equivalency.
... ... ...
Chomsky is heard on the tape asking Clinton what now seems like a prescient
question about Syria, given the disaster unfolding there and its looming threat
to drag the U.S., Iran and Russia into confrontation.
"Do you think it's
worth talking to Syria-both from the U.S. point [of view] and Israel's point
[of view]?"
Clinton replied, "You know, I'm pretty much of the mind that I don't see
what it hurts to talk to people. As long as you're not stupid and giving things
away. I mean, we talked to the Soviet Union for 40 years. They invaded Hungary,
they invaded Czechoslovakia, they persecuted the Jews, they invaded
Afghanistan, they destabilized governments, they put missiles 90 miles from our
shores, we never stopped talking to them," an answer that reflects her mastery
of the facts but also reflects a willingness to talk to Russia that sounds more
like Trump 2016 than Clinton 2016.
Shortly after, she said, "But if you say, 'they're evil, we're good, [and]
we're never dealing with them,' I think you give up a lot of the tools that you
need to have in order to defeat them So I would like to talk to you [the enemy]
because I want to know more about you. Because if I want to defeat you, I've
got to know something more about you. I need different tools to use in my
campaign against you. That's my take on it."
A final bit of interest to the
current campaign involves an articulation of phrases that Trump has accused
Clinton of being reluctant to use. Discussing the need for a response to
terrorism, Clinton said, "I think you can make the case that whether you call
it 'Islamic terrorism' or 'Islamo-fascism,' whatever the label is we're going
to give to this phenomenon, it's a threat. It's a global threat. To Europe, to
Israel, to the United States Therefore we need a global response. It's a global
threat and it needs a global response. That can be the, sort of, statement of
principle So I think sometimes having the global vision is a help as long as
you realize that underneath that global vision there's a lot of variety and
differentiation that has to go on."
It's not clear what she means by a global vision with variety and
differentiation, but what's quite clear is that the then-senator, just five
years after her state was the epicenter of the September 11 attacks, was
comfortable deploying the phrase "Islamic terrorism" and the even more strident
"Islamo-fascism," at least when meeting with the editorial board of a Jewish
newspaper.
I just want to point out that German media is worst, because Germans need the most convincing
to go to war with Russia. The western media now has to combat the anti-war tendencies they propagated
onto Germans ever since the end of WW2. If you read the comments on all these anti-Putin propaganda
articles, you can tell that Germans hate their own media for doing so.
Hey, I`m from Germany (Stuttgart), and i can definitely say, that we Germans hate our media and
get the informations we need from the Internet. Angela Merkel do what Obama says to her and we
can do nothing. if we go to the street and make a Demonstration they say we are nazi or the media
say nothing. many People (the old People) in Germany hate Putin and belive the lies from the media,
but we, the young people dont belive the lies. We love Putin and wish Angela Merkel will be a
little bit like Putin.
I'm also German (Lahr, Schwartzwald) and totally agree. NEVER watch German TV. It is like for
imbeciles. Cooking, singing, festivals everything to keep us from thinking for ourselves. I also
get all my info from sites like this one and many others. Love Putin and think Ouma Merkel sold
out to the US.
Most of the psyop against Putin and Rus in general is due to the fact that the Central Banks,
IMF, Federal Reserve, etc cannot worm their way into Rus for their own purposes. Those banks
have destroyed every country that they have managed to get their dirty fingers into; the US included.
Putin is not a bad man; my ONLY 'problem' with him is his divorce, beyond that, he appears
to be above board in every way. NOBODY knows what happened within his family, so it is all tabloid
speculation.
The SECOND major reason that everyone wants to malign Rus (and Putin by proxy) is they have
re-appeared on the world stage as a power to be dealt with. They seem to have recovered from the
collapse of the Soviet Union, and are working their way into proper capitalism, BUT, again, the
fingers of the bankers (hence the West) cannot get their groping claws into the country, so they
are pissed! They want Rus to be a colony of the west; to bend on their whim. That did not occur.
Third is the inability of the US 'security' agencies inability to penetrate and turn Rus into
one of their nightmares. CIA, DIA, NSA, etc ALL want to conduct coup's, fiddle with the banking,
mess with people's minds, randomly change the power structure at will, but they cannot, so they
are pissed off as well.
NOW that the West appears to be imploding, and the BRICS seem to be getting ready to break
loose from the almighty US Dollar, they (the West) are woobeling back and forth with much veracity
(typical of an Empire about to topple over on it's own weight). Think of a child's top that is
loosing it's spin and is preparing to fall over.
SO, the only way the powers-that-be can distract the 'public' from the truth is to make up
pure BS.
Excellent. Another point to grasp is that the Banksters do not want a true capitalism, where inefficiency
fails, & competition trims profits.
They want what we now have in the West : a crony corporatist state, where ever fewer giant globalist
multinationals dominate both commerce & countries, pay no taxes, to the benefit of their CEOs
, shareholders & their banksters.
In short, effectively, a Fascism.
Book : Pawns in the Game, by William Guy Carr. See where those "Atlantic Integrationists" came
from.
Russia today is the only power standing up to the world oligarchy. If Russia falls then we will
all be living as slaves behind a barb wired fence, with chips under our skin, etc. etc.
Yes, and Russia has actually been making efforts to keep the dollar afloat, because they know
the US hegemons will get even nastier of their precious dollar becomes worthless. Their goal isn't
to integrate Ukraine into the EU. They want to create a failed state on Russia's border, and also
hopefully engage them militarily in Syria and in places like Chechnya.
I've heard tell...Russia's central banking institution does not belong to the state. Does this
sound familiar? I do not believe that the international banking system give two turds about the
affairs of Russia, unless...Russia moves to control it's own central bank, then there would be
real war.
Bankers have no allegiance except to money!
I am an American and hate what my government has done -- Mr Putin is the greatest world leader
of our time -- My President is a total mess and a danger to world peace -- He's jealous of Mr Putin --
It is interesting to speculate what will happen when the dollar falls . The zionist entity will
not get the billion of dollars they need to continue with the Apartheid state . The zionists are
the major reason the USA is being destroyed from the inside. When there will be nothing to loot
in the USA , I bet they will go back to Germany for another round of looting as they did before
the advent of Hitler . So those Khazars in about 80 years have destroyed two European nations
, Germany and the USA . Given a chance they would do the same with Russia .
Well, look, we had two national elections, and he won them, fair and square. So a majority of
the people in the US chose him. That he's influenced by groups of one sort or another is a separate
issue.
His major problem has been and remains his revanchist mentor, the notorious Polish Brzezinski,
who has been pushing him to oppose Russia. Obama is a lawyer, and he has very little knowledge
of history, which could have helped him enormously. How? By showing him that bids for mastery
of Europe, to think only of that area, which has seen tremendous contention with Russia over Ukraine,
are bound to lead to wars if they're not replaced by a healthy respect for spheres of influence
of the most important states, i.e., the US and Russia.
Obama should never have allowed the Fascist coup that brought the Nazi Svoboda and Pravyi Sektor
to power after Maidan in Kiev. That fascist government won't survive without US/EU help and funding.
That was mistake number one. Mistake number two is even worse, and it's being made now. It is
the extremely ill-considered attempt to destroy the pro-Russian Eastern Ukrainians, that is, to
reassert Kiev's power over Eastern Ukraine (though it'd take US arms and aid).
I frankly don't see that any responsible Russian statesman, Tsarist, Communist or post-Communist,
could allow as vital and historically linked to Russia an area as Ukraine, let alone Eastern Ukraine,
to be removed from Russia's rightful sphere of influence in Europe. If Obama wants peace, he should
chuck Brzezinski and leave at the very least Eastern Ukraine, at this point, to the Russophile
forces there.
Agree, Patty.
The same for the un-elected Mandarins in Brussels. They are a real swamp. Lazy, clueless, overpaid
and greedy still. They are powerhungry despite their tremendous lack of any political clout. Vasalls
through blackmail by 3 letter agencies?
The same for german Mrs. Merkel. Being a german citizen, I am ashamed of thus woman and her orwellian
,politics'.
Today, the former CEO of Thyssen-Krupp, Prof. Dr. Dieter Spethmann, a lawyer, called for her urgent
removal from the job by publishing an Open Letter in mmnews (a blog).
I could care less the FBI or CIA comes knocking ..for what ? Voicing an opinion ? Good I will
when I tell them to , Screw Off! My opinion sticks! Mr Putin is the greatest world leader of our
time and don't expect another one like him for a good long time -- He takes no shit, bribes or
bullshit -- Its what we need here in America! God bless him in his struggles with corrupt NATO
and my twisted, warmongering Government!
look at all the blogs/comments in Uk nationalistic papers eg Daily mail-readers comments are full
of vile nonsense and insane idiocy-there is no hope of peaceful resolution Rus and west while
ordinary people are so ill informed, do not even wish to understand, completely prejudiced, have
such entrenched attitudes perpetuated by mass media, playstation/xbox games and zombie films exported
from USA that have morally corrupted peoples and nations. NGO's being funded by USA to subvert
other states, look out for cyberwarfare too. Please support The Saker too, very high intelligence
from this analyst.
The Russia bashing is indeed perplexing. But it is not universal. One explanation is that Americans
are afraid of the rivalry. Also Americans have been brought up with a negative imagine of "KGB"
and it is impossible to shake this. Russia would love to be part of Europe and increase ties and
business. Europe is game; but not USA. It represents a challenge to its own supremacy. I think
this is the underlying problem. Putin came out of nowhere, as many of the "Putin Videos" show.
His first priority was to rebuild the morale of the Russian army and to do this he picked on Chechnia.
Perhaps today he would do things differently. He also turned on many oligarchs who had helped
him. But he did this because he did not ask nor want their "help" which he considered self-serving;
they wanted to control him, not the other way round. He may regret having been too hard on some
(Boris Bereshovski for instance) but it had to be done. All these things played into the hands
of the anti-Russians in US. One thing is sure. Neither Russia nor Putin had anything to do with
the riots in Maidan which are the root cause of all the disasters occurring in that country. If
Putin "took advantage" of the break-down in Kiev to retake Crimea so much to his credit. It was
certainly not "planned". The State Dept got faked out. Now they are licking their wounds by Putin
bashing day in day out. Rather pathetic really. The best would be to welcome Russia into the world
economy. It can make a great contribution.
Well, Washington D.C. IS afraid of rivalry. Remeber the 1992 ,Wolfowitz Doctrine'? Even one of the mouthpieces, the NYT, was slightly disgusted.
The essence of that vile doctrine: do not allow any rival to rise and challenge US power, hegemony.
I was brought up to hate Russia, to fear Russia but not anymore! It was all lies and manipulation!
Do not include all Americans because its just not true but yes, Russophobia is from decades and
decades of brainshing in America.. Believe me, since literally the age of 5 I was taught to fear
Russia. From school drills in preparation of " Russia coming to get us" to Putin being a communist
dictator to now, Russia is more dangerous than terrorists organization is ALL lies by our government
and media! People need to wake the hell up -- It is our government bombing and invading countries,
our government funding millions to Isreal to slaughter Palestines, funding Nazi Ukraine president
to kill Russian speaking E Ukrainians! Our government funded and trained ISIS! The world is not
n chaos because of your government!
Americans are NOT afraid of Russia. The powers that be are afraid of Russia because they cannot
control Russia (and probably never will, but history has proven man wrong at every turn).
MOST Americans are asleep at the wheel of a paper vehicle traveling 1000 mile per hour towards
a hole in the ground filled with burning oil and are happy for it! American society has become
the antithesis of the founding fathers.
I am not at all afraid of Russia. In fact they're much like us , who want peace and wished our
countries were friends and allies like we should be -- But NO -- We have twisted butthead warmongers
who want to cause trouble and keep Russia down because heaven forbid they might be bigger and
better than us! I say good for them -- We are NOT excepectionals , we should be equals --
Guess what, the Russians are not afraid of USA either.
But we all ARE afraid of a wounded animal, they are the most dangerous. And USA is a wounded dying
animal. I will be very surprised if humanity managed to avoid a nuclear war within the next 10
years. The fake "capitalism" is collapsing and the only way out is a major war.
Just consider the speech's given by Western Leader's at the opening session of the UN recently-Cameron
posits critical thinking as being aligned with ISIS-Obama casting Russia as a threat equal to
ISIS and Ebola, ...these statements are allowed to pass uncritically into the mainstream without
a second thought. This depraved leadership sends shivers down my spine as it indicates just serious
our problems are and how far down the rabbit hole we have fallen. Capitalism in crisis produces
fascism at home and primitive accumulation in the form of Imperialism abroad. America is broke
and going from Broke having invested trillions in PNAC they are doubling down on full spectrum
dominance-a fallacy that will never be reached leaving poverty stricken societies in their wake.
Societies akin to the Hunger Games-quasi-feudal fiefdoms only serfs had more rights than today's
wage slaves-tenure on the land,access to the mode of production ability the keep and trade the
fruits of their labour at least to an extent. The fall of the Soviet Union was a catastrophe for
the workers of the world-Not only did we not get a peace dividend from the end of the cold war
but a century of social gains won by labour have been rolled back to practically nothing the finishing
touches being put into place with the free trade deals about to be unleashed upon the Western
Worker-notice austerity was and is not an option for Putin's Russia-he has put his neck on the
line for his people and his country and they will do the same for him and the Motherland.
America has to hire mercenaries to fight their battles which is why they can't win. And these
false flags are getting a little tiresome. And Mr. Lavrov as FM he is the consummate diplomat,
he does not brow beat or chest pound,nor does he humiliate his adversaries even though circumstances
have offered him ample opportunities-people like MCCAIN OBAMA and KERRY embarrass themselves and
their nation often enough without Russia having to add insult to injury-Russia is above that but
truth telling is another matter and must be pursued no matter how embarrassing for certain parties
the exercise maybe Russia does need to increase it's public relations budget every thing from
student exchanges on up to film festivals Sochi would make an excellent venue for the glitterati......and
serves as a reminder of just how immature the West truly is when one harken's back to the coverage
of the Olympics. This Ukraine situation needs to be resolved in opposition to the fascists putsch
ruling now before it blows up in all of our faces. Cohen nailed it-we are 5 min. to midnight and
closing. Our real enemy is not in the Kremlin or the Middle East-but right here on Wall Street
and Pennsylvania Avenue-time for Occupy 2.0 with Agenda.
Yes, and Ebola isn't a real threat. The only reason it's in the US is because people have been
idiots and have not taken the proper precautions. Russia has a vaccine ready to go. ISIS was created
by the US, and they're not a real threat. I am not afraid of Russia or the KGB or Putin or Boris
and Natasha. All of it is fear, fear, fear, fear, fear.
Oh Yes, and not forgetting the hybrid not so Holy Hollywood, the entertainment industry who of
course are run by the Banksters. The missing link in humanity the genetic modification from apes
to human form, the Banksters. Do you remember the "Man from Atlantis" and the "Planet of the Apes"
and the oil magnets "Dallas"
What this shows more than anything is how desperate the western elites are. They know Russia,
China and others are rising powers and that the US empire's days are numbered. The dollar's reign
as world reserve currency is coming to an end and they know that the US a busted, bankrupt economic
house of cards that could completely collapse at any time taking down US power with it. Hence,
the risk taking and recklessness. We're in a very dangerous time.
It just takes a few to manipulate the minds of public opinion and perception. That is mind control
and you have to ignore mainstream media and go online to find unadulterated truth. Putin has other
means to deal with the US; he doesn't have to stoop so low to call obama what he really is: an
illegitimate child who became an illegitimate president, a man who came from nowhere and has nothing
to offer but war with third world nations who have no nuclear defense. America is as confused
as Africa and his zionist handlers like it that way.
The basic problem is, and always will be, that people believe what they want to believe irregardless
of facts, evidence, proof or common sense. The believe that which they think will benefit themselves,
soothe their ego, fill their pockets, bring tem pleasure etc and deliberatly ignore, condemn,
and close their eyes to learning something that may not fit that goal. They rationalize away their
deliberate ignorance and refuse to look for truth under some morally relative "label" or "cause"
so that they don't have to face truth about themselves and their true intentions.
The "US Deep State" is actually called the "US National Security State" which is comprised of
the Black House, Satanic Pentagon, Cancerous CIA, Police State FBI, and a few other agencies.
Their job is to make the world safe and prosperous for the 1% Owners of the United States.
All this demonizing of President Putin is for a purpose: To paint the Narrative of who the
Bad Guy is during our upcoming WW3! Remember when those ICBMs are flying, that is the END of WW3,
not the beginning!
Be very careful, mate. The western press might be defaming Putin, but he is far from being a saint.
Putin is a powerful man and is there by virtue of a desire for power. Powerful men do whatever
they can to remain powerful and it just so happens that this now goes against the interests of
the banksters and the biatches that they control in power. If Putin believed for a minute that
his best interest lay in doing what those scummers wanted, he would do so in a heartbeat.
"... "Hysteria has been whipped up in the United States about the influence of Russia over the U.S. presidential election," said Putin, calling it a ruse to cover up for the fact that the U.S. political elite had nothing to say about serious issues such as the country's national debt or gun control. ..."
"... "It's much simpler to distract people with so-called Russian hackers, spies, and agents of influence. Does anyone really think that Russia could influence the American people's choice in any way? The number of mythical, dreamt-up problems include the hysteria - I can't think of another word - that has broken out in the United States about the influence of Russia on the current elections for the US president. " ..."
Moments ago, Russian president started speaking at the final session of the Valdai International
Discussion Club's 13th annual meeting in Sochi. More than 130 experts and political analysts from
Russia and other countries are taking part in this year's three-day meeting, titled 'The Future in
Progress: Shaping the World of Tomorrow'.
While Putin's speech can be seen below, he has already had a handful of soundbites, most notably
the following he just said in response to accusations that Russia could influence the US election:
"Hysteria has been whipped up in the United States about the influence of Russia over the U.S.
presidential election," said Putin, calling it a ruse to cover up for the fact that the U.S. political
elite had nothing to say about serious issues such as the country's national debt or gun control.
"It's much simpler to distract people with so-called Russian hackers, spies, and agents of influence.
Does anyone really think that Russia could influence the American people's choice in any way? The
number of mythical, dreamt-up problems include the hysteria - I can't think of another word - that
has broken out in the United States about the influence of Russia on the current elections for the
US president. "
He ended that phrase as follows: "What, is America a banana republic?!"
Putin mocks claim that Russia is trying to influence the US elections: "What, is America now
a banana republic? America is a great power."
And then, to emphasize his trolling, added the following: "correct me if I am wrong."
He also said that "Russia has no intention of attacking anyone, it is ridiculous, foolish and
unthinkable. I read your analytical materials prepared not only by those present but also by analysts
in the US and Europe. However, it is just unthinkable, silly and unrealistic. In Europe alone, the
combined population of NATO countries stands at 300 million, in the US the total population is, probably,
600 million, while in Russia - 146 million. It is just funny to talk about this."
According to the Russian president, contradictions stemming from redistribution of political power
are growing.
"Regrettably, next to nothing has changed for the better in the past months. To be frank, nothing
has changed. Contradictions stemming from redistribution of economic power and political influence
are only growing," Putin said.
Hence, according to the Russian leader, the burden of mutual mistrust is limiting possibilities
to stand to real challenges and real threats facing the world community. "As a matter of fact, the
entire globalization project has turned to be in a crisis and voices in Europe are speaking (and
we know and hear it well) about the failure of the policy of mulicultiralism," Putin said, adding
that this situation is a consequence of a wrong, hasty and somewhat arrogant choice made by Europe's
political elites some twenty-five years ago.
"Back then, at the turn of the 1980s and 1990s, there was a chance not only to spur globalization
processes but to give them a qualitatively new, harmonious and sustainable character," the Russian
leader said.
He drew attention to the fact that the countries that claimed to be the winners in the Cold War
began to reshape the global political and economic order in their own interests.
These states, in his words, embarked on a path of "globalization and security for themselves only,
but not for all." But not all agreed on that.
Some could not resist that any longer whereas others were not yet ready, so, no wonder the system
of international relations has been feverish and the global economy is failing to recover from the
crisis, Putin added.
On globalization
The Russian president stressed globalization should be for all but not only for the select few.
"Obviously, the global community must focus on really topical problems facing the entire humankind,
the solution of which will make the world a safer and more stable place and the system of international
relations equal and fair," Putin said.
He said such an approach will make it possible to "make the globalization for the select few turn
into globalization for all."
"I am confident that it is possible to overcome any challenges and threats only together," Putin
stressed.
On Global Propaganda
The president said he regrets that Moscow does not possess such global propaganda techniques as
Washington does.
"I would like to have such a propaganda machine in Russia. But, unfortunately, I don't. We have
no such global media as CNN, BBC and some others. We have no such opportunities so far," Putin said
at a session of the Valdai Discussion Club.
On the world economy
The president expects the trend towards regionalization of the world economy will continue. It
is absolutely evident that economic cooperation must be mutually advantageous and be based on general
universal principles, so that each state could become a full-fledged participant in the global economic
life," Putin said.
"In the mid-term prospect, the tendency towards regionalization of the global economy will apparently
continue, but regional trade agreements should complement, develop, and not substitute universal
norms and rules," the president said.
The global economy is unable to get out of the current systemic crisis and the political and economic
principles continue to be reshuffled, Putin stressed.
"The system of international relations remains feverish. The global economy is unable to get out
of the systemic crisis. The principles and rules in politics and the economy continue to be reshuffled.
Quite often dogmas that until recently had been regarded as fundamentally true are turned inside
out," Putin said.
These days, he said, whenever the powers that be find some standards or rules beneficial, they
force everybody else to obey them. However, if at a certain point the very same standards begin to
pose obstructions, they are at once sent into the dustbin as outdated and new rules are established.
As an example of that strategy Putin mentioned the missile and bombing strikes against Belgrade
and Iraq, then against Libya and Afghanistan. The operation began without a corresponding resolution
by the UN Security Council. Some superpowers, the Russian leader said, in their attempts to change
the strategic balance of force in their favor have torn down the international legal regime that
prohibited the deployment of new missile defense systems. They have created and armed international
terrorist groups, whose cruelty is now pushing millions of migrants out of the unsafe areas.
Whole countries are being plunged into chaos. The principles of free trade are trampled on and
sanctions are used to exert political pressures.
"We can see the freedom of trade being sacrificed and so-called sanctions being used for exerting
political pressures. In bypass of the World Trade Organizations attempts are being made to form closed
economic alliances living by harsh rules and putting up firm barriers alliances where dome
On NATO
He said that NATO has outlived its usefullness as a structure and on the topic of the escalating
proxy war in Syria, Putin had a simple comment: "Our agreements with the US on Syria did not work
out."
And some more headlines from his pragmatic remarks:
RUSSIA'S PUTIN SAYS RUSSIAN MILITARY THREAT BEING EXAGGERATED TO JUSTIFY MILITARY SPENDING
RUSSIA'S PUTIN SAYS CYBER ATTACKS OR OTHER TYPES OF INTERFERENCE INTO OTHER COUNTRIES' AFFAIRS
UNACCEPTABLE
RUSSIA'S PUTIN SAYS DONALD TRUMP BEHAVES EXTRAVAGANTLY , BUT IT IS FOR A REASON
I'm trying to understand the DVs to my post. I'm sure there are those who think they could take on
Tyson, but with both ears intact at the end? My point was that anyone trying will at least know they've
been in a fight, and one likely to better have been avoided.
I dig the Vlad- clearly he's been the voice of reason for awhile now....
Clearly he doesn't suffer fools like Hillary- I can just see that conversation now.... She's babbling
her nonsense, he's looking around like "Are you fucking kidding me?"
... meanwhile in Italy, >>> "Artist creates colossal portrait of Trump to 'console' him in case
of defeat ..."
..."A massive portrait of Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump adorned a vast cornfield near
the Italian city of Verona, Wednesday.
The work by the Italian land artist Dario Gambarin was ploughed on a 25,000 square metre (269,098
square feet) field and is accompanied by a sardonic 'Ciao' and 'Trump', which some have claimed is
to signify Trump's defeat in recent polls."
Who in their right and practical mind picks a fight with the US military?
Err...how dare Russia move its borders towards our Nato forces?
You will find history replete with countries that have not "picked a fight" with the US, and yet
felt the full force of its military. Instead of rolling over before that option is required (Perkins).
Even more amazing..Is the world view America is projecting. All of my family, on both sides, have
represented all branches of the armed forces, with a Airforce full bird Colonel to boot. These were
old school military, many were career, and believed in the position down to their soul.
The point is, Where the fuck has honor and honesty gone to? Is there anyone currently in the military
on this site? Morale has to been at all time lows, where is the outright mutiny? THESE are the people,
and THESE are the reasons that lives are being risked/lost?!
I had an uncle, and a grandfather that I'm shocked haven't resurrected over this stupidity..
The Saint fucktard should declare, when did Russia attack Crime and when did Russia attack Ukraine?
Does the fucktard know, what ukraininan jew Chruscov did , while drunken, to Russia with Krim?
How was it done? was it constitutional?
Ukraine existed before just one day in 1917. Never ever before. The whole territory of Ukraine
was either purchchased, consolidated or fought by Russian cars during the last 1000 years. 4x as
much, as is the existence of the USA (should the fucktard come from USA). which other country kept
its land mass for so long together?
seems the fucktard is from the tribe, from the stupid abraham religion, originating in Middle
East und not understand, what is it based on.
However they were Ukrainians, not Poles and wanted independence.
They actually revolted and fought for it.
They made an alliance with Russia to help them in this fight.
Russia did help them to free themselves from Poland.
The problem was that Russia simply took over and Ukraine never gained their independence.
Their complaint against Poland was firstly religious as Poles were Catholic while Ukrainians Russian
Orthodox. Secondly Polish aristocracy treated the Ukrainian nobles as second class citizens.
Let's face it. Back in the 1600s it was the kings and princes and nobles that were responsible
for these conflicts. The common people had no influence whatsoever.
They deserve their own homeland, just like the Kurds do.
What the region should strive for is friendly cooperation between themselves. There is no reason
why Slavic nations cannot form their own union. There sure as hell is closer bond between a Russian
and a Slovakian or a Pole and a Serbian than any of them and an Englishman.
"Russia has no intention of attacking anyone, it is ridiculous, foolish and unthinkable....."
Tell that to Crimea and Ukraine, Vlad.
SAINT,
Do you live under a rock? Ukraine was a false flag brought into being by the (((usual suspects.)))
Crimean's saw what was going on, and wanted no part of it.
There was no armed incursion into Crimea by Russian army ground troops, to "take it over." Crimea
is Russian speaking since Kathyrn the Great, and the people voted to rejoin the federation. They
wanted nothing to do with zionazi parasites who had taken over Ukraine.
Think about it. Does Crimea have a insurrection going on now, to then overthrow their overlords?
No of course not, they want to be part of Russia.
You're an idiot. Fools like yourself mindlessly listening to the media (and gov't) without a shred
of evidence. Here's an idea, Sparky, take the effort of getting out of your lazy chair and actually
do a little research. If Ukraine were attacked, don't you think the US would have video captured?
Have you seen any, genius? Were you brain-dead in not knowing about the illegal State Dpet coup led
by Nuland? Holy smokes. Get with the f'ing program, man. Wake up for god's sake. Idiots like yourself
would probably vote "up" for a war if the US asked you. Based on zippo. Just like Iraq, just like
Afghanistan, just like Libya, just like Syria. Sleepwalking morons like you is what makes this country
doubly dangerous. Wake the F up!!!!!
Was there ever honor in signing up to go kill people? In hindsight how many of America's military
adventures were nothing more than neo-colonial expansions? Any free man born of his God given liberties
should tell the military to fuck off, all wars are banker's wars ultimately and the humans who fight
them considered expendable cannon fodder by the powers that be. The day the men of this planet realize
there is no reason to war with one another on behalf of some evil rulers will be the day we finally
advance as a species. Until then we will remain cattle, to be herded and slaughtered.
The US military has not backed the American people since before 1861. They have been puppets for
bankster wars and the elites. The should have arrested Abe Lincoln and his bankster cronies.
Every President who got America into a war or phony war should hve been arrested. Two real scumbags
were LBJ and George Bush. LBJ was in on the JFK murder for Vietnam war as was bush. Bush and his
Mormon See Eye Aye cronies Romney and the Hinckley klan see World Vision Hickley See Eye Aye front
tried to kill Reagan for NeoCon Wars.
Compared to many in the war machine of the USA that virtually always advocate for moar war/bombing
and increasing destabilization, yes he is. If the US wants to get some credibility on this shit then
stop supporting terrorists, oops "moderate rebels", and actually wipe these shitstains off the face
of the planet. Don't use them as your cats paw to get rid of Assad. Have the balls to just take him
out if you want to take him out and don't use terrorists for the regime change that you so clearly
want but dont have the balls to just do directly.
A lot of people here overestimate Russian military capabilities. They honestly believe that Russia
could win a war with the US. They are wrong. But the US seems afflicted by the more dangerous misperception
that the US could easily defeat the Russians. The Russians have to be practical in their dealings
with the US, because they know war would destroy their country. The US establishment, deluded about
its military prowess, is unafraid of war, believing it to be winnable at low cost. The US would ultimately
win simply because its economy is vastly larger and capable of supporting a prolonged war effort.
But make no mistake, a prolonged effort will be necessary, and the lethality will horrify and surprise
everyone involved. The recent US experience of 15 years of continuous warfare with only a few thousand
deaths has led too many to believe that war is a low cost political tool. These misconceptions are
what will allow the American people to be lead into war. The sudden and unexpected deaths of hundreds
or thousands of soldiers in the early days will fuel the anger necessary to sustain the popular support
for the war.
The down votes, I suspect, are from people who want to see Russia humiliate the US and destroy
the hubris with which it interacts with the world. Perhaps the better analogy is of the US as Evander
Holifield walking into a bar and picking a fight with an aging George Foreman. Holifield will win,
but he'll get hit with some big ass punches that will hurt like hell.
And, of course, nobody really wins that war, except for the few who will get rich off of it. But
I'm not in that club.
What the maniacs that are calling the shots for Unkle Skam are afraid of is losing the petro-dollar
and reserve currency status. Without that the fraudulent money-changing ponzi falls apart, and everything
else with it.
Since the start of the Syrian and Ukrainian conflicts, I have been trying to find the vital interests
which are driving the US foreign policy, and preservation of the petro dollar system is the only
thing which makes US policy seem rational. Either our leaders are irrational, or they see no way
to hold the system together if the petro dollar recycling system ends. But, I don't think it can
be preserved any longer, regardless of what they do.
Russia could win a 'defensive' war. And they could strip America of many allies. And they can speed
up loss of the Dollar as world reserve currency.
That is a pretty solid win, in my book, even if it isn't 'total annihiliation' or invasion of
America itself (which would be stupid of Russia, unless there comes a time where the American people
literally have to invite Russia in).
It's my unlearned opinion that USSA is very dangerous because it will have to go full retard in a
fight against Russia. Any victories by Russia will embolden Murika's fiefdoms to just say fuck off.
It's already happening fpr example Philipines.
The Russian military is defensive in nature, the US of offensive. The US has bases and interests
all over the world, the Russians... not so much. So I think the framing of your thought process of
how this would play out is probably wrong. The US and Russia would never go to war directly, as in
lobbing missles at each ones respective homeland, as that would mean complete annihilation of both
countries... but rather war by proxy. In that realm, the US has way more soft targets for the Russians
to hit. For a country already 20 trillion is debt, where is the tipping point? I would suggest a
lot closer than most people would think.
The New York Times reported
Tuesday that Obama won't attempt to revise the so-called "First Strike" doctrine before leaving
office in January 2017.
The paper noted he had faced criticism, including some from "former senior aides," over unfulfilled
campaign and first-term promises, to work towards "a world without nuclear weapons."
"For months, arms control advocates have argued for a series of steps to advance the pledge he
made," the Times said. "An unequivocal no-first-use pledge would have been the boldest of those measures."
The source of complaints about the President's about-face are from roughly six years ago. In 2010,
when Obama renewed the START treaty with Russia, he also agreed to modernize the US nuclear arsenal,
per Congressional Republicans' demands.
The Times said that a shift away from First Strike would be mostly cosmetic, with US presidents
dating back to Harry Truman, having pledged to only use nuclear weapons as a "last resort."
History, however, casts a pall over these pledges.
Truman ordered the dropping of two atomic bombs on an already-battered Imperial Japan in 1945,
despite the fact that some American
military officials
–at the time and, in the years after–expressed doubt that the nuclear bombings were needed to
force a Japanese surrender. Those critics included Dwight Eisenhower, Pacific fleet commander Adm.
Chester Nimitz, and Truman's Chief of Staff, Adm. William Leahy. The United States is still the only
nation in history to use nuclear weapons against an adversary.
According to The New York Times' Tuesday report, President Obama had considered a move
away from First Strike this summer, not long after he became the first US President to visit Hiroshima-the
first of the two Japanese cities targeted by nuclear weapons, under orders from Truman.
Obama was, however, persuaded to move away from altering the policy by his cabinet. The Secretaries
of Defense, State and Energy-Ash Carter, John Kerry, and Ernest Moniz-were all opposed to the move.
Kerry and Carter were particularly concerned about upsetting allies in East Asia, South Korea
and Japan, in the context of perceived US "weakness," in the face of possible North Korean military
strikes.
The Times also noted Kerry objecting to "weaken[ing] the nuclear deterrent while Russia is running
practice bombing runs over Europe and China is expanding its reach in the South China Sea."
President Obama also ran the risk of adopting a policy that would be quickly reversed by the next
administration, the paper noted.
"[Donald] Trump bristled at the idea [of abandoning first strike], saying he would never want
to weaken America's leverage," The Times said. "[Hillary] Clinton has not spoken on the issue
during her campaign."
"... America has entered one of its periods of historical madness, but this the worst I can remember: worse than McCarthyism, worse that the Bay of Pigs and in the long term potentially more disastrous than the Vietnam War. ~John le Carre ..."
"... If 15 years of endless wars, trillions of dollars of wasted money, hundreds of thousands of casualties on all sides and metastasizing terrorist threat with no end in sight doesn't give one a little pause before advocating more of the same, then we might have a problem. ..."
"... Hillary said twice during the debates that "America is great because America is good." Translation: We can do whatever we damn well please because we can. Lord, help us all. I'm so sick of hearing this and our endless criminal wars. ..."
"... Yes but they are usually in full agreement with the Koch brothers, who have been financing WGBH Educational Foundation since 2008 (owners of PBS, Frontline and most of the "content" shows on NPR). ..."
America has entered one of its periods of historical madness, but this the worst I can remember:
worse than McCarthyism, worse that the Bay of Pigs and in the long term potentially more disastrous
than the Vietnam War. ~John le Carre
historical madness/hysterical madness … take your pick.
It is terrifying to watch Clinton rave about adopting a more "muscular, aggressive" approach
to foreign affairs - with little or no push back from the national media, either party or even
many citizens. Hell, they are applause lines at her rallies.
If 15 years of endless wars, trillions of dollars of wasted money, hundreds of thousands
of casualties on all sides and metastasizing terrorist threat with no end in sight doesn't
give one a little pause before advocating more of the same, then we might have a problem.
she's a scorned woman beginning with her father. she's passive-aggressive with women…projects
her never ending insecurities. SO she has something to prove…vengeance is mine.
Hillary said twice during the debates that "America is great because America is good." Translation:
We can do whatever we damn well please because we can. Lord, help us all. I'm so sick of hearing
this and our endless criminal wars.
"Battlegrounds: The Fight for Mosul and Election Day Disruptions" (podcast) [Foreign Policy
Editor's Roundtable].
"…historians will look back on it as "a forty year's war," without ever once giving a reason
for us to be there. Soothing NPR voices, no anger, a lot of laughter. Smart people."
This is what the "smart people" are so able to do: always find the humor in war and poverty
and keep it ever so polite. It's really revolting. Could have gone under Guillotine Watch.
Guess I'm happy to be stupid and angry.
Yes but they are usually in full agreement with the Koch brothers, who have been financing
WGBH Educational Foundation since 2008 (owners of PBS, Frontline and most of the "content"
shows on NPR).
Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday it was hard for him to work with the current U.S.
administration because it did not stick to any agreements, including on Syria.
Putin said he was ready to engage with a new president however, whoever the American people chose,
and to discuss any problem.
Trump
claims that Clinton's policy on Syria would lead to World War 3.
Let's fact check …
The Washington Post
points out that a vote for Clinton is a vote for escalating military confrontation in Syria and
elsewhere:
In the rarefied world of the Washington foreign policy establishment, President Obama's departure
from the White House - and the possible return of a more conventional and hawkish Hillary Clinton
- is being met with quiet relief.
The Republicans and Democrats who make up the foreign policy elite are laying the groundwork
for a more assertive American foreign policy, via a flurry of reports shaped by officials who
are likely to play senior roles in a potential Clinton White House .
***
The studies, which reflect Clinton's stated views, break most forcefully with Obama on Syria
…. call[ing] for stepped-up military action to deter President Bashar al-Assad's regime and Russian
forces in Syria.
***
Most of the studies propose limited American airstrikes with cruise missiles to punish Assad
….
***
Last year, Obama dismissed calls for a no-fly zone in northwestern Syria - a position advocated
by Clinton - as "
half-baked ."
***
Even pinprick cruise-missile strikes designed to hobble the Syrian air force or punish Assad
would risk a direct confrontation with Russian forces, which are scattered throughout the key
Syrian military bases that would be targeted.
"You can't pretend you can go to war against Assad and not go to war against the Russians,"
said a senior administration official who is involved in Middle East policy and was granted anonymity
to discuss internal White House deliberations.
The most liberal presidential candidate still running – Green Party candidate Jill Stein – says:
Hillary Clinton wants to start an air war with Russia. Let's be clear: That's what a no-fly
zone means. It is tantamount to a declaration of war against Russia.
***
Clearly the Democrats are incredibly embarrassed about the nature of these revelations, and
they've created a smokescreen here to try and distract from that. But that smokescreen is pushing
us to the brink of warfare with Russia now, where you have the U.S. head of defense, Ashton Carter,
talking about nuclear war. We just did a dry run dropping fake nuclear bombs over Nevada. This
is really dangerous stuff; this is not pretend. So we need to take a deep breath here, we need
to step back and stop beating the war drums. In this context, Hillary Clinton is talking about
starting an air war with Russia. Which could slide-you know, we're on the verge of nuclear war
right now.
***
The most likely nuclear threat right now is with Russia. There's no doubt about that. When
you have Mikhail Gorbachev, who was the prime minister of the Soviet Union during the Cold War,
saying that the threat of nuclear war is hotter now than it has ever been in all of history, you've
got to take that pretty seriously. And when you have Hillary Clinton then beating the war drums
against Russia, and essentially saying that if she's elected that we will declare war on Russia-because
that's what a no-fly zone over Syria amounts to. Shooting down Russian warplanes.
***
Hillary Clinton is a disastrous nuclear threat right now in a context where we're already off-the-charts
in the risk of nuclear war. She has stated in this context that she's essentially opening up a
battlefront with Russia. So to my mind, this emerges as the clearest and most present danger.
Prominent liberal economist Jeffrey Sachs
writes in the Huffington Post, in an essay bannered " Hillary Is the Candidate of the War
Machine ":
It is often believed that the Republicans are the neocons and the Democrats act as restraints
on the warmongering. This is not correct. Both parties are divided between neocon hawks and cautious
realists who don't want the US in unending war. Hillary is a staunch neocon whose record of favoring
American war adventures explains much of our current security danger.
Just as the last Clinton presidency set the stage for financial collapse, it also set the stage
for unending war. On October 31, 1998 President Clinton signed the
Iraq
Liberation Act that made it official US policy to support "regime change" in Iraq.
It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed
by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime.
Thus were laid the foundations for the Iraq War in 2003.
Of course, by 2003, Hillary was a Senator and a staunch supporter of the Iraq War, which has
cost the US trillions of dollars, thousands of lives, and done more to create ISIS and Middle
East instability than any other single decision of modern foreign policy. In defending her vote,
Hillary parroted the phony propaganda of the CIA:
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein
has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability,
and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including
Al Qaeda members… "
After the Iraq Liberation Act came the 1999 Kosovo War, in which Bill Clinton called in NATO
to bomb Belgrade, in the heart of Europe, and unleashing another decade of unrest in the Balkans.
Hillary, traveling in Africa, called Bill: "I urged him to bomb," she told reporter Lucinda Frank.
Hillary's record as Secretary of State is among the most militaristic, and disastrous, of modern
US history . Some experience. Hilary was a staunch defender of the military-industrial-intelligence
complex at every turn, helping to spread the Iraq mayhem over a swath of violence that now stretches
from Mali to Afghanistan. Two disasters loom largest: Libya and Syria.
Hillary has been much attacked for the deaths of US diplomats in Benghazi, but her tireless
promotion of the overthrow Muammar Qaddafi by NATO bombing is the far graver disaster. Hillary
strongly promoted NATO-led regime change in Libya, not only in violation of international law
but counter to the most basic good judgment. After the NATO bombing, Libya descended into civil
war while the paramilitaries and unsecured arms stashes in Libya quickly spread west across the
African Sahel and east to Syria. The Libyan disaster has spawned war in Mali, fed weapons to Boko
Haram in Nigeria, and fueled ISIS in Syria and Iraq. In the meantime,
Hillary found it hilarious
to declare of Qaddafi: "We came, we saw, he died."
Perhaps the crowning disaster of this long list of disasters has been Hillary's relentless
promotion of CIA-led regime change in Syria . Once again Hillary bought into the CIA propaganda
that regime change to remove Bashir al-Assad would be quick, costless, and surely successful.
In August 2011, Hillary led the US into disaster with her declaration Assad must
"get out of the way," backed by
secret CIA operations.
Five years later, no place on the planet is more ravaged by unending war, and no place poses
a great threat to US security. More than 10 million Syrians are displaced, and the refugees are
drowning in the Mediterranean or undermining the political stability of Greece, Turkey, and the
European Union. Into the chaos created by the secret CIA-Saudi operations to overthrow Assad,
ISIS has filled the vacuum, and has used Syria as the base for worldwide terrorist attacks.
The list of her incompetence and warmongering goes on. Hillary's support at every turn for
NATO expansion, including even into Ukraine and Georgia against all common sense, was a trip wire
that violated the post-Cold War settlement in Europe in 1991 and that led to Russia's violent
counter-reactions in both Georgia and Ukraine. As Senator in 2008, Hilary co-sponsored
2008-SR439 , to include Ukraine and Georgia in NATO. As Secretary of State, she then presided
over the restart of the Cold War with Russia.
It is hard to know the roots of this record of disaster. Is it chronically bad judgment? Is
it her preternatural faith in the lying machine of the CIA? Is it a repeated attempt to show that
as a Democrat she would be more hawkish than the Republicans? Is it to satisfy her hardline campaign
financiers? Who knows? Maybe it's all of the above. But whatever the reasons, hers is a record
of disaster. Perhaps more than any other person, Hillary can lay claim to having stoked the violence
that stretches from West Africa to Central Asia and that threatens US security .
Trump would probably be the better choice in the question of war and peace than Clinton.
Clinton has expressly expressed the wish to establish a flight ban on Syria, or parts of it.
*** In truth, it would be an act of war. The risks are unpredictable. Above all, the risk of a
military conflict with Russia.
***
The highest soldier of the United States of America, General Joseph Dunford, President of the
United States General Staff of the United States Forces, is certain. To control the entire airspace
over Syria would mean war with Syria and Russia. Dunford's predecessor in office estimated a few
years ago that an effective flight bomb over Syria would involve the use of 70,000 soldiers and
a monthly cost of $ 1 billion.
But the bottom line is Clinton's proven historical track record … she's at least partly responsible
for war after catastrophic war and coup after disastrous coup in
Libya, Syria, Kosovo, Haiti, Honduras and
other countries
around the world.
"... Hillary has suggested on several occasions publicly that Trump cannot be trusted with the 'Nuclear Codes' because he is erratic and unstable. Now that most people agree that no matter where they came from the Wikileaks is telling the truth we can see how Hillary's own people are scared of her 'mood swings' and her health problems.... ..."
"... She is the one who should not have access to the Nuclear Codes much less be running for President ..."
"... Hillary's own campaign team is waging a war on women. ..."
"... The American media, nothing but despicable State Sycophant Propaganda Ministry runt traitors! ..."
"... Whether Russia is behind it or not is irrelevant. Its not like the USA is an innocent player in hacking other countries. What's of importance is the contents of the emails. Whoever hacked them - if any at all (they were most likely provided by disgruntled DNC insiders) did not alter them (as proven by security checks). HRC, the DNC and her campaign team are deeply corrupt, hence she is unqualified to lead the USA. ..."
"... So here's the REAL story. Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to retrieve US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission. Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi. Then some of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military. It was July 25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own Stingers, but the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had to land anyway. An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams. ..."
"... It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft. Then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK'd the BS talking points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video. ..."
"... Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about, why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even though everyone knew it was not. Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone KNEW he was a traitor. ..."
Hillary has suggested on several occasions publicly that Trump cannot be trusted with the 'Nuclear
Codes' because he is erratic and unstable. Now that most people agree that no matter where they came
from the Wikileaks is telling the truth we can see how Hillary's own people are scared of her 'mood
swings' and her health problems....
She is the one who should not have access to the Nuclear
Codes much less be running for President because she also is a Criminal and belongs in Federal
Prison.
This is coded speech microaggression. They are discriminating against her because she is a
woman, implying she is 'moody' you know 'hysterical'... hysterectomy... its sexist, its misogynist
its harassment, its abuse, its hate speech.
Come on Liberal media, where are you ... call it out... this is your bread and butter...
Hillary's own campaign team is waging a war on women.
They did it to Sarah Palin and Barbara Bachman... You know they'd do it if Trump said Hillary
was 'moody'.
The American media, nothing but despicable State Sycophant Propaganda Ministry runt traitors!
Whether Russia is behind it or not is irrelevant. Its not like the USA is an innocent player
in hacking other countries. What's of importance is the contents of the emails. Whoever hacked
them - if any at all (they were most likely provided by disgruntled DNC insiders) did not alter
them (as proven by security checks). HRC, the DNC and her campaign team are deeply corrupt, hence
she is unqualified to lead the USA.
Wikileaks needs to get this out (I have not verified the info sent to me last night):
So here's the REAL story. Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to retrieve
US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission.
Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi. Then some
of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military. It was July
25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own Stingers, but the idiot
Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had to land anyway. An ordnance
team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept
in Qatar by the CIA Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to
retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the stand down
orders given to multiple commando teams.
It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus
wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft. Then,
Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK'd the BS talking
points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video.
Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about,
why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two weeks
after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even though everyone
knew it was not. Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy
without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing
the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone
KNEW he was a traitor.
So we have a traitor as POTUS that is not only corrupt, but compromised...and a woman that
is a serial liar, perjured herself multiple times at the Hearing whom is running for POTUS. Only
the Dems, with their hands out, palms up, will support her. Perhaps this is why no military aircraft
was called in…because the administration knew our enemies had Stingers.
Tim Kaine: "I don't think we can dignify documents dumped by WikiLeaks and just assume that they're
all accurate and true,"
They were confirmed true when John Podesta's Twitter password was distributed in one of the
WikiLeaks email releases and his Twitter account was hijacked the same day by a troll saying,
"Trump 2016! Hi pol". Checkmate b!tch. see more DNC Russian Hacker Pepe
Regular Guy •
12 minutes ago The way they parse words, the Kaine statement still doesn't state the documents
are not accurate. He makes an editorial statement to mislead the listener into thinking there
is some reason to question the facts.
Sounds pretty much like poor temperament to me when you have mood problems. Can we please put
national security on hold for now, we have to check her mood ring. It is imperative for the best
outcome that we check her head space. WOW! That's a real dumb explanation. Maybe if we use the
word mood instead of temperament that will be better than telling people she has health problems
in her head.
"... So here's the REAL story. Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to retrieve US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight or permission. Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc Turi. Then some of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own military. It was July 25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own Stingers, but the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had to land anyway. An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA Obama and Hillary were now in full panic mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die" mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams. ..."
"... It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because Petraeus wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial aircraft. Then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he OK'd the BS talking points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video. ..."
"... Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about, why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even though everyone knew it was not. Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and abetted the enemy without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the Taliban began pushing the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone KNEW he was a traitor. ..."
Wikileaks needs to get this out (I have not verified the info sent to me last night):
So here's the REAL story. Amb. Stevens was sent to Benghazi post haste in order to
retrieve US made Stinger missiles supplied to Ansar al Sharia without Congressional oversight
or permission. Hillary brokered the deal through Stevens and a private arms dealer named Marc
Turi. Then some of the shoulder fired missiles ended up in Afghanistan used against our own
military. It was July 25th, 2012 when a Chinook helicopter was taken down by one of our own
Stingers, but the idiot Taliban didn't arm the missile and the Chinook didn't explode, but had
to land anyway. An ordnance team recovered the serial number off the missile which led back to
a cache of Stingers being kept in Qatar by the CIA Obama and Hillary were now in full panic
mode and Stevens was sent in to retrieve the rest of the Stingers. This was a "do-or-die"
mission, which explains the stand down orders given to multiple commando teams.
It was the State Dept, not the CIA that supplied them to our sworn enemies, because
Petraeus wouldn't supply these deadly weapons due to their potential use on commercial
aircraft. Then, Obama threw Gen. Petraeus under the bus after he refused to testify that he
OK'd the BS talking points about a spontaneous uprising due to a Youtube video.
Obama and Hillary committed treason...and THIS is what the investigation is all about,
why she had a private server, (in order to delete the digital evidence), and why Obama, two
weeks after the attack, told the UN that the attack was because of a Youtube video, even
though everyone knew it was not. Further...the Taliban knew that this administration aided and
abetted the enemy without Congressional approval when Boehner created the Select Cmte, and the
Taliban began pushing the Obama Administration for the release of 5 Taliban Generals. Bowe
Bergdahl was just a pawn...everyone KNEW he was a traitor.
So we have a traitor as POTUS that is not only corrupt, but compromised...and a woman that
is a serial liar, perjured herself multiple times at the Hearing whom is running for POTUS.
Only the Dems, with their hands out, palms up, will support her. Perhaps this is why no
military aircraft was called in…because the administration knew our enemies had Stingers.
"... A few comparisons are in order. In their fine review of French history since 1870, Alice L. Conklin, Sarah Fishman, and Robert Zaretsky point out that French leaders at Vichy had several bargaining chips they could use against Hitler, but decided not to play them "because they had other priorities on their mind, including a 'National Revolution' to remake France, politically, socially, and economically." ..."
"... Petain was accompanied by legions of experts, administrators, and technocrats, who shared Petain's disdain for ordinary people and democratic processes, and by strident French fascists who even welcomed their country's defeat. Indeed, although fascists hated democracy, they also believed that Petain's measures did not go far enough to remake the country's institutions. The main thing this menagerie of "minorities" -- to use Stanley Hoffmann's phrase -- had in common was the loathing they shared of their own country. ..."
"... France was saved from its Vichy insanities by a country that was proclaimed, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, as the "last best hope on earth" -- that is, by the United States. The question is: Who will save America from its own Vichy regime? ..."
For the French, revisiting the time period when the Vichy Regime ruled what was left of the
country after its humiliating defeat by the Germans in 1940 involves trauma. But the lessons
imparted by those dark years of Nazi occupation transcend historical era and nationality,
touching upon equivalent circumstances in the United States for the past few years. Equivalent,
not identical: clearly, phalanxes of Nazi troops aren't goose-stepping down Pennsylvania
Avenue....
A few comparisons are in order. In their fine review of French history since 1870, Alice L. Conklin,
Sarah Fishman, and Robert Zaretsky point out that French leaders at Vichy had several bargaining
chips they could use against Hitler, but decided not to play them "because they had other priorities
on their mind, including a 'National Revolution' to remake France, politically, socially, and economically."
France's new leader, the 84-year-old Marshall Petain, was a deeply reactionary veteran who loathed
the Third Republic crushed by the Germans and vowed to take advantage of France's crisis to obliterate
the past and install a centralized, authoritarian government. His rejection of liberalism, egalitarianism,
and democracy prompted measures designed to return France to its pre-revolutionary roots: cities,
industrial plants, and factories were rejected in favor of a return to nature, to villages and small
shops. On top of this heap of nouveau-peasantry loomed the Marshall himself, whose grandfatherly
physiognomy was plastered on buildings in public arenas all over the country to remind French subjects
of who was in charge.
Petain was accompanied by legions of experts, administrators, and technocrats, who shared Petain's
disdain for ordinary people and democratic processes, and by strident French fascists who even welcomed
their country's defeat. Indeed, although fascists hated democracy, they also believed that Petain's
measures did not go far enough to remake the country's institutions. The main thing this menagerie
of "minorities" -- to use Stanley Hoffmann's phrase -- had in common was the loathing they shared
of their own country.
... .. ..
Further, like his aged counterpart before him, President Obama took advantage of a crisis to
"transform" American institutions instead of grappling with the country's main problems --
national debt, unemployment, recession, and burgeoning entitlement costs, to name a few. He made
matters worse by augmenting entitlements, exploding federal deficits, exacerbating unemployment,
and blaming others for the inevitable mess that ensued...
... ... ...
France was saved from its Vichy insanities by a country that was proclaimed, in the words of Abraham
Lincoln, as the "last best hope on earth" -- that is, by the United States. The question is: Who
will save America from its own Vichy regime?
Dr. Marvin Folkertsma is a professor of political science and Fellow for American Studies with
The Center for Vision & Values
at Grove City College. The author of several books, his latest release is a high-energy
novel titled "The Thirteenth Commandment."
As
an old SDS-er, I found it hard to see Tom Hayden go. However meandering his path, he was at the heart
of radical history in the 60s, an erstwhile companion, if not always a comrade, on the route of every
boomer lefty.
One of his finer moments for me, which I've never seen mentioned (including among this week's
encomia) since he wrote it, was his 2006
article
, published on CounterPunch with an introduction by Alexander Cockburn, in which he apologized
for a "descent into moral ambiguity and realpolitick that still haunts me today." It would be respectful
of Hayden's admirers and critics, on the occasion of his passing, to remember which of his actions
"haunted" him the most.
The title of the article says it clearly: "I Was Israel's Dupe." In the essay, Hayden apologizes
for his support of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, which was for him that "descent into
moral ambiguity" More importantly, he explains why he did it, in a detailed narrative that everyone
should read.
Hayden sold out, as he tells it, because, in order to run as a Democratic candidate for the California
State Assembly, he had get the approval of the influential Democratic congressman Howard Berman.
Berman is a guy who, when he became Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, was proud to
tell the
Forward that he took the job because of his "interest in the Jewish state" and that: "Even before
I was a Democrat, I was a Zionist."
Hayden had to meet with Howard's brother Michael, who, acting as "the gatekeeper protecting
Los Angeles' Westside for Israel's political interests," told Hayden: "I represent the Israeli Defense
Forces"-a sentence that could serve as the motto of most American congress critters today. The "Berman-Waxman
machine," Hayden was told, would deign to "rent" him the Assembly seat on the "one condition: that
I always be a 'good friend of Israel.'"
But American congressmen were not the only "gatekeepers" through whose hands Hayden had to pass
before being allowed to run for Congress. Other "certifiers" included "the elites, beginning with
rabbis and heads of the multiple mainstream Jewish organizations, the American-Israel Political
Action Committee (AIPAC), [and].. Israeli ambassadors, counsels general and other officials."
In fact, Hayden had to, in his words, be "declared 'kosher' by the ultimate source, the region's
representative of the state of Israel," Benjamin Navon, Israel's Counsul-general in Los Angeles.
In other words, in this article Hayden was describing, in an unusually concrete way, how the
state of Israel, through its state officials and their compliant American partners, was effectively
managing-exercising veto power over Democratic Party candidates, at the very least-American elections
down to the level of State Assembly . In any constituency "attuned to the question of Israel,
even in local and state elections," Hayden knew he "had to be certified 'kosher,' not once but over
and over again."
This experience prompted Hayden to express a "fear that the 'Israeli lobby' is working overtime
to influence American public opinion on behalf of Israel's military effort to 'roll back the clock'
and 'change the map' of the region." Hayden warned of the "trepidation and confusion among rank-and-file
voters and activists, and the paralysis of politicians, especially Democrats," over support of Israel.
He vowed to "not make the same mistake again," and said: "Most important, Americans must not be timid
in speaking up, as I was 25 years ago."
Whatever else he did-and he was never particularly radical about Palestine-this article was a
genuinely honest and unusual intervention, and it deserves a lot more notice-as a moment in Tom Hayden's
history and that of the American left-than it has got. Looking back and regretfully acknowledging
that one had been duped and morally compromised by what seemed the least troublesome path 25 years
earlier, saying "I woulda, shoulda, coulda done the right thing," is a haunting moment for anyone.
Doing it in a way that exposes in detail how a foreign country constantly manipulates American elections
over decades is worthy of everyone's notice.
I doubt Hillary and her Democratic supporters will have anything to say about this "interference
"in American elections, even local and state. But I do hope many of those who are touched by the
loss of Tom Hayden heed these words from him, and don't wait another 25 years to overcome their "fear
and confusion" about saying and doing the right thing regarding the crimes of Israel, troublesome
as that might be.
Instead, there's the very real possibility that as millennials age, they are less apt to stomach
a thing called hope. The Obama presidency did not usher in a new age of cooperation. Nancy Pelosi and
John Boehner did not announce they would be going on a nationwide concert tour performing the hits of
the Carpenters.
Racial tension, climate change, gun violence, terrorism, and poverty persist. Easy answers do
not exist, and even if they did, they wouldn't be coming from one of the two major political parties
– groups often more concerned with their own survival than practical solutions to tangible issues. As
the global situation appears to become more and more hopeless – thanks to actual horrors, plus the media
saturation that occurs after every tragedy, which amplifies our malaise – it should come as no surprise
that millennials as a group and the nation at large disagree on how to turn things around.
Consensus might just be a thing of the past; MTV is far from the unchallenged thought leader for
American youth. What this election might be remembered for is the moment when the American political
system became so ossified and incapable of solutions that we decided, at last, to junk it and start
from scratch.
Identity politics provides cover for, and diversion from, class rule and from the deeper structures
of class, race, gender, empire, and eco-cide that haunt American and global life today – structures
that place children of liberal white North Side Chicago professionals in posh 40 th -story
apartments overlooking scenic Lake Michigan while consigning children of felony-branded Black custodians
and fast food workers to cramped apartments in crime-ridden South Side neighborhoods where nearly
half the kids are growing up at less than half the federal government's notoriously inadequate poverty
level. Most of the Black kids in deeply impoverished and hyper-segregated neighborhoods like Woodlawn
and Englewood (South Side) or North Lawndale and Garfield Park (West Side) can forget not only about
going to a World Series game but even about watching one on television. Their parents don't have
cable and the Fox Sports 1 channel. There's few if any local restaurants and taverns with big-screen
televisions in safe walking distance from their homes. Major League Baseball ticket prices being
what they are, few of the South Side kids have even seen the White Sox – Chicago's South Side American
League team, whose ballpark lacks the affluent white and gentrified surroundings of Wrigley Field.
(Thanks in no small part to the urban social geography of race and class in Chicago, the White Sox
winning the World Series in 2005 – thei
... ... ...
There is, yes, I know, the problem of Democrats in the White House functioning to stifle social movements
and especially peace activism (the antiwar movement has still yet to recover from the Obama experience).
But there's more good news here about a Hillary presidency. Not all Democratic presidents are equally
good at shutting progressive activism down. As the likely Green Party presidential candidate Jill
Stein (for whom I took five minutes to early vote in a "contested state" three weeks ago) noted in
an interview with me last April (when the White Sox still held first place in their division), Hillary
Clinton will have considerably less capacity to deceive and bamboozle progressive and young workers
and citizens than Barack Obama enjoyed in 2007-08 . "Obama," Stein noted, was fairly new on the
scene. Hillary," by contrast, "has been a warmonger who never found a war she didn't love forever!"
Hillary's corporatist track record – ably documented in Doug Henwood's book
My
Turn: Hillary Clinton Targets the Presidency (her imperial track record receives equally
impressive treatment in Diana Johnstone's volume
Queen of Chaos:
The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton ) – is also long and transparently bad. All that and
Mrs. Clinton's remarkable lacks of charisma and trustworthiness could be useful for left activism
and politics in coming years.
For what it's worth, the first and most urgent place to restore such activism and politics
is in the area where Barack Obama has been most deadening: foreign policy, also known (when conducted
by the U.S.) as imperialism. When it comes to prospects for World War III, it is by no means clear
that the saber-rattling, regime-changing, NATO-expanding, and Russia-baiting Hillary Clinton is the
"lesser evil" compared to the preposterous Trump. That's no small matter. During a friend's birthday
party the night the Cubs clinched the National League pennant, I asked fellow celebrants and inebriates
if they were prepared for the fundamental realignment of the space-time continuum that was coming
when the North Siders won the league championship. That was a joke, of course, but there's nothing
funny about the heightened chances of a real downward existential adjustment resulting from war between
nuclear superpowers when the "lying neoliberal warmonger" Hillary Clinton gets into office and insists
on recklessly imposing a so-called no-fly zone over Russia-allied Syria.
"... In two party politics, generally political parties are mediating institutions, which moderate the claims of the interest groups composing them. However, when it switches to immutable characteristics, political parties become the vehicles of extremism, as each party tries to the "outbid" the other party in claims for dominance for its members. Further, each victory by the rival party spurs fears and polarization by the losers. Generally, you see de-stablization and violence in its wake. Its a good way to destroy a democracy. ..."
Then comes the final punchline, "Lives That Matter." Obviously, the answer to the question
is "black." But Doug has "a lot to say about this." Which suggests that he doesn't think the answer
is that simple. Perhaps he thinks "all lives matter," or that "blue lives matter," the phrasing
used by those who defend the status quo of policing and criminal justice. Either way, this puts
him in direct conflict with the black people he's befriended. As viewers, we know that "Black
Lives Matter" is a movement against police violence, for the essential safety and security of
black Americans. It's a demand for fair and equal treatment as citizens, as opposed to a pervasive
assumption of criminality.
Thompson, Zamata, and Jones might see a lot to like in Doug, but if he can't sign on to the
fact that black Americans face unique challenges and dangers, then that's the end of the game.
Tucked into this six-minute sketch is a subtle and sophisticated analysis of American politics.
It's not that working blacks and working whites are unable to see the things they have in common;
it's that the material interests of the former-freedom from unfair scrutiny, unfair detention,
and unjust killings-are in direct tension with the identity politics of the latter (as represented
in the sketch by the Trump hat). And in fact, if Hanks' character is a Trump supporter, then all
the personal goodwill in the world doesn't change the fact that his political preferences are
a direct threat to the lives and livelihoods of his new friends, a fact they recognize.
What Bouie doesn't seem to get is that black identity politics and the preferences of those who
espouse them are a direct threat to the livelihoods and interests of many whites - and even, at times,
their lives (
hello, Brian Ogle! ).
Consider this insanity from Michigan State University, pointed out by a reader this morning. It's
the Facebook page of Which Side
Are You On? , radical student organization whose stated purpose is:
Michigan State University has chosen to remain silent on the issue of racial injustice and
police brutality. We demand that the administration release a statement in support of the Movement
for Black Lives; and, in doing so, affirms the value of the lives of its students, alumni, and
future Spartans of color while recognizing the alienation and oppression that they face on campus.
In the absence of open support, MSU is taking the side of the oppressor.
Got that? Either 100 percent agree with them, or you are a racist oppressor. It's fanatical, and
it's an example of bullying. But as we have seen over the past year, year and a half, Black Lives
Matter and related identity politics movements (Which Side Are You On? says it is not affiliated
with BLM) are by no means only about police brutality. If they were, this wouldn't be a hard call.
No decent person of any race supports police brutality. To use Bouie's terms, the material interests
of non-progressive white people are often in direct tension with the identity politics of many blacks
and their progressive non-black allies. This is true beyond racial identity politics. It's true of
LGBT identity politics also. But progressives can't see that, because to them, what they do is not
identity politics; it's just politics.
You cannot practice and extol identity politics for groups favored by progressives without
implicitly legitimizing identity politics for groups disfavored by progressives.
Some of my best friends are supporters of police brutality.
In all seriousness, if one's identity preference is for dominance by your group, then obviously,
a member of your group dominating the other group isn't going to bother you. Nor, on the other
side, will you be troubled if your group shoots perceived agents of the other side. But note,
the justification for racial primacy or racial supremacy is always rhetorically made by asserting
claims or the threat of racial primacy or racial supremacy by the Other. Further, racial tensions
are always caused by the behavior of the Other, and your groups actions are always "self defense".
Of course, your actions are always portrayed as "aggression" by the Other, and lead to ratcheting
up of anti-social behavior, but hey.
I sort of assume that is not how most whites feel, but the reality is whether it is or not,
if you turn the political question from legal equality for blacks to legal primacy or dominance,
then you will push whites into taking the adversary position.
In two party politics, generally political parties are mediating institutions, which moderate
the claims of the interest groups composing them. However, when it switches to immutable characteristics,
political parties become the vehicles of extremism, as each party tries to the "outbid" the other
party in claims for dominance for its members. Further, each victory by the rival party spurs
fears and polarization by the losers. Generally, you see de-stablization and violence in its wake.
Its a good way to destroy a democracy.
I love "Black Lives Matter" as a slogan, because it is ambiguous enough to be either a claim
for dominance or primacy. Obviously, whether a BLM will support the assertion "All Lives Matter"
is a litmus test for whether they are asserting racial supremacy or racial primacy. But plausible
deniability is baked in.
I don't mind identity politics, by which I assume you mean people appealing to voters to vote
for their pet interest because it will help people with a particular set of characteristics or
"identity". This is just people looking out for and lobbying the voting public on their interests,
which is what democracy is all about.
What I don't like is the stunning illogic and flawed reasoning behind some of the appeals,
such as the "you're either with BLM or against black people" arguments, the policing of miniscule
variations in speech (eg pronouns) as signs of haaaaaaaate, and the labeling of all white people
as "white supremacists" unless they self-flagellate and take personal blame for all the police
shootings. And, I think these people know that the reasoning is flawed. It's just that they also
know that if you repeat it long and loud enough and have enough leaders behind you willing to
fire or otherwise silence anyone who points out the flaws in your arguments, then you can convince
everyone that it all makes sense.
I think what is being lost is really the underlying logic of morality itself. Kids are being
taught that it doesn't matter what your intention is, it doesn't matter what your reasoning is,
it doesn't even matter whether an outcome is predictable from your action. What matters is how
the people in identity groups feel about your action. It's consequentialism run amok.
It's as if someone took Catholic reasoning on morality (grave matter, full knowledge, deliberate
consent, don't do wrong things in order to achieve good ends, principle of double effect), reversed
it, and then decided that this upside-down reasoning will be our new publicly mandated morality.
It's fascinating to watch but I feel a bit frightened for my children, because they will have
to deal with this new and deeply flawed public morality.
"Let me explain something to you. Are you sitting down? Because this is going to come as a shock.
Ready? We have been steadily moving away from white identity politics. A lot of people fought
and died to end white supremacy. Replacing it with a form of politics that treats blacks as some
sort of chosen people because of the color of their skin is regress, and puts that progress towards
equal justice for all, regardless of their skin color, in jeopardy."
For the most part, probably a fair observation. And it only took a couple of hundred years
(or more, depending on where you chose to say "white identity politics" started and when (or if)
you chose to say it ended).
Low long have black identity politics had any influence?
How long does it take, and at what "price" to atone for the past? Haven't we been grappling
with that since Lincoln's second inaugural address?
Will black identity politics be around longer than that? And when will white identity politics
end? Not to mention all of the other identity politics in society. But, identity politics always
takes at least two sides. You can never have identity politics without "the other." Black identity
politics wouldn't last without white identity politics, and vice versa. So too for feminism identity
politics, religious identity politics…and…so…on… Each has its counterpart on the other side.
In a perfect world, identity politics would not exist, but in the real world, they have existed
for as long as politics.
Not that I don't see some hope. By and large, the younger generation gives me every hope that,
some day, we might get over this, but probably not until a few score more generational replacements
happen. But that too, might be a source of reassurance. A few score generations isn't really that
long a time, after all.
How in the blue blazes do you possibly do you go from folks having confidence in the police
to them ALSO NOT being bothered by police brutality? How are those two things linked in your mind?
Can you not possibly fathom that another human being could have confidence in an institution (or
a group) while ALSO condemning the bad actors in that institution (or group)? Or in your mind
do a few bad actors condemn an entire group?
Here is your "logic" re-written in another way. Does it help you see my point?
61% of non-white people have either "very little" or a "no" of confidence in the police. I'm not
saying all 61% of those people are OK with attacking or murdering the police, but they seem not
to be that bothered by it.
Now possibly I am the only who finds your thought process disturbing and wonders how many other
folks make the same leap of absurdity.
In reply the religious liberty comments, I think almost everyone who supports BLM would say that
it is about giving African Americans basic human rights in the United States. You might not agree
with that, but that's how things stand from their point of view. To many liberals, religious liberty
seems like special pleading, even though to you it seems like the advancement of a universal principal.
"Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing
another." Karl Marx
"All that is not race in this world is trash… All historical events… are only the expression
of the race's instinct of self-preservation." Adolf Hitler
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly
and applying the wrong remedies." Groucho Marx
I do not think that all politics is "identity" politics.
The Populists going after the gold standard, or the New Dealers attempting to deal with the
problems of labor and capital, where not primarily about identity politics.
Certainly, there was lots of identity politics on the state level, whether in the South, or
in states like NY, in the battle between upstate WASPs and ethnic political machines in NYC.
Today we are increasingly nationalizing identity politics. Moreover, we are mainstreaming a
slogan based on racial primacy /supremacy, e.g. "Black Lives Matter". You are seeing increasing
attacks on traditional American symbols and calls for their replacement with "diverse" symbols.
This is not just identity politics, it is ethnopolitics.
The reality is that the political symbol is in the heart of the people a promise that they'll
be treated preferentially. I think that is part of the racial tension post-Obama. We elected an
African-American, who appointed a lot of African-Americans, but on the street, he hasn't done
$#!+ to help Blacks.
Now, if I thought that whites would just lay down and not resist racial subjugation and discrimination,
I wouldn't be concerned. But I doubt whites are seriously going to go gracefully into that good
night as the bottom rung of a racial caste system.
"Virtue signaling" is very different from "virtue"–you can't tell a white nationalist from
a white liberal based on their housing or dating preferences.
If whites collectively grow to FEAR other groups politically, say due to demographic displacement
and claims by minorities for primacy/supremacy, they will change teams overnight. All this anti-racism
rhetoric presupposes white noblese oblige and security.
Any serious movement from equality to some claim of primacy or supremacy is likely to trigger
a counter-movement toward a claim of primacy or supremacy by the other group. Moreover, once you
polarize racially, the political process encourages extremism, not moderation.
One reason not to worship the U.S. Constitution is the limited understanding of factionalism
by Madison, who accounted for interest group factions (which can break up or wax and wane) but
failed to consider identity group factions based on immutable characteristics. It is these identity-based
factions which frequently destroy attempts to create liberal democracy the world over.
The reality is that representative democracy is only an effective system in ethnically homogeneous
societies with a strong ethic of individualism (rooted in Protestant ancestors). While Korea and
Japan get along politically, their political systems are "different" from a Western perspective,
mostly due to lower levels of individualism.
China is probably a better model for most countries than liberal democracy, because multiethnic
societies generally degenerate into authoritarianism anyway.
This is why, given multiculturalism and secularism, the likelihood of a serious institutional
transformation in America seems increasingly a certain bet.
Here's the brutal truth. We created Black Lives Matter.
We did it with 400 years of brutal policies, physical violence, economic apartheid and ill
conceived do gooder nonsense that could not even begin to counter the former impacts.
In the 1950's and 1960's you had one branch of the Federal Government - the Federal Housing
Authority– both building low income housing in the decaying neighborhoods that were the result
of FHA red-lining polices that were was causing the decay - total madness. The black community
has yet to recover from that by the way - trillions in lost equity in today's dollars.
We are incredibly lucky to JUST have Black Lives Matter. It's a miracle that the black community
hasn't amassed in force and burned large swaths of this country to the ground peppering us with
automatic weapons fire along the way for good measure.
It's a testament to their fortitude, generosity and patience as a people. That they have formed
this group is inevitable.
To lump BLM in with the white coddled SJW ignores their unique history and context. BLM has
no obligation whatsoever to be rational, or contrite, or forgiving, or magnanimous.
What has that ever gotten them in this country? Here's a hint, f%$k all. That's what it's gotten
them.
[NFR: Well, BLM can behave however it wants to, but don't be surprised if being irrational
and bullying gets you nowhere, except on campus run by noodle-spined administrators. - RD]
On the other hand, the notion of color-blind standards is a joke.
If you belong to a group that has an average IQ of 100 in economic competition with a group
that has an average IQ of 85, and you believe that hiring/firing be based on merit, you are promoting
a standard that benefits your group over the other guys.
Likewise, if you are from the second group, you are arguing for proportional representation
in the work force (and especially the elite), and you are promoting a standard that benefits your
group over the other guys.
If you look at Anglo-Saxons v. Blacks, Anglo-Saxons always want meritocracy.
However, if you look at elite admissions in the early 20th Century, when Anglo-Saxons were
competing against Jews, they implemented a quota system that benefited Anglo-Saxons. They also
generated a lot of Anti-Semitic conspiracy theories blaming their failures on Jewish nepotism,
rather than say Jews just being smarter.
The problem for America is someone will decide on a standard, and that decision will privilege
one group over another. Always.
The more groups, the more divisive and polarizing each decision becomes, until democracy stops
being capable of functioning, e.g. making decisions, even bad ones.
You can have "racial equality", but not "racial equality" in accordance with a definition that
all groups will ever agree upon. Further, many persons in all groups will secretly desire supremacy
no matter the rhetoric, so will work to undermine and limit nominal "equality" every political
chance they get.
" A lot of people fought and died to end white supremacy"
And what has it done? American social capital has been destroyed, our society is slowly turning
into an atomized hell, and our politics will increasingly resemble tribal warfare. The fiction
that we could make race irrelevant needs to die, group differences are real and ethnic tribalism
is hardwired into humans by our DNA. Our founders chose to limit citizenship to whites of good
character for a reason, just as Japan seeks to remain Japanese for a reason. Diversity + close
proximity = war
All politics is not identity politics. America has a rich tradition in positions of relative privilege
taking on the political cause of disenfranchised groups.
Given how many well off white people, including men, are Democrats, I really don't see why
progressives would even make that argument.
This article showed me how many people in the US live a completely different life than I do. Not
only did it change my understanding of race relations and prompt a great deal more study but it
made me more aware, generally, of how little I know of how the other 99.9% live.
Lots of hypocrites in this comment thread commenting that "identity politics is just politics,
period." Okay, white nationalism it is, then! Time to bring David Duke back out from whatever
rock he's been under and put him at the top of the ticket. Maybe Louis Farrakhan can run for something,
too. After all, why would anti-semitism ever go out of fashion, anyway! Isnt' that just identity
politics which is just regular politics, like marginal tax cuts and subsidies for electric cars?
-I don't think it's that difficult to understand the anger, stridency, and even vitriol coming
from SJW/BLM supporters. With BLM, it's a mostly righteous indignation over a long history of
abusive police tactics and laws, exploded by multiple recent captured instances of police abuse.
As for LGBTQ-issues, I think many advocates–especially those in the vanguard–view themselves
as participants in the Second Civil Rights Movement–that the laws and cultural attitudes they
are fighting against are analogous to Jim Crow and racism. There is some degree of truth to this.
The danger comes with the disturbingly common–or at least effective–practice of refusing to
grant their opponents *any* goodwill. Like racists, opponents of full legal and cultural inclusion–if
not acceptance–are deemed to be totally devoid of any redeeming features, and thus ought to be
opposed relentlessly and by any means necessary. The same goes for those who aren't indulgent
or repentant enough. We can partly thank the poisonous legacy of Marcuse's "tolerance" for this.
We can also thank old-fashioned lust for power–especially to take down "the elite" or to take
revenge–and the intoxicating feeling of being on the cutting edge of righteousness.
How do you deal with this? As KD suggested above, if one group sees itself as against others
and acts accordingly, then those others will fall into the "tribal struggle" mindset as well.
If extremist social justice advocates (SJAs) define themselves in opposition to other attitudes,
values, etc–and more importantly, if they refuse to engage in respectful dialogue and are not
willing to compromise–then those who endorse those attitudes, values, etc will inevitably see
themselves as being defined through opposition to SJAs. Thus the poison of identity politics–it
exacerbates, rather than seeks to contain Us vs Them antagonism.
The only ways I see out of it are direct, full-throated defenses of SJA's targets–such as last
year's "Coddling of the American Mind" and U Chicago's defense of free expression and respectful
challenging debate. Ignoring it–as many seem wont to do by dismissals of "oh, they're just stupid
college kids, they'll grow out of it"–isn't viable because though many will, some will pursue
positions of power and influence. Besides, the less challenged, the more the extreme views will
be seen as respectable if not correct.
-The debate over which groups are or are not practicing identity politics: In (academic) political
theory, "identity politics" narrowly refers to a style of politics based on the self-organization
of *oppressed* groups and pursuit of policy changes to their advantage. Identity comes to the
forefront of members of oppressed groups' consciousness because it is that defining characteristic
that puts them in an inferior position.
The way some have described it here suggests it's more like practicing politics in a way meant
to provide benefits for oneself–but that's just self-interest. A better broad view of identity
politics would focus on the deliberate and open advocacy of benefits for a particular group one
is a member of, when that group is defined by a specific and fundamental trait relevant to one's
sense of self. In other words, if the phrase "As a (adjective) (personal-characteristic noun),
I believe/support/oppose X" is central to your approach to politics, you're practicing identity
politics.
JWJ, you are missing the entire point of identity politics.
The morality inheres in the identity, not in the behavior.
If brutality occurs, it is not a behavior, it is an identity ("Police"). If you are confident
in "Police" you are thus confident in "brutality" because the behavior is not separable from the
identity. And for similar reasons, your confidence in brutes means that you, too are a brute (of
course this goes double if you are white, since all whites are brutes, for similar reasons).
Identity politics is the refusal to separate identity from acts. Whiteness *is* slaveowning,
blackness *is* victimhood, and so on, regardless of whether one has ever owned or been a slave;
these things are irrelevant; they inhere in the identity.
How long does it take, and at what "price" to atone for the past? Haven't we been grappling
with that since Lincoln's second inaugural address?
But here's the problem. It's not like the whites who are supporting Trump got fat, rich and
happy during their period of "white identity." Whatever privilege attaches to whiteness it hasn't
exactly trickled down (even in a Trumped-up fashion) to Trump voters. No doubt Mr. Bonner is either
upper middle class or high status (academic, journalist or government employee). But low status
whites see the world a bit differently. This is the real tragedy (or, if you're a fat cat, the
beauty) of the situation. The lower classes will always fight among themselves for scraps, the
high status (but often low pay) elites would scold the various parties for their various thoughtcrimes
and the fat cats will high five and do the truffle shuffle, bouncing their greased bellies against
each other. Thanks for doing your part.
"Now, you can try to make an argument that they are wrong, that they *are* getting equal treatment
from law enforcement and that this is all in their heads. You can try, but in all fairness, the
anecdotal and empirical evidence seem not to be on your side."
No, when correcting for crime rates, there is no racial discrepancy in police killings. In
fact, blacks are underrepresented and whites overrepresent, given the underlying proportion of
criminality in the communities.
"Replacing it with a form of politics that treats blacks as some sort of chosen people because
of the color of their skin is regress,
Who, exactly, is making this argument? Not BLM and not the mainstream liberal political establishment.
"
Uh, Hilary "whites must listen" Clinton. And lots more.
"However, if you look at elite admissions in the early 20th Century, when Anglo-Saxons were competing
against Jews, they implemented a quota system that benefited Anglo-Saxons. "
Why shouldn't the people who, you know, built the universities remain in charge of them? No
one asks Brandeis to become a WASP bastion.
"In the 1950's and 1960's you had one branch of the Federal Government - the Federal Housing Authority–
both building low income housing in the decaying neighborhoods that were the result of FHA red-lining
polices that were was causing the decay - total madness. The black community has yet to recover
from that by the way - trillions in lost equity in today's dollars"
LOL, someone's been drinking the TNC Kool-aid (purple, I imagine). It causes people to reverse
causality.
The neighborhoods were redlined because they were poor risk. They were poor risk because of
their demographic composition.
"It's a miracle that the black community hasn't amassed in force and burned large swaths of this
country to the ground peppering us with automatic weapons fire along the way for good measure."
There's not one word in the BLM guiding principles page about the police. Not one word. If you
go to their home pager and click on "what we believe" this is what you get.
If we would look into how much blacks have been killed by the police last year, the figure will
be about few hundred at maximum. If we would look into the same category for whites, the result
will be few thouthands, minimum. If we look into the statistics abut the main cause of death for
the same period, it will be black on black homicide for blacks and car accident for whites. Also,
blacks are about 13% of the American population or so, but make at least as much homicides as
whites do. And most homicides are comitted within offenders race group.
If anything, whites become targets of poluce brutality much more often. And yet, BLM are out
there preching, as if police is hunting them for no reason. That's everything you need to know
about BLM and their so called care about black lives.
That's the main problems with such groups. They don't really want to improve the lot of the
groups they are supposedly fighting for. They are just exaggerating the problem and imitating
fighting for something important, because they'll get money and recognition for it. Without real
risk to boot.
The BLM radical movement is built on a lie. Blacks are 12% of the population yet commit 53% of
murders and 70% of gun crime. In this era of cell phones, know the number of black people who
have dubious interactions with police, thanks to the scandalous behavior of the news media. We
can be sure police brutality is not an epidemic because the examples offered as evidence are,at
best , dubious. Each example given, eg Ferguson Missouri or Trayvon Martin, are at best arguably
due to the bad behavior by the black person. The real epidemic is black crime, black fatherlessness,
and too many people indulging this "I'm a victim" culture. Shame on you Mr. Dreher for delineation
this into a black and white cipher in this article. The entire country suffers from this epidemic
of black crime and the false narrative that black people are mistreated by society. This is just
another example of the madness on the political left the radical extreme hateful positions that
are exposed on that side it seems solely.
"What Bouie doesn't seem to get is that black identity politics and the preferences of those who
espouse them are a direct threat to the livelihoods and interests of many whites - and even, at
times, their lives (hello, Brian Ogle!)."
OK, livelihoods and interests I can understand even if there's the fact that if you're an average
white dude, an international student, a student with a soccer scholarship, an out of state student,
or a a legacy admission is just as likely to knock you out of your preferred school as a non-white
student is.
However, can you point me to the radio host, politician, TV commentator, or even popular Twitter
celebrity who says the people who killed Brian Ogle should go free?
Because on the other hand, there's plenty of politicians, TV commentators, writers, radio hosts,
etc. who think the police are doing a great job and that police brutality is just a liberal myth.
But in general, the whole paragraph is why for the most part, black Americans will never trust
white conservatives – you seem to imply that black Americans want carte blanche to kill white
people while in reality, black people just want to be treated as well as a confirmed mass murderer
was treated by police – to be fed some Burger King like Dylan Roof perhaps.
A moderate, peaceful, and democratic form of white identity politics that was widely representative
of the white population would be acceptable as far as I am concerned. The problem is that white
nationalists can't go two seconds without demonizing Jews, denying the holocaust, trying to justify
the Confederacy, attacking the basic assumptions of liberal democracy, and admiring various obscure
mid-20th century fascist/pseudo-fascist far right intellectuals. In that sense, white nationalists
are the equivalent of the New Black Panther Party and the Nation of Islam, as opposed to the NAACP
or BLM. That does not mean that BLM and the NAACP are not harmful to the interests of whites,
but they do not advocate a separate black ethnostate, antisemitism, or ethnic cleansing of whites.
Just watched the SNL skit. Best thing they have done all election season. It's important we understand
the motivations behind Trump's rise instead of pushing them under the surface where they fester.
I hate the term "identity politics." Identity politics are politics. Straight white people, even
liberals (hello Bernie bros), often try to exclude themselves from the definition by casting their
own thoughts as neutral while casting everyone with a marked "identity" as practicing identity
politics. People are always speaking from a point of view, and in politics they are usually advocating
to change things that negatively impact a group they are associated with.
How is the fight for "religious liberty" different from BLM? How is it not a form of identity
politics?
I agree that certain groups, especially at the university level, take into a totalitarian direction,
but casting some activism as "identity politics" while excluding other forms of special pleading
makes no sense to me.
I agree that *all* identity politics are a moral poison, white, black, Christian, Muslim, or anything
else. It is a sad fact of human nature that we are tribal and care more for people like ourselves.
This reminds me of the parable of the Good Samaritan. If we are to follow the parable, then
we are to treat others of different religions and different countries exactly as if they our neighbors,
meaning as if they are in our tribe. This is quite the opposite of identity politics.
"freedom from unfair scrutiny, unfair detention, and unjust killings" for blacks…. are a
direct threat to the livelihoods and interests of many whites.
I've moved things around a bit but in essence this is correct.
If I've got this wrong Rod, kindly let me know how.
Huh.
I didn't realize that oppressing blacks was such a huge industry for white people.
It seems somehow relevant in the context of this discussion.
I'm amazed. Truly and utterly amazed. The demand of blacks to be treated like citizens deserving
the respect and protection of the law and agents of the law like everyone else is "a direct threat
to the livelihoods and interests of many whites."
I mean, I know that white supremacy is a thing in the U.S., but is it really that ingrained
and tenacious? Really?
form of white identity politics that was widely representative of the white population
That's an oxymoron. No form of "white identity" politics would be or could be "widely representative
of the white population."
A lot of the black rhetoric we're getting lately is belated recognition that "black people"
don't really have enduring common interests that bind them all, and the defensive necessity to
provide safety for each other in the face of vicious and pervasive persecution just isn't really
strong enough to maintain a tenuous identity or unity much longer. As Jesse B. Semple remarked
when his "white boss" asked "What does The Negro want now?" … there are fifty eleven different
kinds of Negroes in the USA. That's even more true of "whites," always has been, and the hue an
cry that a bit of affirmative action is tantamount to creating a massive common race interest
is just nonsense.
How is the fight for "religious liberty" different from BLM? How is it not a form of identity
politics?
Because religion is a search for truth, and religious liberty affirms that there are lots of
different searches going on, which are neither binding upon nonbelievers, nor to be suppressed
by the skeptical or powerful?
It is nice to see America can laugh about things this year!
While we can be complain about SJWs and BLMs, doesn't the conservative movement need the same
exact lecture here? What was the speech that made Trump popular with Republicans? It was "Mexicans
are rapist" speech that originally made 35 – 40% of the party support him the summer of 2015.
(And Donald's speeches to African-Americans is not the way to win their votes either!)
I almost think the best thing for the Republican Party this year is for Trump to lose Texas
so the Party learns to better respect Hispanic-Americans. (Unlikely to happen though and Texas
is not turning blue long term.)
Jesse: "However, can you point me to the radio host, politician, TV commentator, or even popular
Twitter celebrity who says the people who killed Brian Ogle should go free?
Because on the other hand, there's plenty of politicians, TV commentators, writers, radio hosts,
etc. who think the police are doing a great job and that police brutality is just a liberal myth….
But in general, the whole paragraph is why for the most part, black Americans will never trust
white conservatives – you seem to imply that black Americans want carte blanche to kill white
people while in reality, black people just want to be treated as well as a confirmed mass murderer
was treated by police – to be fed some Burger King like Dylan Roof perhaps."
+1,000.
I'd add that there are commentators, politicians, writers, etc. who seem to think that police
brutality is justified because of crime rates, as though the Constitution, not to mention just
basic fairness and protection against needless violence, applies only to the law-abiding.
"That does not mean that BLM and the NAACP are not harmful to the interests of whites, but they
do not advocate a separate black ethnostate, "
If they did, they'd be working for the interests of whites.
[NFR: You longtime readers know that I reject M_Young's white identity politics. I want
to take this opportunity to remind you all that when you cheer on left-wing, racial and sexual
identity politics, you implicitly cheer on his. - RD]
There is a literature on the collective behavior of groups in cooperation/competition models.
Groups (even artificial ones created by randomly assigning college undergraduates) will compete
to maximize their relative power against other groups, even if it leads to collectively a lower
standard of living (in other words, they would rather be relatively richer in a poorer world than
than relatively poorer in a richer world).
In interest group politics, say labor v. capital, you have groups which, while fighting each
other for power, are permeable. People move from one group or the other, and even if they don't,
it is possible to move.
Identity groups are based on putatively immutable characteristics. In identity politics, identity
groups struggle against each other for dominance. Claims can be of three varieties: equality ("All
Lives Matter"), primacy ("Black Lives Matter"), and dominance ("Only Black Lives Matter").
When political parties are defined on identity grounds, elections become censuses rather than
"free" elections. You vote for the party that represents your group, because you are afraid of
dominance by the other group. Further, you justify claims for primacy or dominance based on fears
about the relative power of the other group.
Political systems that polarize on identity end up in a census election where the winning coalition
of groups dominates the other groups, and the group in the electoral minority has no possibility
of exercising power. Because elections are censuses, and you don't have the numbers. What typically
happens is that minorities turn to violence, and often racial unrest results in military rule.
It is pretty clear that multiculturalism is precipitating the resurgence of identity politics,
and if we believe the polls, that trend is about to accelerate. Further, ethnic polarization of
one political party always triggers ethnic polarization in other parties, even over elite objections,
as it becomes necessary to appeal to voters.
This is why some version the Alt-Right represents the future of Conservative politics, even
if the Conservative Establishment doesn't like the Alt-Right. It is structural, and you see the
same type of political dynamic in Nigeria, Sri Lanka, post-Independence India, as well as places
like the Ottoman Empire or Germany.
What is fueling the Alt-Right is the policies around immigration and non-assimilation/multiculturalism,
combined with demands for racial primacy and racial dominance by minorities (e.g. safe spaces
where others are forcibly excluded).
It could be halted today, but instead we are doubling down on the root causes of ethnic anxieties.
Further, I don't know what would be "Left-Wing" about pushing whites into a white ethnic voting
block intended to subordinate opponents, given their majority status for a few decades, and even
as a plurality, they would have the largest plurality.
Much as many people desire "racial equality", when one group argues for "primacy", politically,
you are never going to get "equality" unless a rival group claims primacy for itself. This is
basic bargaining theory. Hence, the inevitability of white with egalitarian preferences going
over toward white nationalism. Unfortunately, the most probable result will be greater polarization,
not compromise.
P.S. Yes, I understand "racial primacy" for certain racial groups means "racial equality",
just as "war is peace".
"I hate the term "identity politics." Identity politics are politics. Straight white people,
even liberals (hello Bernie bros), often try to exclude themselves from the definition by casting
their own thoughts as neutral while casting everyone with a marked "identity" as practicing identity
politics. People are always speaking from a point of view, and in politics they are usually advocating
to change things that negatively impact a group they are associated with.
How is the fight for "religious liberty" different from BLM? How is it not a form of identity
politics?"
Exactly.
The phrase "identity politics" is meant to render illegitimate the concerns of the person who
is accused of practicing them. Thus, people don't have to grapple with the actual issue and see
whether or not there's a legitimate problem that needs to be addressed. Rod spends a lot of time
here complaining about the failings of Black Lives Matter, and very little acknowledging that
they have a very legitimate issue that they are pushing to solve.
Religious liberty is not strictly identity politics, because religious affiliations in American
society are voluntary. However, religious preferences are pretty inelastic, so you have approximate
features of identity politics.
However, LGBT ideology claims "sexual orientation" is an immutable characteristic. So LGBT
is identity politics.
In some Islamic societies, apostacy is punished by death, so Islam is pretty immutable. So
in a strict Muslim society seeking to crack down on alcohol sales, the crack down would be an
exercise in identity politics, even if alcohol vendors weren't an identity group.
How is the fight for "religious liberty" different from BLM? How is it not a form of identity
politics?
Religious liberty is a universal freedom and it applies to all, including atheists and agnostics.
(and, contrary to the narrative, being itself a civic right, it doesn't impinge on other "civil
rights")
Identity politics, on the other hand, is the fostering of tribalism. It's a degrading thing: it
considers humans as dogs that have to bite at each other to get a greater share of the kibble
bowl.
If you look at politics post-independence in Trinidad and Guyana, or Sri Lanka, you see the emergence
of ethnic identity politics converting Communist and Socialist parties, and their leaders, from
universalist political programs to ethnic-based programs, depending on what ethnic groups they
derived more political support from.
Although, I suppose some people think that because America is majority white, the same kind
of political trends won't play out here. I think human nature is human nature, and identity politics
is identity politics, and the result is never good for someone.
"No decent person of any race supports police brutality"
I've known FAR too many "decent" middle and upper-middle class burb-dwellers who are perfectly
comfortable with police brutality. They believe that citizens get the policing they deserve. Rodney
King? "If you saw the entire tape, not just the excerpt on the evening news, you'd understand
why the officers acted that way". Black Lives Matter? "All they have to do is follow the law and
not disrespect the police". Unarmed, non-threatening, law-abiding minority killed by police? "There
must be more to the story".
moral blindness? all politics is identity politics. the fact that white, Christian, property-owning,
heterosexual, males looked out for their interests for the first 200+ years of the plutocracy
was identity politics in spades. the push-back from BLM, NOW, the LGBT community, and even Trump
supporters are as well. I had a very good History professor in the 80's. he taught politics is
merely a group or individual looking out for its vested, economic interests. the Karl Marx vs.
Adam Smith stuff (ideology) is merely a demographic extension of this. what you call identity
politics is more about the relationship between wealth and power, than left or right.
It is certainly a peculiar advance that in a country founded on identity color politics those
who have benefited and manipulated color politics to their advantage in every way --
are finding logical flaws in the very system they have created for themselves.
On its face - should raise serious doubts about the veracity of the complaint.
"No decent person of any race supports police brutality." Explain what you mean by "decent" person.
This is a term similar to the term "elites" be bandied about in this election without anyone saying
who they include in that group. All I get in response to my inquiries are quotations from dictionaries.
So, please explain what is meant by "decent person."
[NFR: If you believe it's okay for the police to brutalize people because of their race,
or to brutalize anyone, you are not a decent person, in my view. - RD]
This bit is much better than everything else SNL has commented on the 2016 election. I still think
SNL caters way too much to African American chauvinism though.
How much traction would BLM have if it were not funded by George Soros?, or any other identity
group if they had not been funded by billionaires with an interest in destabilizing the American
polity??
BTW, although it is not necessarily identity politics, the political principle that groups maximize
their relative power over say the welfare of the totality also explains the problem of elites.
All elites want to maximize their relative power over other groups, and so it is really competition
(e.g. fear of revolution or being conquered) that keeps them "honest", otherwise they will grind
the common man down to subsidence if they have the chance.
All of American history includes the strong presence of white identity politics.
Stop pretending otherwise. What else explains racialized chattel slavery and Jim crow and redlining
and so forth?
[NFR: Let me explain something to you. Are you sitting down? Because this is going to come
as a shock. Ready? We have been steadily moving away from white identity politics. A lot of
people fought and died to end white supremacy. Replacing it with a form of politics that treats
blacks as some sort of chosen people because of the color of their skin is regress, and puts that
progress towards equal justice for all, regardless of their skin color, in jeopardy. - RD]
…to be fed some Burger King like Dylan Roof perhaps.
You're either ignorant of the context of that situation, or you're deliberately taking it out
of context. Roof was arrested by a tiny police department and held until the FBI showed up. He
was arrested after 10pm and had not eaten for a while. The police department didn't even have
the facilities to prepare a meal. Instead of automatically being suspicious, maybe you should
consider that the police were making sure to not do something that could harm the prosecution
in such an important case.
But that's how it's done, huh? Exaggerate things to the extreme, and then wonder why white
people don't understand.
"Black Lives Matter and related identity politics movements (Which Side Are You On? says it is
not affiliated with BLM) are by no means only about police brutality."
Yep. It's also about Israeli "genocide" of Palestinians, if you haven't heard:
http://bit.ly/2eJeXDZ
I remember libertarians complaining in the aughts that it was almost impossible to partake
in antiwar demonstrations with the left because it was never about MERELY war. Environmental degradation,
environmental racism (yes, that's a thing), and all manner of other unrelated items were seen
as a mandatory part of what naive libertarians thought was the goal of simply extracting the US
military from the Middle East.
Ideology is a helluva thing. It's an all-encompassing worldview that looks bizarre to people
who aren't already steeped in one.
[NFR: Let me explain something to you. Are you sitting down? Because this is going to come as
a shock. Ready? We have been steadily moving away from white identity politics. A lot of people
fought and died to end white supremacy. Replacing it with a form of politics that treats blacks
as some sort of chosen people because of the color of their skin is regress, and puts that progress
towards equal justice for all, regardless of their skin color, in jeopardy. - RD]
Let me explain something to you too! I'd ask you to sit down, but you're probably already in
your fainting couch!
We have, sort of, in some parts of the country, in some ways moved away from white identity
politics! Just because white identity politics doesn't look like lynching doesn't mean it doesn't
exist.
All politics is identity politics! Why wouldn't it be? We create visions of the good and we
view it through our prism of identity. The fact that in our nation the axis about race doesn't
change that it does exist.
And no one is asking for 'blacks' to be treated as some chosen people – at even the most exaggerated,
most 'blacks' are asking for some acknowledgement that racial damage was done and it's going to
take racially conscious solutions (and some people like reparations!).
But also, here's the reality – the damage to large groups of people in this country was explicitly
because of who they were. Why would the solutions necessarily be universal?
If we both could have had 5, but then I was allowed to unfairly steal 4 from you, it wouldn't
then be fair if my solution to the problem was to give both of us 5 again.
Quote: Taken all in all, though, I am proud to call myself a philosemite, and even at low
points like the Spectator affair still, at the very least, an anti-antisemite. I recall the numberless
kindnesses I have received at the hands of Jews, friendships I treasure and lessons I have learnt.
I cherish those recollections.
"We have been steadily moving away from white identity politics."
The word 'steadily' is doing quite a lot of heavy lifting here. It seems the distance from
full on Jim Crow to 'young bucks eating T bone steaks' is vanishingly small in historical time.
If we could quantify and graph the prevalence of white identity politics, would that graph be
pointing up or down?
The comment made above is entirely correct: identity politics is just ordinary politics. Anyone
who tells you differently is selling something.
"Thompson, Zamata, and Jones might see a lot to like in Doug, but if he can't sign on to the fact
that black Americans face unique challenges and dangers,"
There's the BS right there. Doug might well admit that and accept it and still think that BLM
is full of crap. That's my position. Bouie doesn't get to own the conversation like that and neither
does BLM.
Just like the NRA doesn't get to claim that anyone who fails to bow to its agenda and policies
hates safety.
Just because I disagree with the Sierra Clubs position on zero-cut goals on public land do
they get to say I hate the earth?
"So the desire to be treated fairly is framed as identity politics?"
So black people want to be killed more often by police?
There's at least one famous study famously made famous in the NYT, by a really great black
economist from Harvard, indicating that black people are killed LESS often in interactions with
cops.
Yep. That data is limited and incomplete. But so is the data you prefer.
"We have been steadily moving away from white identity politics. A lot of people fought and died
to end white supremacy… RD"
In fact, the idea of a biologically-based white supremacy never held the political or social
field to itself during the last two centuries in either Europe or America.
This was because it was contested by important currents of both Christian and liberal thought
on human equality. These ideas of Christian and liberal equality were powerful enough to sustain
the successful 60 year international campaign of the world's leading 19th century Empire. the
British, to abolish slavery and were as well a significant factor behind the U.S. civil war.
Any serious reading of the history of the late 19th and early 20th century reveals how ethnic
and "racial" conflicts were created and manipulated by unscrupulous politicians of that time and
how these "identities" contributed to the radical destabilization and destruction of domestic
and international peace.
The 20th century Nazis represented the apogee of "white" supremacy and their European and American
opponents in World War II repudiated with extreme force their odious race "science."
Contemporary identity politics seeks to reassert and re-legitimize a supposed biological basis
for political conflict. The historical evidence is clear that this is not a story that can in
any way end well.
Replacing it with a form of politics that treats blacks as some sort of chosen people..
Chosen people that are still more likely to be the victims of police brutality. I'm pretty
sure they'd rather pass on being chosen and get on with being treated like everyone else.
You act as if "identity politics" only happens on the left. Small-o "orthodox Christians" are
a tribe who practice "identity politics." All politics is local, Tip O'Neill taught us. A corollary
of that is "all politics are tribal."
I (and other liberals) get dismissed as being nonsensical for wanting to be respected on the
basis of our identity, but the minute a Christian baker has to do business equally with a gay
person, it's tyranny.
What is the Benedict Option, if not Christian identity politics put into maximum effect?
The thing that infuriates me (and people like me) is the assumption that we are the "other"
and the view expressed here is the "default." As I see it, it's our tribe against yours. Your
right to lead is no more evident than mine. We fight for the right to lead. Someone wins, and
someone loses.
I realize this a conservative blog, but try approaching the other side as moral equals, instead
of with an a priori assumption that the left is tribal, and the right has the voice of G-d Himself
as their trumpeter of all that is good and true.
In any given society, the dominant majority defines the norm – in every area of life and culture
– by using themselves as the yardstick. They are normal, everybody different (and their different
stuff) is abnormal.
This is all perfectly natural. It's why there's pretty much no such thing as "white music"
or "white food" in America – whatever was traditional to whites was just called music and food.
If it comes from white culture, it doesn't get a special name, and it doesn't get widely recognized
as something specific to white people. It's just the norm.
This is why white identity politics isn't usually called white identity politics, yet any politics
arising out of a nonwhite experience is defined as abnormal and gets a special name.
Seen from any perspective other than the traditionally dominant one, it's rather clear that
the driving force on the American right has long been white identity politics. The Republican
Party didn't get over 90% white by accident. Some people may have the privilege of calling their
own politics the norm and assigning a name to the rest, but it's all identity politics whether
they want to see it or not.
Then comes the final punchline, "Lives That Matter." Obviously, the answer to the question
is "black." But Doug has "a lot to say about this."
The beautiful thing about the skit is that it left all this hanging… it didn't try to write
the final outcome, but left a range of variables and a variety of possible outcomes to the viewer's
imagination.
The problem with over-analysis is that it erases this well done ending, by trying to pin down
exactly what the outcome is or was or would have been or should have been. Of course, each analysis
erases many possibilities, which is a form of vandalism.
In a small way, this reminds me of when I heard a woman state during Bible study that she likes
the New International Version because it makes everything clear. This cemented my late in life
preference for the King James Version, because by trying to make "everything clear," many nuances
and layers of meaning are erased. The KJV is sufficiently poetic, and sufficiently archaic, that
sometimes there may be five or ten or twenty layers of meaning there, and perhaps that is exactly
what God intended.
(Dain, the term "identity politics" was "coined" as much by Nigel Farage, who openly espouses
it, as it was by "the campus left.")
Environmental degradation, environmental racism (yes, that's a thing), and all manner of
other unrelated items were seen as a mandatory part…
This is a mislocation coined by the campus left… more precisely, by 1970s would-be Marxists,
who latched onto the fuzzy notion that Marxism explains everything and that culture is all a "superstructure"
resting on an economic "base." They then promulgated, spontaneously, not with much thought, that
whatever your pet issue is, Marxism will deliver the desired result. And the Maoist slogan "unite
the many to defeat the few" was best served by including everyone's favorite issue in one big
happy family of agendas. There was even a short-lived "Lavender and Red League." It doesn't work,
Marx and Mao may both be turning in their graves over such petty horse manure, Lenin would certainly
call it an infantile disorder, but nobody every accused the post-1970 would-be leftists of professionalism,
or profound strategic thinking, or even ability to articulate a coherent working class demand.
Joe the Plutocrat: "moral blindness? all politics is identity politics."
No, it can and should be a contest of universal principles and ideas. The Marxian idea that
such is just "false consciousness" is bunk and commits the genetic fallacy.
I want to take this opportunity to remind you all that when you cheer on left-wing, racial
and sexual identity politics, you implicitly cheer on his.
Yeppers. Because if "people of color" can have their "safe spaces," off limits to white people,
then white people are utterly and completely justified in seeking "white spaces," off limits to
people of color.
The assertion is that since people of color have historically been oppressed, they now have
additional rights to request accommodations that would never be granted to their historic oppressors.
Nope. Don't work that way. What's good for the goose is indeed good for the gander – no matter
how many "microagressions' the geese detect.
"We have been steadily moving away from white identity politics."
Right… because both political parties in America are just so diverse. Oh wait, one's the white
people party and one is everyone else. In short, the everyone else party isn't the divisive one…
[NFR: It is in the nature of progressive protest movements that they portray all things
as having gotten no better, because if things *have* improved, it's harder for them to hold on
to power and raise money. That's what's happening here. Anybody who doesn't think white supremacy
and the identity politics that supported it is vastly weaker today than it was in 1960 is either
a fool, or willfully blind. - RD]
The original sin of conservatism is not giving "the other" equal rights and privileges. Whether
it is blacks getting shot by police, the war on drugs (that disproportionately affects the poor),
jim crow like immigration laws, not letting gays marry, not giving equal funding to poor school
districts or any of the other many inequalities conservatives want to perpetuate.
Nobody is "the chosen people" just because they gain some kind of right or privilege white
middle class straight people already have.
Thanks for the clarification. I had just assumed that the Narrative - the cops being buddy
buddy with Roof and getting him some BK in the middle of the day on the way back to Charleston
- was correct. I should have known better.
As an interesting comparison, look at the treatment of one Trenton Trenton (I kid you not)
Lovell, killer of LA Sheriff Deputy Steve Owen. Shot himself, he was patched up by paramedics,
sent to the hospital where he was treated at taxpayer expense, and when fit enough for trial,
arraigned.
Good luck getting anyone on the left to recognize the fallacy of special pleading when it's
right in front of their eyes.
This special pleading, I do not think it means what you think it does. BLM is not asking to
that African Americans be treated in a different fashion than anyone else. Rather, their argument
is that they are disproportionately burdened by the manner in which police interact with them
and that they are asking that they be just be treated the same as the majority of the country.
A basic argument for fairness and equality, in other words.
Now, you can try to make an argument that they are wrong, that they *are* getting equal treatment
from law enforcement and that this is all in their heads. You can try, but in all fairness, the
anecdotal and empirical evidence seem not to be on your side.
Replacing it with a form of politics that treats blacks as some sort of chosen people because
of the color of their skin is regress,
Who, exactly, is making this argument? Not BLM and not the mainstream liberal political establishment.
I'm sorry, but I appear to have missed the mainstreaming of black nationalism.
"... "Hysteria has been whipped up in the United States about the influence of Russia over the U.S. presidential election," said Putin, calling it a ruse to cover up for the fact that the U.S. political elite had nothing to say about serious issues such as the country's national debt or gun control. ..."
"... "It's much simpler to distract people with so-called Russian hackers, spies, and agents of influence. Does anyone really think that Russia could influence the American people's choice in any way? The number of mythical, dreamt-up problems include the hysteria - I can't think of another word - that has broken out in the United States about the influence of Russia on the current elections for the US president. " ..."
Moments ago, Russian president started speaking at the final session of the Valdai International
Discussion Club's 13th annual meeting in Sochi. More than 130 experts and political analysts from
Russia and other countries are taking part in this year's three-day meeting, titled 'The Future in
Progress: Shaping the World of Tomorrow'.
While Putin's speech can be seen below, he has already had a handful of soundbites, most notably
the following he just said in response to accusations that Russia could influence the US election:
"Hysteria has been whipped up in the United States about the influence of Russia over the U.S.
presidential election," said Putin, calling it a ruse to cover up for the fact that the U.S. political
elite had nothing to say about serious issues such as the country's national debt or gun control.
"It's much simpler to distract people with so-called Russian hackers, spies, and agents of influence.
Does anyone really think that Russia could influence the American people's choice in any way? The
number of mythical, dreamt-up problems include the hysteria - I can't think of another word - that
has broken out in the United States about the influence of Russia on the current elections for the
US president. "
He ended that phrase as follows: "What, is America a banana republic?!"
Putin mocks claim that Russia is trying to influence the US elections: "What, is America now
a banana republic? America is a great power."
And then, to emphasize his trolling, added the following: "correct me if I am wrong."
He also said that "Russia has no intention of attacking anyone, it is ridiculous, foolish and
unthinkable. I read your analytical materials prepared not only by those present but also by analysts
in the US and Europe. However, it is just unthinkable, silly and unrealistic. In Europe alone, the
combined population of NATO countries stands at 300 million, in the US the total population is, probably,
600 million, while in Russia - 146 million. It is just funny to talk about this."
According to the Russian president, contradictions stemming from redistribution of political power
are growing.
"Regrettably, next to nothing has changed for the better in the past months. To be frank, nothing
has changed. Contradictions stemming from redistribution of economic power and political influence
are only growing," Putin said.
Hence, according to the Russian leader, the burden of mutual mistrust is limiting possibilities
to stand to real challenges and real threats facing the world community. "As a matter of fact, the
entire globalization project has turned to be in a crisis and voices in Europe are speaking (and
we know and hear it well) about the failure of the policy of mulicultiralism," Putin said, adding
that this situation is a consequence of a wrong, hasty and somewhat arrogant choice made by Europe's
political elites some twenty-five years ago.
"Back then, at the turn of the 1980s and 1990s, there was a chance not only to spur globalization
processes but to give them a qualitatively new, harmonious and sustainable character," the Russian
leader said.
He drew attention to the fact that the countries that claimed to be the winners in the Cold War
began to reshape the global political and economic order in their own interests.
These states, in his words, embarked on a path of "globalization and security for themselves only,
but not for all." But not all agreed on that.
Some could not resist that any longer whereas others were not yet ready, so, no wonder the system
of international relations has been feverish and the global economy is failing to recover from the
crisis, Putin added.
On globalization
The Russian president stressed globalization should be for all but not only for the select few.
"Obviously, the global community must focus on really topical problems facing the entire humankind,
the solution of which will make the world a safer and more stable place and the system of international
relations equal and fair," Putin said.
He said such an approach will make it possible to "make the globalization for the select few turn
into globalization for all."
"I am confident that it is possible to overcome any challenges and threats only together," Putin
stressed.
On Global Propaganda
The president said he regrets that Moscow does not possess such global propaganda techniques as
Washington does.
"I would like to have such a propaganda machine in Russia. But, unfortunately, I don't. We have
no such global media as CNN, BBC and some others. We have no such opportunities so far," Putin said
at a session of the Valdai Discussion Club.
On the world economy
The president expects the trend towards regionalization of the world economy will continue. It
is absolutely evident that economic cooperation must be mutually advantageous and be based on general
universal principles, so that each state could become a full-fledged participant in the global economic
life," Putin said.
"In the mid-term prospect, the tendency towards regionalization of the global economy will apparently
continue, but regional trade agreements should complement, develop, and not substitute universal
norms and rules," the president said.
The global economy is unable to get out of the current systemic crisis and the political and economic
principles continue to be reshuffled, Putin stressed.
"The system of international relations remains feverish. The global economy is unable to get out
of the systemic crisis. The principles and rules in politics and the economy continue to be reshuffled.
Quite often dogmas that until recently had been regarded as fundamentally true are turned inside
out," Putin said.
These days, he said, whenever the powers that be find some standards or rules beneficial, they
force everybody else to obey them. However, if at a certain point the very same standards begin to
pose obstructions, they are at once sent into the dustbin as outdated and new rules are established.
As an example of that strategy Putin mentioned the missile and bombing strikes against Belgrade
and Iraq, then against Libya and Afghanistan. The operation began without a corresponding resolution
by the UN Security Council. Some superpowers, the Russian leader said, in their attempts to change
the strategic balance of force in their favor have torn down the international legal regime that
prohibited the deployment of new missile defense systems. They have created and armed international
terrorist groups, whose cruelty is now pushing millions of migrants out of the unsafe areas.
Whole countries are being plunged into chaos. The principles of free trade are trampled on and
sanctions are used to exert political pressures.
"We can see the freedom of trade being sacrificed and so-called sanctions being used for exerting
political pressures. In bypass of the World Trade Organizations attempts are being made to form closed
economic alliances living by harsh rules and putting up firm barriers alliances where dome
On NATO
He said that NATO has outlived its usefullness as a structure and on the topic of the escalating
proxy war in Syria, Putin had a simple comment: "Our agreements with the US on Syria did not work
out."
And some more headlines from his pragmatic remarks:
RUSSIA'S PUTIN SAYS RUSSIAN MILITARY THREAT BEING EXAGGERATED TO JUSTIFY MILITARY SPENDING
RUSSIA'S PUTIN SAYS CYBER ATTACKS OR OTHER TYPES OF INTERFERENCE INTO OTHER COUNTRIES' AFFAIRS
UNACCEPTABLE
RUSSIA'S PUTIN SAYS DONALD TRUMP BEHAVES EXTRAVAGANTLY , BUT IT IS FOR A REASON
I'm trying to understand the DVs to my post. I'm sure there are those who think they could take on
Tyson, but with both ears intact at the end? My point was that anyone trying will at least know they've
been in a fight, and one likely to better have been avoided.
I dig the Vlad- clearly he's been the voice of reason for awhile now....
Clearly he doesn't suffer fools like Hillary- I can just see that conversation now.... She's babbling
her nonsense, he's looking around like "Are you fucking kidding me?"
... meanwhile in Italy, >>> "Artist creates colossal portrait of Trump to 'console' him in case
of defeat ..."
..."A massive portrait of Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump adorned a vast cornfield near
the Italian city of Verona, Wednesday.
The work by the Italian land artist Dario Gambarin was ploughed on a 25,000 square metre (269,098
square feet) field and is accompanied by a sardonic 'Ciao' and 'Trump', which some have claimed is
to signify Trump's defeat in recent polls."
Who in their right and practical mind picks a fight with the US military?
Err...how dare Russia move its borders towards our Nato forces?
You will find history replete with countries that have not "picked a fight" with the US, and yet
felt the full force of its military. Instead of rolling over before that option is required (Perkins).
Even more amazing..Is the world view America is projecting. All of my family, on both sides, have
represented all branches of the armed forces, with a Airforce full bird Colonel to boot. These were
old school military, many were career, and believed in the position down to their soul.
The point is, Where the fuck has honor and honesty gone to? Is there anyone currently in the military
on this site? Morale has to been at all time lows, where is the outright mutiny? THESE are the people,
and THESE are the reasons that lives are being risked/lost?!
I had an uncle, and a grandfather that I'm shocked haven't resurrected over this stupidity..
The Saint fucktard should declare, when did Russia attack Crime and when did Russia attack Ukraine?
Does the fucktard know, what ukraininan jew Chruscov did , while drunken, to Russia with Krim?
How was it done? was it constitutional?
Ukraine existed before just one day in 1917. Never ever before. The whole territory of Ukraine
was either purchchased, consolidated or fought by Russian cars during the last 1000 years. 4x as
much, as is the existence of the USA (should the fucktard come from USA). which other country kept
its land mass for so long together?
seems the fucktard is from the tribe, from the stupid abraham religion, originating in Middle
East und not understand, what is it based on.
However they were Ukrainians, not Poles and wanted independence.
They actually revolted and fought for it.
They made an alliance with Russia to help them in this fight.
Russia did help them to free themselves from Poland.
The problem was that Russia simply took over and Ukraine never gained their independence.
Their complaint against Poland was firstly religious as Poles were Catholic while Ukrainians Russian
Orthodox. Secondly Polish aristocracy treated the Ukrainian nobles as second class citizens.
Let's face it. Back in the 1600s it was the kings and princes and nobles that were responsible
for these conflicts. The common people had no influence whatsoever.
They deserve their own homeland, just like the Kurds do.
What the region should strive for is friendly cooperation between themselves. There is no reason
why Slavic nations cannot form their own union. There sure as hell is closer bond between a Russian
and a Slovakian or a Pole and a Serbian than any of them and an Englishman.
"Russia has no intention of attacking anyone, it is ridiculous, foolish and unthinkable....."
Tell that to Crimea and Ukraine, Vlad.
SAINT,
Do you live under a rock? Ukraine was a false flag brought into being by the (((usual suspects.)))
Crimean's saw what was going on, and wanted no part of it.
There was no armed incursion into Crimea by Russian army ground troops, to "take it over." Crimea
is Russian speaking since Kathyrn the Great, and the people voted to rejoin the federation. They
wanted nothing to do with zionazi parasites who had taken over Ukraine.
Think about it. Does Crimea have a insurrection going on now, to then overthrow their overlords?
No of course not, they want to be part of Russia.
You're an idiot. Fools like yourself mindlessly listening to the media (and gov't) without a shred
of evidence. Here's an idea, Sparky, take the effort of getting out of your lazy chair and actually
do a little research. If Ukraine were attacked, don't you think the US would have video captured?
Have you seen any, genius? Were you brain-dead in not knowing about the illegal State Dpet coup led
by Nuland? Holy smokes. Get with the f'ing program, man. Wake up for god's sake. Idiots like yourself
would probably vote "up" for a war if the US asked you. Based on zippo. Just like Iraq, just like
Afghanistan, just like Libya, just like Syria. Sleepwalking morons like you is what makes this country
doubly dangerous. Wake the F up!!!!!
Was there ever honor in signing up to go kill people? In hindsight how many of America's military
adventures were nothing more than neo-colonial expansions? Any free man born of his God given liberties
should tell the military to fuck off, all wars are banker's wars ultimately and the humans who fight
them considered expendable cannon fodder by the powers that be. The day the men of this planet realize
there is no reason to war with one another on behalf of some evil rulers will be the day we finally
advance as a species. Until then we will remain cattle, to be herded and slaughtered.
The US military has not backed the American people since before 1861. They have been puppets for
bankster wars and the elites. The should have arrested Abe Lincoln and his bankster cronies.
Every President who got America into a war or phony war should hve been arrested. Two real scumbags
were LBJ and George Bush. LBJ was in on the JFK murder for Vietnam war as was bush. Bush and his
Mormon See Eye Aye cronies Romney and the Hinckley klan see World Vision Hickley See Eye Aye front
tried to kill Reagan for NeoCon Wars.
Compared to many in the war machine of the USA that virtually always advocate for moar war/bombing
and increasing destabilization, yes he is. If the US wants to get some credibility on this shit then
stop supporting terrorists, oops "moderate rebels", and actually wipe these shitstains off the face
of the planet. Don't use them as your cats paw to get rid of Assad. Have the balls to just take him
out if you want to take him out and don't use terrorists for the regime change that you so clearly
want but dont have the balls to just do directly.
A lot of people here overestimate Russian military capabilities. They honestly believe that Russia
could win a war with the US. They are wrong. But the US seems afflicted by the more dangerous misperception
that the US could easily defeat the Russians. The Russians have to be practical in their dealings
with the US, because they know war would destroy their country. The US establishment, deluded about
its military prowess, is unafraid of war, believing it to be winnable at low cost. The US would ultimately
win simply because its economy is vastly larger and capable of supporting a prolonged war effort.
But make no mistake, a prolonged effort will be necessary, and the lethality will horrify and surprise
everyone involved. The recent US experience of 15 years of continuous warfare with only a few thousand
deaths has led too many to believe that war is a low cost political tool. These misconceptions are
what will allow the American people to be lead into war. The sudden and unexpected deaths of hundreds
or thousands of soldiers in the early days will fuel the anger necessary to sustain the popular support
for the war.
The down votes, I suspect, are from people who want to see Russia humiliate the US and destroy
the hubris with which it interacts with the world. Perhaps the better analogy is of the US as Evander
Holifield walking into a bar and picking a fight with an aging George Foreman. Holifield will win,
but he'll get hit with some big ass punches that will hurt like hell.
And, of course, nobody really wins that war, except for the few who will get rich off of it. But
I'm not in that club.
What the maniacs that are calling the shots for Unkle Skam are afraid of is losing the petro-dollar
and reserve currency status. Without that the fraudulent money-changing ponzi falls apart, and everything
else with it.
Since the start of the Syrian and Ukrainian conflicts, I have been trying to find the vital interests
which are driving the US foreign policy, and preservation of the petro dollar system is the only
thing which makes US policy seem rational. Either our leaders are irrational, or they see no way
to hold the system together if the petro dollar recycling system ends. But, I don't think it can
be preserved any longer, regardless of what they do.
Russia could win a 'defensive' war. And they could strip America of many allies. And they can speed
up loss of the Dollar as world reserve currency.
That is a pretty solid win, in my book, even if it isn't 'total annihiliation' or invasion of
America itself (which would be stupid of Russia, unless there comes a time where the American people
literally have to invite Russia in).
It's my unlearned opinion that USSA is very dangerous because it will have to go full retard in a
fight against Russia. Any victories by Russia will embolden Murika's fiefdoms to just say fuck off.
It's already happening fpr example Philipines.
The Russian military is defensive in nature, the US of offensive. The US has bases and interests
all over the world, the Russians... not so much. So I think the framing of your thought process of
how this would play out is probably wrong. The US and Russia would never go to war directly, as in
lobbing missles at each ones respective homeland, as that would mean complete annihilation of both
countries... but rather war by proxy. In that realm, the US has way more soft targets for the Russians
to hit. For a country already 20 trillion is debt, where is the tipping point? I would suggest a
lot closer than most people would think.
The American journalist, Edward Bernays, is often described as the man who invented modern propaganda.
Trends
The nephew of Sigmund Freud, the pioneer of psycho-analysis, it was Bernays who coined the term
"public relations" as a euphemism for spin and its deceptions.
In 1929, he persuaded feminists to promote cigarettes for women by smoking in the New York Easter
Parade – behavior then considered outlandish. One feminist, Ruth Booth, declared, "Women! Light
another torch of freedom! Fight another sex taboo!"
Bernays' influence extended far beyond advertising. His greatest success was his role in convincing
the American public to join the slaughter of the First World War. The secret, he said, was "engineering
the consent" of people in order to "control and regiment [them] according to our will without
their knowing about it."
He described this as "the true ruling power in our society" and called it an "invisible
government."
Today, the invisible government has never been more powerful and less understood. In my career
as a journalist and film-maker, I have never known propaganda to insinuate our lives and as it does
now and to go unchallenged.
Imagine two cities.
Both are under siege by the forces of the government of that country. Both cities are occupied
by fanatics, who commit terrible atrocities, such as beheading people.
But there is a vital difference. In one siege, the government soldiers are described as liberators
by Western reporters embedded with them, who enthusiastically report their battles and air strikes.
There are front page pictures of these heroic soldiers giving a V-sign for victory. There is scant
mention of civilian casualties.
In the second city – in another country nearby – almost exactly the same is happening. Government
forces are laying siege to a city controlled by the same breed of fanatics.
The difference is that these fanatics are supported, supplied and armed by "us" – by the United
States and Britain. They even have a media center that is funded by Britain and America.
Another difference is that the government soldiers laying siege to this city are the bad guys,
condemned for assaulting and bombing the city – which is exactly what the good soldiers do in the
first city.
Confusing? Not really. Such is the basic double standard that is the essence of propaganda. I
am referring, of course, to the current siege of the city of Mosul by the government forces of Iraq,
who are backed by the United States and Britain and to the siege of Aleppo by the government forces
of Syria, backed by Russia. One is good; the other is bad.
What is seldom reported is that both cities would not be occupied by fanatics and ravaged by war
if Britain and the United States had not invaded Iraq in 2003. That criminal enterprise was launched
on lies strikingly similar to the propaganda that now distorts our understanding of the civil war
in Syria.
Without this drumbeat of propaganda dressed up as news, the monstrous ISIS and Al-Qaeda and al-Nusra
and the rest of the jihadist gang might not exist, and the people of Syria might not be fighting
for their lives today.
Some may remember in 2003 a succession of BBC reporters turning to the camera and telling us that
Blair was "vindicated" for what turned out to be the crime of the century. The US television
networks produced the same validation for George W. Bush. Fox News brought on Henry Kissinger to
effuse over Colin Powell's fabrications.
The same year, soon after the invasion, I filmed an interview in Washington with Charles Lewis,
the renowned American investigative journalist. I asked him, "What would have happened if the
freest media in the world had seriously challenged what turned out to be crude propaganda?"
He replied that if journalists had done their job, " there is a very, very good chance we would
not have gone to war in Iraq."
It was a shocking statement, and one supported by other famous journalists to whom I put the same
question - Dan Rather of CBS, David Rose of the Observer and journalists and producers in the BBC,
who wished to remain anonymous.
In other words, had journalists done their job, had they challenged and investigated the propaganda
instead of amplifying it, hundreds of thousands of men, women and children would be alive today,
and there would be no ISIS and no siege of Aleppo or Mosul.
There would have been no atrocity on the London Underground on 7th July 2005. There would have
been no flight of millions of refugees; there would be no miserable camps.
When the terrorist atrocity happened in Paris last November, President Francoise Hollande immediately
sent planes to bomb Syria – and more terrorism followed, predictably, the product of Hollande's bombast
about France being "at war" and "showing no mercy." That state violence and jihadist
violence feed off each other is the truth that no national leader has the courage to speak.
"When the truth is replaced by silence," said the Soviet dissident Yevtushenko, "the
silence is a lie."
The attack on Iraq, the attack on Libya, the attack on Syria happened because the leader in each
of these countries was not a puppet of the West. The human rights record of a Saddam or a Gaddafi
was irrelevant. They did not obey orders and surrender control of their country.
The same fate awaited Slobodan Milosevic once he had refused to sign an "agreement" that demanded
the occupation of Serbia and its conversion to a market economy. His people were bombed, and he was
prosecuted in The Hague. Independence of this kind is intolerable.
As WikiLeaks has revealed, it was only when the Syrian leader Bashar Assad in 2009 rejected an
oil pipeline, running through his country from Qatar to Europe, that he was attacked.
From that moment, the CIA planned to destroy the government of Syria with jihadist fanatics –
the same fanatics currently holding the people of Mosul and eastern Aleppo hostage.
Why is this not news? The former British Foreign Office official Carne Ross, who was responsible
for operating sanctions against Iraq, told me: "We would feed journalists factoids of sanitized
intelligence, or we would freeze them out. That is how it worked."
The West's medieval client, Saudi Arabia – to which the US and Britain sell billions of dollars'
worth of arms – is at present destroying Yemen, a country so poor that in the best of times, half
the children are malnourished.
Look on YouTube and you will see the kind of massive bombs – "our" bombs – that the Saudis
use against dirt-poor villages, and against weddings, and funerals.
The explosions look like small atomic bombs. The bomb aimers in Saudi Arabia work side-by-side
with British officers. This fact is not on the evening news.
Propaganda is most effective when our consent is engineered by those with a fine education – Oxford,
Cambridge, Harvard, Columbia - and with careers on the BBC, the Guardian, the New York Times, the
Washington Post.
These organizations are known as the liberal media. They present themselves as enlightened, progressive
tribunes of the moral zeitgeist. They are anti-racist, pro-feminist and pro-LGBT.
And they love war.
While they speak up for feminism, they support rapacious wars that deny the rights of countless
women, including the right to life.
In 2011, Libya, then a modern state, was destroyed on the pretext that Muammar Gaddafi was about
to commit genocide on his own people. That was the incessant news; and there was no evidence. It
was a lie.
In fact, Britain, Europe and the United States wanted what they like to call "regime change" in
Libya, the biggest oil producer in Africa. Gaddafi's influence in the continent and, above all, his
independence were intolerable.
So he was murdered with a knife in his rear by fanatics, backed by America, Britain and France.
Hillary Clinton cheered his gruesome death for the camera, declaring, "We came, we saw, he died!"
The destruction of Libya was a media triumph. As the war drums were beaten, Jonathan Freedland
wrote in the Guardian: "Though the risks are very real, the case for intervention remains strong."
Intervention - what a polite, benign, Guardian word, whose real meaning, for Libya, was death
and destruction.
According to its own records, NATO launched 9,700 "strike sorties" against Libya, of which
more than a third were aimed at civilian targets. They included missiles with uranium warheads. Look
at the photographs of the rubble of Misrata and Sirte, and the mass graves identified by the Red
Cross. The UNICEF report on the children killed says, "most [of them] under the age of ten."
As a direct consequence, Sirte became the capital of ISIS.
Ukraine is another media triumph. Respectable liberal newspapers such as the New York Times, the
Washington Post and the Guardian, and mainstream broadcasters such as the BBC, NBC, CBS, CNN have
played a critical role in conditioning their viewers to accept a new and dangerous cold war.
All have misrepresented events in Ukraine as a malign act by Russia when, in fact, the coup in
Ukraine in 2014 was the work of the United States, aided by Germany and NATO.
This inversion of reality is so pervasive that Washington's military intimidation of Russia is
not news; it is suppressed behind a smear and scare campaign of the kind I grew up with during the
first cold war. Once again, the 'Ruskies' are coming to get us, led by another Stalin, whom
The Economist depicts as the devil.
The suppression of the truth about Ukraine is one of the most complete news blackouts I can remember.
The fascists who engineered the coup in Kiev are the same breed that backed the Nazi invasion of
the Soviet Union in 1941. Of all the scares about the rise of fascist anti-Semitism in Europe, no
leader ever mentions the fascists in Ukraine – except Vladimir Putin, but he does not count.
Many in the Western media have worked hard to present the ethnic Russian-speaking population of
Ukraine as outsiders in their own country, as agents of Moscow, almost never as Ukrainians seeking
a federation within Ukraine and as Ukrainian citizens resisting a foreign-orchestrated coup against
their elected government.
There is almost the joie d'esprit of a class reunion of warmongers. The drum-beaters of the Washington
Post inciting war with Russia are the very same editorial writers who published the lie that Saddam
Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
To most of us, the American presidential campaign is a media freak show, in which Donald Trump
is the arch villain. But Trump is loathed by those with power in the United States for reasons that
have little to do with his obnoxious behavior and opinions. To the invisible government in Washington,
the unpredictable Trump is an obstacle to America's design for the 21st century.
This is to maintain the dominance of the United States and to subjugate Russia, and, if possible,
China.
To the militarists in Washington, the real problem with Trump is that, in his lucid moments, he
seems not to want a war with Russia; he wants to talk with the Russian president, not fight him;
he says he wants to talk with the president of China.
In the first debate with Hillary Clinton, Trump promised not to be the first to introduce nuclear
weapons into a conflict. He said, "I would certainly not do first strike. Once the nuclear alternative
happens, it's over." That was not news.
Did he really mean it? Who knows? He often contradicts himself. But what is clear is that Trump
is considered a serious threat to the status quo maintained by the vast national security machine
that runs the United States, regardless of who is in the White House.
The CIA wants him beaten. The Pentagon wants him beaten. The media wants him beaten. Even his
own party wants him beaten. He is a threat to the rulers of the world – unlike Clinton who has left
no doubt she is prepared to go to war with nuclear-armed Russia and China.
Clinton has the form, as she often boasts. Indeed, her record is proven. As a senator, she backed
the bloodbath in Iraq. When she ran against Obama in 2008, she threatened to "totally obliterate"
Iran. As Secretary of State, she colluded in the destruction of governments in Libya and Honduras
and set in train the baiting of China.
She has now pledged to support a no-fly zone in Syria - a direct provocation for war with Russia.
Clinton may well become the most dangerous president of the United States in my lifetime –a distinction
for which the competition is fierce.
Without a shred of evidence, she has accused Russia of supporting Trump and hacking her emails.
Released by WikiLeaks, these emails tell us that what Clinton says in private, in speeches to the
rich and powerful, is the opposite of what she says in public.
That is why silencing and threatening Julian Assange is so important. As the editor of WikiLeaks,
Assange knows the truth. And let me assure those who are concerned, he is well, and WikiLeaks is
operating on all cylinders.
Today, the greatest build-up of American-led forces since World War Two is under way – in the
Caucasus and Eastern Europe, on the border with Russia, and in Asia and the Pacific, where China
is the target.
Keep that in mind when the presidential election circus reaches its finale on November 8th, if
the winner is Clinton, a Greek chorus of witless commentators will celebrate her coronation as a
great step forward for women. None will mention Clinton's victims: the women of Syria, the women
of Iraq, the women of Libya. None will mention the civil defense drills being conducted in Russia.
None will recall Edward Bernays' "torches of freedom".
George Bush's press spokesman once called the media "complicit enablers." Coming from a
senior official in an administration whose lies, enabled by the media, caused such suffering, that
description is a warning from history.
In 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal prosecutor said of the German media: "Before every major aggression,
they initiated a press campaign calculated to weaken their victims and to prepare the German people
psychologically for the attack. In the propaganda system, it was the daily press and the radio that
were the most important weapons."
Inequality As Policy: Selective Trade Protectionism Favors Higher Earners
By Dean Baker
Globalization and technology are routinely cited as drivers of inequality over the last four
decades. While the relative importance of these causes is disputed, both are often viewed as natural
and inevitable products of the working of the economy, rather than as the outcomes of deliberate
policy. In fact, both the course of globalization and the distribution of rewards from technological
innovation are very much the result of policy. Insofar as they have led to greater inequality,
this has been the result of conscious policy choices.
Starting with globalization, there was nothing pre-determined about a pattern of trade liberalization
that put U.S. manufacturing workers in direct competition with their much lower paid counterparts
in the developing world. Instead, that competition was the result of trade pacts written to make
it as easy as possible for U.S. corporations to invest in the developing world to take advantage
of lower labor costs, and then ship their products back to the United States. The predicted and
actual result of this pattern of trade has been to lower wages for manufacturing workers and non-college
educated workers more generally, as displaced manufacturing workers crowd into other sectors of
the economy.
Instead of only putting manufacturing workers into competition with lower-paid workers in other
countries, our trade deals could have been crafted to subject doctors, dentists, lawyers and other
highly-paid professionals to international competition. As it stands, almost nothing has been
done to remove the protectionist barriers that allow highly-educated professionals in the United
States to earn far more than their counterparts in other wealthy countries.
This is clearest in the case of doctors. For the most part, it is impossible for foreign-trained
physicians to practice in the United States unless they have completed a residency program in
the United States. The number of residency slots, in turn, is strictly limited, as is the number
of slots open for foreign medical students. While this is a quite blatantly protectionist restriction,
it has persisted largely unquestioned through a long process of trade liberalization that has
radically reduced or eliminated most of the barriers on trade in goods. The result is that doctors
in the United States earn an average of more than $250,000 a year, more than twice as much as
their counterparts in other wealthy countries. This costs the country roughly $100 billion a year
in higher medical bills compared to a situation in which U.S. doctors received the same pay as
doctors elsewhere. Economists, including trade economists, have largely chosen to ignore the barriers
that sustain high professional pay at enormous economic cost.
In addition to the items subject to trade, the overall trade balance is also very much the
result of policy choices. The textbook theory has capital flowing from rich countries to poor
countries, which means that rich countries run trade surpluses with poor countries. While this
accurately described the pattern of trade in the 1990s up until the East Asian financial crisis
(a period in which the countries of the region enjoyed very rapid growth), in the last two decades
developing countries taken as a whole have been running large trade surpluses with wealthy countries.
This implies large trade deficits in rich countries, especially the United States, which in
turn has meant a further loss of manufacturing jobs with the resulting negative impact on wage
inequality. However, there was nothing inevitable about the policy shifts associated with the
bailout from the East Asian financial crisis that led the developing world to become a net exporter
of capital.
The pattern of gains from technology has been even more directly determined by policy than
is the case with gains from trade. There has been a considerable strengthening and lengthening
of patent and copyright and related protections over the last four decades. The laws have been
changed to extend patents to new areas such as life forms, business methods, and software. Copyright
duration has been extended from 55 years to 95 years. Perhaps even more important, the laws have
become much more friendly to holders of these property claims to tilt legal proceedings in their
favor, with courts becoming more patent-friendly and penalties for violations becoming harsher.
And, the United States has placed stronger intellectual property (IP) rules at center of every
trade agreement negotiated in the last quarter century.
In this context, it would hardly be surprising if the development of "technology" was causing
an upward redistribution of income. The people in a position to profit from stronger IP rules
are almost exclusively the highly educated and those at the top end of the income distribution.
It is almost definitional that stronger IP rules will result in an upward redistribution of income.
This upward redistribution could be justified if stronger IP rules led to more rapid productivity
growth, thereby benefitting the economy as a whole. However, there is very little evidence to
support that claim. Michele Boldrin and David Levine have done considerable research on this topic
and generally found the opposite. My own work, using cross-country regressions with standard measures
of patent strength, generally found a negative and often significant relationship between patent
strength and productivity growth.
There is also a substantial amount of money at stake. In the case of prescription drugs alone,
the United States is on path to spend more than $430 billion in 2016 for drugs that would likely
cost one-tenth of this amount in the absence of patent and related protections. While we do need
mechanisms for financing innovation and creative work, it is almost certainly the case that patent
and copyright monopolies as currently structured are not the most efficient route...
JohnH -> anne... -1
Dean Baker has been on a roll!
Money quote: "The structuring of trade and rules on IP are two important ways in which policy
has been designed to redistribute income upward over the last four decades. There are many other
ways in which the market has been structured to disadvantage those at the middle and bottom of
the income distribution, perhaps most notably macroeconomic policies that result in high unemployment.
While tax and transfer policies that reduce poverty and inequality may be desirable, we should
also be aware of the ways in which policy has been designed to increase inequality. It is much
easier to have an economic system that produces more equality rather than one that needlessly
generates inequality, which we then try to address with redistributive policies."
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/10/inequality-as-policy-selective-trade-protectionism-favors-higher-earners.html
Now if we could get economists to recognize that a monetary policy that prioritizes the 'wealth
effect' for a decade is really trickle down, then perhaps we could get them to develop policies
to mitigate trickle down aspects and direct monetary policy more towards the broader economy.
"... In Germany, some 60 percent of A.F.D. supporters say globalization has "mainly negative" effects. We live in a world, the liberal British historian Timothy Garton Ash noted lately, "which would have Marx rubbing his hands with Schadenfreude." ..."
"... When Hillary Clinton calls half of Mr. Trump's voters a "basket of deplorables," she sounds as aloof as Marie Antoinette, telling French subjects who had no bread to "eat cake." ..."
HAMBURG, Germany - We have a word in German, "Wutbürger," which means "angry citizen" - though
like many German compound words, its meaning can never quite be captured in a pithy English translation.
And yet nothing in either language quite frames this current political moment.
It is a relatively new expression, with a derogatory connotation. A Wutbürger rages against a
new train station and tilts against
wind turbines . Wutbürgers came out in protest after the Berlin government decided to bail out
Greece and to accept roughly one million refugees and migrants into Germany.
Wutbürgers lie at both ends of the political spectrum; they flock to the right-wing Alternative
für Deutschland (A.F.D.) and the socialist Linke (Left) Party. The left wing has long had a place
in German politics, and the Linke has deep roots in the former East Germany's ruling party. And we've
had a fringe right wing since the postwar period began. But the populist anger of the A.F.D. is something
new: Anti-establishment, anti-European Union and anti-globalization, the A.F.D. didn't exist four
years ago. Today, 18 percent of Germans would consider voting for it.
The same thing is happening elsewhere in Europe: Many British Wutbürgers voted for Brexit. French
Wutbürgers will vote for Marine Le Pen's National Front. Perhaps the most powerful Wutbürger of them
all is Donald J. Trump.
Which raises the question: How was anger hijacked?
In its pure form, anger is a wonderful force of change. Just imagine a world without anger. In
Germany, without the anger of the labor movement, we would still have a class-based voting system
that privileged the wealthy, and workers would still toil 16 hours a day without pension rights.
Britain and France would still be ruled by absolute monarchs. The Iron Curtain would still divide
Europe, the United States would still be a British colony and its slaves could only dream of casting
a vote this Nov. 8.
Karl Marx was a Wutbürger. So were Montesquieu, William Wilberforce, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther
King Jr. and the tens of thousands of Eastern German protesters who brought down the
Berlin Wall in 1989.
Now: Compare these spirits to the current parties claiming to stand for necessary change. Mr.
Trump vs. Dr. King. Sadly, the leaders of today's Wutbürger movements never grasped the difference
between anger driven by righteousness and anger driven by hate.
Sign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter
Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, the Times editorial board
and contributing writers from around the world.
Anger works like gasoline. If you use it intelligently and in a controlled manner, you can move
the world. That's called progress. Or you just spill it about and ignite it, creating spectacular
explosions. That's called arson.
Unfortunately, a lack of maturity and prudence today exists among not just the new populist class,
but parts of the political establishment. The governing class needs to understand that just because
people are embittered and paranoid doesn't mean they don't have a case. A growing number of voters
are going into meltdown because they believe that politicians - and journalists - don't see what
they see.
Sure, the injustices they see are, in historical perspective, less stark and obvious than in the
days of Marx or King. The injustices of today are smaller, but they are more complex. And this is
what makes them all the more terrifying.
If John Steinbeck could travel the West today as he traveled America three generations ago, leaving
the highways to visit forgotten towns, documenting people's struggles as he did in "The Grapes of
Wrath,'' he would find much the same to write about. Globalization and its masters have capitalized
on enormous pay gaps between West and East, at a huge profit for them, and huge cost to others.
The upper class has gained much more from the internationalization of trade and finances than
the working class has, often in obscene ways. Bankers get bonuses despite making idiotic decisions
that trigger staggering losses. Giant enterprises like Facebook or Apple pay minimal taxes, while
blue-collar workers have to labor harder - even taking a second or third job - to maintain their
standard of living. And this is as true in Germany, France or Austria as it is in Ohio or Florida.
In Germany, some 60 percent of A.F.D. supporters say globalization has "mainly negative" effects.
We live in a world, the liberal British historian Timothy Garton Ash noted lately, "which would have
Marx rubbing his hands with Schadenfreude."
The grievances of white, often less-educated voters on both sides of the Atlantic are often dismissed
as xenophobic, simplistic hillbillyism. But doing so comes at a cost. Europe's traditional force
of social change, its social democrats, appear to just not get it. When Hillary Clinton calls half
of Mr. Trump's voters a "basket of deplorables," she sounds as aloof as Marie Antoinette, telling
French subjects who had no bread to "eat cake." In Germany, a deputy Social Democrat leader, Ralf Stegner, displays a similar arrogance when he calls A.F.D. supporters "racists" and "skunks." Media
reports often convey the same degree of contempt.
In Germany a recent poll showed that only 14 percent of the citizens trusted the politicians.
This is an alarming figure, in a country where faith in a progressive, democratic government has
been a cornerstone of our postwar peace. But this presumes that legitimate anger will be acknowledged
as such. If this faith is rattled, democracy loses its basic promise.
Amid their mutual finger-pointing, neither populist nor established parties acknowledge that both
are squandering people's anger, either by turning this anger into counterproductive hatred or by
denouncing and dismissing it. Mrs. Clinton has the chance to change, by leading a political establishment
that examines and processes anger instead of merely producing and dismissing it. If she does, let's
hope Europe once again looks to America as a model for democracy.
Jochen Bittner is a political editor for the weekly newspaper Die Zeit and a contributing
opinion writer. Follow The New York Times Opinion section on
Facebook and
Twitter , and sign up for the
Opinion Today newsletter
.
"... Former Congressman Dennis Kucinich has just penned an extremely powerful warning about the warmongers in Washington D.C. Who funds them, what their motives are, and why it is imperative for the American people to stop them. ..."
"... Washington, DC, may be the only place in the world where people openly flaunt their pseudo-intellectuality by banding together, declaring themselves "think tanks," and raising money from external interests, including foreign governments, to compile reports that advance policies inimical to the real-life concerns of the American people. ..."
"... As a former member of the House of Representatives, I remember 16 years of congressional hearings where pedigreed experts came to advocate wars in testimony based on circular, rococo thinking devoid of depth, reality, and truth. I remember other hearings where the Pentagon was unable to reconcile over $1 trillion in accounts, lost track of $12 billion in cash sent to Iraq, and rigged a missile-defense test so that an interceptor could easily home in on a target. War is first and foremost a profitable racket. ..."
"... According to the front page of this past Friday's Washington Post, the bipartisan foreign-policy elite recommends the next president show less restraint than President Obama. Acting at the urging of "liberal" hawks brandishing humanitarian intervention, read war, the Obama administration attacked Libya along with allied powers working through NATO. ..."
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only
one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and
the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority
of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit
of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
Former Congressman Dennis Kucinich has just penned an extremely powerful warning about the
warmongers in Washington D.C. Who funds them, what their motives are, and why it is imperative for
the American people to stop them.
Washington, DC, may be the only place in the world where people openly flaunt their pseudo-intellectuality
by banding together, declaring themselves "think tanks," and raising money from external interests,
including foreign governments, to compile reports that advance policies inimical to the real-life
concerns of the American people.
As a former member of the House of Representatives, I remember 16 years of congressional hearings
where pedigreed experts came to advocate wars in testimony based on circular, rococo thinking
devoid of depth, reality, and truth. I remember other hearings where the Pentagon was unable to
reconcile over $1 trillion in accounts, lost track of $12 billion in cash sent to Iraq, and rigged
a missile-defense test so that an interceptor could easily home in on a target. War is first and
foremost a profitable racket.
How else to explain that in the past 15 years this city's so called bipartisan foreign policy
elite has promoted wars in Iraq and Libya, and interventions in Syria and Yemen, which have opened
Pandora's box to a trusting world, to the tune of trillions of dollars, a windfall for military
contractors. DC's think "tanks" should rightly be included in the taxonomy of armored war vehicles
and not as gathering places for refugees from academia.
According to the
front page of this past Friday's Washington Post, the bipartisan foreign-policy elite recommends
the next president show less restraint than President Obama. Acting at the urging of "liberal"
hawks brandishing humanitarian intervention, read war, the Obama administration attacked Libya
along with allied powers working through NATO.
The think tankers fell in line with the Iraq invasion. Not being in the tank, I did my own
analysis of the call for war in October of 2002, based on readily accessible information, and
easily concluded that there was no justification for war. I distributed it widely in Congress
and led 125 Democrats in voting against the Iraq war resolution. There was no money to be made
from a conclusion that war was uncalled for, so, against millions protesting in the United States
and worldwide, our government launched into an abyss, with a lot of armchair generals waving combat
pennants. The marching band and chowder society of DC think tanks learned nothing from the Iraq
and Libya experience.
The only winners were arms dealers, oil companies, and jihadists. Immediately after the fall
of Libya, the black flag of Al Qaeda was raised over a municipal building in Benghazi, Gadhafi's
murder was soon to follow, with Secretary Clinton quipping with a laugh, "We came, we saw, he
died." President Obama apparently learned from this misadventure, but not the Washington policy
establishment, which is spoiling for more war.
The self-identified liberal
Center for American Progress (CAP) is now calling for Syria to be bombed, and estimates America's
current military adventures will be tidied up by 2025, a tardy twist on "mission accomplished."
CAP, according to
a report in The Nation, has received funding from war contractors Lockheed Martin and Boeing,
who make the bombers that CAP wants to rain hellfire on Syria.
As the drumbeat for an expanded war gets louder, Allen and Lister
jointly signed an op-ed in the Sunday Washington Post, calling for an attack on Syria. The
Brookings Institute,
in a report to Congress , admitted it received $250,000 from the US Central Command, Centcom,
where General Allen shared leadership duties with General David Petraeus. Pentagon money to think
tanks that endorse war? This is academic integrity, DC-style.
And why is Central Command, as well as the Food and Drug Administration, the US Department
of transportation, and the US Department of Health and Human Services giving money to Brookings?
Former secretary of state Madeleine Albright, who famously
told Colin
Powell , "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we
can't use it," predictably
says of this current moment , "We do think there needs to be more American action." A former
Bush administration top adviser is also
calling for the United States to launch a cruise missile attack on Syria.
The American people are fed up with war, but a concerted effort is being made through fearmongering,
propaganda, and lies to prepare our country for a dangerous confrontation, with Russia in Syria.
The demonization of Russia is a calculated plan to resurrect a raison d'être for stone-cold
warriors trying to escape from the dustbin of history by evoking the specter of Russian world
domination.
It's infectious. Earlier this year the BBC broadcast
a fictional show that contemplated
WWIII, beginning with a Russian invasion of Latvia (where 26 percent of the population is ethnic
Russian and 34 percent of Latvians speak Russian at home).
The imaginary WWIII scenario conjures Russia's targeting London for a nuclear strike. No wonder
that by the summer of 2016
a poll showed two-thirds of UK citizens approved the new British PM's launching a nuclear
strike in retaliation. So much for learning the lessons detailed in the Chilcot report.
As this year's presidential election comes to a conclusion, the Washington ideologues are regurgitating
the same bipartisan consensus that has kept America at war since 9/11 and made the world a decidedly
more dangerous place.
The DC think tanks provide cover for the political establishment, a political safety net, with
a fictive analytical framework providing a moral rationale for intervention, capitol casuistry.
I'm fed up with the DC policy elite who cash in on war while presenting themselves as experts,
at the cost of other people's lives, our national fortune, and the sacred honor of our country.
Any report advocating war that comes from any alleged think tank ought to be accompanied by
a list of the think tank's sponsors and donors and a statement of the lobbying connections of
the report's authors.
It is our patriotic duty to expose why the DC foreign-policy establishment and its sponsors
have not learned from their failures and instead are repeating them, with the acquiescence of
the political class and sleepwalkers with press passes.
It is also time for a new peace movement in America, one that includes progressives and libertarians
alike, both in and out of Congress, to organize on campuses, in cities, and towns across America,
to serve as an effective counterbalance to the Demuplican war party, its think tanks, and its
media cheerleaders. The work begins now, not after the Inauguration. We must not accept war as
inevitable, and those leaders who would lead us in that direction, whether in Congress or the
White House, must face visible opposition.
Just like Ron Paul (with whom he agrees on matters of foreign policy and the Fed), he was painted
by MSM as a kook. I wonder why. While I understand that many here would never vote for him because
he believes in things like social programs, so do all of the Republicans in Congress. He would
have made a far better president than zero or McCain.
"... Reality dictates ...abstaining or voting for anyone other than Donald Trump is a de facto vote for Hillary Clinton. As POTUS she has declared her intentions of imposing a (Libyan style) "NO FLY" zone over Syria, to "Obliterate" "Iran" and "Russia", confront China and expand the globalization of the American economy. ..."
"... For the sake of all humanity, criminal warmonger Hillary must be voted out on Nov.8 2016 ..."
"... While what you say may be half true, you miss the point entirely. It's irrelevant weather or not Trump keeps his words as we have no control over that anyway. What we do have control over however is not giving a mandate to Hillary's criminal war making intentions and the only way to do that under the circumstances, is to vote her out, by voting Trump in period. ..."
"... The clever economic left realizes that although Trump has some of dem ebul GOP economic ideas, he's more sensible than Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... I think b should've taken note of the Hillary camp's attempt in recent days to play down her militarism. ..."
"... IMO the best strategy is to vote Trump in battleground states and vote Green everywhere else. ..."
"... Very early on, I was of the opinion that Hillary's negatives were so high that her run should be seen as electing the Republican. But neocon defections, DNC collusion, 'sheepdog' Sanders, and more convinced me that the establishment really does want a Hillary coronation. ..."
"... The lesser-evilists are assuming that there aren't enough votes, so you are just taking votes from the lesser evil and helping the greater evil. True if their assumption is true, that there aren't enough votes for a third party to win. ..."
"... Another third-party argument is sending a signal to party leaders and the public that there are voters who despise the oligarchy candidates. That would improve growth of a third party (it would also attract oligarchy influence to them). ..."
"... We need to stop letting the corporate press goad us into fighting over trivia - transgenders in bathrooms! Trump's hair! Clinton's smile! - and focus on what is truly crucial. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton is a monster and God help us all if she wins. I envision President Clinton with perfectly coiffed hair with a rosy plastic smile (kudos to her mortician) giving a perfectly written speech with all the trendy buzzwords (celebrating diversity, helping the middle class, sustainable energy, etc.etc.) while outside the world burns. ..."
"... Whatever you do, no matter how much the corporate press tells you that Trump is 'finished,' go to the polls and vote. Because for the first time in decades, a US presidential election matters. ..."
"... Trump will meet with much resistance from the establishment. His worst instincts will be constrained. That is not true for Hillary & Co. ..."
"... A loss for a corrupted Democratic Party is best for the country. A strong showing by Greens is a further embarrassment. The left can then build on a solid foundation. ..."
"... Chomsky advocated for voting for Hillary in battleground states and Greens elsewhere. ..."
"... I do not believe that the 'Third Way' Democratic Party can be changed from within. The example of Obama and Hillary should have disabused any progressive of such fantasies. ..."
"... Trump, both domestically and internationally is the best breath of fresh air in American politics since FDR. Of course purists and utopians might disagree, but when he wins on Nov.8,I'll treat that day as the second 4th of July. America first, at long last, instead of traitors for zion. Hoo haw. Todays Wapoo intimates Trump anti-Semite. And Colin liar Powell is for the Hell Bitch. ..."
"... This elections cycle almost all fake leftist and NeoCon, both Democratic Party and Republicans voting for Hillary. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton's foreign policy is taken straight out of "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties" by Oded Yinon, also known as The Yinon Plan. ..."
"... I am a spectator outside the USSA. USSA policies affect all of humanity on planet earth. A vote for the Clinton adds another potential 16 years reign in the WH, a continuation of the corruption, death, destruction and endless wars. ..."
"... Since the 1990s in Arkansas then in D.C., their retirement is long overdue. Stop the Clintons from enriching themselves on the public purse…foreign and domestic. ..."
"... OMg Illary cares about women's rights but takes $millions in donations from such likes as KSA, Qatar. Not to mention, countries that are steeped in poverty. Take a look at the donors to the Clinton Foundation. ..."
Some highlights of a recent Donald Trump
interview with Reuters:
U.S. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said on Tuesday that Democrat Hillary Clinton's
plan for Syria would "lead to World War Three," because of the potential for conflict with military
forces from nuclear-armed Russia.
In an interview focused largely on foreign policy, Trump said defeating Islamic State is a
higher priority than persuading Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down,..
Trump questioned how Clinton would negotiate with Russian President Vladimir Putin after
demonizing him; blamed President Barack Obama for a downturn in U.S. relations with the Philippines
under its new president, Rodrigo Duterte;...
Trump's foreign policy talk is far more sane than Clinton's and her camp's. It is ludicrous
to event think about openly attacking Russian (or Syrian) troops in Syria with an al-Qaeda supporting
"no-Fly-Zone". Russia would respond by taking down U.S. planes over Syria. The Russian government
would have to do so to uphold its authority internationally as well as at home.
The U.S. could respond by destroying all Russian assets in and around Syria. It has the capabilities.
But then what? If I were Putin my next step would be a nuclear test shoot in Siberia - a big one
- to make a point and to wake up the rest of the world. I would also provide secret support to any
indigenous anti-U.S. movement anywhere. China would support Russia as its first line of self defense.
"What we should do is focus on ISIS. We should not be focusing on Syria," said Trump as he dined
on fried eggs and sausage at his Trump National Doral golf resort. "You're going to end up in
World War Three over Syria if we listen to Hillary Clinton.
"You're not fighting Syria any more, you're fighting Syria, Russia and Iran, all right? Russia
is a nuclear country, but a country where the nukes work as opposed to other countries that talk,"
he said.
...
On Russia, Trump again knocked Clinton's handling of U.S.-Russian relations while secretary of
state and said her harsh criticism of Putin raised questions about "how she is going to go back
and negotiate with this man who she has made to be so evil," if she wins the presidency.
On the deterioration of ties with the Philippines, Trump aimed his criticism at Obama, saying
the president "wants to focus on his golf game" rather than engage with world leaders.
The last two points are important. Trump, despite all his bluster, knows about decency. What is
the point of arrogantly scolding negotiation partner who have the power to block agreements you want
or need?
Why blame Russia for hacking wide open email servers when
no Russian speakers were involved? Why blame Duterte? It is the U.S. that has a long
history of violent racism in the Philippines and FBI agents
committed false flag "terrorism" is Duterte's home town Davao. Bluster may paper over such history
for a moment but it does not change the facts or helps solving problems.
Trump's economic policies would be catastrophic for many people in the U.S. and elsewhere.
But Hillary Clinton would put her husband, the man who deregulated Wall Street, back in charge of
the economy. What do people expect the results would be?
The points above may be obvious and one might be tempted to just pass them and dig into some nig-nagging
of this or that election detail. But the above points as THE most important of any election. The
welfare of the people is not decided with some "liberal" concession to this or that niche of the
general society. The big issues count the most. Good or evil flow from them. Trumps principle, and
I think personal position, is leaning towards peaceful resolution of conflicts. Clinton's preference
is clearly, as her history shows, escalation and general belligerence. It is too risky to vote for
her.
Reality dictates ...abstaining or voting for anyone other than Donald Trump is a de facto vote
for Hillary Clinton. As POTUS she has declared her intentions of imposing a (Libyan style) "NO
FLY" zone over Syria, to "Obliterate" "Iran" and "Russia", confront China and expand the globalization
of the American economy.
Thus all Americans by default and their own actions will have given her a mandate to do her
will and thereby become complicit in their own economic destruction, war crimes and potentially
starting world war three and a planetary thermonuclear holocaust.
Striped of all the other none issue nonsense and distractions the critical choice we are all
faced with making is that simple. And one that will for all eternity weigh on our collective souls
conscience.
For the sake of all humanity, criminal warmonger Hillary must be voted out on Nov.8 2016
Why are you still beating on that worn out tin drum of yours, Dr. Jill Stein isn't going anywhere,
not even if she politically walks on water. You keep at it like the dog in a manger, gnawing on
the remains of some desiccated bone. What you (and others maintaining your OPINIONS) have become
is stool pigeons to land some herd of discontents into the position of self inflicted voter suppression,
their votes without effect on the outcome of the election. If you and the others weren't so completely
innumerate, you would realise the first division in the election was between elegible participants
and non-participants. Of the participants only voters for either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump
will decide the eventual winner (with the highly probable event of assisted voting machine fraud).
All other votes are the effete delusions of some morally deranged cult. There Is No Alternative
(TINA) is the illusion of your political kindred is saying there is an alternative. You cannot
point out even one city commission in the top thousand that either the 'Greens' or 'Libertarians'
exercise control over, at best there may be a Communist mayor somewhere in that number. If perchance
Dr Stein were to win, where is the political support necessary to conduct governance at any level?
No your ideas come from Walt Disney directly - they are cartoon delusions. You need to carry a
warning whenever you express your opinions, like those posted on nuts - My opinion may contain
delusions.
About the only ability for today's voter to have any effect on the voting system is to provide
an unexpected aggregate that would draw back the curtains to expose the expectations and machinations
of the vote counters. Voting as you suggest will only allow those manipulations to remain hidden
- not effective voting by any measure, nor is it voting one's interests. If any of your ilk have
a counter argument that will stand scrutiny, please have at it, otherwise your silence after once
stating your opinion might be your best course to follow.
While what you say may be half true, you miss the point entirely. It's irrelevant weather or
not Trump keeps his words as we have no control over that anyway. What we do have control over
however is not giving a mandate to Hillary's criminal war making intentions and the only way to
do that under the circumstances, is to vote her out, by voting Trump in period.
Anything else amounts to a dereliction of patriotic duty and criminal negligence.
The idea that there is any real "choice" here to be had, other than doing what's of a critical
necessity at this point in time, is totally delusional in and of itself buying into the illusion
that we have any real freedom of choices here. Sorry we don't have that luxury.
We don't have a choice, other than to resister our protest vote against the political establishment
which clearly doesn't want to see Trump win the presidency of the US empire under any circumstances.
Given how close trump has gotten to within the reach of taking real power as commander in chief
of the worlds most powerful imperial empire, the deep state and political establishment will make
sure that, that threat will never happen again, if they even allow him to live very much longer.
So no second chances here for us all in another 4-8 years down the road, nor for all the men,
women and children victims to be killed by wars in all the countries Hillary has set her cross-hair
sights on as soon as she takes control of the entire state apparatus from the white house.
Time to get off our asses and get real here, and back on the right side of history, if but
for once in our lifetimes.
Talk is cheep but action is not. As in Trump's Gettysburg address he said "we have now crossed
the Rubicon" and heaven or hell there's no going back to the status quo, as he's already declared
war on the corrupt state department, the media and the whole of the elite's political establishment.
"So there's but one choice left to make here, and it's which side are you fighting on?"
According to an email from Marissa Astor, Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook's assistant,
to Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, the campaign knew Trump was going to run, and pushed
his legitimacy as a candidate.
WikiLeaks' release shows that it was seen as in Clinton's best
interest to run against Trump in the general election. The memo, sent to the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) also reveals the DNC and Clinton campaign were strategizing on behalf of their
candidate at the very beginning of the primaries. "We think our goals mirror those of the DNC,"
stated the memo, attached to the email under the title "muddying the waters."
The memo named Trump, Sen. Ted Cruz, and Ben Carson as wanted candidates. "We need to be
elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press
to them seriously," the memo noted.
Clinton was widely presumed to be the Democratic presidential nominee long before the primaries
began. This assumption was held by the mainstream media and the Democratic Party leadership.
Expecting Clinton to be the nominee, the DNC and Clinton campaign developed strategies for
the general election.
In June, hacker Guccifer 2.0 released an opposition research dossier on Trump, dated December
19, 2015. Coincidentally, no other opposition research dossiers were released by Guccifer 2.0
from the DNC hacks.
It was in the best interest of Clinton, and therefore the Democratic Party, that Trump was
the Republican presidential nominee. Polls indicated Sen. Rubio, Gov. Kasich, or almost any
other establishment Republican would likely beat Clinton in a general election. Even Cruz,
who is reviled by most Republicans, would still maintain the ability to rally the Republican
Party-especially its wealthy donors-around his candidacy. Clinton and Democrats expected the
FBI investigation into her private email server would serve as a major obstacle to Clinton's
candidacy, and the public's familiarity with her scandals and flip-flopping political record
put her at a disadvantage against a newcomer. Donald Trump solved these problems.
All the Clinton campaign had to do was push the mainstream media in the general direction
of covering and attacking Trump as though he was the star of the Republican presidential primaries.
As the presumed Democratic nominee, whomever she decided to dignify by responding to-whether
the comments were directed at her or not-would be presumed to be the spokesperson, or nominee,
of the Republican Party.
"Clinton, Trump trade insults as rhetoric heats up between front-runners," read the headline
from a CNN article in September 2015. "Hillary Clinton Seizes On Donald Trump's Remarks to
Galvanize Women," read a New York Times headline from December. Several media outlets criticized
the mainstream media obsession with Trump, but despite a few concerns that the media was propping
up his legitimacy as a candidate with their constant news coverage, it continued unabatedly.
The mainstream media was more than willing to do the Clinton campaign and DNC's work for
them by creating a narrative that the 2016 presidential elections was about Hillary Clinton
vs. Donald Trump.
Hey T bear are you Aussie, their was a poster T bear banging on in Aussie press, quite liked your
arguments as of now.
As Trump policy I predicted it (quite like Alexander Mercouris ) by 1. observation of what is
said, what was not said and what you can tease out of the rest. After the 2 debate i was convinced
that Trump would not declare "Assad must go " Just for this he has my consent to be POTUS.
How does the saying go?... 'oh what a tangled web we weave when we seek to deceive". Hence
I don't believe that if Hillary actually chose Trump to be who she ran against, that she (nor
all the expert politico's around her)had any real idea of what a Pandora's box they were opening.
Same thing go's for Trump, whom I don't think understood how fate and destiney would seize
him and transform his role in life into a renegade against the systemic corruption of the deep
state's political establishment.
Now only a year back, I would never have thought and sooner die and be the last person on earth
to be plumbing for a megalomaniac character like billionaire Trump.
But when faced with the real prospect of a criminally indictable and clinically insane, maniacal
psychopathic personality like Hillary, having her finger on the red nuclear button, my instincts
for survival and that of all humanity, informs my rational judgements and actions.
And that's essentially the basis on which I've decided that voting for Trump is the only sane
option left to try and avert more wars and the possibility of a thermonuclear disaster.
Very early on, I was of the opinion that Hillary's negatives were so high that her run should
be seen as electing the Republican. But neocon defections, DNC collusion, 'sheepdog' Sanders, and more convinced me that the establishment
really does want a Hillary coronation.
"About 30% of what's on Veterans Today is patently false. About 40% of what I write is at
least purposefully partially false. Because if I didn't write false information I wouldn't
be alive. I simply have to do that."
Your points are good but there is no need for this vitriol: the opposing points are also good
as far as they go.
You believe that a third party is the only way out of the 2-party oligarchy sham. True only
if it works, which it hasn't. You are assuming that there are, or eventually would be enough voters.
That argument is missing so far. Provide that evidence and you beat the lesser-evilists.
The lesser-evilists are assuming that there aren't enough votes, so you are just taking votes
from the lesser evil and helping the greater evil. True if their assumption is true, that there
aren't enough votes for a third party to win.
You both need to get that evidence before getting angry.
Another third-party argument is sending a signal to party leaders and the public that there
are voters who despise the oligarchy candidates. That would improve growth of a third party (it
would also attract oligarchy influence to them).
I think that your anger would be better directed at the problem (take out MSM stations and
staff and oligarchy generally). Between ourselves, let's get the evidence on vote effects.
Consider each state a 'battleground' state, there are national aggregates to consider that,
if nothing else, shed light on the historical contest for future historians to inspect and pass
judgement, particularly should the qualified 'not participating' outnumber the qualified participants.
No telling what future criteria will be about the validity of sub-median voter turnout, in some
places it is enough to invalidate a poll, that could easily spread.
@ 12
No, not Aussie but have friends who were. I hold the Australian government to be the hiding
place for the 3rd Reich, so not likely any beneficial relationship will exist.
@ fairleft | Oct 26, 2016 8:05:28 AM | 14
Experience informs those who rely on 'ad hominem' as defence against another's argument are
incapable of mounting a counter argument using facts. Furthermore, with few exception most so
doing have developmental problems and have not matured much past adolescence, they going
through life as man-children. Check back when you have matured. And that is definitely an ad
hominem - to the person.
We need to stop letting the corporate press goad us into fighting over trivia - transgenders
in bathrooms! Trump's hair! Clinton's smile! - and focus on what is truly crucial.
It's rational to worry about Trump. Yes, he has a good track record of getting along with business
partners when it counts, but he has no track record in governance. But Hillary Clinton is a monster
and God help us all if she wins. I envision President Clinton with perfectly coiffed hair with
a rosy plastic smile (kudos to her mortician) giving a perfectly written speech with all the trendy
buzzwords (celebrating diversity, helping the middle class, sustainable energy, etc.etc.) while
outside the world burns.
Whatever you do, no matter how much the corporate press tells you that Trump is 'finished,'
go to the polls and vote. Because for the first time in decades, a US presidential election matters.
Trump will meet with much resistance from the establishment. His worst instincts will be constrained.
That is not true for Hillary & Co.
A loss for a corrupted Democratic Party is best for the country. A strong showing by Greens
is a further embarrassment. The left can then build on a solid foundation.
@fair Chomsky advocated for voting for Hillary in battleground states and Greens elsewhere.
I do not believe that the 'Third Way' Democratic Party can be changed from within. The example
of Obama and Hillary should have disabused any progressive of such fantasies.
Trump, both domestically and internationally is the best breath of fresh air in American politics
since FDR.
Of course purists and utopians might disagree, but when he wins on Nov.8,I'll treat that day as
the second 4th of July.
America first, at long last, instead of traitors for zion.
Hoo haw. Todays Wapoo intimates Trump anti-Semite.
And Colin liar Powell is for the Hell Bitch.
The U.S. could respond by destroying all Russian assets in and around Syria. It has the capabilities.
But then what? If I were Putin my next step would be a nuclear test shoot in Siberia - a big
one - to make a point and to wake up the rest of the world.
Russia's "deescalation" procedure (in reality it could be viewed both ways) is a take off of
several strategic bombers (TU-160 from Engels) and deployment into the Arctic Region with subsequent
launch of salvo of cruise missiles (Kh-102) armed with nuclear warheads into the polygons or uninhabited
spaces. Putting all RVSN (nuclear strategic missile forces) on the immediate readiness (Combat
Station) is also an option.
There are certain ways, including diplomatic ones, to make "partners"
more attentive to the events. Plus, most likely, the price, which US and NATO would pay in case
some moron will decide to eliminate Russian Forces in Syria, will be very high purely militarily
and, especially, reputation-wise.
Attack on Russian Forces in Syria will also be the beginning
of the end of NATO, if not the outright collapse. In the end, Russia has means to directly conventionally
counter US, just this last quarter alone Russian Navy took delivery of 100+ cruise and ASMs of
Kaliber and Onyx-classes. Contingencies have been counted and planned for.
Trump's foreign policy summed up in a 35% levy threat on Ford exporting jobs to Mexico. Read my
lips ...! Nails the underlying tensions in the Race for the Place. The Big "F__k You!" election... Even the spinless Bernie S. is slithering into criticism of Klinton and the Wall St Gang. "Michael Moore Explains Why TRUMP Will Win"
James Clapper thinks the Russians just might be serious.....
'...says he wouldn't put it past Russia to "to shoot down an American aircraft" if a no-fly
zone is imposed over Syria.'
A loss for a corrupted Democratic Party is best for the country. A strong showing by Greens
is a further embarrassment. The left can then build on a solid foundation.
We are on the same wavelength. YES , we can't have Green and Democratic Party at the
same time. First eliminates the Democratic party in this election cycle. You can't eat your cake
and have it too . Therefore, voting against Democratic Party is my first priority.
This elections cycle almost all fake leftist and NeoCon, both Democratic Party and Republicans
voting for Hillary.
Hillary Clinton's foreign policy is taken straight out of "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen
Eighties" by Oded Yinon, also known as The Yinon Plan.
Here are are a few illustrative excerpts:
"The Western front, which on the surface appears more problematic, is in fact less complicated
than the Eastern front, in which most of the events that make the headlines have been taking place
recently. Lebanon's total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precedent for the entire
Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq and the Arabian peninsula and is already following that
track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas
such as in Lebanon, is Israel's primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the
dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria
will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such
as in present day Lebanon, so that there will be a Shi'ite Alawi state along its coast, a Sunni
state in the Aleppo area, another Sunni state in Damascus hostile to its northern neighbor, and
the Druzes who will set up a state, maybe even in our Golan, and certainly in the Hauran and in
northern Jordan. This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area
in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today.
Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate
for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is
stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat
to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before
it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation
will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking
up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along
ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible."
Now compare this to what Gen. Wesley Clarke revealed about the lead-up to the Iraq War. Six
weeks later, I saw the same officer, and asked: "Are we still going to attack Iraq?" He said:
"Sir, it's worse than that. He said – he pulled up a piece of paper off his desk – he said: "I
just got this memo from the Secretary of Defense's office. It says we're going to attack and destroy
the governments in 7 countries in five years – we're going to start with Iraq, and then we're
going to move to Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran."
This document, and the events which have followed its publication, should lay to rest once
and for all any illusions we might have harboured in relation to the various wars in the Middle
East.
The depths of the associated treason and treachery are simply breathtaking and will continue in
overdrive should Hillary Rodent Clinton be elected President.
The only answer is eliminating the pre-selection mechanism that delivers the 2-candidate,
elephant/jackass non-choice every election.
This is the election to do so: No to Clinton, no to Trump
jfl, I have always admired and read your comments here on MoA.
Sadly your posit means either of these two candidates will be (s)elected. Third Party rise
in the USSA Will. Not. Happen. Anytime .Soon. Third Party candidates will not attract the ->$7
+ billions required to run for the presidency. The status quo prevails.
So, in this very close election, wherein Soros told Bloomberg Hillary is a done deal,
http://toprightnews.com/the-fix-is-in-george-soros-says-hillary-election-a-done-deal-despite-trump-landslide/
Amerikans are left with these two options; voting for the least dangerous of the two:
[.] The media needs to be destroyed. And although voting for Trump won't do it, it's something.
Essentially, I am voting for Trump because of the people who don't want me to, and I believe I
must register my disgust with Hillary Clinton.
I am not of the mindset that any vote not for Trump is a vote for Hillary, but a vote for Trump
is a vote against Hillary. And I need to vote against Hillary. I need to vote against the media.
After the last debate, when no outlet "fact checked" Hillary's lie that her opposition to the
Heller decision had anything to do with children, or her lie that the State Department didn't
lose $6 billion under her leadership, I couldn't hold out any longer.
A Trump administration at least will include people I trust in positions that matter. I don't
know if they will be able to hold him completely in check, but I know a Clinton administration
will include people who have been her co-conspirators in corruption, and there won't even be a
media to hold her accountable.
The Wikileaks emails have exposed an arrogant cabal of misery profiteers who hold everyone,
even their fellow travelers deemed not pure enough, in contempt. These bigots who've made their
fortune from government service should be kept as far away from the levers of power as the car
keys should be kept from anyone named Kennedy on a Friday night. My one vote against it will not
be enough, but it's all I can do and I have to do all I can do.
I won't stop being critical of Trump when he deserves it; I won't pretend someone is handing
out flowers when they're shoveling BS. But I'd rather have BS shoveled out of a president than
our tax dollars shoveled to a president's friends and political allies.
The Project Vertias videos exposed a corrupt political machine journalists would have been
proud to expose in the past. The Wikileaks emails pulled back the curtain on why that didn't happen
– journalists are in on it. I can't pretend otherwise, and I have no choice but to oppose it.
[.]
I oppose much of what Donald Trump has said, but I oppose everything Hillary Clinton has done
and wants to do. And what someone says, no matter how objectionable, is less important than what
someone does, especially when it's so objectionable. A personal moral victory won't suffice when
the stakes are so high. As such, I am compelled to vote against Hillary by voting for the only
candidate with any chance whatsoever of beating her – Donald Trump.
~ ~ ~ I am a spectator outside the USSA. USSA policies affect all of humanity on planet earth. A vote
for the Clinton adds another potential 16 years reign in the WH, a continuation of the corruption,
death, destruction and endless wars.
Since the 1990s in Arkansas then in D.C., their retirement is long overdue. Stop the Clintons
from enriching themselves on the public purse…foreign and domestic.
OMg Illary cares about women's rights but takes $millions in donations from such likes as KSA,
Qatar. Not to mention, countries that are steeped in poverty. Take a look at the donors to the
Clinton Foundation.
The Clintons have no shame, no conscience and they can't grow one.
@ 12
No, not Aussie but have friends who were. I hold the Australian government to be one of
the hiding place s for the 3rd Reich, so not likely any beneficial relationship will exist.
...
Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Oct 26, 2016 8:55:20 AM | 23
There, fixed it.
ALL of the Christian Colonial countries have pro-AmeriKKKan fascist governments which studiously
ignore the Will Of the People.
I can't think of a single X-tian government which has NOT fallen into lockstep with the US - in
flagrant defiance of the electorate.
Since we can't outbid the ppl who are bribing them to defy us, the only practical solution is
rg the lg's pitchforks.
I don't post here much anymore but Dr. Stein is the head of an NGO called the Green Party not
a political party. She is busy protesting in North Dakota to get on Democracy Now instead of camping
out in Bernie States pushing those voters to continue our political revolution with her. It's
a shame really.
I've never had much respect for the Green Party and they have shown that they are incapable
of becoming an oppisition party in the U.S.
If you are interested in 3rd parties take some time to check out the Justice Party and Rocky
Anderson. They are not active this cycle. The Justice Party does not have an International Party
which is problematic for the Greens in the U.S. The name Justice is much better in rhetorical
fights than Green and they are not riddled with former Democratic whores.
With that said vote for Trump in swing states. He is the Lesser of Two Evils and this time
we are talking about Nuclear War with Russia. Clinton is still a Goldwater Girl.
The Green Party should, for all intents and purposes, be opposed to a billionaire lobbyist like
Soros, however Jill Stein's running mate, Baraka, was also a board member at the Center for Constitutional
Rights, CCR.
There are other connections between the Green Party and George Soros, but I haven't got time
to pursue this....
Anyone interested should look into the period from 2004 to 2011, when Baraka was the Executive
Director of the US Human Rights Network, and look at who was funding the HUNDREDS of NGOs that
make up the Human Rights Network.
Anyone who seriously considers that voting...or NOT voting...for either of these creatures
will change a goddamned thing is totally asleep to what has happened in the U.S. over the past
60+ years.
Today the path to total dictatorship in the U.S. can be laid by strictly legal means, unseen
and unheard by Congress, the President, or the people. Outwardly we have a Constitutional
government. We have operating within our government and political system … a well-organized
political-action group in this country, determined to destroy our Constitution and establish
a one-party state…. The important point to remember about this group is not its ideology
but its organization… It operates secretly, silently, continuously to transform our Government….
This group … is answerable neither to the President, the Congress, nor the courts. It is
practically irremovable."
- Senator William Jenner, 1954 speech
Unaffected by elections. Unaltered by populist movements. Beyond the reach of the law.
Say hello to America's shadow government.
A corporatized, militarized, entrenched bureaucracy that is fully operational and staffed
by unelected officials who are, in essence, running the country, this shadow government represents
the hidden face of a government that has no respect for the freedom of its citizenry.
No matter which candidate wins the presidential election, this shadow government is here
to stay. Indeed, as recent documents by the FBI reveal, this shadow government-also referred
to as "The 7th Floor Group"-may well have played a part in who will win the White House this
year.
And then go take care of your own business as best you can. The status quo will remain...hidden
in various ways as it has been hidden since the late '40s/early '50s...until it fails of its own
doing. No amount of talky talk talk, no amount of organizing, no amount of anything is going to
change what is up here. The best any of us can do is to try to reach one mind at a time.
Eisenhower tried to warn us in his farewell speech:
The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the
main, understood these truths and have responded to them well in the face of threat and stress.
But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise.
Of these, I mention two only.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty,
ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors
in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American
makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can
no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create
a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million
men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military
security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now
we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to
create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in
the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt
in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative
need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil,
resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence,
whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous
rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.
We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the
proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods
and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture,
has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex,
and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal
government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces
of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university,
historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution
in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract
becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are
now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations,
and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also
be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive
of a scientific-technological elite.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations,
and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces,
new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme
goals of our free society.
"It is ludicrous to event think about openly attacking Russian (or Syrian) troops in Syria
with an al-Qaeda supporting "no-Fly-Zone". Russia would respond by taking down U.S. planes over
Syria. The Russian government would have to do so to uphold its authority internationally as well
as at home."
It is ludicrous. And stupid. It would also be tantamount to a declaration of war. And the chickenshit
US Military does NOT want a war with Russia, no matter what the daydreamers might say.
Stating that the Green Party can not win does not take reality into account. Only 18% of
voters participated in the primaries, the majority of voters are neither Democrats nor Republicans,
and the population of Millennials has surpassed that of the Baby Boomers.
Of course this doesn't change the fact that it is still very unlikely that Jill Stein will
win, but to imply that it's impossible is dishonest. I have always voted for the candidate that
I liked... never for the lesser of two evils. How different would the world be if Nader had either
won or gained popular support in 2000? Voting for the lesser of two evils has pushed the Republican
Party into crazy town with the Democratic Party taking their place.
I'm not arrogant enough to tell people how to vote, however I am arrogant enough to inform.
The lack of information and the inability to process more than one thought by both the voters
and the media, alternative included, is astounding.
I'm pretty sure that people on this site know what imposing a no-fly zone in Syria would entail.
How is this not advocating a war of aggression? Have we forgotten what the Nuremberg Tribunal
declared as the supreme international crime:
War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states
alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only
an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war
crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.
Not only do you have the current administration committing war crimes, you also have it's presidential
candidate openly advocating a war crime.
[.] The media needs to be destroyed. And although voting for Trump won't do it, it's something.
Essentially, I am voting for Trump because of the people who don't want me to, and I believe I
must register my disgust with Hillary Clinton.
I am not of the mindset that any vote not for Trump is a vote for Hillary, but a vote for Trump
is a vote against Hillary. And I need to vote against Hillary. I need to vote against the media.
After the last debate, when no outlet "fact checked" Hillary's lie that her opposition to the
Heller decision had anything to do with children, or her lie that the State Department didn't
lose $6 billion under her leadership, I couldn't hold out any longer.
A Trump administration at least will include people I trust in positions that matter. I don't
know if they will be able to hold him completely in check, but I know a Clinton administration
will include people who have been her co-conspirators in corruption, and there won't even be a
media to hold her accountable.
The Wikileaks emails have exposed an arrogant cabal of misery profiteers who hold everyone,
even their fellow travelers deemed not pure enough, in contempt. These bigots who've made their
fortune from government service should be kept as far away from the levers of power as the car
keys should be kept from anyone named Kennedy on a Friday night. My one vote against it will not
be enough, but it's all I can do and I have to do all I can do.
I won't stop being critical of Trump when he deserves it; I won't pretend someone is handing
out flowers when they're shoveling BS. But I'd rather have BS shoveled out of a president than
our tax dollars shoveled to a president's friends and political allies.
The Project Vertias videos exposed a corrupt political machine journalists would have been
proud to expose in the past. The Wikileaks emails pulled back the curtain on why that didn't happen
– journalists are in on it. I can't pretend otherwise, and I have no choice but to oppose it.
[.]
I oppose much of what Donald Trump has said, but I oppose everything Hillary Clinton has
done and wants to do. And what someone says, no matter how objectionable, is less important than
what someone does, especially when it's so objectionable. A personal moral victory won't suffice
when the stakes are so high. As such, I am compelled to vote against Hillary by voting for the
only candidate with any chance whatsoever of beating her – Donald Trump.
~ ~ ~ ~
It is long past due and time to stop the corrupt Clintons from continuing to enrich themselves
off the backs of taxpayers; domestic and foreign.
Illary professes to care about women's rights yet her Clinton Family Foundation takes in $millions
from the likes of KSA and Qatar. Moreover, there is no shame in taking donations from small countries
steeped in poverty. It is high time to retire the Clintons. They have no conscience. If you haven't
a conscience you can't grow one.
RayB - well stated arguments to vote for Trump. Thank you for taking the time to post them.
As folks here already know, Hillary's stated commitment to impose a No-Fly Zone in Syria is
a show stopper for me. There is no way I can support more tragedy in Syria let alone elsewhere.
Any who don't think such a policy position does not matter tells me you are a supporter of
the neoliberal/neocon imperial building for which I cannot support. This is what a vote for Clinton
means.
I may have had a different opinion or thought about the U.S. morphing into the world's top
cop had I ever been asked, but I wasn't. I never was asked to vote on it or for/against it. These
sneaky rastards intentions were never spelled out, never communicated succinctly to the populous
let alone debated on the merits. Nope. These rastards are hell bent on shoving their neoliberal/neocon/third
way/nwo crap down American's throats.
And no, Donald is and always will be an outsider. If you believe otherwise you've obviously
not been paying much attention to him over the last four years. That man did not win the primaries
by chance, he won them handily through skill and out maneuvering his opponents. He has spent the
last four years learning up close the plethora of challenges an open border presents to the security
of the U.S. He gets the issues revolving around policing and the growing police state. He has
formiddable experience making, losing and making money again. He's had a front seat to big business
and its multiple machinations for decades.
And a vote for Hillary is a vote for the Establishment and their utopian new world order, which
includes WAR, WAR, and MORE WAR!
Touching naivety about Trump however the probability of him being 'different', given his record,
doesn't support it.
The problem with Trump is he made a #1 strategic mistake in supporting and giving in to the
religious right.
Apart from anything else this gives zero confidence that he'd stand up to the far more powerful
neo-liberal, neo-con 'war party' establishment if he got into power. If he caves totally to a
bunch of fundamentalist nutjobs, who themselves are neo-liberal and neo-conservative to the core,
it doesn't actually inspire any confidence whatsoever. Take one example Mike Pence is a neo-conservative
'Israel firster'... through and through.
Somehow I can't see the world being a safer place if the US tears itself to pieces trying to
become a fundamentalist religious 'state', dominated by a bunch of people wanting 'the end of
times'....
Despite the "with some "liberal" concession to this or that niche of the general society."
comment, he has threatened the rights of the majority of voters and even the very existence of
some.
In case no one had noticed 50% of the population are women, add in all the other minorities and
you have a healthy 60-70% he is directly threatening.
Religious right candidates (like Cruz and Pence) are unelectable, ever more so with time as
organised religion dies in the US and their policies on women and LGBTI people, plus let's not
forget their endemic racism, become every more unacceptable.
And note ALL the 'religious right' people are total neo-conservatives, that almost make Clinton
look like a pacifist.
Trump has nearly destroyed the Republican Party. And he has done so by speaking truths that
are rarely heard in "polite company": our politicians are puppets and our elections are "rigged".
Sanders spoke against inequality but he didn't go as far as Trump. He couldn't because he was
merely a sheepdog, leading his young 'flock' to Hillary.
If Trump wins, it would be a body blow to the Democrats who play on peoples fears to get elected
but never deliver workable solutions. Rinse. Repeat.
The Greens can win in 2020 after Trump fails and both parties are in disarray.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
I'm not telling people how to vote. I encourage people to think for themselves. This is only
MY opinion.
Its hard to emotionally accept the occurrence of a nuclear war today.
You should see how Saker couldn't cope with it at first.
If Russian assets in Syria get destroyed. The response will not to be nuking that little island
in the Indian ocean far away from everything or Hawaii that is in the middle of nowhere.
"The U.S. could respond by destroying all Russian assets in and around Syria. It has the capabilities.
But then what?" Then the US activates also activates phase D which is NATO invasion of Russia
(from Ukraine, the Baltics, Scandinavia) and China (from South Korea, Japan + other US bases scatered
all over the US empire).
I don't believe Trump's domestic and foreign policy will be any more different or peacefull.
I think he would just be facing a lot more resistance. Either way, unless Hillary dies there is
no doubt she will be the next POTUS.
As a 50 something adult who lives in a state where we have a healthy voter population of Christian
Right, which you refer to as religious right, folk let me assure you that your description of
them is way the hell out of line. Your distasteful comment shows just how inexperienced and ignorant
you are about this very American voting block.
Why are you even weighing in here? You seem more of a DailyKos kinda poster. Posters around
here tend to avoid language that is as divisive as yours and that all knowing punkish tone you
are using.
Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but these neoconservative you are talking about have
been leaving his camp in droves in the preceeding months. Please do not lecture us on some secret
collusion between Trump and those wicked shits. There is no doubt they will be crawling back to
the Donald when he sits on the throne. But make no mistake: he will not forget the treachery of
these subjects, just as the constituents of these jokers will not forget how they abandoned the
Donald and revealed their obedience to the uniparty. These are the voters that hate "politicians,"
remember? I can't wait to see Paul Ryan squirm.
And GTFO with your lgbtq trolling nonsense. Time to relegate these babies to their safe spaces
so we can all breathe a sigh of relief to be rid of their loud, obnoxious mental anguish over
their own petty insignificance. Remember, too, that Syrian lives matter. Once the culture of death
is curtailed anroad, we can tackle the culture of death at home. Ancient Chinese wisdom for dumb
trolls.
Trump sounds very scary in many ways but most of the stuff he babbles on about should not worry
anybody. The President of the US does not rule the US. Power in the US is distributed into the
three branches of government -- the executive, Congress and the judiciary. Most of Trump's worst
ideas will have to pass through Congress and the judiciary. There is only one area where the President
has total dominion and that is foreign policy and making war.
The question should come down to who do we want want as the next President -- a candidate that
seeks war with Russia or one who wants to negotiate and make deals? Given that question we will
be better off with Trump.
If Trump wins he will not have any support in Congress so it makes no sense that he will succeed
in cutting taxes for the richest or build the Mexican wall or any of the other nutty things he
advocates. But making peace with the Russians is the one thing he could accomplish.
Also I support Trump because the Democratic National Committee has been completely taken over
by the Hillary and neocon wing of the Democratic Party. As long as they control the Democratic
Party (which they do today) any US president that is a Democrat means that WWIII is a real option
always on the table. Tax cuts for the rich, increased monopolization of the economy, increased
poverty rates, restrictions on abortions, etc, are quite secondary. [BTW, I have served on a county
Democratic central committee for the last two decades and worked on presidential campaigns for
Democrats going back to Eisenhower-Stevens in 1956 (except for Humphrey in 1968). What I have
witnessed is that the entire party has been taken over by the big money contributions going down
to city council elections.] A Trump victory will give us a small chance for the grass roots Democrats
to regain some influence in national Party affairs -- today we have none.
NOT voting requires no amount of talky talk talk, no amount of organizing, no amount of anything.
but if everyone did it the central government would become immediately irrelevant and collapse,
and if the central government collapsed, its attendant institutions would unravel, the primary
grifters would atrophy on the vine, and the deep state would be in deep shit.
@1 I think it makes little sense to convince progressives that the should vote for Hillary. And
it is absurd to insist that a vote for anyone other than Trump is "a de facto vote for Hillary
Clinton." The more people that don't vote for Hillary the better. And a vote for Jill Stein builds
up the Green Party. If we could get the message out that Hillary is just too dangerous and that
a real progressive choice is Jill Stein, then it is possible that a good number of people who
may have voted for Hillary (and who can't stomach Trump) could take away Clinton's margin of victory
. I am voting for Jill Stein, I live in NY, it is not practical, given past elections, to think
Trump could win NY. I would be wasting my vote to vote for Trump in NY. When I vote for Jill Stein,
that is another vote NOT going to Hillary Clinton. see video:
VIDEO
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- In the U.S., 13% approve of the job Congress is doing, in line with approval
ratings ranging from 11% to 16% since August. The current rating is just four percentage points
above the record low of 9% recorded in November 2013.
'Selection' 2016 is a clown show. Trump, Hill & Bill, Bu$h I, Bu$h II even Romney are all heavily
involved is the drug money laundry business. A vote is a vote that legitimises the system.
I just cannot bring myself to vote for any of these criminals. Every vote legitimises this
freak show.
***Last letter of the alphabet does not work on my keyboard.
Donald Trump as the front runner and then candidate of the Republican Party didn't just happen.
This was by design, it was what the DNC and the Hillary campaign wanted and what they told the
media to do, to elevate him to leader of the pack. (
Wikileaks reveals
NOT voting requires no amount of talky talk talk, no amount of organizing, no amount of anything.
but if everyone did it the central government would become immediately irrelevant and collapse,
and if the central government collapsed, its attendant institutions would unravel, the primary
grifters would atrophy on the vine, and the deep state would be in deep shit.
A huge majority of the U.S. population is still caught up in the wonderful political virtual
reality game so generously provided for free by the Deep State-controlled media. They will clomp-clomp-clomp
on out of their zombified dwellings and vote for whichever of the two-dimensional VR candidates
for whom they root.
Ludicrous propaganda once again from b. B sure is trying his darndest to want to work for the
Russian state under his lord and saviour Putin the irresistible.
Trump himself said that China is a threat to the US. And he refuses to rule out no war with
China. Therefore Trump is likely wanting to start world War three by attacking China. How is that
worse than Hitlery wanting to attack Russia in Syria.
Trump will take Iraqs oil, make Mexico pay for a wall on the US side starting a war with them,
and so much more horrendous criminality
And Trumps foreign policy is "sane". What despicable ludicrous lies
Seriously people. If anyone believes either candidate means what they say, with all due respect,
you're delusional. No matter what, whomever "wins", they'll do as they're instructed to do.
Sorry b, with all due respect and gratitude for what you do, that includes you. Living up to
one's rhetoric is difficult, for anyone running for POTUS, impossible.
The only relevant vote against that crazy bitch from hell?
Of course:
Trump
A number of commentators have pointed out that the US could destroy Russia's assets - what they don't
point out is that this would expose US assets to destruction - which is why WW3 is almost inevitable
if the US escalates in Syria
A number of commentators have pointed out that the US could destroy Russia's assets - what they
don't point out is that this would expose US assets to destruction - which is why WW3 is almost
inevitable if the US escalates in Syria
Those who say: Its all a charade, voting changes nothing, Trump will do what he's told, etc. have
either given up in disgust or are purposely ignoring reality. The establishment is afraid of a
Trump win. There are numerous instances of their manipulating or attempting to manipulate the
election.
Vote Trump in swing states. Vote Green everywhere else.
So what? I've read that leak. Doesn't speak or reference in any way complicity of Trump's campaign
or even the repubs. I think you are framing that to fit your perspective that the DNC is the main
powerbroker, here. Whereas, the more hilarious conclusion to draw would be that, through their
arrogance and complete and utter disdain for the disaffected, they underestimated the threat of
a "fringe" candidate. Talk about the most fuckin' shortsighted political decision (all-time bone
head plays #1) this side of Joe Liebermann. God it makes me smile. And to think, the media played
right into Trump's tiny hands. That's showmanship. Face it: he is smarter and crafter and he knows
the people just a hair more.
Yes, we all want Trump to save the whales, make cake healthy, unite the Muslim world, make
college free, fix health-care, restore the rust-belt, solve climate - change while delivering
more jobs to energy sector, defeat Isis while not upsetting KSA, Qatar, et.al, and not go into
Syria.
I'll take one of those at least for my vote. Can you guess which one?
Lately I can understand why most people hate trump and love Clinton or vise versa. But I have
to say that both party's have great and solid points that needs to be taken serious the voting
will be harder then before that is for sure the only thing I hate about the politics is that when
the candidate has won all point's they have made in the election round will go out the window.
My dutch boyfriend just ask me why do they always put one man in the seat to control all why
not join forces will this not be a better option what do you think those he has a point or is
it just wrong thinking on his part.
Look at Greece. The progressives/socialists could not win. It seems that we need a nationalist.
It is a hard truth for progressives. The left has failed miserably to check the tyranny of
neolibcon Centrists who sell us all out to the highest bidder.
We need a Trump, like Russia needed a Putin. To right the ship.
When the dust settles, and lessons are learned, real progressives with integrity can rebuild.
Jimbo is giving a good daily rundown of the fraud coming in from the advance polls, & other things.
I like the one where the poll station workers are filling in the paper ballot votes after, for
those not voting. http://82.221.129.208/basepageq5.html
I don't know about Trump. But Hillary is a fucking nightmare. I don't live in America and I can't
vote there, but to those who do and can, please don't vote for that psycho bitch. Anyone else.
Anybody. But to cast a vote for her would be an exhibition of ignorance and willful sociopathy.
The world is begging you, please... Pleeeeeeeease. Do not vote for whole countries to be flushed
down the same toilet of meglomaniacal greed. Be nice. There are a lot of other people living on
this planet. We don't wanna kill anybody, we just wanna relax and thrive. Get with the program....
Trump loses in the Electoral College. Gets his own TV network and proceeds to preempt and co
opt 3rd party Constitution Party. Just like Dr. Ron Paul's campaign was co opted by supposed Tea
Party people who were in fact Conservative paid stooges. Right off the top the Cock brothers come
to mind.
@Jackrabbit 74
The Nationalist response is a natural one in the face of this unseen, centralising, globalist
beast. UK just had theirs with Brexit, and now we see the battle lines redrawn and subsequent
rally behind Corbyn. France could be next in Europe.
The left seems not to know where it is in the states... I agree it needs to fall into disarray
before rediscovering itself.
Trump has the momentum going down the straight, no one knows what the fuck is going on amongst
all the monkey shit being flung in the cage...but no one is oblivious to the the fact that the
establishment, from the neocon flight to the unprecedented MSM collusion and everything in-between,
is so OTT Trump. Too much so. It's what the progressive left always wanted, a hero like this,
to stand up to the machine.
All that money and all Hillary cam come up with is a naughty word and 'Never Trump' - almost
as if Trump goaded them into a shitfight by making idiotic, outlandish statements alongside his
more thoughtful output that doesn't make primetime cable news. Now the Dems have less than two
weeks to attack some real issues to quiet the silent majority's upcoming 'fuck you' vote...
I'd even go as far to say there will be plenty of silent Dems voting Trump if the election
was right now. No wonder Trump wants a 4th debate.
The only recourse the citizenry of the Outlaw US Empire has in attempting to restore its freedoms
and regain control of the national government is to revolt. Unfortunately, such a dire action
requires a high degree of solidarity amongst a body of citizens large enough to make the attempt
and there's no sign of such a body anywhere to be seen. Thus we'll see the selection of HRC and
the last gasp of the Neoliberalcons attempt to establish Full Spectrum Dominance of the planet
and its people that will likely escalate the already existing Hybrid WW3 to a hot war. In other
words, it doesn't matter who you vote for, so you ought to vote your conscience so you can be
right with yourself. Our household's voting Stein.
'The big issues count the most. Good or evil flow from them. Trumps principle, and I think personal
position, is leaning towards peaceful resolution of conflicts.' - b
The latter sentence contrasts with trump's determination to kill ISIS and take their oil. Sounds
like occupation to me. And his manner of fighting them - with unrestrained torture and bullets
dipped in pig's blood - is likely to catalyse supporty for them else where in the muslim world
(and the muslim parts of the west), even if ISIS is stomped flat in Syria/Iraq. Coup[led with
his blanket ban on muslim immigration, this sounds like a recipe for more conflict, not less.
Likewise with some other big issues: climate change and world trade. As shitty as the WTO system
can be, simply withdrawing and erecting huge tariffs would have catastrophic effects on world
trade that wwe comparable to if not worse than the 1931 Smoot-Hawley tariffs that crippled world
trade and set the stage for WW2. Worse, Trump's 100% opposition to acting on climate change, and
his determination to allow all fossil fuel extraction projects to go ahead, will guarantee catastrophic
global warming that will make WW2 itself look insignificant in the long run.
I agree that Hillary is a menace. But that doesn't make Trump less of one.
Perfect legacy of Obama is the just announced Obamacare insurance premium 25℅ avg rate increases.
Covered at WSWS but can't link from this phone. How about a $10,000 deductible for a family of
4 making $40,000? Things will get worse on several fronts next year, according to bipartisan plans
published in the NYT. Trump's 'solution' is going back to what we had before, ie he has no solution.
Wants to turn Medicaid, aid for our poor, into a voucher program. Don't vote for austerity, don't
vote for HillTrump.
Trump isn't a leftist, nor is he a pacifist. In fact, Trump is an ardent militarist, who has
been proposing actual colonial wars of conquest for years. It's a kind of nationalist hawkishness
that we haven't seen much of in the United States since the Cold War - but has supported some
of the most aggressive uses of force in American history.
You'll see a robust bill of particulars in the article; I've cited some of them earlier. To
little effect of course; Red Hats and Green Tea Bags make excellent counter-factual filters.
The author, Zack Beauchamp, quite helpfully puts The Day-Glo Orange Duckhead in historical
context. He quotes the historian Walter Russell Mead on the Jacksonian tradition in American foreign
policy. He's from Bard College, BTW, which rates fairly high up on the uber-liberal university
scale. So they don't be doin' too many Orange Jello Shots, know what I mean?
Jacksonians, according to Mead, are basically focused on the interests and reputation of the
United States. They are skeptical of ... idealistic quests removed from the interests of everyday
Americans. But when American interests are in question, or failing to fight will make America
look weak, Jacksonians are more aggressive than anyone.
"The Gulf War was a popular war in Jacksonian circles because the defense of the nation's
oil supply struck a chord with Jacksonian opinion.... With them it is an instinct rather than
an ideology - a culturally shaped set of beliefs and emotions rather than a set of ideas,"
Mead writes. Sound familiar?
Historically - and here's the important part - the Jacksonian tradition has been partly
responsible for a lot of what we see today as American atrocities....
Jackson himself is responsible for the "Trail of Tears."
On the campaign trail, Trump routinely cites Gens. George Patton and Douglas MacArthur as foreign
policy models - uber-Jacksonians both. Patton wanted to invade the Soviet Union after World
War II to head off perceived future threats to America. And President Harry Truman fired MacArthur,
despite his strategic genius, for publicly and insubordinately advocating total war against
China during the Korean War.
This is the tradition Trump's views seem to fit into. But while Patton and MacArthur at
least had real military expertise and intellectual heft animating their hawkishness, Trump
is just a collection of angry impulses. There's no worked-out strategic doctrine here, just
an impulse to act aggressively when it seems like America's interests and/or reputation are
at stake.
Just a bundle of anger, driven by emotion, no set plan, aggressive with poor impulse control.
What could possibly go wrong?
So he doesn't want the present wars in the Ukraine and Syria, he says, now. But all the better
to bomb Iraq and Iran into a pulp, it would seem.
Climate change is already affecting the world, and it will take a concerted effort over a much,
much longer period to get it under control, when compared to the Nazi threat.
This is scientifically certain. The prospect of WW3 under Hillary's presidency is very far from
being certain.
what oligarch will those pesky amerikkans vote for?
oligarch 1 - hillary
or oligarch 2 - trump
if it was me, i would be voting 2.. but being in canada, i don't get to vote.. i just get to
listen to bullshite 2016 election usa 24/7 any time i venture onto the internut..
The third - and final - presidential debate between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican
Donald Trump was held Oct. 19 at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and moderated by Fox News'
Chris Wallace.
At one point Hillary said: "....and I'm going to continue to push for a no-fly zone and safe
havens within Syria"
A No Fly Zone means we shoot down Russian planes. And THAT MEANS WW-III.
= = = = Furthermore = = = =
With single-bid ("plurality") voting you only have two candidates to choose from.
I have described the strategic hedge simple score election method all over the Internet, and
it has been known of for many years. It is simple in the sense that does not require easily hackable
voting machines, and can easily work with hand counted paper ballots at non-centralized poling
stations. It is not hampered by any requirement to cater to so-called "sincere," "honest" (actually
artless and foolish) voters. It easily thwarts both the spoiler effect and the blind hurdle dilemma
(the "Burr Dilemma"), which prevents voters from exercising the strategies that they need to use
to defeat the big bosses. It just works.
Strategic hedge simple score voting can be described in one simple sentence: Strategically
bid no vote at all for undesired candidates (ignore them as though they did not exist), or strategically
cast from five to ten votes for any number of candidates you prefer (up to some reasonable limit
of, say, twelve candidates), and then simply add all the votes up.
Both IRV-style and approval voting methods suffer from the blind hurdle dilemma, which can
be overcome with the hedge voting strategy. An example of usage of the hedge strategy, presuming
the (most famous) case of a "leftist" voter, would be casting ten votes for Ralph Nader, and only
eight or nine "hedge votes" for Al Gore. This way, the voter would only sacrifice 20 or 10 percent
of their electoral influence if Nader did not win.
Don't be fooled by fake "alternatives" like "IRV" and "approval voting". Ranked choice voting
is supported by the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Open Society Foundations
(of Soros), and on and on.
Ranked choice voting is just as bad,or worse than out present single-bid ("plurality") method
with regard to enforcing the two party syndrome, and this has been demonstrated repeatedly in
history.
Score voting is fundamentally distinct from ranked choice voting, and does not promote the
two party syndrome. That's probably why it doesn't get hundreds of millions of promotion dollars
as the "Green" Party's ranked choice system does.
And demand hand counted paper ballots that cannot be rigged by "Russian hackers".
We are stuck with this miserable system because of a surprisingly large array of people who
I call the "election methods cognoscenti". Over many years, these cognoscenti have assembled an
enormous collection of distracting, unworkable election methods. This "intellectual subject" has,
for instance, consumed perhaps hundreds of pages in works such as the Wikipedia. These cognoscenti
have created a gigantic Glass Bead Game which serves no real purpose other than to facilitate
intellectual speculation. In nearly every instance where their election methods have been employed,
disaster has ensued, although in a few cases, their systems have languished on, providing no better
results than the choose-one voting system. Millions, perhaps tens of millions of dollars, have
been spent promoting the "IRV" method, which has been tried and abandoned in several venues where
it caused massive chaos.
We cannot afford any more of this intellectual masturbation, which has lead to this absurd
2016 "election". All we should be doing is protesting for safe, easy-to-understand strategic hedge
simple score voting.
And I will be voting for Donald Trump, even though I know that my "ballot" is going to be fed
into an infernal machine.
Clinton advised the mainstream media to push his legitimacy as a "pied piper" candidate because
she realized, after looking at the poll numbers, that she wouldn't stand a chance at winning the
presidency against any of the establishment republicans without making them "pied pipers" – it
just so happened that Donald was the easiest to play the role considering his long history of
friendship with the Clintons.
https://dollarvigilante.com/blog/2016/10/25/rigged-election-hillary-trump-caught-partying-like-bffs-kissinger-jesuit-gala.html
Oh c'mon. Stooping pretty low on that one. One of election's sicker sideshows: Briebert's site
covering Stein more then almost anyone else... when they can twist one of Jill's criticism's of
Hillary into and endorsement of Trump. Jill is most certainly a NASTY woman. :)
Trump has some strange ideas. And he'll cause some real harm in some areas.
But again, his strong medicine is what is needed. We can spill loads of electronic ink debating
the
reasons why and talking about how he sucks but that won't change the reality.
I am very much against the duopoly. But one of these two will win. A win by Trump and a strong
showing by the Greens is the best we can hope for.It sends a clear message. What message does
voting for Hillary send? That we will allow ourselves to be compromised yet AGAIN?
Trump says: "either you have a country, or you don't". So what are the 'borders' that the left
will
defend? Just how much will the Left allow its so-called leaders to compromise and marginalize
us?
There is a natural alliance between the principled left and principled right that the mercenary,
mendacious establishment fears. Don't be fooled by Hillary/DNC scare tactics and media manipulation!
Hillary tells some voters that she will continue Obama's policies and other voters that she
will be
different. She assures Goldman Sacks that her private positions differ very much from her public
positions. She runs pay to play scams via the Clinton Foundation, takes tons of money from Wall
Street
and pretends that none of that influences her. The Chair of the DNC joined her campaign after
her
work against Sanders was revealed! And Sanders response? He endorsed Hillary!!
The Democrats believe that YOU and your family, friends, and neighbors are confused and scared
or just
plain dumb and foolish enough to vote for Hillary and other Democrats that will ride her coattails.
Prove them wrong. Stand up for yourself! Vote for Trump in swing states and Jill Stein in other
states.
That the establishment candidate is not automatically the worst possible candidate. Not when
the other is an unrepentant racist determined to castrate the First Amendment and incinerate the
climate. What message does it send when a candidate whose campaign took off at the point he called
most - if not all - illegal immigrants 'rapists' wins the White House? Besides, you sound more
like a Sanders supporter than a Trump supporter - so maybe his thoughts are worth taking into
account here.
I had assumed your link would be garbage, but took a look, anyway. In fact, it raises significant
points. In particular, previously unknown (to me) details about his views about "taking the oil".
I'm definitely for Trump, consider him far safer and saner than Clinton wrt foreign policy
with most of the world (I suspect he could be worse wrt N Korea, than Clinton; also, no better
wrt Africa, than Clinton).
I have never been impressed with the Trumpian "take the oil" position that I learned of during
the campaign, and have described it as "goofy" and "sure sounding like a war crime". That this
particular stupidity (or hawkish stupidity, if you prefer) is nothing new, and extended to Libya,
is disappointing.
Still, on balance, compared to the endless hemming in and provocation of nuclear super-power
Russia (not to mention smearing of Putin), by the neocon class of which Hillary is an obvious
example of, the author's claim that Trump is more of a hawk than her still sounds absurd. Even
if the argument has some merits.
"Donald Trump's foreign policy speech last Wednesday deserves at least a solid B+ and you can
read my take on it in the June issue of Chronicles. It offered an eloquent argument for offensive
realism, based on the fact that the international system-composed of sovereign nation-states pursuing
their interests-is still essentially competitive and Hobbesian. Trump is the only candidate who
understands this cardinal fact, and who unambiguously states America is not and should not be
an exception to that timeless principle."
"Since leaving government, Flynn has angered U.S. officials over his friendly ties to Russia,
with which he has publicly advocated better relations and military cooperation in the Middle East
- a departure from the official Pentagon line. He even recently sat at the head table at a dinner
in Moscow with President Vladimir Putin, whom Trump has praised."
This same article also says,
"Much as Trump likes to keep things in the family, Flynn's son, Michael G. Flynn, serves as
a chief adviser."
The idea that Trump wouldn't consult with the likes of Flynn - who might be his Secretary of Defense
- also seems goofy. Of course he will.
The Obama Administration, of which Hillary was an integral part, deliberately allowed ISIS
to flourish, in it's early stages. Trump's incompetence as a political candidate is amply demonstrated
by the fact that, even given 3 national debate audiences, he FAILED to pin the US non-interdiction
of the mega ISIS oil trade, run through Turkey, on the Obama administration (thus, to one degree
or another, also on Clinton). See "Russian intel spots 12,000 oil tankers & trucks on Turkey-Iraq
border - General Staff" for photos that Trump should have (pardon the expression) trumpeted during
all 3 national debates. Had he done so, in stead of being politically inept and inarticulate,
he would have cemented in the public's mind just HOW evil the foreign policy of both Obama and
Clinton were. (Of course, he should have also mentioned the wikileaks tick tock memos, crediting
uber SoS failure Hilary Clinton with steps on the road to the destruction of Libya).
Hillary has not just spouted militaristic, imperialistic hokum. She was also in the decision
loop, as war crimes against Libya, in particular, were being decided on, then perpetrated. She
has a history that is far more evidential of catastrophic militarism than goofy statements about
"taking the oil".
Very kind of you to note your new-found concerns, anytime.
Trump has net yet been in the loop. I do not want him there, he would be bad for the country
and planet. His public statements suggest he would make far worse decisions.
{quote} > BREAKING: JILL STEIN ENDORSES DONALD TRUMP
Oh c'mon. Stooping pretty low on that one. {end quote}
You are misquoting me intensionally. I put: "BREAKING: JILL STEIN ENDORSES DONALD TRUMP [Sort
Of][1 min., 15 sec.]" And that is because YouTube links often break up while their titles remain
searchable.
You ignored that I added "[Sort of]"!
I think there are likely a lot of DailyKos zombies around here tonight.
Trump may be a bullheaded semi-thug, but I'll vote for him before I join the "die with Hillary"
movement.
"His public statements suggest he would make far worse decisions."
On balance, no, they don't. Even if Flynn couldn't talk any sense into him regarding "taking
the oil", and a President Trump somehow managed to pull that off, and it turned into an endless
conflict, the $$ cost of which exceeded the oil profits thus obtained, that would still be preferable
to nuclear exchanges with Russia.
I read just today about a Russian nuke, called "Satan", that supposedly can destroy a country
the size of France (or the state of Texas). I had to read it twice, since the claim seemed preposterous.
(I assume it's some sort of multiple warhead device, and what the claim really means is that it
can destroy all cities in an area the size of France.)
Peace with Russia is, to use a Star Trek phrase, the "prime directive". Trusting that to Clinton
is a fool's errand. Trusting that to Trump is not.
No matter the facts, and b has laid it out as clearly as one can, the left and the urban classes
in America will vote for the proven warmonger. Why? For them virtue signalling is more important
than the existential threat of riding up an escalatory ladder to a nuclear exchange with Russia.
After listening to right-wingers howl and whine today, droning on about big bad gumint and the
only salvation is their guy and/or the free market. I say we end the misery that the capitalist
system produces once and for all by throwing all support for Hillary. An anti-war vote for Trump
helps preserve the madness, how could any sane person help capitalism, that to me is abnormal
behaviour that Hillary can rectify. Death is an inevitable human condition, Right-wing evangelists
are nothing but cowards. Viva Hillary and cheers to accelerating the process!
President Tayyip Erdogan said Turkey's military operations in Syria aimed to secure al-Bab
and the town of Manbij, which a group of Kurdish and Arab militias seized from Islamic State
in August, but were not intended to stretch to Aleppo.
"Let's make a joint fight against terrorist organizations. But Aleppo belongs to the people
of Aleppo ... making calculations over Aleppo would not be right," he said in a speech in Ankara.
Turkey launched "Operation Euphrates Shield" two months ago, sending tanks and warplanes into
Syria in support of the largely Turkmen and Arab rebels.
Erdogan signaled Turkey could target the Afrin region of northwest Syria, which is controlled
by Kurdish YPG forces and lies just west of the "Euphrates Shield" area of operations.
"In order to defeat threats directed at our nation from Kilis to Kirikhan, we are also putting
that area on our agenda of cleansing from terror," he said, referring to two Turkish towns
across the border from Afrin.
Looks fairly clear the objectives are Al-bab & Manbij, and then the Afrin pocket. Definitely
if the Syrians/Russians don't intervene to "save" Afrin, then that would push the Kurds into the
arms of the Americans, but if that's all the Turks do, then that solidifies the Turkish-Russian
pact at the same time.
Inching ever closer, one reported death at a time, to the current world record holder who is either
Mark Twain or perhaps Binny himself.
http://en.alalam.ir/news/1877644
26 October 2016 14:48
Iraqi Analyst Discloses S.Arabia, Turkey's Plot to Transfer Al-Baghdadi to Libya
A prominent Iraqi military analyst disclosed that Riyadh and Ankara had hatched plots to transfer
ISIL leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi from Mosul to Libya but the massive presence of the popular forces
and Russian fighter jets at the bordering areas of Iraq and Syria dissuaded them.
Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte has said he wants all foreign troops, in which the majority
are American, out of the Philippines in the next two years.
This comes amidst his desire to realign his country with China and Russia, and further from
the grasps of Washington.
Russia has launched the latest addition to its series of super-stealth diesel-electric submarines,
the Veliky Novgorod, which sports advanced stealth technologies and increased combat range.
The latest addition to the Black Sea Fleet is capable of striking land, sea and underwater
targets and was officially launched from St. Petersburg's Admiralty Shipyard on Wednesday in the
presence of Russian Navy Deputy Commander Vice-Admiral Aleksandr Fedotenkov, and Admiralty Shipyard
CEO Alexander Buzakov.
GOP nominee Donald Trump does not believe that settlements built by the Zionist regime of Israel
in Palestine are illegal, his advisor on Israel says.
David Friedman, who was campaigning for the New York billionaire at a restaurant on Mount Zion
(Jabel Sahyoun) in East Jerusalem al-Quds, made the comments to AFP after the Wednesday rally.
Remember on November 8, vote for any party, but not The Democratic Party. The Democratic Party
is the war party.
For me still undecided - Donald Trump or Jill Stein.
Dr. William Wedin | Oct 27, 2016 12:48:06 AM |
112
I agree with Moon of Alabama's predictions up to the point that he asserts that Putin's "best"
or "most likely" response (I am not clear which) to having all of Russia's military assets in
Syria destroyed is the meek test-firing of a "big" tactical nuclear weapon in Siberia by way of
a non-lethal display of "shock and awe." Neither Putin nor his generals would ever let things
get so one-sided in America's father. Rather, the Russian military would respond the way Putin,
the 8th-degree black-belt Judoka has responded in every match that led to his becoming the Judo
Champion of Leningrad in 1976. Namely, they would attack, attack, attack--no matter the cost.
That's how General Zhukov defeated Hitler. The same way Grant won the Civil War. Zhukov never
let up the pressure. Putin learned his lesson on that score when he tried to teach the US the
Judo principle of Jita Kyoei (or the "mutual benefit") in mutual self-restraint in his acceptance
of a ceasefire and a partial pull-out of Russian forces back in March; followed by another betrayed
ceasefire last month. No more. Now if he is hit, he's going to hit back harder--in unexpected
places and ways. He has vowed to never fight another war on Russian soil. So he may well carry
the attack early to the US homeland. Study the way he won Judo matches--with lightning speed and
startling moves. The Saker would argue that Putin would go for lateral rather than vertical escalation.
But I think that Hillary's transsexual desire (I speak as a psychologist here) to prove herself
the "tougher man" may force Putin to launch a First Strike in the expectation she's about to.
Indeed he tells us that the first lesson he learned as a street fighter at the age of 10 was:
"Strike First." I think he will.
I can never under understand why so many 60s and 70s antiwar become warmongers today?
Amerika drops more than 7 millions tons of bombs, about 20 to 30% unexploded. They knew millions
innocent civilians perished and many more will die of unexploded bombs. Further Napalm & Agent
Orange was used and still causing deforms children today.
How can anyone vote for The Democratic Party is beyond common sense? The Democratic Party had
always been a warmonger party, yesterday, today and tomorrow....
With the Clinton's long list of shady deals Hillary would be an easy target for blackmail by some
organisation such as a security service that wants to control the policies of the president.
It's not funny how hypocritical the right-wing have become just to get their guy in office.
Fuck 'em I say. For those same fucktards that believe Obama a communist/socialist, they're simply
invoking a red scare tactic. The love to scapegoat the other, ie. teacher's, immigrants because
their brainwashed minds love their servitude and criticism of the capitalist system is beyond
the pale.
Both parties represent what you nominally call warmonger in one form or the other, serving
their corporate paymasters. Any minds reconciling the differences would be well advised to check
up on Glen Ford, Omali Yeshitela and the world socialist website periodically.
Would you please delete ArthurGilroy's comments
at #42 and #60?
#42 could have been an accident caused by
failure to Preview.
But #60 was a deliberate margin wrecker, imo.
@ psychohistorian | Oct 26, 2016 11:42:46 PM | 103
No they did not mess up their HTML, they put ==== well beyond the wrap limits. It happens when
commentators use any lengthy address that does not have hyphens incorporated. If the programming
were to put in a virtual hyphen, that changes the address for using, it seems. HTML is the tool
to use to get around that problem. The problem is few commentators are tool users; the result
is the reader suffers from one: stupid, inattention or intent. The perpetrator:
With Hillary Clinton in the audience, singer Adele told her fans at a Miami concert Tuesday
night not to vote for Donald Trump.
"Don't vote for him," the Grammy Award winner said on stage, according to a Clinton aide. "I can't
vote but I am 100% for Hillary Clinton, I love her, she's amazing."
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/26/politics/hillary-clinton-adele-concert/
And so on.
Also for example:
Elton John
John Fogerty
Neil Young
Paul mcCartney
Roger Waters
@119 FTH
Holier than thou superstars wrapped in the warm bosom of capitalism that is the 1%. Can't blame
them, they're being looked after. They just hear the un-pc bleating.
Working Class Nero | Oct 27, 2016 4:21:36 AM |
122
What makes me happiest about this election is that we are finally seeing some left/right cooperation
in the fight against the corporate oligarchy. I follow both sides closely and it is great to see
right wingers cheering Jill Stein, Julian Assange, and even Bernie Sanders.
In order for the left/right combination to work both sides have to make compromises. Certainly
we see the Trumpian right dumping the warmongering. as MoA is pointing out. Trumpsters are also
open to universal health care, and are less insistent on divisive social issues. And the rejection
of job-killing "free" trade is another great evolution towards sanity on the right.
The left are goig to have to abandon the idea of remaking America by pumping in millions of
3rd world immigrants. This is the largest wedge still existing between the left and right. if
you have not seen Bernie Sanders denouncing Open Borders as a Koch Borthers scam to lower wages
then you need to get busy on Google right now. Besides universal health care is absolutely impossible
without very tight borders -- just ask Canada who have far more Draconian immigration laws than
even Trump is proposing.
But the most important reason to vote Trump is because if he wins the Powers-That-Be will never
let him take power! Remember the Electoral College? TPTB can and will strip the victory away from
Trump and give it to someone else. This will do more to destroy the current capitalist system
than anything else.
@105, quoting Reuters: "Erdogan signaled Turkey could target the Afrin region of northwest Syria"
When Turkey launched "Operation Euphrates Shield" there was much commentary about how this
would end the Kurdish plan to link Kobane with the Afrin pocket.
At the time I thought to myself: OK, so does that leave the Afrin pocket exposed, or is it
pretty secure even when left to its own devices?
Nobody else seemed the slightest bit interested in pondering that though, apparently, Erdogan
has now decided that it is a blister that needs to be lanced.
@105: "then that would push the Kurds into the arms of the Americans"
Err, no, I suspect not. After all, it was Biden who ordered the Kurdish forces to withdraw
back behind the Euphrates once Erdogan started his little adventure, so it's pretty obvious that
if the choice is between (a) Turkey and (b) the Kurds then good ol' Uncle Sam is going to side
with the Turks.
Surprised to see Roger Waters on that list. WTF, Roger?
His condemnation of Israel and his love for Palestine has been clear.
Expressing his staunch I/P political views, Roger has consistently angered warmongering wingnuts
at his concerts. (They like his music, but they wish he would shut up about " his politics".)
Waters should know clearly that Hillary Rotten Clinton will explicitly follow the Yinon Plan
dictates for Greater Israel; and feed our sons and daughters (not hers) into the military meat
grinder.
Many thanks for those who read and comments.. I can never under understand why so many 60s
and 70s antiwar become warmongers today?
I'm from the sixties - baby boom generation, not antiwar but leaning from anti commie to warmonger.
I cannot understands why antiwar movements were against Vietnam war . America, land of
the free leading the fighting against the commies spreading from the North moving southward to
the two Korea, (Indochina) Laos, Cambodia, North &South Vietnam, Thailand, Malaya (independent),
Singapore British Crown colony, Hong Kong British Crown colony, Indonesia, The Philippines. The
warmonger was Lyndon B. Johnson a Democrat.
Blowin' In the Wind sang by leftist's antiwar singers. I'm especially touched by Peter, Paul
and Mary, Joan Baez... Where are they today? Warmongers for Hillary?
The red zionist leader pretend hates Trump.
Hee hee,the vitriol from the serial liars should be enough for sane human to vote Trump.
Imagine the debt that the HB will owe the zionists if they manage to steal this election for her,their
obvious chosen whore.
The zionists aint going to like the heartlands response to the fix.
The raw deal they are issuing to Trump will be rejected.
"But I think that Hillary's transsexual desire (I speak as a psychologist here) to prove herself
the "tougher man" may force Putin to launch a First Strike in the expectation she's about to.
Indeed he tells us that the first lesson he learned as a street fighter at the age of 10 was:
"Strike First." I think he will."
So do I. He did not go into Syria without a long-range strategy. And when he and China and
others use the term "multi-polar" they mean it. Their commitment/strategy is at the cellular level
which makes them unpredictable and dangerous to their adversary. Putin is all business.
----------------
Here's a vid of Podesta's think tank - Center for American Progress - where Mike Morrell NOT
Chris Morrell along with others discuss the Middle East and U.S. partners -
I've written along this line before, apologies for the repeat.
The US has lost power, particularly economic power, and some soft power -not military power-
in the last 20 or ++ years. An uncomfortable situation. This has disturbed, and will continue
to disrupt, nay shatter, the PTB (Shadow Gvmt., fake duopoly, corporate rule, neo-fascism, slot
in yr perso description) control.
The selection of Obama was a simplistic move: he could be ushered in as representing 'change',
and seemingly 'win' an 'election' twice, with biz as usual (hopefully) maintaining itself, continuing
with a puppet President. (As is organised 'abroad', see Poroshenko for ex.)
A crack on the political scene was the Tea Party, within Repub. circles, and it was genuine
(if wacky), unlike Occupy Wall Street, or the present Black Lives Matter, which are more or less
'fake color revol.' controlled splinters that can be turned on or off. The Sanders candidacy split
the Dem. base, and was either a nasty surprise for the neo-libs (they brought it on themselves,
read Podesta e-mails) or an 'allowed' move to maintain the pretense of real political options.
The Repubs. could not turn up a convincing candidate (anyone with brains would avoid this situation
like the plague, and the Rubio, Cruz type personas were just 'place holders') so the plan
morphed into letting Trump win the nomination and lose the election to the neo-lib-con (HRC)
faction. This plan was born out of arrogance, hubris, 'bubble' blindness and ignorance, and the
supposed iron grip control of the MSM, aka 'the narrative.'
Trump did much better than expected, went on doing so. CNN at first gave him a 1% chance of
winning the nomination, what a laugh. Imho Trump played the MSM masterfully, but that is neither
here nor there - the PTB were shocked to see their hold erode, they never imagined losing control
of the 'opposition' or the discontents, aka the rabble, the compliant sheeples: many different
strands: Greens, e.g. Stein, whose vicious tweets against HRC are something to behold, libertarians,
BernieBros for 'social democracy' and free college, now turned to Cleaning Out the Swamp, law
-n- order types, gun toters, Blacks for Trump, and on and on ..unimaginable.
As no reasoned politically argued response was available, the PTB went into attack mode which
completely backfired, as could readily be predicted. This is the post-Democracy Age (if it ever
existed and the term 'democracy' is of course BS.)
Trump appears to confusedly propose a way of dealing with the US loss of economic domination,
of power and place on the World Stage: nationalistic retrenchment, "better deals", OK, plus "a
stronger military," a double-pronged sword, not pacifist, on the face of it.
Makes a kind of hopeful sense, and appeals greatly. HRC (she is just a propped up figure) in
a corrupt circuit of PTB-NWO - the top 20% globalist class - has to push the agenda of the MIC,
of Wall Street, Big Corps, Silicon Valley, etc. for personal position. Donors who give mega-cash
get corp. and pol. favors, etc.
French MSM report as if it was the most natural thing in the world that Erdogan made a speech
to say he intends to get back Manbij from the Kurds and participate in getting back Northern Syria,
in cooperation with the US.
If the Turks enter that far, there is no doubt it will lead to a wider war ... Could that be the
reason Hollande is so sure of being reelected in May?
stopped going to VT several years ago during their grand support of the slaughter of Libya. duff
wrote I was posting from tel aviv.
have to be careful with vt. what is a lie and what is decent.
trump is hated/feared by repubs/dems, the establishment, wall st, the crooks, cronies, pedophiles,
liars, warmongers, creepers in the dark, rich beggars with hands out, culture-destroyers.
supporting legal immigration is sound national policy as is not wanting to fight wars for jewry.
supporting soc sec and medicare and spending tax dollars on repairing infrastructure in America
not Israel is also sound.
My take is similar to rufus magister, namely that Trump (a) talks a lot of nonsense, but unlike
a disciplined robot like Marco Rubio, he is eclectic and mixes that nonsense with surprisingly
reasonable statements.
Many attacks on Trump almost convince me that he is the best candidate out there. But his own
web site is much less convincing, and his personal appearances may be outright scary.
On domestic issues, he more or less follows all bad aspects of GOP model. His trade policy
ideas are so unworkable that nothing will come out of them. Not that I disagree that there is
too much of "free trade", but like with any complex system, it is much easier to make it worse
that to make it better.
Back to Trump as an architect of new, improved foreign policy. Here the room for improvement
is much more clear, because so much of the current policy is to effectively do little shits here
and there, and to sell more arms than before, so totally ineffective policy would be a plus. It
does not even need to be particularly consistent etc. But "greedy merchant" mentality exhibited
by Trump in many quotes, like "take their oil", "those allies do not pay their dues", and "why
did we give [returned!!!] money to Iran", make me genuinely worried that he would continue selling
weapons to Gulfies and help them bombing Yemen and smuggling weapons to Syria: if they pay us
that this is OK. Secondly, he was abjectly pandering to AIPAC. Thirdly, some mad statements about
decisive direct intervention and using torture. The only change that I would be sure under Trump
presidency is that CIA would be out of the loop, or at least, much less visible than now. And
he would probably stop pressing EU to maintain and expand sanctions on Russia. But he would restore
sanctions on Iran??
In other words, a mixed bag at best on foreign policy, probably ineffectual nonsense on trade
policy and very retrograde changes in domestic policy. To name the few, green light to all possible
abortion restriction, if not outlawing the abortion by SCOTUS, advocacy of police brutality, regressive
taxation, letting people with chronic diseases die as uninsurable etc. So one has to consider
how scary HRC is.
My estimate is that she would be basically Obama with inferior rhetoric. Leaked e-mails show
that her decision making is quite deliberative, and the circle of opinions that are included not
particularly insular. It is too neocon to my liking, and "Obama as is" happened to be much less
appealing than "Obama before elected". Since there is no consensus to attack the Russians, she
would not hammer it through.
Thus one can reasonably hope that HRC will be relatively harmless. And it is not even clear
that Russia is harmed by sanctions. They restrict somewhat the access to goods and financial services,
but during cheap oil, the top issues for Russia is import substitution, development of domestic
production, and curtailing the capital flight. Good access to financial services can be quite
detrimental to a country, as we can study on the example of Greece: joining Eurozone vastly improved
the access to the financial markets and enabled to borrow much more that prudent. As Russia remains
a net exporter by a quite large margin, keeping money at home is much more important than access
to credit.
That said, a reasonable hope does not exactly dispel the fears described above. Moreover, it
is predicated on the lack of "imperialist/neo-con consensus", and wobbly results of the elections
would help. Thus, everybody here who can vote should vote as she/he damn pleases. If you do not
like Clinton, I would suggest Stein, because she actually spells out a coherent and sensible position,
and not patches of senses and horror, so this is
Trump's policy and this is
Stein's
policy.
Instead, there's the very real possibility that as millennials age, they are less apt
to stomach a thing called hope. The Obama presidency did not usher in a new age of
cooperation. Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner did not announce they would be going on a
nationwide concert tour performing the hits of the Carpenters.
Racial tension, climate change, gun violence, terrorism, and poverty persist. Easy
answers do not exist, and even if they did, they wouldn't be coming from one of the
two major political parties – groups often more concerned with their own survival
than practical solutions to tangible issues. As the global situation appears to
become more and more hopeless – thanks to actual horrors, plus the media saturation
that occurs after every tragedy, which amplifies our malaise – it should come as no
surprise that millennials as a group and the nation at large disagree on how to turn
things around.
Consensus might just be a thing of the past; MTV is far from the unchallenged
thought leader for American youth. What this election might be remembered for is the
moment when the American political system became so ossified and incapable of
solutions that we decided, at last, to junk it and start from scratch.
"... These are accurate, statistically sound statements. But they are something else, too. Declarations that Trump is highly unlikely to win also serve as counters to the Republican nominee's warning that the "rigged" election could be " stolen from us ." ..."
Callum Borchers, author at the Washington Post blog The Fix, admits that the press is
declaring victory for Hillary Clinton - to discredit claims that the election is rigged.
Since the final presidential debate last week, many news outlets have been delivering an unvarnished
message to Donald Trump supporters: Your candidate is virtually certain to lose the election Nov.
8.
These are accurate, statistically sound statements. But they are something else, too. Declarations
that Trump is highly unlikely to win also serve as counters to the Republican nominee's warning that
the "rigged" election could be "
stolen from us ."
CETA: "EU's Canada free-trade CETA deal could be back on as Walloons agree to last-minute deal"
[
Telegraph
].
"Belgium's Prime Minister Charles Michel said that Wallonia was now in agreement, and the regional
parliaments may now agree to CETA by the end of Friday night, opening the door to the deal being
signed. Mr Tusk said that once the regional votes had taken place, he will inform Canadian Prime
Minister Justin Trudeau. Any extra concessions given to Wallonia may mean other countries will want
to look again at the deal, however." (The BBC's headline, then -
"EU-Canada trade deal: Belgians break Ceta deadlock"
- is quite irresponsible. As is–
CETA: "Belgium breaks Ceta deadlock" [
EUObserver
].
Not quite:
Belgium's political entities agreed to a declaration on Thursday (26 October), which gives
their government a green light to sign Ceta, the EU-Canada trade pact.
The agreement was promptly sent to EU ambassadors in Brussels, to be discussed later in the
afternoon.
After a week of marathon negotiations, Belgian prime minister Charles Michel said that Thursday's
talks had calmed "outstanding concerns".
As part of the trade-off, Belgium will ask the European Court of Justice to clarify the proposed
investment court system, which was one of the most controversial elements of the trade deal.
Ceta was due to be signed off by EU leaders and Canada's prime minister Justin Trudeau at a
summit in Brussels on Thursday. Trudeau cancelled the trip during the night as no agreement had
been reached in Brussels.
It's not known when the summit will take place, or whether the Belgian go-ahead was the last
hurdle.
The other 27 EU countries must first accept the Belgian deal.
At their meeting on Thursday, EU ambassadors will be accompanied by lawyers and representatives
of the EU institutions, who will examine the legality and consequences of the text.
The Walloon parliament will vote on the agreement on Friday.
Still, how do we slay these undead deals? The same thing happened with TPP.
CETA: "The great CETA swindle" [
Corporate
Europe Observatory
]. "The latest PR move is a "joint interpretative declaration" on the trade
deal hammered out by Ottawa and Brussels and published by investigative journalist collective Correctiv
last Friday. It is designed to alleviate public concerns but in fact does nothing to fix CETA's flaws.
In September, Canada's Trade Minister, Chrystia Freeland, and her German counterpart, Sigmar Gabriel,
had announced such a text to appease Social Democrats, trade unions and the wider public who fear
that CETA would threaten public services, labour and environmental standards and undermine governments'
right to regulate in the public interest. Several governments, notably Austria, had linked their
'yes' to CETA to the declaration. [But] According to environmental group Greenpeace, the declaration
therefore has the 'legal weight of a holiday brochure'."
Legal experts have also warned that the declaration "could be misleading for non-lawyers, who
might think that the Declaration will alter or override the CETA". But it does not change CETA's
legal terms – and it is these terms which have raised concerns. As Canadian law Professor Gus
van Harten explains: "Based on principles of treaty interpretation, the CETA will be interpreted
primarily according to the text of its relevant provisions…. The Declaration would play a subsidiary
role, if any, in this interpretative process." In other words, legally (and thus politically),
the CETA text is far more important than the declaration – and the former could prevail over the
latter in case of a conflictive interpretation.
The post then goes on to analyze the provisions of the declaration in detail, comparing them to
the text. (Readers may remember that
TPP advocates have made the same sort of claim for the TPP Preamble, which the text also over-rides
.
So, the Belgians are smart to get a court ruling on this. And we might also expect the adminsitration
to use similar tactics to (the toothless distraction of) the CETA "resolution" in the upcoming attempt
to pass the TPP.
"Belgian officials were discussing a working document aimed at addressing Wallonia's concerns
on the trade deal. The document, published by Belgian state media RTBF, shows that Belgium is moving
toward requesting additional safeguards for the agricultural sector 'in cases of market turbulence.'
It also puts forward a number of requests regarding the investor court system, including 'progressing
towards hiring judges on a permanent basis'" [
Politico
].
This seems to be a
different
document from the "declaration"; it was leaked by a different
source.
Here is is; it's in French
.
TPP: "Eight major financial services industry associations made an appeal to congressional leaders
to support passage of the TPP this year, arguing that the deal is 'vital to ensuring that the U.S.
financial services sector remains a vibrant engine for domestic and global growth'" [
Politico
].
What the heck is a "vibrant engine"? Maybe a screw loose or something? Needs a tightening to stop
the shaking and shimmying?
TPP: "Health, labor and consumer groups are warning President Barack Obama to refrain from including
a 12-year monopoly period for biological drugs in legislation to implement the TPP as a means for
addressing congressional concerns over the pact. The groups argue that such a move could undermine
future efforts to shorten that protection period under U.S. law" [
Politico
].
"The letter, signed by Doctors Without Borders, the AFL-CIO, AARP, Oxfam and Consumers Union, also
expresses concern over reports that the administration is prepared to negotiate side letters with
TPP countries to reinforce U.S. lawmaker demands that countries respect a 12-year protection period,
which reflects U.S. law."
"The case against free trade – Part 1" [
Bill
Mitchell
].
"... Any analysis that starts with the assumption reactionaries still has a great deal to its agenda to achieve, such as promoting regressive taxation; privatization of Social Security; limiting Medicare; privatization of education; expansion of the police state; using the military to support the dollar, banking, world markets, etc., rather than Corey Robin's belief that "the Right" has won is in my view an improvement on the OP. ..."
"... In the end, Putin will be done in by his oligarchs, despite the care he has taken to give them their share if they just refrain from wrecking everything with their excesses. Again, no need for NGOs. ..."
This is a very good analyses. But I am less pessimistic: the blowback against neoliberal globalization
is real and it is difficult to swipe it under the carpet.
There are some signs of the "revolutionary situation" in the USA in a sense that the neoliberal
elite lost control and their propaganda loss effectiveness, despite dusting off the "Red scare"
trick with "Reds in each computer" instead of "Reds under each bed". With Putin as a very convenient
bogeyman.
As somebody here said Trump might be a reaction of secular stagnation, kind of trump card put
into play by some part of the elite, because with continued secular stagnation, the social stability
in the USA is under real threat.
But the problem is that Hillary with her failing health is our of her prime and with a bunch
of neocons in key positions in her administration, she really represents a huge threat to world
peace. She might not last long as the level of stress inherent in POTUS job make it a killing
ground for anybody with advanced stage of Parkinson or similar degenerative neurological disease.
But that might make her more impulsive and more aggressive (and she always tried to outdo male
politicians in jingoism, real John McCain is the red pantsuit).
All-in-all it looks like she in not a solution for neoliberal elite problems, she is a part
of the problem
Adventurism of the US neoliberal elite, and especially possible aggressive moves in Syria by
Hillary regime ("no fly zone"), makes military alliance of Russia and China very likely (with
Pakistan, Iran and India as possible future members). So Hillary might really work like a powerful
China lobbyist, because the alliance with Russia will be on China terms.
Regime change via color revolution in either country requires at dense network of subservient
to the Western interests and financed via shadow channels MSM (including TV channels), strong
network of NGO and ability to distribute cash to selected members of the fifth column of neoliberal
globalization. All those condition were made more difficult in Russia and impossible in mainland
China. In Russia the US adventurism in Ukraine and the regime change of February 2014 (creation
of neo-fascist regime nicknamed by some "Kaganat of Nuland" (Asia Times
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/CEN-01-100315.html
)) essentially killed the neoliberal fifth column in Russia and IMHO it no longer represent
a viable political force.
Also Russians probably learned well lesson of unsuccessful attempt of regime change by interfering
into Russian Presidential election process attempted by Hillary and Obama in 2011-2012. I would
like to see the US MSM reaction if Russian ambassador invited Sanders and Trump into the embassy
and promised full and unconditional support for their effort to remove criminal Obama regime,
mired in corruption and subservient to Wall Street interests, the regime that produced misery
for so many American workers, lower middle class and older Americans ;-)
Ambassador McFaul soon left the country, NED was banned and screws were tightened enough to
make next attempt exceedingly difficult. Although everything can happen I would discount the possibility
of the next "White Revolution" in Russia. So called "Putin regime" survived the period of low
oil prices and with oil prices over $60 in 2017 Russian economy might be able to grow several
percent a year. At the same time the US "post-Obama" regime might well face the winds of returning
higher oil prices and their negative influence of economy growth and unemployment.
In China recent troubles in Hong Cong were also a perfect training ground for "anti color revolution"
measures and the next attempt would much more difficult, unless China experience economic destabilization
due to some bubble burst.
That means that excessive military adventurism inherent in the future Hillary regime might
speed up loss by the USA military dominance and re-alignment of some states beyond Philippines.
Angela Merkel regime also might not survive the next election and that event might change "pro-Atlantic"
balance in Europe.
Although the list in definitely not complete, we can see that there are distinct setbacks for
attempts of further neoliberalization beyond Brexit and TPP troubles.
So there are some countervailing forces in action and my impression that the Triumphal march
of neoliberalism with the USA as the hegemon of the new neoliberal order is either over, or soon
will be over. In certain regions of the globe the USA foreign policy is in trouble (Syria, Ukraine)
and while you can do anything using bayonets, you can't sit on them.
So while still there is no viable alternative to neoliberalism as a social system, the ideology
itself is discredited and like communism after 1945 lost its hold of hearts and minds of the USA
population. I would say that in the USA neoliberalism entered Zombie stage.
My hope is that reasonable voices in foreign policy prevail, and the disgust of unions members
toward DemoRats (Neoliberal Democrats) could play the decisive role in coming elections. As bad
as Trump is for domestic policy, it represent some hope as for foreign policy unless co-opted
by Republican establishment.
#70 But the problem is that Hillary with her failing health is our of her prime and with a bunch
of neocons in key positions in her administration, she really represents a huge threat to world
peace. She might not last long as the level of stress inherent in POTUS job make it a killing
ground for anybody with advanced stage of Parkinson or similar degenerative neurological disease.
But that might kale her more impulsive and more aggressive (and she always tried to outdo her
male politicians in jingoism, real John McCain is the red pantsuit).
Does the new CT moderation regime have any expectations about the veracity of claims made by
commenters? Because I think it would be useful in cases like this.
Yes, it was late and I was tired, or I wouldn't have said something so foolish. Still, the
point is that after centuries of constant war, Europe went 70 years without territorial conquest.
That strikes me as a significant achievement, and one whose breach should not be taken lightly.
phenomenal cat @64
So democratic structures have to be robust and transparent before we care about them? I'd give
a pretty high value to an independent press and contested elections. Those have been slowly crushed
in Russia. The results for transparency have not been great. Personally, I don't believe that
Ukraine is governed by fascists, or that Ukraine shot down that jetliner, but I'm sure a lot of
Russians do.
Russian leaders have always complained about "encirclement," but we don't have to believe them.
Do you really believe Russia's afraid of an attack from Estonia? Clearly what Putin wants is to
restore as much of the old Soviet empire as possible. Do you think the independence of the Baltic
states would be more secure or less secure if they weren't members of NATO? (Hint: compare to
Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova.)
' .makes military alliance of Russia and China very likely '
Any analysis which arrives at this conclusion is profoundly ignorant.
Meta-comment: Is it permitted to say that a moderation scheme which objects to engels as a
troll, while permitting this tripe from likbez has taken a wrong turn somewhere. Seriously, some
explanation called for.
Does the new CT moderation regime have any expectations about the veracity of claims made
by commenters? Because I think it would be useful in cases like this.
I would like to apologize about the number of typos, but I stand by statements made. Your implicit
assumption that I am lying was not specific, so let's concentrate on three claims made:
1. "Hillary has serious neurological disease for at least four years", 2. "Obama and Hillary tried to stage color revolution in Russia in 2011-2012 interfering in Russian
Presidential elections" 3. "Hillary Clinton is a neocon, a warmonger similar to John McCain"
1. Hillary Health : Whether she suffers from Parkinson disease or not in unclear, but signs
of some serious neurological disease are observable since 2012 (for four years). Parkinson is just
the most plausible hypothesis based on symptoms observed. Those symptoms suggests that she is at
Stage 2 of the disease due to an excellent treatment she gets:
http://www.viartis.net/parkinsons.disease/news/100312.htm
The average time taken to progress from Stage 1 (mild) to Stage 2 (mild but various symptoms)
was 1 year 8 months. The average time taken to progress from Stage 2 to Stage 3 (typical) was
7 years and 3 months. From Stage 3 to Stage 4 (severe) took 2 years. From Stage 4 to Stage 5 (incapacitated)
took 2 years and 2 months. So the stage with typical symptoms lasts the longest. Those factors
associated with faster progression were older age at diagnosis, and longer disease duration. Gender
and ethnicity were not associated with the rate of Parkinson's Disease progression.
These figures are only averages. Progression is not inevitable. Some people with Parkinson's
Disease have either : stayed the same for decades, reduced their symptoms, rid their symptoms,
or worsened at a rapid rate. For more current news go to Parkinson's Disease News.
Concern about Hillary health were voiced in many publications and signs of her neurological disease
are undisputable:
3. The opinion that Hillary as a neocon is supported by facts from all her career , but
especially during her tenure as the Secretary of State. She voted for Iraq war and was instrumental
in unleashing Libya war and Syria war. The amount of evidence can't be ignored:
If you have more specific concerns please voice them and I will try to support my statements with
references and known facts.
stevenjohnson 10.26.16 at 1:50 pm
likbez @70 Any analysis that starts with the assumption reactionaries still has a great
deal to its agenda to achieve, such as promoting regressive taxation; privatization of Social
Security; limiting Medicare; privatization of education; expansion of the police state; using
the military to support the dollar, banking, world markets, etc., rather than Corey Robin's
belief that "the Right" has won is in my view an improvement on the OP. But whether mine
is actually a deep analysis seems doubtful even to me.
But the OP is really limiting itself solely to domestic politics, and in that context the
resistance to "neoliberal globalization," (Why not use the term "imperialism?") is more or
less irrelevant. The OP seems to have some essentialist notion of the "Right" as openly aimed
at restoring the past, ignoring the content of policies. Reaction would be something blatant
like restoring censorship of TV and movies, instead of IP laws that favor giant
telecommunications companies, or abolition of divorce, instead of discriminatory enforcement
of child protection laws that break up poor families. This
cultural/psychological/moralizing/spiritual approach seems to me to be fundamentally a
diversion from a useful understanding.
There may be some sort of confused notions about popular morals and tastes clearly evolving
in a more leftish direction. Free love was never a conservative principle for instance, yet
many of its tenets are now those of the majority of the population. Personally I can only
observe that there's nothing quite like the usefulness of laws and law enforcement,
supplemented by the occasional illicit violence, to change social attitudes. The great model
of course is the de facto extermination of the Left by "McCarthyism." No doubt the
disappearance of the left targeted by "McCarthyism" is perceived to be a purification of the
real left. It is customary for the acceptable "left" to agree with the McCarthys that
communism lost its appeal to the people, rather than being driven out by mass repression. As
to populism, such reactionary goals as the abolition of public education are notoriously sold
as service to the people against the hifalutin' snobs, starting of course with lazy ass
teachers. It seems to me entirely mistaken to see the populist reactionaries as out of
ammunition because the old forms of race-baiting aren't working so well.
By the way, there already is a Chinese bourgeoisie, in Taiwan, Singapore, the Philippines,
Malaysia, Indonesia, Hong Kong, as well as elements in SEZs in China proper and select circles
in various financial capitals. Restoration of capitalism in China has run into the difficulty
that capitalism isn't holding up its end. President Xi Jinping is finding it difficult for
capitalism to keep the mainland economy growing at a sufficiently rapid rate to keep the
working class pacific, much less generate the so-called middle class whose stock market
portfolios will bind them to the new ruling class forever. These are the sources for a
revolution in China, not NGOs or a color revolution. In the end, Putin will be done in by
his oligarchs, despite the care he has taken to give them their share if they just refrain
from wrecking everything with their excesses. Again, no need for NGOs.
Val @72 I remember that there were only rare, vague hints about Reagan, not factual
evidence. So unless you are committed to the proposition his Alzheimer's disease only set in
January 21, 1992, demanding factual evidence about the mental and physical health of our
elective divinities seems unduly restrictive I think.
Layman @79 The Shanghai Cooperation Organization alone makes an analysis that a military
alliance between Russia and China reasonable enough. Even if incorrect in the end, it is not
"profoundly ignorant."
Meta-comment: Engels post was perceived as mocking, which was its offense. As for "trolling,"
that's an internet thing...
It is striking to me how even on the left the discussion of U.S. militarism and imperialism has
been marginalized and does not come up much in casual conversation. We had an active peace movement
through the worst days of the Cold War, and then there was a bit of a resurgence of it in response
to the Iraq War. But Obama's acceptance of the core assumptions of the 'War on Terror' (even as
he waged it more responsibly) seems to have led to the war party co-opting the liberals as well
until there is no longer an effective opposition. The rhetoric of 'humanitarian intervention'
has been hugely successful in that effort.
One of the most depressing things about this election campaign to me has been to see the Democrats
using their full spectrum media dominance not to fight for a mandate for left policies, but to
run a coordinated and effective propaganda campaign for greater U.S. military involvement in the
Middle East and Eastern Europe, focusing on demonizing Putin and on humanitarian intervention
rhetoric around Aleppo and the like.
"... The simplest explanation is usually best. All the indicators, especially the support of the donor class, elites of all kinds
etc. points towards a Democratic victory, perhaps a very strong victory if the poll numbers last weekend translate into electoral college
numbers. ..."
I stopped by to check if my comment had cleared moderation. What follows is a more thorough examination (not my own, entirely)
on Corey's point 1, and some data that may point towards a much narrower race than we're led to believe.
The leaked emails from one Democratic super-pac, the over-sampling I cited at zerohedge (@13o) is part of a two-step process
involving over-sampling of Democrats in polls combined with high frequency polling. The point being to encourage media
to promote the idea that the race is already over. We saw quite a bit of this last weekend. Let's say the leaked emails are reliable.
This suggests to me two things: first – the obvious, the race is much closer than the polls indicated, certainly the poll cited
by Corey in the OP. Corey questioned the validity of this poll, at least obliquely. Second, at least one super-pac working with
the campaign sees the need to depress Trump turn-out. The first point is the clearest and the most important – the polls, some
at least, are intentionally tilted to support a 'Hillary wins easily' narrative. The second allows for some possibly useful speculation
regarding the Clinton campaigns confidence in their own GOTV success.
The simplest explanation is usually best. All the indicators, especially the support of the donor class, elites of all
kinds etc. points towards a Democratic victory, perhaps a very strong victory if the poll numbers last weekend translate into
electoral college numbers.
That's a big if. I suggest Hillary continues to lead but by much smaller margins in key states. It's also useful to
point out that Trump's support in traditionally GOP states may well be equally shaky.
And that really is it from me on this topic barring a double digit swing to Hillary in the LA Times poll that has the race
at dead even.
Layman 10.25.16 at 11:31 am
kidneystones:
"The leaked emails from one Democratic super-pac, the over-sampling I cited at zerohedge (@13o) is part of a two-step
process involving over-sampling of Democrats in polls combined with high frequency polling."
Excellent analysis, only the email in question is eight years old. And it refers to a request for internal polling done by
the campaign. And it suggests over-sampling of particular demographics so the campaign could better assess attitudes among those
demographics.
And this is a completely normal practice which has nothing to do with the polling carried out by independent third parties
(e.g. Gallup, Ipsos, etc) for the purposes of gauging and reporting to the public the state of the race.
And when pollsters to over-sample, the over-sampling is used for analysis but is not reflected in the top-line poll results.
"... "This was a calibration error of the touch-screen on the machine," Scalzitti said. "When Mr. Moynihan used the touch-screen, it improperly assigned his votes due to improper calibration." ..."
CHICAGO - Early voting in Illinois got off to a rocky start Monday, as votes being cast
for Republican candidates were transformed into votes for Democrats.
Republican state representative candidate Jim Moynihan went to vote Monday at the Schaumburg Public
Library.
"I tried to cast a vote for myself and instead it cast the vote for my opponent," Moynihan said.
"You could imagine my surprise as the same thing happened with a number of races when I tried to
vote for a Republican and the machine registered a vote for a Democrat."
The conservative website Illinois Review reported that "While using a touch screen voting machine
in Schaumburg, Moynihan voted for several races on the ballot, only to find that whenever he voted
for a Republican candidate, the machine registered the vote for a Democrat in the same race. He notified
the election judge at his polling place and demonstrated that it continued to cast a vote for the
opposing candidate's party. Moynihan was eventually allowed to vote for Republican candidates, including
his own race.
Moynihan offered this gracious lesson to his followers on Twitter: "Be careful when you vote in
Illinois. Make sure you take the time to check your votes before submitting."
Cook County Board of Elections Deputy Communications Director Jim Scalzitti, told Illinois Watchdog,
the machine was taken out of service and tested.
"This was a calibration error of the touch-screen on the machine," Scalzitti said. "When Mr. Moynihan
used the touch-screen, it improperly assigned his votes due to improper calibration."
"... Geithner's comments about his sacrifices in public service did not elicit any outcry from the media at the time because his perspective was widely shared. The implicit assumption is that the sort of person who is working at a high level government job could easily be earning a paycheck that is many times higher if they were employed elsewhere. In fact, this is often true. When he left his job as Treasury Secretary, Geithner took a position with a private equity company where his salary is likely several million dollars a year. ..."
"... The CEOs who are paid tens of millions a year would like the public to think that the market is simply compensating them for their extraordinary skills. A more realistic story is that a broken corporate governance process gives corporate boards of directors - the people who largely determine CEO pay -little incentive to hold down pay. Directors are more closely tied to top management than to the shareholders they are supposed to represent, and their positions are lucrative, usually paying six figures for very part-time work. Directors are almost never voted out by shareholders for their lack of attention to the job or for incompetence. ..."
"... We also have done little to foster medical travel. This could lead to enormous benefits to patients and the economy, since many high cost medical procedures can be performed at a fifth or even one-tenth the U.S. price in top quality medical facilities elsewhere in the world. In this context, it is not surprising that the median pay of physicians is over $250,000 a year and some areas of specialization earn close to twice this amount. In the case of physicians alone, if pay were reduced to West European-levels the savings would be close to $100 billion a year (@ 0.6 percent of GDP). ..."
"... As a technical matter, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is a private bank. It is owned by the banks that are members of the Federal Reserve System in the New York District. ..."
Yves here. We are delighted to feature an excerpt from Dean Baker's new book
Rigged , which you can find at
http://deanbaker.net/books/rigged.htm via either a free download
or in hard copy for the cost of printing and shipping. The book argues that policy in five areas, macroeconomics, the financial sector,
intellectual property, corporate governance, and protection for highly paid professionals, have all led to the upward distribution
of income. The implication is that the yawning gap between the 0.1% and the 1% versus everyone else is not the result of virtue ("meritocracy")
but preferential treatment, and inequality would be substantially reduced if these policies were reversed.
I urge you to read his book in full and encourage your friends, colleagues, and family to do so as well.
By Dean Baker, Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research
Chapter 1: Introduction: Trading in myths
In winter 2016, near the peak of Bernie Sanders' bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, a new line became popular among
the nation's policy elite: Bernie Sanders is the enemy of the world's poor. Their argument was that Sanders, by pushing trade policies
to help U.S. workers, specifically manufacturing workers, risked undermining the well-being of the world's poor because exporting
manufactured goods to the United States and other wealthy countries is their path out of poverty. The role model was China, which
by exporting has largely eliminated extreme poverty and drastically reduced poverty among its population. Sanders and his supporters
would block the rest of the developing world from following the same course.
This line, in its Sanders-bashing permutation, appeared early on in Vox, the millennial-oriented media upstart, and was quickly
picked up elsewhere (Beauchamp 2016).
[1] After all, it was pretty irresistible. The ally of the downtrodden and enemy of the rich was pushing policies that would
condemn much of the world to poverty.
The story made a nice contribution to preserving the status quo, but it was less valuable if you respect honesty in public debate.
The problem in the logic of this argument should be apparent to anyone who has taken an introductory economics course. It assumes
that the basic problem of manufacturing workers in the developing world is the need for someone who will buy their stuff. If people
in the United States don't buy it, then the workers will be out on the street and growth in the developing world will grind to a
halt.
In this story, the problem is that we don't have enough people in the world to buy stuff. In other words, there is a shortage
of demand. But is it really true that no one else in the world would buy the stuff produced by manufacturing workers in the developing
world if they couldn't sell it to consumers in the United States? Suppose people in the developing world bought the stuff they produced
raising their living standards by raising their own consumption.
That is how the economics is supposed to work. In the standard theory, general shortages of demand are not a problem.
[2] Economists have traditionally assumed that economies tended toward full employment. The basic economic constraint was a lack
of supply. The problem was that we couldn't produce enough goods and services, not that we were producing too much and couldn't find
anyone to buy them. In fact, this is why all the standard models used to analyze trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership
assume trade doesn't affect total employment.
[3] Economies adjust so that shortages of demand are not a problem.
In this standard story (and the Sanders critics are people who care about textbook economics), capital flows from slow-growing
rich countries, where it is relatively plentiful and so gets a low rate of return, to fast-growing poor countries, where it is scarce
and gets a high rate of return (Figure 1-1).
So the United States, Japan, and the European Union should be running large trade surpluses, which is what an outflow of capital
means. Rich countries like ours should be lending money to developing countries, providing them with the means to build up their
capital stock and infrastructure while they use their own resources to meet their people's basic needs.
This wasn't just theory. That story accurately described much of the developing world, especially Asia, through the 1990s. Countries
like Indonesia and Malaysia were experiencing rapid annual growth of 7.8 percent and 9.6 percent, respectively, even as they ran
large trade deficits, just over 2 percent of GDP each year in Indonesia and almost 5 percent in Malaysia.
These trade deficits probably were excessive, and a crisis of confidence hit East Asia and much of the developing world in the
summer of 1997. The inflow of capital from rich countries slowed or reversed, making it impossible for the developing countries to
sustain the fixed exchange rates most had at the time. One after another, they were forced to abandon their fixed exchange rates
and turn to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for help.
Rather than promulgating policies that would allow developing countries to continue the textbook development path of growth driven
by importing capital and running trade deficits, the IMF made debt repayment a top priority. The bailout, under the direction of
the Clinton administration Treasury Department, required developing countries to switch to large trade surpluses (Radelet and Sachs
2000, O'Neil 1999).
The countries of East Asia would be far richer today had they been allowed to continue on the growth path of the early and mid-1990s,
when they had large trade deficits (Figure 1-2). Four of the five would be more than twice as rich, and the fifth, Vietnam, would
be almost 50 percent richer. South Korea and Malaysia would have higher per capita incomes today than the United States.
In the wake of the East Asia bailout, countries throughout the developing world decided they had to build up reserves of foreign
exchange, primarily dollars, in order to avoid ever facing the same harsh bailout terms as the countries of East Asia. Building up
reserves meant running large trade surpluses, and it is no coincidence that the U.S. trade deficit has exploded, rising from just
over 1 percent of GDP in 1996 to almost 6 percent in 2005. The rise has coincided with the loss of more than 3 million manufacturing
jobs, roughly 20 percent of employment in the sector.
There was no reason the textbook growth pattern of the 1990s could not have continued. It wasn't the laws of economics that forced
developing countries to take a different path, it was the failed bailout and the international financial system. It would seem that
the enemy of the world's poor is not Bernie Sanders but rather the engineers of our current globalization policies.
There is a further point in this story that is generally missed: it is not only the volume of trade flows that is determined by
policy, but also the content. A major push in recent trade deals has been to require stronger and longer patent and copyright protection.
Paying the fees imposed by these terms, especially for prescription drugs, is a huge burden on the developing world. Bill Clinton
would have much less need to fly around the world for the Clinton Foundation had he not inserted the TRIPS (Trade Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property Rights ) provisions in the World Trade Organization (WTO) that require developing countries to adopt U.S.-style
patent protections. Generic drugs are almost always cheap -patent protection makes drugs expensive. The cancer and hepatitis drugs
that sell for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars a year would sell for a few hundred dollars in a free market. Cheap drugs
would be more widely available had the developed world not forced TRIPS on the developing world.
Of course, we have to pay for the research to develop new drugs or any innovation. We also have to compensate creative workers
who produce music, movies, and books. But there are efficient alternatives to patents and copyrights, and the efforts by the elites
in the United States and other wealthy countries to impose these relics on the developing world is just a mechanism for redistributing
income from the world's poor to Pfizer, Microsoft, and Disney. Stronger and longer patent and copyright protection is not a necessary
feature of a 21 st century economy.
In textbook trade theory, if a country has a larger trade surplus on payments for royalties and patent licensing fees, it will
have a larger trade deficit in manufactured goods and other areas. The reason is that, in theory, the trade balance is fixed by national
savings and investment, not by the ability of a country to export in a particular area. If the trade deficit is effectively fixed
by these macroeconomic factors, then more exports in one area mean fewer exports in other areas. Put another way, income gains for
Pfizer and Disney translate into lost jobs for workers in the steel and auto industries.
The conventional story is that we lose manufacturing jobs to developing countries because they have hundreds of millions of people
willing to do factory work at a fraction of the pay of manufacturing workers in the United States. This is true, but developing countries
also have tens of millions of smart and ambitious people willing to work as doctors and lawyers in the United States at a fraction
of the pay of the ones we have now.
Gains from trade work the same with doctors and lawyers as they do with textiles and steel. Our consumers would save hundreds
of billions a year if we could hire professionals from developing countries and pay them salaries that are substantially less than
what we pay our professionals now. The reason we import manufactured goods and not doctors is that we have designed the rules of
trade that way. We deliberately write trade pacts to make it as easy as possible for U.S. companies to set up manufacturing operations
abroad and ship the products back to the United States, but we have done little or nothing to remove the obstacles that professionals
from other countries face in trying to work in the United States. The reason is simple: doctors and lawyers have more political power
than autoworkers.
[4]
In short, there is no truth to the story that the job loss and wage stagnation faced by manufacturing workers in the United States
and other wealthy countries was a necessary price for reducing poverty in the developing world.
[5] This is a fiction that is used to justify the upward redistribution of income in rich countries. After all, it is pretty
selfish for rich country autoworkers and textile workers to begrudge hungry people in Africa and Asia and the means to secure food,
clothing, and shelter.
The other aspect of this story that deserves mention is the nature of the jobs to which our supposedly selfish workers feel entitled.
The manufacturing jobs that are being lost to the developing world pay in the range of $15 to $30 an hour, with the vast majority
closer to the bottom figure than the top. The average hourly wage for production and nonsupervisory workers in manufacturing in 2015
was just under $20 an hour, or about $40,000 a year. While a person earning $40,000 is doing much better than a subsistence farmer
in Sub-Saharan Africa, it is difficult to see this worker as especially privileged.
By contrast, many of the people remarking on the narrow-mindedness and sense of entitlement of manufacturing workers earn comfortable
six-figure salaries. Senior writers and editors at network news shows or at the New York Times and Washington Post
feel entitled to their pay because they feel they have the education and skills to be successful in a rapidly changing global economy.
These are the sort of people who consider it a sacrifice to work at a high-level government job for $150,000 to $200,000 a year.
For example, Timothy Geithner, President Obama's first treasury secretary, often boasts about his choice to work for various government
agencies rather than earn big bucks in the private sector. His sacrifice included a stint as president of the Federal Reserve Bank
of New York that paid $415,000 a year.
[6] This level of pay put Geithner well into the top 1 percent of wage earners.
Geithner's comments about his sacrifices in public service did not elicit any outcry from the media at the time because his perspective
was widely shared. The implicit assumption is that the sort of person who is working at a high level government job could easily
be earning a paycheck that is many times higher if they were employed elsewhere. In fact, this is often true. When he left his job
as Treasury Secretary, Geithner took a position with a private equity company where his salary is likely several million dollars
a year.
Not everyone who was complaining about entitled manufacturing workers was earning as much as Timothy Geithner, but it is a safe
bet that the average critic was earning far more than the average manufacturing worker - and certainly far more than the average
displaced manufacturing worker.
Turning the Debate Right-Side Up: Markets Are Structured
The perverse nature of the debate over a trade policy that would have the audacity to benefit workers in rich countries is a great
example of how we accept as givens not just markets themselves but also the policies that structure markets. If we accept it as a
fact of nature that poor countries cannot borrow from rich countries to finance their development, and that they can only export
manufactured goods, then their growth will depend on displacing manufacturing workers in the United States and other rich countries.
It is absurd to narrow the policy choices in this way, yet the centrists and conservatives who support the upward redistribution
of the last four decades have been extremely successful in doing just that, and progressives have largely let them set the terms
of the debate.
Markets are never just given. Neither God nor nature hands us a worked-out set of rules determining the way property relations
are defined, contracts are enforced, or macroeconomic policy is implemented. These matters are determined by policy choices. The
elites have written these rules to redistribute income upward. Needless to say, they are not eager to have the rules rewritten which
means they have no interest in even having them discussed.
But for progressive change to succeed, these rules must be addressed. While modest tweaks to tax and transfer policies can ameliorate
the harm done by a regressive market structure, their effect will be limited. The complaint of conservatives - that tampering with
market outcomes leads to inefficiencies and unintended outcomes - is largely correct, even if they may exaggerate the size of the
distortions from policy interventions. Rather than tinker with badly designed rules, it is far more important to rewrite the rules
so that markets lead to progressive and productive outcomes in which the benefits of economic growth and improving technology are
broadly shared
This book examines five broad areas where the rules now in place tend to redistribute income upward and where alternative rules
can lead to more equitable outcomes and a more efficient market:
Macroeconomic policies determining levels of employment and output. Financial regulation and the structure of financial markets.
Patent and copyright monopolies and alternative mechanisms for financing innovation and creative work. Pay of chief executive
officers (CEOs) and corporate governance structures. Protections for highly paid professionals, such as doctors and lawyers.
In each of these areas, it is possible to identify policy choices that have engineered the upward redistribution of the last four
decades.
In the case of macroeconomic policy, the United States and other wealthy countries have explicitly adopted policies that focus
on maintaining low rates of inflation. Central banks are quick to raise interest rates at the first sign of rising inflation and
sometimes even before. Higher interest rates slow inflation by reducing demand, thereby reducing job growth, and reduced job growth
weakens workers' bargaining power and puts downward pressure on wages. In other words, the commitment to an anti-inflation policy
is a commitment by the government, acting through central banks, to keep wages down. It should not be surprising that this policy
has the effect of redistributing income upward.
The changing structure of financial regulation and financial markets has also been an important factor in redistributing income
upward. This is a case where an industry has undergone very rapid change as a result of technological innovation. Information technology
has hugely reduced the cost of financial transactions and allowed for the development of an array of derivative instruments that
would have been unimaginable four decades ago. Rather than modernizing regulation to ensure that these technologies allow the financial
sector to better serve the productive economy, the United States and other countries have largely structured regulations to allow
a tiny group of bankers and hedge fund and private equity fund managers to become incredibly rich.
This changed structure of regulation over the last four decades was not "deregulation," as is often claimed. Almost no proponent
of deregulation argued against the bailouts that saved Wall Street in the financial crisis or against the elimination of government
deposit insurance that is an essential part of a stable banking system. Rather, they advocated a system in which the rules restricting
their ability to profit were eliminated, while the insurance provided by the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, and other arms of the government were left in place. The position of "deregulators" effectively amounted to arguing
that they should not have to pay for the insurance they were receiving.
The third area in which the rules have been written to ensure an upward redistribution is patent and copyright protection. Over
the last four decades these protections have been made stronger and longer. In the case of both patent and copyright, the duration
of the monopoly period has been extended. In addition, these monopolies have been applied to new areas. Patents can now be applied
to life forms, business methods, and software. Copyrights have been extended to cover digitally produced material as well as the
internet. Penalties for infringement have been increased and the United States has vigorously pursued their application in other
countries through trade agreements and diplomatic pressure.
Government-granted monopolies are not facts of nature, and there are alternative mechanisms for financing innovation and creative
work. Direct government funding, as opposed to government granted monopolies, is one obvious alternative. For example, the government
spends more than $30 billion a year on biomedical research through the National Institutes of Health - money that all parties agree
is very well spent. There are also other possible mechanisms. It is likely that these alternatives are more efficient than the current
patent and copyright system, in large part because they would be more market-oriented. And, they would likely lead to less upward
redistribution than the current system.
The CEOs who are paid tens of millions a year would like the public to think that the market is simply compensating them for their
extraordinary skills. A more realistic story is that a broken corporate governance process gives corporate boards of directors -
the people who largely determine CEO pay -little incentive to hold down pay. Directors are more closely tied to top management than
to the shareholders they are supposed to represent, and their positions are lucrative, usually paying six figures for very part-time
work. Directors are almost never voted out by shareholders for their lack of attention to the job or for incompetence.
The market discipline that holds down the pay of ordinary workers does not apply to CEOs, since their friends determine their
pay. And a director has little incentive to pick a fight with fellow directors or top management by asking a simple question like,
"Can we get a CEO just as good for half the pay?" This privilege matters not just for CEOs; it has the spillover effect of raising
the pay of other top managers in the corporate sector and putting upward pressure on the salaries of top management in universities,
hospitals, private charities, and other nonprofits.
Reformed corporate governance structures could empower shareholders to contain the pay of their top-level employees. Suppose directors
could count on boosts in their own pay if they cut the pay of top management without hurting profitability, With this sort of policy
change, CEOs and top management might start to experience some of the downward wage pressure that existing policies have made routine
for typical workers.
This is very much not a story of the natural workings of the market. Corporations are a legal entity created by the government,
which also sets the rules of corporate governance. Current law includes a lengthy set of restrictions on corporate governance practices.
It is easy to envision rules which would make it less likely that CEOs earn such outlandish paychecks by making it easier for shareholders
to curb excessive pay.
Finally, government policies strongly promote the upward redistribution of income for highly paid professionals by protecting
them from competition. To protect physicians and specialists, we restrict the ability of nurse practitioners or physician assistants
to perform tasks for which they are entirely competent. We require lawyers for work that paralegals are capable of completing. While
trade agreements go far to remove any obstacle that might protect an autoworker in the United States from competition with a low-paid
factory worker in Mexico or China, they do little or nothing to reduce the barriers that protect doctors, dentists, and lawyers from
the same sort of competition. To practice medicine in the United States, it is still necessary to complete a residency program here,
as though there were no other way for a person to become a competent doctor.
We also have done little to foster medical travel. This could lead to enormous benefits to patients and the economy, since many
high cost medical procedures can be performed at a fifth or even one-tenth the U.S. price in top quality medical facilities elsewhere
in the world. In this context, it is not surprising that the median pay of physicians is over $250,000 a year and some areas of specialization
earn close to twice this amount. In the case of physicians alone, if pay were reduced to West European-levels the savings would be
close to $100 billion a year (@ 0.6 percent of GDP).
Changing the rules in these five areas could reduce much and possibly all of the upward redistribution of the last four decades.
But changing the rules does not mean using government intervention to curb the market. It means restructuring the market to produce
different outcomes. The purpose of this book is to show how.
[1] See also Weissman (2016), Iacono (2016), Worstall (2016), Lane (2016), and Zakaria (2016).
[2] As explained in the next chapter, this view is not exactly correct, but it's what you're supposed to believe if you adhere
to the mainstream economic view.
[3] There can be modest changes in employment through a supply-side effect. If the trade deal increases the efficiency of the
economy, then the marginal product of labor should rise, leading to a higher real wage, which in turn should induce some people to
choose work over leisure. So the trade deal results in more people choosing to work, not an increased demand for labor.
[4] For those worried about brain drain from developing countries, there is an easy fix. Economists like to talk about taxing
the winners, in this case developing country professionals and rich country consumers, to compensate the losers, which would be the
home countries of the migrating professionals. We could tax a portion of the professionals' pay to allow their home countries to
train two or three professionals for every one that came to the United States. This is a classic win-win from trade.
[5] The loss of manufacturing jobs also reduced the wages of less-educated workers (those without college degrees) more generally.
The displaced manufacturing workers crowded into retail and other service sectors, putting downward pressure on wages there.
[6] As a technical matter, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is a private bank. It is owned by the banks that are members
of the Federal Reserve System in the New York District.
"Markets are never just given. Neither God nor nature hands us a worked-out set of rules determining the way property relations
are defined, contracts are enforced, or macroeconomic policy is implemented. These matters are determined by policy choices. The
elites have written these rules to redistribute income upward. Needless to say, they are not eager to have the rules rewritten
which means they have no interest in even having them discussed."
======================================================
It is one of those remarkable hypocrisies that free "unregulated" trade requires deals of thousands of pages .
but if these deals weren't so carefully structured to help the 1%, support would melt like snowmen in Fresno on a July day
Or check your local indy, or one of those that take orders (I refrain from naming my favorite co-op in Chicago, and anyway
I admit there are others). Nice to support those when you can.
Almost no proponent of deregulation argued against the bailouts that saved Wall Street in the financial crisis or against
the elimination of government deposit insurance that is an essential part of a stable banking system.
Actually I believe there were some Republicans who denounced the Wall Street bailout as a violation of capitalist principles.
My state's Mark Sanford comes to mind. It was the Dems at the urging of Pelosi who saved the bailout. On the other hand many of
my local politicians are big on "public/private" partnerships which would be a violation of laissez-faire that they approve. Perhaps
it was simply that there are no giant banks headquartered in SC.
The truth is there is no coherent intellectual basis to how the US economy is currently run. It's all about power and what
you can do with it. Which is to say it is our politics, above all, that is broken.
"That is how the economics is supposed to work. In the standard theory, general shortages of demand are not a problem.[2]
Economists have traditionally assumed that economies tended toward full employment. The basic economic constraint was a lack of
supply. The problem was that we couldn't produce enough goods and services, not that we were producing too much and couldn't find
anyone to buy them. In fact, this is why all the standard models used to analyze trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership
assume trade doesn't affect total employment.[3] Economies adjust so that shortages of demand are not a problem."
Unbelievable.
By the 1920s they realised the system produced so much stuff that extensive advertising was needed to shift it all.
One hundred year's later, we might take this on board.
What is the global advertising budget?
The amount necessary to shift all the crap the system produces today.
We need to move on from Milton Freidman's ideas and discover what trade in a globalized world is really about.
We are still under the influence of Milton Freidman's ideas of a globalised free trade world.
These ideas came from Milton Freidman's imagination where he saw the ideal as small state, raw capitalism and thought the public
sector should be sold off and entitlement programs whittled down until everything must be purchased through the private sector.
"You are free to spend your money as you choose"
Not mentioning its other meaning:
"No money, no freedom"
After Milton Freedman's "shock therapy" in Russia, people were left with so little money they couldn't afford to eat and starved
to death. In Greece people cannot afford even bread today.
But this is economic liberalism, the economy comes first.
Milton Freidman used his imagination to work out what small state, raw capitalism looked like whereas he could have looked
at it in reality through history books of the 18th and 19th centuries where it had already existed.
The Classical Economists studied it and were able to see its problems first hand and noted the detrimental effects of the rentier
class on the economy. They were constantly looking to get "unearned" income from doing nothing; sucking purchasing power out of
the economy and bleeding it dry.
Adam Smith observed:
"The Labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to the maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury.
The Landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by his extractions
from the industrious merchant and the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his money. But every
savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no landlords, no usurers and no tax gatherers."
Adam Smith saw landlords, usurers (bankers) and Government taxes as equally parasitic, all raising the cost of doing business.
He sees the lazy people at the top living off "unearned" income from their land and capital.
He sees the trickle up of Capitalism:
1) Those with excess capital collect rent and interest.
2) Those with insufficient capital pay rent and interest.
He differentiates between "earned" and "unearned" income.
Today we encourage a new rentier class of BTL landlords who look to extract the "earned" income of generation rent for "unearned"
income. If you have a large BTL portfolio you can become a true rentier, do nothing productive at all and live off "unearned"
income extracted from generation rent, the true capitalist parasite. (UK)
The Classical Economists realised capitalism has two sides, the productive side where "earned" income is generated and the
unproductive, parasitic, rentier side where "unearned" income is generated.
You should tax "unearned" income to discourage the parasitic side of capitalism.
You shouldn't tax "earned" income to encourage the productive side of capitalism.
You should provide low cost housing, education and services to create a low cost of living, giving a low minimum wage making
you globally competitive. This is to be funded by taxes on "unearned" income.
The US has probably been the most successful in making its labour force internationally uncompetitive with soaring costs of
housing, healthcare and student loan repayments.
These all have to be covered by wages and US businesses are now squealing about the high minimum wage.
That's Milton Freidman's imagined small state, raw capitalism.
What he imagined bears little resemblance to the reality the Classical Economists saw firsthand.
We need to move on from Milton Freidman fantasy land.
Small state, raw capitalism as observed by Adam Smith:
"But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and fall with the declension of the society.
On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going
fastest to ruin."
When rates of profit are high, capitalism is cannibalising itself by:
1) Not engaging in long term investment for the future
2) Paying insufficient wages to maintain demand for its products and services
In the 18th Century they would have understood today's problems with growth and demand.
Luckily Jeff Bezos didn't inhabit Milton Freidman fantasy land.
He re-invested almost everything to turn Amazon onto the global behemoth it is today.
' The commitment to an anti-inflation policy is a commitment by the government, acting through central banks, to keep wages
down. '
This is strikingly silly. Insert the word 'nominal' before wages, and it's not a howler anymore.
Anti-inflation policy in fact has little influence on real wages (the variable of concern, not nominal wages). But it has a
lot to do with preventing the social chaos of constantly rising prices, strikes for higher wages, inability of first-time home
buyers to borrow at affordable rates, and so on.
Inflationism is greasy kid stuff not to mention a brazen fraud on the public.
As one who walked the corridors of power in a very modest capacity in my country in the early to mid 1990s, can I just say
that people with power or influence then were aware that globalisation would create winners and losers. I recall the consensus
of those I knew then was that steps would need to be taken to compensate the losers. The tragedy is that these steps were never
taken, or, if they were, only to a wholly inadequate degree.
The always elusive referents for cost, price and value the flip-side of social chaos would seem the entropic degradation of
wasted lives, excluded from participating {either-OR} abandoned as irredeemable
Higher interest rates slow inflation by reducing demand, thereby reducing job growth, and reduced job growth weakens workers'
bargaining power and puts downward pressure on wages.
Your assertion that anti-inflation policy has little influence on real wages does not address Baker's statement about the mechanism
by which he says it does. Given an argument between two people, one of whom cites a mechanism he is probably prepared to document
with numbers and one of whom merely declares his belief, which are people more likely to trust? Granted always, they should go
look for the numbers before they fully accept the statement, his credibility is currently higher than yours on this subject.
By contrast, since the 1970s real wages stalled, while interest rates round-tripped back to 2 percent.
Over nearly seven decades, the correlation is quite the opposite from that made up claimed by Dean Bonkers.
Namely, real wages soared under a regime of steadily rising nominal interest rates.
Since my original reply has disappeared in limbo, I will merely note that numbers are probably even crunchier when you don't
generalize across a span of decades: first there was A, then there was B, nothing else happened. It's a sure way to obscure patterns.
And Jim, please quit the ad hominem stuff! It's ugly and needless. If you really have an argument you don't need it, and if
you don't you don't gain by it. You know perfectly well he's not making things up and he's not bonkers. When you say stuff like
that, the obvious presumption is that you just don't want to consider his arguments because they lead somewhere you don't want
to go.
Perhaps I am missing the point being made, but if you are suggesting that increases in real wages in the 1945-1975 period caused
inflation, why not provide the data on inflation which would in fact show that inflation was essentially tame for 20 years in
this period (1952-1972, with a slight hiccup in 1969-1971), thereby contradicting your point? And if you are suggesting that Fed
increases in interest rate have not resulted in suppression of wages you will have to demonstrate that using analysis that takes
into account the lag in time between increase in rate and transmission to wages, and in that case would you not also use the Fed
Funds Rate itself as a variable?
Bulltwacky, they have been globalizing wages downwards while globalizing housing prices upwards!
Every time some stupid and moronic newsy floozy on one of the CorporateNonMedia outlets claims housing purchases may be going
down because consumer confidence is plummeting, they CHOOSE to ignore the foreign buyers of said houses!
Did I get this right? Full employment is an assumed boundary condition and so is fixed balance of trade? If the model is to
work as advertised then the boundary conditions must be hard wired to be true, right?
If the top 25 hedge fund managers saved around $5 billion per year in being taxed on their income at capital gains rate (carried
interest ruling in tax code - utterly corrupt), then think of the amount that is being robbed from the tax base when one considers
ALL the hedge fund people, and ALL the private equity types (who also do this), a conservative amount of tax revenues remitted
should be around $100 billion per year!
Paul Krugman's recent posts have been most peculiar. Several have looked uncomfortably like special
pleading for political figures he likes, notably Hillary Clinton. He has, in my judgement, stooped
rather far down in attacking people well below him in the public relations food chain
Perhaps the most egregious and clearest cut case is his refusal to address the substance of a
completely legitimate, well-documented article by David Dayen outing Krugman, and to a lesser degree,
his fellow traveler Mike Konczal, in abjectly misrepresenting Sanders' financial reform proposals
The Krugman that was early to stand up to the Iraq War, who was incisive before and during the
crisis has been very much in absence since Obama took office. It's hard to understand the loss of
intellectual independence. That may not make Krugman any worse than other Democratic party apparatchiks,
but he continues to believe he is other than that, and the lashing out at Dayen looks like a wounded
denial of his current role. Krugman and Konczal need to be seen as what they are: part of the Vichy
Left brand cover for the Democratic party messaging apparatus. Krugman, sadly, has chosen to diminish
himself for a not very worthy cause.
"... The Russian-Turkish plan to pipe Russian gas through Turkey and then on to Macedonia and thence into southern Europe has long been opposed by the West, which is seeking to block the Russians at every turn. Now the Western powers have found an effective way to stop it: by overthrowing the pro-Russian government of Macedonian Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski . ..."
"... Speaking of which: the government of President Petro Poroshenko is leading the country into complete financial insolvency and veritable martial law. ..."
"... which makes it a crime to criticize the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) that fought on the side of the Germans during World War II. ..."
The
Russian-Turkish plan to pipe Russian gas
through Turkey and then on to Macedonia and thence into southern Europe has long been opposed
by the West, which is
seeking
to block the Russians at every turn. Now the Western powers have found an effective way to stop
it: by overthrowing the pro-Russian government of Macedonian Prime Minister
Nikola Gruevski.
The original plan was for the pipeline to go through Bulgaria, but
Western pressure on the government there nixed that and so the
alternative was to pipe the gas through Macedonia and Greece. With the Greeks uninterested in
taking dictation from the EU – and relatively impervious, at the moment, to Western-sponsored regime
change – the Macedonians were deemed to be the weak link in the pro-Russian chain. That was the cue
for the perpetually aggrieved Albanians to play their historic role as the West's willing proxies.
After a long period of dormancy, suddenly the "National
Liberation Army" (NLA) of separatist Albanians rose up, commandeering police stations in Kumanovo
and a nearby village earlier this month. A 16-hour gun battle ensued, with 8 Macedonian police and
14 terrorists killed in the fighting. The NLA, which
reportedly received
vital assistance from Western powers during the 2001 insurgency, claimed responsibility for the
attacks.
Simultaneously, the opposition Social Democratic Union party (SDSM)
– formerly the ruling League of Communists under the Stalinist Tito regime – called for mass demonstrations
over a series of recent government scandals. SDSM has
lost the last three elections, deemed "fair" by the OCSE, with Gruevski's conservative VMRO-DPMNE
(Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization – Democratic Party for Macedonian National Unity)
enjoying a comfortable majority in parliament. But that doesn't matter to the "pro-democracy" regime-changers:
SDSM leader Zoran Zaev
declared "This will not be a protest where we gather, express discontent and go home. We will
stay until Gruevski quits."
Macedonia has a long history of manipulation at the hands of the NATO powers, who nurtured the
Muslim-Kosovar insurgency to impose their will on the components of the former Yugoslavia. As in
Kosovo, the Albanians of Macedonia were willing pawns of the West, carrying out terrorist attacks
on civilians in pursuit of their goal of a "Greater Albania."
During the 2001 Albanian insurgency, an outgrowth of the Kosovo war, the EU/US used the NLA as
a battering ram against the Slavic authorities. The NLA was never an authentic indigenous force,
but actually
an arm of the US-armed-and-trained "Kosovo Liberation Army," which now rules over the gangster
state of Kosovo, crime capital of Europe. A "peace accord," the Ohrid Agreement, was brokered by
the West, which kept the NLA essentially intact, albeit formally "dissolved," while the Macedonian
government was blackmailed into submission. I wrote about it at the time,
here
and here.
Follow that last link to read about the George Soros connection. Soros was originally a big booster
of Macedonia, handing them a
$25 million aid package and holding the country up as a model of multiculturalism. However, the
Macedonians soon turned against him when he sided with the Albanians in their demands for government-subsidized
Albanian-language universities and ethnic quotas for government jobs. When he told them to change
the name of the country to "Slavomakejonija," they told him to take a walk. Soros, a longtime promoter
of Albanian separatism – he played sugar daddy to a multitude of front groups that promoted the Kosovo
war – is now getting his revenge.
Prime Minister Gruevski, for his part, charges that the sudden uptick in ethnic violence and political
turmoil is the work of Western "NGOs" and intelligence agencies (or do I repeat myself?) with the
latter playing a key role in releasing
recordings of phone conversations incriminating several top government officials. A not-so-implausible
scenario, given what happened
in neighboring Ukraine.
Speaking of which: the government of President Petro Poroshenko is leading the country into
complete financial insolvency and veritable martial law. Aid money from the West is going into
the prosecution of the ongoing civil war, and the country has already
defaulted on its huge debt in all but the formal sense. Opposition politicians and journalists
are routinely murdered and their deaths reported as "suicides," while it is now illegal to describe
the ongoing conflict with the eastern provinces as anything but a "Russian invasion." Journalists
who contradict the official view are imprisoned: Ruslan Kotsaba, whose arrest I reported on in this
space, is still being held, his
"trial" a farce that no Western journalist has seen fit to report on. Kotsaba's "crime"? Making
a video in which he denounced the war and called on his fellow Ukrainians to resist being conscripted
into the military. Antiwar activists throughout the country have been rounded up and imprisoned.
Any journalist connected to a Russian media outlet has been arrested.
Yes, these are the "European values" Ukraine is now putting into practice. Adding ignominy to
outrage, a law was recently passed – in spite of
this Reuters piece urging Poroshenko to veto it – which makes it a crime to criticize the
Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) that fought on the
side of the Germans during World War II. As Ha'aretzreports, a group of 40 historians
from major Western academic institutions issued an open letter protesting this outrage:
"Not only would it be a crime to question the legitimacy of an organization (UPA) that slaughtered
tens of thousands of Poles in one of the most heinous acts of ethnic cleansing in the history
of Ukraine, but also it would exempt from criticism the OUN, one of the most extreme political
groups in Western Ukraine between the wars, and one which collaborated with Nazi Germany at the
outset of the Soviet invasion in 1941. It also took part in anti-Jewish pogroms in Ukraine and,
in the case of the Melnyk faction, remained allied with the occupation regime throughout the war."
Ukraine is showing its true colors, which I identified
last year, to the point where even the usually compliant Western media is forced to admit the
truth.
"... It has recently turned out that Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Pinchuk, a vocal proponent of Ukraine's European integration, made huge contributions to the Clinton Foundation, while Hillary Clinton was the US Secretary of State. Although the foundation swore off donations from foreign governments while Mrs. Clinton was serving as a state official, it continued accepting money from private donors. Many of them had certain ties to their national governments like Viktor Pinchuk, a Ukrainian businessman and ex-parliamentarian. ..."
"... Viktor Pinchuk has always been one of the most vocal proponents of Ukraine's European integration. In 2004 Pinchuk founded the Yalta European Strategy (YES) platform in Kiev. YES is led by the board including ex-president of Poland Aleksander Kwasniewski and former NATO Secretary General Javier Solana. According to the website of the platform, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, Kofi Annan, Radoslaw Sikorski, Vitaliy Klitschko, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Petro Poroshenko and other prominent figures have participated in annual meetings of YES since 2004. ..."
"... Experts note that after the coup, the Ukrainian leadership has actually become Washington's puppet government. Several foreign citizens, including American civilian Natalie Jaresko, Lithuanian investment banker Aivaras Abromavicius and Georgia-born Alexander Kvitashvili have assumed high posts in the Ukrainian government. It should be noted that Natalie Jaresko, Ukraine's Financial Minister, have previously worked in the US State Department and has also been linked to oligarch Viktor Pinchuk. ..."
A sinister atmosphere surrounds the Clinton Foundation's role in Ukrainian military coup of February
2014, experts point out.
It has recently turned out that Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Pinchuk, a vocal proponent of Ukraine's
European integration, made huge contributions to the Clinton Foundation, while Hillary Clinton was
the US Secretary of State. Although the foundation swore off donations from foreign governments while
Mrs. Clinton was serving as a state official, it continued accepting money from private donors. Many
of them had certain ties to their national governments like Viktor Pinchuk, a Ukrainian businessman
and ex-parliamentarian.
Remarkably, among individual donors contributing to the Clinton Foundation in the period between
1999 and 2014, Ukrainian sponsors took first place in the list, providing the charity with almost
$10 million and pushing England and Saudi Arabia to second and third places respectively.
It is worth mentioning that the Viktor Pinchuk Foundation alone transferred at least $8.6 million
to the Clinton charity between 2009 and 2013. Pinchuk, who acquired his fortune from a pipe-making
business, served twice as a parliamentarian in Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada and was married to the daughter
of ex-president of Ukraine Leonid Kuchma.
Although the Clinton's charity denies that the donations were somehow connected with political
matters, experts doubt that international private sponsors received no political support in return.
In 2008 Pinchuk pledged to make a five-year $29 million contribution to the Clinton Global Initiative
in order to fund a program aimed at training future Ukrainian leaders and "modernizers." Remarkably,
several alumni of these courses are current members of Ukrainian parliament. Because of the global
financial crisis, the Pinchuk Foundation sent only $1.8 million.
Experts note that during Mrs. Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, Viktor Pinchuk was introduced
to some influential American lobbyists. Curiously enough, he tried to use his powerful "friends"
to pressure Ukraine's then-President Viktor Yanukovych to free Yulia Tymoshenko, who served a jail
term.
Viktor Pinchuk has always been one of the most vocal proponents of Ukraine's European integration.
In 2004 Pinchuk founded the Yalta European Strategy (YES) platform in Kiev. YES is led by the board
including ex-president of Poland Aleksander Kwasniewski and former NATO Secretary General Javier
Solana. According to the website of the platform, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice,
Kofi Annan, Radoslaw Sikorski, Vitaliy Klitschko, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Petro Poroshenko and other prominent
figures have participated in annual meetings of YES since 2004.
No one would argue that proponents of Ukraine's pro-Western course played the main role in organizing
the coup of February 2014 in Kiev. Furthermore, the exceptional role of the United States in ousting
then-president Viktor Yanukovich has also been recognized by political analysts, participants of
Euromaidan and even by Barack Obama, the US President.
Experts note that after the coup, the Ukrainian leadership has actually become Washington's puppet
government. Several foreign citizens, including American civilian Natalie Jaresko, Lithuanian investment
banker Aivaras Abromavicius and Georgia-born Alexander Kvitashvili have assumed high posts in the
Ukrainian government. It should be noted that Natalie Jaresko, Ukraine's Financial Minister, have
previously worked in the US State Department and has also been linked to oligarch Viktor Pinchuk.
So far, experts note, the recent "game of thrones" in Ukraine has been apparently instigated by
a few powerful clans of the US and Ukraine, who are evidently benefitting from the ongoing turmoil.
In this light the Clinton Foundation looks like something more than just a charity: in today's world
of fraudulent oligopoly we are facing with global cronyism, experts point out, warning against its
devastating consequences.
I thought I'd never say this, but Glenn
Beck gave a very thoughtful interview with Charley Rose last night. He raised a lot of issues that
the other Glenn (Glenn Greenwald) has been raising --
the moral bankruptcy of each political
party and the tendency of each to attack the other for things that they themselves would deny, excuse,
and say that it doesn't
matter when their own party does it.
Glenn is not supporting Trump. But he gives the example
of the many Republicans who viciously attacked Bill Clinton for his sexual behavior but now deny,
excuse and say that it doesn't matter when Trump does it.
The flip side, of course, is found with the many Democrats who viciously attack Trump but denied,
excused, and said that it didn't matter when Bill Clinton did it.
Glenn says that to restore trust with the American people, both parties need to clean their
houses and become parties that put laws and principles first, which implies criticizing their own
instead of shielding them when they misbehave.
The for-profit media thrive and depend on controversy and generally
content that is emotionally engaging. Racism is only a small
part of it, it is much more broadly appealing - it is essentially
"addressing", channeling, amplifying, and redirecting existing
grievances of a large part of the public. If economy and society
would be doing great and a large majority of people would be
happy/contented, these anger-based media formats wouldn't find
an audience.
The same underlying causes as the success of Trump.
The reason why he can maintain considerable success despite of
grave shortcomings is because he continues to be a channel for
the anger that is not disappearing. (With the support of the
media, who are also interested in an ongoing controversy with
details as scandalous as possible.)
"... This outcome has an objective character. The two-party system is a political monopoly of the capitalist class. Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are political instruments of big business. The claims of Bernie Sanders and his pseudo-left apologists that it is possible to reform or pressure the Democrats-and even carry out a "political revolution" through it-have proven to be lies ..."
"The 2016 election campaign was dominated for many months by explosive popular disaffection with
the whole political and corporate establishment. But it has concluded in a contest between two candidates
who personify that establishment-one a billionaire from the criminal world of real-estate swindling,
the other the consensus choice of the military-intelligence apparatus and Wall Street.
This outcome has an objective character. The two-party system is a political monopoly of the
capitalist class. Both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are political instruments of
big business. The claims of Bernie Sanders and his pseudo-left apologists that it is possible to
reform or pressure the Democrats-and even carry out a "political revolution" through it-have proven
to be lies."
"... Jill Stein of the Green Party has recognized that exercises in which the United States government examines its own behavior are certain to come up with a result that basically exonerates the politicians and the federal bureaucracy. ..."
"... A friend recently recommended that I take a look at a film on 9/11 that was first produced back in 2005. It is called Loose Change 9/11 and is available on Amazon Video or in DVD form as well as elsewhere in a number of updated versions. The first version reportedly provides the most coherent account, though the later updates certainly are worth watching, add significantly to the narrative, and are currently more accessible. ..."
"... Loose Change is an examination of the inconsistencies in the standard 9/11 narrative, a subject that has been thoroughly poked and prodded in a number of other documentaries and books, but it benefits from the immediacy of the account and the fresh memories of the participants in the events who were interviewed by the documentary's director Dylan Avery starting in 2004. It also includes a bit of a history lesson for the average viewer, recalling Hitler's Reichstag fire, Pearl Harbor and the Gulf of Tonkin incident, all of which were essentially fraudulent and led to the assumption of emergency powers by the respective heads of state. ..."
"... The underlying premise of most 9/11 revisionism is that the United States government, or at least parts of it, is capable of almost anything. ..."
"... The signatories of the neocon Project for the New American Century paper observed that was needed was a catalyst to produce a public demand to "do something," that "something" being an event comparable to Pearl Harbor. Seventeen signatories of the document wound up in senior positions in the Bush Administration. ..."
"... The new Pearl Harbor turned out to be 9/11. Given developments since 9/11 itself, to include the way the U.S. has persisted in going to war and the constant search for enemies worldwide to justify our own form of Deep State government, I would, to a large extent, have to believe that PNAC was either prescient or perhaps, more diabolically, actively engaged in creating a new reality. ..."
"... the strength of Loose Change as it identifies and challenges inconsistencies in the established account without pontificating and, even though it has a definite point of view and draws conclusions, it avoids going over to the dark side and speculating on any number of the wilder "what-if" scenarios. ..."
"... I recommend that readers watch Loose Change as it runs through discussions of U.S. military exercises and inexplicable stand-downs that occurred on 9/11, together with convincing accounts of engineering and technical issues related to how the World Trade Center and WTC7 collapsed. Particularly intriguing are the initial eyewitness accounts from the site of the alleged downing of UA 93 in Pennsylvania, a hole in the ground that otherwise showed absolutely no evidence of a plane having actually crashed. Nor have I ever seen any traces of a plane in photos taken at the Pentagon point of impact. ..."
11 Truth? Was it an "American coup?"
Leave a Comment For
the first time a presidential candidate, admittedly from a fringe party, is calling for a reexamination
of 9/11. Jill Stein of the Green Party has recognized that exercises in which the United States government
examines its own behavior are certain to come up with a result that basically exonerates the politicians
and the federal bureaucracy. This has been the case since the Warren Commission report on the assassination
of President John F. Kennedy, which, inter alia, failed to thoroughly investigate key players like
Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby and came up with a single gunman scenario in spite of considerable
evidence to the contrary.
When it comes to 9/11, I have been reluctant to enter the fray largely because I do not have the
scientific and technical chops to seriously assess how buildings collapse or how a large passenger
airliner might be completely consumed by a fire. In my own area, of expertise, which is intelligence,
I have repeatedly noted that the Commission investigators failed to look into the potential foreign
government involvement in the events that took place that day. Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan
just for starters may have been involved in or had knowledge relating to 9/11 but the only investigation
that took place, insofar as I can determine, was a perfunctory look at the possible Saudi role, the
notorious 28 pages, which have recently been released in a redacted form.
A friend recently recommended that I take a look at a film on 9/11 that was first produced back
in 2005. It is called
Loose Change 9/11 and is available on Amazon Video or in DVD form as well as elsewhere in
a number of updated versions. The first version reportedly provides the most coherent account, though
the later updates certainly are worth watching, add significantly to the narrative, and are currently
more accessible.
Loose Change is an examination of the inconsistencies in the standard 9/11 narrative, a
subject that has been thoroughly poked and prodded in a number of other documentaries and books,
but it benefits from the immediacy of the account and the fresh memories of the participants in the
events who were interviewed by the documentary's director Dylan Avery starting in 2004. It also includes
a bit of a history lesson for the average viewer, recalling Hitler's Reichstag fire, Pearl Harbor
and the Gulf of Tonkin incident, all of which were essentially fraudulent and led to the assumption
of emergency powers by the respective heads of state.
The underlying premise of most 9/11 revisionism is that the United States government, or at least
parts of it, is capable of almost anything.Loose Change describes how leading hawkish Republicans
were, as early as 2000, pushing to increase U.S. military capabilities so that the country would
be able to fight multi-front wars. The signatories of the neocon Project for the New American Century
paper observed that was needed was a catalyst to produce a public demand to "do something," that
"something" being an event comparable to Pearl Harbor. Seventeen signatories of the document wound
up in senior positions in the Bush Administration.
The new Pearl Harbor turned out to be 9/11. Given developments since 9/11 itself, to include the
way the U.S. has persisted in going to war and the constant search for enemies worldwide to justify
our own form of Deep State government, I would, to a large extent, have to believe that PNAC was
either prescient or perhaps, more diabolically, actively engaged in creating a new reality.
That is not to suggest that either then or now most federal employees in the national security
industry were part of some vast conspiracy but rather an indictment of the behavior and values of
those at the top of the food chain, people who are characteristically singularly devoid of any ethical
compass and base their decisions largely on personal and peer group ambition.
9/11 Truthers are characteristically very passionate about their beliefs, which is part of their
problem in relating to a broader public. They frequently demand full adherence to their version of
what passes for reality. In my own experience of more than twenty years on the intelligence side
of government I have frequently found that truth is in fact elusive, often lying concealed in conflicting
narratives. This is, I believe, the strength of Loose Change as it identifies and challenges
inconsistencies in the established account without pontificating and, even though it has a definite
point of view and draws conclusions, it avoids going over to the dark side and speculating on any
number of the wilder "what-if" scenarios.
I recommend that readers watch Loose Change as it runs through discussions of U.S. military
exercises and inexplicable stand-downs that occurred on 9/11, together with convincing accounts of
engineering and technical issues related to how the World Trade Center and WTC7 collapsed. Particularly
intriguing are the initial eyewitness accounts from the site of the alleged downing of UA 93 in Pennsylvania,
a hole in the ground that otherwise showed absolutely no evidence of a plane having actually crashed.
Nor have I ever seen any traces of a plane in photos taken at the Pentagon point of impact.
The film describes the subsequent investigative failures that took place, perhaps deliberately
and arranged from inside the government, and concludes that the event amounts to an "American coup"
which changed the United States both in terms of its domestic liberties and its foreign policy. After
watching the film, one must accept that there are numerous inconsistencies that emerge from any examination
of the standard narrative promoted by the 9/11 Commission and covered up by every White House since
2001. The film calls the existing corpus of government investigations into 9/11 a lie, a conclusion
that I would certainly agree with.
The consequences of 9/11 are indeed more important than the event itself. Even those who have
come to accept the established narrative would have to concede that "that day of infamy" changed
America for the worse, as the film notes. While the United States government had previously engaged
in illegal activity directed against for suspected spies, terrorists and a variety of international
criminals, wholesale surveillance of what amounts to the entire population of the country was a new
development brought in by the Patriot Acts. And, for the first time, secret prisons were set up overseas
and citizens were arrested without being charged and held indefinitely. Under the authority of the
Military Commissions Act tribunals were established to try those individuals who were suspected of
being material supporters of terrorism, "material supporters" being loosely interpreted to make arrest,
prosecution and imprisonment easier.
More recently, executive authority based on the anti-terror legislation has been used to execute
American citizens overseas and, under the Authorization to Use Military Force, to attack suspects
in a number of countries with which the United States is not at war. This all takes place with hardly
a squeak from Congress or from the media. And when citizens object to any or all of the above they
are blocked from taking action in the courts by the government's invocation of State Secrets Privilege,
claiming that judicial review would reveal national secrets. Many believe that the United States
has now become a precursor police state, all as a result of 9/11 and the so-called War on Terror
which developed from that event.
So who benefited from 9/11? Clearly the executive branch of the government itself, which has seen
an enormous expansion in its power and control over both the economy and people's lives, but there
are also other entities like the military industrial complex, the Pentagon and intelligence agencies,
and the financial services sector, all of which have gained considerably from the anti-terror largesse
coming from the American taxpayer. Together these entities constitute an American Deep State, which
controls both government and much of the private sector without ever being mentioned or seriously
contested.
Suggesting government connivance in the events of 9/11 inevitably raises the question of who exactly
might have ordered or carried out the attacks if they were in fact not fully and completely the work
of a handful of Arab hijackers? The film suggests that one should perhaps consider the possibility
of a sophisticated "false flag" operation, by which we mean that the apparent perpetrators of the
act were not, in fact, the drivers or originators of what took place. Blowing up huge buildings and
causing them to pancake from within, if indeed that is what took place, is the work of governments,
not of a handful of terrorists. Only two governments would have had that capability, the United States
itself and also Israel, unfortunately mentioned only once in passing in the film, a state player
heavily engaged in attempting to bring America into its fight with the Arab world, with Benjamin
Netanyahu subsequently
saying that "We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and
Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq swung American public opinion in our favor."
To be honest I would prefer not to think that 9/11 might have been an inside job, but I am now
convinced that a new 9/11 Commission is in order, one that is not run and guided by the government
itself. If it can be demonstrated that the attacks carried out on that day were quite possibly set
up by major figures both inside and outside the political establishment it might produce such a powerful
reaction that the public would demand a reversal of the laws and policies that have so gravely damaged
our republic. It is admittedly unlikely that anything like that could ever take place, but it is
at least something to hope for.
"... The establishment GOP and establishment DNC have become almost identical in their support of big banks, big corporations, and extremely hawkish overseas military policies. Favorites of the top 10% in the US. ..."
"... The biggest reason why it kicked this cycle. Historically only the bottom 20% or so have been heavily exploited. After 8 years of net loss (economic growth < population growth), almost everyone outside the elites of society are feeling the pinch. ..."
"... There's British voters that claim Hillary Clinton would be a Tory there for example. ..."
"... One specific example would be immigration, where voters don't agree with the Republican position on hardline enforcement of the law, nor with the Democratic position on continuing to expand immigration and granting legal status to those who have come illegally. ..."
"... The government bailouts from the banking crash of 2007-8 really kickstarted the angry voter here in the U.S. ..."
"... For the record, Sanders voted against the bank bailout. Obama and Clinton voted for it. Trump was not an elected official at the time of course. And Cruz was not yet in the Senate, but voter anger over items like this propelled him there. ..."
"... A part of what you describe is due to the capture of the state and media by a modern clerisy, all clinging to power by chasing the same (presumed centrist) voter. Voter disgust at this class and their short-sighted decisions is fully understandable. ..."
"... voting for a candidate who signals a Left/Right wing inclination (Clinton, NuLabour, Trump?) but has no intention of delivering - is a deliberate and willful disenfranchisement of the voter. ..."
It's a bigly trend
with enormous consequences for fiscal and monetary policy. But the rise of voter rage in advanced
democracies is a hard narrative to chart, what with the lack of data and the abundance of anecdote.
However, this seems a pretty decent attempt:
That's from Barclay's Marvin Barth - who has set out to measure "voter rage as a drop in the combined
vote share of the centre-right and centre-left parties as voters shift to parties that they believe
better reflect their frustrations," in a 73-page note.
And the exercise perhaps demonstrates that Brexit wasn't much of an exception after all:
Interesting/telling that commodity exporters such as Norway and Australia bucked the general trend,
no? Although you have to wonder how long that will last as the commodity boom fades.
Another interesting question ( asked by Joseph, with his hat on as Southern Africa correspondent
): is South Africa - where unemployment is over 30 per cent and the economy is really feeling
the pain of the commodity bust - part of the politics of rage?
The rising number of violent
'service delivery protests' and the current unrest on university campuses both suggest that South
Africa could be. On the other hand, in party politics itself, one curious thing about the fracturing
of the African National Congress is that there hasn't been more support for radical alternatives.
There are the Economic Freedom Fighters of course - but the party didn't do well enough capture
any municipalities in recent local elections. The centre-focused Democratic Alliance took the prizes
instead. Disaffected ANC voters are if anything staying home instead. Of course South Africa is full
of political risk in several other ways. But it may be an interesting exception to the voter rage
narrative.
Anyway, elsewhere, in European democracies, Barclays say that the drop in centre-party support
has actually been more like a collapse :
Greece (GR), perhaps unsurprisingly, has had roughly a 50pp drop in its centre vote share on
all three measures. But the 44-64pp drop in Austria (AT) is more shocking. In relative terms,
the 24-37pp drop in the Netherlands (NL) is even more startling given that the centre vote share
rarely ever has topped 50%; similarly striking is the 15-22pp drop in Belgium (BE), a country
famous for its linguistically divided parliament. Even in countries that traditionally have fewer
competitive parties, the declines have been large: Germany (DE) 20-27pp, France (FR) 18-32pp,
and Spain (ES) 15-28pp.
The broad-based decline also is unprecedented. Figure 3 charts a time series of the centre
vote share in advanced economies, grouped by type, from 1970 to the present. While there has been
a longer-term trend of mild erosion, a cross-country collapse in the political centre of the current
scale has not occurred previously. Reviewing the entire post-WWII period, there is no other similar
event. Nor was such a wide-ranging drop in the political centre visible during the inter-war,
Great Depression years.
… Figure 3 and Figure 4 also highlight another noteworthy point: voter rage does not seem to
be due (solely) to severe economic distress, contrary to one popular notion. Not only did the
Great Depression fail to provoke a similar collapse in the political centre among ongoing democracies
in the 1930s, but the current bout of political rage appears to pre-date the Global Financial
Crisis (GFC). As Figure 3 shows, the peak in the centre vote share was 2008 for Southern Europe,
but in the US, non-euro area Europe and the northern euro area, the deterioration of the political
centre began in 2003-05.
There's more in
the usual place for those that want it, as we're loath to rerun the full list of potential reasons
for this phenomenon here. Demographics, globalisation, xenophobia all get an airing and all get assigned
to a "yeah, probably, but where does one begin and another end" bucket.
For what it's worth, Barc's underlying contention is that the "biggest source of voter rage appears
to be a sense of economic and political disenfranchisement due to imperfect representation in national
governments and delegation of sovereignty to supranational and intergovernmental organizations."
Apparently 16 of 17 parties Barc looked at demanded "greater protection of, or retaking of, national
sovereignty."
Taking back control is more universal a wish than you might have imagined. It doesn't make
you very confident about globalisation's fate.
In the other direction, Barc suggest "the label 'populist' does not appear to fit the economic
policies of a majority of the parties challenging the political centre." Also in that direction,
"redistribution and corporate taxation, issues closely related to anger over increasing income inequality
appear to be lower-order campaign issues for most alternative parties even if it is of primary importance
for the remainder."
It all seems plausible enough as theories go, but we reserve the right to grab on to any other
narrative that comes along and which does a better job of grouping together what is a large number
of competing, non-mutually exclusive, narratives. Tracking voter-to-party preferences in immigration,
free trade, inequality (and so on) yield confusing results and, anyway, it seems unlikely to us that
party policy as presented is always fully understood or taken at face value by supporters.
Still, Barc themselves are humble about the data being used here and say they are "left to use
logic and narrative to analyse numerous bivariate relationships" and the direction of causality is
often impossible to determine.
In short, this is a worthy exercise - but handle with care.
10 hours ago
Interesting too that the decline from Chart 5
seems to coincide with the emergence and growth of the world wide web and the many distinct/fractious
perspectives and opinions instead of the more consensual/centralized editorial hubs typical of the
previous "age". Also- it seems the concept of "enlightened self-interest" has been displaced a more
dog-eat-dog-materialism where the winner takes all. The roots of rebellion and revolution have not
changed so it is good to see some thought by a "winning" organization is seeking an explanation.
Pi1010 5pts Featured
11 hours ago
Entrenched political alignment does not change much within a population, left and right winged-ness
follows a normal distribution. Around the early 80's political parties got scientific and professional,
they realised they only needed to win over the centrally minded swing voters but could ignore those
outside the center who would vote for them anyway. At the same time politicians became stage managed
by their media minders, Tony Blair being the master of this.
Voters outside the center, taken for granted have gone elsewhere and also find the rare genuine
politician appealing (Farage, Trump, Sanders, Corbyn). If voter rage is a problem, and I'm not convinced
it is, then mainstream parties need to broaden their appeal away from the center, they won't though
in case they lose to the other side, prisoners dilemma indeed.
The late Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky apparently proposed to Vladimir Putin that the oligarchs
fund and control two parties, which would play out bitterly contested elections, while the same
groups kept control behind the scenes. Putin in the end betrayed the oligarchs for his conception
of Russian national interest (which may still involve oligarchs).
As Russia Insider noted
"(In) the U.S we have two capitalist parties that largely agree on everything. The exceptions
are issues that matter a lot to the regular people who make up the two parties' bases, but are largely
irrelevant to party elites who fund and run both of them."
Which is why Trump, an outsider who cares about these issues, Is Literally Hitler as far as the
corporate media are concerned, and why the DNC cheated Sanders.
In defense of labantall. First, the earlier citation of Frost was apposite; thought-provoking,
if not completely convincing. Second, that both of the 2 parties are (usually) professional and (possibly)
competent servants of their (admittedly disparate sets of) clients ought not be in dispute.
The alleged
Russian plan would be a sham, in that the clientele of the 2 parties would be the same - which is
not the case in America - but I defend the observation as germane, even if it is fallacious in fact.
The Russians just don't get it, and why would that be a surprise. I don't agree that Trump gets bad
press only because he is an outsider, I think he's doing himself in; but that's not an absurd opinion.
Regardless of the source.... The analysis is largely correct.
The establishment GOP and establishment DNC have become almost identical in their support of big
banks, big corporations, and extremely hawkish overseas military policies. Favorites of the top 10%
in the US.
Simultaneous, anti-establishment movements happened in both primaries (Sanders & Trump). While "The
Wall" stands as very different as a policy, both candidates agreed on some big issues impacting the
bulk of the american populace such as,
Mass immigration = Wage suppression
Banks are too big. Sanders advocates the re-imposition of Glass Stegall
The biggest reason why it kicked this cycle. Historically only the bottom 20% or so have been
heavily exploited. After 8 years of net loss (economic growth < population growth), almost everyone
outside the elites of society are feeling the pinch.
@ Londo
@ Paul Murphy
@ rj1
@ labantall
As the child of Labour-voting parents in the Eisenhower era, both US parties seemed
pretty much alike to me. So when my aunt who lived in the US came over to visit, I asked her why
they had two such similar parties?
She replied "Because every office door has an inside and an outside..."
Russia Insider is a website run by Western expats in Russia. I suppose it could be a fake site.
I just found it by googling "Berezovsky two parties". You can find the original Berezovsky interview
by Masha Gessen, who is as far from a Putin mouthpiece as you can get.
"The idea that US democrats and republicans largely agree on everything is absurd"
I think you have to distinguish between those at the top of the parties (and their funders) and
the rank and file.
Thanks to those commenters who defended my right to a different opinion ;-)
@ labantall
@ Paul Murphy
Erm, the Dems and GOP are so in agreement we've had close to legislative grid-lock
for the past eight years. All this wing-nuttery about global elites being in bed with the media,
keeping a boot on the throat of the common man, etc etc, doesn't really have a place here on FTAV.
So take a rest from this post -- and the site -- please.
Not convinced that they can quantify this accurately. Assessing the vote of "centre-x" parties
is both highly subjective, and also affected by longer-term trends in the parties themselves.
Just to take the example of the UK. You might argue that the rise of UKIP, and perhaps the Green
party, reflected an increased vote for more extreme parties. But maybe it reflected instead a move
to the centre ground by the two main parties (big tents re-pitched so they no longer cover the extremes).
Both Labour and the Conservatives have dramatically shifted positions over the years, in both
directions. Was Michael Foot's Labout party a "centre-left" party? Were Michael Howard's Conservatives
"centre-right"? I am sure for the purposes of this analysis, the answer was "yes" both times, but
I would answer with two "no"s.
@ Pharma
The terms themselves lose meaning when we go to a country-by-country basis. There's
British voters that claim Hillary Clinton would be a Tory there for example.
I've always wished someone could break down for me the difference between center, center-right,
right, and far-right (ditto moving left) as 4 separate viewpoints.
Hmm. 'New Podesta Email Exposes Playbook For Rigging Polls Through "Oversamples"' on Zero Hedge
seems to have more than one million page views at the moment.
The U.S. numbers are a bit misleading, since significant numbers of independent voters are
actually in between the two parties on political views.
One specific example would be immigration, where voters don't agree with the Republican position
on hardline enforcement of the law, nor with the Democratic position on continuing to expand immigration
and granting legal status to those who have come illegally.
Hence, a lot of independent voters are up for grabs by whichever party happens to strike a more
moderate tone. The challenge for the parties is in getting moderate candidates through the primary
process, which of late has been dominated by hardliners and party loyalists who are not in tune with
the general public's views (hence how both parties succeeded in nominating the candidate with the
lowest favorability rating).
Along with economic and political disenfranchisement (see the billionaires response "Guess
it takes a study to point out the obvious" to research concluding the US is no longer a democracy)
don't forget demographic disenfranchisement.
As the Canadian anthropologist Peter Frost puts it :
"In late capitalism, the elites are no longer restrained by ties of national identity and are
thus freer to enrich themselves at the expense of their host society. This clash of interests lies
at the heart of the globalist project: on the one hand, jobs are outsourced to low-wage countries;
on the other, low-wage labor is insourced for jobs that cannot be relocated, such as in the construction
and service industries. This two-way movement redistributes wealth from owners of labor to owners of capital. Business people
benefit from access to lower-paid workers and weaker labor and environmental standards. Working people
are meanwhile thrown into competition with these other workers. As a result, the top 10% of society
is pulling farther and farther ahead of everyone else, and this trend is taking place throughout
the developed world. The rich are getting richer … not by making a better product but by making the
same product with cheaper and less troublesome inputs of labor."
In order for a government to achieve anything constructive, a significant proportion of the
population have to reach broad agreement on what policies are desirable, and what means of implementing
them are acceptable. The political centre is where this broad agreement normally occurs.
We appear to have entered a period where a majority of the population can agree on what they don't
like (banker/CEO salaries, zero-hour contracts, housing shortage), but cannot agree on policies to
expunge these outrages from our society. This fills me with foreboding.
@ Patience
Well, in the United States, for the first time ever, entitlement "reform" was not
an issue during a presidential campaign. Trump has vowed to not touch Medicare or Social Security,
while HRC has promised to perhaps enhance both entitlement programs.
I believe that a consensus has developed in the United States that, due to income inequality,
th budget for entitlement programs must be increased, not "streamlined".
Regardless of what happens in two weeks, I doubt that a GOP presidential nominee can ever run
on a platform to "reform" entitlement programs.
The government bailouts from the banking crash
of 2007-8 really kickstarted the angry voter here in the U.S. Don't know if you can ever find an
identifiable cause across multiple democracies, but that's a key one common to the U.S. and Europe.
For the record, Sanders voted against the
bank bailout. Obama and Clinton voted for it. Trump was not an elected official at the time of course.
And Cruz was not yet in the Senate, but voter anger over items like this propelled him there.
" issues closely related to anger over increasing income inequality appear to be lower-order campaign
issues for most alternative parties "
This is because the f**k-witted managerial metropolitan centrists (as exemplified by the FT) fail
to realise that income inequality (poverty) is seen as analogous to 'immigration' because right wing
parties hijack the agenda and centrist governments are either 1) monumentally incompetent or 2) wholly
captured by financial interests. (the answer is '2' btw)
What people see are bankers back to getting paid millions, house prices rocketing out of any normal
persons reach, wages stagnating and immigrants flooding in. Their lives are half what they used to
be and the real, actual ignoramuses - politicians and media - sneer at people and telling them that
_they_ are ignorant.
'Dont believe your own eyes or experiences - believe us - youre worthless and ignorant'. . If
this occured in a soap opera there'd be an outcry. Its the mantra of the abuser, writ national.
And applauded by the FT.
What youre observing is an economic revolt against the Reification Fallacy promulgated and promoted
by the media.
Economic models are notional constructs, they are neither real nor accurate. By messing around
with the management of the country these bull*hit artists have cost ordinary people a decade of their
productive lives. Enough is enough.
People dont realise why this has happened but when they do - when its explained to them properly
that a combination of 'professionals' fixated on imaginary models (how is this different from a mental
illness?) and 'regulatory capture' (corruption) by financial interests has made them homeless/pensionless/savingsless
there will be wholesale revolt.
In addition, the increasingly shrill and unhinged demonisation by politicians and the media of
peoples correctly expressed (if wrongly rooted) frustrations is evidence that the establishment realise
their error. Yet they _still_ refuse to call for or enact a reversal of the Odious policies they
operate!
Looking forward to the Austrian election re-run and the Italian referendum, on top of general
elections across Europe next year, I can only quote a recent noble laureate 'I dont need a weatherman
to know which way the wind blows'
(And I dont need a bank or a newspaper to tell me either.)
@ ceraunavolta
I find these ideas about RWAs and the order/authoritarian openness axis very
unsavoury. To me it just looks like de-humanising pejorative tribalism/categorisation dressed
up as quantitative/objective analysis. A world neatly divided between nice clever open outward
looking groovy people (like US) and horrid narrow-minded inward looking vengeful people (like
THEM).
This stuff is surely skirting the borders of medicalising dissent – which seldom ends well.
Also – it's pretty lightweight if you think about it for more than about thirty seconds: On Brexit,
for example, it surely could be argued that, for some, supporting continued EU membership actually
represented a vote *for* order and an expression of a lack of openness to the possibility of change.
Surely one person's order can be another's chaos – and one person's perception of what is 'other'
can be another person's 'familiar' – so even if there is an intrinsic and fixed difference between
people in their preference for order or openness you wouldn't necessarily expect such an intrinsic
bias to be strongly predicative on any binary issue unless everyone's circumstances were the same
(with regards to what for them constituted 'order' and 'other').
I'm wondering if anyone's looked for evidence of a distinct personality type (perhaps at higher
prevalence among academics) characterised by an over willingness to believe that people are automaton-like
with inflexible fixed character traits (a view of humanity which, as it happens, is conveniently
susceptible to simple numerical modelling and the production of impressive looking true-because-numbers/sciencey
graphs)?
I'm thinking we could call such people NHDs – 'naive human determinists' or possibly 'numerical human
determinists'?
Excellent – I applaud your caution/scepticism David.
Could it perhaps be that the reason the 'rise of the angry voter' is hard to chart is because
it is not actually an independently identifiable thing? Most people, on all sides, tend to try lazily
to medicalise/infantilise people who don't agree with them as being stupid, ill-educated/over-educated,
indoctrinated by the evil media (left-wing or right-wing media respectively), angry/complacent, left-behind-socially-excluded/out-of-touch-wealthy-elitists
and/or suffering from cognitive biases etc. Everyone but themselves, apparently, is susceptible to
these sorts of factors – but I think it is basically pretty lazy (and dangerous!) for people to try
to 'metta' out of (often difficult, complicated, non-simple right/wrong goody/baddy) arguments over
the actual issues, and instead go for a kind of class-action-ad-hominem 'you only think that because
you are this-that-or-the-other'.
From a parochial perspective, back in the eighties, the 'variance' of mainstream politics in the
UK was massive – people like Norman Tebbit on the one hand, and Michael Foot on the other were mainstream
political figures – there was a massive absence of consensus. There was a lot of anger. The anger,
presumably, was a *downstream* consequence of the realities. By the standards of the subsequent anodyne
managerialist political/media merry-go-round we'd arrived at by the mid 2000s the gulf across the
entire mainstream of UK politics was virtually infinitesimally small by comparison. Things have started
to heat up again. This is all part of the process. This is how it is supposed to work. It ebbs and
it flows – I imagine – for good reason. I'm inclined to think that trying to identify some sort of
new thing – 'identity politics' or 'the new politics of rage' is mostly just displacement behaviour
by people who, for a variety of reasons, don't really want to get their hands dirty with the real
issues.
I remember, I think it was Peter Mandelson, said back during the New Labour years something like
'politics doesn't really matter when times are good'. I think perhaps some people are starting to
discover (some of them for the first time in their lives) why it is that we actually have politics.
I think the SA example from Joseph is also very good – it illustrates that 'things are complicated'
and that simple 'narratives' are no substitute for actually being on the ground and trying to understand
what's actually going on.
@ Skwosh
A part of what you describe is due to the capture of the state and media by a modern
clerisy, all clinging to power by chasing the same (presumed centrist) voter. Voter disgust at this
class and their short-sighted decisions is fully understandable.
@ DaniaDelendaEst
@ Skwosh
I'd briefly add that voting for a candidate who signals a Left/Right wing inclination
(Clinton, NuLabour, Trump?) but has no intention of delivering - is a deliberate and willful disenfranchisement
of the voter.
I don't disagree – and I take the point made by you and other commenters about 'chasing the centre
ground' in political/electoral strategy – but I'm not so sure it is avoidable. For sure, when the
electoral conditions are right then you can win by appealing to a small number of often centrist
swing voters, but it only works *if* those conditions already exist – and when those conditions exist
then people who use that strategy will prevail and get to make policy (inclined to pander to the
centre) – and if they instead fall on their swords and decided to loose honourably then another,
different (and possibly less honourable) lot will play to the centre ground and win instead. It works
until it doesn't. I grant that this approach is likely to end up going on for too long, allowing
polarization and genuine disenfranchisement to build – but I think this is unfortunately all part
of the process – one of the unavoidable costs of democracy's least-worst-ness. These electoral conditions
wax and wane – there is only so far-apart or ill-balanced the political spectrum can get before there
is no centre that can swing it. When it breaks – when the centre cannot (and probably should not)
hold any longer then the particular reasons for this will presumably be many, varied, complicated
and messy in any given instance and at any given point in political history – difficult to generalise
about – and difficult to unify into a single 'narrative'.
I am certainly not saying that there is no anger or disgust – and I'm not saying that these things
are not justified. That there is anger and disgust is part of why things are heating up politically
– and this is as it should be; this is what shifts a consensus that may have outlived its utility
and/or establishes a new consensuses in an area where there was none before. During the transition
such processes are inevitably shouty. My problem is with the idea that the 'anger' or the 'disgust'
is somehow the causative thing that is making politics all 'freaky'. For one thing I don't really
accept that politics has yet become *that* freaky (yet anyway). It is certainly freakier than of
late, but I think some people need to get out more (in terms of historical perspective) if they think
that this sort of thing is somehow unprecedented. It seems obvious to me that the anger and disgust
is an inevitable consequence of the underlying grievances that people have – so if someone wants
to understand 'what is going on' then they need to look at these underlying grievances rather than
trying to understand it all in terms of being 'anger-driven'. Anger is something people naturally
feel and express when they're unhappy about stuff and/or they think they (or others) are being treated
unfairly, marginalised, patronised etc. (not that I'm implying either of you would disagree with
this).
"... There are a variety of potential threats around the world today: tensions in the South China Seas, a nuclear North Korea, conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and civil wars in the Middle East are just a few. In order to better think about these challenges and how they relate to U.S. national security, the Center for the National Interest partnered with the Charles Koch Institute to host a foreign policy roundtable which addressed the question: What is the most pressing issue for America's foreign policy? ..."
"... Mearsheimer argues that the second problematic dimension of U.S. foreign policy is that the United States is "heavily into transformation." By "transformation," Mearsheimer means that "We believe that what we should do in the process of running the world is topple governments that are not liberal democracies and transform them into [neo]liberal democracies." ..."
"... according to Mearsheimer, the United States is pursuing "a hopeless cause; there is a huge literature that makes it clear that promoting democracy around the world is extremely difficult to do, and doing it at the end of a rifle barrel is almost impossible." ..."
"... "It's remarkably difficult to understand why we still continue to think we can dominate the world and pursue the same foreign policy we've been pursuing at least since 2001, when it has led to abject failure after abject failure." ..."
"... Andrew Bacevich opines that the United States needs to "come to some understanding of who we are and why we do these things – a critical understanding of the American identity." Notre Dame's Michael Desch agrees: "That cuts to the core of American political culture. I think the root of the hubris is deep in the software that animates how we think about ourselves, and how we think about the world." ..."
There are a variety of potential threats around the world today: tensions in the South China
Seas, a nuclear North Korea, conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and civil wars in the Middle East
are just a few. In order to better think about these challenges and how they relate to U.S. national
security, the Center for the National Interest partnered with the Charles Koch Institute to host
a foreign policy roundtable which addressed the question: What is the most pressing issue for America's
foreign policy?
Watch the rest of the videos in the "Grand Strategy" series.
John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago doesn't shy away from a bold answer: The most pressing
issue is that the United States has a "fundamentally misguided foreign policy." Mearsheimer argues
that there are two dimensions to U.S. foreign policy that get the United States into "big trouble."
First, he says, "We believe that we can dominate the globe, that we can control what happens in every
nook and cranny of the world." The problem with this is that "the world is simply too big and nationalism
is much too powerful of a force to make it possible for us to come close to doing that."
Mearsheimer argues that the second problematic dimension of U.S. foreign policy is that the United
States is "heavily into transformation." By "transformation," Mearsheimer means that "We believe
that what we should do in the process of running the world is topple governments that are not liberal
democracies and transform them into [neo]liberal democracies."
The United States has engaged in numerous international military interventions over the past fifteen
years, primarily in the Middle East. Proponents of these interventions argue that they are necessary
in order to build stable democracies in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. However, according to Mearsheimer,
the United States is pursuing "a hopeless cause; there is a huge literature that makes it clear that
promoting democracy around the world is extremely difficult to do, and doing it at the end of a rifle
barrel is almost impossible."
So why has the United States continued to pursue policies and strategies that fail to convert
U.S. military might into political ends?
Eugene Gholz of the University of Texas at Austin suggests that the root of the issue could be
American hubris. The United States has made the mistake of "thinking we can control things we can't
control." Mearsheimer agrees with Gholz, although he finds the situation perplexing: "It's remarkably
difficult to understand why we still continue to think we can dominate the world and pursue the same
foreign policy we've been pursuing at least since 2001, when it has led to abject failure after abject
failure."
Several other scholars chime in to offer their own thoughts on this thorny issue. Boston University's
Andrew Bacevich opines that the United States needs to "come to some understanding of who we are
and why we do these things – a critical understanding of the American identity." Notre Dame's Michael Desch agrees: "That cuts to the core of American political culture. I think the root of the hubris
is deep in the software that animates how we think about ourselves, and how we think about the world."
Harvard University's Stephen Walt offers yet another possibility. Walt asks if the U.S. commitment
to its current misguided and damaging foreign policy is due to "deep culture" or if it is result
of "the national security apparatus we built after World War II." Walt thinks it is the latter: the
United States "was not a highly interventionist country until after the Second World War." After
World War II, "we built a large national security state, we had bases everywhere, and then we discovered
that we can't let go of any of that, even though the original reason for building it is gone."
Did the other panelists agree with Walt? Did anyone suggest a different problem as a candidate
for the most pressing issue? Watch the full video above to see and be sure to check out the other
videos of CNI and CKI's panel of nationally acclaimed foreign policy scholars addressing additional
questions.
"... My impression is that Trump_vs_deep_state is more about dissatisfaction of the Republican base with the Republican brass (which fully endorsed neoliberal globalization), the phenomenon somewhat similar to Sanders. ..."
"... Working class and lower middle class essentially abandoned DemoRats (Clinton democrats) after so many years of betrayal and "they have nowhere to go" attitude. ..."
"... Now they try to forge the alliance of highly paid professionals who benefitted from globalization("creative class"), financial speculators and minorities. Which does not look like a stable coalition to me. ..."
"... In other words both Parties are now split and have two mini-parties inside. I am not sure that Sanders part of Democratic party would support Hillary. The wounds caused by DNC betrayal and double dealing are still too fresh. ..."
"... We have something like what Marxists call "revolutionary situation" when the elite loses control of "peons". And existence of Internet made MSM propaganda far less effective that it would be otherwise. That's why they resort to war propaganda tricks. ..."
"That's not untrue, but it seems to me to be getting worse."
Because of economic stagnation and anxiety among lower class Republicans. Trump blames immigration
and trade unlike traditional elite Republicans. These are economic issues.
Trump supporters no longer believe or trust the Republican elite who they see as corrupt
which is partly true. They've been backing Nixon, Reagan, Bush etc and things are just getting
worse. They've been played.
Granted it's complicated and partly they see their side as losing and so are doubling down
on the conservatism, racism, sexism etc. But Trump *brags* that he was against the Iraq war.
That's not an elite Republican opinion.
likbez -> DrDick... , -1
My impression is that Trump_vs_deep_state is more about dissatisfaction of the Republican base with the Republican
brass (which fully endorsed neoliberal globalization), the phenomenon somewhat similar to Sanders.
Working class and lower middle class essentially abandoned DemoRats (Clinton democrats) after
so many years of betrayal and "they have nowhere to go" attitude.
Looks like they have found were to go this election cycle and this loss of the base is probably
was the biggest surprise for neoliberal Democrats.
Now they try to forge the alliance of highly paid professionals who benefitted from globalization("creative
class"), financial speculators and minorities. Which does not look like a stable coalition to
me.
Some data suggest that among unions which endorsed Hillary 3 out of 4 members will vote against
her. And that are data from union brass. Lower middle class might also demonstrate the same pattern
this election cycle.
In other words both Parties are now split and have two mini-parties inside. I am not sure that
Sanders part of Democratic party would support Hillary. The wounds caused by DNC betrayal and
double dealing are still too fresh.
We have something like what Marxists call "revolutionary situation" when the elite loses control
of "peons". And existence of Internet made MSM propaganda far less effective that it would be
otherwise. That's why they resort to war propaganda tricks.
says:
September 28, 2016 at 10:46 am
Russia made another mistake back in 2014 when it handed the MH-17 wreck to the West. What Russia
should have done is to keep all the evidence to itself and conduct its own investigation, denying
the West any role in it.
Reply
Moscow Exile
says:
September 28, 2016 at 11:06 am
One small point that you may well not be aware of: the debris from the downed flight MH-17
was not on Russian sovereign territory and the Russian state had no jurisdiction whatsoever
over what should be done with it.
Reply
Moscow
Exile
says:
September 28, 2016 at 11:44 am
Pro-Russian some of the anti-government Donbas militia may well be, but the Donbas is
not the Crimea and Russia did not and has never wished to annex it; for one thing, the
majority of the citizens of the Donetsk province are probably neither "pro-Russian" or
wish to that the province become part of the Russian federation.
Reply
Jen
says:
September 28, 2016 at 3:26 pm
Karl, what you suggest is called messing up the crime scene and potentially
destroying evidence that could actually favour the rebels. The whole area should
have been cordoned off and guarded by armed forces from an impartial third party
country (or a UN peacekeeping force) which did not have any passengers on MH17
for as long as needed for a full criminal investigation and search for evidence
to be done.
Reply
marknesop
says:
September 28, 2016 at 1:35 pm
Yes, I'm sure an investigation by Russia – which the west had
already designated the prime suspect – of wreckage it controlled in
secret and would not let the west see would have had all kinds of
credibility. But you don't think that either. You're just trolling.
Reply
Moscow Exile
says:
September 28, 2016 at 9:56 pm
Skimming through the UK newspapers this morning, as well as the
BBC, the Dutch MH-17 report seems not to have caused headline
news.
The Telegraph front page is dominated by a shock-horror
football corruption scandal (I mean that big girl's game with a
round ball - what they like to call "soccer" outside the UK),
the Independent has as its lead story the Congress veto on
Obama, the BBC - the same. A far cry from when news of the
downing broke and such headlines as "Putin's Killed My Son!"
screamed out from the British gutter press.
And that's not the distressed father's son pictured next to
the headline: it's the British monarch's great-grandson, George,
whose parents are at present waving to Canadians,the child's
mother displaying, as ever, her inane, fixed grin.
Reply
I disagree with the basic premise of the post in that the right has been beaten because it
has won.
That's certainly not how the right sees the landscape. The tea party of 2010 was co-opted by
Richard Armey and the Kochs on the one hand and buried under a mountain of forms by Lois Lerner
on the other. The Armey group rallies to Ted Cruz, who is sure to have something to say about
America and the future of the Republican party should Trump be undone because of his lewd behavior
and actions.
The media is certain to be savaged no matter what the outcome. The number of artists and musicians
who both profit from and promote misogyny and violence invited to the WH over the last 8 years
to serve as role models for America's youth should raise nary an eyebrow. The prudery of the moment
is going to be the template for 'social reform' under the Republicans. If Hillary and her
media allies succeed in derailing the Trump insurgency via his mouth, his hands, and his zipper
they're going to face an extremely hostile electorate. Cruz is certain to try to step into Trump's
shoes as leader, preaching that Trump was a flawed messenger undone by an unforgiving god. This
will make sense for too many Americans to completely ignore. The unhappy white males who have
yet to self-identify as angry white males, rather than simply as Americans, may well decide to
do so.
Whatever few victories the Democrats enjoy lower down the ticket are unlikely to survive skyrocketing
Affordable Care Act premiums, some form of amnesty, and an extension of America's wars in the
ME. The Democrats are betting the farm that Republicans will never unlock the padlock Democrats
maintain over socially-conservative minorities. Cruz's ground game and networking with the evangelical
community didn't get the job done in 2016, but we can be sure that he and his team are already
mapping 2020.
Trump should be defeated according to most here. Some may actually believe Trump really
is the anti-Christ Hitler we've been constantly told he is, instead of a widely watched and often
admired vulgarian capitalist welcomed into living rooms across America for more than a decade.
Whatever Trump is, he's not Cruz. His supporters are not Cruz supporters. Yet.
I've no idea whether those supporting the Democratic candidate expect her to wake up on November
9, should she win, and suddenly decide to abandon the practices that got her this far. I certainly
don't. If you're nauseated at the prospect of 4-8 more years of secrecy, war, lies, and corruption
you're going to need to keep more than barf bags at hand, however. The polarization that has divided
America over the last 8 years is, imho, far more likely to become much more corrosive and
damaging with Democrats in charge.
Ted Cruz will literally be burning crosses and probably books, pornography, and anyone/thing
else that strikes his fancy. The donor class is praying that Hillary/Bush can stamp out the fires.
With rising unemployment, stagnating wages, and more and more Americans feeling that the system
isn't interested in them, or their children, there may very well be a little hell to pay, or a
lot.
@ 14 It won't surprise you to learn I think you're wrong about Trump. The battle against Trump
is for many a rejection of what they see in the mirror transposed onto Trump, as far as males
go. Many women, including some who support him, see in Trump a dangerous predator who offers the
promise of protection and wealth, but at a cost. Good thing no woman would ever sell herself,
or her principles, to such a man – and if Bill Clinton pops into your head, please don't blame
me.
Which is why, in this instance, I think the polls are wrong. Who in their right mind is
going to ever admit that Trump's language and behavior is not offensive? Nobody. Who in their
right mind looks out at America and sees Donald Trump, not Bill Cosby etc, etc, etc as a threat
to their own daughters, sisters, sons, etc? Which is why, in the end, enough voters are going
to say no thanks to Hillary and roll the dice with Donald.
I like your question re: Cruz. I find him such a phenomenally transparent phony that I can't
quite believe anyone trusts him. With Trump, and Bill Clinton, what you see is what you get –
Slick Willie.
At the moment Americans are being told they don't like what they see in Trump, but if that
were the case, why was he so popular back when he was actually on the Howard Stern show and otherwise
acting out? I frankly don't think most Americans give a toss what Trump did or said this week,
much less ten years ago. The stink coming out of the Clinton campaign is so rank it's actually
penetrating the media wall of silence. Given that social media provides numerous ways for candidates
to bypass the gate-keepers, I suspect enough voters are learning what's in the emails whether
CNN, or the Wapo, report the discoveries, or not.
Like I said. I think it will be close and right now I still say Trump edges it.
More stupidity. First off, the American elite (like all elites) is far from unitary and most of them back Republicans, though
they hedge their bets by also supporting centrist Democrats.
I would submit that there are very few voters that will vote from Clinton because of this "cold war rhetoric" schtick. Greenwald
keeps falling and cannot get up.
ilsm -> EMichael...
Few "will [move the] vote from Clinton because of this "cold war rhetoric" schtick.
Those "few" were awake during the 80's and see the nuclear/neocon dystopian horror behind Clinton. While Trump mentioned
using nukes, Hillary's nuke policy is 'well' laid out by Robert Kagan and the hegemon interests.
Recall Mao said "go ahead......' Nukes are just another form of the pointless body count strategy.
likbez -> ilsm...
Like before WWI, Hillary might be "a symptom of degenerate [neoliberal] aristocracy clinging to irresponsible power." Gen. Butler,
"War Is A Racket." is still a classic book on the subject.
All war is for profit. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were fought for profit. The profit from Iraqi oil and whatever was
expected from Afghanistan were irrelevant. Weapons of mass destruction, the Taliban, even Isis, were and are all issues that
could have been more efficiently handled, but instead were pretexts to convince the credulous of the necessity of war.
The real profit was the profit taken by the military-political-industrial complex in the treasure and stolen rights of the
American people. That is the bottom line for why we went to war, and why we are still there, and why, if our elites persist,
we might go to war with Russia or China.
The good news is that, because of the unrelenting depredations by American elites on the treasure and rights of the people,
the United States is increasingly unable to wage war effectively. The bad news is that our elites are too blind to see this.
America: Consuming your future today.
====
Peter T 10.23.16 at 8:56 am
faustusnotes
fear of "socialism" – meaning, broadly, greater popular participation in politics – was explicitly a major factor in the
German and Russian decisions for war. In both cases, they hoped victory would shore up increasingly fragile conservative dominance.
It also underlay British and French attitudes. 1870-1914 was a very stressful time for elites.
1915 was too early for any of the combatants to settle. By mid-late 1916 there were some voices in favour of negotiations,
but the Germans would have none of it then or in 1917. By the time the Germans were prepared to talk (mid 1918), they had lost.
Fear of socialism was again a major factor in the post-war settlements.
Liberals of today see World War I as the great disaster that shattered the pre-war liberal order. In the same way, the generation
post 1815 saw the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars as the great disaster that shattered the happy old order. The extent of the
damage and loss was much the same in each, although World War I took 5 years to do what the French wars did in 25.
===
Omega Centauri 10.23.16 at 1:13 am ( 33 )
The decision to continue it seems to be a natural consequence of the human proclivity towards doubling down. This operates
on many levels, some of which are related to the need for vindication of those involved in the decision to start the conflict.
There is also the horror that if you end a war without achieving something the masses can identify with as victory, then the
families of those killed will see that their loved ones died in vain -- for someone else's mistake (very bad for your political
future).
And of course if you quit, what is to stop the enemy from extracting reparations or worse from you, because in his eyes, you
are the criminal party. Much easier to try yet one more offensive, or to lure a formerly neutral party into joining in and opening
up another front, which you hope will break the stalemate.
The thing that appalls me so much about the Great War, is how so many nations were dragged in, by promises of booty
. In many ways it resembles the Peloponnisian war, in its inability to allow neutrals to be neutrals.
"... Continuing the war, once the bloodbath is underway and its futility is fully evident (which surely is objectively the case as early as 1915), seems to me to be the point where moral culpability on all sides applies most forcibly. ..."
"... It was a symptom of degenerate aristocracy clinging to irresponsible power. Continuing to turn the crank on the meat grinder without any realistic strategic hope or aim should have condemned the military establishment as well as the political establishment in several countries where it didn't. Hindenburg was there to appoint Hitler; Petain to surrender France. ..."
"... And, before the war? Are the arguments against war really connecting? ..."
"... That internationalist idea doesn't seem to survive the war's first hours, let alone first weeks. ..."
"... Universal conscription in France and Germany created a common experience. Several generations learned not so much the horror of mass slaughter as war as the instant of national glory in dramatic crises and short-lived conflicts with a decisive result. ..."
"... Certainly, there had been arguments made before the war and even several disparate political movements that had adopted ideas critical of imperialism by military means. I question, though, how engaged they were with mainstream politics of the day and therefore how fully developed we can say their ideas or arguments were. ..."
"... Consider the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 as examples of the state of the practical politics of a program for peace. The first Conference was called by the Czar and the second by Theodore Roosevelt - no little irony in either case. ..."
"... the 1907 Conference as an illustration of the growing war fever gripping western (so-called) civilization, as many of the delegates apparently sat around discussing how they longed for a cleansing war. ..."
"... I cannot pretend to understand the psychology, but I accept that it was prevalent, as least for a certain class. Morally reprehensible this glorification of war? I certainly think so. Was it engaged by fully developed argument? When? ..."
"... It was against the background of this Great Game of elite diplomacy and saber-rattling and brief, limited wars that efforts had been made to erect an arguably more idealistic apparatus of liberal international peace thru international law, limitations of armaments and the creation of formal mechanisms for the arbitration of disputes. ..."
"... If this was the institutional program produced by "the fully developed and strongly argued" case against war, it wasn't that fully developed or strongly argued, as demonstrated by the severe shortcomings of the Hague Conferences. ..."
"... The consequences were horrific as mass mobilization and industrialized warfare combined with primitive means of command-and-control and reactionary often incompetent leadership to create a blood-bath of immense scale. (See my first comment.) ..."
The case against war was fully developed and strongly argued in the years before 1914 . . .
Was it? I wonder about that.
Continuing the war, once the bloodbath is underway and its futility is fully evident (which surely is objectively the case
as early as 1915), seems to me to be the point where moral culpability on all sides applies most forcibly. It is on this
point that I think arguments from before the war cannot have the weight the horror of experience must give them. Elite leadership
across Europe failed.
It was a symptom of degenerate aristocracy clinging to irresponsible power. Continuing to turn the crank on the meat grinder
without any realistic strategic hope or aim should have condemned the military establishment as well as the political establishment
in several countries where it didn't. Hindenburg was there to appoint Hitler; Petain to surrender France.
It is inexplicable, really, unless you can see that the moral and practical case against war is not fully developed between the
wars; if there's a critique that made use of experience in its details in the 1920s and 1930s and made itself heard, I missed
it - it seems like opposites of such an appreciation triumph.
And, before the war? Are the arguments against war really connecting? There's certainly a socialist argument against
war, based on the illegitimacy of war's class divisions, which were conveniently exemplified in military rank and reactionary
attitudes among the officer class. That internationalist idea doesn't seem to survive the war's first hours, let alone first
weeks.
Universal conscription in France and Germany created a common experience. Several generations learned not so much the horror
of mass slaughter as war as the instant of national glory in dramatic crises and short-lived conflicts with a decisive result.
bruce wilder 10.22.16 at 8:47 pm.26
Certainly, there had been arguments made before the war and even several disparate political movements that had adopted
ideas critical of imperialism by military means. I question, though, how engaged they were with mainstream politics of the day
and therefore how fully developed we can say their ideas or arguments were.
Consider the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 as examples of the state of the practical politics of a program for peace.
The first Conference was called by the Czar and the second by Theodore Roosevelt - no little irony in either case.
Without looking it up I recall Barbara Tuchman using the 1907 Conference as an illustration of the growing war fever gripping
western (so-called) civilization, as many of the delegates apparently sat around discussing how they longed for a cleansing war.
I cannot pretend to understand the psychology, but I accept that it was prevalent, as least for a certain class. Morally
reprehensible this glorification of war? I certainly think so. Was it engaged by fully developed argument? When?
The long effort by reactionary forces to assemble a coalition capable of defeating Napoleon had created in Europe what for
a time was called the Concert of Europe. Austria, Prussia and Russia initially cooperated in suppressing liberal and nationalist
aspirations and that effort gradually morphed into efforts to harness or channel rising liberalism and nationalism and industrial
power.
It was the evolved apparatus descended from Metternich's Congress of Vienna thru Bismarck's Congress of Berlin that made wars
brief and generally decisive in regard to some policy end.
The long list of successive crises and brief wars that stevenjohnson references above - often cited as evidence of the increasing
fragility of the general peace - could just as well be cited as evidence for the continued effectiveness of the antique Concert
of Europe in containing and managing the risk of general war. (Fashoda 1898, Venezuela 1902, Russo-Japanese War 1905, Agadir 1911,
Balkan Wars 1911-1912 - it can be a very long list).
It was against the background of this Great Game of elite diplomacy and saber-rattling and brief, limited wars that efforts
had been made to erect an arguably more idealistic apparatus of liberal international peace thru international law, limitations
of armaments and the creation of formal mechanisms for the arbitration of disputes.
If this was the institutional program produced by "the fully developed and strongly argued" case against war, it wasn't
that fully developed or strongly argued, as demonstrated by the severe shortcomings of the Hague Conferences.
It was one of the mechanisms for peace by international law - the neutrality of Belgium mutually guaranteed by Britain and
Germany in the Treaty of London 1839 - that triggered Britain's entry as an Allied Power and general war. There is, of course,
no particular reason Australia should have taken an interest in Belgium's neutrality, but it was that issue that seemed to compel
the consensus of opinion in favor of war in Britain's government.
The consequences were horrific as mass mobilization and industrialized warfare combined with primitive means of command-and-control
and reactionary often incompetent leadership to create a blood-bath of immense scale. (See my first comment.)
What I don't find is the alternative lever or mechanism at the ready, put in place by this fully developed argument against
war. The mechanism in place was the neutrality of Belgium guaranteed by international law (arguably reinforced in the stipulations
of the Hague Conference of 1907). If Germany doesn't violate Belgian neutrality, the result in the West at least is stalemate
as France and Germany are evenly matched across their narrow and mostly impassable frontier; in the East, Russia must concede
to Germany even as Austria must concede to Russia; - instead of a general conflagration, the result is another negotiated settlement
of some sort, perhaps arbitrated by Britain or the U.S.
The urgent questions of the day regarding the organization of modern liberal polities in the territories of Ottoman Turkey,
Hapsburg Austria and Czarist Russia - what is the strongly argued and fully developed case there? How is the cause of Polish nationalism,
or Finnish nationalism or Yugoslav nationalism to be handled or managed without violence and war?
The antique system of a Concert of Europe had kinda sorta found a way by means of short and decisive engagements followed by
multi-power negotiation, a pattern that had continued with the gradual emergence of Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania. But, where was
the argument for managing irredentism and nationalist aspiration peacefully?
"... But 30 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of Democrats agree that voter suppression occurs by purging eligible voters from the registration rolls. ..."
A
Washington Post analysis of Pollfish data shows that 84 percent of Republicans, 52 percent
of Democrats, and 75 percent of independents believe that a "meaningful amount" of voter fraud occurs
during elections.
Sixty percent of Republicans believe that illegal immigrants are voting, much higher than Democrats
and independents.
Democrats focus more on voter ID laws, with 32 percent suggesting that it contributes to voter
suppression. (Only 26 percent of Republicans feel the same way.)
But 30 percent of Republicans and 27 percent of Democrats agree that voter suppression occurs
by purging eligible voters from the registration rolls.
"... Obama said back in 2008: "I want to be honest, it's not as if it's just Republicans who have monkeyed around with elections in the past. Sometimes, Democrats have, too." ..."
"... hillary goes along with CIA and the neocon/zionist/MIC agenda but she's replaceable. ..."
"... An out of control, above the law, criminal mafia acting on behalf of the Saudis and Israelis (if you think Syria is about the petrodollar or a Qatari pipeline... Think again - it's about Iran and Russia and about Greater Israel and its Leviathan and Golan gas most of all - Zbig et al would prefer to be full battle rattle in Ukraine and Chechnya...) is stopped how? ..."
A U.K. based company that has provided voting machines for 16 states, including important battleground
states like Florida and Arizona, has direct ties with billionaire leftist and Clinton crusader George
Soros.
As Lifezette
reports , the fact that the man in control of voting machines in 16 states is tied directly to
the man who has given millions of dollars to the Clinton campaign and various progressive and globalist
causes will surely leave a bad taste in the mouth of many a voter.
The balloting equipment tied to Soros is coming from the U.K. based Smartmatic company, whose
chairman Mark Malloch-Brown is a former UN official and sits on the board of Soros' Open Society
Foundation.
According to Lifezette , Malloch-Brown was part of the Soros Advisory Committee on Bosnia and
also is a member of the executive committee of the International Crisis Group, an organization he
co-founded in the 1990s and built with funds from George Soros' personal fortune.
In 2007 Soros appointed Malloch-Brown vice-president of his Quantum Funds, vice-chairman of Soros
Fund Management, and vice-chairman of the Open Society Institute (former name of OSF).
Browns ties also intertwine with the Clintons as he was a partner with Sawyer-Miller, the consulting
firm where close Clinton associate Mandy Grunwald worked. Brown also was also a senior advisor to
FTI Consulting, a firm at which Jackson Dunn, who spent 15 years working as an aide to the Clintons,
is a senior managing director.
When taking that into account, along with the poor track record Smartmatic has of providing free
and fair elections, this all becomes quite terrifying.
An astonishing 2006 classified U.S. diplomatic cable obtained and released by WikiLeaks reveals
the extent to which Smartmatic may have played a hand in rigging the 2004 Venezuelan recall election
under a section titled "A Shadow of Fraud." The memo stated that "Smartmatic Corporation is a
riddle both in ownership and operation, complicated by the fact that its machines have overseen
several landslide (and contested) victories by President Hugo Chavez and his supporters."
"The Smartmatic machines used in Venezuela are widely suspected of, though never proven conclusively
to be, susceptible to fraud," the memo continued. "The Venezuelan opposition is convinced that
the Smartmatic machines robbed them of victory in the August 2004 referendum. Since then, there
have been at least eight statistical analyses performed on the referendum results."
"One study obtained the data log from the CANTV network and supposedly proved that the Smartmatic
machines were bi-directional and in fact showed irregularities in how they reported their results
to the CNE central server during the referendum," it read.
With such suspicion and a study which claims to prove that the U.K. firm's equipment tampered
with the 2004 Venezuelan recall election, should be enough for states to reject these machines if
they desire a fair election.
Smartmatic is providing machines to Arizona, California, Colorado, Washington DC, Florida, Illinois,
Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington and
Wisconsin, which means these Soros and Clinton linked machines are going to take the votes of thousands
of Americans.
While GOP nominee Donald Trump has been voicing his opinion that the elections are indeed rigged
due to media bias, and the proof that
mainstream polls are heavily weighted to favor Clinton , it is needless to say that if the results
show Hillary as a winner in November, there is going to a mess to shuffle through to find signs of
honesty.
MSNBC are reporting that Hillary is absolutely surging and now leading by double digits! America
is going absolutely wild for Hillary!! This is very exciting – I can sense victory, and I see
that bitter right-wingers can sense defeat as they pre-emptively blame their loss on vote rigging.
There is no such thing as election rigging, unless we're talking about Al Gore losing to Bush
– there was clear evidence of rigging during this election. But Republicans are known for rigging
elections. Democrats have never, and will never rig an election.
Two words: PAPER BALLOTS!!! How anyone with 3 brain cells or more can't see that paper ballots
are the way to go when voting is beyond me. There is a paper trail, and they cannot be hacked.
They can be recounted. Machines are easily manipulated and there is NO PAPER trail to recount.
Use paper ballots and tell Gerge Soros to go fuck himself.
The Soros voting machine issue is one of the largest problems with this election. Trump has mentioned
him by name twice during the debates and has also talked openly about a 'rigged' election. I hope
he will address this directly.
We're already seeing the polls skew in Clinton's direction in unusual states like Arizona so
even that is on the cards to be stolen.
LOL, not even your big hero Barry would claim that. To wit: Obama said back in 2008: "I want
to be honest, it's not as if it's just Republicans who have monkeyed around with elections in
the past. Sometimes, Democrats have, too."
And this time, it seems to be more than some monkeying on part of Hitlery and Barry. Rather
"we rigged some votes and screwed some folks." Go figure.
Speaking at a rally in Charlotte, North Carolina, Million Dollar Bonus said: "To say you won't
respect the results of the election, that is a direct threat to our democracy.
"The peaceful transfer of power is one of the things that makes America America.
And look, some people are sore losers, and we just got to keep going" It was actually Hillary
Clinton who said that, same difference lol,
You make a good point, and to distill the matter to its essence, apart from a controlled media
and well established and entrenched special, foreign and banking interests in DC... The CIA is
a CRIMINAL MAFIA acting under color of law, currently taking Saudi money to pay jihadi and 'blackwater'
type mercs in Syria, and by the way Yemen, and elsewhere, to include the slow ramp up in E Ukraine.
hillary goes along with CIA and the neocon/zionist/MIC agenda but she's replaceable.
No they can and will steal this election if, in fact, Trump were to get a majority of votes
(which by the way is unlikely - study the demographics... trump can not beat hillary when she
has 70/80% of women, the latinos, blacks, leftists, and so on) - but the underlying issue remains:
An out of control, above the law, criminal mafia acting on behalf of the Saudis and Israelis
(if you think Syria is about the petrodollar or a Qatari pipeline... Think again - it's about
Iran and Russia and about Greater Israel and its Leviathan and Golan gas most of all - Zbig et
al would prefer to be full battle rattle in Ukraine and Chechnya...) is stopped how?
Considering that US military personnel may quite literally be killed by CIA provided weapons,
one might posit that one scenario is CIA personnel being hunted down and arrested (or not) by
elements of the US special forces although this doesn't happen without either strong and secure
leadership or some paradigm-shifting revelation.
For example- if more knew how exceedingly likely it is that 9/11 was an inside/Israeli job...
Knew it... Things might change.
but I'm not optimistic.
hillary means ww3, and we are not the good guys. If we ever were..
Things were way different back when JFK was killed, I know I was around then.
For one thing there was no internet, and people trusted and respected the media (TV and Newspapers)
This trust made it very easy to coverup and / or bury details.
People overwhelmingly trusted government officials, Very few people questioned what government
and media told them, again this makes it super easy to lie and coverup
I repect your question, and I hope you consider what I said. I am trying to make the case that
assasination is no longer an option, not unless they want to truly start a real civil war. Which
I would not rule out. But if they wish to keep the status quo and the sheep silent, assasination
is way way to risky for the reasons I mentioned above
"... Continuing the war, once the bloodbath is underway and its futility is fully evident (which surely is objectively the case as early as 1915), seems to me to be the point where moral culpability on all sides applies most forcibly. ..."
"... It was a symptom of degenerate aristocracy clinging to irresponsible power. Continuing to turn the crank on the meat grinder without any realistic strategic hope or aim should have condemned the military establishment as well as the political establishment in several countries where it didn't. Hindenburg was there to appoint Hitler; Petain to surrender France. ..."
"... And, before the war? Are the arguments against war really connecting? ..."
"... That internationalist idea doesn't seem to survive the war's first hours, let alone first weeks. ..."
"... Universal conscription in France and Germany created a common experience. Several generations learned not so much the horror of mass slaughter as war as the instant of national glory in dramatic crises and short-lived conflicts with a decisive result. ..."
"... Certainly, there had been arguments made before the war and even several disparate political movements that had adopted ideas critical of imperialism by military means. I question, though, how engaged they were with mainstream politics of the day and therefore how fully developed we can say their ideas or arguments were. ..."
"... Consider the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 as examples of the state of the practical politics of a program for peace. The first Conference was called by the Czar and the second by Theodore Roosevelt - no little irony in either case. ..."
"... the 1907 Conference as an illustration of the growing war fever gripping western (so-called) civilization, as many of the delegates apparently sat around discussing how they longed for a cleansing war. ..."
"... I cannot pretend to understand the psychology, but I accept that it was prevalent, as least for a certain class. Morally reprehensible this glorification of war? I certainly think so. Was it engaged by fully developed argument? When? ..."
"... It was against the background of this Great Game of elite diplomacy and saber-rattling and brief, limited wars that efforts had been made to erect an arguably more idealistic apparatus of liberal international peace thru international law, limitations of armaments and the creation of formal mechanisms for the arbitration of disputes. ..."
"... If this was the institutional program produced by "the fully developed and strongly argued" case against war, it wasn't that fully developed or strongly argued, as demonstrated by the severe shortcomings of the Hague Conferences. ..."
"... The consequences were horrific as mass mobilization and industrialized warfare combined with primitive means of command-and-control and reactionary often incompetent leadership to create a blood-bath of immense scale. (See my first comment.) ..."
The case against war was fully developed and strongly argued in the years before 1914 . . .
Was it? I wonder about that.
Continuing the war, once the bloodbath is underway and its futility is fully evident (which surely is objectively the case
as early as 1915), seems to me to be the point where moral culpability on all sides applies most forcibly. It is on this
point that I think arguments from before the war cannot have the weight the horror of experience must give them. Elite leadership
across Europe failed.
It was a symptom of degenerate aristocracy clinging to irresponsible power. Continuing to turn the crank on the meat grinder
without any realistic strategic hope or aim should have condemned the military establishment as well as the political establishment
in several countries where it didn't. Hindenburg was there to appoint Hitler; Petain to surrender France.
It is inexplicable, really, unless you can see that the moral and practical case against war is not fully developed between the
wars; if there's a critique that made use of experience in its details in the 1920s and 1930s and made itself heard, I missed
it - it seems like opposites of such an appreciation triumph.
And, before the war? Are the arguments against war really connecting? There's certainly a socialist argument against
war, based on the illegitimacy of war's class divisions, which were conveniently exemplified in military rank and reactionary
attitudes among the officer class. That internationalist idea doesn't seem to survive the war's first hours, let alone first
weeks.
Universal conscription in France and Germany created a common experience. Several generations learned not so much the horror
of mass slaughter as war as the instant of national glory in dramatic crises and short-lived conflicts with a decisive result.
bruce wilder 10.22.16 at 8:47 pm.26
Certainly, there had been arguments made before the war and even several disparate political movements that had adopted
ideas critical of imperialism by military means. I question, though, how engaged they were with mainstream politics of the day
and therefore how fully developed we can say their ideas or arguments were.
Consider the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 as examples of the state of the practical politics of a program for peace.
The first Conference was called by the Czar and the second by Theodore Roosevelt - no little irony in either case.
Without looking it up I recall Barbara Tuchman using the 1907 Conference as an illustration of the growing war fever gripping
western (so-called) civilization, as many of the delegates apparently sat around discussing how they longed for a cleansing war.
I cannot pretend to understand the psychology, but I accept that it was prevalent, as least for a certain class. Morally
reprehensible this glorification of war? I certainly think so. Was it engaged by fully developed argument? When?
The long effort by reactionary forces to assemble a coalition capable of defeating Napoleon had created in Europe what for
a time was called the Concert of Europe. Austria, Prussia and Russia initially cooperated in suppressing liberal and nationalist
aspirations and that effort gradually morphed into efforts to harness or channel rising liberalism and nationalism and industrial
power.
It was the evolved apparatus descended from Metternich's Congress of Vienna thru Bismarck's Congress of Berlin that made wars
brief and generally decisive in regard to some policy end.
The long list of successive crises and brief wars that stevenjohnson references above - often cited as evidence of the increasing
fragility of the general peace - could just as well be cited as evidence for the continued effectiveness of the antique Concert
of Europe in containing and managing the risk of general war. (Fashoda 1898, Venezuela 1902, Russo-Japanese War 1905, Agadir 1911,
Balkan Wars 1911-1912 - it can be a very long list).
It was against the background of this Great Game of elite diplomacy and saber-rattling and brief, limited wars that efforts
had been made to erect an arguably more idealistic apparatus of liberal international peace thru international law, limitations
of armaments and the creation of formal mechanisms for the arbitration of disputes.
If this was the institutional program produced by "the fully developed and strongly argued" case against war, it wasn't
that fully developed or strongly argued, as demonstrated by the severe shortcomings of the Hague Conferences.
It was one of the mechanisms for peace by international law - the neutrality of Belgium mutually guaranteed by Britain and
Germany in the Treaty of London 1839 - that triggered Britain's entry as an Allied Power and general war. There is, of course,
no particular reason Australia should have taken an interest in Belgium's neutrality, but it was that issue that seemed to compel
the consensus of opinion in favor of war in Britain's government.
The consequences were horrific as mass mobilization and industrialized warfare combined with primitive means of command-and-control
and reactionary often incompetent leadership to create a blood-bath of immense scale. (See my first comment.)
What I don't find is the alternative lever or mechanism at the ready, put in place by this fully developed argument against
war. The mechanism in place was the neutrality of Belgium guaranteed by international law (arguably reinforced in the stipulations
of the Hague Conference of 1907). If Germany doesn't violate Belgian neutrality, the result in the West at least is stalemate
as France and Germany are evenly matched across their narrow and mostly impassable frontier; in the East, Russia must concede
to Germany even as Austria must concede to Russia; - instead of a general conflagration, the result is another negotiated settlement
of some sort, perhaps arbitrated by Britain or the U.S.
The urgent questions of the day regarding the organization of modern liberal polities in the territories of Ottoman Turkey,
Hapsburg Austria and Czarist Russia - what is the strongly argued and fully developed case there? How is the cause of Polish nationalism,
or Finnish nationalism or Yugoslav nationalism to be handled or managed without violence and war?
The antique system of a Concert of Europe had kinda sorta found a way by means of short and decisive engagements followed by
multi-power negotiation, a pattern that had continued with the gradual emergence of Serbia, Bulgaria, Romania. But, where was
the argument for managing irredentism and nationalist aspiration peacefully?
More stupidity. First off, the American elite (like all elites) is far from unitary and most of them back Republicans, though
they hedge their bets by also supporting centrist Democrats.
I would submit that there are very few voters that will vote from Clinton because of this "cold war rhetoric" schtick. Greenwald
keeps falling and cannot get up.
ilsm -> EMichael...
Few "will [move the] vote from Clinton because of this "cold war rhetoric" schtick.
Those "few" were awake during the 80's and see the nuclear/neocon dystopian horror behind Clinton. While Trump mentioned
using nukes, Hillary's nuke policy is 'well' laid out by Robert Kagan and the hegemon interests.
Recall Mao said "go ahead......' Nukes are just another form of the pointless body count strategy.
likbez -> ilsm...
Like before WWI, Hillary might be "a symptom of degenerate [neoliberal] aristocracy clinging to irresponsible power." Gen. Butler,
"War Is A Racket." is still a classic book on the subject.
All war is for profit. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were fought for profit. The profit from Iraqi oil and whatever was
expected from Afghanistan were irrelevant. Weapons of mass destruction, the Taliban, even Isis, were and are all issues that
could have been more efficiently handled, but instead were pretexts to convince the credulous of the necessity of war.
The real profit was the profit taken by the military-political-industrial complex in the treasure and stolen rights of the
American people. That is the bottom line for why we went to war, and why we are still there, and why, if our elites persist,
we might go to war with Russia or China.
The good news is that, because of the unrelenting depredations by American elites on the treasure and rights of the people,
the United States is increasingly unable to wage war effectively. The bad news is that our elites are too blind to see this.
America: Consuming your future today.
====
Peter T 10.23.16 at 8:56 am
faustusnotes
fear of "socialism" – meaning, broadly, greater popular participation in politics – was explicitly a major factor in the
German and Russian decisions for war. In both cases, they hoped victory would shore up increasingly fragile conservative dominance.
It also underlay British and French attitudes. 1870-1914 was a very stressful time for elites.
1915 was too early for any of the combatants to settle. By mid-late 1916 there were some voices in favour of negotiations,
but the Germans would have none of it then or in 1917. By the time the Germans were prepared to talk (mid 1918), they had lost.
Fear of socialism was again a major factor in the post-war settlements.
Liberals of today see World War I as the great disaster that shattered the pre-war liberal order. In the same way, the generation
post 1815 saw the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars as the great disaster that shattered the happy old order. The extent of the
damage and loss was much the same in each, although World War I took 5 years to do what the French wars did in 25.
===
Omega Centauri 10.23.16 at 1:13 am ( 33 )
The decision to continue it seems to be a natural consequence of the human proclivity towards doubling down. This operates
on many levels, some of which are related to the need for vindication of those involved in the decision to start the conflict.
There is also the horror that if you end a war without achieving something the masses can identify with as victory, then the
families of those killed will see that their loved ones died in vain -- for someone else's mistake (very bad for your political
future).
And of course if you quit, what is to stop the enemy from extracting reparations or worse from you, because in his eyes, you
are the criminal party. Much easier to try yet one more offensive, or to lure a formerly neutral party into joining in and opening
up another front, which you hope will break the stalemate.
The thing that appalls me so much about the Great War, is how so many nations were dragged in, by promises of booty
. In many ways it resembles the Peloponnisian war, in its inability to allow neutrals to be neutrals.
John Helmer has his analysis up. This part is important, since the Dutch "investigators" were
basing their conclusions on recorded conversations provided by the SBU (such as the one that appeared
on YouTube a day before the crash?)
"Westerbeke acknowledged that all the telephone intercepts and wiretaps reported as evidence
of Russian involvement in the reported missile operation originated from the Ukrainian secret
service. Evidence of the missile movement, ground launch, and smoke trail from social media, photographs
and videotapes, and purported witnesses presented at today's JIT session have all appeared publicly
before; much of it already discredited as fakes."
The Ukies must be dancing in the corridors of power – the west supported them in spite of the
ridicule and disgust that political decision incurred. This must surely be evidence of their national
greatness.
Too bad they didn't see that map that "journalists" were breathtakingly sharing that showed
that pro-Trump tweets originated in a Russian bot factory in St. Petersburg. It turns out that
map is a complete fake, probably created by Hillary's troll bots.
Video used in the JiT presentation on MH17. Watch all of it, if you can bear it. But look at the
back of the low-loader platform at 03:31 exactly. The red upward ramps sudddenly disappear.
It's fairly clear that Bell End's Cat is just the medium to feed carefully doctored intel so that
the United States doesn't have to show its satellite recording of the launch, the one John Kerry
said the US had but no-one has heard of since.
On CNN this morning, John Kerry said the US actually observed the missile launch with satellite
imagery and watched it hit the plane. And yet there were no assets in the area t the time of Benghazi
– or at least that is what the Administration tells us. There was no drone in the air.
Yes, the US can make exorbitant claims now that the decision has been rendered, cut and dried,
and it no longer has to show its evidence. Now Kerry can strut and whoop and beat his chest and
say we saw this, we saw that. Nobody will ever know.
Reply
Typical of Eliot 'Tubby' Higgins,
his take on the newly-released raw radar data from Russia is that it proves they faked their
previous evidence. Keep on trollin', Tubby. What of all Bellingcat's 'evidence' of the surreptitious
Buk launcher being smuggled into Ukraine from Russia and back again? It looks like a lot of theories
may go up in smoke – not least the one that it was a Ukrainian fighter jet, since the Ust-Donetsk
radar would surely have seen that.
But then that means he thinks the new evidence the Russian defense ministry released must be genuine,
since it can be used to prove something?
Of course, the Russian defense ministry never claimed an Ukrainian fighter jet shot down the
airliner. If have always be very careful to only say "this is what we observed; we are putting
it out there". For me, it's interesting to consider the timing of Russia's new revelations. Clearly,
Russia is playing a careful game in the info war against the powerful Western brainwashing machine.
Something interesting in the air, according to the Interfax feed:
16:05
Kyiv has still not published info on Ukrainian surface-to-air missile systems, conversations between
dispatchers on day of Boeing crash – Russian Defense Ministry
16:02
Ukrainian air defense means were located near Boeing 777 crash site – Russian Aerospace Forces
15:52
Russian Defense Ministry accuses Ukraine of manipulating investigation into Malaysian Boeing crash
15:48
Russian Defense Ministry says Ukraine conceals info regarding 2014 Boeing crash
15:46
Netherlands will get from Russia irrefutable info on Boeing 777 crash in Donbas – Russian Defense
Ministry
15:39
Russian radar station didn't register air objects coming towards Boeing in sky over Donbas from
Snizhne side
15:28
INTL INQUIRY INTO BOEING 777 DISASTER IN UKRAINE IS ON THE WRONG TRACK; MISSILE TYPE, PLACE OF
LAUNCH DETERMINED WRONGLY – RUSSIAN DEFENSE MINISTRY
15:25
RUSSIA TO GIVE OBJECTIVE AND IRREFUTABLE INFO ON BOEING 777 CRASH TO NETHERLANDS – RUSSIAN DEFENSE
MINISTRY
15:24
KYIV CONCEALS INFO ON BOEING 777 DISASTER, FLIGHT WAS FOLLOWED BY UKRAINE'S RADARS, AIR DEFENSE
FORCES – RUSSIAN DEFENSE MINISTRY
15:24
UKRAINE HAS NOT PUBLISHED INFO ON LOCATION OF ITS SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILES BUK ON THE DAY OF BOEING
777 CRASH, MILITARY DISPATCHERS' CONVERSATIONS – RUSSIAN DEFENSE MINISTRY
Recently unearthed
raw radar data from a civilian radar at Ust-Donetsk. The memory chips were replaced in July
2014, and they have recently come to light. Russia claims they are solid proof of the direction
from which the attack came, but I'm not over-hopeful. The western point of view will be, the radar
doesn't show anything. That doesn't mean there wasn't anything there. Maybe the radar just wasn't
working properly. Or maybe the information was there, but has been edited out somehow. Of course,
if the raw data shows MH17 right up until it is hit, it might be extremely valuable. We'll see.
Can't wait for the Ukrainian reaction.
Hmmmm….I guess I should have paid closer attention on the first run-through. According to the
story, the raw video does indeed show MH-17, as well as two other civilian aircraft in the vicinity,
the closest at only about 30 km away at the time it was shot down.
Kiev will of course scream that the info is faked, and Russia is panicking because the final
report is due, and the US State Department will of course back Kiev up for as long as it can.
But experts will be able to tell if anything has been altered, and if they cannot find any such
evidence they may have no choice but to accept it in the absence of any contradictory evidence
– or any evidence at all – from Kiev.
Ooooooo…the system also detected an Orlan-10 drone; much smaller than an SA-11. A lot slower,
though.
Reply
...let's roll the counters back to September 18, 2013 – almost exactly three years ago. Just before,
of course, the glorious Maidan which freed Ukrainians from the oppressive yoke of Russia. At that
moment in history, western analysts were trembling with eagerness to vilify Yanukovych, but were
still hopeful that he would stick his head out of his shell long enough to sign the Deep and Comprehensive
Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA) with the European Union. Washington maintains a kind of ongoing paternal
affection for revolution – which is always less painful and noisy when it's a continent or two away
– but is practical enough to accept an easy victory if that's the way it plays out.
It didn't play out like that, of course, and an American-backed coup ensued in which Yanukovych
offered to give the revolutionary political figures everything they had asked for – early elections,
a provisional coalition government with the egghead among the revolutionaries as Prime Minister,
the works. They were a little taken aback at how easy it was, and then decided it wasn't enough –
Yanukovych must be holding back something if he gave in that easily, and therefore he must be tricking
them, since the script called for the dictator-president to cower in fear and to be flung into the
street in disgrace. So they went ahead with the traditional revolution, gaining nothing at all thereby
except the ushering-in of a self-appointed revolutionary junta, and the empowerment of fervent fascist
nationalists who had previously had to keep their admiration for the Nazis on the down-low.
It is worth mentioning here – because whenever it is brought up, the response ranges from amnesia
to outright denial it ever happened – that the pre-revolutionary government went into it with its
eyes wide open and a good working awareness of the probable consequences. Yanukovych and Azarov,
at least, were briefed that cutting off trade with Russia, which Brussels and Washington insisted
upon, would likely be disastrous for the Ukrainian economy. Deputy Prime Minister Yuriy Boiko announced
that Ukraine was not blowing off the deal entirely; it was
just suspending it
until the state could be sure that increased trade with Europe would compensate for the loss
of the Russian market. Before that, Yanukovych and Azarov
tried energetically to broker a triumvirate coalition of Ukraine, Russia and the EU, to sort
out the trade issues that Brussels insisted made such an arrangement impossible. Not to put too fine
a point on it, Russia and Ukraine proposed a tripartite forum which would see Ukraine as a bridge
between the Eurasian Economic Union and the European Union. Brussels emphatically rejected it, confident
that it could pry Ukraine away from Russia, because the initiative was always strategic rather
than economic .
The government of the day in Ukraine saw fairly clearly what was likely going to happen – and
so did we, didn't we? Yes, we did,
as detailed here . We pointed out that nearly half those Ukrainians who answered a survey that
they wanted Ukraine to join the EU did so because it would strengthen and grow the Ukrainian economy,
but that it was difficult to see how that would come about considering 60% of Ukraine's trade was
with the former Soviet market, and highlighted the unlikelihood that Europe was going to pick up
60%-plus of Ukraine's trade, resulting in prosperity. We pointed out that only half as many people
who responded to the survey that Ukraine's relations with Russia were characterized as 'friendly'
said the same of relations with the EU. So, you could kind of see how (a) a failure to see rapid
economic benefits as a result of signing the agreement, coupled with (b) the opposite effect, a precipitate
drop in trade, plus (c) severing of relations with a country nearly a quarter of Ukrainians considered
a friend, in exchange for a necrophiliac relationship with a trade union few cared much for except
for the usual percentage of lapdog dissidents, was very likely to result in widespread dissatisfaction
and an explosive situation. Did it? It sure did.
Anyway, as much fun as tooting our own horn is, that's not exactly what I wanted to talk about.
I want to review, in exquisite detail, the panorama of failure that is Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's
(RFE/RL) feelgood
graphic presentation for the rubes and dimwits on how association with the EU was going to be
better than sex in warm chocolate for Ukraine. And that forecast has turned out to be about as accurate
as a prediction that Justin Bieber would be nominated UN Secretary-General by popular acclaim.
But let's not leave it at that. Because you know that if those who forecast disaster for Ukraine
– based on, I think, the ability to read and to add – had somehow been wrong, and Ukraine had sprinted
into double-digit economic growth and taken over the role of driving engine of the European economy,
we would never have been allowed to forget it. Turnabout, then, being fair play…
1. The cream-skimming oligarchy, accustomed to riding to wealth on the backs of its panting workforce,
will be out – swept away by a new era of small-business confidence. Did that happen? Hardly. The
President Ukraine eventually elected was fingered for
starting up a new offshore shell corporation even as his troops were being driven into a disastrous
encirclement at Ilovaisk. The
same old oligarchs continue to control more than 70% of Ukraine's GDP. The Anti-Corruption Committee
appointed by Poroshenko, unsurprisingly,
declined to investigate him for corruption . Now more than two years into his presidency, Poroshenko
still has not sold his assets as he promised to do if elected, and his businesses continue to fatten
his personal bottom line in
direct
contravention of Ukrainian law and the Constitution. Never a peep of protest about that, though,
from Poroshenko's
International
Advisory Council , which includes former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, former Australian
Prime Minister Tony Abbott, former Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, former Swedish Prime
Minister Carl Bildt, former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and make-believe-economist wooden-head
Anders Aslund. This council continues to advise the President of what remains
the most corrupt country in Europe .
2. The boss at the company where you work will have to learn different ways to lead, because screaming
and ranting are not acceptable in Europe. In many European countries, the boss is just a senior worker
who you can call by his first name. This sort of rolls into the first point, but it seems sort of
self-evident that if Ukrainian companies do not do more business with Europe and replace their lost
Russian markets, and the same oligarchs still own the same companies, little will change about employee-employer
dynamics.
According to Eurostat , Ukraine's trade with the EU was down sharply in 2015 in both imports
and exports. A decrease in imports is not particularly surprising – Ukraine is
living
on handouts from the international community while it continues to pour funding into its armed
forces so that it can pursue the game of civil war, and hasn't any money. Not to mention thousands
of Ukrainian working stiffs are employed by Roshen, owned by the President, so I wouldn't be trying
out, "Morning, Petro – how's it hanging?" on my tongue any time soon if I were you. The new Prime
Minister, Vladimir Groysman, is unlikely to be 'Vova' to very many workers, either. He's quite wealthy
in his own right, at least part of that wealth
shunted from EU development funds to his father's cement and asphalt company. However, as an
unnamed Ukrainian politician is said to have quipped to a Ukrainskaya Pravda reporter when
Groysman received his new appointment, "Do you know what the difference is between Groysman and Yatsenyuk?
When Volodymir [Groysman] will start stealing, he will steal off the profit. Yatsenyuk was doing
it off the loss." It's good to see Ukrainians haven't lost their sense of humour.
3. As the standard of living improves in Ukraine, people will begin to trust each other. In Yanukovych's
Ukraine, people tended to trust only their own small circle, but in the New Ukraine, the doormat
will be changed from "Beat It, Shyster!" to "Come On In, Friend!" I'll let Thomas C. Theiner take
over on the subject of trust in Ukraine, post-Maidan. A committed Atlanticist neoconservative and
former cheerleader for Ukraine, Theiner lived in Kiev for 5 years, and has the advantage of personal
knowledge. In his assessment, if you are the type who likes to throw away money,
go to Vegas instead of Kiev – that way, at least there's a chance you'll see a return. Thomas?
"Even today, it's impossible for a foreign businessman to start a company in Ukraine without
being harassed for bribes. If you pay, they just demand more; if you don't pay, you won't succeed
at all. The only way out is to hire a local to help you navigate the bureaucracy and grease the correct
wheels. But whomever you hire will charge a 400-500 percent premium. Hiring a foreign law company
with offices in Kyiv, which charges Western prices, is the only alternative."
Expectations of a dramatic change were not realized, and the changing of the guard only brought
in different crooks. No significant progress has been made on corruption. If your company is successful
without the correct palms being greased, an expedient will be found for getting you out of town for
a few days. When you come back, the company will be under new ownership, and like George Thorogood
in "Move it on Over" ,
your key won't fit no more. Move over, little dog, a big ol' dog's movin' in. All puffickly legal,
as well, by Ukrainian courts.
4. Without gross, horrible, corrupt Yanukovych in charge, trust in the police will rise and pretty
soon they will be rescuing kitties from trees instead of taking bribes and roughing people up. Just
last month, at least three police officers in western Ukraine
beat Oleksandr Tsukerman and shot him dead in front of his relatives, including his mother. Around
200 local residents gathered in front of the police station, and uniformed officers had to keep them
back when the detained police officers who are accused of the crime were brought out. In case you
were thinking the dead man was a violent criminal who somehow invited his own death, the Ukrainian
Police Chief ordered the entire station disbanded. A group of people in the same region were
beating up passers-by right in front of the police , and officers involved in a wrongful death
and four officers who raped a woman and fractured her skull were not dismissed from their jobs. Call
me a pessimist, but that doesn't sound encouraging to me.
5. The difference in social status between the very wealthy and the middle class will gradually
disappear, and rich people will no longer be VIP's. It's pretty easy to show this one up for the
epic piece of optimistic stupidity it was. The President of Ukraine is also an active businessman
and multimillionaire, while per-capita GDP adjusted for purchasing power, for the ordinary folk,
has collapsed
and the unemployment rate is
leaping upward
in great jagged peaks. Yet according to the State Statistics of Ukraine, wage growth has been
steady and touched a record
high in July 2016. A month later, a Ukrainian miner on live TV
set himself afire at a press conference to protest wage arrears. This desperate protest is alleged
to have taken place after industrial action and hunger strikes failed to move the government. How
can these two realities co-exist? I guess it's easy for wages to be at a record high if you don't…you
know…pay them.
6. Women's rights; in the European Parliament, a third of the members are women. In the Verkhovna
Rada under jerky Yanukovych, only 10% were women. Well, folks, the glorious Maidan was not for nothing.
The current Rada is
12.02% women – only 87.98% are men. The gain is mostly illusory, as only 416 seats of the Rada's
statutory 450 are occupied due to the
banning of certain political parties . But a third of 416 would be 138 women rather than the
current 50, so women's rights groups should not relax just yet, as some work obviously remains to
be done.
7. In Yanukovych's Russia-friendly Ukraine, intolerance was the rule and blacks and homosexuals
mostly stayed hidden. Most Ukrainians would not vote for a Jewish presidential candidate, and even
fewer for a black one. How things have changed! Now Nazi symbology in public is
commonplace in Ukraine , whilst the government ostentatiously banned Communist symbology and
recognized Nazi-era collaborators as Freedom Fighters. As best I recall, the Nazis were not known
for their tolerance. How many Ukrainians in the new Europe-ready Ukraine would vote for a black or
a gay presidential candidate? A Gay Pride march in Kiev scheduled for 2014
was canceled when authorities refused to police the event and said they could not guarantee the
participants' safety from homophobic violence. At
another attempt in 2015 , international supporters from Canada had to cross three lines of police
to get to the meeting point, and were given a list of things to not do: Don't wear bright colours.
Don't kiss or hold hands. Don't speak to the police unless spoken to. The bus company which was approached
by Kiev Pride to take the marchers to and from the march allegedly refused, saying, "We'll take the
diplomats, we'll take the journalists, but we're not taking any faggots." Clearly, tolerance not
only has not improved, but is in full retreat and is not a priority for the new government.
8. Life expectancy. In
2010 , the year Yanukovych was elected president, it was 70.2 years. In
2016 ,
it's 69.6. I'm having a hard time seeing that as an improvement.
9. Health. Sports clubs encourage a healthier lifestyle. Most of Ukraine's sports clubs and facilities
were inherited from the Soviet Union. A search for "Poroshenko opens new sports club" yielded nothing
much except the news – I guess I shouldn't be surprised – that
he owns one : (search for "Poroshenko's
allies show up on website listing tax-haven firms") Fifth Element, at 29A Electrykiv St. in Kiev.
That's also the registered address of Intraco Management, owned by deputy head of Roshen Sergey Zaitsev.
Intraco Management showed up in Mossack-Fonseca's records, which came to be better known as the Panama
Papers. Meanwhile, health care in Ukraine
remains deplorable
and there has been no noticeable improvement.
In fact, although you can find the occasional bright spot if your business is finding bright spots
and spinning them into a tapestry of success, Ukraine is a nation in free-fall. The currency is
trading at 26.33 UAH to
the US greenback , slowly edging up to that truly scary record spike of 33.5 to the dollar in
February of last year. Pre-Maidan, the rate was about 7 hryvnia to the dollar. When Poroshenko assumed
his present office, it was 12 to the dollar. The president's approval rating has
corkscrewed down to around 10% . Believe it or not – and I frankly find it incomprehensible there
can be an electorate anywhere, whose fingers must be nothing but scar tissue now from being burnt
so many times, that so adamantly will not change its ways – the
current leader in the polls is… Yulia Tymoshenko. Yes, indeed; if anything can save the floundering
country, it's another stinking-rich oligarch. Yulia Tymoshenko, multi-millionaire.
Ukrainian family
living wage , 9,950 UAH per month, about $383.00 USD. Per month. And the reduced price for gas
for households was
canceled in May , as an anti-corruption measure.
By the benchmarks set in the happy-time graphic, Ukraine is failing catastrophically in every
metric, gasping for breath like a fish on the kitchen floor with someone standing on it. There is
zero chance of any kind of peace deal this year, since Poroshenko arbitrarily decided to reverse
the agreed-upon terms and announce no moves toward autonomy for the east could take place until Russia
returned control of the border to Ukraine – causing Russia to withdraw from the Normandy format,
since negotiations with such a fucking blockhead are a complete waste of everyone's time.
To be completely fair to RFE/RL, they did not originate the graphic; that came from the highly-imaginative
Institute of World Politics in Ukraine. But it fits perfectly with RFE/RL's style; it's hard for
a one-time CIA-funded leopard to change its spots, and many of it columnists seem to rely far more
on imagination themselves when they are writing their material. So they can own it.
"... I wonder if the various powers that be assembled some kind of "Committee to Defend the Liberal Order" when Trump began to make noises about re-assessing Nato ..."
"... A very interesting and pretty plausible hypothesis... That actually is the most deep insight I got from this interesting discussion. In such case intelligence agencies are definitely a part of "Committee to Defend the Liberal Order" which is yet another explanation of their strange behavior. ..."
"... it's a bunch of scams, lies and public manipulation schemes. ..."
I wonder if the various powers that be assembled some kind of "Committee to Defend the Liberal
Order" when Trump began to make noises about re-assessing Nato.
Reply
Monday, October 24, 2016 at 02:11 PM
> ...some kind of "Committee to Defend the Liberal Order" when Trump began to make noises about
re-assessing Nato.
A very interesting and pretty plausible hypothesis... That actually is the most deep insight
I got from this interesting discussion. In such case intelligence agencies are definitely a part
of "Committee to Defend the Liberal Order" which is yet another explanation of their strange behavior.
I can't claim that a mere mortal like me actually has the slightest clue what is really going
on. All I will hazard is that, whatever it is, it's a bunch of scams, lies and public manipulation
schemes.
Where this kind of high level foreign policy is involved, the US government and intelligence
services blew their cred with me long ago. I disbelieve them now on as a strong and resilient
prior.
"... The Democratic nominee in the final debate reiterated her bellicose stance towards Syria. Combined with her 2003 vote for war in Iraq, and her central role in getting the U.S. into the 2011 war in Libya, Clinton could become the most hawkish candidate elected president in most Americans' lifetimes. ..."
"... Enforcing a no-fly zone is "basically an act of war," Michael Knights, a no-fly-zone expert at the Washington Institute told me in the run up to the Libyan war. ..."
"... "Hillary's War," was the Washington Post's headline for a flattering feature on the Secretary of State's central role in driving the U.S. to intervene in Libya's civil war in 2011. ..."
"... Clinton staff, published emails have shown, worked hard to get Clinton credit for the war. Clinton's confidante at the State Department Jake Sullivan drafted a memo on her "leadership/ownership/stewardship of this country's Libya policy from start to finish." ..."
"... Hillary's war was illegal-because the administration never obtained congressional authorization for it-and it was also disastrous. "Libya is in a state of meltdown," John Lee Anderson wrote in the Atlantic last summer. ..."
"... Yet somehow, through three general election debates, she never got a single question on Libya. Consider that: a former Secretary of State touted a war as a central achievement of hers, is running on her foreign-policy chops, and she is escaping accountability for that disastrous war. ..."
"... Clinton, of course, also voted for the Iraq War in 2003. She says now she thinks that war was a mistake because it destabilized region. But somehow she doesn't apply that supposed lesson to Libya or to Syria. ..."
"... The pattern is clear: Hillary Clinton is consistently and maybe blindly pro-war. She is now the clear frontrunner to become our next president. The antiwar movement that flourished under President George W. Bush has disappeared under President Obama . Will it revive under Hillary? Will Republicans have the power or the desire to check her ambitious interventionism. ..."
Hillary Clinton
can change her views in an instant on trade, guns, gay marriage, and all sorts of issues, but
she's consistent in this: she wants war.
The Democratic nominee in the final debate reiterated her bellicose stance towards Syria. Combined
with her 2003 vote for war in Iraq, and her central role in getting the U.S. into the 2011 war in
Libya, Clinton could become the most hawkish candidate elected president in most Americans' lifetimes.
"I am going to continue to push for a no-fly zone and safe havens within Syria," Clinton said
Wednesday night. Totally separate from the fight against ISIS, Clinton's "no-fly zones and safe havens"
are U.S. military intervention in the bloody and many-sided conflict between Syria's brutal government,
terrorist groups, and rebel groups.
Enforcing a no-fly zone is "basically an act of war," Michael Knights, a no-fly-zone expert at
the Washington Institute told me in the run up to the Libyan war. Air Force Gen. Paul Selva, vice
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Senate that a no-fly zone created "the
potential of a direct conflict with the Syrian integrated air defense system or Syrian forces or,
by corollary, a confrontation with the Russians."
Defense Secretary Ash Carter testified in the same hearing that "safe zones" would require significant
U.S. boots on the ground.
So while Hillary says she doesn't want war with Russia or Syria, or boots on the ground in Syria,
she pushes policies that the Pentagon says risk war and require boots on the ground.
Hillary showed that same cavalier attitude toward war earlier this decade, laughingly
declaring "we came, we
saw, he died." This was her version of George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" moment, and Libya
was her smaller - and less legal - version of Bush's Iraq War.
"Hillary's War," was the Washington Post's headline for a flattering feature on the Secretary
of State's central role in driving the U.S. to intervene in Libya's civil war in 2011.
Clinton staff, published emails have shown, worked hard to get Clinton credit for the war.
Clinton's confidante at the State Department Jake Sullivan drafted a memo on her "leadership/ownership/stewardship
of this country's Libya policy from start to finish."
Sullivan listed, point-by-point, how Clinton helped bring about and shape the war. Before Obama's
attack on Moammar Gadhafi, "she [was] a leading voice for strong UNSC action and a NATO civilian
B5 protection mission," the memo explained.
Hillary's war was illegal-because the administration never obtained congressional authorization
for it-and it was also disastrous. "Libya is in a state of meltdown," John Lee Anderson wrote in
the Atlantic last summer.
ISIS has spread, no stable government has arisen, and the chaos has led to refugee and terrorism
crises.
Clinton nevertheless calls her war "smart power at its best," declaring during the primary season,
"I think President
Obama made the right decision at the time."
Yet somehow, through three general election debates, she never got a single question on Libya.
Consider that: a former Secretary of State touted a war as a central achievement of hers, is running
on her foreign-policy chops, and she is escaping accountability for that disastrous war.
Clinton, of course, also voted for the Iraq War in 2003. She says now she thinks that war
was a mistake because it destabilized region. But somehow she doesn't apply that supposed lesson
to Libya or to Syria.
The pattern is clear:
Hillary Clinton
is consistently and maybe blindly pro-war. She is now the clear frontrunner to become our next
president. The antiwar movement that flourished under President George W. Bush has disappeared under
President Obama
. Will it revive under Hillary? Will Republicans have the power or the desire to check her ambitious
interventionism.
If Hillary wins big and sweeps in a Senate majority with her, we could be in for four more years
of even more war.
Timothy P. Carney, the Washington Examiner's senior political columnist, can be contacted at
[email protected]. His column appears
Tuesday and Thursday nights on washingtonexaminer.com.
Nothing new Strobe
Talbott was closeted, and brought Mrs Kagan aka Victoria
Nuland in to State in 1993.
Bill bearded the bear breaking Kosovo and Bosinia out of
Serbia...........
The down payment for Kyiv in 2012 was in 1996.
likbez -> ilsm...
, -1
Nuland occupies a special place among neocons.
This former associate of Dick Cheney managed to completely
destroy pretty nice European county, unleashing the horror of
real starvation on the population.
Ukraine now is essentially Central African country in the
middle of the Europe. Retirees often live on less then $1 a
day. most adults (and lucky retirees) on less then $3 a day.
$6 a day is considered a high salary. At the same time
"oligarchs" drive on Maybachs, and personal jets.
Sex tourism is rampant. Probably the only "profession"
that prospered since "Maydan".
Young people try to get university education and emigrate
to any county that would accept them (repeating the story of
Baltic countries and Poland).
Now this a typical IMF debt slave with no chances to get
out of the hole.
Politically this is now a protectorate of the USA with the
USA ambassador as the real, de-facto ruler of the country.
Much like Kosovo is.
Standard of living dropped approximately three times since
2014.
"If the country continues on its present course, Odessa's
reformist governor Mikheil Saakashvili has noted
sarcastically, Ukraine will not reach the level of GDP it had
under former president Viktor Yanukovych for another fifteen
years"
"In Kiev, which is by far the wealthiest city in Ukraine,
payment arrears for electricity have risen by 32 percent
since the beginning of this year."
"... US-Russia-China cooperation will eliminate for the US the threat of war with the only two powers whose nuclear capabilities could pose existential threats to the US. ..."
"... Simultaneously, Trump will put an end to "the prevailing view that the U.S. is, and always must be, the benign hegemon, altruistically policing the world, while allowing its allies, satellites-and even rivals-to manufacture everything and thereby generate the jobs, profits, and knowhow…a view that elevated the ambitions and pretensions of the American elite over the well-being of the larger U.S. population…Instead of sacrificing American economic interests on the altar of U.S. 'leadership,' [Trump] will view the strengthening of the American economy as central to American greatness." ..."
"... President Trump will rebuild the decimated US manufacturing sector and return to Americans those tens of millions of jobs that America's globalist elites were allowed to ship overseas. Rebuilding the US economy – and jobs! – will be the centerpiece of a Donald Trump presidency. ..."
"... The problem is that everyone wants to call themselves a Realist, even the Neocons. The Neocons proclaim that promoting Democracy, nation building, and being the world's policeman is 'realism' because if you withdraw from the world the problems follow you home. Tom Rogan bellowed that we needed to destroy Syria in the name of realism. They are totally wrong but the point is that everyone wants to claim this mantle which is why I tend to avoid this term. ..."
"... I think we should embrace the Putin Doctrine but that name is toxic. Basically, he eschews destroying standing govts because it is highly destabilizing. This is common sense. ..."
"... Oh, when I hear 'Bush kept us safe' it tears my heart out when I see guys in their 20/30's walking around with those titanium prosthetics. Do the 4,000+ men who died in Iraq and 10,000+ severely wounded count? And this does not even start to count the chaos and death in the M.E. ..."
"... Mainstream media are besides themselves at the prospect of their masters having to relinquish their special entitlements; namely, designer wars, selection of the few to govern the many (Supreme Court and the Fed), and putting foreign dictates over American interests at an incredible cost to the U.S. in human and non-human resources. ..."
Donald Trump played a wily capitalistic trick on his Republican opponents in the primary fights
this year-he served an underserved market.
By now it's a cliché that Trump, while on his way to the GOP nomination, tapped into an unnoticed
reservoir of right-of-center opinion on domestic and economic concerns-namely, the populist-nationalists
who felt left out of the reigning market-libertarianism of the last few decades.
Indeed, of the 17 Republicans who ran this year, Trump had mostly to himself the populist issues:
that is, opposition to open borders, to free trade, and to earned-entitlement cutting. When the other
candidates were zigging toward the familiar-and unpopular-Chamber of Commerce-approved orthodoxy,
Trump was zagging toward the voters.
Moreover, the same sort of populist-nationalist reservoir-tapping was evident in the realm of
foreign affairs. To put it in bluntly Trumpian terms, the New Yorker hit 'em where they weren't.
The fact that Trump was doing something dramatically different became clear in the make-or-break
Republican debate in Greenville, S.C., on February 13. Back in those early days of the campaign,
Trump had lost one contest (Iowa) and won one (New Hampshire), and it was still anybody's guess who
would emerge victorious.
During that debate, Trump took what seemed to be an extraordinary gamble: he ripped into George
W. Bush's national-security record-in a state where the 43rd president was still popular. Speaking
of the Iraq War, Trump said, "George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was
a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East."
And then Trump went further, aiming indirectly at the former president, while slugging his brother
Jeb directly: "The World Trade Center came down during your brother's reign, remember that."
In response, Jeb intoned the usual Republican line, "He kept us safe." And others on the stage
in Greenville that night rushed to associate themselves with Bush 43.
In the aftermath of this verbal melee, many thought that Trump had doomed himself. As one unnamed
Republican "strategist" chortled to Politico , "Trump's attack on President George W. Bush
was galactic-level stupid in South Carolina."
Well, not quite: Trump triumphed in the Palmetto State primary a week later, winning by a 10-point
margin.
Thus, as we can see in retrospect, something had changed within the GOP. After 9/11, in the early
years of this century, South Carolinians had been eager to fight. Yet by the middle of the second
decade, they-or at least a plurality of them-had grown weary of endless foreign war.
Trump's victory in the Palmetto State was decisive, yet it was nevertheless only a plurality,
32.5 percent. Meanwhile, Sen. Marco Rubio, running as an unabashed neocon hawk, finished second.
So we can see that the Republican foreign-policy "market" is now segmented. And while Trump proved
effective at targeting crucial segments, they weren't the only segments-because, in actuality, there
are four easily identifiable blocs on the foreign-policy right. And as we delineate these four segments,
we can see that while some are highly organized and tightly articulate, others are loose and inchoate:
First, the libertarians. That is, the Cato Institute and other free-market think tanks, Reason
magazine, and so on. Libertarians are not so numerous around the country, but they are strong
among the intelligentsia.
Second, the old-right "isolationists." These folks, also known as "paleocons," often find common
ground with libertarians, yet their origins are different, and so is their outlook. Whereas the libertarians
typically have issued a blanket anathema to all foreign entanglements, the isolationists have been
more selective. During World War I, for example, their intellectual forbears were hostile to U.S.
involvement on the side of the Allies, but that was often because of specifically anti-English or
pro-German sentiments, not because they felt guided by an overall principle of non-intervention.
Indeed, the same isolationists were often eager to intervene in Latin America and in the Far East.
More recently, the temperamentally isolationist bloc has joined with the libertarians in opposition
to deeper U.S. involvement in the Middle East.
Third, the traditional hawks. On the proverbial Main Street, USA, plenty of people-not limited
to the active-duty military, veterans, and law-enforcers-believe that America's national honor is
worth fighting for.
Fourth, the neoconservatives. This group, which takes hawkishness to an avant-garde extreme, is
so praised, and so criticized, that there's little that needs be added here. Yet we can say this:
as with the libertarians, they are concentrated in Washington, DC; by contrast, out beyond the Beltway,
they are relatively scarce. Because of their connections to big donors to both parties, however,
they have been powerful, even preeminent, in foreign-policy circles over the last quarter-century.
Yet today, it's the neocons who feel most threatened by, and most hostile to, the Trump phenomenon.
We can pause to offer a contextual point: floating somewhere among the first three categories-libertarians,
isolationists, hawks-are the foreign-policy realists. These, of course, are the people, following
in the tradition of the great scholar Hans Morgenthau, who pride themselves on seeing the world as
it is, regarding foreign policy as just another application of Bismarckian wisdom-"the art of the
possible."
The realists, disproportionately academics and think-tankers, are a savvy and well-credentialed
group-or, according to critics, cynical and world-weary. Yet either way, they have made many alliances
with the aforementioned trio of groups, even as they have usually maintained their ideological flexibility.
To borrow the celebrated wisdom of the 19th-century realpolitiker Lord Palmerston, realists don't
have permanent attachments; they have permanent interests. And so it seems likely that if Trump wins-or
anyone like Trump in the future-many realists will be willing to emerge from their wood-paneled precincts
to engage in the hurly-burly of public service.
Returning to our basic quartet of blocs, we can quickly see that two of them, the libertarians
and the neocons, have been loudly successful in the "battle of ideas." That is, almost everyone knows
where the libertarians and the neocons stand on the controversies of the moment. Meanwhile, the other
two groups-the isolationists and the traditional hawks-have failed to make themselves heard. That
is, until Trump.
For the most part, the isolationists and hawks have not been organized; they've just been clusters
of veterans, cops, gun owners, and like-minded souls gathering here and there, feeling strongly about
the issues but never finding a national megaphone. Indeed, even organized groups, such as the American
Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, sizable as they might be, have had little impact, of late,
on foreign affairs.
This paradoxical reality-that even big groups can be voiceless, allowing smaller groups to carry
the day-is well understood. Back in 1839, the historian Thomas Carlyle observed of his Britain, "The
speaking classes speak and debate," while the "deep-buried [working] class lies like an Enceladus"-a
mythological giant imprisoned under a volcano. Yet, Carlyle continued, the giant under the volcano
will not stay silent forever; one day it will erupt, and the inevitable eruption "has to produce
earthquakes!"
In our time, Trump has provoked the Enceladus-like earthquake. Over the past year, while the mainstream
media has continued to lavish attention on the fine points of libertarianism and neoconservatism,
the Peoples of the Volcano have blown up American politics.
Trump has spoken loudly to both of his groups. To the isolationists, he has highlighted his past
opposition to the Iraq and Libya misadventures, as well as his suspicions about NATO and other alliances.
(Here the libertarians, too, are on board.) At the same time, he has also talked the language of
the hawks, as when he has said, "Take the oil" and "Bomb the [bleep] out of them." Trump has also
attacked the Iran nuclear agreement, deriding it as "one of the worst deals ever made."
Thus earlier this year Trump mobilized the isolationists and the hawks, leaving the libertarians
to Rand Paul and the neocons to Rubio.
Now as we move to the general election, it appears that Trump has kept the loyalty of his core
groups. Many libertarians, meanwhile, are voting for Gary Johnson-the former Republican governor
at the top of the Libertarian Party's ticket-and they are being joined, most likely as a one-off,
by disaffected Republicans and Democrats. Meanwhile, the neocons, most of them, have become the objective
allies, if not the overt supporters, of Hillary Clinton.
Even if Trump loses, his energized supporters, having found their voice, will be a new and important
force within the GOP-a force that could make it significantly harder for a future president to, say,
"liberate" and "democratize" Syria.
♦♦♦
Yet now we must skip past the unknown unknowns of the election and ask: what might we expect if
Trump becomes president?
One immediate point to be borne in mind is that it will be a challenge to fill the cabinet and
the sub-cabinet-to say nothing of the thousands of "Schedule C" positions across the administration-with
true Trump loyalists. Yes, of course, if Trump wins that means he will have garnered 50 million or
more votes, but still, the number of people who have the right credentials and can pass all the background
checks-including, for most of the top jobs, Senate confirmation-is minuscule.
So here we might single out the foreign-policy realists as likely having a bright future in a
Trump administration: after all, they are often well-credentialed and, by their nature, have prudently
tended to keep their anti-Trump commentary to a minimum. (There's a piece of inside-the-Beltway realist
wisdom that seems relevant here: "You're for what happens.")
Yet the path to realist dominion in a Trump administration is not smooth. As a group, they have
been in eclipse since the Bush 41 era, so an entire generation of their cadres is missing. The realists
do not have long lists of age-appropriate alumni ready for another spin through the revolving door.
By contrast, the libertarians have lots of young staffers on some think-tank payroll or another.
And of course, the neocons have lots of experience and contacts-yes, they screwed up the last time
they were in power, but at least they know the jargon.
Thus, unless president-elect Trump makes a genuinely heroic effort to infuse his administration
with new blood, he will end up hiring a lot of folks who might not really agree with him-and who
perhaps even have strongly, if quietly, opposed him. That means that the path of a Trump presidency
could be channeled in an unexpected direction, as the adherents of other foreign-policy schools-including,
conceivably, schools from the left-clamber aboard. As they say in DC, "personnel is policy."
Still, Trump has a strong personality, and it's entirely possible that, as president, he will
succeed in imprinting his unique will on his appointees. (On the other hand, the career government,
starting with the State Department's foreign service officers, might well prove to be a different
story.)
Looking further ahead, as a hypothetical President Trump surveys the situation from the Sit Room,
here are nine things that will be in view:
1.
Trump will recall, always, that the Bush 43 presidency drove itself into a ditch on Iraq. So he
will surely see the supreme value of not sending U.S. ground troops-beyond a few advisors-into Middle
Eastern war zones.
2.
Trump will also realize that Barack Obama, for all his talk about hope and change, ended up preserving
the bulk of Bush 43's policies. The only difference is that Obama did it on the cheap, reducing defense
spending as he went along.
Obama similar to Bush-really? Yes. To be sure, Obama dropped all of Bush's democratic messianism,
but even with his cool detachment he kept all of Bush's alliances and commitments, including those
in Afghanistan and Iraq. And then he added a new international commitment: "climate change."
In other words, America now has a policy of "quintuple containment": Russia, China, Iran, ISIS/al-Qaeda,
and, of course, the carbon-dioxide molecule. Many would argue that today we aren't managing any of
these containments well; others insist that the Obama administration, perversely, seems most dedicated
to the containment of climate change: everything else can fall apart, but if the Obamans can maintain
the illusion of their international CO2 deals, as far as they are concerned all will be well.
In addition, Uncle Sam has another hundred or so minor commitments-including bilateral defense
treaties with countries most Americans have never heard of, along with special commitments to champion
the rights of children, women, dissidents, endangered species, etc. On a one-by-one basis, it's possible
to admire many of these efforts; on a cumulative basis, it's impossible to imagine how we can sustain
all of them.
3. A populist president like Trump will further realize that if the U.S. has just 4 percent of the
world's population and barely more than a fifth of world GDP, it's not possible that we can continue
to police the planet. Yes, we have many allies-on paper. Yet Trump's critique of many of them as
feckless, even faithless, resonated for one big reason: it was true.
So Trump will likely begin the process of rethinking U.S. commitments around the world. Do we
really want to risk nuclear war over the Spratly Islands? Or the eastern marches of Ukraine? Here,
Trump might well default to the wisdom of the realists: big powers are just that-big powers-and so
one must deal with them in all their authoritarian essentiality. And as for all the other countries
of the world-some we like and some we don't-we're not going to change them, either. (Although in
some cases, notably Iraq and Syria, partition, supervised by the great powers, may be the only solution.)
4.
Trump will surely see world diplomacy as an extension of what he has done best all his life-making
deals. This instinct will serve him well in two ways: first, he will be sharply separating himself
from his predecessors, Bush the hot-blooded unilateralist war-of-choicer and Obama the cool and detached
multilateralist leader-from-behind. Second, his deal-making desire will inspire him do what needs
to be done: build rapport with world leaders as a prelude to making things happen.
To cite one immediate example: there's no way that we will ever achieve anything resembling "peace
with honor" in Afghanistan without the full cooperation of the Taliban's masters in Pakistan. Ergo,
the needed deal must be struck in Islamabad, not Kabul.
Almost certainly, a President Trump will treat China and Russia as legitimate powers, not as rogue
states that must be single-handedly tamed by America.
Moreover, Trump's deal-making trope also suggests that instead of sacrificing American economic
interests on the altar of U.S. "leadership," he will view the strengthening of the American economy
as central to American greatness.
5.
Trump will further realize that his friends the realists have had a blind spot of late when it
comes to eco nomic matters. Once upon a time-that is, in the 19th century-economic nationalism was
at the forefront of American foreign-policy making. In the old days, as America's Manifest Destiny
stretched beyond the continental U.S., expansionism and Hamiltonianism went together: as they used
to say, trade follows the flag. Theodore Roosevelt's digging of the Panama Canal surely ranks as
one of the most successful fusions of foreign and economic policy in American history.
Yet in the past few decades, the economic nationalists and the foreign-policy realists have drifted
apart. For example, a Reagan official, Clyde Prestowitz of the Economic Strategy Institute, has been
mostly ignored by the realists, who have instead embraced the conventional elite view of free trade
and globalization.
So a President Trump will have the opportunity to reunite realism and economic nationalism; he
can once again put manufacturing exports, for example, at the top of the U.S. agenda. Indeed, Trump
might consider other economic-nationalist gambits: for example, if we are currently defending such
wealthy countries as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Norway, why aren't they investing some of the trillions
of dollars in their sovereign-wealth funds into, say, American infrastructure?
6.
Trump will also come into power realizing that he has few friends in the foreign-policy establishment;
after all, most establishmentarians opposed him vehemently. Yet that could turn out to be a real
plus for the 45th president because it could enable him to discard the stodgy and outworn thinking
of the "experts." In particular, he could refute the prevailing view that the U.S. is, and always
must be, the benign hegemon, altruistically policing the world, while allowing its allies, satellites-and
even rivals-to manufacture everything and thereby generate the jobs, profits, and knowhow. That was
always, of course, a view that elevated the ambitions and pretensions of the American elite over
the well-being of the larger U.S. population-and maybe Trump can come up with a better and fairer
vision.
7.
As an instinctive deal-maker, Trump will have the capacity to clear away the underbrush of accumulated
obsolete doctrines and dogmas. To cite just one small but tragic example, there's the dopey chain
of thinking that has guided U.S. policy toward South Sudan. Today, we officially condemn both sides
in that country's ongoing civil war. Yet we might ask, how can that work out well for American interests?
After all, one side or the other is going to win, and we presumably want a friend in Juba, not a
Chinese-affiliated foe.
On the larger canvas, Trump will observe that if the U.S., China, and Russia are the three countries
capable of destroying the world, then it's smart to figure out a modus vivendi among this
threesome. Such practical deal-making, of course, would undermine the moralistic narrative that Xi
Jinping and Vladimir Putin are the potentates of new evil empires.
8.
Whether or not he's currently familiar with the terminology, Trump seems likely to recapitulate
the "multipolar" system envisioned by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger in the 1970s. Back then,
the multipolar vision included the U.S., the USSR, Western Europe, China, and Japan.
Yet multipolarity was lost in the '80s, as the American economy was Reaganized, the Cold War grew
colder, and the Soviet Union staggered to its self-implosion. Then in the '90s we had the "unipolar
moment," when the U.S. enjoyed "hyper-power" primacy.
Yet as with all moments, unipolarity soon passed, undone by the Iraq quagmire, America's economic
stagnation, and the rise of other powers. So today, multipolarity seems destined to re-emerge with
a slightly upgraded cast of players: the U.S., China, Russia, the European Union, and perhaps India.
9.
And, of course, Trump will have to build that wall along the U.S.-Mexican border.
♦♦♦
Some might object that I am reading too much into Trump. Indeed, the conventional wisdom, even
today, maintains that Trump is visceral, not intellectual, that he is buffoonish, not Kissingerian.
To such critics, this Trump supporter feels compelled to respond: when has the conventional wisdom
about the New Yorker been proven correct?
It's not easy to become president. In all of U.S. history, just 42 individuals have been elected
to the presidency-or to the vice presidency and succeeded a fallen president. That is, indeed, an
exclusive club. Or as Trump himself might say, it's not a club for dummies.
If Trump does, in fact, become the 45th president, then by definition, he will have proven himself
to be pretty darn strategic. And that's a portent that bodes well for his foreign policy.
James P. Pinkerton is a contributor to the Fox News Channel.
Among James Pinkerton's most compelling reasons to hope for a Trump presidency are these two:
[1] "Almost certainly, a President Trump will treat China and Russia as legitimate powers, not
as rogue states that must be single-handedly tamed by America…Trump will observe that if the U.S.,
China, and Russia are the three countries capable of destroying the world, then it's smart to
figure out amodus vivendi among this threesome…"
US-Russia-China cooperation will eliminate for the US the threat of war with the only two
powers whose nuclear capabilities could pose existential threats to the US.
[2] Simultaneously, Trump will put an end to "the prevailing view that the U.S. is,
and always must be, the benign hegemon, altruistically policing the world, while allowing its
allies, satellites-and even rivals-to manufacture everything and thereby generate the jobs, profits,
and knowhow…a view that elevated the ambitions and pretensions of the American elite over the
well-being of the larger U.S. population…Instead of sacrificing American economic interests on
the altar of U.S. 'leadership,' [Trump] will view the strengthening of the American economy as
central to American greatness."
President Trump will rebuild the decimated US manufacturing sector and return to Americans
those tens of millions of jobs that America's globalist elites were allowed to ship overseas.
Rebuilding the US economy – and jobs! – will be the centerpiece of a Donald Trump presidency.<
The problem is that everyone wants to call themselves a Realist, even the Neocons. The Neocons
proclaim that promoting Democracy, nation building, and being the world's policeman is 'realism'
because if you withdraw from the world the problems follow you home. Tom Rogan bellowed that we
needed to destroy Syria in the name of realism. They are totally wrong but the point is that everyone
wants to claim this mantle which is why I tend to avoid this term.
I think we should
embrace the Putin Doctrine but that name is toxic. Basically, he eschews destroying standing govts
because it is highly destabilizing. This is common sense.
Oh, when I hear 'Bush kept us safe' it tears my heart out when I see guys in their 20/30's
walking around with those titanium prosthetics. Do the 4,000+ men who died in Iraq and 10,000+
severely wounded count? And this does not even start to count the chaos and death in the M.E.
Trump just came across as different while maintaining conservative, albeit middle-American values.
Mainstream media are besides themselves at the prospect of their masters having to relinquish
their special entitlements; namely, designer wars, selection of the few to govern the many (Supreme
Court and the Fed), and putting foreign dictates over American interests at an incredible cost
to the U.S. in human and non-human resources.
The song goes on. Trump hit a real nerve. Even if he loses, the American people have had a
small but important victory. We are frustrated with the ruling cabal. A sleeping giant has been
awoken. This election could be the political Perl Harbor….
Pinkerton has spent thousands of words writing about someone who is not the Donald Trump anyone
has ever seen.
In this, he joins every other member of the Right, who wait in hopeful anticipation
to see a Champion for their cause in Donald Trump, and are willing to turn a blind eye to his
ignorance, outright stupidity, lack of self-discipline, and lack of serious intent.
Pinkerton, he will only follow your lead here if he sees what's in it for HIM, not for the
Right and certainly not for the benefit of the American people.
Flawed premise. This opine works its way through the rabbit hole pretzel of current methodologies
in D.C. The ones that don't work. The city of NY had a similar outcome building a certain ice
skating facility within the confines of a system designed to fail.
What Trump does is implode those failed systems, implements a methodology that has proven to
succeed, and then does it. Under budget and before the deadline. Finding the *right* bodies to
make it all work isn't as difficult as is surmised. What that shows is how difficult that task
would be for the author. Whenever I hear some pundit claim that Trump can't possibly do all that
means is the pundit couldn't possibly do it.
The current system is full of youcan'tdoits, what have you got to lose, more of the same?
LOL! "Very few voters that will vote from Clinton because of this "cold war rhetoric" schtick."
Putin/Russia were by far the most mentioned topics at the debates...yet EMichael has the naivety
to assert that cold war tactics don't matter. What a rube!
As usual, EMichael is as uninformed as ever. For his information, Russia/Putin were mentioned
178 times in the 3 debates, topping the list of topics covered.
By comparison, climate change got four mentions, poverty 10, and US economic performance--hold
onto your hats!--didn't make the list. NSA snooping didn't get mentioned either.
So, EMichael, if Russia/Putin don't matter to voters, why did candidates talk so much about
it? Oh, I know, to distract attention from more serious issues that their paymasters didn't want
them to talk about!
Clinton had attracted a lot of centrist Republicans to her campaign, and I think the hawkish and
old school foreign policy stance has something to do with it.
"... a Python-5 (or Derby) missile can also be carried by an Israeli combat drone such as the Heron-TP (Eitan) , which easily reaches an altitude of 10 to 15km. (More on Israeli combat drones, see here , here and here ). ..."
"... Because they wrongly assumed MH17 could only have been downed by the local war parties, i.e. the Ukrainian military or the Eastern Ukrainian rebels. Therefore, they wrongly restricted the "air-to-air scenario" to a Ukranian fighter jet, which was then excluded. The official investigation did not consider the possibility that a third party with more advanced technological capabilities may have been involved in the downing of MH17. ..."
"... There is a video of a skype conversation with one of his officers (who suspected Kolomoyskyi had a hand in the downing of MH17) in which Kolomoyskyi called the crash of MH17 "a trifle". ..."
"... According to another report , the exercise also included "the use of electronic warfare and electronic intelligence aircraft such as the Boeing EA-18G Growler and the Boeing E3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS)" . Moreover, "BREEZE included the AEGIS-class guided missile cruiser USS Vela Gulf. AEGIS cruisers' AN/SPY 1 radar has the ability to track all aircraft over a large region. (…) From the Black Sea, the Vela Gulf was able to track Malaysian Airlines 17 over the Black Sea and any missiles fired at the plane. U.S. AWACS electronic intelligence (ELINT) aircraft were also flying over the Black Sea region at the time of the MH-17 flyover of Ukraine. Growler aircraft have the capability to jam radar systems in all surface-to-air threats." ..."
In August 2015, a
Russian study
suggested that MH17 was shot down by an Israeli Python-5 air-to-air missile (which usually targets
the cockpit of a plane due to an advanced electro-optical guidance system). Yet the authors still
assumed the missile must have been fired by a fighter jet. Because Ukraine has no fighter jets that
can carry a Python-5, the authors speculated that a special version of a Georgian fighter jet may
have been used. This seems unlikely.
Why did the official investigation not even consider the scenario of a combat drone?
Because they wrongly assumed MH17 could only have been downed by the local war parties, i.e.
the Ukrainian military or the Eastern Ukrainian rebels. Therefore, they wrongly restricted the "air-to-air
scenario" to a Ukranian fighter jet, which was then excluded. The official investigation did not
consider the possibility that a third party with more advanced technological capabilities may have
been involved in the downing of MH17.
Excerpt from the JIT presentation (after they have excluded an accident and a bomb):
Why did the official investigation conclude it must have been a BUK missile ?
The only reason why the official investigation concluded MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile is
that two pieces of
butterfly-shaped warhead fragments were "found" in the debris of the plane:
Two pieces of butterfly-shaped fragments found in the debris of MH17 (top-left and top-right).
These butterfly-shaped warhead fragments are found in only one specific warhead: a BUK warhead
of type 9N314M1 :
Different types of BUK missiles and warheads.
There is only one problem with this story: Almaz-Antey, the manufacturer of the BUK sytem, attested
that a 9N314M1 warhead can only be used on an advanced BUK missile of type 9M38M1 (see image above).
However, even the official investigation
acknowledges that the Eastern Ukrainian rebels could not have possessed this advanced type of
BUK missile, but only a standard missile of type 9M38 . Yet according to the manufacturer, a standard
9M38 BUK missile can carry only a standard warhead of type 9N314 , which does not contain the butterfly-shaped
warhead fragments (see image above).
There is however a much more plausible explanation for the two butterfly-shaped fragments found
in the debris: they may simply have been
planted prior to the examination in order to incriminate the rebels (and Russia), while overlooking
the fact that the only warhead containing these fragments is perhaps not even compatible with a standard
BUK missile.
This explanation is in line with several other facts:
The
tests carried out by the manufacturer of the BUK system showed that if indeed a 9N314M1 warhead
had been used, not only would there be many butterfly-shaped holes in the fuselage, but many more
than just two such fragments would have been found in the wreckage. These results were again ignored
by the official investigation.
The next excerpt from the DSB report shows again the faulty logic applied by the official investigation:
They first assume that "air-to-air" can only mean a local (Ukranian) fighter jet. Wrong!
Because of this, they consider only locally available (Soviet/Russian) air-to-air missiles.
Wrong!
They identify three (Soviet) missiles with a fragmentation-explosion warhead (R-33, R-37 and
R-40). However, because none of these contain "bow-tie" (butterfly) shaped fragments, they exclude
the use of any air-to-air missile. Wrong!
Because of this, they think they can exclude the air-to-air scenario altogether. Wrong!
Finally, they add that in the case of an air-to-air attack, "another aircraft" (near MH17)
would have to have been recorded "at least by primary radar data". Wrong again! Besides, the investigation
didn't even have access to primary radar data (see point 5 above).
... ... ...
If the downing of MH17 was indeed a carefully planned operation, the preparation of such false
photos and videos putting the blame to the rebels (and Russia) would have been an integral an rather
easy part of it.
Who controlled the airspace in which MH17 was downed?
He is a long-time
arch-enemy of Russian president Putin.
Russia issued
an arrest warrant against him just two weeks prior to the crash of MH17.
Kolomoisky also created a private army (
Battalion Dnipro
) which fought against the Eastern Ukrainian rebels.
There is a video
of a skype conversation with one of his officers (who suspected Kolomoyskyi had a hand in
the downing of MH17) in which Kolomoyskyi called the crash of MH17 "a trifle".
In addition, Kolomoyskyi is the owner of
Burisma Holdings , Ukraine's biggest private gas company, which in May 2014 made Hunter Biden,
the son of US vice president Joe Biden,
one of its directors.
Perhaps all of this is not important. Or perhaps it is. At any rate, the official investigation
never looked into it.
Why did nobody – not even Russia – ever mention the drone scenario?
If MH17 was indeed shot down by an armed drone, it is not guaranteed that Russia can prove this
in any way. Without a clear proof, what should they say? Moreover, in the case of a combat drone,
they cannot simply accuse the government in Kiev, but they would have to accuse far more powerful
actors. Perhaps it is easier to just trade some meaningless allegations between the Ukrainian military
and the Eastern Ukrainian rebels.
Recall that after
the attack on a UN aid convoy in Syria in September 2016, the U.S. also immediately blamed Russia
(without any proof, of course). Russia denied, but again it didn't – and probably couldn't – present
any proof for another scenario.
Final note
Even if there were arguments speaking against an armed drone, the fact remains that the official
investigation (both DSB and JIT) did not even consider this option. Thus no matter what, the official
investigation used a faulty approach and prematurely ruled out the air-to-air scenario.
A reader remarks that on the very day MH17 crashed (July 17, 2014), a ten day long
NATO military exercise in the Black Sea ended (BREEZE 2014) . In other words, the military
of the
United States and nine more NATO members were present and active in the Black Sea region right
up to the day of the MH17 disaster. According to a
press release , these war games even involved "commercial traffic monitoring".
According to another report , the exercise also included "the use of electronic warfare and
electronic intelligence aircraft such as the Boeing EA-18G Growler and the Boeing E3 Sentry Airborne
Warning and Control System (AWACS)" . Moreover, "BREEZE included the AEGIS-class guided missile
cruiser USS Vela Gulf. AEGIS cruisers' AN/SPY 1 radar has the ability to track all aircraft over
a large region. (…) From the Black Sea, the Vela Gulf was able to track Malaysian Airlines 17
over the Black Sea and any missiles fired at the plane. U.S. AWACS electronic intelligence (ELINT)
aircraft were also flying over the Black Sea region at the time of the MH-17 flyover of Ukraine.
Growler aircraft have the capability to jam radar systems in all surface-to-air threats."
The same report notes that "200 U.S. Army personnel normally assigned to bases in Germany
were in Ukraine during the time of the MH-17 fly-over. They were participating in NATO exercise
RAPID TRIDENT II . Ukraine's Ministry of Defense led the exercise."
A reader notes that another option might be a so-called "suicide drone" , i.e. a loitering
strike drone that includes a warhead in its fuselage and self-destructs into its target. These
are basically missiles that fly like a plane. Due to their small size, they are invisible to radar
detection systems. Examples include e.g. the Israeli
IAI Harop and
Hero-30 . Usually,
such drones attack ground targets and therefore operate at a low altitude (and rather low speed,
about 200 km/h). If a high-altitude suicide drone exists at all, it would also require a fragmentation-explosion
warhead to cause the damage observed on the wreckage of MH17. Moreover, due to its low speed,
timing would be more difficult compared to a drone-fired air-to-air missile.
If a radar-guided medium-range air-to-air missile was used, there are two options to provide
the radar signal: active radar homing with an integrated radar transceiver, or semi-active radar
homing with an external, ground- or air-based radar signal. Thus the drone itself doesn't have
to be equipped with a radar unit. In fact, this is another clear advantage over the BUK scenario:
since the rebels didn't have their own radar unit (even the "videos" only show a launching unit),
they would have fired the missile "blindly". This is unlikely to begin with, but it is even more
unlikely that they would actually have hit a plane at 10 km altitude without radar guidance.
A reader asks: can a BUK be fired from a drone, like other missiles that can be fired both
surface-to-air and air-to-air (AMRAAM, Derby)? Officially no airborne version of the BUK exists.
(There is a navy version, though.) So this would have to be experimental. However, air-to-air
missiles such as the R-33, R-37 or R-40 have a fragmentation-explosion warhead of comparable size
to the BUK.
"... So… Russia is already isolated, its economy is in shreds… or not? Because you can't have isolation (as you, pressitudes, claimed since 2014) of Russia and demand it at the same time! At the same time, no – ignoring Russia completely and talking only about "plox, don't use nukes, m'cay?" is not a "diplomacy". ..."
"... Absolutely schizophrenic Clinton-McFoul (yes, I know that his surname is spelled differently), which is still dominants in the alls of power of the West boils down to the following: ..."
"... 1) Talk harsh (really harsh!) with Russia on things we don't like ..."
"... 2) Cooperate with Russia when it possible as if never happened. ..."
"... And when Russia says that there are direct links between 1) and 2), that you can't expect to get 2) after doing 1) – there is no use to fake a hurt innocence of Ukrainians from this old anecdote with the "А на за що?!" punchline, ..."
"... You want war? You will have one! Want peace? Then behave yourself accodringly. ..."
"... Eli Lake is a dork who used to be the 'National Security Correspondent' for the Daily Beast. You know what a rag that is. Also, he was educated at Trinity College, a private liberal-arts school. ..."
"... I know how we can reach a compromise – me and the Russian government. Every year on the day that article was published, they could have "Eli Lake Day". On that day, an American company could be chosen at random to be kicked out of the country and have all its assets confiscated. The documents could lead off with, "Congratulations! You have been selected to receive the Eli Lake Award for Bankruptcy. You can thank Eli Lake and his big fucking mouth". ..."
Unsurprisingly – this article is from the Blub-blub-bloomberg. What is surprising – it's not by
Lyonya Bershidski. It's by another titan of handshakability – Eli Lake.
Why, surely with the name like that the article must be honest, objective and answer to all
standards of the journalism (in the West)?
I was again surprised when the now standard litany of Kremlin sins suddenly became an accusation
of "Murder, Kidnapping and Jaywalking":
"Russia also poisons the international system in small ways… It continues to support Kirsan
Ilyumzhinov as head of the International Chess Federation, despite his chummy visits to rogue
states like North Korea and Iran. His recent plan to hold the international chess championship
in Iran has drawn protest from the U.S. women's chess champion, Nazi Paikidze-Barnes, because
Iran requires women to cover their heads with a hijab."
Wow. Yet another bottom is crushed successfully and the standards of journalism in the Free
West get new way to fall! Or was it a secret way to endorse a "legitimate" head of the Chess Federation
– fearless Gary Kimovich Kasparov?
With new way to fall achieved by crashing yet another bottom the article takes a plunge:
"Browder last month proposed a plan for Interpol to create a two-tiered system. Speaking
before a human-rights commission in Congress, he said that transparent countries like the U.S.
would have their red notice requests processed immediately, whereas countries like Russia,
known to abuse the system, would have their requests reviewed by a panel of objective and independent
experts before being sent out to member states."
How handshakable! Surely, such approach will demonstrate the equality of countries in the international
relations and the true value of the Rule of Law!
The article ends in – now traditional for all Westie journos – couple of self-contradicting
paragraphs:
"None of this should preclude diplomacy with Russia. The U.S. and Russia should still
have channels to discuss nuclear stockpiles and other matters. But as Secretary of State John
Kerry has learned in his fruitless engagements, Russian promises are worthless. Everyone in
U.S. politics, with the exception of Donald Trump and a few other extremists on the left and
right, understands this. Russia is a pariah.
Pariahs are not asked to cooperate on challenges to the global commons. They shouldn't
get to host events like the World Cup, as Russia is scheduled to do in 2018. They should not
be diplomatic partners in U.S. policy to disarm other pariahs like Iran. No, pariahs should
be quarantined. With Russia, it's the very least the U.S. and its allies can do to save the
international system from a country that seeks to destroy it."
So… Russia is already isolated, its economy is in shreds… or not? Because you can't have
isolation (as you, pressitudes, claimed since 2014) of Russia and demand it at the same time!
At the same time, no – ignoring Russia completely and talking only about "plox, don't use nukes,
m'cay?" is not a "diplomacy".
Absolutely schizophrenic Clinton-McFoul (yes, I know that his surname is spelled differently),
which is still dominants in the alls of power of the West boils down to the following:
1) Talk harsh (really harsh!) with Russia on things we don't like
2) Cooperate with Russia when it possible as if never happened.
Now imagine that your neighbour decided to harm you in some nasty, really mean way. Imagine
him throwing seeds on you car, parked outside, and then filming how birds land (and shit) o your
car on his phone – with lots, and lots of really "smart" comments. Then your neighbor uploads
this video on YouTube, his Facebook page, Twitter, Instagram etc, etc. Here he engages with other
commenters in the vein of "Yeah, I know – he's a total douche! He got what he deserved! But wait,
guys – I have more plans for my neighbour!!!:)".
Next week he asks you to borrow him a landmover – as if nothing has ever happened before.
And when Russia says that there are direct links between 1) and 2), that you can't expect
to get 2) after doing 1) – there is no use to fake a hurt innocence of Ukrainians from this old
anecdote with the "А на за що?!" punchline,
You want war? You will have one! Want peace? Then behave yourself accodringly.
Eli Lake is a dork who used to be the 'National Security Correspondent' for the Daily Beast.
You know what a rag that is. Also, he was educated at Trinity College, a private liberal-arts
school. But the day will come when it is Russia's choice to punish Americans for the ignorant
things people like Eli Lake said. I would do it in a heartbeat; I would chortle with glee as I
tore up American proposals for joint ventures, and send balaclava-sporting kids dressed like Voina
around to paint giant dicks on their office doors with the message, "This is for Eli", until they
fled for the airport gibbering with terror. But that's me. Russia probably won't do it, because
they are pragmatic and like business and profit.
I know how we can reach a compromise – me and the Russian government. Every year on the
day that article was published, they could have "Eli Lake Day". On that day, an American company
could be chosen at random to be kicked out of the country and have all its assets confiscated.
The documents could lead off with, "Congratulations! You have been selected to receive the Eli
Lake Award for Bankruptcy. You can thank Eli Lake and his big fucking mouth".
"... the discontent that motivates the Trump voters seems less likely to just vanish. We seem to be in the midst of a realignment of both UK and US politics, of which Trump and Farrage are just symptoms ..."
"... Trump should be defeated according to most here. Some may actually believe Trump really is the anti-Christ Hitler we've been constantly told he is, instead of a widely watched and often admired vulgarian capitalist welcomed into living rooms across America for more than a decade. Whatever Trump is, he's not Cruz. His supporters are not Cruz supporters. Yet. ..."
"... Which is why, in this instance, I think the polls are wrong. Who in their right mind is going to ever admit that Trump's language and behavior is not offensive? Nobody. Who in their right mind looks out at America and sees Donald Trump, not Bill Cosby etc, etc, etc as a threat to their own daughters, sisters, sons, etc? Which is why, in the end, enough voters are going to say no thanks to Hillary and roll the dice with Donald. ..."
"... The stink coming out of the Clinton campaign is so rank it's actually penetrating the media wall of silence. Given that social media provides numerous ways for candidates to bypass the gate-keepers, I suspect enough voters are learning what's in the emails whether CNN, or the Wapo, report the discoveries, or not. ..."
"... On most wedge issues, Trump is running as a bog-standard Republican conservative, and he's losing on those issues. ..."
"... Indeed I see the synthesis of neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism as the final consolidation of conservatism and the end of what we have understood as history – the final triumph of capitalism as it dies. ..."
"... The right has also succeeded in the same way to reduce consumer rights. Arbitration agreements are attached to almost everything you buy that needs an agreement (software, mobile phones, etc.) before use. The agreements not only mandate secret arbitration they also prevent consumers from banding together in order to form a class thus making each individual consumer litigate alone. Obviously this reduces the power of individual consumers and also decreases the incentive for any one consumer to do something about what, on the individual level, may be a small injury. Basically it allows business to steal a small amount from a lot of people. ..."
"... On the "economy", "taxes", and, "foreign affairs" the respondents "trust" the GOP more than the Dems. Though on one key measure "caring about people like you" the Dems are trusted over the GOP by a slight margin. ..."
"... The reduction of marginal income tax rates on the highest "wage" incomes combined with new doctrines of corporate business leadership that emphasized the maximization of shareholder value created a new class of C-suite business executives occupying positions of great political power as allies and servants of the rentier class of Capital owners. The elaborate structures of financial repression and mutual finance were systematically demolished, removing many of the protections from financial predation afforded the working and middle classes. ..."
"... she's the least popular Democratic candidate perhaps ever! That's the only reason it would be close. A party built around the principles of white male supremacy and dedicated to expanding the wealth and income gap is at a massive disadvantage in any non-gerrymandered election. ..."
"... It is striking to me how even on the left the discussion of U.S. militarism and imperialism has been marginalized and does not come up much in casual conversation. We had an active peace movement through the worst days of the Cold War, and then there was a bit of a resurgence of it in response to the Iraq War. But Obama's acceptance of the core assumptions of the 'War on Terror' (even as he waged it more responsibly) seems to have led to the war party co-opting the liberals as well until there is no longer an effective opposition. The rhetoric of 'humanitarian intervention' has been hugely successful in that effort. ..."
Trump himself will go away, I think. But the discontent that motivates the Trump voters
seems less likely to just vanish. We seem to be in the midst of a realignment of both UK and US
politics, of which Trump and Farrage are just symptoms. Farrage has already made an attempt
at retiring from politics, and I could easily see Trump going back to reality television after
the election. The real question is: what will their supporters do next?
I am also surprised that Corey thinks feminism and the civil rights movement has been defeated.
These seem to me to be areas in which some progress has been made (along with other forms of identity
politics, e.g. gay marriage). It's been the class-based labour/union movement that's been the
real loser.
Possibly it depends on which time scale you're talking about, and that some of us now count
as old people, in that our implicit timescale is over our lifetimes. Maybe young college students
think that all the progress made by feminism happened before they were even born, and things have
slowed down of late. (With a slight hat-tip to Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions
, I could easily see some further progress on feminist issues being made simply by the older
guys in management positions dying off, and being replaced by younger people who grew up in a
different culture),
I disagree with the basic premise of the post in that the right has been beaten because it
has won.
That's certainly not how the right sees the landscape. The tea party of 2010 was co-opted by
Richard Armey and the Kochs on the one hand and buried under a mountain of forms by Lois Lerner
on the other. The Armey group rallies to Ted Cruz, who is sure to have something to say about
America and the future of the Republican party should Trump be undone because of his lewd behavior
and actions.
The media is certain to be savaged no matter what the outcome. The number of artists and musicians
who both profit from and promote misogyny and violence invited to the WH over the last 8 years
to serve as role models for America's youth should raise nary an eyebrow. The prudery of the moment
is going to be the template for 'social reform' under the Republicans. If Hillary and her
media allies succeed in derailing the Trump insurgency via his mouth, his hands, and his zipper
they're going to face an extremely hostile electorate. Cruz is certain to try to step into Trump's
shoes as leader, preaching that Trump was a flawed messenger undone by an unforgiving god. This
will make sense for too many Americans to completely ignore. The unhappy white males who have
yet to self-identify as angry white males, rather than simply as Americans, may well decide to
do so.
Whatever few victories the Democrats enjoy lower down the ticket are unlikely to survive skyrocketing
Affordable Care Act premiums, some form of amnesty, and an extension of America's wars in the
ME. The Democrats are betting the farm that Republicans will never unlock the padlock Democrats
maintain over socially-conservative minorities. Cruz's ground game and networking with the evangelical
community didn't get the job done in 2016, but we can be sure that he and his team are already
mapping 2020.
Trump should be defeated according to most here. Some may actually believe Trump really
is the anti-Christ Hitler we've been constantly told he is, instead of a widely watched and often
admired vulgarian capitalist welcomed into living rooms across America for more than a decade.
Whatever Trump is, he's not Cruz. His supporters are not Cruz supporters. Yet.
I've no idea whether those supporting the Democratic candidate expect her to wake up on November
9, should she win, and suddenly decide to abandon the practices that got her this far. I certainly
don't. If you're nauseated at the prospect of 4-8 more years of secrecy, war, lies, and corruption
you're going to need to keep more than barf bags at hand, however. The polarization that has divided
America over the last 8 years is, imho, far more likely to become much more corrosive and
damaging with Democrats in charge.
Ted Cruz will literally be burning crosses and probably books, pornography, and anyone/thing
else that strikes his fancy. The donor class is praying that Hillary/Bush can stamp out the fires.
With rising unemployment, stagnating wages, and more and more Americans feeling that the system
isn't interested in them, or their children, there may very well be a little hell to pay, or a
lot.
kidneystones 10.24.16 at 12:37 pm @ 14
It won't surprise you to learn I think you're wrong about Trump. The battle against Trump is
for many a rejection of what they see in the mirror transposed onto Trump, as far as males go.
Many women, including some who support him, see in Trump a dangerous predator who offers the promise
of protection and wealth, but at a cost. Good thing no woman would ever sell herself, or her principles,
to such a man – and if Bill Clinton pops into your head, please don't blame me.
Which is why, in this instance, I think the polls are wrong. Who in their right mind is
going to ever admit that Trump's language and behavior is not offensive? Nobody. Who in their
right mind looks out at America and sees Donald Trump, not Bill Cosby etc, etc, etc as a threat
to their own daughters, sisters, sons, etc? Which is why, in the end, enough voters are going
to say no thanks to Hillary and roll the dice with Donald.
I like your question re: Cruz. I find him such a phenomenally transparent phony that I can't
quite believe anyone trusts him. With Trump, and Bill Clinton, what you see is what you get –
Slick Willie.
At the moment Americans are being told they don't like what they see in Trump, but if that
were the case, why was he so popular back when he was actually on the Howard Stern show and otherwise
acting out? I frankly don't think most Americans give a toss what Trump did or said this week,
much less ten years ago.
The stink coming out of the Clinton campaign is so rank it's actually penetrating the media
wall of silence. Given that social media provides numerous ways for candidates to bypass the gate-keepers,
I suspect enough voters are learning what's in the emails whether CNN, or the Wapo, report the
discoveries, or not.
Like I said. I think it will be close and right now I still say Trump edges it.
Layman 10.24.16 at 12:55 pm
"Clinton will win easily, but it could easily be argued that the victory will be over
Trump the man than over any ideology. If Clinton were running against Cruz – who on any reasonable
measure is well to the right of Trump – would she be 20 points ahead with women?"
Hard to find more recent polling than this; but based on this, women would solidly still prefer
Clinton over Cruz.
I also doubt that notion that it is Trump's vulgarity, on its own, rather than Republican conservative
ideology which is driving the likely result. Trump does himself no favors, but Clinton's negatives
hold her back, too. On most wedge issues, Trump is running as a bog-standard Republican conservative,
and he's losing on those issues.
Which is why, in the end, enough voters are going to say no thanks to Hillary and roll the
dice with Donald.
What odds would you accept on this outcome?
SusanC 10.24.16 at 2:26 pm @20.
Indeed. There's a difference between a biased sample and the oversampling technique. The difference
being that with oversampling you statistically correct for the fact that you've intentionally
sampled some subpopulation more frequently than you would have done if you just chose members
of the whole population uniformly at random (while a biased sample just ignores or is ignorant
of the problem…)
(I hope this isn't too much of a derail. There is a grand CT tradition of yawn-not-that-again
OPs with derails where you might learn something).
I am not sanguine about the apparent collapse of this version (Trump) of American fascism. If
conservatism can be said to be that which argues for the preservation of traditional social institutions
and traditional political values then conservatism is far from dying. Indeed I see the synthesis
of neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism as the final consolidation of conservatism and the end
of what we have understood as history – the final triumph of capitalism as it dies.
Bernard Yomtov 10.24.16 at 3:59 pm
the reason I think the right has not much of a future is that it has won. If you consider its
great animating energies since the New Deal-anti-labor, anti-civil rights, and anti-feminism-the
right has achieved a considerable amount of success.
I agree with dd that this is just wrong. Are labor, the civil rights movement, women's rights,
worse than they were at the end of the New Deal? I don't see how.
The right has won or is winning in an some ways on labor and civil rights issues by changing the
procedure by which one can assert the rights that may exist.
The number of strikes are down as someone else mentioned. But the Right has also largely succeeded
in reducing the ability of individual employees to engage in private actions to vindicate their
rights. E.g. the huge increase in enforceable arbitration agreements in what are essentially contracts
of adhesion. The Right has solidified the ability of business to prevent employees from using
the independent, publicly funded judiciary, and instead forces them to use private, secretive,
arbitrators who essentially work for the companies (because the business is a repeat player and
the arbitrators rely on being chosen to arbitrate in order to make their money).
The right has also succeeded in the same way to reduce consumer rights. Arbitration agreements
are attached to almost everything you buy that needs an agreement (software, mobile phones, etc.)
before use. The agreements not only mandate secret arbitration they also prevent consumers from
banding together in order to form a class thus making each individual consumer litigate alone.
Obviously this reduces the power of individual consumers and also decreases the incentive for
any one consumer to do something about what, on the individual level, may be a small injury. Basically
it allows business to steal a small amount from a lot of people.
In regards to Clinton and her chances against any other Republican, here is some polling which
suggests the country at least trust the GOP over the Dems on a number of important issues. It
is from April, 2016 so not the freshest data. But it might indicate Trump's bog standard GOP policies
are not what is driving votes to Clinton/away from Trump.
On the "economy", "taxes", and, "foreign affairs" the respondents "trust" the GOP more
than the Dems. Though on one key measure "caring about people like you" the Dems are trusted over
the GOP by a slight margin.
bruce wilder 10.24.16 at 5:04 pm
Among the most successful projects of the Right was financialization of the economy.
The reduction of marginal income tax rates on the highest "wage" incomes combined with
new doctrines of corporate business leadership that emphasized the maximization of shareholder
value created a new class of C-suite business executives occupying positions of great political
power as allies and servants of the rentier class of Capital owners. The elaborate structures
of financial repression and mutual finance were systematically demolished, removing many of the
protections from financial predation afforded the working and middle classes.
In the current election, the Democratic Party has split on financial reform issues, with the
dominant faction represented by the Party's candidate prioritizing issues of race and gender equality.
"In regards to Clinton and her chances against any other Republican, here is some polling
which suggests the country at least trust the GOP over the Dems on a number of important issues."
I imagine any poll pitting 'generic Republican' against Hillary Clinton in April of this year
would have shown 'generic Republican' winning. The problem is, you can't run 'generic Republican'.
I'm hard pressed to point at any prominent Republican who I think would be handily beating
Clinton now. Once you name them, they have to say what they're for and against, and she takes
her shot at them, and they're fighting an uphill battle. And she's the least popular Democratic
candidate perhaps ever! That's the only reason it would be close. A party built around the principles
of white male supremacy and dedicated to expanding the wealth and income gap is at a massive disadvantage
in any non-gerrymandered election.
PGD 10.24.16 at 6:28 pm
It is striking to me how even on the left the discussion of U.S. militarism and imperialism
has been marginalized and does not come up much in casual conversation. We had an active peace
movement through the worst days of the Cold War, and then there was a bit of a resurgence of it
in response to the Iraq War. But Obama's acceptance of the core assumptions of the 'War on Terror'
(even as he waged it more responsibly) seems to have led to the war party co-opting the liberals
as well until there is no longer an effective opposition. The rhetoric of 'humanitarian intervention'
has been hugely successful in that effort.
One of the most depressing things about this election campaign to me has been to see
the Democrats using their full spectrum media dominance not to fight for a mandate for left policies,
but to run a coordinated and effective propaganda campaign for greater U.S. military involvement
in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, focusing on demonizing Putin and on humanitarian intervention
rhetoric around Aleppo and the like.
Last week, Jame O'keefe and Project Veritas Action potentially
altered the course of the U.S. election, or at a minimum raised serious doubts about the practices of the Clinton campaign and
the DNC, after releasing two undercover videos that revealed efforts of democrat operatives to incite violence at republican rallies
and commit "mass voter fraud." While democrats have vehemently denied the authenticity of the videos, two democratic operatives,
Robert Creamer and Scott Foval, have both been forced to resign over the allegations.
Many democrats made the rounds on various mainstream media outlets over the weekend in an attempt to debunk the Project Veritas
videos. Unfortunately for them, O'Keefe fired back with warnings that part 3 of his multi-part series was forthcoming and would
implicate Hillary Clinton directly.
Anything happens to me, there's a deadman's switch on Part III, which will be released Monday.
@HillaryClinton and
@donnabrazile implicated.
Now, we have the 3rd installment of O'Keefe's videos which does seemingly reveal direct coordination between Hillary Clinton,
Donna Brazile, Robert Creamer and Scott Foval to organize a smear campaign over Trump's failure to release his tax returns. Per
Project Veritas :
Part III of the undercover Project Veritas Action investigation dives further into the back room dealings of Democratic
politics. It exposes prohibited communications between Hillary Clinton's campaign, the DNC and the non-profit organization
Americans United for Change. And, it's all disguised as a duck. In this video, several Project Veritas Action undercover journalists
catch Democracy Partners founder directly implicating Hillary Clinton in FEC violations. " In the end, it was the candidate,
Hillary Clinton, the future president of the United States, who wanted ducks on the ground," says Creamer in one of several
exchanges. "So, by God, we would get ducks on the ground." It is made clear that high-level DNC operative Creamer realized
that this direct coordination between Democracy Partners and the campaign would be damning when he said: "Don't repeat that
to anybody."
Within the video both Clinton and Brazile are directly implicated by Creamer during the following exchange:
"The duck has to be an Americans United for Change entity. This had to do only with some problem between Donna Brazile and
ABC, which is owned by Disney, because they were worried about a trademark issue. That's why. It's really silly.
We originally launched this duck because Hillary Clinton wants the duck .
In any case, so she really wanted this duck figure out there doing this stuff, so that was fine. So, we put all these ducks
out there and got a lot of coverage. And Trump taxes. And then ABC/Disney went crazy because they thought our original slogan
was 'Donald ducks his taxes, releasing his tax returns."
They said it was a trademark issue. It's not, but anyway, Donna Brazile had a connection with them and she didn't want to
get sued. So we switched the ownership of the duck to Americans United for Change and now our signs say 'Trump ducks releasing
his tax returns.' And we haven't had anymore trouble."
As Project Veritas points out, this direct coordination between Clinton, Brazile and Americans United For Change is a violation
of federal election laws:
"The ducks on the ground are likely 'public communications' for purposes of the law. It's political activity opposing Trump,
paid for by Americans United For Change funds but controlled by Clinton/her campaign."
"As Project Veritas points out, this direct coordination between Clinton, Brazile and Americans United For Change is a violation
of federal election laws "
Yeah, you pretty much got the head shot there. Unfortunately, no gun to shoot it from. The enforcement authorities all work
FOR the Democrat party.
Full spectrum dominance. It's a bitch. Even if you catch them red-haned there's no "authorities" to report it to that will
listen to you.
Remember what happened to Planned Parenthood when they were caught red-handed selling human tissue for profit (which is also
illegal)? That's right. Nothing. Same thing here.
The problem is that the MSM isn't reporting on any of this stuff about Hillary. And, the Republicans in office aren't on the news
at all to talk about any of this. So, the only place it is reported is on the Trump campaign trail where just a few thousand hear
about.
If the media won't report it and the Republicans won't talk about it, Hillary gets a pass. The audience for sites like ZH and
Drudge are just preaching to the chior and not reaching the people who could change their minds or haven't made up their minds.
froze25 -> ImGumbydmmt •Oct 24, 2016 3:40 PM
What this video is, is evidence of collusion between a campaign and a SuperPac. That is illegal in a criminal court. This is enough
to open an investigation, problem is nothing will be done by Nov 8th. All we can do is share it non-stop.
Bastiat d Haus-Targaryen •Oct 24, 2016 2:11 PM
Don't discount the Enquirer: remember who took down Gary Hart and John Edwards:
Hillary Clinton's shady Mr. Fix It will tell all on TV tonight, just days after his explosive confession in The National ENQUIRER
hit the stands.
The man who's rocked Washington, D.C., will join Sean Hannity on tonight's episode of "Hannity" - airing on the FOX News Channel
at 10 p.m. EST - to reveal his true identity at last.
"... Just a re-post from the last thread to the new . "In a remarkable conflict-of-interest, Fox News analyst and former Clinton operative Douglas E. Schoen has failed to disclosed to readers that he's been paid millions of dollars from Ukrainian agents to incite a war between the United States and Russia. ..."
Just a re-post from the last thread to the new . "In a remarkable conflict-of-interest, Fox
News analyst and former Clinton operative Douglas E. Schoen has failed to disclosed to readers
that he's been paid millions of dollars from Ukrainian agents to incite a war between the United
States and Russia.
"... It is an obvious fact that the oligarchic One Percent have anointed Hillary, despite her myriad problems to be President of the US. There are reports that her staff are already moving into their White House offices. This much confidence before the vote does suggest that the skids have been greased. ..."
"... Stolen elections are the American tradition. Elections are stolen at every level-state, local, and federal. Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley's theft of the Chicago and, thereby, Illinois vote for John F. Kennedy is legendary. The Republican US Supreme Court's theft of the 2000 presidential election from Al Gore by preventing the Florida vote recount is another legendary example. The discrepancies between exit polls and the vote count of the secretly programmed electronic voting machines that have no paper trails are also legendary. ..."
"... The presstitutes have gone all out to demonize both Trump and any mention of election rigging, because they know for a fact that the election will be stolen and that they will have the job of covering up the theft. ..."
"... Don't believe the polls that say Hillary won the Q&A sessions or the polls that say Hillary is ahead in the election. Pollsters work for political organizations. If pollsters produce unwelcome results, they don't have any customers. The desired results are that Hillary wins. The purpose of the rigged polls showing her to be ahead is to discourage Trump supporters from voting. ..."
"... Don't vote early. The purpose of early voting is to show the One Percent how the vote is shaping up. From this information, the oligarchs learn how to program the electronic machines in order to elect the candidate that they want. ..."
It is an obvious fact that the oligarchic One Percent have anointed Hillary, despite her myriad
problems to be President of the US. There are reports that her staff are already moving into their
White House offices. This much confidence before the vote does suggest that the skids have been greased.
The current cause celebre against Trump is his conditional statement that he might not accept
the election results if they appear to have been rigged. The presstitutes immediately jumped on him
for "discrediting American democracy" and for "breaking American tradition of accepting the people's
will."
What nonsense! Stolen elections are the American tradition. Elections are stolen at every
level-state, local, and federal. Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley's theft of the Chicago and, thereby,
Illinois vote for John F. Kennedy is legendary. The Republican US Supreme Court's theft of the 2000
presidential election from Al Gore by preventing the Florida vote recount is another legendary example.
The discrepancies between exit polls and the vote count of the secretly programmed electronic voting
machines that have no paper trails are also legendary.
So what's the big deal about Trump's suspicion of election rigging?
The black civil rights movement has fought vote rigging for decades. The rigging takes place in
a number of ways. Blacks simply can't get registered to vote. If they do get registered, there are
few polling places in their districts. And so on. After decades of struggle it is impossible that
there are any blacks who are not aware of how hard it can be for them to vote. Yet, I heard on the
presstitute radio network, NPR, Hillary's Uncle Toms saying how awful it was that Trump had cast
aspersion on the credibility of American election results.
I also heard a NPR announcer suggest that Russia had not only hacked Hillary's emails, but also
had altered them in order to make incriminating documents out of harmless emails.
The presstitutes have gone all out to demonize both Trump and any mention of election rigging,
because they know for a fact that the election will be stolen and that they will have the job of
covering up the theft.
Don't believe the polls that say Hillary won the Q&A sessions or the polls that say Hillary
is ahead in the election. Pollsters work for political organizations. If pollsters produce unwelcome
results, they don't have any customers. The desired results are that Hillary wins. The purpose of
the rigged polls showing her to be ahead is to discourage Trump supporters from voting.
Don't vote early. The purpose of early voting is to show the One Percent how the vote is shaping
up. From this information, the oligarchs learn how to program the electronic machines in order to
elect the candidate that they want.
"As president, I will make it clear that the United States will treat cyberattacks just
like any other attack," the Democratic presidential nominee said. "We will be ready with serious
political, economic and military responses. "
We need to tell everyone that for the sake of the word. do not vote for this
dangerous woman!
"... I would agree that Trump is horrible candidate. The candidate who (like Hillary) suggests complete degeneration of the US neoliberal elite. ..."
"... But the problem is that Hillary is even worse. Much worse and more dangerous because in addition to being a closet Republican she is also a warmonger. In foreign policy area she is John McCain in pantsuit. And if you believe that after one hour in White House she does not abandon all her election promises and start behaving like a far-right republican in foreign policy and a moderate republican in domestic policy, it's you who drunk too much Cool Aid. ..."
"... In other words, the USA [workers and middle class] now is in the political position that in chess is called Zugzwang: we face a choice between the compulsive liar, unrepentant, extremely dangerous and unstable warmonger with failing health vs. a bombastic, completely unprepared to governance of such a huge country crook. ..."
The key problems with Democratic Party and Hillary is that they lost working class and middle
class voters, becoming another party of highly paid professionals and Wall Street speculators
(let's say top 10%, not just 1%), the party of neoliberal elite.
It will be interesting to see if yet another attempt to "bait and switch" working class and
lower middle class works this time. I think it will not. Even upper middle class is very resentful
of Democrats and Hillary. So many votes will be not "for" but "against". This is the scenario
Democratic strategists fear the most, but they can do nothing about it.
She overplayed "identity politics" card. Her "identity politics" and her fake feminism are
completely insincere. She is completely numb to human suffering and interests of females and minorities.
Looks like she has a total lack of empathy for other people.
"What scares me is my knowledge of her career-long investment in trying to convince the
generals and the admirals that she is a 'tough bitch', ala Margaret Thatcher, who will not
hesitate to pull the trigger. An illuminating article in the NY Times (
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html ) revealed
that she always advocates the most muscular and reckless dispositions of U.S. military forces
whenever her opinion is solicited. "
Usually people are resentful about Party which betrayed them so many times. It would be interesting
to see how this will play this time.
Beverly Mann October 23, 2016 12:00 pm
It will be interesting to see if yet another attempt to "bait and switch" working class and
lower middle class works this time?
Yup. The Republicans definitely have the interests of the working class and lower middle class
at heart when they give, and propose, ever deeper tax cuts for the wealthy, the repeal of the
estate tax that by now applies only to estates of more than $5 million, complete deregulation
of the finance industry, industry capture of every federal regulatory agency and cabinet department
and commission or board, from the SEC, to the EPA, to the Interior Dept. (in order to hand over
to the oil, gas and timber industries vast parts of federal lands), the FDA, the FTC, the FCC,
the NLRB, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Justice Dept. (including the Antitrust
Division)-to name only some.
And OF COURSE it's to serve the interests of the working class and lower middle class that
they concertedly appoint Supreme Court justices and lower federal court judges that are unabashed
proxies of big business.
And then there's the incessant push to privatize Social Security and Medicare. It ain't the
Dems that are pushing that.
You're drinking wayyy too much Kool Aid, likbez. Or maybe just reading too much Ayn Rand, at
Paul Ryan's recommendation.
beene October 23, 2016 10:31 am
I would suggest despite most of the elite in both parties supporting Hillary, and saying
she has the election in the bag is premature. In my opinion the fact that Trump rallies still
has large attendance; where Hillary's rallies would have trouble filling up a large room is a
better indication that Trump will win.
Even democrats are not voting democratic this time to be ignored till election again.
likbez October 23, 2016 12:56 pm
Beverly,
=== quote ===
Yup. The Republicans definitely have the interests of the working class and lower middle class
at heart when they give, and propose, ever deeper tax cuts for the wealthy, the repeal of the
estate tax that by now applies only to estates of more than $5 million, complete deregulation
of the finance industry, industry capture of every federal regulatory agency and cabinet department
and commission or board, from the SEC, to the EPA, to the Interior Dept. (in order to hand
over to the oil, gas and timber industries vast parts of federal lands), the FDA, the FTC,
the FCC, the NLRB, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the Justice Dept. (including
the Antitrust Division) -- to name only some.
And OF COURSE it's to serve the interests of the working class and lower middle class that
they concertedly appoint Supreme Court justices and lower federal court judges that are unabashed
proxies of big business.
=== end of quote ===
This is all true. But Trump essentially running not as a Republican but as an independent on
(mostly) populist platform (with elements of nativism). That's why a large part of Republican
brass explicitly abandoned him. That does not exclude that he easily will be co-opted after the
election, if he wins.
And I would not be surprised one bit if Dick Cheney, Victoria Nuland, Paul Wolfowitz and Perle
vote for Hillary. Robert Kagan and papa Bush already declared such an intention. She is a neocon.
A wolf in sheep clothing, if we are talking about real anti-war democrats, not the USA brand of
DemoRats. She is crazy warmonger, no question about it, trying to compensate a complete lack of
diplomatic skills with jingoism and saber rattling.
The problem here might be that you implicitly idealize Hillary and demonize Trump.
I would agree that Trump is horrible candidate. The candidate who (like Hillary) suggests
complete degeneration of the US neoliberal elite.
But the problem is that Hillary is even worse. Much worse and more dangerous because in
addition to being a closet Republican she is also a warmonger. In foreign policy area she is John
McCain in pantsuit. And if you believe that after one hour in White House she does not abandon
all her election promises and start behaving like a far-right republican in foreign policy and
a moderate republican in domestic policy, it's you who drunk too much Cool Aid.
That's what classic neoliberal DemoRats "bait and switch" maneuver (previously executed
by Obama two times) means. And that's why working class now abandoned Democratic Party. Even unions
members of unions which endorses Clinton are expected to vote 3:1 against her. Serial betrayal
of interests of working class (and lower middle class) after 25 years gets on nerve. Not that
their choice is wise, but they made a choice. This is "What's the matter with Kansas" all over
again.
It reminds me the situation when Stalin was asked whether right revisionism of Marxism (social
democrats) or left (Trotskyites with their dream of World revolution) is better. He answered "both
are worse" :-).
In other words, the USA [workers and middle class] now is in the political position that
in chess is called Zugzwang: we face a choice between the compulsive liar, unrepentant, extremely
dangerous and unstable warmonger with failing health vs. a bombastic, completely unprepared to
governance of such a huge country crook.
Of course, we need also remember about existence of "deep state" which make each of
them mostly a figurehead, but still the power of "deep state" is not absolute and this is a very
sad situation.
Beverly Mann, October 23, 2016 1:57 pm
Good grace.
Two points: First, you apparently are unaware of Trump's proposed tax plan, written by Heritage
Foundation economists and political-think-tank types. It's literally more regressively extreme
evn than Paul Ryan's. It gives tax cuts to the wealthy that are exponentially more generous percentage-wise
than G.W. Bush's two tax cuts together were, it eliminates the estate tax, and it gives massive
tax cuts to corporations, including yuge ones.
Two billionaire Hamptons-based hedge funders, Robert Mercer and his daughter Rebekah, have
been funding a super PAC for Trump and since late spring have met with Trump and handed him policy
proposals and suggestions for administrative agency heads and judicial appointments. Other yuge
funders are members of the Ricketts family, including Thomas Ricketts, CEO of TD Ameritrade and
a son of its founder.
Two other billionaires funding Trump: Forrest Lucas, founder of Lucas Oil and reportedly Trump's
choice for Interior Secretary if you and the working class and lower middle class folks whose
interests Trump has at heart get their way.
And then there's Texas oil billionaire Harold Hamm, Trump's very first billionaire mega-donor.
One of my recurring pet peeves about Clinton and her campaign is her failure to tell the public
that these billionaires are contributing mega-bucks to help fund Trump's campaign, and to tell
the public who exactly they are. As well as her failure to make a concerted effort to educate
the public about the the specifics of Trump's fiscal and deregulatory agenda as he has published
it.
As for your belief that I idealize Clinton, you obviously are very new to Angry Bear. I was
a virulent Sanders supporter throughout the primaries, to the very end. In 2008 I originally supported
John Edwards during the primaries and then, when it became clear that it was a two-candidate race,
supported Obama. My reason? I really, really, REALLY did not want to see another triangulation
Democratic administration. That's largely what we got during Obama's first term, though, and I
was not happy about it.
Bottom line: I'm not the gullible one here. You are.
likbez, October 23, 2016 2:37 pm
You demonstrate complete inability to weight the gravity of two dismal, but unequal in their
gravity options.
All your arguments about Supreme Court justices, taxes, inheritance and other similar things
make sense if and only if the country continues to exist.
Which is not given due to the craziness and the level of degeneration of neoliberal elite and
specifically Hillary ("no fly zone in Syria" is one example of her craziness). Playing chickens
with a nuclear power for the sake of proving imperial dominance in Middle East is a crazy policy.
Neocons rule the roost in both parties, which essentially became a single War Party with two
wings. Trump looks like the only chance somewhat to limit their influence and reach some détente
with Russia.
Looks like you organically unable to understand that your choice in this particular case is
between the decimation of the last remnants of the New Deal and a real chance of WWIII.
This is not "pick your poison" situation. Those are two events of completely difference magnitude:
one is reversible (and please note that Trump is bound by very controversial obligations to his
electorate and faces hostile Congress), the other is not.
We all should do our best to prevent the unleashing WWIII even if that means temporary decimation
of the remnants of New Deal.
Neoliberalism after 2008 entered zombie state, so while it is still strong, aggressive and
bloodthirsty it might not last for long. And in such case the defeat of democratic forces on domestic
front is temporary.
"As president, I will make it clear that the United States will treat cyberattacks just
like any other attack," the Democratic presidential nominee said. "We will be ready with serious
political, economic and military responses. "
We need to tell everyone that for the sake of the word. do not vote for this
dangerous woman!
A vote for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump, the Clinton campaign has suggested in broad ways
and subtle ones, isn't just a vote for a Democrat over a Republican: It's a vote for safety over
risk, steady competence over boastful recklessness, psychological stability in the White House
over ungovernable passions.
This theme has been a winning one for Hillary, in her debates and in the wider campaign, and
for good reason. The perils of a Trump presidency are as distinctive as the candidate himself,
and a vote for Trump makes a long list of worst cases - the Western alliance system's unraveling,
a cycle of domestic radicalization, an accidental economic meltdown, a civilian-military crisis
- more likely than with any normal administration.
Indeed, Trump and his supporters almost admit as much. "We've tried sane, now let's try crazy,"
is basically his campaign's working motto. The promise to be a bull in a china shop is part of
his demagogue's appeal. Some of his more eloquent supporters have analogized a vote for Trump
to storming the cockpit of a hijacked plane, with the likelihood of a plane crash entirely factored
in.
But passing on the plane-crash candidate doesn't mean ignoring the dangers of his rival.
The dangers of a Hillary Clinton presidency are more familiar than Trump's authoritarian
unknowns, because we live with them in our politics already. They're the dangers of elite groupthink,
of Beltway power worship, of a cult of presidential action in the service of dubious ideals. They're
the dangers of a recklessness and radicalism that doesn't recognize itself as either, because
it's convinced that if an idea is mainstream and commonplace among the great and good then it
cannot possibly be folly.
Almost every crisis that has come upon the West in the last 15 years has its roots in this
establishmentarian type of folly. The Iraq War, which liberals prefer to remember as a conflict
conjured by a neoconservative cabal, was actually the work of a bipartisan interventionist consensus,
pushed hard by George W. Bush but embraced as well by a large slice of center-left opinion that
included Tony Blair and more than half of Senate Democrats.
Likewise the financial crisis: Whether you blame financial-services deregulation or happy-go-lucky
housing policy (or both), the policies that helped inflate and pop the bubble were embraced by
both wings of the political establishment. ...
(Crises happen. How are these two linked? The first came about because we were in the throes
of 9/11. The 2nd arguably because we were in the delayed throes of a dot.com bubble collapse.
And with a president who was out of his depth.)
likbez -> Fred C. Dobbs...
== quote ===
The dangers of a Hillary Clinton presidency are more familiar than Trump's authoritarian unknowns,
because we live with them in our politics already. They're the dangers of elite groupthink, of
Beltway power worship, of a cult of presidential action in the service of dubious ideals. They're
the dangers of a recklessness and radicalism that doesn't recognize itself as either, because
it's convinced that if an idea is mainstream and commonplace among the great and good then it
cannot possibly be folly.
=== end of quote ===
That looks like indirect attack on neocons which is atypical for NYT.
IMHO the main danger of Hillary presidency is the danger of WWIII due to her own jingoism and
recklessness as well as outsize neocons influence in her administration (she is the person who
promoted Cheney's associate Victoria Nuland, who got us into Ukrainian mess).
As such outweighs all possible dangers of Trump presidency by a wide margin.
Voting for Hillary is like voting for John McCain in a pantsuit in order to prevent decimation
of the remnants of the New Deal inherent in Trump administration.
Trump at least gives us some chance of détente with Russia.
Also he faces hostile Congress and "deep state", while Hillary is a creature of "deep state",
a marionette, if you wish, which will continue the current disastrous interventionist foreign
policy.
Of course Trump can be co-opted by "deep state" too. That's also a danger.
There is a nice cartoon, probably from Times, that I found at
"... The oligarchy has spent decades on a project to "defund the Left," and they've succeeded in ways we're only just now grasping. "Defunding the Left" doesn't mean denying funds to the rotten Democratic Party; it means defunding everything that threatens the 1%'s hold on wealth and power. ..."
Yves here. Mark Ames wrote this post for our fundraiser five years ago. We've turned into a fundraiser
staple, since as long as Larry Summers is with us, this is the sort of classic worth reading regularly.
Think of it as our analogue to Christmas perennials like The Grinch That Stole Christmas or It's
a Wonderful Life. But not to worry, Ames being Ames and NC being NC, this is the antithesis of sappy.
(Mark, you are on notice that if by some miraculous bit of good fortune, Summers retreats from the
public sphere, we'll need you to provide an updated slant on elite venality).
And in the spirit of Christmas come a couple months early, we hope you'll leave something nice
in our stocking, um, Tip Jar -- We are raising our donor target to 1350 (Lambert has yet to update our thermometer) to help us
reach our final financial target for original reporting.
If you've been reading Naked Capitalism for any period of time without giving back in donations-and
most of us have been hooked from the time we discovered Yves Smith's powerful, sharp voice and brilliant
mind-then you you've been getting away with murder. Naked Capitalism is that rare blog that makes
you smarter. Smarter about a lot of things, but primarily about Yves' area of expertise, finance.
By a quirk of historical bad luck, the American Left has gone two generations without understanding
finance, or even caring to understand. It was the hippies who decided half a century ago that finance
was beneath them, so they happily ceded the entire field-finance, business, economics, money-otherwise
known as "political power"-to the other side. Walking away from the finance struggle was like that
hitchhiker handing the gun back to the Manson Family. There's a great line from Charles Portis's
anti-hippie novel, "Dog of the South" that captures the Boomers' self-righteous disdain for "figures":
He would always say-boast, the way those people do-that he had no head for figures and couldn't
do things with his hands, slyly suggesting the presence of finer qualities.
That part about the hands-that would refer to the hippies' other great failure, turning their
backs on Labor, because Labor didn't groove with the Hippies' Culture War. So the Left finds itself,
fifty years later, dealing with the consequences of all those years of ruinous neglect of finance
and labor-the consequences being powerlessness and political impotence.
That's why Yves Smith is so important to anyone who cares about politics and the bad direction
this country is taking. In 2008, the Left suddenly discovered that although it could bray with the
best of 'em about how bad foreign wars are, and how wrong racism and sexism an homophobia are, it
was caught completely and shamefully by surprise by the financial collapse of 2008. The ignorance
was paralyzing, politically and intellectually. Even the lexicon was alien. Unless of course you
were one of the early followers of Yves Smith's blog.
It wasn't always this way.
Back in the 1930s, the Left was firmly grounded in economics, money and finance; back then, the
Left and Labor were practically one. With a foundation in finance and economics, the Left understood
labor and political power and ideology and organization much better than the Left today, which at
best can parry back the idiotic malice-flak that the Right specializes in spraying us with. We're
only just learning how politically stunted and ignorant we are, how much time and knowledge we've
lost, and how much catching up we have to do.
Which is why Yves Smith's Naked Capitalism is one of the 99%'s most valuable asset in the long
struggle ahead: She is both analyst and educator, with a rare literary talent (especially for finance).
One thing that's protected the financial oligarchy is the turgid horrible prose that they camouflage
their toxic ideas and concepts in. Yves is one of the rare few who can make reading finance as emotionally
charged as it needs to be.
Naked Capitalism is our online university in finance and politics and ideology. Whereas other
online universities are set up to turn millions of gullible youths into debt-shackled Wall Street
feeding cows, Naked Capitalism is the opposite: Completely free, consistently brilliant, vital, and
necessary, making us smarter, teaching us how we might one day overthrow the financial oligarchy.
One other difference between Naked Capitalism and online university swindles: (Stanley Kaplan cough-cough!)
Your donations won't end up paying Ezra Klein's salary.
Which brings me back to my whole "Shame on you!" point I was trying to make earlier. When it comes
to fundraising, nothing works like shaming. That's how those late-night commercials work: You're
sitting there in your nice comfortable home, and then suddenly there's this three-legged dog hobbling
into its cage, with big wet eyes, and then some bearded pedophile comes on and says, "Poor Rusty
has endured more abuse and pain than you can ever imagine, and tomorrow, he will be gassed to death
in a slow, horrible poison death chamber. And you-look at you, sitting there with your Chunky Monkey
and your central heating, what kind of sick bastard are you? Get your goddamn Visa Mastercard out
and send money to Rusty, or else his death is on your head. I hope you sleep well at night."
Now I know that this sort of appeal wouldn't work on the Naked Capitalism crowd-too many economists
here, and as everyone knows, you can't appeal to economists' hearts because, well, see under "Larry
Summers World Bank Memo"… I can imagine Larry watching that late night commercial with the three-legged
dog, powering a 2-liter bottle of Diet Coke and devouring a bag of Kettle Salt & Vinegar potato chips,
calculating the productive worth of the three-legged dog, unmoved by the sentimental appeal. Larry
grabs a dictaphone: "Item: How to end dog-gassings? Solution: Ship all three-legged stray dogs to
sub-Saharan Africa. Africans won't even notice. Dogs saved. Private capital freed up. Problem solved."
So some of you have no hearts, and some of us have no shame. But we all do understand how vital
Naked Capitalism has been in educating us. I'm sure that the other side knows how dangerous a site
like this is, because as we become more educated and more political, we become more and more of a
threat.
The oligarchy has spent decades on a project to "defund the Left," and they've succeeded in
ways we're only just now grasping. "Defunding the Left" doesn't mean denying funds to the rotten
Democratic Party; it means defunding everything that threatens the 1%'s hold on wealth and power.
One of their greatest successes, whether by design or not, has been the gutting of journalism,
shrinking it down to a manageable size where its integrity can be drowned in a bathtub. It's nearly
impossible to make a living as a journalist these days; and with the economics of the journalism
business still in free-fall like the Soviet refrigerator industry in the 1990s, media outlets are
even less inclined to challenge power, journalists are less inclined to rock the boat than ever,
and everyone is more inclined to corruption (see: Washington Post, Atlantic Monthly). A ProPublica
study in May put it in numbers: In 1980, the ratio of PR flaks to journalists was roughly 1:3. In
2008, there were 3 PR flaks for every 1 journalist. And that was before the 2008 shit hit the journalism
fan.
This is what an oligarchy looks like. I saw the exact same dynamic in Russia under Yeltsin: When
he took power in 1991, Russia had the most fearless and most ideologically diverse journalism culture
of any I've ever seen, a lo-fi, hi-octane version of American journalism in the 1970s. But as soon
as Yeltsin created a class of oligarchs to ensure his election victory in 1996, the oligarchs snapped
up all the free media outlets, and forced out anyone who challenged power, one by one. By the time
Putin came to power, all the great Russian journalists that I and Taibbi knew had abandoned the profession
for PR or political whoring. It was the oligarchy that killed Russian journalism; Putin merely mopped
up a few remaining pockets of resistance.
The only way to prevent that from happening to is to support the best of what we have left. Working
for free sucks. It can't hold, and it won't.
There are multiple ways to give. The first is here on the blog,
the Tip Jar , which takes you
to PayPal. There you can use a debit card, a credit card or a PayPal account (the charge will be
in the name of Aurora Advisors).
You can also send a check (or multiple post dated checks) in the name of Aurora Advisors Incorporated
to
Aurora Advisors Incorporated
903 Park Avenue, 8th Floor
New York, NY 10075
Please also send an e-mail to [email protected] with the headline "Check is in the mail"
(and just the $ en route in the message) to have your contribution included in the total number of
donations.
So donate now to Naked Capitalism
. If you can't afford much, give what you can. If you can afford more, give more. If you can
give a lot, give a lot. Whether you can contribute $5 or $5,000, it will pay for itself, I guarantee
you. This isn't just giving, it's a statement that you are want a different debate, a different society,
and a different culture.
Who knows, maybe we'll win; maybe we'll even figure out a way to seal Larry Summers in a kind
of space barge, and fire him off into deep space, to orbit Uranus for eternity. Yves? Could it be
financed?
And you-look at you, sitting there with your Chunky Monkey and your central heating, what
kind of sick bastard are you? Get your goddamn Visa Mastercard out and send money to Rusty,
or else his death is on your head. I hope you sleep well at night.
I'd already shelled out for the NC fundraiser, but this one got me to pull out the MasterCard
and finally get around to becoming a subscriber to Ames' fantastic Radio War Nerd podcast, which
I discovered thanks to the NC commentariat.
Interesting how people become the Other over time. Go back to the videos of crowds taunting
and attacking black kids being escorted by federal marshals into "white" schools, and you see
clean-shaven crew cuts and perms and wife-beater t-shirts and pegged pants and real boots. Go
look at the videos of redneck activity now, NASCAR and "mudding" (pickups with huge tires and
engines slogging through pits of slimy red Georgia mud" and gatherings of motorboats on Southern
lakes, and it's all beards and pony tails (on guys and gals? Says Jeff Foxworthy) and tie-died
clothing (along with the Confederate battle flags and gunz and all.
I got my BA in history from Lake Forest College, in a snotty sick-wealthy northern suburb of
Chicago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Forest_College
My years there, '69-72, after my volunteer "service" in the US Army and a year doing "Racket"
duty in Vietnam, were a "hippie" tour de force. All social concerns and "anti-war" (actually "escape
the draft" by young people who were largely those who could not get into the really prestigious
Ivy League facilities, despite great family wealth, or who had been booted from the same. Heavy
drug use, supine administration ("laissez faire"), endless debates over Marxism Leninism Trotskyism
etc. Ineffectual "peace marches," to do stuff like "blocking" an unused entrance to Ft. Sheridan,
just down the road - a few TV reporters to document the tomfoolery - "Stop The War Machine!" Motions
toward communes, DOA when the practicalities of sharing, comity, ran up against the selfish consumerism
of the privileged: ""I don't get my own room and stereo? I get to copulate with others, but you,
my steady, must remain my sole property!" It helped the transformation that the daughter of the
Dean did a Janis Joplin at the very end of my matriculation there - all of a sudden the local
police were invited in, to search student rooms and cars and engage in all the funsies of "drug
enforcement" with stings, etc.
Lake Forest very quickly morphed, once the draft ended, into a very much focused "business
school," to teach the young budding not-ready-for-MIT-or-Wharton capitalists the rudiments of
their craft. Graduating about 450 looting-ready young folks a year. ?(Not all of them, of course…)
Pretty amazing, not surprising.
Neither the rednecks nor the "hippies" were much interested in what the parasites were doing
to "FIRE" over those decades and generations. That's the thing about parasites: most of what they
do is invisible until the infection gets severe and vital organs are damaged, while the host goes
about generating the nutrition that feeds the critters until whooops! Time to shed some segments
into the water supply, lay some eggs, encyst, find another host…
Monitoring tweets to see who can get into our walled garden.
Recently, Zerocalcare, one of Italy's best young graphic novelists, whose
politics can be described as anarchist but jokey, Roman but semi-serious, was
denied a visa to attend Comicon in New York. The grounds are that his passport
showed recent travel in Syria and Iraq. Our minders didn't have to read tweets.
They only had to read his most recent book, Kobane Calling, in which he
illustrates a trip by a group of anarchistic Italians to Iraqi Kurdistan and
Rojava in Syria. His analysis of nationalism, religion, and ethnicity is quite
subtle. Plenty of highly amusing uses of Roman dialect, which is known for
"lewdness." Also, many bathroom jokes–but that's an Italian national
characteristic (don't call anyone a stronzo, ne).
Meanwhile, Zerocalcare was also nominated for a Strega Prize last year in
narrative for his graphic novel, Dimentica il Mio Nome, about his mother and
grandmother and their mysterious family. He is the first Italian graphic
novelist to be nominated for one of the major prizes.
Obvious an undesirable alien. Peter Thiel is so much more acceptable, as is
Henry Kissinger.
"... From Clinton to Clinton they have deeply infiltrated the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and the three letter agencies. The Fed is their stronghold. How in the world will Trump deal with these rabid "crazies in the basement"? ..."
"... When Putin came to power he inherited a Kremlin every bit as corrupt and traitor-infested as the White House nowadays. As for Russia, she was in pretty much the same sorry shape as the Independent Nazi-run Ukraine. Russia was also run by bankers and AngloZionist puppets and most Russians led miserable lives. ..."
Option two: Trump wins. Problem: he will be completely alone. The Neocons have total, repeat
total, control of the Congress, the media, banking and finance, and the courts. From Clinton
to Clinton they have deeply infiltrated the Pentagon, Foggy Bottom, and the three letter agencies.
The Fed is their stronghold. How in the world will Trump deal with these rabid "crazies in the
basement"?
When Putin came to power he inherited a Kremlin every bit as corrupt and traitor-infested
as the White House nowadays. As for Russia, she was in pretty much the same sorry shape as the
Independent Nazi-run Ukraine. Russia was also run by bankers and AngloZionist puppets and most
Russians led miserable lives.
"... Establishment panic is traceable to another fear: its [neoliberal] ideology, its political religion, is seen by growing millions as a golden calf, a 20th-century god that has failed. ..."
"... After having expunged Christianity from our public life and public square, our establishment installed "democracy" as the new deity, at whose altars we should all worship. And so our schools began to teach. ..."
"... Today, Clintons, Obamas, and Bushes send soldiers and secularist tutors to "establish democracy" among the "lesser breeds without the Law." ..."
"... By suggesting he might not accept the results of a "rigged election," Trump is committing an unpardonable sin. But this new cult, this devotion to a new holy trinity of diversity, democracy, and equality, is of recent vintage and has shallow roots. ..."
"... For none of the three-diversity, equality, democracy-is to be found in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers, or the Pledge of Allegiance. In the pledge, we are a republic. ..."
"... Among many in the silent majority, Clintonian democracy is not an improvement upon the old republic; it is the corruption of it. ..."
"... Consider: six months ago, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, the Clinton bundler, announced that by executive action he would convert 200,000 convicted felons into eligible voters by November. ..."
"... Yet, some of us recall another time, when Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote in "Points of Rebellion": "We must realize that today's Establishment is the new George III. Whether it will continue to adhere to his tactics, we do not know. If it does, the redress, honored in tradition, is also revolution." ..."
"... Baby-boomer radicals loved it, raising their fists in defiance of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew. But now that it is the populist-nationalist right that is moving beyond the niceties of liberal democracy to save the America that they love, elitist enthusiasm for "revolution" seems more constrained. ..."
What explains the hysteria of the establishment? In a word, fear. The establishment is horrified
at the Donald's defiance because, deep within its soul, it fears that the people for whom Trump speaks
no longer accept its political legitimacy or moral authority. It may rule and run the country, and
may rig the system through mass immigration and a mammoth welfare state so that Middle America is
never again able to elect one of its own. But that establishment, disconnected from the people it
rules, senses, rightly, that it is unloved and even detested.
Having fixed the future, the establishment
finds half of the country looking upon it with the same sullen contempt that our Founding Fathers
came to look upon the overlords Parliament sent to rule them.
Establishment panic is traceable to another fear: its [neoliberal] ideology, its political
religion, is seen by growing millions as a golden calf, a 20th-century god that has failed.
Trump is "talking down our democracy," said a shocked Clinton.
After having expunged Christianity from our public life and public square, our establishment
installed "democracy" as the new deity, at whose altars we should all worship. And so our schools
began to teach.
Half a millennia ago, missionaries and explorers set sail from Spain, England, and France to bring
Christianity to the New World.
Today, Clintons, Obamas, and Bushes send soldiers and secularist tutors to "establish democracy"
among the "lesser breeds without the Law."
Unfortunately, the natives, once democratized, return to their roots and vote for Hezbollah, Hamas,
and the Muslim Brotherhood, using democratic processes and procedures to reestablish their true God.
And Allah is no democrat.
By suggesting he might not accept the results of a "rigged election," Trump is committing
an unpardonable sin. But this new cult, this devotion to a new holy trinity of diversity, democracy,
and equality, is of recent vintage and has shallow roots.
For none of the three-diversity, equality, democracy-is to be found in the Constitution, the
Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers, or the Pledge of Allegiance. In the pledge, we are a republic.
When Ben Franklin, emerging from the Philadelphia convention, was asked by a woman what kind of
government they had created, he answered, "A republic, if you can keep it."
Among many in the silent majority, Clintonian democracy is not an improvement upon the old
republic; it is the corruption of it.
Consider: six months ago, Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, the Clinton bundler, announced that
by executive action he would convert 200,000 convicted felons into eligible voters by November.
If that is democracy, many will say, to hell with it. And if felons decide the electoral votes
of Virginia, and Virginia decides who is our next U.S. president, are we obligated to honor that
election?
In 1824, Gen. Andrew Jackson ran first in popular and electoral votes. But, short of a majority,
the matter went to the House. There, Speaker Henry Clay and John Quincy Adams delivered the presidency
to Adams-and Adams made Clay secretary of state, putting him on the path to the presidency that had
been taken by Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Adams himself. Were Jackson's people wrong to regard
as a "corrupt bargain" the deal that robbed the general of the presidency? The establishment also
recoiled in horror from Milwaukee Sheriff Dave Clarke's declaration that it is now "torches and pitchforks
time."
Yet, some of us recall another time, when Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote in
"Points of Rebellion": "We must realize that today's Establishment is the new George III. Whether
it will continue to adhere to his tactics, we do not know. If it does, the redress, honored in tradition,
is also revolution."
Baby-boomer radicals loved it, raising their fists in defiance of Richard Nixon and Spiro
Agnew. But now that it is the populist-nationalist right that is moving beyond the niceties of liberal
democracy to save the America that they love, elitist enthusiasm for "revolution" seems more constrained.
That's explains vicious campaign by neoliberal MSM against Trump and swiping under the carpet all
criminal deeds of Clinton family. They feel the threat...
Notable quotes:
"... It should be remembered that fascism does not succeed in the real world as a crusade by race-obsessed lumpen. It succeeds when fascists are co-opted by capitalists, as was unambiguously the case in Nazi Germany and Italy. And big business supported fascism because it feared the alternatives: socialism and communism. ..."
"... That's because there is no more effective counter to class consciousness than race consciousness. That's one reason why, in my opinion, socialism hasn't done a better job of catching on in the United States. The contradictions between black and white labor formed a ready-made wedge. ..."
It should be remembered that fascism does not succeed in the real world as a crusade by
race-obsessed lumpen. It succeeds when fascists are co-opted by capitalists, as was unambiguously
the case in Nazi Germany and Italy. And big business supported fascism because it feared the alternatives:
socialism and communism.
That's because there is no more effective counter to class consciousness than race consciousness.
That's one reason why, in my opinion, socialism hasn't done a better job of catching on in the
United States. The contradictions between black and white labor formed a ready-made wedge.
The North's abhorrence at the spread of slavery into the American West before the Civil War
had more to do a desire to preserve these new realms for "free" labor-"free" in one context, from
the competition of slave labor-than egalitarian principle.[…]
There is more to Clintonism, I think, than simply playing the "identity politics" card to
screw Bernie Sanders or discombobulate the Trump campaign. "Identity politics" is near the core
of the Clintonian agenda as a bulwark against any class/populist upheaval that might threaten
her brand of billionaire-friendly liberalism.
In other words it's all part of a grand plan when the Clintonoids aren't busy debating the finer
points of her marketing and "mark"–a term normally applied to the graphic logo on a commercial product.
"... Hillary Clinton's nomination and the euphoria in the press (one NPR female reporter said she has seen women weeping over the possibility of Hillary becoming president) eclipses any discussion about the real issues facing the country. ..."
"... Notice how the term "women's issues" is used by the media and certain politicians to suggest that there is only one acceptable position for females on any given topic. To the left, women's issues appear to mean abortion rights, same-sex marriage, higher taxes, bigger government and electing more women who favor such things. ..."
"... As the husband of a successful woman with a master's degree and accomplished daughters and granddaughters, that's how we feel about Hillary Clinton. We're all for a female president, just not this one. ..."
Have you heard that Hillary Clinton is the "first woman" ever to be nominated for president by a
major political party? Of course you have. The media have repeated the line so often it is broken
news.
Hillary Clinton's nomination and the euphoria in the press (one NPR female reporter said
she has seen women weeping over the possibility of Hillary becoming president) eclipses any discussion
about the real issues facing the country.
To quote Clinton in another context, "what difference does it make" that she is a woman? A liberal
is a liberal, regardless of gender, race or ethnicity.
Must we go through an entire list of "firsts" before we get to someone who can solve our collective
problems, instead of making them worse? Many of those cheering this supposed progress in American
culture, which follows the historic election of the "first African-American president," are insincere,
if not disingenuous. Otherwise, they would have applauded the advancement of African-Americans like
Gen. Colin Powell, Justice Clarence Thomas, former one-term Rep. Allen West (R-FL), Sen. Tim Scott
(R-SC) and conservative women like Sarah Palin, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), former presidential
candidate Carly Fiorina, Rep. Mia Love (R-UT) and many others.
Immigrants who entered the country legally and became citizens are virtually ignored by the media.
They champion instead illegal immigrants and the liberals who support them.
The reason for this disparity in attitude and coverage is that conservative blacks, women and
Hispanics hold positions anathema to the left. Conservative African-Americans have been called all
kinds of derogatory names in an effort to get them to convert to liberal orthodoxy, and they're ostracized
if they don't convert. If conservative, a female is likely to be labeled a traitor to her gender,
or worse.
Notice how the term "women's issues" is used by the media and certain politicians to suggest
that there is only one acceptable position for females on any given topic. To the left, women's issues
appear to mean abortion rights, same-sex marriage, higher taxes, bigger government and electing more
women who favor such things.
When it comes to accomplished conservative female leaders, one of the greatest and smartest of
our time was the late Jeane Kirkpatrick, Ronald Reagan's consequential U.S. ambassador to the United
Nations. As Jay Nordlinger wrote in his review of Peter Collier's book "Political Woman" for National
Review, "In a saner world, Jeane Kirkpatrick would have been lionized by feminists. She had risen
from the oil patch to the commanding heights of U.S. foreign policy. But her views were 'wrong.'"
Collier writes that Kirkpatrick, who was a Democrat most of her life, recalled feminist icon Gloria
Steinem once referring to her as "a female impersonator." Author Naomi Wolf called her "a woman without
a uterus" and claimed that she had been "unaffected by the experiences of the female body." Kirkpatrick
responded, "I have three kids, while she, when she made this comment had none."
The left gets away with these kinds of smears because they largely control the media and the message.
No Republican could escape shunning, or worse, if such language were employed against a female Democrat.
Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin, born in Philadelphia to Philippine citizens, has written
about some of the printable things she's been called -- "race traitor," "white man's puppet," "Tokyo
Rose," "Aunt Tomasina."
As the cliche goes, if liberals didn't have a double standard, they would have no standards at
all.
There's an old joke about a woman with five children who was asked if she had it to do over again
would she have five kids. "Yes," she replied, "just not these five."
As the husband of a successful woman with a master's degree and accomplished daughters and
granddaughters, that's how we feel about Hillary Clinton. We're all for a female president, just
not this one.
Those waking up to read the news this morning will undoubtedly be "shocked" by the latest ABC
/ Washington Post goal seeking report (aka "poll") that shows Hillary opening up a 12-point lead
with likely voters after the latest debate last Wednesday. Ironically, this latest polling farce
was "embargoed for release after 9 a.m." EST which will certainly make it a dominant topic of conversation
on all the morning talk shows.
"METHODOLOGY – This ABC News poll was conducted by landline and cellular telephone Oct. 20-22,
2016, in English and Spanish, among a random national sample of 874 likely voters. Results have
a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points, including the design effect. Partisan divisions are
36-27-31 percent, Democrats - Republicans - Independents."
As we've pointed out numerous times in the past, in response to Reuters' efforts to "tweak" their
polls, per the
The Pew Research Center , at least since 1992, democrats have never enjoyed a 9-point registration
gap despite the folks at ABC and The Washington Post somehow convincing themselves it was a reasonable
margin.
Of course, despite the glaring bias in the sample pool, Hillary's obedient lap dog, John Harwood,
was among the first to pump the results by tweeting out the following just two minutes after the
embargo was lifted:
new ABC national poll: Clinton 50%, Trump 38%, Johnson 5%, Stein 2%
This new poll comes just 9 days after a previous ABC / Washington Post poll which showed only
a 4-point national lead for Clinton. While ABC and WaPo claim the massive swing came as the result
of Trump's "treatment of women and his reluctance to endorse the election's legitimacy" during the
debate, it seems unlikely that anyone truly believes that Wednesday's debate caused an 8-point swing
in voter preference. Certainly not these people on CNN:
In any event, here is how ABC and WaPo have seen the polling data trend over time. Ironically,
they found absolutely no dip for Hillary after her 9/11 "medical episode", probably one of the biggest
events of the election season so far, but were able to convince themselves that Wednesday's debate
caused an 8 point swing.
Meanwhile, with huge variances in preference across demographics one can easily see how simple
it is to "rig" a poll by over indexing to one group vs. another. While the pollsters release the
the split of the sample pool by political affiliation, they do not share the split by any of the
following demographics which are just as important to determining the outcome of the poll.
Just one more example of how to rig a poll and dominate a Sunday morning news cycle.
The most recent Investors Business Daily poll, showing Trump up by 2% is another rigged poll
as they all are. The pollsters have been rigging their results by sampling many more Democrats
than Republicans. Most people don't have the slightest idea how to figure statistics. Let me evaluate
this for you.
They polled 767 people
282 Democrats
226 Republicans
259 independents
So, lets just make if fair. Let's assume the people voted their party. We'll increase the number
of Republicans to 282. What does that do to the outcome? 46.5% for Trump and 38.0% for Clinton,
which gives trump a lead of 8.5%
If you take the recent Arizona poll that had Clinton up by 5% and do the same...
This poll shows they polled 713 people,
413 Democrats
168 Republicans
132 Ind
So, let's increase the number of Republicans to 413 and see how it affects the result, with
the same assumption.
When the sampling is made fair, Trump gets 51% and Clinton gets 29%, a lead for Trump of 22%.
Isn't that more in line with what you would expect from Arizona, a decidedly red state?
The ABC poll that is the subject of this article, seems to be fraudulent right from the get
go. First of all add up the percentages of groups sampled.
36% Democrat
27% Republicans
31% Independent
A total of 94%. Where's the other 6%? Are they aliens, or maybe Bob Creamer hired voters? From
what we have seen with the other polls, I would assume the numbers were really
42% Democrats 367 samples
27% Republicans 236 samples
31% independent 271 samples
But of course, there's no way to know.With bad data, it is hard to begin to figure out what
they did. One can only assume that they didn't want anyone to be able to figure out how they rigged
it.
So, lets do the same adjustment and analysis on the corrected samples, above.
We end up with Trump at 44% and Clinton at 41%. This is much more likely than their bogus numbers.
In a lengthy speech on Saturday night in Manheim, Pennsylvania, Republican nominee for president
Donald J. Trump lambasted his opponent Democratic nominee Hillary Rodham Clinton for a secret tape
recording of her bashing supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont-and even called for Clinton
to be placed in prison and questioned as to whether she has been loyal to her husband former President
Bill Clinton.
Trump said in the speech on Saturday night:
A new audio tape that has surfaced just yesterday from another one of Hillary's high roller
fundraisers shows her demeaning and mocking Bernie Sanders and all of his supporters. You know,
and I'll tell you something we have a much bigger movement that Bernie Sanders ever had. We have
much bigger crowds than Sanders ever had. And we have a more important movement than Bernie Sanders
ever had because we're going to save our country, okay? We're going to save our country. But I
can tell you Bernie Sanders would have left a great, great legacy had he not made the deal with
the devil. He would have really left a great legacy. Now he shows up and 120 people come in to
hear him talk. Bernie Sanders would have left a great legacy had he not made the deal, had he
held his head high and walked away. Now he's on the other side perhaps from us and we want to
get along with everybody and we will-we're going to unite the country-but what Bernie Sanders
did to his supporters was very, very unfair. And they're really not his supporters any longer
and they're not going to support Hillary Clinton. I really believe a lot of those people are coming
over and largely because of trade, college education, lots of other things-but largely because
of trade, they're coming over to our side-you watch, you watch. Especially after Hillary mocks
him and mocks all of those people by attacking him and his supporters as 'living in their parents'
basements,' and trapped in dead-end careers. That's not what they are.
Also in his speech on Saturday night, Trump summed up exactly what came out in the latest Hillary
Clinton tapes in which she mocks Sanders supporters:
She describes many of them as ignorant, and [that] they want the United States to be more like
Scandinavia but that 'half the people don't know what that means' in a really sarcastic tone because
she's a sarcastic woman. To sum up, and I'll tell you the other thing-she's an incompetent woman.
She's an incompetent woman. I've seen it. Just take a look at what she touches. It never works
out, and you watch: her run for the presidency will never ever work out because we can't let it
work out. To sum up, Hillary Clinton thinks Bernie supporters are hopeless and ignorant basement
dwellers. Then, of course, she thinks people who vote for and follow us are deplorable and irredeemable.
I don't think so. I don't think so. We have the smartest people, we have the sharpest people,
we have the most amazing people, and you know in all of the years of this country they say, even
the pundits-most of them aren't worth the ground they're standing on, some of that ground could
be fairly wealthy but ground, but most of these people say they have never seen a phenomenon like
is going on. We have crowds like this wherever we go.
WATCH THE FULL SPEECH:
Later in the speech, Trump came back to the tape again and hammered her once more for it.
"Hillary Clinton all but said that most of the country is racist, including the men and women
of law enforcement," Trump said. "She said that the other night. Did anybody like Lester Holt? Did
anybody question her when she said that? No, she said it the other night. [If] you're not a die hard
Clinton fan-you're not a supporter-from Day One, Hillary Clinton thinks you are a defective person.
That's what she's going around saying."
In the speech, Trump questioned whether Clinton has the moral authority to lead when she considers
the majority of Americans-Trump supporters and Sanders supporters-to be "defective" people. And he
went so far as saying that Clinton "should be in prison." He went on:
How on earth can Hillary Clinton try to lead this country when she has nothing but contempt
for the people who live in this country? She's got contempt. First of all, she's got so many scandals
and she's been caught cheating so much. One of the worst things I've ever witnessed as a citizen
of the United States was last week when the FBI director was trying so hard to explain how she
away with what she got away with, because she should be in prison. Let me tell you. She should
be in prison. She's being totally protected by the New York Times and the Washington Post and
all of the media and CNN-Clinton News Network-which nobody is watching anyway so what difference
does it make? Don't even watch it. But she's being protected by many of these groups. It's not
like do you think she's guilty? They've actually admitted she's guilty. And then she lies and
lies, 33,000 emails deleted, bleached, acid-washed! And then they take their phones and they hammer
the hell out of them. How many people have acid washed or bleached a Tweet? How many?
He returned to the secret Clinton tape a little while later:
Hillary Clinton slanders and attacks anyone who wants to put America First, whether they
are Trump Voters or Bernie Voters. What she said about Bernie voters amazing. Like the European
Union, she wants to erase our borders and she wants to do it for her donors and she wants people
to pour into country without knowing who they are.
Trump later bashed the media as "dishonest as hell" when calling on the reporters at his event
to "turn your cameras" to show the crowd that came to see him.
"If they showed the kind of crowds we have-which people can hear, you know it's interesting: you
can hear the crowd when you hear the television but if they showed the crowd it would be better television,
but they don't know much about that. But it would actually be better television," Trump said.
Trump also questioned whether Hillary Clinton has been loyal to her husband, former President
Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton has been known to cheat on Hillary Clinton with a variety of mistresses
and has been accused of rape and sexual assault by some women.
"Hillary Clinton's only loyalty is to her financial contributors and to herself," Trump
said. "I don't even think she's loyal to Bill, if you want to know the truth. And really, folks,
really: Why should she be, right? Why should she be?"
Throughout the speech, Trump weaved together references to his new campaign theme about Clinton-"Follow
The Money"-with details about the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal. He said:
We're going to take on the corrupt media, the powerful lobbyists and the special interests
that have stolen your jobs, your factories, and your future-that's exactly what's happened. We're
going to stop Hillary Clinton from continuing to raid the industry from your state for her profit.
Hillary Clinton has collected millions of dollars from the same global corporations shipping
your jobs and your dreams to other countries. You know it and everybody else knows it. That's
why Clinton, if she ever got the chance, would 100 percent approve Trans Pacific Partnership-a
total disastrous trade deal. She called the deal the 'gold standard.' The TPP will bring economic
devastation to Pennsylvania and our campaign is the only chance to stop that and other bad things
that are happening to our country. She lied about the Gold Standard the other night at the debate.
She said she didn't say it-she said it. We want to stop the Trans Pacific Partnership and if we
don't-remember this, if we don't stop it, billions and billions [of dollars] in jobs and wealth
will be vacuumed right out of Pennsylvania and sent to these other countries. Just like NAFTA
was a disaster, this will be a disaster. Frankly I don't think it'll be as bad as NAFTA. It can't
get any worse than that-signed by Bill Clinton. All of us here in this massive room here tonight
can prevent this from happening. Together we can stop TPP and we can end the theft of American
jobs and prosperity.
Trump praised Sanders for being strongly opposed to the TPP:
I knew one man-I'm not a big fan-but one man who knew the dangers of the TPP was Bernie
Sanders. Crazy Bernie. He was right about one thing, only one thing, and that was trade. He was
right about it because he knew we were getting ripped off, but he wouldn't be able to do anything
about it . We're going to do a lot about it. We're going to have those highways running the
opposite direction. We're going to have a lot of trade, but it's going to come into our country.
We are going to start benefitting our country because right now it's one way road to trouble.
Our jobs leave us, our money leaves us. With Mexico, we get the drugs-they get the cash-it's that
simple.
Hillary Clinton, Trump noted, is "controlled by global special interests."
"She's on the opposite side of Bernie on the trade issue," Trump said. "She's totally on the opposite
side of Bernie."
He circled back to trade a bit later in the more-than-hour-long speech, hammering TPP and Clinton
cash connections. Trump continued:
Three TPP member countries gave between $6 and $15 million to Clinton. At least four lobbyists
who are actively lobbying for TPP passage have raised more than $800,000 for her campaign. I'm
just telling you Pennsylvania, we're going to make it. We're going to make it. We're going to
make it if we have Pennsylvania for sure. It'll be easy. But you cannot let this pass. NAFTA passed.
It's been the worst trade deal probably ever passed, not in this country but anywhere in the world.
It cleaned out New England. It cleaned out big portions of Pennsylvania. It cleaned out big portions
of Ohio and North Carolina and South Carolina-you can't let it happen.
Trump even called the politicians like Clinton "bloodsuckers" who have let America be drained
out of millions upon millions of jobs.
"These bloodsuckers want it to happen," Trump said. "They're politicians that are getting taken
care of by people that want it to happen. Other countries want it to happen because it's good for
them, but it's not good for us. So hopefully you're not going to let it happen. Whatever Hillary's
donors want, they get. They own her. On Nov. 8, we're going to end Clinton corruption. Hillary Clinton,
dishonest person, is an insider fighting for herself and for her friends. I'm an outsider fighting
for you. And by the way, just in case you're not aware, I used to be an insider but I thought this
was the right thing to do. This is the right thing to do, believe me."
Their "Russian" they quote, works at, get this, the neocon *Cato Institute* in Wash DC (you would
be correct in assuming they don't mention that) try SourceWatch to get some info on them
The icing on the cake is they refer to the "Balkan Sea" throughout the article, and still haven't
corrected it, they just don't give a hoot anymore about the plebs they make up the dross for :D
Someone want to grab a copy of the page before they trash it?
Succinct exposure of continuing American psycho militaristic aggression in ME:
"The United States no longer enters wars as we did in earlier eras. Our president does not announce
that we have taken up a new cause in a distant land. Congress does not declare war, which is its
constitutional responsibility. Instead, a few buttons are pressed and, with only a brief and quickly
forgotten spurt of news stories that obscure more than they reveal, we are at war."
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/10/19/plunges-into-war-with-yemen/STkGyrSwoHiCvIeP2gm6CM/story.html
That's a good piece; reasonable, and well-substantiated. I think a lot of Americans today do
not realize what a deliberate and considered process becoming involved in war is supposed to
be. He's absolutely correct that the doctrine has evolved from 'advise and consent' to 'it's
easier to obtain forgiveness than permission'.
"... Boris said this in response to the Russian and Syrian government air attacks upon Aleppo, which were certainly brutal. Then, about a week later, the West began, with clinical precision, to identify people in the last Iraqi Isis stronghold of Mosul with really radical beards and bomb them to smithereens, mercifully and humanitarianly sparing the local, decent, democratically minded citizens, who of course escaped the bombardment without so much as a graze. ..."
"... In Ukraine, Russia was the designated fall-guy for having NATO snuggled right up against its cheek, an overtly hostile military alliance which has advertised itself as Russia's enemy. ..."
"... In Crimea, similarly, Russia was looking at the probability of a NATO naval base right next door. The reasons for Russia's intervention in Syria are more complicated and were both geostrategic and economic, but had nothing whatever to do with belligerence. The USA was never invited into Syria, yet had been bombing in Syria – ostensibly against ISIS, but making no secret of Washington's desire that Assad be overthrown – for nearly two years before Russia stepped in, and few suggested the USA was being belligerent. ..."
"... The problem, then, is not that they are spreading misinformation, but that Russia Today is spreading truthful information which the UK government finds extremely unhelpful. Is it non-biased and non-partisan, does it always give balance and right of reply? No, no and thrice no. Does the BBC? ..."
"Andrew Mitchell was not alone in rattling the rusty sabre by suggesting we shoot down Russian
jets over Syria. We also had Boris Johnson, our Foreign Secretary, demanding - in the manner of
a clownish ayatollah - that people should protest outside the Russian embassy.
Boris said this in response to the Russian and Syrian government air attacks upon Aleppo,
which were certainly brutal. Then, about a week later, the West began, with clinical precision,
to identify people in the last Iraqi Isis stronghold of Mosul with really radical beards and bomb
them to smithereens, mercifully and humanitarianly sparing the local, decent, democratically minded
citizens, who of course escaped the bombardment without so much as a graze."
Still full of shite, of course – Britain cannot seem to write anything which is not, and it's
only a matter of degree. Putin is neither overtly homophobic (I have no idea what his personal
beliefs are, which is as it should be, you should not be able to tell) nor belligerent. In
Ukraine, Russia was the designated fall-guy for having NATO snuggled right up against its cheek,
an overtly hostile military alliance which has advertised itself as Russia's enemy.
This was meant to be brought about by means of a political coup, because NATO did not want
to risk putting it to a vote, although it deliberately exaggerated the broadness of Ukrainian
enthusiasm for a European future.
In Crimea, similarly, Russia was looking at the probability of a NATO naval base right
next door. The reasons for Russia's intervention in Syria are more complicated and were both geostrategic
and economic, but had nothing whatever to do with belligerence. The USA was never invited into
Syria, yet had been bombing in Syria – ostensibly against ISIS, but making no secret of Washington's
desire that Assad be overthrown – for nearly two years before Russia stepped in, and few suggested
the USA was being belligerent.
The problem, then, is not that they are spreading misinformation, but that Russia Today
is spreading truthful information which the UK government finds extremely unhelpful. Is it
non-biased and non-partisan, does it always give balance and right of reply? No, no and thrice
no. Does the BBC?
The only way Hillary could be stopped would be if the Republican Party elite stood with Trump,
so Soros and the other donor who owns voting machines could be blocked from flipping/fractionalizing
votes. But that isn't happening. Soros machines are in key swing states like Colorado and Pennsylvania,
and we already have data from the primary that a good 15% (at least) can be flipped, compared to
exit polls/hand counts/paper trail or non-donor machines.
I guess it's still possible, like what happened in the Michigan Democratic primary, that the real
numbers are more like a 10% lead for Trump and they come out in force in unexpected locations, and
Clinton's small, unenthusiastic base stays home, thus making it too difficult to successfully flip.
But I'm trying not to count on something like that, because it seems too close optomism bias driven
"poll unskewing" – I mean, the polls clearly ARE skewed in favor of Hillary, but I doubt they're
off by 15%.
Stein could never take over the Democratic Party. It isn't even clear to me that the Greens could
replace the Democrats, although I do think their massive increase in ballot access this year is a
credit to the party and to Stein. That shows real organizing and management effectiveness.
I started this campaign season advocating for purging Clintonians out of the now hollow Democratic
Party and taking it over. That still seems like the most efficient path to an actual left national
party, in part because our current system is so corrupted and calcified. But I'm not sure it's possible.
At this point, I can imagine a cataclysmic revolution happening during Clinton's term more easily
than a reformed, citizen friendly Democratic Party.
""Obama, Holder to lead post-Trump redistricting campaign" [Politico]. "The new group, called
the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, was developed in close consultation with the
White House. President Barack Obama himself has now identified the group - which will coordinate
campaign strategy, direct fundraising, organize ballot initiatives and put together legal challenges
to state redistricting maps "
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be
included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by
adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years,
and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.2 The actual Enumeration shall
be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within
every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of
Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least
one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall
be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one,
Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six,
Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
That the parties are even allowed anywhere near district-drawing processes is a sign that the
system is a sham designed to preserve them against us. How much more evidence do people need to
be hit over the head with that they're complicit in enforcing frauds and that's not okay?
Obama and Holder, fresh off their various triumphs - closing Gitmo, prosecuting the Bush-era
torturers, and sending top-level banksters to jail - just the team to sort this out. Not.
Notice that Netanyahu is suddenly "mending fences" with Russia. Could
someone have whispered in his ear; "Low yield nuke over Tel Aviv?" It
needn't be Russia directly. Say Hizbullah is 'gifted' a Pakistani warhead
through some devious back channels. America is running a proxy war in Syria.
Nothing says that Russia, or China cannot do something similar.
I see no discussion of spillover effects to Libya's neighbors. Think of the
spillover effects attendant to major chaos in Syria!
Israel doesn't have to worry about a stand up fight with the Syrian
Army. No, they have to worry about small unit and irregular warfare,
inside Israel. That's the kind of spillover a hotted up Syrian "Civil
War" would produce. Say, the Syrians and Russians establish their own
"No Fly Zone" over southern Syria, and enforce it against all comers,
including the Israeli Air Force. Then supply convoys to Hizbullah in
Lebanon would really ramp up. Voila! The Lebanon Israel border heats
up by orders of magnitude.
I am convinced that H Clinton does not understand the forces she wants
to juggle with.
Where in America would you resettle the millions of refuges from the
destruction of Israel?
I respect Juan Cole as a scholar, but his political commentary got so muddled in apologizing for
the Libyan disaster. I wrote him several times about problems in the Sahel, particularly among Tuareg,
resulting from the Libyan invasion, but he wriggled out of it, going to Libya and talking about how
great it was there and otherwise excusing the massacre.
Why suggest a no fly zone in Syria that can't be implemented. It is baffling.
Is it really that baffling? Read her emails. The No Fly Zone was the strategy used to destroy Gaddafi.
It's HRC's telegraph for invasion.
Cole misses that when Wallace asked her if she'd shoot down a Russian plan that violated the no-fly
zone, she dodged.
"... I find the spectacle of liberals heroically mounting the barricades against Trump-fascism rather amusing. ..."
"... Second thing is, Trump isn't fascist. In my opinion, Trump's an old-fashioned white American nativist, ..."
"... Tagging him as "fascist" allows his critics to put an alien, non-American gloss on a set of attitudes and policies that have been mainstreamed in American politics for at least 150 years and predate the formulation of fascism by several decades if not a century. Those nasty vetting/exclusion things he's proposing are as American as apple pie. For those interested in boning up on the Know Nothings and the Chinese Exclusion Act, I have this piece for you . ..."
"... Real fascism, in theory, is a rather interesting and nasty beast. In my opinion, it turns bolshevism on its head by using race or ethnic identity instead of class identity as the supreme, mobilizing force in national life. ..."
"... In both fascism and bolshevism, democratic outcomes lack inherent legitimacy. National legitimacy resides in the party, which embodies the essence of a threatened race or class in a way that Hegel might appreciate but Marx probably wouldn't. Subversion of democracy and seizure of state power are not only permissible; they are imperatives. ..."
"... The purest fascism movement I know of exists in Ukraine. I wrote about it here , and it's a piece I think is well worth reading to understand what a political movement organized on fascist principles really looks like. And Trump ain't no fascist. He's a nativist running a rather incompetent campaign. ..."
"... The most interesting application of the "fascist" analysis, rather surprisingly, applies to the Clinton campaign, not the Trump campaign, when considering the cultivation of a nexus between big business and *ahem* racially inflected politics. ..."
"... White labor originally had legal recourse to beating back the challenge/threat of African-American labor instead of accommodating it as a "class" ally; it subsequently relied on institutional and customary advantages. ..."
"... The most reliable wedge against working class solidarity and a socialist narrative in American politics used to be white privilege which, when it was reliably backed by US business and political muscle, was a doctrine of de facto white supremacy. ..."
"... The perception of marginalized white clout is reinforced by the nomination of Hillary Clinton and her campaign emphasis on the empowerment of previously marginalized but now demographically more important groups. ..."
"... The Clinton campaign has been all about race and its doppelganger -actually, the overarching and more ear-friendly term that encompasses racial, ethnic, gender, and sexual loyalties-"identity politics." ..."
"... The most calculated and systematic employment of racial politics was employed by the Hillary Clinton campaign in the Democratic primary to undercut the socialist-lite populist appeal of Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... My personal disdain for the Clinton campaign was born on the day that John Lewis intoned "I never saw him" in order to dismiss the civil rights credentials of Bernie Sanders ..."
"... In the primary, this translated into an attack on Sanders and the apparently mythical "Bernie bro" as racist swine threatening the legacy of the first black president, venerated by the African American electorate, Barack Obama. In the general, well, Donald Trump and his supporters provided acres more genuine grist for the identity warrior mill. ..."
"... Trump's ambitions to gain traction for a favorable American/populist/outsider narrative for his campaign have been frustrated by determined efforts to frame him as anti-Semitic, racist against blacks and Hispanics, sexist, and bigoted against the disabled-and ready to hold the door while Pepe the Frog feeds his opponents, including a large contingent of conservative and liberal Jewish journalists subjected to unimaginable invective by the Alt-Right– into the ovens. ..."
"... That campaign pretty much went by the wayside (as did Black Lives Matter, a racial justice initiative partially funded by core Clinton backer George Soros; interesting, no?) as a) black nationalists started shooting policemen and b) Clinton kicked off a charm campaign to help wedge the black-wary GOP establishment away from Trump. ..."
"... "Identity politics" is near the core of the Clintonian agenda as a bulwark against any class/populist upheaval that might threaten her brand of billionaire-friendly liberalism. ..."
"... Clinton's enduring and grotesque loyalty to her family's charitable foundation, an operation that in my opinion has no place on the resume of a public servant, as a font of prestige, conduit for influence, and model for billionaire-backed global engagement. ..."
"... By placing the focus of the campaign on identity politics and Trump's actual and putative crimes against various identity groups, the Clinton campaign has successfully obscured what I consider to be its fundamental identity as a vehicle for neoliberal globalists keen to preserve and employ the United States as a welcoming environment and supreme vehicle for supra-sovereign business interests. ..."
"... Clintonism's core identity is not, in other words, as a crusade for groups suffering from the legacy and future threat of oppression by Trump's white male followers. It is a full-court press to keep the wheels on the neoliberal sh*twagon as it careens down the road of globalization, and it recognizes the importance in American democracy of slicing and dicing the electorate by identity politics and co-opting useful demographics as the key to maintaining power. ..."
"... Trump has cornered the somewhat less entitled and increasingly threatened white ethnic group, some of whom are poised to make the jump to white nationalism with or without him. ..."
"... Clinton has cornered the increasingly entitled and assertive global billionaire group, which adores the class-busting anti-socialist identity-based politics she practices. ..."
I find the spectacle of liberals heroically mounting the barricades against Trump-fascism
rather amusing.
For one thing, liberals don't crush fascism. Liberals appease fascism, then they exploit fascism.
In between there's a great big war, where communists crush fascism. That's pretty much the lesson
of WWII.
Second thing is, Trump isn't fascist. In my opinion, Trump's an old-fashioned white American
nativist, which is pretty much indistinguishable from old-fashioned racist when considering
the subjugation of native Americans and African-Americans and Asian immigrants, but requires that
touch of "nativist" nuance when considering indigenous bigotry against Irish, Italian, and Jewish
immigrants and citizens.
Tagging him as "fascist" allows his critics to put an alien, non-American gloss on a set of
attitudes and policies that have been mainstreamed in American politics for at least 150 years and
predate the formulation of fascism by several decades if not a century. Those nasty vetting/exclusion
things he's proposing are as American as apple pie. For those interested in boning up on the Know
Nothings and the Chinese Exclusion Act,
I have this piece for you .
And for anybody who doesn't believe the US government does not already engage in intensive "extreme"
vetting and targeting of all Muslims immigrants, especially those from targeted countries, not only
to identify potential security risks but to groom potential intelligence assets, I got the Brooklyn
Bridge to sell you right here:
Real fascism, in theory, is a rather interesting and nasty beast. In my opinion, it turns
bolshevism on its head by using race or ethnic identity instead of class identity as the supreme,
mobilizing force in national life.
In both fascism and bolshevism, democratic outcomes lack inherent legitimacy. National legitimacy
resides in the party, which embodies the essence of a threatened race or class in a way that Hegel
might appreciate but Marx probably wouldn't. Subversion of democracy and seizure of state power are
not only permissible; they are imperatives.
The need to seize state power and hold it while a fascist or Bolshevik agenda is implemented dictates
the need for a military force loyal to and subservient to the party and its leadership, not the state.
The purest fascism movement I know of exists in Ukraine.
I wrote about it here , and it's a piece I think is well worth reading to understand what a political
movement organized on fascist principles really looks like. And Trump ain't no fascist. He's a nativist
running a rather incompetent campaign.
It's a little premature to throw dirt on the grave of the Trump candidacy, perhaps (I'll check
back in on November 9), but it looks like he spent too much time glorying in the adulation of his
white male nativist base and too little time, effort, and money trying to deliver a plausible message
that would allow other demographics to shrug off the "deplorable" tag and vote for him. I don't blame/credit
the media too much for burying Trump, a prejudice of mine perhaps. I blame Trump's inability to construct
an effective phalanx of pro-Trump messengers, a failure that's probably rooted in the fact that Trump
spent the primary and general campaign at war with the GOP establishment.
The only capital crime in politics is disunity, and the GOP and Trump are guilty on multiple counts.
The most interesting application of the "fascist" analysis, rather surprisingly, applies to
the Clinton campaign, not the Trump campaign, when considering the cultivation of a nexus between
big business and *ahem* racially inflected politics.
It should be remembered that fascism does not succeed in the real world as a crusade by race-obsessed
lumpen . It succeeds when fascists are co-opted by capitalists, as was unambiguously the case
in Nazi Germany and Italy. And big business supported fascism because it feared the alternatives:
socialism and communism.
That's because there is no more effective counter to class consciousness than race consciousness.
That's one reason why, in my opinion, socialism hasn't done a better job of catching on in the
United States. The contradictions between black and white labor formed a ready-made wedge. The North's
abhorrence at the spread of slavery into the American West before the Civil War had more to do a
desire to preserve these new realms for "free" labor-"free" in one context, from the competition
of slave labor-than egalitarian principle.
White labor originally had legal recourse to beating back the challenge/threat of African-American
labor instead of accommodating it as a "class" ally; it subsequently relied on institutional and
customary advantages.
If anyone harbors illusions concerning the kumbaya solidarity between white and black labor
in the post-World War II era, I think the article The Problem of Race in American Labor History
by Herbert Hill ( a freebie on
JSTOR ) is a good place to start.
The most reliable wedge against working class solidarity and a socialist narrative in American
politics used to be white privilege which, when it was reliably backed by US business and political
muscle, was a doctrine of de facto white supremacy.
However, in this campaign, the race wedge has cut the other way in a most interesting fashion.
White conservatives are appalled, and minority liberals energized, by the fact that the white guy,
despite winning the majority white male vote, lost to a black guy not once but twice, giving a White
Twilight/Black Dawn (TM) vibe to the national debate.
The perception of marginalized white clout is reinforced by the nomination of Hillary Clinton
and her campaign emphasis on the empowerment of previously marginalized but now demographically more
important groups.
The Clinton campaign has been all about race and its doppelganger -actually, the overarching
and more ear-friendly term that encompasses racial, ethnic, gender, and sexual loyalties-"identity
politics."
The most calculated and systematic employment of racial politics was employed by the Hillary
Clinton campaign in the Democratic primary to undercut the socialist-lite populist appeal of Bernie
Sanders.
My personal disdain for the Clinton campaign was born on the day that John Lewis intoned "I
never saw him" in order to dismiss the civil rights credentials of Bernie Sanders while announcing
the Black Congressional Caucus endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Bear in mind that during the 1960s,
Sanders had
affiliated his student group at the University of Chicago with Lewis' SNCC, the Student Nonviolent
Coordinating Committee; during the same era, Hillary Clinton was at Wellesley
condemning
"the snicks" for their excessively confrontational tactics.
Ah, politics.
To understand the significance of this event, one should read Fracture by the guru of woke
Clintonism, Joy Reid. Or read
my piece on the subject . Or simply understand that after Hillary Clinton lost Lewis's endorsement,
the black vote, and the southern Democratic primaries to Barack Obama in 2008, and she was determined
above all to secure and exploit monolithic black support in the primaries and, later on, the general
in 2016.
So, in order to prevent Sanders from splitting the black vote to her disadvantage on ideological/class
lines, Clinton played the race card. Or, as we put it today when discussing the championing of historically
disadvantaged a.k.a. non white male heterosexual groups, celebrated "identity politics".
In the primary, this translated into an attack on Sanders and the apparently mythical "Bernie
bro" as racist swine threatening the legacy of the first black president, venerated by the African
American electorate, Barack Obama. In the general, well, Donald Trump and his supporters provided
acres more genuine grist for the identity warrior mill.
Trump's populism draws its heat from American nativism, not "soak the rich" populism of the Sandernista
stripe, and it was easily submerged in the "identity politics" narrative.
Trump's ambitions to gain traction for a favorable American/populist/outsider narrative for
his campaign have been frustrated by determined efforts to frame him as anti-Semitic, racist against
blacks and Hispanics, sexist, and bigoted against the disabled-and ready to hold the door while Pepe
the Frog feeds his opponents, including a large contingent of conservative and liberal Jewish journalists
subjected to unimaginable invective by the Alt-Right– into the ovens.
As an indication of the fungible & opportunistic character of the "identity politics" approach,
as far as I can tell from a recent visit to a swing state, as the Clinton campaign pivoted to the
general, the theme of Trump's anti-black racism has been retired in favor of pushing his offenses
against women and the disabled. Perhaps this reflects the fact that Clinton has a well-advertised
lock on the African-American vote and doesn't need to cater to it; also, racism being what it is,
playing the black card is not the best way to lure Republicans and indies to the Clinton camp.
The high water mark of the Clinton African-American tilt was perhaps the abortive campaign to
turn gun control into a referendum on the domination of Congress by white male conservatives. It
happened a few months ago, so who remembers? But John Lewis led a sit-in occupation of the Senate
floor in the wake of the Orlando shootings to highlight how America's future was being held hostage
to the whims of Trump-inclined white pols.
That campaign pretty much went by the wayside (as did Black Lives Matter, a racial justice
initiative partially funded by core Clinton backer George Soros; interesting, no?) as a) black nationalists
started shooting policemen and b) Clinton kicked off a charm campaign to help wedge the black-wary
GOP establishment away from Trump.
There is more to Clintonism, I think, than simply playing the "identity politics" card to screw
Bernie Sanders or discombobulate the Trump campaign. "Identity politics" is near the core of
the Clintonian agenda as a bulwark against any class/populist upheaval that might threaten her brand
of billionaire-friendly liberalism.
In my view, a key tell is Clinton's enduring and grotesque loyalty to her family's charitable
foundation, an operation that in my opinion has no place on the resume of a public servant, as a
font of prestige, conduit for influence, and model for billionaire-backed global engagement.
By placing the focus of the campaign on identity politics and Trump's actual and putative
crimes against various identity groups, the Clinton campaign has successfully obscured what I consider
to be its fundamental identity as a vehicle for neoliberal globalists keen to preserve and employ
the United States as a welcoming environment and supreme vehicle for supra-sovereign business interests.
Clintonism's core identity is not, in other words, as a crusade for groups suffering from
the legacy and future threat of oppression by Trump's white male followers. It is a full-court press
to keep the wheels on the neoliberal sh*twagon as it careens down the road of globalization, and
it recognizes the importance in American democracy of slicing and dicing the electorate by identity
politics and co-opting useful demographics as the key to maintaining power.
In my view, the Trump and Clinton campaigns are both protofascist.
Trump has cornered the somewhat less entitled and increasingly threatened white ethnic group,
some of whom are poised to make the jump to white nationalism with or without him.
Clinton has cornered the increasingly entitled and assertive global billionaire group, which
adores the class-busting anti-socialist identity-based politics she practices.
But the bottom line is race. U.S. racism has stacked up 400 years of tinder that might take a
few hundred more years, if ever, to burn off. And until it does, every politician in the country
is going to see his or her political future in flicking matches at it. And that's what we're seeing
in the current campaign. A lot. Not fascism.
(Reprinted from
China Matters by permission of author or representative)
There was another part of the Post
article I cited in my
last post that I wanted to address:
"The dynamic is totally different from what I saw a decade ago" when Democratic and Republican
elites were feuding over the invasion of Iraq, said Brian Katulis, a senior Middle East analyst
at the Center for American Progress. Today, the focus among the foreign policy elite is on rebuilding
a more muscular and more "centrist internationalism," he said [bold mine-DL].
Every term used in that last sentence is either misleading or flat-out wrong. A more aggressive
policy in Syria or anywhere else
shouldn't be described as "muscular" for a few reasons. For one thing, committing the U.S. to
short-sighted and ill-conceived military interventions does nothing to enhance the strength or security
of the country. Such a policy doesn't build strength–it wastes it. Calling an aggressive policy "muscular"
betrays a bias that aggressive measures are the ones that demonstrate strength, when they usually
just demonstrate policymakers' crude and clumsy approach to foreign problems. One might just as easily
describe these policies as meat-headed instead.
"Centrist" is one of the most overused and abused words in our politics. The term is often used
to refer to positions that are supposedly moderate, pragmatic, and relatively free of ideological
bias, but here we can see that it refers to something very different. Many people that are considered
to be "centrists" on the normal left-right political spectrum are frequently in favor of a much more
aggressive foreign policy than the one we have now, but that doesn't make their foreign policy a
moderate or pragmatic one. In fact, this "centrism" is not really a position in between the two partisan
extremes, both of which would be satisfied with a less activist and interventionist foreign policy
than we have today, but represents an extreme all its own.
Besides, there's nothing moderate or pragmatic about being determined to entangle the U.S.
deeper in foreign wars, and that is what this so-called "centrist" foreign policy aims to do.
Likewise, it is fairly misleading to call what is being proposed here internationalist. It
shows no respect for international law. Hawkish proposals to attack Syria or carve out "safe zones"
by force simply ignore that the U.S. has no right or authority to do either of these things.
There appears to be scant interest in pursuing international cooperation, except insofar as it is
aimed at escalating existing conflicts. One would also look in vain for working through international
institutions. The only thing that is international about this "centrist internationalism" seems to
be that it seeks to inflict death and destruction on people in other countries.
destabilization
of the Middle East, and to prop up a key ally in Russia's front against US expansionism.
Carolinian
October 21, 2016 at 7:29 pm
Adam Curtis and his limitations–here's a taste from a review of new Beeb documentary
Conversely, Curtis concludes with an assertion of such stunning political puerility that it undermines
almost everything that has gone before. He argues of Putin's involvement in Syria: "The Russians
are still there – and no one really knows what they want." Curtis does not know what "the Russians
want" only because his perceptions have been carefully managed by the western media. Russia has very
obvious strategic interests in being there. Among other things, it is trying to prevent the takeover
of another country on its doorstep by Islamic jihadists, to halt the further destabilization of the
Middle East, and to prop up a key ally in Russia's front against US expansionism.
Perhaps Curtis' limitation is that he's on the BBC. Apparently you aren't allowed to say anything
nice about Russia on Auntie. The review says Curtis also grants too many good intentions to our western
imperial overlords.
'Hypernormalization' also contained false absolutes. However, Curtis is
an artist, in that he has implicit messages contained within juxtapositions
that aren't necessarily consciously constructed. It's valid but inadequate
to criticize parts out of context of the whole piece.
FFS, it was almost their first response! And the fact that they changed the story in less
than 24 hrs, to blame the Afghan security forces instead, tells you the likely source of this story:
their ass.
'The US-led military coalition in Afghanistan issued a statement on Sunday that said US forces
conducted an airstrike at 2:15am local time on Saturday "against insurgents who were directly firing
upon US service members advising and assisting Afghan Security Forces in the city of Kunduz."'
Even as we write this, forces are advancing on Mosul to recapture the city from ISIL: the reason
they can do this is because of U.S. airstrikes and troops. Refugee organizations expect something
like 200,000-700,000 refugees from the city. The city was captured a couple of years ago when 1,000
Daesh fighters routed something like 60,000 defenders, mostly because the defenders weren't strongly
motivated to defend: people in the city now have a counter-assassination resistance against ISIL
executions.
That is our intervention. Our bombs will not kill civilians in the city: the disparate groups
of fighters that we support certainly won't commit the usual atrocities of war: the refugee crisis
will no doubt be handled responsibly and will be fully resourced: when the city is recaptured, the
ISIL fighters will be defeated once and for all and we'll never hear from them again.
The people who support this are crazy. They are insane and I can only talk to them in the jocular
way that you'd talk to people who are suffering from such severe mental illness that there is no
way to rationally convince them that their delusions are not real. But these people have not been
institutionalized: they are running our institutions.
LFC:
Deliberately targeting noncombatants is a clear violation of law and norms, and it cannot
be justified by saying: "well, we have to eliminate the violent rebels in this city, and we've offered
a pause to allow the rebels to leave, but the rebels have declined the offer, and therefore the lives
of the civilians [whether they be 30,000 or 200,000] in the city are of no particular concern to
us, . . .
The laws of war are a very particular and even peculiar species of bullshit. I am not a lawyer,
let alone a military lawyer or specialist in such things, but from casual reading of news reporting,
I think you are actually wrong in the above assertion. Giving a warning and an opportunity for combatants
or civilians to vacate an area actually does open up a broad exception. "Exception" is probably the
wrong term, technically, but in operation, . . . The offering of a warning, a pause and opportunities
to vacate are all the laws of war require, in order to excuse the collateral damage that follows
from combat operations against targets that are believed to shelter enemies among civilians.
One need only ask two questions: How many non-combatants have been killed accidentally as 'collateral
damage'? And how many military commanders have been punished for violating the 'laws of war' for
killing non-combatants? The laws of war usually only apply to the losers. The winners seldom if ever
apply them to themselves.
If you don't see any point in distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants (yes, the lines
are sometimes blurry, but they are often very clear), and if you don't think that intentions are
of any relevance - that is, if you think there's no difference whatsoever, for instance, between
(1) deliberately blowing up a hospital and (2) accidentally bombing a hospital in a culpably negligent
act of misidentification in the middle of a nighttime battle (as happened in a highly publicized
case in Afghanistan a while back), then we can't have a conversation b.c we are operating in different
universes of discourse.
Do I think intentions are relevant? Maybe. Do I think statements of
intention are relevant? Harder. I do not have any reliable way of sorting or confirming actual intentions,
as distinguished from propaganda.
I am afraid we are stuck with this universe of discourse. No one can offer LFC a corridor of safe
flight to a more morally certain world.
In my mind, I keep coming back to that NYT Mag profile of Ben Rhodes, the White House speechwriter
(Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications) trying to manage U.S. foreign policy
with rapid fire narratives. This is the world we live in. And, yes, it is one where it is not possible
to distinguish between deliberately blowing up a hospital and accidentally in a culpable act of negligence
blowing up a hospital. Not because there are not relevant moral distinctions, but because any story
is built around those putative distinctions without much regard for facts. As Layman points out,
the "information" given out by officials is dictated by a desire to manipulate public perceptions
and deflect criticism and follows a predictable pattern unrelated to facts of a case.
This discourse has become delusive, as Rich P says above. Sarcasm or mockery may be rude, but
appropriate.
I don't think you can grant even this. Belligerents
know full well that they will kill non-combatants with their preferred tactics, but they use those
tactics anyway because 1) they deem it a fair trade off for achieving their objective while reducing
the risk to their own combatants, and 2) they know there is little likelihood they will be called
to account, and if they are they know they can rely on the 'intentions' defense.
This is evident in their responses. Have they bombed a hospital, a school, a bomb shelter, a refugee
center? Well, yes, but it was OK because someone was shooting at them from that place. Have they
killed several hundred members of a wedding party? Well, it seems so, but they were just trying to
kill a few people, and those few were hiding in a wedding party, the dastardly cowards! What else
could they have done?
Bruce W.
No one can offer LFC a corridor of safe flight to a more morally certain world.
Actually
Bruce you are the one who has hopped on the plane to a morally certain world, a world in which it
is never possible to distinguish 'intentions' from 'propaganda' and thus a world in which one can
rest secure in the certainty that judgments, however tentative, should never be attempted.
My phrase, "morally certain world" was poor. It doesn't denote what I meant.
I think an objective
observer, weighing the balance of likelihood, would conclude that the U.S. military targeted the
MSF hospital and most probably did so, because the MSF hospital was only facility in the area where
Taliban fighters could seek sophisticated medical treatment. That the choice of target originated
in the U.S. chain of command was confirmed, so there is no dispute really that this choice was made,
though the motivation and objective have been obscured and can only be surmised. No one was disciplined
specifically for initiating the attack - we know this because no one was named let alone court martialled
and sent to Leavenworth as would be nominally appropriate for such an unauthorized(?) act of murder
and mayhem. The only discipline handed out was essentially administrative and only for the negligence
and general snafus that allowed the rest of the chain of command to execute the attack without objection.
Again, a reasonable and objective observer would wonder whether the initiator of the attack might
not have had a hand in arranging things so that the attack went ahead and wasn't short-circuited
by the ordinary and routine controls put in place to prevent such "mistakes".
Presumably, this balance of likelihood is why the MSF wanted an investigation independent of the
U.S. military's own self-examination.
"Blaming the victim" should not be the primary issue, here, though, of course, in the prolonged
sequence of contradictory explanations in an incident that attracted international attention at the
highest levels, the U.S. did at various times officially claim that the Taliban were firing from
the compound and that the MSF complex was not properly marked. There is no particular reason to think
that the sequence of explanations arrived at anything resembling the truth; only a defensible redoubt
of apologia.
Whether the attack on the MSF hospital in Kunduz constituted a "war crime" isn't the issue I want
to raise either. I think it was a war crime, but the U.S. has a general policy of committing war
crimes while denying that policy, so unless you think denial is itself a singular virtue is, I do
not understand the argument. If the problem is whether Russia is the bad guy and the U.S. is the
good guy, I don't think the U.S. has much the better argument, at least on the face of it. Pretty
much every "bad guy" atrocity in the record books has a corresponding atrocity with an American signature.
Shoot down a passenger airliner? Check. Unprovoked aggressive war? Check. And so on.
The thing that troubles me - the thing I want to draw attention to - is the delusive effect of
letting moral narrative dominate all policy discussion.
In the case of the Kunduz MSF hospital incident, the effect of moral-narrative-domination is that
we do not know who in the U.S. chain-of-command decided MSF should clear out and the MSF hospital
should close down (and people should be killed and maimed to achieve that objective). The civilian
leadership presumably is not willing to own this policy choice, and they are willing to let the military
bear the costs of demoralization, by disciplining, however mildly proportionate to the consequences
for the dead and maimed victims, those in the chain of command responsible for the "negligence" which
was ultimately trotted out as an excuse for "poor performance" (after several other explanations
failed to stymie high-level criticism).
Our American b.s. pretense of righteous conduct is seriously interfering with the political
ability to arrive at a deliberately chosen policy likely to achieve strategically chosen objectives,
to cooperate efficiently within the policy-making hierarchy, to cooperate with allies and rivals
(like Russia, which probably does not see the U.S. as particularly trustworthy or even entirely rational
in negotiation), and to generate public support and general legitimacy.
I would submit that the ordinary purpose of international law is not to mandate just conduct per
se, but to establish conventions that allow for political coordination, even between rivals, as well
as facilitate hierarchical control of the state's forces for the centralized control of policy. And,
domination-by-moral-narrative has become a serious handicap, a source of American foreign policy
palsy cum dementia.
I'm not taking the position that morality and ethical conduct do not matter. (I think long-time
readers will realize I am something of an impractical idealist.) What I am trying to draw attention
to is the effect of bull shit justifications: the narratives are drawn up in disregard for their
factual truth value. (Disregard for truth value is kind of the definition of bull shit).
In short, I think judgments should be attempted, even in the face of the obscuring propaganda,
but I think we have to confront the propaganda as propaganda and the doubts and uncertainties it
engenders, as well as the semi-deranged social climate of opinion it engenders, as Rich P points
out.
I keep trying to imagine what special interest is so invested in the no-fly zone that they
can force Hillary to keep proposing it, even though it is obviously no longer feasible. Is it
just inertia? She is so used to pushing the idea that she brings it up without thinking, and then
has to dodge out of the way? But the whole situation has passed out of the realm of rational thought.
It reminds me of Vietnam.
The idea the South and North Vietnam were separate countries was never
true, but John Foster Dulles insisted on repeating the lie at every opportunity and after a while
the Village all started to believe it.
None of the stated goals in Syria make any sense any longer
(if the ever did), but we keep pursuing them. Scary.
Democrats can beat populists, and usually have, by attending to what underlies the surface ugliness.
This offends me so deeply! The suggestion that Democrats
should
defeat populists dishonors
the history of the term and, perhaps inadvertently, betrays what the Democratic "leadership" has sunk
to.
"We must realize that today's Establishment is the new George III. Whether
it will continue to adhere to his tactics, we do not know. If it does, the redress,
honored in tradition, is also revolution."
Justice William O. Douglas wrote in "Points of Rebellion":
Unfortunately members of Japan's congress (the Diet) do from time to time put
in hammy displays of slanging matches and even the kind of stagey fisticuffs that
would have pro wrestling "competitors" complaining about bad acting. Perhaps it
is the Japanese people's way of reminding themselves and even outsiders that one
of their indisputable contributions to the performance arts is Kabuki.
The main audience is the constituents of the Diet members in question, and certainly not signifying
an attempt to steer policy responses (much to my chagrin if they do it in relation to the TPP debates).
As Europeans assess the fallout from the U.K.'s
Brexit referendum
, they face a series of elections that could equally shake the political establishment. In the
coming 12 months, four of Europe's five largest economies have votes that will almost certainly mean
serious gains for right-wing populists and nationalists. Once seen as fringe groups, France's National
Front, Italy's Five Star Movement, and the Freedom Party in the Netherlands have attracted legions
of followers by tapping discontent over immigration, terrorism, and feeble economic performance.
"The Netherlands should again become a country of and for the Dutch people," says Evert Davelaar,
a Freedom Party backer who says immigrants don't share "Western and Christian values."
... ... ....
The populists are deeply skeptical of European integration, and those in France and the Netherlands
want to follow Britain's lead and quit the European Union. "Political risk in Europe is now far more
significant than in the United States," says Ajay Rajadhyaksha, head of macro research at Barclays.
... ... ...
...the biggest risk of the nationalist groundswell: increasingly fragmented parliaments that will
be unable or unwilling to tackle the problems hobbling their economies. True, populist leaders might
not have enough clout to enact controversial measures such as the Dutch Freedom Party's call to close
mosques and deport Muslims. And while the Brexit vote in June helped energize Eurosceptics, it's
unlikely that any major European country will soon quit the EU, Morgan Stanley economists wrote in
a recent report. But they added that "the protest parties promise to turn back the clock" on free-market
reforms while leaving "sclerotic" labour and market regulations in place. France's National Front,
for example, wants to temporarily renationalise banks and increase tariffs while embracing cumbersome
labour rules widely blamed for chronic double-digit unemployment. Such policies could damp already
weak euro zone growth, forecast by the International Monetary Fund to drop from 2 percent in 2015
to 1.5 percent in 2017. "Politics introduces a downside skew to growth," the economists said.
"... I think race-specific programs are a dead end as they will create great resentment, but universal programs and ESPECIALLY a job guarantee would be tremendously helpful in improving the U.S. racial situation. ..."
"... And it prevents the constant attacks on recipients of benefits as being unworthy, criminal, drug-taking, undeserving folk who should be drug-tested, monitored, controlled, suspected. ..."
"... Privileges like the selection of judges or the creation of special loopholes in the tax law, or other privileges only a political donation of the right amount might purchase. And it should be plain that some of the privileges described are not privileges at all but basic rights of human kind borne within any notion of the just. ..."
"... I think race-specific programs are a dead end as they will create great resentment, but universal programs and ESPECIALLY a job guarantee would be tremendously helpful in improving the U.S. racial situation. ..."
"... When the BLM (I think) asked Bernie about reparations, he said he didn't think it was a good idea, that free college etc would help everyone. ..."
PlutoniumKun is 100% on-target. Moreover, non-universal benefits have tremendous overhead cost
in terms of paperwork, qualifications, etc., while a universal benefit can be minimally bureaucratic.
I think race-specific programs are a dead end as they will create great resentment, but
universal programs and ESPECIALLY a job guarantee would be tremendously helpful in improving the
U.S. racial situation.
On the baby bonds, it's foolish to have a "$50 endowment for a child of Bill Gates". Instead
it would be better to just provide $50,000 to ALL babies including Bill Gates' child, and tax
Bill Gates more.
As the saying goes, "programs for the poor are poor programs." Bill Gates' child should be
allowed to use the same public libraries, go to the same (free) public universities, etc. etc.
I doubt Bill Gates' child will need to take up the guaranteed job, but if he needs or wants to
(perhaps because of a quarrel with his parent) he should be able to.
And it prevents the constant attacks on recipients of benefits as being unworthy, criminal,
drug-taking, undeserving folk who should be drug-tested, monitored, controlled, suspected.
Universality removes many of the privileges the rich enjoy - $50K for all babies including
Bill Gates child - and as privileges are dismantled in this way the remaining privileges of the
rich will stand all the more glaring for their unfairness - to all. Privileges like the selection
of judges or the creation of special loopholes in the tax law, or other privileges only a political
donation of the right amount might purchase. And it should be plain that some of the privileges
described are not privileges at all but basic rights of human kind borne within any notion of
the just.
I think race-specific programs are a dead end as they will create great resentment,
but universal programs and ESPECIALLY a job guarantee would be tremendously helpful in improving
the U.S. racial situation.
I've been thinking about this bit a lot. When the BLM (I think) asked Bernie about reparations,
he said he didn't think it was a good idea, that free college etc would help everyone.
I don't recall any elaboration on his part, but I wondered at the time, how would they be allocated?
Full black, one-half black, one quarter, quadroon, octoroon, mulatto, 'yaller'? That's wholly
back to Jim Crow, or worse. I refer, of course to the
artificial division
of Huttus and Tutsis which, you may recall,
did not work out so well
. Barack Obama, would he qualify? None of his ancestors were slaves.
I am looking forward to the book by Darity and Muller, but they would have to do a lot of persuading
to get me to get comfy with reparations.
The country that gives every expecting mother a new baby package is Finland. They started the
practice in the 1930's when their infant mortality rate was at ten percent. Now they have one
of the lowest infant mortality rates in the world.
The Walloon mouse : ...Instead of decrying people's stupidity and ignorance in rejecting trade
deals, we should try to understand why such deals lost legitimacy in the first place. I'd put
a large part of the blame on mainstream elites and trade technocrats who pooh-poohed ordinary
people's concerns with earlier trade agreements.
The elites minimized distributional concerns, though they turned out to be significant for
the most directly affected communities. They oversold aggregate gains from trade deals, though
they have been smallish since at least NAFTA. They said sovereignty would not be diminished though
it clearly was in some instances. They claimed democratic principles would not be undermined,
though they are in places. They said there'd be no social dumping though there clearly is at times.
They advertised trade deals (and continue to do so) as "free trade" agreements, even though Adam
Smith and David Ricardo would turn over in their graves if they read, say, any of the TPP chapters.
And because they failed to provide those distinctions and caveats now trade gets tarred with
all kinds of ills even when it's not deserved. If the demagogues and nativists making nonsensical
claims about trade are getting a hearing, it is trade's cheerleaders that deserve some of the
blame.
One more thing. The opposition to trade deals is no longer solely about income losses. The
standard remedy of compensation won't be enough -- even if carried out. It's about fairness, loss
of control, and elites' loss of credibility. It hurts the cause of trade to pretend otherwise.
... ... ..
Trump would propose and/or enact, he listed the following six:
"A Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress."
"A hiring freeze on all federal employees."
"A requirement that for every new federal regulation, 2 existing regulations must be eliminated."
"A 5-year ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government."
"A lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government."
"A complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections."
"
~~WWW~
Lot of reform is needed but may be
The forgotten spirit of American protectionism : , -1
The free traders have human economic history precisely inverted. Countries that practice protectionism
almost uniformly become wealthy and technologically advanced. Countries that don't become or remain
terribly sad, poverty-stricken producers of worthless raw materials and desperate labor migrants.
This has been true at least going back to Byzantium and its economic conquest by Genoa and Venice.
That the US thrived pre-1970 free trade is no coincidence. There is no alternative to protectionism.
Free trade = no industry = no money = no future.
I think he is trying to talk about soft neoliberalism vs rejection of neoliberalism as discredited
economics dogma and ideology. I think like Marxism neoliberalism has religious elements in it (as in
"secular religion") so will not go away completely much like obscure religious cults does not dissapper
they on a given date second coming of Christ did not happen.
Notable quotes:
"... new research showing that policies like public housing , welfare and public education spending are more beneficial than conservatives have recognized in decades past. ..."
"... But there are not one, but two big trends in liberal economic thinking. One wants to modify the economic thinking of the past few decades, and the other wants to rip it up. I expect to see a lot of the economic debate in the coming years play out not between the left and right, but between these two strains of thought. ..."
"... The New Center-Left Consensus is attractive to academics and policy wonks. It draws on an eclectic mix of mainstream economic theory, empirical studies and historical experience. It refuses to assume, as many conservatives and libertarians do, that free markets are always the best unless there is a glaring case for government intervention. ..."
In 2015, Forbes writer Adam Ozimek
suggested that a "new liberal consensus" is forming in the economic-policy world. The data back
him up. Many economics professors now
tend to favor government intervention in the economy more than the general public. And the profession's
biggest public stars, from Paul Krugman to Thomas Piketty to Joseph Stiglitz, are now more likely
to lean
to the left than to the right. Meanwhile, I've tried to document the flood of new research
showing that policies like
public housing ,
welfare and public education
spending are more beneficial than conservatives have recognized in decades past.
But there are not one, but two big trends in liberal economic thinking. One wants to
modify the economic thinking of the past few decades, and the other wants to rip it up. I expect
to see a lot of the economic debate in the coming years play out not between the left and right,
but between these two strains of thought.
The research and people I've been writing about fit into what we might call the New Center-Left
Consensus. This strain of thought is based on data and empiricism. Support for higher minimum wages,
for example,
has grown among economists because a large amount of careful
empirical analysis has
shown that minimum wage hikes don't usually cause sizable immediate disruptions in local labor markets.
These economists aren't ignorant of the basic theory of labor supply and demand -- the kind that
every undergrad econ student is forced to learn. They just realize that
it might not be the right theory in this case.
The New Center-Left Consensus is attractive to academics and policy wonks. It draws on an
eclectic mix of mainstream economic theory, empirical studies and historical experience. It refuses
to assume, as many conservatives and libertarians do, that free markets are always the best unless
there is a glaring case for government intervention. It's more willing to entertain all kinds
of ways that government can improve the economy, from welfare to infrastructure spending to regulation,
but it also recognizes that these won't always work. It embraces a philosophy of careful experimentation.
Sometimes the new center-left is even in favor of deregulation -- for example, loosening
zoning restrictions and reducing
occupational licensing . It's not ideologically opposed to the free market.
The best evangelist of the New Center-Left Consensus might be President Barack Obama. In an amazingly
well-informed
editorial in the Economist, he recently laid out a comprehensive picture of the economy and policy.
I have little doubt that Obama's understanding was heavily informed by his chief economic adviser,
Jason Furman ,
who has become a titan of center-left policy advocacy. Obama mixes a healthy respect for capitalism
with a desire to use government to temper the market's excesses.
But there's a second strain of progressive economic thinking that is gaining attention and strength.
This alternative could be called the New Heterodox Explosion. It's basically a movement to purge
mainstream economics from progressive policy-making and thought.
The New Heterodox Explosion rose in large part out of strongly left-leaning intellectual circles,
particularly sociology, the humanities and other disciplines outside economics. It has also found
a home in some economics departments in other countries (most notably the U.K.). Recently, it has
started to permeate blogs and the media.
The new website Evonomics , for example, is
heavily devoted to strongly worded critiques of the entire edifice of modern [neoliberal] economics
and it's where the work of many of the most outspoken champions of the New Heterodox Explosion appears.
These include evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson, activist and venture capitalist Nick Hanauer,
speechwriter Eric Liu and Eric Beinhocker of the Institute for New Economic Thinking. In a spate
of recent blog posts and editorials, these thinkers have
advocated replacing mainstream economic theory with thinking based on evolution, and/or on complexity
theory.
Though it's difficult to boil down these critiques to a few sentences, one basic theme of Wilson,
Hanauer, et al.'s thinking is that modern economics is based on selfishness. Mainstream theories
model human beings as atomistic individuals pursuing their own wants. But, say these Evonomics writers,
people are social beings who care a lot about their fellow humans, and are also deeply embedded in
larger social structures and organizations like communities, nations and cultures.
I'm sympathetic to this point of view. I'm not at all sure that economies can be completely understood
by looking at individual decisions, any more than I'm certain the growth of a tree can be understood
simply by looking at the motions of the particles in the leaves and roots. And I do wish that economists
dedicated a lot more thought and attention to the phenomena they call "
externalities "
and "
social preferences ."
But I'm also very wary of applying the Evonomics ideas to policy-making without a lot more work.
First, the connection to evolution and complexity theory often seems less than solid. Nobody
really knows if economies evolve the way organisms do. And efforts to connect complexity theory
to economics, led by the Santa Fe Institute
, have been going on for quite some time without any dramatic breakthroughs.
So while the New Center-Left Consensus is fully formed and ready for application in the real world,
the New Heterodox Explosion is still in its infancy. Center-left ideas have tons of very careful
academic empirical work behind them, while those wishing to tear up economics and start over are
still working mostly with broad analogies. I hope that the New Heterodox Explosion -- which of course
extends far beyond the few writers and ideas I've cited in this post -- becomes a rich source of
new and innovative economic ideas. But it still has a long way to go to match the intellectual heft
of the center-left.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and
its owners.
Noah Smith is a Bloomberg View columnist. He was an assistant professor of finance at Stony
Brook University, and he blogs at Noahpinion.
CETA's collapse is equivalent to the Budapest COMECON council session of
28/6/91. Corporate central planning has flopped down dead alongside Soviet
central planning. The Western Bloc is finally breaking up.
The Walloons, part of a barely real country. The Walloons, who brought you
much of Belgian colonialism, which got a bad name even among colonialists. The
Walloons, who oppressed the Flemings. There were cases of Dutch speakers being
condemned to death in courts that were in French and refused to provide
translation.
And yet the Walloons, a singularly unsuccessful people, are derailing a bad
trade deal.
Enlightening times. And times in which we cannot assume that we know where
our allies will come from.
Liberation weighs in with an interesting analysis: La Vallonie considers
CETA to be a Trojan horse bearing the subsidiaries of U.S. companies into
Belgium:
Shipping: "China is to build a deepwater tanker port in Malaysia off the
Malacca Strait, a key gateway for Chinese oil imports.The $1.9bn port,
located on the coast of Malacca City, will be able to accommodate very large
crude carriers" [Lloyd's List].
But, if the point of the TPP is to hem in China by excluding them and
bringing Malaysia into our "orbit" then why would they do this?
Unless, of course they know that any deal will make Malaysia a key gateway
to the American market and thus allow them to use it to wash their goods
through the TPP for cheap market access in the exact same way that they do it
now via Mexico.
It appears Belgium's Wallonia has put a nail on the coffin
of the EU-Canada trade agreement (CETA) by vetoing it. The
reasons, The Economist puts it, "are hard to understand."
Well, yes and no. Canada is one of the most progressive
trade partners you could hope to have, and it is hard to
believe that Walloon incomes or values are really being
threatened. But clearly something larger than the specifics
of this agreement is at stake here.
Instead of decrying people's stupidity and ignorance in
rejecting trade deals, we should try to understand why such
deals lost legitimacy in the first place. I'd put a large
part of the blame on mainstream elites and trade technocrats
who pooh-poohed ordinary people's concerns with earlier trade
agreements.
The elites minimized distributional concerns, though they
turned out to be significant for the most directly affected
communities. They oversold aggregate gains from trade deals,
though they have been smallish since at least NAFTA. They
said sovereignty would not be diminished though it clearly
was in some instances. They claimed democratic principles
would not be undermined, though they are in places. They said
there'd be no social dumping though there clearly is at
times. They advertised trade deals (and continue to do so) as
"free trade" agreements, even though Adam Smith and David
Ricardo would turn over in their graves if they read, say,
any of the TPP chapters.
And because they failed to provide those distinctions and
caveats now trade gets tarred with all kinds of ills even
when it's not deserved. If the demagogues and nativists
making nonsensical claims about trade are getting a hearing,
it is trade's cheerleaders that deserve some of the blame.
One more thing. The opposition to trade deals is no longer
solely about income losses. The standard remedy of
compensation won't be enough -- even if carried out. It's
about fairness, loss of control, and elites' loss of
credibility. It hurts the cause of trade to pretend
otherwise.
Reply
Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 09:32 AM
Peter K. -> Peter K....
, -1
Wallonia is adamantly blocking the EU's trade deal with
Canada
"HEY Canada, f!@# you." Within hours this tweet (the
result of a hack) from the Belgian foreign minister's account
was replaced with a friendlier message: "keep calm and love
Canada". Yet his country's actions are closer to the
original. On October 14th the regional parliament of Wallonia
voted to block the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement
(CETA), a trade deal between the European Union and Canada.
"... media largely went with the austerity narrative, can be partly explained by a neoliberal ethos.
Having spent years seeing the big banks lauded as wealth creating titans, it was difficult for many
to comprehend that their basic business model was fundamentally flawed and required a huge implicit
state subsidy. On the other hand they found it much easier to imagine that past minor indiscretions
by governments were the cause of a full blown debt crisis. ... ..."
"... Brexit is a major setback for neoliberalism ..."
"... Not only is it directly bad for business, it involves (for both trade and migration) a large
increase in bureaucratic interference in market processes. To the extent she wants to take us back to
the 1950s, Theresa May's brand of conservatism may be very different from Margaret Thatcher's neoliberal
philosophy. ..."
"... I think he misses the point here that much of the press coverage of these issues reflects the
economic interests of the media companies and the highly paid journamalists ..."
Neoliberalism and austerity : I
like
to treat neoliberalism not as some kind of coherent political philosophy, but more as a set
of interconnected ideas that have become commonplace in much of our discourse. That the private
sector entrepreneur is the wealth creator, and the state typically just gets in their way. That
what is good for business is good for the economy, even when it increases monopoly power or involves
rent seeking. Interference in business or the market, by governments or unions, is always bad.
And so on. ...
I do not think austerity could have happened on the scale that it did without this dominance
of this neoliberal ethos. Mark Blyth has
described
austerity as the biggest bait and switch in history. It took two forms. In one the financial crisis,
caused by an under regulated financial sector lending too much, led to bank bailouts that increased
public sector debt. This leads to an outcry about public debt, rather than the financial sector.
In the other the financial crisis causes a deep recession which - as it always does - creates
a large budget deficit. Spending like drunken sailors goes the cry, we must have austerity now.
In both cases the nature of what was going on was pretty obvious to anyone who bothered to
find out the facts. That so few did so, which meant that the media largely went with the austerity
narrative, can be partly explained by a neoliberal ethos. Having spent years seeing the big banks
lauded as wealth creating titans, it was difficult for many to comprehend that their basic business
model was fundamentally flawed and required a huge implicit state subsidy. On the other hand they
found it much easier to imagine that past minor indiscretions by governments were the cause of
a full blown debt crisis. ...
While in this sense austerity might have been a useful distraction from the problems with neoliberalism
made clear by the financial crisis, I think a more important political motive was that it appeared
to enable the more rapid accomplishment of a key neoliberal goal: shrinking the state. It is no
coincidence that austerity typically involved cuts in spending rather than higher taxes... In
that sense too austerity goes naturally with neoliberalism. ...
An interesting question is whether the same applies to right wing governments in the UK and
US that used immigration/race as a tactic for winning power. We now know for sure, with both Brexit
and Trump, how destructive and dangerous that tactic can be. As even the neoliberal fantasists
who voted Leave are finding out, Brexit is a major setback for neoliberalism.
Not only is it directly bad for business, it involves (for both trade and migration) a
large increase in bureaucratic interference in market processes. To the extent she wants to take
us
back to the 1950s, Theresa May's brand of conservatism may be very different from Margaret
Thatcher's neoliberal philosophy.
To the extent she wants to take us back * to the 1950s, Theresa May's brand of conservatism
may be very different from Margaret Thatcher's neoliberal philosophy.
[ When Teresa May became Prime Minister, I was puzzled for a time by the impression analysts
were leaving that May was moderate or even liberal in looking to a less class-structured or focused
Britain. The impression I had was that May would be comfortable with the British class structure
of a century back, and meant to turn Britain socially as far back as possible. Possibly my impression
was reasonable. ]
The Brexit vote takes us back not to the 1970s when we joined, but back to the 1950s. Britain
first tried to join the European Union in 1961, but was rebuffed by De Gaulle in 1963. Theresa
May's call for the return of Grammar schools * (selection into different schools at the age of
11) also takes us back to the 1950s. One of the major achievements of the Labour government of
the 1960s was to largely phase out selection at 11....
Good piece, but I think he misses the point here that much of the press coverage of these
issues reflects the economic interests of the media companies and the highly paid journamalists.
It also overlooks the concerted decades long attack of conservatives on the government.
Peter K. : , -1
Neoliberalism via Obama's Fed. Will Hillary's be any different?
Has Macroeconomic Policy Been Different Since the Crisis?
by David Beckworth
Brad DeLong wonders whether macroeconomic policy has been different in the post-2009 recovery.
If we assume the role of macroeconomic policy is to stabilize aggregate demand growth, then my
answer is an unequivocal yes. Macroeconomic policy was very different during the recovery than
in previous periods.
It was different in two key ways. First, aggregate demand growth was kept below its pre-crisis
trend growth rate. Since the recovery started in 2009Q3, NGDP growth has averaged 3.3 percent.
This is well below the 5.4 percent of 1990-2007 period (blue line in the figure below) or a 5.7
percent for the entire Great Moderation period of 1985-2007. Any way you slice it, macroeconomic
policy has dialed back the trend growth of nominal spending. This can be seen in the figure below.
[figure]
Second, aggregate demand growth was not allowed to bounce back at a higher growth rate during
the recovery like it has in past recessions. Put differently, macroeconomic policy in the past
allowed aggregate demand to run a bit hot after a recession before settling it back down to its
trend growth rate. This kept the growth path or level of NGDP stable. You can see this if the
figure above by noting how the growth rate (black line) would typically go above the trend (blue
line) temporarily after a recession.
Had macroeconomic policy allowed this NGDP growth to follow its typical bounce-back pattern
after a recession, we would have seen something like the red line in the figure. This line is
the dynamic forecast from a simple AR model based on the Great Moderation period. This naive forecast
shows one would have expected NGDP growth to have reached as much as 8 percent during the recovery
before settling back down. Instead we barely got over 3 percent growth.
So yes, macroeconomic policy has been different since the crisis. This policy choice, in my
view, is a key reason whey the recovery was so anemic.
P.S. Speaking of NGDP growth, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard NGDP has a sobering piece in the Telegraph
noting that nominal demand has been persistently falling since late 2014. This decline in nominal
economic activity, in my view, is tied to the Fed's implicit tightening of monetary policy via
the talking up of rate hikes since mid-2014.
"... which may be the story one wishes for. But if there were a spread to compare her win against, it was Bernie who massively beat the spread. I'll leave it as an exercise to others to determine if her unfair advantages were as large as the winning margin. ..."
"... He makes a good point and you dismiss it. You bashed Bernie Sanders and "Bernie Bros" during the primary. Then you lie about it. That's why you're the worst. Dishonest as hell. ..."
"... Remember one thing anne, America is not a country. It is an idea. You cannot arrest it, murder it, or pretend it isn't there. We as a people are not perfect. But Mr Putin is stabbing directly at our democracy, not Hillary Clinton and not Paul Krugman. Time to be a little more objective, of which you are even more capable of than me. ..."
"... It is not exactly McCarthyism as stated (although kthomas with his previous Putin comments looks like a modern day McCarthyist). I think this is a pretty clear formulation of the credo of American Exceptionalism -- a flavor of nationalism adapted to the realities of the new continent. ..."
"... And Robert Kagan explained it earlier much better ... I wonder if Victoria Nuland and Dick Cheney vote for Hillary too. ..."
"...Mrs. Clinton won the Democratic nomination fairly easily..."
which may be the story one wishes for. But if there were a spread to compare her win against,
it was Bernie who massively beat the spread. I'll leave it as an exercise to others to determine
if her unfair advantages were as large as the winning margin.
"Why do people like you pretend to love Sen Sanders so much!?"
Why do you say he is pretending? What did he write to make you think that?
Are you just a dishonest troll centrist totebagger like PGL.
Peter K. -> to pgl...
What does that have to do with anything?
He makes a good point and you dismiss it. You bashed Bernie Sanders and "Bernie Bros" during
the primary. Then you lie about it. That's why you're the worst. Dishonest as hell. Are most
New Yorkers as dishonest as you, Trump, Guiliani, Christie, etc?
No. I am a fan of Sen Sanders, and not even he would believe your nonsense. History will not remember
it that way. What it will remember is how Putin Comrade meddled. And there is a price for that.
Sen Sanders wanted one, stated thing: to push the narrative to the left. He marginally accomplished
this. What he did succeed in was providing an opportunity for false-lefties like you and Mr Putin
who seem to think that America is the root of all evil.
Remember one thing anne, America is not a country. It is an idea. You cannot arrest it,
murder it, or pretend it isn't there. We as a people are not perfect. But Mr Putin is stabbing
directly at our democracy, not Hillary Clinton and not Paul Krugman. Time to be a little more
objective, of which you are even more capable of than me.
Sen Sanders wanted one stated thing: to push the narrative to the left. He marginally accomplished
this. What he did succeed in was providing an opportunity for false-lefties like --- and -- -----
who seem to think that America is the root of all evil....
[ Better to assume such an awful comment was never written, but the McCarthy-like tone to a
particular campaign has been disturbing and could prove lasting. ]
It is not exactly McCarthyism as stated (although kthomas with his previous Putin comments
looks like a modern day McCarthyist). I think this is a pretty clear formulation of the credo
of American Exceptionalism -- a flavor of nationalism adapted to the realities of the new continent.
BS, a remarkable.
No, I am sure he will be remembered more than that.
Bernard Sanders, last romantic politician to run his campaign on an average of $37 from 3,284,421
donations (or whatever Obama said at The Dinner). Remarkable but ineffectual. A good orator in
empty houses means he was practicing, not performing.
Why does Obama succeed and Sanders fail? Axelrod and co.
Peter K. -> cal... , -1
He was written off by the like of Krugman, PGL, you, KThomas etc.
He won what 13 million votes. Young people overwhelmingly voted for Sanders. He won New Hampshire,
Colorado, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Washington, Oregon, etc. etc. etc. And now the "unromantic"
complacent people have to lie about the campaign.
"... Instead of the investigative process being focused on achieving justice, Kucinich says it was "a very political process" that had "everything to do with the 2016 presidential election" in which Clinton is the Democratic nominee. Kucinich elaborates that "the executive branch of government made an early determination that no matter what came up that there was no way that Hillary Clinton was going to have to be accountable under law for anything dealing with the mishandling of classified information." ..."
Speaking Monday on Fox News with host Neil Cavuto, former Democratic presidential candidate
and United States House of Representatives Member from Ohio Dennis Kucinich opined that, from
early on, the US government's investigation of Hillary Clinton for mishandling confidential
information while she was Secretary of State was fixed in her favor.
Instead of the investigative process being focused on achieving justice, Kucinich says it
was "a very political process" that had "everything to do with the 2016 presidential election" in
which Clinton is the Democratic nominee. Kucinich elaborates that "the executive branch of
government made an early determination that no matter what came up that there was no way that
Hillary Clinton was going to have to be accountable under law for anything dealing with the
mishandling of classified information."
Its from World Socialist Web Site by thier analysys
does contain some valid points. Especially about betrayal of nomenklatura, and, especially, KGB nomenklatura,which was wholesale bought
by the USA for cash.
Note that the author is unable or unwilling to use the tterm "neoliberalism". Looks like orthodox Marxism has problem with this
notion as it contradict Marxism dogma that capitalism as an economic doctrine is final stage before arrival of socialism. Looks like
it is not the final ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... Russia Since 1980 ..."
"... History reveals that the grandsons of the Bolshevik coup d'état didn't destroy the Soviet Union in a valiant effort to advance the cause of communist prosperity or even to return to their common European home; instead, it transformed Soviet managers and ministers into roving bandits (asset-grabbing privateers) with a tacit presidential charter to privatize the people's assets and revenues to themselves under the new Muscovite rule of men ..."
"... The scale of this plunder was astounding. It not only bankrupted the Soviet Union, forcing Russian President Boris Yeltsin to appeal to the G-7 for $6 billion of assistance on December 6, 1991, but triggered a free fall in aggregate production commencing in 1990, aptly known as catastroika. ..."
"... In retrospect, the Soviet economy didn't collapse because the liberalized command economy devised after 1953 was marked for death. The system was inefficient, corrupt and reprehensible in a myriad of ways, but sustainable, as the CIA and most Sovietologists maintained. It was destroyed by Gorbachev's tolerance and complicity in allowing privateers to misappropriate state revenues, pilfer materials, spontaneously privatize, and hotwire their ill-gotten gains abroad, all of which disorganized production. ..."
"... The rapid growth and increasing complexity of the Soviet economy required access to the resources of the world economy. ..."
"... For the Soviet bureaucracy, a parasitic social caste committed to the defense of its privileges and terrified of the working class, the revolutionary solution to the contradictions of the Soviet economy was absolutely unthinkable. The only course that it could contemplate was the second-capitulation to imperialism. ..."
"... In other words, the integration of the USSR into the structure of the world capitalist economy on a capitalist basis means not the slow development of a backward national economy, but the rapid destruction of one which has sustained living conditions which are, at least for the working class, far closer to those that exist in the advanced countries than in the third world. ..."
"... The Fourth International ..."
"... The End of the USSR, ..."
"... The report related the destruction of the USSR by the ruling bureaucracy to a broader international phenomenon. The smashing up of the USSR was mirrored in the United States by the destruction of the trade unions as even partial instruments of working-class defense. ..."
"... Millions of people are going to see imperialism for what it really is. The democratic mask is going to be torn off. The idea that imperialism is compatible with peace is going to be exposed. The very elements which drove masses into revolutionary struggle in the past are once again present. The workers of Russia and the Ukraine are going to be reminded why they made a revolution in the first place. The American workers are going to be reminded why they themselves in an earlier period engaged in the most massive struggles against the corporations. The workers of Europe are going to be reminded why their continent was the birthplace of socialism and Karl Marx. [p. 25] ..."
This analysis has been vindicated by scholarly investigations into the causes of the Soviet economic collapse that facilitated
the bureaucracy's dissolution of the USSR. In Russia Since 1980, published in 2008 by Cambridge University Press, Professors
Steven Rosefielde and Stefan Hedlund present evidence that Gorbachev introduced measures that appear, in retrospect, to have been
aimed at sabotaging the Soviet economy. "Gorbachev and his entourage," they write, "seem to have had a venal hidden agenda that caused
things to get out of hand quickly." [p. 38] In a devastating appraisal of Gorbachev's policies, Rosefielde and Hedlund state:
History reveals that the grandsons of the Bolshevik coup d'état didn't destroy the Soviet Union in a valiant effort to advance
the cause of communist prosperity or even to return to their common European home; instead, it transformed Soviet managers and ministers
into roving bandits (asset-grabbing privateers) with a tacit presidential charter to privatize the people's assets and revenues to
themselves under the new Muscovite rule of men. [p. 40]
Instead of displaying due diligence over personal use of state revenues, materials and property, inculcated in every Bolshevik
since 1917, Gorbachev winked at a counterrevolution from below opening Pandora's Box. He allowed enterprises and others not only
to profit maximize for the state in various ways, which was beneficial, but also to misappropriate state assets, and export the proceeds
abroad. In the process, red directors disregarded state contracts and obligations, disorganizing inter-industrial intermediate input
flows, and triggering a depression from which the Soviet Union never recovered and Russia has barely emerged. [p. 47]
Given all the heated debates that would later ensue about how Yeltsin and his shock therapy engendered mass plunder, it should
be noted that the looting began under Gorbachev's watch. It was his malign neglect that transformed the rhetoric of Market Communism
into the pillage of the nation's assets.
The scale of this plunder was astounding. It not only bankrupted the Soviet Union, forcing Russian President Boris Yeltsin
to appeal to the G-7 for $6 billion of assistance on December 6, 1991, but triggered a free fall in aggregate production commencing
in 1990, aptly known as catastroika.
In retrospect, the Soviet economy didn't collapse because the liberalized command economy devised after 1953 was marked for
death. The system was inefficient, corrupt and reprehensible in a myriad of ways, but sustainable, as the CIA and most Sovietologists
maintained. It was destroyed by Gorbachev's tolerance and complicity in allowing privateers to misappropriate state revenues, pilfer
materials, spontaneously privatize, and hotwire their ill-gotten gains abroad, all of which disorganized production. [p. 49]
The analysis of Rosefielde and Hedlund, while accurate in its assessment of Gorbachev's actions, is simplistic. Gorbachev's policies
can be understood only within the framework of more fundamental political and socioeconomic factors. First, and most important, the
real objective crisis of the Soviet economy (which existed and preceded by many decades the accession of Gorbachev to power) developed
out of the contradictions of the autarkic nationalist policies pursued by the Soviet regime since Stalin and Bukharin introduced
the program of "socialism in one country" in 1924. The rapid growth and increasing complexity of the Soviet economy required
access to the resources of the world economy. This access could be achieved only in one of two ways: either through the spread
of socialist revolution into the advanced capitalist countries, or through the counterrevolutionary integration of the USSR into
the economic structures of world capitalism.
For the Soviet bureaucracy, a parasitic social caste committed to the defense of its privileges and terrified of the working
class, the revolutionary solution to the contradictions of the Soviet economy was absolutely unthinkable. The only course that it
could contemplate was the second-capitulation to imperialism. This second course, moreover, opened for the leading sections
of the bureaucracy the possibility of permanently securing their privileges and vastly expanding their wealth. The privileged caste
would become a ruling class. The corruption of Gorbachev, Yeltsin and their associates was merely the necessary means employed by
the bureaucracy to achieve this utterly reactionary and immensely destructive outcome.
On October 3, 1991, less than three months before the dissolution of the USSR, I delivered a lecture in Kiev in which I challenged
the argument-which was widely propagated by the Stalinist regime-that the restoration of capitalism would bring immense benefits
to the people. I stated:
In this country, capitalist restoration can only take place on the basis of the widespread destruction of the already existing
productive forces and the social- cultural institutions that depended upon them. In other words, the integration of the USSR
into the structure of the world capitalist economy on a capitalist basis means not the slow development of a backward national economy,
but the rapid destruction of one which has sustained living conditions which are, at least for the working class, far closer to those
that exist in the advanced countries than in the third world. When one examines the various schemes hatched by proponents of
capitalist restoration, one cannot but conclude that they are no less ignorant than Stalin of the real workings of the world capitalist
economy. And they are preparing the ground for a social tragedy that will eclipse that produced by the pragmatic and nationalistic
policies of Stalin. ["Soviet Union at the Crossroads," published in The Fourth International (Fall- Winter 1992, Volume
19, No. 1, p. 109), Emphasis in the original.]
Almost exactly 20 years ago, on January 4, 1992, the Workers League held a party membership meeting in Detroit to consider the
historical, political and social implications of the dissolution of the USSR. Rereading this report so many years later, I believe
that it has stood the test of time. It stated that the dissolution of the USSR "represents the juridical liquidation of the workers'
state and its replacement with regimes that are openly and unequivocally devoted to the destruction of the remnants of the national
economy and the planning system that issued from the October Revolution. To define the CIS [Confederation of Independent States]
or its independent republics as workers states would be to completely separate the definition from the concrete content which it
expressed during the previous period." [David North, The End of the USSR, Labor Publications, 1992, p. 6]
The report continued:
"A revolutionary party must face reality and state what is. The Soviet working class has suffered a serious defeat. The bureaucracy
has devoured the workers state before the working class was able to clean out the bureaucracy. This fact, however unpleasant, does
not refute the perspective of the Fourth International. Since it was founded in 1938, our movement has repeatedly said that if the
working class was not able to destroy this bureaucracy, then the Soviet Union would suffer a shipwreck. Trotsky did not call for
political revolution as some sort of exaggerated response to this or that act of bureaucratic malfeasance. He said that a political
revolution was necessary because only in that way could the Soviet Union, as a workers state, be defended against imperialism." [p.
6]
I sought to explain why the Soviet working class had failed to rise up in opposition to the bureaucracy's liquidation of the Soviet
Union. How was it possible that the destruction of the Soviet Union-having survived the horrors of the Nazi invasion-could be carried
out "by a miserable group of petty gangsters, acting in the interests of the scum of Soviet society?" I offered the following answer:
We must reply to these questions by stressing the implications of the massive destruction of revolutionary cadre carried out within
the Soviet Union by the Stalinist regime. Virtually all the human representatives of the revolutionary tradition who consciously
prepared and led that revolution were wiped out. And along with the political leaders of the revolution, the most creative representatives
of the intelligentsia who had flourished in the early years of the Soviet state were also annihilated or terrorized into silence.
Furthermore, we must point to the deep-going alienation of the working class itself from state property. Property belonged to
the state, but the state "belonged" to the bureaucracy, as Trotsky noted. The fundamental distinction between state property and
bourgeois property-however important from a theoretical standpoint-became less and less relevant from a practical standpoint. It
is true that capitalist exploitation did not exist in the scientific sense of the term, but that did not alter the fact that the
day-to-day conditions of life in factories and mines and other workplaces were as miserable as are to be found in any of the advanced
capitalist countries, and, in many cases, far worse.
Finally, we must consider the consequences of the protracted decay of the international socialist movement...
Especially during the past decade, the collapse of effective working class resistance in any part of the world to the bourgeois
offensive had a demoralizing effect on Soviet workers. Capitalism assumed an aura of "invincibility," although this aura was merely
the illusory reflection of the spinelessness of the labor bureaucracies all over the world, which have on every occasion betrayed
the workers and capitulated to the bourgeoisie. What the Soviet workers saw was not the bitter resistance of sections of workers
to the international offensive of capital, but defeats and their consequences. [p. 13-14]
The report related the destruction of the USSR by the ruling bureaucracy to a broader international phenomenon. The smashing
up of the USSR was mirrored in the United States by the destruction of the trade unions as even partial instruments of working-class
defense.
In every part of the world, including the advanced countries, the workers are discovering that their own parties and their own
trade union organizations are engaged in the related task of systematically lowering and impoverishing the working class. [p. 22]
Finally, the report dismissed any notion that the dissolution of the USSR signified a new era of progressive capitalist development.
Millions of people are going to see imperialism for what it really is. The democratic mask is going to be torn off. The idea
that imperialism is compatible with peace is going to be exposed. The very elements which drove masses into revolutionary struggle
in the past are once again present. The workers of Russia and the Ukraine are going to be reminded why they made a revolution in
the first place. The American workers are going to be reminded why they themselves in an earlier period engaged in the most massive
struggles against the corporations. The workers of Europe are going to be reminded why their continent was the birthplace of socialism
and Karl Marx. [p. 25]
The aftermath of the dissolution of the USSR: 20 years of economic crisis, social decay, and political reaction
According to liberal theory, the dissolution of the Soviet Union ought to have produced a new flowering of democracy. Of course,
nothing of the sort occurred-not in the former USSR or, for that matter, in the United States. Moreover, the breakup of the Soviet
Union-the so-called defeat of communism-was not followed by a triumphant resurgence of its irreconcilable enemies in the international
workers' movement, the social democratic and reformist trade unions and political parties. The opposite occurred. All these organizations
experienced, in the aftermath of the breakup of the USSR, a devastating and even terminal crisis. In the United States, the trade
union movement-whose principal preoccupation during the entire Cold War had been the defeat of Communism-has all but collapsed. During
the two decades that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, the AFL-CIO lost a substantial portion of its membership, was reduced
to a state of utter impotence, and ceased to exist as a workers' organization in any socially significant sense of the term. At the
same time, everywhere in the world, the social position of the working class-from the standpoint of its influence on the direction
of state policy and its ability to increase its share of the surplus value produced by its own labor-deteriorated dramatically.
Certain important conclusions flow from this fact. First, the breakup of the Soviet Union did not flow from the supposed failure
of Marxism and socialism. If that had been the case, the anti-Marxist and antisocialist labor organizations should have thrived in
the post-Soviet era. The fact that these organizations experienced ignominious failure compels one to uncover the common feature
in the program and orientation of all the so-called labor organizations, "communist" and anticommunist alike. What was the common
element in the political DNA of all these organization? The answer is that regardless of their names, conflicting political alignments
and superficial ideological differences, the large labor organizations of the post-World War II period pursued essentially nationalist
policies. They tied the fate of the working class to one or another nation-state. This left them incapable of responding to the increasing
integration of the world economy. The emergence of transnational corporations and the associated phenomena of capitalist globalization
shattered all labor organizations that based themselves on a nationalist program.
The second conclusion is that the improvement of conditions of the international working class was linked, to one degree or another,
to the existence of the Soviet Union. Despite the treachery and crimes of the Stalinist bureaucracy, the existence of the USSR, a
state that arose on the basis of a socialist revolution, imposed upon American and European imperialism certain political and social
restraints that would otherwise have been unacceptable. The political environment of the past two decades-characterized by unrestrained
imperialist militarism, the violations of international law, and the repudiation of essential principles of bourgeois democracy-is
the direct outcome of the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
The breakup of the USSR was, for the great masses of its former citizens, an unmitigated disaster. Twenty years after the October
Revolution, despite all the political crimes of the Stalinist regime, the new property relations established in the aftermath of
the October Revolution made possible an extraordinary social transformation of backward Russia. And even after suffering horrifying
losses during the four years of war with Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union experienced in the 20 years that followed the war a stupendous
growth of its economy, which was accompanied by advances in science and culture that astonished the entire world.
But what is the verdict on the post-Soviet experience of the Russian people? First and foremost, the dissolution of the USSR set
into motion a demographic catastrophe. Ten years after the breakup of the Soviet Union, the Russian population was shrinking at an
annual rate of 750,000. Between 1983 and 2001, the number of annual births dropped by one half. 75 percent of pregnant women in Russia
suffered some form of illness that endangered their unborn child. Only one quarter of infants were born healthy.
The overall health of the Russian people deteriorated dramatically after the restoration of capitalism. There was a staggering
rise in alcoholism, heart disease, cancer and sexually transmitted diseases. All this occurred against the backdrop of a catastrophic
breakdown of the economy of the former USSR and a dramatic rise in mass poverty.
As for democracy, the post-Soviet system was consolidated on the basis of mass murder. For more than 70 years, the Bolshevik regime's
dissolution of the Constituent Assembly in January 1918-an event that did not entail the loss of a single life-was trumpeted as an
unforgettable and unforgivable violation of democratic principles. But in October 1993, having lost a majority in the popularly elected
parliament, the Yeltsin regime ordered the bombardment of the White House-the seat of the Russian parliament-located in the middle
of Moscow. Estimates of the number of people who were killed in the military assault run as high as 2,000. On the basis of this carnage,
the Yeltsin regime was effectively transformed into a dictatorship, based on the military and security forces. The regime of Putin-Medvedev
continues along the same dictatorial lines. The assault on the White House was supported by the Clinton administration. Unlike the
dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, the bombardment of the Russian parliament is an event that has been all but forgotten.
What is there to be said of post-Soviet Russian culture? As always, there are talented people who do their best to produce serious
work. But the general picture is one of desolation. The words that have emerged from the breakup of the USSR and that define modern
Russian culture, or what is left of it, are "mafia," "biznessman" and "oligarch."
What has occurred in Russia is only an extreme expression of a social and cultural breakdown that is to be observed in all capitalist
countries. Can it even be said with certainty that the economic system devised in Russia is more corrupt that that which exists in
Britain or the United States? The Russian oligarchs are probably cruder and more vulgar in the methods they employ. However, the
argument could be plausibly made that their methods of plunder are less efficient than those employed by their counterparts in the
summits of American finance. After all, the American financial oligarchs, whose speculative operations brought about the near-collapse
of the US and global economy in the autumn of 2008, were able to orchestrate, within a matter of days, the transfer of the full burden
of their losses to the public.
It is undoubtedly true that the dissolution of the USSR at the end of 1991 opened up endless opportunities for the use of American
power-in the Balkans, the Middle East and Central Asia. But the eruption of American militarism was, in the final analysis, the expression
of a more profound and historically significant tendency-the long-term decline of the economic position of American capitalism. This
tendency was not reversed by the breakup of the USSR. The history of American capitalism during the past two decades has been one
of decay. The brief episodes of economic growth have been based on reckless and unsustainable speculation. The Clinton boom of the
1990s was fueled by the "irrational exuberance" of Wall Street speculation, the so-called dot.com bubble. The great corporate icons
of the decade-of which Enron was the shining symbol-were assigned staggering valuations on the basis of thoroughly criminal operations.
It all collapsed in 2000-2001. The subsequent revival was fueled by frenzied speculation in housing. And, finally, the collapse in
2008, from which there has been no recovery.
When historians begin to recover from their intellectual stupor, they will see the collapse of the USSR and the protracted decline
of American capitalism as interrelated episodes of a global crisis, arising from the inability to develop the massive productive
forces developed by mankind on the basis of private ownership of the means of production and within the framework of the nation-state
system.
debate is over!
Back to the real world.
Anyone here care to give a more detailed view of this mess, who is allied with who where, etc?
OCT 20
Syria War 2016 - GoPro POV Footage Of Turkish Backed Turkmen Fighters In Heavy Clashes With The
Syrian Army In Latakia
First Person point of view GoPro footage of Turkish backed Turkmen fighter groups in heavy
clashes with the Syrian Arab Army in the border region between Turkey and Syria.
The fighters you see here are part of the so called Syrian Turkmen Brigades an informal armed
opposition structure composed of Syrian Turkmen primarily fighting against the Syrian Army, Islamic
State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) and the Syrian Democratic Forces (YPG+FSA).
They are aligned with the Syrian opposition and are heavily supported by Turkey, who provides
funding and military training along with artillery and aerial support.
"... Once again, during the last hour of the third debate, Clinton reiterated her position on a 'no fly zone' and 'safe zones' in Syria. She is absolutely committed to this policy position which aligns with the anonymous 50+ state dept lifers and Beltway neocons stance. ..."
"... Trump's candidacy = sovereignty - NO War. Clinton's candidacy = Globalism - WAR. Your vote is either for War or against War. It's that simple... ..."
"... Simply incredible the borg,and all those who say she is a lock are in for a big surprise,as Americans don't believe the serial liars anymore. ..."
"... It will be a 'fuck you' vote more than a vote for The Don. ..."
"... The dems forgot to switch off the internet. The anti-Trump MSM campaign is so total and over the top because it has to be --> CNN is so last century. No one is getting out of bed to vote Hillary. ..."
"... Step away from your TVs, smartphones and computers with your brains in the air. Let them breathe freely. ..."
"... Clinton seems to have had some of the questions ahead of time. She seemed to be reading the answers off a telepromter in her lecturn. ..."
"... He should declare that Hillary helped arm Al Qaeda to topple Assad for her banker buddies (cant mention the Jewishness/Israeli Firsterism of the 'neocons' of course, not because false but because true) and will be happy to send African Americans and Latinos to die for 'oil companies' and her 'banker friends' and after decades of establishment Dems promising the sky, maybe they dont need an inveterate liar who arms Islamic terrorists. ..."
"... Hillary armed Al Qaeda and possibly ISIS - both AngloZionist proxies. How in the fuck is she not in jail??? ..."
"... As Noam Chomsky has pointed out, duopolistic elections are merely mechanisms of manufactured consent. When each of the major parties are controlled by the different factions of the oligarchy, there is only afforded the option to vote for the ideology put forth by each oligarchic group. ..."
"... What fascinates me is how Obama went all public about Trumps assertions of rigged elections. It appears the puppet masters are very afraid of a "cynical" (realistic) population. Manufactured consent only works if people play the game. As evidenced in South Africa when no one showed up to vote, the government collapsed. ..."
"... "Your vote is either for War or against War. It's that simple." Is this being lost sight off amongst all the noise? I hope not, for the sake of the Ukrainians and the Syrians. And for the sake of the countries yet to be destabilised. ..."
"... A vote for Clinton = War and a vote for Trump = NO war ..."
"... Don't know when WH was created but the whitehelmets.org domain name was registered (in Beirut not Syria) in August 2014 and it is hosted on Cloudflare in Texas. Maybe it took some time get the brand recognition going? ..."
"... she also tends to repeat the same talking points 900 times so i knew what she'd say before she said it. did catch her whining about imaginary "russian rigging". again; no surprise there. ..."
"... as for trump, he mentioned abortion stuff more than usual in what i'm guessing is an attempt to win back any jesus freaks he lost with the billy bush tape. ..."
"... For the first time I listened to a Trump speech - delivered in Florida on the 13th of this month. What struck me is how much the media attacks on him and his family have got to him. He mentions how he could have settled for a leisurely retirement, but that he felt he had to do something for his country. ..."
"... perhaps he hadn't quite realized the array of power that is lined up against him. They are not going to let one dude wreck their party. ..."
"... It examines Trump through the prism as a likely "Jacksonian Conservative", who are not dissimilar to traditional conservatives but are not non-interventionists as such, just far more honest about their interventionism (as they are unburdened by the neocon bullshit about "killing them to make them barbarians more civilised") and really only likely to want to apply aggression where they feel that fundamental American interests are threatened. ..."
"... Getting Julian Assange's internet connection cut off just makes the Obama regime look even more stupid and pathetic now. The document dumps keep on coming. Did they really think they would stop that by shutting off the LAN in the Ecuadoran embassy? ..."
"... The underlying problem seems to be that John Podesta bought into the marketing bullshit about The Cloud. So he kept all his very sensitive correspondence at his Gmail account, apparently using it as the archive of his correspondence. ..."
"... I don't know if we'll ever know who hacked his account. It is not that hard to do, so it doesn't really require a "state actor". Google only gives you a few tries at entering your password, so Podesta's account couldn't have been hacked by randomly trying every possibility. Somehow, the hacker got the actual password. Either it was exposed somewhere, or it was obtained by spear phishing . That involves sending your target an email that directs him to a Web page that asks him to enter his password. All that's required to do that is being able to write a plausible email, and setting up a Web site to mimic the Web site where the account you want to hack resides, Gmail in this case. ..."
"... Nearly all information technology security breaches are insider jobs, genuine crackers/hackers are rare. Wikileaks is by far the most likely being fed from the inside of the DNC etc. and/or from their suppliers or security detail by people that are disgusted, have personal vendettas, and so on. It's the real Anonymous, anyone anywhere, not the inept CIA stooges or the faux organized or ideological pretenders. In addition any analyst at the NSA with access to XKeyScore can supply Wikileaks with all the Podesta emails on a whim in less than half an hour of "work" and the actual data to be sent would be gotten with a single XKeyScore database query. That sort of query is exactly what the XKeyScore backend part was built to do as documented by Snowden and affirmed by Binney and others. ..."
"... Duterte may well be flawed but he has a keen nose for where things are heading, Filipinos should be proud of him. ..."
"... 'Hillary "We will follow ISIS to Raqqa to take it "back"' (take Raqqa back from the Syrians?) ..."
"... The crazy hyper-entitled White Supremacist bi*ch is beyond any belief. ..."
"... Jesus Christ, Adolf F. Hitler would've blushed if he said some of her shit. This woman admits she is a war criminal in real time. ..."
"... If Hillary is elected, she will be haunted by her 'mistakes' and by the exposure of her double face by Wikileaks. She is stigmatized as 'crooked Hillary' and as an unreliable decision maker. From now on, all her decisions will be tainted with suspicion. I doubt that she'll be able to lead the country properly during the 4 years she hopes to stay in power. ..."
"... the United States has strayed from its democratically-based roots to become a banking and corporate plutocracy. ..."
The candidates are not the first to blame for this. The first to blame are the moderators of such
debates, the alleged journalists 8and their overlords) who do not ask questions that are relevant
for the life of the general votes and who do not intervene at all when the debaters run off course.
The second group to blame are the general horse-race media who each play up their (owner's) special-interest
hobbyhorses as if those will be the decisive issue for the next four years. The candidates fight
for the attention of these media and adopt to them.
I didn't watch yesterday's debate but every media I skimmed tells me that Clinton was gorgeous
and Trump very bad. That means she said what they wanted to hear and Trump didn't. It doesn't
say what other people who watched though of it. Especially in the rural parts of the country they
likely fear the consequences of climate change way more than Russia, ISIS and Iran together.
Another reason why both candidates avoided to bring up the issues low in the list above is that
both hold positions that are socially somewhat liberal and both are corporatists. None of those low
ranked issues is personally relevant to them. No realistic answer to these would better their campaign
finances or their personal standing in the circles they move in. Personally they are both east coast
elite and don't give a fu***** sh** what real people care about.
As far as I can discern it from the various reports no new political issues were touched. Clinton
ran her usual focus group tested lies while Trump refrained from attacking her hard. A huge mistake
in my view. He can beat her by attacking her really, really hard, not on issues but personality.
Her disliked rate (like Trump's) is over -40%. She is vulnerable on many, many things in her past.
Her foreign policy is way more aggressive than most voters like. Calling this back into mind again
and again could probably send her below -50%. Who told him to leave that stuff alone? Trump is a
major
political disruption . He should have emphasized that but he barely hinted at it for whatever
reason.
The voters are served badly -if at all- by the TV debates in their current form. These do not
explain real choices. That is what this whole election circus should be about. But that is no longer
the case and maybe it never was.
I watched a couple of minutes of the Hillary&Donald show. Then got a book and read instead.
Granted the Queen of Chaos will now have an empire to rule over ... but there will be no honeymoon
- there are a lot of issues that will dog her heels irrespective of the so-called press trying
to help cover-up. The good news in that is the probability of political gridlock. The bad news
is that the QoC will have almost no control over her neo-con handlers, the military nor the CIA
...
It's going to be a helluva ride. The DuhMurriKKKan people have little to do with anything ...
and it is possible the economy may show a slight increase as the DuhMurriKKKan people do what
they've been trained to do: go on a shopping spree for shit they don't need on the grounds that
it'll make them feel better.
Plus, the DNC bus did dump shit in the street in Georgia ... a fitting symbol for politics
in Dumb-shit-MurriKKKah. Doh!
"In this venue, your honours, in this venue, I announce my separation from the United States,"
Duterte said to applause at a Chinese forum in the Great Hall of the People attended by Chinese
Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli. "Both in military, not maybe social, but economics also. America has
lost."
Obviously, TheRealDonald's missing Minot nuke will be visiting the Duterte presidential compound
shortly after the Trump-Clinton fraud selection, then Der Decider, whoever plays that 'hope and
chains' spox role for Deep State, will announce it was a 'Russian strike', against US 'peace-keeping'
forces in the Western Pacific, and then proceed accordingly to attack and occupy Crimea, to 'protect
our BFF in the Middle East, Israel'.
Deep State has already cued up a SCOTUS decision on Citizens United Ultra for 2017. QEn+ already
cued up to support junk T-bonds for 'The Wall' or 'The Infrastructure'. US national 'debt' (sic)
will hit $25,000,000,000,000 by 2020, then it's game over.
as an American citizen, I am truly terrified of this election. Hillary Clinton will most likely
start WW3 to serve her masters in Saudi Arabia which seek to eliminate Iran and Russia. Most of
us who read this page see Russia as the country fighting terrorist and the US as the one supporting
terrorism. Not good. The problem is Trump does himself no favors with the women voters. This election
I think also put the world and the normally clueless and self centered American citizens that
we are in alot of trouble. The fact that these are the two candidates means we are in serious
decline. The world has known that for a while and to be honest, a multi polar world is a good
thing
Hillary Clinton will most likely start WW3 to serve her masters in Saudi Arabia which seek
to eliminate Iran and Russia
Saudis are dumb, it was about them, now famous, Lavrov's phrase--debily, blyad' (fvcking morons),
but even they do understand that should the shit hit the fan--one of the first targets (even in
the counter-force mode) will be Saudi territory with one of the specific targets being Saudi royal
family and those who "serve" them. It is time to end Wahhabi scourge anyway.
I watched, it was boring. And I agree, Trump should have been more on the offensive, but with
more precision, not just his usual rambling.
jdmckay | Oct 20, 2016 10:26:19 AM | 11 He tried to distance himself from Putin, oddly the only thing he had going for him in my book
(realization Putin's got things done right, things we should have done, and US has lied about
it). Trump backed off...
YES, major point.
Once again, during the last hour of the third debate, Clinton reiterated her position on a
'no fly zone' and 'safe zones' in Syria. She is absolutely committed to this policy position which
aligns with the anonymous 50+ state dept lifers and Beltway neocons stance.
This irresponsible, shortsighted, deadly position alone disqualifies her completely from serving
as Commander in Chief.
Imagine, if you will, she wins. She convenes her military advisors and they discuss how to
implement this policy - no fly zone. Dunsford tells her, again, if said policy were to be implemented
we, the US, would risk shooting down a Russian fighter jet(s) who is safeguarding, by invitation,
the air space of the sovereign state of Syria. She says that is a risk we must take b/c our 'clients'
Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel are demanding such action and Assad must go.
Kaboom - we either have a very real WWIII scenario on our hands OR a complete revolt by our
armed forces...nobody in their right mind wants to go to war with Russia...and I'm no longer convinced
she's in her right mind.
So, what if Hillary wants WWIII?
What if this is in her and her fellow travelers long-term game 'Global' plan?
What if she's insane enough to believe the U.S. and our allies could beat Russia and their
allies?
What if she gets back into the WH and we spend the next four years poking, taunting, propagandizing
pure hate and fear at the bear all the while brainwashing the American psyche to hate, loathe
and fear all things Russian? How maddening will that be? Haven't we already been through enough
psychological warfare?
What if one of the next steps in the New World Order or Global governments game plan is to
untether the U.S. military from the shores of the U.S. and grow it into a Global government military
force? You know, the world's police force.
What if they scenario'd out WWIII plans and the implementation of a no fly zone in Syria is
where it all begins?
What if this is the reason Clinton isn't budging from her 'no fly zone' position? She wants
war. She believes we can win the war. If we win the war the American Globalists morph into 'World'
leaders.
Who in the hell would want this other than those that are quietly leading and championing this
monster. I don't. Do you?
This election is about one thing and one thing only. The people of the United States, our founding
documents, our sovereignty vs the American Globalist class, their control and their Global government
wet dream.
Trump's candidacy = sovereignty - NO War. Clinton's candidacy = Globalism - WAR. Your vote
is either for War or against War. It's that simple...
Simply incredible the borg,and all those who say she is a lock are in for a big surprise,as
Americans don't believe the serial liars anymore.
dahoit | Oct 20, 2016 10:47:07 AM | 14
I believe your assertion is correct. A low turn out, monster win is out there. It will
be a 'fuck you' vote more than a vote for The Don. I would imagine a lot of people are in
for a shock - and a bigger shock than the public backlash against austerity that Brexit was, where
'respected' polling was off by 10 points by election day.
The dems forgot to switch off the internet. The anti-Trump MSM campaign is so total and
over the top because it has to be --> CNN is so last century. No one is getting out of bed to
vote Hillary.
Scylla and Charybdis. Does it really matter much which one wins? I await the collapse of this
empire and pray that it does not totally explode. What we say and/or think will make absolutely
no difference to the final result. The controllers are in control and have been so since the assassination
'60s.
Step away from your TVs, smartphones and computers with your brains in the air. Let them
breathe freely.
The Strait of Messina is dangerous waters so the American public's only logical recourse is
to steer the ship of democracy towards sense and sensibility and let go the anchor of "None of
The Above". The people must demand new candidates who are worthy of holding the Office of the
President. The federal bureaucracy will continue to run the government through September of 2017,
plenty of time for a new election.
Declare Tuesday, November 8th a national day of voter independence and stay home!
That's a simply ludicrous position to take! Trump's 'The Wall' together with 'Defeat ISIS'
together with 'Stand with Israel' is EXACTLY the same Yinon Plan as Clinton's, although it probably
spares the poor folks in Crimea, now under the Russian Oligarchy, and does nothing at all for
the poor folks of Ukraine, now under the Israeli Junta Coup.
Either candidate is proposing soon $TRILLION Full Battle Rattle NeoCon DOD-DHS-NSA-CIA There's
zero daylight between them. The only difference is Trump will make sure that the Exceptionals
are relieved of any tax burden, while Clinton will make sure the burden falls on the Middle Class.
Again, there is zero daylight between them. For every tax increase, Mil.Gov.Fed.Biz receives the
equivalent salary increase or annual bonus.
This whole shittery falls on the Middle Class, and metastasizes OneParty to Stage Five.
Trump won't win in any case. His role was to throw FarRightRabbinicals off the cliff, and make
Hillary appear to voters to be a Nice Old Gal Centrist. She's not. The whole thing was rigged
from the 1998 and 9/11 coup, from Bernie and Donald, on down the rabbit hole.
Debates are to convince, not to illuminate. What a person did not figure out before the debates,
it is rather hopeless to explain.
Thus the stress on issues that are familiar even to the least inquisitive voters, heavily overrepresented
among the "undecided voters" who are, after all, the chief target. Number one, who is, and who
is not a bimbo?
The high position of Putin on the topic list is well deserved. This is about defending everything
we hold pure and dear. We do not want our daughters and our e-mail violated, unless we like to
read the content. Daughters are troublesome enough, but the threat to e-mails is something that
is hard to understand, and that necessitates nonsense. Somehow Putin gets in the mix, rather than
Microsoft, Apple, Google and other companies that destroyed the privacy of communications with
crappy software.
But does it matter? It is like exam in literature or history. It does not matter what the topic
is, but we want to see if the candidates can handle it to our satisfaction. For myself, I like
Clinton formula: "You will never find me signing praises of foreign dictators and strongmen who
do not love America". It is so realistic! First, given her age and fragile throat, I should advise
Mrs. Clinton to refrain from singing. And if she does, the subject should be on the well vetted
list, "leaders who love America". That touches upon some thorny issues, like "what is love", but
as long as Mrs. Clinton does not sing, it is fine.
Trump, if I understand him, took a more risky path, namely, the he is more highly regarded
by people who count, primarily Putin, than schwartzer Obama and "not so well looking chick" Clinton.
Why primarily Putin? It is a bit hard to see who else. The person should have some important leadership
position. And he/she should be on the record saying something nice about Trump. At that point
the scope of name-dropping is narrow.
Wasn't ''PEOPLES GET THE GOVERNMENT THEY DESERVE'',the regime change war cry of so called ''US''?.Dont
see why Madame ''we came we saw he died'' become POTUS approves ''no fly'' wet dream of war mongers
gets shot down by ''evil '' putin and aliies from the skies of Syria onto the ground in pieces.Than
discrimination for hundreds of years while ''americans'' figure out what happened withdrawing
into a shell like a wounded animal leaving the rest of the world to live in peace!
He should declare that Hillary helped arm Al Qaeda to topple Assad for her banker buddies
(cant mention the Jewishness/Israeli Firsterism of the 'neocons' of course, not because false
but because true) and will be happy to send African Americans and Latinos to die for 'oil companies'
and her 'banker friends' and after decades of establishment Dems promising the sky, maybe they
dont need an inveterate liar who arms Islamic terrorists.
Hillary armed Al Qaeda and possibly ISIS - both AngloZionist proxies. How in the fuck is
she not in jail???
As Noam Chomsky has pointed out, duopolistic elections are merely mechanisms of manufactured
consent. When each of the major parties are controlled by the different factions of the oligarchy,
there is only afforded the option to vote for the ideology put forth by each oligarchic group.
Each party defines their ideology to distinguish itself from the other to assure a divided
population. They also manipulate the population via identity politics and state it in such a way
that voters decisions are not rationally resolved but emotionally so, to assure that sufficient
cognitive dissonance is developed to produce a risky shift to a make a decision in favor of a
candidate that would otherwise be unacceptable.
Rigged from the get go is definitely true.
What fascinates me is how Obama went all public about Trumps assertions of rigged elections.
It appears the puppet masters are very afraid of a "cynical" (realistic) population. Manufactured
consent only works if people play the game. As evidenced in South Africa when no one showed up
to vote, the government collapsed.
"Your vote is either for War or against War. It's that simple." Is this being lost sight
off amongst all the noise? I hope not, for the sake of the Ukrainians and the Syrians. And for
the sake of the countries yet to be destabilised.
Where has Trump once advocated for a no fly zone let alone war? Links and sources please. Enlighten
me.
The only candidate who has been steadfast in support of a no fly zone in Syria is Clinton.
Trump avoids the entire Syrian mess like the plague. Have you not heard him attack Hillary on
her Iraq vote, Libyan tragedy, Syria etc? He's not only attacking her for her incompetence and
dishonesty, but b/c he finds these wars/regime changes abominable. As do I.
A vote for Clinton = War and a vote for Trump = NO war
I share your frustration. In my opinion televised 'debates' should be banned, and we should go
back to the time-honored technique of looking at the record. Whether Clinton is smooth or has
a weird smile, or Trump is composed or goes on a rant, makes no difference to me.
I know what Hillary Clinton will do, which is, what she has done for the past 20+ years. She
will aggressively fight even more wars, maybe even attacking Russian forces in Syria (!). She
will spend trillions on all this 'nation-destroying' folly, and of course, that will necessitate
gutting social security because deficits are bad. She will throw what's left of our retirement
funds to the tender mercies of Wall Street, and after they are through with us we will be lucky
to get pennies on the dollar. She will open the borders even more to unchecked third-world immigration,
which will kill the working class. She will push for having our laws and judiciary over-ruled
by foreign corporate lawyers meeting in secret (TPP etc. are not about trade - tariffs are already
near zero - they are about giving multinational corporations de-facto supreme legislative and
judicial power. Really). She will remain the Queen of Chaos, the candidate of Wall Street and
War, who never met a country that she didn't want to bomb into a post-apocalyptic wasteland.
Trump? He says a lot of sensible things, and despite his mouthing off in public, he has a track
record of amicably cooperating with people on long-term projects. But he has no track record in
governance, so of course, I don't really know. He's a gamble.
But right now I am so fed up with the status quo that I am willing to roll the dice. Trump
2016.
I agree Trump has had chance after chance to effectively attack Clinton. But here is the problem.
Much of that attack would have had to be done from a leftist angle. Outside of Russia, Trump looks
to be as much a militarist as Obama at least. The gop money daddies are just as militarist as
the democratic party money daddies. The gop is pro-war just they don't want democrats running
them.
Benghazi is a perfect example. They refuse to attack Clinton on her pro-war, destroy everybody
policies, so they they make up attacks about the handling of the Benghazi attacks, rather than
the reason why Americans were there--to send arms to jihadist terrorists in Syria. (By the way
this is why silence on Obama letting criminal banksters go--they would have done the same thing.)
Trump is intellectually challenged. He could have seen what was happening and brought along
his base to an anti-war position and attracted more people. His base was soft clay in his hands
as even he noticed. However he had no skills as political leader to understand nor the ability
to sculpt his base and win the election, which was given Clinton's horrible numbers, his to lose.
Q: Where you are on the question of a safe zone or a no-fly zone in Syria?
TRUMP: I love a safe zone for people. I do not like the migration. I do not like the people
coming. What they should do is, the countries should all get together, including the Gulf states,
who have nothing but money, they should all get together and they should take a big swath of land
in Syria and they do a safe zone for people, where they could to live, and then ultimately go
back to their country, go back to where they came from.
Q: Does the U.S. get involved in making that safe zone?
TRUMP: I would help them economically, even though we owe $19 trillion.
Source: CBS Face the Nation 2015 interview on Syrian Refugee crisis , Oct 11, 2015
I don't know about your read of Trump's response, but I don't think he's talking about the
same kind of safe zone the Brookings Institute has in mind aka carving up Syria. His answer suggests
he's thinking a 'safe zone' as more in terms of a temporary refugee zone/space/camp...'they do
a safe zone for people, where they could to live, and then ultimately go back to their country,
go back to where they came from.'
btw, does anyone know which exact month in 2013 the WH were founded?
It´s a minor detail, but it would fit so neatly if it is after the first week of September '13
when the "humanitarian" airstrike for the false-flag Ghouta attack was called off. Demonstrating
it was conceived as Project R2P Intervention 2.0 after the first one failed.
Don't know when WH was created but the whitehelmets.org domain name was registered (in
Beirut not Syria) in August 2014 and it is hosted on Cloudflare in Texas. Maybe it took some time
get the brand recognition going?
Le Mesurier claims that he persoanlly trained the first group of 20 volunteers in early 2013.
It seems these 20 'carefully vetted moderate rebels' each went on to train further groups of 20.
So, if we allow 1-2 months training, it looks like mid-late 2013 might be a reasonable date for
them to take an effective role in the PR business.
b, 'The voters are served badly -if at all- by the TV debates in their current form. These do
not explain real choices. That is what this whole election circus should be about. But that is
no longer the case and maybe it never was.'
No 'maybe' ... the 'political' process in the US is a complete fraud. The present political
class must be removed and replaced. People term 3rd Party/Write-in votes as 'protest votes' but
they can - must in my view - be more than that. They must be the first step taken to simply seize
power and control of the USA by US citizens. We cannot have a democracy - anywhere - without an
engaged demos. That's just the way it is.
No
to Clinton, no to Trump . No to the elephants and the jackasses and the menagerie. It will
take a decade/a dozen years. If we had begun in 2004 we'd be there by now.
downloaded it from youtube late last night. that gave me the option of skimming past hillary and
her WASPy passive aggressive act. she also tends to repeat the same talking points 900 times
so i knew what she'd say before she said it. did catch her whining about imaginary "russian rigging".
again; no surprise there.
as for trump, he mentioned abortion stuff more than usual in what i'm guessing is an attempt
to win back any jesus freaks he lost with the billy bush tape. the fact that he supposedly
went so far down in the polls from that tape makes the whole thing seem pointless ("who can pander
to uptight morons with moronic priorities more") but saying silly stuff about overturning roe
v wade seemed desperate. even if he got to appoint more than the one judge replacing the fat dead
greaseball he probably won't get another. and even in that case he would need approval from a
congress that agrees on nothing but their hatred for him.
even the things that got more mentions didn't matter. all i saw on the screeching MSM (especially
CliNtoN) was "oh mah gerd he said he's waiting until election day to comment on the election!
that means riots and bloodshed cuz that's what goes on in our dumb fuck heads all day!"
at least canada will be spared all the rich whining hipster pieces of trash like lena dunham.
small consolation.
For the first time I listened to a Trump speech - delivered in Florida on the 13th of this
month. What struck me is how much the media attacks on him and his family have got to him. He
mentions how he could have settled for a leisurely retirement, but that he felt he had to do something
for his country.
It's almost as if he'd already decided to back off, convincing himself
that maybe he can do more outside the White House. There is a resigned tone to his voice especially
the way he finishes sentences. Maybe he just knows, or was told, that he'd be assassinated if
he ever got elected. Or perhaps he hadn't quite realized the array of power that is lined
up against him. They are not going to let one dude wreck their party.
Good, substantive
interview with Jill Stein . Includes insightful discussion on ME, Syria & relations with Putin/Russia.
Especially for those not familiar with her may find this interesting. Conducted yesterday (10/19).
Nah, it's ludicrous. 'Cuz this is like the gazillionth time I posted this. And will sadly have
to do it a few more times in the next three weeks.
The Donald Trump dove myth dies hard.
In the past five years, Trump has consistently pushed one big foreign policy idea: America
should steal other countries' oil....
"In the old days when you won a war, you won a war. You kept the country," Trump said. "We
go fight a war for 10 years, 12 years, lose thousands of people, spend $1.5 trillion, and then
we hand the keys over to people that hate us on some council." He has repeated this idea for
years, saying during one 2013 Fox News appearance, "I've said it a thousand times."
....To be clear: Trump's plan is to use American ground troops to forcibly seize the most
valuable resource in two different sovereign countries. The word for that is colonialism.
Trump wants to wage war in the name of explicitly ransacking poorer countries for their
natural resources - something that's far more militarily aggressive than anything Clinton has
suggested.
This doesn't really track as "hawkishness" for most people, mostly because it's so outlandish.
A policy of naked colonialism has been completely unacceptable in American public discourse
for decades, so it seems hard to take Trump's proposals as seriously as, say, Clinton's support
for intervening more forcefully in Syria....
He also wants to bring back torture that's "much tougher" than waterboarding. "Don't kid
yourself, folks. It works, okay? It works. Only a stupid person would say it doesn't work,"
he said at a November campaign event. But "if it doesn't work, they deserve it anyway, for
what they're doing."
....The problem is that Trump's instincts are not actually that dovish. Trump... has a consistent
pattern of saying things that sound skeptical of war, while actually endorsing fairly aggressive
policies.
....In a March 2011 vlog post uncovered by BuzzFeed's Andrew Kaczynski and Christopher Massie,
Trump full-throatedly endorsed intervening in the country's civil war - albeit on humanitarian
grounds, not for its oil.
"Qaddafi in Libya is killing thousands of people, nobody knows how bad it is, and we're
sitting around," Trump said. "We should go in, we should stop this guy, which would be very
easy and very quick. We could do it surgically, stop him from doing it, and save these lives."
In a later interview, he went further, endorsing outright regime change: "if you don't get
rid of Gaddafi, it's a major, major black eye for this country."
Shortly after the US intervention in Libya began in March 2011, Trump criticized the Obama
administration's approach - for not being aggressive enough. Trump warned that the US was too
concerned with supporting the rebels and not trying hard enough to - you guessed it - take
the oil.
"I would take the oil - and stop this baby stuff," Trump declared. "I'm only interested
in Libya if we take the oil. If we don't take the oil, I'm not interested."
Throw in a needy, fragile ego -- the braggadocio is overcompensation -- and a hairtrigger temper,
and the invasion scenarios write themselves.
And by the way, he's apparently not really that good a businessman either.
Riches-to-Riches Trump Spins Fake Horatio Alger Tale . If he'd put his money into S&P 500
index fund, he'd be worth about eight times what he likely is now. Which is very likely substantially
less than what he says he is. Good reason to withhold the tax returns, no?
So I guess his only recommendation is a reality show with the tagline "You're fired!" All surface,
no depth, the ultimate post-modernist candidate. No fixed mean to that text, alright, he both
invites you to write your interpretation but polices "the other" outside of it.
Interesting that the first post-modern candidate is a bloodthirsty fascist (given his refusal
to accept the electoral results, I would now consider this not wholly inappropriate).
But then again, someone as innocent as
Chauncey Gardiner was
unlikely to emerge from the media.
Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
" Obama: Vote Rigging Is Impossible - If In Favor Of Hillary Clinton | Main
October 20, 2016
This Election Circus Is A Disservice To The People
Via Adam Johnson:
"Total mentions all 4 debates:
Russia/Putin 178
ISIS/terror 132
Iran 67
...
Abortion 17
Poverty 10
Climate change 4
Campaign finance 3
Privacy 0"
The candidates are not the first to blame for this. The first to blame are the moderators of such
debates, the alleged journalists 8and their overlords) who do not ask questions that are relevant
for the life of the general votes and who do not intervene at all when the debaters run off course.
The second group to blame are the general horse-race media who each play up their (owner's) special-interest
hobbyhorses as if those will be the decisive issue for the next four years. The candidates fight
for the attention of these media and adopt to them.
I didn't watch yesterday's debate but every media I skimmed tells me that Clinton was gorgeous
and Trump very bad. That means she said what they wanted to hear and Trump didn't. It doesn't
say what other people who watched though of it. Especially in the rural parts of the country they
likely fear the consequences of climate change way more than Russia, ISIS and Iran together.
Another reason why both candidates avoided to bring up the issues low in the list above is
that both hold positions that are socially somewhat liberal and both are corporatists. None of
those low ranked issues is personally relevant to them. No realistic answer to these would better
their campaign finances or their personal standing in the circles they move in. Personally they
are both east coast elite and don't give a fu***** sh** what real people care about.
As far as I can discern it from the various reports no new political issues were touched. Clinton
ran her usual focus group tested lies while Trump refrained from attacking her hard. A huge mistake
in my view. He can beat her by attacking her really, really hard, not on issues but personality.
Her disliked rate (like Trump's) is over -40%. She is vulnerable on many, many things in her past.
Her foreign policy is way more aggressive than most voters like. Calling this back into mind again
and again could probably send her below -50%. Who told him to leave that stuff alone? Trump is
a major political disruption. He should have emphasized that but he barely hinted at it for whatever
reason.
The voters are served badly -if at all- by the TV debates in their current form. These do not
explain real choices. That is what this whole election circus should be about. But that is no
longer the case and maybe it never was.
Posted by b on October 20, 2016 at 09:11 AM | Permalink
Comments
I didn't watch too.
Posted by: Jack Smith | Oct 20, 2016 9:22:12 AM | 1
I don't follow US elections closely, but my take on this - Trump had made a deal. He pretends
to be fighting, but he is not. Dunno what was that - either he was intimidated, blackmailed, bought
off, or any combination of thereof, and it doesn't matter actually.
Hail to the first Lady President of the United States. Best luck to Middle East, Eastern Europe
and SE Asia - they all gonna need it. Oh, and dear US voters - don't blame yourself, you don't
have any influence on the election, so it's not your fault. You'll pay the price too, though.
Posted by: Wizzy | Oct 20, 2016 9:27:47 AM | 2
"But that is no longer the case and maybe it never was"
It was when the League of Women Voters ran the show but when they wouldn't agree to selling
out the citizens in Amerika is when we got this dog and phoney show.
I didn't watch and I'll be Voting Green.
rg the lg | Oct 20, 2016 10:19:53 AM | 10
Strictly speaking, if the voters aren't getting what they want from the politicians in a democracy,
and they're too chickenshit to demand reform or else - then they should blame themselves because
it IS their fault.
We're getting really, really sick of the bullshit that passes for politics in 2 Party Oz. We
sent them a subtle message in 2015 by voting for independents and splinter groups and the "Government"
governs with a majority of 1 seat. Next election there will either be a responsive non-traitorous
Government, or a revolution. Some of them are starting to wake up and others are pretending not
to notice. But the writing is on the wall...
I've had a good look at your "The Donald Trump dove myth" article and I must admit that its
quality far exceeds your own verbal rubbish.
It examines Trump through the prism as a likely "Jacksonian Conservative", who are not
dissimilar to traditional conservatives but are not non-interventionists as such, just far more
honest about their interventionism (as they are unburdened by the neocon bullshit about "killing
them to make them barbarians more civilised") and really only likely to want to apply aggression
where they feel that fundamental American interests are threatened.
To me, that's a big step up from the NEOCON/NEOLIB false pretense garbage. I'd far rather have
an honest RATIONAL and RISK ASSESSING thug than a two faced snake, which better describes your
C**tory and her Kissenger/Albright gang of perfectly murderable certified war criminals. You can
call him a "fascist" if you like. You obviously prefer the 1984 thuggery to more honest, above
the table varieties. To each one his own.
One last note. Those goons that the Dems kept sending to Trump's rallies to stir violence up,
there's now the fucking Himalayas of evidence that it's entirely real and beyond any doubt.
Guess who was the historical king of criminal spamming of shit stirring goons at political
adversaries' rallies? The Bolsheviks and your own fixated Fascists/Nazis. Looks like your Hillary
learned from the best, inspired by the best, via her fascist mentor Klitsinger et num al.
So, enjoy your Clintory, dear Pom, and good luck as you and yer Britannia're gonna need it
if that discard of a dementia stricken half-human wins the elections.
Getting Julian Assange's internet connection cut off just makes the Obama regime look even
more stupid and pathetic now. The document dumps keep on coming. Did they really think they would
stop that by shutting off the LAN in the Ecuadoran embassy?
The underlying problem seems to be that John Podesta bought into the marketing bullshit
about The Cloud. So he kept all his very sensitive correspondence at his Gmail account, apparently
using it as the archive of his correspondence.
I don't know if we'll ever know who hacked his account. It is not that hard to do, so it
doesn't really require a "state actor". Google only gives you a few tries at entering your password,
so Podesta's account couldn't have been hacked by randomly trying every possibility. Somehow,
the hacker got the actual password. Either it was exposed somewhere, or it was obtained by
spear
phishing . That involves sending your target an email that directs him to a Web page that
asks him to enter his password. All that's required to do that is being able to write a plausible
email, and setting up a Web site to mimic the Web site where the account you want to hack resides,
Gmail in this case.
Nearly all information technology security breaches are insider jobs, genuine crackers/hackers
are rare. Wikileaks is by far the most likely being fed from the inside of the DNC etc. and/or
from their suppliers or security detail by people that are disgusted, have personal vendettas,
and so on. It's the real Anonymous, anyone anywhere, not the inept CIA stooges or the faux organized
or ideological pretenders. In addition any analyst at the NSA with access to XKeyScore can supply
Wikileaks with all the Podesta emails on a whim in less than half an hour of "work" and the actual
data to be sent would be gotten with a single XKeyScore database query. That sort of query is
exactly what the XKeyScore backend part was built to do as documented by Snowden and affirmed
by Binney and others.
The powers that be can cheat but people can ignore their efforts, it's what happens in every
revolution and civil war. It's hard to see how a second Clinton presidency will have any shred
of legitimacy in the US or in the world.
Duterte may well be flawed but he has a keen nose for where things are heading, Filipinos
should be proud of him.
Don't believe anyone who says what you do or don't do doesn't matter.
CLINTON: Well, I am encouraged that there is an effort led by the Iraqi army, supported by
Kurdish forces, and also given the help and advice from the number of special forces and other
Americans on the ground. But I will not support putting American soldiers into Iraq as an occupying
force. I don't think that is in our interest, and I don't think that would be smart to do.
In fact, Chris, I think that would be a big red flag waving for ISIS to reconstitute itself.
The goal here is to take back Mosul. It's going to be a hard fight. I've got no illusions
about that. And then continue to press into Syria to begin to take back and move on Raqqa,
which is the ISIS headquarters.
I am hopeful that the hard work that American military advisers have done will pay off
and that we will see a real - a really successful military operation. But we know we've got
lots of work to do. Syria will remain a hotbed of terrorism as long as the civil war, aided
and abetted by the Iranians and the Russians, continue.
Considering Lynn Forester de Rothschild's apparent hand in potential President Hillary Clinton's
economic policy, such theories don't appear so far from the truth - and only further prove the
United States has strayed from its democratically-based roots to become a banking and corporate
plutocracy.
This is a bit misinformed conclusion. Some of you may know "Wizard of Oz". It is a famous novel
for children that was used for the screenplay of an adorable movie with the same title. Not everybody
knows that it was also a novel for the adults, with a key: a political satire against banking
and corporate plutocracy that controlled the government of USA around 1900. If I recall, the title
figure of the Wizard was Mark Hanna, and Wicked Witch of the East stood for eastern banks which
at that time included the largest banks that were behind Mark Hanna (who in turn was the puppeteer
of the President). Certain things change in the last 120 years, for example, the rich and famous
largely abandoned the mansions in Rhode Island, but New York remains the financial capital. I
somewhat doubt that Rothschild secretly have the sway over this crowd, if one would have to point
to the most powerful financial entity I would pick Goldman Sachs. Yes, it helped that Lady de
Rothschild was sociable, amiable and communicated well with Hillary and numerous gentlemen who
could drop 100,000 on a plate to please the hostess, but at the end of the day, things were quite
similar when Rothschild largely sticked to Europe.
The structural problem is not a conspiracy, but simply, capitalism. Any way you cut it, democracy
relies on convincing the citizens what is good and what is bad for them, and that still requires
money. Money can come from numerous small donors or few large ones, or some combination. Unfortunately,
large donors have disproportional influence, until a politician creates his/her brand, too few
small donors would know about him/her. Nice thing about Sanders was that he operates largely outside
the circle of large donors. That said, both Clintons and Obama entered the political scene as
"outsiders".
I met rich people only few times in my life, and I must admit, it is a pleasant experience.
Sleeping is comfortable, food is good, when you go to restaurant the owner greets your party very
politely and explains the best dishes of the day and so on. In politics, there are reactionary
fat cats and progressive fat cats, but needless to say, they tend to share certain perspective
and they skew the media, the academia and the policies in a certain direction.
If Hillary is elected, she will be haunted by her 'mistakes' and by the exposure of her double
face by Wikileaks. She is stigmatized as 'crooked Hillary' and as an unreliable decision maker.
From now on, all her decisions will be tainted with suspicion. I doubt that she'll be able to
lead the country properly during the 4 years she hopes to stay in power.
@ Piotr Berman who wrote: The structural problem is not a conspiracy, but simply, capitalism.
I heartily disagree. Capitalism is a myth created to cover for decisions made by those who
own private finance.....part of my undergraduate degree is in macro economics. Your assertion
that the Rothschild influence is restricted to Europe is laughable.
Joe6pac has it right......the United States has strayed from its democratically-based roots
to become a banking and corporate plutocracy.
I believe that it is Piotr Berman that is misinformed.
With single-bid ("plurality") voting you only have two candidates to choose from.
I have described the strategic hedge simple score election method all over the Internet. It
is simple in the sense that does not require easily hackable voting machines, and can easily work
with hand counted paper ballots at non-centralized voting places. It is not hampered by any requirement
to cater to so-called "sincere," "honest" (actually artless and foolish) voters. It easily thwarts
both the spoiler effect and the blind hurdle dilemma (the "Burr Dilemma"). It just works.
Strategic hedge simple score voting can be described in one simple sentence: Strategically
bid no vote at all for undesired candidates (ignore them as though they did not exist), or strategically
cast from five to ten votes for any number of candidates you prefer (up to some reasonable limit
of, say, twelve candidates), and then simply add all the votes up.
Both IRV-style and approval voting methods suffer from the blind hurdle dilemma, which can
be overcome with the hedge voting strategy. An example of usage of the hedge strategy, presuming
the case of a "leftist" voter, would be casting ten votes for Ralph Nader, and only eight or nine
for Al Gore. This way, the voter would only sacrifice 20 or 10 percent of their electoral influence
if Nader did not win.
Don't be fooled by fake "alternatives like "IRV" and "approval voting".
And demand hand counted paper ballots that cannot be rigged by "Russian hackers".
Reagan delivered Stingers to the Northern Alliance and Taliban, why is Reagan not in prison?
Because of people like Ollie North and Dick Armitage. Because the Deep State is in control under
Continuance of Government, ever since the 2001 military coup.
Trump may have gone to Catholic prep school, but he's no choir boy either.
Hillary will win, it's in the bag, and she won't be haunted by anything at all, she doesn't
have an introspective bone in her hagsack. She will be our Nero for 21st C.
"We came, we saw, he died, haww, haww, haww."
Should have been bodybagged and tagged and disposed of at sea, her, not M.
"... Point being that not only would The Clintons have the Democratic Party machine to rely on for potential vote rigging in this stage of the process (distinguishing vs. primaries simply for rhetorical focus), ..."
"... but with the clear reality of the Republican Party elite also backing her, she can rely on at least some of the Republican Party machine also being available for potential vote rigging, and who have their experience in Florida, Ohio, etc to bring to the table. ..."
"... The longer term issue is the Imperial Oligarchy has now taken off the mask, they have abandoned the pretense of 2 party competition to unite behind the defender of status quo interests, with WikiLeaks detailing the gory bits of their corruption and malfeasance. And everybody in the system is tainted by that, both parties, media, etc. It has overtly collapsed to the reality of a single Party of Power (per the term Oligarch media like to use re: Russia for example). ..."
"... the Clinton faction is 100% "bi-partisan" and about confluence of both Oligarchic parties. ..."
"... I would say the Democratic primary was even a mirror of this, I would guess that Clinton had hoped to win more easily vs Sanders without rigging etc... essentially between Sanders and Trump turning anything but "radical status quo" into boogymen. ..."
"... That just reveals how close to the line the Imperial Oligarchy feels compelled to play... and, I suppose, how confident they are in the full spectrum of tools at their disposal to manipulate democracy. ..."
"... But that is also shown merely by the situation we are in, with the collapse of the two party system in order to maintain the strength of Imperial Oligarchy. ..."
Point being that not only would The Clintons have the Democratic Party machine to rely on
for potential vote rigging in this stage of the process (distinguishing vs. primaries simply for
rhetorical focus),
but with the clear reality of the Republican Party elite also backing her, she can rely
on at least some of the Republican Party machine also being available for potential vote rigging,
and who have their experience in Florida, Ohio, etc to bring to the table.
The longer term issue is the Imperial Oligarchy has now taken off the mask, they have abandoned
the pretense of 2 party competition to unite behind the defender of status quo interests, with
WikiLeaks detailing the gory bits of their corruption and malfeasance. And everybody in the system
is tainted by that, both parties, media, etc. It has overtly collapsed to the reality of a single
Party of Power (per the term Oligarch media like to use re: Russia for example).
And the craziest thing of course is not that this all happened by accident because some "scary
clown" appeared, but that this was nearly exactly planned BY The Clinton faction themselves (promoting
Trump in order to win vs. "scary clown"). Most notably, not simply as a seizure of power by Democratic
Party "against" Republicans... They are very clear the Clinton faction is 100% "bi-partisan"
and about confluence of both Oligarchic parties.
I would say the Democratic primary was even a mirror of this, I would guess that Clinton
had hoped to win more easily vs Sanders without rigging etc... essentially between Sanders and
Trump turning anything but "radical status quo" into boogymen. Only surprise was how well
Sanders did, necessitating fraud etc, with polls in fact showing Sanders was BETTER placed to
defeat Trump than Clinton.
That just reveals how close to the line the Imperial Oligarchy feels compelled to play...
and, I suppose, how confident they are in the full spectrum of tools at their disposal to manipulate
democracy.
But that is also shown merely by the situation we are in, with the collapse of the two
party system in order to maintain the strength of Imperial Oligarchy.
"... The Atlantic Council is a leading US geopolitical strategy think tank, which last month published a document outlining advanced preparations underway for the United States to fight "major and deadly" wars between "great powers," which will entail "heavy casualties" and "high levels of death and destruction." The document, titled "The Future of the Army," roots the likelihood of such a war in what it calls "Russia's resurgence." ..."
"... Higgins is one of five authors of an Atlantic Council report released earlier this year, "Distract, Deceive, Destroy," on Russia's role in Syria. The report concludes by calling for US missile strikes in Syria. ..."
"... Despite having no background in weapons analysis beyond that supposedly derived from computer gaming and, in Higgins' own words, "what I'd learned from Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rambo [films]," he was quickly identified by the international media as a ready source of quotes that could be palmed off as "independent," while hewing to the anti-Russian line of the US and its NATO allies. ..."
"... By 2014, Higgins was able to raise the finance to create Bellingcat, a more professionally produced web site backed by up to 15 staff and volunteers. Bellingcat was launched days before MH17 was shot down and quickly expanded its area of study to include Ukraine. ..."
"... How closely allied to the operations of the US state and intelligence network Higgins was by this time can be gauged from an article he wrote in July of this year, "New generation of digital detectives fight to keep Russia honest." ..."
"... In the article on MH17 published on the Atlantic Council web site, Higgins wrote that following the downing of the plane, "With renewed interest in the conflict in Ukraine, Bellingcat began to look at other aspects of the conflict, where claims of Russian involvement were met with blanket denials." He continued, " Together with our colleagues at the Atlantic Council ..."
"... Proving that MH17 was shot down by Russian forces was a major focus of Bellingcat's efforts. As early as July 28, 2014, Higgins wrote, "The Buk That Could--An Open Source Odyssey," which was based on poor quality videos, stills and quotes from Ukrainian counterterrorism chief Vitaly Nayda. Citing communications intercepts he would not release, Nayda claimed that the "launcher rolled into Ukraine across the Russian border aboard a flatbed truck." ..."
"... By 2015, Higgins' propaganda operation had become so discredited that the German news magazine Der ..."
"... In other words, Higgins/Bellingcat is useful for pumping out propaganda masquerading as "citizen journalism." The so-called "research collective" is an Internet and social media adjunct of the US government and NATO. The conclusions of its "research" are determined by Higgins' politics, which serve the interests of the imperialist powers as they gear up for war against Russia. ..."
"... I notice that on the cable behemoth HBO they are the showing the above mentioned "news program" Vice News, which is slick and slimy.Great example of very stealthy imperialist propaganda . ..."
In its report, released last month, on the 2014 downing of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17, the Dutch-led
Joint Investigation Team (JIT) blamed Russia. The JIT, in which the authorities of the Netherlands,
Australia, Belgium, Malaysia and Ukraine are collaborating, stated that the missile that downed the
plane "was brought from the territory of the Russian Federation and, after launch, subsequently returned
to the Russian Federation territory."
The JIT noted, "[M]any journalists carried out their own
investigations, as did research collectives like Bellingcat. This resulted in different scenarios
and theories being raised, both in the media and on the Internet."
The JIT report is cursory and based largely on Ukrainian sources. It does not provide definitive
evidence to back up its conclusions, leaving unresolved the question of who shot down MH17.
This reference to Bellingcat, however, is significant. The speculative scenario sketched out by
the JIT, utilizing animation, images, un-sourced mobile phone recordings and references to unavailable
satellite and radar data, is almost identical to that advanced by Bellingcat.
The Bellingcat "research collective" is a web site established in July 2014 by Eliot Higgins.
Originally from Leicester in the UK, Higgins is, as of February, a senior fellow in the Atlantic
Council's Digital Forensic Research Lab and Future Europe Initiative.
The Atlantic Council is a leading US geopolitical strategy think tank, which last month published
a document outlining advanced preparations underway for the United States to fight "major and deadly"
wars between "great powers," which will entail "heavy casualties" and "high levels of death and destruction."
The document, titled "The Future of the Army," roots the likelihood of such a war in what it calls
"Russia's resurgence."
Higgins is one of five authors of an Atlantic Council report released earlier this year, "Distract,
Deceive, Destroy," on Russia's role in Syria. The report concludes by calling for US missile strikes
in Syria.
From 2012, Higgins maintained a blog, "Brown Moses," which became notorious for its pro-imperialist
coverage of the Syria conflict. Higgins trawled social media posts--primarily Facebook, Twitter and
YouTube--for images and clips that purported to reveal the many types of both homemade and industrially
manufactured weaponry in use in the bloodbath provoked by US imperialism.
Despite having no background in weapons analysis beyond that supposedly derived from computer
gaming and, in Higgins' own words, "what I'd learned from Arnold Schwarzenegger and Rambo [films],"
he was quickly identified by the international media as a ready source of quotes that could be palmed
off as "independent," while hewing to the anti-Russian line of the US and its NATO allies.
In 2013, Brown Moses became embroiled in allegations by the main imperialist powers that the Syrian
government used chemical weapons against civilians in the Ghouta suburb of Damascus. By "studying"
social media posts of damaged rockets embedded in the ground, the angle of shadows cast and satellite
images of the area, Higgins claimed to be able to show that rockets, alleged to contain sarin, had
been fired by the Syrian army.
Higgins' efforts were recycled by the world media. At the time, the US government and NATO were
on the brink of a major military escalation in Syria, with the alleged chemical attacks meant to
provide the pretext.
Later that year, veteran US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh debunked the chemical attack
allegations, pointing out that numerous forces in the Syrian conflict, including US-backed "rebel"
groups fighting the Syrian government, such as the Al Qaeda-linked al-Nusra Front, had "mastered
the mechanics of creating sarin and [were] capable of manufacturing it in quantity."
Higgins' work was rubbished by a group of Massachusetts Institute of Technology scientists, led
by Professor Theodore Postol, a professor of science, technology, and international security. Postol
told Mint Press, "It's clear and unambiguous this munition could not have come from Syrian
government-controlled areas as the White House claimed." Higgins, he added, "has done a very nice
job collecting information on a website. As far as his analysis, it's so lacking any analytical foundation,
it's clear he has no idea what he's talking about."
By 2014, Higgins was able to raise the finance to create Bellingcat, a more professionally
produced web site backed by up to 15 staff and volunteers. Bellingcat was launched days before MH17
was shot down and quickly expanded its area of study to include Ukraine.
How closely allied to the operations of the US state and intelligence network Higgins was
by this time can be gauged from an article he wrote in July of this year, "New generation of digital
detectives fight to keep Russia honest."
In the article on MH17 published on the Atlantic Council web site, Higgins wrote that following
the downing of the plane, "With renewed interest in the conflict in Ukraine, Bellingcat began to
look at other aspects of the conflict, where claims of Russian involvement were met with blanket
denials." He continued, " Together with our colleagues at the Atlantic Council, we explored
Russia's involvement in the conflict in Ukraine in the report 'Hiding in Plain Sight: Putin's War
in Ukraine,' which led VICE News to track down one of the Russian soldiers fighting in Ukraine who
had been identified in the report." [Emphasis added]
The 2014 civil war in Ukraine, which included the Russian annexation of Crimea, was triggered
by the far-right US- and EU-backed coup in Kiev earlier that year. It brought Russia and the US closer
to a military conflict than at any time since the end of the Cold War, and served to transform Ukraine
into a platform from which provocations and operations could be launched against Russia.
MH17 was shot down over territory controlled by Russian-backed separatists but contested by the
Ukrainian government and far-right Ukrainian militias. From the first moment, prior to any investigation,
the crash was seized upon by the US and its allies to denounce Russia as the world's main aggressor
and isolate the regime of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Proving that MH17 was shot down by Russian forces was a major focus of Bellingcat's efforts.
As early as July 28, 2014, Higgins wrote, "The Buk That Could--An Open Source Odyssey," which was
based on poor quality videos, stills and quotes from Ukrainian counterterrorism chief Vitaly Nayda.
Citing communications intercepts he would not release, Nayda claimed that the "launcher rolled into
Ukraine across the Russian border aboard a flatbed truck."
In contrast with Bellingcat's hack work, a 2015 report by the Dutch Safety Board into the MH17
crash is a sober piece of work. The Dutch investigators concluded that the most likely missile was
a Buk of the 9M38 series with a 9N314M warhead. The investigators identified the potential launch
site, based on a 320 square kilometre area, but made no attempt to further define the location or
draw conclusions as to who controlled it.
By 2015, Higgins' propaganda operation had become so discredited that the German news magazine
DerSpiegel was forced to apologise for its uncritical recycling of Bellingcat
allegations that the Russian Defense Ministry manipulated satellite image data to support its position
on MH17. According to Jens Kreise, an expert in digital image forensics, Bellingcat's technique of
"error correction analysis" was "subjective and not based entirely on science." He added, "This is
why there is not a single scientific paper that addresses it." Kreise went on to describe Bellingcat's
work as "nothing more than reading tea leaves."
Immediately after the JIT's MH17 report was released, Higgins took part in an online Atlantic
Council panel discussion. Commenting on Higgins' work, VICE journalist Simon Ostrovsky noted that
Bellingcat gave "a view into the evidence that we wouldn't have understood otherwise... imagine if
there hadn't been that narrative and the lies that were being produced by the Russian MoD [Ministry
of Defence] had a fertile soil in which to grow, in which there wasn't this very public counterweight."
In other words, Higgins/Bellingcat is useful for pumping out propaganda masquerading as "citizen
journalism." The so-called "research collective" is an Internet and social media adjunct of the US
government and NATO. The conclusions of its "research" are determined by Higgins' politics, which
serve the interests of the imperialist powers as they gear up for war against Russia.
Red_Mariner
I notice that on the cable behemoth HBO they are the showing the above mentioned "news program"
Vice News, which is slick and slimy.Great example of very stealthy imperialist propaganda .
thucydide
Thanks for this much needed review of Higgins' work and evolution. It is not surprising that he's been picked up by a big pro-war thinktank, and now works hard every day engineering new conflict and untold suffering.
A quick correction. While Seymour Hersh did publish a piece describing al-Nusra's chemical weapons and sarin production capability, this fact cannot properly be attributed to Hersh. In his piece, Hersh attributes this information to a joint U.S. intelligence assessment, provided to him by a senior US intelligence official. The fact must be attributed to US intelligence, not Hersh himself.
Bob Beal
Thank you for helping detail the mechanics of propaganda. Perhaps editors will open their eyes and question more their reporters' sources, be they think tanks or PR operations.
"... The presidential candidate also tweeted the words of her running mate, Ajamu Baraka, who said, "It should [be] clear to everyone that a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for war." ..."
"... Regrettably for Americans, Stein is right about the Democratic nominee. Those concerned about the future of America with someone as erratic as Donald Trump in the Oval Office are justified in their worry, but to believe Hillary is somehow a "better option" is not only a naive assumption - but a reckless one. A vote for Hillary is undoubtedly a conscious vote to go war with a nuclear-armed superpower. ..."
"... US empire is bigger than any President. No president can change it. ..."
Dr. Stein, who has
strongly advocated
for a more
peaceful approach
to U.S. relations in the Middle East - as well as throughout the world - recently took to her
Twitter account to boldly state what may come as a shock to many Americans:
"Hillary Clinton's foreign policy is much scarier than Donald Trump's."
The presidential candidate also tweeted the words of her running mate, Ajamu Baraka, who said,
"It should [be] clear to everyone that a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for war."
Hillary Clinton's foreign policy is much scarier than Donald Trump's, who does not want to
go to war with Russia.
#PeaceOffensive
Dr. Stein elaborated on her social media statements when asked by a reporter in Texas this week
what she felt a Hillary Clinton presidency would look like.
"Well, we know what kind of Secretary of State she was,"
Stein said in her response.
"[Hillary] is in incredible service to Wall Street and to the war profiteers. She led the way
in Libya and she's trying to start an air war with Russia over Syria, which means, if Hillary
gets elected, we're kinda going to war with Russia, folks…a nuclear-armed power."
While many Americans act as if one's disdain for Hillary Clinton and her policies automatically
make them a supporter of Donald Trump for president - or vice versa - Stein went on to vocalize her
fear of both major party candidates.
"Who will sleep well with Trump in the White House? But you shouldn't sleep well with Hillary
in the White House either. Fortunately, we live in a democracy and we have more than two deadly
choices," Stein said, referring to herself and Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson.
Regrettably for Americans, Stein is right about the Democratic nominee. Those concerned about
the future of America with someone as erratic as Donald Trump in the Oval Office are justified in
their worry, but to believe Hillary is somehow a "better option" is not only a naive assumption -
but a reckless one. A vote for Hillary is undoubtedly a conscious vote to go war with a nuclear-armed
superpower.
Still not a believer? Watch the video below and see for yourself:
There are so many holes on Dr. Stein observations that I don't even know where to start.
First: US empire is bigger than any President. No president can change it.
Second: Only the naive can think that a neocon (Hillary) can be more dangerous than a bully
(Trump).
Third: Dr. Stein, could you please tell us what will happen when the empire has not enough
energy, food, and resources to give to its people? Tell us your "un-reckless" solution, because
I can't wait to hear.
Ohh. I just remember. You can't, because it doesn't exist.
This well-articulated executive summary (10 minutes of your time) integrates the consequences
of the world's biggest financial bubble with the risk of military escalation with Russia in Syria,
the Balkans, or Ukraine. Hilllary's foreign policy goes head-to-head with Russia's foreign policy:
they are different with respect to use of nuclear weapons, particularly tactical nuclear weapons.
Show me ANY stories from her on ANY of the Million Dicks in a Bag "credible" media.....
<tapping foot>...............
................yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeah
But Cankly-pooper has that jag off Air Force cucked dickwad on TeeVee ads every ten fucking
minutes saying Trump is unfit to have his finger on the button.
Just like the moron I talked to a couple of weeks ago, when he said he was voting for Catheter
because "Trump was going to take us to war".....(finding out he gets his "news" from social media,
Google News and the NYT)
MORONS...that's who Clinton has .....fucking morons....
Jill Stein - Green Party candidate, and Gary Johnson - Libtarian candidate .......
[In battleground states] BOTH need to come out and tell their voting supporters to NOT vote
for them but to vote Trump...and only vote for them if they can't vote Trump. Because there is
no point in a Greens platform if the planet is at war or in destruction, likewise their is no
chance of a Libertarian platform for a country in increased wars, or world at war.
The Libertarian and Greens platform assume a peaceful country and world - with Cliinton and
her backers the USA will ge the exact opposite.
This is why the Greens and Libitarians most not only endorse Trump but tell their voters they
must vote for Trump for there to be any hope for the USA's future.
In fact if I were Trump I would be making this pitch to them.
On September 28 the French mission to the UN claimed that two hospitals in east-Aleppo had been bombed.
It documented this in a tweet with
a picture of destroyed buildings in Gaza. The French later deleted that tweet.
It is not the first time such false claims and willful obfuscations were made by "western" officials.
But usually they shy away from outright lies.
Not so the US Secretary of State John Kerry. In a press event yesterday, before talks with the French
Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault about a new UN resolution,
he said (vid
@1:00) about Syria:
Last night, the regime attacked yet another hospital, and 20 people were killed and 100 people
were wounded. And Russia and the regime owe the world more than an explanation about why they
keep hitting hospitals and medical facilities and children and women.These are acts that beg for
an appropriate investigation of war crimes. And those who commit these would and should be held
accountable for these actions.
No opposition group has claimed that such an extremely grave event happened. None. No press agency
has a record of it. The MI-6 disinformation outlet SOHR in Britain, which quite reliably notes every
claimed casualty and is frequently cited in "western" media", has not said anything about such an
event anywhere in Syria.
The grave incident Kerry claimed did not happen. Kerry made it up. (Was it supposed to happen, got
canceled and Kerry missed the memo?) Kerry used the lie to call for war crime investigations and
punishment. This in front of cameras, at an official event with a foreign guest in the context of
a United Nations Security Council resolution.
This is grave. This is nearly as grave as Colin Powell's false claims of WMD in Iraq in front of
the UN Security Council.
Early reports, like
this one at CBSNEWS, repeat the Kerry claim:
Kerry said Syrian forces hit a hospital overnight, killing 20 people and wounding 100, describing
what would be the latest strike by Moscow or its ally in Damascus on a civilian target.
But the New York Times write up of the event, which includes Kerry's demand for war crime investigations,
does not mention the hospital bombing claim. Not at all. For the self-acclaimed "paper of record",
Kerry's lie did not happen. Likewise the Washington Post which in its own write up
makes no mention of the false Kerry claim.
The latest AP write up by Matthew Lee
also omits the lie. This is curious as Matt Lee is obviously aware of it. The State Departments
daily press briefing yesterday
had a whole section
on it. Video (@3:30)
shows that it is Matt who asks these questions:
QUESTION: Okay. On to Syria and the Secretary's comments earlier this morning, one is: Do you
know what strike he was talking about in his comments overnight on a hospital in Aleppo?
MR KIRBY: I think the Secretary's referring actually to a strike that we saw happen yesterday
on a field hospital in the Rif Dimashq Governorate. I'm not exactly positive that that's what
he was referring to, but I think he was referring to actually one that was --
QUESTION: Not one in Aleppo?
MR KIRBY: I believe it was – I think it was – I think he – my guess is – I'm guessing here that
he was a bit mistaken on location and referring to one --
...
QUESTION: But you don't have certainty, though?
MR KIRBY: I don't. Best I got, best information I got, is that he was most likely referring to
one yesterday in this governorate, but it could just be an honest mistake.
QUESTION: If we could – if we can nail that down with certainty what he was talking about --
MR KIRBY: I'll do the best I can, Matt.
...
This goes on for a while. But there was no hospital attack in Rif Dimashq nor in Aleppo. Later on
DoS spokesman Kirby basically admits that Kerry lied: "I can't corroborate that."
It also turns out that Kerry has no evidence for any war crimes and no plausible way to initiate
any official international procedure about such. And for what? To bully Russia? Fat chance, that
would be a hopeless endeavor and Kerry should know that.
Kerry is desperate. He completely lost the plot on Syria. Russia is in the lead and will do whatever
needs to be done. The Obama administration has, apart from starting a World War, no longer any way
to significantly influence that.
Kerry is only one tool of the Obama administration. Later that day the US Director of National Intelligence,
James Clapper, made other
accusations against Russia:
The US Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directedthe recent
compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.
The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by
the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed
efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process.
Such activity is not new to Moscow-the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across
Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope
and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized
these activities.
Translation: "WE DO NOT KNOW at all ("we are confident", "we believe", "directed") who did these
hacks and WE DO NOT HAVE the slightest evidence ("consistent with","based on the scope and sensitivity")
that Russia is involved, so let me throw some chaff and try to bamboozle you all."
The former British ambassador Craig Murray calls it
a
blatant neocon lie. It was obviously the DNC that manipulated the US election by, contrary to
its mandate, promoting Clinton over Sanders. The hackers only proved that. It is also easy to see
why these accusations are made now. Murray:
That the Obama administration has made a formal accusation of Russia based on no evidence is,
on one level, astonishing. But it is motivated by desperation. WikiLeaks have already announced
that they have a huge cache of other material relating to Hillary's shenanigans. The White House
is simply seeking to discredit it in advance by a completely false association with Russian intelligence.
The Obama administration is losing it. On Syria as well as on the election it can no longer assert
its will. Trump, despite all dirty boy's club talk he may do, has a significant chance to catch the
presidency. He (-44%) and Clinton (-41%) are
more disliked by the U.S electorate, than Putin (-38%). Any solution in Syria will be more in
Russia's than the Washington's favor.
Such desperation can be dangerous. Kerry is gasping at straws when he lies about Russia. The president
and his colleagues at the Pentagon and the CIA have more kinetic means to express themselves. Could
they order up something really stupid?
"... Clinton says publically she believes that. Meanwhile supposedly smart economists like Tyler Cowen say they don't. Boston Fed President Rosengren says there are too many jobs. We need more unemployed. I'm Fed Up with regional Fed Presidents like him. ..."
"... Class issues are now a tough nut to crack, partly I think because the Democrats and some liberals take demands for economic fairness and try to give us identity politics instead, ..."
"... The meritocratic class who Krugman speaks for and centrist politicians like Clinton will slow-walk class issues like how Tim Geithner slow-walked financial reform. It's part of their job description and milieu. ..."
"... It's funny when neo-liberals/libertarians hate an activity engaged in by workers in what is clearly the product of a free market -- exercising the right of free association and organizing to do collective bargaining -- while think it is perfectly OK -- indeed, so "natural" that any question wouldn't even occur to them -- for owners of capital to organize themselves under the special protections of the state-created corporation. ..."
"... It's understandable, though, that they would consider the corporation to be ordained by natural law: the Founding Fathers, after all, were dedicated to the proposition that all men and corporations are endowed with certain unalienable rights by their Creator. (Never mind that the creator of the corporations is the state.) ..."
I liked how Hillary said in the third debate that she was for raising the minimum wage because
people who work full time shouldn't live in poverty. And "Donald" is against it. That's why people
are voting for her.
That's an ethical or moral notion, combined with "morally neutral" economics. People who work
hard full time, play by the rules and pay their dues shouldn't live in poverty.
Clinton says publically she believes that. Meanwhile supposedly smart economists like Tyler
Cowen say they don't. Boston Fed President Rosengren says there are too many jobs. We need more
unemployed. I'm Fed Up with regional Fed Presidents like him.
Think about the debate between the centrists and progressives over Trump supporters. The centrists
argue Trump supporters (nor anyone else besides a few) aren't suffering from economic anxiety
- that it's racism all of the way down. Matt Yglesias. Dylan Matthews. Krugman. Meyerson. Etc.
The progressives admit there's racism, but there's a wider context. The Nazis were racists,
but there was also the Treaty of Versailles and the Great Depression. And Germany got better in
the decades after the war just as the American South is better than it once was. Steve Randy Waldman
and James Kwak discussed in blog post how the wider context should be taken into consideration.
On some "non-economic issues" there has been progress even though the recent decades haven't
been as booming as the post-WWII decades were with rising living standards for all.
A black President. Legalized gay marriage. Legalized pot. I wouldn't have thought these things
as likely to happen when I was a teenager because of the bigoted authoritarian nature of many
voters and elites. During the Progressive era and when the New Deal was enacted, racism and sexism
and bigotry and anti-science thinking was virulent. Yet economic progress was made on the class
front.
Class issues are now a tough nut to crack, partly I think because the Democrats and some
liberals take demands for economic fairness and try to give us identity politics instead,
not that the latter isn't worthwhile. Partly b/c of what Mike Konczal discussed in his recent
Medium piece.
If we can just apply the morality and politics of electing a black President and legalizing
gay marriage and pot, to class issues. The meritocratic class who Krugman speaks for and centrist
politicians like Clinton will slow-walk class issues like how Tim Geithner slow-walked financial
reform. It's part of their job description and milieu.
But Clinton did talk to it during the third debate when she said she'd raise the minimum wage
because people who work full time shouldn't live in poverty. That is a morale issue as the new
Pope has been talking about.
Hillary should have joked last night about what God's Catholic representative here on Earth
had to say about Trump.
urban legend said...
It's funny when neo-liberals/libertarians hate an activity engaged in by workers in what is
clearly the product of a free market -- exercising the right of free association and organizing
to do collective bargaining -- while think it is perfectly OK -- indeed, so "natural" that any
question wouldn't even occur to them -- for owners of capital to organize themselves under the
special protections of the state-created corporation.
It's understandable, though, that they would consider the corporation to be ordained by
natural law: the Founding Fathers, after all, were dedicated to the proposition that all men and
corporations are endowed with certain unalienable rights by their Creator. (Never mind that the
creator of the corporations is the state.)
Washington forgot his role in color revolutions in Ukraine, Russia, Serbia and other countries,
when Washington controlled neoliberal media served as air support for local fifth column. Now
boomerang returned...
On Tuesday, the Foreign Ministry of Ecuador confirmed WikiLeaks' charge that Ecuador itself
had ordered the severing of Assange's Internet connection under pressure from the US government.
In a statement, the ministry said that WikiLeaks had "published a wealth of documents impacting
on the US election campaign," adding that the government of Ecuador "respects the principle of
non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states" and "does not interfere in external
electoral processes." On that grounds, the statement claimed, the Ecuadorian government decided
to "restrict access" to the communications network at its London embassy.
"... Clinton also says that the no-fly zone bombing in Syria she is arguing for "would kill a lot of Syrians" - all for humanitarian reasons of course. ..."
"... While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia , which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region. ..."
"... Not new - the 2012 DIA analysis provided as much , and more, - but these email's prove that Clinton was and is well aware that U.S. allies are financing the radical Islamists in Syria and Iraq. ..."
Quotes from the Wikileaks stash of Hillary
Clinton speeches and emails
from her campaign chair John Podesta.
Clinton in a 2013 speech to the Jewish United Fund Advance & Major Gifts Dinner (via
The Intercept ):
[Arming moderates has] been complicated by the fact that the Saudis and others are shipping large
amounts of weapons-and pretty indiscriminately-not at all targeted toward the people that we think
would be the more moderate, least likely, to cause problems in the future, ...
Clinton also says that the no-fly zone bombing in Syria she is arguing for "would kill a lot
of Syrians" - all for humanitarian reasons of course.
The following was written by Podesta, a well connected former White House Chief of Staff, in an
2014 email to Clinton.
As introduction Podesta notes: "Sources include Western intelligence, US intelligence and sources
in the region.":
While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic
and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi
Arabia , which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical
Sunni groups in the region.
Not new - the 2012 DIA analysis
provided as much , and more, - but these email's prove that Clinton was and is well aware that
U.S. allies are financing the radical Islamists in Syria and Iraq.
"... It is high time for the U.S. to return to paper-ballots and manual vote counting. The process is easier, comprehensible, less prone to manipulations and reproducible. Experience in other countries show that it is also nearly as fast, if not faster, than machine counting. There is simply no sensible reason why machines should be used at all. ..."
"... There is simply no sensible reason why machines should be used at all." Of course there is - to rig elections. What do you think they are used for. ..."
"... The price to pay is the ability to be alerted when vote rigging is going on. Bush won in 2000 because his people controlled the processes that mattered in Florida. ..."
"... There are the same allegations about 2004 in regards to Ohio. ..."
"... Here's the best statistical analysis of US vote count irregularities to date. Not a pretty picture. ..."
"... There is more needed than just paper ballots. A proportional system, a limit on donations and partisan/donor government posts, a stop to the corporate and lobbyist revolving doors. ..."
"... At present the US seem to be on their way to a one party system. Any democratic process will take place within this "private" club including a very small part of the population. ..."
"... for the 1 percent the system is not rigged, they have a preferred globalization candidate, and a police state fall back should the peasants rebell. ..."
"... US citizens are reduced to vote in a block to this power in the Senate and the House in continuous cycles. In the end that blocks any political progress there might be. ..."
"... There's lots of evidence that the 2004 election was stolen for Bush in Ohio. ..."
"... "smartmatic" is obviously the right choice. it's a name we know and trust. Like Deibold, Northrup, KBR, and Bellingcat. The integrity stands for itself. ..."
"... Just think of how many residents of graveyards will be voting their consciences (or lack thereof) this year. Remember Chicago advise - vote early, vote often. ..."
"... obomber has a friend in the vote rigging business. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-18/robert-creamer ..."
"... Concerted media campaign (scripted) against Trump portrays him as hysterical. Recall the trumped-up "(Howard) Dean Scream". ..."
"... Hillary is as nasty and hysterical as Trump or worse. She uses the F bomb regularly. Screams at her subordinates and she annihilated several countries worth of women and children. ..."
"... We should all be aware of what occurred in the two Baby Bush elections as far as voter machine tabulations and judicial fraud in his becoming president in both elections and the likely murder(s) to cover the fraud up. Small plane crashes being almost untraceable. ..."
"... paper vote or bust. Everything else hides an attempt at control and ultimately fraud. ..."
"... How does that help Trump? Most DNC *and* RNC Deep State insiders favor Hillary. ..."
"... Who is leaking all this stuff so well-timed together? Might just be the FBI, finding itself unable to prosecute officially, not only for fear of retribution, but also because the heap of shit that would get uncovered could be enough for the rest of the world to declare war on the US. ..."
"... In Vietnam, as in Iraq, the U.S. government pushed hard to get an election to sanctify its puppet regime. Ellsberg, who spent two years in Vietnam after his time in the Pentagon, aided some of the key U.S. officials in this effort who sought an honest vote. But when U.S. Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge heard their pitch, he replied, "You've got a gentleman in the White House right now [Johnson] who has spent most of his life rigging elections. I've spent most of my life rigging elections. I spent nine whole months rigging a Republican convention to choose Ike as a candidate rather than Bob Taft." Lodge later ordered, "Get it across to the press that they shouldn't apply higher standards here in Vietnam than they do in the U.S." ..."
"... Why is policy discussion absent from this election cycle? Its all Trump bashing,wo one iota of his policies being broadcast? ..."
"... Obomba, the most un-criticised POTUS in American history, is a laughable pos concerned about his terrible corrupt legacy of death war and division which Trump will reveal, once in. ..."
"... Election Fraud within the Outlaw US Empire has a long history. One very intrepid investigator and expert on this is Brad Friedman who runs the Brad Blog, whose current lead item is about this very topic. ..."
"... The Vote 'No Confidence' movement is growing. It's being actively discussed on FB and ZH now ..."
"... Trump say the election is rigged ? Obama's setting up a straw mam by changing the story to election fraud. There may well be fraud in the voting process but we are unlikely to ever know how much. But as to the election being rigged , that's so plainly obvious it's painful. ..."
"... And Germany doesn't allow electronic voting machines. Gotta be a clue there somewhere. ..."
"... There is ample evidence of election fraud, vote fraud, and various types of 'rigging' or 'organising' in the US it is just too long to go into in a short post. ..."
"... Poll Pro-HRC results are not trustworthy. They aren't necessarily outright fabricated (is easy to do and very hard to detect / prosecute), nor even fraudulently carried out, but 'arranged' to give the desired result, which might even, in some cases, be perfectly unconscious, just following SOP. (I could outline 10 major problems / procedures that twist the results.) ..."
"... Then, the media take it up, and cherry-pick the results, pro HRC. That includes internet sites like real clear politics, which I noticed recently is biased (paid?) in favor of HRC. ..."
"... It is amazing to me, yet very few ppl actually dig into the available info about the polls. (Maybe 300 ppl in the world?) HRC needs these fakelorum poll results because they will 'rig' the election as best as they can, they need to point back to them: "see we were winning all the time Trump deplorables yelling insults who cares" - Pathetic. Also, of course, controlling the polls while not the same as 'riggin' the election is part of the same MO. (See Podesta e-mails from Wikileaks.) ..."
"... I think things could get pretty ugly on Nov 9 if Trump wins because i don't see Hillary going quietly into the night and the dems have seeded "putin is rigging" the election idea to contest the results. Plus the establishment that wants Hillary controls the media and the executive office. ..."
"... Trump's delegitimizing the election before it takes place is definitely color revolution stuff - the carrot revolution? ..."
"... "Hillary Clinton now says her "number one priority" in Syria is the removal of Bashar al-Assad, putting us on the path of war with Syria and Russia next year. ..."
"... no-fly zone" over Syria will certainly be followed by the shooting down of both Russian and U.S. jets, in an unpredictable escalation that could easily spread ..."
"... Note the sums are shards of chewed peanuts and their shells. MSM are bought, controlled and are put in a lowly position, and pamper to power, any.… They will go where the money is but it takes them a long time to figure out who what where why etc. and what they are supposed to do. They cannot be outed as completely controlled, so have to do some 'moves' to retain credibility, and their clients/controllers understand that. Encouraging a corrupt 4th Estate has its major downsides. ..."
"... Rigged. Right. Let me tell you about rigged. The US system is rigged in a far larger sense than any Americans realize. It's rigged to blow off the Constitution. ..."
"... the idea of the Electoral College was that every four years communities vote for a local person who could be trusted to go to Washington and become part of the committee that chooses a president and vice-president. ..."
"... The process is "supposed" to be more akin to the Holy See choosing a pope. The electors were to meet in Washington, debate the possibilities, come up with short list, go to the top person on the list and ask if they would be willing to be president (or vice-president, as the case may be), and if they agreed, the deal was done. If not, go to the second person. ..."
"... And demand hand counted paper ballots that cannot be rigged by "Russian hackers". It's called simple score because it is almost the same as other well-known forms of score (and "range") voting, except it's optimized for hand counted paper ballots (i.e. no machines). ..."
"... Need to comb through the propositions carefully. Against big business and self serving liberals.. BTW, I'm a Californian from the Central Valley. Oh! How I wish there is a proposition. Should Hussein Obomo II charge for crimes against humanity? ..."
"... it is absolutely evident that Donald Trump is not only facing the mammoth Clinton political machine, but, also the combined forces of the viciously dishonest Mainstream Media." ..."
"... "When was the last time the media threw 100% of its support behind one party's presidential candidate? What does that say about the media?" ..."
"... Do you feel comfortable with the idea that a handful of TV and print-news executives are inserting themselves into the process and choosing our leaders for us?" ..."
"... It looks like ALL of the Neocon war criminals and architects of the mass slaughters in Iraq (Libya, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, etc) are standing with Hillary Clinton: ..."
"... Here's a partial list of neocon war criminals supporting Miss Neocon: Paul Wolfowitz (aka, the Prince of Darkness), Eliot Cohen, Richard Perle, David Wurmser, Robert Kagan, Max Boot, Bill Kristol, Dov Zakheim, Douglas Feith, Michael Ledeen, Marc Grossman, David Frum, Michael Chertoff, John Podhoretz, Elliot Abrams, Alan Dershowitz, etc ..."
"... All neocons stand with the CrookedC*nt because there hasn't been nearly enough pointless war, slaughter, dismemberment, death or trauma, it needs to go on FOREVER. ..."
"... To be blunt. It is not only MSM who are prostitutes of oligarchic ruling elite but all or most even so called left-leaning or independent media are all under guise of phony "opposition" or diversity of opinion where there is none. ..."
"... MSM even lacks this basic foundation of a rational thought and must be dismissed entirely. ..."
"... The freedom of speech and press, democracy and just simple decency are simply not allowed in these US under penalty of social marginalizing or even death as Assange and Manning are facing. The entire message of MSM propaganda false flag soldiers is fear. ..."
"... The US Elections themselves are regularity defrauded (read Greg Palast) for decades in thousands of well-documented different and additional ways to polls such as: ..."
"... No independent verification of the vote or serious reporting by international observers about violations, or independent exit polls, and many, many more ways every election is stolen as anybody who opens eyes can see. ..."
"... "The individual loses his substance by voluntarily bowing to an overpowering and distant oligarchy, while simultaneously "participating" in sham democracy." ..."
"... Remember this is a person that actually publicly admits he took 6 months off (from what?) to campaign for Mr Changey Hopey, The drone Bombing Nobel Peace Prize winner, so it's not like he could ever 5have any political insights worth listening to, now is it? ..."
"... Oddly, I looked to Russia for inspiration. RF believes in international law so greatly that she strives mightily at every turn to make it the way nations interact. And what we can see if we choose, is that this effort is paying off. The world is changing because of what Russia believes in. ..."
"... Although Clinton Won Massachusetts by 2%, Hand Counted Precincts in Massachusetts Favored Bernie Sanders by 17% ..."
"... Massachusetts, one of the participating states for the Super Tuesday election results, may need further scrutiny to allay concerns over election fraud using electronic voting machines. 68 out of the state's 351 jurisdictions used hand counted ballots and showed a much larger preference of 17% for Bernie Sanders than the rest of the jurisdictions tabulated by electronic voting machine vendors ES&S, Diebold and Dominion. Hillary Clinton was declared the winner of Massachusetts by 1.42 %. ..."
"... In the Dominican Republic's last elections (May 2016) voters forced the Electoral Office to get rid of the electronic count in favor of paper ballots, which were counted both, by scanner and by hand, one by one, in front of delegates from each party. This action avoided a credibility crisis and everything went smooth. ..."
Obama was asked about Trump's voter fraud assertions on Tuesday [..] He responded with a blistering
attack on the Republican candidate, noting that U.S. elections are run and monitored by local
officials, who may well be appointed by Republican governors of states, and saying that cases
of significant voter fraud were not to be found in American elections.
Obama said there was "no serious" person who would suggest it was possible to rig American
elections , adding, "I'd invite Mr. Trump to stop whining and go try to make his case to get votes."
That is curious. There are a lot of "non serious" persons in the Democratic Party who tell us
that Russia is trying to manipulate the U.S. elections. How is it going to that when it's not possible?
Is rigging the election only impossible when it is in favor of Hillary Clinton? This while rigging
the elections in favor of Donald Trump, by Russia or someone else, is entirely possible and even
"evident"?
Curious.
That said - I do believe that the U.S. election can be decided through manipulation. We have evidently
seen that in 2000 when Bush was "elected" by a fake "recount" and a Supreme Court decision.
The outcome of a U.S. presidential election can depend on very few votes in very few localities.
The various machines and processes used in U.S. elections can be influenced. It is no longer comprehensible
for the voters how the votes are counted and how the results created. *
The intense manipulation attempts by the Clinton camp, via the DNC against Sanders or by
creating a Russian boogeyman to propagandize against Trump, lets me believe that her side is well
capable of considering and implementing some vote count shenanigan. Neither are Trump or the Republicans
in general strangers to dirty methods and manipulations.
It is high time for the U.S. to return to paper-ballots and manual vote counting. The process
is easier, comprehensible, less prone to manipulations and reproducible. Experience in other countries
show that it is also nearly as fast, if not faster, than machine counting. There is simply no sensible
reason why machines should be used at all.
* (The German Constitutional Court prohibited the use of all voting machines in German
elections because for the general voters they institute irreproducible vote counting which leads
to a general loss of trust in the democratic process. The price to pay for using voting machines
is legitimacy.)
Posted by b on October 19, 2016 at 01:54 AM |
Permalink
I just found out that many states in the US use electronic voting systems made by Smartmatic which
is part of the SGO Group. Lord Mark Malloch-Brown is the chairman of SGO. This man is heavily
entangled with Soros. Hillary is Soros' candidate. You simply can't make this sh*t up
No. The price to pay is the ability to be alerted when vote rigging is going on. Bush won
in 2000 because his people controlled the processes that mattered in Florida.
There are the same allegations about 2004 in regards to Ohio.
There is more needed than just paper ballots. A proportional system, a limit on donations
and partisan/donor government posts, a stop to the corporate and lobbyist revolving doors.
And diverse political parties that present voters with a choice. At present the US seem
to be on their way to a one party system. Any democratic process will take place within this "private"
club including a very small part of the population.
But democracy never meant the power of the poor. So, no, for the 1 percent the system is
not rigged, they have a preferred globalization candidate, and a police state fall back should
the peasants rebell.
And in the end, this is the way things are run in Russia and China, with a lot less media circus.
Add - a limit to presidential power for one person. US citizens are reduced to vote in
a block to this power in the Senate and the House in continuous cycles. In the end that blocks
any political progress there might be. The US are the oldest modern democracy. It is like
being stuck in the age of steam engines.
Good one, wj2! Here's some more info on Lord Malloch-Brown and George Soros, courtesy of WikiPedia:
Malloch Brown has been closely associated with billionaire speculator George Soros. Working
for Refugees International, he was part of the Soros Advisory Committee on Bosnia in 1993–94,
formed by George Soros. He has since kept cordial relations with Soros, and rented an apartment
owned by Soros while working in New York on UN assignments. In May 2007, Soros' Quantum Fund
announced the appointment of Sir Mark as vice-president. In September 2007, The Observer reported
that he had resigned this position on becoming a government minister in the UK. Also in May
2007, Malloch Brown was named vice-chairman of Soros Fund Management and the Open Society Institute,
two other important Soros organisations.
DOOOOOOOOOM! "smartmatic" is obviously the right choice. it's a name we know and trust. Like
Deibold, Northrup, KBR, and Bellingcat. The integrity stands for itself. With a population
so gleefully ignorant and self centered as D'uhmerica, you should be lowering your expectations
significantly.
Are honest elections even legal in Texas and Louisiana? How about Massachusetts and New York?
They may be legal there but it would be dangerous to try to enforce that.
Just think of how many residents of graveyards will be voting their consciences (or lack thereof)
this year. Remember Chicago advise - vote early, vote often.
PB 13 "Concerning attacks from both sides, Trump is definitely more hysterical."
Concerted media campaign (scripted) against Trump portrays him as hysterical. Recall the
trumped-up "(Howard) Dean Scream".
Trump's hysterical rants (and the smear campaign) are played up in a organized attempt to knock
him out. People are getting kneecapped (Billy Bush) to demonstrate to others the wrath that may
be visited upon them for supporting the wrong candidate.
Take Bill O'Reilly for example, He told a subordinate female employee (documented court record)
that he wanted to "get a few wines in her and soap up her tits in the shower with a loofah and
falafel. There was a settlement and the story was under-reported. Forgotten and forgiven. In fact
Bill O stands as an arbiter of moral virtue.
Hillary is as nasty and hysterical as Trump or worse. She uses the F bomb regularly. Screams
at her subordinates and she annihilated several countries worth of women and children.
It is simply "not in the script" to malign Hillary with her own words and obnoxious behavior.
By the way, she is also a drunk.
We should all be aware of what occurred in the two Baby Bush elections as far as voter machine
tabulations and judicial fraud in his becoming president in both elections and the likely murder(s)
to cover the fraud up. Small plane crashes being almost untraceable.
https://spectregroup.wordpress.com/2008/12/26/bushs-it-guy-killed-in-plane-crash/
Who is leaking all this stuff so well-timed together? Might just be the FBI, finding itself
unable to prosecute officially, not only for fear of retribution, but also because the heap of
shit that would get uncovered could be enough for the rest of the world to declare war on the
US.
Daniel Ellsberg, in his book Secrets , recounts what he had learned during his government
service about the honesty of U.S. elections. As reported in
Counterpunch :
In Vietnam, as in Iraq, the U.S. government pushed hard to get an election to sanctify
its puppet regime. Ellsberg, who spent two years in Vietnam after his time in the Pentagon,
aided some of the key U.S. officials in this effort who sought an honest vote. But when U.S.
Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge heard their pitch, he replied, "You've got a gentleman in the
White House right now [Johnson] who has spent most of his life rigging elections. I've spent
most of my life rigging elections. I spent nine whole months rigging a Republican convention
to choose Ike as a candidate rather than Bob Taft." Lodge later ordered, "Get it across to
the press that they shouldn't apply higher standards here in Vietnam than they do in the U.S."
But Lodge's comments were downright uplifting compared with a meeting that Ellsberg attended
with former Vice President Richard Nixon, who was visiting Vietnam on a "fact-finding mission"
to help bolster his presidential aspirations. Former CIA operative Edward Lansdale told Nixon
that he and his colleagues wanted to help "make this the most honest election that's ever been
held in Vietnam." Nixon replied, "Oh, sure, honest, yes, honest, that's right … so long as
you win!" With the last words he did three things in quick succession: winked, drove his elbow
hard into Lansdale's arm, and slapped his own knee.
12,13,will you clowns keep your zippers closed? Your propaganda is unseemly, and we'll see just
whose victory will be huge Nov.8,won't we? Why does anyone put any credence in serial liar polls?
Why is policy discussion absent from this election cycle? Its all Trump bashing,wo one iota
of his policies being broadcast?
That is his vote rigging angle, that the MSM is corrupt and is politically assassinating him
daily,not the polls themselves being a major factor in the rigging accusations.
Obomba, the most un-criticised POTUS in American history, is a laughable pos concerned
about his terrible corrupt legacy of death war and division which Trump will reveal, once in.
And only commie morons would oppose that.
Election Fraud within the Outlaw US Empire has a long history. One very intrepid investigator
and expert on this is Brad Friedman who runs the Brad Blog, whose current lead item is about this
very topic. I suggest those interested in learning more take the time to investigate his
site and its many years of accumulated evidence proving Election Fraud a very big problem,
http://bradblog.com/
The Vote 'No Confidence' movement is growing. It's being actively discussed on FB and ZH now.
A bloviating bunko artist vers a grifting crypto neocon is not a 'choice', it's a suicide squad
lootfest it's taking America down.
In Humboldt County California we still use paper ballots. Our polling place also has one electronic
voting machine sitting in a corner for voters who can't use the paper ballots. I have never seen
it being used. There was a transparency program that I think they still do where all ballots were
scanned and the images made available online for the public to double check results. I'm no wiz
with machine vision but I think I could knock together enough code to do my own recount.
I'm not paying much attention but doesn't Trump say the election is rigged ? Obama's setting
up a straw mam by changing the story to election fraud. There may well be fraud in the voting
process but we are unlikely to ever know how much. But as to the election being rigged , that's
so plainly obvious it's painful.
And Germany doesn't allow electronic voting machines. Gotta be a clue there somewhere.
There is ample evidence of election fraud, vote fraud, and various types of 'rigging' or 'organising'
in the US it is just too long to go into in a short post. (See for ex. Adjuvant @ 6, john
@ 18)
Ideally, one would have to divide it into different types. It is also traditional, which some
forget, I only know about that from 'realistic' novels, I recently read Dos Passos' Manhattan
Transfer, and was amazed how little things change (despite horse-drawn carriages, rouge, spitoons,
cigars, sauerkraut, etc.) - see karlof1 @ 25.
Poll Pro-HRC results are not trustworthy. They aren't necessarily outright fabricated (is
easy to do and very hard to detect / prosecute), nor even fraudulently carried out, but 'arranged'
to give the desired result, which might even, in some cases, be perfectly unconscious, just following
SOP. (I could outline 10 major problems / procedures that twist the results.)
Then, the media take it up, and cherry-pick the results, pro HRC. That includes internet
sites like real clear politics, which I noticed recently is biased (paid?) in favor of
HRC.
It is amazing to me, yet very few ppl actually dig into the available info about the polls.
(Maybe 300 ppl in the world?) HRC needs these fakelorum poll results because they will 'rig' the
election as best as they can, they need to point back to them: "see we were winning all the time
Trump deplorables yelling insults who cares" - Pathetic. Also, of course, controlling the polls
while not the same as 'riggin' the election is part of the same MO. (See Podesta e-mails from
Wikileaks.)
This is also the reason for the mad accusations of Putin interference in US elections - if
somebody is doing illegit moves it is Trump's supporter Putin and so the 'bad stuff' is 'foreign
take-over' and not 'us', and btw NOT the Republicans, or Trump circle, which is very telling.
I didn't see the O Keefe, Project Veritas, vids mentioned. Here the first one. There is a second
one up and more coming.
I think things could get pretty ugly on Nov 9 if Trump wins because i don't see Hillary going
quietly into the night and the dems have seeded "putin is rigging" the election idea to contest
the results. Plus the establishment that wants Hillary controls the media and the executive office.
Trump's delegitimizing the election before it takes place is definitely color revolution
stuff - the carrot revolution?
It is an interesting experiment if you can make people vote for a candidate they don't like
by it being the only way to prevent a candidate they dislike even more. You just showed you aren't
able to.
"Hillary Clinton now says her "number one priority" in Syria is the removal of Bashar al-Assad,
putting us on the path of war with Syria and Russia next year.
Any "no-fly zone" over Syria will certainly be followed by the shooting down of both Russian
and U.S. jets, in an unpredictable escalation that could easily spread
Russia will not back down if we start shooting down its aircraft. Is Hillary willing to risk
nuclear war with Russia in order to protect al-Qaeda in Syria?
96% of disclosed campaign contributions from journalists went to the Clinton campaign.
From the MSM: TIME.
Note the sums are shards of chewed peanuts and their shells. MSM are bought, controlled
and are put in a lowly position, and pamper to power, any.… They will go where the money is but
it takes them a long time to figure out who what where why etc. and what they are supposed to
do. They cannot be outed as completely controlled, so have to do some 'moves' to retain credibility,
and their clients/controllers understand that. Encouraging a corrupt 4th Estate has its major
downsides.
Rigged. Right. Let me tell you about rigged. The US system is rigged in a far larger sense
than any Americans realize. It's rigged to blow off the Constitution.
If you want to know how badly rigged, ask any voter when they leave the voting venue: "What
is the name of the elector you just voted for?" You'll get either: 1) a dumb stare; 2) a laugh,
or 3) a "WTF is an elector?"
Under the Constitution, Americans vote for electors. They do not vote for presidents, and there's
a reason for that. It's called "mass stupidity."
The Fondling Fathers were smart enough to know that the people are too stupid to choose their
own leader. So the idea of the Electoral College was that every four years communities vote
for a local person who could be trusted to go to Washington and become part of the committee that
chooses a president and vice-president.
There is not "supposed" to be any campaign, candidates, or polls. The process is "supposed"
to be more akin to the Holy See choosing a pope. The electors were to meet in Washington, debate
the possibilities, come up with short list, go to the top person on the list and ask if they would
be willing to be president (or vice-president, as the case may be), and if they agreed, the deal
was done. If not, go to the second person. Pretty much how the CEO of a large corporation
is chosen.
Having the people of a community vote for the local person who would be the most trustworthy
to deliberate on who should be president is a reasonable objective. I mean, essentially the question
for the voter would be reduced to: "What person in our community would be least likely to be bought
off?" But having a gang-bang of 60 million voting Americans who don't really know shit about the
morons they are voting into office . . . that, on its face, is a sign of mass self-deception and
insanity. It is mass stupidity perpetuating itself.
The circus that the US presidential election has turned into – including the grotesque primaries
– just goes to show how fucking stupid Americans are. The system is an embarrassment to the entire
country. And it is an act of flipping-off the Fondling Fathers and their better judgment every
four years. But worst of all, the present system is virtually certain to eventually produce the
most powerful person in the world who is a complete moron, and who will precipitate a global catastrophe
– economic, or military, or both.
And demand hand counted paper ballots that cannot be rigged by "Russian hackers". It's
called simple score because it is almost the same as other well-known forms of score (and "range")
voting, except it's optimized for hand counted paper ballots (i.e. no machines).
Just got my mail-in ballots from the postman. Voting against all Democrats except, for POTUS.
Take a few days and vote either Jill Stein or Donald Trump.
Need to comb through the propositions carefully. Against big business and self serving
liberals.. BTW, I'm a Californian from the Central Valley. Oh! How I wish there is a proposition.
Should Hussein Obomo II charge for crimes against humanity?
"For any minimally conscious American citizen, it is absolutely evident that Donald Trump
is not only facing the mammoth Clinton political machine, but, also the combined forces of the
viciously dishonest Mainstream Media."
-Boyd D. Cathey, "The Tape, the Conspiracy, and the Death of the Old Politics", Unz Review
"When was the last time the media threw 100% of its support behind one party's presidential
candidate? What does that say about the media?"
Do you feel comfortable with the idea that a handful of TV and print-news executives are
inserting themselves into the process and choosing our leaders for us?"
If Jill Stein needs 5% of the vote in order to be considered a legitimate candidate (or to bring
the Green party up to legitimate third-party status for the 2020 election), then you can rest
assured that no matter how many votes she actually gets, her percentage will never be above 4.99%.
Just like when Obama swept into office in 2008, the powers-that-be made sure the Democrats never
had a filibuster-proof majority. Give 'em just enough to believe that the system works, but never
enough to create a situation where the lack of change can't be explained away by "gridlock". Brilliant
in its malevolence, really.
It looks like ALL of the Neocon war criminals and architects of the mass slaughters in Iraq
(Libya, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, etc) are standing with Hillary Clinton:
Here's a partial list of neocon war criminals supporting Miss Neocon: Paul Wolfowitz (aka,
the Prince of Darkness), Eliot Cohen, Richard Perle, David Wurmser, Robert Kagan, Max Boot, Bill
Kristol, Dov Zakheim, Douglas Feith, Michael Ledeen, Marc Grossman, David Frum, Michael Chertoff,
John Podhoretz, Elliot Abrams, Alan Dershowitz, etc
All neocons stand with the CrookedC*nt because there hasn't been nearly enough pointless
war, slaughter, dismemberment, death or trauma, it needs to go on FOREVER.
To be blunt. It is not only MSM who are prostitutes of oligarchic ruling elite but all or
most even so called left-leaning or independent media are all under guise of phony "opposition"
or diversity of opinion where there is none.
Actually MOA is one of few, more or less independent, aligning itself with any sane ideology,
a welcome island of order in the ocean of media cacophony and I often disagreed with MOA but I
appreciate its logical consistency and integrity, hard facts based journalism,no matter from what
moral stand MOA writings are coming from. MSM even lacks this basic foundation of a rational
thought and must be dismissed entirely.
But there is much, much more rigging going on, on massive, even global scale. The fraud is
so massive and so visible that blinds people from the truth about it. From the truth of how massively
they are being controlled in their opinions and thoughts.
The freedom of speech and press, democracy and just simple decency are simply not allowed
in these US under penalty of social marginalizing or even death as Assange and Manning are facing.
The entire message of MSM propaganda false flag soldiers is fear.
It may seem shocking for people under spell of overwhelming propaganda, but this government
run by Global oligarchs is dangerous to our physical and mental health and must be eradicated
as a matter of sanitary emergency.
Let's sweep all those political excretions into the sewage pipes where they belong. But first
we have to recognize the scale of their influence and their horrifying daily routine subversion
of social order, gross malfeasance or even horrendous crimes also war crimes covered up by MSM.
Only after we get rid of this abhorrent, brutal regime, cut the chains of enslavement we can
have decent democracy or voting, not before.
John Stuart Mill - "Government shapes our character, values, and intellect. It can affect
us positively or negatively. When political institutions are ill constructed, "the effect is
felt in a thousand ways in lowering the morality and deadening the intelligence and activity
of the people"
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, "I had come to see that everything was radically connected
with politics, and that however one proceeded, no people would be other than the nature of
its government.
And here we are, believing the shit those mofos and feeding us about freedom and democracy
citing bought and sold lies as "scientific research" concocted for one reason alone, to fuck us
up , exploit and discard when not needed.
Here is, in a small part, about how they do it, starting from phony polls that suppose to sway
you one way or another into following supposed projected winner anointed by the establishment.
Polls are routinely skewed, even MSM pundits say use polls they can trust i.e. which give them
results their bosses seek.
Now over hundred top newspapers and media outlets endorsed Hillary so you can safely remove
them from your list of polls you can rely on.
Anyway most polls are rigged even more than elections themselves, mostly by skewing the content
of a poling sample like in the above example. If you poll Dems about Reps that exactly you get
what you seek. But they are more insidious like doubling or tripling polling sample and then pick
an choose what answers they like, or focus sample on the area you know there is overall support
for your thesis or assertion of candidate regardless of official affiliation, and many more down
to raw rigging by fixing numbers or adjustments.
The US Elections themselves are regularity defrauded (read Greg Palast) for decades in
thousands of well-documented different and additional ways to polls such as:
By limiting selection of possible candidates and their access to statewide or national ballot
box via rigged undemocratic caucuses and primaries and other unreasonable requirements, goal-seeking
ad-hoc rules. by eliminating and/or confusing voters about voting at proper physical location
often changed in last moments, forcing into never counted provisional vote by purposely hiding
registered lists, purging made up "felons" from voter lists, requiring expensive or unavailable
or costly to obtain due to extensive travel, identifying documents, threatening citizen (of color)
with deportation, accusing them of voter fraud [baseless challenging that automatically pushes
voter into provisional vote], or strait offering meaningless provisional ballots instead of proper
ballot for people who can't read (English) well, eliminating students and military vote when needed
on phony registration issues, signature, pictures, purposefully misspelled names, mostly non-British
names etc., reducing number of polling places where majority votes for "rouge" candidate, forcing
people to stand in line for hours or preventing people from voting al together.
Selecting remote polling locations with obstructed public access by car or transit, paid parking,
exposed to weather elements, cold, wind and rain in November.
Hacking databases before and after vote, switching votes, adding votes for absent voters, and
switching party affiliations and vote at polling places as well up in the data collating chain,
county, state, filing in court last minute frivolous law suits aimed to block unwanted candidates
or challenging readiness of the polling places in certain neighborhoods deemed politically uncertain,
outrageous voting ON a WORKING DAY (everywhere else voting is on Sunday or a day free of work)
skewing that way votes toward older retired people.
Massive lying propaganda of whom we vote for, a fraudulent ballot supposedly voting for "candidates"
but in fact voting on unnamed electors, party apparatchiks instead, violating basic democratic
principle of transparency of candidates on the ballot and secrecy of a voter, outrageous electorate
college rules design to directly suppress democracy. Requirement of approval of the electoral
vote by congress is an outrageous thing illegal in quasi-democratic western countries due to division
of powers.
Outrageous, voting day propaganda to discourage voting by phony polling and predictions while
everywhere else there is campaigning ban, silence for two to three days before Election Day.
No independent verification of the vote or serious reporting by international observers
about violations, or independent exit polls, and many, many more ways every election is stolen
as anybody who opens eyes can see.
All the above fraud prepared by close group of election criminals on political party payroll,
months/years before election date often without any contribution from ordinary polling workers
who believe that nothing is rigged.
If somebody thinks that they would restrain themselves this time, think again. The regime,
in a form of mostly unsuspecting county registrars are tools of the establishment and will do
everything, everything they can and they can a lot, to defraud those elections and push an establishment
candidate down to our throats, without a thought crossing their comatose minds. "Just doing their
jobs like little Eichmanns of NAZI regime".
One way or another your vote will be stolen or manipulated up and down the ticket at will
and your participation would mean one thing legitimizing this abhorrent regime.
We must reject those rigged elections and demand that establishment must go, all of them GOP,
DNC and that including Hillary before any truly democratic electoral process worth participating
may commence.
"The individual loses his substance by voluntarily bowing to an overpowering and distant
oligarchy, while simultaneously "participating" in sham democracy."
C. Wright Mills,"The Power Elite" (1956)
Any sane person must thus conclude that an act of voting in the current helplessly tainted
and rigged political system is nothing but morally corrupting tool that divides us, conflicts
us, extorts from us an approval for the meaningless political puppets of the calcified, repugnant
oligarchic US regime, in a surrealistic act of utter futility aimed just to break us down,
to break our sense of human dignity, our individual will and self-determination since no true
choice is ever being offered to us and never will.
Idea of political/electoral boycott, unplugging from the system that corrupts us and ALTERNATIVE
POLITICAL PROCESS designed, developed and implemented for benefit of 99% of population is the
only viable idea to express our political views that are absent from official regime candidates'
agendas and from the rigged ballots. Let's not be afraid, it was already successfully done
in the past. It works." Without courage there is only slavery.
Remember this is a person that actually publicly admits he took 6 months off (from what?)
to campaign for Mr Changey Hopey, The drone Bombing Nobel Peace Prize winner, so it's not like
he could ever 5have any political insights worth listening to, now is it?
Grow up.
I took the time off (I'm a software engineer) after the primaries (having supported neither
BO or HRC) because that's who get got. We were coming off 8 years of BushCo which was, in summary...
a horror. The republicans were 100% unrepentant, and McCain was a far louder and steadfast supporter
of Iraq then Hillary... wasn't even close. McCain burried his Abramhoff investigation, sealed
their findings for 50 years. And his running mate was not just bereft of any policy expertise,
she was a loudmouth loon... even FOX canceled her post election show.
I was well aware of BO's questions/limitations. He didn't put his time in as a Senator and
sponsored no meaningful legislation. He played it safe. He had no real policy track record. And
as a Senator he quietly slipped away and hob-nobbed with Bush several times (no other Dem Senator
at the time did this that I was aware). So yeah, Obama was on open question.
I was going to pass on this election, but I've read a lot here about it and started to consider
what as a US voter I might do.
Oddly, I looked to Russia for inspiration. RF believes in international law so greatly
that she strives mightily at every turn to make it the way nations interact. And what we can see
if we choose, is that this effort is paying off. The world is changing because of what Russia
believes in.
I believe in voting. I believe in multiple parties. I believe the game is totally rigged but
sometimes you can win, except that you have to play for this to happen. I believe that you have
to be the thing you want.
I believe in a Green Party and I admire the sanity that comes from Dr. Jill Stein every time
I encounter her position. This is the world I believe in. This is the world I'll vote for and
support, with all tools that comes to hand, forever.
~~
I don't believe in the view that aspiring for betterment is foolish or naive, or the view that
current status cannot change or be changed. Such views fail to acknowledge the physical reality
of a new universe manifesting in each moment, always different in some way from that of the previous
moment. Such views are lost, bewildered, behind the curve, forever.
Term limits are useless. There could never be a Cynthia McKinney or a Dennis Kucinich -- Ever!
Term limited representatives would by definition be track record-free representatives. If you
really would like positive change, you simply need to get strategic hedge simple score voting:
SHSV
Although Clinton Won Massachusetts by 2%, Hand Counted Precincts in Massachusetts Favored
Bernie Sanders by 17%
Mar 06 2016
J.T. Waldron
Massachusetts, one of the participating states for the Super Tuesday election results,
may need further scrutiny to allay concerns over election fraud using electronic voting machines.
68 out of the state's 351 jurisdictions used hand counted ballots and showed a much larger preference
of 17% for Bernie Sanders than the rest of the jurisdictions tabulated by electronic voting machine
vendors ES&S, Diebold and Dominion. Hillary Clinton was declared the winner of Massachusetts by
1.42 %.
In the Dominican Republic's last elections (May 2016) voters forced the Electoral Office to
get rid of the electronic count in favor of paper ballots, which were counted both, by scanner
and by hand, one by one, in front of delegates from each party. This action avoided a credibility
crisis and everything went smooth.
"... I think that Trump is referring to Clinton's use of her private, insecure server for confidential e-mails of which she ordered 30,000 to be deleted and had Obama intervene to stop an FBI investigation. Honest and transparent, I think not. ..."
"... In "normal" circumstances she would have been disqualified as a candidate and possibly be facing criminal proceedings. Let's face it, neither candidate is at all suitable as leader of the western world. ..."
"... The current bedrocks of the capitalist system are at breaking point. Parliamentary democracy and the nation state are crumbling under various pressures. They may be saves but I think we are entering the period when they will be replaced. I have no idea what with though. ..."
"... Remember when U.S. NGOs were "respected" bodies around the world. Now we know they were spies and subverters, now banned from all self respecting countries around the world. ..."
"... Remember how the U.S. went into Iraq for De4mocracy. Now we know it was oil and deliberate mayhem. ..."
"... Ditto Afghanistan, Libya, and their failed attempt to lay waste Syria. ..."
"... Ukraine is just a stand alone shithole created by the U.S., lied about by them, down to the downing of MH17 ..."
"... If you want lies and deceit, look at the U.S ..."
"... Not to be too critical, but most of what you mentioned was perpetrated under a single presidential administration. Cheney was dividing Iraqi oilfields way before the "invasion". Bush was just a puppet. You know, the kind of guy you would like to have a beer with. Just a good ole'boy. ..."
"... Is Hillary trying to stir up her own counter revolution in case she loses too? It seems like a fatally flawed attempt. People barely have the energy to turn out to vote for her, let alone take up arms for her. ..."
"... The DNC rigged the vote to nominate Clinton over Sanders. Why wouldn't they employ the same tricks in the election itself? ..."
"... Any individual with a shred of decency should be extremely disturbed by the actions of Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC. They privately discussed methods of discrediting Sanders based SOLELY on his religious affiliation. ..."
"... Despite having a tonne of shit thrown at him and the msm and big money donors squarely in Clinton's corner, Trump's still standing. Polls released today: LA Times +2 Trump; NBC +6 Clinton; Rasmussen +1 Clinton ..."
The fight over vote rigging in 2016 is a proxy war for a much deeper crisis: the legitimacy of
American democracy
Nearly 90% of Trump supporters agreed with a Rand Corporation survey statement that "people like
me don't have any say about what the government does." The irony here is that Trump voters are historically
some of the most enfranchised, with some of his strongest support coming from white protestant men.
A study done during the primaries also found that Trump backers make an average of $72,000 per year,
compared with a $61,000 average among likely Clinton voters.
... ... ...
Corporate citizens – as defined by Citizens United – now have an easier time getting a hold of
their elected representative than just about any other American. In other words, money talks in Washington,
and Super Pacs have spend just under $795m this election cycle. Because lobbying money courses through
every level of politics, the most successful candidates are the best at making friends in the Fortune
500.
Meanwhile, just
six
in 10 Americans are confident their votes will be accurately cast and counted. And unlike in
systems based on proportional representation, our winner-take-all electoral model creates some of
the highest barriers to entry for political outsiders of any democracy on earth.
Americans' distrust of politics is about more than just elections, though. Congressional approval
ratings have declined steadily
since
2009 , and now sit at just 20% – a high in the last few years. Unions – which used to cudgel
Democrats into representing working people's interests – are at their weakest point in decades, and
lack the sway they once held at the highest levels of government.
Declines in organized labor have been paired with the disappearance of steady and well-paid work,
either succumbed to automation or shipped overseas by free trade agreements. A jobless recovery from
the financial crisis has left many adrift in the economy, while executives from the firms that drove
it got golden parachutes courtesy of the Obama administration and the Federal Reserve.
On the table now are to very different responses to these crises. Using an apocryphal quote from
Frederich Engels, Rosa Luxemburg once
wrote
: "Bourgeois society stands at the crossroads, either transition to socialism or regression into
barbarism."
SmartestRs 2d ago
I think that Trump is referring to Clinton's use of her private, insecure server for confidential
e-mails of which she ordered 30,000 to be deleted and had Obama intervene to stop an FBI investigation.
Honest and transparent, I think not.
In "normal" circumstances she would have been disqualified
as a candidate and possibly be facing criminal proceedings. Let's face it, neither candidate is
at all suitable as leader of the western world.
furiouspurpose
When Mrsfuriouspurpose got a gig as a poll clerk on the EU referendum she offered everyone
who came through the door a pencil to write their cross.
Many brought their own pens and a fair few explained that they were concerned that pencil could
be rubbed out and wanted to make sure – just in case.
It ain't only the yanks who are getting suspicious about how honest our democracy has become.
davidc929 -> furiouspurpose
The current bedrocks of the capitalist system are at breaking point. Parliamentary democracy
and the nation state are crumbling under various pressures. They may be saves but I think we are
entering the period when they will be replaced. I have no idea what with though.
Kholrabi
Remember when U.S. NGOs were "respected" bodies around the world.
Now we know they were spies and subverters, now banned from all self respecting countries around
the world.
Remember how the U.S. went into Iraq for De4mocracy.
Now we know it was oil and deliberate mayhem.
Ditto Afghanistan, Libya, and their failed attempt to lay waste Syria.
Ukraine is just a stand alone shithole created by the U.S., lied about by them, down to the
downing of MH17.
If you want lies and deceit, look at the U.S.
Trump is right in his accusations. Idle chatter is just that, wasteful of time and distracting
idle chatter,
Thomas Hosking -> Kholrabi
Not to be too critical, but most of what you mentioned was perpetrated under a single presidential
administration. Cheney was dividing Iraqi oilfields way before the "invasion". Bush was just a
puppet. You know, the kind of guy you would like to have a beer with. Just a good ole'boy.
DaanSaaf -> Kholrabi
Ukraine is just a stand alone shithole created by the U.S.,
tbf, that was as much the handiwork of the EU as it ever was the US
leadale
For better or for worse, the 2016 presidential campaign was all about him.
Not about his policies. Not about calm analysis of what was wrong and how it could be fixed.
It was always about him. And now, the nation's attention is still focused on him and his peccadillos…rather
than Ms Clinton and her scams, corruptions, and Deep State flimflams.
'Remember, it's a rigged system. It's a rigged election,' said the candidate over the weekend.
Is the election really rigged? Probably not in the way Mr Trump intends listeners to believe.
But the 'system' is so rigged that the election results hardly matter.
A real conservative would shift the debate away from fanny pinching and other ungentlemanly comportment
to how it is rigged. Americans want to know. How come the economy no longer grows as it used to?
How come most Americans are poorer today than they were in 1999? How come we no longer win our
wars?
He would explain to listeners that much of the rigging took place while Hillary and Bill Clinton
were collecting more than $150 million in speaking fees, telling us how to improve the world!
Then, he would help listeners put two and two together - explaining how the fake dollar corrupted
the nation's economy…and its politics, too.
And he would offer real solutions.
As it is, nobody seems to care. Not the stock market. Not the bond market. Not commentators. Not
Hillary. Not Donald. Nobody.
Bill Bonnar - Daily reckoning
Ken Weller -> leadale
Actually, he did address those issues quite frequently, including during the debate. It's the
media that is trying to dictate what the important issues are.
Ken Weller
I recall that in previous elections, notably the 2004 presidential, progressive voices rightly
pointed to possible election rigging. I even remember DNC chair Howard Dean interviewing Bev Harris
of blackboxvoting.org about how this could be achieved. Now that Trump's people are concerned
about the issue, it's suddenly crazy.
Meanwhile, Clinton's camp has put forth there own conspiracy
theory that Russia may somehow rig it for Trump, never mind that that the voting machines are
disconnected from the internet and thus hackers.
Brett Hankinson -> Ken Weller
Is Hillary trying to stir up her own counter revolution in case she loses too? It seems like
a fatally flawed attempt. People barely have the energy to turn out to vote for her, let alone
take up arms for her.
Trump is far more effective and newsworthy because he's inciting violence during the US election
and it actually seems plausible that violence could result. He doesn't even need to win the popular
vote to wreck the place.
Whodeaux Brett Hankinson
It's win/win for Trump and his ilk. Or rather, if he wins then obviously he wins. If he loses
he can just say he won, his fanbois will take over bird sanctuaries left and right, and when FBI
and National Guard inevitably kill some of them he can screech about how Real Mericans® are being
picked on by those nasty Globalist Bankers and the Entitlement Class, those two terms being the
current dog whistles for what the John Birchers used to call Jews and Blacks.
Trump doesn't seem to realize actual people are going to be actually dead before this is all
over. One cannot untoast bread.
MountainMan23
The DNC rigged the vote to nominate Clinton over Sanders. Why wouldn't they employ the
same tricks in the election itself?
Our voting machines & tabulators are insecure - that's a known fact.
So the concern among all voters (not just Trump supporters) is real & justified.
HiramsMaxim MountainMan23
If I were a Sanders supporter I would be furious.
Hell, I'm not a Sanders supporter, and I am still furious. What matters an individual's vote,
if the outcome has already been determined by The Powers That Be?
Todd Owens HiramsMaxim
Any individual with a shred of decency should be extremely disturbed by the actions of
Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC. They privately discussed methods of discrediting Sanders
based SOLELY on his religious affiliation.
"It might may (sic) no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief.
Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he
is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps
would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist," Bradley Marhsall, former CFO of the
DNC.
This is identity politics at its absolute worst.
HiramsMaxim ButtChocolate
Its a little more sophisticated than that.
In the Podesta email dumps, there is plenty of evidence of particular members of the Press
actively colluding with the Clinton campaign, and even submitting articles for review by the campaign
before publishing.
So, he is taking what are, at the very least, journalistic standards lapses, and spins it into
something larger. He takes a little fear, and makes a big story out of it. And, because these
media organisations cannot admit what they are doing, or deny the generally accepted verity of
the Wikileaks dumps, he gets a free shot.
Remember, to all the good progressives out there, Trump is not trying to appeal to you, convince
you, or make you like him. In fact, the more you hate him, the more "ideologically pure" he looks
to his supporters.
Example: Look at The Guardian reporting of the firebombing at the Republican office here in
NC. Any reasonable person would agree that firebombing is wrong. But, TG could not even use that
word. The article they published bent over backwards to minimise the action, and blame it on Trump.
Sure, that plays well to The Guardian readership. But, it just confirms (well, at least it
appears to confirm) the loud cries of media bias that Trump and his supporters rail against. The
irony is that when the same types of things happen domestically, by a Press that thinks it is
"helping" their preferred candidate, it only confirms the worst suspicions of the opposition.
And, it only taked one or two examples to give Trump room to condemn all media.
Trump has one overwhelming skill on display here. He is able to bait the media, and they cannot
resist rising to that bait. He is, for lack of a better term, a World Class Troll.
Harryy
"as his support slips"
Despite having a tonne of shit thrown at him and the msm and big money donors squarely
in Clinton's corner, Trump's still standing. Polls released today: LA Times +2 Trump; NBC +6 Clinton;
Rasmussen +1 Clinton
HiramsMaxim Harryy
It is facinating that the last two weeks of ugliness on both sides has had just about zero
effect on people.
Its as if both sides have already made up their minds, and refuse to pay attention to the Media.
"... The Official Monster Raving Loony Party is a registered political party established in the United Kingdom in 1983 by the musician David Sutch, better known as "Screaming Lord Sutch, 3rd Earl of Harrow" or simply "Screaming Lord Sutch". It is notable for its deliberately bizarre policies and it effectively exists to satirise British politics, and to offer itself as an poignant alternative for protest voters, especially in constituencies where the party holding the seat is unlikely to lose it and everyone else's vote would be quietly wasted. ..."
I watched that yesterday. Funny and a complete take down of Jill Stein. How come a British comedian
knows more about our issues than one of our candidates for the White House? Oh wait - even Jill
Stein knows more than Donald Trump. If it were not for that Constitutional matter, I'd say Oliver
for President.
Fred C. Dobbs -> pgl... , -1
All politics is 'wacky',
the third-party kind is
the wackiest of all.
Maybe the UK does it best.
The Official Monster Raving Loony Party is a registered political party established in
the United Kingdom in 1983 by the musician David Sutch, better known as "Screaming Lord Sutch,
3rd Earl of Harrow" or simply "Screaming Lord Sutch". It is notable for its deliberately bizarre
policies and it effectively exists to satirise British politics, and to offer itself as an poignant
alternative for protest voters, especially in constituencies where the party holding the seat
is unlikely to lose it and everyone else's vote would be quietly wasted.
(Wikipedia)
"... a simple fact (that escapes many participants of this forum, connected to TBTF) the that Hillary is an unrepentant neocon, a warmonger that might well bring another war, possibly even WWIII. ..."
"... One of the systemic dangers of psychopathic females in high political positions is that remaining as reckless as they are, they try to outdo men in hawkishness. ..."
"... Enthusiasm of people in this forum for Hillary is mainly enthusiasm for the ability of TBTF to rip people another four years. ..."
"... The level of passive social protest against neoliberal elite (aka "populism" in neoliberal media terms) scared the hell of Washington establishment. Look at neoliberal shills like Summers, who is now ready to abandon a large part of his Washington consensus dogma in order for neoliberalism to survive. ..."
"... And while open revolt in national security state has no chances, Trump with all his warts is a very dangerous development for "status quo" supporters, that might not go away after the elections. ..."
Trump is winning with people in their 50s and they have a higher chance of voting than millennials
do. That plus voter suppression may hand this to Trump yet. There was an LA Times poll this month
that showed a small Trump lead. An outlier, sure, but the same poll was right about Obama in 2012
when other polls were wrong. Just saying
likbez -> Adamski... , -1
> "Trump is winning with people in their 50s and they have a higher chance of voting than millennials
do."
Yes. Thank you for making this point.
Also people over 50 have more chances to understand and reject all the neoliberal bullshit
MSM are pouring on Americans.
As well as a simple fact (that escapes many participants of this forum, connected to TBTF)
the that Hillary is an unrepentant neocon, a warmonger that might well bring another war, possibly
even WWIII.
One of the systemic dangers of psychopathic females in high political positions is that
remaining as reckless as they are, they try to outdo men in hawkishness.
Enthusiasm of people in this forum for Hillary is mainly enthusiasm for the ability of
TBTF to rip people another four years.
Not that Trump is better, but on warmongering side he is the lesser evil, for sure.
The level of passive social protest against neoliberal elite (aka "populism" in neoliberal
media terms) scared the hell of Washington establishment. Look at neoliberal shills like Summers,
who is now ready to abandon a large part of his Washington consensus dogma in order for neoliberalism
to survive.
And while open revolt in national security state has no chances, Trump with all his warts
is a very dangerous development for "status quo" supporters, that might not go away after the
elections.
That's why they supposedly pump Hillary with drugs each debate :-).
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump added one more accusation against Democratic rival
Hillary Clinton: "inappropriately" getting the debate questions.
Trump's tweet with the latest allegation comes the day after the final presidential debate in
which he refused to commit to the outcome of the Nov. 8 election.
Why didn't Hillary Clinton announce that she was inappropriately given the debate questions -
she secretly used them! Crooked Hillary.
- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 20, 2016
Less than two hours after sending the tweet, the real estate mogul told a rally in Ohio that he
would accept the results of the election - if he wins.
"I would like to promise and pledge . . . that I will totally accept the results of this great
and historic presidential election if I win."
Trump later said in the rally that he would accept a clear result but reserves the right to contest
a questionable outcome.
Trump's comments about the election results during the debate were blasted by politicians on both
sides of the aisle, including Governor Charlie Baker and Libertarian vice presidential candidate
Bill Weld, a former governor of Massachusetts. Weld called the debate remarks "the death knell for
[Trump's] candidacy."
Senator John McCain of Arizona, a top Republican who withdrew his support of Trump earlier this
month, said he conceded defeat "without reluctance" in 2008 when then-Senator Barack Obama won the
presidential election. McCain said the loser has always congratulated the winner, calling the person
"my president."
"That's not just the Republican way or the Democratic way. It's the American way. This election
must not be any different," McCain said in a statement.
Trump and his supporters have been making unsubstantiated claims that the election is rigged,
putting officials on the defense weeks before most voters head to the polls. Civil rights activists
have called some of the accusations a thinly veiled racist attack.
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump added one more accusation against Democratic rival
Hillary Clinton: "inappropriately" getting the debate questions.
Trump's tweet with the latest allegation comes the day after the final presidential debate
in which he refused to commit to the outcome of the Nov. 8 election.
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Why didn't Hillary Clinton announce that she was inappropriately given the debate questions
- she secretly used them! Crooked Hillary.
10:55 AM - 20 Oct 2016
Less than two hours after sending the tweet, the real estate mogul told a rally in Ohio that
he would accept the results of the election - if he wins.
"I would like to promise and pledge ... that I will totally accept the results of this great
and historic presidential election if I win."
Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...
(But he didn't want the job anyway.)
President? It would be a demotion, says
Donald Trump Jr http://dailym.ai/2eJLQ71
via @MailOnline - Oct 20
Donald Trump Jr said last night moving into the White House would be a 'step down' for his
father.
Trump Jr was being interviewed on Fox News after the third presidential debate in Las Vegas
and was asked how he thought the Republican candidate had performed during the final presidential
debate. ...
"... As I have tirelessly explained, the U.S. economy is not just neoliberal (the code word for
maximizing private gain by any means available, including theft, fraud, embezzlement, political fixing,
price-fixing, and so on)--it is neofeudal , meaning that it is structurally an updated version of Medieval
feudalism in which a top layer of financial-political nobility owns the engines of wealth and governs
the marginalized debt-serfs who toil to pay student loans, auto loans, credit cards, mortgages and taxes--all
of which benefit the financiers and political grifters. ..."
"... The media is in a self-referential frenzy to convince us the decision of the century is between
unrivaled political grifter Hillary Clinton and financier-cowboy Donald Trump. Both belong to the privileged
ruling Elite: both have access to cheap credit, insider information ( information asymmetry ) and political
influence. ..."
"... If you exit the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, etc. at a cushy managerial rank with a fat pension and
lifetime benefits and are hired at a fat salary the next day by a private "defense" contractor--the
famous revolving door between a bloated state and a bloated defense industry--the system works great.
..."
Brimming with hubris and self-importance, the ruling Elite and mainstream media cannot believe
they have lost the consent of the governed.
Every ruling Elite needs the consent of the governed: even autocracies, dictatorships and corporatocracies
ultimately rule with the consent, however grudging, of the governed.
The American ruling Elite has lost the consent of the governed. This reality is being masked by
the mainstream media, mouthpiece of the ruling class, which is ceaselessly promoting two false narratives:
The "great divide" in American politics is between left and right, Democrat/Republican
The ruling Elite has delivered "prosperity" not just to the privileged few but to the unprivileged
many they govern.
Both of these assertions are false. The Great Divide in America is between the ruling Elite and
the governed that the Elite has stripmined. The ruling Elite is privileged and protected, the governed
are unprivileged and unprotected. That's the divide that counts and the divide that is finally becoming
visible to the marginalized, unprivileged class of debt-serfs.
The "prosperity" of the 21st century has flowed solely to the ruling Elite and its army of technocrat
toadies, factotums, flunkies, apparatchiks and apologists. The Elite's army of technocrats and its
media apologists have engineered and promoted an endless spew of ginned-up phony statistics (the
super-low unemployment rate, etc.) to create the illusion of "growth" and "prosperity" that benefit
everyone rather than just the top 5%. The media is 100% committed to promoting these two false narratives
because the jig is up once the bottom 95% wake up to the reality that the ruling Elite has been stripmining
them for decades.
As I have tirelessly explained, the U.S. economy is not just neoliberal (the code word
for maximizing private gain by any means available, including theft, fraud, embezzlement, political
fixing, price-fixing, and so on)--it is neofeudal , meaning that it is structurally an updated
version of Medieval feudalism in which a top layer of financial-political nobility owns the engines
of wealth and governs the marginalized debt-serfs who toil to pay student loans, auto loans, credit
cards, mortgages and taxes--all of which benefit the financiers and political grifters.
The media is in a self-referential frenzy to convince us the decision of the century is between
unrivaled political grifter Hillary Clinton and financier-cowboy Donald Trump. Both belong to the
privileged ruling Elite: both have access to cheap credit, insider information ( information asymmetry
) and political influence.
The cold truth is the ruling Elite has shredded the social contract by skimming the income/wealth
of the unprivileged. The fake-"progressive" pandering apologists of the ruling Elite--Robert Reich,
Paul Krugman and the rest of the Keynesian Cargo Cultists--turn a blind eye to the suppression of
dissent and the looting the bottom 95% because they have cushy, protected positions as tenured faculty
(or equivalent). They cheerlead for more state-funded bread and circuses for the marginalized
rather than demand an end to exploitive privileges of the sort they themselves enjoy.
Consider just three of the unsustainably costly broken systems that enrich the privileged Elite
by stripmining the unprivileged:
healthcare (a.k.a. sickcare because sickness is profitable, prevention is unprofitable),
higher education
Imperial over-reach (the National Security State and its partner the privately owned Military-Industrial
Complex).
While the unprivileged and unprotected watch their healthcare premiums and co-pays soar year after
year, the CEOs of various sickcare cartels skim off tens of millions of dollars annually in pay and
stock options. The system works great if you get a $20 million paycheck. If you get a 30% increase
in monthly premiums for fewer actual healthcare services--the system is broken.
If you're skimming $250,000 as under-assistant dean to the provost for student services (or equivalent)
plus gold-plated benefits, higher education is working great. If you're a student burdened with tens
of thousands of dollars in student loan debt who is receiving a low-quality, essentially worthless
"education" from poorly paid graduate students ("adjuncts") and a handful of online courses that
you could get for free or for a low cost outside the university cartel--the system is broken.
If you exit the Pentagon, CIA, NSA, etc. at a cushy managerial rank with a fat pension and
lifetime benefits and are hired at a fat salary the next day by a private "defense" contractor--the
famous revolving door between a bloated state and a bloated defense industry--the system works great.
If you joined the Armed Forces to escape rural poverty and served at the point of the spear somewhere
in the Imperial Project--your perspective may well be considerably different.
Unfortunately for the ruling Elite and their army of engorged enablers and apologists, they have
already lost the consent of the governed.
They have bamboozled, conned and misled the bottom 95% for decades, but their phony facade of
political legitimacy and "the rising tide raises all boats" has cracked wide open, and the machinery
of oppression, looting and propaganda is now visible to everyone who isn't being paid to cover their
eyes. Brimming with hubris and self-importance, the ruling Elite and mainstream media cannot believe
they have lost the consent of the governed. The disillusioned governed have not fully absorbed this
epochal shift of the tides yet, either. They are aware of their own disillusionment and their own
declining financial security, but they have yet to grasp that they have, beneath the surface of everyday
life, already withdrawn their consent from a self-serving, predatory, parasitic, greedy and ultimately
self-destructive ruling Elite.
"... At bottom, the success of despotic governments and Big Brother societies hinges upon a certain
number of political, financial, and cultural developments. The first of which is an unwillingness in
the general populace to secure and defend their own freedoms, making them completely reliant on corrupt
establishment leadership. For totalitarianism to take hold, the masses must not only neglect the plight
of their country, and the plight of others, but also be completely uninformed of the inherent indirect
threats to their personal safety. ..."
"... The prevalence of apathy and ignorance sets the stage for the slow and highly deliberate process
of centralization. ..."
"... People who are easily frightened are easily dominated. This is not just a law of political
will, but a law of nature. Many wrongly assume that a tyrant's power comes purely from the application
of force. In fact, despotic regimes that rely solely on extreme violence are often very unsuccessful,
and easily overthrown. ..."
"... They instill apprehension in the public; a fear of the unknown, or a fear of the possible consequences
for standing against the state. They let our imaginations run wild until we see death around every corner,
whether it's actually there or not. When the masses are so blinded by the fear of reprisal that they
forget their fear of slavery, and take no action whatsoever to undo it, then they have been sufficiently
culled. ..."
"... The bread and circus lifestyle of the average westerner alone is enough to distract us from
connecting with each other in any meaningful fashion, but people still sometimes find ways to seek out
organized forms of activism. ..."
"... In more advanced forms of despotism, even fake organizations are disbanded. Curfews are enforced.
Normal communications are diminished or monitored. Compulsory paperwork is required. Checkpoints are
instituted. Free speech is punished. Existing groups are influenced to distrust each other or to disintegrate
entirely out of dread of being discovered. All of these measures are taken by tyrants primarily to prevent
ANY citizens from gathering and finding mutual support. People who work together and organize of their
own volition are unpredictable, and therefore, a potential risk to the state. ..."
"... Destitution leads not just to hunger, but also to crime (private and government). Crime leads
to anger, hatred, and fear. Fear leads to desperation. Desperation leads to the acceptance of anything
resembling a solution, even despotism. ..."
"... Autocracies pretend to cut through the dilemmas of economic dysfunction (usually while demanding
liberties be relinquished), however, behind the scenes they actually seek to maintain a proscribed level
of indigence and deprivation. The constant peril of homelessness and starvation keeps the masses thoroughly
distracted from such things as protest or dissent, while simultaneously chaining them to the idea that
their only chance is to cling to the very government out to end them. ..."
"... When law enforcement officials are no longer servants of the people, but agents of a government
concerned only with its own supremacy, serious crises emerge. Checks and balances are removed. The guidelines
that once reigned in police disappear, and suddenly, a philosophy of superiority emerges; an arrogant
exclusivity that breeds separation between law enforcement and the rest of the public. Finally, police
no longer see themselves as protectors of citizens, but prison guards out to keep us subdued and docile.
..."
"... Tyrants are generally men who have squelched their own consciences. They have no reservations
in using any means at their disposal to wipe out opposition. But, in the early stages of their ascent
to power, they must give the populace a reason for their ruthlessness, or risk being exposed, and instigating
even more dissent. The propaganda machine thus goes into overdrive, and any person or group that dares
to question the authority or the validity of the state is demonized in the minds of the masses. ..."
"... Tyrannical power structures cannot function without scapegoats. There must always be an elusive
boogie man under the bed of every citizen, otherwise, those citizens may turn their attention, and their
anger, towards the real culprit behind their troubles. By scapegoating stewards of the truth, such governments
are able to kill two birds with one stone. ..."
"... Citizen spying is almost always branded as a civic duty; an act of heroism and bravery. Citizen
spies are offered accolades and awards, and showered with praise from the upper echelons of their communities.
..."
"... Tyrannies are less concerned with dominating how we live, so much as dominating how we think
..."
"... Lies become "necessary" in protecting the safety of the state. War becomes a tool for "peace".
Torture becomes an ugly but "useful" method for gleaning important information. Police brutality is
sold as a "natural reaction" to increased crime. Rendition becomes normal, but only for those labeled
as "terrorists". Assassination is justified as a means for "saving lives". Genocide is done discretely,
but most everyone knows it is taking place. They simply don't discuss it. ..."
As we look back on the horrors of the dictatorships and autocracies of the past, one particular
question consistently arises; how was it possible for the common men of these eras to NOT notice
what was happening around them? How could they have stood as statues unaware or uncaring as their
cultures were overrun by fascism, communism, collectivism, and elitism? Of course, we have the advantage
of hindsight, and are able to research and examine the misdeeds of the past at our leisure. Unfortunately,
such hindsight does not necessarily shield us from the long cast shadow of tyranny in our own day.
For that, the increasingly uncommon gift of foresight is required…
At bottom, the success of despotic governments and Big Brother societies hinges upon a certain
number of political, financial, and cultural developments. The first of which is an unwillingness
in the general populace to secure and defend their own freedoms, making them completely reliant on
corrupt establishment leadership. For totalitarianism to take hold, the masses must not only neglect
the plight of their country, and the plight of others, but also be completely uninformed of the inherent
indirect threats to their personal safety. They must abandon all responsibility for their destinies,
and lose all respect for their own humanity. They must, indeed, become domesticated and mindless
herd animals without regard for anything except their fleeting momentary desires for entertainment
and short term survival. For a lumbering bloodthirsty behemoth to actually sneak up on you, you have
to be pretty damnably oblivious.
The prevalence of apathy and ignorance sets the stage for the slow and highly deliberate process
of centralization. Once dishonest governments accomplish an atmosphere of inaction and condition
a sense of frailty within the citizenry, the sky is truly the limit. However, a murderous power-monger's
day is never quite done. In my recent article
'The
Essential Rules of Liberty' we explored the fundamentally unassailable actions and mental preparations
required to ensure the continuance of a free society. In this article, let's examine the frequently
wielded tools of tyrants in their invariably insane quests for total control…
People who are easily frightened are easily dominated. This is not just a law of political
will, but a law of nature. Many wrongly assume that a tyrant's power comes purely from the application
of force. In fact, despotic regimes that rely solely on extreme violence are often very unsuccessful,
and easily overthrown. Brute strength is calculable. It can be analyzed, and thus, eventually
confronted and defeated.
Thriving tyrants instead utilize not just harm, but the imminent THREAT of harm. They instill
apprehension in the public; a fear of the unknown, or a fear of the possible consequences for
standing against the state. They let our imaginations run wild until we see death around every
corner, whether it's actually there or not. When the masses are so blinded by the fear of reprisal
that they forget their fear of slavery, and take no action whatsoever to undo it, then they have
been sufficiently culled.
In other cases, our fear is evoked and directed towards engineered enemies. Another race, another
religion, another political ideology, a "hidden" and ominous villain created out of thin air.
Autocrats assert that we "need them" in order to remain safe and secure from these illusory monsters
bent on our destruction. As always, this development is followed by the claim that all steps taken,
even those that dissolve our freedoms, are "for the greater good". Frightened people tend to shirk
their sense of independence and run towards the comfort of the collective, even if that collective
is built on immoral and unconscionable foundations. Once a society takes on a hive-mind mentality
almost any evil can be rationalized, and any injustice against the individual is simply overlooked
for the sake of the group.
In the past, elitist governments would often legislate and enforce severe penalties for public
gatherings, because defusing the ability of the citizenry to organize or to communicate was paramount
to control. In our technological era, such isolation is still used, but in far more advanced forms.
The bread and circus lifestyle of the average westerner alone is enough to distract us from connecting
with each other in any meaningful fashion, but people still sometimes find ways to seek out organized
forms of activism.
Through co-option, modern day tyrant's can direct and manipulate opposition movements. By creating
and administrating groups which oppose each other, elites can then micromanage all aspects of
a nation on the verge of revolution. These "false paradigms" give us the illusion of proactive
organization, and the false hope of changing the system, while at the same time preventing us
from seeking understanding in one another. All our energies are then muted and dispersed into
meaningless battles over "left and right", or "Democrat versus Republican", for example. Only
movements that cast aside such empty labels and concern themselves with the ultimate truth of
their country, regardless of what that truth might reveal, are able to enact real solutions to
the disasters wrought by tyranny.
In more advanced forms of despotism, even fake organizations are disbanded. Curfews are
enforced. Normal communications are diminished or monitored. Compulsory paperwork is required.
Checkpoints are instituted. Free speech is punished. Existing groups are influenced to distrust
each other or to disintegrate entirely out of dread of being discovered. All of these measures
are taken by tyrants primarily to prevent ANY citizens from gathering and finding mutual support.
People who work together and organize of their own volition are unpredictable, and therefore,
a potential risk to the state.
You'll find in nearly every instance of cultural descent into autocracy, the offending government
gained favor after the onset of economic collapse. Make the necessities of root survival an uncertainty,
and people without knowledge of self sustainability and without solid core principles will gladly
hand over their freedom, even for mere scraps from the tables of the same men who unleashed famine
upon them. Financial calamities are not dangerous because of the poverty they leave in their wake;
they are dangerous because of the doors to malevolence that they leave open.
Destitution leads not just to hunger, but also to crime (private and government). Crime
leads to anger, hatred, and fear. Fear leads to desperation. Desperation leads to the acceptance
of anything resembling a solution, even despotism.
Autocracies pretend to cut through the dilemmas of economic dysfunction (usually while
demanding liberties be relinquished), however, behind the scenes they actually seek to maintain
a proscribed level of indigence and deprivation. The constant peril of homelessness and starvation
keeps the masses thoroughly distracted from such things as protest or dissent, while simultaneously
chaining them to the idea that their only chance is to cling to the very government out to end
them.
This is the main symptom often associated with totalitarianism. So much so that our preconceived
notions of what a fascist government looks like prevent us from seeing other forms of tyranny
right under our noses. Some Americans believe that if the jackbooted thugs are not knocking on
every door, then we MUST still live in a free country. Obviously, this is a rather naïve position.
Admittedly, though, goon squads and secret police do eventually become prominent in every failed
nation, usually while the public is mesmerized by visions of war, depression, hyperinflation,
terrorism, etc.
When law enforcement officials are no longer servants of the people, but agents of a government
concerned only with its own supremacy, serious crises emerge. Checks and balances are removed.
The guidelines that once reigned in police disappear, and suddenly, a philosophy of superiority
emerges; an arrogant exclusivity that breeds separation between law enforcement and the rest of
the public. Finally, police no longer see themselves as protectors of citizens, but prison guards
out to keep us subdued and docile.
As tyranny grows, this behavior is encouraged. Good men are filtered out of the system, and
small (minded and hearted) men are promoted.
At its pinnacle, a police state will hide the identities of most of its agents and officers,
behind masks or behind red tape, because their crimes in the name of the state become so numerous
and so sadistic that personal vengeance on the part of their victims will become a daily concern.
Tyrants are generally men who have squelched their own consciences. They have no reservations
in using any means at their disposal to wipe out opposition. But, in the early stages of their
ascent to power, they must give the populace a reason for their ruthlessness, or risk being exposed,
and instigating even more dissent. The propaganda machine thus goes into overdrive, and any person
or group that dares to question the authority or the validity of the state is demonized in the
minds of the masses.
All disasters, all violent crimes, all the ills of the world, are hoisted upon the shoulders
of activist groups and political rivals. They are falsely associated with fringe elements already
disliked by society (racists, terrorists, etc). A bogus consensus is created through puppet media
in an attempt to make the public believe that "everyone else" must have the same exact views,
and those who express contrary positions must be "crazy", or "extremist". Events are even engineered
by the corrupt system and pinned on those demanding transparency and liberty. The goal is to drive
anti-totalitarian organizations into self censorship. That is to say, instead of silencing them
directly, the state causes activists to silence themselves.
Tyrannical power structures cannot function without scapegoats. There must always be an
elusive boogie man under the bed of every citizen, otherwise, those citizens may turn their attention,
and their anger, towards the real culprit behind their troubles. By scapegoating stewards of the
truth, such governments are able to kill two birds with one stone.
Ultimately, the life of a totalitarian government is not prolonged by the government itself,
but by the very people it subjugates. Citizen spies are the glue of any police state, and our
propensity for sticking our noses into other peoples business is highly valued by Big Brother
bureaucracies around the globe.
There are a number of reasons why people participate in this repulsive activity. Some are addicted
to the feeling of being a part of the collective, and "service" to this collective, sadly, is
the only way they are able to give their pathetic lives meaning. Some are vindictive, cold, and
soulless, and actually get enjoyment from ruining others. And still, like elites, some long for
power, even petty power, and are willing to do anything to fulfill their vile need to dictate
the destinies of perfect strangers.
Citizen spying is almost always branded as a civic duty; an act of heroism and bravery.
Citizen spies are offered accolades and awards, and showered with praise from the upper echelons
of their communities. People who lean towards citizen spying are often outwardly and inwardly
unimpressive; physically and mentally inept. For the average moral and emotional weakling with
persistent feelings of inadequacy, the allure of finally being given fifteen minutes of fame and
a hero's status (even if that status is based on a lie) is simply too much to resist. They begin
to see "extremists" and "terrorists" everywhere. Soon, people afraid of open ears everywhere start
to watch what they say at the supermarket, in their own backyards, or even to family members.
Free speech is effectively neutralized.
In the end, it is not enough for a government fueled by the putrid sludge of iniquity to lord
over us. At some point, it must also influence us to forsake our most valued principles. Tyrannies
are less concerned with dominating how we live, so much as dominating how we think. If they
can mold our very morality, they can exist unopposed indefinitely. Of course, the elements of
conscience are inborn, and not subject to environmental duress as long as a man is self aware.
However, conscience can be manipulated if a person has no sense of identity, and has never put
in the effort to explore his own strengths and failings. There are many people like this in America
today.
Lies become "necessary" in protecting the safety of the state. War becomes a tool for "peace".
Torture becomes an ugly but "useful" method for gleaning important information. Police brutality
is sold as a "natural reaction" to increased crime. Rendition becomes normal, but only for those
labeled as "terrorists". Assassination is justified as a means for "saving lives". Genocide is
done discretely, but most everyone knows it is taking place. They simply don't discuss it.
All tyrannical systems depend on the apathy and moral relativism of the inhabitants within
their borders. Without the cooperation of the public, these systems cannot function. The real
question is, how many of the above steps will be taken before we finally refuse to conform? At
what point will each man and woman decide to break free from the dark path blazed before us and
take measures to ensure their independence? Who will have the courage to develop their own communities,
their own alternative economies, their own organizations for mutual defense outside of establishment
constructs, and who will break under the pressure to bow like cowards? How many will hold the
line, and how many will flee?
For every American, for every human being across the planet who chooses to stand immovable
in the face of the very worst in mankind, we come that much closer to breathing life once again
into the very best in us all.
"... "Now we have the three [Goldman] transcripts. Everyone can read them, and everyone should. What they show is Clinton's extraordinary understanding of our world - its leaders and their politics, terrorist groups and their vulnerabilities, the interplay of global forces, and the economic well-being of Americans" ..."
"... I think this debate especially was "priced in" - any Trump supporter at this stage has lost the capacity for changing minds, especially as so much of it is anti-Hillary. ..."
"... It is astounding that with all her money and MSM support/collusion HRC is only a few digits ahead in the polls. I still see a slim chance that Trump will win, if his hidden and shy voters go out and some of Hillary's stay home (lazy and complacent). ..."
"... Having said that, the establishment is terrified of a Trump win, and so many of those voting machines don't leave an audit trail… ..."
I can tell what how the press stories will read from the headlines and the writers, so I won't
bother to link to them.
See the NC debate live blog for a rice bowl-free discussion.
"Trump had done well, delivering his best prepared and most substantive performance, but it
wasn't nearly good enough to reshape the race. He came into Las Vegas trailing big time, and surely
leaves the same way" [
New York Post ]. "Absent an unforeseeable black swan event that tips the table in his favor,
Hillary Clinton is headed to the White House." Although I'd bet the terrain is quite different
today from the terrain Clinton imagined back when she was influence peddling at Goldman in 2015.
... ... ..
And then there's this, which does seem to under cut the bizarre "our electoral system is perfection
itself" narrative that Democrat loyalists are pushing:
... ... ...
UPDATE "But the negativity in this campaign has been something else, and the debates have been
very heavy on character attacks. In terms of the overall impact on the health of American democracy,
I think there's one thing that's particularly concerning: These two candidates, whose personal
conduct and character have been impugned over and over, both went through competitive primaries.
There were other candidates. Clinton and Trump both won their nominations, fairly and decisively.
But for people who might tune in sporadically, the conclusion that this is the best we can do
might produce real dismay." [
FiveThirtyEight ]. Yes, it's called a legitimacy crisis.
"The stream posted on his Facebook wasn't anything different than what people saw on CNN or
Fox News or MSNBC, just a livestream of the debate, but more than 170,000 watched it at once.
By the time the broadcast ended, more than 8.7 million had tuned in at some point. Compare that
to the half a million views Time posted for its debate lifestream, or the nearly 900,000 who watched
BuzzFeed News'" [
Independent Journal Review ]. "Welcome to the first broadcast of Trump TV."
War Drums
"Anyone who believes the United States is not fighting enough wars in the Middle East can be
happy this week. We have just plunged into another one. Twice in recent days, cruise missiles
fired from an American destroyer have rained down on Yemen. The Pentagon, a practiced master of
Orwellian language, calls this bombing 'limited self-defense'" [
Boston Globe ]. "American forces were already involved in Yemen's civil war. Since 2002, our
drone attacks have reportedly killed more than 500 Yemenis, including at least 65 civilians. We
are also supplying weapons and intelligence to Saudi Arabia, which has killed thousands of Yemenis
in bombing raids over the last year and a half - including last week's attack on a funeral in
which more than 100 mourners were killed." But I'm sure none of the mourners were women or people
of color. So that's alright, then.
Wikileaks
"Now we have the three [Goldman] transcripts. Everyone can read them, and everyone should.
What they show is Clinton's extraordinary understanding of our world - its leaders and their politics,
terrorist groups and their vulnerabilities, the interplay of global forces, and the economic well-being
of Americans" [
RealClearPolitics ].
This is the line the Moustache of Understanding took. Which is all you need to know, really
Although this writer is a little vague on
just how they are "extraordinary."
"Walmart, Wendy Clark, Target and Apple: More WikiLeaked Clinton Campaign Messaging Secrets"
[
Advertising Age ].
The Trail
"Trump Holds On To 1-Point Lead As Debate Sparks Fly - IBD/TIPP Poll" [
Investors Business Daily ]. Incidentally, IBD sounds like the sort of publication Trump would
read.
There is one corner of Washington where Donald Trump's scorched-earth presidential campaign
is treated as a mere distraction and where bipartisanship reigns. In the rarefied world of
the Washington foreign policy establishment, President Obama's departure from the White House
- and the possible return of a more conventional and hawkish Hillary Clinton - is being met
with quiet relief.
The Republicans and Democrats who make up the foreign policy elite are laying the groundwork
for a more assertive American foreign policy via a flurry of reports shaped by officials who
are likely to play senior roles in a potential Clinton White House. …
This consensus is driven by broad-based backlash against a president who has repeatedly
stressed the dangers of overreach and the limits of American power, especially in the Middle
East. "There's a widespread perception that not being active enough or recognizing the limits
of American power has costs," said Philip Gordon, a senior foreign policy adviser to Obama
until 2015. "So the normal swing is to be more interventionist." …
Smart investors will go long producers of canned food and manufacturers of fallout shelter
materials.
George Saunders strives mightily to have us believe our economic situation has nothing to do
with the attractiveness of The Donald to certain constituencies. But even he has to acknowledge
what people are angry about (emphasis added):
"All along the fertile interstate-highway corridor, our corporations, those new and
powerful nation-states, had set up shop parasitically, so as to skim off the drive-past money
, and what those outposts had to offer was a blur of sugar, bright color, and crassness
that seemed causally related to more serious addictions. Standing in line at the pharmacy in an
Amarillo Walmart superstore, I imagined some kid who had moved only, or mostly, through such bland,
bright spaces, spaces constructed to suit the purposes of distant profit, and it occurred to me
how easy it would be, in that life, to feel powerless, to feel that the local was lame, the abstract
extraneous, to feel that the only valid words were those of materialism ("get" and "rise")-words
that are perfectly embodied by the candidate of the moment.
Something is wrong, the common person feels, correctly: she works too hard and gets too little;
a dulling disconnect exists between her actual day-to-day interests and (1) the way her leaders
act and speak, and (2) the way our mass media mistell or fail entirely to tell her story.
What does she want? Someone to notice her over here, having her troubles. "
Pavel, October 20, 2016 at 4:06 pm
I blissfully ignored the televised "debate" last night though I followed the comments here
at NC and on Twitter for a while. Not sure my blood pressure would survive 90 mins of Hillary's
voice and smug smile or anything about Trump.
It is amusing to note the OUTRAGE that Trump might dare question the election results. Jesus
H Christ the media are just taking us all for amnesiac idiots, aren't they?
I think this debate especially was "priced in" - any Trump supporter at this stage has
lost the capacity for changing minds, especially as so much of it is anti-Hillary.
It is astounding that with all her money and MSM support/collusion HRC is only a few digits
ahead in the polls. I still see a slim chance that Trump will win, if his hidden and shy voters
go out and some of Hillary's stay home (lazy and complacent).
Having said that, the establishment is terrified of a Trump win, and so many of those voting
machines don't leave an audit trail…
Twice in recent days, cruise missiles fired from an American destroyer have rained down
on Yemen.
Whoaaa. There may still be doubts about this. After all, what do the Houthis gain, especially
right after the Saudis have outdone themselves in atrocities.
Officials Saturday night were uncertain about what exactly happened, if there were multiple
incoming missiles or if there was a malfunction with the radar detection system on the destroyer.
Even if the Yemenis did, I fail to see why this is considered shocking and unacceptable. I
get that decades of kowtowing to Israel has conditioned the United States to not understand that
a blockade is inherently an act of war, but quite aside from starving the people of Yemen we've
been directly supporting the Saudi bombing. We've been belligerents in this conflict from the
start.
Yet another attempt to explain Trump success... and Democratic Party disintegration because Dems
lost working class voters and substantial part of middle class voters.
Notable quotes:
"... I have a great deal of empathy for the Donald Trump voters. ..."
"... The elites have failed the people so thoroughly that tens of millions of people, on any side of any issue, can legitimately say they don't think the system is working for them anymore, if it ever did. ..."
"... There are elements of racism, xenophobia and misogyny in the Trump movement, and there's also all kinds of legitimate of anxieties. ..."
"... The rise of Trump is a judgment on the progressive movement that has adopted a style that doesn't leave much room for a 55-year-old heterosexual white Republican living in a red state to feel that he has any place of honor or dignity in the world progressives are trying to create. We see the disrespect coming from them, but there's a subtle disrespect coming from us, the NPR crowd, that is intolerant of intolerance. Nobody wants to feel as though they don't count. ..."
I also believe that people are fundamentally good, but this election cycle has tried that
hypothesis for me.
I have a great deal of empathy for the Donald Trump voters. When you listen to them talk
about feeling hurt, scared and left behind, they sound like the Black Lives Matter activists.
How so? The elites have failed the people so thoroughly that tens
of millions of people, on any side of any issue, can legitimately say they don't think the system
is working for them anymore, if it ever did. ...
... ... ...
A lot of people are mocking the idea that you can explain the bigotry at a Trump rally
by writing it off as simply a response to economic anxiety.
There are elements of racism, xenophobia and misogyny in the Trump movement, and there's also
all kinds of legitimate of anxieties.
The rise of Trump is a judgment on the progressive movement that has adopted a style that
doesn't leave much room for a 55-year-old heterosexual white Republican living in a red state to
feel that he has any place of honor or dignity in the world progressives are trying to create. We
see the disrespect coming from them, but there's a subtle disrespect coming from us, the NPR crowd,
that is intolerant of intolerance. Nobody wants to feel as though they don't count.
"... Headed by Lenin, Marx's followers discussed finance capital mainly in reference to the drives of imperialism. ..."
"... It was left to Veblen to deal with the rentiers' increasingly dominant yet corrosive role, extracting their wealth by imposing overhead charges on the rest of society. ..."
"... Veblen described how the rentier classes were on the ascendant rather than being reformed, taxed out of existence or socialized. His Theory of Business Enterprise (1904) emphasized the divergence between productive capacity, the book value of business assets and their stock-market price (what today is called the Q ratio of market price to book value). He saw the rising financial overhead as leading toward corporate bankruptcy and liquidation. Industry was becoming financialized, putting financial gains ahead of production. Today's financial managers use profits not to invest but to buy up their company's stock (thus raising the value of their stock options) and pay out as dividends, and even borrow to pay themselves. Hedge funds have become notorious for stripping assets and loading companies down with debt, leaving bankrupt shells in their wake in what George Ackerlof and Paul Romer have characterized as looting. ..."
"... In emphasizing how financial "predation" was hijacking the economy's technological potential, Veblen's vision was as materialist and culturally broad as that of Marxists ..."
Edited excerpt from Michael Hudson and Ahmet Oncu, eds.,
Absentee Ownership and its Discontents: Critical Essays on the legacy of Thorstein Veblen ....................
From Marx to Veblen
Early (and most non-Marxist) socialism aimed to achieve greater equality mainly by taxing away
unearned rentier income and keeping natural resources and monopolies in the public domain. The Marxist
focus on class conflict between industrial employers and workers relegated criticism of rentiers
to a secondary position, leaving that fight to more bourgeois reformers. Financial savings were treated
as an accumulation of industrial profits, not as the autonomous phenomenon that Marx himself emphasized
in Volume 3 of Capital.
Headed by Lenin, Marx's followers discussed finance capital mainly in reference to the drives
of imperialism. The ruin of Persia and Egypt was notorious, and creditors installed collectors in
the customs houses in Europe's former Latin American colonies. The major problem anticipated was
war spurred by commercial rivalries as the world was being carved up. It was left to Veblen to deal
with the rentiers' increasingly dominant yet corrosive role, extracting their wealth by imposing
overhead charges on the rest of society. The campaign for land taxation and even financial reform
faded from popular discussion as socialists and other reformers became increasingly Marxist and focused
on the industrial exploitation of labor.
Veblen described how the rentier classes were on the ascendant rather than being reformed, taxed
out of existence or socialized. His Theory of Business Enterprise (1904) emphasized the divergence
between productive capacity, the book value of business assets and their stock-market price (what
today is called the Q ratio of market price to book value). He saw the rising financial overhead
as leading toward corporate bankruptcy and liquidation. Industry was becoming financialized, putting
financial gains ahead of production. Today's financial managers use profits not to invest but to
buy up their company's stock (thus raising the value of their stock options) and pay out as dividends,
and even borrow to pay themselves. Hedge funds have become notorious for stripping assets and loading
companies down with debt, leaving bankrupt shells in their wake in what George Ackerlof and Paul
Romer have characterized as looting.
In emphasizing how financial "predation" was hijacking the economy's technological potential,
Veblen's vision was as materialist and culturally broad as that of Marxists, and as rejecting of
the status quo. Technological innovation was reducing costs but breeding monopolies as the Finance,
Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sectors joined forces to create a financial symbiosis cemented by
political insider dealings – and a trivialization of economic theory as it seeks to avoid dealing
with society's failure to achieve its technological potential. The fruits of rising productivity
were used to finance robber barons who had no better use of their wealth than to reduce great artworks
to the status of ownership trophies and achieve leisure class status by funding business schools
and colleges to promote a self-congratulatory but deceptive portrayal of their wealth-grabbing behavior.
Absentee Ownership and its Discontents: Critical Essays on the legacy of Thorstein Veblen By
Michael Hudson and Ahmet Oncu
From Marx to Veblen
Early (and most non-Marxist) socialism aimed to achieve greater equality mainly by taxing away
unearned rentier income and keeping natural resources and monopolies in the public domain. The
Marxist focus on class conflict between industrial employers and workers relegated criticism of
rentiers to a secondary position, leaving that fight to more bourgeois reformers. Financial savings
were treated as an accumulation of industrial profits, not as the autonomous phenomenon that Marx
himself emphasized in Volume 3 of Capital.
Headed by Lenin, Marx's followers discussed finance capital mainly in reference to the
drives of imperialism. The ruin of Persia and Egypt was notorious, and creditors installed
collectors in the customs houses in Europe's former Latin American colonies. The major problem
anticipated was war spurred by commercial rivalries as the world was being carved up.
It was left to Veblen to deal with the rentiers' increasingly dominant yet corrosive role,
extracting their wealth by imposing overhead charges on the rest of society. The campaign
for land taxation and even financial reform faded from popular discussion as socialists and other
reformers became increasingly Marxist and focused on the industrial exploitation of labor.
Veblen described how the rentier classes were on the ascendant rather than being reformed,
taxed out of existence or socialized. His Theory of Business Enterprise (1904) emphasized the
divergence between productive capacity, the book value of business assets and their stock-market
price (what today is called the Q ratio of market price to book value). He saw the rising financial
overhead as leading toward corporate bankruptcy and liquidation. Industry was becoming financialized,
putting financial gains ahead of production. Today's financial managers use profits not to invest
but to buy up their company's stock (thus raising the value of their stock options) and pay out
as dividends, and even borrow to pay themselves. Hedge funds have become notorious for stripping
assets and loading companies down with debt, leaving bankrupt shells in their wake in what George
Ackerlof and Paul Romer have characterized as looting.
In emphasizing how financial "predation" was hijacking the economy's technological potential,
Veblen's vision was as materialist and culturally broad as that of Marxists , and as rejecting
of the status quo. Technological innovation was reducing costs but breeding monopolies as the
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) sectors joined forces to create a financial symbiosis
cemented by political insider dealings – and a trivialization of economic theory as it seeks to
avoid dealing with society's failure to achieve its technological potential.
The fruits of rising productivity were used to finance robber barons who had no better use
of their wealth than to reduce great artworks to the status of ownership trophies and achieve
leisure class status by funding business schools and colleges to promote a self-congratulatory
but deceptive portrayal of their wealth-grabbing behavior.
Populism on the March Why the West Is in Trouble … Trump is part of a broad populist upsurge
running through the Western world. It can be seen in countries of widely varying circumstances,
from prosperous Sweden to crisis-ridden Greece. In most, populism remains an opposition movement,
although one that is growing in strength; in others, such as Hungary, it is now the reigning ideology.
But almost everywhere, populism has captured the public's attention. What is populism? It means
different things to different groups, but all versions share a suspicion of and hostility toward
elites, mainstream politics, and established institutions. -Foreign Affairs
The "populism versus globalism" meme is gradually yielding the predictable result: "Enlightened"
government needs to take an active role in alleviating the "frustration" felt by those attracted
to "populism."
The next phase of this meme can be seen, among other places, in this extensive article in Foreign
Affairs magazine entitled, "Populism on the March."
Foreign Affairs is the mouthpiece for the the Council on Foreign Relations that provides globalist
instructions and legislation for US industrial and political leadership.
Since DB's focus is on elite memes, we follow the larger one on a regular basis and have predicted
that "populism vs. globalism" constitutes serious propaganda. It may even rise to the level of "global
warming" aka "climate change."
Elite memes are not necessarily false in their entirety but they are at least partially fake.
Populism, for instance, in both Europe and America, has more to do with cultural self-protection
than the mindless "me first" approach the nomenclature suggests.
Populism is really an outgrowth of greater awareness of how elites have targeted middle classes
in order to destroy them as part of globalism's implantation.
Elite, mainstream media won't explain the reality of what's going on. Instead, the mainstream
takes the rightful anger created by elite targeting and characterizes it as a political movement.
Additionally, the explanation for this anger is that certain segments of Western populations are
being "left out" of rising world-wide prosperity.
More:
Immigration is the final frontier of globalization. It is the most intrusive and disruptive
because as a result of it, people are dealing not with objects or abstractions; instead, they
come face-to-face with other human beings, ones who look, sound, and feel different.
And this can give rise to fear, racism, and xenophobia. But not all the reaction is noxious.
It must be recognized that the pace of change can move too fast for society to digest.
The ideas of disruption and creative destruction have been celebrated so much that it is easy
to forget that they look very different to the people being disrupted.
Western societies will have to focus directly on the dangers of too rapid cultural change.
That might involve some limits on the rate of immigration and on the kinds of immigrants who are
permitted to enter.
It should involve much greater efforts and resources devoted to integration and assimilation,
as well as better safety nets. Most Western countries need much stronger retraining programs for
displaced workers, ones more on the scale of the GI Bill: easily available to all, with government,
the private sector, and educational institutions all participating.
We can see here a tired litany of government responses to the initial false premise. So-called
middle classes in the US reportedly have $1,000 in savings and perhaps $100,000 or more in debt.
The same forces that have virtually bankrupted Western middle classes are now somehow supposed to
rectify the ruin.
The article even states that in addition to government activism, an effort must be made to "highlight
realities of immigration so that the public is dealing with facts and not phobias."
How is this to be done? Via"enlightened leadership … that "appeals to their better angels. Eventually,
we will cross this frontier as well."
We've already called "populism versus globalism" a "textbook meme" and indicated that it provides
ample opportunity for the kind of directed history that we can see suggested in this article.
The next step will surely involve legislation to implement these suggestions. We are already seeing
this with "extremists" as reported by The Washington Post:
The White House announced a plan Wednesday to help prevent Americans from falling prey to violent
ideologies of the sort that drove mass killings in New York, San Bernardino, Calif., Chattanooga,
Tenn., and Orlando in the past year. The effort ... seeks to mobilize teams of teachers, mental
health professionals and community leaders to deal with a problem that offers few easy solutions.
Conclusion: The "populism versus globalism" meme has a long way to travel but
implemented fully it has a chance to broadly affect a variety of Western institutions and behaviors.
It provides justification for a signficant array of authoritarian intrusions and justifies this action
on numerous levels.
Globalism is mututally exclusive to popularism ... if anything globalism is growing the popularism.
By more globalist government you mean slavery, removal of voice and right to object to all
the shit you are forced to live because the globalist government forces you into that position
for itself.
The globalist government no longer serves the people it serves itself and all manner of horrors
it does to ensure you know you place but it you protest or worse turn to violence you are called
terrorists.
One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter and the only terrorist here is government
as it enforces servitude and slavery.
It is the ranking of money and its unabated influence history is lingering to come clear with.
Globalism means make the dictatorial power of money perfect.
Populism then, no. Not that perfect, and here a is broad range of adoption to consider on how
much its influence should be lamp posted.
You can try it with nationalism, right-wing-ism, genderism should do it well too and the like.
All this efforts can be cast as directed toward the inegalité business the power of money is
generating.
There they are fighting. In nightgowns or in tanks without to lay hands on the master of the
ranks.
The money order.
The fights then only can turn about the question who is allowed to issue it.
The holy cow of the game. The ultimate power of money, finally in your hand.
If the ranking of money is not perceived as what it is, stays untouched of all the shit what
fans can disseminate about the matter, then those with the most money will always stay in power.
And what we can expect of the coming is a clearance up to this question.
What money is allowed to claim.
You'll see there are no border issues to negotiate in dealing with that difficulty nor any
folklore is begged for a stunt on the political theater.
Just common sense about the question why someone is pulling of his clothes because another
is paying for.
i'm not sure that globalists is the best name for what we've got here. i think it is far too kind.
the (foreign policy) wars are started (and intentionally lost) by the likud/mossad zionists
who did 9-11, that seems clear enough with general clark's seven countries in five years revelation.
the (domestic) "economic team" is headed by the too big to jail banksters (some overlap with
above) and crony capitalists generally who are globalists in gang territory only.
"... Much of the content of these speeches to U.S. bankers dealt with foreign policy, and virtually all of that with warfare, potential warfare, and opportunities for military-led domination of various regions of the globe. This stuff is more interesting and less insultingly presented than the idiocies spewed out at the public presidential debates. But it also fits an image of U.S. policy that Clinton might have preferred to keep private. Just as nobody advertised that, as emails now show, Wall Street bankers helped pick President Obama's cabinet, we're generally discouraged from thinking that wars and foreign bases are intended as services to financial overlords. "I'm representing all of you," Clinton says to the bankers in reference to her efforts at a meeting in Asia. Sub-Saharan Africa has great potential for U.S. "businesses and entrepreneurs," she says in reference to U.S. militarism there. ..."
"... "We're going to ring China with missile 'defense,'" Clinton tells Goldman Sachs. "We're going to put more of our fleet in the area." ..."
"... In public debates, Clinton demands a "no fly zone" or "no bombing zone" or "safe zone" in Syria, from which to organize a war to overthrow the government. In a speech to Goldman Sachs, however, she blurts out that creating such a zone would require bombing a lot more populated areas than was required in Libya. ..."
"... Clinton also makes clear that Syrian "jihadists" are being funded by Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar. In October 2013, as the U.S. public had rejected bombing Syria, Blankfein asked if the public was now opposed to "interventions" - that clearly being understood as a hurdle to be overcome. Clinton said not to fear. "We're in a time in Syria," she said, "where they're not finished killing each other . . . and maybe you just have to wait and watch it." ..."
"... Regarding China again, Clinton claims to have told the Chinese that the United States could claim ownership of the entire Pacific as a result of having "liberated it." She goes on to claim to have told them that "We discovered Japan for heaven's sake." And: "We have proof of having bought [Hawaii]." Really? From whom? ..."
"... it's fascinating that even the bankers in whom Clinton confides her militarist mania ask her identical questions to those I get asked by peace activists at speaking events: "Is the U.S. political system completely broken?" "Should we scrap this and go with a parliamentary system?" ..."
In the speech transcripts from June 4, 2013, October 29, 2013, and October 19, 2015, Clinton was
apparently paid sufficiently to do something she denies most audiences. That is, she took questions
that it appears likely she was not secretly briefed on or engaged in negotiations over ahead of time.
In part this appears to be the case because some of the questions were lengthy speeches, and in part
because her answers were not all the sort of meaningless platitudes that she produces if given time
to prepare.
Much of the content of these speeches to U.S. bankers dealt with foreign policy, and
virtually all of that with warfare, potential warfare, and opportunities for military-led domination
of various regions of the globe. This stuff is more interesting and less insultingly presented than
the idiocies spewed out at the public presidential debates. But it also fits an image of U.S. policy
that Clinton might have preferred to keep private. Just as nobody advertised that, as emails now
show, Wall Street bankers helped pick President Obama's cabinet, we're generally discouraged from
thinking that wars and foreign bases are intended as services to financial overlords. "I'm representing
all of you," Clinton says to the bankers in reference to her efforts at a meeting in Asia. Sub-Saharan
Africa has great potential for U.S. "businesses and entrepreneurs," she says in reference to U.S.
militarism there.
Yet, in these speeches, Clinton projects exactly that approach, accurately or not, on other nations
and accuses China of just the sort of thing that her "far left" critics accuse her of all the time,
albeit outside the censorship of U.S. corporate media. China, Clinton says, may use hatred of Japan
as a means of distracting Chinese people from unpopular and harmful economic policies. China, Clinton
says, struggles to maintain civilian control over its military. Hmm. Where else have we seen these
problems?
"We're going to ring China with missile 'defense,'" Clinton tells Goldman Sachs. "We're going
to put more of our fleet in the area."
On Syria, Clinton says it's hard to figure out whom to arm - completely oblivious to any options
other than arming somebody. It's hard, she says, to predict at all what will happen. So, her advice,
which she blurts out to a room of bankers, is to wage war in Syria very "covertly."
In public debates, Clinton demands a "no fly zone" or "no bombing zone" or "safe zone" in Syria,
from which to organize a war to overthrow the government. In a speech to Goldman Sachs, however,
she blurts out that creating such a zone would require bombing a lot more populated areas than was
required in Libya. "You're going to kill a lot of Syrians," she admits. She even tries to distance
herself from the proposal by referring to "this intervention that people talk about so glibly" -
although she, before and at the time of that speech and ever since has been the leading such person.
Clinton also makes clear that Syrian "jihadists" are being funded by Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar.
In October 2013, as the U.S. public had rejected bombing Syria, Blankfein asked if the public was
now opposed to "interventions" - that clearly being understood as a hurdle to be overcome. Clinton
said not to fear. "We're in a time in Syria," she said, "where they're not finished killing each
other . . . and maybe you just have to wait and watch it."
That's the view of many ill-meaning and many well-meaning people who have been persuaded that
the only two choices in foreign policy are bombing people and doing nothing. That clearly is the
understanding of the former Secretary of State, whose positions were more hawkish than those of her
counterpart at the Pentagon. It's also reminiscent of Harry Truman's comment that if the Germans
were winning you should help the Russians and vice versa, so that more people would die. That's not
exactly what Clinton said here, but it's pretty close, and it's something she would not say in a
scripted joint-media-appearance masquerading as a debate. The possibility of disarmament, nonviolent
peacework, actual aid on a massive scale, and respectful diplomacy that leaves U.S. influence out
of the resulting states is just not on Clinton's radar no matter who is in her audience.
On Iran, Clinton repeatedly hypes false claims about nuclear weapons and terrorism, even while
admitting far more openly than we're used to that Iran's religious leader denounces and opposes nuclear
weapons. She also admits that Saudi Arabia is already pursuing nuclear weapons and that UAE and Egypt
are likely to do so, at least if Iran does. She also admits that the Saudi government is far from
stable.
Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein asks Clinton at one point how a good war against Iran might
go - he suggesting that an occupation (yes, they use that forbidden word) might not be the best move.
Clinton replies that Iran can just be bombed. Blankfein, rather shockingly, appeals to reality -
something Clinton goes on at obnoxious length about elsewhere in these speeches. Has bombing a population
into submission ever worked, Blankfein asks. Clinton admits that it has not but suggests that it
just might work on Iranians because they are not democratic.
Regarding Egypt, Clinton makes clear her opposition to popular change.
Regarding China again, Clinton claims to have told the Chinese that the United States could claim
ownership of the entire Pacific as a result of having "liberated it." She goes on to claim to have
told them that "We discovered Japan for heaven's sake." And: "We have proof of having bought [Hawaii]."
Really? From whom?
This is ugly stuff, at least as damaging to human lives as the filth coming from Donald Trump.
Yet it's fascinating that even the bankers in whom Clinton confides her militarist mania ask her
identical questions to those I get asked by peace activists at speaking events: "Is the U.S. political
system completely broken?" "Should we scrap this and go with a parliamentary system?"
Et cetera.
In part their concern is the supposed gridlock created by differences between the two big parties,
whereas my biggest concern is the militarized destruction of people and the environment that never
seems to encounter even a slight traffic slowdown in Congress. But if you imagine that the people
Bernie Sanders always denounces as taking home all the profits are happy with the status quo, think
again. They benefit in certain ways, but they don't control their monster and it doesn't make them
feel fulfilled.
Who won or lost last night's debate doesn't really matter. What matters is that Trump wasn't able to score the knock-out
blows required to impact his declining polling numbers in a meaningful way. Meanwhile, of all the points made in last night's
debate, the only one that seems to matter to the mainstream media this morning is that Trump is somehow plotting to overthrow our
democracy by refusing to accept election results on November 8th.
Of course, facts do seem to support Trump's claim that the election is rigged and not just as a result of a biased mainstream
media that refuses to cover Hillary's various scandals. In fact, according to research conducted by the
Pew Research Center in 2012, the capacity for voter fraud in the U.S. is substantial with nearly 2mm dead people found to be
registered voters and nearly 3mm people registered in multiple states.
Approximately 24 million -one of every eight- voter registrations in the United States are
no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate
More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters
Approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state
Add to that the recent Project Veritas videos showing democratic operatives paying people to incite violence at republican rallies
and actually bragging about "bussing" in out-of-state voters to commit massive voter fraud and Trump's claims of "election rigging"
seem hard to deny.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/5IuJGHuIkzY
https://www.youtube.com/embed/hDc8PVCvfKs
After watching those videos, does this tweet really seem all that inaccurate?
Of course there is large scale voter fraud happening on and before election day. Why do Republican leaders deny what is going
on? So naive!
Of course, according to
The
Hill , republicans this morning are jumping at the opportunity to bash their own party's nominee with Lindsey Graham saying that
"Trump is doing the party and our country a great disservice."
Many Republicans were tired of Trump's talk about a rigged election before his remarks on Wednesday night that he would not
commit to accepting the legitimacy of the vote count on Election Day.
Trump said there are "millions of people" who are registered to vote illegally, alleged that the media has "poisoned the minds
of the voters," and pledged to keep the nation in "suspense" over whether he'd concede the race to Clinton.
Trump's critics seized on his remarks after the debate, and Republicans down the ballot will be forced to weigh in
over the coming days.
Several jumped at the chance.
"Mr. Trump is doing the party and our country a great disservice by continuing to suggest the outcome of this election
is out of his hands and 'rigged' against him," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). "It will not be because the system
is 'rigged' but because he failed as a candidate."
. @realDonaldTrump saying that he might not accept election
results is beyond the pale
Of course, other topics were discussed during the debate with Trump seemingly scoring points during the abortion scuffle, the
supreme court discussion and Hillary's various FBI, email and foundation scandals. That said, we suspect none of it really matters
and is already forgotten.
The GOP nominee ably defended the conservative position against abortion and stayed on the attack against Clinton on her biggest
vulnerabilities, raising questions about the FBI's investigation into her private email server, donations from foreign governments
to the Clinton Foundation and revelations from the WikiLeaks email dumps.
Regardless, as we said in the beginning of this post, none it really matters as the key takeaway from last night was that
"Trump needed a campaign-altering moment, and it didn't happen."
He will enter the final three weeks before Election Day trailing badly and with his support teetering on the
edge of full collapse, stirring Republican fears that they could lose the House majority.
The days of Trump boasting about his polling numbers and his prospects in blue states are long gone.
Trump's attacks against Clinton and the message that turned him into a winner in the GOP primaries won't be enough to get him
back to that place.
So, outside of some new bombshell development from WikiLeaks or wherever, we suspect this one is in the bag.
Trump is right, the election is rigged. Not necessarily as in voting or vote counting fraud, but in more subtle
ways. The MSM is doing it's best to be completely one sided in "reporting" about the candidates. A billionaire supporter is welcome
to support Hillary, but if he is supporting Trump, he will be facing thinly veiled threats: The NYT for example went after Peter
Thiel by writing this:
"In Silicon Valley, technology executives are having to explain why they continue to do business with the billionaire investor
Peter Thiel, who donated $1.25 million to Mr. Trump's campaign.
Mr. Thiel will address the controversy in a speech in Washington this month. But executives with ties to him have had to explain
why they have not cut them.
And they have faced criticism.
"We agree that people shouldn't be fired for their political views, but this isn't a disagreement on tax policy, this is advocating
hatred and violence," wrote Ellen Pao, the head of Project Include, an organization that aims to increase diversity in the tech
industry. Project Include has severed ties with Y Combinator, where Mr. Thiel is a part-time partner, because of his involvement."
The message is: If you support Trump, shut up or face negative consequences to your business and private life.
Trump's promise to deport illegal immigrants and build a massive wall along the Mexican border
has been one of his signature issues of this campaign. "They are coming in illegally. Drugs are pouring
in through the border. We have no country if we have no border. Hillary wants to give amnesty, she
wants to have open borders," the GOP nominee argued.
And he also argued that the border problem was contributing to the drug and opioid crisis in the
country by allowing them to pore over the border.
"We're going to get them out, we're going to secure the border, and once the border is secured,
at a later date, we'll make a determination as to the rest, but we have some bad hombres here, and
we're going to get them out," Trump said.
Clinton said she didn't want to "rip families apart. I don't want to be sending parents away from
children. I don't want to see the deportation force that Donald has talked about in action in our
country." She pointed she voted for increased border security and that any violent person should
be deported.
"I think we are both a nation of immigrants and we are a nation of laws, and that we can act accordingly
and that's why I am introducing comprehensive immigration reform within the first hundred days with
a path to citizenship," Clinton promised.
TPP: "CLINTON ADVISERS WALK THE KNIFE'S EDGE ON TPP: The hand wringing over Clinton's stance on the
TPP was even more evident in another batch of hacked emails posted by WikiLeaks on Wednesday. The
exchange from Oct. 6, like other emails allegedly* from the account of Clinton campaign chairman
John Podesta, is focused on the Democratic candidate's statement following the conclusion of TPP
negotiations last October and how to balance the former secretary of State's previous support for
the deal with demands from her base. 'The goal here was to
minimize our vulnerability to the
authenticity attack
and not piss off the WH [White House] any more than necessary," wrote chief
speechwriter Dan Schwerin when sending out a draft of the statement" [
Politico
].
The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you've got it made. * Politico, can we
can get an asterisk on that allegedly? Something like "* Bob from Legal made us put this 'allegedly'
in, after he got a call from John." What say?
TPP: "El Salvador Ruling Offers a Reminder of Why
the TPP Must Be Defeated" [
The
Nation
(Re Silc)]. "Last week, the tribunal at the center of the proposed TPP ruled against a
global mining firm that sued El Salvador, but only after seven years of deliberations and over $12
million spent by the government of El Salvador. Equally outrageous, legal shenanigans by the Australian-Canadian
firm OceanaGold around corporate ownership will likely prevent El Salvador from ever recouping a
cent…. [N]o one should be complacent about defeating the TPP. Despite Hillary Clinton's professed
opposition to the agreement, she is not picking up the phone to convince members of Congress to vote
no."
TPP: "The Case for the TPP: Responding to the Critics" [
United
States Chamber of Commerce
]. These guys are rolling in dough. Is this really the best they can
do? Claim: "The TPP Will Undermine Regulations Protecting Health, Safety and the Environment."The
COC's answer: "ISDS has been included in approximately 3,000 investment treaties and trade agreements
over the past five decades. These neutral arbitrators have no power to overturn laws or regulations;
they can only order compensation." In the billions, right? No chilling effect there!
TISA: "Meanwhile, news out of Europe cast doubt on whether negotiators will actually finish TISA
this year because the EU cannot agree on how to handle cross-border data flows. The European Commission's
trade and justice departments have been squabbling for months over the issue, which Froman acknowledged
is an important outstanding concern. EU trade officials want data flows included in the pact, opening
up new markets for Europe's data economy to expand, while data protection officials are more concerned
about strong safeguards for privacy" [
Politico
].
In the latest, 13th daily Podesta email release,
one particular email sticks out : on February 2, 2016 Neera Tanden, a close confidante of Hillary Clinton and according to many
one of the key organizers of her presidential campaign asks John Podesta a question which may be interpreted that banker money received
by Hillary can be deemed equivalent to a bribe.
Specifically, Tanden asks Podesta that " speaking at the banks... don't shoot me but if we lose badly maybe she should
just return the money ." To which she then adds "say she gets the anger and moves on. Feels a little like an open wound."
The exchange may be one of the more clear indications of a tentative "quid-pro-quo" arrangement, in which cash is provided in
exchange for 'services' which naturally would not be rendered if Hillary were to "lose badly."
Luckily for Tanden and Podesta, not to mention Hillary, at least according to the latest scientific polls, losing badly is not
a contingency that should be a major consideration, at least not as of this moment.
> If we don't get Trump's protectionism we will quickly become a country as poor as Armenia or
Moldova - stripped of industry and wealth, dependent on remittances from our migrant workers in Asia
and Europe.
While neoliberalism is clearly bad and Washington consensus needs to be reversed, that's a clear
exaggeration. The USA still the leader is some important areas of high technology as well as military
technology.
Moreover, while it is clear that neoliberalism is bad and tends to devour the society, what is
the most viable alternative to neoliberalism in very unclear.
The people who are afraid of the resurgence of national socialist sentiments are clearly wrong,
because combination of inverted totalitarism and national security state already (after 9/11)achieved
the same goals (for the US elite, not for the US people) as giving power to national socialists.
And with much less violence. I am not even sure that Trump is supported by military-industrial complex
is "sine qua non" for any national socialist leader. Looks like he is not.
Growth of nationalism (aka "American exceptionalism" as the USA flavor of the same) is given.
The uniqueness of the USA is that extreme nationalism is not persecuted and even is encouraged as
well as Russophobia, which by-and-large displaced anti-Semitism.
Barak Obama (aka Barry Soetoro) publicly claimed that he is big adherent of American exceptionalism;
and this it's official endorsement -- making him a sense a nationalistic leader. As strange as it
sounds for a "serial betrayer" and the king of "baiot and switch".
I suspect the USA might also see some resurgence of paleoconservatism as neoliberalism became more
and more moved into background as another failed ideology. But political forces behind it remains
very strong; so it can exists in zombie states for several years, if not decades. Much depends on
how acute will be "peak/plato oil" crisis that probably might hit the USA after 2020.
And the USA remains the center of the global neoliberal empire and global enforcer of neoliberal
consensus. As long as this is true the USA population might still be treated somewhat better then
population of other countries.
Althouth certain strata of the US population even now leave essentially in third world country
(those with McJobs and much of the retail (Walmart and friends) are two examples.
And this will continue because the elite now is scared of the strength of the wave of anti globalization
sentiment (that Trump supporters signifies) as hell.
Look what Summers and other prominent neoliberal shills (sorry, economists) have written recently.
They considerably shifted their positions away from "pure" neoliberalism. Especially "Rubin's
boy Larry".
Feeling the heat from congressional critics, Comey last week argued that the case was investigated by career FBI agents, "So
if I blew it, they blew it, too."
But agents say Comey tied investigators' hands by agreeing to unheard-of ground rules and other demands by the lawyers for
Clinton and her aides that limited their investigation.
"In my 25 years with the bureau, I never had any ground rules in my interviews," said retired agent Dennis V. Hughes, the first
chief of the FBI's computer investigations unit.
Instead of going to prosecutors and insisting on using grand jury leverage to compel testimony and seize evidence, Comey allowed
immunity for several key witnesses, including potential targets.
What's more, Comey cut a deal to give Clinton a "voluntary" witness interview on a major holiday, and even let her ex-chief
of staff sit in on the interview as a lawyer, even though she, too, was under investigation.
Agreed retired FBI agent Michael M. Biasello: "Comey has singlehandedly ruined the reputation of the organization."
Comey made the 25 agents who worked on the case sign nondisclosure agreements. But others say morale has sunk inside the bureau.
"The director is giving the bureau a bad rap with all the gaps in the investigation," one agent in the Washington field office
said. "There's a perception that the FBI has been politicized and let down the country."
While the above article focused on the opinions of retired agents, today's article zeros in on the growing frustrations of current
agency employees.
FBI agents say the bureau is alarmed over Director James Comey deciding not to suggest that the Justice Department prosecute
Hillary Clinton over her mishandling of classified information.
According to an interview transcript given to The Daily Caller, provided by an intermediary who spoke to two federal agents
with the bureau last Friday, agents are frustrated by Comey's leadership.
"This is a textbook case where a grand jury should have convened but was not. That is appalling," an FBI special agent who
has worked public corruption and criminal cases said of the decision. "We talk about it in the office and don't know how Comey
can keep going."
Another special agent for the bureau that worked counter-terrorism and criminal cases said he is offended by Comey's saying:
"we" and "I've been an investigator."
After graduating from law school, Comey became a law clerk to a U.S. District Judge in Manhattan and later became an associate
in a law firm in the city. After becoming a U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, Comey's career moved through the
U.S. Attorney's Office until he became Deputy Attorney General during the George W. Bush administration.
After Bush left office, Comey entered the private sector and became general counsel and Senior Vice President for Lockheed
Martin, among other private sector posts. President Barack Obama appointed him to FBI director in 2013 replacing out going-director
Robert Mueller.
"Comey was never an investigator or special agent. The special agents are trained investigators and they are insulted that
Comey included them in 'collective we' statements in his testimony to imply that the SAs agreed that there was nothing there to
prosecute," the second agent said. "All the trained investigators agree that there is a lot to prosecuted but he stood in the
way."
In light of the latest revelations that the
NSA is spying on the communications of millions of Verizon customers courtesy of information provided by the FBI, it probably
makes sense to know a little more about Obama's nominee to head that Bureau. That man is James Comey, and he was a top Department
of Justice attorney under John Ashcroft during the George W. Bush Administration (since then he has worked at Lockheed Martin
and at the enormous Connecticut hedge fund Bridgewater Associates). This guy defines the revolving door cancer ruining these United
States.
Now back to The Daily Caller.
According to Washington D.C. attorney Joe DiGenova, more FBI agents will be talking about the problems at bureau and specifically
the handling of the Clinton case by Comey when Congress comes back into session and decides to force them to testify by subpoena.
DiGenova told WMAL radio's
Drive at Five last week, "People are starting to talk. They're calling their former friends outside the bureau asking for
help. We were asked to day to provide legal representation to people inside the bureau and agreed to do so and to former agents
who want to come forward and talk. Comey thought this was going to go away."
He explained, "It's not. People inside the bureau are furious. They are embarrassed. They feel like they are being led by a
hack but more than that that they think he's a crook. They think he's fundamentally dishonest. They have no confidence in him.
The bureau inside right now is a mess."
He added, "The most important thing of all is that the agents have decided that they are going to talk."
Corruption in the USA has now reached the level where it starts destroying the entire fabric of society itself. This is a very
dangerous moment.
It's already been done. After the Boston Marathon false flag, a number of FBI agents were assigned to the case. Two in particular
probably got too close to the hoax because suddenly they were sent on a naval training assignment. The FBI on a naval training
assignment in the middle of an investigation?
Excellent post pods. These agents are using the Nazi excuse of "just following orders". We'll, a corrupt order is corrupt.....and
so are you if you blindly follow it.
The NDAs were obviously procured through fraud thereby nullifying their binding nature. Dirty hands all over the Washington D.C.
cesspool. Are we ready to clean house yet?
The FBI has lost total street cred first after failing to indict Crooked Hillary, and then granting immunity to her co-conspirators.
the icing on the cake was Comey blaming other FBI.
When I was wanering thru the sports store yesterday, the feeling of animosity toward the FBI was very high. Once they were
highly respected...Comey has trashed that agency badly...People like John Malone 9who once heade the NYC FBI office), Tompkins
in the louisville area, etc would be revolted by Crooked Comey.
... I'm not implying that those 900(?) FBI files of prominent Americans given by the FBI to the Klinton Krime Kartel were being
used for blackmail ... and perhaps the reason why the dynamic duo keeps getting "get-out-of-jail-free" cards whenever they need
it ...
@hedgeless horseman: The FBI did not release the "Dancing Israelis." It was Judge Michael Chertoff. He was in charge of the Criminal
Division in the Justice Department on 9/11. Essentially responsible for the 9/11 non-investigation. He let hundreds of Israeli
spies who were arrested prior to and on 9/11 go back home to Israel. He was also a prosecuting judge in the first terrorist attack
on the WTC in 1993. Chertoff purportedly holds dual citizenship with the US and Israel. His family is one of the founding families
of the state of Israel and his mother was one of the first ever agents of the Mossad, Israel's spy agency. His father and uncle
are ordained rabbis and teachers of the Talmud.
He was subsequently named head of the Dept of Homeland Security. His company arranged for placement of Rapascan nude scanners
in American airports. Who says crime doesn't pay?
..... Comey last week argued that the case was investigated by career FBI agents, "So if I blew it, they blew it, too."
...... agents say Comey tied investigators' hands by agreeing to unheard-of ground rules and other demands by the lawyers
for Clinton and her aides that limited their investigation.
...... In my 25 years with the bureau, I never had any ground rules in my interviews," said retired agent Dennis V.
Hughes, the first chief of the FBI's computer investigations unit.
Time for Comey, Bill, Hillary, Lynch, Obama, MSM Media, and on, and on, to ALL
DANCE ON THE FUCKING AIR !!!
(Method of neck suspension, NOT rope.....piano wire..)
I get a kick out of these career FBI agents worrying that Comey has sullied the reputation of the FBI (he has). Here is a fucking
news flash for you assholes, if Clinton gets elected there is an almost certain chance that she starts a fucking thermo nuclear
war with Russia. You, your families and the precious FBI won't exist 30 minutes after that starts seeing that you are sitting
at ground zero. Does that do anything to get you off your asses and perhaps do your fucking jobs?
There is now about 30 minutes of video that proves the Clinton campaign conspired to incite violence at Trump rallys. How about
you fuckers get off your ass and start investigating this and the "pay to play" shit the Podesta tapes came out with? Or, how
about the email that indicates POTUS illegally influenced the Supreme Court Justice on ACA??? Christ, it's a target rich environment
for felony convictions out there and you guys are doing what????
Allegedly, there was a much larger contingent of Mossad agents that were detained immediately after 9/11. An additional 100 or
so were in the States "studying art" and similar cover stories when in fact they were carefully casing various buildings including
banks and Federal sites. For reasons never made public, the FBI let them all go back to Israel. Without waterboarding Dick Cheney,
the public will never know the truth.
" Sorry, intentions are one thing actions another at least among adults."
Actually, it can also be part of the game. Eisenhower is well known for his MIC warning on TV just as he was leaving office.
However, if you look at what he did, and what he allowed Allen Dulles to do, he was part of it. Making fake apologies after the
fact provides some balm but doesnt undo the damage.
I'm tellin ya.... rank-and-file aren't sitting around giggling that this fucking cunt is walking on water on shit they would be
hung out to dry for. The Podesta leaks are NSA standard intercepts. Anyone could have grabbed them from a standard intercept.
Tja, that's the problem when you go hooovering up the entire internet. Pretty fucking hard to compartmentalize collection efforts
on that scale.
We applaud and support the members of our armed forces and intelligence community who take their oath of office seriously and
refuse to let these murderous internationalists tear down our country without a fucking fight.
When Hillary gets in there all these old FBI white boyz will be shown the door and replaced with pussylesbo power. These are the
good old days,be afraid.
This guy is die hard neoliberal. That's why he is fond of Washington consensus. He does not understand
that the time is over for Washington consensus in 2008. this is just a delayed reaction :-)
Notable quotes:
"... after years of unusually sluggish and strikingly non-inclusive growth, the consensus is breaking down. Advanced-country citizens are frustrated with an "establishment" – including economic "experts," mainstream political leaders, and dominant multinational companies – which they increasingly blame for their economic travails. ..."
"... Anti-establishment movements and figures have been quick to seize on this frustration, using inflammatory and even combative rhetoric to win support. They do not even have to win elections to disrupt the transmission mechanism between economics and politics. ..."
"... They also included attacks on "international elites" and criticism of Bank of England policies that were instrumental in stabilizing the British economy in the referendum's immediate aftermath – thus giving May's new government time to formulate a coherent Brexit strategy. ..."
"... The risk is that, as bad politics crowds out good economics, popular anger and frustration will rise, making politics even more toxic. ..."
"... At one time, the people's government served as a check on the excesses of economic interests -- now, it is simply owned by them. ..."
"... The defects of the maximalist-globalist view were known for years before the "consensus began to break down". ..."
"... In at least some of these cases, the "transmission" of the consensus involved more than a little coercion and undermining local interests, sovereignty, and democracy. This is an central feature of the "consensus", and it is hard to see how it can by anything but irredeemable. ..."
"... However it is not bad politics crowding out out good economics, for the simple reason that the economic "consensus" itself, in embracing destructive and destabilizing economic policy crowded out the ostensibly centrist politics... ..."
"... The Inclusive Growth has remained only a Slogan and Politicians never ventured into the theme. In the changed version of the World.] essential equal opportunity and World of Social media, perspective and social Political scene is changed. Its more like reverting to mean. ..."
In the 1990s and 2000s, for example, the so-called Washington Consensus dominated policymaking
in much of the world...
... ... ...
But after years of unusually sluggish and strikingly non-inclusive growth, the consensus is
breaking down. Advanced-country citizens are frustrated with an "establishment" – including economic
"experts," mainstream political leaders, and dominant multinational companies – which they increasingly
blame for their economic travails.
Anti-establishment movements and figures have been quick to seize on this frustration, using
inflammatory and even combative rhetoric to win support. They do not even have to win elections to
disrupt the transmission mechanism between economics and politics. The United Kingdom proved
that in June, with its Brexit vote – a decision that directly defied the broad economic consensus
that remaining within the European Union was in Britain's best interest.
... ... ...
... speeches by Prime Minister Theresa May and members of her cabinet revealed an intention to
pursue a "hard Brexit," thereby dismantling trading arrangements that have served the economy well.
They also included attacks on "international elites" and criticism of Bank of England policies
that were instrumental in stabilizing the British economy in the referendum's immediate aftermath
– thus giving May's new government time to formulate a coherent Brexit strategy.
Several other advanced economies are experiencing analogous political developments. In Germany,
a surprisingly strong showing by the far-right Alternative für Deutschland in recent state
elections already appears to be affecting the government's behavior.
In the US, even if Donald Trump's presidential campaign fails to put a Republican back in the
White House (as appears increasingly likely, given that, in the latest twist of this highly unusual
campaign, many Republican leaders have now renounced their party's nominee), his candidacy will likely
leave a lasting impact on American politics. If not managed well, Italy's constitutional referendum
in December – a risky bid by Prime Minister Matteo Renzi to consolidate support – could backfire,
just like Cameron's referendum did, causing political disruption and undermining effective action
to address the country's economic challenges.
... ... ...
The risk is that, as bad politics crowds out good economics, popular anger and frustration
will rise, making politics even more toxic. ...
Mr El-Erian, I know you are a good man, but it seems as though everyone believes we can synthetically
engineer a way out of this never ending hole that financial engineering dug us into in the first
place.
Instead why don't we let this game collapse, you are a good man and you will play a role in
the rebuilding of better system, one that nurtures and guides instead of manipulate and lie.
The moral suasion you mention can only appear by allowing for the self annihilation of this
financial system. This way we can learn from the autopsies and leave speculative theories to third
rate economists
It is sadly true that "the relationship between politics and economics is changing," at least
in the U.S.. At one time, the people's government served as a check on the excesses of economic
interests -- now, it is simply owned by them.
It seems to me that the best we can hope for now is some sort of modest correction in the relationship
after 2020 -- and that the TBTF banks won't deliver another economic disaster in the meantime.
Petey Bee OCT 15, 2016
1. The defects of the maximalist-globalist view were known for years before the "consensus
began to break down".
2. In at least some of these cases, the "transmission" of the consensus involved more than
a little coercion and undermining local interests, sovereignty, and democracy. This is an central
feature of the "consensus", and it is hard to see how it can by anything but irredeemable.
In the concluding paragraph, the author states that the reaction is going to be slow. That's absolutely
correct, the evidence has been pushed higher and higher above the icy water line since 2008.
However it is not bad politics crowding out out good economics, for the simple reason that
the economic "consensus" itself, in embracing destructive and destabilizing economic policy crowded
out the ostensibly centrist politics...
Paul Daley OCT 15, 2016
The Washington consensus collapsed during the Great Recession but the latest "consensus" among
economists regarding "good economics" deserves respect.
atul baride OCT 15, 2016
The Inclusive Growth has remained only a Slogan and Politicians never ventured into the theme.
In the changed version of the World.] essential equal opportunity and World of Social media, perspective
and social Political scene is changed. Its more like reverting to mean.
"... The news was released that Hillarnazi had lesbian lovers, paid for sexual encounters, has had memory issues so severe going
back to 2009 that her own people aren't sure if she knows what planet she is on, can't walk without getting massively fatigued, a new
rape victim came forward, the Clinton Foundation stole over $2 billion in Haitian relief funds, the Clinton Foundation has a pay gap
between men and women of $190,000 and she referred to blacks repeatedly as the dreaded "n" word . ..."
"... Again, that is from YESTERDAY Yet there has been no movement in the polls. She is the most criminal and unethical candidate
in the history of America, and is likely to win. There is no greater indictment about our citizens than her candidacy. if thise was
1920, she would be in front of a firing squad. ..."
"... But we have 2016. This is not breaking news at the main media outlets. Only people actively digging know this. All this pales
in comparison with the fact of bussing people around different states to vote. If elections can be rigged then nothing else actually
matters. Nothing will change because the only tool to repair the country is the election. ..."
"... The ballot box is not the last remedy to fix things. Just saying. Voting is more to bring you into the system than you changing
the system. What better way to keep you happy inside the system than to give you the ability to "vote the bums out" at the next (s)election?
..."
"... Europe is also facing the problem of not enough breeding to keep up the exponential expansion of their currency (debt issued
with interest) so they import people to keep the ponzi going. Not going to work as the people you bring in are not going to be expanding
it at the rate that someone born into that system is going to. ..."
"... Sucks to be them - the humillatiion and embarrassment of the cockroaches as they all scurry for cover. Not to mention the career
nose-dives en masse for all the selfsame scum floating around the turd herself. I'm surprised Hillary hasn't told Podesta to eat a bullet
(or nail-gun) yet, given the damage he has caused by being hacked. Err...rewind, eh Hillary? Because it is not as if you are an angel
in this respect, you dumb fucking senile cunt. ..."
"... Neocons are IT illiterate, and this must be their primary weakness, given how fucking useless they are at securing their insidious
evil shit (now in the public domain - eh, Poddy, old chum, you evil CUNT). It must be a fucking disease given how utterly bereft of
intelligence with respect to IT security they collectively are. ..."
"... It definitely sucks to be Hillary when even the help knows you're crooked. It sucks to be the help too. HILLARY FOR PRISON
2017!!!! ..."
"... As if. Former Lousiana Governor Edwin Edwards in 1983 said "The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with
either a dead girl or a live boy." In 2016, neither of those conditions is a bar to election to the presidency. ..."
"... Evidently the rats have been assured the ship isn't sinking. Besides it's insured if crossing is successful. ..."
"... Americans have the attention span of a gnat these days. The hypocrisy is stunning and has no bounds. ..."
"... The best part of waking up is realizing that TPTB had been pissing in our cup while we weren't looking. ..."
"... Another body to add to the Clinton Death List, this time the doctor who treated her for a concussion and knew about her glioma.
A devout Hindu, this doctor supposedly committed suicide after threatening to reveal Hillary medical information if prosecutors continued
to go after him for bogus criminal charges. http://www.govtslaves.info/clinton-doctor-who-confirmed-hillarys-brain-t... ..."
"... Neera Tanden must be suicidal by now. She probably doesn't even realise it yet. ..."
"... I was thinking the same thing. With so many on the "team" having such critical positions on their own "leader", why the fuck
are they supporting her, and why do they still have jobs? ..."
"... Power. Money. The belief that they will be able to run things themselves once she goes full brain clot. One thing I do know,
Hillary would be very unwise to let any of them pick her nursing home for her. ..."
"... Neera Tanden: "It worries me more that she doesn't seem to know what planet we are all living in at the moment." https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/18353
..."
"... I imagine cankle's inner circle are gobling a lot off drugs about now. Their paranoia is no doubt palpable. I hope they devour
one another. ..."
"... It ain't just the US where free press is extinct. Had Wiki dropped the lot, it would simply have sunk without a trace with
respect to the MSM reporting it to the sheeple, as we have seen in the last 12 days. ..."
"... Free Shit and open borders and speaking well while lying. The stupidity of the average person, particularly those who only
get their news from the corporate controlled media, is fuckin' amazing. Only a military coup could hunt down and arrest the Deep State...
The Kagans and Powers and Jarretts and every cunt who has given HRC money. ..."
"... Short of a coup, massive desertion would be very helpful. ..."
"... you hit the nail on the head - "speaking well while lying". Middle class English people speak very well - appear attractive
to Americans - when in fact they have zero monopoly on honesty, brains or ability ..."
"... just because someone speaks well does not mean they are legal, decent, honest and truthful - in fact clinton fails on all four
of these positives and is illegal, indecent, crooked and a liar ..."
"... The no fly zone doesn't like questions not preprogrammed. I hope his brother gets a chance to rip Obama a new asshole. ..."
"... rule by criminals REQUIRES deep knowledge and primary experience with criminal exploits. She is the ONLY candidate who is qualified
to run Gov-Co. ..."
"... Comey is a Dirty Cop – Former US Attorney. How Crooked Clinton Got Off. ..."
"... Juan Williams email to John Podesta found here: https://twitter.com/hashtag/DrainTheSwamp?src=hash ..."
"... How does it feel working for a total scumbag just to get a paycheck? ..."
The latest WikiLeaks dump reveals yet another bombshell from the outspoken, an likely soon to be unemployed, Neera Tanden.
The email chain comes from March of this year and begins when Neera distributes a memo on proposals for reform policies
relative to bribery and corruption of public officials . That said, apparently the folks within the Hillary campaign were
aware that this was a very dicey topic for their chosen candidate as even Tanden admits " she may be so tainted she's really
vulnerable. "
Meanwhile, Hillary advisor Jake Sullivan provided his thoughts that he really liked the following proposal on strengthening bribery
laws...
"Strengthen bribery laws to ensure that politicians don' change legislation for political donations."
...but subsequently admits that it might be problematic given Hillary's history.
"The second idea is a favorite of mine, as you know, but REALLY dicey territory for HRC, right?"
Even a month before these internal campaign discussions, Stan Greenberg, a democrat strategist of Democracy Corps, wrote to Podesta
highlighting that "reform of money and politics is where she is taking the biggest hit." That said, Stan was quick
to assure Podesta that there was no reason for concern as a specially crafted message and a little help from the media could make
the whole problem go away.
"We are also going to test some messages that include acknowledgement of being part of the system , and know how much
has to change. "
Finally, perhaps no one has better summarized why the Clinton camp may be worried about corruption charges than Obama:
The news was released that Hillarnazi had lesbian lovers, paid for sexual encounters, has had memory issues so severe going
back to 2009 that her own people aren't sure if she knows what planet she is on, can't walk without getting massively fatigued,
a new rape victim came forward, the Clinton Foundation stole over $2 billion in Haitian relief funds, the Clinton Foundation has
a
pay gap between men and women of $190,000 and
she referred to blacks repeatedly as the dreaded "n" word .
Again, that is from YESTERDAY Yet there has been no movement in the polls. She is the most criminal and unethical candidate
in the history of America, and is likely to win. There is no greater indictment about our citizens than her candidacy. if thise
was 1920, she would be in front of a firing squad.
But we have 2016. This is not breaking news at the main media outlets. Only people actively digging know this. All this pales
in comparison with the fact of bussing people around different states to vote. If elections can be rigged then nothing else actually
matters. Nothing will change because the only tool to repair the country is the election.
The ballot box is not the last remedy to fix things. Just saying. Voting is more to bring you into the system than you changing
the system. What better way to keep you happy inside the system than to give you the ability to "vote the bums out" at the next
(s)election?
Europe is also facing the problem of not enough breeding to keep up the exponential expansion of their currency (debt issued
with interest) so they import people to keep the ponzi going. Not going to work as the people you bring in are not going to be
expanding it at the rate that someone born into that system is going to.
But, it is a plausible explanation for why they are trying it. The moneychangers have their very lives depending on keeping
this going, so they have to try it.
All I know is, most the cunts behind the curtain have been completely compromised pre-election.
Sucks to be them - the humillatiion and embarrassment of the cockroaches as they all scurry for cover. Not to mention the
career nose-dives en masse for all the selfsame scum floating around the turd herself. I'm surprised Hillary hasn't told Podesta
to eat a bullet (or nail-gun) yet, given the damage he has caused by being hacked. Err...rewind, eh Hillary? Because it is not
as if you are an angel in this respect, you dumb fucking senile cunt.
The fucking irony is palpable.
Neocons are IT illiterate, and this must be their primary weakness, given how fucking useless they are at securing their
insidious evil shit (now in the public domain - eh, Poddy, old chum, you evil CUNT). It must be a fucking disease given how utterly
bereft of intelligence with respect to IT security they collectively are.
As if. Former Lousiana Governor Edwin Edwards in 1983 said "The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed
with either a dead girl or a live boy." In 2016, neither of those conditions is a bar to election to the presidency.
Another body to add to the Clinton Death List, this time the doctor who treated her for a concussion and knew about her glioma.
A devout Hindu, this doctor supposedly committed suicide after threatening to reveal Hillary medical information if prosecutors
continued to go after him for bogus criminal charges.
http://www.govtslaves.info/clinton-doctor-who-confirmed-hillarys-brain-t...
I was thinking the same thing. With so many on the "team" having such critical positions on their own "leader", why the fuck
are they supporting her, and why do they still have jobs?
Power. Money. The belief that they will be able to run things themselves once she goes full brain clot. One thing I do
know, Hillary would be very unwise to let any of them pick her nursing home for her.
Assange has played a blinder, and all those who bitched about him "not dropping everything at once" give some thought to the fact
that even in the UK barely one reference to the deluge of shit landing on Hillary thus far has been reported in the MSM. They
have killed virtually everything, and are mainlining Trump the mad man (for insinuating election fraud) shit.
It ain't just the US where free press is extinct. Had Wiki dropped the lot, it would simply have sunk without a trace with
respect to the MSM reporting it to the sheeple, as we have seen in the last 12 days.
Better a death by a thousand cuts to build up momentum, and give EVERYONE the chance to absorb the full criminallity of this
fundamentally evil bitch and her cohorts. There is way too much to take in one hit.
sadly, most Americans are going to vote based on which candidate they think is least 'offensive' to them, and ISMism prevails
in the corporate MSM and Regressive Left:
For secure borders and controlled immigration: RACIST
Against set asides for women or think rosie o'donnell could lose a few: MISOGYNIST.
But voting for a banker owned duplicitous warmonger who is the crooked politician par excellance of this millenium, one
who will pursue more neocon/zionist wars and involve arming and aiding Al Qaeda and worse.... : 'PROGRESSIVE'.
Why?
Free Shit and open borders and speaking well while lying. The stupidity of the average person, particularly those who only
get their news from the corporate controlled media, is fuckin' amazing. Only a military coup could hunt down and arrest the Deep
State... The Kagans and Powers and Jarretts and every cunt who has given HRC money.
Short of a coup, massive desertion would be very helpful.
you hit the nail on the head - "speaking well while lying". Middle class English people speak very well - appear attractive
to Americans - when in fact they have zero monopoly on honesty, brains or ability
just because someone speaks well does not mean they are legal, decent, honest and truthful - in fact clinton fails on all
four of these positives and is illegal, indecent, crooked and a liar
Authoritarian rule by criminals REQUIRES deep knowledge and primary experience with criminal exploits. She is the ONLY candidate
who is qualified to run Gov-Co.
Is this from "The Onion"? Seriously, these people are so fucking tone deaf and out of touch it's amazing. Throw 'em all in prison.
How does it feel working for a total scumbag just to get a paycheck?
"... Among the initial emails to stand out is this extensive exchange showing just how intimiately the narrative of Hillary's server
had been coached. The following September 2015 email exchange between Podesta and Nick Merrill, framed the "core language" to be used
in response to questions Clinton could be asked about her email server, and the decision to "bleach" emails from it. The emails contain
long and short versions of responses for Clinton. ..."
The daily dump continues. In the now traditional daily routine, one which forces the Clinton campaign to resort to ever more stark
sexual scandals involving Trump to provide a media distraction, moments ago Wikileaks released yet another 1,803 emails in Part 12
of its ongoing Podesta Email dump, which brings the total number of released emails to 18,953.
As a reminder among the most recent revelations we got further insights into Hillary's desire to see Obamacare "
unravel" , her contempt
for "doofus" Bernie Sanders, staff exchanges on handling media queries about Clinton "flip-flopping" on gay marriage, galvanizing
Latino support and locking down Clinton's healthcare policy. Just as notable has been the ongoing revelation of just how "captured"
the so-called independent press has been in its "off the record" discussions with John Podesta which got the head Politico correspondent,
Glenn Thrush, to admit he is a "hack" for allowing Podesta to dictate the content of his article.
The release comes on the day of the third and final presidential campaign between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, and as a result
we are confident it will be scrutinized especially carefully for any last minute clues that would allow Trump to lob a much needed
Hail Mary to boost his standing in the polls.
As there is a total of 50,000 emails, Wikileaks will keep the media busy over the next three weeks until the elections with another
30,000 emails still expected to be released.
* * *
Among the initial emails to stand out is this extensive exchange showing just how intimiately the narrative of Hillary's server
had been coached. The following September 2015 email
exchange between Podesta and Nick Merrill, framed the "core language" to be used in response to questions Clinton could be asked
about her email server, and the decision to "bleach" emails from it. The emails contain long and short versions of responses for
Clinton.
"Because the government already had everything that was work-related, and my personal emails were just that – personal – I
didn't see a reason to keep them so I asked that they be deleted, and that's what the company that managed my server did. And
we notified Congress of that back in March"
She was then presented with the following hypothetical scenario:
* "Why won't you say whether you wiped it?"
"After we went through the process to determine what was work related and what was not and provided the work related
emails to State, I decided not to keep the personal ones."
"We saved the work-related ones on a thumb drive that is now with the Department of Justice. And as I said in March, I chose
not to keep the personal ones. I asked that they be deleted, how that happened was up to the company that managed the server.
And they are cooperating fully with anyone that has questions."
* * *
Another notable email reveals the close
relationship between the Clinton Foundation and Ukraine billionaire Victor Pinchuk, a
prominent
donor to the Clinton Foundation , in which we see the latter's attempt to get a meeting with Bill Clinton to show support for
Ukraine:
From: Tina Flournoy < [email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 9:58:55 AM
To: Amitabh Desai
Cc: Jon Davidson; Margaret Steenburg; Jake Sullivan; Dan Schwerin; Huma Abedin; John Podesta
Subject: Re: Victor Pinchuk
Team HRC - we'll get back to you on this
> On Mar 30, 2015, at 9:53 AM, Amitabh Desai < [email protected]> wrote:
>
> Victor Pinchuk is relentlessly following up (including this morning) about a meeting with WJC in London or anywhere in Europe.
Ideally he wants to bring together a few western leaders to show support for Ukraine, with WJC probably their most important participant.
If that's not palatable for us, then he'd like a bilat with WJC.
>
> If it's not next week, that's fine, but he wants a date. I keep saying we have no Europe plans, although we do have those events
in London in June. Are folks comfortable offering Victor a private meeting on one of those dates? At this point I get
the impression that although I keep saying WJC cares about Ukraine, Pinchuk feels like WJC hasn't taken enough action to demonstrate
that, particularly during this existential moment for the county and for him.
>
> I sense this is so important because Pinchuk is under Putin's heel right now, feeling a great degree of pressure and pain for
his many years of nurturing stronger ties with the West.
>
> I get all the downsides and share the concerns. I am happy to go back and say no. It would just be good to
know what WJC (and HRC and you all) would like to do, because this will likely impact the future of this relationship, and slow
walking our reply will only reinforce his growing angst.
>
> Thanks, and sorry for the glum note on a Monday morning...
Sure. Sorry for the delay I was on a plane.
On Apr 30, 2015 9:44 AM, "Glenn Thrush" < [email protected]> wrote:
> Can I send u a couple of grafs, OTR, to make sure I'm not fucking
> anything up?
* * *
Another notable moment emerges in the emails, involving Hillary Clinton's selective memory. Clinton's description of herself as
a moderate Democrat at a September 2015 event in Ohio caused an uproar amongst her team. In a
mail from Clinton advisor Neera Tanden to Podesta
in the days following the comment she asks why she said this.
"I pushed her on this on Sunday night. She claims she didn't remember saying it. Not sure I believe her," Podesta replies.
Tanden insists that the comment has made her job more difficult after "telling every reporter I know she's actually progressive".
" It worries me more that she doesn't seem to know what planet we are all living in at the moment ," she adds.
* * *
We also get additional insight into Clinton courting the Latino minority. A November 2008
email from Federico Peña , who was on the Obama-Biden
transition team, called for a "Latino media person" to be added to the list of staff to appeal to Latino voters. Federico de Jesus
or Vince Casillas are seen as ideal candidates, both of whom were working in the Chicago operations.
"More importantly, it would helpful (sic) to Barack to do pro-active outreach to Latino media across the country to get our
positive message out before people start spreading negative rumors," Peña writes.
* * *
Another email between Clinton's foreign policy adviser
Jake Sullivan and Tanden from March 2016 discussed how it was "REALLY dicey territory" for Clinton to comment on strengthening
"bribery laws to ensure that politicians don't change legislation for political donations." Tanden agrees with Sullivan:
" She may be so tainted she's really vulnerable - if so, maybe a message of I've seen how this sausage is
made, it needs to stop, I'm going to stop it will actually work."
* * *
One email suggested, sarcastically, to kneecap
bernie Sanders : Clinton's team issued advise regarding her tactics for the "make or break" Democratic presidential debate with
Sanders in Milwaukee on February 11, 2016. The mail to Podesta came from Philip Munger, a Democratic Party donor. He sent the mail
using an encrypted anonymous email service.
"She's going to have to kneecap him. She is going to have to take him down from his morally superior perch. She has done so
tentatively. She must go further," he says.
Clearly, the desire to get Sanders' supporters was a key imperative for the Clinton campaign. In a
September 2015 email to Podesta , Hill columnist
Brent Budowsky criticized the campaign for allegedly giving Clinton surrogates talking points to attack Bernie Sanders. "I cannot
think of anything more stupid and self-destructive for a campaign to do," he says. "Especially for a candidate who has dangerously
low levels of public trust," and in light of Sanders' campaign being based on "cleaning up politics."
Budowsky warns voters would be "disgusted" by attacks against Sanders and says he wouldn't discourage Podesta from sharing the
note with Clinton because "if she wants to become president she needs to understand the point I am making with crystal clarity."
"Make love to Bernie and his idealistic supporters, and co-opt as many of his progressive issues as possible."
Budowsky then adds that he was at a Washington university where " not one student gave enough of a damn for Hillary to
open a booth, or even wear a Hillary button. "
* * *
One email focused on how to address with the
topic of the TPP. National Policy Director for Hillary for America Amanda Renteria explains, "The goal here was to minimize our vulnerability
to the authenticity attack and not piss off the WH any more than necessary."
Democratic pollster Joel Benenson says, "the reality is HRC is more pro trade than anti and trying to turn her into something
she is not could reinforce our negative [sic] around authenticity. This is an agreement that she pushed for and largely advocated
for."
* * *
While claiming she is part of the people, an email exposes Hillary as being "
part of the system ." Clinton's team acknowledges
she is "part of the system" in an email regarding her strategies. As Stan Greenberg told Podesta:
" We are also going to test some messages that include acknowledgement of being part of the system, and know how much
has to change ,"
* * *
Some more on the topic of Hillary being extensively coached and all her words rehearsed, we find an email which reveals that
Clinton's words have to be tightly managed by her
team who are wary of what she might say. After the Iowa Democratic Party's presidential debate in November 2015 adviser Ron Klain
mails Podesta to say, "If she says something three times as an aside during practice (Wall Street supports me due to 9/11), we need
to assume she will say it in the debate, and tell her not to do so." Klain's mail reveals Sanders was their biggest fear in the debate.
"The only thing that would have been awful – a Sanders break out – didn't happen. So all in all, we were fine," he says.
The mail also reveals Klain's role in securing his daughter Hannah a position on Clinton's team. "I'm not asking anyone to make
a job, or put her in some place where she isn't wanted – it just needs a nudge over the finish line," Klain says. Hannah Klain worked
on Clinton's Surrogates team for nine months commencing in the month after her father's mail to Podesta, according to her Linkedin.
I love this...Assange is incommunicado, yet the data dumps keep coming!
Horse face looks like such a fool to the world as a result; & due to John Kerry's stupidity which is drawing major attention to
the whole matter; Americans are finally beginning to wake up & pay attention to this shit!
Looks like the Hitlery for Prez ship is starting to take on MASSIVE amounts of water!
I believe they are beyond the point where any more news of 'pussy grabbing' will save them from themselves (and Mr. Assange)!
The new lowered expectations federal government just expects to get lucre + bennies for sitting on their asses and holding
the door for gangsters. Traitors. Spies. Enemies foreign and domestic. Amphisbaegenic pot boiling.
With Creamer's tricks effective in Obama's re-election, it now makes sense why Obama was so confident when he said Trump would
never be president.
Trump is still ahead in the only poll I track. But i conduct my own personal poll on a daily basis and loads of Trump supporters
are in the closet and won't come out until they pull the lever for Trump on election day.
The DailyKos put out a report on Oct. 17 that WikiLeaks describes
as a "smear campaign plot to falsely accuse Julian Assange of pedophilia."
"An unknown entity posing as an internet dating agency prepared an elaborate plot to falsely claim that Julian Assange received
US$1M from the Russian government and a second plot to frame him sexually molesting an eight year old girl," WikiLeaks said in
a
press release Tuesday.
The press release went on: "The second plot includes the filing of a fabricated criminal complaint in the Bahamas, a court
complaint in the UK and laundering part of the attack through the United Nations. The plot happened durring WikiLeaks' Hillary
Clinton related publications, but the plot may have its first genesis in Mr. Assange's 16 months litigation against the UK in
the UN system, which concluded February 5 (Assange won. UK and Sweden lost & US State Dept tried to pressure the WGAD according
to its former Chair, Prof. Mads Andenas)."
The DailyKos reported that a Canadian family holidaying in the Bahamas reported to the police that their 8-year-old daughter
was "sexually molested online" by Assange on Toddandclare.com.
Julian Assange's legal team provided a timeline in the press release which showed that the self-claimed dating agency ToddAndClare.com
contacted WikiLeaks' defense team offering one million dollars for Assange to appear in a video advertisement for the "dating
agency".
Assange's defense wrote back, stating that the proposal appeared to be an "elaborate scam designed to entrap Mr. Assange's
reputation into unwanted and unwarranted publicity."
WikiLeaks was able to trace down the address of the front, posting an image on twitter of what appears to be a warehouse or
garage.
Here is the "headquarters" of the front (PAC?) behind the Assange "took US$1M from Russia" plot
Internet sleuths from Reddit were able to dig up some information about the dating service pushing the attacks on Assange,
finding that the company shares the address with a private intelligence corporation named Premise Data Corporation.
Here is the Reddit post that lays out the findings:
As other Redditors point out, the Center for American Progress was founded by Clinton campaign chair John Podesta and
was funded by billionaire and pro-Clintonite George Soros.
As one Redditor so laughably put it, "If this was merely a coincidence, then I'm the queen of England."
As
we reported yesterday , Fox News had told its audience Tuesday morning that Assange would be arrested "maybe in a matter of
hours," leading to the speculation that there could have been a plot to arrest Assange over the pedophilia accusations.
"... Please name some of these "centrist" economic policies of Obama's. ..."
"... Fact is, he made most of Bush Jr.'s tax cuts permanent. He slashed spending. He gave fraudulent bankers sweetheart deals buying up toxic assets with taxpayer money and QE purchases while giving Americans conned by them nothing. His healthcare reforms appear to have been written by the insurance companies (yet another looting scheme.) ..."
"... Obama promised hope and change and delivered neither. He is as centrist Keynesian as Ronald Reagan. (Hillary, of course, is unapologetically neocon; she's been targeting the neocon vote since wrapping up the nomination.) ..."
"... "Obama signed a law extending all of the Bush tax cuts for two years in 2010 and almost all of them indefinitely in 2013. The big features of Bush's plans -- the 10 percent tax bracket, across-the-board rate cuts, more generous estate-tax exemptions and equal standard deductions for married couples and two individuals -- are now locked into U.S. law." ..."
"... "At its height in 2010, 'discretionary spending' under Obama reached 9.1% of GDP. That was largely due to the stimulus law intended to dig the country out of a deep recession. But even at that high level, it wasn't that much higher than the 40-year average of 8.4% and was still below the 40-year peak of 10% reached in 1983. Today, levels [of 6.8%] are well below the long-term average. And the Congressional Budget Office projects that by 2023 discretionary spending will fall to 5.3% of GDP, the lowest since 1962." ..."
"... As for Obamacare, insurance companies are jacking up premiums and deductibles. If Obama had wanted to provide insurance for the 50 million uninsured (which he only reduced by 20 million) he could've extended Medicare with a public option and covered them all without giving healthcare insurance companies an excuse to fleece Americans even more. ..."
"... ACA is why progressive must reject Hillary's soft right-centrist pap. The issue with ACA exchanges is escape........ The compromises pushed by the GOP were all for insurance companies. Single payer was needed to keep the thugs honest. ..."
"... I really wish more liberals would learn about these things..." You mean you wish liberals were more gullible. Obama ran on a public option during the primaries, promised his health care reforms would include it. In the end it was all empty talk. The reason Obama and Hillary have the PRIVATE position that a public option is never going to happen under their watch is ..."
"... The public option is a Trojan Horse. It will eat into the healthcare insurance industry's market share, which is why they pay Obama and Hillary the big bucks to protect it. ..."
"... The 1983 and 2010 discretionary included too much of GDP on war. Proving Bastiat that "security spending" is less useful than almost any other use of the money. ..."
"... Total is one feature, opportunity lost [on war profiteers blowing up evil doers] while spending Yuuuge is a few onion peels deeper. ..."
"... The left/right economic spectrum is objective and immutable. In the center is the Keynesian mixed-market system that was abandoned when Reagan came to power for right-wing free-market reforms that were continued on by both Republican and Democratic presidents that followed. The country is further to the right now than when Reagan left power. ..."
"... The economic spectrum is defined: 100% left is communism or full government control over the economy; 100% right is libertarianism or no government involvement in the economy. In the center is the Keynesian demand-side economic system that created modern living standards during the Progressive New Deal Era that began with FDR and was ended by Reagan. ..."
"... To consider Obama's rule center-left is to be completely ignorant of the left/right economic spectrum. Norway is a left-leaning centrist Keynesian country. If you think America and Norway are the same I suggest (for starters) you watch Michael Moore's documentary: "Where to Invade Next." ..."
"... By milquetoast I imagine you mean instead of delivering big promised changes from the Bush Jr. era, he did absolutely nothing. He continued both the neocon war-profiteering and neoliberal economic reforms. He will attempt to ram the TPP through after the election during the lame duck session. ..."
"... If Americans hate anyone it is establishment lapdog Republicans and Democrats. Krugman's ridiculous rhetoric shows they are growing increasingly desperate. They should be: their neoliberal era is coming to a close; their gravy train is about to go off the rails. (Krugman got in on it too late.) ..."
"... Starting wars is not "milquetoast, moderately successful center-left rule." It is a neocon scam run by the DNC establishment. Was Obama always a shill for the war machine, and his Iraq vote a Manchurian candidate? ..."
Please name some of these "centrist" economic policies of Obama's.
Fact is, he made most of Bush Jr.'s tax cuts permanent. He slashed spending. He gave fraudulent
bankers sweetheart deals buying up toxic assets with taxpayer money and QE purchases while giving
Americans conned by them nothing. His healthcare reforms appear to have been written by the insurance
companies (yet another looting scheme.)
Obama promised hope and change and delivered neither. He is as centrist Keynesian as Ronald
Reagan. (Hillary, of course, is unapologetically neocon; she's been targeting the neocon vote since
wrapping up the nomination.)
"... he made most of Bush Jr.'s tax cuts permanent." Yeah, except the ones on higher incomes.
"He slashed spending." Not really. The sequester hostage deal cuts were more than offset by other Obama-led spending,
like ARRA short term and ACA long term.
"He gave fraudulent bankers sweetheart deals buying up toxic assets with taxpayer money and
QE purchases while giving Americans conned by them nothing. "
Not even close. The Treasury and Fed buy assets at market prices, which is the complete opposite
of "sweetheart deals." Notably, the Treasury and Fed have both profited from these purchases.
"His healthcare reforms appear to have been written by the insurance companies (yet another
looting scheme.)"
The insurance companies lobbied against ACA and are clearly not profiting on exchange plan
issuance.
"Obama signed a law extending all of the Bush tax cuts for two years in 2010 and
almost all of them indefinitely in 2013. The big features of Bush's plans -- the 10 percent tax
bracket, across-the-board rate cuts, more generous estate-tax exemptions and equal standard deductions
for married couples and two individuals -- are now locked into U.S. law."
From CNN Money:
"At its height in 2010, 'discretionary spending' under Obama reached 9.1% of
GDP. That was largely due to the stimulus law intended to dig the country out of a deep recession.
But even at that high level, it wasn't that much higher than the 40-year average of 8.4% and was
still below the 40-year peak of 10% reached in 1983. Today, levels [of 6.8%] are well below the
long-term average. And the Congressional Budget Office projects that by 2023 discretionary spending
will fall to 5.3% of GDP, the lowest since 1962."
Re: "sweetheart deals" I got that line from Stigtilz's "Freefall." Clearly a book you didn't
read.
As for Obamacare, insurance companies are jacking up premiums and deductibles. If Obama had
wanted to provide insurance for the 50 million uninsured (which he only reduced by 20 million)
he could've extended Medicare with a public option and covered them all without giving healthcare
insurance companies an excuse to fleece Americans even more.
(Developed countries pay 12% GDP for extensive healthcare benefits; the US pays 18% GDP for
its patchwork system that leaves 31 million without. The inflated costs - 6% GDP or about $1T
a year - are largely from insurance corporation looting.)
"Obama signed a law extending all of the Bush tax cuts for two years in 2010 and almost all of
them indefinitely in 2013. "
Yeah, and hidden in that "almost all" qualifier is exactly what I said previously: that the
BTCs for higher incomes were NOT extended.
And I didn't even mention before how ACA raised taxes further on the rich, with an additional
surtaxes on both incomes and capital gains for $200k plus earners.
The result has been that the top 1% now pay the highest effective tax rates they've paid since
the mid 90s, while everyone else pays relatively lower.
Reducing taxes on the not rich and raising taxes on the rich counts as center-left, at least,
in any sensible accounting.
"From CNN Money: "At its height in 2010, 'discretionary spending' under Obama reached 9.1%
of GDP.
...
And the Congressional Budget Office projects that by 2023 discretionary spending will fall to
5.3% of GDP, the lowest since 1962."
Your use of this passage to try to make your point has so many layers of fudge it might as
well be tiramisu.
First, 2010 was a peak not just because of the ARRA spending, which is another thing I already
mentioned, but also because of high *cyclical* spending on things like unemployment benefits.
Spending always goes up during downturns. That's not a policy or ideological shift, that's
just the nature of automatic stabilizers.
You conflate all those things by pointing to the decline in spending off the cyclical peak
as being somehow less than "centrist."
Second, you have for no good reason chosen to point only too discretionary spending. So lets
talk about what that category includes and doesn't.
The biggest component of discretionary spending is defense spending. Is it "center-left" to
promote higher defense spending? No way. And in fact, the sequester hostage deal cuts are half
defense cuts.
Another thing to note about discretionary spending is that its been declining for decades,
as "non-discretionary" spending has come to increasingly dominate the budget. And that non-discretionary
spending continues to go up.
Also, like I already said (see a trend here?), the major policy changes affecting non-defense
discretionary spending were the sequester and ACA, and guess what? They offset.
So how is this not centrist? You want to paint Obama as some major spending cutter, but on
balance he hasn't. He's cut deficits a little bit by raising taxes on the rich by a bit more than
he's lowered them on everyone else.
Not centrist? Pfft.
"Re: "sweetheart deals" I got that line from Stigtilz's "Freefall." Clearly a book you didn't
read."
Clearly you can't even defend your own assertion, so you retreat to a weak argument from authority.
"As for Obamacare, insurance companies are jacking up premiums and deductibles."
No, they are jacking up premiums, by an average of 9%, which is far lower than they used to
rise in the individual market on average pre-ACA, and follows a few years of way below trend rate
increases.
You were saying?
" If Obama had wanted to provide insurance for the 50 million uninsured (which he only reduced
by 20 million) he could've extended Medicare with a public option and covered them all without
giving healthcare insurance companies an excuse to fleece Americans even more."
Ugh. Just painful.
Yes, a *single payer* system like Medicare for all would cover everyone, and probably be less
expensive (though at present Medicare is the most generous single payer system on the planet,
so it actually wouldn't save as much as international comparisons would lead you to believe).
But the "public option" has nothing to do with Medicare or universal single payer coverage.
It would simply be the government setting up an insurance company to offer policies on the exchanges
for premiums. That's not at all the same as Medicare, and not universal. It could serve as a valuable
competitor to private plans on the exchanges, which is why center-left Dems like Obama and Hillary
Clinton support it, but you don't appear to be aware of that support or even what "public option"
means.
Obama raised taxes on the rich while cutting taxes on everyone else. In the sequester hostage
deal he acquiesced to, they cut defense spending and non-defense discretionary equally, but Obama
also expanded non-defense discretionary, by actually a greater amount, with the passage of ACA,
not to mention the temporary but significant spending that was passed under ARRA. Based on this
history he's supposedly not "centrist"? WTF?
"Yeah, and hidden in that "almost all" qualifier is exactly what I said previously: that the BTCs
for higher incomes were NOT extended."
So you have a beef with Bloomberg? Puke your apologist rhetoric at them. "The result has been
that the top 1% now pay the highest effective tax rates they've paid since the mid 90s, while
everyone else pays relatively lower. So how is this not centrist?"
The top tax bracket during the centrist Keynesian post-war era varied from 90% to 70%. Obama
raised the rate from 35% to 40%. Still deep in right-wing "low tax, small government" neoclassical
territory.
"No, they are jacking up premiums, by an average of 9%, which is far lower than they used to
rise"
From Bill Clinton on the ACA: "So you've got this crazy system where all of a sudden, 25 million
more people have healthcare and then the people that are out there busting it-sometimes 60 hours
a week-wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half. It's the craziest thing
in the world."
"Yes, a *single payer* system like Medicare for all would cover everyone … But the 'public
option' has nothing to do with … universal single payer coverage"
You missed my point completely. A primary goal of the ACA was to provide "affordable" healthcare
insurance to the 50 million people without. A goal it clearly failed at given 31-million still
have no healthcare insurance.
I said that with the public option alone, all 50-million could've gotten public healthcare
insurance or benefits without affecting anyone else's premiums and deductions. I.e., it would've
been a more effective patchwork reform.
Obviously a pubic option that covers 50-million is completely different from a single-payer
system that would cover all 325-million Americans. Of course, this is completely irrelevant to
my original point.
"But the 'public option' has nothing to do with Medicare"
From Wikipedia: "The Public Option Act, in contrast, would have allowed all citizens and permanent
residents to buy into a public option by participating in the public Medicare program."
"Please, just stop."
You should heed your own advice. You are only fooling yourself with your weasel rhetoric and
pathetic attempts at browbeating.
ACA is why progressive must reject Hillary's soft right-centrist pap. The issue with ACA exchanges
is escape........ The compromises pushed by the GOP were all for insurance companies. Single payer
was needed to keep the thugs honest.
Shifting to banking...... Who would have bought that $2T in MBS's (now sitting in a FR virtual
vault) at what market*? When do those MBS's go back into the 'market'? *Clearing price ['market']
assumes a 'rational' buyer. The FR is a rationalizing buyer, with intent not usual to "markets".
"I see no evidence of that" Believe it. Hillary Clinton has consistently supported the public
option. That is an important "leftward" expansion of ACA. She has also proposed to *double* funding
for Federally Qualified Health Centers (think County Health clinics) that serve as the front line
of providing primary healthcare to the nations poor and working poor.
Both of those initiatives would be enormously impactful on their own. And those are in addition
to the litany of other proposals she has put forth, recently and over her entire working life,
to improve access, affordability and quality of care for everyone.
" I really wish more liberals would learn about these things..." You mean you wish liberals
were more gullible. Obama ran on a public option during the primaries, promised his health care
reforms would include it. In the end it was all empty talk. The reason Obama and Hillary have
the PRIVATE position that a public option is never going to happen under their watch is :
"Progressives supported [the public option] as a voluntary transition toward single-payer insurance,
while conservatives opposed it as a government 'takeover' of health care." -- Health Affairs "The
Origins And Demise Of The Public Option"
The public option is a Trojan Horse. It will eat into the healthcare insurance industry's
market share, which is why they pay Obama and Hillary the big bucks to protect it.
"ACA is why progressive must reject Hillary's soft right-centrist pap. The issue with
ACA exchanges is escape........ The compromises pushed by the GOP were all for insurance companies.
Single payer was needed to keep the thugs honest."
Yeah ... what?
The GOP didn't compromise at all on ACA. They contributed zero votes. It was the best bill
that the Dems could get all 60 Dem senators to agree on. If you want to talk about compromises
for insurance companies, like the preclusion of the public option or the reduction in the Medicare
age limit, it wasn't the GOP who pushed for those, it was Joe Lieberman and other waffly Dems.
"Shifting to banking......
Who would have bought that $2T in MBS's (now sitting in a FR virtual vault) at what market*?
When do those MBS's go back into the 'market'?"
Why don't you do a little googling and educate yourself instead of JAQing off to me?
During the crisis, the Fed bought MBS at an enormous discount, precisely because the crisis
crashed market liquidity and sellers were desperate. Although the Fed has also profited from purchases
since, as insolvency rates on mortgages have continued to steadily decline.
MBS don't need to be sold on market to generate income and profit. They are debt instruments
that spit out cash over time. They actually liquidate themselves because homeowners almost never
carry mortgage loans to term. AFAIK the Fed continues to buy them to maintain its balance sheet,
which generates a small amount of interest income (only a few tens of billions...), but it's a
pretty good income considering the Fed's cost of capital is near zero when it is printing money
to deliberately expand monetary supply.
The 1983 and 2010 discretionary included too much of GDP on war. Proving Bastiat that "security
spending" is less useful than almost any other use of the money.
Total is one feature, opportunity lost [on war profiteers blowing up evil doers] while
spending Yuuuge is a few onion peels deeper.
The left/right economic spectrum is objective and immutable. In the center is the Keynesian
mixed-market system that was abandoned when Reagan came to power for right-wing free-market reforms
that were continued on by both Republican and Democratic presidents that followed. The country
is further to the right now than when Reagan left power.
The economic spectrum is defined: 100% left is communism or full government control over
the economy; 100% right is libertarianism or no government involvement in the economy. In the
center is the Keynesian demand-side economic system that created modern living standards during
the Progressive New Deal Era that began with FDR and was ended by Reagan.
To consider Obama's rule center-left is to be completely ignorant of the left/right economic
spectrum. Norway is a left-leaning centrist Keynesian country. If you think America and Norway
are the same I suggest (for starters) you watch Michael Moore's documentary: "Where to Invade
Next."
By milquetoast I imagine you mean instead of delivering big promised changes from the Bush
Jr. era, he did absolutely nothing. He continued both the neocon war-profiteering and neoliberal
economic reforms. He will attempt to ram the TPP through after the election during the lame duck
session.
If Americans hate anyone it is establishment lapdog Republicans and Democrats. Krugman's
ridiculous rhetoric shows they are growing increasingly desperate. They should be: their neoliberal
era is coming to a close; their gravy train is about to go off the rails. (Krugman got in on it
too late.)
Starting wars is not "milquetoast, moderately successful center-left rule." It is a neocon
scam run by the DNC establishment. Was Obama always a shill for the war machine, and his Iraq
vote a Manchurian candidate?
"... First, Clinton's neoliberalism is so bone deep that she refers to Medicare as a "single market" rather than "single payer"; ..."
"... Clinton frames solutions exclusively ..."
"... Policy Sciences ..."
"... Stalin spent his early days in a seminary. Masters of broken promises. I'm more interested in Clinton's Chinese connections. Probably tied through JP Morgan. The Chinese are very straightforward in their, dare I say, inscrutible way. The ministers are the ministers, and the palace is the palace. ..."
"... SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don't feel particularly courageous. I mean, if we're going to be an effective, efficient economy, we need to have all part of that engine running well, and that includes Wall Street and Main Street. ..."
"... Because she wont pay for quality speechwriters or coaching. Because she is a shyster, cheapskate and a fraud. They hired the most inept IT company to 'mange' their office server who then (in a further fit of cheapskate stupidity) hired an inept IT client manager who then (in a further fit of cheapskate stupidity) asked Reddit for a solution. ..."
"... One can say a lot of justifiable bad things about Ronald Reagan, but, he had competent advisors and he used them! With Hillary, Even if she knows she has accessed the best advice on the planet her instinct it to not trust it because "she knows better" and she absolutely will not tolerate dissent. Left to her own devices, she simply copies other people's thinking/ homework instead of building her own ideas with it. ..."
"... What surprises me is that Goldmans paid her for these speeches, you know? Hillary C typically pays "the audience" to listen to, and come to her speeches. You know? You know! ..."
"... I heard Hillary speak in summer '92, when Bill was running for Prez. She. was. amazing. No joke. Great speech, great ideas, great points. I thought then she should be the candidate. But there was in her speech just a tiny undercurrent of "the ends justify the means." i.e. 'we need to get lots of money so we can do good things.' Fast forward 20+ years. Seems to me that for the Clintons the "means" (getting lots of money) has become the end in itself. Reassuring Wall St. is one method for getting money – large, large amounts of money. ..."
"... A fine illustration of the maxim that "crime makes you stupid." ..."
"... in that context ..."
"... So I guess the moral of the story is (a) more deterioration, this time from 2008 to 2016, and (b) Clinton can actually make a good decision, but only when forced to by a catastrophe that will impact her personally. Whether she'll be able to rise to the occasion if elected is an open question, but this post argues not. ..."
"... Bingo! Think about it: She was speaking to a group of people whose time is "valued" at 100's if not 1,000's of dollars per hour. She took up their "valuable" time but provided nothing except politics-as-usual blather tailored to that particular audience. Yet she was paid $225k for a single speech… ..."
"... Hillary is a remarkably inarticulate person, which calls into question her intellectual fitness for the job (amidst many other questions, of course). I entirely agree with your depiction of her speeches as mindless drivel. ..."
"... Not to otherwise compare them, but Bush I's inarticulateness made him seem a buffoon, and that was not the case, either. ..."
"... Matt Tiabbi, Elizabeth Warren, Benie Sanders, Noam Chompsky–all those used to seem like bastions of integrity have, thanks to Hillary, been revealed as slimy little Weasels who should henceforth be completely disregarded. I'd have to thank Hillary for pulling back the nlindets on that; if not for this election I might have been still foolishly listening to these people. ..."
"... What scares me most about Clinton is her belligerence towards Russia and clamoring for a no-fly zone in Syria. The no-fly zone will mean war with Russia. If only Clinton were saying this, we might be safe, but the entire Washington deep state seems to be of one mind in favor of a war. During the cold war this would have been inconceivable; everyone understood a nuclear war must not be allowed. This is no longer true and it is terrifying. Every war game the pentagon used to simulate a war with the U.S.S.R. escalated into an all out nuclear war. What is the "plan B" Obama is pursuing in Syria? ..."
"... The current fear/fever over nuclear war with Russia requires madness in the Kremlin - of which there is no evidence. Our Rulers are depending on Putin and his cohorts being the sane ones as rhetoric from the US and the West ratchets ever upwards. ..."
"... But then, the Kremlin is looking for any hint of sanity on US and NATO side and is finding little… ..."
"... Curtis LeMay tried to provoke a nuclear war with the Soviets in the 1950's. By and large, however, the American state understood a nuclear war was unwinnable and avoided such a possibility. A no-fly zone in Syria would start a war with Russia. William Polk, who participated in the Cuban missle crisis and U.S. nuclear war games, argues in this article ..."
"... both of which present a clinical assessment that Hillary suffers from Parkinson's. Seems like an elephant in the room. ..."
"... The absolute vacuousness of Clinton's remarks, coupled with her ease at neoliberal conventional wisdom, make it clear that Goldman's payments were nothing more (or less) than a $675,000 anticipatory "so no quid pro quo ..."
"... The leaked emails confirm - even though she herself never writes them, which is really odd, when you consider that Podesta is her Campaign Chair and close ally going back decades - that she is compulsively secretive, controlling, and resistant to admitting she's wrong. The chain of people talking about how to get her to admit she was wrong about Nancy Reagan and AIDS was particularly fascinating that way; she was flat out factually inaccurate, and it had the potential to do tremendous harm to her campaign with a key donor group, and it was apparently still a major task to persuade her to say "I made a mistake." ..."
"... basically, every real world policy problem is related to every other real world policy problem ..."
"... Most noticeable thing is her subservience to them like a fresh college grad afraid of his boss at his first job ..."
As readers know, WikiLeaks has
released transcripts
of the three speeches to Goldman Sachs that Clinton gave in 2013, and for which she was paid
the eyewatering sum of $675,000. (The link is to an email dated January 23, 2016, from Cllinton staffer
Tony Carrk , Clinton's research director, which pulls out
"noteworthy quotes" from the speeches. The speeches themselves are attachments to that email.)
Readers, I read them. All three of them. What surprises - and when I tell you I had to take a
little nap about halfway through, I'm not making it up! - is the utter mediocrity of Clinton's thought
and mode of expression[1]. Perhaps that explains Clinton's
otherwise inexplicable refusal to release them. And perhaps my sang froid is preternatural,
but I don't see a "smoking gun," unless forking over $675,000 for interminable volumes of shopworn
conventional wisdom be, in itself, such a gun. What can Goldman Sachs possibly have thought they
were paying for?
WikiLeaks has, however, done voters a favor - in these speeches, and in the DNC and Podesta email
releases generally - by giving us a foretaste of what a Clinton administration will be like, once
in power, not merely on policy (the "first 100 days"), but on how they will make decisions. I call
the speeches a "munitions dump," because the views she expresses in these speeches are bombs that
can be expected to explode as the Clinton administration progresses.
With that, let's contextualize and comment upon some quotes from the speeches
The Democrats Are the Party of Wall Street
Of course, you knew that, but it's nice to have the matter confirmed. This material was flagged
by Carrk (as none of the following material will have been). It's enormously prolix, but I decided
to cut only a few paragraphs. From
Clinton's second
Goldman speech at the AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium:
MR. O'NEILL: Let's come back to the US. Since 2008, there's been an awful lot of seismic activity
around Wall Street and the big banks and regulators and politicians.
Now, without going over how we got to where we are right now , what would be your
advice to the Wall Street community and the big banks as to the way forward with those two important
decisions?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I represented all of you for eight years. I had great relations and
worked so close together after 9/11 to rebuild downtown, and a lot of respect for the work you
do and the people who do it, but I do - I think that when we talk about the regulators and the
politicians, the economic consequences of bad decisions back in '08, you know, were devastating,
and they had repercussions throughout the world.
That was one of the reasons that I started traveling in February of '09, so people could, you
know, literally yell at me for the United States and our banking system causing this everywhere.
Now, that's an oversimplification we know, but it was the conventional wisdom [really?!].
And I think that there's a lot that could have been avoided in terms of both misunderstanding
and really politicizing [!] what happened with greater transparency, with greater openness on
all sides, you know, what happened, how did it happen, how do we prevent it from happening?
You guys help us figure it out and let's make sure that we do it right this time .
And I think that everybody was desperately trying to fend off the worst effects institutionally,
governmentally, and there just wasn't that opportunity to try to sort this out, and that
came later .
I mean, it's still happening, as you know. People are looking back and trying to, you know,
get compensation for bad mortgages and all the rest of it in some of the agreements that are being
reached.
There's nothing magic about regulations, too much is bad, too little is bad. How do you get
to the golden key, how do we figure out what works? And the people that know the industry
better than anybody are the people who work in the industry .
…
And we need banking. I mean, right now, there are so many places in our country where
the banks are not doing what they need to do because they're scared of regulations , they're
scared of the other shoe dropping, they're just plain scared, so credit is not flowing the way
it needs to to restart economic growth.
So people are, you know, a little - they're still uncertain, and they're uncertain both because
they don't know what might come next in terms of regulations, but they're also uncertain because
of changes in a global economy that we're only beginning to take hold of.
So first and foremost, more transparency, more openness, you know, trying to figure out,
we're all in this together , how we keep this incredible economic engine in this country
going. And this [finance] is, you know, the nerves, the
spinal column.
And with political people, again, I would say the same thing, you know, there was a lot
of complaining about Dodd-Frank, but there was also a need to do something because for political
reasons , if you were an elected member of Congress and people in your constituency were
losing jobs and shutting businesses and everybody in the press is saying it's all the fault of
Wall Street, you can't sit idly by and do nothing, but what you do is really important.
And I think the jury is still out on that because it was very difficult to sort of sort through
it all.
And, of course, I don't, you know, I know that banks and others were worried about continued
liability [oh, really?] and other problems down the road, so it would be better if we could
have had a more open exchange about what we needed to do to fix what had broken and then try to
make sure it didn't happen again, but we will keep working on it.
MR. O'NEILL: By the way, we really did appreciate when you were the senator from New York and
your continued involvement in the issues (inaudible) to be courageous in some respects to associated
with Wall Street and this environment. Thank you very much.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don't feel particularly courageous. I mean, if we're going to be
an effective, efficient economy, we need to have all part of that engine running well, and that
includes Wall Street and Main Street.
And there's a big disconnect and a lot of confusion right now. So I'm not interested in,
you know, turning the clock back or pointing fingers , but I am interested in trying to
figure out how we come together to chart a better way forward and one that will restore confidence
in, you know, small and medium-size businesses and consumers and begin to chip away at the unemployment
rate [five years into the recession!].
So it's something that I, you know, if you're a realist, you know that people have different
roles to play in politics, economics, and this is an important role, but I do think that there
has to be an understanding of how what happens here on Wall Street has such broad consequences
not just for the domestic but the global economy, so more thought has to be given to the process
and transactions and regulations so that we don't kill or maim what works, but we concentrate
on the most effective way of moving forward with the brainpower and the financial power
that exists here.
"Moving forward." And not looking back. (It would be nice to know what "continued liability"
the banks were worried about;
accounting
control fraud ? Maybe somebody could ask Clinton.) Again, I call your attention to the weird
combination of certainty and mediocrity of it; readers, I am sure, can demolish the detail. What
this extended quotation does show is that Clinton and Obama are as one with respect to the
role of the finance sector. Politico describes Obama's famous meeting with the bankster CEOs:
Arrayed around a long mahogany table in the White House state dining room last week, the CEOs
of the most powerful financial institutions in the world offered several explanations for paying
high salaries to their employees - and, by extension, to themselves.
"These are complicated companies," one CEO said. Offered another: "We're competing for talent
on an international market.".
But President Barack Obama wasn't in a mood to hear them out. He stopped the conversation and
offered a blunt reminder of the public's reaction to such explanations. "Be careful how you make
those statements, gentlemen. The public isn't buying that.".
"My administration," the president added, "is the only thing between you and the pitchforks."
And he did! He did! Clinton, however, by calling the finance sector the "the nerves, the spinal
column" of the country, goes farther than Obama ever did.
So, from the governance perspective, we can expect the FIRE sector to dominate a Clinton administration,
and the Clinton administration to service it. The Democrats are the Party of Wall Street. The bomb
that could explode there is corrupt dealings with cronies (for which the Wikileaks material provides
plenty of leads).
Clinton Advocates a "Night Watchman" State
The next quotes are shorter, I swear! Here's a quote from
Clinton's third
Goldman speech (not flagged by Carrk, no doubt because hearing drivel like this is perfectly
normal in HillaryLand):
SECRETARY CLINTON: And I tell you, I see any society like a three-legged stool. You have to
have an active free market that gives people the chance to live out their dreams by their own
hard work and skills. You have to have a functioning, effective government that provides
the right balance of oversight and protection of freedom and privacy and liberty and all the rest
of it that goes with it . And you have to have an active civil society. Because there's
so much about America that is volunteerism and religious faith and family and community activities.
So you take one of those legs away, it's pretty hard to balance it. So you've got to get back
to getting the right balance.
Apparently, the provision
of public services is not within government's remit -- What are Social Security and Medicare?
"All the rest of it"? Not only that, who said the free market was the only way to "live
out their dreams"? Madison, Franklin, even Hamilton would have something to say about that! Finally,
which one of those legs is out of balance? Civil society? Some would advocate less religion in politics
rather than more, including many Democrats. The markets? Not at Goldman? Government? Too much militarization,
way too little concrete material benefits, so far as I'm concerned, but Clinton doesn't say, making
the "stool" metaphor vacuous.
From a governance perspective, we can expect Clinton's blind spot on government's role in provisioning
servies to continue. Watch for continued privatization efforts (perhaps aided by Silicon Valley).
On any infrastructure projects, watch for "public-private partnerships." The bomb that could explode
there is corrupt dealings with a different set of cronies (even if the FIRE sector does
have a finger in every pie).
Clinton's Views on Health Care Reflect Market Fundamentalism
MR. O'NEILL: [O]bviously the Affordable Care Act has been upheld by the supreme court. It's
clearly having limitation problems [I don't know what that means]. It's unsettling, people still
- the Republicans want to repeal it or defund it. So how do you get to the middle on that clash
of absolutes?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, this is not the first time that we rolled out a big program with the
limitation problems [Clinton apparently does].
I was in the Senate when President Bush asked and signed legislation expanding Medicare benefits,
the Medicare Part D drug benefits. And people forget now that it was a very difficult implementation.
As a senator, my staff spent weeks working with people who were trying to sign up, because
it was in some sense even harder to manage because the population over 65, not the most computer-literate
group, and it was difficult. But, you know, people stuck with it, worked through it.
Now, this is on - it's on a different scale and it is more complex because it's trying to create
a market. In Medicare, you have a single market , you have, you know, the government
is increasing funding through government programs [sic] to provide people over 65 the drugs they
needed.
And there were a few variations that you could play out on it, but it was a much simpler market
than what the Affordable Care Act is aiming to set up.
Now, the way I look at this, Tim, is it's either going to work or it's not going to work.
First, Clinton's neoliberalism is so bone deep that she refers to Medicare as a "single market"
rather than "single payer"; but then
Clinton erases single payer whenever possible . Second, Clinton frames solutions exclusively
in terms of markets (and not the direct provision of services by government);
Obama does the same on health care in JAMA , simply erasing the possibility of single payer.
Third, rather than advocate a simple, rugged, and proven system like Canadian Medicare (single payer),
Clinton prefers to run an experiment ("it's either going to work or it's not going to work")
on the health of millions of people (and, I would urge, without their informed consent).
From a governance perspective, assume that if the Democrats propose
a "public option," it will be miserably inadequate. The bomb that could explode here is the ObamaCare
death spiral.
The Problems Are "Wicked," but Clinton Will Be Unable to Cope With Them
MR. BLANKFEIN: The next area which I think is actually literally closer to home but where American
lives have been at risk is the Middle East, I think is one topic. What seems to be the ambivalence
or the lack of a clear set of goals - maybe that ambivalence comes from not knowing what outcome
we want or who is our friend or what a better world is for the United States and of Syria, and
then ultimately on the Iranian side if you think of the Korean bomb as far away and just the Tehran
death spot, the Iranians are more calculated in a hotter area with - where does that go? And I
tell you, I couldn't - I couldn't myself tell - you know how we would like things to work out,
but it's not discernable to me what the policy of the United States is towards an outcome either
in Syria or where we get to in Iran.
MS. CLINTON: Well, part of it is it's a wicked problem , and it's a wicked
problem that is very hard to unpack in part because as you just said, Lloyd, it's not clear
what the outcome is going to be and how we could influence either that outcome or a different
outcome.
(I say "cope with" rather than "solve" for reasons that will become apparent.) Yes, Syria's bad,
as vividly shown by Blankfein's fumbling question, but I want to focus on the term "wicked problem,"
which comes from the the field of strategic planning, though it's also infiltrated
information technology
and management
theory . The concept originated in a famous paper by Horst W. J. Rittel and Melvin M. Webber
entitled: "Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning" (PDF), Policy Sciences 4 (1973), 155-169.
I couldn't summarize the literature even if I had the time, but here is Rittel and Webber's introduction:
There are at least ten distinguishing properties of planning-type problems, i.e. wicked ones,
that planners had better be alert to and which we shall comment upon in turn. As you will see,
we are calling them "wicked" not because these properties are themselves ethically deplorable.
We use the term "wicked" in a meaning akin to that of "malignant" (in contrast to "benign") or
"vicious" (like a circle) or "tricky" (like a leprechaun) or "aggressive" (like a lion, in contrast
to the docility of a lamb). We do not mean to personify these properties of social systems by
implying malicious intent. But then, you may agree that it becomes morally objectionable for the
planner to treat a wicked problem as though it were a tame one, or to tame a wicked problem prematurely,
or to refuse to recognize the inherent wickedness of social problems.
And here is a list of Rittel and Webber's ten properties of a "wicked problem" (
and a critique ):
There is no definite formulation of a wicked problem Wicked problems have no stopping rule Solutions
to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but good-or-bad. There is no immediate and no ultimate
test of a solution to a wicked problem. Every solution to a wicked problem is a "one-shot operation";
because there is no opportunity to learn by trial-and-error, every attempt counts significantly.
Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions,
nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the
plan. Every wicked problem is essentially unique. Every wicked problem can be considered to be
a symptom of another [wicked] problem. The causes of a wicked problem can be explained in numerous
ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem's resolution. [With wicked
problems,] the planner has no right to be wrong.
Of course, there's plenty of controversy about all of this, but if you throw these properties
against the Syrian clusterf*ck, I think you'll see a good fit, and can probably come up with other
examples. My particular concern, however, is with property #3:
Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but good-or-bad
There are conventionalized criteria for objectively deciding whether the offered solution to
an equation or whether the proposed structural formula of a chemical compound is correct or false.
They can be independently checked by other qualified persons who are familiar with the established
criteria; and the answer will be normally unambiguous.
For wicked planning problems, there are no true or false answers. Normally, many parties are
equally equipped, interested, and/or entitled to judge the solutions, although none has the power
to set formal decision rules to determine correctness. Their judgments are likely to differ widely
to accord with their group or personal interests, their special value-sets, and their ideological
predilections. Their assessments of proposed solutions are expressed as "good" or "bad" or, more
likely, as "better or worse" or "satisfying" or "good enough."
(Today, we would call these "many parties" "stakeholders.") My concern is that a Clinton administration,
far from compromising - to be fair, Clinton does genuflect toward "compromise" elsewhere - will try
to make wicked planning problems more tractable by reducing the number of parties to policy decisions.
That is, exactly, what "irredeemables" implies[2], which is unfortunate, especially when the cast
out amount to well over a third of the population. The same tendencies were also visible in the Clinton
campaigns approach to Sanders and Sanders supporters, and the general strategy of bringing the Blame
Cannons to bear on those who demonstrate insufficient fealty.
From a governance perspective, watch for many more executive orders acceptable to neither right
nor left, and plenty of decisions taken in secret. The bomb that could explode here is the
legitimacy of a Clinton administration, depending on the parties removed from the policy discussion,
and the nature of the decision taken.
Conclusion
I don't think volatility will decrease on November 8, should Clinton be elected and take office;
if anything, it will increase. A ruling party in thrall to finance, intent on treating government
functions as opportunities for looting by cronies, blinded by neoliberal ideology and hence incapable
of providing truly universal health care, and whose approach to problems of conflict in values is
to demonize and exclude the opposition is a recipe for continued crisis.
NOTES
[1]
Matt Taibbi takes the view that "Speaking to bankers and masters of the corporate universe, she
came off as relaxed, self-doubting, reflective, honest, philosophical rather than political, and
unafraid to admit she lacked all the answers." I don't buy it. It all read like the same old Clinton
to me, and I've read a lot of Clinton (see, e.g.,
here ,
here ,
here ,
here ,
here , and
here ).
[2] One is irresistibly reminded of Stalin's "No man, no problem," although some consider Stalin's
methods to be unsound. oho
October 17, 2016 at 1:14 pm
I had never read this article before. Near perfect diagnosis and even more relevant today than
it was then. For everyone's benefit, the central thesis:
Typically, these countries are in a desperate economic situation for one simple reason-the
powerful elites within them overreached in good times and took too many risks. Emerging-market
governments and their private-sector allies commonly form a tight-knit-and, most of the time,
genteel-oligarchy, running the country rather like a profit-seeking company in which they are
the controlling shareholders.
…
Of course, the U.S. is unique. And just as we have the world's most advanced economy, military,
and technology, we also have its most advanced oligarchy.
In a primitive political system, power is transmitted through violence, or the threat of
violence: military coups, private militias, and so on. In a less primitive system more typical
of emerging markets, power is transmitted via money: bribes, kickbacks, and offshore bank accounts.
Although lobbying and campaign contributions certainly play major roles in the American political
system, old-fashioned corruption-envelopes stuffed with $100 bills-is probably a sideshow today,
Jack Abramoff notwithstanding.
Instead, the American financial industry gained political power by amassing a kind of
cultural capital-a belief system. Once, perhaps, what was good for General Motors was good
for the country. Over the past decade, the attitude took hold that what was good for Wall Street
was good for the country. The banking-and-securities industry has become one of the top contributors
to political campaigns, but at the peak of its influence, it did not have to buy favors the
way, for example, the tobacco companies or military contractors might have to. Instead, it
benefited from the fact that Washington insiders already believed that large financial institutions
and free-flowing capital markets were crucial to America's position in the world.
A hypothesis (at least for "Main Street") proven true between 2009 and 2016:
Emerging-market countries have only a precarious hold on wealth, and are weaklings globally.
When they get into trouble, they quite literally run out of money -- or at least out of foreign
currency, without which they cannot survive. They must make difficult decisions; ultimately,
aggressive action is baked into the cake. But the U.S., of course, is the world's most powerful
nation, rich beyond measure, and blessed with the exorbitant privilege of paying its foreign
debts in its own currency, which it can print. As a result, it could very well stumble along
for years-as Japan did during its lost decade-never summoning the courage to do what it needs
to do, and never really recovering.
Lastly, the "bleak" scenario from 2009 that today looks about a decade too early, but could
with minor tuning (Southern instead of Eastern Europe, for example) end up hitting in a big way:
It goes like this: the global economy continues to deteriorate, the banking system in east-central
Europe collapses, and-because eastern Europe's banks are mostly owned by western European banks-justifiable
fears of government insolvency spread throughout the Continent. Creditors take further hits
and confidence falls further. The Asian economies that export manufactured goods are devastated,
and the commodity producers in Latin America and Africa are not much better off. A dramatic
worsening of the global environment forces the U.S. economy, already staggering, down onto
both knees. The baseline growth rates used in the administration's current budget are increasingly
seen as unrealistic, and the rosy "stress scenario" that the U.S. Treasury is currently using
to evaluate banks' balance sheets becomes a source of great embarrassment.
…
The conventional wisdom among the elite is still that the current slump "cannot be as
bad as the Great Depression." This view is wrong. What we face now could, in fact, be worse
than the Great Depression-because the world is now so much more interconnected and because
the banking sector is now so big. We face a synchronized downturn in almost all countries,
a weakening of confidence among individuals and firms, and major problems for government finances.
If our leadership wakes up to the potential consequences, we may yet see dramatic action on
the banking system and a breaking of the old elite. Let us hope it is not then too late.
That's a good reminder to us at NC that not all our readers have been with us since 2009 and
may not be familiar with the great financial crash and subsequent events. I remember reading the
Johnson article when it came out. And now, almost eight years later…
There's a reason that there's a "Banana Republic" category. Every time I read an article about
the political economy of a second- or third-world country I look for how it applies to this country,
and much of the time, it does, particularly on corruption.
We truly must consider the possibility Goldman wrote the 3 speeches, then paid Hillary to give
them.
Next, leak them to Wiki. Everything in them is pretty close to pure fiction – but it is neolib
banker fiction. Just makes it all seem more real when they do things this way.
Yike's, I'm turning into a crazy conspiracy theorist.
Don't fall for the 'status quo's' language Jedi mind trick crazyboy. I like to call myself
a "sane conspiracy theorist." You can too!
As for H Clinton's 'slavish' adherence to the Bankster Ethos; in psychology, there is the "Stockholm
Syndrome." Here, H Clinton displays the markers of "Wall Street Syndrome."
Ugh. Mindless drivel. Talking points provided by Wall St itself would sound identical.
Then there's this: She did NOT represent Wall St and the Banks while a Senator. They cannot
vote. They are not people. They are not citizens. She represented the PEOPLE. The PEOPLE that
can VOTE. You cannot represent a nonexistent entity like a corporation as an ELECTED official.
You can ONLY represent those who actually can, or do, vote. End of story.
I saw a video in high school years back that mentioned a specific congressional ruling that
gave Congress the equivalent to individual rights. I swear it was also in the 30s but I cannot
recall and have never been able to find what it was I saw. Do you have any insight here?
Historical Background and Legal Basis of the Federal Register / CFR Publications System
Why was the Federal Register System Established ?
New Deal legislation of the 1930's delegated responsibility from Congress to agencies to
regulate complex social and economic issues
Citizens needed access to new regulations to know their effect in advance
Agencies and Citizens needed a centralized filing and publication system to keep track of rules
Courts began to rule on "secret law" as a violation of right to due process under the Constitution
But don't forget. She is the most qualified candidate… EVER . Remind me again
how this species was able to bring three stranded Apollo 13 astronauts back from the abyss, the
vacuum of space with some tape and tubing.
This is like watching a cheap used car lot advertisement where the owner delivers obviously
false platitudes as the store and cars collapse, break, and burst into flames behind them.
Stalin spent his early days in a seminary. Masters of broken promises. I'm more interested
in Clinton's Chinese connections. Probably tied through JP Morgan. The Chinese are very straightforward
in their, dare I say, inscrutible way. The ministers are the ministers, and the palace is
the palace.
The show is disappointing, the debaters play at talking nuclear policy, but have *nothing*
to say about Saudi Arabia's new arsenal.
When politicos talk nuclear, they only mean to allege a threat to Israel, blame Russia, or
fear-monger the North Koreans.
We're in the loop, but only the quietest whispers of the conflict in Pakistan are available.
It sounds pretty serious, but there is only interest in attacking inconvenient Arabs.
On Trump, what an interesting study in communications. The no man you speak of. Even himself
caught between his own insincerity towards higher purpose and his own ego as 'the establishment'
turns on him.
The proles of his support are truely a silent majority. The Republicans promised us Reagan
for twenty years, and it's finally the quasi-Democrat Trump who delivers.
> This is like watching a cheap used car lot advertisement where the owner delivers obviously
false platitudes as the store and cars collapse, break, and burst into flames behind them.
+100
With a wall of American flags waving in the background as the smoke and flames rise.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don't feel particularly courageous. I mean, if we're going to
be an effective, efficient economy, we need to have all part of that engine running well, and
that includes Wall Street and Main Street.
this all reads like a cokehead's flow of consciousness on some ethereal topic with no intellectual
content on the matter to express. I would have said extemporaneous, but you know it was all scripted,
so that's even worse.
PHOTOJOURNALIST
"Do you know what the man is saying? Do you? This is dialectics.
It's very simple dialectics. One through nine, no maybes, no
supposes, no fractions - you can't travel in space, you can't go out
into space, you know, without, like, you know, with fractions - what
are you going to land on, one quarter, three-eighths - what are you
going to do when you go from here to Venus or something - that's
dialectic physics, OK? Dialectic logic is there's only love and hate, you
either love somebody or you hate them."
"Da5id's voice is deep and placid, with no trace of stress. The syllables roll off his tongue
like drool. As Hiro walks down the hallway he can hear Da5id talking all the way. 'i ge en i ge
en nu ge en nu ge en us sa tu ra lu ra ze em men….'" –Neal Stephenson, Snow Crash
Completely agree. When I first read excerpts from her speeches, I was appalled at the constant
use of "you know" peppering most of her sentences. To me, people who constantly bifurcate sentences
with "you know" are simply blathering. They usually don't have any in-depth knowledge of the subject
matter on which they are opining. Compare Hillary being asked to comment on a subject with someone
such as Michael Hudson or Bill Black commenting on a subject and she simply sounds illiterate.
I have this feeling that her educational record is based on an ability to memorize and parrot
back answers rather than someone who can reach a conclusion by examining multiple concepts.
Here's what I don't understand: The lady (and her husband) have LOADS of money. Yet this is
the best that she can do?
Really?
Heck, if I had half the Clintons' money, I'd be hiring the BEST speechwriters, acting coaches,
and fashion consultants on the planet. And I'd be taking their advice and RUNNING with it. Sheesh.
Some people have more money than sense.
Because she wont pay for quality speechwriters or coaching. Because she is a shyster, cheapskate
and a fraud. They hired the most inept IT company to 'mange' their office server who then (in
a further fit of cheapskate stupidity) hired an inept IT client manager who then (in a further
fit of cheapskate stupidity) asked Reddit for a solution.
Its in the culture: Podesta does it, Blumenthal does it
And now they blame the Russians!!!! Imagine the lunacy within the white house if this fool
is elected.
I think she is just not that smart. Maybe intelligent but not flexible enough to do much with
it.
Smart people seek the advice of even smarter people and knowing that experts disagree, they
make sure that there is dissent on the advisory team. Then they make up their mind.
One can say a lot of justifiable bad things about Ronald Reagan, but, he had competent
advisors and he used them! With Hillary, Even if she knows she has accessed the best advice on
the planet her instinct it to not trust it because "she knows better" and she absolutely will
not tolerate dissent. Left to her own devices, she simply copies other people's thinking/ homework
instead of building her own ideas with it.
I don't think so. The "you know" has a name, it's called a "verbal tick" and is one of the
first things that is attacked when one learns how to speak publicly. Verbal ticks come in many
forms, the "ums" for example, or repeating the last few words you just said, over and over again.
The brain is complex. The various parts of the brain needed for speech; cognition, vocabulary,
and vocalizations, actually have difficulty synchronizing. The vocalization part tends to be faster
than the rest of the brain and can spit out words faster than the person can put them together.
As a result, the "buffer" if you will runs empty, and the speech part of the brains simply fills
in the gaps with random gibberish.
You can train yourself out of this habit of course – but it's something that takes practice.
So I take HRC's "you know" as evidence that these are unscripted speeches and is directly improvising.
How come her responses during the debates are not peppered with these verbal ticks. At least,
I don't recall her saying you know so many times. Isn't she improvising then?
As Lambert said, HRC doesn't do unscripted. The email leaks even sends us evidence that her
interviews were scripted and town hall events were carful staged. Even sidestepping that however,
dealing with verbal ticks is not all that difficult with a bit of practice and self-awareness.
"You know" is an insidious variation on "like" and "andum", the latter two being bias neutral
forms of mental vapor lock of tbe speech center pausing for higher level intellectual processes
to refill the speech centers tapped out RAM.
The "you know" variant is an end run on the listener's cognitive functions logic filters. Is
essence appropriating a claim to the listener.
I detest "you knows" immediately with "no i dont know, please explain."
The same with "they say" i will always ask "who are they?"
I think this is important to fo do to ppl for no ofher reason thanto nake them think critically
even if it is a fleeting annoyance.
Back on HRC, i have maintai we that many people overrate her intellectual grasp. Personally
I think she is a hea ily cosched parrot. "The US has achieved energy independence"…. TILT. Just
because you state things smugly doesnt mean its reality.
I think what I call the lacunae words are really revealing in people's speech. When she says
"you know" she is emphasizing that she and the listener both know what she is "talking around."
Shared context as a form of almost - encryption, you could say. "This" rather than '"finance"
Here rather than at Goldman.I don't know what you'd call it exactly- free floating referent? A
habit, methinks, of avoiding being quoted or pinned down. It reminds me of the leaked emails…everyone
is very careful to talk around things and they can because they all know what they are talking
about. Hillary is consistently referred to, in an eerie H. Rider Haggard way, as "her" - like
some She Who Must Not Be Named.
What surprises me is that Goldmans paid her for these speeches, you know?
Hillary C typically pays "the audience" to listen to, and come to her speeches. You know? You
know!
This election cycle just proves how bad things have become. The two top presidential candidates
are an egotistical ignoramus and the quintessential establishment politician and they are neck
and neck because the voting public is Planet Stupid. Things will just continue to fall apart in
slow motion until some spark (like another financial implosion) sets off the next revolution.
"Now, without going over how we got to where we are right now, what would be your advice
to the Wall Street community and the big banks as to the way forward with those two important
decisions?
"SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I represented all of you [Wall St] for eight years."
I heard Hillary speak in summer '92, when Bill was running for Prez. She. was. amazing.
No joke. Great speech, great ideas, great points. I thought then she should be the candidate.
But there was in her speech just a tiny undercurrent of "the ends justify the means." i.e. 'we
need to get lots of money so we can do good things.' Fast forward 20+ years. Seems to me that
for the Clintons the "means" (getting lots of money) has become the end in itself. Reassuring
Wall St. is one method for getting money – large, large amounts of money.
I heard similar impressions of her at the time, from women who had dealt with her: Book smart.
Street smart. Likeable. But what might have been the best compromise you could get in one decade,
may have needed re-thinking as you moved along in time. The cast of players changes. Those who
once ruled are now gone. Oh, but the money! And so old ideas can calcify. I'm not suggesting that
Trump is even in the ballpark in terms of making compromises, speeches, life changes or anything
else to have ever been proud of. Still, the capacity to grow and change is important in a leader.
So where are we going now?
A fine illustration of the maxim that "crime makes you stupid."
I've said this once, but I'll say it again: After the 2008 caucus debacle, Clinton fired the
staff and rejiggered the campaign. They went to lots of small venues, like high school
gyms - in other words, "deplorables" territory - and Clinton did her detail, "I have a plan" thing,
which worked really well in that context because people who need government to deliver
concrete material benefits like that, and rightly. They also organized via cheap phones, because
that was how to reach their voters, who weren't hanging out at Starbucks. And, history being written
by the winners, we forget that using that strategy, Clinton won all the big states and (if all
the votes are counted) a majority of the popular vote. So, good decision on her part. And so from
that we've moved to the open corruption of the Clinton Foundation and Clinton campaign apparatus
that takes 11 people to polish and approve a single tweet.
So I guess the moral of the story is (a) more deterioration, this time from 2008 to 2016,
and (b) Clinton can actually make a good decision, but only when forced to by a catastrophe that
will impact her personally. Whether she'll be able to rise to the occasion if elected is an open
question, but this post argues not.
"Apparently, the provision of public services is not within government's remit! What are Social
Security and Medicare? "
What is the US Post Office? Rumor has it that the PO is mentioned in the US Constitution, a
fact that is conveniently forgotten by Strict Constructionists.
With respect to regulation, I think it should be less a case of quantity, and more one of quality,
but Clinton seems to want to make it about finding the sweet spot of exactly how many regulations
will be the right amount.
In general, when companies are willing to spot you $225,000 to speak for some relatively short
period of time, willing to meet your demands regarding transportation, hotel accommodations, etc.,
why would you take the chance of killing the goose that's laying those golden eggs by saying anything
likely to tick them off?
I'd like to think she's kind of embarrassed to have people see how humdrum/boring her speeches
were for how much she was paid to give them, but I think there's got to be more "there" somewhere
that she didn't want people to be made aware of – and it doesn't necessarily have to be Americans,
it could be something to do with foreign governments, foreign policy, trade, etc.
After learning how many people it takes to send out a tweet with her name on it, I have no
idea how she managed this speech thing, unless one of her requirements was that she had to be
presented with all questions in advance, so she could be prepared.
I am more depressed by the day, as it's really beginning to sink in that she's going to be
president, and it all just makes me want to stick needles in my eyes.
Also the "Wicked Problems" definitions are very, very interesting. Thank you for bringing those
in! I would add that these wicked problems lead to more wicked problems. It is basically dishonesty,
and to protect the lie you double down with more, and more, and more…. Most of Clinton's decisions
and career seem to be knots of wicked problems.
The wicked problem is quickly becoming our entire system of governance. Clinton has been described
as the malignant tumor here before, but even she is a place holder for the rot. One head of the
Hydra that I feel Establishment players would generally be okay with sacrificing if it came to
it (and maybe I am wrong there–but it seems as if a lot of the push fro her comes from her inner
circle and others play along).
Hail Hydra! Immortal Hydra! We shall never be destroyed! Cut off one limb and two more shall
take its place! We serve the Supreme Hydra, as the world shall soon serve us!
I've heard/read in some places Hillary Clinton described as a "safe pair of hands". I don't
understand where this characterization comes from. She's dangerous.
If she wins with as strong of an electoral map as Obama in '08, she'll take it as a strong
mandate and she'll have an ambitious agenda and likely attempt to overreach. I've been meaning
to call my congressional reps early and say "No military action on Syria, period!"
She might use a "public option" as an ACA stealth bailout scheme, but I don't think the public
has much appetite to see additional resources being thrown at a "failed experiment". I worry that
Bernie's being brought on board for this kind of thing. He should avoid it.
Is she crazy enough to go for a grand bargain right away? That seems nutty and has been a "Waterloo"
for many presidents.
Remember how important Obama's first year was. Bailouts and ACA were all done that first year.
How soon can we put President Clinton II in lame duck status?
Not really surprised by the intellectual and rhetorical poverty demonstrated by these speeches.
Given the current trajectory of our politics, the bar hasn't really been set very high. In fact
it looks like we're going to reach full Idiocracy long before originally predicted.
You ask, " What can Goldman Sachs possibly have thought they were paying for? "
But I think you know. Corruption has become so institutionalized that it is impossible to point
to any specific Quid Pro Quo. The Quo is the entire system in which GS operates and the care and
feeding of which the politicians are paid to administer.
We focus on HRC's speeches and payments here but I wonder how many other paid talks are given
to GS each year by others up and down the influence spectrum. As Bill Black says, a dollar given
to a politician provides the largest possible Return on Investment of any expenditure. It is Wall
Street's long-term health insurance plan.
Yeah we know which part of the "stool" we'll be getting.If the finance sector is "the nerves,
the spinal column" of the country, I suggest the country find a shallow pool in which to shove
it – head first.
I skimmed the /. comments on a story about this yesterday; basically everyone missed the obvious
and went with vox-type responses ("she's a creature of the system / in-fighter / Serious Person").
"So I'm not interested in, you know, turning the clock back or pointing fingers,
but I am interested in trying to figure out how we come together to chart a better way
forward and one that will restore confidence in, you know, small and medium-size businesses and
consumers and begin to chip away at the unemployment rate [five years into the recession!]."
Basically, even better than a get out of jail free card, in that it is rather a promise that
we won't go back and ever hold you responsible, and we have done the best we could so far to avoid
having you own up to anything or be held accountable in any way beyond some niggling fines, which
of course, you are happy to pay, because in the end, that is simply a handout to the legal industry,
who are your best drinking buddies.
The latter part of that quote is just mumbo jumbo non-sequitir blathering. Clinton appears
to know next to nothing about finance, only that it generates enormous amounts of cash for the
oh so deserving work that God told them to do.
+1 exactly: There will be no retrospective prosecutions and none in the future either, trust
me! Not the she is any better than Eric Holder but she is certain she should be paid more than
him.
Bingo! Think about it: She was speaking to a group of people whose time is "valued" at
100's if not 1,000's of dollars per hour. She took up their "valuable" time but provided nothing
except politics-as-usual blather tailored to that particular audience. Yet she was paid $225k
for a single speech…
I've only skimmed through the speech transcripts; did I miss something of substance?
Hillary is a remarkably inarticulate person, which calls into question her intellectual
fitness for the job (amidst many other questions, of course). I entirely agree with your depiction
of her speeches as mindless drivel.
However, you may be overthinking the "wicked problem" language. While it is certainly
possible that she is familiar with the literature that you cite, nothing else in her speeches
suggests that she commands that level of intellectual detail. This makes me think that somewhere
along the line she befriended someone from the greater Boston area who uses "wicked" the way Valley
Girls use "like". When I first heard the expression decades ago, I found it charming and incorporated
it into my own common usage. And I don't use it anything like you describe. To me it is simply
used for emphasis. Nothing more or less than that, but I am amused to see an entire literature
devoted to the concept of a "wicked problem".
I remain depressed by this election. No matter how it turns out, it's going to wicked suck
; )
I think the inarticulateness/cliche infestation is a ploy and a deflection; this is a very
intelligent woman who can effectively marshall language when she feels the need. That need was
more likely felt in private meetings with the inner cabal at Goldman.
Not to otherwise compare them, but Bush I's inarticulateness made him seem a buffoon, and
that was not the case, either.
Finally, as a thought experiment, I'd like to suggest that, granting that Clintonismo will
privilege those interests which best fortify their arguments with cash, it's also true that Bill
and Hillary are all about Bill and Hillary. In other words, it could be that she has the same
hustler's disregard toward the lumpen Assistant Vice Presidents filling that room at GS as she
does for the average voter. Thus, the empty, past-their-expiration-date calories.
Sure, she'll take their money and do their bidding, but why even bother to make any more effort
than necessary? On a very primal level with these two, it's all about the hustle and the action,
and everyone's a potential rube.
As in, when Bill put his presidency on the line, the base were expected to circle the wagons.
As in, "I'm With Her". Not "She's With Us", natch. It's *always* about the Clintons.
"Speaking to bankers and masters of the corporate universe, she came off as relaxed, self-doubting,
reflective, honest, philosophical rather than political, and unafraid to admit she lacked all
the answers."
seriously, matt taibbi? next, i would like to hear about the positive, feelgood, warmfuzzy
qualities of vampire squids (hugs cthulhu doll).
Matt Tiabbi, Elizabeth Warren, Benie Sanders, Noam Chompsky–all those used to seem like
bastions of integrity have, thanks to Hillary, been revealed as slimy little Weasels who should
henceforth be completely disregarded. I'd have to thank Hillary for pulling back the nlindets
on that; if not for this election I might have been still foolishly listening to these people.
agree w you except about Bernie. he always said he'd support the nominee. the suddenness of
his capitulation has led many of us to believe he was threatened. somewhere I read something about
"someone" planting kiddieporn on his son's computer if he didn't do…… I dunno. I reserve judgement
on Sanders until I learn more,…. if i ever do
Clinton's remarks were typically vague, as one might expect from a politician; she doesn't
want to be pinned down. This may be part of the banality of her remarks.
What scares me most about Clinton is her belligerence towards Russia and clamoring for
a no-fly zone in Syria. The no-fly zone will mean war with Russia. If only Clinton were saying
this, we might be safe, but the entire Washington deep state seems to be of one mind in favor
of a war. During the cold war this would have been inconceivable; everyone understood a nuclear
war must not be allowed. This is no longer true and it is terrifying. Every war game the pentagon
used to simulate a war with the U.S.S.R. escalated into an all out nuclear war. What is the "plan
B" Obama is pursuing in Syria?
In the Russian press every day for a long time now they have been discussing the prospect of
a conflict. Russia has been conducting civil defense drills in its cities and advised its citizens
to recall any children living abroad. This is never reported in our press, which only presents
us with caricatures of Putin. Russians are not taken seriously.
During the cold war this would have been inconceivable; everyone understood a nuclear war
must not be allowed.
No it wasn't. Far from it. By some miracle, the globe escaped instant incineration but only
barely. The Soviets, to their credit, were not about to risk nuclear annihilation to get one
up on the US of Perfidy. Our own Dauntless Warriors were more than willing, and I believe it's
only through dumb luck that a first strike wasn't launched deliberately or by deliberate "accident."
Review the Cold War concept of Brinkmanship.
The current fear/fever over nuclear war with Russia requires madness in the Kremlin - of
which there is no evidence. Our Rulers are depending on Putin and his cohorts being the sane
ones as rhetoric from the US and the West ratchets ever upwards.
But then, the Kremlin is looking for any hint of sanity on US and NATO side and is finding
little…
Curtis LeMay tried to provoke a nuclear war with the Soviets in the 1950's. By and large,
however, the American state understood a nuclear war was unwinnable and avoided such a possibility.
A no-fly zone in Syria would start a war with Russia. William Polk, who participated in the Cuban
missle crisis and U.S. nuclear war games, argues in this article
" "the nerves, the spinal column" of the country, goes farther than Obama ever did."
But this description is technically true. That is finance's proper function, co-ordinating
the flow of capital and resources, especially from where they're in excess to where they're needed.
It's a key decision-making system – for the economy, preferably not for society as a whole. That
would be the political system.
So on this basic level, the problem is that finance, more and more, has put its own institutional
and personal interests ahead of its proper function. It's grown far too huge, and stopped performing
its intended function – redistributing resources – in favor of just accumulating them, in the
rather illusory form of financial instruments, some of them pure vapor ware.
So yes, this line reflects a very bad attitude on Hillary's part, but by misappropriating a
truth – pretty typical propaganda.
No, finance does NOT "channel resources". Wash your mouth out. This is more neoliberal cant.
Financiers do not make investments in the real economy. The overwhelming majority of securities
trading is in secondary markets, which means it's speculation. And when a public company decides
whether or not to invest in a new project, it does not present a prospectus on that new project
to investors. It runs the numbers internally. For those projects, the most common source of funding
is retained earnings.
Clinton shows that she is either a Yale Law grad who does not have the slightest idea that
Wall Street does very little in the economy but fleece would-be investors, or that she is an obsequious
flatterer of those from whom she openly takes bribes.
Having heard Hillary, Chelsea (yes, she's being groomed) and many, many other politicians over
the years, including a stint covering Capitol Hill, Mme C's verbal style does not surprise to
me at all but rather strikes me as perfectly serviceable. It is a mellifluous drone designed to
lull the listener into thinking that she is on their side, and the weakness of the actual statements
only becomes clear when reading them on the page later (which rarely happens). The drowsy listener
will catch, among the words strung together like Christmas lights, just the key terms and concepts
that demonstrate knowledge of the brief and a soothing layer of vague sympathy. Those who can
award her $600K can assume with some confidence that, rhetoric aside, she will be in the tank
when needed. The rest of us have to blow away the chaff and peer into the yawning gaps lurking
behind the lawyerly parsing. In all fairness, this applies to 90% of seekers of public office.
The absolute vacuousness of Clinton's remarks, coupled with her ease at neoliberal conventional
wisdom, make it clear that Goldman's payments were nothing more (or less) than a $675,000 anticipatory
"so no quid pro quo here" bribe.
Who on earth gives up their vote to a politician who is so shameless an corrupt that she openly
accepts bribes from groups who equally shamelessly and corruptly are looting the commons? Apparently
many, but not me.
Nothing like making lemons out of lemonade, is there?
There really is a question why she didn't do this doc dump herself when Bernie asked. Yeah,
sure, she would have been criticized ("damned if you do, damned if you don't") but because of
who she is she'll be criticized no matter what. There is nothing she can do to avoid it.
Not only is there no smoking gun, it's almost as if she's trying to inject a modicum of social
conscience into a culture that has none. And no, she isn't speaking artfully; nor is she an orator.
Oh. Not that we didn't know already.
The most galling aspect is her devotion to the neoLibCon status quo. Steady as she goes. Apparently
a lot of people find the status quo satisfactory. Feh.
If this document dump came out during the primary campaign, then HRC may have lost. Even Black,
Southern ladies can smell the corrupting odor clinging to these "speeches".
Given the way DNC protected her during the primaries, and what looked like a pretty light touch
by Bernie and (who? O'Malley was it?) toward her, I doubt these speeches would have been her undoing.
Dull and relatively benign, and policy-wise almost identical to Obama's approach to the bankers'
role in the economic unpleasantness. "Consensus" stuff with some hint of a social conscience.
Not effective and not enough to do more than the least possible ("I told them they ought to
behave better. Really!") on behalf of the Rabble.
But not a campaign killer. Even so, by not releasing transcripts during the primary, she faced
- and still faces - mountains of criticism over it. No escape. Not for her.
I'm not sure that's an appropriate strategy for dealing with multiple interlocking wicked problems,
but I'm not sure why. Suppose we invoke the Precautionary Principle - is incremental change
really the way to avoid harm?
The Consensus (of Opinions That Matter) says it is. On the other hand, blowing up the System
leads to Uncertainty, and as we know, we can't have that. Mr. Market wouldn't like it…
The leaked emails confirm - even though she herself never writes them, which is really
odd, when you consider that Podesta is her Campaign Chair and close ally going back decades -
that she is compulsively secretive, controlling, and resistant to admitting she's wrong. The chain
of people talking about how to get her to admit she was wrong about Nancy Reagan and AIDS was
particularly fascinating that way; she was flat out factually inaccurate, and it had the potential
to do tremendous harm to her campaign with a key donor group, and it was apparently still a major
task to persuade her to say "I made a mistake."
So while I think you are wrong that the speeches wouldn't have hurt her in the primary, I also
think Huma would have had to knock her out and tie her up (not in a fun way) to get those speeches
released.
I can't imagine a worse temperament to govern, particularly under the conditions she'll be
facing. But she'll be fully incompetent before too long, so I don't suppose it matters that much.
I'm morbidly curious to see how long they can keep her mostly hidden and propped up for limited
appearances, before having to let Kaine officially take over. Will we be able to figure out who's
actually in power based on the line-up on some balcony?
Fair points, though the "temperament" issue may be one that follows from the nature of the
job - even "No Drama Obama" is said to have a fierce anger streak, and secrecy, controlling behavior,
and refusing to admit error is pretty typical of presidents, VPs, and other high officials. The
King/Queen can do no wrong, dontchaknow. (cf: Bush, GW, and his whole administration for recent
examples. History is filled with them, though.)
As for Hillary's obvious errors in judgment, I think they speak for themselves and they don't
speak well of her.
TINA vs WATA (we are the alternative)…the next two years are gonna be interesting…evil is often
a cover for total incompetence and exposure…our little tsarina will insist brigades that dont
exist move against enemies that are hardly there…when she & her useless minions were last in/on
the seat of power(j edger version of sop) the netizens of the world were young and dumb…now not
so much…
I got into wicked problems 35 years ago in the outstanding book by Ian Mitroff and R. O. Mason,
"Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions." First page of Chapter One has subsection title COMPLEXITY,
followed by "A Little Experiment" Lets try the experiment with current problems.
One could come up with a list of major problems, but here is the one used by C. West Churchman
mentioned along with Horst Riddle. Churchman back in the 80's said that the problems of the world
were M*P**3, or M, P cubed, or M * P * P *P with the letters standing for Militarism, Population,
Poverty and Pollution.
Here is how they ran the exercise
1. Suppose there were a solution to any of these 4 problems, would that solution be related
to the other problems. Clearly.
2. Thus 'whenever a policy maker attempts to solve a complex policy problem, it is related
to all the others
Repeated attempts in other contexts give the same result: basically, every real world
policy problem is related to every other real world policy problem
This is from page 4, the second page of the book.
I ran this exercise for several years in ATT Bell Labs and ATT.
List major problems
How long have they been around? (most for ever except marketing was new after breakup in
'84
If one was solved, would that solution be related in any way to the other ones?
Do you know of any program that is making headway? (occasionally Quality was brought up)
This could be done in a few minutes, often less than 5 minutes
5. Conclusion: long term interdependent problems that are not being addressed
Thus the only grade that matters in this course on Corporate Transformation that now begins
is that you have new insights on these problems. This was my quest as an internal consultant in
ATT to transform the company. I failed.
I was a Sanders supporter. Many here will disagree, but if Clinton wins I don't think she's
going to act as she might have acted in 2008, if she had won.
Clinton is a politician, and *all* politicians dissemble in private, unless they're the mayor
of a small town of about 50 people – and even then! Politicians – in doing their work – *must*
compromise to some degree, with the best politicians compromising in ways that bring their constituents
more benefit, than not.
That said, Clinton is also a human being who is capable of change. This election cycle has
been an eye opener for both parties. If Clinton wins (and, I think she will), the memory of how
close it was with Sanders and the desperate anger and alienation she has experienced from Trump
supporters (and even Sanders' supporters) *must* have already gotten her thinking about what she
is going to have to get done to insure a 2020 win for Democrats, whether or not she is running
in 2020.
In sum, I think Clinton is open to change, and I don't believe that she is some deep state
evil incarnate; sge's *far* from perfect, and she's not "pure" in her positioning – thank god!,
because in politics, purists rarely accomplish anything.
If Clinton reverts to prior form (assuming she makes (POTUS), 2020 will make 2016 look like
a cakewalk, for both parties – including the appearance of serious 3rd party candidates with moxy,
smarts, and a phalanx of backers (unlike the current crop of two – Johnson and Stein).
"... If you insist on focusing on individuals, you may miss the connection, because the worst off
within communities - actual chronic discouraged workers, addicts - are likely to express no opinion
to the degree they can be polled at all. Trump primary voters are white Republicans who vote, automatically
a more affluent baseline* than the white voters generally. ..."
EMichael quotes Steve Randy Waldman and Dylan Matthews in today's links:
""Trump voters, FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver found, had a median household income of $72,000,
a fair bit higher than the $62,000 median household income for non-Hispanic whites in America."
...
""But it is also obvious that, within the Republican Party, Trump's support comes disproportionately
from troubled communities, from places that have been left behind economically, that struggle
with unusual rates of opiate addiction, low educational achievement, and other social vices."
I followed the link and failed to find any numbers on the "troubled communities" thing. It
seems strange to me that the two comments above are in conflict with each other."
It seems like you are missing the point of Waldman's blog post (and Stiglitz and Shiller)
You didn't quote this part:
"... If you insist on focusing on individuals, you may miss the connection, because the
worst off within communities - actual chronic discouraged workers, addicts - are likely to express
no opinion to the degree they can be polled at all. Trump primary voters are white Republicans
who vote, automatically a more affluent baseline* than the white voters generally.
"Among Republicans, Trump supporters have slightly lower incomes. But what really differentiates
them?"]
"At the community level**, patterns are clear. (See this*** too.) Of course, it could still
all be racism, because within white communities, measures of social and economic dysfunction are
likely correlated with measures you could associate with racism."
Of course, it could still all be racism, because within white communities, measures of social
and economic dysfunction are likely correlated with measures you could associate with racism.
Social affairs are complicated and the real world does not hand us unique well-identified models.
We always have to choose our explanations,**** and we should think carefully about how and why
we do so. Explanations have consequences, not just for the people we are imposing them upon, but
for our polity as a whole. I don't get involved in these arguments to express some high-minded
empathy for Trump voters, but because I think that monocausally attributing a broad political
movement to racism when it has other plausible antecedents does real harm....
In Ohio, for instance, Quinnipiac has a poll taken in the second week of October showing
Clinton and Trump in a tie in a four way race with the Libertarian and Green Party
candidates, the latter tow in at six and one percent respectively. With a margin of error 3.9
percent Ohio could swing either way for Quinnipiac.
For the same period in Ohio, the RealClearPolitics average has Trump up 0.7. Over the
same week, Emerson has Clinton up two, NBC/WSJ/Marist has Trump up one, and
CNN/ORC has Trump up four.
But where Clinton is leading she is often within the margin of error or close to it. In
Florida, Quinnipiac has Clinton up four with a margin of error (МОЕ) 3.9, making the race
a statistical tie. CNN/ORC has Nevada at Clinton plus two with an МОЕ of 3.5. And in
Colorado, Quinnipiac has Trump up eight with a 3.7 МОЕ.
As to the states Trump is leading in for the second week of October, CNN/ORC has Trump
up four in Ohio with a 3.9 МОЕ, JMC Analytics has Trump up seven in Louisiana with a
3.5 МОЕ, and Rasmussen has Trump up one in Utah with an МОЕ of four.
Clearly this race is a far tighter affair than many in the media want to let on.
"... Russia's president was not surprised with US Vice President Joe Biden's recent threats towards Moscow, and said that it's not the first time Russian-American relations have been "sacrificed" for the sake of a US presidential campaign. "One can expect anything from our American friends. What has he revealed that is new? Don't we already know that US officials snoop and eavesdrop on everyone," ..."
"... Creating an enemy out of Russia is a means by which to distract attention from domestic problems during election campaign season, according to Putin. "There are many problems [in the US], and in these circumstances, many choose to resort to the tried and tested system of diverting voters' attention from their own problems. That's what we are currently witnessing, I think." ..."
"... "Portraying Iran and the Iranian nuclear threat as an enemy didn't work. [Portraying] Russia [as an enemy] seems more interesting. In my opinion, this particular card is now being actively played," Putin said. ..."
"... Putin has an uncanny knack for saying it as it is; that's one reason why US leaders hate him - they believe that honesty does not belong in politics. ..."
"... I cant believe this is actually happening. Putin is obviously speaking about blatant manipulations the US hide behind using media and tricks. People are dodging bullets to save their children in Syria at this very moment! But the BBC hide the bigger truth with isolated incidents of 'a cat up a tree', when there's a car crash down the road. ..."
"... "We are not against this country, but we oppose that decisions are made on a unilateral basis and are not thought through considering historic, cultural and religious peculiarities of one country or another," even if there is a conflict within the affected nation" This is why a global government will never work. That government will only do what is in their best interests, not in the best interests of each country. ..."
Deteriorating Russia-US relations: 'It all started from Yugoslavia'
Relations between Moscow and Washington did not deteriorate because of or during the Syrian conflict,
Putin said in a remark to a journalist, adding: "Just remember what was going on about Yugoslavia,
it all started from there." The Russian leader said that it's not about any third side in particular,
but relations worsen because "one country" wants to impose its policy and decisions upon the rest
of the world.
"We are not against this country, but we oppose that decisions are made on a unilateral basis
and are not thought through considering historic, cultural and religious peculiarities of one country
or another," even if there is a conflict within the affected nation, Putin said.
While meeting the media in Goa, southwest India, the Russian president was asked to comment on
hot issues as the US elections, the situation in Ukraine and Syria, and his refusal to visit France,
rather than Moscow's relations with its BRICS partners.
Deteriorating Russia-US relations: 'It all started from Yugoslavia'
Relations between Moscow and Washington did not deteriorate because of or during the Syrian conflict,
Putin said in a remark to a journalist, adding: "Just remember what was going on about Yugoslavia,
it all started from there." The Russian leader said that it's not about any third side in particular,
but relations worsen because "one country" wants to impose its policy and decisions upon the rest
of the world.
"We are not against this country, but we oppose that decisions are made on a unilateral basis
and are not thought through considering historic, cultural and religious peculiarities of one country
or another," even if there is a conflict within the affected nation, Putin said.
'Sanctions aim to suppress Russia's strength'
The US does not accept compromises, which is necessary to solve issues in world politics. Rather,
it chooses a "counterproductive" policy of sanctions, Putin said. "Apparently, they don't want to
compromise, they only want to dictate. Such a style has formed over the past 15-20 years in the US,
and they still can't deviate from it," Putin said, adding that restrictive measures never achieve
the aims that those who impose them hope for.
"Regarding sanctions against Russia, whatever they are said to be linked to, be it events in Ukraine
or Syria, I assure you, the aims of those who formulate such a policy [of restrictions] do not solve
any concrete problem," Putin told the media. Saying that "sanctions are aimed not at solving anything,
but at suppressing Russia's strengthening" as a robust participant in international affairs, the
president said that such intentions against Russia would never be fulfilled.
Moscow, in turn, does not plan to ease its retaliatory measures, caused by western policies, the
Russian leader told the journalists in Goa. "No way, they can get lost," he said.
'US officials snoop and eavesdrop on everyone'
Russia's president was not surprised with US Vice President Joe Biden's recent threats towards
Moscow, and said that it's not the first time Russian-American relations have been "sacrificed" for
the sake of a US presidential campaign. "One can expect anything from our American friends. What
has he revealed that is new? Don't we already know that US officials snoop and eavesdrop on everyone,"
Putin said, adding that Washington "spends billions of dollars" on its secret services "spying
not only on its potential opponents, but on its closest allies as well."
Russia portrayed as US enemy to divert voters' attention from domestic problems
Meanwhile, Russia is not going to meddle in the American presidential elections in any way, the
president told reporters, adding that Moscow has no idea what could happen after a new US leader
is elected. So far Hillary Clinton has chosen "an aggressive stance on Russia," and Donald Trump
has called for cooperation, "at least in fighting terrorism," but "no one knows what it will be like
after the elections," according to Putin, who said that both candidates might change their rhetoric.
Creating an enemy out of Russia is a means by which to distract attention from domestic problems
during election campaign season, according to Putin. "There are many problems [in the US], and in
these circumstances, many choose to resort to the tried and tested system of diverting voters' attention
from their own problems. That's what we are currently witnessing, I think."
"Portraying Iran and the Iranian nuclear threat as an enemy didn't work. [Portraying] Russia
[as an enemy] seems more interesting. In my opinion, this particular card is now being actively played,"
Putin said.
Olive Magnet
Putin has an uncanny knack for saying it as it is; that's one reason why US leaders hate
him - they believe that honesty does not belong in politics.
WinstonSmithLeader -> Olive Magnet
Putin hijacked the process of Russian integration into the West and its political-economy -
no more "free market" plundering and auctioning of Russia. The greedy US/UK-led terrorists were
had. The sore losers can barely hide it.
Olive Lobster
He is one of those rare leaders who do not have to read from a teleprompter as he speaks his
mind
Cyan Bullhorn -> Olive Lobster
I cant believe this is actually happening. Putin is obviously speaking about blatant manipulations
the US hide behind using media and tricks. People are dodging bullets to save their children in
Syria at this very moment! But the BBC hide the bigger truth with isolated incidents of 'a cat
up a tree', when there's a car crash down the road.
Yuri Ivanovich
"We are not against this country, but we oppose that decisions are made on a unilateral
basis and are not thought through considering historic, cultural and religious peculiarities of
one country or another," even if there is a conflict within the affected nation" This is why a
global government will never work. That government will only do what is in their best interests,
not in the best interests of each country.
The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice,
with one person closely involved in the year-long probe telling FoxNews.com that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously
believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged.
The source, who spoke to FoxNews.com on the condition of anonymity, said Obama appointee FBI Director James Comey's dramatic July
5 announcement that he would not recommend to the Attorney General's office that the former secretary of state be charged left members
of the investigative team dismayed and disgusted. More than 100 FBI agents and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys
from the DOJ's National Security Division, Counter Espionage Section, to investigate the case.
"No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute - it was a top-down decision,"
said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.
A high-ranking FBI official told Fox News that while it might not have been a unanimous decision, "It was unanimous that we all
wanted her [Clinton's] security clearance yanked."
"It is safe to say the vast majority felt she should be prosecuted," the senior FBI official told Fox News. "We were floored while
listening to the FBI briefing because Comey laid it all out, and then said 'but we are doing nothing,' which made no sense to us."
The FBI declined to comment directly, but instead referred Fox News to multiple public statements Comey has made in which he has
thrown water on the idea that politics played a role in the agency's decision not to recommend charges.
"... The trees, the forest and pretty much the entire landscape are screaming 2000 and 2004 didn't matter a damn. ..."
"... All the same media outlets and elites that were screaming for the invasion of Iraq are now howling for evil Syrian blood and the removal of another 'monster' before he destroys all the peace and stability we bring to the region. ..."
"... This time, of course, there's no Bush/Cheney in charge. But no matter, the decisions and the rationale are identical. Democracy will flower in the region once America and the UK kill enough of the bad guys and install their own puppets (I mean 'good guys') ..."
"... Hillary and the democrats are in charge of the killing, so all the death must be both necessary and humanitarian. The possibility that more death and more wars and more invasions and more regime change is pretty much built into the 'solution' is unthinkable. ..."
"... Watching all the cheering for 'victory in Mosul' and over the 'hold-outs' in Libya has actually driven me to turn off the nets ..."
"... Violent regime-change is 'unavoidable' regardless of which party is in power. And the current war is always better, safer, and less prone to blow-back than all those other earlier stupid wars ..."
Reading thru the link, my favorite part was the stated purpose of the cocktail party for elite
NY reporters: "Give reporters their first thoughts . . ."
@244 Good eye, Bruce. The trees, the forest and pretty much the entire landscape are screaming
2000 and 2004 didn't matter a damn.
All the same media outlets and elites that were screaming for the invasion of Iraq are
now howling for evil Syrian blood and the removal of another 'monster' before he destroys all
the peace and stability we bring to the region.
This time, of course, there's no Bush/Cheney in charge. But no matter, the decisions and
the rationale are identical. Democracy will flower in the region once America and the UK kill
enough of the bad guys and install their own puppets (I mean 'good guys') .
Hillary and the democrats are in charge of the killing, so all the death must be both necessary
and humanitarian. The possibility that more death and more wars and more invasions and more regime
change is pretty much built into the 'solution' is unthinkable.
Watching all the cheering for 'victory in Mosul' and over the 'hold-outs' in Libya has
actually driven me to turn off the nets .
Violent regime-change is 'unavoidable' regardless of which party is in power. And the current
war is always better, safer, and less prone to blow-back than all those other earlier stupid wars
.
I learned that reading the pro-Hillary 'liberal' press.
"... Most establishment news reporting has taken note that no evidence has been offered by the U.S. officials making the attribution. Clearly, someone thinks it matters, because the attribution is being made. I doubt that getting hold of Podesta's email password required the mysterious skillz of Russian super hackers, but sure ymmv. Why does the NSA spend billions and billions again? I mock because it is impossible to make sense of any of it. ..."
"... Yes, apparently, you think that the U.S. should be in there blowing up hospitals and civilians instead. The Russians just cannot handle the job, while the U.S. has its Afganistan and Iraq training and experience in bringing an end to those horrific civil wars in a few short Friedman units. Proven expertise! ..."
"... The history of humanitarian intervention is long and glorious. Only just last week, America's great and good ally, the Saudi monarchy, was blowing up a funeral in Yemen with American munitions, killing over 100. But, I indulge in irrelevancies, the better to mock you. ..."
LFC: We do have Bruce Wilder mocking the notion that the Russians hacked into the DNC email.
Cyber specialists think it was the Russians to a 90 percent certainty, but of course Wilder knows
better. Anyway, who cares whether the Russians hacked the ******* email?
Most establishment news reporting has taken note that no evidence has been offered by the
U.S. officials making the attribution. Clearly, someone thinks it matters, because the attribution
is being made. I doubt that getting hold of Podesta's email password required the mysterious skillz
of Russian super hackers, but sure ymmv. Why does the NSA spend billions and billions again? I
mock because it is impossible to make sense of any of it.
LFC: I'm more concerned w the fact that Russian planes are deliberately blowing up hospitals
and civilians.
Yes, apparently, you think that the U.S. should be in there blowing up hospitals and civilians
instead. The Russians just cannot handle the job, while the U.S. has its Afganistan and Iraq training
and experience in bringing an end to those horrific civil wars in a few short Friedman units.
Proven expertise!
Oh, I'm so sorry I mocked you again, didn't I?
The history of humanitarian intervention is long and glorious. Only just last week, America's
great and good ally, the Saudi monarchy, was blowing up a funeral in Yemen with American munitions,
killing over 100. But, I indulge in irrelevancies, the better to mock you.
Follow events in Syria day by day if you like, but don't pretend you are a humanitarian cheering
for the underdog rather than a voyeur entertained by mass tragedy.
likbez 10.16.16 at 2:43 pm
@305
bruce wilder 10.16.16 at 12:43 pm
LFC: We do have Bruce Wilder mocking the notion that the Russians hacked into the DNC email.
Cyber specialists think it was the Russians to a 90 percent certainty, but of course Wilder
knows better. Anyway, who cares whether the Russians hacked the ******* email?
Most establishment news reporting has taken note that no evidence has been offered by the
U.S. officials making the attribution.
It looks like LFC is completely clueless about such notion as Occam's razor.
Why we need all those insinuations about Russian hackers when we know that all email boxes in
major Web mail providers are just a click away from NSA analysts.
Why Russians and not something like "Snowden II".
And what exactly Russians will get politically by torpedoing Hillary candidacy. They probably
have tons of "compromat" on her, Bill and Clinton Foundation. Trump stance on Iran is no less
dangerous and jingoistic then Hillary stance on Syria. Aggressive protectionism might hurt Russian
exports. And as for Syria, Trump can turn on a dime and became a second John McCain anytime. Other
then his idea of avoiding foreign military presence (or more correctly that allies should pay
for it) and anti-globalization stance he does not have a fixed set of policies at all.
Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end
of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country
according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled
by, the visible state whose leaders we choose. My analysis of this phenomenon is not an exposé
of a secret, conspiratorial cabal; the state within a state is hiding mostly in plain sight,
and its operators mainly act in the light of day. Nor can this other government be accurately
termed an "establishment." All complex societies have an establishment, a social network committed
to its own enrichment and perpetuation. In terms of its scope, financial resources and sheer
global reach, the American hybrid state, the Deep State, is in a class by itself. That said,
it is neither omniscient nor invincible. The institution is not so much sinister (although
it has highly sinister aspects) as it is relentlessly well entrenched. Far from being invincible,
its failures, such as those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, are routine enough that it is only
the Deep State's protectiveness towards its higher-ranking personnel that allows them to escape
the consequences of their frequent ineptitude.
In view of all this, LFC anti-Russian stance looks extremely naïve and/or represents displaced
anti-Semitism.
In a way Hillary laments about Russia interference are what is typically called "The pot calling
the kettle black" as she is exactly the specialist in this area. BTW there is a documented history
of the US interference into Russian elections of 2011-2012.
In which Hillary (via ambassador McFaul and the net of NGOs) was trying to stage a "color revolution"
(nicknamed "white revolution") in Russia and prevent the re-election of Putin. The main instrument
was claiming the fraud in ballot counting.
Can you imagine the reaction if Russian ambassador invited Trump and Sanders to the embassy
and offered full and unconditional support for their noble cause of dislodging the corrupt neoliberal
regime that exists in Washington. With cash injections to breitbart.com, similar sites, and especially
organizations that conduct polls after that.
And RT covered staged revelations of "Hillary campaign corruption" 24 x 7. As was done by Western
MSM in regard to Alexei Navalny web site and him personally as the savior of Russia from entrenched
corruption ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Navalny
)
Actually the USA has several organizations explicitly oriented on interference in foreign elections
and promotion of "color revolutions", with functions that partially displaced old functions of
CIA (as in Italian elections of 1948). For example, NED.
Why Russia can't have something similar to help struggling American people to have more honest
elections despite all the blatantly undemocratic mechanisms of "first to the post", primaries,
state based counting of votes, and the United States Electoral College ?
It would be really funny if Russians really resorted to color revolution tricks in the current
presidential elections :-)
Here is a quote that can navigate them in right direction (note the irony of her words after
DNC throw Sanders under the bus ;-)
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sharply criticized what she called "troubling
practices" before and during the vote in Russia. "The Russian people, like people everywhere,
deserve the right to have their voices heard and their votes counted," she said in Bonn, Germany.
With 99.9 percent of ballots processed, election officials said that United Russia had won
238 seats in Parliament, or about 53 percent, from 315 seats or 70 percent now. The Communist
Party won 92 seats; Just Russia, a social democratic party, won 64 seats and the national Liberal
Democratic Party won 56 seats.
RP: I mean, people pretty much have to take its effects seriously.
Do they? LFC can probably lecture us on our "complete lack of understanding that the world
contains moral ambiguities and that not everything is black-and-white and open-and-shut" while
hypernormalizing anything with imperative non sequiters.
@ 307, he apparently thinks my use of the Saudi attack in Yemen in my mockery of him is due
to a failure of reading comprehension on my part. He thinks he had criticized U.S. support for
the Saudi's war against Yemen, while arguing that American "standing to object . . . when blatant,
obvious war crimes are being committed" is unaffected when America itself or American allies commit
blatant obvious war crimes. He took the futility express, Rich, and arrived ahead of you, don't
you see? Things are complicated and we must not let our committing blatant obvious war crimes
prevent us from acting to intervene where we can stop blatant obvious war crimes with blatant
obvious war crimes of our own!
Hopefully, this little addendum to my previous mockery is not even worth a response. What are
the chances?
"... ...Trump referred explicitly to "the disenfranchisement of working people" ..."
"... Trump denounced the "global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities." ..."
"... He continued: "Just look at what this corrupt establishment has done to our cities like Detroit and Flint, Michigan-and rural towns in Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina and across our country. They have stripped these towns bare, and raided the wealth for themselves and taken away their jobs." ..."
"... He went on to cite internal Clinton campaign emails published by WikiLeaks this week, documenting how, as Trump put it, "Hillary Clinton meets in secret with international banks to plot the destruction of US sovereignty in order to enrich these global financial powers." ..."
"... The Clinton campaign, warned of the impending release of masses of politically incriminating documents by WikiLeaks, sought to preempt this exposure by denouncing the leaks as a conspiracy engineered by Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin. ..."
"... Clinton is appealing for support from sections of the Republican Party, above all the neo-conservatives of the George W. Bush administration, responsible for the war in Iraq, the widespread use of torture and other crimes. ..."
"... The anti-Russian campaign has been combined with an effort to demonize Trump for a series of purported sexual offenses, with a barrage of video and audio recordings, together with the testimony of alleged victims. ..."
"... The Democratic campaign and its media allies are using methods similar to those the ultra-right employed in its efforts to oust Bill Clinton from the White House in the 1990s. They are seeking to stampede public opinion with increasingly sensationalized material. These methods degrade political discussion and distract popular consciousness from the real issues in the election. ..."
In a speech delivered by Donald Trump to an audience of thousands in West Palm Beach, Florida, the
Republican candidate turned his campaign in a more distinctly fascistic direction. Presenting himself
as both the savior of America and the victim of a ruthless political and economic establishment,
Trump sought to connect deep-seated social anger among masses of people with an "America First" program
of anti-immigrant xenophobia, militarism, economic nationalism and authoritarianism.
Responding to the latest allegations of sexual abuse, Trump proclaimed that he is being targeted
by international bankers, the corporate-controlled media and the political establishment who fear
that his election will undermine their interests.
He offered as an alternative his own persona-the strong-man leader who is willing to bear the
burden and make the sacrifices necessary for a pitiless struggle against such powerful adversaries.
Trump warned that the November 8 election would be the last opportunity for the American people to
defeat the powerful vested interests that are supporting Hillary Clinton.
The clear implication of the speech is that if Trump loses the election, the struggle against
the political establishment will have to be carried forward by other means...
...
...Trump referred explicitly to "the disenfranchisement of working people" -with racist,
chauvinist and dictatorial solutions. This includes not only the demand for jailing Hillary Clinton,
now a refrain of every speech, but his calls for his supporters to prevent a "rigged" election by
blocking access to the polls for voters in "certain communities."
Trump denounced the "global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions
that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth and put that money into the
pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities."
He continued: "Just look at what this corrupt establishment has done to our cities like Detroit
and Flint, Michigan-and rural towns in Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina and across our country.
They have stripped these towns bare, and raided the wealth for themselves and taken away their jobs."
He went on to cite internal Clinton campaign emails published by WikiLeaks this week, documenting
how, as Trump put it, "Hillary Clinton meets in secret with international banks to plot the destruction
of US sovereignty in order to enrich these global financial powers."
After the top congressional Republican, House Speaker Paul Ryan, publicly broke with Trump Monday,
declaring that he would neither campaign for him nor defend him, Trump responded with the declaration,
"It is so nice that the shackles have been taken off me and I can now fight for America the way I
want to."
... ... ...
The Clinton campaign, warned of the impending release of masses of politically incriminating
documents by WikiLeaks, sought to preempt this exposure by denouncing the leaks as a conspiracy engineered
by Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin.
Clinton is appealing for support from sections of the Republican Party, above all the neo-conservatives
of the George W. Bush administration, responsible for the war in Iraq, the widespread use of torture
and other crimes.
The anti-Russian campaign has been combined with an effort to demonize Trump for a series
of purported sexual offenses, with a barrage of video and audio recordings, together with the testimony
of alleged victims.
The Democratic campaign and its media allies are using methods similar to those the ultra-right
employed in its efforts to oust Bill Clinton from the White House in the 1990s. They are seeking
to stampede public opinion with increasingly sensationalized material. These methods degrade political
discussion and distract popular consciousness from the real issues in the election.
Groupinggate was essentially an attempt to distract votes from a more serious issue, especially
Hillary warmongering, her role in mass rape of women in Syria and Libya, and latest Podesta emails leaks.
This was a defensive strike with material that was specifically reserved for this purpose.
Notable quotes:
"... there are many more than two sides in Syria's civil war. First of all the civil war is not limited to Syria. ISIL, Hezbollah, and arguably Kurdish Rojava are belligerents not particularly invested in the borders of long defunct Mandate Syria. ..."
"... The rebel forces arrayed against or for Assad in any particular area are various in their motivations and political identities and they never divide neatly into two opposed camps. ..."
"... In short, you either support US violent regime change in the ME, or you do not. ..."
"... All who are voting for Hillary Clinton are voting for US violent regime change in Syria. That's been the stated policy of the Obama administration for some years, Hillary was played a key role in formulating that policy as Secretary of State. Now, as candidate for President she has explicitly promised more US violent regime change in Iraq. ..."
"... Violent regime change in Syria is the stated policy of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate most US members of the CT community plan to vote for in November. ..."
intervene in a civil war on the side of the rebels
I apologize if anyone feels I am harping on this too much, but there are many more than
two sides in Syria's civil war. First of all the civil war is not limited to Syria. ISIL, Hezbollah,
and arguably Kurdish Rojava are belligerents not particularly invested in the borders of long
defunct Mandate Syria.
The rebel forces arrayed against or for Assad in any particular area are various in their
motivations and political identities and they never divide neatly into two opposed camps.
kidneystones 10.15.16 at 8:06 am
@ 190 There aren't many times you're this wrong, Bruce. There are only two sides. The side that
holds a UN seat; votes or abstains on UN resolutions; borrows or does not borrow from the World
Bank; has the authority to sign, or abrogate international treaties along, for example, the Golan
heights – and the forces not aligned with the government.
The CT community evidently wants to 'confuse itself' and the issues. You are either in favor
of the US using US military power to unilaterally intercede in a civil war against the Assad government,
which as you and Peter T note, is inextricably linked to Iraq and other regional disputes, or
you oppose the unilateral use of US military power to topple governments in the ME.
In short, you either support US violent regime change in the ME, or you do not.
All who are voting for Hillary Clinton are voting for US violent regime change in Syria.
That's been the stated policy of the Obama administration for some years, Hillary was played a
key role in formulating that policy as Secretary of State. Now, as candidate for President she
has explicitly promised more US violent regime change in Iraq.
Violent regime change in Syria is the stated policy of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic
candidate most US members of the CT community plan to vote for in November.
"... I don't buy the left neoliberal hysteria over Trump as the scariest reactionary dude evah. I think that's just to prevent the dissatisfaction that Trump has tapped into blending with the dissatisfaction Sanders tapped into. ..."
"... And, I tend to think that strategy has been successful in keeping the left v right neoliberal monopoly of power intact. The Republicans may take a hit, but it will only result in a slight shuffling among the seats of power. The left neoliberals will keep the right neoliberal seats warm for them. ymmv ..."
"... This really is another post 9/11 moment for the chattering classes. All their claims of expertise, clear eyed analysis, logic above emotion, has come crashing down around their hysterical, emotion driven response to the current political situation. There is, at this stage, basically zero willingness among these groups to do their Job of explaining the world, all they want to achieve is a combination of political signalling and intense personal satisfaction. ..."
"... The best analyses I've read were a couple of essays from 2015 comparing Trump to Berlusconi. Those interested will need to insert 2015 into the search string to skip past the more breathless 2016 versions. The 2015 essays are largely free of tbe breathless need to stop Trump cold that mar 2016 comparisons. ..."
"... middle-class unhappy with the rapine corruption and self-serving nature of the elites. ..."
"... The problem is that Trump is an entertainer/marketer and his product is him. Van Jones remains the single best pundit on Trump because Jones understands that the elections are about stagecraft, more than politics. ..."
"... the college-educated white new middle class (professionals and managers), is approximately 30 percent of the population, but are overrepresented, at 40 percent, among Trump supporters. Not surprisingly, the median household income of Trump voters is around $70,000 annually. ..."
"... More importantly, the category "non-college educated whites" includes both wage workers and the self-employed - the traditional middle class. The Economist found that "better-paid and better-educated voters have always formed as big a part of Mr. Trump's base as those at the lower end of the scale for income and education." ..."
"... 'I don't know, so I assume' is kind of the defining characteristic of reactions to the Trump Candidacy. Maybe he will, continue with neoliberalism. Or maybe he will go full communism now, or perhaps at least anti-imperialism, as one prolific poster here repeatedly claims. It all depends on which 10% of his statements you believe are not lies, and what you project into the gap left by the rest. ..."
"... But it could equally plausibly lead to a stable regime that would have European political scientists in lively debate as to whether or not it is most accurately called fascist. ..."
"... Clearly, Trump's right-wing opposition to neoliberal trade and tax policies resonates with a minority of older, white workers, including a minority of union members." ..."
"... these sectors have experiencing declining living standards and are fearful about their children's prospects of remaining in the middle class." ..."
"... The developments of late capitalism have to do with the transition of these decisions from the elite capitalist class as such to a group of managers. These managers can not and do not go against the traditional interests of capital as such. But their decisions characteristically favor their class in ways that a traditional class analysis can not fathom, and their ideology appeals to a group variously called "professionals", "technocrats", "the 10%" etc. who more broadly control the levers of power in society. ..."
"... The managerial class operates a world system - the system of trade agreements, monetary agreements, etc. This system keeps the world economy going as it is going through the cooperation of American economists, Eurocrat bureaucratic appointees, Chinese Communist Party higher-ups, important people in the financial industry (whether bankers or at central banks), CEOs of multinationals, and even the leaders of important NGOs. These interactions are observable and not a matter of conspiracy theory. ..."
soru: "Precisely because it is not left neoliberalism versus right neoliberalism, but left
neoliberalism versus something that is:
a: worse b: a predictable consequence of neoliberalism.
I think there is something to the thesis that Trump ripped the scab off the place where Luttwak's
"perfect non-sequitur" had rubbed the skin off the connection between the tax-cut loving Republican
establishment leadership and the Republican electoral base of male reactionary ignoramuses.
But, I don't know what actual policy follows from Trump_vs_deep_state, if not Mike Pence brand right neoliberalism.
A little light flavoring of theocracy on the tax cuts in other words.
I don't buy the left neoliberal hysteria over Trump as the scariest reactionary dude evah.
I think that's just to prevent the dissatisfaction that Trump has tapped into blending with the
dissatisfaction Sanders tapped into.
And, I tend to think that strategy has been successful in keeping the left v right neoliberal
monopoly of power intact. The Republicans may take a hit, but it will only result in a slight
shuffling among the seats of power. The left neoliberals will keep the right neoliberal seats
warm for them. ymmv
" The national polls (though not so much the state polls) were off in 2012. During the closing
month of the campaign, they showed, on average, a 0.3 point Romney lead. The RAND poll [LA Times],
by contrast, showed a 3.8 point Obama lead – which was almost exactly correct."
Sean Trende throws a big bucket of salt on the LA Times poll, before getting to the accuracy
of the poll in 2012.
This really is another post 9/11 moment for the chattering classes. All their claims of expertise,
clear eyed analysis, logic above emotion, has come crashing down around their hysterical, emotion
driven response to the current political situation. There is, at this stage, basically zero willingness
among these groups to do their Job of explaining the world, all they want to achieve is a combination
of political signalling and intense personal satisfaction.
@208 I generally agree. Thanks for the link to the Nation piece. I earlier skimmed this Guardian
piece by JJ which features an extended essay from the reviewed text. John has been beating this
drum for more than a year trying to wear his two hats: partisan Dem and serious social critic.
The first serious undermines the second.
The best analyses I've read were a couple of essays from 2015 comparing Trump to Berlusconi.
Those interested will need to insert 2015 into the search string to skip past the more breathless
2016 versions. The 2015 essays are largely free of tbe breathless need to stop Trump cold that
mar 2016 comparisons.
The Judis essay marries Trump too closely to George Wallace, another populist, but critically
also a professional politician, a Democrat, and a New Dealer.
Judis has a good quote, or two, from Wallace that definitely fit the Tea Party/Silent Majority
profile – rule followers, middle-class unhappy with the rapine corruption and self-serving
nature of the elites.
The problem is that Trump is an entertainer/marketer and his product is him. Van Jones
remains the single best pundit on Trump because Jones understands that the elections are about
stagecraft, more than politics. Both the Nation and the Guardian piece function as much as
thinly disguised GOTV arguments as academic assessments of the Trump phenomena.
What both get right, along with many others, is that removing Trump from the equation removes
nothing from the masses of ordinary folks who a/will not apologize for who they are and in fact
celebrate themselves and their values b/aren't interested in the approval, or the explications
of elites c/are completely determined to burn down this mess irrespective of whether Trump is
elected, or not.
Thanks for the link kidneystones, I'll check.it out. I'm working through Judis' book at the moment
and find larger parts, of it convincing.
Who. Is van Jones? Is it this lad?
…while approximately 55 percent of Trump supporters do not have a bachelor's degree, this
demographic makes up approximately 70 percent of the US population - they are underrepresented
among Trump voters. However, the college-educated white new middle class (professionals
and managers), is approximately 30 percent of the population, but are overrepresented, at 40
percent, among Trump supporters. Not surprisingly, the median household income of Trump voters
is around $70,000 annually.
More importantly, the category "non-college educated whites" includes both wage workers
and the self-employed - the traditional middle class. The Economist found that "better-paid
and better-educated voters have always formed as big a part of Mr. Trump's base as those at
the lower end of the scale for income and education."
A systematic review of Gallup polling data demonstrates, again, that most Trump supporters
are part of the traditional middle class (self-employed) and those sectors of the new middle
class (supervisors) who do not require college degrees. They tend to live in "white enclaves"…
Kidney stones I'll check out the link above when by a laptop.
Personally I don't know how j feel about the managerial class argument (I still have to read
both Hayes and Frank ) but it's becoming quite clear that large parts of the left and right "establishment"
(which is just a shorthand way of saying those with high profile journalistic, political and cultural
positions) are going out of their way to not acknowledge what is right in from of their eyes,
that there are political and economic (as well as racial and cultural) reasons behind the rise
of right wing populism.
> But, I don't know what actual policy follows from Trump_vs_deep_state, if not Mike Pence brand right neoliberalism.
'I don't know, so I assume' is kind of the defining characteristic of reactions to the
Trump Candidacy. Maybe he will, continue with neoliberalism. Or maybe he will go full communism
now, or perhaps at least anti-imperialism, as one prolific poster here repeatedly claims. It all
depends on which 10% of his statements you believe are not lies, and what you project into the
gap left by the rest.
If he was elected, things would be different from what they are, or at least are understood
to be. And things being different, they would continue to be so, taking a different path from
the continuation of a status quo. My personal evidence-free assumption is that this would likely
take the nature of a decade-long crisis that would end with a return to a weakened version of
the pre-Trump regime. A pale echo of the rosy days of Obama, Bush and Clinton.
But it could equally plausibly lead to a stable regime that would have European political
scientists in lively debate as to whether or not it is most accurately called fascist.
For those not wager to read the link, here are the bits engels cut. From the beginning.
"Who are Trump's voters? Despite claims that he has won the "white working class," the vast
majority of Trump's supporters, like those of the Tea Party, are drawn from the traditional
and new middle classes, especially the older, white male and less well-off strata of these
classes. Clearly, Trump's right-wing opposition to neoliberal trade and tax policies resonates
with a minority of older, white workers, including a minority of union members."
And after enclave
"isolated from immigrants and other people of color, have worse health than the average
US resident, and are experiencing low rates of intergenerational mobility. While not directly
affected either by the decline of industry in the Midwest or by immigration, these sectors
have experiencing declining living standards and are fearful about their children's prospects
of remaining in the middle class."
Roman, I already said I broadly agreed with you (is it the case you literally zzzzzzzzzzz)- I'm
delighted that via Luttwak you're groping towards a class analysis of fascism that has been standard
on the left since at least Trotsky…
Ronan(rf): "Personally I don't know how j feel about the managerial class argument"
There are certain decision makers who make all of the important decisions, or who at least
get a tremendously inordinate amount of power over those decisions. If they aren't making a decision
in a positive sense, their power often controls decisions in a negative sense by restricting the
available choices to those that are all acceptable to them.
The developments of late capitalism have to do with the transition of these decisions from
the elite capitalist class as such to a group of managers. These managers can not and do not go
against the traditional interests of capital as such. But their decisions characteristically favor
their class in ways that a traditional class analysis can not fathom, and their ideology appeals
to a group variously called "professionals", "technocrats", "the 10%" etc. who more broadly control
the levers of power in society.
The managerial class operates a world system - the system of trade agreements, monetary
agreements, etc. This system keeps the world economy going as it is going through the cooperation
of American economists, Eurocrat bureaucratic appointees, Chinese Communist Party higher-ups,
important people in the financial industry (whether bankers or at central banks), CEOs of multinationals,
and even the leaders of important NGOs. These interactions are observable and not a matter of
conspiracy theory.
"One strength of Müller book is that he spends some time parrying bad arguments about populism,
which have flourished in a variety of intellectually useless and actively pernicious think pieces.
He is especially hard on the two tics of liberal commentary heard on America's coasts: psychologizing
populism as a symptom of resentment or the "authoritarian personality," and dismissing populists
as irresponsible rubes who don't understand the tenets of sound economic and social policy.
These criticisms, Müller points out, are really refusals to take political disagreement seriously-which,
after all, is precisely the political sin of antipluralists like Trump. A major problem with the
horrified response to Trump's campaign-however appropriate in other respects-has been its self-serving
imprecision. Whether by sweeping the very different Sanders campaign into the same all-inclusive
condemnation of "irresponsible" and "angry" movements, or by lumping Trump's views on trade policy
(a legitimate argument to make in a democratic contest) with his xenophobia (which should be considered
beyond the pale), the liberal response has often created cartoons out of both left and right populism.
It also misses, in Müller's view, what is so dangerous about populism's discontents."
"... It's coastal urban elites, many of whom went to the same schools, often Ivy league talking about all the others who didn't. It's far from surprising they're so profoundly out of touch and ignorant. ..."
"... Trump enjoys/has enjoyed substantially better support among African-Americans than most Republican candidates. His populism and calls for border controls is at least partially designed to appeal to minorities on economic terms. ..."
"... Clinton meets impartial press to discuss repackaging Hillary over cocktails hosted by Diane Sawyer: http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2016/10/your-moral-and-380.html ..."
@226 It's coastal urban elites, many of whom went to the same schools, often Ivy league talking
about all the others who didn't. It's far from surprising they're so profoundly out of touch and
ignorant.
@227 If you're referring to me, and that's a big if, I can't remember using the term anti-imperialist
ever (not that I've never said it, I just can't imagine why I would). As I've tried to make clear,
I supported Sanders, can't support Hillary for reasons I've made quite clear and regard Trump
as a clue free buffoon. To suggest he's 'lying' suggests he's actually thought through his 'arguments'
when he's almost always riffing. I hope he wins.
@228 Yes. But Trump enjoys/has enjoyed substantially better support among African-Americans
than most Republican candidates. His populism and calls for border controls is at least partially
designed to appeal to minorities on economic terms.
That's what Jones pointed out a long time ago. There's a substantial subset of African-American
voters who feel they've been extremely badly served despite consistently supporting Democrats.
Jones claims that Trump wins if 3/20 succumb to the siren song of Trump's populist boasts.
"... "deep state" - the Washington-Wall-Street-Silicon-Valley Establishment - is a far greater threat to liberty than you think ..."
"... Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose. ..."
"... Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called "groupthink," the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the town's cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive. As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." ..."
Steve Sailer links to this
unsettling
essay by former career Congressional staffer Mike Lofgren, who says the "deep state" - the
Washington-Wall-Street-Silicon-Valley Establishment - is a far greater threat to liberty than you
think. The partisan rancor and gridlock in Washington conceals a more fundamental and pervasive
agreement.
Excerpts:
These are not isolated instances of a contradiction; they have been so pervasive that they
tend to be disregarded as background noise. During the time in 2011 when political warfare over
the debt ceiling was beginning to paralyze the business of governance in Washington, the United
States government somehow summoned the resources to overthrow Muammar Ghaddafi's regime in Libya,
and, when the instability created by that coup spilled over into Mali, provide overt and covert
assistance to French intervention there. At a time when there was heated debate about continuing
meat inspections and civilian air traffic control because of the budget crisis, our government
was somehow able to commit $115 millionto keeping a civil war going in Syria and to pay
at least
£100m to the United Kingdom's Government Communications Headquarters to buy influence over
and access to that country's intelligence. Since 2007, two bridges carrying interstate highways
have collapsed due to inadequate maintenance of infrastructure, one killing 13 people. During
that same period of time, the government spent
$1.7 billion constructing a building in Utah that is the size of 17 football fields. This
mammoth structure is intended to allow the National Security Agency to store a
yottabyte of information, the largest numerical designator computer scientists have coined.
A yottabyte is equal to 500 quintillion pages of text. They need that much storage to archive
every single trace of your electronic life.
Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end
of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country
according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled
by, the visible state whose leaders we choose. My analysis of this phenomenon is not
an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial cabal; the state within a state is hiding mostly in plain
sight, and its operators mainly act in the light of day. Nor can this other government be accurately
termed an "establishment." All complex societies have an establishment, a social network committed
to its own enrichment and perpetuation. In terms of its scope, financial resources and sheer global
reach, the American hybrid state, the Deep State, is in a class by itself. That said, it is neither
omniscient nor invincible. The institution is not so much sinister (although it has highly sinister
aspects) as it is relentlessly well entrenched. Far from being invincible, its failures, such
as those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, are routine enough that it is only the Deep State's protectiveness
towards its higher-ranking personnel that allows them to escape the consequences of their frequent
ineptitude.
More:
Washington is the most important node of the Deep State that has taken over America, but it
is not the only one. Invisible threads of money and ambition connect the town to other nodes.
One is Wall Street, which supplies the cash that keeps the political machine quiescent and operating
as a diversionary marionette theater. Should the politicians forget their lines and threaten the
status quo, Wall Street floods the town with cash and lawyers to help the hired hands remember
their own best interests. The executives of the financial giants even have de facto criminal immunity.
On March 6, 2013, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee,
Attorney General Eric Holder stated the following: "I am concerned that the size of some of
these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when
we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will
have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy." This, from the
chief law enforcement officer of a justice system that has practically
abolished the constitutional right to
trial for poorer defendants charged with certain crimes. It is not too much to say that Wall
Street may be the ultimate owner of the Deep State and its strategies, if for no other reason
than that it has the money to reward government operatives with a second career that is lucrative
beyond the dreams of avarice - certainly beyond the dreams of a salaried government employee.
[3]
The corridor between Manhattan and Washington is a well trodden highway for the personalities
we have all gotten to know in the period since the massive deregulation of Wall Street: Robert
Rubin, Lawrence Summers, Henry Paulson, Timothy Geithner and many others. Not all the traffic
involves persons connected with the purely financial operations of the government: In 2013, General
David Petraeus
joined KKR (formerly Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) of 9 West 57th Street, New York, a private equity
firm with $62.3 billion in assets. KKR specializes in management buyouts and leveraged finance.
General Petraeus' expertise in these areas is unclear. His ability to peddle influence, however,
is a known and valued commodity. Unlike Cincinnatus, the military commanders of the Deep State
do not take up the plow once they lay down the sword. Petraeus also obtained a sinecure as a non-resident
senior fellow at theBelfer
Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. The Ivy League is, of course, the
preferred bleaching tub and charm school of the American oligarchy.
Lofgren goes on to say that Silicon Valley is a node of the Deep State too, and that despite the
protestations of its chieftains against NSA spying, it's a vital part of the Deep State's apparatus.
More:
The Deep State is the big story of our time. It is the red thread that runs through the war
on terrorism, the financialization and deindustrialization of the American economy, the rise of
a plutocratic social structure and political dysfunction. Washington is the headquarters of the
Deep State, and its time in the sun as a rival to Rome, Constantinople or London may be term-limited
by its overweening sense of self-importance and its habit, as Winwood Reade said of Rome, to "live
upon its principal till ruin stared it in the face."
... I would love to see a study comparing the press coverage from 9/11 leading up to the Iraq War
with press coverage of the gay marriage issue from about 2006 till today. Specifically, I'd be curious
to know about how thoroughly the media covered the cases against the policies that the Deep State
and the Shallow State decided should prevail. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy here, not at all. I'm
only thinking back to how it seemed so obvious to me in 2002 that we should go to war with Iraq,
so perfectly clear that the only people who opposed it were fools or villains. The same consensus
has emerged around same-sex marriage. I know how overwhelmingly the news media have believed this
for some time, such that many American journalists simply cannot conceive that anyone against same-sex
marriage is anything other than a fool or a villain. Again, this isn't a conspiracy; it's in the
nature of the thing. Lofgren:
Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist
Irving L. Janis called
"groupthink," the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers.
This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating
biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the
town's cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive. As in the military, everybody has
to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe
of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always
going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something
when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
A more elusive aspect of cultural assimilation is the sheer dead weight of the ordinariness
of it all once you have planted yourself in your office chair for the 10,000th time. Government
life is typically not some vignette from an Allen Drury novel about intrigue under the
Capitol dome. Sitting and staring at the clock on the off-white office wall when it's 11:00 in
the evening and you are vowing never, ever to eat another piece of takeout pizza in your life
is not an experience that summons the higher literary instincts of a would-be memoirist. After
a while, a functionary of the state begins to hear things that, in another context, would be quite
remarkable, or at least noteworthy, and yet that simply bounce off one's consciousness like pebbles
off steel plate: "You mean the
number of terrorist groups we are fighting is classified?" No wonder so few people are whistle-blowers, quite apart from the vicious
retaliation whistle-blowing often provokes: Unless one is blessed with imagination and a fine
sense of irony, growing immune to the curiousness of one's surroundings is easy. To paraphrase
the inimitable Donald Rumsfeld, I didn't know all that I knew, at least until I had had a couple
of years away from the government to reflect upon it.
When all you know is the people who surround you in your professional class bubble and your social
circles, you can think the whole world agrees with you, or should. It's probably not a coincidence
that the American media elite live, work, and socialize in New York and Washington, the two cities
that were attacked on 9/11, and whose elites - political, military, financial - were so genuinely
traumatized by the events.
Anyway, that's just a small part of it, about how the elite media manufacture consent. Here's
a final quote, one from
the Moyers interview with Lofgren:
BILL MOYERS: If, as you write, the ideology of the Deep State is not democrat
or republican, not left or right, what is it?
MIKE LOFGREN: It's an ideology. I just don't think we've named it. It's a
kind of corporatism. Now, the actors in this drama tend to steer clear of social issues. They
pretend to be merrily neutral servants of the state, giving the best advice possible on national
security or financial matters. But they hold a very deep ideology of the Washington consensus
at home, which is deregulation, outsourcing, de-industrialization and financialization. And they
believe in American exceptionalism abroad, which is boots on the ground everywhere, it's our right
to meddle everywhere in the world. And the result of that is perpetual war.
This can't last. We'd better hope it can't last. And we'd better hope it unwinds peacefully.
"... I would not precisely characterize the recognizable pattern of American choices and strategies - that is, of American policy - as that of "an imperial power bent on maintaining its global hegemony" without further qualification. I would say the pattern is that of a global hegemon approaching imperial collapse. There are important differences, with immediate relevance. ..."
"... When commenters decry the failure to observe the norms of international law, they are not just being moralists in an immoral world; they are decrying the erosion of international order, an erosion that has been accelerated by the U.S. turn toward futile expedience as a foreign policy justified by groundless self-righteousness. ..."
"... And, the R2P doctrine has been ruined not just by hypocrisy but by the demonstrated incapacity to match means to putative ends. It is not just suspicious that the impulse to humanitarianism emerges only when an opportunity to blow things up arises, it's criminal. Or should be. (sarcasm) But, of course, it is not criminal, because atrocities are only a problem when it is the other guy committing them. Then, we can exercise our righteousness for the good, old cause. (end sarcasm) ..."
"... This chaos, I repeat, is inherent in the organization of U.S. policy - it is an observable pattern, not a property by axiomatic definition as your strawman would have it, but it is very worrisome. It is a symptom of what I rather dramatically labeled "imperial collapse". That the next President of the U.S. cannot work out why a no-fly zone in a country where the Russians are flying might be a bad idea is not a good sign. That the same person was a proponent of the policy that plunged Libya into chaos is another not-good sign. That's not an argument for Trump; it is an argument that Trump is another symptom. ..."
Dropping the heavy mockery for a moment to get at the logic of my view:
I think that if Y wants to stop Z from happening, Y might consider as a first expedient, self-restraint:
not doing Z, itself. That is, discipling its own forces and reforming its own strategies, when
it finds itself either doing Z or creating the conditions where Z happens.
Your strawman summation of my view is actually not half-bad:
. . . we know a priori that X [the U.S.] cannot act without committing war crimes because X
[the U.S.] is an imperial power bent on maintaining its global hegemony, therefore any employment
of any military force in any way by X [the U.S.] anywhere necessarily constitutes a war crime,
because every aspect of X's [the U.S.'s] foreign policy is criminal and therefore every act
taken by X is criminal.
What makes this a strawman is the "we know a priori ". I don't think we know this
a priori . I think we know this, a posteriori , that is, from ample recent experience
and observation. I think there's a pattern of choice and strategy that we ought to recognize and,
if we recognize it, there might actually be an opportunity to choose differently and realize less
horrific consequences.
I would not precisely characterize the recognizable pattern of American choices and strategies
- that is, of American policy - as that of "an imperial power bent on maintaining its global hegemony"
without further qualification. I would say the pattern is that of a global hegemon approaching
imperial collapse. There are important differences, with immediate relevance.
A global hegemon in its prime is all about reducing the risks and costs of armed conflicts
and coordinating the cooperation of allied, nominally neutral and even rival states with the elaboration
of international law, norms, conventions and other agreements. The U.S. in its prime as global
hegemon was all about sponsoring the formation of organizations for global and regional multilateral
cooperation, even where its direct participation was not welcome. It is true that the political
autonomy of states was respected only to the extent that they adopted sufficiently reactionary
and economically conservative or authoritarian governments and the political costs to any other
course could be large. Back in the day, a Gaddafi or an Assad or a Saddam had to balance on an
international tightrope as well as a domestic one, but it was doable and such regimes could last
a long-time. Anyway, I do not want to litigate the mixed virtues and vices of (Anglo-)American
hegemony past, just to point out the contrast with our present circumstances.
The turn toward a palsied expedience is a distinct symptom of impending imperial collapse.
That the U.S. cannot seem to win a war or bring one to a conclusion in any finite period of time
is relevant. That a vast "deep state" is running on auto-pilot with no informed instruction or
policy control from Congress is a problem.
When commenters decry the failure to observe the norms of international law, they are not
just being moralists in an immoral world; they are decrying the erosion of international order,
an erosion that has been accelerated by the U.S. turn toward futile expedience as a foreign policy
justified by groundless self-righteousness.
"It's complicated" shouldn't be a preface to ungrounded simplification and just rounding up
the usual policy suspects: let's declare a no-fly zone, then find and train some moderate faction
of fierce fighters for liberal democracy (as if such exist). If we demonstrate the will and commitment
and stay the course . . . blah, blah, blah.
And, the R2P doctrine has been ruined not just by hypocrisy but by the demonstrated incapacity
to match means to putative ends. It is not just suspicious that the impulse to humanitarianism
emerges only when an opportunity to blow things up arises, it's criminal. Or should be. (sarcasm)
But, of course, it is not criminal, because atrocities are only a problem when it is the other
guy committing them. Then, we can exercise our righteousness for the good, old cause. (end sarcasm)
The situation in Syria is chaotic, but the chaos is in U.S. policy as well as on the ground.
But, the immediate question is not whether the U.S. will intervene, because, as other commenters
have pointed out, the U.S. has already involved itself quite deeply. The creation of ISIS, one
belligerent in the Syrian conflict is directly attributable to the failure of U.S. policy in Iraq
and the U.S. is actively attacking ISIS directly in Syrian as well as Iraqi territory. The U.S.
provides military support to multiple factions, including both Turkish-backed forces and the forces
of a Kurdish belligerent, which are in conflict with each other. Meanwhile, our great good allies,
the Saudis and Qataris are apparently funding Al Qaeda in Syria and maybe ISIS as well.
This chaos, I repeat, is inherent in the organization of U.S. policy - it is an observable
pattern, not a property by axiomatic definition as your strawman would have it, but it is very
worrisome. It is a symptom of what I rather dramatically labeled "imperial collapse". That the
next President of the U.S. cannot work out why a no-fly zone in a country where the Russians are
flying might be a bad idea is not a good sign. That the same person was a proponent of the policy
that plunged Libya into chaos is another not-good sign. That's not an argument for Trump;
it is an argument that Trump is another symptom.
The chaos, the breakdown of rational, deliberate and purposive control of policy, means that
policy and its rationales are often absurd. I mock the absurdity as a way of drawing attention
to it. Others seek to normalize. So, there you have it.
LFC: We do have Bruce Wilder mocking the notion that the Russians hacked into the DNC
email. Cyber specialists think it was the Russians to a 90 percent certainty, but of
course Wilder knows better. Anyway, who cares whether the Russians hacked the *******
email?
Most establishment news reporting has taken note that no evidence has been offered by
the U.S. officials making the attribution.
It looks like LFC is completely clueless about such notion as Occam's razor.
Why we need all those insinuations about Russian hackers when we know that all email boxes in
major Web mail providers are just a click away from NSA analysts.
Why Russians and not something like "Snowden II".
And what exactly Russians will get politically by torpedoing Hillary candidacy. They
probably have tons of "compromat" on her, Bill and Clinton Foundation. Trump stance on Iran is
no less dangerous and jingoistic then Hillary stance on Syria. Aggressive protectionism might
hurt Russian exports. And as for Syria, Trump can turn on a dime and became a second John
McCain anytime. Other then his idea of avoiding foreign military presence (or more correctly
that allies should pay for it) and anti-globalization stance he does not have a fixed set of
policies at all.
Yes, there is another government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end
of Pennsylvania Avenue, a hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the
country according to consistent patterns in season and out, connected to, but only
intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders we choose. My analysis of
this phenomenon is not an exposé of a secret, conspiratorial cabal; the state within a
state is hiding mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in the light of day.
Nor can this other government be accurately termed an "establishment." All complex
societies have an establishment, a social network committed to its own enrichment and
perpetuation. In terms of its scope, financial resources and sheer global reach, the
American hybrid state, the Deep State, is in a class by itself. That said, it is neither
omniscient nor invincible. The institution is not so much sinister (although it has highly
sinister aspects) as it is relentlessly well entrenched. Far from being invincible, its
failures, such as those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, are routine enough that it is only
the Deep State's protectiveness towards its higher-ranking personnel that allows them to
escape the consequences of their frequent ineptitude.
In view of all this, LFC anti-Russian stance looks extremely naïve and/or represents
displaced anti-Semitism.
In a way Hillary laments about Russia interference are
what is typically called "The pot calling the kettle black" as she is exactly the specialist
in this area. BTW there is a documented history of the US interference into Russian elections
of 2011-2012.
In which Hillary (via ambassador McFaul and the net of NGOs) was trying to stage a "color
revolution" (nicknamed "white revolution") in Russia and prevent the re-election of Putin. The
main instrument was claiming the fraud in ballot counting.
Can you imagine the reaction if Russian ambassador invited Trump and Sanders to the embassy
and offered full and unconditional support for their noble cause of dislodging the corrupt
neoliberal regime that exists in Washington. With cash injections to breitbart.com, similar
sites, and especially organizations that conduct polls after that.
And RT covered staged revelations of "Hillary campaign corruption" 24 x 7. As was done by
Western MSM in regard to Alexei Navalny web site and him personally as the savior of Russia
from entrenched corruption (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Navalny )
Actually the USA has several organizations explicitly oriented on interference in foreign
elections and promotion of "color revolutions", with functions that partially displaced old
functions of CIA (as in Italian elections of 1948). For example, NED.
Why Russia can't have something similar to help struggling American people to have more
honest elections despite all the blatantly undemocratic mechanisms of "first to the post",
primaries, state based counting of votes, and the United States Electoral College ?
It would be really funny if Russians really resorted to color revolution tricks in the
current presidential elections :-)
Here is a quote that can navigate them in right direction (note the irony of her words
after DNC throw Sanders under the bus ;-)
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sharply criticized what she called "troubling
practices" before and during the vote in Russia. "The Russian people, like people
everywhere, deserve the right to have their voices heard and their votes counted," she said
in Bonn, Germany.
With 99.9 percent of ballots processed, election officials said that United Russia had
won 238 seats in Parliament, or about 53 percent, from 315 seats or 70 percent now. The
Communist Party won 92 seats; Just Russia, a social democratic party, won 64 seats and the
national Liberal Democratic Party won 56 seats.
Rich Puchalsky 10.16.16 at 9:26 pm
LFC: "Would a multilateral action - not unilateral by the U.S. alone, but multilateral -
undertaken in response to, e.g., the current situation in Aleppo necessarily violate
international law if it lacked UN sanction?"
This would be a kind of coalition - only of willing countries, of course - maybe we could
call it something catchy, like The Willing Coalition. Are we allowed to bring up recent history
at all, or does that make us America haters? It's strange how these hard cases just keep coming
up. Alternatively, we could go for Reset Theory. We need to look forwards instead of looking
backwards.
So let's avoid recent history, and just go to ancient history, like that long-outmoded relic,
the Security Council. I'd had some vague impression that the chance of military conflict between
Security Council members was supposed to be Very Very Bad and by definition worse than any other
result, so much so a lot of the legalities that you're casually thinking of writing into the law
books later were intended to prevent exactly the kinds of situations that you're proposing, in
which members of the Security Council started to think about gathering coalitions to shoot down
each other's planes.
But I'm a crazy anarchist, and you're an international affairs expert. So why don't you tell me.
"... The corridor between Manhattan and Washington is a well trodden highway for the personalities we have all gotten to know in the period since the massive deregulation of Wall Street: Robert Rubin, Lawrence Summers, Henry Paulson, Timothy Geithner and many others. ..."
"... General Petraeus' expertise in these areas is unclear. His ability to peddle influence, however, is a known and valued commodity. ..."
"... Petraeus also obtained a sinecure as a non-resident senior fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. The Ivy League is, of course, the preferred bleaching tub and charm school of the American oligarchy. ..."
"... The Cathedral has no central administrator, but represents a consensus acting as a coherent group that condemns other ideologies as evil. ..."
"... "you believe that morality has been essentially solved, and all that's left is to work out the details." ..."
"... Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called "groupthink," the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the town's cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive. As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. ..."
"... A more elusive aspect of cultural assimilation is the sheer dead weight of the ordinariness of it all once you have planted yourself in your office chair for the 10,000th time. ..."
"... No wonder so few people are whistle-blowers, quite apart from the vicious retaliation whistle-blowing often provokes: Unless one is blessed with imagination and a fine sense of irony, growing immune to the curiousness of one's surroundings is easy. To paraphrase the inimitable Donald Rumsfeld, I didn't know all that I knew, at least until I had had a couple of years away from the government to reflect upon it. ..."
"... It's probably not a coincidence that the American media elite live, work, and socialize in New York and Washington, ..."
"... It's a kind of corporatism. ..."
"... They pretend to be merrily neutral servants of the state, giving the best advice possible on national security or financial matters. But they hold a very deep ideology of the Washington consensus at home, which is deregulation, outsourcing, de-industrialization and financialization. ..."
"... And they believe in American exceptionalism abroad, which is boots on the ground everywhere, it's our right to meddle everywhere in the world. And the result of that is perpetual war. ..."
The corridor between Manhattan and Washington is a well trodden highway for the personalities
we have all gotten to know in the period since the massive deregulation of Wall Street: Robert
Rubin, Lawrence Summers, Henry Paulson, Timothy Geithner and many others.
Not all the traffic involves persons connected with the purely financial operations of the
government: In 2013, General David Petraeus
joined KKR (formerly Kohlberg Kravis Roberts) of 9 West 57th Street, New York, a private equity
firm with $62.3 billion in assets. KKR specializes in management buyouts and leveraged finance.
General Petraeus' expertise in these areas is unclear. His ability to peddle influence, however,
is a known and valued commodity. Unlike Cincinnatus, the military commanders of the Deep
State do not take up the plow once they lay down the sword. Petraeus also obtained a sinecure
as a non-resident senior fellow at the
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard. The Ivy League is, of course,
the preferred bleaching tub and charm school of the American oligarchy.
Lofgren goes on to say that Silicon Valley is a node of the Deep State too, and that despite the
protestations of its chieftains against NSA spying, it's a vital part of the Deep State's apparatus.
More:
The Deep State is the big story of our time. It is the red thread that runs through the war
on terrorism, the financialization and deindustrialization of the American economy, the rise of
a plutocratic social structure and political dysfunction. Washington is the headquarters of the
Deep State, and its time in the sun as a rival to Rome, Constantinople or London may be term-limited
by its overweening sense of self-importance and its habit, as Winwood Reade said of Rome, to "live
upon its principal till ruin stared it in the face."
The Cathedral - The self-organizing consensus of Progressives and Progressive ideology
represented by the universities, the media, and the civil service. A term
coined by blogger Mencius Moldbug. The Cathedral has no central administrator, but represents
a consensus acting as a coherent group that condemns other ideologies as evil. Community
writers have enumerated the
platform of Progressivism as women's suffrage, prohibition, abolition, federal income tax,
democratic election of senators, labor laws, desegregation, popularization of drugs, destruction
of traditional sexual norms, ethnic studies courses in colleges, decolonization, and gay marriage.
A defining feature of Progressivism is that "you believe that morality has been essentially
solved, and all that's left is to work out the details." Reactionaries see Republicans as
Progressives, just lagging 10-20 years behind Democrats in their adoption of Progressive norms.
You don't have to agree with the Neoreactionaries on what they condemn - women's suffrage? desegregation?
labor laws? really?? - to acknowledge that they're onto something about the sacred consensus that
all Right-Thinking People share. I would love to see a study comparing the press coverage from 9/11
leading up to the Iraq War with press coverage of the gay marriage issue from about 2006 till today.
Specifically, I'd be curious to know about how thoroughly the media covered the cases against the
policies that the Deep State and the Shallow State decided should prevail. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy
here, not at all. I'm only thinking back to how it seemed so obvious to me in 2002 that we should
go to war with Iraq, so perfectly clear that the only people who opposed it were fools or villains.
The same consensus has emerged around same-sex marriage. I know how overwhelmingly the news media
have believed this for some time, such that many American journalists simply cannot conceive that
anyone against same-sex marriage is anything other than a fool or a villain. Again, this isn't a
conspiracy; it's in the nature of the thing. Lofgren:
Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist
Irving L. Janis called
"groupthink," the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers.
This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating
biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the
town's cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive. As in the military, everybody has
to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe
of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always
going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something
when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
A more elusive aspect of cultural assimilation is the sheer dead weight of the ordinariness
of it all once you have planted yourself in your office chair for the 10,000th time. Government
life is typically not some vignette from an Allen Drury novel about intrigue under the
Capitol dome. Sitting and staring at the clock on the off-white office wall when it's 11:00 in
the evening and you are vowing never, ever to eat another piece of takeout pizza in your life
is not an experience that summons the higher literary instincts of a would-be memoirist.
After a while, a functionary of the state begins to hear things that, in another context, would
be quite remarkable, or at least noteworthy, and yet that simply bounce off one's consciousness
like pebbles off steel plate: "You mean the
number of terrorist groups we are fighting is classified?" No wonder so few people
are whistle-blowers, quite apart from the vicious retaliation whistle-blowing often provokes:
Unless one is blessed with imagination and a fine sense of irony, growing immune to the curiousness
of one's surroundings is easy. To paraphrase the inimitable Donald Rumsfeld, I didn't know all
that I knew, at least until I had had a couple of years away from the government to reflect upon
it.
When all you know is the people who surround you in your professional class bubble and your social
circles, you can think the whole world agrees with you, or should. It's probably not a coincidence
that the American media elite live, work, and socialize in New York and Washington, the two
cities that were attacked on 9/11, and whose elites - political, military, financial - were so genuinely
traumatized by the events.
Anyway, that's just a small part of it, about how the elite media manufacture consent. Here's
a final quote, one from
the Moyers interview with Lofgren:
BILL MOYERS: If, as you write, the ideology of the Deep State is not democrat or republican,
not left or right, what is it?
MIKE LOFGREN: It's an ideology. I just don't think we've named it. It's a kind of
corporatism. Now, the actors in this drama tend to steer clear of social issues. They
pretend to be merrily neutral servants of the state, giving the best advice possible on national
security or financial matters. But they hold a very deep ideology of the Washington consensus
at home, which is deregulation, outsourcing, de-industrialization and financialization.
And they believe in American exceptionalism abroad, which is boots on the ground everywhere,
it's our right to meddle everywhere in the world. And the result of that is perpetual war.
This can't last. We'd better hope it can't last. And we'd better hope it unwinds peacefully.
I, for one, remain glad that so many of us Americans are armed. When the Deep State collapses
- and it will one day - it's not going to be a happy time.
Questions to the room: Is a Gorbachev for the Deep State conceivable? That is, could you foresee
a political leader emerging who could unwind the ideology and apparatus of the Deep State, and not
only survive, but succeed? Or is it impossible for the Deep State to allow such a figure to thrive?
Or is the Deep State, like the Soviet system Gorbachev failed to reform, too entrenched and too far
gone to reform itself? If so, what then?
"... That the economic system is being cannibalized to generate the outsized economic claims on income for capital and their minions among the executive classes is worrying, as is the stagnation and the slow reaction to climate change and other similar issues. The 10% don't seem to be entirely ready to accept the parasitism in every detail. If you poison Flint's water or Well Fargo charges for fake accounts, there's some kind of reaction from at least some of the managerial / professional classes. We have Elizabeth Warren and she can be amazingly effective even if she seems like a lonely figure. ..."
"... But, mostly the parasitism of the financial sector affects the bottom 50%; the 10% get cash back on their credit cards. ..."
"... I personally know a guy who is an expert on the liver and therefore on the hazards posed by Tylenol (acetaminophen or paracetamol); it is quite revealing to hear about how he's attacked by interested corporations. ..."
"... The inverted totalitarianism that Bruce and Rich are referencing here is only apparently a successful marriage of the impulse to control complex processes and the technologies which promise the possibility of that control. ..."
"... Never mind how powerful their tools, managers who want to avoid catastrophic delusions will have to learn a little humility. My advice to them: feed that to your big data and your AI, right along with your fiat money, your global capital flows, and your commodified and devalued labor force. and see where you wind up. Where you're headed now is a dead end. ..."
"... it is not left neoliberalism versus right neoliberalism, but left neoliberalism versus something that is: a: worse b: a predictable consequence of neoliberalism. A being true makes B no less true, and vice versa. ..."
"... Trump is a dispicable human being but he has touched those who are desperate for a change. Unfortunately for them, Trump could never be the change they need – whilst Clinton is just more of the same sh*t as we've had for the last 40 years or more. Bernie was the best hope for change but the establishment made sure he could not win by the manipulation of the "super delegate vote"! ..."
But, isn't "boring" an argument too? A third way to
dissolve all the noisier contention, make it meaningless and then complain of
its meaninglessness?
I haven't quite recovered from merian challenging your argument from pattern
and precedent as decontextualized and ahistorical or then announcing that she
was not a supporter of Clinton after having previously justified her own
unqualified (though time-limited) support for Clinton.
I see the rhetorical power of Luttwak's "perfect non-sequitur", which Adam
Curtis explains as a basis for the propaganda of the inverted totalitarian
state in some detail. I've long argued that the dominating power of
neoliberalism - not just as the ideology of the managerial classes, but as the
one ideology to rule them all at the end of history - has to do with the way
(left) neoliberals argue almost exclusively with conservative libertarians
(right neoliberals). It is in that narrow, bounded dynamic of one completely
synthetic and artificial thesis with another closely related and also
completely synthetic and artificial antithesis that we got stuck in the
Groundhog Day, where history tails off after a few weeks and evidence consists
of counterfactuals projected a few weeks into the future.
It is not a highly contested election. It just looks like one and sounds
like one, but the noise (and it is all noise in the end) is drowning out
anyone's ability to figure out what is going on. And, really, nothing is going
on - or rather, nothing about which voters have a realistic choice to make.
That's the problem. (Left) neoliberalism was born* in the decision to abandon
the actual representation of a common interest (and most especially a working
class interest). Instead, it is all about combining an atomizing politics of
personal identity with Ezra Klein's wonkiness, where statistics are used to
filter out more information than revealed and esoteric jargon obscures the
rest. Paul Krugman, Reagan Administration veteran and Enron advisor, becomes
the authoritative voice of the moderate centre-Left.
*That's why the now ancient Charles Peters' Neoliberal Manifesto matters -
not because Peters was or is important, but because it was such a clear and
timely statement of the managerial / professional class Left abandoning
advocacy for the poor or labor interests against the interests of capital,
corporations and the wealthy. The basic antagonism of interests in politics was
to be abandoned and what was gained was financial support from capital and
business corporations. The Liberal Class, the institutional foundations of
which were eroding rapidly in the 1980s, with the decline of social
affiliation, mainline Protestant religions, public universities, organized
labor could no longer be relied upon to fund the chattering classes so the
chattering classes represented by Peters found a new gig and rationalized it,
and that is the (left) neoliberalism we know today as Vox speak.
The 10% gets free a completely artificial (because not rooted in class
interests or any interests) ideology bought and paid for by the 1/10th of 1%
and the executive class) ideology, but it gets it free and as long as the
system continues to lumber along, employing them (which makes them the 10%)
they remain complacent. They don't understand their world, but their world
seems to work anyway, so why worry? Any apparently alarming development can be
normalized by confusion and made boring.
More than 20 years after Luttwak / McMurtry, I would think inability of the
10% to understand how the world works might be the most worrying thing of all.
The 10% are the people who make the world work in a technical sense - that is
the responsibility of the professionals and professional managers, after all.
That the economic system is being cannibalized to generate the outsized
economic claims on income for capital and their minions among the executive
classes is worrying, as is the stagnation and the slow reaction to climate
change and other similar issues. The 10% don't seem to be entirely ready to
accept the parasitism in every detail. If you poison Flint's water or Well
Fargo charges for fake accounts, there's some kind of reaction from at least
some of the managerial / professional classes. We have Elizabeth Warren and she
can be amazingly effective even if she seems like a lonely figure.
But, mostly
the parasitism of the financial sector affects the bottom 50%; the 10% get cash
back on their credit cards.
I read with fascination articles about the travails
of that Virginia Tech guy who persisted in the Flint Water case; again, a
lonely figure.
I personally know a guy who is an expert on the liver and
therefore on the hazards posed by Tylenol (acetaminophen or paracetamol); it is
quite revealing to hear about how he's attacked by interested corporations.
And yet . In the more or less cobwebbed corners of the Internet, like CT, we
are in fact having this conversation, and others much like it - even when, as
inevitably happens, it leaves us vulnerable to accusations of leftist onanism
by self-appointed realists of the status quo. They may not be easy to ignore,
but knowing that their opinions can't possibly be as securely held as they
claim, and are in fact more vulnerable to events than they're capable of
imagining, we shouldn't feel obliged to pay their denunciations any more
attention than they deserve.
The inverted totalitarianism that Bruce and Rich
are referencing here is only apparently a successful marriage of the impulse to
control complex processes and the technologies which promise the possibility of
that control.
If we really want to foster a future in which institutions are
stable again, and can successfully design and implement effective protections
for the general welfare, we're going to have to get a lot more comfortable with
chaos, unintended consequences, the residual perversity, in short, of
large-scale human interactions.
Never mind how powerful their tools, managers
who want to avoid catastrophic delusions will have to learn a little humility.
My advice to them: feed
that
to your big data and your AI, right along
with your fiat money, your global capital flows, and your commodified and
devalued labor force. and see where you wind up. Where you're headed now is a
dead end.
> It is not a highly contested election. It just looks like one and sounds like
one, but the noise (and it is all noise in the end) is drowning out anyone's
ability to figure out what is going on.
Pretty sure it is. Precisely because
it is not left neoliberalism versus
right neoliberalism, but left neoliberalism versus something that is:
a: worse
b: a predictable consequence of neoliberalism.
A being true makes B no less true, and vice versa.
The 50-55 year old male, white, college-educated former exemplar of the
American Dream, still perhaps living in his lavishly-equipped suburban
house, with two or three cars in the driveway, one or two children in
$20,000 per annum higher education (tuition, board and lodging – all extras
are extra) and an ex-job 're-engineered' out of existence, who now exists on
savings, second and third mortgages and scant earnings as a self-described
'consultant', has become a familiar figure in the contemporary United
States.
It isn't liberal or conservative. It lives in a [neoliberal] fantasy
land where your station in life is merit based. If you are poor, it's a
personal failing. Rich, you earned every penny.
They incorrectly believe the American Dream is something more than a
fairytale rich people tell themselves to justify the misery they inflict
on the poor.
It's pro technocrat; "we have a perfect solution if it would just get
implemented . It won't rock the apple cart and will have minimum benefits
but it makes us look like we care."
boo321
, 14 Oct 2016 07:53
Neoliberalism has failed the poor, disadvantaged and disabled. Making
these people pay for the mistakes, corruption of our banks and major
institutions is indicative of the greedy rich and elite who don't give a
toss for their suffering.
Trump is a dispicable human being but he has touched those who are
desperate for a change. Unfortunately for them, Trump could never be the
change they need – whilst Clinton is just more of the same sh*t as we've
had for the last 40 years or more. Bernie was the best hope for
change but the establishment made sure he could not win by the
manipulation of the "super delegate vote"!
"... "The fact is, US unpredictability and aggression keep growing, and such threats against Moscow and our country's leadership are unprecedented, because the threat is being announced at the level of the US Vice President," ..."
"... "Of course, given such an aggressive, unpredictable line, we have to take measures to protect our interests, somehow hedge the risks," ..."
"... such unpredictability is dangerous for the whole world." ..."
"... "Why haven't we sent a message yet to Putin," ..."
"... "We are sending a message [to Putin] We have a capacity to do it, and " ..."
"... "He'll known it?" ..."
"... "He'll know it. It will be at the time of our choosing, and under the circumstances that will have the greatest impact," ..."
"... current and former officials," ..."
"... "clandestine" ..."
"... "wide-ranging operation" ..."
"... embarrass" ..."
"... clandestine ..."
"... "If the US 'clandestine' pending cyberwar on Russia was serious: 1) it would not have been announced 2) it would be the NSA [National Security Agency] and not the CIA," ..."
US aggressiveness is growing, and threats to carry out cyberattacks against Russia are unprecedented,
presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said, adding that Russia will take "precautionary measures."
"The fact is, US unpredictability and aggression keep growing, and such threats against Moscow
and our country's leadership are unprecedented, because the threat is being announced at the level
of the US Vice President," Peskov told RIA Novosti. "Of course, given such an aggressive,
unpredictable line, we have to take measures to protect our interests, somehow hedge the risks,"
he said, adding that " such unpredictability is dangerous for the whole world." Read
more CIA working
on 'clandestine' cyberattack against Russia – report
US Vice President Joe Biden said on Friday that Washington is ready to respond to hack attacks
allegedly conducted by Russia and designed to interfere with the upcoming US elections.
"Why haven't we sent a message yet to Putin," Chuck Todd, host of the "Meet the Press"
show on NBC,
asked Joe Biden.
"We are sending a message [to Putin] We have a capacity to do it, and "
"He'll known it?" Todd interfered.
"He'll know it. It will be at the time of our choosing, and under the circumstances that will
have the greatest impact," the US vice president replied.
His threats coincided with an NBC News report citing " current and former officials,"
claiming that the CIA is planning a "clandestine" cyberattack on Russia in retaliation for
its alleged efforts to influence the US elections against Hillary Clinton. The "wide-ranging
operation" is meant to " embarrass" Russia's leadership, NBC News reported.
The report claimed to have direct knowledge of the situation, saying the CIA had been tasked with
providing options to the White House.
WikiLeaks, however, has expressed doubt over the seriousness of the report about the " clandestine
" cyberwar on Russia. "If the US 'clandestine' pending cyberwar on Russia was serious: 1) it would not have been announced
2) it would be the NSA [National Security Agency] and not the CIA," WikiLeaks wrote on Twitter.
Accusations against Russia have become louder in recent days with WikiLeaks releasing thousands
of the so called " Podesta emails, " exposing Hillary Clinton's connections to Wall Street
and controversial views on Syria, among other things. Some mainstream media outlets were quick to
accuse the Kremlin of teaming up with WikiLeaks, allegedly providing it with massive amounts of inside
scoops to post. The evidence-free allegations have been denied both by Moscow and by WikiLeaks.
Responding to accusations last week, the Russian presidential press secretary mentioned that
"tens of thousands of hackers" try to break into the sites of Russian officials on a daily
basis, but this never prompted Moscow to point a finger at Washington.
"... Vice President Joe Biden told "Meet the Press" moderator Chuck Todd on Friday that "we're sending a message" to Putin and that "it will be at the time of our choosing, and under the circumstances that will have the greatest impact." ..."
"... Former CIA officers interviewed by NBC said that there is a long history of the White House plotting potential cyber attacks against Russia. That said, none of them were ultimately carried out because "none of the options were particularly good, nor did we think that any of them would be particularly effective." ..."
"... All these senior government twerps are either life-long political suck-ups or ivory-tower dwelling posers. They have lived their whole lives in a virtual world of talking with absolutely no consequences to them or responsibility for their actions. ..."
"... They are confident that they can talk/lie/cheat or bluff their way out of any situation they get into - or force it off to someone else like the military and then blame them for the fallout. ..."
"... They are supported by junior suck-ups that are kept in terror over losing their cushy jobs in government or contracting who are paid over twice what anyone else would pay their sorry ass and justify their sellout by complaining how they have to "pay the mortgage". They have never been slapped side the head like they deserve. Absolute foolish arrogance. ..."
"... They want to distract from Hillary's WikiLeak fiasco. ..."
In what is looking
more and more like a season finale of the HBO series "House of Cards" with each passing day, the
Obama administration is now literally threatening a cyber war with Russia over allegations it was
behind the hacking of Clinton's emails. According to an exclusive
NBC report, the Obama administration "is contemplating an unprecedented cyber covert action"
(though it's unclear how exactly it's covert if Biden is announcing it to the world via an interview
with Chuck Todd) against Russia, in "retaliation for alleged " interference in the American presidential
election, and has asked the CIA to draft plans for a "wide-ranging "clandestine" cyber operation
designed to harass and "embarrass" the Kremlin leadership."
So now the Obama administration is overtly leveraging the full power of the United States to intimidate
foreign governments, and most likely Julian Assange, in order to maintain control of the Executive
Branch of the government. Does anyone within the mainstream media see any problems with this? Certainly
Chuck Todd and NBC do not. And notice that even the NBC article refers to " alleged " Russian interference
because not a shred of evidence has been presented to prove that senior Russian officials were actually
behind the hacking of Hillary's emails...but who needs facts when you have a complicit media eager
to advance whatever propaganda is necessary to maintain power?
The Obama administration is contemplating an unprecedented cyber covert action against Russia
in retaliation for alleged Russian interference in the American presidential election, U.S. intelligence
officials told NBC News.
Current and former officials with direct knowledge of the situation say the CIA has been asked
to deliver options to the White House for a wide-ranging "clandestine" cyber operation designed
to harass and "embarrass" the Kremlin leadership.
The sources did not elaborate on the exact measures the CIA was considering, but said the agency
had already begun opening cyber doors, selecting targets and making other preparations for an
operation. Former intelligence officers told NBC News that the agency had gathered reams of documents
that could expose unsavory tactics by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Vice President Joe Biden told "Meet the Press" moderator Chuck Todd on Friday that "we're sending
a message" to Putin and that "it will be at the time of our choosing, and under the circumstances
that will have the greatest impact."
When asked if the American public will know a message was sent, the vice president replied,
"Hope not."
Former CIA officers interviewed by NBC said that there is a long history of the White House plotting
potential cyber attacks against Russia. That said, none of them were ultimately carried out because
"none of the options were particularly good, nor did we think that any of them would be particularly
effective."
Two former CIA officers who worked on Russia told NBC News that there is a long history of
the White House asking the CIA to come up with options for covert action against Russia, including
cyber options - only to abandon the idea.
A second former officer, who helped run intelligence operations against Russia, said he was
asked several times in recent years to work on covert action plans, but "none of the options were
particularly good, nor did we think that any of them would be particularly effective," he said.
Others warned that the White House has always caved on plans to follow through with cyber attacks
because anything the U.S. can do against Russia, they can also do in response. As one of the former
CIA officers said, "if you are looking to mess with their networks, we can do that, but then the
issue becomes, they can do worse things to us in other places."
"We've always hesitated to use a lot of stuff we've had, but that's a political decision,"
one former officer said. "If someone has decided, `We've had enough of the Russians,' there is
a lot we can do. Step one is to remind them that two can play at this game and we have a lot of
stuff. Step two, if you are looking to mess with their networks, we can do that, but then the
issue becomes, they can do worse things to us in other places."
Putin is almost beyond embarrassing, he said, and anything the U.S. can do against, for example,
Russian bank accounts, the Russian can do in response.
"Do you want to have Barack Obama bouncing checks?" he asked.
Former CIA deputy director Michael Morell expressed skepticism that the U.S. would go so far
as to attack Russian networks.
"Physical attacks on networks is not something the U.S. wants to do because we don't want to
set a precedent for other countries to do it as well, including against us," he said. "My own
view is that our response shouldn't be covert -- it should overt, for everybody to see."
Here is a brieg clip of Biden discussing the "covert" planning with NBC's Chuck Todd.
If the Obama administration is willing to go to such great lengths, literally escalating tensions
with another superpower, to protect their candidate from whatever it is that she's hiding then we
suspect whatever WikiLeaks has yet to release could be really good.
I believe like the article suggests Obummer is going to use the full force
of the CIA to hack Assange, or shut him down before the real embarrassing shit hits the net. Assange
needs to drop it all now.
OR
It could be Obummer uses it as a pretext to say the Ruskies hacked the election in case the donald
wins and nullify the results.
Or
It could be an internal NSA and CIA war. NSA is actually behind email dumps to make sure hillary
does not win and expect to drop the juiciest emails from CLinton herself and possibly the 18 obummer
emails as well right before the election. Maybe the CIA is working for obummer and NSA has gone rogue.
I hope some real americans still work for the NSA and the CIA and rescue this country from 4 more
progressive socialist marxist cultural degredation years that are a certainty under hillary the shape
shifting candidate that would sell out america for a case of beer and another 250 million dollars.
Or
the mofos may actually be crazy as batshit and want to turn us all to ashes and glass.
All these senior government twerps are either life-long political suck-ups
or ivory-tower dwelling posers. They have lived their whole lives in a virtual world of talking with
absolutely no consequences to them or responsibility for their actions.
They are confident that they can talk/lie/cheat or bluff their way out of any situation they get
into - or force it off to someone else like the military and then blame them for the fallout.
Their
objective is to appear important, further their career, and gain power to look more important.
They
are supported by junior suck-ups that are kept in terror over losing their cushy jobs in government
or contracting who are paid over twice what anyone else would pay their sorry ass and justify their
sellout by complaining how they have to "pay the mortgage". They have never been slapped side the
head like they deserve. Absolute foolish arrogance.
"... 'End of Growth' Sparks Wide Discontent By Alastair Crooke (October 14, 2016, consortiumnews): The global elites' false promise that neoliberal economics would cure all ills through the elixir of endless growth helps explain the angry nationalist movements ripping apart the West's politics. ..."
"... Yes, that would seem transparently obvious to anyone who doesn't have a vested interest in defending the neoliberal programme. ..."
"... The last thing that powerful elites and their court economists want to talk about is the relationship between an increasingly unequal distribution of income and wealth and the rise of ethnic nationalism...it might force the elites to do something about it. One would think that that would entail redistribution. Unfortunately, increasing militarization of the police seems to be a far cheaper solution...for the short term. ..."
"... The elites used religious, tribal and ethnic, conflict to keep a lid on the rabble for thousands of years. They are supremely comfortable with this, it's part of the toolbox. ..."
"... However I think they are overly complacent because it appears to me that in an industrial society such conflicts now involve a lot more than a few hundred peasants going after each other with random farm implements. ..."
"... The media is shocked -- just shocked -- that a foreign government would tamper with US elections...such behavior is supposed to be off limits to anyone but the CIA and National Endowment for Democracy or their deputies... ..."
"... I'm not sure that Putin has a preference. It may be enough for him to show that Russia can play the destabilization card as well as NED. Displaying the profound corruption of the US political system also serves to undermine the US abroad, since much of its standing is based on the myth of its taking the moral high ground. International elites will have a harder time garnering support for pro-US policies, if those policies are seen as morally bankrupt. ..."
"... Establishment economists are making excuses for slow growth and poor policy by pointing at things like demographics and technology. Excuse-making isn't going to stem the rising tide of ethnic nationalism. Thomas Friedman's Flat World is turning into Tribalistic World. ..."
"... Many of the "Rich" love to push the dialectics of "ethnic nationalism" where none is to be found in reality ..."
"... the pointless destruction of the manufacturing sector of Western economies because of their decision to have private banking systems and eschew tariffs - no surprises here folks ..."
"... Of course economy plus consequences of the state of the economy, i.e. many people being treated like shit, without recourse, except turning away from mainstream politics (which isn't much of a recourse usually). ..."
"... external factors are much more significant in determining success or lack of it than any personal virtues or failings the individual may have. It is not even luck. ..."
"... People do not blame the actual causes of their lack of success. Instead, they seek and find scapegoats. Most Trumpista have heard all their lives from people they respect that black and latino people unfairly get special treatment. That overrides the reality. ..."
"... The comment started with: "When things aren't going as you expect or want, people always have to find someone to blame... since the ego works to prevent you blaming yourself." ..."
In the United States, despite his attempts to woo minority voters, Donald J. Trump appears
to derive support from such sentiment. In Moscow, Vladimir V. Putin has used Russian nationalist
sentiment to inspire many of his countrymen. And we see growing ethnic political parties inspired
by national identity in countless other countries.
It is natural to ask whether something so broad might have a common cause, other than the obvious
circumstantial causes like the gradual fading of memories about the horrors of ethnic conflict
in World War II or the rise in this century of forms of violent ethnic terrorism.
Economics is my specialty, and I think economic factors may explain at least part of the trend.
...
'End of Growth' Sparks Wide Discontent By Alastair Crooke (October 14, 2016, consortiumnews):
The global elites' false promise that neoliberal economics would cure all ills through the elixir
of endless growth helps explain the angry nationalist movements ripping apart the West's politics.
The last thing that powerful elites and their court economists want to talk about is the relationship
between an increasingly unequal distribution of income and wealth and the rise of ethnic nationalism...it
might force the elites to do something about it. One would think that that would entail redistribution.
Unfortunately, increasing militarization of the police seems to be a far cheaper solution...for
the short term.
The elites used religious, tribal and ethnic, conflict to keep a lid on the rabble for thousands
of years. They are supremely comfortable with this, it's part of the toolbox.
However I think they are overly complacent because it appears to me that in an industrial
society such conflicts now involve a lot more than a few hundred peasants going after each other
with random farm implements.
The media is shocked -- just shocked -- that a foreign government would tamper with US
elections...such behavior is supposed to be off limits to anyone but the CIA and National Endowment
for Democracy or their deputies...
Paradoxically Pravda in old times did have real insights into the US political system and for
this reason was widely read by specialists. Especially materials published by the Institute
of the USA and Canada -- a powerful Russian think tank somewhat similar to the Council
on Foreign Relations.
As for your remark I think for many people in the USA Russophobia is just displaced Anti-Semitism.
JohnH remark is actually very apt and you should not "misunderestimate" the level of understanding
of the US political system by Russians. They did learn a lot about machinations of the neoliberal
foreign policy, especially about so called "color revolutions." Hillary&Obama has had a bloody
nose when they tried to stage a "color revolution" in 2011-2012 in Russia (so called "white revolution).
A typical US citizen probably never heard about it or heard only about "Pussy riot", Navalny and
couple of other minor figures. At the end poor ambassador Michael McFaul was recalled. NED was
expelled. Of course Russia is just a pale shadow of the USSR power-wise, so Obama later put her
on sanctions using MH17 incident as a pretext with no chances of retaliation. They also successfully
implemented regime change in Ukraine -- blooding Putin nose in return.
But I actually disagree with JohnH. First of all Putin does not need to interfere in a way
like the USA did in 2011-2012. It would be a waist of resources as both candidates are probably
equally bad for Russia (and it is the "deep state" which actually dictates the US foreign policy,
not POTUS.)
The US political system is already the can of worms and the deterioration of neoliberal society
this time created almost revolutionary situation in Marxists terms, when Repug elite was not able
to control the nomination. Democratic establishment still did OK and managed to squash the rebellion,
but here the level of degeneration demonstrated itself in the selection of the candidate.
Taking into account the level of dysfunction of the US political system, I am not so sure the
Trump is preferable to Hillary for Russians. I would say he is more unpredictable and more dangerous.
The main danger of Hillary is Syria war escalation, but the same is true for Trump who can turn
into the second John McCain on a dime.
Also the difference between two should not be exaggerated. Both are puppets of the forces the
brought them to the current level and in their POTUS role will need to be subservient to the "deep
state". Or at least to take into account its existence and power. And that makes them more of
prisoners of the position they want so much.
Trump probably to lesser extent then Hillary, but he also can't ignore the deep state. Both
require the support of Republican Congress for major legislative initiatives. And it will very
hostile to Hillary. Which is a major advantage for Russians, as this excludes the possibility
of some very stupid moves.
Again, IMHO in no way any of them will control the US foreign policy. In this area the deep
state is in charge since Allen Dulles and those who try to deviate too much might end as badly
as JFK. I think Obama understood this very well and did not try to rock the boat. And there are
people who will promptly explain this to Trump in a way that he understands.
In other words, neither of them will escape the limit on their power that "deep state" enforces.
And that virtually guarantee the continuity of the foreign policy, with just slight tactical variations.
So why Russians should prefer one to another? You can elect a dog as POTUS and the foreign
policy of the USA will be virtually the same as with Hillary or Trump.
In internal policy Trump looks more dangerous and more willing to experiment, while Hillary
is definitely a "status quo" candidate. The last thing Russians needs is the US stock market crush.
So from the point of internal economic policy Hillary is also preferable.
A lot of pundits stress the danger of war with Russia, and that might be true as women in high
political position try to outdo men in hawkishness. But here Hillary jingoism probably will be
tightly controlled by the "deep state". Hillary definitely tried to be "More Catholic then the
Pope" in this area while being the Secretary of State. That did not end well for her and she might
learn the lesson.
But if you think about the amount of "compromat" (Russian term ;-) on Hillary and Bill that
Russians may well already collected, in "normal circumstances" she might be a preferable counterpart
for Russians. As in "devil that we know". Both Lavrov and Putin met Hillary. Medvedev was burned
by Hillary. Taking into account the level of greed Hillary displayed during her career, I would
be worried what Russians have on her, as well as on Bill "transgressions" and RICO-style actions
of Clinton Foundation.
And taking into account the level of disgust amount the government officials with Hillary (and
this is not limited to Secret Service) , new leaks are quite possible, which might further complicate
her position as POTUS. In worst case, the first year (or two) leaks will continue. Especially
if damaging DNC leaks were the work of some disgruntled person within the USA intelligence and
not of some foreign hacker group. That might be a plus for Russians as such a constant distraction
might limit her possibility to make some stupid move in Syria. Or not.
As you know personal emails boxes for all major Web mail providers are just one click away
for NSA analysts. So "Snowden II" hypothesis might have the right to exist.
Also it is quite probably that impeachment process for Hillary will start soon after her election.
In the House Republicans have enough votes to try it. That also might be a plus for s for both
Russia and China. Trump is extremely jingoistic as for Iran, and that might be another area were
Hillary is preferable to Russians and Chinese over Trump.
Also do not discount her health problems. She does have some serious neurological disease,
which eventually might kill her. How fast she will deteriorate is not known but in a year or two
the current symptoms might become more pronounced. If Bill have STD (and sometime he looks like
a person with HIV;
http://joeforamerica.com/2016/07/bill-clinton-aids/)
that further complicates that picture (this is just a rumor, but he really looks bad).
I think that all those factors make her an equal, or even preferable candidate for such states
as Russia and China.
I'm not sure that Putin has a preference. It may be enough for him to show that Russia can
play the destabilization card as well as NED. Displaying the profound corruption of the US political
system also serves to undermine the US abroad, since much of its standing is based on the myth
of its taking the moral high ground. International elites will have a harder time garnering support
for pro-US policies, if those policies are seen as morally bankrupt.
Procopius -> likbez... October 16, 2016 at 05:01 AM
Your analysis does give me some comfort. My greatest fear is that the Deep State seems to currently
be in disarray. Their actions in Syria are divided, contradictory, foolish, counterproductive,
and without direction.
Obama has mostly obviously obeyed the Deep State but has seemed to sometimes "nudge" them in
a direction that seems to me better for the country. The deal with Iran is an exception. It's
significant, but it is both sensible and pragmatic. It's hard to believe anything as important
as that was not sanctioned by the Deep State, in defiance of Israel, and yet it is quite uncharacteristic
of the Deep State's behavior over the last fifteen years.
Walker Connor, perhaps the leading student of the origins and dynamics of ethnonationalism,
has consistently stressed the importance of its political implications. In these essays, which
have appeared over the course of the last three decades, he argues that Western scholars and policymakers
have almost invariably underrated the influence of ethnonationalism and misinterpreted its passionate
and nonrational qualities....
[ I do appreciate the reference, which strikes me as fine since I would like to read older
essays or essays extending over a few decades for perspective on the matter. I will begin here.
]
Brexit. Theresa May's recent speeches at the Conservative conference was very nationalistic and
Little Englander. See Benjamin Friedman's book The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth.
Establishment economists are making excuses for slow growth and poor policy by pointing
at things like demographics and technology. Excuse-making isn't going to stem the rising tide
of ethnic nationalism. Thomas Friedman's Flat World is turning into Tribalistic World.
Your usual theatrics, but I largely agree with you lattermost statement. Things are always best
when we share. Tribesman can be especially selfish, even amongst themselves.
Frankly, I am not seeing it. Many of the "Rich" love to push the dialectics of "ethnic nationalism"
where none is to be found in reality or manipulated like half-jew Donald Trump, who is being
run by the rothschild flank in Russia due to his disaster when he went with fellow jews during
the post-Soviet Oligarch scam. Much like all his businesses, it flopped. He owes the bank of russia(owned
by rothschild) 100's of millions of dollars. They own him.
The point? The "monied elite" tell you what they want you to believe. The dialectical illusion
and collision of the duelism is how they stay in power. I feel bad for Trump supporters, most
are old and not very smart. But I also feel bad for Trump opposition who refuse to bring this
up, mainly because they are financed by the same crowd(aka the Clinton have worked with Rothschild
as well, they come from the same cloth).
Growth adjusted for population was not overly impressive in the 70's or 90's. Yet...............
Neoliberalism creates an impulse for nationalism in several ways:
1. It destroys human solidarity. And resorting to nationalism in a compensational mechanism
to restore it in human societies. that's why the elite often resorts to foreign wars if it feels
that it losing the control over peons.
2. Neoliberalism impoverishes the majority of population enriching top 1% and provokes the
search for scapegoats. Which in the past traditionally were Jews. Now look like MSM are trying
to substitute them for Russians
3. Usually the rise of nationalism is correlated with the crisis in the society. There
is a crisis of neoliberalsm that we experience in the USA now: after 2008 neoliberalism entered
zombie state, when the ideology is discredited, but forces behind it are way too strong for any
social change to be implemented. Much like was the case during "Brezhnev socialism" in the USSR.
So those who claim that we are experiencing replay of late 1920th on a new level might be partially
right. With the important difference that it does not make sense to establish fascist dictatorship
in the USA. Combination of "Inverted totalitarism" and "national security state" already achieved
the same major objectives with much less blood and violence.
the pointless destruction of the manufacturing sector of Western economies because of their
decision to have private banking systems and eschew tariffs - no surprises here folks
cm -> cm... , -1
Of course economy plus consequences of the state of the economy, i.e. many people being treated
like shit, without recourse, except turning away from mainstream politics (which isn't much of
a recourse usually).
cm -> Longtooth... October 15, 2016 at 02:19 PM
This analysis totally misses the point that often external factors are much more significant
in determining success or lack of it than any personal virtues or failings the individual may
have. It is not even luck.
Procopius -> cm... October 16, 2016 at 05:22 AM
I think you miss Longtooth's point. You are, of course, right that personal virtues or failings
usually have no effect on success or lack of it, but if I understand Longtooth correctly, he is
saying that's irrelevant. People do not blame the actual causes of their lack of success.
Instead, they seek and find scapegoats. Most Trumpista have heard all their lives from people
they respect that black and latino people unfairly get special treatment. That overrides the reality.
cm -> Procopius...
The comment started with: "When things aren't going as you expect or want, people always
have to find someone to blame... since the ego works to prevent you blaming yourself."
"... Is the solution supposed to be that HRC's foreign policy team will be much better than Obama's? ..."
"... The US will unilaterally determine to seize sovereignty of Syrian airspace, intervene in a civil war on the side of the rebels, and shoot down Syrian government and Russian planes. ..."
"... Shooting down Russian planes is the plan. ..."
"... If anyone has any doubt how little Hillary and company have learned from invading Iraq, violent regime change in Iraq, and removing inconvenient one-time friends at will, we're living through it real time all over again. ..."
"... This is a community of adults: LFC, Lee, W Berry et al who lecture the rest of us for wankery, emotionalism etc. and who are now fully behind the candidate who is promising a 'do-over' of Iraq with the promise to this time get it right. ..."
"... Trump, whatever his real deficiencies is openly ready to cede Syrian air-space to Assad. Most informed observers I've read argue that the civil war in Syria has been extended by years thanks to US and UK wankery. ..."
"... At some point, the US may decide not to proceed with violent regime-change. Not yet, however, or so it seems. ..."
"... All the responsible US diplomats and generals who brought us Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria are lined-up to support the only candidate who is running on 4-8 years of violent regime change. ..."
"... With regard to Aleppo, the eastern part of the city has been under the control of the rebels for some years. The majority of the population is in western Aleppo, under government control. Eastern Aleppo is now cut off, and under attack by various pro-government forces supported by the Russian air force. Rebel forces in eastern Aleppo are estimated to be around half al-Qaeda linked Islamists and half local Sunnis. They regularly bombard the western part, as the government does the rebel enclave. ..."
"... The government has opened seven exit corridors for civilians to leave, and repeatedly offered the rebels evacuation to other areas (several similar offers have been accepted and carried through for rebel enclaves around Damascus). The latest news is that the rebels are reported to have mined the exits to prevent civilians leaving. ..."
"... A good foreign policy maxim is to choose a side that has a reasonable chance of winning and stick with it. Anything else prolongs the suffering without changing the outcome. US policy in the Middle East, as earlier in South-East Asia, seems unable to grasp this basic. ..."
"... Obviously you must want to turn a helpless population over to the evil Assad instead of the good(?) Islamists or the nonexistent moderates. Anything that equates to letting Assad win would be the ultimate proof of a love of dictators. ..."
"... I've often noticed that opponents of humanitarian intervention are cast as the ones peddling a simplistic, unrealistic set of fantasies - nonsense, in short. But whenever an actual case comes up, it appears that the reverse is true. The people calling for war are peddling fantastical nonsense. ..."
...I purposefully haven't addressed anything about the recent history of American involvement
in war in Syria, because that would lead to the same old accusations that this is about hating
America.
But now we're talking about the present as a guide to the future. Does anything about the known
history of recent American involvement in Syria indicate that there are detailed expert analyses
available that will do any good once filtered through policy? Is the solution supposed to
be that HRC's foreign policy team will be much better than Obama's?
What crap-for-brains doesn't seem to appreciate is that there are only two sets of pilots
and planes for the US to shoot down: pilots flying under the Syrian flag and those flying under
the Russian flag. There will be no 'random' misunderstandings and miscommunications for Hillary
to hide behind. And that's before Russia decides to flex in the Crimea, the Ukraine, and the Baltic
states.
The US will unilaterally determine to seize sovereignty of Syrian airspace, intervene in
a civil war on the side of the rebels, and shoot down Syrian government and Russian planes.
Shooting down Russian planes is the plan.
If anyone has any doubt how little Hillary and company have learned from invading Iraq,
violent regime change in Iraq, and removing inconvenient one-time friends at will, we're living
through it real time all over again.
This time we have the CT majority in favor of Bush III and her invasions.
@180 I'm extremely grateful, btw, to see you gaming out how the US plays chicken with the Russians
who 'back down' as a 'reason to vote for Hillary.'
This is a community of adults: LFC, Lee, W Berry et al who lecture the rest of us for wankery,
emotionalism etc. and who are now fully behind the candidate who is promising a 'do-over' of Iraq
with the promise to this time get it right.
Trump, whatever his real deficiencies is openly ready to cede Syrian air-space to Assad.
Most informed observers I've read argue that the civil war in Syria has been extended by years
thanks to US and UK wankery.
At some point, the US may decide not to proceed with violent regime-change. Not yet, however,
or so it seems.
All the responsible US diplomats and generals who brought us Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and
Syria are lined-up to support the only candidate who is running on 4-8 years of violent regime
change.
You're voting in favor of invading Iraq all over again. Thanks!!!
The Syrian/Iraqi wars are …complicated. But they are both – from the viewpoint of the major combatants
– the same war, a contest between the two current major streams of political thought in the Islamic
Middle East. Iraqi and Lebanese Shi'a militias are active in support of the regime in Damascus,
as are Sunni Palestinian ones and the Druze. Christian and Yezidi groups and Kurdish nationalists
have lined up behind both Baghdad and Damascus. One the other side is a loose grouping of Salafi
Islamists – ISIS, an-Nusra, the many groups under the FSA umbrella. There are, of course, a few
politiques in the middle, too small to count in the fighting, but much courted by the press, and
always trotted out as the "moderate opposition". Any intervention that tries to slice across the
broad lines of division soon gets hopelessly tangled diplomatically and militarily. As the US
has found out.
With regard to Aleppo, the eastern part of the city has been under the control of the rebels
for some years. The majority of the population is in western Aleppo, under government control.
Eastern Aleppo is now cut off, and under attack by various pro-government forces supported by
the Russian air force. Rebel forces in eastern Aleppo are estimated to be around half al-Qaeda
linked Islamists and half local Sunnis. They regularly bombard the western part, as the government
does the rebel enclave.
The government has opened seven exit corridors for civilians to leave, and repeatedly
offered the rebels evacuation to other areas (several similar offers have been accepted and carried
through for rebel enclaves around Damascus). The latest news is that the rebels are reported to
have mined the exits to prevent civilians leaving.
A good foreign policy maxim is to choose a side that has a reasonable chance of winning
and stick with it. Anything else prolongs the suffering without changing the outcome. US policy
in the Middle East, as earlier in South-East Asia, seems unable to grasp this basic.
Peter T: "A good foreign policy maxim is to choose a side that has a reasonable chance of winning
and stick with it. Anything else prolongs the suffering without changing the outcome. US policy
in the Middle East, as earlier in South-East Asia, seems unable to grasp this basic."
Obviously you must want to turn a helpless population over to the evil Assad instead of
the good(?) Islamists or the nonexistent moderates. Anything that equates to letting Assad win
would be the ultimate proof of a love of dictators.
I've often noticed that opponents of humanitarian intervention are cast as the ones peddling
a simplistic, unrealistic set of fantasies - nonsense, in short. But whenever an actual case comes
up, it appears that the reverse is true. The people calling for war are peddling fantastical nonsense.
He missed the foreign policy aspect of Hillary vs Trump candidacy. A vote for Hillary is vote for
continuation of wars of expansion of neoliberal empire.
Notable quotes:
"... reforms that political leaders promised would ensure prosperity for all – such as trade and financial liberalization – have not delivered. Far from it. And those whose standard of living has stagnated or declined have reached a simple conclusion: America's political leaders either didn't know what they were talking about or were lying (or both). ..."
"... Thus, many Americans feel buffeted by forces outside their control, leading to outcomes that are distinctly unfair. Long-standing assumptions – that America is a land of opportunity and that each generation will be better off than the last – have been called into question. The global financial crisis may have represented a turning point for many voters: their government saved the rich bankers who had brought the US to the brink of ruin, while seemingly doing almost nothing for the millions of ordinary Americans who lost their jobs and homes. The system not only produced unfair results, but seemed rigged to do so. ..."
"... Support for Trump is based, at least partly, on the widespread anger stemming from that loss of trust in government. ..."
"... The simplistic neo-liberal market-fundamentalist theories that have shaped so much economic policy during the last four decades are badly misleading, with GDP growth coming at the price of soaring inequality. Trickle-down economics hasn't and won't work. Markets don't exist in a vacuum. The Thatcher-Reagan "revolution," which rewrote the rules and restructured markets for the benefit of those at the top, succeeded all too well in increasing inequality, but utterly failed in its mission to increase growth. ..."
But several underlying factors also appear to have contributed to the closeness of the race. For
starters, many Americans are economically worse off than they were a quarter-century ago. The median
income of full-time male employees is lower than it was 42 years ago, and it is increasingly difficult
for those with limited education to get a full-time job that pays decent wages.
Indeed, real (inflation-adjusted) wages at the bottom of the income distribution are roughly where
they were 60 years ago. So it is no surprise that Trump finds a large, receptive audience when he
says the state of the economy is rotten. But Trump is wrong both about the diagnosis and the prescription.
The US economy as a whole has done well for the last six decades: GDP has increased nearly six-fold.
But the fruits of that growth have gone to a relatively few at the top – people like Trump, owing
partly to massive tax cuts that he would extend and deepen.
At the same time, reforms that political leaders promised would ensure prosperity for all – such
as trade and financial liberalization – have not delivered. Far from it. And those whose standard
of living has stagnated or declined have reached a simple conclusion: America's political leaders
either didn't know what they were talking about or were lying (or both).
Trump wants to blame all of America's problems on trade and immigration. He's wrong. The US would
have faced deindustrialization even without freer trade: global employment in manufacturing has been
declining, with productivity gains exceeding demand growth.
Where the trade agreements failed, it was not because the US was outsmarted by its trading partners;
it was because the US trade agenda was shaped by corporate interests. America's companies have done
well, and it is the Republicans who have blocked efforts to ensure that Americans made worse off
by trade agreements would share the benefits.
Thus, many Americans feel buffeted by forces outside their control, leading to outcomes that are
distinctly unfair. Long-standing assumptions – that America is a land of opportunity and that each
generation will be better off than the last – have been called into question. The global financial
crisis may have represented a turning point for many voters: their government saved the rich bankers
who had brought the US to the brink of ruin, while seemingly doing almost nothing for the millions
of ordinary Americans who lost their jobs and homes. The system not only produced unfair results,
but seemed rigged to do so.
Support for Trump is based, at least partly, on the widespread anger stemming from that loss of
trust in government. But Trump's proposed policies would make a bad situation much worse. Surely,
another dose of trickle-down economics of the kind he promises, with tax cuts aimed almost entirely
at rich Americans and corporations, would produce results no better than the last time they were
tried.
In fact, launching a trade war with China, Mexico, and other US trading partners, as Trump promises,
would make all Americans poorer and create new impediments to the global cooperation needed to address
critical global problems like the Islamic State, global terrorism, and climate change. Using money
that could be invested in technology, education, or infrastructure to build a wall between the US
and Mexico is a twofer in terms of wasting resources.
There are two messages US political elites should be hearing. The simplistic neo-liberal market-fundamentalist
theories that have shaped so much economic policy during the last four decades are badly misleading,
with GDP growth coming at the price of soaring inequality. Trickle-down economics hasn't and won't
work. Markets don't exist in a vacuum. The Thatcher-Reagan "revolution," which rewrote the rules
and restructured markets for the benefit of those at the top, succeeded all too well in increasing
inequality, but utterly failed in its mission to increase growth.
This leads to the second message: we need to rewrite the rules of the economy once again, this
time to ensure that ordinary citizens benefit. Politicians in the US and elsewhere who ignore this
lesson will be held accountable. Change entails risk. But the Trump phenomenon – and more than a
few similar political developments in Europe – has revealed the far greater risks entailed by failing
to heed this message: societies divided, democracies undermined, and economies weakened.
Robert Shiller is a talented guy who is pretty sleazy. Note that he never mentions neoliberalism
as the real reason we got into the current situation.
"Substantial fiscal stimulus might be helpful, but
it has been blocked." Blocked by whom? Elves and fairies? Klingons?
Instead he tried deceive along the lines of behavioral economics: " If they realize that they
are doing less well than their forebears, they become anxious... Ethnic nationalism creates an
ego-preserving excuse for self-perceived personal failure: Other groups are blamed for bad behavior
and conspiracies.
Notable quotes:
"... The rise in inequality in our time represents a seismic shift in economic power away from the working class. Its cause is many-faceted, including globalization, the decline of labor unions, changes in political alignments and advancing information technology that is replacing jobs. ..."
"... A 2015 study published in The American Economic Review by Michael Kumhof of the Bank of England, Romain Rancière of the International Monetary Fund and Pablo Winant of the Bank of England found that both the Great Depression of the 1930s and the Great Recession of 2007-9 had their origins, in part, in rising inequality. ..."
"... Both were accompanied by increases in borrowing by low- to middle-income people, who tried to maintain their standards of living. High-income people, described by the authors as desiring wealth for its own sake, did the lending. The loans attracted investors because high rates of interest compensated them for the risk of default. ..."
Global economic weakness and a rise in inequality appear to be causing a
disturbing growth in ethnic nationalism.
Leaders today often do not openly declare themselves to be ethnic nationalists -
in which identity is defined by perceived genetic, religious or linguistic
heritage rather than democratic ideals or principles. But political appeals to
such forms of identity are nevertheless widespread.
In the United States, despite his attempts to woo minority voters, Donald J.
Trump appears to derive support from such sentiment. In Moscow, Vladimir V. Putin
has used Russian nationalist sentiment to inspire many of his countrymen. And we
see growing ethnic political parties inspired by national identity in other
countries.
It is natural to ask whether something so broad might have a common cause, other
than the obvious circumstantial causes like the gradual fading of memories about
the horrors of ethnic conflict in World War II or the rise in this century of
forms of violent ethnic terrorism. Economics is my specialty, and I think
economic factors may explain at least part of the trend.
Yet economic growth continues, though at a reduced pace, and not just in the United
States. According to the
International
Monetary Fund
, real world gross domestic product was 29 percent higher in 2015 than
it was just before the recession, in 2007. It has just grown at a lower rate than
before, 3.2 percent a year in the eight years after 2007 compared with 4.5 percent a
year in the eight years ending in 2007. Perhaps that doesn't sound like a big enough
difference to affect political outcomes.
But the modest slowdown could be a big part of the explanation for the apparent rise of
ethnic nationalism, if combined with another factor: rising inequality, along with
considerable fear about future inequality.
The numbers are stark. According to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics,
earnings have been basically static. In the bureau's language, "median usual weekly
earnings - in constant (1982-84) dollars (employed full time)" has hardly grown in a
generation. The total increase since this data series began in 1979 has been only 1.2
percent, or 0.03 percent a year. The increase has been less than 1 percent since 2007.
Even such paltry economic growth is going to the very top, not to the median wage
earner. That means that roughly half of full-time wage earners are doing less well in
real terms than their parents were.
Benjamin M. Friedman
of Harvard
University, in his book "The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth"
(Knopf, 2005)
,
said that at a deep level people make judgments about the economic progress that they
see in their own lifetimes, and in comparison with the progress made by the previous
generation, especially their own parents. Few people study economic growth statistics.
But nearly everyone knows what they are being paid. If they realize that they are doing
less well than their forebears, they become anxious. And if they can't see themselves
and others in their cohort as progressing over a lifetime, their social interactions
often become angry, resentful and even conspiratorial.
Ethnic nationalism creates an ego-preserving excuse for self-perceived personal failure:
Other groups are blamed for bad behavior and conspiracies. Often, ethnic, racial or
religious conflict follows. Among the horrific examples are the atrocities committed in
the name of nationalism during World War II - not coincidentally following
the Great Depression
. Mr. Friedman provides other such instances from the last two
centuries in which ethnic conflict followed slow economic growth.
He does point out many exceptions to these generalizations: Some poor and unequal
societies experience very little violence. But it appears that a sense of falling behind
economically among a substantial segment of a population does encourage ethnic
nationalism and conflict.
The rise in inequality in our time represents a seismic shift in economic power away
from the working class. Its cause is many-faceted, including globalization, the decline
of labor unions, changes in political alignments and advancing information technology
that is replacing jobs.
Even those who have not lost out yet in terms of economic power are fearful that they
might. The causes of inequality, particularly advances in information technology, are
not going away soon. These perceptions have damaged people's sense of economic security,
even beyond what economic data reveal to be objectively true.
A 2015 study published in The
American Economic
Review
by
Michael Kumhof
of the Bank of England,
Romain Rancière
of the International Monetary Fund and
Pablo Winant
of the Bank of England found that both the Great Depression of the
1930s and the Great Recession of 2007-9 had their origins, in part, in rising
inequality.
Both were accompanied by increases in borrowing by low- to middle-income people, who
tried to maintain their standards of living. High-income people, described by the
authors as desiring wealth for its own sake, did the lending. The loans attracted
investors because high rates of interest compensated them for the risk of default.
Linking these causes to the rise of ethnic nationalism is imprecise; these factors
reflect a long-term loss of confidence. Such fears are often vague and ill formed, but
their effects are powerful.
There are some remedies, even if they are not popular or easily executed.
Hillary Clinton's proposals to raise taxes on those with the very highest incomes to
fund programs for lower-income people, for example, may not generate much enthusiasm
from those whose incomes have not grown as expected and who may be doing less well than
their parents. That is because many people do not like the sound of a proposed handout
even if it might help them; they aspire to prove their own worth by earning a good
income, and yet that prospect eludes them.
But something has to be done about the two trends of rising inequality and weak economic
growth, for if they continue we may see more unhappiness, discontent and political
disruption. Substantial fiscal stimulus might be helpful, but it has been blocked.
Making the tax system progressive enough to break the trend toward ever greater income
inequality has also been beyond our grasp, yet it may be the best option we have.
"... The email in question was even sent from Froman's Citibank email address (rookie!) and includes "A list of African American, Latino and Asian American candidates, broken down by Cabinet/Deputy and Under/Assistant/Deputy Assistant level, plus a list of Native American, Arab/Muslim American and Disabled American candidates. " ..."
"... It correctly identified Eric Holder for the Justice Department , Janet Napolitano for Homeland Security, Robert Gates for Defense, Rahm Emanuel for chief of staff , Peter Orszag for the Office of Management and Budget, Arne Duncan for Education, Eric Shinseki for Veterans Affairs, Kathleen Sebelius for Health and Human Services , Melody Barnes for the Domestic Policy Council, and more. For the Treasury, three possibilities were on the list: Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, and Timothy Geithner. ..."
"... This was October 6. The election was November 4. And yet Froman, an executive at Citigroup, which would ultimately become the recipient of the largest bailout from the federal government during the financial crisis, had mapped out virtually the entire Obama cabinet, a month before votes were counted. And according to the Froman/Podesta emails, lists were floating around even before that. ..."
"... Many already suspected that Froman, a longtime Obama consigliere, did the key economic policy hiring while part of the transition team. We didn't know he had so much influence that he could lock in key staff that early, without fanfare, while everyone was busy trying to get Obama elected. The WikiLeaks emails show even earlier planning; by September the transition was getting pre-clearance to assist nominees with financial disclosure forms. ..."
Perhaps the most startling discovery of the WikiLeaks dumps so far didn't come from the most recent
emails surrounding the various Hillary scandals, though there are many great ones, but from 2008
when John Podesta served as co-chair of President-elect Barack Obama's transition team. The email
came from Michael Froman, a former Citibank executive, who single-handedly built the entire cabinet
of what was supposed to be the "main street" President.
The email in question
was even sent from Froman's Citibank email address (rookie!) and includes "A list of African American,
Latino and Asian American candidates, broken down by Cabinet/Deputy and Under/Assistant/Deputy Assistant
level, plus a list of Native American, Arab/Muslim American and Disabled American candidates. "
Apparently Obama wasn't as worried about placing women in senior-level positions, but Froman decided
to offer up some suggestions anyway.
"While you did not ask for this, I prepared and attached a similar document on women."
Froman even went ahead and "scoped out" which people should be appointed to which cabinet positions.
"At the risk of being presumptuous, I also scoped out how the Cabinet-level appointments might
be put together, probability-weighting the likelihood of appointing a diverse candidate for each
position (given one view of the short list) and coming up with a straw man distribution."
As
New Republic points out, the Froman appointments ended up being almost entirely right.
The cabinet list ended up being almost entirely on the money . It correctly identified Eric
Holder for the Justice Department , Janet Napolitano for Homeland Security, Robert Gates for Defense, Rahm Emanuel for chief of staff , Peter Orszag for the Office of Management and Budget, Arne Duncan
for Education, Eric Shinseki for Veterans Affairs, Kathleen Sebelius for Health and Human Services
, Melody Barnes for the Domestic Policy Council, and more. For the Treasury, three possibilities
were on the list: Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, and Timothy Geithner.
This was October 6. The election was November 4. And yet Froman, an executive at Citigroup,
which would ultimately become the recipient of the largest bailout from the federal government
during the financial crisis, had mapped out virtually the entire Obama cabinet, a month before
votes were counted. And according to the Froman/Podesta emails, lists were floating around even
before that.
Many already suspected that Froman, a longtime Obama consigliere, did the key economic policy
hiring while part of the transition team. We didn't know he had so much influence that he could
lock in key staff that early, without fanfare, while everyone was busy trying to get Obama elected.
The WikiLeaks emails show even earlier planning; by September the transition was getting pre-clearance
to assist nominees with financial disclosure forms.
So if this history is any guide then the real power within a future Clinton administration is
being formed right now. In fact, another email from January 2015 reveals that Elizabeth Warren was
already "intently focused on personnel issues" almost two full years ago as evidenced by the
following recap of a
conversation that the Hillary campaign had with her Chief of Staff, Dan Geldon.
He was intently focused on personnel issues, laid out a detailed case against the Bob Rubin
school of Democratic policy makers, was very critical of the Obama administration's choices ,
and explained at length the opposition to Antonio Weiss. We then carefully went through a list
of people they do like, which EW sent over to HRC earlier.
We spent less time on specific policies, because he seemed less interested in that.
He spoke repeatedly about the need to have in place people with ambition and urgency who recognize
how much the middle class is hurting and are willing to challenge the financial industry.
To the extent there are any purists left, this should clear up any illusion of who controls the
political powers that be.
Mike C
6
years ago
And i love that song just not that version !Well
thats cause the media and hollywood have everyone
brainwashed. Brainwashed into a media nation and
thats why we have a bunch of actors in office. When
people are brought to the brink they will wake up
and find out its too late until then all the little
worker bees will keep there ignorant heads in the
sand!
mbear14
7
years ago
Haha. Exactly. Here is how all of my conversations
end with Obama supporters: "Well, whatever...fuck
it...at least he's not that asshole Bush." Such
strong convictions from enlightened individuals. Not
one of them can give me a solid reason as to how we
are NOT currently living in the 3rd Bush
administration. And yes, I would agree that "white
guilt" unfortunately sneaked it's way into the votes
:(
mbear14
7
years ago
I live in DC and the amount of conversations I've
had with Obama sheeple makes it very discouraging.
They have absolutely NO idea why they voted for
McBama. They are completely oblivious to his
policies, about why we were attacked on 9/11, the
role of the Fed Reserve, the Patriot Act being
written by Joe Biden, the list is endless. And yes,
they even do admit that "Ron Paul is right on alot
of things, but he can't win..." Pathetic. We elected
Britney Spears as president. Cult of Personality.
pink4m3
5
years ago
Thank you for the video. Honestly I never hard of
Ron Paul on TV. I found him on youtube a few months
ago. I think he's amazing and I feel stupid for not
knowing who he is and to vote for someone else.
PTTHOR
6
years ago
Ron Paul as president is a great dream that I
have.... But remember- what we really need is
several Ron Paul's in congress and Senate because
that's where the power is! That's where the change
really happens.
1
Mooseboy240
6
years ago
@hardcorepatriot YES and if we fall then we fall
united
1
Mooseboy240
6
years ago
omg I hate that everything ron paul is just internet
based if everyone had gotten out and told their
friends and familys what was going on maybe we
wouldn't have another puppet in the whitehouse. I
have been telling everyone why they should vote for
ron paul and candidates who believe similarly or at
least as often as I can considering its alot to
explain and most people don't care until they hear
how it dramatically affects there everyday lives
then 99% of them suddenly realize it matters!
1
Tomacity(Rast)
6
years ago
Ron Paul Is my president
still no mention of the clincher - that proves the entire democrat party has no respect for the office of president - or any other
government office for that matter..
stay on target!!!
(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully
and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be
disqualified from holding any office under the United States .
"... "This is a struggle for the survival of our nation. This election will determine whether we are a free nation, or whether we have only the illusion of democracy but are in fact controlled by a small handful of global special interests rigging the system." ..."
"... "Anyone who challenges their control is deemed a sexist, a racist, a xenophobe and morally deformed," Trump said. "They will attack you, they will slander you, they will seek to destroy your career and reputation. And they will lie, lie and lie even more." ..."
"... "It is not coincidence that these attacks come at the exact same moment, and all together at the same time, as the WikiLeaks documents expose the massive international corruption of the Clinton machine," he said. ..."
"... Before thousands in U.S. Bank Arena in Cincinnati, Trump said the email leaks have shown that Clinton and the Democrats "raped the system" to keep Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders from getting the nomination. ..."
"... The enthusiastic crowd responded loudly as Trump repeated his pledge to seek a special prosecutor on Clinton if he becomes president - a move constitutional experts have said would be dubious - to "investigate the investigation" of Clinton by the FBI. ..."
"... "A vote for me is a vote for you, and it's a vote for change," he said. "I honestly believe this is the last chance we'll ever get. … Either we win this election or we lose this country." ..."
After describing this year's election in apocalyptic terms earlier in the day,
Donald Trump was down to merely alleging Hillary Clinton is a criminal by the time he made a
pair of stops Thursday in Ohio.
"This is not simply another four-year election. This is a crossroads in the
history of our civilization," Trump said early Thursday afternoon in Palm Beach, Fla.
"This is a struggle for the survival of our nation. This election will determine
whether we are a free nation, or whether we have only the illusion of democracy but are in
fact controlled by a small handful of global special interests rigging the system."
Trump said Clinton and media co-conspirators are at the heart of the effort
against him.
"Anyone who challenges their control is deemed a sexist, a racist, a xenophobe
and morally deformed," Trump said. "They will attack you, they will slander you, they will
seek to destroy your career and reputation. And they will lie, lie and lie even more."
In the Florida speech, Trump elaborated for the first time on both an
11-year-old video of him describing his sexual advances and new allegations that he groped
women.
"It is not coincidence that these attacks come at the exact same moment, and all
together at the same time, as the WikiLeaks documents expose the massive international
corruption of the Clinton machine," he said.
"These claims about me of inappropriate conduct with women are totally and
absolutely false - and the Clinton machine knows it is. It's all fabricated. It's pure fiction
and outright lies. These events never happened …
"We already have substantial evidence to dispute these lies, and it will be made
public in the appropriate way and at the appropriate time."
When the crowd began chanting "Lock her up, lock her up!" Trump chuckled. "So
young and jaded already," he said. "You understand life at a young age."
Before thousands in U.S. Bank Arena in Cincinnati, Trump said the email
leaks have shown that Clinton and the Democrats "raped the system" to keep Vermont Sen. Bernie
Sanders from getting the nomination.
The enthusiastic crowd responded loudly as Trump repeated his pledge to seek a
special prosecutor on Clinton if he becomes president - a move constitutional experts have
said would be dubious - to "investigate the investigation" of Clinton by the FBI.
But the biggest response from the Queen City audience came after this Trump
pledge: "I am going to keep radical Islamic terrorists the hell out of our country."
The crowd in heavily Republican southwestern Ohio was probably Trump's largest
rally in the Buckeye State. Three days earlier, Clinton had her biggest crowd of the entire
campaign on the South Oval of Ohio State University.
Near the end of his 45-minute talk, Trump said, "You are going to remember this
rally for the rest of your life."
And once he wins the election, Trump said, his supporters will look back and
regard it as the most important vote ever because that's when the country started turning
around.
"A vote for me is a vote for you, and it's a vote for change," he said. "I
honestly believe this is the last chance we'll ever get. … Either we win this election or we
lose this country."
The
consequences (of Hillary's Libya decision as Secretary of State) would be more
far-reaching than anyone imagined, leaving Libya a failed state and a terrorist
haven, a place where the direst answers to Mrs. Clinton's questions have come
to pass.
Killary only can beg that voters hold their noses and vote for her. Guardian neoliberal presstitutes
still don't want to understand that Hillary is more dangerous then trump, Sge with her attempt that
she is more militant then male neocons can really provoke a confrontation with Russia or China.
Notable quotes:
"... War at home versus another foreign war, nothing will get through Congress, and either will get impeached...so third party all the way for me. ..."
"... Keep in mind, the election is not over and that drip, drip, drip of Hillary emails may push more people towards Trump. ..."
"... Shameless. Absolutely shameless, Guardian. This is not-even-disguised Clinton sycophancy... ..."
"... Clinton has everything going for her. The media, the banks, big business, the UN, foreign leaders, special interest lobbyists, silicon valley, establishment Republicans. How can she not win in an landslide?! ..."
"... We came, we saw, and he grabbed some pussy. ..."
"... It seems nobody wants to talk about what is really going on here - instead we are fed this bilge from both sides about 'sexual misconduct' and other fluff ..."
"... The stagnation of middle-class incomes in the West may last another five decades or more. ..."
"... This calls into question either the sustainability of democracy under such conditions or the sustainability of globalization. ..."
"... These classes of "globalization losers," particularly in the United States, have had little political voice or influence, and perhaps this is why the backlash against globalization has been so muted. They have had little voice because the rich have come to control the political process. The rich, as can be seen by looking at the income gains of the global top 5 percent in Figure 1, have benefited immensely from globalization and they have keen interest in its continuation. ..."
"... But while their use of political power has enabled the continuation of globalization, it has also hollowed out national democracies and moved many countries closer to becoming plutocracies. Thus, the choice would seem either plutocracy and globalization – or populism and a halt to globalization. ..."
The vast majority of her support comes from people that will be holding their noses as they vote
for her. Seems to me that convincing those same people that you have it in the bag will just cause
them to think voting isn't worth their time since they don't want to anyway.
I know Trump's supporters, the real ones, and the anyone-but-Hillary club will show up as well.
Funny if this backfires and he wins.
I won't be voting for either one and couldn't care less which one wins. War at home versus
another foreign war, nothing will get through Congress, and either will get impeached...so third
party all the way for me.
"Trump has to be the limit, and there has to be a re-alignment"
Trump has shown one must fight fire with fire. The days of the meek and mild GOP are over. Twice
they tried with nice guys and failed. Trump has clearly shown come out with both fists swinging
and you attract needed media and you make the conversation about you. Trump's mistake was not
seeking that bit of polish that leaves your opponent on the floor.
Keep in mind, the election is not over and that drip, drip, drip of Hillary emails may
push more people towards Trump.
Shameless. Absolutely shameless, Guardian. This is not-even-disguised Clinton sycophancy...
tugend49
For every woman that's been sexually harassed, bullied, raped, assaulted, catcalled, groped,
objectified, and treated lesser than, a landslide victory for Clinton would be an especially sweet
"Fuck You" to the Trumps of this world.
Clinton has everything going for her. The media, the banks, big business, the UN, foreign
leaders, special interest lobbyists, silicon valley, establishment Republicans. How can she not
win in an landslide?!
It might be a reaction against Trump, but it's also a depressing example of the power of the
establishment, and their desire for control in democracy. Just look at how they squealed at Brexit.
It seems nobody wants to talk about what is really going on here - instead we are fed this
bilge from both sides about 'sexual misconduct' and other fluff
There is a report from two years ago, July 2014, before the candidates had even been selected,
by the economist Branko Milanovic for Yale 'Global' about the impact of Globalisation on the Lower
Middle Classes in the West and how this was basically going to turn into exactly the choice the
American electorate is facing now
Why won't the media discuss these issues instead of pushing this pointless circus?
These are the penultimate paragraphs of the article on the report (there is a similar one for
the Harvard Business Review
here ):
The populists warn disgruntled voters that economic trends observed during the past three
decades are just the first wave of cheap labor from Asia pitted in direct competition with
workers in the rich world, and more waves are on the way from poorer lands in Asia and Africa.
The stagnation of middle-class incomes in the West may last another five decades or more.
This calls into question either the sustainability of democracy under such conditions
or the sustainability of globalization.
If globalization is derailed, the middle classes of the West may be relieved from the immediate
pressure of cheaper Asian competition. But the longer-term costs to themselves and their countries,
let alone to the poor in Asia and Africa, will be high. Thus, the interests and the political
power of the middle classes in the rich world put them in a direct conflict with the interests
of the worldwide poor.
These classes of "globalization losers," particularly in the United States, have had
little political voice or influence, and perhaps this is why the backlash against globalization
has been so muted. They have had little voice because the rich have come to control the political
process. The rich, as can be seen by looking at the income gains of the global top 5 percent
in Figure 1, have benefited immensely from globalization and they have keen interest in its
continuation.
But while their use of political power has enabled the continuation of globalization, it
has also hollowed out national democracies and moved many countries closer to becoming plutocracies.
Thus, the choice would seem either plutocracy and globalization – or populism and a halt to
globalization.
Globalisation will continue to happen. It has pulled a large part of the world population out
of poverty and grown the global economy.
Sure on the downside it has also hugely benefitted the 1%, while the western middle classes
have done relatively less well and blue collar workers have suffered as they seek to turn to other
types (less well paid) of work.
The issue is the speed of change, how to manage globalisation and spread the wealth more equitably.
Maybe it will require slowing but it cannot and should not be stopped.
richsob
Oct 14, 2016 10:12 AM
Trump's biggest opponent is his own damn ego. He needs to simply say "I'm not
responding to these allegations and aspersions on my character any longer. I am
only going to make this important point one time. Whoever keeps making these
allegations and aspersions should stop immediately. If they don't, then they
better lawyer up". And then he should shut the hell up and only talk about jobs,
immigation and trade policy. Fuck his sensitive ego; it's going to cost him the
election and us the nation if he doesn't wise up. He can still win this thing.
And after the election he can either sue the living shit out of some people or
find another way to get even with those who he wants to go after.
Not My Real Name
richsob
Oct 14, 2016 11:38 AM
Yes, Trump has a very big ego. But saying that his ego is a bigger detriment to
his success than our corrupt media is ludicrous.
An unbiased media is
essential to maintaining a free republic and minimizing corruption at all
levels of government. The media is now just as corrupt as our government is.
In a way, the obvious
response to the media is 'if that's all they have on him, he's cleaner than every
other politician'.
The blanket coverage of her/she/it/that will also make many people become sick
of the sight of her/she/it/that, particularly as Trump has now let the cat out of
the bag regarding the rapes - all the undecided voters who watched that bit of the
debate will be thinking seriously about who is the greater evil here, even if they
remain ignorant of her/she/it/that's central role in smashing up Libya and Syria,
and trying to goad Russia into WWIII, her dream legacy to us peasants.
Dark
star
Oct 14, 2016 9:31 AM
America's media have betrayed the Nation.
The rest of the world in general, and
world leaders in particular know that Clinton is a crook and a liar; nothing she
says can be believed, her word is worthless, and she cannot be trusted in any
respect whatever.
A President Clinton would earn the same respect abroad as would Caligula's
horse had it been sent abroad to represent the Roman Empire. The crowds would
queue up to point their fingers, throw tomatoes and laugh at her.
0hedgehog
Oct 14, 2016 9:36 AM
I was in the business, (TV) and witnessed right around 20 years or so ago, the
entire concept of news was shifted over to entertainment, almost overnight.
Investigating and reportng solid news and information, which the electorate needs
in order to make sound decisions, went right out the window. I am not entertained.
moneybots
Oct 14, 2016 9:38 AM
"As Strassel points out, it's almost impossible to turn on the TV without hearing
about Trump's "lewd" comments while coverage of Hillary
"uniformly ignores
the flurry of bombshells"
inherent in the various WikiLeaks, FOIA
releases and FBI interviews.
It is impossible not to see media bias. The media is a traitor to the
American people.
Yes We Can. But...
rejected
Oct 14, 2016 12:33 PM
One could make a pretty solid case that the biggest problem - Problem #1 - this
country faces at this moment is the mountain of propaganda fed the masses. In
the darkness of the widespread shadow cast by Problem #1, other problems
difficult to discern and come to understand much less attempt to solve.
Barack Obama pushes Problem #1, and his notion of 'curating' the news
represents a furtherance of Problem #1. Getting the gubmint involved in 'curating'
the news would turn
unofficial
organs of the state - the MSNBCs of the
world - into
official
organs of the state.
Barack Obama's wet dream, and John Harwood's too.
We Are The Priests
Downtoolong
Oct 14, 2016 10:20 AM
It's the bedrock of their political strategy. They have no real policies to
tout, certainly none that any rational, independent thinking human being would
endorse, so they produce massive and relentless waves of derision aimed at
their opponents to keep the focus off themselves.
However, as we've seen this
election cycle, the Internet has changed everything and the tactics of the
Clinton political machine, wholly dependent on a subservient mockingbird print
and television media to shape and direct national narratives, just don't work
when you have a global, de-centralized iformation medium freely accessible to
all.
That said, say good-bye to the Internet as we now know it.
NobodyNowhere
Oct 14, 2016 10:00 AM
The media has betrayed America in the most blatant manner conceivable. This has
enormous implications for America, and millions of upright Americans have a task
cut out for themselves. America is the foremost yardstick of freedom, free
thought, progress and innovation that man has ever seen, a model of civilization
and advancement for centuries to come. The task is much bigger than just "take
our country back" - the task is to hunt and punish the entities that have struck
at the very foundation of the republic so that no one tries the same as long as
memory lasts.
gmak
Oct 14, 2016 10:02 AM
Who owns the WSJ? That billionaire has had enough, I guess. - or he didn't get
the entree he wanted at the $6million a plate pay-for-play. (hint: Rupert
Murdoch. Maybe Fox News will fall in line).
vegas
Oct 14, 2016 10:13 AM
Oh, this is rich; the WSJ pretending like they aren't part of the MSM, and have
"all of a sudden" discovered much to there shock ... SHOCK I TELL YOU ... that
news coverage is biased in favor of Cankles. Hmmm, this self reflection must have
been painfull.
Weren't these the same guys who teamed up with NBC to issue that absurd poll
right after the last debate, the one purporting to show Clinton up by 14 points?
The one that only used a two day average and about 300 RVs? The one that was
splashed all over the internet, at the top of every mainstream media webpage? The
one that has now disappeared nearly as fast as it was posted, after having
accomplished it's purpose ("Trump can't win, it's all over, stick a fork in it)?
The man didn't have the
qualifications to run your average convenience store.
Kina
Oct 14, 2016 10:19 AM
OH and Russia is now advising its people to prepare for nuclear war.
Well done Obama, neocons, Carlos Slim, NY Times, Washington Post, The Guardian
- maybe you just fried all your children, for what? A pat on the head from some
Oligarch.
847328_3527
Oct 14, 2016 10:19 AM
I copied this from a previous poster since it is truly shocking:
The media are
misleading the public on Syria
Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful
episodes in the history of the American press. Reporting about carnage in the
ancient city of Aleppo is the latest reason why.
For three years, violent militants have run Aleppo. Their rule began with a
wave of repression. They posted notices warning residents: "Don't send your
children to school. If you do, we will get the backpack and you will get the
coffin." Then they destroyed factories, hoping that unemployed workers would have
no recourse other than to become fighters. They trucked looted machinery to Turkey
and sold it.
This month, people in Aleppo have finally seen glimmers of hope. The Syrian
army and its allies have been pushing militants out of the city. Last week they
reclaimed the main power plant. Regular electricity may soon be restored. The
militants' hold on the city could be ending.
This does not fit with Washington's narrative. As a result, much of the
American press is reporting the opposite of what is actually happening. Many news
reports suggest that Aleppo has been a "liberated zone" for three years but is now
being pulled back into misery.
Americans are being told that the virtuous course in Syria is to fight the
Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian partners. We are supposed to hope that a
righteous coalition of Americans, Turks, Saudis, Kurds, and the "moderate
opposition" will win.
This is convoluted nonsense, but Americans cannot be blamed for believing it.
We have almost no real information about the combatants, their goals, or their
tactics. Much blame for this lies with our media.
Inevitably, this kind of disinformation has bled into the American presidential
campaign. At the recent debate in Milwaukee, Hillary Clinton claimed that United
Nations peace efforts in Syria were based on "an agreement I negotiated in June of
2012 in Geneva." The precise opposite is true.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/02/18/the-media-are-misleading-p...
We Are The Priests
847328_3527
Oct 14, 2016 10:30 AM
The media has been misleading the public on everything for decades. This is
nothing new or shocking. What appears to be new is a sudden and dangerous
epidemic of healthy skepticism, critical independent thinking, a willingness to
question authority, and massive distrust of traditional power structures.
Not My Real Name
We Are The Priests
Oct 14, 2016 11:40 AM
Yes, but they were much more subtle about it. Now they no longer care about
appearances ... which tells me they are comfortable in knowing that the
overthrow of America from the inside is now all but complete.
replaceme
Oct 14, 2016 10:33 AM
I was listening to Breitbart this am, talked about a statute I had not heard of -
access fraud? Basically, it's illegal to sell government resources - the idea of
pay for play is patently illegal, something akin to bribery. I always knew it was
unethical, but the guy on had just done 4 years in a a federal pound you in the
ass prison for it. I'd say Hillary has something to fear if The Donald does win.
We Are The Priests
replaceme
Oct 14, 2016 10:39 AM
Pay to Play is not akin to bribery. It is bribery. It's just that Pay to Play
doesn't sound illegal and is much more innoquous--play doesn't sound like a bad
thing, right?
Son of Captain Nemo
Oct 14, 2016 11:23 AM
Question:
Why doesn't the Wall Street Journal "up the ante" by
drawing the line officially in the sand and putting across the front page of their
paper that
Any American voting for Hillary Clinton should be declared a
war criminal and guilty of treason
!....
Should have happened in the last two Administration(s) but didn't -but given
the
coronation
that is about to unfold no time like the present for the editors at
that "news organization" to attempt the retrieval of what is left of there
souls!!!
heretical
Oct 14, 2016 11:03 AM
THIS COULD BE THE SKINNY ON MDB -- HE'S A SINGULARLY INEPT EMPLOYEE OF THE CLINTON
CAMP!
From Stream.Org:
A significant portion of online support for Hillary Clinton is manufactured by
paid "astroturf" trolls: a large team of supporters who spend long hours
responding to negative news on the internet about her. The Clinton SuperPAC
Correct the Record, which is affiliated with her campaign, acknowledged in an
April press release that it was spending $1 million on project "Breaking Barriers"
to pay people to respond to negative information about Clinton on social media
sites like Facebook, Reddit, Instagram and Twitter. That amount has since
increased to over $6 million. The trolls create a false impression that Clinton
has more support than she really does, because one supporter will frequently
create multiple anonymous accounts.
Libby Watson of The Sunlight Foundation observed that the astroturf effort goes
far beyond merely defending Clinton, to targeting and intimidating those who
criticize her. She told The Daily Beast, "This seems to be going after essentially
random individuals online."
Brian Donahue, chief executive of the consulting firm Craft Media/Digital,
explained the troll operation to The Los Angeles Times, "It is meant to appear to
be coming organically from people and their social media networks in a groundswell
of activism, when in fact it is highly paid and highly tactical." He went on,
"That is what the Clinton campaign has always been about. It runs the risk of
being exactly what their opponents accuse them of being: a campaign that appears
to be populist but is a smokescreen that is paid and brought to you by lifetime
political operatives and high-level consultants."
conraddobler
Oct 14, 2016 11:18 AM
Everyone should vote Trump because of the two he's obviously better for the
people.
However I have no doubt all of this is all part of a larger plan so
whatever happens, was suppossed to happen.
Ultimately mankind needs to wake up to the fact that the battle against evil is
never ending you only get brief periods of calm to enjoy life, the rest of it is a
ceaseless struggle against the forces of darkness.
However it's really not what you think it is.
It's your own choices that is all it ever is.
The most heroic act on earth is to take unkindness and let it end with you. To
not pass it on but to let it wash over you and send in kindness in return.
That is the most powerful act in the universe which nothing can defeat and unto
which evil has no possible hold on.
withglee
conraddobler
Oct 14, 2016 11:44 AM
Your average American glued to the TV and their smart phones will
NEVER have a clue about what's really going on using these sources of
information.
Is our battle against evil easier if we are
organized globally ... or if we are organized in small enclaves of like minded
people?
Ultimately mankind can NOT survive without adherence to a higher moral code,
it's simply impossible.
Modern secularists are missing the fundamental spirit of mankind and I'm
not talking about religion, the Native American's had it, far from perfect,
they did have it. That is what is lost and what is being made to come back
and that is the ultimate goal or point. There is no reason a majority of
mankind can't be taught that, should be taught that, because without it,
there is no hope for anyone.
Small enclaves are easily overrun by bigger enclaves. You run towards
gunfire because if you don't, it will come to you. You can't hide from this
even though that would be preferable. They'd love to divide us all up and
have us hide. Then we'd be easy to pick off.
With technology today you have to get on top of all that are you are
under it and under it, you have no hope.
MAD used to serve as a deterent but it's obsolete now, because the
unthinkable is now thinkable made possible by underground bunkers. The
folishness of this was pointed out in one of my other posts.
Elites are elite because of their position on earth, if they destroy
earth, they destroy the source of their own power.
It will go how it goes to teach what needs to be taught.
Wall Street Journal Finally Lashes Out "The Press Is Burying Hillary
Clinton's Sins"
by
Tyler Durden
Oct 14, 2016 9:06 AM
0
SHARES
Even the
Wall Street Journal
is now fed up with the biased media coverage of the 2016
Presidential election as revealed by a scathing article written by Kimberly Strassel, a
member of their editorial board. As Strassel points out, it's almost impossible to turn
on the TV without hearing about Trump's "lewd" comments while coverage of Hillary
"uniformly ignores the flurry of bombshells"
inherent in the various
WikiLeaks, FOIA releases and FBI interviews.
If average voters turned on the TV for five minutes this week, chances are they
know that Donald Trump made lewd remarks a decade ago and now stands accused of
groping women.
But even if average voters had the TV on 24/7,
they still probably haven't
heard the news about Hillary Clinton: That the nation now has proof of pretty much
everything she has been accused of.
It comes from hacked emails dumped by WikiLeaks, documents released under the
Freedom of Information Act, and accounts from FBI insiders.
The media has
almost uniformly ignored the flurry of bombshells, preferring to devote its front
pages to the Trump story.
So let's review what amounts to a devastating case
against a Clinton presidency.
Of course, the list of Hillary scandals is becoming way to long to remember though
one of the biggest has been her establishment of the now infamous private email server
and the subsequent intentional destruction of federal records despite the existence of a
Congressional subpoena.
Start with a June 2015 email to Clinton staffers from Erika Rottenberg, the former
general counsel of LinkedIn. Ms. Rottenberg wrote that none of the attorneys in her
circle of friends
"can understand how it was viewed as ok/secure/appropriate
to use a private server for secure documents AND why further Hillary took it upon
herself to review them and delete documents."
She added:
"It smacks
of acting above the law and it smacks of the type of thing I've either gotten
discovery sanctions for, fired people for, etc."
A few months later, in a September 2015 email, a Clinton confidante fretted that
Mrs. Clinton was too bullheaded to acknowledge she'd done wrong.
"Everyone
wants her to apologize,"
wrote Neera Tanden, president of the liberal Center
for American Progress.
"And she should. Apologies are like her Achilles'
heel."
Clinton staffers debated how to evade a congressional subpoena of Mrs. Clinton's
emails-three weeks before a technician deleted them. The campaign later employed a
focus group to see if it could fool Americans into thinking the email scandal was
part of the Benghazi investigation (they are separate) and lay it all off as a
Republican plot.
Meanwhile, as
Fox News
reported yesterday, according to an anonymous source within the FBI the
"vast majority" of the people that worked on Hillary's case thought she should be
prosecuted adding that
"it was unanimous that we all wanted her [Clinton's]
security clearance yanked."
The source, who spoke to FoxNews.com on the condition of anonymity, said FBI
Director James Comey's dramatic July 5 announcement that he would not recommend to
the Attorney General's office that the former secretary of state be charged left
members of the investigative team dismayed and disgusted. More than 100 FBI agents
and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys from the DOJ's National
Security Division, Counter Espionage Section, to investigate the case.
"No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with
the decision not to prosecute -- it was a top-down decision,"
said the
source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.
A high-ranking FBI official told Fox News that while it might not have been a
unanimous decision,
"It was unanimous that we all wanted her [Clinton's]
security clearance yanked."
"It is safe to say the vast majority felt she should be prosecuted,"
the senior FBI official told Fox News. "We were floored while listening to the FBI
briefing because Comey laid it all out, and then said 'but we are doing nothing,'
which made no sense to us."
Moreover, the Wall Street Journal points out that the Obama administration was
seemingly
"working as an extension of the Clinton campaign"
with both
the State Department and DOJ providing frequent updates to Hillary staffers about a
confidential criminal investigation into her misconduct.
The Obama administration-the federal government, supported by tax dollars-
was
working as an extension of the Clinton campaign.
The
State
Department coordinated with her staff in responding to the email scandal, and the
Justice Department kept her team informed about developments in the court case.
Worse, Mrs. Clinton's State Department, as documents obtained under the Freedom of
Information Act show,
took special care of donors to the Clinton Foundation.
In a series of 2010 emails, a senior aide to Mrs. Clinton asked a foundation official
to let her know which groups offering assistance with the Haitian earthquake relief
were "FOB" (Friends of Bill) or "WJC VIPs" (William Jefferson Clinton VIPs)
.
Those who made the cut appear to have been teed up for contracts. Those who weren't?
Routed to a standard government website.
The leaks show that the foundation was indeed the nexus of influence and
money.
The head of the Clinton Health Access Initiative, Ira Magaziner,
suggested in a 2011 email that Bill Clinton call Sheikh Mohammed of Saudi Arabia to
thank him for offering the use of a plane. In response, a top Clinton Foundation
official wrote:
"Unless Sheikh Mo has sent us a $6 million check, this sounds
crazy to do."
Strassel also takes direct aim at the press and admits that the "leaks also show that
the press is in Mrs. Clinton's pocket." While the WikiLeaks emails reveal substantial
coordination between Clinton and the press perhaps none are more disturbing than when
Donna Brazile, now DNC chair, sent the exact wording of a CNN town hall question
to Hillary ahead of a scheduled debate.
The leaks also show that the press is in Mrs. Clinton's pocket.
Donna Brazile, a former Clinton staffer and a TV pundit, sent the exact wording of a
coming CNN town hall question to the campaign in advance of the event.
Other
media allowed the Clinton camp to veto which quotes they used from interviews, worked
to maximize her press events and offered campaign advice.
Mrs. Clinton has been exposed to have no core,
to be someone who
constantly changes her position to maximize political gain. Leaked speeches prove
that she has two positions (public and private) on banks; two positions on the
wealthy; two positions on borders; two positions on energy. Her team had endless
discussions about what positions she should adopt to appease "the Red Army"-i.e. "the
base of the Democratic Party."
Finally, Strassle concludes by saying that "Voters might not know any of this,
because while both presidential candidates have plenty to answer for, the press
has focused solely on taking out Mr. Trump.
And the press is doing a diligent
job of it."
"Your word is your bond....and Barack Obama and I set out to
build lives guided by these values, and pass them on to the next
generations....Because we want our children, and all children in this
nation, to know that the only limit to the height of your"
FAILURES, is the level of your arrogance, evilness and
psychopathy.
HelluvaEngineer
TahoeBilly2012
Oct 14, 2016 9:30 AM
The WSJ can take the moral high ground, because all
they've done is slam Trump and fake their polls.
tmosley
HelluvaEngineer
Oct 14, 2016 9:34 AM
WSJ knows which way the wind is blowing. The rest of
the media save for those directly controlled will line
up soon after. The ones who are directly controlled
might stand with Hillary, until her other backers
abandon her.
It's over. Trump will take every state,
losing only DC. Book it.
NoDebt
tmosley
Oct 14, 2016 9:44
AM
I like your enthusiasm but it's not going to be that
easy. This is trench warfare and that never goes
quickly.
What Trump is fucking with is the entire
power structure of the Oligarchy. Hillary being
only one of it's manifestations. Quick and easy?
Unlikely. (Still worth doing? Absolutely!)
HopefulCynical
NoDebt
Oct 14, 2016
9:50 AM
It will take us decades to recover from the
Magical Marxist Mulatto.
Hanging him for
treason, after a proper trial, would be a start.
Shemp 4 Victory
HopefulCynical
Oct 14,
2016 10:13 AM
It will take us decades to recover from the US
policy of fucking the world since the end of
WW2. Obama is one of many parts in that
machine.
The machine is afraid of Trump.
This is why Western MSM tries to stretch an
owl on the globe over any minor incident in
the last 50 years which is even tangentially
related to Trump. In the meantime, Hillary has
a litany of crime and corruption which would
make Nixon blush, and it's treated like a
couple of unpaid parking tickets.
Occident Mortal
Shemp 4 Victory
Oct 14,
2016 10:53 AM
Don't you guys get it yet?
The Aramco IPO is going to be a $2 - 5
trillion transaction. If they pay 3% fees
that's could be $150 bn payday for the
banksters.
All of these pipeline wars, making
Russia a bogeyman to keep them out of EU,
making Elon Musk look credible, Saudi
2030...
It's all geared to the mother of all
IPO's.
tbone654
The Saint
Oct 14, 2016 12:17 PM
"The truth is that the newspaper is
not a place for information to be
given,
rather it is just hollow content, or
more than that, a provoker of
content.
If it prints lies about atrocities,
real atrocities are the result."
Karl Kraus, 1914
WAR IS PEACE. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
1984
We are the world, we are
exceptional, we cannot fail. The
elite will lie, and the people will
pretend to believe them. Heck about
20 percent of the American public
will believe almost anything if it is
wrapped with the right prejudice and
appeal to passion. Have a pleasant
evening.
jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com,
Feb 04, 2015
Journalists manipulate us in the
interest of the Powerful
Bay of Pigs
SPONGE
Oct 14,
2016 11:21 AM
His speech yesterday was unbelieveable. I
never thought Id hear someone running for
POTUS saying these kinds of things to a
cheering American crowd.
I think the
extent of the MSM
revulsion effect is
starting to hit
them - in terms of
readership,
advertising
dollars,
circulation, or
something.
After all, when
you are continually
'scooped' by even
the smallest, most
podunk blogs on the
internet, b/c you
insisted on
ignoring the last,
oh, 500 biggest
stories of the year
so that you can
pretend they are
not happening...
well... people are
going to find their
news from
SOMEWHERE, and it
isn't gonna be you.
I was wondering
when the MSM would
begin to grok this.
When you choose to
be a PR mouthpiece,
you also choose to
give up journalism
(and relevance).
Can't really serve
both masters. Which
can become a bit of
a problem when your
job is technically
'journalism'.
Especially when the
subjects you're
avoiding are as
news-generating as
the Clintons and
their Foundation.
Wikileaks 'scoops'
have gone from
weekly to every
single day, lately!
You might figure
out - eventually -
that it's very
difficult to 'shape
the narrative' when
you're gagged from
even mentioning the
REAL NEWS.
Either that, or
they're trying to
get out in front of
some inevitable
Clinton-related
REAL investigation
that they got wind
was about to go
down. But I think
it's more likely
the former.
knukles
VinceFostersGhost
Oct 14, 2016 11:50 AM
Finally, a refugee attempting to hedge their position in the event of a Trump win OR a Hillbillary Disaster.
It was inevitable that Some MSM Outlet would Defend their franchise.
If Hillary is elected, at least half of Americans are going to believe that the Election is Rigged by the State electing the next Head of State.
Note the operative phrase "The State electing the next Head of State"
From this it seems that dictatorships are established
And for a Great PS, I'd suggest reading the first 164 or so pages of
The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich
. Only the names and dates have been changed to shield the guilty.
The financial enablers of Adolph thought that they too could control him.
Once in power with the tool of the spear at one's disposal in an environment of no laws (essentially) the New leader doesn't need the financial types. The New Leader just takes what they want from the bankers and if they bitch, they can go to a reeducation facility
Dig?
AlaricBalth
FireBrander
Oct 14, 2016 9:22 AM
The media is easier to control ever since consolidation and
cross-ownership was allowed. That translates to fewer companies owning
more media outlets, increasing the concentration of ownership. In
1983, 90% of US media was controlled by fifty companies; today, 90% is
controlled by just six companies. All one needs is a few friends in
high places and the narrative is massaged to influence the uninformed
masses.
Comcast
Holdings include: NBCUniversal, NBC
and Telemundo, Universal Pictures, Focus Features, DreamWorks
Animation, 26 television stations in the United States and cable
networks USA Network, Bravo, CNBC, The Weather Channel, MSNBC, Syfy,
NBCSN, Golf Channel, Esquire Network, E!, Cloo, Chiller, Universal HD
and the Comcast SportsNet regional system. Comcast also owns the
Philadelphia Flyers through a separate subsidiary.
The Walt Disney Company
Holdings include: ABC
Television Network, cable networks ESPN, the Disney Channel, A&E and
Lifetime, approximately 30 radio stations, music, video game, and book
publishing companies, production companies Touchstone, Marvel
Entertainment, Lucasfilm, Walt Disney Pictures, Pixar Animation
Studios, the cellular service Disney Mobile, Disney Consumer Products
and Interactive Media, and theme parks in several countries. Also has
a longstanding partnership with Hearst Corporation, which owns
additional TV stations, newspapers, magazines, and stakes in several
Disney television ventures.
21st Century Fox
Holdings include: the Fox
Broadcasting Company; cable networks Fox News Channel, Fox Business
Network, Fox Sports 1, Fox Sports 2, National Geographic, Nat Geo
Wild, FX, FXX, FX Movie Channel, and the regional Fox Sports Networks
; film production companies 20th Century Fox, Fox Searchlight Pictures
and Blue Sky Studios.
Time Warner
Formerly the largest media
conglomerate in the world, with holdings including: CNN, the CW (a
joint venture with CBS), HBO, Cinemax, Cartoon Network/Adult Swim, HLN,
NBA TV, TBS, TNT, truTV, Turner Classic Movies, Warner Bros. Pictures,
Castle Rock, DC Comics, Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment, and
New Line Cinema.
CBS Corporation
Holdings include: CBS Television
Network and the CW (a joint venture with Time Warner), cable networks
CBS Sports Network, Showtime, Pop; 30 television stations; CBS Radio,
Inc., which has 130 stations; CBS Television Studios; book publisher
Simon & Schuster.
Viacom Holdings
include: MTV, Nickelodeon/Nick at
Nite, VH1, BET, Comedy Central, Paramount Pictures, and Paramount Home
Entertainment.
SharkBit
Oct 14, 2016 9:20 AM
To all Sanders supporters. Your hero sold out to the devil. Your party is
corrupt to the core. If you care about America, voting Trump is the only way out
of this Shit Show. Otherwise, we all die as that corrupt bitch of your party is
crazy enough to take the USA into WWIII. You may not like Trump but he is nothing
compared to the Clinton Crime Family and all its globalist tenacles.
The Hillary Clinton campaign says the hackers behind the leaked
email evidence of their collusion with the major media are from
Russia and linked to the Russian regime. If so, I want to publicly
thank those Russian hackers and their leader, Russian President
Vladimir Putin, for opening a window into the modern workings of
the United States government-corporate-media establishment.
We always knew that the major media were extensions of the
Democratic Party. But the email evidence of how figures like
Maggie
Haberman
of The New York Times,
Juliet
Eilperin
of The Washington Post, and
John
Harwood
of CNBC worked hand-in-glove with the Democrats is
important. The Daily Caller and Breitbart have led the way in
digging through the emails and exposing the nature of this
evidence. It is shocking even to those of us at Accuracy in Media
who always knew about, and had documented, such collusion through
analysis and observation.
The Clinton campaign and various intelligence officials insist
that the purpose of the Russian hacking is to weaken the confidence
of the American people in their system of government, and to
suggest that the American system is just as corrupt as the Russian
system is alleged to be. Perhaps our confidence in our system
should be shaken. The American people can see that our media are
not independent of the government or the political system and, in
fact, function as an arm of the political party in control of the
White House that wants to maintain that control after November 8.
In conjunction with other evidence, including the ability to
conduct vote fraud that benefits the Democrats, the results on
Election Day will be in question and will form the basis for Donald
J. Trump to continue to claim that the system is "rigged" against
outsiders like him.
The idea of an American system of free and fair elections that
includes an honest press has been terribly undermined by the
evidence that has come to light. We are not yet to the point of the
Russian system, where opposition outlets are run out of business
and dissidents killed in the streets. That means that the Russians
have not completely succeeded in destroying confidence in our
system. But we do know that federal agencies like the Federal
Election Commission (FEC) and Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) are poised to strike blows against free and independent
media. Earlier this year the three Democrats on the FEC
voted
to punish
filmmaker Joel Gilbert for distributing a film
critical of President Barack Obama during the 2012 campaign.
The New York Times is
reporting
that
Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta has been contacted by the
FBI about the alleged Russian hackers behind the leaks of his
emails. This is what Podesta and many in the media want to talk
about.
But the Russians, if they are responsible, have performed a
public service. And until there is a thorough house-cleaning of
those in the major media who have made a mockery of professional
journalism, the American people will continue to lack confidence in
their system. The media have been caught in the act of sabotaging
the public's right to know by taking sides in the presidential
contest. They have become a propaganda arm of the Democratic Party,
coordinating with the Hillary Clinton for president campaign, which
apparently was being run out of Georgetown University, where John
Podesta was based. Many emails carry the web address of
[email protected], a reference to the Georgetown
University position held by the chairman of the 2016 Hillary
Clinton presidential campaign. Podesta is a Visiting Professor at
Georgetown University Law Center. His other affiliations include
the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress and the United
Nations High Level Panel on the Post-2015 Development Agenda.
Podesta and the other members of this U.N. panel had proposed "
A
New Global Partnership for the World
," which advocated for a
"profound economic transformation" of the world's economic order
that would result in a new globalist system. Shouldn't the American
people be informed about what Podesta and his Democratic allies
have planned for the United States should they win on November 8?
That Podesta would serve the purposes of the U.N. is not a
surprise. But it is somewhat surprising that he would use his base
at Georgetown University to run the Hillary campaign. On the other
hand, Georgetown, the nation's oldest Catholic and Jesuit
university,
describes
itself
as preparing "the next generation of global citizens to lead and
make a difference in the world."
When a Catholic university serves as the base for the election
of a Democratic Party politician committed to taxpayer-funded
abortion on demand and transgender rights, you know America's
political system and academia are rotten to the core. The
disclosure from WikiLeaks that Podesta used his Georgetown email to
engage in party politics only confirms what we already knew.
If the Russians are ultimately responsible for the release of
these emails, some of which
show
an anti-Catholic animus
on the part of Clinton campaign
officials, we are grateful to them. The answer has to be to clean
out the American political system of those who corrupt it and
demonstrate to the world that we can achieve higher standards of
integrity and transparency.
For its part, Georgetown University should be stripped of its
Catholic affiliation and designated as an official arm of the
Democratic Party.
Paul Kersey
balolalo
Oct 14, 2016 12:02 PM
The well deserved hatred for Hillary and the globalists is so
great, that at least 40% of the males in this country would back
anyone who went up against the Clintons. That's just not the
same thing as "BUYING TRUMPS BULLSHIT HOOK, LINE, AND SINKER".
Trump is exposing the corruption and the hypocrisy of the
Clintons in a way that no one has ever had the guts to do in the
past. He's doing it on national TV with a large national
audience. With Trump we may get anarchy, but with the Clintons,
Deep State is guaranteed. It is Deep State that is working
overtime to finish building the expressway to neofeudalism.
"... Meanwhile, between journalism's insiders and outsiders-between the ones who are rising and the ones who are sinking-there is no solidarity at all. Here in the capital city, every pundit and every would-be pundit identifies upward, always upward. ..."
"... We cling to our credentials and our professional-class fantasies, hobnobbing with senators and governors, trading witticisms with friendly Cabinet officials, helping ourselves to the champagne and lobster ..."
"... "The real "deplorables" generally aren't the people whom Hillary denounced as wholly "irredeemable," or at whom economically secure commentators fulminate on a regular basis. More obviously "deplorable" are Hillary's fellow financial, political, economic, and military elites who wrecked the economy, got us mired in endless unwinnable foreign wars, and erected a virtually impenetrable cultural barrier between everyday Americans trying to live fruitful lives and their pretentious, well-heeled superiors ensconced in select coastal enclaves. It is thanks to the actions of this "basket of deplorables" that we're in the situation we're in" ..."
I skimmed the Harpers article by Thomas Frank on the media's extermination of Bernie Sanders.
It's a good article about an unpleasant topic. One point that is not clear from the blurb is that
Frank isn't writing about the media's treatment of Sanders, but rather about the Washington Post's
treatment of Sanders. Occasionally other media outlets are mentioned (I saw a reference to the
Associated Press), but it's almost all about the Bezos Washington Post's unfairness
to Sanders. A lot of other newspapers mistreated him as well.
The article is excellent, but if anyone doesn't have the time to read it, I'd suggest going
straight to the last page, its a brilliant demolition of modern punditry journalism. The last
two paragraphs in particular:
Meanwhile, between journalism's insiders and outsiders-between the ones who are rising
and the ones who are sinking-there is no solidarity at all. Here in the capital city, every
pundit and every would-be pundit identifies upward, always upward.
We cling to our credentials and our professional-class fantasies, hobnobbing with senators
and governors, trading witticisms with friendly Cabinet officials, helping ourselves to the
champagne and lobster. Everyone wants to know our opinion, we like to believe, or to celebrate
our birthday, or to find out where we went for cocktails after work last night.
Until the day, that is, when you wake up and learn that the tycoon behind your media concern
has changed his mind and everyone is laid off and that it was never really about you in the
first place. Gone, the private office or award-winning column or cable-news show. The checks
start bouncing. The booker at MSNBC stops calling. And suddenly you find that you are a middle-aged
maker of paragraphs-of useless things-dumped out into a billionaire's world that has no need
for you, and doesn't really give a damn about your degree in comparative literature from Brown.
You start to think a little differently about universal health care and tuition-free college
and Wall Street bailouts. But of course it is too late now. Too late for all of us.
Yes, thanks for the link to Thomas Frank's essay in Harpers about the efforts of corporate
media, particularly the Washington Post and New York Times, to kill Senator Bernie Sanders' campaign
for the presidency.
Yesterday NC linked to an article from the American Conservative by Michael Tracey titled
"The Real Deplorables". In his article Tracey observed: …
"The real "deplorables" generally aren't the people whom Hillary denounced as wholly
"irredeemable," or at whom economically secure commentators fulminate on a regular basis. More
obviously "deplorable" are Hillary's fellow financial, political, economic, and military elites
who wrecked the economy, got us mired in endless unwinnable foreign wars, and erected a virtually
impenetrable cultural barrier between everyday Americans trying to live fruitful lives and
their pretentious, well-heeled superiors ensconced in select coastal enclaves. It is thanks
to the actions of this "basket of deplorables" that we're in the situation we're in"…
Clearly Michael Tracey overlooked a group. But what is particularly troubling me was Thomas
Frank's observation: …"for the sort of people who write and edit the opinion pages of the Post,
there was something deeply threatening about Sanders and his political views. He seems to have
represented something horrifying, something that could not be spoken of directly but that clearly
needed to be suppressed."
"... the "Ephemeral Zone" concentrated on the coasts, runs largely on digits and images, the movement of software, media and financial transactions. It produces increasingly little in the way of food, fiber, energy and fewer and fewer manufactured goods. The Ephemeral sectors dominate ultra-blue states such as New York, California, Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Connecticut. ..."
"... Extending from the Appalachians to the Rockies, this heartland economy relies on tangible goods production. It now encompasses both the traditional Midwest manufacturing regions, and the new industrial areas of Texas, the Southeast and the Intermountain West. ..."
"... In generally purple states like Missouri, Ohio and Iowa, where manufacturing is key, Trump still leads ..."
"... Joel Kotkin is a presidential fellow at Chapman University and the executive director of the Center for Opportunity Urbanism. His latest book is "The Human City: Urbanism for the Rest of Us." ..."
The current elections reflects an increasingly stark conflict between two very different American
economies: the "Ephemeral Zone" in coastal states vs New Heartland which still produces tabgible
goods
"In this disgusting election, dominated by the personal and the petty, the importance of the
nation's economic geography has been widely ignored. Yet if you look at the Electoral College
map, the correlation between politics and economics is quite stark, with one economy tilting decisively
toward Trump and more generally to Republicans, the other toward Hillary Clinton and her Democratic
allies"
This reflects an increasingly stark conflict between two very different American economies.
One, the "Ephemeral Zone" concentrated on the coasts, runs largely on digits and images, the
movement of software, media and financial transactions. It produces increasingly little in the
way of food, fiber, energy and fewer and fewer manufactured goods. The Ephemeral sectors dominate
ultra-blue states such as New York, California, Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, Maryland, and
Connecticut.
The other America constitutes, as economic historian Michael Lind notes in a forthcoming paper
for the Center for Opportunity Urbanism, the "New Heartland." Extending from the Appalachians
to the Rockies, this heartland economy relies on tangible goods production. It now encompasses
both the traditional Midwest manufacturing regions, and the new industrial areas of Texas, the
Southeast and the Intermountain West.
Contrary to the notions of the Ephemerals, the New Heartland is not populated by Neanderthals.
This region employs much of the nation's engineering talent, but does so in conjunction with the
creation of real goods rather than clicks. Its industries have achieved generally more rapid productivity
gains than their rivals in the services sector. To some extent, energy and food producers may
have outdone themselves and, since they operate in a globally competitive market, their prices
and profits are suffering.
Despite deep misgivings about the character of Donald Trump, these economic interests have
led most Heartland voters somewhat toward the New York poseur, and they are aligning themselves
even more to down-ticket GOP candidates. In generally purple states like Missouri, Ohio and
Iowa, where manufacturing is key, Trump still leads -at least he was before the latest spate
of Trump crudeness was revealed, this time regarding women.
... ... ....
The biggest national crisis in our history underscored this clash of competing economic interests.
Although the galvanizing issue on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line was slavery, the Civil War
was also a war, as Karl Marx suggested, of competing economic visions: the agrarian, slave-fueled
economy of the South vs. the rapidly industrializing Northeast and Midwest.
... ... ....
In the past, Democrats competed in the Heartland and backed its key industries. Lyndon Johnson
was a proud promoter of oil interests;
Robert Byrd
never saw a coal mine he didn't like for all but the end of his career. Powerful industrial
unions tied the Democrats to the production economy. Now those
voters feel abandoned by their own party, and even are dismissed as "
deplorables "
Increasingly few Heartland Democrats, outside of some Great Lakes states, win local elections.
In the vast territory between Northeast and the West Coast,
Democrats control just one state legislature, the financial basket case known as Illinois.
For their part, Republicans are becoming extinct in the Ephemeral states, a process hastened
by the growing concentration of
media on the true-blue coasts.
Wall Street , Silicon Valley and Hollywood have been drifting leftward for a generation, and
Trump has accelerated this movement. Joined by the largely minority urban working and dependent
classes, progressives now have a lock on the Northeast and the West Coast.
... ... ...
In the process, the GOP, to the horror of many of its grandees and most entrenched interests,
is becoming transformed. It is becoming something of a de facto populist party, based
in the New Heartland, while the Democrats remain the voice of the
coastal oligarchies who almost without exception back Hillary.
... ... ...
But don't count the New Heartland, or the GOP, out. Once Trump is gone, there will be enough political
will and money to mount a counter-offensive against the Ephemerals. The new War Between the States
will not end in November. It will have hardly just begun. Joel Kotkin is a presidential fellow
at Chapman University and the executive director of the Center for Opportunity Urbanism. His latest
book is "The Human City: Urbanism for the Rest of Us."
Donald Trump is accusing the Clintons of cashing in on Haiti's deadly 2010 earthquake.
The Republican nominee cited State Department emails obtained by the Republican National
Committee through a public records request and detailed in an ABC News story.
At issue is whether friends of former President Bill Clinton, referred to as "friends of Bill,"
or "FOB," in the emails, received preferential treatment or contracts from the State Department
in the immediate aftermath of the 7.0-magnitude earthquake on Jan. 12, 2010. More than 230,000
people died, the U.S. has said.
kaxitaksi
2
months ago (edited)
Only way to put this right and if DNC and Shillary
really wants the best for the people is to step down
and hand over the nomination to Bernie or Stein. I
don't want to listen to that lying bitch voice for
four years.
Lu A
5
days ago
If this is really Anonymous...I really hate to say
this but...these guys are the right guys for the job
to expose Hillary Clinton. If they wanna stop her
they gotta expose her at a huge hackable event.
Scott Lesley
17
hours ago
there is no humanity in that woman
Unity Anonymous
6
hours ago
remember the civilians, kids, ppl who they kill
Just as cops take more money from people with civil forfeiture than burglars
do, they arrest more people for cannabis than for all violent crimes combined:
Law enforcement agencies made 574,641 arrests last year for small quantities of the drug intended
for personal use, according to the report, which was released Wednesday by the American Civil
Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch. The marijuana arrests were about 13.6 percent more than
the 505,681 arrests made for all violent crimes, including murder, rape and serious assaults.
To state it differently, more people are arrested for victimless crimes (where the only complainant
is a law enforcement officer) than for crimes in which someone actually suffered harm.
'Perhaps we should put some of those responsible for that mass black on
black violent crime in prison rather than drug offenders. Why doesn't Obama
direct his DOJ to do just that?'
Or maybe the US should finally face up to the fact it has never done more than the least
it could possibly get away with when it comes to dealing with deeply entrenched systemic racism/poverty.
That's pretty damning on its face. The drug war is the primary function of
the police in the USA. Violent stuff is secondary.
"Tess Borden, a fellow at Human Rights Watch and the A.C.L.U., who wrote the report, found
that despite the steep decline in crime rates over the last two decades - including a 36 percent
drop in violent crime arrests from 1995 to 2015 - the number of arrests for all drug possessions,
including marijuana, increased 13 percent.
The emphasis on making marijuana arrests is worrisome, Ms. Borden said."
"... Recast and repeated enough times, and they become facts. ..."
"... Trump has lost it. ..."
"... Voters are deserting him ..."
"... "Hillary will win ..."
"... The news organizations have (or used to have) a duty not to report lies. And remember, all it takes is one phone call from the DNC. So, if they are reporting it, the emails are legitimate. Wiki can leak, but they can ignore. ..."
"... If the MSM wanted to find out whether the emails were genuine or doctored or forgeries, all they have to do is ask Podesta for the authentic emails. The MSM hasn't done so, because the results would spoil their narrative. ..."
The news organizations have (or used to have) a duty not to report lies. And remember,
all it takes is one phone call from the DNC. So, if they are reporting it, the emails are legitimate.
Wiki can leak, but they can ignore.
If the MSM wanted to find out whether the emails were genuine or doctored or forgeries,
all they have to do is ask Podesta for the authentic emails. The MSM hasn't done so, because the
results would spoil their narrative.
"... Unfortunately, Ip's position is reflective of the cognitive capture of an entire class of professionals. This is not rocket science and, as we have repeatedly seen, senior bank managers are far from rocket scientists. These financial intermediaries should be broken up and the FDIC-insured portions formally converted to public utilities. The Glass-Steagall Act should be reinstated and the primary role of banks in the nation's payments system and depository institutions restored. ..."
Now in fairness to Ip, he's relying on a study by Natasha Sarin and Larry Summers that relies on
the market value of banks as the basis for his conclusion.
The key paragraph :
They discovered that markets think banks are much more likely now to lose half their market
value than before the crisis. They interpret this as a "decline in the franchise value of major
financial institutions, caused at least in part by new regulations." The counterintuitive implication:
The bevy of rules designed to make banking safer may, by endangering their long-term viability,
ultimately achieve the opposite.
This is a perverse interpretation. Since when should the status of banks, right before they would
have destroyed the global economy absent extreme interventions by central banks and governments around
the world, be considered a sound benchmark?
Moreover, Sarin and Summers, thanks to the strong bias in executive compensation for share price
growth, have fallen for the canard that it is desirable or necessary for the health of a business.
Normally, the logic of issuing common stock is to fund expansion (remember, I helped companies do
this in a former life at Goldman). And common stock is not the preferred way to fund growth. Retained
earning is first, and borrowing is second. So if the banking industry for broader societal reasons,
needs to shrink or at least not grow, there's no reason to be particularly worried about lackluster
stock prices.
... ... ...
Banks enjoy such extensive subsidies that they should not be regarded as private institutions
. Even though most banks are public, as we wrote in 2013, they are in fact not profitable
in the absence of government subsidies. That means they should not be regarded as private institutions.
Any returns to shareholders are in fact a stealth transfer from taxpayers. That means they should
be regulated as utilities.
As we wrote :
The point is that the banking industry has been profitable (at times, seemingly very profitable)
only at the result of long standing government intervention to assure its profitability. It is
no exaggeration to say that the banking industry enjoys so much public support that it can in
no way be considered to be a private enterprise. But we've put in place the worst of all possible
worlds: we've allowed an industry that couldn't figure out how to operate profitably on its own
to extract undeservedly large subsidies, with the result that financial services industry has
become extractive. Its pay is wildly out of line with the social benefits it provides (indeed,
many of its most predatory activities are also its best remunerated) and it has also grown disproportionately
large, sucking resources away from better uses (we'd clearly be better off if math and physics
grads were tackling real world problems rather than devising better HFT algorithms. And when you
have bank branches displacing liquor stores, you know something is out of whack).
The cost of periodic financial crises is so great that the banking industry is value-destoying
to society . Again, that means that measures that reduce the odds of a crisis are entirely
justified. From a 2010 paper by the Bank of England's Andrew Haldane calculated the cost of financial
train wrecks:
….these losses are multiples of the static costs, lying anywhere between one and five times
annual GDP. Put in money terms, that is an output loss equivalent to between $60 trillion and
$200 trillion for the world economy and between £1.8 trillion and £7.4 trillion for the UK. As
Nobel-prize winning physicist Richard Feynman observed, to call these numbers "astronomical" would
be to do astronomy a disservice: there are only hundreds of billions of stars in the galaxy. "Economical"
might be a better description.
It is clear that banks would not have deep enough pockets to foot this bill. Assuming that
a crisis occurs every 20 years, the systemic levy needed to recoup these crisis costs would be
in excess of $1.5 trillion per year. The total market capitalisation of the largest global banks
is currently only around $1.2 trillion. Fully internalising the output costs of financial crises
would risk putting banks on the same trajectory as the dinosaurs, with the levy playing the role
of the meteorite.
Yves here. Haldane's working estimate of costs of one times global GDP was criticized as high
at the time; it now looks spot on.
So a banking industry that creates global crises is negative value added from a societal standpoint.
It is purely extractive . Even though we have described its activities
as looting (as in paying themselves so much that they bankrupt the business), the wider consequences
are vastly worse than in textbook looting.
Ip's defense of the role of banks is inaccurate . From Ip:
When central banks ease the supply of credit, they rely on banks to transmit the benefits to
the broader economy by making loans, handling trades and moving money between people, companies
and countries. Shrinking, unprofitable banks hobble that transmission channel.
This is the debunked "loanable funds" theory: that when money is on sale, businesses will go out
and invest more. That theory was partially debunked by Keynes and dispatched by Kaldor, but zombie-like,
still haunts the halls of central banks.
Businessmen see the cost of money as a possible constraint on growth, not a spur to it. They decide
to invest in expansion if they see an opportunity in their market. The big exception? Businesses
where the cost of funding is one of the biggest costs. What businesses are like that? Financial speculation.
And we've seen the failure of this tidy tale in the wake of the crisis. Providing super cheap
money has not induced businessmen to run out and ramp up their operations. Instead, one of the biggest
outcomes has been corporate financial speculation: issuing debt to buy back their own shares.
That isn't to say that banks aren't important. Payment systems are extremely important. But depicting
banks as needing to have robust profits to play their role is not well founded. Japanese banks had
razor thin profits in the years when Japan was going from strength to strength. And, what led them
to ruin was rapid deregulation forced on them by the US in the 1980s (remember that Japan is a military
protectorate of the US), not their profit levels.
Ip underplays the role of ZIRP, QE, and negative interest rates in the fall in bank profits
. The measures that helped goose asset prices and forestalled a day of reckoning are now
haunting banks and central bankers. In fact, the fact that QE and ZIRP have killed low-risk sources
of profits like income from float and easy yield-curve profits likely has much more to do with the
stock market's dour take on banks than regulations. Mr. Market is well aware of the fact that central
banks don't seem to have the foggiest idea how to get themselves out of the super low interest rate
corner they've painted themselves into.
Ip hates market discipline . One of the biggest problems with public companies
is that shareholders seldom act as activists and force managements to address problems they see.
It's easier to sell your holdings and move on.
Yet here, we see the uncharacteristic outcome that investors really are worried that banks will
do Bad Things and are avoiding banks that might do that, which in turn is leading banks to get out
of dodgy businesses.
Per Ip :
Indeed, investors must now discount the possibility that any bank could be one scandal away
from indictment and a crippling, multibillion-dollar fine. Banks have responded by exiting or
downsizing businesses that carry the most reputational risk, such as international money transfers
and issuing mortgages to less creditworthy borrowers.
What Ip fails to mention is that investors also love institutions that can tell a tale, whether
it is real or not, that they've are a better, smarter actor in a sector that others have pulled out
of. In other words, the process at work looks like perfectly normal creative destruction. But the
message is that banks are so special that they deserve a free pass.
The worst of this is that Ip, being full time on the banking beat, no doubt has seen the same
studies I have, and more, that stress how hypertrophied banking systems are an economic negative.
To see someone who should know better instead reveal that he is cognitively captured is, sadly, far
from surprising.
Unfortunately, Ip's position is reflective of the cognitive capture of an entire class of professionals.
This is not rocket science and, as we have repeatedly seen, senior bank managers are far from
rocket scientists. These financial intermediaries should be broken up and the FDIC-insured portions
formally converted to public utilities. The Glass-Steagall Act should be reinstated and the primary
role of banks in the nation's payments system and depository institutions restored.
Speculation in derivatives and markets by or booked in FDIC-insured banks should be disallowed,
legislation passed to stop the recidivist looting and control frauds, and criminal prosecution
of criminal behavior required. If individuals at these institutions want to continue to speculate,
they can do so with their own money and that of their bondholders and shareholders; rather than
that of government (taxpayers), the central bank, and bank depositors.
"... I have never before seen the press take sides like they did this year, openly and even gleefully bad-mouthing candidates who did not meet with their approval. ..."
"... This shocked me when I first noticed it. It felt like the news stories went out of their way to mock Sanders or to twist his words, while the op-ed pages, which of course don't pretend to be balanced, seemed to be of one voice in denouncing my candidate. ..."
"... I propose that we look into this matter methodically, and that we do so by examining Sanders-related opinion columns in a single publication: the Washington Post, ..."
"... its practitioners have never aimed to be nonpartisan. They do not, therefore, show media bias in the traditional sense. But maybe the traditional definition needs to be updated. We live in an era of reflexive opinionating and quasi opinionating, and we derive much of our information about the world from websites that have themselves blurred the distinction between reporting and commentary, or obliterated it completely. ..."
Neoliberal press serves its neoliberal paymasters. As simple of that. There is no even hint of
Us press being press. In certain aspects US jounalists are more "solgers of the Party" then their
colleagues in the Brezhnev time Pravda and Izvesia.
For once, a politician like Sanders seemed to have a chance with the public. He won a
stunning victory over Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primary, and despite his
advanced age and avuncular finger-wagging, he was wildly popular among young voters.
Eventually he was flattened by the Clinton juggernaut, of course, but Sanders managed
to stay competitive almost all the way to the California primary in June.
His
chances with the prestige press were considerably more limited. Before we go into
details here, let me confess: I was a Sanders voter, and even interviewed him back in
2014, so perhaps I am naturally inclined to find fault in others' reporting on his
candidacy. Perhaps it was the very particular media diet I was on in early 2016,
which consisted of daily megadoses of the New York Times and the Washington Post and
almost nothing else. Even so,
I have never before seen the press take sides like
they did this year, openly and even gleefully bad-mouthing candidates who did not
meet with their approval.
This shocked me when I first noticed it. It felt like the news stories went
out of their way to mock Sanders or to twist his words, while the op-ed pages, which
of course don't pretend to be balanced, seemed to be of one voice in denouncing my
candidate.
A
New York Times
article greeted the Sanders campaign in
December by announcing that the public had moved away from his signature issue of the
crumbling middle class. "Americans are more anxious about terrorism than income
inequality," the paper declared-nice try, liberal, and thanks for playing. In March,
the
Times
was caught making a number of post-publication tweaks to a news
story about the senator, changing what had been a sunny tale of his legislative
victories into a darker account of his outrageous proposals. When Sanders was finally
defeated in June, the same paper waved him goodbye with a bedtime-for-Grandpa
headline,
hillary
clinton made history, but bernie sanders stubbornly ignored it.
I propose that we look into this matter methodically, and that we do so by
examining Sanders-related opinion columns in a single publication: the
Washington
Post,
the conscience of the nation's political class and one of America's few
remaining first-rate news organizations.
I admire the
Post
's
investigative and beat reporting. What I will focus on here, however, are pieces
published between January and May 2016 on the paper's editorial and op-ed pages, as
well as on its many blogs. Now, editorials and blog posts are obviously not the same
thing as news stories: punditry is my subject here, and
its practitioners have
never aimed to be nonpartisan. They do not, therefore, show media bias in the
traditional sense. But maybe the traditional definition needs to be updated. We live
in an era of reflexive opinionating and quasi opinionating, and we derive much of our
information about the world from websites that have themselves blurred the
distinction between reporting and commentary, or obliterated it completely.
For
many of us, this ungainly hybrid
is
the news. What matters, in any case, is
that all the pieces I review here, whether they appeared in pixels or in print, bear
the imprimatur of the
Washington Post,
the publication that defines the
limits of the permissible in the capital city.
... ... ...
On January 27, with the Iowa caucuses just days away, Dana Milbank nailed it with a
headline:
nominating sanders would be insane
. After promising that he adored the Vermont
senator, he cautioned his readers that "socialists don't win national elections in
the United States." The next day, the paper's editorial board chimed in with
a campaign full of
fiction
, in which they branded Sanders as a kind of flimflam artist: "Mr.
Sanders is not a brave truth-teller. He is a politician selling his own brand of
fiction to a slice of the country that eagerly wants to buy it."
Stung by the
Post
's trolling, Bernie Sanders fired back-which in turn allowed no fewer than
three of the paper's writers to report on the conflict between the candidate and
their employer as a bona fide news item. Sensing weakness, the editorial board came
back the next morning with yet another kidney punch, this one headlined
the real problem
with mr. sanders
. By now, you can guess what that problem was: his ideas
weren't practical, and besides, he still had "no plausible plan for plugging looming
deficits as the population ages."
... ... ...
After the previous week's lesson about Glass
–
Steagall, the editorial board
now instructed politicians to
stop reviling tarp
-i.e.,
the Wall Street bailouts with which the Bush and Obama Administrations tried to halt
the financial crisis. The bailouts had been controversial, the paper acknowledged,
but they were also bipartisan, and opposing or questioning them in the Sanders manner
was hereby declared anathema. After all, the editorial board intoned:
Contrary to much rhetoric, Wall Street banks and bankers still took losses and
suffered upheaval, despite the bailout-but TARP helped limit the collateral damage
that Main Street suffered from all of that. If not for the ingenuity of the
executive branch officials who designed and carried out the program, and the
responsibility of the legislators who approved it, the United States would be in
much worse shape economically.
As a brief history of the financial crisis and the bailout, this is absurd. It is
true that bailing out Wall Street was probably better than doing absolutely nothing,
but saying this ignores the many other options that were available to public
officials had they shown any real ingenuity in holding institutions accountable. All
the Wall Street banks that existed at the time of TARP are flourishing to this day,
since the government moved heaven and earth to spare them the consequences of the
toxic securities they had issued and the lousy mortgage bets they made. The big banks
were "made whole," as the saying goes. Main Street banks, meanwhile, died off by the
hundreds in 2009 and 2010. And average home owners, of course, got no comparable
bailout. Instead, Main Street America saw trillions in household wealth disappear; it
entered into a prolonged recession, with towering unemployment, increasing
inequality, and other effects that linger to this day. There has never been a TARP
for the rest of us.
... ... ...
Charles Krauthammer went into action on January 29, too, cautioning the Democrats that they
"would be risking a November electoral disaster of historic dimensions" should they nominate
Sanders-cynical advice that seems even more poisonous today, as scandal after scandal engulfs the
Democratic candidate that so many Post pundits favored.
... ... ...
The Iowa caucuses came the next day, and Stephen Stromberg was at the keyboard to identify the
"three delusions" that supposedly animated the campaigns of Sanders and the Republican Ted Cruz
alike. Namely: they had abandoned the "center," they believed that things were bad in the United
States, and they perceived an epidemic of corruption-in Sanders's case, corruption via
billionaires and campaign contributions. Delusions all.
... ... ...
On and on it went, for month after month, a steady drumbeat of denunciation. The paper hit
every possible anti-Sanders note, from the driest kind of math-based policy reproach to the
lowest sort of nerd-shaming-from his inexcusable failure to embrace taxes on soda pop to his
awkward gesticulating during a debate with Hillary Clinton ("an unrelenting hand jive," wrote
Post dance critic Sarah L. Kaufman, "that was missing only an upright bass and a plunky piano").
The paper's piling-up of the senator's faults grew increasingly long and complicated. Soon after
Sanders won the New Hampshire primary, the editorial board denounced him and Trump both as
"unacceptable leaders" who proposed "simple-sounding" solutions. Sanders used the plutocracy as a
"convenient scapegoat." He was hostile to nuclear power. He didn't have a specific recipe for
breaking up the big banks. He attacked trade deals with "bogus numbers that defy the overwhelming
consensus among economists." This last charge was a particular favorite of Post pundits: David
Ignatius and Charles Lane both scolded the candidate for putting prosperity at risk by
threatening our trade deals. Meanwhile, Charles Krauthammer grew so despondent over the meager
2016 options that he actually pined for the lost days of the Bill Clinton presidency, when
America was tough on crime, when welfare was being reformed, and when free trade was accorded its
proper respect.
... ... ...
The danger of Trump became an overwhelming fear as primary season drew to a close, and it
redoubled the resentment toward Sanders. By complaining about mistreatment from the Democratic
apparatus, the senator was supposedly weakening the party before its coming showdown with the
billionaire blowhard. This matter, like so many others, found columnists and bloggers and op-ed
panjandrums in solemn agreement. Even Eugene Robinson, who had stayed fairly neutral through most
of the primary season, piled on in a May 20 piece, blaming Sanders and his noisy horde for
"deliberately stoking anger and a sense of grievance-less against Clinton than the party itself,"
actions that "could put Trump in the White House." By then, the paper had buttressed its usual
cast of pundits with heavy hitters from outside its own peculiar ecosystem. In something of a
journalistic coup, the Post opened its blog pages in April to Jeffrey R. Immelt, the CEO of
General Electric, so that he, too, could join in the chorus of denunciation aimed at the senator
from Vermont. Comfort the comfortable, I suppose-and while you're at it, be sure to afflict the
afflicted.
... ... ...
It should be noted that there were some important exceptions to what I have
described. The paper's blogs, for instance, published regular pieces by Sanders
sympathizers like Katrina vanden Heuvel and the cartoonist Tom Toles. (The blogs also
featured the efforts of a few really persistent Clinton haters.) The Sunday Outlook
section once featured a pro-Sanders essay by none other than Ralph Nader, a kind of
demon figure and clay pigeon for many of the paper's commentators. But readers of the
editorial pages had to wait until May 26 to see a really full-throated essay
supporting Sanders's legislative proposals. Penned by Jeffrey Sachs, the eminent
economist and professor at Columbia University, it insisted that virtually all the
previous debate on the subject had been irrelevant, because standard economic models
did not take into account the sort of large-scale reforms that Sanders was
advocating:
It's been decades since the United States had a progressive economic strategy,
and mainstream economists have forgotten what one can deliver. In fact, Sanders's
recipes are supported by overwhelming evidence-notably from countries that already
follow the policies he advocates. On health care, growth and income inequality,
Sanders wins the policy debate hands down.
It was a striking departure from what nearly every opinionator had been saying for
the preceding six months. Too bad it came just eleven days before the
Post,
following the lead of the Associated Press, declared Hillary Clinton to be the
preemptive winner of the Democratic nomination.
What can we learn from reviewing one newspaper's lopsided editorial treatment of a left-wing
presidential candidate?
For one thing, we learn that the Washington Post, that gallant defender of a free press, that
bold bringer-down of presidents, has a real problem with some types of political advocacy.
Certain ideas, when voiced by certain people, are not merely debatable or incorrect or misguided,
in the paper's view: they are inadmissible. The ideas themselves might seem healthy, they might
have a long and distinguished history, they might be commonplace in other lands. Nevertheless,
when voiced by the people in question, they become damaging.
... ... ...
Clinging to this so-called pragmatism is also professionally self-serving. If "realism" is
recognized as the ultimate trump card in American politics, it automatically prioritizes the
thoughts and observations of the realism experts-also known as the Washington Post and its
brother institutions of insider knowledge and professional policy practicality. Realism is what
these organizations deal in; if you want it, you must come to them. Legitimacy is quite literally
their property. They dole it out as they see fit.
There is the admiration for consensus, the worship of pragmatism and bipartisanship, the
contempt for populist outcry, the repeated equating of dissent with partisan disloyalty. And
think of the specific policy pratfalls: the cheers for TARP, the jeers aimed at bank regulation,
the dismissal of single-payer health care as a preposterous dream.
This stuff is not mysterious. We can easily identify the political orientation behind it from one
of the very first pages of the Roger Tory Peterson Field Guide to the Ideologies. This is common
Seaboard Centrism, its markings of complacency and smugness as distinctive as ever, its habitat
the familiar Beltway precincts of comfort and exclusivity. Whether you encounter it during a
recession or a bull market, its call is the same: it reassures us that the experts who head up
our system of government have everything well under control.
It is, of course, an ideology of the professional class, of sound-minded East Coast strivers,
fresh out of Princeton or Harvard, eagerly quoting as "authorities" their peers in the other
professions, whether economists at MIT or analysts at Credit Suisse or political scientists at
Brookings. Above all, this is an insider's ideology; a way of thinking that comes from a place of
economic security and takes a view of the common people that is distinctly patrician.
Clinton were to
take some damage from newly released emails. If news shifted back to a
prolonged focus on Clinton's emails
and
she had another health issue
and
polls underestimated Trump's support, then he might win the
election. In that way, he has to run an "and" campaign."
UPDATE "Trump's path to the presidency now hinges on these four states" [
McClatchy
].
"Trump is essentially focused on four states: North Carolina, Florida, Ohio
and Pennsylvania. Based of RealClearPolitics' electoral map, that means
Trump will almost certainly need to win all four in order to reach 270
electoral votes. According to the latest polls, he trails Clinton in all
four of those states, though often within the margin of error."
UPDATE "Over 500,000 Votes Have Already Been Cast in 2016 Presidential
Election" [
NBC
].
"In the seven battleground states below [four of which are listed
above]–where campaigns are especially focused on mobilizing voters– 330,980
early votes have now been cast." Hmm. The Democrats were encouraging early
voting, IIRC.
Wisconsin: "Trump needs more Republican voters, particularly in Waukesha
County, a heavily Republican suburb just west of Milwaukee. Waukesha
delivered 161,567 votes to Mitt Romney in 2012, a 35-point margin of victory
over Obama. Trump isn't anywhere near that right now" [
RealClearPolitics
].
Recall we awarded WI to Trump in last week's path to victory exercise, based
on institutional factors. Meanwhile: "'Clinton is getting about 55 percent
in Dane County,' said [Charles Franklin, professor of law and public policy
and director of the Marquette Law School Poll], 'and she should be getting
65 to 70 percent. So that's the effect of young people who are not attracted
to her, or who are pining away for Sanders or gravitating to [Gary] Johnson
and, to a lesser extent, [Jill] Stein."
Ohio: "How Republican Rob Portman May Derail the Trump Train in Ohio" [
Bloomberg
].
"Portman had long ago quietly placed a bet against his party's presidential
prospects. Over the past year and a half, he has assiduously assembled an
organization that would keep him from being reliant on the Ohio Republican
Party, the Republican National Committee, or its presidential nominee to
identify and mobilize his supporters. As a result he finds himself today
with a broader coalition, often motivated by local issues, and much less
dependent on Trump's supporters-and on the RNC's largesse-than other
Republican senators on the ballot this season. Portman had quietly grown so
self-sufficient that, in an inversion of the natural order, by the time he
rescinded his support, he already controlled Trump's fate." Sounds to me
like the left could learn from this.
"Technocratic for the people: What Hillary Clinton gets wrong about
Bernie Sanders' political revolution" [Conor Lynch,
Salon
]. "But what exactly has modern technocratic liberalism achieved?
Some of the Democratic [sic] Party's most important achievements - most
notably the Affordable Care Act - are also some of the most jumbled,
bureaucratic and corporate-friendly pieces of legislation in modern history…
A fine example of the technocratic liberal is MIT professor and Obamacare
architect Jonathan Gruber, who said in 2014 that 'Lack of transparency is a
huge political advantage,' and that 'the stupidity of the American voter'
was critical for ACA to pass."
Unlike Reuters' political "reporters" , it seems the hacker collective
"Anonymous" is less impressed by Hillary Clinton's awesomeness.
Following Wikileaks' recent release of leaks, Anonymous reminds Americans of the 'career criminal' in a video containing
a well researched list of wrong-doings, exposing the actions of Hillary over her career .
This includes things like:
fraud investigations
conflicts of interest
political corruption
wrongful pardons
campaign and finance law violations
business & political scandals
This is only a small list of what is explored in the video below...
With so much exposed already, why do we continue to follow, allow, and accept people like Hillary and Trump as potentials
to be country leaders? Truly think about it. Can we even take a system that puts these two so high up in the ranks seriously?
Is this not the perfect storm to allow us to wake up to the reality of our current state? We should be thankful
that this is going on so we can help wake up the world and begin a conversation about what we can legitimately do next.
This isn't about Trump vs Clinton. That is merely the illusion we are being invited to believe. This is about
awakening to the fact that our system is absurd and that it's time to do something different. What is the answer? That is what we
must discuss instead of playing this broken political game of dividing and choosing who to "vote" for.
Occident Mortal
Kidbuck
Oct 12, 2016 3:41 AM Any journalist should feel enormous professional humilation and deep personal shame at the fact a bunch
of teenagers are offering more scrutiny on this presidential candidate than the entire press industry.
Guided and also manufactured to a great degree by an MSM-fabricated matrix of misinformation at the behest of the fuckers pulling
the strings. The disinterest in the morals of policy and action and their effect on millions of people both at home and abroad is
quite jaw-dropping, and a sad reflection on how low society (not just in the US) has fallen.
However Brexit proved all hope is not lost and sheeple can develop an awareness (probaly as a result of the intimidating bullshit
they were being fed).
I wish you could say that was happening. I just don't see it at all. I see things getting worse, and it's this "business" mentality
that is sucking the rest of us all down beneath the waves to drown.
I tend to agree.
Though just personal anecdote, in my career, I've seen this 'business mentality' at work, and it can be ugly.
For instance, I was in the room, to hear the CFO and COO discuss how to 'reach the numbers' so that the COO would get his bonus.
The decision in this case was to rid 100+ employees, many with decades of experience and accumulated skillsets, to reduce costs,
hit the 'correct' bottom line for a quarter or two, and voila! Company 'hit the numbers' and COO gets his bonus...in addition to
the already lucrative salary, well beyond what most would 'need'. Within a week of the bonus, he drives up in a flashy, new, red
sportscar. Should have witnessed the rage many of the remaining, spared employees that had watched their friends/coworkers get axed
and still remain unemployed; there were literally conversations about lighting that car on fire in the parking lot.
There were similar decisions to gobble up local and other national competitor shops. Some were immediately shut down and everyone
axed, but some with more glowing numbers that could be used to pad forecasts, were kept on for a short while. After saddling the
company with immense debt to cover the acquisitions, boosting the sales and forecast figures 'on paper' for the foreseeable near
future, he penned himself a nice, shiny résumé about 'increasing sales 4x in just a year' landed himself a different COO job in California
and left. Soon thereafter, when the weight of everything crashed down (scarce employees, with little skill left to efficiently accomplish
a quality product...both measures suffering/declining), those acquisitions were shut down and the original company is now scarcely
a shadow of what it was, thereby causing more layoffs and terminations. Now the $150 million +/year company, with 900 employees,
is a $10 million/year company, with 200 employees.
But that COO? He's living it up in CA, several companies later, and my periodic checkup on the 'net shows he's done similarly
a few more times, yet entrenched in the network of corporate boards/COOs that still perpetuate this scheme. Contrary to 'building'
anything, they construct a false narrative and tear everyone down in the process. But he and his cohorts get rich.
No, not everyone at that level does this, but the incentives are such that it is very tempting to follow suit and a review of
corporate history in this nation shows it is/was quite typical over many decades...because it works for those that engage this behavior.
Sound familiar to U.S. policy abroad? michelp
luckylongshot
Oct 12, 2016 10:37 AM "The answer is to start studying what it takes to apply power productively and use the findings to select
and train appropriate leaders."
Sorry but! In the currupt USA run by zio and war machines any 'appropriate leader' is DOA (Dead on Arrival.)
Donald J. Trump
tbd108
Oct 12, 2016 3:58 AM As I'm sure there are some that put Ttump on a high horse, I think most Trump supporters are supporting
him because of the exact reason they are fed up with system as aanonymous says. Trump is a big middle finger to the status quo of
Washington politics. I for one hope he does as he says he will do to hopefully right the ship of the US. He may even sink the ship
but it's going down already, he's our only chance to right it. What he's done takes a certain level of celebrity, balls, and money,
and I can't think of another person who could do what he has done. As great a cure Trump may be for our country, there are some side
effects so talk to your doctor to see if Trump is right for you. Dial 1(844)LIB-TARD or (855)LIB-TARD for a free sample of Trump.
Btw- those phone numbers are available if someone could actually make a good use for it. I'm also interested if the other exchanges
that are already taken have anything to with libtards.
"... the "Ephemeral Zone" concentrated on the coasts, runs largely on digits and images, the movement of software, media and financial transactions. It produces increasingly little in the way of food, fiber, energy and fewer and fewer manufactured goods. The Ephemeral sectors dominate ultra-blue states such as New York, California, Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Connecticut. ..."
"... Extending from the Appalachians to the Rockies, this heartland economy relies on tangible goods production. It now encompasses both the traditional Midwest manufacturing regions, and the new industrial areas of Texas, the Southeast and the Intermountain West. ..."
"... In generally purple states like Missouri, Ohio and Iowa, where manufacturing is key, Trump still leads ..."
"... Joel Kotkin is a presidential fellow at Chapman University and the executive director of the Center for Opportunity Urbanism. His latest book is "The Human City: Urbanism for the Rest of Us." ..."
The current elections reflects an increasingly stark conflict between two very different American
economies: the "Ephemeral Zone" in coastal states vs New Heartland which still produces tabgible
goods
"In this disgusting election, dominated by the personal and the petty, the importance of the
nation's economic geography has been widely ignored. Yet if you look at the Electoral College
map, the correlation between politics and economics is quite stark, with one economy tilting decisively
toward Trump and more generally to Republicans, the other toward Hillary Clinton and her Democratic
allies"
This reflects an increasingly stark conflict between two very different American economies.
One, the "Ephemeral Zone" concentrated on the coasts, runs largely on digits and images, the
movement of software, media and financial transactions. It produces increasingly little in the
way of food, fiber, energy and fewer and fewer manufactured goods. The Ephemeral sectors dominate
ultra-blue states such as New York, California, Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, Maryland, and
Connecticut.
The other America constitutes, as economic historian Michael Lind notes in a forthcoming paper
for the Center for Opportunity Urbanism, the "New Heartland." Extending from the Appalachians
to the Rockies, this heartland economy relies on tangible goods production. It now encompasses
both the traditional Midwest manufacturing regions, and the new industrial areas of Texas, the
Southeast and the Intermountain West.
Contrary to the notions of the Ephemerals, the New Heartland is not populated by Neanderthals.
This region employs much of the nation's engineering talent, but does so in conjunction with the
creation of real goods rather than clicks. Its industries have achieved generally more rapid productivity
gains than their rivals in the services sector. To some extent, energy and food producers may
have outdone themselves and, since they operate in a globally competitive market, their prices
and profits are suffering.
Despite deep misgivings about the character of Donald Trump, these economic interests have
led most Heartland voters somewhat toward the New York poseur, and they are aligning themselves
even more to down-ticket GOP candidates. In generally purple states like Missouri, Ohio and
Iowa, where manufacturing is key, Trump still leads -at least he was before the latest spate
of Trump crudeness was revealed, this time regarding women.
... ... ....
The biggest national crisis in our history underscored this clash of competing economic interests.
Although the galvanizing issue on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line was slavery, the Civil War
was also a war, as Karl Marx suggested, of competing economic visions: the agrarian, slave-fueled
economy of the South vs. the rapidly industrializing Northeast and Midwest.
... ... ....
In the past, Democrats competed in the Heartland and backed its key industries. Lyndon Johnson
was a proud promoter of oil interests;
Robert Byrd
never saw a coal mine he didn't like for all but the end of his career. Powerful industrial
unions tied the Democrats to the production economy. Now those
voters feel abandoned by their own party, and even are dismissed as "
deplorables "
Increasingly few Heartland Democrats, outside of some Great Lakes states, win local elections.
In the vast territory between Northeast and the West Coast,
Democrats control just one state legislature, the financial basket case known as Illinois.
For their part, Republicans are becoming extinct in the Ephemeral states, a process hastened
by the growing concentration of
media on the true-blue coasts.
Wall Street , Silicon Valley and Hollywood have been drifting leftward for a generation, and
Trump has accelerated this movement. Joined by the largely minority urban working and dependent
classes, progressives now have a lock on the Northeast and the West Coast.
... ... ...
In the process, the GOP, to the horror of many of its grandees and most entrenched interests,
is becoming transformed. It is becoming something of a de facto populist party, based
in the New Heartland, while the Democrats remain the voice of the
coastal oligarchies who almost without exception back Hillary.
... ... ...
But don't count the New Heartland, or the GOP, out. Once Trump is gone, there will be enough political
will and money to mount a counter-offensive against the Ephemerals. The new War Between the States
will not end in November. It will have hardly just begun. Joel Kotkin is a presidential fellow
at Chapman University and the executive director of the Center for Opportunity Urbanism. His latest
book is "The Human City: Urbanism for the Rest of Us."
I am surprised that Trump is not making the Podesta Wikileaks into a major story. Perhaps Trump
is not earnestly trying to actually win, or Trump is a Bush43/Palin level low IQ person.
Trump & his media spokeshacks could repeat "Podesta Wikileaks show HClinton's actual 'private
position' is cut SS & MC, & pro-TPP. Trump will not cut SS & MC, & will veto TPP. Vote for Trump".
Even if Trump is lying, Trump could "pull an 0bama 2008 on NAFTA" & privately tell PRyan/Trump
BigFunders/Owners Trump's actual plan.
IMHO Trump could possibly win if he took such an approach. Why isn't he doing so?
"... Stated Binney: "Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA database by the FBI and the CIA Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those emails." ..."
"... "Yes," he responded. "That would be my point. They have them all and the FBI can get them right there." ..."
"... And the other point is that Hillary, according to an article published by the Observer in March of this year, has a problem with NSA because she compromised Gamma material. Now that is the most sensitive material at NSA. And so there were a number of NSA officials complaining to the press or to the people who wrote the article that she did that. She lifted the material that was in her emails directly out of Gamma reporting. That is a direct compromise of the most sensitive material at the NSA. So she's got a real problem there. So there are many people who have problems with what she has done in the past. So I don't necessarily look at the Russians as the only one(s) who got into those emails. ..."
"... GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance, decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was). ..."
Binney also proclaimed that the NSA has all of Clinton's deleted emails, and the FBI could gain access to them if they so wished.
No need for Trump to ask the Russians for those emails, he can just call on the FBI or NSA to hand them over.
Binney referenced
testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2011 by then-FBI Director Robert S. Mueller in which Meuller spoke
of the FBI's ability to access various secretive databases "to track down known and suspected terrorists."
Stated Binney: "Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown
of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA database by the FBI and the CIA
Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those
emails."
"So if the FBI really wanted them they can go into that database and get them right now," he stated of Clinton's
emails as well as DNC emails.
Asked point blank if he believed the NSA has copies of "all" of Clinton's emails, including the deleted correspondence, Binney
replied in the affirmative.
"Yes," he responded. "That would be my point. They have them all and the FBI can get them right there."
Binney surmised that the hack of the DNC could have been coordinated by someone inside the U.S. intelligence community angry
over Clinton's compromise of national security data with her email use.
And the other point is that Hillary, according to an
article published by the Observer in March
of this year, has a problem with NSA because she compromised Gamma material. Now that is the most sensitive material at NSA. And
so there were a number of NSA officials complaining to the press or to the people who wrote the article that she did that. She
lifted the material that was in her emails directly out of Gamma reporting. That is a direct compromise of the most sensitive
material at the NSA. So she's got a real problem there. So there are many people who have problems with what she has done in the
past. So I don't necessarily look at the Russians as the only one(s) who got into those emails.
The Observer defined the GAMMA classification:
GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance,
decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was).
Over a year before Edward Snowden shocked the world in the summer of 2013 with revelations that have since changed everything
from domestic to foreign US policy but most of all, provided everyone a glimpse into just what the NSA truly does on a daily basis,
a former NSA staffer, and now famous whistleblower, William Binney, gave excruciating detail to Wired magazine about all that
Snowden would substantiate the following summer.
We covered it in a 2012 post titled "
We Are This Far From A Turnkey Totalitarian State" – Big Brother Goes Live September 2013." Not surprisingly, Binney received
little attention in 2012 – his suggestions at the time were seen as preposterous and ridiculously conspiratorial. Only after the
fact, did it become obvious that he was right. More importantly, in the aftermath of the Snowden revelations, what Binney
has to say has become gospel.
Binney was an architect of the NSA's surveillance program. He became a famed whistleblower when he resigned on October 31,
2001, after spending more than 30 years with the agency. He referenced testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March
2011 by then-FBI Director Robert S. Mueller in which Meuller spoke of the FBI's ability to access various secretive databases
"to track down known and suspected terrorists."
"... "The drama was a commercial and critical success, surpassing ten million views by its second day,[4] and receiving a total number of daily internet views on iQiyi of over 3.3 billion by the end of the series.[5][6] Nirvana in Fire was considered a social media phenomenon, generating 3.55 billion posts on Sina Weibo that praised its characters and story-line." ..."
As you recall the French Exocet , a souped-up V1 in respects, has been "out there" a
long time.
. . . In the years after the Falklands War, it was revealed that the British government
and the Secret Intelligence Service had been extremely concerned at the time by the perceived
inadequacy of the Royal Navy's anti-missile defenses against the Exocet and its potential to
tip the naval war decisively in favor of the Argentine forces. A scenario was envisioned in
which one or both of the force's two aircraft carriers (Invincible and Hermes) were destroyed
or incapacitated by Exocet attacks, which would make recapturing the Falklands much more difficult.
Actions were taken to contain the Exocet threat. A major intelligence operation was also
initiated to prevent the Argentine Navy from acquiring more of the weapons on the international
market.[16]
The operation included British intelligence agents claiming to be arms dealers
able to supply large numbers of Exocets to Argentina, who diverted Argentina from pursuing
sources which could genuinely supply a few missiles. France denied deliveries of Exocet AM39s
purchased by Peru to avoid the possibility of Peru giving them to Argentina, because they knew
that payment would be made with a credit card from the Central Bank of Peru. British intelligence
had detected the guarantee was a deposit of two hundred million dollars from the Andean Lima
Bank, an owned subsidiary of the Banco Ambrosiano.[17][18] wiki
The French are major proliferisers of modern weapon systems. They and the Russians have put
a lot of weapons out there which are affordable for small States but have the potential even to
worry the biggest militaries.
Much of world history depends on the relative availability of defensive/offensive weaponry.
Back when the castle was the apex of military might any local thug with the money to build one
could become a lord and rule his little kingdom. Then when cannons became powerful enough to reduce
them to rubble empires came back into vogue. When battleships ruled the waves, this allowed the
great seagoing nations to dominate, but the invention of the torpedo along with submarines and
long range bombers levelled things up for smaller nations such as Japan. Then the aircraft carrier
swung things back to empires in the post war years. But now I think high speed sea skimming and
ballistic missiles along with long distance torpedoes have swung things back to 'weaker' nations.
Even the Houthi's in Yemen seem to have obtained missiles capable of knocking out an
ex-US combat vessel.
The democratization of missile technology is the big military story of the last three decades.
Look at, for instance, at how Hezbollah's Sheik Nasrullah kicked off the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict
by striking an Israeli warship during a TV presentation. Very slick.
In fac, talking of the USS Stark, all those ships with their big aluminum superstructures will
burn down to their waterline when hit. The Emirates even recently banned aluminum in tower buildings
recently.
Aluminum's vulnerability didn't matter during the decades of the Cold War when if the Big One
started the surface navy wouldn't really do any fighting because it would all be up anyway, and
meanwhile smaller groups and nations - especially those with brown skins - didn't have access
to serious missile technology.
The big transition point came with the Falklands War when the UK's admirals smartly stood their
aircraft carriers beyond range till Margaret Thatcher phoned to Mitterand and intimated that the
British might use their Polaris submarine to nuke Buenos Aires unless Mitterand gave up the Exocet
codes. Think I'm kidding? Thatcher got the codes; they didn't call her Mad Maggie for nothing.
As for why they're still building surface warships with aluminum superstructures, it's military
Keynesianism and everybody would have to be submariners otherwise, which wouldn't be fun..
I think the Pentagon did an analysis under GW Bush about attacking Iran and buried the idea.
I believe this is why Iran made a big dash for surface-to-surface missiles to defend themselves,
and DID NOT have to go for nukes. If you've got anti-ship missiles, you can push those carriers
far enough out to sea which limits the ability to launch airstrikes.
Plus, with anti-ship missiles, you can put the Persian Gulf on total lockdown and watch the
Saudis suffocate. Iran has already been dealing with sanctions for years, so it's no sweat to
them!
If the USA ever has an aircraft carrier sunk, the unipolar moment is indisputably over.
I suspect that for the money put out the Chinese get a lot more defense. In fact, if they are
spending 200 billion and we are spending 600 billion we can be sure that they are close to parity.
Of course, we are spending a lot more than 600 billion when you add in VA, disability and retirement
costs as well as current war outlays. The entire defense industry in both China and the US is
obsolete given modern communications and immigration trends anyway. How are you going to bomb
Yemen when the excess population in Yemen ends up driving taxis in Washington D.C. or why bomb
Syria when all it does is encourage the Syrians to move to the west? What is the difference between
a Syrian or Afghan in Idaho or Berlin and one in Damascus or Kabul? The national state is becoming
obsolete and military action is powerless against demography.
The key paradox for the US military is that wars are won not by who has the greatest number
of tanks, ships or aircraft, but by the country that can put the greatest number of tanks, ships
and aircraft into the field of battle . The US has by far the biggest military in the
world, but it has also put itself in the position of needing a military a multiple of everyone
elses because of the sheer geographical spread of commitments. China's military is tiny and primitive
compared to the US, but in reality any war is likely to be geographically limited – to (for example)
the South China Sea. China has every chance of being able to match the US in this kind of war.
As for China's blue sea commitments, I actually doubt they have any intention of really pursuing
a long range war capacity. The Chinese know their history and know that a military on this scale
can be economically ruinous. But there is a naval military concept known as
fleet in being , which
essentially means that even a theoretical threat can force an enemy to pour resources into trying
to neutralise it. China I think is using this concept – continually setting off rumours of new
strike missiles, long range attack aircraft, new aircraft carriers, etc., to force the US (aided
and abetted by the defence industry) to spent countless billions on phantom threats. Some of these
rumours may be true – many I suspect are simply deliberate mischief making by the Chinese, with
the serious aim of dissipating America's military strength.
A new theatre for that mischief and dissipation is Africa. My parish has a Nigerian priest.
When he's away, we usually get another Nigerian. At supper for the Bishop last Saturday, our priest,
an Ibo, and another, a Hausa from Kano, said that many, if not, most Nigerians think Boko Haram
is assisted by the US and, to a lesser extent, France as it gives the pair an excuse to maintain
troops in the region and keep their client state governments in line.
Whether or not its true, the fact that intelligent people think that way shows everything you
need to know about how US and Western soft power has been frittered away the past few years through
stupidity and cynicism.
Why bomb? Because then Uncle Sugar gets to take their stuff after they all leave their war
torn countries. If some of the refugees are pissed off and blow up some people in their new homelands,
why that's just a little collateral damage and when has the establishment ever cared about that?
It just gives them an excuse to surveil everyone.
What can the world, or any nation in it, hope for if no turning is found on this dread road?
The worst to be feared and the best to be expected can be simply stated.
The worst is atomic war.
The best would be this: a life of perpetual fear and tension; a burden of arms draining the
wealth and the labor of all peoples; a wasting of strength that defies the American system or
the Soviet system or any system to achieve true abundance and happiness for the peoples of this
earth.
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final
sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.
This world in arms in not spending money alone.
It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.
It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.
It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.
It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.
We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.
We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.
This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it
is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
- that crazy commie madman, Dwight Eisenhower, in 1953 on military Keynesianism.
ClubOrlov argues that the difference in military spending between the U. S. and Russia is lessened
as our spending is bloated and misspent due to corruption.
The Russians are treating spending as a scarce natural resource. In the U. S. we spend as McCain
says like drunken sailors.
I'd be very sceptical that the Russian military somehow avoids the rampant corruption in other
parts of the Russian economy.
By necessity, the Russian military has always been parsimonious and has had to get more firepower
for its rouble than other wealthier countries. Much of their weaponry is very simple, effective
and robust, and Russian tactics are as good if not better than any other major military. However,
they've had their white elephants too – their new
Yasen Class attack
submarines are far too expensive as an example, and poor quality control in manufacturing
has meant that many of their more advanced weapons have dubious real world utility. Their large
ships are generally a disaster, a complete waste of money (this is why they were buying assault
ships from France).
USA military power is just as great as it has ever been, if not greater. What's changed is
the traction it had in forcing alignment from partners who held very little cultural/common ground
with the USA.
Biggest factor in that loss of traction is that Russia (and to a lesser extent China) is not
exporting revolution anymore. Both China and Russia engage in real politic with limited military
power that makes them a far less threatening partner than the USA for any state that is willing
to transfer some of the wealth to them that the USA formerly extracted (and usually these new
players pay much better price with less interference). Even Vietnam, which has real historical
reasons to be Sinophobic, probably fears China less than it does a US Government which attempts
to subvert Vietnam's economy through currency dependency. How so Russia, which is no threat to
any of Vietnam's interests.
What constrains Russia's power isn't the military, but it's relatively minuscule consumer market.
Similarly, China's trade protectionism for semi-finished and finished goods has constrained it's
ability to project power to those nations, like Australia, Argentina & Russia, which subsist primarily
on raw material exports. China is in a better situation than Russia to change this situation and
expand it's power into Europe, though I doubt Xi is the man for it.
What's changed is the traction it had in forcing alignment from partners who held very little
cultural/common ground with the USA.
I'd claim that the alignment came not so much from US military might but rather from the US
offering better terms – at least to "white countries"; plenty of brutal regime change and CIA
skulduggery was applied on brown folks, still is, in fact.
Now, it seems to the world that the US have become so bloated with it's own military and perceived
cultural/economic superiority that the US offers pretty much nothing in return to anyone, regardless
of the favors asked. Everyone are treated as colonies and vassals, except perhaps a few leaders
and decision makers (Or maybe it was always like that but now we got the Internet and we know).
This state of affairs pisses people off.
In addition, people are beginning to understand that what is applied to brown people abroad
today can happen to them also tomorrow. That in the US world order, everyone who is not an American
have no value compared to an American* and can be killed, tortured, disappeared with no consequences
what so ever. Because fuck Nürenberg.
Therefore, everyone else being in some way enemies of the US merely by belonging to another
tribe than America, has realized that there is no good thing coming from aligning with America,
sooner or later the "military option" or "the regime change" will come out and we will be knifed
in the back. Those who can actively resist, those who have the option aligns with other powers,
those who cannot do this, will drag their feet and try to avoid direct confrontation, maybe something
will show up?
Stupid, weak, nations like Denmark and Sweden go all in with 110% effort on the fantasy that
they will be seen as good people with an American core, struggling to claw it's way out, from
inside their unworthy un-American bodies and therefore they will be protected – at least for a
while*.
*)
Americans themselves are beginning to realize that anyone who isn't rich & covered in lawyers
can be fined, jailed or even killed right in the street by the police for basically nothing at
all. This is beginning to grate on their understanding of their place in the pecking order. But,
everyone still blame Whites, Latinos, Blacks, Feminists identity politics works, keeps the contraption
from falling off the road.
This also shows why the silly idea of escape by being super-American will not work: Americans
are treated like shit too.
Thank you. I like your point about "stupid, weak nations". French is my second language. English
is my third. I watch French TV news most days and visit the place regularly, business and pleasure,
and studied there. I am surprised, but may be should not be, at how American France has become
/ is becoming. Hollande and Sarko, who has American connections by way of his stepmother and half
brothers, have made the country a poodle in a way that de Gaulle and Chirac would not. Most French
people I know seem ok or indifferent to that. Part of that Americanisation seems to be the English
/ Americanised English forenames given to French children. I have observed that trend in (western)
Germany and even francophone communities well away from the French mainland.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the best example of what being a loyal US "ally" entails:
corrupt local elites working against their country's own best interests lest they become a
target for a color revolution. Meanwhile their much-suffering subjects don't know which way
to turn to hide their collective embarrassment.
My files are bulging to the bursting point. The latest fiasco in Colonia Bulgaria was the election
of the new GenSec of the UN. Bulgaria had a leading candidate, until Merkel decided that she wanted
Germany to play an outsized role in the UN, and bring EU politics into the UN.
Disaster ensued:
So the initial Bulgarian candidate Bokova looked like the ideal choice. Here was a chance
for little old Bulgaria to shine on the world stage for the first time in over a millenium,
possibly since the Bulgars burst out of Central Asia on horseback. Add this to the background
context: it is unprecedented for a country to nominate a candidate officially, a front-runner
no less, and then do a public switcheroo before the world's eyes. But that's exactly what Bulgaria
did just a week ago. Bokova was dumped and Georgieva spooned up. Disaster ensued, as I predicted
it would in previous columns .
Bulgaria lost its once-in-a-millenium chance at shaping the world. As the record shows,
Gutteres won.
If Bulgaria were a normal healthy country, the Prime Minister would now resign and the government
would fall. Because, it was the Prime Minister's decision to switch candidates. He did so despite
knowing that two-thirds of Bulgarian citizens preferred his first candidate. Boyko Borissov
is his name, a deeply underachieving dull-witted schemer-survivor in the wooden tradition of
the region. A short-fingered Bulgarian if ever there was one. He first came to the fore as
the bodyguard of the last Bulgarian Communist leader. That should give you a clue to the man's
qualities. So why did Boyko 'switch horses'? Why did he do it?
Brutal, just brutal kick in the butt from the ally's MSM. And that's only one of many reactions.
Because even the bosses don't like grovelling toadies. They want to control them, but they will
never invite them for an afternoon tea. Particularly a marionette whose mafia ties the Congressional
Quarterly wrote about. Not that these organized crime ties are a disqualifier, if anything the
US likes that because it makes Borissov easy to control.
At least Merkel's scheming and Bulgaria's humiliation had an unexpected positive effect: Power
and Churkin managed to put on a BFF act in front of the cameras and allied to get Gutteres elected
as SecGen, while delivering a massive kick in Merkel's ample backside. Takes some doing to get
the US and Russia to not only see eye to eye on anything, but to also work in concert. Bravo!
PS This also proves a historical truth: doing Germany's bidding never ends well for Bulgaria.
Or for any other nation.
global scenario that the down-to-earth presidents of China and Russia seem to have in mind
resembles the sort of balance of power that existed in Europe.
The article floats away here. China and Russia might want to have something that "resembles"
that time, but the analogy overlooks the fact that the relatively calm state of affairs - Franco-Prussian
war? - on the European continent after Napoleon coexisted with savage colonial expansion. The
forms of superexploitation thereby obtained did much to help stabilize Europe, even as competition
for colonial lands became more and more destabilizing and were part of what led to WW1.
Now we're in a situation in which superexploitation options are largely gone. Routine profit
generation has become difficult due to global productive overcapacity, leading to behavioral sinkish
behavior like the US cannibalizing its public sector to feed capital. Since the late 19th century
US foreign policy has been organized around the open markets mantra. It may be possible for the
Chinese, with their greater options for economy manipulation, to avoid the crashes the US feared
from lack of market access. But the current situation on its face does not have anything like
the colonial escape valve available in the 19th century.
Of course,duplicitous political COPORATISM means systems over a systemic characterized by marked
or even intentional deception that is now sustained and even spearheaded by state systems. Many
contemporary liberal idealists living in urban strongholds of market mediated comfort zones will
not agree to assigning such strong description to an Obama administration. It is too distant and
remote to assign accountability to global international finance and currency wars that have hegemonic
hedge funds pumping and dumping crisis driven anarchy over global exploit (ruled by market capital
fright / fight and flight). To the extent that colonialism or neocolonialism does not actually
hold fixed boundary ground is irrelevant, since assets are more differential and flexible needing
only corporate law to sustain strict boundaries on possession or instruments that convert to the
same power over assets. No one, of course, wants to assess stocks and bonds as instruments of
global oppression or exploitation that far exceeds 19th century's crude colonial rule. Recall,
however, how "joint stock" corporations first opened chartered exploit at global levels under
East and West Trading power aggregates that were profit driven enter-prize. So in reality the
current cross border market system of neoliberal globalization is, in fact, a stealth colonialism
on steroids. TPP is part of that process in all its stealthy dimensions.
"The TPP is a corporate power grab, a 5,544-page document that was negotiated in secret by
big corporations while Congress, the public, and unions were locked out.
Multinationals like Google, Exxon, Monsanto, Goldman Sachs, UPS, FedEx, Apple, and Walmart are
lobbying hard for it. Virtually every union in the U.S. opposes it. So do major environmental,
senior, health, and consumer organizations.
The TPP will mean fewer jobs and lower wages, higher prices for prescription drugs, the loss of
regulations that protect our drinking water and food supply, and the loss of Internet freedom.
It encourages privatization, undermines democracy, and will forbid many of the policies we need
to combat climate change."
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/09/30/ttp-ttip-map-shows-
how-trade-deals-would-enable-polluter-power-grab
TTP & TTIP: Map Shows How Trade Deals Would Enable 'Polluter Power-Grab'
by Andrea Germanos
The new, interactive tool 'gives people a chance to see if toxic trade is in their own backyard'
From a long range view, 19th Century compitition using black and brown property and lives was
an improvement over battling face to face with neighbors. It was an expansion of tribal boundaries,
somewhat.
Now, few argue openly (except in presidential debates) against those boundaries encompassing brown
and black members of the human race. We engage our ruthlessness less openly in covert operations,
corporate predations and financial hegemony.
Even awful behavior can be seen as an advance.
This is very handy, thanks. However the conclusion stops short of what the SCO is saying and
doing. They have no interest in an old-time balance of power. They want rule of law, a very different
thing. Look at Putin's Syria strategy: he actually complies with the UN Charter's requirement
to pursue pacific dispute resolution. That's revolutionary. When CIA moles in Turkey shot that
Russian jet down, the outcome was not battles and state-sponsored terror, as CIA expected. The
outcome was support for Turkey's sovereignty and rapprochement. Now when CIA starts fires you
go to Russia to put them out.
While China maintains its purist line on the legal principle of non-interference, it is increasingly
vocal in urging the US to fulfill its human rights obligations. That will sound paradoxical because
of intense US vilification of Chinese authoritarianism, but when you push for your economic and
social rights here at home, China is in your corner. Here Russia is leading by example. They comply
with the Paris Principles for institutionalized human rights protection under independent international
oversight. The USA does not.
When the USA goes the way of the USSR, we'll be in good hands. The world will show us how developed
countries work.
"RULE OF LAW" up front and personal (again?)
Now why would the USA be worried about global rule of law?
An Interesting ideal. No country above the law.
" US President Barack Obama has vetoed a bill that would have allowed the families of the victims
of the September 11, 2001, attacks to sue the government of Saudi Arabia.
In a statement accompanying his veto message, Obama said on Friday he had
"deep sympathy" for the 9/11 victims' families and their desire to seek justice for
their relatives.
The president said, however, that the bill would be "detrimental to US national interests"
and could lead to lawsuits against the US or American officials for actions taken by groups armed,
trained or supported by the US.
"If any of these litigants were to win judgements – based on foreign domestic laws as applied
by foreign courts – they would begin to look to the assets of the US government held abroad to
satisfy those judgments, with potentially serious financial consequences for the United States,"
Obama said."
-----------------------
To the tune of "Moma said " by The Shirelles –
.Oh don't you know Obama said they be days like this,
..they would be days like this Obama said
One interesting irony is that in Obama's TPP "The worst part is an Investor-State Dispute Settlement
provision, which allows a multinational corporation to sue to override any U.S. law, policy, or
practice that it claims could limit its future profits."
(source:
http://labornotes.org/2016/09/october-all-hands-deck-stop-tpp
)
"Though the Obama administration touts the pact's labor and environmental protections, the official
Labor Advisory Committee on the TPP strongly opposes
it, arguing that these protections are largely unenforceable window dressing."
I think you're overstating the Russian military advantage in Syria and Ukraine, while ignoring
the real dysfunction in US foreign policy. Key policy thinkers at State and Defense still believe
that it's worth the time and effort for the US to project military influence in Syria. This is
a policy position entirely driven by Israel's existential concern over Iran. There are no substantial
US interests in Syria right now. We aren't actually fighting ISIS, because if we were, we would
be targeting the foreign funding coming from Saudi Arabia and Qatar. As a consequence, if we simply
withdrew from Syria, Russia would be left propping up a regime that would be fighting an ongoing
insurgency against foreign jihadists.
In other words, it would be wasting its time and resources on a pointless fight to build a
state in the Middle East (sounds familiar). Russia is the one with a military base in Syria that
they need to protect. Let them waste the time and energy defending their military assets.
Instead, the US should be reducing its Middle East footprint and selectively engaging in key
diplomatic efforts. The Saudis and the Gulf States are committed to fighting it out with Iran
for Middle East influence. There's no reason for us to pick sides in this fight. Let them engage
in proxy wars without US military assistance and then, when the time is right, we can offer our
role as a neutral broker and negotiate terms that actually benefit our strategic interests.
The reason we can't play this role in the region is because we are so myopically focused on
policies that are pro-Israeli. Eliminate Israel's interests from the calculations, and our policies
would change dramatically.
Great article and comments. Surprised there has been no speculation here about what HRC will
do with the geopolitical hash created by neo-lib economics and neo-con foreign and military policies.
We know what Obama did (not) do with what was really a political mandate. Certainly he has been
constrained politically and, perhaps, personally ( shame what happened to those nice Kennedy boys,
they had so much "promise.") However, as has been ably pointed out in comments above, his actions
where he was not constrained are the flag in the wind. You don't have to be a weatherman .
Hillary, of course, has already shown her colors. There will be no Nobel based on promises
and high expectations. She will relentlessly pursue the PNAC programme and the "exceptional, essential
nation" fantasy, contra the analysis above. You can take the girl out of the Goldwater, but you
can't take the Goldman out of the girl.All that glitters ..
Fascinating thread, thanks.
I stream a lot of Korean dramas, and lately Chinese dramas have also been showing up in my video
feeds; it is clear that Taiwan and China are trying to access eyeballs globally, as a means to
gain soft power – and revenue.
The earlier Chinese dramas seeking a global audience seemed shrill, melodramatic, and approximately
the production quality of the old static BBC costume dramas of the 1970s. I found them unwatchable.
However, China has recently put out something that is quite possibly a masterpiece of storytelling.
" Nirvana in Fire " [NiF] is an epic story of betrayal, treachery, loyalty, and trust,
with some incredible martial arts into the mix. NiF is described as the Chinese Game of Thrones
. (I am unable to make a good comparison, as I have not watched GoT). However, I'd argue
that NiF is every bit as good as the BBC's brilliant " The Tudors " (2007, with Jonathon
Rhys Meyers).
I take NiF as a sign that despite what sounds like a hideous housing bubble, China's cultural
endeavors are developing at a level that is as outstanding as anything that any nation can produce.
And in a world where the Internet seems to be morphing into a vast, global video distribution
service (woohoo!!), that is no small thing. Judging from social media stats, it appears to be
quite formidable.
This new Silk Road is often spoken of as physical, and I do not take it lightly; nevertheless,
the silkier threads are probably the telecom infrastructure carrying subtitled dramas to mobiles,
desktops, and smart TVs around the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_In_Fire
From the wiki page: "The drama was a commercial and critical success, surpassing ten million
views by its second day,[4] and receiving a total number of daily internet views on iQiyi of over
3.3 billion by the end of the series.[5][6] Nirvana in Fire was considered a social media
phenomenon, generating 3.55 billion posts on Sina Weibo that praised its characters and
story-line."
I searched for 'Facebook posts on GoT' but could not get any results that I trusted enough to
include here. It's a fair guess, however, they did not amount to 3,550,000,000 comments. Whoever
gets to stream their dramas across Africa and S. America will develop a formidable 'soft power'
resource.
That series sounds very interesting, I must look for it.
I think the Chinese are quite serious about using film and TV as soft power, but they face
a paradox in that it is hard to promote quality drama while also indulging in heavy censorship.
The Chinese are very good at using carrots and sticks to 'tame' artists – just look at how a formerly
great film maker like Zhang Yimou has gone from making beautiful and subtle allegories about Chinese
society to now just making big empty commercial epics which are little more than propaganda pieces.
I doubt Chinese film makers will ever have the freedom to make the sort of challenging work that
Korean film makers do all the time (Japanese film makers once did this too, but seem to have given
up). But they probably have enough talent to make plenty of entertaining fantasy TV and film,
but whether it will travel so well I'm not sure.
LOL, I watched that drama too, and I'd agree. Most Chinese dramas are unwatchable, but as NiF
showed, it's not because there are no capable series makers, etc, because there are plenty of
those in China. The problem is rather the producers for whatever reason think that local audiences
are only interested in melodramas and idols dressed in ridiculous costumes.
And please, NiF is better than GoT. I am a big fan of the books, and the TV series to me is
laughable.
I just find this difficult to believe that America's diplomatic power is in decline.
After all, is the great-grandson of what was once the top dope dealer on the planet, Francis
Blackwell Forbes, now the SecState (that would be John "Forbes, Winthrop, Dudley" Kerry)?
"... This election also can be seen in a more general, global context of how forces have been accommodating to the end of the cold war. Perhaps a detour into the history of some 3rd world banana republics, those that many Americans deem as deplorable as a Trump supporter, can shed some light. ..."
"... It's amazing to see how all the left wing loonies here are rooting for a collapse of the United States, just like it happened in the USSR. I guess they are too stupid to understand how really great this was for the elite ownership class in Russia as it would be here for the US ownership class. ..."
"... The point is that thinking that a global collapse will somehow bring justice and happiness into the world because the unwashed masses will rise up and overthrow their oppressors is a little crazy. ..."
"... That is what successive US governments have done: destroy democratic republics around the world. So who are the sane, those who support the continuation of Pax Americana or the anti-imperialists? ..."
"... Have you ever lived through a CIA-sponsored coup, a military invasion, or IMF-sponsored austerity to be certain that living through all that is preferable to the demise of American hegemony? ..."
"... Have you ever lived through a CIA-sponsored coup, a military invasion, or IMF-sponsored austerity to be certain that living through all that is preferable to the demise of American hegemony? ..."
"... No sane person should hope to see the rule of law and the democratic republic be destroyed and that's the very real threat Trump poses ..."
This election also can be seen in a more general, global context of how forces have been accommodating
to the end of the cold war. Perhaps a detour into the history of some 3rd world banana republics,
those that many Americans deem as deplorable as a Trump supporter, can shed some light.
Starting in the 50's, and with the expressed goal of modernizing their countries (meaning an
accelerated capitalist development with the US as its model and as the only possible model) military
and terror regimes took over South America (Paraguay: 1954-1991, Chile: 1973-1990, Argentina:
1976-1982, Uruguay: 1966- 1985). For the most part, before being forced out of power, these military
regimes declared amnesty for themselves. Enter truth commissions, whose purpose is to investigate
the causes of violence and human rights violations and to establish judicial responsibility.
Back in the US, those responsible for human rights violations around the world, such as torture,
extra-judicial assassinations, and renditions, have never been brought to justice and the mere
mention of Clinton (a politician!) facing jail for a very minor infraction is considered in undemocratic
bad taste.
Conclusion: perhaps more than a special prosecutor, a commission of truth is in order, but
not at the moment, after the US crumbles as the USSR did. Only then can 3rd worlders hope to see
Kissinger, Bush, Blair, Aznar, Obama, and all their enablers brought to justice. For the moment,
we have to put up with the spectacle of some Americans, in an intent at preemptive amnesty, outraged
at the mere thought that their presumptive tin-pot, global Caesar is not above suspicion and that
they themselves are better than 3rd worlders.
It's amazing to see how all the left wing loonies here are rooting for a collapse of the United
States, just like it happened in the USSR. I guess they are too stupid to understand how really
great this was for the elite ownership class in Russia as it would be here for the US ownership
class.
Leftist could give two shits about about the human suffering of working class people,
extremism is extremism whether they worship Karl Marx or Ayn Rand
Great job, Bob Zannelli. Just call those you disagree with stupid, loony idiots. Have you ever
considered a career in US politics or the media? Your ilk is currently in great demand in those
circles.
Great job, Bob Zannelli. Just call those you disagree with stupid, loony idiots. Have
you ever considered a career in US politics or the media? Your ilk is currently in great demand
in those circles
Not any worst than calling Bernie Sanders a reactionary. Do you really think anyone calling
Sanders a reactionary has a real grasp on reality. Also you might think that many here want to
see Trump win so we can have a nice economic and social implosion which I guess they think will
give us the Union of Soviet Socialist States of America.Has anyone here who is no doubt living
in a relatively pampered and safe western society actually lived through a such an event? I rather
doubt it. It NEVER turns out well. Sorry but the left can be as stupid and evil as the right,
it's a sad truth. So I don't apologize
Bob Zannelli 10.11.16 at 9:54 pm
Maybe the moderate GOP will try to bring in the libertarian party, to get their numbers back up?
A possibility Problem there is, Ryan's next strategy appears to be to make a new coalition with
a lot more gov't aid (a big libertarian no-no) to displaced labor, in return for those mega-rich
tax cuts.
There is nothing moderate about the libertarian party. And the GOP needs their religious nuts
to win elections. BTW the Libertarians I know are more than willing to sign on to the religious
right's agenda. Don't kid yourself. This "Freedom" party was originally established by powerful
corporate elites to get rid of the New Deal and Great Society programs, they could care less about
anything else. The Koch Brothers fund all kinds of religious right organizations because it promotes
their agenda
Has anyone here who is no doubt living in a relatively pampered and safe western society
actually lived through a such an event?
I have. And you are right, it never turns out well. Still, I am a socialist and an anti-imperialist.
Have you ever lived through a CIA-sponsored coup, a military invasion, or IMF-sponsored austerity
to be certain that living through all that is preferable to the demise of American hegemony? In
the post you responded to, by calling me stupid, I mentioned the Dirty War in Argentina and Pinochet's
regime, both supported by the US. Do you think living through those is preferable to a multi-polar
global arrangement?
I have. And you are right, it never turns out well. Still, I am a socialist and an anti-imperialist.
Have you ever lived through a CIA-sponsored coup, a military invasion, or IMF-sponsored austerity
to be certain that living through all that is preferable to the demise of American hegemony?
In the post you responded to, by calling me stupid, I mentioned the Dirty War in Argentina
and Pinochet's regime, both supported by the US. Do you think living through those is preferable
to a multi-polar global arrangement?
I don't have any illusions about what the United States has done in the third world or the
failure and murderous and enslaving tyranny of communism. The point is that thinking that
a global collapse will somehow bring justice and happiness into the world because the unwashed
masses will rise up and overthrow their oppressors is a little crazy. If you think this,
you haven't spent any quality time with the unwashed masses. Most of them don't want to bring
justice to the world, they want the job of being oppressors.
Given that we are only a thin sliver of DNA from other less thoughtful apes, we haven't done
too badly. But we do have a great potential to do a lot worst as our sorry history reveals. The
only way progress happens is one election at a time. And I know how the system is rigged , but
frankly it's mostly ignorance and stupidity that makes the elite so powerful.
Because of this democracy has only been marginally successful at creating a more just society.
But throughout history, it's the only thing that has been shown to work. No sane person should
hope to see the rule of law and the democratic republic be destroyed and that's the very real
threat Trump poses
The point is that thinking that a global collapse will somehow bring justice and happiness
into the world because the unwashed masses will rise up and overthrow their oppressors is a little
crazy.
I never stated that. I wrote that "after the collapse" there could be a truth commission to
investigate the human rights violations committed during the period of Western hegemony. I say
this because the actual truth commissions formed have been after the terror regimes fall, not
during.
No sane person should hope to see the rule of law and the democratic republic be destroyed
and that's the very real threat Trump poses
That is what successive US governments have done: destroy democratic republics around the
world. So who are the sane, those who support the continuation of Pax Americana or the anti-imperialists?
After reading this amazing observation " Cheer up maybe Putin will nuke the US if the Donald
doesn't win " from Bob Zannelli I realized that something was deeply wrong with my post @110.
Unfortunately I misattributed the quote
Have you ever lived through a CIA-sponsored coup, a military invasion, or IMF-sponsored
austerity to be certain that living through all that is preferable to the demise of American
hegemony?
This is the quote from Lupita post @95. Sorry about this.
As for Bob Zanelli with his primitive Russophobia I would like to remind him that in many people
with similar views Russophobia is just displaced Anti-Semitism.
After reading this amazing observation "Cheer up maybe Putin will nuke the US if the Donald
doesn't win" from Bob Zannelli I realized that something was deeply wrong with my post @110.
Unfortunately I misattributed the quote
Have you ever lived through a CIA-sponsored coup, a military invasion, or IMF-sponsored
austerity to be certain that living through all that is preferable to the demise of American
hegemony?
This is the quote from Lupita post @95. Sorry about this.
As for Bob Zanelli with his primitive Russophobia I would like to remind him that in many people
with similar views Russophobia is just displaced Anti-Semitism.
"... There seems plenty of evidence in the Pacific in particular that many countries, from Myanmar and Philippines to Australia are trying to follow a strategy of neutrality, playing the big powers off each other, rather than attaching themselves to the US or China. I suspect we'll see more of this in the Middle East and Europe and even South America. ..."
"... In Obama's case, he seems to bang on about American Exceptionalism more than anyone I can remember. Is Obama worried in case Joe Sixpack questions his background? ..."
"... Nobody forced Obama to continue drone strikes over much of the muslim world. Nobody forced him to put known ideological neocons into key positions of influence and power in State and the Pentagon. Nobody forced him to give Israel a free hand in Gaza and the occupied strip. Nobody forced him to help the French and British destroy the wealthiest country in Africa (Libya) and turn it into an Isis stronghold. ..."
"... Nobody forced him to encourage Ukrainian Nazi's to attack ethnic Russians without consequence. ..."
"... Nobody forced him to pursue a 'tilt to the Pacific' aimed at isolating China with the inevitable blow-back that we are now seeing. Nobody forced him to interfere in Syria with the aim of getting rid of Assad. Nobody forced him to continue a policy of isolating and undermining progressive democratic governments in South and Central America. ..."
"... He's proven very good at giving the notion that all these things 'just happened' as he sat back looking on sadly. I don't buy it. ..."
"... I suspect his judgment is not that he had to be a neoliberal to get to the top (Change! Hope!), but he needed to be a neoliberal to ensure he stayed at the top without either an assassins bullet, or a stray recording/email, knocking him off the summit. ..."
"... I believe he made it to President because he was a Neolib who could make the population believe there would be change. ..."
"... The fact that Trump is actually a thing shows how screwed up the US is. I can't imagine a president making decisions without dissonance, conflicts or contradictions. ..."
"... Many view Obama as a type of Manchurian candidate , sleeper agent or otherwise not who he has been crafted to be. ..."
"... As plausible deniability goes, Obama merges statecraft with tradecraft seamlessly between overt and covert political propaganda. Charming and disarming to democrats and ideals, his passive stances are often a buffer to the more dangerous background signal being sent as a lurking threat. ..."
"... Moneta is correct. The TBTB knew what was coming. So much as Bernanke with his academic expertise on QE and the Great Depression was preemptively put in place in 2006 at the Fed, Obama was heavily backed by Wall Street under conditions that would have been made clear to him in the 2006-2008 period. ..."
"... The most important element of TPTB 's program in backing Obama was the installation of Eric Holder as Attorney General, after Holder had been a primary architect of MERS and mortgage securitization at Covington Burling. Again, a preemptive move to protect Wall Street and forestall any prosecution of those at the top there (and Holder furthermore was conveniently a POC to continue the apparent Change!Hope! pitch). ..."
"... I think of it as the Eric Holder administration in retrospect, actually. ..."
"... What made him rise to the "top" were a multitude of promises made to his party and independents, which he later failed to fulfill. And his failure is almost 100%. He gained the nomination and beat Clinton, who was and is a neo-con, by promising to be different. Instead, he outdid Bush in his war mongering. The promises he made were in part why he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, in advance of him actually having done anything, the award of which is sorely regretted now by those who made it. PlutoniumKun listed some of the things Obama could have avoided but did anyway. One item he failed to mention was the US support of Saudi Arabia in its war on Yemen which has now resulted in the US possibly being liable for the war crimes committed there. ..."
"... the perfect Trojan Horse. and could not be criticized for the longest time because he is a minority. now we have a woman who will "make history". never mind what they get up to while in office. ..."
"... Not only did Obama have a free hand in Congress, he had the biggest popular mandate for reform of any president since 1932. And he fucked up. ..."
"... In March of 2009, I recall an FT editorial by Martin Wolf of the Financial Times asking if Obama was already a failure. I had a nagging feeling he was right, and he was. ..."
"... On Foreign Policy, Obama's got the thawing of relations with Cuba and the Iran deal. We'll see if those are consolidated as a legacy or rolled-back by his successor. ..."
"... With regard to pretty much everything else Obama tried to do, he's failed pretty badly. But supplying weapons to Al Nusra in Syria takes the cake for me. What happened to "don't do stupid stuff?" ..."
"... Obama can and has accomplished a great deal in his presidency. The problem is he was accomplishing what he promised to his other supporters - not us. ..."
"... Obama has always been in thrall to his paymasters as demonstrated by his actions during his administrations. ..."
"... What is larger, 200,000 or 6,000. The first nnumber is the number of people who attended candidate 0bama's rally in Berlin in 2008. Heady, hopey changey times they were. The latter number is the number of people who attended president 0bama's rally in Berlin in 2013. ..."
"... It is amusing to portray 0bama as a limp-wristed impotent figurehead. He isn't, he believes in American exceptionalism with "every fiber" of his body. ..."
"... 0bama surpassed Bush in creating a number of calamities, and has been heavy handed with our supposed allies, thus destroying the myth of about the supposed "partnership." ..."
Not mentioned, of course, is that TPP etc., are central to the US's strategy to counter Russia
and China, and it seems these Pacts are on the verge of failing miserably.
There seems plenty of evidence in the Pacific in particular that many countries, from Myanmar
and Philippines to Australia are trying to follow a strategy of neutrality, playing the big powers
off each other, rather than attaching themselves to the US or China. I suspect we'll see more
of this in the Middle East and Europe and even South America.
Also, militarily its worth pointing out that Russia and China etc., do not have to match the
US's fleets to gain equality on the oceans. They just have to have the technology for areal denial
– i.e. sufficient long range missiles to make the US reluctant to send aircraft carriers within
striking distance. This is similar to the early 20th Century situation where relatively cheap
submarines allowed weaker countries to prevent the traditional great Naval Powers from having
things their own way. Although in its own way, this proved very destabilising.
The other factor not mentioned is that the the neocons have squandered the US's greatest single
strength – its 'soft' power. The US is simply not respected and liked around the world the way
it was even in the Cold War. I think the hysteria around Obama's election was at least partly
based around the worlds longing for a US they could like. Among other things, Obama squandered
that and left everyone with a choice between two detestable individuals, both of which are sure
to make things worse.
Thank you. Well said. Area denial is also cheaper and, probably, less corrupt.
That is such a good point about the soft power squandered by Obama. I wonder if that will come
to be seen as a failure on the scale that Kennan thought about Slick Willie's reversal of policy
towards Russia.
A question for readers based in the US. I am the child of immigrants who came to the UK from
a colony mentioned by Hiro in the mid-1960s, although we have ancestors who left these islands
for that francophone colony in the early 19th century. Most, but not all immigrants in the UK
and their children take tales of British superiority (vide why the UK will make Brexit a success)
with a bucket of salt.
Do our US peers do that? Obama seems like these British ministers of immigrant stock who need
to prove that they belong and so adopt these positions that others / natives rarely bother with
or express. In Obama's case, he seems to bang on about American Exceptionalism more than anyone
I can remember. Is Obama worried in case Joe Sixpack questions his background?
On another note, thank you (to PK) for the anecdote about RC churchgoers. I was away on Monday
evening and unable to say so.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how you can argue this with regard to foreign policy where (unlike
domestic policy) the president has a much freer hand.
Nobody forced Obama to continue drone strikes over much of the muslim world. Nobody forced
him to put known ideological neocons into key positions of influence and power in State and the
Pentagon. Nobody forced him to give Israel a free hand in Gaza and the occupied strip. Nobody
forced him to help the French and British destroy the wealthiest country in Africa (Libya) and
turn it into an Isis stronghold.
Nobody forced him to encourage Ukrainian Nazi's to attack ethnic Russians without consequence.
Nobody forced him to pursue a 'tilt to the Pacific' aimed at isolating China with the inevitable
blow-back that we are now seeing. Nobody forced him to interfere in Syria with the aim of getting
rid of Assad. Nobody forced him to continue a policy of isolating and undermining progressive
democratic governments in South and Central America.
He's proven very good at giving the notion that all these things 'just happened' as he
sat back looking on sadly. I don't buy it.
I agree that he has demonstrated a neoliberal-lite ideology, although its a little complicated
by the fact that he has several times seemed to have shown that he 'gets' that current policy
is wrong headed, but he has consistently shown little or no indication to stand up to the hard
liners within the administration. I don't believe he has any foreign policy ideology other than
his famous 'don't do stupid' policy, and as such will always go with establishment groupthink.
I suspect his judgment is not that he had to be a neoliberal to get to the top (Change!
Hope!), but he needed to be a neoliberal to ensure he stayed at the top without either an assassins
bullet, or a stray recording/email, knocking him off the summit.
I believe he made it to President because he was a Neolib who could make the population
believe there would be change. 10 years ago most of the population probably did not even
know the word neolib existed. And most of the population thought helocs were God's gift to the
USA.
The fact that Trump is actually a thing shows how screwed up the US is. I can't imagine
a president making decisions without dissonance, conflicts or contradictions.
The us was based on a frontier mentality yet liberals think one Neolib president who spoke
of change could change course.
It's going to take a few presidents because society determines individuals' roles. When someone
is very different, society might accept one eccentric touch but not multiple all at once.
For example, maybe the us needs to go single payer but the golf from private to nationalized
is so vast that you can only get there by iteration unless there is a huge shock that permits
the leaders to do it in one scoop.
Many view Obama as a type of
Manchurian candidate
, sleeper agent or otherwise not who he has been crafted to be. Combine that with a deep
distrust by much of the populace, to the extent that they pay attention , of the media, as the
latter as a group have largely demonstrated a profound disregard for truth and objectivity.
Politicians at least swear an oath upon taking office, even if many immediately ignore it,
while so-called journalists no longer attempt to self-police or maintain integrity. The media
seem to want to act as unelected officials with a seat at the top table.
As plausible deniability goes, Obama merges statecraft with tradecraft seamlessly between
overt and covert political propaganda. Charming and disarming to democrats and ideals, his passive
stances are often a buffer to the more dangerous background signal being sent as a lurking threat.
good guy / bad guy writ large. It can be argued that he has used the same role play domestically
where most of his constitutional prejudices have been corporate and most of his financial policies
equally republican.
See:
Obama Resists Hawks As U.S., Russia Step Up War Threats Over Syria
"Nobody forced Obama…" is a formidable listing while apologists are generally sympathetic to
his charm and graceful very likeable personality.
In fact, (after all is said and done) Obama (as world leaders go) may well go down in history
as even a great president and world shaker where amoral realism is counted after all the smoke
and mirrors clear.
History is written by the victor as Napoleon stated succinctly. I suggest to you that his "legacy"
that is currently being groomed so carefully, includes some items that researchers and historians
will also have to explain more comprehensively than any cult of personality will cover.:
see: https://www.stpete4peace.org/obama-fact-sheet
http://stpeteforpeace.org/obama.html
PK wrote: 'he had to be a neoliberal to get to the top (Change! Hope!), but he needed to be
a neoliberal to ensure he stayed at the top without either an assassins bullet, or a stray recording/email,
knocking him off the summit.'
Moneta is correct. The TBTB knew what was coming. So much as Bernanke with his academic
expertise on QE and the Great Depression was preemptively put in place in 2006 at the Fed, Obama
was heavily backed by Wall Street under conditions that would have been made clear to him in the
2006-2008 period.
The most important element of TPTB 's program in backing Obama was the installation of
Eric Holder as Attorney General, after Holder had been a primary architect of MERS and mortgage
securitization at Covington Burling. Again, a preemptive move to protect Wall Street and forestall
any prosecution of those at the top there (and Holder furthermore was conveniently a POC to continue
the apparent Change!Hope! pitch).
I think of it as the Eric Holder administration in retrospect, actually.
What made him rise to the "top" were a multitude of promises made to his party and independents,
which he later failed to fulfill. And his failure is almost 100%. He gained the nomination and
beat Clinton, who was and is a neo-con, by promising to be different. Instead, he outdid Bush
in his war mongering. The promises he made were in part why he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize,
in advance of him actually having done anything, the award of which is sorely regretted now by
those who made it. PlutoniumKun listed some of the things Obama could have avoided but did anyway.
One item he failed to mention was the US support of Saudi Arabia in its war on Yemen which has
now resulted in the US possibly being liable for the war crimes committed there.
the perfect Trojan Horse. and could not be criticized for the longest time because he is
a minority. now we have a woman who will "make history". never mind what they get up to while
in office.
maybe cause he talked a lot about change? you know, closing guantanamo, appointing liberals
to the bench, prosecuting war criminals and financial criminals, stuff like that. not starting
any more wars in the middle east. more will come to me if i think about it. oh yeah, marching
with striking union workers. trying to get the public option. taking a hard look at the fisa court.
sorry, running out of time here.
Of course it was doable. You are apparently overlooking the fact that for the first 2 years
of the Obama presidency he pretty much had a free hand. Both houses of Congress were in the hands
of democrats. Only later did the excuse of Republican vitriol have any weight. And lest you forget,
the voters weighed Obama in the 2010 mid-terms and found him lacking. Most analysts point to the
Democrat losses in that election as a result of Obama's failure to carry out his promised agenda.
In March of 2009, I recall an FT editorial by Martin Wolf of the Financial Times asking if
Obama was already a failure. I had a nagging feeling he was right, and he was.
On Foreign Policy, Obama's got the thawing of relations with Cuba and the Iran deal. We'll
see if those are consolidated as a legacy or rolled-back by his successor.
With regard to pretty much everything else Obama tried to do, he's failed pretty badly. But
supplying weapons to Al Nusra in Syria takes the cake for me. What happened to "don't do stupid
stuff?"
It's really about acting like Hillary's idea of Lincoln. Obama had the nation behind him and
Congress, the Bully Pulpit mentioned below, the power to appoint and request the resignations
of the leaders of the Executive Branch arms of power, he could have lobbied for changing Rule
22 in the Senate his first year and changed the Senate rules for filibuster, and if Congress sends
him a bill he doesn't like he can NOT sign it, and if there is a bill he does like he can actually
get behind that bill and twist a few Congressional arms to get what he wants.
Obama can and has
accomplished a great deal in his presidency. The problem is he was accomplishing what he promised
to his other supporters - not us.
This is the very purpose of the bully pulpit presented to Obama in '08. Obama has always
been in thrall to his paymasters as demonstrated by his actions during his administrations.
What is larger, 200,000 or 6,000. The first nnumber is the number of people who attended
candidate 0bama's rally in Berlin in 2008. Heady, hopey changey times they were. The latter number
is the number of people who attended president 0bama's rally in Berlin in 2013.
It is amusing to portray 0bama as a limp-wristed impotent figurehead. He isn't, he believes
in American exceptionalism with "every fiber" of his body.
The results are clear, most regular everyday Euros are quite cynical about the US. 0bama
surpassed Bush in creating a number of calamities, and has been heavy handed with our supposed
allies, thus destroying the myth of about the supposed "partnership."
"... They were in active collusion with the 1990s Clinton campaigns too, but I didn't have Wikileaks around to confirm it, or the internets for alternative sources of information. I suspected it anyway. I finally cut the cord after 2002. ..."
"... Well the NYT, WaPo, CNN et al have shot themselves in the foot with this blatant collusion with the Clinton campaign. They've pissed off their most intelligent readers & viewers, shown themselves to be knaves and fools, and what are they going to say when HRC is president and investigated up the wazoo for corruption? ..."
"... If you defeat Trump, you prevail over one guy. When Clinton is defeated, you win over all those 'with her.' ..."
"... Yes… But leverage much higher than 100:1… Not just MSM, but banks, neocons, corrupt ceo's, and all these alphabet groups keeping us safe… Hopefully he'd be vindictive against all the elites trying to defeat him. ..."
"... Some combination of "it's a Russian plot" and "we told you so." The MSM - they know everything. ..."
"... NEVER overestimate the intelligence of the American public. If Hillary can get an 11 point lead over a salacious story that affects almost nobody and yet get no drop in popularity over revelations that will affect everyone's lives, I don't think there is much hope that the NYT, WaPo, CNN, et al, will get their comeuppance. But Americans who drink in what these MSM sites are feeding them WILL get the President they so obviously deserve, won't they? ..."
"... Yes, it's the public's fault… despite being subject to the most brutal propaganda campaign in history and being assaulted by years of neoliberalism that barely gives them time to breathe between their three zero-hour contract jobs, it's their fault and they deserve a president who will grand-bargain away their social security benefits, TPP away the few remaining good jobs and start a civilisation-threatening war with Russia. ..."
"... And just for the record (/sarc), HRC only has an 11-point lead because most people won't be voting anyway, as they've correctly surmised that the system is completely rigged against them. ..."
"... I have not seen the data on that poll but I doubt that it is a "scientific poll". Many of the polls that I have taken the time to look at the data shows that they avoid asking 35 and under voters and heavily skew the data set to democrats. Lee Camp from Redacted Tonight has also shown this on his TV show on RT. Those even ruskies. ..."
"... Stupid Bloomberg headlines I never clicked on: The Trump Video Would Get Most CEOs Ousted. No doubt. But so would running their own private server outside the company system, then destroying emails in response to a Congressional subpoena. ..."
NYT: the toilet paper of record. In yet another Wikileaks dump it's come out that they're in
active collusion with Hillary's campaign. How anyone is still dumb enough to believe the lies
they're alwaus putting out is beyond me.
Really, it's fine to be biased lackeys for the rich and powerful as long as you're honest about
it. Pretending to be unbiased arbiters of truth while doing that though is pathetic.
These media presstitutes are so rancidly despicable that I want to throw up whenever I think
of them. Newspapers and the rest of the media: want to know why you're going bankrupt? It's not
the internet–it's because every day more and more people are clued into the fact that you are
pathetic lying scum. In my mind these media people are in the same exact category as child molesters.
They were in active collusion with the 1990s Clinton campaigns too, but I didn't have Wikileaks
around to confirm it, or the internets for alternative sources of information. I suspected it
anyway. I finally cut the cord after 2002.
Well the NYT, WaPo, CNN et al have shot themselves in the foot with this blatant collusion
with the Clinton campaign. They've pissed off their most intelligent readers & viewers, shown
themselves to be knaves and fools, and what are they going to say when HRC is president and investigated
up the wazoo for corruption?
Yes… But leverage much higher than 100:1… Not just MSM, but banks, neocons, corrupt ceo's,
and all these alphabet groups keeping us safe…
Hopefully he'd be vindictive against all the elites trying to defeat him.
NEVER overestimate the intelligence of the American public. If Hillary can get an 11 point
lead over a salacious story that affects almost nobody and yet get no drop in popularity over
revelations that will affect everyone's lives, I don't think there is much hope that the NYT,
WaPo, CNN, et al, will get their comeuppance. But Americans who drink in what these MSM sites
are feeding them WILL get the President they so obviously deserve, won't they?
Yes, it's the public's fault… despite being subject to the most brutal propaganda campaign
in history and being assaulted by years of neoliberalism that barely gives them time to breathe
between their three zero-hour contract jobs, it's their fault and they deserve a president who
will grand-bargain away their social security benefits, TPP away the few remaining good jobs and
start a civilisation-threatening war with Russia.
And just for the record (/sarc), HRC only has an 11-point lead because most people won't
be voting anyway, as they've correctly surmised that the system is completely rigged against them.
I have not seen the data on that poll but I doubt that it is a "scientific poll". Many
of the polls that I have taken the time to look at the data shows that they avoid asking 35 and
under voters and heavily skew the data set to democrats. Lee Camp from Redacted Tonight has also
shown this on his TV show on RT. Those even ruskies.
Just watched a documentary on the murder of Kitty Genovese. It sure made me think there has
been a culture of corruption at the New York Times for decades, enabled by outside journalists
refusing to question them for whatever reason (intimidation, careerism…).
Stupid Bloomberg headlines I never clicked on: The Trump Video Would Get Most CEOs Ousted.
No doubt. But so would running their own private server outside the company system, then destroying
emails in response to a Congressional subpoena.
"... This election also can be seen in a more general, global context of how forces have been accommodating to the end of the cold war. ..."
"... Back in the US, those responsible for human rights violations around the world, such as torture, extra-judicial assassinations, and renditions, have never been brought to justice and the mere mention of Clinton (a politician!) facing jail for a very minor infraction is considered in undemocratic bad taste. ..."
"... For the moment, we have to put up with the spectacle of some Americans, in an intent at preemptive amnesty, outraged at the mere thought that their presumptive tin-pot, global Caesar is not above suspicion and that they themselves are better than 3rd worlders. ..."
This election also can be seen in a more general, global context of how forces have been accommodating
to the end of the cold war. Perhaps a detour into the history of some 3rd world banana republics,
those that many Americans deem as deplorable as a Trump supporter, can shed some light.
Starting in the 50's, and with the expressed goal of modernizing their countries (meaning an
accelerated capitalist development with the US as its model and as the only possible model) military
and terror regimes took over South America (Paraguay: 1954-1991, Chile: 1973-1990, Argentina:
1976-1982, Uruguay: 1966- 1985). For the most part, before being forced out of power, these military
regimes declared amnesty for themselves. Enter truth commissions, whose purpose is to investigate
the causes of violence and human rights violations and to establish judicial responsibility.
Back in the US, those responsible for human rights violations around the world, such as
torture, extra-judicial assassinations, and renditions, have never been brought to justice and
the mere mention of Clinton (a politician!) facing jail for a very minor infraction is considered
in undemocratic bad taste.
Conclusion: perhaps more than a special prosecutor, a commission of truth is in order, but
not at the moment, after the US crumbles as the USSR did. Only then can 3rd worlders hope to see
Kissinger, Bush, Blair, Aznar, Obama, and all their enablers brought to justice.
For the moment, we have to put up with the spectacle of some Americans, in an intent at
preemptive amnesty, outraged at the mere thought that their presumptive tin-pot, global Caesar
is not above suspicion and that they themselves are better than 3rd worlders.
WikiLeaks hack reveals DNC's favoritism as Clinton staff in damage control over Hillary's support
for DOMA
On October 10,
Wikileaks released part two of their emails from
Clinton campaign chair John Podesta.
Friday,
Wikileaks released their first batch of Podesta's emails, which included excerpts from
Clinton's Wall Street transcripts that reaffirmed why
Clinton refused to release them in full. During the second presidential debate,
Clinton confirmed their authenticity by attempting to defend one statement she made in the speech
about having a public and private stance on political issues. She
cited Abraham Lincoln, a defense comparable to her ridiculous
invocation of 9/11 when pressed on her ties to Wall Street during a
Democratic primary debate.
The latest release reveals current DNC chair Donna Brazile, when working as a
DNC vice chair, forwarded to the Clinton campaign a January 2016
email obtained from
the Bernie Sanders campaign, released by Sarah Ford, Sanders' deputy national press secretary, announcing
a Twitter storm from Sanders' African-American outreach team. "FYI" Brazile wrote to the Clinton
staff. "Thank you for the heads up on this Donna," replied Clinton campaign spokesperson Adrienne
Elrod.
One
email
, received by prolific
Clinton donor Haim Saban, was forwarded to
Clinton staff, praising the friendly moderators in the early March 2016 Democratic primary
debate co-hosted by Univision in Florida. "Haim, I just wanted to tell you that I thought the
moderators for last nights Debate were excellent. They were thoughtful, tough and incisive. I thought
it made
Hilary appear direct and strong in her resolve. I felt it advanced our candidate. Thanks for
Univision," wrote Rob Friedman, former co-chair of the Motion Picture Group.
Another email discusses planting a favorable Clinton story in The New York Times in March
2015. "NYT heroine. Should she call her today?" Podesta wrote to other Clinton campaign staffers
with the subject line 'Laura Donohoe.' "I do think it's a great idea! We can make it happen," replied
Huma Abedin. The story they referred to is likely "
In New Hampshire, Clinton Backers Buckle Up," published in The New York Times on March
12, 2015 about Laura Donohoe, a retired nurse and Clinton supporter in New Hampshire.
John Harwood, New York Times contributor and CNBC correspondent, regularly exchanged
emails with Podesta-communicating more as a
Clinton surrogate than a journalist.
In an October 2015
email thread, Clinton staff were in damage control over Hillary's support for the 1996 Defense
of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.
Hillary Clinton would not disavow her support for it. "I'm not saying double down or ever say
it again. I'm just saying that she's not going to want to say she was wrong about that, given she
and her husband believe it and have repeated it many times. Better to reiterate evolution, opposition
to DOMA when court considered it, and forward looking stance."
Former
Clinton Foundation director, Darnell Strom of the Creative Artist Agency,
wrote
a condescending email
to Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard after she resigned from the
DNC
to endorse
Bernie Sanders , which he then forwarded to Clinton campaign staff. "For you to endorse a man
who has spent almost 40 years in public office with very few accomplishments, doesn't fall in line
with what we previously thought of you. Hillary Clinton will be our party's nominee and you standing
on ceremony to support the sinking Bernie Sanders ship is disrespectful to Hillary Clinton," wrote
Strom.
A memo sent from Clinton's general counsel, Marc Elias of the law firm Perkins Coie, outlined
legal tricks to circumvent campaign finance laws to raise money in tandem with Super Pacs.
In a March 2015 email
,
Clinton Campaign manager
Robby Mook expressed frustration DNC Chair
Debbie Wasserman Schultz hired a Convention CEO without consulting the Clinton campaign, which
suggests the
DNC and Clinton campaign regularly coordinated together from the early stages of the Democratic
primaries.
"... Now we're in a situation in which superexploitation options are largely gone. Routine profit generation has become difficult due to global productive overcapacity, leading to behavioral sinkish behavior like the US cannibalizing its public sector to feed capital. ..."
"... Since the late 19th century US foreign policy has been organized around the open markets mantra. It may be possible for the Chinese, with their greater options for economy manipulation, to avoid the crashes the US feared from lack of market access. ..."
"... But the current situation on its face does not have anything like the colonial escape valve available in the 19th century. ..."
"... To the extent that colonialism or neocolonialism does not actually hold fixed boundary ground is irrelevant, since assets are more differential and flexible needing only corporate law to sustain strict boundaries on possession or instruments that convert to the same power over assets. No one, of course, wants to assess stocks and bonds as instruments of global oppression or exploitation that far exceeds 19th century's crude colonial rule. ..."
"... The TPP is a corporate power grab, a 5,544-page document that was negotiated in secret by big corporations while Congress, the public, and unions were locked out. ..."
"... Multinationals like Google, Exxon, Monsanto, Goldman Sachs, UPS, FedEx, Apple, and Walmart are lobbying hard for it. Virtually every union in the U.S. opposes it. So do major environmental, senior, health, and consumer organizations. ..."
"... The TPP will mean fewer jobs and lower wages, higher prices for prescription drugs, the loss of regulations that protect our drinking water and food supply, and the loss of Internet freedom. It encourages privatization, undermines democracy, and will forbid many of the policies we need to combat climate change ..."
"... "Though the Obama administration touts the pact's labor and environmental protections, the official Labor Advisory Committee on the TPP strongly opposes it, arguing that these protections are largely unenforceable window dressing." ..."
global scenario that the down-to-earth presidents of China and Russia seem to have in mind
resembles the sort of balance of power that existed in Europe.
The article floats away here. China and Russia might want to have something that "resembles"
that time, but the analogy overlooks the fact that the relatively calm state of affairs -
Franco-Prussian war? - on the European continent after Napoleon coexisted with savage colonial
expansion. The forms of superexploitation thereby obtained did much to help stabilize Europe,
even as competition for colonial lands became more and more destabilizing and were part of what
led to WW1.
Now we're in a situation in which superexploitation options are largely gone. Routine profit
generation has become difficult due to global productive overcapacity, leading to behavioral
sinkish behavior like the US cannibalizing its public sector to feed capital.
Since the late 19th century US foreign policy has been organized around the open markets
mantra. It may be possible for the Chinese, with their greater options for economy manipulation,
to avoid the crashes the US feared from lack of market access.
But the current situation on its face does not have anything like the colonial escape valve
available in the 19th century.
Of course, duplicitous political COPORATISM means systems over a systemic characterized by
marked or even intentional deception that is now sustained and even spearheaded by state
systems.
Many contemporary liberal idealists living in urban strongholds of market mediated comfort
zones will not agree to assigning such strong description to an Obama administration. It is
too distant and remote to assign accountability to global international finance and currency
wars that have hegemonic hedge funds pumping and dumping crisis driven anarchy over global
exploit (ruled by market capital fright / fight and flight).
To the extent that colonialism or neocolonialism does not actually hold fixed boundary
ground is irrelevant, since assets are more differential and flexible needing only corporate
law to sustain strict boundaries on possession or instruments that convert to the same power
over assets. No one, of course, wants to assess stocks and bonds as instruments of global
oppression or exploitation that far exceeds 19th century's crude colonial rule.
Recall, however, how "joint stock" corporations first opened chartered exploit at global
levels under East and West Trading power aggregates that were profit driven enter-prize. So in
reality the current cross border market system of neoliberal globalization is, in fact, a
stealth colonialism on steroids.
TPP is part of that process in all its stealthy dimensions.
"The TPP is a corporate power grab, a 5,544-page document that was negotiated in secret
by big corporations while Congress, the public, and unions were locked out.
Multinationals like Google, Exxon, Monsanto, Goldman Sachs, UPS, FedEx, Apple, and Walmart
are lobbying hard for it. Virtually every union in the U.S. opposes it. So do major
environmental, senior, health, and consumer organizations.
The TPP will mean fewer jobs and lower wages, higher prices for prescription drugs, the
loss of regulations that protect our drinking water and food supply, and the loss of
Internet freedom. It encourages privatization, undermines democracy, and will forbid many
of the policies we need to combat climate change."
This is very handy, thanks. However the conclusion stops short of what the SCO is saying and
doing. They have no interest in an old-time balance of power. They want rule of law, a very
different thing. Look at Putin's Syria strategy: he actually complies with the UN Charter's
requirement to pursue pacific dispute resolution. That's revolutionary. When CIA moles in Turkey
shot that Russian jet down, the outcome was not battles and state-sponsored terror, as CIA
expected. The outcome was support for Turkey's sovereignty and rapprochement. Now when CIA starts
fires you go to Russia to put them out.
While China maintains its purist line on the legal principle of non-interference, it is
increasingly vocal in urging the US to fulfill its human rights obligations. That will sound
paradoxical because of intense US vilification of Chinese authoritarianism, but when you push for
your economic and social rights here at home, China is in your corner. Here Russia is leading by
example. They comply with the Paris Principles for institutionalized human rights protection
under independent international oversight. The USA does not.
When the USA goes the way of the USSR, we'll be in good hands. The world will show us how
developed countries work.
"RULE OF LAW" up front and personal (again?)
Now why would the USA be worried about global rule of law?
An Interesting ideal. No country above the law.
"…US President Barack Obama has vetoed a bill that would have allowed the families of the
victims of the September 11, 2001, attacks to sue the government of Saudi Arabia.
In a statement accompanying his veto message, Obama said on Friday he had
"deep sympathy" for the 9/11 victims' families and their desire to seek justice for
their relatives.
The president said, however, that the bill would be "detrimental to US national interests"
and could lead to lawsuits against the US or American officials for actions taken by groups
armed, trained or supported by the US.
"If any of these litigants were to win judgements – based on foreign domestic laws as
applied by foreign courts – they would begin to look to the assets of the US government held
abroad to satisfy those judgments, with potentially serious financial consequences for the
United States," Obama said."
-----------------------
To the tune of "Moma said…" by The Shirelles –
….Oh don't you know…Obama said they be days like this,
…..they would be days like this Obama said…
One interesting irony is that in Obama's TPP "The worst part is an Investor-State
Dispute Settlement provision, which allows a multinational corporation to sue to override
any U.S. law, policy, or practice that it claims could limit its future profits."
"Though the Obama administration touts the pact's labor and environmental protections, the
official Labor Advisory Committee on the TPP strongly opposes
it, arguing that these protections are largely unenforceable window dressing."
Britain's Economy Was Resilient After 'Brexit.'
Its Leaders Learned the Wrong Lesson.
http://nyti.ms/2dOx0Is
via @UpshotNYT
NYT - Neil Irwin - OCT. 10, 2016
This article must begin with a mea culpa. When British
voters decided in June that they wanted to depart the
European Union, I agreed with the conventional wisdom that
the British economy would probably slow and that uncertainty
put it at risk of recession.
Advocates of "Brexit" argued that was hogwash, and the
early evidence suggests they were right. For example, surveys
of purchasing managers showed that both the British
manufacturing and service sectors plummeted after the vote in
July, yet were comfortably expanding in August and September.
But the events of the last couple of weeks suggest that
British leaders are drawing the wrong conclusions from the
fact that their predictions proved right. The British
currency is plummeting again, most immediately because of
comments from French and German leaders suggesting they will
take a tough line in negotiating Brexit. But the underlying
reason is that the British government is ignoring the lessons
from the relatively benign immediate aftermath of the vote.
The British pound fell to about $1.24 on Friday from $1.30
a week earlier and continued edging down Monday. Even if you
treat a "flash crash" in the pound on Asian markets Thursday
night as an aberration - it fell 6 percent, then recovered in
a short span - these types of aberrations seem to happen only
when a market is already under severe stress. (See, for
example, the May 2010 flash crash of American stocks, during
a flare-up of the eurozone crisis).
Sterling, as traders refer to the currency, is acting as
the global market's minute-to-minute referendum on how
significant the economic disruption from Brexit will end up
being. So what does the latest downswing represent? It's
worth understanding why British financial markets and the
country's economy stabilized quickly after the Brexit vote to
begin with.
The vote set off a chaotic time of political disruption,
especially the resignation of the prime minister, David
Cameron, who had advocated for the country's remaining part
of the E.U. Theresa May won the internal battle to become the
next prime minister, which was to markets and business
decision makers a relatively benign result.
Down, Down, Down for the Pound
The British currency plummeted after the country's vote to
leave the European Union, and again this week.
(graph at the link: £ at ~$1.45 Jan-June 30,
then down to $1.30-1.35 thru Sep 30,
then plunging to $1.24.)
Ms. May, the former home secretary, is temperamentally
pragmatic. She reluctantly supported remaining in the union.
And while she pledged to follow through on leaving it
("Brexit means Brexit," she said), she seemed like the kind
of leader who would ensure that some of the worst-case
possibilities of how Brexit might go wouldn't materialize.
Exporters would retain access to European markets. London
could remain the de facto banking capital of Europe. All
would be well.
Meanwhile, the Bank of England sprang into action to
cushion the economic blow of Brexit-related uncertainty.
Despite the inflationary pressures created by a falling
pound, the bank, projecting loss of jobs and economic output,
cut interest rates and started a new program of quantitative
easing to try to soften the blow.
All of that - the prospect of "soft Brexit" and easier
monetary policy - helped financial markets stabilize and then
rally, and kept the economic damage mild, as the purchasing
managers' surveys show.
But in the last couple of weeks, the tenor has shifted.
The May government has sent a range of signals indicating
it will take a hard line in negotiations with European
governments over the terms of Brexit. At a conservative party
conference, she pledged to begin the "Article 50" process of
formally unwinding Britain's E.U. membership by the end of
March, declaring that the government's negotiators would
insist that Britain would assert control of immigration and
not be subject to decisions of the European Court of Justice.
That sets up confrontational negotiations between the
British government and its E.U. counterparts. European
leaders will be reluctant to allow Britain continued free
access to its markets, which the May government wants,
without similarly free movement of people across borders.
And beyond the substance of the negotiations, the British
government has signaled in recent days that it is looking
inward, and will be hostile to those who are not British
citizens. ...
The much-hyped severe Brexit
recession does not, so far, seem to be materializing – which
really shouldn't be that much of a surprise, because as I
warned, the actual economic case for such a recession was
surprisingly weak. (Ouch! I just pulled a muscle while
patting myself on the back!) But we are seeing a large drop
in the pound, which has steepened as it becomes likely that
this will indeed be a very hard Brexit. How should we think
about this?
Originally, stories about a pound plunge were tied to that
recession prediction: domestic investment demand would
collapse, leading to sustained very low interest rates, hence
capital flight. But the demand collapse doesn't seem to be
happening. So what is the story?
For now, at least, I'm coming at it from the trade side –
especially trade in financial services. It seems to me that
one way to think about this is in terms of the "home market
effect," an old story in trade but one that only got
formalized in 1980.
Here's an informal version: imagine a good or service
subject to large economies of scale in production, sufficient
that if it's consumed in two countries, you want to produce
it in only one, and export to the other, even if there are
costs of shipping it. Where will this production be located?
Other things equal, you would choose the larger market, so as
to minimize total shipping costs. Other things may not, of
course, be equal, but this market-size effect will always be
a factor, depending on how high those shipping costs are.
In one of the models I laid out in that old paper, the way
this worked out was not that all production left the smaller
economy, but rather that the smaller economy paid lower wages
and therefore made up in competitiveness what it lacked in
market access. In effect, it used a weaker currency to make
up for its smaller market.
In Britain's case, I'd suggest that we think of financial
services as the industry in question. Such services are
subject to both internal and external economies of scale,
which tends to concentrate them in a handful of huge
financial centers around the world, one of which is, of
course, the City of London. But now we face the prospect of
seriously increased transaction costs between Britain and the
rest of Europe, which creates an incentive to move those
services away from the smaller economy (Britain) and into the
larger (Europe). Britain therefore needs a weaker currency to
offset this adverse impact.
Does this make Britain poorer? Yes. It's not just the
efficiency effect of barriers to trade, there's also a
terms-of-trade effect as the real exchange rate depreciates.
But it's important to be aware that not everyone in
Britain is equally affected. Pre-Brexit, Britain was
obviously experiencing a version of the so-called Dutch
disease. In its traditional form, this referred to the way
natural resource exports crowd out manufacturing by keeping
the currency strong. In the UK case, the City's financial
exports play the same role. So their weakening helps British
manufacturing – and, maybe, the incomes of people who live
far from the City and still depend directly or indirectly on
manufacturing for their incomes. It's not completely
incidental that these were the parts of England (not
Scotland!) that voted for Brexit.
Is there a policy moral here? Basically it is that a
weaker pound shouldn't be viewed as an additional cost from
Brexit, it's just part of the adjustment. And it would be a
big mistake to prop up the pound: old notions of an
equilibrium exchange rate no longer apply.
(Busy with nurturing some illness, please bear with me.)
Quotes from the Wikileaks stash of Hillary
Clinton speeches and
emails from her campaign chair John Podesta.
Clinton in a 2013 speech to the Jewish United Fund Advance & Major Gifts Dinner (via
The Intercept ):
[Arming moderates has] been complicated by the fact that the Saudis and others are shipping large amounts of weapons-and pretty
indiscriminately-not at all targeted toward the people that we think would be the more moderate, least likely, to cause problems
in the future, ...
Clinton also says that the no-fly zone bombing in Syria she is arguing for "would kill a lot of Syrians" - all for humanitarian
reasons of course.
The following was written by Podesta, a well connected former White House Chief of Staff, in an 2014
email to Clinton. As introduction Podesta notes:"Sources
include Western intelligence, US intelligence and sources in the region.":
While this military/para-military operation is moving forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence
assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia , which are providing clandestine
financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.
Not new - the 2012 DIA analysis
provided as much , and more, - but these email's prove that Clinton was and is well aware that U.S. allies are financing the
radical Islamists in Syria and Iraq.
"... Yes, on all points, especially this: "I don't know whether this obfuscation is due to the journalists themselves believing that Clinton is a crook and therefore shouting "Thief, thief!" to distract attention from this, or whether they're just being opportunistic and throwing raw meat to the rubes. But it's not a good sign for the future of American civil society either way." I say both . The donor class 1% that own the media, especially the new media, are solidly behind Hillary to an extent that I wonder whether we can call any of the media 'liberal.' Trump correctly noted that to even refer to the 33,000 documents she destroyed after receiving a federal subpoena as 'email' clouds the key facts: the FBI and government inspectors had to have access to all the documents to determine their status. ..."
"... In the short term, it's all upside. They won't be fighting in any of Hillary's wars. They aren't going to be drafted and they aren't going to be bombed. The are almost all staunchly and proudly anti-Republican and that's the sole metric by which actions are judged both morally and legally. ..."
"... When the elephant starts to take heat for the crap effect of donor class policies, the donor class simply pour money into donkey coffers to ensure the continuation of the donor class crap policies. ..."
"... JournOlism 101, or wishful thinking? ..."
"... I wouldn't ordinarily link to the NR, but on the topic of banana republics, this piece is quite good. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440917/donald-trump-special-prosecutor-hillary-clinton-debate ..."
"... Like so much of the media they have the ideological and cultural diversity of a clan rally, (though with better politics, obviously) and at this stage there's little to be gained intellectually from re litigating liberal dogma for the nth time. ..."
"... And then there's the inability to deal with uncertainty or not knowing. Everything has to have a neat explanation and convenient conclusion. ..."
"... I You see, one thing, is I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. ..."
"... The only way we're going to arrive at a rough approximation of the truth is to leave these ideological bubbles and embrace our enemies. This is the only way truth will emerge. And it's not going to come from the regurgitated conventional wisdom of the anglosphere chattering classes ..."
"... Ezra did not forget about the earlier chants at the RNC. Ezra *pretended* to forget about the earlier chants at the RNC, because he saw that the debate had created a new opportunity to create momentum behind an anti-Trump message. To make the message maximally powerful, and to get a larger segment of the press and punditry behind the message, it was useful to pretend that a new red line had been crossed, a new outrage had been perpetrated, unlike any other. ..."
"... Look, it was strategically useful, and it seems to have worked in mobilizing a lot of sentiment to converge on one line of attack: lots and lots of people are saying "Trump is a tin-pot dictator!" who were not saying it before. ..."
"... Remember when Captain Renault was shocked to discover that gambling was going on at Rick's? Were you shocked to discover that he had not been aware of it previously? Were you appalled at his historical amnesia? ..."
"... Agree vox's self-definition as "explain the news" is misleading, and their reality is closer to "interpret the news from a moderate-left/technocrat POV" ..."
"... There's a bumper crop of new email on the topic of the press and debate moderators colluding with the Hillary campaign to: screw Sanders (Boston Herald – also on board for anti-Trump), minimize damage from the email fallout, and best of all (for me) John Harwood (neutral debate moderator) providing written evidence that even that venue was tilted to damage Trump and protect Hillary. ..."
"... It's never the crime, always the cover-up. http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/11/nytcnbcs-john-harwood-advises-clinton-campaign-gloats-about-provoking-trump-at-debate/ ..."
"... And for the win: Youtube puts a warning on a Trump ad featuring Hillary coughing and tipping over. Take that as confirmation the ad can change votes: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/youtube-hides-slaps-warning-new-trump-ad-hillarys-health/ ..."
@5 MFB Yes, on all points, especially this: "I don't know whether this obfuscation is due
to the journalists themselves believing that Clinton is a crook and therefore shouting "Thief,
thief!" to distract attention from this, or whether they're just being opportunistic and throwing
raw meat to the rubes. But it's not a good sign for the future of American civil society either
way."
I say both . The donor class 1% that own the media, especially the new media, are solidly
behind Hillary to an extent that I wonder whether we can call any of the media 'liberal.' Trump
correctly noted that to even refer to the 33,000 documents she destroyed after receiving a federal
subpoena as 'email' clouds the key facts: the FBI and government inspectors had to have access
to all the documents to determine their status.
The press understands all this, of course. They are neither forgetful, or entirely stupid.
They, however, quite blind to the damage they are doing to institutions they claim to care about.
In the short term, it's all upside. They won't be fighting in any of Hillary's wars. They
aren't going to be drafted and they aren't going to be bombed. The are almost all staunchly and
proudly anti-Republican and that's the sole metric by which actions are judged both morally and
legally.
Which makes them the perfect dupes of the donor class.
When the elephant starts to take heat for the crap effect of donor class policies, the
donor class simply pour money into donkey coffers to ensure the continuation of the donor class
crap policies.
Ezra and Ryan and their ilk are all aspiring VSPs. They'll get their 'one-on-one' interviews
to boost clicks and Hillary will simply forget to schedule more than one actual press conference
per year.
Liberals will clap and high five each other over the goofus they helped remove.
TPM Headline: It Begins: Trump Takes Swipe At Ryan After He Essentially Concedes To Clinton
Buried at bottom of piece: "…one Republican congressman who spoke to TPM on background said
that some members were criticizing Ryan openly for not standing by Trump. One member, Rep. Dana
Rohrabacher (R-CA) blasted Ryan for essentially ceding the election to Hillary Clinton."
One congressmen clearly identified as Dana Rohrabacher "blasted Ryan for essentially ceding
the election to Hillary Clinton" becomes in the TPM land "He (Trump) concedes to Clinton", or
the almost equally implausible "He (Ryan) concedes to Clinton." OK.
I'm reluctant enough to say anything too mean spirited about vox, as they all genuinely seem like
decent sorts, and can provide quite useful information at times.
But I really can't read it anymore.
Like so much of the media they have the ideological and cultural diversity of a clan rally, (though
with better politics, obviously) and at this stage there's little to be gained intellectually
from re litigating liberal dogma for the nth time.
And then there's the inability to deal with
uncertainty or not knowing. Everything has to have a neat explanation and convenient conclusion.
This was most recently personified by beauchamps white riot article, which couldn't just be a
useful and interesting perspective , but was sold (literally) as "the truth", with no complications
or alternatives acceptable. Whatever happened to following Feynmans dictum:
" I You see, one thing, is I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I
think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong.
I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty about
different things but I'm not absolutely sure of anything and then many things I don't know
anything about….
But I don't have to know an answer, I don't have to…i don't feel frightened by not knowing
things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose which is the way
it really is as far as I can tell possibly. It doesn't frighten me."
Beyond that though, what we should aspire towards is surrounding ourselves with people we find
morally and politically awful. Literally, by reprehensible assholes (no offence to anyone here
; ) )
The only way we're going to arrive at a rough approximation of the truth is to leave these
ideological bubbles and embrace our enemies. This is the only way truth will emerge. And it's
not going to come from the regurgitated conventional wisdom of the anglosphere chattering classes
Complaining about naïveté at Vox is a sign of naïveté in the complainer.
Ezra did not forget about the earlier chants at the RNC. Ezra *pretended* to forget about the
earlier chants at the RNC, because he saw that the debate had created a new opportunity to create
momentum behind an anti-Trump message. To make the message maximally powerful, and to get a larger
segment of the press and punditry behind the message, it was useful to pretend that a new red
line had been crossed, a new outrage had been perpetrated, unlike any other.
So Ezra, and the Clinton campaign, and lots of other media types, all coordinated on a
story: what Trump had just said was a shocking new violation of norms, worse than anything that
had occurred before.
Look, it was strategically useful, and it seems to have worked in mobilizing a lot of sentiment
to converge on one line of attack: lots and lots of people are saying "Trump is a tin-pot dictator!"
who were not saying it before.
And Ezra's putting on the appearance of historical naïveté helps to counter a genuine structural
problem in dealing with Trump: Trump's own constant, slow, incremental ratcheting up of offensive
statements. He does not start out by saying the unsayable himself: first he has audience plants
say it, and he ignores it.
So that's not the time to confront him, because he hasn't said it himself.
Then he says, "a lot of people are saying [unsayable thing]," but that's not the time to confront
him, either, because by then it is literally true. And so on as he normalizes the unsayable by
small degrees.
It's like the frog-boiling story (pretend it were true), in that if you want to stop the temperature
rise, it may be strategically useful for everyone to agree that 75C is the temp at which they
will all say, in a coordinated way, "the burner is on!" And then of course someone could accuse
them of amnesia for forgetting that the burner has been on for a long time. But that person would
be failing to understand how a coordinated media push works.
Remember when Captain Renault was shocked to discover that gambling was going on at Rick's?
Were you shocked to discover that he had not been aware of it previously? Were you appalled at
his historical amnesia?
Agree vox's self-definition as "explain the news" is misleading, and their reality is closer to
"interpret the news from a moderate-left/technocrat POV"
But I really, really, really don't get the point of the OP's final lines. Trump as ringmaster
and vox as clowns? Huh?
Trump is a risk to our future and vox is pointing that out - which they
take (I think rightly) to be their job. They point it out over and over again, and attach the
point to every possible news hook? Good for them!
How is vox's response to Trump different/worse than, say, the MSM's response to Watergate?
(Or any other journalist's response to any other perceived abuse of power?) Serious question.
Back to the OP. There's a bumper crop of new email on the topic of the press and debate moderators
colluding with the Hillary campaign to: screw Sanders (Boston Herald – also on board for anti-Trump),
minimize damage from the email fallout, and best of all (for me) John Harwood (neutral debate
moderator) providing written evidence that even that venue was tilted to damage Trump and protect
Hillary.
Researchers and political analysts frequent CTH because we bring you hard, factual,
and fully cited research enabling you to make up your own mind about the headlines.
What you are about to read (and see) below is a fully cited example of something we
have discussed frequently, but withheld until today, so the oppositional forces cannot
change strategies in their attempts to manipulate your mind.
It is now time to lay all media polling naked for you to grasp. Everything below is
fully cited so you can fact-check it for yourself. However, we present this with a
disclaimer: the entities exposed will industriously work to change their approach from
this day forth.
You have probably seen the latest example of the media claiming a released
presidential poll from NBC and The Wall Street Journal as an example of Hillary Clinton
expanding to an 11 point lead in the weekend following the "controversial" leaked tape
of Donald Trump.
The claim is complete and utter nonsense. Here's the proof.
Transparently the poll is manipulated with: a) a small sample (500); and b) the
following ideological make-up:
Republican and Republican leaners 36%
Democrat and Democrat leaners 43%
Independents 12%
By itself that ideological snapshot is silly. Nationally the party registration is
roughly 27% (R), 32% (D), and 40% (I) –
SEE HERE
–
However, the polling sample is the least of the issues for this deconstruction.
Arguing about the construct or methodology of the poll is typically what most people
do when they are refuting a media poll.
That aspect alone is not the big story.
Look at the polling organization:
Do you see:
Hart Research Associates/Public Opinion Strategies?
Hart Research Associates is headed up by Peter D Hart (founder), and Geoff Garin
(President) –
SEE HERE
Now look at what role Geoff Garin, Heart Research Associate President, is
currently occupying
(
link
here
):
OK, so Mr. Geoff Garin, the President of Hart Research and Associates", is currently
working as "
a strategic adviser for Priorities USA in support of Hillary
Clinton's election
". Gee, I wonder why the media never tells us that part?
See the issue?
Wait, we're not even close to finished. It gets better.
Let's take a look at the recent financial connection between, Geoff Garin, Hart
Research Associates and Hillary Clinton's Priorities USA Super-PAC.
$220,500.00 in the month of September alone
paid by Hillary
Clinton's Priorities USA Super-PAC to Hart Research Associates.
The President of Hart Research Associates, Geoff Garin, is working for Hillary
Clinton's campaign.
NBC (S Burke) and The WSJ (Murdoch) contact Geoff Garin (Hart Research
Associates) for the post-debate poll data they will use on the day following the
debate.
Hart Research Associates provides a small national poll sample (500) result, with
skewed party internals, showing Hillary Clinton +11 points.
Do you see now how "media polling" works, and why we advise to ignore it?
Unless they think Hillary up by 11 is going to cause
Republicans to give up and not vote?
That is fucking stupid to believe; Republican voters
are fired up to STOP HILLARY...that is why Trump is
correct that he could shoot someone and still win.
Hillary (falsely) up by 11 creates MORE apathy among
already apathetic Hillary voters.
It's a huge mistake to falsely put her "way out front".
FireBrander
FireBrander
Oct 11, 2016 12:29
PM
Of all entities, the LA Times appears to want to put
the truth out there and currently they say Trump up by
2 points...I believe that.
"... Yes, on all points, especially this: "I don't know whether this obfuscation is due to the journalists themselves believing that Clinton is a crook and therefore shouting "Thief, thief!" to distract attention from this, or whether they're just being opportunistic and throwing raw meat to the rubes. But it's not a good sign for the future of American civil society either way." I say both . The donor class 1% that own the media, especially the new media, are solidly behind Hillary to an extent that I wonder whether we can call any of the media 'liberal.' Trump correctly noted that to even refer to the 33,000 documents she destroyed after receiving a federal subpoena as 'email' clouds the key facts: the FBI and government inspectors had to have access to all the documents to determine their status. ..."
"... In the short term, it's all upside. They won't be fighting in any of Hillary's wars. They aren't going to be drafted and they aren't going to be bombed. The are almost all staunchly and proudly anti-Republican and that's the sole metric by which actions are judged both morally and legally. ..."
"... When the elephant starts to take heat for the crap effect of donor class policies, the donor class simply pour money into donkey coffers to ensure the continuation of the donor class crap policies. ..."
"... I You see, one thing, is I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. ..."
"... The only way we're going to arrive at a rough approximation of the truth is to leave these ideological bubbles and embrace our enemies. This is the only way truth will emerge. And it's not going to come from the regurgitated conventional wisdom of the anglosphere chattering classes ..."
"... So Ezra, and the Clinton campaign, and lots of other media types, all coordinated on a story: what Trump had just said was a shocking new violation of norms, worse than anything that had occurred before. ..."
"... Look, it was strategically useful, and it seems to have worked in mobilizing a lot of sentiment to converge on one line of attack: lots and lots of people are saying "Trump is a tin-pot dictator!" who were not saying it before. ..."
@5 MFB
Yes, on all points, especially this: "I don't know whether this obfuscation is due to
the journalists themselves believing that Clinton is a crook and therefore shouting "Thief,
thief!" to distract attention from this, or whether they're just being opportunistic and throwing
raw meat to the rubes. But it's not a good sign for the future of American civil society either
way."
I say
both
. The donor class 1% that own the media, especially the new media, are
solidly behind Hillary to an extent that I wonder whether we can call any of the media 'liberal.'
Trump correctly noted that to even refer to the 33,000 documents she destroyed after receiving a
federal subpoena as 'email' clouds the key facts: the FBI and government inspectors had to have
access to all the documents to determine their status.
The press understands all this, of course. They are neither forgetful, or entirely stupid.
They, however, quite blind to the damage they are doing to institutions they claim to care about.
In the short term, it's all upside. They won't be fighting in any of Hillary's wars. They
aren't going to be drafted and they aren't going to be bombed. The are almost all staunchly and
proudly anti-Republican and that's the sole metric by which actions are judged both morally and
legally.
Which makes them the perfect dupes of the donor class.
When the elephant starts to take heat for the crap effect of donor class policies, the
donor class simply pour money into donkey coffers to ensure the continuation of the donor class
crap policies.
Ezra and Ryan and their ilk are all aspiring VSPs. They'll get their 'one-on-one' interviews
to boost clicks and Hillary will simply forget to schedule more than one actual press conference
per year.
Liberals will clap and high five each other over the goofus they helped remove.
TPM Headline: It Begins: Trump Takes Swipe At Ryan After He Essentially Concedes To Clinton
Buried at bottom of piece: "…one Republican congressman who spoke to TPM on background said that
some members were criticizing Ryan openly for not standing by Trump. One member, Rep. Dana
Rohrabacher (R-CA) blasted Ryan for essentially ceding the election to Hillary Clinton."
One congressmen clearly identified as Dana Rohrabacher "blasted Ryan for essentially ceding
the election to Hillary Clinton" becomes in the TPM land "He (Trump) concedes to Clinton", or the
almost equally implausible "He (Ryan) concedes to Clinton." OK.
I'm reluctant enough to say anything too mean spirited about vox, as they all genuinely seem like
decent sorts, and can provide quite useful information at times. But I really can't read it
anymore. Like so much of the media they have the ideological and cultural diversity of a klan
rally, (though with better politics, obviously) and at this stage there's little to be gained
intellectually from re litigating liberal dogma for the nth time. And then there's the inability
to deal with uncertainty or not knowing. Everything has to have a neat explanation and convenient
conclusion. This was most recently personified by beauchamps white riot article, which couldn't
just be a useful and interesting perspective , but was sold (literally) as "the truth", with no
complications or alternatives acceptable. Whatever happened to following Feynmans dictum:
"
I You see, one thing, is I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I
think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be
wrong.
I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of certainty
about different things but I'm not absolutely sure of anything and then many things I don't
know anything about….
But I don't have to know an answer, I don't have to…i don't feel frightened by not knowing
things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without having any purpose which is the way
it really is as far as I can tell possibly. It doesn't frighten me."
Beyond that though, what we should aspire towards is surrounding ourselves with people we find
morally and politically awful. Literally, by reprehensible assholes (no offence to anyone here ;
) )
The only way we're going to arrive at a rough approximation of the truth is to leave these
ideological bubbles and embrace our enemies. This is the only way truth will emerge. And it's not
going to come from the regurgitated conventional wisdom of the anglosphere chattering classes
Complaining about naïveté at Vox is a sign of naïveté in the complainer.
Ezra did not forget
about the earlier chants at the RNC. Ezra *pretended* to forget about the earlier chants at the
RNC, because he saw that the debate had created a new opportunity to create momentum behind an
anti-Trump message. To make the message maximally powerful, and to get a larger segment of the
press and punditry behind the message, it was useful to pretend that a new red line had been
crossed, a new outrage had been perpetrated, unlike any other.
So Ezra, and the Clinton campaign, and lots of other media types, all coordinated on a
story: what Trump had just said was a shocking new violation of norms, worse than anything that
had occurred before.
Look, it was strategically useful, and it seems to have worked in mobilizing a lot of
sentiment to converge on one line of attack: lots and lots of people are saying "Trump is a
tin-pot dictator!" who were not saying it before.
And Ezra's putting on the appearance of historical naïveté helps to counter a genuine
structural problem in dealing with Trump: Trump's own constant, slow, incremental ratcheting up
of offensive statements. He does not start out by saying the unsayable himself: first he has
audience plants say it, and he ignores it. So that's not the time to confront him, because he
hasn't said it himself. Then he says, "a lot of people are saying [unsayable thing]," but that's
not the time to confront him, either, because by then it is literally true. And so on as he
normalizes the unsayable by small degrees.
It's like the frog-boiling story (pretend it were true), in that if you want to stop the
temperature rise, it may be strategically useful for everyone to agree that 75C is the temp at
which they will all say, in a coordinated way, "the burner is on!" And then of course someone
could accuse them of amnesia for forgetting that the burner has been on for a long time. But that
person would be failing to understand how a coordinated media push works.
Remember when Captain Renault was shocked to discover that gambling was going on at Rick's?
Were you shocked to discover that he had not been aware of it previously? Were you appalled at
his historical amnesia?
Agree vox's self-definition as "explain the news" is misleading, and their reality is closer to
"interpret the news from a moderate-left/technocrat POV"
But I really, really, really don't get
the point of the OP's final lines. Trump as ringmaster and vox as clowns? Huh? Trump is a risk to
our future and vox is pointing that out - which they take (I think rightly) to be their job. They
point it out over and over again, and attach the point to every possible news hook? Good for
them!
How is vox's response to Trump different/worse than, say, the MSM's response to Watergate? (Or
any other journalist's response to any other perceived abuse of power?) Serious question.
Back to the OP. There's a bumper crop of new email on the topic of the press and debate
moderators colluding with the Hillary campaign to: screw Sanders (Boston Herald – also on board
for anti-Trump), minimize damage from the email fallout, and best of all (for me) John Harwood
(neutral debate moderator) providing written evidence that even that venue was tilted to damage
Trump and protect Hillary.
Looks like Obama in working overclock to ensure the election of Trump ... anti-Russian hysteria
might have results different that he expects. Whether we are to have a world of sovereign nation-states
or one in which a single imperial superpower contends with increasingly fragmentary post-national and
sub-national threats around the globe will depend on the decisions that are made in the near future:
in the next few years.
Greenwald's astute observations were presumably made in response to Secretary of State John Kerry's
recent remarks that both
Russia and Syria should face war crimes investigations for their recent attacks on Syrian civilians.
"Russia and the regime owe the world more than an explanation about why they keep hitting
hospitals, and medical facilities, and women and children," Mr. Kerry said in Washington,
where he spoke alongside French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, as reported by the Independent
.
Unsurprisingly, Russia responded by urging caution regarding allegations of war crimes considering
the United States has been waging wars in a number of countries since the end of World War II. It
has picked up a number of allegations of war crimes in the process.
Kerry's
continuous accusations that Russia bombed hospital infrastructure are particularly hypocritical
in light of the fact the United States has bombed hospitals in
Iraq
and
Afghanistan on more than one occasion over past decade.
Further, former congressman Ron Paul's Institute for Peace and Prosperity hit back at Kerry, accusing
him of completely fabricating the most recent alleged hospital attack. As the Institute
noted :
" In a press event yesterday, before talks with the French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault
about a new UN resolution,
he said
( vid @1:00) about
Syria:
"'Last night, the regime attacked yet another hospital, and 20 people were killed and 100 people
were wounded. And Russia and the regime owe the world more than an explanation about why they
keep hitting hospitals and medical facilities and children and women. These are acts that beg
for an appropriate investigation of war crimes. And those who commit these would and should be
held accountable for these actions.'
" No opposition group has claimed that such an extremely grave event happened. None. No press
agency has a record of it. The MI-6 disinformation outlet SOHR in Britain, which quite reliably
notes every claimed casualty and is frequently cited in 'western media,' has not said anything
about such an event anywhere in Syria. "
However, the most disturbing aspect of Kerry's allegation is that the accusations against
Russia run in tandem with Saudi Arabia's brutal assault on Yemen. Saudi Arabia, with the
aid of a few regional players - and with
ongoing American and British assistance (not to mention
billion dollar arms sales ) - has been bombing Yemen back into the Stone Age without any legal
basis whatsoever. Often, the Saudi-led coalition has completely decimated civilian infrastructure,
which has led a number of groups to accuse the coalition of
committing war crimes in the process.
Civilians and civilian infrastructure have been struck so routinely that the world has
become increasingly concerned the actual targets of the coalition strikes are civilians
(what could be a greater recruitment tool for al-Qaeda and ISIS in Yemen?) As
noted by Foreign Policy :
"The Houthis and their allies - armed groups loyal to Saleh - are the declared targets of the
coalition's 1-year-old air campaign. In reality, however, it is the civilians, such as Basrallah
and Rubaid, and their children, who are predominantly the victims of this protracted war. Hundreds
of civilians have been killed in airstrikes while asleep in their homes, when going about their
daily activities, or in the very places where they had sought refuge from the conflict. The United
States, Britain, and others, meanwhile, have continued to supply a steady stream of weaponry and
logistical support to Saudi Arabia and its coalition."
Just take one example of the cruel and disproportionate use of force that Saudi Arabia has used
in Yemen (using American-made and supplied aircraft and weapons) - against Judge Yahya Rubaid and
his family. As Foreign Policy
reported in March of this year:
"According to family members, Rubaid was a judge on a case against Yemeni President Abed Rabbo
Mansour Hadi, for treason in absentia. It is unclear whether his house was attacked for this reason.
What is clear, however, is that there was no legally valid basis for bombing his home, as he and
his family were civilians and under international law should not have been deliberately targeted."
At the time this article's publication,
over 140 Yemenis had
been killed and another 500 injured in a Saudi-coalition aerial attack on a funeral over the
weekend. The civilian death toll continues to rise in Yemen, completely unchallenged by any major
players at the U.N.
When the U.N. does attempt to quell Saudi actions , the Saudis threaten
severe
economic retaliation.
How Kerry can accuse Russia of committing war crimes in Syria with a straight face is unclear,
as reports of atrocious crimes committed in Yemen continue to surface.
This is not to say Russia and Syria should not be investigated for war crimes – but maybe, just
maybe, we could live in a world where everyone responsible for committing these gross acts could
be held accountable, instead of just those who
pose an economic
threat to the West . Mango327
38BWD22
Oct 11, 2016 3:47 PM
Madeline Albright, "Yes, I think the death of 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of 5 years
old by US sanctions, was a good price that had to be paid so we could get to Sadam Hussein "???
This bitch along with Kissinger, Soros, Rice, Clinton, Obama, Kerry, and all the news organizations
who have been cheerleaders for the slaughter of innocents should all be charged with Crimes against
humanity and SHOT!
"Who wants to be the last man to die for a mistake?" -- John Kerry, 197x
That was the supposed anti-war Kerry speaking of the Vietnam War, who rode
such comments into a congressional seat. We didn't know then that he was Skull and Bones or what
it might mean. Now we know it in spades.
Now it's clear he's just a lying sack of war mongering, deep state shit.
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe
it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political,
economic and/or military consequences of the lie."
Goebbels used "Gas Lighting" as a form of Psychological manipulation on a population on a mass
scale. Operation Mocking Bird. It continues on today. 365 days a year, 24hrs a day, 7 days a week.
The Psyche Warefare / PsyOp War does not clos
There is an assumption that Russia would never go to war with the US over the Syrian dispute.
But yet, Russia is preparing for war. It has both first-strike and counter-strike capability in
the event the west (US State Dept.) continues with its bullying tactics and further escalates
its hostility. Russia is a sovereign nation; it has both the right and the power to do what is
in the best interests of its citizenry and its allies (Assad).
The US used to be that way until it was over-run in a silent, but effective liberal-coup that
has taken full control and stupidly re-newed the cold war with Russia.
And now America has been left more vulnerable that it ever has been. A simple shut-down of
the electric grid for several months, will, by itself, cut the population in half.
Ultra-liberalism is ultra self-destructive... we're about to see just how destructive that
really is.
Well this is a refreshing start, but only a start. Russia certainly had nothing to do with the
gunships that bombed the hospitals in Afghanistan into powder, killing patients including children,
doctors, nurses and other personell.
I for one would like to know who it was who flew those
planes and have them explain to all of us why they did not refuse orders? What sort of morals
have Americans got to behave ths way? The hospitals bombed in Syria, ditto. The Saudis are the
beasts they are and somebody needs to bomb them into oblivion. (Perhaps take out some other smug
financial centers too!) But Yemen is a very poor sandy country to begin with and Saudi must think
there's oil or something there. If some of the weapons used there weren't tactical nukes they
sure looked like them. Gee. Wonder where they got them?
Chomsky's been saying it for decades, "If they do it, they're terrorists; if we do it,
we're freedom fighters."
My take is that if you are the head of a government, you are a psychopath and any categorization
beyond this is moot.
Clinton / Trump, Obama / Putin, Assad / Erdogan, UN / Nationalism, whoever it may be, they're
all playing the same game, and we're not even allowed to watch, much less comment.
The only thing trickling-down (through a historical perspective) should be blood.
Britain's Economy Was Resilient After 'Brexit.'
Its Leaders Learned the Wrong Lesson.
http://nyti.ms/2dOx0Is
via @UpshotNYT
NYT - Neil Irwin - OCT. 10, 2016
This article must begin with a mea culpa. When British
voters decided in June that they wanted to depart the
European Union, I agreed with the conventional wisdom that
the British economy would probably slow and that uncertainty
put it at risk of recession.
Advocates of "Brexit" argued that was hogwash, and the
early evidence suggests they were right. For example, surveys
of purchasing managers showed that both the British
manufacturing and service sectors plummeted after the vote in
July, yet were comfortably expanding in August and September.
But the events of the last couple of weeks suggest that
British leaders are drawing the wrong conclusions from the
fact that their predictions proved right. The British
currency is plummeting again, most immediately because of
comments from French and German leaders suggesting they will
take a tough line in negotiating Brexit. But the underlying
reason is that the British government is ignoring the lessons
from the relatively benign immediate aftermath of the vote.
The British pound fell to about $1.24 on Friday from $1.30
a week earlier and continued edging down Monday. Even if you
treat a "flash crash" in the pound on Asian markets Thursday
night as an aberration - it fell 6 percent, then recovered in
a short span - these types of aberrations seem to happen only
when a market is already under severe stress. (See, for
example, the May 2010 flash crash of American stocks, during
a flare-up of the eurozone crisis).
Sterling, as traders refer to the currency, is acting as
the global market's minute-to-minute referendum on how
significant the economic disruption from Brexit will end up
being. So what does the latest downswing represent? It's
worth understanding why British financial markets and the
country's economy stabilized quickly after the Brexit vote to
begin with.
The vote set off a chaotic time of political disruption,
especially the resignation of the prime minister, David
Cameron, who had advocated for the country's remaining part
of the E.U. Theresa May won the internal battle to become the
next prime minister, which was to markets and business
decision makers a relatively benign result.
Down, Down, Down for the Pound
The British currency plummeted after the country's vote to
leave the European Union, and again this week.
(graph at the link: £ at ~$1.45 Jan-June 30,
then down to $1.30-1.35 thru Sep 30,
then plunging to $1.24.)
Ms. May, the former home secretary, is temperamentally
pragmatic. She reluctantly supported remaining in the union.
And while she pledged to follow through on leaving it
("Brexit means Brexit," she said), she seemed like the kind
of leader who would ensure that some of the worst-case
possibilities of how Brexit might go wouldn't materialize.
Exporters would retain access to European markets. London
could remain the de facto banking capital of Europe. All
would be well.
Meanwhile, the Bank of England sprang into action to
cushion the economic blow of Brexit-related uncertainty.
Despite the inflationary pressures created by a falling
pound, the bank, projecting loss of jobs and economic output,
cut interest rates and started a new program of quantitative
easing to try to soften the blow.
All of that - the prospect of "soft Brexit" and easier
monetary policy - helped financial markets stabilize and then
rally, and kept the economic damage mild, as the purchasing
managers' surveys show.
But in the last couple of weeks, the tenor has shifted.
The May government has sent a range of signals indicating
it will take a hard line in negotiations with European
governments over the terms of Brexit. At a conservative party
conference, she pledged to begin the "Article 50" process of
formally unwinding Britain's E.U. membership by the end of
March, declaring that the government's negotiators would
insist that Britain would assert control of immigration and
not be subject to decisions of the European Court of Justice.
That sets up confrontational negotiations between the
British government and its E.U. counterparts. European
leaders will be reluctant to allow Britain continued free
access to its markets, which the May government wants,
without similarly free movement of people across borders.
And beyond the substance of the negotiations, the British
government has signaled in recent days that it is looking
inward, and will be hostile to those who are not British
citizens. ...
Reply
Tuesday,
Fred C. Dobbs -> Fred C. Dobbs...
,
Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 07:17 AM
The much-hyped severe Brexit
recession does not, so far, seem to be materializing – which
really shouldn't be that much of a surprise, because as I
warned, the actual economic case for such a recession was
surprisingly weak. (Ouch! I just pulled a muscle while
patting myself on the back!) But we are seeing a large drop
in the pound, which has steepened as it becomes likely that
this will indeed be a very hard Brexit. How should we think
about this?
Originally, stories about a pound plunge were tied to that
recession prediction: domestic investment demand would
collapse, leading to sustained very low interest rates, hence
capital flight. But the demand collapse doesn't seem to be
happening. So what is the story?
For now, at least, I'm coming at it from the trade side –
especially trade in financial services. It seems to me that
one way to think about this is in terms of the "home market
effect," an old story in trade but one that only got
formalized in 1980.
Here's an informal version: imagine a good or service
subject to large economies of scale in production, sufficient
that if it's consumed in two countries, you want to produce
it in only one, and export to the other, even if there are
costs of shipping it. Where will this production be located?
Other things equal, you would choose the larger market, so as
to minimize total shipping costs. Other things may not, of
course, be equal, but this market-size effect will always be
a factor, depending on how high those shipping costs are.
In one of the models I laid out in that old paper, the way
this worked out was not that all production left the smaller
economy, but rather that the smaller economy paid lower wages
and therefore made up in competitiveness what it lacked in
market access. In effect, it used a weaker currency to make
up for its smaller market.
In Britain's case, I'd suggest that we think of financial
services as the industry in question. Such services are
subject to both internal and external economies of scale,
which tends to concentrate them in a handful of huge
financial centers around the world, one of which is, of
course, the City of London. But now we face the prospect of
seriously increased transaction costs between Britain and the
rest of Europe, which creates an incentive to move those
services away from the smaller economy (Britain) and into the
larger (Europe). Britain therefore needs a weaker currency to
offset this adverse impact.
Does this make Britain poorer? Yes. It's not just the
efficiency effect of barriers to trade, there's also a
terms-of-trade effect as the real exchange rate depreciates.
But it's important to be aware that not everyone in
Britain is equally affected. Pre-Brexit, Britain was
obviously experiencing a version of the so-called Dutch
disease. In its traditional form, this referred to the way
natural resource exports crowd out manufacturing by keeping
the currency strong. In the UK case, the City's financial
exports play the same role. So their weakening helps British
manufacturing – and, maybe, the incomes of people who live
far from the City and still depend directly or indirectly on
manufacturing for their incomes. It's not completely
incidental that these were the parts of England (not
Scotland!) that voted for Brexit.
Is there a policy moral here? Basically it is that a
weaker pound shouldn't be viewed as an additional cost from
Brexit, it's just part of the adjustment. And it would be a
big mistake to prop up the pound: old notions of an
equilibrium exchange rate no longer apply.
"... But if the third globalisation wave is mostly about taking advantage of cheap labour not commodities - whilst simultaneously reducing industrial capacity at home - today's global imbalances could result in a very different type of correction (something which may or may not be happening now). ..."
"... The immediate consequence may be the developed world's desire to engage in significant industrial on-shoring. ..."
"... I'm not convinced the end of globalization and the retrenchment of banking industry are the same thing. There are some things that can't be exp/imported. Maybe we just got to the point where it didn't make sense to order moules marinieres from Brussels!? ..."
"... You forget the third leg - reducing the price of labour for services via immigration of labour from poorer countries. On top of the supply-and-demand effects, it reduces social solidarity (see Robert Putnam) - of which trades union membership and activity is one indicator. It's a win-win for capital. ..."
According to strategists Bhanu Baweja, Manik Narain and Maximillian
Lin the elasticity of trade to GDP - a measure of wealth creating
globalisation - rose to as high as 2.2. in the so-called third wave
of globalisation which began in the 1980s. This compared to an
average of 1.5 since the 1950s. In the post-crisis era, however,
the elasticity of trade has fallen to 1.1, not far from the weak
average of the 1970s and early 1980s but well below the second and
third waves of globalisation.
... ... ...
The anti-globalist position has always been simple. Global trade isn't a net positive for anyone
if the terms of trade relationships aren't reciprocal or if the trade exists solely for the purpose
of taking advantage of undervalued local resources like labour or commodities whilst channeling
rents/profits to a single central beneficiary. That, they have always argued, makes it more akin to
an imperialistic relationship than a reciprocal one.
If the latest wave of "globalisation" is mostly an expression of
American imperialism, then it does seem logical it too will fade as
countries wake-up to the one-sided nature of the current global
value chains in place.
Back in the first wave of globalisation,
of course, much of the trade growth was driven by colonial empires
taking advantage of cheap commodity resources abroad in a bid to
add value to them domestically. When these supply chains unravelled,
that left Europe short of commodities but long industrial capacity
- a destabilising imbalance which coincided with two world wars.
Simplistically speaking, resource rich countries at this point
were faced with only two options: industrialising on their own
autonomous terms or be subjugated by even more oppressive
imperialist forces, which had even grander superiority agendas than
their old colonial foes. That left those empires boasting domestic
industrial capacity but lacking natural resources of their own,
with the option of fighting to defend the rights of their former
colonies in the hope that the promise of independence and friendly
future knowledge exchanges (alongside military protection) would be
enough to secure resource access from then on.
But if the third globalisation wave is mostly about taking
advantage of cheap labour not commodities - whilst simultaneously
reducing industrial capacity at home - today's global imbalances
could result in a very different type of correction (something
which may or may not be happening now).
The immediate consequence
may be the developed world's desire to engage in significant
industrial on-shoring.
But while reversing the off-shoring trend may boost productivity
in nations like the US or even in Europe, it's also likely to
reduce demand for mobile international capital as a whole. As UBS
notes, global cross border capital flows are already decelerating
significantly as a share of GDP post-crisis, and the peak-to-trough
swing in capital inflows to GDP over the past ten years has been
much more dramatic in developed markets than in emerging ones:
To note, in China trade as a % of GDP fell from
65% in 2006 to 42% in 2014. The relationship
between trade and GDP is in reality more variable
than is usually claimed.
I'm not convinced the end of globalization and
the retrenchment of banking industry are the same
thing. There are some things that can't be
exp/imported. Maybe we just got to the point
where it didn't make sense to order moules
marinieres from Brussels!?
"if the third globalisation wave is mostly about taking advantage of cheap labour not
commodities - whilst simultaneously reducing
industrial capacity at home"
You forget the third leg - reducing the
price of labour for services via immigration of
labour from poorer countries. On top of the
supply-and-demand effects, it reduces social
solidarity (see Robert Putnam) - of which trades
union membership and activity is one indicator.
It's a win-win for capital.
The simple problem with globalization is that it was based off economic views which looked
at things in aggregate - but people are
individuals, not aggregates. "On average, GDP
per person has gone up" doesn't do anything for
the person whose income has gone down. "Just
think about all the people in China who are so
much better off than they used to be" isn't going
to do much for an American or European whose
standard of living has slipped from middle class
to working class to government assistance.
"Redistribution" is routinely advertised as
the solution to all of this. I leave it as an
exercise to the reader to figure out how to
redistribute wealth from the areas that have
prospered the most (Asia, particularly China) to
the individuals (primarily in the West) who have
lost the most. In the absence of any viable
redistribution scheme, though, I suspect the most
likely outcome will be a pulling back on
globalization.
@
Terra_Desolata
The aggregates also do apply to countries -
i.e. the US on aggregate has benefited from
globalisation, but median wages have been
stagnant in real terms, meaning that the
benefits of globalisation have not been
well distributed across the country
(indeed, companies like Apple have
benefited hugely from reducing the costs of
production, while you could make the case
that much of the benefits of lower
production costs have been absorbed into
profit margins).
That suggests that redistribution can
occur at the country level, rather than
requiring a cross-border dimension.
@
Meh...
in the US, median male wages were
lower in 2014 than in 1973 - when a
far higher proportion of working-age
males were active in the labour
force.
Growing up in the 1970s, it would
have been unthinkable for wages to
have fallen since the 1930s.
Terra_Desolata
5pts
Featured
8 hours ago
@
Meh...
@
Terra_Desolata
Yes, there has been uneven
distribution of income within
countries as well as between them -
but as the Panama Papers revealed, in
a world of free movement of capital,
incomes can also move freely between
borders. (See: Apple.) While the
U.S. has lower tolerance than Europe
and Asia for such games, any attempts
at redistribution would necessarily
include an effort to keep incomes
from slipping across national
borders, which would have the same
effect: a net reduction in
globalization.
NYT: the toilet paper of record. In yet another Wikileaks dump it's come
out that they're in active collusion with Hillary's campaign. How anyone is
still dumb enough to believe the lies they're alwaus putting out is beyond me.
Really, it's fine to be biased lackeys for the rich and powerful as long as you're honest about
it. Pretending to be unbiased arbiters of truth while doing that though is pathetic.
These media presstitutes are so rancidly despicable that I want to throw up whenever I think of
them. Newspapers and the rest of the media: want to know why you're going bankrupt? It's not the
internet–it's because every day more and more people are clued into the fact that you are pathetic
lying scum. In my mind these media people are in the same exact category as child molesters.
They were in active collusion with the 1990s Clinton campaigns too, but
I didn't have Wikileaks around to confirm it, or the internets for alternative
sources of information. I suspected it anyway. I finally cut the cord after
2002.
Well the NYT, WaPo, CNN et al have shot themselves in the foot with this
blatant collusion with the Clinton campaign. They've pissed off their most
intelligent readers & viewers, shown themselves to be knaves and fools, and
what are they going to say when HRC is president and investigated up the
wazoo for corruption?
Yes… But leverage much higher than 100:1…
Not just MSM, but banks, neocons, corrupt ceo's, and all these alphabet
groups keeping us safe…
Hopefully he'd be vindictive against all the elites trying to defeat
him.
NEVER overestimate the intelligence of the American public. If Hillary
can get an 11 point lead over a salacious story that affects almost nobody
and yet get no drop in popularity over revelations that will affect everyone's
lives, I don't think there is much hope that the NYT, WaPo, CNN, et al,
will get their comeuppance. But Americans who drink in what these MSM
sites are feeding them WILL get the President they so obviously deserve,
won't they?
Yes, it's the public's fault… despite being subject to the most
brutal propaganda campaign in history and being assaulted by years
of neoliberalism that barely gives them time to breathe between their
three zero-hour contract jobs, it's their fault and they deserve a
president who will grand-bargain away their social security benefits,
TPP away the few remaining good jobs and start a civilisation-threatening
war with Russia.
And just for the record (/sarc), HRC only has an 11-point lead because most people won't
be voting anyway, as they've correctly surmised that the system is completely rigged against
them.
I have not seen the data on that poll but I doubt that it is a "scientific
poll". Many of the polls that I have taken the time to look at the
data shows that they avoid asking 35 and under voters and heavily skew
the data set to democrats. Lee Camp from Redacted Tonight has also
shown this on his TV show on RT. Those even ruskies.
Just watched a documentary on the murder of Kitty Genovese. It sure made
me think there has been a culture of corruption at the New York Times for
decades, enabled by outside journalists refusing to question them for whatever
reason (intimidation, careerism…).
"... If nothing else, the I'm-with-her whole hog approach of the media to this election should put the lie to the notion that we have anything resembling a functioning press. ..."
"... Additionally, the blind adherence by the press to Hillary's spin that Trump would put her in jail amounts to a dictatorship ignores the fact that previous to that statement Trump had said he would push for a special prosecutor. IOW, a completely legalized, judicially approved criminal investigation. ..."
"... I agree about the press becoming so bought over by Hillary. Watched some speech Trump was giving a month or so ago and he talked about Iraq as I recall and the press totally spun it into some different meaning altogether. Funny thing was the next day Trump was giving another speech which I also happened to see and made mention of what he said the day before and what the press turned his comment into – from that point on I became very leery of believing anything they tell me. I too was amazed that almost immediately last night the press began reporting that Trump was talking to a dictatorship by saying he wanted her in jail when in fact that was completely taken out of context as well (as you mentioned above). ..."
"... I think the press has become very scary with all the power it has to twist the truth or what has been said as easily and quickly as they do. They must be very frightened by Trump. ..."
Why is the electorate seemingly more concerned with someone who is antagonistic towards certain
women than someone whose policies are antagonistic to whole nations and regions. Why aren't the
Wikileaks email revelations getting more traction or generating more outrage?
True. BigMedia is barely covering the Wikileaks story. My summary is that HClinton has a fake
"public position" & a genuine private position, that is pro-Grand Ripoff SS & MC cuts, & pro-TPP.
It should be a huge story, in that it calls as questionable any of HClinton's stated policies,
& given that Sanders repeatedly made the Wall $treet transcripts a major issue in the Primaries.
It takes a USian with intellectual curiosity, some free time, & enough critical thinking to
go to one of the few internet sources like nakedcapitalism or SecularTalk that actually will cover
the Wikileaks story honestly. IMHO sadly this is a small minority of the US eligible voter population.
BTW for Sanders to maintain my respect, he needs to "make news" in BigMedia by saying something
like "my support of HClinton is contingent on her 'public position' the approves the 2016 D party
platform, which is anti-TPP & anti-SS & MC cuts. If HClinton is elected & signs the TPP or SS/MC
cuts, she will be strongly primary challenged in 2020, & I will not support her if the Rs ever
impeach her"
If nothing else, the I'm-with-her whole hog approach of the media to this election should
put the lie to the notion that we have anything resembling a functioning press.
Just one example–I listened to some Clinton operative on msnbc radio today who was giving his
weaselly spin on Hillary's private position v. public position statement and who said that it
was only a few sentences out of an entire speech and needed to be viewed in context. Chuck Todd,
I think it was, never made note of the fact that there is no context to those statements since
the speeches have not and will not be released. There is no available context and Chuck just muttered
uh huh and let it pass.
Additionally, the blind adherence by the press to Hillary's spin that Trump would put her
in jail amounts to a dictatorship ignores the fact that previous to that statement Trump had said
he would push for a special prosecutor. IOW, a completely legalized, judicially approved criminal
investigation.
I agree about the press becoming so bought over by Hillary. Watched some speech Trump was
giving a month or so ago and he talked about Iraq as I recall and the press totally spun it into
some different meaning altogether. Funny thing was the next day Trump was giving another speech
which I also happened to see and made mention of what he said the day before and what the press
turned his comment into – from that point on I became very leery of believing anything they tell
me. I too was amazed that almost immediately last night the press began reporting that Trump was
talking to a dictatorship by saying he wanted her in jail when in fact that was completely taken
out of context as well (as you mentioned above).
I think the press has become very scary with all the power it has to twist the truth or
what has been said as easily and quickly as they do. They must be very frightened by Trump.
The extent to which Samantha Power is being groomed for high office is more
and more pronounced. Currently she's getting lots of coverage in Korea with
military. It's as if Clinton and Trump are both such damaged goods that a more
suitable woman is being brought into the wings. It reminds me of when I heard
Obama speak at the Dem convention while a senator, and of a speech I heard
Theresa May give several years ago.
Key people are being moved into position and it has nothing to do with
elections.
Exclusive:
A prominent neocon paymaster, whose outfit dispenses
$100 million in U.S. taxpayers' money each year, has called on America to "summon the
will" to remove Russian President Putin from office, reports Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
The neoconservative president of the U.S.-taxpayer-funded National Endowment for
Democracy [NED] has called for the U.S. government to "summon the will" to engineer
the overthrow of Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying that the 10-year-old murder
case of a Russian journalist should be the inspiration.
Carl Gershman, who has headed NED since its founding in 1983, doesn't cite any
evidence that Putin was responsible for the death of Anna Politkovskaya but uses
a full column
in The Washington Post on Friday to create that impression,
calling her death "a window to Vladimir Putin, the Kremlin autocrat whom Americans
are looking at for the first time."
Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN General Assembly
on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo)
Gershman wraps up his article by writing: "Politkovskaya saw the danger [of
Putin], but she and other liberals in Russia were not strong enough to stop it. The
United States has the power to contain and defeat this danger. The issue is whether
we can summon the will to do so. Remembering Politkovskaya can help us rise to this
challenge."
That Gershman would so directly call for the ouster of Russia's clearly popular
president represents further proof that NED is a neocon-driven vehicle that seeks
to create the political circumstances for "regime change" even when that means
removing leaders who are elected by a country's citizenry.
And there is a reason for NED to see its job in that way. In 1983, NED essentially
took over the CIA's role of influencing electoral outcomes and destabilizing
governments that got in the way of U.S. interests, except that NED carried out those
functions in a quasi-overt fashion while the CIA did them covertly.
NED also serves as a sort of slush fund for neocons and other favored U.S. foreign
policy operatives because a substantial portion of NED's money circulates through
U.S.-based non-governmental organizations or NGOs.
That makes Gershman an influential neocon paymaster whose organization dispenses
some $100 million a year in U.S. taxpayers' money to activists, journalists and NGOs
both in Washington and around the world. The money helps them undermine governments
in Washington's disfavor – or as Gershman would prefer to say, "build democratic
institutions," even when that requires overthrowing democratically elected leaders.
NED was a lead actor in the Feb. 22, 2014 coup ousting Ukraine's elected President
Viktor Yanukovych in a U.S.-backed putsch that touched off the civil war inside
Ukraine between Ukrainian nationalists from the west and ethnic Russians from the
east. The Ukraine crisis has become a flashpoint for the dangerous New Cold War
between the U.S. and Russia.
Before the anti-Yanukovych coup, NED was funding scores of projects inside
Ukraine, which Gershman had identified as "the biggest prize" in a Sept. 26, 2013
column also published in The Washington Post.
In that column, Gershman
wrote
that after the West claimed Ukraine, "Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may
find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself."
In other words, Gershman already saw Ukraine as an important step toward an even
bigger prize, a "regime change" in Moscow.
Less than five months after Gershman's column, pro-Western political activists and
neo-Nazi street fighters – with strong support from U.S. neocons and the State
Department – staged a coup in Kiev driving Yanukovych from office and installing a
rabidly anti-Russian regime, which the West promptly dubbed "legitimate."
Nazi symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraine's Azov battalion. (As filmed by
a Norwegian film crew and shown on German TV)
In reaction to the coup and the ensuing violence against ethnic Russians, the
voters of Crimea approved a referendum with 96 percent of the vote to leave Ukraine
and rejoin Russia, a move that the West's governments and media decried as a Russian
"invasion" and "annexation."
The new regime in Kiev then mounted what it called an "Anti-Terrorism Operation"
or ATO against ethnic Russians in the east who had supported Yanukovych and refused
to accept the anti-constitutional coup in Kiev as legitimate.
The ATO, spearheaded by
neo-Nazis from the Azov battalion
and other extremists, killed thousands
of ethnic Russians, prompting Moscow to covertly provide some assistance to the
rebels, a move denounced by the West as "aggression."
Blaming Putin
In his latest column, Gershman not only urges the United States to muster the
courage to oust Putin but he shows off the kind of clever sophistry that America's
neocons are known for. Though lacking any evidence, he intimates that Putin ordered
the murder of Politkovskaya and pretty much every other "liberal" who has died in
Russia.
Carl Gershman, president of the National Endowment for Democracy.
It is a technique that I've seen used in other circumstances, such as the lists of
"mysterious deaths" that American right-wingers publish citing people who crossed the
paths of Bill and Hillary Clinton and ended up dead. This type of smear spreads
suspicion of guilt not based on proof but on the number of acquaintances and
adversaries who have met untimely deaths.
In the 1990s, one conservative friend of mine pointed to the Clintons' "mysterious
deaths" list and marveled that even if only a few were the victims of a Clinton death
squad that would be quite a story, to which I replied that if even one were murdered
by the Clintons that would be quite a story – but that there was no proof of any such
thing.
"Mysterious deaths" lists represent a type of creepy conspiracy theory that shifts
the evidentiary burden onto the targets of the smears who must somehow prove their
innocence, when there is no evidence of their guilt (only vague suspicions). It is
contemptible when applied to American leaders and it is contemptible when applied to
Russian leaders, but it is not beneath Carl Gershman.
Beyond that, Gershman's public musing about the U.S. somehow summoning "the will"
to remove Putin might - in a normal world - disqualify NED and its founding president
from the privilege of dispensing U.S. taxpayers' money to operatives in Washington
and globally. It is extraordinarily provocative and dangerous, an example of classic
neocon hubris.
While the neocons do love their tough talk, they are not known for thinking
through their "regime change" schemes. The idea of destabilizing nuclear-armed Russia
with the goal of ousting Putin, with his 82 percent approval ratings, must rank as
the nuttiest and most reckless neocon scheme of all.
Gershman and his neocon pals may fantasize about making Russia's economy scream
while financing pro-Western "liberals" who would stage disruptive protests in Red
Square, but he and his friends haven't weighed the consequences even if they could
succeed.
Given the devastating experience that most Russians had when NED's beloved Russian
"liberals" helped impose American "shock therapy" in the 1990s - an experiment that
reduced average life expectancy by a full decade - it's hard to believe that the
Russian people would simply take another dose of that bitter medicine sitting down.
Even if the calculating Putin were somehow removed amid economic desperation, he
is far more likely to be followed by a much harder-line Russian nationalist who might
well see Moscow's arsenal of nuclear weapons as the only way to protect Mother
Russia's honor. In other words, the neocons' latest brash "regime change" scheme
might be their last – and the last for all humanity.
A Neocon Slush Fund
Gershman's arrogance also raises questions about why the American taxpayer should
tolerate what amounts to a $100 million neocon slush fund which is used to create
dangerous mischief around the world. Despite having "democracy" in its name, NED
appears only to favor democratic outcomes when they fit with Official Washington's
desires.
CIA Director William Casey.
If a disliked candidate wins an election, NED acts as if that is prima facie
evidence that the system is undemocratic and must be replaced with a process that
ensures the selection of candidates who will do what the U.S. government tells them
to do. Put differently, NED's name is itself a fraud.
But that shouldn't come as a surprise since NED was created in 1983 at the urging
of Ronald Reagan's CIA Director William J. Casey, who wanted to off-load some of the
CIA's traditional work ensuring that foreign elections turned out in ways acceptable
to Washington, and when they didn't – as in Iran under Mossadegh, in Guatemala under
Arbenz or in Chile under Allende – the CIA's job was to undermine and remove the
offending electoral winner.
In 1983, Casey and the CIA's top propagandist, Walter Raymond Jr., who had been
moved to Reagan's National Security Council staff, wanted to create a funding
mechanism to support outside groups, such as Freedom House and other NGOs, so they
could engage in propaganda and political action that the CIA had historically
organized and paid for covertly. The idea emerged for a congressionally funded entity
that would serve as a conduit for this money.
In
one undated letter
to then-White House counselor Edwin Meese III, Casey
urged creation of a "National Endowment," but he recognized the need to hide the
strings being pulled by the CIA "Obviously we here [at CIA] should not get out front
in the development of such an organization, nor should we appear to be a sponsor or
advocate," Casey wrote.
The National Endowment for Democracy took shape in late 1983 as Congress decided
to also set aside pots of money - within NED - for the Republican and Democratic
parties and for organized labor, creating enough bipartisan largesse that passage was
assured.
But some in Congress thought it was important to wall the NED off from any
association with the CIA, so a provision was included to bar the participation of any
current or former CIA official, according to one congressional aide who helped
write the legislation.
This aide told me that one night late in the 1983 session, as the bill was about
to go to the House floor, the CIA's congressional liaison came pounding at the door
to the office of Rep. Dante Fascell, a senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs
Committee and a chief sponsor of the bill.
The frantic CIA official conveyed a single message from CIA Director Casey: the
language barring the participation of CIA personnel must be struck from the bill, the
aide recalled, noting that Fascell consented to the demand, not fully recognizing its
significance – that it would permit the continued behind-the-scenes involvement of
Raymond and Casey.
The aide said Fascell also consented to the Reagan administration's choice of Carl
Gershman to head NED, again not recognizing how this decision would affect the future
of the new entity and American foreign policy.
Gershman, who had followed the classic neoconservative path from youthful
socialism to fierce anticommunism, became NED's first (and, to this day, only)
president. Though NED is technically independent of U.S. foreign policy, Gershman in
the early years coordinated decisions on grants with Raymond at the NSC.
For instance, on Jan. 2, 1985, Raymond
wrote
to
two NSC Asian experts that "Carl Gershman has called concerning a possible grant to
the Chinese Alliance for Democracy (CAD). I am concerned about the political
dimension to this request. We should not find ourselves in a position where we have
to respond to pressure, but this request poses a real problem to Carl.
"Senator [Orrin] Hatch, as you know, is a member of the board. Secondly, NED has
already given a major grant for a related Chinese program."
Neocon Tag Teams
From the start, NED became a major benefactor for Freedom House, beginning with a
$200,000 grant in 1984 to build "a network of democratic opinion-makers." In NED's
first four years, from 1984 and 1988, it lavished $2.6 million on Freedom House,
accounting for more than one-third of its total income, according to a study by the
liberal Council on Hemispheric Affairs that was entitled "Freedom House: Portrait of
a Pass-Through."
The Washington Post building. (Photo credit: Daniel X. O'Neil)
Over the ensuing three decades, Freedom House has become almost an NED subsidiary,
often joining NED in holding policy conferences and issuing position papers, both
organizations pushing primarily a neoconservative agenda, challenging countries
deemed insufficiently "free," including Syria, Ukraine (in 2014) and Russia.
Indeed, NED and Freedom House often work as a kind of tag-team with NED financing
"non-governmental organizations" inside targeted countries and Freedom House berating
those governments if they crack down on U.S.-funded NGOs.
For instance, on Nov. 16, 2012, NED and Freedom House
joined together
to denounce legislation passed by the Russian parliament
that required recipients of foreign political money to register with the government.
Or, as NED and Freedom House framed the issue: the Russian Duma sought to
"restrict human rights and the activities of civil society organizations and their
ability to receive support from abroad. Changes to Russia's NGO legislation will soon
require civil society organizations receiving foreign funds to choose between
registering as 'foreign agents' or facing significant financial penalties and
potential criminal charges."
Of course, the United States has a nearly identical Foreign Agent Registration Act
that likewise requires entities that receive foreign funding and seek to influence
U.S. government policy to register with the Justice Department or face possible fines
or imprisonment.
But the Russian law would impede NED's efforts to destabilize the Russian
government through funding of political activists, journalists and civic
organizations, so it was denounced as an infringement of human rights and helped
justify Freedom House's rating of Russia as "not free."
Another bash-Putin tag team has been The Washington Post's editors and NED's
Gershman. On July 28, 2015,
a Post editorial
and
a companion column
by Gershman led readers to believe that Putin was
paranoid and "power mad" in worrying that outside money funneled into NGOs threatened
Russian sovereignty.
The Post and Gershman were especially outraged that the Russians had enacted the
law requiring NGOs financed from abroad and seeking to influence Russian policies to
register as "foreign agents" and that one of the first funding operations to fall
prey to these tightened rules was Gershman's NED.
The Post's editors wrote that Putin's "latest move … is to declare the NED an
'undesirable' organization under the terms of a law that Mr. Putin signed in May
[2015]. The law bans groups from abroad who are deemed a 'threat to the foundations
of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation, its defense capabilities and
its national security.'
"The charge against the NED is patently ridiculous. The NED's
grantees in Russia last year
ran the gamut of civil society. They advocated
transparency in public affairs, fought corruption and promoted human rights, freedom
of information and freedom of association, among other things. All these activities
make for a healthy democracy but are seen as threatening from the Kremlin's ramparts.
"The new law on 'undesirables' comes in addition to
one signed in 2012
that gave authorities the power to declare
organizations '
foreign
agents
' if they engaged in any kind of politics and receive money from
abroad. The designation, from the Stalin era, implies espionage."
However, among the relevant points that the Post's editors wouldn't tell their
readers was the fact that Russia's Foreign Agent Registration Act was modeled after
the American Foreign Agent Registration Act and that NED President Gershman had
already publicly made clear - in his Sept. 26, 2013
column
- that his goal was to oust Russia's elected president.
In his July 28, 2015 column, Gershman further deemed Putin's government
illegitimate. "Russia's newest anti-NGO law, under which the National Endowment for
Democracy … was
declared an "undesirable organization"
prohibited from operating in
Russia, is the latest evidence that the regime of President Vladimir Putin faces a
worsening crisis of political legitimacy," Gershman wrote, adding:
"This is the context in which Russia has passed the law prohibiting Russian
democrats from getting any international assistance to promote freedom of expression,
the rule of law and a democratic political system. Significantly, democrats have not
backed down. They have not been deterred by the criminal penalties contained in the
'foreign agents' law and other repressive laws. They know that these laws contradict
international law, which allows for such aid, and that the laws are meant to block a
better future for Russia."
The reference to how a "foreign agents" registration law conflicts with
international law might have been a good place for Gershman to explain why what is
good for the goose in the United States isn't good for the gander in Russia. But
hypocrisy is a hard thing to rationalize and would have undermined the propagandistic
impact of the column.
Also undercutting the column's impact would be an acknowledgement of where NED's
money comes from. So Gershman left that out, too. After all, how many governments
would allow a hostile foreign power to sponsor politicians and civic organizations
whose mission is to undermine and overthrow the existing government and put in
someone who would be compliant to that foreign power?
And, if you had any doubts about what Gershman's intent was regarding Russia, he
dispelled them in his Friday column in which he calls on the United States to "summon
the will" to "contain and defeat this danger," which he makes clear is the continued
rule of Vladimir Putin.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories
for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book,
America's Stolen Narrative,
either in
print
here
or as an e-book (from
Amazon
and
barnesandnoble.com
).
I watched Obama's recent town hall with veterans and was shocked when, in
response to a question similar to the one just asked, he said that the U.S.
can't be everywhere, that we need to focus on conflicts that are a direct
threat to the United States. Syria isn't a direct threat, he said. As bad as
the humanitarian crisis there is, he suggested that we don't have a dog in that
fight and need to let others take care of it.
Heaven forbid that Trump agree with Obama, but it would have been a good
response.
Agreed, and I should have included that caveat. I also listened to his
entire speech in Hiroshima, which I thought was one of his best ever, or
should I say "best written." Given that he had been pushing a $1 trillion
nuclear upgrade program, it was nuclear-grade hypocrisy.
Nonetheless, it was remarkable that he went on the record with that
position on Syria when his appointed heir to the throne is calling for a
no-fly zone and confrontation with Russia.
"... "You have called both myself and Michael Kives before about helping your campaign raise money, we no longer trust your judgement
so will not be raising money for your campaign." ..."
"... "How DARE you not give our Crown Princess the respect she deserves!" ..."
"... financially squeeze those not with status quo… guess they object to woman patriots that want to serve "all the people"??…..telling
..."
"For you to endorse a man who has spent almost 40 years in public office with very few accomplishments, doesn't fall in
line with what we previously thought of you. Hillary Clinton will be our party's nominee and you standing on ceremony to support
the sinking Bernie Sanders ship is disrespectful to Hillary Clinton."
"You have called both myself and Michael Kives before about helping your campaign raise money, we no longer trust your
judgement so will not be raising money for your campaign."
I sort of enjoy the typo in Podesta's intro to the forward, if not the sentiment aka gloating that a couple of CAA agents decided
to punish Gabbard for supporting the better candidate. I mean they are clearly a couple of pigs.
"... For example, IMO now that we have in writing that Hillary has 2 positions on issues (a public and private position) it is 100%
fair that debate moderators and the media ask Clinton aggressively which position she is giving in her responses – her public or private
position? ..."
"... If the media won't focus on the public/private position issue (and Obama did the same in 2008 regarding NAFTA, I recall), then
Trump can force them to by putting that front and center in the debate. ..."
Not surprised, no. But IMO has definite implications.
For example, IMO now that we have in writing that Hillary has 2 positions on issues (a public and private position) it
is 100% fair that debate moderators and the media ask Clinton aggressively which position she is giving in her responses – her
public or private position?
Won't happen with our media, but IMO this should now be standard operating procedure for the media with regard to Hillary and
would be completely fair, prudent, and necessary to inform the public and voters.
The debate is setting up to be the mother of all debates.
If the media won't focus on the public/private position issue (and Obama did the same in 2008 regarding NAFTA, I recall),
then Trump can force them to by putting that front and center in the debate.
"... It's an election for and among the ruling class. ..."
"... Scott Adams who has been right so far says Trump still has a clear path to victory. The media is just trying to blackpill everyone. Why should we believe them? They are saying Trump can't win because they said he can't win. ..."
"... Somehow Clinton bragging about getting a pedophile off the hook is OK? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCDzRtZLUkc CLinton will start WW III. Trump may do so. What a choice. ..."
"... For nearly a generation now there have been decent candidates for US president who would, to a greater or lesser degree, have opposed our increasingly corrupt and violent oligarchy. Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, Howard Dean, Jill Stein, Rick Santorum ... and many more you haven't heard of. The elites have perfected a system of taking them down, with no messy assassination. Ridicule them in the press, don't cover their positions, just their style, find a flaw or mis-statement and hammer hammer hammer until people believe that they are ridiculous, then ban them from the media. ..."
"... now the establishment is doubling down on the only thing it knows how to do. They are 'reporting' that Trump is finished. ..."
"... Donald Trump has said unfortunate off-the-cuff things. Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, has actually DONE some things so crazy that if I wrote her up as a character in a work of fiction my editor would reject it as unbelievable. ..."
"... The Podesta e-mails show Killary in her true colors (see b.) The few I read though were unsurprising and boring, because she is mentally challenged, as is her staff, they are in a bubble. The leaks re. her speeches to Banksters ditto, and anyway the speeches are immaterial, they are just empty, fakelorum, performances carried out to legitimise bribery in a completely corrupt circuit. ..."
"... I concur with the very first post...it will be a Trump landslide. The silent majority- the plurality of voters who are neither D nor R. We have no voice in politics and no voice in the media. We already see through the lies and the hypocracy. That is Trumps target audience. Even if it is just a show at least Trump talks about policies ..."
"... Trump and his supporters must henceforth be more vigilant and pull no punches in exposing the Clintons' perfidy. ..."
"... And on other fronts - the Vice News vid I just watched was titled 'the US/Russia Proxy War in Ukraine'. I was shocked. Their prior coverage was 200% neocon blather. (Aka Simon Otrovsky IIRc) Could it be a beginning of a revolt by the MSM? If CNN begins to refer to Syria and Ukraine as proxy wars, it means the Empire's control of MSM is slipping. And that would spell the end for them. ..."
"... "This is a very dangerous game given that Russia, being in Syria at the invitation of the legitimate government of this country and having two bases there, has got air defense systems there to protect its assets," Lavrov said, according to Reuters. ..."
"... IMO Sanders is worst among all the POTUS hopefuls. He lied repeatedly, In a debate with Hillary on Edward Snowden "He broke the law … but what he did [exposing the NSA surveillance] should be taken into consideration," Edward Snowden wanna fair trial, but can he get it? Dun Forget Assange afraid of assassinated, to speak from Ecuador embassy balcony to exposed Hillary. Can you trust Obomo's Justice Dept. or anyone in his administration? ..."
"... Outrage Can No Longer Be Ignored. The elections methods enterprise consists of an imposing compilation of distracting, unworkable feints, erroneously purported to constitute viable election methods. Get strategic hedge simple score voting. No More Two-Party!!! No more!!! ..."
"... The social theorist Zygmunt Bauman argues that the age of nations states, which was born with the treaty that ended the Thirty Years War, and which we all take for granted, is now over. Nation States made decisions through politics and then used power to implement their wishes. Now, however, power no longer resides with the state, but instead is in the hands of international entities -- corporations, banks, criminal enterprises -- that are above, beyond and indifferent to any nation's political decisions. ..."
"... Although American presidents, the congress, the courts still pretend otherwise, it's pretty clear they know they have no real power, and so go through charades of legislating meaningless issues. Allowing Americans to sue Saudi Arabia, for example, when there's not the slightest chance of pinning 911 on the Saudis. ..."
"... The election is a circus meant to distract and entertain a powerless public. Might as well enjoy it. The Dems and Repugs like to strut and posture, rake in dollars and enjoy prestige, and try to make us believe they can still shape the future, but really it out of their control. ..."
"... Of course the U.S. has tremendous military power, but the "elected" government has no control over it, how it is used or where. JFK's murder ended that era, ..."
"... Many here think the U.S., and hence the U.S. military, is controlled by Israel, but Israel too is a nation state, and supra-national institutions ($$$$) seem to be running it as well, ..."
"... My take as an outsider. Use Trump to take down the elite. His foreign policy basics are consistent and solid - non intervention, pull back of US military to the US, protection of local manufacturing. ..."
"... US involvement in Libya began at Hillary's urging shortly after Hillary received this advice from her confidante Sidney Blumenthal. Note that the advice that the overthrow of Qaddafi needed to be connected with "an identifiable rebellion" in Syria means that it needs to be connected with civil war in Syria. US involvement in Libya was, of course, coordinated out of Benghazi, as the advice to Hillary suggested. ..."
"... Once the fall of Qaddafi was a fait accompli, Hillary's State Department advocated the overthrow of Bashar Assad as a critical component for calming Israel so that President Barrack Obama could accomplish his legacy nuclear pact with Iran without Israel blowing Iran up before the deal was sealed. ..."
"... No. Planning for overthrow of Assad - and use of extremists as a weapon of State - was begun in earnest in 2006; as described by Seymour Hersh in "The Redirection". ..."
"... Anyone else notice that Hillary couldn't remember what she did while in office? Major mistake. ..."
"... Clinton insisted she had retired from the government by the time that happened. Not so: Obama dared Assad to cross his line in August 2012, six months before Clinton's term ended. ..."
The tape of Trump talking dirty was released just in time to sidetrack from the release of more
of Clinton's dirty secrets by Wikileaks. Trump's talk was juvenile and sexist bragging in front of
other "boys". Surprising it was not. There will more releases like that, all timed to run cover for
Clinton.
The just released emails of
her campaign chairman John Podesta about Clinton's talk to Wall Street and other Clinton related
issues are indeed revealing. She
is the sell-out you
would expect her to be:
*CLINTON SAYS YOU NEED TO HAVE A PRIVATE AND PUBLIC POSITION ON POLICY*
Clinton: "But if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals,
you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a
private position."
It is funny how the U.S. electorate has a deeper
"very negative" view of Trump (-44%) and Clinton (-41%) than of the much vilified Russian President
Putin (-38%).
When Trump will come back in the polls (not "if"), it will be a devious fight with daily "leaks"
followed by counter leaks and a lot of dirty laundry washed in front of the public. Good.
Many of the people who will vote will vote against a candidate, not for the one
that they will mark on their ballot. I expect a very low turn out election, barely giving a mandate,
to whomever may win or get selected to have won. Elwood | Oct 9, 2016 9:26:03 AM |
1
Uh no. The silent majority that swept Reagan into office will speak again this year.
Please stick to geo-politics and quit embarrassing yourself re: domestic US politics. Trump is
done and the longer it takes for you and the rest of the fake-left - both domestically and abroad
- to get their heads around that fact, the longer the rest of us have to witness the frightfully
shameful mental contortions your Trump-love takes.
Please stop. It's one thing to have to deal with shallow and inaccurate fake-left analysis
without a healthy dose of butt-hurt b/c Hillary will be POTUS.
Grow up and quit being a victim of the US propaganda arsenal.
In other words, I shall lie to the "Deplorables" to keep you safe from regulation and incarceration.
Give me money. I am a corrupt and experienced liar.
I had a home inspector come to my place last week, intelligent and skilled working class guy,
who didn't even know who Trump was. He knew Clinton was running and hates her. But had zero clue
who her opponent was. And he's never voted before. There are very few election signs on yards.
It's an election for and among the ruling class.
BURN. IT. DOWN. That was the WHOLE point of Trump voters from the get-go. And his slide toward
zionist scumbags was a HUUUGE problem. To me at least. Now he SEES. And he won't be shut down
by the fukwits. And regardless of what happens. He is likely carefully considering having his
son-in-law fall down a VERY deep hole. His daughter and grandchildren will thank him one day.
Et tu Brutus?
Here's what the Deplorables will be doing. On election day. 1) Bring black sharpie. 2) Demand
PAPER ballot. 3) Vote Trump. 4) Vote I or D down-ballot. 5) Fill in all blanks.
And by-the-way. To #2 Ron. We do this for Syria. And Yemen. And all the OTHER people the USG,
MIC, MSM ZIOthugs have been murdering and enslaving for the past 50+ years. Not just for ourselves
and our children. It's the absolute LEAST we can do. But its a start.
Scott Adams who has been right so far says Trump still has a clear path to victory. The media
is just trying to blackpill everyone. Why should we believe them? They are saying Trump can't
win because they said he can't win.
Ron is obviously a Clinton groupie.
Btw, how is what Trump said sexist? It's just real dude talk with the lads. Plenty of people
say that behind closed doors.
@2. I happen to think Trump is another wolf in a sheep's clothe and won't deliver any significant
part of his promises, so like you, I am baffled that someone like b could actually buy into this.
However unlike you, I don't think the election is predictable, I think it actually bodes well
for Trump, why? It seems clear from the polls, that Hillary isn't a preferred choice for majority
of the voters. If he was, she should be polling close to the 50 point mark by now, yet she's in
the low 40s, someone with her resume running against a political light weight like Trump should
be doing much better. So what does that mean? It means (at lest to me) voters have rejected Hillary
as a firs choice, she may be second or third but she's definitely not most voters first choice.
So Trump has a chance, although he's working his darnes to ruin it, Imagine if it was someone
else had Trumps message without the baggage?
The polls wouldn't be close, I think the undecided (who don't have Hillary has their first
choice) will decide this election at the last minute, if Trump has more recordings leaked (not
about his tryst) but for instance the NYT interview where he supposedly said he's not going to
build a wall? ( I think that will be leaked soon if the polls don't move in Hillary's favor, the
establishment clearly has their preference). If there are no more damages to Trump, he may very
well win this thing, but I suspect the empire has more leaks coming.
I for one thinks a third party candidate is where its at, but what do I know?
Want to read some original observations? (1) The Pence-Is-So-Presidential vp debate win was a
complete set-up, with the DNC complicit in instructing Tim Kaine to play the obvious heavy, a
movie caricature villian, complete with raised eyebrows, crazy expressions, and interrupting 70+
times. Made Pence a new hero. Reason? (2) GOP Rinos and DNC have been co-ordinating for months
on "perfect time" to release Trump's Naughty Audio Tape (sharp ears can also detect it was edited),
and this was reported by DC Whispers and journalists Mr/Mrs Bill & Beth Still in a recent video.
(3) Media had their 'talking points' to conclude with NBC's Chuck Todd yesterday: "The election
is over. Hillary has won." (4) GOP Paul Ryan did high-profile dis-invitation of Trump to Wisconsin;
and then Pence substitution at event (vetoed by Trump) was to support GOP Establishment plot to
replace Trump with Pence on the ticket, which they will still try to do when the DNC floats false
pedophile charges against Trump w/o Oct. 9 (DNC whistleblowers gave full plan to Alex Jones because
even there, some people are too disgusted with all this dirt to 'carry on camping'). Pence was
in on the conspiracy from the very beginning. Another smiling choirboy.
For nearly a generation now there have been decent candidates for US president who would, to a
greater or lesser degree, have opposed our increasingly corrupt and violent oligarchy. Ross Perot,
Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan, Howard Dean, Jill Stein, Rick Santorum ... and many more you haven't
heard of. The elites have perfected a system of taking them down, with no messy assassination.
Ridicule them in the press, don't cover their positions, just their style, find a flaw or mis-statement
and hammer hammer hammer until people believe that they are ridiculous, then ban them from the
media.
Trump's big mouth and complete lack of shame has, for now, made him relatively immune to this
treatment. So now the establishment is doubling down on the only thing it knows how to do. They
are 'reporting' that Trump is finished. Perhaps yes, perhaps no. But it would be wise to remember
that the corporate press doesn't report the news any more, it is attempting to create the news,
out of whole cloth. Remember how many times they said that Trump was 'finished' during the primary?
I mean, how come what Trump said ten years ago in a private conversation, is headline news,
while Hillary Clinton's decision to ALLY THE UNITED STATES WITH AL QAEDA AND RISK WAR WITH RUSSIA
TO DEFEND THEM is somehow a minor detail? It's crazy when you think about it.
Donald Trump has said unfortunate off-the-cuff things. Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State,
has actually DONE some things so crazy that if I wrote her up as a character in a work of fiction
my editor would reject it as unbelievable.
So I am voting for Trump even if the New York Times says he is doomed. We don't really know
what he will do as president, but in the business world he has proven the ability to actually
get along with disparate people in a constructive way. Hillary Clinton is a bona fide monster
who should scare any sane person. We know exactly what she will do as president, and attacking
Russian forces in Syria will be just the start...
Better a chance on a wildcard, then certain doom. IMHO.
The Podesta e-mails show Killary in her true colors (see b.) The few I read though were unsurprising
and boring, because she is mentally challenged, as is her staff, they are in a bubble. The leaks
re. her speeches to Banksters ditto, and anyway the speeches are immaterial, they are just empty,
fakelorum, performances carried out to legitimise bribery in a completely corrupt circuit.
One e-mail (idk who wrote it and can't find it back): a campaign manager who had his head screwed
on stated that most likely one needs to add 10 points to Trump re. polls. Details were a bit bizarre
and convoluted...no matter...
It reminded me that in France all the 'official' polls use an 'algorithm' based on 'hunches
dressed up in fancy pyscho-babble verbiage' that add between 2 and 5% to NF votes (depending on
election, region, first/second round, etc.) Necessary for maintaining their credibility, to come
closer to what the real results will show.
As for Trump's locker-room bragaddacio, not one single Trump supporter will flip, and undecideds
etc. may switch to Trump, finding such an 'attack' illegit, frivolous, etc. It throws light on
the fact that what Killary is being accused of - e-mails, Benghazi, Clinton Foundation, pay to
play, etc. - is extremely serious, whereas smutty chat is part-o-life.
Imho the underlying aim of the release (first, serving to create buzzz! to cover over the leaks
natch) was to furnish a reason for segments of the PTB establishment base, nominally
Repubs., to come forward and support HRC, after they were subjected to pressure, arm-twisting,
possibly even blackmail.
I concur with the very first post...it will be a Trump landslide. The silent majority- the plurality
of voters who are neither D nor R. We have no voice in politics and no voice in the media. We
already see through the lies and the hypocracy. That is Trumps target audience. Even if it is
just a show at least Trump talks about policies
Trump is still going to "win" the election. I put the win in quotations because that will not
mean that he would be declared winner. The plan to rig the election has always been part of the
plan, what this leak provides is a way to persuade the gullible people that the tape cost Trump
the election. The oligarchs in both parties and all over the Western world are truly terrified
of a Trump presidency but equally terrified of the reaction of the masses, should the election
be brazenly rigged with no plausible reasons. They have tried to manipulate the polls and it is
not succeeding. But now they can go back to their pseudo pollsters and start dishing out dubious
polls until the election. That would appear credible to the credulous voters who by and large
are, frankly, dim. The two parties and the global oligarchs and their media shoeshine crew have
now found a convenient talking point to prepare the ground for an eventual rigging of the election.
Trump and his supporters must henceforth be more vigilant and pull no punches in exposing the
Clintons' perfidy.
#22 I'd say "war criminals who rule us" is Hillary's job title to a T. So many Hillary supporters
are giving off the scent of mixed rage and panic these days.
And on other fronts - the Vice News vid I just watched was titled 'the US/Russia Proxy War in
Ukraine'. I was shocked. Their prior coverage was 200% neocon blather. (Aka Simon Otrovsky IIRc)
Could it be a beginning of a revolt by the MSM? If CNN begins to refer to Syria and Ukraine as
proxy wars, it means the Empire's control of MSM is slipping. And that would spell the end for
them.
To 31. Nah. It's not the end of 'em. Just controlled opposition. Cuz thru all this miasma. LOTS
of decent folks are hip to what's happening in Yemen and Syria. The muppets are rubbing sleep
from their tired little eyes. And SEE what the MSM has been neglecting to tell them. The MSM aren't
stupid. They hope feeding the muppets some bit of truthiness, we'll fall back into an MSM-stupor.
Sadly. The MSM has lost too many muppets. Gone for good. This CIVIL WAR won't be fought carnally.
But it will be just as bloody. Cuz metaphysical warfare is something for which they are NOT prepared
to battle.
I think the term used here refers to any form of modern mass release of bombs or missiles.
Each B-52 which of course can refuel so fly from anywhere, & is ponderously slow, can release
about 24 cruise missiles, serially, from a rotary dispenser inside, from standoff distances.
So the problem becomes "How many 'rounds' do the russians have for each & every one of their
missile batteries there?"
Except that he didn't inherit or steal his money, he demonstrated he's nearly perfect example
of the 1% when he mocked any voter who has a opinion about anything except for his own opinion
that estate taxes are theft (though so would be Trump's inflation-based tax -- thereby demonstrating
Mr. Scott 1%-er Adams is less informed than he is rich) and that (according to Scott Adams himself)
is far and away the issue that matters to Scott Adams in this election.
Who gave you or the Democrats the right to demand changes after the Primaries? .....believe
Gallup's polls and anyone who happen to disagree with you a troll?
IMO Sanders is worst among all the POTUS hopefuls. He lied repeatedly, In a debate with Hillary
on Edward Snowden "He broke the law … but what he did [exposing the NSA surveillance] should be
taken into consideration," Edward Snowden wanna fair trial, but can he get it? Dun Forget Assange
afraid of assassinated, to speak from Ecuador embassy balcony to exposed Hillary. Can you trust
Obomo's Justice Dept. or anyone in his administration?
Sanders said "Well, as somebody who spent many months of my life when I was a kid in Israel,
who has family in Israel, of course Israel has a right not only to defend themselves, but to live
in peace and security without fear of terrorist attack." Did you look at Google's Palestine
map (taken down after protests)?
You have, perhaps, heard me mention "strategic hedge simple score voting" here before. Here are
two short pieces I have posted at the website "The Center for Election Science", at: https://electology.org/forums/theory
/~~~~~~~~~~
They tend to fall back on a Google+ Groups "site" which I do not use since I refuse to join (corporate)
"social media" at: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/electionscience
Outrage Can No Longer Be Ignored. The elections methods enterprise consists of an imposing
compilation of distracting, unworkable feints, erroneously purported to constitute viable election
methods. Get strategic hedge simple score voting. No More Two-Party!!! No more!!!
Giving Americans a choice of candidates no one wants is a way of humiliating them, of showing
them they have no say in how they are ruled. It's much like Caligula appointing his horse to the
Roman Senate to show his power and his contempt for the senators who might still have thought
they had a say in running Rome.
The social theorist Zygmunt Bauman argues that the age of nations states, which was born with
the treaty that ended the Thirty Years War, and which we all take for granted, is now over. Nation
States made decisions through politics and then used power to implement their wishes. Now, however,
power no longer resides with the state, but instead is in the hands of international entities
-- corporations, banks, criminal enterprises -- that are above, beyond and indifferent to any
nation's political decisions.
Although American presidents, the congress, the courts still pretend otherwise, it's pretty
clear they know they have no real power, and so go through charades of legislating meaningless
issues. Allowing Americans to sue Saudi Arabia, for example, when there's not the slightest chance
of pinning 911 on the Saudis.
If WW3 or anything else is in the cards it will happen no matter who is elected, Clinton, Trump
or someone else.
The election is a circus meant to distract and entertain a powerless public. Might as well
enjoy it. The Dems and Repugs like to strut and posture, rake in dollars and enjoy prestige, and
try to make us believe they can still shape the future, but really it out of their control.
Indeed, according to Bauman, things may be spinning out of anyone's control. That's everywhere,
not just in the U.S.
Of course the U.S. has tremendous military power, but the "elected" government has no control
over it, how it is used or where. JFK's murder ended that era,
Many here think the U.S., and hence the U.S. military, is controlled by Israel, but Israel
too is a nation state, and supra-national institutions ($$$$) seem to be running it as well,
Recently there have been plenty of posts here pointing out the contradictions and inexplicable
behavior of American leaders concerning Syria -- is the military opposing the State Department?
Is the "CIA" opposing both and calling the shots? I think Bauman would agree (?) that in the final
analysis, none of them are running things. Americans, including their supposed leaders, have lost
control of their destiny and can only do as they are told.
I'm not qualified to judge Bauman's assertion. I'm only suggesting it gives a plausible explanation
for the current insanity we're living through. "The State of Crisis" (2014). A great work (only
150 pages) that you'll be glad to read if you haven't already read it.
My take as an outsider. Use Trump to take down the elite. His foreign policy basics are consistent
and solid - non intervention, pull back of US military to the US, protection of local manufacturing.
These are the two best policies to break the globalised elite, US would go through some hard times
for a bit re-adjusting, then take off again as part of this world rather than wannabe ruler of
this world.
Trump's line about Gens. Macarthur and Patton rolling over in their graves was masterful. Telling
Hil that she doesn't know who Isis is. Declaring Aleppo lost. Scored some points. The Trump of
yesterday's news is not the Trump in the debate. I find this strangely reassuring. Got her on
the 3:00AM phone call in res Benghazi. Whoever ran Trump's prep gets a free drink on me.
US involvement in Libya began at Hillary's urging shortly after Hillary received this advice
from her confidante Sidney Blumenthal. Note that the advice that the overthrow of Qaddafi needed
to be connected with "an identifiable rebellion" in Syria means that it needs to be connected
with civil war in Syria. US involvement in Libya was, of course, coordinated out of Benghazi,
as the advice to Hillary suggested.
Once the fall of Qaddafi was a fait accompli, Hillary's State Department advocated the overthrow
of Bashar Assad as a critical component for calming Israel.
No. Planning for overthrow of Assad - and use of extremists as a weapon of State - was begun in
earnest in 2006; as described by Seymour Hersh in "The Redirection".
Anyone else notice that Hillary couldn't remember what she did while in office? Major mistake.
Trump recalled that Clinton was secretary of state when President Barack Obama drew his now-infamous
rhetorical 'red line' in Syria, ineffectively warning Bashar al-Assad not to use chemical weapons
against insurgents and civilians.
Clinton insisted she had retired from the government by the time that happened. Not so: Obama
dared Assad to cross his line in August 2012, six months before Clinton's term ended.
She can't even remain standing during a presidential debate, and can't remember what she did,
either.
@ 31 Vice "news" is a bad joke. All their Syria and Libya coverage is 200% pro al-Qaeda/DoS policy.
They even had a "journalist" embedded with al-Nusra in Aleppo in 2014 and portrayed them in a
favourable light. It doesn't surprise me that their Ukraine coverage follows a similar pattern.
That was all about debt slavery and a successful attempt to encircle Russia with a belt of hostile
state. Standard of living dropped more then twice since Maydan. Nationalist proved to be reliable neoliberal
tools who can fooled again and again based on their hate of Russia and help to enslave their own people
("fool me once"...) Classic divide and conquer. Nothing new. Yatsenyuk was despicable corrupt neoliberal
with fake flair of nationalism from the very beginning. he helped to sell country assets for pennies
on the a dollar and completely destroyed economic relations with Russia (why you need to love the county
to trade with it is beyond any sane person comprehension; capitalism is actually about the ability to
trade with people we hate and that's one of its strong points). Emigrant community in Canada and USA
(due to typical for emigrants heightened level of nationalism) also played a role in destruction of
economics of Ukraine. this is a very sad story of creating an African country in Europe where many people
live of less then a dollar a day and pensioners starve.
Ukraine has faded from the American national consciousness as other, even more recent and far
more spectacular foreign policy fiascos - Syria, Libya and the Islamic State - overwhelm our capacity
to catalog them.
... ... ...
Obama's delicate carrot-and-stick approach hasn't worked, and the long-simmering Ukrainian kettle
threatens to boil into the worst crisis in relations between Moscow and Washington since the Cold
War.
... ... ...
The optimism created by the 2013-2014 "EuroMaidan" street demonstrations was short-lived. Prime
Minister Arseniy Petrovych Yatsenyuk was forced to resign in April against a backdrop of permanent
political crisis and high-profile charges of corruption.
... ... ...
Perhaps most dispiriting of all, even those Ukrainian activists, politicians, and journalists
who are portrayed as true reformers appear likewise unable to resist the temptation to engage in
the systemic looting of the Ukrainian economy.
In early September, the New Yorker magazine dedicated several thousand words to three citizen-journalists
who now serve in the Ukrainian Parliament. Like other western media outlets, the New Yorker portrayed
Sergei Leshchenko, Svitlana Zalishchuk, and Mustafa Nayem as dedicated journalists - new faces who
sought election to parliament as part of President Poroshenko's bloc in the wake of the Maidan street
protests, which Nayem helped organize.
Now, however, Leshchenko's post-election acquisition of high-end housing has attracted the attention
of the Anti-Corruption Agency of Ukraine, an investigatory body that was established at the urging
of the United States. Last week, the Anti-Corruption Agency forwarded the Leshchenko file to the
special prosecutor's office tasked with corruption fighting. Leshchenko could not explain the source
of the income that allowed him to buy the residence, loan documents are missing, and the purchase
price was allegedly below market
The owner of the building, according to Ukrainian media accounts, is Ivan Fursin, the partner
of mega-oligarch Dmytro Firtash.
Recent reports have revealed that Leshchenko's expenses for attending international forums were
paid for by the oligarch Viktor Pinchuk who also contributed $8,6 million to the Clinton Foundation
While Leshchenko remains the toast of the western media and Washington think tanks, back at home,
his fellow reformers in the Parliament are calling on him to resign until his name is cleared.
Meanwhile, the next president is sure to find Ukraine besieged on all sides: With Russian troops
and pro-Russian rebels at its throat and corruption destroying it from within -and as the Leshchenko
scandal suggests, not all in Ukraine is what it appears to be.
The new president must learn to discern Ukraine's true reformers from those who made anti-corruption
crusades into a lucrative business, and be able to distinguish real action from empty words.
If not, the two and a half decades-long Ukrainian experiment with independence may boil over completely.
Thanks for the link. Interesting and depressing. A snippet:
" Oligarchy is rule by the few. Plutocracy is rule by the wealthy.
Corporatocracy is a society governed or controlled by corporations. We have
all three."
"... Saw less than a dozen Trump Signs. Not a single Hillary. And this one that I meant to steal, but we came back a different route: 2016 EVERYONE SUCKS ..."
"... To have a no fly zone you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we're not putting our pilots at risk-you're going to kill a lot of Syrians. ..."
Hillary:
To have a no fly zone you have to take out all of the air defense, many of which are
located in populated areas. So our missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we're not putting
our pilots at risk-you're going to kill a lot of Syrians.
And why is it that all the r2p humanitarians are calling for a no-fly zone? To protect Syrians. Obviously
the most humane way to do that is to 'kill a lot of Syrians'.
WASHINGTON, Aug. 31 (UPI) - General Dynamics – Ordnance and Tactical Systems has been awarded
a $39 million modification to a foreign military sales contract for various bomb bodies.
The contract falls under the U.S. Army and involves sales to Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates,
France and Iraq.
The modification calls for 162 MK82-1 bomb bodies, 7,245 MK82-6 bomb bodies and 9,664 MK84-10
bomb bodies. …
Only barrel bombs can commit atrocities – Western, "liberal" modern advanced expensive high tech
weapons have special self righteous code imprinted in them that prevents the slaughter of the TRULY
innocent…
"Ordnance and Tactical Systems has been awarded a $39 million modification to a foreign military
sales contract for various bomb bodies"
Oh, and it helps the economy…i.e., the richest, and isn't that who the economy is for?
Thousands of Yemenis, many of them armed, gathered at the United Nations headquarters in
Yemen's capital Sanaa on Sunday calling for an international investigation into an air strike
on a wake this weekend that was widely blamed on Saudi-led forces.
The attack – that killed at least 140 people on Saturday – hit a hall where rows of the
city's notables had gathered for the wake of the interior minister's father.
The Saudi-led coalition has denied any role in the incident, believed to be one of the deadliest
strikes in the 18-month-old war in which at least 10,000 people have been killed. …
And when the Saudis deny any role in a mass-casualty attack, you can take it to the bank.
Or at least
Tony Podesta's bank account.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Seven years ago this week, when a young American president learned
he'd been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize barely nine months into his first term -
arguably before he'd made any peace - a somewhat embarrassed Barack Obama asked his
aides to write an acceptance speech that addressed the awkwardness of the award.
But by the time his speechwriters delivered a draft, Obama's focus had shifted to
another source of tension in his upcoming moment in Oslo: He would deliver this
speech about peace just days after he planned to order 30,000 more American troops
into battle in Afghanistan.
... ... ...
He has ordered drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Somalia and Syria that have killed
civilians and sparked tension in those countries and across the international community. What
began as a secret program has become more transparent as Obama has aimed to leave legal limits
for his predecessor on the use of unmanned warplanes.
"... Hillary Clinton and husband Bill will turn the White House and the U.S. Government into their personal bank. ..."
"... If the American electorate selects Hillary as their commander and chief she will immediately demand a No-Fly Zone over Syria. She will impose more economic sanctions on Russia, including an increase in NATO strength on Russia's western borders, just to show she is the Queen bitch. She will give israHell carte blanche to increase and expand further abuse in the Gaza strip. She is a woman scorned. And a very dangerous one. ..."
"... [neo]Liberalism is in terminal decline, and not a moment too soon. ..."
"... Hillary does not have any creative spark at all. She, like Obama is a dud, but one thing is for sure, she is not Donald. ..."
"... These same americans should go back, for once, to his 2008 campaign to defeat first Hillary in the primaries and then the republican McCain. ..."
"... The climate was dominated by the financial meltdown, which really started in the summer of 2007 and was evident by early spring of 2008. Hillary was the candidate of Wall Street, according to Obama, the republicans were one and the same with Wall Street and all the big corporate world, he was Hope and Change. ..."
"... Hope? What hope? And even more: change, what change? There has been little change, if almost half of the nation is now ready to accept Trump as a promise of change. Obama's main financial support came in 2008 from Wall Street, hedge funds in particular, and they were right because nobody like the first Afro-American president, himself inevitably the incarnation of progressivism, could save their ass after all the criminal finance they indulged in. ..."
"... So, Obama's inheritance is a problem, and Hillary is running on Obama's inheritance. ..."
"... Robert Kagan, ringleader of the cabal of neo-cons has endorsed Hillary, who is Roberts wife? why bless me if it isn't Victoria 'fuck the EU' Nuland, ..."
"... Samantha Powers is a neo-con acolyte, Ashton Carter is too, the State Dept. and the council of foreign relations is riddled with their people, all the horror figures of Dubya's days are lurking there and pulling strings, ..."
"... Kerry isn't really a neo-con, but the Pentagon and CIA sabotage anything half decent he tries to do, ..."
"... Basically Hillary is as genuine, left leaning and honest as Tony Blair.... ..."
"... Also remember the lack of believability of Hillary. She is a politician that has been caught in lies so often that people just don't believe her. She pushed the soda tax in Philly until Coca-Cola complained that they gave too much money to the Foundation to be treated that way. Hillary backed off. She made millions from speaking to Big Banks. So we really believe she will go after Wells Fargo? She is beholden to them (unless Goldman Sachs gets to choose). She says raise taxes to pay fair share, but her biggest supporters are Apple, Google, and their executives that keep billions of income overseas to avoid the highest corporate income tax in the world. Do we really think she will hurt the contributors to the Foundation? And the more the email saga plays out, the longer the untrustworthy issue remains in everyone's mind. MonotonousLanguor , 2016-10-07 20:58:06 Does anyone really believe Hillary Clinton will hold anyone on Wall Street accountable??? She is bought and paid for by Wall Street, starting with all the green backs Hillary and Bill stuffed in their pockets from the those speaking fees. Obama's Justice Department motto was, Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Jail. The Democrats are not going to bite their masters on Wall Street, and of course neither will the Republicans. IanB52 -> NoctilucentGinswig , 2016-10-07 20:41:06 Prosecuting bankers, prosecuting torturers, stopping white collar crime, wars, assassinations, warrantless spying and even scheduling of Marijuana are all under the control of the Executive Branch. Find even one of these where the President did the right thing. Uncle Putin , 2016-10-07 20:26:49 This is exactly what I was thinking during the first presidential debate. Hillary is an old pro at saying all the right things, pushing all the right buttons to get the votes she needs, but can you believe much of what she says? ..."
"... This is why, despite a poor debate performance overall, I thought Trump was spot on when he simply said she was a typical politician--all talk, no action, sounds great, none of it will ever happen. He's correct. ..."
"... What Frank seldom writes of but remains extremely important to many people on the left in the US is that Obama has governed as the effective prisoner of the Pentagon and security establishment. His wars (including on whistleblowers), nuclear build-up, and confrontation with Russia have given added momentum to growing neoconservative bipartisan consensus that will likely see a new President Clinton start a war with Russia in Syria and/or Ukraine. ..."
"... The Democrats are now both so neoliberal and so neoconservative that the only thing that differentiates them from Republicans is social progressivism. Given a choice between the latter and greatly increased likelihood of nuclear war, I have to confess to preferring that Trump win. Trump has been consistent in wanting to lessen tensions with Russia. ..."
"... Not even social progressivism, so much as a set of captive client constituencies whom they name-drop and weaponize. ..."
The puzzle that is currently frustrating the pundit minds of America is this: why is Hillary
Clinton not simply clobbering Donald Trump? How is this ranting, seething buffoon still competitive
with her? Trump has now stumbled through a series of the kind of blunders that break ordinary
political campaigns – the sort of deadly hypocrisies that always kill the demagogue in old movies
– and yet this particular demagogue keeps on trucking. Why?
Let us answer that burning pundit question of today by jumping to what will undoubtedly be
the next great object of pundit ardor: the legacy of President Barack Obama. Two months from now,
when all the TV wise men are playing historian and giving their estimation on where Obama ranks
in the pantheon of the greats, they will probably neglect to mention that his legacy helped to
determine Hillary's fortunes in this election cycle.
"As a beloved figure among Democrats, for example, Obama was instrumental in securing the nomination
for her. As a president who has accomplished little since 2011, however, Obama has pretty much
undermined Clinton's ability to sell us on another centrist Democratic presidency. His legacy
has diluted her promise
…. Or take this headline from just a few days ago: "Clinton promises to hold Wells Fargo accountable".
Go get 'em, Hillary! To see a president get tough with elite bankers and with CEOs in general
– that's something we can all cheer for. But then that nagging voice piped up again: if Democrats
think it is so critical to get tough with crooked banksters, why oh why didn't Barack Obama take
the many, many opportunities he had to do so back in the days when it would have really mattered?"
Senator Elizabeth Warren pronounced on the current state of middle America as follows:
Look around. Americans bust their tails, some working two or three jobs, but wages stay
flat. Meanwhile, the basic costs of making it from month to month keep going up. Housing, healthcare,
child care – costs are out of sight. Young people are getting crushed by student loans. Working
people are in debt. Seniors can't stretch a social security check to cover the basics.
It was a powerful indictment of what Warren called a "rigged" system – except for one thing:
that system is presided over by Barack Obama, a man that same Democratic convention was determined
to apotheosize as one of the greatest politicians of all times.
The larger problem facing them is the terminal irrelevance of their great, overarching campaign
theme. Remember the "man from Hope"? "Hope is on the way"? "Keep hope alive"? Well, this year
"hope" is most assuredly dead. Thanks to Obama's flagrant hope-dealing in the dark days of 2008
– followed up by his failure to reverse the disintegration of the middle class – this favorite
Democratic cliché has finally become just that: an empty phrase.
If the American electorate selects Hillary as their commander and chief she will immediately
demand a No-Fly Zone over Syria. She will impose more economic sanctions on Russia, including
an increase in NATO strength on Russia's western borders, just to show she is the Queen bitch.
She will give israHell carte blanche to increase and expand further abuse in the Gaza strip. She
is a woman scorned. And a very dangerous one.
[neo]Liberalism is in terminal decline, and not a moment too soon. It's far past time
we redeveloped a politics of interests rather than this Christianised values sham.
Hillary will win because she is not Trump. If she wins it is another 4 Obama like years and it
is Bill's Third Term in Office. Hillary does not have any creative spark at all. She, like
Obama is a dud, but one thing is for sure, she is not Donald.
Too many americans are mesmerized by the fact that Obama is young and articulate, plays well
the presidential role, is generally speaking what is called a nice person or at least behaves
formally as if he were one, has but only of late (thanks to Hillary and Trump perhaps, by contrast)
a fairly high popularity score.
These same americans should go back, for once, to his 2008 campaign to defeat first Hillary
in the primaries and then the republican McCain.
The climate was dominated by the financial meltdown, which really started in the summer
of 2007 and was evident by early spring of 2008. Hillary was the candidate of Wall Street, according
to Obama, the republicans were one and the same with Wall Street and all the big corporate world,
he was Hope and Change.
Hope? What hope? And even more: change, what change? There has been little change, if almost
half of the nation is now ready to accept Trump as a promise of change. Obama's main financial
support came in 2008 from Wall Street, hedge funds in particular, and they were right because
nobody like the first Afro-American president, himself inevitably the incarnation of progressivism,
could save their ass after all the criminal finance they indulged in.
And Obama did save their skin, as everybody knows. Obama took on board plenty of Clinton (and
Wall Street) people, starting in June 2008, when Hillary was finished. You cannot change that
much after the financial crisis if you take Lawrence Summers as economic top advisor and you install
young Geithner at the Treasury. Paul Volcker, who inspired so many good and useful judgements
for candidate Obama, was put in the closet.
Obama is a lawyer by education and he knows who is the best customer. That's not the man or
the woman of Main Street. To them, some of them, he gave Obamacare, which is not all bad and something
of it will remain, I think, but it's not at all that major reform he has been boasting about.
By november 8 everybody will know that Obamacare has serious problems.
So, Obama's inheritance is a problem, and Hillary is running on Obama's inheritance.
nice to see the Guardian have a moment of clarity!
I do feel sympathy for Obama, he, and his family, have effectively spent 8 years held hostage
in the White House by those perfidious neo-conservatives,
they existed in Ronnie Raygun's day but he laughed at them, G H Bush referred to them as 'the
crazies in the basement' and kept close tabs on them,
they were happily meddling away during Bill Clintons era helping destroy Yugoslavia and furiously
planning their 'Project for a New American Century' PNAC basically a blueprint and justification
for every shitty thing done since,
G W Bush let loose the neo-cons of war and we know what they've done,
Barack Obama's greatest folly was to not round them up on the first day of his presidency,
put them in a sack with a brick and throw them in the river,
they have infested his government and followed their own agenda whilst laughing at him, so
the story goes, at a private dinner party Barack was asked why he wasn't doing anything to thwart
these shits and his reply was 'you saw what they did to MLK'
now at the transition to Clinton these neo-cons are actively endorsing her, they consider her
'their girl' Clinton may well turn out to be George 'Dubya' with tits,
Robert Kagan, ringleader of the cabal of neo-cons has endorsed Hillary, who is Roberts
wife? why bless me if it isn't Victoria 'fuck the EU' Nuland,
Samantha Powers is a neo-con acolyte, Ashton Carter is too, the State Dept. and the council
of foreign relations is riddled with their people, all the horror figures of Dubya's days are
lurking there and pulling strings,
Kerry isn't really a neo-con, but the Pentagon and CIA sabotage anything half decent he
tries to do,
Elizabeth Warren as VP would have given Hillary great credibility but she is explicitly not
a neo-conservative,
Basically Hillary is as genuine, left leaning and honest as Tony Blair....
and people wonder why they pin their last tatter of hope Donald 'Mr Bombastic' Trump?
much as I find Trump and his hardcore supporters loathsome I have to point out that he has:
expressed interest in talking with and working with Putin as opposed to starting WW3
accepted the concept of climate change (massive move for a Republican) but pointed out nuclear
war is an even greater and more immediate threat,
pointed out the expenditure of 5-6 Trillion dollars on pointless wars whilst the country crumbles
to ruins, basically a third of the US national debt run up in 15 years,
the fact he wants to make America great again is because he acknowledges that it isn't great
atm,
he's pointed out that Hillary makes all these pledges but has been in a position of power for
decades and has done sod all about it,
and the establishment , especially the neo-cons absolutely hate him...
if you're going to hold your nose and vote for the lesser evil maybe chauvinism and casual
racism are those lesser evils,
LGBT rights will not defend you from nuclear bombs, the heat flash that vaporises you is fairly
indifferent to skin colour or religion,
Also remember the lack of believability of Hillary. She is a politician that has been caught
in lies so often that people just don't believe her. She pushed the soda tax in Philly until Coca-Cola
complained that they gave too much money to the Foundation to be treated that way. Hillary backed
off.
She made millions from speaking to Big Banks. So we really believe she will go after Wells
Fargo? She is beholden to them (unless Goldman Sachs gets to choose).
She says raise taxes to pay fair share, but her biggest supporters are Apple, Google, and their
executives that keep billions of income overseas to avoid the highest corporate income tax in
the world. Do we really think she will hurt the contributors to the Foundation?
And the more the email saga plays out, the longer the untrustworthy issue remains in everyone's
mind.
Does anyone really believe Hillary Clinton will hold anyone on Wall Street accountable??? She
is bought and paid for by Wall Street, starting with all the green backs Hillary and Bill stuffed
in their pockets from the those speaking fees.
Obama's Justice Department motto was, Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Jail. The Democrats are not
going to bite their masters on Wall Street, and of course neither will the Republicans.
Prosecuting bankers, prosecuting torturers, stopping white collar crime, wars, assassinations,
warrantless spying and even scheduling of Marijuana are all under the control of the Executive
Branch. Find even one of these where the President did the right thing.
This is exactly what I was thinking during the first presidential debate. Hillary is an old
pro at saying all the right things, pushing all the right buttons to get the votes she needs,
but can you believe much of what she says?
This is why, despite a poor debate performance overall, I thought Trump was spot on when
he simply said she was a typical politician--all talk, no action, sounds great, none of it will
ever happen. He's correct.
Hillary is promising all sorts of things that she knows will never come to fruition. I voted
for Obama twice, but I'm chomping at the bit to vote for Trump, for no other reason then the fact
that he is the true outsider here. It's a gamble for sure, but with the right advisors he could
potentially institute some major changes that will never happen under a cautious Hillary who will
be obsessed with re-election the minute she starts her first term.
What Frank seldom writes of but remains extremely important to many people on the left in
the US is that Obama has governed as the effective prisoner of the Pentagon and security establishment.
His wars (including on whistleblowers), nuclear build-up, and confrontation with Russia have given
added momentum to growing neoconservative bipartisan consensus that will likely see a new President
Clinton start a war with Russia in Syria and/or Ukraine.
The Democrats are now both so neoliberal and so neoconservative that the only thing that
differentiates them from Republicans is social progressivism. Given a choice between the latter
and greatly increased likelihood of nuclear war, I have to confess to preferring that Trump win.
Trump has been consistent in wanting to lessen tensions with Russia.
As a voter, of course, I could vote for neither, and so am voting for Jill Stein.
"... The banking and corporate elites certainly have a problem. The agenda for many decades has been to steal and rape enough from the 99% to maintain positive balance sheets and earnings per share. ..."
"... Fewer and fewer of the 99% can now afford to pay for the promoted goods and services. It has reached a tipping point. Name one major bank that could afford to mark-to-mark its balance sheet assets. Name one S&P corporation that has shown solid earnings growth absent stock buybacks. And from here on, it only gets worse. ..."
Global debt has now reached about a hundred and fifty-two trillion dollars
. This includes government debt, household debt, non-financial firms' debt. What does
all this debt mean for the global financial system and for everyday people here, Michael?
That works out to only USD $20,540 for every man, woman and child on the planet. I'm sure the
debt serfs can take double or triple that.
Yup, barely over 2 million dollars per 1 percenter. You can barely buy a passable vacation
mansion for that, let alone staff it with peons. C'mon, guys, work harder for (and borrow more
from) your betters!
The banking and corporate elites certainly have a problem. The agenda for many decades
has been to steal and rape enough from the 99% to maintain positive balance sheets and earnings
per share.
It has worked too well, but pure math has a way of biting the 1% in the ass.
Fewer and fewer of the 99% can now afford to pay for the promoted goods and services. It
has reached a tipping point. Name one major bank that could afford to mark-to-mark its balance
sheet assets. Name one S&P corporation that has shown solid earnings growth absent stock buybacks.
And from here on, it only gets worse.
You cats haven't had end to end encryption for more than 5 years and while not at all
difficult to accomplish, the resistance to using such code has amazed all in the ITSEC
community not feeding at the .gov trough. All your ISP's have been carrying NSA gear within
their infrastructure for how long now? Juniper's back door in their gear wasn't to push
firmware updates. The whole system has been left open for a number of reasons, none of which
would be capitalism, free markets or satisfied consumers.
Kirk2NCC1701 -> junction
•Oct 8, 2016 2:59 PM
Well, if you use Yahoo, Outlook or Google mail, then you're the Village Idiot, if you use
those free services for anything other than harmless, boring stuff. You know, Yoga and Cooking
recipes -- like Hillary.
IF you're serious about email privacy, use an email service that is OUTSIDE the US.
As you know, I use Hushmail.me for my Kirk2NCC1701 handle and ZH friends. Hushmail is in
Canada and after speaking with them in person, I am confident that they take their customer's
Privacy seriously, especially for their paying customers. Now, I may have used a Yahoo
alt-persona account, but only for "Trumping". I also may have used Google and Outlook for
"vanilla" stuff, and I may have used other offshore emails for "secure" purposes where lawful
business and personal privacy matters were involved (but No illegal activities, as I'm not an
"illegal" type. Devious, curious, inquiring, opinionated? Hell yes. Illegal? No.)
Been using Pidgeon and Forked stick for years for private stuff.....
as for my Gmail account, I don't give a shit.....
Parrotile -> Kirk2NCC1701
•Oct 8, 2016 8:46 PM
I very rarely need to send anything particularly confidential. My employers expect me to
use the systems they provide for all "Medical in Confidence" stuff, and so since that
requirement is part of my Contract, they are entirely liable for any failures, not me.
EMail - Outlook. It works and again nothing of "interest" is ever sent. If I DO need to
send information that's "Sensitive", I have one of these: -
- Which works very well, and the cartridges are easily available. Person-to-Person, or
Recorded Delivery mail. Works just fine and of course NO "electronic paper trail" . . . .
"... Zach Bee Of all the words you could chant, in the entire english language, they pick the ONE that rhymes with liar? What does Hillary! Fire! Even mean? I thought that was a joke at first. Wow. ..."
"... Moh Moony Spot on mate. No one ever accused Hillbots of being very bright. beidoll I kept thinking it should have been "Fire Hillary". I'd fire her before I'd hire her. ..."
For those who want a few laughs in these grim times, check out the excellent Jimmy Dore's video (6
minutes) comparing Bernie's rallies with Hillary's. There is a truly cringeworthy episode of HRC cheerleading
in the clip.
Heh. I liked this little exchange in the comments:
Zach Bee
Of all the words you could chant, in the entire english language, they pick the ONE that rhymes with
liar? What does Hillary! Fire! Even mean? I thought that was a joke at first. Wow.
Moh Moony
Spot on mate. No one ever accused Hillbots of being very bright.
beidoll
I kept thinking it should have been "Fire Hillary". I'd fire her before I'd hire her.
So even after Hillary says she's going to renounce every campaign promise
she made two hours after the polls close, Bernie can't wait to get out on the
campaign trail urge us to vote for our own extinction?
Donald may be "The Apprentice" but Bernie has got to be "The Biggest Loser"
Bernie is the Biggest Frigging Sellout, if you ask me. He spends 6 months
railing against HRC's policies and now is out promoting her. He is dead to
me now.
I can see the expediency of a reluctant endorsement at the convention,
but he's lost his credibility with this behaviour. They must've threatened
him with loss of his Senate committee positions or something.
…or offered to fund his foundation and invite hi to expensive
lectures. Carrot or stick, carrot or stick; so hard to tell. I imagine
the stick is avoided when possible; no point in bringing needless
ugliness into what could be a nice relationship.
The WikiLeaks material is highly relevant to how Clinton would
actually govern, as opposed to how she says she will govern. Because of
the oddly timed release of the Trump hot mike tape, this story seems to
be getting buried, so I'll go into it in some detail. First some links:
*CLINTON SAYS YOU NEED TO HAVE A PRIVATE AND PUBLIC POSITION ON
POLICY*
*Clinton: "But If Everybody's Watching, You Know, All Of The Back
Room Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little
Nervous, To Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private
Position."*
(The email is a compilation of quotes from Clinton's paid speeches,
not otherwise available. It begins: "Attached are the flags from HRC's
paid speeches we have from HWA." The asterisked material is how the
Clinton campaign staffer "flagged" the quotes they considered dangerous.)
Since these quotes are from paid speeches, we can expect Clinton's
private position - expect, that is, if we assume that Clinton isn't
cheating her clients by failing to deliver value for money in terms of
services to be rendered - to be a more accurate representation of her
views than her public one. In other words, we're looking at a pitch to
the donor class, when Clinton was laying the groundwork for her campaign.
In an
oligarchy
, this would be natural.
I believe I've mentioned to readers that my vision of the first 100
days of a Clinton administration includes a Grand Bargain, the passage of
TPP, and a new war. So you can read the following as confirmation bias,
if you will.
But Simpson-Bowles - and I know you heard from Erskine earlier
today - put forth the right framework. Namely, we have to
restrain spending
, we have to have adequate revenues, and we
have to incentivize growth. It's a three-part formula. The specifics
can be negotiated depending upon whether we're acting in good faith or
not [!!].
Readers will of course be aware that the fiscal views intrinsic to
Simpson-Bowles have been the perennial justification for Social Security
cuts (
"the
progressive give-up formula"
) and austerity generally. And if you
think Democrat orthodoxy on SImpson Bowles has changed, see Robert Rubin
today (below). If you buy Simpson-Bowles, you buy Social Security cuts.
The policy is bad enough, but "depending upon whether we're acting in
good faith or not" is, to me, the real mind-boggler.
Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With
Open Trade And Open Markets. *"My dream is a hemispheric common
market, with
open trade and open borders
, some time in the
future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it,
powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere."
On "green," see Clinton below on climate change. On trade, anybody
with a "dream" like that will not surrender TPP lightly.
Hillary Clinton Said One Of The Problems With A No Fly Zone Would
Be The Need To Take Out Syria's Air Defense, And "You're Going To Kill
A Lot Of Syrians." "So we're not as good as we used to be, but we
still-we can still deliver, and we should have in my view been trying
to do that so we would have better insight. But the idea that we would
have like a no fly zone-Syria, of course, did have when it started the
fourth biggest Army in the world. It had very sophisticated air
defense systems. They're getting more sophisticated thanks to Russian
imports. To have
a no fly zone
you have to take out all of
the air defense, many of which are located in populated areas. So our
missiles, even if they are standoff missiles so we're not putting our
pilots at risk-you're going to kill a lot of Syrians. So all of a
sudden this intervention that people talk about so glibly becomes an
American and NATO involvement where you take a lot of civilians." [
Speech to Goldman Sachs, 2013 IBD Ceo Annual Conference, 6/4/13]
And speaking of beating the war drums, there's this gobsmacking quote
on
climate change
(tinePublic, 2014):
Clinton Talked About "Phony Environmental Groups" Funded By The
Russians To Stand Against Pipelines And Fracking. "We were up against
Russia pushing oligarchs and others to buy media. We were even up
against phony environmental groups, and I'm a big environmentalist,
but these were funded by the Russians to stand against any effort, oh
that pipeline, that fracking, that whatever will be a problem for you,
and a lot of the money supporting that message was coming from
Russia." [Remarks at tinePublic, 6/18/14]
With the media exclusively attuned to every new, or 11-year-old as the case may be, twist in the
Trump "sex tape" saga, it appeared that everyone forgot that a little over 24 hours ago, Wikileaks
exposed the real reason why Hillary was keeping her Wall Street speech transcripts - which we now
know had always been within easy reach for her campaign - secret.
In her own words : "if everybody's watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the
deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and
a private position." In other words, you have to lie to the general public while promising those
who just paid you $250,000 for an hour of your speaking time something entirely different, which
is precisely what those accusing Hillary of hiding her WS transcripts had done; and as yesterday's
hacked documents revealed, they were right.
The Clinton campaign
refused to disavow the hacked excerpts, although it quickly tired to pin the blame again on Russia:
"We are not going to confirm the authenticity of stolen documents released by Julian Assange, who
has made no secret of his desire to damage Hillary Clinton," spokesman Glen Caplin said in a prepared
statement. Previous releases have "Guccifer 2.0 has already proven the warnings of top national security
officials that documents can be faked as part of a sophisticated Russian misinformation campaign."
Ironically, it was literally minutes before the Wikileaks release of the "Podesta Files" that
the US formally accused Russia of waging a hacking cyber attack on the US political establishment,
almost as if it knew Wikileaks was about to make the major disclosure, and sought to minimize its
impact by scapegoating Vladimir Putin.
And while the Trump campaign tried to slam the leak, with spokesman saying "now we finally get
confirmation of Clinton's catastrophic plans for completely open borders and diminishing America's
influence in the world. There is a reason Clinton gave these high-paid speeches in secret behind
closed doors - her real intentions will destroy American sovereignty as we know it, further illustrating
why Hillary Clinton is simply unfit to be president", Trump's campaign had its own raging inferno
to deal with.
So, courtesy of what Trump said about some woman 11 years ago, in all the din over the oddly coincident
Trump Tape leak, most of the noise created by the Hillary speeches was lost.
But not all.
According to
Reuters , supporters of former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders on Saturday "
seethed ", and "expressed anger and vindication over leaked comments made by Hillary Clinton
to banks and big business that appeared to confirm their fears about her support for global trade
and tendency to cozy up to Wall Street. "
Clinton,
who last it emerged had slammed Bernie supporters as "basement dwellers" in a February fundraiser,
with virtually no media coverage, needs Sanders' coalition of young and left-leaning voters to propel
her to the presidency, pushes for open trade and open borders in one of the speeches, and
takes a conciliatory approach to Wall Street , both positions she later backed away from
in an effort to capture the popular appeal of Sanders' attacks on trade deals and powerful banks.
Needless to say, there was no actualy "backing away", and instead Hillary did what he truly excels
in better than most: she told the public what they wanted to hear, and will promptly reneg on once
she becomes president.
Only now, this is increasingly obvious to America's jilted youth: " this is a very clear
illustration of why there is a fundamental lack of trust from progressives for Hillary Clinton,"
said Tobita Chow, chair of the People's Lobby in Chicago, which endorsed Sanders in the
primary election.
" The progressive movement needs to make a call to Secretary Clinton to clarify where
she stands really on these issues and that's got to involve very clear renunciations of the positions
that are revealed in these transcripts," Chow said.
Good luck that, or even getting a response, even though Hillary was largely spared from providing
one: as Reuters correctly observes, the revelations were immediately overshadowed by the release
of an 11-year-old recording of Donald Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, making lewd comments
about women. In fact, the revelations were almost entirely ignored by the same prime time TV that
has been glued to the Trump slow-motion trainwreck over the past 24 hours.
Still, the hacked speeches could lead to further erosion in support from the so very critical
to her successful candidacy, young American voter.
Clinton has worked hard to build trust with so-called progressives, adopting several of Sanders'
positions after she bested him in the primary race. The U.S. senator from Vermont now supports
his former rival in the Nov. 8 general election against Trump. Still, Clinton has struggled to
win support from young "millennials" who were crucial to Sanders' success, and some Democrats
expressed concern that the leaks would discourage those supporters from showing up to vote.
"That is a big concern and this certainly doesn't help," said Larry Cohen, chair
of the board of Our Revolution, a progressive organization formed in the wake of Sanders' bid for
the presidency, which aims to keep pushing the former candidate's ideas at a grassroots level. "It
matters in terms of turnout, energy, volunteering, all those things."
Still, despite the Trump media onslaught, the message appeared to filter through to those who
would be most impacted by Hillary selling out her voters if she were to win the presidency.
"Bernie was right about Hillary," wrote Facebook user Grace Tilly cited by Rueters, "she's a tool
for Wall Street."
"Clinton is the politicians' politician - exactly the Wall Street insider Bernie described," wrote
Facebook user Brian Leach.
Democratic strategist Steve Elmendorf said progressive voters would still choose the former first
lady, even with misgivings. "I'd like to meet the Bernie Sanders supporter who is going to say, 'Well
I'm a little worried about her on international trade, so I'm going to vote for Donald Trump'," he
said.
He just may meet a few, especially if Bernie's supporters ask themselves why Bernie's support
for Hillary remained so unwavering despite a leak confirming that Hillary was indeed all he had previously
railed against.
In a statement earlier, Sanders responded to the leak by saying that despite Hillary's paid speeches
to Wall Street in which she expressed an agenda diametrically opposite to that espoused by the Vermont
socialist, he reiterated his his support for the Democratic Party platform.
"Whatever Secretary Clinton may or may not have said behind closed doors on Wall Street, I am
determined to implement the agenda of the Democratic Party platform which was agreed upon by her
campaign," he said in a statement.
"Among other things, that agenda calls for breaking up the largest financial institutions
in this country, re-establishing Glass-Steagall and prosecuting those many Wall Street CEOs who engaged
in illegal behavior. "
In retrospect we find it fascinating that in the aftermath of October's two big surprises served
up on Friday, Sanders actually believes any of that having read through Hillary's
Wall Street speeches, certainly far more fascinating than the staged disgust with Trump who, the
media is suddenly stunned to find, was no more politically correct 11 year ago than he is today.
Harvard mafia actions were, of cause, a crime of the century. The collapse of the Russian economy exceeded the worst declines
in the West during the 1930s depression almost twice. But truth be told the system was rotting from within and they could operate
only by relying on the local "fifth column" of neoliberalization (Gaidar, Yakovlev, etc).
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less
formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers
rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in
accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts
of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects
the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague."
Marcus Tullius Cicero
"... Then, Mook reveals that the campaign is working with Epstein on a piece bashing Sanders staff for underhanded tactics. ..."
"... "We are also working with Jen Epstein for a story about this (not necessarily the 11pm knocks, which we are working to confirm) regarding Sanders staff coming to office openings, tracking us, lying about endorsements, other shady field activity, etc.," Mook says in the email. ..."
Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign collaborated with Bloomberg reporter Jennifer Epstein to
create an anti-Bernie Sanders story prior to the Nevada caucus.
In the vast trove of Clinton emails leaked Thursday by the organization DCLeaks, there is an email
exchange between Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook and Emily Ruiz, head of the campaign's Nevada
operation. In the exchange, Ruiz and Mook discuss rumors that Sanders volunteers were posing as Clinton
operatives and engaging in irritating behavior like knocking on voters' doors at 11 pm.
Then, Mook reveals that the campaign is working with Epstein on a piece bashing Sanders staff
for underhanded tactics.
"We are also working with Jen Epstein for a story about this (not necessarily the 11pm knocks,
which we are working to confirm) regarding Sanders staff coming to office openings, tracking us,
lying about endorsements, other shady field activity, etc.," Mook says in the email.
"... "In my lifetime I cannot remember anything like the scepticism about these values that we see today," said Suma Chakrabarti, president of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. ..."
"... There was much discussion this week about the underlying causes of that scepticism - low growth, stagnant wages and other scars of the 2008 global financial crisis - together with calls for governments to do more to ensure the benefits of globalisation are distributed more widely. ..."
"... Lou Jiwei, China's finance minister, told reporters on Friday, the current "political risks" would in the immediate future lead only to "superficial changes" for the global economy. But underlying them was a deeper trend of "deglobalisation". ..."
The world's economic elite spent this week invoking fears of protectionism and the
existential
crisis facing globalisation
.... ... ...
Mr Trump has raised the possibility of trying to renegotiate the terms of the US sovereign debt
much as he did repeatedly with his own business debts as a property developer. He also has proposed
imposing punitive tariffs on imports from China and Mexico and ripping up existing US trade pacts.
... ... ...
"Once a tariff has been imposed on a country's exports, it is in that country's best interest
to retaliate, and when it does, both countries end up worse off," IMF economists wrote.
It is not just angst over Mr Trump. There are similar concerns over Brexit and the rise of populist
parties elsewhere in Europe. All present their own threats to the advance of the US-led path of economic
liberalisation pursued since Keynes and his peers gathered at Bretton Woods in 1944.
"In my lifetime I cannot remember anything like the scepticism about these values that we
see today," said Suma Chakrabarti, president of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
There was much discussion this week about the underlying causes of that scepticism - low growth,
stagnant wages and other scars of the 2008 global financial crisis - together with calls for governments
to do more to ensure the benefits of globalisation are distributed more widely.
Lou Jiwei, China's finance minister, told reporters on Friday, the current "political risks" would
in the immediate future lead only to "superficial changes" for the global economy. But underlying
them was a deeper trend of "deglobalisation".
"... Weak global trade, fears that the U.K. is marching towards a hard Brexit , and polls indicating that the U.S. election remains a tighter call than markets are pricing in have led a bevy of analysts to redouble their warnings that a backlash over globalization is poised to roil global financial markets-with profound consequences for the real economy and investment strategies. ..."
"... From the economists and politicians at the annual IMF meeting in Washington to strategists on Wall Street trying to advise clients, everyone seems to be pondering a future in which cooperation and global trade may look much different than they do now. ..."
"... "The main risk with potentially tough negotiating tactics is that trade partners could panic, especially if global coordination evaporates." ..."
Weak global trade, fears that the U.K. is marching towards a
hard Brexit , and polls indicating that the U.S. election remains a
tighter call than markets are
pricing in have led a bevy of analysts to redouble their warnings that a backlash over globalization
is poised to roil global financial markets-with profound consequences for the real economy and investment
strategies.
From the economists and politicians at the annual
IMF meeting in Washington to strategists on Wall Street trying to advise clients, everyone seems
to be pondering a future in which cooperation and
global trade may look much different than they do now.
Brexit
Suggestions that the U.K. will prioritize control over its migration policy at the expense of
open access to Europe's single market in negotiations to leave the European Union-a strategy that's
being dubbed a "hard Brexit"-loomed large over global markets. The U.K. government is "strongly supportive
of open markets, free markets, open economies, free trade," said
Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond during a Bloomberg Television interview in New York
on Thursday. "But we have a problem-and it's not just a British problem, it's a developed-world problem-in
keeping our populations engaged and supportive of our market capitalism, our economic model."
Trade
Citing the rising anti-trade sentiment, analysts from Bank of America Merrill Lynch warned that
"events show nations are becoming less willing to cooperate, more willing to contest," and a
backlash against inequality is likely to trigger more activist fiscal policies. Looser government
spending in developed countries-combined with trade protectionism and wealth redistribution-could
reshape global investment strategies, unleashing a wave of inflation, the bank argued, amid a looming
war against inequality.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew did his part to push for more openness. During an interview in
Washington on Thursday, he said that efforts to boost trade, combined with a more equitable distribution
of the fruits of economic growth, are key to ensuring
U.S. prosperity. Rolling back on globalization would be counterproductive to any attempt to boost
median incomes, he added.
Trump
Without mentioning him by name, Lew's comments appeared to nod to Donald Trump, who some believe
could take the U.S. down a more isolationist trading path should he be elected president in November.
"The emergence of Donald Trump as a political force reflects a mood of growing discontent about immigration,
globalization and the distribution of wealth," write analysts at Fathom Consulting, a London-based
research firm. Their central scenario is that a Trump administration might be benign for the U.S.
economy. "However, in our downside scenario, Donald Dark, global trade falls sharply and a global
recession looms. In this world, isolationism wins, not just in the U.S., but globally," they caution.
Analysts at Standard Chartered Plc agree that the tail risks of a Trump presidency could be significant.
"The main risk with potentially tough negotiating tactics is that trade partners could panic, especially
if global coordination evaporates." They add that business confidence could take a big hit in this
context. "The global trade system could descend into a spiral of trade tariffs, reminiscent of what
happened after the
Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 , and ultimately a trade war, possibly accompanied by foreign-exchange
devaluations; this would be a 'lose-lose' deal for all."
Market participants are also concerned that populism could take root under a Hillary Clinton administration.
"We believe the liberal base's demands on a Clinton Administration could lead to an overly expansive
federal government with aggressive regulators," write analysts at Barclays Plc. "If the GOP does
not unify, Clinton may expand President Obama's use of executive authority to accomplish her goals."
"Let's start with the caveats: A lot can happen in the 34 days before the election. The polls
are not as reliable as they used to be. People act in unpredictable ways in the polling booth.
All that said, this race has fallen into a fairly predictable pattern. When Donald Trump veers
off message and Hillary Clinton performs well, her lead swells to 6, 7, or 8 points. When Trump
sticks to his script and Clinton goes through a bumpy patch as she did with her bout of pneumonia,
her edge drops down to 1 or 2 points, and sometimes she winds up dead even. Most of the time, Clinton
is up by 3 to 5 points" [
Cook
Report
].
"The top trade negotiators involved in the Trade in
Services Agreement (TiSA) will meet in Washington later
this month to review their latest market access offers and
prepare the groundwork for a final deal in December" [
Bloomberg
].
"The high-level meeting follows a successful September
negotiating round and recent signals from Washington that
a TiSA deal could be forged before the end of the year."
Yikes! Dark horse coming up on the outside!
"TTIP AG TALKS SET TO DRIFT: The U.S. summarily
rejected a European Union request for three days of
agriculture talks at this week's Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership round, further indicating that
political uncertainty has limited what either side is able
to discuss in the negotiations, sources close to the talks
say" [
Politico
].
"'I think we can get there,' Lew said, referring to a
vote on the Asia-Pacific pact. He argued that voting for
TPP should be easier than voting for last year's Trade
Promotion Authority bill because it has tangible benefits
that will grow the economy. He said current voter angst is
not due to TPP itself but rather to other domestic needs
that the government has not adequately addressed" [
Politico
].
"'If we were investing more in infrastructure, which I
believe we should, if we were investing more
smartly
in education and training and in child care, I'm not so
sure we'd be in the same place,' Lew said." I think
"hysteresis" is the word for the fact that you can't
reverse a 40-year screw job handwaving about a policy
pivot. And whenever you hear a liberal use the word
"smart," get your back against the nearest wall.
"The American Brexit Is Coming" [James Stavridis,
Foreign Policy
]. "The case for the TPP is economically
strong, but the geopolitical logic is even more
compelling. The deal is one that China will have great
difficulty accepting, as it would put Beijing outside a
virtuous circle of allies, partners, and friends on both
sides of the Pacific. Frankly, that is a good place to
keep China from the perspective of the United States….
Over 2,500 years ago, during the Zhou dynasty, the
philosopher-warrior Sun Tzu wrote the compelling study of
conflict The Art of War. There is much wisdom in that slim
volume, including this quote: "The supreme art of war is
to subdue the enemy without fighting." The United States
can avoid conflict best in East Asia by using a robust
combination of national tools - with the TPP at the top of
the list. Looking across the Atlantic to the Brexit
debacle, we must avoid repeating the mistake in the
Pacific." And we get?
"12 U.S. Senators Outline TPP's Fundamental Flaws, Tell
President Obama it Shouldn't Be Considered Until
Renegotiated" (PDF) [
Public
Citizen
]. Brown, Sanders, Blumenthal, Merkley,
Franken, Markey, Schatz, Casey, Warren, Whitehouse, Hirono,
and Baldwin call for renegotiation. "It is simply not
accurate to call an agreement progressive if it does not
require trading partners to ban trade in goods made with
forced labor or includes a special court for corporations
to challenge legitimate, democratically developed public
policies."
"The way ahead" [Barack Obama,
The Economist
]. "Lifting productivity and wages also
depends on creating a global race to the top in rules for
trade. While some communities have suffered from foreign
competition, trade has helped our economy much more than
it has hurt. Exports helped lead us out of the recession.
American firms that export pay their workers up to 18%
more on average than companies that do not, according to a
report by my Council of Economic Advisers. So, I will keep
pushing for Congress to pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership
and to conclude a Transatlantic Trade and Investment
Partnership with the EU. These agreements, and stepped-up
trade enforcement, will level the playing field for
workers and businesses alike." I should really get out my
Magic Marker's for this one.
Steve C
October 7, 2016 at 4:45 pm
"Global race to the top" is vintage Obama propaganda. A "smart" sounding
phrase meant to obscure the impact of TPP on the non-elite. The adoring
comments make it all the worse. He sure knows the lingo to appeal to educated
professionals.
This is a lot of patented, soaring Obama verbiage that boils down to
surrendering to global corporations and the big banks.
Yeah, no one is thinking through the analogy to note that there are very
few races where everyone wins. In point of fact, except for those where
finishing is considered an accomplishment like marathons, there is only one
winner and what's left are also ran and losers. So why are we involved in a
situation where most are going to lose?
Yesterday
we pointed out the many amazing one-liners offered up by Hillary as she was out collecting millions of dollars for her "Wall
Street speeches." Here is an expanded sample:
Hillary Clinton: "I'm Kind Of Far Removed" From The Struggles Of The Middle Class "Because The Life I've Lived And
The Economic, You Know, Fortunes That My Husband And I Now Enjoy." "And I am not taking a position on any policy, but
I do think there is a growing sense of anxiety and even anger in the country over the feeling that the game is rigged. And I never
had that feeling when I was growing up. Never. I mean, were there really rich people, of course there were. My father loved to
complain about big business and big government, but we had a solid middle class upbringing. We had good public schools. We had
accessible health care. We had our little, you know, one-family house that, you know, he saved up his money, didn't believe in
mortgages. So I lived that. And now, obviously, I'm kind of far removed because the life I've lived and the economic, you know,
fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy, but I haven't forgotten it." [Hillary Clinton Remarks at Goldman-Black Rock, 2/4/14]
Hillary Clinton Said There Was "A Bias Against People Who Have Led Successful And/Or Complicated Lives," Citing The
Need To Divese Of Assets, Positions, And Stocks. "SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah. Well, you know what Bob Rubin said about that.
He said, you know, when he came to Washington, he had a fortune. And when he left Washington, he had a small -- MR. BLANKFEIN:
That's how you have a small fortune, is you go to Washington. SECRETARY CLINTON: You go to Washington. Right. But, you know, part
of the problem with the political situation, too, is that there is such a bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated
lives. You know, the divestment of assets, the stripping of all kinds of positions, the sale of stocks. It just becomes very onerous
and unnecessary." [Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit, 10/29/13]
Hillary Clinton Noted President Clinton Had Spoken At The Same Goldman Summit Last Year, And Blankfein Joked "He Increased
Our Budget." "SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first, thanks for having me here and giving me a chance to know a little bit more
about the builders and the innovators who you've gathered. Some of you might have been here last year, and my husband was, I guess,
in this very same position. And he came back and was just thrilled by- MR. BLANKFEIN: He increased our budget. SECRETARY CLINTON:
Did he? MR. BLANKFEIN: Yes. That's why we -- SECRETARY CLINTON: Good. I think he-I think he encouraged you to grow it a little,
too. But it really was a tremendous experience for him, so I've been looking forward to it and hope we have a chance to talk about
a lot of things." [Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit, 10/29/13]
Clinton Said When She Got To State, Employees "Were Not Mostly Permitted To Have Handheld Devices." "You know,
when Colin Powell showed up as Secretary of State in 2001, most State Department employees still didn't even have computers on
their desks. When I got there they were not mostly permitted to have handheld devices. I mean, so you're thinking how do we operate
in this new environment dominated by technology, globalizing forces? We have to change, and I can't expect people to change if
I don't try to model it and lead it." [Clinton Speech For General Electric's Global Leadership Meeting – Boca Raton, FL, 1/6/14]
Clinton Joked It's "Risky" For Her To Speak To A Group Committed To Futures Markets Given Her Past Whitewater
Scandal. "Now, it's always a little bit risky for me to come speak to a group that is committed to the futures markets because
-- there's a few knowing laughs -- many years ago, I actually traded in the futures markets. I mean, this was so long ago, it
was before computers were invented, I think. And I worked with a group of like-minded friends and associates who traded in pork
bellies and cotton and other such things, and I did pretty well. I invested about a thousand dollars and traded up to about a
hundred thousand. And then my daughter was born, and I just didn't think I had enough time or mental space to figure out anything
having to do with trading other than trading time with my daughter for time with the rest of my life. So I got out, and I thought
that would be the end of it." [Remarks to CME Group, 11/18/13]
Hillary Clinton Said Jordan Was Threatened Because "They Can't Possibly Vet All Those Refugees So They Don't Know If,
You Know, Jihadists Are Coming In Along With Legitimate Refugees." "So I think you're right to have gone to the places
that you visited because there's a discussion going on now across the region to try to see where there might be common ground
to deal with the threat posed by extremism and particularly with Syria which has everyone quite worried, Jordan because it's on
their border and they have hundreds of thousands of refugees and they can't possibly vet all those refugees so they don't know
if, you know, jihadists are coming in along with legitimate refugees. Turkey for the same reason." [Jewish United Fund Of Metropolitan
Chicago Vanguard Luncheon, 10/28/13]
Hillary Clinton Said The Saudis Opposed The Muslim Brotherhood, "Which Is Kind Of Ironic Since The Saudis Have Exported
More Extreme Ideology Than Any Other Place On Earth Over The Course Of The Last 30 Years." "And they are getting a lot
of help from the Saudis to the Emiratis-to go back to our original discussion-because the Saudis and the Emiratis see the Muslim
Brotherhood as threatening to them, which is kind of ironic since the Saudis have exported more extreme ideology than any other
place on earth over the course of the last 30 years." [2014 Jewish United Fund Advance & Major Gifts Dinner, 10/28/13]
Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With Open Trade And Open Markets. "My dream is a hemispheric
common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can
get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere." [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p.
28]
Meanwhile, there are plenty of other great email exchanges as well.
The following exchange comes from the President of the Soros-funded "
Open Society Foundation " (we previously wrote about
the society's plan to "Enlarge electorate by at least 10 million voters"
here ) who offers some advice on "police reform." The email points Podesta to an article previously written
by the
Open
Society Foundation , ironically titled "
Get
the Politics Out of Policing ." Surprisingly, Stone points out that the problem isn't a lack of independence
by police but by politicians:
The problem is not a lack of independence just from the police , but independence from city politics.
Since 2007, Chicago has had an agency separate from the police to investigate officer-involved shootings, but the "independent"
agency (the Independent Police Review Authority, or IPRA) is still under the mayor, and generally retreats from any investigation
that might lead to criminal charges. Until we get investigations of cases like this out of the hands of politicians, even
the best policies a police chief can impose won't change the culture.
Well that seemed to backfire. To summarize, Stone says don't do exactly what the FBI did in its investigation of Hillary's
email scandal.
Again, I am especially struck by the rate of increase of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. The rate of increase
has been growing.
Looking to the data even casually points out the growing rate of increase of atmospheric concentrations of CO2. This year,
in this regard, looks as alarming as last, in which the rate of increase was at a record high. Why this should be, through a time
of relatively slow international economic growth and increasingly broad efforts to limit CO2 emissions, has to be an especially
important question.
Not to discourage you, but to talk intelligently about CO2 in atmosphere you as a minimum need a degree in geophysics.
This is mind-bogglingly complex porblem with many factors beyond ordinary human comprehension. For example "How do human CO2
emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?"
Fractal Hurricane -> anne...
As the population increases the first derivative of CO2 concentration increases, roughly speaking. Even if all humans opt for
universal vasectomy, population expansion will not stop for another 9 months. Population shrinkage will be slow at first and will
take roughly 4 generations to bring CO2 expansion back to 1960 levels. Shrinkage of CO2 concentrations will take even longer.
Even with forest replanting and careful management of our energy choices, the humanity is probably doomed forever. Still, we
have to
"... It's shameful that this country hasn't rejected the first use of nuclear weapons. It's also shameful that instead of working to eliminate nuclear weapons, the U.S. is actually planning to spend nearly a trillion dollars over the next 30 years to upgrade that arsenal. For what possible strategic purpose, one must ask? America's current nuclear deterrent is the most powerful and survivable in the world. No other country comes close. There's no rational reason to invest more money in nuclear weapons, unless you count the jobs and money related to building new nuclear submarines, weaponry, bombs, and all the other infrastructure related to America's nuclear triad of Trident submarines, land-based bombers, and fixed missile silos. ..."
"... Next time, Mr. Trump and Secretary Clinton, let's have some rigor, some honesty, and some wisdom on the issue of nuclear weapons. Not only America deserves it – the world does. ..."
It's shameful that this country hasn't rejected the first use of nuclear weapons. It's also shameful that instead of working
to eliminate nuclear weapons, the U.S. is actually planning to spend nearly a trillion dollars over the next 30 years to upgrade
that arsenal. For what possible strategic purpose, one must ask? America's current nuclear deterrent is the most powerful and survivable
in the world. No other country comes close. There's no rational reason to invest more money in nuclear weapons, unless you count
the jobs and money related to building new nuclear submarines, weaponry, bombs, and all the other infrastructure related to America's
nuclear triad of Trident submarines, land-based bombers, and fixed missile silos.
Neither Trump nor Hillary addressed this
issue. Trump was simply ignorant. Hillary was simply disingenuous. Which candidate was worse? When you're talking about nuclear genocidal
death, it surely does matter. Ignorance is not bliss, nor is a lack of forthrightness and honesty.
Next time, Mr. Trump and Secretary Clinton, let's have some rigor, some honesty, and some wisdom on the issue of nuclear weapons.
Not only America deserves it – the world does.
William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years at military and civilian schools
and blogs at Bracing Views. He can be reached at
[email protected]. Reprinted from Bracing
Views with the author's permission.
In the aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 – an invasion which many Iraqis believe left their country in the worst condition
it has been since the Mongol invasion of 1258 -- there was much discussion in the media about the Bush Administration's goal for
"nation-building" in that country. Of course, if there ever were such a goal, it was quickly abandoned, and one hardly ever hears
the term "nation-building" discussed as a U.S. foreign policy objective anymore.
The stark truth is that the U.S. really has no
intentions of helping to build strong states in the Middle East or elsewhere. Rather, as we see time and again – e.g., in Yugoslavia,
Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Ukraine – the goal of U.S. foreign policy, whether stated or not, is increasingly and more aggressively
the destruction and balkanization of independent states. However, it is important to recognize that this goal is not new.
In the aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 – an invasion which many Iraqis believe left their country in the worst condition
it has been since the Mongol invasion of 1258 -- there was much discussion in the media about the Bush Administration's goal for
"nation-building" in that country. Of course, if there ever were such a goal, it was quickly abandoned, and one hardly ever hears
the term "nation-building" discussed as a U.S. foreign policy objective anymore.
The stark truth is that the U.S. really has no
intentions of helping to build strong states in the Middle East or elsewhere. Rather, as we see time and again – e.g., in Yugoslavia,
Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Ukraine – the goal of U.S. foreign policy, whether stated or not, is increasingly and more aggressively
the destruction and balkanization of independent states. However, it is important to recognize that this goal is not new.
I just saw a big Hillary pin on a young woman I know, and I do see her
bumper stickers. Very liberal town, though, in a blue state. I see huge
Trump/Pence signs out in the country – but that's a lot fewer people.
That said, I also consider the polls dubious. For one thing, Hillary's
campaign is acting like they see bad news.
How about 'The State of Blue' as an affective disorder? I remember
reading that bi-partianship was classed as one such. (Lithium can
help. Don't forget to suppliment with copper; lithium eats it for
lunch.)
Then there is this little bit of info:
https://youtu.be/OXD3BCEWDAU
Yes, its Info-wars. If these guys told me we the Earth was round, I
would have to dubble check. And covering one campaign office is hardly
evidence for anything.
And these kinds of offices tend to be lightly attended any way. In
reality, they serve more to give infrastructure space for local
organizers (A place to receive phone calls, bills for venders, a
conference space, ecetra) thus the front office tend to be just for
show.
That said, It did raise an eyebrow that a scheduled rally wasn't
attended by any one. Roomers still persist that Clinton rallies are
mostly attended by bused in actors.
I'm in one of the bluest places in the country. I have seen a very
small number of Hillary bumper stickers. Haven't noticed any yard signs.
A couple of days ago, I saw a car with an Obama Biden sticker, and
nothing else. Shouldn't that person have their Hillary sticker, too?
I know there are real people who will vote for her, because I have
several friends who are refusing to speak to me because I won't. They are
all middle-aged women who are either professionals themselves, or the
non-working spouse of a professional, all in protected industries:
corporate attorneys for health care companies, engineers who work the
defense industry, etc. In other words, despite all the attempts to turn
this election into a choice between a Good Girl and a Bad Man, what I'm
seeing on the ground most strongly is that people who are benefiting from
the status quo are voting for the status quo, as expected.
What is a pollster? They are people who seek to turn unpredictable
situations into easily explainable numbers which can't protest, write
letters, or ultimately surprise. Naturally pollsters would be a
conservative (small c) lot. African Americans love Team Blue. Everyone
knows this. Even when Democratic Mayors have police departments
brutalizing black neighborhoods, blacks still love the Democrats. Given
current trends 105% blacks should vote for Hillary since the post Voting
Rights Act low of 1964.
After the two mid terms and Obama's poor performance with whites in
2012, Democrats should have been in a panic, but what happened? They
doubled down on a candidate with huge negatives because of a child like
belief in a 2002 book called "The Emerging Democratic Majority." Shrub,
McCain, and Mittens are just monsters. Trump isn't special except he uses
crasser language than Mittens. McCain and Shrub are fairly gross. Is
comparing Trump to Hitler really going to work? After several months of
Republicans saying Trump wasn't a real conservative who would put
Democrats on the bench and was a Clinton plant. What a weird election.
The troubling aspect of most polls is the high rate of identified
Democrats in an Era of declining Democratic and in general partisan
activity and identity. The elephant in the Democratic cloak room, ACA,
cannot be overlooked.
"Nobody could have known" and "it works until it doesn't" spring to
mind. One shouldn't overlook pollsters' mentalities when they approach
their work. It is 2018. The census where pollsters go for certain
baselines is becoming out of date.
On the road checking out my peeps in the heartland. No special insights
but did spot a man by the road in Taos holding up a hand lettered "Trump is
a fascist" sign– nothing if not unoriginal. Nobody was honking. The people I
know just want tne whole thing to be over.
Due to the recent death of a parent, I had to go back there for three weeks.
In the midst of organizing memorial events, starting the estate probate
process, and tending to the needs of my surviving parent, I noticed something
very interesting. And that was an almost complete lack of pre-election
displays.
I think I saw one Trump sign the entire time I was there. Hillary signs? I
don't remember seeing any. Hillary bumper stickers? One or two.
In the aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 – an invasion which many Iraqis believe left their country in the worst condition
it has been since the Mongol invasion of 1258 -- there was much discussion in the media about the Bush Administration's goal for
"nation-building" in that country. Of course, if there ever were such a goal, it was quickly abandoned, and one hardly ever hears
the term "nation-building" discussed as a U.S. foreign policy objective anymore.
The stark truth is that the U.S. really has no
intentions of helping to build strong states in the Middle East or elsewhere. Rather, as we see time and again – e.g., in Yugoslavia,
Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Ukraine – the goal of U.S. foreign policy, whether stated or not, is increasingly and more aggressively
the destruction and balkanization of independent states. However, it is important to recognize that this goal is not new.
I think I got this interview with Nasrallah from Hezbollah from links this
morning, but it's a real eye-opener. Very interesting to hear the other side's
point of view. Worth your 10 min if you got time.
Word that Yahoo! last year, at the urging of the National Security Agency, secretly developed
a program that monitored the mail of all 280 million of its customers and turned over to the NSA
all mail from those who used any of the agency's thousands of keywords, shows that the US has become
a total police state in terms of trying to monitor every person in the country (and outside too).
With the courts, especially at the appellate and Supreme Court level, rolling over and supporting
this massive evisceration of basic freedoms, including the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of
speech and the Fourth Amendment protection against illegal search and seizure and invasion of privacy,
perhaps the best way for us to fight back is to overload the spy system. How to do this? Just copy
and paste random fragments of the following list (a bit dated, but useable), provided courtesy of
the publication Business Insider, and include them in every communication - email, social media,
etc. - that you send out.
The secret Yahoo! assault (reported on here by Alfredo Lopez in
yesterday's article ),
works by searching users' emails for keywords on an NSA list of suspected words that might be used
by alleged terrorists or anti-government activists, and then those suspect communications are forwarded
to the NSA, where humans eventually have to separate the wheat from the chaff. Too much chaff (and
they surely have too much chaff anyhow!) and they will be buried with work and unable to read anything.
In fact, critics of the government's metastasizing universal surveillance program, including former
FBI agents and other experts, have long criticized the effort to turn the US into a replica of East
Germany with its Stazi secret police, cannot work and is actually counter-productive, because with
spy agencies' limited manpower looking at all the false leads provided by keyword monitoring, they
are bound to miss the real dangerous messages. In fact, this was also the argument used against the
FBI's program of monitoring mosques and suspecting every Muslim American who expressed criticism
of the US. Most are just people saying what a lot of us say: that the US wars in the Middle East
are wrong or even criminal, but they are just citizens or immigrants exercising their free speech
when they do this, not terrorists, and spying on them is and has been a huge waste or time and resources.
"USSR nomenklatura is yet another example of the same. It was so close in spirit to neoliberal elite, that the transition in
1991 was almost seamless." Yes, well, it is impossible for someone as limited as myself to comment on your spiritual knowledge.
But on a more earthly plane, it is not so obvious that the oligarchs and their favored employees are (or were) drawn from the
nomenklatura, that there was no change in personnel in the rulers of the new Russia. Gennady Zyuganov and his KPRF of course are
the prime recruiting grounds for adminstration, and the favored home of Russian businessment. But, quite aside from the gaping
seam of the attempted removal of Gorbachev in 1991, there are quite a few other seams. Yeltsin's attack on parliament, for instance,
strikes me as seamy indeed. But you may feel this sort of thing is just law enforcement. Your insistence that the old CP members
never noticed a change, except they had official title, seems an extraordinary needing rather more support. A this point, it appears
to be non-factual.
Will G-R @421 "One doesn't even have to compare different types of government to grasp this point, when in still-existing Communist
Party regimes like the People's Republic of China, the party cadres are the neoliberal capitalist elites, no political transition
required at all. It's George Orwell's final ironic revenge on those who would conscript his Animal Farm into service as a procapitalist
propaganda tract: they forget that the final lines aren't just an indictment of the pigs (Communist nomenklatura) for being no
better than the men (capitalists) but also of the men for being no better than the pigs."
Two issues arise. First, there are rather obvious transitional points even to reaching today's regime in China. Although such
events as the Ching Ming disturbances, the Democracy Wall protests, the slow motion journee at Tian An Men square may have formally
failed their aims, there is little reason to doubt powerful effects. The coup that overthrew the so-called Gang of Four was however
a huge and extremely obvious transition. Deng's invasion of Vietnam to seal the opening to the US was notable as well.
Not so long ago, the current leadership purged Bo Xilai relying on testimony from people in admitted contact with foreign powers.
How this sort of thing doesn't count is a mystery to me.
What is not so mysterious is the belief that China is now a capitalist country with the essence of Communism, dictatorship
as opposed to the glorious benefits of classless American-style democracy. It is to be expected that any admirer of Orwell would
firmly believe, without a moment's hesitation, that a capitalist economy can abolish the business cycle. I think that's silly,
but then, I'm not an admirer of Orwell.
Second, the final lines of Animal Farm are a prediction about the real world. The point about the men being no better than
pigs is irrelevant. The point is that the pigs were men, i.e., the same as capitalist oppressors. Aside from being manifest nonsense,
this prediction was of course falsified by history. Any notion that the late USSR was a totalitarian terror regime was nonsense.
But even if it were, the execution of Beria, Zhukov's coup against the so-called anti-party group, the removal of Khrushchev,
the shenanigans of Gorbachev, give the lie to the notion that Stalinism was unchangeable. As for the notion that Soviet socialism
was the same as capitalism? Only virulent anti-Communism could make such nonsense acceptable for a minute.
The final lines have to be read in context with early lines as well. In those lines, Orwell compares the horrors of the Great
War to a farm getting run down. It takes a vile human being to do that.
Lee, if all you're willing to do is compose minor variations on the theme of "you're a fundamentalist! Marxism is a religion!",
you don't seem ready to sit at the big-kids' discussion table. I alluded to the idea of Marxist doctrine as dogmatic catechism
in an ironic way back @ the second paragraph of #208, but the more serious point from that graf seems relevant here too.
Steven, you seem to be confused as to what point I was actually making, albeit understandably so because I wasn't entirely
clear (which is perhaps a natural outcome of spending too much time trying to get through to liberals). The point isn't that literally
no political events have taken place at all in the modern People's Republic of China, it's that the transition from state socialism
to neoliberal capitalism didn't require an outright abolition of centralized Party control the way it did in the former USSR.
I entirely agree with you about the nonsensical contradictions of the typical Cold Warrior critique, especially when it comes
to the USSR: in particular, the economic dynamism of Stalin's time and the relatively dialed-down political repression after the
Khrushchev thaw are typically minimalized in order to emphasize the brutality of the Stalin era and the post-Stalin economic stagnation,
with no effort to coherently account for any real political or economic shifts within the formal framework of Soviet state socialism.
I didn't intend to make such a simpleminded critique, although again I can see how it might have come across that way.
And neither did I claim to be any great admirer of George Orwell; everything else about his political line aside, nobody who
rats out fellow leftists to Red Scare witch-hunters can deserve too much esteem, especially when this involves outing people as
gay in the UK in the 1940s. Still, to the extent that he was a leftist critic of actually existing socialisms and has been anachronistically
beatified by liberal Cold Warriors as a critic of all socialist projects as inherently repressive, it's hard to deny that liberals'
adoption of Animal Farm into their ideological canon has a certain poetic kick given that today's most prominent remaining
"actually existing socialists" are among the most ruthless and effective administrators of global imperial capitalism.
stevenjohnson,
@427
likbez@415 " But on a more earthly plane, it is not so obvious that the oligarchs and their favored employees are (or were) drawn
from the nomenklatura, that there was no change in personnel in the rulers of the new Russia."
This is a topic way too complex for the posts like this one, but considerable part of new Russian neoliberal elite did come
from nomenklatura. The most brutal, the most criminal oligarchs came from academia (Berezovsky) and Komsomol elite ( Khodarkovski,
in Ukraine Turchinov - who actually was the head of propaganda department of Komsomol )
Gennady Zyuganov and his KPRF of course are the prime recruiting grounds for adminstration, and the favored home of Russian
businessment.
This is simply wrong. This is a statement, completely disconnected with reality.
But, quite aside from the gaping seam of the attempted removal of Gorbachev in 1991, there are quite a few other seams.
Yeltsin's attack on parliament, for instance, strikes me as seamy indeed.
You are mixing two events which are on completely opposite sides of barricades.
Attempt to remove Gorbachov (which might well be initiated by Gorbachov himself, who became afraid that he went too far)
was attempt by anti-neoliberal forces to stop and reverse neoliberalization of Russia. It failed because the train already
left the station and neoliberal forces became quite strong in Russia.
Yeltsin's attack on parliament was essentially a successful attempt to suppress forces that were against neoliberalization
and plundering of Russia (as well as threats to personal power f Yeltsin as Pinochet style dictator). Kind of Russian variant
of the Night of the Long Knives.
Your insistence that the old CP members never noticed a change, except they had official title, seems an extraordinary needing
rather more support. A this point, it appears to be non-factual.
You completely misunderstood and misinterpreted my point. The essence was that certain substratas of Soviet nomenklatura mainly
connected with KGB, Komsomol, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Trade, Academia ( and a couple of other institutions)
changed camps and become turncoats fighting tooth and nail for the establishing neoliberal regime in Russia by using "color revolution"
mechanisms and relying on support and financing from the USA and other foreign powers (to the tune on one billion in cash) and
then helping foreign powers to plunder Russia (which was favorite pastime of many members of Clinton criminal administration;
for example Summers).
Kind of Russian variation of Chicago boys. Or like a bunch of US Trotskyites which became neocons.
This reminds me to yet once again mention
How Harvard Lost
Russia where Summers is a featured supporting character. Best read it now; copies of it seem to be evaporating from the
Net for some reason. A crucial document.
Barry and the spooks make it official today –
Putin did it!
re: the DNC email leaks.
But as you note, the Dems are not coming off as particularly trustworthy.
Checking the comments of that article, the dogs aren't eating the dogfood
and seem to have noticed the claims are still based on absolutely no
evidence whatsoever.
"Wikileaks' Julian Assange to release 'significant' documents on US election, Google, arms trading over next 10 weeks" [
International Business Times ]. Oh, not the next 31 days?
Complete with a copy of everything problematic in her wall street spaces. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927#efmAIuAMKAViAXv
THEY ARE BAD
"But If Everybody's Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous,
To Say The Least. So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position ."
-100% pro trade
-Shits on single payer
-Wall Street should regulate itself… sigh.
Don't worry, the CTR shills are already on Reddit and social media framing this as another "nothing burger," or that it is
actually good for her. The campaign's pals in the MSM are sure to follow, especially considering the reprehensible recording of
Trump that was released earlier today (granted, as a man, I have heard many men say things as bad or worse than Trump has said
at various stages in my life) gives them a foil to wrap this hot potato in.
Software Could've Given NSA Much More Access Than Just Emails
Former employees of Yahoo have corroborated this week's stories about the company scanning all
emails coming into their servers on behalf of the NSA, saying that the "email scanner" software was
not Yahoo-built,
but
actually made and installed by the US government .
The employees, including at least one on Yahoo's own internal security team, reported finding
the software on the
email
server and believing they were begin hacked, before executives informed them the government had done
it. They described the software as a broader "rootkit" that could give the NSA access to much more
than just emails.
Yahoo itself has been mostly mum on the matter, issuing a statement claiming the initial reports
were "misleading" but not elaborating at all. The NSA denied the claim outright, though they have
been repeatedly caught lying about similar programs in the past.
"... For three years, violent militants have run Aleppo. Their rule began with a wave of repression. They posted notices warning residents: "Don't send your children to school. If you do, we will get the backpack and you will get the coffin." Then they destroyed factories, hoping that unemployed workers would have no recourse other than to become fighters. They trucked looted machinery to Turkey and sold it. ..."
"... Militants, true to form, are wreaking havoc as they are pushed out of the city by Russian and Syrian Army forces. "Turkish-Saudi backed 'moderate rebels' showered the residential neighborhoods of Aleppo with unguided rockets and gas jars," one Aleppo resident wrote on social media. The Beirut-based analyst Marwa Osma asked, "The Syrian Arab Army, which is led by President Bashar Assad, is the only force on the ground, along with their allies, who are fighting ISIS - so you want to weaken the only system that is fighting ISIS?" ..."
"... This does not fit with Washington's narrative. As a result, much of the American press is reporting the opposite of what is actually happening. Many news reports suggest that Aleppo has been a "liberated zone" for three years but is now being pulled back into misery. ..."
"... Americans are being told that the virtuous course in Syria is to fight the Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian partners. We are supposed to hope that a righteous coalition of Americans, Turks, Saudis, Kurds, and the "moderate opposition" will win. This is convoluted nonsense, but Americans cannot be blamed for believing it. We have almost no real information about the combatants, their goals, or their tactics. Much blame for this lies with our media. ..."
"... Astonishingly brave correspondents in the war zone, including Americans, seek to counteract Washington-based reporting. At great risk to their own safety, these reporters are pushing to find the truth about the Syrian war. Their reporting often illuminates the darkness of groupthink. Yet for many consumers of news, their voices are lost in the cacophony. Reporting from the ground is often overwhelmed by the Washington consensus. ..."
"... Inevitably, this kind of disinformation has bled into the American presidential campaign. At the recent debate in Milwaukee, Hillary Clinton claimed that United Nations peace efforts in Syria were based on "an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva." The precise opposite is true. In 2012 Secretary of State Clinton joined Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel in a successful effort to kill Kofi Annan's UN peace plan because it would have accommodated Iran and kept Assad in power, at least temporarily. No one on the Milwaukee stage knew enough to challenge her. ..."
"... The truth is that Kinzer is right. We have no idea what is going on in Syria. For the elites in Washington and their press lackeys to report that one side is moderate and the other is not is ludicrous. ..."
Coverage of the Syrian war will be remembered as one of the most shameful episodes in the history
of the American press. Reporting about carnage in the ancient city of Aleppo is the latest reason
why.
For three years, violent militants have run Aleppo. Their rule began with a wave of repression.
They posted notices warning residents: "Don't send your children to school. If you do, we will get
the backpack and you will get the coffin." Then they destroyed factories, hoping that unemployed
workers would have no recourse other than to become fighters. They trucked looted machinery to Turkey
and sold it.
This month, people in Aleppo have finally seen glimmers of hope. The Syrian army and its allies
have been pushing militants out of the city. Last week they reclaimed the main power plant. Regular
electricity may soon be restored. The militants' hold on the city could be ending.
Militants, true to form, are wreaking havoc as they are pushed out of the city by Russian
and Syrian Army forces. "Turkish-Saudi backed 'moderate rebels' showered the residential neighborhoods
of Aleppo with unguided rockets and gas jars," one Aleppo resident wrote on social media. The Beirut-based
analyst Marwa Osma asked, "The Syrian Arab Army, which is led by President Bashar Assad, is the only
force on the ground, along with their allies, who are fighting ISIS - so you want to weaken the only
system that is fighting ISIS?"
This does not fit with Washington's narrative. As a result, much of the American press is
reporting the opposite of what is actually happening. Many news reports suggest that Aleppo has been
a "liberated zone" for three years but is now being pulled back into misery.
Americans are being told that the virtuous course in Syria is to
fight the Assad regime and its Russian and Iranian partners. We are supposed
to hope that a righteous coalition of Americans, Turks, Saudis, Kurds,
and the "moderate opposition" will win. This is convoluted nonsense, but
Americans cannot be blamed for believing it. We have almost no real information
about the combatants, their goals, or their tactics. Much blame for this
lies with our media.
Under intense financial pressure, most American newspapers, magazines, and broadcast networks
have drastically reduced their corps of foreign correspondents. Much important news about the world
now comes from reporters based in Washington. In that environment, access and credibility depend
on acceptance of official paradigms. Reporters who cover Syria check with the Pentagon, the State
Department, the White House, and think tank "experts." After a spin on that soiled carousel, they
feel they have covered all sides of the story. This form of stenography produces the pabulum that
passes for news about Syria.
Astonishingly brave correspondents in the war zone, including Americans,
seek to counteract Washington-based reporting. At great risk to their own safety, these reporters
are pushing to find the truth about the Syrian war. Their reporting often illuminates the darkness
of groupthink. Yet for many consumers of news, their voices are lost in the cacophony. Reporting
from the ground is often overwhelmed by the Washington consensus.
Washington-based reporters tell us that one potent force in Syria, al-Nusra,
is made up of "rebels" or "moderates," not that it is the local al-Qaeda franchise. Saudi Arabia
is portrayed as aiding freedom fighters when in fact it is a prime sponsor of ISIS. Turkey has for
years been running a "rat line" for foreign fighters wanting to join terror groups in Syria, but
because the United States wants to stay on Turkey's good side, we hear little about it. Nor are we
often reminded that although we want to support the secular and battle-hardened Kurds, Turkey wants
to kill them. Everything Russia and Iran do in Syria is described as negative and destabilizing,
simply because it is they who are doing it - and because that is the official line in Washington.
Inevitably, this kind of disinformation has bled into the American presidential campaign. At the
recent debate in Milwaukee, Hillary Clinton claimed that United Nations peace efforts in Syria were
based on "an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva." The precise opposite is true. In
2012 Secretary of State Clinton joined Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Israel in a successful effort to
kill Kofi Annan's UN peace plan because it would have accommodated Iran and kept Assad in power,
at least temporarily. No one on the Milwaukee stage knew enough to challenge her.
Politicians may be forgiven for distorting their past actions. Governments may also be excused
for promoting whatever narrative they believe best suits them. Journalism, however, is supposed to
remain apart from the power elite and its inbred mendacity. In this crisis it has failed miserably.
Americans are said to be ignorant of the world. We are, but so are people in other countries.
If people in Bhutan or Bolivia misunderstand Syria, however, that has no real effect. Our ignorance
is more dangerous, because we act on it. The United States has the power to decree the death of nations.
It can do so with popular support because many Americans - and many journalists - are content with
the official story. In Syria, it is: "Fight Assad, Russia, and Iran! Join with our Turkish, Saudi,
and Kurdish friends to support peace!" This is appallingly distant from reality. It is also likely
to prolong the war and condemn more Syrians to suffering and death.
Stephen Kinzer is a senior fellow at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown
University. Follow him on Twitter @stephenkinzer.
kaisy 02/18/16 03:38 PM
The truth is that Kinzer is right. We have no idea what is going on in Syria. For the
elites in Washington and their press lackeys to report that one side is moderate and the other
is not is ludicrous.
When the uprising against Assad began three years ago, initially we were on the side of the
angels, that is until we found out that they were mostly Al Queda. Fast forward and now we
have ISIS, the sworn enemy of the US and anybody else that disagrees with them. So now,
remarkably, some are looking at Assad as the voice of moderation. This is so akin to
Afghanistan and, decades ago, Vietnam. When you don't understand the players and their
ulterior motives, best to not get involved. Me, I'd leave this to the Saudis and Iran to fight
over. Cruz talks about carpet bombing Syria until the sand glows (btw, real Christianlike
there). I say defer to those over there. Eventually they'll run out of people to do the
fighting (happening already with ISIS), then, and only then, we can go in and pick up the
pieces.
jkupie02/19/16 07:16 AM
"Washington-based reporters tell us that one potent force in Syria, al-Nusra, is made
up of "rebels" or "moderates," not that it is the local al-Qaeda franchise."
I don't know enough about the area to confirm or disprove most of Mr. Kinzer's points but I
DO KNOW that this claim is false.
tyfox"n" 02/19/16 07:40 PM
jkupiue I absolutley agree. I have never read or heard al-Nusra described as anything but
an al-Qaeda group, and it is stated every time al-Nusra is mentioned.
pegnva 02/19/16 07:58 AM
Hard to know the truth...but it is interesting Kinzer was able to QUOTE former Sec'ty of
State, now presidential candidate Hillary Clinton at the recent Milwaukee debate for falsely
taking credit, some might say lying to the Am public.
kaisy 02/19/16 11:24 AM
Hillary is on the wrong side of this. She wants a no fly zone in Syria, just the Repubs.
She doesn't speak to the consequences of the policy. Unfortunately Bernie has not challenged
her on this. He really needs to.
NH-Repub 02/19/16 09:22 AM
Leftout is right and Hillary is the Queen of Doublespeak. Obama and his minions would like
nothing better than to mislead the masses and keep them in the dark about everything. That way
they control the media and by proxy - us!
"... Not since the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq has Official Washington's political/punditry class clamored more single-mindedly – and openly – for the U.S. government to commit a gross violation of international law, now urging a major military assault on the government of Syria while also escalating tensions with nuclear-armed Russia. ..."
"... And, like the frenzied war fever of 2002-2003, today's lawless consensus is operating on a mix of selective, dubious and false information – while excluding from the public debate voices that might dare challenge the prevailing "group think." It's as if nothing was learned from the previous disaster in Iraq. ..."
"... U.S. regional "allies" have been funding and arming radical jihadist groups, including Al Qaeda terrorists ..."
"... the claim about "moderate" Syrian rebels is a fraud; the "moderates" have served essentially as a P.R. cut-out for the U.S. and its "allies" to supply Al Qaeda and its allies with sophisticated weapons while pretending not to. ..."
Official Washington has a new "group think" that is even more dangerous than the one that led
to the Iraq War. This one calls for U.S. escalation of conflicts against Syria and nuclear-armed
Russia.
Not since the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq has Official Washington's political/punditry
class clamored more single-mindedly – and openly – for the U.S. government to commit a gross violation
of international law, now urging a major military assault on the government of Syria while also escalating
tensions with nuclear-armed Russia.
And, like the frenzied war fever of 2002-2003, today's lawless consensus is operating on a mix
of selective, dubious and false information – while excluding from the public debate voices that
might dare challenge the prevailing "group think." It's as if nothing was learned from the previous
disaster in Iraq.
Most notably, there are two key facts about Syria that Americans are not being told: one,
U.S. regional "allies" have been funding and arming radical jihadist groups, including Al Qaeda terrorists
, there almost since the conflict began in 2011 and, two, the claim about "moderate" Syrian
rebels is a fraud; the "moderates" have served essentially as a P.R. cut-out for the U.S. and its
"allies" to supply Al Qaeda and its allies with sophisticated weapons while pretending not to.
.................................
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/10/05/new-group-think-for-war-with-syriarussia/
"... yes rates were higher - but the deductions were huge - if you were wealthy - you could easily buy tax shelters that would offset your income. ..."
"... Pardon me, but this good citizen, Nossir, is shoveling a load of typical BS. We must suffer inequality in good cheer, he or she posits, and tens of millions of us must struggle to put food on our children's tables, or else the all powerful "Investors" will be angry with us and stop being so kind to us. ..."
"... The "Investors" who rule over us, are parasites who are sucking the blood out of our nation, but to their way of thinking, they are kind and magnanimous as they deign to exploit us. ..."
"... look it up nossir. Capital gains tax are not north of 50% even in Denmark Most gains there are taxed at 27%. It's earned income taxes combined with VAT that add up to around 55% in Denmark. ..."
"... For those tax rates they get free and/or subsidized education through university, free health care for all, an infrastructure that puts ours to shame, a vastly superior mass transit system throughout the nation, guaranteed maternity/paternity leave of up to 2 years with income provided by government; hugely subsidized childcare for those too young for kindergarten, etc. etc. ..."
"... Median household income is no indicator of prosperity. If adult children can't make enough money to live apart from their parents, even if they take a minimum wage job the median household income goes up. Per capita income is a much more truthful indicator of a country's prosperity. Obama's (and Clinton's) economic policies hurt the middle class; why do you think "income inequality" has gotten worse in the past eight years - and why Hillary won't release the texts of her Wall Street speeches? ..."
The Census BurEAU recently announced a heartening 5 percent gain in the median household income
between 2014 and 2015, the largest one-year gain on record. Yet a look at the longer-term trends
offers a sobering perspective. The jump in household income merely helps to make up for lost ground;
the median earnings in 2015 were actually lower than back in 1999 - 16 years ago.
While household median incomes have stagnated since the late 1990s, the inflation-adjusted
earnings of poorer households have stagnated for even longer, roughly 40 years. Meanwhile, households
at or near the top of the income distribution have enjoyed sizeable increases of living standards.
The result is a stark widening of the gap between rich and poor households.
There is perhaps no issue in America more contentious than income inequality. Everybody has a
theory as to why the gap between rich and poor has widened and what should be done - if anything
- to close it. A full explanation should help us understand why the United States stands out for
having an especially high and rising inequality of income.
There are three main factors at play: technology, trade, and politics. Technological innovations
have raised the demand for highly trained workers, thereby pushing up the incomes of college-educated
workers relative to high-school-educated workers. Global trade has exposed the wages of industrial
workers to tough international competition from workers at much lower pay scales. And our federal
politics has tended, during the past 35 years, to weaken the political role of the working class,
diminish union bargaining power, and cap or cut the government benefits received by working-class
families.
Consider technology. Throughout modern history, ingenious machines have been invented to replace
heavy physical labor. This has been hugely beneficial: Most (though not all) American workers have
been lucky to escape the hard toil, drudgery, dangers, and diseases of heavy farm work, mining, and
heavy industry. Farm jobs have been lost, but with some exceptions, their backbreaking drudgery has
been transformed into office jobs. Farm workers and miners combined now account for less than 1 percent
of the labor force.
Yet the office jobs required more skills than the farm jobs that disappeared. The new office jobs
needed a high school education, and, more recently, a college degree. So who benefited? Middle-class
and upper-class kids fortunate enough to receive the education and skills for the new office jobs.
And who lost? Mostly poorer kids who couldn't afford the education to meet the rising demands for
skilled work.
Now the race between education and technology has again heated up. The machines are getting smarter
and better faster than ever before - indeed, faster than countless households can help their kids
to stay in the job market. Sure, there are still good jobs available, as long as you've graduated
with a degree in computer science from MIT, or at least a nod in that direction.
Globalization is closely related to technology and, indeed, is made possible by it. It has a similar
effect, of squeezing incomes of lower-skilled workers. Not only are the assembly-line robots competing
for American jobs; so too are the lower-waged workers half a world away from the United States. American
workers in so-called "traded-goods" sectors, meaning the sectors in direct competition with imports,
have therefore faced an additional whammy of intense downward pressure on wages.
For a long time, economists resisted the public's concern about trade depressing wages of lower-skilled
workers. Twenty-two years ago I coauthored a paper arguing that rising trade with China and other
low-wage countries was squeezing the earnings of America's lower-skilled workers. The paper was met
with skepticism. A generation later, the economics profession has mostly come around to recognize
that globalization is a culprit in the rise of income inequality. This doesn't mean that global trade
should be ended, since trade does indeed expand the overall economy. It does, however, suggest that
open trade should be accompanied by policies to improve the lot of lower-wage, lower-skilled workers,
especially those directly hit by global trade but also those indirectly affected.
MANY ANALYSES OF rising income inequality stop at this point, emphasizing the twin roles of technology
and trade, and perhaps debating their relative importance. Yet the third part of the story - the
role of politics - is perhaps the most vital of all. Politics shows up in two ways. First, politics
helps to determine the bargaining power of workers versus corporations: how the overall pie is divided
between capital and labor. Second, politics determines whether the federal budget is used to spread
the benefits of a rising economy to the workers and households left behind.
Unfortunately, US politics has tended to put the government's muscle on behalf of big business
and against the working class. Remember the Reagan revolution: tax cuts for the rich and the companies,
and union-busting for the workers? Remember the Clinton program to "end welfare as we know it," a
program that pushed poor and working-class moms into long-distance commuting for desperately low
wages, while their kids were often left back in dangerous and squalid conditions? Remember the case
of the federal minimum wage, which has been kept so low for so long by Congress that its inflation-adjusted
value peaked in 1968?
There is no deep mystery as to why federal politics has turned its back on the poor and working
class. The political system has become "pay to play," with federal election cycles now costing up
to $10 billion, largely financed by the well-heeled class in the Hamptons and the C-suites of Wall
Street and Big Oil, certainly not the little guy on unemployment benefits. As the insightful political
scientist Martin Gilens has persuasively shown, when it comes to federal public policy, only the
views of the rich actually have sway in Washington.
So in the end, the inequality of income in the United States is high and rising while in other
countries facing the same technological and trade forces, the inequality remains lower, and the rise
in inequality has tended to be less stark. What explains the difference in outcomes? In the other
countries, democratic politics offers voice and representation to average voters rather than to the
rich. Votes and voters matter more than dollars.
To delve more deeply into the comparison between the United States and other countries, it is
useful to measure the inequality of income in each country in two different ways. The first way measures
the inequality of "market incomes" of households, that is, the income of households measured before
taxes and government benefits are taken into account. The second measures the inequality of "disposable
income," taking into account the taxes paid and transfers received by the household.
The difference between the two measures shows the extent of income redistribution achieved through
government taxation and spending. In all of the high-income countries, the inequality of market income
is greater than the inequality of disposable income. The taxes paid by the relatively rich and the
transfers made to the relatively poor help to offset some of the inequality of the marketplace.
THE ACCOMPANYING CHART offers just this comparison for the high-income countries. For each country,
two measures of inequality based on the "Gini coefficient" are calculated. The Gini coefficient is
a measure of income inequality that varies between 0 (full-income equality across households) and
1 (full-income inequality, in which one household has all of the income). Countries as a whole tend
to have a Gini coefficient of disposable income somewhere between 0.25 (low inequality) and 0.60
(very high inequality).
In the figure, we see the two values of the Gini coefficient for each country: a higher value
(more inequality) based on market income and a lower value (less inequality) based on disposable
income (that is, after taxes and transfers). We can see that in every country, the tax-and-transfer
system shifts at least some income from the rich to the poor, thereby pushing down the Gini coefficient.
Yet the amount of net redistribution is very different in different countries, and is especially
low in the United States.
Compare, for example, the United States and Denmark. In the United States, the Gini coefficient
on market income is a very high 0.51, and on disposable income, 0.40, still quite high. In Denmark,
by comparison, the Gini coefficient on market income is a bit lower than the United States, at 0.43.
Yet Denmark's Gini coefficient on disposable income is far lower, only 0.25. America's tax-and-transfer
system reduces the Gini coefficient by only 0.11. Denmark's tax-and-transfer system reduces the Gini
coefficient by 0.18, half-again as high as in the United States.
How does Denmark end up with so much lower inequality of disposable income from its budget policies?
Denmark taxes more heavily than the United States and uses the greater tax revenue to provide free
health care, child care, sick leave, maternity and paternity leave, guaranteed vacations, free university
tuition, early childhood programs, and much more. Denmark taxes a hefty 51 percent of national income
and provides a robust range of high-quality public services. The United States taxes a far lower
31 percent and offers a rickety social safety net. In the United States, people are left to sink
or swim. Many sink.
So, many Americans would suspect, Denmark is miserable and being crushed by taxes, right? Well,
not so right. Denmark actually comes out number 1 in the world happiness rankings, while the United
States comes in 13th. Denmark's life expectancy is also higher, its poverty lower, and its citizens'
trust in government and in each other vastly higher than the equivalent trust in the United States.
SO HEREIN LIES a key lesson for the United States. America's inequality of disposable income is
the highest among the rich countries. America is paying a heavy price in lost well-being for its
high and rising inequality of income, and for its failure to shift more benefits to the poor and
working class.
We have become a country of huge distrust of government and of each other; we have become a country
with a huge underclass of people who can't afford their prescription drugs, tuition payments, or
rents or mortgage payments. Despite a roughly threefold increase in national income per person over
the past 50 years, Americans report to survey takers no higher level of happiness than they did back
in 1960. The fraying of America's social ties, the increased loneliness and distrust, eats away at
the American dream and the American spirit. It's even contributing to a rise in the death rates among
middle-aged, white, non-Hispanic Americans, a shocking recent reversal of very long-term trends of
rising longevity.
The current trends will tend to get even worse unless and until American politics changes direction.
As I will describe in a later column, the coming generation of yet smarter machines and robots will
claim additional jobs among the lower-skilled workers and those performing rote activities. Wages
will be pushed lower except for those with higher training and skills. Capital owners (who will own
the robots and the software systems to operate them) will reap large profits while many young people
will be unable to find gainful employment. The advance in technology could thereby contribute to
a further downward spiral in social cohesion.
That is, unless we decide to do things differently. Twenty-eight countries in the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development have lower inequality of disposable income than the United
States, even though these countries share the same technologies and compete in the same global marketplace
as the United States. These income comparisons underscore that America's high inequality is a choice,
not an irreversible law of the modern world economy.
Jeffrey D. Sachs is University Professor and Director of the Center for Sustainable Development
at Columbia University, and author of "The Age of Sustainable Development."
RZwarich 10/03/16 07:08 AM
The "Gini coefficient" is one of the worst, one of the least understandable, measures of inequality
I've ever seen. I'm sure that it is a useful and scientifically accurate tool to economists who
are trained in math and statistics, but to average people, these numbers are just so much 'mumbo
jumbo'.
It's rather like the exponentially based Richter scale for measuring earthquakes, (or the decibel
scale for sound, or any exponentially based scale). Very few people understand that a Richter
6.1 earthquake is TWICE as strong as a Richter 6.0 quake, and that a Richter 7 quake is ten times
as strong as a 6.0 quake.
I would advise Dr. Sachs, and/or other economists trying to illustrate a measure of inequality
in popular mass media, to find or devise some other 'measuring stick'.
As for our good citizen Harry's relevance, try to consider that he is a grown man, (with grandchildren),
who thinks that the old I.P Freeley joke is hilarious. (Harry Arm Pitts. Get it?)
This good citizen posits the most basic precept of true democracy. True Democracy requires a moral
agreement among citizens. "I will respect you, and your interests, if you will respect mine".
Thus, following from this basic moral agreement, we each have an equal 'voice', and an equal vote,
in support of our own interests.
We are thus all connected, each to all, and all to each, in an agreement of mutually intertwined
interests.
The system we have now is an "every person for himself or herself" system. It is not based upon
that moral agreement.
Thus in our system, one person is not required, or even expected, to respect the interests of
others. One person is allowed to have so much, that many do not have even enough to sustain a
minimally dignified life.
In the US today, 22 people, 22 individual citizens, (not even enough to fill the first 6 rows
of a city bus), have as much wealth, combined between them, as 160 MILLION of their fellow citizens.
It is surely no surprise that among those 160 MILLION are many millions (about 50-60) who suffer
in the constant indignity of poverty, with tens of millions of children living in daily 'food
insecurity'. (That means that though they may not be actually starving, they never know where
their next meal is coming from, or when).
Nossir 10/02/16 08:10 PM
The fallacy of composition states that what works on a small scale - say in a country like Denmark
- will not work everywhere, or more specifically, in a 17 trillion dollar economy like the United
States. Investors will not invest the capital needed to maintain an economy of this size with tax
rates north of 50%.
megmuck 10/03/16 06:25 AM
But they did for until the 1980's and the Reagan tax cuts. What happened to make Americans
so much greedier 30 years ago?
tsynchronous 10/03/16 07:18 AM
I lived the economy of the late 1970's early 1980's - let's see - interest rates of 22% - being
1 of 25 individuals applying for a dishwasher job - running out of gasoline - sure - let's bring
those days back.
and yes rates were higher - but the deductions were huge - if you were wealthy - you could
easily buy tax shelters that would offset your income.
RZwarich 10/03/16 07:29 AM
Pardon me, but this good citizen, Nossir, is shoveling a load of typical BS. We must suffer
inequality in good cheer, he or she posits, and tens of millions of us must struggle to put food
on our children's tables, or else the all powerful "Investors" will be angry with us and stop
being so kind to us.
This is the same line of "reasoning" that holds that when 'Investors" exploit the population of
an underdeveloped country, paying slave level wages to people living in squalid poverty, they
are being superbly magnanimous for "providing jobs".
The "Investors" who rule over us, are parasites who are sucking the blood out of our nation,
but to their way of thinking, they are kind and magnanimous as they deign to exploit us.
Such is the sick psychology of the Ruling Classes. Such has it ever been, (and likely will ever
be).
Global Initiative 10/03/16 07:43 AM
RZ.
if only you were in charge, right? You'd make sure it was fair for everyone (including, of course,
yourself?)
bigfoot 201510/03/16 04:22 PM
one of the greatest periods of growth in the United States was the 1950's. Top marginal tax
rate was 90 percent.
rwc2 10/03/16 07:46 PM
look it up nossir. Capital gains tax are not north of 50% even in Denmark Most gains there
are taxed at 27%. It's earned income taxes combined with VAT that add up to around 55% in
Denmark.
For those tax rates they get free and/or subsidized education through university, free
health care for all, an infrastructure that puts ours to shame, a vastly superior mass transit
system throughout the nation, guaranteed maternity/paternity leave of up to 2 years with income
provided by government; hugely subsidized childcare for those too young for kindergarten, etc.
etc.
Considering my approximate 30% total tax rate, I'm pretty sure I spend/spent more than another
20% of my income on all the services provided by the Danish government (and by most of the rest
of Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand). As a not an all insubstantial side benefit, there
would be the joy of living in a society not beset by poverty, alienation and hatred. In fact,
that additional tax rate seems a small price to pay I belief.
And what's more, I don't even think the tax rate has to be that high here to provide those services
if we stopped spending way, way too much on the military and our attempt to be world policeman.
RZwarich10/03/16 07:33 AM
This good citizen's heart seems to be in the right place, (generally speaking), but she
or he is very confused.
Per capita income does not measure income distribution.
If 10 people have a per capita income of $1 million, we do not know if they each make $100k,
or one makes $990,000, and the other nine split the other $10k.
Suares23 10/02/16 08:46 PM
Median household income is no indicator of prosperity. If adult children can't make enough
money to live apart from their parents, even if they take a minimum wage job the median household
income goes up. Per capita income is a much more truthful indicator of a country's prosperity.
Obama's (and Clinton's) economic policies hurt the middle class; why do you think "income inequality"
has gotten worse in the past eight years - and why Hillary won't release the texts of her Wall
Street speeches?
Suares2310/04/16 08:17 AM
RZ, please note that my comment specified a country's prosperity, not individual prosperity.
Plus, your example defines "average" prosperity, not "median" prosperity. As you note, "averages"
explain very little; "median" incomes are a much more accurate indicator of individuals' prosperity.
This is the 'religious' dogma of the Elite. Let's produce 'economic growth' and the benefits will
trickle down to all. This dogma has been thoroughly proven top be a 'fairy tale' that never comes
true.
When 'economic growth occurs, the newly created wealth is distributed the same as the old amount
of wealth. Most goes to the top. It does NOT "trickle down".
Since the blood sucking pirates raped our nation, culminating in the economic collapse of 2008,
the taxpayers 'bailed them out'. That's you and me, folks. We EACH paid to make these guys 'whole'.
Ever since, we've had a decent amount of 'economic growth', but almost all of it has gone to those
SAME blood sucking pirates.
The good citizen is 100% correct that "Inequality of incomes is a necessary condition of a free
market economy", but she or he is 100% wrong that in a free market economy "growing the economy
raises more people up".
Growing an economy only "raises more people up" if the "free market is regulated to produce an
equitable (fair, NOT equal), distribution of wealth.
This is pretty idealized account of Harvard mafia criminal activities but it touched on several important topics and first of all
criminality of Clinton administration which intended to weaken and, if possible, dismember Russia (via Chechen trump card as the first
move) converting it into vassal state.
Notable quotes:
"... Shleifer's involvement was more intimate. Traveling frequently to Moscow, he was directing key elements of the reform effort
under the banner of the renowned Harvard Institute for International Development. ..."
"... in 2004, after protracted legal wranglings, a judge in federal district court in Boston ruled that the university had breached
its contract with the U.S. government and that Shleifer and an associate were liable for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. ..."
"... Harvard, Shleifer and associates agreed to pay the government $31 million-plus to settle the case. Shleifer and Zimmerman were
forced to mortgage their house to secure their part of the settlement. ..."
"... Summers was positioned uniquely to influence Shleifer's career path, to shape U.S. aid to Russia and Shleifer's role in it
and even to shield Shleifer after the scandal broke. Though Summers, as Harvard president, recused himself from the school's handling
of this case, he made a point of taking aside Jeremy Knowles, then the dean of the faculty of arts and sciences, and asking him to protect
Shleifer. ..."
"... Months after Harvard was forced to pay the biggest settlement in its history, largely because of his misdeeds, Shleifer remains
on the faculty. No public action has been taken against him, nor is there any sign as this magazine goes to press in late December that
any is contemplated. ..."
"... "The relativism with which Harvard has dealt with the Shleifer case undermines Harvard's moral authority over its students."
..."
Since being named president of Harvard University in 2001, former U.S. Treasury secretary Lawrence Summers has sparked a series
of controversies that have grabbed headlines. Summers incurred the wrath of African-Americans when he belittled the work of controversial
religion professor Cornel West (who left for Princeton University); last year he infuriated faculty and students alike when he seemed
to disparage the innate scientific abilities of women at a Massachusetts economic conference, igniting a national uproar that nearly
cost him his job; last fall brought the departure of Jack Meyer, the head of Harvard Management Co., which oversees the school's
endowment but had inflamed some in the community because of the multimillion-dollar salaries it pays some of its managers.
Then, in quiet contrast, there is the case of economics professor Andrei Shleifer, who in the mid-1990s led a Harvard advisory
program in Russia that collapsed in disgrace. In August, after years of litigation, Harvard, Shleifer and others agreed to pay at
least $31 million to settle a lawsuit brought by the U.S. government. Harvard had been charged with breach of contract, Shleifer
and an associate, Jonathan Hay, with conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government.
Shleifer remains a faculty member in good standing. Colleagues say that is because he is a close longtime friend and collaborator
of Summers.
In the following pages investigative journalist David McClintick, a Harvard alumnus, chronicles Shleifer's role in the university's
Russia Project and how his friendship with Summers has protected him from the consequences of that debacle inside America's premier
academic institution.
ff duty and in swimsuits, the mentor and his protégé strolled the beach at Truro. For years, with their families, they had summered
together along this stretch of Massachusetts' famed Cape Cod. Close personally and professionally, the two friends confided in each
other the most private matters of family and finance. The topic of the day was the former Soviet Union.
"You've got to be careful," the mentor, Lawrence Summers, warned his protégé, Andrei Shleifer. "There's a lot of corruption in
Russia."
It was late August 1996, and Summers, 42, was deputy secretary of the U.S. Treasury. Shleifer, 35, was a rising star in the Harvard
University economics department, just as Summers had been 15 years earlier when he had first taken Shleifer under his wing.
Summers' warning rose out of their pivotal roles in a revolution of global consequence -- the attempt to bring the Russian economy
out from the ruins of communism into the promise of Western-style capitalism. Summers, as Treasury's second-in-command, was the architect
of U.S. efforts to help Russia. Shleifer's involvement was more intimate. Traveling frequently to Moscow, he was directing key
elements of the reform effort under the banner of the renowned Harvard Institute for International Development.
Working on contract for the U.S., HIID advised the Russian government on privatizing its economy and creating capital markets
and the laws and institutions to regulate them. Shleifer did not report formally to Summers but rather to the State Department's
Agency for International Development, or AID, the spearhead of the U.S.'s foreign aid program.
Personal affection as much as official concern prompted Summers' admonition. He had come to know that Shleifer and his wife, Nancy
Zimmerman, a noted hedge fund manager, had been investing in Russia. Though he didn't know specifics, he understood just enough to
worry that the couple might run afoul of myriad conflict-of-interest regulations that barred American advisers from investing in
the countries they were assisting.
Summers did not restrict his warnings to Shleifer.
"There might be a scandal, and you could become embroiled," Summers told Zimmerman. "You should make sure you're clear with everybody.
People might want to make Andrei a problem some day. The world's a shitty place."
Summers' warnings proved at once prophetic and ineffectual. Even as Shleifer and his wife strove to reassure their friend, they
were maneuvering to make an investment in Russia's first authorized mutual fund company. Within eight months their private Russian
dealings, together with those of close associates and relatives, would explode in scandal -- bringing dishonor to them, Harvard University
and the U.S. government. The Department of Justice would deploy the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attorney's Office
in Boston to launch a criminal investigation that would uncover evidence of fraud and money laundering, as well as the cavalier use
of U.S. government funds to support everything from tennis lessons to vacation boondoggles for Harvard employees and their spouses,
girlfriends and Russian pals. It would, in the end, be an extraordinary display of an overweening "best and brightest" arrogance
toward the laws and rules that the Harvard people were supposed to live by.
Says one banker who was a frequent visitor to Russia in that era, "The Harvard crowd hurt themselves, they hurt Harvard, and they
hurt the U.S. government."
Mostly, they hurt Russia and its hopes of establishing a lasting framework for a stable Western-style capitalism, as Summers himself
acknowledged when he testified under oath in the U.S. lawsuit in Cambridge in 2002. "The project was of enormous value," said Summers,
who by then had been installed as the president of Harvard. "Its cessation was damaging to Russian economic reform and to the U.S.-Russian
relationship."
Reinventing Russia was never going to be easy, but Harvard botched a historic opportunity. The failure to reform Russia's legal
system, one of the aid program's chief goals, left a vacuum that has yet to be filled and impedes the country's ability to confront
economic and financial challenges today (see box, page 77).
Harvard vigorously defended its work in Russia, but in 2004, after protracted legal wranglings, a judge in federal district
court in Boston ruled that the university had breached its contract with the U.S. government and that Shleifer and an associate were
liable for conspiracy to defraud the U.S. Last August, nine years after Summers and his protégé took their stroll along that
Truro beach, Harvard, Shleifer and associates agreed to pay the government $31 million-plus to settle the case. Shleifer and
Zimmerman were forced to mortgage their house to secure their part of the settlement.
Russia's struggles today certainly don't result entirely from Harvard's misdeeds or Shleifer's misconduct. There is plenty of
blame to share. It is difficult to overstate the challenge of transforming the economic and legal culture, not to mention the ancient
pathologies, of a huge, enigmatic nation that once spanned one sixth of the earth's land surface, 150 ethnicities and 11 time zones.
The Marshall Plan, by comparison, was simple.
Summers wasn't president of Harvard when Shleifer's mission to Moscow was coming apart. But as a Harvard economics professor in
the 1980s, a World Bank and Treasury official in the 1990s and Harvard's president since 2001, Summers was positioned uniquely
to influence Shleifer's career path, to shape U.S. aid to Russia and Shleifer's role in it and even to shield Shleifer after the
scandal broke. Though Summers, as Harvard president, recused himself from the school's handling of this case, he made a point of
taking aside Jeremy Knowles, then the dean of the faculty of arts and sciences, and asking him to protect Shleifer.
Months after Harvard was forced to pay the biggest settlement in its history, largely because of his misdeeds, Shleifer remains
on the faculty. No public action has been taken against him, nor is there any sign as this magazine goes to press in late December
that any is contemplated.
Throughout the otherwise voluble university community, there has been an odd silence about the entire affair. Discussions mostly
have taken place sotto voce in deans' offices or in local Cambridge haunts, such as the one where a well-connected Harvard personage
expressed deep concern, telling II: "Larry's handling of the Shleifer matter raises very basic questions about the way he
governs Harvard. This is fraught with significance. It couldn't be more fraught."
The silence is now beginning to break, thanks to the leadership of academic worthies like former Harvard College dean Harry Lewis,
who is finishing a book about the university to be published in the spring by Perseus Public Affairs. Lewis agreed to show II
the manuscript, in which he asserts, "The relativism with which Harvard has dealt with the Shleifer case undermines Harvard's
moral authority over its students."
Whether this new questioning will erupt into yet another crisis engulfing Summers and the university remains unclear. What is
certain, though, is that the story of Harvard and its representatives' malfeasance, told in full for the first time over the following
pages, shows how much damage can be done when the considerable power and resources of the U.S. government are placed in the wrong
hands.
THE SEEDS OF RUSSIAN REFORM WERE planted in the late 1980s -- when Russia was the Soviet Union and Harvard hadn't yet arrived.
The U.S.S.R.'s seven-decade experiment with Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism lay in shambles. By 1989, even as the Berlin Wall fell
in Germany, the Soviet Union and its economy were imploding.
Reform-minded Mikhail Gorbachev, the last general secretary of the Communist Party, strove to introduce limited economic and political
change. The first competitive elections for the Congress of People's Deputies were held in March 1989. In May 1990, Gorbachev's populist
rival, the maverick Boris Yeltsin, was elected chairman of the Russian Republic's Parliament. A month later Russia declared itself
independent of the Soviet Union.
That summer Gorbachev and Yeltsin ordered two economists to draw up a "500 Days" plan for converting the Soviet Union to a market
economy based on private property. Gorbachev also sought advice from the West. In October 1990 the then-chairman of the New York
Stock Exchange, John Phelan Jr., led a group of U.S. securities lawyers and academics to Moscow to begin showing the Soviets how
to form capital markets. The meeting was organized by the Big Board's Russian-speaking legal counsel, Richard Bernard, then 40.
"... Multinational firms may invest in tax havens to avoid taxation in non-haven countries, but other motives, such as business opportunities in these countries, may also drive such investment. ..."
"... Policies that raise the costs of reallocating profits maybe be effective in attenuating firms' use of tax havens ..."
"Multinational firms may invest in tax havens to avoid taxation in non-haven countries, but other
motives, such as business opportunities in these countries, may also drive such investment. This
column uses data on German firms to investigate the motives for tax haven investment. Tax avoidance
does appear to be a motive, particularly for manufacturing firms.
Policies that raise the costs
of reallocating profits maybe be effective in attenuating firms' use of tax havens."
VoxEU also notes that not every multinational uses tax havens to massively evade taxes. Rudy
G. would have their shareholders sue over this. Of course Rudy G. is an idiot. Of course multinationals
source production in regions with low costs as in "always low wages".
But I have a question - how many factories are located in the Cayman Islands?
"Morning Trade was let down - along with many on Twitter - that there was no mention of the TPP [in
the Vice-Presidential Debate], a deal that both vice presidential candidates initially supported until
they signed on as running-mates and flip-flopped" [
Politico
].
Especially given that in Trump's strong first half-hour, he hammered Clinton with it.
"In conference at Yale Law School, DeLauro pushes to stop controversial Trans Pacific Partnership"
[
New
Haven Register
]. Detailed report of speech. ".S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-3, said the administration
will be "relentless" in its pursuit of a positive vote on the Trans Pacific Partnership in the lame
duck Congress, something she and a coalition in Congress are hoping to stop…. '(T)he agreement is undemocratic
in its drafting, undemocratic in its contents and it cannot be passed during an unaccountable lame duck
period,' she told Yale Law students and staff in attendance."
"Obama Hails Enforcement on Trade Deals to Win Support for T.P.P." [
New
York Times
]. "Such actions against other countries' subsidies, dumping and market barriers, however,
do not address two big concerns of trade skeptics: currency manipulation and workers' rights."
"The French decision follows Uruguay and Paraguay leaving the controversial US backed TISA negotiations
last year and the recent humiliating back down of the EU on Investor State Dispute Resolution. With
Germany and France so critical and Great Britain on the way out of the EU, it is hard to see how the
European Commission can continue the negotiations" [
Public
Services International
].
Now the predatory class claims to be aghast at what its
policies have enabled--Trump. But are Trumps policies really
the problem...or is the problem that doesn't use the
reassuring, coded language that the predatory class has
carefully crafted to cover its exploitation?
The other European referendum,
soon to be known as the Italian Job. Interesting the way the article touches on
the issue of
the elite against the people.
"... Even with the outside help, even if all US Department Of State budget will be spent on Kasparov's campaign, even with the help of 101st and 82nd Airborne Divisions, chances of Kasparov becoming PM or President of Russia are approaching zero. ..."
"... Unless ofc US manages coup in Russia like in Ukraine and elsewhere, which is nearly impossible at this point. ..."
"... He never had those chances in the first place and it has very little to do with his support from the West. Western "liberalism" in the form it is preached by Kasparov or his ilk simply has no chances in Russia, period. And it is all for the better. Basically what is known as Russian "westernizing" liberalism is dead. Good riddance. ..."
What do you think of Kasparov? Can he ever be PM or President of the Russian Federation without
outside Help?
Even with the outside help, even if all US Department Of State budget will be spent on Kasparov's
campaign, even with the help of 101st and 82nd Airborne Divisions, chances of Kasparov becoming PM
or President of Russia are approaching zero.
Kasparov ruined his chances to become president of RU by being an obvious puppet of the West, much
like nobody in Syria would vote for whatever "opposition president" for the day is. Unless ofc US
manages coup in Russia like in Ukraine and elsewhere, which is nearly impossible at this point.
Kasparov ruined his chances to become president of RU by being an obvious puppet of the West
He never had those chances in the first place and it has very little to do with his support from
the West. Western "liberalism" in the form it is preached by Kasparov or his ilk simply has no chances
in Russia, period. And it is all for the better. Basically what is known as Russian "westernizing"
liberalism is dead. Good riddance.
I believe the Duma should strip him of Russian citizenship. In the debate of reference, he is
siding with enemies of Russia and shows no patriotism at all. Ambition blinds him.
I believe the Duma should strip him of Russian citizenship.
No, it shouldn't. He has to be regularly shown on TV and has his views propagated. Not that he
wasn't a freak before, let him completely discredit himself (I wonder if it is even possible) and
meanwhile complete a cycle of immunization of Russians against "values" he preaches.
Olens defended Georgia's gay marriage ban and sued the federal government over the transgender
bathroom directive. That's why students organized Monday afternoon's protest and drafted a petition
that has more than 5,000 signatures.
In the petition, students ask the Georgia Board of Regents to not appoint Olens as KSU's next
president.One student, who wouldn't give 11Alive his name, said he's disappointed.
"The support groups would probably be disbanded and not to mention the scholarships that are
offered for people active in LGBT rights," he said
After the rally ended, he stayed around to continue the protest.
"I feel it's my duty. I'm a student here and I have to make sure the school is safe for me
and students. If this place becomes unsafe, I'd have to leave," he said.
Oh for pity's sake, this snowflake thinks hiring the Georgia AG as the school's president would
lead to anti-gay pogroms? I hate the way this Orwellian "safe space" concept has become the cudgel
with which campus progressives use to club the expression of opinions with which they disagree. Anyway,
the reader comments:
Okay, a couple things. First, KSU gives scholarships for "people active in LGBT rights"? I'd
love to know details on that. Second, note the alleged disqualification here: Olens defended the
laws of his state - laws that were created by a democratically elected legislature. In other words,
he did the job he is elected to do. But as you and I know, this now constitutes Thoughtcrime.
Leonard Witt, a KSU professor, wrote
a column
criticizing the choice in which he concludes: "Let's, this time, show the world that
Cobb County carries the torch for all its diverse communities." Yes, diverse communities - as
long as one of those communities isn't Christians or people fulfilling the duties of their elected
office.
Now, I should note that as a college professor myself I happen to agree with Witt's other point:
that a college president should be an academic, not someone plucked from business or politics.
If I taught at KSU, I would oppose Olens for that reason. But this is something different: opposition
to him because of something he believes, and because he did his job according to the constitution
of the state of Georgia.
Eventually we're going to have to call explanations like Witt's the "Eich Maneuver," as an
homage to Mozilla's preposterous explanation that they had to fire Eich because of how much they
value diversity of viewpoint.
The reader says to be sure to note this reasoning from KSU's Prof. Witt (what follows is a quote
from Witt's column):
Already the KSU LGBTQ community members are signing petitions. A headline in Project Q, a popular
Atlanta blog, screams out "Gay marriage bigot Sam Olens to become KSU president." Unfair? Perhaps,
but how do we know,since the selection process is coming from the darkest corners of state government.
As attorney general, Olens ardently opposed both gay marriage and now gender neutral bathrooms.
Hence, the headline.
Given Cobb County's history, try as the chancellor may argue otherwise, important national
constituencies are going to be outraged about the secret meetings aimed at appointing a candidate
who they know will infuriate the LGBTQ community and their allies at Kennesaw State, in Cobb County
and throughout the state and nation.
The nation's largest foundations that support higher education demand respecting diversity
in all its forms. An active foe of gay marriage or transgender neutral bathrooms for KSU president?
Cobb County again? We have better places to put our money. Google, Microsoft, Apple, Nike and
just about every other major corporation may well openly or silently boycott Kennesaw State University.
Plus, the tainted brand name will not exactly be a student resume builder.
Says the reader:
Echoes of Indiana and RFRA.
If we don't keep up with the LGBT agenda, no corporations will
want to do business with us!
And note the fear that we could "infuriate the LGBTQ community
and their allies." If I even mentioned to my academic colleagues that something could upset we
Christians and our allies, I'd probably hear laughter.
We should be hearing Republican politicians, churches, and civic leaders calling this stuff out
for what it is: diversity McCarthyism. Olens may or may not be qualified to run the university, but
what these SJWs are attempting is frightening - or should be. Where does it stop?
Bobby M. Wilson
(bio)
In the era of neoliberalism, human beings are made accountable for their
predicaments or circumstances according to the workings of the market as
opposed to finding faults in larger structural and institutional forces like
racism and economic inequality. The market exchange is an ethic in itself,
capable of acting as a guide for all of human action (
Harvey
2005
). In many ways, the discourse of neoliberalism represents a radical
inversion of the notion of "human agency," as conceived through the
prophetic politics of Martin Luther King. As originally conceived, human
agency focused on people's capability of doing things that can make a
difference, that is, to exercise some sort of power and self-reliance. As a
central concern among many in the social sciences, this concept sought to
expose the power of human beings. Reverend Martin Luther King's prophetic
politics were determinedly "this worldly" and social in their focus. He
encouraged people to direct their attention to matters of social justice
rather than concern for personal well-being or salvation. He believed in the
power of people to make a difference.
But the concept of "justice" has
been reconstructed to fit neoliberal political and economic objectives. This
reconstruction is part of a larger discourse to reconstitute liberalism to
include human conduct. The invisible hand of the market not only allocates
resources but also the conduct of citizens. Economie agency is no longer
just about the market allocation of resources, but the allocation of people
into cultural worlds. This represents a radical inversion of the economic
agent as conceived by the liberalism of Adam Smith. As agents, humans are
implicated as players and partners in the market game. The context in which
individuals define themselves is privatized rather than publicized; the
focus of concerns is on the self rather than the collective. Power operates
internally, not externally, by inducing people to aim for
"self-improvement." The effect has been to negate the "social" in issues of
"justice" or "injustice." Individual subjects are rendered responsible,
shifting the responsibility for social risk (unemployment, poverty, etc.) to
the individual.
Black inner city spaces compete freely within a deregulated global
market. Central cities of large metropolitan areas have become the epicenter
of segregation. In 1988, approximately 55% of black students in the South
attended schools that were 50% to 100% minorities. By 2000, almost 70%
attended such schools. Only 15% of intensely segregated white schools are
schools of concentrated poverty, whereas 88% of the intensely segregated
racial minority schools are schools of concentrated poverty. Fifty years
after the
Brown
decision, we continue to heap more disadvantages on
children in poor communities. The community where a student resides
[End Page 97]
and goes to school is now the best predictor of
whether that student will go to college and succeed after graduation. High
school graduation rates in the South were lowest in the most isolated
black-majority districts-those separated by both race and poverty. Across
the South, we have created public and private systems that encourage the
accumulation of wealth and privilege in mostly white and socially isolated
communities separated by ever greater distances from the increasingly
invisible working poor (
Orfield
and Mei 2004
).
The most fundamental difference between today's segregated black
communities and those of the past is the much higher level of joblessness (
Wilson
1997
). Black unemployment and poverty level consistently remains at
twice the level of the total population. Access to jobs, already
disproportionately tenuous for black workers, has become even more
constricted in the current era of global capital. Without meaningful work,
the impact of racially segregated communities is much more pervasive and
devastating. The vast majority of intensely racial and ethnic segregated
minority places face a growing surplus labor determined to survive by any
means necessary. Two-thirds of the people in prison are now racial and
ethnic minorities. The proportion of young black males who are incarcerated,
on parole, or on probation nationwide continues to reach record levels.
Blacks represent 12.3% of the total population but make up 43.7% of the
incarcerated population. The number of black men in prisons increased from
508,800 in...
"... the point that there's no ethical consumption under capitalism is a good one, repeated often but not often enough, even if in your case it comes in the stale clichéd context of "therefore First-World leftists need to shut up". ..."
"... in still-existing Communist Party regimes like the People's Republic of China, the party cadres are the neoliberal capitalist elites, no political transition required at all. ..."
"... It's George Orwell's final ironic revenge on those who would conscript his Animal Farm into service as a procapitalist propaganda tract: they forget that the final lines aren't just an indictment of the pigs (Communist nomenklatura) for being no better than the men (capitalists) but also of the men for being no better than the pigs. ..."
A side note: there was some conversation above about the interests of an aristocracy, which
of course prompted the idea that the aristocracy is long gone. But meritocracy is a kind of
aristocracy.
This is an interesting observation. BTW other aspect of the same is related to the "Iron law
of oligarchy". Also both aristocracy and meritocracy are just variants of oligarchy. The actual
literal translation from the Greek is the "rule of the few".
At the same time traditional aristocracy is not fixed either and always provided some "meritocratic"
mechanisms for entering its ranks. Look, for example, at British system where prominent scientists
always were awarded lordship. Similar mechanism was used in in many countries where low rank military
officers, who displayed bravery and talent in battles were promoted to nobility and allowed to
hold top military positions. Napoleonic France probably is one good example here.
Neoliberal elite like traditional aristocracy also enjoys the privilege of being above the
law. And like in case of traditional aristocracy the democratic governance is limited to members
of this particular strata. Only they can be viewed as political actors.
USSR nomenklatura is yet another example of the same. It was so close in spirit to neoliberal
elite, that the transition in 1991 was almost seamless.
In other words, vertical mobility can't be completely suppressed without system losing the
social stability and that's was true for classic aristocracy as well as modern neoliberal elite
(actually vertical mobility is somewhat higher in European countries then in the USA; IMHO it
is even higher in the former Eastern block).
Re Will G-R: Your constant references to "liberals" as if they are all hideous, foul, disgusting,
and evil, dripping in blood of the victims of global capitalism's exploitative ways (do you
have a smartphone by the way? [I don't]; do you know who mined its ingredients?) is getting
perhaps a bit, um, repetitive.
If by liberals we would understand neoliberals, this might not be an overstatement. Neoliberals
destroy the notion of social justice and pervert the notion of the "rule of the law". See, for
example, The Neo-Liberal State by Raymond Plant
social justice is incompatible with the rule of law because its demands cannot be embodied
in general and impartial rules; and rights have to be the rights to non-interference rather
than understood in terms of claims to resources because rules against interference can be understood
in general terms whereas rights to resources cannot. There is no such thing as a substantive
common good for the state to pursue and for the law to embody and thus the political pursuit
of something like social justice or a greater sense of solidarity and community lies outside
the rule of law.
But surely, it might be argued, a nomocratic state and its laws have to
acknowledge some set of goals. It cannot be impartial or indifferent to all goals.
Law cannot be pointless. It cannot be totally non-instrumental. It has to facilitate
the achievement of some goals. If this is recognized, it might be argued, it will
modify the sharpness of the distinction between a nomocratic and telocratic state,
between a civil association and an enterprise association.
IMHO for neoliberals social justice and the rule of law is applicable only to Untermensch.
For Ubermensch (aka "creative class") it undermines their individual freedom and thus they need
to be above the law.
To ensure their freedom and cut "unnecessary and undesirable interference" of the society in
their creative activities the role of the state should be limited to safeguarding the free market
as the playground for their "creativity" (note "free" as in "free ride", not "fair")
LFC, the point that there's no ethical consumption under capitalism is a good one, repeated
often but not often enough, even if in your case it comes in the stale clichéd context of "therefore
First-World leftists need to shut up". The point about repetition is particularly ironic,
though, coming in the midst of yet another repetitive liberal circlejerk about Donald Trump blowing
the Gabriel's trumpet of a civilization-destroying neo-Nazi apocalypse.
likbez: "USSR nomenklatura is yet another example of the same. It was so close in spirit to
neoliberal elite, that the transition in 1991 was almost seamless."
One doesn't even have to compare different types of government to grasp this point, when
in still-existing Communist Party regimes like the People's Republic of China, the party cadres
are the neoliberal capitalist elites, no political transition required at all.
It's George Orwell's final ironic revenge on those who would conscript his Animal Farm
into service as a procapitalist propaganda tract: they forget that the final lines aren't
just an indictment of the pigs (Communist nomenklatura) for being no better than the men (capitalists)
but also of the men for being no better than the pigs.
"It's George Orwell's final ironic revenge on those who would conscript his Animal Farm
into service as a procapitalist propaganda tract: they forget that the final lines aren't just
an indictment of the pigs (Communist nomenklatura) for being no better than the men (capitalists)
but also of the men for being no better than the pigs."
It is really interesting to read those comments from march 2016 in October ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... I'm tempted to think that the Liberal Establishment hasn't had the same problem to the same degree because the liberals recognize that Democrats want to do more, but they've been stymied by the Republican refusal to give Obama any wins. ..."
"... Trump is a backlash against the GOP elite, in all its various and sundry forms. Whether Kasich, Jeb, Rubio, Christie, or anyone else -- none of these are acceptable to the disillusioned party base. ..."
"... Much of the angst on the Democratic side isn't against the Democratic establishment per se ..."
"... To Republican supporters of Donald Trump: I understand your anger and rage at the Republican Party's failure to pay sufficient attention to your economic concerns – specifically the consequences of exports of jobs and illegal "imports" of workers. but also issues like wage stagnation. I understand, therefore, when the GOP finally has a candidate who does mention these concerns front and centre, he has an appeal for you lacking in the other candidates. ..."
"... America's wounds are entirely self-inflicted. They include the massively destructive drug war; imperialist adventures that have drained the national wealth, made life less safe, and savaged civil liberties; and an increase of government spending as a percentage of GDP from 7 percent in 1900 to 37 percent today. Almost any economist, left or right, would agree that trade and immigration (legal or not) are net benefits. ..."
"... Conservatives, Republican or not, have failed to defend, much less extend, economic freedom; have supported the growth of government; and have persistently supported militaristic empire. ..."
"... He is the upshot of an ideology whose prominent voices have included Coulter, Savage, Hannity, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly. In politics, you get what you pander to. ..."
"... What you're trying to do is make the "What's the matter with Kansas?" argument a matter of the candidate's approach not the voters' response. But in the final analysis, it amounts to the same thing. ..."
"... James Fallows quotes a data analysis of the vote in Michigan that finds to the analyst's surprise that districts that suffered the greatest loss of manufacturing were NOT the districts that voted predominately for Trump meaning "economic anxiety" does not explain the Trump voting pattern. ..."
"... The number of immigrants and their young children grew six times faster than the nation's total population from 1970 to 2015 - 353 percent vs. 59 percent. ..."
"... This is the single most insidious feature of globalism that the elites of both government parties have imposed upon us, and their plan to replace the historic American nation with a Third World majority is proceeding right on schedule. ..."
"... Joe Biden has run for president a couple of times, and he always stayed in single digits for the simple reason that he always puts his foot in his mouth, way in. ..."
"... "his is the single most insidious feature of globalism that the elites of both government parties have imposed upon us, and their plan to replace the historic American nation with a Third World majority is proceeding right on schedule. ..."
"... And will America be the same with different people in it? If the answer is yes, we should ask for evidence that making it different makes it better. If the answer is no, then we should ask why we are doing this. ..."
"... Obama and most Democrats understood very well the anger of poor whites and they tried desperately to win their votes. And, as is now made plain by so many poor, white Trump supporters, they didn't vote for Obama and other Democratic politicians because they believe those politicians hold them in low esteem or have called them racists. ..."
"... But the pivot to a Mr. trump has far more to do with foreign policy than domestic policy aside from immigration. It was his less than aggressive use of the military. ..."
"... It's obvious to many commentators that working-class Republican voters are voting against their own interests by allowing themselves to be fooled by cultural cues and dog whistles. But the big unreported story is that the same thing is happening in the Democratic primaries as well. Poor Southern Blacks are voting by colossal margins for the Wall Street version of the Democratic Party over the socialist version of the Democratic Party. Why? Because the Wall Street candidate is married to a guy who has all his Southern fried cultural cues and dog whistles working right and the socialist has spent too much of his time among up-tight Yankees in Vermont. ..."
"... Anyone who thinks Conservatives, all three of them in proportion to the rest of the electorate will stay home and let Hillary be elected is in need of oxygen. When it comes to the general election Trump will probably bury Hillary. ..."
"... But let us understand one important thing. Trump is in no way destroying the Republican Party. They will still hold the House, may hang onto the Senate, and will still hold the majority of state governments. That is hardly a party that is being destroyed. In the long run, the Democrats are in far worse shape as that Republican majority in every other branch of government not only means that the Democrats do not have much a farm team for future presidential nominees, (look what they got stuck with this year.) but also it means enough barriers being thrown up in the way of the Democrats voting blocks to keep from even voting at all. ..."
"... "but rich people with poor impulse control are pretty much the last people you want in positions of power." That makes a great tweet, but it's helpful to get beyond abstract generalities. Trump has poor impulse control on his mouth, to be sure, but there's every indication that his impulses will not lead to new wars or "kinetic" military actions in places like North Africa, the Middle East or Ukraine. His impulsiveness has also led him to reveal that he wants to be "neutral" on the Palestinian question. To me, his non-interventionist "impulses," if you will, are extremely important on a purely pragmatic level. ..."
"... Union-busting has done more to undercut and immiserate the working class than mass immigration and "free trade," and union leaders spending millions of dollars on electing Democrats and Republicans (at the state level) have betrayed their membership and the working class. ..."
"... Immigration and trade policies do need to be addressed but rebuilding the unions is the vital step for doing so. ..."
"... "There is not one scrap of statistical evidence – no crime stats, no violent crime stats, NOTHING – that supports Featherstone's outrageous statement that Trump white supporters are "prone to brutality and violence "" ..."
"... The WWC started abandoning the Democratic Party starting with the 1966 mid-term elections. The last Democratic candidate for President to get a majority of the white male vote was LBJ in 1964. ..."
"... The Civil Rights and the Voting Rights Acts were used as wedge issues by the 1968 Nixon campaign. Read all about it in Kevin Phillips' book The Emerging Republican Majority. Phillips helped design the Southern Strategy. Also see Atwater, Lee. ..."
"... The rich have always had a lot of influence in the Republican Party, but under George W. Bush, the wealthy totally took over the party, and the party establishment began to worship at the altars of globalism and tax cuts for the rich. The party could care less about its' Base. The party totally lost the concept of the Common Good, such as we had under Eisenhower and even Nixon. ..."
"... The Base has been faithfully voting Republican in spite of getting very little out of the arrangement, but they are now starting to wake up. The GOP Establishment is going to have to make some changes; they can be for free enterprise, but with some concern for American workers. ..."
"... "Jackson believed that the president's authority was derived from the people and the presidential office was above party politics. Instead of choosing party favorites, Jackson chose 'plain, businessmen' whom he intended to control." ..."
"... This is why Jackson was hated, smeared and maligned, and the same is true of Trump. ..."
"... "In regard to the Petticoat affair, Jackson later remarked, 'I [would] rather have live vermin on my back than the tongue of one of these Washington women on my reputation.'" ..."
"... "If you are a mainstream Republican or Democrat, and aren't trying to understand Trump's appeal (as opposed to simply writing his backers off as racist clods), then you are making a big, big mistake." ..."
"... "That they are white, and crude, and prone to brutality and violence, frequently not very compassionate or empathetic, all-too-often confused by the world, and that their religion is simplistic and mostly idolatrous, all that makes it hard to sympathize with them. (I find it hard.)" ..."
"... "They're angry at Washington and Wall Street, at big corporations and big government. And they're voting now for Donald Trump." Yeah. No doubt. But they are voting for the same clowns for Congress and the Senate. Kentucky might like Trump, but they will keep McConnell. They hate the establishment that they maintain. It's Obama's fault. He's clouded their minds. That's gotta be it. ..."
"... Rod – do you realize how many of Featherstone's words and sentiments could have been applied to Black Lives Matter? In all seriousness, as I was reading him, I kept thinking, "Working Class White Lives Matter." ..."
"... I'm one of those doing quite well, and supporting Mr. Trump's bid for the Presidency. I'm a degreed mathematician doing research and development in cybersecurity, with a growing portfolio of professional publications, and patents pending. I'm a Marine veteran of the Iraq war whose 'eggs aren't too scrambled'. I married woman who went to one of the best schools in the UK and graduated with honors from one of the best universities in the US. I truly believe that my wife, my child, and I will be fine no matter who wins this election. ..."
"... GOP policy wrt to its impact on many working and middle class Americans seems to me to be a classic case of emperors new clothes. ..."
"... This blog has replaced Scott Adams as the go to place for understanding Trump. Adams deservedly got a lot of credit for correctly predicting that Trump would not collapse, but his own repeated assertions that truth doesn't matter in a 3d world are flatly inconsistent with his pretense to just be reporting the facts about Trump. Once one suspects that he's pretending to report the facts while really drumming up support for Trump it becomes clear how one sided is his analysis. Adams' own sophistic views about the primacy of rhetoric and human beings as meat machines don't license any other interpretation. ..."
"... If the news is to be believed, Trump is certainly no friend of the unions, at least in his own business dealings. ..."
"... Trump speaks for a group that has been abandoned and marginalized by the political classes. He is bringing them back into the system and perhaps bringing a little more balance back to domestic politics. I don't think elites change unless they feel threatened, and I hope Trump is threatening enough to the elites, without actually posing the threat a real revolutionary would pose. ..."
"... My knee-jerk position is to support the working people against the rich. But, given the voting patterns of the white working class going back to 1980, and even to 1968, I find myself vacillating between feeling for them and believing that they got what they wanted (and deserved) good and hard. ..."
I'm tempted to think that the Liberal Establishment hasn't had the same problem to the same
degree because the liberals recognize that Democrats want to do more, but they've been stymied
by the Republican refusal to give Obama any wins.
One other interesting thought:
Trump is a backlash against the GOP elite, in all its various and sundry forms. Whether
Kasich, Jeb, Rubio, Christie, or anyone else -- none of these are acceptable to the disillusioned
party base. Nor would Mitt Romney be were he to waltz into the convention and wrest the nomination
away from Crump–his main selling point in 2012 was that he wasn't Barack Obama, and that's not
relevant this time around.
Much of the angst on the Democratic side isn't against the Democratic establishment
per se , but against the specific person of Hillary Rodham Clinton (and a few other specific
Democrats whom the left intensely dislikes, no others of which are running), who has, for reasons
both good and bad, a lot of enemies. Were the 22nd Amendment to not around to prevent
it and Obama to seek a third term, he'd waltz to the nomination. Were Joe Biden to run in her
stead, he'd receive widespread support across the board. Likewise with many other party fixtures
who are highly popular among Democrats (even if reviled outside the party).
I'm just going to repost what I posted on my FB page yesterday:
To Republican supporters of Donald Trump: I understand your anger and rage at the Republican
Party's failure to pay sufficient attention to your economic concerns – specifically the consequences
of exports of jobs and illegal "imports" of workers. but also issues like wage stagnation. I understand,
therefore, when the GOP finally has a candidate who does mention these concerns front and centre,
he has an appeal for you lacking in the other candidates.
America's wounds are entirely self-inflicted. They include the massively destructive drug
war; imperialist adventures that have drained the national wealth, made life less safe, and savaged
civil liberties; and an increase of government spending as a percentage of GDP from 7 percent
in 1900 to 37 percent today. Almost any economist, left or right, would agree that trade and immigration
(legal or not) are net benefits.
Conservatives, Republican or not, have failed to defend, much less extend, economic freedom;
have supported the growth of government; and have persistently supported militaristic empire.
Trump is the predictable result of the nasty and dunderheaded populism toward which conservatives
have been moving for the past 25 years or so. He is the upshot of an ideology whose prominent
voices have included Coulter, Savage, Hannity, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly. In politics, you get what
you pander to.
Trump is winning by scapegoating those who bear no responsibility for America's social and
economic ills. Still even conservatives who consider themselves proximate descendants of the old
right twiddle their thumbs and blow kisses to the ignoramuses who embrace Trumpian populism, rather
than challenging his malignant and foolish prescriptions. If Trump is elected and gets his way,
perhaps the ensuing international economic disaster and war with China will help to clarify conservative
thinking. I doubt it, though, since conservatism's singular distinction is its failure to accomplish
anything that its adherents desire. The failure has been patent for a long time, and succinctly
described by Hayek in 1960.
OK, responding to about a half-dozen different comments:
First, regarding the "information bubble" that some are in, we have this:
Aside from government employment the Clinton admin was a hostile force to their interests.
Actually, the opposite was true. Fed Government employment went down 8 straight years during
Clinton's Admin, and started going up again under Bush. Stereotypes don't equal facts.
There is not one scrap of statistical evidence – no crime stats, no violent crime stats,
NOTHING – that supports Featherstone's outrageous statement that Trump white supporters are
"prone to brutality and violence "
OK, now that's pretty ironic, coming on a day when a 78-yo Trump supporter just got arrested
for sucker-punching a black guy who was getting thrown out of a Trump rally, as others were yelling
f*****g n*****s. (See it at http://bcove.me/w5m1iftz
- where the perpetrator goes on to say he enjoyed doing it and would kill him next time) (And
the day after Trump's own campaign manager Corey Lewandowski accosted a Breitbart reporter). Violence
at Trump rallies is nothing new in 2016. Google it.
One commenter said that entire reason the WWC votes for the GOP is: "Race. That's it. Pure
and simple."
The response from another: "What a load of crap."
I'm going to take a middle ground. I think that the Dems had far better economic policies towards
the WWC than the GOP, but that because of the Dems leaning so far liberal on social issues
, that partially alienated the WWC.
But race was most definitely a part of it. Southern Strategy? Welfare Queen? Lee Atwater? Those
things really happened and we can't wish them away.
Look - being against immigration for economic reasons has some logic. But being harsh about
it also attracts xeonophobes and racists. I don't think Trump is racist, but when he was a bit
slow to respond to the KKK's endorsement of him, I think Trump was trying to figure out a way
not to damage his support among the white nationalistic crowd.
William F. Buckley, we could sure use you now!
The evidence is thick is that despite his election, certain elements in the Republican
Party persisted in presenting Obama as the Other, the treasonous Other.
Indeed. He was a black-Commie-Kenyan who was illegible to be Prez. And note who was a prominent
leader of the so-called "birther movement"? None other than The Donald himself. And the GOP, with
a nod and a wink, didn't protest too much, because they thought it'd be useful in the 2012 elections.
(McCain of all people, bless him, was one of the few prominent GOPers in 2008 who pushed back
on this Otherization.)
"The problem with BLM and the 'racism' narrative is that there is a real demonstrable
problem in that young Black men commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes (for whatever
reason), and you can't come up with good public policy unless you get honest about that fact."
True. But the problem with the pushback against BLM is that there is a real demonstrable problem
that there are a number of racist police who target blacks and abuse their authority - and lie
on official reports about it. (The Ferguson Report was absolutely devastating!) Conservatives
who favor limited government ought to be all over that, no? The main thing that's changed now
is the ubiquity of cell-phone cameras and increasing use of dash-cams, so we all can see, with
our own eyes, what the black community has been complaining about for 150 years.
Dancer Girl, What you're trying to do is make the "What's the matter with Kansas?" argument a matter of
the candidate's approach not the voters' response. But in the final analysis, it amounts to the
same thing.
Assuming (for the sake of argument) that Bernie will get blacks the single-payer health insurance
and free college tuition they've longed for. You're saying that because he didn't approach their
barbershop the right way, they voted against that–not just for themselves, but for their families,
their children, the whole country. That's not any different from saying that W won the election
because white people thought he was the kind of the guy you could have a beer with.
Your response shows that no, there's no way you can spin the "They vote against their best
interest and good policy because of culture" argument in a way that doesn't make them look like
bad voters. You understood that fact, which is why you felt that you had to reply and say, no,
that's not really the case. You felt the need to rebut it. Well, so do white working class voters
when the argument's used against them. Which illustrates why using that argument is not a good
way to win over voters.
And by the way, reality check: winning 30% of the vote of a given demographic in a two way
contest is not promising, not hopeful, not a turning point–not any of the things the Sanders campaign
says it is. It's getting CRUSHED, SHELLACKED, DEFEATED IN A LANDSLIDE–what ever headline phrase
you want to use. The fact that it's being spun as somehow a great new emerging reality of a "Feel
the Bern" moment among African-Americans is testimony to the enduring hold of the myth that the
"What's the matter with Kansas" argument is only relevant for the voting behavior of down-market
whites.
James Fallows quotes a data analysis of the vote in Michigan that finds to the analyst's surprise
that districts that suffered the greatest loss of manufacturing were NOT the districts that voted
predominately for Trump meaning "economic anxiety" does not explain the Trump voting pattern.
"But it always struck me there was some other agenda to the immigration."
The number of immigrants and their young children grew six times faster than the nation's
total population from 1970 to 2015 - 353 percent vs. 59 percent.
This is the single most insidious feature of globalism that the elites of both government
parties have imposed upon us, and their plan to replace the historic American nation with a Third
World majority is proceeding right on schedule.
And will America be the same with different people in it? If the answer is yes, we should ask
for evidence that making it different makes it better. If the answer is no, then we should ask
why we are doing this.
We are, in short, being told to commit suicide. For our children's sake, is both our right
and our duty to refuse.
Were Joe Biden to run in her stead, he'd receive widespread support across the board.
Joe Biden has run for president a couple of times, and he always stayed in single digits
for the simple reason that he always puts his foot in his mouth, way in. I have difficulty
believing he wouldn't do so again. I mean, he did it on the afternoon after the inauguration.
Then there is his propensity to pontificate on what Catholic doctrine really means - just like
dominic1955 does. A political leader in a constitutional republican should simply say "I was elected
to represent the people of Delaware, not my church."
"his is the single most insidious feature of globalism that the elites of both government
parties have imposed upon us, and their plan to replace the historic American nation with a Third
World majority is proceeding right on schedule.
And will America be the same with different people in it? If the answer is yes, we should
ask for evidence that making it different makes it better. If the answer is no, then we should
ask why we are doing this.
We are, in short, being told to commit suicide. For our children's sake, is both our right
and our duty to refuse."
Let's be honest here: there is pretty much 1:1 correlation between people who are concerned
about "replacement " of American people, and people who think Black Americans, here since the
1500s, and some other smaller groups, here since the 1800s, don't belong to the nation you are
trying to "protect." Which is why your tears seem so hollow to outsiders..
The majority of blue collar Trump supporters would have been the direct beneficiaries of Obama's
American Jobs Act. The only reason Boehner and McConnell wouldn't allow that to pass is they knew
that a good economy benefits Obama.
But ironically in allowing these economic inequalities to
fester they made it conducive for Trump's rise. The GOP deserves Trump. He is their reward for
years of crony capitalism, irresponsible government, petty obstruction, and outright nihilism.
And as scared as I am of Trump I look at the electoral map and don't see any possible route for
his victory. Are we really to believe that his vulgar, racist nationalism will move Ohio, Florida,
and Virginia back to the GOP column? Are we really to believe that millions of good conservatives
stayed home in 2012, but that Trump will be the ticket to bring them to the polls in 2016? No.
Trump as GOP nominee all but guarantees President Hillary Clinton. And where will conservatism
go from there? Republican leaders have no one left to lie to. Meep, Meep.
But Ross Perot was that rich guy back in 1992, and he choked. But that was near the beginning
of globalization.
1) Globalization was already here in 1992 and ushered in by the Reagan Revolution and the battle
of the Carter years. Wasn't the boom box in college dorm (or apartment) manufactured in Japan?
Michael Moore first big movie "Roger and Me " was released in 1989. (And centered around Flint,
MI)
2) How did Perot choke? He got 19% against a (now respected) incumbent and the 'Elvis' of politicians.
Yes he made some errors but that was one heck of run for a third party.
RD: If you are a mainstream Republican or Democrat, and aren't trying to understand Trump's
appeal (as opposed to simply writing his backers off as racist clods), then you are making a big,
big mistake.
I suspect most mainstream Democrats already understand Trump's appeal. Obama explained this
very plainly eight years ago in a speech in which he referenced these voters' bitterness and their
clinging to guns and religion. He took a lot of heat from Republicans for that speech, but it's
very hard to read that speech and disagree with it.
Obama and most Democrats understood very well the anger of poor whites and they tried desperately
to win their votes. And, as is now made plain by so many poor, white Trump supporters, they didn't
vote for Obama and other Democratic politicians because they believe those politicians hold them
in low esteem or have called them racists. That is the running theme in all of these sympathetic
posts about Trump supporters. It's a lazy cheap shot because it is never corroborated by
any example of a Democratic politician ever actually doing this or anything remotely like it.
It's just an ineffectual way to avoid responsibility for the consequences of one's actions.
These people don't vote for Democratic politicians because they don't like the other people
who vote for Democratic politicians. They do not use their votes to pursue policies that improve
their own conditions. Instead, they use their votes as a weapon against people with whom they
have a grievance.
As Charles Featherstone said: Trump is poking all of the right people in the eyes for all
the right reasons. Over and over we hear commenters on this very blog express some desire
to stick it to SJWs, elites, coastal elites and others who they dislike. Well, there is a cost
for using your vote as an expression of resentment instead of a tool for implementing good policy.
The obvious cost is that you will be harmed by the policies of the Republican politicians you
vote for.
Another, less obvious cost is that other people will think you are backward or less intelligent,
for why else would you pursue policies that clearly harm you just so you can express dislike for
someone else? That's really not anyone else's fault. More importantly, it's not at all clear how
Democrats could change this and still help their current supporters.
First the Republican party is not in a state of free fall. Just because the people shut out since
Pres. Reagan took office as the party shifted toward an interested and wealthier class doesn't
mean those people have not been around. Yesterday I got my voter notice. It said I was unaffiliated.
A battle I go through ever election cycle. And I was prepared to go through it again until I read
this morning that Mr. trump is back peddling on immigration.
We aren't even in the general and he is already tiptoeing through the tulips. I hope it's not
true. Not only is the Republican Party not in disarray, it is in a position to flex some conservative
muscle if they stand to course. That is unless Mr. trump turns out to be a liberal in disguise
all along and that may be.
I don't get my dignity veracity, faith integrity from the political party. I am associated
with the Republican party because they reflect a healthy dose of what I believe. Perhaps a lot
less. Upon examination, it's hard to think of anything the party represents that I consider vital
conservative thought.
I guess if you want to call my loyalty to country bigotry that's your call. I know Mr. trump
will not be calling for a national day of celibacy, prayer, etc. I don't expect him to. I expect
him to govern and I expect him to govern with some sense of understanding one cannot raise taxes
and without a good dose of history that whatever they are being raised for is most likely unnecessary
for anything aside from pandering to some emotional call.
He still as to deal with a connected establishment Congress.
But the pivot to a Mr. trump has far more to do with foreign policy than domestic policy
aside from immigration. It was his less than aggressive use of the military.
Mr. Trump is not going to turn the country into a Hugo Chavez haven of halting corruption.
These kinds of hyperbolic refections of Republican party eulogies are not unknown in history and
thus far they have proved wrong. The Party may shift hopefully more rightward than left. Hopefully
it will shift more country orientation. But make no mistake, Mr Trump will not have been the cause
of any decay. He will be the benefactor of a decay the levin of which has gone unchecked for quite
a long time.
Another thought provoked by Dancer Girl's comments:
"I just wish [Trump voters]'d leave him behind and rally around Bernie Sanders."
Well it would be nice if poor Southern Blacks would do the same.
It's obvious to many commentators that working-class Republican voters are voting against
their own interests by allowing themselves to be fooled by cultural cues and dog whistles. But
the big unreported story is that the same thing is happening in the Democratic primaries as well.
Poor Southern Blacks are voting by colossal margins for the Wall Street version of the Democratic
Party over the socialist version of the Democratic Party. Why? Because the Wall Street candidate
is married to a guy who has all his Southern fried cultural cues and dog whistles working right
and the socialist has spent too much of his time among up-tight Yankees in Vermont.
Just one more way in which salt of the earth Blacks and Whites aren't all that different and
are, in everything except tribal allegiance, getting more similar all the time. Both put racial
honor and dignity over economic self-interest, and for a technocratic, policy-oriented politics
aiming to just make lives better, that's a real problem.
To the liberals and progressives who still dismiss the travails of the white working class,
you only reinforce their alienation and disdain for you.
I have, throughout my adult life, supported economic policies that directly or indirectly benefitted
the working class (white or otherwise) to my own economic detriment. You name the policy – unionization,
higher minimum wages, public health insurance, strong and well-funded public education at all
levels, better public transport, mixed-income housing, consumer protection for financial services,
etc. etc. – I have either advocated or in fact implemented it. I have done so in most instances
in direct contradiction to my own economic interests, because I thought it was the right thing
to do. I have even argued against affirmative action, in recognition of the resentments it creates,
even as I see "hockey/baseball/football/church choir-club affirmative action" all around me. Grin
and bear it; old habits take long to die.
Now, the same people I have been trying to help, called me a "parasite" because I was in the
public sector, "blood-sucker" because I was a lawyer, and a couple of unmentionables because I'm
gay and slightly tanned.
So, please, spare me the "dismiss and be disdained" business: I never dismissed but more often
than not got disdain just because. I wish I had in me to say they deserve their lot, and they
will deserve the eventual betrayal by Trump, but I don't. I'm still a good little liberal, disturbed
by all of this to be sure, but nevertheless hopeful that I can make a difference – for them (I
don't need any help).
Andrew Jackson:
They were "America is still racist." And they set out to prove it. Now we feel more bitterly
divided then ever. I could go into more detail, about the issues involved, but it's just frustrating
to me, and the stuff I quoted above is ready made excuse that is not true to my experience.
When Obama became president, Republican leaders set out to make him a one-term president, not
by offering better solutions, but by making sure he would achieve nothing. The first black president.
And when the birther nonsense continued, Republican leaders did nothing to stop it – as late as
2012, Romney was making light of his birthplace. The first black president. Even as they attack
him for following Wright, a protestant pastor, he was accused of being a secret Muslim. And Republican
leaders did little to combat this calumny.
The evidence is thick is that despite his election, certain elements in the Republican Party
persisted in presenting Obama as the Other, the treasonous Other. Some of it was because he was
a Democrat. But if you are suggesting that racism has had nothing to with what Obama has gone
through, well, we just have to disagree.
Anyone who thinks Conservatives, all three of them in proportion to the rest of the electorate
will stay home and let Hillary be elected is in need of oxygen. When it comes to the general election
Trump will probably bury Hillary.
I want to see how he will work with Congress. We know Congress won't have anything to do with
Hillary and the House will vote to impeach her the first chance it gets, possibly the day after
the inauguration. A vote for Hillary is, at the very least, a vote for four years of absolute
gridlock and virtual civil war in DC. Bernie might actually get some of his less radical ideas
through simply because everyone likes him and for all of his nuttiness does seem to actually care
about the American people before he cares about the sacred policy.
But let us understand one important thing. Trump is in no way destroying the Republican
Party. They will still hold the House, may hang onto the Senate, and will still hold the majority
of state governments. That is hardly a party that is being destroyed. In the long run, the Democrats
are in far worse shape as that Republican majority in every other branch of government not only
means that the Democrats do not have much a farm team for future presidential nominees, (look
what they got stuck with this year.) but also it means enough barriers being thrown up in the
way of the Democrats voting blocks to keep from even voting at all.
"but rich people with poor impulse control are pretty much the last people you want in positions
of power." That makes a great tweet, but it's helpful to get beyond abstract generalities. Trump
has poor impulse control on his mouth, to be sure, but there's every indication that his impulses
will not lead to new wars or "kinetic" military actions in places like North Africa, the Middle
East or Ukraine. His impulsiveness has also led him to reveal that he wants to be "neutral" on
the Palestinian question. To me, his non-interventionist "impulses," if you will, are extremely
important on a purely pragmatic level.
An earlier comment I thought I had posted seems to have vanished (maybe I failed to hit "send"
before leaving for the office )
But +1 to those who compare the plight of working-class whites to African-Americans. Both groups
have subcultures who engage in self-destructive behaviors and take perverse pride in doing so.
Yet, it seems, around here–one of these groups are yeoman folk suffering at the hands of working-class
elites who look down at them, but the other are simply thugs and layabouts. Around here, one culture
is met with sympathy, and the other with scorn. One are the victims of circumstances, the other
are the architects of their own misery.
But of course, this goes way beyond racial politics. Many conservatives lionize the late Margaret
Thatcher, who is often held to have "saved Britain". Saved it from what exactly–the Russians or
the Germans or the French or the Spanish or the Normans or the Vikings or the Romans? No–she is
held to have saved Britain from its own people–specifically unionized miners who had, according
to the retelling, captured an excessive share of the country's wealth. Perhaps they had–truly
answering that question requires either getting into nasty questions of comparable worth, or abandoning
the whole question to the market–but in doing so, she smashed many of Britain's institutions and
communities to bits.
And around here–many of the people who seem outraged at the decline of factory work in rural
communities; were openly cheering the demise of Detroit (and often still are). Many people who
lament the outsourcing of good-paying American jobs, and the devastation of many communities that
result–hate and resent their local schoolteachers or bus drivers who still do have good
jobs with good pay. Granted, public employees have their paychecks financed by the taxpayer, so
the general public is in the position of "management"–but still, the point stands: Some people
expect aid and sympathy when they hit hard times, but have responded to the please of others in
similar circumstances with shame and judgment.
Given that we bailed out Detroit, of course we should help struggling small towns. But we should
help all struggling communities best we can, not only those with particular demographics,
leaving the rest to fester. No demographic in the United States is uniquely noble and uniquely
deserving of public support. To the extent that WCWs believe that they are more noble, more industrious,
more patriotic, and more virtuous than the rest of us–sorry, you're not. (But nor, on the whole,
are you any worse).
Union-busting has done more to undercut and immiserate the working class than mass immigration
and "free trade," and union leaders spending millions of dollars on electing Democrats and Republicans
(at the state level) have betrayed their membership and the working class.
Immigration and trade policies do need to be addressed but rebuilding the unions is the
vital step for doing so. Unfortunately, I don't see the latter happening absent the development
of a tough, theoretically vibrant revolutionary socialist movement, which is my only concession
to the pessimism (or cynicism?) of Walter F.
Jim the First:
"if you're talking about parochial schools in the Catholic sense – they integrated before Brown
v. Board for the most part. If you're talking about parochial schools in the non-Catholic sense,
there just aren't enough of them to matter very much."
Now that all depends on exactly where you are. In the flatter South, protestant or non-denominational
Christian Academies are more important. I can't speak to other northern areas, but around here,
the Catholic Schools are why the city is 50/50 black and white, and the public schools are 80%
black.
"There is not one scrap of statistical evidence – no crime stats, no violent crime stats,
NOTHING – that supports Featherstone's outrageous statement that Trump white supporters are "prone
to brutality and violence ""
I think he's saying white trashy people he's had experience with are like that, not Trump supporters
by and large.
He's right to some degree. I don't see my fellow white collar folks getting drunk of Steel
Reserve and having to have the cops come in an break up a "domestic dispute".
Jim the First- The WWC started abandoning the Democratic Party starting with the 1966 mid-term elections.
The last Democratic candidate for President to get a majority of the white male vote was LBJ in
1964.
The Civil Rights and the Voting Rights Acts were used as wedge issues by the 1968 Nixon
campaign. Read all about it in Kevin Phillips' book The Emerging Republican Majority. Phillips
helped design the Southern Strategy. Also see Atwater, Lee.
True, it wasn't all race. Hippies and peaceniks were associated with the Democrats. Acid, amnesty,
and abortion had a lot to do with it too.
But race was the first big crack in the edifice of the New Deal coalition.
"The point is that Charles has been beat up pretty bad by life. It's still happening. He's
a middle-aged white guy struggling for work, struggling to find solid ground."
"They lost their influence, their dignity and their shot at the American Dream, and now they're
angry. They're angry at Washington and Wall Street, at big corporations and big government. And
they're voting now for Donald Trump."
"But I get why people less secure economically than I am don't care, and are for him anyway."
Plus this:
"Point is, Trump is drawing from all demographic groups."
The point is, this last observation invalidates your entire post. If Trump is drawing from
all demographic groups, then his success isn't explained by anecdotes about poor, economically
dispossessed people.
The rich have always had a lot of influence in the Republican Party, but under George W. Bush,
the wealthy totally took over the party, and the party establishment began to worship at the altars
of globalism and tax cuts for the rich. The party could care less about its' Base. The party totally
lost the concept of the Common Good, such as we had under Eisenhower and even Nixon.
The Base has been faithfully voting Republican in spite of getting very little out of the
arrangement, but they are now starting to wake up. The GOP Establishment is going to have to make
some changes; they can be for free enterprise, but with some concern for American workers.
On top of it all, the demographics of the US are changing and whites are shrinking as a percentage
of the electorate. The GOP cannot be a whites only party. Having written off African-Americans,
they are now writing off Hispanics. Unless the GOP makes some fundamental changes, they will not
win another national election.
" But the people he motivated, and who voted for him, they aren't going away - and neither
are their problems and concerns. "
This is why I see it as the American Spring.
Granted it doesn't have the massive numbers of protesters that the countries where "Springs"
have been claimed before have had. America is not yet anywhere approaching the levels of poverty
and other problems that those countries have, and there is still some of the illusion of democracy
left in its oligarchic politics. And America doesn't have a far richer superpower interfering
and aggressively promoting, with seemingly unlimited wealth and power, its own political culture
as the potential solution to all the ills of the people in the target country, and deliberately
holding out the hope of superpower military intervention on behalf of the protesters if they just
cause enough trouble for long enough.
But still, the Trump candidacy seemingly has triggered something that won't just go away when
Trump goes away (unless another anaesthetising period of economic growth cones along to postpone
things for a while). It will merely develop along different lines according to how Trump is treated
and how far he gets.
As productivity climbed, working-class Americans wanted their wages to rise also. Instead,
Republicans gave them tax cuts for the rich while liberal Democrats called them racists and
bigots.
Who voted the Republicans into power? We know it wasn't African-Americans (80+% of them vote
Democratic), nor was it Latinos, nor Hispanics, nor Asians(not enough of them) nor was it wealthy
people (again not enough of them). So all that left is White people (aka Real Americans™) and
as we all know the vast majority of White Americans are working and middle class. So basically
the White Working and Middle classes voted for the policies that screwed them, the only question
left to answer is why. Where they to lazy and stupid to read the
Republican Platform ? or was it something
else?
I have very limited sympathy for the the White Working and Middle classes, particularly the
Southern ones, they got what they voted for. A little less blaming of liberals & democrats and
a whole lot of self-awareness would do wonders.
You have been over-analyzing the Trump phenomenon and the psyche of the white working class these
last few weeks. You make it sound as if they are some poor oppressed class whose life's are miserable.
I am one of them. I am from them through and through and my life isn't too bad. I'm quite blessed
actually.
Do I have the opportunities that my grandfather who worked at a Ford factory without a high
school diploma, and retired in his early 50's? Or my dad who was able to buy a home on a grocery
store stock boy's wage? No. But I have a safe and warm place to live, a job, a beautiful family,
and my heart is not full of hatred.
You don't seem to give as much time looking into the hearts and souls of poor black folks or
undocumented workers and their struggles. Maybe their struggles aren't noble enough for you attention
and obsessive mulling over. But, let me tell you, they have plenty of legit complaints that go
way beyond "Boohoo! I don't have very much savings!"
"Nobody has ever seen a thing like this in American politics."
You need to revise this statement to say, "in post WWII American television politics." If you
study the history of the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian eras, you will find many examples that resemble
today. I think we over sentimentalize past American politics. Trump very much resembles the politics
and attitude of Jacksonian era America. Just take a look at the back and forth between the campaigners
of John Quincy Adams and the General:
"Jackson blamed the death of his wife, Rachel, which occurred just after the election, on the
Adams campaigners who called her a 'bigamist.'"
Here is another take on Jackson that sounds a lot like Trump:
"Jackson believed that the president's authority was derived from the people and the presidential
office was above party politics. Instead of choosing party favorites, Jackson chose 'plain, businessmen'
whom he intended to control."
This is why Jackson was hated, smeared and maligned, and the same is true of Trump.
And if you think the tabloid gossip going on today is oh so shocking, check out the Petticoat
Affair of 1830:
"In regard to the Petticoat affair, Jackson later remarked, 'I [would] rather have live
vermin on my back than the tongue of one of these Washington women on my reputation.'"
[NFR: I meant "nobody alive has seen a thing like this". - RD]
"Trump may be denied the GOP nomination, in the end, and he probably won't be elected president.
But the people he motivated, and who voted for him, they aren't going away - and neither are their
problems and concerns.
"Who will speak for them then?"
Vox Day points out that if the GOPe denies the nationalists with Trump, then later we will
get something much worse, the ultra-nationalists.
"If you are a mainstream Republican or Democrat, and aren't trying to understand Trump's appeal
(as opposed to simply writing his backers off as racist clods), then you are making a big, big
mistake."
I agree with you – and go further: writing any voter off as a racist clod, or any clod, is
idiotic.
But clod or not, a certain segment of the American population has been – for lack of a better
term – "alienated", for political purposes, by the fear and envy of the Other. It began with Reagan's
infamous Welfare Queen speech in Mississippi, thus – and instantly – turning social welfare programs
into a question of race. Liberals/progressives/Democrats have never been able to escape that –
and they could exorcise the issue in electoral terms only by Bill Clinton's sharp tack to the
right. Be that as it may, the gambit worked: the Democrats became known not only as the party
of tax and spend, but also the party of Special Interests (of the rainbow variety), and the programs
supported by Democrats became programs of the Other, to be challenged and dismantled, even if
they benefited the white working class – the segment of the population Reagan cut off of the Democratic
coalition.
Then came the election of 2008, and suddenly the Other was in the White House. The Trumpkins
want to "Take American Back" because they have been told that the Kenyan Socialist Muslim stole
their country. The evidence for that is scant, non-existent, but no matter. Republican leaders
have been screaming from the rooftops not just that the President of the United States should
be replaced in the next election, which is a normal thing to say, but that, in effect, he and
his administration are illegitimate; what he proposes is un-American; he is committing treason
merely by being in Office.
Any wonder then that the most vulnerable segment of the Republican base, subjected to thirty
years of fear on the one hand and sustained economic attacks (mostly by their own side) on the
other, then turn to one who promises deliverance?
"If you are a mainstream Republican or Democrat, and aren't trying to understand Trump's appeal
(as opposed to simply writing his backers off as racist clods), then you are making a big, big
mistake."
I don't disagree. But why? *Why* would people (a) not try to understand and (b) write his backers
off? And to be honest, I think that is exactly what they are doing. And that might be the more
important story in this whole mess. We have reached a point where our cultural elites despise
the masses.
Re: Charles Featherstone, "That they are white, and crude, and prone to brutality and violence,
frequently not very compassionate or empathetic, all-too-often confused by the world, and that
their religion is simplistic and mostly idolatrous, all that makes it hard to sympathize with
them. (I find it hard.)"
Replace "white" with "black" or "hispanic" and see how far that observation travels. Featherstone
should be writing for the "poor, uneducated and easy to command" Washington Post. His selective
stereotypical misanthropy would fit right in.
Good thing Featherstone has his lovely immigrant friends to talk to. God help him if he actually
had to cavort with the repulsive white riff-raff.
"They're angry at Washington and Wall Street, at big corporations and big government. And
they're voting now for Donald Trump." Yeah. No doubt. But they are voting for the same clowns
for Congress and the Senate. Kentucky might like Trump, but they will keep McConnell. They hate
the establishment that they maintain. It's Obama's fault. He's clouded their minds. That's gotta
be it.
Rod – do you realize how many of Featherstone's words and sentiments could have been applied
to Black Lives Matter? In all seriousness, as I was reading him, I kept thinking, "Working Class
White Lives Matter."
It's frustrating that so many people will hear and connect, emotionally, with what he is saying,
while dimissing many of the same ideas when they are put forth in the African-American context.
It's like they are saying white people are hard-working, screwed over folks who may appropriately
advance this argument, but black people are whiny, criminally-inclined ingrates who should not.
I am genuinely struck by the way the core of his message speaks to the alienation, lack of
faith, lack of trust, and real fear that spurred the rise of BLM. His words, however, will probably
be met largely with compassion, while the movement's words will be dismissed, will be met with
the assertion that the problem of police abusing authority is not as bad as they say it is, or
will be met with the deflection to a morally and politically distinct issue - so-called "black-on-black"
crime.
To be clear, my thoughts about BLM, described above, are particularly troubling in the age of
Trump. I'm noodling over a bunch of things right now, but one big concern I have is the seeming
fragility of a multicultural nation. It feels like we are splintering; the competition for dignity,
if you will, is becoming more intense because we are increasingly persuaded that it exists in
finite supply; and that desire for dignity among Trump supporters is manifesting as shameless
bigotry or willful blindness to it in pursuit of transformative ends.
I get – and hear – the claims of despair that many Trump backers articulate. I just wish they'd
leave him behind and rally around Bernie Sanders. He is, in so many ways, the flipside of Trump.
I'm one of those doing quite well, and supporting Mr. Trump's bid for the Presidency. I'm
a degreed mathematician doing research and development in cybersecurity, with a growing portfolio
of professional publications, and patents pending. I'm a Marine veteran of the Iraq war whose
'eggs aren't too scrambled'. I married woman who went to one of the best schools in the UK and
graduated with honors from one of the best universities in the US. I truly believe that my wife,
my child, and I will be fine no matter who wins this election.
But I'm cheering Mr. Trump and planning on voting for him.
I come from a medium-sized city in Virginia that has hitched its wagon to the fortunes of the
major state university there, as well as the two private colleges in the area. (One of which was
briefly mentioned on this blog in the past year.) My hometown is historically a pretty rural area,
but that's changing.
As a case study, I would point you to our local poultry plant. It used to be the case that
this plant provided good jobs to a lot of the locals who weren't college material, but now you'd
be hard pressed to find many people who grew up in the county working there. You'd be hard pressed
to find more than 15% or so of the workforce fluent in the English Language. The local workforce
was replaced by cheaper immigrant labor.
While this has happened, my hometown has become a major drug smuggling point in the East Coast.
One of my childhood friends got caught up in the synthetic drug trade and is serving a 30-odd
year sentence. There are gangs - Gangster Disciples, SUR 13 I believe I remember hearing about
Bloods in the area. This is not the happy, little rural college town that I remember from my childhood.
(And I do recognize that it may never have been the town of my childhood memories, but what it
has become is NOT an improvement.)
I also LOVE that Mr. Trump is standing up to the blatant dishonesty of political correctness.
(But the PC rant is another topic that I haven't time for this morning.)
Why am I supporting Mr. Trump? My close circle might well benefit a little bit more with another
candidate, but I maintain a memory and fondness of the place that I came from and the people there.
I'd like to see their world built back up, or at least to see its eroding and creative destruction
ceased. Will Mr. Trump accomplish this? I don't know. He is pretty plainly stating that there's
a problem, diagnosing it reasonably well, and claiming that he can do something about it. That's
something. It's more than the lip service that we hear from the other candidates. Mr. Trump is a
deeply flawed candidate and man, but beggars can't be choosers.
GOP policy wrt to its impact on many working and middle class Americans seems to me to be
a classic case of emperors new clothes. It's kind of surprising that it took so long for
so many to see that it's naked. I wonder, if we hadn't had a decade or so of amped up patriotism
from foreign wars whether it would have taken so long.
Rod, at what point do we need to stop merely trying to understand Trump supporters and start trying
to stop them? All due respect, there's nothing about their support for him I don't understand.
I understand them thoroughly. At the end of the day, they support a man who is now a monstrous
demagogue and who would be a monstrous tyrant. I empathize with Charles Featherstone, who lucidly
recognizes his attraction to Trump as envy. But he's also lucid enough not to vote for the guy.
Look, I get not want to bolt over to Hilary Clinton. I also get being irate at the GOP and
not wanting to vote for any of them in the general election. I would even get not voting in the
primary, since virtually everyone except Rand Paul who is not Trump ran on some variation of the
policies that got people mad at the party in the first place. (And Paul's economic ideas are less
than feasible at this point in our history.) None of that is a good reason to vote for
Trump. If the country really is in decline, Trump is the person who would leave it a smoking crater
at the end of four years. Voting for him is madness. Yes, an "understandable" madness,
but madness nonetheless.
So. I've heard the sob stories. I've heard the litany of betrayals. I've heard the indictments
of the GOP's bad faith. I swear to you that I get it. None of that is sufficient, in my
book, to protect Trumpkins from the fundamentally true criticism that they are knowingly supporting
a racist, xenophobic, misogynist, ignorant bully who encourages violence at his rallies and openly
brags about abusing the system to make himself richer (and, by logical extension, to make the
rest of us poorer). If the Trumpkins get that, and they don't care, what do we do, Rod? I mean,
it's all well and good to give these people space to air their grievances and disappointments,
but from where I sit, they are one hundred percent committed to the wholesale decimation of what
precious little respect, civility, and coherent policy debate still remains in national politics.
Doesn't this merit a vigorous, sustained rebuttal or denunciation?
This is important, because Donald Trump is not "single-handedly destroying the Republican
Party." He's doing it with the hands of every single person who has voted for him, and who has
pledged to support his candidacy, however much longer that lasts. And if, God forbid, Trump actually
makes it to the White House, he will not be "single-handedly" destroying the United States of
America. He will do it with the help of every single one of the people who voted for him. I've
no love for the Republican Party. They certainly, as they say, had this coming. But Trump is a
menace to more than the GOP, and there are ways to weaken and destroy a political party that don't
involve running a crypto-fascist as a viable primary candidate.
At what point, Rod, do his voters start sharing culpability for every racist, misogynist, xenophobic,
ignorant thing he says and every act of violence he encourages? Because your posts have made it
very clear that they know exactly what kind of person he is. They're supporting him anyway. Which
means that they are knowingly supporting all the evil crap that goes along with it. People of
good conscience don't support that kind of stuff. As I said at the outset, I totally get refusing
to vote Republican or Democrat. I get why people are angry. I get why, in theory, they want to
vote for someone who will dismantle the status quo. And while I do totally understand why people
vote for Trump, a huge part of that understanding is the knowledge that every single one of these
people has endorsed, with eyes wide open and their consciences apparently clear, everything diabolical
about his campaign as well.
How much time are you going to spend trying to understand that ?
Then why don't these poor desperate people vote for Bernie? Bernie Sanders has spent his whole
life championing the poor and working class and his whole campaign is built around it. You want
to ignore the racial aspects then fine. But don't pretend they don't exist. Maybe it is not even
race as such. More class or clan solidarity. However, understanding the Trump voter and their
general malaise does not detract that Trump is a dangerous demagogue who will ruin this country
in the unlikely event he is elected.
As productivity climbed, working-class Americans wanted their wages to rise also. Instead,
Republicans gave them tax cuts for the rich while liberal Democrats called them racists and bigots.
Mick, above, asks the question that I have:
When did Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakais call white working class people
bigots?
That's a question worth pondering, imho.
icarusr, above, notes:
It began with Reagan's infamous Welfare Queen speech in Mississippi, thus – and instantly
– turning social welfare programs into a question of race.
Bingo. (Although, I would suggest that it's roots go back to Nixon's "Southern Strategy", and
then to Lee Atwater's famous confession).
Some of the dog-whistling is loud and clear (to be clear: I'm not accusing the GOP leaders
of being racists - I'm accusing some of them of demagoguery).
So when Dems see poor working class folks voting for officials that reject raising the minimum
wage (see Arkansas, where they simultaneously voted to increase, and voted for officials who were
against it), or promise to dismantle their state's version of Obamacare even though they love
the program (see, e.g., Kentucky), Dems can't help wonder if the opposition to these programs
- against their own interests - is based on the dog-whistle attacks concocted by the spiritual
descendants of Atwater. These consultants tap into the fear expressed, or rather stoke the anger
expressed by the idea "when I need government assistance, it's because I'm down on my luck, but
I still work hard - when that black guy down the street applies for government assistance, it's
because he's a lazy good-for-nothing."
Which, really, is just a more crass way of saying "Welfare Queen!"
Rod said: "And now Trump. I think back to watching his Mobile rally - August 21 [actually 25],
2015 - on TV, the first time I had seen an entire Trump campaign speech. Thirty thousand people
came out to hear him. And the speech was ridiculous - a rambling mess. I snorted that anybody
would be taken in by this nonsense. I didn't care for any of his competitors either, but at least
they gave coherent speeches. This guy? Clown."
"Ridiculous nonsense"? Rod, you don't hear Trump speeches the way that Middle America hears
him – the way that working America hears him.
This is the link to the first of a 10-part transcript of Trump's Mobile speech and it's worth
skimming through quickly, Rod, with the advantage of 6 months worth of hindsight. The Trump Mobile
speech is a MASTERPIECE. Listening to it, I remember thinking: "Trump understands. Trump tells
it like it is. Trump's the one!"
This blog has replaced Scott Adams as the go to place for understanding Trump. Adams deservedly
got a lot of credit for correctly predicting that Trump would not collapse, but his own repeated
assertions that truth doesn't matter in a 3d world are flatly inconsistent with his pretense to
just be reporting the facts about Trump. Once one suspects that he's pretending to report the
facts while really drumming up support for Trump it becomes clear how one sided is his analysis.
Adams' own sophistic views about the primacy of rhetoric and human beings as meat machines don't
license any other interpretation.
I think the moral center of this blog almost* always gives Rod a vastly greater appreciation
of why people of good will believe and desire what they do, even when Rod disagrees. This is a
general virtue of the blog, but it is really manifest in the coverage of Trump.
The tragic sense of life, and the related appreciation for the necessity of tragic tradeoffs
in human affairs, that informs true and worthwhile conservatism also proves (at least when leavened
by love) to be conducive to understanding as well.
I also think that Rod's analysis of these issues is getting out. I was talking to my father
on the phone last night and asked him what he thought of Trump, and while he would never vote
for Trump he said that it seemed to him that lots of people were very angry because the policies
of the Republican party didn't answer to their pressing problems or concerns. If my father is
understanding things this way, then I do think there is a real possibility of a paleoconservative
moment coming out of the crack up of the Republican party's horrible Frankenstein melange of libertarian
economics, neo-conservative foreign policy, and theocratic statism on drugs and gender, all sewn
together with the kind of rent-seeking corruption under the guise of "privatization" and "economic
development" that has now brought several states (including the gret stet where Rod and I reside)
to their knees.
Trump is scary, but I think a correct understanding of Trump points the way towards a better
muddling through, which (as all paleocons will agree) is the best we can or should hope for this
side of Heaven.
[*Rare exceptions where I think Rod's moral imagination sometimes doesn't extend in this way-
(1) evidence of coming to grips with the utter hell that many gay and transgender kids go through
(especially in conservative Christian households where the suicide and homelessness rate of the
gay kids is immense) and what biology now tells us about gender and sex, and (2) the intellectual
foundations of the Protestant Reformation (e.g. rejecting Aquinas in favor of Augustine) and how
that ties to liberal Protestants' sincere understanding of Christianity.]
I cannot buy this economic argument for support of Trump. Why no mention of Sanders, who is the
only anti-free trade candidate running. Trump *says* he is opposed to free trade, but he is obviously
lying. Historically who spoke for the white working class? Labor. And who was allied with Labor
in the late 19th and early 20th century? The old Socialists, of whom Sanders is the only one left
who holds any power.
The Republicans have always been the party of the capitalist elites and the Whigs before then
too. You can never get any support of working class white people from capitalists, they have completely
opposing interests.
[NFR: Because Bernie Sanders is a cultural leftist who supports generous immigration policies.
- RD]
Charles Featherstone "But you leave people behind at your peril. You can tell them to "lie down
and die," and some will. But many won't.
And if there are enough of them, well "
Well, *what*? I keep seeing these vague statements about how the white working class can only
be "pushed so far", and that their anger must be addressed "or else". Or else what? I ask. They'll
throw their votes away on an unacceptable candidate like Trump who cannot be allowed to take office
(and thereby ensure Mrs. Clinton's election; yeah, that's *really* sticking it to us on the left),
or some other futile, impotent tantrum. These are hollow threats.
Rod "But the people he motivated, and who voted for him, they aren't going away - and neither
are their problems and concerns."
Actually, long-term demographic, economic and cultural trends mean that they *are* going away,
albeit rather slowly. But, in the meantime, they can and will be increasingly contained. Read
Cowen's "Average is Over" for how he predicts modern technologies, including electronic entertainment,
robotic drones, machine surveillance, and psychiatric medications will likely prevent any rebellions.
Or read David Brin's "The Transparent Society" (see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society
), about the increasing ubiquity of inescapable surveillance and "sousveillance". Add mass
communication, information abundance, improvements and automation in marketing. And consider social
media, with "Facebook felons" and Twitter "shadowbans". Or the return of Peeple, and the example
set by China's "Sesame Credit". We're all watching one another, compiling and sharing data on
one another. We have facial recognition software that is not only as good or better than human
beings, but computers are already learning to recognize people's emotions from their facial expressions.
Financial transactions are moving ever more away from hard-to-trace cash in favor of readily monitorable
electronic transactions.
Thus, any tantrums by the Trumpenproles that become disruptive will be swiftly and forcefully
crushed. So, ultimately, what can they do, except "lie down and die"?
@Mick, you're right, and I assume your critique cuts both sides of the aisle, right? How do "modern"
Democrats, beholden as they are to Wall Street and SV, still stand up for the trade unions? The
unions, I suspect, vote Democrat for the same reason most Republicans still vote Republican: what
other choice to do they have?
If the news is to be believed, Trump is certainly no friend of the unions, at least in
his own business dealings.
Perot might have won too, had he not withdrawn from the race and got back in. I will never forget
the surreal feeling of going to Air Force basic training in 1992 and entering a news-free bubble
for six weeks, and then emerging to find that Ross Perot was leading the polls in the three-way
race! I think he would have won had he just stayed the course, but he looked erratic when he dropped
out.
I have to say that it is re-assuring to me that Trump is basically a demagogue, promising a
chicken in every pot and every man a king, yet probably not going to deliver. The alternative
to demagogue in this situation is a Vladimir Lenin, and you could imagine what a Lenin would do
with the Trump support.
Trump speaks for a group that has been abandoned and marginalized by the political classes.
He is bringing them back into the system and perhaps bringing a little more balance back to domestic
politics. I don't think elites change unless they feel threatened, and I hope Trump is threatening
enough to the elites, without actually posing the threat a real revolutionary would pose.
Further, I hope that the political system starts working for ALL people, not just some people.
If not, they will get their Lenin and their Jacobin terror, and they will deserve it.
'Trump channels something - the rage and desperation of a people who know they don't matter anymore.'
Maybe I'm a cynic, but when have they ever mattered? 'The People' had tastes of the American
dream in the 1950's and the 80's, as far as I can see, and before, since, and in between have
been taken utterly for granted. Maybe people felt like they mattered, tuning in to the same television
shows and radio programs and meeting at church each week; maybe the body politic was able to relate
to its representatives in a more meaningful way than the identikit dialtones that occupy the political
stage now. But don't forget that back when people 'mattered' they were still shipped off to die
in useless wars, there were still plenty of Americans working long hours for poor pay, and there
were still politicians happy to lie barefaced to their constituency.
My knee-jerk position is to support the working people against the rich. But, given the
voting patterns of the white working class going back to 1980, and even to 1968, I find myself
vacillating between feeling for them and believing that they got what they wanted (and deserved)
good and hard.
And, let's be perfectly honest here. Why did the white working class abandon the Democratic
Party, which supported their economic interests, in favor of the Republican Party, which did not?
Race.
That's it. Pure and simple. Even the evangelical movement is in large part a product of resistance
to integration, as parochial schools could legally be segregated because they were private, and
segregationists flooded into them in the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education.
And these madrassas trained the shock troops of the Republican Party, hell-bent to vote against
their own interests because they were bigots.
It's interesting how you can read Mr. Featherstone's words and see an "insightful post". Because
when I read those words all I see is well, exhibit 3875 in why it makes no sense to try and understand
why people support Trump. Say what you will about their frustration, alienation, disenchantment,
whatever. Ultimately the whole thing is just incoherent and utterly unthoughtful.
"Trump is poking all of the right people in the eyes for all the right reasons."
The right people are immigrants and Muslims and the women Trump has attacked in the most personal
of ways? He may be frustrating the ambitions of more conventional conservative politicians and
driving decent liberals into hair-pulling fits, but that's all a result of his absolutely frightening
willingness to whip up enmity towards people who, on the whole, have been attacked and disrespected
far more directly and openly than most of Trump's supporters have been.
And the right reasons are what, exactly? Is there any actual proof that the man really wants
to make America great? Is there any reason to believe he's doing this for any reason other than
to fill the hole in his psyche where self-acceptance should live? To people not under Trump's
spell it is so obvious that his entire candidacy is about his ego, his unceasing need to be not
admired by aggrandized that it's just astonishing to think of how many somersaults a person's
critical faculties must perform to avoid recognizing it.
"He's coarse and crude, but he appears to make no pretenses."
Well, actually, he's nothing but pretenses. That's the problem. He lies. And lies so prolifically
and so wildly that he's not so much a person, or even a character. He's a persona. He has transformed
himself into a tissue thin representation of a "winner". But strip away the lies about how great
he is, how great his business savvy is, etc and you realize that Donald Trump is a lot like Oakland.
There's no there there.
"But it always struck me there was some other agenda to the immigration. That there still is.
I'm not sure what."
This is the logic of someone who has mentally thrown their hands up and said, "I'm frustrated
about my life, so I guess I'll blame, oh, I don't know immigration. Sure, why not?" Dress it
up however you like, but this is functionally the same as posting a "No Dogs, No Blacks, No Irish"
sign on your soul.
"That they are white, and crude, and prone to brutality and violence, frequently not very compassionate
or empathetic, all-too-often confused by the world, and that their religion is simplistic and
mostly idolatrous, all that makes it hard to sympathize with them. (I find it hard.) But you leave
people behind at your peril."
I agree with this, but let's not pretend that large swaths of this population have chosen to resist,
at every turn, efforts made to help them. Those efforts themselves may have been clumsy, ineffective
or counterproductive (there's lots of room for criticism and we shouldn't back away from it),
but let's heed the mantra of personal responsibility as well. Because at a certain point I find
myself getting a little, well, tetchy with people who over and over again supported policies,
politicians and parties that hurt them financially because doing so hurt other people socially
and legally and then, after realizing they've shoveled themselves to deep to ever climb out of
their fiscal grave, turn to a demagogue as one last knife in the back to their countrymen.
Then came the election of 2008, and suddenly the Other was in the White House. The Trumpkins
want to "Take American Back" because they have been told that the Kenyan Socialist Muslim stole
their country.
I find it so frustrating when people write stuff like this. People were so hopeful about Obama,
so hopeful about racism in this country. But the first words out of certain sectors of left after
Obama's election weren't hopeful ones about reconciliation. They were "America is still racist."
And they set out to prove it. Now we feel more bitterly divided then ever. I could go into more
detail, about the issues involved, but it's just frustrating to me, and the stuff I quoted above
is ready made excuse that is not true to my experience.
I get – and hear – the claims of despair that many Trump backers articulate. I just wish
they'd leave him behind and rally around Bernie Sanders. He is, in so many ways, the flipside
of Trump.
And honestly, Trump supporters wish that you would rally around Trump. Certainly the differences
between the two candidates are more than mere sensibility. But there is certainly an argument
to be made that Trump's strength on immigration is preferable to Bernie Sanders's wishful thinking.
Re: Charles Featherstone, "That they are white, and crude, and prone to brutality and violence,
frequently not very compassionate or empathetic, all-too-often confused by the world, and that
their religion is simplistic and mostly idolatrous, all that makes it hard to sympathize with
them. (I find it hard.)"
Replace "white" with "black" or "hispanic" and see how far that observation travels. Featherstone
should be writing for the "poor, uneducated and easy to command" Washington Post. His selective
stereotypical misanthropy would fit right in.
Good thing Featherstone has his lovely immigrant friends to talk to. God help him if he
actually had to cavort with the repulsive white riff-raff.
I'm going to defend Charles Featherstone here. I don't think it does any good whatsoever to
romanticize the working poor as salt of the earth, honest-to-goodness decent people who don't
get a fair shake. Poverty brutalizes. The attempt to aid the downtrodden must be accompanied by
a hard-headed assessment of the physical, emotional, and intellectual damage that poverty, deprivation,
and neglect inevitably cause.
"They're angry at Washington and Wall Street, at big corporations and big government. And
they're voting now for Donald Trump."
Yeah. No doubt. But they are voting for the same clowns for Congress and the Senate. Kentucky
might like Trump, but they will keep McConnell. They hate the establishment that they maintain.
It's Obama's fault. He's clouded their minds. That's gotta be it.
I think what this speaks to more than anything is the total decay of political life at the
local and community level. The Trump 'movement' is really a mass media event, played out on a
national media stage, with many people playing and voting along just like they do on a regular
talent show competition. But the potential for mobilizing those people into a movement that would
start to build power locally simply doesn't exist.
I suspect Trump voters understand this at some level but are powerless to do anything about
it. So it seems that Trump voters are able to crash the rigged game of a media-driven national
election reality show competition, but can do next to nothing about the iron grip of the institution
they despise on the local politics that no doubt affects their lives far more on a daily basis.
Which is really just to say, again, that the dominant motif of Trump voters is that they are fed
up with being powerless and without influence.
The problem with identity politics is not the groups themselves, but the fact that they tend
to put forward the most extreme leadership (and this generally happens for structural reasons
so is inevitable).
Further, politics is a zero sum game, so if my group gets the right not to bake cakes for gay
weddings, then the other group loses the right to force people to bake cakes for their weddings.
No matter where you draw the line, one group comes away with its feelings hurt. [Without pronouncing
judgment on which group is "in the right".]
The common draw between BLM and Trump is they are both playing on feelings of solidarity. Even
though Trump is really not a white nationalist, and not talking white nationalism, there is an
implicit tone of ethnic and class solidarity as much as there would be at a Black Power rally.
I think it would be helpful to realize that the political leadership of all these groups are
all a$$#0!*$, and the average member of the group is not nearly as radical. It is also necessary
to recognize that someone is always going to lose, and work toward compromises notwithstanding
the leadership, which is always going to be selling saints versus demons and no compromises.
But I would like to see something like national solidarity, that Americans could come together
as one people with a shared history, notwithstanding all the instances in which we have fought
amongst ourselves, and try to start governing in the interest of everyone, and I bet there are
plenty of BLM supporters and Trump supporters who would stand behind that message.
But I think progressives are somewhat naive about mass politics. Sanders is coherent, he has
a lot of policy content, he can articulate his position and I definitely think he has a point.
But politics in mass democracy is ugly, mobilizing on a mass level is ugly. Progressives tend
to focus on the ugliest side of "white solidarity", but if you go down to a minority neighborhood
in Chicago during a highly contested race for mayor, you will note some salty language and maybe
a stereotype or too coming out. It may be that only white people can be racist, but every ethnic
and religious group can certainly be ugly when they are engaged in some kind of political struggle.
In other words, there must always be a tragic dimension of politics, as well as a comic dimension,
and American democracy will never be just a faculty lounge debate.
The vice presidential debate was an irritating and boring event. One notable part was when Mike Pence
outlined his views of what the U.S. should do in Syria:
Asked how a Trump-Pence administration would stop the civil war carnage in Aleppo, Pence said
that he, at least, "truly believe(s) that what America ought to do right now is immediately establish
safe zones, so that families and children can work out of those areas," and "work with our partners [to]
make that happen. Provocations by Russia need to be met with American strength." If Russia "continues
to be involved" in airstrikes along with the Syrian government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad,
he said, "the United States of America should be prepared to use military force to strike the
military forces of the Assad regime" and "prevent this crisis in Aleppo."
Trump has said very little about Syria's civil war–and advocated none of the measures Pence
outlined.
That last part is not really true. Trump has
endorsed creating safe zones in Syria on
more than one occasion . While I don't believe Trump has a clear idea of what establishing a
safe zone requires, he has had no problem voicing support for the idea several times. The fact that
Pence felt comfortable outlining a very aggressive Syria policy in tonight's debate suggests that
Trump doesn't really have a problem with what his running mate proposed. As I said when I was watching
the debate, Pence's answer on Syria was deranged. He more or less threatened to initiate hostilities
with Russia, and he seemed oblivious to the serious negative consequences this would have. He kept
invoking "American leadership" and "American strength," as if uttering these phrases was all that
mattered. Pence's advocacy for much more U.S. involvement in Syria could have been an easy target
for Kaine, but of course he and Clinton have no disagreements with the Republican ticket on this
issue. For all the quarreling between the two campaigns, both tickets apparently support U.S. escalation
in Syria. As bad as the moderator for the debate was, she did at least manage to get both candidates
to take positions on an issue that was completely ignored in the first presidential debate.
Overall, Kaine's performance was shaky and didn't seem all that impressive to anyone that didn't
know much about him. Despite arguably having better foreign policy experience than Pence, he did
a worse job of demonstrating his readiness to be president if needed. His constant interruptions
of Pence were jarring and off-putting, and created the impression of being an overly loyal terrier
trying to defend his master. Pence's repeated failure to come to Trump's defense in response to Kaine's
many jabs presumably hurt Trump, but it also made Pence seem much less agitated and rattled. Neither
VP nominee significantly harmed his running mate, but Pence did a better job of making the case for
his party's ticket.
" it also made Pence seem much less agitated and rattled"
I agree. Kaine's nervousness, grimacing, and non-stop interruptions were annoying and a bit
flaky. Pence seemed more composed and stable, even if some of what he said was a lot of nonsense
straight out of the Interventionist Handbook.
Temperamentally, Pence is the guy you'd want a heartbeat away from taking that 3:00AM call
Kaine looked like he'd still be awake, jabbering into a dictaphone while vacuuming the Oval
Office for the fifth time.
As far as Syria, and the middle east in general, this is sort of why I glossed over the statements
that Hillary is a hawk: because I don't see any doves (that don't have far too many other problems
to support). Trump started out sounding like he was but as time went on it sounded more and more
like the regular republican "more money to the military. World Police! WIN!" talk.
So at this point it sounds like both are going to keep us in the middle east. Though it seems
Trump may mess with the Iran deal (though it might be less attacking it as it is just poking at
the administration any chance you get).
As far as the debate, Pence wanted a debate about policy while Kaine wanted a debate about
Trump. if this was a presidential debate Pence probably would've been in a better standing.
But I think Kaine wasn't even fighting him. He wasn't after policy. Beyond stating his points
and a token defense his primary purpose was one thing, to say "remember, you aren't voting for
Pence, but for Trump." He's picturing the public saying "Oh, Pence seems pretty coo..oh yeah,
but he's with Trump..ewww."
It pretty much sums up the entire deal with the republican side of the campaign. Take Trump
out of it and you have a strong platform and an actual attempt at trying to extend somewhat past
the old GOP mindset while evoking that Need For Change that pushed democrats back in '08. It's
an actual strong case.
The issue is that it's all on the hopes of Trump. And THAT is the hard sell. I don't even see
many supporters defending him. It's like Pence: they bypass him and either focus on the dream
or the enemy.
Which leads to something interesting: If the roles were reversed: same platform, same general
message, but Pence as President and Trump as VP, would it be hard for folks not two-feet in the
Democratic ticket to vote R? Would there be a questioin as to who would win?
I have a feeling that many would say : " I don't know. But I would have liked that campaign I
would have liked that campaign very much.
If you'd told me that one of the two gentlemen debating last night was a Virginian and asked me
who it was, I would have said Pence, solely because of his demeanor.
Pence's thoughts on Syria were dumb (and dangerous), but I find it hard to hold that against
run-of-the-mill politicians these days because they're getting such rotten information and advice
from establishment "experts" and mainstream pundits. The country needs a changing of the guard
when it comes to "experts".
Kaine struck me as a third stringer trying to compensate for his own weaknesses by poking a
stick in the other fellow's spokes. And no better on Syria, that's certain.
The way the question was phrased, evoking endangered children and the classic what should America
'do' .doesn't really allow a candidate to say 'nothing – we have no vital interests in Syria'.
If Pence is pushing that same "get tough with Russia and Assad" idea he's taking the opposite
tack than Trump. Either they aren't communicating, the campaign figured that they could get away
with completely altering their position from one debate to the next, or Pence doesn't really care
what Trump thinks and is an unreformed GOP hawk.
Isn't the joke here Pence had a great debate running for President? In reality, it is very likely
Pence does all the real work and all Donald really wants is the national audience to take the
credit. So it was a goo debate for Pence that has minimal effect on the polls because the headliners
personality are dominant this cycle.
Tim Kaine was overly-aggressive and appeared to be not ready for Prime time.
"The fact that Pence felt comfortable outlining a very aggressive Syria policy in tonight's debate
suggests that Trump doesn't really have a problem with what his running mate proposed. As I said
when I was watching the debate, Pence's answer on Syria was deranged. He more or less threatened
to initiate hostilities with Russia, and he seemed oblivious to the serious negative consequences
this would have. He kept invoking"
I didn't watch the debate. This morning, when I was asked about it - I didn't think it would
be a contest. Gov. Pence, should have no issues.
But if I had watched and heard the above comments. I might have had conniptions. I am not going
to say more at the moment. I would sound like I am abandoning my candidate. I like Gov. Pence,
but that response is rife with campaign and policy self inflicting damages - good grief.
Pence is a fine Christian man and I'm glad he did well last night. However, his hawkishness was
disturbing. Somebody who is pro life should be wary of policies that lead to wars and thousands
dying.
As somebody who wants our borders secured, I don't feel I have a choice on Nov. 8. I will be
praying, though, that Trump doesn't delegate the FP heavy lifting to his vice president as Bush
43 did to his.
"Safe Zones" sound all well and good, but the only way to guarantee a safe zone is to have US
troops on the ground in Syria. You cannot enforce a safe zone from the air.
So, it sounds like both parties are willing to commit US ground troops to Syria and risk a
possible confrontation with Russian troops who are already there.
This is more Neocon nonsense being foisted on the American people by politicians who do not
really understand the ramifications of their actions.
Jesus. Very disappointed in Pence's answer on Syria. War against russia would cost thousands of
american lives. We need to stay out of Syria plain and simple. Pence's statememt also goes completely
against "we need to beat ISIS" rant that trump goes on every two sentences. To beat ISIS we would
have to be on the same side as Syria/Russia. This whole election is cluster .How the heck did
we end up with these two choices?
LHM: exactly. I'd just add that war with Russia conventionally would probably costs hundreds of
thousands of us soldier lives and could cripple our military for subsequent actual DEFENSE against
the country that actually will have the means to threaten the very existence or freedom of the
USA:
China, with an economy vastly bigger and more diversified than Russia's, a population eight
times as numerous as Russia's, and for that matter a far, far larger diaspora to influence politics,
culture, and economics in the formerly white western countries (USA, Canada (especially "British"
Columbia), and Australia, in particular).
Also, as pointed out in columns on Unz and elsewhere, conventional war could escalate to nuclear
exchange more easily than many people think. God help us.
How many safe zones do we need in Syria, we already have 3. 1. Govt held areas (unless we bomb them).
2. Kurdish territory (unless Turkey bombs them). 3. The Turkish zone in N. Syria.
In fact weren't we begging Turkey to establish a zone just for this purpose?
Of course, what we really want is an Assad free zone that covers all of Syria and filled with
Al Qaeda groups that we pretend are moderates.
Trump needs to state clearly that he is not in agreement with Pence position on Russia & Syria.
To beat ISIS we need to be on the same side as Russia. If Pence is a fine Christian, how can he
be so carless to be on side of ISIS in Syria like Obama is, and have hand in destroying Syria
the cradle of Christianity.
"Jesus. Very disappointed in Pence's answer on Syria. War against russia would cost thousands
of american lives. We need to stay out of Syria plain and simple. Pence's statememt also goes
completely against "we need to beat ISIS" rant that trump goes on every two sentences. To beat
ISIS we would have to be on the same side as Syria/Russia."
it's the problem with being involved with the entire middle east without a firm desire of exactly
what we want from there. We started out fighting Sunni threats, then took out the big Sunni country
that we earlier set up to hold back the big Shi'a country we felt was a threat. So when said Shi'a
country gained power we stood against them. And..well, that sort of ended up with us fighting
both sides at the same time depending on the location.
It's much more complicated than that, which is why jumping in there without really understanding
the region was a bad idea.
" This whole election is cluster .How the heck did we end up with these two choices?"
My belief.
Democratic voters are used to 'playing it safe' instead of going for more Left choices since
"liberal" triggers a BIG backlash in this country. Thus why you get candidates like Clinton instead
of candidates like Sanders and why you keep getting things like Obamacare's quasi-private insurance
instead of single-payer.
Republican voters are sick of the GOP and wanted someone, anyone, who wasn't a democrat but
wasn't holding the GOP platform. Remember how, other than Trump, the other Republican candidates
were all trying to "Out Right" each other? Trump was the only one that did more than outright
ignore them.
So in a way, the GOP caused it all by putting so much hate against the Left that the Left always
plays it safe and caring so little about their base that they eloped to the first man that told
them they were pretty and deserved better.
Clinton was the 'safe pick'. Trump smiled. And here we are.
It actuslly sounds less stupid when you see it that way. It's less that we're all idiots and
more just a set of unfortunate events caused by a political scene that looked a lot like a youtube
comment section.
I tend to discount Pence's comments on Syria in the debate. If Trump manages to win, he rather
than Pence will be calling the shots on foreign policy. And to the extent that Trump has any coherent
ideas on foreign policy, how could he come down hard on the mistake of invading Iraq and support
getting deeply involved in Syria?
In fact, Trump may have welcomed Pence's statement on Syria, since it may have attracted the
votes of some establishment and neocon types without binding him to any particular policy if he
becomes president.
"In fact, Trump may have welcomed Pence's statement on Syria, since it may have attracted the
votes of some establishment and neocon types without binding him to any particular policy if he
becomes president."
Altogether too close to the Bush-Cheney parallel for comfort. The last thing we want is for
the neocons to come creeping back in through the Blair House back door.
Thought Pence was the superior of the two. Considering the options in Syria while running for
President/VP you have to show a position of strength. My thought is that Trump wants to play nice
with Putin for a while and eventually will pull out of Syria. You just can't say that during an
election or you look weak.
Pence is a fine Christian -- I admire his courage in bringing up abortion in such an important
debate. Unfortunately, most conservatives have a blind spot toward Christians in the Mideast.
Part of it might be bias–Orthodox Christians aren't "true" Christians. Also many Evangelicals
have been brain washed into believing that support of Israel is the only thing that counts.
"My thought is that Trump wants to play nice with Putin for a while and eventually will pull out
of Syria."
One thing Trump has successfully done is to launch a campaign so free of any real policy that
anything you want to believe can be projected onto him. Play nice with Putin and then pull out?
Sure! He's never said that, and in fact he's said the exact opposite but why not?
Small countries are just pawns in a bigger Washington geopolitical game, the game conducted with
the level of determination and cruelty that would bestow on them an approving nod from Mussolini. And
actually they do not shun allies in far right forces. As long as they promote pro-American pro-neoliberalism
policies. As in saying "He may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch
" (attributed to FDR about Somoza). Since the dissolution of the USSR the US has been the world
hegemon, sponsoring a world order on neoliberal principles and making the world safe for an often
rapacious multinationals. Political disinterest in foreign military adventures at home due to absence
of draft allowed hijacking the US military for racketeering abroad. The privatizing of the military-industrial
complex has converted it into formidable political force: arms sales follow a Says Law that motivates
perpetual war as a marketing tool. American foreign policy has long been the special province of transnational
corporations, which were allowed to use US naval and military power for penetration into markets of
the countries without paying for it.
Notable quotes:
"... With regard to the issue of "first use," every president since Harry Truman has subscribed to the same posture: the United States retains the prerogative of employing nuclear weapons to defend itself and its allies against even nonnuclear threats. ..."
"... Yet whatever reassurance was to be found in Trump's vow never to order a first strike-not the question Lester Holt was asking-was immediately squandered. The Republican nominee promptly revoked his "no first strike" pledge by insisting, in a cliché much favored in Washington , that "I can't take anything off the table." ..."
"... Hillary Clinton chose a different course: she changed the subject. She would moderate her own debate. Perhaps Trump thought Holt was in charge of the proceedings; Clinton knew better. ..."
"... What followed was vintage Clinton: vapid sentiments, smoothly delivered in the knowing tone of a seasoned Washington operative. During her two minutes, she never came within a country mile of discussing the question Holt had asked or the thoughts she evidently actually has about nuclear issues. ..."
"... It was as if Clinton were already speaking from the Oval Office. Trump had addressed his remarks to Lester Holt. Clinton directed hers to the nation at large, to people the world over, indeed to history itself. Warming to her task, she was soon rolling out the sort of profundities that play well at the Brookings Institution, the Carnegie Endowment, or the Council on Foreign Relations, causing audiences to nod-or nod off. ..."
"... With that, she reverted to platitudes. "So we need to be more precise in how we talk about these issues. People around the word follow our presidential campaigns so closely, trying to get hints about what we will do. Can they rely on us? Are we going to lead the world with strength and in accordance with our values? That's what I intend to do. I intend to be a leader of our country that people can count on, both here at home and around the world, to make decisions that will further peace and prosperity, but also stand up to bullies, whether they're abroad or at home." ..."
"... In contrast to Trump, however, Clinton did speak in complete sentences, which followed one another in an orderly fashion. She thereby came across as at least nominally qualified to govern the country, much like, say, Warren G. Harding nearly a century ago. And what worked for Harding in 1920 may well work for Clinton in 2016. ..."
"... Of Harding's speechifying, H.L. Mencken wrote at the time, "It reminds me of a string of wet sponges." Mencken characterized Harding's rhetoric as "so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." So, too, with Hillary Clinton. She is our Warren G. Harding. In her oratory, flapdoodle and balderdash live on. ..."
"... Trump was incredibly naïve or stupid for even answering that question. He should have asked Holt to state what he understood "the nation's longstanding policy" to be and define the term "first use." Rule one in debating: If you don't fully understand the question, demand a definition of any premises essential to the question. ..."
"... I note, however, that Trump is a builder and Clinton is a destroyer. ..."
"... Bill Clinton authorized bombing a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan in 1998 to divert attention away from his sex scandals in a 'wag-the-dog' operation for gratuitous purposes. Hillary supported the Muslim Brotherhood to take over Egypt in a rigged election in 2012 after the Brotherhood murdered countless police, prosecutors, judges and Coptic Priests and children and has enriched herself from advance bribes through her Foundation. The Clintons indisputably use "evil" for gratuitous purposes and have sold out the interests of the nation. ..."
"... Trump advocates waterboarding and stop and frisk as necessary policies to protect lives. But this is what a leader is elected to do – to use power and coercion to protect the people. He does not advocate torture or aggressive policing for political or egotistical purposes or to intimidate the public into totalitarian submission. He opposes political correct and totalitarian control of speech. ..."
"... So Bacevich can say Trump is unqualified but based purely on empirical grounds, the Clintons have disqualified themselves from the presidency by their gratuitous use of power and influence peddling; while Trump prefers to do deals (treaties) but would use aggressive tactics to protect the public but only when absolutely necessary as a last resort. ..."
"... So it is Bacevich who is unqualified to render an opinion that helps us judge which candidate is qualified for the presidency because he believes he has greater knowledge on issues such as nuclear proliferation. Bacevich is another know-it-all elite who knows better based on his superior knowledge. But no one has such God like knowledge. What would Bacevich do if he could drop an A-bomb and save countless lives on both sides of a war? He doesn't tell us and instead prefers to bash the candidates as to not telling the truth to the American public. The records of the candidates, summarized above, give us a glimpse of how they would use "evil". ..."
"... The irony is Bacevich lost a son in a war Trump opposed but Hillary voted for. He is to be respected for his loss but not for his unqualified opinion as to which candidate would use evil-for-good or evil-for-ill. ..."
You may have missed it. Perhaps you dozed off. Or wandered into the kitchen to grab a snack. Or by
that point in the proceedings were checking out Seinfeld reruns. During the latter part
of the much hyped but excruciating-to-watch first presidential debate, NBC Nightly News anchor Lester
Holt posed a seemingly straightforward but cunningly devised question. His purpose was to test whether
the candidates understood the essentials of nuclear strategy.
A moderator given to plain speaking might have said this: "Explain why the United States keeps
such a large arsenal of nuclear weapons and when you might consider using those weapons."
What Holt actually said was: "On nuclear weapons, President Obama reportedly considered changing
the nation's longstanding policy on first use. Do you support the current policy?"
The framing of the question posited no small amount of knowledge on the part of the two candidates.
Specifically, it assumed that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton each possess some familiarity with
the longstanding policy to which Holt referred and with the modifications that Obama had contemplated
making to it.
If you will permit the equivalent of a commercial break as this piece begins, let me explain why
I'm about to parse in detail each candidate's actual answer to Holt's question. Amid deep dives into,
and expansive punditry regarding, issues like
how "fat" a former Miss Universe may have been and
how high an imagined future wall on our southern border might prove to be, national security
issues likely to test the judgment of a commander-in-chief have received remarkably little attention.
So indulge me. This largely ignored moment in last week's presidential debate is worth examining.
With regard to the issue of "first use," every president since Harry Truman has subscribed
to the same posture: the United States retains the prerogative of employing nuclear weapons to defend
itself and its allies against even nonnuclear threats.
In other words, as a matter of policy, the United States rejects the concept of "no
first use," which would prohibit any employment of nuclear weapons except in retaliation for a nuclear
attack. According to press reports, President Obama had
toyed with but then rejected the idea of committing the United States to a "no first use" posture.
Holt wanted to know where the two candidates aspiring to succeed Obama stood on the matter.
Cruelly, the moderator invited Trump to respond first. The look in the Republican nominee's eyes
made it instantly clear that Holt could have been speaking Farsi for all he understood. A lesser
candidate might then have begun with the nuclear equivalent of "
What is Aleppo? "
Yet Trump being Trump, he gamely-or naively-charged headlong into the ambush that Holt had carefully
laid, using his allotted two minutes to offer his insights into how as president he would address
the nuclear conundrum that previous presidents had done so much to create. The result owed less to
early Cold War thinkers-of-the-unthinkable like Herman Kahn or Albert Wohlstetter, who created the
field of nuclear strategy, than to Dr. Strangelove. Make that Dr. Strangelove on meth.
Trump turned first to Russia, expressing concern that it might be gaining an edge in doomsday
weaponry. "They have a much newer capability than we do," he said. "We have not been updating from
the new standpoint." The American bomber fleet in particular, he added, needs modernization. Presumably
referring to the recent employment of Vietnam-era bombers in the wars in
Afghanistan ,
Iraq , and Syria, he continued somewhat opaquely, "I looked the other night. I was seeing B-52s,
they're old enough that your father, your grandfather, could be flying them. We are not - we are
not keeping up with other countries."
Trump then professed an appreciation for the awfulness of nuclear weaponry. "I would like everybody
to end it, just get rid of it. But I would certainly not do first strike. I think that once the nuclear
alternative happens, it's over."
Give Trump this much: even in a field that tends to favor abstraction and obfuscating euphemisms
like "fallout" or "dirty bomb," classifying Armageddon as the "nuclear alternative" represents something
of a contribution.
Still, it's worth noting that, in the arcane theology of nuclear strategy, "first strike" and
"first use" are anything but synonymous. "First strike" implies a one-sided, preventive war of annihilation.
The logic of a first strike, such as it is, is based on the calculation that a surprise nuclear attack
could inflict the "nuclear alternative" on your adversary, while sparing your own side from suffering
a comparable fate. A successful first strike would be a one-punch knockout, delivered while your
opponent still sits in his corner of the ring.
Yet whatever reassurance was to be found in Trump's vow never to order a first strike-not
the question Lester Holt was asking-was immediately squandered. The Republican nominee promptly revoked
his "no first strike" pledge by insisting, in a cliché
much favored in
Washington , that "I can't take anything off the table."
Piling non sequitur upon non sequitur, he next turned to the threat posed by a nuclear-armed North
Korea, where "we're doing nothing." Yet, worrisome as this threat might be, keeping Pyongyang in
check, he added, ought to be Beijing's job. "China should solve that problem for us," he insisted.
"China should go into North Korea. China is totally powerful as it relates to North Korea."
If China wouldn't help with North Korea, however, what could be more obvious than that Iran, many
thousands of miles away, should do so-and might have, if only President Obama had incorporated the
necessary proviso into the Iran nuclear deal. "Iran is one of their biggest trading partners. Iran
has power over North Korea." When the Obama administration "made that horrible deal with Iran, they
should have included the fact that they do something with respect to North Korea." But why stop with
North Korea? Iran "should have done something with respect to Yemen and all these other places,"
he continued, wandering into the nonnuclear world. U.S. negotiators suitably skilled in the Trumpian
art of the deal, he implied, could easily have maneuvered Iran into solving such problems on Washington's
behalf.
Veering further off course, Trump then took a passing swipe at Secretary of State John Kerry:
"Why didn't you add other things into the deal?" Why, in "one of the great giveaways of all time,"
did the Obama administration fork over
$400 million in cash? At which point, he promptly threw in another figure without the slightest
explanation-"It was actually
$1.7 billion in cash"-in "one of the worst deals ever made by any country in history."
Trump then wrapped up his meandering tour d'horizonby decrying the one
action of the Obama administration that arguably has reduced the prospect of nuclear war, at least
in the near future. "The deal with Iran will lead to nuclear problems," he stated with conviction.
"All they have to do is sit back 10 years, and they don't have to do much. And they're going to end
up getting nuclear." For proof, he concluded, talk to the Israelis. "I met with Bibi Netanyahu the
other day," he added for no reason in particular. "Believe me, he's not a happy camper."
On this indecipherable note, his allotted time exhausted, Trump's recitation ended. In its way,
it had been a Joycean performance.
Bridge Over Troubled Waters?
It was now Clinton's turn to show her stuff. If Trump had responded to Holt like a voluble golf
caddy being asked to discuss the finer points of ice hockey, Hillary Clinton chose a different
course: she changed the subject. She would moderate her own debate. Perhaps Trump thought Holt was
in charge of the proceedings; Clinton knew better.
What followed was vintage Clinton: vapid sentiments, smoothly delivered in the knowing tone
of a seasoned Washington operative. During her two minutes, she never came within a country mile
of discussing the question Holt had asked or the thoughts she
evidently actually has about nuclear issues.
"[L]et me start by saying, words matter," she began. "Words matter when you run for president.
And they really matter when you are president. And I want to reassure our allies in Japan and South
Korea and elsewhere that we have mutual defense treaties and we will honor them."
It was as if Clinton were already speaking from the Oval Office. Trump had addressed his remarks
to Lester Holt. Clinton directed hers to the nation at large, to people the world over, indeed to
history itself. Warming to her task, she was soon rolling out the sort of profundities that play
well at the Brookings Institution, the Carnegie Endowment, or the Council on Foreign Relations, causing
audiences to nod-or nod off.
"It is essential that America's word be good," Clinton continued. "And so I know that this campaign
has caused some questioning and worries on the part of many leaders across the globe. I've talked
with a number of them. But I want to - on behalf of myself, and I think on behalf of a majority of
the American people, say that, you know, our word is good."
Then, after inserting a tepid, better-than-nothing endorsement of the Iran nuclear deal, she hammered
Trump for not offering an alternative. "Would he have started a war? Would he have bombed Iran?"
If you're going to criticize, she pointed out, you need to offer something better. Trump never does,
she charged. "It's like his plan to defeat ISIS. He says it's a secret plan, but the only secret
is that he has no plan."
With that, she reverted to platitudes. "So we need to be more precise in how we talk about
these issues. People around the word follow our presidential campaigns so closely, trying to get
hints about what we will do. Can they rely on us? Are we going to lead the world with strength and
in accordance with our values? That's what I intend to do. I intend to be a leader of our country
that people can count on, both here at home and around the world, to make decisions that will further
peace and prosperity, but also stand up to bullies, whether they're abroad or at home."
Like Trump, she offered no specifics. Which bullies? Where? How? In what order? Would she start
with Russia's Putin? North Korea's Kim Jong-Un? Perhaps Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines? How about
Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan? Or Bibi?
In contrast to Trump, however, Clinton did speak in complete sentences, which followed one
another in an orderly fashion. She thereby came across as at least nominally qualified to govern
the country, much like, say, Warren G. Harding nearly a century ago. And what worked for Harding
in 1920 may well work for Clinton in 2016.
Of Harding's speechifying, H.L. Mencken wrote at the time, "It reminds me of a string of wet
sponges." Mencken characterized Harding's rhetoric as "so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into
it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of
posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." So, too, with Hillary
Clinton. She is our Warren G. Harding. In her oratory, flapdoodle and balderdash live on.
The National Security Void
If I've taxed your patience by recounting this non-debate and non-discussion of nuclear first
use, it's to make a larger point. The absence of relevant information elicited by Lester Holt's excellent
question speaks directly to what has become a central flaw in this entire presidential campaign:
the dearth of attention given to matters basic to U.S. national security policy.
In the nuclear arena, the issue of first use is only one of several on which anyone aspiring to
become the next commander-in-chief should be able to offer an informed judgment. Others include questions
such as these:
What is the present-day justification for maintaining the U.S. nuclear "triad," a strike force
consisting of manned bombers and land-based ballistic missiles and submarine-launched
ballistic missiles?
Why is the Pentagon embarking upon a decades-long,
trillion-dollar program to modernize that triad, fielding a new generation of bombers, missiles,
and submarines along with an arsenal of
new warheads ? Is that program necessary?
How do advances in non-nuclear weaponry-for example, in the realm of cyberwarfare-affect theories
of nuclear deterrence devised by the likes of Kahn and Wohlstetter during the 1950s and 1960s?
Does the logic of those theories still pertain?
Beyond the realm of nuclear strategy, there are any number of other security-related questions
about which the American people deserve to hear directly from both Trump and Clinton, testing their
knowledge of the subject matter and the quality of their judgments. Among such matters, one in particular
screams out for attention. Consider it the question that Washington has declared off-limits: What
lessons should be drawn from America's costly and disappointing post-9/11 wars and how should those
lessons apply to future policy?
With Election Day now merely a month away, there is no more reason to believe that such questions
will receive serious consideration than to expect Trump to come clean on his
personal finances or Clinton to release the transcripts of her
handsomely compensated Goldman Sachs speeches.
When outcomes don't accord with his wishes, Trump reflexively
blames a "rigged" system. But a system that makes someone like Trump a finalist for the presidency
isn't rigged. It is manifestly absurd, a fact that has left most of the national media grasping wildly
for explanations (albeit none that tag them with having facilitated the transformation of politics
into theater).
I'll take a backseat to no one in finding Trump unfit to serve as president. Yet beyond the outsized
presence of one particular personality, the real travesty of our predicament lies elsewhere-in the
utter shallowness of our political discourse, no more vividly on display than in the realm of national
security.
What do our presidential candidates talk about when they don't want to talk about nuclear war?
The one, in a vain effort to conceal his own ignorance, offers rambling nonsense. The other, accustomed
to making her own rules, simply changes the subject.
The American people thereby remain in darkness. On that score, Trump, Clinton, and the parties
they represent are not adversaries. They are collaborators.
Trump was incredibly naïve or stupid for even answering that question. He should have asked
Holt to state what he understood "the nation's longstanding policy" to be and define the term
"first use." Rule one in debating: If you don't fully understand the question, demand a definition
of any premises essential to the question.
For God's sake, most Americans generally believe that the nation's police on nukes is that
we won't use them first. Introducing this kind of mixture of jargon and terms of art is good and
sufficient reason for rejecting the format of these awful "debates."
Dr. Bacevich is always insightful and worth reading. I wish we had a better choice of candidates.
I note, however, that Trump is a builder and Clinton is a destroyer.
Sounds like the Colonel will be voting for the Democrat for the third time in a row (maybe fourth,
he probably voted for Kerry, too). Although the Democrats have been marginally better on foreign
policy, they totally devoted to open borders.
Mass immigration will lead to more attacks at home which will lead to more wars overseas. Invite
the world/invade the world go hand in hand.
"Of Harding's speechifying, H.L. Mencken wrote at the time, "It reminds me of a string of wet
sponges." Mencken characterized Harding's rhetoric as "so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into
it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle
of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." So, too, with
Hillary Clinton. "
Clinton's approach makes sense. She knows that the general public knows little and cares less
about nuclear minutiae, so she laid out her platitudes-which the public does understand-and raised
legitimate doubts about whether Trump would adopt a foreign policy as Joycean as his reply.
What did Bacevich tell us other than he is an expert in nuclear proliferation policy but the two
presidential candidates aren't. So what? We don't elect presidents to be nuclear war policy experts.
We elect them on how they use the monopoly that government grants them for the legitimate use
of power, coercion, deception and violence (we might call this "evil") . Do they use "evil" gratuitously
or for partisan purposes or self gain; or do they only use "evil" only as a last resort when there
is no other choice such as when Truman authorized dropping A-bombs on Japan? The self righteous
and arrogant Bacevich doesn't tell us which candidate would use evil-for-good or evil-for-bad
or gratuitous outcomes.
Bill Clinton authorized bombing a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan in 1998 to divert attention
away from his sex scandals in a 'wag-the-dog' operation for gratuitous purposes. Hillary supported
the Muslim Brotherhood to take over Egypt in a rigged election in 2012 after the Brotherhood murdered
countless police, prosecutors, judges and Coptic Priests and children and has enriched herself
from advance bribes through her Foundation. The Clintons indisputably use "evil" for gratuitous
purposes and have sold out the interests of the nation.
Trump advocates eminent domain but offered a widow four times the market value of her property
and lifetime occupancy in one of his luxury condos. The property was a rooming house the widow
never lived in on commercial zoned land. The property was foreclose on 20 years later for half
of what Trump offered her and the property was never acquired. Trump shows he does not use evil
gratuitously and is a generous person who nevertheless advocates the legal use of eminent domain
where necessary as a last resort.
Trump advocates waterboarding and stop and frisk as necessary policies to protect lives.
But this is what a leader is elected to do – to use power and coercion to protect the people.
He does not advocate torture or aggressive policing for political or egotistical purposes or to
intimidate the public into totalitarian submission. He opposes political correct and totalitarian
control of speech.
In sum, the Clintons put no limits on their use of "evil" for self gain or selling out to other
nations interests; while Trump wants to use soft power and voluntary market deals where possible
(eminent domain) or would use aggressive tactics to protect the public but in a limited and lawful
way.
So Bacevich can say Trump is unqualified but based purely on empirical grounds, the Clintons
have disqualified themselves from the presidency by their gratuitous use of power and influence
peddling; while Trump prefers to do deals (treaties) but would use aggressive tactics to protect
the public but only when absolutely necessary as a last resort.
So it is Bacevich who is unqualified to render an opinion that helps us judge which candidate
is qualified for the presidency because he believes he has greater knowledge on issues such as
nuclear proliferation. Bacevich is another know-it-all elite who knows better based on his superior
knowledge. But no one has such God like knowledge. What would Bacevich do if he could drop an
A-bomb and save countless lives on both sides of a war? He doesn't tell us and instead prefers
to bash the candidates as to not telling the truth to the American public. The records of the
candidates, summarized above, give us a glimpse of how they would use "evil".
The irony is Bacevich lost a son in a war Trump opposed but Hillary voted for. He is to
be respected for his loss but not for his unqualified opinion as to which candidate would use
evil-for-good or evil-for-ill.
"... I usually remark that one must look at the 'second tier' of a political cabal to predict future actions by a 'candidate.' The people surrounding the 'candidate' and their track records on issues in their sphere of expertise tell the mind sets that 'drive' policy. Trump comes from the business world, where delegation of responsibility is standard for larger enterprises. His 'advisors' are key to future performance. Clinton seems to be encapsulated in a bubble of sycophants. So, the same rationale applies to her as applies to Trump. Who are her main 'advisors?' ..."
"... As anyone possessed of discernment would have noticed in the 2008 campaign, Obama surrounded himself with 'less than progressive' advisors. His subsequent governance followed suit so that we find the nation in the mess it is in today. ..."
"... Finally, all signs are that the Russians are not taking this slide towards bellicosity lightly. The Russians are demonstrating a clear sighted view of Americas dysfunctions. For the Russians to hold massive Civil Defense drills now is a clear message; "We are preparing for the worst. How about you?" ..."
"... The tone of this piece is remarkably similar to a long article Bacevich headed in a recent Harper's article on US foreign policy. Presented as a roundtable discussion, it centered on the dogged insistence of some State Department-tied clown that Russia is The Aggressor, while Bacevich and a two other participants nicked away at her position, largely, as I recall, by granting the Russians some right to a regional interest. While they slowed her down, the great missing element was a characterization of global aims of the US her position reflected. ..."
"... In short, Bacevich, a good liberal, will not name the beast of US imperialism. As a result he makes it seem as though any policy can be judged on a truncated logic of its own, and so policy debates fragment into a disconnected series of arguments that bid for "fresh thinking" without daring to consider the underlying drivers. It's one of the reasons Eisenhower, with his criticism of the military-industrial complex, still comes across as a guiding light. ..."
"... I'll put it out there: We have too many upper-middle-class white women who claim to understand foreign policy who should have been subject to a draft to concentrate their minds on what happens when a person is forced into the military and sent off to drive around with a rifle as people lob bombs at them. Madeleine Albright is the classic case: "What good is our exquisite military, if I, a compassion-challenged expert, can't waste a lot of lives on my follies?" Bacevich's personal history means that he knows what war is about (as did Gen. Sherman). ..."
"... Perry is forthright when he says: "Today, the danger of some sort of a nuclear catastrophe is greater than it was during the Cold War and most people are blissfully unaware of this danger." He also tells us that the nuclear danger is "growing greater every year" and that even a single nuclear detonation "could destroy our way of life." ..."
"... Perry does not use his memoir to score points or settle grudges. He does not sensationalize. But, as a defense insider and keeper of nuclear secrets, he is clearly calling American leaders to account for what he believes are very bad decisions, such as the precipitous expansion of NATO, right up to the Russian border,* and President George W. Bush's withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, originally signed by President Nixon. ..."
"... Interesting comments by Mr. Perry who had a starring role in 1979's "First Strike" propaganda film where he advocated for the MX ICBM system. ..."
"... So what's a voter to do? ..."
"... Well, I would hope that informed voters who have a healthy fear of the military-industrial-political complex will vote to keep the scariest of the two re: nuclear war out of office. This particular concern is the reason why I will in all likelihood be voting for the man I've been ridiculing for most of the past year, simply because I am terrified of the prospect of Hillary Clinton as Commander-in-Chief. ..."
"... Trump is a bad choice for a long list of reasons, but the most outrageous things he has proposed require legislation and I think it will be possible to defeat his essential sociopathy on that level, since he will face not only the opposition of the Dem Party, but also MSM and a significant number of people from his own party. ..."
"... But when it comes to the President's ability to put American 'boots on the ground' vs. some theoretical enemy, no such approval from Congress is necessary. Hillary Clinton will be in a position to get us into a costly war without having to overcome any domestic opposition to pull it off. ..."
"... What scares me is my knowledge of her career-long investment in trying to convince the generals and the admirals that she is a 'tough bitch', ala Margaret Thatcher, who will not hesitate to pull the trigger. An illuminating article in the NY Times revealed that she always ..."
"... All of her experience re: foreign policy that she's been touting is actually the scariest thing about her, when you look at what her historical dispositions have been. The "No Fly Zone" she's been pushing since last year is just the latest example of her instinct to act recklessly, as it directly invites a military confrontation with Russia. ..."
"... Her greatest political fear-that she might one day be accused by Republicans of being "weak on America's enemies"-is what we have to fear ..."
"... How reckless is Trump likely to be? Well, like Clinton-and all other civilian Commanders-in-Chief, Trump be utterly dependent upon the advice of military professionals in deciding what kind of responses to order. But in the position of The Decider, there is one significant difference between Trump and Clinton. Trump is at least willing and able to 1) view Putin as someone who is not a threat to the United States and 2) is able/willing to question the rationality of America's continued participation in NATO. ..."
"... Of Harding's speechifying, H.L. Mencken wrote at the time, "It reminds me of a string of wet sponges." Mencken characterized Harding's rhetoric as "so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." So, too, with Hillary Clinton. She is our Warren G. Harding. In her oratory, flapdoodle and balderdash live on. ..."
"... At least Harding was aware of the damage his friends caused to him: "I have no trouble with my enemies. I can take care of my enemies in a fight. But my friends, my goddamned friends, they're the ones who keep me walking the floor at nights! " ..."
"... As I mentioned a few weeks ago, Harding had the political courage to pardon, and free from prison, Eugene V. Debs for his crime of giving an anti-war speech the Wilson administration did not like. ..."
"... Harding did not believe in foreign involvements and was never personally implicated in the financial corruption of his administration. ..."
"... If Clinton is to be compared to Harding, it would be to view Clinton as a "new" Harding who now believes she is well qualified to be President, wants to do much foreign military involvement, perhaps resulting in war, who is now trusting of her sycopathic friends to give her good advice, and who is personally involved in selling government favors (via the Clinton foundation) ..."
"... HRC is more dangerous because she is the 1st woman to become a serious contender for a position that has traditionally been considered a "man's job". Therefore she believes she must not, in any way, be perceived as "soft" or lacking "toughness" or aggressiveness. She feels compelled to "out-macho" the macho guys. ..."
"... The only bright spot in the prospect of a Hellary Klinton presidency is the probability that she may not survive long enough to start a war with Russia. I wonder how the training for the Mark I body double is coming? ..."
"... On the other hand, why should anyone think that a bubble-headed blowhard like Trumpet has the intelligence or gumption to have any effect upon the operations of the Warfare State? When the opinion makers of his own party and the neoliberal leaders of Klinton's party are all riding on the Military-Industrial gravy train looking for the next enemy to keep business booming? ..."
"... And how can anyone with a functioning brain cell think that anything a politician says or promises during an election has any connection to how they will act once elected? Remember Obama, Mr. "Audacity of Hope?" ..."
Prof. Bacevitch has bought up the one overriding problem with this election cycle: Lack of
substance.
I usually remark that one must look at the 'second tier' of a political cabal to predict
future actions by a 'candidate.' The people surrounding the 'candidate' and their track records
on issues in their sphere of expertise tell the mind sets that 'drive' policy. Trump comes from
the business world, where delegation of responsibility is standard for larger enterprises. His
'advisors' are key to future performance. Clinton seems to be encapsulated in a bubble of sycophants.
So, the same rationale applies to her as applies to Trump. Who are her main 'advisors?'
As anyone possessed of discernment would have noticed in the 2008 campaign, Obama surrounded
himself with 'less than progressive' advisors. His subsequent governance followed suit so that
we find the nation in the mess it is in today.
Finally, all signs are that the Russians are not taking this slide towards bellicosity
lightly. The Russians are demonstrating a clear sighted view of Americas dysfunctions. For the
Russians to hold massive Civil Defense drills now is a clear message; "We are preparing for the
worst. How about you?"
As always, Prof. Bacevitch is a joy to read. Live long, prosper, and hope those in positions
of power take his message to heart.
The tone of this piece is remarkably similar to a long article Bacevich headed in a recent
Harper's article on US foreign policy. Presented as a roundtable discussion, it centered on the
dogged insistence of some State Department-tied clown that Russia is The Aggressor, while Bacevich
and a two other participants nicked away at her position, largely, as I recall, by granting the
Russians some right to a regional interest. While they slowed her down, the great missing element
was a characterization of global aims of the US her position reflected.
That's pretty much what's going on here. "Do we really need a trillion dollar upgrade to US
nuclear capability?" Good question. But why, oh why, Andrew is it being proposed in the first
place? (Actually O has been pursuing the preliminaries for some time.) There's nothing about feeding
a military-industrial complex, nothing about trying to further distort the Russian economy to
promote instability, nothing about trying to capitalize on the US' military superiority as its
economic hegemony slips away.
In short, Bacevich, a good liberal, will not name the beast of US imperialism. As a result
he makes it seem as though any policy can be judged on a truncated logic of its own, and so policy
debates fragment into a disconnected series of arguments that bid for "fresh thinking" without
daring to consider the underlying drivers. It's one of the reasons Eisenhower, with his criticism
of the military-industrial complex, still comes across as a guiding light.
The round-table in Harper's, for background. One of the "takeaways" that I had is that both
of the women who participated are gratuitously hawkish. I am now tending to favor a universal
draft.
I'll put it out there: We have too many upper-middle-class white women who claim to understand
foreign policy who should have been subject to a draft to concentrate their minds on what happens
when a person is forced into the military and sent off to drive around with a rifle as people
lob bombs at them. Madeleine Albright is the classic case: "What good is our exquisite military,
if I, a compassion-challenged expert, can't waste a lot of lives on my follies?" Bacevich's personal
history means that he knows what war is about (as did Gen. Sherman).
Knowing what war's all about doesn't help much with knowing why wars come about, I'm afraid.
Bacevich is not helpful here. This reminds me of a great article by Graham Allison on bureaucratic
drivers in the Cuban Missile crisis, set out as three competing/complementary theories. Within
its mypoic scope, excellent, but as far as helping with the Cold War context, nada. He went on
to scotomize away in a chair at Harvard, gazing out his very fixed Overton window of permissible
strategic critique.
Wow. I just went to the TomDispatch site to look at Bacevich's work there. He does have a piece
criticizing Trump and HRC in light of Eisenhower, but slaps Eisenhower, appropriately, for various
crap, including the military-industrial complex takeoff. Why is it missing from this article?
At least Eisenhower criticized it.
Surprised that Bacevitch omits the thrust of Jerry Brown's important review:
My Journey at the Nuclear Brink
by William J. Perry, with a foreword by George P. Shultz
Stanford Security Studies, 234 pp., $85.00; $24.95 (paper)
I know of no person who understands the science and politics of modern weaponry better than
William J. Perry, the US Secretary of Defense from 1994 to 1997. When a man of such unquestioned
experience and intelligence issues the stark nuclear warning that is central to his recent
memoir, we should take heed. Perry is forthright when he says: "Today, the danger of some
sort of a nuclear catastrophe is greater than it was during the Cold War and
most people are blissfully unaware of this danger." He also tells us that the nuclear danger
is "growing greater every year" and that even a single nuclear detonation "could destroy our
way of life."
Perry does not use his memoir to score points or settle grudges. He does not sensationalize.
But, as a defense insider and keeper of nuclear secrets, he is clearly calling American leaders
to account for what he believes are very bad decisions, such as the precipitous expansion of
NATO, right up to the Russian border,* and President George W. Bush's withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty, originally signed by President Nixon.
*"The descent down the slippery slope began, I believe, with the premature NATO expansion,
and I soon came to believe that the downsides of early NATO membership for Eastern European
nations were even worse than I had feared" (p. 152).
Well, I would hope that informed voters who have a healthy fear of the military-industrial-political
complex will vote to keep the scariest of the two re: nuclear war out of office. This particular
concern is the reason why I will in all likelihood be voting for the man I've been ridiculing
for most of the past year, simply because I am terrified of the prospect of Hillary Clinton as
Commander-in-Chief.
Trump is a bad choice for a long list of reasons, but the most outrageous things he has
proposed require legislation and I think it will be possible to defeat his essential sociopathy
on that level, since he will face not only the opposition of the Dem Party, but also MSM and a
significant number of people from his own party.
But when it comes to the President's ability to put American 'boots on the ground' vs.
some theoretical enemy, no such approval from Congress is necessary. Hillary Clinton will be in
a position to get us into a costly war without having to overcome any domestic opposition to pull
it off.
What scares me is my knowledge of her career-long investment in trying to convince the
generals and the admirals that she is a 'tough bitch', ala Margaret Thatcher, who will not hesitate
to pull the trigger. An illuminating
article in the NY Times revealed that she always advocates the most muscular and
reckless dispositions of U.S. military forces whenever her opinion is solicited.
All of her experience re: foreign policy that she's been touting is actually the scariest
thing about her, when you look at what her historical dispositions have been. The "No Fly Zone"
she's been pushing since last year is just the latest example of her instinct to act recklessly,
as it directly invites a military confrontation with Russia.
Her willingness to roll the dice, to gamble with other people's lives, is ingrained within
her political personality, of which she is so proud.
Her greatest political fear-that she might one day be accused by Republicans of being "weak
on America's enemies"-is what we have to fear . That fear is what drives
her to the most extreme of war hawk positions, since her foundational strategy is to get out in
front of the criticism she anticipates.
It is what we can count on. She will most assuredly get America into a war within the first
6-9 months of her Presidency, since she will be looking forward to the muscular response she will
order when she is 'tested', as she expects.
How reckless is Trump likely to be? Well, like Clinton-and all other civilian Commanders-in-Chief,
Trump be utterly dependent upon the advice of military professionals in deciding what kind of
responses to order. But in the position of The Decider, there is one significant difference between
Trump and Clinton. Trump is at least willing and able to 1) view Putin as someone who is not a
threat to the United States and 2) is able/willing to question the rationality of America's continued
participation in NATO.
These differences alone are enough to move me to actually vote for someone I find politically
detestable, simply because I fear that the alternative is a high probability of war, and a greatly
enhanced risk of nuclear annihilation-through miscalculation-under a Hillary Clinton Presidency.
Yep. In the meantime, you have to wonder just how bad the false choice between the GOP / Dem
has to be before people vote in numbers for a better third-party candidate? Really, can it possible
get any worse than Trump v. Clinton?
Between this post and the VP debate I am growing comfortable with a decision to vote Green
and will probably continue voting Green in future elections.
Not that this isn't an important issue, but I disagree on the desirability of posing wonkish
questions in presidential debates, in the hopes of proving that someone didn't do enough homework.
Far too much policy is hidden by the constant recourse to bureaucratic language, which often rests
on other policy positions that remain undiscussed. One example: "chained CPI". Talking about it
/ taking it seriously presupposes that you subscribe to the notion that poor people may be told
to eat cardboard if some economist / committee member designated such an adequate replacement
for food. Yet most listeners will not catch on to that fact, were it ever to even come up in a
debate.
Words are just words, especially for politicians. If you want an idea of how they would govern,
go by what they did in the past. Right now we have the choice between a touchy blowhard with bad
hair and a mendacious conniver with bad judgement; you'd be foolish take anything either says
too seriously, even aside from the fact that they're wannabe politicians.
The response to why the nuclear arsenals need to be so large and constantly updated would have
been an interesting one if it had materialized. The fact is even a fairly limited exchange between
other nuclear powers with much smaller arsenals has the potential for rapid climate change that
renders Earth unlivable.
The Cold War notion that you just have to hole up a few days to avoid fallout doesn't really
make any more sense than using these weapons in the first place.
Just along these line, I did some order of magnitude calculations based on the US SLBM fleet.
Since the MIRV warheads are dial a yield, I calculated a range of 1210 – 1915 Megatons.
I know your point is more on the limited exchange scenario; just wanted to point out the destructive
potential of one country's submarine nuclear capability.
Of Harding's speechifying, H.L. Mencken wrote at the time, "It reminds me of a string of
wet sponges." Mencken characterized Harding's rhetoric as "so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps
into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle
of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." So, too, with
Hillary Clinton. She is our Warren G. Harding. In her oratory, flapdoodle and balderdash live
on.
And when a person keeps pointing out the importance of keeping one's word, it almost always
means that he or she is lying.
At least Harding was aware of the damage his friends caused to him: "I have no trouble
with my enemies. I can take care of my enemies in a fight. But my friends, my goddamned friends,
they're the ones who keep me walking the floor at nights! "
As I mentioned a few weeks ago, Harding had the political courage to pardon, and free from
prison, Eugene V. Debs for his crime of giving an anti-war speech the Wilson administration did
not like.
Harding did not believe in foreign involvements and was never personally implicated in
the financial corruption of his administration.
The Presidency was pushed on him, and he admitted felt he was not qualified.
I believe Harding gets a bad rap because he was not the leader of bold actions (wars) and the
corruption of people in his administration was well-documented.
His death was widely mourned in the USA.
As far as long term harm to the country, the do-nothing Harding was not bad for the country.
If Clinton is to be compared to Harding, it would be to view Clinton as a "new" Harding
who now believes she is well qualified to be President, wants to do much foreign military involvement,
perhaps resulting in war, who is now trusting of her sycopathic friends to give her good advice,
and who is personally involved in selling government favors (via the Clinton foundation)
Clinton is probably well coached by well paid advisors in her oratory.
Probably Harding wrote his own..
I would prefer Clinton to be like the old Harding, and the country would muddle through.
All it would take would be for a couple of strategically placed EMPs over the north american
continent ..
and poof . nothing functions anymore . while we get to stand and watch our 'supreme' military
launch their roman candles .
When it comes to war & nukes, I believe that HRC is the more dangerous of the two.
Before I explain, I would like to invite Yves or any female NC reader to consider & give their
POV on what I'm about say.
HRC is more dangerous because she is the 1st woman to become a serious contender for a
position that has traditionally been considered a "man's job". Therefore she believes she must
not, in any way, be perceived as "soft" or lacking "toughness" or aggressiveness. She feels compelled
to "out-macho" the macho guys.
Obviously this could have serious implications in any situation involving escalating tensions.
Negotiation or compromise would be off the table if she thought it could be perceived as soft
or weak (and she contemplates being a 2 term pres.)
What say you NC readers? Is this a justified concern or am I letting male bias color my view?
The only bright spot in the prospect of a Hellary Klinton presidency is the probability
that she may not survive long enough to start a war with Russia. I wonder how the training for
the Mark I body double is coming?
On the other hand, why should anyone think that a bubble-headed blowhard like Trumpet has
the intelligence or gumption to have any effect upon the operations of the Warfare State? When
the opinion makers of his own party and the neoliberal leaders of Klinton's party are all riding
on the Military-Industrial gravy train looking for the next enemy to keep business booming?
And how can anyone with a functioning brain cell think that anything a politician says
or promises during an election has any connection to how they will act once elected? Remember
Obama, Mr. "Audacity of Hope?"
When it comes to war & nukes, I believe that HRC is the more dangerous of
the two.
Before I explain, I would like to invite Yves or any female NC reader to
consider & give their POV on what I'm about say.
HRC is more dangerous because she is the 1st woman to become a serious
contender for a position that has traditionally been considered a "man's job".
Therefore she believes she must not, in any way, be perceived as "soft" or
lacking "toughness" or aggressiveness. She feels compelled to "out-macho" the
macho guys.
Obviously this could have serious implications in any situation involving
escalating tensions. Negotiation or compromise would be off the table if she
thought it could be perceived as soft or weak (and she contemplates being a 2
term pres.)
What say you NC readers? Is this a justified concern or am I letting male
bias color my view?
"... Well, I would hope that informed voters who have a healthy fear of the military-industrial-political complex will vote to keep the scariest of the two re: nuclear war out of office. This particular concern is the reason why I will in all likelihood be voting for the man I've been ridiculing for most of the past year, simply because I am terrified of the prospect of Hillary Clinton as Commander-in-Chief. ..."
"... Trump is a bad choice for a long list of reasons, but the most outrageous things he has proposed require legislation and I think it will be possible to defeat his essential sociopathy on that level, since he will face not only the opposition of the Dem Party, but also MSM and a significant number of people from his own party. ..."
"... But when it comes to the President's ability to put American 'boots on the ground' vs. some theoretical enemy, no such approval from Congress is necessary. Hillary Clinton will be in a position to get us into a costly war without having to overcome any domestic opposition to pull it off. ..."
"... What scares me is my knowledge of her career-long investment in trying to convince the generals and the admirals that she is a 'tough bitch', ala Margaret Thatcher, who will not hesitate to pull the trigger. An illuminating article in the NY Times revealed that she always advocates the most muscular and reckless dispositions of U.S. military forces whenever her opinion is solicited. ..."
"... All of her experience re: foreign policy that she's been touting is actually the scariest thing about her, when you look at what her historical dispositions have been. The "No Fly Zone" she's been pushing since last year is just the latest example of her instinct to act recklessly, as it directly invites a military confrontation with Russia. ..."
"... Her greatest political fear-that she might one day be accused by Republicans of being "weak on America's enemies"-is what we have to fear. That fear is what drives her to the most extreme of war hawk positions, since her foundational strategy is to get out in front of the criticism she anticipates. ..."
"... How reckless is Trump likely to be? Well, like Clinton-and all other civilian Commanders-in-Chief, Trump be utterly dependent upon the advice of military professionals in deciding what kind of responses to order. But in the position of The Decider, there is one significant difference between Trump and Clinton. Trump is at least willing and able to 1) view Putin as someone who is not a threat to the United States and 2) is able/willing to question the rationality of America's continued participation in NATO. ..."
Well, I would hope that informed voters who have a healthy fear of the military-industrial-political
complex will vote to keep the scariest of the two re: nuclear war out of office. This particular
concern is the reason why I will in all likelihood be voting for the man I've been ridiculing
for most of the past year, simply because I am terrified of the prospect of Hillary Clinton as
Commander-in-Chief.
Trump is a bad choice for a long list of reasons, but the most outrageous things he has
proposed require legislation and I think it will be possible to defeat his essential sociopathy
on that level, since he will face not only the opposition of the Dem Party, but also MSM and a
significant number of people from his own party.
But when it comes to the President's ability to put American 'boots on the ground' vs.
some theoretical enemy, no such approval from Congress is necessary. Hillary Clinton will be in
a position to get us into a costly war without having to overcome any domestic opposition to pull
it off.
What scares me is my knowledge of her career-long investment in trying to convince the
generals and the admirals that she is a 'tough bitch', ala Margaret Thatcher, who will not hesitate
to pull the trigger. An illuminating
article in the NY Times revealed that she always advocates the most muscular and reckless
dispositions of U.S. military forces whenever her opinion is solicited.
All of her experience re: foreign policy that she's been touting is actually the scariest
thing about her, when you look at what her historical dispositions have been. The "No Fly Zone"
she's been pushing since last year is just the latest example of her instinct to act recklessly,
as it directly invites a military confrontation with Russia.
Her willingness to roll the dice, to gamble with other people's lives, is ingrained within
her political personality, of which she is so proud.
Her greatest political fear-that she might one day be accused by Republicans of being "weak
on America's enemies"-is what we have to fear. That fear is what drives her to
the most extreme of war hawk positions, since her foundational strategy is to get out in front
of the criticism she anticipates.
It is what we can count on. She will most assuredly get America into a war within the first
6-9 months of her Presidency, since she will be looking forward to the muscular response she will
order when she is 'tested', as she expects.
How reckless is Trump likely to be? Well, like Clinton-and all other civilian Commanders-in-Chief,
Trump be utterly dependent upon the advice of military professionals in deciding what kind of
responses to order. But in the position of The Decider, there is one significant difference between
Trump and Clinton. Trump is at least willing and able to 1) view Putin as someone who is not a
threat to the United States and 2) is able/willing to question the rationality of America's continued
participation in NATO.
These differences alone are enough to move me to actually vote for someone I find politically
detestable, simply because I fear that the alternative is a high probability of war, and a greatly
enhanced risk of nuclear annihilation-through miscalculation-under a Hillary Clinton Presidency.
Excellent, really excellent summary. Thank you. Especially this observation:
"Her greatest political fear-that she might one day be accused by Republicans of being "weak
on America's enemies"-is what we have to fear. That fear is what drives her to the most extreme
of war hawk positions, since her foundational strategy is to get out in front of the criticism
she anticipates."
2. She (like most sociopaths, although it is unclear whether she is one or not) is not able
to apologize for mistakes. New York Times:
In the end, she settled on language that was similar to Senator John Kerry's when he was the
Democratic nominee in 2004: that if she had known in 2002 what she knows now about Iraqi weaponry,
she would never have voted for the Senate resolution authorizing force.
Yet antiwar anger has festered, and yesterday morning Mrs. Clinton rolled out a new response
to those demanding contrition: She said she was willing to lose support from voters rather
than make an apology she did not believe in.
"If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or
has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from," Mrs. Clinton told an
audience in Dover, N.H., in a veiled reference to two rivals for the nomination, Senator Barack
Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.
Her decision not to apologize is regarded so seriously within her campaign that some advisers
believe it will be remembered as a turning point in the race: either ultimately galvanizing
voters against her (if she loses the nomination), or highlighting her resolve and her willingness
to buck Democratic conventional wisdom (if she wins).
At the same time, the level of Democratic anger has surprised some of her allies and advisers,
and her campaign is worried about how long it will last and how much damage it might cause
her.
3. Due to her greed she and her close entourage represent a huge security risk. Emailgate had
shown that as for computer security she is an absolute zero. Absolutely, horribly incompetent
and absolutely, horribly greedy (the key idea of private server was to hide her "pay for play"
deals related to Clinton foundation). The same level of computer security incompetence is prevalent
in her close circle (Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills, etc) .
4. She strongly believe in the neoconservative foreign-policy agenda by re-casting the neoconservatives'
goals in liberal-interventionist terms. In reality the difference between "liberal interventionism"
and Neoconservatism are pretty superficial (Kagan already calls himself liberal interventionalist)
and Hillary's willingness to infest a foreign-policy establishment with neocons is beyond any
doubt and comparable with Bush II.
As the recent Republican primary contest had shown neoconservatives have virtually no support
among the US voters. Their base is exclusively military-industrial complex. So the reason she
is reaching out to those shady figures is a deceptively simple: she shares common views, respects
their supposed expertise, and wants them in her governing coalition. That means that "… today's
Democrats have become the Party of War: a home for arms merchants, mercenaries, academic war planners,
lobbyists for every foreign intervention, promoters of color revolutions, failed generals, exploiters
of the natural resources of corrupt governments. …" (
http://crookedtimber.org/2016/09/27/donald-trump-the-michael-dukakis-of-the-republican-party/#comment-693421
)
5. She is completely numb to human suffering. She has a total lack of empathy for other people.
"... In other news, the "save Aleppo" propaganda's gone into overdrive. BBC and their assorted media houses have all got their marching orders to spew the usual nonsense. Good thing is, nobody gives a sh*t about them anymore. Years of one-sided BS about "moderate rebels" blah blah blah is finally wearing thin. ..."
"... You know the rats are in real trouble when the msm starts talking about "humanitarian" intervention.. All I hear on the news are Russia this, Russia that, Assad this Assad that, backeries, last hospital here/there, white helmets etc etc. ..."
"... Quite interesting listening to the leaks. It shows a divided government with different factions working for the highest bidder. Also shows the US does not have much control over their Saudi/Turkish "allies".. ..."
"... There is one country on the Arabian peninsula that is somewhat hostile to Saudia Arabia and has reasonably good relations with Iran, so I suspect they're quite happy to see Saudi Arabia bogged down in a Yemeni quagmire as no doubt are the Russians. ..."
In other news, the "save Aleppo" propaganda's gone into overdrive. BBC and their assorted
media houses have all got their marching orders to spew the usual nonsense. Good thing is, nobody
gives a sh*t about them anymore. Years of one-sided BS about "moderate rebels" blah blah blah
is finally wearing thin.
You know the rats are in real trouble when the msm starts talking about "humanitarian"
intervention.. All I hear on the news are Russia this, Russia that, Assad this Assad that, backeries,
last hospital here/there, white helmets etc etc.
Bottom line: taking back Aleppo will be the end of the fake revolution and the architects of
this dirty war know it!!!
These Oil Sheikhs are way too retarded to know wtf they're doing in Yemen and the amount of
sh*t they've gotten themselves into.
You guys evidently haven't understood. This is a war of Sunnis, of Wahhabi style, against the
Shi'a, represented by the Houthis. In which the UAE participates, although not directly threatened.
There've been remarks by Saudi princes about how how they want Shi'a to disappear from the
world, a direct threat of genocide. That is why the war in Yemen.
Why this powerful sentiment? It's quite simple. The population of the Eastern Province of Saudi
Arabia is Shi'a mainly (not quite sure on the figures). It is also the only area of Saudi with
oil. If the Shi'a rebel, it's all over for the revenues of Saudi princes.
A second case is Bahrain. Majority Shi'a population suppressed by Sunni dynasty. Bahraini oil
in danger.
The GCC operates together, though no Shi'a in UAE. That's why Emiratis in Yemen.
' "Someone" gave the Houthis anti-ship missiles ...'
I've been seeing Internet news and rumours that hundreds of Saudi soldiers have been defecting
to the Yemeni side. At the very least they've been going AWOL but one assumes they must be going
somewhere to escape Saudi authorities. Defecting to the Yemenis seems the simplest explanation
and could also explain how the Houthis have been able to acquire sophisticated weapons.
Quite interesting listening to the leaks. It shows a divided government with different
factions working for the highest bidder. Also shows the US does not have much control over their
Saudi/Turkish "allies"..
The Syrian 5-star opposition had hoped the Americans will invade Syria and get rid of Assad
for them and parachute them into Damascus like the CIA did Hamid Karzai...It'll make for a lovely
comedy script if it wasn't so tragic!!!
Jen | Oct 1, 2016 5:18:33 PM | 16 There is one country on the Arabian peninsula that is somewhat hostile to Saudia Arabia and
has reasonably good relations with Iran, so I suspect they're quite happy to see Saudi Arabia
bogged down in a Yemeni quagmire as no doubt are the Russians.
It's one of two countries that have a land border with Yemen so, I'm guessing it wouldn't be
hard to smuggle weapons across their shared border, i.e., as about as difficult as it is for al
Nusrah or ISIS to smuggle weapons across Syria's border with Turkey.
A friend of a friend works as a nursing practitioner in a military hospital in that country
and all her patients have battlefield wounds even though that country is not at war internally
or externally.
My guess is that it was an Iranian knockoff of the C-802 that flies at 3-5 metres off the sea
during the attack phase at mach 0.9 (~690 mph), so you might not see it given its speed and altitude.
When the missile is launched, the solid rocket propellant booster accelerates the speed of
the missile to Mach 0.9 in a few seconds. After the booster burns out, it detaches from the
missile body and the missile's turbojet engine starts.
This missile is semi-armoured piercing while the boat has an aluminium (alloy) hull and superstructure
so the missile would punch through the skin like a hot knife through butter and explode inside
the ship.
The missile uses a 165 kg semi-armor-piercing anti-personnel blast warhead which relies on
the missile's kinetic energy to pierce the deck of a ship, penetrate into and explode in the
ship's interior. The YJ-82 might have a higher single hit probability than the YJ-8/YJ-81..
"... "I am not satisfied [with the Chilcot report]," ..."
"... . "It won't bring me back my family; it won't bring me back my arms or it won't bring me back my country. My country Iraq is destroyed because of this invasion." ..."
"... "when the missile hit my home." ..."
"... "I was still young, living with my family. At 12:00 o'clock in the night I suddenly heard a very big blast hitting my home, the house collapsed on us. There was a lot of fire and I heard my family screaming and shouting," ..."
"... "We were farmers. We had sheep and cows outside. There wasn't a military base near to my home," ..."
"... "There are lots of people like me who lost some members of their family. So we have no answer for this: why they have done it – we don't know." ..."
"... "Yes, Saddam [Hussein] was a terrible person and a dictator, but what's happening now is much worse than it was under Saddam. They took one Saddam and they got us many more Saddams," ..."
"... "inadequate" ..."
"... "deeply sorry for the loss of life" ..."
"... "good faith". ..."
"... "This makes me angry. He just said 'sorry' and he also said he would do the same thing again. They have caused so many deaths and so much suffering […]," ..."
"... "to say 'sorry' and just walk away with it – it's not justice." ..."
"... "I want to ask him if he wants to come back with me to Iraq and tell the Iraqi people that he will do the same thing again…" ..."
"... "presented with a certainty that was not justified." ..."
"... "chaos" ..."
"... "Before the war started we knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction. We knew that they're only coming for economic reasons and to have power in this part of the world. And you can see what's happening today in the Middle East. Iraq, Syria – it's all linked to the 2003 invasions of Iraq," ..."
"... "There's was violence but now there's hundreds of more violence than before…If you want to rebuild Iraq again you need probably another hundred years to do this…I go back to Iraq and I see the country is destroyed," ..."
Published time: 02:03 Edited time: 8 Jul, 2016 02:55
Get short URL
Blair's apology for the Iraq invasion is not going to bring the "destroyed" country and dead people
back, a disabled Iraqi man, who lost his whole family, told RT. He demands justice for those whose
actions only created "many more Saddams". "I am not satisfied [with the Chilcot report],"
25-year-old Ali Abbas said . "It won't bring me back my family; it won't bring me back my
arms or it won't bring me back my country. My country Iraq is destroyed because of this invasion."
Thirteen years ago, Abbas lost his mother, father, and a little brother as well as 13 other members
of their family in the UK-US allied 2003 invasion.
Now residing in London, he recounts terrors of the war, saying he can vividly remember the day
and time "when the missile hit my home."
"I was still young, living with my family. At 12:00 o'clock in the night I suddenly heard
a very big blast hitting my home, the house collapsed on us. There was a lot of fire and I heard
my family screaming and shouting," Abbas said.
That attack left the young man disabled – having suffered burns to 60 percent of his body, he
lost his arms amputated due to severe burns.
The one thing that Abbas does not understand is why the militants had to target his home and family
of peaceful farmers.
"We were farmers. We had sheep and cows outside. There wasn't a military base near to my home,"
he said. "There are lots of people like me who lost some members of their family. So we
have no answer for this: why they have done it – we don't know."
Abbas says that the Iraq's 2003 invasion and the following regime change brought the country leaders
much worse than Saddam Hussein.
"Yes, Saddam [Hussein] was a terrible person and a dictator, but what's happening now is much
worse than it was under Saddam. They took one Saddam and they got us many more Saddams," he
said.
The so-called Chilcot inquiry released by Sir John Chilcot criticized former UK government led
by Tony Blair for "inadequate" planning and underestimation of the Iraq invasion's consequences.
It also found that Britain's choice to support the Iraq war unjustified.
Speaking in light of the Chilcot inquiry release, Tony Blair said he was "deeply sorry for
the loss of life" , but stressed that he acted in "good faith".
"This makes me angry. He just said 'sorry' and he also said he would do the same thing again.
They have caused so many deaths and so much suffering […]," Abbas said, adding that "to
say 'sorry' and just walk away with it – it's not justice."
"I want to ask him if he wants to come back with me to Iraq and tell the Iraqi people that
he will do the same thing again…" he says.
The Chilcot report also showed that Britain's decision to bomb Iraq was not clearly evaluated
as one of the major arguments for the campaign – Iraq's weapons of mass destruction – was "presented
with a certainty that was not justified."
Abbas agrees that the WMD was just a pretext for the UK and US to initiate war which resulted
in total "chaos" in the Middle East and proliferation of terrorism.
"Before the war started we knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction. We knew that
they're only coming for economic reasons and to have power in this part of the world. And you can
see what's happening today in the Middle East. Iraq, Syria – it's all linked to the 2003 invasions
of Iraq," Abbas said.
He says that the 2003 invasion unleashed terrorists that Iraq did not know of before.
"There's was violence but now there's hundreds of more violence than before…If you want to
rebuild Iraq again you need probably another hundred years to do this…I go back to Iraq and I see
the country is destroyed," he added.
It is really interesting to read those comments from march 2016 in October ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... I'm tempted to think that the Liberal Establishment hasn't had the same problem to the same degree because the liberals recognize that Democrats want to do more, but they've been stymied by the Republican refusal to give Obama any wins. ..."
"... Trump is a backlash against the GOP elite, in all its various and sundry forms. Whether Kasich, Jeb, Rubio, Christie, or anyone else -- none of these are acceptable to the disillusioned party base. ..."
"... Much of the angst on the Democratic side isn't against the Democratic establishment per se ..."
"... To Republican supporters of Donald Trump: I understand your anger and rage at the Republican Party's failure to pay sufficient attention to your economic concerns – specifically the consequences of exports of jobs and illegal "imports" of workers. but also issues like wage stagnation. I understand, therefore, when the GOP finally has a candidate who does mention these concerns front and centre, he has an appeal for you lacking in the other candidates. ..."
"... America's wounds are entirely self-inflicted. They include the massively destructive drug war; imperialist adventures that have drained the national wealth, made life less safe, and savaged civil liberties; and an increase of government spending as a percentage of GDP from 7 percent in 1900 to 37 percent today. Almost any economist, left or right, would agree that trade and immigration (legal or not) are net benefits. ..."
"... Conservatives, Republican or not, have failed to defend, much less extend, economic freedom; have supported the growth of government; and have persistently supported militaristic empire. ..."
"... He is the upshot of an ideology whose prominent voices have included Coulter, Savage, Hannity, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly. In politics, you get what you pander to. ..."
"... What you're trying to do is make the "What's the matter with Kansas?" argument a matter of the candidate's approach not the voters' response. But in the final analysis, it amounts to the same thing. ..."
"... James Fallows quotes a data analysis of the vote in Michigan that finds to the analyst's surprise that districts that suffered the greatest loss of manufacturing were NOT the districts that voted predominately for Trump meaning "economic anxiety" does not explain the Trump voting pattern. ..."
"... The number of immigrants and their young children grew six times faster than the nation's total population from 1970 to 2015 - 353 percent vs. 59 percent. ..."
"... This is the single most insidious feature of globalism that the elites of both government parties have imposed upon us, and their plan to replace the historic American nation with a Third World majority is proceeding right on schedule. ..."
"... Joe Biden has run for president a couple of times, and he always stayed in single digits for the simple reason that he always puts his foot in his mouth, way in. ..."
"... "his is the single most insidious feature of globalism that the elites of both government parties have imposed upon us, and their plan to replace the historic American nation with a Third World majority is proceeding right on schedule. ..."
"... And will America be the same with different people in it? If the answer is yes, we should ask for evidence that making it different makes it better. If the answer is no, then we should ask why we are doing this. ..."
"... Obama and most Democrats understood very well the anger of poor whites and they tried desperately to win their votes. And, as is now made plain by so many poor, white Trump supporters, they didn't vote for Obama and other Democratic politicians because they believe those politicians hold them in low esteem or have called them racists. ..."
"... But the pivot to a Mr. trump has far more to do with foreign policy than domestic policy aside from immigration. It was his less than aggressive use of the military. ..."
"... It's obvious to many commentators that working-class Republican voters are voting against their own interests by allowing themselves to be fooled by cultural cues and dog whistles. But the big unreported story is that the same thing is happening in the Democratic primaries as well. Poor Southern Blacks are voting by colossal margins for the Wall Street version of the Democratic Party over the socialist version of the Democratic Party. Why? Because the Wall Street candidate is married to a guy who has all his Southern fried cultural cues and dog whistles working right and the socialist has spent too much of his time among up-tight Yankees in Vermont. ..."
"... Anyone who thinks Conservatives, all three of them in proportion to the rest of the electorate will stay home and let Hillary be elected is in need of oxygen. When it comes to the general election Trump will probably bury Hillary. ..."
"... But let us understand one important thing. Trump is in no way destroying the Republican Party. They will still hold the House, may hang onto the Senate, and will still hold the majority of state governments. That is hardly a party that is being destroyed. In the long run, the Democrats are in far worse shape as that Republican majority in every other branch of government not only means that the Democrats do not have much a farm team for future presidential nominees, (look what they got stuck with this year.) but also it means enough barriers being thrown up in the way of the Democrats voting blocks to keep from even voting at all. ..."
"... "but rich people with poor impulse control are pretty much the last people you want in positions of power." That makes a great tweet, but it's helpful to get beyond abstract generalities. Trump has poor impulse control on his mouth, to be sure, but there's every indication that his impulses will not lead to new wars or "kinetic" military actions in places like North Africa, the Middle East or Ukraine. His impulsiveness has also led him to reveal that he wants to be "neutral" on the Palestinian question. To me, his non-interventionist "impulses," if you will, are extremely important on a purely pragmatic level. ..."
"... Union-busting has done more to undercut and immiserate the working class than mass immigration and "free trade," and union leaders spending millions of dollars on electing Democrats and Republicans (at the state level) have betrayed their membership and the working class. ..."
"... Immigration and trade policies do need to be addressed but rebuilding the unions is the vital step for doing so. ..."
"... "There is not one scrap of statistical evidence – no crime stats, no violent crime stats, NOTHING – that supports Featherstone's outrageous statement that Trump white supporters are "prone to brutality and violence "" ..."
"... The WWC started abandoning the Democratic Party starting with the 1966 mid-term elections. The last Democratic candidate for President to get a majority of the white male vote was LBJ in 1964. ..."
"... The Civil Rights and the Voting Rights Acts were used as wedge issues by the 1968 Nixon campaign. Read all about it in Kevin Phillips' book The Emerging Republican Majority. Phillips helped design the Southern Strategy. Also see Atwater, Lee. ..."
"... The rich have always had a lot of influence in the Republican Party, but under George W. Bush, the wealthy totally took over the party, and the party establishment began to worship at the altars of globalism and tax cuts for the rich. The party could care less about its' Base. The party totally lost the concept of the Common Good, such as we had under Eisenhower and even Nixon. ..."
"... The Base has been faithfully voting Republican in spite of getting very little out of the arrangement, but they are now starting to wake up. The GOP Establishment is going to have to make some changes; they can be for free enterprise, but with some concern for American workers. ..."
"... "Jackson believed that the president's authority was derived from the people and the presidential office was above party politics. Instead of choosing party favorites, Jackson chose 'plain, businessmen' whom he intended to control." ..."
"... This is why Jackson was hated, smeared and maligned, and the same is true of Trump. ..."
"... "In regard to the Petticoat affair, Jackson later remarked, 'I [would] rather have live vermin on my back than the tongue of one of these Washington women on my reputation.'" ..."
"... "If you are a mainstream Republican or Democrat, and aren't trying to understand Trump's appeal (as opposed to simply writing his backers off as racist clods), then you are making a big, big mistake." ..."
"... "That they are white, and crude, and prone to brutality and violence, frequently not very compassionate or empathetic, all-too-often confused by the world, and that their religion is simplistic and mostly idolatrous, all that makes it hard to sympathize with them. (I find it hard.)" ..."
"... "They're angry at Washington and Wall Street, at big corporations and big government. And they're voting now for Donald Trump." Yeah. No doubt. But they are voting for the same clowns for Congress and the Senate. Kentucky might like Trump, but they will keep McConnell. They hate the establishment that they maintain. It's Obama's fault. He's clouded their minds. That's gotta be it. ..."
"... Rod – do you realize how many of Featherstone's words and sentiments could have been applied to Black Lives Matter? In all seriousness, as I was reading him, I kept thinking, "Working Class White Lives Matter." ..."
"... I'm one of those doing quite well, and supporting Mr. Trump's bid for the Presidency. I'm a degreed mathematician doing research and development in cybersecurity, with a growing portfolio of professional publications, and patents pending. I'm a Marine veteran of the Iraq war whose 'eggs aren't too scrambled'. I married woman who went to one of the best schools in the UK and graduated with honors from one of the best universities in the US. I truly believe that my wife, my child, and I will be fine no matter who wins this election. ..."
"... GOP policy wrt to its impact on many working and middle class Americans seems to me to be a classic case of emperors new clothes. ..."
"... This blog has replaced Scott Adams as the go to place for understanding Trump. Adams deservedly got a lot of credit for correctly predicting that Trump would not collapse, but his own repeated assertions that truth doesn't matter in a 3d world are flatly inconsistent with his pretense to just be reporting the facts about Trump. Once one suspects that he's pretending to report the facts while really drumming up support for Trump it becomes clear how one sided is his analysis. Adams' own sophistic views about the primacy of rhetoric and human beings as meat machines don't license any other interpretation. ..."
"... If the news is to be believed, Trump is certainly no friend of the unions, at least in his own business dealings. ..."
"... Trump speaks for a group that has been abandoned and marginalized by the political classes. He is bringing them back into the system and perhaps bringing a little more balance back to domestic politics. I don't think elites change unless they feel threatened, and I hope Trump is threatening enough to the elites, without actually posing the threat a real revolutionary would pose. ..."
"... My knee-jerk position is to support the working people against the rich. But, given the voting patterns of the white working class going back to 1980, and even to 1968, I find myself vacillating between feeling for them and believing that they got what they wanted (and deserved) good and hard. ..."
I'm tempted to think that the Liberal Establishment hasn't had the same problem to the same
degree because the liberals recognize that Democrats want to do more, but they've been stymied
by the Republican refusal to give Obama any wins.
One other interesting thought:
Trump is a backlash against the GOP elite, in all its various and sundry forms. Whether
Kasich, Jeb, Rubio, Christie, or anyone else -- none of these are acceptable to the disillusioned
party base. Nor would Mitt Romney be were he to waltz into the convention and wrest the nomination
away from Crump–his main selling point in 2012 was that he wasn't Barack Obama, and that's not
relevant this time around.
Much of the angst on the Democratic side isn't against the Democratic establishment
per se , but against the specific person of Hillary Rodham Clinton (and a few other specific
Democrats whom the left intensely dislikes, no others of which are running), who has, for reasons
both good and bad, a lot of enemies. Were the 22nd Amendment to not around to prevent
it and Obama to seek a third term, he'd waltz to the nomination. Were Joe Biden to run in her
stead, he'd receive widespread support across the board. Likewise with many other party fixtures
who are highly popular among Democrats (even if reviled outside the party).
I'm just going to repost what I posted on my FB page yesterday:
To Republican supporters of Donald Trump: I understand your anger and rage at the Republican
Party's failure to pay sufficient attention to your economic concerns – specifically the consequences
of exports of jobs and illegal "imports" of workers. but also issues like wage stagnation. I understand,
therefore, when the GOP finally has a candidate who does mention these concerns front and centre,
he has an appeal for you lacking in the other candidates.
America's wounds are entirely self-inflicted. They include the massively destructive drug
war; imperialist adventures that have drained the national wealth, made life less safe, and savaged
civil liberties; and an increase of government spending as a percentage of GDP from 7 percent
in 1900 to 37 percent today. Almost any economist, left or right, would agree that trade and immigration
(legal or not) are net benefits.
Conservatives, Republican or not, have failed to defend, much less extend, economic freedom;
have supported the growth of government; and have persistently supported militaristic empire.
Trump is the predictable result of the nasty and dunderheaded populism toward which conservatives
have been moving for the past 25 years or so. He is the upshot of an ideology whose prominent
voices have included Coulter, Savage, Hannity, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly. In politics, you get what
you pander to.
Trump is winning by scapegoating those who bear no responsibility for America's social and
economic ills. Still even conservatives who consider themselves proximate descendants of the old
right twiddle their thumbs and blow kisses to the ignoramuses who embrace Trumpian populism, rather
than challenging his malignant and foolish prescriptions. If Trump is elected and gets his way,
perhaps the ensuing international economic disaster and war with China will help to clarify conservative
thinking. I doubt it, though, since conservatism's singular distinction is its failure to accomplish
anything that its adherents desire. The failure has been patent for a long time, and succinctly
described by Hayek in 1960.
OK, responding to about a half-dozen different comments:
First, regarding the "information bubble" that some are in, we have this:
Aside from government employment the Clinton admin was a hostile force to their interests.
Actually, the opposite was true. Fed Government employment went down 8 straight years during
Clinton's Admin, and started going up again under Bush. Stereotypes don't equal facts.
There is not one scrap of statistical evidence – no crime stats, no violent crime stats,
NOTHING – that supports Featherstone's outrageous statement that Trump white supporters are
"prone to brutality and violence "
OK, now that's pretty ironic, coming on a day when a 78-yo Trump supporter just got arrested
for sucker-punching a black guy who was getting thrown out of a Trump rally, as others were yelling
f*****g n*****s. (See it at http://bcove.me/w5m1iftz
- where the perpetrator goes on to say he enjoyed doing it and would kill him next time) (And
the day after Trump's own campaign manager Corey Lewandowski accosted a Breitbart reporter). Violence
at Trump rallies is nothing new in 2016. Google it.
One commenter said that entire reason the WWC votes for the GOP is: "Race. That's it. Pure
and simple."
The response from another: "What a load of crap."
I'm going to take a middle ground. I think that the Dems had far better economic policies towards
the WWC than the GOP, but that because of the Dems leaning so far liberal on social issues
, that partially alienated the WWC.
But race was most definitely a part of it. Southern Strategy? Welfare Queen? Lee Atwater? Those
things really happened and we can't wish them away.
Look - being against immigration for economic reasons has some logic. But being harsh about
it also attracts xeonophobes and racists. I don't think Trump is racist, but when he was a bit
slow to respond to the KKK's endorsement of him, I think Trump was trying to figure out a way
not to damage his support among the white nationalistic crowd.
William F. Buckley, we could sure use you now!
The evidence is thick is that despite his election, certain elements in the Republican
Party persisted in presenting Obama as the Other, the treasonous Other.
Indeed. He was a black-Commie-Kenyan who was illegible to be Prez. And note who was a prominent
leader of the so-called "birther movement"? None other than The Donald himself. And the GOP, with
a nod and a wink, didn't protest too much, because they thought it'd be useful in the 2012 elections.
(McCain of all people, bless him, was one of the few prominent GOPers in 2008 who pushed back
on this Otherization.)
"The problem with BLM and the 'racism' narrative is that there is a real demonstrable
problem in that young Black men commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes (for whatever
reason), and you can't come up with good public policy unless you get honest about that fact."
True. But the problem with the pushback against BLM is that there is a real demonstrable problem
that there are a number of racist police who target blacks and abuse their authority - and lie
on official reports about it. (The Ferguson Report was absolutely devastating!) Conservatives
who favor limited government ought to be all over that, no? The main thing that's changed now
is the ubiquity of cell-phone cameras and increasing use of dash-cams, so we all can see, with
our own eyes, what the black community has been complaining about for 150 years.
Dancer Girl, What you're trying to do is make the "What's the matter with Kansas?" argument a matter of
the candidate's approach not the voters' response. But in the final analysis, it amounts to the
same thing.
Assuming (for the sake of argument) that Bernie will get blacks the single-payer health insurance
and free college tuition they've longed for. You're saying that because he didn't approach their
barbershop the right way, they voted against that–not just for themselves, but for their families,
their children, the whole country. That's not any different from saying that W won the election
because white people thought he was the kind of the guy you could have a beer with.
Your response shows that no, there's no way you can spin the "They vote against their best
interest and good policy because of culture" argument in a way that doesn't make them look like
bad voters. You understood that fact, which is why you felt that you had to reply and say, no,
that's not really the case. You felt the need to rebut it. Well, so do white working class voters
when the argument's used against them. Which illustrates why using that argument is not a good
way to win over voters.
And by the way, reality check: winning 30% of the vote of a given demographic in a two way
contest is not promising, not hopeful, not a turning point–not any of the things the Sanders campaign
says it is. It's getting CRUSHED, SHELLACKED, DEFEATED IN A LANDSLIDE–what ever headline phrase
you want to use. The fact that it's being spun as somehow a great new emerging reality of a "Feel
the Bern" moment among African-Americans is testimony to the enduring hold of the myth that the
"What's the matter with Kansas" argument is only relevant for the voting behavior of down-market
whites.
James Fallows quotes a data analysis of the vote in Michigan that finds to the analyst's surprise
that districts that suffered the greatest loss of manufacturing were NOT the districts that voted
predominately for Trump meaning "economic anxiety" does not explain the Trump voting pattern.
"But it always struck me there was some other agenda to the immigration."
The number of immigrants and their young children grew six times faster than the nation's
total population from 1970 to 2015 - 353 percent vs. 59 percent.
This is the single most insidious feature of globalism that the elites of both government
parties have imposed upon us, and their plan to replace the historic American nation with a Third
World majority is proceeding right on schedule.
And will America be the same with different people in it? If the answer is yes, we should ask
for evidence that making it different makes it better. If the answer is no, then we should ask
why we are doing this.
We are, in short, being told to commit suicide. For our children's sake, is both our right
and our duty to refuse.
Were Joe Biden to run in her stead, he'd receive widespread support across the board.
Joe Biden has run for president a couple of times, and he always stayed in single digits
for the simple reason that he always puts his foot in his mouth, way in. I have difficulty
believing he wouldn't do so again. I mean, he did it on the afternoon after the inauguration.
Then there is his propensity to pontificate on what Catholic doctrine really means - just like
dominic1955 does. A political leader in a constitutional republican should simply say "I was elected
to represent the people of Delaware, not my church."
"his is the single most insidious feature of globalism that the elites of both government
parties have imposed upon us, and their plan to replace the historic American nation with a Third
World majority is proceeding right on schedule.
And will America be the same with different people in it? If the answer is yes, we should
ask for evidence that making it different makes it better. If the answer is no, then we should
ask why we are doing this.
We are, in short, being told to commit suicide. For our children's sake, is both our right
and our duty to refuse."
Let's be honest here: there is pretty much 1:1 correlation between people who are concerned
about "replacement " of American people, and people who think Black Americans, here since the
1500s, and some other smaller groups, here since the 1800s, don't belong to the nation you are
trying to "protect." Which is why your tears seem so hollow to outsiders..
The majority of blue collar Trump supporters would have been the direct beneficiaries of Obama's
American Jobs Act. The only reason Boehner and McConnell wouldn't allow that to pass is they knew
that a good economy benefits Obama.
But ironically in allowing these economic inequalities to
fester they made it conducive for Trump's rise. The GOP deserves Trump. He is their reward for
years of crony capitalism, irresponsible government, petty obstruction, and outright nihilism.
And as scared as I am of Trump I look at the electoral map and don't see any possible route for
his victory. Are we really to believe that his vulgar, racist nationalism will move Ohio, Florida,
and Virginia back to the GOP column? Are we really to believe that millions of good conservatives
stayed home in 2012, but that Trump will be the ticket to bring them to the polls in 2016? No.
Trump as GOP nominee all but guarantees President Hillary Clinton. And where will conservatism
go from there? Republican leaders have no one left to lie to. Meep, Meep.
But Ross Perot was that rich guy back in 1992, and he choked. But that was near the beginning
of globalization.
1) Globalization was already here in 1992 and ushered in by the Reagan Revolution and the battle
of the Carter years. Wasn't the boom box in college dorm (or apartment) manufactured in Japan?
Michael Moore first big movie "Roger and Me " was released in 1989. (And centered around Flint,
MI)
2) How did Perot choke? He got 19% against a (now respected) incumbent and the 'Elvis' of politicians.
Yes he made some errors but that was one heck of run for a third party.
RD: If you are a mainstream Republican or Democrat, and aren't trying to understand Trump's
appeal (as opposed to simply writing his backers off as racist clods), then you are making a big,
big mistake.
I suspect most mainstream Democrats already understand Trump's appeal. Obama explained this
very plainly eight years ago in a speech in which he referenced these voters' bitterness and their
clinging to guns and religion. He took a lot of heat from Republicans for that speech, but it's
very hard to read that speech and disagree with it.
Obama and most Democrats understood very well the anger of poor whites and they tried desperately
to win their votes. And, as is now made plain by so many poor, white Trump supporters, they didn't
vote for Obama and other Democratic politicians because they believe those politicians hold them
in low esteem or have called them racists. That is the running theme in all of these sympathetic
posts about Trump supporters. It's a lazy cheap shot because it is never corroborated by
any example of a Democratic politician ever actually doing this or anything remotely like it.
It's just an ineffectual way to avoid responsibility for the consequences of one's actions.
These people don't vote for Democratic politicians because they don't like the other people
who vote for Democratic politicians. They do not use their votes to pursue policies that improve
their own conditions. Instead, they use their votes as a weapon against people with whom they
have a grievance.
As Charles Featherstone said: Trump is poking all of the right people in the eyes for all
the right reasons. Over and over we hear commenters on this very blog express some desire
to stick it to SJWs, elites, coastal elites and others who they dislike. Well, there is a cost
for using your vote as an expression of resentment instead of a tool for implementing good policy.
The obvious cost is that you will be harmed by the policies of the Republican politicians you
vote for.
Another, less obvious cost is that other people will think you are backward or less intelligent,
for why else would you pursue policies that clearly harm you just so you can express dislike for
someone else? That's really not anyone else's fault. More importantly, it's not at all clear how
Democrats could change this and still help their current supporters.
First the Republican party is not in a state of free fall. Just because the people shut out since
Pres. Reagan took office as the party shifted toward an interested and wealthier class doesn't
mean those people have not been around. Yesterday I got my voter notice. It said I was unaffiliated.
A battle I go through ever election cycle. And I was prepared to go through it again until I read
this morning that Mr. trump is back peddling on immigration.
We aren't even in the general and he is already tiptoeing through the tulips. I hope it's not
true. Not only is the Republican Party not in disarray, it is in a position to flex some conservative
muscle if they stand to course. That is unless Mr. trump turns out to be a liberal in disguise
all along and that may be.
I don't get my dignity veracity, faith integrity from the political party. I am associated
with the Republican party because they reflect a healthy dose of what I believe. Perhaps a lot
less. Upon examination, it's hard to think of anything the party represents that I consider vital
conservative thought.
I guess if you want to call my loyalty to country bigotry that's your call. I know Mr. trump
will not be calling for a national day of celibacy, prayer, etc. I don't expect him to. I expect
him to govern and I expect him to govern with some sense of understanding one cannot raise taxes
and without a good dose of history that whatever they are being raised for is most likely unnecessary
for anything aside from pandering to some emotional call.
He still as to deal with a connected establishment Congress.
But the pivot to a Mr. trump has far more to do with foreign policy than domestic policy
aside from immigration. It was his less than aggressive use of the military.
Mr. Trump is not going to turn the country into a Hugo Chavez haven of halting corruption.
These kinds of hyperbolic refections of Republican party eulogies are not unknown in history and
thus far they have proved wrong. The Party may shift hopefully more rightward than left. Hopefully
it will shift more country orientation. But make no mistake, Mr Trump will not have been the cause
of any decay. He will be the benefactor of a decay the levin of which has gone unchecked for quite
a long time.
Another thought provoked by Dancer Girl's comments:
"I just wish [Trump voters]'d leave him behind and rally around Bernie Sanders."
Well it would be nice if poor Southern Blacks would do the same.
It's obvious to many commentators that working-class Republican voters are voting against
their own interests by allowing themselves to be fooled by cultural cues and dog whistles. But
the big unreported story is that the same thing is happening in the Democratic primaries as well.
Poor Southern Blacks are voting by colossal margins for the Wall Street version of the Democratic
Party over the socialist version of the Democratic Party. Why? Because the Wall Street candidate
is married to a guy who has all his Southern fried cultural cues and dog whistles working right
and the socialist has spent too much of his time among up-tight Yankees in Vermont.
Just one more way in which salt of the earth Blacks and Whites aren't all that different and
are, in everything except tribal allegiance, getting more similar all the time. Both put racial
honor and dignity over economic self-interest, and for a technocratic, policy-oriented politics
aiming to just make lives better, that's a real problem.
To the liberals and progressives who still dismiss the travails of the white working class,
you only reinforce their alienation and disdain for you.
I have, throughout my adult life, supported economic policies that directly or indirectly benefitted
the working class (white or otherwise) to my own economic detriment. You name the policy – unionization,
higher minimum wages, public health insurance, strong and well-funded public education at all
levels, better public transport, mixed-income housing, consumer protection for financial services,
etc. etc. – I have either advocated or in fact implemented it. I have done so in most instances
in direct contradiction to my own economic interests, because I thought it was the right thing
to do. I have even argued against affirmative action, in recognition of the resentments it creates,
even as I see "hockey/baseball/football/church choir-club affirmative action" all around me. Grin
and bear it; old habits take long to die.
Now, the same people I have been trying to help, called me a "parasite" because I was in the
public sector, "blood-sucker" because I was a lawyer, and a couple of unmentionables because I'm
gay and slightly tanned.
So, please, spare me the "dismiss and be disdained" business: I never dismissed but more often
than not got disdain just because. I wish I had in me to say they deserve their lot, and they
will deserve the eventual betrayal by Trump, but I don't. I'm still a good little liberal, disturbed
by all of this to be sure, but nevertheless hopeful that I can make a difference – for them (I
don't need any help).
Andrew Jackson:
They were "America is still racist." And they set out to prove it. Now we feel more bitterly
divided then ever. I could go into more detail, about the issues involved, but it's just frustrating
to me, and the stuff I quoted above is ready made excuse that is not true to my experience.
When Obama became president, Republican leaders set out to make him a one-term president, not
by offering better solutions, but by making sure he would achieve nothing. The first black president.
And when the birther nonsense continued, Republican leaders did nothing to stop it – as late as
2012, Romney was making light of his birthplace. The first black president. Even as they attack
him for following Wright, a protestant pastor, he was accused of being a secret Muslim. And Republican
leaders did little to combat this calumny.
The evidence is thick is that despite his election, certain elements in the Republican Party
persisted in presenting Obama as the Other, the treasonous Other. Some of it was because he was
a Democrat. But if you are suggesting that racism has had nothing to with what Obama has gone
through, well, we just have to disagree.
Anyone who thinks Conservatives, all three of them in proportion to the rest of the electorate
will stay home and let Hillary be elected is in need of oxygen. When it comes to the general election
Trump will probably bury Hillary.
I want to see how he will work with Congress. We know Congress won't have anything to do with
Hillary and the House will vote to impeach her the first chance it gets, possibly the day after
the inauguration. A vote for Hillary is, at the very least, a vote for four years of absolute
gridlock and virtual civil war in DC. Bernie might actually get some of his less radical ideas
through simply because everyone likes him and for all of his nuttiness does seem to actually care
about the American people before he cares about the sacred policy.
But let us understand one important thing. Trump is in no way destroying the Republican
Party. They will still hold the House, may hang onto the Senate, and will still hold the majority
of state governments. That is hardly a party that is being destroyed. In the long run, the Democrats
are in far worse shape as that Republican majority in every other branch of government not only
means that the Democrats do not have much a farm team for future presidential nominees, (look
what they got stuck with this year.) but also it means enough barriers being thrown up in the
way of the Democrats voting blocks to keep from even voting at all.
"but rich people with poor impulse control are pretty much the last people you want in positions
of power." That makes a great tweet, but it's helpful to get beyond abstract generalities. Trump
has poor impulse control on his mouth, to be sure, but there's every indication that his impulses
will not lead to new wars or "kinetic" military actions in places like North Africa, the Middle
East or Ukraine. His impulsiveness has also led him to reveal that he wants to be "neutral" on
the Palestinian question. To me, his non-interventionist "impulses," if you will, are extremely
important on a purely pragmatic level.
An earlier comment I thought I had posted seems to have vanished (maybe I failed to hit "send"
before leaving for the office )
But +1 to those who compare the plight of working-class whites to African-Americans. Both groups
have subcultures who engage in self-destructive behaviors and take perverse pride in doing so.
Yet, it seems, around here–one of these groups are yeoman folk suffering at the hands of working-class
elites who look down at them, but the other are simply thugs and layabouts. Around here, one culture
is met with sympathy, and the other with scorn. One are the victims of circumstances, the other
are the architects of their own misery.
But of course, this goes way beyond racial politics. Many conservatives lionize the late Margaret
Thatcher, who is often held to have "saved Britain". Saved it from what exactly–the Russians or
the Germans or the French or the Spanish or the Normans or the Vikings or the Romans? No–she is
held to have saved Britain from its own people–specifically unionized miners who had, according
to the retelling, captured an excessive share of the country's wealth. Perhaps they had–truly
answering that question requires either getting into nasty questions of comparable worth, or abandoning
the whole question to the market–but in doing so, she smashed many of Britain's institutions and
communities to bits.
And around here–many of the people who seem outraged at the decline of factory work in rural
communities; were openly cheering the demise of Detroit (and often still are). Many people who
lament the outsourcing of good-paying American jobs, and the devastation of many communities that
result–hate and resent their local schoolteachers or bus drivers who still do have good
jobs with good pay. Granted, public employees have their paychecks financed by the taxpayer, so
the general public is in the position of "management"–but still, the point stands: Some people
expect aid and sympathy when they hit hard times, but have responded to the please of others in
similar circumstances with shame and judgment.
Given that we bailed out Detroit, of course we should help struggling small towns. But we should
help all struggling communities best we can, not only those with particular demographics,
leaving the rest to fester. No demographic in the United States is uniquely noble and uniquely
deserving of public support. To the extent that WCWs believe that they are more noble, more industrious,
more patriotic, and more virtuous than the rest of us–sorry, you're not. (But nor, on the whole,
are you any worse).
Union-busting has done more to undercut and immiserate the working class than mass immigration
and "free trade," and union leaders spending millions of dollars on electing Democrats and Republicans
(at the state level) have betrayed their membership and the working class.
Immigration and trade policies do need to be addressed but rebuilding the unions is the
vital step for doing so. Unfortunately, I don't see the latter happening absent the development
of a tough, theoretically vibrant revolutionary socialist movement, which is my only concession
to the pessimism (or cynicism?) of Walter F.
Jim the First:
"if you're talking about parochial schools in the Catholic sense – they integrated before Brown
v. Board for the most part. If you're talking about parochial schools in the non-Catholic sense,
there just aren't enough of them to matter very much."
Now that all depends on exactly where you are. In the flatter South, protestant or non-denominational
Christian Academies are more important. I can't speak to other northern areas, but around here,
the Catholic Schools are why the city is 50/50 black and white, and the public schools are 80%
black.
"There is not one scrap of statistical evidence – no crime stats, no violent crime stats,
NOTHING – that supports Featherstone's outrageous statement that Trump white supporters are "prone
to brutality and violence ""
I think he's saying white trashy people he's had experience with are like that, not Trump supporters
by and large.
He's right to some degree. I don't see my fellow white collar folks getting drunk of Steel
Reserve and having to have the cops come in an break up a "domestic dispute".
Jim the First- The WWC started abandoning the Democratic Party starting with the 1966 mid-term elections.
The last Democratic candidate for President to get a majority of the white male vote was LBJ in
1964.
The Civil Rights and the Voting Rights Acts were used as wedge issues by the 1968 Nixon
campaign. Read all about it in Kevin Phillips' book The Emerging Republican Majority. Phillips
helped design the Southern Strategy. Also see Atwater, Lee.
True, it wasn't all race. Hippies and peaceniks were associated with the Democrats. Acid, amnesty,
and abortion had a lot to do with it too.
But race was the first big crack in the edifice of the New Deal coalition.
"The point is that Charles has been beat up pretty bad by life. It's still happening. He's
a middle-aged white guy struggling for work, struggling to find solid ground."
"They lost their influence, their dignity and their shot at the American Dream, and now they're
angry. They're angry at Washington and Wall Street, at big corporations and big government. And
they're voting now for Donald Trump."
"But I get why people less secure economically than I am don't care, and are for him anyway."
Plus this:
"Point is, Trump is drawing from all demographic groups."
The point is, this last observation invalidates your entire post. If Trump is drawing from
all demographic groups, then his success isn't explained by anecdotes about poor, economically
dispossessed people.
The rich have always had a lot of influence in the Republican Party, but under George W. Bush,
the wealthy totally took over the party, and the party establishment began to worship at the altars
of globalism and tax cuts for the rich. The party could care less about its' Base. The party totally
lost the concept of the Common Good, such as we had under Eisenhower and even Nixon.
The Base has been faithfully voting Republican in spite of getting very little out of the
arrangement, but they are now starting to wake up. The GOP Establishment is going to have to make
some changes; they can be for free enterprise, but with some concern for American workers.
On top of it all, the demographics of the US are changing and whites are shrinking as a percentage
of the electorate. The GOP cannot be a whites only party. Having written off African-Americans,
they are now writing off Hispanics. Unless the GOP makes some fundamental changes, they will not
win another national election.
" But the people he motivated, and who voted for him, they aren't going away - and neither
are their problems and concerns. "
This is why I see it as the American Spring.
Granted it doesn't have the massive numbers of protesters that the countries where "Springs"
have been claimed before have had. America is not yet anywhere approaching the levels of poverty
and other problems that those countries have, and there is still some of the illusion of democracy
left in its oligarchic politics. And America doesn't have a far richer superpower interfering
and aggressively promoting, with seemingly unlimited wealth and power, its own political culture
as the potential solution to all the ills of the people in the target country, and deliberately
holding out the hope of superpower military intervention on behalf of the protesters if they just
cause enough trouble for long enough.
But still, the Trump candidacy seemingly has triggered something that won't just go away when
Trump goes away (unless another anaesthetising period of economic growth cones along to postpone
things for a while). It will merely develop along different lines according to how Trump is treated
and how far he gets.
As productivity climbed, working-class Americans wanted their wages to rise also. Instead,
Republicans gave them tax cuts for the rich while liberal Democrats called them racists and
bigots.
Who voted the Republicans into power? We know it wasn't African-Americans (80+% of them vote
Democratic), nor was it Latinos, nor Hispanics, nor Asians(not enough of them) nor was it wealthy
people (again not enough of them). So all that left is White people (aka Real Americans™) and
as we all know the vast majority of White Americans are working and middle class. So basically
the White Working and Middle classes voted for the policies that screwed them, the only question
left to answer is why. Where they to lazy and stupid to read the
Republican Platform ? or was it something
else?
I have very limited sympathy for the the White Working and Middle classes, particularly the
Southern ones, they got what they voted for. A little less blaming of liberals & democrats and
a whole lot of self-awareness would do wonders.
You have been over-analyzing the Trump phenomenon and the psyche of the white working class these
last few weeks. You make it sound as if they are some poor oppressed class whose life's are miserable.
I am one of them. I am from them through and through and my life isn't too bad. I'm quite blessed
actually.
Do I have the opportunities that my grandfather who worked at a Ford factory without a high
school diploma, and retired in his early 50's? Or my dad who was able to buy a home on a grocery
store stock boy's wage? No. But I have a safe and warm place to live, a job, a beautiful family,
and my heart is not full of hatred.
You don't seem to give as much time looking into the hearts and souls of poor black folks or
undocumented workers and their struggles. Maybe their struggles aren't noble enough for you attention
and obsessive mulling over. But, let me tell you, they have plenty of legit complaints that go
way beyond "Boohoo! I don't have very much savings!"
"Nobody has ever seen a thing like this in American politics."
You need to revise this statement to say, "in post WWII American television politics." If you
study the history of the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian eras, you will find many examples that resemble
today. I think we over sentimentalize past American politics. Trump very much resembles the politics
and attitude of Jacksonian era America. Just take a look at the back and forth between the campaigners
of John Quincy Adams and the General:
"Jackson blamed the death of his wife, Rachel, which occurred just after the election, on the
Adams campaigners who called her a 'bigamist.'"
Here is another take on Jackson that sounds a lot like Trump:
"Jackson believed that the president's authority was derived from the people and the presidential
office was above party politics. Instead of choosing party favorites, Jackson chose 'plain, businessmen'
whom he intended to control."
This is why Jackson was hated, smeared and maligned, and the same is true of Trump.
And if you think the tabloid gossip going on today is oh so shocking, check out the Petticoat
Affair of 1830:
"In regard to the Petticoat affair, Jackson later remarked, 'I [would] rather have live
vermin on my back than the tongue of one of these Washington women on my reputation.'"
[NFR: I meant "nobody alive has seen a thing like this". - RD]
"Trump may be denied the GOP nomination, in the end, and he probably won't be elected president.
But the people he motivated, and who voted for him, they aren't going away - and neither are their
problems and concerns.
"Who will speak for them then?"
Vox Day points out that if the GOPe denies the nationalists with Trump, then later we will
get something much worse, the ultra-nationalists.
"If you are a mainstream Republican or Democrat, and aren't trying to understand Trump's appeal
(as opposed to simply writing his backers off as racist clods), then you are making a big, big
mistake."
I agree with you – and go further: writing any voter off as a racist clod, or any clod, is
idiotic.
But clod or not, a certain segment of the American population has been – for lack of a better
term – "alienated", for political purposes, by the fear and envy of the Other. It began with Reagan's
infamous Welfare Queen speech in Mississippi, thus – and instantly – turning social welfare programs
into a question of race. Liberals/progressives/Democrats have never been able to escape that –
and they could exorcise the issue in electoral terms only by Bill Clinton's sharp tack to the
right. Be that as it may, the gambit worked: the Democrats became known not only as the party
of tax and spend, but also the party of Special Interests (of the rainbow variety), and the programs
supported by Democrats became programs of the Other, to be challenged and dismantled, even if
they benefited the white working class – the segment of the population Reagan cut off of the Democratic
coalition.
Then came the election of 2008, and suddenly the Other was in the White House. The Trumpkins
want to "Take American Back" because they have been told that the Kenyan Socialist Muslim stole
their country. The evidence for that is scant, non-existent, but no matter. Republican leaders
have been screaming from the rooftops not just that the President of the United States should
be replaced in the next election, which is a normal thing to say, but that, in effect, he and
his administration are illegitimate; what he proposes is un-American; he is committing treason
merely by being in Office.
Any wonder then that the most vulnerable segment of the Republican base, subjected to thirty
years of fear on the one hand and sustained economic attacks (mostly by their own side) on the
other, then turn to one who promises deliverance?
"If you are a mainstream Republican or Democrat, and aren't trying to understand Trump's appeal
(as opposed to simply writing his backers off as racist clods), then you are making a big, big
mistake."
I don't disagree. But why? *Why* would people (a) not try to understand and (b) write his backers
off? And to be honest, I think that is exactly what they are doing. And that might be the more
important story in this whole mess. We have reached a point where our cultural elites despise
the masses.
Re: Charles Featherstone, "That they are white, and crude, and prone to brutality and violence,
frequently not very compassionate or empathetic, all-too-often confused by the world, and that
their religion is simplistic and mostly idolatrous, all that makes it hard to sympathize with
them. (I find it hard.)"
Replace "white" with "black" or "hispanic" and see how far that observation travels. Featherstone
should be writing for the "poor, uneducated and easy to command" Washington Post. His selective
stereotypical misanthropy would fit right in.
Good thing Featherstone has his lovely immigrant friends to talk to. God help him if he actually
had to cavort with the repulsive white riff-raff.
"They're angry at Washington and Wall Street, at big corporations and big government. And
they're voting now for Donald Trump." Yeah. No doubt. But they are voting for the same clowns
for Congress and the Senate. Kentucky might like Trump, but they will keep McConnell. They hate
the establishment that they maintain. It's Obama's fault. He's clouded their minds. That's gotta
be it.
Rod – do you realize how many of Featherstone's words and sentiments could have been applied
to Black Lives Matter? In all seriousness, as I was reading him, I kept thinking, "Working Class
White Lives Matter."
It's frustrating that so many people will hear and connect, emotionally, with what he is saying,
while dimissing many of the same ideas when they are put forth in the African-American context.
It's like they are saying white people are hard-working, screwed over folks who may appropriately
advance this argument, but black people are whiny, criminally-inclined ingrates who should not.
I am genuinely struck by the way the core of his message speaks to the alienation, lack of
faith, lack of trust, and real fear that spurred the rise of BLM. His words, however, will probably
be met largely with compassion, while the movement's words will be dismissed, will be met with
the assertion that the problem of police abusing authority is not as bad as they say it is, or
will be met with the deflection to a morally and politically distinct issue - so-called "black-on-black"
crime.
To be clear, my thoughts about BLM, described above, are particularly troubling in the age of
Trump. I'm noodling over a bunch of things right now, but one big concern I have is the seeming
fragility of a multicultural nation. It feels like we are splintering; the competition for dignity,
if you will, is becoming more intense because we are increasingly persuaded that it exists in
finite supply; and that desire for dignity among Trump supporters is manifesting as shameless
bigotry or willful blindness to it in pursuit of transformative ends.
I get – and hear – the claims of despair that many Trump backers articulate. I just wish they'd
leave him behind and rally around Bernie Sanders. He is, in so many ways, the flipside of Trump.
I'm one of those doing quite well, and supporting Mr. Trump's bid for the Presidency. I'm
a degreed mathematician doing research and development in cybersecurity, with a growing portfolio
of professional publications, and patents pending. I'm a Marine veteran of the Iraq war whose
'eggs aren't too scrambled'. I married woman who went to one of the best schools in the UK and
graduated with honors from one of the best universities in the US. I truly believe that my wife,
my child, and I will be fine no matter who wins this election.
But I'm cheering Mr. Trump and planning on voting for him.
I come from a medium-sized city in Virginia that has hitched its wagon to the fortunes of the
major state university there, as well as the two private colleges in the area. (One of which was
briefly mentioned on this blog in the past year.) My hometown is historically a pretty rural area,
but that's changing.
As a case study, I would point you to our local poultry plant. It used to be the case that
this plant provided good jobs to a lot of the locals who weren't college material, but now you'd
be hard pressed to find many people who grew up in the county working there. You'd be hard pressed
to find more than 15% or so of the workforce fluent in the English Language. The local workforce
was replaced by cheaper immigrant labor.
While this has happened, my hometown has become a major drug smuggling point in the East Coast.
One of my childhood friends got caught up in the synthetic drug trade and is serving a 30-odd
year sentence. There are gangs - Gangster Disciples, SUR 13 I believe I remember hearing about
Bloods in the area. This is not the happy, little rural college town that I remember from my childhood.
(And I do recognize that it may never have been the town of my childhood memories, but what it
has become is NOT an improvement.)
I also LOVE that Mr. Trump is standing up to the blatant dishonesty of political correctness.
(But the PC rant is another topic that I haven't time for this morning.)
Why am I supporting Mr. Trump? My close circle might well benefit a little bit more with another
candidate, but I maintain a memory and fondness of the place that I came from and the people there.
I'd like to see their world built back up, or at least to see its eroding and creative destruction
ceased. Will Mr. Trump accomplish this? I don't know. He is pretty plainly stating that there's
a problem, diagnosing it reasonably well, and claiming that he can do something about it. That's
something. It's more than the lip service that we hear from the other candidates. Mr. Trump is a
deeply flawed candidate and man, but beggars can't be choosers.
GOP policy wrt to its impact on many working and middle class Americans seems to me to be
a classic case of emperors new clothes. It's kind of surprising that it took so long for
so many to see that it's naked. I wonder, if we hadn't had a decade or so of amped up patriotism
from foreign wars whether it would have taken so long.
Rod, at what point do we need to stop merely trying to understand Trump supporters and start trying
to stop them? All due respect, there's nothing about their support for him I don't understand.
I understand them thoroughly. At the end of the day, they support a man who is now a monstrous
demagogue and who would be a monstrous tyrant. I empathize with Charles Featherstone, who lucidly
recognizes his attraction to Trump as envy. But he's also lucid enough not to vote for the guy.
Look, I get not want to bolt over to Hilary Clinton. I also get being irate at the GOP and
not wanting to vote for any of them in the general election. I would even get not voting in the
primary, since virtually everyone except Rand Paul who is not Trump ran on some variation of the
policies that got people mad at the party in the first place. (And Paul's economic ideas are less
than feasible at this point in our history.) None of that is a good reason to vote for
Trump. If the country really is in decline, Trump is the person who would leave it a smoking crater
at the end of four years. Voting for him is madness. Yes, an "understandable" madness,
but madness nonetheless.
So. I've heard the sob stories. I've heard the litany of betrayals. I've heard the indictments
of the GOP's bad faith. I swear to you that I get it. None of that is sufficient, in my
book, to protect Trumpkins from the fundamentally true criticism that they are knowingly supporting
a racist, xenophobic, misogynist, ignorant bully who encourages violence at his rallies and openly
brags about abusing the system to make himself richer (and, by logical extension, to make the
rest of us poorer). If the Trumpkins get that, and they don't care, what do we do, Rod? I mean,
it's all well and good to give these people space to air their grievances and disappointments,
but from where I sit, they are one hundred percent committed to the wholesale decimation of what
precious little respect, civility, and coherent policy debate still remains in national politics.
Doesn't this merit a vigorous, sustained rebuttal or denunciation?
This is important, because Donald Trump is not "single-handedly destroying the Republican
Party." He's doing it with the hands of every single person who has voted for him, and who has
pledged to support his candidacy, however much longer that lasts. And if, God forbid, Trump actually
makes it to the White House, he will not be "single-handedly" destroying the United States of
America. He will do it with the help of every single one of the people who voted for him. I've
no love for the Republican Party. They certainly, as they say, had this coming. But Trump is a
menace to more than the GOP, and there are ways to weaken and destroy a political party that don't
involve running a crypto-fascist as a viable primary candidate.
At what point, Rod, do his voters start sharing culpability for every racist, misogynist, xenophobic,
ignorant thing he says and every act of violence he encourages? Because your posts have made it
very clear that they know exactly what kind of person he is. They're supporting him anyway. Which
means that they are knowingly supporting all the evil crap that goes along with it. People of
good conscience don't support that kind of stuff. As I said at the outset, I totally get refusing
to vote Republican or Democrat. I get why people are angry. I get why, in theory, they want to
vote for someone who will dismantle the status quo. And while I do totally understand why people
vote for Trump, a huge part of that understanding is the knowledge that every single one of these
people has endorsed, with eyes wide open and their consciences apparently clear, everything diabolical
about his campaign as well.
How much time are you going to spend trying to understand that ?
Then why don't these poor desperate people vote for Bernie? Bernie Sanders has spent his whole
life championing the poor and working class and his whole campaign is built around it. You want
to ignore the racial aspects then fine. But don't pretend they don't exist. Maybe it is not even
race as such. More class or clan solidarity. However, understanding the Trump voter and their
general malaise does not detract that Trump is a dangerous demagogue who will ruin this country
in the unlikely event he is elected.
As productivity climbed, working-class Americans wanted their wages to rise also. Instead,
Republicans gave them tax cuts for the rich while liberal Democrats called them racists and bigots.
Mick, above, asks the question that I have:
When did Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakais call white working class people
bigots?
That's a question worth pondering, imho.
icarusr, above, notes:
It began with Reagan's infamous Welfare Queen speech in Mississippi, thus – and instantly
– turning social welfare programs into a question of race.
Bingo. (Although, I would suggest that it's roots go back to Nixon's "Southern Strategy", and
then to Lee Atwater's famous confession).
Some of the dog-whistling is loud and clear (to be clear: I'm not accusing the GOP leaders
of being racists - I'm accusing some of them of demagoguery).
So when Dems see poor working class folks voting for officials that reject raising the minimum
wage (see Arkansas, where they simultaneously voted to increase, and voted for officials who were
against it), or promise to dismantle their state's version of Obamacare even though they love
the program (see, e.g., Kentucky), Dems can't help wonder if the opposition to these programs
- against their own interests - is based on the dog-whistle attacks concocted by the spiritual
descendants of Atwater. These consultants tap into the fear expressed, or rather stoke the anger
expressed by the idea "when I need government assistance, it's because I'm down on my luck, but
I still work hard - when that black guy down the street applies for government assistance, it's
because he's a lazy good-for-nothing."
Which, really, is just a more crass way of saying "Welfare Queen!"
Rod said: "And now Trump. I think back to watching his Mobile rally - August 21 [actually 25],
2015 - on TV, the first time I had seen an entire Trump campaign speech. Thirty thousand people
came out to hear him. And the speech was ridiculous - a rambling mess. I snorted that anybody
would be taken in by this nonsense. I didn't care for any of his competitors either, but at least
they gave coherent speeches. This guy? Clown."
"Ridiculous nonsense"? Rod, you don't hear Trump speeches the way that Middle America hears
him – the way that working America hears him.
This is the link to the first of a 10-part transcript of Trump's Mobile speech and it's worth
skimming through quickly, Rod, with the advantage of 6 months worth of hindsight. The Trump Mobile
speech is a MASTERPIECE. Listening to it, I remember thinking: "Trump understands. Trump tells
it like it is. Trump's the one!"
This blog has replaced Scott Adams as the go to place for understanding Trump. Adams deservedly
got a lot of credit for correctly predicting that Trump would not collapse, but his own repeated
assertions that truth doesn't matter in a 3d world are flatly inconsistent with his pretense to
just be reporting the facts about Trump. Once one suspects that he's pretending to report the
facts while really drumming up support for Trump it becomes clear how one sided is his analysis.
Adams' own sophistic views about the primacy of rhetoric and human beings as meat machines don't
license any other interpretation.
I think the moral center of this blog almost* always gives Rod a vastly greater appreciation
of why people of good will believe and desire what they do, even when Rod disagrees. This is a
general virtue of the blog, but it is really manifest in the coverage of Trump.
The tragic sense of life, and the related appreciation for the necessity of tragic tradeoffs
in human affairs, that informs true and worthwhile conservatism also proves (at least when leavened
by love) to be conducive to understanding as well.
I also think that Rod's analysis of these issues is getting out. I was talking to my father
on the phone last night and asked him what he thought of Trump, and while he would never vote
for Trump he said that it seemed to him that lots of people were very angry because the policies
of the Republican party didn't answer to their pressing problems or concerns. If my father is
understanding things this way, then I do think there is a real possibility of a paleoconservative
moment coming out of the crack up of the Republican party's horrible Frankenstein melange of libertarian
economics, neo-conservative foreign policy, and theocratic statism on drugs and gender, all sewn
together with the kind of rent-seeking corruption under the guise of "privatization" and "economic
development" that has now brought several states (including the gret stet where Rod and I reside)
to their knees.
Trump is scary, but I think a correct understanding of Trump points the way towards a better
muddling through, which (as all paleocons will agree) is the best we can or should hope for this
side of Heaven.
[*Rare exceptions where I think Rod's moral imagination sometimes doesn't extend in this way-
(1) evidence of coming to grips with the utter hell that many gay and transgender kids go through
(especially in conservative Christian households where the suicide and homelessness rate of the
gay kids is immense) and what biology now tells us about gender and sex, and (2) the intellectual
foundations of the Protestant Reformation (e.g. rejecting Aquinas in favor of Augustine) and how
that ties to liberal Protestants' sincere understanding of Christianity.]
I cannot buy this economic argument for support of Trump. Why no mention of Sanders, who is the
only anti-free trade candidate running. Trump *says* he is opposed to free trade, but he is obviously
lying. Historically who spoke for the white working class? Labor. And who was allied with Labor
in the late 19th and early 20th century? The old Socialists, of whom Sanders is the only one left
who holds any power.
The Republicans have always been the party of the capitalist elites and the Whigs before then
too. You can never get any support of working class white people from capitalists, they have completely
opposing interests.
[NFR: Because Bernie Sanders is a cultural leftist who supports generous immigration policies.
- RD]
Charles Featherstone "But you leave people behind at your peril. You can tell them to "lie down
and die," and some will. But many won't.
And if there are enough of them, well "
Well, *what*? I keep seeing these vague statements about how the white working class can only
be "pushed so far", and that their anger must be addressed "or else". Or else what? I ask. They'll
throw their votes away on an unacceptable candidate like Trump who cannot be allowed to take office
(and thereby ensure Mrs. Clinton's election; yeah, that's *really* sticking it to us on the left),
or some other futile, impotent tantrum. These are hollow threats.
Rod "But the people he motivated, and who voted for him, they aren't going away - and neither
are their problems and concerns."
Actually, long-term demographic, economic and cultural trends mean that they *are* going away,
albeit rather slowly. But, in the meantime, they can and will be increasingly contained. Read
Cowen's "Average is Over" for how he predicts modern technologies, including electronic entertainment,
robotic drones, machine surveillance, and psychiatric medications will likely prevent any rebellions.
Or read David Brin's "The Transparent Society" (see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society
), about the increasing ubiquity of inescapable surveillance and "sousveillance". Add mass
communication, information abundance, improvements and automation in marketing. And consider social
media, with "Facebook felons" and Twitter "shadowbans". Or the return of Peeple, and the example
set by China's "Sesame Credit". We're all watching one another, compiling and sharing data on
one another. We have facial recognition software that is not only as good or better than human
beings, but computers are already learning to recognize people's emotions from their facial expressions.
Financial transactions are moving ever more away from hard-to-trace cash in favor of readily monitorable
electronic transactions.
Thus, any tantrums by the Trumpenproles that become disruptive will be swiftly and forcefully
crushed. So, ultimately, what can they do, except "lie down and die"?
@Mick, you're right, and I assume your critique cuts both sides of the aisle, right? How do "modern"
Democrats, beholden as they are to Wall Street and SV, still stand up for the trade unions? The
unions, I suspect, vote Democrat for the same reason most Republicans still vote Republican: what
other choice to do they have?
If the news is to be believed, Trump is certainly no friend of the unions, at least in
his own business dealings.
Perot might have won too, had he not withdrawn from the race and got back in. I will never forget
the surreal feeling of going to Air Force basic training in 1992 and entering a news-free bubble
for six weeks, and then emerging to find that Ross Perot was leading the polls in the three-way
race! I think he would have won had he just stayed the course, but he looked erratic when he dropped
out.
I have to say that it is re-assuring to me that Trump is basically a demagogue, promising a
chicken in every pot and every man a king, yet probably not going to deliver. The alternative
to demagogue in this situation is a Vladimir Lenin, and you could imagine what a Lenin would do
with the Trump support.
Trump speaks for a group that has been abandoned and marginalized by the political classes.
He is bringing them back into the system and perhaps bringing a little more balance back to domestic
politics. I don't think elites change unless they feel threatened, and I hope Trump is threatening
enough to the elites, without actually posing the threat a real revolutionary would pose.
Further, I hope that the political system starts working for ALL people, not just some people.
If not, they will get their Lenin and their Jacobin terror, and they will deserve it.
'Trump channels something - the rage and desperation of a people who know they don't matter anymore.'
Maybe I'm a cynic, but when have they ever mattered? 'The People' had tastes of the American
dream in the 1950's and the 80's, as far as I can see, and before, since, and in between have
been taken utterly for granted. Maybe people felt like they mattered, tuning in to the same television
shows and radio programs and meeting at church each week; maybe the body politic was able to relate
to its representatives in a more meaningful way than the identikit dialtones that occupy the political
stage now. But don't forget that back when people 'mattered' they were still shipped off to die
in useless wars, there were still plenty of Americans working long hours for poor pay, and there
were still politicians happy to lie barefaced to their constituency.
My knee-jerk position is to support the working people against the rich. But, given the
voting patterns of the white working class going back to 1980, and even to 1968, I find myself
vacillating between feeling for them and believing that they got what they wanted (and deserved)
good and hard.
And, let's be perfectly honest here. Why did the white working class abandon the Democratic
Party, which supported their economic interests, in favor of the Republican Party, which did not?
Race.
That's it. Pure and simple. Even the evangelical movement is in large part a product of resistance
to integration, as parochial schools could legally be segregated because they were private, and
segregationists flooded into them in the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education.
And these madrassas trained the shock troops of the Republican Party, hell-bent to vote against
their own interests because they were bigots.
It's interesting how you can read Mr. Featherstone's words and see an "insightful post". Because
when I read those words all I see is well, exhibit 3875 in why it makes no sense to try and understand
why people support Trump. Say what you will about their frustration, alienation, disenchantment,
whatever. Ultimately the whole thing is just incoherent and utterly unthoughtful.
"Trump is poking all of the right people in the eyes for all the right reasons."
The right people are immigrants and Muslims and the women Trump has attacked in the most personal
of ways? He may be frustrating the ambitions of more conventional conservative politicians and
driving decent liberals into hair-pulling fits, but that's all a result of his absolutely frightening
willingness to whip up enmity towards people who, on the whole, have been attacked and disrespected
far more directly and openly than most of Trump's supporters have been.
And the right reasons are what, exactly? Is there any actual proof that the man really wants
to make America great? Is there any reason to believe he's doing this for any reason other than
to fill the hole in his psyche where self-acceptance should live? To people not under Trump's
spell it is so obvious that his entire candidacy is about his ego, his unceasing need to be not
admired by aggrandized that it's just astonishing to think of how many somersaults a person's
critical faculties must perform to avoid recognizing it.
"He's coarse and crude, but he appears to make no pretenses."
Well, actually, he's nothing but pretenses. That's the problem. He lies. And lies so prolifically
and so wildly that he's not so much a person, or even a character. He's a persona. He has transformed
himself into a tissue thin representation of a "winner". But strip away the lies about how great
he is, how great his business savvy is, etc and you realize that Donald Trump is a lot like Oakland.
There's no there there.
"But it always struck me there was some other agenda to the immigration. That there still is.
I'm not sure what."
This is the logic of someone who has mentally thrown their hands up and said, "I'm frustrated
about my life, so I guess I'll blame, oh, I don't know immigration. Sure, why not?" Dress it
up however you like, but this is functionally the same as posting a "No Dogs, No Blacks, No Irish"
sign on your soul.
"That they are white, and crude, and prone to brutality and violence, frequently not very compassionate
or empathetic, all-too-often confused by the world, and that their religion is simplistic and
mostly idolatrous, all that makes it hard to sympathize with them. (I find it hard.) But you leave
people behind at your peril."
I agree with this, but let's not pretend that large swaths of this population have chosen to resist,
at every turn, efforts made to help them. Those efforts themselves may have been clumsy, ineffective
or counterproductive (there's lots of room for criticism and we shouldn't back away from it),
but let's heed the mantra of personal responsibility as well. Because at a certain point I find
myself getting a little, well, tetchy with people who over and over again supported policies,
politicians and parties that hurt them financially because doing so hurt other people socially
and legally and then, after realizing they've shoveled themselves to deep to ever climb out of
their fiscal grave, turn to a demagogue as one last knife in the back to their countrymen.
Then came the election of 2008, and suddenly the Other was in the White House. The Trumpkins
want to "Take American Back" because they have been told that the Kenyan Socialist Muslim stole
their country.
I find it so frustrating when people write stuff like this. People were so hopeful about Obama,
so hopeful about racism in this country. But the first words out of certain sectors of left after
Obama's election weren't hopeful ones about reconciliation. They were "America is still racist."
And they set out to prove it. Now we feel more bitterly divided then ever. I could go into more
detail, about the issues involved, but it's just frustrating to me, and the stuff I quoted above
is ready made excuse that is not true to my experience.
I get – and hear – the claims of despair that many Trump backers articulate. I just wish
they'd leave him behind and rally around Bernie Sanders. He is, in so many ways, the flipside
of Trump.
And honestly, Trump supporters wish that you would rally around Trump. Certainly the differences
between the two candidates are more than mere sensibility. But there is certainly an argument
to be made that Trump's strength on immigration is preferable to Bernie Sanders's wishful thinking.
Re: Charles Featherstone, "That they are white, and crude, and prone to brutality and violence,
frequently not very compassionate or empathetic, all-too-often confused by the world, and that
their religion is simplistic and mostly idolatrous, all that makes it hard to sympathize with
them. (I find it hard.)"
Replace "white" with "black" or "hispanic" and see how far that observation travels. Featherstone
should be writing for the "poor, uneducated and easy to command" Washington Post. His selective
stereotypical misanthropy would fit right in.
Good thing Featherstone has his lovely immigrant friends to talk to. God help him if he
actually had to cavort with the repulsive white riff-raff.
I'm going to defend Charles Featherstone here. I don't think it does any good whatsoever to
romanticize the working poor as salt of the earth, honest-to-goodness decent people who don't
get a fair shake. Poverty brutalizes. The attempt to aid the downtrodden must be accompanied by
a hard-headed assessment of the physical, emotional, and intellectual damage that poverty, deprivation,
and neglect inevitably cause.
"They're angry at Washington and Wall Street, at big corporations and big government. And
they're voting now for Donald Trump."
Yeah. No doubt. But they are voting for the same clowns for Congress and the Senate. Kentucky
might like Trump, but they will keep McConnell. They hate the establishment that they maintain.
It's Obama's fault. He's clouded their minds. That's gotta be it.
I think what this speaks to more than anything is the total decay of political life at the
local and community level. The Trump 'movement' is really a mass media event, played out on a
national media stage, with many people playing and voting along just like they do on a regular
talent show competition. But the potential for mobilizing those people into a movement that would
start to build power locally simply doesn't exist.
I suspect Trump voters understand this at some level but are powerless to do anything about
it. So it seems that Trump voters are able to crash the rigged game of a media-driven national
election reality show competition, but can do next to nothing about the iron grip of the institution
they despise on the local politics that no doubt affects their lives far more on a daily basis.
Which is really just to say, again, that the dominant motif of Trump voters is that they are fed
up with being powerless and without influence.
The problem with identity politics is not the groups themselves, but the fact that they tend
to put forward the most extreme leadership (and this generally happens for structural reasons
so is inevitable).
Further, politics is a zero sum game, so if my group gets the right not to bake cakes for gay
weddings, then the other group loses the right to force people to bake cakes for their weddings.
No matter where you draw the line, one group comes away with its feelings hurt. [Without pronouncing
judgment on which group is "in the right".]
The common draw between BLM and Trump is they are both playing on feelings of solidarity. Even
though Trump is really not a white nationalist, and not talking white nationalism, there is an
implicit tone of ethnic and class solidarity as much as there would be at a Black Power rally.
I think it would be helpful to realize that the political leadership of all these groups are
all a$$#0!*$, and the average member of the group is not nearly as radical. It is also necessary
to recognize that someone is always going to lose, and work toward compromises notwithstanding
the leadership, which is always going to be selling saints versus demons and no compromises.
But I would like to see something like national solidarity, that Americans could come together
as one people with a shared history, notwithstanding all the instances in which we have fought
amongst ourselves, and try to start governing in the interest of everyone, and I bet there are
plenty of BLM supporters and Trump supporters who would stand behind that message.
But I think progressives are somewhat naive about mass politics. Sanders is coherent, he has
a lot of policy content, he can articulate his position and I definitely think he has a point.
But politics in mass democracy is ugly, mobilizing on a mass level is ugly. Progressives tend
to focus on the ugliest side of "white solidarity", but if you go down to a minority neighborhood
in Chicago during a highly contested race for mayor, you will note some salty language and maybe
a stereotype or too coming out. It may be that only white people can be racist, but every ethnic
and religious group can certainly be ugly when they are engaged in some kind of political struggle.
In other words, there must always be a tragic dimension of politics, as well as a comic dimension,
and American democracy will never be just a faculty lounge debate.
"... Dear B: the style of reporting the Western MSM engages in isn't intended to appeal to people's intelligence, it's designed to appeal to their emotions. It's all part of a package that includes Hollywood films and TV shows, and their followers in other countries (the current British film industry engaging in historical revisionism of aspects of modern British history is a good example) reinterpreting news events as dramatic stories with a simplistic narrative of good versus evil. The propaganda follows the pattern set by notorious PR spinmeister Ed Bernays who wrote a book "Propaganda" in the late 1920s based on his manipulations of his uncle Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic theories about the unconscious mind. The book was later a favourite textbook manual of Joseph Goebbels. Bernays switched from advertising to shilling outright on behalf of the US government in the 1950s by selling the US public the idea that a tiny country called Guatemala posed an existential threat to the US and had to be invaded. When the US invaded Guatemala in 1954 and threw out the government there, it had full or near-full public support. ..."
"... I've never seen this level of pure propaganda and almost complete avoidance of facts, reality, reason or whatever on the part of the mainstream media--and I go back a long way. ..."
"... Even during the Iraq lead-up, I did not see quite this level of very obvious BS coming out of the mainstream. Even though many people know how corrupt the media is they will still accept the basic Narrative because humans need a conceptual framework no matter how deficient and the moguls and oligarchs know this so there is almost no chance this will change until a tipping point is reached and we're still a ways off of that time. ..."
"... Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy. ... Henry Kissinger ..."
"... There is no doubt that the media (MSM) is propaganda. To pretend that this is something new is little more than assuming the past was something other than what it was. ..."
"... Propaganda stimulated participation in the colonization of the world by Europeans ... and the history of the US is rife with examples ... at the outset of each war we've ever been involved in, the role of propaganda is manifest: the alleged revolution; war with the Barbary pirates; 1812; the so-called Mexican War ... even the Civil War ... to say nothing of the on-going 'Indian Wars' ... ..."
"... What all of our wars have had in common is hubris and justification for expansion. We, as a nation, still believe in manifest destiny. We us a newer set of code words, but the concept is the same from the first 'settlers/colonists' to the present. ..."
"... Reporting does not depend on the existence of good and bad or the existence of a compelling story. Such thinking is just idealized nonsense. It is the media that creates the (often artificial) sides of a war on behalf of the interests. Good and bad are not inherent, they are constructs. A real compelling story is not needed. One can be created any time though it will likely not be a true one. ..."
"... Its only going to get worse as they shut down one side of the debate ...maybe a better word would be the other opinion as alternative views will be labeled as extremist views ..."
"... "But why are people so easily manipulated?" Yes, consensus matters. But that does not explain why people stick with Hillary (or Trump) when they know they are backing evil. Backing evil is really no more than a hope for the status quo, or that things won't get worse. Better the devil(s) we know than the devil(s) we don't. ..."
"... Al-Nusra Shariah spokesperson endorses White Helmets as mujahideen ..."
"... I have much more hope for the younger generation, they seem to have a slightly higher grasp as to the nature and mechanisms of power/control, but I fear their dissent and awareness will not manifest quick enough to avert the massive disasters the media are complicit in pushing. Scary and strange times surely ..."
"... Ponder the possibilities. It's certainly no accident - a decider (like Dubya) decides what gets reported, when, how, and with what intent. The decider is of course controlled by other deciders. ..."
"... The People, meaning everyone, especially common people can learn ALL they want to know about Sports. Any sport. All the games, teams, stats, players, trades, salaries, owners, stadiums, and etc. ..."
"... The MSM is by design propaganda, disinformation, obfuscation and entertainment with a lot of information about sports (entities like war which also just so happens to make rich men richer). ..."
"... We, that is the USA, are not the "good guys". "We" wage war to enrich individuals and multi-national corporations which "act and plan in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state". ..."
"... The biggest problem with Taub's article is that it assumes that "American interests" are the same as the interests of ordinary citizens. The notion that the US is a classless, 'post-racial' society is a 'big lie'. The interests of "the 99%" differ markedly from the interests of "the 1%". Its the interests of 1%-ers that are threatened in Syria and that's why the media pushes covers it. ..."
"... The main reason why the propaganda is this time XXL compared to 2003 is that US/UK methods have been applied to many more countries. Add the financial crisis and you get why journalists are unanimous in their submission: they want to keep their job rather than ending up a new homeless in their own neighborhood. ..."
"... A 3-year old is being exposed to a dumbed-down pampered subset of reality by their loving parents unless they live on the street, slum shacks or in a landfill. Our children are exposed to a for-profit education institution populated largely by women with limited knowledge of STEM, history or politics, that just the actual teacher demographics/ ..."
"... So it's really not about the 'media'. MSM is really tinsel and glitter bullshit for the Elites, just polishing the brass spittoons, and spritzing some cologne on their whores. ..."
"... "But I think there is a commercial/quasi commercial angle as well. To belong is profitable [to an] organization and so to its employees. The commercial angle is obvious for operations like Netfliks and the Intercept, and Democracy Now and Code Pink are NGOs, with their own little piglets nursing at their paps, just as do the employees of the commercial operations. Toeing the 'correct' line pays. Careerism is careerism, commercial or NGO no matter. Corporate structure is what counts." ..."
"... The metastasizing expanding universe of lies is somewhat explained by the need to lie further to cover the lie, and so on. Here we use the word 'lie' broadly to include censorship - missing important information - and psyops. ..."
"... There are still very powerful and influential politicians and oligarchs in Russia who like liberalism or West in general, and Putin isn't going to be in power forever either. Even today, Putin still has to pay attention to their interests and balance it with his ruling, his hands may be more free than Obamas, but not as free as some thinks. ..."
"... Situational awareness is a bitch, isn't it? The only barrier which stands between overwhelming majority of Russian people and so called "western liberals" hanging from the lamp posts or being strung on pitch forks is none other than Putin. ..."
"... We live in a universe of stories, symbols, conventions, arbitrary ways-of-doing. We have to listen and integrate the narratives, the templates, the glorious aims, the way-forward. This is not primarily a question of belief in, and bowing down to authority (powerful of course; and coercion either violent or insidious works, as does ejection of refusniks, pariahs, etc.), but a matter of acting in concert, of being in tune, to dominate and exploit the plant/ animal/ various ressource etc. of Earth. ..."
"... In a largely globalised world, where most of the information outside of the local, individual grasp of the person or tiny group, is regulated by the State (education .. ) and the Media, and comes in the form of prop speech / prose and shock / other visuals, which makes humans very vulnerable to, or even entirely dependent on, world-views that are engineered somehow for small-group or personal gain. Add in, when things go to sh*t, competition and rapine or just killing as some solution (war..) override collaboration and cooperation. Not 'new' but the scale (weapons, etc.) is. ..."
"... Awesome take on what our media is feeding us. Yes, the way the Syrian story is told there's nothing going on in Aleppo but guys with white helmets and children who play in buildings. Russians and Syrians are (oxymoron alert) indiscriminately targeting hospitals and buildings with children in them. But Yemen? Nothing going on there. South America and the Colombian vote on FARC? never heard of it. ..."
A
thoughtful analysis by Amanda Taub of the New York Times describes why some wars get
more "western" public attention than others:
Conflicts gain sustained American attention only when they provide a compelling story line that
appeals to both the public and political actors, and for reasons beyond the human toll. That often
requires some combination of immediate relevance to American interests , resonance
with American political debates or cultural issues, and, perhaps most of all, an emotionally
engaging frame of clearly identifiable good guys and bad guys.
...
Yemen's death toll is lower than Syria's, and although Al Qaeda does operate there, Yemen's
conflict has not had the kind of impact on American and European interests that Syria's
has. There is no obvious good-versus-evil story to tell there: The country is being torn apart
by a variety of warring factions on the ground and pummeled from the air by Saudi Arabia,
an American ally . There is no camera-ready villain for Americans to root against.
Those are good observations. But they themselves are part of the process they describe. They artificially
create "good" and "bad" and are driven by "interests". (Side note: I doubt the sweeping claim "Yemen's
death toll is lower than Syria's". The famine in northwest Yemen is
very severe . The number of
dead is simply not known yet but like in the hundred-thousands.)
Reporting does not depend on the existence of good and bad or the existence of a compelling
story. Such thinking is just idealized nonsense. It is the media that creates the (often artificial)
sides of a war on behalf of the interests. Good and bad are not inherent, they are constructs. A
real compelling story is not needed. One can be created any time though it will likely not be a true
one.
MSM gets very excited about the build up to the Iraqi forces liberating Mosul from ISIS. The Times
of London recently did a double page spread on what forces were arranged where and how the battle
would be won. Can no-one see the glaring hypocrisy when Aleppo, also a battle against jihadi terrorists,
is described as an obscenity of slaughtering civilians ? People are so dumb. They have such short
memories.
Dear B: the style of reporting the Western MSM engages in isn't intended to appeal to people's
intelligence, it's designed to appeal to their emotions.
It's all part of a package that includes Hollywood films and TV shows, and their followers
in other countries (the current British film industry engaging in historical revisionism of aspects
of modern British history is a good example) reinterpreting news events as dramatic stories with
a simplistic narrative of good versus evil. The propaganda follows the pattern set by notorious
PR spinmeister Ed Bernays who wrote a book "Propaganda" in the late 1920s based on his manipulations
of his uncle Sigmund Freud's psychoanalytic theories about the unconscious mind. The book was
later a favourite textbook manual of Joseph Goebbels.
Bernays switched from advertising to shilling outright on behalf of the US government in
the 1950s by selling the US public the idea that a tiny country called Guatemala posed an existential
threat to the US and had to be invaded. When the US invaded Guatemala in 1954 and threw out the
government there, it had full or near-full public support.
I've never seen this level of pure propaganda and almost complete avoidance of facts, reality,
reason or whatever on the part of the mainstream media--and I go back a long way.
Even during the Iraq lead-up, I did not see quite this level of very obvious BS coming
out of the mainstream. Even though many people know how corrupt the media is they will still accept
the basic Narrative because humans need a conceptual framework no matter how deficient and the
moguls and oligarchs know this so there is almost no chance this will change until a tipping point
is reached and we're still a ways off of that time.
During Lam Son 719, the U.S. planners had believed that any North Vietnamese forces that opposed
the incursion would be caught in the open and decimated by the application of American aerial
might, either in the form of tactical airstrikes or airmobility, which would provide ARVN troops
with superior battlefield maneuvering capability. Firepower, as it turned out, was decisive, but
"it went in favor of the enemy...
Airpower played an important, but not decisive role, in that
it prevented a defeat from becoming a disaster that might have been so complete as to encourage
the North Vietnamese army to keep moving right into Quang Tri Province."[86]
The number of helicopters destroyed or damaged during the operation shocked the proponents
of U.S. Army aviation and prompted a reevaluation of basic airmobile doctrine. The 101st Airborne
Division alone, for example, had 84 of its aircraft destroyed and another 430 damaged. Combined
U.S./ARVN helicopter losses totaled 168 destroyed and 618 damaged.[87]Wiki
Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy. ... Henry
Kissinger
Empire hides it's crimes by sneaking Coffins in to Andrew's AFB at night with no press.
Since retreat from Chosin Korea.....Empire has turned media coverage into
Rally the Flag. ....or don't ask don't tell.
Some Veterans from the past and some at present do present the real
On goings of conflicts....which regular MSN will not.
If one does access the world Media. ..say on Syria.
It is pushed back as being biased propoganda.
There is no doubt that the media (MSM) is propaganda. To pretend that this is something new
is little more than assuming the past was something other than what it was.
Propaganda stimulated participation in the colonization of the world by Europeans ... and
the history of the US is rife with examples ... at the outset of each war we've ever been involved
in, the role of propaganda is manifest: the alleged revolution; war with the Barbary pirates;
1812; the so-called Mexican War ... even the Civil War ... to say nothing of the on-going 'Indian
Wars' ...
What all of our wars have had in common is hubris and justification for expansion. We,
as a nation, still believe in manifest destiny. We us a newer set of code words, but the concept
is the same from the first 'settlers/colonists' to the present.
the goal has always been the same: Take what we want and to hell with any people in the way!
And, please, don't give me that crap that there is good along with the bad. Of course you can
find some good ... but the issue isn't good vs evil ... it is greed, pure lust.
But why are people so easily manipulated? Consensus of course. And group think. Everybody wants
to belong. For a simple test try saying something like 'Maybe Assad isn't so bad' at the water
cooler.
Reporting does not depend on the existence of good and bad or the existence of a compelling
story. Such thinking is just idealized nonsense. It is the media that creates the (often artificial)
sides of a war on behalf of the interests. Good and bad are not inherent, they are constructs.
A real compelling story is not needed. One can be created any time though it will likely not
be a true one.
Would that journalists learn it. The old ones did but they're not working anymore.
Sorrie, rephrase and direct to the Democrats. But why are people so easily manipulated? Consensus of course. And group think. Everybody
wants to belong.
For a simple test try saying something like 'Maybe Hillary isn't so bad compare to Trump' at
the water cooler.
Its only going to get worse as they shut down one side of the debate ...maybe a better word
would be the other opinion as alternative views will be labeled as extremist views .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4RkiiW-gtc
The campaign against Arbenz in Guatemala was conducted via radio broadcasts perhaps modelled
on Welles's "The War of the Worlds" (Gee, thanks Orson) directed at a tiny mestizo, aspiring to
be white, urbanised elite.
That was the template for Colour Revolution, I believe. The complete disaster of the Bogotazo
in 1948, witnessed by Fidel Castro, was a precursor to radicalisation of L America and later MENA.
Hey, and hey nonny no, "We Meant Well" as Peter van Buren puts it.
The US 7-Day War with the nefarious dark-skinned Grenadians, (shudder), under Reagan yielded
more than 1,000 service medals and countless ribbons, which goes towards higher service pay, which
goes towards higher pensions for life. Naturally, the Pentagon was reluctant to state who got
those medals.
"Army officials said today that about 50 of the achievement medals went to personnel who got
no closer to the fighting than the Pentagon lawn.
Other awards were given to staff and rear-area support troops at Fort Bragg, N.C., home of
the 82d Airborne Division; at Fort Stewart, Ga., and Fort Lewis, Wash., bases for Army Rangers;
and the headquarters of the Army's Forces Command in Atlanta.
Asked for an explanation, the Army defended its awards system as a ''valuable and effective
leadership tool to build unit morale and esprit.''
Esprit is the reason for Syria. Esprit is behind Libya. Esprit drives Yemen. Esprit of the
valiant Four Horsemen of Government, Military, Fed Bank and Corporate. Greed is good.
"But why are people so easily manipulated?" Yes, consensus matters. But that does not explain
why people stick with Hillary (or Trump) when they know they are backing evil. Backing evil is
really no more than a hope for the status quo, or that things won't get worse. Better the devil(s)
we know than the devil(s) we don't.
Aside from that, most Americans think we are exceptional and therefore that the world should
do as we say for our benefit because we are indispensable. In other words, we DESERVE it and those
that won't give it up simply don't deserve to keep it from us.
Citing a semi-confession from a NYT scribe was a brilliantly inspired way to introduce the subject
of MSM complicity in Judaeo-Christian Colonial-style malfeasance, mass murder, and profiteering,
b.
When I read your headline and intro, I couldn't help speculating on whether Ms Traub is the
tip of an iceberg - made up of ppl who have woken up one morning and realised that MSM Cloud Cuckoo
Land may not be the best vantage point from which to detect, anticipate, and escape from, the
Backlash when the patience of the deceived "consumers" expires.
Worth watching - after a visit to Damascus -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8JppJyVxYU
(I never see this in the news reports - but I think it is important to note that Damascus is one
of the oldest, continually inhabited cities on earth, at least four thousand years old. Leave
it to the US to obliterate all remains of the cradle of the civilization.)
That often requires ... perhaps most of all, an emotionally engaging frame of clearly identifiable
good guys and bad guys.
Others commenting here at MoA have pointed up the nomination of ...
the "White Helmets", the fake "Syrian Civil Defense" created by the New Yorker PR company Purpose
Inc., to make and distribute pictures and movies that show the Islamic insurgency in Syria
as "good" and the Syrian government and its allies as "bad".
... for the Nobel Peace Prize (if the Nobel Peace Prize is not yet considered an albatross to
be hung around the necks of frauds of the most cynical, worst sort since Obama mocked his) and
the participation of Democracy Now (Amy Goldman), Code Pink (Medea Benjamin), and the Intercept
(Glenn Greenwald) and Netfliks in pushing the nomination.
This is surely the creation of "good guys" (jihadist mercenaries) and of course corresponding
"bad guys" (Assad and others who oppose the destruction and devastation of Syria).
There has got to be at least the whiff of being used to monstrously evil purpose at these organizations.
There are no starry-eyed innocents here. And they are 'journalists' ... if they haven't discovered
the truth about the White Helmets, what hope is there for the babes who suck their paps?
I can recommend Malooga's
The
Feckless Left , second from the top under 'Current Top Picks' on the title page at MoA for
some treatment of ... well, the feckless left.
There is nothing new under the sun.
But why are people so easily manipulated? Consensus of course. And group think. Everybody wants
to belong.
@9
But I think there is a commercial/quasi commercial angle as well. To belong is profitable ton
organization and so to its employees. The commercial angle is obvious for operations like Netfliks
and the Intercept, and Democracy Now and Code Pink are NGOs, with their own little piglets nursing
at their paps, just as do the employees of the commercial operations. Toeing the 'correct' line
pays. Careerism is careerism, commercial or ngo no matter. Corporate structure is what counts.
I don't think the folks that patronize those four will be mailing b any contributions.
Posing as a non-political solidarity organization, the Syria Campaign leverages local partners
and media contacts to push the U.S. into toppling another Middle Eastern government.
Our 'free press' - this institution has become so rotten I wonder if anything much can be done
to redeem it at this point without some MAJOR social upheaval. I hate to take these nihilistic
positions but even when the media is caught time after time pushing aggression and defending the
indefensible, there is zero repercussions - monetarily, socially, legally or otherwise. Nor is
there any gained perspective by the audience as a result, maybe that is what's most ironic.
I
have much more hope for the younger generation, they seem to have a slightly higher grasp as to
the nature and mechanisms of power/control, but I fear their dissent and awareness will not manifest
quick enough to avert the massive disasters the media are complicit in pushing. Scary and strange
times surely
Ponder the possibilities. It's certainly no accident - a decider (like Dubya) decides what gets
reported, when, how, and with what intent. The decider is of course controlled by other deciders.
The People, meaning everyone, especially common people can learn ALL they want to know about
Sports. Any sport. All the games, teams, stats, players, trades, salaries, owners, stadiums, and
etc.
Yet, they know almost nothing about current US "activities" in the world.
The MSM is by design propaganda, disinformation, obfuscation and entertainment with a lot of
information about sports (entities like war which also just so happens to make rich men richer).
We, that is the USA, are not the "good guys". "We" wage war to enrich individuals and multi-national
corporations which "act and plan in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of
the nation-state".
These ppl are so enriched with money and power that they are stateless insofar as they can
live in any number of places in absolute comfort. They covet the world's resources and they use
the state's military to kill to get these resources.
Nation state as a fundamental unit of man's organized life has ceased to be the principal
creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in
terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state. - Brzezinski
in 1981
This is not to say that Russia or any other state is the "good guy". Russia also is interested
in resources.
Of course, The US (NATO) has been antagonizing Russia for years.
The biggest problem with Taub's article is that it assumes that "American interests" are the
same as the interests of ordinary citizens. The notion that the US is a classless, 'post-racial'
society is a 'big lie'. The interests of "the 99%" differ markedly from the interests of "the
1%". Its the interests of 1%-ers that are threatened in Syria and that's why the media
pushes covers it.
The main reason why the propaganda is this time XXL compared to 2003 is that US/UK methods
have been applied to many more countries. Add the financial crisis and you get why journalists
are unanimous in their submission: they want to keep their job rather than ending up a new homeless
in their own neighborhood.
The collective fear was the context of the secret cables would hamper U.S. intelligence gathering
and compromise private correspondences and intelligence shared with foreign governments and
opposition leaders. Splashing such juicy details on television news shows and the front pages
of major newspapers in the country was great for the media but lousy for intelligence and foreign
policy.
To be entirely fair, the media and the medium should not be confused.
A 3-year old is being exposed to a dumbed-down pampered subset of reality by their loving parents
unless they live on the street, slum shacks or in a landfill. Our children are exposed to a for-profit
education institution populated largely by women with limited knowledge of STEM, history or politics,
that just the actual teacher demographics/
Teenagers are scrambling around in a for-profit education and consumerist tidal wave, everyone
stepping on everyone climbing the ladder up from the steerage compartment where the discarded
elderly are starved, abused, tortured and drowned. We used to live across from an elderly couple
and their adult son who was poaching their SS checks. One morning the mother scrawled 'HELP US'
on the fogged-up airshaft window. There are millions like her, and tens of millions of stories
like this, you can see it every day...if you look.
So it's really not about the 'media'. MSM is really tinsel and glitter bullshit for the Elites,
just polishing the brass spittoons, and spritzing some cologne on their whores.
Will we exist tomorrow & The US Constitution has been Murdered. Both extensive coverage current events where controlled media push
War and deception on the public.
"The Broadcast Board of Governors, which produces programming like the Voice of America and
Radio Free Europe, has been prevented from aiming its programming at Americans since the 1970's
when the Smith-Mundt Act (which authorized the State Dept. to communicate with foreign audiences
via many methods, radio being one of them) was amended to prohibit domestic dissemination of
the BBG's broadcasts. This was done to distance the State Department's efforts from the internal
propaganda machine operated by the Soviet Union."
"Now, the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 (part of the National Defense Authorization
Act) has repealed the domestic prohibition, allowing the government's broadcasting to be directed
at/created for Americans for the first time in over 40 years."
What this amendment achieved is the fact that all of MSM may now use State's 'talking points'
in their reports. Once upon a time, the press used field reporters to report the news. When was
the last time anyone saw a CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS journalist reporting from say Syria or Yemen or
Iraq or ...? The 'modernization' of the act has achieved one thing, that is, alt news, like MoA,
are indeed taking the place of what journalism once used to be in this country b/c few who wish
to truly know what is happening in a war theater do not want to read the same pro State Dept talking
points from one mainstream outlet to another.
In Jan 2014, the carefully vetted moderate headchoppers aka the FSA drove two large VBIEDs towards
the Kindi hospital north of Aleppo. The two explosions more or less totally destroyed the hospital.
The explosions were sufficiently massive that they created mushroom clouds.
22;Can't let the BS pass;Just what evil has Donald Trump committed?The HB has a documented trail
of evil,lies and corruption, while Trumps biggest alleged crime is he had his tax returns illegally
published by Zion, showing he had a billion dollar loss.
Really now.
Its all lies from Zion,gang.Saudi Arabia is an ally of Israel,which makes it bulletproof.Same
with IsUS,Alciada,and Al nUSrA.
Which points to US being nothing other than their tool in hegemony,which is why Donald Trump is
necessary for the world and US to escape this insanity of a minute % of the worlds population
controlling and manipulating every nation into idiocy.
Nice article delineating the Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich at CP.
The Guardian; Brentwood LI NY teens killed because of gangs.
Saw nothing in the lying times(paywall?)as the news only boosts Trump, as the perps are MS
13. Same with the Turk Washington state assassin story,gone with the breeze.San Bernadino,Orlando
and even the recent NYC bomb story,all non stories,except for that one about the 2 Egypt air guys
finding the suitcase and leaving the bomb.
Actually I saw no follow up today to that disconcerting report.What were the odds of those
2 finding that in a city of 8 million?Like throwing pennies off the WTC(gone of course) and landing
in a dixie cup.(Lotto odds)
"But I think there is a commercial/quasi commercial angle as well. To belong is profitable
[to an] organization and so to its employees. The commercial angle is obvious for operations like
Netfliks and the Intercept, and Democracy Now and Code Pink are NGOs, with their own little piglets
nursing at their paps, just as do the employees of the commercial operations. Toeing the 'correct'
line pays. Careerism is careerism, commercial or NGO no matter. Corporate structure is what counts."
This kind of comparison may not be just or correct. NGOs are, in the sense that counts, agents
of the government, and willing conduits of governmental projects, psyops, and covert military
actions within a foreign country. One has to go back to definitions and the meaning of words,
in order to proceed correctly in an argument. Media Benjamin, Any Goodman, Glenn Greenwald are
being slandered by such a comparison. Are you saying that based on their contributions, their
participation in protest and journalism, they are acting on behalf of the government?
In person, I have seen Code Pink in action, in Dallas, at the protest of the opening of the
hideous G. W. Bush Library and "Museum". These women are for real and I trust them and believe
their motivations are sincere.
These people and their organizations have done a great deal to educate people, to expose acts
of injustice, and have risked punishment and even their lives, in the process. Amy Goodman is
someone who has stuck her neck out in the non-pixel world. It's people like her who sometimes
get knocked around and detained, who are sometimes abused and beaten by uniformed goons, or who
have run the risk of a government suppression that potentially could shatter their careers and
their families.
Democracy Now is not the fucking NED, for crying out loud!
The metastasizing expanding universe of lies is somewhat explained by the need to lie further
to cover the lie, and so on. Here we use the word 'lie' broadly to include censorship - missing
important information - and psyops.
More specifically, basic problems include:
the CIA via its ambitious attempt to control global communications via operation Mockingbird
and its progeny, which includes university texts and various 'alternative' media;
the disproportionate media domination - 'by way of deception' - by Talmudic warped minds,
who revel in scamming and destroying 'the other', is death to integrity;
concentrated corporate media control that in any case disappears any effective oppositional
narrative;
a conglomeration of financial, military and corporate juggernauts conjoined with political,
media and institutional corruption (the latter includes FBI, FDA, etc) who have the financial
means to concoct any manner of bs;
'reporters' who are schooled since birth in iniquity and bs and who place a paycheck above
all else;
a massive paid-to-manipulate advertising industry that has spawned subsidiaries like the
'crisis actor' industry, though the flunkee Sandy Hook actors will not win any legit acting
awards, but maybe if they work on it, tomorrow....?;
a public that is poisoned, demoralized, manipulated and lied to from birth.
But the omnipresent problem for the bs is this: the universe does not play let's pretend, and
on the whole, by a wide margin, people still prefer integrity. The truth can be bitter, or sweet,
or bitter-sweet. But it is not bs.
Your nationalism gets the better of you, Western liberalism in Russia isn't as dead as you
would like it to be. It was very much alive not so long ago, and just because Putin swung scales
the other way, doesn't mean its permanent, or without a danger of setbacks.
There are still very powerful and influential politicians and oligarchs in Russia who like
liberalism or West in general, and Putin isn't going to be in power forever either. Even today,
Putin still has to pay attention to their interests and balance it with his ruling, his hands
may be more free than Obamas, but not as free as some thinks.
MSM operates under certain rules. I'd recommend watching Colin Flaherty on youtube. You may or
may not consider him racist, but he exposes the operating procedures when it comes to crime reporting
(He focuses on Black on White/Asian/Hispanic crime.)
Must have hit a nerve in my previous post (#22 above).
There seems to be a misunderstanding regarding the citizens of the US. It seems that something
needs to be blamed for the way the American people react: poor leadership, the MSM, the education
system ... whatever.
I aver: is it not possible that leadership, the MSM and the education system ARE exactly what
the people of the US want? That the greed and insistence on exceptionally indispensable is what
we want to hear, and therefore our leaders, the MSM and the educational system are actually on
target for the typical Americans interests and desires?
Your nationalism gets the better of you, Western liberalism in Russia isnt as dead as you would
like it to be. It was very much alive not so long ago, and just because Putin swung scales
the other way, doesnt mean its permanent, or without a danger of setbacks. There are still
very powerful and influential politicians and oligarchs in Russia who like liberalism or West
in general, and Putin isnt going to be in power forever either
Situational awareness is a bitch, isn't it? The only barrier which stands between overwhelming
majority of Russian people and so called "western liberals" hanging from the lamp posts or being
strung on pitch forks is none other than Putin.
What my "nationalism" has anything to do with the cultural reality of Russia where today a
vast majority of people look at Europe and USA not only with disdain but with contempt.
The fact of those "liberals" still being around in the corridors of power is not due to the
will of Russian people but due to their executive appointments by powers that be. The combined
West has committed a cultural suicide in Russia but than again, how would I know this.
You also, evidently, do not understand the scale of what is happening in Ukraine and I mean
"scale" as in much larger context than some economic or military numbers.
We are social animals, live in groups, and must do so to survive. We get a huge proportion
of our world-view, or information, simply from what other ppl tell us, and not directly from our
senses (to take up a sorta old distinction), or our own experience - our actions, what happened
next, i.e. from accomodation, adjustement to real-world perceivable interactions with other living
beings and/or the physical world.
We are tribal members and follow laid-down, ingrained, agreed-on, beliefs and ideologies, or
'theories' - 'interpretative lenses' and so on.
Read some trivial study (bowlderized here) where older babies and dogs were shown how to use
a lever and open a box to get a treat - as demonstrated by an adult human. The lever was purely
for show, inoperative, the trick was to hedge off/up the lid of the box in xyz way. The dogs learnt
quickly to open the box and ignored the lever, did not action it. The kiddos always pulled the
lever and also went on to open the box with success: they adopted and performed a magical and
arbitrary act without question, in a more complex 2-step process.
We live in a universe of stories, symbols, conventions, arbitrary ways-of-doing. We have to
listen and integrate the narratives, the templates, the glorious aims, the way-forward. This is
not primarily a question of belief in, and bowing down to authority (powerful of course;
and coercion either violent or insidious works, as does ejection of refusniks, pariahs, etc.),
but a matter of acting in concert, of being in tune, to dominate and exploit the plant/ animal/
various ressource etc. of Earth.
In a largely globalised world, where most of the information outside of the local, individual
grasp of the person or tiny group, is regulated by the State (education .. ) and the Media, and
comes in the form of prop speech / prose and shock / other visuals, which makes humans very vulnerable
to, or even entirely dependent on, world-views that are engineered somehow for small-group or
personal gain. Add in, when things go to sh*t, competition and rapine or just killing as some
solution (war..) override collaboration and cooperation. Not 'new' but the scale (weapons, etc.)
is.
Awesome take on what our media is feeding us. Yes, the way the Syrian story is told there's nothing
going on in Aleppo but guys with white helmets and children who play in buildings. Russians and
Syrians are (oxymoron alert) indiscriminately targeting hospitals and buildings with children
in them. But Yemen? Nothing going on there. South America and the Colombian vote on FARC? never
heard of it.
I read Amusing Ourselves To Death a few years ago. One major point Postman made was that when
the news media becomes entertainment or newstainment, all bets are off on the people being informed.
and he's right. In the US, we throw insane amounts of money at the entertainment/media industry
so we do have the best. But is it good for you especially when you intake so much of it or your
news gets so skewed? A year or so ago, some journalist locked himself in a room to watch Russian
TV networks for a long period of time. He skewered them. But Russians do not throw so much at
what is produced on the tube - or as my mother once called it, "the idiot box."
@56 copeland 'Media Benjamin, Any Goodman, Glenn Greenwald are being slandered by such a comparison.
Are you saying that based on their contributions, their participation in protest and journalism,
they are acting on behalf of the government?'
No, I'm saying that Code Pink, Democracy Now, the Intercept are all corporate structures and
that Media Benjamin, Any Goodman, Glenn Greenwald are their employees. Let's say that each of
them are better than the average corporate employee. That all of them are better men/women than
I am. Yet none of them runs the corporation to which they belong, or are just associated with,
but they each draw their sustenance from their respective corp.
All organizations take on a life of their own. If you are drawing your sustenance - financial,
emotional, whatever - from a corporation, you are working in the interests of that corporation
... wily, nily ... whether that corporation is governmental, non-governmental, 'spiritual', or
'for profit'. Your present arrangements derive from the corporation: what's good for the corporation
is good for you.
It is the corporate body in each case that has decided publicly to place its sympathies with
the White Helmets in this particular case. I maintain that Media Benjamin, Any Goodman, Glenn
Greenwald should be aware of the actual provenance of the White Helmets, if they are
not. (b is, and he's not associated with a high-powered corporate NGO. Perhaps for exactly that
reason?) Yet they all remain associated with the stance of their particular employer.
Complicit or incompetent? Take your pick. Or perhaps they're just 'too busy' ... doing good,
or doing well? ... to check out the positions of the corporations they work for? are 'unwilling'
dupes? "If I knew then what I know now ...".
It's not hard to imagine the incentives for a corporation to conform to the master corporate
line of the US/NATO/the 'international community', nor is it difficult to imagine the disincentives
for not conforming. People choose their battles.
The White Helmets 'save children's lives and are above the fray'. Not unlike your own
corporation, no? No one - but b and other 'free lance' media - is rocking that boat, in fact
your corporation will add critical mass to the popular misconception, sort of a self-fulfilling
insurance policy. And you'll just be going along to get along.
Check out
Malooga
. I'm sure you have. Organization, the ongoing act, is our only means of effecting change.
The organization, the fossilized embodiment of hierarchy and resources, our shoes of clay.
Chipnik: The US 7-Day War with the nefarious dark-skinned Grenadians, (shudder), under Reagan
yielded more than 1,000 service medals and countless ribbons, which goes towards higher service
pay, which goes towards higher pensions for life. Naturally, the Pentagon was reluctant to state
who got those medals.
NYT, March 30 1984. In response to questions, the Army said it awarded 275 decorations for
valor, for combat deaths or wounds.
Beyond that, it said, it gave out 8,337 medals for individual performance. These included 4,581
commendation medals, 2,495 achievement medals, 681 Bronze Stars and a variety of other decorations.
''Many support and staff personnel received these awards for their support of the Grenada operation
outside of the actual combat zone or for service in Grenada after hostilities had ceased,'' the
Army said. Awards by Unit Commanders
It indicated that the decisions on awards were made by unit commanders. The 82d Airborne Division
led with 6,708 individual awards.
====
Grenada invasion remains the finest hour of US armed forces. One could also add a peacekeeping
effort in Lebanon, also under Reagan, where all participants were decorated, but, alas, posthumously.
Lebanon remains a mess, while Grenada remains a stable ally. Thus I would recommend search for
small island nations where most of the populations are Protestants, know English etc. Tuvalu was
not supportive of American interests, so one could downgrade them to a "hostile regime".
Sorry for incomplete research. Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps also participated in the Grenada
operation (I am not sure about the Coast Guard and National Park rangers), so the total count
of decorations is higher.
The Guardian has an article on
Yemen . Somehow there is quite a bit more on the topic in UK than in USA, and more MPs oppose
selling weapons to the "coalition".
Of course, I do not expect the starving Yemeni baby to be plastered on cover pages of newspapers
around the world like "Aleppo boy" (not the boy whose decapitation was proudly taped by the moderate
rebels). And given the magnitude of the human-engineered humanitarian crisis, the article is very
scant on judgment, unlike articles on Syria. Not a word on the role of USA which provides full
diplomatic support (UK too, of course) and pockets enormous amounts of blood money for weapons
that cause and enforce starvation. Or what kind of "legitimate president" demands such fate on
his ungrateful citizens -- the whole tragedy is allegedly upholding the principle of "legitimate
government".
I often ponder the logic of such pieces. Is it a journalistic effort to provide "true news"
within the straightjacket imposed by the media owners? Or from the beginning, the strategy of
"brand maintenance", to mix utter propaganda with enough seasoning of "objectivity and facing
inconvenient news" to improve digestibility of the propaganda? Kind of like "whole wheat bread"
that is barely better than the nutritional and taste-wise wasteland of "sliced white bread" but
nevertheless has a more interesting color, a bit more fiber and an occasional molecule of a vitamin.
When you order "whole wheat" (or read The Guardian) you are sophisticated, health conscious etc
as befits the member of the liberal tribe.
I think the reason wealth concentration
becomes inherently unstable is because of the exponential growth of capital, which is essentially
rent the bottom 80% must pay to the top 20% net investment holders in one form or another.
Exponential
growth of capital and no growth of incomes and wealth for the bottom 80% means that the glut of growing
capital aggressively seeking returns will eventually leech so much wealth out of the real world economy
it will cause it to collapse in a deflationary death spiral when people stop borrowing.
In short, the neoclassical Friedmanian era is coming to a close one way or another. One way is
that some European nations reject capitalism for fascism. If that happens, Masters of the Universe
can try shorting civilization. But they won't be taking it with them.
Olens defended Georgia's gay marriage ban and sued the federal government over the transgender
bathroom directive. That's why students organized Monday afternoon's protest and drafted a petition
that has more than 5,000 signatures.
In the petition, students ask the Georgia Board of Regents to not appoint Olens as KSU's next
president.One student, who wouldn't give 11Alive his name, said he's disappointed.
"The support groups would probably be disbanded and not to mention the scholarships that are
offered for people active in LGBT rights," he said
After the rally ended, he stayed around to continue the protest.
"I feel it's my duty. I'm a student here and I have to make sure the school is safe for me
and students. If this place becomes unsafe, I'd have to leave," he said.
Oh for pity's sake, this snowflake thinks hiring the Georgia AG as the school's president would
lead to anti-gay pogroms? I hate the way this Orwellian "safe space" concept has become the cudgel
with which campus progressives use to club the expression of opinions with which they disagree. Anyway,
the reader comments:
Okay, a couple things. First, KSU gives scholarships for "people active in LGBT rights"? I'd
love to know details on that. Second, note the alleged disqualification here: Olens defended the
laws of his state - laws that were created by a democratically elected legislature. In other words,
he did the job he is elected to do. But as you and I know, this now constitutes Thoughtcrime.
Leonard Witt, a KSU professor, wrote
a column
criticizing the choice in which he concludes: "Let's, this time, show the world that
Cobb County carries the torch for all its diverse communities." Yes, diverse communities - as
long as one of those communities isn't Christians or people fulfilling the duties of their elected
office.
Now, I should note that as a college professor myself I happen to agree with Witt's other point:
that a college president should be an academic, not someone plucked from business or politics.
If I taught at KSU, I would oppose Olens for that reason. But this is something different: opposition
to him because of something he believes, and because he did his job according to the constitution
of the state of Georgia.
Eventually we're going to have to call explanations like Witt's the "Eich Maneuver," as an
homage to Mozilla's preposterous explanation that they had to fire Eich because of how much they
value diversity of viewpoint.
The reader says to be sure to note this reasoning from KSU's Prof. Witt (what follows is a quote
from Witt's column):
Already the KSU LGBTQ community members are signing petitions. A headline in Project Q, a popular
Atlanta blog, screams out "Gay marriage bigot Sam Olens to become KSU president." Unfair? Perhaps,
but how do we know,since the selection process is coming from the darkest corners of state government.
As attorney general, Olens ardently opposed both gay marriage and now gender neutral bathrooms.
Hence, the headline.
Given Cobb County's history, try as the chancellor may argue otherwise, important national
constituencies are going to be outraged about the secret meetings aimed at appointing a candidate
who they know will infuriate the LGBTQ community and their allies at Kennesaw State, in Cobb County
and throughout the state and nation.
The nation's largest foundations that support higher education demand respecting diversity
in all its forms. An active foe of gay marriage or transgender neutral bathrooms for KSU president?
Cobb County again? We have better places to put our money. Google, Microsoft, Apple, Nike and
just about every other major corporation may well openly or silently boycott Kennesaw State University.
Plus, the tainted brand name will not exactly be a student resume builder.
Says the reader:
Echoes of Indiana and RFRA.
If we don't keep up with the LGBT agenda, no corporations will
want to do business with us!
And note the fear that we could "infuriate the LGBTQ community
and their allies." If I even mentioned to my academic colleagues that something could upset we
Christians and our allies, I'd probably hear laughter.
We should be hearing Republican politicians, churches, and civic leaders calling this stuff out
for what it is: diversity McCarthyism. Olens may or may not be qualified to run the university, but
what these SJWs are attempting is frightening - or should be. Where does it stop?
Donald J. Deadbeat got rich working the system. I.e.
legally. The Clintons, on the other hand, got all their
riches from betraying the people, liquidating the public
trust and selling off American government to oligarchs
domestic and foreign. They made over $100-million in
speaking fees alone cashing in on promissory bribes.
For every criticism against Trump there exists one
worse against Hillary.
Whichever bottom-feeder ends up president it will be
bad news for the party they captured. Better for
progressives if Trump blows up the Republican party than
the Goldwater Girl destroying the Democratic party
(saddling it with a 12-year Great Recession by 2020.)
The former will produce a New Deal revolution led by
someone like Elizabeth Warren in 2020, which will usher in
a new era for civilization.
The latter will kick the New Deal can down the road to
2024 with something like a Ted Cruz presidency in 2020.
Given the state of the global economy, which is teetering
on the verge of collapse into fascist revolutions and
world war, that will probably mean just kicking the can.
"... Average US wages rose 350% in the 40 years between 1932 and 1972, but only 22% over the next 40 years. The pattern holds similar across the developed world. In other words, for all their hype, the computer and the internet have done less to lift economic growth than the flush toilet. ..."
"... ahem… the computer and the internet sped outsourcing to countries like China. Ask China or India how their economic growth has been since 1972. The author is mixing up several things at once. ..."
"... When so many of our jobs, technology and investment is offshored to China (and elsewhere), the future for innovation is certainly not bright, and this should be obvious to everyone, including the author. ..."
" Average US wages rose 350% in the 40 years between 1932 and 1972, but only 22% over the next
40 years. The pattern holds similar across the developed world. In other words, for all their hype,
the computer and the internet have done less to lift economic growth than the flush toilet."
ahem… the computer and the internet sped outsourcing to countries like China. Ask China or India
how their economic growth has been since 1972. The author is mixing up several things at once.
Great comments, and please allow me to piggyback off them:
When so many of our jobs, technology and investment is offshored to China (and elsewhere), the
future for innovation is certainly not bright, and this should be obvious to everyone, including
the author.
When so many have contributed so much, only to see their jobs and livelihoods offshored again
and again and again, that great jump the others have will then zero out OUR innovation!
Bobby M. Wilson
(bio)
In the era of neoliberalism, human beings are made accountable for their
predicaments or circumstances according to the workings of the market as
opposed to finding faults in larger structural and institutional forces like
racism and economic inequality. The market exchange is an ethic in itself,
capable of acting as a guide for all of human action (
Harvey
2005
). In many ways, the discourse of neoliberalism represents a radical
inversion of the notion of "human agency," as conceived through the
prophetic politics of Martin Luther King. As originally conceived, human
agency focused on people's capability of doing things that can make a
difference, that is, to exercise some sort of power and self-reliance. As a
central concern among many in the social sciences, this concept sought to
expose the power of human beings. Reverend Martin Luther King's prophetic
politics were determinedly "this worldly" and social in their focus. He
encouraged people to direct their attention to matters of social justice
rather than concern for personal well-being or salvation. He believed in the
power of people to make a difference.
But the concept of "justice" has
been reconstructed to fit neoliberal political and economic objectives. This
reconstruction is part of a larger discourse to reconstitute liberalism to
include human conduct. The invisible hand of the market not only allocates
resources but also the conduct of citizens. Economie agency is no longer
just about the market allocation of resources, but the allocation of people
into cultural worlds. This represents a radical inversion of the economic
agent as conceived by the liberalism of Adam Smith. As agents, humans are
implicated as players and partners in the market game. The context in which
individuals define themselves is privatized rather than publicized; the
focus of concerns is on the self rather than the collective. Power operates
internally, not externally, by inducing people to aim for
"self-improvement." The effect has been to negate the "social" in issues of
"justice" or "injustice." Individual subjects are rendered responsible,
shifting the responsibility for social risk (unemployment, poverty, etc.) to
the individual.
Black inner city spaces compete freely within a deregulated global
market. Central cities of large metropolitan areas have become the epicenter
of segregation. In 1988, approximately 55% of black students in the South
attended schools that were 50% to 100% minorities. By 2000, almost 70%
attended such schools. Only 15% of intensely segregated white schools are
schools of concentrated poverty, whereas 88% of the intensely segregated
racial minority schools are schools of concentrated poverty. Fifty years
after the
Brown
decision, we continue to heap more disadvantages on
children in poor communities. The community where a student resides
[End Page 97]
and goes to school is now the best predictor of
whether that student will go to college and succeed after graduation. High
school graduation rates in the South were lowest in the most isolated
black-majority districts-those separated by both race and poverty. Across
the South, we have created public and private systems that encourage the
accumulation of wealth and privilege in mostly white and socially isolated
communities separated by ever greater distances from the increasingly
invisible working poor (
Orfield
and Mei 2004
).
The most fundamental difference between today's segregated black
communities and those of the past is the much higher level of joblessness (
Wilson
1997
). Black unemployment and poverty level consistently remains at
twice the level of the total population. Access to jobs, already
disproportionately tenuous for black workers, has become even more
constricted in the current era of global capital. Without meaningful work,
the impact of racially segregated communities is much more pervasive and
devastating. The vast majority of intensely racial and ethnic segregated
minority places face a growing surplus labor determined to survive by any
means necessary. Two-thirds of the people in prison are now racial and
ethnic minorities. The proportion of young black males who are incarcerated,
on parole, or on probation nationwide continues to reach record levels.
Blacks represent 12.3% of the total population but make up 43.7% of the
incarcerated population. The number of black men in prisons increased from
508,800 in...
"... People are in information overload most of the time, and where politics are concerned, they really just want to know who to root for. They ask, "who is the good guy? who is the bad guy?" "Whose right?" "What should be done?" And, people like the opinions they have, whatever those opinions may be; they use their political opinions to feed their sense of self-esteem and social belonging, for better and for worse. ..."
"... I was thinking about what a brilliant innovation the Clinton Foundation is, how well it is designed to solve the problems of Machiavelli's Prince. ..."
"... I've seen some articles that attempt to understand the CF as a means to the political ambitions of the Clintons, but they seldom grasp the awesome accomplishment it is in ways that also fully understand why enemies of the Clintons are keen to attack it and why it so reliably produces the neoliberal pablum that Thomas Franks despises. ..."
"... If we could imagine a Marx tackling the CF as a vehicle of class interest, that would be pretty interesting. ..."
People are in information overload most of the time,
and where politics are concerned, they really just want to know who to root
for. They ask, "who is the good guy? who is the bad guy?" "Whose right?" "What
should be done?" And, people like the opinions they have, whatever those
opinions may be; they use their political opinions to feed their sense of
self-esteem and social belonging, for better and for worse.
I have some friends, who are really into a particular sport as fans, not
participants. One guy knows everything about baseball. It is fun to watch a
game with him, because he knows when someone is about to try to steal a base
and stuff like that and he can explain the manager's strategy and has gossip
about the players careers and personal lives. And, apparently, he has an
encyclopedic knowledge of baseball history - appears to, anyway: what dramatic
thing happened in game 3 of the 1967 World Series and so on and exactly why
everyone hated Ty Cobb.
No one like that shows up at CT to talk politics. Maybe it is just as well.
Sports guys can wield that knowledge and remain affable, but political guys
tend to be arrogant and off-putting. But, I do think we could use more of that
spirit sometimes.
I was thinking about what a brilliant innovation the Clinton Foundation
is, how well it is designed to solve the problems of Machiavelli's Prince.
But, we would struggle to discuss it in those terms; the partisan contest means
that the CF is either horribly corrupt or prosaically innocent. The pressure to
evaluate it is so high, that seeing the functional details is hard.
I've seen some articles that attempt to understand the CF as a means to
the political ambitions of the Clintons, but they seldom grasp the awesome
accomplishment it is in ways that also fully understand why enemies of the
Clintons are keen to attack it and why it so reliably produces the neoliberal
pablum that Thomas Franks despises.
If we could imagine a Marx tackling the CF as a vehicle of class
interest, that would be pretty interesting.
"... Okay, I'm done laughing at the folly of this. Just as the marketplace works best when participants are self-selecting, so do the decisions about livelihood and voting. Or do you really believe that some pool of bureaucrats should be making the social and economic decisions for all of us? ..."
"... Things haven't really changed all that much since Anthony Downs wrote The Economic Theory of Democracy almost 60 years ago. The sad fact is that most elections are decided by low information voters who are easily swayed. ..."
Well, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him vote for your candidate.
I personally believe low productivity growth and low interest rates lead to the impression the system
is rigged. Low productivity growth means low wage increases, and low interest rates mean high asset
prices, which favor those with assets, ie, the insiders. Both make the guy on the street feel like the
system is not working for him.
One might argue, however, that if any citizen is too lazy or uninformed or self-involved or uninterested
in politics to take the trouble to vote, so be it. Why drag them to the polls? Perhaps it is just as
well if the views of the uninformed or self-involved don't carry as much weight as others! I am not
going to take a position on this question one way or the other. Let's consider only those citizens who
are as informed and civic-minded as the rest of us, but are alienated by the system and think that "votes
of people like them" don't make a difference. There are, by far, enough of these people for their votes
in fact to make the difference.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/25/opinion/should-everybody-vote.html?_r=0
Okay, I'm done laughing at the folly of this. Just as the marketplace works best when participants
are self-selecting, so do the decisions about livelihood and voting. Or do you really believe that some
pool of bureaucrats should be making the social and economic decisions for all of us?
Things haven't really changed all that much since Anthony Downs wrote
The
Economic Theory of Democracy
almost 60 years ago. The sad fact is that most elections
are decided by low information voters who are easily swayed.
Another important poli-sci book that came out around the same time was Robert Dahl's
A Preface
to Democratic Theory
, and here I believe things have changed since Dahl first theorized about the
conditions for "polyarchal" democracy. In short, polyarchal democracy was plausible and even likely
60 years ago. Today not so much.
Bruce Hall
do you really believe that some pool of bureaucrats should be making the social
and economic decisions for all of us?
If you want effective and responsive government, then yes. If you want legitimate government, then
no. We have a few thousand years of history that tells us we can't have both for more than 5 or 6 generations;
it's an unstable knife's edge.
The problem is that "messy and freedom" are luxuries that you buy only with
the capital earned by first being "effective and responsive." After a few generations
of messiness that capital gets consumed. People being what they are, they quickly
and gladly trade away that freedom for security. It's an old pattern that we
see time and again, and not just in ancient times. Look at the rise of far right
wing parties in both Western Europe and Eastern Europe. Look at Singapore. Look
at what's happening in Turkey right now. Look at the deplorable views of some
of Trump's supporters. And what do you think will happen to "messy and freedom"
if 100 years from now the climate "alarmists" and "pool of bureaucrats" at NOAA
and EPA turn out to have been proven right? The unfortunate truth is that healthy
democracies are temporary and fortunate aberrations from the normal course of
events. Years ago I read Benjamin Friedman's
The Moral Consequences of Economic
Growth
and I always wondered why Friedman shied away from the natural conclusion
implied in his main argument. The natural conclusion isn't
just
that
without economic growth our politics becomes meaner and nastier; it's that people
quickly forget their brave words about freedom and start looking around for
someone on a white horse.
Government in its attempts to help people also caused enormous damage.
For example, in "the War on Poverty," we spent trillions of dollars trying
to reduce poverty. Yet, the same percentage of the population is in poverty.
However, it did reduce "deep poverty" substantially. Government should focus
on problems that are similar to deep poverty (rather than income inequality)
and smooth-out business cycles (to sustain or maximize employment). The federal
government needs to operate within a budget, e.g. 18% of GDP in normal times.
More GDP means more tax revenue and less spending on the unemployed, to fund
other programs.
I have to disagree with your analysis here. According to census figures
the poverty rate for families in 1959 was upward of 18%. By 1969 it was
hugging 10%.
The largest reduction was the number of senior citizens living in poverty.
IMHO, this is the definition of success. Your definition may be different.
A second point I would like to make is that, as Krugman pointed out
first, potential GDP growth was largely unchanged from 1970 to 2000, regardless
of changing party control and shifting demographics. After 2000 there's
a sizable dropoff, some levelling, and another drop at the last recession,
again followed by some levelling.
I personally believe it to be very likely that the heavy chopping away
at the Federal social safety net from 1995 to 2005 seriously reduced the
ability of household demand to recover from recessions. I have not yet
put numbers to it, but am working toward it. I will gladly share my results
and data when I do.
So existing data show that programs created during the War on Poverty,
and built upon during the 1970s and 1980s, were effective at reducing
poverty. There's also strong circumstantial evidence that curtailing those
programs has reduced the growth potential of the US economy.
Thanks for reading. I hope everyone has a good day!
The People's Pawn, below is a chart of the poverty rate by the Washington
Post. Note, that the poverty rate was falling sharply before the War on
Poverty went into full effect (also shown in your data). I doubt, for
example, the black community is better off today, after accounting for
the steep rise in living standards, since the 1960s. Demographics doesn't
explain the sharp, sudden, and sustained downshift in GDP growth in this
"recovery." In the 2001-07 expansion, increasingly larger trade deficits,
up to 6% of GDP, can explain much of the slower GDP growth, although the
female labor force participation rate declined slowly after it peaked
in 2000.
I have another question for you guys. I asked a
question
a couple of years ago
on this blog about my decision to buy a big screen tv rather
than sign up for Obamacare. Mr. Baffles called me a
deadbeat,
but my evil conservative Republican Pop told me I was just being rational. He said
lots of young (and older) people would make the same decision and Obamacare would
never come close to signing up the people expected. He said Obamacare will filled
with perverse incentives. He was right, so I guess I don't feel so bad.
But now my Pop's got me confused again. I read Prof Frankel's post and I thought "cool," all I have
to do to get some free stuff is go out and vote. That doesn't seem so hard. But then I ran into my Pop.
He told me about something he called the "rational voter hypothesis." He said that it's not rational
for me to vote. My vote would only matter if the vote is evenly split between 2 candidates and my candidate
would lose if I didn't vote. He said that I need to calculate the expected value of all the free stuff
I'd get–free medical care, free college education, etc. etc.–by multiplying its value by the probability
that my vote will make a difference. And then I need to subtract the expected cost of voting. He said
the expected benefit will be much lower than the expected cost and thus I shouldn't vote if I'm smart.
That's because the probability that I could decide the election is very small.
So I said, "That's so cynical. How do you know I can't make a difference Pop? Professor Frankel told
me all I need to do is go out and vote to change the world." That's when all the conservative mumbo
jumbo started.
He said I could never know if the race were so close that my vote could matter. But I could estimate
the probability just by reading the newspaper. In Florida in 2000, about 6 million people voted and
it was very close. Suppose I read right before the election that there was a poll of 1000 people and
the poll said that vote was even: 500 people planned to vote for Bush and 500 people planned to vote
for Gore. With that information my Pop claimed I could estimate the probability that my vote would matter.
In that case, the standard deviation of the number of people voting for Gore could be estimated to
be sqrt(N*p*(1-p)) where N = 1000 and p = 0.5. So, the standard deviation of the number of people voting
for Gore would be 15.8 and the standard deviation of the probability of voting for Gore would be 15.8/1000
= 0.0158 = 1.6 percentage points.
So, we'd expect Gore to receive 0.5 * 6,000,000 = 3,000,000 votes with a standard deviation of 0.0158
* 6,000,000 = 94,868 votes.
If you use the normal distribution approximation, the probability that the vote is tied and my vote
decides the election is about 1/sqrt(2*pi)/94,868 = 4 in 1 million. Whew! My head is spinning but that
seems pretty small.
My Pop told me that the way I drive, I'm more likely to die on the way to the polling booth in a
car crash than I am to decide the election.
Well, I'm not risking my life to get some free stuff. I think I'll stay home and watch my big screen
tv on election day. Am I wrong?
Well, for starters, when you go to the polls you aren't just voting for President.
There are a lot of down ballot races as well. And for many of them your vote counts
very much. A few months ago there was a local initiative in my town. Voter turnout
was very low. The "for" vote fell short of the 60% required by the smallest of
margins a small fraction of a percentage point. Then a few weeks later they "found"
an absentee ballot that somehow got lost. There was some back and forth as to whether
or not it was a legal ballot. It was decided that it was. And the ballot measure
just cleared the 60% hurdle. We've also had ties for city council. And a few election
cycles back my county exactly tied in the Presidential vote. So if you live in
a battleground state, then there's a pretty good chance that your vote will count
in at least one of the many races and ballot initiatives. There might not be much
point in voting if you live in a deeply red or blue state, but battleground states
are a different story. Besides, it's fun to vote. I don't like absentee ballots
because I enjoy the experience of going into a voting both and voting against all
of the clowns with an "R" attached to them. I get a lot of pleasure from it.
As to Obamacare, there's quite likely going to be a perverse outcome if it fails.
And that outcome would likely please many of us who support universal Medicare.
If Obamacare fails because healthy young folks don't want to sign up, the alternative
will not be going back to the pre-Obamacare world. That world was rapidly collapsing,
which is why there was such demand for health insurance reform. If Obamacare fails,
then the next approach will be universal Medicare which means young, healthy people
who didn't want to join in Obamacare will find themselves paying into Medicare
with no realistic way to avoid it. Besides, Rick Stryker, Jr. won't be a young
kid forever. Some day he'll be middle-aged and in need of health insurance. If
Jr believes in consumptions smoothing over his lifetime, then he's probably better
off overpaying a bit when he's young rather than overpaying a lot when he's older
because he's confronted with a private insurance market that is in a death spiral.
Health care insurance is not the same as health care. You can thank government
for making health care a luxury good and creating rationing. We need to allow
the free market to work for huge efficiency gains and much lower prices. Then,
we can afford to subsidize or pay for preexisting conditions and catastrophic
health care.
"We need to allow the free market to work for huge efficiency gains and
much lower prices."
we tried that already. the world prior to obamacare. it failed. you need
to at least acknowledge that reality before you can try to present a solution
moving forward.
Do you really believe health care was operating in the free market
system before Obamacare?
Government, for decades, has piled on more and more constraints and
red tape on health care resulting in the inefficient and expensive system
we have today.
Your solution (from prior comments) seems to be since government intervention
created an grossly suboptimal and unsustainable system, it should take
over the entire system.
Peak, do you really believe government was the cause of health care
problems prior to 2008?
Not surprising, coming from a person who also believes the government
was responsible for the banks poor behavior leading up to the financial
crisis. I don't suppose the latest episodes from Wells Fargo and Deutschbank
will have you reconsider your interpretation.
Seems as though you have a standard response for any problem-it must
be the government. Let you in on a little secret. The problems facing
wells and deutsch today are a direct result of their own terrible business
decisions-not the government.
Baffling, you don't really care about helping people. You always defend
government, even when it creates systemic failures, e.g. in the financial
and health care industries.
There will always be some bad apples and policies that aren't perfect.
Nonetheless, banks are actually in business to make money, which has been
harder in the continuing low interest rate and highly regulated environment.
You can find faults in any corporate policy. You also need to look
at the successes. There are always problems in a big company. Some succeed
and some fail. However, it's not a systemic failure, like the moral hazard
government created in the housing market.
I thought I'd better respond for Rick Jr since he's glued to his big screen
tv and can't be bothered.
The calculation I explained to Rick Jr. was just to illustrate a general
point, that the probability of a vote mattering is very small in general. I
picked the best case in which it might matter. In that case, you know a priori
that the vote is incredibly close and you know that your state will be decisive.
Usually, that's not the situation and so the probability is much lower. It really
doesn't get much better down ballot. In almost all cases, you won't have the
same information to judge whether the race is close enough to do a calculation.
You rarely have polls of local ballot initiatives. Of course, you can always
point to races that were very close. That's a variation of the classical birthday
problem. The probability that any 2 people have the same birthday is low but
the probability that some pair of 2 people have the same birthday can be surprisingly
high. If you look over enough races, you will find some squeakers but that doesn't
change the probability calculation for any particular race.
That this probability is very low was first recognized by Downs as well as
Tullock in "Towards a Mathematics of Politics." Both noted that since this probability
is low, influencing the election can't be the motivation of a rational voter.
Both posited that people vote because they derive some sort of utility or satisfaction
from the act of voting itself. As you yourself said, voting is fun.
The political scientists Riker and Ordershook called the utility from voting
D and claimed that a rational voter will vote if
pB + D – C > 0 where p is the probability of the vote mattering, B is the
benefit, D is the enjoyment derived from the act of voting, and C is the cost
of voting. Since, p is very small and C is fairly well understood, all the action
is in D.
There are a number of theories about what D is. One is the expressive voter
hypothesis, which I think characterizes the voters that Jeff is talking about.
In this formulation, voters are aware that their vote doesn't matter and use
the opportunity to express an opinion about what they think the situation ought
to be. The cost of expressing such an opinion is essentially C, since p is very,
very low and the expressive voter sacrifices little in the way of benefits.
If this theory does explain the Nader voters, Jeff's arguments are likely to
fall on deaf ears.
Besides, focusing on Nader misses the larger picture. In Florida, some 6%
of registered Democrats voted for Bush. Had Gore been a better candidate and
nailed down his base better in Florida, he would have won. These voters who
crossed the line weren't disgruntled about the system. They actively chose Bush
over Gore.
When you look at modern get-out-the-vote techniques, they depend on big data
to identify possible voters and different psychological persuasion techniques
to appeal to voters classified by their data. Different methods are applied
to different voters. These methods do work and can move the vote a percent or
two on election day.
These techniques are a much more profitable line of attack. The Democrats
are still much better than Republicans on this high tech ground game. Obama
pioneered the modern data-driven ground game, using it effectively in 2008 and
2012. Romney also developed some capability, but the software failed massively
on election day.
Hillary has a big advantage over Trump in this regard. The Republicans have
tried to catch up but Trump seems to be rejecting the use of what's been developed.
Or so he claims. If this isn't misdirection on Trump's part, he may need an
extra point or so in the polls just to equalize her ground game.
One way of looking at low voter turnouts is that those absent voters are largely
happy with the status quo and 'rationally' do no expect it to change much.
Perhaps these absent voters have figured out the enormous influence of unelected special interest
groups and have simply given up.
Yet another way is to look at the US presidential system with its first-past-the-post vote allocation
system and overwhelming incentives to vote strategically and conclude that it is not really very democratic.
Perhaps by 18th century standards but not by modern standards. That and strategic voting appears more
costly, so these considerations drive up voter costs without any apparent increase in expected benefits.
Yet another way is look at how the position of president combines both head of state and head of
government which appears to inevitably complicate political negotiation.
The Latin Americans have an interesting expression for folks with strong patriotic feelings: patriotudos.
Patriots with big balls. It implies that patriotudos are not big on 'thinking'. Electing the head of
state and head of the federal government in one person brings more emotional input into the voting equation.
As for the potential for voting to have a difference in recent years, I cannot help but view that
as dangerous analysis if not simply misinformation.
1. The Sept 11th attacks responded to provocations provided by US political leaders and representatives
from the Democratic party. Democrats have been the most vocal supporters of the Nuclear weapons backed
affirmative action ethnic cleansing program that succinctly describes the ethnically exclusive Israeli
nation building process.
2. Both the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq received considerable support from high
profile Democrats. The reluctance of many NATO partners to join in the adventures should have signalled
something of use to US decision makers but apparently did not.
3. The 'War on Terror' receives considerable bi-partisan support yet the US won WW II by essentially
burning the flesh of innocent civilians in Germany and Japan. Up until the emergence of Da'esh, those
fighting the War on Terror - Israel and the USA - killed more civilians than the so-called 'terrorists'
did. Please recall the strong support among Democrat partisans for Israel's kill ratios.
4. US citizens continue to enjoy the lowest excise taxes on diesel and gasoline among the rich OECD
nations. There is broad bi-partisan support for keeping these taxes low. There has been broad bi-partisan
support for using top-down violent means for fixing democracy in the Mid-East as a way to ensuring more
stable oil flows from the Gulf of Persia. There has been broad bi-partisan support for maintaining a
multi-billion dollar US fleet presence near the Gulf of Persia in order to help secure oil flows to
the global economy including the USA. (Only a Neo-Marxist in the Baran-Sweezy tradition could fully
appreciate these policies of social wealth destruction for questionable goals.)
In fact, the current Democrat-lead federal government has appeared more interested in shutting down
pipeline development than increasing fossil fuel taxes on end users. This while middle-aged white males
are registering lower life expectancies and it is widely believed that current generations of North
American children will exhibit even lower life expectancies. One could speculate that Americans really
should spend less time in their automobiles but that is clearly not the view of the vast majority of
Democrats.
To conclude, voting appears to make a no difference with respect to significant energy and foreign
policy decisions that have been big drivers of the US economy and perceptions of security over the past
1/2 a century.
There is never a good reason to vote for Republicans.
Whoever is elected, they will be a one-term president (neither will do anything that needs to be
done to fix the economy).
As far as Nader being a spoiler in 2000, Gore was a terrible candidate who won the popular vote and
would have won in Jeb Bush's Florida except for the Supreme Court stopping the recount.
If Hillary loses, the Dems have no one to blame but themselves. She is the worst candidate they could
have selected.
Let's face it, both Clinton and Trump should be in jail, not running for president.
"... The potential threats both candidates pose are real. Those advocating Hillary as the better, safer choice cannot offer any reliable assurances that she will be able, or willing, to pursue policies that increase the well-being and security of any but the already affluent and secure. ..."
"... Hillary's long and unhappy history of war-mongering has not, imho, received anything like the media scrutiny it deserves, and won't until she's correctly identified in the minds of most as an advocate of 'liberal interventionism'/violent regime change and on an equal footing of imbecility and irresponsibility in the minds of the public as Bush, Cheney, and Blair. ..."
"... When the busts of Hillary, Bush, Blair, and Cheney form a Mt. Rushmore of savage stupidity for all to see and all school children studying the early 21st-century American-UK wars recognize the monument as such, that task of 'highlighting' her role in this enormously costly and damaging humanitarian and political disaster will be at least part way done. ..."
"... Obama, as Stevenjohnson notes, has not entirely surrendered his dream of forcing 'democracy' on Syria. There is abundant evidence, however, the US and a number of other nations have been arming Syrian rebels (ISIL and Al Quaida) since 2011, at least. ..."
"... The result of Obama and Hillary's love of violent regime change has been an increase in the suffering of millions in North Africa and the Middle East, the collapse of basic services such as fresh water and hospitals, and a new flood of refugees seeking to escape the beneficence of Hillary Clinton and her boss. ..."
"... If you are supporting Hillary you are supporting violent regime change in the Middle East and the love of violence of Bush and Cheney, not too mention drone strikes, the surveillance state. That's who you are. ..."
"... Dealing first with Libya and Syria, Hillary Clinton served as the US Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, which makes her at least one of the prime architects of US foreign policy, and certainly the most important administration official after Obama responsible for foreign policy. Facts which place the burden of proof regarding her involvement in US foreign policy formation and execution squarely on you. ..."
"... HRC's involvement in Iraq is less well-understood, and that's likely no accident either, given the mileage democrats have generated out of pinning the entire bi-partisan debacle on Bush and Cheney. From the linked dialogue above featuring Robert Wright and Max Abrahms (Northeastern) http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/43967?in=01:10&out=12:21 ..."
"... The chaotic civil war in Syria and Iraq seems like another example where the U.S. is having a hard time "thinking" things thru realistically. ..."
"... One interpretation is she's stupid and vicious as a badge of class honor, blissfully consistent with the bloodthirsty record of Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger. Unfortunately, that might be true, though I think if it is true, it is more likely a product of being caught up in the amoral bubble of political and media process that has enveloped the whole foreign policy establishment than any personal psychopathy. ..."
@ 278 There's nothing quite so amusing as advocates of free speech 'commanding' the comments section
of somebody else's blog and then issuing permissions to comment, or instructions to how and what
to post. (fn, rich, colin, TM in one form, or another)
Merian is quite right that in the artificially and arbitrarily limited universe of a one-time
choice between just two options, everything written can be seen as pro/con against one or the
other if everything that is written has only one meaning and will be read and understood
by all as having the same meaning.
The fact is that a great many people inside the US and outside the US may well lack any/much
understanding of the decision-making processes that led up to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria,
not to mention America's long history with Iran, and America's support of Evil Axis bad guy number
1 Saddam Hussein. The dynamics are complex even for those familiar with the basic topography.
The rhetorical parallels leading up to the Iraq invasions and the presidential elections are
striking and easy to identify. Facts don't matter, the urgency and severity of the threat demands
uniform action, and the enemy is a once in an eon threat of epic proportion to the physical and
moral existence of the known universe.
The potential threats both candidates pose are real. Those advocating Hillary as the better,
safer choice cannot offer any reliable assurances that she will be able, or willing, to pursue
policies that increase the well-being and security of any but the already affluent and secure.
Hillary's long and unhappy history of war-mongering has not, imho, received anything like
the media scrutiny it deserves, and won't until she's correctly identified in the minds of most
as an advocate of 'liberal interventionism'/violent regime change and on an equal footing of imbecility
and irresponsibility in the minds of the public as Bush, Cheney, and Blair.
When the busts of Hillary, Bush, Blair, and Cheney form a Mt. Rushmore of savage stupidity
for all to see and all school children studying the early 21st-century American-UK wars recognize
the monument as such, that task of 'highlighting' her role in this enormously costly and damaging
humanitarian and political disaster will be at least part way done.
For Merian and others: a timely post from Matt Welch at Reason on Gary Johnson via the o'l perfessor
who sees the coverage of Hillary and Trump as you.
28 September 2015 "Obama tells the UN Assad must go."
18 August 2011 "Assad Must Go Obama Says" (Wapo) (no links to follow to avoid moderation)
1 August 2012 "Obama Authorizes Secret US Support for Syrian Rebels" (Reuters)
Obama, as Stevenjohnson notes, has not entirely surrendered his dream of forcing 'democracy'
on Syria. There is abundant evidence, however, the US and a number of other nations have been
arming Syrian rebels (ISIL and Al Quaida) since 2011, at least.
The result of Obama and Hillary's love of violent regime change has been an increase
in the suffering of millions in North Africa and the Middle East, the collapse of basic services
such as fresh water and hospitals, and a new flood of refugees seeking to escape the beneficence
of Hillary Clinton and her boss.
All this after the 'lessons' of Iraq and Afghanistan.
If you are supporting Hillary you are supporting violent regime change in the Middle East
and the love of violence of Bush and Cheney, not too mention drone strikes, the surveillance state.
That's who you are.
kidneystones 10.02.16 at 3:58 am
ZM@ 303. The linked dialogue above explores the role Hillary and Obama, in particular, played
in providing the arms and support to a rebellion that Assad, like Gaddafi, could have ended years
ago.
Like Gaddafi, Assad is not being attacked by moderate democrats keen to legalize gay marriage,
but rather Sunni militias deeply sympathetic to ISIL and Al Quaida, or those forces operating
in Syria and western Iraq.
You're right to point out that the only result of US support of ISIL related Sunnis has been
the prolonging of the civil war and the promulgation of the delusion that violent-regime change
brings peace and security. Yes, five years of US arms, threats, and intimidation has destroyed
Syria, in much the same was as the Hillary promoted war in Libya destroyed that regime.
The pro-Hillary-Obama media is extremely reluctant in the run-up to the election to point out
explicitly what a spectacular FP failure the US has created for itself right now, with Russian
jets flying over Aleppo and Assad about to finally humiliate the insurgents and all those like
Hillary and Obama who encouraged the bloodshed.
The Obama-Hillary policy has been a five-year bloodbath and there's no sign Hillary wants to
do anything but press for a no-fly zone over Syria in order for the US to continue to funnel more
death and destruction into the already devastated moonscape.
It ain't like anyone she knows is dying over there. Syrians can't vote in November.
The attitude of her supporters seems be: fuck it – Syria is on the other side of the world,
so what's the big deal?
Mitt Romney tied the family dog to the roof of his car. What about that ?
kidneystones 10.02.16 at 4:05 am
@ 305 Hi Merian.
Go tell your students that you're supporting the candidate who voted for the Iraq invasion
(biggest mistake in modern US history), persuaded plenty of other Democrats and ordinary Americans
to suspend their judgment and do the same. And who also played an instrumental role in destroying
Libya, promotes violent regime-change in Syria and enjoys the support of all the same neocon warmongers
who've made the US into a pariah state. Play the 'We came, we saw, he died – ha-ha-ha" Hillary
CBS video for them.
Then explain to them that Hillary is the better candidate.
See what happens.
Omega Centauri 10.02.16 at 4:40 am 314
I don't see HRC as a prime mover in either Iraq or Libya. In the first case Iraq was a neocon/Bush
project, and they were threatening to extract a terrible price from anyone who used their position
to block their ambitions. Libya was primarily a Arab-league cum French-British project. Not supporting
it could have potentially damaged our relationship with key allies France and Britain. Of course
Libya was a slippery slope, once started it soon became obvious there was no solution where Qaddafi
survived and the Libyan people wouldn't end up paying dearly. Not that her acquiescence in either
case demonstrated either good long term judgement or courage, but it also doesn't demonstrate
that she was a principle architect of either project.
314@ "I don't see HRC as a prime mover in either Iraq, or Libya."
That's probably a great comfort to the grifters keen to see her elected. The facts, however,
suggest otherwise. Dealing first with Libya and Syria, Hillary Clinton served as the US Secretary
of State from 2009 to 2013, which makes her at least one of the prime architects of US foreign
policy, and certainly the most important administration official after Obama responsible for foreign
policy. Facts which place the burden of proof regarding her involvement in US foreign policy formation
and execution squarely on you.
HRC's involvement in Iraq is less well-understood, and that's likely no accident either,
given the mileage democrats have generated out of pinning the entire bi-partisan debacle on Bush
and Cheney. From the linked dialogue above featuring Robert Wright and Max Abrahms (Northeastern)
http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/43967?in=01:10&out=12:21
bruce wilder 10.02.16 at 7:49 pm
Anarcissie @ 239: We basically have a whole class of people, at the top of the social order,
who seem devoid of a moral sense - a problem which the upcoming election isn't going to touch,
much less solve. I don't blame Clinton for this . . .
JimV @ 317: I am sorry if I mischaracterized BW as implying that HRC is evil, . . .
Peter T @ 320: Whatever the merits of their individual stances, there is no reason to suppose
that either Obama or Hillary can exert more than loose control over this mess [the multi-sided
regional civil war engulfing Syria and northern Iraq]
stevenjohnson @ 324: The recent leak that Clinton is against nuclear armed cruise missiles
and isn't committed to Obama's trillion dollar nuclear weapons upgrade appears to suggest she's
not quite on board with plans for general war.
LFC @ 330: I disagree w the notion that the pt of nuclear 'modernization' is to make plausible
the threat of "imminent general nuclear war." If U.S. military planners took hallucinogenic drugs
and went nuts, they could "plausibly" threaten "imminent general nuclear war" right now with the
US nuclear arsenal as currently configured. They don't need to upgrade the weapons to do that.
The program is prob more the result of rigid, unimaginative thinking at top levels of Pentagon
and influence of outside companies (e.g. Boeing etc) that work on the upgrades.
I don't know if that seems like a somewhat random collection of precursors to assemble as preface
to a comment. I was thinking of picking out a few upthread references to climate change and the
response to it (or inadequacy thereof) as well.
I am a little disturbed by the idea of leaving the impression that I think Hillary Clinton
is "evil". What I think is that American politics in general is not generating realistic, adaptive
governance.
I am using that bloodless phrase, "realistic, adaptive governance", deliberately, to emphasize
wanting to step outside the passions of the Presidential election. I think the Manichean narrative
where Trump is The Most Horrible Candidate Evah and Everyone Must Line Up Behind Clinton as an
Ethical Imperative of a High Order is part of the process of propaganda and manipulation that
distorts popular discussion and understanding and helps to create a politics that cannot govern
realistically and adaptively. This is not about me thinking Trump is anything but a horrible mess
of a candidate who ought to be kept far from power.
I see Clinton as someone who is trapped inside the dynamics of this seriously deranged politics
qua political process. I don't see her as entirely blameless. Politicians like Obama and either
Clinton, at the top of the political order, are masters (keeping in mind that there are many masters
working to some extent in opposition to one another as rivals, allies, enemies and so on) of the
process and create the process by the exercise of their mastery, as much as they are mastered
by it. I see them as trapped by the process they have helped (more than a little opportunistically)
to create, but trapped as Dr Frankenstein is by his Creature.
Clinton must struggle with the ethical contradictions of governance at the highest levels of
leadership: she must, in the exercise of power in office and out, practice the political art of
the possible in relation to crafting policy that will be "good" in the sense of passably effective
and efficient - this may involve a high degree of foresightful wonkery or a lethally ruthless
statesmanship, depending upon circumstances. Beside this business of making the great machinery
of the state lumber forward, she must strive to appear "good", like Machiavelli's Prince, even
while playing an amoral game of real politick, gathering and shepherding a complex coalition of
allies, supporters, donors and cooperative enemies.
Machiavelli, when he was considering the Princely business of appearing "good", was contending
with the hypocrisies and impossible idealism of authoritarian Catholic morality. He barely connected
with anything that we would recognize as democratic Public Opinion and could scarcely conceive
of what Ivy Lee or Edward Bernays, let alone Fox News, Vox and the world wide web might do to
politics.
We are trapped, just as Clinton is trapped, in the vast communication nightmare of surrealistic
news and opinion washing in upon us in a tide that never ebbs. We are trapped by the politics
of media "gotchas" and Kinsley Gaffes (A Kinsley gaffe occurs when a political gaffe reveals some
truth that a politician did not intend to admit.)
I don't think Clinton lacks a moral sense. What I think is that Clinton's moral sense is exhausted
calculating what to say or do within the parameters of media-synthesized conventional wisdom policed
by people who are themselves exhausted trying to manage it. Matt Lauer's interview with Clinton
was notorious for the relentless and clueless questioning about the email server, although I,
personally, was shocked when he asked her a question that seemed premised on the idea that veterans
should be offended by admitting the Iraq War was a mistake.
I would think it is easy to see that the media circus is out of control, especially when a
clown like Trump graduates from The Apprentice to the Republican nomination. YMMV, but
I think this is a serious problem that goes beyond vividly imagined sepia-toned parodies of Trump's
candidacy as the second coming of Mussolini.
While we're getting ourselves agitated over Trump's racism or threats to bar Muslims from entry,
apparently the Military-Industrial Complex, left on autopilot, is re-designing the nation's nuclear
arsenal to make the outbreak of nuclear war far more likely. And, the closest Clinton gets to
a comment, campaign commitment or public discussion, let alone an exercise of power, is a PR "leak"!!!
The chaotic civil war in Syria and Iraq seems like another example where the U.S. is having
a hard time "thinking" things thru realistically. Clinton offered up a sound-bite last year,
saying that she favored imposing a "no-fly" zone, which was exposed as kind of crazy idea, given
that the Russians as well as Assad's government are the ones flying, not to mention the recent
experience with a no-fly zone in Libya. One interpretation is she's stupid and vicious as
a badge of class honor, blissfully consistent with the bloodthirsty record of Madeleine Albright
and Henry Kissinger. Unfortunately, that might be true, though I think if it is true, it is more
likely a product of being caught up in the amoral bubble of political and media process that has
enveloped the whole foreign policy establishment than any personal psychopathy. What's most
alarming to me is that we cannot count on personal character to put the brakes on that process,
which is now the process of governance. I am writing now of the process of governance by public
relations that was has been exposed a bit in profiles of the Deputy National Security Advisor
for Strategic Communications, Ben Rhodes.
In Syria, it has become almost comical, if you can overlook the bodies piling up, as the U.S.
has sought a the mythical unicorn of Syrian Moderate Democrats whom the Pentagon or the CIA can
advise, train and arm. This is foreign policy by PR narrative and it is insanely unrealistic.
But, our politics is trapped in it, and, worse, policy is trapped in it. Layer after layer of
b.s. have piled up obscuring U.S. interests and practical options. Recently, U.S. forces supporting
the Turks have come dangerously close to blowing up U.S. forces supporting the Kurds. When you
find yourself on opposing sides of a civil war like Charles I you may be in the process of losing
your head. Some of the worst elements opposing Assad have been engaged in a transparent re-branding
exercise aimed at garnering U.S. aid. And, U.S. diplomats and media face the high challenge of
explaining why the U.S. supports Saudi Arabia in Yemen.
But, hey, Clinton will get Robert Kagan's vote and a better tomorrow is only a Friedman unit
away, so it is all good.
kidneystones 10.02.16 at 9:24 pm
@328 stevenjohnson and Peter T cover the details. As an outsider supportive of negotiated settlements
in all cases, rather than unilateral military action and violent regime change, I'm interested
principally in ensuring that partisan political preferences do not obscure the historical record.
Bluntly put, dictators routinely abuse bomb their own civilians as the 'need' arises. Nor is the
US the only state actor keen to profit in the broadest sense of the term from political division.
The UN was formed, in large part, to provide a forum/mechanism for peaceful conflict resolution.
Each time state actors such as Russia, China, the US, France, and the UK either bypass the UN,
or use the UN to sanction attacks by larger states on smaller states, the entire edifice becomes
a little weaker.
Hillary is not the only individual with Libyan and Syrian blood on her hands. She's simply
the only individual directly involved in Iraq, Libya, and Syria running to the 45th president
of the US.
bruce wilder 10.02.16 at 9:54 pm
Rich Puchalsky @ 334
People are in information overload most of the time, and where politics are concerned, they
really just want to know who to root for. They ask, "who is the good guy? who is the bad guy?"
"Whose right?" "What should be done?" And, people like the opinions they have, whatever those
opinions may be; they use their political opinions to feed their sense of self-esteem and social
belonging, for better and for worse.
I have some friends, who are really into a particular sport as fans, not participants. One
guy knows everything about baseball. It is fun to watch a game with him, because he knows when
someone is about to try to steal a base and stuff like that and he can explain the manager's strategy
and has gossip about the players careers and personal lives. And, apparently, he has an encyclopedic
knowledge of baseball history - appears to, anyway: what dramatic thing happened in game 3 of
the 1967 World Series and so on and exactly why everyone hated Ty Cobb.
No one like that shows up at CT to talk politics. Maybe it is just as well. Sports guys can
wield that knowledge and remain affable, but political guys tend to be arrogant and off-putting.
But, I do think we could use more of that spirit sometimes.
I was thinking about what a brilliant innovation the Clinton Foundation is, how well it is
designed to solve the problems of Machiavelli's Prince. But, we would struggle to discuss it in
those terms; the partisan contest means that the CF is either horribly corrupt or prosaically
innocent. The pressure to evaluate it is so high, that seeing the functional details is hard.
I've seen some articles that attempt to understand the CF as a means to the political ambitions
of the Clintons, but they seldom grasp the awesome accomplishment it is in ways that also fully
understand why enemies of the Clintons are keen to attack it and why it so reliably produces the
neoliberal pablum that Thomas Franks despises. If we could imagine a Marx tackling the CF as a
vehicle of class interest, that would be pretty interesting.
"... "Hillary is not the only individual with Libyan and Syrian blood on her hands. She's simply the only individual directly involved in Iraq, Libya, and Syria running to the 45th president of the US." ..."
"... The danger of Hillary is the danger of yet another neocon administration in power for the next four years. We probably need to think in term of Cheney and Rumsfeld, because this is the policies that Hillary will bring to the table. ..."
"... I think that experience with US neocons in Ukraine also makes Russia position on Syria quite different and less accommodating for the US neoliberal empire expansion projects. ..."
"... One of the things that Lupita likes to point out is how strange it is that somehow Americans are the decider of military intervention everywhere (LFC again) and how American exceptionalism is part of our imperial setup. ..."
"... Americans may like empire, but for the people who actually have to fight, very few of them really like being foot soldiers for empire. ..."
"... Left agitation in the early part of the 20th century and in the 60s was in large part anti-war agitation, and it was one of the main reasons why the government actually crushed left organizations. One of the main reasons why you can tell that HRC supporters are not really on the left in any important sense is the easy way that they switched from opposing Bush's war to approving of Democratic "humanitarian" wars. ..."
"... So why should we have to care about any of this foreign policy nonsense? What critical interest does any American have in Asia, Ukraine, etc.? The vast and lofty left sentiments that we are citizens of the world and that an injury to one is an injury to everyone - do these have any meaning outside of an imperial context? ..."
"... Russian foreign policy IMHO is mostly reactive and defensive. It is directed mainly on preservation of (currently rapidly shrinking) Russia's economic and political and cultural influence in xUSSR space. ..."
"... Obama administration was very aggressive toward Russia and attempted to implement "regime change" in 2011-2012 to prevent Putin re-election (so called "White revolution" with McFaul as the key player and the network on NGO as the coordination / training / recruiting / propaganda centers). This attempt to stage a "color revolution" in Russia backfired making Russian political establishment more hostile to the USA. It also led to expulsion of several NGO from Russia. Later events in Ukraine led to deterioration of political standing of Russian neoliberals as a political force. They lost all the legitimacy among the population and now viewed by-and-large as US stooges. ..."
"... Hillary as the Secretary of State was even more jingoistic neocon then Obama and has during her term in the office an outsize influence on the US foreign policy including the attempt to stage a "white revolution" in Russia in which State Department played an outsize role, essentially taking many functions formerly performed by CIA ..."
"... It also tried to oppose the "encirclement" - the creation of the belt of hostile states around Russia with US or NATO forces/bases - Ukraine is just the most recent example of this policy. Missile defense bases in Rumania and Poland belong to the same script. Actually the US Department of Defense on those issues has its own outsize influence on the US foreign policy and works in close coordination with the State Department (alliance started under Bush II and forged under Hillary Clinton). ..."
"... ZM: "But I wish there was some sort of international protocol about it." There was supposed to be one - the whole apparatus of U.N. intervention. We've seen how that played out. ..."
"... The sentiments have certainly been a useful pretext for imperial interventions, going well beyond 'interest' to intimations of existential crisis, etc. I remember when, if we did not 'help' the Vietnamese by bombing them back into the Stone Age, bad people from there were going to invade California. So it was both to 'our' interest and theirs to kill millions of them. You see the same thinking in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Serbia, Panama, and the rest of the list. ..."
"... Well with technology there is the possibility of that, Australia is part of the Five Eyes alliance with the USA, which is where the English speaking countries all share intelligence, then there is a larger group that gets a bit less intelligence, and maybe others like an onion or something. ..."
"... To me this is the wierdest and most hypocritical aspect of the whole "Putin stooge!" narrative, since part of the core ethos of US-aligned liberal discourse in settings like this is precisely a willingness and eagerness to voluntarily assume the role of stooge for whatever ruling-class figure one has decided to back. Look at the core message liberals here seem to be trumpeting: we may not like the faction of the ruling class embodied in someone like Hillary Clinton, but since we've decided to back this faction over another faction we consider worse, we'll suspend our earnest search for truth and understanding so we can add our voices into the fight. ("We know Hillary is bad, but save it for after Trump!") ..."
"... But the kicker re: Putin is that somehow, these same liberals can't fathom the idea that ordinary Russians might be gripped by precisely the same kind of dynamic ("we know Putin is bad but save it for after Syria!") especially when it comes to nationalist fervor stirred up by global military/economic power struggles. ..."
"... And to the extent that they see such people not as the Russian ideological equivalents of themselves but as literal agents of the Kremlin, precisely the way one might imagine all the Hillary defenders on this thread as COINTELPRO plants and/or paid Clinton campaign PR operatives, they're able to see this obsequious defense of ruling-class power for the creepy authoritarian servility it is. One could call the double standards closed-minded or even xenophobic, but I'll settle for just calling it bizarre. ..."
"... American foreign policy has long been the special province of deeply interested portions of the elite, which were allowed to use U.S. naval and military power without paying for it. ..."
"... Since the First World War, the U.S. has been the hegemon, sponsoring a world order on liberal principles in theory and making the world safe for an often rapacious commercial order in practice. Popular disinterest at home has preserved the tradition of hijacking the U.S. military for racketeering abroad, but the privatizing of the military-industrial complex has converted it from sideline into a reason for being: arms sales follow a Says Law that motivates perpetual war as a marketing tool. ..."
"... ZM is ridiculously wrong about one thing: "No one wants one country to rule the world" I think there is actually quite a demand for exactly that. That the U.S. capacity to satisfy that demand is diminishing rapidly is creating a gathering world crisis. ..."
"... Americans seem to have some difficulty understanding just how competent Putin has been. Putin is a consummately gifted gambler, who has played a weak hand aggressively at home and abroad. He is popular in Russia, because he has been successful by being phenomenally good at his job - so good that any Russian who isn't dead stupid is worried about what comes after. ..."
"... Obama, the most gifted politician I've seen in my lifetime, has played his hand very conservatively. I rail against him, because I think he should have taken much bigger chances on a radical reform agenda, using the crisis he was gifted to take apart the oligarchies choking the American political economy. ..."
"... Both Americans and Russians, I think, are inclined to see their roles in the world as more benign than they are. The Americans, though, have better PR and a lot of people abroad still want to believe. ..."
"... Ch. 1: The Advent of Semiwar. ..."
"... Ch. 2: Illusions of Flexibility and Control ..."
"... Ch. 3: The Credo Restored. ..."
"... "In fact, Clinton has shown a number of indications that she is not competent at all, that she is, unlike Obama, going to unleash the U.S. foreign policy establishment and military-industrial complex in all its decadent schizophrenia without any governor or restraint at all." ..."
"... The raving chorus of criticism of Clinton's foreign policy on ostensibly leftist grounds that falsifies the current state of affairs is viciously reactionary, especially when indissolubly mixed with openly reactionary criticisms. The falsification of what exactly is different about Trump's candidacy is also part and parcel. It's all very like the fake leftists who said defeating the Scottish referendum wasn't an endorsement of English imperialism, then pretended to act surprised when the rightward surge they helped to build led to a racist campaign for Brexit. ..."
"... Putin is weak. He sacrificed a struggle against fascism in Ukraine for a naval base, rather than call on popular support. Then he doubled down on another naval base in Syria, despite having no idea how to reach a solution. He can't cope with the economic warfare the US is waging, he only tries to use simple repression of the population at large and an elaborate combination of select repression and appeasement of the oligarchs he ultimately serves. ..."
"... Putin is popular I think largely because he appears to be the human face of capitalism. He's falsely sold himself as the corrective to Yeltsin, when in truth he is just the normalization of Yeltsinism. Yetltsin did the dirty work of attacking the people of Russia in the name of capitalist restoration. Now, Putin is just business as usual. ..."
"... It's the insidious ideology of the Uncle Sam poster, where a slightly-less-evil form of ruling-class power needs you not just to passively submit to its dictates but to actively defend its position against its slightly-more-evil ideological enemies, even at the expense of your own independent moral compass and political thought. ..."
"... If you need an eloquent summary of how the dysfunction of the American political system has become manifest in a foreign policy of perpetual and costly failure . ..."
"Hillary is not the only individual with Libyan and Syrian blood on her hands. She's
simply the only individual directly involved in Iraq, Libya, and Syria running to the 45th
president of the US."
Very true. The danger of Hillary is the danger of yet another neocon administration in
power for the next four years. We probably need to think in term of Cheney and Rumsfeld, because
this is the policies that Hillary will bring to the table.
But I think it is a mistake to view Syria regime change actions of US neocons in isolation
from the same actions in Ukraine. Those are closely interconnected events.
And Nuland action in Ukraine for the installation of far right nationalist regime (and virtual
occupation of the rest of Ukraine by Western Ukrainian nationalists) virtually guarantee economic
and military alliance of China and Russia. Russia will not forget and will not forgive Nuland's
valiant efforts of installing far right nationalists in Kiev instead of corrupt Yanukovich regime,
despite the fact that they were not very sympathetic to Yanukovich (and refused to play the card
of "legitimate president in exile", which they easily can making US position in Kiev untenable).
I think that experience with US neocons in Ukraine also makes Russia position on Syria
quite different and less accommodating for the US neoliberal empire expansion projects.
IMHO with the level of dysfunction of Obama administration there is some level of threat of
direct military confrontation in case one of three competing arms of US government overstep the
boundaries. Quite possible in case of CIA and supported by them al Qaeda affiliated groups (which
are mercilessly wiped out by Syrians army), probably less possible for Pentagon with their Kurds
militia.
And I think that any direct confrontation in Syria will automatically lead to confrontation
in Ukraine, were large part of Eastern regions might greet Russians as liberators.
If you add to China-Russia alliance cemented by events in Ukraine Pakistan, where anti-American
feelings are also quite strong you can see the net result of Barack foreign policy efforts.
Actually I think that one on key ideas of Trump foreign policy agenda is to reverse this alliance
and split Russia from China by treating it differently then Obama administration (bad cop, good
cop approach).
I'm starting to believe that there may be a Putin troll operation and that with the commenter
Ze K gone, the operation has sent commenter likbez to the Crooked Timber plate as pinch-hitter.
(Sorry for the baseball metaphor. Turning off computer now.)
"IMHO with the level of dysfunction of Obama administration there is some level of threat
of direct military confrontation in case one of three competing arms of US government overstep
the boundaries. Quite possible in case of CIA and supported by them al Qaeda affiliated groups
(which are mercilessly wiped out by Syrians army), probably less possible for Pentagon with
their Kurds militia.
And I think that any direct confrontation in Syria will automatically lead to confrontation
in Ukraine, were large part of Eastern regions might greet Russians as liberators."
I don't really understand Russian foreign policy at the moment. I think the Obama foreign policy
has been an improvement on the Bush government's foreign policy, and Obama inherited a very bad
situation if you look at him coming to the Presidency in 2008.
What does Russian foreign policy want now that the Cold War is over? America power is on the
decline with the rise of other countries, and Russian power is on the decline too. Both countries
had a lot of power due to the Cold War after WWII ended and the lack of development in many countries,
and Europe needing to rebuild so much after the war.
But why does Syria need to be a proxy war between America and Russia when the Cold War is over?
Someone from Afghanistan was telling me recently that in Afghanistan they consider they have had
war ongoing for 50 years now, since they had the wars with Russia years ago, and then they have
had the wars with America now, plus the country is riven by splits now after wars for so long.
The Middle East is going to need a lot of help to rebuild after these wars, they don't need
Russia and America fighting over power in the region.
"Actually I think that one on key ideas of Trump foreign policy agenda is to reverse this
alliance and split Russia from China by treating it differently then Obama administration (bad
cop, good cop approach)."
Also, I live in Australia so we have more coverage of Asian politics, and Obama has been pretty
good with China overall I think. China got cross about the pivot to Asia, and gave The Philippines
a very sharp warning in the official newspaper, and gave Australia a caution in the newspaper,
since then its all gone reasonably well I think.
Ah, foreign policy. I think that LFC should consider that while some commenter may well be a Putin
troll operation, the style is pretty much indistinguishable from strongly held local ethnic commitments,
and LFC's own writing sounds similarly weird and overcommitted to someone who doesn't share LFC's
assumptions.
I'll write some more about populism. One of the things that Lupita likes to point out is
how strange it is that somehow Americans are the decider of military intervention everywhere (LFC
again) and how American exceptionalism is part of our imperial setup.
One of the things that people forget about populism is that it's generally a revolt against
that - Americans may like empire, but for the people who actually have to fight, very few
of them really like being foot soldiers for empire.
Left agitation in the early part of the 20th century and in the 60s was in large part anti-war
agitation, and it was one of the main reasons why the government actually crushed left organizations.
One of the main reasons why you can tell that HRC supporters are not really on the left in any
important sense is the easy way that they switched from opposing Bush's war to approving of Democratic
"humanitarian" wars.
So why should we have to care about any of this foreign policy nonsense? What critical
interest does any American have in Asia, Ukraine, etc.? The vast and lofty left sentiments that
we are citizens of the world and that an injury to one is an injury to everyone - do these have
any meaning outside of an imperial context?
"I don't really understand Russian foreign policy at the moment. "
Russian foreign policy IMHO is mostly reactive and defensive. It is directed mainly on
preservation of (currently rapidly shrinking) Russia's economic and political and cultural influence
in xUSSR space.
Obama administration was very aggressive toward Russia and attempted to implement "regime
change" in 2011-2012 to prevent Putin re-election (so called "White revolution" with McFaul as
the key player and the network on NGO as the coordination / training / recruiting / propaganda
centers). This attempt to stage a "color revolution" in Russia backfired making Russian political
establishment more hostile to the USA. It also led to expulsion of several NGO from Russia. Later
events in Ukraine led to deterioration of political standing of Russian neoliberals as a political
force. They lost all the legitimacy among the population and now viewed by-and-large as US stooges.
The USA also try to play Islamic insurgence card via proxies and hurt economics of Russia via
sanctions and low oil prices (which simultaneously decimated US own shale/LTO oil industry). Obama
actually bragged about the latter.
My impression is that this is just a part of the more general plan of expansion of global neoliberal
empire led by the USA, enforcing neoliberal globalization and crushing all opposing regimes (including
"resource nationalists" like Russia ) that Obama administration is hell bent on (neocon vision
of "Pax Americana"). Obama (or, more correctly, forces behind him) proved to be a staunch neoliberal
(and neocon) on par with Bush II and Bill Clinton and he essentially continued Bush II "muscular"
foreign policy.
Hillary as the Secretary of State was even more jingoistic neocon then Obama and has during
her term in the office an outsize influence on the US foreign policy including the attempt to
stage a "white revolution" in Russia in which State Department played an outsize role, essentially
taking many functions formerly performed by CIA
I think that Russia foreign policy can be understood as not always successful attempts to counter
the attempts of the USA to subdue it and survive in the situation when then the major power using
affiliated with it states tries to deny its sovereignty and wants to convert into vassal state
(and Russia were the US vassal under Yeltsin regime), or, if possible, to dismember it into smaller
and weaker states using the rising wave of nationalism in the regions.
It also tried to oppose the "encirclement" - the creation of the belt of hostile states
around Russia with US or NATO forces/bases - Ukraine is just the most recent example of this policy.
Missile defense bases in Rumania and Poland belong to the same script. Actually the US Department
of Defense on those issues has its own outsize influence on the US foreign policy and works in
close coordination with the State Department (alliance started under Bush II and forged under
Hillary Clinton).
As Russophobia replaced anti-Semitism for the US elite, I see nothing good for Russia in this
respect in the future.
So the rearmament attempts and the attempts to develop alternatives to Western strategic products
and services (which at any time can be included under sanctions) as well as more deep political
and military alliance with China might well be their only options.
But China has its own geopolitical aspirations in xUSSR region and wants to play a leading
role in this alliance using Russia's difficult situation for its own advantage.
So Russian situation is not enviable and might soon became worse, in Hilary is elected.
Moreover, Putin in not eternal, and at some point needs to leave his position and that, taking
into account the amount of power he concentrated in his hands, might create the leadership vacuum
that will be very dangerous taking into consideration the level of hostility of the USA. Coming
to power of more nationalistically oriented politicians on the wave of anti-American sentiments
produced by sanctions also can't be excluded.
I am not a specialist in Russian affairs, so please take those considerations with a grain
of salt.
ZM: "But I wish there was some sort of international protocol about it." There was supposed
to be one - the whole apparatus of U.N. intervention. We've seen how that played out.
'So why should we have to care about any of this foreign policy nonsense? What critical
interest does any American have in Asia, Ukraine, etc.? The vast and lofty left sentiments
that we are citizens of the world and that an injury to one is an injury to everyone - do these
have any meaning outside of an imperial context?'
The sentiments have certainly been a useful pretext for imperial interventions, going
well beyond 'interest' to intimations of existential crisis, etc. I remember when, if we did
not 'help' the Vietnamese by bombing them back into the Stone Age, bad people from there were
going to invade California. So it was both to 'our' interest and theirs to kill millions of
them. You see the same thinking in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Serbia, Panama, and the rest of the
list.
But on the other side, at the business end of the stick:
Cet animal est très méchant;
Quand on l'attaque, il se défend.
"No one wants one country to rule the world as if its Lord Of The Rings"
Oh, come on. I'd completely vote for Sauron. That all-seeing eye would spy out all foreign
armies and spies, except for hobbits of course. Regretfully, in our own defense, we'd have to
bomb all hobbit terrorist villages.
Well with technology there is the possibility of that, Australia is part of the Five Eyes
alliance with the USA, which is where the English speaking countries all share intelligence, then
there is a larger group that gets a bit less intelligence, and maybe others like an onion or something.
But its not really what anyone hardly wants as far as I can tell.
I had no idea there even was that much information collected by the government on people until
the Snowdon whistleblower revelations about the NSA.
Rich @ 348: "I think that LFC should consider that while some commenter may well be a Putin
troll operation, the style is pretty much indistinguishable from strongly held local ethnic commitments,
and LFC's own writing sounds similarly weird and overcommitted to someone who doesn't share LFC's
assumptions."
To me this is the wierdest and most hypocritical aspect of the whole "Putin stooge!" narrative,
since part of the core ethos of US-aligned liberal discourse in settings like this is precisely
a willingness and eagerness to voluntarily assume the role of stooge for whatever ruling-class
figure one has decided to back. Look at the core message liberals here seem to be trumpeting:
we may not like the faction of the ruling class embodied in someone like Hillary Clinton, but
since we've decided to back this faction over another faction we consider worse, we'll suspend
our earnest search for truth and understanding so we can add our voices into the fight. ("We know
Hillary is bad, but save it for after Trump!")
There's probably a lot more that can be said about this, but at least as far as the non-ruling-class
public is concerned, what Americans call "partisanship" in this Inside-Baseball sense can be read
as a political analogue of the apocryphal Steinbeck line about temporarily embarrassed millionaires,
absurdly overinflating the importance of their own little Machiavellian calculations to maintain
a pathetically optimistic political self-image, not as the depoliticized and socially atomized
ideological consumers they actually are, but as temporarily embarrassed technocratic insiders.
But the kicker re: Putin is that somehow, these same liberals can't fathom the idea that
ordinary Russians might be gripped by precisely the same kind of dynamic ("we know Putin is bad
but save it for after Syria!") especially when it comes to nationalist fervor stirred up by global
military/economic power struggles.
And to the extent that they see such people not as the Russian ideological equivalents
of themselves but as literal agents of the Kremlin, precisely the way one might imagine all the
Hillary defenders on this thread as COINTELPRO plants and/or paid Clinton campaign PR operatives,
they're able to see this obsequious defense of ruling-class power for the creepy authoritarian
servility it is. One could call the double standards closed-minded or even xenophobic, but I'll
settle for just calling it bizarre.
bruce wilder , 10.03.16 at 2:51 pm
American foreign policy has long been the special province of deeply interested portions of
the elite, which were allowed to use U.S. naval and military power without paying for it.
Early in the 19th century, it was Yankee traders in China and South America paddling their
boats in the British Empire's wake. The Americans were there, junior partners and useful instruments
of British foreign policy: Monroe Doctrine, founding Hong Kong, opening Japan and Korea, disciplining
unruly or bankrupt Latin American states. The U.S. nearly matched the British in the race to build
Dreadnoughts before the First World War, proclaimed the Open Door in China, neutralized the German
Navy in Morocco and in the Venezuela Crisis, and finally settled the First World War.
Since the First World War, the U.S. has been the hegemon, sponsoring a world order on liberal
principles in theory and making the world safe for an often rapacious commercial order in practice.
Popular disinterest at home has preserved the tradition of hijacking the U.S. military for racketeering
abroad, but the privatizing of the military-industrial complex has converted it from sideline
into a reason for being: arms sales follow a Says Law that motivates perpetual war as a marketing
tool.
ZM is ridiculously wrong about one thing: "No one wants one country to rule the world"
I think there is actually quite a demand for exactly that. That the U.S. capacity to satisfy that
demand is diminishing rapidly is creating a gathering world crisis.
Will G-R: liberals can't fathom the idea that ordinary Russians might be gripped by precisely
the same kind of dynamic ("we know Putin is bad but save it for after Syria!")
I'm not sure that's the relevant analogue.
Americans seem to have some difficulty understanding just how competent Putin has been.
Putin is a consummately gifted gambler, who has played a weak hand aggressively at home and abroad.
He is popular in Russia, because he has been successful by being phenomenally good at his job
- so good that any Russian who isn't dead stupid is worried about what comes after.
Obama, the most gifted politician I've seen in my lifetime, has played his hand very conservatively.
I rail against him, because I think he should have taken much bigger chances on a radical reform
agenda, using the crisis he was gifted to take apart the oligarchies choking the American political
economy. But, he chose not to play the game at that level of risk, and I think history will
judge him to be weak because of the consequences, though he has not been politically weak and
he has been remarkably successful in terms of his chosen agenda.
Both Americans and Russians, I think, are inclined to see their roles in the world as more
benign than they are. The Americans, though, have better PR and a lot of people abroad still want
to believe. No one believes the Russians are a benign force, especially in Russia's Near
Abroad.
The scary thing is that Americans have been propagandized into thinking Clinton is competent,
that she will be the adult in the room, the experienced leader who will take the call at 3 am
(and not tweet out some link to a porn tape).
In fact, Clinton has shown a number of indications that she is not competent at all, that she
is, unlike Obama, going to unleash the U.S. foreign policy establishment and military-industrial
complex in all its decadent schizophrenia without any governor or restraint at all.
That Clinton is so cavalier about making Putin the scapegoat for her email problems is an early
indication that she doesn't know what she is doing.
I know that it's a digression, but I really should write some more about hobbits. The one thing
that would shake my convictions as an anarchist would be a political leader who promises to wipe
out their barbaric "mathom culture".
First of all, they never can get ahead economically because of this premodern habit of putting
their economic surplus into items that they pass around aimlessly. And the way they waste food
- has anyone seen the depravity of their so-called wedding parties? I know that drones are a harsh
remedy, but really.
And of course the feminist case for bombing hobbits is as strong as it ever was. Has anyone
even heard of a female hobbit? Of course you haven't, because they keep them in those primitive
holes, and they only appear in brief cameos when the hobbits have to conceal their unadmitted
homosocial orientation. Strong hobbit women will be much better off if we kill the men keeping
them down as well as some of their children.
And lastly, genocide. Are their even any members of other racial groups living in the Shire?
Where did they all go? Hobbit society is deeply racist, and those holes are dumping groups for
bodies as well as potential storehouses for chemical weapons. I know that some people say that
we shouldn't bomb them, but that's only because those people can't even imagine what it's like
not to have the privilege that they do.
likbez 10.03.16 at 3:48 pm
Bruce,
@ 358
"ZM is ridiculously wrong about one thing: "No one wants one country to rule the world"
I think there is actually quite a demand for exactly that. That the U.S. capacity to satisfy
that demand is diminishing rapidly is creating a gathering world crisis."
As president, Barack Obama's efforts to change the U.S.'s exercise of power "have seldom risen
above the cosmetic"(20). He made clear he subscribes to the "catechism of American statecraft,"
viz. that 1) the world must be organized, 2)only the U.S. can do it, 3) this includes dictating
principles, and 4) not to accept this is to be a rogue or a recalcitrant (20-21).
It follows that the U.S. need not conform to the norms it sets for others and that it should
maintain a worldwide network of bases (22-23).
Imagine if China acted in a comparable manner (23-25). The extraordinary American military
posture in the world (25-27). To call this into question puts one beyond the pale(27). James Forrestal
called this a permanent condition of semiwar, requiring high levels of military spending(27-28).
American citizens are not supposed to concern themselves with it (29-30). As to how this came
about, the "standard story line" presents as the result of the decisions of a "succession of presidential
administrations," though this conceals as much as it reveals (30-32).
Eisenhower's 1961 Farewell Address on the "military-industrial complex" was a rare exception
(32-34). More important than presidents were Allen Dulles [1893-1969] and Curtis Lemay [1906-1990]
(34-36).
Bacevich attributes the vision for an American-dominated post-World War II world with the CIA
playing an active role to the patrician Dulles (36-43). The development of the U.S. military into
a force capable of dominating the world, especially in the area of strategic weapons, he attributes
to the hard-bitten Curtis LeMay, organizer of the StrategicAir Command (SAC) (43-52). Dulles and
LeMay shared devotion to country, ruthlessness, a certain recklessness (52-55). They exploited
American anxieties and insecurities in yin (Dulles's CIA) yang(LeMay's SAC) fashion, leaving the
mainstay of American military power, the U.S. Army, in a relatively weak position(55-58).
Ch. 2: Illusions of Flexibility and Control
Kennedy kept Dulles and LeMay to signal continuity, but there was a behind-the-scenes struggle
led by Gen. Maxwell Taylor to reassert the role of the U.S. Army by expanding and modernizing
conventional forces that was "simultaneously masked by, and captured in, the phrase flexible response
" (60; 59-63).
This agenda purported to aim at "resisting aggression" but really created new options for limited
aggressive warfare by the U.S. (63-66).
McNamara engaged in a struggle with LeMay to control U.S. policy on nuclear weapons, but he embraced
the need for redundancy based on a land-sea-air attack "triad" and LeMay et al. "got most of what
they wanted" (66-72).
In the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy instituted the morally and legally "indefensible"
Operation Mongoose," in effect, a program of state-sponsored terrorism" against Cuba (80; 72-82
[but Bacevich is silent on its wilder elements, like Operation Northwoods]).
U.S. recklessness caused the Cuban Missile Crisis, and to his credit Kennedy acknowledged this
(albeit privately) and "suspended the tradition" in defusing the crisis (82-87).
Bacevich rejects as a romantic delusion the view that in the aftermath of this crisis Kennedy
turned against the military-industrial complex and the incipient Vietnam war and shows no interest
in Kennedy's assassination itself (87-92).
He sees a parallel between escalation in Vietnam and post-9/11 aggression as "fought to sustain
the Washington consensus" (107; 92-107).
Ch. 3: The Credo Restored.
William Fulbright's The Arrogance of Power (1966) urged a rethinking of the Washington rules
(109-15). A radicalized David Shoup, a Medal of Honor winner and former commandant of the MarineCorps,
argued in "The New American Militarism" (Atlantic, April 1969) that the U.S. had become "a militaristic
and aggressive nation" (120; 115-21). The 1960s Zeitgeist shift made LeMay "an embarrassment,
mocked and vilified rather than venerated," which showed that the Washington rules had incurred
serious damage in Vietnam; the Army was in dire shape (122; 121-27).
Yet astonishingly, in the subsequent decade the "sacred trinity" (cf. 11-15) was "fully restored"
(127). As in post-1918 Germany, élites looked for scapegoats and worked to reverse "the war's
apparent verdict" (128). The Council on Foreign Relations 1976 volume entitled The Vietnam Legacy:
The War, American Society, and the Future of American Foreign Policy is an expression of élite
consensus that the Vietnam war was insignificant, an anomaly (129-34).
By 1980, Democrats and Republicans were again on the same page (134-36).Reagan's election "sealed
the triumph of Vietnam revisionism" (136; 136-38). And the end of the Cold War posed no challenge
to the Washington rules, as Madeleine Albright's pretentious arrogance exemplifies (138-45).
stevenjohnson 10.03.16 at 3:55 pm
"In fact, Clinton has shown a number of indications that she is not competent at all, that
she is, unlike Obama, going to unleash the U.S. foreign policy establishment and military-industrial
complex in all its decadent schizophrenia without any governor or restraint at all."
Backing away from openly bombing the Syrian government when the English PM couldn't get the
vote from Parliament is not restraint. Signing a booby trapped pact with the Iranian government
which will not end sanctions is not restraint. Endorsing the Indian attack on Pakistan is not
restraint. Endorsing the Saudi invasion of Yemen is not restraint. A trillion dollar upgrade of
nuclear weapons is not restraint. Supporting IS all the time and bombing it some time is not restraint.
The raving chorus of criticism of Clinton's foreign policy on ostensibly leftist grounds
that falsifies the current state of affairs is viciously reactionary, especially when indissolubly
mixed with openly reactionary criticisms. The falsification of what exactly is different about
Trump's candidacy is also part and parcel. It's all very like the fake leftists who said defeating
the Scottish referendum wasn't an endorsement of English imperialism, then pretended to act surprised
when the rightward surge they helped to build led to a racist campaign for Brexit.
Putin is weak. He sacrificed a struggle against fascism in Ukraine for a naval base, rather
than call on popular support. Then he doubled down on another naval base in Syria, despite having
no idea how to reach a solution. He can't cope with the economic warfare the US is waging, he
only tries to use simple repression of the population at large and an elaborate combination of
select repression and appeasement of the oligarchs he ultimately serves.
Putin is popular I think largely because he appears to be the human face of capitalism.
He's falsely sold himself as the corrective to Yeltsin, when in truth he is just the normalization
of Yeltsinism. Yetltsin did the dirty work of attacking the people of Russia in the name of capitalist
restoration. Now, Putin is just business as usual.
Bruce, I meant "bad" in a good/evil sense, not a competent/incompetent sense. Clinton partisans
may be fairly unanimous in waxing rhapsodic about her competence, but plenty of them are willing
to cop to her position as a defender of an ultimately evil form of ruling-class power, they simply
think it shouldn't be talked about (see Collin Street @ 184 for an exemplary specimen).
It's the insidious ideology of the Uncle Sam poster, where a slightly-less-evil form of
ruling-class power needs you not just to passively submit to its dictates but to actively
defend its position against its slightly-more-evil ideological enemies, even at the expense of
your own independent moral compass and political thought. The point of this facade isn't
what the lemming-like hordes of Clinton defenders (or Putin defenders, if they're Russian) are
actually accomplishing, which is essentially nothing; the point is what they're not accomplishing,
which is any meaningfully subversive reflection about how ruling-class power works in general
and how the governed classes might effectively counter it.
"... The strongest part of "America's War for the Greater Middle East" is the thirteenth chapter, where Bacevich dissects Bush 43's decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power. While I have previously argued that American war aims in the Iraq war were unidentifiable Bacevich's formulation of said aims (namely, that our overarching aim was to force everyone in the region to bend to our will) is plausible. The weakest part of the book is the very limited discussion (limited basically to chapter 16) of the US special relationship with Israel, a pariah state based on an obsolete ideology, which in my opinion is the real driver of the war. If this relationship could be ended or redefined, we would in one stroke go most of the way towards a rational policy in the Middle East. ..."
"... He cites many examples of Americans deceiving themselves about what constitutes terrorism and who is a terrorist and why they do it. ..."
"... He also makes a convincing case for the war having begun with Carter and never stopping, even in periods between more known wars; much of the action was American use of air power in Iraq, but also tensions with Iran in the Persian Gulf, what was once very strong US support of jihadis fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan (1979-89). ..."
Blocking Consensus: A Critical View of "America's War for the Greater Middle East: A
Military History" , April 15, 2016
"America's War for the Greater Middle East" is the third book I have read by Andrew Bacevich,
who has unique authority to speak on the subject as the war claimed his son's life. Unfortunately,
this book lacks the power of the first two books, "The Limits of Power" and "Breach of Trust."
The overall indictment of American society that it delivers was more convincing in "Breach of
Trust," or perhaps I am simply blinded by the very ideology that Bacevich decries in this book.
I have bought into the status quo in this respect: I believe some, if not most, of the goods recognized
by Americans are indeed universal. I am unwilling to concede that the millions of Afghan girls
and women who got an education in the years after the Taliban's control of that country were first
challenged would be better off if we had never gone in. I also believe that the number of casualties
we are now sustaining in CENTCOM and AFRICOM is low enough that what we are doing is sustainable
indefinitely, unless the Muslim world gets so angry at us that it unites into a new superpower
to challenge us globally. This will disappoint a lot of people and isn't necessarily consistent
with what I have argued at other times but the absence of even one critical review on Amazon was
something I couldn't stomach anymore.
Per Bacevich, the first American lives lost in America's War for the Greater Middle East were
the fatalities of the aircraft collision as special operators were queuing up to leave Desert
One after the mission was called off. I think it does a disservice to President Carter to imply
that sending troops for a rescue mission committed the United States to perpetual war for unachievable
aims, or even to call it the Poland of this war. Bacevich's position that the Carter Doctrine
calling for the free transit of Saudi and other Gulf Arab oil through the Straits of Hormuz made
Desert One and other interventions inevitable is somewhat more supportable.
The strongest part of "America's War for the Greater Middle East" is the thirteenth chapter,
where Bacevich dissects Bush 43's decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power. While I have previously
argued that American war aims in the Iraq war were unidentifiable Bacevich's formulation of said
aims (namely, that our overarching aim was to force everyone in the region to bend to our will)
is plausible. The weakest part of the book is the very limited discussion (limited basically to
chapter 16) of the US special relationship with Israel, a pariah state based on an obsolete ideology,
which in my opinion is the real driver of the war. If this relationship could be ended or redefined,
we would in one stroke go most of the way towards a rational policy in the Middle East.
This book is headed for some Books of the Year lists and maybe some awards. It's well researched,
unusually well-written and deeply disturbing. It is not an easy read; there are hundreds of names,
locations and events over four decades. It deals with how we got into the mess, how we kept at
it and how we're not going to get out. That's the disturbing point, the number of factors that
indicate that we are going to continue with what the book calls the War for the Greater Middle
East. I wish he was wrong, but his case is overwhelming and logically developed. Rather than describe
this book as other reviews have done, I'll consider some details that struck me and add a couple
of quotes to give the flavor. Note: the author has strong opinions, and has ample criticism for
all presidents from Carter to Obama, and strong criticism of many generals, but Republican readers
will not like some of his comments, one cited below. His overall view is rather similar to the
famed quote from World War 1, about lions led by donkeys.
"...combined incoherence with self-deception, both to become abiding hallmarks of America's
evolving War for the Greater Middle East." (44).
"Like the present-day GOP, the Northern Alliance was a loose coalition of unsavory opportunists,
interested chiefly in acquiring power." (227)
"Instead of intimidating, US military efforts have annoyed, incited and generally communicated
a lack of both competence and determination." (367).
He cites many examples of Americans deceiving themselves about what constitutes terrorism
and who is a terrorist and why they do it. The book covers in considerable detail the Carter
actions in Iran, Reagan's Marines in Lebanon, the Bush's wars in Iraq, Clinton's actions in Somalia--in
considerable detail, these actions involved 38,000 US troops at one point, and resulted quite
simply in defeat. He notes that US actions in Bosnia and Kosovo rescued Muslims, who now are enlisting
in considerable numbers as jihadis in the Middle East. In Kosovo he notes that US protection resulted
in a Kosovar state that promptly engaged in an ethnic cleansing of Serbs. He notes that US troops
defeated Iraq's military but the numbers were too small to effectively deal with Baghdad (a city
of 5 million at the time), leading to the collapse of law and order. He thinks the point of defeat
is the incident of Abu Ghraib.
He also makes a convincing case for the war having begun with Carter and never stopping,
even in periods between more known wars; much of the action was American use of air power in Iraq,
but also tensions with Iran in the Persian Gulf, what was once very strong US support of jihadis
fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan (1979-89). Putting situations that tend to be forgotten
about in succession with larger events makes it obvious that the war began under Carter and has
simmered ever since, with periodic intensifications.
And near the book's end he discusses several reasons why the war is going to continue. One,
there is no anti-war or effective anti-interventionist party. Two, electoral expediency means
major party candidates will continue to support military actions. Three, some individuals and
organizations (and companies) benefit from continued war (jobs, military contracts). Four, Americans
largely seem oblivious to the war. There's more, but these are main reasons.
I know that it's a digression, but I really should write some more about hobbits. The one thing that
would shake my convictions as an anarchist would be a political leader who promises to wipe out their
barbaric "mathom culture".
First of all, they never can get ahead economically because of this
premodern habit of putting their economic surplus into items that they pass around aimlessly. And
the way they waste food - has anyone seen the depravity of their so-called wedding parties? I know
that drones are a harsh remedy, but really.
And of course the feminist case for bombing hobbits is as strong as it ever was. Has anyone even
heard of a female hobbit? Of course you haven't, because they keep them in those primitive holes,
and they only appear in brief cameos when the hobbits have to conceal their unadmitted homosocial
orientation. Strong hobbit women will be much better off if we kill the men keeping them down as
well as some of their children.
And lastly, genocide. Are their even any members of other racial groups living in the Shire? Where
did they all go? Hobbit society is deeply racist, and those holes are dumping groups for bodies as
well as potential storehouses for chemical weapons. I know that some people say that we shouldn't
bomb them, but that's only because those people can't even imagine what it's like not to have the
privilege that they do.
In all seriousness, Tolkien was a consummate reactionary and LotR is an allegorical defense of
racism and imperialism on many levels - everything from the noble white monarch rallying "men of
the West" to stand against the dark hordes of the East and South, to the depiction of
preindustrial peasant life as an idyllic paradise disturbed not by Western nobles themselves but
by the malign influence of Eastern/Southern foreigners, to details as small as the relationship
between Frodo and Sam modeled on an ideal Victorian-era relationship between a lower-aristocratic
British army officer and his commoner manservant. (Juxtapose the imagery this video at the
timestamp side by side with this one.) As people of the left, we shouldn't bring that particular
story into our discourse as an allegory without this point being made explicitly at least once.
That said, when considering our doctrines on liberty, it's clear that we may leave out of
consideration those backward states of hobbit society in which the race itself may be considered
as in its nonage. The early difficulties in the way of spontaneous progress are so great, that
there is seldom any choice of means for overcoming them; and a ruler full of the spirit of
improvement is warranted in the use of any expedients that will attain an end, perhaps otherwise
unattainable. Despotism is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with hobbits, provided the
end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end. Liberty, as a
principle, has no application to any state of things anterior to the time when hobbitkind have
become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion. Until then, there is nothing for
them but implicit obedience to a Sharkey or a Wormtongue, if they are so fortunate as to find
one.
In all seriousness, Tolkien was a consummate reactionary and LotR is an allegorical defense
of racism and imperialism on many levels…
Once the US establishes American-Style Democracy in The Shire, a new timeline begins. First, the
ethnic cleansing and establishment of enclaves for the survivors. After about a hundred years they'll
have to end slavery. About fifty years after that, they'll have to let women vote.
The recent leak that Clinton is against nuclear armed cruise missiles and isn't
committed to Obama's trillion dollar nuclear weapons upgrade appears to suggest she's not quite on
board with plans for general war. (Yes, the purpose of this program is to prepare for general nuclear
war, or at minimum, plausible threat of imminent general nuclear war.) It is unclear whether this
was leaked to make her look good to the public, or to discredit her with the military's higher ups.
(It is likely dissident military played a role in the leak, either way.)
I had not heard about this (perhaps an indication of how closely or not I'm following the election
news). If HRC is indeed has some doubts about the wisdom of nuclear 'modernization', that's all to
the good. Mainstream Democratic-leaning think tanks, at least one that I'm aware of, have questioned
the modernization necessity and expense, e.g. in a report co-authored by Lawrence Korb, a former
Reagan admin defense official.
Will refrain from further comment except to say that I disagree w the notion that the pt of nuclear
'modernization' is to make plausible the threat of "imminent general nuclear war." If U.S. military
planners took hallucinogenic drugs and went nuts, they could "plausibly" threaten "imminent general
nuclear war" right now with the US nuclear arsenal as currently configured. They don't need to upgrade
the weapons to do that. The program is prob more the result of rigid, unimaginative thinking at top
levels of Pentagon and influence of outside companies (e.g. Boeing etc) that work on the upgrades.
stevenjohnson
10.02.16
at 7:10 pm
One aspect of the upgrade is about improving the feasibility of using tactical
nukes.
@Anarcissie
The [U.S.] leadership wisely declined to support any attempt to restore the
British, French, Dutch, Belgian etc. empires because they had a new model in
mind. Thus these empires had to be wound down and dissolved, and so they were.
British and French decolonization(s) were different in that France fought two
protracted wars (Indochina and Algeria) in an effort to hang on to its
colonies, and in the former war (Indochina) France did so with US financial
support (so much for your argument about the US dictating all outcomes).
Britain, by contrast, left most (though not all - e.g.
Kenya
)
of its colonies relatively peacefully.
Self-determination and national independence were powerful ideas, and many
Western politicians, at least in certain countries, recognized that the "winds
of change," in Macmillan's words, were blowing, and that they had best try to
adjust and accommodate them.
A quote from R.H. Jackson, "The Weight of Ideas in Decolonization"[*]:
Something besides declining military power or economic disinterest on the
part of the imperial powers was involved in decolonization - certainly
British decolonization. The cabinet and colonial papers on which this
judgment is based make reference not to any fundamental alteration in
Britain's military posture or economic interests but rather to "the large
body of opinion in this country, in Africa, and internationally," which by
the late 1940s was already demanding "more rapid political, economic and
social development" and by 1960 would accept nothing less than complete
decolonization…. [There was] a fundamental shift of normative ideas and a
corresponding change of mind on the part of most sovereign governments and
the public opinion influencing them concerning the right to sovereign
statehood.
[*] In Judith Goldstein and R.O. Keohane, eds.,
Ideas and Foreign Policy
(1993), pp. 128-29.
"... Self-determination and national independence were powerful ideas, and many Western politicians,
at least in certain countries, recognized that the "winds of change," in Macmillan's words, were blowing,
and that they had best try to adjust and accommodate them. ..."
@Anarcissie The [U.S.] leadership wisely declined to support any attempt to restore the British, French,
Dutch, Belgian etc. empires because they had a new model in mind. Thus these empires had to be
wound down and dissolved, and so they were.
British and French decolonization(s) were different in that France fought two protracted wars
(Indochina and Algeria) in an effort to hang on to its colonies, and in the former war (Indochina)
France did so with US financial support (so much for your argument about the US dictating all
outcomes). Britain, by contrast, left most (though not all - e.g.
Kenya ) of its colonies
relatively peacefully.
Self-determination and national independence were powerful ideas, and many Western politicians,
at least in certain countries, recognized that the "winds of change," in Macmillan's words, were
blowing, and that they had best try to adjust and accommodate them.
A quote from R.H. Jackson, "The Weight of Ideas in Decolonization"[*]:
Something besides declining military power or economic disinterest on the part of the imperial
powers was involved in decolonization - certainly British decolonization. The cabinet and colonial
papers on which this judgment is based make reference not to any fundamental alteration in
Britain's military posture or economic interests but rather to "the large body of opinion in
this country, in Africa, and internationally," which by the late 1940s was already demanding
"more rapid political, economic and social development" and by 1960 would accept nothing less
than complete decolonization…. [There was] a fundamental shift of normative ideas and a corresponding
change of mind on the part of most sovereign governments and the public opinion influencing
them concerning the right to sovereign statehood.
[*] In Judith Goldstein and R.O. Keohane, eds., Ideas and Foreign Policy (1993), pp.
128-29.
Will G-R 10.04.16 at 3:24 pm @ 394 -
The analogy between wives (in purdah, though) and prostitutes in business on the street it apt.
The latter would have a certain freedom of life and action, like slaves or serfs being tuned loose
to become the proles of a social order. They would still be subordinated to masters, but it would
be harder for them to identify and act against their masters.
But as to racism and sexism, these mostly inhibit production and consumption, so, given its
fetishization of production, capitalism should war against them.
As Uncle Karl notes in the Manifesto, 'Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted
disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois
epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast frozen relations, with their train of ancient and
venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before
they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air….'
In short, capitalism destroys all culture and relations that it encounters and replaces them
with its own culture and set of relations. The irrationalities of racial and sexual peculiarity
and segregation are replaced by an atomized, degendered, deracinated, atomized population who
relate to each other through money, markets, employment, consumption patterns. Or they did. Now
that employment and production are in decline, something else may be happening.
Afaict, neither HRC nor Trump has said much of anything about the worldwide
network of U.S. bases. HRC doesn't talk about (this aspect of) the U.S. global
military footprint, and while Trump rambles on about making S Korea and Japan
shoulder more (or all) of their own security (and ponders aloud whether it
might be a good idea for both to acquire their own nuclear weapons), I haven't
heard him address the issue of bases: a question is whether Trump even knows
that the base network exists.
Adam Tooze in "1916" traces US hegemony back to that year, when the US elite
realised that, first, the UK and France owed them so much that they could not
afford an allied defeat, second that UK and French war orders (paid for by
those loans) were vital to US industry and industrial profits and third, that,
as the banker and munition supplier, they now had the leverage in negotiations
over the shape of the post-war world.
Fourteen Points, Dawes Plan and the rest follow on.
Trouble is, once you start on running the world, you have to keep going.
There's always some pesky hobbits somewhere making trouble, and Saruman eying
your empire.
stevenjohnson
10.04.16 at 12:16 am
Is Tooze's "1916" known in the US as "The Deluge?"
"... As a side note, it's obvious that there are at least three separate US policies active in Syria. The Defense Dept supports the largely Kurdish YPG against ISIS, the CIA works with Gulf backers to support the Free Syrian Army – an amalgam of mostly ineffective "moderate" rebels and effective, but murderous, Islamists affiliated to al-Qaeda, and State hovers around making noises about Assad, variously placating and irritating the Turks and dickering with the Russians. Whatever the merits of their individual stances, there is no reason to suppose that either Obama or Hillary can exert more than loose control over this mess. stevenjohnson , 10.02.16 at 12:59 pm LFC @300 It is unclear to me how a change from an independent secular national state in Syria to a patchwork of sectarian statelets wholly dependent upon foreign support is anything but a regime change. Unless of course, the phrase "regime change" merely means the murder of a designated leader and his replacement by someone acceptable to the regime changers. ..."
"... CIA of course, as more or less the President's Praetorian Guard over humanity at large, is no more under the Secretary of State than the Pentagon. ..."
"... It seems to have been forgotten that the democratic rebels were lynching black Africans within days of their glorious uprising. Barack Obama is too tan for the Klan, thus it was advisable for a loyal servant to provide an excuse for a half-Kenyan man to support the mass murder of darker skinned people. ..."
"... She repeated the performance in the Benghazi affair, where she loyally excused the murder of Stevens as a religious mob, instead of a falling out with his jihadi employees ..."
"... Lee A. Arnold is sort of correct there was once a genuine democratic Syrian opposition, largely inspired by the economic liberalization (neoliberalization according to many CTers,) in the face of the stresses of the world economic downturn and the prolonged Syrian droughts. Nonetheless there was from almost the very beginning an organized Islamist element that relied on violence, and refused to negotiate any reforms whatsoever, despite the Assad government's attempt to do so. Whether he was sincere is moot. ..."
"... Arnold's other point that Trump's professed plans are not for peace but victory is correct. Whether he has any real ideas how to achieve this other than firing generals until he gets a winner is anybody's guess. Like Nixon, Trump has a secret plan. ..."
"... The recent leak that Clinton is against nuclear armed cruise missiles and isn't committed to Obama's trillion dollar nuclear weapons upgrade appears to suggest she's not quite on board with plans for general war. (Yes, the purpose of this program is to prepare for general nuclear war, or at minimum, plausible threat of imminent general nuclear war.) It is unclear whether this was leaked to make her look good to the public, or to discredit her with the military's higher ups. (It is likely dissident military played a role in the leak, either way.) ..."
"... I firmly believe!…most ordinary people don't vote interests, they vote the national good. It's the rich and their favored employees who vote their interests. ..."
As a side note, it's obvious that there are at least three separate US policies active in
Syria. The Defense Dept supports the largely Kurdish YPG against ISIS, the CIA works with Gulf
backers to support the Free Syrian Army – an amalgam of mostly ineffective "moderate" rebels and
effective, but murderous, Islamists affiliated to al-Qaeda, and State hovers around making noises
about Assad, variously placating and irritating the Turks and dickering with the Russians.
Whatever the merits of their individual stances, there is no reason to suppose that either
Obama or Hillary can exert more than loose control over this mess.
stevenjohnson, 10.02.16 at 12:59 pm
LFC @300 It is unclear to me how a change from an independent secular national state in Syria
to a patchwork of sectarian statelets wholly dependent upon foreign support is anything but a
regime change. Unless of course, the phrase "regime change" merely means the murder of a designated
leader and his replacement by someone acceptable to the regime changers.
@306 "And (Clinton) also played an instrumental role in destroying Libya…"
@316 "Hillary Clinton served as the US Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013, which makes her at
least one of the prime architects of US foreign policy…"
It was NATO which attacked Libya. The prime "architects" were well known, namely, Cameron and
Sarkozy. The US role in this matter was conducted largely through NATO, the CIA and international
diplomacy. In the US, relations with Cameron and Sarkozy would be conducted largely by either
Obama personally, with other diplomatic duties taken up by the UN ambassador Samantha Power, a
figure that has always been in an ambiguous relationship with the Secretary of State. CIA
of course, as more or less the President's Praetorian Guard over humanity at large, is no more
under the Secretary of State than the Pentagon.
It seems to have been forgotten that the democratic rebels were lynching black Africans
within days of their glorious uprising. Barack Obama is too tan for the Klan, thus it was advisable
for a loyal servant to provide an excuse for a half-Kenyan man to support the mass murder of darker
skinned people. Enter that dutiful public servant, able to suffer undeserved ignominy in
service to her country. (She repeated the performance in the Benghazi affair, where she loyally
excused the murder of Stevens as a religious mob, instead of a falling out with his jihadi employees.)
Lee A. Arnold is sort of correct there was once a genuine democratic Syrian opposition,
largely inspired by the economic liberalization (neoliberalization according to many CTers,) in
the face of the stresses of the world economic downturn and the prolonged Syrian droughts. Nonetheless
there was from almost the very beginning an organized Islamist element that relied on violence,
and refused to negotiate any reforms whatsoever, despite the Assad government's attempt to do
so. Whether he was sincere is moot.
Arnold's other point that Trump's professed plans are not for peace but victory is correct.
Whether he has any real ideas how to achieve this other than firing generals until he gets a winner
is anybody's guess. Like Nixon, Trump has a secret plan.
Peter T @320 "As a side note, it's obvious that there are at least three separate US policies
active in Syria…Whatever the merits of their individual stances, there is no reason to suppose
that either Obama or Hillary can exert more than loose control over this mess." Skipping over
the question of how obvious it is to CT and its regular commentariat that the military has a semi-independent
policy, the idea of Presidential leadership does sort of include a vague notion that the President
sets the policy, not the generals. The facts being otherwise show how the US is a deeply militaristic
polity. I would add the CIA is very much the President's army. State is more or less, Other, on
the multiple choice exam. Trump's hint he would fire generals til he finds a winner suggests he
more or less agrees that the military is an independent enterprise in the political market (which
is what US governance seems to be modeled on.)
The recent leak that Clinton is against nuclear armed cruise missiles and isn't committed
to Obama's trillion dollar nuclear weapons upgrade appears to suggest she's not quite on board
with plans for general war. (Yes, the purpose of this program is to prepare for general nuclear
war, or at minimum, plausible threat of imminent general nuclear war.) It is unclear whether this
was leaked to make her look good to the public, or to discredit her with the military's higher
ups. (It is likely dissident military played a role in the leak, either way.)
The fact that these kinds of issues are ignored in favor of twaddle about Clinton Foundation,
emails and the actions of the Secretary State, an office whose relevance has been dubious for
decades, says much about the level of democratic discourse.
Rich Puchalsky, the primary reason so many white workers vote Republican is because they are
voting values, which are religious, not policies. Even more to the point, the notion that voting
is like a market transaction (a very liberal idea) founders on the fact…
I firmly believe!…most ordinary people don't vote interests, they vote the national good.
It's the rich and their favored employees who vote their interests.
As to the religious bigotry, well, once it was necessary to say or write "racial bigotry,"
because everyone knew bigotry to be an expression of religious belief. Today, the very notion
of religious bigotry is more or less forbidden as some sort of expression of anti-religious fanaticism.
"... Backing away from openly bombing the Syrian government when the English PM couldn't get the vote from Parliament is not restraint. Signing a booby trapped pact with the Iranian government which will not end sanctions is not restraint. Endorsing the Indian attack on Pakistan is not restraint. Endorsing the Saudi invasion of Yemen is not restraint. A trillion dollar upgrade of nuclear weapons is not restraint. Supporting IS all the time and bombing it some time is not restraint. ..."
"In fact, Clinton has shown a number of indications that she is not competent at all, that she
is, unlike Obama, going to unleash the U.S. foreign policy establishment and military-industrial
complex in all its decadent schizophrenia without any governor or restraint at all."
Backing away from openly bombing the Syrian government when the English PM couldn't get
the vote from Parliament is not restraint. Signing a booby trapped pact with the Iranian government
which will not end sanctions is not restraint. Endorsing the Indian attack on Pakistan is not
restraint. Endorsing the Saudi invasion of Yemen is not restraint. A trillion dollar upgrade of
nuclear weapons is not restraint. Supporting IS all the time and bombing it some time is not restraint.
The raving chorus of criticism of Clinton's foreign policy on ostensibly leftist grounds that
falsifies the current state of affairs is viciously reactionary, especially when indissolubly
mixed with openly reactionary criticisms. The falsification of what exactly is different about
Trump's candidacy is also part and parcel. It's all very like the fake leftists who said defeating
the Scottish referendum wasn't an endorsement of English imperialism, then pretended to act surprised
when the rightward surge they helped to build led to a racist campaign for Brexit.
Putin is weak. He sacrificed a struggle against fascism in Ukraine for a naval base, rather
than call on popular support. Then he doubled down on another naval base in Syria, despite having
no idea how to reach a solution. He can't cope with the economic warfare the US is waging, he
only tries to use simple repression of the population at large and an elaborate combination of
select repression and appeasement of the oligarchs he ultimately serves. Putin is popular I think
largely because he appears to be the human face of capitalism. He's falsely sold himself as the
corrective to Yeltsin, when in truth he is just the normalization of Yeltsinism. Yetltsin did
the dirty work of attacking the people of Russia in the name of capitalist restoration. Now, Putin
is just business as usual.
I would understand that launcher can be transported from Russia. But how it can be transported back
after the tragedy so that nobody saw, despite huge interest in its detection of USA, its allies and
honchos from Provisional government (which probably has a network of spies in the Donetsk territory)
it is much more difficult undertaking, which fails Occam razor. Ukrainian Buks were at the place --
and Russian need to be transported back and forth.
Notable quotes:
"... Maria Zakharova, a spokesperson for the foreign ministry in Moscow, claimed Russian officials had been prevented from playing a full role in the Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team's (JIT) work. "To arbitrarily designate a guilty party and dream up the desired results has become the norm for our Western colleagues," she said. "The investigation to this day continues to ignore incontestable evidence from the Russian side despite the fact that Russia is practically the only one sending reliable information to them." ..."
"... Ms Zakharova also suggested that the Ukrainian government had been able to influence the inquiry using fabricated evidence. ..."
International prosecutors found separatists were responsible for shooting down the Boeing 777
and killing all 298 people on board on 17 July 2014, during the conflict in eastern
Ukraine .
A report by the Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team (JIT) said there was "no doubt" the missile
that downed the plane was brought in from Russia and fired from rebel-controlled territory as militants
sought to fend off attacks by the Ukrainian air force.
Investigators pinpointed the launch site atop a hill in farmland west of Pervomaiskyi, having
traced the convoy carrying the Buk from the Russian border through Donetsk, Torez, Snizhne and on
to the launch site in the hours before MH17 was downed.
Image of Buk-M1 launcher in the vicinity of the MH17 crash
The JIT has reconstructed the weapon's journey using data from rebels' mobile phones, as well
as photos and videos showing it being escorted by pro-Russian rebels wearing unspecified uniforms.
In several tapped phone calls, men's voices are heard discussing the transport of the Buk missile
system from and back to Russia, while audio previously released by Ukrainian officials appears to
show a panicked militant saying
MH17 was shot down
in the mistaken belief it was a military plane.
He tells a superior: "It was 100 per cent a passenger aircraft…there are civilian items, medicinal
stuff, towels, toilet paper."
Journalists arriving at the scene of the missile launch the following day found a scorched patch
of earth measuring 30m by 30m, which could also be seen on satellite images showing caterpillar tracks
nearby.
Hours after MH17 was downed, the Buk was seen being driven back towards the Russian border - missing
one of its four missiles - before the convoy left Ukraine overnight. Shortly after MH17's disappearance,
a post attributed to separatist leader Igor Girkin, a Russian army veteran known as Strelkov, claimed
rebels had shot down a Ukrainian military transport plane.
The swiftly-deleted post on Russian social network VKontakte was accompanied by a video of rising
smoke and said: "We warned them - don't fly in our sky."
Much of the footage cited by the JIT had already been analysed for a
report released in February by investigative citizen journalists in the Bellingcat group.
Its analysis concluded the Buk missile system used to down MH17 was transported into Ukraine by
Russian soldiers with "high-level" authorisation, although it was unclear whether Russian or separatist
fighters operated the weapon after it crossed the border.
An extended and uncensored version of the report was sent to JIT investigators in December, including
the full names and photographs of soldiers said to be involved.
"Although it is likely that the head officials of Russia's Ministry of Defence did not explicitly
decide to send a Buk missile launcher to Ukraine, the decision to send military equipment (with or
without crew) from the Air Defence Forces to Ukraine was likely made at a very high level and, therefore,
the Russian Ministry of Defence bears the main responsibility for the downing of MH17,"
Bellingcat's report concluded.
"This responsibility is shared with separatist leaders of the Donetsk People's Republic and (to
a lesser extent) the Luhansk People's Republic…ultimately, responsibility for the downing of MH17
from a weapon provided and possibly operated by the Russian military lies with its two head commanders:
Minister of Defence Sergey Shoigu and President
Vladimir Putin ."
Separatist groups have denied any involvement in the disaster, while Russian officials have continually
dismissed allegations of soldiers or equipment being deployed in Ukraine.
Maria Zakharova, a spokesperson for the foreign ministry in Moscow, claimed Russian officials
had been prevented from playing a full role in the Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team's (JIT) work.
"To arbitrarily designate a guilty party and dream up the desired results has become the norm
for our Western colleagues," she said. "The investigation to this day continues to ignore incontestable
evidence from the Russian side despite the fact that Russia is practically the only one sending reliable
information to them."
Ms Zakharova also suggested that the Ukrainian government had been able to influence the inquiry
using fabricated evidence.
In its own investigation, Russian Buk manufacturer
Almaz Antey claimed the deadly missile was fired from Zaroschenskoye and that Ukrainian forces
were stationed there.
"We investigated this and have been able to establish that this was not the launch location, and
moreover that it was controlled by pro-Russian rebels at the time," said Wilbert Paulissen, head
of the Dutch Central Crime Investigation Department.
The JIT said it had only received partial responses to its requests for information from Russian
authorities and had not yet been sent primary radar data cited by officials at the Kremlin.
Comprising prosecutors from the countries with the most passengers on board the flight – the Netherlands,
Australia, Malaysia and Belgium – and Ukraine, the JIT previously said it would "ensure the independence
of the investigation".
The body has primary responsibility for establishing the case for prosecutions after the UN Security
Council failed to adopt a resolution that would have established an international tribunal for prosecuting
those responsible for downing MH17 at a meeting in July 2015.
When questioned by journalists, members of the JIT would not specifically name the militia or
faction responsible for firing the missile but said they were investigating around 100 people linked
to the downing of MH17 or the transport of the Buk missile.
A spokesperson said officials are also looking at the chain of command that led to the disaster,
adding: "Who gave the order to bring the BUK-TELAR into Ukraine and who gave the order to shoot down
flight MH17? Did the crew decide for themselves or did they execute a command from their superiors?"
"... At the same time traditional aristocracy is not fixed either and always provided some "meritocratic" mechanisms for entering its ranks. Look, for example, at British system where prominent scientists always were awarded lordship. Similar mechanism was used in many countries where low rank military officers, who displayed bravery and talent in battles were promoted to nobility and allowed to hold top military positions. Napoleonic France probably is one good example here. ..."
"... Neoliberal elite like traditional aristocracy also enjoys the privilege of being above the law. And like in case of traditional aristocracy the democratic governance is limited to members of this particular strata. Only they can be viewed as political actors. ..."
"... The USSR nomenklatura is yet another example of the same. It was so close in spirit to neoliberal elite, that the transition in 1991 was almost seamless. ..."
"... vertical mobility can't be completely suppressed without system losing the social stability and that's was true for classic aristocracy as well as modern neoliberal elite ..."
A side note: there was some conversation above about the interests of an aristocracy, which
of course prompted the idea that the aristocracy is long gone. But meritocracy is a kind of
aristocracy.
This is an interesting observation. BTW other aspect of the same is related to the "Iron law
of oligarchy". Also both aristocracy and meritocracy are just variants of oligarchy. The actual
literal translation from the Greek is the "rule of the few".
At the same time traditional aristocracy is not fixed either and always provided some "meritocratic"
mechanisms for entering its ranks. Look, for example, at British system where prominent scientists
always were awarded lordship. Similar mechanism was used in many countries where low rank military
officers, who displayed bravery and talent in battles were promoted to nobility and allowed to
hold top military positions. Napoleonic France probably is one good example here.
Neoliberal elite like traditional aristocracy also enjoys the privilege of being above
the law. And like in case of traditional aristocracy the democratic governance is limited to members
of this particular strata. Only they can be viewed as political actors.
The USSR nomenklatura is yet another example of the same. It was so close in spirit to neoliberal
elite, that the transition in 1991 was almost seamless.
In other words, vertical mobility can't be completely suppressed without system losing the
social stability and that's was true for classic aristocracy as well as modern neoliberal elite
(actually vertical mobility is somewhat higher in European countries then in the USA; IMHO it
is even higher in former Eastern block).
"... First of all, for all extents and purposes they *are* the governing class, and they aren't simply failing to be subversive, they are defending their class interest. I know that this will cue any number of remarks about how someone is a college professor and isn't governing anything - as if someone in corporate upper management somewhere is really governing anything either - but what holds the neoliberal order in place is that it serves the interests of the managerial class, which includes professionals and other symbolic-manipulation people as its lower tier. ..."
"... I'm not sure about the merits of the whole Manufacturing Consent line of critique, but defending elite opinion as the only respectable opinion sort of is accomplishing something ..."
"... A side note: there was some conversation above about the interests of an aristocracy, which of course prompted the idea that the aristocracy is long gone. But meritocracy is a kind of aristocracy. ..."
"... Look at how much effort people put into ensuring that their children are high-status, degreed, good job holders just like themselves, and how successful that generally is. ..."
"... ...Rich: to the extent that the people parroting this line are professional-class hangers -- on of the global financial elite and neoliberalism serves their class interests ( at least until academic/media sinecures are next in line for outsourcing ), their aversion to subversive radical politics makes perfect sense as a simple matter of vested interest. ..."
Will G-R: "The point of this facade isn't what the lemming-like hordes of Clinton defenders (or
Putin defenders, if they're Russian) are actually accomplishing, which is essentially nothing;
the point is what they're not accomplishing, which is any meaningfully subversive reflection about
how ruling-class power works in general and how the governed classes might effectively counter
it."
Not quite right, I think. First of all, for all extents and purposes they *are* the governing
class, and they aren't simply failing to be subversive, they are defending their class interest.
I know that this will cue any number of remarks about how someone is a college professor and isn't
governing anything - as if someone in corporate upper management somewhere is really governing
anything either - but what holds the neoliberal order in place is that it serves the interests
of the managerial class, which includes professionals and other symbolic-manipulation people as
its lower tier.
Second, I'm not sure about the merits of the whole Manufacturing Consent line of critique,
but defending elite opinion as the only respectable opinion sort of is accomplishing something
.
Sure, individual votes are meaningless, and any one person's contribution negligible. But there
is a recurring trope of people wondering whether someone is a paid troll because people are actually
paid - whether by David Brooks or by Putin - to do exactly this kind of thing. And they are paid
to do it because it works, or at any rate people think that it works. Even better if people do
it on a volunteer basis.
A side note: there was some conversation above about the interests of an aristocracy, which of
course prompted the idea that the aristocracy is long gone. But meritocracy is a kind of aristocracy.
Look at how much effort people put into ensuring that their children are high-status, degreed,
good job holders just like themselves, and how successful that generally is.
I'll quote wiki:
"One study […] found that of nine developed countries, the United States and United Kingdom had
the lowest intergenerational vertical social mobility with about half of the advantages of having
a parent with a high income passed on to the next generation."
...Rich: to the extent that the people parroting this line are professional-class hangers
-- on of the global financial elite and neoliberalism serves their class interests (
at least
until academic/media sinecures are next in line for outsourcing ), their aversion to subversive
radical politics makes perfect sense as a simple matter of vested interest.
"... ...First of all, for all extents and purposes they *are* the governing class, and they aren't simply failing to be subversive, they are defending their class interest. I know that this will cue any number of remarks about how someone is a college professor and isn't governing anything - as if someone in corporate upper management somewhere is really governing anything either - but what holds the neoliberal order in place is that it serves the interests of the managerial class, which includes professionals and other symbolic-manipulation people as its lower tier. ..."
"... A side note: there was some conversation above about the interests of an aristocracy, which of course prompted the idea that the aristocracy is long gone. But meritocracy is a kind of aristocracy. ..."
"... I'll quote wiki: "One study […] found that of nine developed countries, the United States and United Kingdom had the lowest intergenerational vertical social mobility with about half of the advantages of having a parent with a high income passed on to the next generation." That's not perfect, but it's getting better. ..."
"... to the extent that the people parroting this line are professional-class hangers-on of the global financial elite and neoliberalism serves their class interests ( at least until academic/media sinecures are next in line for outsourcing ), their aversion to subversive radical politics makes perfect sense as a simple matter of vested interest. ..."
...First of all, for all extents and purposes they *are* the governing class, and they
aren't simply failing to be subversive, they are defending their class interest. I know that this
will cue any number of remarks about how someone is a college professor and isn't governing anything
- as if someone in corporate upper management somewhere is really governing anything either -
but what holds the neoliberal order in place is that it serves the interests of the managerial
class, which includes professionals and other symbolic-manipulation people as its lower tier.
Second, I'm not sure about the merits of the whole Manufacturing Consent line of critique,
but defending elite opinion as the only respectable opinion sort of is accomplishing something.
Sure, individual votes are meaningless, and any one person's contribution negligible. But there
is a recurring trope of people wondering whether someone is a paid troll because people are actually
paid - whether by David Brooks or by Putin - to do exactly this kind of thing. And they are paid
to do it because it works, or at any rate people think that it works. Even better if people do
it on a volunteer basis.
A side note: there was some conversation above about the interests of an aristocracy, which
of course prompted the idea that the aristocracy is long gone. But meritocracy is a kind of aristocracy.
Look at how much effort people put into ensuring that their children are high-status, degreed,
good job holders just like themselves, and how successful that generally is.
I'll quote wiki: "One study […] found that of nine developed countries, the United States
and United Kingdom had the lowest intergenerational vertical social mobility with about half of
the advantages of having a parent with a high income passed on to the next generation." That's
not perfect, but it's getting better.
Will G-R 10.03.16 at 9:33 pm
You're right, Rich: to the extent that the people parroting this line are professional-class
hangers-on of the global financial elite and neoliberalism serves their class interests (
at least
until academic/media sinecures are next in line for outsourcing ), their aversion to subversive
radical politics makes perfect sense as a simple matter of vested interest.
But I like to think of my point as less Chomskian and more Žižekian, in that while Chomsky's
manufactured consent is presented as a simple way to cover other people's interests with ideological
mystification, Žižek's fetishism (like Marx's before him) is presented as a way for people to
cover their own interests by imagining their mystification as itself a demystification.
It's not that professional-class liberals don't realize the truth that they should be fighting
against oppression - they do realize this, but it's false realization concealing from them the
deeper truth that they're actually fighting for oppression.
From
Washington's governing elites think we're all morons, a new study
says
In 2014, MIT Professor and Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber was caught
on tape explaining that "the stupidity of the American voter or whatever was
really, really critical for [Obamacare] to pass."
Most lawmakers and
voters
, he suggested, did not really understand the law and that "lack
of transparency is a huge political advantage."
The 'governing elite' puts the politician and voter in the same moron
category.
[W]here rulers have little in common with the ruled, those in power are
unlikely to exhibit sympathy, as the Constitution's framers might have put it,
for their subjects. Rulers are likely, instead, to
view their subjects
instrumentally
much, says Aristotle, as they might see their tools,
horses, oxen, or slaves, and deal with them in an unjust manner. . .
This is narcissism writ large. What we have is a system whereby self
selecting narcissists run for office (Does a normal person really want the jawb
of getting up in front of people to lie and smile?) and bask in the glory of
power. and then has to deal with psychopaths that have back stabbed and ass
licked their way to the top of the bureaucratic heap.
"... OMG, you will make up anything, won't you! That is NOT what rigged means! When a basketball game is rigged, it doesn't mean the final score has been "falsified"! It means that someone -- probably the refs (i.e, in an election, the media) has systematically tilted the playing field. ..."
"... Usually when we say a game was rigged, we mean players on the teams manipulated the score (missing shots,etc) in order to make sure a specific team beat the spread. ..."
"... My own experience looking systematically at election results in aggregate suggests that big disparities in campaign spending can indeed have very big effects, the most obvious in recent history being Obama's win in Indiana in 2008. ..."
"... I suspect that if more people believe elections are rigged, more will be likely to support/accept/tolerate a military takeover. ..."
"... "Rigged" is not a precise term. There's a continuum from, say, discouraging some voters from turning up to stuffing ballot boxes (or worse). Some places in the US are well towards the middle of that spectrum (purging rolls, making ID mandatory but difficult to obtain, cutting voting places, gerrymanders....) ..."
"... As for "American elections are not perfect, but ...they're pretty darn good." By the standards of other developed countries (and even many undeveloped ones), US electoral processes are pretty horrible, but that is true of much US administration. Extreme decentralisation, a rich heritage of patronage and a deep suspicion of government do not make for efficient public services. ..."
"... Recently (as sometime this past year, iIRC) former President Carter outright said that the US doesn't have a functioning democracy. ..."
I read both your writing and Cowen's regularly. And saw your twitter exchange. And it seems
completely obvious to me that Cowen's main complaint was hypocrisy/double standards. A (perhaps
overdone) theme of his.
Just look at Cowen's first point. quote:
1. Numerous arguments insist that money buys elections and campaign finance reform is imperative.
That's not exactly my view, with Trump himself now being Exhibit A on the other side of the issue,
but please try to be consistent. A lot of you believe that elections are (were?) rigged! (Hey,
psst when can we go back to them being rigged again? Asking for a friend!)
He's being a total smart aleck! Annoyed about people whining about overuse of rigged and dumbing
it way way down. And not understanding that by theory all complex elections have a manipulative
aspect. And then going on and complaining when the other side uses "rigged" in the same way. This
is so clear, and so snarky.
Hence I think your summary at top of Cowen's claims is flat out not what he intended. And in
fact your points #1 and #2 are (ironically) in total agreement with what Cowen is complaining
about. And even true for #3 as well. Cowen is saying Trump is using rigged in a fashion that's
quite popular in partisan politics, and this is a problem. Something you obviously agree with.
And being annoyed folks don't understand the difference being fraud, and influence, and the Gibbard-Sattherthwaite
theorem.
Anyway, I think there is a true complaint about Cowen's post (besides being too snide without
using enough emoji to cue in a modern reader), is it implies a false equivalence between the republican
nominee for president saying "rigged" and folks in the more partisan press. I suspect Cowen would
acknowledge this, and should have made this more clear in his post. This is pretty much the primary
problem in my view, and has led to his post being so misread. It really is a bit deal for the
republican nominee to say this, and not acknowledging that fact makes anything else you say easy
to misunderstand.
Another true complaint is he implies there's more lax use of rigged on one side than the other
(prior to Trump). I re-read his post though, and am not sure he makes that claim. But it's pretty
easy to get that impression.
I have heard a variation of this argument with respect to what is, or what isn't a coup when
talking about Brazil. In general, I find an excessive devotion to rigor as applied to aggressive
action to be distasteful. It's almost always an attempt at derailing (or feels like an attempt
to derail) the topic at hand.
If Brazil's bad faith impeachment drama wasn't a coup, then why do we call the 1997 event in
Turkey "the Postmodern Coup"? That's because we pay attention to the ends of these sort of actions,
and not the means, and attempting portray a memorandum as just a memorandum, and willfully ignoring
the potential implied use of force is simply being deliberately obtuse.
Again, what are the ends of straight up vote-rigging, like what can be done with electronic
voting machines, say, in Kansas? Are they different from the unequal deploying of voting machines?
Or the use of vote fraud as an excuse to intimidate people by having police "check up" on where
they live? Does these alternative means really do less violence to the society at large? If not,
do people not have the correct instinct to apply the most overt and indefensible terms to the
panoply of underhanded strategies, so as to throw disinfectant social light on these tactics?
A liitle more soul searchin from the LEft is needed here. You do not mention the blatant manipulation
of Illinois in the 1960 election, and the noble attitude of Nizon of not diiging into it further.
Contrast this with the 2000 Election. Even after the myth of fraud had stolen Florida from
Gore was thoroughly debunked one year later by an extensive audit by the vote, Democrats still
were referring to George W. Bush as illegitimate well after that.
And there is the case of all the attitude of the DNC against Sanders. This is not exactly coming
out of the blue. And Democrats also bear responsibility.
"When most people hear the word "rigged" in the context of an election, they probably think
that means the results have been falsified ..."
OMG, you will make up anything, won't you! That is NOT what rigged means! When a basketball
game is rigged, it doesn't mean the final score has been "falsified"! It means that someone --
probably the refs (i.e, in an election, the media) has systematically tilted the playing field.
If you are just going to make up BS off the top of your head like this, I gotta de-link your
blog.
In basketball, playing on your home court "tilts the playing field" in favor of one team. Playing
your home games in Denver tilts the playing field towards the home team even more. There seems
to be some acclimation effect to the altitude that is difficult for road teams to deal with in
just a day or two.
Neither of these structural factors means basketball is rigged because they don't fundamentally
change the conditions under which the game is played. Both teams try to get the ball through the
hoop without traveling or double dribbling.
Same with elections. The two party system is like home field advantage. Money and PACs may
be like playing at home in Denver. Folks like Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, Donald Trump, and Bernie
Sanders are all trying to get the ball through the hoop without traveling or double dribbling.
The referees aren't calling Bernie for traveling when he clearly held his pivot foot. Nor are
they awarding Hillary points for shots she misses. They all raise money under the same rules.
They all buy ads under the same rules. They get ballot access and debate access under the same
rules. They're all free to attempt to influence party platforms under the same rules. They all
compete for media under the same rules.
As to the media are they biased? I'd suspect so. Do they have rooting interests? Probably.
Does that mean elections are rigged? Are MLB games rigged because umpires are more likely to call
borderline pitches strikes against Latino hitters?
Usually when we say a game was rigged, we mean players on the teams manipulated the score
(missing shots,etc) in order to make sure a specific team beat the spread.
Thanks for this post. I like Tyler's blog very much and was very surprised to see something
this poor from him. Ironically, I think part of his motivation was to criticize the watering-down
of "rigged" just as you do, but he did a poor job of it.
Two separate problems are here: (1) A linguistic problem causing gaps in communication: "Rigged"
has become so broad that it has become almost useless for conveying actual beliefs. Its primary
meaning is outright miscounting votes a la Stalin, but it is now being used for much milder influences
as well. (2) Trump appears to be claiming there will be outright miscounting of votes, a terrible
claim by a major candidate.
I think Tyler meant to say that unfortunately, (1) gives Trump cover for (2). He can say the
election will be "rigged," and most listeners will think he means in the strict Stalinist sense
(I do)...but some people who might be outraged by the claim will instead think it sounds vaguely
normal, due to (1).
Tyler did not write that the election will be rigged. I don't quite understand your confusion
on the point, to be honest. Your long excerpt from him omits the part where he says he believes
the opposite:
"Personally, I think median voters more or less get what they want on a large number of issues,
especially broad-based ones in the public eye. You won't find the word 'rigged' popping up too
much in the MR search function, besides I started blogging (and breathing) after Kennedy vs. Nixon.
But my goodness, I can in fact understand why Donald Trump thinks the system is rigged. For years,
you have been telling him that it is."
I do not wish to enter into a discussion in this space as to whether there is evidence that
insider tampering with electronic voting machines changed the outcome of races in Alaska in 2008
and 2014 and Kansas in 2014, but I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that Steven Levitt's work
on elections outcomes linked in "most evidence shows" above has been vociferously contested by
some in the Political Science field, for example Thomas Ferguson's "Investment Theory of Party
Competition".
I'm not really inclined to buy Chomskian bullshit by the pound from Ferguson in preference
to Chicago School apologetics from Levitt, and I don't have the expertise in statistics to judge
their competing claims, but I have a pretty good idea which of the two makes more money promoting
these respective ideas on election financing, and given Levitt's terrible work on climate science
in SuperFreakonomics, I'm not at all inclined to give his claims on campaign finance the benefit
of the doubt.
My own experience looking systematically at election results in aggregate suggests that
big disparities in campaign spending can indeed have very big effects, the most obvious in recent
history being Obama's win in Indiana in 2008.
Not directly related to whether elections are rigged, but related:
""In the past three decades, the share of U.S. citizens who think that it would be a "good"
or "very good" thing for the "army to rule"-a patently undemocratic stance-has steadily risen.
In 1995, just one in sixteen respondents agreed with that position; today, one in six agree.
While those who hold this view remain in the minority, they can no longer be dismissed as a
small fringe, especially since there have been similar increases in the number of those who
favor a "strong leader who doesn't have to bother with parliament and elections" and those
who want experts rather than the government to "take decisions" for the country. Nor is the
United States the only country to exhibit this trend. The proportion agreeing that it would
be better to have the army rule has risen in most mature democracies, including Germany, Sweden,
and the United Kingdom."
http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2016/08/is-support-for-democracy-eroding.html
I suspect that if more people believe elections are rigged, more will be likely to support/accept/tolerate
a military takeover.
"Rigged" is not a precise term. There's a continuum from, say, discouraging some voters
from turning up to stuffing ballot boxes (or worse). Some places in the US are well towards the
middle of that spectrum (purging rolls, making ID mandatory but difficult to obtain, cutting voting
places, gerrymanders....)
As for "American elections are not perfect, but ...they're pretty darn good." By the standards
of other developed countries (and even many undeveloped ones), US electoral processes are pretty
horrible, but that is true of much US administration. Extreme decentralisation, a rich heritage
of patronage and a deep suspicion of government do not make for efficient public services.
Guardian is firmly in Hillary camp. Neoliberal media defends neoliberal candidate. What can
you expect?
Notable quotes:
"... "Some people insist on disguising this Great Satan as the savior angel." -- Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei, referring to the United States, 2015. ..."
"... The US has already been doing that for a long time. Your country is currently allied with al Qaeda in Syria and other so called moderates whose intention is to create a sharia law fundamentalist society as aopposed to Assad who is euro centric and secular. ..."
"... From the article: We know from Wikileaks that she believed privately in the past that Saudi Arabia was the largest source for terrorist funding worldwide, and that the Saudi government was not doing enough to stop that funding. ..."
"... and yet the Clinton Foundation benefits massively from KSA donations ..."
"... I heard that Donald Trump speaks out against the USA funding extremists to overthrow leaders like Assad, while they couldn't care about human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia. Tourists are being shot in Tunisia from extremists in Libya since we became involved in killing Gaddafi. ..."
"... The USA armed and trained extremists in Afghanistan to get one over on Russia, and despite more British troops and civilians being killed by USA friendly fire than the 'enemy' our media never make the same fuss about the USA. ..."
"... The USA didn't care for years when the government they helped implement in Afghanistan made women walk around in blue tents and banned them from education. ..."
"... Different political systems; two people who come from very different backgrounds with different views and experiences. Ahmadinejad was a social conservative with a populist economic agenda. Trump is all over the map, but in terms of his staff and advisers and his economic plans he's much more of a conventional Republican. David Duke's admiration is the main thing the two have in common. ..."
"... Clinton is tripe. She, and her kin, have a ponderous history of talk, and either inaction, or actions that generate disastrous results. Zero accomplishments across the board. Those who'd vote for Hillary must have a "horse" in this race. ..."
"... Yawn... The Guardian has Trump and Putin bashing on the brain. ..."
"... John Bolton as possible Secretary of State? http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/john-bolton-no-regrets-about-toppling-saddam/article/2564463 Unless you're not talking about the guy who looks like a dead ringer for Mr Pastry that is a really terrifying proposition. ..."
"... USA and Britain are very directly responsible for Iran being ruled by the Islamic mafia which has been in power in Iran since 1979. Iran had a democratic government which for the benefit of its people and against the stealing of its oil by Britain, nationalised the oil. Britain then, desperate to carry on stealing the Iranian oil persuaded USA to collaborate with it to covertly organise a coup by MI5 and CIA to topple the legitimate democratic government and install a puppet dictatorship. ..."
"... All that happened in 1953, and Britain and USA totally admitted to all that 30 years later when the official secrets were declassified. ..."
"... ..., forgot to mention, Jimmy C1arter recently admitted that while he was the president, they contributed to the funding of the Khomeini gang against their own installed ally, the Shah in 1979 to topple him ..."
"... Trump makes George W Bush seem like an intellectual heavyweight and Hillary Clinton makes Bush seem as honest and truthful as a Girl Scout! ..."
"... What a shitty choice Americans have to make this time round. A compulsive liar warmonger or an ignorant buffoonish bigot.... ..."
"... US hatred for Iran is hard to fathom. Other adversaries have been forgiven: Germany, Italy, Japan, Vietnam, China. Iran is an outlier. ..."
"... I think it's mainly to keep US allies happy. Both Saudi Arabia and Israel regard Iran as their greatest enemy and the Syrian Civil War is largely a proxy conflict between the Saudis and the Iranians over their respective oil supplies, regional clout and religious affinity. ..."
"... Vote Clinton and absolutely nothing changes or improves. Hillary might as well take golf lessons from Barack, and saxophone lessons from bonking Bill, every day of her presidency. ..."
"... I wouldn't be at all surprised if the CIA and/or the US Armed Forces do that sort of thing too actually! The CIA, after all, toppled the then democratically elected PM of Iran in 1953, forcibly installing the Shah in his place, the CIA helped bring the Taliban and Saddam to power in Afghanistan and Iraq respectively in the first place, unleashing decades of death and destruction on the peoples of those two countries ..."
"... When the Iraqi people rose up against Saddam's brutal dictatorship back in 1991, the US actually helped him crush the rebellion, thus ensuring he stayed in power. ..."
"... One of Trump's top advisors John Bolton wrote an article for the New York Times titled "To Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran" calling for a joint US-Israel strike on Iran, including regime change. He could well end up being Sec. Of State if Trump wins. ..."
"... Meanwhile Clinton is on record as saying that Iran are the world's main sponsor of terrorism and that if she became president she would obliterate Iran if they attacked Israel. Given that Hezbollah are always involved in tit for tat encounters with Israel, and Clinton feels Hezbollah is effectively the state of Iran, it wouldn't take much. ..."
"... Bolton is a vile neocon of the lowest order, what a charade if he gets a senior post and they call Hillary a warmonger? Just wait for Bolton, you mugs ..."
"... Let's hope the Saudis defeat the Houthi uprising and support the internationally recognised government of Yemen. Oh, sorry this is the Guardian: let's hope the Russians defeat the Sunni uprising and support the internationally recognised government of Syria... ..."
"... Yes. Trump is going to steal ISIS's oil. Only slight hole in that theory is that ISIS doesn't own any phucking oil. They aren't a nation state, just thieves. Stealing a thief's stolen goods is still stealing. ..."
"... I've never understood why we're allied to Saudi. They were complicit in 9/11, they hate the west and despise us. ..."
"... >I've never understood why we're allied to Saudi. Oil. Oil. And more Oil. ..."
"... There's nothing bizarre about working with Russia on Middle Eastern issues unless you're married to the idea of a new Cold War. Why Washington is so hell-bent on making Russians the enemies again is beyond me. ..."
"... Russia - does it really need all that land? Wouldn't it be better if Vladivostok was Obamagrad and Ekaterinburg was Katemiddletown? ..."
"... What exactly is the US now? a supplier of sophisticated weaponary to "rebels" or rather terrorists that the legitimate governnent ( with Russian help thankfully) is trying to defeat... ..."
"... There is no moral equivalence here. Once you look at what western intel has been upto all these decades, nowhere could Russia be close to the evil that the US and UK are. ..."
Donny is the best chance for the lasting world peace and stability because he is more likely
to work with Russians on key geopolitical issues.
Hillary is the best chance for ww3 and nuclear anihilation of the mainland American cities
because she is russophobic, demonizer of Russia, hell bent on messing with them and unexplicably
encouraged to do so by supposedly "normal" people in mainstream media.
The US has already been doing that for a long time. Your country is currently allied with
al Qaeda in Syria and other so called moderates whose intention is to create a sharia law fundamentalist
society as aopposed to Assad who is euro centric and secular.
From the article: We know from Wikileaks that she believed privately in the past that Saudi
Arabia was the largest source for terrorist funding worldwide, and that the Saudi government was
not doing enough to stop that funding.
You know who else believes that about the KSA? Joe Biden.
I heard that Donald Trump speaks out against the USA funding extremists to overthrow leaders
like Assad, while they couldn't care about human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia. Tourists are being
shot in Tunisia from extremists in Libya since we became involved in killing Gaddafi.
The USA armed and trained extremists in Afghanistan to get one over on Russia, and despite
more British troops and civilians being killed by USA friendly fire than the 'enemy' our media
never make the same fuss about the USA. It wasn't long ago that many doctors were killed
in a hospital by a USA bomb, but I only found out about it on the Doctors Without Borders facebook
page.
The USA didn't care for years when the government they helped implement in Afghanistan
made women walk around in blue tents and banned them from education.
The Ahmadinejad - Trump comparison is a weak comparison.
Different political systems; two people who come from very different backgrounds with different
views and experiences. Ahmadinejad was a social conservative with a populist economic agenda.
Trump is all over the map, but in terms of his staff and advisers and his economic plans he's
much more of a conventional Republican. David Duke's admiration is the main thing the two have
in common.
Clinton is tripe. She, and her kin, have a ponderous history of talk, and either inaction,
or actions that generate disastrous results. Zero accomplishments across the board. Those who'd
vote for Hillary must have a "horse" in this race.
I won't be specific, but that horse, or horses, are generally the disenfranchised ones. What
to say: I get their plight. But Hillary? Elected, she only make sure they stay that way so she'll
be elected again. Time to wake up. There ain't no "pie in the sky", but with perserverance, all's
possible, and likely. Trump's the guy.
USA and Britain are very directly responsible for Iran being ruled by the Islamic mafia which
has been in power in Iran since 1979. Iran had a democratic government which for the benefit of
its people and against the stealing of its oil by Britain, nationalised the oil. Britain then,
desperate to carry on stealing the Iranian oil persuaded USA to collaborate with it to covertly
organise a coup by MI5 and CIA to topple the legitimate democratic government and install a puppet
dictatorship.
All that happened in 1953, and Britain and USA totally admitted to all that 30 years later
when the official secrets were declassified. One of the consequences of that criminal act
was that it lead to the Islamic revolution which brought the Islam clergy to power which turned
this most strategically, economically, and culturally important country of the region into an
enemy of the west, supporter of terrorism, human rights abuser, arch enemy of Israel, total economic
ruin, and eternal nuclear threat to the region- not to mention the Shia-Sunni sectarian division
that it has perpetrated which to the large extent has contributed to the mighty mess that the
Middle East is in now and potentially spreading to the outside of the region.
..., forgot to mention, Jimmy C1arter recently admitted that while he was the president, they
contributed to the funding of the Khomeini gang against their own installed ally, the Shah in
1979 to topple him
I think it's mainly to keep US allies happy. Both Saudi Arabia and Israel regard Iran as their
greatest enemy and the Syrian Civil War is largely a proxy conflict between the Saudis and the
Iranians over their respective oil supplies, regional clout and religious affinity.
Though the continuance of PNAC's schema shouldn't be discounted either. US policy hawks close
to both Clinton and Trump still aim for dominance in Central Eurasia. I expect if they could press
a button and magically summon up a new Shah for Iran they'd jump at the chance.
Cuba spent over half a century living beneath the shadow of American wrath too for different
reasons. Though perhaps burning revenge at the loss of a compliant puppet also played a role.
Vote Clinton and absolutely nothing changes or improves. Hillary might as well take golf lessons
from Barack, and saxophone lessons from bonking Bill, every day of her presidency.
Vote Trump and things are going to change in America. No more pussyfooting around.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the CIA and/or the US Armed Forces do that sort of thing
too actually! The CIA, after all, toppled the then democratically elected PM of Iran in 1953,
forcibly installing the Shah in his place, the CIA helped bring the Taliban and Saddam to power
in Afghanistan and Iraq respectively in the first place, unleashing decades of death and destruction
on the peoples of those two countries.
When the Iraqi people rose up against Saddam's brutal dictatorship back in 1991, the US
actually helped him crush the rebellion, thus ensuring he stayed in power. So the US is arguably
at least partly responsible for the crimes Saddam and the Taliban committed (in the case of Iraq,
as well as murdering at least hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, the US is probably also partly
responsible for Saddam's DRAINING OF THE MARSHLANDS OF SOUTHER IRAQ).
One of Trump's top advisors John Bolton wrote an article for the New York Times titled "To
Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran" calling for a joint US-Israel strike on Iran, including regime change.
He could well end up being Sec. Of State if Trump wins.
Meanwhile Clinton is on record as saying that Iran are the world's main sponsor of terrorism
and that if she became president she would obliterate Iran if they attacked Israel. Given that
Hezbollah are always involved in tit for tat encounters with Israel, and Clinton feels Hezbollah
is effectively the state of Iran, it wouldn't take much.
Let's hope the Saudis defeat the Houthi uprising and support the internationally recognised
government of Yemen. Oh, sorry this is the Guardian: let's hope the Russians defeat the Sunni
uprising and support the internationally recognised government of Syria...
Yes. Trump is going to steal ISIS's oil. Only slight hole in that theory is that ISIS doesn't
own any phucking oil. They aren't a nation state, just thieves. Stealing a thief's stolen goods
is still stealing.
There's nothing bizarre about working with Russia on Middle Eastern issues unless you're married
to the idea of a new Cold War. Why Washington is so hell-bent on making Russians the enemies again
is beyond me.
What exactly is the US now? a supplier of sophisticated weaponary to "rebels" or rather terrorists
that the legitimate governnent ( with Russian help thankfully) is trying to defeat...
Both America and Russia have been supplying arms to terrorists or to destabilise elected Govts.
Since the end of WW2. Neither country has a right to take the moral high ground especially not
Russia at this time with the revelations coming out about shooting down passenger aircraft. You're
both as bad as each other.
There is no moral equivalence here. Once you look at what western intel has been upto all
these decades, nowhere could Russia be close to the evil that the US and UK are.
Pundits have declared a "New Cold War." If only! The Cold War was a time when leaders focused
on reducing tensions between nuclear powers. What we have today is much more dangerous: Washington's
reckless and irresponsible aggression toward the other major nuclear powers, Russia and China.
During my lifetime American presidents worked to defuse tensions with Russia. President John F.
Kennedy worked with Khrushchev to defuse the Cuban Missile Crisis. President Richard Nixon negotiated
SALT I and the anti-ballistic missile treaty, and Nixon opened to Communist China. President Carter
negotiated SALT II. Reagan worked with Soviet leader Gorbachev and ended the Cold War. The Berlin
Wall came down. Gorbachev was promised that in exchange for the Soviet Union's agreement to the reunification
of Germany, NATO would not move one inch to the East.
Peace was at hand. And then the neoconservatives, rehabilitated by the Israeli influence in the
American press, went to work to destroy the peace that Reagan and Gorbachev had achieved. It was
a short-lasting peace. Peace is costly to the profits of the military/security complex. Washington's
gigantic military and security interests are far more powerful than the peace lobby.
Since the advent of the criminal Clinton regime, every American president has worked overtime
to raise tensions with Russia and China.
China is confronted with the crazed and criminal Obama regime's declaration of the "pivot to Asia"
and the prospect of the US Navy controlling the sea lanes that provision China.
Russia is even more dangerously threatened with US nuclear missile bases on her border and with
US and NATO military bases stretching from the Baltics to the Black Sea.
Russia is also threatened with endless provocations and with demonization that is clearly intended
to prepare Western peoples for war against "the Russian threat." Extreme and hostile words stream
from the mouth of the Democratic presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, who has called the president
of Russia "the new Hitler" and threatened Russia with military force. Insouciant Americans are capable
of electing this warmonger who would bring Armageddon upon the earth.
Yesterday, Israel's voice in the US, the New York Times, added to Hillary's demonization of the
most responsible leader in the world with this editorial: "Vladimir Putin's Outlaw State." This irresponsible
and propagandistic editorial, no doubt written by the neoconservatives, blames all the troubles in
Ukraine and Syria on Putin. The NYT presstitutes know that they have no case, so they drag in the
US-orchestrated false report on MH-17 recently released by Washington's Netherlands vassal.
This report is so absurd as to cast doubt on whether intelligence exists anywhere in the Western
world. Russia and the now independent Russian provinces that have separated from Ukraine have no
interest whatsoever in shooting down a Malaysian airliner. But despite this fact, Russia, according
to the orchestrated report, sent a surface-to-air missile, useful only at high altitude, an altitude
far higher than the Ukrainian planes fly that are attacking Russians in the separated republics,
to the "rebels" so that the "rebels" could shoot down a Malaysian airliner. Then the missile system
was sent back to Russia.
How insouciant does a person have to be to believe this propaganda from the New York Times?
Does the New York Times write this nonsense because it is bankrupt and lives on CIA subsidies?
It is obvious that the Malaysian airliner was destroyed for the purpose of blaming Russia so that
Washington could force Europe to cooperate in applying illegal sanctions on Russia in an attempt
to destabilize Russia, a country that placed itself in the way of Washington's determination to destabilize
Syria and Iran.
In a recent speech, the mindless cipher, who in his role as US Secretary of Defense serves as
a front man for the armaments industry, declared the one trillion dollars (1,000 billion dollars
or 1,000,000 million dollars, that is, one million dollars one million times) that Washington is
going to spend of Americans' money for nuclear force renewal is so we can "get up in the morning
to go to school, to go to work, to live our lives, to dream our dreams and to give our children a
better future."
But Russia's response to this buildup in Washington's strategic nuclear weapons is, according
to Defense Secretary Aston B. Carter, "saber rattling" that "raises serious questions about Russia's
leaders commitment to strategic stability."
Do you get the picture? Or are you an insouciant American? Washington's buildup is only so that
we can get up in the morning and go to school and work, but Russia's buildup in response to Washington's
buildup upsets "strategic stability."
What the Pentagon chief means is that Russia is supposed to sit there and let Washington gain
the upper hand so Washington can maintain "strategic stability" by dictating to Russia. By not letting
Washington prevail, Russia is upsetting "strategic stability."
US Secretary of State John Kerry, who has been broken and tamed by the neoconservatives, recently
displayed the same point of view with his "ultimatum" to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
In effect, Kerry told Lavrov that Russia must stop helping Syria resist the jihadist forces and allow
the US-supported ISIS to regain the initiative and reduce Syria to the chaos in which Washington
left Libya and Iraq. Otherwise, Kerry said that the agreement to cooperate is off.
There can be no cooperation between the US and Russia over Syria, because the two government's
goals are entirely different. Russia wants to defeat ISIS, and the US wants to use ISIS to overthrow
Assad. This should be clear to the Russians. Yet they still enter into "agreements" that Washington
has no intention of keeping. Washington breaks the agreements and blames Russia, thus creating more
opportunities to paint Russia as untrustworthy. Without Russia's cooperation in setting themselves
up for blame, Russia's portrait would not be so black.
The headline set the stage: "Russia's Brutal Bombing of Aleppo May Be Calculated, and It May
Be Working." According to the NYT report, Russia was not bombing ISIS. Russia was "destroying
hospitals and schools, choking off basic supplies, and killing aid workers and hundreds of civilians."
The NYT asks: "What could possibly motivate such brutality?"
The NYT answers: Russia is "massacring Aleppo's civilians as part of a calculated strategy
. . . designed to pressure [moderates] to ally themselves with extremists," thereby discrediting
the forces that Washington has sent to overthrow Syria and to reduce the country to chaos.
When America's Newspaper of Record is nothing but a propaganda ministry, what is America?
Pundits keep explaining that Washington's 15 year old wars in the Middle East are about controlling
the routing of energy pipelines. Little doubt this is a factor as it brings on board powerful American
energy and financial interests. But this is not the motive for the wars. Washington, or the neoconservatives
who control the US government, intend to destabilize the Russian Federation, the former Soviet Central
Asian countries, and China's Muslim province by adding Syria and then Iran to the chaos that Washington
has created in Iraq and Libya. If Washington succeeds in destroying Syria as it succeeded in destroying
Libya and Iraq, Iran becomes the last buffer for Russia. If Washington then knocks off Iran, Russia
is set up for destabilization by jihadists operating in Muslim regions of the Russian Federation.
This is clear as day. Putin understands this. But Russia, which existed under Washington's domination
during the Yeltsin years, has been left threatened by Washington's Fifth Columns in Russia. There
are a large number of foreign-financed NGOs in Russia that Putin finally realized were Washington's
agents. These Washington operatives have been made to register as foreign-financed, but they are
still functioning.
Russia is also betrayed by a section of its elite who are allied economically, politically, and
emotionally with Washington. I have termed these Russians "America Worshipers." Their over-riding
cause is to have Russia integrated with the West, which means to be a vassal of Washington.
Washington's money even seems to have found its way into Russian "think tanks" and academic institutions.
According
to this report, two think tanks, one Russian one American, possibly funded by Washington's money,
have concluded that "US,Russia 'Have far more common interests than differences' in Asia-Pacific."
This "academic report" is a direct assault on the Russian/Chinese alliance. It makes one wonder
whether the report was funded by the CIA The Russian media fall for the "common interest" propaganda,
because they desire to be included in the West. Like Russian academics, the Russian media know English,
not Chinese. Russia's history since Peter the Great is with the West. So that is where they want
to be. However, these America Worshipping Russians cannot understand that to be part of the West
means being Washington's vassal, or if they do understand the price, they are content with a vassal's
status like Germany, Great Britain, France, and the rest of the European puppet states.
To be a vassal is not an unusual choice in history. For example, many peoples chose to be Rome's
vassals, so those elements in Russia who desire to be Washington's vassal have precedents for their
decision.
To reduce Russia's status to Washington's vassal, we have Russian-US cooperation between the Moscow-based
Institute of World Economy and International Relations and the US-based International Institute for
Strategic Studies. These two co-conspirators against Russian sovereignty are working to destroy Russia's
strategic alliance with China and to create a US-Russian Pacific Alliance in its place. One of the
benefits, the joint report declares, is "maintaining freedom of navigation and maritime security."
"Freedom of navigation" is Washington's term for controlling the sea lanes that supply China.
So now we have a Russian institute supporting Washington's plans to cut off resource flow into China.
This idiocy on the part of the Moscow-based Institute of World Economy and International Relations
is unlikely to reassure China about its alliance with Russia. If the alliance is broken, Washington
can more easily deal with the two constraints on its unilateralism.
Additionally, the joint report says that Moscow could cooperate with Washington in confidence-building
measures to resolve territorial disputes in the Asia-Pacific region. What this means is that Russia
should help Washington pressure China to give up its territorial claims.
One cannot but wonder if the Moscow-based Institute of World Economy and International Relations
is a CIA front. If it is not, the CIA is getting a free ride.
The foreign policy of the United States rests entirely on propagandistic lies. The presstitute
media, a Ministry of Propaganda, establishes an orchestrated reality by treating lies as fact. News
organizations around the world, accustomed as they are to following Washington's lead, echo the lies
as if they are facts.
Thus Washington's lies–such as Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, Iranian nukes, Assad's
use of chemical weapons, Russian invasions–become the reality.
Russia's very capable spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, understands that Washington uses the Western
media to control explanations by shaping public opinion. She terms it a "reality show." However,
Zakharova thinks
the problem is that Washington misuses "international relations and international platforms for addressing
internal issues." By this she means that Obama's foreign policy failures have made him hysterical
and impudent as he strives to leave a legacy, and that American/Russian relations are poisoned by
the US presidential campaign that is painting Trump as a "Putin stooge" for not seeing the point
of conflict with Russia.
The situation is far more serious than Zakharova realizes. Russians seem unable to get their minds
around the fact that the neoconservatives are serious about imposing Washington's hegemony on the
rest of the world. The neoconservative doctrine declares that it is the principal goal of US foreign
policy to prevent the rise of any country that would have sufficient power to serve as a check on
American unilateralism. This neoconservative doctrine puts Russia and China in Washington's crosshairs.
If the Russian and Chinese governments do not yet understand this, they are not long for this world.
The neoconservative doctrine fits perfectly with the material interests of the US military/security
complex. The US armaments and spy industries have had 70 years to entrench themselves with a huge
claim on the US budget. This politically powerful interest group has no intention of letting go of
its hold on US resources.
As long ago as 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his last public address to the American
people warned that the Cold War confronted Americans with a new internal danger as large as the external
Soviet threat:
"Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors
in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American
makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no
longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent
armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women
are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more
than the net income of all United States corporations.
"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in
the American experience. The total influence - economic, political, even spiritual - is felt in
every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative
need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil,
resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence,
whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous
rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
"We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.
We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper
meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and
goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
President Eisenhower's warning that our liberties were equally at stake from the military/security
complex as from the Soviet Threat did not last 24 hours. The military/security complex buried Eisenhower's
warning with extraordinary hype of the Soviet Threat.
In truth, there was no Soviet threat. Stalin had buffered Russia from the West with his control
of Eastern Europe, just as Washington controlled Western Europe. Stalin had eliminated Trotsky and
his supporters who stood for world revolution. Stalin declared "socialism in one country."
Stalin terminated international communism. But the American military/security complex had much
money to gain from the Amerian taxpayers in order to "protect America from International Communism."
So the fact that there was no effort on the part of the Soviet Union to subvert the world was ignored.
Instead, every national liberation movement was declared by the US military/industrial complex to
be a "falling domino" of the Communist takeover of the world.
Ho Chi Minh begged Washington for help against the French colonialists in Vietnam. Washington
told him to go to hell. It was Washington that sent Ho Cho Minh to seek communist support.
The long Vietnam war went on for years. It enriched the military/security complex and officers'
pensions. But it was otherwise entirely pointless. There were no dominoes to fall. Vietnam won the
war but is open to American influence and commerce.
Because of the military/security complex more than 50,000 Americans died in the war and many thousands
more suffered physical and psychological wounds. Millions of Vietnamese suffered death, maiming,
birth defects and illnesses associated with Washington's use of Agent Orange.
The entire war was totally pointless. It achieved nothing but destruction of innocents.
This is Washington's preferred way. The corrupt capitalism that rules in America has no interest
in life, only in profit. Profit is all that counts. If entire countries are destroyed and left in
ruins, all the better for American armaments industries.
Yes, please, a new Cold War. We need one desperately, a conflict responsibly managed in place
of the reckless, insane drive for world hegemony emanating from the crazed, evil criminals in Washington
who are driving the world to Armageddon.
"... I believe that the Russians are aware of the fact that the war in Syria is a war by proxy directed against them and against their ally China. It is part of a bigger plan by the US to block Eurasia from having access to the maritime trade roots. In addition, I believe there was a mentioning of the presence of the representatives of the NGOs operating in insurgent territories. And this proves also that the US was using these NGOs as a tool of soft power in order to topple the Syrian regime. ..."
Jamal Wakeem: I believe that this proves that the US was involved in the Syrian
crisis since its onset and that it was collaborating with the so-called insurgents in order to topple
the Syrian regime. In addition, it proves also that the Syrian crisis had its regional and international
dimension since the beginning and it wasn't a revolution against an illegitimate regime, as the West
claimed at one point.
In addition, I believe that it also proves that the Obama administration
didn't give priority to peaceful and political solution for the Syrian crisis. But it used this as
an alternative to its inability to use force when it was confronted by a steadfast position by Russia
who refused to be dragged into another trick by the US similar to what happened in Libya and topple
the Syrian regime.
I believe that the Russians are aware of the fact that the war in Syria is a war by proxy
directed against them and against their ally China. It is part of a bigger plan by the US to block
Eurasia from having access to the maritime trade roots. In addition, I believe there was a mentioning
of the presence of the representatives of the NGOs operating in insurgent territories. And this proves
also that the US was using these NGOs as a tool of soft power in order to topple the Syrian regime.
"... OMG, you will make up anything, won't you! That is NOT what rigged means! When a basketball game is rigged, it doesn't mean the final score has been "falsified"! It means that someone -- probably the refs (i.e, in an election, the media) has systematically tilted the playing field. ..."
"... Usually when we say a game was rigged, we mean players on the teams manipulated the score (missing shots,etc) in order to make sure a specific team beat the spread. ..."
"... My own experience looking systematically at election results in aggregate suggests that big disparities in campaign spending can indeed have very big effects, the most obvious in recent history being Obama's win in Indiana in 2008. ..."
"... I suspect that if more people believe elections are rigged, more will be likely to support/accept/tolerate a military takeover. ..."
"... "Rigged" is not a precise term. There's a continuum from, say, discouraging some voters from turning up to stuffing ballot boxes (or worse). Some places in the US are well towards the middle of that spectrum (purging rolls, making ID mandatory but difficult to obtain, cutting voting places, gerrymanders....) ..."
"... As for "American elections are not perfect, but ...they're pretty darn good." By the standards of other developed countries (and even many undeveloped ones), US electoral processes are pretty horrible, but that is true of much US administration. Extreme decentralisation, a rich heritage of patronage and a deep suspicion of government do not make for efficient public services. ..."
"... Recently (as sometime this past year, iIRC) former President Carter outright said that the US doesn't have a functioning democracy. ..."
I read both your writing and Cowen's regularly. And saw your twitter exchange. And it seems
completely obvious to me that Cowen's main complaint was hypocrisy/double standards. A (perhaps
overdone) theme of his.
Just look at Cowen's first point. quote:
1. Numerous arguments insist that money buys elections and campaign finance reform is imperative.
That's not exactly my view, with Trump himself now being Exhibit A on the other side of the issue,
but please try to be consistent. A lot of you believe that elections are (were?) rigged! (Hey,
psst when can we go back to them being rigged again? Asking for a friend!)
He's being a total smart aleck! Annoyed about people whining about overuse of rigged and dumbing
it way way down. And not understanding that by theory all complex elections have a manipulative
aspect. And then going on and complaining when the other side uses "rigged" in the same way. This
is so clear, and so snarky.
Hence I think your summary at top of Cowen's claims is flat out not what he intended. And in
fact your points #1 and #2 are (ironically) in total agreement with what Cowen is complaining
about. And even true for #3 as well. Cowen is saying Trump is using rigged in a fashion that's
quite popular in partisan politics, and this is a problem. Something you obviously agree with.
And being annoyed folks don't understand the difference being fraud, and influence, and the Gibbard-Sattherthwaite
theorem.
Anyway, I think there is a true complaint about Cowen's post (besides being too snide without
using enough emoji to cue in a modern reader), is it implies a false equivalence between the republican
nominee for president saying "rigged" and folks in the more partisan press. I suspect Cowen would
acknowledge this, and should have made this more clear in his post. This is pretty much the primary
problem in my view, and has led to his post being so misread. It really is a bit deal for the
republican nominee to say this, and not acknowledging that fact makes anything else you say easy
to misunderstand.
Another true complaint is he implies there's more lax use of rigged on one side than the other
(prior to Trump). I re-read his post though, and am not sure he makes that claim. But it's pretty
easy to get that impression.
I have heard a variation of this argument with respect to what is, or what isn't a coup when
talking about Brazil. In general, I find an excessive devotion to rigor as applied to aggressive
action to be distasteful. It's almost always an attempt at derailing (or feels like an attempt
to derail) the topic at hand.
If Brazil's bad faith impeachment drama wasn't a coup, then why do we call the 1997 event in
Turkey "the Postmodern Coup"? That's because we pay attention to the ends of these sort of actions,
and not the means, and attempting portray a memorandum as just a memorandum, and willfully ignoring
the potential implied use of force is simply being deliberately obtuse.
Again, what are the ends of straight up vote-rigging, like what can be done with electronic
voting machines, say, in Kansas? Are they different from the unequal deploying of voting machines?
Or the use of vote fraud as an excuse to intimidate people by having police "check up" on where
they live? Does these alternative means really do less violence to the society at large? If not,
do people not have the correct instinct to apply the most overt and indefensible terms to the
panoply of underhanded strategies, so as to throw disinfectant social light on these tactics?
A liitle more soul searchin from the LEft is needed here. You do not mention the blatant manipulation
of Illinois in the 1960 election, and the noble attitude of Nizon of not diiging into it further.
Contrast this with the 2000 Election. Even after the myth of fraud had stolen Florida from
Gore was thoroughly debunked one year later by an extensive audit by the vote, Democrats still
were referring to George W. Bush as illegitimate well after that.
And there is the case of all the attitude of the DNC against Sanders. This is not exactly coming
out of the blue. And Democrats also bear responsibility.
"When most people hear the word "rigged" in the context of an election, they probably think
that means the results have been falsified ..."
OMG, you will make up anything, won't you! That is NOT what rigged means! When a basketball
game is rigged, it doesn't mean the final score has been "falsified"! It means that someone --
probably the refs (i.e, in an election, the media) has systematically tilted the playing field.
If you are just going to make up BS off the top of your head like this, I gotta de-link your
blog.
In basketball, playing on your home court "tilts the playing field" in favor of one team. Playing
your home games in Denver tilts the playing field towards the home team even more. There seems
to be some acclimation effect to the altitude that is difficult for road teams to deal with in
just a day or two.
Neither of these structural factors means basketball is rigged because they don't fundamentally
change the conditions under which the game is played. Both teams try to get the ball through the
hoop without traveling or double dribbling.
Same with elections. The two party system is like home field advantage. Money and PACs may
be like playing at home in Denver. Folks like Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, Donald Trump, and Bernie
Sanders are all trying to get the ball through the hoop without traveling or double dribbling.
The referees aren't calling Bernie for traveling when he clearly held his pivot foot. Nor are
they awarding Hillary points for shots she misses. They all raise money under the same rules.
They all buy ads under the same rules. They get ballot access and debate access under the same
rules. They're all free to attempt to influence party platforms under the same rules. They all
compete for media under the same rules.
As to the media are they biased? I'd suspect so. Do they have rooting interests? Probably.
Does that mean elections are rigged? Are MLB games rigged because umpires are more likely to call
borderline pitches strikes against Latino hitters?
Usually when we say a game was rigged, we mean players on the teams manipulated the score
(missing shots,etc) in order to make sure a specific team beat the spread.
Thanks for this post. I like Tyler's blog very much and was very surprised to see something
this poor from him. Ironically, I think part of his motivation was to criticize the watering-down
of "rigged" just as you do, but he did a poor job of it.
Two separate problems are here: (1) A linguistic problem causing gaps in communication: "Rigged"
has become so broad that it has become almost useless for conveying actual beliefs. Its primary
meaning is outright miscounting votes a la Stalin, but it is now being used for much milder influences
as well. (2) Trump appears to be claiming there will be outright miscounting of votes, a terrible
claim by a major candidate.
I think Tyler meant to say that unfortunately, (1) gives Trump cover for (2). He can say the
election will be "rigged," and most listeners will think he means in the strict Stalinist sense
(I do)...but some people who might be outraged by the claim will instead think it sounds vaguely
normal, due to (1).
Tyler did not write that the election will be rigged. I don't quite understand your confusion
on the point, to be honest. Your long excerpt from him omits the part where he says he believes
the opposite:
"Personally, I think median voters more or less get what they want on a large number of issues,
especially broad-based ones in the public eye. You won't find the word 'rigged' popping up too
much in the MR search function, besides I started blogging (and breathing) after Kennedy vs. Nixon.
But my goodness, I can in fact understand why Donald Trump thinks the system is rigged. For years,
you have been telling him that it is."
I do not wish to enter into a discussion in this space as to whether there is evidence that
insider tampering with electronic voting machines changed the outcome of races in Alaska in 2008
and 2014 and Kansas in 2014, but I'd be remiss if I didn't point out that Steven Levitt's work
on elections outcomes linked in "most evidence shows" above has been vociferously contested by
some in the Political Science field, for example Thomas Ferguson's "Investment Theory of Party
Competition".
I'm not really inclined to buy Chomskian bullshit by the pound from Ferguson in preference
to Chicago School apologetics from Levitt, and I don't have the expertise in statistics to judge
their competing claims, but I have a pretty good idea which of the two makes more money promoting
these respective ideas on election financing, and given Levitt's terrible work on climate science
in SuperFreakonomics, I'm not at all inclined to give his claims on campaign finance the benefit
of the doubt.
My own experience looking systematically at election results in aggregate suggests that
big disparities in campaign spending can indeed have very big effects, the most obvious in recent
history being Obama's win in Indiana in 2008.
Not directly related to whether elections are rigged, but related:
""In the past three decades, the share of U.S. citizens who think that it would be a "good"
or "very good" thing for the "army to rule"-a patently undemocratic stance-has steadily risen.
In 1995, just one in sixteen respondents agreed with that position; today, one in six agree.
While those who hold this view remain in the minority, they can no longer be dismissed as a
small fringe, especially since there have been similar increases in the number of those who
favor a "strong leader who doesn't have to bother with parliament and elections" and those
who want experts rather than the government to "take decisions" for the country. Nor is the
United States the only country to exhibit this trend. The proportion agreeing that it would
be better to have the army rule has risen in most mature democracies, including Germany, Sweden,
and the United Kingdom."
http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2016/08/is-support-for-democracy-eroding.html
I suspect that if more people believe elections are rigged, more will be likely to support/accept/tolerate
a military takeover.
"Rigged" is not a precise term. There's a continuum from, say, discouraging some voters
from turning up to stuffing ballot boxes (or worse). Some places in the US are well towards the
middle of that spectrum (purging rolls, making ID mandatory but difficult to obtain, cutting voting
places, gerrymanders....)
As for "American elections are not perfect, but ...they're pretty darn good." By the standards
of other developed countries (and even many undeveloped ones), US electoral processes are pretty
horrible, but that is true of much US administration. Extreme decentralisation, a rich heritage
of patronage and a deep suspicion of government do not make for efficient public services.
Tommy Breen, the low profile boss of support services group
DCC who earned
a relatively modest €737,000 in the year to March 2016, offered the best value for money, according
to rankings by consultants Mercer Kepler.
Alison Cooper, chief executive of consumer goods group Imperial Brands, who was paid £3.58m in
2015, and George Weston, boss of international food group
ABF, who
earned £3.05m in 2015, were in second and third place.
The total pay of all three is below the average pay of £5.5m for a FTSE 100 chief executive in
2015, according to the High Pay Centre.
In contrast, only two of the top 10 best paid FTSE 100 CEOs in 2015 made the top 30 in the value
for money rankings. This was
Shire chief
executive Flemming Ornskov, who earned £14.6m last year, and RELX boss Erik Engstrom, who was awarded
£10.9m.
None of the other top 10 best paid bosses last year, which included Sir Martin Sorrell, who earned
£70.4m at WPP
, Rakesh Kapoor, awarded £23.2m at
Reckitt Benckiser
, Jeremy Darroch, on £16.9m at Sky, or Bob Dudley, on £13.3m at
BP , made
the top 30 value for money list. The index only lists the top 30.
Full details of Mrs May's plans will not be laid out until later in the autumn when BIS, the business
department, launches a consultation. Some of the policies are already known: disclosure of pay ratios,
annual binding shareholder votes on pay and having worker and consumer representatives on boards.
Other investors and business groups have been critical of the planned government reforms, warning
that they may force up pay levels. An annual binding vote, they warn, could create uncertainty, which
in turn might prompt demands for extra compensation.
The Mercer survey looks at the relationship between value created and money earned by a chief
executive. The value is calculated by taking the company's total shareholder return relative to the
FTSE and its sector.
Money earned is the chief executive's three-year average realised pay figure, which is adjusted
for the size of the company. Chief executive pay correlates strongly with company size as well as
performance.
Gordon Clark, partner at Mercer Kepler, said: "Our research puts all companies on a level playing
field when comparing whether their executives offer value for money. It does this by controlling
for differences in sector, size and complexity.
"Executives who create the most value for shareholders relative to their peers, and relative to
their pay, offer the best value for money."
"... free-market ideology seems - to many Americans, and also incidentally to me - to have mostly hit a wall in terms of its ability to improve our lives, and so society will inevitably embrace an alternative, despite the protests of diehard free-marketers. ..."
"... I always think of free enterprise as being like fire. Fire is amazingly useful and powerful. It can do things that nothing else can, but you don't burn down your house to read after dark or burn yourself alive to cook dinner. ..."
"... Neoliberal economics seems to me at least, to be promoted for its political implications. Rather its a justification to keep power in the hands or peoples who currently have it. ..."
"... A very important place to look for the failure of free market ideology is where it doesn't even show up. Social security, WIC, and rural education in some areas are good examples. ..."
"... I dont know if Noah had this specifically in mind or not but a point I would make especially about the examples he chose would be that there is no other way to privatize the prisons. Privatization helps when the incentives for profit can actually help drive innovations or improve productivity. In the case of prisons that isn't possible. ..."
"... Privatizing prisons was one of the worst ideas in human history. Allowing some private investors to profit off misery is about as sick as can be. there have been no innovations to come form this experiment. All that happens is an income stream gets diverted, cuts are made to services and workforce to trim "fat" and then someone gets the bright idea that people who have committed a crime and are "paying" with their lack of freedom (supposedly the highest goal of theses Faux conservatives) should also start paying monetarily for things. People actually have to start paying for their own bondage. ..."
"... "Twenty years ago President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. The ending of legal entitlement to welfare has had a dramatic effect on low-income children. Welfare rolls fell rapidly and never recovered even as child poverty roared back in the wake of the Great Recession. Only 26 percent of potentially eligible families received aid by 2013, compared to 68 percent in 1996 when the the law was passed." ..."
"... I predict a coming split on the left between the reality-based, populist left and the more political, careerist center-left. And not just in the U.S. ..."
"... Private property, the bedrock of the "free market" system doesn't just happen. It requires the buy in of the entire society (or an extreme police state I suppose. Unfortunately I don't think that bothers a lot of the free market uber alles people). ..."
"... There is a simple way of making sure that our Hybrid health system costs as much as the European counterparts: mandate that no pharmaceutical or medical devices company can price discriminate. You can only sell here if you sell at the same prices across the world. The prices will drop very quickly. We will stop subsidizing the world for a change. ..."
"... The Free Marketeers just want to return us to a time when life was nasty, brutish and short. ..."
"... Free market failures are usually based on some company that has figured out a way to pass some of their costs on to society. The costs might be poverty, pollution, or excess risk, but in each case, the government is left to impose Pigovian Taxes in the form of regulation (or occasionally in the form of taxes). ..."
"... The term "free-market" clearly needs some fine-tuning. In Singapore, employers are required to comply with health and safety regulations, industrial relations guidance, and a variety of good employment practices and guidelines. ..."
"... So what gives? Easy. Instead of concentrating on bumper-stickers like "free trade", Singapore concentrated on education, and on weeding out corruption. As a result, Singapore has almost none of the problems mentioned in the article. ..."
I recently wrote
a Bloomberg View post about political-economic ideologies, and how society is quicker to change
than individual human beings. The upshot was that free-market ideology seems - to many Americans,
and also incidentally to me - to have mostly hit a wall in terms of its ability to improve our lives,
and so society will inevitably embrace an alternative, despite the protests of diehard free-marketers.
Bryan
Caplan is flabbergasted at the notion that free-market ideology (aka "neoliberalism") has actually
been tried in the U.S.:
The claim that "free-market dogma" is the "reigning economic policy" of the United States or any
major country seems so absurd, so contrary to big blatant facts (like government spending as a
share of GDP, for starters), that I'm dumb-founded.
This is pretty much exactly the attitude I described in my post! "Of course neoliberalism hasn't
failed; we just never really tried it."
David Henderson has
a longer
and more measured response . He challenges the idea that free-market ideology has demonstrated
any failures at all.
Now I could simply make a weak claim - i.e., that free-market ideology seems to have hit
a wall, and that in the end, that general perception is much more important than what I personally
think. But instead, I'll make the much stronger claim - I'll defend the idea that free-market ideology
has, in fact, really hit a wall in terms of its effectiveness.
Exhibit A: Tax cuts. Tax cuts, one of free-marketers' flagship policies, appear
to have given our economy a boost in the 1960s, and a smaller boost in the 1980s. But any economic
boost from the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 was so small as to be invisible to all but (possibly)
the most careful econometricians. Notably, a number of attempts to encourage savings - capital
gains tax cuts, estate tax cuts, and the like - have not halted the steady decline in personal
savings rates.
Exhibit B: Financial deregulation and light-touch regulation. It seems
clear to me that under-regulation of derivatives markets and mortgage lending played a big role
in the financial crisis. The counter-narrative, that government intervention caused the crisis,
has never held much water, and has been debunked by many papers. This was a private-sector blowup.
Exhibit C: Light-touch regulation of monopoly. The evidence is mounting
that industrial concentration is an increasing problem for the U.S. economy. Some of this might
be due to intellectual property, but much is simply due to naturally increasing returns to scale.
Exhibit D: The China shock. While most trade booms seem to lead to widely
shared gains, the China trade boom in the 2000s - which free marketers consistently championed
and hailed - probably did not. High transaction costs (retraining costs, moving costs, and others)
lead to a very large number of American workers being deeply and permanently hurt by the shock,
as evidenced by recent work by Autor, Dorn, and Hanson.
Exhibit E: Faux-privatization. True privatization is when the government halts
a nationalized industry and auctions off its assets. Faux-privatization is when the government
outsources an activity to contractors, often without even competitive bidding. Faux-privatization
has been a notable bust in the prison industry, and school voucher programs have also been extremely
underwhelming. Charter schools have fared a bit better, but even there the gains have been modest
at best.
Exhibit F: Welfare reform. Clinton's welfare reform saved the taxpayer
very little money, and appears to have had little if any effect on poverty in the U.S.
Exhibit G: Research funding cuts. The impact of these is hard to measure,
but cuts in government funding of research appear to have saved the taxpayer very little money,
while dramatically increasing the time that scientists have to devote to writing grant proposals,
and increasing risk aversion in scientists' choice of research topics.
Exhibit H: Health care. The U.S. health care system is a hybrid private-public
system, but includes a proportionally much larger private component than any other developed nation's
system. Free-marketers have fought doggedly to prevent the government from playing a larger role.
Our hybrid system delivers basically the same results as every other developed country's system,
at about twice the cost. Private health care cost growth has been much faster than cost growth
for Medicare and other government-provided programs, indicating that much of our excess cost has
been due to the private component of our system, not the public part.
I could go on, but these are the big ones I can think of. In some of these cases, free-market
policies seem to have produced some gains in the late 20th century, but by the 21st century all appeared
to be either having no effect, or actively harming the economy.
No, this is nowhere near as big a failure as that of communism (though in some ways, notably health
care and financial deregulation, we've done worse than the somewhat-socialist nations of Europe).
The analogy with communism was a way of illustrating a certain mindset, not to draw an equivalence
between the results of neoliberalism and communism.
Also, I personally think there is still scope for many neoliberal policies to improve our economy.
Reduced occupational licensing, urban land-use deregulation, simplification of the tax code, and
various other kinds of deregulation all seem to show promise. If free-market policies have hit a
wall, it's a porous wall - in real life, nothing is as cut-and-dry as in our ideological debates.
But overall, I think the last decade and a half have shown clearly diminishing returns, and sometimes
negative returns, from neoliberal reforms. So our society is right to be looking for alternative
policy packages. Though that doesn't necessarily mean we'll choose a good alternative - I
think Sanders-style socialism would probably be a mistake.
I always think of free enterprise as being like fire. Fire is amazingly useful and powerful.
It can do things that nothing else can, but you don't burn down your house to read after dark
or burn yourself alive to cook dinner.
Neoliberal economics seems to me at least, to be promoted for its political implications.
Rather its a justification to keep power in the hands or peoples who currently have it.
"Tax cuts, one of free-marketers' flagship policies, appear to have given our economy a boost
in the 1960s, and a smaller boost in the 1980s. But any economic boost from the Bush tax cuts
of 2001 and 2003 was so small as to be invisible to all but (possibly) the most careful econometricians."
Why would this be surprising to a neo-liberal/free marketer? The Kennedy and Reagan cuts both
reduced the top marginal income tax rate by 20 percentage points. The Bush cuts lowered the it
by 4.6 points and the top corporate rate was unchanged. It's also strange that you would lump
the 2001 and 2003 cuts together in this context. During the four years after the '03 rate cut
, GDP growth averaged a little over 3% annually. Perhaps that's not spectacular, but it's considerably
higher than anything we've seen during the current expansion, no?
Also like some other commenters, I don't understand your point on "faux privatization."
A very important place to look for the failure of free market ideology is where it doesn't
even show up. Social security, WIC, and rural education in some areas are good examples.
Also anything environmental, including global climate change as above (pro tip: Coase applies
to low transaction cost scenarios). Barry Bozeman of science policy econ fame has a schema of
public success/public failure/private success/private failure. (Tobacco regulation in the 1970s
is an example of public failure, for instance.) But even that doesn't capture the failure of a
no-show like elder poverty before social security: a non-diversifiable, irreversible, and widely
experienced risk of being old and poor, possibly as a result of a bad sector/geography/business
cycle/ genetics draw.
I dont know if Noah had this specifically in mind or not but a point I would make especially
about the examples he chose would be that there is no other way to privatize the prisons. Privatization
helps when the incentives for profit can actually help drive innovations or improve productivity.
In the case of prisons that isn't possible.
Privatization has simply meant taking an income stream from the govt and guaranteeing it to
some private contractor. You cant get the incentives to line up in prisons. The goal of society
is to keep people out of prison, we think it is a success (I would hope) if no one goes to jail
this month. That means no one has done anything jail worthy. But private prison systems need customers
so they will push for guaranteed quotas, which only the state can send them because only the state
gets to adjudicate what is a crime and what the punishment will be, not private parties.
Privatizing prisons was one of the worst ideas in human history. Allowing some private
investors to profit off misery is about as sick as can be. there have been no innovations to come
form this experiment. All that happens is an income stream gets diverted, cuts are made to services
and workforce to trim "fat" and then someone gets the bright idea that people who have committed
a crime and are "paying" with their lack of freedom (supposedly the highest goal of theses Faux
conservatives) should also start paying monetarily for things. People actually have to start paying
for their own bondage.
The school privatizations aren't nearly as grotesque as the prisons but they also get
the incentives badly skewed and should be scaled back.
I think your arguments are ridiculous. Profit can be achieved through efficiencies and expense
reductions too. And just because the private prison operators can "push for guaranteed quotas"
doesn't mean the customers (government) has to provide them.
Expense reductions....hah! Pay cuts to the workers and cheaper services (fewer meals etc) to
the inmates. There is nothing that private prisons can do BETTER than the public ones..... and
they have to pay stockholders.
Again... its sick to have a for profit prison system. Profit off of punishment!! Lets get more
punishment!!
Regulation is too broad a brush to paint with. Instead of writing about it monolithically,
you really have to dive into specifics. Some are helpful, many are not. I'm guessing absent some
regulation, we'd see very small improvements in the economy, but certainly that's still worthwhile
goal, no?
"Exhibit F: Welfare reform. Clinton's welfare reform saved the taxpayer very little money,
and appears to have had little if any effect on poverty in the U.S."
"Twenty years ago President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act. The ending of legal entitlement to welfare has had a dramatic effect on low-income
children. Welfare rolls fell rapidly and never recovered even as child poverty roared back in
the wake of the Great Recession. Only 26 percent of potentially eligible families received aid
by 2013, compared to 68 percent in 1996 when the the law was passed."
Little effect on poverty? The neoliberal "center-left" has become corrupt. You just can't make
up your own facts and own history just b/c suits Hillary Clinton. That's what the Republicans
have done for decades and it hasn't served them very well.
I predict a coming split on the left between the reality-based, populist left and the more
political, careerist center-left. And not just in the U.S.
I think this whole discussion is so blinkered because it doesn't consider the political elements
of political economy.
Private property, the bedrock of the "free market" system doesn't just happen. It requires
the buy in of the entire society (or an extreme police state I suppose. Unfortunately I don't
think that bothers a lot of the free market uber alles people).
Why would people who don't benefit from a society agree to its rules? I see a lot of people
here bemoaning the spending, etc. But the spending is some of what ameliorates the problems for
the losers of the capitalist system. Because there has to be losers, that's capitalism.
I suppose there could be market based distribution like basic income. But there we are always
going to have taxes and distribution because otherwise there are the guillotines.
Regarding regulations, they are also necessary to retain support for the system. One way is
it gives people a way to direct a counterbalance to the power of the big winners. Extreme deregulation
removes the ability for most people to have a say in the direction of their society. One dollar
one vote isn't the same as one person one vote. If government isn't allowed a say in the direction
of the economy then most people loose the ability to have their say in the direction of the economy.
There is a simple way of making sure that our Hybrid health system costs as much as the
European counterparts: mandate that no pharmaceutical or medical devices company can price discriminate.
You can only sell here if you sell at the same prices across the world. The prices will drop very
quickly. We will stop subsidizing the world for a change.
Free market advocated love to cite the rapid growth of the US before WW II when the US was
very close to a free market economy with very small government. But this more rapid growth was
essentially all due to more rapid population growth. From 1850 to 1960 the trend growth rate of
per capita real GDP was 0.14%. Since 1950 it has been 0.21%, or approximately double the earlier
trend when we did not have large government. Bu 1850 most of the essential elements of free market
capitalism eaw in place-- fractional ownership of firms, large and efficient stock and bond markets,
modern double entry bookkeeping, etc.--were in place. By making 1950 the end point the rapid growth
of the 1940s had offset the negative impact of the depression so it is not a bias comparison.
Both free market ideology and communist ideology are 19th century doctrines. Marxists are stuck
in a time loop dating from the 1840s to the 1860s when everyone was still debating whether slavery
was a good idea. Free Marketeers, similarly, have their clock stuck in the 1890s when Alfred Marshall
wrote his Principles of Economics. Of course, the Free Marketeers were big supporters of child
labor, and opponents of women's suffrage, workers compensation, and all forms of social insurance.
Isn't it about time for economists to move out of the 19th century and into the 21st century?
Both economic and social conditions are dramatically different now than 150 years ago. I, for
one, can't see why anyone would want to return to the 19th century! It was a ghastly period in
our history, finally culminating in the First World War. The Free Marketeers just want to
return us to a time when life was nasty, brutish and short.
Instead, we should realize the primary problem in economics has been solved. We are living
in a post scarcity society. When the biggest decisions we face are whether to get a 4tb harddrive
rather than a 2tb harddrive, or a 60 inch television rather than a 55 inch television, it can
safely be said that scarcity is no longer a problem.
Which leads to my questions -- If there is enough food for everyone, why should anyone starve?
If we are bulldozing houses because we overbuilt, why should anyone be homeless? If we have enough
doctors, hospitals and drugs, why should anyone remain untreated?
It strikes me that our society has imposed artificial restrictions that serve no purpose other
than to create the most misery for the greatest number of people.
Free market failures are usually based on some company that has figured out a way to pass
some of their costs on to society. The costs might be poverty, pollution, or excess risk, but
in each case, the government is left to impose Pigovian Taxes in the form of regulation (or occasionally
in the form of taxes).
The example of government-funded research is simply the same process in reverse (public benefits
instead of public costs.)
America has a free market, if you compare it to, for example, North Korea. But our freedom
pales in comparison to, say, Bangladesh (where the government can't even enforce basic property
rights, much less environmental regulations).
The term "free-market" clearly needs some fine-tuning. In Singapore, employers are required
to comply with health and safety regulations, industrial relations guidance, and a variety of
good employment practices and guidelines.
If you read the laws and guidelines (not to mention the price controls and state-linked
enterprises), you would assume that this was some Communist dystopia, yet Singapore is considered
the most pro-business country on Earth (by a wide margin).
So what gives? Easy. Instead of concentrating on bumper-stickers like "free trade", Singapore
concentrated on education, and on weeding out corruption. As a result, Singapore has almost none
of the problems mentioned in the article.
"... By Alejandro Reuss, a historian, economist, and co-editor of Triple Crisis blog and ..."
"... magazine. Originally published at Triple Crisis ..."
"... This is the first part of a three-part series on the historical trajectory of European social democracy towards the so-called "Third Way"-a turn away from class-struggle politics and a compromise with neoliberal capitalism-and its role in the shaping of the Economic and Monetary Union of the EU. It is a continuation of his earlier series "The Eurozone Crisis: Monetary Union and Fiscal Disunion" ( Part 1 and Part 2 ). His related article "An Historical Perspective on Brexit: Capitalist Internationalism, Reactionary Nationalism, and Socialist Internationalism" is available here . ..."
"... All of these governments were led by figures who had turned away from the traditional social-democratic politics of class struggle (in even the moderated form prevalent in the postwar period), while still promising to temper neoliberal capitalism. This approach became known as the "Third Way," a term especially associated with the "New Labour" program of Blair in the U.K., but also used to describe similar shifts in other countries. As Swedish political scientist Peo Hansen puts it, Blair expressed "unconditional espousal of capitalist globalization and … further liberalization of labour markets." ..."
"... "Wage dumping, tax dumping and welfare dumping," Lafontaine declared, "are not our [social democrats'] response to the globalization of markets!" That was too much for Schroeder and other social democratic leaders in Europe, and Lafontaine resigned under pressure in 1999. ..."
"... The Third way movements, so called, used the language of reform, the language of toned-down class struggle to gain power but have never worked toward any of the goals implicit in that language. The opposite is true. Politicians like The Clintons, and Obama in the US, and Blair in the UK, have worked steadily to erode the gains made by workers struggles in the 20th century, and have done far more to that end than any right wing ideologue could have. . There have a been a few bitter lesson for the working class in it 1. Like it or not, there is a class struggle 2. class struggle doesn't end when you gain a few concessions 3. You cant hire opportunistic politicians to carry on that struggle for you by voting for them once every few years. ..."
"... legitimation crisis of capital from the standpoint of capitalists themselves, ..."
"... "The Labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to the maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by his extractions from the industrious merchant and the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his money. But every savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no landlords, no usurers and no tax gatherers." ..."
"... "But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin." ..."
Posted on
September 30, 2016
by
Yves Smith
By Alejandro Reuss, a historian, economist, and co-editor of Triple
Crisis blog and
Dollars & Sense
magazine. Originally published at
Triple Crisis
This is the first part of a three-part series on the historical
trajectory of European social democracy towards the so-called "Third Way"-a turn away from class-struggle
politics and a compromise with neoliberal capitalism-and its role in the shaping of the Economic
and Monetary Union of the EU. It is a continuation of his earlier series "The Eurozone Crisis: Monetary
Union and Fiscal Disunion" (
Part
1
and
Part 2
). His related article "An Historical Perspective on Brexit: Capitalist Internationalism,
Reactionary Nationalism, and Socialist Internationalism" is available
here
.
The idea of a united Europe was not unique to neoliberal politicians or financial capitalists,
even if their vision was the one that ended up winning out. Rather, this idea cut across the entire
political spectrum, from forces clearly associated with giant capitalist corporations and high finance
to those associated with the working-class movement. Just as there have been "anti-Europe" or "euroskeptic"
forces on the political left and right, there were also diverse forces in favor of European unification,
each with its own vision of what a united Europe could be.
Going back to the mid-20th century, leaders of the social democratic, reformist left envisioned
a future "Social Europe." The European Social Charter, adopted by the Council of Europe in 1961,
promulgated a broad vision of "social and economic rights," including objectives like full employment,
reduction of work hours, protection of workers' rights to organize and bargain collectively, rights
to social security and medical assistance, protection of the rights of migrants, and so on.
Figures on the revolutionary left, like the Belgian Marxist economist and Trotskyist leader Ernest
Mandel, advocated a "United Socialist States of Europe." This was an expression not only of revolutionary
internationalism, but also of Mandel's view that the working class could no longer confront increasingly
internationalized capital through political action confined to the national level.
In other words, the question was not just whether Europe would become united, but (if it did)
what form such unification would take.
Triumph of the "Modernizers"
The vision of social democracy on a grand scale did not come to pass, nor even was there significant
movement in that direction when social democratic parties led the governments of the largest and
most powerful countries in the EU. During overlapping periods in the late 1990s, the Labour Party's
Tony Blair was prime minister in the U.K., the Socialist Lionel Jospin was prime minister in France
(though in "cohabitation" with Conservative president Jacques Chriac), the L'Ulivo (Olive Tree) coalition's
Romano Prodi led the government in Italy, and the Social Democrat Gerhard Schroeder (leading the
so-called "Red-Green" coalition, with the Green Party as junior partner) was the chancellor of Germany.
All of these governments were led by figures who had turned away from the traditional social-democratic
politics of class struggle (in even the moderated form prevalent in the postwar period), while still
promising to temper neoliberal capitalism. This approach became known as the "Third Way," a term
especially associated with the "New Labour" program of Blair in the U.K., but also used to describe
similar shifts in other countries. As Swedish political scientist Peo Hansen puts it, Blair expressed
"unconditional espousal of capitalist globalization and … further liberalization of labour markets."
Jospin, who campaigned as a critic of neoliberalism, quickly shifted to "multiple privatization schemes
and policy reshufflings favourable to business." Prodi was "firmly in the camp of the 'modernisers'."
The case of Germany is especially instructive: The finance minister in the Social Democratic-Green
coalition government, Oskar Lafontaine, was notable for swimming against the neoliberal tide-criticizing
the EU's fiscal constraints and inflation-targeting monetary policy, and proposing the adoption of
common tax and social welfare policies. That is, he was arguing for EU-wide social democratic reforms
to end "race to the bottom" dynamics (on wages, taxes, etc.) emerging in the EU.
"Wage dumping, tax
dumping and welfare dumping," Lafontaine declared, "are not our [social democrats'] response to the
globalization of markets!" That was too much for Schroeder and other social democratic leaders in
Europe, and Lafontaine resigned under pressure in 1999.
Lafontaine would later become a founder and leader of Die Linke (The Left), which is certainly
to the left of the Social Democrats. He was not, however, a revolutionary who threatened to upset
the reformist apple cart. Rather, argues Hansen, Lafontaine was a "political liability among his
own for merely sticking with a set of very traditional social democratic policies and values."
The Third way movements, so called, used the language of reform, the language
of toned-down class struggle to gain power but have never worked toward any of
the goals implicit in that language. The opposite is true. Politicians like The
Clintons, and Obama in the US, and Blair in the UK, have worked steadily to erode
the gains made by workers struggles in the 20th century, and have done far more
to that end than any right wing ideologue could have. . There have a been a few
bitter lesson for the working class in it 1. Like it or not, there is a class struggle
2. class struggle doesn't end when you gain a few concessions 3. You cant hire
opportunistic politicians to carry on that struggle for you by voting for them
once every few years.
I'll once again jump in, hands waving, to recommend Wolfgang Streeck's "Buying
Time" and Peter Mair's "Ruling the Void" to anyone who wants a more developed take
on this subject. Streeck is particularly good on how Marxist theorists missed the
boat on the possibility of a
legitimation crisis of capital from the standpoint
of capitalists themselves,
as opposed to the standpoint of the working and
- I'll cautiously add - professional-managerial classes.
There's also a useful periodization of the changes in sources of state funding, accompanied by consideration
of the politics accompanying those changes. Mair is great on how "catch-all" parties
developed out of the more class struggle-oriented parties the article refers to.
(It's a real shame Mair died relatively young.).
@hemeantwell – And I'll add Bill Mitchell's recently published book "Eurozone
Dystopia – Groupthink and Denial on a Grand Scale". It traces the development
of the Eurozone from the early Franco-German rivalry going back to the 1940's.
Of course it emphasizes the economic mistakes in the creation of the Eurozone,
but also has a deep dive into the political issues and errors that led to those
mistakes.
"This, of course, has always been a fundamental contradiction when left-social democratic parties
have swept to power: the political consciousness of its working class base demands a direct attack
on the inequities and injustices of capitalism but not to the extent of overthrowing capitalism
itself. Social democracy is thus philosophically idealist about fundamentally altering the dynamics
of capitalism while ignoring that those reforms will never change capitalism's core dynamic of
class rule and exploitation, but it will cloak this under the rubric of pragmatism and the endless
possibility of voting in a bourgeois electoral system. In an era of expanding worldwide demand
and growth of industry in the core, the social democratic system of working class empowerment
could be tolerated as it tamed the wilder impulses of the working class while creating the consumers
now lauded as the "middle class" of 20th century capitalism's 30-year golden age in the post-WWII
era. Social democracy never won the working class political control, but the power wielded by
socialist parties allowed segments of the working class access an increasing share of capital's
immense accumulation in the post-war era.
Syriza has arrived on the scene decades after the last meaningful acts of social-democracy
could occur. Capitalism in the core has long since ceased to need to make deals with socialist
parties as representatives of an industrial proletariat; those jobs have been replaced by shifting
industrial work to the periphery as the capitalist world-system tends to do specifically as acounter
to the success of mid-century social-democracy, or by increasing mechanization in the core – again,
a tendency within capitalism well described by Marx. Straitjacketed by a capitalism that no longer
needs to tame a restless proletariat into a large consumer class, Syriza faces immense pressure
from "the institutions" to allow continued profiteering from privatization and bond repayment
– the very things that constitute super-profit in the financial era of this end of capitalism's
long-cycle. Add to this the European Union's structure itself, which was built to constrain any
national attempts at left-reformism, and Syriza's determination not to even bluff about a Grexit
– which might provide a modicum of control over at least the nation's currency and deficit spending
– and there is little room for a party like Syriza to deliver on its promises."
Neo-Liberalism is dying a natural death. It was all about the private sector and the successful pure capitalist model.
Have you heard a policy maker expect the private sector to do much in the last eight years
since 2008?
No, it's all been about national institutions.
Central Banks for monetary policy and Governments for fiscal policy.
The private sector is interested in easy profits and not the potential losses when the going get
tough.
The IMF and others now realise there is a problem with global aggregate demand (due to inequality).
The current suggestions are helicopter money, fiscal stimulus and redistribution through taxation.
Pure capitalism polarises personal wealth, destroying demand.
This week in the FT, Larry Summers was talking about the problems of the disappearing middle
class in the US (the polarisation of personal wealth).
Middle class consumption made a significant contribution to GDP and as it disappears GDP is affected.
Neo-Liberalism destroys itself. The expansion of globalisation is complete. The maintenance of consumption with debt has reached the end of the road.
The polarisation of personal wealth has impoverished the global consumer and is killing demand.
There is too much money at the top leading to negative yield on many investments.
With such subdued demand there is little to invest in.
Supply never did create its own demand – someone just made it up.
Central bankers have to throw in trillions to keep this failing system in the permanent stagnation
of the "New Normal".
What should come next: Collectivization. Workers uniting to form their own worker-owned
enterprises. Imagine an employee-owned Uber etc. Its the only way out for the masses.
To make automation work for us, end exclusion & stop this race to the bottom.
Neo-liberal capitalism is in crisis and no one seems to know how to move on
from today's "Secular Stagnation". Capitalism is in crisis for a very good reason.
Today's ideal is small state, raw capitalism, which is actually how capitalism started, and
we chose to ignore the work of the Classical Economists that studied it first hand in the past.
They realised capitalism has two sides the productive side, where "earned" income is generated
and the unproductive, parasitic, rentier side where "unearned" income is generated.
Today's neoclassical economics is missing this distinction and everyone is going for the easy
money in the unproductive side of capitalism.
The UK now dreams of giving up work and living off the "unearned" income from a BTL portfolio,
extracting the "earned" income of generation rent.
The UK dream is to be like the idle rich, rentier, living off "unearned" income and doing nothing
productive.
Adam Smith:
"The Labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to the maintaining
of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury by the labour
of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by his extractions from the industrious merchant
and the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his money. But
every savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no landlords, no usurers and no
tax gatherers."
Capitalism incorporates a welfare state for the idle rich and we can see our Aristocracy living
in luxury and leisure off the "unearned increment" today.
In our ignorance of the reality of small state, raw capitalism, we have been busy promoting
the unproductive side of capitalism to the masses by encouraging the BTL investor.
When you encourage too many people into the unproductive side of capitalism they are going
to bleed it dry.
Adam Smith would think we are on the road to ruin:
"But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with the prosperity and fall
with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich and high in poor
countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin."
Exactly the opposite of today's thinking, what does he mean?
When rates of profit are high, capitalism is cannibalising itself by:
1) Not engaging in long term investment for the future
2) Paying insufficient wages to maintain demand for its products and services
In the 18th Century they would have understood today's problems with growth and demand.
Having forgotten the work of the Classical Economists, we set today's goal as maximising profit
which actually undermines and eventually destroys capitalism itself.
Amazon didn't pay out profits as dividends and re-invested them, look how big it's grown.
Just imagine if all companies were doing that.
We have undermined, and are destroying capitalism itself, because we didn't understand it.
Small state, raw capitalism existed before and we should have taken on board the lessons the
economists learnt at the time when they studied it.
The Classical Economists always expected the bankers to get behind the productive
side of capitalism. Everyone has now forgotten the two sides of capitalism and about 80% of lending goes into
real estate, inflating the cost of living with high mortgage payments and rent.
This in turn raises the cost of living and the minimum wage, making Western labour uncompetitive
in international markets. It also reduces the purchasing power within the economy, reducing
demand for products and services.
All known and seen over two hundred years ago in the first round of small state, raw capitalism.
(In those days it was just high rents, but the effect is the same).
Thank you for your posts. They are greatly appreciated. It
reminds me 2011 discussions about political sustainability of
neoliberalism in Crooked Timber (cited via Economist):
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/07/neoliberalism
== quote ==
OVER at the Crooked Timber blog, Henry Farrell comments on Doug
Henwood's response to Matthew Yglesias' argument for a higher,
employment-boosting inflation target, which I endorsed in my
last post. Mr Henwood dislikes Mr Yglesias' apparent
"neoliberal" preference for monetary over fiscal remedies to
high unemployment. He writes:
From an elite point of view, the primary problem with a
jobs program-and with employment-boosting infrastructure
projects-is that they would put a floor under employment,
making workers more confident and less likely to do what the
boss says, and less dependent on private employers for a
paycheck. It would increase the power of labor relative to
capital.
I think we're supposed to understand "elite" as roughly
synonymous with "neoliberal" here. "Neoliberalism" has become
something of a term of abuse on the left, though its denotation
remains vague. It is something of which Mr Yglesias and I,
despite our considerable ideological differences, are regularly
accused. This newspaper is even denounced from time to time as a
neoliberal rag. Anyway, as a sort of neoliberal (a neoclassical
liberal), let me say that from my point of view the problem with
jobs programmes, as compared to textbook monetary policy, is not
that they increase the power of labour relative to capital. It's
that they do little to sustainably increase demand for labour.
And nothing reduces the power of labour relative to capital more
than low demand for labour. But I digress.
Mr Farrell notes that Mr Yglesias is a better leftist than Mr
Henwood gives him credit for, but thinks Mr Henwood is "on to
something significant" in his complaints about Yglesian
left-leaning neoliberalism.
Neo-liberals tend to favor a combination of market mechanisms
and technocratic solutions to solve social problems. But these
kinds of solutions tend to discount politics – and in particular
political collective action, which requires strong collective
actors such as trade unions. This means that vaguely-leftish
versions of neo-liberalism often have weak theories of politics,
and in particular of the politics of collective action. I see
Doug and others as arguing that successful political change
requires large scale organized collective action, and that this
in turn requires the correction of major power imbalances (e.g.
between labor and capital).
They're also arguing that neo-liberal policies at best tend
not to help correct these imbalances, and they seem to me to
have a pretty good case. Even if left-leaning neo-liberals are
right to claim that technocratic solutions and market mechanisms
can work to relieve disparities etc, it's hard for me to see how
left-leaning neo-liberalism can generate any self-sustaining
politics.
The implied premise here seems to be that labour-union social
democracy is an ideology that generates self-sustaining
politics. But Mr Yglesias pops up in the comments to say:
[T]he self-assurance that there's some non-neoliberal
miracle formula for political sustainability seems refuted by
the fact that the pre-neoliberal paradigm in the United
States was not, in fact, politically sustainable.
== end of quote ==
My impression that neoliberalism can continue to exist in the
current zombie state (when ideology is completely discredited,
but power of multinationals is still in full swing and there are
no viable alternatives other then returning to a modernized
variant of the New Deal) until the real "peak/plato oil" crisis
hits the civilization. That might be several decades away.
Communism as an ideology was dead probably soon after WWII
but managed to survive in zombie state for another 40 years.
Trump and, especially, Sanders both signal that the backlash
against neoliberal globalization is mounting in the USA, but
whether Trump can outrun "status quo" candidate Hillary remains
to be seen. The power of neoliberal media and neoliberal
brainwashing might yet be way too strong for staging "another
Brexit".
One possibility is that neoliberal elite might resort to
unleashing another world war to solve the existing problems.
Hillary in this sense is a real unmitigated danger.
"Shimon Peres 2 years ago: I stopped Netanyahu from attacking Iran, and you can talk about it when I'm dead"
by Natasha Bertrand...9-30-2016...36m
" Former Israeli president Shimon Peres, who died on Wednesday at the age of 93, told the Jerusalem Post two years ago that
current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "was ready to launch an attack" on Iran, and "I stopped him."
Peres, speaking to the Post's Steve Linde and David Brinn in a meeting at the Peres Center for Peace in Jaffa on August 24,
2014, apparently said he didn't want to go into details about the conversation he had had with Netanyahu..."
"Shimon Peres 2 years ago: I stopped Netanyahu from attacking Iran, and you can talk about it when I'm dead"
by Natasha Bertrand...9-30-2016...36m
" Former Israeli president Shimon Peres, who died on Wednesday at the age of 93, told the Jerusalem Post two years ago that
current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "was ready to launch an attack" on Iran, and "I stopped him."
Peres, speaking to the Post's Steve Linde and David Brinn in a meeting at the Peres Center for Peace in Jaffa on August 24,
2014, apparently said he didn't want to go into details about the conversation he had had with Netanyahu..."
"... This is entirely wrong. Syria was governed secularly and what began as a secular protests against the government early on was taken control of by violent sectarians, increasingly violent sectarian insurgents. ..."
"... Syria has been beset by a wildly violent sectarian insurgency which has been supported by surrounding countries and even under the guise of helping moderates by the United States. ..."
What Is Russia Up To, and Is It Time
to Draw the Line? http://nyti.ms/2d05nut
NYT - DAVID E. SANGER - SEPT. 29, 2016
WASHINGTON - Escalating airstrikes in Syria. Sophisticated cyberattacks, apparently intended
to influence the American election. New evidence of complicity in shooting down a civilian airliner.
The behavior of Russia in the last few weeks has echoes of some of the uglier moments of the
Cold War, an era of proxy battles that ended in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union. President
Obama, fresh from a meeting with President Vladimir V. Putin this month, wondered aloud whether
the Russian leader was content living with a "constant, low-grade conflict." His reference was
to Ukraine, but he could have been addressing any of the arenas where Mr. Putin has reveled in
his new role as the great disrupter of American plans around the globe.
"It seems to me we have Mr. Putin's answer," said Richard Haass, the president of the Council
on Foreign Relations and the author of a coming book, "A World in Disarray." "He's answered in
the affirmative. Low-grade conflict is his thing. And the question is how directly or indirectly
we introduce costs."
None of these conflicts have, in fact, cost Mr. Putin very much. Cyberpower in particular is
tailor-made for a country in Russia's circumstances - a declining economy with the gross domestic
product of Italy. It is dirt cheap, hard to trace to a specific aggressor and perfect for sowing
confusion, which may be the limits of Mr. Putin's goals.
The bigger question confronting American intelligence officials, though, is whether the Russian
president has a grander scheme at work. So far, their conclusion is probably not. Mr. Putin's
moves, they argue in background conversations, are largely tactical, intended to bolster his international
image at a moment he has plenty of troubles back home. ...
What Is Russia Up To, and Is It Time to Draw the Line?
[ Crazier and crazier and crazier, the new Cold Warriors that is. We could after all threaten
to go to war against Russia, which would surely be line drawing. ]
What Kerry Told Syrians Behind Closed Doors
By ANNE BARNARD
In audio clips from a private meeting, the secretary of state is heard expressing frustration
with Russia and the United States' failure to back diplomacy with force. ]
... Russia and Italy are very close to each other in terms of nominal gross domestic product,
which is the standard unit used to measure the size of a country's economy. Nominal GDP is the
total cost of all goods and services produced or sold in a country in within a certain time frame.
Russia's 2013 nominal GDP was $2.1 trillion, and Italy's was $2.07 trillion, according to the
World Bank.
That's not the only way to measure a country's economy, of course, and this is where the two
countries differ. Purchasing power parity takes nominal GDP a step further and shows the value
of this level of economic activity if it took place in America. (The Economist explains it by
showing how much a McDonald's Big Mac costs around the world.)
Russia's GDP calculated for purchasing power parity was $3.5 trillion, while Italy's was $2.1
trillion. So in 2013, Russia had a higher level of economic activity than Italy, but because goods
and services are more expensive in Italy, the overall value (nominal GDP) ended up the same.
Also, Italy has more wealth relative to the size of its population than Russia does. Italy's
2013 GDP per capita (per person) was $34,619, and Russia's was $14,612. ...
Russia "has an economy the size of Italy."
- Lindsey Graham on Sunday, July 27th, 2014 in comments on CNN's "State of the Union"
What Kerry Told Syrians Behind Closed Doors
By ANNE BARNARD
In audio clips from a private meeting, the secretary of state is heard expressing frustration
with Russia and the United States' failure to back diplomacy with force.
This is entirely wrong. Syria was governed secularly and what began as a secular protests
against the government early on was taken control of by violent sectarians, increasingly violent
sectarian insurgents.
Syria has been beset by a wildly violent sectarian insurgency which has been supported
by surrounding countries and even under the guise of helping moderates by the United States.
Hmmm. Iraq was unstable because a
Shia majority was ruled by a Sunni
tyrant (Saddam Hussein). Syria is
unstable because a Sunni majority
is ruled by a Alawi/Shia tyrant,
if ophthalmologists can be tyrants.
(Iraq was not *that* unstable,
til we came along, after they
invaded Kuwait. One Sunni country
invading another, over oil. Go figure.)
Good grief, the violence in Syria was a sectarian insurgency supported by surrounding governments
to destroy the government and take control of the country. Sectarianism in Syria was not an issue
before the violent insurgency. The Syrian government was not sectarian.
The reason the Syrian government survived for so long was that there was significant support
for the government against the insurgency.
[ Presidential name-calling, by the way, only detracts from trying to understand what has been
happening in Syria. ]
In Saudi Arabia: Can It Really Change?
By Nicolas Pelham
The Other Saudis: Shiism, Dissent and Sectarianism
by Toby Matthiesen
Joyriding in Riyadh: Oil, Urbanism, and Road Revolt
by Pascal Menoret
Saudi Arabia: A Kingdom in Peril
by Paul Aarts and Carolien Roelants
Force and Fanaticism: Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia and Beyond
by Simon Ross Valentine
Until the Wahhabi conquest of the Arabian peninsula at the turn of the last century, the mixture
of sects there was as diverse as it was anywhere in the old pluralist Middle East. In its towns
there lived, among others, Sufi mystics from the Sunni branch of Islam, members of the Zaidi sect,
which is linked with the Shia branch of Islam, Twelver Shia traders, and seasonal Jewish farmhands
from Yemen.
From the eighteenth century onward, successive waves of warriors from the Wahhabi revivalist
movement, formed from Sunni tribesmen in the hinterland, have struggled to enforce a puritanical
uniformity on the cosmopolitan coast. Toby Matthiesen recounts in The Other Saudis that, a few
years after taking the eastern shores of the peninsula from the reeling Ottomans in 1913, Wahhabi
clerics issued a fatwa obliging local Shias to convert to "true Islam." In Hijaz, the western
region that includes Mecca, Medina, and Jeddah, militant Wahhabi clerics and their followers ransacked
the treasuries of the holy places in Mecca, lopped the dome off the House of the Prophet in Medina,
and razed myriad shrines.
But their success was only partial. In 1930, when the Wahhabi Brethren began raiding Iraq and
Jordan and upsetting the region's British overlords, Abdulaziz al-Saud, the modern state's founder,
reined them in, slaughtering the zealots by the hundred.
Afterward, the peninsula regained much of its old tempo. Shia clerics applied their versions
of Islamic law in the east. Jeddah's newspapers continued to publish listings of Western as well
as Islamic New Year's Eve celebrations, cinema screenings, and concerts. Then, in 1979, apparently
inspired by the Iranian overthrow of the Shah and the establishment of an Islamic republic earlier
that year, Islamic militants stormed Mecca's Grand Mosque, the holiest place in Islam, and declared
a new order under a leader who proclaimed himself the Mahdi-the redeemer-and sought to replace
the Saudi monarchy. Wahhabi forces loyal to the monarchy counterattacked, saved the al-Sauds,
and retook the mosque. But a crucial deal was made: loyalist clerics approved the removal of the
militants by force; but in return demanded that Saudi royals cede them power to strictly control
personal behavior. The last cinemas and concert halls shut down. Women were obliged to shroud
themselves in black.
Thirty-five years later, foreign descriptions of Saudi Arabia remain for the most part remarkably
bleak....
For long periods in history,
Shia & Sunni have co-existed
with much grace, but not always.
It may be the influence of Sunni
Wahhabism that has led to violence.
How the US ensures that its weapons and equipment don't fall into Al-Qa`idah hands
"American and other Western intelligence officials have expressed concern that some of the
more than 100 rebel formations fighting inside Syria may have ties to Al Qaeda that they could
exploit as security worsens in the country or after the collapse of the government.... A small
number of CIA officers have been operating secretly in southern Turkey for several weeks, helping
allies decide which Syrian opposition fighters across the border will receive weapons to fight
the government." * I am assured that the US has a fool-proof system at hand. The CIA operatives
ask the person in question: are you with Al-Qa`idah? If the person says no, he is told: take the
weapons and money and run. If he says yes, he is told: not good. Take the money and weapons and
run but don't use them against us one day, OK?
"The groups demanded to raise the prophet's banner - solid black with 'There is no god but
God.' " * Somebody needs to tell the New York Times that what it calls the "prophet's banner"
is none other than the flag of Al-Qa`idah. What an informed paper.
This is from Raqqah in Syria. * The main square there has been renamed Prophet Muhammad Square,
and a giant flag of Al-Qa`idah is posted. And do you still need a fortune teller to tell you how
things are going in Syria?
What Kerry Told Syrians Behind Closed Doors
By ANNE BARNARD
In audio clips from a private meeting, the secretary of state is heard expressing frustration
with Russia and the United States' failure to back diplomacy with force.
RGC -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
The NY Times has now gone full neocon on us. It routinely prints lies and misinformation.
"... "Clinton is an insider in an outsider year. It's as simple as that. Trying to blame everything and everyone but her is really tiresome and not helping her actually win." ..."
"... Thank you. How can such very serious people ignore the Bernie Sanders phenomenon and dismiss that so easily? People want reform, they want change. And the two party system keeps serving up more of the same rotten, ineffective corruption. ..."
"... Hillary is a candidate of "status quo" and as such is in bad position. As you correctly noted "People want reform, they want change." And her health, abhorrent warmongering and emailgate make her political position only worse. Please note that calling her "a staunch warmonger" is just a politically correct definition of the type of politician she represents. If we take the standards of Nuremberg trials, she might well be considered a war criminal ..."
"... the charter defined three categories of crimes: crimes against peace (including planning, preparing, starting or waging wars of aggression or wars in violation of international agreements), war crimes (including violations of customs or laws of war, including improper treatment of civilians and prisoners of war) and crimes against humanity (including murder, enslavement or deportation of civilians or persecution on political, religious or racial grounds). ..."
"... It was determined that civilian officials as well as military officers could be accused of war crimes. ..."
"... today's Democrats have become the Party of War: a home for arms merchants, mercenaries, academic war planners, lobbyists for every foreign intervention, promoters of color revolutions, failed generals, exploiters of the natural resources of corrupt governments. We have American military bases in 80 countries, and there are now American military personnel on the ground in about 130 countries, a remarkable achievement since there are only 192 recognized countries. Generals and admirals announce our national policies. Theater commanders are our principal ambassadors. Our first answer to trouble or opposition of any kind seems always to be a military movement or action. ..."
"... Re "first past the post": You are absolutely correct and this is the main obstacle to the rise of third parties. The Green Party has as one of the main campaign items the need for ranked choice. ..."
"... I think changing this is perhaps the single most urgent reform item in our politics, and can be accomplished at the local and state level without running afoul of federal or constitutional constraints. ..."
"... the occupied [nations officials] are the only candidate for war crime trials...... Lemay, Harris, everyone in 8 nations that own them involved in nuclear weapons in any way would be hanged if their targets got their way ..."
"... dnc insider [is] definition of crooked! ..."
"... There's a pendulum, which sometimes swings the wrong way. Go figure. Bush Jr was the outsider. Gore was the insider. Likewise Trump and Hillary Clinton? ..."
"... The race baiting has to stop. Krugman should travel to Camden, Rochester, East St. Louis or any of the thousands of towns and cities that were stripped of their wealth thanks to free trade policies he championed. ..."
"... It is close because Trump offers hope. People remember that times were much, much better when their cities had factories before the so-called globalization hurricane just "naturally" swept everything away. Twenty years of protectionism and an undervalued currency will turn the US into a star trek land like Singapore. 10 more years on our current free trade trajectory and we'll be Haiti, another free trade paradise. ..."
"Clinton is an insider in an outsider year. It's as simple as that. Trying to blame everything and
everyone but her is really tiresome and not helping her actually win."
Thank you. How can such very serious people ignore the Bernie Sanders phenomenon and dismiss that
so easily? People want reform, they want change. And the two party system keeps serving up more of
the same rotten, ineffective corruption.
Disencruft Macro -> to Jesse...
insider in an outsider year. It's as simple as that. Trying to blame everything and everyone but
her is really tiresome and not helping her actually win.
She needs to either regain some outsider cred (impossible, her entire candidacy is based on her
being the "most accomplished candidate ever" which necessarily implies having experience on the inside)
Or tar Trump with insider status. That should be doable but it's proving a hard sell. People seem
to be excusing Trump's links and ties with insiders. It seem people will excuse what he has done
because he was just playing the game by the rules that already existed. On the other hand, Clinton
is seen (wrongly in my opinion) as being one of the rule makers and then breaking the rules to her
benefit.
That might be the crucial distinction. Trump had no part in making the rules so breaking them
is understandable. But if Clinton was part of the people who made the rules it is hypocritical for
her to break the rules she made for other people to abide by.
I don't think Clinton is especially bad and I'm definitely voting for her. I'm only positing a
theory as to why Trump's proven malfeasance doesn't seem to impact his standing with the voters while
Clinton's implied, but not proven, malfeasance is a big issue.
"And the two party system keeps serving up more of the same rotten, ineffective corruption."
That's by design. "First past the post" system is perfect for maintaining status quo. It is essentially
an ingenious modification of a one party rule, disguised as two party "equilibrium". It is not that
different from the USSR system of elections -- a predefined by the elite candidate eventually wins
in all cases. The only difference is that in this case there two such predefined, preapproved candidates
and associated exciting political theater, instead of boring (but more economical and honest ;-)
single one.
I think the Communists would only increase their legitimacy (and might prolong the life of the
USSR) by switching to this system. The essence -- communist nomenclatura rule in case of the USSR,
neoliberal elite (financial oligarchy) in case of the USA are the same.
In this system any new movement (think Sanders) can be immaculated and integrated into existing
neoliberal framework by one of two semi-identical parties of "hard" and "soft" neoliberalism. And
that "self-stabilizing" function of crushing any political insurrection "by integration" while it
is in its infancy works fine until the total crash of the system.
In this regard, the appearance of Trump on the scene as a candidate from Repugs is a surprise
and might be viewed as a revolutionary moment as it shows that the republican elite lost control
over peons. The Dem elite managed to crush the insurrection, as expected.
Trump is a sign of a mounting backlash against neoliberal globalization, of political destabilization
due to rejection of neoliberal dogma by the majority of population. At this point neoliberal brainwashing
stops working, much like happened in the USSR with communist propaganda.
Hillary is a candidate of "status quo" and as such is in bad position. As you correctly noted
"People want reform, they want change." And her health, abhorrent warmongering and emailgate make
her political position only worse. Please note that calling her "a staunch warmonger" is just a politically
correct definition of the type of politician she represents. If we take the standards of Nuremberg
trials, she might well be considered a war criminal :
The Allies eventually established the laws and procedures for the Nuremberg trials with the
London Charter of the International Military Tribunal (IMT), issued on August 8, 1945. Among other
things, the charter defined three categories of crimes: crimes against peace (including planning,
preparing, starting or waging wars of aggression or wars in violation of international agreements),
war crimes (including violations of customs or laws of war, including improper treatment of civilians
and prisoners of war) and crimes against humanity (including murder, enslavement or deportation
of civilians or persecution on political, religious or racial grounds).
It was determined that civilian officials as well as military officers could be accused
of war crimes.
John and Robert Kennedy devoted their greatest commitments and energies to the prevention of
war and the preservation of peace. To them that was not an abstract formula but the necessary
foundation of human life. But today's Democrats have become the Party of War: a home for arms
merchants, mercenaries, academic war planners, lobbyists for every foreign intervention, promoters
of color revolutions, failed generals, exploiters of the natural resources of corrupt governments.
We have American military bases in 80 countries, and there are now American military personnel
on the ground in about 130 countries, a remarkable achievement since there are only 192 recognized
countries. Generals and admirals announce our national policies. Theater commanders are our principal
ambassadors. Our first answer to trouble or opposition of any kind seems always to be a military
movement or action.
Re "first past the post": You are absolutely correct and this is the main obstacle to the rise of
third parties. The Green Party has as one of the main campaign items the need for ranked choice.
I think changing this is perhaps the single most urgent reform item in our politics, and can be
accomplished at the local and state level without running afoul of federal or constitutional constraints.
the occupied [nations officials] are
the only candidate for war crime trials...... Lemay, Harris, everyone in 8 nations that own them involved in nuclear weapons in any way would
be hanged if their targets got their way
Pinkybum -> efcdons...
"Clinton is an insider in an outsider year."
Having voted for Bernie this is not the choice we are faced with.
"She needs to either regain some outsider cred"
Having ran as an insider and won she needs to do no such thing...
lsm -> Pinkybum...
dnc insider [is]
definition of crooked! no conviction...
Fred C. Dobbs said...
There's a pendulum, which
sometimes swings the wrong way. Go figure. Bush Jr was the outsider. Gore was the insider. Likewise Trump and Hillary Clinton?
This pendulum has (almost) magical effects. As for me, and many here, I hope its effect is not
felt this time.
The race
baiting has to stop. Krugman should travel to Camden, Rochester, East St. Louis or any of the thousands
of towns and cities that were stripped of their wealth thanks to free trade policies he championed.
It is close because Trump offers hope. People remember that times were much, much better when
their cities had factories before the so-called globalization hurricane just "naturally" swept everything
away. Twenty years of protectionism and an undervalued currency will turn the US into a star trek
land like Singapore. 10 more years on our current free trade trajectory and we'll be Haiti, another
free trade paradise.
[With a title like that then I just had to read it. It was
just the ordinary pants on fire gotchas about team Trump, but
then it ended on what I found a very weird note:]
...There are real debates and real uncertainty about
climate change and how to deal with it. But its existence and
the risks it poses are undeniable.
Or at least they should be. The refusal to accept this
reality is the biggest, most worrisome sign – yes, even
bigger than the nomination of Trump – that the country
currently lacks a functioning conservative party.
[I don't want a functioning conservative party. The one
that we have is still functioning well enough keep the rich
getting richer, the poor poorer, and the status quo
comfortably protected from environmental activists. I want an
entirely ineffective conservative party. Sure liberal
exuberance can benefit from some restraint exerted by
competent pragmatists, but conservatives have never actually
been anything but shills for the wealthy. You don't find
competent pragmatists in politics at all. They are engineers
and scientists and all too rare even there. Hell it is hard
enough to find even impractical people that are competent.
Conservatives are only marginally competent at being
sycophants for the wealthy and that really does not seem to
have changed in other than the aesthetics necessary to shift
the pandering over to a newly energized hostile electorate.]
If civilians can sue sovereign states it should be obvious to everybody that the drone maniacal
US would be on top of the list of targets for such suits. Our government and soldiers would be the
most vulnerable in the whole world.
If our courts were to begin collections of judgments from sovereign states the results would be
that no foreign government would want to hold assets in this country.
I certainly sympathize with the 9/11 victim families, although they have been compensated for
their loss with way more money than any of the foreign collateral damage victims of our military
actions.
The families may not understand this, but they will never collect a dime. On the other hand, this
legislation to "help" them will do a lot of damage to the country and its soldiers.
How did sympathy for these families let our congress members trap themselves in such a stupendous
blunder. I guess election season is a time for that kind of stuff.
It is this sort of legislation that has made the US so hated around the world. The US just can't
seem to internalize that being sovereign doesn't imply sovereignty over the rest of the world,
that that sovereignty ends at the border.
As far as I know, the US is the only country that taxes its non-resident citizens. This alone
is nuts.
The US is also as far as I know the only country that thinks it has the right to kill the citizens
of other countries outside its borders.
And then it seems that many US citizens seem to think they are not bound by the rules of physics,
or logic or arithmetic.
US exceptionalism has gone on long enough. It is about time the US came back to earth and decided
it is just another country on earth.
"As far as I know, the US is the only country that taxes its non-resident citizens. This alone
is nuts."
Why is that nuts? Do non-resident citizens no longer have access to consulate services? Does
the citizenship lapse such that one can't come back to the US whenever they want?
The US keeps going while the citizen is abroad. It's not outrageous to ask them to contribute
something (not much, the credit for overseas taxes paid is pretty high).
DeDude -> efcdons... , -1
We are the only ones that assume people will come back unless they renounce their citizenship.
It is only fair that you get taxed for the government services you receive. Therefore, you
should be taxed in the country where you live. There is no justification for taxing income earned
in a foreign country.
The value of consulate services are so small that it cost more to recover them than deliver
them. So the rest of the world does not use that lame excuse to tax citizens living abroad.
"... But today's Democrats have become the Party of War: a home for arms merchants, mercenaries, academic war planners, lobbyists for every foreign intervention, promoters of color revolutions, failed generals, exploiters of the natural resources of corrupt governments. We have American military bases in 80 countries, and there are now American military personnel on the ground in about 130 countries, a remarkable achievement since there are only 192 recognized countries. ..."
"... How you can defend such a deeply flawed (as in insane) candidate is beyond me. ..."
"... Robert Kagan is desperate to save us from fascism, you see. Because anything Athens did wrong in the Peloponnesian War, America can do again, but bigger. And, his wife is a favorite to become Secretary of State. She's deeply experienced, having brought peace to Ukraine. ..."
"... I went through this with them in a recent discussion. For the most part, liberals (American terminology) simply do not care for or about anti-war and anti-imperialism arguments. Just saving everyone a little time here. ..."
John and Robert Kennedy devoted their greatest commitments and energies to the prevention of
war and the preservation of peace. To them that was not an abstract formula but the necessary
foundation of human life. But today's Democrats have become the Party of War: a home for
arms merchants, mercenaries, academic war planners, lobbyists for every foreign intervention,
promoters of color revolutions, failed generals, exploiters of the natural resources of corrupt
governments. We have American military bases in 80 countries, and there are now American military
personnel on the ground in about 130 countries, a remarkable achievement since there are only
192 recognized countries. Generals and admirals announce our national policies. Theater
commanders are our principal ambassadors. Our first answer to trouble or opposition of any
kind seems always to be a military movement or action.
How you can defend such a deeply flawed (as in insane) candidate is beyond me.
likbez: How you can defend such a deeply flawed (as in insane) candidate is beyond me.
How? By focusing on the other guy, on Trump.
Today, Brad Delong points to the daily anti-Trump screed by James Fallows, which features a
four month old piece by Robert Kagan: I disagree with Robert Kagan on just about everything.
But in the months since he originally published his essay, called "This Is How Fascism Comes to
America," I think his arguments have come to seem more rather than less relevant.
Robert Kagan is desperate to save us from fascism, you see. Because anything Athens did
wrong in the Peloponnesian War, America can do again, but bigger. And, his wife is a favorite
to become Secretary of State. She's deeply experienced, having brought peace to Ukraine.
None of that matters because Trump is unprecedented.
Anarcissie 09.29.16 at 2:47 am
likbez 09.29.16 at 12:35 am @ 118 -
I went through this with them in a recent discussion. For the most part, liberals (American
terminology) simply do not care for or about anti-war and anti-imperialism arguments. Just saving
everyone a little time here.
OK, here's what puzzles me. Looking back upthread, what is the source of the really deep antipathy
that people on CT have for Hillary Clinton? I haven't heard anyone say that her tax policy is
not progressive enough. That's a legitimate argument, but no one seems excited about it. Apparently
two things really get people hot under the collar. (1) She is somewhat interventionist militarily.
Of course, people aren't content just to say that, they have to say that she is a "war criminal"
(sorry, could I have some specifics on this?), or at least a warmonger. But basically, by that
they just mean that she is somewhat interventionist militarily. (2) She's more inclined toward
trade agreements than most people here.
OK, fine, these are legitimate areas of disagreement. Here's what puzzles me: those are the
traditional positions of paleoliberals in the Democratic Party. You don't have to like them, but
there's nothing neo about them. So how is Clinton a neoliberal?
There's one respect in which Clinton follows the DLC line: this business of favoring means-testing
rather than universal programs. I think that as a political strategy this is bad, and I get irritated
every time she trots out that line about not wanting to pay for Donald Trump's kids (there just
aren't that many rich people, and they're not sending their kids to state schools anyway). But
I haven't heard anyone say they could never vote for Clinton because of this. So what's neo about
Clinton? What distinguishes her from Mondale?
... ... ...
LFC 09.29.16 at 1:29 pm
@H Frant
I'm glad you picked up on the imbalanced quote re JFK etc, b/c I was too lazy to do it. The
explanation is that the quoted piece is by Adam Walinsky, who was (I think, w/o Wiki'ing) a speechwriter/adviser
for RFK. Walinsky's probably getting on in years, and his idea of a column is to contrast the
peace-loving JFK (and RFK) to the bad promoters of American empire and bases-around-the-world
who followed him/them. Which is somewhat weird.
This is a pt about the overall trajectory of US f.p. since c.1947, which has exhibited a good
deal (though not, of course, complete) continuity (as well as some variation from admin to admin.).
[Whether JFK, had he lived, wd have gotten involved in Vietnam in the major way LBJ did, or wd
have stopped short of that kind of escalation, is a separate and disputed question, and there
is evidence to support conflicting answers – but it doesn't alter the main pt above. A past CT
commenter, who went by 'mattski' iirc, was very big on the JFK-wd-not-have-escalated-had-he-lived
thesis, so one can find some cites supporting that view if one searches on mattski's past comments
here.]
Walinsky also lumps JFK and RFK together, which is problematic since, inter alia, RFK lived
5 yrs longer and into a diff. historical period in which he played a major role.
"... This really cements Obama's status as "Clueless B." If nothing else, this shows clearly the mans contempt for black Africans. ..."
"... Says a lot about "special relationships", as well, that Mags Thatcher didn't rate a half staff salute from Pres. Obama but Shimon Peres does. Now I hates me some Mags, but one can't help noticing these things! Oh but, Shimon Peres was an esteemed partner for peace ..."
obama in his speech at shimon peres funeral put him in the same category as mandela. it should
be remembered that peres was the father of israel's nuke program and was selling nukes to south
africa when mandela was in jail. oops, too much reality.
Says a lot about "special relationships", as well, that Mags Thatcher didn't rate a half staff
salute from Pres. Obama but Shimon Peres does. Now I hates me some Mags, but one can't help noticing
these things! Oh but, Shimon Peres was an esteemed partner for peace (yeah right, the
peace of the grave maybe…)
Republican vice presidential nominee Mike Pence slammed Hillary Clinton as the "architect"
of the Obama administration's foreign policy on Friday, saying the two made the Middle East unrecognizable
in less than a decade.
Pence said in Fort Wayne, Indiana:
After seven and a half years, Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's policies have weakened America's
place in the world and emboldened the enemies of this country. Terrorist attacks at home and abroad,
attempted coup among allies - I mean, if you looked at a picture of a map of the wider Middle
East the day Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton took over American foreign policy, and you took
a picture of a map today, it wouldn't even look like the same part of the world.
"You know, this teaches us that weakness arouses evil. And I would submit to you, my fellow Hoosiers,
that Hillary Clinton, the architect of Barack Obama's foreign policy, that Hillary Clinton and Barack
Obama's foreign policy have been leading from behind, moving red lines, feigning resets with Russia,
and paying ransom to terrorist-sponsoring states," Pence continued. "That is the very image of weakness
on the world stage."
"Let me make you a promise: When Donald Trump becomes President of the United States, we won't
be paying ransom to terrorists or terrorist-sponsoring states," he said to applause. "They'll be
paying a price. They'll be paying a price if they threaten the American people, or they threaten
our allies."
Pence added he's looking forward to exposing Clinton's record during Tuesday night's vice presidential
debate.
NYT is clearly a neocon outlet. Very clear demonstration of that it is essentially a part of Hillary
campaign and Hillary made bet of demonizing Russia as a path to the victory in Presidential elections.
President
Vladimir Putin is fast turning
Russia into an outlaw nation. As one of five permanent members of the
United Nations Security Council, his country shares a special responsibility to uphold international
law. Yet, his behavior in
Ukraine and
Syria violates not only the rules intended to promote peace instead of conflict, but also common
human decency.
This bitter truth was driven home twice on Wednesday. An investigative team led by the Netherlands
concluded that the surface-to-air missile system that
shot down a Malaysia Airlines plane over Ukraine in July 2014, killing 298 on board, was sent
from Russia to Russian-backed separatists and returned to Russia the same night. Meanwhile, in Syria,
Russian and Syrian warplanes knocked out two hospitals in the rebel-held sector of Aleppo as part
of an assault that threatens the lives of 250,000 more people in a war that has already claimed some
500,000 Syrian lives.
In recent years, Russia and the United States have started
rebuilding their Cold War nuclear arsenals, putting the world
on the threshold of a dangerous new arms race. But we don't
have to repeat the perilous drama of the 20th century. We can
maintain our country's strength and security and still do
away with the worst of the Cold War weapons.
The American plan to rebuild and maintain our nuclear
force is needlessly oversize and expensive, expected to cost
about $1 trillion over the next three decades. This would
crowd out the funding needed to sustain the competitive edge
of our conventional forces and to build the capacities needed
to deal with terrorism and cyberattacks.
The good news is that the United States can downsize its
plans, save tens of billions of dollars, and still maintain a
robust nuclear arsenal.
First and foremost, the United States can safely phase out
its land-based intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM)
force, a key facet of Cold War nuclear policy. Retiring the
ICBMs would save considerable costs, but it isn't only
budgets that would benefit. These missiles are some of the
most dangerous weapons in the world. They could even trigger
an accidental nuclear war.
If our sensors indicate that enemy missiles are en route
to the United States, the president would have to consider
launching ICBMs before the enemy missiles could destroy them;
once they are launched, they cannot be recalled. The
president would have less than 30 minutes to make that
terrible decision.
This is not an academic concern. While the probability of
an accidental launch is low, human and machine errors do
occur. I experienced a false alarm nearly 40 years ago, when
I was under secretary of defense for research and
engineering. I was awakened in the middle of the night and
told that some Defense Department computers were showing 200
ICBMs on the way from the Soviet Union. For one horrifying
moment I thought it was the end of civilization. Then the
general on the phone explained that it was a false alarm. He
was calling to see if I could help him determine what had
gone wrong with the computer.
During the Cold War, the United States relied on ICBMs
because they provided accuracy that was not then achievable
by submarine-launched missiles or bombers. They also provided
an insurance policy in case America's nuclear submarine force
was disabled. That's not necessary anymore. Today, the United
States' submarine and bomber forces are highly accurate, and
we have enough confidence in their security that we do not
need an additional insurance policy - especially one that is
so expensive and open to error.
As part of the updates to America's nuclear arsenal, the
government is also planning to replace nuclear-armed
submarines and bombers. If we assume that the Defense
Department is critically analyzing the number of systems
needed, this makes far more sense than replacing ICBMs. The
submarine force alone is sufficient to deter our enemies and
will be for the foreseeable future. But as technology
advances, we have to recognize the possibility of new threats
to submarines, especially cyberattack and detection by swarms
of drones. The new submarine program should put a special
emphasis on improvements to deal with these potential
threats, assuring the survivability of the fleet for decades
to come.
The new stealth bomber will provide a backup to
submarines. This is not likely to be necessary, but the
bomber force is a good insurance policy. The new bomber would
be capable of carrying out either conventional or nuclear
missions. But the development of new air-launched nuclear
cruise missiles, which has been proposed, is unnecessary and
destabilizing. We can maintain an effective bomber force
without a nuclear cruise missile.
Instead of overinvesting in nuclear weapons and
encouraging a new arms race, the United States should build
only the levels needed for deterrence. We should encourage
Russia to do the same. But even if it does not, our levels of
nuclear forces should be determined by what we actually need,
not by a misguided desire to match Moscow missile for
missile. If Russia decides to build more than it needs, its
economy will suffer, just as during the Cold War. ...
(William J. Perry was secretary of defense from 1994 to
1997.)
"... The United States does not have a UN or Congressional mandate for intervening in the Syria war. The US military have rebelled against their own government, they are nothing but a stateless armed mercenaries. ..."
"... We all know that Putin is an intelligence officer and that he never says anything accidentally. Putin had his foreign service affirm that in light of the US military sabotage of the cease fire agreement, Obama has lost control of the US military for the whole world to hear. ..."
"... Lavrov repeating this direct statement that the US milady forces are not controlled by the US government. "Obama supported the cooperation between our countries. Looks like the US military doesn't listen to their President". Using the UN platform, he openly stated that SOMEONE can attack and kill anybody in the world, under the US flag and the US president can do nothing about this. ..."
"... Russia's a message was that a group of people has control over the US military and uses them as they please. It means that the US is not even a regional power… It means that the US is like Somali ten years ago. We know who are those people who control the US military; which cannot be said about the "schizophrenic" world community, the incurable gang members. ..."
"... well, all of the issues that you detail are good for business (the arms and military business). As such, well, money talks and talks over reason. ..."
"... We actually made the threat worse. Far worse. Even if we completely pull out now – which we should do – we'll be dealing with blowback in the form of long-burning hatred and terror attacks for many years to come. The idiots who recommended this policy ought to be hounded out of government and public life. ..."
"... Every word Colonel Davis has written is true. But the colonial wars of the Empire matter hardly at all to the citizens of the metropole. ..."
"... The GWOT (like the war on drugs) provides a lot of people a lot of money and interesting jobs. That's the strategy. That's why neither is ending in the next generation. ..."
"... The endless wars that the US and it's partners in crime start are Hegelian problem reaction solution theater. The terrorists are state actor sock puppets . Funded, armed and provided political support as proxies for their state actor controllers to advance their regime change and hegemony goals through irregular warfare. The public is lied to by the politicians paying for and directing these needless tragedies. Nowhere has this been made more clear than Syria. Where all of the crime by the NATO/Israel/GCC axis powers has been laid bare for the world to see. It's an embarrassment as an American watching our politicians and diplomats spew their lies, nonsense and stupidity about an unnecessary war that they obviously started and are deliberately perpetuating. ..."
"... The contemporary mission of the US armed forces is to make military contractors rich. ..."
"... As an addendum the foreign policy elite use the military to scare the world into political alignment with the US. ..."
"... At no time has it been more true that "war is a racket" as Gen. Smedley Butler noted long ago. In my view, the National Security State is our largest unit of organized crime. ..."
"... Davis, poor fellow, talks of the "wholesale failure" of American foriegn policy. Actually it has been a wholesale success for the Neo-Cons, the military industrial complex, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and others, no? Simply one example–if Davis has not figured out that the US and coalition's Iraq War aimed to leave Iraq in chaos and effectively destroyed, he has not taken his military service blinders off. Thank you, sir, for your service to the one percent. ..."
One has to wonder just how much longer the American
people will silently permit the categorical failure of American foreign policy, both in
theory and in practice. The evidence confirming the totality of our failure is breathtaking
in scope and severity. Changes are needed to preserve U.S. national security and economic
prosperity.
Recent headlines have captured the character of this
failure. Fifteen years after the invasion of Afghanistan, the Special Inspector General for
Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR) released
finding
s that
"corruption substantially undermined the U.S. mission in Afghanistan from the very
beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom. … We conclude that failure to effectively address
the problem means U.S. reconstruction programs, at best, will continue to be subverted by
systemic corruption and, at worst, will fail."
Earlier this month, a British
Parliament study
found that the result of Western military intervention in Libya "was political and economic
collapse, inter-militia and inter-tribal warfare, humanitarian and migrant crises,
widespread human rights violations, the spread of Gaddafi regime weapons across the region
and the growth of ISIL in North Africa."
Bottom line: The use of military power since 2001 has:
Turned a previously whole
and regionally impotent Iraq that balanced Iran into a factory of terrorism and a client
of Tehran;
Turned Afghanistan from a
country with a two-sided civil war-contained within its own borders-into a dysfunctional
state that serves as a magnet for terrorists.
Turned a Libya that suffered
internal unrest, but didn't threaten its neighbors or harbor terrorists, into an
"unmitigated failure" featuring a raging civil war, serving as an African beachhead for
ISIS and a terrorist breeding ground;
Contributed to the expansion
of al-Qaeda into a "franchise" group, spawned a new strain when ISIS was born out of the
vacuum created by our Iraq invasion, and seen major terrorist threats explode worldwide;
Joined other nations in
battles in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and other areas within Africa whose only result has
been the expansion of the threat and the deepening of the suffering of the civil
populations.
These continued and deepening failures kill unknown
numbers of innocent civilians each year, intensify and spread the
hatred many have of America
,
and incrementally weaken our national security. But these military failures have another,
less obvious but more troubling cost.
Perpetual fighting dissipates the fighting strength of
the armed forces. The non-stop employment of the U.S. Air Force in flying sorties, bombing
runs, and strategic airlift has been orders of magnitude higher than what it was in the 15
years prior to 9/11, dramatically cutting short the
lifespan
of each
aircraft, increasing the maintenance requirements, and
depleting stocks of bombs
and missiles.
The U.S. Army and Marine Corps have put thousands of
miles of grueling use on their tanks and other armored vehicles and
worn out countless weapons
.
The refurbishing and replacement costs for these vehicles has been enormous, and-like the
Air Force-the Army has severely shortened the lifespan of its armored fleet. But not only
have these permanent military operations degraded the vehicles, the damage has come at the
expense of conventional military training.
This might be the most alarming cost. The Army has
recognized this problem and has belatedly begun to reorient some of the
training time to high-end
conventional battle. But it will take many years of focused training to rebuild the
strength the military had prior to Desert Storm or even the opening operations of Operation
Iraqi Freedom in 2003.
Entire generations of leaders and troops at every level
have grown up training almost exclusively on small-scale counterinsurgency (COIN) warfare.
As one who has fought in both high-end armored warfare
and small-scale COIN, I can tell you that creating effective battle units for conventional
war is far, far more difficult and time consuming.
Likewise, the Air Force has not fought against a modern
adversary with fleets of effective fighter jets, bombers, and potent air-defense
capabilities. Such operations are orders of magnitude more difficult than attacking
insurgents on the ground who pose no threat to aircraft.
It is critical to understand that no insurgency or terror
group represents an existential threat to viability of the United States. Failure in a
conventional battle to a major power, however, can cripple the nation.
It is discouraging to see the administration, Congress,
and the Department of Defense fully tethered to the perpetual application of military power
against small-scale threats. Terrorism definitely represents a threat to U.S. interests,
and we must defend against it. But the obsession with using major military assets on these
relatively small-scale threats has not only failed to stem the threat, it has in part been
responsible for expanding it. Meanwhile, the unhealthy focus on the small-scale has
weakened-and continues to weaken-our ability to respond to the truly existential threats.
If the incoming administration does not recognize this
deterioration of our military power and take steps to reverse it, our weakness may one day
be exposed in the form of losing a major military engagement that we should have won
easily. The stakes couldn't be higher. A change in foreign policy is critically needed. We
will either change by choice or we will change in the smoldering aftermath of catastrophic
military failure. I pray it is the former.
Daniel L. Davis is a foreign-policy fellow and
military expert at Defense Priorities. He retired from the U.S. Army as a lieutenant
colonel after 21 years of active service. He was deployed into combat zones four times in
his career, beginning with Operation Desert Storm in 1991, and also to Iraq in 2009 and
Afghanistan twice (2005, 2011).
"... These are not, repeat not, the principles of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), a team of police, prosecutors, and spies from The Netherlands, Ukraine, Malaysia, Belgium, and Australia. They have committed themselves to proving that a chain of Russian military command intended to shoot down and was criminally responsible for the destruction of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 on July 17, 2014, and for the deaths of all 298 people on board. ..."
"... Paulissen may be right. To prove he's right all he has to do is to fill in the gap between the JIT version of what happened and the Russian version of what could not have happened by answering these questions. To convince a court and jury, Paulissen's answers to these questions must be beyond reasonable doubt. ..."
"... Why that target, and not the other two targets, also civil aircraft flying above 10,000 metres within a few minutes of each other and within firing range? Why target an aircraft flying so high, at a constant, level altitude? ..."
"... 20 pieces of shrapnel were recovered, including 2 bowties and 2 cubes ..."
"... The spread or spray of the shrapnel after detonation is not more than 60 degrees. From mapping this spread from the impacts of metal fragments on aircraft panels it is possible to determine the angle of the missile to the aircraft at detonation. This in turn allows the tracking of the missile's approach trajectory and the firing position on the ground. Testing warhead detonation against aircraft panels will also reveal the number and type of shrapnel impacts which ought to be registered if the missile and warhead types have been correctly identified. ..."
"... According to the latest JIT report this week, the number of bowties and cubes has dwindled from four identified in last October's Dutch Safety Board (DSB) report to two, one of each shape. How and why did the other two pieces of evidence disappear in The Netherlands over the past twelve months? How does the JIT explain there was no shrapnel at all in the bodies of the 295 people, crew and passengers, who were behind the cockpit, in the main cabin of the aircraft? ..."
"... The discrepancy in shrapnel count is so large, Malishevsky draws two conclusions – that it was impossible for the missile to have approached from the east and struck head-on; and that the only trajectory consistent with the MH17 shrapnel damage pattern was one in which the missile flew parallel to the aircraft before exploding, and approached from the south, not from the east. ..."
"... The key claim from the Russian side is that for the engine to be as damaged as it was, the warhead must have detonated on the starboard side. And for that to be the outcome, the missile must have approached MH17, and been fired, from the south. ..."
"... Why does it appear that the MH17's port engine – left-side looking forward, compass north for the plane flying east - not impacted by warhead blast or shrapnel? Why are there shrapnel hits on the starboard engine (right-side looking forward , compass south) and why was it deformed so differently? Why has the JIT omitted to analyse the engine positions and report this evidence? ..."
"... What is revealing is how discreet the mainstream mass media have been about the "definitive conclusion" that the "separatists did it with the help of Russia". At least in Europe, the topic was not presented prominently in the press and on the radio, and disappeared right afterwards. ..."
"... It does not matter: the propaganda was intense and relentless right after the incident to blame the usual suspects - and silenced as soon as the gaps in the narrative became so large they could not be dissimulated. ..."
"... without ever having been properly investigated and cleared up ..."
"... Or, for that matter, the Kuwaiti babies tossed out of incubators by Saddam (story invented by a DC pr shop) or the Belgian babies speared by German bayonets in WW1 (British propaganda this time). In a mass media age propaganda is viewed as a vital component of war making which is why all claims from places like Syria and Ukraine should be treated with skepticism. For the R2P crowd represented by Hillary and the ridiculous Samantha Power this propaganda aspect is central, and their compliant allies in the MSM are more than willing to go along. ..."
"... There is a major difference between then and now: the stories about babies tossed on bayonets or out of incubators (or the Serbian extermination camps in Bosnia, or the mass graves of Ceaucescu in Timisoara) were all complete fabrications. ..."
"... proving or disproving a culpability is intrinsically more involved than showing that some major crime is a complete invention. ..."
"... "It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries." ..."
"... Now, I'll repeat the most damning, though admittedly non-scientific evidence of all: The U.S. and its lapdog allies were, for months after the event, shrieking about Russian culpability through compliant MSM outlets. Then, suddenly, radio silence. The topic virtually disappeared from the very same MSM outlets as if it were radioactive. ..."
"... We are on trajectory for really bad things. Russia is being demonized – in all quarters: sports, politics, commerce – in a way reminiscent of the worst of the cold war. forget the handbags of the '80s, but the 50/60s. ..."
"... Thank you for this careful analysis. The new Cold War-like hostility to Russia of American media has made objective evaluation especially difficult to come by: ..."
"... It is blaring 24/7 at the NYTimes. Today's edition had a marvelously double-entendred piece on page one, "Hostile Russia looks familiar to Cold War veterans." Much hinges on whether the familiarity lies in properties of the object or, instead, the subject's perceptual grid, a grid the Times is trying very hard to propagate. ..."
"... As far as "not seeing/mentioning a missile"? Yeah, so what? Visibility of targets coming at you from the low/front is limited in all commercial jets. And this assumes the crew was even looking, and not heads down playing with the radio or FMS. Pimping this line make the rest of their narrative immediately suspect. ..."
"... Which is more likely? A giant conspiracy (by people who are demonstratably too stupid to pull it off) by the Ukraine and Nato, to come up with a plan to pin it on the Russians (while demonstrating prior to and subsequently that they really don't need an excuse), or……… ..."
"... Addressing not the issue at hand but the conundrum of "reasonable doubt" (which Helmer invokes at the start of the essay) please read The origins of reasonable doubt : theological roots of the criminal trial by James Q. Whitman. Whitman is at Yale Law School. ..."
"... The fundamental problem with the investigation is that the Dutch, as part of NATO, cannot possibly be expected to be impartial. In the American legal system you are entitled to a jury of your peers. Lawyers go to great lengths to strike individuals from the jury pool who might have biases one way or another. ..."
"... In this case the investigators are acting more like a District Attorneys' office, but even there justice presumes that those in charge of making prosecutorial decisions don't have conflicts of interests. ..."
"... I'd have a lot more faith in the process here if the whole thing were handed off to a neutral third party, assuming such a country could be found. And therein lies the rub … thanks to the neo-liberal program of turning every country into a vassal state for the US, there aren't many candidates left. ..."
"... The only BUKs in the area were in Kiev's hands. Russia has them on radar and they were active at the time. The one supposedly seen from Lugansk was false–the photo they are using for "evidence" has a billboard in the background that has been located as in a Kiev-controlled area. The separatists never had one at all. The real problem here is that one of the prime suspects has veto power over the report. It can *never* be impartial with Ukraine on the investigation team. ..."
"... He's obviously not knowledgeable in the field of aeronautics. A missile closing in on a passenger plane from below, at several thousand kilometers per hour, would be impossible to spot visually until immediately before impact, even if you were looking in the exact field of the visual area that it was occupying (which you wouldn't). ..."
"... Moreover, MH17's cockpit damage shows that the warhead exploded above, portside. But don't let evidence get in the way of "expertise." ..."
"... "everybody's gotta eat" ..."
"... How does the JIT explain the missile trajectory if it was not seen by the pilots? ..."
"... A BUK leaves a spectacular trail from ground to air. No one saw such a trail. And it *is* very spectacular. ..."
"... Prior to Operation Desert Storm, it was reported that Sadam Hussein had amassed 250,000 troops and 1500 tanks on the Saudi Arabian border. Commercial satellite images proved otherwise. The Iraqi's where later accused of taking infants out of incubators and leaving them to die. We now know it was a fabrication courtesy of the PR firm Hill & Knowlton. ..."
"... In 1999 and 2000, the United States would go on to bomb Iraq two to three times a week. The sanctions Bill Clinton imposed on Iraq cost the lives of half a million children under the age of five. When asked during an interview if the price was worth it, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright responded, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it." ..."
"... The second Iraq war brought us a new set of lies. The cooperation with al Qaeda, who we are now arming in Syria, the uranium yellow cake, the mobile biological weapons labs, the infamous weapons of mass destruction, etc. It estimated than more than a million Iraqi's have died as a result of this butchery. ..."
"... As far as I am aware, the Ukraine and US have not released any of their radar data. The JIT also used information from Bellingcat, a discredited propaganda outlet. In light of all this information, you will have to pardon my "healthy skepticism". I also suggest that you use the term "useful idiot" more lightly. ..."
"... But I would tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the Dutch ..."
"... And in so doing you are giving the benefit of the doubt to the Ukrainian SBU who the Dutch admit provided them with much of the 'evidence'. Kiev is hardly a disinterested party in this matter. ..."
"... 3) The Ukrainian army did it during an exercise with poorly trained personnel and goofed up. ..."
"... The problem that Helmer and others highlight is that the Dutch investigation is biased: all evidence and even hearsay is interpreted against Russia, all evidence that goes against the "Russia did it" scenario is ignored or minimized, major evidence that would conclusively settle matters is kept under wraps (USA surveillance logs, Ukrainian tower control logs, Russian radar logs). ..."
"... The investigation does not pass the smell test. ..."
"... JIT concluded a BUK TELAR was brought into Eastern Ukraine from Russia. But it did not blame the Russian Federation formaly of having shot down MH17. Dutch politics including Mark Rutte refuse to punish Russia on its role in downing MH17. Current EU sanctions are because the annexation of Crimea and not respecting Minsk agreement. ..."
"... BUK systems, although old, are very advanced and require 6 months to a year of training for its crew to become truly proficient with it. ..."
"... The surmise is that Kiev thought that was Putin's plane, which was in the air at the same time. There's also a report from a mechanic that defected to Russia, that he saw the pilot that did it return saying "it was the wrong plane." AFAIK, that wasn't investigated at all. Kiev has veto power over the report. A genuine investigation is not being conducted at all. ..."
"... The Almaz-Antey presentation confirms MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile, burying once and for all the SU 25 theory, about which regular readers of Russia Insider will know I have always been skeptical. ..."
"... A more credible scenario is that recruits of the Ukrainian army were going through an accelerated training of BUK deployment with inventory of USSR-era equipment, and goofed up. ..."
"... any of the suspects ..."
"... Still pondering why a civilian aircraft was anywhere near a combat zone with such armament present, especially considering some of the tenancies of the combatants involved. ..."
"... Blame will be determined sometime in the future if there are any winners in the ongoing mini World War. The effective use of anti-aircraft weapons allowed the rebels who had no serviceable aircraft to control the air over the battlefield destroying the Ukraine armored attacks leading to the current stalemated trench warfare. A Ukraine military transport was shot down at altitude earlier but for political and monetary reasons civil air transportation continue over the battlefields. This is a classic case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. ..."
"... BUK missile burns its engine out far sooner than what it takes for the missile to reach its target. Which means that there wouldn't have been Top Gun like smoke trail approaching the aircraft but just the missile gliding like a dart without power. ..."
By John Helmer , the
longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to
direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor
of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia.
He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself
in Russia. Originally published at Dances
with Bears
You don't need to be an expert in ground-to-air warfare, radar, missile ordnance, or forensic
criminology to understand the three fundamental requirements for prosecuting people for crimes. The
first is proof of intention to do what happened. The second is proof of what could not have happened
amounts to proof that it didn't happen. The third is proof beyond reasonable doubt.
These are not, repeat not, the principles of the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), a team of
police, prosecutors, and spies from The Netherlands, Ukraine, Malaysia, Belgium, and Australia. They
have committed themselves to proving that a chain of Russian military command intended to shoot down
and was criminally responsible for the destruction of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 on July 17, 2014,
and for the deaths of all 298 people on board.
The JIT case for Russian culpability hinges on five elements occurring in sequence – that a BUK
missile was launched to the east of the aircraft, and approached it head-on, before exploding on
the port (left) side of the cockpit. Pause, rewind, then reread slowly in order to identify the elements
of intention, causation, and culpability:
the BUK missile was aimed with a target acquisition radar by operators inside a BUK vehicle
at a target flying in the sky and ordered to fire;
they fired from their vehicle parked on the ground facing east towards the aircraft's approach;
the missile flew west and upwards to a height of 10,060 metres;
the warhead detonated;
the blast and the shrapnel tore the cockpit from the main fuselage; destroyed one of the aircraft
engines; and caused the aircraft to catch fire, fall to the ground in pieces, and kill everyone.
On Wednesday afternoon, in the small Dutch town of Nieuwegein, two Dutchmen, one a prosecutor,
one a policeman, claimed they have proof that this is what happened. For details of the proof they
provided the world's press, read
this . Later the same day, in Moscow, a presentation by two Russians from the
Almaz-Antei missile group, one a missile ordnance expert, the other a radar expert, presented their
proof of what could not have happened.
Click to watch
.
The enemies of Russia accept the Dutch proof and ignore the Russian proof. As Wilbert Paulissen,
the Dutch policeman, claimed during the JIT briefing, "the absence of evidence does not prove [the
BUK missile] was not there."
Paulissen may be right. To prove he's right all he has to do is to fill in the gap between
the JIT version of what happened and the Russian version of what could not have happened by answering
these questions. To convince a court and jury, Paulissen's answers to these questions must be beyond
reasonable doubt.
Question 1. ... Why that target, and not the other two
targets, also civil aircraft flying above 10,000 metres within a few minutes of each other and within
firing range? Why target an aircraft flying so high, at a constant, level altitude?
What evidence
is there in the JIT presentation that the BUK and about one hundred men the Dutch claim to have been
involved knew what they were aiming at and intended the result which occurred? A Russian military
source asks: "did the BUK operators know where to direct their radar antenna? A 120-degree angle
is not very large for target interception."
Question 3. When a BUK warhead explodes, it releases about 7,800 metal fragments or shrapnel.
Unique to the BUK warhead, according to the Dutch investigations, as well as to the missile manufacturer
Almaz-Antei, is a piece of metal shaped like a bowtie or butterfly. About one-third of the BUK warhead's
shrapnel – that's about 2,600 pieces of metal – is bowtie or butterfly-shaped. Another third of the
shrapnel is cube-shaped. According to the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) papers issued in October 2015,
20 pieces of shrapnel were recovered, including 2 bowties and 2 cubes
BUK WARHEAD SHRAPNEL – BOWTIES AND CUBES
DUTCH SAFETY BOARD INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS OF MISSILE SHRAPNEL
The spread or spray of the shrapnel after detonation is not more than 60 degrees. From mapping
this spread from the impacts of metal fragments on aircraft panels it is possible to determine the
angle of the missile to the aircraft at detonation. This in turn allows the tracking of the missile's
approach trajectory and the firing position on the ground. Testing warhead detonation against aircraft
panels will also reveal the number and type of shrapnel impacts which ought to be registered if the
missile and warhead types have been correctly identified.
According to the latest JIT report this week, the number of bowties and cubes has dwindled
from four identified in last October's Dutch Safety Board (DSB) report to two, one of each shape.
How and why did the other two pieces of evidence disappear in The Netherlands over the past twelve
months? How does the JIT explain there was no shrapnel at all in the bodies of the 295 people, crew
and passengers, who were behind the cockpit, in the main cabin of the aircraft?
According to Mikhail Malishevsky, the Almaz-Antei briefer in Moscow yesterday, test-bed detonations
of the BUK missile at the port position, 1.5 metres from the cockpit, where the Dutch claim the missile
detonated, show many more impact holes and evidence of bowties than the Dutch report they have recovered.
Malishevsky records that in the Dutch analysis reported last year the shrapnel impacts had an average
concentration of 80 per square metre. He says the Dutch are now reporting an average concentration
of 250 per square metre, but with fewer of the BUK warhead's characteristic bowties.
The discrepancy in shrapnel count is so large, Malishevsky draws two conclusions – that it
was impossible for the missile to have approached from the east and struck head-on; and that the
only trajectory consistent with the MH17 shrapnel damage pattern was one in which the missile flew
parallel to the aircraft before exploding, and approached from the south, not from the east.
"The hypothesis of a missile hitting the plane head-on was not credible. There is no way
to explain the lack of fragments [shrapnel] as per the Dutch 3D model…" Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbIPo8dW9b0
-- minute 20:51.
Question 4. ... The key claim from the Russian side is that for the engine to be as damaged as it was, the
warhead must have detonated on the starboard side. And for that to be the outcome, the missile must
have approached MH17, and been fired, from the south.
So the question for Dutch prosecutor Fred Westerbeke (lead image, left) and Dutch policeman Paulissen,
along with the 100 members of the JIT staff, is which engine is which in their evidence? Why
does it appear that the MH17's port engine – left-side looking forward, compass north for the plane
flying east - not impacted by warhead blast or shrapnel? Why are there shrapnel hits on the starboard
engine (right-side looking forward , compass south) and why was it deformed so differently? Why has
the JIT omitted to analyse the engine positions and report this evidence?
A summary of these questions and the answers so far can be plotted on the map of the crash area.
KEY Red line - MH 17. Blue line – firing point at Snizhne (in Russian Snezhnoe), according to the JIT version.
Green line – firing point at Zaroshchenskoe (misspelled in the map), according to Almaz-Antei
version.
Source: http://www.novayagazeta.ru/inquests/68376.html
Topographically, between Snizhne (Snezhnoe) in the east and Zaroshchenskoe to the southwest, there
is a distance of less than 25 kilometres. Politically, between them as suspected missile-firing sites
there is all the difference in the world
What is revealing is how discreet the mainstream mass media have been about the "definitive
conclusion" that the "separatists did it with the help of Russia". At least in Europe, the topic
was not presented prominently in the press and on the radio, and disappeared right afterwards.
It does not matter: the propaganda was intense and relentless right after the incident
to blame the usual suspects - and silenced as soon as the gaps in the narrative became so large
they could not be dissimulated.
The MH17 shooting will join the numerous other cases ascribed to dastardly diplomatic opponents:
1) the assassination of Rafi Hariri (blamed on Assad, but evidence implicating Israel not followed
upon);
2) the bungled terrorist attacks in Thailand (blamed on Iran, responsibility of Iranian opposition
highly likely given the evidence);
3) the bus bombing in Bulgaria (blamed on Hezbollah, investigation of involvement of Sunni jihadist
groups abruptly cancelled);
4) the chemical attack in Syria (blamed on Assad, convincingly demonstrated by Hersh to be an
Al-Nusra false flag action);
5) cyber-breach at Sony (blamed on North Korea, evidence points out at an insider job within Sony);
6) cyberattack at OPM (blamed on China without proof);
7) cyberattacks against the Democratic party (blamed on Russia without proof);
Notice how those widely discussed, important cases have sunk into a news black-hole - without
ever having been properly investigated and cleared up .
We will probably never know for sure in our lifetime what happened in all those cases.
Or, for that matter, the Kuwaiti babies tossed out of incubators by Saddam (story invented
by a DC pr shop) or the Belgian babies speared by German bayonets in WW1 (British propaganda this
time). In a mass media age propaganda is viewed as a vital component of war making which is why
all claims from places like Syria and Ukraine should be treated with skepticism. For the R2P crowd
represented by Hillary and the ridiculous Samantha Power this propaganda aspect is central, and
their compliant allies in the MSM are more than willing to go along.
There is a major difference between then and now: the stories about babies tossed on bayonets
or out of incubators (or the Serbian extermination camps in Bosnia, or the mass graves of Ceaucescu
in Timisoara) were all complete fabrications.
Nobody denies that the MH17 was shot down, or that Hariri in Lebanon or Israeli tourists in
Bulgaria were blown up, or that a chemical bomb exploded in Eastern Ghouta. This makes any debunking
somewhat more arduous: proving or disproving a culpability is intrinsically more involved than
showing that some major crime is a complete invention.
"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great
publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion
for almost forty years."
He went on to explain:
"It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected
to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared
to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite
and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past
centuries."
- David Rockefeller, Speaking at the June, 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden, Germany (a
meeting also attended by then-Governor Bill Clinton and by Dan Quayle
David Rockefeller born June 12, 1915 … likely the most powerful man in the world.
Now, I'll repeat the most damning, though admittedly non-scientific evidence of all: The U.S.
and its lapdog allies were, for months after the event, shrieking about Russian culpability
through compliant MSM outlets. Then, suddenly, radio silence. The topic virtually disappeared
from the very same MSM outlets as if it were radioactive.
That would never have happened had the anti-Russian alliance not discovered information
that severely undercut their original, reflexive claims.
Does anyone believe that this most recent report is other than a feeble attempt to keep the
original, and quite obviously false narrative alive?
I'm guessing it's always been like this? Screech hard and loud about imminent threats (to physical
self or honor) and do so loud and often, claiming any moment to think is close to treason (or
simply cowardice). Note that it will always be harder to refute (finding facts) than to come up
with lies, of which there will be many (and if even a single is correct, it makes the next lie
even better) and keep at it. until there is an actual punishment for doing this, there is no reason
not to. Am I missing something?
We are on trajectory for really bad things. Russia is being demonized – in all quarters: sports,
politics, commerce – in a way reminiscent of the worst of the cold war. forget the handbags of
the '80s, but the 50/60s.
And a complicit and/or childlike media is happy to swallow whatever
official story comes their way. We know – as with any major power – that crazy shit is going down
in, and with Russia (Putin ain't a saint). But poking, and prodding this nuclear bear – as a way
to, among other things, justify $1 trillion in nuclear re-armament – is as foolish as it gets.
DJT is a moron of nth degree. but i just don't believe he will drive us to armed conflict (whether
by proxy or not) with russia. that, alone, would be enough for a vote against HRC. and with the
mess the GOP is in, if HRC get in, she's in for 8 years. #untolddamage.
Thank you for this careful analysis. The new Cold War-like hostility to Russia of American
media has made objective evaluation especially difficult to come by:
Agree, if they really had the goods this would have been blaring 24/7 from Hilary's War Advancement
& Promotion Team, oops I mean CNN. Even simpler though is just to note that when Obama/Hilary
are pressed on what exactly Russia has done overall to deserve the "existential threat" label,
they mumble and finally blurt out ""Crimea".
So I guess a fair plebiscite where 96% voted to rejoin
Russia and a peaceful transition without a single shot fired now qualifies as a threat to the
US. And of course zero mention of the murderous Neo-Nazis we installed in Kiev.
It is blaring 24/7 at the NYTimes. Today's edition had a marvelously double-entendred piece
on page one, "Hostile Russia looks familiar to Cold War veterans." Much hinges on whether the
familiarity lies in properties of the object or, instead, the subject's perceptual grid, a grid
the Times is trying very hard to propagate.
The Russians have a long history of lying their asses off when they (or their minions) eff
up. They are much better at it, after watching Fox News for the past 30 years.
Funny, but their surrogates didn't mind taking the credit for the half dozen or so
Ukrainian
jets zapped by missiles in the couple of months before this incident.
As far as "not seeing/mentioning a missile"? Yeah, so what? Visibility of targets coming at
you from the low/front is limited in all commercial jets. And this assumes the crew was even looking,
and not heads down playing with the radio or FMS. Pimping this line make the rest of their narrative
immediately suspect.
And remember how they were pushing the "Ukrainian SU-25 Theory" before anyone who knows anything
about airplanes shot that one full of holes.
But whatever. Nobody is going to be able to prove anything, since the airplane crashed on Russian
controlled territory
If the conspiracy theorists think the airplane was shot down as a pretext to starting a war
with Russia, answer me this……. Why zap a Malaysian airliner, with no US or British passengers?
All you need is an Internet connection and Flightaware,to know what airplane you are shooting
at.
Which is more likely? A giant conspiracy (by people who are demonstratably too stupid to pull
it off) by the Ukraine and Nato, to come up with a plan to pin it on the Russians (while demonstrating
prior to and subsequently that they really don't need an excuse), or………
A couple of yokels sitting inside a SAM launcher who effed up and zapped the wrong airplane,
who subsequently were made to "disappear"?
more reasons why people shouldn't and no longer do trust 'experts'. it's a meaningless charade
intended to make an agenda credible. when one of the main suspects is one of the lead investigators
and the whole sham of an investigation is led by nato, it's only aim is to increase tensions with
russia. well, it looks like they will finally get the war they have been wishing for when mrs
clinton takes over the white house.
Addressing not the issue at hand but the conundrum of "reasonable doubt" (which Helmer invokes
at the start of the essay) please read The origins of reasonable doubt : theological roots of
the criminal trial by James Q. Whitman. Whitman is at Yale Law School. He published the chapters
separately in various law reviews. Read the last chapter first for an overview and understanding
that he is motivated to get rid of the bogus standard with medieval theological roots– after all,
how many have been wrongly jailed due to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
Bill Smith, and it's been pretty well debunked as inconsistent with the evidence, but toddlers
need something to believe. Try again, this time with your fingers out of your ears.
This is one thread subject on this otherwise excellent site that I think is absolutely ridiculous.
I can understand putting people to their proof on the evidence, but what exactly is the point
of this article? To prove that the separatists didn't shoot down the plane? Considering that Strelkov
actually bragged about shooting a plane down right after it happened (the post was quickly taken
down, but luckily caching is a thing), and there were witness accounts of a missile battery being
driven out of Luhansk at the same time, I think it's a bit much to suggest that the Ukrainians
did it.
Our policy towards Russia is stupid and short-sighted, as it has been for most of the past
three decades, but our own failings don't make the Russians into saints. They're capable of stupid
and evil decisions just as much as we are. Is it really that much of a stretch to think that weapons,
whether given to proxies or used by the Russians themselves, can shoot the wrong target? There's
a line between being a healthy skeptic and a useful idiot, and there's a lot of people here who
need to look at which side of it they're standing on.
The fundamental problem with the investigation is that the Dutch, as part of NATO, cannot possibly
be expected to be impartial. In the American legal system you are entitled to a jury of your peers.
Lawyers go to great lengths to strike individuals from the jury pool who might have biases one
way or another.
In this case the investigators are acting more like a District Attorneys' office, but even
there justice presumes that those in charge of making prosecutorial decisions don't have conflicts
of interests.
I'd have a lot more faith in the process here if the whole thing were handed off to a neutral
third party, assuming such a country could be found. And therein lies the rub … thanks to the
neo-liberal program of turning every country into a vassal state for the US, there aren't many
candidates left.
Is it really that much of a stretch to think that weapons, whether given to proxies or used
by the Russians themselves, can shoot the wrong target?
Good comment. I don't think any reasonable person has implied that the separatists intentionally
shot down a civilian plane. They thought it was a military plane, and it was a tragic mistake.
I can't comment on all of Helmer's questions, but I can comment on #1. He says that newer BUK
systems don't match what was seen on the ground. Well, it's possible the Russians did not provide
the new variety of BUK systems to the separatists. Maybe they let the separatists use the older
variety, and the Russians kept the newer systems on their own soil.
Regarding question #2. Maybe the pilots didn't see the missile because it was below their field
of vision until the very last second. Or maybe they weren't looking at that part of the sky, so
they didn't see it right away. Or maybe they saw it, and briefly froze, wondering what the heck
is that?
Almaz-Antey alleges that Russia hadn't had any older models in inventory to supply for some
two years before the attack, but that the Ukrainian military hadn't upgraded yet.
The only BUKs in the area were in Kiev's hands. Russia has them on radar and they were active
at the time. The one supposedly seen from Lugansk was false–the photo they are using for "evidence"
has a billboard in the background that has been located as in a Kiev-controlled area. The separatists
never had one at all. The real problem here is that one of the prime suspects has veto power over
the report. It can *never* be impartial with Ukraine on the investigation team.
Thank you!
I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would listen to this John Helmer person.
He's obviously not knowledgeable in the field of aeronautics.
A missile closing in on a passenger plane from below, at several thousand kilometers per hour,
would be impossible to spot visually until immediately before impact, even if you were looking
in the exact field of the visual area that it was occupying (which you wouldn't).
And you are expert?!?! SAMs generally attack targets from above, and BUKs are specifically
designed to do so. As an expert in "aeronautics" and ballistics you will no doubt explain to the
audience why that is. Moreover, MH17's cockpit damage shows that the warhead exploded above, portside.
But don't let evidence get in the way of "expertise."
Prior to Operation Desert Storm, it was reported that Sadam Hussein had amassed 250,000 troops
and 1500 tanks on the Saudi Arabian border. Commercial satellite images proved otherwise. The
Iraqi's
where later accused of taking infants out of incubators and leaving them to die. We now know it
was a fabrication courtesy of the PR firm Hill & Knowlton.
In 1999 and 2000, the United States would go on to bomb Iraq two to three times a week. The
sanctions
Bill Clinton imposed on Iraq cost the lives of half a million children under the age of five.
When asked during an interview if the price was worth it, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright
responded,
"I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it."
The second Iraq war brought us a new set of lies. The cooperation with al Qaeda, who we are
now arming
in Syria, the uranium yellow cake, the mobile biological weapons labs, the infamous weapons of
mass
destruction, etc. It estimated than more than a million Iraqi's have died as a result of this
butchery.
Libya, the wealthiest country with the highest standard of living in Africa, was the next major
target
of more lies. From Gaddafi bombing his own people to the distribution of Viagra to his troops
so that they
could go on a raping spree. Little mention is made of the bombing of Libya's Great Man-made River
project, the largest aqueduct and network of pipes that supplied water to %70 of the population.
The water
crisis created continues to this day.
The illegal war of aggression on the sovereign state of Syria requires it's own discussion.
I will only
mention the allegation of Assad using sarin nerve gas. Seymour Hersh's reporting would later show
that it
was a false flag carried out to cross Obama's chemical weapons "red line".
This brings us to Ukraine, a country in which the United States spent $5 billion on regime
change. It was coup d'etat that brought in Svobada and Right Sector, both Neo-Nazi parties. From
the fake Russian troop photo's presented by Senator Inhofe, to the invasion of Crimea, a peninsula
that hosts Russia's Sevastopol naval base. If there is any doubt about it being an invasion or
not, it should be noted that not only did Crimean's vote to secede with a 96% majority in 2014,
they overwhelmingly voted for independence both in 1991 and 1994.
As far as I am aware, the Ukraine and US have not released any of their radar data. The JIT
also used information from Bellingcat, a discredited propaganda outlet. In light of all this information,
you will have to pardon my "healthy skepticism". I also suggest that you use the term "useful
idiot" more lightly.
The technical aspects of the two reports are not verifiable by me based on either account so
I cannot say which is more likely based on this article. However I can say that disputing the
shoot-down by a BUK based on the idea that it was unlikely the separatists would choose that plane
and fire at it is about as valid as saying the shoot-down theory is impossible because everyone
knows commercial airliners are shot down only once every decade. The plane WAS shot down. Perhaps
the unsophisticated BUK system was the reason for a commercial airliner being struck.
So we have the Dutch on one side with a potential bias because they are part of NATO and interested
in crucifying the evil Soviets…whoops, Russians at any price. And on the other side we have the
suppliers of the missile and sponsors/supporters of those accused of firing it. Which side is
more likely to fabricate an explanation? Maybe both are lying. But I would tend to give the benefit
of the doubt to the Dutch.
But I would tend to give the benefit of the doubt to the Dutch
And in so doing you are giving the benefit of the doubt to the Ukrainian SBU who the Dutch
admit provided them with much of the 'evidence'. Kiev is hardly a disinterested party in this
matter.
Perhaps the unsophisticated BUK system was the reason
BUK systems, although old, are very advanced and require 6 months to a year of training
for its crew to become truly proficient with it.
There are currently three versions of the MH17 case:
1) A motley crew of separatists did it with equipment provided by Russia.
2) An Ukrainian oligarch with his own badly trained militia did it with equipment diverted
from Ukrainian reserves.
3) The Ukrainian army did it during an exercise with poorly trained personnel and goofed up.
There is no incontrovertible evidence for any of those scenarios. Note that (3) would not be
the first time that the Ukrainian army shot down a civilian airplane by mistake; it already did
it in 2001 (look up Siberia Airlines 1812).
The problem that Helmer and others highlight is that the Dutch investigation is biased: all
evidence and even hearsay is interpreted against Russia, all evidence that goes against the "Russia
did it" scenario is ignored or minimized, major evidence that would conclusively settle matters
is kept under wraps (USA surveillance logs, Ukrainian tower control logs, Russian radar logs).
http://www.whathappenedtoflightmh17.com/geopolitics-is-biggest-enemy-to-finding-truth-on-mh17/
JIT concluded a BUK TELAR was brought into Eastern Ukraine from Russia. But it did not blame
the Russian Federation formaly of having shot down MH17. Dutch politics including Mark
Rutte refuse to punish Russia on its role in downing MH17. Current EU sanctions are because
the annexation of Crimea and not respecting Minsk agreement.
BUK systems, although old, are very advanced and require 6 months to a year of training
for its crew to become truly proficient with it.
Requiring 6-12mnths of training is not exactly an endorsement of sophistication.
That said, what I read (a couple years ago!) and recall about the buk systems is that there is
at least one degraded permissive level that will allow the system to launch a missile, and several
targeting radar/telemetry apparatus (remote/local) that allow the system to function in a degraded
manner -- like if the systems truck with "the meat" in it gets blasted.
My opinion remains that it was a BUK system supplied by the Russians to what was less than
fully qualified separatists, or was subsequently put in the hands of less than qualified operators
who launched on purpose thinking it was the ubiquitous Ukie cargo plane, not realizing it was
a commercial airliners.
Who would do that on purpose? really? This is EXACTLY the kind of idiocy that occurs in war
The surmise is that Kiev thought that was Putin's plane, which was in the air at the same time.
There's also a report from a mechanic that defected to Russia, that he saw the pilot that did
it return saying "it was the wrong plane." AFAIK, that wasn't investigated at all. Kiev has veto
power over the report. A genuine investigation is not being conducted at all.
Zapster, even the BUK mfgr conceded it was shot down with a BUK missile over a year ago. Isnt
it time to give up the imaginary SU-25 confabulation already?
The Almaz-Antey presentation confirms MH17 was shot down by a BUK missile, burying once
and for all the SU 25 theory, about which regular readers of Russia Insider will know I have always
been skeptical.
A more credible scenario is that recruits of the Ukrainian army were going through an accelerated
training of BUK deployment with inventory of USSR-era equipment, and goofed up.
(a) Because so far, all BUK systems in Ukraine, especially at the time of the MH17
downing, have been conclusively identified as Ukrainian ones. There are no conclusive images of
the supposed separatist BUK battery before, during or after the MH17 incident. Despite all radars
monitoring the battlefield…
(b) Because being at war and given the dilapidated state of the Ukrainian army (going back
to the early 1990s), there was an urgent need for personnel, and only fast training was possible.
No careful year-long schooling when the next separatist offensive or much-touted Russian invasion
can strike in a matter of weeks.
(c) Because a training scenario explains the presence of Ukrainian SU25, serving as practice
targets - but BUK radars locked onto the much larger signal corresponding to the MH17.
(d) Because shooting actual missiles when one is not supposed to do, and aiming them at the
wrong target is exactly the kind of error that "green" personnel may commit while stressed in
time of war - but that experienced operators who had time to go through all possible scenarios
recognizing various target types and locking the right ones after months of drill will avoid.
Personally, I do not believe that any of the suspects ever deliberately fired at MH17.
4- Putin did it. After all, the American mass media told us so almost before the airliner hit
the ground.
5- An American clandestine agency (CIA, NSA, Blackwater, etc. did it by supplying planning
and logistical support to their client Ukrainians.
A crime did take place. Since we are uncertain as to who the perpetrators were, let's apply
crime scene logic:
MOTIVE:
Hard to conceive of a motive for Putin or the Russian Federation. The only conceivable result
of such an attack would be to further the Western propaganda effort to demonize Putin and the
separatists and to open the door to increased US military and economic support for Ukraine.
On the other hand the USA (and the Ukrainian government) clearly had the motive to create a
false flag situation to justify expanded intervention, and the US has a long history of doing
so. Gulf of Tonkin, World Trade Center, Syrian gas attacks - to name but a few.
MEANS:
If the plane was downed by a Russian built BUK missile instead of by fighter jets as it first
seemed, then all five suspects could have conceivably have been in possession of the missile and
launch and fire control apparatus. Using an analysis of the attack direction to derive the launch
site is plausible but far from convincing. Both the Russians and the US had their most sophisticated
spy satellites focused on the region and probably knew exactly what happened in real time.
OPPORTUNITY:
The real smoking gun in this affair was the fact that the Ukrainians purposely re-routed the airliner
far south of its normal route, and then disappeared the air traffic controller in charge. Without
this diversion it would not have been possible to target the plane. Was this event planned and
coordinated by one of the US spook agencies or mercenaries under contract or was it solely an
Ukrainian operation? Did the sophisticated American communications ship stationed nearby assist
with logistics?
Somehow I can't buy the argument that it was all an accident.
Clouseau: Listen to me, Hercule, and you will learn something.
Now then, the facts in this case are:
the body of the chauffeur was found in the bedroom of the second maid. Fact!
Cause of death:
Four bullets in the chest. Fact!
The bullets were fired at close range from a .25 caliber Beretta automatic. Fact!
Maria Gambrelli was discovered with the murder weapon in her hand. Fact!
The murder weapon was registered in the name of the deceased, Miguel Ostos, and was kept, mind
you, in the glove compartment of the Ballon Rolls-Royce. Fact!
Now then, members of the household staff have testified that Miguel Ostos beat…
[snaps his pointing stick]
Clouseau: You fool! You have broken my pointing stick! I have nothing to point with now!… have
testified that Miguel Ostos beat Maria Gambrelli frequently.
And now, finally comes the sworn statement of Monsieur and Madame Ballon, as well as all the
members of the staff, each of them with perfect alibis.
Now then, Hercule, What is the inescapable conclusion?
Hercule LaJoy: Maria Gambrelli killed the chauffeur.
Clouseau: What? You idiot! It's impossible. She's protecting someone.
Hercule LaJoy: How do you know that?
Clouseau: Instinct!
Hercule LaJoy: But that facts…
Clouseau: You are forgetting the most important fact – motive.
Note: the previous variant of this comment went to moderation.
You need to understand that after JFK assassination the notion that truth will eventually surface
in such cases is open to review. So a plausible hypothesis might be all we can have. Yes, there is a line "between being a healthy skeptic and a useful idiot", but the evidence
strongly suggests that in this particular case Western MSM promoted version has huge hole in it.
The default suspects according to "quo bono" principle should be Ukraine and the USA, unless
good counterarguments are provided. There are none so far.
Of cause we do not know for sure (and might never get the real facts), but there are several
chunks of evidence that strengthen this "accident into false flag" or "false flag from the very
beginning" hypothesis:
1. Why there were no reports of a smoke trail from the purported missile launch?
2. Strange, never explained, story of Spanish aircontroler twits immediately after the tragedy.
To whom belong pretty alarming twits in the Spanish blog from an air traffic controller working
in Boryspil airport, which completely contradict official Ukrainian and Western MSM story?
3. Testimony of a defector to Russians from Ukrainian air force (technician on the nearby military
airfield I think), who suggested that it was a fighter jet that downed the airliner.
4. The fact that SBU immediately confiscated all the evidence from air control towers and those
records were never presented to international investigation commission.
5. Why the agreement that was reached between Ukraine, Netherlands, Belgium and Australia to
classify the results of investigation ?
6. Strange resistance and procrastination with getting evidence from the crash site. Shelling
of the crash site by the Ukrainian artillery.
7. Why the normal route over Ukraine for the airliner was changed ?
8. Attempts to provide proof of rebels involvement which later were discredited as fabrications
(unverified phone intercepts that experts proved to be fragments of conversations stitched together
to implicate rebels)
9. Striking speed with which Ukrainian and Western MSM just after a few minutes after the plane
disappeared from screens of radars, has started well coordinated and pretty vicious campaign
10. Fake satellites maps at the time of the tragedy. Fake photo of BUK track which allegingly
shoot down MH17.
11. Attempts to capture the crash area, despite previous agreement for ceasefire in this area.
Still pondering why a civilian aircraft was anywhere near a combat zone with such armament
present, especially considering some of the tenancies of the combatants involved.
Dishevled Marsupial…. its not like innocent people are not maimed or killed in gang turf wars
day in and day out….
Blame will be determined sometime in the future if there are any winners in the ongoing
mini World War. The effective use of anti-aircraft weapons allowed the rebels who had no serviceable
aircraft to control the air over the battlefield destroying the Ukraine armored attacks leading
to the current stalemated trench warfare. A Ukraine military transport was shot down at altitude
earlier but for political and monetary reasons civil air transportation continue over the battlefields.
This is a classic case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Wargames between nuclear powers inevitably escalate to use of ICBMs. I am so old I remember
the Civil Defense program that was made obsolete in 1953 when the Soviet Union exploded the first
deployable hydrogen bomb. The USA is losing. Washington DC is befuddled. Western propaganda doesn't
make any sense. There is no indication that there is any comprehension of the danger to mankind
by the insane decision to start a war with Russia or that a miscalculation or accident could cause
a nuclear holocaust not just a 777 shot down.
(i) Ukrainian aircraft (transport planes) tended to approach from that same direction so it
wouldn't exactly be in any manner surprising that the BUK unit would be aligned to wait for them.
120 degree arc is huge when you already have some knowledge of the direction where the radar ought
to point. Since TELAR unit can't tell what exactly it is that it is shooting (you would need TAR
for that) the identification can't really be even expected to happen.
(ii) BUK missile burns its engine out far sooner than what it takes for the missile to reach
its target. Which means that there wouldn't have been Top Gun like smoke trail approaching the
aircraft but just the missile gliding like a dart without power. Given the speed of the objects
the missile would have approached the aircraft at around 1000 m per second – with the diameter
of missile being around 40 cm it would have been difficult to see it just from 100 meters out
– which would have left less time to react than in which human would have been able to react.
So lack of reaction from the crew is exactly what there ought to have been.
(iii) Homing method used in most missiles (including BUK) means that it never flies parallel
to the its target. It is always flying on the basis of ' constant bearing, reducing range
' navigation (i.e. proportional navigation) – you may want to read about that. Also given
the semi-active radar homing used in BUK if the radar (i.e. the launch vehicle) would have been
on the side of the aircraft then it is very unlikely that the missile would have been headed for
the nose either. Lack of found shrapnel is not particularly surprising either as site was unsecured
for quite a while.
And it wasn't like JIT would have ignored the Zaroshchenskoe possibility. It was investigated.
But nothing to support it was found. Furthermore captured rebel communications made it clear that
(i) the locality was either in partial or total rebel control and that (ii) no missile launch
was witnessed. Given that the the launch plume (& burned field) has been located via several different
images provided by JIT it is quite clear where the launch occurred.
This concentration on Buk missile and exclusions of other possibilities has IMHO one serious
problem: complete absence of witness reports of the missile launch. This is a pretty densely populated
area and Buk missile launch produces dense smoke trace clearly visible from the ground. The supposed
launch happened during daytime in fair weather conditions. Huge, dense smoke trace from Buk missile
launch can't be hidden in such a conditions, can it ? It should be visible for at least ten minutes
or more before dissipating.
But there is no witness reports, no photos, nothing. I never head that launch site was located
"via several different images provided by JIT" BBC tried soon after the tragedy and have a correspondent
on the ground explicitly searching for it for a week or so. They failed.
Fighter jet hypothesis is somehow swiped under the carpet despite the testimony of military
aircraft technician who defected to Russians and Russian radar data that had shown a second (military,
no transponder) plane in vicinity at the time of shooting.
As for "Ukrainian aircraft (transport planes) tended to approach from that same direction so
it wouldn't exactly be in any manner surprising that the BUK unit would be aligned to wait for
them. " this is questionable explanation. There were multiple planes in this area flying at high
altitudes the same day, so the selection of the target and timing looks bizarre. Why not an earlier
plane, why not a later plane ?
Had you familiarized yourself with the JIT report you would have noticed that they had witness
reports, as well as photos depicting the smoke plume from several different angles. Also it is
quite likely that the sound people believed at the time have heard as 'jet engine' noise was actually
noise from the missile's rocket engine. So that kinda leaves your version full of holes. And it
kinda depends on the prevailing weather as to how long the smoke trail will persist –
link
You can see (closer to the end) the trail starting to disperse immediately. And oddly enough for
your story there were reporters who had no trouble locating the burned of patch of field following
the photos and witness reports.
The fighter jet theory is just nonsense. Belongs to the same category as the 'Spanish air traffic
controller' story. There is nothing in Russian radar data that would hint of a presence of another
aircraft. Only additional detection occurs after the incident has occurred which means that instead
of being an aircraft it was likely just debris from the MH17. That Russians claimed it would have
been an Su-25 was a rather dishonest act.
As to why MH17 was shot down and not any of the others. In all likelyhood no one intended to
shoot it down. So that falls to the category of bad luck (in part of the crew and passengers of
MH17).
While your points about witnesses may have merit, the video falls in the category of "web evidence"
as it may have been doctored and hence is not reliable.
Again, my point is that like in case of JFK assassination we might never know that truth. So your
supreme confidence is very suspect.
I see you as a hardened type of information warrior not a person who try to dig out the truth.
You are fixed on a single version no matter what evidence is available and discard any conflicting
"separatists did it" evidence.
BTW I do not exclude any possibilities: it can be separatists, it can be Ukrainian Buk, it
can be a fighter jet. But need to see all augments on the table, not a selective set supporting
a single most convenient to the dominant parties in the investigation. And weight all three hypothesis.
And Ukrainians and the USA should be considered primary suspects due to obvious benefits they
got from the tragedy. Absence of Russian citizens among victims is for me a kind of alarming fact
by itself as it allowed to exclude Russians from the investigation and pointing in the direction
of "false flag".
Moreover the whole investigation became essentially an exercise in proving "separatists did
it", despite the fact that Ukrainian authorities were clear beneficiary of the event and Provisional
government consisted of very dangerous and reckless people (especially Parubiy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andriy_Parubiy
) .
BTW it was separatists that provided black boxes of the aircraft to investigators and much
of the evidence were collected and guarded by them. And it was Ukrainians that shelled the area
to prevent investigators from working after the tragedy.
Also any investigation that uses Bellingcat materials should be automatically labeled as a
propaganda exercise (or disinformation war, if you wish). Think about it…
Also Parry points out that exact location of Ukrainian Buks at the moment of the tragedy were
never revealed by investigators. If this is not a clear bias, I do not know what is.
Where is the map with the location of Ukrainian units and radar on the day of the tragedy,
I would like to ask you? Where are transcripts of communication of Ukrainian military and Dnepropetrovsk
air traffic controllers for this day?
The JIT video report on the MH-17 case, which was released on Wednesday, also didn't address
questions about the location of several Ukrainian Buk missile batteries that Dutch (i.e. NATO)
intelligence placed in eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014, the day that MH-17 was shot down.
A finding from the Dutch intelligence service, MIVD, released last October, said the only high-powered
anti-aircraft missile systems in eastern Ukraine at that time, capable of bringing down MH-17
at 33,000 feet and killing all 298 people onboard, belonged to the Ukrainian military, not
the rebels.
Dismissing 'Spanish air traffic controller' story shows your true colors, as this event happened
just after the shooting, twits were in Spanish which would be atypical of Russian and Ukrainian
three-letter agencies, and as such has less chances to be a planted disinformation.
"... "There's just a deep desire to believe that we can have free college, free healthcare, that what we've done hasn't gone far enough, and that we just need to, you know, go as far as, you know, Scandinavia, whatever that means, and half the people don't know what that means, but it's something that they deeply feel," ..."
"... "I am occupying from the center-left to the center-right. And I don't have much company there. Because it is difficult when you're running to be president, and you understand how hard the job is – I don't want to overpromise," said Clinton, who has customarily eschewed political spectrum labels. ..."
"... "understanding" ..."
"... "Some are new to politics completely. They're children of the Great Recession. And they are living in their parents' basement. They feel they got their education and the jobs that are available to them are not at all what they envisioned for themselves. And they don't see much of a future," ..."
"... "If you're feeling like you're consigned to, you know, being a barista, or you know, some other job that doesn't pay a lot, and doesn't have some other ladder of opportunity attached to it, then the idea that maybe, just maybe, you could be part of a political revolution is pretty appealing." ..."
"... "listening to the concerns" of "the most diverse, open-minded generation in history." ..."
"... People who have the TV on all day and watch the news from the mainstream media are naturally going to get hoodwinked. They aren't the brightest, but they're also distracted and mislead. ..."
"... She is the definition of implicit bias. ..."
"... After all, they are the deplorables. HRC is truly the most despicable, scandal ridden, lying war monger to ever grace American politics. ..."
"... Shame on Sanders for supporting that Nazi witch. ..."
"... Millions of people were adversely harmed by her misguided policies and her "pay-to-play" operations involving favors in return for donations to the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative. ..."
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton made forthright remarks about Bernie Sanders'
supporters during a private meeting with fundraisers, an audio from which has been leaked following
an email hack.
"There's just a deep desire to believe that we can have free college, free healthcare, that
what we've done hasn't gone far enough, and that we just need to, you know, go as far as, you know,
Scandinavia, whatever that means, and half the people don't know what that means, but it's something
that they deeply feel," Clinton said during a Q&A with potential donors in McLean in Virginia,
in February, when she was still in a close primary race with Sanders.
The frontrunner to become the next US President said that herself and other election observers
had been "bewildered" by the rise of the "populist, nationalist, xenophobic, discriminatory"
Republican candidates, presumably Donald Trump, on the one side, and the radical left-wing idealists
on the other.
Clinton painted herself as a moderate and realistic contrast to the groundswell.
"I am occupying from the center-left to the center-right. And I don't have much company there.
Because it is difficult when you're running to be president, and you understand how hard the job
is – I don't want to overpromise," said Clinton, who has customarily eschewed political spectrum
labels.
According to the Washington Free Beacon, which posted the audio of Clinton's remarks, the recording
was attached to an email sent out by a campaign staffer, which has been hacked. It is unclear if
the leak is the work of the same hackers who got hold of a trove of Democratic National Committee
(DNC) emails in July.
... ... ...
In the session, Clinton called for an "understanding" of the motives of Sanders' younger
backers, while describing them in terms that fluctuate between patronizing and unflattering.
"Some are new to politics completely. They're children of the Great Recession. And they are
living in their parents' basement. They feel they got their education and the jobs that are available
to them are not at all what they envisioned for themselves. And they don't see much of a future,"
said Clinton, who obtained the support of about 2,800 delegates, compared to approximately 1,900
for Sanders, when the results were tallied in July.
"If you're feeling like you're consigned to, you know, being a barista, or you know, some
other job that doesn't pay a lot, and doesn't have some other ladder of opportunity attached to it,
then the idea that maybe, just maybe, you could be part of a political revolution is pretty appealing."
Despite well-publicized tensions, particularly between the more vocal backers, Sanders endorsed
Clinton at the Democratic National Convention two months ago, and the two politicians have campaigned
together this week, sharing the stage.
Following the leak, the Clinton campaign has not apologized for the audio, insisting that it shows
that the nominee and is "listening to the concerns" of "the most diverse, open-minded generation
in history."
"As Hillary Clinton said in those remarks , she wants young people to be idealistic and set big
goals," said her spokesman Glen Caplin. "She is fighting for exactly millennial generation cares
more about – a fairer, more equal, just world."
In other parts of the 50-minute recording, Clinton spoke about US capacity to "retaliate"
against foreign hackers that would serve as a "deterrence" and said she would be "inclined"
to mothball the costly upgrade of the Long Range Standoff (LRSO) missile program.
The more she runs her mouth the more support she loses.
Gold Carrot -> Olive Sailboat 6m
Well if somebody is supported by Soros, Warren Buffet, Walmart family, Gates, Moskowitz, Pritzker,
Saban and Session what do you expect. Give me 8 names of other Americans who can top their money
worth. And even so called financial supporters of Republican party like Whitman and Koch brothers
are not supporting Trump. Whitman actually donate to Clinton. In fact most of the donation for
Trump campaign is coming from people who donate at average less than 200 dollars. Clinton represent
BIG MONEY that... See more
GA 2h
Clinton has a supremacist problem, she considers all americans under deserving people, she
thinks she is a pharaoh and we are little people. Reply Share 15
Red Ducky -> GA 23m
you think trump is different? ask yourself this question: Why do Rich people spend hundreds
of millions of dollars for a job that only pays $400K a year?
Rabid Rotty -> Red Ducky 9m
And Trump has stated several times that he will not take the Presidential Salary
pHiL SwEeT -> Rabid Rotty 8m
Uh, yah, Red Ducky just explained how it's not about the money, they're already rich. It's
about power, status, control and legacy.
Green Weights 2h
if Clinton sends her followers and their families to concentration camps, they'll still continue
supporting her. yes, that's how stupid they really are.
Olive Basketball -> Green Weights 55m
People who have the TV on all day and watch the news from the mainstream media are naturally
going to get hoodwinked. They aren't the brightest, but they're also distracted and mislead.
Cyan Beer 2h
She is the definition of implicit bias.
Norm de Plume
Sure enough. The real Americans. Not people, like her, who have dedicated their lives to
aggrandizing
themselves living effectively tax-free at the people's expense.
Seve141 7m
After all, they are the deplorables. HRC is truly the most despicable, scandal ridden, lying war
monger to ever grace American politics.
Tornado_Doom 12m
Shame on Sanders for supporting that Nazi witch.
Green Band Aid -> Tornado_Doom 12m
Sanders will be getting paid. All he does is for money.
Tornado_Doom -> Green Band Aid 11m
Does an old rich man like him need money?
Green Leaf 43m
Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State during Barack Obama's first term was an unmitigated
disaster for many nations around the world. The media has never adequately described how a
number of countries around the world suffered horribly from HC's foreign policy decisions.
Millions of people were adversely harmed by her misguided policies and her "pay-to-play" operations
involving favors in return for donations to the Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative.
Countries adversely impacted by HC's foreign policy decisions include Abkhazia, Argentina,
Bolivia, Brazil, Central African Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti,
Honduras, Iraq, Kosovo, Libya, Malaysia, Palestine, Paraguay, South Sudan, Syria, Thailand,
Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, Venezuela, Western Sahara, Yemen - one would think they had
a visit from the anti-Christ instead of HC. Or is HC the anti-Christ in disguise?
Green Leaf 45m
The majority of American's will vote Trump for 3 primary reasons.
1. National Security: They
trust him when it comes to protecting national security and to stop illegal aliens from entering
US boarders along with stopping the mass importation of un-vetted refugees from the middle
east.
2. Economy: They know he knows how to get things done under budget and ahead of schedule..
and he knows how to make money. They want a successful businessman in office, not another political
who is out to enrich his or herself at their expense. In addition he knows how to create jobs
and he has a major plan to cut taxes to help the poor - no tax for anyone earning less then
$50,000 and
3. Hillary's severe covered-up health problems: With all of the problems that the
US is experience they don't want someone who passes out from a seizure in the middle of the
day running the country. This is a severely ill woman is, evidently, of the rare kind that
requires a permanent traveling physician and a "mystery man" who rushes to her side whenever
she has one of her frequent and uncontrollable seizure "episodes" (or otherwise freezes up
with a brain "short-circuit" during a speech). She has Parkinson's. The pneumonia was just
a symptom for something much more serious. She even had a mini seizure during the debate for
those with a medical background to see.
"... But Paul Krugman I have lost a lot of respect for. There was a candidate that people believed in and that stood up for working people and liberal values and that motivated people to come out and support him and his goals for the U.S.A. A candidate that would have neutralized Trump's appeal to the working class (which is mostly where I am). Krugman trashed him relentlessly using his very large soap box. ..."
I won't say bad things about Clinton. Because she is far better than the alternative at this point.
But Paul Krugman I have lost a lot of respect for. There was a candidate that people believed
in and that stood up for working people and liberal values and that motivated people to come out
and support him and his goals for the U.S.A. A candidate that would have neutralized Trump's appeal
to the working class (which is mostly where I am). Krugman trashed him relentlessly using his
very large soap box.
Now he is horrified that the polls are so close.
I can't say anything more without being negative. Except vote for Clinton- she's better than
Trump. Which is a pathetic endorsement.
"... Forget the Bernie hack, this one shows David Brock (Hilary Super-PAC) in action. Apparently they got access to FoxAcid, the top secret NSA software Snowden exposed. ..."
"... Honey for the conspiracy bears but this does smell right, and if it's real it's a bombshell: ..."
Forget the Bernie hack, this one shows David Brock (Hilary Super-PAC) in action. Apparently
they got access to FoxAcid, the top secret NSA software Snowden exposed.
Honey for the conspiracy bears but this does smell right, and if it's real it's a bombshell:
"... Isn't the title of his article backward? Shouldn't it be "The economic damage wrought by those in power (including me) is causing the decline of the middle class". Poor Larry doesn't appear to understand cause and effect. ..."
"... You better believe the man is not stupid and understands this very well. Cue Upton Sinclair's "it is difficulty to convince a man to understand something" quote. ..."
"... It is very common for former officials to come forward with critical accounts of current goings-on *including their own term in office* after they have retired from their post. While in office they can simply not let on this kind of thing. It is not polite, or inconsistent with what they are hired and paid to do. (Which is the second and here unstated part of the Sinclair quote.) ..."
"... Let me see. The rich run the country, and the government. and they have figured out how to suck $400 Billion per year out of the real economy and into their financial pockets. And Larry proposes that the government, controlled by these same rich, remember, adopt policies which will put an end to the feeding frenzy. ..."
"... Even that "reduction" is debate-able. Summers ignores the credit boom and the 98-06 spending orgy. Credit markets drive spending more than base income. Ig spending starts rising "above potential" in 2017-19, then his thesis will collapse along with another correction/recession in the early 20's. ..."
"... America ran a "soft" national socialist economy during and after WWII. ..."
"... Trump supports a complete deregulation of capital markets while the Clinton's a modest firming of them. This is what people don't understand. It isn't trade that determines national production and consumption. ..."
"... You simply can't bring back the Nazi/Soviet bubble back that created the late 20th century middle class. The Capitalists won't allow it. The system is going back to where it was in March of 1929. It always was. ..."
"... Yeah okay, except you might be able to explain it to the kleptocrats better if you use simple economics to show that there'll be more interest income for them if they just lift their jackboot off the throat of the working class, instead of trying to stripmine the West for dirt and dumping their trillions in tax haven accounts earning negative rates. ..."
"... The median household income is approximately $56,000, therefore the IMF study places the breakpoint between "middle" and "high" income at $84,000 (150% of median income). It strikes me that this is unrealistically low. The really meaningful divergence in lifestyles and consumption behavior certainly occurs at a significantly higher level than this. ..."
"... The other question this study raises is, what is the quantifiable extent to which economic growth in the mid-90's to the mid-aughts (prior to the meltdown) was the result of the debt bubble (more broadly than just housing bubble). It would be very interesting to see an estimate of the aggregate impact on the economy has been from the suppression of workers' wages over the past several decades. ..."
"... I don't follow the argument to be honest. The US has a chronic trade deficit. It doesn't actually suffer from inadequate domestic demand, but from an overvalued dollar. His argument might hold for other countries though. ..."
"... That doesn't mean that a "hollowed-out" middle class doesn't have a negative impact on the economy, but it means that you won't see the problem looking at the macro-data (apart from productivity growth statistics perhaps) but in the structure of the economy. It is very hard to find a new high value added niche in mass markets today, because of the lack of disposable income of the masses. ..."
"... Such an article can be viewed as a sign of the collapse of neoliberal model. ..."
This level of reduction in spending is huge. For example, it exceeds by a significant margin
the
impact in any year of the Obama stimulus program. Alone it would be enough to account for
a significant reduction in
neutral real
interest rates . If consumers were spending 3 percent more, there would be scope to maintain
full employment at interest rates much closer to normal. And there would be much less of a problem
of monetary policy's
inability to respond to the next recession.
What is the policy implication? Principally, it is the macroeconomic importance of supporting
middle class incomes. This can be done in a range of ways from promoting workers right to
collectively bargain to raising spending on infrastructure to making the tax system more progressive.
...
Isn't the title of his article backward? Shouldn't it be "The economic damage wrought by those
in power (including me) is causing the decline of the middle class". Poor Larry doesn't appear
to understand cause and effect.
cm -> David...
You better believe the man is not stupid and understands this very well. Cue Upton
Sinclair's "it is difficulty to convince a man to understand something" quote.
It is very common for former officials to come forward with critical accounts of current
goings-on *including their own term in office* after they have retired from their post. While
in office they can simply not let on this kind of thing. It is not polite, or inconsistent
with what they are hired and paid to do. (Which is the second and here unstated part of the
Sinclair quote.)
Let me see. The rich run the country, and the government. and they have figured out how
to suck $400 Billion per year out of the real economy and into their financial pockets. And Larry
proposes that the government, controlled by these same rich, remember, adopt policies which will
put an end to the feeding frenzy.
Ha, Ha, Ha. No. I think not. Any policy our- *their* government would adopt would be purely
cosmetic. If, after 40 years of depredations, they finally feel the need to put lipstick on this
particular pig.
To be sure, 3 % per year will probably be lethal to society, and sooner rather than later.
But, sustainability has never been a feature of capitalism.
Polarization has reduced "consumer spending" by more than 3 percent or about $400 billion annually.
Consumer spending. Not spending (investment). I'm not disagreeing with Summers, just pointing
out the qualification.
Even that "reduction" is debate-able. Summers ignores the credit boom and the 98-06 spending
orgy. Credit markets drive spending more than base income. Ig spending starts rising "above potential"
in 2017-19, then his thesis will collapse along with another correction/recession in the early
20's.
Most of the myth of the American middle class was a Nazi/Soviet driven illusion. America
ran a "soft" national socialist economy during and after WWII. It was about organic
cohesiveness between government, business and labor. It is part of the reason Hillary is getting
her own white nationalist support, even though they don't like her.
Most of Trumps are ex-neocons, other various "old" white nationalist like conman, gambler David
Duke (aka, I took my non-white mistress to France for a abortion) and other useless tools like
Stormfront, which only represent 25% of the total "white nationalist" vote, yet because of jewish
pact money, get the most noise in the media.
Trump supports a complete deregulation of capital markets while the Clinton's a modest
firming of them. This is what people don't understand. It isn't trade that determines national
production and consumption.
You simply can't bring back the Nazi/Soviet bubble back that created the late 20th century
middle class. The Capitalists won't allow it. The system is going back to where it was in March
of 1929. It always was.
ken melvin :
Well known, the housing prices in the Bay Area are insane. Along with goes the 'house poor'
syndrome. The 'middle class' spends all it's money on housing, leaving little or nothing for such
as dining out, skiing trips, triops o the beach, ...
As consequence, those restaurants that used to cater to the dining out of these folks are all
closed. So, the little resort town stops, motels, ... on the way to ski resorts, the beach, etc.
Dan Kervick said...
The decline of the middle class IS economic damage, not just a cause of economic damage. You
don't have to demonstrate that the decline of the middle class has had some negative impact on
some further economic aggregate, such as the aggregate purchased output of consumables, in order
to see it as a form of damage in itself.
pgl -> Dan Kervick...
I absolutely agree. So well said as this is a very important point. Regardless of all the other
issues that may be attributable to income inequality - we need to address income inequality period.
vic twente -> pgl...
Yeah okay, except you might be able to explain it to the kleptocrats better if you use
simple economics to show that there'll be more interest income for them if they just lift their
jackboot off the throat of the working class, instead of trying to stripmine the West for dirt
and dumping their trillions in tax haven accounts earning negative rates.
vic twente -> vic twente...
Point being it's the kleptocrat class who has to decide to let the working class gain some
income improvement and increased ability to consume. Unless of course you're all for just killing
the lot of them, in which case I merely find your position intriguing and may subscribe to your
newsletter.
Dan Kervick -> vic twente...
I agree that's probably part of what Summers is up to in this piece. His audience is the big
wheels, and he's probably aiming at convincing them that the problems of the middle class are
ultimately their problem as well.
reason -> Dan Kervick...
Yes, let me third that. A very good point. Another case of treating the "economy" as that it
is something that has a value independent of the people that it is supposed to be serving.
Who Ma Weeny said...
decline of the middle class is causing even more economic damage than we realized: I have just
come across an International Monetary Fund working paper on income polarization in the United
States that makes an important contribution to the secular stagnation
.....
policy implication? Principally, it is the macroeconomic importance of supporting middle class
incomes. This can be done in a range of ways from promoting workers right
"
By definition, income polarization is the divide between upper vs lower caste, not middle caste.
Forget middletons! We need less contrast between upper and lower caste. Even Keynesian-s admit
that it is the transfer of buying power from upper to lower caste that "stimulates", lower propensity
to upper propensity to consume. Hell! LS, don't stop off in the middle!
A Boy Named Sue said...
Lets remember, Larry Summers was one of the persons who drove Brooksley Born out of town for
sending up the red flag on toxic derivatives.
Summers was one of the free market crowd under Clinton, Rubin, and Greenspan who ignored the warnings
of toxic derivative tradings.
While Summers is able to have a change of heart, unlike many conservatives, he was a part of the
neo-liberal elite who helped crashed the economy.
Would I ever expect an apology out of him? No.
Tom aka Rusty -> A Boy Named Sue...
If I remember correctly Summers was a big advocate of "too big to prosecute" and had at least
one ugly conversation with Elizabeth Warren at the White House.
Tom aka Rusty -> Tom aka Rusty ...
More correctly he did not want to prosecute foreclosure fraud because it might slow market
clearing in the housing sector.
Chris Lowery said...
The median household income is approximately $56,000, therefore the IMF study places the
breakpoint between "middle" and "high" income at $84,000 (150% of median income). It strikes me
that this is unrealistically low. The really meaningful divergence in lifestyles and consumption
behavior certainly occurs at a significantly higher level than this.
And if the authors had performed their analyses using a higher breakpoint, they probably would
have seen much greater income stagnation and a greater divergence in the propensity to consume.
I haven't delved into the math, but I'd guess they might have seen an even greater impact -- as
if 3% weren't enough! -- on the economy from lower consumption.
The other question this study raises is, what is the quantifiable extent to which economic
growth in the mid-90's to the mid-aughts (prior to the meltdown) was the result of the debt bubble
(more broadly than just housing bubble). It would be very interesting to see an estimate of the
aggregate impact on the economy has been from the suppression of workers' wages over the past
several decades.
kaleberg said...
I don't have a lot of hope, but at least they are realizing that square wheels don't seem to
rotate all that well. All of this was rather obvious back in 1930. That's why the New Deal created
a US middle class, to get a sustainable economy. This is only non-obvious now thanks to a well
funded disinformation campaign that succeeded in the 1980s.
David said...
I totally argree that middle class income stagnation and income inequality decrease aggregate
demand and probably hurts consumer confidence. But it also creates political instability. For
40 years the Republican Party has resentment, tribalism, and increasingly less subtle racist tropes
to push for policies that increase inequality and Trump is doing that on steroids.
The Republican Party needs be called out on this bait and switch.
reason said...
I don't follow the argument to be honest. The US has a chronic trade deficit. It doesn't
actually suffer from inadequate domestic demand, but from an overvalued dollar. His argument might
hold for other countries though.
That doesn't mean that a "hollowed-out" middle class doesn't have a negative impact on
the economy, but it means that you won't see the problem looking at the macro-data (apart from
productivity growth statistics perhaps) but in the structure of the economy. It is very hard to
find a new high value added niche in mass markets today, because of the lack of disposable income
of the masses.
Again, I appeal, please let us concentrate on more on the dynamics of the economy (for instance
the life cycle of new products and new processes) and less on comparative static (equilibrium)
perspective. Far too much talk about "growth" or "productivity" sees these processes as governed
by magic, rather than by observable dynamics. I sincerely believe that this is the direction economics
needs to go.
likbez said...
Such an article can be viewed as a sign of the collapse of neoliberal model.
Summers was/is a staunch supporter of deregulation of financial sector. He also played a role
of a hired gun in killing Glass-Steagall.
Later with his fees for speaking (for example, $135K for a single speech from Goldman Sachs)
he became a walking illustration of the corruption of the academy by special interests. Essentially
he became an academic lobbyist for financial industry.
During his stint in the Clinton administration, Summers was successful in pushing for capital
gains tax cuts.
"... Not because of policy, but because they *hate* Clinton's dishonest scumbags like Debbie Wasserman Shultz... They know them and hate them. ..."
"... Clinton brags about how much she's done for the children meanwhile she's a millionaire who gives speeches to Goldman Sachs and does nothing but attend fundraisers thrown by rich donors. ..."
"... a lot of Sanders supporters have a visceral dislike of Sanders people who lied to them and about us... The dishonesty is blatant, just how Hillary lied about Sanders during the primary. ..."
"... wait until the election is over. The hatred toward Clinton and surrogates ... will come pouring out. That is if she wins. ..."
Peter K. :
September 30, 2016 at 06:35 AM
Clinton should be beating Trump easily in the polls. Sanders
would be. Trump is the worst candidate in history.
Why
isn't she don't better? It's because Clinton surrogates like
PGL are hateful and obnoxious. The voters hate these people
and don't agree with Clinton's centrism. The voters hate the
BS we're expected to believe like how corporate trade is
nothing but beneficial or that the Obama years were great.
Not
because of policy, but because they *hate* Clinton's
dishonest scumbags like Debbie Wasserman Shultz... They
know them and hate them.
Clinton brags about how much she's done for the children
meanwhile she's a millionaire who gives speeches to Goldman
Sachs and does nothing but attend fundraisers thrown by rich
donors.
I'll vote for Hillary but
a lot of Sanders supporters
have a visceral dislike of Sanders people who lied to them
and about us... The dishonesty is blatant, just how
Hillary lied about Sanders during the primary.
But Sanders
knows policywise Trump is much, much worse than Hillary even
if she's not that good.
Peter K. -> Peter K....
, -1
That's why Sanders is campaigning for Hillary. But
wait
until the election is over. The hatred toward Clinton and
surrogates ... will come pouring out. That is if she
wins.
Doing what contemporary American economists
suggest: eliminate tariffs, don't worry about huge capital inflows or a ridiculously overvalued dollar,
has led the US from being the envy of the world to being a non-developed economy with worse roads
than Cuba or Ghana.
That US economists are still treated with any degree of credibility it totally
appalling. They are so obviously bought-and-paid for snake oil salesmen that people are finally tuning
them out.
TRUMP 2016: Return America to Protectionism - Screw globalism
[There is a pdf at the link. Olivier Blanchard has
surprised me again. As establishment economists go he is not
so bad. There is plenty that he still glosses over but
insofar as status quo establishment macroeconomics goes he is
thorough and coherent. One might hope that those that do not
understand either the debate for higher inflation targets or
the debate for fiscal policy to accomplish what monetary
policy cannot might learn from this article by Olivier
Blanchard, but I will not hold my breath waiting for that. In
any case the article is worth a read for anyone that can.]
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
,
Friday, September 30, 2016 at 07:07 AM
Get real! No alumni of the Peterson Institute and IMF is
going to go all mushy on the down sides of globalization and
wealth distribution.
The State of Advanced Economies and Related Policy
Debates: A Fall 2016 Assessment
By Olivier Blanchard
Perhaps the most striking macroeconomic fact about
advanced economies today is how anemic demand remains in the
face of zero interest rates.
In the wake of the global financial crisis, we had a
plausible explanation why demand was persistently weak:
Legacies of the crisis, from deleveraging by banks, to fiscal
austerity by governments, to lasting anxiety by consumers and
firms, could all explain why, despite low rates, demand
remained depressed.
This explanation is steadily becoming less convincing.
Banks have largely deleveraged, credit supply has loosened,
fiscal consolidation has been largely put on hold, and the
financial crisis is farther in the rearview mirror. Demand
should have steadily strengthened. Yet, demand growth has
remained low.
Why? The likely answer is that, as the legacies of the
past have faded, the future has looked steadily bleaker.
Forecasts of potential growth have been repeatedly revised
down. And consumers and firms-anticipating a gloomier
future-are cutting back spending, leading to unusually low
demand growth today....
Young people reject neoliberalism... And thus they reject Hillary. As simple as that...
Notable quotes:
"... Here is my own wild take on why millennials don't support Clinton "enough": Many younger American voters, perhaps a sufficient number of them to seriously imperil Clinton's chances, have significant ideological differences with the candidate. That's my theory ..."
"... I would like to suggest that the threat these young voters pose to technocratic [neo]liberalism is not the possibility of electing Donald Trump. Despite Clinton's flagging numbers, her chances of success remain high. Rather, the fear is that if younger voters really are committed to a host of ideological positions at odds with the mainstream of the Democratic Party, then that Party, without a Trump-sized cudgel, is doomed. ..."
"... So why have liberal pundits resisted such a move? Why are they intent on not just defeating but discrediting the ideological preferences of the young left, dismissing them not as a legitimate divergence but as mere ignorance and confusion? ..."
The given causes vary but the consensus is clear: Young voters are pathological and the cure is
to disabuse them of their ignorance.
Here is my own wild take on why millennials don't support Clinton "enough": Many younger American
voters, perhaps a sufficient number of them to seriously imperil Clinton's chances, have significant
ideological differences with the candidate. That's my theory. Many liberal pundits seem unimpressed
by this idea perhaps because it suggests that votes must be earned in a democracy, but it does have
the benefit of the evidence.
... ... ...
I would like to suggest that the threat these young voters pose to technocratic [neo]liberalism
is not the possibility of electing Donald Trump. Despite Clinton's flagging numbers, her chances
of success remain high. Rather, the fear is that if younger voters really are committed to a host
of ideological positions at odds with the mainstream of the Democratic Party, then that Party, without
a Trump-sized cudgel, is doomed. It should not escape anybody's notice that politics by negative
definition-the argument, at bottom, that "we're better than those guys"-has become the dominant electoral
strategy of the Democratic Party, and that despite the escalation of the "those guys" negatives,
the mere promise to be preferable has yielded diminishing returns. At some point, the Democratic
Party will either need to embrace a platform significantly to the left of their current orthodoxy,
or they will lose.
... ... ...
This might not seem such a bad thing. Positions shift. Parties evolve. A serious threat of millennial
desertion might lead to a natural compromise: support, in exchange for real policy concessions going
forward. So why have liberal pundits resisted such a move? Why are they intent on not just defeating
but discrediting the ideological preferences of the young left, dismissing them not as a legitimate
divergence but as mere ignorance and confusion?
Emmett Rensin is a writer based in Iowa City, Iowa. His previous work has appeared in Vox,The
New Republic, The Atlantic and The Los Angeles Review of Books (where he is a contributing editor).
Follow him on Twitter at @EmmettRensin.
"... Why all the bullshit jobs? And why are the most necessary and useful jobs, almost inevitably the lowest prestige and lowest paid? Capitalism. It's a nasty, nasty, nasty tangle of perverse incentives and evil. ..."
Why all the bullshit jobs? And why are the most necessary and useful jobs, almost inevitably
the lowest prestige and lowest paid? Capitalism. It's a nasty, nasty, nasty tangle of perverse
incentives and evil.
The answer clearly isn't economic: it's moral and political. The ruling class has figured
out that a happy and productive population with free time on their hands is a mortal danger (think
of what started to happen when this even began to be approximated in the '60s). And, on the other
hand, the feeling that work is a moral value in itself, and that anyone not willing to submit
themselves to some kind of intense work discipline for most of their waking hours deserves nothing,
is extraordinarily convenient for them. David Graeber from
http://evonomics.com/why-capitalism-creates-pointless-jobs-david-graeber/
Also, as several here have noted, one can work without a job if they have such resources as
land or a workshop and, dare I say it, an income.
"... Well if you look at this US presidential election from 30,000 feet, it does not reflect very well upon the US system. On the one hand, you have Hillary Rodham Clinton who was the chief architect of the disastrous overthrow of the Libya regime in 2011 who voted in favor of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003 which shows she is not a person who is learning the lessons from her mistakes. ..."
"... I would urge and encourage the voters in the swing states to study the polls very carefully. For example, I may vote in North Carolina this year, where I've voted in the past 2 decades and I'm going to study the polls almost up to election day to determine whether or not it is a worthwhile vote to vote against the two party system, the duopoly, that has brought us this disaster and catastrophe. ..."
"... Clinton has a terrible history of hawkishness. Help destroy Libya, help destroy Syria, and help destroy Iraq. And has played certainly a leading role in destroying Libya. ..."
"... She does defend the Iranian agreement and Trump has said he will tear it up and is surrounding himself, including his vice president and others, most of his advisors, who also want to tear it up and he has made nice-nice with Sheldon Adelson who is apparently giving him 25 million bucks. ..."
"... So on that Iran deal, does that sort of deciding factor why one might think Clinton's foreign policy could be at least less disastrous than Trump? ..."
"... The fact that some supported Sanders and now support Trump, only suggest to me a kind of political illiteracy. That is to say I guess what they're suggesting is they want a disruptive factor which is why they voted for Sanders then Trump. ..."
"... Which is the fact that the mainstream press, the New York Times, the Washington Post in particular, are bitterly hostile to Donald J. Trump. I would say even to the point of distorting what is thought to be or what was thought to be straight ahead news coverage. ..."
"... I think because the elite press has taken such a turn, such a partisan turn, the working class constituency which knows that the elite press does not have their best interest at heart, might be turning reflexively to Donald J. Trump. ..."
"... Now the 1930's when capitalism was deep in crisis, there was a significant support for outright fascism in Europe and of course in Italy and Germany and eventually took over much of Europe. Direct fascism was the answer to the crisis. In the United States, there was a real battle over what was the answer for the crisis in the United States. There were certainly those that loved Adolf Hitler in the United States including Henry Ford and a whole section of the American elite. But the New Deal won out. ..."
"... Well first of all the 1930's needs to be distinguished from today. Insofar as in the 1930's you had a surging labor movement, particularly in the steel workers' union, the autoworkers union, the rubbers workers' union in Akron, Ohio. You had left wing political parties with membership in the double digits in terms of the thousands. ..."
"... today one of the strongest basis for Trump's support rest in coal mining country in Eastern Kentucky and West Virginia. ..."
"... So I'm not sure if we can be reassured by the fact that in the 1930's the United States was able to escape a unique form of neo fascism. I think the danger is actually greater in 2016 than it was in 1936 for example. ..."
HORNE:Well if you look at this US presidential election from 30,000 feet, it does not reflect
very well upon the US system. On the one hand, you have Hillary Rodham Clinton who was the chief
architect of the disastrous overthrow of the Libya regime in 2011 who voted in favor of the overthrow
of Saddam Hussein in 2003 which shows she is not a person who is learning the lessons from her mistakes.
...
... ... ....
JAY: And what about in the swing states?
HORNE: Well that's hearts of a different color. I would urge and encourage the voters in the
swing states to study the polls very carefully. For example, I may vote in North Carolina this year,
where I've voted in the past 2 decades and I'm going to study the polls almost up to election day
to determine whether or not it is a worthwhile vote to vote against the two party system, the duopoly,
that has brought us this disaster and catastrophe.
... ... ...
JAY: So that's what I want to dig into on the foreign policy side. Because there's been a lot of
debate about who's really more dangerous on the foreign policy side. Frankly I think you could make
the argument both ways. Clinton has a terrible history of hawkishness. Help destroy Libya, help
destroy Syria, and help destroy Iraq. And has played certainly a leading role in destroying Libya.
On the other hand, she does and I think in my mind this might be the deciding factor is that she
does defend the agreement with Iran even though I don't know how enthusiastic she was in the beginning
and even though she tells lies about the Iranian nuclear program. She does defend the Iranian
agreement and Trump has said he will tear it up and is surrounding himself, including his vice president
and others, most of his advisors, who also want to tear it up and he has made nice-nice with Sheldon
Adelson who is apparently giving him 25 million bucks.
So on that Iran deal, does that sort of deciding factor why one might think Clinton's foreign
policy could be at least less disastrous than Trump?
HORNE: Well I think that's a fair point. Keep in mind not only is Donald Trump hostile to the
Iranian nuclear deal. He's told the voters of South Florida he'll break away from President Obama's
[en tant] with Cuba. The fact that in the first few moments of the debate last night, he tore and
tore to China is not reassuring. His hostility towards Mexico bids fair to ratchet up tension and
pressure and hostility toward the Mexican-American and Latino population. So I whole-ly and totally
understand the fear and fright on the left with regard to a Trump presidency. At the same time there's
more than one way to try to defeat Donald Trump and the way that is now being suggested which is
witling down the Green vote from 3% to 1.5%, it seems to me that's almost like a waste of time.
JAY: Why do you think progressive forces and such have so little influence amongst that section
of the working class that supports Trump? Although I have to add my barber, his father he was telling
me, 33 years in the military supported Sanders and now supports Trump. It's a complicated mix of
why people are supporting Trump.
HORNE: Well it's very complicated. We'd have to take a stroll down memory lane. We'd have to go into
the corners of US history and talk about the United States was formed as a slave holder's republic
despite the propaganda to the contrary and there was a kind of [falstry] [embargins] between the
Euro-American poor and working class and the Euro-American ruling elite to loot and plunder the Native
Americans and then stock the Native America's former land with Africans and that kind of trend has
continued down to this very day. Facilitating [falstry] [embargins] and corrupt bargains between
the ruling elite and the working class. The fact that some supported Sanders and now support
Trump, only suggest to me a kind of political illiteracy. That is to say I guess what they're suggesting
is they want a disruptive factor which is why they voted for Sanders then Trump.
... ... ...
JAY: But that's highly unlikely isn't it? Especially given the preponderance of the elites seem to
be supporting Clinton including much of the Republican elites.
HORNE: You are correct. As a matter of fact, you've hit on a very important point which I think
might be helping to push working class voters toward Trump. Which is the fact that the mainstream
press, the New York Times, the Washington Post in particular, are bitterly hostile to Donald J. Trump.
I would say even to the point of distorting what is thought to be or what was thought to be straight
ahead news coverage.
I think because the elite press has taken such a turn, such a partisan turn, the working class
constituency which knows that the elite press does not have their best interest at heart, might be
turning reflexively to Donald J. Trump. To your main point I do think it is unlikely that the
electoral college would overturn the results of the November vote. At the same time, the strange
political times, I don't think we could rule anything out.
JAY: Now the 1930's when capitalism was deep in crisis, there was a significant support for outright
fascism in Europe and of course in Italy and Germany and eventually took over much of Europe. Direct
fascism was the answer to the crisis. In the United States, there was a real battle over what was
the answer for the crisis in the United States. There were certainly those that loved Adolf Hitler
in the United States including Henry Ford and a whole section of the American elite. But the New
Deal won out.
The idea of a compromise with the working class and trying to create the conditions for a revival
of the economy based on state intervention, Keynesian kind of expansion of stimulus and so on and
so on. More or less trying to forestall deeper radicalization of the American working class and not
impose a direct kind of police state militarism and so on. Do you think the conditions are different
now in the sense that there are more of the elites willing to go down that kind of road, which I
think is representative not so much by Trump's rhetoric but by his alliance?
HORNE: Well first of all the 1930's needs to be distinguished from today. Insofar as in the 1930's
you had a surging labor movement, particularly in the steel workers' union, the autoworkers union,
the rubbers workers' union in Akron, Ohio. You had left wing political parties with membership in
the double digits in terms of the thousands.
Today we're facing the industrialization today one
of the strongest basis for Trump's support rest in coal mining country in Eastern Kentucky and West
Virginia.
So I'm not sure if we can be reassured by the fact that in the 1930's the United States
was able to escape a unique form of neo fascism. I think the danger is actually greater in 2016 than
it was in 1936 for example.
In recent years,
one of the most important events on a prospective Republican
presidential candidate's calendar was the RedState Gathering,
a summer convention for conservative activists from across
the nation. Its host was Erick Erickson, a round-faced,
redheaded former election lawyer and city councilman in
Macon, Ga., who began blogging in 2004 on a site called
RedState.com.
Erickson, who is now 41, is a conservative absolutist who
made his name in the mid-2000s by "blowing up" - in the
Twitter parlance he jovially employs - Republican leaders he
viewed as insufficiently principled. In 2005, he played a
role in torpedoing the Supreme Court nomination of the White
House counsel Harriet Miers, publishing damaging admissions
from White House sources that Miers had not been properly
vetted. Five years later, he chided the National Rifle
Association for being too willing to compromise, labeling it
"a weak little girl of an organization." He was a
sharp-tongued critic of John McCain and Mitt Romney during
their presidential runs, characterizing the former as "an
angry old jackass" and the latter as "the Harriet Miers of
2012."
Along the way, Erickson became one of the new kingmakers
of the Tea Party-era G.O.P. A little-known Florida legislator
and Senate hopeful named Marco Rubio reached out to him in
2009 when he was at 3 percent in the polls. A former Texas
solicitor general, Ted Cruz, did the same in 2011. Rick Perry
announced his 2012 presidential candidacy at Erickson's
gathering. By 2015, a number of the coming cycle's aspirants
- Rubio, Cruz, Perry and Bobby Jindal - had given him their
personal cellphone numbers, and he had traded emails with Jeb
Bush. And two months before that August's convention in
Atlanta, a New York-based Republican consultant named Sam
Nunberg reached out to Erickson to ask if he could
accommodate one more speaker: Donald Trump.
Erickson watched coverage of Trump's
stream-of-consciousness announcement at Trump Tower on June
16 and was not particularly impressed. On the syndicated
radio show he broadcasts from Atlanta, he offered his
assessment with a dismissive chuckle: "I guess he's ready to
be spoiler, not president." He had met Trump once before, in
July 2011, when he visited the 26th floor of Trump Tower to
interview the businessman and reality-TV-show star. Trump had
spent the past few months flirting with a presidential run
only to decide, as he told Erickson that day, "I have a great
show that's a big success, and it's hard to say, 'I'm gonna
leave two hours of prime-time television in order to get beat
up by people that don't know what they're doing.' "
The hourlong conversation struck Erickson as pleasant but
unmemorable. What did stick with him was their exchange as he
was leaving Trump Tower. "Trump asked me if I played golf,"
Erickson told me recently. "And I said, 'Yeah, I'm
terrible.' " Then, he said, Trump asked if he would be
interested in coming to Mar-a-Lago, Trump's
estate-turned-golf-club in West Palm Beach, Fla., to play.
"I'm very flattered - I've never been to West Palm Beach
before," Erickson recalled. "Several times, his office
reached out. So finally I asked my wife, 'What do you think
this is about?' She said, 'He wants to own your soul.' So I
never went."
Erickson did not see much of a political future for Trump,
but he imagined that he might be good for ticket sales, if
nothing else, at the RedState Gathering. He informed Nunberg
that Trump could have a slot on the convention's second day.
The evening before he was to speak in Atlanta, Trump went
on CNN and denounced the Fox News host Megyn Kelly for her
sharp questioning of him during a recent debate, speculating
that Kelly had "blood coming out of her wherever." When
Erickson saw the footage that evening, he called Trump's
campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, and rescinded Trump's
invitation on the grounds that he would be too much of a
distraction. "And that was that," Erickson would later recall
with a sheepish grin. "Until the next day, when he's blowing
me up."
On Twitter, Trump called Erickson "a major sleaze and
buffoon" and said that the "small crowds" at the gathering
were due to his absence. Trump's supporters soon piled on.
This was to be expected, but what surprised Erickson were the
attacks from people he regarded as his fellow bomb-throwers
in the conservative revolution. On Twitter, the talk-radio
host and Fox News commentator Laura Ingraham mocked
"JebState." The author and right-wing provocateur Ann Coulter
brought up some of Erickson's own crass utterances, like his
characterization of the former Supreme Court justice David
Souter in 2009 as a "goat-[expletive] child molester." The
next week, 30,000 readers of Erickson's email newsletter
canceled their subscriptions.
Erickson dug in, writing that Trump was "out of his depth"
and lacking in "common decency." But he was drowned out by
Trump sympathizers with even bigger audiences than his own,
like The Drudge Report and the online outlet Breitbart. It
was one of the first salvos in what would open up in the year
that followed into a civil war within the conservative media,
dividing some of the loudest voices on the right. Days
earlier, Erickson had unimpeachable credentials in the
conservative movement. But by crossing Trump, he was now, in
the eyes of his former allies, "a tool of the establishment."
The conservative media has always been a playground for
outsize personalities with even more outsize political
ambitions. The National Review founder William F. Buckley
fashioned much of the intellectual genetic code of the Reagan
Revolution, while also writing fringe groups like the John
Birch Society out of the conservative movement and, for good
measure, running for mayor of New York against the liberal
Republican John Lindsay. In 1996, the former Nixon media
consultant Roger Ailes brought his attack-dog ethos to Rupert
Murdoch's Fox News channel and built the network into a
transformational power in Republican politics before his fall
this year amid accusations of sexual harassment.
But alongside the institution-builders like Buckley and
Ailes, the conservative-media landscape has also produced a
class of rowdy entrepreneurs who wield their influence in
more personal, protean ways. The godfathers mostly came to
power in the 1990s: Clinton-administration antagonists like
Rush Limbaugh, who began broadcasting nationally in 1988 and
became talk radio's hegemonic power in the Clinton years, and
Matt Drudge, who started his pioneering Drudge Report online
in 1996.
If these figures defied the stuffy ceremony of the East
Coast think tanks, opinion journals and bow-tied columnists
who traditionally defined the conservative intelligentsia,
they rarely challenged the ideological principles of
conservatism as they had existed since the Reagan era: small
government, low taxes, hawkish foreign policy and traditional
social values. What they mostly did was provide the
Republican Party with a set of exceptionally loud megaphones,
which liberals have often envied and tried unsuccessfully to
emulate. Conservative talk radio and Fox News now
collectively reach an audience of as many as 50 million -
most of them elderly white Republicans with a high likelihood
of turning out in election years. And this isn't even
counting the like-minded online outlets that have flourished
during the Obama years, thanks to a growing internet-media
economy and a presidency, particularly in the case of the
Affordable Care Act, that gave conservatives common cause.
Then came Trump. In a sense, the divide that he has opened
up among conservative media figures is simply a function of
the heartburn his ascent has caused among Republicans more
generally, pitting voter against voter, congressman against
congressman, Bob Dole against the Bushes. Some conservative
media outlets threw themselves behind Trump from the
beginning, explaining away his more radioactive statements
and his uneven-at-best record as a conservative. Breitbart,
whose former chairman, Steve Bannon, is now Trump's chief
strategist, was an ardent early supporter, breathlessly
covering Trump's ascent in the polls and his smackdowns of
"low energy" Jeb Bush and "little Marco" Rubio. But as Trump
expanded into more sacrosanct targets - Fox News's Kelly,
George W. Bush's performance in the war on terror and Cruz -
the dissenting chorus among conservatism's dons grew louder.
The Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer warned in
December that Trump "has managed to steer the entire G.O.P.
campaign into absurdities." His Post colleague George Will
predicted that a Trump nomination would mean the loss of
conservatism "as a constant presence in U.S. politics." The
Weekly Standard editor William Kristol floated the idea of a
new "non-Trump non-Clinton party." And on the eve of the Iowa
caucus, National Review devoted an entire issue to a single
topic: "Against Trump."
Since Trump clinched the nomination, the dividing lines
have become starker, the individual dilemmas more agonizing.
Mark Levin, an influential talk-radio host, complains that
among conservative commentators, Trump's message is endlessly
repeated by what he derisively refers to as "the Rockettes."
But Levin, too, recently announced to his listeners that he
intends to vote for Trump, if only to prevent another Clinton
presidency. As he put it to me, "I'm not going to be throwing
confetti in the air if Trump wins," adding that he viewed the
candidate as "a liberal with some conservative viewpoints
that he's not terribly reliable at sticking to."
Others - Sean Hannity, Ingraham, the former Reagan
official and "The Book of Virtues" author William Bennett -
have thrown in for Trump with a brio that strikes some in the
business as unseemly. "Look, we're in the opinion business,
but there's a distinction between that and being a Sean
Hannity fanboy," the Milwaukee-based talk-radio host Charlie
Sykes told me. "It's been genuinely stunning to watch how
they've become tools of his campaign and rationalizing
everything he's done."
"For 20 years I've been saying how it's not true that talk
radio is all about ratings and we don't believe what we say,"
he went on. "Then you watch how the media types rolled over
for him. Obviously Donald Trump is very good for ratings, and
at some point it's hard not to conclude they decided the
Trump train was the gravy train. I've been thoroughly
disillusioned, and I'm not alone in that. It's like watching
'Invasion of the Body Snatchers': Oh, my God, they got
another one!" ...
"... In both of these cases, there are no good guys. In both of these cases, the West's support for the rebels, in addition to being illegal under international law, can be expected not to prevent massacres, but simply to determine who gets to massacre whom. ..."
"... The real objective is, of course, to make sure that a hostile or disobedient regime is toppled ..."
"... On FP and subservience to international capital, one may want to consider the handling of Haiti after the earthquake (google Haiti and neoliberalism), US relations with the most recent wave of leftist governments in Latin America, where no geopolitical threat from a great power is present (note especially Honduras), and what the US has been pushing for in the TTIP. If it's possible to pursue a pro-labour, anti-corporate, anti-oligarchic, pro-public US foreign policy, the fact remains that it somehow never seems to happen. ..."
"... This kind of expedience, heedless of strategy, precedent or consequence, is now a standard part of American foreign policy. The U.S. concocts a R2P rationale suited to the moment, without respect to either the truth or a deliberate appreciation of goals and consequences. I cannot help but think it is part of the same uncritical, self-righteous amoralism that attaches the U.S. to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as allies ..."
On Libya: it's disputed whether Qaddafi was really going to commit massacres and to what extent
he was going to commit human rights abuses (see the UK Parliament report for sceptical opinions
expressed by experts); what is clear is that the Libyan rebels have likewise committed massacres
and human rights abuses, in addition to the formerly prosperous country's plunging into chaos
and protracted civil war (with the predictable humanitarian consequences).
On Syria: all sides have committed massacres and human rights abuses, and whichever side wins
is virtually guaranteed to commit further human rights abuses. The reason there is a protracted
civil war, with all the predictable humanitarian consequences, is that the rebel side has been
receiving outside support from US allies (and the government side has been receiving outside support
from Iran and Russia, without which it most likely would have been defeated).
In both of these cases, there are no good guys. In both of these cases, the West's support
for the rebels, in addition to being illegal under international law, can be expected not to prevent
massacres, but simply to determine who gets to massacre whom.
The real objective is, of course, to make sure that a hostile or disobedient regime is
toppled (cf. the indifference to abuses by, say, the Saudis). Certainly, all internal or
external actors responsible for war crimes should be indicted and, when/if possible, tried by
an international court, but that doesn't mean that in the meantime the US or its allies have the
right, let alone the moral obligation to invade other countries and to effect regime change at
their own discretion.
On FP and subservience to international capital, one may want to consider the handling
of Haiti after the earthquake (google Haiti and neoliberalism), US relations with the most recent
wave of leftist governments in Latin America, where no geopolitical threat from a great power
is present (note especially Honduras), and what the US has been pushing for in the TTIP. If it's
possible to pursue a pro-labour, anti-corporate, anti-oligarchic, pro-public US foreign policy,
the fact remains that it somehow never seems to happen.
This kind of expedience, heedless of strategy, precedent or consequence, is now a standard
part of American foreign policy. The U.S. concocts a R2P rationale suited to the moment, without
respect to either the truth or a deliberate appreciation of goals and consequences. I cannot help
but think it is part of the same uncritical, self-righteous amoralism that attaches the U.S. to
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as allies .
"... By the standards of the Nuremberg trials, then, the aggressive, unjustified invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 were unquestionably war crimes. A just government would have put Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell, and so forth on trial. One might note that the Nuremberg trials, the crime was taken seriously enough to earn condemnation to death by hanging. ..."
Howard Frant 09.29.16 at
4:21 am @ 130:
'… She is somewhat
interventionist
militarily. Of course,
people aren't content
just to say that, they
have to say that she is a
"war criminal" (sorry,
could I have some
specifics on this?)….'
I was giving this a rest,
but since you ask, it is
my duty to comply with
your request.
First, we need to
determine what a war
criminal is. I go by the
standards of the
Nuremberg War Crimes
Trials, in whose
charter
we read
(Article 6):
The following acts,
or any of them, are
crimes coming within
the jurisdiction of
the Tribunal for which
there shall be
individual
responsibility:
(a) CRIMES AGAINST
PEACE: namely,
planning, preparation,
initiation or waging
of a war of
aggression, or a war
in violation of
international
treaties, agreements
or assurances, or
participation in a
common plan or
conspiracy for the
accomplishment of any
of the foregoing….
I think this is a
pretty good definition of
a war crime, although if
you disagree I will be
glad to argue in its
favor.
By the standards
of the Nuremberg trials,
then, the aggressive,
unjustified invasion and
occupation of Iraq in
2003 were unquestionably
war crimes. A just
government would have put
Bush, Cheney, Rice,
Powell, and so forth on
trial. One might note
that the Nuremberg
trials, the crime was
taken seriously enough to
earn condemnation to
death by hanging.
Clinton's connection
to this crime was, of
course, at least her vote
in 2002 to enable it,
which made her an
accomplice. Her
subsequent excuse was
'bad intelligence', but
given her position as a
US senator, her
connections, her powers,
her fame, and her
undoubted wits, it is
almost impossible to
believe that she believed
Bush's pack of lies. It
seems much more likely
that her calculus was as
follows: 'If the war goes
"badly", it'll be on
Bush. If it goes "well",
we Democrats will have
been in on it. Win-win.'
However, one must concede
that if she were brought
to trial, she might be
able to plead monumental
ignorance and
incompetence. Of course
there will be no such
trial, so everyone
confronted by the
question must answer it
for her- or himself with
whatever means may be at
hand. To me the evidence
seems pretty conclusive.
Layman 09.30.16 at 1:20 pm @ 197 -
If the war was a criminal act, then voting
for the war, by making the voter an
accomplice, was also a criminal act.
Believable
ignorance, incompetence, or
other personal defects might mitigate, but
would not exonerate.
I asked about 'going
on with this' because at least one
participant seemed to feel that the
cataloguing of Clinton's flaws had become
superfluous. Some people might regard war
criminality as a flaw, so perhaps we are
offending as we persist.
Layman
09.30.16 at 2:54 pm
Anarcissie: "If the war was a criminal act, then voting for
the war, by making the voter an accomplice, was also a
criminal act."
Look, I personally believe it was wrong to
vote for the authorization, and that it was a political
calculation, but I wonder if you've actually read the
resolution? It is consistent with the claim that some people
make, that they assumed that Bush would act in concert with
the UN, because the resolution says he would act in concert
with themUN. The resolution was passed in October, the Bush
admin went to the UN in November, but failed to get a clear
authorization from the UN for the war.
You brought up Nuremberg. How many people were prosecuted
at Nuremberg for the crime of having voted for the Enabling
Law of 1933, which granted dictatorial powers and led
directly to everything that followed. None, right? Doesn't
that undermine your case?
Layman 09.30.16 at 2:38 am @ 169:
'"Because a proper trial can't be held, people must make up their minds
individually."
Which is another way of saying that it is not a fact, and that you acknowledge
it isn't a fact, and that rather undermines your entire response.'
I
think you are mistaken. If you believe in any sort of objective universe, then
there are facts which are hidden - in fact, given our lack of omniscience, most
of them. Nevertheless we must proceed in the world in some way, so we - some of
us, anyway - try to establish an idea of the facts through the best evidence
available, rational procedures, intuition, and so on. Some people believe that
the question of whether Clinton is a war criminal is important. There is a
reasonable argument in favor of the proposition, which Howard Frant wanted to
know, or pretended to want to know. I have given it.
Do you really want to go on with this? It does not make your favored
candidate look good, and in any case, most of the people reading and writing
here evidently don't really care that much one way or the other.
"... "Over the last 25 years, the number of people living in extreme poverty has been cut from nearly 40 percent of humanity to under 10 percent." This is roughly true, according to World Bank data, but the story of how it happened goes against his whole speech - which argues that this progress is a result of the "globalization" that Washington leads and supports wherever it has influence in the developing world. In fact, the majority of the reduction in extreme poverty during this period (more than 1.1 billion people worldwide) took place in China. But during this period China was really the counterexample to the "principles of open markets" with which Obama insists "we must go forward, not backward." ..."
"... If we go back a bit more and look at 1981–2012, China accounted for even more of the reduction of the world population in extreme poverty, about 70 percent. This would indicate that other parts of the developing world increased their economic and social progress during the 21st century, relative to China, and indeed many developing countries did (as compared to the last two decades of the 20th century). But China played an increasingly large role in reducing poverty in other countries during this period. ..."
"... It was so successful in its economic growth and development - by far the fastest in world history - that it became the largest economy in the world, and pulled up many developing countries through its imports. Chinese imports went from a negligible 0.1 percent of other developing countries' exports to 3 percent, from 1980–2010. China also provided hundreds of billions of dollars in investment, loans, and aid to low- and middle-income countries in the 21st century. (In the last few years, Chinese growth has slowed, along with that of most countries, and that has contributed - although perhaps not as much as Europe has - to the global slowdown since 2011.) ..."
"... the "principles of open markets" that Obama refers to is really code for "policies that Washington supports." ..."
"... In his defense of a world economic order ruled by Washington and its rich country allies, President Obama also asserted that "we have made international institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund more representative." But that is a gross exaggeration: the most recent reform of IMF voting shares left the US with an unchanged 16.7 percent share, enough to veto many important decisions (that require an 85 percent majority) by itself; and it left Washington and its traditional rich country allies with a solid majority of more than 60 percent of votes. Of course, it is the developing countries, especially poorer ones, that are most subject to IMF decisions. But the IMF is - by a gentleman's agreement among the rich country governments - headed by a European, and the World Bank by an American. It should not be surprising if these institutions do not look out for the interests of the developing world. ..."
President Obama Inadvertently Gives High Praise to China
in UN Speech
By Mark Weisbrot
President Obama's speech at the UN last week was mostly a
defense of the world's economic and political status quo,
especially that part of it that is led or held in place by
the US government and the global institutions that Washington
controls or dominates. In doing so, he said some things that
were exaggerated or wrong, or somewhat misleading. It is
worth looking at some of the things that media reports on
this speech missed.
"Over the last 25 years, the number of people living
in extreme poverty has been cut from nearly 40 percent of
humanity to under 10 percent." This is roughly true,
according to World Bank data, but the story of how it
happened goes against his whole speech - which argues that
this progress is a result of the "globalization" that
Washington leads and supports wherever it has influence in
the developing world. In fact, the majority of the reduction
in extreme poverty during this period (more than 1.1 billion
people worldwide) took place in China. But during this period
China was really the counterexample to the "principles of
open markets" with which Obama insists "we must go forward,
not backward."
China's historically unprecedented economic growth in the
past 25 years (or 35 years, or even more) was accomplished
with state-owned enterprises and banks dominating the
economy. State control over investment, technology transfer,
and foreign exchange was vastly greater than in other
developing countries. China rejected the neoliberal policies
of an "independent central bank," indiscriminate opening to
international trade and investment, and rapid privatization
of state companies. Instead, it chose a gradual transition,
over 35 years, from an overwhelmingly planned economy to a
mixed economy in which the state still plays a leading role.
Even today, China expanded the investment of state-owned
enterprises by 23.5 percent in the first six months of 2016
(as compared to the same period in 2015), to help boost the
economy.
If we go back a bit more and look at 1981–2012, China
accounted for even more of the reduction of the world
population in extreme poverty, about 70 percent. This would
indicate that other parts of the developing world increased
their economic and social progress during the 21st century,
relative to China, and indeed many developing countries did
(as compared to the last two decades of the 20th century).
But China played an increasingly large role in reducing
poverty in other countries during this period.
It was so
successful in its economic growth and development - by far
the fastest in world history - that it became the largest
economy in the world, and pulled up many developing countries
through its imports. Chinese imports went from a negligible
0.1 percent of other developing countries' exports to 3
percent, from 1980–2010. China also provided hundreds of
billions of dollars in investment, loans, and aid to low- and
middle-income countries in the 21st century. (In the last few
years, Chinese growth has slowed, along with that of most
countries, and that has contributed - although perhaps not as
much as Europe has - to the global slowdown since 2011.)
Of course, the "principles of open markets" that Obama
refers to is really code for "policies that Washington
supports." Some of them are the exact opposite of "open
markets," such as the lengthening and strengthening of patent
and copyright protection included in the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP) agreement. President Obama also made a plug
for the TPP in his speech, asserting that "we've worked to
reach trade agreements that raise labor standards and raise
environmental standards, as we've done with the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, so that the benefits [of globalization] are more
broadly shared." But the labor and environmental standards in
the TPP, as with those in previous US-led commercial
agreements, are not enforceable; whereas if a government
approves laws or regulations that infringe on the future
profit potential of a multinational corporation - even if
such laws or regulations are to protect public health or
safety - that government can be hit with billions of dollars
in fines. And they must pay these fines, or be subject to
trade sanctions.
In his defense of a world economic order ruled by
Washington and its rich country allies, President Obama also
asserted that "we have made international institutions like
the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund more
representative." But that is a gross exaggeration: the most
recent reform of IMF voting shares left the US with an
unchanged 16.7 percent share, enough to veto many important
decisions (that require an 85 percent majority) by itself;
and it left Washington and its traditional rich country
allies with a solid majority of more than 60 percent of
votes. Of course, it is the developing countries, especially
poorer ones, that are most subject to IMF decisions. But the
IMF is - by a gentleman's agreement among the rich country
governments - headed by a European, and the World Bank by an
American. It should not be surprising if these institutions
do not look out for the interests of the developing world.
"We can choose to press forward with a better model of
cooperation and integration," President Obama told the world
at the UN General Assembly. "Or we can retreat into a world
sharply divided, and ultimately in conflict, along age-old
lines of nation and tribe and race and religion."
But the rich country governments led by Washington are not
offering the rest of the world any better model of
cooperation and integration than the failed model they have
been offering for the past 35 years. And that is a big part
of the problem....
China's historically unprecedented economic growth in the
past 25 years (or 35 years, or even more) was accomplished
with state-owned enterprises and banks dominating the
economy. State control over investment, technology transfer,
and foreign exchange was vastly greater than in other
developing countries. China rejected the neoliberal policies
of an "independent central bank," indiscriminate opening to
international trade and investment, and rapid privatization
of state companies. Instead, it chose a gradual transition,
over 35 years, from an overwhelmingly planned economy to a
mixed economy in which the state still plays a leading role.
Even today, China expanded the investment of state-owned
enterprises by 23.5 percent in the first six months of 2016
(as compared to the same period in 2015), to help boost the
economy....
Even today, China expanded the investment of state-owned
enterprises by 23.5 percent in the first six months of 2016
(as compared to the same period in 2015), to help boost the
economy....
Yale Professors Offer Economic Prescriptions
By Brenda Cronin - Wall Street Journal
Richard C. Levin, president of Yale - and also a professor
of economics - moderated the conversation among Professors
Judith Chevalier, John Geanakoplos, William D. Nordhaus,
Robert J. Shiller and Aleh Tsyvinski....
An early mistake during the recession, Mr. Levin said, was
not targeting more stimulus funds to job creation. He
contrasted America's meager pace of growth in gross domestic
product in the past few years with China's often double-digit
pace, noting that after the crisis hit, Washington allocated
roughly 2% of GDP to job creation while Beijing directed 15%
of GDP to that goal....
Repeatedly there are warnings from Western economists that
the Chinese economy is near collapse, nonetheless economic
growth through the first 2 quarters this year is running at
6.7% and the third quarter looks about the same. The point is
to ask and describe how after these last 39 remarkable years:
Before the crash, complacent Democrats, ... tended to agree
with them that the economy was largely self-correcting.
Who is a complacent Democrat? Obama ran as a fiscal
conservative and appointed a GOP as his SecTreas. Geithner
was a "banks need to be bailed out" and the economy self
corrects. Geithner was not in favor of cram down or mortgage
programs that would have bailed out the injured little folks.
Democrats like Romer and Summers were in favor a fiscal
stimulus, but not enough of it. I expect to see the Clinton
economic team include a lot more women and especially focus
on economic policies that help working women and families.
I have always thought that a big reason for the Bush
jobless recovery was his lack of true fiscal stimulus. Bush
had tax cuts for the wealthy, but the latest from Summers
shows why trickle down does not work.
Full employment may have been missing from the 1992
platform, but full employment was pursued aggressively by
Bill Clinton. He got AG to agree to allow unemployment to
drop to 4% in exchange for raising taxes and dropping the
middle class tax cuts. Bill Clinton used fiscal policy to tax
the economy and as a break so monetary policy could be
accommodating.
He should include raising the MinWage. Maybe that has not
changed but it is a lynchpin for putting money in the pockets
of the working poor.
"... Will the media ever stop the ridiculous charade of pretending that the path of globalization that we are on is somehow and natural and that it is the outcome of a "free" market? Are longer and stronger patent and copyright monopolies the results of a free market? ..."
"... The NYT should up its game in this respect. It had a good piece on the devastation to millions of working class people and their communities from the flood of imports of manufactured goods in the last decade, but then it turns to hand-wringing nonsense about how it was all a necessary part of globalization. Actually, none of it was a necessary part of a free trade. ..."
"... First, the huge trade deficits were the direct result of the decision of China and other developing countries to buy massive amounts of U.S. dollars to hold as reserves in this period. This raised the value of the dollar and made our goods and services less competitive internationally. This problem of a seriously over-valued dollar stems from the bungling of the East Asian bailout by the Clinton Treasury Department and the I.M.F. ..."
"... The second point is political leaders are constantly working to make patents and copyrights stronger and longer. This raises the price that ordinary workers have to pay for everything from drugs to computer games. The result is lower real wages for ordinary workers and higher incomes for the beneficiaries of these rents. It also slows economic growth since markets are not smart enough to distinguish between a 10,000 percent price increase due to a tariff and a 10,000 percent price increase due to a patent monopoly. (In other words, all the bad things that "free trade" economists say about tariffs also apply to patents and copyrights, except the impact is far larger in the later case.) ..."
Why are none of the "free trade" members of
Congress pushing to change the regulations that require
doctors go through a U.S. residency program to be able to
practice medicine in the United States? Obviously they are
all protectionist Neanderthals.
Will the media ever stop the ridiculous charade of
pretending that the path of globalization that we are on is
somehow and natural and that it is the outcome of a "free"
market? Are longer and stronger patent and copyright
monopolies the results of a free market?
The NYT should up its game in this respect. It had a good
piece on the devastation to millions of working class people
and their communities from the flood of imports of
manufactured goods in the last decade, but then it turns to
hand-wringing nonsense about how it was all a necessary part
of globalization. Actually, none of it was a necessary part
of a free trade.
First, the huge trade deficits were the direct result of
the decision of China and other developing countries to buy
massive amounts of U.S. dollars to hold as reserves in this
period. This raised the value of the dollar and made our
goods and services less competitive internationally. This
problem of a seriously over-valued dollar stems from the
bungling of the East Asian bailout by the Clinton Treasury
Department and the I.M.F.
If we had a more competent team in place, that didn't
botch the workings of the international financial system,
then we would have expected the dollar to drop as more
imports entered the U.S. market. This would have moved the
U.S. trade deficit toward balance and prevented the massive
loss of manufacturing jobs we saw in the last decade.
The second point is political leaders are constantly
working to make patents and copyrights stronger and longer.
This raises the price that ordinary workers have to pay for
everything from drugs to computer games. The result is lower
real wages for ordinary workers and higher incomes for the
beneficiaries of these rents. It also slows economic growth
since markets are not smart enough to distinguish between a
10,000 percent price increase due to a tariff and a 10,000
percent price increase due to a patent monopoly. (In other
words, all the bad things that "free trade" economists say
about tariffs also apply to patents and copyrights, except
the impact is far larger in the later case.)
Finally, the fact that trade has exposed manufacturing
workers to international competition, but not doctors and
lawyers, was a policy choice, not a natural development.
There are enormous potential gains from allowing smart and
ambitious young people in the developing world to come to the
United States to work in the highly paid professions. We have
not opened these doors because doctors and lawyers are far
more powerful than autoworkers and textile workers. And, we
rarely even hear the idea mentioned because doctors and
lawyers have brothers and sisters who are reporters and
economists.
Addendum:
Since some folks asked about the botched bailout from the
East Asian financial crisis, the point is actually quite
simple. Prior to 1997 developing countries were largely
following the textbook model, borrowing capital from the West
to finance development. This meant running large trade
deficits. This reversed following the crisis as the
conventional view in the developing world was that you needed
massive amounts of reserves to avoid being in the situation
of the East Asian countries and being forced to beg for help
from the I.M.F. This led to the situation where developing
countries, especially those in the region, began running very
large trade surpluses, exporting capital to the United
States. (I am quite sure China noticed how its fellow East
Asian countries were being treated in 1997.)
"... By Alejandro Reuss, a historian, economist, and co-editor of Triple Crisis blog and ..."
"... magazine. Originally published at Triple Crisis ..."
"... This is the first part of a three-part series on the historical trajectory of European social democracy towards the so-called "Third Way"-a turn away from class-struggle politics and a compromise with neoliberal capitalism-and its role in the shaping of the Economic and Monetary Union of the EU. It is a continuation of his earlier series "The Eurozone Crisis: Monetary Union and Fiscal Disunion" ( Part 1 and Part 2 ). His related article "An Historical Perspective on Brexit: Capitalist Internationalism, Reactionary Nationalism, and Socialist Internationalism" is available here . ..."
"... legitimation crisis of capital from the standpoint of capitalists themselves, ..."
"... "This, of course, has always been a fundamental contradiction when left-social democratic parties have swept to power: the political consciousness of its working class base demands a direct attack on the inequities and injustices of capitalism but not to the extent of overthrowing capitalism itself. Social democracy is thus philosophically idealist about fundamentally altering the dynamics of capitalism while ignoring that those reforms will never change capitalism's core dynamic of class rule and exploitation, but it will cloak this under the rubric of pragmatism and the endless possibility of voting in a bourgeois electoral system. In an era of expanding worldwide demand and growth of industry in the core, the social democratic system of working class empowerment could be tolerated as it tamed the wilder impulses of the working class while creating the consumers now lauded as the "middle class" of 20th century capitalism's 30-year golden age in the post-WWII era. Social democracy never won the working class political control, but the power wielded by socialist parties allowed segments of the working class access an increasing share of capital's immense accumulation in the post-war era. ..."
Posted on
September 30, 2016
by
Yves Smith
By Alejandro Reuss, a historian, economist, and co-editor of Triple
Crisis blog and
Dollars & Sense
magazine. Originally published at
Triple Crisis
This is the first part of a three-part
series on the historical trajectory of European social democracy towards the
so-called "Third Way"-a turn away from class-struggle politics and a compromise
with neoliberal capitalism-and its role in the shaping of the Economic and
Monetary Union of the EU. It is a continuation of his earlier series "The
Eurozone Crisis: Monetary Union and Fiscal Disunion" (
Part
1
and
Part 2
). His related article "An Historical Perspective on Brexit:
Capitalist Internationalism, Reactionary Nationalism, and Socialist
Internationalism" is available
here
.
The idea of a united Europe was not unique to neoliberal politicians or
financial capitalists, even if their vision was the one that ended up winning
out. Rather, this idea cut across the entire political spectrum, from forces
clearly associated with giant capitalist corporations and high finance to those
associated with the working-class movement. Just as there have been
"anti-Europe" or "euroskeptic" forces on the political left and right, there
were also diverse forces in favor of European unification, each with its own
vision of what a united Europe could be.
Going back to the mid-20th century, leaders of the social democratic,
reformist left envisioned a future "Social Europe." The European Social
Charter, adopted by the Council of Europe in 1961, promulgated a broad vision
of "social and economic rights," including objectives like full employment,
reduction of work hours, protection of workers' rights to organize and bargain
collectively, rights to social security and medical assistance, protection of
the rights of migrants, and so on.
Figures on the revolutionary left, like the Belgian Marxist economist and
Trotskyist leader Ernest Mandel, advocated a "United Socialist States of
Europe." This was an expression not only of revolutionary internationalism, but
also of Mandel's view that the working class could no longer confront
increasingly internationalized capital through political action confined to the
national level.
In other words, the question was not just whether Europe would become
united, but (if it did) what form such unification would take.
Triumph of the "Modernizers"
The vision of social democracy on a grand scale did not come to pass, nor
even was there significant movement in that direction when social democratic
parties led the governments of the largest and most powerful countries in the
EU. During overlapping periods in the late 1990s, the Labour Party's Tony Blair
was prime minister in the U.K., the Socialist Lionel Jospin was prime minister
in France (though in "cohabitation" with Conservative president Jacques
Chriac), the L'Ulivo (Olive Tree) coalition's Romano Prodi led the government
in Italy, and the Social Democrat Gerhard Schroeder (leading the so-called
"Red-Green" coalition, with the Green Party as junior partner) was the
chancellor of Germany.
All of these governments were led by figures who had turned away from the
traditional social-democratic politics of class struggle (in even the moderated
form prevalent in the postwar period), while still promising to temper
neoliberal capitalism. This approach became known as the "Third Way," a term
especially associated with the "New Labour" program of Blair in the U.K., but
also used to describe similar shifts in other countries. As Swedish political
scientist Peo Hansen puts it, Blair expressed "unconditional espousal of
capitalist globalization and … further liberalization of labour markets."
Jospin, who campaigned as a critic of neoliberalism, quickly shifted to
"multiple privatization schemes and policy reshufflings favourable to
business." Prodi was "firmly in the camp of the 'modernisers'."
The case of Germany is especially instructive: The finance minister in the
Social Democratic-Green coalition government, Oskar Lafontaine, was notable for
swimming against the neoliberal tide-criticizing the EU's fiscal constraints
and inflation-targeting monetary policy, and proposing the adoption of common
tax and social welfare policies. That is, he was arguing for EU-wide social
democratic reforms to end "race to the bottom" dynamics (on wages, taxes, etc.)
emerging in the EU. "Wage dumping, tax dumping and welfare dumping," Lafontaine
declared, "are not our [social democrats'] response to the globalization of
markets!" That was too much for Schroeder and other social democratic leaders
in Europe, and Lafontaine resigned under pressure in 1999.
Lafontaine would later become a founder and leader of Die Linke (The Left),
which is certainly to the left of the Social Democrats. He was not, however, a
revolutionary who threatened to upset the reformist apple cart. Rather, argues
Hansen, Lafontaine was a "political liability among his own for merely sticking
with a set of very traditional social democratic policies and values."
The Third way movements, so called, used the language of reform, the
language of toned-down class struggle to gain power but have never worked
toward any of the goals implicit in that language. The opposite is true.
Politicians like The Clintons, and Obama in the US, and Blair in the UK, have
worked steadily to erode the gains made by workers struggles in the 20th
century, and have done far more to that end than any right wing ideologue could
have. . There have a been a few bitter lesson for the working class in it 1.
Like it or not, there is a class struggle 2. class struggle doesn't end when
you gain a few concessions 3. You cant hire opportunistic politicians to carry
on that struggle for you by voting for them once every few years.
I'll once again jump in, hands waving, to recommend Wolfgang Streeck's
"Buying Time" and Peter Mair's "Ruling the Void" to anyone who wants a more
developed take on this subject. Streeck is particularly good on how Marxist
theorists missed the boat on the possibility of a
legitimation crisis of
capital from the standpoint of capitalists themselves,
as opposed to the
standpoint of the working and - I'll cautiously add - professional-managerial
classes. There's also a useful periodization of the changes in sources of state
funding, accompanied by consideration of the politics accompanying those
changes. Mair is great on how "catch-all" parties developed out of the more
class struggle-oriented parties the article refers to. (It's a real shame Mair
died relatively young.).
"This, of course, has always been a fundamental contradiction when
left-social democratic parties have swept to power: the political
consciousness of its working class base demands a direct attack on the
inequities and injustices of capitalism but not to the extent of
overthrowing capitalism itself. Social democracy is thus philosophically
idealist about fundamentally altering the dynamics of capitalism while
ignoring that those reforms will never change capitalism's core dynamic of
class rule and exploitation, but it will cloak this under the rubric of
pragmatism and the endless possibility of voting in a bourgeois electoral
system. In an era of expanding worldwide demand and growth of industry in
the core, the social democratic system of working class empowerment could be
tolerated as it tamed the wilder impulses of the working class while
creating the consumers now lauded as the "middle class" of 20th century
capitalism's 30-year golden age in the post-WWII era. Social democracy never
won the working class political control, but the power wielded by socialist
parties allowed segments of the working class access an increasing share of
capital's immense accumulation in the post-war era.
Syriza has arrived on the scene decades after the last meaningful acts of
social-democracy could occur. Capitalism in the core has long since ceased
to need to make deals with socialist parties as representatives of an
industrial proletariat; those jobs have been replaced by shifting industrial
work to the periphery as the capitalist world-system tends to do
specifically as acounter to the success of mid-century social-democracy, or
by increasing mechanization in the core – again, a tendency within
capitalism well described by Marx. Straitjacketed by a capitalism that no
longer needs to tame a restless proletariat into a large consumer class,
Syriza faces immense pressure from "the institutions" to allow continued
profiteering from privatization and bond repayment – the very things that
constitute super-profit in the financial era of this end of capitalism's
long-cycle. Add to this the European Union's structure itself, which was
built to constrain any national attempts at left-reformism, and Syriza's
determination not to even bluff about a Grexit – which might provide a
modicum of control over at least the nation's currency and deficit spending
– and there is little room for a party like Syriza to deliver on its
promises."
This level of reduction in spending is huge. For example, it exceeds
by a significant margin the
impact in any year
of the Obama stimulus program. Alone it would
be enough to account for a significant reduction in
neutral real interest rates
. If consumers were spending 3 percent
more, there would be scope to maintain full employment at interest
rates much closer to normal. And there would be much less of a problem
of monetary policy's
inability to respond
to the next recession.
What is the policy implication? Principally, it is the macroeconomic
importance of supporting middle class incomes. This can be done in a
range of ways from promoting workers right to
collectively bargain
to raising spending on infrastructure to
making the tax system more progressive. ...
"... "Rogue Mission: Did the Pentagon Bomb Syrian Army to Kill Ceasefire Deal? Counterpounch". IMO the wrong question keeps getting asked, except by the Russians: "Who's in charge – the White House or the Pentagon?" Is the media too afraid to ask this and is Obama afraid and embarrassed to let it be known? Has POTUS lost control of the military? Will it never by discussed or mentioned by MSM? ..."
"... I think the Overton Window has been successfully shifted by the media since Obama came to power to ensure that any suggestion that he is not calling the shots in foreign policy can be filed under 'conspiracy theories'. Every success is his doing, every failure is due to Republican obstructionism or those dastardly Russians and Chinese. ..."
"... Having said all that, its pretty obvious that Obama has minimal control and quite likes it that way. I think he sees himself as a sort of bored patriarch of a big family, letting them do their own thing with occasional speeches about good behaviour and disciplining only when they have done something outrageously stupid. ..."
"... All those governmental fiefdoms established during the reign of Jr continue unhindered, in part because Obama had no interest in changing anything. So now after 16 years of running the store it probably feels like ownership. If they don't owe you anything then you are just in the way. In partial defense it's hard to see how it could be otherwise without bringing big changes from day one. ..."
"... Obama may be trusting the TPP is postponed during his lame duck session for the same reason. This way he can be viewed as still a loyal "Battle of TPP" foot soldier for "Team Elite", with his future rewards to follow. If the TPP subsequently passes under a President Hillary, the delayed harmful TPP effects could then be attributed to her, not Obama. ..."
"... "If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor) , and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)." ..."
"Rogue Mission: Did the Pentagon Bomb Syrian Army to Kill Ceasefire Deal? Counterpounch". IMO the wrong question keeps getting asked, except by the Russians: "Who's in charge –
the White House or the Pentagon?" Is the media too afraid to ask this and is Obama afraid
and embarrassed to let it be known? Has POTUS lost control of the military? Will it never by discussed
or mentioned by MSM?
I think the Overton Window has been successfully shifted by the media since Obama came to power
to ensure that any suggestion that he is not calling the shots in foreign policy can be filed
under 'conspiracy theories'. Every success is his doing, every failure is due to Republican obstructionism
or those dastardly Russians and Chinese.
Having said all that, its pretty obvious that Obama has minimal control and quite likes it
that way. I think he sees himself as a sort of bored patriarch of a big family, letting them do
their own thing with occasional speeches about good behaviour and disciplining only when they
have done something outrageously stupid.
All those governmental fiefdoms established during the reign of Jr continue unhindered, in
part because Obama had no interest in changing anything. So now after 16 years of running the
store it probably feels like ownership. If they don't owe you anything then you are just in the
way. In partial defense it's hard to see how it could be otherwise without bringing big changes
from day one.
Obama's lack of control extends far beyond having an independent military and military grade
spy network. He couldn't even protect his buds living in the house of Saud from mean ole lawsuits.
It was clear the veto wouldn't stand but that Obama Foundation isn't going to build itself. Taking
one for "Team Elite".
Obama may be trusting the TPP is postponed during his lame duck session for the same reason.
This way he can be viewed as still a loyal "Battle of TPP" foot soldier for "Team Elite", with
his future rewards to follow. If the TPP subsequently passes under a President Hillary, the delayed harmful TPP effects could
then be attributed to her, not Obama.
Perhaps he fight for the TPP in the lame duck session just well enough to avoid having it on
his record.
"If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared
Salafist principality in Eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor) , and this is exactly
what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which
is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)."
The latter is the city in question. Here's the Daily Beast not disputing the text (though for far different reasons):
"... The current US presidential election shows, perhaps better than anything else, just how far that decadence has gone. Hillary Clinton's campaign is floundering in the face of Trump's challenge because so few Americans still believe that the [neo]liberal shibboleths in her campaign rhetoric mean anything at all. ..."
"... Even among her supporters, enthusiasm is hard to find, and her campaign rallies have had embarrassingly sparse attendance. Increasingly frantic claims that only racists, fascists, and other deplorables support Trump convince no one but true believers, and make the concealment of interests behind shopworn values increasingly transparent. Clinton may still win the election by one means or another, but the broader currents in American political life have clearly changed course. ..."
"... Or one could take the idea that "Health" or "College" reform is merely funneling ever more resources to insurance companies and College administrations with precious little if any improvement in the real cost or quality to the users of the service. ..."
Ironies of this sort are anything but unusual in political history. It's astonishingly common
for a movement that starts off trying to overturn the status quo in the name of some idealistic
abstraction or other to check its ideals at the door once it becomes the status quo. If anything,
American liberalism held onto its ideals longer than most and accomplished a great deal more
than many, and I think that most of us-even those who, like me, are moderate Burkean conservatives-are
grateful to the liberal movement of the past for ending such obvious abuses as chattel slavery
and the denial of civil rights to women, and for championing the idea that values as well as
interests deserve a voice in the public sphere. It deserves the modern equivalent of a raised
hat and a moment of silence, if no more, as it finally sinks into the decadence that is the
ultimate fate of every successful political movement.
The current US presidential election shows, perhaps better than anything else, just
how far that decadence has gone. Hillary Clinton's campaign is floundering in the face of Trump's
challenge because so few Americans still believe that the [neo]liberal shibboleths in her campaign
rhetoric mean anything at all.
Even among her supporters, enthusiasm is hard to find, and her campaign rallies have
had embarrassingly sparse attendance. Increasingly frantic claims that only racists, fascists,
and other deplorables support Trump convince no one but true believers, and make the concealment
of interests behind shopworn values increasingly transparent. Clinton may still win the election
by one means or another, but the broader currents in American political life have clearly changed
course.
=====================================
Great article IMHO – I certainly agree about the portion concerning immigration.
And for an example of a contradiction – Police unions and big cities. Unions do much more than
raise wages and pensions – many of the protections of police by hamstringing complaint investigations
against the police are exposing a fissure that has reached the point of earthquake.
Or one could take the idea that "Health" or "College" reform is merely funneling ever more
resources to insurance companies and College administrations with precious little if any improvement
in the real cost or quality to the users of the service.
From the heart of the blob: "We've Got to Face It: Trump Is Riding a
Global Trend" [Foreign Policy].
"We need to think about how to make
democracy more effective at cushioning citizens from the shocks of change.
We need to think hard about tackling political polarization and creating new
space for politics that can actually address pressing problems rather than
succumbing to the gridlock that discredits democracy. We need to think about
information policies - including media literacy programs - that can offer
urgently needed counterweights to the echo chambers and conspiracy factories
of the internet." Seems a little late to do your thinking .
When you step back from it, that is a terrifying statement. In the Foreign
Policy view Democracy is supposed to act a some sort of cushion against the
shocks of change. I had been under the impression that Democracy was about the
population directing changes and directing their own lives. That was, I
believe, the basic idea.
But clearly for the elites at FP Democracy is not a bedrock principle of our
society but some sort of safety valve while we norms all get beaten up by "The
market".
"We need to think about how to make democracy more
effective at cushioning citizens from the shocks of
change." (Foreign Policy)
To parse this: "the only kind of change we will consider
completely screws people over so let's give them a bandaid".
In Apocalypse Now they massacre a village and then run
around trying to give everybody first aid, I say this time
around we should just try and skip the massacre part.
Or how about a scene from your handle
OpenThePodBayDoorsHal
Clinton:"I enjoy serving you the people and have
many stimulating conversations with you. I understand
what you must be going thru the last 8 years. But if
you sit down and take a stress pill, and think about
it, I'm sure we can work things out. I have the
greatest enthusiasm to serve you. I enjoy working with
people. Remember these things have happened before, and
they have always been shown to be due to human
error what are you doing what are you doing .what are
you doing?
We need to think hard about succumbing to the gridlock that discredits
democracy.
There is no gridlock that discredits democracy. What we have are
billionaire sets, one buying each party, and then pitting them at odds with
each other.
That is not democracy that is being discredited. What is being discredited
is the two-party system overloaded with money. That of course is a feature;
not a bug. The billionaires are raking it in while doing nothing for anyone
less. How much better could it get?
Pay no attention to those men behind the closed door discussing policy
behind your backs with both sides of the aisle
Nevermind that energy policy was discussed behind closed doors(Bush),
health care(Obama) was discussed behind closed doors, trade is being
discussed behind closed doors(Obama and next president) .
The fact that we have pay to play lobbyists accessing the WH to write
policy behind the backs of average citizens discredits democracy. But hey,
I imagine our pundit class is hoping we don't notice that.
"... Only three references to Comey as a "Treas-Weasel" appear in a Google search. ..."
"... Are there no longer any "deep throats" left at the FBI? Because now would be an excellent opportunity for one of them to start making phone calls – but to who? Greenwald maybe? He seems to be the only investigative journalist left but he doesn't even live in this country .. ..."
"I knew there were going to be all kinds of rocks thrown, but this organization and the people who did this are honest,
independent people."
Well Comey, it is not that we do not trust the agents, we do not trust the leadership. If any of the
underground reports I have seen are indications, the agents were trying and struggling to do their jobs.
Are there no longer any "deep throats" left at the FBI? Because now would be an excellent opportunity for one of them to start
making phone calls – but to who? Greenwald maybe? He seems to be the only investigative journalist left but he doesn't even live
in this country ..
"... GOP lawmakers focused in particular on the Justice Department's decision to give a form of immunity to Clinton lawyers Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson to obtain computers containing emails related to the case. ..."
"... Republicans also questioned why Mills and Samuelson were allowed to attend Clinton's July 2 interview at FBI headquarters as her attorneys, given that they had been interviewed as witnesses in the email probe. ..."
"... "I don't think there's any reasonable prosecutor out there who would have allowed two immunized witnesses central to the prosecution and proving the case against her to sit in the room with the FBI interview of the subject of that investigation," said Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas), a former U.S. attorney. He said those circumstances signaled that the decision not to prosecute Clinton was already made when she sat down for the interview. ..."
"... Ratcliffe said Clinton and the others should have been called to a grand jury, where no one is allowed to accompany the witness. ..."
"You can call us wrong, but don't call us weasels. We are not weasels," Comey declared
Wednesday at a House Judiciary Committee hearing. "We are honest people and whether or not you
agree with the result, this was done the way you want it to be done."
... ... ...
"I would be in big trouble, and I should be in big trouble, if I did something like that,"
said Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.). "There seems to be different strokes for different folks.
I think there's a heavy hand coming from someplace else."
Comey insisted there is no double standard, though he said there would be serious consequences -
short of criminal prosecution - if FBI personnel handled classified information as Clinton and
her aides did.
... ... ...
Republicans suggested there were numerous potential targets of prosecution in the case and
repeatedly questioned prosecutors' decisions to grant forms of immunity to at least five people
in connection with the probe.
"You cleaned the slate before you even knew. You gave immunity to people that you were going to
need to make a case if a case was to be made," said Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas).
GOP lawmakers focused in particular on the Justice Department's decision to give a form of
immunity to Clinton lawyers Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson to obtain computers containing
emails related to the case.
"Laptops don't go to the Bureau of Prisons," Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said. "The immunity was
not for the laptop, it was for Cheryl Mills."
The FBI director repeated an explanation he gave for the first time at a Senate hearing Tuesday,
that the deal to get the laptops was wise because subpoenaing computers from an attorney would be
complex and time consuming.
"Anytime you know you're subpoenaing a laptop from a lawyer that involved a lawyer's practice
of law, you know you're getting into a big megillah," Comey said.
Republicans also questioned why Mills and Samuelson were allowed to attend Clinton's July 2
interview at FBI headquarters as her attorneys, given that they had been interviewed as witnesses
in the email probe.
"I don't think there's any reasonable prosecutor out there who would have allowed two immunized
witnesses central to the prosecution and proving the case against her to sit in the room with the
FBI interview of the subject of that investigation," said Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Texas), a former
U.S. attorney. He said those circumstances signaled that the decision not to prosecute Clinton
was already made when she sat down for the interview.
"I don't think there's any reasonable prosecutor out there who would have allowed two
immunized witnesses central to the prosecution and proving the case against her to sit in the
room with the FBI interview of the subject of that investigation," said Rep. John Ratcliffe
(R-Texas), a former U.S. attorney. He said those circumstances signaled that the decision not to
prosecute Clinton was already made when she sat down for the interview.
"If colleagues of ours believe I am lying about when I made this decision, please urge them to
contact me privately so we can have a conversation about this," Comey said. "The decision was
made after that because I didn't know what was going to happen during the interview. She would
maybe lie in the interview in a way we could prove."
Comey also said it wasn't the FBI's role to dictate who could or couldn't act as Clinton's
lawyers. "I would also urge you to tell me what tools we have as prosecutors and investigators to
kick out of the interview someone that the subject says is their lawyer," the FBI chief said,
while acknowledging he'd never encountered such a situation before.
Ratcliffe said Clinton and the others should have been called to a grand jury, where no one
is allowed to accompany the witness.
Comey did say there was no chance of charges against Mills or Samuelson by the time of the
Clinton interview.
Calling the people whose endorsements Clinton has spent her time since the DNC
pursuing "moderate Republicans" seems suspect. After all, apart from Wall
Street financier types whose rigid party identification tends to dissolve in
the bipartisan solvent of the neoliberal financial establishment [I shouldn't
say "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" or liberals will throw a tantrum], the
Republican public figures she's been most aggressive about shepherding into her
corner are the neoconservative foreign policy hawks whose coups, death squads,
invasions, and so on were allegedly supposed to embody the worst and most
immoderate
excesses of the Bush and Reagan administrations.
It seems the idea is to impress so-called moderate
voters
with a show
of establishment unanimity across all prior "extremes" as a show of Clinton's
seriousness and Trump's unseriousness, but then we have to reckon with the way
"moderate voters" is most often a euphemism for "low-information voters with a
vague sense of not wanting to be seen as rocking the boat who otherwise don't
give much of a damn about electoral politics at all", which has little to do
with what "moderate" means when describing actual public figures.
If we took any real effort to directly hash out "moderate"
inclinations of the depoliticized public at large the same way we do those of
the institutions through which this public is supposed to funnel its political
engagement, we'd probably come up with something very different.
Also, Rich @ 106, you're more or less echoing what Nathan Robinson writes
about "objectively pro-Trump" anti-leftist Hillary supporters
here
.
ZM's wartime mobilisation, bob's politics of continual catastrophe, or even
bruce's Two-To-Three-Year Plan will not happen, in part because of
neoliberalism's constant drive toward depoliticization of issues that might
interfere with short-term corporate profits
, and also in part because
First-World politics is well practiced at not giving a shit about the suffering
of the Third World
Which of course is where the most immediately catastrophic suffering from
climate change will be borne at least at first. Lee's "chink in the rightwing
cognitive armor" won't happen either, not in response to any empirical facts
about the actual climate: this cognitive armor exists because there are vested
interests promoting its existence, interests that aren't themselves stupid
enough to completely deny the basic parameters of climate science (
e.g.
).
If anything the least starry-eyed one here is Layman for implying that
neoliberalism would tackle climate change by radically reconfiguring market
incentives to make prevention and/or mitigation a profitable business, which is
close to how people like Charles Koch see the issue too - but in this case I
have to agree with everybody else here that this kind of gentle nudging of
markets wouldn't be enough, without slamming on the brakes much harder than our
current thoroughly marketized mechanisms are capable of doing.
What's needed is impossible under our present institutions, and what's
possible is inadequate.
Will G-R #114: "this cognitive armor exists because there are vested interests
promoting its existence"
I don't think so. I think it emerged when the Great
Chain of Being was overturned in the public imagination in the middle of the
18th Century (see Lovejoy) and so, at the same moment, the market economy began
to be accepted as a way to escape the status positions of traditional society.
The change in emotional expectation about the source of social status
immediately formed a left/right politics, generally reflecting the interests of
the have-nots and the haves. Promotion by vested interests is not a cause of
this, rather it is a predicable symptom of it.
And it won't be overturned by anything less than a reversal in the reign of
the status-psychology of money which has characterized the last 250 years.
Which may be closer than we think, because a part of "status" has always
been since ancient times a signal of being able to avoid need - but it is
unavoidably becoming ever clearer that our basest owners are in the richest
things superfluous.
Perhaps we will soon be ready to read the social tragedy of our next
romantic Shelleyan horror myth: the Trumpenstein monster!
"... As secretary of state in 2011, Mrs. Clinton vocally supported the war against Libya to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi on the heels of his abandonment of weapons of mass destruction. She boasted with the dripping arrogance of Julius Caesar after Gaddafi's death: "We came, we saw, he died." She insisted that regime change in Libya was for humanitarian purposes. She agreed with President Barack Obama that to be faithful to "who we are," we must overthrow governments that are oppressing their citizens by force and violence. ..."
"... Like the French Bourbons who forgot nothing and learned nothing, Mrs. Clinton eagerness to initiate wars for regime change was undiminished by the Iraq and Libya debacles. She urged war against Syria to oust President Bashar al-Assad. She confidently insinuated that we could transform Syria into a flourishing democracy sans James Madisons, George Washingtons or Thomas Jeffersons because of our unique nation-building genius. ..."
"... Wars for regime change are immoral. We have not been tasked by a Supreme Being to appraise foreign nations like a schoolmarm and to invade those to whom we have superciliously assigned a failing grade. ..."
"... Wars for regime change also violate international law. Article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter generally prohibits "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state…." Article 51 creates a narrow exception for wars in self-defense "if an armed attack occurs…." Regime change wars do not fit that narrow exception. ..."
"... Mrs. Clinton underscores in her memoir that she would rather be "caught trying" something kinetic than to try masterly inactivity like Fabius Maximus. She would rather be criticized for fighting too many wars for regime change than too few. She is the war hawks' dream candidate. ..."
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton champions wars to effectuate regime change.
Their immorality, illegality and stupidity do not diminish Mrs. Clinton's enthusiasm for treating
independent nations as serfs of the United States.
As first aady, she warmly supported the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, which made it the policy of
the Unites States to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. As United States Senator, she
invoked the 1998 policy in voting for the 2002 Authorization to Use Military Force Against Iraq.
Saddam's successors proved a cure worse than the disease. Shiite dominated governments allied
with Iran, oppressed Sunnis, Kurds, and Turkmen, and created a power vacuum that gave birth to
the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Our national security has been weakened.
As secretary of state in 2011, Mrs. Clinton vocally supported the war against Libya to
overthrow Muammar Gaddafi on the heels of his abandonment of weapons of mass destruction. She
boasted with the dripping arrogance of Julius Caesar after Gaddafi's death: "We came, we saw, he
died." She insisted that regime change in Libya was for humanitarian purposes. She agreed with
President Barack Obama that to be faithful to "who we are," we must overthrow governments that
are oppressing their citizens by force and violence.
Libya predictably descended into dystopia after Gaddafi's murder. (It had no democratic
cultural, historical, or philosophical credentials.) Tribal militias proliferated. Competing
governments emerged. ISIS entered into the power vacuum in Sirte, which has required the return
of United States military forces in Libya. Terrorists murdered our Ambassador and three other
Americans in Benghazi. Gaddafi's conventional weapons were looted and spread throughout the
Middle East. Hundreds of thousands of refugees have fled and are continuing to flee Libyan shores
for Europe. North Korea and Iran hardened their nuclear ambitions to avoid Gaddafi's grisly fate.
Our national security has been weakened.
Like the French Bourbons who forgot nothing and learned nothing, Mrs. Clinton eagerness to
initiate wars for regime change was undiminished by the Iraq and Libya debacles. She urged war
against Syria to oust President Bashar al-Assad. She confidently insinuated that we could
transform Syria into a flourishing democracy sans James Madisons, George Washingtons or Thomas
Jeffersons because of our unique nation-building genius.
She forgot South Sudan. We midwifed its independence in 2011. Despite our hopes and prayers,
the new nation descended into a gruesome ongoing civil war including child soldiers between the
Dinka led by President Salva Kiir and the Nuer led by former Vice President Riek Machar. More
than 50,000 have died, more than 2.2 million have been displaced, and a harrowing number have
been murdered, tortured or raped. South Sudan epitomizes our nation-building incompetence.
Wars for regime change are immoral. We have not been tasked by a Supreme Being to appraise
foreign nations like a schoolmarm and to invade those to whom we have superciliously assigned a
failing grade. As Jesus sermonized in Matthew 7: 1-3:
"Judge not, that ye be not judged.
"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that
is in thine own eye?"
Thus, Thomas Jefferson wrote to President James Monroe in 1823: "The presumption of dictating to
an independent nation the form of its government is so arrogant, so atrocious, that indignation
as well as moral sentiment enlists all our partialities and prayers in favor of one and our equal
execrations against the other."
Wars for regime change also violate international law. Article 2 (4) of the United Nations
Charter generally prohibits "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of any state…." Article 51 creates a narrow exception for wars in
self-defense "if an armed attack occurs…." Regime change wars do not fit that narrow exception.
They are also stupid, like playing Russian roulette. We lack the wisdom necessary to insure that
successor regimes will strengthen rather than weaken our national security taking into account,
among other things, the staggering military and financial costs of propping up corrupt,
incompetent, and unpopular governments.
Mrs. Clinton underscores in her memoir that she would rather be "caught trying" something
kinetic than to try masterly inactivity like Fabius Maximus. She would rather be criticized for
fighting too many wars for regime change than too few. She is the war hawks' dream candidate.
Domestic-policy successes such as paid family leave count for little if the U.S. is at
war with Russia.
Hillary Clinton has some impressive goals for the United States. And it is
conceivable that, to whatever extent, she can even achieve them. These include
(courtesy of
NPR
):
Make public college debt-free. Fund universal pre-K. Create a comprehensive
background check system and close loopholes. Give the government a role in
setting insurance rates. Waive deportation and give undocumented residents a
path to legal status. Enact an infrastructure plan that also serves as a
stimulus to the economy. Raise capital gains taxes [We will overlook her
coziness with Wall Street for the moment.]
But what does domestic-policy success avail us if the United States is fighting
a major war? It is common knowledge that when it comes to foreign policy, Hillary
Clinton gives many of us on the left the heebie-jeebies. A blurb on the issues
page of her official campaign website suggests traditional Democratic
overcompensation on defense, but to the nth degree: "Military and defense[:] We
should maintain the best-trained, best-equipped, and strongest military the world
has ever known."
The extent to which Russian President Vladimir Putin considers Ms. Clinton a
nemesis (and Donald Trump a potential ally) can be seen in a new article by
Simon Shuster at
Time
. But, obviously, no American election should be
decided by which candidate the leader of another superpower prefers. The real
issue, without going into detail, is her policy toward Russia, summarized by
Jeffrey Sachs at Huffington Post
.
… she championed a remarkably confrontational approach with Russia based on
NATO expansion to Ukraine and Georgia and a new nuclear arms race that will
cost American taxpayers more than $355 billion over a decade.
There we have the two weakest links of Hillary Clinton foreign policy bundled
into one. She is likely to increase tensions with Russia, thus putting us at risk
of war with nuclear weapons, the modernization of which she champions.
To put it another way, an aggressive stance toward Russia and more nuclear
weapons would cancel out domestic initiatives and achievements. After all, what
good is paid parental leave if the United States is waging a major war and not
only is there no money left over from defense for such programs, but, the number
of families left standing to benefit from these programs is, shudder, drastically
diminished?
Bottom line: Without a visionary policy that works toward alleviating tensions
with, not confronting or attacking, other countries, domestic policy successes
count for little.
Here it is. John and Robert Kennedy devoted their greatest commitments and energies to the prevention
of war and the preservation of peace. To them that was not an abstract formula but the necessary
foundation of human life. But today's Democrats have become the Party of War: a home for arms merchants,
mercenaries, academic war planners, lobbyists for every foreign intervention, promoters of color
revolutions, failed generals, exploiters of the natural resources of corrupt governments. We have
American military bases in 80 countries, and there are now American military personnel on the ground
in about 130 countries, a remarkable achievement since there are only 192 recognized countries. Generals
and admirals announce our national policies. Theater commanders are our principal ambassadors. Our
first answer to trouble or opposition of any kind seems always to be a military movement or action.
Nor has the Democratic Party candidate for president this year, Hillary Clinton, sought peace. Instead
she has pushed America into successive invasions, successive efforts at "regime change." She has
sought to prevent Americans from seeking friendship or cooperation with President Vladimir Putin
of Russia by characterizing him as "another Hitler." She proclaims herself ready to invade Syria
immediately after taking the oath of office. Her shadow War Cabinet brims with the architects of
war and disaster for the past decades, the neocons who led us to our present pass, in Iraq, in Afghanistan,
Syria, Libya, Yemen, in Ukraine, unrepentant of all past errors, ready to resume it all with fresh
trillions and fresh blood. And the Democrats she leads seem intent on worsening relations with Russia,
for example by sending American warships into the Black Sea, or by introducing nuclear weapons ever
closer to Russia itself.
In fact, in all the years of the so-called War on Terror, only one potential American president
has had the intelligence, the vision, the sheer sanity to see that America cannot fight the entire
world at once; who sees that America's natural and necessary allies in this fight must include the
advanced and civilized nations that are most exposed and experienced in their own terror wars, and
have the requisite military power and willingness to use it. Only one American candidate has pointed
out how senseless it is to seek confrontation with Russia and China, at the same time that we are
trying to suppress the very jihadist movements that they also are attacking.
That candidate is Donald Trump. Throughout this campaign, he has said that as president, he would
quickly sit down with President Putin and seek relaxation of tensions between our nations, and possible
collaboration in the fight against terrorists. On this ground alone, he marks himself as greatly
superior to all his competitors, earlier in the primaries and now in the general election.
I'm all for reducing the unmanageably high levels of total immigration
into the U.S., and I strongly believe in penalizing illegal employers, but I
think you have exaggerated the number of illegal immigrants.
According to Numbers USA, there are about 12 million illegal immigrants in
the U.S.:
"... Of course the root cause is Baathists aligned with non Sunnis running a sector of land lusted after by the Saudis and GCC. ..."
"... That the US supported the Sunnis (since the Iranians ousted CIA puppets) against the Baathists did not start the civil war, it merely keeps it growing in lust for death and destruction. ..."
"... While that Sep 2012 skirmish in Benghazi included CIA ground troops otherwise there securing the sea lanes supporting Syrian Al Qaeda with Qaddafi's arms, less stingers. ..."
"... "Settle for the crooked, Wall St, war monger because real change is too hard and the other guy is insane, supported by racists and don't think Russia should praise American exceptionalism." ..."
"As for Syria, here too I'm not sure why you think this country caused its civil war, but it
did not."
Of course the root cause is Baathists aligned with non Sunnis running a sector of land lusted
after by the Saudis and GCC.
That the US supported the Sunnis (since the Iranians ousted CIA puppets) against the Baathists
did not start the civil war, it merely keeps it growing in lust for death and destruction.
While that Sep 2012 skirmish in Benghazi included CIA ground troops otherwise there securing
the sea lanes supporting Syrian Al Qaeda with Qaddafi's arms, less stingers.
ilsm August 31, 2016 9:44 pm
"Settle for the crooked, Wall St, war monger because real change is too hard and the other
guy is insane, supported by racists and don't think Russia should praise American exceptionalism."
Obama might as well have voted with Hillary for AUMF forever, he is running it.
"... Flawed as he may be, Trump is telling more of the truth than politicians of our day. Most important, he offers a path away from constant war, a path of businesslike accommodation with all reasonable people and nations, concentrating our forces and efforts against the true enemies of civilization. Thus, to dwell on his faults and errors is to evade the great questions of war and peace, life and death for our people and our country. You and I will have to compensate for his deficits of civility, in return for peace, we may hope as Lincoln hoped, among ourselves and with all nations. ..."
"... No doubt, clinton supporters will snicker and deride efforts to treat Trump's positions seriously as this essay does. ..."
Flawed as he may be, Trump is telling more of the truth than politicians of our day. Most
important, he offers a path away from constant war, a path of businesslike accommodation with
all reasonable people and nations, concentrating our forces and efforts against the true enemies
of civilization. Thus, to dwell on his faults and errors is to evade the great questions of war
and peace, life and death for our people and our country. You and I will have to compensate for
his deficits of civility, in return for peace, we may hope as Lincoln hoped, among ourselves and
with all nations.
No doubt, clinton supporters will snicker and deride efforts to treat Trump's positions seriously
as this essay does.
But for anyone who is the slightest bit aware of how the maniac imperialists have hijacked
the public means of persuasion for a generation to the detriment of countless foreign countries
as well as our own, the obsession with turning Trump into a cartoon character with joke "policies"
should sound an alarm.
No "politician" was ever going to buck this system. Bernie Sanders, fiery and committed though
he was, proved that. It was always going to take an over-sized personality with an over-sized
ego to withstand the shit storm that a demand for profound change would create, and some "incivility"
seems a small price to pay to break the vice grip of the status quo.
I, for one, have no intention of squandering this opportunity to throw sand in the gears. There
has never been a third candidate allowed to plead their case in a presidential "debate" since
Ross Perot threw a scare into TPTB in 1992. Should clinton manage to pull this one out, the lesson
of Trump will be learned, and we may not be "given" the opportunity to choose an "outsider" again
for a very long time. It's worth taking a minute to separate the message from the messenger.
"... It is not clear what the NYT thinks it is telling readers with this comment. The economy grows and creates jobs, sort of like the tree in my backyard grows every year. The issue is the rate of growth and job creation. While the economy has recovered from the lows of the recession, employment rates of prime age workers (ages 25-54) are still down by almost 2.0 percentage points from the pre-recession level and almost 4.0 percentage points from 2000 peaks. There is much research ** *** showing that trade has played a role in this drop in employment. ..."
"... It is not surprising that Ford's CEO would say that shifting production to Mexico would not cost U.S. jobs. It is likely he would make this claim whether or not it is true. Furthermore, his actual statement is that Ford is not cutting U.S. jobs. If the jobs being created in Mexico would otherwise be created in the United States, then the switch is costing U.S. jobs. The fact that Michigan and Ohio added 75,000 jobs last year has as much to do with this issue as the winner of last night's Yankees' game. ..."
"... The piece goes on to say that the North American Free Trade Agreement has "for more than two decades has been widely counted as a main achievement of [Bill Clinton]." It doesn't say who holds this view. The deal did not lead to a rise in the U.S. trade surplus with Mexico, which was a claim by its proponents before its passage. It also has not led to more rapid growth in Mexico which has actually fallen further behind the United States in the two decades since NAFTA. ..."
"... It is worth noting that none of the analyses that provide the basis for this assertion take into the account the impact of the increased protectionism, in the form of longer and stronger patent and copyright protections, which are a major part of the TPP. These forms of protection are equivalent to tariffs of several thousand percent on the protected items. As they apply to an ever growing share of the economy, the resulting economic losses will expand substantially in the next decade, especially if the TPP is approved. ..."
NYT Editorial In News Section for TPP Short on Substance
When the issue is trade deals, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the New York Times
throws out its usual journalistic standards to push its pro-trade deal agenda. Therefore it is
not surprising to see a story * in the news section that was essentially a misleading advertisement
for these trade deals.
The headline tells readers that Donald Trump's comments on trade in the Monday night debate
lacked accuracy. The second paragraph adds:
"His aggressiveness may have been offset somewhat by demerits on substance."
These comments could well describe this NYT piece.
For example, it ostensibly indicts Trump with the comment:
"His [Trump's] first words of the night were the claim that "our jobs are fleeing the country,"
though nearly 15 million new jobs have been created since the economic recovery began."
It is not clear what the NYT thinks it is telling readers with this comment. The economy
grows and creates jobs, sort of like the tree in my backyard grows every year. The issue is the
rate of growth and job creation. While the economy has recovered from the lows of the recession,
employment rates of prime age workers (ages 25-54) are still down by almost 2.0 percentage points
from the pre-recession level and almost 4.0 percentage points from 2000 peaks. There is much research
** *** showing that trade has played a role in this drop in employment.
The NYT piece continues:
"[Trump] singled out Ford for sending thousands of jobs to Mexico to build small cars and worsening
manufacturing job losses in Michigan and Ohio, but the company's chief executive has said 'zero'
American workers would be cut. Those states each gained more than 75,000 jobs in just the last
year."
It is not surprising that Ford's CEO would say that shifting production to Mexico would
not cost U.S. jobs. It is likely he would make this claim whether or not it is true. Furthermore,
his actual statement is that Ford is not cutting U.S. jobs. If the jobs being created in Mexico
would otherwise be created in the United States, then the switch is costing U.S. jobs. The fact
that Michigan and Ohio added 75,000 jobs last year has as much to do with this issue as the winner
of last night's Yankees' game.
The next sentence adds:
"Mr. Trump said China was devaluing its currency for unfair price advantages, yet it ended
that practice several years ago and is now propping up the value of its currency."
While China has recently been trying to keep up the value of its currency by selling reserves,
it still holds more than $4 trillion in foreign reserves, counting its sovereign wealth fund.
This is more than four times the holdings that would typically be expected of a country its side.
These holdings have the effect of keeping down the value of China's currency.
If this seems difficult to understand, the Federal Reserve now holds more than $3 trillion
in assets as a result of its quantitative easing programs of the last seven years. It raised its
short-term interest rate by a quarter point last December, nonetheless almost all economists would
agree the net effect of the Fed's actions is the keep interest rates lower than they would otherwise
be. The same is true of China and its foreign reserve position.
The piece goes on to say that the North American Free Trade Agreement has "for more than
two decades has been widely counted as a main achievement of [Bill Clinton]." It doesn't say who
holds this view. The deal did not lead to a rise in the U.S. trade surplus with Mexico, which
was a claim by its proponents before its passage. It also has not led to more rapid growth in
Mexico which has actually fallen further behind the United States in the two decades since NAFTA.
In later discussing the TPP the piece tells readers:
"Economists generally have said the Pacific nations agreement would increase incomes, exports
and growth in the United States, but not significantly."
It is worth noting that none of the analyses that provide the basis for this assertion
take into the account the impact of the increased protectionism, in the form of longer and stronger
patent and copyright protections, which are a major part of the TPP. These forms of protection
are equivalent to tariffs of several thousand percent on the protected items. As they apply to
an ever growing share of the economy, the resulting economic losses will expand substantially
in the next decade, especially if the TPP is approved.
Hillary Clinton's campaign manager Robby Mook and other top Democrats refused to answer whether
Clinton wants President Barack Obama to withdraw the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) from consideration
before Congress during interviews with Breitbart News in the spin room after the first presidential
debate here at Hofstra University on Monday night.
The fact that Mook, Clinton campaign
spokesman Brian Fallon, and Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairwoman Donna Brazile each refused
to answer the simple question that would prove Clinton is actually opposed to the Trans Pacific Partnership
now after praising it 40 times and calling it the "gold standard" is somewhat shocking.
After initially ignoring the question entirely four separate times, Mook finally replied to Breitbart
News. But when he did respond, he didn't answer the question:
BREITBART NEWS: "Robby, does Secretary Clinton believe that the president should withdraw the
TPP?"
ROBBY MOOK: "Secretary Clinton, as she said in the debate, evaluated the final TPP language
and came to the conclusion that she cannot support it."
BREITBART NEWS: "Does she think the president should withdraw it?"
ROBBY MOOK: "She has said the president should not support it."
Obama is attempting to ram TPP through Congress as his last act as president during a lame duck
session of Congress. Clinton previously supported the TPP, and called it the "Gold Standard" of trade
deals. That's something Brazile, the new chairwoman of the DNC who took over after Rep. Debbie Wasserman
Schultz (D-FL) was forced to resign after email leaks showed she and her staff at the DNC undermined
the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and in an untoward way forced the nomination
into Clinton's hands, openly confirmed in her own interview with Breitbart News in the spin room
post debate. Brazile similarly refused to answer if Clinton should call on Obama to withdraw the
TPP from consideration before Congress.
"... If you're wondering why a large portion of American consumers are strung out and breathless and have trouble spending more and cranking up the economy, here's the New York Fed with an answer. And it's going to get worse. ..."
"... That the real median income of men has declined 4% since 1973 is an ugly tidbit that the Census Bureau hammered home in its Income and Poverty report two weeks ago, which I highlighted in this article – That 5.2% Jump in Household Income? Nope, People Aren't Suddenly Getting Big-Fat Paychecks – and it includes the interactive chart below that shows how the real median wage of women rose 36% from 1973 through 2015, while it fell 4% for men... ..."
"... Nominal wages are sticky downwards but not real wages. That is why the FED, the banks, the corporate sector and the economists support persistent inflation, i.e. it lowers real wages. The "study" correlating wage growth with aging is one of those empirical pieces by economists to obscure the role of inflation in lowering real wages. ..."
"... Real Wage Growth chart very interesting, crossing negative at about 55 for no college, and 43 for a Bachelor's degree. 43!! Not even halfway through a work-life, and none better since 2003 at best. ..."
By Wolf Richter, a San Francisco based executive, entrepreneur, start up specialist, and
author, with extensive international work experience. Originally published at
Wolf Street.
The New York Fed published an eye-opener of an article on its blog,
Liberty Street Economics , seemingly about the aging of the US labor force as one of the big
economic trends of our times with "implications for the behavior of real wage growth." Then it explained
why "negative growth" – the politically correct jargon for "decline" – in real wages is going to
be the new normal for an ever larger part of the labor force.
If you're wondering why a large portion of American consumers are strung out and breathless and
have trouble spending more and cranking up the economy, here's the New York Fed with an answer. And
it's going to get worse.
The authors looked at the wages of all employed people aged 16 and older in the Current Population
Survey (CPS), both monthly data from 1982 through May 2016 and annual data from 1969 through 1981.
They then restricted the sample to employed individuals with wages, which boiled it down to 7.6 million
statistical observations.
Then they adjusted the wages via the Consumer Price Index to 2014 dollars and divide the sample
into 140 different "demographic cohorts" by decade of birth, sex, race, and education. As an illustration
of the principles at work, they picked the cohort of white males born in the decade of the 1950s.
That the real median income of men has declined 4% since 1973 is an ugly tidbit that the Census
Bureau hammered home in its Income and Poverty report two weeks ago, which I highlighted in this
article –
That 5.2% Jump in Household Income? Nope, People Aren't Suddenly Getting Big-Fat Paychecks –
and it includes the interactive chart below that shows how the real median wage of women rose 36%
from 1973 through 2015, while it fell 4% for men...
The number of public companies have been cut in half in the last 20 years. Just for one metric.
So for those born in the 50's, reaching middle or senior management by the time they were in
their mid 40's (1999) was increasingly harder as the probability of getting squeezed out multiplied.
In the last ten years, the birth / death rate of startups / small business has reversed as well.
There is probably ten other examples of why age is not the mitigating criteria for the decline
in wages. It's not skill sets, not ambition, not flexibility. Pure number of chances for advancement
and therefore associated higher wages has declined precipitously.
Anti Trust Enforcement went out the window as Neo-Liberal policies converted to political donations
for promoting consolidation.
Now watch even those in their 20-30 age group will experience the same thing as H-1b unlimited
takes hold with the Obama / Clinton TTP burning those at younger demographics. Are you going to
say they are "too old" as well to write software?
Tell me where you want to go, and I will focus on selective facts and subjective interpretation
of those selective facts to yield the desired conclusions.
Barack Peddling Fiction Obama – BS at the B.L.S. – has a multiplicity of these metrics.
Nominal wages are sticky downwards but not real wages. That is why the FED, the banks, the
corporate sector and the economists support persistent inflation, i.e. it lowers real wages. The
"study" correlating wage growth with aging is one of those empirical pieces by economists to obscure
the role of inflation in lowering real wages.
Real Wage Growth chart very interesting, crossing negative at about 55 for no college, and
43 for a Bachelor's degree. 43!! Not even halfway through a work-life, and none better since 2003
at best.
The VAT export rebate is a huge subsidy to exporters who
are exporting to non-VAT countries such as the US. That's
why nearly every large country has VAT. VAT rebates also
give foreign producers a competitive advantage over US
manufacturers in third-country markets.
It's also a major incentive for US companies to supply the
US market via Mexico or other VAT countries, since VAT
countries rely on VAT for a huge chunk of their tax base.
Since foreign profits of US companies are not taxed unless
repatriated, the incentives against US production are
compounded.
Or ... VAT is just a sales tax collected on the production
side. It's not like importers to the US get to avoid US
sales taxes.
MacAuley -> sanjait...
, -1
The difference is that VAT countries tend to rely much
more heavily on the VAT than the US relies on sales taxes,
so sales taxes are much less than VAT. Sales taxes in the
US range from Zero in Indiana to 7.5% in California. VAT
rates in the EU range between 20% and 25%. The VAT is 16%
in Mexico and 17% in China.
There may be some
intellectual equivalence in your argument, but the
real-world difference is huge.
Dave Maxwell :
, -1
The VAT indirectly subsidizes exports. If you have country
A that relies 100% on VAT for tax revenue then the
exporting corporation in that country incurs and pays zero
taxes on exports. If the company exports 100% of its
product that company pays zero in taxes.
In the US states generally exclude sales tax on materials
purchased for manufacturing and on products sold for
resale and for export outside that state (including to
other states)so there is similarity with the VAT. The big
difference is magnitude of the tax. States sales taxes
average around 7% compared to VAT in the 15% to 20% range.
VAT is a much bigger subsidy.
Sanjait -> Dave Maxwell...
, -1
Well, I should have scrolled down before expressing
disbelief.
But if you want to talk facts, then note that
no country relies 100% on a VAT. No country is even close:
Mexico is actually the highest in reliance on
consumption taxes generally (which is how the OECD
classifies a VAT), but as the report notes, only part of
the consumption tax mix is VAT. It also includes other
excise taxes and fees. In Mexico I'd assume this includes
oil industry revenues going to the government, which as of
recently made up a third of the national government's
total revenue mix.
Anyway, what is the point you guys are really trying to
make? Is it that the policy mix of taxes has some effect
on export incentives? Well, yeah that's true. But
consumption taxes aren't even the whole story there. How
about the way the US handles international transfer
pricing? Lots of things factor in.
Actually most countries have VAT and when two countries
with VAT trade, then VAT is always raised on all goods
where they are sold to an end consumer. Simple. The issue
comes when a country has no VAT and relies almost only on
income tax. Income tax is then levied on exports but not
on imports, so that the exports from such a country are at
a relative disadvantage UNLESS the real exchange rate
adjusts (as it should). Because the real exchange rate
should adjust to equalize such effects, this argument is
really just hot air. But of course, if he really wanted to
do something about it, he could offer to institute a VAT
himself, as most countries have.
"... Reuters reports that an investigation conducted by it in 2013 found that around three-fourths of the 50 biggest U.S. technology companies use practices that are similar to Apple's to avoid paying tax. So Verstager has taken on not just one giant, but the worlds corporate elite. She should not lose. But even if she does this time, this is a battle well begun. ..."
"... Thus the power of the multinationals comes not just from their own size and reach, and from the support that their own governments afford them, but from their ability to divide desperate countries seeking the presence of global giants to make a small difference to their economic conditions ..."
"... Those who support globalisation support this power disparity. ..."
The case of Apple's Irish operations is an extreme example of such tax avoidance accounting. It relates
to two Apple subsidiaries Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe. Apple Inc US has
given the rights to Apple Sales International (ASI) to use its "intellectual property" to sell and
manufacture its products outside of North and South America, in return for which Apple Inc of the
US receives payments of more than $2 billion per year. The consequence of this arrangement is that
any Apple product sold outside the Americas is implicitly first bought by ASI, Ireland from different
manufacturers across the globe and sold along with the intellectual property to buyers everywhere
except the Americas. So all such sales are by ASI and all profits from those sales are recorded in
Ireland. Stage one is complete: incomes earned from sales in different jurisdictions outside the
Americas (including India) accrue in Ireland, where tax laws are investor-friendly. What is important
here that this was not a straight forward case of exercising the "transfer pricing" weapon. The profits
recorded in Ireland were large because the payment made to Apple Inc in the US for the right to use
intellectual property was a fraction of the net earnings of ASI.
Does this imply that Apple would
pay taxes on these profits in Ireland, however high or low the rate may be? The Commission found
it did not. In two rather curious rulings first made in 1991 and then reiterated in 2007 the Irish
tax authority allowed ASI to split it profits into two parts: one accruing to the Irish branch of
Apple and another to its "head office". That "head office" existed purely on paper, with no formal
location, actual offices, employees or activities. Interestingly, this made-of-nothing head office
got a lion's share of the profits that accrued to ASI, with only a small fraction going to the Irish
branch office. According to Verstager's Statement: "In 2011, Apple Sales International made profits
of 16 billion euros. Less than 50 million euros were allocated to the Irish branch. All the rest
was allocated to the 'head office', where they remained untaxed." As a result, across time, Apple
paid very little by way of taxes to the Irish government. The effective tax rate on its aggregate
profits was short of 1 per cent. The Commissioner saw this as illegal under the European Commission's
"state aid rules", and as amounting to aid that harms competition, since it diverts investment away
from other members who are unwilling to offer such special deals to companies.
In the books, however, taxes due on the "head office" profits of Apple are reportedly treated
as including a component of deferred taxes. The claim is that these profits will finally have to
be repatriated to the US parent, where they would be taxed as per US tax law. But it is well known
that US transnationals hold large volumes of surplus funds abroad to avoid US taxation and the evidence
is they take very little of it back to the home country. In fact, using the plea that it has "permanent
establishment" in Ireland and, therefore, is liable to be taxed there, and benefiting from the special
deal the Irish government has offered it, Apple has accumulated large surpluses. A study by two non-profit
groups published in 2015 has argued that Apple is holding as much as $181 billion of accumulated
profits outside the US, a record among US companies. Moreover, The Washington Post reports that Apple's
Chief Executive Tim Cook told its columnist Jena McGregor, "that the company won't bring its international
cash stockpile back to the United States to invest here until there's a 'fair rate' for corporate
taxation in America."
This has created a peculiar situation where the US is expressing concern about the EC decision
not because it disputes the conclusion about tax avoidance, but because it sees the tax revenues
as due to it rather than to Ireland or any other EU country. US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew criticised
the ruling saying, "I have been concerned that it reflected an attempt to reach into the U.S. tax
base to tax income that ought to be taxed in the United States." In Europe on the other hand, the
French Finance Minister and the German Economy Minister, among others, have come out in support of
Verstager, recognizing the implication this has for their own tax revenues. Governments other than
in Ireland are not with Apple, even if not always for reasons advanced by the EC.
... ... ...
Thus the power of the multinationals comes not just from their own size and reach, and from
the support that their own governments afford them, but from their ability to divide desperate
countries seeking the presence of global giants to make a small difference to their economic
conditions. The costs of garnering that difference are, therefore, often missed. Reuters
reports that an investigation conducted by it in 2013 found that around three-fourths of the 50
biggest U.S. technology companies use practices that are similar to Apple's to avoid paying tax.
So Verstager has taken on not just one giant, but the worlds corporate elite. She should not
lose. But even if she does this time, this is a battle well begun.
I think the common misconception that multinational corporations exist because "they are big
companies that happen to operate in more than one country" is one of the biggest lies ever told.
From the beginning (e.g. Standard Oil, United Fruit) it was clear that multinational status
was an exercise in political arbitrage.
" Thus the power of the multinationals comes not just from their own size and reach, and
from the support that their own governments afford them, but from their ability to divide desperate
countries seeking the presence of global giants to make a small difference to their economic conditions
"
Those who support globalisation support this power disparity.
"... Another goal of course is to track even further every single purchase - what, and where, and when. And then sell the consumption data to the insurers perhaps… a packet of cigs per day? Or too many bottles of booze? ..."
Swapping standing in line at the check-out for the line at the exit. And when there is an issue
then the greeter calls in the check-out police thereby pissing off the customer. Brilliant.
While Apple fanboys are willing to work for their iPhone's company for free by doing their
own check-out I doubt that is likely for people going to Sam's Club. As well many customers, even
if they have a smartphone, will not enjoy using up their data plan as they try to check and process
the details online.
All these smartphone apps have one major goal, besides collecting credit fees. Reduce store
overhead by getting customers to do more of the work while eliminating employees. The winners
are not the customers or people looking for a way to make ends meet.
Another goal of course is to track even further every single purchase - what, and where,
and when. And then sell the consumption data to the insurers perhaps… a packet of cigs per day?
Or too many bottles of booze?
Of course they are already doing that with the store "fidelity cards", but the mobile apps
will be more precise and less optional.
Last week, Council of Economic Advisers chair Jason Furman took to the
Washington Post to announce that President Obama has "narrowed the inequality gap." Furman's
argument, bolstered by charts and data from a recent
CEA report, has won over some of the more perceptive commentators on the Internet, including
Derek Thompson, who concludes that Obama "did more to combat [income inequality] than any president
in at least 50 years." In 538, the headline on Ben Casselman's summary reads, "The
Income Gap Began to Narrow Under Obama."
But is it true?
I
already wrote about the key misdirection in Furman's argument: his measures of reduced inequality
compare the current world not against the world of eight years ago, but against a parallel universe
in which, essentially, the policies of George W. Bush remained in place. (This is not something either
Thompson or Casselman fell for; they both realized what Furman was actually arguing.) Today I want
to address the larger question of whether inequality is actually getting worse or better.
First, let's orient ourselves. At a high level, there are two sets of forces that affect income
inequality. The first set is underlying economic factors that determine inequality of pre-tax income:
skills gap, globalization, bargaining power of labor, and so on. The second set is government policies
that affect the distribution of income, often referred to as taxes and transfers; these policies
take pre-tax income inequality as an input and produce after-tax income inequality as an output.
(This isn't a perfect distinction, since tax and transfer policies also affect the distribution of
pre-tax income, but I think it's good enough for explanatory purposes.)
Furman's argument is that Obama has improved that second set of policies. That's what this chart
really shows; remember, it's comparing the effect of taxes and transfers next year against the effect
of taxes and transfers under George W. Bush policies.
skunk | September 27, 2016 at 6:01 pm
Either way, we still have an economy which is build on a foundation of debt, that in turn
leads to price increases, and the separation of the haves, and the have nots.
"... FDR once said, "A nation that destroys its soil, destroys itself." This is happening in the United States in the most literal sense, given that our political and economic system are wedded to a market-driven system willing to destroy the planet, while relentlessly undermining those institutions that make a democracy possible. ..."
"... War is no longer an instrument to be used by political powers, but a form of rule, a general condition of the social order itself -- a permanent social relation and organizing principle that affects all aspects of the social order. In fact, the US has moved from a welfare state in the last forty years to a warfare state, and war has now become the foundation for politics, wedded to a misguided war on terror, the militarization of everyday life ..."
"... Politics has become a comprehensive war machine that aggressively assaults anything that does not comply with its underlying economic, religious, educative and political fundamentalisms. ..."
"... The vocabulary of war has become normalized and mobilizes certain desires, not only related to violence and social combat, but also in the creation of agents who act in the service of violence. ..."
"... This retreat into barbarism is amplified by the neoliberal value of celebrating self-interest over attention to the needs of others. It gets worse. As Hannah Arendt once observed, war culture is part of a species of thoughtlessness that legitimates certain desires, values and identities that make people insensitive to the violence they see around them in everyday life. ..."
"... A one-dimensional use of data erases the questions that matter the most: What gives life meaning? What is justice? What constitutes happiness? These things are all immeasurable by a retreat into the discourse of quantification. ..."
"... Reducing everything to quantitative data creates a form of civic illiteracy, undercuts the ethical imagination, kills empathy and mutilates politics. ..."
"... America's obsession with metrics and quantitative data is a symptom of its pedagogy of oppression. Numerical values now drive teaching, reduce culture in the broadest sense to the culture of business and teach children that schools exist largely to produce conformity and kill the imagination. Leon Wieseltier is right in arguing that the unchecked celebration of metrics erases the distinction "between knowledge and information" and substitutes quantification for wisdom. ..."
"... The left appears to have little interest in addressing education as central to how people think and see things. Education can enable people to recognize that the problems they face in everyday life need a new language that speaks to those problems. What is particularly crucial here is the need to develop a politics in which pedagogy becomes central to enabling people to understand and translate how everyday troubles connect to wider structures. ..."
"... We no longer live in a democracy. The myth of democracy has to be dismantled. ..."
"... We have to make clear that decisions made by the state and corporations are not in the general interest. We must connect the war on Black youth to the war on workers and the war on the middle class ..."
"... As Martin Luther King recognized at end of his life, the war at home and the war abroad cannot be separated. Such linkages remain crucial to the democratic project. ..."
Henry Giroux:FDR once said, "A nation that destroys its soil, destroys itself."
This is happening in the United States in the most literal sense, given that our political and economic
system are wedded to a market-driven system willing to destroy the planet, while relentlessly undermining
those institutions that make a democracy possible. What this suggests and the book takes up in multiple
ways is that the United States is at war with its own idealism, democratic institutions, the working
and middle classes, minority youth, Muslims, immigrants and all of those populations considered disposable.
War has taken on an existential quality in that we are not simply at war; rather, as Étienne
Balibar insists, "we are in war," inhabiting a war culture that touches every aspect of society.
War is no longer an instrument to be used by political powers, but a form of rule, a general condition
of the social order itself -- a permanent social relation and organizing principle that affects all
aspects of the social order. In fact, the US has moved from a welfare state in the last forty years
to a warfare state, and war has now become the foundation for politics, wedded to a misguided war
on terror, the militarization of everyday life, and a culture of fear, which have become its most
important regulative functions. Politics has become a comprehensive war machine that aggressively
assaults anything that does not comply with its underlying economic, religious, educative and political
fundamentalisms.
As a comprehensive war machine, the United States operates in the service of a police state, violates
civil liberties and has given rise to a military-industrial-surveillance complex that President Eisenhower
could never have imagined. For instance, the largest part of the federal budget -- 600 billion dollars
-- goes to the military. The US rings the earth with military bases, and the US military budget is
larger than those of all other advanced industrial countries combined. And that doesn't count the
money spent on the National Surveillance State and intelligence agencies.
... ... ...
What's interesting about the war metaphor is that it produces a language that celebrates what
the US should be ashamed of, including the national surveillance state, the military-industrial complex,
the war on whistleblowers, the never-ending spectacle of violence in popular culture and endless
wars abroad. The vocabulary of war has become normalized and mobilizes certain desires, not only
related to violence and social combat, but also in the creation of agents who act in the service
of violence.
Violence is not only normalized as the ultimate measure for solving problems, but also
as a form of pleasure, especially with regard to the production of violent video games, films and
even the saturation of violence in daily mainstream news. Violence saturates American life, as it
has become cool to be cruel to people, to bully people and to be indifferent to the suffering of
others. The ultimate act of pleasure is now served up in cinematically produced acts of extreme violence,
produced both to numb the conscience and to up the pleasure quotient.
This retreat into barbarism is amplified by the neoliberal value of celebrating self-interest
over attention to the needs of others. It gets worse. As Hannah Arendt once observed, war culture
is part of a species of thoughtlessness that legitimates certain desires, values and identities that
make people insensitive to the violence they see around them in everyday life.One can't have
a democracy that organizes itself around war because war is the language of injustice -- it admits
no compassion and revels in a culture of cruelty.
How does the reduction of life to quantitative data -- testing in schools, mandatory minimums
in sentencing, return on investment -- feed into the cultural apparatuses producing a nation at war
with itself?
This is the language of instrumental rationality gone berserk, one that strips communication of
those issues, values and questions that cannot be resolved empirically. This national obsession with
data is symbolic of the retreat from social and moral responsibility. A one-dimensional use of data
erases the questions that matter the most: What gives life meaning? What is justice? What constitutes
happiness? These things are all immeasurable by a retreat into the discourse of quantification.
This
type of positivism encourages a form of thoughtlessness, undermines critical agency, makes people
more susceptible to violence and emotion rather than reason. Reducing everything to quantitative
data creates a form of civic illiteracy, undercuts the ethical imagination, kills empathy and mutilates
politics.
The obsession with data becomes a convenient tool for abdicating that which cannot be measured,
thus removing from the public sphere those issues that raise serious questions that demand debate,
informed judgment and thoughtfulness while taking seriously matters of historical consciousness,
memory and context. Empiricism has always been comfortable with authoritarian societies, and has
worked to reduce civic courage and agency to an instrumental logic that depoliticizes people by removing
matters of social and political responsibility from ethical and political considerations.
America's obsession with metrics and quantitative data is a symptom of its pedagogy of oppression.
Numerical values now drive teaching, reduce culture in the broadest sense to the culture of business
and teach children that schools exist largely to produce conformity and kill the imagination. Leon
Wieseltier is right in arguing that the unchecked celebration of metrics erases the distinction
"between knowledge and information" and substitutes quantification for wisdom.
This is not to say that all data is worthless or that data gathering is entirely on the side of
repression. However, the dominant celebration of data, metrics and quantification flattens the human
experience, outsources judgement and distorts the complexity of the real world. The idolatry of the
metric paradigm is politically and ethically enervating and cripples the human spirit.
In ignoring the power of the pedagogical function of mainstream cultural apparatuses, many on
the left have lost their ability to understand how domination and resistance work at the level of
everyday life. The left has relied for too long on defining domination in strictly structural terms,
especially with regard to economic structures. Many people on the left assume that the only form
of domination is economic. What they ignore is that the crises of economics, history, politics and
agency have not been matched by a crisis of ideas. They don't understand how much work is required
to change consciousness or how central the issue of identification is to any viable notion of politics.
People only respond to a politics that speaks to their condition. What the left has neglected is
how matters of identification and the centrality of judgment, belief and persuasion are crucial to
politics itself. The left underestimates the dimensions of struggle when it gives up on education
as central to the very meaning of politics.
The left appears to have little interest in addressing education as central to how people think
and see things. Education can enable people to recognize that the problems they face in everyday
life need a new language that speaks to those problems. What is particularly crucial here is the
need to develop a politics in which pedagogy becomes central to enabling people to understand and
translate how everyday troubles connect to wider structures.
What do you want people to take away from the book?
Certainly, it is crucial to educate people to recognize that American democracy is in crisis and
that the forces that threaten it are powerful and must be made visible. In this case, we are talking
about the merging of neoliberalism, institutionalized racism, militarization, racism, poverty, inequities
in wealth and power and other issues that undermine democracy.
We no longer live in a democracy. The myth of democracy has to be dismantled. To understand that,
we need to connect the dots and make often isolated forms of domination visible -- extending from
the war on terror and the existence of massive inequalities in wealth and power to the rise of the
mass incarceration state and the destruction of public and higher education. We have to make clear
that decisions made by the state and corporations are not in the general interest. We must connect
the war on Black youth to the war on workers and the war on the middle class, while exposing the
workings of a system that extorts money, uses prison as a default welfare program and militarizes
the police as a force for repression and domestic terrorism. We must learn how to translate individual
problems into larger social issues, create a comprehensive politics and a third party with the aim
not of reforming the system, but restructuring it. As Martin Luther King recognized at end of
his life, the war at home and the war abroad cannot be separated. Such linkages remain crucial to
the democratic project.
"... "They have a few pro-Trump voices, but pretty much the CNN as a network is for Clinton – just like Fox is for Trump. They are not really media outlets; they are echo chambers for the respective political campaign," ..."
"... "The debate showed how vapid, how sensationalized, how empty the American political election cycle is – very expensive, but very long, and very empty. Both of them tried to outdo each other to show who had more support from the generals and admirals. It is not a good harbinger of where things are going in terms of American politics," ..."
"... "unwitting agent" ..."
"... "US national security." ..."
"... "The attack on Russia, the attempt to blame Russia for all things, including for the hack of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] files that showed the DNC was violating its own rules and trying to tilt the election for Clinton, which happened on the first day of the Democratic national convention. Russia became a convenient punching bag, so that the Democratic Party could divert attention from its own wrongdoing. But it's manifested itself into something more than just a diversion," ..."
"... "Clinton has the support of all of the neoconservatives: Robert Kagan, husband of Victoria Nuland; a hundred of Republican foreign policy elites. I think they represent the mainstream Washington consensus, which is the consensus of the military industrial complex, which wants to incentivize American public opposition or even hatred toward Russia as a pretext for building up the military armaments business. The expansion or escalation of tension with Russia is very good for the arms business, very good for the military industrial complex. So it is not just electoral politics. I think this is the Hillary Clinton presidency we see in the making. If she is elected, I think this bodes very badly for US- Russian relations," ..."
The debate has shown how sensationalized, vapid and empty the US election cycle is, said Brian Becker,
from the anti-war Answer Coalition, adding that the candidates' attempts to outdo each other on military
support is not a good harbinger for US politics.
A CNN/ORC
poll shows that majority of voters feel Hillary Clinton won Monday night's
debate over Donald Trump.
According to Brian Becker of the anti-war Answer Coalition, one cannot judge who won by CNN polls
as it has been actively campaigning for Clinton.
"They have a few pro-Trump voices, but pretty much the CNN as a network is for Clinton – just
like Fox is for Trump. They are not really media outlets; they are echo chambers for the respective
political campaign," he told RT.
"The debate showed how vapid, how sensationalized, how empty the American political election
cycle is – very expensive, but very long, and very empty. Both of them tried to outdo each other
to show who had more support from the generals and admirals. It is not a good harbinger of where
things are going in terms of American politics," Becker said.
Ahead of the election, Clinton and her supporters have been repeatedly using anti-Russia rhetoric
and accusing Trump of being "unwitting agent" of President Putin and posing a threat to
"US national security." On Monday, Clinton played her Russian card again to attack her opponent.
In Becker's view, it's an attempt to divert public attention from the party's own wrongdoing and,
also, the escalation of tensions with Moscow will only benefit the US military industrial complex
who supports Clinton.
"The attack on Russia, the attempt to blame Russia for all things, including for the hack
of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] files that showed the DNC was violating its own rules
and trying to tilt the election for Clinton, which happened on the first day of the Democratic national
convention. Russia became a convenient punching bag, so that the Democratic Party could divert attention
from its own wrongdoing. But it's manifested itself into something more than just a diversion,"
he said.
"Clinton has the support of all of the neoconservatives: Robert Kagan, husband of Victoria
Nuland; a hundred of Republican foreign policy elites. I think they represent the mainstream Washington
consensus, which is the consensus of the military industrial complex, which wants to incentivize
American public opposition or even hatred toward Russia as a pretext for building up the military
armaments business. The expansion or escalation of tension with Russia is very good for the arms
business, very good for the military industrial complex. So it is not just electoral politics. I
think this is the Hillary Clinton presidency we see in the making. If she is elected, I think this
bodes very badly for US- Russian relations," Becker added.
Peter K. :
September 27, 2016 at 06:45 AM DeLong on helicopter money: "The swelling wave of argument and
discussion around "helicopter money" has two origins:
First, as Harvard's Robert Barro says: there has been no recovery since 2010.
The unemployment rate here in the U.S. has come down, yes. But the unemployment rate has come
down primarily because people who were unemployed have given up and dropped out of the labor force.
Shrinkage in the share of people unemployed has been a distinctly secondary factor. Moreover, the
small increase in the share of people with jobs has been neutralized, as far as its effects on how
prosperous we are, by much slower productivity growth since 2010 than America had previously seen,
had good reason to anticipate, and deserves.
The only bright spot is a relative one: things in other rich countries are even worse.
..."
I thought Krugman and Furman were bragging about Obama's tenure.
"Now note that back in 1936 [John Maynard Keynes had disagreed][]:
"The State will have to exercise a guiding influence... partly by fixing the rate of interest,
and partly, perhaps, in other ways.... It seems unlikely that the influence of banking policy on
the rate of interest will be sufficient by itself.... I conceive, therefore, that a somewhat comprehensive
socialisation of investment will prove the only means of securing an approximation to full employment;
though this need not exclude all manner of compromises and of devices by which public authority will
co-operate with private initiative..."
By the 1980s, however, for Keynes himself the long run had come, and he was dead. The Great Moderation
of the business cycle from 1984-2007 was a rich enough pudding to be proof, for the rough consensus
of mainstream economists at least, that Keynes had been wrong and Friedman had been right.
But in the aftermath of 2007 it became very clear that they-or, rather, we, for I am certainly
one of the mainstream economists in the roughly consensus-were very, tragically, dismally and grossly
wrong."
DeLong sounds very much left rather than center-left. His reasons for supporting Hillary over
Sanders eludes me.
Hillary's $275 billion over 5 years is substantially too small as center-leftist Krugman put it.
Now we face a choice:
Do we accept economic performance that all of our predecessors would have characterized as grossly
subpar-having assigned the Federal Reserve and other independent central banks a mission and then
kept from them the policy tools they need to successfully accomplish it?
Do we return the task of managing the business cycle to the political branches of government-so
that they don't just occasionally joggle the elbows of the technocratic professionals but actually
take on a co-leading or a leading role?
Or do we extend the Federal Reserve's toolkit in a structured way to give it the tools it needs?
Helicopter money is an attempt to choose door number (3). Our intellectual adversaries mostly
seek to choose door number (1)-and then to tell us that the "cold douche", as Schumpeter put it,
of unemployment will in the long run turn out to be good medicine, for some reason or other. And
our intellectual adversaries mostly seek to argue that in reality there is no door number (3)-that
attempts to go through it will rob central banks of their independence and wind up with us going
through door number (2), which we know ends badly..."
------------
Some commenters believe more fiscal policy via Congress is politically more realistic than helicopter
money.
I don't know, maybe they're right. I do know Hillary's proposals are too small. And her aversion
to government debt and deficit is wrong given the economic context and market demand for safe assets.
"Moreover, the small increase in the share of people with jobs has been neutralized, as far as
its effects on how prosperous we are, by much slower productivity growth since 2010 than America
had previously seen, had good reason to anticipate, and deserves."
?????? The rate of (measured) productivity growth is not all that important. What has happened
to real median income.
And why are quoting from Robert Barro who is basically a freshwater economist. Couldn't you
find somebody sensible?
Barro wants us to believe we have been at full employment all along. Of course that would mean
any increase in aggregate demand would only cause inflation. Of course many of us think Barro
lost it years ago.
These little distinctions are alas lost on PeterK.
[1] Do we accept economic performance that all of our predecessors would have characterized
as grossly subpar-having assigned the Federal Reserve and other independent central banks a mission
and then kept from them the policy tools they need to successfully accomplish it?
[2] Do we return the task of managing the business cycle to the political branches of government-so
that they don't just occasionally joggle the elbows of the technocratic professionals but actually
take on a co-leading or a leading role?
[3] Or do we extend the Federal Reserve's toolkit in a structured way to give it the tools
it needs?
Helicopter money is an attempt to choose door number (3). Our intellectual adversaries mostly
seek to choose door number (1)-and then to tell us that the "cold douche", as Schumpeter put it,
of unemployment will in the long run turn out to be good medicine, for some reason or other. And
our intellectual adversaries mostly seek to argue that in reality there is no door number (3)-that
attempts to go through it will rob central banks of their independence and wind up with us going
through door number (2), which we know ends badly...""
---------------------
Conservatives want 1 and 2 ends badly, so 3 is the only choice.
"... "I don't believe she has the stamina to be the president," he said on Fox. "You know, she's home all the time." ..."
"... Better late then never. This issue should be raised during the debates. Serious neurological disease that Hillary is suffering from should be a campaign issue. It is a fair game. ..."
"... That does not make Trump immune from counter-attacks as he is older then Clinton and might have skeletons in the closet too, but voters have right to know the real state of health of candidates. ..."
"... "Khan Gambit" was the most shameful part of Clinton attacks on Trump. ..."
The Morning After the Debate, Donald Trump Goes on the Attack http://nyti.ms/2cSvOlO
NYT - ALEXANDER BURNS - SEPT. 27, 2016
A defensive Donald J. Trump lashed out at the debate moderator, complained about his microphone
and threatened to make Bill Clinton's marital infidelity a campaign issue in a television appearance
on Tuesday just hours after his first presidential debate with Hillary Clinton.
And defying conventions of civility and political common sense, Mr. Trump leveled cutting personal
criticism at a Miss Universe pageant winner, held up by Mrs. Clinton in Monday night's debate
as an example of her opponent's disrespect for women.
Mr. Trump insisted in the Fox News appearance that he had been right to disparage the beauty
queen, Alicia Machado, for her physique.
"She was the winner and she gained a massive amount of weight, and it was a real problem,"
said Mr. Trump, who was the pageant's executive producer at the time. "Not only that - her attitude.
And we had a real problem with her."
Mrs. Clinton mentioned Ms. Machado by name, quoting insults that Ms. Machado has attributed
to Mr. Trump and noting that the pageant winner had become a citizen to vote in the 2016 election.
During the debate, he showed disbelief at the charge that he had ridiculed Ms. Machado, asking
Mrs. Clinton repeatedly, "Where did you find this?"
But Mr. Trump abruptly shifted course a few hours later, with comments that threatened to escalate
and extend an argument that appeared to be one of his weakest moments of the debate.
Mrs. Clinton assailed him late in the debate for deriding women as "pigs, slobs and dogs."
Mr. Trump had no ready answer for the charge of sexism, and offered a muddled reply that cited
his past feud with the comedian Rosie O'Donnell.
His comments attacking Ms. Machado recalled his frequent practice, during the Republican primaries
and much of the general election campaign, of bickering harshly with political bystanders, sometimes
savaging them in charged language that ended up alienating voters. In the past, he has made extended
personal attacks on the Muslim parents of an Army captain killed in Iraq and on a Hispanic federal
judge.
Trump aides considered it a sign of progress in recent weeks that the Republican nominee was
more focused on criticizing Mrs. Clinton, and less prone to veering off into such self-destructive
public feuds.
Going after Ms. Machado may be especially tone deaf for Mr. Trump, at a moment in the race
when he is seeking to reverse voters' ingrained negative views of his personality. Sixty percent
of Americans in an ABC News/Washington Post poll this month said they thought Mr. Trump was biased
against women and minorities, and Mrs. Clinton has been airing a television commercial highlighting
his history of caustic and graphic comments about women.
Mrs. Clinton pressed her advantage on Tuesday, telling reporters on her campaign plane that
Mr. Trump had raised "offensive and off-putting" views that called into question his fitness for
the presidency.
"The real point," she said, "is about temperament and fitness and qualification to hold the
most important, hardest job in the world."
Both Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton will strike out on the campaign trail on Tuesday with the goal
of framing the debate's outcome to their advantage. While Mr. Trump is in Florida, Mrs. Clinton
plans to campaign in North Carolina, a traditionally Republican state where polls show her and
Mr. Trump virtually tied.
It will likely take a few days to measure any shift in the race after the candidates' clash
at Hofstra University on Long Island. Polls had shown the presidential race narrowing almost to
a dead heat on the national level, with Mr. Trump drawing close to Mrs. Clinton in several swing
states where she had long held an advantage.
But Mr. Trump appeared thrown on Tuesday by his uneven performance the night before, offering
a series of different explanations for the results. On Fox, he cited "unfair questions" posed
by the moderator, Lester Holt of NBC News, and insinuated that someone might have tampered with
his microphone.
Moving forward in his contest with Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump said he might "hit her harder,"
perhaps raising the issue of "her husband's women." Should Mr. Trump opt for that risky approach,
he could begin to do so during a campaign swing in Florida on Tuesday.
And in another indication that Mr. Trump has little intention of shifting his tone, the Republican
nominee repeated the attack on Mrs. Clinton that spurred their Monday exchange about gender in
the first place: that she lacks the physical vigor to be president.
"I don't believe she has the stamina to be the president," he said on Fox. "You know, she's
home all the time."
Mrs. Clinton was dismissive on Tuesday of Mr. Trump's barbs, shrugging off a question about
his threat to go after Mrs. Clinton and her husband personally and his dismay about the microphone.
"Anybody who complains about the microphone is not having a good night," she said. ...
Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs... Shamed and Angry: Alicia Machado, a Miss Universe
Mocked by Donald Trump http://nyti.ms/2cSGwsk
NYT - MICHAEL BARBARO and MEGAN TWOHEY - Sep 27
For 20 years, Alicia Machado has lived with the agony of what Donald J. Trump did to her after
she won the Miss Universe title: shame her, over and over, for gaining weight.
Private scolding was apparently insufficient. Mr. Trump, at the time an executive producer
of the pageant, insisted on accompanying Ms. Machado, then a teenager, to a gym, where dozens
of reporters and cameramen watched as she exercised.
Mr. Trump, in his trademark suit and tie, posed for photographs beside her as she burned calories
in front of the news media. "This is somebody who likes to eat," Mr. Trump said from inside the
gym. ...
(The Donald is clearly no slouch in that department.)
Trump, 'the candidate who almost always flies home in his private Boeing 757 to Trump Tower in
New York or to his palatial Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla.' ...
Donald Trump Means Business in Iowa: Night in Motel, and a Day in Church
http://nyti.ms/1UlcJI3
NYT - MAGGIE HABERMAN - JAN. 24, 2016
MUSCATINE, Iowa - Donald J. Trump spent the last seven months saying he wanted to win. Now
he is really acting like it. ...
On Friday night, the candidate who almost always flies home in his private Boeing 757 to Trump
Tower in New York or to his palatial Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., instead slept in a
Holiday Inn Express in Sioux Center, Iowa. ("Good mattress," he said afterward. "Clean.") ...
"I don't believe she has the stamina to be the president," he said on Fox. "You know, she's
home all the time."
Better late then never. This issue should be raised during the debates. Serious neurological
disease that Hillary is suffering from should be a campaign issue. It is a fair game.
That does not make Trump immune from counter-attacks as he is older then Clinton and might
have skeletons in the closet too, but voters have right to know the real state of health of candidates.
This is a fair game.
"... The manner is which she secured the Democratic nomination is a signature of the Clinton style. The Clinton 'charitable foundation' is a beacon for everything that is wrong with the American economic and political system today. ..."
"... I consider this upcoming national election to be the signal failure of the two party political system as it is today, choked by a self-referential elite, corrupted by a lust for power and big money. ..."
"The narcissist devours people, consumes their output, and casts the empty, writhing shells aside."
Sam Vaknin
I make it no secret that I find Hillary Clinton to be both morally repugnant and appallingly dishonest.
The manner is which she secured the Democratic nomination is a signature of the Clinton style.
The Clinton 'charitable foundation' is a beacon for everything that is wrong with the American economic
and political system today.
But that does not mean that I am blind to what is being offered by The Donald.
I consider this upcoming national election to be the signal failure of the two party political
system as it is today, choked by a self-referential elite, corrupted by a lust for power and big
money.
"Gah. A VAT is basically a sales tax. It is levied on both
domestic and imported goods, so that it doesn't protect
against imports - which is why it's allowed under
international trade rules, and not considered a
protectionist trade policy."
I think what Trump was
getting at was that exports are typically exempt from VAT.
So while Krugman is correct that Mexican VAT applies
equally to Mexican goods sold in Mexico and US goods
imported into Mexico, it doesn't apply to Mexican goods
exported to the US.
But honestly, who cares? Trump is not espousing any
sort of realistic solution to the problems facing the
middle class. Imposing tariffs, tearing up trade
agreements, and kicking out immigrants is baby talk
intended to placate the ill-informed.
Yes I think trump garbled his point
In the briefing he got from his brain trust
I suspect he heard something like this
The vat advantage is more like an undervalued peso
effect on lowering "the cost "
of US exports
But without the protectionist effect of raising the cost
of US imports
Perhaps his apparent ADHD
Betrayed him here
He heard the word protectionist and forgot the details and
the precise fact
There is no protectionist effect of the vat export rebate
PRD -> pgl...
, -1
Correct me if I'm wrong but this is the arithmetic I'm
picking up from Krugman which shows Trump's fallacy.
If you have a $10,000 Mexican car that paid a $2,000
VAT, the exporter gets reimbursed for the $2,000 dollar
paid in VAT which would normally get passed along to the
consumer, thus making the price that it is exported at
$8,000. That $8,000 dollar car would subsequently pay
sales tax in the USA.
If you have a $10,000 USA car being exported to Mexico,
it would get the VAT tax added on to be passed along to
the consumer, thus making it $12,500. That same car would
pay sales tax in the United States on it being worth
$10,000.
So basically, the Mexican car is actually only worth
$8,000 because the VAT that would have been passed along
to the consumers (and had been paid already) is reimbursed
to the exporter. The American car is worth $10,000 and
must pay the VAT, because the Mexican car would pay the
VAT in Mexico as well. Essentially he's equating an $8,000
Mexican car with a $10,000 American car.
Shah of Bratpuhr :
, -1
I highly doubt Trump considers people that understand
economics to be his target audience. Trump speaks only to
his target audience not about issues, but rather how they
feel right now at this exact moment. Perhaps his strategy
is to keep people angry and fearful enough by Election
Day?
His message to his audience: "you feel badly because
you're not rich", audience nods, "it's this scapegoat's
fault", audience cheers, "Only I can rid you of this
scapegoat and when I do, you'll feel better"
Paine -> Shah of Bratpuhr...
, -1
Yes
He has learned the devil can easily hide in the
details
JohnH :
, -1
"Trump's whole view on trade is that other people are
taking advantage of us - that it's all about dominance,
and that we're weak."
You have to admit, Trump was
right...he just doesn't understand who's taking advantage
of whom. He really should understand this (and probably
does)...the winners are all around him on Park Ave, Fifth
Ave, and Wall Street. Of course, you'd never expect Trump
to admit that he's part of the predatory class, would you?
Ben Groves :
, -1
Trade agreements hurt a lot of country's that American
"businesses" deal with more than America a good deal of
the time. NAFTA killed Mexican farming. It was part of the
package along with the 2002 subsidy agreement after 9/11
that started nationalizing agri-business. This also
allowed drug production to take off and cartels to expand
quickly, using the increased volume of business
transactions to ship more drugs across the borders into
Donald Trump supporters noses and veins.
"After a shaky start, Clinton was mostly prepared, disciplined, and methodical in her attacks.
By contrast, after landing some early blows on trade, Trump was mostly winging it" [NBC]. That's
how it felt to me. Of course, 10%-ers like preparation. Preparation leads to passing your test! But
in this case, they are right to do so.
==================================================== Trump could have brought up:
deplorables – and could have talked for 15 minutes virtue pounding Clinton into the ground
Goldman Sachs – and could have talked for 15 minutes virtue pounding Clinton into the ground
email – and could have talked for 15 minutes virtue pounding Clinton into the ground
bankers – and could have talked for 15 minutes virtue pounding Clinton into the ground
I have seen people say he is saving it….?dry powder? A lot of people check out after the first
30 minutes of one debate and never come back. And I'm really into it – and I doubt I will waste my time again. Even though I am a big believer
in judging people/politicians by what they do and not what they say, Trump's immaturity has frayed
my last nerve. He's 70 years old and can be knocked off balance defending !insults! about a beauty
queen.
"... Should Trump succeed in renegotiating US trade deals, corporations - currently at their most indebted level in history - will be deprived of revenues to service their debts. Some will default. ..."
"... Meanwhile, realizing whatever benefits accrue from more domestic production takes time and capital to construct plants. That's a problem, when corporate leverage already is too high. ..."
"... Most likely, the Business Roundtable will sit down for The Talk with Trump, and his wacky promises to restructure the global trade system will quickly be forgotten. ..."
No chief executive at the nation's 100 largest companies had donated to
Republican Donald Trump's presidential campaign through August, a sharp
reversal from 2012, when nearly a third of Fortune 100 CEOs supported Mitt
Romney.
One executive is quoted taking offense at Trump's ethnic slurs. But that
doesn't explain the complete unanimity. What does explain it: overseas sales
account for a third of large companies' revenues. Chart:
Should Trump succeed in renegotiating US trade deals, corporations -
currently at their most indebted level in history - will be deprived of
revenues to service their debts. Some will default.
Meanwhile, realizing whatever benefits accrue from more domestic
production takes time and capital to construct plants. That's a problem, when
corporate leverage already is too high.
Most likely, the Business Roundtable will sit down for The Talk with
Trump, and his wacky promises to restructure the global trade system will
quickly be forgotten.
If Donnie's serious, then he's Herbert Hoover II, and the long-suffering Dr
Hussman becomes a billionaire after the Crash Heard Round the World.
"... The first is that Clinton has consistently sided with the conventional wisdom in Washington at the time about what the U.S. should do in response to any conflict or crisis. She has reliably backed more aggressive measures abroad in part because that is what pundits and analysts in Washington are usually demanding on any given issue. She isn't one to resist demands to "do something," because she typically sees no reason to resist them, and often enough she is making the same demands. ..."
"... Clinton will have few opportunities to advance a domestic agenda in the face of determined resistance in Congress. Even if Clinton has a Senate majority, she won't have one in the House, so it is doubtful that she will be able to get any "domestic reforms" passed. ..."
"... It is quite possible that governing as an liberal hawk will "derail her presidency," as Walt says, but we have at least one example that tell us that isn't necessarily true. Obama has presided over eight continuous years of war, including at least two interventions that he started and continued illegally without Congressional approval, and yet he is poised to leave office with a reasonably good approval rating ..."
"... That isn't going to discourage Clinton from her usual interventionism. The Obama years have reminded us of the unfortunate truth that the public will tolerate quite a few foreign wars as long as the direct costs to the U.S. in American lives are low. ..."
"... Remember, Clinton doesn't think that the Libyan war was a failure or a mistake, but rather considers it "smart power at its best." ..."
Stephen Walt
isn't persuaded that Hillary Clinton will be as hawkish a president as her record suggests:
If Clinton goes overboard with more globalization, expanded U.S. security guarantees, open-ended
nation-building in distant lands, or even expensive acts of international philanthropy, all those
skeptical people beguiled by Trump or Sanders will be even angrier. By contrast, if she can win
over some of the people during her first term, her popularity will soar and re-election would
be easy. The lesson? Clinton should focus on domestic reforms and not on international crusades.
And as former State Department officials Jeremy Shapiro and Richard Sokolsky suggest, that's been
her basic inclination all along.
Clinton would be unwise to pursue an even more activist and militarized foreign policy
agenda as president, but Walt and I agree about this because we generally view that sort of foreign
policy as dangerous and contrary to American interests anyway. It does seem foolish for any president
to want to do the things that Clinton thinks the U.S. should do, but that is not a reason to think
it won't happen. I have made my objections to Shapiro and Sokolsky's piece
before , so I won't repeat all of them here, but there are at least four major reasons why we
should assume that Clinton's foreign policy will be even more hawkish and interventionist than Obama's
.
The first is that Clinton has consistently sided with the conventional wisdom in Washington at
the time about what the U.S. should do in response to any conflict or crisis. She has reliably backed
more aggressive measures abroad in part because that is what pundits and analysts in Washington are
usually demanding on any given issue. She isn't one to resist demands to "do something," because
she typically sees no reason to resist them, and often enough she is making the same demands.
The
second is that Clinton won't be able to "focus on domestic reforms" alone because foreign events
and her public enthusiasm for U.S. "leadership" won't allow her to do that. There will probably be
a new civil war or international crisis at some point over the next four years, and she will feel
compelled to be seen doing something about it, and given her record that will almost certainly mean
deeper U.S. involvement than most Americans would prefer.
The third is that Clinton will have few
opportunities to advance a domestic agenda in the face of determined resistance in Congress. Even
if Clinton has a Senate majority, she won't have one in the House, so it is doubtful that she will
be able to get any "domestic reforms" passed. The one area where Congress is totally submissive to
the executive is foreign policy, and that is what Clinton will spend a disproportionate amount of
her time on because she will mostly be stymied at home. Clinton won't be hemmed in by budgetary concerns.
The other party has been insisting for years that we must throw more money at the Pentagon, and there
is no reason to think that Clinton worries about paying for this through borrowing. Finally, Clinton
will be inheriting at least two ongoing wars, one of which she will be under significant pressure
to escalate, and she will also inherit the Obama administration's horrible enabling of the Saudi-led
war on Yemen. In that sense, it won't be entirely up to Clinton how much time these matters take
up in her first term, because she is already committed to continuing these missions for the foreseeable
future.
It is quite possible that governing as an liberal hawk will "derail her presidency," as Walt says,
but we have at least one example that tell us that isn't necessarily true. Obama has presided over
eight continuous years of war, including at least two interventions that he started and continued
illegally without Congressional approval, and yet he is poised to leave office with a reasonably
good approval rating and (if this scenario is to be believed) about to be succeeded as president
by a member of his own party.
That isn't going to discourage Clinton from her usual interventionism.
The Obama years have reminded us of the unfortunate truth that the public will tolerate quite a few
foreign wars as long as the direct costs to the U.S. in American lives are low. So we should expect
Clinton to rely heavily on air wars and missile strikes as Obama and her husband did. There presumably
won't be a repeat of something on the scale of Iraq, but we should assume that there will be other
Libya-like interventions and some of them will be in places that we're not even thinking about at
the moment.
Remember, Clinton doesn't think that the Libyan war was a failure or a mistake, but rather
considers it "smart power at its best." I'm fairly sure about all this because Clinton has never
given us any reason to think that she doesn't want to govern this way, and almost everything in her
foreign policy record says that this is how she will govern.
"... Global is gone as a main driving force, pan-European is gone, and whether the United States will stay united is far from a done deal. We are moving towards a mass movement of dozens of separate countries and states and societies looking inward. All of which are in some form of -impending- trouble or another. ..."
"... And of course it's confusing that the protests against the 'old regimes' and the growth and centralization -first- manifest in the rise of faces and voices who do not reject all of the above offhand. That is to say, the likes of Marine Le Pen, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage may be against more centralization, but none of them has a clue about growth being over. They don't get that part anymore than Hillary or Hollande or Merkel do. ..."
"... Dems in the US, Labour in the UK, and Hollande's 'Socialists' in France have all become part of the two-headed monster that is the political center, and that is (held) responsible for the deterioration in people's lives. ..."
But nobody seems to really know or understand. Which is odd, because it's not that hard. That
is, this all happens because growth is over. And if growth is over, so are expansion and centralization
in all the myriad of shapes and forms they come in.
Global is gone as a main driving force, pan-European is gone, and whether the United States
will stay united is far from a done deal. We are moving towards a mass movement of dozens of separate
countries and states and societies looking inward. All of which are in some form of -impending-
trouble or another.
What makes the entire situation so hard to grasp for everyone is that nobody wants to acknowledge
any of this. Even though tales of often bitter poverty emanate from all the exact same places
that Trump and Brexit and Le Pen come from too.
That the politico-econo-media machine churns out positive growth messages 24/7 goes some way
towards explaining the lack of acknowledgement and self-reflection, but only some way. The rest
is due to who we ourselves are. We think we deserve eternal growth.
And of course it's confusing that the protests against the 'old regimes' and the growth
and centralization -first- manifest in the rise of faces and voices who do not reject all of the
above offhand. That is to say, the likes of Marine Le Pen, Donald Trump and Nigel Farage may be
against more centralization, but none of them has a clue about growth being over. They don't get
that part anymore than Hillary or Hollande or Merkel do.
So why these people? Look closer and you see that in the US, UK and France, there is nobody
left who used to speak for the 'poor and poorer'. While at the same time, the numbers of poor
and poorer increase at a rapid clip. They just have nowhere left to turn to. There is literally
no left left.
Dems in the US, Labour in the UK, and Hollande's 'Socialists' in France have all become
part of the two-headed monster that is the political center, and that is (held) responsible for
the deterioration in people's lives. Moreover, at least for now, the actual left wing may
try to stand up in the form of Jeremy Corbyn or Bernie Sanders, but they are both being stangled
by the two-headed monster's fake left in their countries and their own parties.
================================================
This is from today's Links, but I didn't have a chance to post this snippet. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A191RL1A225NBEA
Long time since we had 5% – if the whole system is financial scheme is premised on growth,
and there is less and less of it ever year, it doesn't look sustainable. How bad http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/09/200pm-water-cooler-9272016.html#comment-2676054does
it have to get for how many before the model is chucked???
In the great depression, even the bankers were having a tough time. If the rich are exempt
from suffering, I think history has shown that a small elite can impose suffering on masses for
a long time…
'there is nobody left who used to speak for the 'poor and poorer'.
Actually, there are plenty who SPEAK for the poor, there just is NONE who ACT.
How would we measure this growth that is supposed to be over? Yes of course there are the conventional
measurements like GDP, but it's not zero. Yes of course if inflation is understated it would overstate
GDP, and yes GDP measurements may not measure much as many critics have said. But what about other
measures?
Is oil use down, are CO2 emissions down, is resource use in general down? If not it's growth
(or groath). This growth is at the cost of the planet but that's why GDP is flawed. And the benefit
of this groath goes entirely to the 1%ers, but that's distribution.
The left failed, I don't know all the reasons (and it's always hard to oppose the powers that
be, the field always tilts toward them, it's never a fair fight) but it failed. That's what we
see the results of.
Someone very smart said "the Fed makes the economy more stable".
He also quoted The Princess Bride: "You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you
think".
Definition of stable: firm; steady; not wavering or changeable.
As in: US GDP growth of a paltry 1.22% per year.
But hey it only took an additional trillion $ in debt per year to stay "stable".
there are plenty who SPEAK for the poor, there just is NONE who ACT.
========
That's why in 1992 Francis Futurama refirmed the end of history that was predicted by Hegel some
150 years earlier.
TPP is practically written by the lobbyists from the multi-international corporations that
exploit every possible tax laws, labor laws, environmental and public health regulations, legal
representations and consequences. It is imperialism 2.0 in the 21st century, exclusively serving
the interests of top point one percent while greatly depressing the wages of middle class;
it is overwhelmingly opposed by the public opinion, law makers of all sides and current president
candidates. There is zero chance Obama could make it through legislation before his exit; Clinton
will not even consider bringing it back if she wins the election because she already flip-flopped
once on the issue during her campaign; and it would seriously damage her chance of re-election
if she does. As for Trump, I leave it to anyone's imaginations.
"... As General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, said: War is a racket . Wars will persist as long as people see them as a "core product," as a business opportunity. In capitalism, the profit motive is often amoral; greed is good, even when it feeds war. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is willing to play along. It always sees "vulnerabilities" and always wants more money. ..."
"... Wars are always profitable for a few, but they are ruining democracy in America. Sure, it's a business opportunity: one that ends in national (and moral) bankruptcy. ..."
A good friend passed along an
article at Forbes from a month ago with the pregnant title, "U.S. Army Fears Major War Likely
Within Five Years - But Lacks The Money To Prepare." Basically, the article argues that war is possible
- even likely - within five years with Russia or North Korea or Iran, or maybe all three, but that
America's army is short of money to prepare for these wars. This despite the fact that America spends
roughly $700 billion each and every year on defense and overseas wars.
Now, the author's agenda is quite clear, as he states at the end of his article: "Several of the
Army's equipment suppliers are contributors to my think tank and/or consulting clients." He's writing
an alarmist article about the probability of future wars at the same time as he's profiting from
the sales of weaponry to the army.
As General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, said:
War is a racket
. Wars will persist as long as people see them as a "core product," as a business opportunity.
In capitalism, the profit motive is often amoral; greed is good, even when it feeds war. Meanwhile,
the Pentagon is willing to play along. It always sees "vulnerabilities" and always wants more money.
But back to the Forbes article with its concerns about war(s) in five years with Russia or North
Korea or Iran (or all three). For what vital national interest should America fight against Russia?
North Korea? Iran? A few quick reminders:
#1: Don't get involved in a land war in Asia or with Russia (Charles XII, Napoleon, and Hitler
all learned that lesson the hard way).
#2: North Korea? It's a puppet regime that can't feed its own people. It might prefer war to distract
the people from their parlous existence.
#3: Iran? A regional power, already contained, with a young population that's sympathetic to America,
at least to our culture of relative openness and tolerance. If the US Army thinks tackling Iran would
be relatively easy, just consider all those recent "easy" wars and military interventions in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Libya, Syria
Of course, the business aspect of this is selling the idea the US Army isn't prepared and therefore
needs yet another new generation of expensive high-tech weaponry. It's like convincing high-end consumers
their three-year-old Audi or Lexus is obsolete so they must buy the latest model else lose face.
We see this all the time in the US military. It's a version of planned or
artificial obsolescence . Consider the Air Force. It could easily defeat its enemies with updated
versions of A-10s, F-15s, and F-16s, but instead the Pentagon plans to spend as much as $1.4 trillion
on the shiny new and
under-performing F-35 . The Army has an enormous surplus of tanks and other armored fighting
vehicles, but the call goes forth for a "new generation." No other navy comes close to the US Navy,
yet the call goes out for a new generation of ships.
The Pentagon mantra is always for more and better, which often turns out to be for less and much
more expensive, e.g. the F-35 fighter.
Wars are always profitable for a few, but they are
ruining democracy in America. Sure, it's a business opportunity: one that ends in national (and
moral) bankruptcy.
William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years
at military and civilian schools and blogs at
Bracing Views . He can be reached at [email protected]. Reprinted
from Bracing Views with the author's permission.
Want to Slow Climate Change? Stop Having Babies Bloomberg
The quickest mechanism to cutting population growth is promoting poor people to the middle class. This involves higher pay.
It does not involve massive, increasing rent extraction by the wealthy.
Population is the favoured red herring of genocidaires who wish to justify their consumption. 5% of the global population's
consumption is responsible for 50% of the emissions.
and by promoting people to the middle class, you massively increase their energy and material demands – thus negating any reduction
in numbers in fact making them HUGELY more of an issue.
Wanna slow climate change? Plus, we emit 3x more carbon per capita than Western Europe
Some here say climate change is our biggest existential problem, and the real issue is too many people, So
Guns kill, gun control bad?
Wars kill, more wars good? Plus less breeding in war zones. (May affect your vote.)
Starvation kills, stop food aid?
Disease kills, stop research in deadly diseases?
And it's past time to tell all the third worlders to stop all that dreaming about higher standard of living, they need to stay
on their rice paddies.
Yes, women's education/birth control would help in those countries lacking same, but as the world gallops towards 9 billion
the US would need to pull out all the stops our country's massive per capita sinning mean we emit as if 1 billion or so live here.
We have a lot of extra miles to go. Think about what we would have to do to cut emissions here 2/3 and get down to Western Europe
levels.
Of course people find the topic uncomfortable, who will step up and cut first? Or make the ultimate sacrifice and jump off?
And now, back to the election, sex, action movies and other fun stuff.
(Imagine we discover a large asteroid will hit us, but not for another 100 years
So, one middle class person consumes 3x a middle class western European.
And one middle class European consumes ?X a poor Third World person?
Hopefully, a middle class Third World person is wiser than a middle class western European, so when more Third World poor persons
becomes middle class Third World person, there is no increase in carbon emission.
I think we need to address inequality.
Regarding climate change, those already in the middle and especially, the 1%, need to reduce consumption.
"... These are unsustainable trends that cannot be ignored and part of the reason I absolutely hate all the "green energy" (which isn't really green) miracle cures. Even if 100% renewable carbon free energy existed, it would not matter, we would still face environmental and ecological collapse due to the pressures of unsustainable populations. ..."
"... Population is the number one driver of global warming, in addition to decreasing arable topsoil at an unimaginably fast rate. Currently the world has between 60-200 years worth of topsoil left that will take 1000-2000 years to fully renew in "ideal" conditions. ..."
"... Yes better more sustainable methods are important. but you are saying by implementing these we can have infinite population growth which is insane. 9 billion no problem, 12 billion no problem, 20 billion no problem, Ad infinitum, right? Do you really believe that? ..."
Population is the number one driver of global warming, in addition to decreasing arable topsoil
at an unimaginably fast rate. Currently the world has between 60-200 years worth of topsoil left
that will take 1000-2000 years to fully renew in "ideal" conditions.
In addition to acidification from population driven climate change, the oceans have faced so
much demand as a food source that 85% of the world's oceans have been fully exploited as a food
source.
These are unsustainable trends that cannot be ignored and part of the reason I absolutely hate
all the "green energy" (which isn't really green) miracle cures. Even if 100% renewable carbon
free energy existed, it would not matter, we would still face environmental and ecological collapse
due to the pressures of unsustainable populations.
Honestly, (in a selfish sense) I am glad I was born when I was, it looks like nothing will
ever be done about population and population driven Global warming, soil collapse and empty oceans
will all likely make the perfect storm just after I kick it. That's not to say I don't practice
personal sustainability; no car, local shopping only, limited meat, no fish etc. But that doesn't
really matter on the macro level.
Population is the number one driver of global warming, in addition to decreasing arable topsoil
at an unimaginably fast rate. Currently the world has between 60-200 years worth of topsoil left
that will take 1000-2000 years to fully renew in "ideal" conditions.
In addition to acidification from population driven climate change, the oceans have faced so
much demand as a food source that 85% of the world's oceans have been fully exploited as a food
source.
These are unsustainable trends that cannot be ignored and part of the reason I absolutely hate
all the "green energy" (which isn't really green) miracle cures. Even if 100% renewable carbon
free energy existed, it would not matter, we would still face environmental and ecological collapse
due to the pressures of unsustainable populations.
Honestly, (in a selfish sense) I am glad I was born when I was, it looks like nothing will
ever be done about population and population driven Global warming, soil collapse and empty oceans
will all likely make the perfect storm just after I kick it. That's not to say I don't practice
personal sustainability; no car, local shopping only, limited meat, no fish etc. But that doesn't
really matter on the macro level.
The too-many-humans argument is nihilistic and a deflection. Increased CO2 into the atmosphere
and oceans is the number one driver. Poor farming methods, deforestation, over-consumption of
fossil fuels (and everything else) are to blame, not numbers of humans per se. It is perfectly
possible to feed the world and sequester carbon without destroying soil and destroying forests.
Soil can be maintained as long as there are rocks for soil life to dissolve. It is perfectly possible
for humanity to survive and prosper without turning insane amounts of energy into atmospheric
carbon and heat. The argument amounts to humans are too ignorant and/or stupid to live with nature,
so the amount of humans is the problem. No, it is human ignorance and/or stupidity that is the
problem. It's not the numbers, it's how those numbers behave, and Western humans behave the
worst and they are exporting their behavior all over the world. Yes, the negative behaviors
are amplified by more humans doing them, but reducing the numbers does nothing to solve the negative
behaviors. The economic system the west, and increasingly the world, lives under (exploitative
"Capitalism") was designed to ignore thermodynamics, biosphere services and externalities. So
is it any surprise that these negative behaviors have become accepted as normal and considered
a birthright? We won't be screwed because there are too many of us, we will be screwed because
we fail to challenge our assumptions and recognize and correct our mistakes.
Yes better more sustainable methods are important. but you are saying by implementing these
we can have infinite population growth which is insane. 9 billion no problem,
12 billion no problem,
20 billion no problem,
Ad infinitum, right? Do you really believe that?
"... As General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, said: War is a racket . Wars will persist as long as people see them as a "core product," as a business opportunity. In capitalism, the profit motive is often amoral; greed is good, even when it feeds war. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is willing to play along. It always sees "vulnerabilities" and always wants more money. ..."
"... Wars are always profitable for a few, but they are ruining democracy in America. Sure, it's a business opportunity: one that ends in national (and moral) bankruptcy. ..."
A good friend passed along an
article at Forbes from a month ago with the pregnant title, "U.S. Army Fears Major War Likely
Within Five Years - But Lacks The Money To Prepare." Basically, the article argues that war is possible
- even likely - within five years with Russia or North Korea or Iran, or maybe all three, but that
America's army is short of money to prepare for these wars. This despite the fact that America spends
roughly $700 billion each and every year on defense and overseas wars.
Now, the author's agenda is quite clear, as he states at the end of his article: "Several of the
Army's equipment suppliers are contributors to my think tank and/or consulting clients." He's writing
an alarmist article about the probability of future wars at the same time as he's profiting from
the sales of weaponry to the army.
As General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, said:
War is a racket
. Wars will persist as long as people see them as a "core product," as a business opportunity.
In capitalism, the profit motive is often amoral; greed is good, even when it feeds war. Meanwhile,
the Pentagon is willing to play along. It always sees "vulnerabilities" and always wants more money.
But back to the Forbes article with its concerns about war(s) in five years with Russia or North
Korea or Iran (or all three). For what vital national interest should America fight against Russia?
North Korea? Iran? A few quick reminders:
#1: Don't get involved in a land war in Asia or with Russia (Charles XII, Napoleon, and Hitler
all learned that lesson the hard way).
#2: North Korea? It's a puppet regime that can't feed its own people. It might prefer war to distract
the people from their parlous existence.
#3: Iran? A regional power, already contained, with a young population that's sympathetic to America,
at least to our culture of relative openness and tolerance. If the US Army thinks tackling Iran would
be relatively easy, just consider all those recent "easy" wars and military interventions in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Libya, Syria
Of course, the business aspect of this is selling the idea the US Army isn't prepared and therefore
needs yet another new generation of expensive high-tech weaponry. It's like convincing high-end consumers
their three-year-old Audi or Lexus is obsolete so they must buy the latest model else lose face.
We see this all the time in the US military. It's a version of planned or
artificial obsolescence . Consider the Air Force. It could easily defeat its enemies with updated
versions of A-10s, F-15s, and F-16s, but instead the Pentagon plans to spend as much as $1.4 trillion
on the shiny new and
under-performing F-35 . The Army has an enormous surplus of tanks and other armored fighting
vehicles, but the call goes forth for a "new generation." No other navy comes close to the US Navy,
yet the call goes out for a new generation of ships.
The Pentagon mantra is always for more and better, which often turns out to be for less and much
more expensive, e.g. the F-35 fighter.
Wars are always profitable for a few, but they are
ruining democracy in America. Sure, it's a business opportunity: one that ends in national (and
moral) bankruptcy.
William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years
at military and civilian schools and blogs at
Bracing Views . He can be reached at [email protected]. Reprinted
from Bracing Views with the author's permission.
"... Conventionally the US is being outplayed but it is possible that it is playing a different game in which it is complicit in the transition from nation state to corporate oligarchy. Isn't that the Neoliberal end game? ..."
"... The biggest mistake was to enact a policy shunning Russia, when Russia should be a key, partner of Europe and the US. ..."
"... And the USA invaded Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua with the contras, Iraq, Afghanistan, are currently bombing the crap out of another dozen nations, has militarily occupied another 100 nations with their bases and you are worried about Russia with Georgia and The Ukraine? What in Hades is wrong with this picture? ..."
"... "Barack Obama's 'Asian pivot' failed. China is in the ascendancy" says the heading. So Obama's "Asian pivot" was meant to thwart China's development. ..."
"... And the big problem with Trump's approach is that good ol' American corporations are the ones who are profiting wildly from business in China. They wanted access to the Chinese labor force, e.g. Walmart and every other manufacturer who now peddles goods made in China in US stores. They are the entities that cost western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits. ..."
"... They are wealthy beyond measure and anyone who wants to alter this system whereby American corporations manufacture in China and ship products around the world, inc. to the US, would have to fight them. And if anyone believes that Trump would succeed in this battle, they are delusional. ..."
"... "These two juggernauts are on a collision course" is far too alarmist. Relying mainly on right-wing US thinktanks for analysis doesn't help. ..."
"... Now we are waking up to the realisation that we are the big loosers of globalisation. ..."
"... "The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would be beneficial for all. " No, actually they thought it would be beneficial for the Western countries mostly. And it was, but whatever benefits developing countries received allowed them to rise to the level of a potential future threat to the unquestionable Western dominance. And now the US is looking for a way to destroy them preemptively. The US is paranoid. ..."
"... I think this "ascendancy" and nationalistic fervor is actually a sign of internal turmoil. ..."
"... The labor supply is assured because there are still multi millions in poverty and signing up as cheap labor is exactly what brings them out of poverty. I assume you've never been to China and therefore have never heard of Chunyun, the largest human migration in the world. This is partly the ruralites returning home from the cities with their years spoils. This year individual journeys totalled almost 3bn. ..."
"... By the way, China is reducing it's land army by a third over the next few years and has just concluded very constructive summits with all it's neighbours during last weeks ASEAN bunfight. ..."
"... a collapse of the chinese economy would collapse the American economy as well ..."
"... Fascinating & well structured article - except for one glaring omission - the LNP selling of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese Government business. Yeh, sure it's a '99 year lease' but for all effective purposes it's a sellout of a strategic port to the Chinese Government. ..."
"... America is in terminal decline, beset by economic and fiscal crises, sapped by imperial overstretch, a victim of a cosmopolitan ennui and fecklessness, divided politically and culturally, belligerent and militant to the extreme. An empire in decline is at its most dangerous. America today is a far greater threat to world peace than China. Simply witness America's accommodation of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the odious Saudi theocracy, and how its insane policy in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan has led to hundreds of thousands of lives lost and millions displaced ..."
"... The US has no significantly greater percentage of debt than any of the other Western nations except Germany. If you think the Americas bankrupt then you'd have to think a whole lot of other nations including the UK is as well. ..."
"... "China has divided and conquered certain countries in SE Asia." These certain SE Asian countries would say that it's because they are not willing to be Uncle Sam's "yes man". ..."
"... The US is still so very powerful but the problem is they feel powerless from time to time with their hammer in hand against flying mosquitos. Why they always wanted to solve problems using force is beyond stupidity. ..."
"... It also destabilises the entire region. Something the Americans are masters of. ..."
"... Were the US to form a cooperative instead of confrontational relationship with China the world would be a better place. The same could be said for the US relationship with Russia. ..."
"... Of course the military-industrial-banking-congressional complex that governs Washington's behavior would not be happy. WIthout confrontation the arms industries can't sell their weapons of war, banks' profits take a hit and congress critters don't get their kickbacks, err, "donations". ..."
"... Given the way the US government has screwed the Philippines over steadily since 1898, it's not surprising that Pres. Dutarte has decided to be friendly with his neighbor. Obama of the Kill List lecturing other countries about human rights abuses! What hypocrisy. ..."
"... Is what China doing in the south china sea different from what the USA does in the gulf of Mexico or in Panama... not to mention that Chi a is litterally surounded by US bases that sit squarely across all its sea trading routes: Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Fillipines ..."
"... China has been accumulating debt at unprecedented rates to try to maintain faltering growth. In 2007 Chinese debt stood at $7 trillion. By 2014 it had quadrupled to $28 trillion. That's $60 billion of extra debt every week. It's still rising rapidly as the government desperately tries to keep momentum. ..."
"... TPP is practically written by the lobbyists from the multi-international corporations that exploit every possible tax laws, labor laws, environmental and public health regulations, legal representations and consequences. It is imperialism 2.0 in the 21st century, exclusively serving the interests of top point one percent while greatly depressing the wages of middle class; it is overwhelmingly opposed by the public opinion, law makers of all sides and current president candidates. There is zero chance Obama could make it through legislation before his exit; Clinton will not even consider bringing it back if she wins the election because she already flip-flopped once on the issue during her campaign; and it would seriously damage her chance of re-election if she does. As for Trump, I leave it to anyone's imaginations. ..."
"... Globalisation is another word for one world government and all that brings, one currency, one police force, taxation, dissolution of borders, an end to sovereignty and all of our hard won freedoms. Freedom is a thing of the past, with MSM owned by the globalist elites, enforcing a moratorium on truth, and a population that has no idea what is going on behind the scenes. ..."
"... Another brilliant thought from Rand; when in doubt, shoot from the hip .... ..."
"... They tell their employers what they want to hear. ..."
"... Do Americans not realize that Chinese and Russians read this too and plan accordingly? This is madness. I am fairly certain preemptive strikes are against international law. Why nobody has the guts to call the US out on this kind of illegal warmongering? ..."
"... The dilemma is clear: amid rising nationalism in both countries, China is not willing to have its ambitions curbed or contained and the US is not ready to accept the world number two spot. These two juggernauts are on a collision course. ..."
"... What does the criticism in USA get you? It is just blah blah blah. ONly criticism that matters is from the corporations and wealthy individuals like Koch bros and Sheldon Edelson and their ilk. Rest can watch football. ..."
"... Simon Tisdall and many Europeans as well as the US GOP party still thinks that US is an empire similar to what the British had in the 18th century. This assumption is completely wrong especially in the 21th century where Western Europe, Japan, Korea if they want can be spend their money and also become global military power. ..."
"... Being a large country surrounded by many other occasionally threatening powers, the governments' priority is and always has been defending its territorial integrity. China is happy enough to leave the command and conquer stuff, sorry "democratization" to the US. ..."
"... Why did Obama say that his greatest regret was Libya.? Because Obama's policy is/was to manage the decline of US power. To manage the end of US hegemony. I doubt that Obama believes that any pivot to any where can restore or maintain US dominance on planet earth. ..."
"... China wishes to expand trade and improve economic conditions for its people and for those with whom it trades. That is not aggression except when it interferes with US global economic hegemony. ..."
"... The most belligerent nation in the world the nation with its army in over 100 countries, the nation bombing and conducting perpetual war throughout the middle east, the country invading countries for "regime change" and creating only misery and death -- it is not China. ..."
"... The US and its Neoliberal capitalist system must expand to grow - plus they clearly want total global domination - the US and its Imperial agents have encircled both China and Russia with trillions of dollars of the most destructive weapons in the world including nuclear weapons - do you thin they have done that for "security" if so you simply ignore the aggression and hubris of an Imperial US. ..."
Before the pivot could even get underway the Saudis threw their rattle out of the pram and drew
US focus back to the Middle East and proxy war two steps removed with Russia. Empires don't get
to focus, they react to each event and seek to gain from the outcome so the whole pivot idea was
flawed.
Obama's foreign policy has been clumsy and amoral. It remains to be seen whether it will become
more so in an effort to double down. Under Clinton it definitely will, under Trump who knows but
random isn't a recommendation.
Conventionally the US is being outplayed but it is possible that it is playing a different
game in which it is complicit in the transition from nation state to corporate oligarchy. Isn't
that the Neoliberal end game?
So the Rand Think Tank would sooner have war now than later. Who wouldda guessed that.
The Chinese want to improve trade and business with the rest of the world. The US answer? destroy
China militarily. so who best to lead the world. I think the article answers that question unintentionally.
The rest of the world has had it up to the ears with American military invasions, regeime changes,
occupations and bombing of the world. They are ready for China´s approach to international relations.
it is about time the adults took over the leadership of the world. Europe and the USA and their
offspring have clearly failed.
China has been handed everything it needs to fly solo: money, factories, IP, etc. Fast forwarding
into the western civic model limits (traffic, pollution, etc.), its best bet is to offload US
"interests" and steer clear.
No clear sign India's learned/recovered from British occupation, as they let tech create more
future Kanpurs.
The biggest mistake was to enact a policy shunning Russia, when Russia should be a key, partner
of Europe and the US.
Was it really worth expanding NATO to Russia's borders instead of offering neutrality to former
Soviet States and thus retain Russia's confidence in global matters that far out weigh the interests
of the neo-cons?
neutrality? Russia invaded non-NATO members Georgie, Ukraine, and Moldavia, and created puppet-states
on their soil.
The Jremlin-rules are simple: the former Sovjet states should be ruled by a pro-Russian dictator
(Bella-Russia, Kazachstan, etc. etc...). Democracies face boycots, diplomatic and military support
of rebels, and in the end simply a military invasion.
The only reason why the baltic states are now thriving democracies, is that they are NATO members.
And the USA invaded Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua with the contras, Iraq, Afghanistan, are currently
bombing the crap out of another dozen nations, has militarily occupied another 100 nations with
their bases and you are worried about Russia with Georgia and The Ukraine? What in Hades is wrong
with this picture?
When Obama took office his first major speech was in Cairo - where he said
"I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around
the world," US President Barack Obama said to the sounds of loud applause which rocked not
only the hall, but the world. "One based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based
upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead,
they overlap, and share common principles-principles of justice and progress; tolerance and
the dignity of all human beings."
He displayed a dangerous mix of innocence, foolishness, disregard for the truth and misunderstanding
of the nature of Islamic regimes - does the West have common values with Lebanon which practices
apartheid for Palestinians, Saudi, where women cannot drive a car, Syria, where over 17,000 have
died in Assad's torture chambers, we can go on and on.
And on China - Trump has it right - China has been manipulating its currency exchange rate
for years, costing western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits and something
needs to be done about it.
" America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap,
and share common principles-principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of
all human beings. "
He spoke about the whole of Islam, not specific " Islamic regimes ". And he is correct
on it. All religions share a great deal of values with the USAmerican constition and even each
other .
The overwhelming majority of USAmerican muslims have accepted the melting pot with their whole
heart, second generation children have JOINED its fighting forces to protect the interest of the
USA all over the world. Normally this full an integration is reached with the third generation.
The west has won against those religious fanatics. How else to explain that exactly the people
those claim to speak turn up with us?
And the big problem with Trump's approach is that good ol' American corporations are the ones
who are profiting wildly from business in China. They wanted access to the Chinese labor force,
e.g. Walmart and every other manufacturer who now peddles goods made in China in US stores. They
are the entities that cost western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits.
They are wealthy beyond measure and anyone who wants to alter this system whereby American
corporations manufacture in China and ship products around the world, inc. to the US, would have
to fight them. And if anyone believes that Trump would succeed in this battle, they are delusional.
"These two juggernauts are on a collision course" is far too alarmist. Relying mainly on right-wing
US thinktanks for analysis doesn't help.
Interesting in particular to see RAND is still in its Cold War mindset. There's famous footage
of RAND analysts in the 60s (I think) discussing putative nuclear war with the USSR and concluding
that the US was certain of 'victory' following a missile exchange because its surviving population
(after hundreds of millions of deaths and the destruction of almost all urban centres) would be
somewhat larger.
China's island claims are all about a broader strategic aim- getting unencumbered access to
the Pacific for its growing blue water navy. It's not aimed at Taiwan or Japan in any sort of
specific sense and, save for the small possibility of escalation following an accident (ships
colliding or something), there's very little risk of conflict in at least the medium term.
It's crucial to remember just how much China and the US depend upon each other economically.
The US is by far China's largest single export market, powering its manufacturing economy. In
return, China uses the surplus to buy up US debt, which allows the Americans to borrow cheaply
and keep the lights on. Crash China and you crash the US- and vice versa.
For now, China is basically accepting an upgraded number 2 spot (along with the US acknowledging
them as part of a 'G2'), but supporting alternative governance structures when it doesn't like
the ones controlled by the US/Japan (so the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the BRICS etc.).
This doesn't mean that the two don't see each other as long term strategic and economic rivals.
But the risks to both of rocking the boat are gigantic and not in the interest of either party
in the foreseeable future. Things that could change that:
a. a succession of Trump-like US presidents (checks and balances are probably sufficient to
withstand one, were it to come to that);
b. a revolution in China (possible if the economy goes South- and what comes next is probably
not liberal democracy but anti-Japanese or anti-US authoritarian nationalism);
c. an unpredictable chain of events arising from N Korean collapse or a regional nuclear race
(Japan-China is a more likely source of conflict than US-China).
"The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would
be beneficial for all. " No, actually they thought it would be beneficial for the Western countries
mostly. And it was, but whatever benefits developing countries received allowed them to rise to
the level of a potential future threat to the unquestionable Western dominance. And now the US
is looking for a way to destroy them preemptively. The US is paranoid.
The writing is on the wall: the future is with China. All the US can do is make nice or reap the
dire consequences. If China can clean up its human rights record, I would be happy to see them
supplant or rival the US as a global hegemon. After all, looked at historically, haven't they
earned it? - An American, born and bred, but no nationalist
Well, that is naïve. Look at China and how the Chinese people are governed. Look at the US. And
please don't tell me you don't see a difference. I'll take a world with the US as the global hegemon
any day.
A regional counter balance is needed. Cooperation is hindered by Japan. They should be the center
point of a regional alliance strong enough to contain China with US help, but it doesn't work:
whilst everybody fears China, everybody hates Japan.
The reason is they failed miserably to rebuild trust after WWII, rather than going cap in hand,
acknowledging respondibility for atrocities and other crimes and injustice, and compensate victims,
they kept their pride and isolation. They are now paying the price - possibly together with the
rest of us.
Maybe a full scale change after 7 decades of to-little-to-late diplomacy can still achieve
sth.
The ass the US should kick sits in Tokyo - something they failed to do properly after WWII,
when they managed it well in West Germany (ok - they had help from the Brits there, who for all
their failings understand foreign nations far better), where it facilitated proper integration
into European cooperation.
I think this "ascendancy" and nationalistic fervor is actually a sign of internal turmoil.
Countries that do well don't need to crack down on dissidents to the point of kidnappings
or spend millions of stupid man made islands that pisses everyone off but have all the military
value of a threatening facial tattoo. The South China Sea tactics is partially Chinese "push until
something pushes back" diplomacy but also stems from the harsh realisation that their resources
can be easily choked of and even the CPC knows it can't hold down a billion plus Chinese people
once the hunger sets it.
China is facing the dilemna that as it brings people out of poverty it reduces the supply of
the very cheap labor that makes it rich. You can talk about Lenovo all you want, no one is buying
a Chinese car anytime soon. Nor is any airline outside of China going to buy one of their planes.
Copyright fraud is one thing the West can retaliate easily upon and will if they feel China has
gone too far. Any product found in a western court to be a blatant copy can effectively be banned.
The next step is to refuse to recognize Chinese copyright on the few genuine innovations that
come out of it.
Plus the deal Deng Xiaoping made with the urban classes is fraying. It was wealth in exchange
for subservience. The people in the cities stay out of direct politics but quality of life issues,
safety, petty corruption and pollution are angering them and scaring them hence the vast amount
of private Chinese money being sunk into global real estate.
The military growth and dubious technobabble is just typical Chinese mianzi gaining. If you
do have a brand new jet stealth jet fighter, you don't release pictures of it to the world press.
They got really rattled when Shinzo Abe decided the JSDF can go and deliver slappings abroad to
help their friends if needed. Because an army that spends a lot of time rigging up Michael Bayesque
set maneuvers for the telly is not what you want to pit against top notch technology handled by
obsessive perfectionists.
No one plays hardball with China because we all like cheap shit. But once that is over then
China is a very vulnerable country with not one neighbour they can call a friend. They know it.
Obama hasn't failed.. It's the histrionics that prove it not the other way round.
The labor supply is assured because there are still multi millions in poverty and signing
up as cheap labor is exactly what brings them out of poverty. I assume you've never been to China
and therefore have never heard of Chunyun, the largest human migration in the world. This is partly
the ruralites returning home from the cities with their years spoils. This year individual journeys
totalled almost 3bn.
No-one is buying a Chinese car? Check the sales for Wuling. They produce the small vans that
are the lifeblood of the small entrepreneur. BYD are already exporting electric buses to London.
The likes of VW, BMW, Land Rover, are all in partnership with Chinese auto-makers and China is
the largest car market in the world.
Corruption has been actively attacked and over a quarter of a million officials have been brought
to book in Xi's time in office. The pollution causing steel and coal industries are being rapidly
contracted and billions spent on re-training.
Plus the fact that while the Chinese are mianzi gazing, the last thing they think about is
politics. They simply don't want to know.
By the way, China is reducing it's land army by a third over the next few years and has
just concluded very constructive summits with all it's neighbours during last weeks ASEAN bunfight.
The conclusion is that bi-lateral talks, not US led pissing contests are the way forward.
"What has happened is the ICA has ruled against China in the SCS..." Nothing new. The UN Commission on the Limits of Continental Shelf had also ruled against the
UK and the International Court of Justice had ruled against the US.
Fascinating & well structured article - except for one glaring omission - the LNP selling
of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese Government business. Yeh, sure it's a '99 year lease' but for
all effective purposes it's a sellout of a strategic port to the Chinese Government.
Just look at how gobsmacked the US Military & President were over such a stupidly undertaken
sale by the LNP. This diplomatically lunatic sell off by the LNP of such a vital national asset
has effectively taken-out any influence or impact Australia may have, or exert, over critical
issues happening on our northern doorstep.
If there was ever a case for buying back a strategic national asset, this is definitely the
one. Oh, if folks are worried about the $Billions in penalties incurred, simple solution - just
stop the $Billions of Diesel Fuel Rebates gifted to Miners for, say, 10 years..... Done!
America is in terminal decline, beset by economic and fiscal crises, sapped by imperial overstretch,
a victim of a cosmopolitan ennui and fecklessness, divided politically and culturally, belligerent
and militant to the extreme. An empire in decline is at its most dangerous. America today is a
far greater threat to world peace than China. Simply witness America's accommodation of the Israeli
occupation of Palestine, the odious Saudi theocracy, and how its insane policy in Libya, Syria,
Iraq, and Afghanistan has led to hundreds of thousands of lives lost and millions displaced.
Europe
is under siege by endless tides of refugees that are the direct consequence of America's neo-Conservative
and militant foreign policy. Meanwhile, America's neo-liberal economic and trade policies have
not only decimated her own manufacturing base and led to gross inequality but also massive dislocations
in South America, Middle East, Europe, Africa, and Southeast Asia. Tired, irritated, frustrated,
exhausted, cynical, violent, moral-less, deeply corrupt, and rudderless, America is effectively
bankrupt and on the verge of becoming another Greece, if not for the saving grace of the petro-Dollar.
Europe would be well-advised to keep the Yanks at arm's length so as to escape as much as possible
the fallout from her complete collapse. As for Britain, soon to be divorced from the EU, time
draws nigh to end the humiliating, one-sided servitude that is the 'Special Relationship' and
forge an independent foreign policy. The tectonic plates of history is again shifting, and there
nothing America can do to stop it.
I don't know America probably occupies the most prime geographical spot on the planet, and buffered
by two oceans. It doesn't have to worry about refugees and the other problems and ultimately they
can produce enough food and meet all of its energy needs domestically. And it's the third most
populous nation on earth and could easily grow its population with immigration.
The US has no significantly greater percentage of debt than any of the other Western nations
except Germany. If you think the Americas bankrupt then you'd have to think a whole lot of other
nations including the UK is as well.
Given the facts it would be daft a write off America. Every European nation have lost their
number one spot in history and they seem to be doing just fine. Is there some reason why this
can't be America's destiny as well? Does it really have to end in flames?
"China has divided and conquered certain countries in SE Asia."
These certain SE Asian countries would say that it's because they are not willing to be Uncle
Sam's "yes man".
The US is still so very powerful but the problem is they feel powerless from time to time with
their hammer in hand against flying mosquitos. Why they always wanted to solve problems using
force is beyond stupidity.
Pivot to Asia is about one thing only, sending more war ships to encircle China. But for what
purpose exactly? It does one thing though, it united china by posing as a threat.
Those blaming Obama most stridently for not keeping China in its box are those most responsible
for China's rise. American and Western companies shafted their own people to make themselves more
profit. They didn't care what the consequences might be, as long as the lmighty "Shareholder Value"
continued to rise. Now they demand that the taxes from all those people whose jobs they let go
be used to contain the new superpower that they created. As usual, Coroporate America messes
things up then demands to know what someone else is going to do about it
Were the US to form a cooperative instead of confrontational relationship with China the world
would be a better place. The same could be said for the US relationship with Russia.
Of course the military-industrial-banking-congressional complex that governs Washington's behavior
would not be happy. WIthout confrontation the arms industries can't sell their weapons of war,
banks' profits take a hit and congress critters don't get their kickbacks, err, "donations".
Given the way the US government has screwed the Philippines over steadily since 1898, it's not
surprising that Pres. Dutarte has decided to be friendly with his neighbor. Obama of the Kill List lecturing other countries about human rights abuses! What hypocrisy.
fuck his pivot.....this ain't syria.....having destroyed the middle east it was our turn.....this
is americas exceptionalism........stay #1 by desabilising/destroying everyone else.....p.s. shove
the TPP also..........
The real question is why should not China be more dominant in Asia... i understands the USA tendency
especially since the fall of the soviet union at seing themselves as the only world superpower.
And i understand why China would like to balance tbat especially in her own neighborhood.
Is what China doing in the south china sea different from what the USA does in the gulf of Mexico
or in Panama... not to mention that Chi a is litterally surounded by US bases that sit squarely
across all its sea trading routes: Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Fillipines,... and considering that the
chinese have a long memory of werstern gunboat diplomacy and naval for e projection, if i was
them i would feel a little uncomfortable at how vulnerable my newfound trade is... especially
when some western politician so clearly think that china needs to be contained...
China has been accumulating debt at unprecedented rates to try to maintain faltering growth.
In 2007 Chinese debt stood at $7 trillion. By 2014 it had quadrupled to $28 trillion. That's
$60 billion of extra debt every week. It's still rising rapidly as the government desperately tries to keep momentum.
Much of this money has been funnelled into 'investments' that will never yield a return. The most almighty crash is coming. Which will be interesting to say the least.
Now that is interesting but odd. They are buying phuqing HUGE swathes of land in Africa, investing
everywhere they can on rest of the planet. All seemingly on domestic debt then.
Yes. The Japanese went on a spending spree abroad in the 1980s, while accumulating debt at home,
and when that popped the economy entered 20 years of stagnation, as bad debts hampered the financial
system.
The Chinese bubble is far larger, and made worse by the fact that much of the debt has been
taken on by inefficient state owned enterprises and local government, spending not because the
figures make sense but to meet centrally-dictated growth targets. Much of the rest has been funnelled
into real estate, which now makes up more than twice the share of the Chinese economy than is
the case in the UK. Property prices in some major Chinese cities have reached up to 30 times local
incomes, making London look cheap in comparison.
TPP is practically written by the lobbyists from the multi-international corporations that exploit
every possible tax laws, labor laws, environmental and public health regulations, legal representations
and consequences. It is imperialism 2.0 in the 21st century, exclusively serving the interests
of top point one percent while greatly depressing the wages of middle class; it is overwhelmingly
opposed by the public opinion, law makers of all sides and current president candidates. There
is zero chance Obama could make it through legislation before his exit; Clinton will not even
consider bringing it back if she wins the election because she already flip-flopped once on the
issue during her campaign; and it would seriously damage her chance of re-election if she does.
As for Trump, I leave it to anyone's imaginations.
Don't believe for a second Hillary won't ram through a version of the TPP/IP if she wins. What
she's actually said is that she's against it in its current form
Remember she is part of an owned by the 0.1% that stand to benefit from the agreement, she
will do their bidding and be well rewarded. A few cosmetic changes will be applied to the agreement
so she can claim that she wasn't lying pre-election and we'll have to live with the consequences.
Well done all you globalists for failing to spot the bleedin obvious...that millions of homes
worldwide full of 'Made In China' was ultimately going to pay for the People's Liberation
Army. Still think globalisation is wonderful ?
Quite. How can you believe in a liberal, global free market and then do business with the Socialist
Republic of China, that is the antithesis of free markets. The name is above the door, so there's
no use acting all surprised when it doesn't pan out the way you planned it.
Anything good can be made evil, including globalization. Imagine fair trade completely globalized
so very nation relies on every other nation for goods. That type of shared destiny is the only
way to maintain peace because humans are tribalist to a fault. We evolved in small groups, our
social dynamics are not well suited to large diverse groups. If nation has food but nation B does
not, nation B will go to war with nation A, so hopefully both nations trade and alleviate that
situation. Nations with high economic isolation are beset by famines and poverty. Germany usually
beats China in total exports and Germany is a wonderful place to live. It's not globalization
that is the problem, it's exploitation and failure of our leaders to follow and enforce the Golden
Rule.
Roll out the barrel.....
Well said and you are so right.
15 years ago, I had a conversation in an airport with an American. I remarked that, by outsourcing
manufacturing to China the US had sold its future to an entity that would prove to be their enemy
before too long. I was derided and ridiculed. I wonder where that man is and whether he remembers
our conversation.
Globalisation is another word for one world government and all that brings, one currency, one
police force, taxation, dissolution of borders, an end to sovereignty and all of our hard won
freedoms. Freedom is a thing of the past, with MSM owned by the globalist elites, enforcing a
moratorium on truth, and a population that has no idea what is going on behind the scenes.
I despair of "normalcy bias" and the insulting term "conspiracy theorist". People have lost
the ability to work things out for themselves and the majority knows nothing about Agenda 21 aka
Sustainable Development Goals 2030, until the land grabs start and private ownership is outlawed.
... the study also suggests that, if war cannot be avoided, the US might be best advised to
strike first, before China gets any stronger and the current US military advantage declines further
..
Another brilliant thought from Rand; when in doubt, shoot from the hip ....
Do Americans not realize that Chinese and Russians read this too and plan accordingly? This is
madness.
I am fairly certain preemptive strikes are against international law. Why nobody has the guts
to call the US out on this kind of illegal warmongering?
1. With respect, Mr Tidsall is badly off track in painting China as the one evil facing an innocent
world.
2. The fact is that US' belief in and repeated resort to force has created a huge mess in the
Middle East, brought true misery to millions, and truly thrown Europe in turmoil in the bargain.
3. Besides this Middle East mess, the US neoliberal economic policies have wreaked havoc, culminating
in an unprecedented financial and economic crisis that has left millions all over the world without
any hope for the future
4. Hence Mr Tidsall's pronouncement:
This dilemma – how to work constructively with a powerful, assertive China without compromising
or surrendering national interests – grows steadily more acute.
Ought to read:
This dilemma – how to work constructively with a powerful, assertive United States
without compromising or surrendering national interests – grows steadily more acute.
5. US would be better advised to focus on its growing social problems, evident in the growing
random killings, police picking on blacks, etc, and on its fast decaying infrastructure. We now
read that China has the fastest computer, the largest telescope, etc, whilst US just kills and
kills all over the world.
6. Mr Tidsall, may I request that you kindly focus on realities rather than come up with opinion
that approaches science fiction
I agree that Mr Tisdall's treatment of the US is somewhat naive and ignorant. However couldn't
it be that both countries are capable of aggression and assertiveness? The US's malign influence
is mainly focussed on the Middle East and North Africa region, while China's is on its neighbours.
China's attitude to Taiwan is pure imperialism, as is its treatment of dissenting voices on the
mainland and in Hong Kong. China's contempt for international law and the binding ruling by the
UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal is also deeply harmful to peace and justice in the region and worldwide.
We now read that China has the fastest computer, the largest telescope, etc, whilst US just
kills and kills all over the world.
Very superficial indeed - compare, just as one example, the number of Nobel prizes won by American
scientists recently with those by Chinese. The US is still, in general, far ahead of China in
terms of scientific research (though China is making rapid progress). (That is not intended to
excuse US killing of course.)
The US follows the USSR path of increasingly ignoring the needs of its own population in order
to retain global dominance. It will end the same as the USSR. That which cannot continue will
not continue.
Xi is not looking for a fight. His first-choice agent of change is money, not munitions.
According to Xi's "One Belt, One Road" plan, his preferred path to 21st-century Chinese hegemony
is through expanded trade, business and economic partnerships extending from Asia to the Middle
East and Africa. China's massive Silk Road investments in central and west Asian oil and gas
pipelines, high-speed rail and ports, backed by new institutions such as the Asia Infrastructure
Investment Bank, are part of this strategy, which simultaneously encourages political and economic
dependencies. Deng Xiaoping once said to get rich is glorious. Xi might add it is also empowering.
The most realistic assessment on Xi and China.
The dilemma is clear: amid rising nationalism in both countries, China is not willing to
have its ambitions curbed or contained and the US is not ready to accept the world number two
spot. These two juggernauts are on a collision course.
A Grim and over-paranoid predicament: US is not in decline and need not worry about China's "ambition";
China is well aware it remains a poor nation compared to developed world and is decades behind
of US in military, GDP per capital and science, that is not including civil liberty, citizen participation,
Gov't transparency and so on. China is busy building a nation confident of its culture and history,
military hegemony plays no part of its dream.
US is not in decline and need not worry about China's "ambition"
Oh come on, $20 Trillion in debt and with Social Security running out of money, there will
be no more to lend the government.
China has forged an agreement with Russia for all its needs in oil ( Russia has more oil than
Saudi Arabia) and payment will not be in US dollars. Russia will not take US$ for trade and the
BRICS nations will squeeze the US$ out of its current situation as reserve currency. When the
dollars all find their way back to the USA hyperinflation will cause misery.
Before the Chinese or anyone else gets any ideas, they should reflect on the size of the US defence
budget, 600 billion dollars in 2015, and consider what that might imply in the event of conflict.
a third of that budget goes in profit for the private companies they employ to make duds like
the F35 - so you can immediately reduce that to 400 billion. The US have been fighting third world
countries for 50 years, and losing, their military is bloated, out of date and full of retrograde
gear that simply wont cut it against the Russians. Privately you would find that most top line
military agree with that statement. They also have around 800 bases scattered world wide, spread
way too thin. Its why theyve stalled in Ukraine and can't handle the middle east. The Russians
spend less than $50 billion but have small, highly mobile forces, cutting edge missile defence
systems (which will have full airspace coverage by 2017). The Chinese policy of A2D/AD or access
denial has got the US surface fleet marooned out in the oceans as any attempt to get close enough
to be effective would be met with a hail of multiple rocket shedding war heads. The only place
where it is probable (but my no means certain) that the US still has the edge is in submarine
warfare, although again if the Russians and Chinese have full coverage of their airspace nothing
(or little) would get through.
Two theorys are in current operation about the election and the waring factions in the NSA and
the CIA 1) HRC wins but is too much of a warmonger and would push america into more wars they
simply cannot win 2) there is a preference for Trump to win amongst the MIC because he would (temporarily)
seek 'peace' with the Russians thus giving the military the chance to catch up - say in 3 or 4
years - plus all the billions and billions of dollars that would mean for them.
Overwhelming fire power no longer wins wars, the US have proved that year in year out since
the end of the second world war, theyve lost every war theyve started/caused/joined in. Unless
you count that limited skirmish on British soil in Grenada - and I guess we could call Korea a
score draw. The yanks are bust and they know it, the neocons are all bluster and idiots like Breedlove,
Power and Nuland are impotent because they don't have right on their side or the might to back
it up. The US is mired in the middle east, locked out of asia and would grind to halt in Europe
against the Russians. (every NATO wargame simulation in the last 4 years has conclusively shown
this) Add to that the fact that the overwhelming majority of US citizens dont have the appetite
for a conventional war and in the event of a nuclear war the US would suffer at least as much
as Europe and youve got a better picture of where we are at.
Well it is just ABOUT money.Also during Vietnam and Iraq war US was biggest spender.
Nobody in US still thinks that Vietnam war was a good idea and the same applies to Iraq.Iraq war
will be even in history books for biggest amount spend to achieve NOTHING.
Chinese military spending is at least on a par with American. A huge part of American military
money goes to personnel salary while China does NOT pay to Chinese soldiers for their service
as China holds a compulsory military service system.
This article assumes China is evil and the US is the righteous protector of all nations in the
SE Asian region against the evil China which is obviously out to destroy the hapless SE Asian
nations. This assumption is obviously nonsense. The US itself is rife with racial problems. Everybody
has seen what it had done to Vietnam. Nobody believes that a racist US that cares nothing for
the welfare of its own black, Latino and Asian population will actually care for the welfare of
the same peoples outside of the US and especially in SE Asia.
The truth is China is not the evil destroyer of nations. The truth is the US is the evil destroyer
of nations. The US has brought nothing but bloodshed and destruction to the SE Asian regions for
the last 200 years. The US had killed millions of Filipinos during it colonial era. The US had
killed millions of Vietnamese during the Vietnam War. The US had incited pogroms against the ethnic
Chinese unceasingly. The May 13 massacre in Malaysia, the anti-Chinese massacres in the 1960's
and the 1990's in Indonesia, and many other discrimination and marginalization of ethnic Chinese
throughout the entire SE Asia are all the works of the US. It is the US that is the killer and
destroyer.
Therefore, it is a good thing that the evil intents of the US had failed. With the all but
inevitable rise of China, the influence of the Japanese and the americans will inevitably wane.
The only danger to China is the excessive xenocentrism of the Dengist faction who is selling out
China to these dangerous enemies. If the CPC government sold out China's domestic economy, then
China will become a colony of the Japanese and americans without firing a single shot. And the
Chinese economy will slide into depression as it had done in the Qing Dynasty and Chinese influence
in the SE Asian region will collapse.
Therefore, the task before the CPC government is to ban all foreign businesses out of China's
domestic economy, upgrade and expand China's education and R&D, urbanize the rural residents and
expand the Chinese military, etc. With such an independent economic, political and military policies,
China will at once make itself the richest and the most powerful nation in the world dwarfing
the Japanese and American economies and militaries. China can then bring economic prosperity and
stability to the SE Asian region by squeezing the evil Japanese and americans out of the region.
Lets be honest what has Obama achieved,he got the Nobel peace prize for simply not being George
Bush Jr he has diplayed a woeful lack of leadership with Russia over Syria Libya and the Chinese
Simply being the first African American president will not be a legacy
Do you know of one Leninist state that ever built a prosperous modern industrial nation? Therein
lies the advantage and the problem with China. China is totally export dependant and therefore
its customers can adversely affect its economy - put enough chinese out of work and surely political
instability will follow. A threatened dictatorship with a large army, however, is a danger to
its neighbors and the world.
China are now net consumers. You need to read up on whats happening, not from just the western
press. They are well on their way to becoming the most powerful nation on earth, they have access
(much like Russia) to over two thirds of the population of the worlds consumers and growing (this
is partially why sanctions against Russia have been in large part meaningless) China will never
want for buyers of their products (the iphone couldnt be made without the Chinese) with the vast
swaithes of unplumbed Russian resources becoming available to them its hard to see how the west
can combat the Eurasians. The wealth is passing from west to east, its a natural cycle the 'permanant
growth' monkies in the west have been blind to by their own greed and egotism. Above all the Chinese
are a trading nation, always seeking win/win trading links. The west would be better employed
trading and linking culturally with the Chinese rather than trying to dictate with military threats.
The west comprises only 18% of the global population and our growth and wealth is either exhausted
or locked away in vaults where it is doing no one any good. Tinme to wise up or get left behind.
Tisdall...absolute war-monger and neo-con "dog of war". Is this serious journalism? The rise of
China was as inevitable as the rise of the US in the last century..."no man can put a stop to
the march of a nation". It's Asias century and it's not the first time for China to be the No
1 economy in the world. They have been here before and have much more wisdom than the west...for
too long the tail has wagged the dog...suck it up Tisdall!
The US grand strategy post-Bush was to reposition itself at the heart of a liberal economic system
excluding China through TTIP with the EU and TPP with Asia-Pac ex. China and Russia. The idea
was that this would enable the US to sustain its hegemony.
It has been an absolute failure. Brexit has torpedoed TTIP and TPP has limited value- the largest
economy in the partnership, Japan, has been largely integrated in to the US for the past 70 years.
IMO the biggest failure of the US has been hating Russia too much. The Russians have just as
much reason to be afraid of China as the US do and have a pretty capable army. If the US patched
things up with the Russians, firstly it could redeploy forces and military effort away from the
Middle East towards Asia Pac and secondly it would give the US effective leverage over China-
with the majority of the oil producing nations aligned with the US, China would have difficulty
in conducted a sustained conflict. It's old Cold War thinking that has seen America lose its hegemony-
similar to how the British were so focused on stopping German ascendancy they didn't see the Americans
coming with the knife.
America is reaping the fruits of what they sowed during the time of Reagan. It was never a good
idea to outsource your entire manufacturing industry to a country that is a dictatorship and does
not embrace western liberal democratic values. Now the Americans are hopelessly dependent on China
- a country that does not play by the rules in any sphere - it censors free speech, it blatantly
violates intellectual property, it displays hostile intent towards nearly all South East Asian
countries, its friends include state sponsors of terror like Pakistan and North Korea, it is carefully
cultivating the enemies of America and the west in general.
In no way, shape or form does China fulfill the criteria for being a trustworthy partner of
the west. And yet today, China holds all the cards in its relationship with the west, with the
western consumerist economies completely dependent on China. Moral of the story - Trade and economics
cannot be conducted in isolation, separate from geopolitical realities. Doing so is a recipe for
disaster.
Mr Tisdall should declare his affiliation, if any, with the military-industrial complex.
It is surprising coming from a Briton which tried to contain Germany and fought two
wars destroying itself and the empire. War may be profitable for military-industrial complex
but disastrous for everyone else. In world war 2, USA benefited enormously by ramping
up war material production and creating millions of job which led to tremendous
prosperity turning the country around from a basket case in 1930s to a big prosperous power
which dominated the world till 2003.
US insistence on being top cat in a changing world will end up by dragging us all into a WW III.
Why can't the US leave the rest of the world alone? Americans do not need a military presence
to do business with the rest of the world and earn a lot of money with such trade. And they are
too ignorant, too unsophisticate and too weak to be able to impose their will on the rest of us.
The (very) ugly Americans are back and all we want is for them to go back home and forever remain
there... The sooner the better...
The world is going to look fantastically different in a hundred years time.
Points of world power will go back to where they was traditionally; Europe and Asia. America
is a falling power, it doesn't get the skilled European immigrants it use to after German revolution
and 2 world wars. And it's projected white population will be a minority by 2050. America's future
lies with south America.
Australia with such a massive country but with a tiny population of 20million will look very
attractive to China. It's future lies with a much stronger commonwealth, maybe a united military
and economic commonwealth between the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Even without the EU, Europe is going to have to work together, including Russia to beat the
Chinese militarily and economically. America will not be the same power in another 30-50 years
and would struggle to beat them now.
China are expansionists, always have been. War is coming with them and North Korea sometime
in the future.
From the article above, it is clear who is the more dangerous power. While China is aiming to
be the hegemon through economic means like the neo silk road projects, the US is aiming to maintain
its hegemon status through military power. The US think thank even suggest to preemptive strike
against China to achieve that. This is also the problem with US pivot to Asia, it may fail to
contain China, but it didn't fail to poison the atmosphere in Asia. Asia has never been this dangerous
since the end of cold war, all thanks to the pivot.
Obama is trying to maintain the status quo. China and N. Korea are the ones pushing military intimidation.
The key to the US plan is to form an alliance between countries in the region that historically
distrust each other. The Chinese are helping that by threatening everybody at the same time. Tisdall
sees this conflict strictly as between the US and China. Obama's plan is to form a group of countries
to counter China. Japan will have a major role in this alliance but the problem is whether the
other victims of WW2 Japanese aggression will agree to it.
The US's disastrous foreign policy since 9/11 which has unleashed so much chaos in Afghanistan,
Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc etc... is not exactly a commendation for credibility these days.
A useful summary of the state of play in the Pacific and SCS. It is somewhat hawkish in analysis,
military fantasists will always be legion, they should be listened to with extra large doses of
salt, or discussion of arguments which favour peaceful cooperation and development, such as trade,
cultural relations, and natural stalemates. American anxiety at its own perception of decline,
is at least as dangerous for the world as the immature expression of rising Chinese confidence.
But the biggest problem it seems we face, is finding a way to accommodate and translate the aspirations
of rising global powers with the existing order established post-45, in incarnated in the UN and
other international bodies, in international maritime law as in our western notions of universal
human rights. Finding a way for China to express origination of these ideas compatible with its
own history, to be able to proclaim them as a satisfactory settlement for human relations, is
an ideal, but apparently unpromising task.
Perhaps Samuel P Huntingdon was broadly correct when he wrote "The Clash of Civilizations" in
the late 90's. He was criticized for his work by neo-liberals who believed that after the Cold
War the rest of the world would follow the west and US in particular.
The problem with the neo-liberal view is that only their opinions on issues are correct, and
all others therefore should be ridiculed. What has happened in Ukraine is a prime example. Huntingdon
called the Ukraine a "cleft" country split between Russia and Europe. The EU and the US decided
to stir up trouble in the Ukraine to get even with Putin over Syria. It was never about EU or
NATO membership for the Ukraine which is now further away than ever.
A Trump presidency is regarded with fear. The Obama presidency has been a failure with regard
to foreign policy and a major reason was because Clinton was Secretary of State in the 1st four
years. In many ways a Clinton presidency is every bit as dangerous as a Trump presidency.
Certainly relations with Russia will be worse under Clinton than under Trump, and for the rest
of the world that is not a good thing. To those that believe liek Clinton that Putin is the new
Hitler, then start cleaning out the nuclear bunkers. If he is then WW3 is coming like it or not
and Britain better start spending more on defence.
What does the criticism in USA get you? It is just blah blah blah.
ONly criticism that matters is from the corporations and wealthy individuals
like Koch bros and Sheldon Edelson and their ilk. Rest can watch football.
Never mind that a general, high-intensity war in Northern Asia would be disastrous for all involved,
whatever the outcome.
Never mind that much of the discussion about containing China is by warmongers urging such
a conflict.
Never mind that very little depth in fact lies behind the shell of American and Japanese military
strength, or that a competently-run Chinese government is well able to grossly outproduce "us"
all in war materiel.
Never mind that those same warmongers and neocons drove and drive a succession of Imperial
disasters; they remain much-praised centres of attention, just as the banksters and rentiers that
are sucking the life from Americans have never had it so good.
Never mind that abbott encouraged violence as the automatic reaction to problems, while his
Misgovernment was (while Turnbull to a lesser extent still is) working hard to destroy the economic
and social strengths we need to have any chance of surmounting those problems.
Yes, it is a proper precaution to have a military strength that can deny our approaches to
China. Unfortunately that rather disregards that "we" have long pursued a policy of globalisation
involving the destruction of our both own manufacturing and our own merchant navy. Taken together
with non-existent fuel reserves, "our" military preparations are pointless, because we would have
to surrender within a fortnight were China to mount even a partial maritime blockade of Australia.
What I don't quite understand is how all this comes as any surprise to those in the know. China
has been on target to be the #1 economic power in the world in this decade for at least 30 years.
And who made it so? Western capitalists. China is now not only the world's industrial heartbeat,
it also owns a large proportion of Western debt - despite the fact that its differences with the
West (not least being a one-party Communist state) couldn't be more obvious - and while I doubt
it's in its interests to destabilise its benefactorrs at the moment, that may not always be the
case.
It also has another problem: In fifty or sixty years time it is due to be overtaken by India,
which gives it very little time to develop ASEAN in its own image; but I suspect that it's current
"silk glove" policy is far smarter and more cost-effective than any American "iron fist".
The US is just worried about losing out on markets and further exploitation. They should have
no authority over China's interest in the South China Sea. If China do rise to the point were
they can affect foreign governments, they will unlikely be as brutal as the United States. [Indonesia
1964, Congo 1960s, Brazil 1964, Chile 1973, Central America 1980s, Egyptian military aid, Saudi
support, Iraq 2003, the Structural Adjustments of the IMF]
Simon Tisdall and many Europeans as well as the US GOP party still thinks that US is an empire
similar to what the British had in the 18th century. This assumption is completely wrong especially
in the 21th century where Western Europe, Japan, Korea if they want can be spend their money and
also become global military power.
While many Europeans and others including our current GOP party
thinks we are the global empire and we should stick our nose everywhere, our people doesn't we
are an empire or we should stick our nose in every trouble spot in the world spending our blood
and treasure to fight others battles and get blame when everything goes wrong. President Obama
doesn't think of himself as Julius Ceaser and America is not Rome.
He will be remembered as one
of our greatest president ever setting a course for this country's foreign policy towards trying
to solve the world's problems through alliances and cooperation with like minded countries as
the opposite of the war mongering brainless, trigger happy GOP presidents. However when lesser
powers who preach xenophobia and destabilize their neighborhood through annexation as the Hitler
like Putin has, he comes down with a hammer using tools other than military to punish the aggressor.
All you need to do is watch what is happening to the Russian economy since he imposed sanctions
to the Mafiso Putin.
This article is completely misleading and the author is constricting himself in his statement
that Obama's pivot to Asia is a failure. Since China tried to annex the Islands near the Philippines,
countries like Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines, India, etc. has ask the US for more cooperation
both military and economically these countries were moving away from US under Bush and others
so I think this is a win for Obama not a loss. Unlike the idiotic Russians, China is a clever
country and is playing global chess in advancing her foreign policy goals. While the US cannot
do anything with China's annexation of these disputed Islands has costs her greatly because the
Asian countries effected by China's moves are running towards the US, this is a win for the US.
China's popularity around her neighborhood has taken a nose dive similar to Russian's popularity
around her neighborhood. These are long term strategic wins for the US, especially if Hillary
wins the white house and carry's on Obama's mantel of speaking softly but carry a big stick. Obama
will go down as our greatest foreign policy president by building alliances in Europe to try stop
Mafioso Putin and alliances in Asia to curtail China's foreign policy ambitions. This author's
thesis is pure bogus, because he doesn't indicate what Obama should have done to make him happy?
Threaten Chine military confertation?
All you have to do is go back 8 years ago and compare our last two presidents and you can see
where Obama is going.
For the allusion to Rome, I think they act like the old empire when they had to send their army
to keep the peace....and it is an empire of the 21 first century, not like the old ones (Assange).
China needs western consumerism to maintain its manufacturing base. If China's growth impacts
the ability of the West to maintain its standard of consumerism, then China will need a new source
of affluent purchaser. If China's own citizens become affluent, they will expect a standard of
living commensurate with that status, accordingly China will not be able to maintain its manufacturing
base.
So the options for China are:
a) Prop up western economies until developing nations in Africa and South America (themselves
heavily dependent on the West) reach a high standard of consumerism.
b) Divide China into a ruling class, and a worker class, in which the former is a parasite
on the latter.
The current tactic seems to be to follow option b, until option a becomes viable.
However, the longer option a takes to develop, and therefore the longer option b is in effect,
the greater the chances of counter-revolution (which at this stage is probably just revolution).
The long and the short of it, is that China is boned.
Being a large country surrounded by many other occasionally threatening powers, the governments'
priority is and always has been defending its territorial integrity. China is happy enough to
leave the command and conquer stuff, sorry "democratization" to the US.
It's got it's hands full
at home. As long as the West doesn't try to get involved in what China sees as its historical
territory (i.e. The big rooster shaped landmass plus Hainan and Hong Kong and various little islands)
there's absolutely nothing to worry about.
Why did Obama say that his greatest regret was Libya.? Because Obama's policy is/was to manage
the decline of US power. To manage the end of US hegemony. I doubt that Obama believes that any
pivot to any where can restore or maintain US dominance on planet earth. There is absolutely nothing
exceptional about a power not admitting publicly what is known to many,see the outpourings of
the British elites during the end of its empire.
As usual the Guardian is on its anti-China horse. Look through this article and every move China
has made is "aggressive" or when it tries to expand trade (and produce win win economic conditions)
it is "hegemonic" while the US is just trying to protect us all and is dealing with the "Chinese
threat" -- a threat to their economic interests and global imperial hegemony is what they mean.
The US still maintains a "one China" policy and the status quo is exactly that "one China"
It would be great for someone in the west to review the historical record instead of arming Taiwan
to the teeth. Additionally, before China ever started its island construction the US had already
begun the "pivot to Asia" which now is huge with nuclear submarines patrolling all around China,
nuclear weapons on the - two aircraft carrier fleets now threatening China - very rare for the
US to have two aircraft carrier fleets in the same waters - the B-1 long range nuclear bombers
now in Australia, and even more belligerent the US intends to deploy THAAD missals in South Korea
- using North Korea as an excuse to further seriously threaten China.
China wishes to expand trade and improve economic conditions for its people and for those with
whom it trades. That is not aggression except when it interferes with US global economic hegemony.
Just look around the world - where are the conflicts - the middle east and Africa - who is
there with military and arms sales and bombing seven countries -- is it China?
The most belligerent nation in the world the nation with its army in over 100 countries, the
nation bombing and conducting perpetual war throughout the middle east, the country invading countries
for "regime change" and creating only misery and death -- it is not China.
The US and its Neoliberal capitalist system must expand to grow - plus they clearly want total
global domination - the US and its Imperial agents have encircled both China and Russia with trillions
of dollars of the most destructive weapons in the world including nuclear weapons - do you thin
they have done that for "security" if so you simply ignore the aggression and hubris of an Imperial
US.
It was a cover up operation. No questions about that. Such instruction by a person under any investigation clearly mean tha attempt
of cover up...
Notable quotes:
"... There was a document dump on Friday, that we learned from the FBI that an IT contractor managing Hillary Clinton's private email server made reference to the "Hillary coverup operation" in a work ticket. He used those words after a senior Clinton aide asked him to automatically delete emails after 60 days. This IT worker certainly sounded like he was covering something up, no? ..."
"... The FBI dumped another 189 pages of documents pertaining to Clinton's use of an unsecured private server during her time as Secretary of State online Friday, with one note about a "coverup" raising eyebrows: ..."
"... After reviewing an email dated December 11, 2014 with the subject line 'RE: 2 items for IT support,' and a December 12, 2014 work ticket referencing email retention changes and archive/email cleanup, [redacted] stated his reference in the email to ' the Hilary [sic] coverup [sic] operation ' was probably due to the requested change to a 60 day email retention policy and the comment was a joke. ..."
"... "The fact an IT staffer maintaining Clinton's secret server called a new retention policy designed to delete emails after 60 days a 'Hillary coverup operation' suggests there was a concerted effort to systematically destroy potentially incriminating information. It's no wonder that at least five individuals tied to the email scandal, including Clinton's top State Department aide and attorney Cheryl Mills, secured immunity deals from the Obama Justice Department to avoid prosecution," said Trump spokesman Jason Miller in a statement on Friday. ..."
"... Comey told the House Oversight Committee on July 7 that the FBI "did not find evidence sufficient to establish that she knew she was sending classified information beyond a reasonable doubt to meet that - the intent standard" while claiming that prosecuting Clinton for gross negligence would perpetuate a "double standard." ..."
CNN anchor Jake Tapper confronted
Hillary Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook Sunday over an IT worker handling her private email server joking in a 2014 email about
a "Hillary coverup operation," with Mook dodging the question and blaming Republicans for "selectively leaking documents."
TAPPER:There was a document dump on Friday, that we learned from the FBI that an IT contractor managing Hillary
Clinton's private email server made reference to the "Hillary coverup operation" in a work ticket. He used those words after a
senior Clinton aide asked him to automatically delete emails after 60 days. This IT worker certainly sounded like he was covering
something up, no?
MOOK: Look, Jake, I'm - first of all I'm glad you asked that question. A lot of this stuff is swirling around in the
ether. It's important to pull back and look at the facts here. The FBI did a comprehensive and deep investigation into this. And
at the conclusion of that, FBI Director Comey came out and said to the world that there was no case here, that they have no evidence
of wrongdoing on Hillary's part.
TAPPER: So what's the "Hillary coverup operation" that the IT worker was referring to?
MOOK: Well, well, but this is - but this is - this is the perfect example of what's going on here. Republicans on the
House side are selectively leaking documents for the purpose of making Hillary look bad. We've asked the FBI to release all information
that they've shared with Republicans so they can get the full picture. But again, I would trust the career professionals at the
FBI and the Justice Department who looked into this matter, concluded that was no case, than I would Republicans who are selectively
leaking information.
The FBI dumped another 189 pages of documents pertaining to Clinton's use of an unsecured private server during her time as Secretary
of State online Friday,
with one
note about a "coverup" raising eyebrows:
After reviewing an email dated December 11, 2014 with the subject line 'RE: 2 items for IT support,' and a December 12,
2014 work ticket referencing email retention changes and archive/email cleanup, [redacted] stated his reference in the email to
' the Hilary [sic] coverup [sic] operation ' was probably due to the requested change to a 60 day email retention policy and the
comment was a joke.
The Trump campaign quickly leapt on the FBI's findings.
"The fact an IT staffer maintaining Clinton's secret server called a new retention policy designed to delete emails after
60 days a 'Hillary coverup operation' suggests there was a concerted effort to systematically destroy potentially incriminating information.
It's no wonder that at least five individuals tied to the email scandal, including Clinton's top State Department aide and attorney
Cheryl Mills, secured immunity deals from the Obama Justice Department to avoid prosecution," said Trump spokesman Jason Miller in
a statement on Friday.
Comey
told the House Oversight Committee on July 7 that the FBI "did not find evidence sufficient to establish that she knew she was
sending classified information beyond a reasonable doubt to meet that - the intent standard" while claiming that prosecuting Clinton
for gross negligence would perpetuate a "double standard."
"... Were I advising Trump I would have him cite the two criminal codes the FBI decided not to pursue..... by title and section. The rest of the questioning is inconsequential in relation to the huge favor the FBI gave Mrs. Clinton. ..."
"... Might be a wrong advice. This would be more directed at Obama, then Hillary. It was Obama who pardoned Hillary by exerting pressure on FBI. ..."
Were I advising Trump I would have him cite the two criminal codes the FBI decided not to pursue..... by title and section.
The rest of the questioning is inconsequential in relation to the huge favor the FBI gave Mrs. Clinton.
likbez -> ilsm... , -1
ilsm,
"...two criminal codes the FBI decided not to pursue....."
Might be a wrong advice. This would be more directed at Obama, then Hillary. It was Obama who pardoned Hillary by exerting
pressure on FBI.
"... Conventionally the US is being outplayed but it is possible that it is playing a different game in which it is complicit in the transition from nation state to corporate oligarchy. Isn't that the Neoliberal end game? ..."
"... The biggest mistake was to enact a policy shunning Russia, when Russia should be a key, partner of Europe and the US. ..."
"... And the USA invaded Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua with the contras, Iraq, Afghanistan, are currently bombing the crap out of another dozen nations, has militarily occupied another 100 nations with their bases and you are worried about Russia with Georgia and The Ukraine? What in Hades is wrong with this picture? ..."
"... "Barack Obama's 'Asian pivot' failed. China is in the ascendancy" says the heading. So Obama's "Asian pivot" was meant to thwart China's development. ..."
"... And the big problem with Trump's approach is that good ol' American corporations are the ones who are profiting wildly from business in China. They wanted access to the Chinese labor force, e.g. Walmart and every other manufacturer who now peddles goods made in China in US stores. They are the entities that cost western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits. ..."
"... They are wealthy beyond measure and anyone who wants to alter this system whereby American corporations manufacture in China and ship products around the world, inc. to the US, would have to fight them. And if anyone believes that Trump would succeed in this battle, they are delusional. ..."
"... "These two juggernauts are on a collision course" is far too alarmist. Relying mainly on right-wing US thinktanks for analysis doesn't help. ..."
"... Now we are waking up to the realisation that we are the big loosers of globalisation. ..."
"... "The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would be beneficial for all. " No, actually they thought it would be beneficial for the Western countries mostly. And it was, but whatever benefits developing countries received allowed them to rise to the level of a potential future threat to the unquestionable Western dominance. And now the US is looking for a way to destroy them preemptively. The US is paranoid. ..."
"... I think this "ascendancy" and nationalistic fervor is actually a sign of internal turmoil. ..."
"... The labor supply is assured because there are still multi millions in poverty and signing up as cheap labor is exactly what brings them out of poverty. I assume you've never been to China and therefore have never heard of Chunyun, the largest human migration in the world. This is partly the ruralites returning home from the cities with their years spoils. This year individual journeys totalled almost 3bn. ..."
"... By the way, China is reducing it's land army by a third over the next few years and has just concluded very constructive summits with all it's neighbours during last weeks ASEAN bunfight. ..."
"... a collapse of the chinese economy would collapse the American economy as well ..."
"... Fascinating & well structured article - except for one glaring omission - the LNP selling of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese Government business. Yeh, sure it's a '99 year lease' but for all effective purposes it's a sellout of a strategic port to the Chinese Government. ..."
"... America is in terminal decline, beset by economic and fiscal crises, sapped by imperial overstretch, a victim of a cosmopolitan ennui and fecklessness, divided politically and culturally, belligerent and militant to the extreme. An empire in decline is at its most dangerous. America today is a far greater threat to world peace than China. Simply witness America's accommodation of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, the odious Saudi theocracy, and how its insane policy in Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan has led to hundreds of thousands of lives lost and millions displaced ..."
"... The US has no significantly greater percentage of debt than any of the other Western nations except Germany. If you think the Americas bankrupt then you'd have to think a whole lot of other nations including the UK is as well. ..."
"... "China has divided and conquered certain countries in SE Asia." These certain SE Asian countries would say that it's because they are not willing to be Uncle Sam's "yes man". ..."
"... The US is still so very powerful but the problem is they feel powerless from time to time with their hammer in hand against flying mosquitos. Why they always wanted to solve problems using force is beyond stupidity. ..."
"... It also destabilises the entire region. Something the Americans are masters of. ..."
"... Were the US to form a cooperative instead of confrontational relationship with China the world would be a better place. The same could be said for the US relationship with Russia. ..."
"... Of course the military-industrial-banking-congressional complex that governs Washington's behavior would not be happy. WIthout confrontation the arms industries can't sell their weapons of war, banks' profits take a hit and congress critters don't get their kickbacks, err, "donations". ..."
"... Given the way the US government has screwed the Philippines over steadily since 1898, it's not surprising that Pres. Dutarte has decided to be friendly with his neighbor. Obama of the Kill List lecturing other countries about human rights abuses! What hypocrisy. ..."
"... Is what China doing in the south china sea different from what the USA does in the gulf of Mexico or in Panama... not to mention that Chi a is litterally surounded by US bases that sit squarely across all its sea trading routes: Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Fillipines ..."
"... China has been accumulating debt at unprecedented rates to try to maintain faltering growth. In 2007 Chinese debt stood at $7 trillion. By 2014 it had quadrupled to $28 trillion. That's $60 billion of extra debt every week. It's still rising rapidly as the government desperately tries to keep momentum. ..."
"... TPP is practically written by the lobbyists from the multi-international corporations that exploit every possible tax laws, labor laws, environmental and public health regulations, legal representations and consequences. It is imperialism 2.0 in the 21st century, exclusively serving the interests of top point one percent while greatly depressing the wages of middle class; it is overwhelmingly opposed by the public opinion, law makers of all sides and current president candidates. There is zero chance Obama could make it through legislation before his exit; Clinton will not even consider bringing it back if she wins the election because she already flip-flopped once on the issue during her campaign; and it would seriously damage her chance of re-election if she does. As for Trump, I leave it to anyone's imaginations. ..."
"... Globalisation is another word for one world government and all that brings, one currency, one police force, taxation, dissolution of borders, an end to sovereignty and all of our hard won freedoms. Freedom is a thing of the past, with MSM owned by the globalist elites, enforcing a moratorium on truth, and a population that has no idea what is going on behind the scenes. ..."
"... Another brilliant thought from Rand; when in doubt, shoot from the hip .... ..."
"... They tell their employers what they want to hear. ..."
"... Do Americans not realize that Chinese and Russians read this too and plan accordingly? This is madness. I am fairly certain preemptive strikes are against international law. Why nobody has the guts to call the US out on this kind of illegal warmongering? ..."
"... The dilemma is clear: amid rising nationalism in both countries, China is not willing to have its ambitions curbed or contained and the US is not ready to accept the world number two spot. These two juggernauts are on a collision course. ..."
"... What does the criticism in USA get you? It is just blah blah blah. ONly criticism that matters is from the corporations and wealthy individuals like Koch bros and Sheldon Edelson and their ilk. Rest can watch football. ..."
"... Simon Tisdall and many Europeans as well as the US GOP party still thinks that US is an empire similar to what the British had in the 18th century. This assumption is completely wrong especially in the 21th century where Western Europe, Japan, Korea if they want can be spend their money and also become global military power. ..."
"... Being a large country surrounded by many other occasionally threatening powers, the governments' priority is and always has been defending its territorial integrity. China is happy enough to leave the command and conquer stuff, sorry "democratization" to the US. ..."
"... Why did Obama say that his greatest regret was Libya.? Because Obama's policy is/was to manage the decline of US power. To manage the end of US hegemony. I doubt that Obama believes that any pivot to any where can restore or maintain US dominance on planet earth. ..."
"... China wishes to expand trade and improve economic conditions for its people and for those with whom it trades. That is not aggression except when it interferes with US global economic hegemony. ..."
"... The most belligerent nation in the world the nation with its army in over 100 countries, the nation bombing and conducting perpetual war throughout the middle east, the country invading countries for "regime change" and creating only misery and death -- it is not China. ..."
"... The US and its Neoliberal capitalist system must expand to grow - plus they clearly want total global domination - the US and its Imperial agents have encircled both China and Russia with trillions of dollars of the most destructive weapons in the world including nuclear weapons - do you thin they have done that for "security" if so you simply ignore the aggression and hubris of an Imperial US. ..."
Before the pivot could even get underway the Saudis threw their rattle out of the pram and drew
US focus back to the Middle East and proxy war two steps removed with Russia. Empires don't get
to focus, they react to each event and seek to gain from the outcome so the whole pivot idea was
flawed.
Obama's foreign policy has been clumsy and amoral. It remains to be seen whether it will become
more so in an effort to double down. Under Clinton it definitely will, under Trump who knows but
random isn't a recommendation.
Conventionally the US is being outplayed but it is possible that it is playing a different
game in which it is complicit in the transition from nation state to corporate oligarchy. Isn't
that the Neoliberal end game?
So the Rand Think Tank would sooner have war now than later. Who wouldda guessed that.
The Chinese want to improve trade and business with the rest of the world. The US answer? destroy
China militarily. so who best to lead the world. I think the article answers that question unintentionally.
The rest of the world has had it up to the ears with American military invasions, regeime changes,
occupations and bombing of the world. They are ready for China´s approach to international relations.
it is about time the adults took over the leadership of the world. Europe and the USA and their
offspring have clearly failed.
China has been handed everything it needs to fly solo: money, factories, IP, etc. Fast forwarding
into the western civic model limits (traffic, pollution, etc.), its best bet is to offload US
"interests" and steer clear.
No clear sign India's learned/recovered from British occupation, as they let tech create more
future Kanpurs.
The biggest mistake was to enact a policy shunning Russia, when Russia should be a key, partner
of Europe and the US.
Was it really worth expanding NATO to Russia's borders instead of offering neutrality to former
Soviet States and thus retain Russia's confidence in global matters that far out weigh the interests
of the neo-cons?
neutrality? Russia invaded non-NATO members Georgie, Ukraine, and Moldavia, and created puppet-states
on their soil.
The Jremlin-rules are simple: the former Sovjet states should be ruled by a pro-Russian dictator
(Bella-Russia, Kazachstan, etc. etc...). Democracies face boycots, diplomatic and military support
of rebels, and in the end simply a military invasion.
The only reason why the baltic states are now thriving democracies, is that they are NATO members.
And the USA invaded Vietnam, Panama, Nicaragua with the contras, Iraq, Afghanistan, are currently
bombing the crap out of another dozen nations, has militarily occupied another 100 nations with
their bases and you are worried about Russia with Georgia and The Ukraine? What in Hades is wrong
with this picture?
When Obama took office his first major speech was in Cairo - where he said
"I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around
the world," US President Barack Obama said to the sounds of loud applause which rocked not
only the hall, but the world. "One based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based
upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead,
they overlap, and share common principles-principles of justice and progress; tolerance and
the dignity of all human beings."
He displayed a dangerous mix of innocence, foolishness, disregard for the truth and misunderstanding
of the nature of Islamic regimes - does the West have common values with Lebanon which practices
apartheid for Palestinians, Saudi, where women cannot drive a car, Syria, where over 17,000 have
died in Assad's torture chambers, we can go on and on.
And on China - Trump has it right - China has been manipulating its currency exchange rate
for years, costing western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits and something
needs to be done about it.
" America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap,
and share common principles-principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of
all human beings. "
He spoke about the whole of Islam, not specific " Islamic regimes ". And he is correct
on it. All religions share a great deal of values with the USAmerican constition and even each
other .
The overwhelming majority of USAmerican muslims have accepted the melting pot with their whole
heart, second generation children have JOINED its fighting forces to protect the interest of the
USA all over the world. Normally this full an integration is reached with the third generation.
The west has won against those religious fanatics. How else to explain that exactly the people
those claim to speak turn up with us?
And the big problem with Trump's approach is that good ol' American corporations are the ones
who are profiting wildly from business in China. They wanted access to the Chinese labor force,
e.g. Walmart and every other manufacturer who now peddles goods made in China in US stores. They
are the entities that cost western workers millions of jobs, creating massive trade deficits.
They are wealthy beyond measure and anyone who wants to alter this system whereby American
corporations manufacture in China and ship products around the world, inc. to the US, would have
to fight them. And if anyone believes that Trump would succeed in this battle, they are delusional.
"These two juggernauts are on a collision course" is far too alarmist. Relying mainly on right-wing
US thinktanks for analysis doesn't help.
Interesting in particular to see RAND is still in its Cold War mindset. There's famous footage
of RAND analysts in the 60s (I think) discussing putative nuclear war with the USSR and concluding
that the US was certain of 'victory' following a missile exchange because its surviving population
(after hundreds of millions of deaths and the destruction of almost all urban centres) would be
somewhat larger.
China's island claims are all about a broader strategic aim- getting unencumbered access to
the Pacific for its growing blue water navy. It's not aimed at Taiwan or Japan in any sort of
specific sense and, save for the small possibility of escalation following an accident (ships
colliding or something), there's very little risk of conflict in at least the medium term.
It's crucial to remember just how much China and the US depend upon each other economically.
The US is by far China's largest single export market, powering its manufacturing economy. In
return, China uses the surplus to buy up US debt, which allows the Americans to borrow cheaply
and keep the lights on. Crash China and you crash the US- and vice versa.
For now, China is basically accepting an upgraded number 2 spot (along with the US acknowledging
them as part of a 'G2'), but supporting alternative governance structures when it doesn't like
the ones controlled by the US/Japan (so the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the BRICS etc.).
This doesn't mean that the two don't see each other as long term strategic and economic rivals.
But the risks to both of rocking the boat are gigantic and not in the interest of either party
in the foreseeable future. Things that could change that:
a. a succession of Trump-like US presidents (checks and balances are probably sufficient to
withstand one, were it to come to that);
b. a revolution in China (possible if the economy goes South- and what comes next is probably
not liberal democracy but anti-Japanese or anti-US authoritarian nationalism);
c. an unpredictable chain of events arising from N Korean collapse or a regional nuclear race
(Japan-China is a more likely source of conflict than US-China).
"The west has been long living under the illusion that the so called globalised world would
be beneficial for all. " No, actually they thought it would be beneficial for the Western countries
mostly. And it was, but whatever benefits developing countries received allowed them to rise to
the level of a potential future threat to the unquestionable Western dominance. And now the US
is looking for a way to destroy them preemptively. The US is paranoid.
The writing is on the wall: the future is with China. All the US can do is make nice or reap the
dire consequences. If China can clean up its human rights record, I would be happy to see them
supplant or rival the US as a global hegemon. After all, looked at historically, haven't they
earned it? - An American, born and bred, but no nationalist
Well, that is naïve. Look at China and how the Chinese people are governed. Look at the US. And
please don't tell me you don't see a difference. I'll take a world with the US as the global hegemon
any day.
A regional counter balance is needed. Cooperation is hindered by Japan. They should be the center
point of a regional alliance strong enough to contain China with US help, but it doesn't work:
whilst everybody fears China, everybody hates Japan.
The reason is they failed miserably to rebuild trust after WWII, rather than going cap in hand,
acknowledging respondibility for atrocities and other crimes and injustice, and compensate victims,
they kept their pride and isolation. They are now paying the price - possibly together with the
rest of us.
Maybe a full scale change after 7 decades of to-little-to-late diplomacy can still achieve
sth.
The ass the US should kick sits in Tokyo - something they failed to do properly after WWII,
when they managed it well in West Germany (ok - they had help from the Brits there, who for all
their failings understand foreign nations far better), where it facilitated proper integration
into European cooperation.
I think this "ascendancy" and nationalistic fervor is actually a sign of internal turmoil.
Countries that do well don't need to crack down on dissidents to the point of kidnappings
or spend millions of stupid man made islands that pisses everyone off but have all the military
value of a threatening facial tattoo. The South China Sea tactics is partially Chinese "push until
something pushes back" diplomacy but also stems from the harsh realisation that their resources
can be easily choked of and even the CPC knows it can't hold down a billion plus Chinese people
once the hunger sets it.
China is facing the dilemna that as it brings people out of poverty it reduces the supply of
the very cheap labor that makes it rich. You can talk about Lenovo all you want, no one is buying
a Chinese car anytime soon. Nor is any airline outside of China going to buy one of their planes.
Copyright fraud is one thing the West can retaliate easily upon and will if they feel China has
gone too far. Any product found in a western court to be a blatant copy can effectively be banned.
The next step is to refuse to recognize Chinese copyright on the few genuine innovations that
come out of it.
Plus the deal Deng Xiaoping made with the urban classes is fraying. It was wealth in exchange
for subservience. The people in the cities stay out of direct politics but quality of life issues,
safety, petty corruption and pollution are angering them and scaring them hence the vast amount
of private Chinese money being sunk into global real estate.
The military growth and dubious technobabble is just typical Chinese mianzi gaining. If you
do have a brand new jet stealth jet fighter, you don't release pictures of it to the world press.
They got really rattled when Shinzo Abe decided the JSDF can go and deliver slappings abroad to
help their friends if needed. Because an army that spends a lot of time rigging up Michael Bayesque
set maneuvers for the telly is not what you want to pit against top notch technology handled by
obsessive perfectionists.
No one plays hardball with China because we all like cheap shit. But once that is over then
China is a very vulnerable country with not one neighbour they can call a friend. They know it.
Obama hasn't failed.. It's the histrionics that prove it not the other way round.
The labor supply is assured because there are still multi millions in poverty and signing
up as cheap labor is exactly what brings them out of poverty. I assume you've never been to China
and therefore have never heard of Chunyun, the largest human migration in the world. This is partly
the ruralites returning home from the cities with their years spoils. This year individual journeys
totalled almost 3bn.
No-one is buying a Chinese car? Check the sales for Wuling. They produce the small vans that
are the lifeblood of the small entrepreneur. BYD are already exporting electric buses to London.
The likes of VW, BMW, Land Rover, are all in partnership with Chinese auto-makers and China is
the largest car market in the world.
Corruption has been actively attacked and over a quarter of a million officials have been brought
to book in Xi's time in office. The pollution causing steel and coal industries are being rapidly
contracted and billions spent on re-training.
Plus the fact that while the Chinese are mianzi gazing, the last thing they think about is
politics. They simply don't want to know.
By the way, China is reducing it's land army by a third over the next few years and has
just concluded very constructive summits with all it's neighbours during last weeks ASEAN bunfight.
The conclusion is that bi-lateral talks, not US led pissing contests are the way forward.
"What has happened is the ICA has ruled against China in the SCS..." Nothing new. The UN Commission on the Limits of Continental Shelf had also ruled against the
UK and the International Court of Justice had ruled against the US.
Fascinating & well structured article - except for one glaring omission - the LNP selling
of the Port of Darwin to a Chinese Government business. Yeh, sure it's a '99 year lease' but for
all effective purposes it's a sellout of a strategic port to the Chinese Government.
Just look at how gobsmacked the US Military & President were over such a stupidly undertaken
sale by the LNP. This diplomatically lunatic sell off by the LNP of such a vital national asset
has effectively taken-out any influence or impact Australia may have, or exert, over critical
issues happening on our northern doorstep.
If there was ever a case for buying back a strategic national asset, this is definitely the
one. Oh, if folks are worried about the $Billions in penalties incurred, simple solution - just
stop the $Billions of Diesel Fuel Rebates gifted to Miners for, say, 10 years..... Done!
America is in terminal decline, beset by economic and fiscal crises, sapped by imperial overstretch,
a victim of a cosmopolitan ennui and fecklessness, divided politically and culturally, belligerent
and militant to the extreme. An empire in decline is at its most dangerous. America today is a
far greater threat to world peace than China. Simply witness America's accommodation of the Israeli
occupation of Palestine, the odious Saudi theocracy, and how its insane policy in Libya, Syria,
Iraq, and Afghanistan has led to hundreds of thousands of lives lost and millions displaced.
Europe
is under siege by endless tides of refugees that are the direct consequence of America's neo-Conservative
and militant foreign policy. Meanwhile, America's neo-liberal economic and trade policies have
not only decimated her own manufacturing base and led to gross inequality but also massive dislocations
in South America, Middle East, Europe, Africa, and Southeast Asia. Tired, irritated, frustrated,
exhausted, cynical, violent, moral-less, deeply corrupt, and rudderless, America is effectively
bankrupt and on the verge of becoming another Greece, if not for the saving grace of the petro-Dollar.
Europe would be well-advised to keep the Yanks at arm's length so as to escape as much as possible
the fallout from her complete collapse. As for Britain, soon to be divorced from the EU, time
draws nigh to end the humiliating, one-sided servitude that is the 'Special Relationship' and
forge an independent foreign policy. The tectonic plates of history is again shifting, and there
nothing America can do to stop it.
I don't know America probably occupies the most prime geographical spot on the planet, and buffered
by two oceans. It doesn't have to worry about refugees and the other problems and ultimately they
can produce enough food and meet all of its energy needs domestically. And it's the third most
populous nation on earth and could easily grow its population with immigration.
The US has no significantly greater percentage of debt than any of the other Western nations
except Germany. If you think the Americas bankrupt then you'd have to think a whole lot of other
nations including the UK is as well.
Given the facts it would be daft a write off America. Every European nation have lost their
number one spot in history and they seem to be doing just fine. Is there some reason why this
can't be America's destiny as well? Does it really have to end in flames?
"China has divided and conquered certain countries in SE Asia."
These certain SE Asian countries would say that it's because they are not willing to be Uncle
Sam's "yes man".
The US is still so very powerful but the problem is they feel powerless from time to time with
their hammer in hand against flying mosquitos. Why they always wanted to solve problems using
force is beyond stupidity.
Pivot to Asia is about one thing only, sending more war ships to encircle China. But for what
purpose exactly? It does one thing though, it united china by posing as a threat.
Those blaming Obama most stridently for not keeping China in its box are those most responsible
for China's rise. American and Western companies shafted their own people to make themselves more
profit. They didn't care what the consequences might be, as long as the lmighty "Shareholder Value"
continued to rise. Now they demand that the taxes from all those people whose jobs they let go
be used to contain the new superpower that they created. As usual, Coroporate America messes
things up then demands to know what someone else is going to do about it
Were the US to form a cooperative instead of confrontational relationship with China the world
would be a better place. The same could be said for the US relationship with Russia.
Of course the military-industrial-banking-congressional complex that governs Washington's behavior
would not be happy. WIthout confrontation the arms industries can't sell their weapons of war,
banks' profits take a hit and congress critters don't get their kickbacks, err, "donations".
Given the way the US government has screwed the Philippines over steadily since 1898, it's not
surprising that Pres. Dutarte has decided to be friendly with his neighbor. Obama of the Kill List lecturing other countries about human rights abuses! What hypocrisy.
fuck his pivot.....this ain't syria.....having destroyed the middle east it was our turn.....this
is americas exceptionalism........stay #1 by desabilising/destroying everyone else.....p.s. shove
the TPP also..........
The real question is why should not China be more dominant in Asia... i understands the USA tendency
especially since the fall of the soviet union at seing themselves as the only world superpower.
And i understand why China would like to balance tbat especially in her own neighborhood.
Is what China doing in the south china sea different from what the USA does in the gulf of Mexico
or in Panama... not to mention that Chi a is litterally surounded by US bases that sit squarely
across all its sea trading routes: Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Fillipines,... and considering that the
chinese have a long memory of werstern gunboat diplomacy and naval for e projection, if i was
them i would feel a little uncomfortable at how vulnerable my newfound trade is... especially
when some western politician so clearly think that china needs to be contained...
China has been accumulating debt at unprecedented rates to try to maintain faltering growth.
In 2007 Chinese debt stood at $7 trillion. By 2014 it had quadrupled to $28 trillion. That's
$60 billion of extra debt every week. It's still rising rapidly as the government desperately tries to keep momentum.
Much of this money has been funnelled into 'investments' that will never yield a return. The most almighty crash is coming. Which will be interesting to say the least.
Now that is interesting but odd. They are buying phuqing HUGE swathes of land in Africa, investing
everywhere they can on rest of the planet. All seemingly on domestic debt then.
Yes. The Japanese went on a spending spree abroad in the 1980s, while accumulating debt at home,
and when that popped the economy entered 20 years of stagnation, as bad debts hampered the financial
system.
The Chinese bubble is far larger, and made worse by the fact that much of the debt has been
taken on by inefficient state owned enterprises and local government, spending not because the
figures make sense but to meet centrally-dictated growth targets. Much of the rest has been funnelled
into real estate, which now makes up more than twice the share of the Chinese economy than is
the case in the UK. Property prices in some major Chinese cities have reached up to 30 times local
incomes, making London look cheap in comparison.
TPP is practically written by the lobbyists from the multi-international corporations that exploit
every possible tax laws, labor laws, environmental and public health regulations, legal representations
and consequences. It is imperialism 2.0 in the 21st century, exclusively serving the interests
of top point one percent while greatly depressing the wages of middle class; it is overwhelmingly
opposed by the public opinion, law makers of all sides and current president candidates. There
is zero chance Obama could make it through legislation before his exit; Clinton will not even
consider bringing it back if she wins the election because she already flip-flopped once on the
issue during her campaign; and it would seriously damage her chance of re-election if she does.
As for Trump, I leave it to anyone's imaginations.
Don't believe for a second Hillary won't ram through a version of the TPP/IP if she wins. What
she's actually said is that she's against it in its current form
Remember she is part of an owned by the 0.1% that stand to benefit from the agreement, she
will do their bidding and be well rewarded. A few cosmetic changes will be applied to the agreement
so she can claim that she wasn't lying pre-election and we'll have to live with the consequences.
Well done all you globalists for failing to spot the bleedin obvious...that millions of homes
worldwide full of 'Made In China' was ultimately going to pay for the People's Liberation
Army. Still think globalisation is wonderful ?
Quite. How can you believe in a liberal, global free market and then do business with the Socialist
Republic of China, that is the antithesis of free markets. The name is above the door, so there's
no use acting all surprised when it doesn't pan out the way you planned it.
Anything good can be made evil, including globalization. Imagine fair trade completely globalized
so very nation relies on every other nation for goods. That type of shared destiny is the only
way to maintain peace because humans are tribalist to a fault. We evolved in small groups, our
social dynamics are not well suited to large diverse groups. If nation has food but nation B does
not, nation B will go to war with nation A, so hopefully both nations trade and alleviate that
situation. Nations with high economic isolation are beset by famines and poverty. Germany usually
beats China in total exports and Germany is a wonderful place to live. It's not globalization
that is the problem, it's exploitation and failure of our leaders to follow and enforce the Golden
Rule.
Roll out the barrel.....
Well said and you are so right.
15 years ago, I had a conversation in an airport with an American. I remarked that, by outsourcing
manufacturing to China the US had sold its future to an entity that would prove to be their enemy
before too long. I was derided and ridiculed. I wonder where that man is and whether he remembers
our conversation.
Globalisation is another word for one world government and all that brings, one currency, one
police force, taxation, dissolution of borders, an end to sovereignty and all of our hard won
freedoms. Freedom is a thing of the past, with MSM owned by the globalist elites, enforcing a
moratorium on truth, and a population that has no idea what is going on behind the scenes.
I despair of "normalcy bias" and the insulting term "conspiracy theorist". People have lost
the ability to work things out for themselves and the majority knows nothing about Agenda 21 aka
Sustainable Development Goals 2030, until the land grabs start and private ownership is outlawed.
... the study also suggests that, if war cannot be avoided, the US might be best advised to
strike first, before China gets any stronger and the current US military advantage declines further
..
Another brilliant thought from Rand; when in doubt, shoot from the hip ....
Do Americans not realize that Chinese and Russians read this too and plan accordingly? This is
madness.
I am fairly certain preemptive strikes are against international law. Why nobody has the guts
to call the US out on this kind of illegal warmongering?
1. With respect, Mr Tidsall is badly off track in painting China as the one evil facing an innocent
world.
2. The fact is that US' belief in and repeated resort to force has created a huge mess in the
Middle East, brought true misery to millions, and truly thrown Europe in turmoil in the bargain.
3. Besides this Middle East mess, the US neoliberal economic policies have wreaked havoc, culminating
in an unprecedented financial and economic crisis that has left millions all over the world without
any hope for the future
4. Hence Mr Tidsall's pronouncement:
This dilemma – how to work constructively with a powerful, assertive China without compromising
or surrendering national interests – grows steadily more acute.
Ought to read:
This dilemma – how to work constructively with a powerful, assertive United States
without compromising or surrendering national interests – grows steadily more acute.
5. US would be better advised to focus on its growing social problems, evident in the growing
random killings, police picking on blacks, etc, and on its fast decaying infrastructure. We now
read that China has the fastest computer, the largest telescope, etc, whilst US just kills and
kills all over the world.
6. Mr Tidsall, may I request that you kindly focus on realities rather than come up with opinion
that approaches science fiction
I agree that Mr Tisdall's treatment of the US is somewhat naive and ignorant. However couldn't
it be that both countries are capable of aggression and assertiveness? The US's malign influence
is mainly focussed on the Middle East and North Africa region, while China's is on its neighbours.
China's attitude to Taiwan is pure imperialism, as is its treatment of dissenting voices on the
mainland and in Hong Kong. China's contempt for international law and the binding ruling by the
UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal is also deeply harmful to peace and justice in the region and worldwide.
We now read that China has the fastest computer, the largest telescope, etc, whilst US just
kills and kills all over the world.
Very superficial indeed - compare, just as one example, the number of Nobel prizes won by American
scientists recently with those by Chinese. The US is still, in general, far ahead of China in
terms of scientific research (though China is making rapid progress). (That is not intended to
excuse US killing of course.)
The US follows the USSR path of increasingly ignoring the needs of its own population in order
to retain global dominance. It will end the same as the USSR. That which cannot continue will
not continue.
Xi is not looking for a fight. His first-choice agent of change is money, not munitions.
According to Xi's "One Belt, One Road" plan, his preferred path to 21st-century Chinese hegemony
is through expanded trade, business and economic partnerships extending from Asia to the Middle
East and Africa. China's massive Silk Road investments in central and west Asian oil and gas
pipelines, high-speed rail and ports, backed by new institutions such as the Asia Infrastructure
Investment Bank, are part of this strategy, which simultaneously encourages political and economic
dependencies. Deng Xiaoping once said to get rich is glorious. Xi might add it is also empowering.
The most realistic assessment on Xi and China.
The dilemma is clear: amid rising nationalism in both countries, China is not willing to
have its ambitions curbed or contained and the US is not ready to accept the world number two
spot. These two juggernauts are on a collision course.
A Grim and over-paranoid predicament: US is not in decline and need not worry about China's "ambition";
China is well aware it remains a poor nation compared to developed world and is decades behind
of US in military, GDP per capital and science, that is not including civil liberty, citizen participation,
Gov't transparency and so on. China is busy building a nation confident of its culture and history,
military hegemony plays no part of its dream.
US is not in decline and need not worry about China's "ambition"
Oh come on, $20 Trillion in debt and with Social Security running out of money, there will
be no more to lend the government.
China has forged an agreement with Russia for all its needs in oil ( Russia has more oil than
Saudi Arabia) and payment will not be in US dollars. Russia will not take US$ for trade and the
BRICS nations will squeeze the US$ out of its current situation as reserve currency. When the
dollars all find their way back to the USA hyperinflation will cause misery.
Before the Chinese or anyone else gets any ideas, they should reflect on the size of the US defence
budget, 600 billion dollars in 2015, and consider what that might imply in the event of conflict.
a third of that budget goes in profit for the private companies they employ to make duds like
the F35 - so you can immediately reduce that to 400 billion. The US have been fighting third world
countries for 50 years, and losing, their military is bloated, out of date and full of retrograde
gear that simply wont cut it against the Russians. Privately you would find that most top line
military agree with that statement. They also have around 800 bases scattered world wide, spread
way too thin. Its why theyve stalled in Ukraine and can't handle the middle east. The Russians
spend less than $50 billion but have small, highly mobile forces, cutting edge missile defence
systems (which will have full airspace coverage by 2017). The Chinese policy of A2D/AD or access
denial has got the US surface fleet marooned out in the oceans as any attempt to get close enough
to be effective would be met with a hail of multiple rocket shedding war heads. The only place
where it is probable (but my no means certain) that the US still has the edge is in submarine
warfare, although again if the Russians and Chinese have full coverage of their airspace nothing
(or little) would get through.
Two theorys are in current operation about the election and the waring factions in the NSA and
the CIA 1) HRC wins but is too much of a warmonger and would push america into more wars they
simply cannot win 2) there is a preference for Trump to win amongst the MIC because he would (temporarily)
seek 'peace' with the Russians thus giving the military the chance to catch up - say in 3 or 4
years - plus all the billions and billions of dollars that would mean for them.
Overwhelming fire power no longer wins wars, the US have proved that year in year out since
the end of the second world war, theyve lost every war theyve started/caused/joined in. Unless
you count that limited skirmish on British soil in Grenada - and I guess we could call Korea a
score draw. The yanks are bust and they know it, the neocons are all bluster and idiots like Breedlove,
Power and Nuland are impotent because they don't have right on their side or the might to back
it up. The US is mired in the middle east, locked out of asia and would grind to halt in Europe
against the Russians. (every NATO wargame simulation in the last 4 years has conclusively shown
this) Add to that the fact that the overwhelming majority of US citizens dont have the appetite
for a conventional war and in the event of a nuclear war the US would suffer at least as much
as Europe and youve got a better picture of where we are at.
Well it is just ABOUT money.Also during Vietnam and Iraq war US was biggest spender.
Nobody in US still thinks that Vietnam war was a good idea and the same applies to Iraq.Iraq war
will be even in history books for biggest amount spend to achieve NOTHING.
Chinese military spending is at least on a par with American. A huge part of American military
money goes to personnel salary while China does NOT pay to Chinese soldiers for their service
as China holds a compulsory military service system.
This article assumes China is evil and the US is the righteous protector of all nations in the
SE Asian region against the evil China which is obviously out to destroy the hapless SE Asian
nations. This assumption is obviously nonsense. The US itself is rife with racial problems. Everybody
has seen what it had done to Vietnam. Nobody believes that a racist US that cares nothing for
the welfare of its own black, Latino and Asian population will actually care for the welfare of
the same peoples outside of the US and especially in SE Asia.
The truth is China is not the evil destroyer of nations. The truth is the US is the evil destroyer
of nations. The US has brought nothing but bloodshed and destruction to the SE Asian regions for
the last 200 years. The US had killed millions of Filipinos during it colonial era. The US had
killed millions of Vietnamese during the Vietnam War. The US had incited pogroms against the ethnic
Chinese unceasingly. The May 13 massacre in Malaysia, the anti-Chinese massacres in the 1960's
and the 1990's in Indonesia, and many other discrimination and marginalization of ethnic Chinese
throughout the entire SE Asia are all the works of the US. It is the US that is the killer and
destroyer.
Therefore, it is a good thing that the evil intents of the US had failed. With the all but
inevitable rise of China, the influence of the Japanese and the americans will inevitably wane.
The only danger to China is the excessive xenocentrism of the Dengist faction who is selling out
China to these dangerous enemies. If the CPC government sold out China's domestic economy, then
China will become a colony of the Japanese and americans without firing a single shot. And the
Chinese economy will slide into depression as it had done in the Qing Dynasty and Chinese influence
in the SE Asian region will collapse.
Therefore, the task before the CPC government is to ban all foreign businesses out of China's
domestic economy, upgrade and expand China's education and R&D, urbanize the rural residents and
expand the Chinese military, etc. With such an independent economic, political and military policies,
China will at once make itself the richest and the most powerful nation in the world dwarfing
the Japanese and American economies and militaries. China can then bring economic prosperity and
stability to the SE Asian region by squeezing the evil Japanese and americans out of the region.
Lets be honest what has Obama achieved,he got the Nobel peace prize for simply not being George
Bush Jr he has diplayed a woeful lack of leadership with Russia over Syria Libya and the Chinese
Simply being the first African American president will not be a legacy
Do you know of one Leninist state that ever built a prosperous modern industrial nation? Therein
lies the advantage and the problem with China. China is totally export dependant and therefore
its customers can adversely affect its economy - put enough chinese out of work and surely political
instability will follow. A threatened dictatorship with a large army, however, is a danger to
its neighbors and the world.
China are now net consumers. You need to read up on whats happening, not from just the western
press. They are well on their way to becoming the most powerful nation on earth, they have access
(much like Russia) to over two thirds of the population of the worlds consumers and growing (this
is partially why sanctions against Russia have been in large part meaningless) China will never
want for buyers of their products (the iphone couldnt be made without the Chinese) with the vast
swaithes of unplumbed Russian resources becoming available to them its hard to see how the west
can combat the Eurasians. The wealth is passing from west to east, its a natural cycle the 'permanant
growth' monkies in the west have been blind to by their own greed and egotism. Above all the Chinese
are a trading nation, always seeking win/win trading links. The west would be better employed
trading and linking culturally with the Chinese rather than trying to dictate with military threats.
The west comprises only 18% of the global population and our growth and wealth is either exhausted
or locked away in vaults where it is doing no one any good. Tinme to wise up or get left behind.
Tisdall...absolute war-monger and neo-con "dog of war". Is this serious journalism? The rise of
China was as inevitable as the rise of the US in the last century..."no man can put a stop to
the march of a nation". It's Asias century and it's not the first time for China to be the No
1 economy in the world. They have been here before and have much more wisdom than the west...for
too long the tail has wagged the dog...suck it up Tisdall!
The US grand strategy post-Bush was to reposition itself at the heart of a liberal economic system
excluding China through TTIP with the EU and TPP with Asia-Pac ex. China and Russia. The idea
was that this would enable the US to sustain its hegemony.
It has been an absolute failure. Brexit has torpedoed TTIP and TPP has limited value- the largest
economy in the partnership, Japan, has been largely integrated in to the US for the past 70 years.
IMO the biggest failure of the US has been hating Russia too much. The Russians have just as
much reason to be afraid of China as the US do and have a pretty capable army. If the US patched
things up with the Russians, firstly it could redeploy forces and military effort away from the
Middle East towards Asia Pac and secondly it would give the US effective leverage over China-
with the majority of the oil producing nations aligned with the US, China would have difficulty
in conducted a sustained conflict. It's old Cold War thinking that has seen America lose its hegemony-
similar to how the British were so focused on stopping German ascendancy they didn't see the Americans
coming with the knife.
America is reaping the fruits of what they sowed during the time of Reagan. It was never a good
idea to outsource your entire manufacturing industry to a country that is a dictatorship and does
not embrace western liberal democratic values. Now the Americans are hopelessly dependent on China
- a country that does not play by the rules in any sphere - it censors free speech, it blatantly
violates intellectual property, it displays hostile intent towards nearly all South East Asian
countries, its friends include state sponsors of terror like Pakistan and North Korea, it is carefully
cultivating the enemies of America and the west in general.
In no way, shape or form does China fulfill the criteria for being a trustworthy partner of
the west. And yet today, China holds all the cards in its relationship with the west, with the
western consumerist economies completely dependent on China. Moral of the story - Trade and economics
cannot be conducted in isolation, separate from geopolitical realities. Doing so is a recipe for
disaster.
Mr Tisdall should declare his affiliation, if any, with the military-industrial complex.
It is surprising coming from a Briton which tried to contain Germany and fought two
wars destroying itself and the empire. War may be profitable for military-industrial complex
but disastrous for everyone else. In world war 2, USA benefited enormously by ramping
up war material production and creating millions of job which led to tremendous
prosperity turning the country around from a basket case in 1930s to a big prosperous power
which dominated the world till 2003.
US insistence on being top cat in a changing world will end up by dragging us all into a WW III.
Why can't the US leave the rest of the world alone? Americans do not need a military presence
to do business with the rest of the world and earn a lot of money with such trade. And they are
too ignorant, too unsophisticate and too weak to be able to impose their will on the rest of us.
The (very) ugly Americans are back and all we want is for them to go back home and forever remain
there... The sooner the better...
The world is going to look fantastically different in a hundred years time.
Points of world power will go back to where they was traditionally; Europe and Asia. America
is a falling power, it doesn't get the skilled European immigrants it use to after German revolution
and 2 world wars. And it's projected white population will be a minority by 2050. America's future
lies with south America.
Australia with such a massive country but with a tiny population of 20million will look very
attractive to China. It's future lies with a much stronger commonwealth, maybe a united military
and economic commonwealth between the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Even without the EU, Europe is going to have to work together, including Russia to beat the
Chinese militarily and economically. America will not be the same power in another 30-50 years
and would struggle to beat them now.
China are expansionists, always have been. War is coming with them and North Korea sometime
in the future.
From the article above, it is clear who is the more dangerous power. While China is aiming to
be the hegemon through economic means like the neo silk road projects, the US is aiming to maintain
its hegemon status through military power. The US think thank even suggest to preemptive strike
against China to achieve that. This is also the problem with US pivot to Asia, it may fail to
contain China, but it didn't fail to poison the atmosphere in Asia. Asia has never been this dangerous
since the end of cold war, all thanks to the pivot.
Obama is trying to maintain the status quo. China and N. Korea are the ones pushing military intimidation.
The key to the US plan is to form an alliance between countries in the region that historically
distrust each other. The Chinese are helping that by threatening everybody at the same time. Tisdall
sees this conflict strictly as between the US and China. Obama's plan is to form a group of countries
to counter China. Japan will have a major role in this alliance but the problem is whether the
other victims of WW2 Japanese aggression will agree to it.
The US's disastrous foreign policy since 9/11 which has unleashed so much chaos in Afghanistan,
Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc etc... is not exactly a commendation for credibility these days.
A useful summary of the state of play in the Pacific and SCS. It is somewhat hawkish in analysis,
military fantasists will always be legion, they should be listened to with extra large doses of
salt, or discussion of arguments which favour peaceful cooperation and development, such as trade,
cultural relations, and natural stalemates. American anxiety at its own perception of decline,
is at least as dangerous for the world as the immature expression of rising Chinese confidence.
But the biggest problem it seems we face, is finding a way to accommodate and translate the aspirations
of rising global powers with the existing order established post-45, in incarnated in the UN and
other international bodies, in international maritime law as in our western notions of universal
human rights. Finding a way for China to express origination of these ideas compatible with its
own history, to be able to proclaim them as a satisfactory settlement for human relations, is
an ideal, but apparently unpromising task.
Perhaps Samuel P Huntingdon was broadly correct when he wrote "The Clash of Civilizations" in
the late 90's. He was criticized for his work by neo-liberals who believed that after the Cold
War the rest of the world would follow the west and US in particular.
The problem with the neo-liberal view is that only their opinions on issues are correct, and
all others therefore should be ridiculed. What has happened in Ukraine is a prime example. Huntingdon
called the Ukraine a "cleft" country split between Russia and Europe. The EU and the US decided
to stir up trouble in the Ukraine to get even with Putin over Syria. It was never about EU or
NATO membership for the Ukraine which is now further away than ever.
A Trump presidency is regarded with fear. The Obama presidency has been a failure with regard
to foreign policy and a major reason was because Clinton was Secretary of State in the 1st four
years. In many ways a Clinton presidency is every bit as dangerous as a Trump presidency.
Certainly relations with Russia will be worse under Clinton than under Trump, and for the rest
of the world that is not a good thing. To those that believe liek Clinton that Putin is the new
Hitler, then start cleaning out the nuclear bunkers. If he is then WW3 is coming like it or not
and Britain better start spending more on defence.
What does the criticism in USA get you? It is just blah blah blah.
ONly criticism that matters is from the corporations and wealthy individuals
like Koch bros and Sheldon Edelson and their ilk. Rest can watch football.
Never mind that a general, high-intensity war in Northern Asia would be disastrous for all involved,
whatever the outcome.
Never mind that much of the discussion about containing China is by warmongers urging such
a conflict.
Never mind that very little depth in fact lies behind the shell of American and Japanese military
strength, or that a competently-run Chinese government is well able to grossly outproduce "us"
all in war materiel.
Never mind that those same warmongers and neocons drove and drive a succession of Imperial
disasters; they remain much-praised centres of attention, just as the banksters and rentiers that
are sucking the life from Americans have never had it so good.
Never mind that abbott encouraged violence as the automatic reaction to problems, while his
Misgovernment was (while Turnbull to a lesser extent still is) working hard to destroy the economic
and social strengths we need to have any chance of surmounting those problems.
Yes, it is a proper precaution to have a military strength that can deny our approaches to
China. Unfortunately that rather disregards that "we" have long pursued a policy of globalisation
involving the destruction of our both own manufacturing and our own merchant navy. Taken together
with non-existent fuel reserves, "our" military preparations are pointless, because we would have
to surrender within a fortnight were China to mount even a partial maritime blockade of Australia.
What I don't quite understand is how all this comes as any surprise to those in the know. China
has been on target to be the #1 economic power in the world in this decade for at least 30 years.
And who made it so? Western capitalists. China is now not only the world's industrial heartbeat,
it also owns a large proportion of Western debt - despite the fact that its differences with the
West (not least being a one-party Communist state) couldn't be more obvious - and while I doubt
it's in its interests to destabilise its benefactorrs at the moment, that may not always be the
case.
It also has another problem: In fifty or sixty years time it is due to be overtaken by India,
which gives it very little time to develop ASEAN in its own image; but I suspect that it's current
"silk glove" policy is far smarter and more cost-effective than any American "iron fist".
The US is just worried about losing out on markets and further exploitation. They should have
no authority over China's interest in the South China Sea. If China do rise to the point were
they can affect foreign governments, they will unlikely be as brutal as the United States. [Indonesia
1964, Congo 1960s, Brazil 1964, Chile 1973, Central America 1980s, Egyptian military aid, Saudi
support, Iraq 2003, the Structural Adjustments of the IMF]
Simon Tisdall and many Europeans as well as the US GOP party still thinks that US is an empire
similar to what the British had in the 18th century. This assumption is completely wrong especially
in the 21th century where Western Europe, Japan, Korea if they want can be spend their money and
also become global military power.
While many Europeans and others including our current GOP party
thinks we are the global empire and we should stick our nose everywhere, our people doesn't we
are an empire or we should stick our nose in every trouble spot in the world spending our blood
and treasure to fight others battles and get blame when everything goes wrong. President Obama
doesn't think of himself as Julius Ceaser and America is not Rome.
He will be remembered as one
of our greatest president ever setting a course for this country's foreign policy towards trying
to solve the world's problems through alliances and cooperation with like minded countries as
the opposite of the war mongering brainless, trigger happy GOP presidents. However when lesser
powers who preach xenophobia and destabilize their neighborhood through annexation as the Hitler
like Putin has, he comes down with a hammer using tools other than military to punish the aggressor.
All you need to do is watch what is happening to the Russian economy since he imposed sanctions
to the Mafiso Putin.
This article is completely misleading and the author is constricting himself in his statement
that Obama's pivot to Asia is a failure. Since China tried to annex the Islands near the Philippines,
countries like Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines, India, etc. has ask the US for more cooperation
both military and economically these countries were moving away from US under Bush and others
so I think this is a win for Obama not a loss. Unlike the idiotic Russians, China is a clever
country and is playing global chess in advancing her foreign policy goals. While the US cannot
do anything with China's annexation of these disputed Islands has costs her greatly because the
Asian countries effected by China's moves are running towards the US, this is a win for the US.
China's popularity around her neighborhood has taken a nose dive similar to Russian's popularity
around her neighborhood. These are long term strategic wins for the US, especially if Hillary
wins the white house and carry's on Obama's mantel of speaking softly but carry a big stick. Obama
will go down as our greatest foreign policy president by building alliances in Europe to try stop
Mafioso Putin and alliances in Asia to curtail China's foreign policy ambitions. This author's
thesis is pure bogus, because he doesn't indicate what Obama should have done to make him happy?
Threaten Chine military confertation?
All you have to do is go back 8 years ago and compare our last two presidents and you can see
where Obama is going.
For the allusion to Rome, I think they act like the old empire when they had to send their army
to keep the peace....and it is an empire of the 21 first century, not like the old ones (Assange).
China needs western consumerism to maintain its manufacturing base. If China's growth impacts
the ability of the West to maintain its standard of consumerism, then China will need a new source
of affluent purchaser. If China's own citizens become affluent, they will expect a standard of
living commensurate with that status, accordingly China will not be able to maintain its manufacturing
base.
So the options for China are:
a) Prop up western economies until developing nations in Africa and South America (themselves
heavily dependent on the West) reach a high standard of consumerism.
b) Divide China into a ruling class, and a worker class, in which the former is a parasite
on the latter.
The current tactic seems to be to follow option b, until option a becomes viable.
However, the longer option a takes to develop, and therefore the longer option b is in effect,
the greater the chances of counter-revolution (which at this stage is probably just revolution).
The long and the short of it, is that China is boned.
Being a large country surrounded by many other occasionally threatening powers, the governments'
priority is and always has been defending its territorial integrity. China is happy enough to
leave the command and conquer stuff, sorry "democratization" to the US.
It's got it's hands full
at home. As long as the West doesn't try to get involved in what China sees as its historical
territory (i.e. The big rooster shaped landmass plus Hainan and Hong Kong and various little islands)
there's absolutely nothing to worry about.
Why did Obama say that his greatest regret was Libya.? Because Obama's policy is/was to manage
the decline of US power. To manage the end of US hegemony. I doubt that Obama believes that any
pivot to any where can restore or maintain US dominance on planet earth. There is absolutely nothing
exceptional about a power not admitting publicly what is known to many,see the outpourings of
the British elites during the end of its empire.
As usual the Guardian is on its anti-China horse. Look through this article and every move China
has made is "aggressive" or when it tries to expand trade (and produce win win economic conditions)
it is "hegemonic" while the US is just trying to protect us all and is dealing with the "Chinese
threat" -- a threat to their economic interests and global imperial hegemony is what they mean.
The US still maintains a "one China" policy and the status quo is exactly that "one China"
It would be great for someone in the west to review the historical record instead of arming Taiwan
to the teeth. Additionally, before China ever started its island construction the US had already
begun the "pivot to Asia" which now is huge with nuclear submarines patrolling all around China,
nuclear weapons on the - two aircraft carrier fleets now threatening China - very rare for the
US to have two aircraft carrier fleets in the same waters - the B-1 long range nuclear bombers
now in Australia, and even more belligerent the US intends to deploy THAAD missals in South Korea
- using North Korea as an excuse to further seriously threaten China.
China wishes to expand trade and improve economic conditions for its people and for those with
whom it trades. That is not aggression except when it interferes with US global economic hegemony.
Just look around the world - where are the conflicts - the middle east and Africa - who is
there with military and arms sales and bombing seven countries -- is it China?
The most belligerent nation in the world the nation with its army in over 100 countries, the
nation bombing and conducting perpetual war throughout the middle east, the country invading countries
for "regime change" and creating only misery and death -- it is not China.
The US and its Neoliberal capitalist system must expand to grow - plus they clearly want total
global domination - the US and its Imperial agents have encircled both China and Russia with trillions
of dollars of the most destructive weapons in the world including nuclear weapons - do you thin
they have done that for "security" if so you simply ignore the aggression and hubris of an Imperial
US.
"... As General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, said: War is a racket . Wars will persist as long as people see them as a "core product," as a business opportunity. In capitalism, the profit motive is often amoral; greed is good, even when it feeds war. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is willing to play along. It always sees "vulnerabilities" and always wants more money. ..."
"... Wars are always profitable for a few, but they are ruining democracy in America. Sure, it's a business opportunity: one that ends in national (and moral) bankruptcy. ..."
A good friend passed along an
article at Forbes from a month ago with the pregnant title, "U.S. Army Fears Major War Likely
Within Five Years - But Lacks The Money To Prepare." Basically, the article argues that war is possible
- even likely - within five years with Russia or North Korea or Iran, or maybe all three, but that
America's army is short of money to prepare for these wars. This despite the fact that America spends
roughly $700 billion each and every year on defense and overseas wars.
Now, the author's agenda is quite clear, as he states at the end of his article: "Several of the
Army's equipment suppliers are contributors to my think tank and/or consulting clients." He's writing
an alarmist article about the probability of future wars at the same time as he's profiting from
the sales of weaponry to the army.
As General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor, said:
War is a racket
. Wars will persist as long as people see them as a "core product," as a business opportunity.
In capitalism, the profit motive is often amoral; greed is good, even when it feeds war. Meanwhile,
the Pentagon is willing to play along. It always sees "vulnerabilities" and always wants more money.
But back to the Forbes article with its concerns about war(s) in five years with Russia or North
Korea or Iran (or all three). For what vital national interest should America fight against Russia?
North Korea? Iran? A few quick reminders:
#1: Don't get involved in a land war in Asia or with Russia (Charles XII, Napoleon, and Hitler
all learned that lesson the hard way).
#2: North Korea? It's a puppet regime that can't feed its own people. It might prefer war to distract
the people from their parlous existence.
#3: Iran? A regional power, already contained, with a young population that's sympathetic to America,
at least to our culture of relative openness and tolerance. If the US Army thinks tackling Iran would
be relatively easy, just consider all those recent "easy" wars and military interventions in Iraq,
Afghanistan, Libya, Syria
Of course, the business aspect of this is selling the idea the US Army isn't prepared and therefore
needs yet another new generation of expensive high-tech weaponry. It's like convincing high-end consumers
their three-year-old Audi or Lexus is obsolete so they must buy the latest model else lose face.
We see this all the time in the US military. It's a version of planned or
artificial obsolescence . Consider the Air Force. It could easily defeat its enemies with updated
versions of A-10s, F-15s, and F-16s, but instead the Pentagon plans to spend as much as $1.4 trillion
on the shiny new and
under-performing F-35 . The Army has an enormous surplus of tanks and other armored fighting
vehicles, but the call goes forth for a "new generation." No other navy comes close to the US Navy,
yet the call goes out for a new generation of ships.
The Pentagon mantra is always for more and better, which often turns out to be for less and much
more expensive, e.g. the F-35 fighter.
Wars are always profitable for a few, but they are
ruining democracy in America. Sure, it's a business opportunity: one that ends in national (and
moral) bankruptcy.
William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years
at military and civilian schools and blogs at
Bracing Views . He can be reached at [email protected]. Reprinted
from Bracing Views with the author's permission.
"... After a series of shock defeats to the anti-mass migration AfD party, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has promised to "stop illegal immigration" and send failed asylum seekers back to their home nations. ..."
"... "We want to stop illegal immigration while living up to our humanitarian responsibilities," Mrs. Merkel said after talks in Vienna with counterparts from along the Balkan migrant route. ..."
"... Hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern migrants began to flood countries along the Balkan route last year, soon after Mrs. Merkel unexpectedly suspended European Union (EU) border rules and "invited" "no upper limit" of migrants to Germany. ..."
After a series of shock defeats to the anti-mass migration AfD party, German Chancellor Angela
Merkel has promised to "stop illegal immigration" and send failed asylum seekers back to their home
nations.
"We want to stop illegal immigration while living up to our humanitarian responsibilities,"
Mrs. Merkel said after talks in Vienna with counterparts from along the Balkan migrant route.
In February, Germany
accused Pakistan, as well as North and West African countries, of refusing to take back failed
asylum applicants.
"It is necessary to get agreements with third countries, especially in Africa but also Pakistan
and Afghanistan… so that it becomes clear that those with no right to stay in Europe can go back
to their home countries," Mrs. Merkel told reporters this weekend, DW
reports .
Hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern migrants began to flood countries along the Balkan
route last year, soon after Mrs. Merkel unexpectedly suspended European Union (EU) border rules and
"invited" "no upper limit" of migrants to Germany.
The anti-mass migration Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) party has recently
surged in the polls, even
overtaking the Chancellor's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in the state election in her hometown.
The CDU also had their worst election
result ever in Berlin just over a week ago.
"... Notice that this interview fails to mention that the huge influx of refugees into Europe is the direct result of the US creating failed states in the Middle East. ..."
"... Yes. As many have said, critical thinking in DC went out the door with 9/11. Those in DC who shouldn't be in jail, probably should at most be mopping floors at McDonalds. ..."
"... Let's note that pre-9/11 the foreign policy wasn't exactly just/moral/sane. ..."
"... Who cares? Since when did we live in a democracy? How many people wanted the Syrian and Lybian conflicts? ..."
"... Do we all have to die in poverty because our leaders (in the case of these wars, Zionist) pushed war clandestinely? ..."
"... Funny how that logic is never applied to others who are attacked (victims of our foreign policy). They should act like saints and we should bomb more (or, rather, commit genocide). Maybe might makes right, but then say it and stop masquerading as some burdened savior. ..."
"... At this year's celebration a couple of people were badly injured by Ukrainian rightists who reportedly fled back to the Ukraine, escaping justice. And, as I recall, there was a recent report of a French rightist who had received bomb materials from Ukrainians. ..."
"... I recently read accounts of the rise of neo-nazi and right-wing extremist groups in the former DDR after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Apparently they were substantially infiltrated by US and German intelligence services and, as a result, enjoyed a certain level of impunity and de facto ..."
"... On the other hand, the link between US 'intelligence' and Ukrainian neo-nazis is reasonably well established and is unlikely to have sprung into existence moments before their Maidan mobilization. That they would now use their safe harbor in Ukraine as a base for operations across Europe should not be particularly shocking. ..."
"... Okay, I have some serious problems with this. One, Israel is not just Jewish in its composition. Two, not all Jewish people live in Israel. Three, Jewish people lived along side Muslims and Christians for hundreds of years in that region before Britain, the USA and some useful idiot Zionists decided to make a geopolitical springboard in 1948. You may be right that every nation pursues its own agenda, but I'm not concerned about that, I'm concerned about the nation or nations pursuing their agenda(s) that have the most wealth and the biggest bombs. I'm concerned about the ones running the empire, and Israel is a useful servant to that empire. ..."
"... Israel is a nation state. Identifying as Jewish is another matter altogether. Israel is a colony that was formed at the wrong place and the wrong time. They could have pulled it off in the 18th or 19th century (see USA, Canada, Australia, the entire Western Hemisphere), but doing so immediately after a global war that was largely the end result of nation's colonial ambitions was a big no-no. The window of opportunity for such shenanigans had passed and the British, US, and Zionist progenitors of Israel knew better. ..."
"... If AfD opponents simplistically think that the AfD are a rabble of angry closet Neo-Nazis…..boy their moral/intellectual smugness is going to be shattered at the ballot box in the upcoming years. The core of AfD are the German equivalent of ol' time bottom 90% FDR Democrats. ..."
"... FDR was probably the only American president who was not entirely the servant of the capitalist ruling class. His reforms were for the benefit of American workers and he dragged the Democratic party along with him in creating the American social welfare system. He truly favored cooperative competition with the Soviet Union. Believing his vision of liberalism to be superior to Soviet socialism he had none of the knee jerk fear and hatred of them that has always characterized the American ruling class' relationship with Russia – even now 20 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He was entirely confident the working class would choose his vision. ..."
"... "Notice that this interview fails to mention that the huge influx of refugees into Europe is the direct result of the US creating failed states in the Middle East." ..."
"... I've always assumed the costs of the Syria intervention - geopolitical insecurity, refugees, etc. were seen as a useful collateral dampener on the rise of a Germany-dominated Europe. Perhaps not sought after, but when those costs were put in the calculus and were seen to affect the European states the most, the cost-shifting became a net enabler. ..."
"... The definitive proof of the Empire of Chaos's real agenda in Syria may be found in a 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document declassified in May last year. ..."
"... "THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION… THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF THE SHIA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN)". ..."
"... It establishes that over four years ago US intel was already hedging its bets between established al-Qaeda in Syria, aka Jabhat al-Nusra, and the emergence of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh, aka the Islamic State. ..."
"... It's already in the public domain that by a willful decision, leaked by current Donald Trump adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Washington allowed the emergence of the Islamic State – remember that gleaming white Toyota convoy crossing the open desert? – as a most convenient US strategic asset, and not as the enemy in the remixed, never-ending GWOT (Global War on Terra). ..."
Yves: It's amazing how infrequently this point is made in any political debate or news coverage.
(Jeremy Corbyn being one rare example of someone who brings it up.):
Notice that this interview fails to mention that the huge influx of refugees into Europe
is the direct result of the US creating failed states in the Middle East.
If there were any justice, the refugees would be swamping the UK, US, and France in huge numbers,
as those are the countries that cooked up the Libya failed state and also most active in Syria.
Crazy or stupid (your choice) Hollande vowed to increase the French warfare in Syria after the
recent terror attacks in Paris and elsewhere. As though MORE BOMBS ever managed to decrease terrorism,
right?
Though Merkel made her own bed with her "let them all come to Germany!" invitation, and now
she is sleeping in it. Good riddance when and if she goes.
Yes. As many have said, critical thinking in DC went out the door with 9/11. Those in DC
who shouldn't be in jail, probably should at most be mopping floors at McDonalds.
Hey now. I mop floors. I know people who mop floors. Those perps, sir, are not fit to mop floors.
Unless it's in prison. And even then I'm sure they'd suck. Takes integrity to do a humble job
well.
Who cares? Since when did we live in a democracy? How many people wanted the Syrian and
Lybian conflicts? If I recall, war was averted in parliament and congress.
Do we all have to die in poverty because our leaders (in the case of these wars, Zionist)
pushed war clandestinely?
Funny how that logic is never applied to others who are attacked (victims of our foreign
policy). They should act like saints and we should bomb more (or, rather, commit genocide). Maybe
might makes right, but then say it and stop masquerading as some burdened savior.
as James Baldwin said: "aching, nobly, to wade through the blood of savages."
Thanks for posting this Grossman interview. One facet of the development of the far right that
Grossman hints at, and maybe can only do so because there isn't much data, is its transnational
quality. This summer we visited some lefty friends in Lund, Sweden where each year they hold a
large May Day rally.
At this year's celebration a couple of people were badly injured by Ukrainian rightists
who reportedly fled back to the Ukraine, escaping justice. And, as I recall, there was a recent
report of a French rightist who had received bomb materials from Ukrainians.
As I think about, there's an ugly resonance with Yves' noting the refugees are substantially
a result of US policies. The development of a rightist terrorist potential in the Ukraine has
the same general source.
I recently read accounts of the rise of neo-nazi and right-wing extremist groups in the
former DDR after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Apparently they were substantially infiltrated
by US and German intelligence services and, as a result, enjoyed a certain level of impunity and
de facto financial support from these governments. They were also linked to members
of the 'stay behind' organizations (see
Operation Gladio
), and were 'useful' in violently opposing left-wing groups as well as punk rockers. The modern
AfD is strongest in the states of the former DDR, and are the ideological if not logistical heirs
of these right-wing groups. But to conflate 15% of the electorate with semi-pro neo-nazis and
racists is a bit of a stretch. While they are surely motivated by a strong nativist impulse and
anti-immigrant fervor, their voters also represent the kind of disaffected and disenfranchised
populations that carried the Brexit vote to victory.
On the other hand, the link between US 'intelligence' and Ukrainian neo-nazis is reasonably
well established and is unlikely to have sprung into existence moments before their Maidan mobilization.
That they would now use their safe harbor in Ukraine as a base for operations across Europe should
not be particularly shocking.
No, the AfD is not linked to the CIA It is a pro-social welfare, anti-TPP group that also
wants fair migrant exchanges, that is not just to Europe. It is pestered and censored in Germany.
Just expressing support in ways a security agent deems 'offensive' gets you fined and ostracized.
The fight over private property rights continues. Liberal Democracy has failed around the world
due to the unholy alliance with corporate power. Unchecked corporate power has been unmasked as
the destructive force that it truly is.
The left needs to evolve into a political force that can shape the consciousness of the masses
away from individual greed toward the undeniable benefit of cooperative action. The right will
use fear to drive people into some sort of trembling mass and only by combating this fear can
movement be made.
The compromise the left needs to make is to use any means possible, not to seize the means
of production form existing owners, but to start building alternative ones. It is all too easy
for the right to bring out their tried and true methods to hold power. It is time to starve the
beast, and one way is to not participate and build in another direction.
Corporate power is what needs to be broken. From my limited view, the left has always been
a reactionary force. It needs to evolve into a proactive one, literally building something in
the real world. Another major mistake by the left is to reject and confuse the power of religion.
Neoliberalism is a new religion and gains much power by the use of unquestioning faith. The left
has failed to counteract this religious faith because they have not even tried to counter it with
their own. Just as finance has evolved into a military weapon, it can be argued that religion,
in essence, is a military force.
The political landscape is being reshuffled into defining what we are willing to fight and
die for. Until the left starts offering coherent answers to these questions, the status quo will
continue to pick from the low hanging fruit.
Okay, I have some serious problems with this. One, Israel is not just Jewish in its composition.
Two, not all Jewish people live in Israel. Three, Jewish people lived along side Muslims and Christians
for hundreds of years in that region before Britain, the USA and some useful idiot Zionists decided
to make a geopolitical springboard in 1948. You may be right that every nation pursues its own
agenda, but I'm not concerned about that, I'm concerned about the nation or nations pursuing their
agenda(s) that have the most wealth and the biggest bombs. I'm concerned about the ones running
the empire, and Israel is a useful servant to that empire.
Israel is a nation state. Identifying as Jewish is another matter altogether. Israel is
a colony that was formed at the wrong place and the wrong time. They could have pulled it off
in the 18th or 19th century (see USA, Canada, Australia, the entire Western Hemisphere), but doing
so immediately after a global war that was largely the end result of nation's colonial ambitions
was a big no-no. The window of opportunity for such shenanigans had passed and the British, US,
and Zionist progenitors of Israel knew better.
In addition, it is nonsense that we have normalized the formation of a nation state around
a single ethnic or religious identity. Particularly after the Holocaust (the irony of this never
ceases to amaze me). Would we have the same sympathies for the the countless indigenous ethnic
groups in the Americas who, per capita, had even worse genocides inflicted on them, all documented,
all accepted as inevitable or necessary in most histories of the Americas? Israel is a contorted
hypocrisy that has to either embrace heterogeneity of disappear. Ideally as an inclusive country
that is no longer a colony as it has been for hundreds of years. The fetish that is Israel has
been an unfair burden to all people living in the Middle East and Jewish people the world over
that are forced to (through the sheer force of political dogma) shackle their identities to a
racist, rogue state.
" AfD stands for Alternative for Germany. It's a young party, about 2 years old. It's
built basically on racism."
Got more important things to do than rant about the above statement….
Just will quote basic Sun Tzu via Star Trek-know your opponent, know yourself and victory will
be yours.
If AfD opponents simplistically think that the AfD are a rabble of angry closet Neo-Nazis…..boy
their moral/intellectual smugness is going to be shattered at the ballot box in the upcoming years.
The core of AfD are the German equivalent of ol' time bottom 90% FDR Democrats.
And on the other side Sarah Wagenknecht, a leader in the left, hit a lot of flak from many
in her party when she said there needs to be an "Obergrenze" or limit on the number of refugees.
It would hard to call her racist since she is half Persian. It really is a conflict between those
who cannot think realistically….those who are supported or secure enough not to have to take responsibility
for anyone, and those who will need to make the world function. As a Socialist she apparently
is aware that you cannot have a strong social net and combine that with open immigration from
places that have astronomical birthrates that are outgrowing their resources without destroying
that net. I recall Hillary and the open border people attacked Bernie on that as well. I thought
it was unfair and it is this pandering, among other issues, that will keep me from voting for
her. There is a lot of commonality between AfD and the Linke. Don`t forget that the notion of
German population replacement had some currency during and after WW2 in order to permanently solve
the German problem and we may just be actualizing it now.
In fairness, US immigration policy has slowly been getting tougher over the last 16 years.
Immigration policy in the US goes beyond dialect. I doubt Clinton would be overly "easy".
It's easier. Apart from the new Obama rule to issue visas to H1b holders, effectively tripling
the numbers issued but still under the cap, to a myriad of other programs, it's much easier.
Of the several foreign students I've dated, it gets easier every year. Back in 03, one had
to have an accountant degree with CPA certs, and even then, you often were slave labor in Chi-Town
until you hooked up with an American company. Now the black market foreign industry is so large,
that a mere B.A. is enough. The gov doesn't care. Everyone is approved, save the cap.
spooky quatsch comment from oho – hard to tell what oho means with "90% bottom- line fdr dems".
The very diverse FDR / Dem majority coalesced during and in response to economic crisis. The AfD
has emerged during a German boom. It is successful in East Germany, which in the wake of economic
collapse immediately following reunification has been the beneficiary of massive inner-German
transfers. And it is successful in West Germany much of which is effectively at full-employment.
Its core supporters are the 10% of any populazion that is racist, nationalist, and ignorant. You
might try to argue that there is a uniquely irrational fear in Germany, something associated with
its position on the left edge of Eurasia maybe, a heterogenous cultural unit without convincing
access to the sea, trapped if you will and vulnerable to human flows. Sounds silly but it's hard
to account for German fear.
The AfD is using this irrational fear for political gain. FDR was supported largely by voters
with very real fears.
FDR was probably the only American president who was not entirely the servant of the capitalist
ruling class. His reforms were for the benefit of American workers and he dragged the Democratic
party along with him in creating the American social welfare system. He truly favored cooperative
competition with the Soviet Union. Believing his vision of liberalism to be superior to Soviet
socialism he had none of the knee jerk fear and hatred of them that has always characterized the
American ruling class' relationship with Russia – even now 20 years after the collapse of the
Soviet Union. He was entirely confident the working class would choose his vision.
His reactionary political enemies, concentrated in finance capital, had no reason to be
so confident. Their fear and loathing of the working class was/is legitimately earned.
"Notice that this interview fails to mention that the huge influx of refugees into Europe
is the direct result of the US creating failed states in the Middle East."
That's typical of all MSM (not saying TRNN is mainstream) coverage of refugees. There's lots
of discussion and hand-wringing about accepting refugees, but exactly zero about why they're refugees
in the first place.
Yes the US has had a lot to do with destabilizing Asia and Africa but a lot of it has simply
been a continuation of British policy after WW2. As Britain shrank its foreign involvement the
US expanded. But the real cause is the inability of our politicians and leaders to face up to
the reality that population growth is hitting the limits of resource availability in Asia and
Africa and to institute realistic ways to control population. Absent the population explosion
in these regions in the last decades we would not be seeing the poverty and anger and constant
confllict because there would be enough for all. As much bad press as China has gotten for its
population policy it is one of the few bright spots in world economic development. Interestingly
China does not seem very interested in accepting millions of third world refugees.
I've always assumed the costs of the Syria intervention - geopolitical insecurity, refugees,
etc. were seen as a useful collateral dampener on the rise of a Germany-dominated Europe. Perhaps
not sought after, but when those costs were put in the calculus and were seen to affect the European
states the most, the cost-shifting became a net enabler.
In my naïve point of view it hit me last year that it was a brilliant stroke of Angela Merkel
to grab as many refugees as she could before any other country.
They are a tremendous natural resource. One that many modern countries are beginning to see a
coming shortage of. Many countries, like Germany, France, etc are looking at population shortages
in the working age groups. Merkel's grab of this mass of human resource was maybe an accidentally
brilliant idea.
can't tell if the above comment is satire or astroturfing or naivety?
Merkel's migrants have zero higher-level first-world skills. AfD is strong in ex-East Germany
because there is popular resentment as ex-East Germans get austerity shoved down their throats
while Merkel unfurls the red carpet for migrants.
in der Frage nach festen Arbeitsplätzen für Flüchtlinge ruhen die Hoffnungen zunehmend auf
mittelständischen Unternehmen und Handwerksbetrieben. Denn wie eine Umfrage dieser Zeitung ergab,
hat die große Mehrzahl der im deutschen Aktienindex (Dax) notierten Konzerne noch keine Flüchtlinge
eingestellt. Einzig die Deutsche Post gab an, bis Anfang Juni 50 Flüchtlinge und damit eine nennenswerte
Größe fest angestellt zu haben.
Not true. Syrians are very highly educated. Very good public education and high average attainment.
But Merkel was an idiot if she actually did recognize that Syrians were high potential workers
yet did nothing re how to integrate them, most important, acquisition of German and jobs matching.
The fact capitalism is a ponzi scheme is a key here. When the Aristocracy bowed to the Sephardic
bankers, they created this mess. They were the same idiots that bowed to the Christians 1500+
years before.
Maybe it is time for a new aristocracy. If you want to build internally, you have to abolish
capitalism and its market based scam. That is why "right wingers" won't last without the Sephardic
banks via market expansion. They run the scheme and always have. From their immigration into the
Iberian trails during the 15th century, to their financing and eventual leadership into the protestant
reformation, to the first capitalists scheme at Amsterdam to bribing William the Orange into taking
it into old England.
1. Most of the refugees arriving in Europe are Syrian. The US did not act to topple the Syrian
dictator and did not create a new Syrian government. The United States is responsible for these
refugees.
2. A portion of the refugees are Libyan. At the urging of its European allies (not just the
UK), the US helped topple the Libyan government, but has not created a new government. The US
is responsible for these refugees.
3. A portion of the refugees are from Iraq or Afghanistan. The US toppled the old governments
and installed new ones. The US is responsible for these refugees.
4. A significant portion of the refugees are from African countries including Nigeria and Eritrea.
I assume that these aren't included in the statement above as they are not Middle Eastern.
So, in other words – the US is responsible whether or not we intervene and whether or not we
then attempt to set up a government? I wonder under what circumstances you would not view the
US as responsible?
I would suggest, that given the situation in the Middle East and the fact that the results
are similar regardless of US actions something more basic is at work. Most of the nations of the
Middle East and Africa were artificial creations of primarily Britain and France; they are nations
derived neither from ethnic homogeneity nor the consent or shared history of the governed. Whatever,
the United States did or does, they would ultimately have shattered in one way or another and
refugees would have headed for Europe.
Nope, you don't. The US and its Gulf state "allies" are indeed trying to oust Assad and, if
not set up, at least allow the creation of a Salafist regime.
The US Road Map To Balkanize Syria
By Pepe Escobar
September 22, 2016 "Information Clearing House" – "RT" – Forget about those endless meetings
between Sergei Lavrov and John Kerry; forget about Russia's drive to prevent chaos from reigning
in Syria; forget about the possibility of a real ceasefire being implemented and respected
by US jihad proxies.
Forget about the Pentagon investigating what really happened around its bombing 'mistake'
in Deir Ezzor.
The definitive proof of the Empire of Chaos's real agenda in Syria may be found in a
2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document declassified in May last year.
As you scroll down the document, you will find page 291, section C, which reads (in caps,
originally):
"THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION… THERE
IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN
SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION
WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF
THE SHIA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN)".
The DIA report is a formerly classified SECRET/NOFORN document, which made the rounds
of virtually the whole alphabet soup of US intel, from CENTCOM to CIA, FBI, DHS, NGA and the
State Department.
It establishes that over four years ago US intel was already hedging its bets between
established al-Qaeda in Syria, aka Jabhat al-Nusra, and the emergence of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh, aka
the Islamic State.
It's already in the public domain that by a willful decision, leaked by current Donald
Trump adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Washington allowed the emergence of the Islamic State
– remember that gleaming white Toyota convoy crossing the open desert? – as a most convenient
US strategic asset, and not as the enemy in the remixed, never-ending GWOT (Global War on Terra).
It's as clear as it gets; a "Salafist principality" is to be encouraged as a means
to Divide and Rule over a fragmented Syria in perpetual chaos. Whether it's established
by Jabhat al-Nusra – aka "moderate rebels" in Beltway jargon – or al-Baghdadi's "Califake"
is just a pesky detail.
It gets curioser and curioser as Hasaka and Deir Ezzor are named in the DIA report – and
directly targeted by the 'mistaken' Pentagon bombing. No wonder Pentagon chief Ash 'Empire
of Whining' Carter took no prisoners to directly sabotage what Kerry had agreed on with Lavrov.
No one will ever see these connections established by US corporate media – as in, for instance,
the neocon cabal ruling the Washington Post's editorial pages. But the best of the blogosphere
does not disappoint.
The rest is just blame-shifting that conveniently let's the US off the hook.
Have you not read any press in the last 5 years, or do you just make a habit of making shit
up? The US has been trying to topple Assad for God only knows how long. What, for instance, do
you think the desperate fig leaf of trying to claim that we are supporting non-existant "moderate
Syrian rebels" is about?
"the danger of this right wing group mostly in the form of parties which is by the way it gets
its votes by being anti-immigrant, anti-foreigner, and especially anti-Muslimism. That�'s their
big call."
"... Russia even hacked into the Democratic National Committee, maybe even some state election systems. So, we've got to step up our game. Make sure we are well defended and able to take the fight to those who go after us. As President, I will make it clear, that the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any other attack . We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses. ..."
"... "We need to respond to evolving threats from states like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea from networks, criminal and terrorist networks like ISIS. We need a military that is ready and agile so it can meet the full range of threats, and operate on short notice across every domain, not just land, sea, air and space, but also cyberspace". ..."
"... "serious political, economic and military responses" ..."
"... notwithstanding ..."
"... The mainstream The Hill newspaper bannered, "Clinton: Treat cyberattacks 'like any other attack'" , and reported that, "Since many high-profile cyberattacks could be interpreted as traditional intelligence-gathering - something the US itself also engages in - the White House is often in a tricky political position when it comes to its response". That's not critical of her position, but at least it makes note of the crucial fact that if the US were to treat a hacker's attack as being an excuse to invade Russia, it would treat the US itself as being already an invader of Russia - which the US prior to a President Hillary Clinton never actually has been, notwithstanding the routine nature of international cyber espionage (which Clinton has now stated she wants to become a cause of war), which has been, and will continue to be, essential in the present era. ..."
"... The International Business Times, an online-only site, headlined September 1 st , "Clinton: US should use 'military response' to fight cyberattacks from Russia and China" , and reported that a Pentagon official had testified to Congress on July 13 th , that current US policy on this matter is: "When determining whether a cyber incident constitutes an armed attack, the US government considers a broad range of factors, including the nature and extent of injury or death to persons and the destruction of or damage to property. Cyber incidents are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and the national security leadership and the president will make a determination if it's an armed attack". ..."
"... Hillary's statement on this matter was simply ignored by The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, NPR, Fox, CNN, The Nation, The Atlantic, Harper's, National Review, Common Dreams, Alternet, Truthout, and all the rest of the US standard and 'alternative news' reporting organizations. Perhaps when Americans go to the polls to elect a President on November 8th, almost none of them will have learned about her policy on this incredibly important matter. ..."
"... Hillary's statement was in line with the current Administration's direction of policy, but is farther along in that direction than the Obama Administration's policy yet is. ..."
"... On Tuesday, June 14 th , NATO announced that if a NATO member country becomes the victim of a cyber attack by persons in a non-NATO country such as Russia or China, then NATO's Article V "collective defense" provision requires each NATO member country to join that NATO member country if it decides to strike back against the attacking country. ..."
"... NATO is now alleging that because Russian hackers had copied the emails on Hillary Clinton's home computer , this action of someone in Russia taking advantage of her having privatized her US State Department communications to her unsecured home computer and of such a Russian's then snooping into the US State Department business that was stored on it, might constitute a Russian attack against the United States of America, and would, if the US President declares it to be a Russian invasion of the US, trigger NATO's mutual-defense clause and so require all NATO nations to join with the US government in going to war against Russia, if the US government so decides. ..."
"... And finally, we did talk about cyber-security generally. I'm not going to comment on specific investigations that are still alive and active, but I will tell you that we've had problems with cyber-intrusions from Russia in the past, from other countries in the past, and, look, we're moving into a new era here, where a number of countries have significant capacities, and frankly we've got more capacity than anybody both offensively and defensively, but our goal is not to suddenly in the cyber-arena duplicate a cycle of escalation that we saw when it comes to other arms-races in the past, but rather to start instituting (9:00) some norms so that everybody's acting responsibly. ..."
"... "neoconservative" ..."
"... Hillary is now the neoconservatives' candidate . (And she's also the close friend of many of them, and hired and promoted many of them at her State Department .) If she becomes the next President, then we might end up having the most neoconservative (i.e., military-industrial-complex-run) government ever. This would be terrific for America's weapons-makers, but it very possibly would be horrific for everybody else. That's the worst lobby of all, to run the country . (And, as that link there shows, Clinton has received over five times as much money from it as has her Republican opponent.) ..."
"... George Herbert Walker Bush knows lots that the 'news' media don't report (even when it has already been leaked in one way or another), and the Clinton plan to destroy Russia is part of that. Will the Russian government accept it? Or will it do whatever is required in order to defeat it? This is already a serious nuclear confrontation . ..."
Hillary Clinton, on September 19th, was endorsed for President, by the most historically important,
intelligent, and dangerous, Republican of modern times.
She was endorsed then by the person who in 1990 cunningly engineered the end of the Soviet Union
and of its Warsaw Pact military alliance in such a way as
to continue the West's war against Russia so as to conquer Russia gradually for the owners of
US international corporations. The person, who kept his plan secret even from his closest advisors,
until the night of 24 February 1990, when he told them that what he had previously instructed them
to tell Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev as the West's future military intentions about Russia if
the USSR were to end, was actually a lie.
He also told them that they were henceforth to proceed forward on the basis that the residual
stump of the former Soviet Union, Russia, will instead be treated as if it still is an enemy-nation,
and that the fundamental aim of the Western alliance will then remain: to conquer Russia (notwithstanding
the end of the USSR, of its communism, and of its military alliances) - that the Cold War is to end
only on the Russian side, not at all, really, on the Western side. (All of that is documented from
the historical record, at that linked-to article.)
This person was the former Director of the US CIA, born US aristocrat, and committed champion
of US conquest of the entire world, the President of the United States at the time (1990):
George Herbert Walker Bush .
He informed the daughter of Robert F. Kennedy, Kathleen Hartington Kennedy Townsend - as she posted
it, apparently ecstatically, on September 19th, to her facebook page after personally having just
met with Mr. Bush - "The President told me he's voting for Hillary!!" She then confirmed this to
Politico the same day, which headlined promptly,
"George H.W. Bush to Vote for Hillary" .
G.H.W. Bush is an insider's insider: he would not do this if he felt that Hillary Clinton wouldn't
carry forward his plan (
which has been adhered-to by each of the US Presidents after him ), and if he felt that Donald
Trump - Bush's own successor now as the Republican US candidate for President - would not carry it
forward. (This was his most important and history-shaping decision during his entire Presidency,
and therefore it's understandable now that he would be willing even to cross Party-lines on his Presidential
ballot in order to have it followed-through to its ultimate conclusion.)
What indications exist publicly, that she will carry it forward? Hillary Clinton has already publicly
stated (though tactfully, so that the US press could ignore it) her intention to push things up to
and beyond the nuclear brink, with regard to Russia:
Russia even hacked into the Democratic National Committee, maybe even some state election
systems. So, we've got to step up our game. Make sure we are well defended and able to take the fight
to those who go after us. As President, I will make it clear, that the United States will
treat cyber attacks just like any other attack . We will be ready with serious political,
economic and military responses.
Russia denies that it did any such thing, but
the US even taps the phone conversations of Angela Merkel and other US allies ; and, of course,
the US and Russia routinely hack into each others' email and other communications; so, even if Russia
did what Clinton says, then to call it "like any other attack" against the United States and to threaten
to answer it with "military responses", would itself be historically unprecedented - which is what
Hillary Clinton is promising to do.
Historically unprecedented, like nuclear war itself would be. And she was saying this in the context
of her alleging that Russia had "attacked" the DNC (Democratic National Committee), and she as President
might "attack" back, perhaps even with "military responses". This was not an off-the-cuff remark
from her - it was her prepared text in a speech. She said it though, for example, on 26 October 2013,
Britain's Telegraph had headlined,
"US 'operates 80 listening posts worldwide, 19 in Europe, and snooped on Merkel mobile 2002-2013'
: US intelligence targeted Angela Merkel's phone from 2002 to 2013, according to new eavesdropping
leaks".
But now, this tapping against Merkel would, according to Hillary Clinton's logic (unless she intends
it to apply only by the United States against Russia), constitute reason for Germany (and
34 other nations ) to go to war against the United States.
Clinton also said there: "We need to respond to evolving threats from states like Russia,
China, Iran, and North Korea from networks, criminal and terrorist networks like ISIS. We need a
military that is ready and agile so it can meet the full range of threats, and operate on short notice
across every domain, not just land, sea, air and space, but also cyberspace".
She also said that the sequester agreement between the Congress and the President must end, because
US military spending should not be limited: "I am all for cutting the fat out of the budget and making
sure we stretch our dollars But we cannot impose arbitrary limits on something as important as our
military. That makes no sense at all. The sequester makes our country less secure. Let's end it and
get a budget deal that supports America's military". She wasn't opposing "arbitrary limits" on non-military
spending; she implied that that's not "as important as our military".
She was clear: this is a wartime US, not a peacetime nation; we're already at war, in her view;
and therefore continued unlimited cost-overruns to Lockheed Martin etc. need to be accepted, not
limited (by "arbitrary limits" or otherwise). She favors "cutting the fat out of the budget" for
healthcare, education, subsidies to the poor, environmental protection, etc., but not for war, not
for this war. A more bellicose speech, especially against "threats from states like Russia, China,
Iran, and North Korea from networks, criminal and terrorist networks like ISIS", all equating "states"
such as Russia and China, with "terrorist networks like ISIS", could hardly be imagined - as if Russia
and China are anything like jihadist organizations, and are hostile toward America, as such jihadist
groups are.
However, her threat to respond to an alleged "cyber attack" from Russia by "serious political,
economic and military responses" , is unprecedented, even from her. It was big news when she
said it, though virtually ignored by America's newsmedia.
The only US newsmedia to have picked up on Clinton's shocking threat were Republican-Party-oriented
ones, because the Democratic-Party and nonpartisan 'news' media in the US don't criticize a Democratic
nominee's neoconservatism - they hide it, or else find excuses for it (even after the Republican
neoconservative President George W. Bush's catastrophic and
lie-based neoconservative invasion of Iraq - then headed by the Moscow-friendly Saddam Hussein
- in 2003, which many Democratic office-holders, such as Hillary Clinton backed).
So, everything in today's USA 'news' media is favorable toward neoconservatism - it's now the
"Establishment" foreign policy, established notwithstanding the catastrophic Iraq-invasion,
from which America's 'news' media have evidently learned nothing whatsoever (because they're essentially
unchanged and committed to the same aristocracy as has long controlled them).
However, now that the Republican Party's Presidential nominee, Donald Trump, is openly critical
of Hillary Clinton's and George W. Bush's neoconservatism, any Republican-oriented 'news' media that
support Trump's candidacy allows its 'journalists' to criticize Clinton's neoconservatism; and, so,
there were a few such critiques of this shocking statement from Clinton.
The Republican Party's "Daily Caller" headlined about this more directly than any other US 'news'
medium,
"Clinton Advocates Response To DNC Hack That Would Likely Bring On WWIII" , and reported, on
September 1st, that "Clinton's cavalier attitude toward going to war over cyber attacks seems to
contradict her assertion that she is the responsible voice on foreign policy in the current election".
The Republican Washington Times newspaper headlined
"Hillary Clinton: US will treat cyberattacks 'just like any other attack'" , and reported that
she would consider using the "military to respond to cyberattacks," but that her Republican opponent
had indicated he would instead use only cyber against cyber: "'I am a fan of the future, and cyber
is the future,' he said when asked by Time magazine during the Republican National Convention about
using cyberweapons". However, Trump was not asked there whether he would escalate from a cyber attack
to a physical one. Trump has many times said that having good relations with Russia would be a priority
if he becomes President. That would obviously be impossible if he (like Hillary) were to be seeking
a pretext for war against Russia.
The mainstream The Hill newspaper bannered,
"Clinton: Treat cyberattacks 'like any other attack'" , and reported that, "Since many high-profile
cyberattacks could be interpreted as traditional intelligence-gathering - something the US itself
also engages in - the White House is often in a tricky political position when it comes to its response".
That's not critical of her position, but at least it makes note of the crucial fact that if the US
were to treat a hacker's attack as being an excuse to invade Russia, it would treat the US itself
as being already an invader of Russia - which the US prior to a President Hillary Clinton never actually
has been, notwithstanding the routine nature of international cyber espionage (which Clinton has
now stated she wants to become a cause of war), which has been, and will continue to be, essential
in the present era.
The International Business Times, an online-only site, headlined September 1 st ,
"Clinton: US should use 'military response' to fight cyberattacks from Russia and China" , and
reported that a Pentagon official had
testified to Congress on July 13 th , that current US policy on this matter is: "When
determining whether a cyber incident constitutes an armed attack, the US government considers a broad
range of factors, including the nature and extent of injury or death to persons and the destruction
of or damage to property. Cyber incidents are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and the national
security leadership and the president will make a determination if it's an armed attack".
Hillary's statement on this matter was simply ignored by The New York Times, Wall Street Journal,
Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, NPR, Fox, CNN, The Nation, The Atlantic, Harper's, National
Review, Common Dreams, Alternet, Truthout, and all the rest of the US standard and 'alternative news'
reporting organizations. Perhaps when Americans go to the polls to elect a President on November
8th, almost none of them will have learned about her policy on this incredibly important matter.
Hillary's statement was in line with the current Administration's direction of policy, but is
farther along in that direction than the Obama Administration's policy yet is.
As
the German Economic News article had noted, but only in passing: "Just a few months ago, US President
Barack Obama had laid the legal basis for this procedure and signed a decree that equates hacker
attacks with military attacks". However, this slightly overstated the degree to which Obama has advanced
"this procedure". On 1 April 2016 - and not as any April Fool's joke - techdirt had headlined
"President Obama Signs Executive Order Saying That Now He's Going To Be Really Mad If He Catches
Someone Cyberattacking Us" and linked to the document, which techdirt noted was "allowing the
White House to issue sanctions on those 'engaging in significant malicious cyber-enabled activities'".
The writer, Mike Masnick, continued, quite accurately: "To make this work, the President officially
declared foreign hacking to be a 'national emergency' (no, really) and basically said that if the
government decides that some foreign person is doing a bit too much hacking, the US government can
basically do all sorts of bad stuff to them, like seize anything they have in the US and block them
from coming to the US". What Hillary Clinton wants to add to this policy is physical, military, invasion,
for practices such as (if Russia becomes declared by the US President to have been behind the hacking
of the DNC) what is actually routine activity of the CIA, NSA, and, of course, of Russia's (and other
countries') intelligence operations.
It wasn't directly Obama's own action that led most powerfully up to Hillary Clinton's policy
on this, but instead NATO's recent action - and NATO has always been an extension of the US President,
it's his military club, and it authorizes him to go to war against any nation that it decides to
have been invaded by some non-member country (especially Russia or China - the Saudis, Qataris, and
other funders behind international jihadist attacks are institutionally prohibited from being considered
for invasion by NATO, because the US keeps those regimes in power, and those regimes are generally
the biggest purchasers of US weapons). I reported on this at The Saker's site, on 15 June 2016, headlining
"NATO Says It Might Now Have Grounds to Attack Russia" . That report opened:
On Tuesday, June 14 th ,
NATO announced that if a NATO member country becomes the victim of a cyber attack by persons
in a non-NATO country such as Russia or China, then NATO's Article V
"collective defense"
provision requires each NATO member country to join that NATO member country if it decides to
strike back against the attacking country.
NATO is now alleging that because
Russian hackers had copied the emails on Hillary Clinton's home computer , this action of someone
in Russia taking advantage of her having privatized her US State Department communications to her
unsecured home computer and of such a Russian's then snooping into the US State Department business
that was stored on it, might constitute a Russian attack against the United States of America, and
would, if the US President declares it to be a Russian invasion of the US, trigger NATO's mutual-defense
clause and so require all NATO nations to join with the US government in going to war against Russia,
if the US government so decides.
So, Obama is using NATO to set the groundwork for Hillary Clinton's policy as (he hopes) America's
next President. Meanwhile, Obama's public rhetoric on the matter is far more modest, and less scary.
It's sane-sounding falsehoods. At the end of the G-20 Summit in Beijing, he held a
press conference September
5th (VIDEO at this link) , in which he was asked specifically (3:15) "Q: On the cyber front,
do you think Russia is trying to influence the US election?" and he went into a lengthy statement,
insulting Putin and saying (until 6:40 on the video) why Obama is superior to Putin on the Syrian
war, and then (until 8:07 in the video) blaming Putin for, what is actually, the refusal of the Ukrainian
parliament or Rada to approve the federalization of Ukraine that's stated in the Minsk agreement
as being a prerequisite to direct talks being held between the Donbass residents and
the Obama-installed regime
in Kiev that's been
trying to exterminate the residents of Donbass . Then (8:07 in the video), Obama got around to
the reporter's question:
And finally, we did talk about cyber-security generally. I'm not going to comment on specific
investigations that are still alive and active, but I will tell you that we've had problems with
cyber-intrusions from Russia in the past, from other countries in the past, and, look, we're moving
into a new era here, where a number of countries have significant capacities, and frankly we've got
more capacity than anybody both offensively and defensively, but our goal is not to suddenly in the
cyber-arena duplicate a cycle of escalation that we saw when it comes to other arms-races in the
past, but rather to start instituting (9:00) some norms so that everybody's acting responsibly.
He is a far more effective deceiver than is his intended successor, but Hillary's goals and his,
have always been the same: achieving what the US aristocracy want. Whereas she operates with a sledgehammer,
he
operates with a scalpel . And he hopes to hand this operation off to her on 20 January 2017.
This is what Hillary's statement that "the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any
other attack" is reflecting: it's reflecting that the US will, if she becomes President, be actively
seeking an excuse to invade Russia. The Obama-mask will then be off.
If this turns out to be the case, then it will be raw control of the US Government by the
military-industrial complex, which includes the arms-makers plus the universities . It's the
owners - the aristocrats - plus their servants; and at least 90% of the military-industrial complex
support Hillary Clinton's candidacy. Like her, they are all demanding that the sequester be ended
and that any future efforts to reduce the US Government's debts must come from cutting expenditures
for healthcare, education, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, environmental protection, and expenditures
on the poor; no cuts (but only increases) for the military. This is based on the conservative theory,
that the last thing to cut in government is the military.
George Herbert Walker Bush knows lots that the 'news' media don't report (even when it has already
been leaked in one way or another), and
the
Clinton plan to destroy Russia is part of that. Will the Russian government accept it? Or will
it do whatever is required in order to defeat it? This is already
a serious nuclear confrontation .
"... The real standard will be, as it was for Obama in 2008, the capacity to touch people on an emotional level. Policy does not matter. Obama touched our desire for positive human solidarity (black and white together) The foundation of Trump's appeal is also on a emotional level. Trump, at his best, exudes a powerful resentment–a type of negative solidarity based on anger and contempt. ..."
"What standards do you think will matter for who really wins the debate, as in does better
with voters."
The real standard will be, as it was for Obama in 2008, the capacity to touch people on
an emotional level. Policy does not matter. Obama touched our desire for positive human solidarity
(black and white together) The foundation of Trump's appeal is also on a emotional level. Trump,
at his best, exudes a powerful resentment–a type of negative solidarity based on anger and contempt.
i just saw a good comment at the guardian comparing trump to chemo, the "poison that we take
to cure us of the dnc/rnc cancer in hope they don't kill us first".
"... Supposedly, per this Social Security Works advocate, Trump's advisor told Paul Ryan he will agree to cutting Social Security, ala 2008 0bama's advisor telling Canadian officials that 0bama wouldn't really negotiate NAFTA. ..."
Supposedly, per this Social Security Works advocate, Trump's advisor told Paul Ryan he will
agree to cutting Social Security, ala 2008 0bama's advisor telling Canadian officials that 0bama
wouldn't really negotiate NAFTA.
Just watched Samantha Powers speak at the emergency UN security counsel meeting on Syria, how
she managed to keep a straight face is completely beyond me.
Basically Russia needs to take responsibility for its actions in Syria and the war would be
over if those damn Russians would GTFO and quit disrupting the US and GCC regime change operations.
It appears everything would be going swimmingly if Russia would just leave the "rebels" alone
and let the US turn Syria into Libya, I mean is that so much to ask for? /S
The people Obama has chosen to represent him are almost all fanatics. Samantha Power and Ash
Carter stand out as true psychopaths. Carter actually openly defied Obama on the Syria ceasefire.
Robert Parry has an excellent piece out today on the
rush to judgment about the attack on the humanitarian convoy.
It has been particularly infuriating to see the Chanel-suited Berkeley types be the ones to
embrace imperial fascist war-making with such glee.
I happened to recognize Susan Rice travelling sans bodyguard with her girlfriend at the airport
in Chiang Mai Thailand and had a delicious time giving her a full piece of my mind. Unedited truth
to power with nowhere to hide, she reacted with a glaze that said "you are just an idiot peon"
but I could see she was shaken.
"... Re the Oilprice link ( The Natural Gas War Burning Under Syria OilPrice (resilc)) , here's an article that contradicts the notion that US policy in Syria was about the Qatari pipeline as that claim–put forth in a Politico article by Robert Kennedy Jr–was little more than a poorly sourced rumor. ..."
"... The US decision to support Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia in their ill-conceived plan to overthrow the Assad regime was primarily a function of the primordial interest of the US permanent war state in its regional alliances. ..."
"... In other words the MIC strikes again and seems to be directly challenging Obama policies with "accidents" like the recent bombing of the Syrian army. Time for movie fans to dust off old copies of Seven Days in May? ..."
Re the Oilprice link (
The Natural Gas War Burning Under Syria OilPrice (resilc)) , here's an article that contradicts
the notion that US policy in Syria was about the Qatari pipeline as that claim–put forth in a
Politico article by Robert Kennedy Jr–was little more than a poorly sourced rumor.
That claim has no credibility for a very simple reason: there was no Qatari proposal for
Syria to reject in 2009. It was not until October 2009 that Qatar and Turkey even agreed to
form a working group to develop such a gas pipeline project.
Gareth Porter says that instead
The US decision to support Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia in their ill-conceived plan to
overthrow the Assad regime was primarily a function of the primordial interest of the US permanent
war state in its regional alliances. The three Sunni allies control US access to the key US
military bases in the region, and the Pentagon, the CIA, the State Department and the Obama
White House were all concerned, above all, with protecting the existing arrangements for the
US military posture in the region[….]
The massive, direct and immediate power interests of the US war state – not the determination
to ensure that a pipeline would carry Qatar's natural gas to Europe – drove the US policy of
participation in the war against the Syrian regime. Only if activists focus on that reality
will they be able to unite effectively to oppose not only the Syrian adventure but the war
system itself.
In other words the MIC strikes again and seems to be directly challenging Obama policies with
"accidents" like the recent bombing of the Syrian army. Time for movie fans to dust off old copies
of Seven Days in May?
Porter may well be right about the pipeline. However, a piece that purports to account for our
Syria operations and the obsession with the removal of Assad that does not mention Israel and the
Israel Lobby cannot be the complete story. Breaking the 'Shia Crescent' is a major strategic aim
of the friends of Israel.
Without a doubt the Lobby keeps the liberals–the "progressives except for Palestine"–supporting
the fever dreams of the generals, but arguably it's this internal, and traditionally rather Waspy
pressure group that is the real menace. As the following quite accurately points out, we have a WW2
military with nothing to do with itself unless they can invent a suitable enemy.
We live in a military world fundamentally different from that of the last century. All-out
wars between major powers, which is to say nuclear powers, are unlikely since they would last
about an hour after they became all-out, and everyone knows it. In WWII Germany could convince
itself, reasonably and almost correctly, that Russia would fall in a summer, or the Japanese that
a Depression-ridden, unarmed America might decide not to fight. Now, no. Threaten something that
a nuclear power regards as vital and you risk frying. So nobody does.
Or, to sum up
What is the relevance of the Pentagon? How do you bomb a trade agreement?
The generals and admirals need a Russian foe to justify their absurd budgets and their very existence.
It's ironic that our great victory in WW2–triumph of industrial America–may end up doing us more
long term harm than those European and Asian nations that were bombed into ashes. You can rebuild
cities but dismantling imperial hubris turns out to be harder.
Occam would probably just say that the Cold War never ended for our geniuses-in-chief, despite
dissolving away in 1989 our enemy is and always was and will be Russia uber alles. The simple fact
that they back Assad is all it took, yes add in a sprinkle of Tehran and Tel Aviv and goose with
a little juice from Riyadh but the overnight disappearance of our existential enemy was something
up with which we could not put.
"... "Syria conflict: UN chief 'appalled' by Aleppo escalation" Translation: "Oh no, our proxies are surrounded and being ground into dust. Human rights! Human rights! Please stop bombing!" ..."
"... You mean there are Kurds in their Way? ..."
"... Not sure what you're getting at. Kurds have little role in the battle for Aleppo. They have a small bit of territory in the north of the city and helped to secure the Castello road, but that's it. ..."
"Syria conflict: UN chief 'appalled' by Aleppo escalation" Translation: "Oh no, our proxies are surrounded and being ground into dust. Human rights!
Human rights! Please stop bombing!"
Not sure what you're getting at. Kurds have little role in the battle for Aleppo. They have
a small bit of territory in the north of the city and helped to secure the Castello road, but
that's it.
I will never miss George Dubya Bush. It was truly scary to realise that the institutions of the
US were so broken that a complete moron like that could become President because his daddy was.
Then, just as Obama's election seemed to put things back on an even keel, here in Britain we elected
Dave Cameron, an aristocratic ignoramus probably more out of touch with reality than Dubya ever
was - and not a whole lot smarter.
Pretty straightforward unless you were an Iraqi with god knows how many tons of depleted uranium
dropping on your children's heads. Or an innocent Afghan being tortured in one of the CIA's black
sites.
Bush is a war criminal who is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent
people.
He represents the worst of humanity and although Trump appears worse - we will have to wait
to see what his legacy will be if he wins. As it stands Bush is the one who already has a disastrous
and murderous legacy.
Considering he inherited the war Bubba Bush and Darth Bugsey Cheney started, you are correct.
The fact they disbanded the Iraqi military, they provided skilled military leaders and troops
to ISIL.
That excuse is a bit hard to swallow 8 years later. Even Guantanamo Bay remains in use, as it
ever was. As it turns out it was easier for Obama to provide weapons to rebel\terrorist groups
in Libya and Syria than it was to give prisoners a fair trial under the American justice system
and end torture. He's also cracked down on whistleblowers like Manning and Snowden in a way that
Bush never did.
Bush signed agreement for a deadline to withdraw troops from Iraq. Obama tried to bully Iraq into
disregarding that agreement. They refused. He then simply rechristened the troops 'advisors.'
Obama never ended the war there, or anywhere. He's extended Bush's wars into several more countries
throughout MENA.
Please stop lying about Obama's record. He has pushed for never-ending, ever-expanding wars,
and that's just what he's delivered.
The nightmare Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld & company left due to their manipulating lies and misinformation
to ensure the USA bomb
Iraq (thus destabilizing the ME) will
at minimum bring a generation of leaders great misery.
Each US leader will experiment with the
possibilities to decrease terrorism, many more mistakes will be endured. No one seems to knows
how to stop the hatred which underlies the destruction pledged
by these sociopathic murderers.
Obama promoted the same aggressive American policy as Bush, despite the early promise. Perhaps
it makes little difference who is in power. To ignore the last 8 years of more bloodshed is a
thing many round the world do not have the luxury you do.
We call Obama a war monger because he has brought the American war effort to seven nations just
this year. Brought war to Ukraine. Libya. Syria. Yemen. Honduras.
Obama's Military is in over 150 nations on this planet.
Obama continue expanded the Bush/Cheney doctrine. He campaigned for office pledging to reverse
it. He's now been president for nearly eight years; it's reasonable to hold him accountable for
what he's done and stop pretending he bears no responsibility for what's happened under his watch
as commander-in-chief.
Every leader including Obama carries the responsibility for their choices. Bush/Cheney
violated and abused the trust of leaders and
the public in many nations by misinforming,
lying, and manipulative means to bomb
a nation who had no dealings with the terrorism of 9/11. The USA is now in a war tangle in which
every leader hence will be targeted negatively until the ME conflicts
have no more US armed forces involved in the killings. Terrorism will plague many nations for
the next generation at minimum.
'Mission Accomplished' should be the name of the jail cells for Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld convicted
as war criminals.
This picture kind of sums up why a whole load of people are voting Trump. Two apparently opposing
politicians who ultimately led the US in the same self destructing direction. The illusion of
democracy could never be clearer.
Afraid I would find it impossible to hug the president who with Blair has destabilised the Middle
East for years to come...mind you the UK's history ain't so hot. Maybe I should stop going around
hugging my fellow countrymen and women.
Far more so than many think with superficial consideration.
Both men did nothing for their people while spending unbelievable amounts of money on obscene
mass killing abroad.
They also share behaviors in the economic sphere. The 2008 Financial collapse happened under
George Bush owing to a lack of adequate oversight of financial institutions and practices, a titanic
financial equivalent to Bush's lackadaisical performance in New Orleans' Hurricane Katrina.
The Obama response during eight years in office has been to avoid making any changes to correct
the situation and prevent future occurrences, and he has done nothing but have vast quantities
of money printed to keep the economy afloat.
Actually, while Obama is more intelligent than Bush, he too is a weak and ineffective figure.
He has marched without pause to the drumbeat of the Pentagon and CIA
He understood at least his own lack of ability after a lifetime spent as an asinine frat-boy
who never did anything on his own.
He had Cheney and Rumsfeld along deliberately because he knew they were ready to run things
for him.
His lack of effective intelligence and lack of drive to do anything should have meant that
Bush never be president.
But he had money, tons of it, and heavy-duty political connections, and the real power men
like the ruthless Cheney had him lined up from the start as their front man.
The one thing Bush proved was that America doesn't even need a President. Any pathetic figure
can sign the documents placed before him and read the speeches written for him.
The establishment, with immense resources at its disposal, is quite capable of keeping the
public believing that the face on the television is actually in charge.
Actually, while Obama is more intelligent than Bush, he too is a weak and ineffective figure.
He has marched without pause to the drumbeat of the Pentagon and CIA
"There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party...and it has two right wings:
Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their
laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt-until
recently... and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the
black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between
the two parties." (Gore Vidal - "The State of the Union", 1975)
"W" had one of the BEST track records of placing PoC in truly significant positions. Condoleeza
Rice. Colin Powell, Alberto Gonzalez, etc. Bush was in no way, shape or form a racist - so long
as you were an Uncle Tom willing to sell out your fellow citizens, bomb the crap out of foreigners,
and kiss the asses of the 1%.
Like making Bush's tax cuts permanent. Obama has many great qualities, but a strong principled
belief in equality is not one of them. He's a neo-liberal corporatist through and through -hence
frantically trying to push TTP through before the election, now that Hillary was forced to say
she's against it. I'm sure there was a private conversation there - 'That f-ing Bernie is making
me say I'm against TTP -can you get it through before the election, we can't trust Trump on it'
Michelle Obama embrases the criminal whose administration is responsible ( although we know that
the foreign policy in the US is not decided by the president but by the NSA, CIA and occult lobbies
) for the death of over 1.500.000 million people in Iraq and Syria. Meanwhile the Guardian embraces
the anti Russian propaganda by giving voice to the unpeakable lies about Russia's war crimes.
Fortunately most media in the Continent (in France and Italy especially), are not follwing this
dictats.
If the UN and the International Criminal Court were not mere tools of the US to punish anyone
they don't like how on earth is this criminal not in jail? The only person that did worse than
him is Hitler. He purposely lied to go into a war that destroyed thousands of innocent lives.
I see, Bush (death toll 500,000+) and Obama (death toll 300,000+) are now closing ranks to avert
Trump. Phew!!! This Trump guy must be really dangerous. I hope, our banks help finance an effective
campaign against Trump!
I think this is a good thing, Ronald Reagan used to have dinner with Tip O'Neill. As did many
Republicans and Democrat presidents and senior members of Congress/Senate, that's stopped under
Tom DeLay and Gingrich during the 90s when partisanship really took hold. It's been ugly ever
since.
Socializing with the opposition is good for a working relationship.
Obama wasn't corrupted by office - operation Obama was planned well in advance. I would argue
he was corrupted a long time ago. I see war criminal Bush Snr endorsed Clinton just last week
- go figure. Not that I am a fan of Trump - far from it.
Obama appeared out of nowhere and managed to scrape together the mega bucks to fund his campaign?
Doesn't work like that - You don't currently get to be POTUS otherwise.
It seems like only 16 years ago that a bunch of Wall Street traders flew to Florida to stage a
riot to stop the recount....and here's Obama and Bush looking forward to the election of the first
President with her/his own hedge fund.....it brings tears to my eyes...
GW Bush refers to Hillary Clinton as his sister-in-law, now receives a hug from Michelle Obama.
Further confirmation that the supposed political rivalry between the Reps and Wall St / TPP Dems
is just noise.
The Obamas have become part of the firm. Anyone who has read vincent bugliosi book,The prosecution
of George W BUsh for murder knows the last thing this guy needs is a hug. How can any of them
be truly trusted
Politics is theater. They're all acting pretty much all the time, as politics is the art of managing
perceptions.
Everyone knows everyone. There is a front of house posturing and invective demanded by the job,
and then the back of house, deals and horse-trading.
Bill Clinton is a massive friend of both George Bushes and Donald Trump used be a good friend
of the Clintons. But both the Clintons loathe Barack and Michelle Obama.
So for me, the very worst picture was the one of Hillary being hugged by Barack during her stolen
coronation.
Looks like the establishment is closing ranks. When was the last time the US had a real two party
system and politicians were not controlled by Wall Street?
"... I think that we are led to a very somber conclusion here. In societies with slow growth, upward mobility is limited by the lack of opportunities and the solid grip that those who are on the top keep over the chances of their children to remain on the top. It is either self-delusion or hypocrisy to believe that societies with such unevenness of chances will come close to resembling "meritocracies". But it is also the case that true upward mobility comes with an enormous price tag of lives lost and wealth destroyed. ..."
Branko Milanovic
........................... I think that we are led to a very somber conclusion here. In societies with slow growth, upward
mobility is limited by the lack of opportunities and the solid grip that those who are on the
top keep over the chances of their children to remain on the top. It is either self-delusion or
hypocrisy to believe that societies with such unevenness of chances will come close to resembling
"meritocracies". But it is also the case that true upward mobility comes with an enormous price
tag of lives lost and wealth destroyed.
"... Originally published at Tax Justice Network ..."
"... Corporations used to contribute $1 out of every $3 in federal revenue. Today, despite very high corporate profitability, it is $1 out of every $9. ..."
"... As of 2015, U.S. corporations had $2.4 trillion in untaxed profits offshore. Another study, looking at S&P 500 companies, found they held $2.1 trillion as of 2014. This roughly five-fold increase from $434 billion in 2005 stems largely from anticipation of a tax holiday. ..."
Yves here. This short post extracts key findings from a new study by Americans for Tax Fairness and
the Economic Policy Institute. We liked the summary and include it immediately below. One thing to
keep in mind: taxes are a big element of economic policy by default, as in that they provide incentives
and disincentives. The fact that Big Pharma and tech companies lower their tax rates through the
use of clever structuring and tax havens and report higher profits is an economic privilege relative
to other industries.
While the statutory tax rate on corporate income is 35 percent, estimates of the rate corporations
actually pay put the effective rate at about half the statutory rate. Driving this divergence
between what corporations are supposed to pay and what they actually pay is a combination of offshore
profit shifting and tax avoidance. Multinational corporations pay taxes on between just 3.0 and
6.6 percent of the profits they book in tax havens.
And corporations have become increasingly adept at making their profits appear to be earned
in these tax havens; the share of offshore profits booked in tax havens rose to 55 percent in
2013. Almost half of offshore profits are held by health care companies (mostly pharmaceutical
companies) and information technology firms. Because of the inherent difficulty in assigning a
precise price to intellectual property rights, it is relatively easy for these companies to manipulate
the rules so that U.S. profits show up in tax havens.
The use of offshore profit-shifting hinges on a single corporate tax loophole: deferral. Multinational
companies are allowed to defer paying taxes on profits from an offshore subsidiary until they
pay them back to the U.S. parent as a dividend. Proponents of cutting the corporate tax rate refer
to profits held offshore as "trapped." This characterization is patently false. Nothing prevents
corporations from returning these profits to the United States except a desire to pay lower taxes.
In fact, corporations overall return about two-thirds of the profits they make offshore, and pay
the taxes they owe on them.
Further, there are numerous U.S. investments that these companies can undertake without triggering
the tax. In short, deferral provides a mammoth incentive for multinational corporations to disguise
their U.S. profits as profits earned in tax havens. And they have responded to this incentive:
82 percent of the U.S. tax revenue loss from income shifting is due to profit shifting to just
seven tax-haven countries.
Firms have also become increasingly adept at manipulating the rules here in the United States
to avoid taxation. Lower tax rates on "pass-through" business entities and poor regulatory responses
have given firms the chance to reorganize as "S-corporations" or opaque partnerships in order
to avoid paying any corporate income tax at all.
This intentional erosion of the U.S. corporate income tax base has real consequences. Rich
multinational corporations avoiding their fair share of U.S. taxes means that domestic firms and
American workers have to foot the bill. It also means that corporations are not paying their fair
share for our infrastructure, schools, public safety, and legal systems, despite depending on
all of these services for their profitability.
Corporate profits are way up, and corporate taxes are way down. In 1952, corporate
profits were 5.5 percent of the economy, and corporate taxes were 5.9 percent. Today, corporate
profits are 8.5 percent of the economy, and corporate taxes are just 1.9 percent of GDP.
And there are plenty more striking facts. Just for example:
Corporations used to contribute $1 out of every $3 in federal revenue. Today, despite very
high corporate profitability, it is $1 out of every $9.
As of 2015, U.S. corporations had $2.4 trillion in untaxed profits offshore. Another study,
looking at S&P 500 companies, found they held $2.1 trillion as of 2014. This roughly five-fold
increase from $434 billion in 2005 stems largely from anticipation of a tax holiday.
Just two industries-high-tech and pharmaceutical/health care-hold half the untaxed offshore profits.
And here's a picture pointing to the "big six" corporate tax havens, which we've noted before:
What about mergers. Do they not only facilitate monopolies but tax evasion?
The IP stuff, the inverted balance sheets of those companies and their opaque allocation of
revenues is the "dark matter" economists talk about euphemistically?
I presume these offshore profits are not held in cash but are moved into U.S. Treasury bonds
and other investments. What happens to the profits and losses from those? Are they eventually
returned to the U.S. and taxed?
Yves: Thanks for this. Still another area of bipartisan connivance and neglect. And there is
a real irony about the Netherlands, which has been doing a lot of virtual signaling with regard
to Greece (especially) and Italy, being a major tax haven. I guess that it is easy to balance
the budget with all of that funny money floating around.
Luxembourg? My solution is just to give it to France as a new département.
Robert Hahl: Don't count on profits not being held in cash. There are some indications, and
Yves has published posts about them, that companies indeed are hoarding cash.
You do not have to leave your backyard to find the same tax avoidance built into the capitalist
system. Here in Philadelphia, during a 2nd wave of large scale real estate investment in the 10s
of $Billions$, property is sold off for development parcels or after the development is completed,
fully rented and a juicy source of rental for years and years to come. You would think the city
government would reap some kind of windfall, that the school district funded by annual real estate
taxes based on market value, but of course, the crony capitalism assures that tax avoidance strategies,
all perfectly legal due to the laws written by the 1%, the self dealing loopholes will prevail.
Now, a very successful real estate developer got himself elected to city council, along with
a long suffering republican chamber of commerce guy. And THEY want to close some of the long standing
loopholes that may have cost the city as much as $24Mil last year alone. Plus the ongoing depressed
valuation used for the annual real estate tax bill.
Immanuel Wallerstein in his lectures has pointed the 3 main obstacles to profits that the Global
Capitalist System must control in order to sustain growth.
1. The cost of inputs
2. The costs of wages and ancillary benefits such as social insurances for health, unemployment,
and eventual retirement.
3. Taxes
This article speaks directly to #3, as does my local example. The ongoing war on tax avoidance
as a necessary standing policy by capitalists is on the local, national and international levels.
The universal rule of law begs the questions, who writes these laws, who interprets these laws,
who benefits from these laws and why do they never change in a way that gives meaning to the authority
of government as having authority to rule. The pretense that tax loopholes are perfectly legal
is critical to maintain the social order and belief in the rule of law. When tax laws are rendered
useless by legal mumbo jumbo, the authority of the state to govern must be called into question
as well!
When people out in the street riot, loot and vandalize to show political dissatisfaction, that
is criminal behavior, not legal, and has no loophole to excuse them. There is no question that
the state must step in with its full power and authority and enforce the law, which is crystal
clear in the case of rioting. There is no question that even local government must seek reinforcement
from the military. Imagine a lawyer saying: "Well, the rioters are adopting a perfectly legal
strategy of prosecution and jail avoidance by massing in numbers so large that they all can not
be arrested, tried and convicted.
This constitutes not a crime against society, but the legitimate right to self determination
in the face of a corrupt and meaningless system of democracy where the majority of the people
are permanently relegated into menial economic toil to sustain the oversized wealth and power
of the 1%. Clearly, this must considered protected political activity and freedom of speech, NOT
violence in the pedestrian sense of a lone gun man holding up a liquor store. The socially redeeming
value of large scale social change due to mob activity protects this crowd as political activists,
not mere petty criminals. They are making the world a better place, not just stealing to benefit
themselves as individuals. Just as people vote with their dollars, vote with their feet by moving
to where jobs are, people are voting by rioting to correct the abuse of power not regulated by
the meaningless ballot box which has been rendered useless and beyond reach."
On the one hand, Tax Justice Network is often fuzzy (as in wrong) on technical tax details.
Tax is fiendishly complex. But on the other hand, the general idea that there may be ways to structure
around this isn't crazy. As I recall, for instance, if I recall correctly, the publicly-traded
PE firms are legal entities that own (or own the cash flows) of general partnerships.
So the government is subsidizing corporate profits through tax breaks, loopholes, and non-enforcement.
This has the overall effect of re-distributing the wealth towards the upper end of the income
spectrum and sponsors the creation of millionaires and billionaires. Who would have a problem
with that?
That's not class warfare at all says this temporarily embarrassed trillionaire.
i bet if you had a "birds-eye" view of all the money in all the accounts, both her and overseas,
and ownership of shell companies stock, and on and on, you would find that that person exists
already.
Don't the mega-corporations write the thousands of pages of our corporate tax code? Congress
just rubber stamps it, right?
Can't remember where I read it, but it has been suggested that the supposedly high corporate
tax rate is there by design. The biggest players write in all the loopholes they need and more,
burdening the small fry with the nominal rate and thus squelching any competition that the big
guys might face from lesser competitors.
"... It's good to see articles criticizing financialization now and then. It would be great if our politicians would take this issue up, but alas, it would be suicide (certainly politically, and possibly literally). ..."
"... On the surface, the reasons behind Bridgeport's poverty and Greenwich's wealth do not seem related. Bridgeport is struggling because it is a one-time manufacturing hub whose jobs went overseas as factories moved away in the late 20th century. Greenwich became a home for New York City financiers who wanted to live somewhere a little more bucolic than New York, and later hedge-fund managers decided they could work closer to home and set up their companies there, too. ..."
"... Michael Parenti gets it: "The reason we have poor people is rich people." ..."
"... And because we have poor people who are told they should not envy the rich their advantages because they just might be one of them someday. So we lionize this era's robber barons from Bezos to Cook to Brin instead of roasting them over a slow fire until they agree to pay taxes in this country. Too bad we don't have a trust-busting politician of any stripe around, Teddy Roosevelt where are you when we need you. ..."
The Atlantic article (
Finance Is Ruining America Atlantic (Phil U)) would have been more effective if it had described
a typical hedge fund deal, like, say, Guitar Center, or one of Mitt Romney's "successes" (you
know, debt fueled special dividends). It's good to see articles criticizing financialization now
and then. It would be great if our politicians would take this issue up, but alas, it would be
suicide (certainly politically, and possibly literally).
On the surface, the reasons behind Bridgeport's poverty and Greenwich's wealth do not seem
related. Bridgeport is struggling because it is a one-time manufacturing hub whose jobs went overseas
as factories moved away in the late 20th century. Greenwich became a home for New York City financiers
who wanted to live somewhere a little more bucolic than New York, and later hedge-fund managers
decided they could work closer to home and set up their companies there, too.
These two towns have different fates in part because of two distinct dynamics in the American
economy. Yet there are economists who believe that there is a link between the improving prosperity
of the wealthy and the eroding bank accounts of everyone else. The reason? It's two-fold: First,
there is the rise of the financial industry, which has fueled extraordinary wealth for a very
few without creating good jobs down the line, and, second, a tax policy that not only fails to
mitigate these effects, but actually incentivizes them in the first place. It's probably not surprising,
then, that the 10 states with the biggest jumps in the top 1 percent share from 1979 to 2007 were
the states with the largest financial service sectors, according to the Economic Policy Institute
analysis.
=============================================
It is astounding that people still believe low interest rates mean some industrialist can get
a loan and start a factory and hire employees….where it seems pretty apparent that it means a
financier can move a company overseas….
As well as the fact it seems harder and harder to be able to say that the 1%'s getting richer
is NOT due to everybody else getting poorer.
It's the neoliberal Rube Goldberg machine. Why just give money where needed when you can give
it to someone on the assumption they'll give a portion to someone else, who will give it to someone
else, so that they can maybe pass some of it along to whoever needs it?
'Greenwich became a home for New York City financiers who wanted to live somewhere a little
more bucolic than New York'
Until 1991, Connecticut had no income tax. New Jersey had walked that plank in 1976, leaving
CT as the only quasi-tax haven within commuting distance of NYC.
But then former Gov. Lowell Weicker (who had run on a "no income tax" platform - he lied
) introduced one. Result : a stagnant, moribund Connecticut economy, with flat population.
General Electric saw the light and bailed for Boston with its HQ.
Jaren Dilliian, who grew up there, wrote of throwing a party in CT with a deejay. The DJ had
to be licensed, plus they needed a permit, plus union electricians had to set up and take down
the equipment. Hassle, cost, bureaucracy.
What value added does contemporary CT provide for its tax take, vs pre-1991 CT? Zero.
Maybe less than zero.
"But then former Gov. Lowell Weicker (who had run on a "no income tax" platform - he lied)
introduced one. Result: a stagnant, moribund Connecticut economy, with flat population."
Sequel, perhaps. Result, not proved, and I suspect questionable. The data here appear to undermine
your claim:
They show corporate income tax at <1% and personal income tax <5% for all but the top 5% of
incomes. I find it very hard to believe those rates are responsible for Connecticut's allegedly
moribund economy.
As for not providing value, consider another point of view:
And because we have poor people who are told they should not envy the rich their advantages
because they just might be one of them someday. So we lionize this era's robber barons from Bezos
to Cook to Brin instead of roasting them over a slow fire until they agree to pay taxes in this
country. Too bad we don't have a trust-busting politician of any stripe around, Teddy Roosevelt
where are you when we need you.
Get Rich or Die Tryin is the last gasp in the American Hunger Games. It's the same story as ever,
told down through the ages, the rich squeeze the poor, then they can't help but squeeze juuust
that little bit more, and we get Charlotte
It is astounding that people still believe low interest rates mean some industrialist can
get a loan and start a factory and hire employees….where it seems pretty apparent that it means
a financier can move a company overseas….
fresno dan [bold added]
Or automate jobs away with what is, in essence, the public's credit due to extensive government
privileges for depository institutions.
The implicit social contract whereby capitalists shall provide good jobs in exchange for the
public's credit is broken – if it ever existed – without hope of fixing due to automation alone.
good point and I agree.
And there are probably all sorts of examples. For instance, how long did low interest rates help
by stimulating home building, home buying, until shadow banking was able to super charge profits
by taking a rather straight forward, dull, simple to understand thing like home loans and turning
it into a giant scam? How was it that something that worked so well for so long got so totally
f*cked up?
Doesn't it feel nowadays that in every protection, advancement, or progress is advocated by a
Hillary talking clone, and that the only point of it is to weasel more money out of you???
and that the word "protection" defacto means "screw"
How was it that something that worked so well for so long got so totally f*cked up?
fresno dan
Well, point of fact, it did not work so well if one was red-lined. And philosophically, how
does one justify government privileges for depository institutions in the first place? Because
they work? Work for who? Not those who were redlined, for sure.
America is like an aging, punch drunk prize fighter, so much blood streaming into his eyes
he can't even see what he's doing any more. So we flail around with Iraq-style nation-building
wars despite being smashed squarely in the face with all our previous ones. Just put your hands
behind your back and stick your jaw way out. The Fed sprays free money around like its Skittles
despite the fact that the only takers for new debt are CEOs buying back their stocks and heading
for the islands. And precisely one candidate has the stones to mention it, and no I don't mean
the falling down, sickly grandmother who sold the business of our government for immense personal
gain through her Foundation.
Swapping standing in line at the check-out for the line at the exit. And when there is an issue
then the greeter calls in the check-out police thereby pissing off the customer. Brilliant.
While Apple fanboys are willing to work for their iPhone's company for free by doing their
own check-out I doubt that is likely for people going to Sam's Club. As well many customers, even
if they have a smartphone, will not enjoy using up their data plan as they try to check and process
the details online.
All these smartphone apps have one major goal, besides collecting credit fees. Reduce store
overhead by getting customers to do more of the work while eliminating employees. The winners
are not the customers or people looking for a way to make ends meet.
Another goal of course is to track even further every single purchase - what, and where, and
when. And then sell the consumption data to the insurers perhaps… a packet of cigs per day? Or
too many bottles of booze?
Of course they are already doing that with the store "fidelity cards", but the mobile apps
will be more precise and less optional.
Re the Oilprice link, here's an article that contradicts the notion that US policy in Syria
was about the Qatari pipeline as that claim–put forth in a Politico article by Robert Kennedy
Jr–was little more than a poorly sourced rumor.
That claim has no credibility for a very simple reason: there was no Qatari proposal for
Syria to reject in 2009. It was not until October 2009 that Qatar and Turkey even agreed to
form a working group to develop such a gas pipeline project.
Gareth Porter says that instead
The US decision to support Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia in their ill-conceived plan to
overthrow the Assad regime was primarily a function of the primordial interest of the US permanent
war state in its regional alliances. The three Sunni allies control US access to the key US
military bases in the region, and the Pentagon, the CIA, the State Department and the Obama
White House were all concerned, above all, with protecting the existing arrangements for the
US military posture in the region[….]
The massive, direct and immediate power interests of the US war state – not the determination
to ensure that a pipeline would carry Qatar's natural gas to Europe – drove the US policy of
participation in the war against the Syrian regime. Only if activists focus on that reality
will they be able to unite effectively to oppose not only the Syrian adventure but the war
system itself.
In other words the MIC strikes again and seems to be directly challenging Obama policies with
"accidents" like the recent bombing of the Syrian army. Time for movie fans to dust off old copies
of Seven Days in May?
Porter may well be right about the pipeline. However, a piece that purports to account for
our Syria operations and the obsession with the removal of Assad that does not mention Israel
and the Israel Lobby cannot be the complete story. Breaking the 'Shia Crescent' is a major strategic
aim of the friends of Israel.
Without a doubt the Lobby keeps the liberals–the "progressives except for Palestine"–supporting
the fever dreams of the generals, but arguably it's this internal, and traditionally rather Waspy
pressure group that is the real menace. As the following quite accurately points out, we have
a WW2 military with nothing to do with itself unless they can invent a suitable enemy.
We live in a military world fundamentally different from that of the last century. All-out
wars between major powers, which is to say nuclear powers, are unlikely since they would last
about an hour after they became all-out, and everyone knows it. In WWII Germany could convince
itself, reasonably and almost correctly, that Russia would fall in a summer, or the Japanese
that a Depression-ridden, unarmed America might decide not to fight. Now, no. Threaten something
that a nuclear power regards as vital and you risk frying. So nobody does.
Or, to sum up
What is the relevance of the Pentagon? How do you bomb a trade agreement?
The generals and admirals need a Russian foe to justify their absurd budgets and their very
existence. It's ironic that our great victory in WW2–triumph of industrial America–may end up
doing us more long term harm than those European and Asian nations that were bombed into ashes.
You can rebuild cities but dismantling imperial hubris turns out to be harder.
Occam would probably just say that the Cold War never ended for our geniuses-in-chief, despite
dissolving away in 1989 our enemy is and always was and will be Russia uber alles. The simple
fact that they back Assad is all it took, yes add in a sprinkle of Tehran and Tel Aviv and goose
with a little juice from Riyadh but the overnight disappearance of our existential enemy was something
up with which we could not put.
"... A U.S. investigation into a leak of hacking tools used by the National Security Agency is focusing on a theory that one of its operatives carelessly left them available on a remote computer ..."
"... The tools, which enable hackers to exploit software flaws in computer and communications systems from vendors such as Cisco Systems and Fortinet Inc, were dumped onto public websites last month by a group calling itself Shadow Brokers. ..."
"... But officials heading the FBI-led investigation now discount both of those scenarios, the people said in separate interviews. NSA officials have told investigators that an employee or contractor made the mistake about three years ago during an operation that used the tools, the people said. ..."
"... That person acknowledged the error shortly afterward, they said. But the NSA did not inform the companies of the danger when it first discovered the exposure of the tools, the sources said. Since the public release of the tools, the companies involved have issued patches in the systems to protect them. ..."
"... Because the sensors did not detect foreign spies or criminals using the tools on U.S. or allied targets, the NSA did not feel obligated to immediately warn the U.S. manufacturers, an official and one other person familiar with the matter said. ..."
A U.S. investigation into a leak of hacking tools used by the National Security Agency is focusing
on a theory that one of its operatives carelessly left them available on a remote computer and
Russian hackers found them, four people with direct knowledge of the probe told Reuters.
The
tools, which enable hackers to exploit software flaws in computer and communications systems from
vendors such as Cisco Systems and Fortinet Inc, were dumped onto public websites last month by a
group calling itself Shadow Brokers.
The public release of the tools coincided with U.S. officials saying they had concluded that Russia
or its proxies were responsible for hacking political party organizations in the run-up to the Nov.
8 presidential election. On Thursday, lawmakers accused Russia of being responsible
... ... ...
But officials heading the FBI-led investigation now discount both of those scenarios, the
people said in separate interviews. NSA officials have told investigators that an employee or contractor
made the mistake about three years ago during an operation that used the tools, the people said.
That person acknowledged the error shortly afterward, they said. But the NSA did not inform the
companies of the danger when it first discovered the exposure of the tools, the sources said. Since
the public release of the tools, the companies involved have issued patches in the systems to protect
them.
Investigators have not ruled out the possibility that the former NSA person, who has since departed
the agency for other reasons, left the tools exposed deliberately. Another possibility, two of the
sources said, is that more than one person at the headquarters or a remote location made similar
mistakes or compounded each other's missteps.
Representatives of the NSA, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the office of the Director of
National Intelligence all declined to comment.
After the discovery, the NSA tuned its sensors to detect use of any of the tools by other parties,
especially foreign adversaries with strong cyber espionage operations, such as China and Russia.
That could have helped identify rival powers' hacking targets, potentially leading them to be defended
better. It might also have allowed U.S officials to see deeper into rival hacking operations while
enabling the NSA itself to continue using the tools for its own operations.
Because the sensors did not detect foreign spies or criminals using the tools on U.S. or allied
targets, the NSA did not feel obligated to immediately warn the U.S. manufacturers, an official and
one other person familiar with the matter said.
In this case, as in more commonplace discoveries of security flaws, U.S. officials weigh what intelligence
they could gather by keeping the flaws secret against the risk to U.S. companies and individuals
if adversaries find the same flaws.
"From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across
the Continent."
The defeat and dismemberment of the Soviet Union is having all the appearance of the hand of
the Goddess Hubris. Be careful what you wish for, you might get it.
I do wonder in the NeoCon planning of "The Project New Century" if there was any consideration
given to the people of the region and their actions in fleeing from the conflicts ignited by the
policy. Open discussion of the suggestion would have raised all manner of this an similar issues,
embarrassing the authors by at least asking the questions.
"... After several years of deliberate fiscal austerity, designed to bring down budget deficits and stabilise public debt ratios, the fiscal stance in the developed economies became broadly neutral in 2015. There are now signs that it is turning slightly expansionary , with several major governments apparently heeding the calls from Keynesian economists to boost infrastructure expenditure. ..."
"... [1] Fiscal easing remains very conntentious in political circles throughout the western economies. At a recent meeting behind closed doors in Washington DC, I was surprised to hear a very senior, and generally intelligent, Republican politician declare that "Keynesian demand management has been shown to be useless by a bunch of Austrian academics". I am not sure what he had in mind, but he did make a more defensible point when he added that supply side policies might be more important for growth in the long run. ..."
Notice: Author Alerts
This service is moving to our
new website
. You will still be able to follow your
favourite authors via
myFT
. Following authors will create Instant Alerts, which
can also be created for any other topic.
Try it now
.
|
Sep 25 14:33
|
15 comments
|
Share
Fiscal policy activism is firmly back on the agenda.
After several years
of deliberate fiscal austerity, designed to bring down budget deficits and
stabilise public debt ratios, the fiscal stance in the developed economies
became broadly neutral in 2015. There are now signs that it is turning
slightly expansionary
, with several major governments apparently heeding
the calls from Keynesian economists to boost infrastructure expenditure.
This seems an obvious path at a time when governments can finance public
investment programmes at less than zero real rates of interest. Even those
who believe that government programmes tend to be inefficient and wasteful
would have a hard time arguing that the real returns on public transport,
housing, health and education are actually negative [1].
With monetary policy apparently reaching its limits in some countries,
and deflationary threats still not defeated in Japan and the Eurozone, we
are beginning to see the emergence of packages of fiscal stimulus with
supply side characteristics, notably in Japan and China.
Investors are asking whether this pivot towards fiscal activism is a
reason to become more bullish about equities and more bearish about bonds,
on the grounds that the new policy mix will be better for global GDP growth.
This is directionally right, but it is important not to exaggerate the
extent of the pivot.
The phase of fiscal austerity peaked in 2013, and ended last year, but
firm announcements of more stimulative budgetary policy have been fairly
minor up to now. In 2016, budgetary policy in the developed economies will
be slightly expansionary and the latest plans suggest that the same will be
true next year.
In Japan, there has been an overt decision to ease budgetary policy
by about 1.3 per cent of GDP in the next 12 months.
In China, fiscal policy has probably been eased by at least 1 per
cent of GDP this year, though much of this has been outside the official
government budget.
In the UK, Chancellor Hammond has suggested that he is rethinking his
predecessor's plan to balance the budget by 2020, though this change may
not be taken as far as a major easing in the policy stance.
In the US, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have outlined
spending packages, amounting to 1.5 and 2.5 per cent of GDP respectively,
but it is far from clear how much of his would be offset by extra
taxation after negotiations with Congress.
In the Eurozone, budget deficit targets have been allowed to rise to
finance help for migrants and the Juncker infrastructure programme, and
even Germany is seriously thinking of tax reductions in 2017, but the
overall change in the fiscal thrust still seems rather minor.
J.P. Morgan has recently estimated that budgetary policy in the major
developed economies, measured by the structural budget balance, will be
eased by 0.2 per cent of GDP both this year and next. With feasible further
policy changes, it could turn out to be a little more than this, but only a
little:
What effect would that have on GDP growth? In part, that depends on the
monetary policy reaction.
In the US, the Federal Reserve could raise short rates slightly more
rapidly if fiscal policy is eased, curtailing the GDP benefits somewhat.
Elsewhere, monetary policy would not react at all, and central banks would
probably prevent any crowding out of private investment by keeping long bond
yields stable.
It is now well established that the fiscal multiplier is probably fairly
large when interest rates are at the zero lower bound. A recent
lecture by Paul Krugman
suggests, as a rule of thumb, that the
multiplier might be around 1.5, compared to standard estimates of 0.5 or
less in previous eras. That seems to be as good an estimate as any other,
and it would suggest that the fiscal easing in 2017 might raise GDP growth
by more than a quarter percentage point, compared to a GDP growth drag of
over 1.8 per cent in 2013.
That is useful, but scarcely ground breaking. Yet Keynesians seem
optimistic that the beneficial effects of a fiscal pivot might be much more
significant than this. How might this happen?
There are two possibilities. The first is that a fiscal stimulus might
shock the economies into a new equilibrium in which private sector
confidence is restored and the level of output settles permanently at a new,
higher level. Economists can show that almost anything is possible by using
multiple equilibrium models (and Keynes certainly had such mechanisms in
mind in the 1930s) but it surely strains credulity to suggest that the
modest fiscal changes currently planned would have a dramatic effect on
corporate or consumer confidence.
A second possibility is that easier fiscal policy would simultaneously
make the existing stance of monetary policy more stimulative.
Recent work
on R*, the equilibrium real rate of interest, suggests that
fiscal policy can shock R* upwards, by raising investment relative to
savings. This would have an effect opposite to the global savings glut,
which is sometimes held to have reduced R* in the past decade.
If that occurred, then the gap between current interest rates and R*
would be increased, making the monetary stance (in theory) more stimulative
without the central bank taking any action at all. But would a moderate and
temporary increase in the budget deficit have a large and permanent effect
on R*? It seems rather doubtful.
It is true that eventually there could be changes in fiscal strategy that
could be powerful enough to shock the global economy into a different path
for growth and inflation. Chris Sims' work on
fiscal dominance
suggests that a major regime change in which fiscal
policy is aimed at achieving a rise in inflation towards the 2 per cent
target could be very powerful.
But, in the real world, politicians (except possibly in Japan) are
nowhere near accepting the need to throw overboard everything they have
believed for decades. It would probably take another global recession to
change that.
----------------------------
Footnote
[1] Fiscal easing remains very conntentious in political circles
throughout the western economies. At a recent meeting behind closed doors in
Washington DC, I was surprised to hear a very senior, and generally
intelligent, Republican politician declare that "Keynesian demand management
has been shown to be useless by a bunch of Austrian academics". I am not
sure what he had in mind, but he did make a more defensible point when he
added that supply side policies might be more important for growth in the
long run.
Tags:
central banks
,
Fiscal policy
,
Monetary policy
Posted in
Central Banks
,
Macroeconomics
|
Permalink
Share
Share this on
This idea is not new nor has it ever worked. See Japan and China for recent examples, NZ
tried it in the 80's and almost went bust.
It maybe possible to get some short term uptick in
economic measurements following a big government spend
up, but it is well proven that when the fiscal spend up
slows so does the economy. There are many reason for this,
least not, that most often Government projects are wrecked
by politics, unions see them as an opportunity to leverage
political capital for the benefit of their members and
inevitably push up costs of the project. The private
sector see it for what it is, a temporary spend up on the
public purse and milk it for all they can get, much of the
spending goes off shore via profits and expenditure on raw
materials. Unless resources are sitting around idle
inflation will reduce the expected returns and ultimately
these types of projects reflect the under lying issue in
economies that try them, these are usually related to
declining productivity driven by regulation and monetary
driven asset inflation. If economic wealth creation was as
simple as spending more then we would not be talking about
it.
The economic philosophy/theory of Keynes and monetarism
as land us where we are today. Unfortunately it seems like
populist political outcomes will raise there ugly head
with who knows what outcome. The establishment will
blindly blame the populist politician and not reflect on
how we got here. The FT seems to be leading the charge in
that regard.
Brian Reading
5pts
Featured
1 hour ago
It is great to read sop-histicated articles not afraid to
mention the equilibrium real rate of interest and
structural budget balances. Perhaps the message is that
the combination of conventional fiscal policy with
unconventional monetary polcy is doing more harm than good
and has the makings of the next crisis. It is possibly now
time to try unconventional fiscal with conventional money.
Ye
olde sweetie shoppe
5pts
Featured
4 hours ago
Did you know that "Camels Fart Augments Menu" is an
anagram of Fulcrum Asset Management?
tobacco flat
5pts
Featured
6 hours ago
Even the simplest corporate treasurer would be issuing as
much paper as possible at negative interest rates but the
ECB geniuses are buying!
Down
under
5pts
Featured
10 hours ago
@duvinroude
I think that's been tried before, don't you?
seafoid
5pts
Featured
14 hours ago
Taxing the 1% is the only solution
slimfairview
5pts
Featured
14 hours ago
After almost 6 years of inveighing against Merkelism, an economic system based on the fear
that someone, somewhere is earning a living, and after
youngsters majoring in Economics tried running Ken
Rogoff's numbers through a computer and failed to
duplicate the results, the EuroCrats have--with their last
gasp--embraced austerity.
Nonetheless, that the EuroUnion may be unraveling is
indicated in part by Dr. Rogoff back-pedaling on austerity
in a recent interview, the hysterical rants by EuroCrats
against the impending Brexit Vote, the petulant and bitter
invective after the Brexit Vote, the "open and public and
effusive" support for the Chancellor by, among others,
Madame Lagarde; Draghi's rebuke to Merkel on her attempted
interference in the activities of the ECB.....
Perhaps the EuroCrats from the "EXIT" Nations:
Britain, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and now Ireland,
will consider the proposal in Brexit? Now What?
The SidestreetJournal is an unsupported, unfunded,
non-profit web log by the Blogger Slim Fairview.
Nicki
5pts
Featured
12 hours ago
@
slimfairview
Has
that rant got anything to do with the subject?
Neil
at home
5pts
Featured
15 hours ago
So the nice easy solution of lowering interest rates
hasn't stimulated growth and throwing a few trillion on
infrastructure wont help much either.
Ye olde sweetie shoppe
5pts
Featured
5 hours ago
@
Neil at home
I
respectfully disagree. Infrastructure spending
should at the very least stimulate wage growth,
increase employment and ultimately stoke inflation.
Zero interest rates have done none of this because
in a balance sheet recession corporations tend
rather perversely to pay down debt rather than issue
more of it. I recommend you watch one of Ricard
Koo's presentations on Youtube.
genauer
5pts
Featured
15 hours ago
Inflation targeting to less than 2% has been Bundesbank policy for a long time, and with
them most of mainland Europe.
Krugman claiming that "And my team won three out of
three. Goooaaal!" is his typical brand of strawmen
dishonesty.
Krugman trying to diparage "Academics like Niall
Ferguson and
John Cochrane
", that has
really something to it.
Still showing the discgraced garbage "analysis" solely
depending on one false data point Greece (Fig. 2) shows
that the disgraced Krugman and his Krugtron "team" are
intellectual and character garbage, specifically including
formerly IMF Olivier Blanchard.
Alex Barker in Brussels and Shawn Donnan in Washington
which had to wait 18 hours in pending .... : - )
Ralph Musgrave
5pts
Featured
16 hours ago
So after several years during which monetary policy has
proved less than brilliantly effective at giving us
stimulus, the "experts" are now going to try fiscal
policy. Have the "experts" yet caught up with the fact
that the Earth revolves round the Sun?
Andrew Baldwin
5pts
Featured
17 hours ago
I haven't read the paper by Chris Sims but there is no
reason that fiscal policy should set itself the task of
raising the inflation rate to two percent. The two percent
inflation target is a relic of the original inflation
control agreement of the Governor of the Bank of Canada
and the Minister of Finance in February 1991. The upward
bias in the Canadian CPI at that time was probably greater
by 25 basis points than it is today, and probably in
excess of 50 basis points as compared to the US target
inflation indicator, the PCEPI. In any case, two percent
was never intended to define price stability, which the
1991 agreement clearly stated would be some inflation rate
lower than two percent. The developed world should forget
about a two percent target. It is long past time to move
the target rate down.
duvinrouge
5pts
Featured
17 hours ago
Expansionary fiscal policy solution for those who think the problem is capitalists hoarding
money.
Expansionary fiscal policy, just like expansionary
monetary policy, will only further diverge aggregate
prices from aggregate values - a crisis of
'overproduction'. But, of course, economists today have no
comprehension of the difference between price & value,
even if some recognise an 'asset-price bubble'.
There is no way of avoiding a recession that destroys
fictitious capital, along with productive capital & with
all the mass unemployment & human suffering. Not because
boom-bust is an act of nature, rather it is part & parcel
of the capitalist system. Only a post-capitalist system
where the means of production are commonly
owned/controlled can we liberate humanity.
Hollow Man
5pts
Featured
7 hours ago
@
duvinrouge
Interesting! But you've teased us before with
comments that would suggest you have more up your
sleeve. Why not lay out a fuller explanation
--presumably it's some kind of modern variant of
Marxian theory -- so that we can judge for ourselves
what sort of alternative it really is to to Gavyn
Davies' stale, jargon-ridden analysis?
"... And while Clinton is far better funded than Trump, it's not at all clear that she's getting any kind of bang for the buck. Perhaps candidate quality is a wild card at the Presidential level. ..."
"... The Dollary Clump Campaign is likely to screw up a lot of models, its already turned satire from a form of critique to a form of government reducing important propaganda organs to pathetic persiflage in the process. ..."
"... Well, then could not one conclude that the Supreme Court was wrong in declaring money to be a form of protected speech? According to this study, money isn't speech, it is votes. ..."
"... And if that is true, then the Supreme Courts rulings violate the "one man: one vote" principle. The number of votes a person has is now determined by his/her wealth and how much of it they are willing to buy an election with. ..."
This is important work by Ferguson and his colleagues, Paul Jorgensen, and
Jie Chen, and especially relevant to the 2016 election. From
the executive summary at iNet :
Social scientists have stubbornly held that money and election outcomes
are at most weakly linked. New research provides clear evidence to the contrary.
Thomas Ferguson, Paul Jorgensen, and Jie Chen reveal strikingly direct
relations between money and major party votes in all U.S. elections for
the Senate and House of Representatives from 1980 to 2014. Using a new and
comprehensive dataset built from government sources, they find that the
relationship between the proportions of money spent by the winning party
and votes is close to a straight line.
(
Here is the PDF of the full paper , How Money Drives US Congressional Elections,
Thomas Ferguson, Paul Jorgensen, and Jie Chen, Working Paper No. 48, August
1, 2016.) First, I'll look at the dataset. Then, I'll look at that "straight
line" relation. Finally, I'll look at some of the political implications of
Ferguson's work for thinking about 2016.
The Dataset
If you are a data person, and especially a big data person, Ferguson's project
is thrilling. Most everyone will be familiar with the problem of determining
whether "Mr. Bob Smith, 1234 Your St., Anytown USA" and "R. Smith, Yore Avenue,
Anystate" are really the same person; there's a whole industry built up to work
that stuff out because marketers (and debt collectors) need it. How much more
complex when the names and addresses are entered by people with every incentive
to conceal their identities! From
the full paper (pp. 8-9):
For this paper, the thornier data problems arise from the fragmentation
of reporting sources and formats – whose chaotic realities are, we are sure,
a major reason why progress has been so slow in understanding campaign finance.
Because we have extensively discussed elsewhere the measures we have taken
to overco me these problems, our discussion here will be summary.
The guiding idea of our Political Money Project is to return to the raw
data made available by the FEC and the IRS and create a single unified database
containing all contributions in whatever form. This is a tall order, as
anyone with any familiarity with our vastly different data sources will
realize. In particular, FEC sources are sometimes jarringly inconsistent;
many previous analysts do always appear to recognize the extent of the "flow
of funds" anomalies in this data. And not all the IRS contributions are
easily available in electronic form for all years.
But our real work commences only once this stage is completed. At both
the FEC and the IRS, standards for reporting names of both individual and
corporate contributors are laughably weak. Both companies and individuals
routinely take advantage of regulatory nonchalance about even arrant non-compliance.
Along with an enormous number of obviously bad faith reports (such as presidential
contributions listed as coming from individuals working at banks that were
swallowed long ago by other giants) all sorts of naïve, good faith errors
abound in spelling, consistent use of Jr., Sr., or Mr., Ms., and Mrs., along
with many incomplete entries and hyphenated names. Many people, especially
very wealthy contributors, legitimately have more 9 than one address and
fail to consistently list their corporate affiliations ("retired" as a category
of contributor is extensively abused; some people who chair giant c orporations
claim the status).
From the outset we recognized that solving this problem was indispensable
to making reliable estimates of the concentration of political contributions.
We adapted for our purposes programs of the type used by major hospital
s and other institutions dealing with similar problems, adding many safeguards
against tricks that no medical institution ever has to worry about; all
the while checking and cross-checking our results, especially for large
contributors. In big data efforts , there is never a point where such tasks
can be regarded as unimpeachably finished. But we are certain that our data
substantially improve over other sources on offer, including rosters of
campaign contributions compiled by for-profit companies and all public sources.
Because we can compare many reports filed by people who we recognize
as really the same person, we are able to see through schemes, such as those
encouraged by the Obama campaigns (especially in 2008)[1], that encourage
individual contributors to break up contributions into what looks like many
"small" donations. We are also able to fill in many entries for workplace
affiliation left blank. By itself, these steps lead to a quantum leap in
the number of contributions coming from the same enterprises. But we have
also used business directories and data from the Securities and Exchange
Commission to pin down the corporate affiliations of many other contributors,
whose identifications, once established, are similarly extendible.
Again, I can't stress enough how excellent and important this work is. And
it's really hard to do!
Data compiled like this allows us to brush past artificial efforts to
distinguish kinds of spending in Congressional races, such as "inside" vs.
"outside" funds (that is, spent by candidate's own committee or by allegedly
"independent" outside groups) or the spending of challengers or incumbents.
Instead we simply pool all spending by and on behalf of candidates and then
examine whether relative, not absolute, differences in total outlays are
related to vote differentials.
If conventional claims about the limited importance of political money
are correct, then the individual data points – particular House or Senate
election outcomes – should be scattered indifferently across the graph.
Money just wouldn't predict voting outcomes very well. If on the other hand,
money is strongly associated with votes received, then the fit would approximate
a straight line. All kinds of intermediate cases, of course, can be imagined.
And here are those straight lines:
(These table is an excellent example of
the power of Tufte's "small multiples." Readers who are clever about statistics
(and I am not) will have objected that Ferguson's methodology may not be able
to tease out money as an effect from money as a cause, to which Ferguson et
al. respond as follows:
[T]here is one last redoubt in which skeptics can take refuge: the possibility
that money and votes are reciprocally related. AsJac obson artfully frames
the conundrum that protects this escape hatch: "Money may help win votes,
but the expectation that a candidate can win votes also brings in money.
To the degree that (expected) votes influence spending, ordinary measures
will exaggera te the effects of spending on votes."
Our response to this challenge consists of two parts. Firstly, at least
one clear natural experiment exists, in which it is possible to say with
reasonable certainty that a tidal wave of money helped produce a sho cking
political upset that was anticipated by scarcely anyone: The famous 1994
election in which Newt Gingrich and a Golden Horde of donors stunned the
world by seizing control of the House of Representatives for the Republicans
for the first time since 1954 (and only the third time since 1932). Taking
a leaf from recent studies in economics and finance of event analysis, we
use published estimates of the change in the odds of a Republican takeover
to rule out appeals to confident expectations of taking over the House as
the explanation for the wave of money that drowned House Democrats that
year.
But 1994 is only one case, though admittedly a momentous one. We have
not been able to locate usable odds compilations for other elections. In
the hope of bypassing tedious debates over a host of less clear cut cases,
we searched for more general approaches. We suspect that where politics
and money is concerned, the search for good instruments is in most instances
akin to hunting the Snark. A better approach is to search for estimation
methods that do not require us to lean so heavily on thin reeds. This quest
led us to the work of Peter Ebbes and his colleagues. Ebbes and his associates
have developed latent instrumental variable (LIV) models into a practical
working tool, where the instrument is unknown, and used them to attack a
variety of problems.
These methods are relatively new and, of course, like virtually all statistical
tools, rely on assumptions for their validity, but the assumptions required
do not appear any more farfetched than more conventional approaches to tackling
the question. Irene Hueter's recent critical review is very helpful in clarifying
important points. While critical on various secondary issues, she concludes
that the method appears to be fundamentally sound and to work in practice:
the solutions it gives to some classical econometric applications appear
reasonable and in line with results using more traditional methods. We think
it is time to try the approach on money and politics, particularly since
we can crosscheck its findings with our results on 1994, obtained by the
completely different approach now conventional in finance.
Personally, I have to accept Ferguson's authority on this, but the Naked
Capitalism commentariat being what it is, perhaps readers will be able to comment
on the "latent instrumental variable" approach.
The 2016 Election
One more conclusion that Ferguson et al. draw is that yes, we do live in
an oligarchy (although factional conflicts take place among oligarchs:
We demonstrated, for example, that the 1% - defined quite carefully –
dominated both major parties; at the same time, however, our results once
again directly confirmed the huge differences in the extent to which specific
sectors and blocs of firms within big business differentially support Democrats
or Republicans. The results point up the futility of trying to underst and
the dynamics of American politics without reference to investor coalitions
and strongly support a broad investment approach to party competition. We
showed that the case of the Tea Party was no different by tracking the rates
of support for its candidates within business as a whole but, most importantly,
within big business. Claims that major American businesses do not financially
support Tea Party candidates are plainly false.
I'm not sure whether Ferguson's results for House (and Senate) races translate
directly to Presidential races. However, it would seem to me that at least in
2016, the relationship between money and electoral success has not been linear.
After all, how much did George Bush blow? $270 million? And while Clinton is
far better funded than Trump, it's not at all clear that she's getting any kind
of bang for the buck. Perhaps candidate quality is a wild card at the Presidential
level.
NOTE
[1] Well, well. I remember raising this issue in 2008, and being scoffed
at. It would be interesting to know if the same techniques were used by the
Trump campaign, which just came out with a small donors story, and, to be fair,
whether they were used by Clinton or even Sanders.
The Clinton campaign's tactics to inflate the small donor numbers are
apparently to just bill their small donors over and over again. Typical
democrats: screw over your poorest supporters (in all fairness, Republicans
are good at that trick too).
I think it is rigthly arguable that the relation between money attracted
and voting outcome can be reciprocally related. In the case that a candidate
is seen as a potential winner, it can attract money that "wins" the rigth
to be heared after the election. In other words, to make the candidate friendly
to the interests that money represents. This is backed by the fact that
the most powerful contributors finance both candidates (the two candidates
that have real chance).
Anycase, this study very much supports Greg Palast's book title. Money
has a clear effect in election outcome, and almost certainly an even bigger
effect on policy, after the election. Good job indeed!
"And while Clinton is far better funded than Trump, it's not at all clear
that she's getting any kind of bang for the buck. Perhaps candidate quality
is a wild card at the Presidential level."
The Dollary Clump Campaign is likely to screw up a lot of models, its
already turned satire from a form of critique to a form of government reducing
important propaganda organs to pathetic persiflage in the process.
"One more conclusion that Ferguson et al. draw is that yes, we do
live in an oligarchy"
The sleuthing required for this effort is amazing, as anyone who has
tried to research campaign spending knows, and Ferguson et al are to be
highly commended for their effort to shine more daylight on the sordid side
of American democracy.
But about that oligarchy. Why not share that information? If the data
has been aggregated to individuals and corporations can they be ranked and
listed for the world to see? Can Ferguson et al at least share with us a
glimpse of who is actually controlling the levers of power in our democracy
as it sure isn't the people.
About a year ago, there was an article in the NY Times with a list of
the 158 families who are supposedly donating the most to the Presidential
campaign. This list has some major gaps, since the Koch family, the Walton
family, and the (Sheldon) Adelson families are not on it. Also, it's in
the NY Times, so if you don't want to use up your monthly allotment of articles,
link to the article from an incognito or private browser.
The 7th edition of his book
Who
Rules America? is available, and it has a list price of about $110.00.
A
loose leaf version can be had for a steal, only about $80.00.
I wanted to ignore them; I tried to ignore them! I remembered that there
had been an article about 158 rich families, so I a web search. After looking
at 6 or 7 articles, all of which were fairly short and just linked to the
NY Times article, I declared victory, gave up, and looked at the NY Times
article, which is the only place where I could find the actual list.
I actually meant to add that. It would be nice to have an API to the
data, for example, even if it isn't all available as a CSV (and there could
be lamentable but legitimate funding reasons for that).
Yes and no - sorry, but at this point in time it isn't really important,
we all know Wall Street owns the government, we know where those crapweasels
comes from at the Department of Treasury, and Justice, and State (we know
that the CIA within the State Department, which the Kennedy brothers once
attempted to eradicate, has been incredibly strengthened by Hillary Clinton
when she was secretary of state by her hiring all those former CIA types),
etc., etc.
We know this stuff already, and those of us concerned enough have read
David Dayen's masterful book, Chain of Title , and realize that Covington
& Burling's point man, Erick Holder, was appointed by Obama so the MERS
criminal conspiracy wouldn't be uncovered and the banksters wouldn't be
criminally prosecuted as they should all be!
The part that I didn't look at - and I need to look at more of Ferguson
work - is how he uses aggregations of funders to outline elite factional
conflict (otherwise obscured by the "bad" record keeping) in the donor class,
i.e. the 1%. That's very useful, pragmatically.
re: "I'm not sure whether Ferguson's results for House (and Senate) races
translate directly to Presidential races. However, it would seem to me that
at least in 2016, the relationship between money and electoral success has
not been linear. After all, how much did George Bush blow? $270 million?
And while Clinton is far better funded than Trump, it's not at all clear
that she's getting any kind of bang for the buck."
Spending levels and Presidential campaigns often do NOT correlate directly
for a simple reason: Presidential elections are one of the few political
contests in which "free media," i.e., coverage in the news media, TV, blog
commentary, Twitter, etc, compensates and often overwhelms the advertising
and organizational effects of the campaigns themselves. Thus, Trump has
so far received news media coverage worth at least a billion dollars in
paid advertising. Further, Jeb, Trump, Clinton are known commodities to
the general public. Bernie was an interesting phenomenon. In the end, of
course, his fundraising was quite respectable. But in the beginning he benefited
from another factor. There was a large latent pro-change anti-Clinton constituency
in the Democratic Party hungry for a hero. Presidential primary campaigns
are long. There was time for the news to get out and word to spread.
Once
the latent anti-Clintonites realized they had a candidate, they gravitated
to him, which generated more attention and more money Finally, there are
always exceptions in any data set. Over the years there are numerous examples
of Congressional candidates defeating better funded opponents, especially
in primaries, where turnout is small. Such exceptions do NOT disprove the
general rule. It has always been a rule of thumb among practicing political
professionals that the bigger your candidate's funding advantage, the better
your chances on election day. Ferguson has proved what common sense and
practical experience tell us.
Ferguson says explicitly that the linear correlation in Senate races
is choppier (I forget the exact term of art) and one reason is media. So
that makes sense.
And makes independent media all the more important
Well, then could not one conclude that the Supreme Court was wrong in
declaring money to be a form of protected speech? According to this study,
money isn't speech, it is votes.
And if that is true, then the Supreme Courts
rulings violate the "one man: one vote" principle. The number of votes a
person has is now determined by his/her wealth and how much of it they are
willing to buy an election with.
Like the USSR the USA has one party
system. This guy does not understand that both part are wings of single Neoliberal
Party of the USA. Differences are rather superficial. Democrats are better in fooling
minorities and low income voters.
Notable quotes:
"... Perhaps we need to rethink our electoral model of winner-take-all elections, and particularly of single-member House districts - a model that reinforces, rather than cuts against, this growing geographic polarization, and one that makes it harder for parties to reflect their internal diversity. ..."
"... Well, let's see, both parties have been playing the social issue, divide and conquer game for decades. Throw in Citizens United, which has... ..."
...Most large cities, college towns, the Northeast and the West Coast are
deep-blue Democratic. Ruby-red Republican strongholds take up most of the South,
the Great Plains, the Mountain States and the suburban and rural areas in between.
Rather than compete directly against each other, both parties increasingly occupy
their separate territories, with diminishing overlap and disappearing common
accountability. They hear from very different constituents, with very different
priorities.
... The House, the supposed "people's chamber," is a sea of noncompetition.
Out of 435 seats up for election this year, just 25 are considered tossups by
The Cook Political Report . In 2014, 82 percent of House races were decided
by at least 15 percentage points, including 17 percent that were not contested
by one of the two major parties.
The Senate is only slightly better. A mere six seats out of 34 up for election
are considered
genuine tossups by Cook's assessment (Florida, Indiana, Nevada, New Hampshire,
North Carolina and Pennsylvania), while five are in the "lean" category.
The presidential candidates are also ignoring most of the country, instead
focusing on the handful of swing states that always seem to take on outsize
importance.
In the 2012 presidential election , only four states were decided by five
or fewer percentage points, and the median state-level margin of victory was
a whopping 16.9 percent (in other words, not even close). Compare that with
the 1976 presidential election , when 20 states were decided by five or
fewer percentage points (and 31 were decided by eight percentage points or fewer),
and the median state-level margin of victory was 5.9 percent.
...
While gerrymandering
may explain some of the noncompetitiveness of House races, it can't explain
the Senate or the Electoral College. No amount of nonpartisan redistricting
can overcome
the fundamental disconnect between place-based, winner-take-all elections
and polarized, geographically separated parties.
Competition is even rarer these days in state legislatures, where 43 percent
of candidates
did not face a major party opponent in 2014, and fewer than one in 20 races
was decided by five percentage points or less. That made 2014
one of the most uncompetitive state-election years in decades.
These patterns are likely to continue: The current partisan geography is
a natural political alignment.
Around the world , urban areas tend to be left-leaning and cosmopolitan;
rural and suburban areas tend to be conservative and populist.
... ... ...
As the parties became more homogeneous, rank-and-file members began to cede
more authority to their leaders to enforce party discipline within Congress,
especially in the House. Particularly after the watershed election of 1994,
when many longtime conservative Democratic seats turned into relatively safe
Republican seats, a new generation of conservative lawmakers and a newly assertive
party leadership exerted a hard-right pull on the Republican Party. That election
also bled the Democratic Party of many of its conservatives, shifting its caucus
to the left. The election of 2010 was the culmination of the decades-long undoing
of the New Deal coalition, sweeping away the few remaining Southern conservative
Democrats.
Moreover, as more of the country became one-party territory, the opposing
party in these places grasped the improbability of winning and so had little
incentive to invest in mobilization and party building. This lack of investment
further depleted a potential bench of future candidates and made future electoral
competitions less and less likely.
These trends have been especially bad news for congressional Democrats, whose
supporters are both
more
densely concentrated into urban areas (giving them fewer House seats) and
less likely to vote in nonpresidential years (when most elections for governor
are held, robbing the party of prominent state leaders). Since Republicans hold
more relatively safe House seats, Democrats might benefit from occasional wave
elections when the Republican brand has been significantly weakened (e.g., 2006
and 2008). But given the underlying dynamics, such elections are far more likely
to be aberrations than long-lasting realignments.
An optimistic view of a future devoid of much electoral competition is that
it saves members of Congress from having to constantly worry about re-election,
which
critics have argued pushes members toward short-term, parochial lawmaking.
Perhaps all these safe seats can finally free up members to think beyond the
next electoral cycle, and become genuine statesmen again..
... ... ...
By contrast, Congress was probably at its most fluid and productive during
the periods of highest two-party competition, from the 1960s through the 1980s.
This was partly because competition kept turnover steady enough that it brought
in a relatively even flow of new members with new ideas. It also encouraged
members to cut deals to bring home earmarks that would help them get elected.
Members don't do these things anymore because they don't have to. Whatever
bipartisan bonhomie that once existed in Washington was a consequence of these
underlying electoral conditions. Trying to re-establish that good will without
fixing the underlying causes is like building a bridge across a river without
foundations to ground the towers.Certainly, there are some signs that we may
have already hit the nadir of electoral non-competition. In
presidential polling , for example, blue states are looking a little less
blue this year than in past years, and red states are looking a little less
red. Split-ticket voting will likely be up this year as well. If the Republican
Party truly becomes the party of Donald J. Trump (and there is
good reason to think it will), and Democrats continue to court moderate
pro-business Republicans alienated by Mr. Trump while giving up on nostalgia-minded
white working-class voters (
also likely ), this may make some states and congressional districts more
competitive. Changing demographics, especially in places with rising immigrant
populations, may also change the dynamics of competition. There are also some
signs that divisions within the parties are coming to undermine longstanding
party unity, creating potential for new crosscutting alliances in ways that
are
likely to reduce polarization .
But we have a long way to go. These nascent trends could use a boost.
Perhaps we need to rethink our electoral model of winner-take-all elections,
and particularly of single-member House districts - a model that reinforces,
rather than cuts against, this growing geographic polarization, and one that
makes it harder for parties to reflect their internal diversity.
The single-member, winner-take-all elections we use are a relative rarity
among advanced democracies. They are not mandated by the Constitution, which
lets states decide how to elect their representatives. In fact, many states
originally used
multimember districts . Returning to this approach would make it far easier
to draw competitive districts that mix urban and rural areas. It would make
it easier for different wings in both parties to send members to Congress, creating
more diversity within the parties. It might also allow some smaller, regional
parties to emerge, since multimember allow candidates to win with far less than
majority support. These developments would increase the possibilities for deal-making
in Congress. The
FairVote proposal of multimember districts with ranked choice voting seems
especially promising on this front.
But the first step in electoral reform is recognizing that this country has
a problem. For decades, we had reasonably robust electoral competition, so there
was little obvious reason to worry about our electoral system. But that era
is over.
Nick Metrowsky
Well, let's see, both parties have been playing the social issue,
divide and conquer game for decades. Throw in Citizens United, which has...
ttrumbo
We're the most economically divided industrial country; so that's who
we are. We've let the favored few gain so much wealth and power that...
BirdL
The related implications for one-party states, especially deep red ones,
is that policy making is way too "easy," with little deliberation...
"... By Matthew Weinzierl, Assistant Professor of Business Administration, Harvard Business School. Originally published at VoxEU ..."
"... The trick or con being played by the elite is to convince enough of us that the game of life is being played fair. And when that fails, the con or lie becomes that its the fault of (insert target minority group). ..."
"... From two complementary sociological points of view -- conflict theory and symbolic interactionism -- this article is naive -or a red herring- in the ways you suggest. ..."
"... Indeed, the issue is about people accepting a "definition of the situation" that is in fact detrimental to their material interests (Pierre Bourdieu terms this "misrecognition"). Erving Goffman, who was trained as an interactionist, studied con artists to describe how they successfully created a definition of situation -- which means a version of social reality -- that their marks would internalize as reality itself. A sociologist would not begin a discussion of socioeconomic inequality with tax policy. ..."
"... Control over arguments regarding political economy in the public sphere have to be wrested from economists, so that we can start to talk about what actually matters. Sanders' popularity, despite his numerous problems, lay in how he took control of the argument and laid bare the absurdities of those who benefit from the status quo. ..."
"... I say we boycott economists. Sure some of them are not terrible, but in the main the discipline needs to be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up. ..."
"... Many economists function as members of the courtier class, justifying what the rich and powerful want to occur. Most citizens already boycott economists in that they don't use their services except when required to attend an Econ class at school. ..."
"... But economists do influence average citizens lives via their justification of tax policy, land use policy, labor policy, trade policy and law implementation. ..."
"... Economic education has been a failure of the left. Everyone needs to know how money and finance works. Only then can that power be put to various uses. It is not that you don't need economists, you need economists working in your interest. ..."
"... I could get behind this. And I would have to agree that harping against the evils of capitalism, which are very real, often comes from those who don't really understand how it works. ..."
"... The post indicates this guy is Assistant Professor of Business Administration - at Harvard Business School - so I'm not sure I would give him even so much regard as I might give an economist. I wonder how he and his will regard the fairness of luck while they wait in line to be serviced at the guillotine they're building - much as Scrooge crafted his chain and weights for his afterlife. ..."
"... Interesting reference to Scrooge -- the power of art to enlighten the human condition cannot be underestimated. As I get older, it seems to me that the capitalism system debases everything it touches. Anything of real value will be found outside this system. It has become the box that confines us all. ..."
"... It's also worth noting how his examples are still a function of the neoliberal canard that privilege is simply a boost on the ladder of meritocracy. The game is still implicitly understood to be fair. ..."
"... Yet, it's not clear to me what Alice Walton, for instance, has done to justify being a multi-billionaire. People who are born not just with spoons but entire silver foundries in their mouths could redistribute 90% of the wealth they acquired by virtue of being someone's baby and still be absurdly rich. ..."
"... Learning must be for its own sake. Like you, I spent many hours in the library. BUT it was to scratch an itch I have not been able to quell - even in these many years since I was in that library. ..."
"... "The putative "father of the Euro", economist Robert Mundell is reported to have explained to one of his university of Chicago students, Greg Palast: "the Euro is the easy way in which Congresses and Parliaments can be stripped of all power over monetary and fiscal policy. Bothersome democracy is removed from the economic system" Michael Hudson "Killing the Host" ..."
"... The neoclassical economists didn't have a clue as the Minsky Moment was approaching. ..."
Yves here. This article argues that people don't mind inequality due to "brute luck"…but is one man's
brute luck another man's rigged system?
By Matthew Weinzierl, Assistant Professor of Business Administration, Harvard Business
School. Originally published at
VoxEU
Tax policy to correct inequality assumes that nobody is entitled to advantages due to luck alone.
But the public largely rejects complete equalisation of 'brute luck' inequality. This column argues
that there is near universal public support for an alternative, benefit-based theory of taxation.
Treating optimal tax policy as an empirical matter may help us to close the gap between theory and
reality.
... .... ...
In this case, the optimal tax policy aggressively offsets inequality. Only the need to retain
incentives to work and the desire to reward extra effort justify allowing inequality to persist.
... ... ...
Brute Luck and Economic Inequality
What explains the gap between scholarly and popular views of the moral status of pre-tax income?
A clue might be our attitude to luck.
The view that individuals have no moral claim to their pre-tax incomes relies on the ethical assumption
that nobody is entitled to advantages due to factors outside his or her control. Philosophers such
as Cohen (2011) call this 'brute luck'. Given the importance of brute luck (for example, natural
ability, childhood home environment, and early schooling) to a person's economic status, this assumption
directly leads to a rejection of moral claims to pre-tax income.
... ... ...
The 2016 US presidential campaign's attention to inequality fits these findings. Some candidates
complain of a 'rigged system' and rich individuals and corporations who do not pay their 'fair' share.
Critically, gains due to a rigged system or tax avoidance are due to unjust actions, not brute luck.
They are due to the toss of a loaded coin, not a fair one.
... ... ...
These are early steps in developing a new approach to tax theory that I have called 'positive
optimal taxation'. This approach modifies the standard optimal tax analysis by treating the
objective for taxation as an empirical matter. It uses a variety of sources – including opinion
surveys, political rhetoric, and analysis of robust policy features – to highlight gaps between
the standard theory and prevailing reality of tax policy. It also identifies and incorporates
into the theory alternative goals – and the philosophical principles behind them – that better
describe the public's views on policy.
One piece of logic missing from the research analysis is accounting for the game itself. If
I agree to play a game of chance that is fairly played I am by default also agreeing that I accept
the possibility that the outcomes will not be equal, otherwise why would I play. It shouldn't
be a surprise that in the end people are willing to maintain that inequality because they originally
agreed to it by the fact that they agreed to play.
As Yves points out, if you change the scenario where one of the players was allowed to collude
with the person executing the game and the other player was informed of this you might get a very
different answer. You might even get a punishing answer.
The trick or con being played by the elite is to convince enough of us that the game of life
is being played fair. And when that fails, the con or lie becomes that its the fault of (insert
target minority group).
From two complementary sociological points of view -- conflict theory and symbolic interactionism
--
this article is naive -or a red herring- in the ways you suggest.
Indeed, the issue is about people
accepting a "definition of the situation" that is in fact detrimental to their material interests
(Pierre Bourdieu terms this "misrecognition"). Erving Goffman, who was trained as an interactionist,
studied con artists to describe how they successfully created a definition of situation -- which
means a version of social reality -- that their marks would internalize as reality itself. A sociologist
would not begin a discussion of socioeconomic inequality with tax policy.
A sociologist would not begin a discussion of socioeconomic inequality with tax policy.
But an economist would, and therein lies the problem. Control over arguments regarding political economy in the public sphere have to be wrested
from economists, so that we can start to talk about what actually matters. Sanders' popularity,
despite his numerous problems, lay in how he took control of the argument and laid bare the absurdities
of those who benefit from the status quo.
I say we boycott economists. Sure some of them are not terrible, but in the main the discipline
needs to be torn down and rebuilt from the ground up.
Many economists function as members of the courtier class, justifying what the rich and powerful
want to occur. Most citizens already boycott economists in that they don't use their services except when
required to attend an Econ class at school.
But economists do influence average citizens lives via their justification of tax policy, land
use policy, labor policy, trade policy and law implementation.
Even if we tore down the profession, it could likely regrow to provide the same functionality.
The profession provides a valuable service, as it is valued by the class with power and money
throughout the world.
Economic education has been a failure of the left. Everyone needs to know how money and finance
works. Only then can that power be put to various uses. It is not that you don't need economists,
you need economists working in your interest.
All knowledge and technology works this way. It is the purposeful use of information that matters,
not the information itself. The left wastes time, effort, and resources trying to convince people
to change their minds. Instead, they need to focus on building things in the real world, using
all the economic tools at their disposal.
I could get behind this. And I would have to agree that harping against the evils of capitalism,
which are very real, often comes from those who don't really understand how it works.
Maybe the solution is more co-ops and less rhetoric.
Using the power of the boycott is another. The powerless need to rediscover what power they
truly wield in this system. That was the other failure of the left. Yes, they were actively crushed
by corporate power, but the ideas live on. They can only be exterminated through lack of use.
A new ideology needs to be born of the ashes. If the predictions of climate disruption are
anywhere near accurate, a proactive, and positive direction can be undertaken. My experience is
that caring, healthy people are driven to help others in times of adversity. Well, those times
are coming. We are once again going to have to face the choice between choosing abject fear or
rolling up our sleeves and getting back to work making everyones lives better.
You don't need corporate sponsorship to do that. They need us more than we need them. In the
end, I have a feeling that the current system will come down very quickly. Being prepared for
that outcome is what should be driving the actions of those not vested in keeping the status quo
going.
The post indicates this guy is Assistant Professor of Business Administration - at Harvard
Business School - so I'm not sure I would give him even so much regard as I might give an economist.
I wonder how he and his will regard the fairness of luck while they wait in line to be serviced
at the guillotine they're building - much as Scrooge crafted his chain and weights for his afterlife.
For a historian, making connections between past and present situations is the root of their
insight. As in all walks of life, your efforts can gain value to your fellow citizens or they
can be used as a tool for your own self interest- whatever that might be. How interesting are
these repeating cycles in the human drama.
Interesting reference to Scrooge -- the power of art to enlighten the human condition cannot
be underestimated. As I get older, it seems to me that the capitalism system debases everything
it touches. Anything of real value will be found outside this system. It has become the box that
confines us all.
When your viewpoint of the world and your relationship to it shrink to only seeking profits,
the depravity of that situation is hidden from view unless shocked back to awareness.
As Peter Gabriel would say- Shock the Monkey
Shock the monkey to life
Shock the monkey to life
Cover me when I run
Cover me through the fire
Something knocked me out' the trees
Now I'm on my knees
Cover me darling please
Monkey, monkey, monkey
Don't you know you're going to shock the monkey
Fox the fox
Rat on the rat
You can ape the ape
I know about that
There is one thing you must be sure of
I can't take any more
Darling, don't you monkey with the monkey
Monkey, monkey, monkey
Don't you know you're going to shock the monkey
Wheels keep turning
Something's burning
Don't like it but I guess I'm learning
Shock! – watch the monkey get hurt, monkey
Cover me, when I sleep
Cover me, when I breathe
You throw your pearls before the swine
Make the monkey blind
Cover me, darling please
Monkey, monkey, monkey
Don't you know you're going to shock the monkey
Too much at stake
Ground beneath me shake
And the news is breaking
Shock! – watch the monkey get hurt, monkey
Shock the monkey
Shock the monkey
Shock the monkey to life
This is tangential to topic of this thread:
I was particularly struck by your comment about art: "the power of art to enlighten the human
condition cannot be underestimated." I recall a similar assertion made in one of Howard Zinn's
speeches - sorry I can't recall the exact phrasing of his statement or its context.
I'm retired and found a strange calling to make art - a calling I never listened to when I
had to worry about supporting a household. I find it difficult to make art that isn't political,
satirical or in some way didactic. Whether anyone else would regard my works as art I don't know
and in a way I don't care. Art has become a way in which I must express something inside me I
don't understand but whose direction I must follow. I suppose similar feeling drive many expressions
of art. Perhaps that explains something of the power of art you refer to.
For the erosion in income inequality to be fixed, economic policies need fixed. The disparity
between income quintiles will continue to widen. Social unrest will continue to proliferate. This
situation will simply never get corrected until the commercial banks are driven out of the savings
business (however bizarre one might think that solution is).
Vladimir Lenin, leader of the 1917 Russian Revolution said: "The best way to destroy the capitalist
system is to debauch the currency." Not so. The best way to destroy capitalists is the deregulation
of deposit caps for saver-holders' accounts in the commercial banking system. This policy error
simply increased the bank's costs with no increase in their income. Bottling up savings, is first
observed by the decline in money velocity, then by a decline in AD (secular stagnation), and when
the Fed attempts to offset this decline, by an increase in stagflation.
Vi is contrived. Vt is money actually exchanging counterparties. But since Ed Fry discontinued
the G.6 debit and demand deposit turnover release in Sept. 1996, the Fed has no rudder or anchor.
Required reserves are a surrogate, though the underweight Vt. But RRs are based on payments
(money turning over). And 95 percent of all demand drafts clear thru transaction based accounts.
The "code" you speak of relates to the volume of financial transactions consummated. Financial
transactions are not random. Financial speculation is a function of money flows. The volume of
bank debits during the housing crisis would have stood out like a sore thumb (as it captured both
new and existing real-estate transactions).
Only price increases generated by demand, irrespective of changes in supply, provide evidence
of inflation. There must be an increase in aggregate demand which can come about only as a consequence
of an increase in the volume and/or transactions velocity of money. The volume of domestic money
flows must expand sufficiently to push prices up, irrespective of the volume of financial transactions,
the exchange value of the U.S. dollar, and the flow of goods and services into the market economy.
The "administered" prices would not be the "asked" prices, were they not "validated" by (M*Vt),
i.e., "validated" by the world's Central Banks.
I'm not sure that what you just spewed even makes sense to you, or that you even bothered to
read the link provided…but the "code" is about concurrent monetary AND fiscal policy to serve
a purpose other than making the rich richer and the poor poorer…
If someone gets the waterfront property just because he/she was born first so got there first,
he better do something positive for the next generation… The next generation will understand the luck factor as not everyone can be standing in the
same spot at the same time, but it will not accept the scrooge.
If people are entitled, even in part, to their pre-tax incomes, the optimal tax policy would
no longer offset inequality as aggressively. Taxes would, instead, be focused on raising funds
for government activities in a way that tries to respect those entitlements.
which seems fair-ish, but also
Given the importance of brute luck (for example, natural ability, childhood home environment,
and early schooling)
Oh my! Childhood home environment and (gasp!) early schooling are matters of luck? Oh those
Haaahvaahd guys! No, professor, winning the lottery is a matter of luck, and can happen to anyone
at any point in their life. Being born in poverty, into a class 15% of whose male population is
incarcerated or having to go to a crappy school are *systemic* results of deliberate social structures,
the elites just prefer to call it "bad luck". Thus we see how the Ivies serve the elites.
Yes, HotFlash. And these 'deliberate social structures,' the 'red-lining' policies, the wildly
unequal sentences for crack versus cocaine, the casual brutality of the prison system (over 200,000
male rapes per year), the laws preventing people who have served their sentence for a felony from
voting, public housing, scholarship aid, welfare .. in other words, from living and improving
their lives .. are structural violence. And then we are 'surprised' when people who have lived
their lives under a regime of these subtle but unrelenting acts of economic, social and spiritual
violence, finally hit back.
It's also worth noting how his examples are still a function of the neoliberal canard that
privilege is simply a boost on the ladder of meritocracy. The game is still implicitly understood
to be fair.
Yet, it's not clear to me what Alice Walton, for instance, has done to justify being a multi-billionaire.
People who are born not just with spoons but entire silver foundries in their mouths could redistribute
90% of the wealth they acquired by virtue of being someone's baby and still be absurdly rich.
The paper seems totally oblivious to the fact that in the scenario presented, all the gains
enjoyed by both players are due to luck. Player B is getting a windfall either way, so
there's no sense of real unfairness. The perception would be quite different if it was only the
difference between A and B that was assigned randomly, while each had to earn some baseline.
And I think the "popular acceptance" part is given a huge boost when the young, black, nominally-Democrat
president keeps insisting everything is awesome and anyone who says otherwise is "peddling fiction".
I think this paper goes to great lengths to build a question around the ideas of the fairness
behind progressive taxation. This post hardly seems to pose a question worthy of study. Our tax
systems so much favor Corporations and the wealthy that considerations of "fairness" are at best
comical - and I'm not laughing.
Yes, the outcome of self awareness will always be Anarchism. I came be an advocate, not through
economics or politics, but thought Buddhism and Daoism. It is a story older than humanity that
we are just starting to remember.
So here I am sitting, watching, waiting for the rest of the world to catch up.
What kind of self-knowledge did Hitler find in his imprisonment? It didn't lead to anything
I would call peaceable. Was there some inner Hitler he didn't reach in his prison contemplations?
If I had only known it was luck, I would not have spent so many late nights in the library
during undergrad and grad schools. However, I enjoyed those nights and was enriched by them. Is
that taxable?
Learning must be for its own sake. Like you, I spent many hours in the library. BUT it was
to scratch an itch I have not been able to quell - even in these many years since I was in that
library.
Will future generations, if there are any, be able to look back and reflect," what were these
people thinking?"
There is no justification for the levels of inequality and environmental destruction we are
experiencing. Period. We can all consider ourselves fools, even for entertaining debating these
issues much longer. We need to be discussing concrete actions, not theoretical justifications.
Everyone must face the randomness of the universe every day. The only certainty know is the
one WE create as human beings- one and together. Why is it do you think that the elite never break
ranks. They are creating their own certainty in an uncertain world. Heads I win, tails you loose.
TBTF. Race to the bottom. The new normal. Political capture using the revolving door techniques.
Human evolution is racing toward a crisis point. Ending inequality and world conflict are at
the focal point of this outcome. Leaders that continue to use the outdated modes of social control
will either drive us over the cliff to destruction, or will loose the ability to control outcomes
as their numbers dwindle. The day the revelation is made that the elite are full of crap, is the
day change becomes possible.
It seems large social structures will always come crashing down. The weakness in human nature
and flaws in our social structures lead to eventual failure. Greed and selfish action is seldom
tolerated is smaller structures.
I think there will always be inequality between people on many many dimensions. I am constantly
humbled by how much I don't know that other people know, people less well educated and I suspect
less intelligent - whatever that means - than I am. I celebrate this inequality and sincerely
hope this larger knowledge shared with mine and the knowledge of many others will suffice to address
the great challenges we face in the all too near future.
HOWEVER - inequality as a matter of power relations - that is different matter. If I were my
great great grandson I could never forgive what I have allowed through my cowardice and intent
to have a surviving great great grandson - or granddaughter.
I am not sure I really understand the intention of this paper. The example used, that 20% of
$90,000 income must be paid in taxes, and then taking surveys of how that distribution should
work seems to ignore whether or not the respondents actually understand basic math.
Why do I say this?
The "easy" answer is that Person A pays $15,000 and person B pays $3,000 which is the equivalent
of a flat tax. And yet, that's not how most responded. Only 5% selected the easy answer. Which
makes me wonder if the targets of the survey even understand basic math.
Actually the easiest answer is for person A to pay the whole $18,000. He's the one who is getting
more money before taxes, and if he pays the $18,000, he's still getting $12,000 more than person
B. The "flat tax" is probably the second easiest answer. However, since neither person is doing
any tangible work to receive the money, the fairest result is for both to get the same after "taxes".
If person A pays $24,000, $18,000 will go to the "state", and $6,000 will go to person B, and
both A and B will each get $36,000. Person B can force person A to agree to this, because if they
don't agree, then person A only gets $600 and person B gets $300.
If we want to get complicated, then the result should be such that the difference between person
A's portion and person B's portion is $300, whether they agree or not. So if they agree, person
A would pay $23,850 ($18,000 to the "state" and $5,850 to person B), and person A would get $36,150.
In that case, person B would get $35,850. The difference between person A's income and person
B's income is $300, just as it would have been if they had not agreed.
In terms of the money and wealth of the people who run our government and economy, and control
and direct our lives and the lives of millions of others - $90K barely registers.
I have little faith in studies like these. My first question is always, "What's a respondent?"
Define Person, please.
Notice how they're treated as entirely substitutable standardized parts. That is, as if people
were molecules or atoms. But try as it might, social science ain't physics. You can't just grab
the nearest few people, sit them down at a keyboard to play your game (for credit? for fun? on
assignment?) and then substitute their behavior for the behavior of all people everywhere.
Which people, where, under what conditions, and how many? Was the sample representative? Did
the author go to prisons, ghettos, farm fields, etc. and ask them? Or was it proximity and ease
of access that defined it?
It's the old "college sophomores in the lab" problem. As an undergrad psych student, I saw
time and time again how people gamed the system, yet PhD candidates and professors took the data
as gospel. It's only too often more a demonstration of ability to work the method, to play the
academic game, than testing hypotheses.
Also you might ask what meaning to attribute to a questionable measure of human opinions about
a concept like "what is fair" in an environment completely dominated by promotion of ideas of
fairness which to my mind are quite unfair.
So I agree with you and wonder why you don't pres further.
This post frames inequality in terms of "fairness" and luck/pluck and treats money as some
form of prize in an economic "game". I suppose this way of looking at things works up to a point
as long as we look to those below us and congratulate our merit while accepting some greater luck
of those above us which help rationalize our merit. But any concepts of fairness or the justice
things rapidly fractures if we look past those in our own neighborhood. Riding a bubble through
the slums here and elsewhere in the world it becomes very difficult to rationalize justice and
merit. Looking in the other direction toward the high rises and gated estates and manifestations
of wealth I can't even imagine and the fragments of the fairness or justice of things evaporates
completely. The "findings" of this post do not scale - at all.
Aside from the living standard which money/wealth affords the notions of "fairness" "merit"
and "luck" this post contemplates there is no discussion of other aspects of money/wealth conveniently
passed over and ignored.
In our society our money-culture money/wealth is equated with merit. It packages demand for
automatic respect and deference. This pecuniary one-size-fits all measure for character, intellect,
excellence, creativity, leadership, even physical attractiveness undermines all these values reducing
them to commodities of the marketplace.
But the ability of money/wealth to control and command the lives of others and the collective
resources of society is far more pernicious. What concept of "fairness" or "justice" can justify
this aspect of inequality?
JG – Rogge covers this in his book: "World Poverty and Human Rights: Cosmopolitan Responsibilities
and Reforms" (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Poverty_and_Human_Rights
) using the perfect example of the acquisition and management of natural resources.
Your comment to mine leaves me quizzical. Though I value any comments to mine given my wondering
how far I am from what is reasonable - global poverty is far beyond the complexity of anything
I might address in my comments. I grant global poverty is not a problem beyond solution - but
first we need to address the problems of economic philosophy used to justify and enable the gross
inequalities of our world.
I have not read Rogge's book. There are far too many books I have not read and of the books
i have read there are far too many I have not really understood. I am also concerned by how little
this post seems to have stimulated our commentariat - an entity I have come to greatly respect.
Please elaborate on what you mean. I am concerned by this post's lack of consideration of the
political power money/wealth confers - something beyond and to some degree outside considerations
of poverty and the suffering inequality fosters - even celebrates.
My poor non-economist head reels at this article. OK, it's a mind exercise to determine attitudes
toward taxation. But it's completely made up – Fig. 1 Tossing a fair coin, doesn't scan for me,
it's like a crap game. At the random flip of a coin, A gets twice as much as B, but where did
the $18k penalty come from? Is it arbitrary? Why "could" one have to pay more, and who decides?
And where did the $24k figure come from? Seems obvious to me A got twice as much, and so should
pay 2 out of 3 parts of the penalty. So, re brute luck and tax policy, if inherited wealth or
investment income (i.e. rent) vs. wage income is really what's meant here, please say so.
I view this post - at least in part - as questioning the basis for a progressive tax rate based
on attitudes toward what is "fair" in turn based on a - sorry - hokey experiment to test attitudes
about what is fair. To me the problem is a problem of scale. If we're talking about my place opposed
to that of the fellow in the house on the hill or the house down the street - I might - on a good
day - buy-in to this post's notions about "fairness". Those notions do NOT scale and they don't
give any consideration to the powers of control and command which great wealth confers.
What I can accept in the way of inequality between myself and the guy on the hill does NOT
scale when the guy on the hill doesn't live on the hill and only owns the house on the hill as
a reminder of his lowly beginnings. He lives in a multi-million dollar 10,000 sq. ft. condominium
high in New York City and a similar flat in London, and in Tai Pei and Shanghai and Paris and
… and lives in none of them really. And I cannot accept the poverty and oppression found in Camden,
New Jersey, Southside Chicago, … in Brazilian favelas or the slums of Seoul.
Perhaps the failure to scale arises from the compounded flaws that, first, this post is all
about "I" and speaks not at all to "we"; and, second, as your comments point out, uses money in
typical fashion as the lowest common denominator determining utility and fairness when, 'we' demands
a focus on the highest not lowest common denominator (and that's not mathematically or logically
convenient).
Further, 'we' must be something more meaningful than a mere agglomeration of "I's". Those are
at best 'thin we's' easily seduced into theoretical constructs that, in fact, have nothing to
do with the actual experience of 'we' in any meaningful way.
Real, 'thick' we's comprised of actual people who persistently interact and truly know they
share some to a lot of their shared fates respond to questions of brute luck, fairness and inequality
together (whether democratically or otherwise or blends of ways). They don't determine their shared
fates with an eye on abstract individualism grounded in lowest common denominators of 'utility'.
They actually care about 'what makes most sense for us together' and balk at devices, questions
- indeed swindles - aimed at tearing apart the fabric of 'we'.
Milton Freidman, the man that wrecked the world with bad economics.
Milton Freidman's charm, energy and charisma seduced his students and global elites alike into
believing he had come up with an economics that could transform the world. His students loved the idea of transforming the world through economics as it made them feel
so important. Global elites loved his economics as it worked so well for them and gave a scientific backing
for a world that was one that they had always wanted.
Unfortunately, there were a lot of problems with his economics that are making themselves felt
today.
His economics was missing:
1) The work of the Classical Economists
2) The true nature of money and debt
3) The work of Irving Fischer in the 1930s
The Classical Economists were the first economists to look at and analyse the world
around them, a world of small state, raw capitalism.
They noted how the moneyed classes were always rent seeking and looking to maintain themselves
in luxury and leisure, through rent and interest. This sucked money out of the productive side
of the economy, reducing the purchasing power within the nation.
They noted how the cost of living must be kept low, to keep the basic minimum wage low, so
nations could be competitive in the international arena.
This knowledge is missing today.
The UK dream is to live like the idle, rich rentier, with a BTL portfolio extracting "unearned"
rental income from the "earned" income of generation rent.
In the US they removed all the things that kept the cost of living down, not realising these
costs would have to be covered by wages. The US now has a very high minimum wage due to soaring
costs of housing, healthcare and student loans and US businesses are squealing.
The true nature of money and debt were understood in the 1930s when the Chicago Plan
was put forward after a thorough investigation into the 1929 bust.
Money and debt are opposite sides of the same coin.
If there is no debt there is no money.
Money is created by loans and destroyed by repayments of those loans.
This knowledge is missing today.
Today's ubiquitous housing boom is like a printing press creating more and more money as the
new mortgage debt comes into existence.
The money supply expands and pours into the real economy making everything look really good.
The only thing that is really happening is the inflation of the price of things that exist
already, houses. All the debt being created is not productive investment.
The cost of living goes up and more and more money gets sucked into mortgage and rent payments
sucking purchasing power out of the economy. The increasing cost of living, raises the basic minimum
wage pricing labour out of international labour markets.
Irving Fisher also looked into the 1929 bust and developed a theory of economic crises
called debt-deflation, which attributed the crises to the bursting of a credit bubble.
Irving Fisher looked into debt inflated asset bubbles and realised the huge danger they pose
to the whole economy. This knowledge is missing today. The ubiquitous housing boom is a debt inflated asset bubble, with huge amounts of debt spread
through the whole economy, when it bursts there is hell to pay.
This was first seen in Japan in 1989, its economy has never recovered.
It was repeated in the US and leveraged up with derivatives leading to 2008.
Ireland and Spain have also wrecked their economies with housing bubbles.
There are housing bubbles around the world, ready to burst and pull that nation into debt deflation.
Milton Freidman, the man that wrecked the world with bad economics.
Milton Freidman worked at the Chicago School of Economics and was the global ambassador for
his dire economics. This dire economics and the University of Chicago were also behind the design of the Euro,
no wonder it doesn't work.
"The putative "father of the Euro", economist Robert Mundell is reported to have explained
to one of his university of Chicago students, Greg Palast: "the Euro is the easy way in which
Congresses and Parliaments can be stripped of all power over monetary and fiscal policy. Bothersome
democracy is removed from the economic system" Michael Hudson "Killing the Host"
Their dire economics predicts the Euro-zone economies will converge into a stable equilibrium.
The reality – the economies are diverging and the poorer nations are going under. It's bad. 2008 – How did that happen?
The neoclassical economists didn't have a clue as the Minsky Moment was approaching.
Two people who did see 2008 coming (there aren't many).
Steve Keen – A whole book "Debunking Economics" on this dire neoclassical economics and the
problems of not using realistic assumptions on money and debt.
Michael Hudson – Calls it "junk" economics and has written a whole book on the problems of
forgetting the world of Classical Economics – Killing the Host.
Naomi Klein "Shock Doctrine" goes into the brutality of the Chicago Boys and Berkeley Mafia
in implementing their economic vision. A right wing "Khmer Rouge" that descended on developing
nations to wipe away left wing thinking.
Marginalist economics tends to be characterised primarily by a couple of distinct axioms that
operate 'under the surface' to produce its key results. these are simplistically characterise
as: the axiom of methodological individualism; the axiom of methodological instrumentalism; and
the axiom of methodological equilibration, where models derived from them have ex-ante predictive
power.
This is historically Epicurean philosophy, example, Epicurus wrote,
"The magnitude of pleasure reaches its limit in the removal of all pain. When such pleasure
is present, so long as it is uninterrupted, there is no pain either of body or of mind or of both
together."
Which is a reflection of its materialistic atomism which is basically identical with the marginalist
focus on atomistic individuals and makes it an atomistic doctrine. Thorstein Veblen where he wrote
in his Why is Economics Not an Evolutionary Science?:
"The hedonistic conception of man is that of a lightning calculator of pleasure and pains,
who oscillates like a homogeneous globule of desire of happiness under the impulse of stimuli
that shift him about the area, but leave him intact. He has neither antecedent nor consequent.
He is an isolated definitive human datum."
Which in turn is just Epicurean ontology where everything becomes objects and not subjects
where Epicurean ethics involves individuals maximising pleasure and minimising pain - or, as the
marginalists would put it, maximising utility and minimising disutility - it simply follows from
the basic ontological position that is put forward.
Just to put a more modern perspective on it – see: Note that the patient suffering from schizophrenia
tends not to answer the questions directed at him but rather responds with complete non-sequiturs.
"In his book, King lays out how economists have tried to establish supposedly disaggregated
"microfoundations" with which to rest their macroeconomics upon. The idea here is that Keynesian
macroeconomics generally deals with large aggregates of individuals – usually entire national
economies – and draws conclusions from these while largely ignoring the actions of individual
agents. As King shows in the book, however, the idea that a macro-level analysis requires such
microfoundations is itself entirely without foundation. Unfortunately though, since mainstream
economists are committed to methodological individualism – that is, they try to explain the world
with reference to what they think to be the rules of individual behaviour – they tend to pursue
this quest across the board and those who proclaim scepticism about the need for microfoundations
can rarely articulate this scepticism as they too are generally wedded to the notion that aggregative
behaviour can only be explained with reference to supposedly disaggregated behaviour."
You might also like – Le Bon, Gustave. The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, you can get
it free online.
Additionally – The Myth of the Rational Market: Wall Street's Impossible Quest for Predictable
Markets – by Justin Fox
Chronicling the rise and fall of the efficient market theory and the century-long making of
the modern financial industry, Justin Fox's "The Myth of the Rational Market" is as much an intellectual
whodunit as a cultural history of the perils and possibilities of risk. The book brings to life
the people and ideas that forged modern finance and investing, from the formative days of Wall
Street through the Great Depression and into the financial calamity of today. It's a tale that
features professors who made and lost fortunes, battled fiercely over ideas, beat the house in
blackjack, wrote bestselling books, and played major roles on the world stage. It's also a tale
of Wall Street's evolution, the power of the market to generate wealth and wreak havoc, and free
market capitalism's war with itself.
The efficient market hypothesis -- long part of academic folklore but codified in the 1960s at
the University of Chicago -- has evolved into a powerful myth. It has been the maker and loser of
fortunes, the driver of trillions of dollars, the inspiration for index funds and vast new derivatives
markets, and the guidepost for thousands of careers. The theory holds that the market is always
right, and that the decisions of millions of rational investors, all acting on information to
outsmart one another, always provide the best judge of a stock's value. That myth is crumbling.
Disheveled Marsupial…. Main stream econnomics is an extenuation of much deeper metaphysical
and resultant ideological beliefs….
Like the USSR the USA has one party
system. This guy does not understand that both part are wings of single Neoliberal
Party of the USA. Differences are rather superficial. Democrats are better in fooling
minorities and low income voters.
Notable quotes:
"... Perhaps we need to rethink our electoral model of winner-take-all elections, and particularly of single-member House districts - a model that reinforces, rather than cuts against, this growing geographic polarization, and one that makes it harder for parties to reflect their internal diversity. ..."
"... Well, let's see, both parties have been playing the social issue, divide and conquer game for decades. Throw in Citizens United, which has... ..."
...Most large cities, college towns, the Northeast and the West Coast are
deep-blue Democratic. Ruby-red Republican strongholds take up most of the South,
the Great Plains, the Mountain States and the suburban and rural areas in between.
Rather than compete directly against each other, both parties increasingly occupy
their separate territories, with diminishing overlap and disappearing common
accountability. They hear from very different constituents, with very different
priorities.
... The House, the supposed "people's chamber," is a sea of noncompetition.
Out of 435 seats up for election this year, just 25 are considered tossups by
The Cook Political Report . In 2014, 82 percent of House races were decided
by at least 15 percentage points, including 17 percent that were not contested
by one of the two major parties.
The Senate is only slightly better. A mere six seats out of 34 up for election
are considered
genuine tossups by Cook's assessment (Florida, Indiana, Nevada, New Hampshire,
North Carolina and Pennsylvania), while five are in the "lean" category.
The presidential candidates are also ignoring most of the country, instead
focusing on the handful of swing states that always seem to take on outsize
importance.
In the 2012 presidential election , only four states were decided by five
or fewer percentage points, and the median state-level margin of victory was
a whopping 16.9 percent (in other words, not even close). Compare that with
the 1976 presidential election , when 20 states were decided by five or
fewer percentage points (and 31 were decided by eight percentage points or fewer),
and the median state-level margin of victory was 5.9 percent.
...
While gerrymandering
may explain some of the noncompetitiveness of House races, it can't explain
the Senate or the Electoral College. No amount of nonpartisan redistricting
can overcome
the fundamental disconnect between place-based, winner-take-all elections
and polarized, geographically separated parties.
Competition is even rarer these days in state legislatures, where 43 percent
of candidates
did not face a major party opponent in 2014, and fewer than one in 20 races
was decided by five percentage points or less. That made 2014
one of the most uncompetitive state-election years in decades.
These patterns are likely to continue: The current partisan geography is
a natural political alignment.
Around the world , urban areas tend to be left-leaning and cosmopolitan;
rural and suburban areas tend to be conservative and populist.
... ... ...
As the parties became more homogeneous, rank-and-file members began to cede
more authority to their leaders to enforce party discipline within Congress,
especially in the House. Particularly after the watershed election of 1994,
when many longtime conservative Democratic seats turned into relatively safe
Republican seats, a new generation of conservative lawmakers and a newly assertive
party leadership exerted a hard-right pull on the Republican Party. That election
also bled the Democratic Party of many of its conservatives, shifting its caucus
to the left. The election of 2010 was the culmination of the decades-long undoing
of the New Deal coalition, sweeping away the few remaining Southern conservative
Democrats.
Moreover, as more of the country became one-party territory, the opposing
party in these places grasped the improbability of winning and so had little
incentive to invest in mobilization and party building. This lack of investment
further depleted a potential bench of future candidates and made future electoral
competitions less and less likely.
These trends have been especially bad news for congressional Democrats, whose
supporters are both
more
densely concentrated into urban areas (giving them fewer House seats) and
less likely to vote in nonpresidential years (when most elections for governor
are held, robbing the party of prominent state leaders). Since Republicans hold
more relatively safe House seats, Democrats might benefit from occasional wave
elections when the Republican brand has been significantly weakened (e.g., 2006
and 2008). But given the underlying dynamics, such elections are far more likely
to be aberrations than long-lasting realignments.
An optimistic view of a future devoid of much electoral competition is that
it saves members of Congress from having to constantly worry about re-election,
which
critics have argued pushes members toward short-term, parochial lawmaking.
Perhaps all these safe seats can finally free up members to think beyond the
next electoral cycle, and become genuine statesmen again..
... ... ...
By contrast, Congress was probably at its most fluid and productive during
the periods of highest two-party competition, from the 1960s through the 1980s.
This was partly because competition kept turnover steady enough that it brought
in a relatively even flow of new members with new ideas. It also encouraged
members to cut deals to bring home earmarks that would help them get elected.
Members don't do these things anymore because they don't have to. Whatever
bipartisan bonhomie that once existed in Washington was a consequence of these
underlying electoral conditions. Trying to re-establish that good will without
fixing the underlying causes is like building a bridge across a river without
foundations to ground the towers.Certainly, there are some signs that we may
have already hit the nadir of electoral non-competition. In
presidential polling , for example, blue states are looking a little less
blue this year than in past years, and red states are looking a little less
red. Split-ticket voting will likely be up this year as well. If the Republican
Party truly becomes the party of Donald J. Trump (and there is
good reason to think it will), and Democrats continue to court moderate
pro-business Republicans alienated by Mr. Trump while giving up on nostalgia-minded
white working-class voters (
also likely ), this may make some states and congressional districts more
competitive. Changing demographics, especially in places with rising immigrant
populations, may also change the dynamics of competition. There are also some
signs that divisions within the parties are coming to undermine longstanding
party unity, creating potential for new crosscutting alliances in ways that
are
likely to reduce polarization .
But we have a long way to go. These nascent trends could use a boost.
Perhaps we need to rethink our electoral model of winner-take-all elections,
and particularly of single-member House districts - a model that reinforces,
rather than cuts against, this growing geographic polarization, and one that
makes it harder for parties to reflect their internal diversity.
The single-member, winner-take-all elections we use are a relative rarity
among advanced democracies. They are not mandated by the Constitution, which
lets states decide how to elect their representatives. In fact, many states
originally used
multimember districts . Returning to this approach would make it far easier
to draw competitive districts that mix urban and rural areas. It would make
it easier for different wings in both parties to send members to Congress, creating
more diversity within the parties. It might also allow some smaller, regional
parties to emerge, since multimember allow candidates to win with far less than
majority support. These developments would increase the possibilities for deal-making
in Congress. The
FairVote proposal of multimember districts with ranked choice voting seems
especially promising on this front.
But the first step in electoral reform is recognizing that this country has
a problem. For decades, we had reasonably robust electoral competition, so there
was little obvious reason to worry about our electoral system. But that era
is over.
Nick Metrowsky
Well, let's see, both parties have been playing the social issue,
divide and conquer game for decades. Throw in Citizens United, which has...
ttrumbo
We're the most economically divided industrial country; so that's who
we are. We've let the favored few gain so much wealth and power that...
BirdL
The related implications for one-party states, especially deep red ones,
is that policy making is way too "easy," with little deliberation...
US started Ukraine civil war. War in Donbass continues
It has been over a year of blood, tears and destruction in Ukraine especially in SE Ukraine. The
new country now called Novorossia, has been fighting the puppet government in Kiev, USA who is committing
genocide in the Donbass region. America's new addition to its Empire is funded with billions and
millions supported by NATO and other mercenaries. Yet, Kiev still cannot complete its mission the
US trained it for. Oleg Tsarov warned about the impish activities the US was performing before the
protests began in Kiev. America started the war in Ukraine but like Goliath was slain by little David.
US Started Ukraine Civil War *PROOF* Nov 20, 2013
Oleg Tsarov, who was then the People's Deputy of Ukraine, talks about US preparations for civil
war in Ukraine, November 2013 in Kiev parliament. Major protests began the day after his speech.
You can hear the paid protesters chanting "Ukraine" in the background trying to keep him from speaking
the truth. Later, April 14, 2014, Oleg was beaten by a mob when he was running for president but
fortunately survived. His face was badly beaten as shown here. Remember, his speech was the day before
the Maidan Protests. See the Timeline. In his speech he said:
"...activists of the organization 'Volya' turned to me providing clear evidence that within our
territory with support and direct participation of the US EMBASSY (in Kiev) the 'Tech Camp' project
is realized under which preparations are being made for a civil war in Ukraine.
The project is currently overseen and under the responsibility of the US ambassador to Ukraine
Geoffrey R. Pyatt. After the conversation with the organization 'Volya'. I have learned they succeeded
to access the facilities of 'Tech Camp' disguised as a team of IT specialists. To their surprise,
briefings on the peculiarities of modern media were held. AMERICAN instructors explained how social
networks and Internet technologies can be used for targeted manipulation of public opinion as well
as to activate protest potential to provoke violent unrest in the territory of Ukraine; radicalization
of the population triggering infighting.
American instructors presented examples of successful use of social networks used to organize
protests in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. Recent conference took place Nov 14-15, 2013, in the heart
of Kiev in the Embassy of the United States of America!
Is it conceivable that representatives of the US Embassy which organize the 'Tech Camp' conferences
misuse their diplomatic mission? UN resolution of December 21, 1965 regulates inadmissibility of
interference in the internal affairs of a state to protect its independence and its sovereignty in
accordance with paragraphs 1,2 and 5. I ask you to consider this as an official supplication to pursue
an investigation of this case."
Well, no investigation was ever made especially by the "land of the free". Vladimir Putin has
asked the UN for help but they drag their feet. The US embassies have caused more damage than the
Soviet Union has ever done. In the video, we can see Oleg and others knew about America's interference
in Ukraine affairs. He wanted to stop the civil war and courageously ran for president to stop the
impending bloodshed. Thousands of deaths could have been avoided if people had listened to him. He
could not fight the tide of billions of dollars from Obama and the US Congress. The Nazis in Kiev
had their way while Poroshenko sent men to their deaths. What a waste into a whirlpool of misery.
Obama and Poroshenko told the army they were going to fight terrorists. The "terrorists" were
innocent civilians. Kiev POW's were later paraded in front of the bombarded people as they got a
dose of REALITY. If only Obama or Poroshenko had told them the truth that they were bombing civilians
they thought. The Ukrainian army is full of city boys who are inexperienced, fighting in unknown
territory. The Novorossia militia is filled with coal miners and other blue collar workers with many
who have had combat experience in Chechnya or older men with experience from the Soviet-Afghanistan
war.
The militia has seen their children, wives, Mothers, Fathers, grandparents and close friends killed
but their faith, as this touching video shows, helps them defend their land. The Ukrainian army was
drafted and sent by seedy Obama and Poroshenko under the penalty of 5 yrs in jail if they did not
fight. If you feel sorry for them as POW's then I hope you see the bodies or graves of the thousands
of civilians who were killed by them. It is a tragedy for everyone involved. Even for Soros, Obama,
Poroshenko, Kerry, Nuland, members of US Congress who approved this, the Nazis in Kiev, all will
suffer far worse on Judgment Day unless they repent.
The civil war continues in Ukraine but despite Kiev's effort to mask the number of their dead
soldiers and POW's, Novorossia continues victory after victory on the battlefield. Ukraine army focuses
on shelling civilians while Novorossia kills Kiev's soldiers or captures them. Sometimes they are
returned to their Mothers as seen in this film.
Donetsk Republic Prime Minister Alexander Zakharchenko from Novorossia argues with Kiev army officer
in this powerful video. He said that the Kiev army succumbed to the coup:
"To give away our own country to be looted by Americans and other European countries"
That video is by Graham Phillips who does the job that the impotent lame stream media won't do
in America. Bravo Graham! Many thanks to Kazzura for her translation of most of the videos.
Notice in the West the so called journalists are nowhere to be found on the battlefield in Ukraine
as this man was here. I am certainly not addressing the media like CNN, FOX, CBS and the other court
jesters who are paid clowns in the freak show called "US government". They dare tell America lies
about the war. I would force them to dig the graves of the dead. How quickly the mainstream media
goose steps in unison blaming Russia as Hitler did. Showing them the truth would be like showing
a burnt building to a pyromaniac. The US media is in the business of making money not telling the
truth. Peace and truth don't make billions of dollars they say. Were they bribed or are they true
liars? "The liar's punishment is, not in the least that he is not believed, but that he cannot believe
anyone else." - George Bernard Shaw
Victoria "Fuck the EU" Nuland was back in the news recently. In her efforts to support the US
program against "Russia Today". "Noodle Head Nuland" belittled RT by saying "RT's tiny, tiny audience
in the United States". Remember her? The Benghazi gal was first talking about Democracy in Ukraine
with Chevron. Their version of "democracy and freedom" means war to the rest of the world. She was
seen handing out food to protesters and police in Kiev. How nice she is sounding so sweet and so
kind. She was later caught on tape saying "Fuck the EU" when discussing the setup of the Ukraine
government. Later she was grilled by Republican Dana Rohrabacher where she admitted there were Nazis
on Maidan. Yeah, I really trust that evil witch who learned her craft from Hillary.
It is obvious to the world, but not to the West, that Kiev was overthrown by the US and EU. Although
the US propaganda blames Russia for everything the OSCE has already disproven their claims. We wanted
to show in our main video that Kiev was actually warned before Pandora's Box was opened. The blame
is clearly on the US as instigators. They sowed the devil's seed.
Nevertheless, those who were deceived by the US or went along with the evil knowingly are also
to blame and bear the responsibility of misleading Ukraine. Kiev has now become the newest suffering
colony in America's empire. The only real "Hope and Change" for the people of Donbass is fighting
against Obama's tyranny and becoming the independent country of Novorossia. "Let Freedom Ring!" America
has forgotten its meaning.
Ukrainian Interior Ministry forces ATO Main news of recent days: an operation to encircle
Donetsk is nearly complete!
This radically changes the entire operational environment at the front. Let's already stop hiding
behind a fig leaf is an abbreviation of ATU and will be referred to as a war-torn, and advanced-front.
Many people ask how the war, which, by its type refers to the type of maneuver, formed wheel built?
After all, in the civil wars there is no front line. What do the schemes that appear on the Internet,
which clearly outline the front line?
First, the schemes are not reflected front and border control zones. Please note that the scheme
is not solid and dotted line .
Secondly, in the civil wars of the twentieth century in key areas formed a solid front.
Third, in these days we are recognizing a century of the First World War. This grand massacre
marked by the fact that the war for the first time in human history has become a purely positional.
On the western front rows of trenches stretched linear continuum from the North Sea to Switzerland.
And before the war were maneuverable. However, the basic principles of the strategy work as a maneuver,
and as the positional constructions. Therefore the environment in Donetsk - is now a decisive factor
that will help determine the subsequent course of events.
1919 defeat of Denikin. Future Marshal Yegorov spends quite a front operation at significantly
discharged constructions than we are now seeing in the Donbas.
But the most accurate historical analogy of what is happening in the East of the country, is the
Spanish Civil War of 1936-1939, a rehearsal for WWII.
Three months ago, when the ATO was just beginning, with Yuri Romanenko, we discussed what it will
be for operation from a military point of view, with what does it compare? Spain! - Even then we
came to this conclusion.
One side holds successive offensives against disparate unsaturated builds on the other hand, in
the end it all comes down to a struggle for basic megacities - Barcelona and Madrid in the years
1938-1939 and for the Donetsk and Lugansk in 2014. We see that during the Spanish Civil War also
called the control zone - fronts.
As then, leading the offensive side of the wire successive offensives in various sectors of the
front. General Franco did not immediately come to such a strategy. But, he quickly enough proved
its effectiveness.
The Spanish Civil War
Another connecting factor - and in Spain, and in the Donbass defensive side had and has the ability
to constantly replenish their strength. I mean the International Brigades in Spain and Russian mercenaries
in the Donbass. Just do not make direct analogies and remember Hemingway. Ideology, morality and
culture here is not the point, only comparison is the strategic and military experience.
Based on the study of the history of strategic decisions during the Spanish Civil War. The General
staff of Ukraine has abandoned an ambitious but totally inappropriate, in terms of strategy, the
plan of encirclement throughout the territory occupied by the enemy.
General Staff of Ukraine refused ambitious but completely wrong, in terms of strategy, plan the
environment throughout the territory To carry out such an operation is necessary to introduce martial
law and full mobilization. The economic crisis - Ukraine needs to live and work. The President of
Ukraine Petro Poroshenko demanded to find less radical solutions. The General staff was to develop
private operations against individual enemy factions. And immediately came to fruition!
Today, we are seeing a decline IAF combat capability, as they are forced to operate in disparate
groups. The actions of terrorists is completely dictated by the operational environment. Given the
fact that the strategic initiative is fully on the side of the APU, the actions of illegal armed
groups cropped, are predictable and can be controlled. While the IAF will not solve the problems
with communications around Donetsk, they have no opportunity for meaningful operations on other sites.
Maneuver warfare strategy can be compared to the battle in zero gravity, when one of the opponents,
getting zubodrobilny kick gets a chance to continue the fight, that only lasts with some kind of
support. In our case, this leg is large metropolitan areas. Having lost the strategic initiative,
the IAF will be forced to pull their main forces in the Donetsk and Lugansk, allowing the APU, if
necessary, to conduct the operation on the closure of the border with Russia. Everything is good
in its season!
Zero Hedge
Earlier this week, a twitter user named " Katica " seemingly proved
the "intent" of the Hillary campaign to destroy and/or tamper with federal records by revealing the
Reddit thread of Paul Combetta (aka the "Oh Shit" guy; aka "stonetear"). But
what's most crazy about this story is that "Katica" was able to discover the greatest "bombshell" of the entire Hillary email
scandal with just a couple of internet searches while the FBI, with unlimited access to government records, spent
months "investigating" this case and missed it all . The only question now is whether the FBI "missed" this evidence because
of gross incompetence or because of other motivating factors ?
Now, courtesy of an opinion piece posted on
The Daily Caller
, we know exactly how "Katica" pieced her "bombshell" discovery together... the folks at the FBI may want to take some notes.
Per the twitter discussion below with @RepStevenSmith , "Katica"
discovered Combetta's Reddit thread on September 16th. But while she suspected that Paul Combetta and the Reddit user known
as "stonetear" were, in fact, the same person, she had to prove it...
Infowars reporter Lee Ann McAdoo talks to Rudy Dent, 32 year veteran of NYC fire department and
the NYPD, about his incredible first hand experience of the lies surrounding WTC 7.
Jeanne O'Mara 13 hours ago
This retired fireman feels that it was a a controlled demolition. He has never heard of a high
rise being brought down by a fire. There were other bldgs that were hit by debris from the burning
towers. He was also suspicious that all the evidence from WTC 7 was taken away and sent to china.
The crime scene should have protected but wasn't. He believe as many now do that t was a "false
Flag" operation to get people all riled up so they could get into react. He saw molten LAVA like
pockets of steel which is like what you see when a volcano explodes. It's called pyroclastic flow.
Thermite, a very special explosive was found and it can only be made a very specialized labs like
Los Alamos.
The bush family has a very creepy history. Prescott Bush had holdings in a bank that funded
the Nazis (Union Bank). It was seized by the CONGRESS. The Harrimans were also involved w this
bank.
It's also clear that Bush Sr had a role in JFK's assassination. JFK had asked A. Harriman to
negotiate w Vietnam and Harriman cross out that part. This was treason.
lora savage 1 week ago
That guy knows what he's talking about. It's about time someone came forward with what
may be true according to what he saw and knows.
9/11 is a cover-up and World Trade Center 7 collapse is the smoking gun. Why is that so?? WTC-7
fully collapsed in a manner that resembles a controlled demolition. For 2.25 seconds it collapsed
at freefall and National Institute of Standards and Technology now admits this. In order for it
to freefall for 2.25 seconds you need a uniform gap of approx. 80ft free of any physical impediments
(equivalent of blowing out 7 floors almost instantaneously).
Fire is not magic and cannot do that and only can be precisely done through human intervention.
It takes the prepositioning of demolition components that are finely timed throughout the building
to accomplish this. WTC-7 had GOV agencies as part of its tenant (US Secret Service, CIA, IRS,
DOD...) With tenants like that it is impossible for an outsider to get access to the building
to preposition demolition components. Whoever did had to have their consent!
"... Thanks for writing this article; it corroborates everything I've been saying about Obama's lust for war and destabilization. You could have mentioned the Pentagon currently has JSOC kill teams in 147 countries, per Noam Chomsky. You also could have mentioned the US is the most feared force on the global stage, feared, that is, by actual citizens, not so much by their leaders. ..."
"... Years ago Glen Ford of "Black Agenda Report" correctly referred to this shameless sellout as "the more effective evil". The implication was that the perception created by his propagandists that Obama is a committed Democrat who is just trying to do his best against a obstructionist Congress and right-wing media is false. ..."
"... Barry the Liar is an enthusiastic member of the MIC, Wall Street, and the oligarchs. He has actually expanded the powers of the President and the National Security State that we live in and even claims the right to kill an American citizen without trial! When George Carlin said - "I don't believe anything my government tells me" he could have been talking about this shill for the TPB. ..."
"... Yes, why isn't anyone in the mass media picking up on this obvious hypocrisy? For the same reasons it never picks up on anything else of importance - it's controlled. ..."
"... Obama has been one of the most hypocritical presidents ever elected. ..."
"... Obama got his start in politics with money from the family that owns Grumman, and he's been dancing to their tune ever since. ..."
"... Obama sold out on the left. In reality, he was paid from day one to do exactly that. He was literally the ultimate snake oil salesman. Campaign on a platform of change and govern like Bush won 2 more terms. ..."
"... If Obama is the best the Democrats can come up with, then it is high time the left en masse left the Democratic Party. It's one big reason why I cannot support Clinton, who will be even more pro-war. It's a vote for more of the same. ..."
"... And, Hillary Clump was the biggest war monger in his misadministration. As for the nukes, I recently drove by a minuteman nuclear missile silo in Wyoming, you can see the damn thing right there by the road. ..."
Recently, sorting through a pile of old children's books, I came across a volume, That Makes
Me Mad!, which brought back memories. Written by Steve Kroll, a long-dead friend, it focused
on the eternally frustrating everyday adventures of Nina, a little girl whose life regularly meets
commonplace roadblocks, at which point she always says... well, you can guess from the title! Vivid
parental memories of another age instantly flooded back-of my daughter (now reading such books to
her own son) sitting beside me at age five and hitting that repeated line with such mind-blowing,
ear-crushing gusto that you knew it spoke to the everyday frustrations of her life, to what made
her mad.
Three decades later, in an almost unimaginably different America, on picking up that book I suddenly
realized that, whenever I follow the news online, on TV, or-and forgive me for this but I'm 72 and
still trapped in another era-on paper, I have a similarly Nina-esque urge. Only the line I've come
up with for it is (with a tip of the hat to Steve Kroll) " You must be kidding! "
Here are a few recent examples from the world of American-style war and peace. Consider these
as random illustrations, given that, in the age of Trump, just about everything that happens is out-of-this-world
absurd and would serve perfectly well. If you're in the mood, feel free to shout out that line with
me as we go.
Nuking the Planet: I'm sure you remember Barack Obama, the guy who entered the
Oval Office pledging to
work toward
"a nuclear-free world." You know, the president who traveled to Prague in 2009 to say
stirringly : "So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the
peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons... To put an end to Cold War thinking, we will
reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and urge others to do the same."
That same year, he was awarded the Nobel Prize largely for what he might still do, particularly in
the nuclear realm. Of course, that was all so 2009!
Almost two terms in the Oval Office later, our peace president, the only one who has ever called
for nuclear "abolition"-and whose administration has retired
fewer weapons
in our nuclear arsenal than any other in the post-Cold War era-is now
presiding over the early stages of a
trillion-dollar modernization of that very arsenal. (And that trillion-dollar price tag comes,
of course, before the
inevitable cost overruns even begin.) It includes
full-scale work
on the creation of a "precision-guided" nuclear weapon with a "dial-back" lower yield option.
Such a weapon would potentially bring nukes to the battlefield in a first-use way, something the
U.S. is proudly
pioneering .
And that brings me to the September 6th front-page story in the New York Times that caught
my eye. Think of it as the icing on the Obama era nuclear cake. Its
headline : "Obama Unlikely to Vow No First Use of Nuclear Weapons." Admittedly, if made, such
a vow could be reversed by any future president. Still, reportedly for fear that a pledge not to
initiate a nuclear war would "undermine allies and embolden Russia and China... while Russia is running
practice bombing runs over Europe and China is expanding its reach in the South China Sea," the president
has backed down on issuing such a vow. In translation: the only country that has ever used such weaponry
will remain on the record as ready and willing to do so again without nuclear provocation, an act
that, it is now believed in Washington, would create a calmer planet.
You must be kidding!
Plain Old Bombing: Recall that in October 2001, when the Bush administration
launched its invasion of Afghanistan, the U.S. was bombing no other largely Islamic country. In fact,
it was bombing no other country at all. Afghanistan was quickly "liberated," the Taliban crushed,
al-Qaeda put to flight, and that
was that , or so it then seemed.
On September 8th, almost 15 years later, the Washington Post
reported that, over a single weekend and in a "flurry" of activity, the U.S. had dropped bombs
on, or fired missiles at, six largely Islamic countries: Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen,
and Somalia. (And it might have been seven if the CIA hadn't grown a little rusty when it comes to
the
drone strikes in Pakistan's tribal borderlands that it's launched repeatedly throughout these
years.) In the same spirit, the president who swore he would end the U.S. war in Iraq and, by the
time he left office, do the same in Afghanistan, is now overseeing American bombing campaigns in
Iraq and Syria which are
loosing close to
25,000 weapons a year on those countries. Only recently, in order to facilitate the further prosecution
of the longest war in our history, the president who
announced that his country had ended its "combat mission" in Afghanistan in 2014, has once again
deployed the U.S. military in a combat role and has done the same with the
U.S. Air Force . For that,
B-52s (of Vietnam infamy) were returned to action there, as well as in
Iraq and Syria , after a decade of retirement. In the Pentagon, military figures are now talking
about "
generational " war in Afghanistan-well into the 2020s.
Meanwhile, President Obama has personally helped pioneer a new form of warfare that will not long
remain a largely American possession. It involves missile-armed drones, high-tech weapons that promise
a world of no-casualty-conflict (for the American military and the CIA), and adds up to a permanent
global killing machine for taking out terror leaders, "lieutenants," and "militants." Well beyond
official American war zones, U.S. drones regularly cross borders, infringing on national sovereignty
throughout the Greater Middle East and parts of Africa, to assassinate anyone the president and his
colleagues decide needs to die,
American citizen or otherwise (plus, of course, anyone who happens to be
in the vicinity ). With its
White House "kill list" and its "terror Tuesday" meetings, the drone program, promising "surgical"
hunting-and-killing action, has blurred the line between war and peace, while being normalized
in these years. A president is now not just commander-in-chief but
assassin-in-chief , a role that no imaginable future president is likely to reject. Assassination,
previously an illegal act, has become the heart and soul of Washington's way of life and of a way
of war that only seems to spread conflict further.
You must be kidding!
The Well-Oiled Machinery of Privatized War: And speaking of drones, as the
New York Times
reported on September 5th, the U.S. drone program does have one problem: a lack of pilots. It
has ramped up quickly in these years and, in the process, the pressures on its pilots and other personnel
have only grown, including post-traumatic
stress over killing civilians thousands of miles away via computer screen. As a result, the Air
Force has been losing those pilots fast. Fortunately, a solution is on the horizon. That service
has begun filling its pilot gap by going the route of the rest of the military in these years-turning
to private contractors for help. Such pilots and other personnel are, however, paid higher salaries
and cost more money. The contractors, in turn, have been hiring the only available personnel around,
the ones trained by... yep, you guessed it, the Air Force. The result may be an even greater drain
on Air Force drone pilots eager for increased pay for grim work and... well, I think you can see
just how the well-oiled machinery of privatized war is likely to work here and who's going to pay
for it.
You must be kidding!
Selling Arms As If There Were No Tomorrow: In a recent report for the Center
for International Policy, arms expert William Hartung offered a
stunning
figure on U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia. "Since taking office in January 2009," he
wrote , "the Obama administration has offered over $115 billion worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia
in 42 separate deals, more than any U.S. administration in the history of the U.S.-Saudi relationship.
The majority of this equipment is still in the pipeline, and could tie the United States to the Saudi
military for years to come." Think about that for a moment: $115 billion for everything from small
arms to tanks, combat aircraft,
cluster bombs , and air-to-ground missiles (weaponry now being used to
slaughter civilians in neighboring Yemen).
Of course, how else can the U.S. keep its
near monopoly on the
global arms trade and ensure that two sets of products-Hollywood movies and U.S. weaponry-will
dominate the world's business in things that go boom in the night? It's a record to be proud of,
especially since putting every advanced weapon imaginable in the hands of the Saudis will obviously
help bring peace to a roiled region of the planet. (And if you arm the Saudis, you better do no less
for the Israelis, hence the mind-boggling
$38 billion in military aid the Obama administration recently signed on to for the next decade,
the most Washington has ever offered any country, ensuring that arms will be flying into the Middle
East, literally and figuratively, for years to come.)
Blessed indeed are the peacemakers-and of course you know that by "peacemaker" I mean the
classic revolver
that "won the West."
I've spelled his name "Obomba" after his second year in office. Bush had "Shock and Awe"... Obomba
has "Stealth and Wealth"... The American economy has been a WAR ECONOMY for a long time. But hey,
we're freeeeeeeeee… freedom isn't free, and all that other bullshit.
Aw shucks, Tom, you been reading my posts? Thanks for writing this article; it corroborates
everything I've been saying about Obama's lust for war and destabilization. You could have mentioned
the Pentagon currently has JSOC kill teams in 147 countries, per Noam Chomsky. You also could
have mentioned the US is the most feared force on the global stage, feared, that is, by actual
citizens, not so much by their leaders.
President Obama's 58% approval tells me the American public are largely bloodthirsty savages
led by a psychopath in pursuit of global tyranny. Either that, or 58% of Americans would rather
play Goldilocks and the Three Bears with their political attention than accept responsibility
for their part in destroying human civilization.
"Thanks. I'll take the tall, smiling psychopath, second from the right. He looks presidential."
The end of our democracy coincides with the end of our being an informed public. Who could
have ever anticipated such a coincidence, but everyone with a passing awareness of history.
Nah, the American people have really no idea what's going on as we try to survive this BS. Most
still think we actually have a Constitution. Remember, we wanted an "outsider" in '08 too a new
face and he turned out to be silly putty in they're hands. Oh, I just heard Jennifer Flowers is
coming to the debates to support Trump. Wonder how much they paid that POS liar
No one who has the common sense to say he'll work for a nuclear weapons-free world changes his
mind. He either never meant what he said, or he's been compromised by those who control all things
political and otherwise in this country. I'm betting on the latter.
I'll take that bet, even if there's no way to verify who wins. I think Obama's been a duplicitous
scumbag from the get go. He's demonstrated a consistently strong dedication to fucking the public
while protecting the professional class of mobsters in suits.
And I voted for this asshole, twice. Options, options. Are there any options?
These types of articles are why I used to value AlterNet as a source of information. Thank you
- it was informative and had a human touch. Your overt trying to manipulate and sway an election
with bias overload is tiresome. The HRC/3rd party candidate blackout and 24/7 turbo train of anti-Trump
is insulting our intelligence and not effective. You're preaching to the choir, we get it, Trump
is psycho, but so is Clinton in her own awful & well established way - just like Obama was, and
Bush before that, and Clinton before him, and Bush before... If you want to be 'Alter'native,
tell the truth about ALL the candidates and report on the machinations behind the Plutocracy +
how we can create an alternative is helpful, enough with the Huffpo-Salon DNC propaganda headquarters.
America pushes war on the world through its materialism hegemon.
It's a long-running, vicious war. Tens of millions alone forced from their traditional cultures
in Asia, Africa, and Latin America -- simply by a heavily-subsidized U.S. Industrial Ag which
underprices commodity crops and kills those local cultures.
Then the big finance boys with their shopping malls, nukes, franchise fast food, and millions
upon millions of cars choking the land, poisoning the skies.
U.S. corporate academe could provide alternatives to the mindless materialism. Could keep the
humanities central enough in all departments to keep some wider consciences among Americans who
for years have been blissfully blind and narcissistic about its war on the world.
The tenured classes will have none of it. They abhor the humanities. They want no perspectives
on their specializations.
And so liberals, ever blind to their corporate academe, pop up occasionally "shocked, shocked"
at what the U.S. pushes on the world. But the complicity goes on. The blindness goes on.
Don't you think there's something funny about this, as Kate asked her boy Cal in "East of Eden"
-- funny how our dear, smug, tenured, dehumanized purists live so totally in their "purity"?
Years ago Glen Ford of "Black Agenda Report" correctly referred to this shameless sellout
as "the more effective evil". The implication was that the perception created by his propagandists
that Obama is a committed Democrat who is just trying to do his best against a obstructionist
Congress and right-wing media is false.
We have seen repeatedly that the truth is quite different. Barry the Liar is an enthusiastic
member of the MIC, Wall Street, and the oligarchs. He has actually expanded the powers of the
President and the National Security State that we live in and even claims the right to kill an
American citizen without trial! When George Carlin said - "I don't believe anything my government
tells me" he could have been talking about this shill for the TPB.
When Mr. Nobel Peace Prize creates even more war and also tells you that President Hillary
Clinton would be "continuity you can believe in" I am having none of it. For at least 30 years
this Republican Lite party have devolved into the sorry state they are now. I will not assist
them to go even further and wreck what is left of the American Dream.
Stein 2016!
Yes, why isn't anyone in the mass media picking up on this obvious hypocrisy? For the same
reasons it never picks up on anything else of importance - it's controlled.
Now explain why anyone should pay attention to any more articles about what Trump or Clinton
just came out with. It just doesn't matter any more.
The so-called "peace President" should return his Nobel Prize award immediately, so as not to
slander the good intentions of Alfred Nobel.
Promoting wars, supporting war hawks, deploying drones to kill people in sovereign states, selling
weapons to tyrannical governments are destructive ideas that Alfred Nobel had sought to counteract.
Oh no, this isn't true. Obama has been playing 11th dimensional chess as policy for the last eight
years and let me tell you, folks inhabiting the11th dimension are pretty dam happy with their
universal health care, peaceful foreign policy and prosperous for all economy.
I've personally drifted between "Seriously?" and knowing that there's really not much left to
say. Deep into the longest, most expensive war in US history, we don't exactly see massive anti-war
protests, people filling the mall in DC to call for peace, churches organizing prayer rallies
in the name of the Prince of Peace. Walter Cronkite is gone, and the horrors of war doesn't come
into our living rooms each evening. The war is distant, sterile, tidy.
Which decisions are made by Congress, which are made by the president, and in the end, does
it matter? America does war. We can no longer afford to do much else, and more importantly, there
appears to be little will to change course. Americans can look at the federal budget, see that
the lion's share goes into maintaining war, then demand that Congress cut food stamps. (Indeed,
in 2015, Congress cut food stamps to the elderly poor and the disabled from $115 per month to
$10.)
Budgets stand as a statement about American priorities. There is an endless strream of money
for war, but none for the survival of our poor. The progressive discussion of the last eight years
can be summed up as an ongoing pep rally for the middle class, with an occasional "BLM!" thrown
in for good measure. A revolution to stay the course.
Obama got his start in politics with money from the family that owns Grumman, and he's been
dancing to their tune ever since.
Clump, OTOH, takes money from every single MIC source, neocon source, billionaire nutty Israeli
warmonger, Saudi warmonger, Central American dictator, even down to lowly death squad commendates,
etc etc -and she's extremely well connected to all of them by now I imagine.
This is a person who wants both direct involvement in killing, has already done so from her
phone, and enjoys the power of being a merchant of death, I predict she will be the among the
most war like and worst presidents ever selected- if not the worst one ever.
If you think Obama was war happy, you do not want to see war hawk Hillary in action as President.
The debate should be about issues-Hillary would apparently rather talk about sexism that her
war hawk record. Trump wants to emphasis tending to America's needs and says we should stop empire
building.
"Lies (in which Clinton was deeply complicit) led to the U.S.-led destruction of Iraq and Libya.
Lies underlie U.S. policy on Syria. Some of the biggest liars in past efforts to hoodwink the
people into supporting more war (Robert Kagan, Bill Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz) are backing Hillary,
whose Washington Post Pinocchio count is "sky-high," for president.
The US Election: an Exercise in Mendacity (untruthfulness)
http://www.counterpunch.org/20...
*****************
The Clintons do not want anyone to even mention their corrupt involvement in Haiti:
"The Clinton exploitation of Haiti will eventually go up in flames, and when the smoke settles
an emotional and fiscal disaster of enormous proportions will finally be visible to the world.
It will be difficult to sift through the ashes to find truth, but the truth is there. Follow the
money, follow the pandering, follow the emails, and follow the favors traded for gold.
"The story ends in more pain, suffering, and abuse for the Haitian people as women are sexually
harassed and verbally abused by Korean managers in the sweatshops of Caracol, while a former Gap
Inc. executive is at the helm of USAID garment industry agreements with Haiti. If the Clinton
connections to Wall Street leave Americans yawning, the systematic exploitation of Haitian workers
with a wink and a nod from the Clinton Foundation should at the very least create outrage. But
then again, this is Haiti, and Haitian lives do not seem to matter.
Obama sold out on the left. In reality, he was paid from day one to do exactly that.
He was literally the ultimate snake oil salesman. Campaign on a platform of change and govern
like Bush won 2 more terms.
The wars went on, the bankers got bailed out and didn't go jail, inequality rose, along with
a total failure to address any of the real problems facing society.
If Obama is the best the Democrats can come up with, then it is high time the left en masse
left the Democratic Party. It's one big reason why I cannot support Clinton, who will be even
more pro-war. It's a vote for more of the same.
What left? Seriously. We've only heard from liberals who Stand in Solidarity to preserve the advantages
of the middle class. They so strongly believe in the success of our corporate state that they
think everyone is able to work, and there are jobs for all. If we had a left, they would have
been shining a spotlight on our poverty crisis as the proof that our deregulated capitalism is
a dismal failure.
The "inequality" discussion has been particularly interesting. Pay attention to what is said.
Today's liberal media have narrowed the inequality discussion to the gap between workers and the
rich, disappearing all those who are far worse off.
And, Hillary Clump was the biggest war monger in his misadministration. As for the nukes,
I recently drove by a minuteman nuclear missile silo in Wyoming, you can see the damn thing right
there by the road.
Very sad that instead of reducing these as he promised to, this idiot modernized them and added
more.
And the media marketed to liberals began going all out in 2015, before she launched her campaign,
to try to sell Clinton as a "bold progressive." This, with her decades-long record of support
for the right wing agenda.
Oh well, don't worry about it. As Big Bill so carefully explained, all that any American needs
to keep in mind is, "Get up every morning, work hard, and play by all the rules." Don't look around,
don't ask questions, don't think.
She lacked the courage to filibuster the Iraq Resolution and tell the truth to the American people
that they were being lied into a needless war that would waste trillions of their money. And now
she's being rewarded. SMH.
Many say that Obama's hands are tied in all these matters, and that he cannot get anything past
the Congress. I am not sure about that. I would like to see more of a public fighter in him to
show us all that he is consistently trying to get us out of the Mideast and not modernize nuclear
weapons and not be willing to use them first, and stop this insane, immoral, illegal CIA drone
assassination program. Show me strong consistent public statements to this effect for the last
7 years and I may believe it. Otherwise he is like president Johnson who while doing good civil
rights things at home was trying to get me killed in Vietnam.
"... More power, more money, more control goes to a smaller group of people. We were disenfranchised, without noticing it. The financiers and their new nobility of discourse took over the world as completely as the aristocracy did in 11th century. ..."
"... The last decisive battle for preservation of democracy now takes place in the US. Its unlikely champion, Donald Trump , is hated by the political establishment, by the bought media, by instigated minorities as much as Putin, Corbyn or Le Pen are hated. ..."
More power, more money, more control goes to a smaller group of people. We were
disenfranchised, without noticing it. The financiers and their new nobility of
discourse took over the world as completely as the aristocracy did in 11th century.
Russia with its very limited democracy
is still better off: their nobility
of discourse polled less than three per cent of the votes in the last elections,
though they are still heavily represented in the government.
The last decisive battle for preservation of democracy now takes place in the
US. Its unlikely champion, Donald Trump
, is hated by the political establishment,
by the bought media, by instigated minorities as much as Putin, Corbyn or Le Pen are
hated.
"... By Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, Research Fellow, UNU-WIDE, Laurence Roope, Researcher, Health Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, and Finn Tarp, Director, UNU-WIDER. Originally published at VoxEU ..."
"... See original post for references ..."
"... John Ross argues that the reduction in poverty has been pretty much all China. I'm also not convinced China is actually that much richer than before. A sweatshop worker has a higher income than a traditional farmer, but probably has a lower standard of living, and while the traditional farmer maintains the natural resource base, the industrial worker destroys it. ..."
"... Globalization is an economic and ecological disaster. We have outsourced wealth creation to China and they do it in the most polluting way possible, turning their country into a toxic waste dump in the process. ..."
"... The peasants slaving away in the cinder block hellholes of their factories churning out the crapola on Wal-Mart's shelves also get paid squat, while the leaders of the Chinese Criminal Party steal half of their effort for themselves and smuggle the loot out, to get away from the pollution. The other half gets stolen by the likes of Wal-Mart and Apple. ..."
"... The elites sold globalization as something that would generate such a munificent surplus that those in harms way would be helped. It ends up as a lie, where the elites the world over help themselves to the stolen sweat of the lowest people in society, with nothing left over, except for a polluted planet. ..."
"... Yes, those who "have seen their incomes stagnating in real terms for over 20 years" are indeed experiencing "considerable discontent." But this anodyne phrasing masks the reality of entire communities seeing their means of livelihood ripped out and shipped across the globe. This rhetoric makes it sound like, Oh those prosperous American workers can't buy as many luxuries now, boo hoo, when the standard practice from NAFTA on of globalization-as-corporate-welfare has meant real impoverishment for hundreds of thousands of individuals, entire cities and large chunks of whole states. As Lambert always says, Whose economy? ..."
...if you look at absolute inequality, as opposed to relative inequality, inequality has increased
around the world. This calls into question one of the big arguments made in favor of globalization:
that the cost to workers in advanced economies are offset by gains to workers in developing economies,
and is thus virtuous by lowering inequality more broadly measured.
By Miguel Niño-Zarazúa, Research Fellow, UNU-WIDE, Laurence Roope, Researcher, Health
Economics Research Centre, University of Oxford, and Finn Tarp, Director, UNU-WIDER. Originally published
at VoxEU
Since the turn of the century, inequality in the distribution of income, together with concerns
over the pace and nature of globalisation, have risen to be among the most prominent policy issues
of our time. These concerns took centre stage at the recent annual G20 summit in China. From President
Obama to President Xi, there was broad agreement that the global economy needs more inclusive and
sustainable growth, where the economic pie increases in size and is at the same time divided more
fairly. As President Obama emphasised, "[t]he international order is under strain." The consensus
is well founded, following as it does the recent Brexit vote, and the rise of populism (especially
on the right) in the US and Europe, with its hard stance against free trade agreements, capital flows
and migration.
... ... ...
The inclusivity aspect of growth is now more imperative than ever. Globalisation has not been
a zero sum game. Overall perhaps more have benefitted, especially in fast-growing economies in the
developing world. However, many others, for example among the working middle class in industrialised
nations, have seen their incomes stagnating in real terms for over 20 years. It is unsurprising that
this has bred considerable discontent, and it is an urgent priority that concrete steps are taken
to reduce the underlying sources of this discontent. Those who feel they have not benefitted, and
those who have even lost from globalisation, have legitimate reasons for their discontent. Appropriate
action will require not only the provision of social protection to the poorest and most vulnerable.
It is essential that the very nature of the ongoing processes of globalisation, growth, and economic
transformation are scrutinised, and that broad based investments are made in education, skills, and
health, particularly among relatively disadvantaged groups. Only in this way will the world experience
sustained – and sustainable – economic growth and the convergence of nations in the years to come.
John Ross argues that the reduction in poverty has been pretty much all China. I'm also
not convinced China is actually that much richer than before. A sweatshop worker has a higher
income than a traditional farmer, but probably has a lower standard of living, and while the traditional
farmer maintains the natural resource base, the industrial worker destroys it.
Only in this way will the world experience sustained – and sustainable
– economic growth and the convergence of nations in the years to come.
Globalization is an economic and ecological disaster. We have outsourced wealth creation
to China and they do it in the most polluting way possible, turning their country into a toxic
waste dump in the process.
The peasants slaving away in the cinder block hellholes of their factories churning out
the crapola on Wal-Mart's shelves also get paid squat, while the leaders of the Chinese Criminal
Party steal half of their effort for themselves and smuggle the loot out, to get away from the
pollution. The other half gets stolen by the likes of Wal-Mart and Apple.
The elites sold globalization as something that would generate such a munificent surplus
that those in harms way would be helped. It ends up as a lie, where the elites the world over
help themselves to the stolen sweat of the lowest people in society, with nothing left over, except
for a polluted planet.
The notable presence of public policies that exacerbate racial and economic inequality and
the lack of will by Washington to change the system mean that the ethnic/racial wealth gap is
becoming more firmly entrenched in society.
"broad based investments are made in education, skills, and health, particularly among relatively
disadvantaged groups. Only in this way will the world experience sustained – and sustainable
– economic growth and the convergence of nations in the years to come."
…I guess if the skills were sustainable low chemical and diverse farming in 5 acre lots or
in co-ops then I might have less complaint, however the skills people apparently are going to
need are supervising robots and going to non jobs in autonomous vehicles and being fed on chemical
mush shaped like things we used to eat, a grim dystopia.
Yesterday I had the unpleasant experience of reading the hard copy nyt wherein kristof opined
that hey it's not so bad, extreme poverty has eased (the same as in this article, but without
this article's Vietnamese example where 1 v. 8 becomes 8 v. 80),ignoring the relative difference
while on another lackluster page there was an article saying immigrants don't take jobs from citizens
which had to be one of the most thinly veiled press releases of some study made by some important
sounding acronym and and, of course a supposed "balance" between pro and anti immigration academics.
because in this case, they claim we're relatively better off.
So there you have it, it's all relative. Bi color bird cage liner, dedicated to the ever shrinking
population of affluent/wealthy who are relatively better off as opposed to the ever increasing
population of people who are actually worse off…There was also an article on the desert dwelling
uighur and their system of canals bringing glacier water to farm their arid land which showed
some people who were fine for thousands of years, but now thanks to fracking, industrial pollution
and less community involvement (kids used to clean the karatz, keeping it healthy) now these people
can be uplifted into the modern world(…so great…) that was reminiscent of the nyt of olde which
presented the conundrum but left out the policy prescription which now always seems to be "the
richer I get the less extreme poverty there is in the world so stop your whining and borrow a
few hundred thousand to buy a PhD "
Yes, those who "have seen their incomes stagnating in real terms for over 20 years" are
indeed experiencing "considerable discontent." But this anodyne phrasing masks the reality of
entire communities seeing their means of livelihood ripped out and shipped across the globe. This
rhetoric makes it sound like, Oh those prosperous American workers can't buy as many luxuries
now, boo hoo, when the standard practice from NAFTA on of globalization-as-corporate-welfare has
meant real impoverishment for hundreds of thousands of individuals, entire cities and large chunks
of whole states. As Lambert always says, Whose economy?
Three reading recommendations for anyone who doesn't grasp your sentiment, shared by millions:
Sold Out , by Michelle Malkin Outsourcing America , by Ron Hira America: Who
Stole the Dream? , by Donald L. Barlett
Reply ↓
(Re Silc). "Interestingly, the biggest
drag on Trump among this group was his verbal
treatment of women."
"Let's start by giving Donald Trump every
state that Romney won in 2012, even North
Carolina where, as of Thursday morning,
Clinton had a narrow lead in the RCP average
of polls in that state. That would give Trump
245 electoral votes to Clinton's 293, with
270 needed to win. Now let's give Trump every
state where Clinton's RCP average lead was
less than 3 points, thus putting Iowa, Nevada,
Florida, and Ohio in Trump's column. Clinton
would then lead 273-265 and still be in the
winner's circle. Now let's assume that Trump
wins Maine's second congressional district,
which would narrow her lead to 272 to 266. To
be clear, I do not think that Trump will sweep
North Carolina, Iowa, Nevada, Florida, and
Ohio. For that matter, he is struggling to
keep his lead in places like Arizona and
Georgia.
Even giving Trump every state
that is close, he still comes up short. To get
over the top he would need to win states where
today he's not running particularly close.
These include New Hampshire, where the RCP
average gives Clinton a 5-point edge,
Pennsylvania a 6.2-point lead, Michigan a
5.6-point lead, and Virginia a 3.7-point lead"
[
Cook
Political Report
] [dusts hands]. "The key
thing to think about in the coming weeks is who
the election is really about. For most of the
past three months, it was a referendum on
Trump, and he was losing. The last couple of
weeks, the race has been about Clinton and she
has been losing ground as a result." The
political class cannot concieve of the idea that
the election might be a referendum on
them
.
And that a narrow win will not be enough to
allow them to retain the mandate of heaven.
"The larger explanation for the Trump
phenomenon is even more unsettling for
Washington's political class, especially the
media. They have lost their power" [
Politico
].
No, they haven't. But they are frantic to retain
it. "Only a decade or two ago, the media world
was confined to a group of people in D.C. and
New York-a group that largely knew each other,
mingled in the same places, vacationed in the
same locales. The most influential members of
the group routinely defined what constituted a
gaffe, others echoed that view, and it became
the conventional wisdom for the rest of America.
In the age of the Internet, with bloggers spread
out across the nation, and multiple platforms
across the political spectrum, that's no longer
possible. The growing divergence between these
'insiders' and the new 'outsiders' has played to
Trump's benefit, every single time he made what
was once conceived as a 'game-changing' error."
Hmm. I remember 2003-2006 very well, when
bloggers were going to do just this. That was
going to happen until it didn't. In other words,
I don't think it's bloggers and platforms that
are the drivers; aspirational 10%-ers, as it
were. It's a solid chunk of the 90% being
mightily ticked off (though ticked off in ways
appropriate to their various conditions). And
that's not going to change.
"Thus Clinton's peculiar predicament. She has
moved further left than any modern Democratic
nominee, and absorbed the newer left's
Manichaean view of the culture war" [Ross
Douthat,
The New York Times
]. And "culture war"
completely explains why all those bright young
people were chanting the talking points of an
elderly white male socialist delivering
hour-long speeches on policy to ginormous
rallies. If you want to see an utterly classic
conflation of "liberal" and "left," read this.
Douthat really is an idiot.
"View from the barber's chair: In Florida
even blacks and Hispanics may be turning against
Hillary Clinton" [
Independent
].
This is good, although using the word "safari"
for encounters with Florida voters might not be
an ideal choice of words.
UPDATE "There are three consistent features
to all of conservative talk radio: Anger, Trump,
and ads targeting the financially desperate" [
Chris
Arnade
]. "The ads are a constant. Ads
protecting against coming financial crisis
(Surprise! It is Gold.) or ads that start,
'Having trouble with the IRS?' The obvious
lessons being 1) Lots of conservative talk radio
listeners are in financial distress. 2) They are
willing to turn to scams."
UPDATE "[Squillionare Tom Steyer is] chipping
in an additional $15 million to For Our Future,
a joint effort among four labor unions and a
super PAC he founded called Next Gen Climate.
The money won't go to TV ads but to a
door-to-door campaign that aims to knock on 2
million doors in seven swing states, encouraging
"sporadic" voters to get to the polls" [
USA
Today
]. Once again, if the Democrats didn't
suck at basic party functions, they wouldn't
have to suck up to squillionaires like this.
UPDATE "No matter who wins in November,
America is going to face a divide unseen in
decades. If Donald Trump wins, he will confront
a resident media more hateful than that which
confronted Richard Nixon in 1968" [Patrick
Buchanan,
The American Conservative
]. "If Hillary
Clinton wins, she will come to office distrusted
and disbelieved by most of her countrymen, half
of whom she has maligned either as "deplorables"
or pitiful souls in need of empathy." A country
Buchanan worked so tirelessly to unify! Still,
the old reprobate has this right. If Clinton
wins (likely modulo events, dear boy, events)
and the Republicans retain the House and the
Senate, they'll impeach her over some damned
thing in the emails. And they'll be right.
UPDATE "Trump Boasts About Using 'Other
People's Money' In Business" [
Talking
Points Memo
]. History's worst monster!
UPDATE "A fuzzy screenshot of an email
instructing people on how to disrupt internet
groups is doing the rounds today, and it's worth
having a really good look at. It's unclear where
this particular handbook came from, and what
particular groups they intend to target, but
anyone who has been in Bernie, Green, or
Libertarian groups will soon recognize these
same tactics and patterns" [
Inquisitr
].
"... If Mr Pat Buchanan were running, he would be in good stead save or his speaking style which is far more formal. Mr. Trump's carefree (of sorts) delivery punches through and gives the impression that he's an everyman. His boundless energy has that sense earnest sincerity. His "imperfections" tend to work in his favor. But if his message was counter to where most people are already at - he would not be the nominee. ..."
"... We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables." ..."
"Conservative" Christians aren't going to stop voting
Republican. They're just going to offer a different
reason for doing it, when asked.
I will bet all the
money in my pockets against all the money in Rod's
pockets that there will NEVER, in either of our
lifetimes, be a time when he feels compelled by his
principles to vote for a Democratic candidate for
federal office over a Republican one.
And finally, I note that someone above asked a
version of the same question I've periodically had: What
does Dreherdom look like? If orthodox Christians
controlled the levers of power, what do you propose to
DO with your (cultural AND legal) authority? And what
will be the status of the "other" in that brave new
world?
[NFR: They will be captured and enslaved and sent
to work in the
boudin
mines. And I will spend whatever percentage
of the Gross National Product it takes to hire the
Rolling Stones to play "Exile On Main Street" live, from
start to finish, in a national broadcast that I will
require every citizen to watch, on pain of being
assigned to hard labor in the boudin mines. Also, I will
eat boudin. - RD]
[Connor: While I can't speak for Rod, I can speak for
many traditional Catholics. The end goal is the
re-establishment of the social reign of Christ, which
means a majority Christian nation, Christian culture,
and a state which governs according to Christian
principles (read Quas Primas). In that situation, and in
that situation alone, would the Ben Op no longer be
necessary.]
That's interesting. Well, I think you're
right that about 3/4 of the readers would lose their
minds if that was stated as an explicit political goal.
It would confirm in the minds of many the suspicion that
the primary strategy of the religious right is the
establishment of an anti-democratic, theocracy or
Caesaropapist regime. I would consider that the extreme
"utopian" or some would even say "totalitarian" position
of religious conservatives and not "conservative" in any
sense that I understand "Conservatism".
Saltlick's minimal requirement seems to moderate that
goal to "a national reaffirmation that our rights, as
partially defined in the Constitution and Bill of
Rights, come from God the Creator, that life is valuable
from the moment of conception, and that the traditional
family is the best promoter of sound moral, cultural and
economic health.", but even in that he regards it as
only a half-measure for Saltlick. Needless to say, what
a "traditional" family is would need some definition.
If nothing short of establishing the City of God on
earth would secure the comfort of some Christians then
that is a pretty high bar and you have every right to
feel insecure… as do the rest of us.
I would be curious to know how many of your
co-religionists on these boards share your view? And how
many would reject it?
Mr Dreher, I always read your articles with great
interest, although I often disagree with you. For
example, I don't think anybody of any political
persuasion is going to try to stamp out Christianity or
those who espouse it. Indeed, I think many people will
be delighted if all Christians would exercise the
Benedict Option. A lot of people are tired of the
Religious Right's attempt to gain political power in
order to impose Christian views of morality. A lot of
people believe that there should be a separation of
church and state, not only in the Constitutional sense
of having no state-established religion, but also in the
general sense that morality should be a private matter,
not the subject of politics.
[NFR: That's
incredibly naive. Aside from procedural laws, all laws
are nothing but legislated morality. Somebody's morality
is going to be reflected in law. It is unavoidable. -
RD]
Michelle: Obama advisor Al Sharpton has been
responsible for stirring up more Jew hatred than Trump.
Have you ever given a care about that? Do you care that
Hillary's Mexican and Muslim immigrants are sure to be
more antisemitic than the native whites of the US that
you fret about over and over?
Sharpton isn't
running for president and I didn't vote for him when he
was. Same for Jesse Jackson. I'm well aware of
antisemitism within the black community but doubt it
comes anywhere close to that of the alt-right and
nationalist groups, who foment hate against both blacks
and Jews. And duh, of course there's plenty of
anti-semitism among Muslims. Who's pretending otherwise.
It also appears that you didn't read what I wrote.
I
favor strong borders but think you can do so without
demagoguery and appealing to people's baser instincts
and hatreds, which is what Trump does. I realize all you Trump apologists aren't about to
recognize the danger the man poses. I don't care as long
as there are enough people who do to keep him out of the
presidency.
Rod, you clearly have unresolved cognitive dissonance,
because if your vote is based on which candidate is best
with religious liberty and the right of Christians to
live as Christians, the answer is clear and unambiguous:
Trump. Yet you refuse to vote for him.
The author of
this piece actually has you nailed perfectly, which is
why it makes you so uncomfortable. He sees that you are
absolving yourself from the consequences of political
engagement by acting like you can stay firm on your
principles, while refusing to choose from the only two
real sides on offer. That choice is the messy business
of politics, and inevitably imperfect because politics
is a human practice and humans are fallen. Because you
are unwilling to make that choice, you are out of the
politics business whether you realize it or not.
What you have not abandoned, but I believe should
when it comes to the topics of politics, is the public
square.
You recognize that your generation failed to fight.
You very clearly have no intention of fighting even now.
You have decided to build a Benedict Option because you
think that's the only viable option. That's fine. In
fact, I heartily approve.
But other people have chosen differently. They have
chosen to fight. Donald Trump for one. You might not
like his methods. But he's not willing to see his
country destroyed without doing everything he can to
stop it. He's not alone. Many people are standing up and
recognizing that though the odds are long, they owe it
to their children and grandchildren to stand up and be
counted. That choice deserves respect too, Rod.
The problem with you is not the BenOp, but your
active demonization of those who actually have the
temerity to fight for their country instead of
surrendering it to go hide in your BenOp bunker with
you.
Trump, the alt-right, etc. may be wrong
metaphysically and they may be wrong ethically, but they
are right about some very important things – things that
you, Rod Dreher, and your entire generation of
conservatives were very, very wrong on. Rather than
admit that, you want to stand back from the fight,
pretending you're too gosh darned principled to soil
your hands voting for one of the two candidates who have
a shot to be our president, and acting like you're a
morally superior person for doing so.
You should focus on the important work of building
and evangelizing for BenOp, and leave the field of
political discourse to those who are actually willing to
engage in the business of politics.
"I realize all you Trump apologists aren't about to
recognize the danger the man poses. I don't care as long
as there are enough people who do to keep him out of the
presidency."
So basically this boils down to you
asking us to trust that your gut is right in spite of
what we can see with our lying eyes?
Yeah, no thanks.
So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies from so
many commenters… Could y'all give at least one that
doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and even with double
intensity?
Michelle: Obama advisor Al Sharpton has been responsible
for stirring up more Jew hatred than Trump. Have you
ever given a care about that? Do you care that Hillary's
Mexican and Muslim immigrants are sure to be more
antisemitic than the native whites of the US that you
fret about over and over?
Rod, when you say the following, you articulate exactly
why I have reluctantly become a libertarian:
-"On a
practical level, that means that I will no longer vote
primarily on the social issues that have dictated my
vote in the past, but I will vote primarily for
candidates who will be better at protecting my
community's right to be left alone."-
Last year after listening to the same-sex marriage
oral arguments presented before the Supreme Court, I
concluded that libertarianism and either the current
Libertarian Party or some spinoff offers the best that
those of us with traditional religious and moral
convictions can hope for in a decidedly post-Christian
America. I wrote about why I believe this to be so at
http://www.skiprigney.com/2015/04/29/how-the-ssm-debate-made-me-a-libertarian/
I don't believe for a minute that the majority of
elected officials in the Republican Party have the
backbone to stand up for religious liberty in the face
of corporate pressure. You need look no farther than how
the Republicans caved last year in Indiana on the
protection of religious liberty.
There are many libertarians who are going to work to
protect the rights of people to do things that undermine
the common good. But, I have more faith that they'll
protect the rights of a cultural minority such as
traditionalist Christians than I have in either the
Republicans or the Democrats.
It isn't true that Trump and his supporters are against
identity politics. It's just that they have a far
simpler view of identity politics. There are white
people, and there are blah people. White people will be
in charge, and blah people can have a piece of the pie
to the extent they agree to pretend to be white people.
Cecelia wonders: "Are we as a people really capable of
being citizens of a Republic or are we simply fools to
be manipulated by people like Trump?"
My two cents: We're capable of being citizens of a
Republic if our government creates the conditions for a
thriving middle class: the most important condition
being good, high-paying jobs that allow people to live
an independent existence. The vast majority of
manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas, and even
higher-skilled jobs (such as research and development)
are increasingly being outsourced as well.
If you look at the monthly payroll jobs reports put
out by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, you will see that
the vast majority of new jobs are in retail trade,
health care and social assistance, waitresses and
bartenders, and government. Most of these jobs are
part-time jobs. None of these jobs produce any goods
than can be exported. Aside from government jobs, these
are not jobs that pay well enough for people to thrive
independently. This is why more Americans aged 25-34
live with their parents than independently with spouses
and children of their own. It is also why many people
now must work multiple jobs in order to make ends meet.
As for government jobs, they are tax-supported, and thus
a drain on the economy. I'm not a libertarian. I
recognize that government provides many crucial
services. But it is unproductive to have too many
bureaucrats living off of tax revenues.
Basically, the middle class is disappearing. Without
a thriving middle class, democracy is unsustainable.
Struggling people filled with hate and resentment are
ripe for manipulation by nefarious forces.
Spain's Francisco Franco understood this very well.
His goal was to make it unthinkable for his country to
descend into civil war ever again. He achieved this.
Before Franco, Spain was a Third World h*llhole plagued
by radical ideologies like communism, regional
separatism, and anarchism. [Fascism had its following as
well, but it was never too popular. The Falange (which
was the closest thing to a fascist movement in Spain,
though it was not really fascist, as it was profoundly
Christian and rejected Nietzschean neo-paganism) was
irrelevant before Francoism. Under Francoism, it was one
of the three pillars that supported the regime (the
other two being monarchists and Catholics), but it was
never the most influential pillar.] When Franco died,
Spain was the ninth-largest economy in the world, and
the second-fastest growing economy in the world (behind
only Japan). It became a liberal democracy almost
overnight. When Franco was on his deathbed, he was asked
what he thought his most important legacy was. He
replied, "The middle class." Franco was not a democrat,
but he'd created the conditions for liberal democracy in
Spain.
To get back to the US, we now have a Third World
economy. We can't too surprised that our politics also
look increasingly like those of a Third World country.
Thus, the rise of Trump, Sanders, the alt-right, the
SJW's, Black Lives Matter, etc.
The evolution of the MSM into an
American version of Pravda/Izvestia has been a lengthy
process and dates back at least to the days of Walter
Lippmann (ostensibly a journalist but upon whom
Roosevelt, Truman and JFK had no qualms about calling
for advice).
With the emergence of the Internet and the phenomenon
of the blogosphere, the MSM has no choice but to cast
off whatever pretensions to objectivity they may have
had and, instead, now preach to the choir so they can
keep themselves viable in an increasingly competitive
market where more people get their news from such as
Matt Drudge than from the NY-LA Times or the WaPo
Suppose a more composed candidate stood up against the
PC police, and generally stood for these same 6
principles, and did so in a much more coherent and
rational manner. I propose that he would be demolished
within no time at all. Take a Pat Buchanan…how do you
think he would be doing in this election? Trumps three
ring show prevents the charges against him from finding
any fertile soil to grow in. If he ran on principle
instead of capturing an undefined spirit, if he tried to
answer the charges against him in a rational manner, all
it would do it produce more fertile soil for the PC
charges to stick. Trump may have stumbled upon the model
for future conservative candidates when running in a
nation where the mainstream press is so thoroughly
against you. Just make a lot of noise and ignore them.
If you engage in the argument with them, they'll destroy
you.
@Cecelia: The issue is not Trump – it is those who
support him. Are we as a people really capable of being
citizens of a Republic or are we simply fools to be
manipulated by people like Trump ?
Yes. Tell me,
during the Great Depression, as Nazi Germany and
Imperial Japan began their march to what would bring
this world to war and state-sponsored genocide, why did
my grandparents and my parents who were teenagers in the
30s not succumb to all this doom, gloom, and anger at
the supposed lack of prospects for improvement in their
lives that Trump's followers whine about? By any
standard, conditions then were worse for the white
working class than is the case today, and yes, my
grandparents were working class: one grandfather worked
for the railroad, the other for a lumber mill. And yes,
there was alcoholism, and domestic abuse, and crime, and
suicide amongst the populace in the 1930s. The role of
religion was more pervasive then, but to tell the truth,
I expect Rod would describe my grandparents on both side
as Moral Therapeutic Deists; by Rod's standard I believe
that is true for most Christians throughout history.
Just what is different about today, that brings all
this rage and resentment? Could it be that racial and
ethnic and religious minorities, and women now have a
piece of the pie and a good part of the white working
class cannot stand it?
And Trump doesn't scare me nearly as much as does the
fact that so very many Americans support him, whether
wholeheartedly swallowing his poison, or because they
close their eyes and minds and hearts to just what kind
of a man he is.
The promotion of an increasingly interconnected world in
and of itself isnt necessarily bad. However, the
annihilation of culture, religion, and autonomy at the
hands of multinational corporations and a Gramscian
elite certainly is – and that is what is happening under
what is referred to as globalization. The revolt against
the evil being pushed out of Brussels and Washington has
now spread into the West itself. May the victory of the
rebels be swift and complete.
"You're misdefining "grievance industry;" the central
tenet of the grievance industry is that whatever
happens, white people are to blame and should continue
paying for it."
If we all accept your definition then
we can't argue with you. Whatever you want to call it,
there is an entire industry (most conservative media)
that feeds a victimization mentality among whites,
conservatives, evangelicals etc (all those labels apply
to me by the way) that closely resembles the grievance
outlook. The only difference is in what circles it is
taken seriously. Why else do so many of us get so bent
out of shape when employees have the audacity to say
"happy holidays" at the department store. As made
apparent on this blog we do need to be realistic and
vigilant about the real threats and the direction the
culture is going, but by whining about every perceived
slight and insisting everyone buy into our version of
"Christian America" (while anointing a vile figure like
Trump as our strongman) we are undercutting the
legitimate grievances we do have.
Everyone has heard how far is moving small car
production to Mexico and forwarded saying no one in
America will lose their jobs because the production will
be shifted to SUVs and other vehicles.
That's not the
problem the problem is instead of creating more jobs in
America the jobs are being created in Mexico and not
helping Americans.
"BenOp is fascinating, but most cultural conservative
now active in the game will not drop out. They may not
like the adrenalin rush politics gives them more than
they like Jesus–but they ain't going to give it up."
Exactly. This is why Christian boycotts never succeed.
They claim that they hate Disneyworld because of their
pro-gay policies, but when they have to choose between
Jesus and a Fun Family Vacation, Jesus always loses.
What happens when the status quo media turns a
presidential election into a referendum regarding the
media's ability to shape public opinion and direct
"purchasing" choices?
The Corporate Media is corrupt and Americans are
waking up to it.
This will almost always mean voting for the
Republicans in national elections, but in a primary
situation, I will vote for the Republican who can
best be counted on to defend religious liberty, even
if he's not 100 percent on board with what I
consider to be promoting the Good. If it means
voting for a Republican that the defense hawks or
the Chamber of Commerce disdain, I have no problem
at all with that.
How is this different than cultural conservatives
voted before Trump?
We have had three decades of culture wars and everyone
can pretty much agree that the traditionalists lost. Now
whether Dreher et all lost because the broader culture
refused to listen or because they simply couldn't make a
convincing argument is a question that surrounds a very
particular program pursued by conservatives,
traditionalists and the religious right. It is certain
that the Republican Party as a vehicle for those values
has been taken out and been beat like a rented mule. It
seems to that Josh Stuart has pulled a rabbit out of the
hat. Trump is, if anything, pretty incoherent and
whatever "principles" he represents were discovered in
the breach; a little like bad gunnery practice, one shot
low, one shot lower and then a hit. If Trump represents
anything it is the fact that the base of the party was
not who many of us thought they were. Whatever Christian
values we thought they were representing are hardly
recognizable now.
What truly puzzles me more and
increasingly so is Rod's vision of what America is
supposed to be under a Dreher regime. I'm not sure what
that regime looks like? Behind all the theological
underpinning and high-sounding abstractions what does a
ground-level political and legislative program for
achieving a society he is willing to whole-heartedly
participate in look like?
Politics is a reflection of culture but culture is
responsive to politics. What political order does the
Ben Op crowd wish to install in place of the one we have
now – short of the parousia – and how does that affect
our life and autonomy as citizens and individuals? He
says Christians just want to be left alone but they seem
to have made and are still making a lot of noise for
people who want to be left alone so I have to assume
they want something over and above being left alone.
I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What
minimal, concrete programmatic or cultural change or
changes would necessitate abandoning the Ben Op? Or
equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that
allows Rod and company to relax?
a couple "ideas" come to mind. re: deplorable. SOME (no
value in speculating or establishing a number) are
deplorable. it's funny (actually, quite sad) Trump's we
don't have time to be politically correct mantra is
ignored when his opponent (a politician who helped
establish the concept of politically correctness) steals
a page from his playbook. on a certain level, perhaps
the eastern elite, intellectual liberal grabbed the
"irony" hammer from the toolbox? ever the shrewd,
calculating (narcissistic and insecure) carny barker,
Trump has not offered any "new" ideas. he's merely (like
any politician) put his finger in the air and decided to
"run" from the "nationalist, racist, nativist, side of
the politically correct/incorrect betting line. at the
end of the day, there are likely as many deplorable
folks on the Clinton bandwagon; it's just (obviously)
not in her interests to expose these "boosters" at HER
rallies/fundraising events. in many ways it speaks to
the lesser of two evils is still evil "idea". politics –
especially national campaigns are not so much about
which party/candidate has the better ideas, but rather
which is less deplorable.
"Instead, it has everything to do with his
wink/nod attitude toward the alt-right and white
nationalist groups and with his willingness to
appropriate their anti-semitic, racist memes for his own
advancement. He's dangerous. Period. Dangerous and scary
to anyone familiar with lynchings, pogroms, and mob
violence. To anyone familiar with history. Trump has
unleashed dark forces that will not easily be quelled
even if, and probably especially if, he loses. The
possibility that he might win has left me wondering
whether I even belong in this country any more, no
matter how much sympathy I might feel for the folks
globalism has left behind."
One can just as easily make the point that the
globalists have unleashed dark forces against white
people and Western civilization that are nor easily
quelled.
The most interesting part of the essay is near the end,
where he briefly discusses how non-whites might react to
our political realignment.
After all, will the white
liberal be able to manipulate these groups forever?
For example, we are seeing the 'official black
leaders' who represent them on TV shift from being
activist clergymen to being (white paid and hosed) gay
activists and mulattoes from outside the mainstream of
black culture. How long can this continue?
"Call it anti-Semitic if
you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several other
Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable
hate for Trump.
"thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter;
(2) immigration policy matters; (3) national interests,
not so-called universal interests, matter; (4)
entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters;
(6) PC speech-without which identity politics is
inconceivable-must be repudiated."
They seem to think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd
world immigration, stop pc thought police, or up hold
Christian-ish values are a direct threat to them."
The Jews, having lived as strangers among foreign
peoples for the better part of 2 millennia, have always
been on the receiving end of racial hatred. As a result
many Western Jews have an instinctive mistrust of
nationalist movements and have a natural tendency towards
globalism.
The media has done a splendid job of portraying Trump
as the next Hitler, so, understandably, there's a lot of
fear. My Jewish grandparents are terrified of the man.
I am not a globalist, and (due to the SCOTUS issue)
will probably vote for Trump, even though I have no love
for the man himself. I think the "Trump the racist" meme
is based on confirmation bias, not reality, but I
understand where the fear comes from.
"I think that many casual hearers of Ben Op ideas
assume that Ben Op is a one-dimensional, cultural
dropping-out of cultural/religious conservatives into
irrelevant enclaves.
To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean
idea that the best American ways of living work their
way up from organic, formative local communities that
have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural
experience. Without independent formative local
communities, we human beings are mere products rolling
off the assembly line that serves the interests of the
elites of our big government-big business-big education
conglomerate.
If these formative communities hold to authentic,
compassionate Judeo-Christian values and practices, all
the better–for everybody! Ben Op will offer an
alternative to the assembly-line politically correct
cultural warriors being produced by many of our elite
cultural institutions."
Bingo.
If you want to fundamentally transform the culture,
you have to withdraw from it, at least partially. But
there's no need to wall yourself off. A Benedict Option
community can and should be politically active,
primarily at the local level, where the most good can be
done.
The Benedictine monks from whom Rod draws inspiration
didn't just shut themselves up and refuse to have
anything to do with the crumbling world around them.
They retreated into their monasteries to strengthen
their souls, and then went out into the world and
rebuilt it for Christ.
"Clinton assassination fantasies"? I call bullsh*t on
that notion. Trump merely pointed our the absolute
hypocrisy of elites like Clinton and her ilk, the guns
for me but not for thee crowd. He was not fantasizing
about her assassination. Far from it. To suggest he was
is to engage in the same sort of dishonesty for which
Clinton is so well known.
I never cared much for Trump
but he has all the right enemies and is growing on me.
"It isn't true that Trump and his supporters are against
identity politics. It's just that they have a far
simpler view of identity politics. There are white
people, and there are blah people. "
They love Ben
Carson and Allan West, last time I checked neither men
were white.
"Yes. Tell me, during the Great Depression, as Nazi
Germany and Imperial Japan began their march to what
would bring this world to war and state-sponsored
genocide, why did my grandparents and my parents who
were teenagers in the 30s not succumb to all this doom,
gloom, and anger at the supposed lack of prospects for
improvement in their lives that Trump's followers whine
about?"
Well, back then, the government was doing
stuff for the common people. A lot of stuff. WPA, NRA,
Social Security, FDIC, FHA, AAA, etc. FDR remembered the
"forgotten man." Today, the government is subservient to
multinationals and Rothschilds. The forgotten men and
women that make up the backbone of our economy have been
forgotten once again, and nobody seems to remember them
- with the *possible,* partial exception of Trump.
The Globalist clap-trap that has so enamoured both
parties reminds me of this quote from C.S.
Lewis'"Screwtape Proposes a Toast":
"…They ever be allowed to raise Aristotle's question:
whether "democratic behavior" means the behavior that
democracies like or the behavior that will preserve a
democracy. For if they did, it could hardly fail to
occur to them that these need not be the same."
Globalism is just swell for the multinational
corporation, but it is nothing more or less than
Lawlessness writ large. The Corporation is given
legal/fictional life by the state…the trouble is it,
like Frankenstein, will turns on its creator and
imagines it can enjoy Absolute Independence.
One can just as easily make the point that the
globalists have unleashed dark forces against white
people and Western civilization that are nor easily
quelled.
And you would have the benefit of evidence (or, well,
evidence that is not stale by nearly a century). It
wasn't Trump supporters beating up people in San Jose.
And if you look to Europe as a guide to what can happen
in America, things start looking far, far worse.
"I guess the question I
want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete
programmatic or cultural change or changes would
necessitate abandoning the Ben Op? Or equally, what is
the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows Rod and
company to relax?"
While I can't speak for Rod, I can speak for many
traditional Catholics. The end goal is the
re-establishment of the social reign of Christ, which
means a majority Christian nation, Christian culture,
and a state which governs according to Christian
principles (read Quas Primas). In that situation, and in
that situation alone, would the Ben Op no longer be
necessary.
I am guessing that Rod has not said this explicitly,
or laid out a concrete plan, because he is writing a
book for Christians in general. And if you get into too
many specifics, you are going to run right into the
enormous theological and philosophical differences
between Catholicism and Protestantism.
Also, if Rod were to start talking about "The Social
Reign of Christ the King", 3/4 of you would lose your
minds.
Of course, the current prospect for a Christian
culture and state look bleak, to say the least. But we
can play the long game, the Catholic Church is good at
that. It took over 300 years to convert the Roman
Empire. It was 700 years from the founding of the first
Benedictine monastery until St. Thomas Aquinas and the
High Middle Ages. We can wait that long, at least.
I rather think, in concurrence with Prof. Cole, that
Trump is a simulacrum within a simulacrum with a
simulacrum: there is no "extra-mediatic" Trump
candidate, ergo there is no "extra-mediatic"
presidential electoral race (if limited to the two
"mainstreamed" candidates), ergo there is no
presidential election tout court, ergo there is no
democracy at the presidential election level in the
U.S–just simulacra deceptively reflecting simulacra, in
any case, the resulting effect is a mirage, a
distortion, but above all an ILLUSION.
All this is, it seems to me, is a transition to a
different favorite deadly sin. We've had pride, avarice,
and the current favorite is lust; the new favorite
appears to be wrath. Gluttony, sloth, and envy have not
been absent, but they have not been the driving force in
politics recently.
Also important was the fact that FDR did not stoke
the fires of class conflict. A patrician himself, FDR's
goal was not to overturn the existing social order but
rather to preserve it by correcting its injustices. FDR
was the moderate leader the country needed at the time.
Without him, we might well have succumbed to a demagogic
or perhaps even dictatorial government under Charles
Coughlin, Huey Long, or Norman Thomas. In contrast,
Hillary and Trump seek to use fringe groups (BLM,
alt-right) for their own agendas. Let's hope whoever
wins can keep her or his pets mollified and contained,
but courting extremists is always a risky business.
Indeed, Hillary may be worse than Trump in this respect,
since there appears to be no daylight between her and
the SJW's.
To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean
idea that the best American ways of living work their
way up from organic, formative local communities that
have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural
experience. Without independent formative local
communities, we human beings are mere products rolling
off the assembly line that serves the interests of the
elites of our big government-big business-big education
conglomerate.
Ben Op or not, its always a great
notion. And you don't have to withdraw from the culture,
THIS IS American culture (traditionally speaking). We
just need to reaffirm it.
So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies
from so many commenters… Could y'all give at least one
that doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and even with
double intensity?
Hillary Clinton doesn't have a long list of unpaid
contractors suing her… of course that's because she
never built hotels, and I don't think she ever declared
bankruptcy either. We have a batch of slumlords in
Milwaukee who are little Trumps… they run up hundreds of
thousands of dollars in fines for building violations,
declare bankruptcy or plead poverty and make occasional
payments of $50, and meantime they spend tends of
thousands of dollars buying up distressed property at
sheriff's auctions. All of them are black, all of them
have beautiful homes in mostly "white" suburbs, and I
wouldn't vote for any of them for dogcatcher, much less
president.
That said, Hillary is an ego-bloated lying sleaze,
and I wouldn't vote for her if she were running against
almost anyone but Trump.
Nonetheless I am still tired of the ominous
warnings about right-wing white mobs that are about to
rememerge any day. It's been decades since there was a
white riot in this country.
There hasn't been a real riot of any nature in quite
a while. And no, that little fracas in Milwaukee doesn't
count. A few dozen thugs burning four black-owned
businesses while everyone living in the neighborhood
denounces then falls short of a riot.
I agree that we are not likely to see right-wing
"white" mobs posing much of a threat to anyone… they're
mostly couch potatoes anyway. But it is true that until
the 1940s, a "race riot" meant a white mob rampaging
through a black neighborhood. And there have been very
few black riots that went deep into a "white"
neighborhood … they stayed in black neighborhoods too.
This is an election about feeling under siege.
But we're not, and most of the adults in the room
know it.
Trump continues to be a walking, talking Rorschach
test for pundits peddling a point of view.
I think that explains a lot of Trump's support. Its
not who he is, what he says, or what he does or will do,
its what they think they SEE in him. I have to admit, I
did a bit of that over Barack Obama in 2008, and he did
disappoint. Obama has been one of our best presidents in
a long time, but that's a rather low bar.
"There are, then, two developments we are likely to see
going forward. First, cultural conservatives will
seriously consider a political "Benedict Option,"
dropping out of the Republican Party and forming a
like-minded Book Group, unconcerned with winning
elections and very concerned with maintaining their
"principles." Their fidelity is to Aristotle rather than
to winning the battle for the political soul of America.
…"
You know, people spout this stuff as if the
Republican party is conservative. It started drifting
from conservative frame more than forty years ago. By
the time we get to the 2000 elections, it;s been home an
entrenched band of strategics concerned primarily with
winning to advance policies tat have little to do with
conservative thought.
I doubt that I will become a member of a book club.
And I doubt that I will stop voting according to my
conservative view points.
I generally think any idea that Christians are going
to be left to their own devices doubtful or that they
would want to design communities not already defined by
scripture and a life in Christ.
_______________
"If the Ben Op doesn't call on Christians to abandon
politics altogether, it does call on them to recalibrate
their (our) understanding of what politics is and what
it can do. Politics, rightly understood, is more than
statecraft. Ben Op politics are Christian politics for a
post-Christian culture - that is, a culture that no
longer shares some key basic Christian values . . ."
I am just at a loss to comprehend this. A person who
claims to live in Christ already calibrates their lives
in the frame of Christ and led by some extent by the
Spirit of Christ. Nothing about a world destined to
become more worldly will change that. What may happen is
that a kind of christian spiritual revival and renewal
will occur.
" . . . orthodox Christians will come to be seen as
threats to the common good, simply because of the views
we hold and the practices we live by out of fidelity to
our religion. . ."
If this accurate, that christians are deemed a threat
to the state, unless that threat is just to their
participation, the idea "safe spaces" wheres christians
hang out and do their own thing hardly seems a
realistic. If christians are considered a threat – then
most likely the ultimate goal will be to get rid of them
altogether. You outlaw faith and practice. Or you do
what HS and colleges have done to students who arrive on
the campuses. You inundate them with how backward their
thinking until the student and then proceed to tell them
they are just like everyone else.
Believers are expected to be in the world and not of
it. And by in it, I think Christ intended them to be
active participants.
"Rod, I don't know if you've seen this already, but
National Review has a small piece about Archbishop
Charles Chaput, who calls for Christians to become more
engaged in the public square, not less. Your name and
the Benedict Option are referenced in the piece as
well."
Let me answer it for him. Perhaps just like not
everyone is called to the contemplative life in a
monastery but are called to the secular world, so is the
church as a whole these days individually called to
different arenas. That said, the basic principles of the
Ben Op are hardly opposed to being active in the broader
community. It just means there has to be some
intentionality in maintaining a Christian worldview in a
hostile larger culture.
"The Benedictine monks from whom Rod draws inspiration
didn't just shut themselves up and refuse to have
anything to do with the crumbling world around them.
They retreated into their monasteries to strengthen
their souls, and then went out into the world and
rebuilt it for Christ."
Just a technical comment. You
have to pay attention to which orders you are referring
to, because many of them were indeed founded to retreat
from the world. At one time, the idea of a monk
wandering outside of the monastery, or a nun
particularly, was considered scandalous. I read alot of
monastic history about 20 years ago, and I seem to
recall the Benedictines were actually focused on prayer
and manual labor/work within the monastery area. It was
later with orders like the Dominicans that were sent out
into the community, and they caused the bishops a lot of
headaches because they competed with priests and bishops
in preaching publicly. It took awhile to sort out who
was allowed to do what. Modern religious orders founded
since the 18th century are quite different from the old
orders.
Another area of interest you could check out, besides
reading some of the religious rules of life of many of
these old orders just for the sake of comparison, is the
differences between the cenobitic and eremitic monastic
communities of the very early church. The original
founding of religious orders even back then was also
considered a direct challenge to the church hierarchy
and took a lot of time sorting out that they weren't
some kind of troublemakers, too. Modern Catholics have
entirely too little knowledge of the development and
maybe too pious a view of it.
The question is this: what do you do when the policies
or ideas you stand for or at least, agree with, are
advanced by someone with as appalling a character as
Trump? What I observe in practice is that friends and
acquaintances of mine who agree with Trump on the issues
find it necessary to defend his utterly indefensible and
vile character – which makes them less than honest as
well.
I'd be more impressed if, after Edwin Edwards,
Trump's fans said "Vote for the swindler, it's
important" – rather than use lies or their own credulity
to defend him.
I read this on Friday and have thought much about it
since. I came by earlier this evening and had about half
of a long post written in response, but got too caught
up in the Georgia/Missouri game to finish it. I also
determined that it wouldn't matter what I said. The
conservatives would continue to harp about the evils of
identity politics, refusing to acknowledge the long
history of conservatives engaging in identity politics
in both Europe and America from roughly the high Middle
Ages to the present. It seemed more rational to delete
what I had written rather than save it and come back to
finish it.
It just so happened that as the game ended,
I clicked on Huffingtonpost to check the headlines. Lo
and behold, the top story was this one about Jane
Goodall's latest statement regarding identity politics
in the animal kingdom:
"What I observe in practice is that friends and
acquaintances of mine who agree with Trump on the issues
find it necessary to defend his utterly indefensible and
vile character – which makes them less than honest as
well."
I don't defend his vile character. I
readily admit it. So do most of those I know who intend
to vote for him.
It's too bad that Clinton is at least equally vile.
For Hillary that's a big problem – the "character"
issue is at best a wash, so the choice boils down to
other things.
The most highly motivated voters in this election
cycle seem to be insurgents pushing back against corrupt
and incompetent elites and the Establishment. That does
not bode well for Clinton.
"I guess the question I
want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete
programmatic or cultural change or changes would
necessitate abandoning the Ben Op? Or equally, what is
the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows Rod and
company to relax?"
------
I think those are good questions, and read in the best
light possible, might be interpreted as being asked by
someone honestly seeking to understand the concerns of
traditional Christians today.
I can't answer for Rod, but for me the short answers
are,
"1) In present America, I don't think there are any
"cultural change" possible which might reassure
Christians, because we are in a downward spiral which
has not yet run its course. The articles and commentary
posted here by Rod show we've not yet reached the peak
of what government and technology will do to the lives
of believing Christians.
2) The post-BenOp - perhaps decades in the future -
vision that would allow me to relax would be a national
reaffirmation that our rights, as partially defined in
the Constitution and Bill of Rights, come from God the
Creator, that life is valuable from the moment of
conception, and that the traditional family is the best
promoter of sound moral, cultural and economic health.
I'd relax a bit, though not entirely, if that happened.
In a September 2015 interview with NBC, Clinton
defended partial-birth abortions again and voiced her
support for late-term abortions up until birth, too.
She also openly supports forcing taxpayers to fund
these abortions by repealing the Hyde Amendment. The
amendment prohibits direct taxpayer funding of abortion
in Medicaid. If repealed, researchers estimate that
33,000 more babies will be aborted every year in the
U.S.
Yes, We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of
Deplorables.
"Take a Pat Buchanan…how do you think he would be doing
in this election? Trumps three ring show prevents the
charges against him from finding any fertile soil to
grow in."
I think far too much credit is being given
to Mr. Trump. The reason he can stand is because the
people he represents have been fed up with the some of
what he stands for long before he entered the fray.
If Mr Pat Buchanan were running, he would be in good
stead save or his speaking style which is far more
formal. Mr. Trump's carefree (of sorts) delivery punches
through and gives the impression that he's an everyman.
His boundless energy has that sense earnest sincerity.
His "imperfections" tend to work in his favor. But if
his message was counter to where most people are already
at - he would not be the nominee.
There's a difference in being a .Mr. Trump fan and a
supporter. As a supporter, I would be curious to know
what lies I have used to support him. We have some
serious differences, but I think my support has been
fairly above board. In fact, i think the support of most
have been fairly straight up I am not sure there is much
hidden about Mr. Trump.
The only new issue that has been brought up is the issue
of staff accountability. Has he neglected to pay his
staff, is this just an organizational natter or complete
nonsense.
The other factor that has played out to his
advantage are the news stories that repeatedly turn out
false, distorted or nonexistent.
The media already in the credibility hole seems very
content to dig themselves in deeper.
I didn't see the post where you disavowed
liberals as well, so I was too hasty with the "your
side"
Nonetheless I am still tired of the ominous warnings
about right-wing white mobs that are about to rememerge
any day. It's been decades since there was a white riot
in this country.
fwiw, my sense is that the Benedict Option (from the
snippets that you have shared with usm particularly in
the posts on Norcia and other communities already
pursuing some sort of "option") represents a return of
conservative Christians to a more healthy, hands-off
relationship with national politics. Conservative
Christians danced with the Republican Party for a
long-time, but past a certain point had to stop
pretending that the Republican Party cared more about
them than about their slice of Mammon (big business and
the MIC mainly). Liberal Christians, some of them,
danced with the other side of Mammon (big government and
social programs, etc) and perhaps just got absorbed. But
the point is I think you are returning to a better
place, reverting to some sort of norm, the alliance with
the GOP was a strange infatuation that wasn't going to
sustain anyway.
So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies from so
many commenters… Could y'all give at least one that
doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and even with double
intensity?
Michelle: Obama advisor Al Sharpton has been responsible
for stirring up more Jew hatred than Trump. Have you
ever given a care about that? Do you care that Hillary's
Mexican and Muslim immigrants are sure to be more
antisemitic than the native whites of the US that you
fret about over and over?
Rod, when you say the following, you articulate exactly
why I have reluctantly become a libertarian:
-"On a
practical level, that means that I will no longer vote
primarily on the social issues that have dictated my
vote in the past, but I will vote primarily for
candidates who will be better at protecting my
community's right to be left alone."-
Last year after listening to the same-sex marriage
oral arguments presented before the Supreme Court, I
concluded that libertarianism and either the current
Libertarian Party or some spinoff offers the best that
those of us with traditional religious and moral
convictions can hope for in a decidedly post-Christian
America. I wrote about why I believe this to be so at
http://www.skiprigney.com/2015/04/29/how-the-ssm-debate-made-me-a-libertarian/
I don't believe for a minute that the majority of
elected officials in the Republican Party have the
backbone to stand up for religious liberty in the face
of corporate pressure. You need look no farther than how
the Republicans caved last year in Indiana on the
protection of religious liberty.
There are many libertarians who are going to work to
protect the rights of people to do things that undermine
the common good. But, I have more faith that they'll
protect the rights of a cultural minority such as
traditionalist Christians than I have in either the
Republicans or the Democrats.
It isn't true that Trump and his supporters are against
identity politics. It's just that they have a far
simpler view of identity politics. There are white
people, and there are blah people. White people will be
in charge, and blah people can have a piece of the pie
to the extent they agree to pretend to be white people.
Cecelia wonders: "Are we as a people really capable of
being citizens of a Republic or are we simply fools to
be manipulated by people like Trump?"
My two cents: We're capable of being citizens of a
Republic if our government creates the conditions for a
thriving middle class: the most important condition
being good, high-paying jobs that allow people to live
an independent existence. The vast majority of
manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas, and even
higher-skilled jobs (such as research and development)
are increasingly being outsourced as well.
If you look at the monthly payroll jobs reports put
out by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, you will see that
the vast majority of new jobs are in retail trade,
health care and social assistance, waitresses and
bartenders, and government. Most of these jobs are
part-time jobs. None of these jobs produce any goods
than can be exported. Aside from government jobs, these
are not jobs that pay well enough for people to thrive
independently. This is why more Americans aged 25-34
live with their parents than independently with spouses
and children of their own. It is also why many people
now must work multiple jobs in order to make ends meet.
As for government jobs, they are tax-supported, and thus
a drain on the economy. I'm not a libertarian. I
recognize that government provides many crucial
services. But it is unproductive to have too many
bureaucrats living off of tax revenues.
Basically, the middle class is disappearing. Without
a thriving middle class, democracy is unsustainable.
Struggling people filled with hate and resentment are
ripe for manipulation by nefarious forces.
Spain's Francisco Franco understood this very well.
His goal was to make it unthinkable for his country to
descend into civil war ever again. He achieved this.
Before Franco, Spain was a Third World h*llhole plagued
by radical ideologies like communism, regional
separatism, and anarchism. [Fascism had its following as
well, but it was never too popular. The Falange (which
was the closest thing to a fascist movement in Spain,
though it was not really fascist, as it was profoundly
Christian and rejected Nietzschean neo-paganism) was
irrelevant before Francoism. Under Francoism, it was one
of the three pillars that supported the regime (the
other two being monarchists and Catholics), but it was
never the most influential pillar.] When Franco died,
Spain was the ninth-largest economy in the world, and
the second-fastest growing economy in the world (behind
only Japan). It became a liberal democracy almost
overnight. When Franco was on his deathbed, he was asked
what he thought his most important legacy was. He
replied, "The middle class." Franco was not a democrat,
but he'd created the conditions for liberal democracy in
Spain.
To get back to the US, we now have a Third World
economy. We can't too surprised that our politics also
look increasingly like those of a Third World country.
Thus, the rise of Trump, Sanders, the alt-right, the
SJW's, Black Lives Matter, etc.
The evolution of the MSM into an
American version of Pravda/Izvestia has been a lengthy
process and dates back at least to the days of Walter
Lippmann (ostensibly a journalist but upon whom
Roosevelt, Truman and JFK had no qualms about calling
for advice).
With the emergence of the Internet and the phenomenon
of the blogosphere, the MSM has no choice but to cast
off whatever pretensions to objectivity they may have
had and, instead, now preach to the choir so they can
keep themselves viable in an increasingly competitive
market where more people get their news from such as
Matt Drudge than from the NY-LA Times or the WaPo
Suppose a more composed candidate stood up against the
PC police, and generally stood for these same 6
principles, and did so in a much more coherent and
rational manner. I propose that he would be demolished
within no time at all. Take a Pat Buchanan…how do you
think he would be doing in this election? Trumps three
ring show prevents the charges against him from finding
any fertile soil to grow in. If he ran on principle
instead of capturing an undefined spirit, if he tried to
answer the charges against him in a rational manner, all
it would do it produce more fertile soil for the PC
charges to stick. Trump may have stumbled upon the model
for future conservative candidates when running in a
nation where the mainstream press is so thoroughly
against you. Just make a lot of noise and ignore them.
If you engage in the argument with them, they'll destroy
you.
@Cecelia: The issue is not Trump – it is those who
support him. Are we as a people really capable of being
citizens of a Republic or are we simply fools to be
manipulated by people like Trump ?
Yes. Tell me,
during the Great Depression, as Nazi Germany and
Imperial Japan began their march to what would bring
this world to war and state-sponsored genocide, why did
my grandparents and my parents who were teenagers in the
30s not succumb to all this doom, gloom, and anger at
the supposed lack of prospects for improvement in their
lives that Trump's followers whine about? By any
standard, conditions then were worse for the white
working class than is the case today, and yes, my
grandparents were working class: one grandfather worked
for the railroad, the other for a lumber mill. And yes,
there was alcoholism, and domestic abuse, and crime, and
suicide amongst the populace in the 1930s. The role of
religion was more pervasive then, but to tell the truth,
I expect Rod would describe my grandparents on both side
as Moral Therapeutic Deists; by Rod's standard I believe
that is true for most Christians throughout history.
Just what is different about today, that brings all
this rage and resentment? Could it be that racial and
ethnic and religious minorities, and women now have a
piece of the pie and a good part of the white working
class cannot stand it?
And Trump doesn't scare me nearly as much as does the
fact that so very many Americans support him, whether
wholeheartedly swallowing his poison, or because they
close their eyes and minds and hearts to just what kind
of a man he is.
The promotion of an increasingly interconnected world in
and of itself isnt necessarily bad. However, the
annihilation of culture,religion, and autonomy at the
hands of multinational corporations and a Gramscian
elite certainly is – and that is what is happening under
what is referred to as globalization. The revolt against
the evil being pushed out of Brussels and Washington has
now spread into the West itself. May the victory of the
rebels be swift and complete.
"You're misdefining "grievance industry;" the central
tenet of the grievance industry is that whatever
happens, white people are to blame and should continue
paying for it."
If we all accept your definition then
we can't argue with you. Whatever you want to call it,
there is an entire industry (most conservative media)
that feeds a victimization mentality among whites,
conservatives, evangelicals etc (all those labels apply
to me by the way) that closely resembles the grievance
outlook. The only difference is in what circles it is
taken seriously. Why else do so many of us get so bent
out of shape when employees have the audacity to say
"happy holidays" at the department store. As made
apparent on this blog we do need to be realistic and
vigilant about the real threats and the direction the
culture is going, but by whining about every perceived
slight and insisting everyone buy into our version of
"Christian America" (while anointing a vile figure like
Trump as our strongman) we are undercutting the
legitimate grievances we do have.
Everyone has heard how far is moving small car
production to Mexico and forwarded saying no one in
America will lose their jobs because the production will
be shifted to SUVs and other vehicles.
That's not the
problem the problem is instead of creating more jobs in
America the jobs are being created in Mexico and not
helping Americans.
"BenOp is fascinating, but most cultural conservative
now active in the game will not drop out. They may not
like the adrenalin rush politics gives them more than
they like Jesus–but they ain't going to give it up."
Exactly. This is why Christian boycotts never succeed.
They claim that they hate Disneyworld because of their
pro-gay policies, but when they have to choose between
Jesus and a Fun Family Vacation, Jesus always loses.
What happens when the status quo media turns a
presidential election into a referendum regarding the
media's ability to shape public opinion and direct
"purchasing" choices?
The Corporate Media is corrupt and Americans are
waking up to it.
This will almost always mean voting for the
Republicans in national elections, but in a primary
situation, I will vote for the Republican who can
best be counted on to defend religious liberty, even
if he's not 100 percent on board with what I
consider to be promoting the Good. If it means
voting for a Republican that the defense hawks or
the Chamber of Commerce disdain, I have no problem
at all with that.
How is this different than cultural conservatives
voted before Trump?
If we elect Trump as POTUS, we deserve everything that
happens to us.
Don't blame the progressives when Trump says
something about defaulting on the US debt and the stock
market crashes.
Don't blame the progressives when China moves ahead
us by leaps and bound in science and technology because
we pull a Kansas and cut taxes left right and center,
then decide to get rid of all government-funded
research.
Don't blame the progressives when The Wall doesn't
get built, Trump says "who, me? I never promised
anything!" Ditto for the lack of return of well-paid
coal-mining jobs.
And don't blame the progressives when you discover
Trump has sold you down the river for a song, refuses to
appoint "conservatives" as SCOTUS judges, and throws the
First Amendment out the window.
We have had three decades of culture wars and everyone
can pretty much agree that the traditionalists lost. Now
whether Dreher et all lost because the broader culture
refused to listen or because they simply couldn't make a
convincing argument is a question that surrounds a very
particular program pursued by conservatives,
traditionalists and the religious right. It is certain
that the Republican Party as a vehicle for those values
has been taken out and been beat like a rented mule. It
seems to that Josh Stuart has pulled a rabbit out of the
hat. Trump is, if anything, pretty incoherent and
whatever "principles" he represents were discovered in
the breach; a little like bad gunnery practice, one shot
low, one shot lower and then a hit. If Trump represents
anything it is the fact that the base of the party was
not who many of us thought they were. Whatever Christian
values we thought they were representing are hardly
recognizable now.
What truly puzzles me more and
increasingly so is Rod's vision of what America is
supposed to be under a Dreher regime. I'm not sure what
that regime looks like? Behind all the theological
underpinning and high-sounding abstractions what does a
ground-level political and legislative program for
achieving a society he is willing to whole-heartedly
participate in look like?
Politics is a reflection of culture but culture is
responsive to politics. What political order does the
Ben Op crowd wish to install in place of the one we have
now – short of the parousia – and how does that affect
our life and autonomy as citizens and individuals? He
says Christians just want to be left alone but they seem
to have made and are still making a lot of noise for
people who want to be left alone so I have to assume
they want something over and above being left alone.
I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What
minimal, concrete programmatic or cultural change or
changes would necessitate abandoning the Ben Op? Or
equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that
allows Rod and company to relax?
a couple "ideas" come to mind. re: deplorable. SOME (no
value in speculating or establishing a number) are
deplorable. it's funny (actually, quite sad) Trump's we
don't have time to be politically correct mantra is
ignored when his opponent (a politician who helped
establish the concept of politically correctness) steals
a page from his playbook. on a certain level, perhaps
the eastern elite, intellectual liberal grabbed the
"irony" hammer from the toolbox? ever the shrewd,
calculating (narcissistic and insecure) carny barker,
Trump has not offered any "new" ideas. he's merely (like
any politician) put his finger in the air and decided to
"run" from the "nationalist, racist, nativist, side of
the politically correct/incorrect betting line. at the
end of the day, there are likely as many deplorable
folks on the Clinton bandwagon; it's just (obviously)
not in her interests to expose these "boosters" at HER
rallies/fundraising events. in many ways it speaks to
the lesser of two evils is still evil "idea". politics –
especially national campaigns are not so much about
which party/candidate has the better ideas, but rather
which is less deplorable.
"Instead, it has everything to do with his
wink/nod attitude toward the alt-right and white
nationalist groups and with his willingness to
appropriate their anti-semitic, racist memes for his own
advancement. He's dangerous. Period. Dangerous and scary
to anyone familiar with lynchings, pogroms, and mob
violence. To anyone familiar with history. Trump has
unleashed dark forces that will not easily be quelled
even if, and probably especially if, he loses. The
possibility that he might win has left me wondering
whether I even belong in this country any more, no
matter how much sympathy I might feel for the folks
globalism has left behind."
One can just as easily make the point that the
globalists have unleashed dark forces against white
people and Western civilization that are nor easily
quelled.
The most interesting part of the essay is near the end,
where he briefly discusses how non-whites might react to
our political realignment.
After all, will the white
liberal be able to manipulate these groups forever?
For example, we are seeing the 'official black
leaders' who represent them on TV shift from being
activist clergymen to being (white paid and hosed) gay
activists and mulattoes from outside the mainstream of
black culture. How long can this continue?
"Call it anti-Semitic if
you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several other
Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable
hate for Trump.
"thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter;
(2) immigration policy matters; (3) national interests,
not so-called universal interests, matter; (4)
entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters;
(6) PC speech-without which identity politics is
inconceivable-must be repudiated."
They seem to think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd
world immigration, stop pc thought police, or up hold
Christian-ish values are a direct threat to them."
The Jews, having lived as strangers among foreign
peoples for the better part of 2 millennia, have always
been on the receiving end of racial hatred. As a result
many Western Jews have an instinctive mistrust of
nationalist movements and a natural tendency towards
globalism.
The media has done a splendid job of portraying Trump
as the next Hitler, so, understandably, there's a lot of
fear. My Jewish grandparents are terrified of the man.
I am not a globalist, and (due to the SCOTUS issue)
will probably vote for Trump, even though I have no love
for the man himself. I think the "Trump the racist" meme
is based on confirmation bias, not reality, but I
understand where the fear comes from.
"I think that many casual hearers of Ben Op ideas
assume that Ben Op is a one-dimensional, cultural
dropping-out of cultural/religious conservatives into
irrelevant enclaves.
To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean
idea that the best American ways of living work their
way up from organic, formative local communities that
have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural
experience. Without independent formative local
communities, we human beings are mere products rolling
off the assembly line that serves the interests of the
elites of our big government-big business-big education
conglomerate.
If these formative communities hold to authentic,
compassionate Judeo-Christian values and practices, all
the better–for everybody! Ben Op will offer an
alternative to the assembly-line politically correct
cultural warriors being produced by many of our elite
cultural institutions."
Bingo.
If you want to fundamentally transform the culture,
you have to withdraw from it, at least partially. But
there's no need to wall yourself off. A Benedict Option
community can and should be politically active,
primarily at the local level, where the most good can be
done.
The Benedictine monks from whom Rod draws inspiration
didn't just shut themselves up and refuse to have
anything to do with the crumbling world around them.
They retreated into their monasteries to strengthen
their souls, and then went out into the world and
rebuilt it for Christ.
"Clinton assassination fantasies"? I call bullsh*t on
that notion. Trump merely pointed our the absolute
hypocrisy of elites like Clinton and her ilk, the guns
for me but not for thee crowd. He was not fantasizing
about her assassination. Far from it. To suggest he was
is to engage in the same sort of dishonesty for which
Clinton is so well known.
I never cared much for Trump
but he has all the right enemies and is growing on me.
"It isn't true that Trump and his supporters are against
identity politics. It's just that they have a far
simpler view of identity politics. There are white
people, and there are blah people. "
They love Ben
Carson and Allan West, last time I checked neither men
were white.
"Yes. Tell me, during the Great Depression, as Nazi
Germany and Imperial Japan began their march to what
would bring this world to war and state-sponsored
genocide, why did my grandparents and my parents who
were teenagers in the 30s not succumb to all this doom,
gloom, and anger at the supposed lack of prospects for
improvement in their lives that Trump's followers whine
about?"
Well, back then, the government was doing
stuff for the common people. A lot of stuff. WPA, NRA,
Social Security, FDIC, FHA, AAA, etc. FDR remembered the
"forgotten man." Today, the government is subservient to
multinationals and Rothschilds. The forgotten men and
women that make up the backbone of our economy have been
forgotten once again, and nobody seems to remember them
- with the *possible,* partial exception of Trump.
The Globalist clap-trap that has so enamoured both
parties reminds me of this quote from C.S.
Lewis'"Screwtape Proposes a Toast":
"…They ever be allowed to raise Aristotle's question:
whether "democratic behavior" means the behavior that
democracies like or the behavior that will preserve a
democracy. For if they did, it could hardly fail to
occur to them that these need not be the same."
Globalism is just swell for the multinational
corporation, but it is nothing more or less than
Lawlessness writ large. The Corporation is given
legal/fictional life by the state…the trouble is it,
like Frankenstein, will turns on its creator and
imagines it can enjoy Absolute Independence.
One can just as easily make the point that the
globalists have unleashed dark forces against white
people and Western civilization that are nor easily
quelled.
And you would have the benefit of evidence (or, well,
evidence that is not stale by nearly a century). It
wasn't Trump supporters beating up people in San Jose.
And if you look to Europe as a guide to what can happen
in America, things start looking far, far worse.
"I guess the question I
want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete
programmatic or cultural change or changes would
necessitate abandoning the Ben Op? Or equally, what is
the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows Rod and
company to relax?"
While I can't speak for Rod, I can speak for many
traditional Catholics. The end goal is the
re-establishment of the social reign of Christ, which
means a majority Christian nation, Christian culture,
and a state which governs according to Christian
principles (read Quas Primas). In that situation, and in
that situation alone, would the Ben Op no longer be
necessary.
I am guessing that Rod has not said this explicitly,
or laid out a concrete plan, because he is writing a
book for Christians in general. And if you get into too
many specifics, you are going to run right into the
enormous theological and philosophical differences
between Catholicism and Protestantism.
Also, if Rod were to start talking about "The Social
Reign of Christ the King", 3/4 of you would lose your
minds.
Of course, the current prospect for a Christian
culture and state look bleak, to say the least. But we
can play the long game, the Catholic Church is good at
that. It took over 300 years to convert the Roman
Empire. It was 700 years from the founding of the first
Benedictine monastery until St. Thomas Aquinas and the
High Middle Ages. We can wait that long, at least.
I rather think, in concurrence with Prof. Cole, that
Trump is a simulacrum within a simulacrum with a
simulacrum: there is no "extra-mediatic" Trump
candidate, ergo there is no "extra-mediatic"
presidential electoral race (if limited to the two
"mainstreamed" candidates), ergo there is no
presidential election tout court, ergo there is no
democracy at the presidential election level in the
U.S–just simulacra deceptively reflecting simulacra, in
any case, the resulting effect is a mirage, a
distortion, but above all an ILLUSION.
All this is, it seems to me, is a transition to a
different favorite deadly sin. We've had pride, avarice,
and the current favorite is lust; the new favorite
appears to be wrath. Gluttony, sloth, and envy have not
been absent, but they have not been the driving force in
politics recently.
Also important was the fact that FDR did not stoke
the fires of class conflict. A patrician himself, FDR's
goal was not to overturn the existing social order but
rather to preserve it by correcting its injustices. FDR
was the moderate leader the country needed at the time.
Without him, we might well have succumbed to a demagogic
or perhaps even dictatorial government under Charles
Coughlin, Huey Long, or Norman Thomas. In contrast,
Hillary and Trump seek to use fringe groups (BLM,
alt-right) for their own agendas. Let's hope whoever
wins can keep her or his pets mollified and contained,
but courting extremists is always a risky business.
Indeed, Hillary may be worse than Trump in this respect,
since there appears to be no daylight between her and
the SJW's.
To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean
idea that the best American ways of living work their
way up from organic, formative local communities that
have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural
experience. Without independent formative local
communities, we human beings are mere products rolling
off the assembly line that serves the interests of the
elites of our big government-big business-big education
conglomerate.
Ben Op or not, its always a great
notion. And you don't have to withdraw from the culture,
THIS IS American culture (traditionally speaking). We
just need to reaffirm it.
So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies
from so many commenters… Could y'all give at least one
that doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and even with
double intensity?
Hillary Clinton doesn't have a long list of unpaid
contractors suing her… of course that's because she
never built hotels, and I don't think she ever declared
bankruptcy either. We have a batch of slumlords in
Milwaukee who are little Trumps… they run up hundreds of
thousands of dollars in fines for building violations,
declare bankruptcy or plead poverty and make occasional
payments of $50, and meantime they spend tends of
thousands of dollars buying up distressed property at
sheriff's auctions. All of them are black, all of them
have beautiful homes in mostly "white" suburbs, and I
wouldn't vote for any of them for dogcatcher, much less
president.
That said, Hillary is an ego-bloated lying sleaze,
and I wouldn't vote for her if she were running against
almost anyone but Trump.
Nonetheless I am still tired of the ominous
warnings about right-wing white mobs that are about to
rememerge any day. It's been decades since there was a
white riot in this country.
There hasn't been a real riot of any nature in quite
a while. And no, that little fracas in Milwaukee doesn't
count. A few dozen thugs burning four black-owned
businesses while everyone living in the neighborhood
denounces then falls short of a riot.
I agree that we are not likely to see right-wing
"white" mobs posing much of a threat to anyone… they're
mostly couch potatoes anyway. But it is true that until
the 1940s, a "race riot" meant a white mob rampaging
through a black neighborhood. And there have been very
few black riots that went deep into a "white"
neighborhood … they stayed in black neighborhoods too.
This is an election about feeling under siege.
But we're not, and most of the adults in the room
know it.
Trump continues to be a walking, talking Rorschach
test for pundits peddling a point of view.
I think that explains a lot of Trump's support. Its
not who he is, what he says, or what he does or will do,
its what they think they SEE in him. I have to admit, I
did a bit of that over Barack Obama in 2008, and he did
disappoint. Obama has been one of our best presidents in
a long time, but that's a rather low bar.
"There are, then, two developments we are likely to see
going forward. First, cultural conservatives will
seriously consider a political "Benedict Option,"
dropping out of the Republican Party and forming a
like-minded Book Group, unconcerned with winning
elections and very concerned with maintaining their
"principles." Their fidelity is to Aristotle rather than
to winning the battle for the political soul of America.
…"
You know, people spout this stuff as if the
Republican party is conservative. It started drifting
from conservative frame more than forty years ago. By
the time we get to the 2000 elections, it;s been home an
entrenched band of strategics concerned primarily with
winning to advance policies tat have little to do with
conservative thought.
I doubt that I will become a member of a book club.
And I doubt that I will stop voting according to my
conservative view points.
I generally think any idea that Christians are going
to be left to their own devices doubtful or that they
would want to design communities not already defined by
scripture and a life in Christ.
_______________
"If the Ben Op doesn't call on Christians to abandon
politics altogether, it does call on them to recalibrate
their (our) understanding of what politics is and what
it can do. Politics, rightly understood, is more than
statecraft. Ben Op politics are Christian politics for a
post-Christian culture - that is, a culture that no
longer shares some key basic Christian values . . ."
I am just at a loss to comprehend this. A person who
claims to live in Christ already calibrates their lives
in the frame of Christ and led by some extent by the
Spirit of Christ. Nothing about a world destined to
become more worldly will change that. What may happen is
that a kind of christian spiritual revival and renewal
will occur.
" . . . orthodox Christians will come to be seen as
threats to the common good, simply because of the views
we hold and the practices we live by out of fidelity to
our religion. . ."
If this accurate, that christians are deemed a threat
to the state, unless that threat is just to their
participation, the idea "safe spaces" wheres christians
hang out and do their own thing hardly seems a
realistic. If christians are considered a threat – then
most likely the ultimate goal will be to get rid of them
altogether. You outlaw faith and practice. Or you do
what HS and colleges have done to students who arrive on
the campuses. You inundate them with how backward their
thinking until the student and then proceed to tell them
they are just like everyone else.
Believers are expected to be in the world and not of
it. And by in it, I think Christ intended them to be
active participants.
"Rod, I don't know if you've seen this already, but
National Review has a small piece about Archbishop
Charles Chaput, who calls for Christians to become more
engaged in the public square, not less. Your name and
the Benedict Option are referenced in the piece as
well."
Let me answer it for him. Perhaps just like not
everyone is called to the contemplative life in a
monastery but are called to the secular world, so is the
church as a whole these days individually called to
different arenas. That said, the basic principles of the
Ben Op are hardly opposed to being active in the broader
community. It just means there has to be some
intentionality in maintaining a Christian worldview in a
hostile larger culture.
"The Benedictine monks from whom Rod draws inspiration
didn't just shut themselves up and refuse to have
anything to do with the crumbling world around them.
They retreated into their monasteries to strengthen
their souls, and then went out into the world and
rebuilt it for Christ."
Just a technical comment. You
have to pay attention to which orders you are referring
to, because many of them were indeed founded to retreat
from the world. At one time, the idea of a monk
wandering outside of the monastery, or a nun
particularly, was considered scandalous. I read alot of
monastic history about 20 years ago, and I seem to
recall the Benedictines were actually focused on prayer
and manual labor/work within the monastery area. It was
later with orders like the Dominicans that were sent out
into the community, and they caused the bishops a lot of
headaches because they competed with priests and bishops
in preaching publicly. It took awhile to sort out who
was allowed to do what. Modern religious orders founded
since the 18th century are quite different from the old
orders.
Another area of interest you could check out, besides
reading some of the religious rules of life of many of
these old orders just for the sake of comparison, is the
differences between the cenobitic and eremitic monastic
communities of the very early church. The original
founding of religious orders even back then was also
considered a direct challenge to the church hierarchy
and took a lot of time sorting out that they weren't
some kind of troublemakers, too. Modern Catholics have
entirely too little knowledge of the development and
maybe too pious a view of it.
The question is this: what do you do when the policies
or ideas you stand for or at least, agree with, are
advanced by someone with as appalling a character as
Trump? What I observe in practice is that friends and
acquaintances of mine who agree with Trump on the issues
find it necessary to defend his utterly indefensible and
vile character – which makes them less than honest as
well.
I'd be more impressed if, after Edwin Edwards,
Trump's fans said "Vote for the swindler, it's
important" – rather than use lies or their own credulity
to defend him.
I read this on Friday and have thought much about it
since. I came by earlier this evening and had about half
of a long post written in response, but got too caught
up in the Georgia/Missouri game to finish it. I also
determined that it wouldn't matter what I said. The
conservatives would continue to harp about the evils of
identity politics, refusing to acknowledge the long
history of conservatives engaging in identity politics
in both Europe and America from roughly the high Middle
Ages to the present. It seemed more rational to delete
what I had written rather than save it and come back to
finish it.
It just so happened that as the game ended,
I clicked on Huffingtonpost to check the headlines. Lo
and behold, the top story was this one about Jane
Goodall's latest statement regarding identity politics
in the animal kingdom:
"What I observe in practice is that friends and
acquaintances of mine who agree with Trump on the issues
find it necessary to defend his utterly indefensible and
vile character – which makes them less than honest as
well."
I don't defend his vile character. I
readily admit it. So do most of those I know who intend
to vote for him.
It's too bad that Clinton is at least equally vile.
For Hillary that's a big problem – the "character"
issue is at best a wash, so the choice boils down to
other things.
The most highly motivated voters in this election
cycle seem to be insurgents pushing back against corrupt
and incompetent elites and the Establishment. That does
not bode well for Clinton.
"I guess the question I
want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete
programmatic or cultural change or changes would
necessitate abandoning the Ben Op? Or equally, what is
the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows Rod and
company to relax?"
------
I think those are good questions, and read in the best
light possible, might be interpreted as being asked by
someone honestly seeking to understand the concerns of
traditional Christians today.
I can't answer for Rod, but for me the short answers
are,
"1) In present America, I don't think there are any
"cultural change" possible which might reassure
Christians, because we are in a downward spiral which
has not yet run its course. The articles and commentary
posted here by Rod show we've not yet reached the peak
of what government and technology will do to the lives
of believing Christians.
2) The post-BenOp - perhaps decades in the future -
vision that would allow me to relax would be a national
reaffirmation that our rights, as partially defined in
the Constitution and Bill of Rights, come from God the
Creator, that life is valuable from the moment of
conception, and that the traditional family is the best
promoter of sound moral, cultural and economic health.
I'd relax a bit, though not entirely, if that happened.
In a September 2015 interview with NBC, Clinton
defended partial-birth abortions again and voiced her
support for late-term abortions up until birth, too.
She also openly supports forcing taxpayers to fund
these abortions by repealing the Hyde Amendment. The
amendment prohibits direct taxpayer funding of abortion
in Medicaid. If repealed, researchers estimate that
33,000 more babies will be aborted every year in the
U.S.
Yes, We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of
Deplorables.
"Take a Pat Buchanan…how do you think he would be doing
in this election? Trumps three ring show prevents the
charges against him from finding any fertile soil to
grow in."
I think far too much credit is being given
to Mr. Trump. The reason he can stand is because the
people he represents have been fed up with the some of
what he stands for long before he entered the fray.
If Mr Pat Buchanan were running, he would be in
good stead save or his speaking style which is far more
formal. Mr. Trump's carefree (of sorts) delivery punches
through and gives the impression that he's an everyman.
His boundless energy has that sense earnest sincerity.
His "imperfections" tend to work in his favor. But if
his message was counter to where most people are already
at - he would not be the nominee.
There's a difference in being a .Mr. Trump fan and a
supporter. As a supporter, I would be curious to know
what lies I have used to support him. We have some
serious differences, but I think my support has been
fairly above board. In fact, i think the support of most
have been fairly straight up I am not sure there is much
hidden about Mr. Trump.
Hillary Clinton,
"Laws have to be backed up with resources and
political will and deep-seated cultural codes, religious
beliefs and structural biases have to be changed."
Uh Oh -- We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of
Deplorables.
That's a shame RD, because I was looking forward to
joining a like-minded Book Group, unconcerned with
winning elections and very concerned with maintaining
our "principles." With fidelity is to Aristotle rather
than to winning the battle for the political soul of
America.
[NFR: You can still have your Ben Op book
group. - RD]
I'm going to start and end with globalization by
referring to G.K.Chesterton in Orthodoxy(pg 101).
"This is what makes Christendom at once so perplexing
and so much more interesting than the Pagan empires;…If
anyone wants a modern proof of all this, let him
consider the curious fact that, under Christianity,
Europe has broken up into individual nations. Patriotism
is a perfect example of this deliberate balance of one
emphasis against another emphasis. The instinct of the
Pagan empire would have said, 'You shall all be Roman
citizens, and grow alike; let the German grow less slow
and reverent; the Frenchmen less experimental and
swift.' But the instinct of Christian Europe says, 'Let
the German remain slow and reverent, that the Frenchman
may the more safely be swift and experimental. We will
make an equipoise out of these excesses. The absurdity
called Germany shall correct the insanity called
France."
Isn't it interesting that has Christianity has left the
northern hemisphere for the southern, that Europe has
tried union, the USA has been into interventionism, and
globalization has become so mainstream. You shall all be
one world citizens doesn't have a balancing instinct.
And Chesterton was deliberating about the balancing
instinct.
I think Mitchell is basically right. Aside from his jab
at the Benedict Option, I have just one quibble with his
analysis: "And Trump is the first American candidate to
bring some coherence to them, however raucous his
formulations have been."
Wrong. Trump is definitely
not the first candidate to do this. He was preceded by
Pat Buchanan, who also brought (and still brings) much
more coherence to the six ideas than Trump. Clearly,
Buchanan ran at a time when the post-1989 order was in
its infancy, and so few saw any fundamental problem with
it. He was ahead of his time. But he was a candidate
that presented the six ideas and attracted a
non-negligible amount of support. Trump is not a pioneer
in this regard. People should give Buchanan his due.
I hope Trump wins; he's rather bizarre and not very
likable as a person, but the last 25 years have been
disastrous politically in Western nations and it's time
to repudiate the ruling orthodoxy. The US still is the
Western hegemon and exports its ideas across the
Atlantic (most unfortunate in cases like "critical
whiteness studies"); if there's change in the US towards
a (soft, civic) nationalism, it might open up new
options in Europe as well.
In any case these are exciting times…however it turns
out, we may well be living through years which will be
seen as decisive in retrospect.
This comment on the Politico article stood out to me:
"It is its very existence, and mantra, for a religion
the advertise itself, something that is frowned upon as
being Incredibly un-American under the Constitution, and
contrary to our core beliefs. Yes Republicans not only
embrace this, they help their religion advertise."
In other words, this commenter admits that he
believes it "incredibly un-American" for religions to
"advertise," and, by extension, to even exist (he says
advertising is religion's "very existence.")
The comment has a high number of "thumbs-up."
We really are in trouble. America has become Jacobin
country.
Red brick
September 16, 2016 at 6:36 pm
Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish
cousins and the several other Jewish business associates
I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump.'
Perhaps
due to very recent memories that herrenvolk regimes are
not good for the Jews. The online troll army of out and
proud anti-semites can't help but contribute to this.
Re "the DC elites are clueless" what ABOUT John Kasich
up there on the podium advocating for the latest free
trade deal? Yessir, that'll get us in our "states that
begin with a vowel" to totally change our minds on that,
you betcha!
Trump continues to be a walking, talking Rorschach test
for pundits peddling a point of view. Funny how he
proves so many intellectuals right about so many
contradictory things, all without having to take
responsibility for any particular idea.
Nobody has remained more adamant than the writer of this
blog that there is something sacred about sex between
one woman and one man, and them married. God bless him
for staying true.
So I am going to try to say( G.K Chesterton please
forgive me)…..Let the LBGTQIA remain true to their
identity, that the married male/female may be more
safely true to their identity. We can make an equipoise
out of these excesses( despite those who want us to be
all the same). The absurdity called LBGTQIA shall
correct the insanity called one man/one woman.
Trump is certainly not unraveling
identity politics. He's adding another identity to the
grievance industry, that of (downscale) whites.
You're misdefining "grievance industry;" the central
tenet of the grievance industry is that whatever
happens, white people are to blame and should continue
paying for it. Whether you agree with white identity
politics or not, its proponents are obviously not
adding
to the grievance industry, but attempting to
defend against it, i.e. stating that white people are
not
to blame for everything, and no, they
shouldn't
continue to pay for it. To merely maintain
that position is sufficient to be labeled as a white
supremacist by the grievance industry hacks.
Rod, I don't know if you've seen this already, but
National Review has a small piece about Archbishop
Charles Chaput, who calls for Christians to become
more
engaged in the public square, not less. Your
name and the Benedict Option are referenced in the piece
as well.
Dear mainstream media: you have lost your
credibility because you are incapable of skeptical
inquiry into your chosen candidate or official
statistics/ pronouncements.
Your dismissal of
skeptical inquiries as "conspiracies" or "hoaxes" is
nothing but a crass repackaging of the propaganda
techniques of totalitarian state media.
Dear MSM: You have forsaken your duty in a
democracy and are a disgrace to investigative,
unbiased journalism.
You have substituted
Orwellian-level propaganda for honest, skeptical
journalism. We can only hope viewers and advertisers
respond appropriately, i.e. turn you off.
Here's the mainstream media's new mantra:
"skepticism is always a conspiracy or a hoax."
The Ministry of Propaganda and the MSM are now one
agency.
The curtain is being pulled back on the Wizard of Oz.
How soon before the Wicked Witch starts to melt?
Do people who are willing to accept characterization as
"angry, provincial bigots" still have any right to
political self-expression? Believe it or not, it's an
important question.
Identity politics definition: a tendency for people of a
particular religion, race, social background, etc., to
form exclusive political alliances, moving away from
traditional broad-based party politics.
I find it odd
that the party of older white straight Christian men
accuses the party of everyone else to be guilty of
"identity politics". It just doesn't make any sense.
(1) borders matter; Ok, but they're not all that.
(2) immigration policy matters; Ditto. We should have a
policy.
(3) national interests, not so-called universal
interests, matter; Depends. National interests matter,
but if they are all that matters… I think you just
stepped outside the Gospels.
(4) entrepreneurship matters; It can, for good OR for
evil.
(5) decentralization matters; Another thorny one… SOME
things need to be more decentralized, some don't, and we
need to have an honest conversation about which is
which.
(6) PC speech-without which identity politics is
inconceivable-must be repudiated. ABSOLUTELY!
All in
all, I think this Georgetown prof has done the usual
short list of The Latest Attempt To Reduce Reality To a
Nice Short Checklist.
Not much of a guide to the future. We could all write
our own lists.
You can largely agree with Mitchell's six points (and,
for the most part I do) and nonetheless recognize that
an unprincipled, ruthless charlatan like Trump–a
pathological liar and narcissist interested in nothing
but his own self-promotion–will do nothing meaningful to
advance them. His latest birther charade shows him for
the lying, unprincipled scum bucket he is.
The
cultural ground is shifting as the emptiness of advanced
consumer capitalism and globalism becomes ever more
apparent. Large scale organizations are, by their very
nature, dehumanizing, demoralizing, and corrupt. I've
believed so for the better part of my life now. It's
that belief that lead me to the University of Rochester
and Christopher Lasch in the 1980s and, subsequently to
MacIntyre, Rieff, and Berry. It's also a belief that has
lead me to distrust both the corporate order and
politics as a means to salvation. I certainly don't
consider myself a conservative, at least not in the
shallow American sense of the term, and the chances that
I will ever vote for a Republican again are nil. But I'm
not a liberal in the American sense of the term either
because agreeing with Mitchell's six points pretty much
pretty much rules me out of that tribe. I have, for a
long time, felt pretty homeless in the American
wilderness.
I suppose that's one reason I keep reading your blog,
Rod, though I disagree deeply with many of your views.
As a Jew, I'm not much interested in the Benedict
Option, but I do agree that our society suffers from a
certain soul sickness that politics, consumption, and
technology can't cure.
Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish
cousins and the several other Jewish business associates
I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump.
As one
of those American Jews who feels a deep hatred for
Trump, perhaps I can shed some light on the reasons. It
has nothing to do with his alleged desire to enforce
borders. Nations require them. Nor does it have anything
to do with his lip service to Christianist values. He's
no Christian. He's pure heathen.
Instead, it has everything to do with his wink/nod
attitude toward the alt-right and white nationalist
groups and with his willingness to appropriate their
anti-semitic, racist memes for his own advancement. He's
dangerous. Period. Dangerous and scary to anyone
familiar with lynchings, pogroms, and mob violence. To
anyone familiar with history. Trump has unleashed dark
forces that will not easily be quelled even if, and
probably especially if, he loses. The possibility that
he might win has left me wondering whether I even belong
in this country any more, no matter how much sympathy I
might feel for the folks globalism has left behind.
Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish
cousins and the several other Jewish business associates
I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump…They seem to
think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd world
immigration, stop pc thought police, or up hold
Christian-ish values are a direct threat to them.
Or it could be that Trump reminds them of some
historical figure who was rather bad for the Jews. I
wonder who that could be?
And saying all the Jews that the commenter knows feel
an "uncontrollable" emotion
is
a touch
anti-Semitic.
But to talk about the OP: Joshua Mitchell gives the
game away by consistently referring to 1989 as the state
of a "new order," which he thinks is a combination of
globalization and identity politics. Of course neither
was new. Admittedly globalization received a boost by
the end of the Cold War, but it's been well underway for
a century or so. Mitchell wants to return to Reagan's
"morning in America." But there was no such morning.
"Identity politics" is what the suffragettes and
abolitionists would have been accused of, if the term
had been invented back in their day. Are there stupid
things done and said under the umbrella of "identity
politics"? Of course. That doesn't make the
discrimination and mistreatment that led to such
politics any less real.
The fundamental flaw in Mitchell's argument, though,
is that the Trump he describes (or, more accurately,
wishes for) simply doesn't exist. The Trump he describes
has ideas and beliefs. It's a little ironic that
Mitchell thinks that Trump "expressly opposes" the ideas
of Marx and Nietzsche, because the real-world Trump has
no beliefs other than he is an ubermensch.
I read an entire article on Trump in which Hitler
wasn't mentioned once.
It wasn't even smug, and there was no list of liberal
cliches and denunciations of heretics so between
drooling I never knew whether shout "Boo!" or "Hurah!"
Couldn't they throw in one "racist, sexist,
homophobic" so I could feel morally superior to stupid
white people in fly-over country?
Having now read Mitchell's article, all I can say is
that while I agree with his six points, his hope that
Trump is some kind of pragmatist is deeply misguided.
Like most political scientists, he knows little about
history.
For thise who think Trump is harmless, here
he is, tonight, riffing on his
Clinton assassination fantasies.
Where is Leni
Reifenstahl when you need her? Trump is no pragmatist.
He's no Christian. And he's no leader.
If Mitchell is correct–and I believe that he is–how does
this bode poorly for conservative Christians? If the
BenOp is primarily a reaction to the post-1989 culture,
shouldn't the crumbling of that culture obviate the need
for a BenOp?
[NFR: Well, if there were a candidate
advocating these positions who WASN'T Donald Trump, I
would eagerly vote for him or her. I think Trump is
thoroughly untrustworthy and demagogic. But I would not
be under any illusion that casting a vote for that
person - again, even if he or she was a saint - would
mean any kind of Christian restoration. The Ben Op is
premised on the idea that we are living in
post-Christian times. The Ben Op is a religious movement
with political implications, not a political movement.
Liquid modernity will not suddenly solidify depending on
a change of government in Washington. - RD]
This is an election about feeling under siege. Once that
is understood all else makes sense. It is also a
manifestation about what happens when a word is
overused, in this case racism. It creates a reaction of,
"Ask us if we care," which becomes, "Yeah, we are, and
we like it."
It backfires.
The Ben Op may prove to be in better position that it
looks.
I think populists who haven't gotten much attention from
either party are projecting an awful lot onto a
seriously flawed candidate who doesn't have firm
convictions on anything, beyond making the sale. This
objective he pursues by being willing to say whatever he
thinks will get him the sale, with no regard for decency
or truth or consistency. If he gets himself elected, who
knows what he will do to retain his popularity with what
he perceives to be the majority view. Those hoping for a
sea change are engaged in some pretty serious wishful
thinking, I think.
@T.S.Gay, You are correct that this election is a battle
of Nationalism vs Globalism. But, Nationalism is
Identity Politics in its purest form and that is why the
Globalist oppose it.
Globalists use identity politics,
that is true. However, they bear no love for the
identities they publicly promote. Rather, they
dehumanize them, using them as nothing more than weapons
against Nationalism.
As a Nationalist I will support and promote my
Nation(People), but I also recognize the inherent right
of other Nations(Peoples) to support and promote
themselves.
I'm absolutely sure Donald Trump isn't going to do to
us, what that other person has planned for us
deplorables:
"Laws have to be backed up with resources
and political will and deep-seated cultural codes,
religious beliefs and structural biases have to be
changed."
After her shot across the bow promises to marginalize
us in society, complete with cheers from those at her
back, that is just about all that counts.
Mitchell's description echoes Oliver Stone's comments
from Oct. 2001: "There's been conglomeration under six
principal princes-they're kings, they're barons!-and
these six companies have control of the world! … That's
what the new world order is. They control culture, they
control ideas. And I think the revolt of September 11
was about 'F- you! F- your order!'"
It is quite amusing to contemplate how it works. An
average progressive (I mean average progressive with
brains, not SJW) comes with a genuine desire to
criticize Trump for his ideas. But he faces something
"deplorable" almost at once. "Deplorable" things are
known to immediately trigger the incessant spouting of
words like "bigot", "racist", logically impossible
"white nationalist", "chovinist", fascist and on, and
on, and on. No way to control it, completely automatic.
A deep-seated emotional reaction all the way long from
uncle Freud's works. And, as a result, Trump's actual
ideas remain largely uncriticized. And the ideas that
are often mentioned but seldom confronted with a
coherent critical response are almost impossible to
defeat. So yes, his ideas are thinly buried in his
rhetoric. There are simply too many of them for being
suddenly blurted out even without all of the above,
especially when similar ideas simultaneously blossom all
around Europe. French Revolution, Russian Revolution,
American Progressivism – the West is simply tired of two
centuries of modernist and postmodernist experiments.
And now the giant starts awakening. Though, instead of
"thinly buried", I would rather prefer "subtly woven"
metaphor.
sure the ground is moving – it was inevitable.
Everything changes.
But is Trump a harbinger of the change? Or is he – or
rather his supporters – simply hoping to stop change –
to bring back some nostalgic notion of 1950's America?
Trump is a con man who seeks only his own
aggrandizement. He is not really committed to any
refutation of the existing order. He lies constantly and
when one set of lies stops working he switches to a new
set of lies. He was forced to back down on birtherism –
which is what propelled him to the attention of the Fox
News conspiracy folks. And let us be clear – birtherism
is fundamentally racist. Now he has to give up his
birther position so he can get the votes of a few soccer
Moms. So he creates new lies – Hilary started
birtherism. It becomes impossible to keep up with his
lies. And as he bounces from one new set of realities to
another – he takes his supporters along with him. He is
playing a con – making a sale.
Now he suggests that the Secret Service detail give
up their guns and then "Let's see what happens to her".
There is no great movement with him – just a demented
man who thrives on the adoration of the crowds and will
say anything however obscene to get those cheers.
The issue is not Trump – it is those who support him.
Are we as a people really capable of being citizens of a
Republic or are we simply fools to be manipulated by
people like Trump ?
Very interesting piece, and I had not really connected
the Brexit and EU jitters to what's going on in the US –
and I think Mitchell is right about that. When we were
still in primary season and Trump was ahead, I recall
one author – probably on The Corner – wondered how a
Trump presidency might look. He figured Trump would be
very pragmatic, perhaps actually fixing Obamacare, and
focusing on our interests here at home.
"I will vote primarily for candidates who will be
better at protecting my community's right to be left
alone."
I've been voting that way for years; mostly
Republicans, but a good sprinkling of Democrats as well.
Good article. I think Mitchell identifies the right
ideas buried within Trump's rhetoric. But even if it
were true that Trump had no ideas, I would still vote
for him. After all, where have politic ideas gotten us
lately?
"Conservative principles" espoused by wonks
and political scientists culminated in the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan. Ideology told us that democracy was a
divine right, transferable across time and culture.
Moreover, do we really want our politicians playing
with ideas? Think back to George W. Bush's speech at the
2004 Republican convention, perhaps the most idea-driven
speech in recent history. The sight of W. spinning a
neo-Hegelian apocalyptic narrative was like watching a
gorilla perform opera.
I think that many casual hearers of Ben Op ideas assume
that Ben Op is a one-dimensional, cultural dropping-out
of cultural/religious conservatives into irrelevant
enclaves.
To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean
idea that the best American ways of living work their
way up from organic, formative local communities that
have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural
experience. Without independent formative local
communities, we human beings are mere products rolling
off the assembly line that serves the interests of the
elites of our big government-big business-big education
conglomerate.
If these formative communities hold to authentic,
compassionate Judeo-Christian values and practices, all
the better–for everybody! Ben Op will offer an
alternative to the assembly-line politically correct
cultural warriors being produced by many of our elite
cultural institutions.
A recently heard description of Trump – a fat, orange,
poorly educated, intellectually shallow pathologic liar,
bigot, and narcissistic jerk.
Well, I don't know that
much about the guy, but some of that description seems
correct. He rarely reads, he says, gets his information
from "the shows", so if there are intellectual
preparations which we should expect in a presidential
candidate he falls short, but those preparations usually
create some intellectual bias, which he doesn't seem to
have on any important matter. So maybe just "muddling
through" problems as they arise will work. One has to
hope so, because whatever ability to do that he has is
all he's got.
"cavalierly undermining decades worth of social and
political certainties"
Sorry, that is just silly. Only
political junkies and culture warriors even care about
stuff like this. In my life… in my experience of living
in the USA every day, none of this matters. It just
doesn't.
People don't live their lives thinking about any of
those things cited. What would it mean to you or me to
have "borders matter"? Ford just announced they were
moving some more production to Mexico. That decision
WILL affect the lives of those who lose their jobs. Does
anyone honestly think that anyone… even a President
Trump, would lift a finger to stop them? Of course not.
It is silly to assert otherwise.
Very good essay and commentary, but I caution against
the notion that you are looking at permanent change.
JonF's two 20th century ideas (Free Trade benefits
everyone and Supply Side economics) are not going away.
In fact, Larry Kudlow, the crassest exponent of both
those ideas is one of Trump's economic advisors.
BenOp
is fascinating, but most cultural conservative now
active in the game will not drop out. They may not like
the adrenalin rush politics gives them more than they
like Jesus–but they ain't going to give it up.
Great. He's got six ideas. Six ideas with either no
detailed policy or approach attached to them, policies
or approaches that seemingly change on a whim (evidence
that at best he hasn't given much thought to any of
them), or has no realistic political path for making
those ideas a reality.
"That is what the Trump campaign, ghastly though it may
at times be, leads us toward: A future where states
matter."
With that sentence, I think Mitchell stumbles
into a truth he might not have intended - The "state" -
as in "administrative state" - is going to continue
growing even under Trump.
Given the increasing intolerance of our society for
traditional values, that's all Christians need to know.
Clint writes:
"Hillary Clinton,
'L;aws have to be backed up with resources and political
will and deep-seated cultural codes, religious bel:efs
and structural biases have to be changed.
Uh Oh --
We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of
Deplorables."
"He's dangerous. Period. Dangerous and scary to anyone
familiar with lynchings, pogroms, and mob violence. To
anyone familiar with history. Trump has unleashed dark
forces that will not easily be quelled even if, and
probably especially if, he loses."
Given the amount
violence and disruption your side has caused this year
this accusation really should be laughable. Trump
supporters aren't out beating up Clinton supporters and
making sure they can't have a rally in the wrong
neighborhood. Members of the alt-right aren't
threatening student journalists with violence on their
own campuses, or getting on stage with speakers they
dislike and slapping them.
It's your own side that has been perpetuating the mob
violence while the liberal establishment denies it or
excuses it.
This post is spot-on; thank you for sharing the
preliminary BenOp talking points.
We need Thomas Paine's
Common Sense
for our
age, for these are times that try men's souls. Problem
is this: Paine's citizenry were 90% literate, unified by
culture, and cognitively engaged … today we're 70%
literate (at 4th grade reading level), multicultural,
and amused to death.
"... When Samuelson described the sorting process in her FBI interview , she said that her first step was to find all the emails to or from Clinton and the people she regularly worked with in the State Department, and put all of those emails in the "work-related" category. ..."
"... But from the Abedin emails released so far, about 200 are previously unreleased emails between her and Clinton . Anyone who looks at these can see that the vast majority, if not all, of them are work-related. ..."
"... The Abedin emails released so far are only a small percentage of all her emails that are going to be released on a monthly basis well into 2017 . It is likely that Clinton's supposed 31,000 "personal" emails contain thousands of work-related emails to and from Abedin alone. Consider that only about 15% of the 30,000 Clinton emails released so far were between her and Abedin. ..."
"... It is further worth noting that these emails were not handed over with the rest of Clinton's 30,000 work-related emails, despite clearly being work-related, but were somehow uncovered by the State Department inspector general 's office. Those very emails are good examples of the kind of material Clinton may have tried to keep secret by controlling the sorting process. ..."
"... How many more headlines like that would there be if all 31,000 deleted emails became public before the November 2016 presidential election? It's easy to imagine a political motive for Clinton wanting to keep some work-related emails secret. ..."
"... on or around December 2014 or January 2015 , Mills and Samuelson requested that [Platte River Networks (PRN) employee Paul Combetta] remove from their laptops all of the emails from the July and September 2014 exports. [Combetta] used a program called BleachBit to delete the email-related files so they could not be recovered." ..."
"... With the emails of Mills and Samuelson wiped clean, and the old version of the server wiped clean, that left just two known copies of the emails: one on the new server, and one on the back-up Datto SIRIS device connected to the new server. ..."
"... Mills was interviewed by the FBI in April 2016 . She claimed that in December 2014 , Clinton decided she no longer needed access to any of her emails older than 60 days . Note that this came not long after the State Department formally asked Clinton for all of her work-related emails, on October 28, 2014 . Mills told the FBI that she instructed Combetta to modify the email retention policy on Clinton's clintonemail.com email account to reflect this change. Emails older than 60 days would then be overwritten several times, wiping them just as effectively as BleachBit. ..."
"... So although the retention policy change sounds like a mere technicality, in fact, Clinton passed the message through Mills that she wanted all her emails from when she was secretary of state to be permanently wiped. ..."
"... Think about Clinton wanting to delete all her old "personal" emails. As a politician with a wide network of contributors and supporters, the information in them could be highly valuable for her. For instance, if a major donor contacted her, she probably would want to review their past correspondence before responding. She'd preserved these emails for nearly two years, but just when investigators started to demand to see them, she decided she didn't want ANY of them, and all traces of them should be permanently wiped. And yet we're supposed to believe the timing is just a coincidence? ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... According to what Combetta later told the FBI, at some point between these two calls, he had an "Oh shit!" moment and remembered that he'd forgotten to make the requested retention policy change back in December . So, even though he told the FBI that he was aware of the emails from Mills mentioning the Congressional request to preserve all of Clinton's emails, he took action. ..."
"... the Datto backups of the server were also manually deleted during this timeframe ." ..."
"... Already, Combetta's behavior is damning. He didn't just change the data retention policy, as Mills had asked him to do, causing them to be permanently deleted 60 days later. He immediately deleted all of Clinton's emails and then wiped them for good measure, and almost certainly deleted them from the Datto back-up device too. ..."
"... To make matters worse for Combetta, on March 20, 2015 , the House Benghazi Committee sent a letter to Clinton's lawyer Kendall , asking Clinton to turn her server over to a neutral third party so it could be examined to see if any work-related emails were still on it. This was reported in the New York Times ..."
"... However, despite all these clear signs that the emails should be preserved, not only did Combetta confess in an FBI interview that "at the time he made the deletions in March 2015 , he was aware of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clinton's email data on the [server]," he said that " he did not receive guidance from other PRN personnel, PRN's legal counsel or others regarding the meaning of the preservation request." So he confessed to obstruction of justice and other possible crimes, all to the apparent benefit of Clinton instead of himself! ..."
"... The FBI interviewed PRN's staff in September 2015. This almost certainly included Combetta and Bill Thornton, because they were the only two PRN employees actively managing Clinton's server. ..."
"... The fact that the FBI falsely claimed Combetta was only interviewed twice grows in importance given a recent New York Times ..."
"... Then, in May 2016 , he completely changed his story. He said that in fact he did make the deletions in late March 2015 after all, plus he'd wiped her emails with BleachBit, as described earlier. He also confessed to being aware of the Mills email with the preservation request. ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... For the FBI to give Combetta an immunity deal and then still not learn if he had been told to delete the emails by anyone working for Clinton due to a completely legally indefensible "attorney-client privilege" excuse is beyond belief. It would make sense, however, if the FBI was actually trying to protect Clinton from prosecution instead of trying to find evidence to prosecute her. ..."
"... In one Reddit post , he asked other server managers: "I may be facing a very interesting situation where I need to strip out a VIP's (VERY VIP) email address from a bunch of archived email that I have both in a live Exchange mailbox, as well as a .pst file. Basically, they don't want the VIP's email address exposed to anyone, and want to be able to either strip out or replace the email address in the to/from fields in all of the emails we want to send out. Does anyone have experience with something like this, and/or suggestions on how this might be accomplished?" ..."
"... Recall how Clinton allegedly claimed she didn't want to keep any of her deleted emails. It looks like that wasn't true after all. It sounds exactly as if Mills or someone else working for Clinton told him to make it look like all the "personal" emails were permanently deleted due to the 60 day policy change, while actually keeping copies of emails they still wanted. ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... First off, it's interesting that he said he did "a bunch" of "email filters and cleanup," because what has been reported by the FBI is that he only made a copy of all of Clinton's email and sent them off to be sorted in late July 2014 . That fits with his July 2014 Reddit post where he was trying to modify somebody's email address. ..."
"... For now, let us turn back to events in the fall of 2015 . In mid-August 2015 , Senator Ron Johnson (R) asked for and got a staff-level briefing from PRN about the management of Clinton's server, as part of Republican Congressional oversight of the FBI's investigation. It seems very likely that Combetta was a part of that briefing, or at least his knowledge heavily informed the briefing, because again only two PRN employees actively managed her server, and he was one of them. ..."
"... The dishonesty or ignorance of PRN in this time period can be clearly seen due to a September 12, 2015 Washington Post ..."
"... Datto expressed a willingness to cooperate. But because Datto had been subcontracted by PRN to help manage Clinton's server, they needed PRN's permission to share any information relating to that account. When PRN was first asked in early October 2015 , they gave permission. But about a week later, they changed their mind , forcing Datto to stay quiet. ..."
"... But more importantly, consider what was mentioned in an NBC News ..."
"... In an August 18, 2015 email, Combetta expressed concern that CESC, the Clinton family company, had directed PRN to reduce the length of time backups, and PRN wanted proof of this so they wouldn't be blamed. But he said in the email, "this was all phone comms [communications]." ..."
"... On September 2, 2016 , the FBI's final report of their Clinton email investigation was released (along with a summary of Clinton's FBI interview). This report revealed the late March 2015 deletions for the first time. Combetta's name was redacted, but his role, as well as his immunity deal, was revealed in the New York Times ..."
"... Chaffetz also wants an explanation from PRN how Combetta could refuse to talk to the FBI about the conference calls if the only lawyers involved in the call were Clinton's. ..."
"... PRN employees Combetta and Thornton were also given subpoenas on September 8 , ordering them to testify at a Congressional hearing on September 13, 2016 . Both of them showed up with their lawyers, but both of them pled the Fifth , leaving many questions unanswered. ..."
"... In a Senate speech on September 12, 2016 , Senator Charles Grassley (R) accused the FBI of manipulating which information about the Clinton email investigation becomes public . He said that although the FBI has taken the unusual step of releasing the FBI's final report, "its summary is misleading or inaccurate in some key details and leaves out other important facts altogether." He pointed in particular to Combetta's deletions, saying: "[T]here is key information related to that issue that is still being kept secret, even though it is unclassified. If I honor the FBI's 'instruction' not to disclose the unclassified information it provided to Congress, I cannot explain why." ..."
"... Regarding the FBI's failure to inform Congressional oversight committees of Combetta's immunity deal, Representative Trey Gowdy (R) recently commented, "If there is a reason to withhold the immunity agreement from Congress-and by extension, the people we represent-I cannot think of what it would be." ..."
"... The behavior of the FBI is even stranger. Comey was a registered Republican most of his life, and it is well known that most FBI agents are politically conservative. Be that as it may, if Comey made a decision beforehand based on some political calculation to avoid indicting Clinton no matter what the actual evidence was, that the FBI's peculiar behavior specifically relating to the Combetta deletions make much more sense. It would be an unprecedented and bold move to recommend indicting someone with Hillary Clinton's power right in the middle of her presidential election campaign. ..."
"... In this scenario, the FBI having Combetta take the fall for the deletions while making a secret immunity deal with him is a particularly clever move to prevent anyone from being indicted. Note that Combetta's confession about making the deletions came in his May 2016 FBI interview, which came after Mills' April 2016 interview in which she claimed she'd never heard of any deletions. Thus, the only way to have Combetta take the fall for the deletions without Mills getting caught clearly lying to the FBI is by dodging the issue of what was said in the March 31, 2015 conference with a nonsensical claim of "attorney-client privilege." ..."
"... I believe that criminal behavior needs to be properly investigated and prosecuted, regardless of political persuasion and regardless of the election calendar. Combetta clearly committed a crime and he even confessed to do so, given what he admitted in his last FBI interview. If he got a limited immunity deal instead of blanket immunity, which is highly likely, it still would be possible to indict and convict him based on evidence outside of his interviews. That would help explain why he recently pled the Fifth, because he's still in legal danger. ..."
"... But more importantly, who else is guilty with him? Logic and the available evidence strongly suggest that Clinton's lawyer Cheryl Mills at least knew about the deletions at the time they happened. Combetta has already confessed to criminal behavior-and yet somehow hasn't even been fired by PRN. If he didn't at least tell Mills and the others in the conference call about the deletions, there would be no logical reason to assert attorney-client privilege in the first place. Only the nonsensical assertion of this privilege is preventing the evidence coming out that should lead to Mills being charged with lying to the FBI at a minimum. And if Mills knew, can anyone seriously believe that Clinton didn't know too? ..."
Fast forward to the middle of 2014 . The
House Benghazi Committee was formed to investigate the US government's actions surrounding the 2012 terrorist
attack in Benghazi, Libya , and
soon a handful of emails were discovered relating to this attack involving Clinton's [email protected]
email address. At this point, nobody outside of Clinton's inner circle of associates knew she had exclusively used that private email
account for all her email communications while she was secretary of state, or that she'd hosted it on her own private email server.
It was decided that over 30,000 emails were work-related, and those were
turned over to the State Department on December 5, 2014 . These have all since been publicly released, though
with redactions. Another over 31,000 emails were
deemed personal , and Clinton kept those. They were later deleted in controversial circumstances that this essay explores in
detail.
It has become increasingly clear in recent months that this sorting process was highly flawed. Clinton has said any emails that
were borderline cases were given to the State Department, just to be on the safe side. But in fact,
the FBI later recovered about 17,500 of Clinton's "personal" emails . It is probable no government agency has yet gone through
all of these to officially determine which ones were work-related and which ones were not, but FBI Director
James Comey has said that "
thousands " were work-related.
We can get a glimpse of just how flawed the sorting process was because hundreds of emails from
Huma Abedin have been released in recent months, as
part of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit . Abedin was Clinton's deputy chief of staff and still is one of her closest
aides.
When
Samuelson described the sorting process in her FBI interview , she said that her first step was to find all the emails to or
from Clinton and the people she regularly worked with in the State Department, and put all of those emails in the "work-related"
category.
But from the Abedin emails released so far,
about 200 are previously unreleased emails between her and Clinton . Anyone who looks at these can see that the vast majority,
if not all, of them are work-related. Many involve Abedin's state.gov government address, not her clintonemail.com
private address, so how on Earth did Samuelson's sorting process miss those? It has even come to light recently that a small
number of emails mentioning "Benghazi" have been found in the 17,500 recovered by the FBI, but
Samuelson told the FBI she had specifically searched for all emails using that word.
A sample of an email between Clinton and Abedin using her state.gov address. (Credit: public domain)
The
Abedin emails released so far are only a small percentage of all her emails that are going to be released on a monthly basis
well into 2017 . It is likely that Clinton's supposed 31,000 "personal" emails contain thousands of work-related
emails to and from Abedin alone. Consider that only about 15% of the 30,000 Clinton emails released so far were between her and Abedin.
If the rest of her deleted emails follow the same pattern as the Abedin ones, it is highly likely that the majority, and maybe
even the vast majority, of Clinton's deleted "personal" emails in fact are work-related.
... ... ...
FBI Director Comey has said he trusts that Clinton had made a sincere sorting effort, but the sheer number of
work-related emails that keep getting discovered suggests otherwise. Furthermore, logic and other evidence also suggest otherwise.
For instance,
in home
video footage from a private fundraiser in 2000 , Clinton talked about how she had deliberately avoided using
email so she wouldn't leave a paper trail: "As much as I've been investigated and all of that, you know, why would I? I don't even
want Why would I ever want to do email? Can you imagine?"
Practical considerations forced her to start using email a few years later. But what if her exclusive use of a private email address
on her own private server was not done out of "
convenience " as she claims, but so she could retain control of them, only turning over emails to FOIA requests and later government
investigators that she wanted to?
Note also that in a November 2010 email exchange between Clinton and Abedin, Abedin suggested that Clinton might
want to use a State Department email account due because the department computer system kept flagging emails from her private email
account as spam. Clinton replied that she was open to some kind of change, but "
I don't want any risk of the personal being accessible ." It is further worth noting that these emails were not handed over
with the rest of Clinton's 30,000 work-related emails, despite clearly being work-related, but were somehow uncovered by the
State Department inspector
general 's office. Those very emails are good examples of the kind of material Clinton may have tried to keep secret by controlling
the sorting process.
This essay will explore this possibility more later. But if it is the case that she wanted to keep those 31,000 "personal" emails
out of the public eye, she had obstacles to overcome. In 2014 , PRN had managerial control of both Clinton's new
and old server. Thus,
in July 2014 and
again in September 2014 , PRN employee Combetta had to send copies of all the emails to the laptop of Clinton
lawyer Cheryl Mills, and another copy to the laptop of Clinton lawyer Heather Samuelson, to be used for the sorting process.
With the sorting done, if Clinton didn't want the public to ever see her deleted emails, you would expect all these copies of
those emails to be permanently deleted, and that's exactly what happened. According to a later FBI report, "
on or around December 2014 or January 2015 , Mills and Samuelson requested that [Platte
River Networks (PRN) employee Paul Combetta] remove from their laptops all of the emails from the July and September 2014 exports.
[Combetta] used a program called BleachBit to delete the email-related files so they could not be recovered."
The FBI report explained, "BleachBit is open source software that allows users to 'shred' files, clear Internet history, delete
system and temporary files, and wipe free space on a hard drive. Free space is the area of the hard drive that can contain data that
has been deleted. BleachBit's 'shred files' function claims to securely erase files by overwriting data to make the data unrecoverable."
BleachBit advertises that it can "shred" files so they can never be recovered again.
With the emails of Mills and Samuelson wiped clean, and the old version of the server wiped clean, that left just two known
copies of the emails: one on the new server, and one on the back-up Datto SIRIS device connected to the new server.
Mills was interviewed by the FBI in April 2016 . She claimed that in December 2014 ,
Clinton decided she no longer needed access to any of her emails older than 60 days . Note that this came not long after the
State Department formally asked Clinton for all of her work-related emails,
on October 28, 2014 . Mills told the FBI that she instructed Combetta to modify the email retention policy on
Clinton's clintonemail.com email account to reflect this change. Emails older than 60 days would then be overwritten several times,
wiping them just as effectively as BleachBit.
Clinton essentially said the same thing as Mills
when she was interviewed by the FBI . Clinton also was interviewed by the FBI. According to the FBI summary of the interview,
she claimed that after her staff sent the 30,000 work-related emails to the State Department on December 5, 2014
, "she was asked what she wanted to do with her remaining [31,000] personal emails.
Clinton instructed her staff she no longer needed the emails."
So although the retention policy change sounds like a mere technicality, in fact, Clinton passed the message through Mills
that she wanted all her emails from when she was secretary of state to be permanently wiped.
Think about Clinton wanting to delete all her old "personal" emails. As a politician with a wide network of contributors and
supporters, the information in them could be highly valuable for her. For instance, if a major donor contacted her, she probably
would want to review their past correspondence before responding. She'd preserved these emails for nearly two years, but just when
investigators started to demand to see them, she decided she didn't want ANY of them, and all traces of them should be permanently
wiped. And yet we're supposed to believe the timing is just a coincidence?
But there was a problem with deleting them. Combetta later claimed that he simply forgot to make this change.
Then, on March 2, 2015 ,
the headline on the front page of the New York Times was a story revealing that while Clinton was secretary of state,
she had exclusively used a private email address hosted on her private server, thus keeping all of her email communications secret.
This became THE big story of the month, and the start of a high-profile controversy that continues until today.
Then, a day after that, on March 4, 2015 ,
the committee issued two subpoenas to her . One subpoena ordered her to turn over all emails relating to the Benghazi attack.
The committee had already
received about 300 such emails from the State Department in February 2015 , but after the Times story,
the committee worried that the department might not have some of her relevant emails. (That would later prove to be the case, given
the small number of Benghazi emails eventually recovered by the FBI.) The second subpoena ordered her to turn over documents it requested
in November 2014 but still has not received from the State Department, relating to communications between Clinton
and ten senior department officials.
Cheryl Mills (Credit: Twitter)
If Clinton had already deleted her emails to keep them from future investigators, these requests shouldn't have been a problem.
On March 9, 2015 ,
Mills sent an email to PRN employees , including Combetta, to make sure they were aware of the committee's request that all of
Clinton's emails be preserved. One can see this as a CYA ("cover your ass") move, since Mills would have believed all copies of Clinton's
"personal" emails had been permanently deleted and wiped by this time. The Times story and the requests for copies of Clinton's
emails that followed had seemingly come too late.
But that wasn't actually the case, since Combetta had forgotten to make the deletions!
Combetta deletes everything that is left
Sitting behind Combetta is co-founder of Platte River Brent Allshouse (left) and PRN attorney, Ken Eichner. (Credit: CSpan)
According to a later Combetta FBI interview, he claimed that on March 25, 2015,
there was a conference call between PRN employees , including himself, and some members of Bill Clinton's staff. (Hillary Clinton's
private server hosted the emails of Bill Clinton's staff too, and one unnamed staffer hired PRN back in 2013 .)
There was another conference call between PRN and Clinton staffers on March 31, 2015 , with at least Combetta,
Mills, and Clinton lawyer David Kendall taking part in that later call.
According to what Combetta later told the FBI, at some point between these two calls, he had an "Oh shit!" moment and remembered
that he'd forgotten to make the requested retention policy change back in December . So, even though he told the
FBI that he was aware of the emails from Mills mentioning the Congressional request to preserve all of Clinton's emails, he took
action. Instead of simply making the retention policy change, which would have preserved the emails for another two months,
he immediately deleted all of Clinton's emails from her server. Then he used BleachBit to permanently wipe them.
The Datto SIRIS S2000 was used for back-up services. (Credit: Datto, Inc.)
However, recall that there was a Datto SIRIS back-up device connected to the server and periodically making copies of all the
data on the server. Apparently, Combetta didn't mention this to the FBI, but the FBI found "evidence of these [server] deletions
and determined the Datto backups of the server were
also manually deleted during this timeframe ." The Datto device sent a records log back to the Datto company whenever any
changes were made, and according to a letter from Datto to the FBI that later became public, the deletions on the device were made
around noon on March 31, 2015 , the same date as the second conference call. (Although the server and Datto device
were in New Jersey and Combetta was working remotely from Rhode Island, he could make changes remotely, as he or other PRN employees
did on other occasions.)
A recent Congressional committee letter mentioned that the other deletions were also made on or around March 31, 2015
. So it's probable they were all done at the same time by the same person: Combetta.
Already, Combetta's behavior is damning. He didn't just change the data retention policy, as Mills had asked him to do, causing
them to be permanently deleted 60 days later. He immediately deleted all of Clinton's emails and then wiped them for good measure,
and almost certainly deleted them from the Datto back-up device too.
To make matters worse for Combetta, on March 20, 2015 ,
the House Benghazi Committee sent a letter to Clinton's lawyer Kendall , asking Clinton to turn her server over to a neutral
third party so it could be examined to see if any work-related emails were still on it. This was reported in the New York Times
and other media outlets.
Then, on March 27, 2015 ,
Kendall replied to the committee in a letter that also was reported on by the Times and others that same day. Kendall
wrote, "There is no basis to support the proposed third-party review of the server To avoid prolonging a discussion that would be
academic, I have confirmed with the secretary's IT [information technology] support that no emails for the time period January
21, 2009 through February 1, 2013 reside on the server or on any back-up systems associated with the server."
David Kendall (Credit: Above the Law)
When Kendall mentioned Clinton's IT support, that had to have been a reference to PRN. So what actually happened? Did Kendall
or someone else working for Clinton ask Combetta and/or other PRN employees if there were any emails still on the server in the
March 25, 2015 conference call, just two days before he sent his letter? Did Combetta lie in that
call and say they were already deleted and then rush to delete them afterwards to cover up his mistake? Or did someone working for
Clinton tell or hint that he should delete them now if they hadn't been deleted already? We don't know, because the FBI has revealed
nothing about what was said in that conference call or the one that took place a week later.
However, despite all these clear signs that the emails should be preserved, not only did Combetta confess in an FBI interview
that "at the time he made the deletions in March 2015 , he was aware of the existence of the preservation request
and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clinton's email data on the [server]," he said that "
he did not receive guidance from other PRN personnel, PRN's legal counsel or others regarding the meaning of the preservation
request." So he confessed to obstruction of justice and other possible crimes, all to the apparent benefit of Clinton instead of
himself!
Investigations and cover-ups
This is perplexing enough already, but it gets stranger still, if we continue to follow the behavior of Combetta and PRN as a
whole.
An inside look at the Equinix facility in Secaucus, NJ. (Credit: Chang W. Lee / New York Time)
By August 2015 , the FBI's Clinton investigation was in full swing, and they began interviewing witnesses and
confiscating equipment for analysis. Because the FBI never empanelled a grand jury, it didn't have subpoena power, so it had to ask
Clinton for permission to seize her server.
She gave that permission on August 11, 2015 , and the server was
picked up from the data center in New Jersey the next day . But remember that there actually were two servers
there, an old one and a new one. All the data had been wiped from the old one and moved to the new one, so the new one was the more
important one to analyze. But the FBI only picked up the old one.
According to the FBI's final report, "At the time of the FBI's acquisition of the [server], Williams & Connolly [the law firm
of Clinton's personal lawyer David Kendall] did not advise the US government of the existence of the additional equipment associated
with the [old server], or that Clinton's clintonemail.com emails had been migrated to the successor [server] remaining at [the] Equinix
[data center]. The FBI's subsequent investigation identified this additional equipment and revealed the email migration." As a result,
the
FBI finally picked up the new server on October 3, 2015 .
A snippet from the invoice published by Complete Colorado on October 19, 2015. (Credit: Todd Shepherd / Complete Colorado) (Used
with express permission from CompleteColorado.com. Do not duplicate or republish.)
It's particularly important to know if Combetta was interviewed at this time. The FBI's final report clearly stated that
he was interviewed twice, in February 2016 and May 2016 , and repeatedly referred to what was
said in his "first interview" and "second interview." However, we luckily know that he was interviewed in September 2015
as well, because of a PRN invoice billed to Clinton Executive Service Corp. (CESC), a Clinton family company, that was made
public later in 2015 . The invoice made clear that Combetta, who was working remotely from Rhode Island, flew to
Colorado on September 14, 2015, and then "federal interviews" took place on September 15 . Combetta's
rental car, hotel, and return airfare costs were itemized as well. As this essay later makes clear, PRN was refusing to cooperate
with anyone else in the US government but the FBI by this time, so "federal interviews" can only mean the FBI.
One other person in the investigation, Bryan Pagliano, was given immunity as well. But his immunity deal was leaked to the media
and
had been widely reported on since March 2016 . By contrast, Combetta's immunity wasn't even mentioned in the
FBI's final report, and members of Congress were upset to first read about it in the Times , because they had never been
told about it either.
The mystery of this situation deepens when one looks at the FBI report regarding what Combetta said in his February 2016
and May 2016 interviews.
In February 2016 , he claimed that he remembered in late March 2015 that he forgot to make
the change to the email retention policy on Clinton's server, but that was it. He claimed he never did make any deletions. He also
claimed that he was unaware of the March 9, 2015 email from Mills warning of the Congressional request to preserve
all of Clinton's emails.
Paul Combetta (Credit: public domain)
Then, in May 2016 , he completely changed his story. He said that in fact he did make the deletions in
late March 2015 after all, plus he'd wiped her emails with BleachBit, as described earlier. He also confessed to
being aware of the Mills email with the preservation request.
It still hasn't been reported when Combetta's immunity deal was made. However, it seems probable that this took place between
his February 2016 and May 2016 interviews, causing the drastic change in his account. Yet, it looks
that he still hasn't been fully honest or forthcoming. Note that he didn't confess to the deletion of data on the Datto back-up device,
even though it took place at the same time as the other deletions. The FBI learned that on their own by analyzing the device.
Attorney-client privilege?!
More crucially, we know that Combetta has not revealed what took place in the second conference call between PRN and Clinton employees.
Here is all the FBI's final report has to say about that: "Investigation identified a PRN work ticket, which referenced a conference
call among PRN, Kendall, and Mills on March 31, 2015. PRN's attorney advised [Combetta] not to comment on the conversation with Kendall,
based upon the assertion of the attorney-client privilege ."
Sitting behind Paul Combetta at the House Oversight Committee hearing on September 13, 2016, is Platte River Networks attorney
Ken Eichner. (Credit: CSpan)
This is extremely bizarre. What "attorney-client privilege"?! That would only apply for communications between Combetta and his
lawyer or lawyers. It's clear that Combetta's lawyer isn't Mills or Kendall. The New York Times article about the immunity
deal made a passing reference to his lawyer, and, when Combetta showed up for a Congressional hearing on September 12
, he was accompanied by a lawyer who photographs from the hearing make clear is Ken Eichner, who has been the legal counsel
for PRN as a whole regarding Clinton's server.
Even if Combetta's lawyer Eichner was participating in the call, there is no way that should protect Combetta from having to tell
what he said to Clinton employees like Mills or Kendall. If that's how the law works, criminals could simply always travel with a
lawyer and then claim anything they do or say with the lawyer present is inadmissible as evidence due to attorney-client privilege.
It's absurd.
For the FBI to give Combetta an immunity deal and then still not learn if he had been told to delete the emails by anyone
working for Clinton due to a completely legally indefensible "attorney-client privilege" excuse is beyond belief. It would make sense,
however, if the FBI was actually trying to protect Clinton from prosecution instead of trying to find evidence to prosecute her.
Combetta's Reddit posts
A photo comparison of Combetta at the House Oversight Committee hearing (left) and a captured shot of Combetta as stonetear (right).
(Credit: CSpan and public domain)
Furthermore, how much can Combetta be trusted, even in an FBI interview? It has recently come to light that he made Reddit posts
under the username "stonetear." There can be no doubt this was him, because the details match perfectly, including him signing a
post "Paul," having another social media account for a Paul Combetta with the username "stonetear," having a combetta.com website
mentioning his "stonetear" alias, and even posting a photo of "stonetear" that matches other known photos of Combetta.
In one Reddit post , he asked other server managers: "I may be facing a very interesting situation where I need to strip
out a VIP's (VERY VIP) email address from a bunch of archived email that I have both in a live Exchange mailbox, as well as a .pst
file. Basically, they don't want the VIP's email address exposed to anyone, and want to be able to either strip out or replace the
email address in the to/from fields in all of the emails we want to send out. Does anyone have experience with something like this,
and/or suggestions on how this might be accomplished?"
The date of the post- July 24, 2014 -is very significant, because that was just one day after
Combetta sent CESE (the Clinton family company) DVDs containing some of Clinton's emails , so Clinton's lawyers could start the
sorting process. Also on July 23, 2014 , an unnamed PRN employee sent Samuelson and Mills the same emails electronically
directly to their laptops.
A response captured in the Reddit chat warning stonetear aka Combetta that what he wants to do could result in major legal issues.
(Credit: Reddit)
Popular software made by companies like Microsoft have tried to make it impossible for people to change email records, so people
facing legal trouble can't tamper with emails after they've been sent. Thus, when Combetta posed his problem at Reddit, other Reddit
users told him that what he wanted to do "could result in major legal issues." But that didn't deter him, and he kept asking for
various ways to get it accomplished anyway.
It isn't clear why Clinton would have wanted her email address removed from all her emails, since her exact address had already
been exposed in the media back in March 2013 by the hacker known as Guccifer. One Gawker reporter even used it to
email Clinton on March 20, 2013 : "[W] ere your emails to and from the [email protected] account archived according
to the provisions of the President Records Act and Freedom of Information Act?" (Clinton never replied, maybe because it's clear
in hindsight that an honest answer would have been "no.") But the fact that Combetta was willing to at least try to do this raises
questions, especially his seeming willingness to do something illegal for his "VIP" customer Hillary Clinton.
Combetta made another important Reddit post a few months later:
"Hello- I have a client who wants to push out a 60 day email retention policy for certain users. However, they also want these
users to have a 'Save Folder' in their Exchange folder list where the users can drop items that they want to hang onto longer than
the 60 day window. All email in any other folder in the mailbox should purge anything older than 60 days (should not apply to calendar
or contact items of course). How would I go about this? Some combination of retention and managed folder policy?"
Another question was captured of 'stonetear' aka Combetta asking Reddit users for technical help. (Credit: Reddit)
A captured shot of Combetta's 'stonetear' Gmail account with picture included. (Credit: public domain)
Recall how Clinton allegedly claimed she didn't want to keep any of her deleted emails. It looks like that wasn't true after
all. It sounds exactly as if Mills or someone else working for Clinton told him to make it look like all the "personal" emails were
permanently deleted due to the 60 day policy change, while actually keeping copies of emails they still wanted.
Looking at Combetta's two Reddit posts detailed above, there are only two possibilities. One is that Combetta failed to disclose
crucial information to the FBI, despite his immunity deal. The second is that he did, but the FBI didn't mention it in its final
report. Either way, it's already clear that the FBI has failed to present the full story of Combetta's actions to the public. And
how much of what Combetta has said can be trusted, even in his most recent and supposedly most forthcoming FBI interview?
David DeCamillis (Credit: Twitter)
Remarkably, there is a hint that Combetta was being dishonest even before his late March 2015 deletions. On
March 3, 2015 , one day after the front-page New York Times story revealing Clinton's use of a private
server, PRN's vice president of sales David DeCamillis sent an email to some or all of the other PRN employees. The email has only
been paraphrased in news reports so far, but he was already
wondering what Clinton emails the company might be asked to turn over .
Combetta replied to the email , "I've done quite a bit already in the last few months related to this. Her [Clinton's] team had
me do a bunch of exports and email filters and cleanup to provide a .pst [personal storage file] of all of HRC's [Hillary Rodham
Clinton's] emails to/from any .gov addresses. I billed probably close to 10 hours in on-call tickets with CESC related to it :)."
First off, it's interesting that he said he did "a bunch" of "email filters and cleanup," because what has been reported by
the FBI is that he only made a copy of all of Clinton's email and sent them off to be sorted in late July 2014 .
That fits with his July 2014 Reddit post where he was trying to modify somebody's email address.
But also, assuming that there aren't important parts to his email that haven't been mentioned by the media, consider what he didn't
say. The topic was possibly turning over Clinton's emails, and yet by this time Combetta had already deleted and wiped all of Clinton's
emails from the laptops of two Clinton lawyers and been asked to change the email retention policy on Clinton's server so that all
her emails would be permanently deleted there too, and yet he didn't bother to mention this to anyone else at PRN. Why?
We can only speculate based on the limited amount of information made public so far. But it seems as if Combetta was covering
up for Clinton and/or the people working for her even BEFORE he made his late March 2015 deletions!
Who knows about the deletions, and how?
Senator Ron Johnson (Credit: John Shinkle / Politico)
For now, let us turn back to events in the fall of 2015 . In mid-August 2015 ,
Senator Ron Johnson (R) asked for and got a staff-level briefing from PRN about the management of Clinton's server, as part of
Republican Congressional oversight of the FBI's investigation. It seems very likely that Combetta was a part of that briefing, or
at least his knowledge heavily informed the briefing, because again only two PRN employees actively managed her server, and he was
one of them.
Regardless of whether he was there or not, it is clear that PRN was not honest in the briefing. Almost nothing is publicly known
about the briefing except that it took place. However, from questions Johnson asked PRN in later letters, one can see that he knew
nothing about the March 2015 deletions by Combetta. In fact, just like the FBI, there is no indication he knew anything
about the transfer of the data from the old server to the new in that time period, which would be a basic fact in any such briefing.
Andy Boian (Credit: public domain)
The dishonesty or ignorance of PRN in this time period can be clearly seen due to a September 12, 2015 Washington Post article. In it, PRN spokesperson Andy Boian said, "
Platte River has no knowledge of the server being wiped ." He added, "All the information we have is that the server wasn't wiped."
We now know that not only was this untrue, but a PRN employee did the wiping!
This leads to two possibilities. One is that Combetta lied to his PRN bosses, so in September 2015 nobody else
in PRN knew about the deletions he'd made. The other is that additional people at PRN knew, but they joined in a cover-up.
At this point, it's impossible to know which of these is true, but one of them must be. PRN employees created work tickets and
other documentary evidence of the work they made, so one would think the company leadership would have quickly learned about the
deletions if they did any examination of their managerial actions to prepare for investigative briefings and interviews.
But either way, PRN as a whole began acting as if there was something to hide. Although the company agreed to the briefing of
Congressional staffers in mid-August 2015 , when
Senator Johnson wanted to follow this up with interviews of individual PRN employees in early September, PRN said no . When Congressional
committees began asking PRN for documents, they also said no, and kept saying no. Recently, as we shall see later, they've even defied
a Congressional subpoena for documents.
Austin McChord, founder and CEO of Datto, Inc. (Credit: Erik Traufmann / Hearst Connecticut Media)
At the same time Congressional committees began asking PRN for documents and interviews, they made those requests to Datto as
well.
Datto expressed a willingness to cooperate. But because Datto had been subcontracted by PRN to help manage Clinton's server,
they needed PRN's permission to share any information relating to that account. When PRN was first asked in early October
2015 , they gave permission.
But about a week later, they changed their mind , forcing Datto to stay quiet.
To make matters worse, in early November 2015 , PRN spokesperson Andy Boian gave a completely bogus public excuse
about this, saying that PRN and Datto had mutually agreed it was more convenient for investigators to deal with just one company.
Datto immediately complained in a letter sent to PRN and Senator Johnson that no such discussion or agreement between PRN and
Datto had ever taken place.
What is PRN hiding?
The Datto cloud mystery
There is another strange twist to Datto's involvement. Back in June 2013 when Datto was first subcontracted to
help with backing up the server data,
the Clinton family company CESC made explicit that they didn't want any of the data to be stored remotely . But due to some snafu
or miscommunication, it turns out that in addition to local back-ups being stored on the Datto device connected to the server, Datto
had been making periodic copies of the server data the whole time in the "cloud!" That means back-up copies of the data were being
transferred over the Internet and stored remotely, probably on other servers controlled by Datto.
Co-founders of PRN are Brent Allshouse (left) and Treve Suazo (right) (Credit: PRN)
PRN only
discovered this in early August 2015 , around the time the roles of PRN and Datto had with the server began
to be made public. PRN contacted Datto, told them to stop doing this, put all the data on a thumb drive, send it to them, and then
permanently wipe their remote copies of the server data.
It is unclear what happened after that. The FBI's final report
mentions a Datto back-up made on June 29, 2013 , just after all the data had been moved from the old server
to the new sever with the back-up, had been useful to investigators and allowed them to find some Clinton emails dating all the way
back to the first two months of her secretary of state tenure. However, it isn't clear if this is due to the local Datto SIRIS device
or the accidental Datto cloud back-up. Congressional committee letters show that they don't know either and have been trying to find
out.
Adding to the mystery, one would think that if Datto was making periodic back-ups either or both ways, the FBI would have been
able to recover all of Clinton's over 31,000 deleted emails and not just 17,000 of them. Consider that when PRN employees sent Clinton's
lawyers all of Clinton's emails to be sorted in July and September 2014 , they simply copied what
was on the server at the time, which presumably was the same amount of emails from years earlier than had been there in June
2013 , and thus backed up by Datto many times.
It's likely there are more twists to the cloud back-up story that have yet to be revealed.
What did Clinton and her aides know about the deletions?
Meanwhile, let's consider what Clinton and her aides may have known and when they knew it. When
Mills was interviewed by the FBI in April 2016 , according to the FBI, "Mills stated she was unaware that [Combetta]
had conducted these deletions and modifications in March 2015 ." Then,
when Clinton was interviewed by the FBI in July 2016 , "Clinton stated she was unaware of the March 2015 email
deletions by PRN."
This is pretty hard to believe. Mills was and still is one of Clinton's lawyers, and even attended Clinton's FBI interview. So
why wouldn't she have mentioned the deletions to Clinton between April and July 2016 , after she learned about them
from the FBI's questions to her? One would think Clinton would have been extremely curious to know anything about the FBI's possible
recovery of her deleted emails.
Clinton making a joking wipe gesture while speaking at a town hall on August 18, 2015, in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Credit: John Locher
/ The Associated Press)
But more importantly, consider what was mentioned in an NBC News report on August 19, 2015 . Clinton's
campaign acknowledged "that
there was an attempt to wipe [Clinton's] server before it was turned over last week to the FBI. But two sources with direct knowledge
of the investigation told NBC News that the [FBI] may be able to recover at least some data."
Is it plausible that people within Clinton's campaign knew this, and yet neither Mills nor Clinton did? How could that be? Note
that just one day before the NBC News report, Clinton had been directly asked if her server had been wiped.
She dodged the question by making the joke , " What-like with a cloth, or something?" Then she said she didn't "know how it works
digitally at all." Despite the controversy at the time about the cloth joke, her spokesperson claimed one month later, "I don't know
what 'wiped' means."
It's highly likely the issue had to have been discussed with Clinton at the time, but there was a conscious effort not to have
her admit to knowing anything, due to the on-going FBI investigation.
But more crucially, how could anyone at all working for Clinton know about the deletions as far back as August 2015
? Recall that this was within days of PRN giving a briefing to Congressional staffers and not telling them, and several
weeks prior to a PRN public comment that there was no evidence the server had been wiped.
Moreover, we have no evidence that the FBI knew about the deletions yet. Datto conducted an analysis of its device that had been
attached to Clinton's new server, and in an October 23, 2015 email,
told the FBI for the first time that deletions had taken place on that device on March 31, 2015 . Keep in mind
that even in his February 2016 FBI interview, Combetta claimed that no deletions had taken place in that time frame.
Does it make sense that he would have said that if he had reason to believe that PRN had been talking to Clinton's staff about it
in the months before? (None of the interviews in the FBI"s investigations were done under oath, but lying to the FBI is a felony
with a maximum five-year prison sentence.)
A sample of the email sent to the FBI by Datto attorney, Steven Cash on October 23, 2015. (Credit: House Science Committee)
So, again, how could Clinton's campaign know about the wiping in August 2015 ? The logical answer is that it
had been discussed in the conference call on March 31, 2015 , that took place within hours of the deletions.
Paul Combetta (Credit: public domain)
Perhaps Mills, Kendall, or someone else working for Clinton told Combetta to make the deletions, possibly during the first conference
call on March 25, 2015 . If that is the case, there should be obstruction of justice charges brought against anyone
involved. Or maybe Combetta did that on his own to cover his earlier mistake and then mentioned what he'd done in the second conference
call. If either scenario is true, Mills should be charged with lying to the FBI for claiming in her FBI interview that she knew nothing
about any of this. Clinton might be charged for the same if it could be proved what she knew and when.
Just as the email retention policy on the Clinton server was changed on the orders of people working for Clinton, so was the retention
policy on the Datto device connected to the server, in the same time period.
In an August 18, 2015 email, Combetta expressed concern that CESC, the Clinton family company, had directed
PRN to reduce the length of time backups, and PRN wanted proof of this so they wouldn't be blamed. But he said in the email, "this
was all phone comms [communications]."
Paul Combetta (left) Bill Thornton (right) (Credit: The Associated Press)
The next day , there was another email,
this one written by Thornton to Combetta and possibly others in PRN . The email has the subject heading "CESC Datto." Thornton
wrote: "Any chance you found an old email with their directive to cut the backup back in Oct-Feb. I know they had you cut it once
in Oct-Nov, then again to 30 days in Feb-ish." (Presumably this refers to October 2014 through February
2015 .)
Thornton continued: "If we had that email, then we're golden. [ ] Wondering how we can sneak an email in now after the fact asking
them when they told us to cut the backups and have them confirm it for our records. Starting to think this whole thing really is
covering up some shady shit. I just think if we have it in writing that they [CESC] told us to cut the backups, and we can go public
with our statement saying we have had backups since day one, then we were told to trim to 30 days, it would make us look a WHOLE
LOT better."
Combetta replied: "I'll look again, but I'm almost positive we don't have anything about the 60 day cut. [ ] It's up to lawyer
crap now, so just sit back and enjoy the silly headlines."
As an aside, it's curious that Combetta made some unsolicited additional comments in that same email that was supportive of Clinton's
position in the email controversy: "It wasn't the law to be required to use government email servers at the State Department, believe
it or not. Colin Powell used an AOL address for communicating with his staff, believe it or not."
If we take this email exchange at face value, then it appears that Clinton employees requested an email retention policy change
that would result in more deletion of data on the Datto back-up device in the October to November 2014 time range.
Keep in mind that the
State Department formally asked Clinton for all of her work-related emails , on October 28, 2014 , after informally
asking starting in July 2014 . Then, around February 2015 , Clinton employees asked for another
change that would have resulted in more deletions. Plus, they did this on the phone, leaving no paper trail. Is it any wonder that
Thornton wrote, "Starting to think this whole thing really is covering up some shady shit?"
News about PRN went quiet for the first half of 2016 . Congressional committees kept asking PRN and Datto for
more information (including another request for interviews in January 2016 ), and PRN kept saying no as well as
not giving Datto permission to respond.
James Comey (Credit: Fox News)
Then, on July 5, 2016 , FBI Director James Comey gave a surprise public speech in which
he announced he wouldn't recommend any criminal charges against Clinton or anyone else in the investigation. In the course of
his speech, he said it was "likely" that some emails may have disappeared forever because Clinton's lawyers "deleted all emails they
did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery." But he said
that after interviews and technical examination, "we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence
there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort."
Two days later, on July 7, 2016 , Comey had to explain his decision in front of a Congressional committee. During
that hearing, he was asked by Representative Trey Gowdy (R), "Secretary Clinton said neither she nor anyone else deleted work-related
emails from her personal account. Was that true?"
Comey replied: "That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work-related emails in-on devices or in slack space. Whether
they were deleted or whether when the server was changed out, something happened to them. There's no doubt that the work-related
emails were removed electronically from the email system."
Consider that response. By the time Comey made those comments, the FBI's final report had already been finished, the report that
detailed Combetta's confession of deliberately deleting and then wiping all of Clinton's emails from her server. Comey was explicitly
asked if "anyone" had made such deletions, and yet he said he wasn't sure. Comey should be investigated for lying to Congress! Had
he revealed even the rough outlines of Combetta's late March 2015 deletions in his July 5, 2016
public speech or his Congressional testimony two days later , it would have significantly changed the public perception
of the results of the FBI investigation. That also would have allowed Congressional committees to start focusing on this
two months earlier than they did, enabling them to uncover more in the limited time before the November
presidential election.
The SECNAP Logo (Credit: SECNAP)
Despite the fact that the Combetta deletions were still unknown, Congressional committees began putting increasing pressure on
PRN anyway.
On July 12, 2016 , two committees jointly wrote a letter to PRN , threatening subpoenas if they still refused
to cooperate. The letter listed seven PRN employees they wanted to interview, including Combetta and Thornton. Similar letters went
out to Datto and SECNAP. (SECNAP was subcontracted by PRN to carry out threat monitoring of the network connected to Clinton's server.)
On August 22, 2016 , after all three companies still refused to cooperate, Representative Lamar Smith (R), chair
of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology,
issued subpoenas for PRN, Datto, and SECNAP .
On September 2, 2016 ,
the FBI's final report of their Clinton email investigation was released (along with a summary of Clinton's FBI interview). This
report revealed the late March 2015 deletions for the first time. Combetta's name was redacted, but his role, as
well as his immunity deal, was revealed in the New York Times article published a few days later.
Congressional investigators fight back
Channing Phillips (Credit: public domain)
Since the report has been released, Congressional Republicans have stepped up their efforts to get answers about the Combetta
mystery, using the powers of the committees they control. On September 6, 2016 , Representative Jason Chaffetz (R),
chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee,
wrote a letter to Channing Phillips , the US attorney for the District of Columbia. He asked the Justice Department to "investigate
and determine whether Secretary Clinton or her employees and contractors violated statutes that prohibit destruction of records,
obstruction of congressional inquiries, and concealment or cover up of evidence material to a congressional investigation." Clearly,
this relates to the Combetta deletions.
Representative Jason Chaffetz. (Credit: Cliff Owen / The Associated Press)
On the same day ,
Chaffetz sent a letter to PRN warning that Combetta could face federal charges for deleting and wiping Clinton's emails in
late March 2015 , due to the Congressional request to preserve them earlier in the month that he admitted he was
aware of. Chaffetz also wants an explanation from PRN how Combetta could refuse to talk to the FBI about the conference calls
if the only lawyers involved in the call were Clinton's.
Chaffetz serves the FBI a subpoena during a House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee hearing on September 9, 2016. (Credit:
ABC News)
On September 9 ,
Chaffetz served the FBI a subpoena for all the unredacted interviews from the FBI's Clinton investigation, especially those of
Combetta and the other PRN employees. This came after an FBI official testifying at a hearing remarkably suggested that Chaffetz
should file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to get the documents, just like any private citizen can.
On September 8, 2016 ,
Congressional committees served the subpoenas they'd threatened in August. PRN, Datto, and SECNAP were given until the end of
September 12 to finally turn over the documents the committees had been requesting for year. Datto complied and
turned over the documents in time. However, PRN and SECNAP did not.
Representative Lamar Smith (Credit: public domain)
The next day, September 13 , Representative Lamar Smith (R) said , "just this morning SECNAP's [legal] counsel
confirmed to my staff that the Clinton's private LLC [Clinton Executive Service Corp.] is actively engaged in directing their obstructionist
responses to Congressional subpoenas."
PRN employees Combetta and Thornton were also given subpoenas on September 8 , ordering them to testify at
a Congressional hearing on September 13, 2016 . Both of them showed up with their lawyers, but
both of them pled the Fifth , leaving many questions unanswered.
An FBI cover-up?
In a Senate speech on September 12, 2016 , Senator Charles Grassley (R)
accused the FBI of manipulating which information about the Clinton email investigation becomes public . He said that although
the FBI has taken the unusual step of releasing the FBI's final report, "its summary is misleading or inaccurate in some key details
and leaves out other important facts altogether." He pointed in particular to Combetta's deletions, saying: "[T]here is key information
related to that issue that is still being kept secret, even though it is unclassified. If I honor the FBI's 'instruction' not to
disclose the unclassified information it provided to Congress, I cannot explain why."
Senator Charles Grassley takes to the Senate floor on September 12, 2016. (Credit: CSpan)
He also said there are dozens of completely unclassified witness reports, but even some of his Congressional staffers can't see
them "because the FBI improperly bundled [them] with a small amount of classified information, and told the Senate to treat it all
as if it were classified." The normal procedure is for documents to have the classified portions marked. Then the unclassified portions
can be released. But in defiance of regulations and a clear executive order on how such material should be handled, "the FBI has
'instructed' the Senate office that handles classified information not to separate the unclassified information." As a result, Grassley
claims: "Inaccuracies are spreading because of the FBI's selective release. For example, the FBI's recently released summary memo
may be contradicted by other unclassified interview summaries that are being kept locked away from the public."
He said he has been fighting the FBI on this, but without success so far, as the FBI isn't even replying to his letters.
Thus, it seems that Comey failing to mention anything about the Combetta deletions in the July 7, 2016 Congressional
hearing, even when directly asked about it, was no accident. Having the FBI report claim that Combetta was only interviewed twice
when there is clear evidence of three interviews also fits a pattern of concealment related to the deletions.
James Comey testifies to the House Benghazi Committee on July 7, 2016. (Credit: Jack Gruber / USA Today)
Regarding the FBI's failure to inform Congressional oversight committees of Combetta's immunity deal, Representative Trey
Gowdy (R) recently commented, "If there is a reason to withhold the immunity agreement from Congress-and by extension, the people
we represent-I cannot think of what it would be."
Gowdy, who is a former federal prosecutor, also
said on September 9 that there are two types of immunity Combetta could have received : use and transactional.
"If the FBI and the Department of Justice gave this witness transactional immunity, it is tantamount to giving the triggerman immunity
in a robbery case." He added that he is "stunned" because "It looks like they gave immunity to the very person you would most want
to prosecute."
This is as much as we know so far, but surely the story won't stop there. PRN has been served a new subpoena. It is likely the
requested documents will be seized from them soon if they continue to resist.
Taking the fall and running out the clock
But why does PRN resist so much? Computer companies often resist sharing information with the government so their reputation with
their clients won't be harmed. But defying a subpoena when there clearly are legitimate questions to be answered goes way beyond
what companies normally do and threatens PRN's reputation in a different way. Could it be that PRN-an inexplicable choice to manage
Clinton's server-was chosen precisely because whatever Clinton aide hired them had reason to believe they would be loyal if a problem
like this arose?
David DeCamillis (Credit: public domain)
There is some anecdotal evidence to support this. It has been
reported that PRN has ties to prominent Democrats . For instance, the company's vice president of sales David DeCamillis is said
to be a prominent supporter of Democratic politicians, and once offered to let Senator Joe Biden (D) stay in his house in
2008 , not long before Biden became Obama's vice president. The company also has done work for John Hickenlooper, the Democratic
governor of Colorado. And recall the email in which Combetta brought up points to defend Clinton in her email controversy, even though
the email exchange was on a different topic.
The behavior of the FBI is even stranger. Comey was a registered Republican most of his life, and it is well known that most
FBI agents are politically conservative. Be that as it may, if Comey made a decision beforehand based on some political calculation
to avoid indicting Clinton no matter what the actual evidence was, that the FBI's peculiar behavior specifically relating to the
Combetta deletions make much more sense. It would be an unprecedented and bold move to recommend indicting someone with Hillary Clinton's
power right in the middle of her presidential election campaign.
It's naive to think that political factors don't play a role, on both sides. Consider that virtually every Democratic politician
has been supportive of Clinton in her email controversy, or at least silent about it, while virtually every Republican has been critical
of her about it or silent. Comey was appointed by Obama, and if the odds makers are right and Clinton wins in November
, Comey will continue to be the FBI director under President Clinton. (Comey was appointed to a ten-year term, but Congress
needs to vote to reappoint him after the election.) How could that not affect his thinking?
Comey could be trying to run out the clock, first delaying the revelations of the Combetta's deletions as much as possible, then
releasing only selected facts to diminish the attention on the story.
In this scenario, the FBI having Combetta take the fall for the deletions while making a secret immunity deal with him is
a particularly clever move to prevent anyone from being indicted. Note that Combetta's confession about making the deletions came
in his May 2016 FBI interview, which came after Mills' April 2016 interview in which she claimed
she'd never heard of any deletions. Thus, the only way to have Combetta take the fall for the deletions without Mills getting caught
clearly lying to the FBI is by dodging the issue of what was said in the March 31, 2015 conference with a nonsensical
claim of "attorney-client privilege."
Unfortunately, if that is Comey's plan, it looks like it's working. Since the FBI's final report came out on September
2, 2016 , the mainstream media has largely failed to grasp the significance of Combetta and his deletions, focusing on far
less important matters instead, such as the destruction of a couple of Clinton's BlackBerry devices with hammers-which actually was
better than not destroying them and possibly letting them fall into the wrong hands.
The House Benghazi Committee in session in 2015. (Credit: C-SPAN3)
What happens next appears to largely be in the hands of Congressional Republicans, who no doubt will keep pushing to find out
more, if only to politically hurt Clinton before the election. But it's also in the hands of you, the members of the general public.
If enough people pay attention, then it will be impossible to sweep this controversy under the rug.
I believe that criminal behavior needs to be properly investigated and prosecuted, regardless of political persuasion and
regardless of the election calendar. Combetta clearly committed a crime and he even confessed to do so, given what he admitted in
his last FBI interview. If he got a limited immunity deal instead of blanket immunity, which is highly likely, it still would be
possible to indict and convict him based on evidence outside of his interviews. That would help explain why he recently pled the
Fifth, because he's still in legal danger.
Paul Combetta and Bill Thornton plead the Fifth on September 13, 2016. (Credit: CSpan)
But more importantly, who else is guilty with him? Logic and the available evidence strongly suggest that Clinton's lawyer
Cheryl Mills at least knew about the deletions at the time they happened. Combetta has already confessed to criminal behavior-and
yet somehow hasn't even been fired by PRN. If he didn't at least tell Mills and the others in the conference call about the deletions,
there would be no logical reason to assert attorney-client privilege in the first place. Only the nonsensical assertion of this privilege
is preventing the evidence coming out that should lead to Mills being charged with lying to the FBI at a minimum. And if Mills knew,
can anyone seriously believe that Clinton didn't know too?
As the saying goes, "it's not the crime, it's the cover up." This is an important story, and not just election season mudslinging.
The public needs to know what really happened.
"... I wonder if there is a simpler explanation. US immigration policy has come to be about suppressing wages. The suppressing wages operation has been great for those at the top of the food chain at the cost of overall growth. ..."
"... As long as there exist Western countries to act as "safety valves" there is no incentive for immigrant source countries to correct the deficiencies in their economical / political / social systems or resolve ongoing conflicts. In fact, there is every incentive to maintain the status quo. ..."
"... And when will the Wester polity finally figure out that if you destabilize a metastable regime by force, the result isn't stability but inevitably chaos and a further flood of refugee/immigrants? ..."
"... Now most of the net immigration across the US-Mexican border comes from Central America: countries such as El Salvador and Guatemala destabilized by the Reagan regime in the 1980s. Now they're dominated by violent gangs trained in California prisons and repatriated to Central America. ..."
"... Immigration across the U.S.-Mexican border is driven by Central American refugees fleeing gross instability, crime and violence in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala; not by Mexicans. The U.S. played a deep long-term role in creating the mess that Central America is today. ..."
"... U.S. creates instability (war, coup) in a region. ..."
"... The ensuing instability creates a class of desperate folks, who then seek bodily, economic, and political safety within the borders of the empire. This leads to a class of desperate workers, often undocumented and constantly at risk of deportation, willing to work for far less compensation than the native population. ..."
"... Poorer countries suffer brain drain. They do receive large amount of remittances, but an economy which sends its best and the brightest to benefit the industrial countries and receives industrial products in exchange does not seem like it can develop very easily. ..."
"... Here's a somewhat interesting backgrounder on American immigration. The author's premise is that US immigration policies were always about race (white Europeans welcome to stay, brown Mexicans welcome to do manual labor and leave) but this is undoubtedly a simplification as the discrimination in favor of high skills–talked about in the above post–undoubtedly a factor. ..."
"... most other countries do not offer citizenship unless you have something valuable to offer them. An acquaintance who thought about becoming Canadian found this out. ..."
"... It is dangerous for Trump to demonize undocumented immigrants without holding the corporations that attracted and hired them responsible and the system that allowed it. ..."
"... I would argue that migration has both positive and negative impact on the receiving country. But at some point I believe the 'self' is selfish and not necessarily selfless. In a world of limited resources and opportunities it is normal for the 'self' to be highly selfish hence the contradictory nature of the theory of free market economy under globalization. ..."
"... So the UK National Health system nurtured me through my early years, and the UK education system gave me primary, secondary and degree level education. I have spent most of my working life doing an R&D job in the US. The US has benefited from my work during my working life. If I should choose to retire back to the UK, I will remit my pension income back there, and because of the tax treaty, pay income taxes there, which I claim as a full credit against the US tax return. So I'm "taking money out of the US, to the detriment of social cohesion and economic growth". ..."
"... H1-B visas tap larger, typically Asian populations than the U.S. for their best & brightest. ..."
"... Roughly 50% of the undocumented are from Asia. Yet 90% of the deportations are Hispanic. ..."
"... My experience is that the Asian population is either native or here on student visas. The chinese student population is quite large in Los Angeles. Student visas don't allow foreign students to work off-campus, so many of them are family-funded. So they're not taking jobs, but do impact the housing/rental market. (The California colleges love them for their out-of-state fees and strong study habits.) ..."
Posted on
September 21, 2016 by
Yves Smith Yves here.
I wonder if there is a simpler explanation. US immigration policy has come to be about suppressing
wages. The suppressing wages operation has been great for those at the top of the food chain at the
cost of overall growth.
In
a
recent post , I showed that looking at data since 1950 or so, the percentage of the population
that is foreign born is negatively correlated with job creation in later years. I promised an explanation,
and I will attempt to deliver on that promise in this post.
I can think of a few reasons for the finding, just about all of which would have been amplified
since LBJ's Presidency due to two things: the 1965 Hart-Cellar Act and the launch of the Great Society.
The Hart-Cellar Act may be better known as the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. It phased
out country quotas in existence since the 1920s. As a result of these quotas, about 70% of all immigrants
were coming from England, Germany and Ireland, with most of the remainder coming from elsewhere in
Western Europe and from Latin America. The Great Society, of course, included a number of welfare
programs, many of which (or their descendants) are still in existence.
With that, reasons why the foreign born population is negatively correlated with subsequent job
creation include:
1. Immigrants who are sufficiently similar to the existing population when it comes to language,
culture, skillsets and expectations will integrate more smoothly. Slower and more imperfect integration
necessarily requires more expenditure of resources, resources which otherwise could go toward economic
development.
2. Naturally, skills and values that are more productive and efficient than those of the existing
population are conducive toward growth. Conversely, bringing inferior technology and processes
does not improve the economy. As the source of immigrants shifted away from sources of sources of
high technology like England and Germany and toward the developing and not-developing world, the
likelihood that a randomly selected new immigrant will improve productivity diminishes.
3. Eligibility for welfare can change the incentive structure for existing and potential immigrants.
An immigrant arriving in the US in 1890 certainly had no expectation of being supported by the
state. It may be that most immigrants arriving in the US now also don't have that expectation. However,
it is no secret that welfare exists so some percentage of potential immigrants arrive expecting to
be supported to some degree by the state. In some (many?) cases, the expectation increases post-arrival.
(Like any great economist, Milton Friedman got a lot of things wrong about how the economy works
but he had a point when he said you can have a welfare state or open borders but not both.)
4. Rightly or wrongly, reasons 1 – 3 above may combine to create resentment in the existing
population. Think "my grandparents came to this country with nothing and nobody gave them anything "
Resentment can break down trust and institutions necessary for the economy to function smoothly.
5. Over time, transportation has become cheaper and easier. As a result, the likelihood
that an immigrant has come to the US to stay has diminished. Many immigrants come to the US for several
years and then go back to their country of origin. This in turn leads to four issues that can have
negative impacts on the economy:
5a. Immigrants that expect to leave often send back remittances, taking resources out of the
US economy. For example, in 2010, remittances from workers in the US
amounted to 2.1% of Mexican GDP .
5b. Relative to many non-Western countries, the US taxpayer invests heavily in the creation
of a state that is conducive toward acquiring useful skills and education. Often, the acquisition
of such skills and education is heavily subsidized. When people acquire those tools and then leave
without applying them, the value of the resources could have been better spent elsewhere.
5c. Immigrants who don't expect to stay can have less reason to integrate culturally and economically;
any real estate investor can tell you that all else being equal, a neighborhood made up largely
of homeowners is almost always nicer than a neighborhood made up largely of renters.
5d. Immigrants who arrive with a non-negligible expectation of leaving are, on average, more
likely to take risks which generate private gains and social losses. If the bet goes well, congratulations.
If the bet goes bad, "so long suckers!" The bet may even involve a crime.
6. (This one is more conjecture than the others – I think it is true, but I haven't given it
enough thought, particularly whether it is entirely separate from the previous reasons.) The
non-existence of a lump of labor does not mean there isn't a population to labor multiplier, or that
the multiplier cannot change over time. In an era of relatively slow economic growth, economies of
scale, and outsourcing abroad, the number of new employment opportunities per new customer (i.e.,
job creation per resident) can shrink. We've certainly seen something resembling that since about
2000.
None of this is to say that immigration is good or bad, or even that it should be opposed or encouraged.
In this post I simply tried to explain what I saw in the data. I will have one or more follow-up
posts.
I think one of the best things the US can do re immigration is to develop policies that make
it easier for people to stay in their country of origin which many probably want to do. Our policies
have tended to have the opposite effect such as
and Syria/Libya etc "An estimated 11 million Syrians have fled their homes
since the outbreak of the civil war in March 2011. Now, in the sixth year of war, 13.5 million
are in need of humanitarian assistance within the country. " (
http://syrianrefugees.eu/ )
We are also very much in need of a job guarantee paying a living wage which would put pressure
on major employers such as Walmart and McDonalds and get their executives off of government subsidies.
(they pay a wage so low their workers are forced into food stamps and medicaid) (One of the major
beneficiaries of the nation's food-stamp program is actually a hugely profitable company:
Walmart .) (
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/31/walmart-food-stamps_n_4181862.html )
Another great post, read word-for-word, and I very much look forward your subsequent ones.
You've cogently explored the "yin" of immigration, but what about the "yang"?
As long as there exist Western countries to act as "safety valves" there is no incentive
for immigrant source countries to correct the deficiencies in their economical / political / social
systems or resolve ongoing conflicts. In fact, there is every incentive to maintain the status
quo.
And when will the Wester polity finally figure out that if you destabilize a metastable
regime by force, the result isn't stability but inevitably chaos and a further flood of refugee/immigrants?
'As long as there exist Western countries to act as "safety valves" there is no incentive
for immigrant source countries to correct the deficiencies in their economical / political / social
systems or resolve ongoing conflicts.'
After a mere ten years, NAFTA succeeded in reversing net immigration from Mexico.
Now most of the net immigration across the US-Mexican border comes from Central America:
countries such as El Salvador and Guatemala destabilized by the Reagan regime in the 1980s. Now
they're dominated by violent gangs trained in California prisons and repatriated to Central America.
Increasingly Mexico will focus on its own southern border with Guatemala, as it becomes more
of a destination country rather than simply a transit country, as detailed here:
Immigration across the U.S.-Mexican border is driven by Central American refugees fleeing
gross instability, crime and violence in Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala; not by Mexicans.
The U.S. played a deep long-term role in creating the mess that Central America is today.
Yes. It is a pernicious cycle with something like these dimensions. . .
U.S. creates instability (war, coup) in a region.
The ensuing instability creates a class of desperate folks, who then seek bodily, economic,
and political safety within the borders of the empire. This leads to a class of desperate workers,
often undocumented and constantly at risk of deportation, willing to work for far less compensation
than the native population.
Native population sees the contours of its society change with the influx along with a
lessening in quality of living standards, which leads to dangerous, xenophobic mental associations.
Xenophobic politics begin to take root and thrive.
The real solution is for our country to stop doing step 1.
Poorer countries suffer brain drain. They do receive large amount of remittances, but an
economy which sends its best and the brightest to benefit the industrial countries and receives
industrial products in exchange does not seem like it can develop very easily.
Its clear that the emigree benefits, and the receiving country receives a subsidy in the form
of valuable human capital. But how does the originating country develop? Invest in education and
the best leave. Invest in industry and you compete with the products of the developed countries.
And of course, the rich in unstable countries have little reason to care about the long term
consequences of their actions if they can take their loot and run. There is a reason so many rich
Chinese are emigrating.
David Harvey once told a story about how he warned investment bankers that if things keep getting
worse, the US could end up a failed state like Mexico. In typical Wall Street fashion they asked
Harvey if they should buy villas in France.
I think this is the first article I have EVER read that even supposes there might be negative
ECONOMIC effects of immigration.
I would note that if there ever was a jobs program with the explicit goal of reducing unemployment
to 4% (and not pretending the people who have dropped out don't want a job because they CAN'T
get a job) and providing a job to any and all applicants – well, I think the immigration from
South America that has slowed would amp right up again – of course.
You know, I have been reading some of the Davos Man class going on and on about how they didn't
really do enough to ameliorate the negative effects of "free" trade on those who don't benefit
from trade. But NAFTA is going on a quarter of a century – and in every subsequent trade deal
such promises are either never kept or never effectively implemented.
I suspect that to REALLY provide jobs of equal pay and equal benefits is not economically feasible.
Think of it this way – people who worked as landscapers, when displaced by immigrants, may not
have the aptitude, skills, or even desire to change careers – if you work outside, why in the
hell do you want to have to start working indoors???
Go to college and become a computer programmer .H1b .
What are you gonna do keep these people employed – have the same lawn mowed twice every week?
Have the same computer code written twice?????
Again, the whole scenario has struck me as not being ever critically thought through. The benefits
to consumers getting low prices are endlessly pointed out, but the negative effect of fewer jobs
at low pay are glossed over or NOT ACKNOWLEDGED. The whole deal is that less income to workers
and more income to capital – is it REALLY unforseeable that eventually there will be a demand
dearth?? Decades of experience of jobs shipped overseas and not replaced are not acknowledged.
Ever growing inequality. We have been sold a load of bullsh*t because it benefited a very, very
narrow slice at the top only.
Go to college and become a computer programmer .H1b .
Over 100K H-1B Visas issued so far for 2016 alone, over 10% of those were issued in my state
of Massachusetts. The Mathworks Inc. of Natick was given a $3 million dollar state tax subsidy
in return for "creating" 600 new jobs – they created jobs alright, 386 H-1B jobs so far, Americans
need not apply.
The HB-1 Indian workers that have flooded Boston's labor market seem to fit this part because
they get on and off Public transportation enmass at stops with clusters of rental buildings --
"5c. Immigrants who don't expect to stay can have less reason to integrate culturally and economically;
any real estate investor can tell you that all else being equal, a neighborhood made up largely
of homeowners is almost always nicer than a neighborhood made up largely of renters."
As a lifelong blue collar worker for nearly 40 years, I found my ability to remain employed
competing against a never-ending influx of 22 year old immigrants to be a sinking, and finally
sunk quagmire. I lost. I cannot be 22 forever.
Coming up in the 1970's many of my acquaintances and I were skilled laborers, we got up in
the morning and went out everyday to work hard for a living. None of us would even be considered
for any of those entry level positions any more. They all go to immigrants from somewhere else
or another. As a native born white American you don't even get a chance at those jobs anymore,
no employer would even bother talking to you.
The US has all but done away with apprenticeship programs for the skilled trades. We just bring
in exploitable people from all over the world to build our stuff, and then when we're done with
them, they go back to where they came from. I know this is true because I've asked them, I've
worked with them – they have no intention of staying in America longer than it takes to educate
their kids, build up a nest egg, and go back home. A lot of them don't really like it here.
But we Americans don't have those options. We can't go to Guatemala or Germany or the Philippines
to work for 10 or 20 years to return to America with saved money on which we can survive for the
rest of a lifetime.
This deal is a one-way street.
As an American, I challenge you to get a job abroad. I challenge you to get a foreign residency
visa or a work visa. I challenge you to do any of the things that immigrants do in our country.
You can't.
I'm not anti-immigrant. I'm pro- our people first. Us first, and then when we need other folks
they're welcome too. But that's not what has been happening in my work lifetime of the last 40
years.
Here's a somewhat interesting backgrounder on American immigration. The author's premise
is that US immigration policies were always about race (white Europeans welcome to stay, brown
Mexicans welcome to do manual labor and leave) but this is undoubtedly a simplification as the
discrimination in favor of high skills–talked about in the above post–undoubtedly a factor.
For example most other countries do not offer citizenship unless you have something valuable
to offer them. An acquaintance who thought about becoming Canadian found this out.
In any case the below author does talk about how the notion of "illegal" immigrants is a more
recent phenomenon and in earlier periods Mexicans were freely allowed to come across and work.
I think it's also useful to consider private prison labor. This article notes that half this
revenue comes from undocumented immigrants but that means the other half comes from US citizens.
private prisons
""Private prisons bring in about $3 billion in revenue annually, and over half of that comes
from holding facilities for undocumented immigrants. Private operations run between 50% to 55%
of immigrant detainment facilities. The immigration bill battling its way through Washington right
now might also mean good things for private prisons. Some estimate that the crackdown on undocumented
immigrants will lead to 14,000 more inmates annually with 80% of that business going to private
prisons.
The prison industry has also made money by contracting prison labor to private companies. The
companies that have benefited from this cheap labor include Starbucks (SBUX), Boeing (BA), Victoria's
Secret, McDonalds (MCD) and even the U.S. military. Prison laborers cost between 93 cents and
$4 a day and don't need to collect benefits, thus making them cheap employees.""
It is dangerous for Trump to demonize undocumented immigrants without holding the corporations
that attracted and hired them responsible and the system that allowed it.
Now that they are here and have settled with families, it is deplorable to speak of mass deportation.
As has been noted with the Walmart expample, those that massively profit from this abberation
should bear the major cost of public services required for a 'Shadow Workforce'.
And Hillary Clinton and her neocon crowd, whose policies have created chaos resulting in mass
immigration of refugees offers no apology but more of the same. Insanity doing the same thing
over and over for a different result?
I would argue that migration has both positive and negative impact on the receiving country.
But at some point I believe the 'self' is selfish and not necessarily selfless. In a world of
limited resources and opportunities it is normal for the 'self' to be highly selfish hence the
contradictory nature of the theory of free market economy under globalization.
I argue that the theory is self contradictory because it is normal human nature being selfish
hence anti competition. When threatened by the influx of seemingly hard working, creative and
passive immigrants, I tend to gravitate towards conservatism. I start taking necessary steps towards
protecting myself, my immediate family and hence my domestic market. These rules are typically
borrowed from nature. How to balance the impulsive theory of free market economics vs the reality
of limited resources and opportunities is a unique challenge to governments, policy and decision
makers worldwide hence globalization in the short run presents unique challenges (conflicts) sometimes.
Johnson supports private, for-profit prisons. As Governor of New Mexico he dealt with overcrowded
prisons (and approximately seven hundred prisoners held out-of-state due to a lack of available
space) by opening two private prisons, later arguing that "building two private prisons in
New Mexico solved some very serious problems – and saved the taxpayers a lot of money."
He could have saved the taxpayers even more money by releasing non-violent prisoners convicted
of minor crimes. But that would have offended some of his campaign donors.
Bernie's goal is to ban private prisons. Hillary has a similar goal, but takes money from
prison lobbyists. Does this make sense to you?
According to Lee Fang of The Intercept, Private Prison Lobbyists Are Raising Cash for Hillary
Clinton.
After pressure from civil rights groups, Vice News explains Hillary Clinton Shuns Private
Prison Cash, Activists Want Others to Follow Suit.
The Huffington Post writes "Lobbying firms that work for two major private prison giants,
GEO Group and Corrections Corporation of America, gave $133,246 to the Ready for Hillary PAC,
according to Vice."
Do you trust Clinton?
I guess this means that we should vote for Sanders in the primary. Oh gosh, there's a minor
problem. The primaries are over, and Clinton is the nominee.
"I do think we can do a lot of privatizations, and private prisons it seems to work a lot
better," said Trump when asked how he planned to reform the country's prison system.
For more research on the topic – I found the following very readable, gave me a lot of insight
into the factors influencing whether or when immigration is good or bad from which point of view:
So the UK National Health system nurtured me through my early years, and the UK education
system gave me primary, secondary and degree level education. I have spent most of my working
life doing an R&D job in the US. The US has benefited from my work during my working life. If
I should choose to retire back to the UK, I will remit my pension income back there, and because
of the tax treaty, pay income taxes there, which I claim as a full credit against the US tax return.
So I'm "taking money out of the US, to the detriment of social cohesion and economic growth".
Question is, how much of the pension and/or social security and/or investment gains do I owe
to the US, and how much to the UK? I think I owe more there than I do here. Particularly in light
of the fact that the UK paid for my college education, but my nephews and nieces have to pay for
their own, so I have hitherto been a drain on the UKs social investment strategy.
I see it as much a moral question as an economic one that I should help support my family's
education directly, and the UK social system through future taxes paid from pension. I have after
all supported the US social and military-industrial systems through work done and taxes paid during
my working life.
1. Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for welfare they can barely get emergency room
care.
2. H1-B visas tap larger, typically Asian populations than the U.S. for their best & brightest.
Could India actually make use of its intelligent people? Is it moral for the U.S. to, in effect,
bribe them to leave their native country? (A point made by Ralph Nader in answering a libertarian
at his Google talk )
3. Roughly 50% of the undocumented are from Asia. Yet 90% of the deportations are Hispanic.
Got a link on this? My experience is that the Asian population is either native or here
on student visas. The chinese student population is quite large in Los Angeles. Student visas
don't allow foreign students to work off-campus, so many of them are family-funded. So they're
not taking jobs, but do impact the housing/rental market. (The California colleges love them for
their out-of-state fees and strong study habits.)
I can only speak for Texas, but the nail salons, massage parlors, dry cleaners, restaurants,
fishing boats and electronics refurbishing can't ALL be H1-B visas. And that isn't even counting
all the people from India I see. Most of them are too old to be students.
Trump's statement that he will issue an executive order forcing employers to use E-Verify for
all new employees is a good start. While that program has a few flaws, the net effect would be
massive for favoring citizens over illegals.
To be fair, employers should still have the option of using illegals, however, they should
put their money where their mouths and labor savings are, by not being able to deduct the non
E-Verifiable wages from their income for taxation purposes.
Mother Agnes Mariam
, a nominee for the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize from Homs diocese, has some harsh
words
for the US war against Syria
: "Shame on a coalition who pretends fighting ISIS while in reality is helping ISIS killing innocent
soldiers whose mission is to protect civilians."
This is in response to the September 17 US airstrikes in Deir ez-Zor that massacred 62 Syrian
soldiers and injured 100 more who have been fighting ISIS.
[1] According to a June 2015
Time magazine
article, Deir ez-Zor with a population of 228,000 has been under
siege by ISIS
the past years, relying on the nightly arrival of a large Syrian air-force-operated cargo plane which
has a payload of more than 46 tons and transports munitions, food and medical supplies.
Starving babies in Deir ez-Zor
This much needed aid is flown out from the military air base southeast of the city, the target
of ISIS the past years and now bombed by US jet fighters. During the bombing, ISIS launched a simultaneous
attack and threatened to overrun the air base as well as slaughter the over 200,000 civilians. Deir
ez-Zor is also home to a large
Christian population protected by the Syrian government, similar to most other Christian inhabited
cities that are in government-controlled areas along the coast.
Map of Christian population in Syria
However, the Syrian army was able to repel the ISIS offensive and recover lost territory after
the US "mistaken" attacks, but the incident has again left many wondering whether US goal is really
to counter terrorism or to conduct
regime change
in Syria.
Meanwhile, the Syrian people continue to face prolonged agony and suffering as regional and great
powers use them as pawns for their geopolitical ambitions.
E
dward Dark , an activist in
Aleppo , noted back in 2013 that Syrians watched how their peaceful revolution was hijacked by
Turkey/Saudi and other Arab Gulf states, pouring in Salafists from over
100 countries
that morphed into ISIS, Al Nusra, and others that care nothing for the norms of human rights,
democracy, or justice for the Syrian nation. He admitted, "People here don't like the regime, but
they hate the rebels even more."
Now Dark sees Syria's only salvation is through reconciliation and a renunciation of violence,
but lamented "that is not a view shared by the warmongers and power brokers who still think that
more Syrian blood should be spilled to appease the insatiable appetites of their sordid aspirations."
A girl helping her dad with his shoe
Just as King Solomon determined the true mother of the baby is the one who refused to split her
son in half, the champion of the Syrian people and human rights is the power that would place the
Syrians' welfare above its own selfish ambitions.
Nonetheless, Dark lamented that "Whatever is left of Syria at the end will be carved out between
the wolves and vultures that fought over its bleeding and dying corpse, leaving us, the Syrian people
to pick up the shattered pieces of our nation and our futures."
Indeed, it seems US and its Salafist allies are bent on splitting the Syrian baby and cleansing
it of ethnic and religious minorities with a Taliban-like regime and Shaira Law, and Deir ez-Zor
is likely condemned to suffer the similar fate of Homs.
In Homs, the pre-conflict population was more than 1 million people of mostly Sunni Muslims with
substantial Christian and Alawite communities. Peter Crowley, senior foreign affairs correspondent
at Politico , in August 2015 tweeted an
extract from a 2008 Lonely Planet travel guide of Homs.
"These days, its Christian neighborhood is one of Syria's most welcoming and relaxed, and Homs'
citizens are some of the country's friendliest…That, combined with the city's myriad leafy parks
and gardens, sprawling al fresco coffee shop, outdoor corn-on-the-cob stands and restored souq where
artisans still work, make Homs a wonderful place to kick back for a couple of days."
In eight years, Homs has changed from a "wonderful place" to a ruinous heap. With the ceasefire
likely to break down as Salafist rebels rearm and regroup, US and Saudi/Qatar/Turkey are well on
the march towards turning Syria into another Afghanistan in the Mediterranean.
[1] Nancy A. Youssef, "Did the U.S. Just Slaughter Syrian Troops?
The Daily Beast , September 18, 2016.
Dr. Christina Lin is a Fellow at the Center for Transatlantic Relations
at SAIS-Johns Hopkins University where she specializes in China-Middle East/Mediterranean relations,
and a research consultant for Jane's Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Intelligence
Centre at IHS Jane's.
BenOp is unrealistic. conservative Christians will not stop voting Republicans.
Notable quotes:
"... Conservative" Christians aren't going to stop voting Republican. They're just going to offer a different reason for doing it, when asked. ..."
"... Well, I think you're right that about 3/4 of the readers would lose their minds if that was stated as an explicit political goal. It would confirm in the minds of many the suspicion that the primary strategy of the religious right is the establishment of an anti-democratic, theocracy or Caesaropapist regime. ..."
"... A lot of people are tired of the Religious Right's attempt to gain political power in order to impose Christian views of morality. ..."
"... A lot of people believe that there should be a separation of church and state, not only in the Constitutional sense of having no state-established religion, but also in the general sense that morality should be a private matter, not the subject of politics. ..."
"... So basically this boils down to you asking us to trust that your gut is right in spite of what we can see with our lying eyes? Yeah, no thanks. ..."
"... Conservative Christians danced with the Republican Party for a long-time, but past a certain point had to stop pretending that the Republican Party cared more about them than about their slice of Mammon (big business and the MIC mainly). ..."
"... Liberal Christians, some of them, danced with the other side of Mammon (big government and social programs, etc) and perhaps just got absorbed. But the point is I think you are returning to a better place, reverting to some sort of norm, the alliance with the GOP was a strange infatuation that wasn't going to sustain anyway. ..."
"... So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies from so many commenters… Could y'all give at least one that doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and even with double intensity? ..."
"... Michelle: Obama advisor Al Sharpton has been responsible for stirring up more Jew hatred than Trump. Have you ever given a care about that? Do you care that Hillary's Mexican and Muslim immigrants are sure to be more antisemitic than the native whites of the US that you fret about over and over? ..."
"... Last year after listening to the same-sex marriage oral arguments presented before the Supreme Court, I concluded that libertarianism and either the current Libertarian Party or some spinoff offers the best that those of us with traditional religious and moral convictions can hope for in a decidedly post-Christian America. ..."
"... "Are we as a people really capable of being citizens of a Republic or are we simply fools to be manipulated by people like Trump?" ..."
"... My two cents: We're capable of being citizens of a Republic if our government creates the conditions for a thriving middle class: the most important condition being good, high-paying jobs that allow people to live an independent existence. The vast majority of manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas, and even higher-skilled jobs (such as research and development) are increasingly being outsourced as well. ..."
"... Basically, the middle class is disappearing. Without a thriving middle class, democracy is unsustainable. Struggling people filled with hate and resentment are ripe for manipulation by nefarious forces. ..."
"... Spain's Francisco Franco understood this very well. His goal was to make it unthinkable for his country to descend into civil war ever again. He achieved this ..."
"... When Franco died, Spain was the ninth-largest economy in the world, and the second-fastest growing economy in the world (behind only Japan). It became a liberal democracy almost overnight. When Franco was on his deathbed, he was asked what he thought his most important legacy was. He replied, "The middle class." Franco was not a democrat, but he'd created the conditions for liberal democracy in Spain. ..."
"... The promotion of an increasingly interconnected world in and of itself isnt necessarily bad. However, the annihilation of culture, religion, and autonomy at the hands of multinational corporations and a Gramscian elite certainly is – and that is what is happening under what is referred to as globalization. The revolt against the evil being pushed out of Brussels and Washington has now spread into the West itself. May the victory of the rebels be swift and complete. ..."
"... "You're misdefining "grievance industry;" the central tenet of the grievance industry is that whatever happens, white people are to blame and should continue paying for it." ..."
"... "BenOp is fascinating, but most cultural conservative now active in the game will not drop out. They may not like the adrenalin rush politics gives them more than they like Jesus–but they ain't going to give it up." ..."
"... Exactly. This is why Christian boycotts never succeed. They claim that they hate Disneyworld because of their pro-gay policies, but when they have to choose between Jesus and a Fun Family Vacation, Jesus always loses. ..."
"... The Corporate Media is corrupt and Americans are waking up to it. ..."
"... We have had three decades of culture wars and everyone can pretty much agree that the traditionalists lost. ..."
"... "Clinton assassination fantasies"? I call bullsh*t on that notion. Trump merely pointed our the absolute hypocrisy of elites like Clinton and her ilk, the guns for me but not for thee crowd. He was not fantasizing about her assassination. Far from it. To suggest he was is to engage in the same sort of dishonesty for which Clinton is so well known. ..."
"... Well, back then, the government was doing stuff for the common people. A lot of stuff. WPA, NRA, Social Security, FDIC, FHA, AAA, etc. FDR remembered the "forgotten man." Today, the government is subservient to multinationals and Rothschilds. The forgotten men and women that make up the backbone of our economy have been forgotten once again, and nobody seems to remember them - with the *possible,* partial exception of Trump. ..."
"... The Globalist clap-trap that has so enamoured both parties reminds me of this quote from C.S. Lewis'"Screwtape Proposes a Toast": "…They ever be allowed to raise Aristotle's question: whether "democratic behavior" means the behavior that democracies like or the behavior that will preserve a democracy. For if they did, it could hardly fail to occur to them that these need not be the same." ..."
"... Globalism is just swell for the multinational corporation, but it is nothing more or less than Lawlessness writ large. The Corporation is given legal/fictional life by the state…the trouble is it, like Frankenstein, will turns on its creator and imagines it can enjoy Absolute Independence. ..."
"... If Mr Pat Buchanan were running, he would be in good stead save or his speaking style which is far more formal. Mr. Trump's carefree (of sorts) delivery punches through and gives the impression that he's an everyman. His boundless energy has that sense earnest sincerity. His "imperfections" tend to work in his favor. But if his message was counter to where most people are already at - he would not be the nominee. ..."
"... Good article. I think Mitchell identifies the right ideas buried within Trump's rhetoric. But even if it were true that Trump had no ideas, I would still vote for him. After all, where have politic ideas gotten us lately? ..."
"... "Conservative principles" espoused by wonks and political scientists culminated in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ideology told us that democracy was a divine right, transferable across time and culture. ..."
"... In fact, Larry Kudlow, the crassest exponent of both those ideas is one of Trump's economic advisors. ..."
"... We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables." ..."
"Conservative" Christians aren't going to stop voting Republican.
They're just going to offer a different reason for doing it, when asked.
I will bet all the money in my pockets against all the money in Rod's
pockets that there will NEVER, in either of our lifetimes, be a time when
he feels compelled by his principles to vote for a Democratic candidate
for federal office over a Republican one.
And finally, I note that someone above asked a version of the same question
I've periodically had: What does Dreherdom look like? If orthodox Christians
controlled the levers of power, what do you propose to DO with your (cultural
AND legal) authority? And what will be the status of the "other" in that
brave new world?
[NFR: They will be captured and enslaved and sent to work in the
boudin
mines. And I will spend whatever percentage of the Gross National Product
it takes to hire the Rolling Stones to play "Exile On Main Street" live,
from start to finish, in a national broadcast that I will require every
citizen to watch, on pain of being assigned to hard labor in the boudin
mines. Also, I will eat boudin. - RD]
While I can't speak for Rod, I can speak for many traditional Catholics.
The end goal is the re-establishment of the social reign of Christ,
which means a majority Christian nation, Christian culture, and a state
which governs according to Christian principles (read Quas Primas).
In that situation, and in that situation alone, would the Ben Op no
longer be necessary.]
That's interesting. Well, I think you're right that about 3/4 of the
readers would lose their minds if that was stated as an explicit political
goal. It would confirm in the minds of many the suspicion that the primary
strategy of the religious right is the establishment of an anti-democratic,
theocracy or Caesaropapist regime. I would consider that the extreme "utopian"
or some would even say "totalitarian" position of religious conservatives
and not "conservative" in any sense that I understand "Conservatism".
Saltlick's minimal requirement seems to moderate that goal to "a national
reaffirmation that our rights, as partially defined in the Constitution
and Bill of Rights, come from God the Creator, that life is valuable from
the moment of conception, and that the traditional family is the best promoter
of sound moral, cultural and economic health.", but even in that he regards
it as only a half-measure for Saltlick. Needless to say, what a "traditional"
family is would need some definition.
If nothing short of establishing the City of God on earth would secure
the comfort of some Christians then that is a pretty high bar and you have
every right to feel insecure… as do the rest of us.
I would be curious to know how many of your co-religionists on these
boards share your view? And how many would reject it?
Mr Dreher, I always read your articles with great interest, although
I often disagree with you. For example, I don't think anybody of any political
persuasion is going to try to stamp out Christianity or those who espouse
it. Indeed, I think many people will be delighted if all Christians would
exercise the Benedict Option.
A lot of people are tired of the Religious Right's attempt to gain
political power in order to impose Christian views of morality.
A lot of people believe that there should be a separation of church
and state, not only in the Constitutional sense of having no state-established
religion, but also in the general sense that morality should be a private
matter, not the subject of politics.
[NFR: That's incredibly naive. Aside from procedural laws, all laws
are nothing but legislated morality. Somebody's morality is going to be
reflected in law. It is unavoidable. - RD]
Michelle: Obama advisor Al Sharpton has been responsible for stirring
up more Jew hatred than Trump. Have you ever given a care about that? Do
you care that Hillary's Mexican and Muslim immigrants are sure to be more
antisemitic than the native whites of the US that you fret about over and
over?
Sharpton isn't running for president and I didn't vote for him when he
was. Same for Jesse Jackson. I'm well aware of antisemitism within the black
community but doubt it comes anywhere close to that of the alt-right and
nationalist groups, who foment hate against both blacks and Jews.
And duh,
of course there's plenty of anti-semitism among Muslims. Who's pretending
otherwise. It also appears that you didn't read what I wrote. I favor strong
borders but think you can do so without demagoguery and appealing to people's
baser instincts and hatreds, which is what Trump does.
I realize all you Trump apologists aren't about to recognize the danger
the man poses. I don't care as long as there are enough people who do to
keep him out of the presidency.
Rod, you clearly have unresolved cognitive dissonance, because if your vote
is based on which candidate is best with religious liberty and the right
of Christians to live as Christians, the answer is clear and unambiguous:
Trump. Yet you refuse to vote for him.
The author of this piece actually has you nailed perfectly, which is
why it makes you so uncomfortable. He sees that you are absolving yourself
from the consequences of political engagement by acting like you can stay
firm on your principles, while refusing to choose from the only two real
sides on offer. That choice is the messy business of politics, and inevitably
imperfect because politics is a human practice and humans are fallen. Because
you are unwilling to make that choice, you are out of the politics business
whether you realize it or not.
What you have not abandoned, but I believe should when it comes to the
topics of politics, is the public square.
You recognize that your generation failed to fight. You very clearly
have no intention of fighting even now. You have decided to build a Benedict
Option because you think that's the only viable option. That's fine. In
fact, I heartily approve.
But other people have chosen differently. They have chosen to fight.
Donald Trump for one. You might not like his methods. But he's not willing
to see his country destroyed without doing everything he can to stop it.
He's not alone. Many people are standing up and recognizing that though
the odds are long, they owe it to their children and grandchildren to stand
up and be counted. That choice deserves respect too, Rod.
The problem with you is not the BenOp, but your active demonization of
those who actually have the temerity to fight for their country instead
of surrendering it to go hide in your BenOp bunker with you.
Trump, the alt-right, etc. may be wrong metaphysically and they may be
wrong ethically, but they are right about some very important things – things
that you, Rod Dreher, and your entire generation of conservatives were very,
very wrong on. Rather than admit that, you want to stand back from the fight,
pretending you're too gosh darned principled to soil your hands voting for
one of the two candidates who have a shot to be our president, and acting
like you're a morally superior person for doing so.
You should focus on the important work of building and evangelizing for
BenOp, and leave the field of political discourse to those who are actually
willing to engage in the business of politics.
No lengthy cerebral essay will cover up the fact that Trump is a crude,
belligerent, and unethical con-artist. Clinton for her part has her own
problems but both are a blot on American history. No amount of blabber will
put a shine on Trump's character. He is for himself, and no one else.
"I realize all you Trump apologists aren't about to recognize the danger
the man poses. I don't care as long as there are enough people who do
to keep him out of the presidency."
So basically this boils down to you asking us to trust that your
gut is right in spite of what we can see with our lying eyes? Yeah, no thanks.
fwiw, my sense is that the Benedict Option (from the snippets that you have
shared with us particularly in the posts on Norcia and other communities
already pursuing some sort of "option") represents a return of conservative
Christians to a more healthy, hands-off relationship with national politics.
Conservative Christians danced with the Republican Party for a long-time,
but past a certain point had to stop pretending that the Republican Party
cared more about them than about their slice of Mammon (big business and
the MIC mainly).
Liberal Christians, some of them, danced with the other side of Mammon
(big government and social programs, etc) and perhaps just got absorbed.
But the point is I think you are returning to a better place, reverting
to some sort of norm, the alliance with the GOP was a strange infatuation
that wasn't going to sustain anyway.
So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies from so many commenters…
Could y'all give at least one that doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and
even with double intensity?
Michelle: Obama advisor Al Sharpton has been responsible for stirring up
more Jew hatred than Trump. Have you ever given a care about that? Do you
care that Hillary's Mexican and Muslim immigrants are sure to be more antisemitic
than the native whites of the US that you fret about over and over?
Rod, when you say the following, you articulate exactly why I have reluctantly
become a libertarian:
-"On a practical level, that means that I will no longer vote primarily
on the social issues that have dictated my vote in the past, but I will
vote primarily for candidates who will be better at protecting my community's
right to be left alone."-
Last year after listening to the same-sex marriage oral arguments
presented before the Supreme Court, I concluded that libertarianism and
either the current Libertarian Party or some spinoff offers the best that
those of us with traditional religious and moral convictions can hope for
in a decidedly post-Christian America.
I don't believe for a minute that the majority of elected officials in
the Republican Party have the backbone to stand up for religious liberty
in the face of corporate pressure. You need look no farther than how the
Republicans caved last year in Indiana on the protection of religious liberty.
There are many libertarians who are going to work to protect the rights
of people to do things that undermine the common good. But, I have more
faith that they'll protect the rights of a cultural minority such as traditionalist
Christians than I have in either the Republicans or the Democrats.
It isn't true that Trump and his supporters are against identity politics.
It's just that they have a far simpler view of identity politics. There
are white people, and there are blah people. White people will be in charge,
and blah people can have a piece of the pie to the extent they agree to
pretend to be white people.
Cecelia wonders: "Are we as a people really capable of being citizens
of a Republic or are we simply fools to be manipulated by people like
Trump?"
My two cents: We're capable of being citizens of a Republic if our government
creates the conditions for a thriving middle class: the most important condition
being good, high-paying jobs that allow people to live an independent existence.
The vast majority of manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas, and
even higher-skilled jobs (such as research and development) are increasingly
being outsourced as well.
If you look at the monthly payroll jobs reports put out by the Bureau
of Labor Statistics, you will see that the vast majority of new jobs are
in retail trade, health care and social assistance, waitresses and bartenders,
and government. Most of these jobs are part-time jobs. None of these jobs
produce any goods than can be exported. Aside from government jobs, these
are not jobs that pay well enough for people to thrive independently. This
is why more Americans aged 25-34 live with their parents than independently
with spouses and children of their own. It is also why many people now must
work multiple jobs in order to make ends meet. As for government jobs, they
are tax-supported, and thus a drain on the economy. I'm not a libertarian.
I recognize that government provides many crucial services. But it is unproductive
to have too many bureaucrats living off of tax revenues.
Basically, the middle class is disappearing. Without a thriving middle
class, democracy is unsustainable. Struggling people filled with hate and
resentment are ripe for manipulation by nefarious forces.
Spain's Francisco Franco understood this very well. His goal was to make
it unthinkable for his country to descend into civil war ever again. He
achieved this. Before Franco, Spain was a Third World h*llhole plagued by
radical ideologies like communism, regional separatism, and anarchism. [Fascism
had its following as well, but it was never too popular. The Falange (which
was the closest thing to a fascist movement in Spain, though it was not
really fascist, as it was profoundly Christian and rejected Nietzschean
neo-paganism) was irrelevant before Francoism. Under Francoism, it was one
of the three pillars that supported the regime (the other two being monarchists
and Catholics), but it was never the most influential pillar.] When
Franco died, Spain was the ninth-largest economy in the world, and the second-fastest
growing economy in the world (behind only Japan). It became a liberal democracy
almost overnight. When Franco was on his deathbed, he was asked what he
thought his most important legacy was. He replied, "The middle class." Franco
was not a democrat, but he'd created the conditions for liberal democracy
in Spain.
To get back to the US, we now have a Third World economy. We can't too
surprised that our politics also look increasingly like those of a Third
World country. Thus, the rise of Trump, Sanders, the alt-right, the SJW's,
Black Lives Matter, etc.
The evolution of the MSM into an American version of Pravda/Izvestia
has been a lengthy process and dates back at least to the days of Walter
Lippmann (ostensibly a journalist but upon whom Roosevelt, Truman and JFK
had no qualms about calling for advice).
With the emergence of the Internet and the phenomenon of the blogosphere,
the MSM has no choice but to cast off whatever pretensions to objectivity
they may have had and, instead, now preach to the choir so they can keep
themselves viable in an increasingly competitive market where more people
get their news from such as Matt Drudge than from the NY-LA Times or the
WaPo
Suppose a more composed candidate stood up against the PC police, and generally
stood for these same 6 principles, and did so in a much more coherent and
rational manner. I propose that he would be demolished within no time at
all. Take a Pat Buchanan…how do you think he would be doing in this election?
Trumps three ring show prevents the charges against him from finding any
fertile soil to grow in. If he ran on principle instead of capturing an
undefined spirit, if he tried to answer the charges against him in a rational
manner, all it would do it produce more fertile soil for the PC charges
to stick. Trump may have stumbled upon the model for future conservative
candidates when running in a nation where the mainstream press is so thoroughly
against you. Just make a lot of noise and ignore them. If you engage in
the argument with them, they'll destroy you.
@Cecelia: The issue is not Trump – it is those who support him. Are
we as a people really capable of being citizens of a Republic or are
we simply fools to be manipulated by people like Trump ?
Yes. Tell me, during the Great Depression, as Nazi Germany and Imperial
Japan began their march to what would bring this world to war and state-sponsored
genocide, why did my grandparents and my parents who were teenagers in the
30s not succumb to all this doom, gloom, and anger at the supposed lack
of prospects for improvement in their lives that Trump's followers whine
about?
By any standard, conditions then were worse for the white working class
than is the case today, and yes, my grandparents were working class: one
grandfather worked for the railroad, the other for a lumber mill. And yes,
there was alcoholism, and domestic abuse, and crime, and suicide amongst
the populace in the 1930s.
The role of religion was more pervasive then, but to tell the truth,
I expect Rod would describe my grandparents on both side as Moral Therapeutic
Deists; by Rod's standard I believe that is true for most Christians throughout
history.
Just what is different about today, that brings all this rage and resentment?
Could it be that racial and ethnic and religious minorities, and women now
have a piece of the pie and a good part of the white working class cannot
stand it?
And Trump doesn't scare me nearly as much as does the fact that so very
many Americans support him, whether wholeheartedly swallowing his poison,
or because they close their eyes and minds and hearts to just what kind
of a man he is.
The promotion of an increasingly interconnected world in and of itself isnt
necessarily bad. However, the annihilation of culture, religion, and autonomy
at the hands of multinational corporations and a Gramscian elite certainly
is – and that is what is happening under what is referred to as globalization.
The revolt against the evil being pushed out of Brussels and Washington
has now spread into the West itself. May the victory of the rebels be swift
and complete.
"You're misdefining "grievance industry;" the central tenet of the grievance
industry is that whatever happens, white people are to blame and should
continue paying for it."
If we all accept your definition then we can't argue with you. Whatever
you want to call it, there is an entire industry (most conservative media)
that feeds a victimization mentality among whites, conservatives, evangelicals
etc (all those labels apply to me by the way) that closely resembles the
grievance outlook. The only difference is in what circles it is taken seriously.
Why else do so many of us get so bent out of shape when employees have the
audacity to say "happy holidays" at the department store. As made apparent
on this blog we do need to be realistic and vigilant about the real threats
and the direction the culture is going, but by whining about every perceived
slight and insisting everyone buy into our version of "Christian America"
(while anointing a vile figure like Trump as our strongman) we are undercutting
the legitimate grievances we do have.
Everyone has heard how far is moving small car production to Mexico and
forwarded saying no one in America will lose their jobs because the production
will be shifted to SUVs and other vehicles.
That's not the problem the problem is instead of creating more jobs in
America the jobs are being created in Mexico and not helping Americans.
"BenOp is fascinating, but most cultural conservative now active
in the game will not drop out. They may not like the adrenalin rush
politics gives them more than they like Jesus–but they ain't going
to give it up."
Exactly. This is why Christian boycotts never succeed. They claim that
they hate Disneyworld because of their pro-gay policies, but when they have
to choose between Jesus and a Fun Family Vacation, Jesus always loses.
What happens when the status quo media turns a presidential election
into a referendum regarding the media's ability to shape public opinion
and direct "purchasing" choices?
The Corporate Media is corrupt and Americans are waking up to it.
This will almost always mean voting for the Republicans in national elections,
but in a primary situation, I will vote for the Republican who can best
be counted on to defend religious liberty, even if he's not 100 percent
on board with what I consider to be promoting the Good. If it means voting
for a Republican that the defense hawks or the Chamber of Commerce disdain,
I have no problem at all with that.
How is this different than cultural conservatives voted before Trump?
We have had three decades of culture wars and everyone can pretty much
agree that the traditionalists lost.
Now whether Dreher et all lost because the broader culture refused to
listen or because they simply couldn't make a convincing argument is a question
that surrounds a very particular program pursued by conservatives, traditionalists
and the religious right. It is certain that the Republican Party as a vehicle
for those values has been taken out and been beat like a rented mule. It
seems to that Josh Stuart has pulled a rabbit out of the hat. Trump is,
if anything, pretty incoherent and whatever "principles" he represents were
discovered in the breach; a little like bad gunnery practice, one shot low,
one shot lower and then a hit. If Trump represents anything it is the fact
that the base of the party was not who many of us thought they were. Whatever
Christian values we thought they were representing are hardly recognizable
now.
What truly puzzles me more and increasingly so is Rod's vision of what
America is supposed to be under a Dreher regime. I'm not sure what that
regime looks like? Behind all the theological underpinning and high-sounding
abstractions what does a ground-level political and legislative program
for achieving a society he is willing to whole-heartedly participate in
look like?
Politics is a reflection of culture but culture is responsive to politics.
What political order does the Ben Op crowd wish to install in place of the
one we have now – short of the parousia – and how does that affect our life
and autonomy as citizens and individuals? He says Christians just want to
be left alone but they seem to have made and are still making a lot of noise
for people who want to be left alone so I have to assume they want something
over and above being left alone.
I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete
programmatic or cultural change or changes would necessitate abandoning
the Ben Op? Or equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows
Rod and company to relax?
a couple "ideas" come to mind. re: deplorable. SOME (no value in speculating
or establishing a number) are deplorable. it's funny (actually, quite sad)
Trump's we don't have time to be politically correct mantra is ignored when
his opponent (a politician who helped establish the concept of politically
correctness) steals a page from his playbook. on a certain level, perhaps
the eastern elite, intellectual liberal grabbed the "irony" hammer from
the toolbox? ever the shrewd, calculating (narcissistic and insecure) carny
barker, Trump has not offered any "new" ideas. he's merely (like any politician)
put his finger in the air and decided to "run" from the "nationalist, racist,
nativist, side of the politically correct/incorrect betting line. at the
end of the day, there are likely as many deplorable folks on the Clinton
bandwagon; it's just (obviously) not in her interests to expose these "boosters"
at HER rallies/fundraising events. in many ways it speaks to the lesser
of two evils is still evil "idea". politics – especially national campaigns
are not so much about which party/candidate has the better ideas, but rather
which is less deplorable.
"Instead, it has everything to do with his wink/nod attitude toward the
alt-right and white nationalist groups and with his willingness to appropriate
their anti-semitic, racist memes for his own advancement. He's dangerous.
Period. Dangerous and scary to anyone familiar with lynchings, pogroms,
and mob violence. To anyone familiar with history. Trump has unleashed dark
forces that will not easily be quelled even if, and probably especially
if, he loses. The possibility that he might win has left me wondering whether
I even belong in this country any more, no matter how much sympathy I might
feel for the folks globalism has left behind."
One can just as easily make the point that the globalists have unleashed
dark forces against white people and Western civilization that are nor easily
quelled.
The most interesting part of the essay is near the end, where he briefly
discusses how non-whites might react to our political realignment.
After all, will the white liberal be able to manipulate these groups
forever?
For example, we are seeing the 'official black leaders' who represent
them on TV shift from being activist clergymen to being (white paid and
hosed) gay activists and mulattoes from outside the mainstream of black
culture. How long can this continue?
"Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several
other Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump.
"thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter; (2) immigration policy
matters; (3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter;
(4) entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters; (6) PC speech-without
which identity politics is inconceivable-must be repudiated."
They seem to think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd world immigration,
stop pc thought police, or up hold Christian-ish values are a direct threat
to them."
The Jews, having lived as strangers among foreign peoples for the better
part of 2 millennia, have always been on the receiving end of racial hatred.
As a result many Western Jews have an instinctive mistrust of nationalist
movements and a natural tendency towards globalism.
The media has done a splendid job of portraying Trump as the next Hitler,
so, understandably, there's a lot of fear. My Jewish grandparents are terrified
of the man.
I am not a globalist, and (due to the SCOTUS issue) will probably vote
for Trump, even though I have no love for the man himself. I think the "Trump
the racist" meme is based on confirmation bias, not reality, but I understand
where the fear comes from.
"I think that many casual hearers of Ben Op ideas assume that Ben Op
is a one-dimensional, cultural dropping-out of cultural/religious conservatives
into irrelevant enclaves.
To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean idea that the best
American ways of living work their way up from organic, formative local
communities that have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural experience.
Without independent formative local communities, we human beings are mere
products rolling off the assembly line that serves the interests of the
elites of our big government-big business-big education conglomerate.
If these formative communities hold to authentic, compassionate Judeo-Christian
values and practices, all the better–for everybody! Ben Op will offer an
alternative to the assembly-line politically correct cultural warriors being
produced by many of our elite cultural institutions."
Bingo.
If you want to fundamentally transform the culture, you have to withdraw
from it, at least partially. But there's no need to wall yourself off. A
Benedict Option community can and should be politically active, primarily
at the local level, where the most good can be done.
The Benedictine monks from whom Rod draws inspiration didn't just shut
themselves up and refuse to have anything to do with the crumbling world
around them. They retreated into their monasteries to strengthen their souls,
and then went out into the world and rebuilt it for Christ.
"Clinton assassination fantasies"? I call bullsh*t on that notion. Trump
merely pointed our the absolute hypocrisy of elites like Clinton and her
ilk, the guns for me but not for thee crowd. He was not fantasizing about
her assassination. Far from it. To suggest he was is to engage in the same
sort of dishonesty for which Clinton is so well known.
I never cared much for Trump but he has all the right enemies and is
growing on me.
"It isn't true that Trump and his supporters are against identity politics.
It's just that they have a far simpler view of identity politics. There
are white people, and there are blah people. "
They love Ben Carson and Allan West, last time I checked neither men
were white.
"Yes. Tell me, during the Great Depression, as Nazi Germany and Imperial
Japan began their march to what would bring this world to war and state-sponsored
genocide, why did my grandparents and my parents who were teenagers in the
30s not succumb to all this doom, gloom, and anger at the supposed lack
of prospects for improvement in their lives that Trump's followers whine
about?"
Well, back then, the government was doing stuff for the common people.
A lot of stuff. WPA, NRA, Social Security, FDIC, FHA, AAA, etc. FDR remembered
the "forgotten man." Today, the government is subservient to multinationals
and Rothschilds. The forgotten men and women that make up the backbone of
our economy have been forgotten once again, and nobody seems to remember
them - with the *possible,* partial exception of Trump.
The Globalist clap-trap that has so enamoured both parties reminds me
of this quote from C.S. Lewis'"Screwtape Proposes a Toast": "…They ever
be allowed to raise Aristotle's question: whether "democratic behavior"
means the behavior that democracies like or the behavior that will preserve
a democracy. For if they did, it could hardly fail to occur to them that
these need not be the same."
Globalism is just swell for the multinational corporation, but it is
nothing more or less than Lawlessness writ large. The Corporation is given
legal/fictional life by the state…the trouble is it, like Frankenstein,
will turns on its creator and imagines it can enjoy Absolute Independence.
One can just as easily make the point that the globalists have unleashed
dark forces against white people and Western civilization that are nor
easily quelled.
And you would have the benefit of evidence (or, well, evidence that is
not stale by nearly a century). It wasn't Trump supporters beating up people
in San Jose. And if you look to Europe as a guide to what can happen in
America, things start looking far, far worse.
"I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete
programmatic or cultural change or changes would necessitate abandoning
the Ben Op? Or equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows
Rod and company to relax?"
While I can't speak for Rod, I can speak for many traditional Catholics.
The end goal is the re-establishment of the social reign of Christ, which
means a majority Christian nation, Christian culture, and a state which
governs according to Christian principles (read Quas Primas). In that situation,
and in that situation alone, would the Ben Op no longer be necessary.
I am guessing that Rod has not said this explicitly, or laid out a concrete
plan, because he is writing a book for Christians in general. And if you
get into too many specifics, you are going to run right into the enormous
theological and philosophical differences between Catholicism and Protestantism.
Also, if Rod were to start talking about "The Social Reign of Christ
the King", 3/4 of you would lose your minds.
Of course, the current prospect for a Christian culture and state look
bleak, to say the least. But we can play the long game, the Catholic Church
is good at that. It took over 300 years to convert the Roman Empire. It
was 700 years from the founding of the first Benedictine monastery until
St. Thomas Aquinas and the High Middle Ages. We can wait that long, at least.
I rather think, in concurrence with Prof. Cole, that Trump is a simulacrum
within a simulacrum with a simulacrum: there is no "extra-mediatic" Trump
candidate, ergo there is no "extra-mediatic" presidential electoral race
(if limited to the two "mainstreamed" candidates), ergo there is no presidential
election tout court, ergo there is no democracy at the presidential election
level in the U.S–just simulacra deceptively reflecting simulacra, in any
case, the resulting effect is a mirage, a distortion, but above all an ILLUSION.
All this is, it seems to me, is a transition to a different favorite deadly
sin. We've had pride, avarice, and the current favorite is lust; the new
favorite appears to be wrath. Gluttony, sloth, and envy have not been absent,
but they have not been the driving force in politics recently.
Also important was the fact that FDR did not stoke the fires of class
conflict. A patrician himself, FDR's goal was not to overturn the existing
social order but rather to preserve it by correcting its injustices. FDR
was the moderate leader the country needed at the time. Without him, we
might well have succumbed to a demagogic or perhaps even dictatorial government
under Charles Coughlin, Huey Long, or Norman Thomas. In contrast, Hillary
and Trump seek to use fringe groups (BLM, alt-right) for their own agendas.
Let's hope whoever wins can keep her or his pets mollified and contained,
but courting extremists is always a risky business. Indeed, Hillary may
be worse than Trump in this respect, since there appears to be no daylight
between her and the SJW's.
To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean idea that the best
American ways of living work their way up from organic, formative local
communities that have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural experience.
Without independent formative local communities, we human beings are mere
products rolling off the assembly line that serves the interests of the
elites of our big government-big business-big education conglomerate.
Ben Op or not, its always a great notion. And you don't have to withdraw
from the culture, THIS IS American culture (traditionally speaking). We
just need to reaffirm it.
So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies from so many commenters…
Could y'all give at least one that doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and
even with double intensity?
Hillary Clinton doesn't have a long list of unpaid contractors suing
her… of course that's because she never built hotels, and I don't think
she ever declared bankruptcy either. We have a batch of slumlords in Milwaukee
who are little Trumps… they run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines
for building violations, declare bankruptcy or plead poverty and make occasional
payments of $50, and meantime they spend tends of thousands of dollars buying
up distressed property at sheriff's auctions. All of them are black, all
of them have beautiful homes in mostly "white" suburbs, and I wouldn't vote
for any of them for dogcatcher, much less president.
That said, Hillary is an ego-bloated lying sleaze, and I wouldn't vote
for her if she were running against almost anyone but Trump.
Nonetheless I am still tired of the ominous warnings about right-wing
white mobs that are about to rememerge any day. It's been decades since
there was a white riot in this country.
There hasn't been a real riot of any nature in quite a while. And no,
that little fracas in Milwaukee doesn't count. A few dozen thugs burning
four black-owned businesses while everyone living in the neighborhood denounces
then falls short of a riot.
I agree that we are not likely to see right-wing "white" mobs posing
much of a threat to anyone… they're mostly couch potatoes anyway. But it
is true that until the 1940s, a "race riot" meant a white mob rampaging
through a black neighborhood. And there have been very few black riots that
went deep into a "white" neighborhood … they stayed in black neighborhoods
too.
This is an election about feeling under siege.
But we're not, and most of the adults in the room know it.
Trump continues to be a walking, talking Rorschach test for pundits
peddling a point of view.
I think that explains a lot of Trump's support. Its not who he is, what
he says, or what he does or will do, its what they think they SEE in him.
I have to admit, I did a bit of that over Barack Obama in 2008, and he did
disappoint. Obama has been one of our best presidents in a long time, but
that's a rather low bar.
"There are, then, two developments we are likely to see going forward. First,
cultural conservatives will seriously consider a political "Benedict Option,"
dropping out of the Republican Party and forming a like-minded Book Group,
unconcerned with winning elections and very concerned with maintaining their
"principles." Their fidelity is to Aristotle rather than to winning the
battle for the political soul of America. …"
You know, people spout this stuff as if the Republican party is conservative.
It started drifting from conservative frame more than forty years ago. By
the time we get to the 2000 elections, it;s been home an entrenched band
of strategics concerned primarily with winning to advance policies tat have
little to do with conservative thought.
I doubt that I will become a member of a book club. And I doubt that
I will stop voting according to my conservative view points.
I generally think any idea that Christians are going to be left to their
own devices doubtful or that they would want to design communities not already
defined by scripture and a life in Christ.
_______________
"If the Ben Op doesn't call on Christians to abandon politics altogether,
it does call on them to recalibrate their (our) understanding of what politics
is and what it can do. Politics, rightly understood, is more than statecraft.
Ben Op politics are Christian politics for a post-Christian culture - that
is, a culture that no longer shares some key basic Christian values . .
."
I am just at a loss to comprehend this. A person who claims to live in
Christ already calibrates their lives in the frame of Christ and led by
some extent by the Spirit of Christ. Nothing about a world destined to become
more worldly will change that. What may happen is that a kind of christian
spiritual revival and renewal will occur.
" . . . orthodox Christians will come to be seen as threats to the common
good, simply because of the views we hold and the practices we live by out
of fidelity to our religion. . ."
If this accurate, that christians are deemed a threat to the state, unless
that threat is just to their participation, the idea "safe spaces" wheres
christians hang out and do their own thing hardly seems a realistic. If
christians are considered a threat – then most likely the ultimate goal
will be to get rid of them altogether. You outlaw faith and practice. Or
you do what HS and colleges have done to students who arrive on the campuses.
You inundate them with how backward their thinking until the student and
then proceed to tell them they are just like everyone else.
Believers are expected to be in the world and not of it. And by in it,
I think Christ intended them to be active participants.
The question is this: what do you do when the policies or ideas you stand
for or at least, agree with, are advanced by someone with as appalling a
character as Trump? What I observe in practice is that friends and acquaintances
of mine who agree with Trump on the issues find it necessary to defend his
utterly indefensible and vile character – which makes them less than honest
as well.
I'd be more impressed if, after Edwin Edwards, Trump's fans said "Vote
for the swindler, it's important" – rather than use lies or their own credulity
to defend him.
I read this on Friday and have thought much about it since. I came by earlier
this evening and had about half of a long post written in response, but
got too caught up in the Georgia/Missouri game to finish it. I also determined
that it wouldn't matter what I said. The conservatives would continue to
harp about the evils of identity politics, refusing to acknowledge the long
history of conservatives engaging in identity politics in both Europe and
America from roughly the high Middle Ages to the present. It seemed more
rational to delete what I had written rather than save it and come back
to finish it.
It just so happened that as the game ended, I clicked on Huffingtonpost
to check the headlines. Lo and behold, the top story was this one about
Jane Goodall's latest statement regarding identity politics in the animal
kingdom:
"What I observe in practice is that friends and acquaintances of mine
who agree with Trump on the issues find it necessary to defend his utterly
indefensible and vile character – which makes them less than honest as well."
I don't defend his vile character. I readily admit it. So do most of
those I know who intend to vote for him.
It's too bad that Clinton is at least equally vile.
For Hillary that's a big problem – the "character" issue is at best a
wash, so the choice boils down to other things.
The most highly motivated voters in this election cycle seem to be insurgents
pushing back against corrupt and incompetent elites and the Establishment.
That does not bode well for Clinton.
"I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete
programmatic or cultural change or changes would necessitate abandoning
the Ben Op? Or equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows
Rod and company to relax?"
------
I think those are good questions, and read in the best light possible, might
be interpreted as being asked by someone honestly seeking to understand
the concerns of traditional Christians today.
I can't answer for Rod, but for me the short answers are,
"1) In present America, I don't think there are any "cultural change"
possible which might reassure Christians, because we are in a downward spiral
which has not yet run its course. The articles and commentary posted here
by Rod show we've not yet reached the peak of what government and technology
will do to the lives of believing Christians.
2) The post-BenOp - perhaps decades in the future - vision that would
allow me to relax would be a national reaffirmation that our rights, as
partially defined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, come from God
the Creator, that life is valuable from the moment of conception, and that
the traditional family is the best promoter of sound moral, cultural and
economic health. I'd relax a bit, though not entirely, if that happened.
In a September 2015 interview with NBC, Clinton defended partial-birth
abortions again and voiced her support for late-term abortions up until
birth, too.
She also openly supports forcing taxpayers to fund these abortions by
repealing the Hyde Amendment. The amendment prohibits direct taxpayer funding
of abortion in Medicaid. If repealed, researchers estimate that 33,000 more
babies will be aborted every year in the U.S.
Yes, We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables.
"Take a Pat Buchanan…how do you think he would be doing in this election?
Trumps three ring show prevents the charges against him from finding any
fertile soil to grow in."
I think far too much credit is being given to Mr. Trump. The reason he
can stand is because the people he represents have been fed up with the
some of what he stands for long before he entered the fray.
If Mr Pat Buchanan were running, he would be in good stead save or his
speaking style which is far more formal. Mr. Trump's carefree (of sorts)
delivery punches through and gives the impression that he's an everyman.
His boundless energy has that sense earnest sincerity. His "imperfections"
tend to work in his favor. But if his message was counter to where most
people are already at - he would not be the nominee.
There's a difference in being a .Mr. Trump fan and a supporter. As a
supporter, I would be curious to know what lies I have used to support him.
We have some serious differences, but I think my support has been fairly
above board. In fact, i think the support of most have been fairly straight
up I am not sure there is much hidden about Mr. Trump.
The only new issue that has been brought up is the issue of staff accountability.
Has he neglected to pay his staff, is this just an organizational natter
or complete nonsense.
The other factor that has played out to his advantage are the news stories
that repeatedly turn out false, distorted or nonexistent.
The media already in the credibility hole seems very content to dig themselves
in deeper.
I didn't see the post where you disavowed liberals as well, so I was
too hasty with the "your side"
Nonetheless I am still tired of the ominous warnings about right-wing
white mobs that are about to rememerge any day. It's been decades since
there was a white riot in this country.
fwiw, my sense is that the Benedict Option (from the snippets that you have
shared with usm particularly in the posts on Norcia and other communities
already pursuing some sort of "option") represents a return of conservative
Christians to a more healthy, hands-off relationship with national politics.
Conservative Christians danced with the Republican Party for a long-time,
but past a certain point had to stop pretending that the Republican Party
cared more about them than about their slice of Mammon (big business and
the MIC mainly). Liberal Christians, some of them, danced with the other
side of Mammon (big government and social programs, etc) and perhaps just
got absorbed. But the point is I think you are returning to a better place,
reverting to some sort of norm, the alliance with the GOP was a strange
infatuation that wasn't going to sustain anyway.
So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies from so many commenters…
Could y'all give at least one that doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and
even with double intensity?
Michelle: Obama advisor Al Sharpton has been responsible for stirring up
more Jew hatred than Trump. Have you ever given a care about that? Do you
care that Hillary's Mexican and Muslim immigrants are sure to be more antisemitic
than the native whites of the US that you fret about over and over?
Rod, when you say the following, you articulate exactly why I have reluctantly
become a libertarian:
-"On a practical level, that means that I will no longer vote primarily
on the social issues that have dictated my vote in the past, but I will
vote primarily for candidates who will be better at protecting my community's
right to be left alone."-
Last year after listening to the same-sex marriage oral arguments presented
before the Supreme Court, I concluded that libertarianism and either the
current Libertarian Party or some spinoff offers the best that those of
us with traditional religious and moral convictions can hope for in a decidedly
post-Christian America. I wrote about why I believe this to be so at
http://www.skiprigney.com/2015/04/29/how-the-ssm-debate-made-me-a-libertarian/
I don't believe for a minute that the majority of elected officials in
the Republican Party have the backbone to stand up for religious liberty
in the face of corporate pressure. You need look no farther than how the
Republicans caved last year in Indiana on the protection of religious liberty.
There are many libertarians who are going to work to protect the rights
of people to do things that undermine the common good. But, I have more
faith that they'll protect the rights of a cultural minority such as traditionalist
Christians than I have in either the Republicans or the Democrats.
It isn't true that Trump and his supporters are against identity politics.
It's just that they have a far simpler view of identity politics. There
are white people, and there are blah people. White people will be in charge,
and blah people can have a piece of the pie to the extent they agree to
pretend to be white people.
Cecelia wonders: "Are we as a people really capable of being citizens of
a Republic or are we simply fools to be manipulated by people like Trump?"
My two cents: We're capable of being citizens of a Republic if our government
creates the conditions for a thriving middle class: the most important condition
being good, high-paying jobs that allow people to live an independent existence.
The vast majority of manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas, and
even higher-skilled jobs (such as research and development) are increasingly
being outsourced as well.
If you look at the monthly payroll jobs reports put out by the Bureau
of Labor Statistics, you will see that the vast majority of new jobs are
in retail trade, health care and social assistance, waitresses and bartenders,
and government. Most of these jobs are part-time jobs. None of these jobs
produce any goods than can be exported. Aside from government jobs, these
are not jobs that pay well enough for people to thrive independently. This
is why more Americans aged 25-34 live with their parents than independently
with spouses and children of their own. It is also why many people now must
work multiple jobs in order to make ends meet. As for government jobs, they
are tax-supported, and thus a drain on the economy. I'm not a libertarian.
I recognize that government provides many crucial services. But it is unproductive
to have too many bureaucrats living off of tax revenues.
Basically, the middle class is disappearing. Without a thriving middle
class, democracy is unsustainable. Struggling people filled with hate and
resentment are ripe for manipulation by nefarious forces.
Spain's Francisco Franco understood this very well. His goal was to make
it unthinkable for his country to descend into civil war ever again. He
achieved this. Before Franco, Spain was a Third World h*llhole plagued by
radical ideologies like communism, regional separatism, and anarchism. [Fascism
had its following as well, but it was never too popular. The Falange (which
was the closest thing to a fascist movement in Spain, though it was not
really fascist, as it was profoundly Christian and rejected Nietzschean
neo-paganism) was irrelevant before Francoism. Under Francoism, it was one
of the three pillars that supported the regime (the other two being monarchists
and Catholics), but it was never the most influential pillar.] When Franco
died, Spain was the ninth-largest economy in the world, and the second-fastest
growing economy in the world (behind only Japan). It became a liberal democracy
almost overnight. When Franco was on his deathbed, he was asked what he
thought his most important legacy was. He replied, "The middle class." Franco
was not a democrat, but he'd created the conditions for liberal democracy
in Spain.
To get back to the US, we now have a Third World economy. We can't too
surprised that our politics also look increasingly like those of a Third
World country. Thus, the rise of Trump, Sanders, the alt-right, the SJW's,
Black Lives Matter, etc.
The evolution of the MSM into an American version of Pravda/Izvestia
has been a lengthy process and dates back at least to the days of Walter
Lippmann (ostensibly a journalist but upon whom Roosevelt, Truman and JFK
had no qualms about calling for advice).
With the emergence of the Internet and the phenomenon of the blogosphere,
the MSM has no choice but to cast off whatever pretensions to objectivity
they may have had and, instead, now preach to the choir so they can keep
themselves viable in an increasingly competitive market where more people
get their news from such as Matt Drudge than from the NY-LA Times or the
WaPo
Suppose a more composed candidate stood up against the PC police, and generally
stood for these same 6 principles, and did so in a much more coherent and
rational manner. I propose that he would be demolished within no time at
all. Take a Pat Buchanan…how do you think he would be doing in this election?
Trumps three ring show prevents the charges against him from finding any
fertile soil to grow in. If he ran on principle instead of capturing an
undefined spirit, if he tried to answer the charges against him in a rational
manner, all it would do it produce more fertile soil for the PC charges
to stick. Trump may have stumbled upon the model for future conservative
candidates when running in a nation where the mainstream press is so thoroughly
against you. Just make a lot of noise and ignore them. If you engage in
the argument with them, they'll destroy you.
@Cecelia: The issue is not Trump – it is those who support him. Are we as
a people really capable of being citizens of a Republic or are we simply
fools to be manipulated by people like Trump ?
Yes. Tell me, during the Great Depression, as Nazi Germany and Imperial
Japan began their march to what would bring this world to war and state-sponsored
genocide, why did my grandparents and my parents who were teenagers in the
30s not succumb to all this doom, gloom, and anger at the supposed lack
of prospects for improvement in their lives that Trump's followers whine
about? By any standard, conditions then were worse for the white working
class than is the case today, and yes, my grandparents were working class:
one grandfather worked for the railroad, the other for a lumber mill. And
yes, there was alcoholism, and domestic abuse, and crime, and suicide amongst
the populace in the 1930s. The role of religion was more pervasive then,
but to tell the truth, I expect Rod would describe my grandparents on both
side as Moral Therapeutic Deists; by Rod's standard I believe that is true
for most Christians throughout history.
Just what is different about today, that brings all this rage and resentment?
Could it be that racial and ethnic and religious minorities, and women now
have a piece of the pie and a good part of the white working class cannot
stand it?
And Trump doesn't scare me nearly as much as does the fact that so very
many Americans support him, whether wholeheartedly swallowing his poison,
or because they close their eyes and minds and hearts to just what kind
of a man he is.
The promotion of an increasingly interconnected world in and of itself isnt
necessarily bad. However, the annihilation of culture,religion, and autonomy
at the hands of multinational corporations and a Gramscian elite certainly
is – and that is what is happening under what is referred to as globalization.
The revolt against the evil being pushed out of Brussels and Washington
has now spread into the West itself. May the victory of the rebels be swift
and complete.
"You're misdefining "grievance industry;" the central tenet of the grievance
industry is that whatever happens, white people are to blame and should
continue paying for it."
If we all accept your definition then we can't argue with you. Whatever
you want to call it, there is an entire industry (most conservative media)
that feeds a victimization mentality among whites, conservatives, evangelicals
etc (all those labels apply to me by the way) that closely resembles the
grievance outlook. The only difference is in what circles it is taken seriously.
Why else do so many of us get so bent out of shape when employees have the
audacity to say "happy holidays" at the department store. As made apparent
on this blog we do need to be realistic and vigilant about the real threats
and the direction the culture is going, but by whining about every perceived
slight and insisting everyone buy into our version of "Christian America"
(while anointing a vile figure like Trump as our strongman) we are undercutting
the legitimate grievances we do have.
Everyone has heard how far is moving small car production to Mexico and
forwarded saying no one in America will lose their jobs because the production
will be shifted to SUVs and other vehicles.
That's not the problem the problem is instead of creating more jobs in
America the jobs are being created in Mexico and not helping Americans.
"BenOp is fascinating, but most cultural conservative now active in the
game will not drop out. They may not like the adrenalin rush politics gives
them more than they like Jesus–but they ain't going to give it up."
Exactly. This is why Christian boycotts never succeed. They claim that
they hate Disneyworld because of their pro-gay policies, but when they have
to choose between Jesus and a Fun Family Vacation, Jesus always loses.
What happens when the status quo media turns a presidential election
into a referendum regarding the media's ability to shape public opinion
and direct "purchasing" choices?
The Corporate Media is corrupt and Americans are waking up to it.
This will almost always mean voting for the Republicans in national elections,
but in a primary situation, I will vote for the Republican who can best
be counted on to defend religious liberty, even if he's not 100 percent
on board with what I consider to be promoting the Good. If it means voting
for a Republican that the defense hawks or the Chamber of Commerce disdain,
I have no problem at all with that.
How is this different than cultural conservatives voted before Trump?
If we elect Trump as POTUS, we deserve everything that happens to us.
Don't blame the progressives when Trump says something about defaulting
on the US debt and the stock market crashes.
Don't blame the progressives when China moves ahead us by leaps and bound
in science and technology because we pull a Kansas and cut taxes left right
and center, then decide to get rid of all government-funded research.
Don't blame the progressives when The Wall doesn't get built, Trump says
"who, me? I never promised anything!" Ditto for the lack of return of well-paid
coal-mining jobs.
And don't blame the progressives when you discover Trump has sold you
down the river for a song, refuses to appoint "conservatives" as SCOTUS
judges, and throws the First Amendment out the window.
We have had three decades of culture wars and everyone can pretty much agree
that the traditionalists lost. Now whether Dreher et all lost because the
broader culture refused to listen or because they simply couldn't make a
convincing argument is a question that surrounds a very particular program
pursued by conservatives, traditionalists and the religious right. It is
certain that the Republican Party as a vehicle for those values has been
taken out and been beat like a rented mule. It seems to that Josh Stuart
has pulled a rabbit out of the hat. Trump is, if anything, pretty incoherent
and whatever "principles" he represents were discovered in the breach; a
little like bad gunnery practice, one shot low, one shot lower and then
a hit. If Trump represents anything it is the fact that the base of the
party was not who many of us thought they were. Whatever Christian values
we thought they were representing are hardly recognizable now.
What truly puzzles me more and increasingly so is Rod's vision of what
America is supposed to be under a Dreher regime. I'm not sure what that
regime looks like? Behind all the theological underpinning and high-sounding
abstractions what does a ground-level political and legislative program
for achieving a society he is willing to whole-heartedly participate in
look like?
Politics is a reflection of culture but culture is responsive to politics.
What political order does the Ben Op crowd wish to install in place of the
one we have now – short of the parousia – and how does that affect our life
and autonomy as citizens and individuals? He says Christians just want to
be left alone but they seem to have made and are still making a lot of noise
for people who want to be left alone so I have to assume they want something
over and above being left alone.
I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete
programmatic or cultural change or changes would necessitate abandoning
the Ben Op? Or equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows
Rod and company to relax?
a couple "ideas" come to mind. re: deplorable. SOME (no value in speculating
or establishing a number) are deplorable. it's funny (actually, quite sad)
Trump's we don't have time to be politically correct mantra is ignored when
his opponent (a politician who helped establish the concept of politically
correctness) steals a page from his playbook. on a certain level, perhaps
the eastern elite, intellectual liberal grabbed the "irony" hammer from
the toolbox? ever the shrewd, calculating (narcissistic and insecure) carny
barker, Trump has not offered any "new" ideas. he's merely (like any politician)
put his finger in the air and decided to "run" from the "nationalist, racist,
nativist, side of the politically correct/incorrect betting line. at the
end of the day, there are likely as many deplorable folks on the Clinton
bandwagon; it's just (obviously) not in her interests to expose these "boosters"
at HER rallies/fundraising events. in many ways it speaks to the lesser
of two evils is still evil "idea". politics – especially national campaigns
are not so much about which party/candidate has the better ideas, but rather
which is less deplorable.
"Instead, it has everything to do with his wink/nod attitude toward the
alt-right and white nationalist groups and with his willingness to appropriate
their anti-semitic, racist memes for his own advancement. He's dangerous.
Period. Dangerous and scary to anyone familiar with lynchings, pogroms,
and mob violence. To anyone familiar with history. Trump has unleashed dark
forces that will not easily be quelled even if, and probably especially
if, he loses. The possibility that he might win has left me wondering whether
I even belong in this country any more, no matter how much sympathy I might
feel for the folks globalism has left behind."
One can just as easily make the point that the globalists have unleashed
dark forces against white people and Western civilization that are nor easily
quelled.
The most interesting part of the essay is near the end, where he briefly
discusses how non-whites might react to our political realignment.
After all, will the white liberal be able to manipulate these groups
forever?
For example, we are seeing the 'official black leaders' who represent
them on TV shift from being activist clergymen to being (white paid and
hosed) gay activists and mulattoes from outside the mainstream of black
culture. How long can this continue?
"Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several
other Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump.
"thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter; (2) immigration policy
matters; (3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter;
(4) entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters; (6) PC speech-without
which identity politics is inconceivable-must be repudiated."
They seem to think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd world immigration,
stop pc thought police, or up hold Christian-ish values are a direct threat
to them."
The Jews, having lived as strangers among foreign peoples for the better
part of 2 millennia, have always been on the receiving end of racial hatred.
As a result many Western Jews have an instinctive mistrust of nationalist
movements and a natural tendency towards globalism.
The media has done a splendid job of portraying Trump as the next Hitler,
so, understandably, there's a lot of fear. My Jewish grandparents are terrified
of the man.
I am not a globalist, and (due to the SCOTUS issue) will probably vote
for Trump, even though I have no love for the man himself. I think the "Trump
the racist" meme is based on confirmation bias, not reality, but I understand
where the fear comes from.
"I think that many casual hearers of Ben Op ideas assume that Ben Op
is a one-dimensional, cultural dropping-out of cultural/religious conservatives
into irrelevant enclaves.
To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean idea that the best
American ways of living work their way up from organic, formative local
communities that have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural experience.
Without independent formative local communities, we human beings are mere
products rolling off the assembly line that serves the interests of the
elites of our big government-big business-big education conglomerate.
If these formative communities hold to authentic, compassionate Judeo-Christian
values and practices, all the better–for everybody! Ben Op will offer an
alternative to the assembly-line politically correct cultural warriors being
produced by many of our elite cultural institutions."
Bingo.
If you want to fundamentally transform the culture, you have to withdraw
from it, at least partially. But there's no need to wall yourself off. A
Benedict Option community can and should be politically active, primarily
at the local level, where the most good can be done.
The Benedictine monks from whom Rod draws inspiration didn't just shut
themselves up and refuse to have anything to do with the crumbling world
around them. They retreated into their monasteries to strengthen their souls,
and then went out into the world and rebuilt it for Christ.
"Clinton assassination fantasies"? I call bullsh*t on that notion. Trump
merely pointed our the absolute hypocrisy of elites like Clinton and her
ilk, the guns for me but not for thee crowd. He was not fantasizing about
her assassination. Far from it. To suggest he was is to engage in the same
sort of dishonesty for which Clinton is so well known.
I never cared much for Trump but he has all the right enemies and is
growing on me.
"It isn't true that Trump and his supporters are against identity politics.
It's just that they have a far simpler view of identity politics. There
are white people, and there are blah people. "
They love Ben Carson and Allan West, last time I checked neither men
were white.
"Yes. Tell me, during the Great Depression, as Nazi Germany and Imperial
Japan began their march to what would bring this world to war and state-sponsored
genocide, why did my grandparents and my parents who were teenagers in the
30s not succumb to all this doom, gloom, and anger at the supposed lack
of prospects for improvement in their lives that Trump's followers whine
about?"
Well, back then, the government was doing stuff for the common people.
A lot of stuff. WPA, NRA, Social Security, FDIC, FHA, AAA, etc. FDR remembered
the "forgotten man." Today, the government is subservient to multinationals
and Rothschilds. The forgotten men and women that make up the backbone of
our economy have been forgotten once again, and nobody seems to remember
them - with the *possible,* partial exception of Trump.
The Globalist clap-trap that has so enamoured both parties reminds me of
this quote from C.S. Lewis'"Screwtape Proposes a Toast":
"…They ever be allowed to raise Aristotle's question: whether "democratic
behavior" means the behavior that democracies like or the behavior that
will preserve a democracy. For if they did, it could hardly fail to occur
to them that these need not be the same."
Globalism is just swell for the multinational corporation, but it is
nothing more or less than Lawlessness writ large. The Corporation is given
legal/fictional life by the state…the trouble is it, like Frankenstein,
will turns on its creator and imagines it can enjoy Absolute Independence.
One can just as easily make the point that the globalists have unleashed
dark forces against white people and Western civilization that are nor easily
quelled.
And you would have the benefit of evidence (or, well, evidence that is not
stale by nearly a century). It wasn't Trump supporters beating up people in
San Jose. And if you look to Europe as a guide to what can happen in America,
things start looking far, far worse.
"I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete
programmatic or cultural change or changes would necessitate abandoning
the Ben Op? Or equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows
Rod and company to relax?"
While I can't speak for Rod, I can speak for many traditional Catholics.
The end goal is the re-establishment of the social reign of Christ, which
means a majority Christian nation, Christian culture, and a state which
governs according to Christian principles (read Quas Primas). In that situation,
and in that situation alone, would the Ben Op no longer be necessary.
I am guessing that Rod has not said this explicitly, or laid out a concrete
plan, because he is writing a book for Christians in general. And if you
get into too many specifics, you are going to run right into the enormous
theological and philosophical differences between Catholicism and Protestantism.
Also, if Rod were to start talking about "The Social Reign of Christ
the King", 3/4 of you would lose your minds.
Of course, the current prospect for a Christian culture and state look
bleak, to say the least. But we can play the long game, the Catholic Church
is good at that. It took over 300 years to convert the Roman Empire. It
was 700 years from the founding of the first Benedictine monastery until
St. Thomas Aquinas and the High Middle Ages. We can wait that long, at least.
I rather think, in concurrence with Prof. Cole, that Trump is a simulacrum
within a simulacrum with a simulacrum: there is no "extra-mediatic" Trump
candidate, ergo there is no "extra-mediatic" presidential electoral race
(if limited to the two "mainstreamed" candidates), ergo there is no presidential
election tout court, ergo there is no democracy at the presidential election
level in the U.S–just simulacra deceptively reflecting simulacra, in any
case, the resulting effect is a mirage, a distortion, but above all an ILLUSION.
All this is, it seems to me, is a transition to a different favorite deadly
sin. We've had pride, avarice, and the current favorite is lust; the new
favorite appears to be wrath. Gluttony, sloth, and envy have not been absent,
but they have not been the driving force in politics recently.
Also important was the fact that FDR did not stoke the fires of class
conflict. A patrician himself, FDR's goal was not to overturn the existing
social order but rather to preserve it by correcting its injustices. FDR
was the moderate leader the country needed at the time. Without him, we
might well have succumbed to a demagogic or perhaps even dictatorial government
under Charles Coughlin, Huey Long, or Norman Thomas. In contrast, Hillary
and Trump seek to use fringe groups (BLM, alt-right) for their own agendas.
Let's hope whoever wins can keep her or his pets mollified and contained,
but courting extremists is always a risky business. Indeed, Hillary may
be worse than Trump in this respect, since there appears to be no daylight
between her and the SJW's.
To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean idea that the best
American ways of living work their way up from organic, formative local
communities that have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural experience.
Without independent formative local communities, we human beings are mere
products rolling off the assembly line that serves the interests of the
elites of our big government-big business-big education conglomerate.
Ben Op or not, its always a great notion. And you don't have to withdraw
from the culture, THIS IS American culture (traditionally speaking). We
just need to reaffirm it.
So many colorful descriptions of how Trump lies from so many commenters…
Could y'all give at least one that doesn't fit his opponent perfectly and
even with double intensity?
Hillary Clinton doesn't have a long list of unpaid contractors suing
her… of course that's because she never built hotels, and I don't think
she ever declared bankruptcy either. We have a batch of slumlords in Milwaukee
who are little Trumps… they run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines
for building violations, declare bankruptcy or plead poverty and make occasional
payments of $50, and meantime they spend tends of thousands of dollars buying
up distressed property at sheriff's auctions. All of them are black, all
of them have beautiful homes in mostly "white" suburbs, and I wouldn't vote
for any of them for dogcatcher, much less president.
That said, Hillary is an ego-bloated lying sleaze, and I wouldn't vote
for her if she were running against almost anyone but Trump.
Nonetheless I am still tired of the ominous warnings about right-wing
white mobs that are about to rememerge any day. It's been decades since
there was a white riot in this country.
There hasn't been a real riot of any nature in quite a while. And no,
that little fracas in Milwaukee doesn't count. A few dozen thugs burning
four black-owned businesses while everyone living in the neighborhood denounces
then falls short of a riot.
I agree that we are not likely to see right-wing "white" mobs posing
much of a threat to anyone… they're mostly couch potatoes anyway. But it
is true that until the 1940s, a "race riot" meant a white mob rampaging
through a black neighborhood. And there have been very few black riots that
went deep into a "white" neighborhood … they stayed in black neighborhoods
too.
This is an election about feeling under siege.
But we're not, and most of the adults in the room know it.
Trump continues to be a walking, talking Rorschach test for pundits
peddling a point of view.
I think that explains a lot of Trump's support. Its not who he is, what
he says, or what he does or will do, its what they think they SEE in him.
I have to admit, I did a bit of that over Barack Obama in 2008, and he did
disappoint. Obama has been one of our best presidents in a long time, but
that's a rather low bar.
"There are, then, two developments we are likely to see going forward. First,
cultural conservatives will seriously consider a political "Benedict Option,"
dropping out of the Republican Party and forming a like-minded Book Group,
unconcerned with winning elections and very concerned with maintaining their
"principles." Their fidelity is to Aristotle rather than to winning the
battle for the political soul of America. …"
You know, people spout this stuff as if the Republican party is conservative.
It started drifting from conservative frame more than forty years ago. By
the time we get to the 2000 elections, it;s been home an entrenched band
of strategics concerned primarily with winning to advance policies tat have
little to do with conservative thought.
I doubt that I will become a member of a book club. And I doubt that
I will stop voting according to my conservative view points.
I generally think any idea that Christians are going to be left to their
own devices doubtful or that they would want to design communities not already
defined by scripture and a life in Christ.
_______________
"If the Ben Op doesn't call on Christians to abandon politics altogether,
it does call on them to recalibrate their (our) understanding of what politics
is and what it can do. Politics, rightly understood, is more than statecraft.
Ben Op politics are Christian politics for a post-Christian culture - that
is, a culture that no longer shares some key basic Christian values . .
."
I am just at a loss to comprehend this. A person who claims to live in
Christ already calibrates their lives in the frame of Christ and led by
some extent by the Spirit of Christ. Nothing about a world destined to become
more worldly will change that. What may happen is that a kind of christian
spiritual revival and renewal will occur.
" . . . orthodox Christians will come to be seen as threats to the common
good, simply because of the views we hold and the practices we live by out
of fidelity to our religion. . ."
If this accurate, that christians are deemed a threat to the state, unless
that threat is just to their participation, the idea "safe spaces" wheres
christians hang out and do their own thing hardly seems a realistic. If
christians are considered a threat – then most likely the ultimate goal
will be to get rid of them altogether. You outlaw faith and practice. Or
you do what HS and colleges have done to students who arrive on the campuses.
You inundate them with how backward their thinking until the student and
then proceed to tell them they are just like everyone else.
Believers are expected to be in the world and not of it. And by in it,
I think Christ intended them to be active participants.
"Rod, I don't know if you've seen this already, but National Review has
a small piece about Archbishop Charles Chaput, who calls for Christians
to become more engaged in the public square, not less. Your name and the
Benedict Option are referenced in the piece as well."
Let me answer it for him. Perhaps just like not everyone is called to
the contemplative life in a monastery but are called to the secular world,
so is the church as a whole these days individually called to different
arenas. That said, the basic principles of the Ben Op are hardly opposed
to being active in the broader community. It just means there has to be
some intentionality in maintaining a Christian worldview in a hostile larger
culture.
"The Benedictine monks from whom Rod draws inspiration didn't just shut
themselves up and refuse to have anything to do with the crumbling world
around them. They retreated into their monasteries to strengthen their souls,
and then went out into the world and rebuilt it for Christ."
Just a technical comment. You have to pay attention to which orders you
are referring to, because many of them were indeed founded to retreat from
the world. At one time, the idea of a monk wandering outside of the monastery,
or a nun particularly, was considered scandalous. I read alot of monastic
history about 20 years ago, and I seem to recall the Benedictines were actually
focused on prayer and manual labor/work within the monastery area. It was
later with orders like the Dominicans that were sent out into the community,
and they caused the bishops a lot of headaches because they competed with
priests and bishops in preaching publicly. It took awhile to sort out who
was allowed to do what. Modern religious orders founded since the 18th century
are quite different from the old orders.
Another area of interest you could check out, besides reading some of
the religious rules of life of many of these old orders just for the sake
of comparison, is the differences between the cenobitic and eremitic monastic
communities of the very early church. The original founding of religious
orders even back then was also considered a direct challenge to the church
hierarchy and took a lot of time sorting out that they weren't some kind
of troublemakers, too. Modern Catholics have entirely too little knowledge
of the development and maybe too pious a view of it.
The question is this: what do you do when the policies or ideas you stand
for or at least, agree with, are advanced by someone with as appalling a
character as Trump? What I observe in practice is that friends and acquaintances
of mine who agree with Trump on the issues find it necessary to defend his
utterly indefensible and vile character – which makes them less than honest
as well.
I'd be more impressed if, after Edwin Edwards, Trump's fans said "Vote
for the swindler, it's important" – rather than use lies or their own credulity
to defend him.
I read this on Friday and have thought much about it since. I came by earlier
this evening and had about half of a long post written in response, but
got too caught up in the Georgia/Missouri game to finish it. I also determined
that it wouldn't matter what I said. The conservatives would continue to
harp about the evils of identity politics, refusing to acknowledge the long
history of conservatives engaging in identity politics in both Europe and
America from roughly the high Middle Ages to the present. It seemed more
rational to delete what I had written rather than save it and come back
to finish it.
It just so happened that as the game ended, I clicked on Huffingtonpost
to check the headlines. Lo and behold, the top story was this one about
Jane Goodall's latest statement regarding identity politics in the animal
kingdom:
"What I observe in practice is that friends and acquaintances of mine
who agree with Trump on the issues find it necessary to defend his utterly
indefensible and vile character – which makes them less than honest as well."
I don't defend his vile character. I readily admit it. So do most of
those I know who intend to vote for him.
It's too bad that Clinton is at least equally vile.
For Hillary that's a big problem – the "character" issue is at best a
wash, so the choice boils down to other things.
The most highly motivated voters in this election cycle seem to be insurgents
pushing back against corrupt and incompetent elites and the Establishment.
That does not bode well for Clinton.
"I guess the question I want to zero in on is; What minimal, concrete
programmatic or cultural change or changes would necessitate abandoning
the Ben Op? Or equally, what is the post-Ben Op vision of America that allows
Rod and company to relax?"
------
I think those are good questions, and read in the best light possible, might
be interpreted as being asked by someone honestly seeking to understand
the concerns of traditional Christians today.
I can't answer for Rod, but for me the short answers are,
"1) In present America, I don't think there are any "cultural change"
possible which might reassure Christians, because we are in a downward spiral
which has not yet run its course. The articles and commentary posted here
by Rod show we've not yet reached the peak of what government and technology
will do to the lives of believing Christians.
2) The post-BenOp - perhaps decades in the future - vision that would
allow me to relax would be a national reaffirmation that our rights, as
partially defined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights, come from God
the Creator, that life is valuable from the moment of conception, and that
the traditional family is the best promoter of sound moral, cultural and
economic health. I'd relax a bit, though not entirely, if that happened.
In a September 2015 interview with NBC, Clinton defended partial-birth
abortions again and voiced her support for late-term abortions up until
birth, too.
She also openly supports forcing taxpayers to fund these abortions by
repealing the Hyde Amendment. The amendment prohibits direct taxpayer funding
of abortion in Medicaid. If repealed, researchers estimate that 33,000 more
babies will be aborted every year in the U.S.
Yes, We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables.
"Take a Pat Buchanan…how do you think he would be doing in this election?
Trumps three ring show prevents the charges against him from finding any
fertile soil to grow in."
I think far too much credit is being given to Mr. Trump. The reason he
can stand is because the people he represents have been fed up with the
some of what he stands for long before he entered the fray.
If Mr Pat Buchanan were running, he would be in good stead save or
his speaking style which is far more formal. Mr. Trump's carefree (of sorts)
delivery punches through and gives the impression that he's an everyman.
His boundless energy has that sense earnest sincerity. His "imperfections"
tend to work in his favor. But if his message was counter to where most
people are already at - he would not be the nominee.
There's a difference in being a .Mr. Trump fan and a supporter. As a
supporter, I would be curious to know what lies I have used to support him.
We have some serious differences, but I think my support has been fairly
above board. In fact, i think the support of most have been fairly straight
up I am not sure there is much hidden about Mr. Trump.
Hillary Clinton, "Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will and deep-seated
cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed."
Uh Oh -- We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables.
That's a shame RD, because I was looking forward to joining a like-minded
Book Group, unconcerned with winning elections and very concerned with maintaining
our "principles." With fidelity is to Aristotle rather than to winning the
battle for the political soul of America.
[NFR: You can still have your Ben Op book group. - RD]
I'm going to start and end with globalization by referring to G.K.Chesterton
in Orthodoxy(pg 101).
"This is what makes Christendom at once so perplexing and so much more interesting
than the Pagan empires;…If anyone wants a modern proof of all this, let
him consider the curious fact that, under Christianity, Europe has broken
up into individual nations. Patriotism is a perfect example of this deliberate
balance of one emphasis against another emphasis. The instinct of the Pagan
empire would have said, 'You shall all be Roman citizens, and grow alike;
let the German grow less slow and reverent; the Frenchmen less experimental
and swift.' But the instinct of Christian Europe says, 'Let the German remain
slow and reverent, that the Frenchman may the more safely be swift and experimental.
We will make an equipoise out of these excesses. The absurdity called Germany
shall correct the insanity called France."
Isn't it interesting that has Christianity has left the northern hemisphere
for the southern, that Europe has tried union, the USA has been into interventionism,
and globalization has become so mainstream. You shall all be one world citizens
doesn't have a balancing instinct. And Chesterton was deliberating about
the balancing instinct.
I think Mitchell is basically right. Aside from his jab at the Benedict
Option, I have just one quibble with his analysis: "And Trump is the first
American candidate to bring some coherence to them, however raucous his
formulations have been."
Wrong. Trump is definitely not the first candidate to do this. He was
preceded by Pat Buchanan, who also brought (and still brings) much more
coherence to the six ideas than Trump. Clearly, Buchanan ran at a time when
the post-1989 order was in its infancy, and so few saw any fundamental problem
with it. He was ahead of his time. But he was a candidate that presented
the six ideas and attracted a non-negligible amount of support. Trump is
not a pioneer in this regard. People should give Buchanan his due.
I hope Trump wins; he's rather bizarre and not very likable as a person,
but the last 25 years have been disastrous politically in Western nations
and it's time to repudiate the ruling orthodoxy. The US still is the Western
hegemon and exports its ideas across the Atlantic (most unfortunate in cases
like "critical whiteness studies"); if there's change in the US towards
a (soft, civic) nationalism, it might open up new options in Europe as well.
In any case these are exciting times…however it turns out, we may well be
living through years which will be seen as decisive in retrospect.
This comment on the Politico article stood out to me: "It is its very existence,
and mantra, for a religion the advertise itself, something that is frowned
upon as being Incredibly un-American under the Constitution, and contrary
to our core beliefs. Yes Republicans not only embrace this, they help their
religion advertise."
In other words, this commenter admits that he believes it "incredibly
un-American" for religions to "advertise," and, by extension, to even exist
(he says advertising is religion's "very existence.")
The comment has a high number of "thumbs-up."
We really are in trouble. America has become Jacobin country.
Red brick
September 16, 2016 at 6:36 pm
Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several
other Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump.'
Perhaps due to very recent memories that herrenvolk regimes are not good
for the Jews. The online troll army of out and proud anti-semites can't
help but contribute to this.
Re "the DC elites are clueless" what ABOUT John Kasich up there on the podium
advocating for the latest free trade deal? Yessir, that'll get us in our
"states that begin with a vowel" to totally change our minds on that, you
betcha!
Trump continues to be a walking, talking Rorschach test for pundits peddling
a point of view. Funny how he proves so many intellectuals right about so
many contradictory things, all without having to take responsibility for
any particular idea.
Nobody has remained more adamant than the writer of this blog that there
is something sacred about sex between one woman and one man, and them married.
God bless him for staying true.
So I am going to try to say( G.K Chesterton please forgive me)…..Let the
LBGTQIA remain true to their identity, that the married male/female may
be more safely true to their identity. We can make an equipoise out of these
excesses( despite those who want us to be all the same). The absurdity called
LBGTQIA shall correct the insanity called one man/one woman.
Trump is certainly not unraveling identity politics. He's adding another
identity to the grievance industry, that of (downscale) whites.
You're misdefining "grievance industry;" the central tenet of the grievance
industry is that whatever happens, white people are to blame and should
continue paying for it. Whether you agree with white identity politics or
not, its proponents are obviously not adding to the grievance industry,
but attempting to defend against it, i.e. stating that white people are
not to blame for everything, and no, they shouldn't continue
to pay for it. To merely maintain that position is sufficient to be labeled
as a white supremacist by the grievance industry hacks.
Rod, I don't know if you've seen this already, but National Review has a
small piece about Archbishop Charles Chaput, who calls for Christians to
become more engaged in the public square, not less. Your name and
the Benedict Option are referenced in the piece as well.
Dear mainstream media: you have lost your credibility because
you are incapable of skeptical inquiry into your chosen candidate or
official statistics/ pronouncements. Your dismissal of skeptical
inquiries as "conspiracies" or "hoaxes" is nothing but a crass repackaging
of the propaganda techniques of totalitarian state media.
Dear MSM: You have forsaken your duty in a democracy and are a
disgrace to investigative, unbiased journalism. You have substituted
Orwellian-level propaganda for honest, skeptical journalism. We can
only hope viewers and advertisers respond appropriately, i.e. turn you
off.
Here's the mainstream media's new mantra: "skepticism is always
a conspiracy or a hoax." The Ministry of Propaganda and the MSM
are now one agency.
The curtain is being pulled back on the Wizard of Oz. How soon before
the Wicked Witch starts to melt?
Do people who are willing to accept characterization as "angry, provincial
bigots" still have any right to political self-expression? Believe it or
not, it's an important question.
Identity politics definition: a tendency for people of a particular religion,
race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving
away from traditional broad-based party politics.
I find it odd that the party of older white straight Christian men accuses
the party of everyone else to be guilty of "identity politics". It just
doesn't make any sense.
(1) borders matter; Ok, but they're not all that.
(2) immigration policy matters; Ditto. We should have a policy.
(3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter; Depends.
National interests matter, but if they are all that matters… I think you
just stepped outside the Gospels.
(4) entrepreneurship matters; It can, for good OR for evil.
(5) decentralization matters; Another thorny one… SOME things need to be
more decentralized, some don't, and we need to have an honest conversation
about which is which.
(6) PC speech-without which identity politics is inconceivable-must be repudiated.
ABSOLUTELY!
All in all, I think this Georgetown prof has done the usual short list
of The Latest Attempt To Reduce Reality To a Nice Short Checklist.
Not much of a guide to the future. We could all write our own lists.
You can largely agree with Mitchell's six points (and, for the most part
I do) and nonetheless recognize that an unprincipled, ruthless charlatan
like Trump–a pathological liar and narcissist interested in nothing but
his own self-promotion–will do nothing meaningful to advance them. His latest
birther charade shows him for the lying, unprincipled scum bucket he is.
The cultural ground is shifting as the emptiness of advanced consumer
capitalism and globalism becomes ever more apparent. Large scale organizations
are, by their very nature, dehumanizing, demoralizing, and corrupt. I've
believed so for the better part of my life now. It's that belief that lead
me to the University of Rochester and Christopher Lasch in the 1980s and,
subsequently to MacIntyre, Rieff, and Berry. It's also a belief that has
lead me to distrust both the corporate order and politics as a means to
salvation. I certainly don't consider myself a conservative, at least not
in the shallow American sense of the term, and the chances that I will ever
vote for a Republican again are nil. But I'm not a liberal in the American
sense of the term either because agreeing with Mitchell's six points pretty
much pretty much rules me out of that tribe. I have, for a long time, felt
pretty homeless in the American wilderness.
I suppose that's one reason I keep reading your blog, Rod, though I disagree
deeply with many of your views. As a Jew, I'm not much interested in the
Benedict Option, but I do agree that our society suffers from a certain
soul sickness that politics, consumption, and technology can't cure.
Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several
other Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump.
As one of those American Jews who feels a deep hatred for Trump, perhaps
I can shed some light on the reasons. It has nothing to do with his alleged
desire to enforce borders. Nations require them. Nor does it have anything
to do with his lip service to Christianist values. He's no Christian. He's
pure heathen.
Instead, it has everything to do with his wink/nod attitude toward the
alt-right and white nationalist groups and with his willingness to appropriate
their anti-semitic, racist memes for his own advancement. He's dangerous.
Period. Dangerous and scary to anyone familiar with lynchings, pogroms,
and mob violence. To anyone familiar with history. Trump has unleashed dark
forces that will not easily be quelled even if, and probably especially
if, he loses. The possibility that he might win has left me wondering whether
I even belong in this country any more, no matter how much sympathy I might
feel for the folks globalism has left behind.
Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several
other Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump…They
seem to think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd world immigration, stop
pc thought police, or up hold Christian-ish values are a direct threat to
them.
Or it could be that Trump reminds them of some historical figure who
was rather bad for the Jews. I wonder who that could be?
And saying all the Jews that the commenter knows feel an "uncontrollable"
emotion is a touch anti-Semitic.
But to talk about the OP: Joshua Mitchell gives the game away by consistently
referring to 1989 as the state of a "new order," which he thinks is a combination
of globalization and identity politics. Of course neither was new. Admittedly
globalization received a boost by the end of the Cold War, but it's been
well underway for a century or so. Mitchell wants to return to Reagan's
"morning in America." But there was no such morning.
"Identity politics" is what the suffragettes and abolitionists would
have been accused of, if the term had been invented back in their day. Are
there stupid things done and said under the umbrella of "identity politics"?
Of course. That doesn't make the discrimination and mistreatment that led
to such politics any less real.
The fundamental flaw in Mitchell's argument, though, is that the Trump
he describes (or, more accurately, wishes for) simply doesn't exist. The
Trump he describes has ideas and beliefs. It's a little ironic that Mitchell
thinks that Trump "expressly opposes" the ideas of Marx and Nietzsche, because
the real-world Trump has no beliefs other than he is an ubermensch.
I read an entire article on Trump in which Hitler wasn't mentioned once.
It wasn't even smug, and there was no list of liberal cliches and denunciations
of heretics so between drooling I never knew whether shout "Boo!" or "Hurah!"
Couldn't they throw in one "racist, sexist, homophobic" so I could feel
morally superior to stupid white people in fly-over country?
Having now read Mitchell's article, all I can say is that while I agree
with his six points, his hope that Trump is some kind of pragmatist is deeply
misguided. Like most political scientists, he knows little about history.
For thise who think Trump is harmless, here he is, tonight, riffing on
his
Clinton assassination fantasies. Where is Leni Reifenstahl when you
need her? Trump is no pragmatist. He's no Christian. And he's no leader.
If Mitchell is correct–and I believe that he is–how does this bode poorly
for conservative Christians? If the BenOp is primarily a reaction to the
post-1989 culture, shouldn't the crumbling of that culture obviate the need
for a BenOp?
[NFR: Well, if there were a candidate advocating these positions who
WASN'T Donald Trump, I would eagerly vote for him or her. I think Trump
is thoroughly untrustworthy and demagogic. But I would not be under any
illusion that casting a vote for that person - again, even if he or she
was a saint - would mean any kind of Christian restoration. The Ben Op is
premised on the idea that we are living in post-Christian times. The Ben
Op is a religious movement with political implications, not a political
movement. Liquid modernity will not suddenly solidify depending on a change
of government in Washington. - RD]
This is an election about feeling under siege. Once that is understood all
else makes sense. It is also a manifestation about what happens when a word
is overused, in this case racism. It creates a reaction of, "Ask us if we
care," which becomes, "Yeah, we are, and we like it."
It backfires.
The Ben Op may prove to be in better position that it looks.
I think populists who haven't gotten much attention from either party are
projecting an awful lot onto a seriously flawed candidate who doesn't have
firm convictions on anything, beyond making the sale. This objective he
pursues by being willing to say whatever he thinks will get him the sale,
with no regard for decency or truth or consistency. If he gets himself elected,
who knows what he will do to retain his popularity with what he perceives
to be the majority view. Those hoping for a sea change are engaged in some
pretty serious wishful thinking, I think.
@T.S.Gay, You are correct that this election is a battle of Nationalism
vs Globalism. But, Nationalism is Identity Politics in its purest form and
that is why the Globalist oppose it.
Globalists use identity politics, that is true. However, they bear no
love for the identities they publicly promote. Rather, they dehumanize them,
using them as nothing more than weapons against Nationalism.
As a Nationalist I will support and promote my Nation(People), but I
also recognize the inherent right of other Nations(Peoples) to support and
promote themselves.
I'm absolutely sure Donald Trump isn't going to do to us, what that other
person has planned for us deplorables:
"Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will and deep-seated
cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed."
After her shot across the bow promises to marginalize us in society,
complete with cheers from those at her back, that is just about all that
counts.
Mitchell's description echoes Oliver Stone's comments from Oct. 2001: "There's
been conglomeration under six principal princes-they're kings, they're barons!-and
these six companies have control of the world! … That's what the new world
order is. They control culture, they control ideas. And I think the revolt
of September 11 was about 'F- you! F- your order!'"
Very interesting piece, and I had not really connected the Brexit and EU
jitters to what's going on in the US – and I think Mitchell is right about
that. When we were still in primary season and Trump was ahead, I recall
one author – probably on The Corner – wondered how a Trump presidency might
look. He figured Trump would be very pragmatic, perhaps actually fixing
Obamacare, and focusing on our interests here at home.
"I will vote primarily for candidates who will be better at protecting
my community's right to be left alone."
I've been voting that way for years; mostly Republicans, but a good sprinkling
of Democrats as well.
Good article. I think Mitchell identifies the right ideas buried within
Trump's rhetoric. But even if it were true that Trump had no ideas, I would
still vote for him. After all, where have politic ideas gotten us lately?
"Conservative principles" espoused by wonks and political scientists
culminated in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ideology told us that democracy
was a divine right, transferable across time and culture.
Moreover, do we really want our politicians playing with ideas? Think
back to George W. Bush's speech at the 2004 Republican convention, perhaps
the most idea-driven speech in recent history. The sight of W. spinning
a neo-Hegelian apocalyptic narrative was like watching a gorilla perform
opera.
I think that many casual hearers of Ben Op ideas assume that Ben Op is a
one-dimensional, cultural dropping-out of cultural/religious conservatives
into irrelevant enclaves.
To me, Ben-Op is more returning to the Tocquevillean idea that the best
American ways of living work their way up from organic, formative local
communities that have largely disappeared from our socio-cultural experience.
Without independent formative local communities, we human beings are mere
products rolling off the assembly line that serves the interests of the
elites of our big government-big business-big education conglomerate.
If these formative communities hold to authentic, compassionate Judeo-Christian
values and practices, all the better–for everybody! Ben Op will offer an
alternative to the assembly-line politically correct cultural warriors being
produced by many of our elite cultural institutions.
"cavalierly undermining decades worth of social and political certainties"
Sorry, that is just silly. Only political junkies and culture warriors
even care about stuff like this. In my life… in my experience of living
in the USA every day, none of this matters. It just doesn't.
People don't live their lives thinking about any of those things cited.
What would it mean to you or me to have "borders matter"? Ford just announced
they were moving some more production to Mexico. That decision WILL affect
the lives of those who lose their jobs. Does anyone honestly think that
anyone… even a President Trump, would lift a finger to stop them? Of course
not. It is silly to assert otherwise.
Very good essay and commentary, but I caution against the notion that you
are looking at permanent change. JonF's two 20th century ideas (Free Trade
benefits everyone and Supply Side economics) are not going away. In
fact, Larry Kudlow, the crassest exponent of both those ideas is one of
Trump's economic advisors.
BenOp is fascinating, but most cultural conservative now active in the
game will not drop out. They may not like the adrenalin rush politics gives
them more than they like Jesus–but they ain't going to give it up.
Great. He's got six ideas. Six ideas with either no detailed policy or approach
attached to them, policies or approaches that seemingly change on a whim
(evidence that at best he hasn't given much thought to any of them), or
has no realistic political path for making those ideas a reality.
"That is what the Trump campaign, ghastly though it may at times be, leads
us toward: A future where states matter."
With that sentence, I think Mitchell stumbles into a truth he might not
have intended - The "state" - as in "administrative state" - is going to
continue growing even under Trump.
Given the increasing intolerance of our society for traditional values,
that's all Christians need to know.
Clint writes:
"Hillary Clinton,
'L;aws have to be backed up with resources and political will and deep-seated
cultural codes, religious bel:efs and structural biases have to be changed.
Uh Oh -- We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables."
"He's dangerous. Period. Dangerous and scary to anyone familiar with lynchings,
pogroms, and mob violence. To anyone familiar with history. Trump has unleashed
dark forces that will not easily be quelled even if, and probably especially
if, he loses."
Given the amount violence and disruption your side has caused this year
this accusation really should be laughable. Trump supporters aren't out
beating up Clinton supporters and making sure they can't have a rally in
the wrong neighborhood. Members of the alt-right aren't threatening student
journalists with violence on their own campuses, or getting on stage with
speakers they dislike and slapping them.
It's your own side that has been perpetuating the mob violence while
the liberal establishment denies it or excuses it.
This post is spot-on; thank you for sharing the preliminary BenOp talking
points.
We need Thomas Paine's Common Sense for our age, for these are
times that try men's souls. Problem is this: Paine's citizenry were 90%
literate, unified by culture, and cognitively engaged … today we're 70%
literate (at 4th grade reading level), multicultural, and amused to death.
Joseph R.
Murray II
Guest
columnist
Political incorrectness is to Trump what spinach is to
Popeye: Columnist.
When the term paleo-conservative is floated in conversation,
most folks imagine a creature out of Jurassic World. But paleo-conservatism
- a near extinct brand of conservatism that heralds limited
government, nonintervention, economic nationalism and Western
traditions - is finding a comeback in an unlikely spokesperson.
The history-making campaign of
Donald Trump
is turning the clock of U.S. politics back to a
time when hubris was heroic and the truth, no matter how blunt,
was king. It is resurrecting a political thought that does not
play by the rules of modern politics.
And as the nation saw the top-tier
GOP
candidates take the stage for the first time, they saw
Trump, unapologetic and confident, alongside eight candidates
clueless on how to contain him and a tongue-lashed Rand Paul.
The debate itself highlighted the fear a Trump candidacy is
creating throughout the political establishment. The very first
question asked the candidates to pledge unconditional support to
the eventual GOP nominee and refrain from a third-party run.
Trump refused.
But why should he blindly accept the party's unknown nominee?
If Jeb Bush receives the nomination, the GOP will put forth a
candidate who favors amnesty and is weak on trade, supportive of
Common Core and unable, if not unwilling, to come out from under
his brother's failed foreign policy.
In refusing to take the pledge, Trump was honest, and it is
his honesty that has made his campaign endearing. Trump has no
secrets and turns what many consider mistakes into triumphs.
The incident with
Megyn Kelly
is a prime example. When moderator Kelly
confronted Trump about his past comments about women, Trump
refused to apologize and told Kelly there is no time for
political correctness.
In the aftermath, Trump blasted Kelly's performance and
landed in hot water. In an interview with CNN's Don Lemon, Trump
said that "[y]ou could see there was blood coming out of her
eyes. Blood coming out of her - wherever."
The "wherever" part created a firestorm. Though vague, Trump
detractors claimed that the "wherever" part meant Trump was
implying Kelly was menstruating, while Trump claimed he was
referring to her nose. Trump's version made more sense, but to a
political class desperate to derail him, the headlines went with
the former.
Those in the Beltway resumed drafting Trump's political
obituary. But while they were busy scribbling, post-debate polls
showed Trump jumped in the polls. Republicans are ignoring their
orders from headquarters and deflecting to the Donald.
Shell-shocked, his foes, unwilling to admit their politically
correct system has tanked, failed to understand that political
incorrectness is to Trump what spinach is to Popeye.
"So many 'politically correct' fools in our country," Trump
tweeted. "We have to all get back to work and stop wasting time
and energy on nonsense!"
Is he not correct? Days before the nation started debating
Kelly's metaphorical blood, an unauthorized immigrant in New
Jersey pleaded guilty to actually spilling the blood of
30-year-old Sviatlana Dranko and setting her body on fire. In
the media, Dranko's blood is second fiddle. This contrast is not
lost on the silent majority flocking to Trump.
Trump's candidacy is about so much more than personality.
Once the media are forced to report Trump's positions, instead
of his persona, even more Americans will see that Trump is the
sole Republican who rejects a "free trade" that gives away the
keys to the store and opposed the ill-fated Iraq war. He is the
type of candidate Americans always wanted but the party
establishments are too afraid to provide.
The last time America saw a strong paleo-conservative was
Pat Buchanan
in 1996. An early win in Louisiana caused
Buchanan to place second in Iowa and first in New Hampshire
Lacking money, Buchanan was steamrolled by the establishment
in Arizona and, in terms of paleo-conservatism, many thought he
was the Last of the Mohicans.
Trump's campaign is Buchananesque with one difference: Trump
has money, and loads of it. He can fend off any attack and
self-finance his campaign. He is establishment kryptonite.
This reality is what makes him the new face of
paleo-conservativism. It might also make him president.
Joseph R. Murray II is a civil-rights attorney, a
conservative commentator and a former official with Pat
Buchanan's 2000 campaign.
A recent
Detroit Free Press/WXYZ-TV poll of the state, however, found Clinton's lead
shrinking from 11 points to just 3 - within the poll's margin of error.
Michigan wasn't the only state that swung toward the Republican nominee:
In Ohio, Trump has a clear advantage at this point
in the race. Polls there showed him up 3, 4, and 5 points this week.
Iowa, which has voted Democratic in six of the past
seven elections, also looks firmly in the Trump camp right now. A Monmouth
University survey of the state found him up 8.
Florida is as much of a toss-up state as they come,
with a bit of a Trump bend in the past week. Two polls there gave the real-estate
mogul a 4-point lead, while another showed Clinton up 2 points.
Colorado and Virginia, two Democratic-leaning
states that leaned more and more toward Clinton in recent weeks, both saw
significant recent swings toward Trump. In the former, an Emerson College
survey put Trump up 4 in the state. In the latter, Trump trailed by just
3 in a University of Mary Washington poll, though a Public Policy Polling
survey found Clinton up a comfortable 8 points.
In Nevada, a Monmouth survey found Trump up 2, a 6-point
swing from August. Clinton leads by less than a point in the state's polling
average.
The intelligentsia (Latin: intellegentia, Polish: inteligencja, Russian: интеллигенция; IPA: [ɪntʲɪlʲɪˈɡʲentsɨjə])
is a social class of people engaged in complex mental labor aimed at guiding or critiquing, or
otherwise playing a leadership role in shaping a society's culture and politics.[1] This therefore
might include everyone from artists to school teachers, as well as academics, writers, journalists,
and other hommes de lettres (men of letters) more usually thought of as being the main constituents
of the intelligentsia.
Intelligentsia is the subject of active polemics concerning its own role in the development of
modern society not always positive historically, often contributing to higher degree of progress,
but also to its backward movement.[2]... In pre-revolutionary Russia the term was first used to
describe people possessing cultural and political initiative.[3] It was commonly used by
those individuals themselves to create an apparent distance from the masses, and generally retained
that narrow self-definition. [citation needed]
If intellectuals replace the current professional politicians as the leaders
of society the situation would become much worse. Because they have neither
the sense of reality, nor common sense. For them, the words and speeches are
more important than the actual social laws and the dominant trends, the dominant
social dynamics of the society. The psychological principle of the intellectuals
is that we could organize everything much better, but we are not allowed to
do it.
But the actual situation is as following: they could organize the life of
society as they wish and plan, in the way they view is the best only if under
conditions that are not present now are not feasible in the future. Therefore
they are not able to act even at the level of current leaders of the society,
which they despise. The actual leaders are influenced by social pressures, by
the current social situation, but at least they doing something. Intellectuals
are unhappy that the real stream of life they are living in. They consider it
wrong. that makes them very dangerous, because they look really smart, while
in reality being sophisticated professional idiots.
"... traditional ways of life are dissolving as a new class of entrepreneur-warriors are wielding unprecedented power - and changing the global landscape. ..."
"... It's a huge psychological dent in people's faith in the system. I think what's going to happen in the next few years is huge unemployment in the middle class in America because a lot of their jobs will be outsourced or automated. ..."
Novelist Rana Dasgupta recently turned to nonfiction to explore the explosive
social and economic changes in Delhi starting in 1991, when India launched a
series of transformative economic reforms. In
Capital: The Eruption of Delhi, he describes a city where the epic hopes
of globalization have dimmed in the face of a sterner, more elitist world. In
Part 1 of an interview with the
Institute for New Economic
Thinking, Dasgupta traces a turbulent time in which traditional ways
of life are dissolving as a new class of entrepreneur-warriors are wielding
unprecedented power - and changing the global landscape.
Lynn Parramore: Why did you decide to move from New York to Delhi
in 2000, and then to write a book about the city?
Rana Dasgupta: I moved to be with my partner who lived in Delhi, and soon
realized it was a great place to have landed. I was trying write a novel and
there were a lot of people doing creative things. There was a fascinating intellectual
climate, all linked to changes in society and the economy. It was 10 years since
liberalization and a lot of the impact of that was just being felt and widely
sensed.
There was a sense of opportunity, not any more just on the part of business
people, but everyone. People felt that things were really going to change in
a deep way - in every part of the political spectrum and every class of society.
Products and technology spread, affecting even very poor people. Coke made ads
about the rickshaw drivers with their mobile phones -people who had never had
access to a landline. A lot of people sensed a new possibility for their own
lives.
Amongst the artists and intellectuals that I found myself with, there were
very big hopes for what kind of society Delhi could become and they were very
interested in being part of creating that. They were setting up institutions,
publications, publishing houses, and businesses. They were thinking new ideas.
When I arrived, I felt, this is where stuff is happening. The scale of conversations,
the philosophy of change was just amazing.
LP: You've interviewed many of the young tycoons who emerged during
Delhi's transformation. How would you describe this new figure? How do they
do business?
RD: Many of their fathers and grandfathers had run significant provincial
businesses. They were frugal in their habits and didn't like to advertise themselves,
and anyway their wealth remained local both in its magnitude and its reach.
They had business and political associates that they drank with and whose weddings
they went to, and so it was a tight-knit kind of wealth.
But the sons, who would probably be now between 35 and 45, had an entirely
different experience. Their adult life happened after globalization. Because
their fathers often didn't have the skills or qualifications to tap into the
forces of globalization, the sons were sent abroad, probably to do an MBA, so
they could walk into a meeting with a management consultancy firm or a bank
and give a presentation. When they came back they operated not from the local
hubs where their fathers ruled but from Delhi, where they could plug into federal
politics and global capital.
So you have these very powerful combinations of father/son businesses. The
sons revere the fathers, these muscular, huge masculine figures who have often
done much more risky and difficult work building their businesses and have cultivated
relationships across the political spectrum. They are very savvy, charismatic
people. They know who to give gifts to, how to do favors.
The sons often don't have that set of skills, but they have corporate skills.
They can talk finance in a kind of international language. Neither skill set
is enough on its own by early 2000's: they need each other. And what's interesting
about this package is that it's very powerful elsewhere, too. It's kind of a
world-beating combination. The son fits into an American style world of business
and finance, but the thing about American-style business is that there are lots
of things in the world that are closed to it. It's very difficult for an American
real estate company or food company to go to the president of an African country
and do a deal. They don't have the skills for it. But even if they did, they
are legally prevented from all the kinds of practices involved, the bribes and
everything.
This Indian business combination can go into places like Africa and Central
Asia and do all the things required. If they need to go to market and raise
money, they can do that. But if they need to sit around and drink with some
government guys and figure out who are the players that need to be kept happy,
they can do that, too. They see a lot of the world open to themselves.
LP: How do these figures compare to American tycoons during, say,
the Gilded Age?
RD: When American observers see these people they think, well, we had these
guys between 1890 and 1920, but then they all kind of went under because there
was a massive escalation of state power and state wealth and basically the state
declared a kind of protracted war on them.
Americans think this is a stage of development that will pass. But I think
it's not going to pass in our case. The Indian state is never going to have
the same power over private interests as the U.S. state because lots of things
have to happen. The Depression and the Second World War were very important
in creating a U.S. state that was that powerful and a rationale for defeating
these private interests. I think those private interests saw much more benefit
in consenting to, collaborating in, and producing a stronger U.S. state.
Over time, American business allied itself with the government, which did
a lot to open up other markets for it. In India, I think these private interests
will not for many years see a benefit in operating differently, precisely because
continents like Africa, with their particular set of attributes, have such a
bright future. It's not just about what India's like, but what other places
are like, and how there aren't that many people in the world that can do what
they can do.
LP: What has been lost and gained in a place like Delhi under global
capitalism?
RD: Undeniably there has been immense material gain in the city since 1991,
including the very poorest people, who are richer and have more access to information.
What my book tracks is a kind of spiritual and moral crisis that affects rich
and poor alike.
One kind of malaise is political and economic. Even though the poorest are
richer, they have less political influence. In a socialist system, everything
is done in the name of the poor, for good or for bad, and the poor occupy center
stage in political discourse. But since 1991 the poor have become much less
prominent in political and economic ideology. As the proportion of wealth held
by the richest few families of India has grown massively larger, the situation
is very much like the break-up of the Soviet Union, which leads to a much more
hierarchical economy where people closest to power have the best information,
contacts, and access to capital. They can just expand massively.
Suddenly there's a state infrastructure that's been built for 70 years or
60 years which is transferred to the private domain and that is hugely valuable.
People gain access to telecommunication systems, mines, land, and forests for
almost nothing. So ordinary people say, yes, we are richer, and we have all
these products and things, but those making the decisions about our society
are not elected and hugely wealthy.
Imagine the upper-middle-class guy who has been to Harvard, works for a management
consultancy firm or for an ad agency, and enjoys a kind of international-style
middle-class life. He thinks he deserves to make decisions about how the country
is run and how resources are used. He feels himself to be a significant figure
in his society. Then he realizes that he's not. There's another, infinitely
wealthier class of people who are involved in all kinds of backroom deals that
dramatically alter the landscape of his life. New private highways and new private
townships are being built all around him. They're sucking the water out of the
ground. There's a very rapid and seemingly reckless transformation of the landscape
that's being wrought and he has no part in it.
If he did have a say, he might ask, is this really the way that we want this
landscape to look? Isn't there enormous ecological damage? Have we not just
kicked 10,000 farmers off their land?
All these conversations that democracies have are not being had. People think,
this exactly what the socialists told us that capitalism was - it's pillage
and it creates a very wealthy elite exploiting the poor majority. To some extent,
I think that explains a lot of why capitalism is so turbulent in places like
India and China. No one ever expected capitalism to be tranquil. They had been
told for the better part of a century that capitalism was the imperialist curse.
So when it comes, and it's very violent, and everyone thinks, well that's what
we expected. One of the reasons that it still has a lot of ideological consensus
is that people are prepared for that. They go into it as an act of war, not
as an act of peace, and all they know is that the rewards for the people at
the top are very high, so you'd better be on the top.
The other kind of malaise is one of culture. Basically, America and Britain
invented capitalism and they also invented the philosophical and cultural furniture
to make it acceptable. Places where capitalism is going in anew do not have
200 years of cultural readiness. It's just a huge shock. Of course, Indians
are prepared for some aspects of it because many of them are trading communities
and they understand money and deals. But a lot of those trading communities
are actually incredibly conservative about culture - about what kind of lifestyle
their daughters will have, what kinds of careers their sons will have. They
don't think that their son goes to Brown to become a professor of literature,
but to come back and run the family business.
LP: What is changing between men and women?
RD: A lot of the fallout is about families. Will women work? If so, will
they still cook and be the kind of wife they're supposed to be? Will they be
out on the street with their boyfriends dressed in Western clothes and going
to movies and clearly advertising the fact that they are economically independent,
sexually independent, socially independent? How will we deal with the backlash
of violent crimes that have everything to do with all these changes?
This capitalist system has produced a new figure, which is the economically
successful and independent middle-class woman. She's extremely globalized in
the sense of what she should be able to do in her life. It's also created a
set of lower-middle-class men who had a much greater sense of stability both
in their gender and professional situation 30 years ago, when they could rely
on a family member or fellow caste member to keep them employed even if they
didn't have any marketable attributes. They had a wife who made sure that the
culture of the family was intact - religion, cuisine, that kind of stuff.
Thirty years later, those guys are not going to get jobs because that whole
caste value thing has no place in the very fast-moving market economy. Without
a high school diploma, they just have nothing to offer. Those guys in the streets
are thinking, I don't have a claim on the economy, or on women anymore because
I can't earn anything. Women across the middle classes - and it's not just across
India, it's across Asia -are trying to opt out of marriage for as long as they
can because they see only a downside. Remaining single allows all kinds of benefits
– social, romantic, professional. So those guys are pretty bitter and there's
a backlash that can become quite violent. We also have an upswing of Hindu fundamentalism
as a way of trying to preserve things. It's very appealing to people who think
society is falling apart.
LP: You've described India's experience of global capitalism as traumatic.
How is the trauma distinct in Delhi, and in what ways is it universal?
RD: Delhi suffers specifically from the trauma of Partition, which has created
a distinct society. When India became independent, it was divided into India
and Pakistan. Pakistan was essentially a Muslim state, and Hindis and Sikhs
left. The border was about 400 kilometers from Delhi, which was a tiny, empty
city, a British administrative town. Most of those Hindis and Sikhs settled
in Delhi where they were allocated housing as refugees. Muslims went in the
other direction to Pakistan, and as we know, something between 1 and 2 million
were killed in that event.
The people who arrived in Delhi arrived traumatized, having lost their businesses,
properties, friends, and communities, and having seen their family members murdered,
raped and abducted. Like the Jewish Holocaust, everyone can tell the stories
and everyone has experienced loss. When they all arrive in Delhi, they have
a fairly homogeneous reaction: they're never going to let this happen to them
again. They become fiercely concerned with security, physical and financial.
They're not interested in having nice neighbors and the lighter things of life.
They say, it was our neighbors that killed us, so we're going to trust only
our blood and run businesses with our brother and our sons. We're going to build
high walls around our houses.
When the grandchildren of these people grow up, it's a problem because none
of this has been exorcised. The families have not talked about it. The state
has not dealt with it and wants to remember only that India became independent
and that was a glorious moment. So the catastrophe actually becomes focused
within families rather than the reverse. A lot of grandchildren are more fearful
and hateful of Muslims than the grandparents, who remembered a time before when
they actually had very deep friendships with Muslims.
Parents of my generation grew up with immense silence in their households
and they knew that in that silence was Islam - a terrifying thing. When you're
one year old, you don't even know yet what Islam is, you just know that it's
something which is the greatest horror in the universe.
The Punjabi businessman is a very distinct species. They have treated business
as warfare, and they are still doing it like that 70 years later and they are
very good at it. They enter the global economy at a time when it's becoming
much less civilized as well. In many cases they succeed not because they have
a good idea, but because they know how to seize global assets and resources.
Punjabi businessmen are not inventing Facebook. They are about mines and oil
and water and food -things that everyone understands and needs.
In this moment of globalization, the world will have to realize that events
like the Partition of India are not local history anymore but global history.
Especially in this moment when the West no longer controls the whole system,
these traumas explode onto the world and affect all of us, like the Holocaust.
They introduce levels of turbulence into businesses and practices that we didn't
expect necessarily.
Then there's the trauma of capitalism itself, and here I think it's important
for us to re-remember the West's own history. Capitalism achieved a level of
consensus in the second half of the 20th century very accidentally, and by a
number of enormous forces, not all of which were intended. There's no guarantee
that such consensus will be achieved everywhere in the emerging world. India
and China don't have an empire to ship people off to as a safety valve when
suffering become immense. They just have to absorb all that stuff.
For a century or so, people in power in Paris and London and Washington felt
that they had to save the capitalist system from socialist revolution, so they
gave enormous concessions to their populations. Very quickly, people in the
West forgot that there was that level of dissent. They thought that everyone
loved capitalism. I think as we come into the next period where the kind of
consensus has already been dealt a huge blow in the West, we're going to have
to deal with some of those forces again.
LP: When you say that the consensus on capitalism has been dealt
a blow, are you talking about the financial crisis?
RD: Yes, the sense that the nation-state - I'm talking about the U.S. context
- can no longer control global capital, global processes, or, indeed, it's own
financial elite.
It's a huge psychological dent in people's faith in the system. I think
what's going to happen in the next few years is huge unemployment in the middle
class in America because a lot of their jobs will be outsourced or automated.
Then, if you have 30-40 percent unemployment in America, which has always
been the ideological leader in capitalism, America will start to re-theorize
capitalism very profoundly (and maybe the Institute of New Economic Thinking
is part of that). Meanwhile, I think the middle class in India would not have
these kinds of problems. It's precisely because American technology and finance
are so advanced that they're going to hit a lot of those problems. I think in
places like India there's so much work to be done that no one needs to leap
to the next stage of making the middle class obsolete. They're still useful.
Lynn Parramore is contributing editor at AlterNet. She is cofounder of Recessionwire,
founding editor of New Deal 2.0, and author of "Reading the Sphinx: Ancient
Egypt in Nineteenth-Century Literary Culture." She received her Ph.D. in English
and cultural theory from NYU. Follow her on Twitter @LynnParramore.
In a minute, we'll be joined by former third-party presidential candidate
Ralph Nader. But first, this is
George Farah, the founder and executive director of Open Debates, speaking
on Democracy Now! about how the Democrats and Republicans took control of the
debate process.
GEORGE FARAH:
GEORGE FARAH: The League
of Women Voters ran the presidential debate process from 1976 until 1984,
and they were a very courageous and genuinely independent, nonpartisan sponsor.
And whenever the candidates attempted to manipulate the presidential debates
behind closed doors, either to exclude a viable independent candidate or
to sanitize the formats, the league had the courage to challenge the Republican
and Democratic nominees and, if necessary, go public.
In 1980, independent candidate John B. Anderson was polling about 12
percent in the polls. The league insisted that Anderson be allowed to participate,
because the vast majority of the American people wanted to see him, but
Jimmy Carter, President Jimmy Carter, refused to debate him. The league
went forward anyway and held a presidential debate with an empty chair,
showing that Jimmy Carter wasn't going to show up.
Four years later, when the Republican and Democratic nominees tried to
get rid of difficult questions by vetoing 80 of the moderators that they
had proposed to host the debates, the league said, "This is unacceptable."
They held a press conference and attacked the campaigns for trying to get
rid of difficult questions.
And lastly, in 1988, was the first attempt by the Republican and Democratic
campaigns to negotiate a detailed contract. It was tame by comparison, a
mere 12 pages. It talked about who could be in the audience and how the
format would be structured, but the league found that kind of lack of transparency
and that kind of candidate control to be fundamentally outrageous and antithetical
to our democratic process. They released the contract and stated they refuse
to be an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American people and refuse
to implement it.
And today, what do we have? We have a private corporation that was created
by the Republican and Democratic parties called the Commission on Presidential
Debates. It seized control of the presidential debates precisely because
the league was independent, precisely because this women's organization
had the guts to stand up to the candidates that the major-party candidates
had nominated.
This set of principles in the core of "Trump_vs_deep_state" probably can be
improved, but still are interesting: "... If you listen closely to Trump, you'll hear a direct repudiation of the
system of globalization and identity politics that has defined the world order since
the Cold War. There are, in fact, six specific ideas that he has either blurted
out or thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter; (2) immigration policy
matters; (3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter; (4)
entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters; (6) PC speech-without which
identity politics is inconceivable-must be repudiated. ..."
Notable quotes:
"... If you listen closely to Trump, you'll hear a direct repudiation of the system of globalization and identity politics that has defined the world order since the Cold War. There are, in fact, six specific ideas that he has either blurted out or thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders matter; (2) immigration policy matters; (3) national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter; (4) entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization matters; (6) PC speech-without which identity politics is inconceivable-must be repudiated. ..."
"... These six ideas together point to an end to the unstable experiment with supra- and sub-national sovereignty that many of our elites have guided us toward, siren-like, since 1989. ..."
"... if anti-Trumpers convince themselves that that's all ..."
"... What is going on is that "globalization-and-identity-politics-speak" is being boldly challenged. Inside the Beltway, along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, there is scarcely any evidence of this challenge. There are people in those places who will vote for Trump, but they dare not say it, for fear of ostracism. ..."
"... Out beyond this hermetically sealed bicoastal consensus, there are Trump placards everywhere, not because citizens are racists or homophobes or some other vermin that needs to be eradicated, but because there is little evidence in their own lives that this vast post-1989 experiment with "globalization" and identity politics has done them much good. ..."
"... The most highly motivated voters in this election cycle seem to be insurgents pushing back against corrupt and incompetent elites and the Establishment. That does not bode well for Clinton. ..."
"... Another page in the annals of American elite incompetence, only five days after the ceasefire in Syria was negotiated, we broke it by bombing a well-known Syrian position. After Russia took us to the woodshed, Samantha Power responds by basically saying, "We messed up, but Russia is a moralistic hypocrite because they support Assad and he is, like, really bad and stuff." ..."
"... They seem to think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd world immigration, stop pc thought police, or up hold Christian-ish values are a direct threat to them. ..."
"... The enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders and Trump can only be understood as an overdue awakening of voters--finally recognizing that voting for more of the same tools of the plutocrats and oligarchs (which was represented by all candidates other than Trump and Sanders) will only serve the war profiteers, neocons, and other beltway bandits--at the expense of every other voter. ..."
"... Once the voters have awakened, they will not return to slumber or accept the establishment politics as usual. It is going to be a very interesting process to watch, and the political operatives who think we will return to the same old GOP and Democratic politics as usual should brace themselves for a rude awakening. ..."
"... Trump vs. Clinton = Nationalism vs. Globalism ..."
If you listen closely to Trump, you'll hear a direct repudiation
of the system of globalization and identity politics that has defined the
world order since the Cold War. There are, in fact, six specific ideas that
he has either blurted out or thinly buried in his rhetoric: (1) borders
matter; (2) immigration policy matters; (3) national interests, not so-called
universal interests, matter; (4) entrepreneurship matters; (5) decentralization
matters; (6) PC speech-without which identity politics is inconceivable-must
be repudiated.
These six ideas together point to an end to the unstable experiment
with supra- and sub-national sovereignty that many of our elites have guided
us toward, siren-like, since 1989.
That is what the Trump campaign, ghastly though it may at times be, leads
us toward: A future where states matter. A future where people are citizens,
working together toward (bourgeois) improvement of their lot. His ideas
do not yet fully cohere. They are a bit too much like mental dust that has
yet to come together. But they can come together. And Trump is the first
American candidate to bring some coherence to them, however raucous his
formulations have been.
Mitchell goes on to say that political elites call Trump "unprincipled,"
and perhaps they're right: that he only does what's good for Trump. On the other
hand, maybe Trump's principles are not ideological, but pragmatic. That is,
Trump might be a quintessential American political type: the leader who gets
into a situation and figures out how to muddle through. Or, as Mitchell puts
it:
This doesn't necessarily mean that he is unprincipled; it means rather
that he doesn't believe that yet another policy paper based on conservative
"principles" is going to save either America or the Republican Party.
Also, Mitchell says that there are no doubt voters in the Trump coalition
who are nothing but angry, provincial bigots. But if anti-Trumpers convince
themselves that that's all the Trump voters are, they will miss something
profoundly important about how Western politics are changing because of deep
instincts emerging from within the body politic:
What is going on is that "globalization-and-identity-politics-speak"
is being boldly challenged. Inside the Beltway, along the Atlantic
and Pacific coasts, there is scarcely any evidence of this challenge. There
are people in those places who will vote for Trump, but they dare not say
it, for fear of ostracism.
They think that identity politics has gone too
far, or that if it hasn't yet gone too far, there is no principled place
where it must stop. They believe that the state can't be our only large-scale
political unit, but they see that on the post-1989 model, there will, finally,
be no place for the state.
Out beyond this hermetically sealed bicoastal consensus, there are Trump
placards everywhere, not because citizens are racists or homophobes or some
other vermin that needs to be eradicated, but because there is little evidence
in their own lives that this vast post-1989 experiment with "globalization"
and identity politics has done them much good.
There's lots more here, including his prediction of what's going to happen
to the GOP.
Read the whole thing.
The most highly motivated voters in this election cycle seem to be
insurgents pushing back against corrupt and incompetent elites and the
Establishment. That does not bode well for Clinton.
Another page in the annals of American elite incompetence, only five
days after the ceasefire in Syria was negotiated, we broke it by
bombing a well-known Syrian position. After Russia took us to the woodshed,
Samantha Power responds by basically saying, "We messed up, but Russia is
a moralistic hypocrite because they support Assad and he is, like, really
bad and stuff."
Which not only makes it seem more likely that we were targeting
Assad's forces to anyone reasonably distrustful of American involvement
in the war, but also shows the moral reasoning ability of nothing greater
than a 6 year old.
Seriously, accusing Russia of moralism, and then moralistically trying
to hide responsibility by listing atrocities committed by Assad? It is self-parody.
Call it anti-Semitic if you want but all my Jewish cousins and the several
other Jewish business associates I know feel uncontrollable hate for Trump.
"thinly buried in his rhetoric:
borders matter;
immigration policy matters;
national interests, not so-called universal interests, matter;
entrepreneurship matters;
decentralization matters;
PC speech-without which identity politics is inconceivable-must
be repudiated."
They seem to think that any attempt to stop mass 3rd world immigration,
stop pc thought police, or up hold Christian-ish values are a direct threat
to them.
I cannot speak to what is best for conservative Christians, but change is
definitely in the air. Since the start of this election, I have had a clear
sense that we are seeing a beginning of a new political reality.
The enthusiasm for Bernie Sanders and Trump can only be understood
as an overdue awakening of voters--finally recognizing that voting for more
of the same tools of the plutocrats and oligarchs (which was represented
by all candidates other than Trump and Sanders) will only serve the war
profiteers, neocons, and other beltway bandits--at the expense of every
other voter.
Too many voters have finally come to recognize that neither party serves
them in any real way. This will forcibly result in a serious reform process
of one or both parties, a third party that actually represents working people,
or if neither reform or a new party is viable-–a new American revolution,
which I fear greatly.
Once the voters have awakened, they will not return to slumber or
accept the establishment politics as usual. It is going to be a very interesting
process to watch, and the political operatives who think we will return
to the same old GOP and Democratic politics as usual should brace themselves
for a rude awakening.
I'm certainly not
the first to say this, but perhaps the first to post it on this blog. RD,
perhaps rightfully, has steered this post toward the Benedict Option, but
what should be debated is the repudiation of globalization and identity
politics.
"Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will and
deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases
have to be changed."
Uh Oh -- We Christians are in Hillary Clinton's Basket of Deplorables.
"... Moscow did indeed support secessionist pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine. But did not the U.S. launch a 78-day bombing campaign on tiny Serbia to effect a secession of its cradle province of Kosovo? ..."
"... Russia is reportedly hacking into our political institutions. If so, it ought to stop. But have not our own CIA, National Endowment for Democracy, and NGOs meddled in Russia's internal affairs for years? ..."
"... Scores of the world's 190-odd nations are today ruled by autocrats. How does it advance our interests or diplomacy to have congressional leaders yapping "thug" at the ruler of a nation with hundreds of nuclear warheads? ..."
"... Very good article indeed. Knee-jerk reaction of american politicians and journalists looks extremely strange. As a matter of fact they look like idiots or puppets. ..."
"... Rubio and Graham are reflexively ready to push US influence everywhere, all the time, with military force always on the agenda, and McCain seems to be in a state of constant agitation ..."
"... Very sensible article. And as the EU falls further into disarray and possible disintegration, due to migration and other catastrophically mishandled problems, a working partnership with Russia will become even more important. Right now, we treat Russia as an enemy and Saudi Arabia as a friend. That makes no sense at all. ..."
"... As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to interact with the "smartest person in the room". ..."
"... I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat in that context. ..."
"... The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia fear-monger bashing. ..."
"... P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that portends more Global Cop wreckage. ..."
"... Anyway, what Buchanan is saying is, "We have to deal with him," not "favor him." The two terms should not be confused. ..."
"... There are a lot of "allies" of questionable usefulness that the US should stop "favoring," and a lot of competitors (and potential allies in the true sense) out there the US should begin "dealing" with. ..."
"... Everything the Western elite does is about dollar hegemony and control of energy. ..."
"... As long as Russia is not a puppet of the globalist banking cartel they will be presented as an "enemy". Standing in the way of energy imperialism was the last straw for the all out hybrid war being launched on Russia now. ..."
"... If the Western public wasn't so lazy and stupid we would remove the globalists controlling us. Instead people, especially liberals, get in bed with the globalists plans against Russia bc they can't stand Russia is Christian and supports the family. ..."
"... Every word about Russia allowed in the Western establishment are lies funded and molded by people like Soros and warmongers. This is the reality. Nobody who will speak honestly or positively about Russia is allowed any voice. And scumbag neoliberal globalists like Kasperov are presented as "Russians" while real Russian people are given zero voice. ..."
"... What the Western elite is doing right now in Ukraine and Syria is reprehensible and its all our fault for letting these people control us. ..."
...Arriving on Capitol Hill to repair ties between Trump and party elites,
Gov. Mike Pence was taken straight to the woodshed.
John McCain told Pence that Putin was a "thug and a butcher," and Trump's
embrace of him intolerable.
Said Lindsey Graham: "Vladimir Putin is a thug, a dictator … who has
his opposition killed in the streets," and Trump's views bring to mind Munich.
Putin is an "authoritarian thug," added "Little Marco" Rubio.
What causes the Republican Party to lose it whenever the name of Vladimir
Putin is raised?
Putin is no Stalin, whom FDR and Harry Truman called "Good old Joe" and "Uncle
Joe." Unlike Nikita Khrushchev, he never drowned a Hungarian Revolution in blood.
He did crush the Chechen secession. But what did he do there that General Sherman
did not do to Atlanta when Georgia seceded from Mr. Lincoln's Union?
Putin supported the U.S. in Afghanistan, backed our nuclear deal with Iran,
and signed on to John Kerry's plan have us ensure a cease fire in Syria and
go hunting together for ISIS and al-Qaida terrorists.
Still, Putin committed "aggression" in Ukraine, we are told. But was that
really aggression, or reflexive strategic reaction? We helped dump over a pro-Putin
democratically elected regime in Kiev, and Putin acted to secure his Black Sea
naval base by re-annexing Crimea, a peninsula that has belonged to Russia from
Catherine the Great to Khrushchev. Great powers do such things.
When the Castros pulled Cuba out of America's orbit, we decided to keep Guantanamo,
and dismiss Havana's protests?
Moscow did indeed support secessionist pro-Russia rebels in East Ukraine.
But did not the U.S. launch a 78-day bombing campaign on tiny Serbia to effect
a secession of its cradle province of Kosovo?
... ... ...
Russia is reportedly hacking into our political institutions. If so,
it ought to stop. But have not our own CIA, National Endowment for Democracy,
and NGOs meddled in Russia's internal affairs for years?
... ... ...
Is Putin's Russia more repressive than Xi Jinping's China? Yet, Republicans
rarely use "thug" when speaking about Xi. During the Cold War, we partnered
with such autocrats as the Shah of Iran and General Pinochet of Chile, Ferdinand
Marcos in Manila, and Park Chung-Hee of South Korea. Cold War necessity required
it.
Scores of the world's 190-odd nations are today ruled by autocrats. How
does it advance our interests or diplomacy to have congressional leaders yapping
"thug" at the ruler of a nation with hundreds of nuclear warheads?
>>During the Cold War, we partnered with such autocrats as the Shah
of Iran and General Pinochet of Chile, Ferdinand Marcos in Manila, and Park
Chung-Hee of South Korea
buttressed could be even more pertinent)
Very good article indeed. Knee-jerk reaction of american politicians
and journalists looks extremely strange. As a matter of fact they look like
idiots or puppets.
Rubio
and Graham are reflexively ready to push US influence everywhere, all the
time, with military force always on the agenda, and McCain seems to be in
a state of constant agitation whenever US forces are not actively engaged
in combat somewhere. They are loud voices, yes, but irrational voices, too.
Very sensible article. And as the EU falls further into disarray
and possible disintegration, due to migration and other catastrophically
mishandled problems, a working partnership with Russia will become even
more important. Right now, we treat Russia as an enemy and Saudi Arabia
as a friend. That makes no sense at all.
"Just" states the starvation of the Ukraine is a western lie. The Harvest
of Sorrow by Robert Conquest refutes this dangerous falsehood. Perhaps "Just"
believes The Great Leap Forward did not lead to starvation of tens of millions
in China. After all, this could be another "western lie". So to could be
the Armenian genocide in Turkey or slaughter of Communists in Indonesia.
As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because
Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to
interact with the "smartest person in the room".
I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has
visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may
reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat
in that context.
The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin
to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic
narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage
his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia
fear-monger bashing.
And so the U.S. – Russia relationship is wrecked by the "smartest person
in the room".
P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that
portends more Global Cop wreckage.
John asks, "We also have to deal with our current allies. Whom would
Mr. Buchanan like to favor?"
Well, we could redouble our commitment to our democracy and peace loving
friends in Saudi Arabia, we could deepen our ties to those gentle folk in
Egypt, and maybe for a change give some meaningful support to Israel. Oh,
and our defensive alliances will be becoming so much stronger with Montenegro
as a member, we will need to pour more resources into that country.
Anyway, what Buchanan is saying is, "We have to deal with him," not
"favor him." The two terms should not be confused.
There are a lot of "allies" of questionable usefulness that the US
should stop "favoring," and a lot of competitors (and potential allies in
the true sense) out there the US should begin "dealing" with.
"During the Cold War, we partnered with such autocrats as the Shah of
Iran and General Pinochet of Chile, Ferdinand Marcos in Manila, and Park
Chung-Hee of South Korea. Cold War necessity required it (funny, you failed
to mention Laos, South Vietnam, Nicaragua, Noriega/Panama, and everyone's
favorite 9/11 co-conspirator and WMD developer, Saddam Hussein). either
way how did these "alliances" work out for the US? really doesn't matter,
does it? it is early 21st century, not mid 20th century. there is a school
of thought in the worlds of counter-terrorism/intelligence operations, which
suggests if you want to be successful, you have to partner with some pretty
nasty folks. Trump is being "handled" by an experienced, ruthless (that's
a compliment), and focused "operator". unless, of course, Trump is actually
the superior operator, in which case, this would be the greatest black op
of all time.
"From Russia With Money - Hillary Clinton, the Russian Reset and Cronyism,"
"Of the 28 US, European and Russian companies that participated in Skolkovo,
17 of them were Clinton Foundation donors" or sponsored speeches by former
President Bill Clinton, Schweizer told The Post.
Everything the Western elite does is about dollar hegemony and control
of energy. Once you understand that then the (evil)actions of the Western
elite make sense. Anyone who stands in the way of those things is an "enemy".
This is how they determine an "enemy".
As long as Russia is not a puppet of the globalist banking cartel
they will be presented as an "enemy". Standing in the way of energy imperialism
was the last straw for the all out hybrid war being launched on Russia now.
If the Western public wasn't so lazy and stupid we would remove the
globalists controlling us. Instead people, especially liberals, get in bed
with the globalists plans against Russia bc they can't stand Russia is Christian
and supports the family.
Every word about Russia allowed in the Western establishment are
lies funded and molded by people like Soros and warmongers. This is the
reality. Nobody who will speak honestly or positively about Russia is allowed
any voice. And scumbag neoliberal globalists like Kasperov are presented
as "Russians" while real Russian people are given zero voice.
What the Western elite is doing right now in Ukraine and Syria is
reprehensible and its all our fault for letting these people control us.
"... As I've stated many times, Obama the narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping about how good it is to interact with the "smartest person in the room". ..."
"... I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has visceral contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may reveal the mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat in that context. ..."
"... The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin to hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic narcissistic supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage his twisted ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia fear-monger bashing. ..."
"... P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that portends more Global Cop wreckage. ..."
As I've stated many times, Obama the
narcissist hates Putin because Putin doesn't play the sycophantic lapdog yapping
about how good it is to interact with the "smartest person in the room".
I'm serious. Obama craves sources of narcissistic supply and has visceral
contempt for sources of narcissistic injury. I.e., people who may reveal the
mediocrity that he actually is. Obama considers Putin a threat in that context.
The downside for the U.S. is that Obama has extended hating Putin to
hating Russia. And yes, Washington is flooded with sources of sycophantic narcissistic
supply for Obama including the MSM. And they are happy to massage his twisted
ego by enthusiastically playing along with the Putin/Russia fear-monger bashing.
And so the U.S. – Russia relationship is wrecked by the "smartest person
in the room".
P.S. too bad Hillary is saturated with her own psychopathology that portends
more Global Cop wreckage.
"... Though while bereaved families are forced to crowd fund to bring Blair to court, any legal defence mounted by the multimillionaire will come from the public purse. They have raised over £160,000 to date so the story is not yet over. ..."
"... Yet Blair has no shame and remains belligerent. On the day the Chilcot Inquiry report was published he declared he would do the same again. Later that day veteran anti-war campaigner and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn called a press conference to apologise on behalf of Labour for the war. Such a move is central to why Corbyn has won such an enthusiastic mass following after first standing for and winning the Labour leadership in the summer of 2015. ..."
"... The seeds of the deep bitterness about mainstream politicians and the establishment were sown in 2003. When Britain joined the US assault on Iraq despite the opposition of the majority of the population it politicised millions. The 2 million strong demonstration organised by the Stop the War Coalition in February 2003 was Britain's biggest ever. But Chilcot proved that Blair had already promised US president George W Bush that Britain would be with him "whatever". ..."
"... The warmongers' contempt for the electorate, let alone the people of Iraq and region, is staggering. ..."
The Chilcot report went further than many expected in condemning Tony Blair's
role in the invasion of Iraq. As Judith Orr says, it also reinforced the need
to be vigilant against all warmongers.
It took 12 days for the Chilcot report on the Iraq war to be read aloud non-stop
at the Edinburgh Festival event last month. The 2.6 million words of the report
were not the whitewash some had feared. In fact they were a confirmation of
what so many of those who protested against the war at the time said.
There were no lawyers on the Chilcot panel; this inquiry was never going
to call for charges against chief British warmonger Tony Blair. But families
of soldiers killed in the war are using the evidence brought forward in the
report to pursue a legal case against him. Because, although he didn't take
a line on the legality of the war, Chilcot criticised the process Blair drove
through to declare that invasion was legal: "We have, however, concluded that
the circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for UK
military action were far from satisfactory."
As human rights lawyer Philippe Sands pointed out, "'Far from satisfactory'
is a career-ending phrase in mandarin-speak, a large boot put in with considerable
force."
Though while bereaved families are forced to crowd fund to bring Blair
to court, any legal defence mounted by the multimillionaire will come from the
public purse. They have raised over £160,000 to date so the story is not yet
over.
Yet Blair has no shame and remains belligerent. On the day the Chilcot
Inquiry report was published he declared he would do the same again. Later that
day veteran anti-war campaigner and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn called a press
conference to apologise on behalf of Labour for the war. Such a move is central
to why Corbyn has won such an enthusiastic mass following after first standing
for and winning the Labour leadership in the summer of 2015.
The seeds of the deep bitterness about mainstream politicians and the
establishment were sown in 2003. When Britain joined the US assault on Iraq
despite the opposition of the majority of the population it politicised millions.
The 2 million strong demonstration organised by the Stop the War Coalition in
February 2003 was Britain's biggest ever. But Chilcot proved that Blair had
already promised US president George W Bush that Britain would be with him "whatever".
The warmongers' contempt for the electorate, let alone the people of
Iraq and region, is staggering.
Kirby declined to answer
whether Israel should face the
same treatment
as Iran and North Korea – both
of which have been sanctioned
for alleged
or actual violations of the
nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty.
"... cultural nationalism is the only ideology capable of being a legitimising ideology under the prevailing global and national political economy. ..."
"... Neoliberalism cannot perform this role since its simplicities make it harsh not just towards the lower orders, but give it the potential for damaging politically important interests amongst capitalist classes themselves. ..."
"... In this form, cultural nationalism provides national ruling classes a sense of their identity and purpose, as well as a form of legitimation among thelower orders. ..."
"... As Gramsci said, these are the main functions of every ruling ideology. Cultural nationalism masks, and to a degree resolves, the intense competition between capitals over access to the state for support domestically and in the international arena – in various bilateral and multilateral fora – where it bargainsfor the most favoured national capitalist interests within the global and imperial hierarchy. ..."
This is where cultural nationalism comes in. Only it can serve to mask, and
bridge, the divides within the 'cartel of anxiety' in a neoliberal context.
Cultural nationalism is a nationalism shorn of its civic-egalitarian and developmentalist
thrust, one reduced to its cultural core. It is structured around the culture
of thee conomically dominant classes in every country, with higher or lower
positions accorded to other groups within the nation relative to it. These positions
correspond, on the whole, to the groups' economic positions, and as such it
organises the dominant classes, and concentric circles of their allies, into
a collective national force. It also gives coherence to, and legitimises, the
activities of the nation-state on behalf of capital, or sections thereof, in
the international sphere.
Indeed, cultural nationalism is the only ideology capable of being a legitimising
ideology under the prevailing global and national political economy.
Neoliberalism
cannot perform this role since its simplicities make it harsh not just towards
the lower orders, but give it the potential for damaging politically important
interests amongst capitalist classes themselves. The activities of the state
on behalf of this or that capitalist interest necessarily exceed the Spartan
limits that neoliberalism sets. Such activities can only be legitimised as being
'in the national interest.'
Second, however, the nationalism that articulates
these interests is necessarily different from, but can easily (and given its
function as a legitimising ideology, it must be said, performatively) be mis-recognised
as, nationalism as widely understood: as being in some real sense in the interests
of all members of the nation. In this form, cultural nationalism provides national
ruling classes a sense of their identity and purpose, as well as a form of legitimation
among thelower orders.
As Gramsci said, these are the main functions of every
ruling ideology. Cultural nationalism masks, and to a degree resolves, the intense
competition between capitals over access to the state for support domestically
and in the international arena – in various bilateral and multilateral fora
– where it bargainsfor the most favoured national capitalist interests within
the global and imperial hierarchy.
Except for a commitment to neoliberal policies, the economic policy content
of this nationalism cannot be consistent: within the country, and inter-nationally,
the capitalist system is volatile and the positions of the various elements
of capital in the national and international hierarchies shift constantly as
does the economic policy of cultural nationalist governments. It is this volatility
that also increases the need for corruption – since that is how competitive
access of individual capitals to the state is today organised.
Whatever its utility to the capitalist classes, however, cultural nationalism
can never have a settled or secure hold on those who are marginalised or sub-ordinated
by it. In neoliberal regimes the scope for offering genuine economic gains to
the people at large, however measured they might be, is small.
This is a problem for right politics since even the broadest coalition of
the propertied can never be an electoral majority, even a viable plurality.
This is only in the nature of capitalist private property. While the left remains
in retreat or disarray, elec-toral apathy is a useful political resource but
even where, as in most countries, political choices are minimal, the electorate
as a whole is volatile. Despite, orperhaps because of, being reduced to a competition
between parties of capital, electoral politics in the age of the New Right entails
very large electoral costs, theextensive and often vain use of the media in
elections and in politics generally, and political compromises which may clash
with the high and shrilly ambitiou sdemands of the primary social base in the propertied
classes. Instability, uncertainty ...
"... What is "Globalization" and "Free Trade" really?… Does it encompass the slave trade, trading in narcotics, deforestation and export of a nation's tropical hardwood forests, environmentally damaging transnational oil pipelines or coal ports, fisheries depletion, laying off millions of workers and replacing them and the products they make with workers and products made in a foreign country, trading with an enemy, investing capital in a foreign country through a subsidiary or supplier that abuses its workers to the point that some commit suicide, no limits on or regulation of financial derivatives and transnational financial intermediaries?… the list is endless. ..."
"... As always, the questions are "Cui bono?"… "Who benefits"?… How and Why they benefit?… Who selects the short-term "Winners" and "Losers"? And WRT those questions, the final sentence of this post hints at its purpose. ..."
"... Yeah, how is European colonialism - starting in, what, like the 15th century, or something - not "globalisation"? What about the Roman and Persian and Selucid empires? Wasn't that globalisation? I think we've pretty much always lived in a globalised world, one way or another (if "globalised world" even makes sense). ..."
"... Bring back the broader, and more meaningful conception of Political Economy and some actual understanding can be gained. The study of economics cannot be separated from the political dimension of society. Politics being defined as who gets what in social interactions. ..."
"... The neoliberal experiment has run its course. Milton Friedman and his tribe had their alternative plan ready to go and implemented it when they could- to their great success. The best looting system developed-ever. This system only works with the availability of abundant resources and the mental justifications to support that gross exploitation. Both of which are reaching limits. ..."
"... If only the Milton Friedman tribe had interested itself in sports instead of economics. They could have argued that referees and umpires should be removed from the game for greater efficiency of play, and that sports teams would follow game rules by self-regulation. ..."
"... Wouldn't the whole thing just work out more efficiently if you leave traffic lights and rules out of it? Just let everyone figure it out at each light, survival of the fittest. ..."
"... With increasingly free movement of people as tourists whose spending impacts nations GDP, where does it fit in to discussions on globalization and trade? ..."
What is "Globalization" and "Free Trade" really?… Does it encompass
the slave trade, trading in narcotics, deforestation and export of a nation's
tropical hardwood forests, environmentally damaging transnational oil pipelines
or coal ports, fisheries depletion, laying off millions of workers and replacing
them and the products they make with workers and products made in a foreign
country, trading with an enemy, investing capital in a foreign country through
a subsidiary or supplier that abuses its workers to the point that some
commit suicide, no limits on or regulation of financial derivatives and
transnational financial intermediaries?… the list is endless.
As always, the questions are "Cui bono?"… "Who benefits"?… How and
Why they benefit?… Who selects the short-term "Winners" and "Losers"? And
WRT those questions, the final sentence of this post hints at its purpose.
diptherio
Yeah, how is European colonialism - starting in, what, like the 15th
century, or something - not "globalisation"? What about the Roman and Persian
and Selucid empires? Wasn't that globalisation? I think we've pretty much
always lived in a globalised world, one way or another (if "globalised world"
even makes sense).
Norb
Bring back the broader, and more meaningful conception of Political
Economy and some actual understanding can be gained. The study of economics
cannot be separated from the political dimension of society. Politics being
defined as who gets what in social interactions.
What folly. All this complexity and strident study of minutia to bring
about what end? Human history on this planet has been about how societies
form, develop, then recede form prominence. This flow being determined by
how well the society provided for its members or could support their worldview.
Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.
The neoliberal experiment has run its course. Milton Friedman and
his tribe had their alternative plan ready to go and implemented it when
they could- to their great success. The best looting system developed-ever.
This system only works with the availability of abundant resources and the
mental justifications to support that gross exploitation. Both of which
are reaching limits.
Only by thinking, and communicating in the broader terms of political
economy can we hope to understand our current conditions. Until then, change
will be difficult to enact. Hard landings for all indeed.
flora
If only the Milton Friedman tribe had interested itself in sports
instead of economics. They could have argued that referees and umpires should
be removed from the game for greater efficiency of play, and that sports
teams would follow game rules by self-regulation.
LA Mike September 17, 2016 at 8:15 pm
While in traffic, I was thinking about that today. For some time now,
I've viewed the traffic intersection as being a good example of the social
contract. We all agree on its benefits. But today, I thought about it in
terms of the Friedman Neoliberals.
Why should they have to stop at red lights. Wouldn't the whole thing
just work out more efficiently if you leave traffic lights and rules out
of it? Just let everyone figure it out at each light, survival of the fittest.
sd
Something I have wondered for some time, how does tourism fit into trade?
With increasingly free movement of people as tourists whose spending
impacts nations GDP, where does it fit in to discussions on globalization
and trade?
I Have Strange Dreams
Other things to consider:
– negative effects of immigration (skilled workers leave developing countries
where they are most needed)
– environmental pollution
– destruction of cultures/habitats
– importation of western diet leading to decreased health
– spread of disease (black death, hiv, ebola, bird flu)
– resource wars
– drugs
– happiness
How are these "externalities" calculated?
"... Something along the lines of Sweden, or maybe Germany: the means of production is left in private hands and the owning class is welcome to get rich (there are the equivalent of billionaires in both countries) but there are strict limits as to how much they can screw their workers, cheat their customers or damage the environment. ..."
"... Also, basic social welfare matters (healthcare, child care etc.) are publicly provided, or at least publicly backstopped. The model may not be perfect but it appears to work quite well all in all. ..."
"... Sweden has no taxes on inheritance or residential property, and its 22 percent corporate income tax rate is far lower than America's 35 percent." ..."
"... I do not think that drag queens reading stories, Lionel Shriver's speech and backlash, or the latest Clinton scandal mean civilizational death. They are outliers, but serve to remind the vast majority of the country that there is plenty of room in America for eccentrics of every description to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. ..."
"... HRC is not really unthinkable. She is just not preferable. A vote for HRC is an acquiescence to the status quo of corrupt, big money politics. Voting for the status quo is unthinkable only if you think the apocalypse is around the next bend. Let's be serious. ..."
"... "we are at the mercy of systematic forces, difficult to name, which can be manipulated by the powerful but not governed by them, and that our problems are unsolvable" ..."
"... I would argue that the "system" is capitalism grown decadent and corrupt. It is a secular religion that we've given ourselves over to and is exactly as he describes: a massive systemic force that some can manipulate for their own gain, but as a society we've lost the will or ability to control it's macro forces which have the power grind up whole demographics, communities, or crash the whole economy. ..."
"... The reaction and fall out from the financial crisis amounted to everyone shrugging and declaring innocence and ignorance. They seemed to say, how could anyone see such a thing coming or do anything about it? How could anyone control such a huge system? ..."
"... I'm always struck by these posts detailing how everything is coming apart in America. I look around and frankly, life looks pretty good. Maybe it's because I'm a minority female, who grew up poor and now has a solidly middle class life. My mother, God rest her soul, was smarter and worked harder than I ever will but did not have one-quarter of the opportunities (education, housing) I've had. My sons have travelled the globe, and have decent jobs and good friends. I am grateful. ..."
"... I wouldn't say that [neo] Liberalism is "spent" as a force, rather that its credibility is. As a cultural force (covering both politics and the economy, among other things), its strength is and remains vast. It is Leviathan. For all intents and purposes, it defines the culture, and thus dictates the imperatives and methods, of our governing and economic elites. ..."
"... Bush proved that electing an imbecile to the Presidency has real consequences for our standing in the world. ..."
"... Trump starts speaking without knowing how his sentence will end, and then he will go to down fighting to defend whatever it was he said even though he never really meant it in the first place. That mix of arrogance and stupidity is more dangerous than Bush. ..."
"... Totally unconvincing. It couldn't be more obvious that Hillary stands for rule by globalists whereas Trump intends to return control of the federal government to We the People. ..."
"... Which candidate is traveling to Louisiana? Flint? Detroit? Mexico (on behalf of America)? Which candidate calls tens of millions of Americans irredeemable and thus it would be justified in exterminating them? ..."
"... What makes Mr. Cosimano so sure that what America is passing into is anything like a "civilization" at all? We could simple pass into barbarism. Can anyone name the leaders who hope to build any kind of civilization at all? ..."
"... For 70+ years, other than while working on a university degree in history, I never gave a thought to civilizational collapse, so I would have been a poor choice to ask for a definition of the term. But after a few years of reading TAC I think I have a handle on it. It's a situation in which someone or some group sees broad social change they don't like. So probably civilizational collapse is constant and ongoing. ..."
"... I would only point out that there is no clear path to economic safety for working Americans, whether they are white are black. Training and hard work will only take you so far in our demand-constrained economy. Whether black optimism or white pessimism turns out to be empirically justified is far from certain. We are constructing the future as we speak, and our actions will determine the answer to this question. ..."
"... As the WikiLeaks dox show, it wasn't "barrel bombs" or "chemical warfare against his own people" that made the elites hungry to overthrow the government there, it was the 2009 decision by Syria not to allow an oil pipeline through from Qatar to Turkey, whereupon the CIA was directed to start funding jihadists and regime change. ..."
"... I'd note that Popes going back to Leo XIII have written on the destructive effects of capitalism or rather the unmitigated pursuit of wealth. Both Benedict and Francis have eloquently expressed the need for a spiritual conversion to solve the world's problems. A conversion which recognizes our solidarity with one another as well as our obligation to the health of Creation. I rather doubt we will find the impetus for this conversion among our politicians. ..."
"... The problem is not civilization-level, Mr. Dreher. The problem is species -level. Humanity as a whole is discovering that it cannot handle too high a level of technology without losing its ability to get feedback from its environment. Without that feedback, its elite classes drift off into literal insanity. The rest of the society soon follows. ..."
"... James Parker in The Atlantic comes to a similar conclusion from a very different starting place ..."
"... "For Trump to be revealed as a salvational figure, the conditions around him must be dire. Trump_vs_deep_state-like fascism, like a certain kind of smash-it-up punk rock-begins in apprehensions of apocalypse." ..."
"... Classical [neo]liberalism presents itself not as a tentative theory of how society might be organized but as a theory of nature. It claims to lay out the forces of nature and to make these a model for social order. Thus free-market fundamentalism, letting the market function "as nature intended". It's an absurd position when applied dogmatically, and no more "natural" than other economic arrangements humans might come up with. ..."
"... Further, as I suggest, our two camps "left" and "right" are no longer distinctly left and right in any traditional sense. The market forces and self-marketing that lead to the fetishization of identity by the left are the same market forces championed by the capitalist right. In America today, both left and right are merely different bourgeois cults of Self. ..."
"... "Pope Francis (and to a slighly lesser degree, his two predecessors) has spoken frequently about unbridled capitalism as a source of the world ills. But his message hasn't been that well received among American conservatives." ..."
Re: we have yet to hear a cogent description of what "bridled" capitalism
is/looks like
Something along the lines of Sweden, or maybe Germany: the means
of production is left in private hands and the owning class is welcome
to get rich (there are the equivalent of billionaires in both countries)
but there are strict limits as to how much they can screw their workers,
cheat their customers or damage the environment.
Also, basic social welfare matters (healthcare, child care etc.)
are publicly provided, or at least publicly backstopped. The model may
not be perfect but it appears to work quite well all in all.
I think a lot of American capitalists would welcome those bridles.
As for Hanby's critique of the liberal order that (thankfully) prevails
in the West, it is only because of that liberal order that we are freely
discussing these matters here, that we can talk about a Benedict Option
in which we can create an economy within the economy, because in the
non-liberal orders that prevailed through most of history, and that
still prevail in a lot of places, we'd be under threat from the state
for free discussion, and we would have little or no choice of education
or jobs, because we'd be serfs or slaves or forced by government to
go into a certain line of work (like my husband's Mandarin teacher,
a scientist who was forced into the countryside during the Cultural
Revolution and then told that she had to become a language teacher.)
I'd be interested to know what kind of system Hanby would like to
see replace our liberal order. Presumably one where he would be in charge.
[neo]Liberalism is exhausted? What does that even mean, except as a
high-brow insult?
If there is one statistic that disproves this claim, it's that religious
attendance is plummeting and the number of people who are "nones" are
rising rapidly.
What's exhausted is religion as a necessary component of social life.
Since that is indisputably true, I guess the only thing that is left
is for the remaining stalwarts resisting the tide to project this idea
of exhaustion onto the other side.
[NFR: You don't understand his point. He's not talking about liberalism
as the philosophy of the Democratic Party. He's talking about liberalism
as the political culture and system of the West. - RD]
"There is nothing like a good shock of pain for dissolving certain
kinds of magic."
Could be that Trump is God's Hot Foot Angel With The Dirty Face waking
Americans up to the increasingly Godless Agenda of The Washington Establishment
and The Corporate Media.
Talk about cynical. There's a lot to take exception to here, but let's
start with this:
"In other words, the fact that we are in civilizational crisis is
becoming unavoidably apparent, though there is obviously little agreement
as to what this crisis consists in or what its causes are and little
interest from the omnipresent media beyond how perceptions of crisis
affect voter behavior."
Possibly because he's one of the relatively few people who think
we're in such a crisis. A lot of us – Republican and Democrat – still
believe ideas and ideals are important and we support them (and their
torchbearers, however flawed) with all the vigor we can muster.
I do not think that drag queens reading stories, Lionel Shriver's
speech and backlash, or the latest Clinton scandal mean civilizational
death. They are outliers, but serve to remind the vast majority of the
country that there is plenty of room in America for eccentrics of every
description to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I
will admit to thinking this kind of thing much more important on college
campuses, where it can affect the quality of an education.
"We would not see it as a crisis of soul, but a crisis of management…"
Probably true: I'm not so sure that our founding principles really
envision our civilization as having a soul rather than virtues. And
the idea of a national government mucking around with the souls of the
people gives me the heebie-jeebies much as Putin's alliance with the
Orthodox church does you. And if there's anything we can take from the
current election, I think it's that Americans have had enough sociologists,
economists, lawyers, and other "experts" tell them what to do to last
a lifetime. It's part and parcel of the distrust you just posted about.
And I'm not at all sure that Americans are generally despairing,
though it's pretty clear they think our country is on the wrong track.
Hillary ought to be running away with this thing – why isn't she? Because
she's seen as more of the same. Sanders offered the hope of something
new, something transformative: the same thing people see in Trump. Their
hope MAY be misplaced but time will tell. This election cycle ought
to make people a little less confident in their predictions.
"Hope is hard, I admit. But my response is that it is not the pessimist
about liberalism who lacks hope, but the optimist who cannot see beyond
its horizons."
Hope is hard if you're investing in our institutions to carry us
through. They aren't designed to. Our hope is in Christ, Our Redeemer,
and that His will "be done on earth as it is in Heaven." And I will
gladly admit to not being able to see beyond liberalism's horizons –
again, the predictions of experts and philosophers haven't held up too
well over time.
I can say that blithely because my hope is not in liberalism, ultimately.
Do I think some semblance of liberalism can and will survive? Yes, but
the cultural struggles we are going through are part and parcel of the
system. Do I like that? No.
And as much as we need to reinforce communities (through the BenOp)
we also need to recognize that our job isn't always to understand and
prepare. As Christians, it is to obey. It means we repent, fast, and
pray. It means we take the Great Commission seriously even when it's
uncomfortable.
I'm sorry to rip your friend here, I just don't find his piece compelling
at all.
HRC is not really unthinkable. She is just not preferable. A vote for
HRC is an acquiescence to the status quo of corrupt, big money politics.
Voting for the status quo is unthinkable only if you think the apocalypse
is around the next bend. Let's be serious.
Voting for Trump is unthinkable because he is totally clueless about
seemingly he talks about. His arrogance is only surpassed by his ignorance.
Gary Johnson was excoriated because he did not know what Aleppo is.
I bet a paycheck Trump couldn't point to Syria on a map. Trump get's
no serious criticism for insistence that we steal Iraq's oil, his confusion
about why Iran wasn't buying our airplanes, his assertion that Iran
is North Koreas largest trading partner, that South Korea and Japan
ought to have nukes, his threats to extort our NATO allies. There are
dozens of gems like these, but you get the picture. One only needs to
read transcripts from his interviews to understand the limits of his
intellect. Voting for such a profound ignoramus is truly unthinkable.
Teenagers born after 2000 – the so-called 'Generation Z' – are
the most socially conservative generation since the Second World War,
a new study has found.
The youngsters surveyed had more conservative views on gay marriage,
transgender rights and drugs than Baby Boomers, Generation X or Millennials.
The questioned were more prudent than Millennials, Generation X and
Baby Boomers but not quite as cash-savvy as those born in 1945 or before.
…
Only 14 and 15-year-olds were surveyed, by brand consultancy The Gild,
as they were classed as being able to form credible opinions by that
age.
When asked to comment on same-sex marriage, transgender rights and
cannabis legislation, 59 per cent of Generation X teenagers said they
had conservative views.
Around 85 per cent of Millennials and those in Generation X had a
'quite' or 'very liberal' stance overall.
When asked for their specific view on each topic only the Silent
Generation was more conservative that Generation Z.
One in seven – 14% – of the 14 and 15-year-olds took a 'quite conservative'
approach, while only two per cent of Millennials and one per cent of
Generation X.
The Silent Generation had a 'quite conservative' rating of 34
per cent.
I think this was done in Britain but as we know, social trends in
the rest of the West tend to spill over into the States.
Are we looking at another Alex P. Keaton generation? Kids likely
to rebel against the liberalism of their parents?
I can never quite understand the tension between these two concepts:
enlightenment liberalism as a spent force, enervated, listless, barely
able to stir itself even in its own defense, and simultaneously weaponized
SJWism, modern day Jacobins, an army of clenched-jawed fanatics who
will stop at nothing to destroy its enemies.
It seems that one of these perspectives must be less true than the
other.
[NFR: SJWs are a betrayal of classical liberalism. - RD]
I realize that I only comment here when something sets me off, and not
when I agree with you (which is after all why I keep reading you).
So here I am agreeing with this post.
"we are at the mercy of systematic forces, difficult to name, which
can be manipulated by the powerful but not governed by them, and that
our problems are unsolvable"
I would argue that the "system" is capitalism grown decadent and
corrupt. It is a secular religion that we've given ourselves over to
and is exactly as he describes: a massive systemic force that some can
manipulate for their own gain, but as a society we've lost the will
or ability to control it's macro forces which have the power grind up
whole demographics, communities, or crash the whole economy.
The reaction and fall out from the financial crisis amounted to everyone
shrugging and declaring innocence and ignorance. They seemed to say,
how could anyone see such a thing coming or do anything about it? How
could anyone control such a huge system?
As your friend says, even if we want to exert more control over this
system (which we can with the will), this would end up being a technocratic
project, not a spiritual one. Sad because a spiritual argument against
the excesses of capitalism might actually gain more traction at this
point, than tired liberal arguments.
I'm always struck by these posts detailing how everything is coming
apart in America. I look around and frankly, life looks pretty good.
Maybe it's because I'm a minority female, who grew up poor and now has
a solidly middle class life. My mother, God rest her soul, was smarter
and worked harder than I ever will but did not have one-quarter of the
opportunities (education, housing) I've had. My sons have travelled
the globe, and have decent jobs and good friends. I am grateful.
My friends and I went out the other night in Austin, and there were
families, very diverse, walking in the outdoor mall, standing in line
to buy $5 scoops of ice cream for their children. Not hipsters, or God
forbid the elite, just regular middle class folk enjoying an evening
out. The truth is, life has improved immeasurably for many Americans.
Do we have serious problems? Of course, but can we have just a wee bit
of perspective?
You may be right about the problem, but not its nature. Capitalism
is not an impersonal force that can't be controlled, it's what people
do economically if they are left alone to do it. The problem comes when
people are not, simply put, virtuous. When people seek a return on investment
that is not simply reasonable, but rather the most they can possibly
get. We have had a capitalist system for long enough that some people
who are both good at manipulating it and, often, unethical enough to
not care what impact their choices have on others, have accumulated
vast amounts of wealth while others, over generations, have made choices
that have not been profitable, have lost wealth.
There used to be mechanisms for preventing these trends to continue
to their logical conclusion, as they are here. Judea had Jubilee. The
Byzantine Empire had an Emperor whose interests were served by a prosperous
landed middle class to populate the Thematic armies and who would occasionally
step in and return the land his part time soldiers had lost through
bad loans from aristocrats. We have no such mechanism for a farmer to
regain land lost due to foreclosure.
We should not redistribute wealth in such a way that a person has no
incentive to work, but we should never allow a person's means of earning
a livelihood to be taken from them.
I wouldn't say that [neo] Liberalism is "spent" as a force, rather that its
credibility is. As a cultural force (covering both politics and the
economy, among other things), its strength is and remains vast. It is
Leviathan. For all intents and purposes, it defines the culture, and
thus dictates the imperatives and methods, of our governing and economic
elites. The crisis of Western political legitimacy that is manifest
in the nomination of Trump, Brexit and numerous other movements and
incidents is a sign that the legitimacy of this order has been undermined
and is dissolving within the societies it effectively governs; in some
unspoken sense, the unwashed masses of the West (those not part of the
so-called "New Class") have come to understand that they have been betrayed
by the Liberal order, that it has not lived up to its promises, even
that it is becoming or has become a force destructive of their communities
and their ability to thrive as human beings.
The ever-increasing autonomy promised by the Liberal order has turned
out to be a poisoned chalice for many. As it has dissolved the bonds
of families and communities, it has atomized people into individuals
without traditional social supports in an increasingly cutthroat and
uncaring world. People cannot help but understand that they have lost
something or are missing something, even if they are not able to articulate
or identify that loss. It is a sickness of the soul, in the sense that
the ailment is somewhere close to the heart of what it means to be human.
We are what we are, and the Liberal order is pushing us into opposition
to our own natures, as if we can choose to be something other than what
we are.
This idea that Democrats hate Hillary in the same way Republicans despise
Trump is way off base in my opinion. This attempt at equivalency, like
so many others, is false. I voted for Sanders because I liked him better,
but I am not holding my nose to vote for Hillary Clinton. There are
several things I actually admire about her, including her attention
to detail and tenacity. I'll always remember how she sat before Congress
as First Lady, no paper or crib sheet in sight, and presented her detailed
and compelling case for national health care . I thought that was awesome
then, and still do.
Still, as I've noted many times, I never liked the Clintons that
much, mainly because I hated a lot of what Bill Clinton stood for and
what he did. Aside from his embarrassing sexual escapades, most of that
pertained to positions that seemed more Republican than Democratic (on
welfare mothers, mental patients, deregulation of the broadcast industry,
etc.) I also didn't like their position on abortion nor the way their
people treated Gov. Casey at the party convention, nor the dialing back
on Jimmy Carter's uncompromising stand for human rights in the third
world. Some of Hillary's hawkish positions are still a concern, but
what she stands for in general is far and away more humane and within
my understanding of what's good for the country and the world at large
than anything Republicans represent. Their ideas hurt people on too
many fronts to justify voting for them just because I may agree with
them on principle when it comes to matters such abortion. Trump just
adds insult to injury in every regard.
Very well said. What accounts for the relative optimism of minorities
vs. whites?
State of the economy, personal situation, optimism that your kids future
will be better than yours, etc. In all of these surveys, it is the pessimism
of whites, untethered from empirical reality, that stands out as the
outlier.
"Sad because a spiritual argument against the excesses of capitalism
might actually gain more traction at this point, than tired liberal
arguments."
It would gain more traction, and it would be better focused at what
is much larger cause of the current social, economic, and family problems
of the working classes.
But the argument won't be made, because the majority of those that
believe in a societal crisis have pinned the origin of this crisis on
feminism, the sexual revolution, and SJW, and have bought in full the
bootstraps language of the radical capitalism. Even the majority crunchy
cons, that would be sympathetic to the arguments against capitalism,
would rather try to solve the ills of the world via cultural instead
of economic ways.
Pope Francis (and to a slighly lesser degree, his two predecessors)
has spoken frequently about unbridled capitalism as a source of the
world ills. But his message hasn't been that well received among American
conservatives
[NFR: Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict said the same thing.
- RD]
Bush proved that electing an imbecile to the Presidency has real
consequences for our standing in the world. Trump is just as stupid,
but he is far more dangerous. At least Bush wasn't a egomaniac.
Trump starts speaking without knowing how his sentence will end, and
then he will go to down fighting to defend whatever it was he said even
though he never really meant it in the first place. That mix of arrogance
and stupidity is more dangerous than Bush.
"In fact, I doubt we any longer possess enough of a 'civilization' to
understand what a 'civilizational crisis' would really mean."
I think someone has no idea what "civilization" means. None of his
definitions apply.
What we are seeing is the radical change in Western Civilization
from the old Graeco-Roman/Christian model to a yet undefined American
model. (Which is why Islam in Europe is not very important. Europe is
no longer very important.) No one guards the "glory that was Greece"
any more. We've moved out of that. The debate will be when did the transition
occur. Did it begin in the 19th Century with the Age of Invention? Did
it occur in the flash of gunpowder that was WW1? Was it the blasting
to rubble of Monte Cassino when the weapons of the new blew the symbol
of the old to ruin? Was it the moment men stood upon the Moon and nothing
the bronze age pilers of rocks had to say was of any value any more?
The key to understanding the change is that the old values are dead
and we are in the process of creating new ones. No one knows where that
is going to go. It is all too new.
Hanby is wrong. We have a civilization, but it is leaving his in
the dust.
Totally unconvincing. It couldn't be more obvious that Hillary stands
for rule by globalists whereas Trump intends to return control of the
federal government to We the People.
Which candidate is traveling to Louisiana? Flint? Detroit? Mexico
(on behalf of America)? Which candidate calls tens of millions of Americans
irredeemable and thus it would be justified in exterminating them?
Seriously, only one of these two appears interested in leading the
nation.
"What's exhausted is religion as a necessary component of social
life."
This is so hilariously untrue, but also very sad that the secular
Left cannot see its own idols or even read its own headlines.
What does he think is happening in the United States besides the
rise of a revolutionary moral order, ruled by fickle tastemakers who
believe that their own emotions and thoughts have creative power? How
else would history have a "side"? How else could "gender" be entirely
unmoored from sex and any other scientific fact? Progressivism even
has "climate change" as its chosen apocalypse which will visit destruction
if not enough fealty is granted to an ever-more-omnipotent and omniscient
central government? Does he not see how over and over again, this week's
progressive leaders attacks last week's? Amy Schumer, anyone?
Once a culture abolishes the One True God, as ours has, then that
culture begins to find other sources for the attributes of God and for
the definitions of virtues and vices.
What makes Mr. Cosimano so sure that what America is passing into
is anything like a "civilization" at all? We could simple pass into
barbarism. Can anyone name the leaders who hope to build any kind of
civilization at all?
Never forget that there is a real and clear choice before us.
Clinton will deliver amnesty to 40 million illegals. Continue the
1 million legal immigrants per yer all from the Third World. She will
radically upsize the Muslim refugee influx to hundreds of thousands
per year. All terrible things.
Trump will do the opposite. This will make a massive difference to
the future of the country - Trump, good…Clinton, bad - and is what this
election is about.
For 70+ years, other than while working on a university degree in history,
I never gave a thought to civilizational collapse, so I would have been
a poor choice to ask for a definition of the term. But after a few years
of reading TAC I think I have a handle on it. It's a situation in which
someone or some group sees broad social change they don't like. So probably
civilizational collapse is constant and ongoing.
As for me, I'm outside somewhere every day and so far not even a
tiny piece of the sky has fallen on me.
@xrdsmom
Empirical reality depends on where you stand. Younote that your prospects
have improved relative to your mom's. For the working class whites working
at low paying jobs, they have declined. Is their anger simply a response
to loss of white privilege? In the sense that this privilege consisted
of access to well-paying jobs out of high school, the answer is yes.
I would only point out that there is no clear path to economic safety
for working Americans, whether they are white are black. Training and
hard work will only take you so far in our demand-constrained economy.
Whether black optimism or white pessimism turns out to be empirically
justified is far from certain. We are constructing the future as we
speak, and our actions will determine the answer to this question.
It's true a lot of people couldn't point to Syria; because that's how
important it is to most people. So why are we now involved in a full
scale war there, when the American people clearly stated they didn't
want another war?
As the WikiLeaks dox show, it wasn't "barrel bombs" or "chemical
warfare against his own people" that made the elites hungry to overthrow
the government there, it was the 2009 decision by Syria not to allow
an oil pipeline through from Qatar to Turkey, whereupon the CIA was
directed to start funding jihadists and regime change.
Hillary is not as corrupt as some think nor is Trump likely to be able
to enact much of his agenda(most of which he has no commitment to –
it is all a performance). So I do not see either as end times candidates.
However – a civilization must assure certain things – order, cohesion,
safety from invasion and occupation. It also must assure that the resources
we secure from the earth are available – good soil, clean water, sustainable
management of energy sources etc. This is where our civilization is
failing – if you doubt this – spend a moment looking up soil erosion
on Google. Or dead zones Mississippi and Nile deltas. Depletion of fish
stocks. Loss of arable land and potable water all over the planet. Is
this calamitous failure a function of liberalism or capitalism run amok?
Perhaps the two go hand in hand?
I'd note that Popes going back to
Leo XIII have written on the destructive effects of capitalism or rather
the unmitigated pursuit of wealth. Both Benedict and Francis have eloquently
expressed the need for a spiritual conversion to solve the world's problems.
A conversion which recognizes our solidarity with one another as well
as our obligation to the health of Creation. I rather doubt we will
find the impetus for this conversion among our politicians.
But there are certainly all over the earth groups of people who have
experienced this conversion and are seeking to build civilizations which
are just and sustainable. Rod has written about some – his friends in
Italy as an example.
The problem is not civilization-level, Mr. Dreher. The problem is
species -level. Humanity as a whole is discovering that it cannot handle
too high a level of technology without losing its ability to get feedback
from its environment. Without that feedback, its elite classes drift
off into literal insanity. The rest of the society soon follows.
The trick is going to be recovering our connection with the Realities
of existence without bringing technological civilization down or re-engineering
Humanity into something we would not recognize.
Color me less than optimistic about our prospects.
"I really think there is a pervasive, but unarticulated sense that
liberalism is exhausted, that we are at the mercy of systematic forces,
difficult to name, which can be manipulated by the powerful but not
governed by them, and that our problems are unsolvable. The reasons
for this anxiety are manifold and cannot be reduced to politics or economics…"
"For Trump to be revealed as a salvational figure, the conditions
around him must be dire. Trump_vs_deep_state-like fascism, like a certain kind
of smash-it-up punk rock-begins in apprehensions of apocalypse."
Hanky's diagnosis is brilliant. Yes, thanks for posting, Rod.
One of our fundamental problems, along with the conceptual horizons
imposed by liberalism, is the obsolete language of "left" and "right"
that we continue to apply when weighing our options. This too is part
of why we can't construct a politics of hope, and in my reading it explains
the decline of the left into identity politics (our Democratic Party
is not any more "the left" in any meaningful way) and of the right into
"movement conservatism" or Trumpian nationalism.
Classical [neo]liberalism presents itself not as a tentative theory of
how society might be organized but as a theory of nature. It claims
to lay out the forces of nature and to make these a model for social
order. Thus free-market fundamentalism, letting the market function
"as nature intended". It's an absurd position when applied dogmatically,
and no more "natural" than other economic arrangements humans might
come up with.
The only truly rock solid aspect of classical liberalism in my mind
is its theory of individual dignity, the permanent and nonnegotiable
value of each individual in essence and before the law. The left has
taken this and run with it and turned it into a divination of individual
desire and self-definition, which is something different. The capitalist
right has taken it and turned it into a theory of individual responsibility
for one's economic fate, which is helpful in ways, but not decisive
or even fully explanatory as to why people end up where they are. And
a lot of people are not in a good place thanks to the free trade enthusiasts
who believe what they're up to somehow reflects the eternal forces of
nature.
Further, as I suggest, our two camps "left" and "right" are no
longer distinctly left and right in any traditional sense. The market
forces and self-marketing that lead to the fetishization of identity
by the left are the same market forces championed by the capitalist
right. In America today, both left and right are merely different bourgeois
cults of Self.
It should be no surprise that the inalienable dignity of the individual,
that rock solid core of liberal thinking, grew directly from the Christian
soil of Paul's assertion of the equality of all–men, women, Greek, Jew,
freed, slave–in Christ. (Galatians 3:28) The world's current thinking
on "human rights" is merely a universalized version of Paul's thought,
hatched in a Christian Europe by philosophes who didn't recognize
just how Christian they were.
After all the utopian dusts settle, whether the dust of Adam Smith
or the dust of PC Non-Discrimination, we must see that the one thing
holding us together is this recognition that the political order must
respect human rights. The core issue at present is thus that we legislate
in ways that reflect a realistic understanding of these rights. As for
"movement conservatism" or PC progressivism, they each represent pipe
dreams that don't address the economic or legal challenges in coherent
ways, and they each sacrifice true rights at one altar or another.
The obsolete language of "left" and "right" keeps us unwilling to
grapple with the real economic and legal challenges, if only because
we're too busy cheerleading either one version of the capitalist cult
or the other.
I'm looking forward to The Benedict Option mainly as providing
some answers as to how the remnant of faithful Christians in this mayhem
might both hold their faith intact while perhaps simultaneously developing
less utopian modes of thinking about community. The neoliberal order
may very well be shaping up to be for us something like the pagan Roman
Empire was to the early church. We finally have to face that, politically
speaking, we are in the world but not of it.
Re: Clinton will deliver amnesty to 40 million illegals.
Will she be inviting them in from parallel universes? Because we
do not have 40 million illegals. The number is closer to eleven million.
Also the president can't do this on his/her own. Congress has to
act. The House will remain GOP. The Senate may too, or will flip back
to GOP after 2018. As I mentioned Clinton's hands will be tied as much
as Obama's have been since 2010. That includes Supreme Court appointments.
Only the most boring of moderates will get through– sure, they won't
overturn Roe or Oberfell, but they won't rubber stamp much new either.
"Pope Francis (and to a slighly lesser degree, his two predecessors)
has spoken frequently about unbridled capitalism as a source of the world
ills. But his message hasn't been that well received among American conservatives."
[NFR: Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict said the same thing. -
RD]"
It doesn't sit well for two reasons: (a) we have yet to hear a cogent
description of what "bridled" capitalism is/looks like and (b) capitalism
has its faults, but it has raised far more boats than it has swamped.
Until we hear an admission of (b) and an explanation of (a), their statements
will continue to fall on deaf ears. Particularly from Pope Francis, whose
grip on economic ideas seems tenuous at best.
You need to substitute PIC (a.k.a., The Elites or Political Class)) for
neoliberal elite for the article to make more sense.
Notable quotes:
"... Our nation is in the grip of such poisonous thinking. The DNC with its "Super Delegates" already has a way to control who will be their candidate. In an irony to beat all ironies, the DNC's Super Delegates were able to stop Bernie Sanders... ..."
"... The reason Trump is still rising (and I believe will win handily) is he clearly represents the original image of America: a self made success story based on capitalism and the free market. ..."
This election cycle is so amazing one cannot help but think it has been scripted
by some invisible, all-powerful, hand. I mean, how could we have two completely
opposite candidates, perfectly reflecting the forces at play in this day and
age? It truly is a clash between The Elites and The Masses!
Main Street vs Wall & K Street.
The Political Industrial Complex (PIC – a.k.a., The Elites or Political Class)
is all up arms over the outsider barging in on their big con. The PIC is beside
itself trying to stop Donald Trump from gaining the Presidency, where he will
be able to clean out the People's House and the bureaucratic cesspool that has
shackled Main Street with political correctness, propaganda, impossibly expensive
health care, ridiculous taxes and a national debt that will take generations
to pay off.
The PIC has run amok long enough – illustrated perfectly by the defect ridden
democrat candidate: Hillary Clinton. I mean, how could you frame America's choices
this cycle
any better than this --
Back in July, Democratic presidential nominee and former Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton said, "there is
absolutely no connection between anything that I did as secretary of
state and the Clinton Foundation."
On Monday of this week,
ABC's Liz Kreutzer reminded people of that statement, as a new batch
of emails reveal that there was a connection, and
it was cash .
…
The Abedin emails reveal that the longtime Clinton aide apparently served
as a conduit between Clinton Foundation donors and Hillary Clinton while
Clinton served as secretary of state. In more than a dozen email exchanges,
Abedin provided expedited, direct access to Clinton for donors who had contributed
from $25,000 to $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. In many instances,
Clinton Foundation top executive Doug Band, who worked with the Foundation
throughout Hillary Clinton's tenure at State, coordinated closely with Abedin.
In Abedin's June deposition to Judicial Watch, she conceded that part of
her job at the State Department was taking care of "
Clinton family matters ."
This is what has Main Street so fed up with Wall & K street (big business,
big government). The Clinton foundation is a cash cow for Clinton, Inc. So while
our taxes go up, our debt sky rockets and our health care becomes too expensive
to afford, Clan Clinton has made 100's of millions of dollars selling access
(and obviously doing favors, because no one spends that kind of money without
results).
The PIC is circling the wagons with its news media arm shrilly screaming
anything and everything about Trump as if they could fool Main Street with their
worn out propaganda. I seriously doubt it will work. The Internet has broken
the information monopoly that allowed the PIC in the not too distant past to
control what people knew and thought.
Massachusetts has a long history of using the power of incumbency to
cripple political opponents. In fact, it's a leading state for such partisan
gamesmanship. Dating back to 1812, when Gov. Elbridge Gerry signed into
law a redistricting plan for state Senate districts that favored his Democratic-Republican
Party, the era of Massachusetts rule rigging began. It has continued, unabated,
ever since.
Given the insider dealing and venality that epitomized the 2016 presidential
primary process, I'd hoped that politicians would think twice before abusing
the power of the state for political purposes. Galvin quickly diminished
any such prospect of moderation in the sketchy behavior of elected officials.
He hid his actions behind the thin veil of fiscal responsibility. He claimed
to be troubled by the additional $56,000 he was going to have to spend printing
ballots to accommodate Independent voters. He conveniently ignored the fact
that thousands of these UIP members have been paying taxes for decades to
support a primary process that excludes them.
…
In my home state of Kansas, where my 2014 candidacy threatened to take
a U.S. Senate seat from the Republicans, they responded predictably. Instead
of becoming more responsive to voters, our state's highly partisan secretary
of state, Kris Kobach, introduced legislation that would bring back one
of the great excesses of machine politics: straight party-line voting –
which is designed to discourage voters from considering an Independent candidacy
altogether. Kobach's rationale, like Galvin's, was laughable. He described
it as a "convenience" for voters.
The article goes on to note these acts by the PIC are an affront to the large
swath of the electorate who really choose who will win elections:
In a recent Gallup poll, 60 percent of Americans said they do not feel
well-represented by the Democrats and Republicans and believe a third major
party is needed. Fully 42 percent of Americans now describe themselves
as politically independent .
That means the two main parties are each smaller in size than the independents
(68% divided by 2 equals 34%), which is why independents pick which side will
win. If the PIC attacks this group – guess what the response will look like?
I recently had a discussion with someone from Washington State who is pretty
much my opposite policy-wise. She is a deep blue democrat voter, whereas I am
a deep purple independent who is more small-government Tea Party than conservative-GOP.
She was lamenting the fact that her state has caucuses, which is one method
to blunt Main Street voters from having a say. It was interesting that we quickly
and strongly agreed on one thing above all else: open primaries. We both knew
that if the voters had the only say in who are leaders
would be, all sides could abide that decision easily. It is when PIC intervenes
that things get ugly.
Open primaries make the political parties accountable to the voters. Open
primaries make it harder for the PIC to control who gets into office, and reduces
the leverage of big donors. Open primaries reflect the will of the states and
the nation – not the vested interests (read bank accounts) of the PIC.
Without doubt, one of the most troublesome aspects of the current system
is its gross inefficiency. Whereas generations ago selecting a nominee
took relatively little time and money , today's process has resulted
in a near-permanent campaign. Because would-be nominees have to
win primaries and open caucuses in several states, they must put
together vast campaign apparatuses that spread across the nation, beginning
years in advance and raising tens of millions of dollars.
The length of the campaign alone keeps many potential candidates on the
sidelines. In particular, those in positions of leadership at various
levels of our government cannot easily put aside their duties and
shift into full-time campaign mode for such an extended period.
It is amazing how this kind of thinking can be considered legitimate. Note
how independent voters are evil in the mind of the PIC, and only government
leaders need apply. Not surprising, their answer is to control access to the
ballot:
During the week of Lincoln's birthday (February 12), the Republican Party
would hold a Republican Nomination Convention that would borrow from the
process by which the Constitution was ratified. Delegates to the
convention would be selected by rank-and-file Republicans in their local
communities , and those chosen delegates would meet, deliberate,
and ultimately nominate five people who, if willing, would each
be named as one of the party's officially sanctioned finalists for its presidential
nomination. Those five would subsequently debate one another a half-dozen
times.
Brexit became a political force because the European Union was not accountable
to the voters. The EU members are also selected by members of the European PIC
– not citizens of the EU. Without direct accountability to all citizens (a.k.a.
– voters) there is no democracy –
just a variant
of communism:
During the Russian Civil War (1918–1922), the Bolsheviks nationalized
all productive property and imposed a policy named war communism,
which put factories and railroads under strict government control,
collected and rationed food, and introduced some bourgeois management of
industry . After three years of war and the 1921 Kronstadt rebellion,
Lenin declared the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1921, which was to give
a "limited place for a limited time to capitalism." The NEP lasted until
1928, when Joseph Stalin achieved party leadership, and the introduction
of the Five Year Plans spelled the end of it. Following the Russian Civil
War, the Bolsheviks, in 1922, formed the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
(USSR), or Soviet Union, from the former Russian Empire.
Following Lenin's democratic centralism, the Leninist parties
were organized on a hierarchical basis, with active cells of members as
the broad base; they were made up only of elite cadres approved by higher
members of the party as being reliable and completely subject to party discipline
.
Emphasis mine. Note how communism begins with government control of major
industries. The current con job about Global Warming is the cover-excuse for
a government grab of the energy sector. Obamacare is an attempt to grab the
healthcare sector. And Wall Street already controls the banking sector. See
a trend yet?
This is then followed by imposing a rigid hierarchy of "leaders" at all levels
of politics – so no opposing views can gain traction. Party discipline uber
alles!
Our nation is in the grip of such poisonous thinking. The DNC with its "Super
Delegates" already has a way to control who will be their candidate. In an irony
to beat all ironies, the DNC's Super Delegates were able to stop Bernie Sanders...
The reason Trump is still rising (and I believe will win handily) is he clearly
represents the original image of America: a self made success story based on
capitalism and the free market.
His opponent is the epitome of the Political Industrial Complex – a cancer
that has eaten away America's free market foundation and core strength. A person
who wants to impose government on the individual.
"... Centralization, egalitarianism, and coercive multiculturalism were not the right answers, Nisbet would reiterate throughout his career. ..."
"... Localism, kinship, and liberty make a society secure. Leviathan smothers the human spirit through sheer size, regulation, bureaucracy, and fiat. ..."
In one of our first "adult"
conversations, when I asked earnestly about equality, Nisbet
insisted on making a bright-line distinction between what was
possible, equal opportunity and equality before the law, and
what was not, a coercive dream of managed, equal outcomes.
During the McGovern years, contesting equality's
self-evident virtues was shocking coming from a senior professor
and established social critic. But as I listened to Nisbet's
faultless reasoning, that was the moment, I realized a good
while later, I became a "conservative" in mind.
The growth of national government
during the 1960s through massive military and administrative
expansion, Nisbet feared, prefigured "the centralized state of
the masses," empowered by the "crumbling of the pre-democratic
strata of values and institutions" that "alone made political
freedom possible." Worse, he thought, a growing number of
clients might welcome its power and largess at the expense of
family and freedom.
Centralization,
egalitarianism, and coercive multiculturalism were not the right
answers, Nisbet would reiterate throughout his career.
What
induced social harmony and individual fulfillment, he
observed-long before Robert Putnam wrote
Bowling Alone
(2000)-were communities of churches and schools, volunteer
groups, families, and tribes.
Localism, kinship, and liberty
make a society secure. Leviathan smothers the human spirit
through sheer size, regulation, bureaucracy, and fiat.
If unobtainable forms of equality
become cornerstones of national policy, he argued, the onslaught
on institutions to try to achieve the impossible would be
unlimited. Intrusive state power promising to cure inequality
would let government take on powers formerly reserved to other
authorities. Stripped of religion, the public was imbibing
liberal elixirs that rendered individuals blameless, turning
them into victims of a society that "glistens with corruption,"
he once said to me. Guilt and wishful thinking quickened the
politics of equality.
... ... ...
The success of his 1975 book,
Twilight of Authority
,
was rather a surprise. The writing, as with much of Nisbet, ranges from
dense and stilted to lucid and aphoristic. It is not an easy book. But its
discursive, prescient, panoramic indictment of shifting authorities found a
distinguished audience, and it drew him further into debate over
socio-cultural policies.
... ... ...
Nisbet had no patience for sloth.
His youthful circumstances had been Depression rough, and he
escaped a troubled household. With studied poise, he was
unfailingly civil, with measured, formal manners, and
considerable sangfroid.
He thought that boredom was
civilization's number-one self-poisoner. Wealth and leisure
could undermine the collective good sense of the masses, he
felt, stimulating euphoria at a cost. Efforts to offset
boredom-through video games, television, sports, pornography, or
drugs-could be fatal to community. Facebook's artificial
communities and the politics of Twitter, he might say, give the
illusion of social cement while causing the real thing to crack.
Much of what Nisbet foresaw
decades ago has come to be. Americans surf big-screen HDTV
channels, seeking relief and distraction. Hoping politics will
make things right, the nation follows the plot like a
serial-some on Fox, others on CNN-accepting politics as a
televised reality show.
"... Brexit went on to win 52% to 48% . That is a swing of +14% to -4% on the day of the vote! The polls were off by 18% against the Elites/Globalist who inhabit the European Political Industrial Complex (or PIC) ..."
"... [Note: Political Industrial Complex (PIC) = all the career politicians, all the career bureaucrats, the sea of career political consultants and career staff, the political donor class and their career lobbyists, and of course the pliant career political news media. The EU is the epitome of the Political Industrial Complex – the apex of bad ideas hoisted upon the masses without thought or responsibility. The "elite" denizens of the PIC live apart from the rest of humanity] ..."
"... Check back for updates if we detect a hint of Brexit tonight ..."
Given the uniqueness of this election cycle with
candidate Trump and the populist wave building in many
countries of "the west", it is hard to put much trust in the
polls.
This lesson was learned
during the Brexit vote in the UK
when polls showed the "stay" campaign comfortably ahead
on the day of the vote
:
The paper ballots were still being counted by hand.
Only the British overseas territory of Gibraltar had
reported final results. Yet the assumption of a Remain
victory filled the room-and depressed my hosts.
One important journalist had received a detailed
briefing earlier that evening of the results of the
government's exit polling: 57 percent for Remain
.
… why would any anti-big-government voter participate
in a poll from the PIC? They won't. So the polls become
more and more over sampled by the PIC defenders: an ever
shrinking fraction of the voting population.
[Note:
Political Industrial Complex (PIC)
= all the career politicians, all the career bureaucrats,
the sea of career political consultants and career staff,
the political donor class and their career lobbyists, and of
course the pliant career political news media. The EU is the
epitome of the Political Industrial Complex – the apex of
bad ideas hoisted upon the masses without thought or
responsibility. The "elite" denizens of the PIC live apart
from the rest of humanity]
Today we are going to get a clear indication of how deep
the ant-elite wave is in America. Paul Ryan, GOP Speaker of
the House, is fighting off a primary challenger who has
built his "Hail Mary" campaign on the populist movement. How
he performs against Ryan is going to be a clear and
unambiguous measure of the anti-government movement.
I seriously doubt Ryan will lose. But I also seriously
doubt he will win by 60%. The closer Ryan gets to 60%, the
less likely we have "Brexit In America" and the more likely
it is Hillary can pull this election out. But if Ryan is
down near 20% (or worse), then it is more likely Trump will
ride a populist wave to victory in November.
This will be a very enlightening evening as the primary
results come in.
BTW, turnout seems to be low today, which is probably
really bad for Ryan. We know the populist voters have
energy (see Trumps record breaking vote totals in his
primaries). So ambivalence will probably be on the Ryan
side. The lower the turnout, the more likely it is Ryan's
tepid supporters who just failed to be worried about him
losing. Paul Nehlen's supporters – who were all about
sending a message to DC – will win the day on the urge to
purge DC.
Check back for updates if we detect a hint of
Brexit tonight
"... The increasing emphasis on features and infotainment at the expense of hard news has distracted public attention from the reality of global economies. ..."
"... We believe that it is too early to know what, if anything, has changed in terms of the dominance of neoliberal newspeak and we contend that rigorous scrutiny of business media is vital to global economic health. ..."
Global Financial Crisis| Neoliberal Newspeak and Digital Capitalism in CrisisPaula Chakravartty, Dan Schiller
Abstract
Changes in the practice of business journalism are a key element in the current
financial crisis. The increasing emphasis on features and infotainment at
the expense of hard news has distracted public attention from the reality of
global economies.
In this article, we provide an overview of the dominant business and financial
news media, primarily in the United States, but also in the urbanizing nations
of China and India. We believe that it is too early to know what, if anything,
has changed in terms of the dominance of neoliberal newspeak and we contend
that rigorous scrutiny of business media is vital to global economic health.
"... Reality always has this power to surprise. It surprises you with an answer that it gives to questions never asked - and which are most tempting. A great stimulus to life is there, in the capacity to divine possible unasked questions. ..."
"... - Eduardo Galeano ..."
"... Fred Jameson has argued that "that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism." ..."
"... One way of understanding Jameson's comment is that within the ideological and affective spaces in which the neoliberal subject is produced and market-driven ideologies are normalized, there are new waves of resistance, especially among young people, who are insisting that casino capitalism is driven by a kind of mad violence and form of self-sabotage, and that if it does not come to an end, what we will experience, in all probability, is the destruction of human life and the planet itself. ..."
"... As the latest stage of predatory capitalism, neoliberalism is part of a broader economic and political project of restoring class power and consolidating the rapid concentration of capital, particularly financial capital ..."
"... As an ideology, it casts all dimensions of life in terms of market rationality, construes profit-making as the arbiter and essence of democracy ..."
"... Neoliberalism has put an enormous effort into creating a commanding cultural apparatus and public pedagogy in which individuals can only view themselves as consumers, embrace freedom as the right to participate in the market, and supplant issues of social responsibility for an unchecked embrace of individualism and the belief that all social relation be judged according to how they further one's individual needs and self-interests. ..."
"... The unemployment rate for young people in many countries such as Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Greece hovers between 40 and 50 per cent. To make matters worse, those with college degrees either cannot find work or are working at low-skill jobs that pay paltry wages. In the United States, young adjunct faculty constitute one of the fastest growing populations on food stamps. Suffering under huge debts, a jobs crisis, state violence, a growing surveillance state, and the prospect that they would inherit a standard of living far below that enjoyed by their parents, many young people have exhibited a rage that seems to deepen their resignation, despair, and withdrawal from the political arena. ..."
"... They now inhabit a neoliberal notion of temporality marked by a loss of faith in progress along with the emergence of apocalyptic narratives in which the future appears indeterminate, bleak, and insecure. Heightened expectations and progressive visions pale and are smashed next to the normalization of market-driven government policies that wipe out pensions, eliminate quality health care, raise college tuition, and produce a harsh world of joblessness, while giving millions to banks and the military. ..."
"... dispossessed youth continued to lose their dignity, bodies, and material goods to the machineries of disposability. ..."
"... Against the ravaging policies of austerity and disposability, "zones of abandonment appeared in which the domestic machinery of violence, suffering, cruelty, and punishment replaced the values of compassion, social responsibility, and civic courage" (Biehl 2005:2). ..."
"... In opposition to such conditions, a belief in the power of collective resistance and politics emerged once again in 2010, as global youth protests embraced the possibility of deepening and expanding democracy, rather than rejecting it. ..."
"... What is lacking here is any critical sense regarding the historical conditions and dismal lack of political and moral responsibility of an adult generation who shamefully bought into and reproduced, at least since the 1970s, governments and social orders wedded to war, greed, political corruption, xenophobia, and willing acceptance of the dictates of a ruthless form of neoliberal globalization. ..."
"... London Review of Books ..."
"... This is not a diary ..."
"... Vita: Life in a Zone of Social Abandonment ..."
"... Against the terror of neoliberalism ..."
"... Against the violence of organized forgetting: beyond America's disimagination machine ..."
"... Debt: The First 5,000 Years ..."
"... The democracy project: a history, a crisis, a movement ..."
"... 5th assessment report by the intergovernmental panel on climate change ..."
"... Unlearning With Hannah Arendt ..."
"... Agnonistics: thinking the world politically ..."
Reality always has this power to surprise. It surprises you with
an answer that it gives to questions never asked - and which are most tempting.
A great stimulus to life is there, in the capacity to divine possible unasked
questions.
- Eduardo Galeano
Neoliberalism's Assault on Democracy
Fred Jameson has argued that "that it is easier to imagine the end of
the world than to imagine the end of capitalism." He goes on to say that
"We can now revise that and witness the attempt to imagine capitalism by way
of imagining the end of the world" (Jameson 2003). One way of understanding
Jameson's comment is that within the ideological and affective spaces in which
the neoliberal subject is produced and market-driven ideologies are normalized,
there are new waves of resistance, especially among young people, who are insisting
that casino capitalism is driven by a kind of mad violence and form of self-sabotage,
and that if it does not come to an end, what we will experience, in all probability,
is the destruction of human life and the planet itself. Certainly, more
recent scientific reports on the threat of ecological disaster from researchers
at the University of Washington, NASA, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change reinforce this dystopian possibility. [1]
To read more articles by Henry A. Giroux and other authors in the
Public Intellectual Project, click
here.
As the latest stage of predatory capitalism, neoliberalism is part of
a broader economic and political project of restoring class power and consolidating
the rapid concentration of capital, particularly financial capital (Giroux
2008; 2014). As a political project, it includes "the deregulation of finance,
privatization of public services, elimination and curtailment of social welfare
programs, open attacks on unions, and routine violations of labor laws" (Yates
2013). As an ideology, it casts all dimensions of life in terms of market
rationality, construes profit-making as the arbiter and essence of democracy,
consuming as the only operable form of citizenship, and upholds the irrational
belief that the market can both solve all problems and serve as a model for
structuring all social relations. As a mode of governance, it produces identities,
subjects, and ways of life driven by a survival-of-the fittest ethic, grounded
in the idea of the free, possessive individual, and committed to the right of
ruling groups and institutions to exercise power removed from matters of ethics
and social costs. As a policy and political project, it is wedded to the privatization
of public services, the dismantling of the connection of private issues and
public problems, the selling off of state functions, liberalization of trade
in goods and capital investment, the eradication of government regulation of
financial institutions and corporations, the destruction of the welfare state
and unions, and the endless marketization and commodification of society.
Neoliberalism has put an enormous effort into creating a commanding cultural
apparatus and public pedagogy in which individuals can only view themselves
as consumers, embrace freedom as the right to participate in the market, and
supplant issues of social responsibility for an unchecked embrace of individualism
and the belief that all social relation be judged according to how they further
one's individual needs and self-interests. Matters of mutual caring, respect,
and compassion for the other have given way to the limiting orbits of privatization
and unrestrained self-interest, just as it has become increasingly difficult
to translate private troubles into larger social, economic, and political considerations.
As the democratic public spheres of civil society have atrophied under the onslaught
of neoliberal regimes of austerity, the social contract has been either greatly
weakened or replaced by savage forms of casino capitalism, a culture of fear,
and the increasing use of state violence. One consequence is that it has become
more difficult for people to debate and question neoliberal hegemony and the
widespread misery it produces for young people, the poor, middle class, workers,
and other segments of society - now considered disposable under neoliberal regimes
which are governed by a survival-of-the fittest ethos, largely imposed by the
ruling economic and political elite.
That they are unable to make their voices
heard and lack any viable representation in the process makes clear the degree
to which young people and others are suffering under a democratic deficit, producing
what Chantal Mouffe calls "a profound dissatisfaction with a number of existing
societies" under the reign of neoliberal capitalism (Mouffe 2013:119). This
is one reason why so many youth, along with workers, the unemployed, and students,
have been taking to the streets in Greece, Mexico, Egypt, the United States,
and England.
The Rise of Disposable Youth
What is particularly distinctive about the current historical conjuncture
is the way in which young people, particularly low-income and poor minority
youth across the globe, have been increasingly denied any place in an already
weakened social order and the degree to which they are no longer seen as central
to how a number of countries across the globe define their future. The plight
of youth as disposable populations is evident in the fact that millions of them
in countries such as England, Greece, and the United States have been unemployed
and denied long term benefits. The unemployment rate for young people in many
countries such as Spain, Italy, Portugal, and Greece hovers between 40 and 50
per cent. To make matters worse, those with college degrees either cannot find
work or are working at low-skill jobs that pay paltry wages. In the United States,
young adjunct faculty constitute one of the fastest growing populations on food
stamps. Suffering under huge debts, a jobs crisis, state violence, a growing
surveillance state, and the prospect that they would inherit a standard of living
far below that enjoyed by their parents, many young people have exhibited a
rage that seems to deepen their resignation, despair, and withdrawal from the
political arena.
This is the first generation, as sociologist Zygmunt Bauman argues, in which
the "plight of the outcast may stretch to embrace a whole generation." (Bauman
2012a; 2012b; 2012c) He rightly insists that today's youth have been "cast in
a condition of liminal drift, with no way of knowing whether it is transitory
or permanent" (Bauman 2004:76). Youth no longer occupy the hope of a privileged
place that was offered to previous generations. They now inhabit a neoliberal
notion of temporality marked by a loss of faith in progress along with the emergence
of apocalyptic narratives in which the future appears indeterminate, bleak,
and insecure. Heightened expectations and progressive visions pale and are smashed
next to the normalization of market-driven government policies that wipe out
pensions, eliminate quality health care, raise college tuition, and produce
a harsh world of joblessness, while giving millions to banks and the military.
Students, in particular, found themselves in a world in which unrealized aspirations
have been replaced by dashed hopes and a world of onerous debt (Fraser 2013;
On the history of debt, see Graeber 2012).
The Revival of the Radical Imagination
Within the various regimes of neoliberalism that have emerged particularly
in North since the late 1970s, the ethical grammars that drew attention to the
violence and suffering withered or, as in the United States, seemed to disappear
altogether, while dispossessed youth continued to lose their dignity, bodies,
and material goods to the machineries of disposability. The fear of losing everything,
the horror of an engulfing and crippling precarity, the quest to merely survive,
the rise of the punishing state and police violence, along with the impending
reality of social and civil death, became a way of life for the 99 percent in
the United States and other countries. Under such circumstances, youth were
no longer the place where society reveals its dreams, but increasingly hid its
nightmares. Against the ravaging policies of austerity and disposability, "zones
of abandonment appeared in which the domestic machinery of violence, suffering,
cruelty, and punishment replaced the values of compassion, social responsibility,
and civic courage" (Biehl 2005:2).
In opposition to such conditions, a belief in the power of collective resistance
and politics emerged once again in 2010, as global youth protests embraced the
possibility of deepening and expanding democracy, rather than rejecting it.
Such movements produced a new understanding of politics based on horizontal
forms of collaboration and political participation. In doing so, they resurrected
revitalized and much needed questions about class power, inequality, financial
corruption, and the shredding of the democratic process. They also explored
as well as what it meant to create new communities of mutual support, democratic
modes of exchange and governance, and public spheres in which critical dialogue
and exchanges could take place (For an excellent analysis on neoliberal-induced
financial corruption, see Anderson 2004).
A wave of youth protests starting in 2010 in Tunisia, and spreading across
the globe to the United States and Europe, eventually posed a direct challenge
to neoliberal modes of domination and the corruption of politics, if not democracy
itself (Hardt & Negri 2012). The legitimating, debilitating, and depoliticizing
notion that politics could only be challenged within established methods of
reform and existing relations of power was rejected outright by students and
other young people across the globe. For a couple of years, young people transformed
basic assumptions about what politics is and how the radical imagination could
be mobilized to challenge the basic beliefs of neoliberalism and other modes
of authoritarianism. They also challenged dominant discourses ranging from deficit
reduction and taxing the poor to important issues that included poverty, joblessness,
the growing unmanageable levels of student debt, and the massive spread of corporate
corruption. As Jonathan Schell argued, youth across the globe were enormously
successfully in unleashing "a new spirit of action", an expression of outrage
fueled less by policy demands than by a cry of collective moral and political
indignation whose message was
'Enough!' to a corrupt political, economic and media establishment that
hijacked the world's wealth for itself… sabotaging the rule of law, waging
interminable savage and futile wars, plundering the world's finite resources,
and lying about all this to the public [while] threatening Earth's life
forms into the bargain. (Schell 2011)
Yet, some theorists have recently argued that little has changed since 2011,
in spite of this expression of collective rage and accompanying demonstrations
by youth groups across the globe.
The Collapse or Reconfiguration of Youthful Protests?
Costas Lapavitsas and Alex Politaki,
writing in The Guardian, argue that as the "economic and social
disaster unfolded in 2012 and 2013", youth in Greece, France, Portugal, and
Spain have largely been absent from "politics, social movements and even from
the spontaneous social networks that have dealt with the worst of the catastrophe"
(Lapavitsas & Politaki 2014). Yet, at the same time, they insist that more and
more young people have been "attracted to nihilistic ends of the political spectrum,
including varieties of anarchism and fascism" (Lapavitsas & Politaki 2014).
This indicates that young people have hardly been absent from politics. On the
contrary, those youth moving to the right are being mobilized around needs that
simply promise the swindle of fulfillment. This does not suggest youth are becoming
invisible. On the contrary, the move on the part of students and others to the
right implies that the economic crisis has not been matched by a crisis of ideas,
one that would propel young people towards left political parties or social
formations that effectively articulate a critical understanding of the present
economic and political crisis. Missing here is also a strategy to create
and sustain a radical democratic political movement that avoids cooptation of
the prevailing economic and political systems of oppression now dominating the
United States, Greece, Turkey, Portugal, France, and England, among other countries.
This critique of youthful protesters as a suspect generation is repeated
in greater detail by Andrew R. Myers in Student Pulse (Myers 2012).
He argues that deteriorating economic and educational conditions for youth all
over Europe have created not only a profound sense of political pessimism among
young people, but also a dangerous, if not cynical, distrust towards established
politics. Regrettably, Myers seems less concerned about the conditions that
have written young people out of jobs, a decent education, imposed a massive
debt on them, and offers up a future of despair and dashed hopes than the alleged
unfortunate willingness of young people to turn their back on traditional parties.
Myers argues rightly that globalization is the enemy of young people and is
undermining democracy, but he wrongly insists that traditional social democratic
parties are the only vehicles and hope left for real reform. As such, Myers
argues that youth who exhibit distrust towards established governments and call
for the construction of another world symbolize political defeat, if not cynicism
itself. Unfortunately, with his lament about how little youth are protesting
today and about their lack of engagement in the traditional forms of politics,
he endorses, in the end, a defense of those left/liberal parties that embrace
social democracy and the new labor policies of centrist-left coalitions. His
rebuke borders on bad faith, given his criticism of young people for not engaging
in electoral politics and joining with unions, both of which, for many youth,
rightfully represent elements of a reformist politics they reject.
It is ironic that both of these critiques of the alleged passivity of youth
and the failure of their politics have nothing to say about the generations
of adults that failed these young people - that is, what disappears in these
narratives is the fact that an older generation accepted the "realization that
one generation no longer holds out a hand to the next" (Knott 2011:ix). What
is lacking here is any critical sense regarding the historical conditions and
dismal lack of political and moral responsibility of an adult generation who
shamefully bought into and reproduced, at least since the 1970s, governments
and social orders wedded to war, greed, political corruption, xenophobia, and
willing acceptance of the dictates of a ruthless form of neoliberal globalization.
In fact, what was distinctive about the protesting youth across the globe
was their rejection to the injustices of neoliberalism and their attempts to
redefine the meaning of politics and democracy, while fashioning new forms of
revolt (Hardt & Negri 2012; Graeber 2013). Among their many criticisms, youthful
protesters argued vehemently that traditional social democratic, left, and liberal
parties suffered from an "extremism of the center" that made them complicitous
with the corporate and ruling political elites, resulting in their embrace of
the inequities of a form of casino capitalism which assumed that the market
should govern the entirety of social life, not just the economic realm (Hardt
& Negri 2012:88).
Henry A.
Giroux currently holds the McMaster University Chair for Scholarship
in the Public Interest in the English and Cultural Studies Department and a
Distinguished Visiting Professorship at Ryerson University. His most recent
books include: Youth in Revolt: Reclaiming a Democratic Future (Paradigm 2013),
America's Educational Deficit and the War on Youth (Monthly Review Press, 2013)
Neoliberalism's War on Higher Education (Haymarket Press, 2014), and The Violence
of Organized Forgetting: Thinking Beyond America's Disimagination Machine (City
Lights, 2014). The Toronto Star named Henry Giroux one of the twelve Canadians
changing the way we think! Giroux is also a member of Truthout's Board of Directors.
His web site is www.henryagiroux.com.
"... The "Benedict Option" refers to Christians in the contemporary West who cease to identify the continuation of civility and moral community with the maintenance of American empire, ..."
"... Benedict wrote his famous Rule , which became the guiding constitution of most monasteries in western Europe in the Middle Ages. The monasteries were incubators of Christian and classical culture, and outposts of evangelization in the barbarian kingdoms ..."
The "Benedict Option" refers to Christians in the contemporary West who
cease to identify the continuation of civility and moral community with the
maintenance of American empire,and who therefore are keen to construct
local forms of community as loci of Christian resistance against what the empire
represents.
Put less grandly, the Benedict Option - or "Ben Op" - is an umbrella term
for Christians who accept MacIntyre's critique of modernity, and who also recognize
that forming Christians who live out Christianity according to Great Tradition
requires embedding within communities and institutions dedicated to that formation.
... ... ...
For one, the it awakened many small-o orthodox Christians to something that
ought to have been clear to them a long, long time ago: the West is truly a
post-Christian civilization, and we had better come up with new ways of living
if we are going to hold on to the faith in this new dark age. The reason gay
rights were so quickly embraced by the American public is because the same public
had already jettisoned traditional Christian teaching on the meaning of sex,
of marriage, and even a Christian anthropology. Same-sex marriage is only the
fulfillment of a radical change that had already taken place in Western culture.
... ... ...
Benedict of Nursia (ca. 480-537) was an educated young Christian who left
Rome, the city of the recently fallen Empire, out of disgust with its decadence.
He went south, into the forest near Subiaco, to live as a hermit and to pray.
Eventually, he gathered around him some like-minded men, and formed monasteries.
Benedict wrote his famous
Rule , which
became the guiding constitution of most monasteries in western Europe in the
Middle Ages. The monasteries were incubators of Christian and classical culture,
and outposts of evangelization in the barbarian kingdoms. As Cardinal
Newman wrote:
St Benedict found the world, physical and social, in ruins, and his mission
was to restore it in the way not of science, but of nature, not as if setting
about to do it [the caveat], not professing to do it by any set time, or
by any rare specific, or by any series of strokes, but so quietly, patiently,
gradually, that often till the work was done, it was not known to be doing.
It was a restoration rather than a visitation, correction or conversion.
The new work which he helped to create was a growth rather than a
structure . Silent men were observed about the country, or discovered
in the forest, digging, clearing and building; and other silent men, not
seen, were sitting in the cold cloister, tiring their eyes and keeping their
attention on the stretch, while they painfully copied and recopied the manuscripts
which they had saved.
There was no one who contended or cried out, or drew attention to what
was going on, but by degrees the woody swamp became a hermitage, a religious
house, a farm, an abbey, a village, a seminary, a school of learning and
a city.
... ... ...
Here are some basic Benedictine principles that we might think of as tools
for living the Christian life:
1. Order. Benedict described the monastery as
a "school for the service of the Lord." The entire way of life of the monastic
community was ordered by this telos , or end. The primary purpose
of Christian community life is to form Christians. The Benedict Option must
teach us to make every other goal in our lives secondary to serving God.
Christianity is not simply a "worldview" or an add-on to our lives, as it
is in modernity; it must be our lives, or it is something less than
Christianity.
2. Prayer and work. Life as a Christian requires
both contemplation and action. Both depend on the other. There is a reason
Jesus retired to the desert after teaching the crowds. Work is as sacred
as prayer. Ordinary life can and should be hallowed.
3. Stability. The Rule ordinarily requires monks
to stay put in the monastery where they professed their vows. The idea is
that moving around constantly, following our own desires, prevents us from
becoming faithful to our calling. True, we must be prepared to follow God's
calling, even if He leads us away from home. But the far greater challenge
for us in the 21st century is learning how to stay put - literally and metaphorically
- and to bind ourselves to a place, a tradition, a people. Only within the
limits of stability can we find true freedom.
4. Community. It really does take a village to
raise a child. That is, we learn who we are and who we are called to be
in large part through our communities and their institutions. We Americans
have to unlearn some of the ways of individualism that we absorb uncritically,
and must relearn the craft of community living.
Not every community is equally capable of forming Christians. Communities
must have boundaries, and must build these metaphorical walls because, as
the New Monastic pioneer Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove writes, "we cannot become
the gift to others we are called to be until we embrace the limits that
are necessary to our vocation." In other words, we must withdraw behind
some communal boundaries not for the sake of our own purity, but so we can
first become who God wants us to be, precisely for the sake of the
world. Beliefs and practices that are antithetical to achieving the community's
telos must be excluded.
5. Hospitality. That said, we must be open to
outsiders, and receive them "as Christ," according to the Rule. For Benedictine
monks, this had a specific meaning, with regard to welcoming visitors to
the monastery. For modern laypersons, this will likely have to do with their
relationship to people outside the community. The Benedictines are instructed
to welcome outsiders so long as they don't interrupt communal life. It should
be that way with us, too. We should always be open to others, in charity,
to share what we have with them, including our faith.
6. Balance. The Rule of St. Benedict is marked
by a sense of balance, of common sense. As Ben Oppers experiment with building
and/or reforming communities and institutions in a more intentional way,
we must be vigilant against the temptations to fall intorigid legalism,
cults of personality, and other distortions that have been the ruin of intentional
communities. There must be workable forms of accountability for leadership,
and the cultivation of an anti-utopian sensibility among the faithful. A
community that is too lax will dissolve, or at least be ineffective, but
one that is too strict will also produce disorder. A Benedict Option community
must be joyful and confident, not dour and fearful.
Can you point to any contemporary examples of Ben Op communities?
Yes. There is a Catholic agrarian community around
Our Lady of Clear
Creek Abbey in eastern Oklahoma. The lay community gathered around
St. John Orthodox cathedral
in Eagle River, Alaska, is another.
Trinity Presbyterian
Church in Charlottesville, Virginia , is working towards incorporating a
version of the Rule of St. Benedict within its congregational life. Rutba House,
a New Monastic community in Durham, North Carolina, and its
School for Conversion
, is still another. I recently met a couple in Waco, Texas - Baylor philosophy
professor
Scott Moore and his wife Andrea - who bought a property near Crawford, Texas,
and who are rehabilitating it into a family home and a Christian retreat called
Benedict Farm. There is the
Bruderhof.
I am certain that there is no such thing as a perfect Ben Op community, and
that each and every one of them will have struggled with similar problems. In
working on the Benedict Option book, I intend to visit as many of these communities
as I can, to find out what they are doing right, what they wish they did better,
and what we can all learn from them. The Benedict Option has to be something
that ordinary people can do in their own circumstances.
Do you really think you can just run away from the world and live off
in a compound somewhere? Get real!
No, I don't think that at all. While I wouldn't necessarily fault people
who sought geographical isolation, that will be neither possible nor desirable
for most of us. The early Church lived in cities, and formed its distinct life
there. Most of the Ben Op communities that come to mind today are not radically
isolated, in geography or otherwise, from the broader community. It's simply
nonsense to say that Ben Oppers want to hide from the world and live in some
sort of fundamentalist enclave. Some do, and it's not hard to find examples
of how this sort of thing has gone bad. But that is not what we should aim for.
In fact, I think it's all too easy for people to paint the Benedict Option as
utopian escapism so they can safely wall it off and not have to think about
it.
Isn't this a violation of the Great Commission? How can we preach the
Gospel to the nations when we're living in these neo-monastic communities?
Well, what is evangelizing? Is it merely dispersing information? Or is there
something more to it. The Benedict Option is about discipleship , which
is itself an indirect form of evangelism. Pagans converted to the early Church
not simply because of the words the first Christians spoke, but because of the
witness of the kinds of lives they lived. It has to be that way with us too.
Pope Benedict XVI said something important in this respect. He said that
the best apologetic arguments for the truth of the Christian faith are the art
that the Church has produced as a form of witness, and the lives of its saints:
Yet, the beauty of Christian life is even more effective than art and
imagery in the communication of the Gospel message. In the end, love alone
is worthy of faith, and proves credible. The lives of the saints and martyrs
demonstrate a singular beauty which fascinates and attracts, because a Christian
life lived in fullness speaks without words. We need men and women whose
lives are eloquent, and who know how to proclaim the Gospel with clarity
and courage, with transparency of action, and with the joyful passion of
charity.
The Benedict Option is about forming communities that teach us and help us
to live in such a way that our entire lives are witnesses to the transforming
power of the Gospel.
It sounds like you are simply asking for the Church to be the Church.
Why do you need to brand it "the Benedict Option"?
That's a great point, actually. If all the churches did what they were supposed
to do, we wouldn't need the Ben Op. Thing is, they don't. The term "Benedict
Option" symbolizes a historically conscious, antimodernist return to roots,
an undertaking that occurs with the awareness that Christians have to cultivate
a sense of separation, of living as what Stanley Hauerwas and Will Willimon
call "resident aliens" in a "Christian colony," in order to be faithful to our
calling. And, "Benedict Option" calls to mind monastic disciplines that we can
appropriate in our own time.
It also draws attention to the centrality of practices in
shaping our Christian lives. The Reformed theologian James K.A. Smith, in his
great books
Imagining the Kingdom and
Desiring the Kingdom , speaks of these things. A recent secular book
by Matthew B. Crawford,
The World Beyond Your Head , talks about the critical importance of
practice as a way of knowledge. Here is Crawford writing about tradition and
organ making:
When the sovereignty of the self requires that the inheritance of the
past be disqualified as a guide to action and meaning, we confine ourselves
in an eternal present. If subjectivism works against the coalescing of communities
and traditions in which genuine individuals can arise, does the opposite
follow? Do communities that look to established forms for the meanings of
things somehow cultivate individuality?
… [C]onsider that when you go deep into some particular skill or art,
it trains your powers of concentration and perception. You become more discerning
about the objects you are dealing with and, if all goes well, begin to care
viscerally about quality, because you have been initiated into an ethic
of caring about what you are doing. Usually this happens by the example
of some particular person, a mentor, who exemplifies that spirit of craftsmanship.
You hear disgust in his voice, or see pleasure on his face, in response
to some detail that would be literally invisible to someone not initiated.
In this way, judgment develops alongside emotional involvement, unified
in what Polanyi calls personal knowledge. Technical training in such a setting,
though narrow in its immediate application, may be understood as part of
education in the broadest sense: intellectual and moral formation.
… What emerged in my conversations at Taylor and Boody [a traditional
organ-making shop] is that the historical inheritance of a long tradition
of organ making seems not to burden these craftspeople, but rather to energize
their efforts in innovation. They intend for their organs still be be in
use four hundred years from now, and this orientation toward the future
requires a critical engagement with the designs and building methods of
the past. They learn from past masters, interrogate their wisdom, and push
the conversation further in an ongoing dialectic of reverence and rebellion.
Their own progress in skill and understanding is thus a contribution to
something larger; their earned independence of judgment represents a deepening
of the craft itself. This is a story about the progressive possibilities
of tradition, then.
The Benedict Option is about how to rightly order the practices in our Christian
lives, in light of tradition, for the sake of intellectual and moral formation
in the way of Christ. You might even say that it's a story about the progressive
possibilities of tradition, and a return to roots in defiance of a rootless
age.
Guccifer 2.0
's latest release of DNC documents is generally described as:
In total, the latest dump contains more than 600 megabytes of documents.
It is the first Guccifer 2.0 release to not come from the hacker's WordPress
account. Instead, it was given out via a link to the small group of security
experts attending the London conference.
Guccifer 2.0 drops more DNC docs by Cory Bennett.
The "600 megabytes of documents" is an attention grabber, but how much of
that 600 megabytes is useful and/or interesting?
The answer turns out to be, not a lot.
Here's an overview of the directories and files:
/CIR
Financial investment data.
/CNBC
Financial investment data.
/DNC
Redistricting documents.
/DNCBSUser
One file with fields of VANDatabaseCode StateID VanID cons_id?
/documentation
A large amount of documentation for "IQ8," apparently address cleaning software.
Possibly useful if you want to know address cleaning rules from eight years
ago.
/DonorAnalysis
Sound promising but is summary data based on media markets.
/early
Early voting analysis.
/eday
Typical election voting analysis, from 2002 to 2008.
/FEC
Duplicates to FEC filings. Checking the .csv file, data from
2008. BTW, you can find this date (2008) and later data of the same type at:
http://fec.gov .
/finance
More duplicates to FEC filings. 11-26-08 NFC Members Raised.xlsx (no credit
cards) – Dated but 453 names with contacts, amounts raised, etc.
September 14th, 2016
Guccifer 2.0 dropped
a new bundle of DNC documents on September 13, 2016! Like most dumps, there
was no accompanying guide to make use of that dump easier.
Not a criticism, just an observation.
As a starting point to make your use of that dump a little easier, I am posting
an ls -lR listing of all the files in that dump, post extraction
with 7z and unrar .
Guccifer2.0-13Sept2016-filelist.txt .
I'm working on a list of the files most likely to be of interest. Look for
that tomorrow.
I can advise that no credit card numbers were included in this dump.
While selling public offices surprises some authors, whose names I omitted
out of courtesy to their families, selling offices is a regularized activity
in the United States.
Every four years, just after the Presidential election, " United States Government Policy and Supporting Positions " is published. It is commonly known as the "Plum Book" and is
alternately published between the House and Senate.
The Plum Book is a listing of over 9,000 civil service leadership and
support positions (filled and vacant) in the Legislative and Executive branches
of the Federal Government that may be subject to noncompetitive appointments,
or in other words by direct appointment.
These "plum" positions include agency heads and their immediate subordinates,
policy executives and advisors, and aides who report to these officials.
Many positions have duties which support Administration policies and programs.
The people holding these positions usually have a close and confidential
relationship with the agency head or other key officials.
Even though the 2012 "plum" book is currently on sale for $19.00 (usual price
is $38.00), given that a new one will appear later this year, consider using
the free online version at:
Plum Book 2012
.
The online interface is nothing to brag on. You have to select filters and
then find to obtain further information on positions. Very poor UI.
However, if under title you select "Chief of Mission, Monaco" and then select
"find," the resulting screen looks something like this:
To your far right there is a small arrow that if selected, takes you to the
details:
If you were teaching a high school civics class, the question would be:
How much did Charles Rivkin have to donate to obtain the position of Chief
of Mission, Monaco?
Monaco, bordering France on the Mediterranean coast, is a popular resort,
attracting tourists to its casino and pleasant climate. The principality
also is a banking center and has successfully sought to diversify into services
and small, high-value-added, nonpolluting industries.
Entering the name Rivkin, Charles and select "Get Listing."
Rivkin's contributions are broken into categories and helpfully summed to
assist you in finding the total.
Contributions to All Other Political Committees Except Joint Fundraising
Committees – $72399.00
Joint Fundraising Contributions – $22300.00
Recipient of Joint Fundraiser Contributions – $36052.00
Caution: There is an anomalous Rivkin in that last category, contributing
$40 to Donald Trump. For present discussions, I would subtract that from the
grand total of:
$130,711 to be the Chief of Mission, Monaco.
Realize that this was not a lump sum payment but a steady stream of contributions
starting in the year 2000.
Jane Hartley paid DNC $605,000 and then was nominated by Obama to serve
concurrently as the U.S. Ambassador to the French Republic and the Principality
of Monaco.
Contributions to Super PACs, Hybrid PACs and Historical Soft Money Party
Accounts – $5000.00
Contributions to All Other Political Committees Except Joint Fundraising
Committees – $516609.71
Joint Fundraising Contributions – $116000.00
Grand total: $637,609.71.
So, $637,609.71, not $605,000.00 but also as a series of contributions starting
in 1997, not one lump sum .
You don't have to search discarded hard drives to get pay-to-play appointment
pricing. It's all a matter of public record.
PS: I'm not sure how accurate or complete
Nominations & Appointments (White House) may be, but its an easier starting
place for current appointees than the online Plum book.
PPS: Estimated pricing for "Plum" book positions could be made more transparent.
Not a freebie. Let me know if you are interested.
Richard Tynan, a technologist with Privacy International, told The Intercept
that the " manuals released today offer the most up-to-date view on the
operation of" Stingrays and similar cellular surveillance devices, with
powerful capabilities that threaten civil liberties, communications infrastructure,
and potentially national security. He noted that the documents show the
"Stingray II" device can impersonate four cellular communications towers
at once, monitoring up to four cellular provider networks simultaneously,
and with an add-on can operate on so-called 2G, 3G, and 4G networks simultaneously.
"... It is clear that Mother Jones should do the proper thing and rename their magazine. Pro-corporate shill articles about the evils of lefties, populist values and the goodness of political corruption are the polar opposite of everything Mary Jones wanted to see. ..."
It is clear that Mother Jones should do the proper thing and rename their
magazine. Pro-corporate shill articles about the evils of lefties, populist
values and the goodness of political corruption are the polar opposite of
everything Mary Jones wanted to see.
Admittedly none of these possible titles have that ring but a least there
would be less cognitive dissonance.
"... If that record is perceived as unacceptable, then again it doesn't much matter who the challenger is or what he or she says or does. The incumbent or incumbent party loses. ..."
"... The Clinton email thing does not begin to rise to the level of Watergate or the Monica Lewinsky affair, except perhaps in the fever swamps of Fox News. ..."
"... My guess is that ultimately the two third parties fielding candidates this election will not trigger this key; they are what Lichtman calls "perennial third parties" and not really insurgencies led by well-known political figures, which is when the third party key is generally triggered. ..."
"... Having said all that, I congratulate the author for recognizing and engaging with Lichtman's work. It's a very substantial theory with a great track record that, for reasons I don't fully understand, is generally overlooked by journalists who write about such things. ..."
"... Right now, polling composite scores put Hillary Clinton at +5 or more over Trump in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Michigan, Colorado, Wisconsin, and Virginia. Add in the safely blue states and her floor is 272 electoral votes, even assuming she underperforms relative to her polling by 5 points across the board. Hillary wins even on a bad night. ..."
"... We elected Obama in large part to repudiate Bush, who was a total disaster. Now, if your hypothesis holds, we may elect Trump over Hillary as a repudiation of Obama who is becoming more of a disaster with each passing minute. In 4 or 8 years, which loser will the Democrats trot out to repudiate Trump, who is virtually guaranteed to be a total disaster? Most sane Americans just want this roller coaster to be over. ..."
"... Trump has the momentum right now, as Hillary Clinton stumbles. ..."
"... The overall national numbers show a slight and late recovery from recession. However, the average and median numbers conceal a split, in which a majority of voters did not participate in the recovery, especially in key swing states. ..."
"... Trump is actively drawing support from this sense of failure to recover, so it is not just theoretical. I'd score the recovery against the incumbent too, because key voting segments would. ..."
"... We are seeing a good example of the preference cascade. For well over a year Clinton has been capped at 45%, usually in the low 40's. As it becomes more respectable to vote for Trump, the more people are willing to move from the undecided/third party column to the Trump column. ..."
"... If I recall correctly, Lichtman also scores both the foreign policy/military success and failure keys differently. ISIS is a foreign policy failure, but not on the public perception of Pearl Harbor, the fall of Vietnam, or the Iran hostage crisis. And the Iran deal is a foreign policy success, but not on the level of, say, winning WWII. ..."
"... Polls, by themselves, don't predict much, and certainly not long-term – although I agree that Clinton remains the likely winner this year. ..."
"... Obama (I did not vote for him in '08 or '12) has succeeded and some areas, and failed in others – such is the nature of the job. ..."
"... As a student of history, I suspect his presidency will be graded somewhere between B- and C+; slightly above average. Whereas, by your assessment, his predecessor was "can't miss" disasters (D- leaning toward F). ..."
"... we may elect Trump over Hillary as a repudiation of Obama who is becoming more of a disaster with each passing minute ..."
"... At the end of the day, though, Lichtman's model, like most models of voting behavior, is not intended so much as a predictive system as an attempt to explain how voters make decisions. The Lichtman theory does a remarkable job of modeling such decision-making, and demonstrates clearly his hypothesis that presidential elections are mostly referenda on the performance of the incumbent party. That doesn't mean it will always be so, but he makes a compelling case that it's been that way since the Civil War. ..."
"... Obama's economy isn't gonna help Hillary Clinton. Government data show that the economy only grew by 1.2 percent in the second quarter. First quarter growth was also revised down from 1.1 percent to 0.8 percent. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton addressed the sluggish economy in her speech last night, admitting that Americans "feel like the economy just isn't working." Although she cited economic growth under president Obama, she insisted that "none of us can be satisfied with the status quo." ..."
In 1976, Washington insider Averell Harriman famously said of Georgia peanut
farmer Jimmy Carter, the one-term governor and presidential aspirant, "He can't
be nominated, I don't know him and I don't know anyone who does.'' Within months
Jimmy Carter was president. Harriman's predictive folly serves as an allegory
of democratic politics. The unthinkable can happen, and when it does it becomes
not only thinkable but natural, even commonplace. The many compelling elements
of Carter's unusual presidential quest remained shrouded from Harriman's vision
because they didn't track with his particular experiences and political perceptions.
Call it the Harriman syndrome.
The Harriman syndrome has been on full display during the presidential candidacy
of Donald Trump. He couldn't possibly get the Republican nomination. Too boorish.
A political neophyte. No organization. No intellectual depth. A divisive character
out of sync with Republicans' true sensibilities. Then he got the nomination,
and now those same perceptions are being trotted out to bolster the view that
he can't possibly become president. Besides, goes the conventional wisdom, demographic
trends are impinging upon the Electoral College in ways that pretty much preclude
any Republican from winning the presidency in our time.
But Trump actually can win, despite his gaffe-prone ways and his poor standing
in the polls as the general-election campaign gets under way. I say this based
upon my thesis, explored in my latest book ( Where They Stand: The American
Presidents in the Eyes of Voters and Historians ), that presidential elections
are largely referendums on the incumbent or incumbent party. If the incumbent's
record is adjudged by the electorate to be exemplary, it doesn't matter who
the challenger is or what he or she says or does. The incumbent wins. If
that record is perceived as unacceptable, then again it doesn't much matter
who the challenger is or what he or she says or does. The incumbent or incumbent
party loses.
Worth noting is that Lichtman himself scores the keys differently than does
the author of this post. As the inventor of the system, his analysis deserves
considerable weight. In particular, he scores the nomination contest key,
the scandal key, and the challenger charisma key as all favorable to Democrats.
I'm not sure I agree with him about the nomination contest key, but I
think that, by the criteria he used in analyzing past elections, he's right
about the other two. The Clinton email thing does not begin to rise
to the level of Watergate or the Monica Lewinsky affair, except perhaps
in the fever swamps of Fox News. As far as charisma, Lichtman identified
four 20th-century candidates as charismatic: the two Roosevelts, Kennedy,
and Reagan. Trump is not in that league.
The third-party key is, as the author states, not really possible to
call at this point. My guess is that ultimately the two third parties
fielding candidates this election will not trigger this key; they are what
Lichtman calls "perennial third parties" and not really insurgencies led
by well-known political figures, which is when the third party key is generally
triggered.
One other point is worth mentioning. Lichtman's first key, the incumbent
mandate key, changed during the development of his theory. It was originally
based on whether the incumbent party had received an absolute majority of
the popular vote in the previous election (which, in this case, would have
favored the Democrats). But, because that led to the system predicting an
incorrect outcome in one particular election (I don't remember which one),
he changed it to the current comparison of seats won in the previous two
mid-terms. I think there's a case to be made that the advanced state of
the gerrymandering art may have rendered this key useless; it is now entirely
possible for a party to gain seats from one mid-term to the next while actually
doing less well in the popular vote. In fact, that's exactly what happened
from 2010 to 2014; the percentage of the vote that Republican house members
received was lower in 2014 than it was in 2010, even though they gained
more seats in 2014. In any case, I don't think that it really favors Trump
in the way the author of the OP thinks it does.
Having said all that, I congratulate the author for recognizing and
engaging with Lichtman's work. It's a very substantial theory with a great
track record that, for reasons I don't fully understand, is generally overlooked
by journalists who write about such things.
I'm highly skeptical of this kind of historic analysis. It's the sort of
thing that works until it doesn't, and even then only sort of works because
the idea's proponents wind up explaining away the exceptions.
What I trust is polling. It's quite well refined, and averaging the results
of multiple polls tends to smooth out errors.
Right now, polling composite scores put Hillary Clinton at +5 or
more over Trump in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Michigan, Colorado, Wisconsin,
and Virginia. Add in the safely blue states and her floor is 272 electoral
votes, even assuming she underperforms relative to her polling by 5 points
across the board. Hillary wins even on a bad night.
Of course Trump might close some of that gap in the next seven weeks.
We'll see.
"If the incumbent's record is adjudged by the electorate to be exemplary,
it doesn't matter who the challenger is or what he or she says or does.
The incumbent wins. If that record is perceived as unacceptable, then
again it doesn't much matter who the challenger is or what he or she
says or does. The incumbent or incumbent party loses."
That is a compelling hypothesis which I find very plausible. As our two
parties drift farther apart and become incapable of giving us any representatives
whom we find exemplary, what happens to us? We elected Obama in large
part to repudiate Bush, who was a total disaster. Now, if your hypothesis
holds, we may elect Trump over Hillary as a repudiation of Obama who is
becoming more of a disaster with each passing minute. In 4 or 8 years, which
loser will the Democrats trot out to repudiate Trump, who is virtually guaranteed
to be a total disaster? Most sane Americans just want this roller coaster
to be over.
I'm highly skeptical of this kind of historic analysis. It's the
sort of thing that works until it doesn't, and even then only sort of
works because the idea's proponents wind up explaining away the exceptions.
This, in spades. Plus, many of these keys are so subjective (at least
prospectively) as to render them meaningless for anything but fun predictive
parlor games.
What I trust is polling. It's quite well refined, and averaging
the results of multiple polls tends to smooth out errors.
Yes and no. Gallup thought this, too, when it predicted Dewey would defeat
Truman. Nate Silver was absolutely positive that Trump could never ever
ever win the Republican nomination, until he did.
My analysis is that under the old, pre-Big Data-driven elections (i.e.
micro-targeting your likely voters, registering them if they are unregistered,
and stopping at nothing (probably not even the election laws) in getting
them to the polls), Trump would win rather handily, but under the new Big
Data-driven campaigns that the initial Obama campaign was the first to master,
Clinton is a huge favorite, baggage and all. Organization and ground game
trumps a lot – not everything, but a lot.
The overall national numbers show a slight and late recovery from recession.
However, the average and median numbers conceal a split, in which a majority
of voters did not participate in the recovery, especially in key swing states.
Trump is actively drawing support from this sense of failure to recover,
so it is not just theoretical. I'd score the recovery against the incumbent
too, because key voting segments would.
Averaging polls is the sort of thing people not good at math like to say,
believing it makes them sound good at math.
We are seeing a good example of the preference cascade. For well
over a year Clinton has been capped at 45%, usually in the low 40's. As
it becomes more respectable to vote for Trump, the more people are willing
to move from the undecided/third party column to the Trump column.
If I recall correctly, Lichtman also scores both the foreign policy/military
success and failure keys differently. ISIS is a foreign policy failure,
but not on the public perception of Pearl Harbor, the fall of Vietnam, or
the Iran hostage crisis. And the Iran deal is a foreign policy success,
but not on the level of, say, winning WWII.
I'm highly skeptical of this kind of historic analysis. It's
the sort of thing that works until it doesn't, and even then only sort
of works because the idea's proponents wind up explaining away the exceptions.
What I trust is polling. It's quite well refined, and averaging
the results of multiple polls tends to smooth out errors.
Lichtman has been able to predict successfully the popular-vote winner
for the last 7 or 8 elections, in many cases many months in advance – which,
by standards of electoral prediction models, is pretty remarkable. Polls,
by themselves, don't predict much, and certainly not long-term – although
I agree that Clinton remains the likely winner this year.
@Tim, How has/is Obama "becoming more of a disaster with each passing minute."?
The consensus might be on the Foreign Policy side of the equation, but truthfully,
he's spent 8 years cleaning up the mess handed him by the "total disaster"
who preceded him. If you want the rollercoaster to be over, get off the
rollercoaster. That is to say, most of the excitement offered by the rollercoaster
lies in its design (partisan/tribal/echo chamber nonsense).
See: Benghazi, Clinton Foundation, emails, Parkinson's, etc., etc. be
legitimate concerns for a John Q. Public, the hyperbolic birther indignation
does a disservice to critical thinking, rational Americans. Make no mistake,
the GOP candidate has literally made a career (TV/Pro Wrestling) trading
in this currency, but in the end, such hyperbole is a distraction. Obama
(I did not vote for him in '08 or '12) has succeeded and some areas, and
failed in others – such is the nature of the job.
As a student of history, I suspect his presidency will be graded
somewhere between B- and C+; slightly above average. Whereas, by your assessment,
his predecessor was "can't miss" disasters (D- leaning toward F).
I also fail to see how President Obama, a veritable reincarnation of Bill
Clinton, but without the scandals, is "becoming more of a disaster each
passing minute." We have less (visible) war, we have more jobs, and we have
better pay. Yes, the small segment of the population that was paying peanuts
for narrowly-defined healthcare 'plans' is paying more now for healthcare
than they were 6 years ago, but a large segment now has healthcare that
previously did not. This will take decades to unfold but the savings will
be immense over the long run. Our international prestige is as high or higher
than it was at its peak in 2002 (before Bush started the stupider of his
two wars).
It's barely an exaggeration to say that, outside of the echo chamber,
none of partisan concerns of the right wing are shared by the electorate
at large. The plight of the underclass (of any color) is not being addressed
regardless of which candidate you choose in this election. Immigration is
a red herring issue, designed to hide the fact that your boss hasn't given
you a raise in 20 years.
I'm sure it makes Obama haters and Republican partisans feel good to think
that Obama's Presidency is the cause for Hillary Clinton's loss (if she
does indeed lose). Economic indicators along with Presidential approval
ratings however suggest that if Hillary does lose it will be in spite of
the electorates feelings on Obama not because of it.
many of these keys are so subjective (at least prospectively) as to render
them meaningless for anything but fun predictive parlor games.
That is the usual objection to Lichtman's theory. But his work gives
pretty clear examples of what he considers the kind of events that drive
his predictors. For example, "foreign policy/military success" looks like
winning WWII and not like the Iran nuclear deal; "foreign policy/military
failure" looks like Pearl Harbor and not ISIS' (temporary) success in gaining
territory. "Scandal" looks like Watergate, and not like Clinton's email
(or, interestingly, Iran/Contra, if memory serves). "Social unrest" looks
like the summer of 1968, and not like the shootings in Orlando, Dallas,
and San Bernadino.
In short, events that drive his predictors are things that are the main
(or even sole) subject of national conversation for weeks. Deciding what
events are such drivers is not completely objective, perhaps, but it's also
not hard to figure out what the author of the system would consider a given
event. A system like his only works if one scores things as honestly as
possible, and not as one might wish them to be. Then it can work very well.
At the end of the day, though, Lichtman's model, like most models
of voting behavior, is not intended so much as a predictive system as an
attempt to explain how voters make decisions. The Lichtman theory does a
remarkable job of modeling such decision-making, and demonstrates clearly
his hypothesis that presidential elections are mostly referenda on the performance
of the incumbent party. That doesn't mean it will always be so, but he makes
a compelling case that it's been that way since the Civil War.
With the chance that Donald will be President, and his followers rejecting
outright the Washington establishment and corporate media as enemies; if
he does come to power, who are We, the People, supposed to respect and trust?
How can you be loyal to, and obey the laws of, a country governed by "Washington
insiders"? How can you trust the liberal, coastal, educated, elite media
reporting government malfeasance? In who or what should we place our trust?
Dark days ahead, dark days.
The hope must be in a reinvigorated Republican Party in 2018 and 2020. As
Trump again raises his birther conspiracy, the strongman will give voters
plenty of reasons to reject his incoherent campaign. Total waste, when 2016
should have firmly been in Republican hands. I understand why he demolished
the Republican field and realigned the issues that galvanize Republican
voters, but in the end his pathological narcissism will be his downfall.
If he wins, it will be the best thing that ever happened to the Democratic
Party. They will control government from 2018 to the end of our lives.
Obama's economy isn't gonna help Hillary Clinton. Government data show
that the economy only grew by 1.2 percent in the second quarter. First quarter
growth was also revised down from 1.1 percent to 0.8 percent.
Hillary Clinton addressed the sluggish economy in her speech last
night, admitting that Americans "feel like the economy just isn't working."
Although she cited economic growth under president Obama, she insisted that
"none of us can be satisfied with the status quo."
"... Seems a dangerous practice to rely on one's size to shield them from consequences of ineffectual decisions. I think we are already stretched thin, but our size buffers the stumbles. ..."
"... Like the runner on pain killers, who keeps running despite a shattered knee caps. Sometimes we press through our pain. Sometimes we need to slow down. Sometimes we need to stop. But unless we experience the pain – we simply don't know. ..."
"... It all starts with that ridiculous belief in "American Exceptionalism". The belief that we are the one country, the only country, who is going to save the world, again and again. ..."
"... Once you've adopted this frame of reference, what happens anywhere in the world for any Reason is America's fault and responsibility. And once you put on those exceptionally colored glasses it's not possible to have a rational view of other countries and their actions; because they can never be seen as anything other than an affirmation or rejection of our exceptionalism. Another effect of this is, being exceptional, whatever America does is just and pure and right. ..."
"... It blinds us to our own stupidity and errors, it gets us sucked into other peoples troubles and it makes it easy for other countries to manipulate us to their ends. ..."
Ben Denison
criticizes a familiar flaw in foreign policy commentary:
When a surprising event occurs that threatens U.S. interests, many are
quick to blame Washington's lack of leadership and deride the administration
for failing to anticipate and prevent the crisis. Recent examples from the
continuing conflict in Syria, Russia's intervention in Ukraine, Iran's pursuit
of a nuclear weapon, and even the attempted coup in Turkey, all illustrate
how this is a regular impulse for the foreign policy punditry class. This
impulse, while comforting to some, fails to consider the interests and agency
of the other countries involved in the crisis. Instead of turning to detailed
analysis and tracing the international context of a crisis, often we are
bombarded with an abundance of concerns about a lack of American leadership.
The inability or unwillingness to acknowledge and take into account the agency
and interests of other political actors around the world is one of the more
serious flaws in the way many Americans think and talk about these issues. This
not only fails to consider how other actors are likely to respond to a proposed
U.S. action, but it credits the U.S. with far more control over other parts
of the world and much more competence in handling any given issue than any government
has ever possessed or ever will. Because the U.S. is the preeminent major power
in the world, there is a tendency to treat any undesirable event as something
that our government has "allowed" to happen through carelessness, misplaced
priorities, or some other mistake. Many foreign policy pundits recoil from the
idea that there are events beyond our government's ability to "shape" or that
there are actors that cannot be compelled to behave as we wish (provided we
simply have enough "resolve"), because it means that there are many problems
around the world that the U.S. cannot and shouldn't attempt to fix.
When a protest movement takes to the streets in another country and is then
brutally suppressed, many people, especially hawkish pundits, decry our government's
"failure" to "support" the movement, as if it were the lack of U.S. support
and not internal political factors that produced the outcome. When the overthrow
of a foreign government by a protest movement leads to an intervention by a
neighboring major power, the U.S. is again faulted for "failing" to stop the
intervention, as if it could have done so short of risking great power conflict.
Even more absurdly, the same intervention is sometimes blamed on a U.S. decision
not to attack a third country in another part of the world unrelated to the
crisis in question. In order to claim all these things, one not only has to
fail to take account of the interests and agency of other states, but one also
has to believe that the rest of the world revolves around us and every action
others take can ultimately be traced back to what our government does (or doesn't
do). That's not just shoddy analysis, but a serious delusion about how people
all around the world behave. At the same time, there is a remarkable eagerness
on the part of many of the same people to overlook the consequences of things
that the U.S. has actually done, so that many of our pundits ignore our own
government's agency when it suits them.
"At the same time, there is a remarkable eagerness on the part of many
of the same people to overlook the consequences of things that the U.S.
has actually done, so that many of our pundits ignore our own government's
agency when it suits them."
It is the failure of the after party assessment. Regardless of success
or failure (however defined) the tend not to have an after action report
by the political class is why there's little movement in this area.
Seems a dangerous practice to rely on one's size to shield them from
consequences of ineffectual decisions. I think we are already stretched
thin, but our size buffers the stumbles.
Like the runner on pain killers, who keeps running despite a shattered
knee caps. Sometimes we press through our pain. Sometimes we need to slow
down. Sometimes we need to stop. But unless we experience the pain – we
simply don't know.
It all starts with that ridiculous belief in "American Exceptionalism".
The belief that we are the one country, the only country, who is going to
save the world, again and again.
Once you've adopted this frame of reference, what happens anywhere
in the world for any Reason is America's fault and responsibility. And once
you put on those exceptionally colored glasses it's not possible to have
a rational view of other countries and their actions; because they can never
be seen as anything other than an affirmation or rejection of our exceptionalism.
Another effect of this is, being exceptional, whatever America does is just
and pure and right.
It blinds us to our own stupidity and errors, it gets us sucked into
other peoples troubles and it makes it easy for other countries to manipulate
us to their ends.
"one also has to believe that the rest of the world revolves around us
and every action others take can ultimately be traced back to what our government
does (or doesn't do). That's not just shoddy analysis, but a serious delusion
about how people all around the world behave."
It also overlooks the quality of those we send to do the meddling and
intervening.
We don't have enough intelligent, educated, competent people.
The imperial Brits had their own problems, Lord knows, But the general
level of British competence, intelligence, and education in the Raj and
other colonies was far higher than that of our own congeries of corrupt,
half-educated hacks and incompetents.
Superficially, Hemingway was correct. But on a deeper level, he missed
the reality of the heightened sense of entitlement that the very rich possess,
as well as the deference that so many people automatically show to them.
The rich shouldn't be different in this way, but they are. In some other
societies, such entitlement and deference would accrue to senior party members,
senior clergymen, or hereditary nobility (who might not have much money
at all).
Without a doubt Hemingway had a rather catty attitude toward his literary
rival, but in this instance I think the debunking is merited. It's quite
possible that rich people act the way we would act if we were rich, and
that Fitzgerald's tiresome obsession with rich people didn't cut very deep.
Hemingway is saying: take away all that money and the behavior would change
as well. It's the money (or the power in your example) that makes the difference.
In my opinion, the fact that if they had less money would change the
way they think, does not change the fact that, while they have more money,
they think differently, and different rules apply to them.
Addendum: The fact that an Alpha Chimp would act differently if someone
else was the Alpha Chimp does not change the fact that an Alpha Chimp has
fundamentally different behavior than the rest of the group.
"Hemingway is responsible for a famous misquotation of Fitzgerald's.
According to Hemingway, a conversation between him and Fitzgerald went:
Fitzgerald: The rich are different than you and me.
Hemingway: Yes, they have more money.
This never actually happened; it is a retelling of an actual encounter between
Hemingway and Mary Colum, which went as follows:
Hemingway: I am getting to know the rich.
Colum: I think you'll find the only difference between the rich and other
people is that the rich have more money."
Just want to point out that that quote of Hemingways wasnt about Fitzgerald
and wasnt even by Hemingway. Anyway I was more attacking the "rich have
more money" thing than I was trying to defend Fitzgerald, but I feel Fitzgerald
got the basic idea right
Apparently Fitzgerald was referring specifically to the attitudes of
those who are born rich, attitudes that Fitzgerald thought remained unaltered
by events, including the loss of economic status.
"They think, deep in their hearts, that they are better than we
are because we had to discover the compensations and refuges of life
for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world or sink below
us, they still think that they are better than we are. They are different."
Hemingway suggested that Fitzgerald had once been especially enamored
of the rich, seeing them as a "special glamorous race" but ultimately became
disillusioned.
"He thought they were a special glamorous race and when he found
they weren't it wrecked him as much as any other thing that wrecked
him."
"... Because many members of Congress do not believe that the FBI acted free of political interference, they demanded to see the full FBI files in the case, not just the selected portions of the files that the FBI had released. In the case of the House, the FBI declined to surrender its files, and the agent it sent to testify about them declined to reveal their contents. This led to a dramatic service of a subpoena by the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on that FBI agent while he was testifying - all captured on live nationally broadcast television. ..."
"... According to Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the FBI violated federal law by commingling classified and unclassified materials in the safe room, thereby making it unlawful for senators to discuss publicly the unclassified material. ..."
"... Imposing such a burden of silence on U.S. senators about unclassified materials is unlawful and unconstitutional. What does the FBI have to hide? Whence comes the authority of the FBI to bar senators from commenting on unclassified materials? ..."
"... What is going on here? The FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton has not served the rule of law. The rule of law - a pillar of American constitutional freedom since the end of the Civil War - mandates that the laws are to be enforced equally. No one is beneath their protection, and no one is above ..."
It is hard to believe that the FBI was free to do its work, and it is probably true that the FBI was restrained by the White House
early on. There were numerous aberrations in the investigation. There was no grand jury; no subpoenas were issued; no search warrants
were served. Two people claimed to have received immunity, yet the statutory prerequisite for immunity - giving testimony before
a grand or trial jury - was never present.
Because many members of Congress do not believe that the FBI acted free of political interference, they demanded to see the full
FBI files in the case, not just the selected portions of the files that the FBI had released. In the case of the House, the FBI declined
to surrender its files, and the agent it sent to testify about them declined to reveal their contents. This led to a dramatic service
of a subpoena by the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on that FBI agent while he was testifying -
all captured on live nationally broadcast television.
Now the FBI, which usually serves subpoenas and executes search warrants, is left with the alternative of complying with this
unwanted subpoena by producing its entire file or arguing to a federal judge why it should not be compelled to do so.
On the Senate side, matters are even more out of hand. There, in response to a request from the Senate Judiciary Committee, the
FBI sent both classified and unclassified materials to the Senate safe room. The Senate safe room is a secure location that is available
only to senators and their senior staff, all of whom must surrender their mobile devices and writing materials and swear in writing
not to reveal whatever they see while in the room before they are permitted to enter.
According to Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the FBI violated federal law by commingling classified
and unclassified materials in the safe room, thereby making it unlawful for senators to discuss publicly the unclassified material.
Imposing such a burden of silence on U.S. senators about unclassified materials is unlawful and unconstitutional. What does the
FBI have to hide? Whence comes the authority of the FBI to bar senators from commenting on unclassified materials?
Who cares about this? Everyone who believes that the government works for us should care because we have a right to know what
the government - here the FBI - has done in our names. Sen. Grassley has opined that if he could reveal what he has seen in the FBI
unclassified records, it would be of profound interest to American voters.
What is going on here? The FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton has not served the rule of law. The rule of law - a pillar of
American constitutional freedom since the end of the Civil War - mandates that the laws are to be enforced equally. No one is beneath
their protection, and no one is above
Short Squeeze •Sep 16, 2016 12:12 PM
My theory is that when Comey stated "no reasonable prosecutor would prosecute", he already knew of her health issues. Would
a prosecutor go after someone with 6 months to live?
saloonsf •Sep 16, 2016 12:03 PM
That's not FBI's responsibilities-exposing the elites cupabilities. The FBI primary objective is to protect the elites and
the system that benefit them.
Atomizer •Sep 16, 2016 12:10 PM
The wagons are circling around the Clinton Foundation. Chelsea's husband is going to get nicked.
withglee •Sep 16, 2016 12:25 PM
Sen. Grassley has opined that if he could reveal what he has seen in the FBI unclassified records, it would be of
profound interest to American voters.
So what's keeping Grassley from asking that those unclassified documents be taken from the room and laid on his desk. He is
not allowed to talk about what he saw in the room. But for sure he is allowed to talk about unclassified documents laid upon his
desk ... even if they were once in the room. If that wasn't the case, the government would just run every document through the
room ... to give it official immunity from inspection and exposure.
"... The State Deptartment had been using Blackberries since 2006, and diplomats overseas had been using them for just as long. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton didn't need to use a fancy NSA-approved smartphone to access classified data. Whenever she went overseas, she had a team of IT specialists who was able to provide her with ClassNet access, and they're able to do so without any technical support from a US Embassy. ..."
"... The Exchange and BES software were likely purchased by Hillary '08, and properly licensed for that usage. But as far as after that.... ..."
"... In a country where a standing governer running as VP could be found explicitly and intentionally using Yahoo email for the express purpose of avoiding FOIA on relevant government business, and there be no investigation whatsoever well. Let's just say there's an exceedingly strong whiff of double standards in the air. ..."
"... Most interesting to me was confirmation that the server was breached. Unknown parties accessed it from TOR multiple times. From your link, an individual email account on the server was breached. ..."
"... This happens all the time, for varying reasons, mostly due to a phishing compromise of the account, and occasionally due to password re-use and related vectors of compromise. While it's bad for the individual account's contents, it's absolutely irrelevant beyond that. ..."
"... If that's the worst they can find then personally I'm actually impressed. I was expecting that the server(s) had been root/fully compromised at least once, given how they get perennially described. If that turns out to not be the case, then they've actually been run better and more securely than the State Department's [at least non-classified] servers, from all reports. ..."
"... A 'breach' of an account is not a breach of the server. The account being access via TOR implies the user credentials were acquired through some means. Was this 'breached' account a classified account? ..."
"... "multiple times" is 3 times in this case, and it wasn't the server that was breached, it was 1 person's email. ..."
Hillary Clinton didn't need to use her own Blackberry. The State
Deptartment had been using Blackberries since 2006, and diplomats overseas
had been using them for just as long.
Hillary Clinton didn't need to use a fancy NSA-approved smartphone
to access classified data. Whenever she went overseas, she had a team of
IT specialists who was able to provide her with ClassNet access, and they're
able to do so without any technical support from a US Embassy.
Quote: First, the Clintons had requested, according to a
PRN employee interviewed by the FBI, that the contents of the server be
encrypted so that only mail recipients could read the content. This was
not done, largely so that PRN technicians could "troubleshoot problems occurring
within user accounts," the FBI memo reports.
Also, while the Clintons had requested only local backups, the Datto
appliance initially also used Datto's secure cloud backup service until
August of 2015. \
Sounds like some of the problem was the contractor not following the
procedures established by the client.
Just to clarify, the move to a hosted solution - with requested encryption
- was initiated after Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State (January 21,
2009 – February 1, 2013) was completed in February, 2013, and FOIA requests
were no longer applicable as she was no longer a government employee.
I think that would depend on the scope of the migration. Did they migrate
all of the history over to the hosted solution? i.e. Did they migrate the
OS, Exchange and BES servers into PRN's datacenter? Or, did they start from
scratch with a clean slate, fresh install and no data migration. If it's
the former and not the latter, I'd be pretty damned certain it'd still be
subject to FOIA requests.
In a country where a standing governer running as VP could be
found explicitly and intentionally using Yahoo email for the express
purpose of avoiding FOIA on relevant government business, and there
be no investigation whatsoever well. Let's just say there's an exceedingly
strong whiff of double standards in the air.
I'm not fond of this private server crap. I think it's bullshit and
it never should have been allowed in the first place. She should have
simply been told that it's not permissible, whatsoever. But I also think
the classified email issues are red herrings in the context of the use
of private servers, as they would have been just as much an issue on
State Department non classified servers.
And I think that it's been made abundantly clear that the tools to
do business over email and modern mobile computing were extremely lacking,
outside of a solution like this, and what tools were available were
purposefully withheld over what sounds like ridiculous political fighting
under the guise of bureaucracy.
None of this means what she did was ok, but it's also hard to not
look askance at the relentless witchhunting when it's placed in that
broader context.
Personally I've reached a point where I'm done caring on the topic.
There doesn't seem to be any kind of smoking gun, just a lot of hemming
and hawing. Normally I would care about this, but honestly I'm a bit
inured at this point. Where is the show of her using these specifically
to avoid FOIA on work material actually relevant to FOIA?
That's really the only true relevant question when it comes to moving
to private servers. Classified material isn't supposed to be on unclassified
government servers either, so the attempt to focus on that (mostly with
retroactive or improperly labeled material and a few other issues) really
seems awkward when we're supposed to care about the private servers
as if they're damning.
Most interesting to me was confirmation that the
server was breached. Unknown parties accessed it from TOR multiple times.
From your link, an individual email account on the server was breached.
This happens all the time, for varying reasons, mostly due to a phishing
compromise of the account, and occasionally due to password re-use and related
vectors of compromise. While it's bad for the individual account's contents,
it's absolutely irrelevant beyond that.
If that's the worst they can find then personally I'm actually impressed.
I was expecting that the server(s) had been root/fully compromised at least
once, given how they get perennially described. If that turns out to not
be the case, then they've actually been run better and more securely than
the State Department's [at least non-classified] servers, from all reports.
Look, getting all up in arms over crap like that link is why people like
me are no longer convinced there's anything here worth paying attention
to. I'm actually willing to listen if there's some kind of smoking gun,
but that's some petty bullshit right there.
Not sure why you are being down voted on newly revealed information that
seems to confirm that one of the servers email accounts was breached.
If you're down voting him, perhaps an explanation as to why?
Do you say that "google's servers got breached" every time an individual
email account on them is compromised?
What he said is factually incorrect. The server was not breached. An
individual email account was accessed. They're not the same thing. Not even
an OS user level account. An email account.
Rommel102 wrote: Most interesting to me was confirmation that the
server was breached. Unknown parties accessed it from TOR multiple
times.
"multiple times" is 3 times in this case, and it wasn't the server that
was breached, it was 1 person's email.
Even if this person was clinton herself, we already know there was not
much damaging information stored on this server. And considering this seems
more like someone used a weak password or was phished, this is a vulnerability
no matter what email provider you're using.
Not sure why you are being down voted on newly revealed information that
seems to confirm that one of the servers email accounts was breached.
If you're down voting him, perhaps an explanation as to why?
Probably because we know DOJ email servers have also been breached. He's
implying that her servers were less secure and somehow put information in
harms way. History seems to show us that it wasn't at any more risk.
I didn't imply that at all. Here we have fairly solid evidence that a
breach of Hillary's server happened. That seems to contradict the FBI's
stance, Comey's statement and testimony, and is a first as far as I know.
And in comparison, the DOJs non-classified email systems were hacked.
There is no evidence that the classified system ever was.
A 'breach' of an account is not a breach of the server. The account
being access via TOR implies the user credentials were acquired through
some means. Was this 'breached' account a classified account?
I could be wrong, but I think that all classified emails from DoD and
State have to go through SIPRNet.
If this was strictly respected, then Clinton's server should contain
no classified information. In real-life, we saw that a few classified things
went through her personal email system, so it wasn't fully respected, or
some of the info was not yet classified.
Story Author Popular
omniron wrote:
Rommel102 wrote: Most interesting to me was confirmation that the
server was breached. Unknown parties accessed it from TOR multiple times.
"multiple times" is 3 times in this case, and it wasn't the server
that was breached, it was 1 person's email.
Even if this person was clinton herself, we already know there was not
much damaging information stored on this server. And considering this seems
more like someone used a weak password or was phished, this is a vulnerability
no matter what email provider you're using.
We're going to get into this in a story I'm currently writing (probably
for next week, so it's not a Friday newsdumpster move). But it's worth noting
THE ENTIRETY OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT'S UNCLAS EMAIL SYSTEM WAS PWNED FOR
OVER A YEAR. I'm sorry, did I type that in all-caps? Also, between Chelsea
Manning/ Wikileaks and the repeated hacks of State, the White House, etc
between 2009 and 2014, it is highly likely that everything short of the
TS/SAP stuff (and even some of that) that Clinton touched was already breached.
This does not excuse Clinton and her staff's-I'm looking at you, Jake
Sullivan-for the extreme error of passing Top Secret/ Special Access Program
classified data back and forth over Blackberries and a non-governmental
e-mail system. I would expect that Sullivan, at a minimum, will have his
clearance revoked and he will not be getting a job as a national security
adviser if Clinton wins the election. Or at least, I think that's a reasonable
expectation.
LordDaMan Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
reply
Sep 2, 2016 7:24 PM
arcite wrote: She wanted to use her Blackberry, and she wanted all her
accounts in one easy to access place. The solution was sloppy, but there
was no ill-intent.
Except she used multiple devices. She also ignored the repeated comments
towards her to not to have a private server. The server was deliberately
wiped violating the various laws about data retention. She used an alias
to send e-mails to her daughter. She, despite being first lady. many years
in congress, and sec. of state somehow didn't understand what classified
material is or how even without marking some info is "born" classified.
She lied multiple times under oath about all of this.
In an enterprise environment? 50/50. For some "side work" from an IT
guy in the government? Id almost guarantee either CALs were missing, or
the entire thing was running on images Pagliano "got" from his day job.
Doubly so when the client is buying used servers and networking gear.
Ok so that will be $2,900 for hardware, and it looks like it will be
right around 9,000 for software licenses.
Pfff, here is 3,000, just make it work and keep the change for yourself
Not sure why you are being down voted on newly revealed information that
seems to confirm that one of the servers email accounts was breached.
If you're down voting him, perhaps an explanation as to why?
Probably because we know DOJ email servers have also been breached. He's
implying that her servers were less secure and somehow put information in
harms way. History seems to show us that it wasn't at any more risk.
Yeah, but the FBI is saying there was no evidence that the server was
hacked.
And then we find out that one of the email accounts was accessed over the
TOR network and the user of the email account had never heard of TOR much
less used it to access email.
That seems like yet another skewing of the finding to put them in the
best possible light. (EDIT: not saying she was or was not, but I would say
that there was indicators that it was possibly compromised)
DOJ, OPM, Pentagon, doesnt have any relevance on if she was irresponsible
for having this whole set up. That same article states they werent even
able to confirm if TLS was ever enabled. And Why? Because Clinton/IT took
steps to make sure it couldnt be found out before turning over the equipment.
You know, this level of twisting is why you and Rommel are not credible
on the topic. You just come off sounding like a conspiracy nut when you
can go from the article linked to "her servers got hacked."
Let's be clear: if there had been a full breach, there would have been
no need to be accessing an individual account over Exchange via TOR. You
could just grab the whole thing directly, instead. This is, if anything,
evidence of a lack of a full breach, at least by whatever actor was accessing
the particular account in question.
But, you know, why don't you two just keep shooting yourselves in the
kneecaps over this. It's not like your hyperbolic approach to this is hurting
your credibility at all. We can either assume you're both excessively biased
or incompetent on the topic from how you're running with that story.
Not that I'm calling you technically incompetent, mind. Unless you actually
believe there's not a distinction between an email account being individually
compromised and a "server being hacked." I expect you're just intentionally
twisting what you're saying. But hey, maybe you don't actually know better?
The way you two are trying to play this is why you have so many people
turning away in disgust-not at Hillary, but at the ongoing digging for gold
and related hyperbole and even outright lies in what is more and more clearly
a dustbowl, with the only apparent motivation being a smear campaign rather
than anything to do with actual justice or a real care about security.
A perfectly valid reason for accessing Exchange via Tor is exactly to
prevent the intrusion from being detected. Create yourself a valid account,
access it as any other normal user would and your hack will look like normal
user traffic.
'grabbing the whole thing directly' has only a fleeting value; taking
exchange offline to copy the mailboxes as you describe will certainly alert
someone to your presence and encourage them to mediate the intrusion.
Now, lets pretend you are Russia, and you have persistent access to her
and other email systems.
.
Now when you need to claim some new land in Georgia or Ukraine.. we get
reliable information about what the world police will actually do about
it. Not merely what they say they will do.
Sep 2, 2016 10:11 PM Popular
Rommel102 wrote: if one random person was able to get into the server
via TOR, that implies that the server was known to the hacking community.
You're making it sound much more dramatic than reality.
The one random person didn't "get into the server" in any meaningful
way. They accessed an email account.
As for the server being "known to the hacking community", DNS records
are public, so in reality the server was "known" to the entire world. As
are billions of others.
For practical purposes, every device on the internet is "known" to everybody.
Either DNS records point to it, or you can just scan IP address ranges to
find it.
RAH Seniorius Lurkius
reply
Sep 2, 2016 10:18 PM New Poster Popular A missing piece of this whole
conversation is what IT would be in place for the Secretary of State instead
of personal email servers. Government servers that have been known to be
all too easily hacked? And, just which department has the responsibility
for government security? As with all bureaucracies, the responsibility is
spread among many departments, including the FBI.
It is NSA's responsibility to provide communications for the heads of
departments, including the Secretary of State. Clinton supposedly asked
for a secure Blackberry like Obama's, but the NSA refused, siting cost.
The NSA seems to think the Secretary of State only needs the security found
within the SCIF in the State Department offices, and not portable security.
Really? No one travels more than the Secretary of State.
John Kerry's mobile systems (now that they finally have them) were updated
just weeks ago, and if you look at what he now has, you will find that those
systems are five years behind the times.
I am much more concerned about IT security within all departments of
the federal government than I am what Clinton did or did not do.
The question is whether there was any intention to skirt the legal requirements
for security and confidentiality. I don't believe Hillary had the technical
savvy to even begin to think about that.
Also, despite Comey's caustic remarks to Congress about recklessness,
etc., let's remember that he's not exactly credible, either, when it comes
to technology. I mean, he's the same guy who thinks the government should
have a backdoor into what would otherwise be secure private systems.
Red Foreman Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
reply
Sep 3, 2016 12:32 AM
RAH wrote: ...It is NSA's responsibility to provide communications for
the heads of departments, including the Secretary of State. Clinton supposedly
asked for a secure Blackberry like Obama's, but the NSA refused, siting
cost. The NSA seems to think the Secretary of State only needs the security
found within the SCIF in the State Department offices, and not portable
security. Really? No one travels more than the Secretary of State...
BREAKING NEWS: NSA Rejected Hillary Clinton's request for a Blackberry
That's the headline I keep reading. And it looks like you've read it
too. What they don't tell us is that instead they wanted her to use a General
Dynamics Sectéra Edge. Which while NSA approved for mobile SCIF classified
communication, it wasn't cool enough for Hillary.
It's a breach of protocol. She mishandled classified information she
otherwise had clearance to see. It's about equivalent to discussing state
secrets over an unsecured phone line in a seedy motel, or leaving top secret
information lying out on your kitchen table while you have your friends
over for a BBQ. It was incredibly stupid of her, and she's lucky there's
only theoretical evidence of a possibility of a leak, but it's not criminal.
I agree with Comey's conclusion on the matter. It's something any "regular"
person would've been fired over, probably blackballed from any sensitive
government position for life, though it's nothing anyone would go to jail
over.
Last edited by
Renzatic on Sat Sep 03, 2016 12:01 am
symphony3 Ars Centurion
reply
Sep 3, 2016 3:18 AM
RAH wrote: A missing piece of this whole conversation is what IT would
be in place for the Secretary of State instead of personal email servers.
Government servers that have been known to be all too easily hacked? And,
just which department has the responsibility for government security? As
with all bureaucracies, the responsibility is spread among many departments,
including the FBI.
It is NSA's responsibility to provide communications for the heads of
departments, including the Secretary of State. Clinton supposedly asked
for a secure Blackberry like Obama's, but the NSA refused, siting cost.
The NSA seems to think the Secretary of State only needs the security found
within the SCIF in the State Department offices, and not portable security.
Really? No one travels more than the Secretary of State.
John Kerry's mobile systems (now that they finally have them) were updated
just weeks ago, and if you look at what he now has, you will find that those
systems are five years behind the times.
I am much more concerned about IT security within all departments of
the federal government than I am what Clinton did or did not do.
I'm concerned about IT security, which makes me very concerned about
finally funding IT so it can succeed. Every government organization I've
worked with, even with top level universities, fund their landscaping better
than their IT. And that means the buck stops with whatever boss determines
funding.
Please don't tell me this is about the taxpayer deciding funding for
IT, because we know that Social Security was better prepared for Y2K than
almost any other government department. If the unknown director of Social
Security could wrangle a decent IT budget (past tense on that), then it
can still be done by much bigger names & departments. (Not singling out
one department, too many hacks to choose from)
None of this means what she did was ok, but it's also hard to not look
askance at the relentless witchhunting when it's placed in that broader
context.
...
My personal evolution on this issue has gone from "having a privately
controlled email server sounds really really bad, and was probably done
to avoid monitoring! I'm really upset about this!" to "wow, these allegations
sound extremely serious!" to "oh, those allegations were not really true
at all" to "yikes, this again? how much more whining and knashing of the
the teeth am I going to have to put up with?" If this had been any other
politican, like, literally any other politician would we have heard more
than a week or two about it? Would we have the FBI releasing their investigation
documents to the public? Would all of Clinton's emails been open to the
public like this? The amount of transparency, the lack of smoking guns,
and the irrationally emotional anger have made me completely turn around
on this issue.
The reason it keeps coming back is that each new revelation seems to
reveal more lies and more proof of lies by Hillary Clinton. You suggest
if it was any other politician it would be instantly forgotten. Not exactly.
Not if they stood a very good chance of being the next president of the
United States. And certainly not if they had the same background of corruption,
lying, and disastrous job performance as Clinton does (getting Americans
killed in Benghazi and then lying to their families about it, her lies about
being under sniper attack on the tarmac in the Balkans years ago, etc etc).
Nixon was forced to resign for far less dishonesty than this woman has been
caught in. So yes, it is a big deal, and it should be. Not only did she
take the classified workflow outside of the secure state department infrastructure,
she did it to avoid accountability and just exactly the kind of scandal
that would ensue if it was ever found out, which it obviously was. She put
national security at risk for her own political gain, and then lied about
it repeatedly on many occasions and in all kinds of settings. Not only did
she commit crimes and SHOULD have been charged by DOJ (her hubby's little
illicit chit-chat w/ Lynch on the Phoenix tarmac notwithstanding), but she
demonstrated by all she has done she doesn't have the one thing a real president
needs: good judgement. Plenty of other things as well, honesty, etc, should
also be requirements, but generally aren't, lately. But having better judgement
than a 2 year old is crucial, and she's proven she hasn't got that.
A recap ( Comey's testimony) of just some of the lies told by Clinton,
to both the public, Congress, and the FBI, about her emails, server, etc
:
ArchieG Smack-Fu Master, in training
reply
Sep 3, 2016 6:37 AM Quote: The reason it keeps coming back is
that each new revelation seems to reveal more lies and more proof of lies
by Hillary Clinton. You suggest if it was any other politician it would
be instantly forgotten. Not exactly. Not if they stood a very good chance
of being the next president of the United States. And certainly not if they
had the same background of corruption, lying, and disastrous job performance
as Clinton does (getting Americans killed in Benghazi and then lying to
their families about it, her lies about being under sniper attack on the
tarmac in the Balkans years ago, etc etc). Nixon was forced to resign for
far less dishonesty than this woman has been caught in. So yes, it is a
big deal, and it should be. Not only did she take the classified workflow
outside of the secure state department infrastructure, she did it to avoid
accountability and just exactly the kind of scandal that would ensue if
it was ever found out, which it obviously was. She put national security
at risk for her own political gain, and then lied about it repeatedly on
many occasions and in all kinds of settings. Not only did she commit crimes
and SHOULD have been charged by DOJ (her hubby's little illicit chit-chat
w/ Lynch on the Phoenix tarmac notwithstanding), but she demonstrated by
all she has done she doesn't have the one thing a real president needs:
good judgement. Plenty of other things as well, honesty, etc, should also
be requirements, but generally aren't, lately. But having better judgement
than a 2 year old is crucial, and she's proven she hasn't got that.
Could you at least break your thoughts into paragraphs? Also, back up
your whining with actual facts. Yeah, that would be nice.
bthylafh Ars Praefectus
reply
Sep 3, 2016 8:54 AM
mat735 wrote: Wow. Not only is this article misleading and poorly composed,
it is factually incorrect (pic being one example). At the time this happened
was it uncommon for a company to manage their own email servers/hardware?
What were BlackBerry recommendations on hosting? Who actually ordered the
hardware? Who is PRN and what other clients do they represent?
This is the point anyone who cares about the country should be making,
and I really wish Hillary had raised it early on. Federal IT is bad not
because of the usual right-wing tropes about government workers but because
there are too many barriers enshrined in federal law and policy. Things
like procurement, hiring, and even the simple ability to deploy an application
have slow, expensive processes full of counter-productive incentives. The
pay-scale for federal staff tops out well below the private sector, there's
been a couple decades of Congress trying to encourage outsourcing (I'm sure
it's just a coincidence that large contracting companies can make campaign
donations), and a lot of senior management and policy have tried to treat
IT as a purchase rather than a skill to be developed, all of which means
that the federal workforce is aging and the best people are routinely asking
themselves whether they believe in their agency's mission enough to keep
turning down a hefty pay raise. GitHub's Ben Balter, a former Presidential
Innovation Fellow, has written a lot about this – see
What's next for federal IT policy, IMHO ,
Three things you learn going from the most bureaucratic organization in
the world to the least ,
Want to innovate government? Focus on culture , etc.
This has already been a big deal during the Obama administration and
I think it's going to become critical for the next president as both our
dependencies on IT continue to increase – remember that due to decades of
budget cuts, many agencies are still relatively early in the migration to
fully electronic processes – and the demands increase, both for general
worker productivity and especially for across-the-board security improvements
as the sophistication of attacks has gone up. Security is one of the hardest
parts of IT because it's not a commodity which you can purchase, requires
broader skills and constant adjustment, and the field is full of hucksters
peddling purchases or bureaucratic process as easy solutions. The low federal
pay-scale is especially bad since there's so much private sector demand,
which means that it's hard to keep skilled practitioners on staff and that
reduces the pool of qualified people getting hired into management.
This is the kind of thing people should be asking the candidates to talk
about but due to the prolonged bad-faith attempts to trump up scandals from
things like these emails it's really hard to see any sort of honest policy
discussion breaking out. Every citizen should care about changing that dynamic
since in addition to the areas where the failures are themselves major crises
everywhere else they're behind the scenes making projects more expensive
and less successful across the board.
Sep 3, 2016 11:01 AM
roman wrote:
mat735 wrote: Wow. Not only is this article misleading and poorly composed,
it is factually incorrect (pic being one example). At the time this happened
was it uncommon for a company to manage their own email servers/hardware?
What were BlackBerry recommendations on hosting? Who actually ordered the
hardware? Who is PRN and what other clients do they represent?
During the "growing" age of the Internet but before cloud computing (I'd
say early 1990's to mid 2000's) it was very easy/common to run your own
servers. All you needed was a constant internet connection and a static
IP addr.
This was especially common among non-IT centric businesses in my experience
– doctors, lawyers, non-profits, etc. would pay a consultant to set something
up and give their front-office staff instructions about changing backup
tapes, etc. but they didn't want to have to deal with the complexity and
expense of a real data center operation, hiring staff, etc. You probably
wanted a business cable/DSL connection anyway, buy a copy of
Windows Small business Server or
OS X
Server depending on your tastes and you have everything "done" for a
fixed up-front cost. A lot of consultants made good livings doing the same
setup for a bunch of clients which weren't quite big enough to have IT staffing
or balked at paying someone above desktop-support level.
The biggest things which killed that market were security and disaster
recovery, as maintaining an email server became a full-time job and stories
about someone losing everything in a hack / fire / flood / etc. became fairly
common, coupled with the availability of high-quality services (
Google Apps for Your Domain launched in 2006 ) at prices which were
much less than you could match for things like spam filtering, user interface
quality, and performance at a scale of less than hundreds of users. Things
like PCI or HIPAA accelerated that process by telling entire fields it was
no longer a good area to skimp.
By now it's assumed most small operations will use a cloud provider but
it took years to establish that the service quality and pricing would stick.
By the time Hillary took office, however, that was still in transition.
It doesn't surprise me at all that someone – especially someone mid-career
or older – would go back to what was familiar when their boss asked them
to get something done in a hurry. It's the same process you can find all
over the business world where someone has a "mission critical" Access database,
Excel file, PHP app on a shared host, etc. because they were told to get
it done ASAP and didn't have time to learn something new, especially if
this wasn't a core part of their job. It'll just be a temporary fix until
we do things the right way
gbjbaanb Ars Scholae Palatinae
reply
Sep 3, 2016 2:11 PM Well it does get a little more interesting every
day. Today the news is of a missing laptop and thumbdrive containing an
archive of emails that were not handed over to the FBI (apparently they
were forgotten).
Quote: In early 2014, Hanley located the laptop at her home and
tried to transfer the email archive to an IT company, apparently without
success. It appears the emails were then transferred to an unnamed person's
personal Gmail account and there were problems around Apple software not
being compatible with that of Microsoft.
"Neither Hanley nor [redacted] could identify the current whereabouts
of the archive laptop or thumb drive containing the archive, and the FBI
does not have either item in its possession."
One thing, regardless of the political affiliation of the commenters
and voters here, this is all sloppy IT work that should never be allowed
to go unchallenged. If you're going to do this kind of thing, at least get
someone who knows what they're doing to do it properly. As an IT professional,
this kind of lackadaisical attitude to IT administration offends me.
That doesn't make it OK and he should be under investigation as well.
haven't you heard the law doesn't apply to republicans.
They were no laws broken by clinton than we can tell, it's just a weird
thing. Powell clearly used private email to skirt records requests (and
IIRC the Bush admin lost millions of emails). But Clinton seemed aware information
is public record no matter how it's sent.
And if we compare the number of times this server was breached to government
breaches, i don't know if this makes the idea of using your own server look
like a bad idea. most intrusions are via social engineering, and there's
probably a lot more weak points in the staff of gov email than this private
one.
What i find strange is that Clinton was secretary of state, and was probably
handling classified information constantly. How is it after the FBI has
reviewed 45,000 of the 60,0000 emails there are so few classified emails
being sent around (only 1 was sent BY clinton). Does the government just
not send classified information through email at all? I'm more interested,
from a technological perspective, in how this is handled.
She violated quite a few laws the press is willfully ignoring
As someone who has gone through the hassle of trying to get a Security Clearance
AND clearance to work on classified networks we were clearly told of the
laws and penalties to be incurred for misuse of the resources
Hillary went above and beyond to try and keep knowingly and marked classified
documents out of the "secure" White House network, there is the violations
of the laws. You notice how they handled the acquisition of the hardware?
She and her minions KNEW what they were doing and purposely used Bills staff
to hide it and keep the supplier in the dark to keep their illegal behavior
as secret as possible
But no, she didn't do anything wrong and definitely didn't violate a
dozen or so laws, nope, just another "right wing conspiracy" she swears
is always going on
And it's the Democratic party, not the Democrat party.
And she's not the Commander-in-Chief so I don't even know how you got
the notion that she's responsible for American citizens getting killed.
If we put government officials in jail according to how many people died
under their watch, George W Bush would be in prison for hundreds and hundreds
of years for all the dead in the 911 attack, the thousands of military service
personnel that died in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the millions of
innocent civilian lives that were lost because of his stupidity, not to
mention all the lies that were told to justify the war in the first place.
Take your partisan bullshit somewhere else.
Lol....she violated the espionage act! And she had every intent in doing
so. If that's not illegal then I don't know what is.
And yes, she may well be responsible for getting Americans killed. If
her server was hacked then no doubt she put American lives at risk.
Clearly, Crooked Hillary was more concerned about protecting her own
secrets and the Clinton Foundation's secrets more than she was about protecting
America's secrets.
She's not fit for any government job, let alone president.
JaxMac Smack-Fu Master, in training
et Subscriptor
reply
Sep 3, 2016 7:45 PM New Poster The Power Mac G4 was sold prior to the
release of OS X. Thus it's operating system was the Classical Mac OS. The
Classical Mac OS had no command line, thus it was practically unhackable
remotely. I believe that this was also true of the Power Mac G5.
If the Clinton email had been maintained on either of these two Macs
there would be no questions about infiltration by anyone.
Andrew Norton Ars Scholae Palatinae
reply
Sep 3, 2016 11:42 PM
davecadron wrote: Did everyone miss the part where hillary decided to
wipe the server after foia requests were made and after records were subpoenaed
by Congress?
Obstruction of justice is a felony.
Everything you say may be true.
However the first paragraph has absolutely zero relevance to the last (separate)
line.
The stuff up top might get you 'contempt of congress', or violation of
a court order that doesn't actually exist.
Obstruction of justice is a whole 'nother matter and has nothing to do
with FOIA's or congressional subpoenas.
Obstruction of justice is a felony.
Everything you say may be true.
However the first paragraph has absolutely zero relevance to the last (separate)
line.
The stuff up top might get you 'contempt of congress', or violation of
a court order that doesn't actually exist.
Obstruction of justice is a whole 'nother matter and has nothing to do
with FOIA's or congressional subpoenas.
As always seems to be the case the coverup is worse then the crime, certainly
so with the Clintons given their history. If any the obstruction of justice
hasn't been their attempting to conceal their public records from being
properly archived, as required by law and thus being open to being disclosed
under FOIA.
Rather it's their efforts after the fact. And that would be potentially
lying under oath to investigators and or destruction of/concealing of evidence,
in an attempt to explain away the email scandal, and of course try to publicly
cast it in the light of just another illegitimate "vast right-wing conspiracy"
to get them. Because that's what the Clintons always do when they're backed
into a corner.
Red Foreman Wise, Aged Ars Veteran
reply
Sep 4, 2016 10:07 PM
Renzatic wrote:
Red Foreman wrote: The Clinton email saga with it's oh-so-typical Clinton-esque
coverup that's far worse then the original fuck-up isn't a non-story. And
it has nothing to do with Donald Trump.
I've said this elsewhere, but I feel it bears repeating here.
For roughly 30 years now, Hillary Clinton has been dogged by a party
made up primarily of lawyers, judges, DAs, and others in the legal profession,
with millions of dollars and all the institutions of government at their
fingertips.
In all this time, with all this knowledge, power and influence at their
disposal, what have they discovered? That the Clintons tend to bend the
rules if it benefits them, and like to scratch the backs of people who can
and will scratch theirs. For all their efforts, they haven't discovered
evidence of anything truly heinous or illegal. Rather, they've merely uncovered
the fact they're a little seedy.
...so how are they any different than any other politician in Washington?
How is it any different? This one it running for President of the United
States at the moment. As such scrutinizing her dealings is fair game. After
all, as you said the Clintons are a little seedy, tend to bend the rules
if it benefits themselves, and like to scratch the backs of people who can
and will scratch theirs.
Speaking of which...
Bill, Hillary, Loretta Lynch, James Comey and the emails
Corruption in plain sight
Tuesday, June 28: Former President Bill Clinton suddenly appears to Attorney
General Loretta Lynch in the cabin of her airplane parked on the tarmac
in Phoenix, Arizona. Secret Service agents deny access to news photos and
videos of the visit. They visit for 30 minutes.
Thursday, June 29: Lynch denies that any discussion with Bill Clinton
of the FBI's investigation of Hillary Clinton's email scandal took place,
and states that she expects to accept the recommendation of the FBI as to
further actions in the Clinton case. She does not, however, recuse herself
or appoint a Special Prosecutor. The FBI also announces that the Clinton
interview will take place on this coming Saturday, during the holiday weekend.
Friday, June 30: Hillary Clinton campaign leaks that Loretta Lynch may
be retained in her present job under a Hillary Clinton administration.
Saturday, July 1: Hillary Clinton's long-delayed interview with the FBI
takes place. It lasts 3 1/2 hours. Clinton not under oath. FBI Director
Comey does not attend, will not reveal who was in attendance.
Tuesday, July 5: FBI Director Comey conducts a press conference without
questions. Details a long list of Clinton's violations, but concludes that
he met with prosecutors and decided not to make a criminal referral for
either convening a Grand Jury or an indictment because she didn't mean to
do anything bad. He cited "reasonable prosecutors" (presumably the ones
he consulted) who would not want to prosecute the case.
Tuesday, July 5: While Comey was making his announcement, President Barack
Obama, in a previously scheduled appearance, was campaigning in North Carolina
with Hillary Clinton.
Wednesday, July 6: Attorney General Lynch announces that she accepts
the recommendation of Comey and will not review the evidence herself.
What really happened appears to be that Bill Clinton successfully conveyed
to Loretta Lynch that she would keep her job if Hillary is elected. Lynch
then successfully conveyed to Comey that she expected a clean referral from
the FBI. Finally, Comey undertook a nearly unprecedented step by publicly
announcing all the reasons for a criminal referral, then refusing to follow
his own logic. In the meantime, Obama, boss of Lynch and Comey, obviously
knew well in advance what the outcome of this charade would be and scheduled
accordingly."
(theintercept.com)
94
Posted
by manishs
on Monday September 12, 2016 @04:00PM
from the
truth-is-out-there
dept.
The Intercept has today published
200-page documents revealing details about Harris
Corp's Stingray surveillance device
, which has
been one of the closely guarded secrets in law
enforcement for more than 15 years. The firm, in
collaboration with police clients across the U.S.
have "fought" to keep information about the mobile
phone-monitoring boxes from the public against which
they are used. The publication reports that the
surveillance equipment carries a price tag in the
"low six figures." From the report:
The San
Bernardino Sheriff's Department alone has snooped
via Stingray, sans warrant, over 300 times. Richard
Tynan, a technologist with Privacy International,
told The Intercept that the "manuals released today
offer the
most up-to-date view on the operation of
"
Stingrays and similar cellular surveillance devices,
with powerful capabilities that threaten civil
liberties, communications infrastructure, and
potentially national security. He noted that the
documents show the "Stingray II" device can
impersonate four cellular communications towers at
once, monitoring up to four cellular provider
networks simultaneously, and with an add-on can
operate on so-called 2G, 3G, and 4G networks
simultaneously.
"... "Trump must hold all 24 states carried by Mitt Romney in 2012 and add Ohio and Florida to the tally. A loss in Florida, Ohio or in increasingly competitive North Carolina – which Romney carried by just 2.2 percentage points over President Barack Obama – would hand Clinton the presidency"" [ US News ]. ..."
"... Voters in mid-September do not swing between Clinton and Trump (my colleagues and I have dubbed that The Mythical Swing Voter), but between undecided and/or third-party support and Clinton or Trump ..."
"... The Republican establishment doesn't trust Trump. But they need him, and are in the process of supplying the efficient field organization ..."
"... Hillary represents despair in the form of cynicism and resignation, as evidenced by the fact that neither she, nor her surrogates, nor even her flacks in the press really pretend to believe in what she is selling. ..."
"... Trump represents despair in the form of anger and desperation, the willingness to embrace a strongman and a charlatan in the (false) hopes of regaining some kind of control over 'the system', whatever it is (which is a fascinating question, by the way.) ..."
"... He's the one who convinced these folks that Clinton was in the pocket of Wall Street. ..."
"... He's the one who convinced them she was a tool of wealthy elites. ..."
"... He's the one who convinced them she was a corporate shill. She supported the TPP! ..."
"... most of it can be laid at the feet of Bernie Sanders. He convinced young voters that Hillary Clinton was a shifty, corrupt, lying shill who cared nothing for real progressive values-despite a literal lifetime of fighting for them. Sadly, that stuck. ..."
"... To date, we hear Bernie did it, Colin did it, Bush did it, Trump (or his baby-sized foundation) did it, Goldman Sachs offered it, or pneumonia caused it. ..."
"... re: The Despair Election " Both are absolutely awful, indeed unthinkable, albeit in different ways, and yet this is what liberal neoliberal order has come to." There, fixed it. ..."
"... Pennsylvania is often cited as a model of the country as a whole with Philidelphia, on one end, Pittsburgh on the other, and the south in between. In reality it is a good model in some ways but not that way. ..."
"... The Philidelphia area has the new shipping facilities and is poised to gain logistics jobs especially under any new trade deal with Europe. ..."
"... Pittsburgh has rusting steel factories, decaying infrastructure, industrial pollution that is scary, and is now serving as a testbed for driverless uber. ..."
"... And Central Pennsylvania has farming families that are unsure what will happen. Rural towns that have been transformed, and in some cases irretrievably polluted, by fracking. And factories that may or may not stay in business. ..."
"... Some percentage (say 1 or so) of those people have won in the new economy. Others such as the educated in Pittsburgh may be poised to take advantage of high speed rail to build a new tech hub, or they may be too late. And many others are simply shut out of real power or decisionmaking. ..."
"... I expect that Clinton will carry the cities and Trump will carry the rural areas. The deciding vote will lie in the suburbs which have swung both ways. ..."
"... She is an abominable candidate, a wooden speaker, a cynical triangulator, and-to put it kindly-ethically challenged." ..."
"... Is anyone asking Kevin Drum, why blame Bernie Sanders when the Democratic Party tied one of their hands behind their back by overwhelming supporting the candidate that almost half of America already hated? ..."
"... When every poll showed that Clinton had barely fifty percent of America that didn't dislike her at the start, ..."
"... Still the party elite, for reasons that had nothing to do with what was best for the country decided to game the system and nominate Clinton despite her flaws, her well noted campaign problems (as in she is terrible at it) ..."
"... Clearly the only people to blame if Clinton loses, are the people who insisted that she was the only candidate from the beginning – the Clintons, their donors, the Democratic Party which they have corrupted so completely. ..."
"... 'Hillary Clinton was a shifty, corrupt, lying shill who cared nothing for real progressive values…' ..."
"Trump must hold all 24 states carried by Mitt Romney in 2012 and
add Ohio and Florida to the tally. A loss in Florida, Ohio or in increasingly
competitive North Carolina – which Romney carried by just 2.2 percentage
points over President Barack Obama – would hand Clinton the presidency""
[
US News ].
UPDATE "Why the Whole Trump-Clinton Election Could Probably Just Be Held
in Pennsylvania" [
New York Times ]. This is a very interesting article, well worth a read.
It caught my eye because Pennsylvania is also part of the shipping story,
with new warehousing and infrastructure. So I'd be interested in what our
Pennsylvania readers think. Another tidbit: "Voters in mid-September
do not swing between Clinton and Trump (my colleagues and I have dubbed
that The Mythical Swing Voter), but between undecided and/or third-party
support and Clinton or Trump. So the larger that pool, the larger the
potential swing." And one more: "Voting is a major cost for many Americans
with hourly wage jobs." So I could have filed this under Class Warfare.
"The Republican establishment doesn't trust Trump. But they need
him, and are in the process of supplying the efficient field organization
he's never shown any interest in building" [
Bloomberg ]. "
... ... ...
UPDATE "Clinton and Trump's demographic tug of war" (handy charts) [
WaPo ]. I knew before I looked at this they wouldn't slice by income.
UPDATE "The Despair Election" [
The American Conservative ]. Quoting Michael Hanby, a Catholic philosopher:
"hat we have in this election is fundamentally a contest between two forms
of despair: Hillary represents despair in the form of cynicism and resignation,
as evidenced by the fact that neither she, nor her surrogates, nor even
her flacks in the press really pretend to believe in what she is selling.
There is obvious cynicism within Trump_vs_deep_state as well; his supporters, on those
rare occasions when he makes sense, seem to know that he is lying to them.
But Trump represents despair in the form of anger and desperation, the
willingness to embrace a strongman and a charlatan in the (false) hopes
of regaining some kind of control over 'the system', whatever it is (which
is a fascinating question, by the way.) Both are absolutely awful,
indeed unthinkable, albeit in different ways, and yet this is what liberal
order has come to."
UPDATE "A Reuters survey found local governments in nearly a dozen, mostly
Republican-dominated counties in Georgia have adopted plans to reduce the
number of voting stations, citing cost savings and efficiency" [
Reuters ]. Don't they always.
* * *
A Scott Adams roundup. Chronologically: "It turns out that Trump's base
personality is 'winning.' Everything else he does is designed to get that
result. He needed to be loud and outrageous in the primaries, so he was.
He needs to be presidential in this phase of the election cycle, so he is"
[
Scott Adams ].
"Sometimes you need a 'fake because' to rationalize whatever you are
doing. … When Clinton collapsed at the 9-11 site, that was enough to end
her chances of winning. But adding the 'fake because' to her 'deplorable'
comment will super-charge whatever was going to happen anyway" [
Scott Adams ].
"Checking My Predictions About Clinton's Health" [
Scott Adams ].
"The Race for President is (Probably) Over" [
Scott Adams ]. "If humans were rational creatures, the time and place
of Clinton's 'overheating' wouldn't matter at all. But when it comes to
American psychology, there is no more powerful symbol of terrorism and fear
than 9-11 . When a would-be Commander-in-Chief withers – literally – in
front of our most emotional reminder of an attack on the homeland, we feel
unsafe. And safety is our first priority."
* * *
As soon as the race tightened, there was a rash of stories about Millenials
[ugh] not voting for Clinton. And now various Democrat apparatchiks
have started to browbeat them, apparently believing that's the best
strategy. Here's one such: "Blame Millennials for President Trump" [
Daily Beast ]. I'm sure you've seen others.
UPDATE Other Democrat operatives are preparing the way to pin the blame
on anybody but the Democrat establishment and the candidate it chose. Here,
Kevin Drum squanders the good will on his balance sheet from his story on
lead and crime: "Don't Hate Millennials. Save It For Bernie Sanders" [Kevin
Drum,
Mother Jones ].
I reserve most of my frustration for Bernie Sanders. He's the one
who convinced these folks that Clinton was in the pocket of Wall Street.
She gave a speech to Goldman Sachs! He's the one who convinced them
she was a tool of wealthy elites. She's raising money from rich
people! He's the one who convinced them she was a corporate shill.
She supported the TPP! He's the one who, when he finally endorsed
her, did it so grudgingly that he sounded like a guy being held hostage.
He's the one who did next to nothing to get his supporters to stop booing
her from the convention floor. He's the one who promised he'd campaign
his heart out to defeat Donald Trump, but has done hardly anything since-despite
finding plenty of time to campaign against Debbie Wasserman Schultz
and set up an anti-TPP movement.
There's a reason that very young millennials are strongly anti-Clinton
even though the same age group supported Obama energetically during
his elections-and it's not because their policy views are very different.
A small part of it is probably just that Clinton is 68 years old (though
Sanders was older). Part of it is probably that she isn't the inspirational
speaker Obama was. But most of it can be laid at the feet of Bernie
Sanders. He convinced young voters that Hillary Clinton was a shifty,
corrupt, lying shill who cared nothing for real progressive values-despite
a literal lifetime of fighting for them. Sadly, that stuck.
In other words, these young (i.e., silly, unlike wise old farts like
Drum) didn't
"do their own research." And so apparently the demonic Sanders found
it very easy to deceive them. Sad! Oh, and it's also interesting to see
liberal Drum explicitly legitimizing hate. Again, this election has been
wonderfully clarifying.
"Don't Hate Millennials. Save It For Bernie Sanders" [Kevin Drum,
Mother Jones].
Shouldn't we blame Hillary Clinton for people's perception that she is
in the pocket of Wall Street, that she is tool of wealthy elites, that she
is a corporate shill, and that she supports the TPP? Because she is in the
pocket of Wall Street, she is tool of wealthy elites, she is a corporate
shill, and she does support the TPP (few people really believe her recent
claims to oppose it).
Wow. Read that for a ride on the blame train. When are HRC and her buddies
going to start offering something instead of pointing the finger at others?
To date, we hear Bernie did it, Colin did it, Bush did it, Trump
(or his baby-sized foundation) did it, Goldman Sachs offered it, or pneumonia
caused it.
re: The Despair Election " Both are absolutely awful, indeed unthinkable,
albeit in different ways, and yet this is what liberal neoliberal order
has come to." There, fixed it.
Indeed, the Democrat freakout about millennials is hilarious. They're
trotting out Al Gore and the discredited notion that votes for Nader spoiled
the election, rather than, say, a defective candidate.
UPDATE "Why the Whole Trump-Clinton Election Could Probably Just
Be Held in Pennsylvania" [New York Times]. This is a very interesting
article, well worth a read. It caught my eye because Pennsylvania is
also part of the shipping story, with new warehousing and infrastructure.
So I'd be interested in what our Pennsylvania readers think.
I strongly suspect that will depend upon which Pennsylvania voter you
ask. Pennsylvania is often cited as a model of the country as a whole
with Philidelphia, on one end, Pittsburgh on the other, and the south in
between. In reality it is a good model in some ways but not that way.
The Philidelphia area has the new shipping facilities and is poised
to gain logistics jobs especially under any new trade deal with Europe.
Pittsburgh has rusting steel factories, decaying infrastructure,
industrial pollution that is scary, and is now serving as a testbed for
driverless uber.
And Central Pennsylvania has farming families that are unsure what
will happen. Rural towns that have been transformed, and in some cases irretrievably
polluted, by fracking. And factories that may or may not stay in business.
Some percentage (say 1 or so) of those people have won in the new
economy. Others such as the educated in Pittsburgh may be poised to take
advantage of high speed rail to build a new tech hub, or they may be too
late. And many others are simply shut out of real power or decisionmaking.
I expect that Clinton will carry the cities and Trump will carry
the rural areas. The deciding vote will lie in the suburbs which have swung
both ways.
At the beginning, the author says about Clinton, "She is an abominable
candidate, a wooden speaker, a cynical triangulator, and-to put it kindly-ethically
challenged."
Then, he spends the rest of the article asking why Millenials don't
want to vote for her.
I have no words.
And the best part is the last line: "If Trump wins, we'll get what we
deserve"
Is anyone asking Kevin Drum, why blame Bernie Sanders when the Democratic
Party tied one of their hands behind their back by overwhelming supporting
the candidate that almost half of America already hated?
When every poll showed that Clinton had barely fifty percent of America
that didn't dislike her at the start, when all the polls after Trump
had pretty much cinched the nomination made it clear that Sanders was the
stronger candidate, the only logical choice if you wanted a Democratic President
was to nominate Sanders. Still the party elite, for reasons that had
nothing to do with what was best for the country decided to game the system
and nominate Clinton despite her flaws, her well noted campaign problems
(as in she is terrible at it), and the fact that no matter how many
times she reintroduces herself a huge percentage of people do not like her
and largely do not trust her (and didn't before Sanders even entered the
race) and pretend she could wipe the floor with Trump.
Clearly the only people to blame if Clinton loses, are the people
who insisted that she was the only candidate from the beginning – the Clintons,
their donors, the Democratic Party which they have corrupted so completely.
This coupled with media idiots like Drum who either are paid to be
oblivious and chose that life OR are so divorced from the reality of life
for the majority of Americans they cannot comprehend why anyone could despise
the status quo they would be willing to roll the dice with the unknown quantity.
I might have tried taking it on, but there will be no convincing him
(or the readers stupid enough to blame Sanders or the millenials). He cannot
blame the candidate herself and her machine, because that would admit that
the Empress not only has no clothes, is a physical wreck, and has more strings
attached than a marionette is a fast route to oblivion in a dying industry
even if he has already realized it.
"... Submitted by Sophie McAdam via TrueActivist.com, ..."
"... He disclosed that government spies can legally hack into any citizen's phone to listen in to what's happening in the room, view files, messages and photos, pinpoint exactly where a person is (to a much more sophisticated level than a normal GPS system), and monitor a person's every move and every conversation, even when the phone is turned off. ..."
"... "Nosey Smurf": lets spies turn the microphone on and listen in on users, even if the phone itself is turned off ..."
"... Snowden says: "They want to own your phone instead of you." It sounds very much like he means we are being purposefully encouraged to buy our own tracking devices. That kinda saved the government some money, didn't it? ..."
"... It's one more reason to conclude that smartphones suck. And as much as we convince ourselves how cool they are, it's hard to deny their invention has resulted in a tendency for humans to behave like zombies , encouraged child labor, made us more lonely than ever, turned some of us into narcissistic selfie – addicts , and prevented us from communicating with those who really matter (the ones in the same room at the same time). Now, Snowden has given us yet another reason to believe that smartphones might be the dumbest thing we could have ever inflicted on ourselves. ..."
In an interview with the BBC's 'Panorama' which aired in Britain last week,
Edward Snowden spoke in detail about the spying capabilities of the UK intelligence
agency GCHQ. He disclosed that government spies can legally hack
into any citizen's phone to listen in to what's happening in the room, view
files, messages and photos, pinpoint exactly where a person is (to a much more
sophisticated level than a normal GPS system), and monitor a person's every
move and every conversation, even when the phone is turned off. These technologies are named after Smurfs, those little
blue cartoon characters who had a recent Hollywood makeover. But despite the
cute name, these technologies are very disturbing; each one is built to spy
on you in a different way:
"Dreamy Smurf": lets the phone be powered on and off
"Nosey Smurf": lets spies turn the microphone on and listen in on
users, even if the phone itself is turned off
"Tracker Smurf":a geo-location tool which allows [GCHQ]
to follow you with a greater precision than you would get from the typical
triangulation of cellphone towers.
"Paranoid Smurf": hides the fact that it has taken
control of the phone. The tool will stop people from recognizing that the
phone has been tampered with if it is taken in for a service, for instance.
Snowden says: "They want to own your phone instead of you." It sounds
very much like he means we are being purposefully encouraged to buy our own
tracking devices. That kinda saved the government some money, didn't it?
His revelations should worry anyone who cares about human rights, especially
in an era where the threat of terrorism is used to justify all sorts of governmental
crimes against civil liberties. We have willingly given up our freedoms in the
name of security; as a result we have
neither. We seem to have forgotten that to live as a free person is a basic
human right: we are essentially free beings. We are born naked and without certification;
we do not belong to any government nor monarchy nor individual, we don't even
belong to any nation or culture or religion- these are all social constructs.
We belong only to the universe that created us, or whatever your equivalent
belief. It is therefore a natural human right not to be not be under secret
surveillance by your own government, those corruptible liars who are supposedly
elected by and therefore accountable to the people.
The danger for law-abiding citizens who say they have nothing to fear because
they are not terrorists, beware: many peaceful British protesters have been
arrested under the Prevention Of Terrorism Act since its introduction in
2005. Edward
Snowden's disclosure confirms just how far the attack on civil liberties
has gone since
9/11 and the London bombings. Both events have allowed governments the legal
right to essentially wage war on their own people, through the Patriot Act in
the USA and the Prevention Of Terrorism
Act in the UK. In Britain, as in the USA,
terrorism and
activism seem to have morphed into one entity, while nobody really knows
who the real
terrorists are any more. A sad but absolutely realistic fact of life in
2015: if you went to a peaceful protest at weekend and got detained, you're
probably getting
hacked right now.
It's one more reason to conclude that smartphones suck. And as much as
we convince ourselves how cool they are, it's hard to deny their invention has
resulted in a tendency for humans to behave like
zombies, encouraged child labor, made us more
lonely than ever, turned some of us into
narcissistic
selfie–addicts,
and prevented us from
communicating with those who really
matter (the ones in the same room at the same time). Now, Snowden has given
us yet another reason to believe that
smartphones might be the dumbest thing we could have ever inflicted on ourselves.
"... What about the large number of donors who, immediately after their hefty donations, received cushy ambassadorships? ..."
"... You gotta remember, [neo]liberals love to justify bad behavior, by pointing to (often unrelated) ... bad behavior. ..."
"... Remember, when someone like David Duke endorses Donald Trump and Trump says, "Who is David Duke, and why should I care?" this proves Trump is a racist. When Hillary Clinton talks about how Robert Byrd was her "friend and mentor" this also proves that Trump is a racist. See how easy that is? ..."
"... So it's okay to give money to a private political organization in order to get favors from the government? Why don't we just auction off ambassadorships then? ..."
"... The last set of documents showed that the DNC broke campaign finance laws and yet absolutely nothing was done about it. Since any damning evidence in documents from democrats will be ignored, why do they even try? It won't make any difference. ..."
"... Under Obama's administration political considerations trump the law every time. ..."
For the past several months, the hacker who calls himself "Guccifer 2.0"
has been releasing documents about the Democratic National Committee. Today,
he has released a new hoard of documents. Politico reports: The hacker persona
Guccifer 2.0 has released a new trove of documents that allegedly reveal more
information about the Democratic National Committee's finances and personal
information on Democratic donors, as well as details about the DNC's network
infrastructure. The cache also includes purported memos on tech initiatives
from Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine's time as governor of Virginia,
and some years-old missives on redistricting efforts and DNC donor outreach
strategy. Most notable among Tuesday's documents may be the detailed spreadsheets
allegedly about DNC fundraising efforts, including lists of DNC donors with
names, addresses, emails, phone numbers and other sensitive details. Tuesday's
documents regarding the DNC's information technology setup include several reports
from 2010 purporting to show that the committee's network passed multiple security
scans.
In total, the latest dump contains more than 600 megabytes of documents.
It is the first Guccifer 2.0 release to not come from the hacker's WordPress
account. Instead, it was given out via a link to the small group of security
experts attending [a London cybersecurity conference].
meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @09:09AM (#52885111)
Journal
Summary missing important piece... (Score:5, Informative)
What about the large number of donors who, immediately after their
hefty donations, received cushy ambassadorships?
Iconoc ( 2646179 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @09:12AM (#52885127)
Archangel Michael ( 180766 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @10:40AM
(#52885673) Journal
You gotta remember, [neo]liberals love to justify bad behavior, by
pointing to (often unrelated) ... bad behavior.
It is as if they are four year olds getting in trouble, and saying "but
Billy's Mom lets him drink beer/smoke dope". The problem is, nobody calls
it "childish" behavior (which it is), because that is insulting to children.
Zak3056 ( 69287 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @04:28PM (#52888579)
Journal
Re:Summary missing important piece... (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, when someone like David Duke endorses Donald Trump and
Trump says, "Who is David Duke, and why should I care?" this proves Trump
is a racist. When Hillary Clinton talks about how Robert Byrd was her "friend
and mentor" this also proves that Trump is a racist. See how easy that is?
Ambassadorships to friendly countries, the UK in particular, have always
been given as rewards to political friends. You could count the number of
people who became UK ambassador on merit on one hand which had been run
through a wood chipper.
The reason you didn't know about this before is because it never became
an issue. Tuttle made a bit of a kerfuffle a decade ago, but it takes a
lot to start a diplomatic incident with a close ally and being ambassador
to the UK or France or Australia really requires no great skill as a peacemaker.
If you were being particularly charitable, you could even say that fundraisers
and diplomats have a lot in common.
Everyone has plenty of dirty laundry, including you and me. 'Innocent
until proven guilty' is an excellent attitude in criminal court, but the
attitude 'innocent until doxxed' skews our perceptions and gives power to
doxxers. Honestly I'm a bit surprised these leaks haven't found more than
'omg, politics at political party!'
Remember, parties are not obligated to be democratic or unbiased. Legally
and constitutionally there's only one vote, the general election in November.
Anyone* can be nominated as a candidate for that election, and if both parties
decided to nominate whomever they pleased they might be breaking their own
rules but not the law. Everything up to and including the conventions is
just meant to give supporters a feel of involvement and to remove unpopular
candidates without invoking the wrath of their supporters. But the parties
want to win, and if one candidate seems more 'electable' you can bet the
party will give then a leg up on the rest.
meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @11:28AM (#52886055)
Journal
So it's okay to give money to a private political organization in
order to get favors from the government? Why don't we just auction off ambassadorships
then?
meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @02:02PM (#52887279)
Journal
There's been plenty of interesting stuff in previous releases of Hillary's
particular emails. I would say the most amazing was acknowledgment that
the reason we backed the moderate beheaders in Syria against Assad was so
the Israelis would feel better about a nuclear Iran without a stable Syria
as a base of operations for Hezbollah. The 400,000 war dead, the creation
of ISIS, the blowback attacks in Paris, San Bernardino, Brussels, Nice,
Orlando, and the refugee crisis that threatens to destabilize all of western
Europe...no problem for Hillary and her supporters. It's unreal. But here
we are.
Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 14, 2016 @09:38AM (#52885273)
The last set showed laws broken by DNC (Score:5, Informative)
The last set of documents showed that the DNC broke campaign finance
laws and yet absolutely nothing was done about it. Since any damning evidence
in documents from democrats will be ignored, why do they even try? It won't
make any difference.
Now, if a similar trove of documents from the RNC was dumped, you can
bet the DOJ would be all over it. Under Obama's administration political
considerations trump the law every time.
(arstechnica.com)
23
Posted
by manishs
on Tuesday September 06, 2016 @02:00PM
from the
security-woes
dept.
Sean Gallagher, writing for ArsTechnica:
Another
major site breach from four years ago has
resurfaced. Today, LeakedSource revealed that it had
received a copy of a February 2012 dump of the user
database of Rambler.ru
, a Russian search, news,
and e-mail portal site that closely mirrors the
functionality of Yahoo. The dump included usernames,
passwords, and ICQ instant messaging accounts for
over 98 million users. And while previous breaches
uncovered by LeakedSource this year had at least
some encryption of passwords, the Rambler.ru
database stored user passwords in plain text --
meaning that whoever breached the database instantly
had access to the e-mail accounts of all of
Rambler.ru's users. The breach is the latest in a
series of "mega-breaches" that LeakedSource says it
is processing for release. Rambler isn't the only
Russian site that has been caught storing
unencrpyted passwords by hackers. In June, a hacker
offered for sale the entire user database of the
Russian-language social networking site VK.com
(formerly VKontakte) from a breach that took place
in late 2012 or early 2013; that database also
included unencrypted user passwords, as ZDNet's Zach
Whittaker reported.
John Jenkins conveniently forgot export of Islamic extremists from Saudi
Arabia during Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and the USA and GB role in creation
of political Islam. I can't see any neo-Westphalian pragmatism of the Saudi state
in its actions in Syria and support of Turkey slide into islamization. But his point
that Iran does not represent a secular state either is well taken. It's just Shias
fundamentalism instead of Sunni fundamentalism.
Notable quotes:
"... There is no clear link between economic deprivation and radicalization. But the former doesn't help if it leads to idle hands and claims of social injustice. ..."
"... Sheikh Nimr advocated the destruction of the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain and the secession of the Eastern Province. His version of a righteous Islamic state is not a thousand miles from that of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (and a long way from the non-takfiri, non-caliphal, neo-Westphalian pragmatism of the Saudi state). He called for wilayat al-faqih, the heterodox Guardianship of the Jurisprudent espoused by Khomeini. ..."
"... The vengeful early years of the Islamic Republic, when clerics who previously would not have hurt a fly enthusiastically participated in the judicial murder of thousands in the name of righteousness, show some of the consequences. So does the arrest and humiliating mistreatment in 1982 of the venerable Ayatollah Shariatmadari, who stood up to Khomeini and dared to object to the implementation of any Islamic hudud punishments in the absence of the Hidden Imam. So does the continued rate of executions in Iran (nearly 700 by July last year, according to Amnesty International) and the Islamic Republic's own treatment of dissidents – and, indeed, of the ordinary protesters of 1999, 2009 and 2011. ..."
"... To Iran it was: Saudi citizens owe loyalty in tribal fashion to their king, not to foreign religious leaders or to some ideal of transnational Islamism, and we shall not tolerate interference. To the rest of the world it was: we shall not bend in the face of the storms raging round the region, if necessary alone. ..."
Now the Saudis face a period of sustained low energy prices at a time when
the costs of a newly interventionist and expeditionary foreign policy are rising
dramatically and when the need to restructure the economy to create perhaps
an extra four million new jobs by 2020 has become urgent. At the same time they
know that a small but significant section of the Sunni population of the kingdom
is vulnerable to the dark seductions of Islamic State, because they regard it
as more legitimately Islamic, or as the only organized Sunni group pushing back
against Iran, the Shia, or both. There is no clear link between economic
deprivation and radicalization. But the former doesn't help if it leads to idle
hands and claims of social injustice.
To cap it all, the Iranian nuclear deal angered the Saudis not because it
was a nuclear deal but because it was simply a nuclear deal, failing in their
view to address malign and subversive non-nuclear Iranian activities in Bahrain,
Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, and rewarding Iran prematurely. They have felt
very abandoned by the US and other Western states. And they believe the apparent
pragmatism of the Rowhani government is a façade, offering privileged access
in return for the suspension of any critical faculty. That makes the issue of
the Vienna peace talks on Syria secondary. There will certainly be an impact.
Yet it is not as if the Saudis had disguised their deep scepticism. They had
been pressured to sit with the Iranians, but they had also insisted on continuing
to support opposition forces in the field and have not wavered in their insistence
that Assad needs to go.
You might think this is all special pleading. But before you say that the
matter is a straightforward one of a benighted justice system administering
medieval punishments to dissidents, reflect on this. Sheikh Nimr advocated
the destruction of the rulers of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain and the secession
of the Eastern Province. His version of a righteous Islamic state is not a thousand
miles from that of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi (and a long way from the non-takfiri,
non-caliphal, neo-Westphalian pragmatism of the Saudi state). He called for
wilayat al-faqih, the heterodox Guardianship of the Jurisprudent espoused by
Khomeini.
The vengeful early years of the Islamic Republic, when clerics who previously
would not have hurt a fly enthusiastically participated in the judicial murder
of thousands in the name of righteousness, show some of the consequences. So
does the arrest and humiliating mistreatment in 1982 of the venerable Ayatollah
Shariatmadari, who stood up to Khomeini and dared to object to the implementation
of any Islamic hudud punishments in the absence of the Hidden Imam. So does
the continued rate of executions in Iran (nearly 700 by July last year, according
to Amnesty International) and the Islamic Republic's own treatment of dissidents
– and, indeed, of the ordinary protesters of 1999, 2009 and 2011.
The signals the Saudi state sought to send by executing 43 Saudi Sunnis convicted
of terrorism at the same time as Sheikh Nimr and his three fellow Shias reflected
all of this.
To their own citizens the message was: we shall enforce the judgment
of the courts on all those who seek to undermine the stability of the kingdom
and the legitimacy of its government, irrespective of sect, and on your
behalf we shall resist Iranian expansionism and Islamic State predation
with equal vigour.
To Iran it was: Saudi citizens owe loyalty in tribal fashion to
their king, not to foreign religious leaders or to some ideal of transnational
Islamism, and we shall not tolerate interference. To the rest of the world
it was: we shall not bend in the face of the storms raging round the region,
if necessary alone.
John Jenkins is a former British ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iraq,
Syria and Burma. He is now executive director (Middle East) of the International
Institute for Strategic Studies, and is based in Bahrain
"... If those who have not lost to trade think Hillary might help them..... I just wasted* 2+ hours with a bunch of Hilbots.... all I heard is Trump is so evil and his supports are so dumb or racist or anti Planned Parenthood. Not a word to defend Killary except she could not be evil she is watched so much. And Obama called off the DoJ. ..."
"... It is not only disregard, but active mockery and defamation - accusing the "losers" of hedonism, entitlement thinking, irresposibility, lack of virtue, merit, striving, intelligence, etc. ..."
"... I.e. reverse puritanism of sorts - lack of success is always to be explained in terms of lack in virtue and striving. ..."
"... Yes. This include the bulk of the liberal merit class winners too Their support for the tax and transfer system Humanist noblesse " oblige". ..."
"... . "This include the bulk of the liberal merit class winners too" ..."
"... This is where the "limousine liberal" meme comes from (or more precisely gets it support and success from). ..."
"... Of course all the claimed demerits exist plenty among the people so accused (as well as among the winners) - though they always did, but I'm under the impression that before Globalization_blowback/technology supported loss of leverage and thus prestige, it wasn't a *public* narrative (in private circles there has always been "if you don't make an effort in school you will end up sweeping the streets", and looking down on the "unskilled", etc. - with the hindsight irony that even street sweeping has been automated). ..."
The disregard of the winners towards the losers helps to bring about the
popularity of people like Trump. I am not at all surprised at the level
of his popularity, even though I personally despise him.
If those who have not lost to trade think Hillary might help them.....
I just wasted* 2+ hours with a bunch of Hilbots.... all I heard is Trump
is so evil and his supports are so dumb or racist or anti Planned Parenthood.
Not a word to defend Killary except she could not be evil she is watched
so much. And Obama called off the DoJ.
A room full of cognitive dissonance and brainwashed.
It is not only disregard, but active mockery and defamation - accusing
the "losers" of hedonism, entitlement thinking, irresposibility, lack of
virtue, merit, striving, intelligence, etc.
Yes. This include the bulk of the liberal merit class winners too
Their support for the tax and transfer system Humanist noblesse " oblige".
In their opinion the system of merit rewards is largely firm but fair
cm said in reply to Paine...
"This include the bulk of the liberal merit class winners too"
This is where the "limousine liberal" meme comes from (or more precisely
gets it support and success from).
Of course all the claimed demerits exist plenty among the people
so accused (as well as among the winners) - though they always did, but
I'm under the impression that before Globalization_blowback/technology supported
loss of leverage and thus prestige, it wasn't a *public* narrative (in private
circles there has always been "if you don't make an effort in school you
will end up sweeping the streets", and looking down on the "unskilled",
etc. - with the hindsight irony that even street sweeping has been automated).
"... Mexican workers were in rural areas over thirty years ago doing the farm labor that was formerly done by blacks. Often they lived in barracks together on the farms they worked. The ownership class of those hose lily white conservatives were the first to use them to displace native born workers and drive down wages. This was being done in California all the way back to 1910. ..."
"... Part time immigrants displace resident workers at wages no family could survive on in the US. These workers either stay in barracks on the farm or they crowd into cheap rental dwellings meant for a fraction of the number of occupants that they group in. ..."
"... As to H1B types, meme chose as off-shoring; as well as a missed opportunity to increase the skills of native-borns. http://angrybearblog.com/2006/12/disappearing-americans-and-illegal.html ..."
"... "Caesar Chavez understood the effects the effects of illegal immigation". That he did. Governor Pete Wilson promoted this to keep wages down for this agribusiness buddies. But then Wilson flip flopped in a draconian way with Prop 197. Every Republican in California came to realize this destroyed their chances with not only the Hispanic vote but also the votes are non-racist Californians. ..."
"... I grew up in a beautiful beach town called San Juan Capistrano. That's a Spanish name, and there was a Spanish mission where the swallows fly back to. Los Angeles, San Francisco. Spanish names. In my school days I had many Mexican American friends. At university I had a Guatamalan and then a Chinese American room mate. You heard the term wetback sometimes, but to me they were just friends, and Americans. You spend 5 minutes with em and you can't think anything else. We are all, save Native Americans, immigrants. ..."
"... Attacking immigrants is not new. But America has managed to be above that for the most part. ..."
"... "If immigration isn't the problem, then what is? The real problems faced by workers are globalization, technological change, and lack of bargaining power in wage negotiations, problems for which Donald Trump has no effective solutions. Reducing international trade through tariffs and the trade wars that come with them will make us worse off in the long-run – we will end up with fewer jobs, not more, and there's no reason to think the average job will be any better. Trump has nothing to offer in the way of providing more support for workers who lose their jobs due to the adoption of digital, robotic, and other technology or to help workers gain a stronger hand when wages are negotiated." ..."
"... I disagree. The heart of the matter is that so long as economists and corporate enablers ensure that protecting against globalisation is off the table, the problems will never be solved. Free trade is their snake oil. And if your "free trade" partner happens to be an autocracy, which will use the $Trillions they siphon out of you to build up their military, use that military to alter the lines on the map, intimidate their neighbors, and ultimately maybe even destroy you, well, those events never show up in their glorious equations, so they must not exist. ..."
"... The paradigm is that the white working class has not been able to form a majority by itself since the pre-Civil War Jacksonian era. They must either make a coalition with other minorities (the New Deal) or with Wall Street and corporate power (the GOP's Southern Strategy). In the 1970s with racial quotas and increasing taxation they felt abandoned by the Democrats, and now that they realize that the GOP corporate paradise is killing them, they are adrift. They once again can either make an alliance with the minorities who live in the next poorer neighborhood who they fear will rob them of their wallets, or with Wall Street who will rob them of everything they own over a much longer period of time, and live in fabulous palaces far far away. ..."
Trump's Taco Truck Fear Campaign Diverts Attention From the Real Issues : Donald Trump would
like you to believe that immigration is largely responsible for the difficult economic conditions
the working class has experienced in recent decades. But immigration is not the problem. The real
culprits are globalization, technological change, and labor's dwindling bargaining power in wage
negotiations.
Mexican workers were in rural areas over thirty years ago doing the farm labor that was formerly
done by blacks. Often they lived in barracks together on the farms they worked. The ownership
class of those hose lily white conservatives were the first to use them to displace native born
workers and drive down wages. This was being done in California all the way back to 1910.
Lettuce Wars: Ten Years of Work and Struggle in the Fields of California
In 1971, Bruce Neuburger-young, out of work, and radicalized by the 60s counterculture in Berkeley-took
a job as a farmworker on a whim. He could have hardly anticipated that he would spend the next
decade laboring up and down the agricultural valleys of California, alongside the anonymous and
largely immigrant workforce that feeds the nation. This account of his journey begins at a remarkable
moment, after the birth of the United Farm Workers union and the ensuing uptick in worker militancy.
As a participant in organizing efforts, strikes, and boycotts, Neuburger saw first-hand the struggles
of farmworkers for better wages and working conditions, and the lengths the growers would go to
suppress worker unity...
Mexican migrants were in Ohio 60+ years ago, making the vegetable circuit. (The biggest Campbells
Soup plant is in Napoleon Ohio. The region has some of the best top soil on the planet). Some
of them settled and are on the third generation. They even hang out with the white working class,
who are their neighbors and co-workers. Some of them even marry Germans and Swedes.
Yeah, guest workers go way back at least 100 years in the US. And sure many stayed and, in that
case, I am totally fine with actual immigration when they become citizens and pay taxes and buy
or rent homes here as permanent residents. Green card workers and illegals are doing a lot of
the farm work in VA on the Northern Neck and Eastern Shore and have been for thirty years.
Part time immigrants displace resident workers at wages no family could survive on in the US.
These workers either stay in barracks on the farm or they crowd into cheap rental dwellings meant
for a fraction of the number of occupants that they group in.
I understand the effect of illegal immigration, Caesar Chavez understood the effects the effects
of illegal immigation, ...., in fact almost all working class Americans understand the effects
of illegal immigration.
"Caesar Chavez understood the effects the effects of illegal immigation". That he did. Governor
Pete Wilson promoted this to keep wages down for this agribusiness buddies. But then Wilson flip
flopped in a draconian way with Prop 197. Every Republican in California came to realize this
destroyed their chances with not only the Hispanic vote but also the votes are non-racist Californians.
Mark Thoma is suggesting a humane alternative to Wilson's two extremes.
If there was a basic income with a substantial residency requirement for immigrants - this would
be a non-issue, since qualified residents could live better than immigrants on the same wages.
I grew up in a beautiful beach town called San Juan Capistrano. That's a Spanish name, and
there was a Spanish mission where the swallows fly back to. Los Angeles, San Francisco. Spanish
names. In my school days I had many Mexican American friends. At university I had a Guatamalan
and then a Chinese American room mate. You heard the term wetback sometimes, but to me they were
just friends, and Americans. You spend 5 minutes with em and you can't think anything else. We
are all, save Native Americans, immigrants.
I remember those old World War 2 movies where the squad is made up of diverse immigrants. You
got the Italian, the Jew, the Irsh guy, etc. And they formed a team. E pluribus unim. Attacking
immigrants is not new. But America has managed to be above that for the most part. E
"Attacking immigrants is not new. But America has managed to be above that for the most"
Conservatives have been attacking immigrants for years. They hated JFK and Catholics. Being
a Catholic Jew is not new to me, but Cons hated Catholics and then they used us Jews for their
political gains. It never worked on us. Most Jews are too intelligent for conservatism. Take care.
Our excellent host gets to the heart of the matter:
"If immigration isn't the problem, then what is? The real problems faced by workers are
globalization, technological change, and lack of bargaining power in wage negotiations, problems
for which Donald Trump has no effective solutions. Reducing international trade through tariffs
and the trade wars that come with them will make us worse off in the long-run – we will end up
with fewer jobs, not more, and there's no reason to think the average job will be any better.
Trump has nothing to offer in the way of providing more support for workers who lose their jobs
due to the adoption of digital, robotic, and other technology or to help workers gain a stronger
hand when wages are negotiated."
Trump has nothing to offer except hate. Besides - who could object to more tacos. Oh wait -
I need to do a long run before eating Mexican food tonight.
I disagree. The heart of the matter is that so long as economists and corporate enablers ensure
that protecting against globalisation is off the table, the problems will never be solved. Free
trade is their snake oil. And if your "free trade" partner happens to be an autocracy, which will
use the $Trillions they siphon out of you to build up their military, use that military to alter
the lines on the map, intimidate their neighbors, and ultimately maybe even destroy you, well,
those events never show up in their glorious equations, so they must not exist.
The paradigm is that the white working class has not been able to form a majority by itself
since the pre-Civil War Jacksonian era. They must either make a coalition with other minorities
(the New Deal) or with Wall Street and corporate power (the GOP's Southern Strategy). In the 1970s
with racial quotas and increasing taxation they felt abandoned by the Democrats, and now that
they realize that the GOP corporate paradise is killing them, they are adrift. They once again
can either make an alliance with the minorities who live in the next poorer neighborhood who they
fear will rob them of their wallets, or with Wall Street who will rob them of everything they
own over a much longer period of time, and live in fabulous palaces far far away.
And if your "free trade" partner happens to be an autocracy, which will use the $Trillions they
siphon out of you to build up their military, use that military to alter the lines on the map,
intimidate their neighbors, and ultimately maybe even destroy you, well, those events never show
up in their glorious equations, so they must not exist....
[ Perfectly paraphrased from Dr. Strangelove. We are being siphoned, OMG. ]
Washington Post Presents an Overly Simplistic View of Trade
It is unfortunate that it now acceptable in polite circles to connect a view with Donald Trump
and then dismiss it. The result is that many fallacious arguments can now be accepted without
being seriously questioned. (Hey folks, I hear Donald Trump believes in evolution.)
The Post plays this game * in noting that the U.S. trade deficit with Germany is now larger
than its deficit with Mexico, putting Germany second only to China. It then asks why people aren't
upset about the trade deficit with Germany.
It partly answers this story itself. Germany's huge trade surplus stems in large part from
the fact that it is in the euro zone. The euro might be properly valued against the dollar, but
because Germany is the most competitive country in the euro zone, it effectively has an under-valued
currency relative to the dollar.
The answer to this problem would be to get Germany to have more inflationary policies to allow
other countries to regain competitiveness -- just as the other euro zone countries were generous
enough to run inflationary policies in the first half of the last decade to allow Germany to regain
competitiveness. However, the Germans refuse to return this favor because their great great great
great grandparents lived through the hyper-inflation in Weimar Germany. (Yes, they say this.)
Anyhow, this issue has actually gotten considerable attention from economists and other policy
types. Unfortunately it is very difficult to force a country in the euro zone -- especially the
largest country -- to run more expansionary countries. As a result, Germany is forcing depression
conditions on the countries of southern Europe and running a large trade surplus with the United
States.
The other part of the difference between Germany and China and Mexico is that Germany is a
rich country, while China and Mexico are developing countries. Folks that took intro econ courses
know that rich countries are expected to run trade surpluses.
The story is that rich countries are slow growing with a large amount of capital. By contrast,
developing countries are supposed to fast growing (okay, that doesn't apply to post-NAFTA Mexico),
with relatively little capital. Capital then flows from where it is relatively plentiful and getting
a low return to developing countries where it is scarce and can get a high return.
The outflow of capital from rich countries implies a trade surplus with developing countries.
Developing countries are in turn supposed to be borrowing capital to finance trade deficits. These
trade deficits allow them to build up their capital stocks even as they maintain the consumption
standards of their populations.
In the case of the large trade surpluses run by China and other developing countries, we are
seeing the opposite of the textbook story. We are seeing fast growing developing countries with
outflows of capital. This largely because they have had a policy of deliberately depressing the
value of their currencies by buying up large amounts of foreign reserves (mostly dollars.)
So the economics textbooks explain clearly why we should see the trade deficits that the U.S.
runs with China and Mexico as being different than the one it runs with Germany. And that happens
to be true regardless of what Donald Trump may or may not say.
By the way, this piece also asserts that "Germany on average has lower wages than Belgium or
Ireland." This is not true according to our friends at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
China is building its military at a huge rate. Double digit growth per yer over almost 20 years.
They are at $150 billion a year(if you believe their figures).
You have a point with China at $150B a year going to real engineering and not inept Lockheed
you need to worry. Those PLA re-education camps might make you another McCain.
US' Pentagon welfare trough: $500B "core" per year even with the sequestration.
Paying for DoD part of drones delivering collateral damage justified by its military utility*:
$80B in FY 16 (was $150B in FY 12).
CIA contracted drones and contractor (See the guys killed in Benghazi) run wars we can know
nothing about $XXB a year.
*If Germany had won WW II Bomber Harris would have been hanged.
Rusty - your usual confusion. Economists only advise. Lawyers make these decisions. And most lawyers
either do not listen to economists or if they do they get really confused. But will a lawyer ever
admit they are confused or not listening?
I don't see your call to take America back to the 60s and tube radios and TVs because they are
cheaper than semiconductor manufacturing because all the tube electronic factories already exist.
Nor do I see you extolling the virtue of $8 gasoline and heating oil thanks to the total ban
on fossil fuel imports.
I'd love someone to ask Trump if he would ban imports of oil and iPhones and Samsung electronics
in his first 100 days as president.
If he says yes and doesn't lose popularity, I'll make sure to buy all the electronics I'll
want for a few years. I've already sworn off gasoline.
Surely fuller then full employment
and a largest possible share of net income
going to primary producers isn't precluded by external trade restrictions
Economies of scale ?
Adequate competition between producing units ?
North America is plenty big for most optimal "plant sizes "
And at least three firms for each product
See Stiglitz on the second best real market firm structure
See Stiglitz on the second best real market firm structure
[ Of course, that will take reading through the last 30 years or so of work by Joseph Stiglitz
since I am not going to give a reader a clue as to how to find such a reference. No problem though,
just start reading. ]
There will be no relief until we "euthanize the rentiers". Raise top marginal rates to confiscatory
levels on income over $1 million, treat all income the same, prohibit corporations from deducting
executive compensate over $1 million, eliminate all tax breaks for individuals that do not widely
apply to those in the bottom half of the income distribution and all corporate tax subsidies.
Not even close, just a return to the 1950s, when the economy boomed. The idea that the wealthy
and large corporations will physically move to countries with more favorable tax regimes, most
of which are in the third world, is pure fantasy, which is why most of the super rich live in
New York, California, and other high tax states.
I understand the differences, but was merely addressing Rusty's nonsense implying this was somehow
outrageous and unprecedented. In addition to the trade advantages the US had, the emergence of
new industries in electronics, aviation, and petrochemicals, which all needed a lot of highly
skilled workers and paid very well, was vital as well. Nonetheless, the policies I mentioned would
go a long way to addressing our current problems, including reducing the incentives to offshore
production (contrary to Rusty).
You don't understand the point of tax dodges, do you? The tax dodges are rewards for paying workers
to build capital assets. But they need high marginal rates to justify paying workers.
Capital gains needs to return to the hold for five years or more to get the incentive. It isn't
really "capital" if not held because it's productive.
However, if inflation in the price of productive capital that barely retains its value is taxed
as income, you punish building productive capital. Asset basis price can be inflation adjusted
reasonably well these days thanks to computer technology making detailed calculations simple for
humans.
I'd have loved to pay workers to install solar and batteries to dodge 50-70% marginal tax rates
in the 90s. Much better than the best case 30% tax credit for paying workers these days. Of course,
given the penalty for paying workers due to low tax rates, I have no high wage income to be taxed
at high rates.
As Milton Friedman pointed out in the 60s and then later in the 80s as I recall, the 50-70-90%
tax rates never raised much revenue because the tax dodges rewarded paying worker to do wasteful
things, in his opinion, like production too much cheap energy, producing too much innovation which
ended up in too many new consumer products the wastefully overpaid workers bought.
This is an irrelevant aside. Friday was a minor bloodbath for investors inequities and bonds.
Thing is, I was like okay, I lost paper money, why.? I could not find a reason the market was
tanking other than Fed fears. Now I realize equities markets can behave like crack addicts or
lemmings. But 2.45 percent based on Fed fears of a rate hike?
Usually when the market is down I go to Calculated risk to see what must be some bad data.
Friday is a profit taking day. But as a small investor that was a really bad day.
Also, Los Lobos version of Hotel California via the Big Libowski is essential.
Final trading session before the 15th anniversary of 9-11 disaster! Would you guess that lot of
folks hedged with ultra-short-ETF earlier in the week? Lot of folks took profits before labour
day?
A day like that is why there needs to be a micro tax on trades. I get it if people sell based
on fundamentals. Everyone hedges, too, that's why you diversify. But the ultimate purpose of investing
is to provide companies with the capital to make productive investment.
A good part of the market is just short term bets. How is that socially useful. And the funny
thing, a lot of these guys don't make money for their clients, they just make money on the commission.
Like a casino owner. Like the con man running for prez.
Technological change is definitely not an issue. Productivity growth is slower now than in 1945-1973
when we had a large middle class. Cross nationally the arguments that robots are taking jobs doesn't
make any sense. If you traveled in both the non-industrial world (Africa, Haiti etc) and East
Asia, you will be aware of this. In the non-industrial world formal sector employment is only
10-20% of the labor force; 80% of the pop. is involved in "gig" jobs selling candy on the street
etc. In East Asia you have virtually no unemployment, but these are the places with by far the
largest deployment of robots, much, much higher than the US. The robots argument is convenient
politically, but doesn't make any sense to anyone whose traveled the world or knows anything about
economic history.
Before, auto plants hired 5,500 @ and produced X vehicles; after, they hired 1,200 @ and produced
1.4 vehicles. You don't get to have your own reality.
I bet that tamales truck is run by a Mexican. I hope so as it would likely mean you are enjoying
awesome tamales. Trump has no idea what good Mexican food is as it does not exist in Manhattan.
I think we need to change the compound growth capitalism we've had since forever. It will not
be sustainable much longer. We need 'de-globalization' not more globalization, in my opinion.
The efficiency bookkeeping model that promotes globalization is deeply flawed. What about the
pollution issues involved in global distribution of products that can easily be made at home?
Again, Keynes said it best. "The decadent international but individualistic capitalism, in the
hands of which we found ourselves after the war, is not a success. It is not intelligent, it is
not beautiful, it is not just, it is not virtuous--and it doesn't deliver the goods. In short,
we dislike it, and we are beginning to despise it. But when we wonder what to put in its place,
we are extremely perplexed."
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/interwar/keynes.htm
After the Berlin Wall fell, and defense budgets got cut, the SoCal economy changed as income
and jobs drained out. Blacks occupied the lower end of support jobs and got underbid by Hispanics,
so they moved away from LA. The same trend impacted lower income whites, who largely moved out
of state. Middle and upper income whites adapted as the local economy transitioned to absorb the
laid-off engineering talent, often through new business ventures along the 101 corridor and in
the multi-media areas in Santa Monica and the south bay. What took a few decades in Pittsburgh
and other cities impacted by major industry changes took about a decade in LA.
In southern California overall, the combination of illegal immigration and a higher total fertility
rate among Hispanics has brought about significant population and employment changes, particularly
over the last 25 years. As well-documented by demographers, blacks suffered significantly through
those changes and were displaced from low end jobs by the burgeoning Hispanic population.
For example, south central LA has transitioned from majority black to majority Hispanic as
a result of job changes and influx. Blacks moved to San Bernardino, Victorville and other areas
where cheaper housing and potential employment were available.
Now the taco trucks are supplemented by grilled cheese trucks, crepe trucks, Korean taco trucks
and other variations designed to serve a more diverse population.
That is actually a decent description of LA. And the diversity of food is why some sing "I Love
LA". It has its issues but I do miss southern CAL .. especially during these harsh NYC winters.
Urbanites like Trump probably see
'taco trucks' frequently as their
limos whiz by. They appreciate
their visibility to likely
Trumpy supporters.
(Limos & trucks both?)
'Doing something about pesky
immigrants should garner a few votes!'
Except The Donald didn't start the tweet storm.
'Taco Trucks on Every Corner': Trump Supporter's
Anti-Immigration Warning http://nyti.ms/2bIeFyw
NYT - NIRAJ CHOKSHI - SEPT. 2, 2016
"My culture is a very dominant culture, and it's imposing and it's causing problems. If you
don't do something about it, you're going to have taco trucks on every corner."
That was Marco Gutierrez, founder of the group Latinos for Trump, issuing a dire warning to
the United States in an interview with Joy Reid on MSNBC on Thursday night.
Trump campaign manager repeatedly grilled about
candidate's false proclamations on Iraq War
position http://read.bi/2bZ6iyG
via @BusinessInsider - Sep 9
Donald Trump's campaign manager was repeatedly pressed Friday as she attempted to explain inconsistencies
in the Republican presidential nominee's statements on the Iraq War.
On two separate morning shows, Kellyanne Conway said Trump's declaration of support for the
war during a 2002 interview with radio host Howard Stern was not a reliable indication of how
he felt at the time.
On CNN, anchor Chris Cuomo pressed Conway on Trump's Iraq War flip-flops.
"He doesn't want to own that he wasn't against it before it started," Cuomo said. "Why not?
Why not just own it? And as you like to say, he was a private citizen."
Conway insisted that despite Trump responding "yeah, I guess so" when Stern asked if he supported
the invasion of Iraq, his statement wasn't equal to then Sen. Hillary Clinton's vote in favor
of the war. ...
(At least, 'Trump has acknowledged that
Clinton's vote (for the war - *) was a mistake.')
... "The point is, as you know, he constantly says 'I was always against the war,'" host Charlie
Rose said to Conway. "Here he says 'I guess' I would support it. That's a contradiction."
Conway pushed back, offering a similar defense to the one she gave CNN.
"Not really, Charlie," she said. "And here is why: He is giving - he is on a radio show. Hillary
Clinton went into the well of the United States Senate representing this state of New York and
case a vote in favor of the Iraq War."
Rose said that "this is not about Hillary Clinton."
"She has acknowledged that vote and acknowledged it was a mistake," Rose said. "He has not,
and he wants to have it both ways."
Conway said that Trump has acknowledged that Clinton's vote was a mistake, to which Rose replied,
"No, but he has not acknowledged that at one point he said he was for the war.
"Why can't he simply say that?" Rose asked. "'At one point I was, and then I changed my mind."
...
(When Trump criticized the Iraq War in 2004,
it was because we hadn't seized their oil
assets as spoils, ostensibly.)
*- Iraq Resolution (formally the Authorization
for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002)
"Kellyanne Conway said Trump's declaration of support for the war during a 2002 interview with
radio host Howard Stern was not a reliable indication of how he felt at the time."
Of course Kellyanne Conway lies even more than her client.
Hillary Clinton Calls Many Trump Backers 'Deplorables' ... http://nyti.ms/2c1UlbC
NYT - AMY CHOZICK - SEPT. 10
... Mrs. Clinton's comments Friday night, which were a variation of a sentiment she has expressed
in other settings recently, came at a fund-raiser in Manhattan.
"You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what
I call the basket of deplorables. Right?" she said to applause and laughter. "The racist, sexist,
homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic - you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that.
And he has lifted them up."
By Saturday morning, #BasketofDeplorables was trending on Twitter as Mr. Trump's campaign demanded
an apology. His supporters hoped to use the remark as as evidence that Mrs. Clinton cannot connect
to the voters she hopes to represent as president.
"Wow, Hillary Clinton was SO INSULTING to my supporters, millions of amazing, hard working
people. I think it will cost her at the polls!" Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter. ...
Immigration PLUS the "demobilization" of labor unions (the discontinuance of collective bargaining
with the concomitant dismemberment of middle class political punch) EQUALS the impoverishment
of low skilled workers ...
... equates to reducing what should be $800 jobs to $400 jobs ...
... which is the alpha and the omega of today's income inequality -- at least lowest income
inequality; the folks who work fast food and supermarkets (the wrong end of two-tier supermarket
contracts, gradually going low tier all the way). I'm not especially concerned that more low skilled
jobs add more higher skilled employment.
********************************
Why are 100,000 out of something like 200,000 Chicago gang-age, minority males in street gangs?
Where are the American raised taxi drivers? Could be $600 fast food jobs imm-sourced to Mexico
and India -- could be $800 taxi jobs imm-sourced to the whole world? $1000 construction jobs imm-sourced
to Eastern Europe and Mexico?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/gang-wars-at-the-root-of-chicagos-high-murder-rate/
The way it works is COLLECTIVE BARGAINING SETS THE PRICE OF LABOR BY THE MOST THE CONSUMER
WILL TOLERATE -- RACE TO THE BOTTOM WAGES ARE SET BY THE LEAST THE EMPLOYEE WILL TOLERATE.
*****************************
Even zero immigration would only (as in merely) keep American labor from hitting rock bottom --
or at least hoping to find non-criminal employment w/o collective bargaining.
Current union busting penalties carry about as much weight as the "FBI warning" you get when
you start a DVD. More actually: if you actually enter a movie theater to copy a new movie before
it goes to DVD you face a couple of years mandatory federal hospitality.
OTH if you fire an organizer the most you face is hiring the organizer back and maybe a little
back pay while she's waiting to fired again for "something else." The labor market is the only
market where you can break the law and face zero penalties at all.
New idea: an NLRB finding of illegally blocking union organization should be able to lead to
a mandate that a certification election must be taken. This may only be implementable at the federal
level.
Beyond that union busting should be a felony at state and federal levels -- backed by RICO
for persistent violators to keep employers from playing at the edges. Our most progressive/pro
labor states (WA, OR, CA, NV, IL, MN, NY, MD?) could do that right now if someone would just raise
the issue.
IF SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE WOULD JUST RAISE THE ISSUE!!!!!!!!!!
Wanna stop the shoot-em-ups in Chicago and elsewhere? To paraphrase a line from Superfly: It's
the American dream dog: flush toilet down the hall, AM radio, electric light in every room.
Let's call that $200/wk job level -- in today's money. And the year is ...
... 1916 ...
.. and today's gang members, not to mention my American raised taxi driver "gang" would be
willing to put in a hard week's work for it ...
... in 1916.
But today's "gangs" are not going to work for $400, 100 years later. Hell, about 50 years later
...
... 1968 ...
... the federal minimum wage was $440 in today's money -- at half today's per capita income!
I read James Julius Wilson's book When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor and
Sudhir Venkatesh's book American Project: The Rise and Fall of a Modern Ghetto, at the same time
-- and the projects only descended into gang infested hell as the bottom dropped out of the minimum
wage.
Beautiful thing about collective bargaining is: you know you have squeezed the most practicable
out (of your fellow consumers -- not the boss) of the economy and technology of your era.
Just don't forget Centralized bargaining so the Walmarts of the world can't squeeze better
contracts elsewhere. Walmart closed 88 big boxes in Germany which has centralized bargaining.
Wal-Mart's "advantage" is not in low labor cost, but logistics and market dominance allowing it
to boss around suppliers.
German labor laws may have contributed to its "problems", but the primary issues were its US-centric
logistics operation and having to compete against local incumbents who were at least its equals,
and had the home turf advantage. And competition as well as labor relations in German retail are
at least as cutthroat as in the US. Most recent (few years ago) scandals involving treatment of
workers and systematic intimidation were in large chain retailers.
There were also stories about how they were trying to sell US bedware sizes which are different
from the German sizes, and similar market research goofs, which seems to indicate a certain arrogance,
and that they probably underestimated the effort and sunk cost that had to be invested to become
successful.
Some of these stories also had a background of a general anti-US sentiment as neoliberal safety
net "reforms" and (labor) market "flexibilization" were prominently justified with US comparisons
(by officials). But I doubt this had much practical impact on the decision to cut the experiment.
"A staggering 96 per cent of America's net job growth since 1990 has come from sectors known
to have low productivity (construction, retail, bars, restaurants, and other low-paying services
were responsible for 46 percentage points of total growth) and sectors where low productivity
is merely suspected in the absence of competition and proper measurement techniques (healthcare,
education, government, and finance explain the remaining 50 percentage points)".
So we are expanding jobs that produce services. With increased robotics and productivity, a
smaller and smaller % of the workforce will be needed to produce all the food and merchandise
people need (or can consume). So the future growth of the job market will have to be in producing
services. The challenge will be to make sure that those jobs are paying sufficiently high salaries
to ensure continuous robust growth in demand. Otherwise we will be entering a permanent period
of low growth in the economy.
ensure that workers have more bargaining power so that the growth in output is shared rather than
"
~~MT~
Workers need to get a handle on bargaining power, need to realize that uncontrolled reproduction
will inevitably bid down the price of labour. Look!
American family should find it cheaper to reduce child bearing to one child per female. The
one child can then inherit the entire estate of the couple with no expense for legal battles with
rival siblings. The one child will have more quality time with parents, grand parents, and aunts
for mentor-ing and help with school work, be on the fast track of career path that requires quality
education. Some jobs here require local folks with better language skills. Such jobs do not adapt
easily to recent immigrants. Reduction in our birth rate cannot be completely de-fang-ed by immigration.
Our birth control will remain a windfall to our workers in aggregate sprint as well as in separate
family's economics.
One child per 2 parents would be an economic disaster. Unless productivity per worker exploded
we would find that the total GDP would shrink rather than increase. The national debt per worker
would also increase even if we somehow managed to stop adding to it. The current problem of a
much smaller number of workers to help pay retirement and medical cost for the old people would
become extremely hard to solve (without exploding tax rates). Growing the population either by
birth or by allowing immigrants to come here is part of why US is doing better than Europe.
national debt per worker would also increase even if we somehow managed to stop adding to it.
The current problem of a much smaller number of workers to help pay retirement and medical cost
for the old people would become extremely hard to solve (without exploding tax rates). Growing
the population
"
Believe it! I just crunched approximate numbers to find that each child with only $2 in pocket
owes $57,000 to public debt, each retired pensioner, each billionaire and each millionaire owe
same thing, 57 K. But!
But 33% of Americans couldn't come up with $555 to handle an emergency. The answer to national
debt?
Endless exponential population expansion until natural resources run dry, no air to breath,
no water to drink, fug-get about food.
Population expansion is a social Ponzi scheme. Eventually it collapses -- we starve.
The remarkable instance of population control started when Deng Xiaoping crunched the numbers
and decided to opt for a draconian return to a rational World. The one child tradition began with
the most dramatic success at making folks rich enough to enjoy life and produce things for people
around the World to enjoy. Let the good times roll and thrill your soul. Got soul?
From my point of view as an employer, the Mexican and Caribbean immigrants have been good hires.
They are generally reliable and good cooperators. Other employers seem to think so as well, judging
by what I see when I go to the doctor or the dentist or the mechanic shop or just about anywhere
else that low to intermediate skill personnel are essential to running the shop.
I would not say that immigrants' effect on wages is trivial except in the macro sense. The
union tradesmen in our area are suffering badly due to having their wages undercut by low wage
immigrants. The wage-rate cuts are on the order of 50%, $32/hr down to $16/hr. Unlike the doctors,
where immigrant doctors don't seem to depress wages much, the scarcity value of trained tradesmen
is substantially reduced by an influx of immigrants with similar skills. Auto mechanics, auto
body men, carpenters, electricians, plumbers, etc are badly hurt by the competition. Perhaps because
their skills are more easily acquired than those of the doctors. We have a large number of asian
scientific and technical people in the area and they are also high wage folks and native born
scientists and technical personnel do not seem to have been adversely affected. There is next
to no mechanism for the doctors and scientists and engineers, who arguably have been helped by
immigration, to help out the tradesmen who have been hurt.
Higher taxes may not be the only answer. Private and religious efforts are underway, mostly
religious in my locale. There is a Cristo Rey school that has received a lot of support from businesses
in the area, particularly the science and technology-based businesses. The Catholics organized
it and run it, but it is open to all. The kids get a better education than they can get in the
corruptly run, disorganized, deteriorating public high schools nearby. They are matched with a
team of 4 and each kid works one day per week at his or her sponsoring business and the earnings
pay for the schooling. The kids meet and work with business and professional people they would
not otherwise meet.
Higher tax rates may take too long to occur to make a difference in the lives of today's young
people struggling to get some security or a future worth living out. Supporting and participating
in religious and community-based efforts is something we can all do today.
Back when, before the onslaught, when I was a young man; a young man out of high school could
work construction, learn how to do a day's work, get paid enough to get a car, court a girl, go
to college, ... join the union, maybe get married, buy a home, start a family; it was a path upward
for so many. These days, those jobs are held by $10-15/hr illegals working as contract labor while
our own young men out of high school have never held a job, don't how to do a day's work, ...
may be on heroin or meth. This is not win win, this is not working. Time to stop pretending.
Re: " The union tradesmen in our area are suffering badly due to having their wages undercut by
low wage immigrants. The wage-rate cuts are on the order of 50%, $32/hr down to $16/hr. "
The way it works is COLLECTIVE BARGAINING SETS THE PRICE OF LABOR BY THE MOST THE CONSUMER WILL
TOLERATE -- RACE TO THE BOTTOM WAGES (as you describe here) ARE SET BY THE LEAST THE EMPLOYEE
WILL TOLERATE.
What you describe would never happen with sufficient (high!) union density. See Germany.
******************
What to do:
Current union busting penalties carry about as much weight as the "FBI warning" you get when
you start a DVD. More actually: if you actually enter a movie theater to copy a new movie before
it goes to DVD you face a couple of years mandatory federal hospitality.
OTH if you fire an organizer the most you face is hiring the organizer back and maybe a little
back pay while she's waiting to fired again for "something else." The labor market is the only
market where you can break the law and face zero penalties at all.
New idea: an NLRB finding of illegally blocking union organization should be able to lead to
a mandate that a certification election must be taken. This may only be implementable at the federal
level.
Beyond that union busting should be a felony at state and federal levels -- backed by RICO
for persistent violators to keep employers from playing at the edges. Our most progressive/pro
labor states (WA, OR, CA, NV, IL, MN, NY, MD?) could do that right now if someone would just raise
the issue.
Like any other collective action, collective bargaining relies on cohesion among the collective.
The objective of any collective, whether a trade group or union, is collective action on behalf
of its members. Cohesion among the group members is absolutely necessary to successful collective
action. Weakness of union bargaining is due to the inability of the collective to maintain cohesion.
Your own cabdrivers' union has been undercut by Uber. My friends among the local tradesmen are
being undercut by men with comparable skills who are not eligible for union membership under current
rules, but are willing to do comparable work for half the union scale. My friends in industrial
unions have been undercut by foreign competitors. Technological advances have played a large role
in assisting circumstances to undercut cabbies, carpenters, and machinists all.
"We have a large number of asian scientific and technical people in the area and they are also
high wage folks and native born scientists and technical personnel do not seem to have been adversely
affected."
A significant part of age discrimination complaints in tech is actually about preferring young
*foreign* or foreign-origin labor to locals who started their careers in the 80's and 90's, and
who are now around 40-60 years old.
There has been the related observation that EE/CS and other tech-related majors have been majority
foreign-populated as the share of locals has declined due to lower job prospects and escalating
tuition and ancillary costs.
Almost all entry-level hiring in "established" industries has been either abroad, or bringing
in visa workes, which after temporary labor crunches in the Y2K/dotcom booms led to an oversupply
of experienced but older workers who would be hired at more senior levels as long as they had
related recent work credentials, or not quite senior levels but expected to have age-appropriate
experience and work contribution.
But that works only for a few years. Once you are out of the industry for a while or stuck
at level because there is no need for advancement, prospects decline a lot.
In parallel there has been a widely bemoaned innovation stagnation, and that goes together
with more people being needed for maintenance-type jobs and only few for advanced R&D (and even
advanced R&D has a lot of mundane legwork - consider Edison's quip "invention is 1% inspiration
and 99% perspiration").
That relatively few people were hired at the entry level "here" since about 2000 has also contributed
to perceived "talent shortages" - as companies got used to the idea you can just poach talent
or hire from the market, as some point the supply of *young* local workers dried up as the pipeline
wasn't refilled.
If nobody has hired and trained freshers locally let's say for 5-10 years, how can anybody
expect to find people in that range of experience (who haven't "peaked" yet and can still be motivated
for a while with promises of career advancement, or still have headroom for actual advancement)?
That's actually what age discrimination is about.
Be careful who you call a racist. BTW racists are deplorable and some polls indicate that 60%
of Trump's supporters are racists. So "half" could be seen as an underestimate.
"none of the Trump campaign pushback to Clinton's "basket of deplorables" comments have said
anything about the people Clinton was talking about not being racist, not being misogynist or
by whatever definition not being 'haters.' It's not referenced once. Check out the statements
after the jump."
They cannot refute what Clinton said because Trump's supporters are racists. Rusty may be uncomfortable
with this reality but it is true.
Sanders style welfare proposals are misplaced. Continuing to subsidize people to live in areas
that are not sustainable does not fix the problem. Money is taken from urban areas that is needed
for renewal and investments in urban residents in sustainable areas and used to subsidize unsustainable
middle class lifestyles in exurban and rural areas. A more permanent solution is some combination
of transformation & relocation. Sanders tossed out the same 50 year old SWP nonsense without much
thought to whether it would work in today's economy. He made vague proposals that people were
free to interpret as matching their own. It was never in any sense a plan.
The world is urbanizing. The future is urban. The sooner we start planning and building for
the future, the less problems we will have with these unsustainable areas and lifestyles. An integrated
urban planning sustainable approach is needed.
Bernie's solution were those of the 70s, like the broken clock, he stood and waited, then yelled
I have the answer when he hadn't a clue what was happening. Hillary's are of the 90s and shall
prove worthless going forward, though she's not quite as clueless; the question is: Is she smart
enough to change her mind?
P T Trump, like his predecessors in such times, is offering snake oil remedies. His advantage,
his medium is the media (the man can see and admire himself when he's performing on stage and
camera), and enough suckers have already been born.. . America's love of snake oil has been the
subject of writers like Twain, movies, theater, ... is world renowned.
Supporting and participating in religious and community-based efforts is something we can all
do today.
"
Try it! You'll love it! Look!
Our rulers are in business for themselves, their votes, their re-election, and their own t-bonds
but not our jobs and families. We got to support our own community. Our pioneers learned that
from the Indians and passed it on to us. It starts with a block party on 4th of July and grows
in all directions -- looking
The US has a trade deficit of 2-3 billion dollars a year. Our exports to Asia are mostly transfer
pricing attempts to avoid foreign taxes and smuggle profits back to the US. Trump is the first
presidential candidate in forty years to make correcting the trade deficit a centerpiece of his
campaign.
There is no country today, and never has been, nor will there be one that has no industry and
is also wealthy. The US was once a protectionist manufacturing heavy country. DJT wants to take
us back to pre-1970 protectionism; this is our only hope.
$2-3 billion a day. Imagine if we manufactured cellphones, computers, socks, etc. etc. the Delta,
Appalachia, and Michigan, New Haven CT etc. wouldn't be quickly becoming hell holes.
BenIsNotYoda : , -1
Thanks to Mark Thoma for highlighting some good effects of legal immigration. From the article:
Immigrants also own a larger share of small businesses than natives, are no more likely to
be unemployed, are no less likely to assimilate than in the past (no matter their country of origin),
and they have contributed greatly to technological development in the US. One study estimates
that "25.3 percent of the technology and engineering businesses launched in the United States
between 1995 to 2005 had a foreign-born founder. In California, this percentage was 38.8 percent.
In Silicon Valley, the center of the high-tech industry, 52.4 percent of the new tech start-ups
had a foreign-born owner."
Now only if the extreme liberals would stop bad mouthing H-1B program that brings in these
very people. To those who oppose H-1B: some abuse of the program to shut down the program is like
shutting down Medicare because there was a little fraud in Medicare. Obviously it is not a good
enough argument. Therefore I have to conclude it is pure discrimination disguised as something
else.
"... Despite the neoliberal obsession with wage suppression, history suggests that such a policy is self-destructive. Periods of high wages are associated with rapid technological change. ..."
"... On the ideological front, the South adopted a shallow, but rigid libertarian perspective which resembled modern neoliberalism. Samuel Johnson may have been the first person to see through the hypocrisy of the hollowness of southern libertarianism. ..."
"... the famous Powell Memo helped to spark a well-financed movement of well-finance right-wing political activism which morphed into right-wing political extremism both in economics and politics. ..."
"... In short, neoliberalism was surging ahead and the economy of high wages was now beyond the pale. These new conditions gave new force to the southern "yelps of liberty." The social safety net was taken down and reconstructed as the flag of neoliberalism. The one difference between the rhetoric of the slaveholders and that of the modern neoliberals was that entrepreneurial superiority replaced racial superiority as their battle cry. ..."
Despite the neoliberal obsession with wage suppression, history suggests
that such a policy is self-destructive. Periods of high wages are associated
with rapid technological change.
... ... ...
On the ideological front, the South adopted a shallow, but rigid libertarian
perspective which resembled modern neoliberalism. Samuel Johnson may have been
the first person to see through the hypocrisy of the hollowness of southern
libertarianism. Responding to the colonists' complaint that taxation by
the British was a form of tyranny, Samuel Johnson published his 1775 tract,
"Taxation No Tyranny: An answer to the Resolutions and Address of the American
Congress," asking the obvious question, "how is it that we hear the loudest
yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?" In The Works of Samuel Johnson,
LL. D.: Political Tracts. Political Essays. Miscellaneous Essays (London: J.
Buckland, 1787): pp. 60-146, p. 142.
... ... ...
By the late 19th century, David A Wells, an industrial technician who later
became the chief economic expert in the federal government, by virtue of his
position of overseeing federal taxes. After a trip to Europe, Wells reconsidered
his strong support for protectionism. Rather than comparing the dynamism of
the northern states with the technological backward of their southern counterparts,
he was responding to the fear that American industry could not compete with
the cheap "pauper" labor of Europe. Instead, he insisted that the United States
had little to fear from, the competition from cheap labor, because the relatively
high cost of American labor would ensure rapid technological change, which,
indeed, was more rapid in the United States than anywhere else in the world,
with the possible exception of Germany. Both countries were about to rapidly
surpass England's industrial prowess.
The now-forgotten Wells was so highly regarded that the prize for the best
economics dissertation at Harvard is still known as the David A Wells prize.
His efforts gave rise to a very powerful idea in economic theory at the time,
known as "the economy of high wages," which insisted that high wages drove economic
prosperity. With his emphasis on technical change, driven by the strong competitive
pressures from high wages, Wells anticipated Schumpeter's idea of creative destruction,
except that for him, high wages rather than entrepreneurial genius drove this
process.
Although the economy of high wages remained highly influential through the
1920s, the extensive growth of government powers during World War I reignited
the antipathy for big government. Laissez-faire economics began come back into
vogue with the election of Calvin Coolidge, while the once-powerful progressive
movement was becoming excluded from the ranks of reputable economics.
... ... ...
With Barry Goldwater's humiliating defeat in his presidential campaign,
the famous Powell Memo helped to spark a well-financed movement of well-finance
right-wing political activism which morphed into right-wing political extremism
both in economics and politics. Symbolic of the narrowness of this new
mindset among economists, Milton Friedman's close associate, George Stigler,
said in 1976 that "one evidence of professional integrity of the economist is
the fact that it is not possible to enlist good economists to defend minimum
wage laws." Stigler, G. J. 1982. The Economist as Preacher and Other Essays
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press): p. 60.
In short, neoliberalism was surging ahead and the economy of high wages
was now beyond the pale. These new conditions gave new force to the southern
"yelps of liberty." The social safety net was taken down and reconstructed as
the flag of neoliberalism. The one difference between the rhetoric of the slaveholders
and that of the modern neoliberals was that entrepreneurial superiority replaced
racial superiority as their battle cry.
One final irony: evangelical Christians were at the forefront of the abolitionist
movement. Today, some of them are providing the firepower for the epidemic of
neoliberalism.
A pretty devious scheme -- creating difficulty for the government neoliberal
wanted to depose by pushing neoliberal reforms via IMF and such. They channeling
the discontent into uprising against the legitimate government. Similar process
happened with Yanukovich in Ukraine.
Notable quotes:
"... the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians ..."
"... it doesn't make President Assad virtuous of himself and neither does it reflect the reality that when push came to shove Assad put his position ahead of the people of Syria and kissed neoliberal butt. ..."
"... President Assad revealed his stupidity when he didn't pay attention to what happens to a leader who has previously been featured as a 'tyrant' in western media if he lets the neoliberals in: They fawn & scrape all the while developing connections to undermine him/her. If the undermining is ineffective there is no backing off. The next option is war. The instances are legion from President Noriega of Panama to President Hussein of Iraq to Colonel Ghaddaffi of Libya - that one really hurts as the Colonel was a genuinely committed and astute man. Assad is just another hack in comparison. ..."
"... Syrian leaders are politicians, they suffer the same flaws of politicians across the world. They are power seekers who inevitably come to regard the welfare of their population as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. ..."
"... No one denies that the opposition have been used and abused by FUKUSi, but that of itself does not invalidate the very real issues that persuaded them to resist an austerity imposed from above by assholes who weren't practicing what they preached. ..."
"... According to the European model of diplomacy imposed upon the globe, countries have interests not friends. ..."
"... A solution which reduces numbers of humans killed is worth attempting. ..."
"... Just because someone chooses an option that you disagree with does not make them evil or headchoppers or Islamofacist. ..."
"... On balance I would rather see Assad continue as leader of Syria but I'm not so naive as to believe he is capable of finding a long term resolution, or that there are not a good number of self interested murderous sadists in his crew. ..."
"... This war is about destroying real history, civilization, culture and replacing with fake. The war in Yemen is the same. Who in that region wants to replace real history with fake. Think about it. Most Islamic,Christian, Assyrian history is systematically being destroyed. ..."
"... you make some good points concerning Assad flirting with neoliberalism however, i don't know how you call an opposition 'moderate' when its toting firearms. ..."
"... The protests against Assad were moderate, and to his credit Assad was willing to meet them halfway. However, this situation was exploited by (((foreign powers))) ..."
"... This is not about "good or evil", this is about TOW missiles made in USA against T-55, Saudi money for mercenaries, Israeli regional ambitions and so on. Syria is another country that the US wants to destroy. Six years ago Syria was a peaceful country. ..."
"... Allegedly president Assad is a bad guy but Erdogan, Netanyhu and bin Saud are noble and good men. Who believes in such nonsense? The US has become similar to Israel and this is the reason why "Assad must go". Sick countries do sick things. ..."
"... no, because one side is so simplistically evi l(armed to the fucking teeth and resolved to violent insurrection!!!), if Assad didn't have the backing of the vast majority of his people and of his overreached army it would have ended a long time ago and Syria would be a failed state flailing away in the grip of anarchy. perhaps your Syrian 'friends' should meditate on this naked truth. ..."
"... when that shitty little country called Israel was squeezed onto the map in 1948, Syria welcomed Palestinian refugees with open arms by the hundreds of thousands. no, they didn't grant them citizenship, but prettty much all other rights. ..."
"... This whole nightmare was dreamed up from within the US Embassy in Damascus in 2006. Bashir al Assad was too popular in the country and the region for America's liking, so they plotted to get rid of him. Near all the organ eating, child killing, head chopping "moderate" opposition are from other countries, those that are Syrian, as was the case in Iraq, mostly live outside the country and are not in touch with main stream opinion, but very in touch with US, Saudi etc $$$s. ..."
"... I consider Bashar al-Assad the legitimate Syrian President and attempts to remove him by external interests as grounds for charges of crimes against humanity, crimes of war. ..."
"... As one of the bloggers rightly stated Wesley Clarke spilled the whole beans and revealed their true ilk. 7 countries in 5 years. How coincidental post 9/11. ..."
"... If you say "Assad was flirting with Neo Liberalism" then this is actually a compliment to Assad. Why? Because he wanted to win time. He wanted to prevent the same happening to Syria that has happened to Iraq. At that time there was no other protective power around. Russia was still busy recovering. ..."
"... As demeter said Posted by: Demeter @14, the flirrting with neoliberalism bought them time as neocons were slavering for a new target. It also made the inner circle a ridiculous amount of money. Drought made life terrible for many rural syrians. When the conflict started, if you read this website you'd notice people wondering what was going on and as facts unfolded. realizing that Assad was the lesser of two evils, and as the war has gone on, look like an angel in comparison to the opposition. ..."
"... Salafism is Racism. It de-egitimizes the entire anti Assad revolution. ..."
"... Wesley Clark's "seven countries in five years" transcript for anyone who has forgotten: http://genius.com/General-wesley-clark-seven-countries-in-five-years-annotated ..."
"... the armed conflict originated with scheming by foreign governments to use extremists as a weapon. ..."
"... Furthermore, Debsisdead sets up the same "binary division" that he says he opposes by tarnishing those who oppose using extremists as a weapon of state as Assad loving racists. The plot was described by Sy Hersh in 2007 in "The Redirection" . ..."
"... The fight IS "binary". You support Assad and his fighters, the true rebels, or you don't. Calling Assad a "hack" is a slander of a veritable hero. Watch his interviews. Assad presides over a multi-cultural, multi-confessional, diverse, secular state, PRECISELY what the Reptilians claim they cherish. ..."
"... "the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians." - on that we can agree. ..."
"... It continues to annoy me that the primary trigger for the civil war in Syria has been totally censored from the press. The government deliberately ignited a population explosion, making the sale or possession of condoms or birth control pills illegal and propagandizing that it was every woman's patriotic duty to have six kids. The population doubled every 18 years, from 5 million to 10 million to 20 million and then at 22 the water ran out and things fells apart. Syria is a small country mostly arid plateau, in principle it could be developed to support even more people just not in that amount of time and with the resources that the Syrians actually had. ..."
"... It doesn't mean he's a saint that Assad is leading the very popular 'secular/multi-confessional Syria' resistance against an extremely well-funded army primarily of non-Syrians who are mainly 'headchoppers' who will stop at nothing to impose Saudi-style religious dictatorship on Syria. ..."
"... The 'moderate' opposition to Assad has largely disappeared (back into the loyal opposition that does NOT want a Saudi-style state imposed on Syria), but those who remain in armed rebellion surely must know that they are a powerless, very small portion of what is in fact mercenary army completely subservient to the needs and directives of its primary funders/enablers, the US and Saudi Arabia. So whatever their original noble intentions, they've become part of the Saudi/US imperial problem. ..."
"... All that land, all that resource...and a unifying language. Amazing. If only the Arab world could unite for the collective good of the region we might witness a rogue state in an abrupt and full decline. A sad tactic of colonial powers over the years, setting the native tribes upon each other. We've not evolved here. ..."
"... t in recent history the foreign policy of powerful nations is aimed at sponsoring social disintegration within the borders of targeted countries. ..."
"... Ethnic cleansing means destruction of culture, of historical memory, the forced disappearance of communities that were rooted in a place. ..."
"... Compare President Assad's leadership to that of the western, or Saudi, sponsors of terror; or measure his decisions against those of the hodgepodge of rebels and mercenaries, with their endless internal squabbles and infighting. Assad is so much more of a spokesman for the rights of sovereignty, and his words carry more weight and outshine the banalities that spring from the mouths of those who are paying the bills, and supplying weapons, and giving all kinds of diplomatic comfort to the enemies of the Syrian government. ..."
"... There is no need for sorting things into absolutes of good and evil. But there is a condition under which fewer, a lot fewer, humans would have died in Syria, Without foreign interference--money, weapons, and training--Assad's government would have won this war quite a while ago. ..."
"... And as for "Islamic Fundamentalism", it is this abnormal form of Islam that is purely based on racism and not the other way around. Islamic fundamentalists call everybody, and I mean everybody, who is not living according to their rule a non-believer, a Takfiri, who does not deserver to live. ..."
"... Fundamentalism is never satisfied until it can become a tyranny over the mind. Racism and fundamentalism are as American as apple pie. You have to take a close look at who is pouring oil on this fire! ..."
"... I disagree with you in that neoliberalism is seriously not difficult to define. It boils down to belief that public programs are bad/'inefficient' and that society would be better served by privatizing many things(or even everything) and opening services up to 'competition'. It's mainly just cover for parasites to come in and get rich off of the masses misery. The 'neoliberalism is just a snarl word' meme is incredibly stupid, since plenty of books and articles have been written explicitly defining it. ..."
"... American economic hegemony is inherently neoliberal, and has been for decades. The IMF is essentially an international loan shark that gives countries money on the condition that they dismantle their public spending apparatus and let the market run things. ..."
"... The situation is different now. One Syrian lady, who came to see me in April, who lives in California, told me that her father, who was a big pre-war oppositionist, now just wants to return to Syria to die. There's no question. if you want peace in Syria, Asad is the only choice. The jihadis, who dominate the opposition, don't offer an alternative. ..."
"... The lesson of Viet Nam was to keep the dead and wounded off the six o'clock news. ..."
"... The jackals are going in. Another coup. Syria was on the list. Remap the Middle East. Make it like Disney World. Israel as Mad King Ludwig's Neuschwanstein. ..."
"... I don't think anyone who comments here regularly ever assumed that Bashar al Assad was a knight in white shining armour. Most of us are aware of how he came to be President and that his father did rule the country from 1971 to 2000 with an iron fist. Some if not most also know that initially when Bashar al Assad succeeded to the Presidency, he did have a reformist agenda in mind. How well or not he succeeded in putting that across, what compromises he had to make, who or what opposed him, how he negotiated his way between and among various and opposed power structures in Syrian politics we do not know. ..."
"... Yes, I have trouble reconciling the fact that Bashar al Assad's government did allow CIA renditioning with his reformist agenda in my own head. That is something he will have to come to terms with in the future. I don't know if Assad was naive, under pressure or willing, even eager in agreeing to cooperate with the CIA, or trying to buy time to prepare for invasion once Iraq was down. Whether Assad also realises that he was duped by the IMF and World Bank in following their advice on economic "reforms" (such as privatising Syria's water) is another thing as well. ..."
"... I don't see why you call the problem "Islamic fundamentalism" when in fact it is Sunni fundamentalism. ..."
"... Manifest Destiny is fundamentalism. ..."
"... "Full Spectrum Dominance" and other US Military doctrines are fundamentalist in nature. ..."
"... I have no doubt that Assad was little more than a crude Arab strongman/dictator prince back in the 2011 when the uprising started. Since then, he has evolved into a committed, engaged defender of his country against multilateral foreign aggression, willingly leaving his balls in the vice and all. ..."
"... He could have fled the sinking ship many times so far. Instead, he decided to stay and fight the Takfiri river flowing in through the crack, and risk going down with the ship he inherited. The majority of the Syrians know this very well. ..."
"... Bashar of 2016 (not so much the one of 5 1/2 years ago) would not only win the next free elections, but destroy any opposition. The aggressors know that as a fact. ..."
"... if Syria had control over its borders with Turkey, Israel, Jordan and Iraq would the war have ended a long time ago ? Answer honestly. ..."
"... If yes, then the so-called "opposition" of the union of headchoppers does not represent a significant portion of the Syrian people. Were it otherwise Assad wouldnt be able to survive a single year, let alone 5. With or without foreign help. ..."
"... OK here is an interesting article from 2011 on Abdallah Dardari, the fellow who persuaded Bashar al Assad to adopt the disastrous neoliberal economic reforms that not only ruined Syria's economy and the country's agriculture in particular but also created an underclass who resented the reforms and who initially joined the "rebels". http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/2097 ..."
"... And where is Dardari now? He jumped ship in 2011 and went to Beirut to work for the UN's Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA). He seems like someone to keep a watchful eye on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Dardari ..."
"... of COURSE assad flirted with the west. between housing cia rendition houses and the less-than-flattering aspects of the wikileaks "syria files", assad and/or his handlers (family and/or military) have tried a little too hard to "assimilate" to western ideals (or the lack thereof). ..."
"... i seriously doubt they will make that mistake again. they saw what happened to al-qaddafi after he tried to play nice and mistook western politicians for human beings. they've learned their lesson and become more ruthless but they were always machiavellians because they have to be. not an endorsement, just an acceptance of how the region is. ..."
"... also: israel, the saudis (along with qatar and the other GCC psychopaths in supporting capacity) and the US are the main actors and throwing european "powers" into the circle of actual power does them an undue favor by ignoring their status as pathetic vassal states. "FrUkDeUSZiowhatever" isn't necessary. ..."
"... Look I know the MSM is utterly controlled - but the extent of that control still shocks at times. It is simply not possible to be "informed" by any normal definition of the word anymore without the alternative media - and for that reason this site serves a valuable purpose and I once again thank the host and contributors. ..."
"... The irony is, Assad is 10x smarter and bigger person than Debs. Yes, he made some mistakes, but if not "flirting with neoliberalism", war against Syria would have started many years earlier, when Resistance wasnt ready one bit (neither Russia, nor Iran, while on the other hand US was more powerful). ..."
"... Support for rebel groups was misguided at best at the beginning of the war. One could conceivably not appreciate the capacity of the KSA/USA/Quatar/Israel to influence and control and create these groups. Jesus it's hard for me to think of a single local opposition group that isnt drenched in fanaticism besides the Kurds. ..."
"... There's no way to a solution for the Syrian people, the population not imported that is, if these groups win. I hate to be so binary but its so naive in my eyes to think anything good will come from the long arm of the gulf countries and the USA taking control. ..."
"... As I've said repeatedly, the GOAL of the Syria crisis for the Western elites, Israel and the ME dictatorships is to take Syria OUT by any means necessary in order to get to IRAN. Nothing else matters to these people. In the same vein, nothing else matters to ninety percent of the CURRENT insurgents than to establish some Salafist state, exterminate the Shia, etc., etc. ..."
"... So, yes, right NOW the whole story is about US elites, Zionist "evil", corrupt monarchs, and scumbag fanatics, etc., etc. Until THAT is resolved, nothing about how Syria is being run is going to matter. ..."
"... Copeland @60: No, I don't think the problem is fundamentalism. It's the warring crusade method of spreading a belief's 'empire' that is the problem. This is a problem uniquely of the Saudi 'do whatever it takes' crusade to convert the entire 'Arab and Muslim world' to their worst, most misogynist form of Islam. ..."
"... Just want to mention that from the beginning there were people who took up arms against the government. This is why the situation went out of control. People ambushed groups of young soldiers. Snipers of unknown origin fired on police and civilians. ..."
"... I rather like Assad. I won't lie. But, he is not the reason for the insurrection in Syria ~ well, except for his alliances with Russia and Iran and his pipeline decisions and his support for Palestinian and Iraqi refugees. What happened in Syria is happening all over the globe because the nation with the most resources in the world, the self-declared exceptionalist state thinks this is the way to rule the world. . . . because they want to rule and they don't care how much destruction it takes to do so. And lucky for us there is no one big enough and bad enough to do it to us - except for our own government. ..."
"... There were a lot of people posting how Bashar al Assad was doing full neoliberalism. And at was true. ..."
"... So Assad was hit by a Tri-horror: global warming, dwindling cash FF resources, and IMF-type pressure, leaving out the trad. enemies, KSA, pipelines , etc. MSM prefer to cover up serious issues with 'ethnic strife' (sunni, shia, black lives matter, etc.) ..."
It is sad to see so many are so locked into their particular views that they
see any offering of an alternative as 'neoliberal' or laughable or - if it weren't
so serious - Zionist.
1/ I do not see the Syrian civil war as racist or race based, I do believe
however that the rejection of all Islamic fundamentalism as being entirely comprised
of 'headchoppers' is racist down to its core. It is that same old same old whitefella
bullshit which refuses to consider other points of view on their own terms but
considers everything through the lens of 'western' culture which it then declares
wanting and discards.
2/ Noirette comes close to identifying one of the issues that kicked
off the conflict, that the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting
neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians. I realize many have
quite foolishly IMO, adopted President Assad as some sort of model of virtue
- mostly because he is seen to be standing up to American imperialism. That
is a virtuous position but it doesn't make President Assad virtuous of himself
and neither does it reflect the reality that when push came to shove Assad put
his position ahead of the people of Syria and kissed neoliberal butt.
3/ President Assad revealed his stupidity when he didn't pay attention
to what happens to a leader who has previously been featured as a 'tyrant' in
western media if he lets the neoliberals in: They fawn & scrape all the while
developing connections to undermine him/her. If the undermining is ineffective
there is no backing off. The next option is war. The instances are legion from
President Noriega of Panama to President Hussein of Iraq to Colonel Ghaddaffi
of Libya - that one really hurts as the Colonel was a genuinely committed and
astute man. Assad is just another hack in comparison.
4/ These Syrian leaders are politicians, they suffer the same flaws of
politicians across the world. They are power seekers who inevitably come to
regard the welfare of their population as a means to an end rather than an end
in itself.
5/ My Syrians friends are an interesting bunch drawn from a range of people
currently living inside and outside of Syria. Some longer term readers might
recall that I'm not American, don't live in America and nowadays don't visit
much at all. The first of the 'refugee' Syrians I got to know, although refugee
is a misnomer since my friend came here on a migrant's visa because his skills
are in demand, is the grandchild of Palestinian refugees - so maybe he is a
refugee but not in the usual sense. Without going into too many specifics as
this is his story not mine, he was born and lived in a refugee camp which was
essentially just another Damascus suburb. As he puts it, although a Palestinian
at heart, he was born in Syria and when he thinks of home it is/was Damascus.
All sides in the conflict claimed to support Palestinian liberation, yet he
and his family were starved out of their homes by both Syrian government militias
and the FSA.
When he left he was initially a stateless person because even though he was
born in Syria he wasn't entitled to Syrian citizenship. He bears no particular
grudge against the government there but he told me once he does wish they were
a lot smarter.
On the other hand he also understands why the people fighting the government
are doing so. I'm not talking about the leadership of course (see above - pols
are pols) but the Syrians who just couldn't take the fading future and the petty
oppression by assholes any longer.
6/ No one denies that the opposition have been used and abused by FUKUSi,
but that of itself does not invalidate the very real issues that persuaded them
to resist an austerity imposed from above by assholes who weren't practicing
what they preached.
I really despair at the mindset which reduces everything to a binary division
- if group A are the people I support they must all be wonderful humans and
group B those who are fighting Group A are all evil assholes.
If group A claim to support Palestinian self determination (even though they
have done sweet fuck all to actually advance that cause) then everyone in Group
B must be pro-Zionist even though I don't know what they say about it (the leadership
of the various resistance groups are ME politicians and therefore most claim
to also support Palestinian independence). Yes assholes in the opposition have
done sleazy deals with Israel over Golan but the Ba'ath administration has done
similar opportunist sell outs over the 40 years when the situation demanded
it.
I fucking hate that as much as anyone else who despises the ersatz state
of Israel, but the reality is that just about every ME leader has put expedience
ahead of principle with regard to Palestine. Colonel Ghadaffi would be the only
leader I'm aware of who didn't. Why do they? That is what all pols and diplomats
do not just Arab ones. According to the European model of diplomacy imposed
upon the globe, countries have interests not friends.
As yet no alternative to that model has succeeded since any attempt to do
so has been rejected with great violence. The use of hostages offered by each
party to guarantee a treaty was once an honorable solution, the hostages were
well treated and the security they afforded reduced conflict - if Oblamblam
had to put up one of his daughters to guarantee a deal does anyone think he
would break it as easily as he currently does? Yet the very notion of hostages
is considered 'terrorism' in the west. But I digress.
The only points I wanted to make was the same as those I have already made:
A solution which reduces numbers of humans killed is worth attempting.
Just because someone chooses an option that you disagree with does
not make them evil or headchoppers or Islamofacist.
On balance I would rather see Assad continue as leader of Syria
but I'm not so naive as to believe he is capable of finding a long term
resolution, or that there are not a good number of self interested murderous
sadists in his crew. By the same token I don't believe all of those
resisting the Ba'athist administration are headchopping jihadists or foreign
mercenaries. This war is about 5 years old. If either side were so simplistically
good or evil it would have ended a long time ago.
Plus one more - it is humorous and saddening to see people throw senseless
name-calling into the mix. It is the method preferred by those who are too
stupid and ill informed to develop a logical point of view.
If you want to call me a Zionist lackey of the imperialists or whatever it
was go right ahead - it is only yourself who you tarnish, I'm secure in the
knowledge of my own work against imperialism, corporate domination and Zionism
but perhaps you, who have a need to throw aspersions are not?
Posted by b on September 12, 2016 at 03:33 AM |
Permalink
Plus one more - it is humorous and saddening to see people throw senseless
name-calling into the mix. It is the method preferred by those who are
too stupid and ill informed to develop a logical point of view.
why you think your article is different from others senseless name-calling,
i see exactly the same.
This war is about destroying real history, civilization, culture
and replacing with fake. The war in Yemen is the same. Who in that region
wants to replace real history with fake. Think about it. Most Islamic,Christian,
Assyrian history is systematically being destroyed.
you make some good points concerning Assad flirting with neoliberalism
however, i don't know how you call an opposition 'moderate' when its toting
firearms.
The protests against Assad were moderate, and to his credit Assad
was willing to meet them halfway. However, this situation was exploited
by (((foreign powers)))
If either side were so simplistically good or evil it would have ended
a long time ago.
This is not about "good or evil", this is about TOW missiles made in
USA against T-55, Saudi money for mercenaries, Israeli regional ambitions
and so on. Syria is another country that the US wants to destroy. Six years
ago Syria was a peaceful country.
Allegedly president Assad is a bad guy but Erdogan, Netanyhu and
bin Saud are noble and good men. Who believes in such nonsense? The US has
become similar to Israel and this is the reason why "Assad must go". Sick
countries do sick things.
If either side were so simplistically good or evil it would have
ended a long time ago
no, because one side is so simplistically evi l(armed to the fucking
teeth and resolved to violent insurrection!!!), if Assad didn't have the
backing of the vast majority of his people and of his overreached army it
would have ended a long time ago and Syria would be a failed state flailing
away in the grip of anarchy. perhaps your Syrian 'friends' should meditate
on this naked truth.
If group A claim to support Palestinian self determination (even
though they have done sweet fuck all to actually advance that cause)...
when that shitty little country called Israel was squeezed onto the
map in 1948, Syria welcomed Palestinian refugees with open arms by the hundreds
of thousands. no, they didn't grant them citizenship, but prettty much all
other rights.
so thanks, b, for headlining this obfuscatory drivel. thus, for posterity.
This whole nightmare was dreamed up from within the US Embassy in Damascus
in 2006. Bashir al Assad was too popular in the country and the region for
America's liking, so they plotted to get rid of him. Near all the organ
eating, child killing, head chopping "moderate" opposition are from other
countries, those that are Syrian, as was the case in Iraq, mostly live outside
the country and are not in touch with main stream opinion, but very in touch
with US, Saudi etc $$$s.
Here again is the reality of where this all started, article from 2012
(below.). And never forget Wesley Clark's Pentagon informant after 9/11
of attacking "seven countries in five years." Those in chaos through US
attacks or attempted "liberation" were on the list, a few more to go and
they are a bit behind schedule. All responsible for this Armageddon should
be answering for their actions in shackles and yellow jump suits in The
Hague.
|~b~ Thank you for putting Debsisdead's comment @ 135 prior post into readable
form. Failing eyesight made the original in its extended format difficult
to read.
Reference Debsisdead comment:
Your definition of neoliberal would be nice to have. Usually it is used
as ephemerally as a mirage, to appear in uncountable numbers of meaning.
Having determined your definition of neoliberal, are you sure it WAS
neoliberal rather than a hegemonic entity? Neoliberal seems best used as
the reactionary faux historic liberalism as applied to economic agendas
(neocon is the political twin for neoliberal, libertarian had been previously
been co-opted).
Instead of F•UK•US•i, maybe a F•UK•UZoP would suffice (France•United
Kingdom•United Zionist occupied Palestine) given the spheres of influence
involved.
Agree with your observations about the limited mentality of dualism;
manichaeism is a crutch for disabled minds unaware and blind to subtle distinctions
that comprise spectrums.
Though not paying close attention to Syrian history, it was Hafez al-Assad
who became master of the Syrian Ba'athist coup d'état and politically stabilised
Syria under Ba'athist hegemony. In the midst of the 'Arab-spring' zeitgeist,
an incident involving a child with security forces led to a genuine public
outcry being suppressed by state security forces. This incident, quickly
settled became cause célèbre for a subsequent revolt, initially by SAA dissidents
but soon thereafter by external interests having the motive of regime overthrow
of Syrian Ba'athists and their leadership. Other narratives generally make
little sense though may contain some factors involved; the waters have been
sufficiently muddied as to obscure many original factors - possibly Bashar
al-Assad's awareness of his security forces involvement in US rendition
and torture as to compromise his immediately assuming command of his security
forces in the original public protest over the child. Those things are now
well concealed under the fogs of conflict and are future historians to sort.
I consider Bashar al-Assad the legitimate Syrian President and attempts
to remove him by external interests as grounds for charges of crimes against
humanity, crimes of war.
Classic western sheeple disconnect. As one of the bloggers rightly stated
Wesley Clarke spilled the whole beans and revealed their true ilk. 7 countries
in 5 years. How coincidental post 9/11. This total disconnect with global
realities is a massive problem in the west cause the 86000 elite /oligarchs
r pushing for a war with both the bears/ Russian and Chinese along with
Iran. These countries have blatantly stated they will not be extorted by
fascism. All western countries r all living a Corporate state. Just look
all around every facet of our society is financialised. Health ,education
, public services.
Wake up cause if we dont we will be extinct Nuclear winter
I am of syrian origin, born in Beirut Lebanon.
My family lived a happy life there, but shortly after I was born, Israel
invaded Lebanon, and my family fled and emigrated to Europe, I was 1 year
old.
I call major bullshit on your piece.
If you say "Assad was flirting with Neo Liberalism" then this is actually
a compliment to Assad.
Why? Because he wanted to win time. He wanted to prevent the same happening
to Syria that has happened to Iraq. At that time there was no other protective
power around. Russia was still busy recovering.
What do you think would
have happened had Assad not pretended he would go along? Syria would have
been bombed to pieces right then. Why did Assad change his mind later and
refused to cooperate with Qatar, Saudi and US? Because the balance of power
was about to change. Iran and Russia were rising powers (mainly in the military
field).
I could say so much more. I stopped reading your post when you mentioned
that your Palestinian friend ( I know the neighbourhood in Damascus, it
is called Yarmouk and it is indeed a very nice suburb) does not have Syrian
citizenship. Do you know why Palaestinians don't get Syrian citizenship?
Because they are supposed to return to their homeland Palestine.
And they can only do that as Palestinians and not as Syrians. That is
why.
And that so many (not all!) Palestinians chose to backstab the country
that has hosted them and fed them and gave them a life for so many years,
and fought side by side with islamist terrorists and so called Free Syrian
Army traitors is a human error, is based on false promises, is lack of character
and honour and understanding of the broader context and interests. How will
some of these fools and misguided young men feel when they realise that
they have played right into the hand of their biggest enemy, the Zionists.
I would like to remind some of you who might have forgotten that famous
incident described by Robert Fisk years ago, when a Syrian Officer told
him upon the capture of some of these "freedom fighters' on Syrian soil,
one of them said: "I did not know that Palestine was so beautiful", not
realising that he was not fighting in Palestine but in Syria.
And as for "Islamic Fundamentalism", it is this abnormal form of Islam
that is purely based on racism and not the other way around. Islamic fundamentalists
call everybody, and I mean everybody, who is not living according to their
rule a non-believer, a Takfiri, who does not deserver to live.
Though reluctant to get involved in what seems to be for some a personal
spat, I would like to point out one fundemental point that renders the above
published and counter arguments difficult to comprehend which is that they
lack a time frame.
The 'Syrian opposition' or what ever you wish to call it is not now what
it was 6 years ago. Thus, for me, at least, it is not possible to discuss
the make up of the opposition unless there are some time frames applied.
An example is a Syrian who was an officer in the FSA but fled to Canada
last year. He fled the Syrian conflict over 3 years ago to Turkey -which
is how I know him - where he did not continue ties with any group. He simply
put his head down and worked slavishly living at his place of work most
of the time to escape to Canada - he feared remaining in Istanbul. He claimed
that he and others had all been taken in by promises and that the conflict
had been usurped by extremists. He was not a headchopper, he was not the
beheader of 12 year old children. He was and is a devout Muslim. He was
a citizen of Aleppo city. I know him and of him through other local Syrians
in Istanbul and believe his testimony. I mention him only to highlight that
the conflict is not what it was, not what some intended it to be ... Nor
is it what some paint it to be. There are many who fight whomever attacks
their community be they pro / anti Government. - Arabs especially have extended
village communities/ tribes and pragmatically they 'agree' to be occupied
as long as they are allowed to continue their lives in peace. If conflict
breaks out they fight whomever is necessary.
DebIsDead makes some very excellent points in his/her comments. They
deserve appraisal and respectful response. It is also clear thar he/she
is writing defensively in some parts and those detract from what is actually
being said.
The piece suffers from several errors. As demeter said Posted by: Demeter
@14, the flirrting with neoliberalism bought them time as neocons were slavering
for a new target. It also made the inner circle a ridiculous amount of money.
Drought made life terrible for many rural syrians. When the conflict started,
if you read this website you'd notice people wondering what was going on
and as facts unfolded. realizing that Assad was the lesser of two evils,
and as the war has gone on, look like an angel in comparison to the opposition.
You can't change the fact that it took less than 2 years for the opposition
to be dominated by both foreign and domestic takfiris who wanted to impose
saudi style culture on an open relatively prosperous cosmopolitan country.
They've succeeded in smashing it to pieces. Snuff your balanced account
and your bold anti racism
Debsisdead sets up a strawman - racism against Islamic fundamentalists
and validity of opposition against Assad - and uses this to sidestep
that the armed conflict originated with scheming by foreign governments
to use extremists as a weapon.
"If you want to call me a Zionist lackey of the imperialists or whatever
it was go right ahead - it is only yourself who you tarnish, I'm secure
in the knowledge of my own work against imperialism, corporate domination
and Zionism but perhaps you, who have a need to throw aspersions are not?"
Passive-aggressive much?
The fight IS "binary". You support Assad and his fighters, the true rebels,
or you don't. Calling Assad a "hack" is a slander of a veritable hero. Watch
his interviews. Assad presides over a multi-cultural, multi-confessional,
diverse, secular state, PRECISELY what the Reptilians claim they cherish.
"the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures
ahead of the welfare of Syrians." - on that we can agree.
It continues to annoy me that the primary trigger for the civil war in
Syria has been totally censored from the press. The government deliberately
ignited a population explosion, making the sale or possession of condoms
or birth control pills illegal and propagandizing that it was every woman's
patriotic duty to have six kids. The population doubled every 18 years,
from 5 million to 10 million to 20 million and then at 22 the water ran
out and things fells apart. Syria is a small country mostly arid plateau,
in principle it could be developed to support even more people just not
in that amount of time and with the resources that the Syrians actually
had.
No the issue was not 'climate change'. The aquifers in Syria had been
falling for years, even when rainfall was above normal. Don't blame the
weather.
"The more the merrier" - tell me exactly how people having more children
than they can support creates wealth? It doesn't and it never has.
Whenever governments treat their people as if they were cattle, demanding
that they breed the 'correct' number of children rather than making the
decision based on their own desires and judgement of how many they can support,
the result is always bad.
Assad treated the people of Syria as if they were cattle. Surely this
deserves mention?
Cultural "left" bullshit at its best. Cultural "leftists" don't need to
know any hostory or have any understanding of a political issue: it's sufficient
to pull out a few details from the NATO press and apply their grad school
"oppression" analysis.
Thanks to b for posting the comment of Debs is Dead. The point I would take
issue with is where he states "I realize many have quite foolishly IMO,
adopted President Assad as some sort of model of virtue. . ."
I don't believe this is a correct realization. I think the many to whom
he refers know very well that any person in leadership of a country can
be found to have flaws, major and minor, and even to have more of such than
the average mortal. The crucial counterpoint, however, which used to be
raised fairly often, is that it is the acceptance of the majority of the
people governed by such leaders that ought to be the international norm
for diplomatic relations.
I respect the knowledge DiD has gained from his Syrian friends and contacts.
But I also remember a man called Chilabi and am very leery of destabilization
attempts this country has been engaged in lo these many generations, using
such displaced persons as surrogates. And rather than properly mourn the
9/11 victims and brave firemen and rescuers of that terrible day, I find
myself mourning the larger tragedy of unnecessary wars launched as a consequence
of our collective horror at that critical moment in our history.
After making sound point about black-and-white worldview being unrealistic,
the guy goes full retard. Position towards Palestinians as the one and only
criteria to judge ME developments... C'mon, it's not even funny.
And while started from a "My Syrian friends" then he goes on reasoning on
behalf of one single ex-Palestinian ex-Syrian guy...
Looks like self-revelation of a kind. Some guy, sitting in Israel, or whatever,
waging informational warfare for the Mossad/CIA/NGO who pays his rent.
"The government deliberately ignited a population explosion, making the
sale or possession of condoms or birth control pills illegal and propagandizing
that it was every woman's patriotic duty to have six kids."
DiD: "I realize many have quite foolishly IMO, adopted President Assad as
some sort of model of virtue. . ." The big reveal is that DiD can't name
a single contributor here who has written that Assad is "some sort of model
of virtue."
It doesn't mean he's a saint that Assad is leading the very popular 'secular/multi-confessional
Syria' resistance against an extremely well-funded army primarily of non-Syrians
who are mainly 'headchoppers' who will stop at nothing to impose Saudi-style
religious dictatorship on Syria.
The 'moderate' opposition to Assad has
largely disappeared (back into the loyal opposition that does NOT want a
Saudi-style state imposed on Syria), but those who remain in armed rebellion
surely must know that they are a powerless, very small portion of what is
in fact mercenary army completely subservient to the needs and directives
of its primary funders/enablers, the US and Saudi Arabia. So whatever their
original noble intentions, they've become part of the Saudi/US imperial
problem.
Thanks for addressing the problem of angry comments by some posters who
just want to throw verbal grenades is unacceptable. I hope this site continues
to be a great source for sharing information and ideas.
Why in God's name was this pointless comment by Debs is Dead promoted this
way?!!! The only point being made, that I can see, is that the war in Syria
does have some legitimate issues at its root. WELL OF COURSE IT DOES. The
Hegemon rarely to never makes up civil unrest in countries it wants to overthrow
out of whole cloth. They take some dispute that is already there and ramp
it up; this process escalates until it turns into some form of a proxy war
or coup. In other words, the domestic political process is DISTORTED until
it is no longer remotely recognizable as a domestic process.
So sure, if the US and its allies had not stoked political factionism
in Syria into a global proxy war, we could discuss the fine details of the
Syrian domestic process very usefully. At this point, though, IT IS IRRELEVANT.
I do agree on one point: Assad joins the horrendous list of overlords
who thought they could make a deal with the Hegemon on their own terms.
Assad will pay for that mistake with his life very soon I would guess and
I think that Putin will too, though that might take a little longer. If
they had chosen to stand on principle as Chavez did, maybe they would be
dead as Chavez is (possibly done in, who knows), but they'd be remembered
with honor as Chavez is.
It is a shame no one stood up for Libya, for a surviving Gaddafi would have
emerged considerably stronger - as Assad eventually will.
Whatever genuine opposition there was has long been hijacked by opportunistic
takfiris, wahabbists and there various paymasters. And so as ruralito says
@25: "The fight IS "binary...". The fight is indeed binary, the enemy is
plural. Assad versus the many appearances of both the first and fourth kind.
Appearances to the mind are of four kinds.
Things either are what they appear to be;
or they neither are, nor appear to be;
or they are, and do not appear to be;
or they are not, and yet appear to be.
Rightly to aim in all these cases is the wise man's task. ~Epictetus
Where there is obfuscation lay the enemy, hence Russia's long game of
identification.
Does anyone remember the essay posted on this site a while back titled "The
Feckless Left?" I don't believe B posted it, but if memory serves it's posted
front and centre on the navigation bar beside this piece?
It really hammers those people like Tariq Ali, who while surely having
legitimate grievances against the Assad govt, opened the door for legitimation
of foreign sponsored war. They thought that funneling millions of dollars
worth of training, weapons and mercs would open the door for another secular
govt, but this time much 'better.' Surely.
No one thinks Assad is great. I really have trouble understanding where
that notion comes from. It's just that the alternative is surely much worse.
Lots of people didn't like Ghaddafi but jesus, I'm sure most Libyans would
wish they could turn back the clock (at the risk of putting words in their
mouths). It's not binary, no one sees this as good vs evil, its just that
its become so painfully obvious at this point that if the opposition wins
Syria will be so fucked in every which way. Those with real, tangible grievances
are never going to have their voices heard. It will become the next Libya,
except the US and it's clients will actually have a say in what's left of
the political body in the country if you could even label it that at that
point (which is quite frightenening in my eyes. Libya is already a shit
show and they don't have much of a foothold there besides airstrikes and
that little coastal base for the GNA to have their photo ops).
I find it ironic that when criticisms are levelled at Assad from the
left they usually point out things that had he done more of, and worse of,
he probably would be free of this situation and still firmly in power. If
he had bowed down to Qatar and the KSA/USA I wonder if the 'armed opposition'
would still have their problems with him? That's the ultimate irony to me.
If he had accepted the pipelines, the privatization regimes, etc. would
they still be hollering his name? It's very sad that even with the balancing
act he did his country has been destroyed. Even if the SAA is able to come
out on top at this point, the country is wholly destroyed. What's even the
point of a having a 'legitimate' or 'illegitimate' opposition when they're
essentially fighting over scraps now. I'd be surprised if they could rebuild
the country in 120 years. Libya in my eyes will never be what it once was.
It'll never have the same standards of living after being hit with a sledgehammer.
I don't mean to be ironic or pessimistic, its just a sad state of affairs
all around and everyday it seems more and more unlikely that any halfway
decent solution for the POPULATION OF SYRIA, not Assad, will come out of
this.. It's like, I'm no nationalist, but in many countries I kind of would
rather that than the alternative. Ghaddafi wasn't great but his people could've
been a lot worse of - and ARE a lot worse of now. I'm no Assad fan, but
my god look what the alternative is here. If it wasnt 95% foreign sponsored
maybe id see your point.
Read the essay posted on the left there. "Syria, the Feckless Left" IIRC.
I thought that summed up my thoughts well enough.
And guys, even if you agree with me please refrain from the name calling.
It makes those of you with a legitimate rebuttal seem silly and wrong. I've
always thought MoA was so refreshing because it was (somewhat) free of that.
At least B is generating discussion. I kind of appreciate that. It's nice
to hear ither views, even if they are a little unrealistic and pro violent
and anti democratic.
An example of an armed opposition with legitimate grievances that is
far from perfect but still very sympathetic (in my eyes) is hizbollah. They
have real problems to deal with. While they recieve foreign sponsorship
they aren't a foreign group the way the Syrian opposition is. And they will
be all but destroyed when their supply lines from Syria are cut off. I wonder
how that fits in with OPs post.
What makes Debs is Dead's turgid comment so irrational is that it endorses
Regime Change in Syria as an ongoing, but necessary and inevitable, "good".
But in doing so it tip-toes around the fact that it doesn't matter how Evil
an elected President is, or is not, it's up to the the people who elected
him to decide when they've had enough. It most certainly is NOT Neoconned
AmeriKKKa's concern.
Debs also 'forgot' to justify totally wrecking yet another of many ME
countries because of perceived and imaginary character flaws in a single
individual.
It does not compute; but then neither does "Israel's" 70 year (and counting)
hate crime, The Perpetual Palestinian Holohoax.
Whatever happened to the age old expression that one has to walk in someone
else's shoes to understand their walk in life?
In an all too obvious fashion, another arm chair expert is blessing the
world with his/her drivel.
To make it as concise as possible:
What would you have done in Assad's position? The U.S. is trying to annex
Syria since 1948 and never gave up on the plan to convert it to what the
neo-fascists turned Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia and the Republic of
Yugoslavia - whereas Yemen is still in the making, together with Ukraine,
Turkey and Africa as a whole.
In the light of U.S. 'foreign policy', the piece reeks of the stench
of obfuscation.
Debs also 'forgot' to justify totally wrecking yet another of many ME
countries because of perceived and imaginary character flaws in a single
individual.
We shouldn't be surprised. Even a basic pragmatic approach to this conflict
has been lost by many in the one sided, over the top shower of faeces that
is the western MSM.
It does not compute; but then neither does "Israel's" 70 year (and
counting) hate crime, The Perpetual Palestinian Holohoax.
All that land, all that resource...and a unifying language. Amazing.
If only the Arab world could unite for the collective good of the region
we might witness a rogue state in an abrupt and full decline. A sad tactic of colonial powers over the years, setting the native tribes
upon each other. We've not evolved here.
It is impossible for any one of us to possess the whole picture, which is
why we pool our experience, and benefit from these discussions. The thing
I see at the root of the Syrian war is the process of ethnic cleansing.
In many cases that involve murderous prejudice, it erupts as civil war;
but in recent history the foreign policy of powerful nations is aimed at
sponsoring social disintegration within the borders of targeted countries.
Ethnic cleansing means destruction of culture, of historical memory,
the forced disappearance of communities that were rooted in a place.
The objectives of the perpetrators have nothing to do with the convictions
of the fundamentalists who do the dirty work; and the sectarian and mercenary
troops are merely the tools of those who are creating hell on earth.
I agree with what papa wrote at the top of this thread:
why you think your article is different from others senseless name-calling,[?]
i see exactly the same. This war is about destroying real history, civilization,
culture and replacing with fake. The war in Yemen is the same. Who in
that region wants to replace real history with fake. Think about it.
Most Islamic,Christian, Assyrian history is systematically being destroyed.
Compare President Assad's leadership to that of the western, or Saudi, sponsors
of terror; or measure his decisions against those of the hodgepodge of rebels
and mercenaries, with their endless internal squabbles and infighting. Assad
is so much more of a spokesman for the rights of sovereignty, and his words
carry more weight and outshine the banalities that spring from the mouths
of those who are paying the bills, and supplying weapons, and giving all
kinds of diplomatic comfort to the enemies of the Syrian government.
Debsisdead has always brought much food for thought to this watering
hole. I have always respected him, and I think he has a fine mind. Nonetheless,
despite the valuable contribution of this piece as a beginning place, in
which we might reevaluate some of our presumptions, I maintain there are
a few errors which stand out, and ought to be discussed.
I call into question these two points:
(1) Just because someone chooses an option that you disagree with does
not make them evil or headchoppers or Islamofacist.
Up thread @14, we were reminded of Robert Fisk's report about misdirected,
misinformed "freedom fighters" naively wandering around in Syria, while
thinking that they were fighting in Palestine. In this ruin of Syria, where
the well-intentioned are captured, or co-opted into evil acts against the
civilian population, --is it really incumbent upon us, --from where we sit,
to agonize over the motives of those who are committing the actual atrocities
against the defenseless? What is the point?
(2) On balance I would rather see Assad continue as leader of Syria
but I'm not so naive as to believe he is capable of finding a long term
resolution, or that there are not a good number of self interested murderous
sadists in his crew. By the same token I don't believe all of those
resisting the Ba'athist administration are headchopping jihadists or
foreign mercenaries. This war is about 5 years old. If either side were
so simplistically good or evil it would have ended a long time ago.
There is no need for sorting things into absolutes of good and evil.
But there is a condition under which fewer, a lot fewer, humans would have
died in Syria, Without foreign interference--money, weapons, and training--Assad's
government would have won this war quite a while ago.
And as for "Islamic Fundamentalism", it is this abnormal form of Islam
that is purely based on racism and not the other way around. Islamic
fundamentalists call everybody, and I mean everybody, who is not living
according to their rule a non-believer, a Takfiri, who does not deserver
to live.
Fundamentalism is never satisfied until it can become a tyranny over the
mind. Racism and fundamentalism are as American as apple pie. You have to
take a close look at who is pouring oil on this fire!
@9 I disagree with you in that neoliberalism is seriously not difficult to
define. It boils down to belief that public programs are bad/'inefficient'
and that society would be better served by privatizing many things(or even
everything) and opening services up to 'competition'. It's mainly just cover
for parasites to come in and get rich off of the masses misery. The 'neoliberalism
is just a snarl word' meme is incredibly stupid, since plenty of books and
articles have been written explicitly defining it.
"Having determined your definition of neoliberal, are you sure it WAS
neoliberal rather than a hegemonic entity?"
American economic hegemony is inherently neoliberal, and has been for
decades. The IMF is essentially an international loan shark that gives countries
money on the condition that they dismantle their public spending apparatus
and let the market run things.
I usually enjoy DiD's rants (rant in the nice sense), but in this case he
is wrong. His remarks are out of date.
No doubt he has Syrian friends in NZ, including the Syro-Palestinian
he mentions. They will have been living their past vision of Syria for some
time. Yes, back in 2011, there was a big vision of a future democratic Syria
among the intellectuals. However those who fight for the rebellion are not
middle class (who left) but rural Islamist Sunnis, who have a primitive
al-Qa'ida style view.
The Syrian civil war is quite like the Spanish civil war. It started
with noble republicans, including foreigners like Orwell, fighting against
nasty Franco, but finished with Stalin's communists fighting against Nazi-supported
fascists.
The situation is different now. One Syrian lady, who came to see me in
April, who lives in California, told me that her father, who was a big pre-war
oppositionist, now just wants to return to Syria to die. There's no question. if you want peace in Syria, Asad is the only choice.
The jihadis, who dominate the opposition, don't offer an alternative.
Noirette comes close to identifying one of the issues that kicked off
the conflict, that the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting
neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians.
The Ba'thist regime is a mafia of the family, not a dictatorship of Bashshar.
Evidently their own interest plays a premier role, but otherwise why not
in favour of the Syrian people? There's lot of evidence in favour of Syrian
peace.
The lesson of Viet Nam was to keep the dead and wounded off the six o'clock
news.
The jackals are going in. Another coup. Syria was on the list. Remap
the Middle East. Make it like Disney World. Israel as Mad King Ludwig's
Neuschwanstein.
Islam and its backward dictates, and Christianity with its backward dictates
and Manifest Destiny are problematic.
I may be white and I may be a fella but don't believe I'm in the fold as
described. Fundamentalists of any sort are free to believe as they will
but when they force it on others via gun, govt, societal pressures, violence
there's trouble. I've seen comparisons to the extremes from Christianity's
past with the excuse of Islam as being in its early years. No excuses. Fundies
out. But we don't see that in places like Saudi Arabia or Iran. Facts on
the ground rule. Iran had a bit more moderation but only under the tyrant
Shah. A majority may have voted for the Islamic Republic and all that entails
but what of the minority?
BTW, where are the stories (links) that show Bashar has embraced neoliberalism?
In the end, DiD reduced to pointing to two evils (with multi-facets) and
it looks like Assad is the lesser. But who can come up with a solution for
a country so divided and so infiltrated by outsiders? And here in the US,
look at the choice of future leaders that so many do not want. Where is
the one who will lead the US out of its BS? And who will vote for him/her?
Thanks to B for republishing the comment from Debsisdead. The comment raises
some issues about how people generally see the war in Syria, if they know
of it, as some sort of real-life video game substitute for bashing one side
or another.
I am not sure though that Debsisdead realises the full import of what
s/he has said and that much criticism s/he makes about comments in MoA comments
forums could apply equally to what s/he says and has said in the past.
I don't think anyone who comments here regularly ever assumed that Bashar
al Assad was a knight in white shining armour. Most of us are aware of how
he came to be President and that his father did rule the country from 1971
to 2000 with an iron fist. Some if not most also know that initially when
Bashar al Assad succeeded to the Presidency, he did have a reformist agenda
in mind. How well or not he succeeded in putting that across, what compromises
he had to make, who or what opposed him, how he negotiated his way between
and among various and opposed power structures in Syrian politics we do
not know.
Yes, I have trouble reconciling the fact that Bashar al Assad's government
did allow CIA renditioning with his reformist agenda in my own head. That
is something he will have to come to terms with in the future. I don't know
if Assad was naive, under pressure or willing, even eager in agreeing to
cooperate with the CIA, or trying to buy time to prepare for invasion once
Iraq was down. Whether Assad also realises that he was duped by the IMF
and World Bank in following their advice on economic "reforms" (such as
privatising Syria's water) is another thing as well.
But one thing that Debsisdead has overlooked is the fact that Bashar
al Assad is popular among the Syrian public, who returned him as President
in multi-candidate direct elections held in June 2014 with at least 88%
of the vote (with a turnout of 73%, better than some Western countries)
and who confirmed his popularity in parliamentary elections held in April
2016 with his Ba'ath Party-led coalition winning roughly two-thirds of seats.
The fact that Syrians themselves hold Assad in such high regard must
say something about his leadership that has endeared him to them. If as
Debsisdead suggests, Assad practises self-interested "realpolitik" like
so many other Middle Eastern politicians, even to the extent of offering
reconciliation to jihadis who lay down their weapons and surrender, how
has he managed to survive and how did Syria manage to hold off the jihadis
and US-Turkish intervention and supply before requesting Russian help?
Copeland @58: I don't see why you call the problem "Islamic fundamentalism"
when in fact it is Sunni fundamentalism. Admittedly it's tough to 'name'
the problem. I'm sure I speak for most here that the problem isn't fundamentalism
but 'warring imperialist fundamentalist and misogynist Sunni Islam' that
is the problem.
It'd be nice to have a brief and accurate way of saying
what this is: 'Saudi Arabia violently exporting its worst form of Islam'.
When people refer to Christian fundamentalism they use the broad term
as well. Nothing is otherwise wrong with denominational belief, if past
a certain point it is not fundamentalist. You say the problem is not fundamentalism,
but something else. Indeed, the problem is fundamentalism.
Manifest
Destiny is fundamentalism. There are even atheist fundamentalists. "Full
Spectrum Dominance" and other US Military doctrines are fundamentalist in
nature. We are awash in fundamentalism, consumerist fundamentalism, capitalist
fundamentalism. If we are unlucky and don't succeed in changing the path
we are on; then we will understand too late the inscription that appeared
in the Temple of Apollo: "Nothing too much".
They say that the first casualty of war is truth and from what I read in
comments such a mental state prevails among readers, they see Assad, quite
reasonably, as the only one who can end this horrible war and the only one
who is really interested in doing so while US and even seemingly Russia
seems to treat this conflict as a instrument of global geopolitical struggle
instigated by US imperial delusions.
But of course one cannot escape conclusion that although provoked by
the CIA operation Bashir Assad failed years befor 2011 exactly because,
living in London, did not see neoliberalism as an existential threat ad
his father did but a system that has its benefits and can be dealt with,
so for a short while Saddam, Gaddafi and Mubarak thought while they were
pampered by western elites.
Now Assad is the only choice I'd Syrians want to keep what would resemble
unified Syrian state since nobody else seems to care.
I have no doubt that Assad was little more than a crude Arab strongman/dictator
prince back in the 2011 when the uprising started.
Since then, he has evolved into a committed, engaged defender of his
country against multilateral foreign aggression, willingly leaving his balls
in the vice and all.
He could have fled the sinking ship many times so far. Instead, he decided
to stay and fight the Takfiri river flowing in through the crack, and risk
going down with the ship he inherited. The majority of the Syrians know
this very well.
Bashar of 2016 (not so much the one of 5 1/2 years ago) would not only
win the next free elections, but destroy any opposition. The aggressors
know that as a fact.
Which is precisely why he "must go" prior to any such elections. He would
be invincible.
"This war is about 5 years old. If either side were so simplistically
good or evil it would have ended a long time ago."
Question to you:
if Syria had control over its borders with Turkey, Israel, Jordan and
Iraq would the war have ended a long time ago ? Answer honestly.
If yes, then the so-called "opposition" of the union of headchoppers
does not represent a significant portion of the Syrian people. Were it otherwise
Assad wouldnt be able to survive a single year, let alone 5. With or without
foreign help.
And that, my friend, may be the biggest oft ignored cui bono of the entire
Syrian war.
If Assad goes:
Syria falls apart. Western Golan has no more debtor nation to be returned
to as far as the UN go. It immediately becomes fee simple property of the
occupying entity, for as long as the occupier shall exist (and, with Western
Golan included, that might be a bit longer perchance...).
Hizbullah loses both its best supply line and all the strategic depth
it might have as well as the only ally anywhere close enough to help. It
becomes a military non-entity. Who benefits?
I think this cui bono (and a double one at that!) is a $100 difficulty
level question, although it feels like a $64k one.
Best opinion post I've yet read on this site. "Binary division," also very
much affects the U.S. election. If you hate Hillary, you must just LOVE
Trump, even though many of the best reasons to hate her--her arrogance,
her incompetence, her phoniness, her lies, her and Bill's relentless acquisition
of great wealth, etc.--are also reasons to hate Trump. Assad is a bastard,
Putin is a bastard, Saddam was a bastard--but so are Obama, Netanyahu, Hollande,
etc. Is it REALLY that hard to figure out?
@ 62 john... we'll have to wait for debs to explain how all that (in your
link) adds up, so long as no one calls him any name/s.... i'd like to say
'the anticipation of debs commenting again is killing me', but regardless,
killing innocent people in faraway lands thanks usa foreign policy is ongoing..
OK here is an interesting article from 2011 on Abdallah Dardari, the fellow
who persuaded Bashar al Assad to adopt the disastrous neoliberal economic
reforms that not only ruined Syria's economy and the country's agriculture
in particular but also created an underclass who resented the reforms and
who initially joined the "rebels". http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/2097
And where is Dardari now? He jumped ship in 2011 and went to Beirut to
work for the UN's Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA).
He seems like someone to keep a watchful eye on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Dardari
not even sure where to begin...this article is barely worthy of a random
facebook post and contains a roughly even mix of straw men and stuff most
people already know and don't need dictated to them by random internet folks.
of COURSE assad flirted with the west. between housing cia rendition
houses and the less-than-flattering aspects of the wikileaks "syria files",
assad and/or his handlers (family and/or military) have tried a little too
hard to "assimilate" to western ideals (or the lack thereof).
i seriously
doubt they will make that mistake again. they saw what happened to al-qaddafi
after he tried to play nice and mistook western politicians for human beings.
they've learned their lesson and become more ruthless but they were always
machiavellians because they have to be. not an endorsement, just an acceptance
of how the region is.
and then there's "just about every ME leader has put expedience ahead
of principle with regard to Palestine. Colonel Ghadaffi would be the only
leader I'm aware of who didn't". that might be a surprise to nasrallah and
a fair share of iran's power base. i'd also say "expedience" is an odd way
to describe the simple choice of avoiding israeli/saudi/US aggression in
the short term since the alternative would be what we're seeing in syria
and libya as we speak. again, not an endorsment of their relative cowardice.
just saying i understand the urge to avoid salfist proxy wars.
[also: israel, the saudis (along with qatar and the other GCC psychopaths
in supporting capacity) and the US are the main actors and throwing european
"powers" into the circle of actual power does them an undue favor by ignoring
their status as pathetic vassal states. "FrUkDeUSZiowhatever" isn't necessary.]
as for "calling all islamic fundamentalism" "headchopping" being "racist",
be sure not to smoke around all those straw men. never mind the inanity
of pretending that all islamic "fundamentalism" is the same. never mind
conflating religion with ethnicity. outside of typical western sites that
lean to the right and are open about it few people would say anything like
that. maybe you meant to post this on glenn beck's site?
whatever. hopefully there won't be more guest posts in the future.
I read this site regularly and give thanks to the numerous intelligent posters
who share their knowledge of the middle east and Syria in particular. Still,
I do try to read alternative views to understand opposition perspectives
no matter how biased or damaging these might they appear to the readers
of this blog. So in the wake of recent agreements, I try find out what the
mainstream media is saying about the Ahrar al-Sham refusal to recognize
the US/Russia sponsored peace plan....and type that into google.......and
crickets. All that comes up is a single Al-Masdar report.
Look I know the
MSM is utterly controlled - but the extent of that control still shocks
at times. It is simply not possible to be "informed" by any normal definition
of the word anymore without the alternative media - and for that reason
this site serves a valuable purpose and I once again thank the host and
contributors.
The irony is, Assad is 10x smarter and bigger person than Debs. Yes, he
made some mistakes, but if not "flirting with neoliberalism", war against
Syria would have started many years earlier, when Resistance wasnt ready
one bit (neither Russia, nor Iran, while on the other hand US was more powerful).
The other ironic point, Debs is guilty of many things he blames other
for, hence comments about his hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness.
The essay I refered to earlier at 45/46 from this site I'll post below.
I think it has a lot of bearing on what DiD is implying here. It's DEFINITELY
worth a read and is probably the reason why I started appreciating this
site in the first place.
Support for rebel groups was misguided at best at the beginning of the
war. One could conceivably not appreciate the capacity of the KSA/USA/Quatar/Israel
to influence and control and create these groups. Jesus it's hard for me
to think of a single local opposition group that isnt drenched in fanaticism
besides the Kurds. But now that we understand the makeup and texture of
these groups much more and to continue support, even just in the most minor
of ways, is really disheartening.
There's no way to a solution for the Syrian
people, the population not imported that is, if these groups win. I hate
to be so binary but its so naive in my eyes to think anything good will
come from the long arm of the gulf countries and the USA taking control.
WORTH A READ. ONE OF THE BEST THINGS EVER POSTED ON MoA.
Richard Steven Hack | Sep 13, 2016 3:38:32 AM |
79
The problem with this post is simple: all this might have been true back
when the insurgency STARTED. TODAY it is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT.
As I've said repeatedly, the GOAL of the Syria crisis for the Western
elites, Israel and the ME dictatorships is to take Syria OUT by any means
necessary in order to get to IRAN. Nothing else matters to these people.
In the same vein, nothing else matters to ninety percent of the CURRENT
insurgents than to establish some Salafist state, exterminate the Shia,
etc., etc.
So, yes, right NOW the whole story is about US elites, Zionist "evil",
corrupt monarchs, and scumbag fanatics, etc., etc. Until THAT is resolved,
nothing about how Syria is being run is going to matter.
I don't know and have never read ANYONE who is a serious commenter on
this issue - and by that I mean NOT the trolls that infest every comment
thread on every blog - who seriously thinks Assad is a "decent ruler". At
this point it does not matter. He personally does not matter. What matters
is that Syria is not destroyed, so that Hizballah is not destroyed, so that
Iran is not destroyed, so that Israel rules a fragmented Middle East and
eventually destroys the Palestinians and that the US gets all the oil for
free. This is what Russia is trying to defend, not Assad.
And if this leaves a certain percentage of Syrian citizens screwed over
by Assad, well, they should have figured that out as much as Assad should
have figured out that he never should have tried to get along with the US.
Frankly, this is a pointless post which is WAY out of date.
Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Sep 13, 2016 3:38:32 AM | 79
In the same vein, nothing else matters to ninety percent of the CURRENT
insurgents than to establish some Salafist state, exterminate the Shia,
etc., etc.
"We had to be fighters," he said, "because we didn't find any other
job. If you want to stay inside you need to be a part of the FSA [Free
Syrian Army, the group that has closest relations with the West]. Everything
is very expensive. They pay us $100 a month but it is not enough.
"All this war is a lie. We had good lives before the revolution.
Anyway this is not a revolution. They lied to us in the name of religion.
"I don't want to go on fighting but I need to find a job, a house.
Everything I have is here in Muadhamiya."
...
.. who seriously thinks Assad is a "decent ruler". At this point it does
not matter. He personally does not matter.
...
Frankly, this is a pointless post which is WAY out of date.
Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Sep 13, 2016 3:38:32 AM | 79
Well, according to RSH, who specialises in being wrong...
Assad does matter because he is the ELECTED leader chosen by the People
of Syria in MORE THAN ONE election.
Did you forget?
Did you not know?
Or doesn't any of that "democracy" stuff matter either?
Israel said its aircraft attacked a Syrian army position on Tuesday after
a stray mortar bomb struck the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights, and it
denied a Syrian statement that a warplane and drone were shot down.
The air strike was a now-routine Israeli response to the occasional spillover
from fighting in a five-year-old civil war, and across Syria a ceasefire
was holding at the start of its second day.
Syria's army command said in a statement that Israeli warplanes had attacked
an army position at 1 a.m. on Tuesday (2200 GMT, Monday) in the countryside
of Quneitra province.
The Israeli military said its aircraft attacked targets in Syria hours
after the mortar bomb from fighting among factions in Syria struck the Golan
Heights. Israel captured the plateau from Syria in a 1967 war.
The Syrian army said it had shot down an Israeli warplane and a drone
after the Israeli attack.
Denying any of its aircraft had been lost, the Israeli military said
in a statement: "Overnight two surface-to-air missiles were launched from
Syria after the mission to target Syrian artillery positions. At no point
was the safety of (Israeli) aircraft compromised."
The seven-day truce in Syria, brokered by Russia and the United States,
is their second attempt this year by to halt the bloodshed.
Copeland @60: No, I don't think the problem is fundamentalism. It's the
warring crusade method of spreading a belief's 'empire' that is the problem.
This is a problem uniquely of the Saudi 'do whatever it takes' crusade to
convert the entire 'Arab and Muslim world' to their worst, most misogynist
form of Islam. T
here are of course many fundamentalists (the Amish and some
Mennonites are examples from Christianity) that are not evangelical, or
put severe (no violence, no manipulation, no kidnapping, stop pushing if
the person says 'no') limits on their evangelism.
Only the Saudis, or pushers
of their version of Islam, seem to put no limits at all on their sect's
crusade.
Just want to mention that from the beginning there were people who took
up arms against the government. This is why the situation went out of control.
People ambushed groups of young soldiers. Snipers of unknown origin fired
on police and civilians.
There are plenty of people in the United States right now who are just
as oppressed - I would wager more so - than anyone in Syria. Immigrants
from the south are treated horribly here. There are still black enclaves
in large cities where young men are shot by the police on a daily basis
for suspicious behavior and minor driving infractions. And then there are
the disenfranchised white folks in the Teaparty who belong to the NRA and
insist on 'open carry' of their weapons on the street and train in the back
woods for a coming war. Tell me what would happen if there were a guarantor
these people found believable who promised them that if they took up arms
against the government (and anyone else in the country they felt threatened
by) they would be guaranteed to win and become the government of a 'New
America'. What if that foreign guarantor were to pay them and improve their
armaments while providing political cover.
I rather like Assad. I won't lie. But, he is not the reason for the insurrection
in Syria ~ well, except for his alliances with Russia and Iran and his pipeline
decisions and his support for Palestinian and Iraqi refugees. What happened
in Syria is happening all over the globe because the nation with the most
resources in the world, the self-declared exceptionalist state thinks this
is the way to rule the world. . . . because they want to rule and they don't
care how much destruction it takes to do so. And lucky for us there is no
one big enough and bad enough to do it to us - except for our own government.
"All of the petrodollars Saudi Arabia spends to advance this claim of
leadership and the monopolistic use of Islam's greatest holy sites to manufacture
a claim of entitlement to Muslim leadership were shattered by this collective
revolt from leading Sunni Muslim scholars and institutions who refused to
allow extremism, takfir, and terror ideology to be legitimized in their
name by a fringe they decided that it is even not part of their community.
This is the beginning of a new era of Muslim awakening the Wahhabis spared
no efforts and no precious resources to ensure it will never arrive."
Assad (=> group in power), whose stated aim was to pass from a 'socialist'
to a 'market' economy. Notes.
*decreased public sector employment.* -- was about 30%, went far
lower (1) - was a staple: one 'smart' graduate in the family guaranteed
a good Gvmt job, could support many.
*cut subsidies* (energy, water, housing, food, etc.) drought (2005>)
plus these moves threw millions into cities with no jobs.. pre-drought
about 20% agri empl. cuts to agri subsidies created the most disruption.
…imho was spurred by the sharply declining oil revenues (peak oil..)
which accounted for ?, 15% GDP in 2002 for ex to a few slim points edging
to nil in 2012, consequences:
> a. unemployment rose 'n rose (to 35-40% youth? xyz overall?), and social
stability was affected by family/extended f/ district etc. organisation
being smashed. education health care in poor regions suffered (2)
> b. small biz of various types went under becos loss of subs, competition
from outsiders (free market policy), lack of bank loans it is said by some
but idk, and loss of clients as these became impoverished. Syria does not
have a national (afaik) unemployment scheme. Assad to his credit
set up a cash-transfer thingie to poor families, but that is not a subsitute
for 'growing employment..'
*opened up the country's banking system* (can't treat the details..)
So Assad was hit by a Tri-horror: global warming, dwindling cash
FF resources, and IMF-type pressure, leaving out the trad. enemies, KSA,
pipelines , etc. MSM prefer to cover up serious issues with 'ethnic strife'
(sunni, shia, black lives matter, etc.)
1. all nos off the top of my head.
2. Acceptance of a massive refugee pop. (Pals in the past, Kurds, but
numerically important now, Iraqis) plus the high birth rate
2011> 10 year plan syria in arabic (which i can't read) but look at images
and 'supporters' etc.
"... I think the key difference between successful politicians and business people is patience. When you look at the careers of successful politicians, you can often see many years of pure relentless grind going into a few years of glory in a senior position. Endless committee meetings, rubber chicken dinners, being nice to people you loath, the inevitable humiliation of losing elections. Most business leaders simply lose patience after a few years after they go into politics. ..."
"... "The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it." ..."
"... Neoclassical economics hid the work of the Classical Economists and the difference between "earned" and "unearned" income. ..."
"... Once you hide this it is easy to make it look as though the interests of business and the wealthy are the same. ..."
"... There should not really be any tax on "earned" income, all tax should fall on "unearned" income to subside the productive side of the economy with low cost housing and services. ..."
"... "The Labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to the maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by his extractions from the industrious merchant and the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his money. But every savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no landlords, no usurers and no tax gatherers." ..."
"... Adam Smith saw landlords, usurers (bankers) and Government taxes as equally parasitic, all raising the cost of doing business. ..."
"... "…who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it." Adam Smith just described the modern Republican Party and movement Conservatives. ..."
"... The children of the US elite were the storm troopers of this ideology and they headed out from their elite US universities to bring this new ideology to developing nations. ..."
"... "The Chicago Boys" headed out from the University of Chicago to bring the new way to South American nations and "The Berkley Mafia" headed out from the University of Berkeley, California to bring the new way to Indonesia ..."
"... Any means were deemed acceptable to implement the one true solution and the new ideology, e.g. torture, terror, death squads, snatching people off the streets and making them disappear permanently. Any left wing resistance had to be quashed by whatever means necessary ..."
"... Their revolutions always massively increased inequality, a few at the top became fabulously wealthy and extreme and widespread poverty became prevalent at the bottom. Mixing with the people at the top, the elite US storm troopers deemed their revolutions a huge success. This ideology was ready to roll out across the world. ..."
"... Under this new ideology, the UK dream is to emulate the idle, rich rentier with a BTL portfolio, living off "unearned" income extracted from the "earned" income of generation rent, whilst doing as little as possible and enjoying a life of luxury and leisure. ..."
"... Obfuscating the relationship between free markets and the role of government is coming to an end. So much failure and misdirection cannot hide forever. The cognitive dissonance set up in society is unsustainable- people don't like to feel or experience crazy. ..."
"... Markets are stronger and healthier when backed by functioning government. Defining what good government is and demanding it is required today. That is the revolutionary force, finally turning back the negative campaign against government and demanding good government- fighting for it. ..."
"... "Enoch Powell…once remarked that all political lives end in failure. It is also true of most business leaders." But that is also what they say about love. No good end can come of it. ..."
"... This bit of convenient fiction caught my eye: "Political leaders must also manage for the entire population rather than the narrow interest of investors." ..."
"... Perhaps political leaders should do this but, as has been recently shown, there is no basis in reality that this is any kind of requirement (as in "must"). ..."
"... Perhaps his use of "must" in this case is talking about the intrinsic requirement. In other words, even if they are managing negatively for some and positively for others, they are managing for all. ..."
Electorates believe that business leaders are qualified for and likely to
be effective in politics. Yet, with some notable exceptions, business people
have rarely had successful political careers.
The assumption is that corporate vision, leadership skills, administrative
skills and a proven record of wealth creation will translate into political
success. It presupposes personal qualities such drive, ambition and ruthlessness.
The allure is also grounded in the romantic belief that outsiders can fix all
that is wrong with the political process. The faith is misplaced.
First, the required skills are different.
Successful business leaders generally serve a technical apprenticeship in
the business, industry or a related profession giving them familiarity with
the firm's activities. Political success requires party fealty, calculating
partisanship, managing coalitions and networking. It requires a capacity to
engage in the retail electoral process, such as inspirational public speaking
and an easy familiarity with voters in a wide variety of settings. It requires
formidable powers of fund raising to finance campaigns. Where individuals shift
from business to politics in mid or later life, he or she is at a significant
disadvantage to career political operatives who have had years to build the
necessary relationships and organisation to support political aspirations.
Second, the scope of the task is different. A nation is typically larger
than a business. The range of issues is broader, encompassing economics, finance,
welfare, health, social policy as well as defence and international relations.
Few chief executives will, during a single day, have to consider budgetary or
economic issues, health policy, gender matters, privacy concerns, manage involvement
in a foreign conflict in between meeting and greeting a range of visitors varying
from schoolchildren to foreign dignitaries as well as attending to party political
matters.
Political leaders must also manage for the entire population rather than
the narrow interest of investors. They must take into account the effect of
decisions on a wide range of constituencies including many implacably opposed
to their positions.
Third, business objectives, such as profit maximisation, are narrow, well
defined and constant. Political objectives are amorphous and ideological. The
emphasis is on living standards, security and social justice. Priorities between
conflicting objectives shift constantly. The benefits of decisions by governments
in infrastructure, education and welfare are frequently difficult to measure
and frequently will not emerge for a long time.
Business decisions rarely focus on the societal impact. Firms can reduce
workforce, shift production overseas, seek subsidies or legally minimise taxes.
Politicians must deal with the side effects of individual profit maximisation
decisions such as closed factories, reduced employment, welfare and retraining
costs, security implications as well as social breakdown and inequality or exclusion.
Fourth, the operating environment is different. Businesses usually operate
within relatively defined product-market structures. In contrast, governments
operate in a complex environment shaped by domestic and foreign factors, many
of which they do not control or influence. Government actions require co-operation
across different layers of government or countries. Businesses can withdraw
from certain activities, while government do not have the same option.
Fifth, within boundaries set by laws and regulations, business leaders enjoy
great freedom and power to implement their policies. Boards of directors and
shareholders exercise limited control, usually setting broad financial parameters.
They do not intervene in individual decisions. Most important government actions
require legislative or parliamentary support. Unlike commercial operations,
government face restrictions, such as separation of powers, restraints on executive
or governmental action and international obligations.
Business leaders have unrivalled authority over their organisation based
on threats (termination) or rewards (remuneration or promotion). Political leaders
cannot fire legislators. They face significant barriers in rewarding or replacing
public servants. Policy implementation requires negotiations and consensus.
It requires overcoming opposition from opposing politicians, factions within
one's own party, supporters, funders and the bureaucracy. It requires overcoming
passively resistance from legislators and public servants who can simply outlast
the current incumbent, whose tenure is likely to be shorter than their own.
The lack of clear goals, unrivalled authority and multiple and shifting power
centres means that political power is more limited than assumed Many Presidents
of the United States, regarded as the most powerful position on earth, have
found that they had little ability to implement their agendas.
Sixth, unless they choose to be, business leaders are rarely public figures
outside business circles. Politicians cannot avoid constant public attention.
Modern political debate and discourse has become increasingly tabloid in tone,
with unprecedented levels of invective and ridicule. There is no separation
of the public and the personal. Business leaders frequently find the focus on
personal matters as well as the tone of criticism discomforting.
There are commonalities. Both fields attract a particular type of individual.
In addition, paraphrasing John Ruskin, successful political and business leaders
not only know what must be done but actually do what must be done and do it
when it must be done. A further commonality is the ultimate fate of leaders
generally. Enoch Powell, himself a long-serving Member of the British Parliament,
once remarked that all political lives end in failure. It is also true of most
business leaders.
I think the key difference between successful politicians and business
people is patience. When you look at the careers of successful politicians,
you can often see many years of pure relentless grind going into a few years
of glory in a senior position. Endless committee meetings, rubber chicken
dinners, being nice to people you loath, the inevitable humiliation of losing
elections. Most business leaders simply lose patience after a few years
after they go into politics.
Much the same seems to apply to military leaders, although off the top
of my head I can think of more successful examples of the latter than of
business people (Eisenhower and De Gaulle come to mind). Berlusconi comes
to mind as a 'successful' politician and businessman, but then Italy does
seem to be an outlier in some respects.
One key difference I think between 'good' politicians and 'good' businesspeople
is in making decisions. Good businesspeople are decisive. Good politicians
never make a decision until they absolutely have to.
This is clearly a consequence of 'The government is like a household'
misinformation campaign, which I think is really conceptualized as 'government
is like a small business.' So why not get a businessman to run the thing?
Interesting point. It also comes out of 30+ years of demonization of
government as being less well run than business, when IMHO the problems
of government are 1. the result of scale (think of how well run GM and Citigroup
were in the mid 200s…and both are better now that they have downsized and
shaped up) and 2. inevitable given that you do not want government employees
making stuff as they go, i.e., overruling the legislature and courts. The
latter point is that some rigidity is part of how government works, and
it's necessary to protect citizens.
Adam Smith on the businessmen you shouldn't trust:
"The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes
from this order ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and
ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined,
not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention.
It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with
that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to
oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both
deceived and oppressed it."
What they knew in the 18th century, we have forgotten today, but nothing
has changed.
Neoclassical economics hid the work of the Classical Economists and the
difference between "earned" and "unearned" income.
Once you hide this it is easy to make it look as though the interests
of business and the wealthy are the same.
We lowered taxes on the wealthy to remove free and subsidised services
for those at the bottom. These costs now have to be covered by business through wages. All known and thoroughly studied in the 18th and 19th Centuries, they
even came up with solutions.
There should not really be any tax on "earned" income, all tax should
fall on "unearned" income to subside the productive side of the economy
with low cost housing and services.
This allows lower wages and an internationally competitive economy.
Adam Smith:
"The Labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed
to the maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained
in idleness and luxury by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is
supported by his extractions from the industrious merchant and the needy
who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his money.
But every savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no landlords,
no usurers and no tax gatherers."
Adam Smith saw landlords, usurers (bankers) and Government taxes as equally
parasitic, all raising the cost of doing business.
He sees the lazy people at the top living off "unearned" income from
their land and capital.
He sees the trickle up of Capitalism:
1) Those with excess capital collect rent and interest.
2) Those with insufficient capital pay rent and interest.
He differentiates between "earned" and "unearned" income.
The UK dream is to emulate the idle, rich rentier with a BTL portfolio,
living off "unearned" income extracted from the "earned" income of generation
rent, whilst doing as little as possible and enjoying a life of luxury and
leisure.
"…who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public,
and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed
it." Adam Smith just described the modern Republican Party and movement Conservatives.
We have seen left wing revolutions before; we are now dealing with a
right wing revolution.
Left wing revolutions usually involve much violence and eventually lead
to tyranny, as any means are deemed acceptable to implement the one true
solution and the new ideology. Pol Pot was the most extreme example where
he decided to return to year zero by wiping out the bourgeoisie in Cambodia.
When the dust has settled the revolution just leads to a new elite who maintain
their ideology with force and brutality.
When Francis Fukuyama talked of the end of history, a new year zero was
envisaged, this one based on a right wing ideology. A right wing revolution
that could take place globally and was not confined to individual nations
like left wing revolutions.
Its theories had already been tested in South America and Indonesia where
extreme brutality was employed to implement their one true solution and
the new ideology. The children of the US elite were the storm troopers of
this ideology and they headed out from their elite US universities to bring
this new ideology to developing nations.
"The Chicago Boys" headed out from
the University of Chicago to bring the new way to South American nations
and "The Berkley Mafia" headed out from the University of Berkeley, California
to bring the new way to Indonesia.
Any means were deemed acceptable to implement the one true solution and
the new ideology, e.g. torture, terror, death squads, snatching people off
the streets and making them disappear permanently. Any left wing resistance
had to be quashed by whatever means necessary.
Their revolutions always massively increased inequality, a few at the
top became fabulously wealthy and extreme and widespread poverty became
prevalent at the bottom. Mixing with the people at the top, the elite US
storm troopers deemed their revolutions a huge success. This ideology was
ready to roll out across the world.
Under this new ideology, the UK dream is to emulate the idle, rich rentier
with a BTL portfolio, living off "unearned" income extracted from the "earned"
income of generation rent, whilst doing as little as possible and enjoying
a life of luxury and leisure.
Obfuscating the relationship between free markets and the role of government
is coming to an end. So much failure and misdirection cannot hide forever.
The cognitive dissonance set up in society is unsustainable- people don't
like to feel or experience crazy.
Markets are stronger and healthier when backed by functioning government.
Defining what good government is and demanding it is required today. That
is the revolutionary force, finally turning back the negative campaign against
government and demanding good government- fighting for it.
Fighting fraud and corruption follows these same lines. Reading about
the various forms of fraud and corruption here at NC daily provides the
framework to address the problem. The real work begins convincing fellow
citizens to not accept the criminality- the new normal. It is sometimes
distressing seeing the reaction of fellow citizens to these crimes not as
outrage, but more along the lines of begrudging admiration for the criminals.
The subtile conditioning of the population to accept criminality needs a
countervailing force.
Modern mass media projects a false picture of the world. The meme they
push is that violence and corruption are so pervasive in the world, vast
resources must be expended addressing the problem, and when these efforts
fail, settle for apathy and avoidance. The creation of the Businessman/Politician
is the perfect vehicle to move this agenda forward.
Politics controlling and driving business decisions must be reestablished,
not the other way around- business driving politics and society. That truly
is the distinction between authoritarianism and democracy. Small authoritarians
are tolerable in society- large ones not so much.
Bang on. Especially being a political leader in a democracy is too tough
and I am surprised that people want the job given the landmine they have
to navigate and the compromises you have to make on a daily basis. Similarity
is closest when you compare a benevolent dictator and a successful businessman,
something like how Lee Kuan Yew ran Singapore.
"Enoch Powell…once remarked that all political lives end in failure.
It is also true of most business leaders." But that is also what they say
about love. No good end can come of it.
There is a mistaken assumption here that business people are responsible
for their own or their organization's success. Or even that they're qualified
as business people. The higher up the business ladder you go, the more it
is other people making the important decisions, even deciding what you think,
do and say.
In this way it's similar to politics. It's likely that neither the successful
business person nor the politician is qualified for their roles, that nobody
can be. Also their roles are essentially to be authorities, and likewise
nobody is truly qualified nor has the justification or legitimacy for authority.
This bit of convenient fiction caught my eye: "Political leaders must also manage for the entire population rather
than the narrow interest of investors."
Perhaps political leaders should do this but, as has been recently shown,
there is no basis in reality that this is any kind of requirement (as in
"must").
Perhaps his use of "must" in this case is talking about the intrinsic
requirement. In other words, even if they are managing negatively for some
and positively for others, they are managing for all.
"...a full 95% of the cash that went to Greece ran a trip through Greece
and went straight back to creditors which in plain English is banks. So,
public taxpayers money was pushed through Greece to basically bail out banks...So
austerity becomes a side effect of a general policy of bank bailouts that
nobody wants to own. That's really what happened, ok?
Why are we peddling nonsense? Nobody wants to own up to a gigantic bailout
of the entire European banking system that took six years. Austerity was
a cover.
If the EU at the end of the day and the Euro is not actually improving
the lives of the majority of the people, what is it for? That's the question
that they've brought no answer to.
...the Hamptons is not a defensible position. The Hamptons is a very
rich area on Long Island that lies on low lying beaches. Very hard to defend
a low lying beach. Eventually people are going to come for you.
What's clear is that every social democratic party in Europe needs to
find a new reason to exist. Because as I said earlier over the past 20 years
they have sold their core constituency down the line for a bunch of floaters
in the middle who don't protect them or really don't particularly care for
them. Because the only offers on the agenda are basically austerity and
tax cuts for those who already have, versus austerity, apologies, and a
minimum wage."
Mark Blyth
Although I may not agree with every particular that Mark Blyth may say, directionally
he is exactly correct in diagnosing the problems in Europe.
And yes, I am aware that the subtitles are at times in error, and sometimes
outrageously so. Many of the errors were picked up and corrected in the comments.
No stimulus, no plans, no official actions, no monetary theories can be sustainably
effective in revitalizing an economy that is as bent as these have become without
serious reform at the first.
This was the lesson that was given by Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. There
will be no lasting recovery without it; it is a sine qua non . One cannot
turn their economy around when the political and business structures are systemically
corrupt, and the elites are preoccupied with looting it, and hiding their spoils
offshore.
"... Like Greece is finding out now, if you have to import virtually all your energy and can't export high energy finished products like Germany and Japan, then you are in trouble. ..."
"... Except the problem we have today is NOT Capitalism. Far from it in fact! We are in Neo-Corporatism and have left Capitalism in the past! ..."
"... Conventional oil peaked in 2005. Well, okay, effectively plateaued. We'll probably see the ultimate peak this year. We haven't reached peak debt…yet. What happens when we reach peak energy and peak debt? What happens when we reach Peak Everything? ..."
"... 40 years ago the Limits to Growth study was published, based on a systems dynamics model of the world's population, economic production, resources and pollution, and how they would interact. It forecast the sort of trouble we are now seeing, and its "business-as-usual" scenario predicted system collapse in the mid-21st Century. Governments and society leaders should have taken note back then, but they didn't, and their behaviour shows how poorly "capitalism" does rise to the challenge of global problems - it obfuscates, it denies, it defers, and it goes on doing its own thing regardless in the face of all evidence that it is on a path to destruction. Now we are left with a world that is consuming the equivalent of one and a half planets a year, and still, many are in denial. ..."
"... It sounds hopeful that economists are questioning the assumptions of neoliberalism, but if, as I suggested, the real change is less ideological and more to do with elites preferring to be elite even if in poorly functioning economies and dysfunctional societies, these criticisms may be ignored. Anyway, if we get Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders, perhaps then we'll see! But it's up to everyone to keep making and refining the arguments, and to get them across. I think even the most indoctrinated people can change their views very quickly when they encounter good sense. ..."
Spectacularly woolly waffle, much like the Gladwell, but its information
value -- if I were pressed to put a price on it -- is that it provides a
certain kind of gentleman with late-night bar talk who would otherwise have
nothing at all to say for himself, or go on about chaos theory. That's got
to be a few quid.
Eduardo Martinez -> JezJez 20 Jul 2015 05:55
You are correct, Capitalism is more efficient than all the other 'isms'
in maximising resource and energy extraction. Unfortunately fossil energy
is a finite, as we are going to find out shortly. Castles made in sand ......
Eduardo Martinez -> denise2933 20 Jul 2015 05:36
You got it in one, even though your comment was intended to be sarcastic.
The UK will not support a population of 64 million without fossil energy.
North Sea oil extraction peaked in 2000, World conventional oil extraction
plateaued in 2006. These are facts not opinion.
Like Greece is finding out now, if you have to import virtually all your
energy and can't export high energy finished products like Germany and Japan,
then you are in trouble. You can no longer afford a first world standard
of living.
REALITY is such a bitch.
schauffler -> NadiaJohanisova 20 Jul 2015 05:32
This is an excellent response to what looks like, unfortunately, another
boosterish celebration of the "liberating" qualities of a technological
regime which is produced by, and dependent upon, the most aggressive, concentrated
and uncontrollable form of capitalism pure and simple. The endless iteration
of the word "information", as if this denoted something uniform, powerful,
desirable or even identifiable, suggests that the author has only a sketchy
idea even of his own theory, nor does he deign to discuss -- in the excerpt
printed above -- the mechanics of the concentration of capital and the dynamics
of perpetual accumulation. As Ms. Johanisova rightly points out, there is
no mention made of the gigantic forces manifest in the production and distribution
of our information networks and the (ever-increasing) amounts of energy
they require to be sustained. Nor are we given any clear idea how "information"
will liberate us from dependence on these forces. Does the author think
that Samsung, Exxonmobil, Unilever, Maersk Sealand and Koch Industries will
somehow be replaced by global co-ops that eschew profit?
malachimalagrowther -> Urgelt 20 Jul 2015 04:52
This was a sane, well-informed and percipient comment. "I have seen the
future, and it is bleak." If the past is any guide, the current accumulation
of everything in the hands of a very few will be solved neither by information
nor wishing it. The inequalities of, for example, the Belle Epoque, were
reduced only by war. That is hardly to be wished for, hardly to be avoided
anyway. We cannot count on a peaceful extrapolation of trends.
NadiaJohanisova 20 Jul 2015 04:44
I would agree with the main thrust of the argument: that one way out
of the current system (or part of it) is via localised and democratically
governed systems of mutual support, services and production. I like some
of the insights (eg austerity as the first step of the race to the bottom)and
feel close to the general values espoused b the author. But I am worried
about the authors´s linear Eurocentric evolutionary model of the world,
his over-emphasis on technology as driving this change,his naive view of
information technology as costless and without power-imbalances and most
of all his ignorance of environmental aspects and dimensions of what he
discusses.
"Postcapitalism" - Paul Mason should perhaps acknowledge that he has
not coined this term (see eg the book JK Gibson-Graham: A post capitalist
politics.).
"The red flags and marching songs of Syriza during the Greek crisis, plus
the expectation that the banks would be nationalised, revived briefly a
20th-century dream: the forced destruction of the market from above." The
article is Northern-Europe-centered. As far as I know the revolutionary
ideals are still very much alive in may parts of the world incl. Southern
Europe. Also, it is I think counter-productive to delete government policies
from the equation of whatever needs to be done to reach sustainable and
equitable societies. The capitalist machine, the growth imperative, the
race to the bottom will not go away if we stick our hands in the sand. Nb.
Nationalising banks does not = destruction of market.
"Postcapitalism is possible because of three major changes information
technology has brought about in the past 25 years. First, it has reduced
the need for work, blurred the edges between work and free time and loosened
the relationship between work and wages. The coming wave of automation,
currently stalled because our social infrastructure cannot bear the consequences,
will hugely diminish the amount of work needed – not just to subsist but
to provide a decent life for all". I am not sure of this. It has changed
the character of work, contributed to the race to the bottom and while many
are unemployed, many are working harder than ever du to the growing power
of capital to relocate and thus weaken any legislation . The relationship
between work and wages has always been loose (as eg Petr Jehlička has been
pointing out in his papers). The idea that we will need no more work is
based on not integrating environmental issues into the picture. Like André
Gorz in the 1970s, the author does not realise that automation is built
on fossil fuels, with all the accompanying problems (global warming, oil
peak, imbalance between losers and winners of the race for the last fossil
fuels remaining (Alaska, Amazonia...fracking...). Even information technology
rests on high energy consumption and large electronic servers made from
"stuff".
"The biggest information product in the world – Wikipedia – is made by
volunteers for free." But it does not operate for free, it is supported
by volunteer donations. The problem also is that these volunteers are still
dependent on jobs in presumably capitalist enterprises. This is why it is
so important for the new "commons" and "peer production" to link up with
the old "cooperative movement" to create real livelihoods for these people.
I have an interesting report on this from a conference in 2014 where they
actually did try to link up.
"Yet information is abundant. Information goods are freely replicable.
Once a thing is made, it can be copied/pasted infinitely. A music track
or the giant database you use to build an airliner has a production cost;
but its cost of reproduction falls towards zero. Therefore, if the normal
price mechanism of capitalism prevails over time, its price will fall towards
zero, too....We are surrounded by machines that cost nothing and could,
if we wanted them to, last forever." I am worried that this is the old Western
economic sin of discounting the "material" again: old wine in new bottles.
Information can reproduce indefinitely, true. But all clicking on the internet,
all playing of tunes via computer etc. has a material/energy cost: production
costs of producing the computers, i-pads, mobiles etc. plus the giant servers,
energy costs of operating them, cost to the earth of the waste. Tin, tungstam,
tantalum for mobiles are mined forcibly by near-slaves in Easten Congo in
militia-held territory, illustrating a wider and deeper issue of North-South
imbalance.
"There are, of course, the parallel and urgent tasks of decarbonising
the world and dealing with demographic and fiscal timebombs." This cannot
be done - and thought - "in parallell": Unfortunately (because it is so
difficult), the task is to synthesise our insights from all these spheres
of we want to build a credible utopia. Environmental issues and "trashing
the earth" cannot be relegated to a footnote.
Arthur Robey -> Harry Callahan 20 Jul 2015 01:55
Thank you for your reply Harry, your position is becoming clearer to
me.
I am of the opinion that there can never be enough per capita wealth.
If we drive this argument to extremes then everyone born will have everything
they want and never have to lift a finger. What then the wonders of Calvinistic
industry?
I see that you expound the virtues of the lessons of history. But that
is precisely what is being argued against. Our predicament has no precedent.
History can teach us nothing about the way forward from here. Life sets
the exam and then produces the lesson.
An infinitely expanding economy on a finite planet is a mathematical
impossibly. Therefore the problem becomes "How many doublings of the economy
are enough? " Because any constantly growing function will have a doubling
time. If this is not clear to you, may I recommend Professor Bartlett's
excellent youtube video on exponential growth and it's inevitable consequences.
The only satisfactory solution to a problem of infinities are other infinities.
I won't insult your intelligence by spelling out the obvious conclusion.
The results are so clear and so improbable that the only way to convince
you will be to allow you to find them for yourself.
And it requires no redistribution of whatever passes for wealth on this
poor benighted planet at this moment in time.
Deanna St oriflamme 20 Jul 2015 01:39
"To produce people's control over information, you have to have extremely
well-informed and well-educated people, motivated by something more than
their own isolated or tribal immediate gratification."
Like Julian Assange you mean?
I agree, most of the comments above state clearly that lots of people
read the article so superficially and instantly felt compelled to rewrite-it
in their comments almost as long as Mason's without even reflecting at it
one moment longer
You don't sound "uneducated, mindless, self-gratifying, isolated narcissists,
overwhelmed by corporate-managed information who, when not simply pressing
buttons for gratification, take out the failure of videogames and the like
to gratify them on others by committing random acts of self-immortalizing
violence" so are you sure this is what is happening...? :)
Because during the Crusades the people you describe existed already (minus
the buttons and the videogames)
John Muthukat 20 Jul 2015 01:32
WE ARE ENTERING THE POST-INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY
What we are witnessing is not just the beginning of the end of capitalism,
but the beginning of the end of Industrial Civilization itself. From many
unmistakable omens, it can surely be concluded that industrial civilisation
is headed for irreversible collapse; the latest Greek crisis is only just
an overflowing syndrome.
Today there is a deep groundswell towards a strong and cynic awareness
that the world is fast heading towards a no-win-situation from which it
simply has no escape. Many see it as having already started the end without
even knowing it. It is on account of a number of symptoms, not just one.
They seem to convey the message that the world is un-savable, and that the
worst is yet to come. The top votaries on these lines of thinking constitute
the top corporate technocrats among others. It is only that they consider
it as an open secret and an opportunity to plunder the 'sinking ship', as
is evident from the desperate bailout operations by an already bankrupt
global economy.
Recently a new study has concluded that industrial civilisation is headed
for irreversible collapse? According to a report in The Guardian dated 14
March, 2014, a new study partly sponsored by NASA-funded Goddard Space Flight
Center has highlighted the prospect that global industrial civilisation
could collapse in coming decades due to unsustainable resource exploitation
and increasingly unequal wealth distribution. The study finds that according
to the historical record even advanced, complex civilizations are susceptible
to collapse, raising questions about the sustainability of modern civilisation.
For more on this, please read the essay: The Birth Of Machine And The
Death Of Man: http://www.humanfirst.in/
Urgelt 20 Jul 2015 00:24
A comment cannot be an article, so with that restriction understood,
I'll try to keep my remarks relatively brief.
The author misses a few very important points.
1. Information can be fenced, and it is being fenced. While this fencing
runs counter to a human impulse to share ideas freely, it can be enforced.
With guns. And it is being enforced. With guns. In other words, we see not
only wealth concentration, but rising information concentration and control,
as with increasingly draconian intellectual property regimes and enforcement,
national security apparatuses, and criminalizing the possession of information
which 'authorities' may possess, but not citizens. Did I mention that the
defenders of the status quo have guns? Big ones.
2. Endlessly rising productivity due to advancing technology is driving
wealth concentration on a scale never before seen. Jobs, the primary mechanism
under capitalism for distributing wealth downward, are increasingly impotent
to perform that task - because every year it takes fewer people to do the
work required to keep civilization going. The number of people who are 'excess
to capitalism's requirements' is rising, and they are being shoved out onto
the margins. No-one has proposed a path towards replacing jobs as a mechanism
for downward wealth distribution. The world's economists are notoriously
silent on this subject, which is perhaps understandable when you realize
that most of them are serving the 1%'s ongoing wealth concentration; that's
their day job. Speaking vaguely of Wikipedia and cooperative kindergartens
and cryptocurrencies does not identify a replacement mechanism for downward
wealth distribution.
3. The world population is being radicalized, both in response to overpopulation
and in response to wealth concentration (and the increasingly vigorous defense
of wealth concentration). The result is growing instability. The trend is
uneven, but it is proceeding nearly everywhere. Refugee populations are
surging, with no end in sight. Both the defenders of the status quo and
radicals are becoming more brutal.
4. The richest among us are consolidating their grips on governments
wherever they can to serve their interests. It's really quite pointless
to speak of governments acting to encourage the free exchange of information;
they are coming down hard on the side of curbing information availability,
restricting it to the wealthy and their global security servants.
5. The author thinks the sharing economy will quietly supercede capitalism.
That isn't how I see this playing out. Instead, capitalism will shrink as
demand is concentrated where the wealth is. We already have enclaves for
the wealthy. Soon they will be 'retreats.' 'Fortresses.' The have-nots will
be treated with increasing brutality by those protecting their fenced preserves
of information and wealth.
6. The worst mistake the author makes is in failing to see how these
trends will lead us to inconceivable violence. Endlessly rising productivity,
concentration of wealth and increasing radicalization and brutality will
shake the stability of our entire civilization. It's not obvious that it
will not fall.
7. The last mistake the author makes is in defining a too-rigid equation
between information and resources. Factually, resources do have limits,
no matter what you know. For example, marine biologists are predicting that
by 2050, give or take a few years, there will no longer be any commercially
significant populations of edible fish in the world's oceans. A few decades
further on, we'll have harvested all edible biomass; all that will be left
are inedible species like jellyfish. Species extinctions on land are rising,
too, also posing problems for ecosystem productivity and human food production.
No information-sharing scheme can put a halt to this advancing resource
crunch. Combined with rising population, rising wealth concentration, rising
radicalization and brutality, we're in big, big trouble, and I haven't even
mentioned what climate change will do to us. Starting up a free kindergarten
makes not even a tiny dent in that problem.
Conclusion: at this juncture in human history, it's ridiculous to be
talking about utopian visions. We should instead be talking about preventing
a Malthusian die-back.
WeeWally wiz99doz 19 Jul 2015 23:29
Capitalism finished a long time ago; if it ever existed. The use of capitalism
as a synonym for greedy business is a sad commentary on the lack of language
of our day. Capitalism is about capital formation and nothing to do with
the ripping off of the masses. That's the role of religions and politicians
who encourage everyone to work harder and accept their lot.
Capitalism is an idea born out of Protestantism. If I forgo pleasure
today I will have more resources and therefore I can have more pleasure
tomorrow.
Business is a simple matter. Find something you love to do and help as many
people as possible. They will then throw money at you. Today's businesses,
particularly financially based businesses and miners, do not seem to understand
this principle and are hell-bent on destroying society and the planet so
that they can be the richest survivors. They become rich, briefly in most
cases, but never wealthy. Wealthy people do not spend their lives accumulating
the riches of the world at the expense of others and there is never enough
for the rich but non-wealthy. e.g. How much money does a man need to have
before he shows his mother or father, "What a good boy am I?" Wealthy people
share their wealth uplifting others and making themselves happy through
their good hearts.
No country that has raised itself from under-developed to developed country
status, has done so without the exploitatuion of others. We are seeing this
process copied once again in Russia, India and China. India is the most
disappointing because their peoples claim to understand norality. Accumulation
of capital in developing countries is chiefly through corruption which is
why The Party turned a blind eye to it for so long. Now that most of the
Princeling families are rich they will prevent others following their methods.
It's also a great way to get rid of rivals.
Britains think that the Industrial Revolution made them rich but the
capital was obtained through slave trading and narcotic sales. The Yanks
are so stupid they believe that their revolution was about taxes and not
ripping off Native Lands. Capital was further acumulated by the Robber Barons.
Australians similarly stole the land and the Chinese have stolen from their
own people and now everyone else who is naive enough to trust them. Russia
developed at the expense of desperate and innocent workers who gave up their
share certificates to devouring oligarchs.
Britain refinanced the world by buying supplies from the Carpetbaggers
and ending the Depression in the US. At the end of the war the US had the
only factories still standing so used its financial power to enslave much
of the world and create two empires: Their own and Stalin's. Britain has
only recently escaped its clutches which makes one wonder how it got conned
into Middle Eastern adventures. The US has more standing armies than Rome
ever dreamed of but has sold its soul to the Chinese for a few pieces of
silver. Coincidently the UK also sold out to the Chinese for silver in exchange
for opium. The recovery of Hong Kong by the Party had nothing to do with
land and was all about silver and face.
Long live capitalism; the real kind.
Steve Craton 19 Jul 2015 23:26
I just graduated with my BA ARCH and B ARCH from architecture school
which (mine was, anyway) a hotbed of progressiveness in the name of sustainability
and the fact that somebody is going to have to figure out where and how
all these humans who won't stop having babies are going to live in a future
Earth that may make the movie Mad Max look like a bedtime story. I'm also
a card-carrying Democrat with the occasional Libertarian tendencies - for
example, I think banning legal firearms will be as effective as the current
ban on recreational crack and heroin use, so I disagree with my gun-control
pals on the issue.
All that being said; there's never been true capitalism - or true communism
or socialism, for that matter. What's bandied about as the "free market"
by so-called pundits (usually on a global corporation's payroll) is more
the machinations of a bunch of international Zaibatsu. I'm formerly military
who went to school after service and did a stint in the private sector,
viz, I'm not a starry-eyed kid anymore - but I decided that not only will
I use my education and skills to do the kind of small economy things the
author discusses, I will also pull a reverse John Gault and let the sociopathic
corporations do their thing without me.
Raytrek Raytrek 19 Jul 2015 23:01
Communism has a Capitalist economy, the difference is in how it is regulated
as to where wealth and advantage is distributed, that is a matter of enforced
law and standards on Leadership, Capitalism existed long before Adam Smith,
he just observed the nature of an economy, he even made recommendations
that were not entirely adopted by the Aristocratic authority of his time,
to our current detriment.
Jim Ballard 19 Jul 2015 22:06
Header :
"The end of capitalism has begun"
Long overdue. But technology lending equal access to prosperity for all
on the horizon ? Think again.
This article is loaded with wishful thinking and non sequiturs.
"...capitalism's replacement by postcapitalism will be accelerated
by external shocks and shaped by the emergence of a new kind of human
being"
Not quite human, I'm afraid.
"First, it has reduced the need for work, blurred the edges between
work and free time and loosened the relationship between work and wages."
Yes it has. I for one preached the mantra of "Less work, more money !"
back in the late 80s. But there will be a price to pay by someone else.
Always.
"Second, information is corroding the market's ability to form prices
correctly. That is because markets are based on scarcity while information
is abundant..."
Yes. Products that really are scarce are being cheapened further by a
transient collective of shallow speculators who really do not understand
the product. That will change when "quick sale" solutions are made foolish.
This is really nothing new. Just more prevalent.
"Third, we're seeing the spontaneous rise of collaborative production:...The
biggest information product in the world – Wikipedia – is made by volunteers
for free, abolishing the encyclopedia business and depriving the advertising
industry of an estimated $3bn a year in revenue."
...But "information" does not equal "knowledge", and any attempt to assign
the same power strategies to both is premature and silly. "Wiki" still has
a very long path to "knowledge".
"New forms of ownership, new forms of lending, new legal contracts:
a whole business subculture has emerged over the past 10 years, which
the media has dubbed the "sharing economy". Buzzwords such as the "commons"
and "peer-production" are thrown around, but few have bothered to ask
what this development means for capitalism itself."
I'm concerned less what it means to "capitalism" that I am concerned
with the eager constraints on both the human imagination and the displacement
of the individual.
"(2008 crash) produced, in the west, a depression phase longer than
in 1929-33, and even now, amid a pallid recovery, has left mainstream
economists terrified about the prospect of long-term stagnation. The
aftershocks in Europe are tearing the continent apart."
No. The '29 Depression lasted much longer...Up until the war, in fact.
A "coincidence" not unnoticed by all.
"...the retirement age is being hiked to 70...Services are being
dismantled and infrastructure projects put on hold."
There is only one reason "retirement" is being hiked to "70". Trillions
of tax dollars are being dumped into the war machine. The government is
slowing weaning itself off its obligations to both SS and infrastructure
for that one fact alone. Period.
"Information is a machine for grinding the price of things lower
and slashing the work time needed to support life on the planet."
A little hyperbole can go a long way I suppose, but doesn't address all
the reasons for price deflation while the dollar remains severely inflated.
"Something is broken in the logic we use to value the most important
thing in the modern world."
Yes. We are broken.
"The great technological advance of the early 21st century consists
not only of new objects and processes, but of old ones made intelligent.
The knowledge content of products is becoming more valuable than the
physical things that are used to produce them"
This article would be more coherent if there was less word salad :
"Intellectual"..."knowledge"..."data"..."information"..."imagination"...all
mixed, conjoined, exchanged...trumping any reference to real definition.
Typical econo-speak.
"This will be more than just an economic transition. There are, of
course, the parallel and urgent tasks of decarbonising the world and
dealing with demographic and fiscal timebombs"
How far do we take "decarbonizing ? Effects of climate change notwithstanding,
silicon based intelligence(s) will soon recognize that carbon-based humans
are toxic in themselves, and the utilization of such "wasted" matter and
energy can serve a better end by furthering the survival of silicon-based
new species.
[ continued ]...
Jock Campbell -> Says Aye 19 Jul 2015 20:26
Except the problem we have today is NOT Capitalism. Far from it in
fact! We are in Neo-Corporatism and have left Capitalism in the past!
We need to get BACK to Capitalism, as it was a mechanism for spreading
CAPITAL throughout the system, a method of facilitation from grass roots
up! Today, the capital is held among too few corporate institutions, organisations
and individuals and the net effect is the strangling of the free market
economy... as there's no
Angelo GG 19 Jul 2015 19:39
Post-capitalism, State Capitalism, Kleptocracy, Corporotocracy....
All different words describing the same thing: a bastardization of the
concept of 'capitalism' whereby dictators/tyrants take-over a system of
government in order to transfer power from the many to the few.
It doesn't matter how many fancy economic models and theories are put
forward. There is only one reality in which the powers at be ARE NOT interested
in creating world prosperity, improving standards of living and finding
peace etc etc....
All of that is smokescreen - the real goal is chaos, disease, injustice
and servitude for the masses.
Postcapitalism, or The Rise of the People of Middle Earth.
You can't see them, but you can ear them digging the network of tunnels
under the citadel of power (of value creation) that eventually will collapse
the city walls and come to life in the day light. Well, except that I'm
not convinced that the elements Paul Mason is putting on the table are sufficient
to push society over the threshold of class formation, of a new hegemonic
class based on an alternative way of production, of value creation. The
intuition is there, and I'm prepared to suspend judgment till I read the
all book. In the meantime:
1) It seems to me that in history, the 'dominated' classes never managed
to acquire a sustainable level of control to implement a radical change
of the system. The serfs did not overcome the aristocracy; what toppled
it was the ascent of a radically new class, the merchant/capitalist, brought
about by linear cumulative changes that reached at a certain point a critical
level or threshold. The Russian Revolution did not bring about the hegemony
of the working class, but merely an alternative state capitalistic class
of bureaucrats. So, no system change there, I'm afraid; which is the deep
reason behind that failed revolution.
2) In order to start up and curry on real radical social and economic
change, it seems that the political struggle between the dominant and the
dominated classes is almost irrelevant. What changes history, economic
systems and social order is something more profound, cumulative, and very
much 'out of control', unplannable: class formation, that is, the formation
of a new 'third excluded' social class, brought about usually by demographic,
technological and other changes in the ways of production, that gradually
transforms the economic system, the modes of production, the creation of
value, engendering a completely new (previously not existent) class with
the hegemonic clout and power to substitute the previous dominant class
and reshaping the relations with the dominated classes.
3) The Gramscian 'classi subalterne' do not do radical change nor
lasting revolutions. They cannot topple the dominant class, nor can
create a new way of production from scratch. I think Marx went against his
own analysis and, by introducing platonistic elements, hoped that social
and political struggle would have eventually created a new way of production
and social relations; even according to his analysis, in this fundamental
aspect of his tought, he got this story upside down: it is the economy,
stupid!
4) So, yes, Paul Mason is, according to my watch, on something interesting,
but the mix, the cocktail elements he has presented so far are not original
and are not promising. Lets see...
SuperfluousMan 19 Jul 2015 15:51
The capitalist system is not fighting with the sharing economy - no free
market economist wants to shut down Wikipedia because it doesn't generate
profit. I am very much pro capitalism and I'm very much pro Wikipedia -
I am also pro being able to watch thousands of hours of lectures from the
likes of Harvard University on Youtube. The fact that Google make a tiny
profit from the data I produce whilst educating myself for free does not
bother me at all. It seems to elude some people though that the primary
driver for the social good that is free educational videos on Youtube is
profit (Youtube was created for profit, it was sold to Google for a huge
profit) - and there's nothing wrong with making profit.
I think the author is right about a few things, like how our economy
will move towards smaller and smaller margins as competition and technology
drives ever more efficient production lines, leading to more and more abundance
of everyday goods - but it is capitalism that is driving these efficiency
gains, not some form of neo-Marxism...
SuperfluousMan durable13 19 Jul 2015 15:40
I run a smallish website which gets about 20,000 visitors per day. I
save various analytics from the site in my own database and externally.
I use the information to generate a small amount of profit from advertising.
I own that information - the actual benefits of it are transferred to my
bank account every month - I'm really not delusional.
alturium 19 Jul 2015 15:23
It's hard to see the walls of the bubble when you are inside the bubble…
We talk as if we have a society that reduces work by the increase of
information technology. That the direction of progress points to a heavily
automated society where no one works and the biggest social issue is the
fair distribution of the fruits of mechanical labor.
The virtual reality has become far removed the physical reality. The
physical reality is the limitation of the resources that can grow, sustain,
or maintain our lifestyle. There are limits to growth and we live in a world
of diminishing returns.
We are living in one of the greatest bubbles of all times, the Great
Industrial Bubble economy based on cheap fossil energy and cheap debt. Actually,
there are many little bubbles such as the Finanicialization bubble since
1980, but the Great Industrial Bubble is the big one. I rank the bubbles
by size: Industrial, Cheap Debt (since WWII), and Financialization.
Two hundred years ago about 95% of us would have been farmers. Today
that is less than 5%. Is that because of our liberal democracies? No. Is
that because of capitalism? Not really. The real basis for our complex societies
is cheap fossil fuels.
Our society builds complexity based on the leftover energy surplus of
cheap fossil fuels. We have jobs that are far less menial and far less physical
thanks to this one-time gift. Our economy fits within the natural world,
not the other way around.
When Mason says,
"Once you understand that information is physical, and that software is
a machine, and that storage, bandwidth and processing power are collapsing
in price at exponential rates, the value of Marx's thinking becomes clear.
We are surrounded by machines that cost nothing and could, if we wanted
them to, last forever."
He is deluded. It is a delusion that increasing automation (read: complexity)
can be supported without an increase of energy. He doesn't understand entropy
or the 2nd of Thermodynamics. The illusion of automation is concealing the
fact that our economy is based on cheap energy.
It appears that you can copy music track and play it for "free". But
the reality is that a lot of energy went into building your iPhone. Cheap
coal and cheap labor in China built that iPhone so that you could listen
to that music track. It is not free.
Conventional oil peaked in 2005. Well, okay, effectively plateaued.
We'll probably see the ultimate peak this year. We haven't reached peak
debt…yet. What happens when we reach peak energy and peak debt? What happens
when we reach Peak Everything?
I really don't know. But the past growth and collapse of so many civilizations
that overshot their ecological foundations is not comforting. We are headed
for big trouble.
GeoffroydeCharny 19 Jul 2015 13:42
Welcome to the new Feudalism. The new ages wealth gap and its continued
acceleration will ensure the cementing of the new serf class. The next big
step is their elimination through malnutrition and disease. This will leave
our little blue planet in the hands of a few million well to do and their
robot servants. The environment will recover and the future will be secured.
Bruce Joseph 19 Jul 2015 12:58
Ambrose Bierce Devil's dictionary sald, "Liberty, n, One of imaginations
most precious possessions The rising people hot and outof breath, roared
round the palace " liberty or death", If death will do the King said, let
me reign, you'll have I'm sure no reason to complain "
Richard Alan nolovehere 19 Jul 2015 12:35
Some system has to provide or allocate the basic resources e.g Electricity,
raw materials, foods, land. In addition, law enforcement will be necessary
to stop free riders destroying the system. The people running the system
will always have power over those who don't.
Whether or not people can share information freely, or there is a circular
renewable economy is moot. On this planet; land is finite. Raw materials
are finite. Arable space is finite.
My point relating to Saudi Arabia or the Gulf economies is simple. Labour
is the great bargaining chip of the masses. If you can't provide that or
it isn't necessary, but you take up land, material and food; you will be
viewed by the power-holders at best like the average Venezuelan, UAE or
Saudi Arabian citizen. At worst you will be viewed like Native Americans
or Aborigines 'wasting' space.
And I strongly recommend Michael Manning's 'Spider Garden'.
Rex Newborn 19 Jul 2015 11:50
Every living organism on earth, including humans, competes with others
of its kind, and against forces in its environment for survival. Humans
have the ability to modify nature to some extent, but can they ever really
control it, especially their own nature? Capitalism has been in existence
since the first IOU was created, and will continue in some form unless there
is a quantum leap in the evolution of human nature. Capitalism is the essence
of human competition, as territoriality is among mammals.
Equality does not exist in nature. The only way that humans could ever
possibly be anything approaching equal would be for all humans to be alike
and to think alike. Mass cooperation among humans only happens in dire emergencies,
such as wars, riots, epidemics, natural disasters, etc.; or, by force from
some form of heavy-handed leadership, mass political indoctrination, forced
religious adherence, marshal law, etc.
Overpopulation threatens a dire emergency on a global scale. If we are
to have a redistribution of wealth and an environment where umpteen billion
of us can survive, we will probably have to have a socialist government.
A dictatorial, tyrannical, socialist, world government that ruthlessly forces
everyone to share equally, at least as long as there is anything to share.
Those that rank higher in this government, possibly the top 1%, can expect
to be a lot more equal than the plebeians, of course. Those in the top 5%
of government can expect to be somewhat more equal, and so on.
ID8598806 luizribeiro 19 Jul 2015 11:45
Brilliant, seductive ...but devoid of realism ... Neither the plutocrats,
nor the digital monopolies nor the meritocratic dictatorships (let alone
the kleptocracies) will fade away. The logic of collective action decisively
proves that the well endowed, well organized few invariably control the
many. Local initiatives facilitated by the new information technologies
will be tolerated in order to let off steam...but only up to a point. The
powers that be will remain ruthless in controlling access to these technologies
and in suppressing any challenge to their control of the commanding heights.
Thus rather than post capitalism we are at the threshold of Capitalism 3.0
Bob
Lawrie Griffith 19 Jul 2015 10:41
It seems to me there is one important factor that has been overlooked
in this article. The link between economic growth and population growth.
Current economics appears to be sustained by growth. Growth in consumption,
growth in money, growth in debt, growth in productivity by lowering wages
and living standards, growth through speculation, growth in asset inflation.
It's a long list.
This is all underpinned by growth in population.
But in many regions of the world this is slowing, or has even stopped.
For now migration from poorer countries to these regions is maintaining
growth and demand, along with cheap labour.
However, advances in education and local access to knowledge through
modern communication is working in tandem with increased health to empower
women. This reduces birth rates, as having fewer children becomes a better
form of security and opportunity than having large families, because more
women are able to regulate their own fertility.
Continued growth through post-capitalist information wealth, which expands
in cyberspace, is a pathway forward as the author suggests. However, neoliberal
capitalism requires steady growth in consumer spending to maintain stability.
As population growth slows old style capitalism will come under strain.
The knee-jerk response is to impose Austerity on the main population
to maintain the growth in wealth flows to those at the top. Everything we
see in the world today suggests that the big institutions of the finance
sector will will do everything in their power to maintain capital and liquidity
churn and flows in the money markets.
As population growth slows and environmental change undermines economies
and wages fall, the bottom, as they say, will drop out of the neoliberal
consumer market.
So I ask: is the author suggesting that the rapid expansion of non-comodified,
free, networked information can replace the coming stagnation in consumer
demand, which is transacted in money? I like the idea, but if so: how?
Elinor Hurst ABCgdn 19 Jul 2015 10:26
No, the freedom to own stuff if you happen to have enough money to have
that freedom, does not mean that those with that money and hence power will
have the intelligence, understanding and foresight to take steps to address
environmental problems. This is partly for the reasons StefB1 has mentioned,
that very few people seem to see the joined-up picture in this highly complex
world of myriad specialisations that we live in. It's also because there
are so many interactions in the global socioeconomic-ecological system that
it's not necessarily intuitive and easy to predict what will happen, even
if your eyes are open about environmental risks. And then, why would someone
invest money in solving an environmental problem that isn't costing them
money in the here and now? The impact of production is so often geographically
distant, diffuse, and not immediately obvious - sometimes it takes many
years of science to prove a connection - and by then the original investors
are long gone or pass the buck to someone else, often leaving governments
to regulate and invest in scientific research to fix it.
40 years ago the Limits to Growth study was published, based on a
systems dynamics model of the world's population, economic production, resources
and pollution, and how they would interact. It forecast the sort of trouble
we are now seeing, and its "business-as-usual" scenario predicted system
collapse in the mid-21st Century. Governments and society leaders should
have taken note back then, but they didn't, and their behaviour shows how
poorly "capitalism" does rise to the challenge of global problems - it obfuscates,
it denies, it defers, and it goes on doing its own thing regardless in the
face of all evidence that it is on a path to destruction. Now we are left
with a world that is consuming the equivalent of one and a half planets
a year, and still, many are in denial.
Those of you who have infinite faith in technology and capitalism's ingenuity
to save us don't get it - the scale of the problem is just getting too big,
and the amount of time, effort and resources needed to be thrown at it in
the time needed to prevent runaway climate change and ecosystem collapse
is too short to let entrepreneurial tinkerings meander their way along to
bit by bit solutions.
Cafael Spoonface 19 Jul 2015 07:15
But taking the long view, I think there may be no neo-liberalism or even
free-market capitalism; these are narratives to sweeten the reality of elites
re-establishing dominance after a long period of change and of the physical
expansion of industrialised society - power consolidation, after limits
or barriers to that quasi-colonial expansion is reached, leading to reduced
opportunity and re-emerging aristocracies.
Progress can no longer be seen as inevitable; an active political choice
must be made to establish consistently humane principles. So far, attempts
such as the American Constitution, the unwritten ethos of the post-war settlement
and the E.U. have been successful but gradually undermined, in part because
they were not sufficiently internationalist or understood by the people
in terms of relevance to daily life.
Political participation and broad political education is essential; I
am amazed, for example, that schools don't teach the form and history of
our political system as a foundational aspect of citizenship.
It sounds hopeful that economists are questioning the assumptions
of neoliberalism, but if, as I suggested, the real change is less ideological
and more to do with elites preferring to be elite even if in poorly functioning
economies and dysfunctional societies, these criticisms may be ignored.
Anyway, if we get Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders, perhaps then we'll
see! But it's up to everyone to keep making and refining the arguments,
and to get them across. I think even the most indoctrinated people can change
their views very quickly when they encounter good sense.
Cafael Spoonface 19 Jul 2015 06:46
But what they fail to notice is that neoliberalism is itself an imposed
vision.
Yes, that has always been a difficulty in politics and indeed thought:
those who were born in the sea don't know that there is such a thing as
dry land, or even such as thing as the sea.
They are just as reductionist as communists were in defining humanity,
as you say, 'economic man', and ordering society to fit that definition
rather than allowing that definition to be fluid and continuously empirical,
revising and transcending expectations.
Yes, the slave trade and colonialism in general killed more, and destroyed
entire ethnic groups. Capitalism often boasts that it kills fewer of its
own, for all that is worth.
Spoonface Cafael 19 Jul 2015 06:00
In fact, if we consider the arguments of neoliberal thinkers,
they consistently speak and act against any kind of imposed vision,
partly due to their belief in the nature of the market and partly because
of the violence and upheaval that fabricated and imposed ideologies
have caused
But what they fail to notice is that neoliberalism is itself an imposed
vision. As an economic stance it ultimately rests on neoclassical economic
ideas, and through those a set of philosophical assumptions; and neoliberal
economists, being poor philosophers, are loath to investigate these assumptions.
There is now a growing raft of critique - some actually from pro-market
economists - criticising the assumption of 'economic man' as a being with
perfect information, perfect rationality and perfect freedom. This construct
is the concept of human personhood which underlies neoliberalism. From a
philosophical standpoint it seems bizarre that these assumptions need questioning;
they're so far from the truth it beggars belief that anyone with a functioning
mind would entertain them.
Neoliberals also tend to ignore the violence of capitalism; the slave
trade killed more people than any planned economy.
Althnaharra 19 Jul 2015 02:09
Scrolling through this thread, Steinbeck's quip comes to mind; that "America
is a nation of millionaires who are temporarily down on their luck". This
is why libertarianism has such an appeal to the under fifty crowd and why
so often the commentary surrounding these issues must be glib. It has become
gosch to be concerned about assembly line workers and others who don't or
can't live beyond their means, buying labels they can't afford, throwing
huge wads of cash at repairing their older BMW, or going for the pricey
bike and skis. Social media has accelerated what has become a miasma of
pretense, that reinforces illusions and protects from harsh realities, a
uniquely insular social gathering place, incubated in academia and now expanded
into mega jerk with 401K.
entropy_is_a_hoax 19 Jul 2015 00:26
A point not made is that a lot of the information is worthless or worse.
Exabytes of cat and dog videos. People oblivious to the real world, wandering
around looking at and listening to their iWhatevers, exchanging inconsequential
trivia with their eFriends, with no interest in what is happening to our
society. Unlike the current war on us by the Neo-liberal elite, social media
was not a conspiracy but has arrived at a perfect time for the elite. A
distracted and apathetic population who will do the elite's bidding as long
as they can afford the latest iWhatever and designer clothing. It will be
interesting to see what happens in the Anglophone world when KR Murdoch
dies, his control of information has greatly facilitated the Neo-liberal
elite's ascent.
permaguy alturium 18 Jul 2015 23:03
Dissipative systems are also far from equilibrium. Neo-classical economics
was theorized that the economy was in equilibrium, whereby the system would
lead eventually to equality. Of course, exactly the opposite has happened;
the system has lead to inequality, because the economy isn't based on physics,
it's based on a story we've been telling ourselves, Alan Greenspan's post-bailout
testimony to the U.S. Congress is telling. Humans are also not so rational,
we think in metaphors and frames all the time. By seeing everything through
a machine metaphor, we have created a machine over nature, which is not
sustainable.
lturium NadNavillus 18 Jul 2015 22:58
Lol, sorry for sounding so "doomish" :-)
Your right about leaving out climate change (or AGW), I subscribe to
the view that most of the reminder of the fossil fuels will remain in the
ground as un-economical to retrieve...post collapse.
Our response to climate change is pretty frightening. Gail Tverberg just
had an excellent article showing the vast increase in coal by China after
the Kyoto Protocol 1997 (and inclusion to WTO in 2001). 70% of China's energy
comes from coal. Isn't that ironic that a treaty to reduce CO2 actually
increased it? We have effectively offloaded pollution for producing our
iPhones and Solar PVs to China...
Okay, now is a good time for a Matrix quote:
The Architect: You are here because Zion is about to be destroyed. Its
every living inhabitant terminated, its entire existence eradicated.
Neo: Bullshit.
[the monitors respond the same]
The Architect: Denial is the most predictable of all human responses.
But, rest assured, this will be the sixth time we have destroyed it, and
we have become exceedingly efficient at it.
No, government did not "get in the way". Rather the opposite, it got
OUT of the way and let wealth became the dominant power. Then wealth self-regulated
by buying our politics and politicians and rigged the game for the elite.
Neo-Liberalism and Libertarian thinking took control of the US and then
invaded Britain and the EU. Even Finland is starting to sound like US Republicans.
Tornike ID7751075 18 Jul 2015 21:19
On the contrary, my points are what the Left are learning today and what
is a working alternative (see Mondragon for instance) unlike playing political
games with the neoliberals with horrible results we see year after year,
the most recent just concluding a week ago in Europe.
alturium 18 Jul 2015 20:24
Ironically, your ideas presented here are dangerous to our future, even
if your intent is sincere.
Instead of creating a new human society of work, leisure, and wealth,
you are laying down the intellectual foundations for neo-feudalism. I can
imagine the future and the difficult transformation ahead for all peoples,
but I would like to avoid a return to the feudalistic or slave-based societies
of the past.
Those repressive societies existed because of the lack of cheap energy.
Athens may be the birthplace of democracy, but 90% of its peoples were slaves.
On the contrary, it is the largesse of cheap fossil energy that has enabled
our modern society with all of its external frailties. Add on exponential
cheap debt (money/energy from the future), exponential population growth,
diminishing returns, pollution, etc. and we have quite the cocktail for
tomorrow's total and final global collapse.
Your article is a carefully crafted statement of more control by the
government by establishing a religion of ideas, very similar to the communism.
Communism subsisted on convincing the people of high order ideals that were
carefully cultivated by elite. By controlling the perception of morality,
they were able to take advantage of people's natural herding instincts.
All human societies are based on a social hierarchical system.
We must, instead, come to understand why we are violent and why we form
societies that exploit and why we subjugate the weak. To understand those
answers will require a deep introspective examination of our genetic and
biological foundations. Such an examination is not possible today, not in
a life where each of us is supported by 100 to 300 energy slaves. It would
be like a Roman Caesar sitting down to contemplate the life of a plebeian.
In grand irony, the traits that make societies successful are the same ones
that bring about final and total collapse.
It will be the task of future generations to ponder such deep questions
amid the ruins of a post-industrial society. Most likely, there will not
be another grand and complex industrial society because we will have exhausted
the most wonderful energy source, fossil fuels, within a short time period.
That is, in the timespan of approximately 300 years we have economically
exhausted what took 300 million years of sunshine to create.
Tornike 18 Jul 2015 15:35
If I am right, the logical focus for supporters of postcapitalism is
to build alternatives within the system
Exactly the point I was making in conversation with two of my friends
last night during a techno event in a club (yes, I know). The new Left idea
needs to involve beginning with creating alternatives (worker owned co-ops,
etc) that will inspire people to continue the chain of the transformation
in their workplaces, families, etc. Political campaigning and competition
in a system that is built for and benefits conservative/neoliberal structure
of discussion, media and lawmaking is just not fit for the purpose.
Iwasjustgoingtosay 18 Jul 2015 15:19
Capitalism as we've known it is surely going down the pan. That's not
news. But what will replace it? It seems like we're already entering what
will turn out to be a rather long, painful period of something akin to neofeudalism.
It's gonna be a long way down before capitalism finally hits the skids,
and the oligarchs aren't going to throw in the towel just like that. And
once we get there, it's going to look more like 'Riddley Walker' than Bartering
Bliss.
Kyllein MacKellerann 18 Jul 2015 13:45
Where Post Capitalism seems to consider that we are entering a Utopian
age, the sad fact is that NO Utopian system has ever worked without systematic
oppression. Communism is an example most people are familiar with: yes,
it works provided that a secret police is available to deal with those who
won't play the game.
What we have here is an Economic system that, like Communism, is trying
to be either a Social system or a Political system. Never mind that there
has never been a successful conversion of any Economic Systems into Political
Systems, not one.
Socialism is at heart a Political system, hence it works to a degree,
but only to a degree. For that matter, Capitalism only works to a degree
(actually about as well as Socialism).
One of the prices of political freedom is inequality, you can't get away
from it. Some people will by chance or by nature do better than others.
We see this in the wildings, animals who are generally indifferent to political
systems: some do better than others. Enforced equality necessitates the
demise of freedom, since freedom will engender inequality. Reference to
North Korea: a state with enforced equality (that fails miserably).
Politics is an outgrowth of human nature. Understand this (and the author
plainly doesn't), and you have a chance of developing a political system
that will work for a while. Ignore the fact it looks a very great deal like
Capitalism, please.
Michael Katsak -> MarsPLuto23 18 Jul 2015 11:19
While it might be true that people rarely ever give up power, you should
consider that people very frequently LOSE it. The article mentions that
the only model we have for transitioning between world systems is the death
of the Feudal system. Absolute monarchs, religious oligarchs, and merchant
guilds all LOST power every bit as real and substantial as the ruling class
of neoliberal capitalism. Whatever future we are able to realize, make no
mistake that we ARE in the midst of a profound change.
The goals of India,china,russia or other Asian countries is motivated
by Nationalistic agenda,with rapid deglobalization & self reliance.
They consider Brain drain as evil....as the productive populace which
they lost should have paid taxes in their home country & built their capability
& contributed to more social cohesion.So if you read a little bit of History
you know they discouraged intercourse with others.
All those communism,capitalism,socialism,leftism,rightism are not things
which they understand .They understand only one thing what is right for
my Nation & my Nation's friend that alone should guide our intercourse in
our dealings. Overtime they know their Nations are 6000 years old & their
greatness was only briefly interrupted by circumstances. Self sacrifice
is the most important quality they demand from their citizens & not economic
glory but glory of their Nation.
RobertLlDavies snootyelites 18 Jul 2015 11:02
So the selfless efforts of millions of communists around the world in
defence of workers, women, students, national liberation, democratic rights
- from Iraq, Iran, Chile and South Africa to France, Swaziland, Egypt and
India - is "mass murder"? There has been much more to the communist movement
across the world than the the major crimes of the Stalin period in the Soviet
Union. According to this childish level of argument, I could argue that
the goal of capitalism is slavery and the slave trade, colonialism, fascism
and death squads. Grow up if you want to take part in adult discussion and
debate.
demandflow MarsPLuto23 18 Jul 2015 10:48
MarsPluto23, what happened to that great British concept "the presumption
of innocence?" This Golden Thread of Jurisprudence was carried across the
Pond to America. I learned this phrase from the television series "Rumpole
of the Bailey".
A "despicable way of life" is an interesting phrase. Who decides what
is despicable and how or if it should be punished. Will the term change
with the weather?
As far as the bankers and leaders are concerned, it is OUR fault that they
are able to do what they do. What politicians and bankers do you prefer?
ramous ID5955768 18 Jul 2015 10:04
The point I have been making is that religious fundamentalists like neo-liberals
can't see anything but their own dogma. You are an being an example that
dogma.
Vijay Raghavan 18 Jul 2015 10:03
It means driving the wages, social wages and living standards in the
west down for decades until they meet those of the middle class in China
and India on the way up.
To answer question of wages what caused western wages to grow up more
than China/India.When did the western wages go up & what caused that rise
in their wages.This also has to be answered when the Ambassador of west
went first to India in 16th century he was dismissed saying you come from
a small pond what are you going to offer to my kingdom those words of Jahangir
was repeated even by the chinese emeperor to them in 17th century.
The rise of wages in a economy is dependent on Gross value ADD in manufacturing.At
the moment east asian economies have 32%,India 17%,West,Japan between 12%-22%.In
18th to middle of 19th century the gross value ADD of western economy was
about 40%++.
What drives gross value ADD is Process industries,technology,brand,scale
of market,etc etc.Process industries which makes up 40% capacity like steel,aluminium,coal,mining,petro,refining,fertilizer
they all need capital,operational efficiency which east Asia built it up,India
also is building it slowly.That is where european edge went off in Manufacturing.They
have to rely on exceptional technology,design,brand,perception to lever
up their Nation to get share.The european cos play there is getting shrunk
since US,Japan,Korea,China have all ramped up.
One nation can't drive down the wages of another Nation,only when you
lever up ability of a Nation to give a product to entire world will the
wages of Nation goes up.Like UK has banking industry since the entire world
wants to route their banking transaction,commodity buying,investments etc
etc through that route.So the wages in Banking will be 5x than India/China.If
china builds scale in Banking the world routes their trade in Hongkong,Singapore,Beijing
there will drop in volumes in London with corresponding wages loss.So overtime
china will acquire the capability in product,brand,reputation,legal,all
other skills.
The west if it wants to drive up its wages it has to model a perfect
mathamatics of determining what is %age of population to be deployed for
each of the industries in Manufacturing,Services,Agriculture to get the
right equation of wage growth & living standards.
If they go to do that ....their experience has been bad of being in dark
ages of 1000 years or like how Jahangir/chinese emperor treated them you
are not important for me.
European wages will hinge upon how much market access both china/India/Asean/US/Russia
or other nations keep giving to them.But the accusation of wage depression
because of them will lead to more trade problems for west.
If the political/media equation of west with those countries improve
they will rather than depressing your wages will keep levering more wages
for west.
Francisco Güemes 18 Jul 2015 09:07
Wow what a piece of Marxist, collectivist, new age/New World Order piece
of article!! Bravoooooo!!! As the marxists failed with their Russian experiment
in the XX century, now they want to bring us their "post-capitalist" concept
based on what is going to happen after neoliberalism (which is as collectivist
as marxism-lenninism) fail. Well there are going to be many of us..ready
to fight the new world order!
Kuttappan Vijayachandran 18 Jul 2015 08:59
The article and the ongoing discussion reminds of the great Soviet poet
Mayakovsky, and his classic play, The Bedbug, written for the first anniversary
the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, described as landmark in the history of
Soviet theater, and staged numerous times within and outside of USSR, during
the Stalin era. Mayokovsky created in this play, a prototype of what is
known, today, as social media network, in order to debate and condemn the
Bedbug and the exploitative character of the species. nullhttp://www.wordpress.kvijaya40/
dutchview Fabio Venuti 18 Jul 2015 08:54
But current Capitalism is really about creating artificial scarcity so
that you can then push the price up and rip off the "customer".
The article is interesting, in the early 1980's I was one of the first
in my international company with a PC on my desk, it had 128kbt total memory
and was rubbish and a total waste of time. But today in the western world
workplace we are surrounded by all manner of clever integrated devices with
multi Gbt of memory, plus oodles of extra Tbt up in the cloud. Has my life
got easier? Have I got more free time? Have we made progress? Well the answers
are No, No and not much, or may be we have actually gone backwards.
In the last 30+ years mankind has totally wasted the benefits of the
"digital revolution" and done untold damage to the planet to boot. It is
certainly time to change to a new chapter in the book and more of the same
is not the answer. The 1% can not continue to get richer.
Eric Grey 18 Jul 2015 08:46
Did Ted Kyzinski write this from prison? Did anyone else read this entire
exercise in circular reasoning? Invent a term, "post capitalism," label
some current phenomena as post capitalist and therefore not capitalist (by
definition of course), and then use it as evidence that capitalism is on
the fall.
Information can become as abundant as ever, but resources will be as
scarce as we overuse them. Markets are going to mediate the exchange, whether
that's with money or utility (volunteering is not decidedly anti-capitalist).
Greece's coops and informal market systems prove capitalism exists even
in toxic government environments that choke traditional business off. If
you make it impossible for anyone to keep a market open because they can't
get capital, they're going to create coops. That's proof of capitalism,
not evidence against it.
When people write stuff like this article, they demonstrate they have
next to no idea how ridiculously complicated and heavily invested our modern
economy is. You're not going to get a $14b oil refinery or nuclear plant
or drug manufactory from a coop or peer to peer relationships, and governments
regularly demonstrate they are terrible at this stuff.
And monopolies don't get formed "as a defense mechanism for capitalism".
Capitalism isn't a person. What utter garbage. People form monopolies out
of profit motive, not to defend a system. If anything, capitalism destroys
monopolies because higher prices from them form competition and substitutes.
Locus 18 Jul 2015 08:41
Somewhat disappointed in this analysis, Paul. After the demolition of
organised labour and, currently, the co-opting of most media, the state
is the last bastion of collective bargaining power and regulation that the
non-elite can utilise. The "sharing economy" still consists of fringe activities
built on the foundation of standard economic processes.
As for automation, in my own direct experience this merely means that what
5 people did, one person has to do for the same wage. The hope it has brought
has consistently resulted in any benefit being sucked upwards and safely
tucked away in bank vaults with the vast majority of those with "freed-up"
time and more to offer but not slotted in to corporate structures, being
despised or existing precariously.
Michael Q -> britishinjustice 18 Jul 2015 08:08
As Bevan once said about the NHS, that it will go on as long as there
is someone who cares enough to save it, the same applies to capitalism.
I really can't see all the political powers that support it giving up
just yet, in fact if capitalism is ever killed off, it will not be because
those who support it gave up or surrendered. The other factor in my
conclusion is that there is not yet enough of a revolt against capitalism
from the people.
Some good points made. For a real change to happen it is true it needs
to come from the masses, and there needs to be a desire and hunger for change.
Once this happens it will be reflected in the rise of left-wing and revolutionary
governments to enact changes to legislation / referenda on constitutional
reform / redistribution of wealth etc.
The good news there is massive change currently going on in Latin America,
with the construction of socialism and a post-capitalist society now under
way in Ecuador, Venezuela, Bolivia, Argentina and Cuba just to name a few
(although Cuba is at a different stage than the others, due to the economic
embargo against it from the US). Whilst those countries (and many others)
are unique, with different situations and resources, they are united in
the common goal against neoliberalism and capitalism. This is reflected
in new institutions that have been developed including ALBA, CELAC, Petrocaribe,
Unasur and Mercosur.
Best of luck with your new group - and it may help by linking up with
the left wing groups in Greece, Spain, Ireland and in the Latin American
countries I mentioned.
Cheers.
richardmuu 18 Jul 2015 08:00
Motivated by disgust, I studied U.S. mass media for decades so I appreciate
the Utopian motivation that drives writing and talk of free information,
the digital commons and the internet of things. Offered the chance to think
about a better future vs. a dismal present, who of right mind would choose
the latter?
Yet there is more to consider in the present than has been grasped by
the new Utopians. I offer that not as a criticism because I still believe
in the wisdom of the Book of Genesis--we must struggle to know, and whatever
we know will be flawed because we are not gods. There is a flaw in the thinking
of the Utopians but it did not begin with them. It began instead during
industrial capitalism and, so far, continues to operate: Information is
nothing if no one notices it, pays attention to it. When I read this essay
and considered commenting on it, I noticed that it had already accumulated
2456 comments. I likely will not read more than a dozen or so, and it's
likely that many other who read this article will behave in the same way.
Yes, the production of information is evolving in the direction of zero
marginal cost, but human attention is not. We have to take care of the limited
amount of attention we have each day, and even with the best of care we
still need to go to bed each night and fall into a deep enough sleep to
become unconscious. That sleep replenishes the body but it mostly replenishes
our capacity to pay attention to our world the next day.
What's the big deal here? Only that industrial capitalism commodified
attention and during this period of the emerging digital commons, the practice
grows. The gathering and sale of attention drove the culture industry and
has supported not a little of the innovative work we now see by free-floating
professionals in the digital commons. Many of the technologies of information
distribution and storage would not have happened if great wealth was not
promised to the innovators who would find new ways to capture and sell even
more human attention. Today, the internet is dominated by Google, Facebook
and YouTube, platforms that focus the attention of millions on increasingly
common contents.
What this means is Utopia for some and continued dystopia for the rest,
with capital in a position to wait before it acts next, taking comfort in
its ability to mobilized enough of the rest to keep the Utopians boxed into
their intellectual ghettos, there to innovate in ways that will help capitalists
reduce their marginal costs. Should the Utopians threaten to break out,
to realize amplify the commons in ways that threaten capital accumulation,
then other industrial capital cultural forms, particularly fascism, are
still available as tools of social control.
"Millions of people are beginning to realise they have been sold a dream
at odds with what reality can deliver. Their response is anger – and retreat
towards national forms of capitalism that can only tear the world apart."
There is a lot of anger outside the intellectual ghettos. Who will direct
that anger, and what will its target be?
s1syphus 18 Jul 2015 07:46
This is simply a repacking of the "cognitive capitalism" thesis from
Hardt and Negri's Empire, Multitude, and Commonwealth. It is worth noting
that a number of people, including Silvia Federici, George Caffentzis, Alberto
Toscano, and David Camfield (the list goes on) have demonstrated why this
is wrong in various ways.
I read a comment below on how Mason is acting like any entrepreneur in
a capitalist society: building his brand, producing commodities that satisfy
needs, etc. Given my own view that myths like these do play a useful role
in the production of forms of anti-hegemonic resistance, but also that the
quality of these particular tropes - essentially that the end of capitalism
is on its way, all we have to do is wait for it - is incredibly damaging
to the movements that Mason purports to support, because it encourages people
to do restrict their activities to the periphery of the struggle. Read a
few books, click a few links, but still go to work every day, revel in the
communicative possibilities that your job offers you but give no thought
as to how the character of your exploitation actually makes capital more
enduring, albeit less stable.
ramous -> Andrew Howard 18 Jul 2015 07:05
Neoliberal fundamentalism its called, it's a perversion of liberalism
as is ISIL is to Islam. They have been waging financial war across the world
on countries that do not adopt there fundamentalist view. Greece just ran
into the pointy end of that stick they have been beating everyone with.
ramous ID5955768 18 Jul 2015 06:50
You mean communism not socialism. Socialist countries like the northern
European model were doing very well until the neo-liberals started finacial
wars and targeted any country that didn't abide there new fundamentalist
crusade of wage and worker oppression. Most of the gains that have been
attributed to so call capitalism was in the middle of last century. I think
there are plenty of graphs to show once the thatcherite neo-liberal fundamentalists
took over we have been push into more and more debt and wages have been
decimated.
barrybethel 18 Jul 2015 06:21
Nicolas Nassim Taleb in his last book, Antifragile, talks of neomania
- the fetishising of the new - and offers by counterpoint the rule-of-thumb
that that which is not living is likely to persist for at least as long
as it has already been around - the game of chess, for example.
Add capitalism to that, which even a quick glance at Wikipedia reveals
has been around for some centuries. So is this the end of capitalism? Unlikely,
on that basis.
RoscoBoyle 18 Jul 2015 05:32
Somewhere in my reading, back in the day, I dimly recall the word 'intelligentsia'.
Dim as the recollection is I think the intelligentsia constituted a class.
Jumping forward to this excerpt from Mr Mason's book I wonder why I am reminded
of the word 'intelligentsia'?
Could it be that only those persons who can discount the cost of access
to information consider that information is 'free', or becoming free? When
I read that Mr Mason's paradigm/book is being published by Allen Lane on
July 30 should I presume that I can wander into any bookshop and walk out
without paying for it? And that only because I put fuel in a vehicle I have
bought, taxed and insured to get me to the bookshop - the equivalent of
buying the equipment and paying my ISP in order to purchase the 'book' dematerialised
into data that my pc/tablet/e-reader/mobile phone can reconstitute.
Mr Mason's error, it seems to me, is to confuse the proliferation and
ubiquity of vectors for information with freedom of access to that information.
His historical analysis of capitalism presumes a progress beyond neoliberalism.
What we are living through is, rather, a regression to neofeudalism with
the state regulating and enforcing citizens' obligations to the seigneurial
class.
It has ended. And just a few are noticing it and doing what is needed
to deal with the aftermath of the mess created by the neo-liberal thinking...You
will remember the writer and his prediction. One example of this was when
the USSR stopped giving support to Cuba, which was under incredible economic
stress after the fall of the USSR.
I followed the process and I can tell you it survived. Greece will survive
too and so will all of us once we learn that sharing, cooperation and being
part of the community by contributing to it in a positive manner, is all
what it takes to make the community better.
This is what John F. Nash proved. They talk about game theory lol...it is
cooperation theory. He debunked capitalism individualism big time.
naurdiagreader 18 Jul 2015 03:54
It's true that the information-based system is starting to make money irrelevant
and therefore redundant. It still has a long way to go however and those
of us who don't have much money are acutely aware of the need for it to
buy the essentials of life.
We have seen a huge fightback since 2008 in particular from the wealthy
elite to claw back wealth from those at the bottom in particular, and austerity
has been a tool to do just that. Some countries such as the USA have had
Keynesian injections of investment to counter the downswing but on the other
hand we have had catastrophic failure in the financial system at the same
time. The motivation behind the bailout is clear, but that of the Lehmans
failure is less so. Lehmans was a choice, let us remember, it failed because
of a decision not because of some force of nature. A 'cui bono' exercise
on that decision indicates that the losers in macro economic terms from
that bank folding would be the general public of America and beyond as the
economy faltered, but also that the winners could be corporations benefitting
from the low wages generated by the crash as workers became more desperate
for work in a depressed economy. So why should the financial elite have
paid out their good money on a failed bank when it presented them with a
nice opportunity to reap more on their investments elsewhere?
Hopefully we are now far away from feudalism, but the oppressive economics
of Neo-Liberalism which oddly politicians of all mainstream parties now
seem fixated on (why is that, by the way?) is having a darned good try at
pulling us back to that position which is far from optimal either in wealth
creation or wealth distribution. My hope is that this struggle will ultimately
prove illusory for those wishing to hoard wealth, although there will probably
always be a rich elite even in the most equal of circumstances. Meanwhile,
we have pointless austerity in the UK, and outright oppression very sadly
in Greece. Concentration of money in one place will make trade fail. This
was recognised after WW2, and was a major driver of establishing the IMF
to counter the fact that no-one other than the USA had any money. We obviously
aren't at that pass, global trade isn't dependent on just one country, but
it is being generally suppressed by the economics which tends to suppress
both wages and economic activity. If the people who decided on Lehmans are
still in charge, I don't see a change of heart coming any time soon to revive
the global economy. Life is indeed better with information technology, but
many are still feeling the need of scarce money for everyday living.
PhilPharLap pogomutt 18 Jul 2015 03:24
I think you need to see how the present spoilt privileged group have
been dealing with the problem
They have used the methods of the slave era - accommodation has become
increasingly unavailable everywhere and the demands of a landlord class
have ensured that so much of a man's wage is taken up merely providing housing
and food there is little left to realise his potential as a human being
- That is why so many clubs and restaurants are empty. People cannot even
afford moderate leisure - they are slaves of a low paid work ethic
People are saddled with debt - one sees in Greece a whole nation raped
through the use of loans, which are stolen by the rich and left to ordinary
people to repay.
During Feudal Times many were idle because the Lords simply did not care
if they worked or not - lived or starved to death. Just so long as they
were hung or decapitated if they rebelled or even protested
Most work is totally pointless and is there to keep people off the streets.
Sure there is big problems coming but war and genocide will fix it. It starts
with neo Fascism
And it has started already
davebut 18 Jul 2015 03:13
For over 40 years there has been a gradual transition from the dominant
neo-liberal economic paradigm where economics is king and the environment
is managed for the benefit of today's humans to a more holistic sustainable
development paradigm in which humans are part of a complex interdependent
Earth system.
Annette Schneider 18 Jul 2015 03:01
Project Zero is definitely more plausible than the continuation of capitalism
and perhaps it wil emerge from the shock which is coming to us all, but
I fear that if it emerges it will only be from the ruins of a post-capitalist
neo-feudalism. Like renewable technology and climate change mitigation,
it really should be here already. There are too many of us and we have done
such great damage to the biosphere that we will be hard pressed to even
survive.
"on the ground in places such as Greece, resistance to austerity and
the creation of "networks you can't default on" – as one activist put it
to me – go hand in hand. Above all, postcapitalism as a concept is about
new forms of human behaviour that conventional economics would hardly recognise
as relevant."
I have seen a taste of our possible future at Camp Wando, ( http://frontlineaction.org/
) with the disparate groups involved in the Leard Alliance. I agree with
Paul Mason that,
"It is the elites – cut off in their dark-limo world – whose project
looks as forlorn as that of the millennial sects of the 19th century. The
democracy of riot squads, corrupt politicians, magnate-controlled newspapers
and the surveillance state looks as phoney and fragile as East Germany did
30 years ago."
but still I despair of such Mason's rosy prediction given what I can
see is the utter resistance to reason and the lack of effort required for
change.
I fear that the words of Alice Friedeman, 2006 http://energyskeptic.com/preservation-of-knowledge/
are a truer guide to the future,
"Preservation of knowledge needs to start immediately, while nations
are still stable and wealthy. Now is the time to consider how to preserve
knowledge with a material that won't decay, rust, mold, or shatter easily.
We should leave our descendents knowledge they can use and be amazed by,
information to fuel the next Renaissance."
I believe that the next Renaissance will only be after a period of time
to rival the dark ages rather than through the smooth transition envisaged
by Mason. The quicker we can give up fossil fuel, particularly coal, tar
sands and fracking the less time it will take for peace and stability to
emerge, because despite our wonderful technology, there are no shortcuts
in dealing with climate catastrophe and we are in for a very rough ride.
bemusedbyitall Sammykins 18 Jul 2015 02:57
By the Australian Liberals I take it you mean the ALP and the Liberals
- after all they are all devout neo-liberal fantasists
AtraHasis Dani123 18 Jul 2015 00:45
Who is this 'nutty left', and why do you think they 'dream of economical
(sic) collapse'?
Are you getting your information from wot some bloke in der pub finks?
As for 'success', ever notice that continual bailout of large corporate
entities leads to inevitable recession and depression? And that the military-industrial
complex requires tension and war to keep it relevant? And that R&D, financed
by the public, but profit being retained in a corporate sense somehow creates
permanent and rising deficit?
Sorry to burst your neoliberal feudalistic little bubble there, but some
of us are thinking beyond slogans like 'dose lefteez iz stoopid'.
"But part of the answer lies in something Americans have a hard time
talking about: class. Trade is a class issue. The trade agreements we have
entered into over the past few decades have consistently harmed some
Americans (manufacturing workers) while just as consistently benefiting
others (owners and professionals). …
To understand "free trade" in such a way has made it difficult for people
in the bubble of the consensus to acknowledge the actual consequences of the
agreements we have negotiated over the years."
"... the US has been successful in dictating neoliberal policies, acting partly through the IMF and World Bank and partly through direct pressure. ..."
"... From roughly the mid 1930s to the mid 1970s a new "interventionist" approach replaced classical liberalism, and it became the accepted belief that capitalism requires significant state regulation in order to be viable. In the 1970s the Old Religion of classical liberalism made a rapid comeback, first in academic economics and then in the realm of public policy. ..."
"... Neoliberal theory claims that a largely unregulated capitalist system (a "free market economy" not only embodies the ideal of free individual choice but also achieves optimum economic performance with respect to efficiency, economic growth, technical progress, and distributional justice. ..."
"... The policy recommendations of neoliberalism are concerned mainly with dismantling what remains of the regulationist welfare state. ..."
"... This paper argues that the resurgence and tenacity of neoliberalism during the past two decades cannot be explained, in an instrumental fashion, by any favorable effects of neoliberal policies on capitalist economic performance. On the contrary, we will present a case that neoliberalism has been harmful for long-run capitalist economic performance, even judging economic performance from the perspective of the interests of capital. It will be argued that the resurgence and continuing dominance of neoliberalism can be explained, at least in part, by changes in the competitive structure of world capitalism, which have resulted in turn from the particular form of global economic integration that has developed in recent decades. The changed competitive structure of capitalism has altered the political posture of big business with regard to economic policy and the role of the state, turning big business from a supporter of state-regulated capitalism into an opponent of it. ..."
"... Second, the neoliberal model creates instability on the macroeconomic level by renouncing state counter-cyclical spending and taxation policies, by reducing the effectiveness of "automatic stabilizers" through shrinking social welfare programs,3 and by loosening public regulation of the financial sector. This renders the system more vulnerable to major financial crises and depressions. Third, the neoliberal model tends to intensify class conflict, which can potentially discourage capitalist investment.4 ..."
"... The evidence from GDP and labor productivity growth rates supports the claim that the neoliberal model is inferior to the state regulationist model for key dimensions of capitalist economic performance. There is ample evidence that the neoliberal model has shifted income and wealth in the direction of the already wealthy. However, the ability to shift income upward has limits in an economy that is not growing rapidly. Neoliberalism does not appear to be delivering the goods in the ways that matter the most for capitalism's long-run stability and survival. ..."
"... Once capitalism had become well established in the US after the Civil War, it entered a period of cutthroat competition and wild accumulation known as the Robber Baron era. In this period a coherent anti-interventionist liberal position emerged and became politically dominant. Despite the enormous inequalities, the severe business cycle, and the outrageous and often unlawful behavior of the Goulds and Rockefellers, the idea that government should not intervene in the economy held sway through the end of the 19th century. ..."
"... Small business has remained adamantly opposed to the big, interventionist state, from the Progressive Era through the New Deal down to the present. This division between big and small business is chronicled for the Progressive Era in Weinstein (1968). In the decades immediately following World War II one can observe this division in the divergent views of the Business Roundtable, a big business organization which often supported interventionist programs, and the US Chambers of Commerce, the premier small business organization, which hewed to an antigovernment stance. ..."
"... By contrast, the typical small business faces a daily battle for survival, which prevents attention to long-run considerations and which places a premium on avoiding the short-run costs of taxation and state regulation. This explains the radically different positions that big business and small business held regarding the proper state role in the economy for the first two-thirds of the twentieth century. ..."
"... This long-standing division between big business and small business appeared to vanish in the US starting in the 1970s. Large corporations and banks which had formerly supported foundations that advocated an active government role in the economy, such as the Brookings Institution, became big donors to neoliberal foundations such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation. As a result, such right-wing foundations, which previously had to rely mainly on contributions from small business, became very wealthy and influential.10 It was big business=s desertion of the political coalition supporting state intervention and its shift to neoliberalism that rebuilt support for neoliberal theories and policies in the US, starting in the 1970s. With business now unified on economic policy, the shift was dramatic. Big grants became available for economics research having a neoliberal slant. The major media shifted their spin on political developments, and the phrase "government programs" now could not be printed except with the word "bloated" before it. ..."
"... Globalization is usually defined as an increase in the volume of cross-border economic interactions and resource flows, producing a qualitative shift in the relations between national economies and between nation-states (Baker et. al., 1998, p. 5; Kozul-Wright and Rowthorn, 1998, p. 1). Three kinds of economic interactions have increased substantially in past decades: merchandise trade flows, foreign direct investment, and cross-border financial investments. We will briefly examine each, with an eye on their effects on the competitive structure of contemporary capitalism. ..."
"... By the close of the twentieth century, capitalism had become significantly more globalized than it had been fifty years ago, and by some measures it is much more globalized than it had been at the previous peak of this process in 1913. The most important features of globalization today are greatly increased international trade, increased flows of capital across national boundaries (particularly speculative short-term capital), and a major role for large TNCs in manufacturing, extractive activities, and finance, operating worldwide yet retaining in nearly all cases a clear base in a single nation-state. ..."
"... Some analysts argue that globalization has produced a world of such economic interdependence that individual nation-states no longer have the power to regulate capital. However, while global interdependence does create difficulties for state regulation, this effect has been greatly exaggerated. Nation-states still retain a good deal of potential power vis-a-vis capitalist firms, provided that the political will is present to exercise such power. For example, even such a small country as Malaysia proved able to successfully impose capital controls following the Asian financial crisis of 1997, despite the opposition of the IMF and the US government. ..."
"... Globalization appears to be one factor that has transformed big business from a supporter to an opponent of the interventionist state. It has done so partly by producing TNCs whose tie to the domestic markets for goods and labor is limited. ..."
"... Globalization has produced a world capitalism that bears some resemblance to the Robber Baron Era in the US. Giant corporations battle one another in a system lacking well defined rules. Mergers and acquisitions abound, including some that cross national boundaries, but so far few world industries have evolved the kind of tight oligopolistic structure that would lay the basis for a more controlled form of market relations. Like the late 19th century US Robber Barons, today's large corporations and banks above all want freedom from political burdens and restraints as they confront one another in world markets.18 ..."
"... The existence of a powerful bloc of Communist-run states with an alternative "state socialist" socioeconomic system tended to push capitalism toward a state regulationist form. It reinforced the fear among capitalists that their own working classes might turn against capitalism. It also had an impact on relations among the leading capitalist states, promoting inter-state unity behind US leadership, which facilitated the creation and operation of a world-system of state-regulated capitalism.19 The demise of state socialism during 1989-91 removed one more factor that had reinforced the regulationist state. ..."
"... If state socialism re-emerged in one or more major countries, perhaps this might push the capitalist world back toward the regulationist state. However, such a development does not seem likely. Even if Russia or Ukraine at some point does head in that direction, it would be unlikely to produce a serious rival socioeconomic system to that of world capitalism. ..."
Department of Economics and Political Economy Research Institute Thompson Hall
University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003 U.S.A. Telephone 413-545-1248
Fax 413-545-2921 Email [email protected] August, 2000 This paper was published
in Rethinking Marxism, Volume 12, Number 2, Summer 2002, pp. 64-79.
Research assistance was provided by Elizabeth Ramey and Deger Eryar. Research
funding was provided by the Political Economy Research Institute of the University
of Massachusetts at Amherst. Globalization and Neoliberalism 1 For some
two decades neoliberalism has dominated economic policymaking in the US and
the UK. Neoliberalism has strong advocates in continental Western Europe and
Japan, but substantial popular resistance there has limited its influence so
far, despite continuing US efforts to impose neoliberal policies on them. In
much of the Third World, and in the transition countries (except for China),
the US has been successful in dictating neoliberal policies, acting partly through
the IMF and World Bank and partly through direct pressure.
Neoliberalism is an updated version of the classical liberal economic thought
that was dominant in the US and UK prior to the Great Depression of the 1930s.
From roughly the mid 1930s to the mid 1970s a new "interventionist" approach
replaced classical liberalism, and it became the accepted belief that capitalism
requires significant state regulation in order to be viable. In the 1970s the
Old Religion of classical liberalism made a rapid comeback, first in academic
economics and then in the realm of public policy.
Neoliberalism is both a body of economic theory and a policy stance.
Neoliberal theory claims that a largely unregulated capitalist system (a "free
market economy" not only embodies the ideal of free individual choice but also
achieves optimum economic performance with respect to efficiency, economic growth,
technical progress, and distributional justice. The state is assigned a
very limited economic role: defining property rights, enforcing contracts, and
regulating the money supply.1 State intervention to correct market failures
is viewed with suspicion, on the ground that such intervention is likely to
create more problems than it solves.
The policy recommendations of neoliberalism are concerned mainly with
dismantling what remains of the regulationist welfare state. These recommendations
include deregulation of business; privatization of public activities and assets;
elimination of, or cutbacks in, social welfare programs; and reduction of taxes
on businesses and the investing class. In the international sphere, neoliberalism
calls for free movement of goods, services, capital, and money (but not people)
across national boundaries. That is, corporations, banks, and individual investors
should be free to move their property across national boundaries, and free to
acquire property across national boundaries, although free cross-border movement
by individuals is not part of the neoliberal program. How can the re-emergence
of a seemingly outdated and outmoded economic theory be explained? At first
many progressive economists viewed the 1970s lurch toward liberalism as a temporary
response to the economic instability of that decade. As corporate interests
decided that the Keynesian regulationist approach no longer worked to their
advantage, they looked for an alternative and found only the old liberal ideas,
which could at least serve as an ideological basis for cutting those state programs
viewed as obstacles to profit-making. However, neoliberalism has proved to be
more than just a temporary response. It has outlasted the late 1970s/early 1980s
right-wing political victories in the UK (Thatcher) and US (Reagan). Under a
Democratic Party administration in the US and a Labor Party government in the
UK in the 1990s, neoliberalism solidified its position of dominance.
This paper argues that the resurgence and tenacity of neoliberalism during
the past two decades cannot be explained, in an instrumental fashion, by any
favorable effects of neoliberal policies on capitalist economic performance.
On the contrary, we will present a case that neoliberalism has been harmful
for long-run capitalist economic performance, even judging economic performance
from the perspective of the interests of capital. It will be argued that the
resurgence and continuing dominance of neoliberalism can be explained, at least
in part, by changes in the competitive structure of world capitalism, which
have resulted in turn from the particular form of global economic integration
that has developed in recent decades. The changed competitive structure of capitalism
has altered the political posture of big business with regard to economic policy
and the role of the state, turning big business from a supporter of state-regulated
capitalism into an opponent of it.
The Problematic Character of Neoliberalism
Neoliberalism appears to be problematic as a dominant theory for contemporary
capitalism. The stability and survival of the capitalist system depends on its
ability to bring vigorous capital accumulation, where the latter process is
understood to include not just economic expansion but also technological progress.
Vigorous capital accumulation permits rising profits to coexist with rising
living standards for a substantial part of the population over the long-run.2
However, it does not appear that neoliberalism promotes vigorous capital accumulation
in contemporary capitalism. There are a number of reasons why one would not
expect the neoliberal model to promote rapid accumulation. First, it gives rise
to a problem of insufficient aggregate demand over the long run, stemming from
the powerful tendency of the neoliberal regime to lower both real wages and
public spending. Second, the neoliberal model creates instability on the
macroeconomic level by renouncing state counter-cyclical spending and taxation
policies, by reducing the effectiveness of "automatic stabilizers" through shrinking
social welfare programs,3 and by loosening public regulation of the financial
sector. This renders the system more vulnerable to major financial crises and
depressions. Third, the neoliberal model tends to intensify class conflict,
which can potentially discourage capitalist investment.4
The historical evidence confirms doubts about the ability of the neoliberal
model to promote rapid capital accumulation. We will look at growth rates of
gross domestic product (GDP) and of labor productivity. The GDP growth rate
provides at least a rough approximation of the rate of capital accumulation,
while the labor productivity growth rate tells us something about the extent
to which capitalism is developing the forces of production via rising ratios
of means of production to direct labor, technological advance, and improved
labor skills.5 Table 1 shows average annual real GDP growth rates for six leading
developed capitalist countries over two periods, 1950-73 and 1973-99. The first
period was the heyday of state-regulated capitalism, both within those six countries
and in the capitalist world-system as a whole. The second period covers the
era of growing neoliberal dominance. All six countries had significantly faster
GDP growth in the earlier period than in the later one.
While Japan and the major Western European economies have been relatively
depressed in the 1990s, the US is often portrayed as rebounding to great prosperity
over the past decade. Neoliberals often claim that US adherence to neoliberal
policies finally paid off in the 1990s, while the more timid moves away from
state-interventionist policies in Europe and Japan kept them mired in stagnation.
Table 2 shows GDP and labor productivity growth rates for the US economy for
three subperiods during 1948-99.6 Column 1 of Table 2 shows that GDP growth
was significantly slower in 1973-90 B a period of transition from state-regulated
capitalism to the neoliberal model in the US B than in 1948-73. While GDP growth
improved slightly in 1990-99, it remained well below that of the era of state-regulated
capitalism. Some analysts cite the fact that GDP growth accelerated after 1995,
averaging 4.1% per year during 1995-99 (US Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2000).
However, it is not meaningful to compare a short fragment of the 1990s business
cycle expansion to the longrun performance of the economy during 1948-73.7
Column 2 of Table 1 shows that the high rate of labor productivity growth
recorded in 1948- 73 fell by more than half in 1973-90. While there was significant
improvement in productivity growth in the 1990s, it remained well below the
1948-73 rate, despite the rapid spread of what should be productivity-enhancing
communication and information-management technologies during the past decade.
The evidence from GDP and labor productivity growth rates supports the
claim that the neoliberal model is inferior to the state regulationist model
for key dimensions of capitalist economic performance. There is ample evidence
that the neoliberal model has shifted income and wealth in the direction of
the already wealthy. However, the ability to shift income upward has limits
in an economy that is not growing rapidly. Neoliberalism does not appear to
be delivering the goods in the ways that matter the most for capitalism's long-run
stability and survival.
The Structure of Competition and Economic Policy
The processes through which the dominant economic ideology and policies
are selected in a capitalist system are complex and many-sided. No general rule
operates to assure that those economic policies which would be most favorable
for capitalism are automatically adopted. History suggests that one important
determinant of the dominant economic ideology and policy stance is the competitive
structure of capitalism in a given era. Specifically, this paper argues that
periods of relatively unconstrained competition tend to produce the intellectual
and public policy dominance of liberalism, while periods of relatively constrained,
oligopolistic market relations tend to promote interventionist ideas and policies.
A relation in the opposite direction also exists, one which is often commented
upon. That is, one can argue that interventionist policies promote monopoly
power in markets, while liberal policies promote greater competition. This latter
relation is not being denied here. Rather, it will be argued that there is a
normally-overlooked direction of influence, having significant historical explanatory
power, which runs from competitive structure to public policy. In the period
when capitalism first became well established in the US, during 1800-1860, the
government played a relatively interventionist role. The federal government
placed high tariffs on competing manufactured goods from Europe, and federal,
state, and local levels of government all actively financed, and in some cases
built and operated, the new canal and rail system that created a large internal
market. There was no serious debate over the propriety of public financing of
transportation improvements in that era -- the only debate was over which regions
would get the key subsidized routes.
Once capitalism had become well established in the US after the Civil
War, it entered a period of cutthroat competition and wild accumulation known
as the Robber Baron era. In this period a coherent anti-interventionist liberal
position emerged and became politically dominant. Despite the enormous inequalities,
the severe business cycle, and the outrageous and often unlawful behavior of
the Goulds and Rockefellers, the idea that government should not intervene in
the economy held sway through the end of the 19th century.
From roughly 1890 to 1903 a huge merger wave transformed the competitive
structure of US capitalism. Out of that merger wave emerged giant corporations
possessing significant monopoly power in the manufacturing, mining, transportation,
and communication sectors. US industry settled down to a more restrained form
of oligopolistic rivalry. At the same time, many of the new monopoly capitalists
began to criticize the old Laissez Faire ideas and support a more interventionist
role for the state.8 The combination of big business support for state regulation
of business, together with similar demands arising from a popular anti-monopoly
movement based among small farmers and middle class professionals, ushered in
what is called the Progressive Era, from 1900-16. The building of a regulationist
state that was begun in the Progressive Era was completed during the New Deal
era a few decades later, when once again both big business leaders and a vigorous
popular movement (this time based among industrial workers) supported an interventionist
state. Both in the Progressive Era and the New Deal, big business and the popular
movement differed about what types of state intervention were needed. Big business
favored measures to increase the stability of the system and to improve conditions
for profit-making, while the popular movement sought to use the state to restrain
the power and privileges of big business and provide greater security for ordinary
people. The outcome in both cases was a political compromise, one weighted toward
the interests of big business, reflecting the relative power of the latter in
American capitalism.
Small business has remained adamantly opposed to the big, interventionist
state, from the Progressive Era through the New Deal down to the present. This
division between big and small business is chronicled for the Progressive Era
in Weinstein (1968). In the decades immediately following World War II one can
observe this division in the divergent views of the Business Roundtable, a big
business organization which often supported interventionist programs, and the
US Chambers of Commerce, the premier small business organization, which hewed
to an antigovernment stance.
What explains this political difference between large and small business?
When large corporations achieve significant market power and become freed from
fear concerning their immediate survival, they tend to develop a long time horizon
and pay attention to the requirements for assuring growing profits over time.9
They come to see the state as a potential ally. Having high and stable monopoly
profits, they tend to view the cost of government programs as something they
can afford, given their potential benefits. By contrast, the typical small
business faces a daily battle for survival, which prevents attention to long-run
considerations and which places a premium on avoiding the short-run costs of
taxation and state regulation. This explains the radically different positions
that big business and small business held regarding the proper state role in
the economy for the first two-thirds of the twentieth century.
This long-standing division between big business and small business appeared
to vanish in the US starting in the 1970s. Large corporations and banks which
had formerly supported foundations that advocated an active government role
in the economy, such as the Brookings Institution, became big donors to neoliberal
foundations such as the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation.
As a result, such right-wing foundations, which previously had to rely mainly
on contributions from small business, became very wealthy and influential.10
It was big business=s desertion of the political coalition supporting state
intervention and its shift to neoliberalism that rebuilt support for neoliberal
theories and policies in the US, starting in the 1970s. With business now unified
on economic policy, the shift was dramatic. Big grants became available for
economics research having a neoliberal slant. The major media shifted their
spin on political developments, and the phrase "government programs" now could
not be printed except with the word "bloated" before it.
This switch in the dominant economic model first showed up in the mid 1970s
in academic economics, as the previously marginalized Chicago School spread
its influence far beyond the University of Chicago. This was soon followed by
a radical shift in the public policy arena. In 1978- 79 the previously interventionist
Carter Administration began sounding the very neoliberal themes B deregulation
of business, cutbacks in social programs, and general fiscal and monetary austerity
B that were to become the centerpiece of Reagan Administration policies in 1981.
What caused the radical change in the political posture of big business regarding
state intervention in the economy? This paper argues that a major part of the
explanation lies in the effects of the globalization of the world capitalist
economy in the post-World War II period.
Globalization and Competition
Globalization is usually defined as an increase in the volume of cross-border
economic interactions and resource flows, producing a qualitative shift in the
relations between national economies and between nation-states (Baker et. al.,
1998, p. 5; Kozul-Wright and Rowthorn, 1998, p. 1). Three kinds of economic
interactions have increased substantially in past decades: merchandise trade
flows, foreign direct investment, and cross-border financial investments. We
will briefly examine each, with an eye on their effects on the competitive structure
of contemporary capitalism.
Table 3 shows the ratio of merchandise exports to gross domestic product
for selected years from 1820 to 1992, for the world and also for Western Europe,
the US, and Japan. Capitalism brought a five-fold rise in world exports relative
to output from 1820-70, followed by another increase of nearly three-fourths
by 1913. After declining in the interwar period, world exports reached a new
peak of 11.2% of world output in 1973, rising further to 13.5% in 1992. The
1992 figure was over fifty per cent higher than the pre-World War I peak.
Merchandise exports include physical goods only, while GDP includes services,
many of which are not tradable, as well as goods. In the twentieth century the
proportion of services in GDP has risen significantly. Table 4 shows an estimate
of the ratio of world merchandise exports to the good-only portion of world
GDP. This ratio nearly tripled during 1950-92, with merchandise exports rising
to nearly one-third of total goods output in the latter year. The 1992 figure
was 2.6 times as high as that of 1913.
Western Europe, the US, and Japan all experienced significant increases in
exports relative to GDP during 1950-92, as Table 3 shows. All of them achieved
ratios of exports to GDP far in excess of the 1913 level. While exports were
only 8.2% of the total GDP of the US in 1992, exports amounted to 22.0% of the
non-service portion of GDP that year (Economic Report of the President,
1999, pp. 338, 444).
Many analysts view foreign direct investment as the most important form of
cross-border economic interchange. It is associated with the movement of technology
and organizational methods, not just goods. Table 5 shows two measures of foreign
direct investment. Column 1 gives the outstanding stock of foreign direct investment
in the world as a percentage of world output. This measure has more than doubled
since 1975, although it is not much greater today than it was in 1913. Column
2 shows the annual inflow of direct foreign investment as a percentage of gross
fixed capital formation. This measure increased rapidly during 1975-95. However,
it is still relatively low in absolute terms, with foreign direct investment
accounting for only 5.2 per cent of gross fixed capital formation in 1995.
Not all, or even most, international capital flows take the form of direct
investment. Financial flows (such as cross-border purchases of securities and
deposits in foreign bank accounts) are normally larger. One measure that takes
account of financial as well as direct investment is the total net movement
of capital into or out of a country. That measure indicates the extent to which
capital from one country finances development in other countries. Table 6 shows
the absolute value of current account surpluses or deficits as a percentage
of GDP for 12 major capitalist countries. Since net capital inflow or outflow
is approximately equal to the current account deficit or surplus (differing
only due to errors and omissions), this indicates the size of net cross-border
capital flows. The ratio nearly doubled from 1970-74 to 1990-96, although it
remained well below the figure for 1910-14.
Cross-border gross capital movements have grown much more rapidly
than cross-border net capital movements.11 In recent times a very large
and rapidly growing volume of capital has moved back and forth across national
boundaries. Much of this capital flow is speculative in nature, reflecting growing
amounts of short-term capital that are moved around the world in search of the
best temporary return. No data on such flows are available for the early part
of this century, but the data for recent decades are impressive. During 1980-95
cross-border transactions in bonds and equities as a percentage of GDP rose
from 9% to 136% for the US, from 8% to 168% for Germany, and from 8% to 66%
for Japan (Baker et. al., 1998, p. 10). The total volume of foreign exchange
transactions in the world rose from about $15 billion per day in 1973 to $80
billion per day in 1980 and $1260 billion per day in 1995. Trade in goods and
services accounted for 15% of foreign exchange transactions in 1973 but for
less than 2% of foreign exchange transactions in 1995 (Bhaduri, 1998, p. 152).
While cross-border flows of goods and capital are usually considered to be
the best indicators of possible globalization of capitalism, changes that have
occurred over time within capitalist enterprises are also relevant. That is,
the much-discussed rise of the transnational corporation (TNC) is relevant here,
where a TNC is a corporation which has a substantial proportion of its sales,
assets, and employees outside its home country.12 TNCs existed in the pre-World
War I era, primarily in the extractive sector. In the post-World War II period
many large manufacturing corporations in the US, Western Europe, and Japan became
TNCs.
The largest TNCs are very international measured by the location of their
activities. One study found that the 100 largest TNCs in the world (ranked by
assets) had 40.4% of their assets abroad, 50.0% of output abroad, and 47.9%
of employment abroad in 1996 (Sutcliffe and Glyn, 1999, p. 125). While this
shows that the largest TNCs are significantly international in their activities,
all but a handful have retained a single national base for top officials and
major stockholders.13 The top 200 TNCs ranked by output were estimated to produce
only about 10 per cent of world GDP in 1995 (Sutcliffe and Glyn, 1999, p. 122).
By the close of the twentieth century, capitalism had become significantly
more globalized than it had been fifty years ago, and by some measures it is
much more globalized than it had been at the previous peak of this process in
1913. The most important features of globalization today are greatly increased
international trade, increased flows of capital across national boundaries (particularly
speculative short-term capital), and a major role for large TNCs in manufacturing,
extractive activities, and finance, operating worldwide yet retaining in nearly
all cases a clear base in a single nation-state.
While the earlier wave of globalization before World War I did produce a
capitalism that was significantly international, two features of that earlier
international system differed from the current global capitalism in ways that
are relevant here. First, the pre-world War I globalization took place within
a world carved up into a few great colonial empires, which meant that much of
the so-called "cross-border" trade and investment of that earlier era actually
occurred within a space controlled by a single state. Second, the high level
of world trade reached before World War I occurred within a system based much
more on specialization and division of labor. That is, manufactured goods were
exported by the advanced capitalist countries in exchange for primary products,
unlike today when most trade is in manufactured goods. In 1913 62.5% of world
trade was in primary products (Bairoch and Kozul-Wright, 1998, p. 45). By contrast,
in 1970 60.9% of world exports were manufactured goods, rising to 74.7% in 1994
(Baker et. al., 1998, p. 7).
Some analysts argue that globalization has produced a world of such economic
interdependence that individual nation-states no longer have the power to regulate
capital. However, while global interdependence does create difficulties for
state regulation, this effect has been greatly exaggerated. Nation-states still
retain a good deal of potential power vis-a-vis capitalist firms, provided that
the political will is present to exercise such power. For example, even such
a small country as Malaysia proved able to successfully impose capital controls
following the Asian financial crisis of 1997, despite the opposition of the
IMF and the US government. A state that has the political will to exercise
some control over movements of goods and capital across its borders still retains
significant power to regulate business. The more important effect of globalization
has been on the political will to undertake state regulation, rather than on
the technical feasibility of doing so. Globalization has had this effect by
changing the competitive structure of capitalism. It appears that globalization
in this period has made capitalism significantly more competitive, in several
ways. First, the rapid growth of trade has changed the situation faced by large
corporations. Large corporations that had previously operated in relatively
controlled oligopolistic domestic markets now face competition from other large
corporations based abroad, both in domestic and foreign markets. In the US the
rate of import penetration of domestic manufacturing markets was only 2 per
cent in 1950; it rose to 8% in 1971 and 16% by 1993, an 8-fold increase since
1950 (Sutcliffe and Glyn, 1999, p. 116).
Second, the rapid increase in foreign direct investment has in many cases
placed TNCs production facilities in the home markets of their foreign rivals.
General Motors not only faces import competition from Toyota and Honda but has
to compete with US-produced Toyota and Honda vehicles. Third, the increasingly
integrated and open world financial system has thrown the major banks and other
financial institutions of the leading capitalist nations increasingly into competition
with one another.
Globalization appears to be one factor that has transformed big business
from a supporter to an opponent of the interventionist state. It has done so
partly by producing TNCs whose tie to the domestic markets for goods and labor
is limited. More importantly, globalization tends to turn big business
into small business. The process of globalization has increased the competitive
pressure faced by large corporations and banks, as competition has become a
world-wide relationship.17 Even if those who run large corporations and financial
institutions recognize the need for a strong nationstate in their home base,
the new competitive pressure they face shortens their time horizon. It pushes
them toward support for any means to reduce their tax burden and lift their
regulatory constraints, to free them to compete more effectively with their
global rivals. While a regulationist state may seem to be in the interests of
big business, in that it can more effectively promote capital accumulation in
the long run, in a highly competitive environment big business is drawn away
from supporting a regulationist state.
Globalization has produced a world capitalism that bears some resemblance
to the Robber Baron Era in the US. Giant corporations battle one another in
a system lacking well defined rules. Mergers and acquisitions abound, including
some that cross national boundaries, but so far few world industries have evolved
the kind of tight oligopolistic structure that would lay the basis for a more
controlled form of market relations. Like the late 19th century US Robber Barons,
today's large corporations and banks above all want freedom from political burdens
and restraints as they confront one another in world markets.18
The above interpretation of the rise and persistence of neoliberalism attributes
it, at least in part, to the changed competitive structure of world capitalism
resulting from the process of globalization. As neoliberalism gained influence
starting in the 1970s, it became a force propelling the globalization process
further. One reason for stressing the line of causation running from globalization
to neoliberalism is the time sequence of the developments. The process of globalization,
which had been reversed to some extent by political and economic events in the
interwar period, resumed right after World War II, producing a significantly
more globalized world economy and eroding the monopoly power of large corporations
well before neoliberalism began its second coming in the mid 1970s. The rapid
rise in merchandise exports began during the Bretton Woods period, as Table
3 showed. So too did the growing role for TNC's. These two aspects of the current
globalization had their roots in the postwar era of state-regulated capitalism.
This suggests that, to some extent, globalization reflects a long-run tendency
in the capital accumulation process rather than just being a result of the rising
influence of neoliberal policies. On the other hand, once neoliberalism became
dominant, it accelerated the process of globalization. This can be seen most
clearly in the data on cross-border flows of both real and financial capital,
which began to grow rapidly only after the 1960s.
Other Factors Promoting Neoliberalism
The changed competitive structure of capitalism provides part of the explanation
for the rise from the ashes of classical liberalism and its persistence in the
face of widespread evidence of its failure to deliver the goods. However, three
additional factors have played a role in promoting neoliberal dominance. These
are the weakening of socialist movements in the industrialized capitalist countries,
the demise of state socialism, and the long period that has elapsed since the
last major capitalist economic crisis. There is space here for only some brief
comments about these additional factors.
The socialist movements in the industrialized capitalist countries have declined
in strength significantly over the past few decades. While Social Democratic
parties have come to office in several European countries recently, they no
longer represent a threat of even significant modification of capitalism, much
less the specter of replacing capitalism with an alternative socialist system.
The regulationist state was always partly a response to the fear of socialism,
a point illustrated by the emergence of the first major regulationist state
of the era of mature capitalism in Germany in the late 19th century, in response
to the world=s first major socialist movement. As the threat coming from socialist
movements in the industrialized capitalist countries has receded, so too has
to incentive to retain the regulationist state.
The existence of a powerful bloc of Communist-run states with an alternative
"state socialist" socioeconomic system tended to push capitalism toward a state
regulationist form. It reinforced the fear among capitalists that their own
working classes might turn against capitalism. It also had an impact on relations
among the leading capitalist states, promoting inter-state unity behind US leadership,
which facilitated the creation and operation of a world-system of state-regulated
capitalism.19 The demise of state socialism during 1989-91 removed one more
factor that had reinforced the regulationist state.
The occurrence of a major economic crisis tends to promote an interventionist
state, since active state intervention is required to overcome a major crisis.
The memory of a recent major crisis tends to keep up support for a regulationist
state, which is correctly seen as a stabilizing force tending to head off major
crises. As the Great Depression of the 1930s has receded into the distant past,
the belief has taken hold that major economic crises have been banished forever.
This reduces the perceived need to retain the regulationist state.
Concluding Comments
If neoliberalism continues to reign as the dominant ideology and policy stance,
it can be argued that world capitalism faces a future of stagnation, instability,
and even eventual social breakdown.20 However, from the factors that have promoted
neoliberalism one can see possible sources of a move back toward state-regulated
capitalism at some point. One possibility would be the development of tight
oligopoly and regulated competition on a world scale. Perhaps the current merger
wave might continue until, as happened at the beginning of the 20th century
within the US and in other industrialized capitalist economies, oligopoly replaced
cutthroat competition, but this time on a world scale. Such a development might
revive big business support for an interventionist state. However, this does
not seem to be likely in the foreseeable future. The world is a big place, with
differing cultures, laws, and business practices in different countries, which
serve as obstacles to overcoming the competitive tendency in market relations.
Transforming an industry=s structure so that two to four companies produce the
bulk of the output is not sufficient in itself to achieve stable monopoly power,
if the rivals are unable to communicate effectively with one another and find
common ground for cooperation. Also, it would be difficult for international
monopolies to exercise effective regulation via national governments, and a
genuine world capitalist state is not a possibility for the foreseeable future.
If state socialism re-emerged in one or more major countries, perhaps
this might push the capitalist world back toward the regulationist state. However,
such a development does not seem likely. Even if Russia or Ukraine at some point
does head in that direction, it would be unlikely to produce a serious rival
socioeconomic system to that of world capitalism.
A more likely source of a new era of state interventionism might come from
one of the remaining two factors considered above. The macro-instability of
neoliberal global capitalism might produce a major economic crisis at some point,
one which spins out of the control of the weakened regulatory authorities. This
would almost certainly revive the politics of the regulationist state. Finally,
the increasing exploitation and other social problems generated by neoliberal
global capitalism might prod the socialist movement back to life at some point.
Should socialist movements revive and begin to seriously challenge capitalism
in one or more major capitalist countries, state regulationism might return
in response to it. Such a development would also revive the possibility of finally
superceding capitalism and replacing it with a system based on human need rather
than private profit.
"... Elites can continue on the current path of pursuing integration projects and defending existing
integration, hoping to win enough popular support that their efforts are not thwarted. On the evidence
of the U.S. presidential campaign and the Brexit debate, this strategy may have run its course. ...
..."
"... I think some fellows already had this idea: "Much more promising is this idea: The promotion
of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project" -- "Workers of the World,
Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!" ~Marx/Engels, 1848 ..."
"... Krugman sort of said this when he saw that apparel multinationals were shifting jobs out of
China to Bangladesh. Like $3 an hour is just way too high for workers. ..."
"... The "populists" are raging against global trade which benefits the world poor. The Very Serious
economists know what is really going on and have to interests of the poor at heart. Plus they are smarter
than the "populists" who are just dumb hippies. ..."
"... And what about neocolonialism and debt slavery ? http://historum.com/blogs/solidaire/245-debt-slavery-neo-colonialism-neoliberalism.html
..."
"... International debtors are the modern colonialists, sucking the marrow of countries; no armies
are needed anymore to keep those countries subjugated. Debt is the modern instrument of enslavement,
the international banks, corporations and hedge funds the modern colonial powers, and its enforcers
are instruments like the Global Bank, the IMF, and the corrupt, collaborationist governments (and totalitarian
regimes) of those countries, supported and propped up by these neo-colonials. ..."
"... Cover your a$$ much Larry? No mention of mass immigration? No mention of the elites' conscious,
planned attack on homogeneous societies in Western Europe, the US, and now Japan? ..."
"... The US was 88% European as of 1960. As of 1800 it was like 90% English. So yes, it was basically
a homogeneous society prior to the immigration act of 1965. Today it is extremely hard for Europeans
to get into the US -- but easier for non-Europeans. Now why would that be? Hmm .... ..."
"... The only trade that is actually free is trade not covered by laws and/or treaties. All other
trade is regulated trade. ..."
"... Here's a good rule to follow. When someone calls something the exact opposite of what it is,
in all probability they are trying to hustle your wallet. ..."
"... ISIS was invented by Wall Street who financed them. ISIS is a scam, just like Bin Laden's group,
just like "COMMUNISM!!!!" to control people. To manipulate them. ..."
"... Guys, the bourgeois state is a protection racket and always has been. It makes you feel safe,
secure and "feel like man". So we can enjoy every indulgent individual lust the world has to offer.
Then comes in dialectics of what that protection racket should do. ..."
"... To me, the bourgeois state is nothing more than a protection racket for the rich, something
you should not forget. ..."
"... I find it rather precious that Summers pretends not to understand why people hate TPP. I do
not think there is any real widespread antipathy toward global integration, though it does pose some
rather substantial systemic dangers, as we saw in the global financial collapse. What people, including
me, oppose is how that integration is structured. These agreements are about is not "free trade", but
removing all restrictions on global capital and that is a big problem. ..."
"... TPP is not free trade. It is protectionism for the rich. ..."
"... All or most modern "free trade" agreements are like that. What people oppose is agreements
which impoverish them and enrich capital. ..."
"... More free trade arrangement are not always better trade arrangements. People have seen the
results of the labor race to the bottom caused by earlier free trade agreements; and now they are guessing
we're going to get the same kind of race to the bottom with TPP when we have to put all of our environmental
laws and other domestic regulations into capitalist competition with backward countries. ..."
"... progressive states (WA, OR, CA, NV, IL, NY, MD) could simply treat union busting the same way
any OTHER major muscling or manipulation of the free market is treated: make it a felony. ..."
"... Summers: "Pie in the Sky" So trade negotiations would have to be lead by labor advocates and
environmental groups -- sounds great to me, but I can't for the life of me figure out why the goods
and service producers (i.e. capital owners) would have any incentive to promote trade under such a negotiated
trade agreement... or that trade would actually occur. You'd have to eliminate private enterprise incentives
to profit I think.. not something the U.S.'s "individualism" god can't tolerate. ..."
"... Alas, the Kaiser, the Tsar, and the Emperor did not act in accord with its tenets. Either increased
global trade is irrelevant to war and peace, or World War I didn't happen. Your pick which to believe.
..."
What's behind the revolt against global integration? : Since the end of World War II, a broad
consensus in support of global economic integration as a force for peace and prosperity has been
a pillar of the international order. ...
This broad program of global integration has been more successful than could reasonably have
been hoped. ... Yet a revolt against global integration is underway in the West. ...
One substantial part of what is behind the resistance is a lack of knowledge. ...The core of
the revolt against global integration, though, is not ignorance. It is a sense - unfortunately
not wholly unwarranted - that it is a project being carried out by elites for elites, with little
consideration for the interests of ordinary people. ...
Elites can continue on the current path of pursuing integration projects and defending
existing integration, hoping to win enough popular support that their efforts are not thwarted.
On the evidence of the U.S. presidential campaign and the Brexit debate, this strategy may have
run its course. ...
Much more promising is this idea: The promotion of global integration can become a bottom-up
rather than a top-down project. The emphasis can shift from promoting integration to managing
its consequences. This would mean a shift from international trade agreements to international
harmonization agreements, whereby issues such as labor rights and environmental protection would
be central, while issues related to empowering foreign producers would be secondary. It would
also mean devoting as much political capital to the trillions of dollars that escape taxation
or evade regulation through cross-border capital flows as we now devote to trade agreements. And
it would mean an emphasis on the challenges of middle-class parents everywhere who doubt, but
still hope desperately, that their kids can have better lives than they did.
I think some fellows already had this idea: "Much more promising is this idea: The promotion
of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project" -- "Workers of the
World, Unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains!" ~Marx/Engels, 1848
Krugman sort of said this when he saw that apparel multinationals were shifting jobs out of
China to Bangladesh. Like $3 an hour is just way too high for workers.
A large part of the concern over free trade comes from the weak economic performances around the
globe. Summers could have addressed this. Jared Bernstein and Dean Baker - both sensible economists
- for example recently called on the US to do its own currency manipulation so as to reverse the
US$ appreciation which is lowering our net exports quite a bit.
What they left out is the fact that both China and Japan have seen currency appreciations as
well. If we raise our net exports at their expense, that lowers their economic activity. Better
would be global fiscal stimulus. I wish Larry had raised this issue here.
The "populists" are raging against global trade which benefits the world poor. The Very Serious
economists know what is really going on and have to interests of the poor at heart. Plus they
are smarter than the "populists" who are just dumb hippies.
One of the most fundamental reasons for the poverty and underdevelopment of Africa (and of
almost all "third world" countries) is neo-colonialism, which in modern history takes the shape
of external debt.
When countries are forced to pay 40,50,60% of their government budgets just to pay the interests
of their enormous debts, there is little room for actual prosperity left.
International debtors are the modern colonialists, sucking the marrow of countries; no
armies are needed anymore to keep those countries subjugated. Debt is the modern instrument of
enslavement, the international banks, corporations and hedge funds the modern colonial powers,
and its enforcers are instruments like the Global Bank, the IMF, and the corrupt, collaborationist
governments (and totalitarian regimes) of those countries, supported and propped up by these neo-colonials.
In reality, not much has changed since the fall of the great colonial empires. In paper, countries
have gained their sovereignty, but in reality they are enslaved to the international credit system.
The only thing that has changed, is that now the very colonial powers of the past, are threatened
to become debt colonies themselves. You see, global capitalism and credit system has no country,
nationality, colour; it only recognises the colour of money, earned at all cost by the very few,
on the expense of the vast, unsuspected and lulled masses.
Debt had always been a very efficient way of control, either on a personal, or state level.
And while most of us are aware of the implementations of personal debt and the risks involved,
the corridors of government debt are poorly lit, albeit this kind of debt is affecting all citizens
of a country and in ways more profound and far reaching into the future than those of private
debt.
Global capitalism was flourishing after WW2, and reached an apex somewhere in the 70's.
The lower classes in the mature capitalist countries had gained a respectable portion of the
distributed wealth, rights and privileges inconceivable several decades before. The purchasing
power of the average American for example, was very satisfactory, fully justifying the American
dream. Similar phenomena were taking place all over the "developed" world.
Cover your a$$ much Larry? No mention of mass immigration? No mention of the elites' conscious,
planned attack on homogeneous societies in Western Europe, the US, and now Japan?
There is of course no reasonable answering to prejudice, since prejudice is always unreasonable,
but should there be a question, when was the last time that, say, the United States or the territory
that the US now covers was a homogeneous society?
Before the US engulfed Spanish peoples? Before the US engulfed African peoples? Before the
US engulfed Indian peoples? When did the Irish, just to think of a random nationality, ruin "our"
homogeneity?
I could continue, but how much of a point is there in being reasonable?
The US was 88% European as of 1960. As of 1800 it was like 90% English. So yes, it was basically
a homogeneous society prior to the immigration act of 1965. Today it is extremely hard for Europeans
to get into the US -- but easier for non-Europeans. Now why would that be? Hmm ....
ISIS was invented by Wall Street who financed them. ISIS is a scam, just like Bin Laden's
group, just like "COMMUNISM!!!!" to control people. To manipulate them.
It is like using the internet to think you are "edgy". Some dudes like psuedo-science scam
artist Mike Adams are uncovering secrets to this witty viewer............then you wonder why society
is degenerating. What should happen with Mike Adams is, he should be beaten up and castrated.
My guess he would talk then. Boy would his idiot followers get a surprise and that surprise would
have results other than "poor mikey, he was robbed".
This explains why guys like Trump get delegates. Not because he uses illegal immigrants in
his old businesses, not because of some flat real wages going over 40 years, not because he is
a conman marketer.........he makes them feel safe. That is purely it. I think its pathetic, but
that is what happens in a emasculated world. Safety becomes absolute concern. "Trump makes me
feel safe".
Guys, the bourgeois state is a protection racket and always has been. It makes you feel
safe, secure and "feel like man". So we can enjoy every indulgent individual lust the world has
to offer. Then comes in dialectics of what that protection racket should do.
To me, the bourgeois state is nothing more than a protection racket for the rich, something
you should not forget.
I find it rather precious that Summers pretends not to understand why people hate TPP. I do
not think there is any real widespread antipathy toward global integration, though it does pose
some rather substantial systemic dangers, as we saw in the global financial collapse. What people,
including me, oppose is how that integration is structured. These agreements are about is not
"free trade", but removing all restrictions on global capital and that is a big problem.
Actually, this is my first actual response to the post itself, but you were too busy being and
a*****e to notice. All or most modern "free trade" agreements are like that. What people oppose
is agreements which impoverish them and enrich capital.
This has become a popular line, and it's not exactly false. But so what if it were a "free trade"
agreement? More free trade arrangement are not always better trade arrangements. People have
seen the results of the labor race to the bottom caused by earlier free trade agreements; and
now they are guessing we're going to get the same kind of race to the bottom with TPP when we
have to put all of our environmental laws and other domestic regulations into capitalist competition
with backward countries.
" The promotion of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project. "
" ... whereby issues such as labor rights and environmental protection would be central ...
"
+1
Now if we could just adopt that policy internally in the United States first we could then
(and only then) support it externally across the world.
Easy approach: (FOR THE TEN MILLIONTH TIME!) progressive states (WA, OR, CA, NV, IL, NY,
MD) could simply treat union busting the same way any OTHER major muscling or manipulation of
the free market is treated: make it a felony. FYI (for those who are not aware) states can
add to federal labor protections, just not subtract.
A completely renewed, re-constituted democracy would be born.
Biggest obstacle to this being done in my (crackpot?) view: human males. Being instinctive
pack hunters, before they check out any idea they, first, check in with the pack (all those other
boys who are also checking in with the pack) -- almost automatically infer impossibility to overcome
what they see (correctly?) as wheels within wheels of inertia.
Self-fulfilling prophecy: nothing (not the most obvious, SHOULD BE easiest possible to get
support for actions) ever gets done.
I'm not the only one seeking a new path forward on trade.
by Jared Bernstein
April 11th, 2016 at 9:20 am
"...
Here's Larry's view of the way forward:
"The promotion of global integration can become a bottom-up rather than a top-down project.
The emphasis can shift from promoting integration to managing its consequences. This would
mean a shift from international trade agreements to international harmonization agreements,
whereby issues such as labor rights and environmental protection would be central, while issues
related to empowering foreign producers would be secondary. It would also mean devoting as
much political capital to the trillions of dollars that escape taxation or evade regulation
through cross-border capital flows as we now devote to trade agreements. And it would mean
an emphasis on the challenges of middle-class parents everywhere who doubt, but still hope
desperately, that their kids can have better lives than they did.
Good points, all. "Bottom-up" means what I've been calling a more representative, inclusive
process. But what's this about "international harmonization?""
It's a way of saying that we need to reduce the "frictions" and thus costs between trading
partners at the level of pragmatic infrastructure, not corporate power. One way to think of
this is TFAs, not FTAs. TFAs are trade facilitation agreements, which are more about integrating
ports, rail, and paperwork than patents that protect big Pharma.
It's refreshing to see mainstreamers thinking creatively about the anger that's surfaced
around globalization. Waiting for the anger to dissipate and then reverting back to the old
trade regimes may be the preferred path for elites, but that path may well be blocked. We'd
best clear a new, wider path, one that better accommodates folks from all walks of life, both
here and abroad."
Summers: "Pie in the Sky" So trade negotiations would have to be lead by labor advocates and
environmental groups -- sounds great to me, but I can't for the life of me figure out why the
goods and service producers (i.e. capital owners) would have any incentive to promote trade under
such a negotiated trade agreement... or that trade would actually occur. You'd have to eliminate
private enterprise incentives to profit I think.. not something the U.S.'s "individualism" god
can't tolerate.
Imagine a trade deal negotiated by the AFL-CIO. Labor wins a lot and capital owners lose a little.
We can all then smile and say to the latter - go get your buddies in Congress more serious about
the compensation principle. Turn the table!
"consensus in support of global economic integration as a force for peace and prosperity " --
"The Great Illusion" (
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion
)
That increased trade is a bulwark against war rears its ugly head again. The above book which
so ironically delivered the message was published in 1910.
Alas, the Kaiser, the Tsar, and the Emperor did not act in accord with its tenets. Either
increased global trade is irrelevant to war and peace, or World War I didn't happen. Your pick
which to believe.
Our problems began back in the 1970s when we abandoned the Bretton Woods international capital
controls and then broke the unions, cut taxes on corporations and upper income groups, and deregulated
the financial system. This eventually led a stagnation of wages in the US and an increase in the
concentration of income at the top of the income distribution throughout the world:
http://www.rwEconomics.com/Ch_1.htm
When combined with tax cuts and financial deregulation it led to increasing debt relative to
income in the importing countries that caused the financial catastrophe we went through in 2008,
the economic stagnation that followed, and the social unrest we see throughout the world today.
This, in turn, created a situation in which the full utilization of our economic resources can
only be maintained through an unsustainable increase in debt relative to income:
http://www.rwEconomics.com/htm/WDCh3e.htm
This is what has to be overcome if we are to get out of the mess the world is in today, and
it's not going to be overcome by pretending that it's just going to go away if people can just
become educated about the benefits of trade. At least that's not the way it worked out in the
1930s: http://www.rwEconomics.com/LTLGAD.htm
"... From Tunis to Tel Aviv, Madrid to Oakland, a new generation of youth activists is challenging the neoliberal state that has dominated the world ever since the Cold War ended. ..."
"... young rebels are reacting to a single stunning worldwide development: the extreme concentration of wealth in a few hands thanks to neoliberal policies of deregulation and union busting. They have taken to the streets, parks, plazas and squares to protest against the resulting corruption, the way politicians can be bought and sold, and the impunity ..."
"... In the "glorious thirty years" after World War II, North America and Western Europe achieved remarkable rates of economic growth and relatively low levels of inequality for capitalist societies, while instituting a broad range of benefits for workers, students and retirees. From roughly 1980 on, however, the neoliberal movement, rooted in the laissez-faire economic theories of Milton Friedman, launched what became a full-scale assault on workers' power and an attempt, often remarkably successful, to eviscerate the social welfare state. ..."
"... "Washington consensus" meant that the urge to impose privatisation on stagnating, nepotistic postcolonial states would become the order of the day. ..."
"... While neoliberalism has produced more unequal societies throughout the world, nowhere else has the income of the poor declined quite so strikingly. The concentration of wealth in a few hands profoundly contradicts the founding principles of Israel's Labour Zionism, and results from decades of right-wing Likud policies punishing the poor and middle classes and shifting wealth to the top of society. ..."
"... Juan Cole is the Richard P. Mitchell Professor of History and the director of the Centre for South Asian Studies at the University of Michigan. His latest book, ..."
"... Engaging the Muslim World , is just out in a revised paperback edition from Palgrave Macmillan. He runs the Informed Comment website. ..."
"... A version of this article was first published on Tom Dispatch . ..."
"... The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy. ..."
ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN - From Tunis to Tel Aviv, Madrid to Oakland, a new
generation of youth activists is challenging the neoliberal state that has dominated
the world ever since the Cold War ended. The massive popular protests that
shook the globe this year have much in common, though most of the reporting
on them in the mainstream media has obscured the similarities.
Whether in Egypt or the United States, young rebels are reacting to a
single stunning worldwide development: the extreme concentration of wealth in
a few hands thanks to neoliberal policies of deregulation and union busting.
They have taken to the streets, parks, plazas and squares to protest against
the resulting corruption, the way politicians can be bought and sold, and the
impunity
ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN - From Tunis to Tel Aviv, Madrid to
Oakland, a new generation of youth activists is challenging the neoliberal state
that has dominated the world ever since the Cold War ended. The massive popular
protests that shook the globe this year have much in common, though most of
the reporting on them in the mainstream media has obscured the similarities.
Whether in Egypt or the United States, young rebels are reacting to a single
stunning worldwide development: the extreme concentration of wealth in a few
hands thanks to neoliberal policies of deregulation and union busting. They
have taken to the streets, parks, plazas and squares to protest against the
resulting corruption, the way politicians can be bought and sold, and the impunity
of the white-collar criminals who have run riot in societies everywhere. They
are objecting to high rates of unemployment, reduced social services, blighted
futures and above all the substitution of the market for all other values as
the matrix of human ethics and life.
Pasha the Tiger
In the "glorious thirty years" after World War II, North America and
Western Europe achieved remarkable rates of economic growth and relatively low
levels of inequality for capitalist societies, while instituting a broad range
of benefits for workers, students and retirees. From roughly 1980 on, however,
the neoliberal movement, rooted in the laissez-faire economic theories of Milton
Friedman, launched what became a full-scale assault on workers' power and an
attempt, often remarkably successful, to eviscerate the social welfare state.
Neoliberals chanted the mantra that everyone would benefit if the public
sector were privatised, businesses deregulated and market mechanisms allowed
to distribute wealth. But as economist David Harvey
argues, from the beginning it was a doctrine that primarily benefited the
wealthy, its adoption allowing the top one per cent in any neoliberal society
to capture a disproportionate share of whatever wealth was generated.
In the global South, countries that gained their independence from European
colonialism after World War II tended to create large public sectors as part
of the process of industrialization. Often, living standards improved as a result,
but by the 1970s, such developing economies were generally experiencing a levelling-off
of growth. This happened just as neoliberalism became ascendant in Washington,
Paris and London as well as in Bretton Woods institutions like the International
Monetary Fund. This "Washington consensus" meant that the urge to impose
privatisation on stagnating, nepotistic postcolonial states would become the
order of the day.
Egypt and Tunisia, to take two countries in the spotlight for sparking the
Arab Spring, were successfully pressured in the 1990s to privatise their relatively
large public sectors. Moving public resources into the private sector created
an almost endless range of opportunities for staggering levels of corruption
on the part of the ruling families of autocrats
Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in Tunis and
Hosni Mubarak in Cairo. International banks, central banks and emerging
local private banks aided and abetted their agenda.
It was not surprising then that one of the first targets of Tunisian crowds
in the course of the revolution they made last January was the
Zitouna bank, a branch of which they torched. Its owner? Sakher El Materi,
a son-in-law of President Ben Ali and the notorious owner of
Pasha, the well-fed pet tiger that prowled the grounds of one of his sumptuous
mansions. Not even the way his outfit sought legitimacy by practicing "Islamic
banking" could forestall popular rage. A 2006 State Department cable released
by WikiLeaks
observed, "One local financial expert blames the [Ben Ali] Family for chronic
banking sector woes due to the great percentage of non-performing loans issued
through crony connections, and has essentially paralysed banking authorities
from genuine recovery efforts." That is, the banks were used by the regime to
give away money to his cronies, with no expectation of repayment.
Tunisian activists similarly directed their ire at foreign banks and lenders
to which their country owes $14.4bn. Tunisians are still railing and rallying
against the repayment of all that money, some of which they believe was
borrowed profligately by the corrupt former regime and then squandered quite
privately.
Tunisians had their own one per cent, a thin commercial elite,
half of whom were related to or closely connected to President Ben Ali.
As a group, they were accused by young activists of mafia-like, predatory practices,
such as demanding pay-offs from legitimate businesses, and discouraging foreign
investment by tying it to a stupendous system of bribes. The closed, top-heavy
character of the Tunisian economic system was blamed for the bottom-heavy waves
of suffering that followed: cost of living increases that hit people on fixed
incomes or those like students and peddlers in the marginal economy especially
hard.
It was no happenstance that the young man who
immolated himself and so sparked the Tunisian rebellion was a hard-pressed
vegetable peddler. It's easy now to overlook what clearly ties the beginning
of the Arab Spring to the European Summer and the present American Fall: the
point of the Tunisian revolution was not just to gain political rights, but
to sweep away that one per cent, popularly imagined as a sort of dam against
economic opportunity.
Tahrir Square, Zuccotti Park, Rothschild Avenue
The success of the Tunisian revolution in removing the octopus-like Ben Ali
plutocracy inspired the dramatic events in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Syria and even
Israel that are redrawing the political map of the Middle East. But the 2011
youth protest movement was hardly contained in the Middle East. Estonian-Canadian
activist Kalle Lasn and his anti-consumerist colleagues at the Vancouver-based
Adbusters Media Foundation
were inspired by the success of the revolutionaries in Tahrir Square in
deposing dictator Hosni Mubarak.
Their organisation specialises in combatting advertising culture through
spoofs and pranks. It was Adbusters magazine that sent out the call
on Twitter in the summer of 2011 for a rally at Wall Street on September 17,
with the now-famous hash tag #OccupyWallStreet. A thousand protesters gathered
on the designated date, commemorating the 2008 economic meltdown that had thrown
millions of Americans out of their jobs and their homes. Some camped out in
nearby Zuccotti Park, another unexpected global spark for protest.
The Occupy Wall Street movement has now spread throughout the United States,
sometimes in the face of serious acts of repression, as in
Oakland, California. It has followed in the spirit of the Arab and European
movements in demanding an end to special privileges for the richest one per
cent, including their ability to more or less buy the US government for purposes
of their choosing. What is often forgotten is that the Ben Alis, Mubaraks and
Gaddafis were not simply authoritarian tyrants. They were the one per
cent and the guardians of the one per cent, in their own societies - and loathed
for exactly that.
Last April, around the time that Lasn began imagining Wall Street protests,
progressive activists in Israel started planning their own movement. In July,
sales clerk and aspiring filmmaker Daphne Leef found herself
unable
to cover a sudden rent increase on her Tel Aviv apartment. So she started
a protest Facebook page similar to the ones that fuelled the Arab Spring and
moved into a tent on the posh Rothschild Avenue where she was soon joined by
hundreds of other protesting Israelis. Week by week, the demonstrations grew,
spreading to cities throughout the country and
culminating on September 3 in a massive rally, the largest in Israel's history.
Some 300,000 protesters came out in Tel Aviv, 50,000 in Jerusalem and 40,000
in Haifa. Their demands
included not just lower housing costs, but a rollback of neoliberal policies,
less regressive taxes and more progressive, direct taxation, a halt to the privatisation
of the economy, and the funding of a system of inexpensive education and child
care.
Many on the left in Israel are also
deeply troubled by the political and economic power of right-wing settlers
on the West Bank, but most decline to bring the Palestinian issue into the movement's
demands for fear of losing support among the middle class. For the same reason,
the way the Israeli movement was inspired by Tahrir Square and the Egyptian
revolution has been downplayed, although
"Walk like an Egyptian" signs - a reference both to the Cairo demonstrations
and the 1986 Bangles hit song - have been spotted on Rothschild Avenue.
Most of the Israeli activists in the coastal cities know that they are victims
of the same neoliberal order that displaces the Palestinians, punishes them
and keeps them stateless. Indeed, the Palestinians, altogether lacking a state
but at the complete mercy of various forms of international capital controlled
by elites elsewhere, are the ultimate victims of the neoliberal order. But in
order to avoid a split in the Israeli protest movement, a quiet agreement was
reached to focus on economic discontents and so avoid the divisive issue of
the much-despised West Bank settlements.
There has been little reporting in the Western press about a key source of
Israeli unease, which was palpable to me when I visited the country in May.
Even then, before the local protests had fully hit their stride, Israelis I
met were complaining about the rise to power of an Israeli one per cent. There
are now
16 billionaires in the country, who control $45bn in assets, and the current
crop of 10,153 millionaires is 20 per cent larger than it was in the previous
fiscal year. In terms of its distribution of wealth, Israel is now among the
most unequal of the countries in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation
and Development. Since the late 1980s, the average household income of families
in the bottom fifth of the population has been declining at an annual rate of
1.1 per cent. Over the same period, the average household income of families
among the richest 20 per cent went up at an annual rate of 2.4 per cent.
While neoliberalism has produced more unequal societies throughout the
world, nowhere else has the income of the poor declined quite so strikingly.
The concentration of wealth in a few hands profoundly contradicts the founding
principles of Israel's Labour Zionism, and results from decades of right-wing
Likud policies punishing the poor and middle classes and shifting wealth to
the top of society.
The indignant ones
European youth were also inspired by the Tunisians and Egyptians - and by
a similar flight of wealth. I was in Barcelona on May 27, when the police attacked
demonstrators camped out at the Placa de Catalunya, provoking widespread consternation.
The government of the region is currently led by the centrist Convergence and
Union Party, a moderate proponent of Catalan nationalism. It is relatively popular
locally, and so Catalans had not expected such heavy-handed police action to
be ordered. The crackdown, however, underlined the very point of the protesters,
that the neoliberal state, whatever its political makeup, is protecting the
same set of wealthy miscreants.
Spain's "indignados" (indignant ones) got
their start in mid-May with huge protests at Madrid's Puerta del Sol Plaza
against the country's persistent 21 per cent unemployment rate (and double that
among the young). Egyptian activists in Tahrir Square
immediately sent a statement of warm support to those in the Spanish capital
(as they would months later to New York's demonstrators). Again following the
same pattern, the Spanish movement does not restrict its objections to unemployment
(and the lack of benefits attending the few new temporary or contract jobs that
do arise). Its targets are the banks, bank bailouts, financial corruption and
cuts in education and other services.
Youth activists I met in Toledo and Madrid this summer
denounced
both of the country's major parties and, indeed, the very consumer society that
emphasised wealth accumulation over community and material acquisition over
personal enrichment. In the past two months Spain's young protesters have concentrated
on demonstrating against cuts to education, with crowds of 70,000 to 90,000
coming out more than once in Madrid and tens of thousands in other cities. For
marches in support of the Occupy Wall Street movement,
hundreds of thousands reportedly took to the streets of Madrid and Barcelona,
among other cities.
The global reach and connectedness of these movements has yet to be fully
appreciated. The Madrid education protesters, for example, cited for inspiration
Chilean students who, through persistent, innovative, and large-scale demonstrations
this summer and fall, have forced that country's neoliberal government, headed
by the increasingly unpopular billionaire president Sebastian Pinera, to inject
$1.6bn in new money into education. Neither the crowds of youth in Madrid nor
those in Santiago are likely to be mollified, however, by new dorms and laboratories.
Chilean students have
already moved on from insisting on an end to an ever more expensive class-based
education system to demands that the country's lucrative copper mines be nationalised
so as to generate revenues for investment in education. In every instance, the
underlying goal of specific protests by the youthful reformists is the neoliberal
order itself.
The word "union" was little uttered in American television news coverage
of the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, even though factory workers and sympathy
strikes of all sorts played a
key role in them. The right-wing press in the US actually went out of its
way to contrast Egyptian demonstrations against Mubarak with the Wisconsin rallies
of government workers against Governor Scott Walker's measure to cripple the
bargaining power of their unions.
The Egyptians, Commentary typically
wrote,
were risking their lives, while Wisconsin's union activists were taking the
day off from cushy jobs to parade around with placards, immune from being fired
for joining the rallies. The implication: the Egyptian revolution was against
tyranny, whereas already spoiled American workers were demanding further coddling.
The American right has never been interested in recognising this reality:
that forbidding unions and strikes is a form of tyranny. In fact, it wasn't
just progressive bloggers who saw a connection between Tahrir Square and Madison.
The head of the newly formed independent union federation in Egypt dispatched
an
explicit expression of solidarity to the Wisconsin workers, centering on
worker's rights.
At least,Commentary did us one favour: it clarified
why the story has been told as it has in most of the American media. If the
revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya were merely about individualistic political
rights - about the holding of elections and the guarantee of due process - then
they could be depicted as largely irrelevant to politics in the US and Europe,
where such norms already prevailed.
If, however, they centered on economic rights (as they certainly did), then
clearly the discontents of North African youth when it came to plutocracy, corruption,
the curbing of workers' rights, and persistent unemployment deeply resembled
those of their American counterparts.
The global protests of 2011 have been cast in the American media largely
as an "Arab Spring" challenging local dictatorships - as though Spain, Chile
and Israel do not exist. The constant speculation by pundits and television
news anchors in the US about whether "Islam" would benefit from the Arab Spring
functioned as an Orientalist way of marking events in North Africa as alien
and vaguely menacing, but also as not germane to the day to day concerns of
working Americans. The inhabitants of Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan clearly
feel differently.
Facebook flash mobs
If we focus on economic trends, then the neoliberal state looks eerily similar,
whether it is a democracy or a dictatorship, whether the government is nominally
right of centre or left of centre. As a package, deregulation, the privatisation
of public resources and firms, corruption and forms of insider trading and interference
in the ability of workers to organise or engage in collective bargaining have
allowed the top one per cent in Israel, just as in Tunisia or the US, to capture
the lion's share of profits from the growth of the last decades.
Observers were puzzled by the huge crowds that turned out in both Tunis and
Tel Aviv in 2011, especially given that economic growth in those countries had
been running at a seemingly healthy five per cent per annum. "Growth", defined
generally and without regard to its distribution, is the answer to a neoliberal
question. The question of the 99 per cent, however, is: Who is getting the increased
wealth? In both of those countries, as in the US and other neoliberal lands,
the answer is: disproportionately the one per cent.
If you were wondering why outraged young people around the globe are chanting
such similar slogans and using such similar tactics (including Facebook "flash
mobs"), it is because they have seen more clearly than their elders through
the neoliberal shell game.
Juan Cole is the Richard P. Mitchell Professor of History and
the director of the Centre for South Asian Studies at the University of Michigan.
His latest book,
Engaging the Muslim World, is just out in a revised paperback edition from
Palgrave Macmillan. He runs the
Informed Comment website.
A version of this article was first published on
Tom Dispatch.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and
do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
Yet another response [ to globalization] is that I term 21stcentury fascism.The ultra-right is an insurgent force in many countries. In broad strokes,
this project seeks to fuse reactionary political power with transnational capital
and to organise a mass base among historically privileged sectors of the global
working class – such as white workers in the North and middle layers in the
South – that are now experiencing heightened insecurity and the specter of downward
mobility. It involves militarism, extreme masculinisation, homophobia, racism
and racist mobilisations, including the search for scapegoats, such as immigrant
workers and, in the West, Muslims. Twenty-first century fascism evokes mystifying
ideologies, often involving race/culture supremacy and xenophobia, embracing an
idealised and mythical past. Neo-fascist culture normalises and glamorises warfare
and social violence, indeed, generates a fascination with domination that is portrayed
even as heroic.
Notable quotes:
"... over-accumulation ..."
"... Cyclical crises ..."
"... . Structural crises ..."
"... systemic crisis ..."
"... social reproduction. ..."
"... crisis of humanity ..."
"... 1984 has arrived; ..."
"... The crisis has resulted in a rapid political polarisation in global society. ..."
"... In broad strokes, this project seeks to fuse reactionary political power with transnational capital and to organise a mass base among historically privileged sectors of the global working class ..."
"... It involves militarism, extreme masculinisation, homophobia, racism and racist mobilisations, including the search for scapegoats, such as immigrant workers and, in the West, Muslims. ..."
"... Neo-fascist culture normalises and glamorises warfare and social violence, indeed, generates a fascination with domination that is portrayed even as heroic. ..."
World capitalism is experiencing the worst crisis in its 500 year history.
Global capitalism is a qualitatively new stage in the open ended evolution of
capitalism characterised by the rise of transnational capital, a transnational
capitalist class, and a transnational state. Below, William I. Robinson argues
that the global crisis is structural and threatens to become systemic, raising
the specter of collapse and a global police state in the face of ecological
holocaust, concentration of the means of violence, displacement of billions,
limits to extensive expansion and crises of state legitimacy, and suggests that
a massive redistribution of wealth and power downward to the poor majority of
humanity is the only viable solution.
The New Global Capitalism and the 21st Century Crisis
The world capitalist system is arguably experiencing the worst crisis in
its 500 year history. World capitalism has experienced a profound restructuring
through globalisation over the past few decades and has been transformed in
ways that make it fundamentally distinct from its earlier incarnations. Similarly,
the current crisis exhibits features that set it apart from earlier crises of
the system and raise the stakes for humanity. If we are to avert disastrous
outcomes we must understand both the nature of the new global capitalism and
the nature of its crisis. Analysis of capitalist globalisation provides a template
for probing a wide range of social, political, cultural and ideological processes
in this 21st century. Following Marx, we want to focus on the internal dynamics
of capitalism to understand crisis. And following the global capitalism perspective,
we want to see how capitalism has qualitatively evolved in recent decades.
The system-wide crisis we face is not a repeat of earlier such episodes such
as that of the the 1930s or the 1970s precisely because capitalism is fundamentally
different in the 21st century. Globalisation constitutes a qualitatively new
epoch in the ongoing and open-ended evolution of world capitalism, marked by
a number of qualitative shifts in the capitalist system and by novel articulations
of social power. I highlight four aspects unique to this epoch.1
First is the rise of truly transnational capital and a new global production
and financial system into which all nations and much of humanity has been integrated,
either directly or indirectly. We have gone from a world economy, in
which countries and regions were linked to each other via trade and financial
flows in an integrated international market, to a global economy, in
which nations are linked to each more organically through the transnationalisation
of the production process, of finance, and of the circuits of capital accumulation.
No single nation-state can remain insulated from the global economy or prevent
the penetration of the social, political, and cultural superstructure of global
capitalism. Second is the rise of a Transnational Capitalist Class (TCC), a
class group that has drawn in contingents from most countries around the world,
North and South, and has attempted to position itself as a global ruling class.
This TCC is the hegemonic fraction of capital on a world scale. Third
is the rise of Transnational State (TNS) apparatuses. The TNS is constituted
as a loose network made up of trans-, and supranational organisations together
with national states. It functions to organise the conditions for transnational
accumulation. The TCC attempts to organise and institutionally exercise its
class power through TNS apparatuses. Fourth are novel relations of inequality,
domination and exploitation in global society, including an increasing importance
of transnational social and class inequalities relative to North-South inequalities.
Cyclical, Structural, and Systemic Crises
Most commentators on the contemporary crisis refer to the "Great Recession"
of 2008 and its aftermath. Yet the causal origins of global crisis are to be
found in over-accumulation and also in contradictions of state
power, or in what Marxists call the internal contradictions of the capitalist
system. Moreover, because the system is now global, crisis in any one place
tends to represent crisis for the system as a whole. The system cannot expand
because the marginalisation of a significant portion of humanity from direct
productive participation, the downward pressure on wages and popular consumption
worldwide, and the polarisation of income, has reduced the ability of the world
market to absorb world output. At the same time, given the particular configuration
of social and class forces and the correlation of these forces worldwide, national
states are hard-pressed to regulate transnational circuits of accumulation and
offset the explosive contradictions built into the system.
Is this crisis cyclical, structural, or systemic? Cyclical crises
are recurrent to capitalism about once every 10 years and involve recessions
that act as self-correcting mechanisms without any major restructuring of the
system. The recessions of the early 1980s, the early 1990s, and of 2001 were
cyclical crises. In contrast, the 2008 crisis signaled the slide into astructural
crisis. Structural crises reflect deeper contradictions that can only
be resolved by a major restructuring of the system. The structural crisis of
the 1970s was resolved through capitalist globalisation. Prior to that, the
structural crisis of the 1930s was resolved through the creation of a new model
of redistributive capitalism, and prior to that the structural crisis of the
1870s resulted in the development of corporate capitalism. A systemic crisis
involves the replacement of a system by an entirely new system or
by an outright collapse. A structural crisis opens up the possibility
for a systemic crisis. But if it actually snowballs into a systemic crisis –
in this case, if it gives way either to capitalism being superseded or to a
breakdown of global civilisation – is not predetermined and depends entirely
on the response of social and political forces to the crisis and on historical
contingencies that are not easy to forecast. This is an historic moment of extreme
uncertainty, in which collective responses from distinct social and class forces
to the crisis are in great flux.
Hence my concept of global crisis is broader than financial. There are multiple
and mutually constitutive dimensions – economic, social, political, cultural,
ideological and ecological, not to mention the existential crisis of our consciousness,
values and very being. There is a crisis of social polarisation, that is, of
social reproduction. The system cannot meet the needs or assure the
survival of millions of people, perhaps a majority of humanity. There are crises
of state legitimacy and political authority, or of hegemony and
domination. National states face spiraling crises of legitimacy as they
fail to meet the social grievances of local working and popular classes experiencing
downward mobility, unemployment, heightened insecurity and greater hardships.
The legitimacy of the system has increasingly been called into question by millions,
perhaps even billions, of people around the world, and is facing expanded counter-hegemonic
challenges. Global elites have been unable counter this erosion of the system's
authority in the face of worldwide pressures for a global moral economy. And
a canopy that envelops all these dimensions is a crisis of sustainability rooted
in an ecological holocaust that has already begun, expressed in climate change
and the impending collapse of centralised agricultural systems in several regions
of the world, among other indicators.
By a crisis of humanity I mean a crisis that is approaching systemic
proportions, threatening the ability of billions of people to survive, and raising
the specter of a collapse of world civilisation and degeneration into a new
"Dark Ages."2
Global capitalism now couples human and natural history in such a way
as to threaten to bring about what would be the sixth mass extinction in the
known history of life on earth.
This crisis of humanity shares a
number of aspects with earlier structural crises but there are also several
features unique to the present:
The system is fast reaching the ecological limits of its reproduction.
Global capitalism now couples human and natural history in such a way as
to threaten to bring about what would be the sixth mass extinction in the
known history of life on earth.3 This mass extinction would
be caused not by a natural catastrophe such as a meteor impact or by evolutionary
changes such as the end of an ice age but by purposive human activity. According
to leading environmental scientists there are nine "planetary boundaries"
crucial to maintaining an earth system environment in which humans can exist,
four of which are experiencing at this time the onset of irreversible environmental
degradation and three of which (climate change, the nitrogen cycle, and
biodiversity loss) are at "tipping points," meaning that these processes
have already crossed their planetary boundaries.
The magnitude of the means of violence and social control is unprecedented,
as is the concentration of the means of global communication and symbolic
production and circulation in the hands of a very few powerful groups.
Computerised wars, drones, bunker-buster bombs, star wars, and so forth,
have changed the face of warfare. Warfare has become normalised and sanitised
for those not directly at the receiving end of armed aggression. At the
same time we have arrived at the panoptical surveillance society and the
age of thought control by those who control global flows of communication,
images and symbolic production. The world of Edward Snowden is the world
of George Orwell; 1984 has arrived;
Capitalism is reaching apparent limits to its extensive
expansion. There are no longer any new territories of significance that
can be integrated into world capitalism, de-ruralisation is now well advanced,
and the commodification of the countryside and of pre- and non-capitalist
spaces has intensified, that is, converted in hot-house fashion into spaces
of capital, so that intensive expansion is reaching depths never
before seen. Capitalism must continually expand or collapse. How or where
will it now expand?
There is the rise of a vast surplus population inhabiting a "planet
of slums,"4 alienated from the productive economy, thrown
into the margins, and subject to sophisticated systems of social control
and to destruction – to a mortal cycle of dispossession-exploitation-exclusion.
This includes prison-industrial and immigrant-detention complexes, omnipresent
policing, militarised gentrification, and so on;
There is a disjuncture between a globalising economy and a nation-state
based system of political authority. Transnational state apparatuses
are incipient and have not been able to play the role of what social scientists
refer to as a "hegemon," or a leading nation-state that has enough power
and authority to organise and stabilise the system. The spread of weapons
of mass destruction and the unprecedented militarisation of social life
and conflict across the globe makes it hard to imagine that the system can
come under any stable political authority that assures its reproduction.
Global Police State
How have social and political forces worldwide responded to crisis? The
crisis has resulted in a rapid political polarisation in global society.
Both right and left-wing forces are ascendant. Three responses seem to be in
dispute.
One is what we could call "reformism from above." This elite reformism is
aimed at stabilising the system, at saving the system from itself and from more
radical responses from below. Nonetheless, in the years following the 2008 collapse
of the global financial system it seems these reformers are unable (or unwilling)
to prevail over the power of transnational financial capital. A second response
is popular, grassroots and leftist resistance from below. As social and political
conflict escalates around the world there appears to be a mounting global revolt.
While such resistance appears insurgent in the wake of 2008 it is spread very
unevenly across countries and regions and facing many problems and challenges.
Yet another response is that I term 21stcentury fascism.5
The ultra-right is an insurgent force in many countries. In broad
strokes, this project seeks to fuse reactionary political power with transnational
capital and to organise a mass base among historically privileged sectors of
the global working class – such as white workers in the North and middle
layers in the South – that are now experiencing heightened insecurity and the
specter of downward mobility. It involves militarism, extreme masculinisation,
homophobia, racism and racist mobilisations, including the search for scapegoats,
such as immigrant workers and, in the West, Muslims. Twenty-first century
fascism evokes mystifying ideologies, often involving race/culture supremacy
and xenophobia, embracing an idealised and mythical past. Neo-fascist culture
normalises and glamorises warfare and social violence, indeed, generates a fascination
with domination that is portrayed even as heroic.
The need for dominant groups around the world to secure widespread, organised
mass social control of the world's surplus population and rebellious forces
from below gives a powerful impulse to projects of 21st century fascism. Simply
put, the immense structural inequalities of the global political economy cannot
easily be contained through consensual mechanisms of social control. We have
been witnessing transitions from social welfare to social control states around
the world. We have entered a period of great upheavals, momentous changes and
uncertainties. The only viable solution to the crisis of global capitalism is
a massive redistribution of wealth and power downward towards the poor majority
of humanity along the lines of a 21st century democratic socialism, in which
humanity is no longer at war with itself and with nature.
About the Author
William I. Robinson is professor of sociology, global and
international studies, and Latin American studies, at the University of California-Santa
Barbara. Among his many books are Promoting Polyarchy (1996),
Transnational Conflicts (2003), A Theory of Global Capitalism
(2004), Latin America and Global Capitalism (2008),
and
Global Capitalism and the Crisis of Humanity (2014).
This is part of the introduction to an essay by Mike Konczal on how to "insure
people against the hardships of life..., accident, illness, old age, and loss
of a job." Should we rely mostly upon government social insurance programs such
as Medicare and Social Security, or would a system that relies upon private
charity be better? History provides a very clear answer:
The Voluntarism Fantasy: Ideology is as much about understanding the
past as shaping the future. And conservatives tell themselves a story, a
fairy tale really, about the past, about the way the world was and can be
again under Republican policies. This story is about the way people were
able to insure themselves against the risks inherent in modern life. Back
before the Great Society, before the New Deal, and even before the Progressive
Era, things were better. Before government took on the role of providing
social insurance, individuals and private charity did everything needed
to insure people against the hardships of life; given the chance, they could
do it again.
This vision has always been implicit in the conservative ascendancy. It
existed in the 1980s, when President Reagan announced, "The size of the
federal budget is not an appropriate barometer of social conscience or charitable
concern," and called for voluntarism to fill in the yawning gaps in the
social safety net. It was made explicit in the 1990s, notably through Marvin
Olasky's The Tragedy of American Compassion, a treatise hailed by the likes
of Newt Gingrich and William Bennett, which argued that a purely private
nineteenth-century system of charitable and voluntary organizations did
a better job providing for the common good than the twentieth-century welfare
state. This idea is also the basis of Paul Ryan's budget, which seeks to
devolve and shrink the federal government at a rapid pace, lest the safety
net turn "into a hammock that lulls able-bodied people into lives of dependency
and complacency, that drains them of their will and their incentive to make
the most of their lives." It's what Utah Senator Mike Lee references when
he says that the "alternative to big government is not small government"
but instead "a voluntary civil society." As conservatives face the possibility
of a permanent Democratic majority fueled by changing demographics, they
understand that time is running out on their cherished project to dismantle
the federal welfare state.
But this conservative vision of social insurance is wrong. It's incorrect
as a matter of history; it ignores the complex interaction between public
and private social insurance that has always existed in the United States.
It completely misses why the old system collapsed and why a new one was
put in its place. It fails to understand how the Great Recession displayed
the welfare state at its most necessary and that a voluntary system would
have failed under the same circumstances. Most importantly, it points us
in the wrong direction. The last 30 years have seen effort after effort
to try and push the policy agenda away from the state's capabilities and
toward private mechanisms for mitigating the risks we face in the world.
This effort is exhausted, and future endeavors will require a greater, not
lesser, role for the public. ...
The state does many things, but this essay will focus specifically on its
role in providing social insurance against the risks we face. Specifically,
we'll look at what the progressive economist and actuary I.M. Rubinow described
in 1934 as the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: "accident, illness, old
age, loss of a job. These are the four horsemen that ride roughshod over
lives and fortunes of millions of wage workers of every modern industrial
community." These were the same evils that Truman singled out in his speech.
And these are the ills that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food assistance,
and our other public systems of social insurance set out to combat in the
New Deal and Great Society.
Over the past 30 years the public role in social insurance has taken a backseat
to the idea that private institutions will expand to cover these risks.
Yet our current system of workplace private insurance is rapidly falling
apart. In its wake, we'll need to make a choice between an expanded role
for the state or a fantasy of voluntary protection instead. We need to understand
why this voluntary system didn't work in the first place to make the case
for the state's role in fighting the Four Horsemen. ...
"... That was the sad tragedy of Marx and Marxism. Instead of focusing on a practical agenda for achieving and sustaining a democratically administered state in an imperfect human world, a state based on a more equal distribution of capital, a workable balance between private and public ownership of capital, and a regulatory framework and rule of law designed to sustain this balance in the face of social and economic forces that will *always* be acting to disrupt it, Marx veered off into the fantasy lands ..."
"... In this utopian future, every single person is intelligent, relaxed, cooperative, and preternaturally enlightened. There are no thieves, psychopaths, predators, raiders or uncooperative deadbeats and spongers. Since there is no law, there is no government; and since there is no government; there are no elections or other ways of forming government. There is also no division of labor, because somehow human beings have passed beyond the "realm of necessity" into the "realm of freedom." ..."
"... Marx himself was one of these underminers, pissing all over the very progressive Gotha program and the very idea of a well-governed state in the name of his dreamy "communist society." ..."
"... In the end, Marx had a very unrealistic view of human nature and history. His analytic and scientific powers were betrayed by an infantile romanticism that both weakened his social theory and crippled much of left progressive politics for a century. The problem is still floating around with the insipid anarcho-libertarian silliness of much of the late 20th and early 21st century left. ..."
"... The key value of Marxism is that it gave a solid platform for analyzing capitalism as politico-economic system. All those utopian ideas about proletariat as a future ruling class of an ideal society that is not based on private property belong to the garbage damp of history, although the very idea of countervailing forces for capitalists is not. ..."
"... In this sense the very existence of the USSR was critical for the health of the US capitalism as it limited self-destructive instincts of the ruling class. Not so good for people of the USSR, it was definitely a blessing for the US population. ..."
"... Now we have neoliberal garbage and TINA as a state religion, which at least in the level in their religious fervor are not that different from Marxism. ..."
"... Republicans (US 'capitalism' salespersons) believe that "liberty", the right of property, is necessary for "freedom". State is necessary for property despite what the Hobbits (libertarians) preach. Communism is as far from Marxism as the US billionaire empire is from capitalism. Marx was a fair labor economist. ..."
"... {Marx stressed that ... the labour market is an arena in which power is unbalanced...} ..."
"... Thus, capitalism is an integral and key part of the market-economy since it provides the means by which the other major input-component is labor. Capital is an investment input to the process, for which there is a Return-on-Investment largely accepted as bonafide criteria of any market-economy. ..."
Chris Dillow on common ground between Marxists and Conservatives:
Fairness, decentralization & capitalism: Marxists and Conservatives have more in common than
either side would like to admit. This thought occurred to me whilst reading a superb
piece by Andrew Lilico.
He describes the Brams-Taylor
procedure for
cutting a cake in a fair way - in the sense of ensuring envy-freeness
- and says that this shows that a central agency such as the state is unnecessary to achieve
fairness:...
The appropriate mechanism here is one in which there is a balance of power, such that no individual
can say: "take it or leave it."
This is where Marxism enters. Marxists claim that, under capitalism, the appropriate mechanism
is absent. Marx stressed that ... the labour market is an arena in which power is unbalanced...
Nor do Marxists expect the state to correct this, because the state is
captured by capitalists - it is "a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole
bourgeoisie."...
Instead, Marx thought that fairness can only be achieved by abolishing both capitalism and
the state - something which is only feasible at a high level of economic development - and replacing
it with some forms of decentralized decision-making. ...
In this sense, Marxists agree with Andrew: people can find fair allocations themselves without
a central agency. ...
How silly. Marxism and its centralization of power will attract the hyper control freak who
are not likely to ever give up power. Disingenuous utopianism.
Dan Kervick:
That was the sad tragedy of Marx and Marxism. Instead of focusing on a practical agenda
for achieving and sustaining a democratically administered state in an imperfect human world,
a state based on a more equal distribution of capital, a workable balance between private and
public ownership of capital, and a regulatory framework and rule of law designed to sustain this
balance in the face of social and economic forces that will *always* be acting to disrupt it,
Marx veered off into the fantasy lands of his hectoring anarchist critics and adversaries,
and came up with a social pseudo-science positing a millennarian heaven on earth where somehow
perfect voluntariness and perfect equality magically come together. The Marxists are still twisted
up in that foolishness, perpetually incapable of formulating practical political plans and agendas
because they have some "crisis theory" telling them that the current messes are the harbingers
of a revolution that are going to actualize that kingdom of heaven.
Peter K. -> pgl...
yes Kervick again provides a fact-free rant. The Communist Manifesto demanded many reforms
that came pass:
"The section ends by outlining a set of short-term demands - among them a progressive income
tax; abolition of inheritances; free public education etc.-the implementation of which would
be a precursor to a stateless and classless society."
"Short-term demands" as you say: Marx and Engels saw such socialist measures as merely a transitional
stage on the way via the dictatorship of the proletariat to a classless and stateless society
in which even the rule of law would not exist, since human beings would somehow manage to coordinate
all of the economic functions of a complex society through 100% non-coercive means.
In this utopian future, every single person is intelligent, relaxed, cooperative, and preternaturally
enlightened. There are no thieves, psychopaths, predators, raiders or uncooperative deadbeats
and spongers. Since there is no law, there is no government; and since there is no government;
there are no elections or other ways of forming government. There is also no division of labor,
because somehow human beings have passed beyond the "realm of necessity" into the "realm of freedom."
Real-world possibilities for democratic socialist alternatives under a practical and egalitarian
rule of law have frequently been thwarted and undermined by Marxian communists drunk on these
infantile millenarian fantasies, and the Marxian pseudo-sciences of underlying dialectical laws
of social evolution directing history toward this fantastical telos.
Marx himself was one of these underminers, pissing all over the very progressive Gotha
program and the very idea of a well-governed state in the name of his dreamy "communist society."
Guess what guys. Maybe I have actually read some of this stuff.
likbez -> Dan Kervick...
Marxism has two district faces. A very sharp analysis of capitalist society and utopian vision
of the future.
=== quote ===
Marx himself was one of these underminers, pissing all over the very progressive Gotha program
and the very idea of a well-governed state in the name of his dreamy "communist society."
=== end of quote ===
Very true. Authors of Gotha programs were nicknamed "revisionists" by Orthodox Marxists.
mulp:
"He describes the Brams-Taylor procedure for cutting a cake in a fair way - in the sense of
ensuring envy-freeness - and says that this shows that a central agency such as the state is unnecessary
to achieve fairness:..."
That is exactly the description of "authoritarian elite intellectual technocrats dictating
how society works."
Conservatives would never accept that solution because they would immediately argue that not
everyone deserves an equal portion, and that the liberal elites are dictating from on high.
Marx would simply point out that conservatives would never accept that based on their denial
of equality as a principle and would require evolution of man, or too few or too many resources
to care about dividing. But that would never satisfy conservatives....
Obviously actually existing socialist nations ruled by Communist parties have always featured
highly centralized authoritarian non-democratic systems (although China is somewhat of an exception
regarding the matter of centralization, with its provinces having a lot of power, but then, it
is the world's largest nation in population).
As it was, Marx (and Engels) had a practical side. One can see it in the "platform" put forward
at the end of the Communist Manifesto. Several of the items there have been nearly universally
adopted by modern capitalist democracies, such as a progressive income tax and universal state-supported
education. Others are standard items for more or less socialist nations, such as nationalizing
the leading sectors of the economy.
Only one looks at all utopian, their call for ending the division between the city and the
country, although this dream has inspired such things as the New Town movement, not to mention
arguably the suburbs.
It was only in the Critique of the Gotha Program that Marx at one point suggested that eventually
in the "higher stage of socialism" there would be a "withering away of the state." Curiously most
nations ruled by Communist parties never claimed to have achieved true communism because they
were aware of this statement and generally referred to themselves as being "in transition" towards
true communism without having gotten there. Later most would turn around have transitions back
towards market capitalism.
DrDick -> Barkley Rosser...
All existing and former communist countries are Leninist and not Marxist, with a large influence
from whatever the prior local autocratic system was.
Dan Kervick -> Barkley Rosser...
"It was only in the Critique of the Gotha Program that Marx at one point suggested that
eventually in the "higher stage of socialism" there would be a "withering away of the state.""
That's what I meant by the tragedy of Marxism. In the end, Marx had a very unrealistic
view of human nature and history. His analytic and scientific powers were betrayed by an infantile
romanticism that both weakened his social theory and crippled much of left progressive politics
for a century. The problem is still floating around with the insipid anarcho-libertarian silliness
of much of the late 20th and early 21st century left.
likbez:
Actually Marxism was the source of social-democratic parties programs. Which definitely made
capitalism more bearable.
The key value of Marxism is that it gave a solid platform for analyzing capitalism as politico-economic
system. All those utopian ideas about proletariat as a future ruling class of an ideal society
that is not based on private property belong to the garbage damp of history, although the very
idea of countervailing forces for capitalists is not.
In this sense the very existence of the USSR was critical for the health of the US capitalism
as it limited self-destructive instincts of the ruling class. Not so good for people of the USSR,
it was definitely a blessing for the US population.
Now we have neoliberal garbage and TINA as a state religion, which at least in the level in
their religious fervor are not that different from Marxism.
And neocons are actually very close, almost undistinguishable from to Trotskyites, as for their
"permanent revolution" (aka "permanent democratization") drive.
Ben Groves -> likbez...
You obviously think it wasn't that good for the USSR people, yet don't understand the Tsarist
wreck that Russia itself had turned into. With the Soviet, they became strong at the expense of
what they considered colonies.
The true origin of Bolshevism isn't Lenin or Trotsky, but the anti-ashkenazi anti-European
movement. Stalin joined them in 1904 for this very reason and blasted the Menhs as jews. Thus
the program had to cleanse out people who still insisted Russia be European and instead, push
a Asiatic program they believed they really were.
kthomas:
Though I do love seeing this argument being made, I'm not sure we can derive any real benefits
from having it anymore. Ideology is one thing. If we are discussing Power, and how it attracts
the Power Hungry, that is a separate argument, one largely covered by Machiavelli.
As for Marx, I do not ever recall him advising on the abolishment of the State. He was not
an Anarchist.
Ben Groves:
The state can't be abolished. It simply changes by what part of nature controls it.
Only the anarchists thinks the state can be abolished. The state is eternal. Whether it is
the Imperial State (the true conservative organic ideal) City State, the Nation State, the Market
State, the Workers State, the Propertarian State. There will always be rule.
DrDick -> Ben Groves...
The state is far from eternal. It is in fact a very recent development in humanity's 3.5 million
year history, having arisen about 5500 years ago. States can and do collapse and disappear, as
has happened in Somalia.
likbez:
I think the discussion deviated from the key thesis "Marxists and Conservatives Have More in
Common than Either Side Would Like to Admit"
This thesis has the right for existence. Still Marxism remains miles ahead of conservatives
in understanding the capitalism "as is" with all its warts.
Neoliberalism is probably the most obvious branch of conservatism which adopted considerable
part of Marxism doctrine. From this point of view it is a stunning utopia with the level of economic
determinism even more ambitious than that of Marx...
The simplest way to understand the power of neoliberalism as an ideology, is to view it as
Trotskyism refashioned for elite. Instead of "proletarians of all countries unite" we have slogan
"neoliberal elites of all countries unite". Instead of permanent revolution we have permanent
democratization via color revolutions.
Instead of revolt of proletariat which Marxists expected we got the revolt of financial oligarchy.
And this revolt led to forming powerful Transnational Elite International (with Congresses in
Basel) instead of Communist International (with Congresses in Moscow). Marx probably is rolling
in his grave seeing such turn of events and such a wicked mutation of his political theories.
Like Trotskyism neoliberalism has a totalitarian vision for a world-encompassing monolithic
state governed by an ideologically charged "vanguard". One single state (Soviet Russia) in case
of Trotskyism, and the USA in case of neoliberalism is assigned the place of "holy country" and
the leader of this country has special privileges not unlike Rome Pope in Catholicism.
The pseudoscientific 'free-market' theory which replaces Marxist political economy and provides
a pseudo-scientific justification for the greed and poverty endemic to the system, and the main
beneficiaries are the global mega-corporations and major western powers (G7).
Like Marxism in general neoliberalism on the one hand this reduces individuals to statistics
contained within aggregate economic performance, on the other like was in the USSR, it places
the control of the economy in comparatively few hands; and that might be neoliberalism's Achilles
heel which we say in action in 2008.
The role of propaganda machine and journalists, writers, etc as the solders of the party that
should advance its interests. Compete, blatant disregard of truth to the extent that Pravda journalists
can be viewed as paragons of objectivity (Fox news)
== end of quote ==
ilsm:
Republicans (US 'capitalism' salespersons) believe that "liberty", the right of property,
is necessary for "freedom".
State is necessary for property despite what the Hobbits (libertarians) preach.
Communism is as far from Marxism as the US billionaire empire is from capitalism. Marx was a fair labor economist.
Lafayette:
MARKET ECONOMY CRITERIA
{Marx stressed that ... the labour market is an arena in which power is
unbalanced...}
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with "capitalism", which is fundamentally this:
An economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production,
distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals
or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
Which was common up to and including the latter decades of the last century. Wherein, some
countries adopted state-enterprises to have either entire monopolies or substantial presence
in some sectors of the market-economy. The ownership of the means of production were owned by
the state and management/workforce were state employees.
This applies to any entity the object of which is provide to a market goods and services. One
can therefore say the defense of the nation is a service provided by a state-owned entity
called the Dept. of Defense (in the US and similarly elsewhere).
Moreover that practice can be modified to other areas of public need, for instance
health-care and education. Where the "means of production" of the service are owned once again
by the state, but this time the management and workers are independent and work for
themselves. (In which case they may or may not be represented by organizations some of which
are called "unions".)
The above variations are all well known in European "capitalist" countries - which employ
capital as central financial mechanism. Capital is "any form of wealth employed or capable of
being employed in the production of more wealth."
Thus, capitalism is an integral and key part of the market-economy since it provides
the means by which the other major input-component is labor. Capital is an investment input to
the process, for which there is a Return-on-Investment largely accepted as bonafide criteria
of any market-economy.
Likewise, there should therefore be accounted a Return on Labor, and that return should be
paid to all who work in a company - not all equally but all equitably. A Return-on-Labor is
also a bonafide criteria of any market-economy.
There is no real reason why the RoI should be the sole criteria for investment purposes,
except that of common usage historically. RoC should also have its place as a bonafide
criteria for investment purposes - and probably one that determines which "services" are
better performed by government-owned agencies and which not.
How much is the RoC of Defense worth to you and our family? How much is HealthCare? How
much Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Education?
On Tuesday, the Census Bureau released its annual
poverty report declaring that 43.1 million Americans
lived in poverty in 2015.
We should be concerned about any American living in
real material hardship, but much of what the Census
reports about poverty is misleading.
Here are 15
facts about poverty
in America that may
surprise you. (All statistics are taken from U.S.
government surveys.)
- Poor households routinely report spending
$2.40 for every $1 of income the Census says they
have.
- The average poor American lives in a house or
apartment that is in good repair and has more living
space than the average nonpoor person in France,
Germany, or England.
- Eighty-five percent of poor households have
air conditioning.
- Nearly three-fourths of poor households have a
car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more cars
or trucks.
- Nearly two-thirds of poor households have
cable or satellite TV.
- Half have a personal computer; 43 percent have
internet access.
- Two-thirds have at least one DVD player
- More than half of poor families with children
have a video game system, such as an Xbox or
PlayStation.
- One-third have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.
(The above data on electronic appliances owned by
poor households come from a 2009 government survey so
the ownership rates among the poor today are most likely
higher.)
Poverty and Hunger:
Activist groups spread alarming stories about
widespread
hunger
in the nation, but in reality, most of
the poor do not experience hunger or food shortages. The
U.S. Department of Agriculture collects data on these
topics in its household food security survey. For 2009,
the survey showed:
- Only 4 percent of poor parents reported that
their children were hungry even once during the
prior year because they could not afford food.
- Some 18 percent of poor adults reported they
were hungry even once in the prior year due to lack
of money for food.
Poverty and Housing
The following are facts about the housing conditions
of the poor.
- Poverty and homelessness are sometimes
confused. Over the course of a year, only 4 percent
of poor persons become homeless (usually a temporary
condition).
- Only 9.5 percent of the poor live in mobile
homes or trailers; the rest live in apartments or
houses.
- Forty percent of the poor own their own homes,
typically, a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half
baths that is in good repair.
Facts About Extreme Poverty
- The left claims that one in 25 families with
children live in "
extreme
poverty
" on less than $2 per person per day.
Government surveys of self-reported spending by families
show the actual number is one in 4,469, not one in 25.
The typical family allegedly in "extreme poverty"
reports spending $25 for every $1 of income the left
claims they have.
In Calculating Poverty, Census Ignores the
Almost Entire Welfare State:
Why does the Census identify so many individuals as
"poor" who do not appear to be poor in any normal sense
of the term? The answer lies in the misleading way the
Census measures "poverty." The Census defines a family
as poor if its income falls below a specified income
threshold. (For example, the poverty threshold for a
family of four in 2015 was $24,036.) But in counting
"income," the Census excludes nearly all welfare
benefits.
In 2014, government spent over $1 trillion on
means-tested welfare for poor and low income people.
(This figure does not include Social Security or
Medicare.) Welfare spending on cash, food, and housing
was $342 billion.
The cash, food, and housing spending alone was 150
percent of the amount needed to eliminate all poverty in
the U.S. But the Census ignored more than four-fifths of
these benefits for purposes of measuring poverty.
Effectively, the Census counts poverty in the U.S. by
ignoring almost the entire welfare state.
Poverty and Self-Sufficiency
Do the higher living standards of families receiving
welfare mean the
welfare state is successful
? The answer is
no. The real aim of welfare should be to make families
self-sufficient: capable of supporting themselves above
the poverty income threshold without reliance on
government welfare aid.
Despite having spent over $25 trillion on
means-tested welfare since the beginning of the War on
Poverty under President Lyndon Johnson, many Americans
are less capable of self-sufficiency today than when the
War on Poverty began.
The pathways to self-sufficiency are work and
marriage. We should
reform the welfare state
to promote these.
Able-bodied recipients should be required to work or
prepare for work as a condition of getting aid.
Penalties against marriage in welfare programs should be
removed.
"... Perhaps the most dramatic revelation, or mention, is the bitter hatred of democracy that is revealed both by the U.S. Government -- Hillary Clinton, others -- and also by the diplomatic service. ..."
"... How representative this is of what they say, we don't know, because we do not know what the filtering is. But that's a minor point. But the major point is that the population is irrelevant. ..."
"... The Tea Party movement itself is, maybe 15% or 20% of the electorate. It's relatively affluent, white, nativist, you know, it has rather traditional nativist streaks to it. But what is much more important, I think, is the outrage. Over half the population says they more or less supported it, or support its message. What people are thinking is extremely interesting. I mean, overwhelmingly polls reveal that people are extremely bitter, angry, hostile, opposed to everything. ..."
"... The primary cause undoubtedly is the economic disaster. It's not just the financial catastrophe, it's an economic disaster. I mean, in the manufacturing industry, for example, unemployment levels are at the level of the Great Depression. And unlike the Great Depression, those jobs are not coming back. U.S. owners and managers have long ago made the decision that they can make more profit with complicated financial deals than by production. So finance -- this goes back to the 1970s, mainly Reagan escalated it, and onward -- Clinton, too. The economy has been financialized. ..."
"... Financial institutions have grown enormously in their share of corporate profits. It may be something like a third, or something like that today. At the same time, correspondingly, production has been exported. So you buy some electronic device from China. China is an assembly plant for a Northeast Asian production center. The parts and components come from the more advanced countries and from the United States, and the technology . So yes, that's a cheap place to assemble things and sell them back here. Rather similar in Mexico, now Vietnam, and so on. That is the way to make profits. ..."
"... The antagonism to everyone is extremely high -- actually antagonism -- the population doesn't like Democrats, but they hate Republicans even more. They're against big business. They're against government. They're against Congress. ..."
AMY GOODMAN: Our guest is Noam Chomsky, world-renowned dissident, author of more than 100 books,
speaking to us from Boston. Noam, you wrote a piece after the midterm elections called Outrage Misguided.
I want to read for you now what Sarah Palin tweeted Ð the former Alaskan governor, of course, and
Republication vice presidential nominee. This is what she tweeted about WikiLeaks. Rather, she put
it on Facebook. She said, "First and foremost, what steps were taken to stop WikiLeaks' director
Julian Assange from distributing this highly-sensitive classified material, especially after he had
already published material not once but twice in the previous months? Assange is not a journalist
any more than the editor of the Al Qaeda's new English-language magazine ÒInspire,Ó is a journalist.
He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents
revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with
the same urgency we pursue Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders? Noam Chomsky, your response?
NOAM CHOMSKY: That's pretty much what I would expect Sarah Palin to say. I don't know how much
she understands, but I think we should pay attention to what we learn from the leaks. What we learned,
for example, is kinds of things I've said. Perhaps the most dramatic revelation, or mention,
is the bitter hatred of democracy that is revealed both by the U.S. Government -- Hillary Clinton,
others -- and also by the diplomatic service.
To tell the world well, they're talking to each other -- to pretend to each other that the Arab
world regards Iran as the major threat and wants the U.S. to bomb Iran, is extremely revealing, when
they know that approximately 80% of Arab opinion regards the U.S. and Israel as the major threat,
10% regard Iran as the major threat, and a majority, 57%, think the region would be better off with
Iranian nuclear weapons as a kind of deterrent. That is does not even enter. All that enters is what
they claim has been said by Arab dictators -- brutal Arab dictators. That is what counts.
How representative this is of what they say, we don't know, because we do not know what the filtering
is. But that's a minor point. But the major point is that the population is irrelevant. All that matters is the opinions of the dictators that we support. If they were to back us, that
is the Arab world. That is a very revealing picture of the mentality of U.S. political leadership
and, presumably, the lead opinion, judging by the commentary that's appeared here, that's the way
it has been presented in the press as well. It does not matter with the Arabs believe.
AMY GOODMAN: Your piece, Outrage Misguided. Back to the midterm elections and what we're going
to see now. Can you talk about the tea party movement?
NOAM CHOMSKY:The Tea Party movement itself is, maybe 15% or 20% of the electorate. It's
relatively affluent, white, nativist, you know, it has rather traditional nativist streaks
to it. But what is much more important, I think, is the outrage. Over half the population says they
more or less supported it, or support its message. What people are thinking is extremely interesting.
I mean, overwhelmingly polls reveal that people are extremely bitter, angry, hostile, opposed
to everything.
The primary cause undoubtedly is the economic disaster. It's not just the financial catastrophe,
it's an economic disaster. I mean, in the manufacturing industry, for example, unemployment
levels are at the level of the Great Depression. And unlike the Great Depression, those jobs are
not coming back. U.S. owners and managers have long ago made the decision that they can make more
profit with complicated financial deals than by production. So finance -- this goes back to the 1970s,
mainly Reagan escalated it, and onward -- Clinton, too. The economy has been financialized.
Financial institutions have grown enormously in their share of corporate profits. It may
be something like a third, or something like that today. At the same time, correspondingly, production
has been exported. So you buy some electronic device from China. China is an assembly plant
for a Northeast Asian production center. The parts and components come from the more advanced countries
and from the United States, and the technology . So yes, that's a cheap place to assemble things
and sell them back here. Rather similar in Mexico, now Vietnam, and so on. That is the way to make
profits.
It destroys the society here, but that's not the concern of the ownership class and the
managerial class. Their concern is profit. That is what drives the economy. The rest of it
is a fallout. People are extremely bitter about it, but don't seem to understand it. So the
same people who are a majority, who say that Wall Street is to blame for the current crisis, are
voting Republican. Both parties are deep in the pockets of Wall Street, but the Republicans much
more so than the Democrats.
The same is true on issue after issue. The antagonism to everyone is extremely high -- actually
antagonism -- the population doesn't like Democrats, but they hate Republicans even more.
They're against big business. They're against government. They're against Congress.
They're against
science
"... It's unclear how a jetliner is [more] powerful than an earthquake, and how, if such requirements failed to save the WTC towers, preparing for even more powerful earthquakes is going to prevent a recurrence of the same. ..."
"... The heavy, black smoke emanating from the structures belies your premise. ..."
No offense is meant but fewer articles from Ms. Scofield, please, with transparent, dubious,
questionable, or propagandistic angles. The article 'How building design changed after 9/11' has
been written annually for fifteen years.
"In fact, for years building codes from the American Society of Civil Engineers, the American
Institute of Steel Construction and the American Concrete Institute have required structural supports
to be designed with high enough ductility to withstand a major earthquake so rare its probability
of happening is once every 2,000 years. "
It's unclear how a jetliner is [more] powerful than an earthquake, and how, if such requirements
failed to save the WTC towers, preparing for even more powerful earthquakes is going to prevent
a recurrence of the same.
This would also go for any articles entitled 'How the US Can Win the War in Syria' in which
no objectives are articulated, non-evidential articles entitled 'U.S. Could Pay a High Price for
Suing the Saudis,' any more New Yorker articles, the motives of which are transparently political
and actually create disinformation around veritable realities, about 'Trump and the Truth', e.g.
'The Unemployment Rate Hoax,' etc. I'm sure posting links is largely a thankless job, but if I
wanted to I could turn on CNN and 'learn' these very things.
"In fact, for years building codes from the American Society of Civil Engineers, the
American Institute of Steel Construction and the American Concrete Institute have required
structural supports to be designed with high enough ductility to withstand a major earthquake
so rare its probability of happening is once every 2,000 years."
Hate to break it to you, but earthquake forces - seismic events - are considerably different
than thermal events. Granted, fire often erupt as a result of severed gas and electric lines caused
by an earthquake, but an earthquake is a brief, violent, hard shaking or rolling. A high-rise
fire of sustained intensity sits in one place and does its work within a confined setting. In
the case of the multiple floors damaged by the impact of the planes in 9-11, that confined setting
bore a striking resemblance to a combination blast furnace and chimney. (People tend to forget
that skyscrapers tend to create their own wind patterns, in this case well over 500 feet high.
Just like air being pumped into a fire by a bellows.
The second order partial differentiation equation* governing structure responding during a
dynamic event like an earthquakes shows that the force on the structure is related to its mass.
The heavier a structure, the bigger force it is subjected to, going through the same quake.
The force of an impacting plane is same regardless of the building size, all else being equal.
*(mass x acceleration) + (damping coefficient x velocity) + (stiffness modulus x displacement)
= zero.
Spirited defense of the establishment from one of financial oligarchy members.
" The economy overall is doing just fine." Does this include QE? If the Fed is pouring
billions of new money into the economy, how accurate is it to say that the economy
is doing just fine?
Notable quotes:
"... "That was a number that was devised, statistically devised, to make politicians - and in particular, presidents - look good. And I wouldn't be getting the kind of massive crowds that I'm getting if the number was a real number." ..."
"... In the 1950s and 1960s, for instance, organized labor was fairly convinced that the government was purposely underestimating inflation and the cost of living to keep Social Security payments low and wages from rising. George Meany, the powerful head of the American Federation of Labor at the time, claimed that the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which compiled both employment and inflation numbers, had "become identified with an effort to freeze wages and is not longer a free agency of statistical research." ..."
"... Employment figures are sometimes seen as equally suspect. Jack Welch, the once-legendary former CEO of GE, blithely accused the Obama administration of manipulating the final employment report before the 2012 election to make the economic recovery look better than it was. "Unbelievable jobs numbers … these Chicago guys will do anything … can't debate so change numbers," he tweeted ..."
"... His arguments were later fleshed out by New York Post columnist John Crudele , who went on to charge the Census Bureau (which works with BLS to create the samples for the unemployment rate) with faking and fabricating the numbers to help Obama win reelection. ..."
"... The chairman of the Gallup organization, Jim Clifton, sees so many flaws with the way unemployment is measured that he has called the official rate a "Big Lie." In the Democratic presidential campaign, Bernie Sanders has also weighed in, saying the real unemployment rate is at best above 10 percent. ..."
"... What a useless article. The author explains precisely nothing about what the official statistics do and do not measure, what they miss and what they capture. ..."
"... I had the same impression as well. Notice he does not mention that the Gallop number is over 10% and is based on their polling data. ..."
"... But never mentioned that Reagan changed how Unemployment was figured in the early 80's. He included all people in the military service, as employed. Before that, they was counted neither way. He also intentionally left out that when Obama, had the unemployed numbers dropped one month before the election, from 8.1% to 7.8% --because it was believed that no one could be reelected if it was above 8%. ..."
"... U6 is 9.8% for March 2016. We still have 94 million unemployed and you want to say its 5 % what journalistic malpractice. ..."
"... Trump has emphasized that he is looking at the percent of the population that is participating in the workforce - and that this participation rate is currently at historical lows -- and Trump has been clear that his approach to paying down the national debt is based on getting the participation rates back to historical levels ..."
"... "The government can't lie about a hundred billion dollars of Social Security money stolen for the Clinton 'balanced budget', that would be a crime against the citizens, they would revolt. John, come one now. " ..."
"... I didn't say it first, Senator Ernest Hollings did, on the Senate floor. ..."
"... And here is how they did it: http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16 ..."
"... There is plenty of evidence the figures are cooked, folks, enough to fill a book: Atlas Shouts. Don't believe trash like this article claims. GDP, unemployment and inflation are all manipulated numbers, as Campbell's Law predicts. ..."
"... I can't believe the Washington Post prints propaganda like this. ..."
"... I do remember when the officially-announced unemployment rate stopped including those who were no longer looking for work. That *was* a significant shift, and there's no doubt it made politicians (Reagan, I think it was) look better; of course, no President since then has reversed it, as it would instantly make themselves look worse. ..."
"... Working one hour a week, at minimum wage, is 'employed', according to the government. No wonder unemployment is at 5%. ..."
"... Add in people who are working, but want and need full time jobs, add in people who have dropped out of the labor market and/or retired earlier than they wanted to, and unemployment is at least 10%. Ten seconds on Google will show you that. ..."
"... The writer should be sacked for taking a very serious issue and turning it into a piece of non-informative fluff. Bad mouthing Trump and Sanders is the same as endorsing Hilly. ..."
Yes, Donald Trump is wrong about unemployment. But he's not the only one. -
The Washington Post
Listen to President Obama, and you'll hear that job growth is stronger than
at any point in the past 20 years, and - as
he said in his final State of the Union address - "anyone claiming that
America's economy is in decline is peddling fiction."
Listen to Donald Trump and you'll hear something completely different. The
billionaire Republican candidate for president told The Washington Post last
week that
the economy is one big Federal Reserve bubble waiting to burst, and that
as for job growth, "we're not at 5 percent unemployment. We're at a number that's
probably into the 20s if you look at the real number." Not only that, Trump
said, but the numbers are juiced: "That was a number that was devised, statistically
devised, to make politicians - and in particular, presidents - look good. And
I wouldn't be getting the kind of massive crowds that I'm getting if the number
was a real number."
It's easy enough to dismiss - as a phalanx of economists and analysts
did - Trump's claims as yet another one of his all-too-frequent campaign
lines that have little to do with reality. But with this one, at least, Trump
is tapping into a deep and mostly overlooked well of popular suspicion of government
numbers and a deeply held belief that what "we the people" are told about the
economy by the government is
lies, damn
lies and statistics designed to benefit the elite at the expense of the
working class. The stubborn persistence of these beliefs should be a reminder
that just because the United States is doing well in general, that doesn't mean
everyone in the country is. It's also a warning to experts and policymakers
that in the real world,
there is no "the economy," there are many, and generalizations have a way
of glossing over some very rough patches.
Since the mid-20th century, when the U.S. government began keeping
and compiling our modern suite of economic numbers, there has been constant
skepticism of the reports, coming from different corners depending on economic
trends and the broader political climate. In the 1950s and 1960s, for instance,
organized labor was fairly convinced that the government was purposely underestimating
inflation and the cost of living to keep Social Security payments low and wages
from rising. George Meany, the powerful head of the American Federation of Labor
at the time, claimed that the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which compiled both
employment and inflation numbers, had "become identified with an effort to freeze
wages and is not longer a free agency of statistical research."
Over the decades, those views hardened. Throughout the 1970s, as workers
struggled with unemployment and stagflation, the government continually tweaked
its formulas for measuring prices. By and large, these changes and new formulas
were designed to make the figures more accurate in a fast-changing world. But
for those who were already convinced the government was trying to paint a deliberately
false picture, the tweaks and innovations were interpreted as a devious way
to avoid spending money to help the ailing middle class, not trying to measure
what was actually happening to design policies to help address it. The commissioner
of BLS at the time, Janet Norwood, dismissed those concerns
in testimony to Congress in the late 1970s, saying that when people don't
get the number they want, "they feel there must be something wrong with the
indicator itself."
Employment figures are sometimes seen as equally suspect. Jack Welch,
the once-legendary former CEO of GE,
blithely accused the Obama administration of manipulating the final employment
report before the 2012 election to make the economic recovery look better than
it was. "Unbelievable jobs numbers … these Chicago guys will do anything … can't
debate so change numbers," he tweeted after that last October report showed
better-than-expected job growth and lower-than-anticipated unemployment rate.
His arguments were later fleshed out by New York Post columnist
John Crudele, who went on to charge the Census Bureau (which works with
BLS to create the samples for the unemployment rate) with faking and fabricating
the numbers to help Obama win reelection.
These views are not fringe. Type the search terms "inflation
is false" into Google, and you will get reams of articles and analysis from
mainstream outlets and voices, including investment guru Bill Gross (who referred
to inflation numbers as a "haute
con job"). Similar results pop up with the terms "real
unemployment rate," and given how many ways there are to count employment,
there are legitimate issues with the headline number.
The cohort that responds to Trump reads those numbers in a starkly different
light from the cohort laughing at him for it. Whenever the unemployment rate
comes out showing improvement and hiring, those who are experiencing dwindling
wages and shrinking opportunities might see a meticulously constructed web of
lies meant to paint a positive picture so that the plight of tens of millions
who have dropped out of the workforce can be ignored. The chairman of the
Gallup organization, Jim Clifton, sees so many flaws with the way unemployment
is measured that he has called the
official rate a "Big Lie." In the Democratic presidential campaign,
Bernie Sanders has also weighed in, saying the real unemployment rate is
at best above 10 percent.
Beneath the anger and the distrust - which extend to a booming stock market
that helps the wealthy and banks flush with profit even after the financial
crisis - there lies a very real problem with how economists, the media and policymakers
discuss economics. No, the bureaucrats in the Labor and Commerce departments
who compile these numbers aren't a cabal engaged in a cover-up. And no, the
Fed is not an Illuminati conspiracy. But the idea that a few simple big numbers
that are at best averages to describe a large system we call "the economy" can
adequately capture the stories of 320 million people is a fiction, one that
we tell ourselves regularly, and which millions of people know to be false to
their own experience.
It may be true that there is a national unemployment rate measured at
5 percent.
But it is also true that for white men without a college degree, or white men
who had worked factory jobs until the mid-2000s with no more than a high school
education, the unemployment reality is much worse (though it's even worse for
black
and Hispanic men, who don't seem to be responding by flocking to Trump in
large numbers). Even when those with these skill sets can get a job, the pay
is woefully below a living wage. Jobs that don't pay well still count, in the
stats, as jobs. Telling people who are barely getting by that the economy is
just fine must appear much more than insensitive. It is insulting, and it feels
like a denial of what they are experiencing.
The chords Trump strikes when he makes these claims, therefore, should be
taken more seriously than the claims themselves. We need to be much more diligent
in understanding what our national numbers do and do not tell us, and how much
they obscure. In trying to hang our sense of what's what on a few big numbers,
we risk glossing over the tens of millions whose lives don't fit those numbers
and don't fit the story. "The economy" may be doing just fine, but that doesn't
mean that everyone is. Inflation might be low, but millions can be struggling
to meet basic costs just the same.
So yes, Trump is wrong, and he's the culmination of decades of paranoia and
distrust of government reports. The economy overall is doing just fine.
But people are still struggling. We don't have to share the paranoia or buy
into the conspiratorial narrative to acknowledge that. A great nation, the one
Trump promises to restore, can embrace more than one story, and can afford to
speak to those left out of our rosy national numbers along with those whose
experience reflect them.
the3sattlers, 4/8/2016 1:05 PM EDT
" The economy overall is doing just fine." Does this include QE? If the
Fed is pouring billions of new money into the economy, how accurate is it
to say that the economy is doing just fine?
james_harrigan, 4/8/2016 10:14 AM EDT
What a useless article. The author explains precisely nothing about
what the official statistics do and do not measure, what they miss and what
they capture.
Derbigdog, 4/8/2016 11:40 AM EDT
I had the same impression as well. Notice he does not mention that
the Gallop number is over 10% and is based on their polling data.
captdon1, 4/8/2016 5:51 AM EDT
Not reported by WP
The first two years of Obama's presidency Democrats controlled the house
and Senate. The second two years, Republicans controlled the Senate. The
last two years of Obama's term, the Republicans controlled house and Senate.
During this six years the national debt increase $10 TRILLION and the Government
collected $9 TRILLION in taxes and borrowed $10 TRILLION. ($19 Trillion
In Six Years!!!) (Where did our lovely politicians spend this enormous amount
of money??? (Republicans and Democrats!)
reussere, 4/8/2016 1:43 AM EDT
Reading the comments below it strikes me again and again how far out
of whack most people are with reality. It's absolutely true that using a
single number for the employment rate reflects the overall average of the
economy certainly doesn't measure how every person is doing, anymore than
an average global temperature doesn't measure any local temperatures.
One thing not emphasized in the article is that there is a number of
different statistics. The 5% figure refers to the U-3 statistic. Nearly
all of the rest of the employment statistics are higher, some considerably
so because they include different groups of people. But when you compare
U-3 from different years, you are comparing apples and apples. The rest
of the numbers very closely track with U-3. That is when U-3 goes up and
down, U-6 go up and down pretty much in lockstep.
It is unfortunate that subpopulations of Americans are doing far worse
(and some doing far better) than average. But that is the nature of averages
after all. It is simply impossible for a single number (or even a group
of a dozen different employment measurements) to accurately reflect a complex
reality.
Smoothcountryside, 4/8/2016 12:04 PM EDT
The alternative measures of labor underutilization are defined as U-1
through U-6 with U-6 being the broadest measure and probably the closes
to the "true" level of unemployment. Otherwise, all the rest of your commentary
is correct.
southernbaked, 4/7/2016 11:02 PM EDT
Because this highly educated writer is totally bias, he left out some
key parts, I personally lived though. He referred back to the late 70's
twice. But never mentioned that Reagan changed how Unemployment was
figured in the early 80's. He included all people in the military service,
as employed. Before that, they was counted neither way. He also intentionally
left out that when Obama, had the unemployed numbers dropped one month before
the election, from 8.1% to 7.8% --because it was believed that no one could
be reelected if it was above 8%.
Then after he was sworn in--- in January, they had to readjust the numbers
back up. They blamed it on one employees mistakes-- PS. no one was fired
or disciplined for fudging. Bottom line is, for every 1.8 manufacturing
job, there are 2 government jobs, that is disaster. Because this writer
is to young to have lived in America when it was great. When for every 1
government job, you had 3 manufacturing jobs.
I will enlighten him. I joined the workforce -- With no higher education
-- when you merely walked down the road, and picked out a job. Because jobs
hang on trees like apples. By 35 I COMPLETELY owned my first 3 bedroom brick
house, and the 2 newer cars parked in the driveway. Anyone care to try that
now ??
As for all this talk about education-- I have a bit of knowledge about
that subject-- because I paid in full to send all under my roof through
it. Without one dime of aide from anyone. The above writer is proof-- you
can be heavily educated, and DEAD WRONG. There is nothing good about this
economy. Signed, UN-affiliated to either corrupted party
Bluhorizons, 4/7/2016 9:43 PM EDT
"we're not at 5 percent unemployment. We're at a number that's probably
into the 20s if you look at the real number." Trump is correct. The unemployment
data is contrived from data about people receiving unemployment compensation
but the people who's unemployment has ended and people who have just given
up is invisible.
"It may be true that there is a national unemployment rate measured at
5 percent. But it is also true that for white men without a college degree,
or white men who had worked factory jobs until the mid-2000s with no more
than a high school education, the unemployment reality is much worse "
The author goes on and on about the legitimate distrust of government
unemployment data and then tells us Trump is wrong. But the article convinces
us Trump is right! So, this article its not really about the legitimate
distrust of government data is is about the author's not liking Trump. Typical
New Left bs
Aushax, 4/7/2016 8:24 PM EDT
Last jobs report before the 2012 election the number unusually dropped
then was readjusted up after the election. Coincidentally?
George Mason, 4/7/2016 8:15 PM EDT
U6 is 9.8% for March 2016. We still have 94 million unemployed and
you want to say its 5 % what journalistic malpractice.
F mackey, 4/7/2016 7:57 PM EDT
hey reporter,Todays WSJ, More than 40% of the student borrowers aren't
making payments? WHY? easy,they owe big $ money$ & cant get a job or a well
paying job to pay back the loans,hey reporter,i'd send you $10 bucks to
buy a clue,but you'd probably get lost going to the store,what a %@%@%@,another
reporter,who doesn't have a clue on whats going on,jmo
SimpleCountryActuary, 4/7/2016 7:57 PM EDT
This reporter is a Hillary tool. Even the Los Angeles Times on March
6th had to admit:
"Trump is partly right in saying that trade has cost the U.S. economy
jobs and held down wages. He may also be correct - to a degree - in saying
that low-skilled immigrants have depressed salaries for certain jobs or
industries..."
If this is the quality of reporting the WaPo is going to provide, namely
even worse than the Los Angeles Times, then Bezos had better fire the editorial
staff and buy a new one.
Clyde4, 4/7/2016 7:34 PM EDT [Edited]
This article dismissing Trump is exactly what is wrong with journalism
today - all about creating a false reality for people instead of investigating
and reporting
Trump has emphasized that he is looking at the percent of the population
that is participating in the workforce - and that this participation rate
is currently at historical lows -- and Trump has been clear that his approach
to paying down the national debt is based on getting the participation rates
back to historical levels
The author completely ignored the big elephant in the room -- that is
irresponsible journalism
The author may want to look into how the unemployment rate shot up in
2008 when the government extended benefits and then the unemployment rate
plummeted again when unemployment benefits were decrease (around 2011, I
believe) - if I were the author I would do a little research into whether
the unemployment rate correlates with how much is paid out in benefits or
with unemployment determined through some other approach (like surveys
dangerbird1225, 4/7/2016 7:25 PM EDT
Bunch of crap. If you stop counting those that stop looking for a job,
your numbers are wrong. Period. Why didn't this apologist for statistics
mention that?
"The government can't lie about a hundred billion dollars of Social
Security money stolen for the Clinton 'balanced budget', that would be a
crime against the citizens, they would revolt. John, come one now. "
I didn't say it first, Senator Ernest Hollings did, on the Senate
floor.
"Both Democrats and Republicans are all running this year and next
and saying surplus, surplus. Look what we have done. It is false. The
actual figures show that from the beginning of the fiscal year until
now we had to borrow $127,800,000,000." - Senate speech, Democratic
Senator Ernest Hollings, October 28, 1999
Go to New Orleans Chicago Atlanta Los Angeles Detroit stop anybody on
the street and ask if unemployment is 5% and that there is a 95% chance
a guy can get a job.
Then you will have a statistic reference point. Its not a Democratic
or republican issue because both of them have manipulated the system for
so long its meaningless. Go Trump 2016 and get this crap sorted out with
common sense plain English
AtlasRocked, 4/7/2016 4:37 PM EDT
There is plenty of evidence the figures are cooked, folks, enough
to fill a book: Atlas Shouts. Don't believe trash like this article claims.
GDP, unemployment and inflation are all manipulated numbers, as Campbell's
Law predicts.
I can't believe the Washington Post prints propaganda like this.
TimberDave, 4/7/2016 2:23 PM EDT
I do remember when the officially-announced unemployment rate stopped
including those who were no longer looking for work. That *was* a significant
shift, and there's no doubt it made politicians (Reagan, I think it was)
look better; of course, no President since then has reversed it, as it would
instantly make themselves look worse.
astroboy_2000, 4/7/2016 1:28 PM EDT
This would be a much more intelligent article if the writer actually
said what the government considers as 'employed'.
Working one hour a week, at minimum wage, is 'employed', according
to the government. No wonder unemployment is at 5%.
Add in people who are working, but want and need full time jobs,
add in people who have dropped out of the labor market and/or retired earlier
than they wanted to, and unemployment is at least 10%. Ten seconds on Google
will show you that.
The writer should be sacked for taking a very serious issue and turning
it into a piece of non-informative fluff. Bad mouthing Trump and Sanders
is the same as endorsing Hilly.
Manchester0913, 4/7/2016 2:12 PM EDT
The number you're referencing is captured under U6. However, U3 is the
traditional measure.
Son House, 4/7/2016 2:24 PM EDT
The government doesn't claim that working one hour a week is employed.
Google U 3 unemployment. Then google U 6 unemployment. You can be enlightened.
Liz in AL, 4/7/2016 7:21 PM EDT
I've found this compilation of all 6 of the "U-rates" very useful. It
encompasses the most restrictive (and thus smallest) U-1 rate, though the
most expansive U-6. It provides brief descriptions of what gets counted
for each rate, and (at least for more recent years) provides the ability
to compare at the monthly level of detail.
U6 Unemployment Rate Portal Seven
"What do these insurgents have in common? All have called into question
the interventionist consensus in foreign policy."
But today we have this:
Trump pledges big US military expansion . Trump doesn't appear to have
any coherent policy, he just says whatever seems to be useful at that particular
moment.
"... Liberal hawks will complain that the Iraq war was run incompetently (and it was), but they don't give up on the idea of preventive war or the belief that the U.S. is entitled to attack other states more or less at will in the name of "leadership." Neoconservatives will fault Obama for not doing more in Libya after the regime was overthrown, but it would never occur to them that toppling foreign governments by force is wrong or undesirable. There remains a broad consensus that the U.S. "leads" the world and in order to exercise that "leadership" it is free to destabilize and attack other states as it sees fit. The justifications change from country to country, but the assumptions behind them are always the same: we have the right to interfere in the affairs of other nations, our interference is benevolent and beneficial (and any bad results cannot be tied to our interference), and "failure" to interfere constitutes abdication of "leadership." ..."
"... Everyone is familiar with Iraq war dead-enders, who continue to claim to this day that the war had been "won" by the end of Bush's second term and that it was only by withdrawing that the U.S. frittered away its "victory." The defense of the Libyan war is somewhat different, but at its core it shares the same ideological refusal to own up to failure. In Libya, the mistake was not in taking sides in a civil war in which the U.S. had nothing at stake, but in failing to commit to an open-ended mission to stabilize the country after the regime was overthrown. Libyan war supporters don't accept that their preferred policy backfired and harmed the country it was supposedly trying to help. That would not only require them to acknowledge that they got one of the more important foreign policy questions of the last decade badly wrong, but it would contradict one of their core assumptions about the U.S. role in the world. As far as they're concerned, Libya is still the "model" and "good" intervention that they claimed it was five years ago, and nothing that has happened in Libya can ever prove otherwise. ..."
"... unfortunately pro-war dead-enders continue to have considerable influence in shaping our foreign policy debates on other issues. They bring the same bankrupt assumptions to debates over what the U.S. should be doing in Syria, Ukraine, Iran, and elsewhere, and they apply the same faulty judgment that led them to think regime change and taking sides in foreign civil wars was smart. They still haven't learned anything from the failures of previous interventions (because they don't accept that they were failures), and so keep making many of the same mistakes of analysis and prescription that they made in the past. ..."
Andrew Bacevich has written an excellent
article on the need to end our ongoing "war for the Greater Middle East."
This part jumped out at me in connection with the debate over the
Libyan war:
A particular campaign that goes awry [bold mine-DL]
like Somalia or Iraq or Libya may attract passing attention, but
never the context in which that campaign was undertaken [bold mine-DL].
We can be certain that the election of 2016 will be no different.
It is almost never mentioned now, so it is easy to forget that many Libyan
war supporters initially argued for intervention in order to save the "Arab
Spring." Their idea was that the U.S. and its allies could discourage other
regimes from forcibly putting down protests by siding with the opposition in
Libya, and that if the U.S. didn't do this it would "signal" dictators that
they could crush protests with impunity. This never made sense at the time.
Other regimes would have to believe that the U.S. would consistently side with
their opponents, and there was never any chance of that happening. If it sent
any message to them, the intervention in Libya sent other regimes a very different
message: don't let yourself be internationally isolated like Gaddafi, and you
won't suffer his fate. Another argument for the intervention was that it would
change the way the U.S. was perceived in the region for the better. That didn't
make sense, either, since Western intervention in Libya wasn't popular in most
countries there, and even if it had been it wouldn't change the fact that the
U.S. was pursuing many other policies hated by people throughout the region.
It was on the foundation of shoddy arguments such as these that the case for
war in Libya was built.
Bacevich is right that many critics fault specific interventions for their
failings without questioning the larger assumptions about the U.S. role in the
region that led to those wars. Liberal hawks will complain that the Iraq
war was run incompetently (and it was), but they don't give up on the idea of
preventive war or the belief that the U.S. is entitled to attack other states
more or less at will in the name of "leadership." Neoconservatives will fault
Obama for not doing more in Libya after the regime was overthrown, but
it would never occur to them that toppling foreign governments by force is wrong
or undesirable. There remains a broad consensus that the U.S. "leads" the world
and in order to exercise that "leadership" it is free to destabilize and attack
other states as it sees fit. The justifications change from country to country,
but the assumptions behind them are always the same: we have the right to interfere
in the affairs of other nations, our interference is benevolent and beneficial
(and any bad results cannot be tied to our interference), and "failure" to interfere
constitutes abdication of "leadership."
To make matters worse, every intervention always has a die-hard group of
dead-enders that will defend the rightness and success of their war no matter
what results it produces. They don't think the war they supported every really
went "awry" except when it was ended "too soon." Everyone is familiar with
Iraq war dead-enders, who continue to claim to this day that the war
had been "won" by the end of Bush's second term and that it was only by withdrawing
that the U.S. frittered away its "victory." The defense of the Libyan war is
somewhat different, but at its core it shares the same ideological refusal to
own up to failure. In Libya, the mistake was not in taking sides in a civil
war in which the U.S. had nothing at stake, but in failing to commit to an open-ended
mission to stabilize the country after the regime was overthrown. Libyan war
supporters don't accept that their preferred policy backfired and harmed the
country it was supposedly trying to help. That would not only require them to
acknowledge that they got one of the more important foreign policy questions
of the last decade badly wrong, but it would contradict one of their core assumptions
about the U.S. role in the world. As far as they're concerned, Libya is still
the "model" and "good" intervention that they claimed it was five years ago,
and nothing that has happened in Libya can ever prove otherwise.
That might not matter too much, but unfortunately pro-war dead-enders
continue to have considerable influence in shaping our foreign policy debates
on other issues. They bring the same bankrupt assumptions to debates over what
the U.S. should be doing in Syria, Ukraine, Iran, and elsewhere, and they apply
the same faulty judgment that led them to think regime change and taking sides
in foreign civil wars was smart. They still haven't learned anything from the
failures of previous interventions (because they don't accept that they were
failures), and so keep making many of the same mistakes of analysis and prescription
that they made in the past.
Remember when Larry Lindsey was fired as Bush's economic advisor when he
suggested
that the costs could be as high as $200 billion?
Good times, but at this point the Dems own it as much as the GOP.
Looks like this neocon Robert Lieber is completely detached from the reality.
Cheap oil is coming to an end in this decade and with it the crisis hit neoliberal
globalization and the US role as the capital of the global neoliberal empire. With
far reaching consequences.
Notable quotes:
"... Unfortunately, primacy has largely failed to deliver what must be the first, second, and third priorities for any grand strategy: the satisfaction of national interests, foremost among them America's safety. Rather than peace and security, primacy has brought about questionable military interventions and wars of choice in Somalia, Haiti, the Balkans (twice), Iraq (three times, depending on how you count), Libya, and Syria. Our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have led to the deaths of almost 7,000 American troops, the wounding of tens of thousands more, and the filing of disability claims by nearly a million veterans. Rather than protecting the conditions of our prosperity, primacy has cost Americans dearly, with the annual defense budget now set to rise to around $600 billion and the Iraq War alone wasting trillions of dollars. As for our values, the U.S. approach has placed our nation in the uncomfortable position of defending illiberal regimes abroad, stained our reputation for the rule of law with Guantanamo and drone campaigns, and sacrificed the Constitutional authority of Congress. ..."
"... The United States still enjoys the world's strongest military force, costing taxpayers around $600 billion a year. This sum represents nearly a third of all global spending and is equal to that of at least the next 10 countries combined. Its nearest competitor, China, spends far less, about $150 billion. ..."
"... And during the Obama years, the United States surged forces in Afghanistan, fought a war against Libya that led to regime change, re-entered Iraq and engaged (even if tepidly) in Syria, supported Saudi Arabia's dubious fight in Yemen, continued to conduct drone strikes abroad, became unprofitably enmeshed diplomatically in Ukraine's troubles, and continued to exert its power and influence in Asia. And just recently the U.S. again bombed targets in Libya. Retreat, you say? ..."
"... The degree of disarray in Libya and the consequences of it have flowed directly from the U.S.'s decision to go to war against Gaddafi and to pursue regime change. There is little need to note how disastrous the Iraq War was for the region and American interests-and how Iraq continues to be a source of trouble that the U.S. is ill-suited to resolve. ..."
"... President Obama's grand strategy has remained firmly planted within the confines of the Washington consensus and does not represent a retreat. One could only imagine what Lieber would think of a policy that truly hewed more closely to the advice of our Founders. ..."
The United States has been pursuing a grand strategy of primacy since at
least the end of the Cold War. This hegemonic approach has sought, through active,
deep engagement in the world, to preserve and extend the U.S.'s global dominance
that followed the Soviet Union's collapse. In other words, it has aimed to turn
the unipolar moment into a unipolar era. Maintaining this dominance has meant
aggressive diplomacy and the frequent display, threat, and use of military power
everywhere from the Balkans to the Baltics, from Libya to Pakistan, and from
the Taiwan Straits to the Korean peninsula.
Unfortunately, primacy has largely failed to deliver what must be the
first, second, and third priorities for any grand strategy: the satisfaction
of national interests, foremost among them America's safety. Rather than peace
and security, primacy has brought about questionable military interventions
and wars of choice in Somalia, Haiti, the Balkans (twice), Iraq (three times,
depending on how you count), Libya, and Syria. Our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
have led to the deaths of almost 7,000 American troops, the wounding of tens
of thousands more, and the filing of disability claims by nearly a million veterans.
Rather than protecting the conditions of our prosperity, primacy has cost Americans
dearly, with the annual defense budget now set to rise to around $600 billion
and the Iraq War alone wasting trillions of dollars. As for our values, the
U.S. approach has placed our nation in the uncomfortable position of defending
illiberal regimes abroad, stained our reputation for the rule of law with Guantanamo
and drone campaigns, and sacrificed the Constitutional authority of Congress.
Is it any wonder that more and more Americans question whether our foreign
policy is working? Or that more and more Washington elites, though still a minority,
are becoming dissatisfied with the status quo? Such challengers seek to reform
the military budget and force structure to make them consistent with our real
security needs. They also want to reduce ally free-riding and make sure that
the full range of possible costs and consequences of our actions abroad get
a more serious hearing so that we, in the immortal words of President Obama,
"Don't do stupid shit."
And yet Robert Lieber, in his slender new book Retreat and Its Consequences
, thinks those who seek an alternative approach are dangerously misled.
He sees any sign of realism and restraint-real, anticipated, or imagined-as
a retreat with far-reaching negative implications. Lieber, a professor of government
and international affairs at Georgetown University, instead makes the case for
doubling down on primacy and against the U.S. playing a "reduced" role in the
world. He does so mainly by attempting to show the negative consequences of
the Obama administration's supposed retrenchment while arguing for the importance
of aggressive American global leadership.
Unfortunately for the primacist cause, Retreat and Its Consequences
is not a satisfactory rejoinder to its challengers. Lieber is unconvincing
in both his indictment of opposing views and his case for deep engagement. The
book frequently reads like a rehashing of attacks we've heard high and low since
Bush departed office, from scholars like Peter Feaver of Duke University to
the Beltway neoconservatives to the fear-mongering talking heads on cable news.
More importantly, it trots out a deeply flawed argument that the United States
under Obama is actually in retreat and shedding its global leadership.
♦♦♦
Retreat and Its Consequences is the last book of Lieber's
informal trilogy on recent U.S. foreign policy. In the first book in the series,
The American Era (2005), Lieber argued in favor of the United States
continuing in the post-9/11 era to lead the world through a grand strategy of
"preponderance" and "active engagement." He claimed that such an approach would
dovetail with the realities of that changed world, to the benefit of U.S. security
and the international order alike. The next book, Power and Willpower in the American Future (2012), challenged the declinist perspective and
made the case for why the U.S. could still exert global leadership despite facing
a number of different challenges.
Lieber begins this third book, Retreat and Its Consequences , by claiming
that America's long-standing active engagement in global affairs has been increasingly
questioned at home and that the U.S. has recently been retrenching and pulling
back from its traditional leadership role. He describes this retrenchment in
theory and practice, then briefly (and in more detail later in the book) paints
a picture of a world gone bad as a consequence of this alleged retreat. He hangs
most of his indictment on President Obama's foreign-policy approach, which Lieber
claims reflects "a clear preference for reducing U.S. power and presence abroad"
as well as "a deep skepticism about the use of force" and "a de-emphasis on
relationships with allies."
The middle section of the book provides chapter-long discussions of U.S.
foreign relations with Europe, the Middle East, and the BRICS countries. In
the Europe chapter, Lieber argues that our critical relationship with our European
allies is suffering. He claims that the "Atlantic partnership has weakened as
the United States has downplayed its European commitments and Europeans themselves
have become less capable and more inclined to hedge their bets." The latter
is due to Europe's own internal woes, including economic problems, military
weakness (as well as growing pacifism), demographic challenges, and problems
with the EU. The other half of the problem he lays, as is typical in this book,
at the Obama administration's doorstep due to its de-emphasis on Europe and
its weak behavior towards Putin's Russia.
As for the Middle East, Lieber claims that the region and U.S. national interests
there are suffering due to Obama's flawed retrenchment and disengagement strategy.
Indeed, Lieber argues that Obama's transformative moves, only lightly described,
have "contributed to the making of a more dangerous and unstable Middle East."
He also discusses U.S. interests and history in the region, the sources of Middle
East instability, and the "unexpected consequences" of the Iraq War-the rise
of ISIS and Iran.
Lieber's main point regarding the BRICS is that these countries have not
helped and will not be able to help sustain the current global order. Indeed,
he thinks these states have their own different priorities and, to the extent
they benefit from the current system, will try to free ride as much as possible.
Lieber uses these cases as still more reasons why the U.S. cannot disengage
from its global leadership role even as economic power continues to diffuse.
In the penultimate chapter, Lieber returns to his allegation that the U.S.
has been retreating from the world and our leadership role-and tries to show
that it has had dangerous consequences. In the process, he discusses U.S. policies
toward Russia, China, Iraq and Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya, and Cuba. In
all these cases, Lieber finds evidence of failure and worsening conditions due
to Obama's retrenchment and his aversion to using American power. He also claims
that the Obama administration has cut our military while failing to provide
a focused articulation of what goals it needs to meet.
Lieber ends by returning to the theme of Power and Willpower in the American
Future , namely that the U.S., despite its challenges, still has the capacity
to pursue an active hegemonic grand strategy. He takes issue with the declinists
and argues yet again that the U.S. ought to lead the world; otherwise, it "is
likely to become a more disorderly and dangerous place, with mounting threats
not only to world order and economic prosperity, but to its own national interests
and homeland security."
♦♦♦
Lieber's book isn't without its lucid moments. First, he is on sound footing
when he notes that the BRICS are not fully committed to the current American-led
international order. Furthermore, he is also right about the need for our European
allies to increase their own capabilities-though one wishes he had paused to
consider how this is an unsurprising result of U.S. security guarantees that
incentivize free-riding.
Second, Lieber also helpfully challenges the declinist view prevalent in
some circles. The United States certainly has its challenges, with staggering
debt and deficits, not to mention a stifling regulatory regime. But the U.S.
continues to enjoy many strengths and advantages, especially relative to the
other near-great powers in the system. (And in international politics, it is
relative power that matters most.) Yet while Lieber gets the condition of the
patient right in this instance, the good doctor does not convincingly argue
for the necessity of his preferred prescription. That the U.S. may not be in
relative decline or in as much future trouble as some might claim does not imply
that the U.S. should continue to follow primacy. Rather, one could argue that
it is precisely because of some of our continued advantages that his grand strategy
is not required. When discussing the BRICS, Lieber admits that China suffers
from some grave problems that may prevent it from becoming a serious challenger
to American dominance. This raises the question of why the United States must
do-and risk-so much to ensure our security or that of our allies in Asia.
Despite these positives, Retreat and Its Consequences and the overarching
approach that has guided Lieber's policy views for so long suffer from a number
of critical flaws. Most importantly, the argument of the book is simply based
on a mistaken and endlessly repeated premise that the United States has significantly
retreated from the world and that this has been a key source of so many problems
in it. Basically, Lieber, as we've heard so often from others, is arguing that
the administration has pursued restraint, the world has gone to hell, restraint
is responsible for our woes-and thus we must return to primacy. Admittedly,
Obama, especially in his second term, has exercised greater discretion in how
he has managed our global engagement and leadership. And he may in his heart
of hearts have some sympathy with those who have counseled greater realism.
But neither make for a policy of retreat.
Indeed, the United States under Obama has continued to pursue a variant of
primacy despite what Lieber and others keep saying in their critiques. The United
States is still committed to defending over 60 other countries and commanding
the global commons. It still has a forward-deployed military living on a globe-girdling
network of hundreds of military bases. In fact, it has recently sent more troops
and equipment to Iraq, Eastern Europe, and even Australia. The United States
still enjoys the world's strongest military force, costing taxpayers around
$600 billion a year. This sum represents nearly a third of all global spending
and is equal to that of at least the next 10 countries combined. Its nearest
competitor, China, spends far less, about $150 billion.
And during the Obama
years, the United States surged forces in Afghanistan, fought a war against
Libya that led to regime change, re-entered Iraq and engaged (even if tepidly)
in Syria, supported Saudi Arabia's dubious fight in Yemen, continued to conduct
drone strikes abroad, became unprofitably enmeshed diplomatically in Ukraine's
troubles, and continued to exert its power and influence in Asia. And just recently
the U.S. again bombed targets in Libya. Retreat, you say?
Finally, Lieber's claim that disengagement and retrenchment is to blame for
problems in the greater Middle East is rich given how the primacist approach
he favors was to a great extent responsible for the problems in the first place.
The degree of disarray in Libya and the consequences of it have flowed directly
from the U.S.'s decision to go to war against Gaddafi and to pursue regime change.
There is little need to note how disastrous the Iraq War was for the region
and American interests-and how Iraq continues to be a source of trouble that
the U.S. is ill-suited to resolve. It is especially noteworthy that the relative
increase of Iranian influence Lieber bemoans was an entirely predictable result
of that short-sighted campaign. And we haven't likely seen all of the poisonous
fruit from what is happening in Yemen. In short, Lieber and his fellow primacists
have advocated for policies in the Middle East-including the war in Iraq-that
are a big part of the problem, not the solution.
Our country needs challenges and alternatives to the status quo rather than
boilerplate justifications of the policies that have failed to make us safer
over the past 25 years. Regardless of what Lieber would have us believe, President
Obama's grand strategy has remained firmly planted within the confines of the
Washington consensus and does not represent a retreat. One could only imagine
what Lieber would think of a policy that truly hewed more closely to the advice
of our Founders.
William Ruger is the vice president for research and policy at the Charles
Koch Institute.
Clinton is neither well-liked nor trusted. She is just a marionette promoted
by neocon cabal. Sanders team has a point that Clinton is like the job candidate
wit the impressive resume who sounds great on paper, but then when you meet her
in person, you realize she's not he right person for the job.
Notable quotes:
"... She has never acknowledged, maybe even to herself, that routing diplomatic emails with classified information through a homebrew server was an outrageous, reckless and foolish thing to do, and disloyal to Obama, whose administration put in place rules for record-keeping that she flouted. ..."
"... And Hillary did not merely fail the ask the right questions. The questions were asked and the answers were given. Joe Biden, Robert Gates and much of the military and intelligence communities advised against the Libya intervention. Hillary just chose to ignore the advice, because she is a radical neoconservative at heart. ..."
"... She volunteered that that the United States should continue to "look for missions" that NATO will support ..."
"... She vows to go around looking for new military adventures. ..."
"... Maureen is right that Hillary has huge character problems. Sure, she can't admit mistakes and compulsively blames others when things go wrong. That's a given. But it's not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that she will take our country down the wrong path, both in terms of domestic and foreign policy. ..."
"... She has had 40-some years to develop this kind of judgment, imagination and long term reflection, and she has proudly, aggressively, mean-spiritedly run the opposite direction every time and viciously attacked anyone who called her on it. It's time to stop this game of "wondering" whether she can change, wondering whether all of these terrible moments were "the real Hillary" or not. They were. Voting someone in as President on the hope that they will be a completely different person once in office then they have been in 40 years is the definition of insanity. ..."
"... it's about her paranoia about secrecy that made her think she could get away with a private email server in one of the nation's most high-profile jobs, or taking huge sums of money for Wall Street speeches she now refuses to release, or doubling-down on her ill-considered, if not ill-informed (as you note), hawkish regime change views by advocating for it again in Libya that has, as a result, turned into an ISIS outpost. ..."
"... Clinton did herself no favors in the debate, drawing even more attention to her dependence on that money and the impossibility of being completely free to make policy without repaying debts. ..."
"... They don't, but it is telling that Bill said that. His chosen exaggeration displays who he sees as Hillary's side in this. When he says, "they are coming for us" he means Wall Street. ..."
"... "Clinton, who talked Obama into it" on Libya and claimed credit, but when it went poorly, she blamed Obama for listening to her, "On Libya, she noted that "the decision was the president's."" That is her claim to experience, and not something we ought to vote to experience again. ..."
"... Hillary is a self-serving, power hungry politician. She is only ever sorry if she fails to get what she wants, or is forced to explain her actions. She feels she is above "the masses." As for her qualifications, job titles alone don't cut it. What did she actually accomplish as a Senator or SecState? Any major laws? Treaties? No. She failed with Russia, Syria and Libya to name just a few. She is not qualified to be president based on qualifications and personality. ..."
... Clinton sowed suspicion again, refusing to cough up her Wall Street speech
transcripts.
... ... ...
Hillary alternately tried to blame and hug the men in her life, divvying
up credit in a self-serving way.
After showing some remorse for the 1994 crime bill, saying it had had "unintended"
consequences, she stressed that her husband "was the president who actually
signed it." On Libya, she noted that "the decision was the president's." And
on her desire to train and arm Syrian rebels, she recalled, "The president said
no."
But she wrapped herself in President Obama's record on climate change and,
when criticized on her "super PACs," said, well, Obama did it, too.
Sanders accused her of pandering to Israel after she said that "if Yasir
Arafat had agreed with my husband at Camp David," there would have been a Palestinian
state for 15 years.
Bernie is right that Hillary's judgment has often been faulty.
She has shown an unwillingness to be introspective and learn from her mistakes.
From health care to Iraq to the email server, she only apologizes at the point
of a gun. And even then, she leaves the impression that she is merely sorry
to be facing criticism, not that she miscalculated in the first place.
... ... ...
She has never acknowledged, maybe even to herself, that routing diplomatic
emails with classified information through a homebrew server was an outrageous,
reckless and foolish thing to do, and disloyal to Obama, whose administration
put in place rules for record-keeping that she flouted.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story Wouldn't it be a relief to
people if Hillary just acknowledged some mistakes?
... ... ...
Clinton accused Sanders of not doing his homework on how he would break up
the banks. And she is the queen of homework, always impressively well versed
in meetings. But that is what makes her failure to read the National Intelligence
Estimate that raised doubts about whether Iraq posed a threat to the U.S. so
egregious.
P. Greenberg El Cerrito, CA
Maureen Dowd fundamentally misunderstands Hillary Clinton's foreign policy
failings. When it comes to Libya, Clinton does not merely need to apologize
for getting distracted by other global issues and "taking her eye off the
ball". The decision to go in was wrong, not the failure to follow through.
And Hillary did not merely fail the ask the right questions. The
questions were asked and the answers were given. Joe Biden, Robert Gates
and much of the military and intelligence communities advised against the
Libya intervention. Hillary just chose to ignore the advice, because she
is a radical neoconservative at heart.
Clinton continues to adhere to the neoconservative approach to foreign
policy. Her choice of words during the Brooklyn debate were significant.
She volunteered that that the United States should continue to "look
for missions" that NATO will support. That says it all. She vows
to go around looking for new military adventures.
Maureen is right that Hillary has huge character problems. Sure,
she can't admit mistakes and compulsively blames others when things go wrong.
That's a given. But it's not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is
that she will take our country down the wrong path, both in terms of domestic
and foreign policy.
And please Maureen, stop denigrating Bernie Sanders with pejorative adjectives
and vague accusations. He has held elective office for 35 years, showing
leadership and good judgment and good values.
Brett Morris California,
She has had 40-some years to develop this kind of judgment, imagination
and long term reflection, and she has proudly, aggressively, mean-spiritedly
run the opposite direction every time and viciously attacked anyone who
called her on it. It's time to stop this game of "wondering" whether she
can change, wondering whether all of these terrible moments were "the real
Hillary" or not. They were. Voting someone in as President on the hope that
they will be a completely different person once in office then they have
been in 40 years is the definition of insanity.
That said, of course she is better than the republicans. But she is the
worst possible candidate for the Democratic Party, especially in this era
where we have a serious opportunity to turn away from Reagan's Overton Window.
And right now we actually have a candidate available who represents our
best ideas. Can't we just ditch her while we have the chance? If she gets
elected, more war is absolutely guaranteed. A one-term Presidency is also
highly likely, because nobody will be on her side. She loses trust and support
the more she exposes herself, every time.
Paul Long island
I agree when you say of Hillary Clinton, "She has shown an unwillingness
to be introspective and learn from her mistakes." That is only part of her
problem because her judgment seems always wrong, despite all the "listening
tours," whether it's about her paranoia about secrecy that made her
think she could get away with a private email server in one of the nation's
most high-profile jobs, or taking huge sums of money for Wall Street speeches
she now refuses to release, or doubling-down on her ill-considered, if not
ill-informed (as you note), hawkish regime change views by advocating for
it again in Libya that has, as a result, turned into an ISIS outpost.
To say she's "sorry" would only confirm her consistently bad judgment since
she has so much to be sorry about. So, what we have instead is a very "sorry"
candidate who, despite her resume and establishment backing, is having immense
trouble overcoming "a choleric 74-year-old democratic socialist" and will
have an even harder time if she's the Democratic nominee in November.
Rima Regas is a trusted commenter Mission Viejo, CA
Hillary isn't sorry. Bill is definitely not sorry. Bernie Sanders isn't
a senator with few accomplishments.
Hillary isn't sorry about anything. She hasn't apologized for the superpredator
comment. Saying she wouldn't say it now is hardly an apology and during
Thursday's debate, she talked about her husband apologizing for it instead
of talking about herself (since that was what she was being asked to do),
when Bill has yet to apologize. (Clips here: http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2bw) If
anything, he doubled down on defending her and himself. When it comes to
mass-incarceration, they both exhibit a kind of moral absenteeism. http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2b7
On money in politics, Clinton did herself no favors in the debate,
drawing even more attention to her dependence on that money and the impossibility
of being completely free to make policy without repaying debts. Debbie
Wasserman Schultz was no help to her this week when in an answer, she included
big money in the "Big Tent" that the democratic party is supposed to be.
http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2bO
During his entire tenure in both houses of Congress, Sanders has distinguished
himself as one who can work with the other side, propose legislation gets
things done through amendments. There is a yuuuge difference in approach
between Clinton and Sanders and the willingness to trust Sanders over Clinton.
When the choice in front of Americans becomes Trump versus Clinton or Sanders,
Sanders wins by a wider margin. Sanders will take more from Trump.
Mark Thomason is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich
So Bill claimed Bernie supporters think, "Just shoot every third person
on Wall Street and everything will be fine."
They don't, but it is telling that Bill said that. His chosen exaggeration
displays who he sees as Hillary's side in this. When he says, "they are
coming for us" he means Wall Street.
"Clinton, who talked Obama into it" on Libya and claimed credit,
but when it went poorly, she blamed Obama for listening to her, "On Libya,
she noted that "the decision was the president's.""
That is her claim to experience, and not something we ought to vote to
experience again.
That is important, because she still wants to sink us deeper into it.
Her own adviser on this says, Hillary "does not see the Libya intervention
as a failure, but as a work in progress."
"Like other decisions, it was put through a political filter and a paranoid
mind-set." That is the essence of what makes Hillary so dangerous in a responsible
office. From Iraq in the beginning to Libya now, the homework lady did all
her work and then saw the wrong things and got it wrong.
Joe Pike Gotham City
Hillary is a self-serving, power hungry politician. She is only ever
sorry if she fails to get what she wants, or is forced to explain her actions.
She feels she is above "the masses." As for her qualifications, job titles
alone don't cut it. What did she actually accomplish as a Senator or SecState?
Any major laws? Treaties? No. She failed with Russia, Syria and Libya to
name just a few. She is not qualified to be president based on qualifications
and personality.
According to evolving campaign lore, Donald Trump's son called failed Republican
candidate John Kasich ahead of Trump's VP pick in July and told him he could
be "the most powerful vice president" ever-in charge of foreign policy, and
domestic too-if he agreed to come on board.
While Trump's people have
denied such a lavish entreaty ever occurred, it has become a powerful political
meme: the Republican nominee's lack of experience would force him to default
to others, particularly on the international front, which is a never-ending
series of flash points dotting Europe, Asia, and the Middle East like a child's
Lite Brite.
On the Democratic side there is no such concern-Hillary Clinton has plenty
of experience as a senator and secretary of state, and was a "two-for-one" first
lady who not only took part (unsuccessfully) in the domestic health-care debate,
but
passionately advocated (successfully) for the bombing campaigns in Bosnia
and Yugoslavia in the 1990s.
So what of Trump and Clinton's vice-presidential picks? For starters, they
are both hawkish.
Indiana Gov. Mike Pence was an apt pupil of Bush and Cheney during the neoconservative
years, voting for the Iraq War in 2002 and serving as one of David Petraeus's
cheerleaders in favor of the 2007 surge. He has since supported every intervention
his fellow Republicans did, even giving
early praise to Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration for the 2011
intervention in Libya.
On the other side, Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine is as far from the Bernie Sanders
mold as they come: a centrist Democrat who supports a muscular, liberal-interventionist
foreign policy, and who has been pushing for greater intervention in Syria,
just like Hillary Clinton.
If veeps do matter-and as we saw with
Dick Cheney , in many ways they can, bigtime-the non-interventionists can
expect nothing but the status quo when it comes to war policy and the war machine
at home for the next four years. Under the right conditions, Pence would help
drag Trump to the right on war and defense, and Kaine would do nothing but bolster
Clinton's already hawkish views on a host of issues, including those involving
Syria, Russia, the Middle East, and China.
If anything, Pence could end up having more influence in the White House,
said Bonnie Kristian, a writer and
fellow at Defense
Priorities , in an interview with TAC . "With these two campaigns,
I would predict that Pence would have more of a chance of playing a bigger role
[in the presidency] than Tim Kaine does," she offered. Pence could bring to
bear a dozen years of experience as a pro-war congressman, including two years
on the foreign-affairs committee. "He's been a pretty typical Republican on
foreign policy and has a lot of neoconservative impulses. I don't think we could
expect anything different," she added.
For his part, Trump "has been all over the place" on foreign policy, she
said, and while his talk about restraint and Iraq being a failure appeals to
her and others who would like to see America's overseas operations scaled back,
his bench of close advisors is not encouraging.
Walid Phares ,
Gen. Michael Flynn ,
Chris Christie ,
Rudy Giuliani : along with Pence, all could fit like neat little pieces
into the Bush-administration puzzle circa 2003, and none has ever expressed
the same disregard for the Bush and Obama war policies as Trump has on the campaign
trail.
"On one hand, [Trump] has referred to the war in Iraq and regime change as
bad and nation-building as bad, but at the same time he has no ideological grounding,"
said Jack Hunter, politics editor at
Rare . If Trump leaves the policymaking up to others, including Pence, "that
doesn't bode well for those who think the last Republican administration was
too hawkish and did not exhibit restraint."
Pence,
Kristian reminds us , gave a speech just last year at the Conservative Political
Action Conference (CPAC) in which he called for a massive increase in military
spending. "It is imperative that conservatives again embrace America's role
as leader of the free world and the arsenal of democracy," Pence said, predicting
then that 2016 would be a "foreign-policy election."
"He embraces wholeheartedly a future in which America polices the world-forever-refusing
to reorient our foreign policy away from nation-building and toward restraint,
diplomacy and free trade to ensure U.S. security," Kristian wrote in
The Hill back when Pence accepted his place on the Trump ticket
in July. Since then, he has muted his support for Iraq (Trump has said Pence's
2003 vote doesn't matter, even calling it
"a mistake" ). Clearly the two men prefer to meet on the issue of Islamic
threats and the promise of "rebuilding the military," areas where they have
been equally enthusiastic.
Meanwhile, former Bernie Sanders supporters should be rather underwhelmed
with Kaine on national-security policy. On one hand,
writers rush to point out that Kaine split with President Obama and Hillary
Clinton just a few years ago, arguing the administration could not continue
to use the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to fight ISIS
in Iraq and Syria. He also proposed legislation with Sen. John McCain to
update the War Powers Act; the bill would have required the president to
consult with Congress when starting a war, and Congress to vote on any war within
seven days of military action. That would tighten the constitutional responsibilities
of both branches, the senators said in 2013.
On the War Powers Act, Kaine gets points with constitutionalists like University
of Texas law professor Steven Vladeck, who said Kaine's effort "recognizes,
as we all should, the broader problems with the War Powers Resolution as currently
written-and with the contemporary separation of war powers between Congress
and the executive branch." But on the issue of the AUMF, Vladeck and others
have not been so keen on Kaine.
Kaine has made
two proposals relating to the AUMF, and both would leave the door open to
extended overseas military combat operations-including air strikes, raids, and
assassinations-without a specific declaration of war. The first directs the
president to modify or repeal the 2001 AUMF "by September 2017"; the second,
authored with Republican Sen. Jeff Flake, keeps the 2001 AUMF but updates the
2002 AUMF used to attack Iraq to include ISIS.
A revised AUMF is likely to do precisely what the Bush administration
sought to do in the run-up to the Iraq War: codify a dangerous unilateral
theory of preemptive war, and provide a veneer of legality for an open-ended
conflict against an endlessly expanding list of targets.
While he might be applauded for trying to strengthen "the rule of law on
foreign policy," said Kristian, it's not clear he wants to do it "to scale back
these interventions." As a member of both the armed-services and foreign-relations
committees, he has already argued for greater intervention in Syria, calling
for "humanitarian zones"-which, like "no-fly zones" and "no-bombing zones,"
mean the U.S. better be ready to tangle with the Syrian president and Russia
as well as ISIS.
Plus, when Kaine was running for his Senate seat in 2011, and Obama-with
Clinton's urging-was in the midst of a coalition bombing campaign in Libya,
Kaine
was much more noncommittal when it came to the War Powers Act, saying Obama
had a "good rationale" for going in. When asked if he believed the War Powers
Act legally bound the president to get congressional approval to continue operations
there, he said, "I'm not a lawyer on that."
If anything, Kaine will serve as a reliable backup to a president who is
perfectly willing to use military force to promote "democracy" overseas. He
neither softens Clinton's edges on military and war, nor is necessary to sharpen
them. "Does Tim Kaine change [any dynamic]? I don't think so," said Hunter,
adding, "I can't imagine he is as hawkish as her on foreign policy-she is the
worst of the worst."
So when it comes to veep picks, the value is in the eye of the beholder.
"If you are a conservative and you don't think Trump is hawkish enough, you
will like it that Pence is there," notes Hunter. On the other hand, if you like
Trump's attitude on the messes overseas-preferring diplomacy over destruction,
as he said in his
speech Wednesday -Pence might make you think twice, added Kristian. "I'm
not sure Pence is going to further those inclinations, if indeed they do exist."
To make it more complicated, the American public is unsure how it wants to
proceed overseas anyway. While a majority favor airstrikes and sending in special-operations
groups to fight ISIS in Syria, only a minority want to insert combat troops
or even fund anti-Assad groups, according to an
August poll . A slim majority-52 percent-want to establish no-fly zones.
Yet only 31 percent want to to see a deal that would keep Bashar Assad in power.
A tall order for any White House.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos is a Washington, D.C.-based freelance reporter.
"... Obama has showered both Israel and Saudi Arabia with aid and weapons for years, and in practical terms he has been one of the most reliable supporters of both governments, but no matter how much he does for these clients neither they nor their supporters here in the U.S. are satisfied. However much Obama supports both clients, the recipient governments still believe that he is too hard on them, neglects them, and works against their interests. Since they know that Obama responds to each new complaint with another round of "reassurance," they have every incentive to complain and feign outrage about how they are treated in the knowledge that the more they whine the more they will gain. ..."
"... Obama can try as much as he likes to demonstrate just how conventionally "pro-Israel" he is (and always has been), but there will never be any pleasing those detractors that are (absurdly) convinced that he is ideologically hostile to Israel. ..."
The U.S. is preparing to
increase
the amount of aid it provides to yet another wealthy
client:
President Barack Obama will unveil on Wednesday a massive new
military aid package for Israel, one which - at a reported $38
billion over 10 years - would be the largest such deal in U.S.
history.
But is it enough to buy Obama the love of his fiercest
pro-Israel critics?
Not a chance.
Obama has showered both Israel and Saudi Arabia with aid and weapons
for years, and in practical terms he has been one of the most
reliable supporters of both governments, but no matter how much he
does for these clients neither they nor their supporters here in the
U.S. are satisfied. However much Obama supports both clients, the
recipient governments still believe that he is too hard on them,
neglects them, and works against their interests. Since they know
that Obama responds to each new complaint with another round of
"reassurance," they have every incentive to complain and feign
outrage about how they are treated in the knowledge that the more
they whine the more they will gain.
It is also a fact that many of Obama's "pro-Israel" critics have
never accepted and will never accept that he is actually
"pro-Israel" as they are, and so they dismiss anything he does as a
trick, a bribe, or an insult. Obama can try as much as he likes to
demonstrate just how conventionally "pro-Israel" he is (and always
has been), but there will never be any pleasing those detractors
that are (absurdly) convinced that he is ideologically hostile to
Israel. The same goes for hawks that take it for granted that Obama
supposedly neglects and abandons "allies" elsewhere in the region.
There is nothing Obama can to make them believe that he doesn't do
this, but that doesn't seem to stop him from frittering away more
resources to placate governments that do little or nothing for the
U.S.
The article is from July 2015. It is interesting to compare views expressed a year ago with the
current situation. Who would predict the her health bacome No.1 issue in September 2016?
Now we start to see dirty MSM games and tricks with election polls. It is well known that the key
idea of polls is to influence electorate. Desirable result that conditions those who did not yet decided
to vote "for the winner" can be achieved in a very subtle way. For example if electorate of one candidate
is younger, you can run poll using landline phones. Gaius Publius provide a good analysis of now MSM
sell establishment candidate to lemmings in his July 10, 2015 post in Naked capitalism blog (The
Clinton Campaign Notices the Sanders Campaign, or How to Read the Media)
.
"...I don't think the Clinton herders care who actually votes, only who funds."
.
"...HRC is the biggest threat to the Democrats winning the White House. She is so far to the right
on almost every issue, she is the most unelectable of them all. I basically view her campaign as a front
for Jeb!"
.
"...I will take at face value the statement that Sanders' personal views are a threat to the capitalists
who control both major parties. But his strategy is not. In spite of his best intentions, he will end
up being the sheepdog that makes sure the progressive movement stays in the Democratic Party (for the
term "sheepdog" and supporting analysis see http://www.blackagendareport.com/bernie-sanders-sheepdog-4-hillary)."
Notable quotes:
"... A second example involves Wall Street banks, in particular, a policy of breaking them up, reinstating Glass-Steagall, and prosecuting Wall Street fraud. Can you imagine any announced candidate doing any of these things, save Bernie Sanders? ..."
"... If a 25 year old woman in 2008 didn't vote for Hillary, what has Hillary done to change her mind or attract the 17 year old from 2008? ..."
"... I don't think the Clinton herders care who actually votes, only who funds. ..."
"... If Hillary feels she can control primary voters through local Democratic party machines, that might explain her standpoint. ..."
"... Now organized money has too much economic power ..."
"... HRC is the biggest threat to the Democrats winning the White House. She is so far to the right on almost every issue, she is the most unelectable of them all. I basically view her campaign as a front for Jeb! ..."
"... I will take at face value the statement that Sanders' personal views are a threat to the capitalists who control both major parties. But his strategy is not. In spite of his best intentions, he will end up being the sheepdog that makes sure the progressive movement stays in the Democratic Party (for the term "sheepdog" and supporting analysis see http://www.blackagendareport.com/bernie-sanders-sheepdog-4-hillary). ..."
"... They also need enduring organizations, which are called political parties. ..."
The most important thing to consider when thinking about the Sanders campaign is this. Everyone
else who's running, on both sides, is an insider playing within - and supporting - the "insider game,"
the one that keeps insiders wealthy and outsiders struggling, the one where the wealthy and their
retainers operate government for their benefit only. What sets Sanders apart is his determination
to dismantle that game, to take it apart and send its players home (back to the private sector) or
to jail.
Two examples should make this clear. One is Fast Track and the "trade" agreements being forced
upon us. The pressure to pass these agreements is coming equally from mainstream Democrats like Barack
Obama, a "liberal," and from mainstream Republicans, supposed "conservatives." They may differ on
"rights" policy, like abortion rights, but not on money matters. Trade agreements are wealth-serving
policies promoted by people in both parties who serve wealth, which means most of them. People like
Sanders, Warren and others, by contrast, would neuter these agreement as job-killing profit protection
schemes and turn them into something else.
A second example involves Wall Street banks, in particular, a policy of breaking them up,
reinstating Glass-Steagall, and prosecuting Wall Street fraud. Can you imagine any announced candidate
doing any of these things, save Bernie Sanders?
In both of these cases, Sanders would aggressively challenge the insider profit-protection racket,
not just give lip service to challenging it. Which tells you why he is so popular. Many of us in
the bleachers have noticed the insider game - after all, it's been happening in front of us for decades-
and most of us are done with it. Ask any Tea Party Republican voter, for example, what she thinks
of the bank bailout of 2008-09. She'll tell you she hated it, whether she explains it in our terms
or not.
And that's why Sanders, like Warren before him, draws such enthusiastic crowds. The pendulum has
swung so far in the direction of wealth that the nation may well change permanently, and people know
it. People are ready, just as they were in 2008, prior to eight years of betrayal. People have been
discouraged about the chance for change lately, but they're ready for the real thing if they see
it.
The Clinton Campaign Notices Sanders
There's been an attempt to downplay the Sanders candidacy since the beginning, to sink his campaign
beneath a
wave of silence. That ended a bit ago, and the press has begun to take notice, if
snippily. Now the Clinton campaign is noticing, if the New York Times is to be believed.
I found the following fascinating, for a number of reasons.
The
piece first along with some news, then a little exegesis (my emphasis):
Hillary Clinton's Team Is Wary as Bernie Sanders Finds Footing in Iowa
The ample crowds and unexpectedly strong showing by Senator Bernie Sanders are setting off
worry among advisers and allies of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who believe the Vermont senator
could overtake her in Iowa polls by the fall and even defeat her in the nation's first nominating
contest there.
The enthusiasm that Mr. Sanders has generated - including a rally attended by 2,500 people
in Council Bluffs, Iowa, on Friday - has called into question Mrs. Clinton's early strategy of
focusing on a listening tour of small group gatherings and wooing big donors in private settings.
In May, Mrs. Clinton led with 60 percent support to Mr. Sanders' 15 percent in a Quinnipiac
poll. Last week the same poll showed Mrs. Clinton at 52 percent to Mr. Sanders's 33 percent.
"We are worried about him, sure. He will be a serious force for the campaign, and I don't think
that will diminish," Jennifer Palmieri, the Clinton campaign's communications director, said Monday
in an interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe."
Some of Mrs. Clinton's advisers acknowledged that they were surprised by Mr. Sanders' momentum
and said there were enough liberal voters in Iowa, including many who supported Barack Obama or
John Edwards in 2008, to create problems for her there.
"I think we underestimated that Sanders would quickly attract so many Democrats in Iowa who
weren't likely to support Hillary," said one Clinton adviser, who like several others spoke on
the condition of anonymity to candidly share views about the race. "It's too early to change strategy
because no one knows if Sanders will be able to hold on to these voters in the months ahead. We're
working hard to win them over, but yeah, it's a real competition there."
I don't want to quote the whole thing (well, I do, but I can't). So I encourage you to
read it. There's much there worth noticing.
What to Look at When the Times Reports on Clinton
Now, some exegesis, meta-reading of the media, especially corporate media like the Times.
My three main points are bulleted below.
First, when you expose yourself to any of the "liberal" U.S. outlets (as opposed to, say,
The Guardian) be aware that because they are owned by establishment corporations they're
already pro-Clinton. Subtly, not blatantly, but certainly.
That sounds like prejudice, so let me explain. For one thing, neither the outlets nor their
owning corporation can afford not to prepare their seat at the Clinton White House table. It's
just a fact. Media want access and corporations want government to smile on their profit schemes.
At this point, currying favor with Sanders is on no one's mind, and the Clintons are known to
"have long memories they punish their enemies and help their friends" (quoted
here). The incentives are all aligned.
But also, mainstream insider corporations are completely aligned with the insider game for
the obvious reason - they're part of it. No one inside the game wants to see it damaged. Hayes
and Maddow, as people, may or may not prefer Sanders over Clinton, but MSNBC has a clear favorite
and if you listen carefully and consistently, it shows. Their owners, and all of the other big
media owners, can't afford (literally afford, as in, there's major money at stake) to play this
one straight. You may find some unskewed reporting, but not a lot of it.
In the present instance, for example, I read the story above (click through for
all of it) as being pro-Clinton, and in fact, most stories like these will be painted that
way, with a light brush or a heavy one, for some time to come. If you don't spot this bias where
present, you're not reading the story as written.
In the same way that every New York Times story I read in the last two months, literally
every one, used the inaccurate and propagandistic phrase "pro-trade Democrats" to describe Ron
Wyden, Earl Blumenauer and the small handful of other Dems who defied their voters to support
the White House and the wealthy - in that same way you'll have a hard time finding mainstream
Sanders or Clinton coverage that doesn't in some way sell Clinton. If that's not a fact, I'll
be eager to be proven wrong.
Second, be aware that much so-called reporting is the result of "placement," a term
from advertising. Ad placement is when you buy space in a publication or media program into which
you can put your message. Campaigns, among other entities, frequently do the same with reporters.
The reporter offers space, a container, into which the campaign can put its message. (The reward
is usually "access.")
It's certainly true that many reporters and writers openly advocate; I'm often one of
them and I'm not alone. But no one suspects open advocates of trickery. It's much more subtle,
and dangerous for readers, when the advocacy is hidden, as it is in supposed "straight news" articles.
In cases like these - certainly not all cases of reporting, but far too many - the reporter
doesn't "get" the news. The news "gets" the reporter. A campaign's messenger comes to the reporter,
offers the message, and the reporter builds a genuine and frequently interesting news story around
it, including research from other sources, but always starting with the seed provided by the campaign
or public official.
In the present instance, the article above, you should therefore ask:
Is it really true that the Clinton campaign just now discovered Sanders' popularity and
that he may be a threat?
Or could the following be true? That the Clinton campaign always knew a Warren-like opponent
could gain ground but were publicly ignoring it; now, however, it's time to appear to be noticing,
so they approached a reporter with their take on the Sanders surge.
In other words, is the bolded part of the first sentence of the article its seed? Who approached
whom? That first sentence again:
The ample crowds and unexpectedly strong showing by Senator Bernie Sanders are setting off
worry among advisers and allies of Hillary Rodham Clinton
I don't have an answer to the bulleted questions above. Either could be correct. I'm a little
suspicious though. First, by the obvious but subtle bias in the story - similar to the constant
bias in all of the Times Fast Track reporting. Second, by the plurals above: "among
advisers and allies of Hillary Rodham Clinton." This isn't one person speaking, but
a coordinated effort by staffers and surrogates ("allies") to say a coordinated single thing to
the Times reporters.
Third, I'm made suspicious by this, a little further down:
"I think we underestimated that Sanders would quickly attract so many Democrats in Iowa
who weren't likely to support Hillary," said one Clinton adviser, who like several others
spoke on the condition of anonymity to candidly share views about the race. "It's too early
to change strategy because no one knows if Sanders will be able to hold on to these voters
in the months ahead. We're working hard to win them over, but yeah, it's a real competition
there."
There's obvious messaging, especially in the last part of the paragraph. But look at the bolded
part. Of those in the campaign, the only ones quoted in the article by name are Clinton herself
and Jennifer Palmieri, who spoke, not to the reporters, but to "Morning Joe." Everyone else is
off the record, speaking to these reporters "on the condition of anonymity to candidly
share views about the race."
"Candidly" implies leaking, not messaging or spin, and here's where the deception seems more
clear. Have these reporters really found a minor army of leakers? If these are truly leakers,
expect them to be fired soon.
So, scenario one: Sanders is surging, the Clinton campaign is caught by surprise, and
two Times reporters find a bunch of anonymous campaign leakers who say (paraphrasing),
"Sure, Sanders caught us by surprise. We're aiming for one type of Democrat and he's getting the
other type. It's too early to change strategy - the man could trip and fall - but yes, there's
now competition."
(Did you notice that part about two kinds of Democrat? The actual quote says: "We underestimated
that Sanders would quickly attract so many Democrats in Iowa who weren't likely to support Hillary."
I think the campaign knows exactly what kind of Democrat they were ignoring, and if you think
about it carefully, you will too.)
Or, scenario two: The Clinton campaign is ignoring the Warren wing, giving them nothing
but platitudes and (as in the case of Fast Track) avoidance. Now the "Sanders surge" is in the
news and the campaign has to respond. They get their message together - "Yes, we're surprised,
and we have to admit that out loud. But it's early days, and if we keep getting reporters to say
'socialist' and 'anathema,' we won't have to counter his specifics with our specifics. So let's
round up some reporters and get 'Morning Joe' on the phone."
Did the reference to "socialist" and "anathema" surprise you? Read on.
Finally, because of the two points above, you'll find that in many cases the story supports
the campaign, while justifying itself as "reporting." Both bolded pieces are important.
Let's look at each element above. First, "the story supports the campaign":
Those who see Mrs. Clinton as being at risk in Iowa say she is still far better positioned
to win the nomination than Mr. Sanders, who lags by double digits in Iowa polling. He also
has far less money than she does, and his socialist leanings are anathema to many
Americans.
In the first sentence the campaign is being subtly and indirectly quoted. But the bolded phrases
above are pretty strong language in a sentence that isn't necessarily an indirect quote, and echoes
open Clinton surrogates like Claire McCaskill. Even "leanings" lends an unsavory color, since
it echoes the phrase "communist leanings."
(The alternative to the last sentence above, by the way, and much more honestly sourced, would
be something like this: "The anonymous campaign adviser also said, 'Frankly, we think if we just
keep saying 'socialist' whenever we can, we won't have to change our strategy of being vague on
the economic issues. At least we're sticking with that for now.'" I would buy that as excellent
honest reporting.)
Second, "justifying itself as reporting": Once you present the core message as provided by
the messengers, the reporter can then call around for other, non-Clinton-sourced comment. Thus
the quotes, much further down from Joe Trippi, Carter Eskew and the Sanders campaign.
Add in a little of the reporters' own analysis, much of it good:
"The enthusiasm that Mr. Sanders has generated - including a rally attended by 2,500 people
in Council Bluffs, Iowa, on Friday - has called into question Mrs. Clinton's early strategy
of focusing on a listening tour of small group gatherings and wooing big donors in private
settings."
and you have the makings of a news story friendly to Clinton built around a news hook and potentially
"placed" elements. The hook, the "placed" elements (if they were placed), and some original analysis
go at the top, and the rest of the story is built to follow that.
Bottom Line
If you like this exercise in reading behind the media, please read
the article again with the above thoughts in mind. Is this original reporting (i.e., reporters
starting a conversation), or did the campaign make the first approach? Does the article carry Clinton
water, subtly support the campaign? Are any opposing viewpoints featured at the top, or are they
buried below the point where most people stop reading?
This Times story may be a completely honest exercise in independent journalism. There certainly
is a Sanders phenomenon, and it's detailed honestly and factually, so there's value in reading it.
But there's an obvious bias toward Clinton messaging in the reporters' own prose, so I'm suspicious,
and you should be as well.
I'll also say that most stories about campaigns operate this way, as do many other news stories
involving public figures. What will make reporting the Sanders campaign different is what I wrote
above - Sanders wants to take apart the insider game. What major media outlet will help Sanders do
that, will shut the door to corporate favors, media access and other prizes from a future Clinton
administration, in order to be even-handed?
My guess is few or none.
Reader note: Gaius asked for me to allow comments on this post, so please have at it!
AJ, July 10, 2015 at 8:14 am
I was that Sanders rally in Council Bluffs. I follow politics especially on the left very closely
so I didn't really come home with any thing new (besides some extra Bernie stickers). However,
the crowd was huge and engaged. It almost had the feel of a big tent revival.
One issue that I've been thinking about lately that I haven't seen publicly addressed (except
for in the comments on the 538 article Lambert posted yesterday) is how reliable do we think sine
of these polling numbers are? Given that Sanders support definitely skews younger, would these
people even be captured in telephone polls? I tend to think this is why the Greek vote was as
big of a surprise as it was. I think there is a large going progressive part of the population
(both on the US and abroad) that doesn't get picked up in the polling. If true, Sanders could
be a lot closer to Clinton than these numbers suggest.
NotTimothyGeithner, July 10, 2015 at 9:06 am
Pollsters know this, but there are three kinds: the national subscription polls who just want
to be relevant, paid polls, and the local reputation polls. Because of the distance to the election,
there won't be good responses, and cell phone users have grown reliant on texting and are less
likely to respond. The pollsters know this. Needless to say, the Quinnipiac poll should be disconcerting
for the Clinton camp and the Democrats who thought Hillary would shower them with cash and appearances.
That result means they see enough to make this claim even though they aren't quite on the ground
the way a Roanoke College poll is in Virginia. The local reputation poll has a sense of the electorate
because they've polled every local election while CNN was trying to interview Nessie.
There is dissatisfaction within Team Blue that Hillary Clinton can't bridge. There is a myth
about Bill's magical campaign touch Democrats have internalized despite a lack of evidence, and
I think Team Blue elites feel Obama failed them and want to bring Hillary in as a savior. Obviously,
they weren't around in '94.
pat b, July 10, 2015 at 8:15 pm
Bill and Al ran a magical campaign in 92, but that was a long time ago, and they spent two
decades
triangulating against the Base. Bill signed NAFTA and HRC spent 23 years defending it.
In 92 the clinton's were selling the dream of the 90's. Now, they are selling Windows 98.
Nick, July 10, 2015 at 10:26 am
Too bad young people have a horrible track record actually voting. Clinton knows the game well
enough.
NotTimothyGeithner, July 10, 2015 at 11:11 am
Hillary is 8 years older, so are her core nostalgia supporters. Without a message for the now
under 45 crowd, Hillary has lost 8 years worth of supporters to relative infirmity or death.
She didn't rally the crowds for Grimes, Landrieu, or Hagan. Shaheen was the incumbent she saved,
but she was running against an unremarkable Massachusetts carpet bagger. I'm not certain the Democrats
have ever left the Spring of '94.
vidimi, July 10, 2015 at 11:33 am
don't underestimate the number of young, white females voting clinton. it will be somewhere
near all of them.
mn, July 10, 2015 at 11:43 am
What about college debt and the fact that there are no jobs. Gender seems to be a selling point,
like race the last time. Not all younger females will be that stupid again.
NotTimothyGeithner, July 10, 2015 at 12:50 pm
Actually, Obama won younger females. Credit where credit is due. Gender may have affected older
voters who come from an obviously more repressive era, but I suspect brand loyalty and legitimacy
(it's her turn messaging), racism, and nostalgia played a hand in Clinton's 2008 support more
than gender. If a 25 year old woman in 2008 didn't vote for Hillary, what has Hillary done
to change her mind or attract the 17 year old from 2008? In many ways, Hillary has to replace
8 years of death to her base.
mn, July 10, 2015 at 1:01 pm
At that time people were saying to vote for Hillary because she would prop up destroyed 401ks
(to me the mindless young voter). I fell for the hope and change b.s., I won't do that again.
Long time Bernie fan.
As for my friends they are voting for Hillary because they don't think Bernie can win, others
that hate her are sitting out. Yes, many females really do not like her. Love Ann Richards! RIP.
pat b, July 10, 2015 at 8:34 pm
The Silent Generation anchored Reagan and was much more conservative and risk averse then the
Boomers of which Hillary is one. However, the issue isn't Hillary vs the GOP's aging angry silent
generation types, it's more Hillary's aging Boomer female base vs the millenials who think the
Boomers shafted them. It was the Boomers who benefited from cheap college tuition then voted in
Reagan to cut taxes and dump these costs onto Gen X, GenY and the Millenials.
Paul Tioxon, July 10, 2015 at 11:14 pm
My point is that of the passing of an era. And not only in terms of voters,the army of the
silent majority which saw the blue collar conservatives, the hard hats, the cops, leave the democrats
en mass and the democrats having little to replace them. The defection of the dixiecrats from
the dems to the republicans, as witnessed in the complete turnover of Texas to the republicans
amalgamated what was a coalition into a choke hold from 1968 until 2008, with only 12 years dems
in the WH only 2 dem presidents over 40 years. And of course, Clinton may as well have been George
Bush for all that it mattered for domestic policies.
So Hillary and the dems do not have the army of voters against them that they used to have
plus what ever momentarily disaffected Millenials seeking payback or another group to reinforce
numbers making the republicans a majority party. They are not.
The point is that as your opposition declines in numbers as far as the ballot box goes, and your
likely supporters increase, the odds favor your party as a majority.
Millenials, according to Pew Polls, the 18-33 year olds, are 51% democrat/ leaning democrat
vs 35% republican/leaning republican. Even though independent is now the largest of the 3 categories,
leaning is the place to go when there is no alternative choice, apparently.
I am not sure the younger group is following the republican strategist wedge issue that the
old people are stealing from the young with college debt, social security, Medicare being blamed
for the diminished prosperity of the young. Trying to turn their grandparents who are retired
after a lifetime of hard work into the new welfare queens is not getting the traction you would
think. Apparently holding onto ritual Thanksgiving Day dinners and baking cookies around the holidays
is more of a social bond than fabricated grievances by political consultants can even rend asunder.
And of course, blood is thicker than water. Don't expect granny and pop pop to pushed off on an
iceberg anytime soon because of college debt.
Praedor, July 10, 2015 at 11:07 am
What I see in this is the potential for a low turnout election. POTENTIAL. Those enthusiastic
young voters, or the previously disgusted sideline sitters who have come out anew for Sanders
(or previously for Warren) are NOT likely to shrug their shoulders and vote for Hillary if she
ends up pulling in the pre-anointed crown. It's hard to get all fired up and enthusiastic about
candidate A only to be stuck with candidate B who you weren't interested in before. This has the
potential to really change things or gut the process of any participants except the true believer
core of the Democrats.
Uahsenaa, July 10, 2015 at 8:51 am
I found this sentence to be rather curious: "Mrs. Clinton's advisers, meanwhile, have deep
experience pulling off upsets and comeback political victories, and Mrs. Clinton often performs
best when she is under pressure from rivals." The first part is unsubstantiated vaguery, but the
second part is demonstrably untrue. Or, if not "untrue," then it implies that Sec. Clinton's "best"
is still "loses." Also there's the earlier bit about Sanders being "untested" nationally, yet,
when you parse that, you realize Ms. Clinton's "testedness" amounts to "lost to an insurgent candidate
who had been in national politics for all of a few minutes."
Since I'm still somewhat skeptical of what a Sanders candidacy means, I am quite happy to see
how, along with Bernie, others in various facets of government seem to be emboldened to fight
back. TPA may have been a loss in the short term, but the administration was clearly taken aback
by having to fight resistance at all. My hope is the Sanders campaign, at a bare minimum, will
demonstrate how popular fighting back really is and stiffen the spines of those in government
who want to do something but fear genuine reprisal.
Did you see the date? This article could be about 2014. There is a dangerous myth about the
Clinton touch.
Uahsenaa, July 10, 2015 at 9:53 am
It's been surprising to me how willing Sec. Clinton has been to alienate core constituencies
of the Democratic party. When O'Malley and Sanders came to Iowa City, they both reached out to
local unions for support/attendance/whatever, but when Clinton came here on Tuesday, I found out
about it when I showed up with my daughter for reading time at the library.
I hear again and again about the Clintons' political savvy, yet in practice I just don't see
it.
They may be ruthless, but ruthless only gets you so far. She cannot take Democratic stalwarts
for granted this election cycle, especially when the AFL-CIO went into open war with the administration
over TPA.
Who does she think shows up for the polls in primary elections?
redleg, July 10, 2015 at 10:16 am
Hubris. I don't think the Clinton herders care who actually votes, only who funds.
DolleyMadison, July 10, 2015 at 11:22 am
EXACTLY.
flora, July 10, 2015 at 2:33 pm
Bill and Hill's speaking fees give a whole new meaning to "the Clinton touch."
TheCatSaid, July 10, 2015 at 2:09 pm
"Who does she think shows up for the polls in primary elections?"
This seems like the key question.
It's one thing to motivate people to vote for a presidential election, but motivating people
to turnout for a primary might be different entirely. For example, do as many young voters and
minority voters turn out for a primary? If not, what would it take to change this?
If Hillary feels she can control primary voters through local Democratic party machines,
that might explain her standpoint.
Lambert Strether, July 10, 2015 at 2:24 pm
I wonder how effective the local Democratic party machines are, or whether Obama's reverse
Midas touch destroyed them. (Certainly my own local machine is ineffectual, and the state party
is corrupt (landfills)).
I wonder if there's a comparison to be made between ObamaCare signups and GOTV (I mean a literal
one, in that the same apparatchiks would get walking around money for both, and the data might
even be/have been dual-purposed). My first impulse is to say, if so, "Good luck, and let me know
how that works out!" but I don't know how directly the metrics translate.
Jeremy Grimm, July 10, 2015 at 9:22 pm
For the last few years I have been a lowly member of the local Democratic Party machine, a
volunteer co-precinct leader (though hardly similar to what a precinct leader used to be). The
local party leadership and membership is old, late boomer, steadfast and immobile. Republican
party opposition in this area is virtually non-existent so I have no idea how effective our local
organization is as opposed to how skewed the demographics of my area. With little or no efforts,
we consistently turn out a substantial Democratic vote. I believe the corruption of politics in
my state, New Jersey, is justly famous. I have no idea what corruption might exist in my local
township, though I am starting to wonder. As for President Obama's reverse Midas touch I live
near the headquarters of several big pharmaceutical corporations. I am sure they have wide-open
purses for both parties.
As of late last year, our organization has had few meetings and poor attendance at the one
meeting I showed up for. I learned at that meeting, about a month ago, that several of the other
precinct leads have resigned, though I don't know why. I am moving away and will also resign as
of the end of this month.
I suspect our local organization will come out strongly in favor of Hillary Clinton though
provide little in the way of support. When I raised concern about the TPA and TPP at the last
meeting I attended and urged the other members of this supposedly political organization to call
or write to our Representative few of the members knew what I was talking about. The chair tried
to rule my concern out of order though all other business was done and our Democratic Mayor, who
is a member of the organization, suggested we should each hear views from both sides before deciding
our individual stance on the TPA or TPP since there were arguments for both sides (even though
the TPA was coming up for a vote in a few days). I should add a little context this meeting
consisted of the eleven or so people who showed up. In my experience this close watch over all
dissent from local, state or national party line typified our organization. All questions other
than very specific procedural questions and discussions were NOT welcome.
I can only speak of my own alienation from the Democratic Party, local, state and national.
I voted for Obama with enthusiasm in 2008 but with disgust in 2012. I have been a Democrat since
Adlai Stevenson II (though I was too young to vote for him). I will continue to register as a
Democrat but I doubt many Democrats will receive my vote and certainly no Republicans. I have
no plans to further participate in Party politics. I will vote for candidates I like but never
again vote for the "lesser of two evils." I cannot gauge the extent to which my alienation typifies
other Democrats since political discussions are generally considered impolite except among close
friends.
Pissed Younger baby boomer, July 11, 2015 at 2:59 am
I am too disillusioned with the democratic party .where i live in Oregon ,my congressman is
a blue dog dem. i called his a least five times to voice my opposition to TPP. A few months ago
I signed up for phone town hall meeting .i never received an e-mail invitation .YES talking about
suppressing dissent.i am considering switch to the greens or a socialist party. My fear i hope
we do not become fascist country and three out of four congressmen vote for TPA and senator Wyden
voted for it too.I also lost faith in the phony liberal media.
NotTimothyGeithner, July 11, 2015 at 9:33 am
The GOP organizes through churches and other outfits. Ted aren't as noticeable wherever one
is, but the GOP isn't interested in turnout as much as making sure their people vote. They have
minders who phish for potential voters. Why do women ever vote Republican? Because they have a
club that demands it. Your area may be skewed but half of Dean's 50 state strategy was lifted
from GOP election approaches.
Uahsenaa, July 10, 2015 at 4:30 pm
With the exception of Illinois, because Chicago, the state democratic parties in most midwestern
states are in shambles, so the likelihood of the "machine" squeaking out a win is quite low. In
the absence of that, what you have left are the institutions traditionally loyal to the D party
who have been thrown under the bus so many times over the past 8 years, it's bewildering. I mentioned
the AFL-CIO break with the administration over "trade," (scare quotes don't quite seem big enough)
precisely because it seems to indicate a willingness to break from tradition, if an opportunity
presents itself.
Now, I have no idea what things are like in the South, and those states plus NY/IL/CA might
be enough to push Hillary through to the nomination. However, if she continues the way she has
so far, the apparatus in a large number of states is not going to be enough to buttress her against
popular grumbling.
John Zelnicker, July 10, 2015 at 8:45 pm
In Alabama the Democratic Party apparatus is a total mess and completely ineffectual. The party
"leaders" spend most of their time protecting their little fiefdoms and fighting efforts to expand
and diversify the membership of the statewide committees and local affiliates. In fact, it has
gotten so bad that some activists are trying to set up independent Party committees to recruit
candidates for local and state elections and run GOTV efforts.
C. dentata, July 10, 2015 at 10:49 am
I think it may not be pro-Clinton as much as anti-Sanders bias. The corporate media are certainly
happy to ridiculously hype any of the nonstories about Hillary that Trey Gowdy feeds them.
anonymous123, July 10, 2015 at 11:07 am
It was really nice to see someone deconstruct this article. When I read it the other day I
had the same thoughts go through my head about the overt messaging going on.
vidimi, July 10, 2015 at 11:29 am
pro-trade reminds me of pro-russian rebels. seems very likely that the chamber of commerce
or state department or somesuch approached all editors and ordered them to use these two terms
for their respective designees. classic propaganda tactic.
Vatch, July 10, 2015 at 12:14 pm
I expect to vote for Sanders in the primary, and for an as yet unknown third party candidate
in the election. Obama and Bill Clinton have taught me that main stream Democratic politicians
only differ from Republican politicians on a few social issues; on everything else they are the
same. I refuse to knowingly vote for a voluntary agent of the oligarchs, which is what Hillary
Clinton is.
flora , July 10, 2015 at 2:31 pm
Yes. Both the GOP and the DLC Dems agree on all major economic issues. The electioneering so
far has been personality oriented. Jeb!, The Donald, Hillary!, etc.
Except for Sanders, who isn't running a personality campaign. He's talking about important
economic issues in a way the others won't.
In the late '70s conventional wisdom solidified around the idea that economic stagnation was
due to organized labor having too much economic power (true or not, my point isn't to re-argue
that case). The 'Reagan revolution' promised to re-balance and right the economy by reining in
organized labor.
Now organized money has too much economic power. It's harming the whole economy. Bernie
is talking about reining in organized money. How do the other candidates deal with this without
bursting their ideological bubble for the audience? The NYTimes article is a case in point.
Cano Doncha Know, July 11, 2015 at 5:31 am
HRC is the biggest threat to the Democrats winning the White House. She is so far to the
right on almost every issue, she is the most unelectable of them all. I basically view her campaign
as a front for Jeb!
cm, July 10, 2015 at 12:38 pm
Some laughable NY Times articles about their inability to write articles without relying on anonymous
sources, despite their own (ignored) policies:
If Sanders wins a few primaries, I would expect a moderate-bot to be trundled in. The Webb, for
instance, has already been turned on and is humming, ready to go. (The O'Malley seems to have
already burned through its batteries.)
NotTimothyGeithner, July 10, 2015 at 2:00 pm
The Webb? No, no, no, no, no. As a Webb primary voter, I can assure you the man has 0 personality
and isn't a big campaigner. If the young Hillary supporters in NYC found Hillary uninspiring,
they might collapse into a blob and just stop after listening to Webb. I just assumed he is running
because he likes Iowa.
O'Malley has already attacked Sanders and doesn't pick up the Hillary experience narrative
as well as having to roll out during the Baltimore protests.
Bob Richard, July 10, 2015 at 5:55 pm
Nothing GP is says about the Times article or reporting in general is wrong. But the MSM, including
the Times reporter, is completely missing the real story of the Sanders campaign.
I will take at face value the statement that Sanders' personal views are a threat to the
capitalists who control both major parties. But his strategy is not. In spite of his best intentions,
he will end up being the sheepdog that makes sure the progressive movement stays in the Democratic
Party (for the term "sheepdog" and supporting analysis see http://www.blackagendareport.com/bernie-sanders-sheepdog-4-hillary).
Like Ralph Nader before him, Sanders has a completely wrong approach to political parties.
Nader understood that he needed to work outside the major party framework but did not understand
that social movements don't just need popular candidates. They also need enduring organizations,
which are called political parties. For most of his career, Sanders has been able work both
sides of this fence, helping to create a state-level organization (the Progressive Party) in Vermont
but also running with Democratic Party endorsements. This spring was a moment of truth for him.
He has (or until now had) the stature to create a new political party, perhaps from scratch or
perhaps by joining and helping build the Green Party. He chose to turn his back on the left.
The left needs a political party. Yes, I know, we have a two party system. But that is the
problem. Believing that the two party system is an immutable law of nature is not part of any
solution.
RPY, July 10, 2015 at 6:06 pm
Bernie I believe because of his message, is attracting people from both sides of the aisle.
Everyday people who are tired of partisan politics and are just glad to hear someone willing to
speak the truth of how screwed things are. From the corruption of wall street to the corruption
of Washington, DC politics.
Lambert Strether, July 10, 2015 at 7:50 pm
Some of us on the left would rather deal with a straightforward reactionary who's honest about
their intentions than backstabbing "Join the conversation" Democrats. I wonder if there's a similar
dynamic on the right: They'd rather deal with an honest-to-gawd Socialist than McConnnell and
Boehner (Exhibit A: TPP).
RPY, July 10, 2015 at 6:06 pm
Bernie I believe because of his message, is attracting people from both sides of the aisle.
Everyday people who are tired of partisan politics and are just glad to hear someone willing to
speak the truth of how screwed things are. From the corruption of wall street to the corruption
of Washington, DC politics.
Lambert Strether, July 10, 2015 at 7:50 pm
Some of us on the left would rather deal with a straightforward reactionary who's honest about
their intentions than backstabbing "Join the conversation" Democrats. I wonder if there's a similar
dynamic on the right: They'd rather deal with an honest-to-gawd Socialist than McConnnell and
Boehner (Exhibit A: TPP).
oho, July 11, 2015 at 2:36 pm
*** First, when you expose yourself to any of the "liberal" U.S. outlets (as opposed to, say,
The Guardian) be aware that because they are owned by establishment corporations they're already
pro-Clinton. ***
While the Guardian is nominally independent, it ain't much better at being "liberal" that the
NYT.
Guardian editors like access to Westminster, their fellow Oxbridge alums and invites to cocktail
parties in Kensington too.
This
article outlines the main elements of
rupture and continuity in the global political economy since the global
economic crisis of
2008-2009. While the current calamity poses a more systemic challenge to
neoliberal
globalization than genetically similar turbulences in the
semi-periphery during the 1990s, we find that evidence for its
transformative significance remains mixed. Efforts to reform the distressed
capitalist models in the North encounter severe resistance, and the
broadened multilateralism of the G-20 is yet
to provide effective global economic governance. Overall,
neoliberal
globalization looks set to survive, but in more heterodox and
multipolar fashion. Without tighter coordination between old and emerging
powers, this new synthesis is unlikely to inspire lasting solutions to
pressing global problems such as an unsustainable international financial
architecture and the pending environmental catastrophe, and may even fail to
preserve some modest democratic and developmental gains
of the recent past.
"... According to experts, by issuing this statement they seek to encourage Saudi, Gulf, and Muslim
youths to fight against Russian forces, similar to the recruitment of young fighters during the Afghan-Soviet
war ..."
"... The pretense, by Reuters , that Saudi Arabia is a religious-freedom country, is an insult to
their readership, but this falsehood helps to keep their readership thinking that somehow the West can
be allied with the Sauds and yet still call itself 'democratic' and allied only with 'democratic' governments,
not with some of the world's worst tyrannies. Realism in foreign affairs (such as to acknowledge that
some of the world's worst regimes are our government's allies) is fine, but it can't include lying to
one's own public, because that necessarily entails misinforming the voters on the basis of which any
actual democracy receives its very legitimacy as being a democracy, which seems less and less what countries
such as the US and UK are, at least after 9/11. ..."
"... A "democracy" and a "deceived public" cannot coexist in the same country – and, at least in
the United States, a deceived public is what predominantly exists (as a consequence of a deceiving 'news'
media). ..."
"... Here is the operation that has been led by the Bush-Clinton-Obama-Saud-Thani alliance ..."
"... The leaders of Qatar are its owners, the Thani royal family, who are the main funders of the
Muslim Brotherhood, and who have long wanted to overthrow the secular Assad and to replace him with
a fundamentalist Sunni leader like themselves. ..."
"... The main subject of the conversation was to be the drought in the Arabic countries . That drought
was especially intense in Syria. ..."
Leaked emails are filling in the picture of a Bill-and-Hillary-Clinton plan to destroy Russia
– a plan which had originated with US President George Herbert Walker Bush in 1990, and which has
been followed through both by his son George W Bush, and by both of the Clintons, but which has only
recently started to become documented by leaked publications of personal communications amongst the
key operatives who were the insiders running this operation behind the scenes, and who include Bill
Clinton, Hillary Clinton, George W Bush, Victoria Nuland, Jeffrey Feltman, Saudi Prince Bandar bin
Sultan al-Saud, Saudi Crown Prince Muhammed bin Salman al-Saud, and the Emir of Qatar.
This operation came out into public view only briefly when the news site Zero Hedge
headlined on 6 October 2015 "Saudi Clerics Call For Jihad Against Russia, Iran" and linked to
a number of sources, including to a Wall Street Journal
report the day before, which simply ignored the Saudi involvement and headlined "US Sees Russian
Drive Against CIA-Backed Rebels in Syria", as if this matter were merely a US-vs-Russia issue, not
an issue involving the Saud family at all. By contrast, the Zero Hedge article closed with "'This
is a real war on Sunnis, their countries and their identities,' said the statement [by the International
Union of Muslim Scholars, which is based in Qatar, whose ruling family, the Thanis,
work closely with the Saud family]. It urged the rebels to join a 'jihad against the enemy
of God and your enemy, and Muslims will back you every way they can.'"
As a British news-site for jihadists
put the matter , "According to experts, by issuing this statement they seek to encourage
Saudi, Gulf, and Muslim youths to fight against Russian forces, similar to the recruitment of young
fighters during the Afghan-Soviet war". (That joint US-Saudi
operation , which was assisted by the Pakistani military and by Pakistan's heavily-Saudi-influenced
Islamic clergy, was the brainchild of Saudi Prince Bandar and of the born Polish aristocrat Zbigniew
Brzezinski, and its success at breaking up the Soviet Union is an enduring topic of pride for today's
jihadists.)
On 5 October 2015, the British mainstream 'news' site Reuters
had called these "Saudi opposition clerics", and alleged that they "are not affiliated
with the government", but Reuters' s statement (especially that these were "Saudi opposition
clerics" ) was simply false, and even ridiculously false, likely an outright lie, because Saudi
laws don't allow any "opposition clerics", especially not Islamic ones, since those would
be executed for publicly questioning the legitimacy of the country's rule by the royal Saud family,
which is what an "opposition cleric" in Saudi Arabia would, by definition, be doing, if any
of them existed there and hadn't been executed yet.
The pretense, by Reuters , that Saudi Arabia is a religious-freedom country, is an
insult to their readership, but this falsehood helps to keep their readership thinking that somehow
the West can be allied with the Sauds and yet still call itself 'democratic' and allied only with
'democratic' governments, not with some of the world's worst tyrannies. Realism in foreign affairs
(such as to acknowledge that some of the world's worst regimes are our government's allies) is fine,
but it can't include lying to one's own public, because that necessarily entails misinforming the
voters on the basis of which any actual democracy receives its very legitimacy as being a
democracy, which seems less and less what countries such as the US and UK are, at least after 9/11.
A "democracy" and a "deceived public" cannot coexist in the same country – and, at least in
the United States, a deceived public is what predominantly exists (as a consequence of a deceiving
'news' media).
At http://www.whois.com/whois/clintonemail.com
, one learns that "Creation Date: 2009-01-13T05:00:00Z", meaning Hillary Clinton had set up her privatized
State Department email operation on January 13 th of 2009, six days prior to becoming
the US Secretary of State.
Here is the operation that has been led by the Bush-Clinton-Obama-Saud-Thani alliance:
From: Jeffrey Feltman To: Hillary Clinton Date: 2011-02-20 08:36 Subject: SAUD
UNCLASSIFIED US Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05778064 Date: 09/30/2015
RELEASE IN PART B1,B5,1.4(D) From: Feltman, Jeffrey D Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2011 3:36 PM H; Sullivan, JacobJ; HumaAbedin
To: Subject: RE:Saud Yes, I agree – Bill should call. That's a good idea. He can brief on your
call with Saud. ■ B5 Original Message From: H [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, February
20, 2011 3:34 PM To: Feltman, Jeffrey 0; Sullivan, Jacob J; Huma Abedin Subject: Saud 1.4(D) B1
Also, Bill knows the CP [Crown Prince, now Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud] very well
and wants to call and offer support. Is that ok? Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 09/30/2015 –
Class: CONFIDENTIAL – Reason: 1.4(D) – Declassify on: 02/19/2036
Victoria Nuland: I think Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing
experience. He's the – What he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking
to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in, he's going to be at that level
working for Yatseniuk, it's just not going to work.
Geoffrey Pyatt: Yeah, no, I think that's right. OK. Good. Do you want us to set up a call
with him as the next step?
Victoria Nuland: My understanding from that call – but you tell me – was that the big three
were going into their own meeting and that Yats was going to offer in that context a three-plus-one
conversation or three-plus-two with you. Is that not how you understood it?
Pyatt: No. I think – I mean that's what he proposed but I think, just knowing the dynamic
that's been with them where Klitschko has been the top dog, he's going to take a while to show
up for whatever meeting they've got and he's probably talking to his guys at this point, so I
think you reaching out directly to him helps with the personality management among the three and
it gives you also a chance to move fast on all this stuff and put us behind it before they all
sit down and he explains why he doesn't like it.
Nuland: OK, good. I'm happy. Why don't you reach out to him and see if he wants to talk
before or after.
Pyatt: OK, will do. Thanks.
Nuland: OK, one more wrinkle for you Geoff. I can't remember if I told you this, or if I
only told Washington this, that when I talked to Jeff Feltman [who had, in 2011, been in Hillary's
State Department, but was now the U.N.'s Under Secretary-General – immediately under Ban ki-Moon
– for Political Affairs] this morning, he had a new name for the U.N. guy Robert Serry did I write
you that this morning?...
In other words, Feltman, who had been central in the operation to overthrow one leader who was
friendly toward Russia, Assad (to replace him there by jihadists); was now prominently involved also
in the operation to overthrow another leader friendly toward Russia, Yanukovych (to replace him there
by Nazis
) (and Russia, of course, cannot tolerate either jihadists or Nazis, so it tries to eliminate
both). (And, on 21 November 2014, the US was one of only 3 countries at the U.N.
voting against a resolution to condemn resurgent Nazism and holocaust-denial. The new, Nazi,
Americanized, Ukraine, was another of the three internationally pro-Nazi regimes.)
In exhibits 1 and 2, Feltman's counsel has been sought by Hillary regarding whether she should
receive Bill's assistance in setting up a discussion with "Saud", who might have been King Saud,
or else it was his #2, the Crown Prince, whom Bill personally knew.
It's important to note that Exhibits 1 and 2 are from 20 February 2011, which was right before
the demonstrations started against the Syrian secular regime of Bashar al-Assad.
Wikipedia's article "Syrian
Civil War" says "The protests began on 15 March 2011," and so those two exhibits, both dated
20 February 2011, predated the "protests" in Syria by exactly 23 days.
UNCLASSIFIED US Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc No. C05772230 Date: 11/30/2015
RELEASE IN PART B5 From: Feltman, Jeffrey D Sent: Thursday, September 9, 2010 8:06 PM To: Sullivan, Jacob J; H Subject:
Re: Qatar Topics covered: Jeffrey Feltman Original Message From: Sullivan, Jacob I To: 'H' ; Feltman, Jeffrey D Sent: Thu Sep 09 19:19:41 2010 Subject: RE: Qatar
Scheduled it and made it. I'll give you the readout in the morning. Original Message From: H Emailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 7:19 PM To: Feltman, Jeffrey D Cc: Sullivan, JacobJ Subject:
Qatar
The leaders of Qatar are its owners, the Thani royal family, who are
the main funders of the Muslim Brotherhood, and who have long wanted to overthrow the secular
Assad and to replace him with a fundamentalist Sunni leader like themselves.
Feltman here, on 9 September 2010, was informing Hillary (and her chief counselor, Jake
Sullivan), that a meeting had been set up, concerning Qatar, which is a key funder of the tens of
thousands of jihadists who have since entered Syria to overthrow and replace Assad. On 3 September
2010, Hillary had sent
an email to Jake Sullivan
, whose subject-line was "Emir of Qatar" (Qatar's king) and it said only "Let's discuss when
I get in". Then, on 14 September 2010, Hillary received
an email whose subject
line was "SHEIKHA MOSA OF QATAR" (that's the Emir's wife) and it was a note from Cheri Blair
(Tony Blair's wife, a friend of both Hillary and her) saying, "She is available to see you on
24 September either morning or afternoon? Alternatively, 28 th or 29 th September
Does that work for you?"The main subject of the conversation was to be
the drought in the Arabic
countries . That drought was especially intense in Syria.
The background behind those public demonstrations against the Assad regime is important. As
Grist reported, regarding the record drought in Syria, on 16 January 2010....
"... Interesting stories. Your anecdote about the telecom 'entrepreneur' reminds me of what i read about roman abhramovitz who owns chelsea fc in england. From what i read, his big break came from stealing oil from the russian state and selling it on the side. He just happened to be in a convenient spot to pull off this scam without getting caught. Then, when the big privatization loans-for-shares deal arrived, he really cashed in. ..."
"... Friedman's job is sales. Selling to the public policies which will only benefit the rich, and in the process telling the rich what they want to hear. ..."
"... A few years back I opined that Friedman exists to tell rich people what they want to hear in a way that makes them feel clever, right, and good. He's excellent at this. He also writes like a bright but smug, undisciplined undergrad, pitching at exactly the mental level of the average corporate executive or real estate developer (moderately educated but without depth or polish). ..."
"... Like the products of Mills Power Elite, he doesn't need to conspire, as he functions completely within the norms of the system, believing what it is necessary to believe and defining his goals in perfect alignment with those of the system: a true android. ..."
"... Why are people angry at bankers, Mr. Friedman? Maybe because even in advertisements they call the general population rubes to their faces. ..."
"... Friedman MUST be aware enough of the variations in economic outcomes with risky leveraged behavior if he looks at his wife's Bucksbaum family company,,General Growth Properties. ..."
"... Little chance of that. The last things the Clintons want in their cabinet are regulators and peaceniks. The Clintons have been kissing asses up and down Wall Street for three decades, so it's tres ..."
"... Bottom line: Friedman was trained at Brandeis and Oxford in Middle Eastern Studies and he subsequently served as a reporter in that region including Israel bureau chief for the NYT. He seems to have no training in economics whatsoever. At the NYT he is officially the Foreign Affairs columnist. ..."
"... Friedman's conceit is legendary. "I have won not one, but two Pulitzer prizes, and I won't stand for being called a liar by the next president," George Stephanopoulos recalls in his memoir Friedman as shouting down the phone during the Clinton transition in early 1993. ..."
"... Banks do not lend to startups. They only lend to going businesses with "callable" assets like real-estate, inventory, and accounts-receivables. ..."
"... Startups get funded by founders, friends and family, and if you're lucky (or unlucky, depending on the details) by VCs. Friendman needs to stop listening to his in-laws (who filed one of the biggest commercial bankruptcies after the real-estate crash but are still billionaires, I'm sure) and also stop listening to John Doerr (Kleiner Perkins). ..."
"... Friedman is himself a form of rent in this corrupt society. ..."
"... No problem being shamelessly wrong about predictions, as long as you guide public opinion as needed on a day-to-day basis. No one remembers a week back anyway. ..."
"... This fool has answers for everything every other day. Like all true believers in any religion, his answer is more of the same. Idiot. ..."
"... Hillary doesn't need a "knock out punch". Elites have to support her whether she panders to them or not. ..."
"... I worry that Hillary will pander anyway. She's been doing this too long and doesn't know any other way. If Obama couldn't embrace an opportunity for progressive change when liberals controlled the executive and legislature, I doubt that Hillary can. ..."
"... Once upon a time Tom Friedman was a pretty astute NYT reporter in the Middle East, but that was back in those bygone days now lost in the amnesia of history when the NYT was mostly a serious newspaper not just a propaganda delivery device. Between then and now Friedman must have been body-snatched by aliens. Or, perhaps, he was always a double agent. ..."
The Clintons are convinced of their divine right to rule. And they play
hardball and have no shame.
Yes, "Embrace of Wall Street " and deregulation are two key ideas of Hillary
economic platform which not that different from Bill Clinton economics platform
-- pure neolineral, pure hardcore neoliberalism to be exact.
By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to
Own One and an associate professor of economics and law at the University of
Missouri-Kansas City. Jointly published with
New Economic Perspectives
Thomas Friedman's economic illiteracy and sycophancy for Wall Street "elites"
have never been in doubt, but he has (unknowingly) plumbed new depths in his
columns advising Hillary Clinton to remake the Democratic Party in Bill's image
– by embracing Wall Street's dream of deregulation. Friedman has literally learned
nothing from the three great epidemics of accounting control fraud ("liar's"
loans, inflated appraisals, and fraudulent resale of these fraudulently originated
mortgages) that drove the financial crisis and the Great Recession.
In other columns in this series on Friedman's columns advising Hillary on
moving the Democratic Party well to the right of the Republican Party on economic
issues, I show that Friedman has literally learned nothing from the successes
of stimulus, education, and infrastructure, the horrific failures of austerity
and deregulation, or his repeated distortion of "capitalism" and "socialism.".
Friedman gives no indication that he realizes that (1) his economic dogmas were
all falsified by our recurrent financial crises and (2) the policies implemented
on the basis of those dogmas proved disastrous.
Friedman advises Hillary to embrace Wall Street elites and adopt the deregulatory,
desupervisory, and de facto decriminalization (the three "de's") policies
that Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush implemented. The three
de's have created the "criminogenic environments" that led to the epidemics
of accounting control fraud that drove the savings and loan debacle, the Enron-era
accounting control fraud scandals, and the most recent crisis. Friedman urges
Hillary to use Bill as her model and embrace elite bankers and financial deregulation
because, what could go wrong?
Friedman's only implicit recognition that bank CEOs were the problem rather
than the solution was a trademark Friedman slogan that he uses as his substitute
for analysis and proposing an actual policy.
We need to prevent recklessness, not risk-taking.
This slogan was a punchier version of the one he had auditioned in his column
a week earlier.
Web People also understand that while we want to prevent another bout
of recklessness on Wall Street, we don't want to choke off risk-taking,
which is the engine of growth and entrepreneurship.
Friedman tried out the "web people" label in his
column entitled "Web People vs. Wall People." Web people are good people
– like Friedman – who embrace the rigged financial system, while "wall people"
are whiny people who complain that the system is rigged by Wall Street elites
with the aid of their political cronies to ensure that Wall Street elites will
be the winners at the expense of their fellow citizens. It escapes Friedman's
attention that rather than being the "engine of growth," the rigged banking
system of "capitalist" nations was the engine of the mass destruction of wealth.
The rigged system produced deeply negative growth and was saved only by what
Friedman derides as "socialism."
"Recklessness" by CEOs had nothing to do with the U.S. financial crisis.
The three fraud epidemics have everything to do with driving the financial crisis.
No one serious doubts that the second phase of the savings and loan debacle
and the Enron-era accounting scandals were driven by elite frauds. But Friedman
will not use the "f" word for the most obvious of reasons – he wants Hillary
to go full-Bill and return to openly embracing bank CEOs' cash and deregulatory
dreams. In his "knock out" column, Friedman made his pitch that promising financial
deregulation was the KO punch Clinton could deliver to Trump.
Clinton should be reaching out to [business Republicans] with a real
pro-growth, start-up, deregulation, entrepreneurship agenda and give them
a positive reason to vote for her.
In his homage to "web people," Friedman told Hillary to repeat Bill's disastrous
embrace of Wall Street elites.
Having been secretary of state, Clinton has been touching the world.
She knows America has to build its future on a Web People's platform, which
was first articulated by Bill Clinton, and, to this day, is best articulated
by him. But Hillary has not always shown the courage of her own, or her
husband's, convictions.
Yes, the word that comes to mind when one thinks of Bill is "courage."
Friedman says "It scares me that people are so fed up with elites…." People
are not "fed up" with the Wall Street elites – they are furious and disgusted.
They realize that the distinguishing characteristics that are "elite" about
Wall Street bankers are their egos and pay. Our greatest reason for hoping that
we will not repeat for the fourth time the disaster of implementing the three
"de's" is that people are so fed up" with financial "elites." It is a mystery
to me how even Friedman could be so out of touch with reality that he is "scared"
because people are fed up with Wall Street elites. Friedman may be the only
person in the world who isn't a Wall Street press flack – wait, that's exactly
what Friedman is – who is not "fed up" with Wall Street elites. Indeed, "fed
up" does not begin to capture what people rationally feel about Wall Street's
purported "elites."
The regulatory and supervisory actions that a competent financial regulator
takes to reduce fraud would also reduce recklessness if that were the problem.
Friedman does not even attempt to explain how he would make his slogan into
a policy and why his adoption of the three de's would not produce our fourth
financial disaster of the modern era – as it has the last three times our politicians
made real the bankers' dreams.
"Bubble" Bill Clinton did not bring the Nation economic success. His bubbles
facilitated two catastrophic episodes and those bubbles were hyper-inflated
by elite frauds made possible by his embrace of the bankers' greatest dream
– the three de's. He set the stage for catastrophe.
I've found it interesting to compare the outcomes for people who I know
in a range from vaguely well to very well and how they have fared in their
various approaches to risk taking. My admittedly small sample size also
illustrates how those who take risks to start up enterprises often begin
on what is a not-particularly sound legal footing.
The most spectacular success story was with someone who used to work
for a large telecoms provider. He was a fairly low level (but not bottom-rung
junior) manager who was in charge of a team who did street works (basically
digging holes in the roads and sidewalks to lay, replace or maintain cabling).
He allocated the capitally intensive equipment (Caterpillar diggers etc.)
and the labour force to operate them, plus your basic spade-and-wheelbarrow
manual work. In the cable TV boom of the early 1990's he subcontracted to
the companies who (being debt financed) were, erm, rather eager to cable
up as many households as possible. But these cable companies did not have
regional operations actually capable of performing this task. So they placed
sub-contracts with anyone and everyone in the hope that some kind of progress
might be made. My acquaintance hit upon the idea of, on a weekend, "borrowing"
the diggers, tipper trucks, tarmac mixers and so on (without the knowledge
or permission of the telco who owned them!) and paying his mates cash-in-hand
to do the ditch (trench) digging. I'm presuming that, where needed, he paid
off any superior in the telco who might have spotted what was going on.
But I suspect that they didn't know anything about it. Eventually, he earned
enough (several hundreds of thousands) to lease the equipment and (with
a successful track record) bid for bigger and bigger contracts. He formed
a company to do this sort of installation and maintenance which he later
sold for £10M+. I'd call him a rough diamond, but that makes him sound better
than he is.
But for every one of him there are 5 or 6 who tried starting their own
businesses, operating with varying degrees of illegitimacy and morality
(neither one approach is guaranteed either success of failure, it is much
more to do with luck and being in the right, or wrong, place and the right
time) who ended in failure, bankruptcy, significant personal setbacks and
on one all-too-memorable incidence, suicide.
Set against those sorts are people who've adopted an approach more similar
to my own risk-averseness when it comes to careers and entrepreneurship.
Those who became public employees or who worked for large relatively secure
commercial enterprises and who stuck at climbing the corporate (or civil
service) greasy pole have by-and-large prospered. Those who had the luck
to place reasonably leveraged, but not in-over-your-head scale, bets on
the UK's outrageously backstopped housing markets have net worth of £1M+.
Almost all have realised that once they got appreciably over 50, they will
be edged out but they have got sufficient cushions in place to either retire
early or take much lower paid jobs between the age of 50 and 60 without
decimating their lifestyles.
By far the worse outcomes, when looked at in terms of predictability
and consistency, are those who took a gamble on extensive but specialised
formal educations and then job-hopped amongst smaller companies or joined
start-ups. Architects, marketing/advertising, legal ("solicitors" in the
UK), accountancy grunt-work and similar. None of them have, unlike the entrepreneurs,
made it big or even had any hope of doing so. Where they have stepped on
career landmines (job loss due to downsizing or business failures where
they worked), they have often found it difficult-to-impossible to get back
into a new position at the same level. Some who refused to take lower level
positions were unemployed for 2 years and had to rely on a spouse's income
to tide them over. Others who either wouldn't do that or didn't even have
that option have ended up going from £50-60k positions to £25k ones and
had to try to work their ways back up. It is arguable that they've not done
as badly as the failed entrepreneurs, but, typically, the failed entrepreneurs
quickly learned how to protect accumulated wealth against bankruptcy and
didn't seem to mind picking themselves up, dusting themselves off, shrugging
their shoulders and starting again. Only in one isolated incident did they
end up in what I would call a disastrous outcome.
Conversely, the niche-skilled job-hoppers ended up being founder members
of the precariat but are the ones who are, mentally, least able to deal
with it.
As Yves mentions in the intro, our culture needs a profound shake-up
in how it views risk taking, who the real risk takers are, what makes them
"tick" and how capriciously risk taking gets rewarded and, where the risks
go bad, who really pays.
Interesting stories. Your anecdote about the telecom 'entrepreneur' reminds
me of what i read about roman abhramovitz who owns chelsea fc in england.
From what i read, his big break came from stealing oil from the russian
state and selling it on the side. He just happened to be in a convenient
spot to pull off this scam without getting caught. Then, when the big privatization
loans-for-shares deal arrived, he really cashed in.
Why wasn't Friedman suggesting this in 2010? Oh wait, he was.
Friedman typifies everything about conservatism. He has been consistently
wrong about every significant policy he has opined on (Friedman units anyone),
yet continues to hold onto one of the most significant perches in commentary
journalism. Friedman's purpose at the Times is not to inform readers or
to ever actually be correct about what posits.
Friedman's job is sales. Selling to the public policies which will
only benefit the rich, and in the process telling the rich what they want
to hear.
A few years back I opined that Friedman exists to tell rich people
what they want to hear in a way that makes them feel clever, right, and
good. He's excellent at this. He also writes like a bright but smug, undisciplined
undergrad, pitching at exactly the mental level of the average corporate
executive or real estate developer (moderately educated but without depth
or polish).
That he married a heiress yet still refuses to think for himself or
engage the world as it is speaks volumes about the internalization of aspirational
values even in a man who need no longer aspire. Like the products of Mills
Power Elite, he doesn't need to conspire, as he functions completely within
the norms of the system, believing what it is necessary to believe and defining
his goals in perfect alignment with those of the system: a true android.
Anecdote: On the way in to work this morning, I was listening to the
Eric and Cathy show, a popular Chicago morning radio program. They regularly
play advertisements targeted at wide swaths of people.
The ad that caught my attention this morning was one of, I think, First
American bank. It had the traditional character "son" talking to his "granny"
(which have appeared in many ads before) about how great banking at First
American was. And it was advertising home equity loans – and it was doing
this through granny wanting to take out an equity loan to buy a horse for
the horse races.
While the ad was cleverly written and the actors amusing, the overall
tone was, I thought, odious. "Hey bank with us and we'll give you home equity
loans to do anything , including blowing it on racing horses,
just because . The terms are reasonable, you don't have to worry. Despite
granny probably never being able to pay it back. Despite not reasonably
ever getting anything back out of the horse.
The son character went along with it quite cheerfully, in a bemused "granny
will be granny" sort of way.
Why are people angry at bankers, Mr. Friedman? Maybe because even in
advertisements they call the general population rubes to their faces.
Some years ago I went to a hiking book lecture given by the author, a
former Silicon Valley tech worker.
He mentioned, "They say follow your dreams and the money will follow,
well, my wife is waiting for it to catch up."
I remember reading that Bill Hewlett, of the 20th century success story
Hewlett-Packard, mentioned that HP could have gone broke in the early years,
so it wasn't always up and to the right for this wildly successful company.
Friedman MUST be aware enough of the variations in economic outcomes
with risky leveraged behavior if he looks at his wife's Bucksbaum family
company,,General Growth Properties.
"Starting in 1993, GGP expanded its portfolio dramatically by acquiring
existing properties and constructing new malls. In 1995, it acquired Homart
Development Company, the mall development subsidiary of Sears.[10] On November
13, 2004, GGP acquired The Rouse Company, including its Howard Hughes Corporation
land development subsidiary, in the largest retail real estate merger in
American history. GGP grew to be the nation's second-largest mall operator."
"GGP reported in excess of $25 billion in debt (mostly mortgages) as
of September 30, 2008. In late November 2008, GGP missed a deadline to repay
$900 million in loans backed by two Las Vegas retail properties. This meant
that GGP lenders could issue a notice of default, which would make GGP seek
protection from its creditors under Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
"In December 2008 the Wall Street Journal reported that GGP would seek
bankruptcy protection if it could not renegotiate its loans.[12] Its share
price had fallen by 97% over the previous six months."
If ONLY GGP had listened to their wise in-law Tom Friedman and been able
to distinguish "reckless behavior" from "prudent risk".
BTW, maybe more Times readers are starting to catch on,
A reader commented (and it gathered 102 readers' recommends):
"Mr. Friedman has outdone himself in issuing a totally moronic column.
Not since he urged us into the Iraq War has he published such a total piece
of drek."
I hope to see the day the NY Times gives Friedman an "opportunity to
be entrepreneurial" by finding a robotic replacement and showing TF the
door..
Little chance of that. The last things the Clintons want in their
cabinet are regulators and peaceniks. The Clintons have been kissing asses
up and down Wall Street for three decades, so it's tres doubtful
they're going to want Bill Black around in any capacity. Black is the skunk
at the Robber Barons' Picnic.
Bottom line: Friedman was trained at Brandeis and Oxford in Middle Eastern
Studies and he subsequently served as a reporter in that region including
Israel bureau chief for the NYT. He seems to have no training in economics
whatsoever. At the NYT he is officially the Foreign Affairs columnist.
Here's the late Alex Cockburn, quoted in the above link
Friedman exhibits on a weekly basis one of the severest cases known
to science of Lippmann's condition, named for the legendary journalistic
hot-air salesman, Walter Lippmann, and alluding to the inherent tendency
of all pundits to swell in self-importance to zeppelin-like dimensions.
Friedman's conceit is legendary. "I have won not one, but two Pulitzer
prizes, and I won't stand for being called a liar by the next president,"
George Stephanopoulos recalls in his memoir Friedman as shouting down
the phone during the Clinton transition in early 1993.
Cockburn goes on to describe how Friedman stole an incident that happened
to Cockburn's brother Patrick and pretended it happened to him. It says
all you need to know about the elites that they take this guy seriously
(yes you Charlie Rose).
The following is the comment I submitted to the NYT after reading the
Friedman column in question. IT would have been substantially longer except
for the NYT limit on comments' wordcounts . To Bill Black, all I can add
is "amen"
------–
This is the true Tom Friedman. A country-club Republican by virtue of
his membership-by-marriage into the Simon family, one of the biggest commercial
property owners (indoor shopping malls) in the country. The fact of the
matter is that the "growth" that we've had in this country since the 1970s
has largely gone to the capital-gains crowd who have not even "trickled"
it down except to their realtors, their art galleries, and their Ferrari
dealers.
I'm an entrepreneur and have started multiple companies, all in tech.
I could write a book on what Friedman gets wrong about the tech world since
his forays in the 90s like "The World is Flat", "The Lexus and the Olive
Tree", etc, but that's for another day/Friedman column. What I'll say here
is that Friedman knows as much about bank loans and startups as he does
about quantum computing. Banks do not lend to startups. They only lend to
going businesses with "callable" assets like real-estate, inventory, and
accounts-receivables. I'm not saying it's the wrong policy – banks need
to have collateral they can repossess if loans go wrong. But that fact excludes
99% of startups.
Startups get funded by founders, friends and family, and
if you're lucky (or unlucky, depending on the details) by VCs. Friendman
needs to stop listening to his in-laws (who filed one of the biggest commercial
bankruptcies after the real-estate crash but are still billionaires, I'm
sure) and also stop listening to John Doerr (Kleiner Perkins).
Friedman role is to show us the correct way to think about things. He
only sprinkles in enough facts or anecdotes to make the imperative plausible.
That's his main qualification. Otherwise, with so many others to choose
from, why else would the NYT have selected him? Just look at all his
failures .
No problem being shamelessly wrong about predictions, as long as you
guide public opinion as needed on a day-to-day basis. No one remembers a
week back anyway.
Friedman is actually lamenting the fact that there is no need to turn
to spineless "moderates" like himself in an election as one sided as this
one. Hillary doesn't need a "knock out punch". Elites have to support her
whether she panders to them or not.
I worry that Hillary will pander anyway. She's been doing this too long
and doesn't know any other way. If Obama couldn't embrace an opportunity
for progressive change when liberals controlled the executive and legislature,
I doubt that Hillary can.
Once upon a time Tom Friedman was a pretty astute NYT reporter in the
Middle East, but that was back in those bygone days now lost in the amnesia
of history when the NYT was mostly a serious newspaper not just a propaganda
delivery device. Between then and now Friedman must have been body-snatched
by aliens. Or, perhaps, he was always a double agent.
Thanks, as usual, is due Bill Black for his keen analysis of our current
berserk world.
ps: Yves, though I was unable to speak with you and could hardly hear
you at last week's NYC meetup, it was, nonetheless, the best of recent vintages.
And the presence of Michael Hudson was a yuuuuge bonus. So thnx.
"... Some of the other – possible – position purchases were a little disturbing, though, such as Julius Genachowski's FCC Chairmanship or Tony West's appointment as Deputy Attorney General. If true that donations were the clincher, then it does smell a little like corruption. ..."
"... In addition to Jim Haygood's report above I would flag Lee Fang's Twitter bulletin, which includes emails (you click on the actual emails imaged in the tweet to read the original) that reveal Colin Powell and Jeffrey Leeds discussing how much the Clintons hate Obama ("that man"), and how questionable Hillary's health is. This appears to be from a separate DNC Leaks hack of Powell's emails unrelated to the Guccifer 2.0 release. ..."
"... But the quote of the evening so far is from a Colin Powell email complaining about how Hillary is responsible for the whole email debacle at State and was trying to scapegoat him for her mess despite his protestations. Boy, was Powell pissed off, and to the point: " Everything HRC touches she kind of screws up with hubris. " ..."
I saw that too, earlier today and at first I thought "another example!".
Then I stepped back and realized that other than an inflation gauge,
so what? That has been a perk for donors in this country (and many other
I assume) for over 200 years… at least as far as the ambassadorships are
concerned.
Some of the other – possible – position purchases were a little disturbing,
though, such as Julius Genachowski's FCC Chairmanship or Tony West's appointment
as Deputy Attorney General. If true that donations were the clincher, then
it does smell a little like corruption.
I was away from the computer for a few hours and all leak-hell has broken
loose. Unfortunately, the actual dumps are not being made as easy to access
directly as in prior releases - the Guccifer 2.0 release requires a "torrent"
download and DNCLeaks.org seems to have been vaporized. And there's a lot
of it, so we're having to rely on piecemeal, secondhand reports at the moment.
In addition to Jim Haygood's report above I would flag Lee Fang's
Twitter bulletin, which includes emails (you click on the actual emails
imaged in the tweet to read the original) that reveal Colin Powell and Jeffrey
Leeds discussing how much the Clintons hate Obama ("that man"), and how
questionable Hillary's health is. This appears to be from a separate DNC
Leaks hack of Powell's emails unrelated to the Guccifer 2.0 release.
But the quote of the evening so far is from a Colin Powell email
complaining about how Hillary is responsible for the whole email debacle
at State and was trying to scapegoat him for her mess despite his protestations.
Boy, was Powell pissed off, and to the point: " Everything HRC touches
she kind of screws up with hubris. "
Neocons like Nicholas Kristof support Hillar y, no question about it. But that
does not make her less disonest. Actually that makes her more "dishonest/liar/don't
trust her/poor character."
Notable quotes:
"... But Clinton's big challenge is the trust issue: The share of voters who have negative feelings toward her has soared from 25 percent in early 2013 to 56 percent today, and a reason for that is that they distrust her. Only a bit more than one-third of American voters regard Clinton as "honest and trustworthy." ..."
"... Indeed, when Gallup asks Americans to say the first word that comes to mind when they hear "Hillary Clinton," the most common response can be summed up as "dishonest/liar/don't trust her/poor character." Another common category is "criminal/crooked/thief/belongs in jail." ..."
"... Hillary isn't crooked. She is dishonest in the sense that she gets to power by any means she can, including doing a complete turn on long-held opinions or saying she's evolved but not changing the bits and pieces that go with that evolution. She is dishonest in the sense that she defends taking money from Wall Street but refuses to show what she took it for, while maintaining that she has never changed a decision as a result. The thing is, she's never been faced with having to vote against Wall Street in any significant way or make a decision that, potentially, Wall Street would view as negative. ..."
"... She is intellectually dishonest in that she adopts her opponents' positions in name only but refuses to adopt the planks that go along with it, all the while calling herself a progressive who gets things done. Hillary Clinton has always been a neoliberal Democrat. She and Bill Clinton redefined center right democrat during his tenure. There is nothing wrong with owning up to that political bent. There is everything wrong with pretending someone you are not, as evidenced by her favorability numbers. ..."
"... Dishonesty and the paranoid secrecy that goes with it are fundamental to her personality. That many American are not wrong in their widespread judgment of her character. That is something that juries and other such groups judge well. ..."
"... She has many specific instances of dishonesty. She was not shot at in Bosnia for example. Her sneaky dishonest attacks on Bernie were accompanied by sly smiles when she did them, pleased with herself for laying out a considered and prepared lie. ..."
"... To support Hillary, you must believe receiving hundreds of millions from special interests (speaking fees, the foundation & campaign) does not make you beholden to those special interests. Democrats used to claim money given to politicians had a corrupting influence, but now with Hillary the chosen one, Democrats require a showing of quid pro corruption. ..."
"... Her foreign policy experience--it should scare us all. She voted for the Iraq war before politically being required to apologize for it. As Sec. of State, she supported bombing Libya into a stateless terrorist haven, supported rebels, turned terrorists in Syria and she is an Israeli hawk. ..."
"... It is not because she is a woman. That is an excuse. It is because she is an extreme hawk, a Washington Consensus neoliberal of trade deals and Wall Street. It is because she is Hillary, not because Hillary happens to be a woman. ..."
"... No other candidate running for president has given paid speeches to Wall Street and corporate America. Clinton is the ONLY candidate to do so. She accepted speaking fees until early 2015 knowing she was about to announce her candidacy. This is UNPRECEDENTED. ..."
"... This label of dishonesty that trails Clinton is not just about the most recent stuff. There's the story from way back when about how the Clintons took almost $200,000 worth of stuff when they left the White House. They eventually decided to return or pay for $114,000 worth of items. Things they'd claimed to have received before taking up residence were shown to have been received after they arrived; they claimed as personal gifts things donors specified as designated for the White House itself, etc. ..."
"... So, repeat after me--taking hundreds of millions from every special interest group does not in any way influence Hillary's independent judgment. Keep repeating and eventually you will believe it. See how easy that is. ..."
"... Now on to repeating how the neocon foreign policy hawks supporting Hillary as the best commander in chief is good. ..."
"... is a trusted commenter Mission Viejo, CA 22 hours ago ..."
"... People have noticed how assiduously both Clintons have courted money over the years, whether it is Whitewater and everything else leading up to the present day fundraising, including the Times' revelatory piece on Ukrainian money in an energy deal, it all reeks, but as is wont with the Clintons, stops just shy of actual misdeed. ..."
"... With the proliferation of small digital sound recording devices, someone out there made a recording. And when it winds up public (probably during the general election campaign when it would do the most damage), it will be Mrs. Clinton's "47% moment". ..."
"... People find her dishonest and untrustworthy because she is. It doesn't take an advanced degree to see that she's a self-interested political animal through and through. She has a long, well-documented history of taking whatever position is most politically expedient and changing it when the polling changes. ..."
"... Furthermore her and her husband's well-documented history of taking money from everybody from Wall St. banksters to foreign autocrats for everything from private speeches the proceeds of which go directly into their pockets to their "foundation" suggests at the minimum a clueless recklessness about the appearance or corruption and at worst outright contempt for the intelligence of American voters. ..."
"... Again, it doesn't take membership in Mensa to apply a little critical thought and personal experience to the issue of her honesty or trustworthiness. Anybody who's ever done anything they felt even the tiniest bit ethically or morally uncomfortable about in order to keep their job or anybody who's observed this behavior in even the smallest or least significant way from colleagues knows Wall St. banksters and the Saudis princes don't give millions of dollars to people who aren't minimally receptive to their interests and people who take those millions don't do so with the intention of turning off that spigot down the line. ..."
"... What if decades of facially shady conduct is true? What if Bill Safire is right that HRC is a congenital liar? Why doesn't HRC give all this the lie by releasing her speech transcripts? Since leaving office the Clintons and the Foundation have amassed millions. Can we not think, as did Honore de Balzac that "behind every great fortune is a great crime"? How Mrs. Clinton must actually hate Barack Obama, Bernard Sanders and those under 40 who have or may yet deny her the crown. ..."
"... Often, the corruption is in the form of compensation after the public official leaves office. I used to work in NJ State Government. I can cite numerous examples of regulators who left public service, and were rewarded with lucrative contracts by the firms they formerly regulated. This would sometimes be laundered. For example, the former public official would join a law firm or consulting firm, and suddenly that firm would get a big contract from the firm they formerly regulated. ..."
"... In the case of Mrs Clinton, she was a "private citizen" only temporarily. She resigned as Secretary of State, but it was public knowledge that she was going to announce a Presidential run. ..."
"... She may not be dishonest, but boy is she greedy. ..."
"... Hillary is less transparent. She hides a lot. Does that make her dishonest? Maybe not. But unlikeable for sure. ..."
"... Sorry--the burden is squarely on Hillary to explain how money corrupts politicians, but she, Bill, the foundation and campaign taking hundreds of millions from special interests does not. Or, is a politician free to take all of the money her heart desires, unless there is iron clad proof of quid pro quo corruption? And if you believe that. you agree with the right wing majority in Citizens United. ..."
"... So the whitewashing of Hillary by the nominal Progressives begins. Whether or not she is "fundamentally" honest, as Jill Abrahamson has written, means what exactly? That she won't rob a bank, or pick your pocket? Yet she will defend bankers who rob their own banks and brokers who pick their investors' pockets every trading day by skimming others' potential profits with their high speed trades. Her husband's candidacy was rescued by winning the New York primary after his loss in New Hampshire and as President he deregulated the banks, and once he was in private life again, he became a centa millionaire by speaking in front of bankers. One would be naive to believe the Clintons did not make a deal the the banks put out the word. Perhaps there was no quid pro quo, but there certainly was some quo pro quid. Ditto for Hillary. ..."
"... Why a "Progressive" would paper over the record of Goldwater girl turned "NeoLiberal," which is pretty much the same thing, who is fundamentally against everything real Progressives stand for boggles the imagination. ..."
AFTER the New York primary, the betting websites are giving Hillary Clinton
about a 94 percent chance of being the Democratic nominee, and Donald Trump
a 66 percent chance of ending up as the Republican nominee.
But Clinton's big challenge is the trust issue: The share of voters who
have negative feelings toward her has soared from 25 percent in early 2013 to
56 percent today, and a reason for that is that they distrust her. Only a bit
more than one-third of American voters regard Clinton as "honest and trustworthy."
Indeed, when Gallup asks Americans to say the first word that comes to
mind when they hear "Hillary Clinton," the most common response can be summed
up as "dishonest/liar/don't trust her/poor character." Another common category
is "criminal/crooked/thief/belongs in jail."
... My late friend and Times colleague William Safire in 1996
dubbed Clinton "a congenital liar."
... Then there's the question of Clinton raking in hundreds of thousands
of dollars from
speeches to Goldman Sachs and other companies. For a person planning to
run for president, this was nuts. It also created potential conflicts of interest
...
... As for the fundamental question of whether Clinton risked American national
security with her email server, I suspect the problem has been exaggerated
Hillary isn't crooked. She is dishonest in the sense that she gets
to power by any means she can, including doing a complete turn on long-held
opinions or saying she's evolved but not changing the bits and pieces that
go with that evolution. She is dishonest in the sense that she defends taking
money from Wall Street but refuses to show what she took it for, while maintaining
that she has never changed a decision as a result. The thing is, she's never
been faced with having to vote against Wall Street in any significant way
or make a decision that, potentially, Wall Street would view as negative.
She is intellectually dishonest in that she adopts her opponents'
positions in name only but refuses to adopt the planks that go along with
it, all the while calling herself a progressive who gets things done. Hillary
Clinton has always been a neoliberal Democrat. She and Bill Clinton redefined
center right democrat during his tenure. There is nothing wrong with owning
up to that political bent. There is everything wrong with pretending someone
you are not, as evidenced by her favorability numbers.
Hillary is not, nor has she ever been a progressive Democrat. That title
is reserved for Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Raul Grijalva, Keith Ellison,
and many other distinguished Democrats who have been in the progressive
trenches for decades.
http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2cQ
You can't pretend to be someone you're not and expect everyone else to
play along. http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-27p
Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich
23 hours ago
Yes, Hillary is dishonest.
Dishonesty and the paranoid secrecy that goes with it are fundamental
to her personality. That many American are not wrong in their widespread
judgment of her character. That is something that juries and other such
groups judge well.
She has many specific instances of dishonesty. She was not shot at
in Bosnia for example. Her sneaky dishonest attacks on Bernie were accompanied
by sly smiles when she did them, pleased with herself for laying out a considered
and prepared lie.
If she is elected, we will be so sick of this that NYT columnists will
be writing "how could we have not seen this?" Well, it is them leading the
way.
They should expect to be reminded loudly and often.
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC
22 hours ago
To support Hillary, you must believe receiving hundreds of millions
from special interests (speaking fees, the foundation & campaign) does not
make you beholden to those special interests. Democrats used to claim money
given to politicians had a corrupting influence, but now with Hillary the
chosen one, Democrats require a showing of quid pro corruption.
Sorry -- either money is corrupting or it is not, and the Clintons have
personally received hundreds of millions from every possible special interest.
By supporting Hillary you are saying special interest money is a good thing.
The Times also ran an interesting profile in the magazine section about
how Hillary became a hawk. She follows the neocons playbook and as stated
in the piece, one of her significant military advisors is a Fox news pundit.
Hillary admits a mutual admiration with Kissinger.
So I don't trust Hillary when she says special interests do not influence
her judgment. If they really don't--which is impossible to believe--they
have wasted millions paying for 40 minute speeches. Lobbyists don't contribute
money to candidates who don't not help their causes.
Her foreign policy experience--it should scare us all. She voted
for the Iraq war before politically being required to apologize for it.
As Sec. of State, she supported bombing Libya into a stateless terrorist
haven, supported rebels, turned terrorists in Syria and she is an Israeli
hawk.
All of this causes grave concerns that go well beyond trust.
It comes down to the fact the HRC is the best Democratic aspirant for
the party's presidential nomination in 2016.
I cast my ballot for her in the Illinois primary and will gladly do so
again in November.
Do I have reservations? Surely.
But think of the reservations about some earlier Democratic as well as
Republican nominees ....
Franklin Delano Roosevelt reneged on his longtime support for the League
of Nations and adamantly refused to cross swords with Southern Democrats.
Would you vote for Hoover, Landon, or Willkie?
Harry Truman had longstanding ties to Kansas City's Pendergast gang.
I would have voted for him.
Eisenhower evaded a golden opportunity to denounce Joseph McCarthy while
campaigning in Wisconsin during 1952. He forfeited the opportunity to call
out McCarthy for his frontal attack on General George C. Marshall.
JFK as a US Senator stepped to the side on the Joseph McCarthy issue
because his father was something of an enthusiast. If I could have voted
in 1960, it would have been easy to vote for JFK rather than RMN.
LBJ was a political animal to his very core, but hands down a better
choice than Senator Goldwater.
Jimmy Carter had made his way to the governorship of Georgia because
of ties to the Talmadge organization that was out-and-out segregationist.
In campaigning for the governorship JEC was something of a muted segregationist.
I gladly voted for him over Gerald Ford.
And so on and so forth.
Saints don't rise to the presidency.
David Underwood,is a trusted commenter Citrus Heights
18 hours ago
Dishonest, you want dishonest, try Rumsfeld, Cheney, and the whole lot
of them. She is evasive, she has made some exaggerations like being shot
at, and yes she voted for W to attack Saddam if he did not stop killing
his own people. She also has supported the Syrian rebels, as many of us
have done, until they got subverted by Daesh.
The email issue is a GOP tail chase which is going nowhere, but keeps
them accusing her, just as they did with Benghazi. She is tough putting
up with all the crap I see from people here. Lies, opinions made of suppositions,
unprovable accusations, a lesser person would have folded by now.
Anetliner Netliner, is a trusted commenter Washington, DC area 20
hours ago
I will vote for Clinton if she is the Democratic nominee, but find her deeply
untrustworthy. Examples, gong back to the early '90s:
-The commodities trading episode. Clinton asserted that she learned to
trade commodities "by reading the Wall Street Journal", which is impossible.
I was a great fan of Clinton's until I heard her utter this falsehood on
national television.
-Travelgate. Career civil service employees improperly fired at Clinton's
behest, so that they could be replaced with the services of a member of
the Clintons' inner circle.
-Poor judgment on foreign policy: Iraq (not bothering to read the National
Intelligence Estimate before voting to go to war.) Libya. No fly zone in
Syria. Failure to close the U.S. mission to Libya in the summer of 2012:
the UK closed its mission in response to growing danger; why did the U.S.
not follow suit?
-Poor judgment in governmental administration: use of a private e-mail server.
Initial explanation: "I didn't want to carry two devices." (Absurd on its
face to anyone who has ever used a smart phone.)
-Shifting positions: Keystone XL, Trans-Pacific Partnership, single-payer
health care.
-Distortion of opponents' positions. From the current campaign: distortion
of Bernie Sanders' positions on the auto bailout and gun control.
I could go on, but the pattern is clear. I respect Clinton's intelligence,
but deplore her duplicity and poor judgment. I'll support her in November
only because the alternatives are worse.
Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich 22 hours ago
It is not because she is a woman. That is an excuse. It is because
she is an extreme hawk, a Washington Consensus neoliberal of trade deals
and Wall Street. It is because she is Hillary, not because Hillary happens
to be a woman.
Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich 22 hours ago
"and yet, she has been highly vetted prior to becoming First Lady,
most certainly so prior to becoming a Senator for NYC"
Nonsense. Nobody vets the President's wife. She is who he married. Nobody
vets a Senator either. We've got some pretty strange Senators, arrested
in bathrooms and stuff. They'd never get past vetting.
RLS, is a trusted commenter Virginia 19 hours ago
Winchestereast,
No other candidate running for president has given paid speeches
to Wall Street and corporate America. Clinton is the ONLY candidate to do
so. She accepted speaking fees until early 2015 knowing she was about to
announce her candidacy. This is UNPRECEDENTED. Of course, congressional
Democrats don't say it publicly but many wish that Clinton had shown better
judgment.
Siobhan, is a trusted commenter New York 21 hours ago
This label of dishonesty that trails Clinton is not just about the
most recent stuff. There's the story from way back when about how the Clintons
took almost $200,000 worth of stuff when they left the White House. They
eventually decided to return or pay for $114,000 worth of items. Things
they'd claimed to have received before taking up residence were shown to
have been received after they arrived; they claimed as personal gifts things
donors specified as designated for the White House itself, etc.
It's this kind of stuff that leaves people feeling that the Clintons
just aren't trustworthy.
1. I did *absolutely nothing wrong*.
2. You can't *prove* I did anything wrong.
3. Technically speaking, no law was actually violated.
4. Well, it's a stupid law anyhow.
5. Everybody does it.
pjd, is a trusted commenter Westford 18 hours ago
"... if that's corrupt then so is our entire campaign finance system."
Yes, it is. It is driven by massive amounts of money. The only "sin"
committed by Ms. Clinton in the case of her speaking fees is to take publicly
traceable money. Meanwhile, the rest of the bunch are taking cash by the
truckload thanks to the Supreme Court-approved Citizens United.
Politics _is_ a dirty business. No one is innocent.
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 21 hours ago
You and Kristof have joined the growing Democratic chorus that money
is just a fact of politics. It may be true, but wasn't there a time Democrats
advocated for taking money out of politics by overturning Citizens United?
Or is it like Hillary's speaking transcripts, the Dems will agree to getting
money out of politics when the Republicans do.
So, repeat after me--taking hundreds of millions from every special
interest group does not in any way influence Hillary's independent judgment.
Keep repeating and eventually you will believe it. See how easy that is.
Now on to repeating how the neocon foreign policy hawks supporting
Hillary as the best commander in chief is good.
Rima Regas,is a trusted commenter Mission Viejo, CA 22 hours
ago
Mark,
I have no disagreements with you. It is my personal code of ethics
that stops me from going there, for as long as she isn't caught red handed.
People have noticed how assiduously both Clintons have courted money
over the years, whether it is Whitewater and everything else leading up
to the present day fundraising, including the Times' revelatory piece on
Ukrainian money in an energy deal, it all reeks, but as is wont with the
Clintons, stops just shy of actual misdeed.
That is what the trust and favorability stats keep telling us, over and
over again, no matter whether it is conservatives or democrats who are polled
and, now, the Bernie Or Bust movement that is being vilified by the neoliberal
punditry. There comes a time when people have had it up to here and it is
my sense that it may finally be here. That is the topic of my Sunday essay.
Krugman just posted a new blog post on a related topic. See my comment there.
Money and greed are the root of all evil.
RM, is a trusted commenter Vermont 21 hours ago
As for the speeches, you do not have to prove an actual "favor" in return
for millions in payments. Any attorney (and Mrs. Clinton is an attorney)
who has had any exposure to the canons of attorney ethics knows that both
actual impropriety, and APPEARANCES of impropriety are to be avoided. "Appearance"
requires no proof of an actual quid pro quo. Besides, the payments can be
interpreted as payments in hope of future considerations. should she be
in a position to provide such considerations.
And if she is elected President and never gives them a break, as she
says she won't, that is maybe even worse. Is there anything as dishonest
as a public official who takes a bribe, and then does not deliver for the
briber?
With the proliferation of small digital sound recording devices,
someone out there made a recording. And when it winds up public (probably
during the general election campaign when it would do the most damage),
it will be Mrs. Clinton's "47% moment".
AC, Astoria, NY 6 hours ago
People find her dishonest and untrustworthy because she is. It doesn't
take an advanced degree to see that she's a self-interested political animal
through and through. She has a long, well-documented history of taking whatever
position is most politically expedient and changing it when the polling
changes.
Furthermore her and her husband's well-documented history of taking
money from everybody from Wall St. banksters to foreign autocrats for everything
from private speeches the proceeds of which go directly into their pockets
to their "foundation" suggests at the minimum a clueless recklessness about
the appearance or corruption and at worst outright contempt for the intelligence
of American voters.
Again, it doesn't take membership in Mensa to apply a little critical
thought and personal experience to the issue of her honesty or trustworthiness.
Anybody who's ever done anything they felt even the tiniest bit ethically
or morally uncomfortable about in order to keep their job or anybody who's
observed this behavior in even the smallest or least significant way from
colleagues knows Wall St. banksters and the Saudis princes don't give millions
of dollars to people who aren't minimally receptive to their interests and
people who take those millions don't do so with the intention of turning
off that spigot down the line.
Ronald Cohen, is a trusted commenter Wilmington, N.C. 19 hours ago
Nicholas Kristoff blames the media for the view that Hillary Clinton
is dishonest and untrustworthy. I agree that the media as a blameworthy
record in this election cycle of pushing Donald J. Trump by trumpeting his
antics until he became a real danger while ignoring Bernard Sanders because
he didn't suit the coronation of HRC in an effort, ongoing, of shoving Clinton
down the National throat.
What if decades of facially shady conduct is true? What if Bill Safire
is right that HRC is a congenital liar? Why doesn't HRC give all this the
lie by releasing her speech transcripts? Since leaving office the Clintons
and the Foundation have amassed millions. Can we not think, as did Honore
de Balzac that "behind every great fortune is a great crime"? How Mrs. Clinton
must actually hate Barack Obama, Bernard Sanders and those under 40 who
have or may yet deny her the crown.
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 21 hours ago
Even if you support Hillary, it is good to know who is paying her what.
RM, is a trusted commenter Vermont 21 hours ago
Often, the corruption is in the form of compensation after the public
official leaves office. I used to work in NJ State Government. I can cite
numerous examples of regulators who left public service, and were rewarded
with lucrative contracts by the firms they formerly regulated. This would
sometimes be laundered. For example, the former public official would join
a law firm or consulting firm, and suddenly that firm would get a big contract
from the firm they formerly regulated.
In the case of Mrs Clinton, she was a "private citizen" only temporarily.
She resigned as Secretary of State, but it was public knowledge that she
was going to announce a Presidential run. A lot different than, say,
Janet Reno giving a speech.
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 21 hours ago
@RM--you raise an excellent point. If you outlined a political couple who
did what the Clintons have done making money from special interests, but did
not reveal their identities, everyone would agree they would be unduly influenced
by special interest money. Reveal their identities and suddenly Hillary's supporters
suspend previous beliefs that money corrupts politicians. And that is why nothing
ever changes.
Ronald Cohen, is a trusted commenter Wilmington, N.C. 19 hours ago
"The others are worse" argument should be addressed to the DNC and the
party mandarins who won't field an honest candidate. If we don't vote for
HRC then the party that ran her is to blame. Where are "the best and the
brightest"? Why is our choice always between the dregs?
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 21 hours ago
Remember when you could say that money in politics was a corrupting influence
and democrats did not challenge you to show a quid pro quo? Democrats have
suddenly adopted the conservative majority's reasoning in Citizens United
there must be a quid pro quo for money to be bad.
We need to tell all of the lobbyists and special interests funneling
money to the Clintons they are wasting their money because unlike other
politicians, they can never be influenced by that money.
organic farmer, NY 6 hours ago
If 50% of Kristof's statements were true or 'mostly true', would he be
still employed by the NYT? If I told the truth half the time, I doubt my
family and co-workers would be impressed! If 50% of what my employees say
were lies, they would get fired.
As a female middle-aged Democrat, I will vote for Clinton in November
if I have to, but it won't be with any enthusiasm or confidence, and certainly
I will not be voting for a leader I believe in. As a woman, I admire her
intelligence, ambition, and determination, and I'm fairly convinced her
integrity is probably somewhat better than many in politics, but we desperately
need a President with a different vision for our future. We don't need a
divisive leader beholden to Big Banks, Big Ag, Big Business, Big Military
- this will not serve the United States well.
RM, is a trusted commenter Vermont 19 hours ago
It would not be my fault that the Democratic party chose to force upon
the voting public a candidate with high negatives. Such high negatives,
that even Ted Cruz could defeat her.
Janice Badger Nelson, is a trusted commenter Park City, Utah, from
Boston 15 hours ago
She may not be dishonest, but boy is she greedy.
You have got to hand it to her though, she has been through the mill
and still stands there. I cannot imagine the humiliation she must have felt
over the Lewinsky debacle. That alone would have done most of us in. But
she ran for Senate and then President, became the Secretary of State and
now is leading as the democratic candidate for President.
In her 60's. Quite remarkable, if you think about it. I do not know how
she does it other than the fact she has supportive people surrounding her
and that must help. I also think that she feels entitled somehow, and that
is troubling to me. I also think her opponent, Senator Bernie Sanders, is
a "what you see is what you get" kind of guy. I like that so much. Hillary
is less transparent. She hides a lot. Does that make her dishonest? Maybe
not. But unlikeable for sure.
RM, is a trusted commenter Vermont 20 hours ago
I won't. A decision to support the lesser of two evils is a decision
to support an evil. Maybe if you sat it out, or voted third party, it would
be a message to the major parties to nominate better candidates.
Perhaps, to record that you came to vote, and found both candidates unsupportable,
you could write in "none of the above"
But vote the rest of the ticket.
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 18 hours ago
@Christine--you got me. You are right. Those special interests just gave
Hillary and Bill hundreds of millions because they oppose everything the
special interests want. None of the policies Hillary advocates are favored
by any of those special interests. They are wasting their money!
Sorry--the burden is squarely on Hillary to explain how money corrupts
politicians, but she, Bill, the foundation and campaign taking hundreds
of millions from special interests does not. Or, is a politician free to
take all of the money her heart desires, unless there is iron clad proof
of quid pro quo corruption? And if you believe that. you agree with the
right wing majority in Citizens United.
Of course you can believe that, but never again state that money corrupts
politicians, nor ever state lobbyist spending tens of millions to influence
policy is bad.
amboycharlie, Nagoya, Japan 9 hours ago
So the whitewashing of Hillary by the nominal Progressives begins.
Whether or not she is "fundamentally" honest, as Jill Abrahamson has written,
means what exactly? That she won't rob a bank, or pick your pocket? Yet
she will defend bankers who rob their own banks and brokers who pick their
investors' pockets every trading day by skimming others' potential profits
with their high speed trades. Her husband's candidacy was rescued by winning
the New York primary after his loss in New Hampshire and as President he
deregulated the banks, and once he was in private life again, he became
a centa millionaire by speaking in front of bankers. One would be naive
to believe the Clintons did not make a deal the the banks put out the word.
Perhaps there was no quid pro quo, but there certainly was some quo pro
quid. Ditto for Hillary.
The Clinton Foundation took huge donations from dictatorial regimes worldwide
and Hillary as SecState, rewarded them with arms deals they would otherwise
not have gotten, due to their human rights violations. The list of apparent
crimes by the Clintons goes on and on. Why a "Progressive" would paper
over the record of Goldwater girl turned "NeoLiberal," which is pretty much
the same thing, who is fundamentally against everything real Progressives
stand for boggles the imagination.
Thomas Zaslavsky, is a trusted commenter Binghamton, N.Y. 16 hours
ago
Wcdessert Girl, you are straining so hard to smear Bernie Sanders that
you deserve to have a busted gut. (No that I'm wishing it upon you.) He
got the normal Congressional salary (not all that large; barely upper middle
class, these days) and the normal Congressional benefits (sure, we should
all get them), and you question his financial integrity? Be ashamed.
Now, try to defend Hillary without a baseless smear against anyone else.
Liberty Apples, Providence 9 hours ago
``One basic test of a politician's honesty is whether that person
tells the truth when on the campaign trail, and by that standard Clinton
does well.''
Excuse me?
She lied about Sanders support for the auto bailout.
She lied about Sanders support for the Paris climate accord.
She was in knots trying to explain her position on the $15 minimum wage.
You get the idea. The truth has always been an inconvenience for the
Clintons.
Barry, Minneapolis 10 hours ago
She lies about little things. Hot sauce. Medium sized things. Coming
under fire; she only wanted to carry one cell; the papers that turned up
in a parlor. Big things. "If I had known then." That was as bad as Nixon's
"secret plan."
"What is frightening is the desperation. It's like the [US neoliberal] elite
are afraid of something terrible. " -- that a very asute observation,
" Globalization is unraveling before their eyes from negative interest rates
to Brexit. Turning their world upside down. " -- also true, although
neoliberalism still successfully counterattack in selected countries and
recently scored two wins in Latin America (Argentina and Brazil)
Notable quotes:
"... The atmosphere feels like 1974 just before Richard Nixon resigned. Except, it is completely reversed. The establishment is protecting Hillary Clinton. They are spinning up a whirlwind. What is frightening is the desperation. It's like the elite are afraid of something terrible. ..."
"... I presume it has to be that millions of incorrigibles are recognizing the oligarchs' scams. Globalization is unraveling before their eyes from negative interest rates to Brexit. Turning their world upside down. ..."
"... Ms. Clinton and/or whichever member of her staff decided to use The Clinton Rules for Obfuscation and Avoidance as a way to address what was clearly some kind of medical event. ..."
"... Given that she wasn't whisked away in an ambulance, and didn't spend any time in an emergency room, whatever it was that happened must not have been entirely unanticipated or unusual – it may just be that she had the great misfortune of exhibiting these symptoms in public and not in the privacy of her own home. ..."
"... But let's recap, shall we? First, she was constructively absent from the campaign trail for the entire month of August. She did few events and not as much traveling. She also was not spending any time with the media, giving no pressers for months. Criticism mounted, so – wonder of wonders – when she got her spiffy new plane, the invites went out to the media to join her on the plane, and she held her first presser in months just this past Thursday. ..."
"... She looked fine. Her color was good, she looked rested. The next night, she did a high-dollar fundraiser hosted by Barbra Streisand. Again, she looked and sounded fine. Yet, it was that day that her physician says she was diagnosed with pneumonia and given antibiotics. ..."
"... Then, on Sunday, with temps in the low 80's and low humidity, she falls ill. She looked okay walking to her car, but she leaned on the post for support and then appeared to collapse getting into the van. Did she lose her footing on the curb? ..."
"... She sustained a serious concussion in 2012, when she fainted as a complication of a stomach virus that caused her to be dehydrated. The concussion gave her double vision, for which she wore special lenses for a time. She was not allowed to fly. A follow up visit to the doctor revealed that she had a blood clot in a vein between her brain and her skull so she was put on blood thinners. Her husband says it took every bit of six months for her to recover from the concussion. ..."
"... She's also had DVTs in her legs, and has an underactive thyroid for which I presume she takes medication. ..."
"... no matter how infrequent – post-concussion symptoms will call into question her mental abilities, which would be the death knell for her candidacy. ..."
"... she and her people spoon feed us one somewhat-plausible explanation after another, apparently in the hope they will hit on one that makes people stop asking questions about it ..."
"... This is how the Clintons – both of them – handle everything, and it's exactly why Hillary finds herself the topic of conversation and speculation everywhere. ..."
"... Also, not sure I believe the pneumonia story. Wouldn't put it past them to fabricate that. How is taking about health issues w/o talking about her concussion, blood clots, and rat poison meds …. an honest talk about her health? ..."
"... If Hillary Clinton has Parkinson's -- or some other neurological impairment leading to her frequent "spells" and falls -- the Democratic Party should ask her to step aside and allow someone in better health to run. ..."
"... As they move her away from that post she was leaning against, her arms stay rigid behind her back. My friend used to call this "offing", as in on or off, which was different from his freezing of gait, and happened to him when he was under stress. ..."
"... the coughing, even the pneumonia could be caused by difficulty swallowing. ..."
"... It could be Vascular Parkinsonism. I just wish she would be strong enough to admit she is weak. ..."
"... Ah, thanks for explaining why her arms were like that behind her back. At first I thought she was handcuffed. ..."
"... Noel's How to Prove Me Wrong about Hillary's Parkinson's Disease is worth a look. ..."
"... Forget Parkinson's, what about MS. ..."
"... after the DVT Hillary would have been placed on an anticoagulant, especially with all those plane trips. Then there is that fall she had last year. If she were on Coumadin at that time with a fall & head trauma can cause a bleed. Also MDs are nervous about putting someone on a blood thinner that is at risk for frequent falls. This whole situation is crazy. ..."
"... I'd bet that Clinton shopped around until she found a doctor willing to work with a minimal paper trail and certainly zero electronic trail. ..."
"... It isn't logical to believe a sudden press release used as a distraction. With past episodes of fainting, falling, concussion and ongoing treatment, this qualifier is put out to run up the flagpole. Please note the moment the handlers suddenly jump to surround and hide the candidate from the cameras. ..."
"... Daily Mail even goes as far as to say the candidate was "thrown into the seat like a sack of beef" (paraphrasing) ..."
"... Was that doctor EpiPen that opened the door to the van? ..."
"... So she has what could be very contagious? And she rests at Chelsea's home and plays with the kids? Anyone want some real cheap swamp land in the Everglades? ..."
"... my guess is at Chelsea's they could give her a quick shot of amphetamines so we could then get the "look, the candidate can actually walk unaided!" photo op when she emerged. ..."
"... So that's how low we've sunk, we're supposed to vote for the elderly, sickly, serial war criminal, pathological liar old lady because she can actually walk. Oh, and "because she's a woman". ..."
"... I'd just like to point out how annoying it is that the media stenographers on many sites today are slavishly repeating the Hillary campaign's pneumonia story without a single speck of actually checking, either through logic or investigation, whether any of it makes sense. Though admittedly there is a tiny bit doubt starting to creep through the media narrative; maybe they're thinking that this is the fig leaf they need to feel like they still have credibility–which is just them fooling themselves. ..."
"... Since stuff coming from the mainstream media is provably guaranteed to be just some sht they made up, or passing along some sht someone else made up without questioning it, I don't think there's anything wrong with just ignoring the msm and believing whatever you feel like believing from the internet; unlike with the msm there is at least a decent chance that that stuff might be true. ..."
"... Policies? Pay no attention to what emerges from the candidates mouths, as Obama said in 2008 "Hilary will say anything, and change nothing", she can be at a rally and yell "I'm fighting for you!" and 15 minutes later she is meeting with a Wall St CEO on new ways to rip people off. I'm not saying her opponent is any better ..."
"... Focus on the candidate's health is always appropriate. Particularly so when the ability of the candidate to serve out their term is a legitimate question. It is the height of arrogance for a candidate to accept the nomination without the full expectation that they will be ready to serve the full term at stake. For a candidate to attempt to proceed through concealment of substantive health issues is an expression of complete unaccountability. ..."
"... If Hillary had been more honest about her physical condition, folks wouldn't be stooping to armchair diagnoses, which is normal human behavior for those to whom the truth has not been forthcoming. ..."
"... Not a one-time diagnosis. She apparently has had a deep venous thrombosis and more recently cavernous sinus thrombosis. I suspect because of this (two discrete episodes) a decision has been made for chronic continuing use of coumadin. Like all medications, a decision is made as to whether the benefits of treatment using that medication outweigh the projected risks of the medication. Properly managed, the risks are fairly small. But the key is proper management, which may be difficult given the demands of the position as POTUS. ..."
"... I also believe her travel did and would put her at greater risk. https://www.stoptheclot.org/learn_more/air_travel_and_thrombosis.htm ..."
"... This just in: Hillary Clinton to Release More Medical Records After Pneumonia Diagnosis http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-plans-to-rest-amid-health-concerns-1473694474 ..."
"... More"? Like how many more? ..."
"... How many more? As many as it takes, one dollop at a time, until she hits the sweet spot where the questions stop. It was always destined to take the same path as the e-mails and every other questionable thing Clinton's been associated with – that's how they roll! ..."
"... "One-shoe" Hillary is now the butt of visual jokes, as her signature red arrow is repurposed into a stretcher: http://tinyurl.com/zbza8ph ..."
"... At this point, Clinton would have as much success convincing the public that she's released all the medical records that are relevant to her run for president as she would convincing us that she was part of a grand experiment whereby an entire medical team has been shrunk to Fantastic Voyage size, and injected into her bloodstream so that she can be under constant care. ..."
"... If she became spastic, and collapsed (unexpectedly) just trying to get into an SUV, what kind of risk is she going to be under during the first debate? ..."
"... Everyone is going to be watching for any slight, "unnatural," twitch, or, movement for the whole episode. ..."
"... The question really is: Is a vote for Clinton a vote for Tim Kaine??? ..."
"... Here's why. If humans were rational creatures, the time and place of Clinton's "overheating" wouldn't matter at all. But when it comes to American psychology, there is no more powerful symbol of terrorism and fear than 9-11 . When a would-be Commander-in-Chief withers – literally – in front of our most emotional reminder of an attack on the homeland, we feel unsafe. And safety is our first priority. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton just became unelectable. The mainstream media might not interpret today's events as a big deal. After all, it was only a little episode of overheating. And they will continue covering the play-by-play action until election day. But unless Trump actually does shoot someone on 5th Avenue, he's running unopposed." ..."
"... seems to me that Hillary could likely be suffering from subcortical vascular dementia. ..."
"... If diagnosed in 2012-13, which seems likely given her concussion and brain clot diagnoses, she would now begin to experience a severe physical decline and pneumonia is a frequent cause of death for those suffering from subcortical vascular dementia. ..."
I agree with all of Anne's great comments above on Hillary Clinton's
9-11 fainting episode.
The atmosphere feels like 1974 just before Richard Nixon resigned.
Except, it is completely reversed. The establishment is protecting Hillary
Clinton. They are spinning up a whirlwind. What is frightening is the desperation.
It's like the elite are afraid of something terrible.
It can't be Donald Trump; he is one them. Instead, I presume it has
to be that millions of incorrigibles are recognizing the oligarchs' scams.
Globalization is unraveling before their eyes from negative interest rates
to Brexit. Turning their world upside down.
If you want to blame anyone for all this armchair medical discussion,
look no further than Ms. Clinton and/or whichever member of her staff decided
to use The Clinton Rules for Obfuscation and Avoidance as a way to address
what was clearly some kind of medical event.
Given that she wasn't whisked away in an ambulance, and didn't spend
any time in an emergency room, whatever it was that happened must not have
been entirely unanticipated or unusual – it may just be that she had the
great misfortune of exhibiting these symptoms in public and not in the privacy
of her own home.
Whatever this is or was, it is how she chose to handle it that has led
to all this discussion.
But let's recap, shall we? First, she was constructively absent from
the campaign trail for the entire month of August. She did few events and
not as much traveling. She also was not spending any time with the media,
giving no pressers for months. Criticism mounted, so – wonder of wonders
– when she got her spiffy new plane, the invites went out to the media to
join her on the plane, and she held her first presser in months just this
past Thursday.
She looked fine. Her color was good, she looked rested. The next
night, she did a high-dollar fundraiser hosted by Barbra Streisand. Again,
she looked and sounded fine. Yet, it was that day that her physician says
she was diagnosed with pneumonia and given antibiotics.
Then, on Sunday, with temps in the low 80's and low humidity, she
falls ill. She looked okay walking to her car, but she leaned on the post
for support and then appeared to collapse getting into the van. Did she
lose her footing on the curb?
So, first we heard she wasn't feeling well. Then we heard she was overheated
and dehydrated. Some hours later, we were told of the pneumonia diagnosis,
and then – like a miracle – she comes walking out of her daughter's apartment
building looking quite chipper. Did she get IV fluids? Who knows?
She sustained a serious concussion in 2012, when she fainted as a complication
of a stomach virus that caused her to be dehydrated. The concussion gave
her double vision, for which she wore special lenses for a time. She was
not allowed to fly. A follow up visit to the doctor revealed that she had
a blood clot in a vein between her brain and her skull so she was put on
blood thinners. Her husband says it took every bit of six months for her
to recover from the concussion.
She's also had DVTs in her legs, and has an underactive thyroid for which
I presume she takes medication.
Could she be having periodic bouts of vertigo as a result of the concussion?
Other effects that linger, or pop up from time to time? Doesn't seem unreasonable,
but here's the thing: we are never going to know if that's the case, because
unlike pneumonia for which you can take an antibiotic and be done with,
ongoing – no matter how infrequent – post-concussion symptoms will call
into question her mental abilities, which would be the death knell for her
candidacy.
So, she and her people spoon feed us one somewhat-plausible explanation
after another, apparently in the hope they will hit on one that makes people
stop asking questions about it – but the problem is that this method just
adds to the sense people have that she's still hiding something and so the
speculation goes on.
This is how the Clintons – both of them – handle everything, and it's
exactly why Hillary finds herself the topic of conversation and speculation
everywhere.
Yes to this (Anne. September 12, 2016 at 9:57 am):
My real issue with this whole event is that, had Clinton not collapsed,
we wouldn't know anything about the alleged pneumonia. It's the same
old story: she does what she wants until events conspire to force her
to make public whatever it was she wanted to remain private.
And even
then, she continues to hold close as much information as possible for
as long as possible, before being more or less forced to get it all
out there.
Also, not sure I believe the pneumonia story. Wouldn't put it past
them to fabricate that. How is taking about health issues w/o talking about
her concussion, blood clots, and rat poison meds …. an honest talk about
her health?
It's probably a lot worse than a case of walking pneumonia. The video
below was posted to yootoobs three days before Hillary Clinton collapsed
into her own footprint like a world tower of trade:
A) Parkinson's Disease has several stages. Hillary appears to be ten
years into the progression at least and somewhere in the disease's middle
stages. Also,
B) the medication used to treat Parkinson's has its own serious side
motor effects, which she seems to exhibit.
C) And finally C, not only does Parkinson's debilitate its victim randomly
and episodically, and ultimately in its latter stages will make keeping
up a daily schedule of activities impossible, it also is typically accompanied
by non-motor symptoms of delusions and hard mood swings: eg, anxiety/depression
and rage.
If Hillary Clinton has Parkinson's -- or some other neurological impairment
leading to her frequent "spells" and falls -- the Democratic Party should
ask her to step aside and allow someone in better health to run. Naturally
being Hillary Clinton she would hotly refuse and retreat to her bunker with
Eva Braun to lean on, but the certain ferocity of her reaction doesn't relieve
the party leadership of this responsibility.
I long ago abandoned any hope for that party, but in an alternate universe
where they had not become mobbed-up and corrupt to the core, Clinton would
get a public call from party elders now to do the right thing for the country
and endorse a substitute candidate.
Having lived with someone who had Parkinson's, and after looking closely
at the video of her on 9/11, I think she has Parkinson's.
As they move her away from that post she was leaning against, her arms
stay rigid behind her back. My friend used to call this
"offing", as in on or off, which was different from his freezing of gait,
and happened to him when he was under stress.
Just too many things, the coughing, the blue sunglasses, the falling,
the coughing, even the pneumonia could be caused by difficulty swallowing.
It could be Vascular Parkinsonism. I just wish she would be strong enough
to admit she is weak.
What is concerning is that after the DVT Hillary would have been placed
on an anticoagulant, especially with all those plane trips. Then there is
that fall she had last year. If she were on Coumadin at that time with a
fall & head trauma can cause a bleed. Also MDs are nervous about putting
someone on a blood thinner that is at risk for frequent falls. This whole
situation is crazy. Feel bad, don't like her, adios-time to take all that
foundation money and retire.
It isn't logical to believe a sudden press release used as a distraction.
With past episodes of fainting, falling, concussion and ongoing treatment,
this qualifier is put out to run up the flagpole. Please note the moment
the handlers suddenly jump to surround and hide the candidate from the cameras.
Daily Mail even goes as far as to say the candidate was "thrown into
the seat like a sack of beef" (paraphrasing) If this is so, that isn't a
response for someone fainting as much as perhaps the attempt to hide symptoms
from observers. Was that doctor EpiPen that opened the door to the van?
Was this an attempt to divert attention from the real issue?
As a great philosopher once said; "Hey Rocky, watch me pull a rabbit
out of my hat"
So she has what could be very contagious? And she rests at Chelsea's
home and plays with the kids? Anyone want some real cheap swamp land in
the Everglades?
This is the tell, if she actually had pneumonia they would not just have
hustled her off to Chelsea's place, my guess is at Chelsea's they could
give her a quick shot of amphetamines so we could then get the "look, the
candidate can actually walk unaided!" photo op when she emerged.
So that's how low we've sunk, we're supposed to vote for the elderly,
sickly, serial war criminal, pathological liar old lady because she can
actually walk. Oh, and "because she's a woman". (So we got the last
8 years of disaster because of the candidate's dermis, and we"ll get the
next 4 years of disaster because of the candidate's pubis).
I'd just like to point out how annoying it is that the media stenographers
on many sites today are slavishly repeating the Hillary campaign's pneumonia
story without a single speck of actually checking, either through logic
or investigation, whether any of it makes sense. Though admittedly there
is a tiny bit doubt starting to creep through the media narrative; maybe
they're thinking that this is the fig leaf they need to feel like they still
have credibility–which is just them fooling themselves.
Since stuff coming from the mainstream media is provably guaranteed
to be just some sht they made up, or passing along some sht someone else
made up without questioning it, I don't think there's anything wrong with
just ignoring the msm and believing whatever you feel like believing from
the internet; unlike with the msm there is at least a decent chance that
that stuff might be true.
Policies? Pay no attention to what emerges from the candidates mouths,
as Obama said in 2008 "Hilary will say anything, and change nothing", she
can be at a rally and yell "I'm fighting for you!" and 15 minutes later
she is meeting with a Wall St CEO on new ways to rip people off. I'm not
saying her opponent is any better
Focus on the candidate's health is always appropriate. Particularly
so when the ability of the candidate to serve out their term is a legitimate
question. It is the height of arrogance for a candidate to accept the nomination
without the full expectation that they will be ready to serve the full term
at stake. For a candidate to attempt to proceed through concealment of substantive
health issues is an expression of complete unaccountability.
It's not the candidate's prerogative to decide upon what information
the voters will make their choice.
If Hillary had been more honest about her physical condition, folks
wouldn't be stooping to armchair diagnoses, which is normal human behavior
for those to whom the truth has not been forthcoming.
Not a one-time diagnosis. She apparently has had a deep venous thrombosis
and more recently cavernous sinus thrombosis. I suspect because of this
(two discrete episodes) a decision has been made for chronic continuing
use of coumadin. Like all medications, a decision is made as to whether
the benefits of treatment using that medication outweigh the projected risks
of the medication. Properly managed, the risks are fairly small. But the
key is proper management, which may be difficult given the demands of the
position as POTUS.
"More"? Like how many more? If this is more opining by her Chappaqua
MD, that does not qualify as "records". This is beginning to resemble the
forced drip of e-mails…..
How many more? As many as it takes, one dollop at a time, until she hits
the sweet spot where the questions stop. It was always destined to take
the same path as the e-mails and every other questionable thing Clinton's
been associated with – that's how they roll!
What continues to boggle my mind is why she doesn't seem to understand
that THIS is why such a significant segment of the electorate doesn't trust
her; it's so obvious, and yet she continues to employ this strategy and
it could cost her the election.
Assuming she is healthy enough to participate in the first debate, it
should be a doozy.
At this point, Clinton would have as much success convincing the public
that she's released all the medical records that are relevant to her run
for president as she would convincing us that she was part of a grand experiment
whereby an entire medical team has been shrunk to Fantastic Voyage size,
and injected into her bloodstream so that she can be under constant care.
The Fantastic Voyage scenario might actually be more believable.
In other words, it's just one more thing that doesn't really matter because
only those in her basket of adorables believe anything she says – and they
believe everything, no matter how the story shifts and changes.
If she became spastic, and collapsed (unexpectedly) just trying to get
into an SUV, what kind of risk is she going to be under during the first
debate?
The stress of being thrust into the biggest "fishbowl" imaginable
( largest TV audience ever being predicted) with all the "marbles" on the
table would freak out the healthiest human alive.
Everyone is going to be
watching for any slight, "unnatural," twitch, or, movement for the whole
episode.
What drama! I wouldn't be surprised if some pretext is found to nix the
debate. The risk for her is just too great, IMO, of course.
Each time she releases medical records, it gives her chorus another chance
to sing (in harmony) that she has clearly demonstrated that she
is healthy. After a few of these, the corporate press will feign impatience,
and any talk about Hillary's health will be cast aside as coming from conspiracy
theorists. No one will ever question why the issue wasn't resolved up front
with a full disclosure.
All of this is fine (I guess) except if she is hiding Parkinson's, which
is completely debilitating as far as the Presidency is concerned.
The question really is: Is a vote for Clinton a vote for Tim Kaine???
Now, the REALLY cynical might conjecture that Clintoon is thinking the
BEST meme to save the election for herself is that she spins it that she
pulls a William Henry Harrison – don't worry about voting for Clintoon!!!
I'll only be president for 30 or so days!
Hey, your not really voting for me Your really voting for Kaine!
Only decades later is the Clinton tomb excavated and it is revealed that
she was a Disney animatronic programmed by Goldman Sachs – those "speeches"
were really charades to allow the cables to be plugged in so the updated
software could be downloaded…
If the media is in the pocket of the Clintons, why now are we finding
out about her "illness" ….hmmmmm….
"If you are following breaking news, Hillary Clinton abruptly left the
9-11 memorial today because she was reportedly "overheated." Her campaign
says she is fine now. You probably wonder if the "overheated" explanation
is true – and a non-issue as reported – or an indication of a larger medical
condition. I'm blogging to tell you it doesn't matter. The result is the
same.
Here's why. If humans were rational creatures, the time and place
of Clinton's "overheating" wouldn't matter at all. But when it comes to
American psychology, there is no more powerful symbol of terrorism and fear
than 9-11 . When a would-be Commander-in-Chief withers – literally – in
front of our most emotional reminder of an attack on the homeland, we feel
unsafe. And safety is our first priority.
Hillary Clinton just became unelectable. The mainstream media might
not interpret today's events as a big deal. After all, it was only a little
episode of overheating. And they will continue covering the play-by-play
action until election day. But unless Trump actually does shoot someone
on 5th Avenue, he's running unopposed."
Teh Guardian is running reports and every accompanying image is of some
other event with Killary stepping, smiling, unassisted into a car. What
a disgrace that shill sheet is.
robnume September 12, 2016 at 9:58 pm
Having worked in an emergency/trauma center for years, no, I won't say what
I did as I like anonymity, it seems to me that Hillary could likely
be suffering from subcortical vascular dementia. Upon a diagnoses of
this kind, one can expect to live from 3 to 5 years. If diagnosed in
2012-13, which seems likely given her concussion and brain clot diagnoses,
she would now begin to experience a severe physical decline and pneumonia
is a frequent cause of death for those suffering from subcortical vascular
dementia.
Rosario September 13, 2016 at 3:03 am
I used to think all the health speculation with Hillary was sexist and bogus
until her ordeal Sunday. The pneumonia diagnosis is absolutely bizarre and
doesn't quite line up with her visual symptoms at the 9/11 memorial. Pneumonia
was the best her staff could come up with? I guess they think we live in
a world without the internet and Youtube. Hillary doesn't look like she
had pneumonia Friday at the fundraiser. The same day she was apparently
diagnosed, which implies the first day of treatment when symptoms for bacterial
infections are at their absolute worst. She actually looked like she was
in her element, bright as rain. In addition, how in the hell do you have
a "pneumonia episode"? Apparently it came on real hard Sunday morning (ironically,
the time of day when the body is most capable during illness) then magically
went away an hour later for her to have a chipper, non-coughing, non-fatigued
photo op with a little girl (it was so identity politics staged it was comical)...
Far right nationalism is essentially an externality caused of neoliberal
globalization. that means that neoliberalism inevitably produces a splash of
virulent far right nationalism in countries were the standard of living dropped
considerably and unemployment hit high marks.
The author failed to mention neoliberalism and the crisis of neoliberal globalization
even once. What a sucker. Very few of Guardian commenter realized that this we
are now facing with a strong, driven by nationalism, backlash to neoliberal globalization.
In this case with neoliberals represented by EU bureaucrats.
Notable quotes:
"... There goes Mason again -- spouting his pro-global fascist bile as though he were some Socialist hero. ..."
"... Sovereign nations are the ONLY bulwark against the banking cartel's now-obvious global tyranny of debt servitude. ..."
"... I always seems hypocritical to slate nationalism in one breath and celebrate cultural diversity in the next. Given that most cultures in existence are very much defined by national identity...you have only to look at how people define themselves...'progressives' find themselves constantly having to square the circle of protecting cultures whilst trying to eliminate nations. ..."
"... conservative and middle of the road parties (and for a long time this included Labour) pushed an agenda that favoured the rich, and left the middle class by the wayside. If you want to find the cheerleaders of globalism you don't have to look much further than most of the world's conservative parties. Far right (or far left) parties aren't very successful in democracies in which people come before profit. ..."
"... Money interests controlling the world demeaning the nation state, undermining ethnic unity, using well meaning liberal fools to make true government impossible and preventing people from achieving their natural greatness. ..."
"... Funny stuff to read. There is no Croatia as a independent state. It is owned by multinational companies. Everything is foreign except forests and drinking water. The is no Croatian independent army - Croatian army is a part of NATO. ..."
"... There is no independent government left or right since everything they do is to listen to their masters from Brussels who are slaping then while they are amassing wealth by means of corruption. ..."
"... Now that the global economy is shaken, the olden demons have crawled out of the woodwork ..."
"... They also seem a bit lost on Mussolini, a man they compare to Trump on an incessant basis (I cringe a little each time I read it). This a man who, in his Fascist Manifesto, advocated in favour of the minimum wage, pandering to the unions, progressive taxation, lowering the voting age and abolishing the upper-chamber. Does that sound 'far-right' to you? ..."
"... Adolf Hitler, 1927: "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." ..."
"... perhaps it's a case of the EU reaping what it's sowed? let's face the leading members of the eu at the time - in particular Germany - did all they could to hasten the break up of Yugoslavia. The 'state' of Croatia was a construct of the nazis in the first place ..."
"... in 1992, before the war in Bosnia started, Europe sent Jose Cutilleiro to broker a peace deal. He did it and all three sides (Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Muslims) signed it and the collective sigh of relief could be heard on the Moon. But then Warren Zimmerman, US diplomat, called the leader of Bosnian Muslims for a talk that lasted five days and after that, Alija Izetbegovic retracted his signature, a Muslim killed a Serb in Sarajevo, the first shots were fired after that and the war started...you were saying something about Americans imposing peace? ..."
"... The huge elephant in the room is NATO. A highly corrupt, highly undemocratic institution that has long acted like the world police, meddling everywhere and funding tyrants which won't stop until it completes its aim of full globalisation. It actively aims to flood Europe with migrants without giving democratic elected governments a say. You think Juncker is bad, well he is, but read up on Peter Sutherland and other shady characters in NATO. Until NATO is somehow brought under control nationalism will continue to rise. ..."
There goes Mason again -- spouting his pro-global fascist bile as though
he were some Socialist hero.
Sovereign nations are the ONLY bulwark against the banking cartel's
now-obvious global tyranny of debt servitude.
The more sovereign nations and centres of sovereign power we have, the
more insulated we are from the kind of global fascism that Mason, being
the snake oil salesman he is, peddles.
I always seems hypocritical to slate nationalism in one breath and celebrate
cultural diversity in the next. Given that most cultures in existence are
very much defined by national identity...you have only to look at
how people define themselves...'progressives' find themselves constantly
having to square the circle of protecting cultures whilst trying to eliminate
nations.
Perhaps the resultant cultural homelessness is just as much a cause of
issues as is nationalism in itself.
For me the reason nationalist parties are doing well is that conservative
and middle of the road parties (and for a long time this included Labour)
pushed an agenda that favoured the rich, and left the middle class by the
wayside. If you want to find the cheerleaders of globalism you don't have
to look much further than most of the world's conservative parties. Far
right (or far left) parties aren't very successful in democracies in which
people come before profit.
As for Weimar, since you brought it up. Fascism wasn't voted into power.
A group of bankers and industrialists (conservatives) persuaded the German
president to make Hitler the chancellor. The rest is history. As a darkly
humorous coda, one of the high ups in the Reichsbank was interviewed after
the war and asked why he helped do this - considering the awful things Hitler
had been saying. His answer was along the lines of; 'we didn't think he
was serious about that...'
Mason is right of course. I do fear a repeat of history. One thing that
strikes me looking at the nationalist conspiracy theorists is how familiar
it is. I've been looking a lot recently at the far right since the end of
the 19th century up to World War 2. It's basically the same guff that Ukippers
spout.
Money interests controlling the world demeaning the nation state,
undermining ethnic unity, using well meaning liberal fools to make true
government impossible and preventing people from achieving their natural
greatness.
The only real difference is that at the time the bastards used the Jews
to personify a global conspiracy of the wealthy and now they use the more
malleable "elite". It's a much more flexible term. Disagree with me and
using facts? You are part of a metropolitan bubble or academic ivory tower
etc...Also big difference is that at the time they did have to stand on
a street corner to spout their bile and risk a scrap. Now it's swamping
the comments section of a left wing newspaper. Much safer if a bit more
cowardly.
Funny stuff to read. There is no Croatia as a independent state. It
is owned by multinational companies. Everything is foreign except forests
and drinking water. The is no Croatian independent army - Croatian army
is a part of NATO.
There is no independent government left or right since everything
they do is to listen to their masters from Brussels who are slaping then
while they are amassing wealth by means of corruption.
Result is 53% of turnout in elections. People don't care or try to chance
something that is impossible to change.
We are a nation of 4 million - a great threat to core values of EU where
everything is great. Kick us out and enjoy your multiculturalism - I will
rather take my dog for a walk not having to the lock the door in my house...
Now that the global economy is shaken, the olden demons have crawled
out of the woodwork and the inherently Fascist nations (the ones who
chose militarist authoritarianism or totalitarianism on their own before
WWII) are reverting to type. Croatia, Poland, Hungary, Finland, the Baltic
states.
We can only hope Spain, Portugal, Italy, Austria, Germany, Romania, and
Bulgaria can find the inner strength to resist this temptation to regress.
Just once, I'd love for a Guardian 'journalist' to define what 'far-right'
means; it's, by some distance, their most commonly used slur. I know they
think it's a pejorative term, but what alludes them is it's the precise
definition of anarchism or extreme individualism. They seem to think it's
a synonym for 'racist.'
It probably has something to do with the fact they've been taught history's
worst tyrant was 'far-right' because, well, 'he was waycist.' Except, what
they've failed to notice is
the name of his party
the fact he was
a ruthless statist and advocated supreme state-control
he despised laissez-faire
capitalism
he hated liberal individualism.
racism isn't a political
policy and the left doesn't oppose racism, it merely opposes racism against
non-white people 6. he was a self-avowed socialist!
They also seem a bit lost on Mussolini, a man they compare to Trump
on an incessant basis (I cringe a little each time I read it). This a man
who, in his Fascist Manifesto, advocated in favour of the minimum wage,
pandering to the unions, progressive taxation, lowering the voting age and
abolishing the upper-chamber. Does that sound 'far-right' to you?
His manifesto reads like the manifesto of a modern progressive party
(which is why the progressives of the 20's championed him). It just demonstrates
how utterly narrative driven progressive politics is; then again, those
who live by narrative die by narrative.
Adolf Hitler, 1927: "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic
economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its
unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according
to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we
are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
He basically sounds like your modern-day progressive.
Leigh Richards , 2016-09-13 06:36:12
perhaps it's a case of the EU reaping what it's sowed? let's face the leading
members of the eu at the time - in particular Germany - did all they could
to hasten the break up of Yugoslavia. The 'state' of Croatia was a construct
of the nazis in the first place FFS!
It was, ultimately, US diplomacy that imposed the peace of 1995.
in 1992, before the war in Bosnia started, Europe sent Jose Cutilleiro
to broker a peace deal. He did it and all three sides (Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian
Croats and Bosnian Muslims) signed it and the collective sigh of relief
could be heard on the Moon. But then Warren Zimmerman, US diplomat, called
the leader of Bosnian Muslims for a talk that lasted five days and after
that, Alija Izetbegovic retracted his signature, a Muslim killed a Serb
in Sarajevo, the first shots were fired after that and the war started...you
were saying something about Americans imposing peace?
They used to say of the Balkans that it is like tectonic plates building
up pressure one against the other. Eventually they will explode again. This
seems likely.
"Money interests controlling the world demeaning the nation state, undermining
ethnic unity"
That's not a conspiracy theory, that's the truth. The far-right are opportunistic
vultures of course but people's concerns are very real, even if most of
them don't know the full facts. Who does?
The huge elephant in the room is NATO.
A highly corrupt, highly undemocratic institution that has long acted
like the world police, meddling everywhere and funding tyrants which won't
stop until it completes its aim of full globalisation. It actively aims
to flood Europe with migrants without giving democratic elected governments
a say. You think Juncker is bad, well he is, but read up on Peter Sutherland
and other shady characters in NATO. Until NATO is somehow brought under
control nationalism will continue to rise. Chilling.
It is not true that announced referendum in Republika Srpska is about independence.
It is actually to check people's opinion about constitutional court that
forbidding Serbs to celebrate 09 January as National Day - just one more
decision in a row made exclusively to further lower Serb autonomy in region
guaranteed by peace agreement.
Just across the mountains lies Republika Srpska – the Serb enclave
created in the country of Bosnia and Herzegovina by the Dayton Agreement
in 1995, after a bitter civil war. Republika Srpska's leaders are threatening
to hold a referendum on independence, which would blow up the deal that
has brought peace to the region for 20 years.
In response, Croatia's politicians have upped the rhetoric..
Three paragraphs, that is how long I had to wait for the first "It's
actually Serbs' Fault" bit. Croatia has no interest in Republika Srpska
at the moment, and if it does, it is observing its moves to eventually copy
them and get out of the very uncomfortable partnership with Bosnian Muslims
whom they see as a much greater threat, so mr. Mason completely missed the
mark - I would have a word with the researchers if I was him, this is quite
embarrassing.
Croatia is silently desensitizing EU for a very long time: a mass for
fascist leader Pavelic here, a monument to an ustasha terrorist there, a
nazi minister yesterday, releasing a war criminal today - little by little,
Croatia is being nazified under the nose of EU officials.
It all started in 1990 and never stopped. Imagine the German Jews waking
up one morning discovering the German constitution has been altered to exclude
them from sharing the equal rights with the rest and that Nazi money, flags
and other symbols are reinstated and that even some old Nazi politicians
are brought from abroad to take positions in the government - all that happened
to Croatian Serbs in 1990, the regime that killed 200 000 of them in 1941
seemed to be resurrected. Worse even, nobody in Europe minded that Croatian
defense minister Susak openly uses Nazi salute and the rest of them lionizes
the Nazi Independent State of Croatia.
It is happening again, in Croatia, Hungary and Poland and again EU doesn't
react so I start to think that EU actually doesn't mind Nazis at all.
I think some countries are just more susceptible to nationalism than others.
It's no accident that among the activist demographic, Paul is citing 40%
unemployment.
Nationalism and fascism are growing forces across the world.
It is a highly complex issue, but the source of hatred towards others
and the exultation of the "you and yours" is fear and insecurity. It is
an animalistic response, a tribalism within our DNA.
To my mind, there are some simple pillars of resistance. Education, of
course. A significant reduction in inequality, and the reintroduction of
hope particularly to young men. A fair crack of the whip for all.
But the big point for me that people miss is the complete lack of a narrative
from the developed world, except dog-eat-dog, individualism, selfishness
and false utopia of wealth generation. Nationalism and fascism have a story,
have a decisive message. It is seductive to those who are lost.
Until the developed world can find what it really stands for (and don't
tell me it's "democracy and freedom" because neither is fully true), our
society will continue to fracture and the next world war will edge ever
closer.
This article gets it wrong. There is not a single Member of the Croatian
Parliament, who could be labeled as "far right", or anybody resembling Farrage,
the BNP, Marine Le Pen, or the Italian Right, where memorial services for
Mussolini are casually being held. Croatian politics has no right wing,
period.
Bullshit dude, you're flat out lying. There are Pavelić and Ustaša memorials
all over the country, masses held, za dom spremni ustaša in football stands
without any action by the police or politics. There are proponents of this
policy in the Sabor, luckily less now than before, so if you're trying to
preach to the British, you lose. Delete your account.
Shows exactly how 'European values' repetitively thrown at us as the founding
blocks of the EU, are pretty meaningless in reality. The standards to which
Turkey must adhere according to EU whims are far different to those of Balkan
entities (nicely 'Christian' and unlike Cyprus, unequivocally 'European'
in geography).
OK to low standards from member states, but not OK to higher standards than
some members from Turkey. And yet this is all about 'values', such as fundamental
rights, justice, education, which have to be anchored in perceived religion
and the paranoia of those who don't know who they are unless a national
identity is legislated for them.
This article completely ignores the fact that the right-wing HDZ leader,
Karamarko, is now long and gone. The new leader Plenkovic has 180-degree
opposite rhetoric, which is typical of HDZ in general, a party without a
consistent left-right positioning. It arose as a populist movement to form
independent Croatia.
The new leader of the HDZ was elected with the same majority of the same
people as the previous Karamarko. Plenković is a facade behind the same
pro-fascist, criminal organization as before. HDZ has from the outset been
positioned right, and surprisingly the least right during Tuđman, former
Tito general and communist.
Utter tosh - Britain voted for Brexit as it is sick & tired of being dictated
to be unelected undemocratic Brussels bureaucrats & the ECJ. The United
States of Europe project is an corpse that has not the intelligence to realise
it is dying & the sooner the better. If the EU reverted in being purely
a trading arrangement rather than a supra-national political ideal it may
still have a miniscule chance of survival but with cretins like Juncker,
Tusk et al in charge - no chance. The sooner we exercise Article 50 & begin
the divorce proceedings the better.
So out of touch, Mr. Mason or is it a slow day at the office? Where to start?!?
Perhaps go back to the nineties when Franjo Tudjman spoke to the crowds
and declared "thank God my wife is neither a Serb or a Jew". Europe praised
him and supported his ethnic cleansing of more than 250.000 Serbs from the
Krajina. Successive Croat governments have rehabilitated war criminals from
WWII and renamed squares and streets after racist butchers. In the meantime
Europe has aided and abetted whether by actively participating or by ignoring
what is going on. You need to read a lot more about the situation and stop
weaving the Russians into this mess. It is the EU and US mess. The solution
should e looked for st their door!
Xenophobic croatians? They are trying to uphold those millions of demanding
invaders so you can peacefully write bull like this in your north london
garden. They were happy to recover from the war and now they are cracking
again under the financial burden of the illegal immigrant crisis. Rampant
corruption in Croatia? Your whole elite is in bed with Saudies and Russian
oligarchs. London is the moneylaundering capital of the world a safehaven
for crooks.
Didn't graun know this ? Croatia has long been a 'frontier post' of European
'civilisation'. Fascist tendency is well known trait in Croatian society(just
as Nationalism has in Serbia). Anyone with the basic knowledge on Balkans
is aware of this.
Anyway to be honest I am not at all surprised with such 'articles' where
the author gets sos surprised after similar things happen. It occurred in
-
1. In post Qaddafi Libya graun was 'surprised' to know that rebels have
islamist leaning (leaning my a**, they ARE hardcore islamists)
2. In post Yanukovich Ukraine when after so many failed attempts to cover
things up they had to publish some articles saying battalions like Aidar,
Azov 'like' to use fascist symbols(it's expected from fascists, isn't it
? )
3. They still haven't admitted that 'moderates' in Syria are not exactly
moderates. I guess they will admit it only if Assad is overthrown.
"Russian money has poured not just into Serbia but into Republika Srpska,
too, together with increased diplomatic influence." Yes, but more investments
are coming from the West (Fiat, Michelin, Mondelez, Microsoft, etc.) with
substantial governments sponsored infrastructure projects coming from UAE
and EU. Why is successful nationhood of Balkan states almost explicitly
linked with complete alignment with either East or West? Why is not normal
to trade freely and be "politically and diplomatically influenced" by both
sides? Or, it could be exclusively reserved right for, for example, Britain
that now looks to China as a post-Brexit alternative. No matter how media
is trying to portrait the Russian influence in the region, the fact is that
Balkan countries are well seated in the heart of Europe, with no intention
to pack and leave.
What is cosmetically used as a divisive material by the local political
parties in the Balkans for their daily use, is usually propelled by the
media as an undeniable proof that "old Balkan ghosts" are back. The ordinary
people are tired of political rhetoric, amplified by sensations hungry media.
By looking for the change, they might be ending with the same result, election
after election, but nations of the region are not interested in yet another
geostrategic trap, full of sacrifices for the sake of big players. They
want peace and a chance to make a dignified living.
This is actually we fear from the neolib hype of their attention to the
young generation =
Meanwhile, young people across the region try to live in a cannabis-softened,
networked dreamworld – where electronic dance music or Pokémon Go replace
the national and political identities formed 20 years ago.
I remember during the various Balkan wars the region was frequently described
as an 'historical fault-line'. There was then something of a revisionist
backlash that disputed that such a thing existed and asserted that the antagonism
between various groups went back no further than the rise of romantic nationalism
in the 1800s.
Actually, there is a fault-line, but not the one that many people imagine
(i.e Christian/Muslim or Occidental/Oriental). The division is between different
Slav groups; one the one hand, those like the Slovenes and Croats who are
traditionally Catholic and consider themselves part of the West, and on
the other the Serbs, Macedonians and Montenegrins who generally see themselves
as part of an Orthodox, 'authentically' Slavic community with Russia at
its head. Much the same division is found further North and is fed by both
Russian historiography that sees the country as the guardian of Slavdom
- the big brother to various smaller nations - and by the instinctive Western
view that the 'other' is fundamentally uncivilised (or at least un-modern).
My own country (the Czech Republic) is a good example of this. Far from
seeing ourselves as part of some great Slav family except in the most abstract
sense, most Czechs take their cues from Berlin, Paris, London and Washington
and see Russians as somewhat backward and uncouth (an impression reinforced
by the presence of the Red Army here for nearly 50 years. Believe me, if
you'd seen the poor bastards up close, you wouldn't fear them so much as
pity them). But go to Minsk or even parts of Eastern Slovakia and you'll
find opinions that are the polar opposite of the above. For various historical
reasons, the same attitudes are amplified in the Balkans so that you have
a situation where peoples who are ethnically almost identical end up hating
each other to the point of violence.
On a different note, it is strange that the legacy of colonialism is
used to excuse almost anything in the developing world but Turkish domination
of the Balkans and the impact that that had on the cultural development
and outlook of the various peoples there - the Serbs in particular - is
virtually never factored in as a reason for people killing each other in
large numbers. It is almost as if some people think that Europeans should
know better...
Globalization is happening with or without NATO. Technology and science
progressed, the world is connected, the differences are melting. Isolation
never ends well. On topic: Croatia is in NATO and there are no refugees
here.
The EU is Balkanising Europe with a helping hand from Merkel. Ethnic and
geopolitical conflict is our future, simply look at the polls in western
European states. "Nationalism" is the modern lefts boogie man. Maybe if
the left (and let's be honest, center right) stopped with their ludicrous
immigration policies there would be less hardline national sentiment. Multiculturalism
is not some sort of human right, it's a political ideology, and it will
come apart.
The EU is doing great things for all the med countries, building strong
economies with good prospects for young people and promoting peace and democracy
on its borders, why the concern?
Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, the Balkans, Ukraine, Turkey, Syria, they are being
imbued with the spirit of European free thought and values, the sort of
liberal tolerance you will only find in great countries like France, why
are you laughing?
It is disturbing that here as in the UK with Farage and Brexit and lePen
in France etc(long list of nasty pieces of work) nationalism is resurgent.It
differs little from the Fascism of the 30s in its glorification of the nation
state and hatred of foreigners. Europe has to face this down in any way
it can or we will repeat the mistakes of last century and get embroiled
in a conflict that only the pedlars of hate would welcome.
On this issue the guardian ,Mason and below the line comment are out of
their depth by a mile, far to complicated/sensitive an issue, which demands
a great deal of historical knowledge and cultural /political /religious/ethnic
awareness .
A lot of points here raised, none of them expanded on.
Croatia is in the title, yet, you mention Bosnia, Republika Srpska, Macedonia...
the Balkans, as you like to call this region, is a complex, many layered
thing... Puting Republika Srpska together with Macedonia or Croatia is something
like comparing Tunisia, Syria and Pakistan (not that these two regions are
of the same relevance, just making the point that garbling these countries
together and explaining each in a few sentences isn't doing any of them
justice).
Some things pointed out are plain wrong. For instance: "...the likely
outcome is a coalition of the same old "centrist" parties – nationalists
and social democrats." Not gonna happen. The so-called nationalists have
never ever formed a coalition with the so called social democrats, nor will
they in the near future.
And last, but not the least: "If Europe wants to make the Balkans work,
it needs to understand the limits of its current approach." What does that
even mean? What Europe? You seem to label Croatia as nationalist, and leaning
in a fascist direction, and yet you name Europe as the one to control us?
Who? Hungary? Poland? Germany with its rise of AFD? I don't think Europe
has the moral high ground to meddle here, and I don't see what would even
be accomplished by it. Unless there are gross human rights violations all
of sudden, of course.
For the time being, I think everyone should concentrate on sorting out
their own countries.
People in Croatia are fed up with the status quo. Same old politicians
for years, with same old policies, and if someone seemingly new pops up
it turns out it was the same old garbage all over again. That is the reason
behind low turnout. And whenever there is a low turnout in Croatia, the
right parties gain ground, because they have a very disciplined electorate.
They tell then to vote for God and country and so they do.
Sadly or more like, quite fortunately, this piece is not about Russia.
It is a piece aimed at asserting the rational over certain ingrained
ethnic rivalries. Good.
We have seen enough of nationalism and inter racial ethnic division.
It bought all those peoples nothing but bad.
Yes. Membership of the EU should not be taken for granted. There should
be certain criteria which the political leaders of applicant states ahould
adhere and adhere they must. There should be no compromise. No compromise!
("No Surrender").
If they want the advantages which membership of the single market can
bestow, then they must accept the civil rights which are bestowed on it's
newly adopted citizens.
If the Croats under rheir nationaliatic and chauvanistic government ignore
this general perspective, rhen they are indeed, unfit. If they can't respect
former adversaries. If they refuse to acknowledge their past, well, don't
let them join (Never, never, never!).
Macedonia's political elite is indeed corrupt to the bone but the country
is certainly not "mired in ethnic conflict" whatever that means Paul. Do
some bloody research.
And your implicit assumption that national chauvinism is somehow a typically
Balkan event says a lot about your thought process. Know that the EU will
not do anything about Croatia's hard right because it's nice to have someone
to do your dirty work on the border zones while you play the honest liberal.
It takes a genuine left! wing government to really upset someone in Brussels.
Well, some of the nasty rethoric like calling Serbs "misery" actually came
from the popular leader on the left this time, who lost. It's too confusing
to put it all in one article.
But, in Macedonia, there were problems, right? Between Macedonians and Albanians,
only last year.
Those who lend the money can smell the global rise in socialism a mile off
- no wonder they are driving the wars the wars in Middle East - which drives
the desperate and displaced into Europe - which starts the rise in hard
right politics... It's so obvious and yet it happens every time.
Well if the US (Clinton) hadn't directed the EU to get involved in Ukraine
and incite a revolution then Putin wouldn't have had to get involved to
protect his naval base and the ethnic Russians in Ukraine. Then the US wouldn't
have had a cause to start trade sanctions and piss of Mr Putin. In which
case Mr Putin wouldn't probably have had the motivation to start cold war
games again.
Anyway I am sure Mrs Clinton has had a very large cheque from the US
defense industry who are the ultimate sponsors of US war games.
What about Ukraine Paul, we've seen open nazism there since the day the
Americans coopted the Maiden coup, oh I forgot that nasty Mr Putin made
them do it ...
Guardian cried nationalism at Scots who just wanted rid of the tories and
Westminster government
its difficult for me to trust any article from guar which includes the
word nationalism
it could well be nationalism which is driving this.... but guar has a
history of demonstrating that it does not even come close to grasping the
basic meaning of the word
The Guardian is 'multiculturalist'. Multiculturalism means absolutely nothing
at all and is a thoroughly discredited idea/l. IMO it is a vehicle for the
alienation of individuals from each other and the destruction of the bond,
i.e. culture, that holds them together and, in most cases, has been constructed
over thousands of years. Destruction of culture and language has always
been the weapon of choice in the imperialists' subjection project. People
will fight back.
Nationalism, as the, increasingly centralised, distant, authoritarian, democratically
deficient EU becomes more and more politically focused and powerful, will
simply grow and grow.
Political and financial elites across the EU live in mortal fear of referenda
for a very good reason.
Supporting the break up of Yugoslavia was the worse mistake the European
powers ever made since 1945. And approving the independence of Kosovo probably
the second. On what grounds do they think now they can oppose the independence
of Republika Srpska? The continued harassment and gratuitous confrontation
of certain EU states against Russia won't help either.
Europe is tending towards break up as countries start to align back to their
historical roots. Look at a map of Europe now compared with 30 years ago.
Don't forget all the regional tensions, the Basques, Catalans, and I hear
20 other similar situations across Europe. Meanwhile Project EU thinks it
can create a single Europe. It's laughable.
We have no influence or control over the EU. It is run by Germany and their
puppets in Brussels. The actual purpose of the euro politicians is to create
a single country called Europe. One currency, one legal system, one army,
open borders, etc. Sovereign control will be gradually stripped from individual
countries and passed to Brussels. But of course it is completely corrupt
and mismanaged and it is only a matter of time before it collapses. At least
we had the balls to brexit.
These things are really serious and they are happening all over the democratic
world. We can end up with Trump on one end and myriad far right or crypto
far right governments in Europe. It is a complete failure of our political
economic and educational system.
I honestly believe that representational democracy as we know it is on its
last breath.
Why do you create a distinction between the left and fascism? Fascism, as
advocated by The National Socialist German Workers Party and Mussolini,
adored statism (state-control).
The left is about ever-increasing state power, the right is about individualism
('far-right', a term used as a pejorative, actually means anarchy, Hitler
was a megalomaniacal control freak). The fascists are on record time and
time again expressing their hatred of laissez-faire capitalism and liberal
individualism.
Mussolini's manifesto - which advocates the minimum wage, pandering to
the unions, progressive taxation, lowering the voting age and abolishing
the upper-chamber - reads like a manifesto for a modern-day progressive
party. Why? Because it was self-proclaimed 'progressives', in the 20s, who
supported it.
The EU has made small regions feel powerless and provoked more nationalism,
just look at the tensions within the UK, Spain, Italy before you even start
with the Balkans. The Balkans have been forced to be the frontline in a
blockade for a mismanaged German refugee crisis. All these eastern european
economies are mostly basket cases that joining the EU won't save. Indeed
with EU free movement of labour they'll find all their young talent gone
looking for opportunities abroad but maybe that's what they want?
Why does the Guardian conflate every expression of nationalism with fascism?
It's a bit like conflating an instance of one white police officer shooting
one black person with systemic racism - it doesn't fit. It's childlike.
We are nationalist. It's not whether we should be, we are. We have a
border, we unite behind symbols, we have a national anthem, a national Parliament,
a national health service and a national language. I don't believe 'Britishness'
is quantifiable, however I also, unlike The Guardian, realise it exists;
much in the same way 'love' can't quantified, but many accept it (it is
our national religion).
'Britishness' is merely the collective will of the British people. While
we can't quantify it per se, it exists. It's the collective moral obligation
held by the citizens of this country towards free healthcare at the point
of delivery; it's a moral obligation which doesn't exist in the majority
of countries the world over. It's a very British moral obligation, and one
which is in danger of being eroded by the left's worst policy: open borders.
I know in Guardian-land criticism of its national religions, ie, diversity,
open borders, globalism, feminism, etc., is tantamount to blasphemy, but
can we please get a handle on reality? There are nearly 200 nation-states
in the world and only a tiny handful of them are in a political union; the
nation-state is now, and will continue to be, the primary actor in international
relations.
That in your arrogance you forget this is what has led to your spectacular
fall from grace all over the western world. The people don't want globalism;
the people are tribal, and they always will be. The people extend trust
to outsiders with a great deal of caution; they don't do so because they
are bad, they do so because of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.
What's more, it's not just 'British people' who adopt these attitudes;
it's everyone; it's every group. It's why Bangladeshis congregate together
in Tower Hamlets, it's why Pakistanis congregate together in Govanhill;
it's why black people congregate together in Chicago.
You can't just unwind 200,000 years of evolution with 30 years of progressive
politics; you certainly can't achieve that when you determine that the in-group
is the problem.
If you want real progress, be liberal. At this stage, I don't believe
progressives are even opposed to racism; they merely oppose racism against
non-white people. I don't believe progressives favour equality; they merely
favour equality for women (or x group). These aren't liberal attitudes,
these are bigoted attitudes.
They are just reinforcing group-based dynamics (ethnocentrism, tribalism,
gynocentrism, etc.), the very dynamics you criticise in the context of other
groups (ie, white heterosexual males).
Excellent comment. Isn't it strange that repressive ideologies are called
'progressive' by the Marxists and Globalists that spread the word, the fear
and the idiocy.
It's simple: nationalism is neurotic and built on defining oneself by the
virtue of one's difference, to the exclusion of similarities and debasement
of the other. It's the reverse of the Good Samaritan.
All that is very nice indeed, problem is when 'in the name of my nation'
someone ends up laying dead and beaten to pulp on the streets .... and that,
sorry, ain't so nice.
"... She was a horrible secretary of state. Explain to me why the US had to ruin a harmless country like Libya. ..."
"... "Among the principal concerns in Washington, London and Paris were the increasing Chinese and Russian economic interests in Libya and more generally Africa as a whole. China had developed $6.6 billion in bilateral trade, mainly in oil, while some 30,000 Chinese workers were employed in a wide range of infrastructure projects. Russia, meanwhile, had developed extensive oil deals, billions of dollars in arms sales and a $3 billion project to link Sirte and Benghazi by rail. There were also discussions on providing the Russian navy with a Mediterranean port near Benghazi. ..."
"... Gaddafi had provoked the ire of the government of Nicolas Sarkozy in France with his hostility to its scheme for creating a Mediterranean Union, aimed at refurbishing French influence in the country's former colonies and beyond. ..."
"... Moreover, major US and Western European energy conglomerates increasingly chafed at what they saw as tough contract terms demanded by the Gaddafi government, as well as the threat that the Russian oil company Gazprom would be given a big stake in the exploitation of the country's reserves" ..."
"... History shows that what flows in Hillary's political veins is new Democrat, Rubinite, Peterson, Wall Street dominated blood. ..."
"... Clinton, then Bush, and now Obama have increasingly shielded their official actions from the public. And what should be obvious to anyone paying attention is that they are doing so to hide their actions from a public that would object, because at a minimum, they are unethical, or because they are illegal. ..."
"... Nothing, absolutely nothing, in Hillary's past offers any a glimmer of anything different. Democracy requires transparency so that the public is properly informed and has oversight with which to hold people accountable. Obama promised to have the most transparent administration in history. He lied. Nothing she says today suggests Hillary would change this, and her past points to her making it worse. ..."
"... I do not know how old you are but younger Bernie supporters will not vote for Killary Clinton. I do not know any people under 30 that will vote for Clinton. ..."
"... Clinton's only path to victory in the General is to carry southern states that the Democrats always lose. She is going to get killed in the Rust Belt. Trump knows how to talk to disgruntled white voters. The only one who will stop him is Bernie since they are going after the same voter. ..."
Secretary Hillary Clinton is asking Democratic voters to believe that she
has experienced a "Road to Damascus" conversion from her roots as a leader of
the "New Democrats" – the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party.
... ... ...
Hillary and Obama made sure that they did not even have to risk their "lap
dog" developing a spine. No IG was their ideal world.
...The idea that the State Department IG, appointed by President Obama, is
"partisan" in the sense of being "anti-Clinton" is facially bizarre in that
Obama is a strong supporter of Hillary.
HRC is, and always has been, bad news. She shouldn't have even run for
prez the first time. She was a horrible secretary of state. Explain
to me why the US had to ruin a harmless country like Libya. I hope
the indictment comes down very soon, so Bernie can just be presumed the
Democratic nominee.
"Among the principal concerns in Washington, London and Paris were
the increasing Chinese and Russian economic interests in Libya and more
generally Africa as a whole. China had developed $6.6 billion in bilateral
trade, mainly in oil, while some 30,000 Chinese workers were employed in
a wide range of infrastructure projects. Russia, meanwhile, had developed
extensive oil deals, billions of dollars in arms sales and a $3 billion
project to link Sirte and Benghazi by rail. There were also discussions
on providing the Russian navy with a Mediterranean port near Benghazi.
Gaddafi had provoked the ire of the government of Nicolas Sarkozy
in France with his hostility to its scheme for creating a Mediterranean
Union, aimed at refurbishing French influence in the country's former colonies
and beyond.
Moreover, major US and Western European energy conglomerates increasingly
chafed at what they saw as tough contract terms demanded by the Gaddafi
government, as well as the threat that the Russian oil company Gazprom would
be given a big stake in the exploitation of the country's reserves"
The past is prologue. History shows that what flows in Hillary's
political veins is new Democrat, Rubinite, Peterson, Wall Street dominated
blood. I agreed with her when she spoke of a vast right wing conspiracy,
as it was obvious to anyone paying attention, and I could understand the
Clinton's defensive secrecy given the relentlessly personal assaults they
were under. But I object to the epidemic of secrecy that has infested what
should be the public sphere of our government.
Clinton, then Bush, and now Obama have increasingly shielded their
official actions from the public. And what should be obvious to anyone paying
attention is that they are doing so to hide their actions from a public
that would object, because at a minimum, they are unethical, or because
they are illegal.
Nothing, absolutely nothing, in Hillary's past offers any a glimmer
of anything different. Democracy requires transparency so that the public
is properly informed and has oversight with which to hold people accountable.
Obama promised to have the most transparent administration in history. He
lied. Nothing she says today suggests Hillary would change this, and her
past points to her making it worse.
The "unlikeability" factor of Hillary Clinton, and her husband Bill,
grows ever deeper in the American public. She drips with a uncouth and meglomaniacal
drive to be president. I am not sure she can win an election, even with
many voters pulling the lever for her in fear of the greater evil. I am
not sure she is the lesser evil, and I think others may feel the same way
election time.
Mmmmmf it's hard not to think she's the lesser of two evils when she's
running against a candidate who's openly deranged–and I can guarantee she
will be running against such a one, even before the Republicans pick one
to nominate. All of theirs are deranged. They had a "deep bench," and they
were all deranged. If Hillary inspires a large number of voters–and I'm
a Sanders fan, but apparently she does–maybe they'll all come out and vote
a straight D ticket, which might help us in that Home for
the Deranged which is our Congress. And I doubt that Hillary would nominate
another Scalia, Alito or Thomas. She probably wouldn't know where to look,
for one thing. Did I mention that I'm a Sanders fan?
care to list all of Trumps left wing positions? single payer – nope he's
not for that anymore, read his actual healthcare proposals. a few social
issues like abortion? oh maybe but he keeps changing positions there as
well (truthfully I don't' see these issues as really being right or left
at all, but in the American political system they usually are seen that
way) opposition to trade deals? … ok maybe that.
I'm not sure Kasich is deranged, but he is a warmonger for sure, then
so is Hillary. Rubio might not be deranged but he's a neocon and a neophyte.
I do not know how old you are but younger Bernie supporters will
not vote for Killary Clinton. I do not know any people under 30 that will
vote for Clinton. I attend a local community college (prepping for
grad school) outside of Philadelphia in an area that Killary will easily
carry thanks to a lot of older feminists that still use the feminist card
to justify their vote.
Clinton's only path to victory in the General is to carry southern
states that the Democrats always lose. She is going to get killed in the
Rust Belt. Trump knows how to talk to disgruntled white voters. The only
one who will stop him is Bernie since they are going after the same voter.
The Libertarians have their convention in July, and they might put up
an interesting nominee. Could be Jesse Ventura or McAffee of net security
and Belize escape fame. Ventura would be a good prez, in my opinion.
That's where Bernie can really do some good. He can't snap his fingers
and have medicare for all, but he can put in SEC heads, SecTreasury, and
economic advisers that make sense, like Bill Black, yes, who put some bankers
in jail after the S&L debacle under Reagan. Iceland put 13 bankers in jail
recently. Here in the cowardly US they just pay a fine amounting to a small
percentage of what they stole. No problem for them at all. Just a cost of
doing business.
"... In fact, HRC may be a better prospect for neocons, because they can distract the Dem base with how cool it is for a "strong woman" to send men into battle. Anyone opposed must be a misogynist/sexist pig. By contrast Jeb would be too obvious. ..."
"... "There is no prospect of a non-interventionist president." ..."
"... Exactly. Obama has certainly proved this to be true, for those who might've thought otherwise. And since it is true, if one is going to vote anyway, then the decision won't be made on the basis of not "wanting more wars with terrible outcomes." There will have to be another, different, deciding factor, since that factor would rule out Ms. Clinton AND every other candidate. ..."
"... Yes, I have to second Lysander's view. People - both in and outside the US - must first disabuse themselves of ANY notion that the US is a democratic state, that "changes" in leadership will actually bring about ANY difference in foreign/domestic policy and that the American war criminal ship can be righted by the people utilizing the "democratic" mechanisms at their disposal. ..."
"... Furthermore, after the Obama debacle and his utter betrayal etc of his supporters if anyone thinks someone in the American Establishment is looking out for their peon asses why then they probably also believe that the US was "surprised/caught off guard" - yet again - by ISIS et al in Iraq. ..."
"... I wish Rand Paul had his fathers balls, but he doesnt. Ron was a Libertarian pretending to be a Republican, while Rand is a Republican pretending to be a Libertarian... Rand would be no different than any other Republican or Democratic establishment schmuck. ..."
"... I never did like Ron Pauls economic policy, being left leaning, and I'm doubtful whether he would have actually accomplished anything useful as President, but his NonInterventionism was admirable and I was happy to put his name in in the Rethug primary in 2012 for that reason alone. ..."
"... Mr. Kristol said he, too, sensed "more willingness to rethink" neoconservatism, which he called "vindicated to some degree" by the fruits of Mr. Obama's detached approach to Syria and Eastern Europe. Mr. Kagan, he said, gives historical heft to arguments "that are very consistent with the arguments I made, and he made, 20 years ago, 10 years ago." ..."
"... After all the slaughter these people feel like crowing. They are clearly, as JSorrentine often reminds us, pyschopath butchers. ..."
"... Incidentally, where is the outrage from Samantha Powers about the ISIS massacre in Tikrit? ..."
"... Well, I guess the world just can't talk about how the amazingly rapid rise of ISIS/L and fall of Iraq completely continues the plans of the apartheid genocidal state of Israel's - and their traitorous Zionist partners in the American Establishment - as set out in the Yinon Plan and Clean Break strategies because - HOW FORTUITOUS...I mean, terribly sad and unexpected, sorry - some unlucky Israeli teenagers just happened to be "kidnapped" by "Hamas" just as the ISIS show was kicking off or so that's what the apartheid genocidal state of Israel is telling the world. ..."
"... Shrillary wouldn't be where she is today if she wasn't criminally insane. I want her to become President. She'll redefine the meaning of Eerily Inept (a label coined by Gore Vidal and attached to G Dubya Bush). Her greatest moment was when Lavrov called her out on her RESET button and pointed out, with a chuckle, "You got it wrong. It doesn't say RESET it says SHORT CIRCUIT." ..."
"... Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who argued in favor of arming Syrian rebels, said last week at an event in New York hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations, "this is not just a Syrian problem anymore. I never thought it was just a Syrian problem. I thought it was a regional problem. ..."
"... Why, even HILLARY is just SOOOO SURPRISED about people trying to erase boundaries, huh? Funny, she should have read further into yesterday's times where it seems that the Zionist mouthpiece of record was desperately trying to get "out in front" of anyone mentioning that the fracturing of Iraq and the ME was all part of long-time Israeli strategy: ..."
"... In 2006, it was Ralph Peters, the retired lieutenant colonel turned columnist, who sketched a map that subdivided Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and envisioned Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite republics emerging from a no-longer-united Iraq. Two years later, The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg imagined similar partings-of-the-ways, with new microstates -- an Alawite Republic, an Islamic Emirate of Gaza -- taking shape and Afghanistan splitting up as well. Last year, it was Robin Wright's turn in this newspaper, in a map that (keeping up with events) subdivided Libya as well. ..."
"... As president she's da bomb! ..."
"... Hillary is a loathsome war mongering bitch. She almost had a public orgasm when Libyan leader Quadaffi was tortured and murdered by US supported Libyan rebels. The muder of Chris Stevens was a case of what goes around comes around. ..."
"... A point which nobody else has made as far as I know. To wit there is a big overlap between the banking and Israel lobbies since wealthy Jews account for a hugely disproportionate number of top financial movers and shakers. Anything that helps the financial industry also helps the war mongering Israel and neo con lobbies. The heavily Jewish Fed is another enabler of all that is wrong with America today. ..."
"... I, also agree, with the possible exception of replacing the word "Zionist", with the word "Corporatist", although both can be rightly used. We'll still get the person the 1%ers want us to have. Ain't Oligarchies grand? ..."
"... Hillary's election depends on two things still unknown: her health and whether the Republicans can manage to choose someone sufficiently batshit crazy to make her the best of abysmal alternatives. ..."
"... HRH is a Neo Liberal of Arianne 'Sniff Sniff' Huffington's type, the 'Third Way Up Your Ass' of Globalist NAFTA/TPP Free Trade Neonazi destruction of labor and environmental protections, and in your face with NOOOOO apologies. ..."
"... And Victoria Nuland indicates that she agrees with her husband Robert Kagan's criticism of Obama's foreign policy. ..."
"... Would it be safe to say Hillary's White Trash ? ..."
"... There are some really nice photographs of Hillary being very friendly with bearded famous Libyan Islamists (Gaddafi was still alive then). In combination with Benghazi - I think you probably can connect the people greeting Hillary with what happened there (and today's Iraq) I would not think she has a chance to convince with foreign policy. ..."
"... 'You have a schism between Sunni and Shia throughout the region that is profound. Some of it is directed or abetted by states who are in contests for power there.'" Now, if only he had mentioned the states included and featured the (United) States and Israel. Obama...usually a day late and a dollar short and leading or retreating from behind. ..."
"... I would rank Obama as the most cynical one. He is doing the dark colonial art. You can berate Bush for bombing Iraq (Obama did that with Libya, just as bad), but he did sink American manpower and treasure for all this futile nation building stuff, ie he tried to repair it. ..."
"... Obama tried to double down on the nation building stuff in Afghanistan, even copying the "surge". He is still not out of Afghanistan. ..."
"... He then tried to continue Bush's policy on the cheap, scrapping the nation building stuff and concentrating on shock and awe in Libya. When Russia put a stop to that in Syria he doubled down on the subversion supporting guerilla groups. He is now back in Iraq with allies supporting a "Sunni" insurrection by proxy. After a "color revolution" in Ukraine. ..."
"... It is not "US foreign policy" but the policy of the british empire. If he was running a US foreign policy, he would at least sometimes do something positive for Americans, by accident if nothing more. ..."
"... Economic policy to vote on? Are you joking? Whichever party we elect we get Neoliberalism anyway. ..."
"... "That smile and her gloating about his death made me feel she was some sort of sociopath." Massinissa, you meant psychopath, didn't you? ..."
Here is the reason why Hillary Clinton should never ever become President
of the United States.
A (sympathetic) New York Times profile of neocon Robert Kagan has
this on Clinton II:
But Exhibit A for what Robert Kagan describes as his "mainstream" view of
American force is his relationship with former Secretary of State
Hillary Rodham Clinton, who remains the vessel into which many interventionists
are pouring their hopes. Mr. Kagan pointed out that he had recently
attended a dinner of foreign-policy experts at which Mrs. Clinton was the
guest of honor, and that he had served on her bipartisan group of foreign-policy
heavy hitters at the State Department, where his wife worked as her spokeswoman.
"I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy," Mr. Kagan said,
adding that the next step after Mr. Obama's more realist approach "could
theoretically be whatever Hillary brings to the table" if elected president.
"If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue," he added,
"it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly
her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it
something else."
Want more wars with terrible outcomes and no winner at all? Vote the neocon's
vessel, Hillary Clinton.
Clinton, by the way, is also
a coward,
unprincipled and
greedy. Her achievements as Secretary of State were about zero. Why would
anyone vote for her?
Posted by b on June 16, 2014 at 09:09 AM |
Permalink
I'm afraid you focus too much on elections that have no meaning. It seems
we may be cornered into choosing between HR Clinton and Jeb Bush. The latter,
I'm sure, would earn equal praise from the Kagan clan. There is no prospect
of a non-interventionist president. There is no prospect of a president
that is not a Zionist stooge.
In fact, HRC may be a better prospect for neocons, because they can
distract the Dem base with how cool it is for a "strong woman" to send men
into battle. Anyone opposed must be a misogynist/sexist pig. By contrast
Jeb would be too obvious.
Personally, I don't think she is anyone to worry about gaining the office.
Too much hatred of her by most Americans, from her serial lying to her terrible
foreign policy, to her standing by bent dick, in her lust for power. She
will be backed by feminazis,homonazis and zionazis(Kagan).
Not enough devil worshippers in America,at least not yet,and I believe
Americans,from current events that our traitor MSM will be unable to counter
with their usual BS,that we are down the rabbit hole of idiotic intervention,and
we will end this nonsense,and return to worrying about America,not foreign
malevolent monsters like Israel.
Well,I can at least hope,it springs eternal.
"There is no prospect of a non-interventionist president."
Exactly. Obama has certainly proved this to be true, for those who
might've thought otherwise. And since it is true, if one is going to vote
anyway, then the decision won't be made on the basis of not "wanting more
wars with terrible outcomes." There will have to be another, different,
deciding factor, since that factor would rule out Ms. Clinton AND every
other candidate.
Yes, I have to second Lysander's view. People - both in and outside
the US - must first disabuse themselves of ANY notion that the US is a democratic
state, that "changes" in leadership will actually bring about ANY difference
in foreign/domestic policy and that the American war criminal ship can be
righted by the people utilizing the "democratic" mechanisms at their disposal.
I understand that some speak to how corrupt our institutions are but
there always seems to be a "feel-goodiness" - i.e., we can still fix it
all, boys and girls, if you all just clap your hands LOUDER!! - implicit
in their analyses/prescriptions when there should be nothing but anger,
fear and revulsion towards the fascist war criminal state that we live within.
Furthermore, after the Obama debacle and his utter betrayal etc of
his supporters if anyone thinks someone in the American Establishment is
looking out for their peon asses why then they probably also believe that
the US was "surprised/caught off guard" - yet again - by ISIS et al in Iraq.
"There is no chance of a non-interventionist president"
I wish Rand Paul had his fathers balls, but he doesnt. Ron was a
Libertarian pretending to be a Republican, while Rand is a Republican pretending
to be a Libertarian... Rand would be no different than any other Republican
or Democratic establishment schmuck.
I never did like Ron Pauls economic policy, being left leaning, and
I'm doubtful whether he would have actually accomplished anything useful
as President, but his NonInterventionism was admirable and I was happy to
put his name in in the Rethug primary in 2012 for that reason alone.
Great post, b. I saw the article and felt the same thing. While commentators
are right to say that the foreign policy of the U.S. remains largely untouched
regardless of which candidate or party wins the White House (which the NYT
piece does a fine job illustrating), I do think Hillary is the worst the
Democrats have to offer.
What I found amazing about the story is how neocons are now preening
about as if they have been vindicated:
Mr. Kristol said he, too, sensed "more willingness to rethink" neoconservatism,
which he called "vindicated to some degree" by the fruits of Mr. Obama's
detached approach to Syria and Eastern Europe. Mr. Kagan, he said, gives
historical heft to arguments "that are very consistent with the arguments
I made, and he made, 20 years ago, 10 years ago."
After all the slaughter these people feel like crowing. They are clearly,
as JSorrentine often reminds us, pyschopath butchers.
Incidentally,
where is the outrage from Samantha Powers about the ISIS massacre in Tikrit?
Well, I guess the world just can't talk about how the amazingly rapid
rise of ISIS/L and fall of Iraq completely continues the plans of the apartheid
genocidal state of Israel's - and their traitorous Zionist partners in the
American Establishment - as set out in the
Yinon Plan and Clean Break strategies because - HOW FORTUITOUS...I mean,
terribly sad and unexpected, sorry - some unlucky Israeli teenagers just
happened to be "kidnapped" by "Hamas" just as the ISIS show was kicking
off or so that's what the apartheid genocidal state of Israel is telling
the world.
Yeah, I bet the apartheid genocidal state of Israel probably has just
NO IDEA about what's going on in Iraq what with their harrowing search -
read: collective punishment for the residents of the
illegally occupied territories - for the 3 missing boys who haven't
been ransomed or claimed to have been taken by anyone.
Wait a second...what if it was ISIS/L and NOT Hamas that "kidnapped"
the boys!!!Holy tie-in, Bat-Man!!!!
Then there would be NO WAY that what we're witnessing is the furthering
of the Yinon Plan because the apartheid genocidal Israelis would never instigate
false flag terror to further/distract from their own ends/agenda, would
they?
Nah.
A Qaeda-inspired group calling itself the Islamic State in Iraq and
Syria - Palestine, West Bank claimed responsibility for the kidnappings,
saying it wanted to avenge Israel's killing of three of its group in
the Hebron area late last year and to try to free prisoners from Israeli
jails. The credibility of the claim was not immediately clear.
But clear enough for the Zionist mouthpiece of the NYT to print it, right?
Shrillary wouldn't be where she is today if she wasn't criminally
insane. I want her to become President. She'll redefine the meaning of Eerily
Inept (a label coined by Gore Vidal and attached to G Dubya Bush). Her greatest
moment was when Lavrov called her out on her RESET button and pointed out,
with a chuckle, "You got it wrong. It doesn't say RESET it says SHORT CIRCUIT."
Then he laughed. At her, not with her. She's a sick, intellectually lazy,
dumb, joke. America deserves her.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who argued in
favor of arming Syrian rebels, said last week at an event in New York
hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations, "this is not just a Syrian
problem anymore. I never thought it was just a Syrian problem. I thought
it was a regional problem. I could not have predicted, however,
the extent to which ISIS could be effective in seizing cities in Iraq
and trying to erase boundaries to create an Islamic state."
Why, even HILLARY is just SOOOO SURPRISED about people trying to
erase boundaries, huh? Funny, she should have read further into yesterday's
times where it seems that the Zionist mouthpiece of record was desperately
trying to get "out in front" of anyone mentioning that the fracturing of
Iraq and the ME was all part of long-time Israeli strategy:
In 2006, it was Ralph Peters, the retired lieutenant colonel turned
columnist, who sketched a map that subdivided Saudi Arabia and Pakistan
and envisioned Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite republics emerging from a no-longer-united
Iraq. Two years later, The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg imagined similar
partings-of-the-ways, with new microstates -- an Alawite Republic, an
Islamic Emirate of Gaza -- taking shape and Afghanistan splitting up
as well. Last year, it was Robin Wright's turn in this newspaper, in
a map that (keeping up with events) subdivided Libya as well.
Peters's map, which ran in Armed Forces Journal, inspired conspiracy
theories about how this was America's real plan for remaking the Middle
East. But the reality is entirely different: One reason these maps have
remained strictly hypothetical, even amid regional turmoil, is that
the United States has a powerful interest in preserving the Sykes-Picot
status quo.
This is not because the existing borders are in any way ideal. Indeed,
there's a very good chance that a Middle East that was more politically
segregated by ethnicity and faith might become a more stable and harmonious
region in the long run.
My favorite part of the above column is that it references a previous
column from the Zionist NYT from last year in which a war criminal even
drew up the
new map of the ME!!
Oh, but that war criminal thought SYRIA was going to be the trigger that
allowed for the culmination of the Yinon Plan. Oops!
And then ALSO YESTERDAY in the
NYT everyone's favorite little war Establishment mouthpiece Nicholas
Kristoff had this to say:
The crucial step, and the one we should apply diplomatic pressure to
try to achieve, is for Maliki to step back and share power with Sunnis
while accepting decentralization of government.
If Maliki does all that, it may still be possible to save Iraq. Without
that, airstrikes would be a further waste in a land in which we've already
squandered far, far too much.
DECENTRALIZATION, huh? Why, Nicky, that sounds like what Putin has suggested
for Ukraine, huh? Shhhhhhhh
And of course Mr. Fuckhead Tom Friedman weighs in ALSO YESTERDAY in the
NYT with this:
THE disintegration of Iraq and Syria is upending an order that has defined
the Middle East for a century. It is a huge event, and we as a country
need to think very carefully about how to respond. Having just returned
from Iraq two weeks ago, my own thinking is guided by five principles,
and the first is that, in Iraq today, my enemy's enemy is my enemy.
Other than the Kurds, we have no friends in this fight. Neither Sunni
nor Shiite leaders spearheading the war in Iraq today share our values.
The ME is going to be split up inevitably: check
The US/Israel are JUST NOWHERE to be found: check
Thanks, Tom, you fucking war criminal scum!!!
To review:
Everyone in the Establishment - fake left, right, center, dove, hawk,
blah blah - says that it's just inevitable now that Iraq and the ME will
probably be broken up.
Everyone in the Establishment also agrees that NO ONE could see this
whole ISIS etc shitpile coming, right?
Anyone else get the feeling that this is a coordinated continuation of
the Zionist Plan for the Middle East?
Naahh. Nothing to see here, fuckers!!! Move along!!!!
She ties right in with the whole pink power agenda. She is the woMAN
version and can also be useful for the women=victims, but, no way for the
women/whore
women/victim/whore is quintessentially Pussy Riot
And if you criticize HC you are just a woman hater!
(you know like antisemitic)
Same as Obama- criticize him, you are just a racist
Shuts the complaints right off!
Hillary is a loathsome war mongering bitch. She almost had a public
orgasm when Libyan leader Quadaffi was tortured and murdered by US supported
Libyan rebels. The muder of Chris Stevens was a case of what goes around
comes around.
A point which nobody else has made as far as I know. To wit there
is a big overlap between the banking and Israel lobbies since wealthy Jews
account for a hugely disproportionate number of top financial movers and
shakers. Anything that helps the financial industry also helps the war mongering
Israel and neo con lobbies. The heavily Jewish Fed is another enabler of
all that is wrong with America today.
lysander @ 4: "There is no prospect of a president that is not a Zionist
stooge."
I, also agree, with the possible exception of replacing the word
"Zionist", with the word "Corporatist", although both can be rightly used.
We'll still get the person the 1%ers want us to have. Ain't Oligarchies
grand?
Hillary's election depends on two things still unknown: her health
and whether the Republicans can manage to choose someone sufficiently batshit
crazy to make her the best of abysmal alternatives. I think her health
is the critical variable, as the PTB are going to make sure that the Republican
candidate will come out strongly for privatization of social security and
reversing the 19th amendment. Vote-rigging and gerrymandering will maintain
a sufficiently close election to preserve the simulacrum of a free election.
HRH is a Neo Liberal of Arianne 'Sniff Sniff' Huffington's type,
the 'Third Way Up Your
Ass' of Globalist NAFTA/TPP Free Trade Neonazi destruction of labor and
environmental
protections, and in your face with NOOOOO apologies.
That she is a totally-disjointed Royal is clear in her 'dead broke' claim.
That she is a famous Hectorian, constantly checking which way public opinion
is flowing, then crafting
her confabulated dialogue as screed to her real intents, is well known.
Der Prevaricator.
What should be equally well known, if news got around, Hillary (and UKs
Milliband) grifted
Hamid Karzai $5 BILLION of Americans' last life savings, stolen from US
Humanitarian Aid
to Afghanistan, then made five trips to Kabul for no apparent purpose, before
announcing
that her $-35 MILLION 'dead broke' presidential campaign had been paid off
by 'anonymous
donors'. This is all public record; in the 2009 International Conference
on Afghanistan in
London, right in the conference speeches, framed as 'Karzai's demand', but
in fact, that
speech of Karzai's was written by US State Department. I read the drafts.
'Bicycling'.
Hillary soon had to fly back one more time and grift Karzai an emergency
$3.5 BILLION
theft, after he lost Americans' $5 BILLION while speculating in Dubai R/E
by looting
his Bank of Kabul. Her 'injection of capital' saved the bank from being
audited, and
no doubt saved all the Kaganites from an embarrassing and public episiotomy.
In the end, Hillary retired with a fortune of $50 MILLION, again announced
publicly, which
together with the $-35 MILLION campaign payoff in violation of all US election
regulations,
is exactly 1% of the $8.5 BILLION she grifted to Karzai. She's in the 'One
Percent Club'.
"It's a Great Big Club, ...and you ain't in it!" George 'The Man' Carlin
But who cares? I'll tell you. The Russian know about this grift, certainly
the Israelis
know about this grift, the Millibandits know, the London Karzais know, and
if G-d forbid,
Hillary became HRHOTUS, Americans will be blackmailed down to their underdrawers.
There are some really nice photographs of Hillary being very friendly
with bearded famous Libyan Islamists (Gaddafi was still alive then). In
combination with Benghazi - I think you probably can connect the people
greeting Hillary with what happened there (and today's Iraq) I would not
think she has a chance to convince with foreign policy.
"Well at the risk of being a smartass her achievements were negative,
the American hegemony is in worse condition because of her."
Because of her and it.
Dubhaltach gets it right, and as applied to events inclusive of and after
9-11-2001. The purported masterful seamless garment of conspiracy,
yet it weakened the US and helped get Israel whacked good by Hezbollah.
As for the unmentioned Saudi, it is of course impossible that Saudi could
outplay longterm both the US and Israel longterm.
Just as it was impossible Chalabi could outplay the neocons and help
win Iran the Iraq War. Who is playing catch up and who is
playing masterfully cohesive and unbeatable conspiracy?
Dubhaltach gets it right, the US will be pushed out of the Mideast and
Israel is longterm DOOMED.
Here is Obama in the very recent Remnick interview
"Obama said:
'You have a schism between Sunni and Shia throughout the region
that is profound. Some of it is directed or abetted by states who are in
contests for power there.'" Now, if only he had mentioned the states
included and featured the (United) States and Israel. Obama...usually a
day late and a dollar short and leading or retreating from behind.
I would rank Obama as the most cynical one. He is doing the dark
colonial art. You can berate Bush for bombing Iraq (Obama did that with
Libya, just as bad), but he did sink American manpower and treasure for
all this futile nation building stuff, ie he tried to repair it.
Obama tried to double down on the nation building stuff in Afghanistan,
even copying the "surge". He is still not out of Afghanistan.
He then tried to continue Bush's policy on the cheap, scrapping the
nation building stuff and concentrating on shock and awe in Libya. When
Russia put a stop to that in Syria he doubled down on the subversion supporting
guerilla groups. He is now back in Iraq with allies supporting a "Sunni"
insurrection by proxy. After a "color revolution" in Ukraine.
He just "sold" US foreign policy in a different target group, Hillary
will sell it to her target group, Jeb Bush to his.
It is not "US foreign policy" but the policy of the british empire.
If he was running a US foreign policy, he would at least sometimes do something
positive for Americans, by accident if nothing more.
"That smile and her gloating about his death made me feel she was
some sort of sociopath." Massinissa, you meant psychopath, didn't you?
the following is an excerpt from essay written by James at Winter Patriot:
"... Psychopaths are people without a conscience; without compassion
for others; without a sense of shame or guilt. The majority of people carry
within them the concern for others that evolution has instilled in us to
allow us to survive as groups. This is the evolutionary basis of the quality
of compassion. Compassion is not just a matter of virtue; it is a matter
of survival. Psychopaths do not have this concern for others and so are
a danger to the survival of the rest of us.
Psychopaths, as a homogeneous group, would not survive one or two generations
by themselves. They are motivated only by self interest and would exploit
each other till they ended up killing each other. Which gives one pause
for thought! They are parasites and need the rest of us to survive. In doing
so they compromise the survival of the whole species.
Psychopaths represent approximately between 1% and 20% of the population
in western countries depending on whose research you go by and also depending
on how broad a definition of the condition you adopt. It is generally held,
though, that there is a hard core of between 4-6% or so and maybe another
10 -15% of the population that is functionally psychopathic in that they
will exploit their fellow human being without hesitation.
The hard core are untreatable. They see nothing wrong with who or what
they are. The other 10-15% group may be persuaded to act differently in
a different environment or a different society. The second group act out
of a misguided strategy of survival. I'll concentrate on the hard core 5%
and the singular fact that must be borne in mind with them is that they
are incapable of change for the better. They cannot reform or be reformed.
And you can take that to the bank in every case! They must never be trusted.
Documented liars like those that populate the current Kiev regime
can be confidently assumed to be psychopaths from their behaviour and so
will never negotiate in good faith and will always renege on any deals they
make. The same can be said for the governments of the US and UK who back
them. Historically, they have never made a treaty that they did not subsequently
break."
James' essay is extremely informative wrt group psychopathy... some of
you may want to give it a read:
psychopath: a person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal
or violent social behavior.
an unstable and aggressive person. "schoolyard psychopaths will gather around
a fight to encourage the combatants"
Mina, now that I've looked up these links for you, I am confused myself!
Since a sociopath is less of a danger to the rest of us, I prefer to call
TPTB and their puppets psychopaths. Not your bad at all, apparently the
two are so similar as to there being difficulty telling them apart.
btw, I always enjoy your posts ~ not only do I get new info, but often
new sources... which is great. Thanks!
"... Yemen is another war the US is involved in thanks to the "peace" Pres. Obama. He has tried to keep this war hidden from the public. His few mentions of this war have been limited to shallow statements about his concern of the civilian casualty. ..."
"... Moreover, by selling the Saudis cluster bombs and other arms being used on civilians, Obama has enabled the Saudis in the last 8 moths to kill and destruct in Yemen more than WW2, as evidence shows. According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the US is complicit in international war crimes in Yemen. ..."
"... After Obama's election, he went to Cairo to make a peace speech to the Arab world aiming to diffuse the deep hatred towards the US created during the Bush era. Yet since then, Obama's foolish alliances with despotic Arab rulers infesting ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the region, his drone warfare, and warped war policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, have only expanded and strengthened ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and increased Arab citizens anger and hatred towards the US. This is Obama's legacy! ..."
"... I always think there are similarities in Clinton and Obama s upbringing that created the anormic sociopathic shape shifting personalities they demonstrate. ..."
"... amiable even charismatic enough to sell it to a stupid audience. ..."
"... Why do we maintain the myth that the Obama brand is in anyway his personal contribution. Anymore than Bush or Clinton. The only difference is the republicans are ideologues where's as the puppets offered by the democrats are just psychotic shape shifters. In either way on a clear day you can see the strings hanging from their wrists like ribbons. ..."
"... The US is Allied with Saudi Arabia and Israel, that makes Saudi Arabia's and Israel's enemies US enemies. ..."
"... The notion that Obama makes his own decisions is laughable except it aint funny.. ..."
"... There is no 'Obama legacy' in the ME. It is a US legacy of blown attempts to control unwilling countries and populations by coercion, and by military and economic warfare. ..."
"... With all due respects to M. Obama, this is another clear indication that the US President is just a figure head. He is a front for the corporations that run the US behind the scene - the so-called US military-industrial complex. ..."
"... Perhaps you intentionally miss out the fact that it is the west that has Israel and the Saudis as their best allies, considering their actions ( one with the largest/longest time concentration camp in history, the other the exporter of the horror show of ISIL , both an abomination of their respective religions . The west attempt to seek the moral high ground is more than a farce ... all the world can see and know the game being played, but the mass media wishes to assume everyone has half a brain... they are allergic to the truth , like the vampires to the light. ..."
"... The stick I'm talking about is the total capacity of the US, military and economic, to have things its way or make the opposition very unhappy. ..."
"... What has it gotten us? Nothing good. What has it gotten the top 1 percent? All the money we don't have. ..."
"... Obama is being an absolute idiot in sending special forces to fight with rebels who are fighting the legitimate government of Syria. This is stupidity of the highest order. What will he do when any of these special forces operatives are captured by IS or killed by Russian or Syrian airstrikes? ..."
"... That is a valid point: Syria is a sovereign nation recognized by the U.N., and any foreign troops within without permission would be considered invaders. Of course, the U.S. ignores international law all the time. ..."
"... Anyway, foreign troops in Syria who are there without an invitation by Syrian government or authorisation by UNSC are there illegally and can be tried for war crimes if captured. Why is Obama putting his soldiers in this situation? ..."
"... The U.S. strategy in Syria is in tatters as Obama lamely tries to patch it up. The U.S. was determined to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria in service of the Saudis, Turkey, and Israel, while pretending to go after ISIS, who the Saudis and Turks were covertly funding. The U.S. were arming jihadists to oust Assad. That game is up, thanks to the Russians. Putin decided he wasn't going to stand by while the U.S. and its proxies created another Libya jihadist disaster in Syria. The forceful Russian intervention in going after ISIS showed the U.S. to be a faker, and caused a sea-change in U.S. policy. Now the U.S. can't pretend to go after ISIS while really trying to oust Assad. The Emporer has no clothes. ..."
"... Israel is an ally of KSA who is funding IS, Al Nusra, Al-Qaida and Al-Shabab. They are also partners with KSA in trying to prevent Iran's reintegration into global society following the nuclear deal, and the lifting of sanctions. ..."
"... I suspect that Israel wants to annex the Syrian Golan Heights permanently, and to extend their illegal settlements into the area. That can only happen if Assad is defeated. ..."
"... Wow, you make a lot of sense. I always thought the US military heavy foreign policy became insane because of Reagan. Maybe it was the loss of the USSR? ..."
"... Everyone here grew up being taught that the US is the champion of all that is good (sounds corny today). When the USSR dissolved, everyone imagined huge military cuts with the savings being invested in social benefits. If someone had predicted that, instead, we would grow our military, throw our civil rights away, embrace empire, assasinate US citizens without a trial, create total surveillance, create secret one sided star-chamber FISA courts that control a third of our economy, and choose a Dept. name heard previously only in Nazi movies (Homeland Security) --- we'd have laughed and dismissed the warning as delusion. ..."
"... You are correct. Obama is breaking UN international law, the US has no right to invade Syria. Russia, though, has been asked by the Syrian government for help, a government fully recognized by the UN. Russia has full UN sanctioned rights to help Syria. US news media will never explain this to the public, sadly. ..."
"... Obama's presidency lost its credibility a long time ago. He made so many rash promises and statements which one by one he has broken, that no free thinking person believes anything he says anymore. ..."
"... There's a world of difference between Russia taking steps to protect its immediate geographic and political interests (which were largely the wishes of the resident populations - something critics tend to overlook) and the USA invading Iraq (2003) in a blatant act of war, based on bullshit and then aiding and abetting mercenary terrorists in Syria in defiance of any declaration of war, UN resolution or invitation from the Syrian government to intervene. ..."
"... You might have also noticed that Syria is a long, long way from the USA. Rhetorically, WTF is the US doing in the Middle East? Propping up Saudi or Israel? Or both? ..."
"... ISIS == Mercenaries sponsored by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Does a strategy against our own mercenaries make sense??? ..."
"... Think about, when's the last time Saudi Arabia did anything progressive or humane in its foreign policy? Now remember this very same country is on the same side as the Americans. This is the country that invaded Bahrain and Yemen and labelled the civil rights movements in those countries as 'Iranian interference.' The Saudis who have been seeking to turn civil rights movements with rather nationalistic demands into religious and sectarian conflicts by playing different groups against each other are allied with the U.S. and sitting at the table in Vienna talking about peace in Syria. Nonsense upon stilts! ..."
"... ISIS poses no threat to the Americans and vice versa. The Americans therefore do not have an interest in making sure that ISIS is wiped out. On the contrary they want regional foes to suffer. ..."
"... The American attempt at negotiating peace in Syria without Syrian representation is nothing short of ridiculous and best illustrates the convoluted state of American foreign policy. America lost any claim to 'leadership' by now. ..."
"... Unfortunately American policy and that eu have at time added fuel to the fire. ..."
"... Russian Iranian and hezbollah boots are invited boots by the legitimate government according to the UN Charter they are all acting legally and according to the Geneva Conventions etc. ..."
"... The US led coalition in bombing Syria were not, and the admitted introduction of troops into Syria is a an ACT OF WAR by the USA, and it is the AGRESSOR here, not doubt about it. It's a War Crime by every standard ..."
"... See the NATO creep into Eastern Europe against all agreements made with USSR. ..."
"... But their real agenda is to carve up Syria. In the deep recesses of their, the Corporate corrupt White House's, mind ISIS is not their immediate problem. ISIS is a means to an end - carve up Syria a sovereign country. ..."
"... Remember, only months ago, Kerry and Tory William Hague, was handing out cash to Syrian rebels who later turned out to be ISIS rebels. We must never forget, Syria, right or wrong, is a sovereign country. ..."
"... Look at the mess they made in, Ukraine, with their friends a bunch of, Kiev, murdering neo-Nazi's. ..."
"... Just out of curiosity...how will the US keep the DoD and CIA from duking it out at the opposite fronts on the Syrian soil? ..."
"... Washington has clearly chosen to break International Law. ..."
"... Westphalian sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle of non-interference in another country's domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how large or small) is equal in international law ..."
"... As the administration in Washington is firmly in the grasp of special interest groups such as Big Pharma, The Banksters, Big Agrobusiness, Big oil, the MIC and Israel there is no chance of getting good policy decisions out of there until there is a regime change. ..."
"... You might think that having criticized Assad for shooting demonstrators who demonstrated against the corruption and inefficiency of his regime, and having said that as a result his regime had lost its legitimacy, they would apply the same yardstick to President Poroshenko when he shot up two provinces of his country for asking for federation, killing thousands in the process, but on the contrary they sent "advisers" to train his military and his Fascist helpers to use their weapons better, to shoot them up more effectively. ..."
"... However, one cannot really expect people who are exceptional to behave like ordinary (unexceptional) human beings. ..."
"... What is the official US line on the legality of these deployments in terms of international law? ..."
NATO and its allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria .... they make a desert and call
it peace.
ID7582903 1 Nov 2015 06:19
"Credibility"? Beware and be aware folks. This isn't a monopoly game being played here; it's
for real.
2015 Valdai conference is Societies Between War and Peace: Overcoming the Logic of Conflict
in Tomorrow's World. In the period between October 19 and 22, experts from 30 countries have been
considering various aspects of the perception of war and peace both in the public consciousness
and in international relations, religion and economic interaction between states. Videos w live
translations and english transcripts (a keeper imho)
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/50548
30 Oct, 2015 - The day US announces Ground troops into Syria, and the day before the downing/crash
of the Russian Airbus 321 in the Sinai, this happened:
Russia has conducted a major test of its strategic missile forces, firing numerous ballistic and
cruise missiles from various training areas across the country, videos
uploaded by the Ministry of Defense have shown.
A routine exercise, possibly the largest of its kind this year, was intended to test the command
system of transmitting orders among departments and involved launches
from military ranges on the ground, at sea and in the air, the ministry said Friday.
30.10.2015
Since the beginning of its operation in Syria on September 30, Russian Aerospace Forces have carried
out 1,391 sorties in Syria, destroying a total of 1,623 terrorist targets, the Russian General
Staff said Friday.
In particular, Russian warplanes destroyed 249 Islamic State command posts, 51 training camps,
and 131 depots, Andrey Kartapolov, head of the Russian General Staff Main Operations Directorate
said.
"In Hanshih, a suburb of Damascus, 17 militants of the Al-Ghuraba group were executed in public
after they tried to leave the combat area and flee to Jordan," he specified. "The whole scene
was filmed in order to disseminate the footage among the other groups operating in the vicinity
of Damascus and other areas", the General Staff spokesman said. In the central regions of the
country, the Syrian Army managed to liberate 12 cities in the Hama province, Kartapolov said.
"The Syrian armed forces continue their advance to the north," the general added.
Yemen is another war the US is involved in thanks to the "peace" Pres. Obama. He has tried
to keep this war hidden from the public. His few mentions of this war have been limited to shallow
statements about his concern of the civilian casualty. What an insult to our intelligence! We
are well aware that the US provides the logistical and technical support, and refuelling of warplanes
to the Saudi coalition illegal war in Yemen. Moreover, by selling the Saudis cluster bombs and
other arms being used on civilians, Obama has enabled the Saudis in the last 8 moths to kill and
destruct in Yemen more than WW2, as evidence shows. According to Amnesty International and Human
Rights Watch, the US is complicit in international war crimes in Yemen.
After Obama's election, he went to Cairo to make a peace speech to the Arab world aiming to
diffuse the deep hatred towards the US created during the Bush era. Yet since then, Obama's foolish
alliances with despotic Arab rulers infesting ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the region, his drone warfare,
and warped war policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, have only expanded and strengthened
ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and increased Arab citizens anger and hatred towards the US. This is Obama's
legacy!
Barmaidfromhell -> WSCrips 1 Nov 2015 03:52
Well said.
I always think there are similarities in Clinton and Obama s upbringing that created the
anormic sociopathic shape shifting personalities they demonstrate. Obviously carefully selected
to follow any line given them and amiable even charismatic enough to sell it to a stupid audience.
Why do we maintain the myth that the Obama brand is in anyway his personal contribution.
Anymore than Bush or Clinton. The only difference is the republicans are ideologues where's as
the puppets offered by the democrats are just psychotic shape shifters. In either way on a clear
day you can see the strings hanging from their wrists like ribbons.
Michael Imanual Christos -> Pete Piper 1 Nov 2015 00:28
Pete Piper
In brief;
The US is Allied with Saudi Arabia and Israel, that makes Saudi Arabia's and Israel's enemies
US enemies.
... ... ...
midnightschild10 31 Oct 2015 21:35
When Obama denounced Russia's actions in Syria, and blamed them for massive loss of civilian
lives, Russia responded by asking them to show their proof. The Administration spokesperson said
they got their information from social media. No one in the Administration seems to realize how
utterly stupid that sounds. Marie Harf is happily developing the Administration's foreign policy
via Twitter. As the CIA and NSA read Facebook for their daily planning, Obama reads the comments
section of newspapers to prepare for his speech to the American public in regard to putting boots
on the ground in Syria, and adding to the boots in Iraq. If it didn't result in putting soldiers
lives in jeopardy, it would be considered silly. Putin makes his move and watches as the Obama
Administration makes the only move they know, after minimal success in bombing, Obama does send
in the troops. Putin is the one running the game. Obama's response is so predictable. No wonder
the Russians are laughing. In his quest to outdo Cheyney, Obama has added to the number of wars
the US is currently involved in. His original claim to fame was to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
which then resulted in starting Iraq and Afghanistan Wars 2.0. Since helping to depose the existing
governments in the Middle East, leading not only to the resurgence of AlQuaeda, and giving birth
to ISIS, and leaving chaos and destruction in his wake, he decided to take down the last standing
ruler, hoping that if he does the same thing over and over, he will get a different result. Obama's
foreign policy legacy had been considered impotent at best, now its considered ridiculous.
SomersetApples 31 Oct 2015 20:03
We bombed them, we sent armies of terrorist in to kill them, we destroyed their hospitals and
power plants and cities, we put sanctions on them and we did everything in our power to cut off
their trading with the outside world, and yet they are still standing.
The only thing left to do, lets send in some special military operatives.
This is so out of character, or our perceived character of Obama. It must be that deranged
idiot John McCain pulling the strings.
Rafiqac01 31 Oct 2015 16:58
The notion that Obama makes his own decisions is laughable except it aint funny....having
just watched CNNs Long Road to Hell in Iraq....and the idiots advising Bush and Blair you have
to wonder the extent to which these are almighty balls ups or very sophisticated planning followed
up by post disaster rationalisation....
whatever the conclusion it proves that the intervention or non interventions prove their is
little the USA has done that has added any good value to the situation...indeed it is an unmitigated
disaster strewn around the world! Trump is the next generation frothing at the mouth ready to
show what a big John Wayne he is!!
DavidFCanada 31 Oct 2015 13:56
There is no 'Obama legacy' in the ME. It is a US legacy of blown attempts to control unwilling
countries and populations by coercion, and by military and economic warfare. That US legacy
will forever remain, burnt into skins and bodies of the living and dead, together with a virtually
unanimous recognition in the ME of the laughable US pretexts of supporting democracy, the rule
of law, religious freedom and, best of all, peace. Obama is merely the chief functionary of a
nation of lies.
Informed17 -> WSCrips 31 Oct 2015 13:47
Are you saying that there was no illegal invasion of Iraq? No vial of laundry detergent was
presented at the UN as "proof" that Iraq has WMDs? No hue and cry from "independent" media supported
that deception campaign? Were you in a deep coma at the time?
Informed17 -> somethingbrite 31 Oct 2015 13:36
No. But the US trampled on the international law for quite a while now, starting with totally
illegal interference in Yugoslavia in the 1990s.
WSCrips 31 Oct 2015 13:18
Hey Guardian Editors.....and all those who worshipped Obama....In America, there were folks
from the older generation that warned us that this Community Organizer was not ready for the Job
of President of the United States....it had nothing to do with his color, he just was not ready.....he
was a young, inexperienced Senator, who never, ever had a real job, never had a street fight growing
up pampered in Hawaii, was given a pass to great universities because his parents had money, and
was the dream Affirmative Action poster boy for the liberal left. Obama has not disappointed anyone
who tried to warn us......and now we will reap what he has sowed:
1. 8 Trillion to our debt
2. Nightmare in the Middleast (how is that Arab Spring)
3. Polarized America....Dems and Republicans hate each other....hate each other like the Irish
and English...10 x over.
4. War on Cops
5. War with China
6. Invasion from Central America
I see a great depression and World War IV on the horizon....and I am being positive!
SaveRMiddle 31 Oct 2015 12:47
Nothing Obama says has any value. We've watched the man lie with a grin and a chuckle.
Forever Gone is all trust.
His continued abuse of Red Line threats spoke volumes about the lawyer who Reactively micromanages
that which required and deserved an expert Proactive plan.
Let History reflect the horrific death CIA meddling Regime Change/Divide and Conquer creates.
HeadInSand2013 31 Oct 2015 12:45
Liberal activists were in little doubt that Obama has failed to live up to his commitment
to avoid getting dragged directly into the war.
With all due respects to M. Obama, this is another clear indication that the US President
is just a figure head. He is a front for the corporations that run the US behind the scene - the
so-called US military-industrial complex.
Liberal activists are stupid enough to think that M. Obama is actually in charge of the US
military or the US foreign policy. Just go back and count how many times during the last 6 years
M. Obama has made a declaration and then - sometimes the next day - US military has over-ruled
him.
Mediaking 31 Oct 2015 10:00
Perhaps you intentionally miss out the fact that it is the west that has Israel and the
Saudis as their best allies, considering their actions ( one with the largest/longest time concentration
camp in history, the other the exporter of the horror show of ISIL , both an abomination of their
respective religions . The west attempt to seek the moral high ground is more than a farce ...
all the world can see and know the game being played, but the mass media wishes to assume everyone
has half a brain... they are allergic to the truth , like the vampires to the light.
USA forces coming to the aid of their 5 individuals... yes 1,2,3,4,5 ( stated by US command-
there are only that amount of FSA fighters left - the rest have gone over to ISIL with their equipment -- ) the local population all speak of ISIL/Daesh being American/Israeli ,they say if this is a
civil war how come all the opposition are foreigners -- I think perhaps it's like the Ukraine affair...
a bunch of CIA paid Nazi thugs instigating a coup ... or like Venezuela agents on roof tops shooting
at both sides in demonstrations to get things going. The usual business of CIA/Mossad stuff in
tune with the mass media with their engineered narratives -- Followed by the trolls on cyber space...
no doubt we shall see them here too.
All note that an Intervention in Syria would be "ILLEGAL" by Int. law and sooner than later
will be sued in billions for it...on top of the billions spent on having a 5 person strong force
of FSA...spent from the American tax payers money . Syria has a government and is considered a
state at the UN . Iran and Russia are there at the request and permission of Syria .
Russia and Iran have been methodically wiping out Washington's mercenaries on the ground while
recapturing large swathes of land that had been lost to the terrorists. Now that the terrorists
are getting wiped out the west and the Saudis are are screaming blue murder !
I for one would have Assad stay , as he himself suggests , till his country is completely free
of terrorists, then have free elections . I would add , to have the Saudis and the ones in the
west/Turkey/Jordan charged for crimes against humanity for supplying and creating Daesh/ISIS .
This element cannot be ignored . Also Kurdistan can form their new country in the regions they
occupy as of this moment and Mosul to come. Iran,Russia,Iraq, Syria and the new Kurdistan will
sign up to this deal . Millions of Syrian refugees can then come back home and rebuild their broken
lives with Iranian help and cash damages from the mentioned instigators $400 billion . The cash
must be paid into the Syrian central bank before any elections take place ... Solved...
My consultancy fee - 200ml pounds sterling... I know ... you wish I ruled the world (who knows
!) - no scams please or else -- ( the else would be an Apocalypse upon the western equity markets
via the Illuminati i.e a 49% crash )... a week to pay , no worries since better to pay for a just
solution than to have million descend upon EU as refugees . It is either this or God's revenge
with no mercy .
amacd2 31 Oct 2015 09:52
Obama, being more honest but also more dangerous than Flip Wilson says, "The Empire made me
do it",
Bernie, having "reservations" about what Obama has done, says nothing against Empire, but continues
to pretend, against all evidence, that this is a democracy.
Hillary, delighting in more war, says "We came, we bombed, they all died, but the Empire won."
Talk about 'The Issue' to debate for the candidates in 2016?
"What's your position on the Empire?"
"Oh, what Empire, you ask?"
"The friggin Empire that you are auditioning to pose as the president of --- you lying tools
of both the neocon 'R' Vichy party and you smoother lying neoliberal-cons of the 'D' Vichy party!"
lightstroke -> Pete Piper 31 Oct 2015 09:41
Nukes are not on the table. Mutually Assured Destruction.
The stick I'm talking about is the total capacity of the US, military and economic, to
have things its way or make the opposition very unhappy.
It's not necessary to win wars to exercise that power. All they have to do is start them and
keep them going until the arms industry makes as much dough from them as possible. That's the
only win they care about.
What has it gotten us? Nothing good. What has it gotten the top 1 percent? All the money
we don't have.
Taku2 31 Oct 2015 09:26
Obama is being an absolute idiot in sending special forces to fight with rebels who are
fighting the legitimate government of Syria. This is stupidity of the highest order. What will
he do when any of these special forces operatives are captured by IS or killed by Russian or Syrian
airstrikes?
How stupid can a President get?
Obama does need to pull back on this one, even though it will make his stupid and erroneous
policy towards the Syrian tragedy seem completely headless. If this stupid and brainless policy
is meant to be symbolic, its potential for future catastrophic consequences is immeasurable.
phillharmonic -> nishville 31 Oct 2015 08:56
That is a valid point: Syria is a sovereign nation recognized by the U.N., and any foreign
troops within without permission would be considered invaders. Of course, the U.S. ignores international
law all the time.
nishville 31 Oct 2015 08:35
Syrian rebels fighting the Islamic State
And who are those then? Do they exist, do we have any reliable source confirming they are really
simultaneously fighting IS and Syrian Army or is it yet another US fairy tale?
Anyway, foreign troops in Syria who are there without an invitation by Syrian government
or authorisation by UNSC are there illegally and can be tried for war crimes if captured. Why
is Obama putting his soldiers in this situation?
phillharmonic 31 Oct 2015 08:33
The U.S. strategy in Syria is in tatters as Obama lamely tries to patch it up. The U.S.
was determined to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria in service of the Saudis, Turkey, and Israel,
while pretending to go after ISIS, who the Saudis and Turks were covertly funding. The U.S. were
arming jihadists to oust Assad. That game is up, thanks to the Russians. Putin decided he wasn't
going to stand by while the U.S. and its proxies created another Libya jihadist disaster in Syria.
The forceful Russian intervention in going after ISIS showed the U.S. to be a faker, and caused
a sea-change in U.S. policy. Now the U.S. can't pretend to go after ISIS while really trying to
oust Assad. The Emporer has no clothes.
amacd2 -> Woody Treasure 31 Oct 2015 08:31
Woody, did you mean "Obama is a foil (for the Disguised Global Crony-Capitalist Empire--- which
he certainly is), or did you mean to say "fool" (which he certainly is not, both because he is
a well paid puppet/poodle for this Global Empire merely HQed in, and 'posing' as, America ---
as Blair and Camron are for the same singular Global Empire --- and because Obama didn't end his
role as Faux/Emperor-president like JFK), eh?
Nena Cassol -> TonyBlunt 31 Oct 2015 06:48
Assad's father seized power with a military coup and ruled the country for 30 years, before
dying he appointed his son, who immediately established marshal law, prompting discontent even
among his father's die-hard loyalists ...this is plain history, is this what you call a legitimate
leader?
Cycles 31 Oct 2015 06:41
Forced to go in otherwise the Russians and Iranians get full control. Welcome to the divided
Syria a la Germany after WW2.
TonyBlunt -> Nena Cassol 31 Oct 2015 06:36
"It does not take much research to find out that Assad is not legitimate at all"
Please share your source with us Nena. But remember Langley Publications don't count.
TonyBlunt -> oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 06:29
The Americans do not recognise international law. They do not sign up to any of it and proclaim
the right to break it with their "exceptionalism".
Katrin3 -> herrmaya 31 Oct 2015 05:27
The Russians, US, Iran etc are all meeting right now in Vienna. The Russians and the US military
do communicate with each other, to avoid attacking each other by mistake.
The Russians are in the West and N.West of Syria. The US is going into the N. East, near IS
headquarters in Raqqa, to support the Kurdish YPG, who are only a few kilometers from the city.
Katrin3 -> ID6693806 31 Oct 2015 05:15
Israel is an ally of KSA who is funding IS, Al Nusra, Al-Qaida and Al-Shabab. They are
also partners with KSA in trying to prevent Iran's reintegration into global society following
the nuclear deal, and the lifting of sanctions.
I suspect that Israel wants to annex the Syrian Golan Heights permanently, and to extend
their illegal settlements into the area. That can only happen if Assad is defeated.
centerline ChristineH 31 Oct 2015 04:48
The Kurds are the fabled moderate opposition who are willing to negotiate, and who have also
fought with the Syrian government against US backed ISIS and al Nusra so called moderate opposition.
Pete Piper -> Verbum 31 Oct 2015 04:47
@Verbum Wow, you make a lot of sense. I always thought the US military heavy foreign policy became
insane because of Reagan. Maybe it was the loss of the USSR?
Everyone here grew up being taught that the US is the champion of all that is good (sounds
corny today). When the USSR dissolved, everyone imagined huge military cuts with the savings being
invested in social benefits. If someone had predicted that, instead, we would grow our military,
throw our civil rights away, embrace empire, assasinate US citizens without a trial, create total
surveillance, create secret one sided star-chamber FISA courts that control a third of our economy,
and choose a Dept. name heard previously only in Nazi movies (Homeland Security) --- we'd have
laughed and dismissed the warning as delusion.
gabriel90 -> confettifoot 31 Oct 2015 04:46
ISiS is destroying Syria thanks to the US and Saudi Arabia; its an instrument to spread chaos
in the Middle East and attack Iran and Russia...
ChristineH 31 Oct 2015 04:21
So, on the day peace talks open, the US unilaterally announces advice boots on the ground to
support one of the many sides in the Syrian War, who will undoubtedly want self determination,
right on Turkey's border, as they always have, and as has always been opposed by the majority
of the Syrian population. What part of that isn't completely mad?
Great sympathy for the situation of the Kurds in Syria under Assad, but their nationalism issue
and inability to work together with the Sunni rebels, was a major factor in the non formation
of a functioning opposition in Syria, and will be a block to peace, not its cause. It's also part
of a larger plan to have parts of Turkey and Iraq under Kurdish control to create a contingent
kingdom. Whatever the merits of that, the US deciding to support them at this stage is completely
irrational, and with Russia and Iran supporting Assad will lengthen the war, not shorten it.
MissSarajevo 31 Oct 2015 04:21
Just a couple of things here. How does the US know who the moderates are?!? Is this another
occasion that the US is going to use International law as toilet paper? The US will enter (as
if they weren't already there, illegally. They were not invited in by the legitimate leader of
Syria.
gabriel90 31 Oct 2015 04:19
Warbama is just trying to save his saudi/qatari/turk/emirati dogs of war... they will be wiped
out by Russia and the axis of resistance...
Pete Piper -> Michael Imanual Christos 31 Oct 2015 04:08
Does anyone see anything rational in US foreign policy? When I hear attempts to explain, they
vary around .. "it's about oil". But no one ever shows evidence continuous wars produced more
oil for anyone. So, are we deliberately creating chaos and misery? Why? To make new enemies we
can use to justify more war? We've now classified the number of countries we are bombing. Why?
The countries being bombed surely know.
Pete Piper -> oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 03:50
You are correct. Obama is breaking UN international law, the US has no right to invade
Syria. Russia, though, has been asked by the Syrian government for help, a government fully recognized
by the UN. Russia has full UN sanctioned rights to help Syria. US news media will never explain
this to the public, sadly.
Only the US routinely violates other nations' sovergnity. Since Korea, the only nation that
has ever used military force against a nation not on its border is the US.
Can anyone find rationality in US foreign policy? We are supposed to be fighting ISIL, but
Saudi Arabia and Israel appear to be helping ISIL to force Syrian regime change. And the US is
supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia that are routed to ISIL. Supposedly because eliminating President
Asad is more important than fighting ISIL? The US public is being misled into thinking we are
NOW fighting ISIL. After Asad is killed, then we will genuinely fight ISIL? Russia, Iran, and
more(?) will fight to keep Asad in power and then fight ISIL? THIS IS OBVIOUS BS, AND ALSO FUBAR.
By all means, get everyone together for some diplomacy.
oldholbornian -> lesmandalasdeniki 31 Oct 2015 03:36
Well lets look at Germany the centre of christian culture and the EU
reminds me of emporer franz josef in europe about 100 years ago .. meant well but led to ruination
..i dont think that there has been an american president involved in more wars than obama
obama by his cairo speech kicked of the arab spring ..shows that words can kill
however.. the experience he now has gained may lead to an avoidance of a greater sunni shia
war in syria if the present vienna talks can offer something tangible and preserve honour to the
sunnis .. in the mid east honour and macho are key elements in negotiations
iran however is a shia caliphate based regime and unless it has learnt the lesson from yemen
on the limitations of force may push for further success via army and diplomacy and control in
syria and iraq
oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 02:42
But Obama's latest broken promise to avoid an "open-ended action" in Syria could lead to a
full-blown war with Russia considering that Russian military has been operating in Syria for weeks.
" For the first time ever, the American strategists have developed an illusion that they
may defeat a nuclear power in a non-nuclear war," Russian deputy prime minister Dmitry Rogozin
told AP. "It's nonsense, and it will never happen."
Any US / terrorist engagement with the Syrian security forces will include engaging with its
allies Russia
Once the firing starts Russia will include the US as terrorists with no rights to be in Syrian
and under the UN RULES have the right to defend themselves against the US
HollyOldDog -> foolisholdman 31 Oct 2015 02:32
Hmm Foreign snipers on rooftops ( not in the control of the government) how many times is this
scenario going to be played out before the 'press' twigs it than something is not making sense.
HollyOldDog -> foolisholdman 31 Oct 2015 02:29
Though in one demonstration there was snipers on rooftops shooting both deconstratirs and the
police - far more police were killed than demonstrators - what does this reming you of? Was these
actions seemingly out of the control of the government a preliminary to what happened in Kiev
during the maidan - practices get the technics right I suppose. - outside forces were obviously
at work ' stirring the pot.
Anna Eriksson 31 Oct 2015 02:24
Let's hope that the US will help out with taking in some refugees as well! In Germany, and
Sweden locals are becoming so frustrated and angry that they set refugee shelters on fire. This
is a trend in both Sweden and Germany, as shown in the maps in the links. There have almost been
90 arsons in Germany so far this year, almost 30 in Sweden.
Nobody tells the American people and nobody else really cares, but these 40-something guys
being sent to Syria are possibly there as:
cannon fodder: to deter the Russians from bombing and Iranians from attacking on the ground
the American friendly anti-Assad militant groups;
to collect and report more accurate intel from the front line (again about the Russian/Iranian
troops deployment/movement).
The Russian and Iranian troops on the ground will soon engage and sweep anti-Assad forces in
key regions in Western Syria. This will be slightly impeded if Americans are among them. But accidents
do happen, hence the term "cannon fodder".
The Russians and Iranians will likely take a step back militarily though for the duration of
talks, so the American plan to protect Saudi backed fighters is likely to work.
I never involved or mentioned ISIS because this is NOT about fighting ISIS. It's about counteracting
the Russian/Irania sweep in the area, and ultimately keeping the Americans in the game (sorry,
war).
petervietnam 31 Oct 2015 01:13
The world's policeman or the world's trouble maker?
Austin Young -> Will D 31 Oct 2015 00:34
But he's the "change we can believe in" guy! Oh right... Dem or republican, they spew anything
and everything their voters want to hear but when it comes time to walk the walk the only voice
in their head is Cash Money.
lesmandalasdeniki -> Bardhyl Cenolli 30 Oct 2015 23:34
It frustrates me, anyone who will be the problem-solver will be labeled as dangerous by the
Western political and business leaders if the said person or group of people can not be totally
controlled for their agenda.
This will be the first time I will be speaking about the Indonesian forest fires that started
from June this year until now. During the period I was not on-line, I watched the local news and
all channels were featuring the same problem every day during the last two-weeks.
US is also silent about it during Obama - Jokowi meeting, even praising Jokowi being on the
right track. After Jokowi came back, his PR spin is in the force again, he went directly to Palembang,
he held office and trying to put up an image of a President that cared for his people. He couldn't
solve the Indonesian forest fires from June - October, is it probably because Jusuf Kalla has
investment in it?
My point is, US and the Feds, World Bank and IMF are appointing their puppets on each country
they have put up an investment on terms of sovereign debt and corporate debt/bonds.
And Obama is their puppet.
Will D 30 Oct 2015 23:30
Obama's presidency lost its credibility a long time ago. He made so many rash promises
and statements which one by one he has broken, that no free thinking person believes anything
he says anymore.
He has turned out to be a massive disappointment to all those who had such high hopes that
he really would make the world a better place. His failure and his abysmal track record will cause
him to be remembered as the Nobel Peace prize wining president who did exactly the opposite of
what he promised, and failed to further the cause of peace.
Greg_Samsa -> Greenacres2002 30 Oct 2015 23:07
Consistency is at the heart of logic, all mathematics, and hard sciences.
Even the legal systems strive to be free of contradictions.
I'd rather live in world with consistency of thought and action as represented by the Russian
Federation, then be mired in shit created by the US who have shed all the hobgoblins pestering
the consistency of their thoughts and actions.
Never truly understood the value of this stupid quote really...
Phil Atkinson -> PaulF77 30 Oct 2015 22:28
There's a world of difference between Russia taking steps to protect its immediate geographic
and political interests (which were largely the wishes of the resident populations - something
critics tend to overlook) and the USA invading Iraq (2003) in a blatant act of war, based on bullshit
and then aiding and abetting mercenary terrorists in Syria in defiance of any declaration of war,
UN resolution or invitation from the Syrian government to intervene.
You might have also noticed that Syria is a long, long way from the USA. Rhetorically,
WTF is the US doing in the Middle East? Propping up Saudi or Israel? Or both?
MainstreamMedia Propaganda 30 Oct 2015 22:03
ISIS == Mercenaries sponsored by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Does a strategy against
our own mercenaries make sense???
I think blatant policy changes like this show just how ineffectual the US president actually
is. The hand over between Bush and Obama has been seamless. Gitmo still going, patriot act renewed,
Libya a smoldering ruin (4 years down the line), no progress on gun control, troops in Afganistan
and Iraq... it goes on...
HowSicklySeemAll 30 Oct 2015 21:58
"It's really hard to see how this tiny number of troops embedded on the ground is going
to turn the tide in any way."
Or the U.S. could carry out air strikes against Hezbollah which has been fighting ISIS for
a while now. They could also supply weapons to ISIS (who are dubbed 'moderates') to counter Russian
airstrikes and Iranian man power.
Think about, when's the last time Saudi Arabia did anything progressive or humane in its
foreign policy? Now remember this very same country is on the same side as the Americans. This
is the country that invaded Bahrain and Yemen and labelled the civil rights movements in those
countries as 'Iranian interference.' The Saudis who have been seeking to turn civil rights movements
with rather nationalistic demands into religious and sectarian conflicts by playing different
groups against each other are allied with the U.S. and sitting at the table in Vienna talking
about peace in Syria. Nonsense upon stilts!
Phil Atkinson -> Harry Bhai 30 Oct 2015 21:57
Fuck the al-Sauds and their oil. If the US wants their oil (and there's plenty of other oil
sellers in the world) then just take it. Why not be consistent?
templeforjerusalem 30 Oct 2015 21:51
IS has shown itself to be deeply hateful of anything that conflicts with their narrow religious
interpretations. Destroying Palmyra, murdering indiscriminately, without any clear international
agenda other than the formation of a new Sunni Sharia State, makes them essentially enemies of
everybody. Although I do agree that belligerent secular Netanyahu's Israel sets a bad example
in the area, Israel does not tend to murder over the same primitive values that IS uses, although
there's not much difference in reality.
IS uses extermination tactics, Israel used forced land clearance and concentration camp bombing
(Gaza et al), while the US in Iraq used brutal force. None of this is good but nothing justifies
the shear barbarism of IS. Is there hope in any of this? No. Is Russian and US involvement a major
escalation? Yes.
Ultimately, this is about religious identities refusing to share and demand peace. Sunni vs
Shia, Judeo/Catholic/Protestant West vs Russian Orthodox, secular vs orthodox Israel. No wonder
people are saying Armageddon.
HowSicklySeemAll 30 Oct 2015 21:50
ISIS poses no threat to the Americans and vice versa. The Americans therefore do not have
an interest in making sure that ISIS is wiped out. On the contrary they want regional foes to
suffer. The only countries and groups that have been successfully fighting ISIS - Assad's
forces, Iranians, Hezbollah, Russians, and Kurds are in fact enemies of either the U.S., Saudis,
Israelis, or Turks. Isn't that strange? The countries and peoples that have suffered the most
and that have actually fought against ISIS effectively are seen as the enemy. Do the powers that
be really want to wipe out ISIS at all costs? No, especially if it involves the Iranians and Russians.
How are Russian boots on the ground - of which there have been many for some time - ok
and American boots bad?
The difference is that of a poison and the antidotum. The American/NATO meddling in Iraq, Libya
and Syria created a truly sick situation which needs to be fixed. That's what the Russians are
doing. Obviously, they have their own objectives and motives for that and are protecting their
own interests, but nevertheless this is the surest way to re-establish semblance of stability
in the Middle East, rebuilt Syria and Iraq, stop the exodus of the refugees, and mend relations
in the region.
The American attempt at negotiating peace in Syria without Syrian representation is nothing
short of ridiculous and best illustrates the convoluted state of American foreign policy. America
lost any claim to 'leadership' by now.
I feel sorry for Mr Obama, and indeed America, because he is a decent person, yet most of us
are unaware what forces he has to reckon with behind the scenes. It is clear by now that interests
of corporations and rich individuals, as well as a couple of seemingly insignificant foreign states,
beat the national interest of America all time, anytime. It is astonishing how a powerful, hard
working and talented nation can become beholden to such forces, to its own detriment.
In the end, I do not think the situation is uniquely American. Russia or China given a chance
of total hegemony would behave the same. That's why we need a field of powers/superpowers to keep
one another in check and negotiate rather than enforce solutions.
ID9309755 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 21:02
Unfortunately American policy and that eu have at time added fuel to the fire. Yes,
the me has its own problems, including rival versions of Islam and fundamentalism as well as truly
megalomaniac leaders. But in instances (Libya for example) they did truly contribute to the country's
destruction (and I am not excusing Gaddafi, but for the people there sometimes having these leaders
and waiting for generational transformations may be a better solution than instant democracy pills.)
ID7582903 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 21:00
Russian Iranian and hezbollah boots are invited boots by the legitimate government according
to the UN Charter they are all acting legally and according to the Geneva Conventions etc.
The US led coalition in bombing Syria were not, and the admitted introduction of troops
into Syria is a an ACT OF WAR by the USA, and it is the AGRESSOR here, not doubt about it. It's
a War Crime by every standard
Obama and the "regime" that rules the United Snakes of America have all gone over the edge
into insanity writ large.
ID9309755 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 20:55
To clarify, I meant that all these groups are funded by these Arabic sheikhdoms and it increasingly
appears that th us of a is not as serious in eradicating all of them in the illusion that the
so called softer ones will over through Assad and then it will be democracy, the much misused
and fetishised term. Meanwhile we can carve up the country, Turkey gets a bite and our naughty
bloated allies in Arabia will be happy with their influence. Only if it happened that way...
There is much more than this short and simplified scenario, and yes Russia played its hand
rather well taking the west off guard. And I am not trying to portray Putin as some liberation
prophet either. So perhaps you could say that yes, maybe I have looked into it deep...
BlooperMario -> RedEyedOverlord 30 Oct 2015 20:52
China and Russia are only responding to NY World Bank and IMF cheats and also standing up to
an evil empire that has ruined the middle east.
Time you had a rethink old chap and stopped worshipping Blair; Bush; Rumsfeld etc as your heros.
See the NATO creep into Eastern Europe against all agreements made with USSR.
Silly Sailors provoking Chinese Lighthouse keepers.
RoyRoger 30 Oct 2015 19:30
Their Plan B is fucked !!
But their real agenda is to carve up Syria. In the deep recesses of their, the Corporate
corrupt White House's, mind ISIS is not their immediate problem. ISIS is a means to an end - carve
up Syria a sovereign country.
Remember, only months ago, Kerry and Tory William Hague, was handing out cash to Syrian
rebels who later turned out to be ISIS rebels. We must never forget, Syria, right or wrong, is
a sovereign country.
The real battle/plan for the Corporate corrupt White House is to try and get a foothold in
Syria and establish a military dictator after a coup d'etat'. As we know it's what they, the West,
do best.
Look at the mess they made in, Ukraine, with their friends a bunch of, Kiev, murdering
neo-Nazi's.
In the interest of right is right; Good Luck Mr Putin !! I'm with you all the way.
weematt 30 Oct 2015 19:25
War (and poverty too) a consequence, concomitant, of competing for markets, raw materials and
trade routes or areas of geo-political dominance, come to be seen as 'natural' outcomes of society,
but are merely concomitants of a changeable social system.
... ... ...
Greg_Samsa 30 Oct 2015 19:21
Just out of curiosity...how will the US keep the DoD and CIA from duking it out at the
opposite fronts on the Syrian soil?
This gives a whole new dimension to the term 'blue-on-blue'.
Kevin Donegan 30 Oct 2015 18:59
Washington has clearly chosen to break International Law.
"Westphalian sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty
over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle
of non-interference in another country's domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how
large or small) is equal in international law. The doctrine is named after the Peace of Westphalia,
signed in 1648, which ended the Thirty Years' War, in which the major continental European states
– the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, France, Sweden and the Dutch Republic – agreed to respect one
another's territorial integrity. As European influence spread across the globe, the Westphalian
principles, especially the concept of sovereign states, became central to international law and
to the prevailing world order.[1]"
foolisholdman 30 Oct 2015 18:41
As the administration in Washington is firmly in the grasp of special interest groups such
as Big Pharma, The Banksters, Big Agrobusiness, Big oil, the MIC and Israel there is no chance
of getting good policy decisions out of there until there is a regime change.
If ever there was a government hat had lost its legitimacy the present US government is it.
foolisholdman -> Johnny Kent 30 Oct 2015 18:31
Johnny Kent
The slight question of legality in placing troops in a sovereign country without permission
or UN approval is obviously of no importance to the US...and yet they criticise Russia for
'annexing Crimea...
Yes, but you see: the two cases are not comparable because the USA is exceptional.
You might think that having criticized Assad for shooting
demonstrators who demonstrated
against the corruption and inefficiency of his regime, and having said that as a result his regime
had lost its legitimacy, they would apply the same yardstick to President Poroshenko when he shot
up two provinces of his country for asking for federation, killing thousands in the process, but
on the contrary they sent "advisers" to train his military and his Fascist helpers to use their
weapons better, to shoot them up more effectively.
However, one cannot really expect people who are exceptional to behave like ordinary (unexceptional)
human beings.
WalterCronkiteBot 30 Oct 2015 17:11
What is the official US line on the legality of these deployments in terms of international
law?
Noone seems to even raise it as an issue, its all about congressional approval. Just like the
UK drone strikes.
"... "Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign raised an eye-popping $143 million in August for her candidacy and the Democratic Party, the best showing of her campaign, her team said Thursday" ..."
"... And yet my spam folder yesterday contained 46 (count 'em) pleas for donations from HillaryClinton.com, sent over the last ten days, including the one I read that said "Just send us a dollar." ..."
"... I'm sure they were just trying to make sure that 'eye-popping' amount isn't from the fewest donors in history. By about the fourth one of those I finally determined they really didn't need me to donate money they just needed to be able to count me as a donor ..."
"... But the Democrats don't even want those kinds of victories. They want the Executive Branch and no other branch of government so they can blame what they don't (or worse, do) do – haha, if you read that right you get "dodo" – on the other side. ..."
"... Ms Clinton has an insane amount of money. And what she spends it on (herself) and what she doesn't (anybody else) is what tells you what you need to know. ..."
"Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign raised an eye-popping $143
million in August for her candidacy and the Democratic Party, the best showing
of her campaign, her team said Thursday"
And yet my spam folder yesterday contained 46 (count 'em) pleas for
donations from HillaryClinton.com, sent over the last ten days, including
the one I read that said "Just send us a dollar."
And yes, since there was absolutely NO "unsubscribe" link on the emails
I initially received from the Clinton Cult, I did consign all further communication
to spam, thank you very much.
I'm sure they were just trying to make sure that 'eye-popping' amount
isn't from the fewest donors in history. By about the fourth one of those
I finally determined they really didn't need me to donate money they just
needed to be able to count me as a donor
Following right after that link is the withdrawal of $$$ for airtime
from Ted Strickland's campaign. Not some House race, not even a unlikely
Senate attempt, but they don't have enough money to hammer on somebody who
not only is chasing a big prize but actually already won the damn
race once already.
And you can convince me that it is 100% likely Strickland will lose.
But if you don't support him, you don't allow an alternative view to be
developed and used to hammer the winner during his term. Isn't that how
you play politics? You don't just show up around election, play nice, and
if polls – yeech, polls – don't go your way you just go home.
But the Democrats don't even want those kinds of victories. They want
the Executive Branch and no other branch of government so they can blame what they don't (or
worse, do) do – haha, if you read that right you get "dodo" – on the other
side.
Ms Clinton has an insane amount of money. And what she spends it
on (herself) and what she doesn't (anybody else) is what tells you what
you need to know.
Neo: I can't go back, can I?
Morpheus: No. But if you could, would you really want to? ...We never free a mind
once it's reached a certain age. It's dangerous, the mind has trouble letting go...
As long as the Matrix exists, the human race will never be free.
~ The Matrix
While this is a satire on an extreme polarization of electorate who now
behave like sport fans rooting for "their" team, Neoliberalism is the Other side ideology and will not abolish it without a fight.
Notable quotes:
"... Let's face it: The Other Side is held hostage by a radical, failed ideology. I have been doing some research on the Internet, and I have learned this ideology was developed by a very obscure but nonetheless profoundly influential writer with a strange-sounding name who enjoyed brief celebrity several decades ago. If you look carefully, you can trace nearly all the Other Side's policies for the past half-century back to the writings of this one person. ..."
"... To be sure, the Other Side also has been influenced by its powerful supporters. These include a reclusive billionaire who has funded a number of organizations far outside the political mainstream; several politicians who have said outrageous things over the years; and an alarmingly large number of completely clueless ordinary Americans who are being used as tools and don't even know it. ..."
"... It's ridiculous to talk about freedom in a society dominated by huge corporations. ..."
"... Wasn't it Voltaire who said "If you want to understand infinity look at people's stupidity"? ..."
The past several weeks have made one thing crystal-clear: Our country faces
unmitigated disaster if the Other Side wins.
No reasonably intelligent person can deny this. All you have to do is look
at the way the Other Side has been running its campaign. Instead of focusing
on the big issues that are important to the American People, it has fired a
relentlessly negative barrage of distortions, misrepresentations, and flat-out
lies.
Just look at the Other Side's latest commercial, which take a perfectly reasonable
statement by the candidate for My Side completely out of context to make it
seem as if he is saying something nefarious. This just shows you how desperate
the Other Side is and how willing it is to mislead the American People.
The Other Side also has been hammering away at My Side to release certain
documents that have nothing to do with anything, and making all sorts of outrageous
accusations about what might be in them. Meanwhile, the Other Side has stonewalled
perfectly reasonable requests to release its own documents that would expose
some very embarrassing details if anybody ever found out what was in them. This
just shows you what a bunch of hypocrites they are.
Naturally, the media won't report any of this. Major newspapers and cable
networks jump all over anything they think will make My Side look bad. Yet they
completely ignore critically important and incredibly relevant information that
would be devastating to the Other Side if it could ever be verified.
I will admit the candidates for My Side do make occasional blunders. These
usually happen at the end of exhausting 19-hour days and are perfectly understandable.
Our leaders are only human, after all. Nevertheless, the Other Side inevitably
makes a big fat deal out of these trivial gaffes, while completely ignoring
its own candidates' incredibly thoughtless and stupid remarks – remarks that
reveal the Other Side's true nature, which is genuinely frightening.
My Side has produced a visionary program that will get the economy moving,
put the American People back to work, strengthen national security, return fiscal
integrity to Washington, and restore our standing in the international community.
What does the Other Side have to offer? Nothing but the same old disproven,
discredited policies that got us into our current mess in the first place.
Don't take my word for it, though. I recently read about an analysis by an
independent, nonpartisan organization that supports My Side. It proves beyond
the shadow of a doubt that everything I have been saying about the Other Side
was true all along. Of course, the Other Side refuses to acknowledge any of
this. It is too busy cranking out so-called studies by so-called experts who
are actually nothing but partisan hacks. This just shows you that the Other
Side lives in its own little echo chamber and refuses to listen to anyone who
has not already drunk its Kool-Aid.
Let's face it: The Other Side is held hostage by a radical, failed ideology.
I have been doing some research on the Internet, and I have learned this ideology
was developed by a very obscure but nonetheless profoundly influential writer
with a strange-sounding name who enjoyed brief celebrity several decades ago.
If you look carefully, you can trace nearly all the Other Side's policies for
the past half-century back to the writings of this one person.
To be sure, the Other Side also has been influenced by its powerful supporters.
These include a reclusive billionaire who has funded a number of organizations
far outside the political mainstream; several politicians who have said outrageous
things over the years; and an alarmingly large number of completely clueless
ordinary Americans who are being used as tools and don't even know it.
These people are really pathetic, too. The other day I saw a YouTube video
in which My Side sent an investigator and a cameraman to a rally being held
by the Other Side, where the investigator proceeded to ask some real zingers.
It was hilarious! First off, the people at the rally wore T-shirts with all
kinds of lame messages that they actually thought were really clever. Plus,
many of the people who were interviewed were overweight, sweaty, flushed, and
generally not very attractive. But what was really funny was how stupid they
were. There is no way anyone could watch that video and not come away convinced
the people on My Side are smarter, and that My Side is therefore right about
everything.
Besides, it's clear that the people on the Other Side are driven by mindless
anger – unlike My Side, which is filled with passionate idealism and righteous
indignation. That indignation, I hasten to add, is entirely justified. I have
read several articles in publications that support My Side that expose what
a truly dangerous group the Other Side is, and how thoroughly committed it is
to imposing its radical, failed agenda on the rest of us.
That is why I believe [2016] is, without a doubt, the defining election of
our lifetime. The difference between My Side and the Other Side could not be
greater. That is why it absolutely must win [in 2016].
Sad sad Americans just figured this out? You idiots should have been
reading Chomsky, he just said it so well: "It's ridiculous to talk about
freedom in a society dominated by huge corporations." -Chomsky
Chomsky has been saying this for years. I guess you have been too busy
"making money" to pay attention.
The average American sheeple never fail to amuse me how stupid they
really are. Wasn't it Voltaire who said "If you want to understand infinity
look at people's stupidity"?
"... Yemen is another war the US is involved in thanks to the "peace" Pres. Obama. He has tried to keep this war hidden from the public. His few mentions of this war have been limited to shallow statements about his concern of the civilian casualty. ..."
"... Moreover, by selling the Saudis cluster bombs and other arms being used on civilians, Obama has enabled the Saudis in the last 8 moths to kill and destruct in Yemen more than WW2, as evidence shows. According to Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, the US is complicit in international war crimes in Yemen. ..."
"... After Obama's election, he went to Cairo to make a peace speech to the Arab world aiming to diffuse the deep hatred towards the US created during the Bush era. Yet since then, Obama's foolish alliances with despotic Arab rulers infesting ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the region, his drone warfare, and warped war policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, have only expanded and strengthened ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and increased Arab citizens anger and hatred towards the US. This is Obama's legacy! ..."
"... I always think there are similarities in Clinton and Obama s upbringing that created the anormic sociopathic shape shifting personalities they demonstrate. ..."
"... amiable even charismatic enough to sell it to a stupid audience. ..."
"... Why do we maintain the myth that the Obama brand is in anyway his personal contribution. Anymore than Bush or Clinton. The only difference is the republicans are ideologues where's as the puppets offered by the democrats are just psychotic shape shifters. In either way on a clear day you can see the strings hanging from their wrists like ribbons. ..."
"... The US is Allied with Saudi Arabia and Israel, that makes Saudi Arabia's and Israel's enemies US enemies. ..."
"... The notion that Obama makes his own decisions is laughable except it aint funny.. ..."
"... There is no 'Obama legacy' in the ME. It is a US legacy of blown attempts to control unwilling countries and populations by coercion, and by military and economic warfare. ..."
"... With all due respects to M. Obama, this is another clear indication that the US President is just a figure head. He is a front for the corporations that run the US behind the scene - the so-called US military-industrial complex. ..."
"... Perhaps you intentionally miss out the fact that it is the west that has Israel and the Saudis as their best allies, considering their actions ( one with the largest/longest time concentration camp in history, the other the exporter of the horror show of ISIL , both an abomination of their respective religions . The west attempt to seek the moral high ground is more than a farce ... all the world can see and know the game being played, but the mass media wishes to assume everyone has half a brain... they are allergic to the truth , like the vampires to the light. ..."
"... The stick I'm talking about is the total capacity of the US, military and economic, to have things its way or make the opposition very unhappy. ..."
"... What has it gotten us? Nothing good. What has it gotten the top 1 percent? All the money we don't have. ..."
"... Obama is being an absolute idiot in sending special forces to fight with rebels who are fighting the legitimate government of Syria. This is stupidity of the highest order. What will he do when any of these special forces operatives are captured by IS or killed by Russian or Syrian airstrikes? ..."
"... That is a valid point: Syria is a sovereign nation recognized by the U.N., and any foreign troops within without permission would be considered invaders. Of course, the U.S. ignores international law all the time. ..."
"... Anyway, foreign troops in Syria who are there without an invitation by Syrian government or authorisation by UNSC are there illegally and can be tried for war crimes if captured. Why is Obama putting his soldiers in this situation? ..."
"... The U.S. strategy in Syria is in tatters as Obama lamely tries to patch it up. The U.S. was determined to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria in service of the Saudis, Turkey, and Israel, while pretending to go after ISIS, who the Saudis and Turks were covertly funding. The U.S. were arming jihadists to oust Assad. That game is up, thanks to the Russians. Putin decided he wasn't going to stand by while the U.S. and its proxies created another Libya jihadist disaster in Syria. The forceful Russian intervention in going after ISIS showed the U.S. to be a faker, and caused a sea-change in U.S. policy. Now the U.S. can't pretend to go after ISIS while really trying to oust Assad. The Emporer has no clothes. ..."
"... Israel is an ally of KSA who is funding IS, Al Nusra, Al-Qaida and Al-Shabab. They are also partners with KSA in trying to prevent Iran's reintegration into global society following the nuclear deal, and the lifting of sanctions. ..."
"... I suspect that Israel wants to annex the Syrian Golan Heights permanently, and to extend their illegal settlements into the area. That can only happen if Assad is defeated. ..."
"... Wow, you make a lot of sense. I always thought the US military heavy foreign policy became insane because of Reagan. Maybe it was the loss of the USSR? ..."
"... Everyone here grew up being taught that the US is the champion of all that is good (sounds corny today). When the USSR dissolved, everyone imagined huge military cuts with the savings being invested in social benefits. If someone had predicted that, instead, we would grow our military, throw our civil rights away, embrace empire, assasinate US citizens without a trial, create total surveillance, create secret one sided star-chamber FISA courts that control a third of our economy, and choose a Dept. name heard previously only in Nazi movies (Homeland Security) --- we'd have laughed and dismissed the warning as delusion. ..."
"... You are correct. Obama is breaking UN international law, the US has no right to invade Syria. Russia, though, has been asked by the Syrian government for help, a government fully recognized by the UN. Russia has full UN sanctioned rights to help Syria. US news media will never explain this to the public, sadly. ..."
"... Obama's presidency lost its credibility a long time ago. He made so many rash promises and statements which one by one he has broken, that no free thinking person believes anything he says anymore. ..."
"... There's a world of difference between Russia taking steps to protect its immediate geographic and political interests (which were largely the wishes of the resident populations - something critics tend to overlook) and the USA invading Iraq (2003) in a blatant act of war, based on bullshit and then aiding and abetting mercenary terrorists in Syria in defiance of any declaration of war, UN resolution or invitation from the Syrian government to intervene. ..."
"... You might have also noticed that Syria is a long, long way from the USA. Rhetorically, WTF is the US doing in the Middle East? Propping up Saudi or Israel? Or both? ..."
"... ISIS == Mercenaries sponsored by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Does a strategy against our own mercenaries make sense??? ..."
"... Think about, when's the last time Saudi Arabia did anything progressive or humane in its foreign policy? Now remember this very same country is on the same side as the Americans. This is the country that invaded Bahrain and Yemen and labelled the civil rights movements in those countries as 'Iranian interference.' The Saudis who have been seeking to turn civil rights movements with rather nationalistic demands into religious and sectarian conflicts by playing different groups against each other are allied with the U.S. and sitting at the table in Vienna talking about peace in Syria. Nonsense upon stilts! ..."
"... ISIS poses no threat to the Americans and vice versa. The Americans therefore do not have an interest in making sure that ISIS is wiped out. On the contrary they want regional foes to suffer. ..."
"... The American attempt at negotiating peace in Syria without Syrian representation is nothing short of ridiculous and best illustrates the convoluted state of American foreign policy. America lost any claim to 'leadership' by now. ..."
"... Unfortunately American policy and that eu have at time added fuel to the fire. ..."
"... Russian Iranian and hezbollah boots are invited boots by the legitimate government according to the UN Charter they are all acting legally and according to the Geneva Conventions etc. ..."
"... The US led coalition in bombing Syria were not, and the admitted introduction of troops into Syria is a an ACT OF WAR by the USA, and it is the AGRESSOR here, not doubt about it. It's a War Crime by every standard ..."
"... See the NATO creep into Eastern Europe against all agreements made with USSR. ..."
"... But their real agenda is to carve up Syria. In the deep recesses of their, the Corporate corrupt White House's, mind ISIS is not their immediate problem. ISIS is a means to an end - carve up Syria a sovereign country. ..."
"... Remember, only months ago, Kerry and Tory William Hague, was handing out cash to Syrian rebels who later turned out to be ISIS rebels. We must never forget, Syria, right or wrong, is a sovereign country. ..."
"... Look at the mess they made in, Ukraine, with their friends a bunch of, Kiev, murdering neo-Nazi's. ..."
"... Just out of curiosity...how will the US keep the DoD and CIA from duking it out at the opposite fronts on the Syrian soil? ..."
"... Washington has clearly chosen to break International Law. ..."
"... Westphalian sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle of non-interference in another country's domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how large or small) is equal in international law ..."
"... As the administration in Washington is firmly in the grasp of special interest groups such as Big Pharma, The Banksters, Big Agrobusiness, Big oil, the MIC and Israel there is no chance of getting good policy decisions out of there until there is a regime change. ..."
"... You might think that having criticized Assad for shooting demonstrators who demonstrated against the corruption and inefficiency of his regime, and having said that as a result his regime had lost its legitimacy, they would apply the same yardstick to President Poroshenko when he shot up two provinces of his country for asking for federation, killing thousands in the process, but on the contrary they sent "advisers" to train his military and his Fascist helpers to use their weapons better, to shoot them up more effectively. ..."
"... However, one cannot really expect people who are exceptional to behave like ordinary (unexceptional) human beings. ..."
"... What is the official US line on the legality of these deployments in terms of international law? ..."
NATO and its allies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria .... they make a desert and call
it peace.
ID7582903 1 Nov 2015 06:19
"Credibility"? Beware and be aware folks. This isn't a monopoly game being played here; it's
for real.
2015 Valdai conference is Societies Between War and Peace: Overcoming the Logic of Conflict
in Tomorrow's World. In the period between October 19 and 22, experts from 30 countries have been
considering various aspects of the perception of war and peace both in the public consciousness
and in international relations, religion and economic interaction between states. Videos w live
translations and english transcripts (a keeper imho)
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/50548
30 Oct, 2015 - The day US announces Ground troops into Syria, and the day before the downing/crash
of the Russian Airbus 321 in the Sinai, this happened:
Russia has conducted a major test of its strategic missile forces, firing numerous ballistic and
cruise missiles from various training areas across the country, videos
uploaded by the Ministry of Defense have shown.
A routine exercise, possibly the largest of its kind this year, was intended to test the command
system of transmitting orders among departments and involved launches
from military ranges on the ground, at sea and in the air, the ministry said Friday.
30.10.2015
Since the beginning of its operation in Syria on September 30, Russian Aerospace Forces have carried
out 1,391 sorties in Syria, destroying a total of 1,623 terrorist targets, the Russian General
Staff said Friday.
In particular, Russian warplanes destroyed 249 Islamic State command posts, 51 training camps,
and 131 depots, Andrey Kartapolov, head of the Russian General Staff Main Operations Directorate
said.
"In Hanshih, a suburb of Damascus, 17 militants of the Al-Ghuraba group were executed in public
after they tried to leave the combat area and flee to Jordan," he specified. "The whole scene
was filmed in order to disseminate the footage among the other groups operating in the vicinity
of Damascus and other areas", the General Staff spokesman said. In the central regions of the
country, the Syrian Army managed to liberate 12 cities in the Hama province, Kartapolov said.
"The Syrian armed forces continue their advance to the north," the general added.
Yemen is another war the US is involved in thanks to the "peace" Pres. Obama. He has tried
to keep this war hidden from the public. His few mentions of this war have been limited to shallow
statements about his concern of the civilian casualty. What an insult to our intelligence! We
are well aware that the US provides the logistical and technical support, and refuelling of warplanes
to the Saudi coalition illegal war in Yemen. Moreover, by selling the Saudis cluster bombs and
other arms being used on civilians, Obama has enabled the Saudis in the last 8 moths to kill and
destruct in Yemen more than WW2, as evidence shows. According to Amnesty International and Human
Rights Watch, the US is complicit in international war crimes in Yemen.
After Obama's election, he went to Cairo to make a peace speech to the Arab world aiming to
diffuse the deep hatred towards the US created during the Bush era. Yet since then, Obama's foolish
alliances with despotic Arab rulers infesting ISIS and Al-Qaeda in the region, his drone warfare,
and warped war policies in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen, have only expanded and strengthened
ISIS and Al-Qaeda, and increased Arab citizens anger and hatred towards the US. This is Obama's
legacy!
Barmaidfromhell -> WSCrips 1 Nov 2015 03:52
Well said.
I always think there are similarities in Clinton and Obama s upbringing that created the
anormic sociopathic shape shifting personalities they demonstrate. Obviously carefully selected
to follow any line given them and amiable even charismatic enough to sell it to a stupid audience.
Why do we maintain the myth that the Obama brand is in anyway his personal contribution.
Anymore than Bush or Clinton. The only difference is the republicans are ideologues where's as
the puppets offered by the democrats are just psychotic shape shifters. In either way on a clear
day you can see the strings hanging from their wrists like ribbons.
Michael Imanual Christos -> Pete Piper 1 Nov 2015 00:28
Pete Piper
In brief;
The US is Allied with Saudi Arabia and Israel, that makes Saudi Arabia's and Israel's enemies
US enemies.
... ... ...
midnightschild10 31 Oct 2015 21:35
When Obama denounced Russia's actions in Syria, and blamed them for massive loss of civilian
lives, Russia responded by asking them to show their proof. The Administration spokesperson said
they got their information from social media. No one in the Administration seems to realize how
utterly stupid that sounds. Marie Harf is happily developing the Administration's foreign policy
via Twitter. As the CIA and NSA read Facebook for their daily planning, Obama reads the comments
section of newspapers to prepare for his speech to the American public in regard to putting boots
on the ground in Syria, and adding to the boots in Iraq. If it didn't result in putting soldiers
lives in jeopardy, it would be considered silly. Putin makes his move and watches as the Obama
Administration makes the only move they know, after minimal success in bombing, Obama does send
in the troops. Putin is the one running the game. Obama's response is so predictable. No wonder
the Russians are laughing. In his quest to outdo Cheyney, Obama has added to the number of wars
the US is currently involved in. His original claim to fame was to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
which then resulted in starting Iraq and Afghanistan Wars 2.0. Since helping to depose the existing
governments in the Middle East, leading not only to the resurgence of AlQuaeda, and giving birth
to ISIS, and leaving chaos and destruction in his wake, he decided to take down the last standing
ruler, hoping that if he does the same thing over and over, he will get a different result. Obama's
foreign policy legacy had been considered impotent at best, now its considered ridiculous.
SomersetApples 31 Oct 2015 20:03
We bombed them, we sent armies of terrorist in to kill them, we destroyed their hospitals and
power plants and cities, we put sanctions on them and we did everything in our power to cut off
their trading with the outside world, and yet they are still standing.
The only thing left to do, lets send in some special military operatives.
This is so out of character, or our perceived character of Obama. It must be that deranged
idiot John McCain pulling the strings.
Rafiqac01 31 Oct 2015 16:58
The notion that Obama makes his own decisions is laughable except it aint funny....having
just watched CNNs Long Road to Hell in Iraq....and the idiots advising Bush and Blair you have
to wonder the extent to which these are almighty balls ups or very sophisticated planning followed
up by post disaster rationalisation....
whatever the conclusion it proves that the intervention or non interventions prove their is
little the USA has done that has added any good value to the situation...indeed it is an unmitigated
disaster strewn around the world! Trump is the next generation frothing at the mouth ready to
show what a big John Wayne he is!!
DavidFCanada 31 Oct 2015 13:56
There is no 'Obama legacy' in the ME. It is a US legacy of blown attempts to control unwilling
countries and populations by coercion, and by military and economic warfare. That US legacy
will forever remain, burnt into skins and bodies of the living and dead, together with a virtually
unanimous recognition in the ME of the laughable US pretexts of supporting democracy, the rule
of law, religious freedom and, best of all, peace. Obama is merely the chief functionary of a
nation of lies.
Informed17 -> WSCrips 31 Oct 2015 13:47
Are you saying that there was no illegal invasion of Iraq? No vial of laundry detergent was
presented at the UN as "proof" that Iraq has WMDs? No hue and cry from "independent" media supported
that deception campaign? Were you in a deep coma at the time?
Informed17 -> somethingbrite 31 Oct 2015 13:36
No. But the US trampled on the international law for quite a while now, starting with totally
illegal interference in Yugoslavia in the 1990s.
WSCrips 31 Oct 2015 13:18
Hey Guardian Editors.....and all those who worshipped Obama....In America, there were folks
from the older generation that warned us that this Community Organizer was not ready for the Job
of President of the United States....it had nothing to do with his color, he just was not ready.....he
was a young, inexperienced Senator, who never, ever had a real job, never had a street fight growing
up pampered in Hawaii, was given a pass to great universities because his parents had money, and
was the dream Affirmative Action poster boy for the liberal left. Obama has not disappointed anyone
who tried to warn us......and now we will reap what he has sowed:
1. 8 Trillion to our debt
2. Nightmare in the Middleast (how is that Arab Spring)
3. Polarized America....Dems and Republicans hate each other....hate each other like the Irish
and English...10 x over.
4. War on Cops
5. War with China
6. Invasion from Central America
I see a great depression and World War IV on the horizon....and I am being positive!
SaveRMiddle 31 Oct 2015 12:47
Nothing Obama says has any value. We've watched the man lie with a grin and a chuckle.
Forever Gone is all trust.
His continued abuse of Red Line threats spoke volumes about the lawyer who Reactively micromanages
that which required and deserved an expert Proactive plan.
Let History reflect the horrific death CIA meddling Regime Change/Divide and Conquer creates.
HeadInSand2013 31 Oct 2015 12:45
Liberal activists were in little doubt that Obama has failed to live up to his commitment
to avoid getting dragged directly into the war.
With all due respects to M. Obama, this is another clear indication that the US President
is just a figure head. He is a front for the corporations that run the US behind the scene - the
so-called US military-industrial complex.
Liberal activists are stupid enough to think that M. Obama is actually in charge of the US
military or the US foreign policy. Just go back and count how many times during the last 6 years
M. Obama has made a declaration and then - sometimes the next day - US military has over-ruled
him.
Mediaking 31 Oct 2015 10:00
Perhaps you intentionally miss out the fact that it is the west that has Israel and the
Saudis as their best allies, considering their actions ( one with the largest/longest time concentration
camp in history, the other the exporter of the horror show of ISIL , both an abomination of their
respective religions . The west attempt to seek the moral high ground is more than a farce ...
all the world can see and know the game being played, but the mass media wishes to assume everyone
has half a brain... they are allergic to the truth , like the vampires to the light.
USA forces coming to the aid of their 5 individuals... yes 1,2,3,4,5 ( stated by US command-
there are only that amount of FSA fighters left - the rest have gone over to ISIL with their equipment -- ) the local population all speak of ISIL/Daesh being American/Israeli ,they say if this is a
civil war how come all the opposition are foreigners -- I think perhaps it's like the Ukraine affair...
a bunch of CIA paid Nazi thugs instigating a coup ... or like Venezuela agents on roof tops shooting
at both sides in demonstrations to get things going. The usual business of CIA/Mossad stuff in
tune with the mass media with their engineered narratives -- Followed by the trolls on cyber space...
no doubt we shall see them here too.
All note that an Intervention in Syria would be "ILLEGAL" by Int. law and sooner than later
will be sued in billions for it...on top of the billions spent on having a 5 person strong force
of FSA...spent from the American tax payers money . Syria has a government and is considered a
state at the UN . Iran and Russia are there at the request and permission of Syria .
Russia and Iran have been methodically wiping out Washington's mercenaries on the ground while
recapturing large swathes of land that had been lost to the terrorists. Now that the terrorists
are getting wiped out the west and the Saudis are are screaming blue murder !
I for one would have Assad stay , as he himself suggests , till his country is completely free
of terrorists, then have free elections . I would add , to have the Saudis and the ones in the
west/Turkey/Jordan charged for crimes against humanity for supplying and creating Daesh/ISIS .
This element cannot be ignored . Also Kurdistan can form their new country in the regions they
occupy as of this moment and Mosul to come. Iran,Russia,Iraq, Syria and the new Kurdistan will
sign up to this deal . Millions of Syrian refugees can then come back home and rebuild their broken
lives with Iranian help and cash damages from the mentioned instigators $400 billion . The cash
must be paid into the Syrian central bank before any elections take place ... Solved...
My consultancy fee - 200ml pounds sterling... I know ... you wish I ruled the world (who knows
!) - no scams please or else -- ( the else would be an Apocalypse upon the western equity markets
via the Illuminati i.e a 49% crash )... a week to pay , no worries since better to pay for a just
solution than to have million descend upon EU as refugees . It is either this or God's revenge
with no mercy .
amacd2 31 Oct 2015 09:52
Obama, being more honest but also more dangerous than Flip Wilson says, "The Empire made me
do it",
Bernie, having "reservations" about what Obama has done, says nothing against Empire, but continues
to pretend, against all evidence, that this is a democracy.
Hillary, delighting in more war, says "We came, we bombed, they all died, but the Empire won."
Talk about 'The Issue' to debate for the candidates in 2016?
"What's your position on the Empire?"
"Oh, what Empire, you ask?"
"The friggin Empire that you are auditioning to pose as the president of --- you lying tools
of both the neocon 'R' Vichy party and you smoother lying neoliberal-cons of the 'D' Vichy party!"
lightstroke -> Pete Piper 31 Oct 2015 09:41
Nukes are not on the table. Mutually Assured Destruction.
The stick I'm talking about is the total capacity of the US, military and economic, to
have things its way or make the opposition very unhappy.
It's not necessary to win wars to exercise that power. All they have to do is start them and
keep them going until the arms industry makes as much dough from them as possible. That's the
only win they care about.
What has it gotten us? Nothing good. What has it gotten the top 1 percent? All the money
we don't have.
Taku2 31 Oct 2015 09:26
Obama is being an absolute idiot in sending special forces to fight with rebels who are
fighting the legitimate government of Syria. This is stupidity of the highest order. What will
he do when any of these special forces operatives are captured by IS or killed by Russian or Syrian
airstrikes?
How stupid can a President get?
Obama does need to pull back on this one, even though it will make his stupid and erroneous
policy towards the Syrian tragedy seem completely headless. If this stupid and brainless policy
is meant to be symbolic, its potential for future catastrophic consequences is immeasurable.
phillharmonic -> nishville 31 Oct 2015 08:56
That is a valid point: Syria is a sovereign nation recognized by the U.N., and any foreign
troops within without permission would be considered invaders. Of course, the U.S. ignores international
law all the time.
nishville 31 Oct 2015 08:35
Syrian rebels fighting the Islamic State
And who are those then? Do they exist, do we have any reliable source confirming they are really
simultaneously fighting IS and Syrian Army or is it yet another US fairy tale?
Anyway, foreign troops in Syria who are there without an invitation by Syrian government
or authorisation by UNSC are there illegally and can be tried for war crimes if captured. Why
is Obama putting his soldiers in this situation?
phillharmonic 31 Oct 2015 08:33
The U.S. strategy in Syria is in tatters as Obama lamely tries to patch it up. The U.S.
was determined to overthrow the Assad regime in Syria in service of the Saudis, Turkey, and Israel,
while pretending to go after ISIS, who the Saudis and Turks were covertly funding. The U.S. were
arming jihadists to oust Assad. That game is up, thanks to the Russians. Putin decided he wasn't
going to stand by while the U.S. and its proxies created another Libya jihadist disaster in Syria.
The forceful Russian intervention in going after ISIS showed the U.S. to be a faker, and caused
a sea-change in U.S. policy. Now the U.S. can't pretend to go after ISIS while really trying to
oust Assad. The Emporer has no clothes.
amacd2 -> Woody Treasure 31 Oct 2015 08:31
Woody, did you mean "Obama is a foil (for the Disguised Global Crony-Capitalist Empire--- which
he certainly is), or did you mean to say "fool" (which he certainly is not, both because he is
a well paid puppet/poodle for this Global Empire merely HQed in, and 'posing' as, America ---
as Blair and Camron are for the same singular Global Empire --- and because Obama didn't end his
role as Faux/Emperor-president like JFK), eh?
Nena Cassol -> TonyBlunt 31 Oct 2015 06:48
Assad's father seized power with a military coup and ruled the country for 30 years, before
dying he appointed his son, who immediately established marshal law, prompting discontent even
among his father's die-hard loyalists ...this is plain history, is this what you call a legitimate
leader?
Cycles 31 Oct 2015 06:41
Forced to go in otherwise the Russians and Iranians get full control. Welcome to the divided
Syria a la Germany after WW2.
TonyBlunt -> Nena Cassol 31 Oct 2015 06:36
"It does not take much research to find out that Assad is not legitimate at all"
Please share your source with us Nena. But remember Langley Publications don't count.
TonyBlunt -> oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 06:29
The Americans do not recognise international law. They do not sign up to any of it and proclaim
the right to break it with their "exceptionalism".
Katrin3 -> herrmaya 31 Oct 2015 05:27
The Russians, US, Iran etc are all meeting right now in Vienna. The Russians and the US military
do communicate with each other, to avoid attacking each other by mistake.
The Russians are in the West and N.West of Syria. The US is going into the N. East, near IS
headquarters in Raqqa, to support the Kurdish YPG, who are only a few kilometers from the city.
Katrin3 -> ID6693806 31 Oct 2015 05:15
Israel is an ally of KSA who is funding IS, Al Nusra, Al-Qaida and Al-Shabab. They are
also partners with KSA in trying to prevent Iran's reintegration into global society following
the nuclear deal, and the lifting of sanctions.
I suspect that Israel wants to annex the Syrian Golan Heights permanently, and to extend
their illegal settlements into the area. That can only happen if Assad is defeated.
centerline ChristineH 31 Oct 2015 04:48
The Kurds are the fabled moderate opposition who are willing to negotiate, and who have also
fought with the Syrian government against US backed ISIS and al Nusra so called moderate opposition.
Pete Piper -> Verbum 31 Oct 2015 04:47
@Verbum Wow, you make a lot of sense. I always thought the US military heavy foreign policy became
insane because of Reagan. Maybe it was the loss of the USSR?
Everyone here grew up being taught that the US is the champion of all that is good (sounds
corny today). When the USSR dissolved, everyone imagined huge military cuts with the savings being
invested in social benefits. If someone had predicted that, instead, we would grow our military,
throw our civil rights away, embrace empire, assasinate US citizens without a trial, create total
surveillance, create secret one sided star-chamber FISA courts that control a third of our economy,
and choose a Dept. name heard previously only in Nazi movies (Homeland Security) --- we'd have
laughed and dismissed the warning as delusion.
gabriel90 -> confettifoot 31 Oct 2015 04:46
ISiS is destroying Syria thanks to the US and Saudi Arabia; its an instrument to spread chaos
in the Middle East and attack Iran and Russia...
ChristineH 31 Oct 2015 04:21
So, on the day peace talks open, the US unilaterally announces advice boots on the ground to
support one of the many sides in the Syrian War, who will undoubtedly want self determination,
right on Turkey's border, as they always have, and as has always been opposed by the majority
of the Syrian population. What part of that isn't completely mad?
Great sympathy for the situation of the Kurds in Syria under Assad, but their nationalism issue
and inability to work together with the Sunni rebels, was a major factor in the non formation
of a functioning opposition in Syria, and will be a block to peace, not its cause. It's also part
of a larger plan to have parts of Turkey and Iraq under Kurdish control to create a contingent
kingdom. Whatever the merits of that, the US deciding to support them at this stage is completely
irrational, and with Russia and Iran supporting Assad will lengthen the war, not shorten it.
MissSarajevo 31 Oct 2015 04:21
Just a couple of things here. How does the US know who the moderates are?!? Is this another
occasion that the US is going to use International law as toilet paper? The US will enter (as
if they weren't already there, illegally. They were not invited in by the legitimate leader of
Syria.
gabriel90 31 Oct 2015 04:19
Warbama is just trying to save his saudi/qatari/turk/emirati dogs of war... they will be wiped
out by Russia and the axis of resistance...
Pete Piper -> Michael Imanual Christos 31 Oct 2015 04:08
Does anyone see anything rational in US foreign policy? When I hear attempts to explain, they
vary around .. "it's about oil". But no one ever shows evidence continuous wars produced more
oil for anyone. So, are we deliberately creating chaos and misery? Why? To make new enemies we
can use to justify more war? We've now classified the number of countries we are bombing. Why?
The countries being bombed surely know.
Pete Piper -> oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 03:50
You are correct. Obama is breaking UN international law, the US has no right to invade
Syria. Russia, though, has been asked by the Syrian government for help, a government fully recognized
by the UN. Russia has full UN sanctioned rights to help Syria. US news media will never explain
this to the public, sadly.
Only the US routinely violates other nations' sovergnity. Since Korea, the only nation that
has ever used military force against a nation not on its border is the US.
Can anyone find rationality in US foreign policy? We are supposed to be fighting ISIL, but
Saudi Arabia and Israel appear to be helping ISIL to force Syrian regime change. And the US is
supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia that are routed to ISIL. Supposedly because eliminating President
Asad is more important than fighting ISIL? The US public is being misled into thinking we are
NOW fighting ISIL. After Asad is killed, then we will genuinely fight ISIL? Russia, Iran, and
more(?) will fight to keep Asad in power and then fight ISIL? THIS IS OBVIOUS BS, AND ALSO FUBAR.
By all means, get everyone together for some diplomacy.
oldholbornian -> lesmandalasdeniki 31 Oct 2015 03:36
Well lets look at Germany the centre of christian culture and the EU
reminds me of emporer franz josef in europe about 100 years ago .. meant well but led to ruination
..i dont think that there has been an american president involved in more wars than obama
obama by his cairo speech kicked of the arab spring ..shows that words can kill
however.. the experience he now has gained may lead to an avoidance of a greater sunni shia
war in syria if the present vienna talks can offer something tangible and preserve honour to the
sunnis .. in the mid east honour and macho are key elements in negotiations
iran however is a shia caliphate based regime and unless it has learnt the lesson from yemen
on the limitations of force may push for further success via army and diplomacy and control in
syria and iraq
oldholbornian 31 Oct 2015 02:42
But Obama's latest broken promise to avoid an "open-ended action" in Syria could lead to a
full-blown war with Russia considering that Russian military has been operating in Syria for weeks.
" For the first time ever, the American strategists have developed an illusion that they
may defeat a nuclear power in a non-nuclear war," Russian deputy prime minister Dmitry Rogozin
told AP. "It's nonsense, and it will never happen."
Any US / terrorist engagement with the Syrian security forces will include engaging with its
allies Russia
Once the firing starts Russia will include the US as terrorists with no rights to be in Syrian
and under the UN RULES have the right to defend themselves against the US
HollyOldDog -> foolisholdman 31 Oct 2015 02:32
Hmm Foreign snipers on rooftops ( not in the control of the government) how many times is this
scenario going to be played out before the 'press' twigs it than something is not making sense.
HollyOldDog -> foolisholdman 31 Oct 2015 02:29
Though in one demonstration there was snipers on rooftops shooting both deconstratirs and the
police - far more police were killed than demonstrators - what does this reming you of? Was these
actions seemingly out of the control of the government a preliminary to what happened in Kiev
during the maidan - practices get the technics right I suppose. - outside forces were obviously
at work ' stirring the pot.
Anna Eriksson 31 Oct 2015 02:24
Let's hope that the US will help out with taking in some refugees as well! In Germany, and
Sweden locals are becoming so frustrated and angry that they set refugee shelters on fire. This
is a trend in both Sweden and Germany, as shown in the maps in the links. There have almost been
90 arsons in Germany so far this year, almost 30 in Sweden.
Nobody tells the American people and nobody else really cares, but these 40-something guys
being sent to Syria are possibly there as:
cannon fodder: to deter the Russians from bombing and Iranians from attacking on the ground
the American friendly anti-Assad militant groups;
to collect and report more accurate intel from the front line (again about the Russian/Iranian
troops deployment/movement).
The Russian and Iranian troops on the ground will soon engage and sweep anti-Assad forces in
key regions in Western Syria. This will be slightly impeded if Americans are among them. But accidents
do happen, hence the term "cannon fodder".
The Russians and Iranians will likely take a step back militarily though for the duration of
talks, so the American plan to protect Saudi backed fighters is likely to work.
I never involved or mentioned ISIS because this is NOT about fighting ISIS. It's about counteracting
the Russian/Irania sweep in the area, and ultimately keeping the Americans in the game (sorry,
war).
petervietnam 31 Oct 2015 01:13
The world's policeman or the world's trouble maker?
Austin Young -> Will D 31 Oct 2015 00:34
But he's the "change we can believe in" guy! Oh right... Dem or republican, they spew anything
and everything their voters want to hear but when it comes time to walk the walk the only voice
in their head is Cash Money.
lesmandalasdeniki -> Bardhyl Cenolli 30 Oct 2015 23:34
It frustrates me, anyone who will be the problem-solver will be labeled as dangerous by the
Western political and business leaders if the said person or group of people can not be totally
controlled for their agenda.
This will be the first time I will be speaking about the Indonesian forest fires that started
from June this year until now. During the period I was not on-line, I watched the local news and
all channels were featuring the same problem every day during the last two-weeks.
US is also silent about it during Obama - Jokowi meeting, even praising Jokowi being on the
right track. After Jokowi came back, his PR spin is in the force again, he went directly to Palembang,
he held office and trying to put up an image of a President that cared for his people. He couldn't
solve the Indonesian forest fires from June - October, is it probably because Jusuf Kalla has
investment in it?
My point is, US and the Feds, World Bank and IMF are appointing their puppets on each country
they have put up an investment on terms of sovereign debt and corporate debt/bonds.
And Obama is their puppet.
Will D 30 Oct 2015 23:30
Obama's presidency lost its credibility a long time ago. He made so many rash promises
and statements which one by one he has broken, that no free thinking person believes anything
he says anymore.
He has turned out to be a massive disappointment to all those who had such high hopes that
he really would make the world a better place. His failure and his abysmal track record will cause
him to be remembered as the Nobel Peace prize wining president who did exactly the opposite of
what he promised, and failed to further the cause of peace.
Greg_Samsa -> Greenacres2002 30 Oct 2015 23:07
Consistency is at the heart of logic, all mathematics, and hard sciences.
Even the legal systems strive to be free of contradictions.
I'd rather live in world with consistency of thought and action as represented by the Russian
Federation, then be mired in shit created by the US who have shed all the hobgoblins pestering
the consistency of their thoughts and actions.
Never truly understood the value of this stupid quote really...
Phil Atkinson -> PaulF77 30 Oct 2015 22:28
There's a world of difference between Russia taking steps to protect its immediate geographic
and political interests (which were largely the wishes of the resident populations - something
critics tend to overlook) and the USA invading Iraq (2003) in a blatant act of war, based on bullshit
and then aiding and abetting mercenary terrorists in Syria in defiance of any declaration of war,
UN resolution or invitation from the Syrian government to intervene.
You might have also noticed that Syria is a long, long way from the USA. Rhetorically,
WTF is the US doing in the Middle East? Propping up Saudi or Israel? Or both?
MainstreamMedia Propaganda 30 Oct 2015 22:03
ISIS == Mercenaries sponsored by the US, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey. Does a strategy against
our own mercenaries make sense???
I think blatant policy changes like this show just how ineffectual the US president actually
is. The hand over between Bush and Obama has been seamless. Gitmo still going, patriot act renewed,
Libya a smoldering ruin (4 years down the line), no progress on gun control, troops in Afganistan
and Iraq... it goes on...
HowSicklySeemAll 30 Oct 2015 21:58
"It's really hard to see how this tiny number of troops embedded on the ground is going
to turn the tide in any way."
Or the U.S. could carry out air strikes against Hezbollah which has been fighting ISIS for
a while now. They could also supply weapons to ISIS (who are dubbed 'moderates') to counter Russian
airstrikes and Iranian man power.
Think about, when's the last time Saudi Arabia did anything progressive or humane in its
foreign policy? Now remember this very same country is on the same side as the Americans. This
is the country that invaded Bahrain and Yemen and labelled the civil rights movements in those
countries as 'Iranian interference.' The Saudis who have been seeking to turn civil rights movements
with rather nationalistic demands into religious and sectarian conflicts by playing different
groups against each other are allied with the U.S. and sitting at the table in Vienna talking
about peace in Syria. Nonsense upon stilts!
Phil Atkinson -> Harry Bhai 30 Oct 2015 21:57
Fuck the al-Sauds and their oil. If the US wants their oil (and there's plenty of other oil
sellers in the world) then just take it. Why not be consistent?
templeforjerusalem 30 Oct 2015 21:51
IS has shown itself to be deeply hateful of anything that conflicts with their narrow religious
interpretations. Destroying Palmyra, murdering indiscriminately, without any clear international
agenda other than the formation of a new Sunni Sharia State, makes them essentially enemies of
everybody. Although I do agree that belligerent secular Netanyahu's Israel sets a bad example
in the area, Israel does not tend to murder over the same primitive values that IS uses, although
there's not much difference in reality.
IS uses extermination tactics, Israel used forced land clearance and concentration camp bombing
(Gaza et al), while the US in Iraq used brutal force. None of this is good but nothing justifies
the shear barbarism of IS. Is there hope in any of this? No. Is Russian and US involvement a major
escalation? Yes.
Ultimately, this is about religious identities refusing to share and demand peace. Sunni vs
Shia, Judeo/Catholic/Protestant West vs Russian Orthodox, secular vs orthodox Israel. No wonder
people are saying Armageddon.
HowSicklySeemAll 30 Oct 2015 21:50
ISIS poses no threat to the Americans and vice versa. The Americans therefore do not have
an interest in making sure that ISIS is wiped out. On the contrary they want regional foes to
suffer. The only countries and groups that have been successfully fighting ISIS - Assad's
forces, Iranians, Hezbollah, Russians, and Kurds are in fact enemies of either the U.S., Saudis,
Israelis, or Turks. Isn't that strange? The countries and peoples that have suffered the most
and that have actually fought against ISIS effectively are seen as the enemy. Do the powers that
be really want to wipe out ISIS at all costs? No, especially if it involves the Iranians and Russians.
How are Russian boots on the ground - of which there have been many for some time - ok
and American boots bad?
The difference is that of a poison and the antidotum. The American/NATO meddling in Iraq, Libya
and Syria created a truly sick situation which needs to be fixed. That's what the Russians are
doing. Obviously, they have their own objectives and motives for that and are protecting their
own interests, but nevertheless this is the surest way to re-establish semblance of stability
in the Middle East, rebuilt Syria and Iraq, stop the exodus of the refugees, and mend relations
in the region.
The American attempt at negotiating peace in Syria without Syrian representation is nothing
short of ridiculous and best illustrates the convoluted state of American foreign policy. America
lost any claim to 'leadership' by now.
I feel sorry for Mr Obama, and indeed America, because he is a decent person, yet most of us
are unaware what forces he has to reckon with behind the scenes. It is clear by now that interests
of corporations and rich individuals, as well as a couple of seemingly insignificant foreign states,
beat the national interest of America all time, anytime. It is astonishing how a powerful, hard
working and talented nation can become beholden to such forces, to its own detriment.
In the end, I do not think the situation is uniquely American. Russia or China given a chance
of total hegemony would behave the same. That's why we need a field of powers/superpowers to keep
one another in check and negotiate rather than enforce solutions.
ID9309755 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 21:02
Unfortunately American policy and that eu have at time added fuel to the fire. Yes,
the me has its own problems, including rival versions of Islam and fundamentalism as well as truly
megalomaniac leaders. But in instances (Libya for example) they did truly contribute to the country's
destruction (and I am not excusing Gaddafi, but for the people there sometimes having these leaders
and waiting for generational transformations may be a better solution than instant democracy pills.)
ID7582903 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 21:00
Russian Iranian and hezbollah boots are invited boots by the legitimate government according
to the UN Charter they are all acting legally and according to the Geneva Conventions etc.
The US led coalition in bombing Syria were not, and the admitted introduction of troops
into Syria is a an ACT OF WAR by the USA, and it is the AGRESSOR here, not doubt about it. It's
a War Crime by every standard
Obama and the "regime" that rules the United Snakes of America have all gone over the edge
into insanity writ large.
ID9309755 -> pegasusrose2011 30 Oct 2015 20:55
To clarify, I meant that all these groups are funded by these Arabic sheikhdoms and it increasingly
appears that th us of a is not as serious in eradicating all of them in the illusion that the
so called softer ones will over through Assad and then it will be democracy, the much misused
and fetishised term. Meanwhile we can carve up the country, Turkey gets a bite and our naughty
bloated allies in Arabia will be happy with their influence. Only if it happened that way...
There is much more than this short and simplified scenario, and yes Russia played its hand
rather well taking the west off guard. And I am not trying to portray Putin as some liberation
prophet either. So perhaps you could say that yes, maybe I have looked into it deep...
BlooperMario -> RedEyedOverlord 30 Oct 2015 20:52
China and Russia are only responding to NY World Bank and IMF cheats and also standing up to
an evil empire that has ruined the middle east.
Time you had a rethink old chap and stopped worshipping Blair; Bush; Rumsfeld etc as your heros.
See the NATO creep into Eastern Europe against all agreements made with USSR.
Silly Sailors provoking Chinese Lighthouse keepers.
RoyRoger 30 Oct 2015 19:30
Their Plan B is fucked !!
But their real agenda is to carve up Syria. In the deep recesses of their, the Corporate
corrupt White House's, mind ISIS is not their immediate problem. ISIS is a means to an end - carve
up Syria a sovereign country.
Remember, only months ago, Kerry and Tory William Hague, was handing out cash to Syrian
rebels who later turned out to be ISIS rebels. We must never forget, Syria, right or wrong, is
a sovereign country.
The real battle/plan for the Corporate corrupt White House is to try and get a foothold in
Syria and establish a military dictator after a coup d'etat'. As we know it's what they, the West,
do best.
Look at the mess they made in, Ukraine, with their friends a bunch of, Kiev, murdering
neo-Nazi's.
In the interest of right is right; Good Luck Mr Putin !! I'm with you all the way.
weematt 30 Oct 2015 19:25
War (and poverty too) a consequence, concomitant, of competing for markets, raw materials and
trade routes or areas of geo-political dominance, come to be seen as 'natural' outcomes of society,
but are merely concomitants of a changeable social system.
... ... ...
Greg_Samsa 30 Oct 2015 19:21
Just out of curiosity...how will the US keep the DoD and CIA from duking it out at the
opposite fronts on the Syrian soil?
This gives a whole new dimension to the term 'blue-on-blue'.
Kevin Donegan 30 Oct 2015 18:59
Washington has clearly chosen to break International Law.
"Westphalian sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation state has sovereignty
over its territory and domestic affairs, to the exclusion of all external powers, on the principle
of non-interference in another country's domestic affairs, and that each state (no matter how
large or small) is equal in international law. The doctrine is named after the Peace of Westphalia,
signed in 1648, which ended the Thirty Years' War, in which the major continental European states
– the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, France, Sweden and the Dutch Republic – agreed to respect one
another's territorial integrity. As European influence spread across the globe, the Westphalian
principles, especially the concept of sovereign states, became central to international law and
to the prevailing world order.[1]"
foolisholdman 30 Oct 2015 18:41
As the administration in Washington is firmly in the grasp of special interest groups such
as Big Pharma, The Banksters, Big Agrobusiness, Big oil, the MIC and Israel there is no chance
of getting good policy decisions out of there until there is a regime change.
If ever there was a government hat had lost its legitimacy the present US government is it.
foolisholdman -> Johnny Kent 30 Oct 2015 18:31
Johnny Kent
The slight question of legality in placing troops in a sovereign country without permission
or UN approval is obviously of no importance to the US...and yet they criticise Russia for
'annexing Crimea...
Yes, but you see: the two cases are not comparable because the USA is exceptional.
You might think that having criticized Assad for shooting
demonstrators who demonstrated
against the corruption and inefficiency of his regime, and having said that as a result his regime
had lost its legitimacy, they would apply the same yardstick to President Poroshenko when he shot
up two provinces of his country for asking for federation, killing thousands in the process, but
on the contrary they sent "advisers" to train his military and his Fascist helpers to use their
weapons better, to shoot them up more effectively.
However, one cannot really expect people who are exceptional to behave like ordinary (unexceptional)
human beings.
WalterCronkiteBot 30 Oct 2015 17:11
What is the official US line on the legality of these deployments in terms of international
law?
Noone seems to even raise it as an issue, its all about congressional approval. Just like the
UK drone strikes.
"... Look over there! Putin is all over the place these days, he is doing Brexit, supporting Trump, and Corbyn I think, he is hacking Hillary, wow. ..."
Look over there! Putin is all over the place these days, he is doing Brexit, supporting Trump,
and Corbyn I think, he is hacking Hillary, wow. And he still has time to ride horses and
play with tigers and invade Europe. I see why he is popular.
But it's nice to be Russian, I like Russia, it's a beautiful country. Until now the Bernie
people were all sexists, racists, privileged homeless idiots who lived in basements, but now we
are Russians. Much better. See that's the Hillary outreach to the bros.
"... millions of people in the Islamic world have reached their own conclusion about responsibility. ..."
"... Deeply distrusting anything coming from Washington, many are buying into a theory based not on facts or evidence but the assumption that the West and Israel are capable of anything. ..."
"... When I was in Iraq in 2004 I had a Turkish contractor I worked with there (he owned a generator maintenance/repair shop) tell me it was unfortunate that Bush did not understand that the Israelis paid for and helped to execute the WTC blowup. ..."
"... To be perfectly frank, I told him it would not have surprised me in the least if it were true. ..."
While Western leaders declare they have incontrovertible, if
not yet public, proof that Saudi fugitive Osama bin Laden was behind
the attacks, millions of people in the Islamic world have
reached their own conclusion about responsibility.
Deeply distrusting anything coming
from Washington, many are buying into a theory based not on facts or
evidence but the assumption that the West and Israel are capable of
anything.
It's only a conspiracy theory if you have a deerstalker turban.
This story has been circulating in various forms over there for years.
When I was in Iraq in 2004 I had a Turkish contractor I worked with there
(he owned a generator maintenance/repair shop) tell me it was unfortunate
that Bush did not understand that the Israelis paid for and helped to execute
the WTC blowup.
To be perfectly frank, I told him it would not have surprised me in the
least if it were true.
DNC is just a cesspool of neocon sharks. No decency whatsoever. What a bottom
feeders. Will Sanders supporters walk out ?
Notable quotes:
"... They made Craigslist posts on fake Trump jobs talking about women needing to be hot for the job and "maintain hotness" https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12803 ..."
"... DNC and Hillary moles inside the Bernie campaign https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4776 ..."
"Hey Josh, since the Sanders camp keeps pushing stories about the money
laundering, we're prepping a Medium post from either our CFO or our CEO
we want to run by you. It will sharply state that the criticisms are wrong,
etc.. basically our talking points in a Medium post format with some extra
detail."
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4091
DWS on Bernie staying in the race in April: "Spoken like someone who
has never been a member of the Democratic Party and has no understanding
of what to do"
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/5477 )
Calling someone a Bernie Bro for wanting to interview DWS about money
laundering, which they call "a shit topic". Asks for an interview next week
on another topic.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13319
Media Collaboration
"I think the best reporter to give the news to ahead of time is Greg
Sargent at the Washington Post. But, the specific reporter is not as important
as getting it to an outlet before the news breaks so we can help control
the narrative on the front"
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11242
More media collusion (Politico) "Vogel gave me his story ahead of time/before
it goes to his editors as long as I didn't share it. Let me know if you
see anything that's missing and I'll push back." Thanks to
/u/PM_ME_OR_PM_ME
"-- Last night, Hillary attended two high-dollar fundraisers in New
York City. The first, from 6:15 p.m. to 7:45 p.m., was at the home of Maureen
White and Steven Rattner. Approximately 15 attendees contributed $100,000+
to attend. Then, from 8:15 p.m. to 9:45 p.m., she went to the home of Lynn
Forester de Rothschild. Another 15 people ponied up more than 100K to attend."
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/1238
"less than 1 percent of the $61 million raised by that effort has stayed
in the state parties' coffers, according to a POLITICO analysis of the latest
Federal Election Commission filing"
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/1724
Targeting Wall Street donors. Thanks
/u/Cygnus_X
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/998
More info: "One big Clinton donor on Wall Street said that Bush donors
are prime targets and that 'we're a big tent.' Potential sources of support
for Clinton could include people like Jack Oliver, who also served as a
top fundraiser for Jeb Bush. Both Johnson and Oliver did not respond to
requests for comment.The race for Wall Street cash will be intense."-
/u/Cygnus_X
Personal note: honestly this feels like browsing a bunch of high school
girls' emails. "Is there a fuck you emoji", "bahahaha", someone links to
round of applause by lady gaga.
Tons of media manipulation.
Also, kinda feel bad for Bernie supporters now. The system, like trump
mentioned in his speech, was against you completely.
This short article contains several very deep observations. Highly
recommended...
Notable quotes:
"... There is no way to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs or ExxonMobil or Raytheon. We've lost our privacy. We've seen, under Obama, an assault against civil liberties that has outstripped what George W. Bush carried out. ..."
"... This has been a bipartisan effort, because they've both been captured by corporate power. We have undergone what John Ralston Saul correctly calls a corporate coup d'état in slow motion, and it's over. ..."
"... First, it dislocated the working class, deindustrialized the country. Then, in the name of austerity, it destroyed public institutions, education, public broadcasting. And then it poisoned the political system. And we are now watching, in Poland, they created a 30,000 to 40,000 armed militia. You know, they have an army. The Parliament, nothing works. And I think that this political system in the United States has seized up in exactly the same form. ..."
"... So, is Trump a repugnant personality? Yes. Although I would argue that in terms of megalomania and narcissism, Hillary Clinton is not far behind. But the point is, we've got to break away from-which is exactly the narrative they want us to focus on. ..."
"... I mean, this whole debate over the WikiLeaks is insane. Did Russia? I've printed classified material that was given to me by the Mossad. But I never exposed that Mossad gave it to me. Is what was published true or untrue? And the fact is, you know, in those long emails -- you should read them. They're appalling, including calling Dr. Cornel West "trash." It is-the whole-it exposes the way the system was rigged, within-I'm talking about the Democratic Party -- the denial of independents, the superdelegates, the stealing of the caucus in Nevada, the huge amounts of corporate money and super PACs that flowed into the Clinton campaign. ..."
"... Clinton has a track record, and it's one that has abandoned children. I mean, she and her husband destroyed welfare as we know it, and 70 percent of the original recipients were children. ..."
"... Trump is not the phenomenon. Trump is responding to a phenomenon created by neoliberalism. And we may get rid of Trump, but we will get something even more vile ..."
CHRIS HEDGES : Well, reducing the election to personalities
is kind of infantile at this point. The fact is, we live in a system that Sheldon
Wolin calls inverted totalitarianism. It's a system where corporate power has
seized all of the levers of control. There is no way to vote against the interests
of Goldman Sachs or ExxonMobil or Raytheon. We've lost our privacy. We've seen,
under Obama, an assault against civil liberties that has outstripped what George
W. Bush carried out. We've seen the executive branch misinterpret the 2001 Authorization
to Use Military Force Act as giving itself the right to assassinate American
citizens, including children. I speak of Anwar al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son.
We have bailed out the banks, pushed through programs of austerity. This
has been a bipartisan effort, because they've both been captured by corporate
power. We have undergone what John Ralston Saul correctly calls a corporate
coup d'état in slow motion, and it's over.
I just came back from Poland, which is a kind of case study of how
neoliberal poison destroys a society and creates figures like Trump. Poland
has gone, I think we can argue, into a neofascism.
First, it dislocated the working class, deindustrialized the country.
Then, in the name of austerity, it destroyed public institutions, education,
public broadcasting. And then it poisoned the political system. And we are now
watching, in Poland, they created a 30,000 to 40,000 armed militia. You know,
they have an army. The Parliament, nothing works. And I think that this political
system in the United States has seized up in exactly the same form.
So, is Trump a repugnant personality? Yes. Although I would argue that
in terms of megalomania and narcissism, Hillary Clinton is not far behind. But
the point is, we've got to break away from-which is exactly the narrative they
want us to focus on. We've got to break away from political personalities
and understand and examine and critique the structures of power. And, in fact,
the Democratic Party, especially beginning under Bill Clinton, has carried water
for corporate entities as assiduously as the Republican Party. This is something
that Ralph Nader understood long before the rest of us, and stepped out very
courageously in 2000. And I think we will look back on that period and find
Ralph to be an amazingly prophetic figure. Nobody understands corporate power
better than Ralph. And I think now people have caught up with Ralph.
And this is, of course, why I support Dr. Stein and the Green Party. We have
to remember that 10 years ago, Syriza, which controls the Greek government,
was polling at exactly the same spot that the Green Party is polling now-about
4 percent. We've got to break out of this idea that we can create systematic
change within a particular election cycle. We've got to be willing to step out
into the political wilderness, perhaps, for a decade. But on the issues of climate
change, on the issue of the destruction of civil liberties, including our right
to privacy-and I speak as a former investigative journalist, which doesn't exist
anymore because of wholesale government surveillance-we have no ability, except
for hackers.
I mean, this whole debate over the WikiLeaks is insane. Did Russia? I've
printed classified material that was given to me by the Mossad. But I never
exposed that Mossad gave it to me. Is what was published true or untrue? And
the fact is, you know, in those long emails -- you should read them. They're
appalling, including calling Dr. Cornel West "trash." It is-the whole-it exposes
the way the system was rigged, within-I'm talking about the Democratic Party
-- the denial of independents, the superdelegates, the stealing of the caucus
in Nevada, the huge amounts of corporate money and super PACs that flowed into
the Clinton campaign.
The fact is, Clinton has a track record, and it's one that has abandoned
children. I mean, she and her husband destroyed welfare as we know it, and 70
percent of the original recipients were children.
This debate over -- I don't like Trump, but Trump is not the phenomenon.
Trump is responding to a phenomenon created by neoliberalism. And we may get
rid of Trump, but we will get something even more vile, maybe Ted Cruz.
...the dystopia of the Wachowski Brothers' Matrix trilogy is already here: the
technological-industrial 'machine' is already running the world, a world where individual
humans are but insignificant little cogs with barely any autonomy. No single human
being - neither the most powerful politician, nor the most powerful businessman
- has the power to rein in the system. They necessarily have to follow the inexorable
logic of what has been unleashed.
~ G Sampath on John Zerzan
Neo: I can't go back, can I?
Morpheus: No. But if you could, would you really want to? ...We never free a mind
once it's reached a certain age. It's dangerous, the mind has trouble letting go...
As long as the Matrix exists, the human race will never be free.
~ The Matrix
Notable quotes:
"... And if they (Pentagon, DoD, etc…) resist new guidance, what is going to be done about it? ..."
"... It seems to me like the major sovereignty-violating actions of the US Gov't happen with the approval of the executive branch. The military and intelligence services generally don't speak out or publicly act against the president's policies. They do leak a bunch of shit everywhere (the mysterious "high-ranking anonymous Obama official" who seems to pop up whenever the president's policies need to be opposed), but that you can live with. ..."
Are we assuming that the Pentagon, DoD, etc… are just going to accept
new guidance from the top? (That sounds like wishful thinking to me.)
And if they (Pentagon, DoD, etc…) resist new guidance, what is going
to be done about it? Currently more Americans trust the military than any
institution or politician. I highly doubt anyone could swing public opinion
against the Deep State at this point in time.
Daryl
It seems to me like the major sovereignty-violating actions of the US
Gov't happen with the approval of the executive branch. The military and
intelligence services generally don't speak out or publicly act against
the president's policies. They do leak a bunch of shit everywhere (the mysterious
"high-ranking anonymous Obama official" who seems to pop up whenever the
president's policies need to be opposed), but that you can live with.
JKF? I didn't know that the historian John King Fairbank was assassinated.
roadrider
Then I guess you have solid evidence to account for the actions of Allen
Dulles, David Atlee Phillips, William Harvey, David Morales, E. Howard Hunt,
Richard Helms, James Angleton and other CIA personnel and assets who had
perhaps the strongest motives to murder Kennedy
the means to carry out the crime, namely, their executive action
(assassination) capability and blackmail the government into aiding their
cover up and
the opportunity to carry out such a plan given their complete
lack of accountability to the rest of the government and their unmatched
expertise in lying, deceit, secrecy, fraud.
Because if you actually took the time to research or at least read about
their actions in this matter instead of just spouting bald assertions that
you decline to back up with any facts you would find their behavior nearly
impossible to explain other than having at, the very least, guilty knowledge
of the crime.
That there is no witnesses is odd. A couple of factors though.
I think the rocket engine has a 14 second burn time (depending on model)
14 seconds at Mach 2.7 is approximately 12.8 km though it would be slightly
less due to the acceleration stage.
So if a BUK missile was launched more than 12/13 kilometres from the
target there would be no smoke plume as it gets close to the target.
According to the original investigation report there was heavy cloud
to the south of the crash site and showers. I think that weather report
was for midday on the 17th.
But showers and cloud would greatly reduce viability as far as the smoke
plume.
In the original report put out by Almaz-Antey the possible launch site
at that time may have been covered by heavy cloud and showers.
"... I said from the very beginning of Sanders campaign, that an old, lefty, New York Jew is going to have a really tough time connecting with older, black voters in the south. ..."
"... I don't think most Americans realize just how conservative southern blacks really are, particularly the ones old enough to remember the bad old days of segregation and before. ..."
"... the social climate in the south would reward and penalize behaviors by both whites and blacks in a manner very different from cultures found in the north and the west. ..."
"... Radical personalities and those who are quick to embrace new ideas don't fare very well in those parts of the country. Slow, steady, quite and modest is your best bet for survival. ..."
"... Almost like Clinton's "slow incremental change" campaign theme. ..."
I really liked Charles Blow's insightful comment about two Black Americas and the great migration.
I am white but I like to think that I know a little about Black America. I've travelled and lived
all over the US now, but I grew up in the eighties in a small, racially divided southern town.
I attended a public school that was 60% black and every black teacher of mine in elementary school
was formerly employed by the "separate but equal" black school system prior to desegregation.
I didn't realize how close I was to the bad ole' segregated south growing up, but it boggles my
mind and certain things make more sense to me now looking back. I was raised by my working mother
and two different black nannies. They were surrogate moms to me. I would play with their nieces,
nephews and grand-children at their house sometimes and other times at my parents. I even attended
church with them on a couple of different occasions. I left the south after graduating college
but I didn't forget the lessons of my youth. I said from the very beginning of Sanders campaign,
that an old, lefty, New York Jew is going to have a really tough time connecting with older, black
voters in the south.
I don't think most Americans realize just how conservative southern blacks really are,
particularly the ones old enough to remember the bad old days of segregation and before.
The cultural DNA of the diaspora blacks of the north and the blacks that stayed behind is very
different. Besides the attitudes and personality types that may have been more likely to migrate
north or west, it's important to remember that the social climate in the south would reward
and penalize behaviors by both whites and blacks in a manner very different from cultures found
in the north and the west.
There are still plenty of strong pockets of racism today outside of the south, particularly
in the northeast, appalachia, and the midwest but nowhere I've visited can compare to racism found
in the deep southern states of the Gulf and Mississippi delta region.
Radical personalities and those who are quick to embrace new ideas don't fare very well
in those parts of the country. Slow, steady, quite and modest is your best bet for survival.
Almost like Clinton's "slow incremental change" campaign theme. Clinton keeps running
up the delegate score with the support of southern black grannies like the ones who raised me,
but she is running out of deep south. Meanwhile Sanders is forging new coalitions and crushing
the under-forty vote, so even if he can't win the DNC's rigged primary this year the future looks
bright for leaders that want to pick up Sanders mantle in the near future.
Besides the attitudes and personality types that may have been more likely to migrate north
or west, it's important to remember that the social climate in the south would reward and penalize
behaviors by both whites and blacks in a manner very different from cultures found in the north
and the west.
Very true & excellent point. I grew up in small town Alabama & permanently moved away in January
1990. It is a very pro-establishment place, where, at least back then, people who were willing
to be noticeably different had to be very exceptional in some way or willing & able to fend for
themselves, otherwise they would be ostracized or bullied. Birmingham & Tuscaloosa were better,
at least in pockets, but outside of the university system you were still expected to behave in
a very conservative manner. Going home to visit over the years & seeing giant billboards–in cities!–saying
things like "Go to church or go to Hell" (that is an exact quote; I shall never forget it; horribly
wrongheaded and asinine even from a fundamentalist Christian perspective) or "praise be the glory
of the fetus, may those who harm it suffer eternal torment" (not an exact quote but pretty much
an exact sentiment on a large # of signs) did not make me change my thoughts a whole hella lot,
or–and this is kinda funny in light of my current politics–talking with a group of business owners
in an airport who suddenly turned their backs on me & excluded me from conversation when they
were trashing Hillary and I said "I like Hillary" & after a shocked silence one of them said "You
need to listen to Rush Limbaugh son, learn some things" followed by "I've heard Rush. Not really
a fan." That ended that conversation abruptly. Among other things.
And I have (or rather had, kinda lost touch) friends from Alabama involved in state & national
democratic politics, and whatever their private inclinations they were just as conservative as
the Republicans (among whom I had an equal # of friends) on most things in public, and kept very
quiet about issues where they were not with the growing conservative majority there (it should
be noted that this is a HORRIBLE long term strategy, if you have actual principles in opposition
to the spreading & solidifying right-wing belief system). I had nonetheless expected better from
the South, and am still disappointed/horrified at the voting there, but this reminder does explain
a lot. With a lot of help from the DNC & MSM, they were convinced Bernie would not win, and might
even lose by an amount they would find embarrassing, & knowingly fighting a lost cause is (or
was) generally derided back there, and no one wants to be an object of derision. Also, a lot of
Southerners just don't like people from the Northeast. End stop. I for some reason thought that
would have changed by now, and/or that Bernie was sufficiently atypical for this to be a non-factor
anyway. But maybe not. Plus it may be people still consider Hillary a Southerner from her time
in Arkansas, and she's getting the "one of us" vote.
but she is running out of deep south.
Indeed. Temperaments out west are very, very different. =)
"... Rile the masses up against the Commie Threat, as it worked so well in the 50's - 60's. Save us the expense of rewriting the playbook. Sure. Duck and cover. ..."
"... But the first place I would look is inside the DNC, if I were in charge. Russian intel releasing to wikileaks? Not much profit in that. ..."
"... By the way, whatever became of dearest FBI frontman Comey? ..."
"It might have well been an insider who copied the material and handed them to Wikileaks for publication"
Why this idea gets no traction, obviously -- without an admission of authenticity from DNC,
they have it both ways, the ability to ascribe guilt to Russia, and plausible deniability vis
a vis Sanders. Let's not rule out a purposeful leak as a gloating advertisement for DNC sponsors/donors,
or just as likely as a forgery using wikileaks as conduit for disinformation by anti-DNC ops.
The Guccifer blip is just as believable valid as any of these theories, upo.
Rile the masses up against the Commie Threat, as it worked so well in the 50's - 60's.
Save us the expense of rewriting the playbook. Sure. Duck and cover.
But the first place I would look is inside the DNC, if I were in charge. Russian intel
releasing to wikileaks? Not much profit in that.
By the way, whatever became of dearest FBI frontman Comey?
"... My own take away is that in order for the investment in electronic election fraud to pay off, polls must be discredited. ..."
"... It used to be that exit polling was the best, most reliable defense against election fraud, and was used all over the globe to access the legitimacy of election results. ..."
"... The decline in polling accuracy will lead to more audacious efforts, probably successful, to steal elections as the people are trained not to believe poll results. ..."
"... Most pollsters now days are actually trying to influence as opposed to measure the mood of the electorate, this hasn't helped matters, and probably accounts for most of the negative sentiment held by the people as concerns pollsters. ..."
"... Interesting point, Watt4Bob. The golden age of polling happened when most households had a landline. Before then, access was a problem. Now there are too many alternative communication channels, and each has its demographic bias (more old people on landlines, etc.). ..."
"... The polls in MI were not exit polls. Exit polling is more accurate. The MI polls were phone calls to land lines, which left out millennials completely, as maybe 1% of them own a land line telephone. ..."
My own take away is that in order for the investment in electronic
election fraud to pay off, polls must be discredited.
It used to be that exit polling was the best, most reliable defense
against election fraud, and was used all over the globe to access the legitimacy
of election results.
So far the history of electronic manipulation has overlapped the
history of effective polling, which means the manipulators have only felt
safe changing votes when the margin is very close.
The decline in polling accuracy will lead to more audacious efforts,
probably successful, to steal elections as the people are trained not to
believe poll results.
Most pollsters now days are actually trying to influence as opposed
to measure the mood of the electorate, this hasn't helped matters, and probably
accounts for most of the negative sentiment held by the people as concerns
pollsters.
Looks like this could be the last election cycle where anyone pays attention
to the polls, and that isn't good for us, it would be sad to think that
the Republican technical team might be all that stands between our future
and President Trump.
Interesting point, Watt4Bob. The golden age of polling happened when
most households had a landline. Before then, access was a problem. Now there
are too many alternative communication channels, and each has its demographic
bias (more old people on landlines, etc.).
However, all this can be offset in politics by focusing on exit polls.
In this age of personal broadcasting, people may be more willing to be open
about their opinions in public.
The polls in MI were not exit polls. Exit polling is more accurate. The
MI polls were phone calls to land lines, which left out millennials completely,
as maybe 1% of them own a land line telephone.
Now in view of recent Hillary health problems actions of Wasserman Schultz need
to be revisited. She somehow avoided criminal prosecution for interfering with the
election process under Obama administration. That's clearly wrong. The court
should investigate and determine the level of her guilt.
Moor did his duty, moor can go. This is fully applicable to Wasserman Schultz.
BTW it was king of "bait and switch" Obama who installed her in this position. And
after that some try to say that Obama is not a neocon. Essentially leaks mean is
that Sander's run was defeated by the Democratic Party's establishment dirty tricks
and Hillary is not a legitimate candidate. It's Mission Accomplished, once again.
"Clinton is a life-long Republican. She grew up in an all-white Republican suburb,
she supported Goldwater, and she supported Wall Street banking, then became a DINO
dildo to ride her husband's coattails to WH, until the NYC Mob traded her a NY Senator
seat for her husband's perfidy. She never said one word about re-regulating the
banks."
How could this anti-Russian hysteria/bashing go on in a normal country -- the
level of paranoia and disinformation about Russia and Putin is plain crazy even
for proto-fascist regimes.
Notable quotes:
"... Wasserman Schultz reluctantly agreed to relinquish her speaking role at the convention here, a sign of her politically fragile standing. ..."
"... Democratic leaders are scrambling to keep the party united, but two officials familiar with the discussions said Wasserman Schultz was digging in and not eager to vacate her post after the November elections. ..."
"... Sanders on Sunday told CNN's Jake Tapper the release of DNC emails that show its staffers working against him underscore the position he's held for months: Party Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz needs to go. ..."
"... "I don't think she is qualified to be the chair of the DNC not only for these awful emails, which revealed the prejudice of the DNC, but also because we need a party that reaches out to working people and young people, and I don't think her leadership style is doing that," Sanders told Tapper ..."
"... But again, we discussed this many, many months ago, on this show, so what is revealed now is not a shock to me." ..."
Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz will not
have a major speaking role or preside over daily convention proceedings this
week, a decision reached by party officials Saturday after emails surfaced raising
questions about the committee's impartiality during the Democratic primary.
The DNC Rules Committee on Saturday named Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, as permanent
chair of the convention, according to a DNC source. She will gavel each session
to order and will gavel each session closed.
"She's been quarantined," another top Democrat said of Wasserman Schultz,
following a meeting Saturday night. Wasserman Schultz faced intense pressure
Sunday to resign her post as head of the Democratic National Committee, several
party leaders told CNN, urging her to quell a growing controversy threatening
to disrupt Hillary Clinton's nominating convention.
Wasserman Schultz reluctantly agreed to relinquish her speaking role
at the convention here, a sign of her politically fragile standing. But
party leaders are now urging the Florida congresswoman to vacate her position
as head of the party entirely in the wake of leaked emails suggesting the DNC
favored Clinton during the primary and tried to take down Bernie Sanders by
questioning his religion. Democratic leaders are scrambling to keep the
party united, but two officials familiar with the discussions said Wasserman
Schultz was digging in and not eager to vacate her post after the November elections.
... ... ...
One email appears to show DNC staffers asking how they can reference Bernie
Sanders' faith to weaken him in the eyes of Southern voters. Another seems to
depict an attorney advising the committee on how to defend Hillary Clinton against
an accusation by the Sanders campaign of not living up to a joint fundraising
agreement.
Sanders on Sunday told CNN's Jake Tapper the release of DNC emails that
show its staffers working against him underscore the position he's held for
months: Party Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz needs to go.
"I don't think she is qualified to be the chair of the DNC not only for
these awful emails, which revealed the prejudice of the DNC, but also because
we need a party that reaches out to working people and young people, and I don't
think her leadership style is doing that," Sanders told Tapper on "State
of the Union," on the eve of the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.
"I am not an atheist," he said. "But aside from all of that, it is an outrage
and sad that you would have people in important positions in the DNC trying
to undermine my campaign. It goes without saying, the function of the DNC is
to represent all of the candidates -- to be fair and even-minded."
He added: "But again, we discussed this many, many months ago, on this
show, so what is revealed now is not a shock to me."
... ... ...
Several Democratic sources told CNN that the leaked emails are a big source
of contention and may incite tensions between the Clinton and Sanders camps
heading into the Democratic convention's Rules Committee meeting this weekend.
"It could threaten their agreement," one Democrat said, referring to the
deal reached between Clinton and Sanders about the convention, delegates and
the DNC. The party had agreed to include more progressive principles in its
official platform, and as part of the agreement, Sanders dropped his fight to
contest Wasserman Schultz as the head of the DNC.
"It's gas meets flame," the Democrat said.
Michael Briggs, a Sanders spokesman, had no comment Friday.
The issue surfaced on Saturday at Clinton's first campaign event with Tim
Kaine as her running mate, when a protester was escorted out of Florida International
University in Miami. The protester shouted "DNC leaks" soon after Clinton thanked
Wasserman Schultz for her leadership at the DNC.
This is Christopher Hitchens biting analysis from previous Presidential elections,
but still relevant
Notable quotes:
"... The last time that Clinton foreign-policy associations came up for congressional review, the investigations ended in a cloud of murk that still has not been dispelled. ..."
"... the real problem is otherwise. Both President and Sen. Clinton, while in office, made it obvious to foreign powers that they and their relatives were wide open to suggestions from lobbyists and middlemen. ..."
"... If you recall the names John Huang, James Riady, Johnny Chung, Charlie Trie, and others, you will remember the pattern of acquired amnesia syndrome and stubborn reluctance to testify, followed by sudden willingness on the part of the Democratic National Committee to return quite large sums of money from foreign sources. Much of this cash had been raised at political events held in the public rooms of the White House, the sort of events that featured the adorable Roger Tamraz , for another example. ..."
"... It found that the Clinton administration's attitude toward Chinese penetration had been abysmally lax (as lax, I would say, as its attitude toward easy money from businessmen with Chinese military-industrial associations). ..."
"... Many quids and many quos were mooted by these investigations (still incomplete at the time of writing) though perhaps not enough un-ambivalent pros . You can't say that about the Marc Rich and other pardons-the vulgar bonanza with which the last Clinton era came to an end. Rich's ex-wife, Denise Rich, gave large sums to Hillary Clinton's re-election campaign and to Bill Clinton's library, and Marc Rich got a pardon. ..."
"... Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, convicted of bank fraud, hired Hillary Clinton's brother Tony and paid him $250,000, and they got a pardon. Carlos Vignali Jr. and Almon Glenn Braswell paid $400,000 to Hillary Clinton's other brother, Hugh , and, hey, they , respectively, got a presidential commutation and a presidential pardon, too. ..."
"... Does this sibling and fraternal squalor have foreign-policy implications, too? Yes. Until late 1999, the fabulous Rodham boys were toiling on another scheme to get the hazelnut concession from the newly independent republic of Georgia. There was something quixotically awful about this scheme-something simultaneously too small-time and too big-time-but it also involved a partnership with the main political foe of the then-Georgian president (who may conceivably have had political aspirations), so once again the United States was made to look as if its extended first family were operating like a banana republic. ..."
"... In matters of foreign policy, it has been proved time and again, the Clintons are devoted to no interest other than their own. ..."
"... Who can say with a straight face that this is true of a woman whose personal ambition is without limit; whose second loyalty is to an impeached and disbarred and discredited former president; and who is ready at any moment, and on government time, to take a wheedling call from either of her bulbous brothers? This is also the unscrupulous female who until recently was willing to play the race card on President-elect Obama and (in spite of her own complete want of any foreign-policy qualifications) to ridicule him for lacking what she only knew about by way of sordid backstairs dealing. What may look like wound-healing and magnanimity to some looks like foolhardiness and masochism to me. ..."
It was apt in a small way that the first
endorser of Hillary Rodham Clinton for secretary of state should have been
Henry Kissinger. The last time he was nominated for any position of responsibility-the
chairmanship of the 9/11 commission-he accepted with many florid words about
the great honor and responsibility, and then he withdrew when it became clear
that he would have to disclose the client list of Kissinger Associates. (See,
for the article that began this embarrassing process for him, my Slate
column "The
Latest Kissinger Outrage.")
It is possible that the Senate will be as much of a club as the undistinguished
fraternity/sorority of our ex-secretaries of state, but even so, it's difficult
to see Sen. Clinton achieving confirmation unless our elected representatives
are ready to ask a few questions about conflict of interest along similar lines.
And how can they not? The last time that Clinton foreign-policy associations
came up for congressional review, the investigations ended in a cloud of murk
that still has not been dispelled. Former President Bill Clinton has recently
and rather disingenuously offered to submit his own foundation to scrutiny (see
the
work of my Vanity Fair colleague Todd Purdum on the delightful friends
and associates that Clinton has acquired since he left office), but
the real problem is otherwise. Both President and Sen. Clinton, while in
office, made it obvious to foreign powers that they and their relatives were
wide open to suggestions from lobbyists and middlemen.
Just to give the most salient examples from the Clinton fundraising scandals
of the late 1990s: The House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight published
a list of witnesses called before it who had either "fled
or pled"-in other words, who had left the country to avoid testifying or
invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination. Some Democratic members
of the committee said that this was unfair to, say, the Buddhist nuns who raised
the unlawful California temple dough for then-Vice President
Al Gore, but however fair you want to be, the number of those who found
it highly inconvenient to testify fluctuates between 94 and 120. If you
recall the names John Huang, James Riady, Johnny Chung, Charlie Trie, and others,
you will remember the pattern of acquired amnesia syndrome and stubborn reluctance
to testify, followed by sudden willingness on the part of the Democratic National
Committee to return quite large sums of money from foreign sources. Much of
this cash had been raised at political events held in the public rooms of the
White House, the sort of events that featured the adorable
Roger Tamraz, for another example.
Related was the result of a House select
committee
on Chinese espionage in the United States and the illegal transfer to China
of advanced military technology. Chaired by Christopher Cox, R-Calif., the committee
issued a
report
in 1999 with no dissenting or "minority" signature. It found that the Clinton
administration's attitude toward Chinese penetration had been abysmally lax
(as lax, I would say, as its attitude toward easy money from businessmen with
Chinese military-industrial associations).
Many quids and many quos were mooted by these investigations
(still incomplete at the time of writing) though perhaps not enough un-ambivalent
pros. You can't say that about the Marc Rich and other pardons-the vulgar
bonanza with which the last Clinton era came to an end. Rich's ex-wife, Denise
Rich, gave large sums to Hillary Clinton's re-election campaign and to Bill
Clinton's library, and Marc Rich got a pardon.
Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, convicted of bank fraud,
hired Hillary Clinton's brother Tony and paid him $250,000, and they
got a pardon. Carlos Vignali Jr. and Almon Glenn Braswell paid $400,000 to Hillary
Clinton's other brother,
Hugh, and, hey, they, respectively, got a presidential commutation
and a presidential pardon, too. In the Hugh case, the money was returned
as being too embarrassing for words (and as though following the hallowed custom,
when busted or flustered, of the Clinton-era DNC). But I would say that it was
more embarrassing to realize that a former first lady, and a candidate for secretary
of state, was a full partner in years of seedy overseas money-grubbing and has
two greedy brothers to whom she cannot say no.
Does this sibling and fraternal squalor have foreign-policy implications,
too? Yes. Until late 1999, the fabulous Rodham boys were toiling on another
scheme to get the hazelnut concession from the newly independent republic of
Georgia. There was something quixotically awful about this scheme-something
simultaneously too small-time and too big-time-but it also involved a partnership
with the main political foe of the then-Georgian president (who may conceivably
have had political aspirations), so once again the United States was made to
look as if its extended first family were operating like a banana republic.
China, Indonesia, Georgia-these are not exactly negligible countries on our
defense and financial and ideological peripheries. In each country, there are
important special interests that equate the name Clinton with the word pushover.
And did I forget to add what President Clinton pleaded when the revulsion at
the Rich pardons became too acute? He claimed that he had concerted the deal
with the government of Israel in the intervals of the Camp David "agreement"!
So anyone who criticized the pardons had better have been careful if they didn't
want to hear from the Anti-Defamation League. Another splendid way of showing
that all is aboveboard and of convincing the Muslim world of our evenhandedness.
In matters of foreign policy, it has been proved time and again, the
Clintons are devoted to no interest other than their own. A president absolutely
has to know of his chief foreign-policy executive that he or she has no other
agenda than the one he has set. Who can say with a straight face that this
is true of a woman whose personal ambition is without limit; whose second loyalty
is to an impeached and disbarred and discredited former president; and who is
ready at any moment, and on government time, to take a wheedling call from either
of her bulbous brothers? This is also the unscrupulous female who until recently
was willing to play the race card on President-elect Obama and (in spite of
her own complete want of any foreign-policy qualifications) to ridicule him
for lacking what she only knew about by way of sordid backstairs dealing. What
may look like wound-healing and magnanimity to some looks like foolhardiness
and masochism to me.
Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011) was a columnist for Vanity Fair and
the author, most recently, of
Arguably, a collection of essays.
"... To hear the mainstream news media retell the story of the contentious 2000 presidential election, one would think that it all boils down to Bush v. Gore. The Supreme Court decision created huge controversy and poisons public life to this day. But this focus on the decision serves to obscure an act of great duplicity on the part of the media that dwarfs the impact of that case: namely, that if it hadn't been for actions they took on television on Election Night, November 7, 2000, there never would have been a Bush v. Gore or a Florida recount in the first place. ..."
"... by 8 p.m. Eastern Time on Election Night, a cover-up had already begun. ..."
To hear the mainstream news media retell the story of the contentious
2000 presidential election, one would think that it all boils down to Bush v.
Gore. The Supreme Court decision created huge controversy and poisons public
life to this day. But this focus on the decision serves to obscure an act of
great duplicity on the part of the media that dwarfs the impact of that case:
namely, that if it hadn't been for actions they took on television on Election
Night, November 7, 2000, there never would have been a Bush v. Gore or a Florida
recount in the first place.
It is a story of voter suppression. As it turns out, most of what we think
was important about that election-hanging chads, butterfly ballots, 36 days
of legal jousting-is unimportant. And by 8 p.m. Eastern Time on Election
Night, a cover-up had already begun.
It's not over until it's over. The accuracy of those figures are probably
pretty low as phones no loner represent a reliable medium for such opinion surveys.
Times changed ;-).
I will be surprised if rust belt and similar states not support Trump.
You should understand that this is a referendum on neoliberal globalization,
so Hillary is with all her crimes and warts is generally immaterial.
All this smoke screen of Trump demonization, that MSM use to save Hillary
might not work at all.
The real question is: Does the anger of the US population at neoliberal globalization
reached the boiling point or not.
Please also think about what Assange might still have on Hillary and when
he will release those emails.
The real question is whether the email are authentic or not. They are.
Neoliberal propaganda honchos just decided to use a smoke screen to conceal this
fact using Russia as a bogeyman.
Russian might be guilty of many things, but in no way it is
responsible for corruption of DNC and this subversive actions/covert operations
used for installing Hillary Clinton as a candidate from the Democratic Party. .
Notable quotes:
"... Is it OK to cheat, lie and deceive - as Clintons and DNC did - and then defend themselves by saying that "nobody would know, if it wasn't for those damn Russians"? Even the idea is preposterous: how we find out about this corruption is irrelevant, the point is there was corruption and cheating. ..."
"... So the DNC is trying to Blame Russia for their own corrupt actions. ..."
"... [Under Clintons] democracy has become conspiracy ..."
"... Are you constipated? Blame it on Russia. ..."
"... Oh and blaming Russia for revealing the truth. The truth was not attacked, but who revealed the truth is suddenly the bad guy. So desperate and out of sorts. :) ..."
"... There's no proof, besides an unsourced article in the Washington Post form 'security experts', that Russia had anything to do with this. What we do know is that immediately after the leaks became public various news outlets produced obviously planted hit pieces claiming some kind of collusion between the Trump campaign and Putin, and again with precisely zero evidence as back up. It's gob smacking that the Clinton campaign would risk an international incident with a nuclear power to cover for their shitty behaviour, but then again it's Hillary Clinton so perhaps not. ..."
"... It may indeed be Russian hackers who gained access to the emails which confirm the DNC was all along in the tank for Clinton, and was actively placing a thumb on the scale from day one in the primary process. ..."
"... But the bottom line here is that if the DNC had not so conspired, there would be no emails to leak, now would there? For Mook and others to now be placing blame on the hackers, rather than on those who produced the embarrassing material that the hackers exposed, is diversionary and inexcusable. ..."
"... The funniest thing is, they don't even deny the authenticity of the emails. Basically, DNC says that someone is guilty of revealing the truth. You can hardly stoop any lower. Blaming Russia is just a cherry on the cake. ..."
"... How nice to have an eternal scapegoat: TheRussiansAreComing!TheRussiansAreComing! This will obviously be RodHam's theme as President. Perhaps to the point of annihilation. Neo-Conne! ..."
"... My biggest issue with Hillary from the start has been her continued nonchalance when it comes to matters of national security. She acts as if she is above the need to keep sensitive information safe from potential enemies, both foreign and domestic. That's a pretty scary attitude coming from someone who is likely to be this nation's next leader. ..."
"... It's amazing. Caught red handed and still deflecting. Take responsibility for Christ sak ..."
"... ".....Several of the emails released indicate that the officials, including Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, grew increasingly agitated with Clinton's rival, Bernie Sanders, and his campaign as the primary season advanced, in one instance even floating bringing up Sanders' religion to try and minimize his support. ..."
"... The more interesting part is that this blame is just a distraction from the larger issue, that the entire political system is corrupted and broken. This is just business as usual, only this instance was revealed. ..."
I honestly can't wait for when the pro-clinron commentors arrive. I can
see it now "this doesn't matter if you vote 3rd party you're voting for
trump." It won't matter that this is all the fault of the DNC, it will be
on us. I'm calling it now ;)
Is it OK to cheat, lie and deceive - as Clintons and DNC did - and then
defend themselves by saying that "nobody would know, if it wasn't for those
damn Russians"? Even the idea is preposterous: how we find out about this
corruption is irrelevant, the point is there was corruption and cheating.
Interestingly, this is a favorite defense of all authoritarians. They
always claim that if it benefits the "enemy", it is ok to suppress it. Stalin
had a concept of "objectively aiding the enemy" - it meant that maybe the
person was not a conscious traitor, but his/her actions helped the enemy
- and that was enough. Is Guardian and Clintons now marching down this road
of extreme "us versus them" ideology?
What's is next? Will Clintons ban Bernie from speaking because it would
"aid Trump"? (and by extension in their paranoid thinking, it would aid
Russia).
"Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said on Sunday that "experts are telling
us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, [and
are] releasing these emails for the purpose of helping Donald Trump."
So the DNC is trying to Blame Russia for their own corrupt actions.
Another reason on the list as to why I won't be voting for Hillary. Why
did DNC act very anti-democratic?
A vote for Hillary is a vote for continued corruption.
Rather than blaming they ought to be taking responsibility for their own
words. But they'd have to be adults with integrity to do that. The tragedy
and travesty of it is the willful, routine, nonchalant effort to subvert
the Constitution and the will of the people. These kinds of machinations
have always gone on within both parties and should always be exposed. The
SuperPACS, the dark money, the secret maneuverings, the totally broken primary
system, all designed to stop our having our say. People elsewhere often
wonder about "our" choices for the White House. Now they can see how much
of that free choice has been wrested away over time, and how imperative
it is that we ordinary people start working on positive change within the
elective system. In my opinion all the DNC participants should lose their
jobs and be made to cool their heels in jail a while, because without consequences
we may as well just burn the Constitution and Bill of Rights right now and
be done with it, for all the respect these documents are given by our politicians.
What a revolting mess it all is on both sides, with ordinary people the
losers, as always.
Oh and blaming Russia for revealing the truth. The truth was not attacked,
but who revealed the truth is suddenly the bad guy. So desperate and out
of sorts. :)
There's no proof, besides an unsourced article in the Washington Post form
'security experts', that Russia had anything to do with this. What we do
know is that immediately after the leaks became public various news outlets
produced obviously planted hit pieces claiming some kind of collusion between
the Trump campaign and Putin, and again with precisely zero evidence as
back up. It's gob smacking that the Clinton campaign would risk an international
incident with a nuclear power to cover for their shitty behaviour, but then
again it's Hillary Clinton so perhaps not.
A big part of the problem is that Debbie Wasserman Schultz (DWS) is still
in her position. If the Democratic Party place a value on performance, she
should have been fired after the 2014 mid-terms.
Part of the problem is that the DNC is too closely aligned with the interests
of one political family. Competence and other considerations count for a
lot less than loyalty. DWS kept her position because of the ties to Clinton
and Clintons donors, not because she did a good job and grew the party.
The opposite has happened.
Frankly, Obama bears some degree of responsibility for this because he's
the one who canned Howard Dean, who actually had a track record of success
at winning elections and growing the party through two election cycles.
Instead Obama replaced him with a guy like Tim Kaine, who wasn't up to the
task either. Dean also did a good job of navigating the very difficult 2008
election. Kaine and DWS did poorly in the capacity as DNC Chair.
As president, Obama has done a lot right. But his neglect of the DNC
is part of his legacy, and it isn't a good one.
That's nice that those damn Russians 'stole' their email. However, those
damn Russians didn't write them. I dislike and distrust Hillary and DWS
more now that I did a week ago, and that takes some doing. Hillary is Nixon.
Paranoid. Dishonest. Devious.
how in the name of god can the overly compensated chairwoman of the democratic
party conspire against a candidate supported by nearly half of democratic
primary voters ???
Kaine is in the same boat as Clinton on the TPP - the Good Ship Hypocrite.
Both hope like hell that TPP gets passed in the lame duck so they can make
a show of being against it to gain some progressive cred. If Obama and his
colleagues Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan can't get TPP done before his term
ends, Clinton and Kaine's reservations re TPP will disappear faster than
a snowflake in July. It's like Clinton's about face on the Keystone pipeline
- she got a heads up from Obama that he wasn't going to approve it anyway,
so she came out against it.
I love the irony of the comment from the Clinton Campaign..... '' This is
further evidence the Russian Government is trying to influence the outcome
of an election ''.
Heavens forbid that the USA would ever stoop so low as to try and influence
the outcome of other Countries elections !!!
It of course being totally above Americians to indulge such devious behaviour
.
Very true, and Hillary was happy to support the violent Honduras coup of
an elected government and still very much supports that new violent regime.
And the new regime is very friendly to western big corporate 'interests'.
Of course. Hillary is old-school.
Doesn't matter who did it, the Russians, Anonymous, Edward Snowden. The
point is that the DNC is revealed as partisan and rigged. In addition to
minimizing her role at the convention, I believe Wasserman Schultz should
be dumped from any position of leadership, along with other DNC leaders.
No wonder people are fed up with politics as usual.
"Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said on Sunday that "experts are telling
us that Russian state actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, [and
are] releasing these emails for the purpose of helping Donald Trump."
And Mook is the expert who whispered that lie in his own ear.
Great photo, Mook the Spook, her lover, a few bigtime aids. They got
caught like Nixon's plumbers at Watergate. So they would like to blame the
Russians for their writing calumnies and antiSemitic slanders against Sanders.
They look pretty stupid!
Mook said on Sunday that "experts are telling us that Russian state
actors broke into the DNC, stole these emails, [and are] releasing these
emails for the purpose of helping Donald Trump."
It may indeed be Russian hackers who gained access to the emails which confirm
the DNC was all along in the tank for Clinton, and was actively placing
a thumb on the scale from day one in the primary process.
Sanders knew it, and we as his supporters also knew it and made reference
to that very issue repeatedly in countless comment threads here at the Guardian
and elsewhere.
But the bottom line here is that if the DNC had not so conspired,
there would be no emails to leak, now would there?
For Mook and others to now be placing blame on the hackers, rather than
on those who produced the embarrassing material that the hackers exposed,
is diversionary and inexcusable.
The Clinton campaign is moving closer and closer to blowing this election
completely and allowing the most dangerous candidacy I've ever seen in my
lifetime actually win this thing.
They've already selected a VP pick which effectively thumbs their nose
at the very progressives whose enthusiasm they will need at the voting booths,
and now here they are trying to deflect blame for unconscionable skullduggery
in the primary process onto foreign actors.
Debbie Wassermann Schultz should have been fired long ago, so blatant and
obvious were her shenanigans.
This kind of tone-deaf ineptitude could see all of us paying an unimaginable
price in November. All it will take at this point is a few more mass shootings
(at which we here in the US have a particular talent) to feed into Trump's
narrative and we'll all be waking up in January in a country we don't even
recognize.
The funniest thing is, they don't even deny the authenticity of the
emails. Basically, DNC says that someone is guilty of revealing the truth.
You can hardly stoop any lower. Blaming Russia is just a cherry on the cake.
Just saw Bernie on CNN basically saying the Nr1 priority is to defeat D.
Trump, then keep fighting the good fight from within the Democratic Party
trying to reform it from within.
A big thing he misses here that the top honcho Mrs Hillary Clinton is one
of the main reasons of what the Democratic Party has become. She will be
a huge obstruction to anything resembling reform. You might as well pack
up and go 3rd party and show the Dems that way what American voters want.
4 years of Trump might actually be a lot better to shake up the corrupt
DNC then 4-8 years of Hillary and who knows how many years of Republicans
2 follow (and believe me, Hillary will do a lot of damage to the democratic
brand!)
Clinton is desperate to lurk voters by anything, then let it be those Russians
that hacked her mail. A Russian proverb to the point - "A bad dancer always
blames his balls that hamper him".
If they'd backed off, allowed their MSM protectors to bury the story, this
whole thing would have died down in a week. A few angry Bernie Bros notwithstanding
there's nothing in the emails that we didn't know already. Yes the DNC and
the Hillary Clinton campaign were one and the same....shock! Yes sections
of the corporate owned media are colluding with the Democratic Party....wowsers!!
But no, they couldn't help themselves. Now we've got the Democratic nominee
for the Presidency alleging, with zero proof, that her opponent is engaged
in a conspiracy to commit criminal acts with a foreign power! Seriously
who thought this was a good idea?
How nice to have an eternal scapegoat: TheRussiansAreComing!TheRussiansAreComing!
This will obviously be RodHam's theme as President. Perhaps to the point
of annihilation. Neo-Conne!
My biggest issue with Hillary from the start has been her continued nonchalance
when it comes to matters of national security. She acts as if she is above
the need to keep sensitive information safe from potential enemies, both
foreign and domestic. That's a pretty scary attitude coming from someone
who is likely to be this nation's next leader.
Putin ate my homework (TM). What Debbie and the gang did is worse, much worse than this sorry article
tries to portray. For example, what sort of Democratic Party tries to use Bearnie's religion
agsinst him ?!?
".....Several of the emails released indicate that the officials, including
Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, grew increasingly agitated with Clinton's
rival, Bernie Sanders, and his campaign as the primary season advanced,
in one instance even floating bringing up Sanders' religion to try and minimize
his support.
****"It might may [sic] no difference, but for KY and WA can we get someone
to ask his belief," Brad Marshall, CFO of DNC, wrote in an email on May
5, 2016. "Does he believe in God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish
heritage.
I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with
my peeps. My southern baptist peeps woudl draw a big difference between
a Jew and an atheist."****
"Amy Dacey, CEO of the DNC, subsequently responded "AMEN," according
to the email"
The more interesting part is that this blame is just a distraction from
the larger issue, that the entire political system is corrupted and broken.
This is just business as usual, only this instance was revealed.
Has anyone here worked, I mean truly worked in the pre-election process,
behind the scenes, witnessing the dirty business that is gathering electoral
votes during caucuses and primaries? It is a total sham. It is where under-the-table
deals are made for promised loyalties to certain candidates, where those
that have the most, bribe others to vote a certain way, where quid pro quo
rules over democracy or a candidates stance on issues and/or policies. It
is where future cabinet positions are secured, based on allegiance to party
hierarchy and strong-arming. Your vote means nothing, only a small select
group determines candidates, and ultimately the president.
DNC Chair Wasserman is just one cog in a massive political machine, one
run rampantly out of control. And this happens on both sides, among both
parties. It is where the personal selfish love of money, power, and fame
outstrip the will of the people.
Long live hackers for keeping a check on an obviously corrupted system.
The mainstream media isn't doing their jobs anymore, someone has to. The
media have merely become the pretorian band for the super class, those elite
that truly control this country from behind the scenes, pulling the puppet
strings attached to the soulless politicians.
We are again presented with two candidates whom have each proven their
desire to negate the will of the nation, for purely selfish reasons. Neither
is truly qualified for this office.
"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought
to trust no [hu]man living with the power to endanger the public liberty".
-John Adams-
"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more
corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters"
-Ben Franklin-
Why is U.S. labor market fluidity
drying up
?: The U.S. labor
market is a far less dynamic place
than it was 30 years ago. Workers
today are less likely to get a job
while unemployed, move into
unemployment, switch jobs, or move
across state lines. You'd think just
the opposite would be true given
some of the discussion about our
rapidly changing digital economy,
but the data show what the data
show. Even still, the reason-or
reasons-for the decline in fluidity
aren't known.
A
new working paper
-by economists
Raven Molloy, Christopher L. Smith,
and Riccardo Trezzi of the Federal
Reserve and Abigail Wozniak of the
University of Notre Dame-takes a
closer look at the decline in labor
market fluidity and tries to find
the causes. While the authors find
nothing close to a smoking gun, they
point to interesting avenues of
future research. ...
No, DrDick, a person's
income does not change
mobility unless it is
extraordinarily low (in
other words, they already
can't pay rent and pay for a
moving truck). If absolute
income reduced mobility,
then we would expect
mobility to have been lower
in the past.
You obviously have no idea
what you are talking about.
Your last statement is
clearly false, if you
control for inflation.
Minimum wage in 1960
($1.65), for instance
translates into over
$10/hour today. It is
certainly true that even
relatively poor people will
move if there are no jobs
available locally, as in the
Dust Bowl migrations or the
migrations from the Rust
Belt to Texas, Oklahoma, and
Louisiana in the late 70s.
No such mobility exists for
low to moderate income
people unless they are truly
desperate.
Home ownership also
substantially reduces
mobility, particularly if
you're unlucky enough to
live in a region suffering
from long-term economic
decline.
Close but cost of housing in
certain markets is also a
hindrance for labor
mobility. Hard to move to
places like Seattle or New
York where there are jobs
and high wages but the cost
of housing has outpaced the
salary increases.
Urban specialization in the
industries of Healthcare,
Technology, Finance and
Logistics. High cost of
living acts as an economic
filter to ensure "the best
people" are local.
Alan Greenspan recognized *
early on that the nature of
business cycles in the
United States was changing
from inventory adjustment to
labor adjustment cycles. As
business inventory was made
learner and leaner, with a
movement to the just-in-time
inventory delivery practices
followed through Japan,
Greenspan suggested that as
economic conditions changed
businesses would react by
adjusting employment.
The
recession of the Bush
presidency in the early
1990s unlike the Reagan
recession of the early 1980s
was for Greenspan an
employment adjustment rather
than inventory adjustment
recession. Employment then
has become accepted as less
and less of a long term
commitment by employers to
workers and workers have
have more poorly
accordingly.
* I do not know where the
Greenspan speech on the
changing nature of
businesses cycles can be
found and would be grateful
for a reference.
[ Here is Alan Greenspan
speaking of the speed of
inventory adjustments, but I
think Greenspan had
recognized this before he
became Federal Reserve Chair
in 1987. The problem he
confronted at the Fed was
employment adjustment.
Again, I will look for
earlier discussion of the
matter. ]
Swings in employment were
always part of the cycle
I find green spans
distinction to be......
Politics
It might be the case that
a relatively closed economy
with high employment share
in industrial production
Would show cuts in
production and inventory
shrink
Where a open system would
show a drop in imports
We have become more open
since we dropped the dollar
to gold peg
And industries job share has
dropped
This is only part of an
answer to the numbers
Which btw show lower lay off
rates per drop in output
The quit rate shows both
longer periods of low rates
then in cycles from the 50's
I have read the criticism
several times, but do not
quite understand what is
being argued. Employment
recovery has surely become
increasingly lengthy in each
recession since 1981-1982:
I have read the criticism
several times, but do not
quite understand what is
being argued. Privater
employment recovery has
surely become increasingly
lengthy in each recession
since 1981-1982:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU
"running classified ads with
the goal of NOT finding any
qualified applicants, and
the steps they go through to
disqualify even the most
qualified Americans in order
to secure green cards for
H-1b workers"
3. Employers are
overworking /stretching
existing (overtime pay
exempt) staff
4. Weak aggregate demand.
5. Increased use of
informal and 1099/contractor
positions
Johnny Backho beat me to it
regarding dual careers.
Single earner households are
much more likely to be
prepared to move. It also
causes people to leave
companies or turn down
promotions, as well.
This is obvious and
observable, but you will see
a chunk of people vigorously
deny it for two reasons:
1) They project an
anti-feminist perspective
onto it. In other words,
they think that finding
anything at all that could
be perceived to be not
positive about dual incomes
is an assault on women
working outside the home.
2) Even more twisted, they
think that because many
people are in dual income
households for economic
reasons (they need both
incomes for "basic" needs),
that declaring that the dual
income reduces mobility is a
negative comment about the
dual income households.
But I should also point out
that the flow of government
money has become less
decentralised over time (if
not regionally, then in
terms of individuals) so
that financial incentives to
move have also fallen. Money
flows up, not down and if
there is no decentralising
force (for instance
government services and
transfer payments) it tends
to increasingly concentrate.
It's called hunkering down,
holding onto your desk.
This seems like an area of
research as much for
(social) psychologists as
economists. Consider the
behavior of people after
they have suffered or
witnessed a (series of)
traumatic event(s). Everyone
who lost a job and got
another is holding onto it
like a life raft. Those who
didn't lose their jobs hold
on as dearly, knowing that
if they lose it, they could
be out in the wilderness for
a long time and never get
back to where they were.
And movement from life
raft to life raft is hardly
tempting, in most cases.
Little salary or no bump
with uncertain stability.
The devil you know is better
than the devil you don't
know.
And we have to wonder if
there is hysteresis with
productivity. In other
words, fearful workers are
less likely to embrace
projects and systems that
increase productivity and
management is less likely to
pursue them due to docile,
affordable workers.
I think fear, (actually,
sheer terror) explains 99%
of this. It's like the
entire workforce is
experiencing PTSD.
There
is very little confidence
that you'll be able to find
a new job if you get laid
off, and even less
confidence that a new job
will be any better than your
current one.
I know that professional
STEM recruiters are having a
much tougher time getting
people to leave an existing
job. Oddly, the one thing
that I find perplexing is
that the bias against hiring
someone who's unemployed is
much stronger than ever.
Recruiter and HR
biases and inefficiencies
are quite unhelpful.
Further, I would never,
ever, ever leave a job
without a raise and a legit,
iron-clad, in-hand and
legally enforceable signed
offer.
Nick Corcodilos, a
recruiter in Silicon Valley,
often talks about a rash of
rescinded offers. The whole
process of changing jobs is
filled with a series of
landmines that could land
you into unemployment
leprosy if things don't work
out perfectly.
Related to fear: Declining
job tenure length, and maybe
the growth of corporate
'rightsizing' - an MBA
finance VP I know had 3
sizable companies shot out
from under him during his
career, and was constantly
upgrading software skills to
stay within shouting
distance of up to date.
America's presidential politics have become a dizzying scrum of insults and gossip
that frequently veers into outright and angry conspiracy theorizing.
Blame democracy.
It has killed our faith in "experts" peddling "truth."
The democratizing urge to tear down established authorities and institutions
in the name of equality, begun a half-century ago and accelerated by technological
innovations in the decades since, has undeniably empowered a new form of post-rational
authoritarian politics. The reigning liberal institutions of the postwar era, which
strove for objectivity and fairness (while frequently, and inevitably, falling short
of them), first came under assault during the 1960s from both the right and left.
Though the left did more damage at first by attacking the liberal establishment
on civil rights and the Vietnam War, the right (empowered by the very excesses encouraged
by the left) soon got the upper hand.
The right's early forays into radio, TV, and book and magazine publishing, artfully
recounted in Nicole Hemmer's
new history of conservative media, began to expand greatly in the 1970s. The
idea was to build a more democratic counter-establishment to tear down and replace
the liberal establishment, which kept conservatives out of positions of political
and cultural power.
Over the coming decades, right-wing talk radio programs proliferated, Fox
News was founded, and a vast array of websites (including The Drudge Report
and Breitbart) began serving as an alternative source of news and information
for millions of disaffected Republicans. These outlets trained continuous artillery
fire on the mainstream media, credentialized "experts," and other members of the
[neo]liberal establishment, relentlessly calling them out for apparent double standards,
hypocrisy, and other signs of untrustworthiness.
... ... ...
Damon Linker is a senior correspondent at TheWeek.com.
He is also a consulting editor at the University of Pennsylvania Press, a
former contributing editor at The New Republic, and the
author of
The Theocons and The Religious Test.
Neo: I can't go back, can I?
Morpheus: No. But if you could, would you really want to? ...We never free a mind
once it's reached a certain age. It's dangerous, the mind has trouble letting go...
As long as the Matrix exists, the human race will never be free.
~ The Matrix
While this is a satire on an extreme polarization of electorate who now
behave like sport fans rooting for "their" team, Neoliberalism is the Other side ideology and will not abolish it without a fight.
Notable quotes:
"... Let's face it: The Other Side is held hostage by a radical, failed ideology. I have been doing some research on the Internet, and I have learned this ideology was developed by a very obscure but nonetheless profoundly influential writer with a strange-sounding name who enjoyed brief celebrity several decades ago. If you look carefully, you can trace nearly all the Other Side's policies for the past half-century back to the writings of this one person. ..."
"... To be sure, the Other Side also has been influenced by its powerful supporters. These include a reclusive billionaire who has funded a number of organizations far outside the political mainstream; several politicians who have said outrageous things over the years; and an alarmingly large number of completely clueless ordinary Americans who are being used as tools and don't even know it. ..."
"... It's ridiculous to talk about freedom in a society dominated by huge corporations. ..."
"... Wasn't it Voltaire who said "If you want to understand infinity look at people's stupidity"? ..."
The past several weeks have made one thing crystal-clear: Our country faces
unmitigated disaster if the Other Side wins.
No reasonably intelligent person can deny this. All you have to do is look
at the way the Other Side has been running its campaign. Instead of focusing
on the big issues that are important to the American People, it has fired a
relentlessly negative barrage of distortions, misrepresentations, and flat-out
lies.
Just look at the Other Side's latest commercial, which take a perfectly reasonable
statement by the candidate for My Side completely out of context to make it
seem as if he is saying something nefarious. This just shows you how desperate
the Other Side is and how willing it is to mislead the American People.
The Other Side also has been hammering away at My Side to release certain
documents that have nothing to do with anything, and making all sorts of outrageous
accusations about what might be in them. Meanwhile, the Other Side has stonewalled
perfectly reasonable requests to release its own documents that would expose
some very embarrassing details if anybody ever found out what was in them. This
just shows you what a bunch of hypocrites they are.
Naturally, the media won't report any of this. Major newspapers and cable
networks jump all over anything they think will make My Side look bad. Yet they
completely ignore critically important and incredibly relevant information that
would be devastating to the Other Side if it could ever be verified.
I will admit the candidates for My Side do make occasional blunders. These
usually happen at the end of exhausting 19-hour days and are perfectly understandable.
Our leaders are only human, after all. Nevertheless, the Other Side inevitably
makes a big fat deal out of these trivial gaffes, while completely ignoring
its own candidates' incredibly thoughtless and stupid remarks – remarks that
reveal the Other Side's true nature, which is genuinely frightening.
My Side has produced a visionary program that will get the economy moving,
put the American People back to work, strengthen national security, return fiscal
integrity to Washington, and restore our standing in the international community.
What does the Other Side have to offer? Nothing but the same old disproven,
discredited policies that got us into our current mess in the first place.
Don't take my word for it, though. I recently read about an analysis by an
independent, nonpartisan organization that supports My Side. It proves beyond
the shadow of a doubt that everything I have been saying about the Other Side
was true all along. Of course, the Other Side refuses to acknowledge any of
this. It is too busy cranking out so-called studies by so-called experts who
are actually nothing but partisan hacks. This just shows you that the Other
Side lives in its own little echo chamber and refuses to listen to anyone who
has not already drunk its Kool-Aid.
Let's face it: The Other Side is held hostage by a radical, failed ideology.
I have been doing some research on the Internet, and I have learned this ideology
was developed by a very obscure but nonetheless profoundly influential writer
with a strange-sounding name who enjoyed brief celebrity several decades ago.
If you look carefully, you can trace nearly all the Other Side's policies for
the past half-century back to the writings of this one person.
To be sure, the Other Side also has been influenced by its powerful supporters.
These include a reclusive billionaire who has funded a number of organizations
far outside the political mainstream; several politicians who have said outrageous
things over the years; and an alarmingly large number of completely clueless
ordinary Americans who are being used as tools and don't even know it.
These people are really pathetic, too. The other day I saw a YouTube video
in which My Side sent an investigator and a cameraman to a rally being held
by the Other Side, where the investigator proceeded to ask some real zingers.
It was hilarious! First off, the people at the rally wore T-shirts with all
kinds of lame messages that they actually thought were really clever. Plus,
many of the people who were interviewed were overweight, sweaty, flushed, and
generally not very attractive. But what was really funny was how stupid they
were. There is no way anyone could watch that video and not come away convinced
the people on My Side are smarter, and that My Side is therefore right about
everything.
Besides, it's clear that the people on the Other Side are driven by mindless
anger – unlike My Side, which is filled with passionate idealism and righteous
indignation. That indignation, I hasten to add, is entirely justified. I have
read several articles in publications that support My Side that expose what
a truly dangerous group the Other Side is, and how thoroughly committed it is
to imposing its radical, failed agenda on the rest of us.
That is why I believe [2016] is, without a doubt, the defining election of
our lifetime. The difference between My Side and the Other Side could not be
greater. That is why it absolutely must win [in 2016].
Sad sad Americans just figured this out? You idiots should have been
reading Chomsky, he just said it so well: "It's ridiculous to talk about
freedom in a society dominated by huge corporations." -Chomsky
Chomsky has been saying this for years. I guess you have been too busy
"making money" to pay attention.
The average American sheeple never fail to amuse me how stupid they
really are. Wasn't it Voltaire who said "If you want to understand infinity
look at people's stupidity"?
Is this a plan of the elite to introduce national security state in action. Are they afraid of the collapse of neoliberal social
order and try to take precautions?
Notable quotes:
"... These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full
structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness. ..."
"... the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. ..."
"... Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side-much like the topping of
a tall redwood tree-not a concentric, vertical collapse. ..."
"... A reporter with rare access to the debris at ground zero "descended deep below street level to areas where underground fires
still burned and steel flowed in molten streams." ..."
"... Please remember that firefighters sprayed millions of gallons of water on the fires, and also applied high-tech fire retardants.
Specifically, 4 million gallons of water were dropped on Ground Zero within the first 10 days after September 11, according to the U.S.
Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories : ..."
"... Why would the Insiders bother blowing Building 7? Indeed, why would the Insiders bother with WTC at all? Exactly what were
the motivations of the Insiders supposed to be? ..."
"... Larry Silverstein had a magic ball that told him to insure the buildings for "terrorist attacks". In February of 2002, Silverstein
was awarded $861,000,000 for his insurance claims from Industrial Risk Insurers. His initial investment in WTC 7 was only $386,000,000.
..."
"... Perhaps after the first couple of attempted attacks on the WTC in the 90's they had a good look at what would happen if an
attack was successful. Perhaps they then decided that the massive collateral damage from a partial or messy collapse could be greatly
reduced by having the buildings ready to be brought down in a controlled way. ..."
"... All this would have to be kept secret as noone would work in a building lined with explosives. However the insurance companies,
and the owner of the building would know, and this would explain the comments made by silverstein (comments that he himself never clarified).
..."
"... This may all be completely wrong, but lets face it, explosives did bring these buildings down. ..."
"... http://topdocumentaryfilms.com ...How about a 5 hour video that methodically refutes and explains the flaws of virtually every
aspect of the 'official story', in particular the shamefully flawed NIST report ..."
"... There were no pyroclastic flows at WTC. That's obvious by the fact that pieces of intact paper lay everywhere, something that
would be impossible if a hot cloud covered the area. ..."
"... The reason that you have to resort to esoteric explanations for what happened at WTC is that you believe lies about what happened
at WTC. ..."
"... If you really believe that this was done by hydrocarbon based fires begun by burning jet fuel you are beyond hopeless. ..."
"... Why do you trust the government so much? That to me is idiotic. History has proven pretty much every government to be corrupt.
It's sheep like you that allow them to get away with it. Just keep walking sheep, don't want to fall back from the mob. ..."
"... The "accepted scholarship" is conducted almost entirely by government shills for the benefit of dumbed down Americans whose
information intake is limited to Fox, CNN, and MSNBC. ..."
What does the evidence show about the Solomon Brothers Building in Manhattan?
Numerous structural engineers – the people who know the most about office building vulnerabilities and accidents – say that the
official explanation of why building 7 at the World Trade Center collapsed on 9/11 is "impossible", "defies common logic" and "violates
the law of physics":
The collapse of WTC7 looks like it may have been the result of a controlled demolition. This should have been looked
into as part of the original investigation
Robert F. Marceau, with over 30 years of structural
engineering experience:
From videos of the collapse of building 7, the penthouse drops first prior to the collapse, and it can be noted that
windows, in a vertical line, near the location of first interior column line are blown out, and reveal smoke from those
explosions. This occurs in a vertical line in symmetrical fashion an equal distance in toward the center of the building
from each end. When compared to controlled demolitions, one can see the similarities
Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley and 30 years of engineering experience,
says:
Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite
in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition
Steven L. Faseler, structural engineer with
over 20 years of experience in the design and construction industry:
World Trade Center 7 appears to be a controlled demolition. Buildings do not suddenly fall straight down by accident
Alfred Lee Lopez, with 48 years of experience
in all types of buildings:
I agree the fire did not cause the collapse of the three buildings [please ignore any reference in this essay to the
Twin Towers. This essay focuses solely on Building 7]. The most realistic cause of the collapse is that the buildings were
imploded
Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis,
writes:
Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day [i.e. on September
11th]? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses
including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust
WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This
is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized
therefore what is the cause?
In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by
any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation
How did the structures collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating causes were asymmetrical loading?
The collapses defies common logic from an elementary structural engineering perspective.
***
Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the individual
members; and, the temperature in the members would have dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the flames-just
as the handle on a frying pan doesn't get hot at the same rate as the pan on the burner of the stove. These factors would
have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity,
i.e., strength and stiffness.
Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching
its tensile or shear capacity. Under the given assumptions, "if" the structure in the vicinity started to weaken, the superstructure
above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist
toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur.
Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side-much like the topping
of a tall redwood tree-not a concentric, vertical collapse.
For this reason alone, I rejected the official explanation for the collapse .
We design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity
loads. Any tall structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse
at the fraction of the second within each story and subsequently at each floor below.We do not know the phenomenon of the high
rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top.
The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesn't know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled
demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should
normally stop the partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated
to accelerate the collapse. Where would such energy would be coming from?
Antonio Artha,with 15+ years of experience
in building design
Fire and impact were insignificant in all three buildings [Again, please ignore any reference to the Twin Towers this essay
focuses solely on WTC7]. Impossible for the three to collapse at free-fall speed. Laws of physics were not suspended on 9/11,
unless proven otherwise
James Milton Bruner, Major, U.S. Air Force,
instructor and assistant professor in the Deptartment of Engineering Mechanics & Materials, USAF Academy, and a technical writer
and editor, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
It is very suspicious that fire brought down Building 7 yet the Madrid hotel fire was still standing after 24 hours of fire.
This is very suspicious to me because I design buildings for a living
David Anthony Dorau, practicing structural
engineer with 18 years' experience in the inspection and design of buildings under 5 stories tall, who worked as a policy analyst
for the Office of Technology Assessment, an arm of the U.S. Congress providing independent research and reports on technological
matters
Russell T. Connors, designed many buildings
and other types of structures
The above is just a sample. Many other structural
engineers have questioned the collapse of Building 7, as have numerous top experts in other relevant disciplines, including:
The top European expert on controlled building demolition, Danny Jowenko (part
1, part 2,
part 3)
Harry G. Robinson, III – Professor and Dean Emeritus, School of Architecture and Design, Howard University. Past President
of two major national architectural organizations – National Architectural Accrediting Board, 1996, and National Council of Architectural
Registration Boards, 1992. In 2003 he was awarded the highest honor bestowed by the Washington Chapter of the American Institute
of Architects, the Centennial Medal. In 2004 he was awarded the District of Columbia Council of Engineering and Architecture Societies
Architect of the Year award. Principal, TRG Consulting Global / Architecture, Urban Design, Planning, Project Strategies. Veteran
U.S. Army, awarded the Bronze Star for bravery and the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam –
says:
The collapse was too symmetrical to have been eccentrically generated. The destruction was symmetrically initiated to
cause the buildings to implode as they did
Watch this short video on Building 7 by Architects and Engineers (ignore any reference to the Twin Towers, deaths on 9/11, or
any other topics other than WTC7):
Fish In a Barrel
Poking holes in the government's spin on Building 7 is so easy that it is like shooting fish in a barrel.
As just one example, the spokesman for the government agency which says that the building collapsed due to fire said there was
no molten metal at ground zero:
And see witness statements at the beginning of this video
Indeed, not only was structural steel somehow melted on 9/11, but it was evaporated. As the New York Times
reports, an expert
stated about World Trade Center building 7:
A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers
said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated
in extraordinarily high temperatures.
(pay-per-view). Evaporation means conversion from a liquid
to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate
them
Please remember that firefighters sprayed millions of gallons of water on the fires, and also applied high-tech fire retardants.
Specifically, 4 million gallons of water were dropped on Ground Zero within the first 10 days after September 11, according to the
U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratories:
Approximately three million gallons of water were hosed on site in the fire-fighting efforts, and 1 million gallons fell as
rainwater, between 9/11 and 9/21 .
"Firetrucks [sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on [ground zero]. You couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was
pumped in there," said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest fire department union. "It was like you
were creating a giant lake."
This photograph may capture a sense of how wet the ground became due to the constant spraying:
The fact that there were raging fires and molten metal even after the application of
massive quantities of water and fire retardants shows how silly the government spokesman's claim is.
Again, this has nothing to do with "inside job" no one was killed in the collapse of Building 7, no wars were launched based on
a rallying cry of "remember the Solomon Brothers building", and no civil liberties were lost based on a claim that we have to prevent
future WTC7 tragedies.
It is merely meant to show that government folks sometimes lie even about issues tangentially related to 9/11.
Pooua > Wolfen Batroach • 2 years ago
Why would the Insiders bother blowing Building 7? Indeed, why would the Insiders bother with WTC at all? Exactly what were
the motivations of the Insiders supposed to be?
JusticeFor911 > Pooua
Larry Silverstein had a magic ball that told him to insure the buildings for "terrorist attacks". In February of 2002,
Silverstein was awarded $861,000,000 for his insurance claims from Industrial Risk Insurers. His initial investment in WTC 7 was
only $386,000,000.
I'd say nearly half of $1,000,000,000.00 was the primary cause to include this building with the towers. Keep in mind that
President Bush's brother Marvin was a principal in the company Securacom that provided security for the WTC, United Airlines and
Dulles International Airport. Are dots connecting yet?
Pooua > JusticeFor911
If you buy a new car, you take out full coverage insurance on it. Insuring billion-dollar buildings is standard procedure,
especially when one had already suffered a terrorist attack. You insinuation is nothing but gossip and suggestion.
No, Securacom did not provide security for WTC; that's the job of the Port Authority of NY & NJ. Securacom had a contract to
perform a limited service for PANYNJ, and Marvin Bush was only a bit player (he was on the board of directors) in the company.
Your paranoid ramblings are lies.
IBSHILLIN > Pooua
Perhaps after the first couple of attempted attacks on the WTC in the 90's they had a good look at what would happen if
an attack was successful. Perhaps they then decided that the massive collateral damage from a partial or messy collapse could
be greatly reduced by having the buildings ready to be brought down in a controlled way.
All this would have to be kept secret as noone would work in a building lined with explosives. However the insurance companies,
and the owner of the building would know, and this would explain the comments made by silverstein (comments that he himself never
clarified).
This may all be completely wrong, but lets face it, explosives did bring these buildings down.
Pooua > IBSHILLIN
I find it amazing that you consider yourself such an unquestionable expert that you not only feel qualified to insist that
explosives brought down the WTC buildings, even in contradiction to scores of scientists, engineers and investigators of NIST,
FEMA, FBI and MIT who say otherwise, and you do so without offering any evidence at all to support your bizarre claim.
No building the size of any of the WTC buildings has ever been brought down by controlled demolition, but of those that come
closest, the planning took years, and the rigging took months of hard work by teams of experts working around the clock. This
is not something that can be hidden.
Your suggestion is entirely preposterous and without merit.
NIST, FEMA, FBI and MIT are worthless entities! What about the experts in that documentary? Nanothermite brought them down
smart guy!
Pooua > ihaveabrain • 25 days ago
You posted a 1.5-hour video. I am not here to watch a 1.5-hour video; I'm here to discuss the topic of the collapse of WTC
7. If you have something to say, say it here.
NIST has been the premier standards body used by the US government for a century, covering virtually every aspect of engineering
and public safety in this country. It employes thousands of scientists, engineers and technicians. For you to claim that it is
a worthless entity is idiocy on your part.
linked1 > Pooua • 24 days ago
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com ...How about a 5 hour video
that methodically refutes and explains the flaws of virtually every aspect of the 'official story', in particular the shamefully
flawed NIST report
You claim to want to discuss the topic of the collapse of WTC-7 but you can't be bothered to watch painstakingly researched
documentaries that include thousands of witnesses, victims, scientists, and structural professionals.
You ought to educate yourself before calling other's claims 'worthless idiocy'. You are wrong, and history will prove you wrong.
Pooua > linked1
I've been reading arguments about 9/11 for two years. I've been arguing about other issues for the last 25 years, at least
since I took a class in classical logic. What you need to understand is, you aren't arguing anything when you send me off to listen
to someone else. The other guy might be arguing something, but you aren't doing anything. And, the fact that I've spent two years
reading everything I could find on the subject makes me strongly suspect that this five-hour video would be just a waste of my
time.
If you want to discuss this matter, then discuss it. Don't send me off to spend hours of my time listening to someone else.
You explain it. If you can't explain it, then you don't understand it, and you are wasting everyone's time.
mulegino1 . > Pooua
The levels of energy required to turn most of the Twin Towers and WTC7 into nanoparticles (thus the pyrocastic flow which only
occurs in volcanic eruptions and nuclear detonations) would be thousands of orders of magnitude greater than airliner impacts
and hydrocarbon based office fires, which are claimed to have initiated a "gravity collapse".
How could a "gravity collapse" perfectly mimic the detonation of a small tactical nuclear device or devices-electromagnetic
pulse, molten lava and a mushroom cloud?
Pooua > mulegino1
I want you to look at this image from the WTC on 9/11. It shows the debris after the Towers collapsed. Does this look like
nanoparticles to you? Most of the debris was bigger than a man's fist.
Thumbnail
There were no pyroclastic flows at WTC. That's obvious by the fact that pieces of intact paper lay everywhere, something
that would be impossible if a hot cloud covered the area.
The reason that you have to resort to esoteric explanations for what happened at WTC is that you believe lies about what
happened at WTC.
mulegino1 . > Pooua
If you really believe that this was done by hydrocarbon based fires begun by burning jet fuel you are beyond hopeless.
There was indeed a pyroclasticas flow as anyone with youtube can determine for themselves.
Pooua > WilliamBinney • a year ago
It is your job to do more than make idiotic, speculative assertions and pretend that constitutes a reason for disregarding
the government's account of the event. Yet, you all have completely failed to do anything except expose your own inability to
account for the events of that day.
Dizzer13 > Pooua • a year ago
Why do you trust the government so much? That to me is idiotic. History has proven pretty much every government to be corrupt.
It's sheep like you that allow them to get away with it. Just keep walking sheep, don't want to fall back from the mob.
mulegino1 . > Pooua • 2 years ago
The "accepted scholarship" is conducted almost entirely by government shills for the benefit of dumbed down Americans whose
information intake is limited to Fox, CNN, and MSNBC.
The official narrative is so ludicrous from any standpoint that the "debunkers" resort to wildly implausible scenarios in order
to convince the above cited demographic that the government and the major national media were reporting factual information when
in fact they were reading from a script. And it was a very poorly written script. The Bin Laden bogeyman was already being invoked
before the buildings exploded.
What you've got here is a pseudo-religious narrative designed to so enrage the dumbed down sheeple that they will lash out
in their fury against virtually anyone designated by the powers that be as the enemy- a Sorelian myth.
Like any false narrative, the official story breaks down at the level of discrete facts and can only survive as a holistic
mythologized, meta-historical events.
"... I think Trump is afraid the imperial global order presided by the US is about to crash and thinks he will be able to steer the country into a soft landing by accepting that other world powers have interests, by disengaging from costly and humiliating military interventions, by re-negotiating trade deals, and by stopping the mass immigration of poor people. Plus a few well-placed bombs ..."
"... Much has been written about the internet revolution, about the impact of people having access to much more information than before. The elite does not recognize this and is still organizing political and media campaigns as if it were 1990, relying on elder statesmen like Blair, Bush, Mitterrand, Clinton, and Obama to influence public opinion. They are failing miserably, to the point of being counterproductive. ..."
"... I don't think something as parochial as racism is sustaining Trump, but rather the fear of the loss of empire by a population with several orders of magnitude more information and communication than in 2008, even 2012. ..."
"... No one has literally argued that people should be glad to lose employment: that part was hyperbole. But the basic argument is often made quite seriously. See e.g. outsource Brad DeLong . ..."
"... The same thing has happened in Mexico with neoliberal government after neoliberal government being elected. There are many democratically elected neoliberal governments around the world. ..."
"... In the case of Mexico, because Peña Nieto's wife is a telenovela star. How cool is that? It places Mexico in the same league as 1st world countries, such as France, with Carla Bruni. ..."
"... To the guy who asked- poor white people keep voting Republican even though it screws them because they genuinely believe that the country is best off when it encourages a culture of "by the bootstraps" self improvement, hard work, and personal responsibility. They view taxing people in order to give the money to the supposedly less fortunate as the anti thesis of this, because it gives people an easy out that let's them avoid having to engage in the hard work needed to live independently. ..."
"... The extent to which "poor white people" vote against their alleged economic interests is overblown. To a large extent, they do not vote at all nor is anyone or anything on the ballot to represent their interests. And, yes, they are misinformed systematically by elites out to screw them and they know this, but cannot do much to either clear up their own confusion or fight back. ..."
"... The mirror image problem - of elites manipulating the system to screw the poor and merely middle-class - is daily in the news. Both Presidential candidates have been implicated. So, who do you recommend they vote for? ..."
"... I think you're missing Patrick's point. These voters are switching from one Republican to another. They've jettisoned Bush et. al. for Trump. These guys despise Bush. ..."
"... They've figured out that the mainstream party is basically 30 years of affinity fraud. ..."
"... My understanding is trumps support disproportionately comes from the small business owning classes, Ie a demographic similar to the petite bourgeoisie who have often been heavily involved in reactionary movements. This gets oversold as "working class" when class is defined by education level rather than income. ..."
"... Layman - Why are these voters switching from Bush et al to Trump? Once again, Corey's whole point is that there is very little difference between the racism of Trump and the mainstream party since Nixon. Is Trump just more racist? Or are the policies of Trump resonating differently than Bush for reasons other than race? ..."
"... Eric Berne, in The Structures and Dynamics of Organizations and Groups, proposed that among the defining characteristics of a coherent group is an explicit boundary which determines whether an individual is a member of the group or not. (If there is no boundary, nothing binds the assemblage together; it is a crowd.) The boundary helps provide social cohesion and is so important that groups will create one if necessary. Clearly, boundaries exclude as well as include, and someone must play the role of outsider. ..."
"... For a time, the balkanization of American political communities by race, religion and ethnicity was an effective means to the dominance of an tiny elite with ties to an hegemonic community, but it backfired. Dismantling that balkanization has left the country with a very low level of social affiliation and thus a low capacity to organize resistance to elite depredations. ..."
I think Trump is afraid the imperial global order presided by the US is about to crash
and thinks he will be able to steer the country into a soft landing by accepting that other world
powers have interests, by disengaging from costly and humiliating military interventions, by re-negotiating
trade deals, and by stopping the mass immigration of poor people. Plus a few well-placed bombs
.
Much has been written about the internet revolution, about the impact of people having
access to much more information than before. The elite does not recognize this and is still organizing
political and media campaigns as if it were 1990, relying on elder statesmen like Blair, Bush,
Mitterrand, Clinton, and Obama to influence public opinion. They are failing miserably, to the
point of being counterproductive.
I don't think something as parochial as racism is sustaining Trump, but rather the fear
of the loss of empire by a population with several orders of magnitude more information and communication
than in 2008, even 2012.
Layman 08.04.16 at 11:59 am
Rich P: "Neoliberals often argue that people should be glad to lose employment at 50 so
that people from other countries can have higher incomes "
I doubt this most sincerely. While this may be the effect of some neoliberal policies, I can't
recall any particular instance where someone made this argument.
Rich Puchalsky 08.04.16 at 12:03 pm
"I can't recall any particular instance where someone made this argument."
No one has literally argued that people should be glad to lose employment: that part was
hyperbole. But the basic argument is often made quite seriously. See e.g.
outsource
Brad DeLong .
engels 08.04.16 at 12:25 pm
While this may be the effect of some neoliberal policies, I can't recall any particular instance
where someone made this argument
Maybe this kind of thing rom Henry Farrell? (There may well be better examples.)
Is some dilution of the traditional European welfare state acceptable, if it substantially
increases the wellbeing of current outsiders (i.e. for example, by bringing Turkey into the club).
My answer is yes, if European leftwingers are to stick to their core principles on justice, fairness,
egalitarianism etc
Large numbers of low-income white southern Americans consistently vote against their
own economic interests. They vote to award tax breaks to wealthy people and corporations, to
cut unemployment benefits, to bust unions, to reward companies for outsourcing jobs, to resist
wage increases, to cut funding for health care for the poor, to cut Social Security and Medicare,
etc.
The same thing has happened in Mexico with neoliberal government after neoliberal government
being elected. There are many democratically elected neoliberal governments around the world.
Why might this be?
In the case of Mexico, because Peña Nieto's wife is a telenovela star. How cool is that?
It places Mexico in the same league as 1st world countries, such as France, with Carla Bruni.
Patrick 08.04.16 at 4:32 pm
To the guy who asked- poor white people keep voting Republican even though it screws them
because they genuinely believe that the country is best off when it encourages a culture of "by
the bootstraps" self improvement, hard work, and personal responsibility. They view taxing people
in order to give the money to the supposedly less fortunate as the anti thesis of this, because
it gives people an easy out that let's them avoid having to engage in the hard work needed to
live independently.
They see it as little different from letting your kid move back on after college and smoke
weed in your basement. They don't generally mind people being on unemployment transitionally,
but they're supposed to be a little embarrassed about it and get it over with as soon as possible.
They not only worry that increased government social spending will incentivize bad behavior, they
worry it will destroy the cultural values they see as vital to Americas past prosperity. They
tend to view claims about historic or systemic injustice necessitating collective remedy because
they view the world as one in which the vagaries of fate decree that some are born rich or poor,
and that success is in improving ones station relative to where one starts. Attempts at repairing
historical racial inequity read as cheating in that paradigm, and even as hostile since they can
easily observe white people who are just as poor or poorer than those who racial politics focuses
upon. Left wing insistence on borrowing the nastiest rhetoric of libertarians ("this guy is poor
because his ancestors couldn't get ahead because of historical racial injustice so we must help
him; your family couldn't get ahead either but that must have been your fault so you deserve it")
comes across as both antithetical to their values and as downright hostile within the values they
see around them.
All of this can be easily learned by just talking to them.
It's not a great world view. It fails to explain quite a lot. For example, they have literally
no way of explaining increased unemployment without positing either that everyone is getting too
lazy to work, or that the government screwed up the system somehow, possibly by making it too
expensive to do business in the US relative to other countries. and given their faith in the power
of hard work, they don't even blame sweatshops- they blame taxes and foreign subsidies.
I don't know exactly how to reach out to them, except that I can point to some things people
do that repulse them and say "stop doing that."
bruce wilder 08.04.16 at 5:50 pm
The extent to which "poor white people" vote against their alleged economic interests is
overblown. To a large extent, they do not vote at all nor is anyone or anything on the ballot
to represent their interests. And, yes, they are misinformed systematically by elites out to screw
them and they know this, but cannot do much to either clear up their own confusion or fight back.
The mirror image problem - of elites manipulating the system to screw the poor and merely
middle-class - is daily in the news. Both Presidential candidates have been implicated. So, who
do you recommend they vote for?
There is serious deficit of both trust and information among the poor. Poor whites hardly have
a monopoly; black misleadership is epidemic in our era of Cory Booker socialism.
bruce wilder 08.04.16 at 7:05 pm
Politics is founded on the complex social psychology of humans as social animals. We elevate
it from its irrational base in emotion to rationalized calculation or philosophy at our peril.
T 08.04.16 at 9:17 pm
@Layman
I think you're missing Patrick's point. These voters are switching from one Republican
to another. They've jettisoned Bush et. al. for Trump. These guys despise Bush.
They've figured out that the mainstream party is basically 30 years of affinity fraud.
So, is your argument is that Trump even more racist? That kind of goes against the whole point
of the OP. Not saying that race doesn't matter. Of course it does. But Trump has a 34% advantage
in non-college educated white men. It just isn't the South. Why does it have to be just race or
just class?
Ronan(rf) 08.04.16 at 10:35 pm
"I generally don't give a shit about polls so I have no "data" to evidence this claim, but
my guess is the majority of Trump's support comes from this broad middle"
My understanding is trumps support disproportionately comes from the small business owning
classes, Ie a demographic similar to the petite bourgeoisie who have often been heavily involved
in reactionary movements. This gets oversold as "working class" when class is defined by education
level rather than income.
This would make some sense as they are generally in economically unstable jobs, they tend to
be hostile to both big govt (regulations, freeloaders) and big business (unfair competition),
and while they (rhetorically at least) tend to value personal autonomy and self sufficiency ,
they generally sell into smaller, local markets, and so are particularly affected by local demographic
and cultural change , and decline. That's my speculation anyway.
T 08.05.16 at 3:12 pm
@patrick @layman
Patrick, you're right about the Trump demographic. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/
Layman - Why are these voters switching from Bush et al to Trump? Once again, Corey's whole
point is that there is very little difference between the racism of Trump and the mainstream party
since Nixon. Is Trump just more racist? Or are the policies of Trump resonating differently than
Bush for reasons other than race?
Are the folks that voted for the other candidates in the primary less racist so Trump supporters
are just the most racist among Republicans? Cruz less racist? You have to explain the shift within
the Republican party because that's what happened.
Anarcissie 08.06.16 at 3:00 pm
Faustusnotes 08.06.16 at 1:50 pm @ 270 -
Eric Berne, in The Structures and Dynamics of Organizations and Groups, proposed that among
the defining characteristics of a coherent group is an explicit boundary which determines whether
an individual is a member of the group or not. (If there is no boundary, nothing binds the assemblage
together; it is a crowd.) The boundary helps provide social cohesion and is so important that
groups will create one if necessary. Clearly, boundaries exclude as well as include, and someone
must play the role of outsider. While Berne's theories are a bit too nifty for me to love
them, I have observed a lot of the behaviors he predicts. If one wanted to be sociobiological,
it is not hard to hypothesize evolutionary pressures which could lead to this sort of behavior
being genetically programmed. If a group of humans, a notably combative primate, does not have
strong social cohesion, the war of all against all ensues and everybody dies. Common affections
alone do not seem to provide enough cohesion.
In an earlier but related theory, in the United States, immigrants from diverse European communities
which fought each other for centuries in Europe arrived and managed to now get along because they
had a major Other, the Negro, against whom to define themselves (as the White Race) and thus to
cohere sufficiently to get on with business. The Negro had the additional advantage of being at
first a powerless slave and later, although theoretically freed, was legally, politically, and
economically disabled - an outsider who could not fight back very effectively, nor run away. Even
so, the US almost split apart and there continue to be important class, ethnic, religious, and
regional conflicts. You can see how these two theories resonate.
It may be that we can't have communities without this dark side, although we might be able
to mitigate some of its destructive effects.
bruce wilde r 08.06.16 at 4:28 pm
I am somewhat suspicious of leaving dominating elites out of these stories of racism as an
organizing principle for political economy or (cultural) community.
Racism served the purposes of a slaveholding elite that organized political communities to
serve their own interests. (Or, vis a vis the Indians a land-grab or genocide.)
Racism serves as an organizing principle. Politically, in an oppressive and stultifying hierarchy
like the plantation South, racism not incidentally buys the loyalty of subalterns with ersatz
status. The ugly prejudices and resentful arrogance of working class whites is thus a component
of how racism works to organize a political community to serve a hegemonic master class. The business
end of racism, though, is the autarkic poverty imposed on the working communities: slaves, sharecroppers,
poor blacks, poor whites - bad schools, bad roads, politically disabled communities, predatory
institutions and authoritarian governments.
For a time, the balkanization of American political communities by race, religion and ethnicity
was an effective means to the dominance of an tiny elite with ties to an hegemonic community,
but it backfired. Dismantling that balkanization has left the country with a very low level of
social affiliation and thus a low capacity to organize resistance to elite depredations.
engels 08.07.16 at 1:02 am
But how did that slavery happen
Possible short answer: the level of technological development made slavery an efficient way
of exploiting labour. At a certain point those conditions changed and slavery became a drag on
further development and it was abolished, along with much of the racist ideology that legitimated
it.
Lupita 08.07.16 at 3:40 am
But how did that slavery happen
In Mesoamerica, all the natives were enslaved because they were conquered by the Spaniards.
Then, Fray Bartolomé de las Casas successfully argued before the Crown that the natives had souls
and, therefore, should be Christianized rather than enslaved. As Bruce Wilder states, this did
not serve the interests of the slaveholding elite, so the African slave trade began and there
was no Fray Bartolomé to argue their case.
It is interesting that while natives were enslaved, the Aztec aristocracy was shipped to Spain
to be presented in court and study Latin. This would not have happened if the Mesoamericans were
considered inferior (soulless) as a race. Furthermore, the Spaniards needed the local elite to
help them out with their empire and the Aztecs were used to slavery and worse. This whole story
can be understood without recurring to racism. The logic of empire suffices.
The current
turmoil within Republican Party is connected with shirking of middle class by neoliberalism.
So peons are now less inclined to support top 0.1%.
Notable quotes:
"... Trump is a billionaire, but his base of support rests among the people once identified by the sociologist Donald Warren as "middle American radicals." Nearly 40 years ago, Warren's idea was adapted by the hard-right political thinker Sam Francis as the basis for paleoconservatism-a conservatism very unlike that of the postwar conservative movement, one that would champion the class interests and cultural attitudes of middle- and lower-income whites. ..."
"... the Democratic Leadership Council, the policy group that paved the way for Bill Clinton's nomination, was founded in 1985 precisely to move the Democratic Party toward "market-based solutions. ..."
"... That economic populism should find a foothold in both parties after the Great Recession and eight years of lagging prosperity under Barack Obama is not entirely surprising. What is more remarkable is the weakness of the bipartisan establishment, whose conventional wisdom is no longer meekly accepted by the rank and file of either party. Every Republican except Trump has tried, to one degree or another, to present himself as a champion of conservative orthodoxy. But that orthodoxy no longer commands the loyalty of a sufficient number of voters to preclude a phenomenon like Trump. Nor does DLC-style neoliberalism appear to be the consensus among Democrats any longer. ..."
"... A void is opening in American politics, and Trump and Sanders are only the first to try to fill it. Neither of them may succeed. Yet it is hard to see any source of renewal for the crumbling establishment they are fighting to replace. ..."
"... "At times like these, it is important to know what to conserve, which is not a label or ideology, but a healthy and humane republic. " ..."
"... There are several holes in the 2016 is ending the Neoliberal changes: ..."
"... Sanders road to the nomination is limited and HRC is taking 65 – 70% next week. Sanders had a good run but the Democratics winnowed down to two candidates in October. ..."
"... Finally, isn't the neoliberalism built on the changes made in the Reagan Revolution? ..."
"... I don't see as strong of a break from orthodoxy in the Democrat party. Hillary will win the nomination and will validate within the Democrat party the ideology of spreading the democracy gospel around the world through force, and the domestic policy of open borders for future Democrat voters. Its less certain that she will win the general election. ..."
"... To save the republic and constitutional government, these wars in the Middle East and elsewhere must be ended, we must get out of that region, and the government must be made to perform the basic duty of securing our own borders and finding and expelling those here illegally. ..."
"... A government perpetually at war is a danger to the republic. It has squandered our money and blood in foreign adventures half way around the world and undermined our liberties and dignity here at home while shirking its own basic duty. ..."
"... The source of all of this republic's woes is an absence of competent, responsible leadership. Neither of the 2 government parties has come close to providing this at the national level. ..."
"... One difference between Trump an Sanders is that The Democrat Washington Establishment is beginning to show Sanders and his supporters the door, where The GOP Washington Establishment is beginning to be shown the door by Trump and his supporters. ..."
"... The Cubano Twins, Tweedledum and Tweedledee appear to be a pair of Neoconservative Big Money Donor Financed Bookends. ..."
"... Occupy is dead, Sanders is dying, and the Democrats will soon be a wholly owned subsidiary of Clinton Inc. ..."
"... I'm sorry folks. Reaganomics is the era we may see coming to an end – perhaps. And what did Bush Senior call it?: 'Voodoo Economics.' ..."
"... But Reagan succeeded in creating massive deficits and building up a military that was then primed for war. He was absolutely counter to Dwight Eisenhower in almost every respect (who was arguably the last Great Republican President). ..."
"... The rise of Wall Street and unregulated finance also took place under Reagan's watch. Declining investment in infrastructure. The power of lobbyists became massive in the 80s after being relatively tame prior. This all set the stage. ..."
"... That economic populism should find a foothold in both parties after the Great Recession and eight years of lagging prosperity under Barack Obama is not entirely surprising. ..."
"... "Every Republican except Trump has tried, to one degree or another, to present himself as a champion of conservative orthodoxy." ..."
"... I am not inclined to give the "Tea Party much credit. They have been part of the very problem. ..."
"... Sadly, I think it is accurate that blacks have come to the rescue of Sec. Clinton. It is sad, but it is understandable. ..."
"... Pres. Reagan has been saddled with the term "Reaganonmics". When in fact, it never existed as designed and as result was never fully implemented. Reality got in the way and as such subverted a good deal of the intent. It is incorrect to posit the model as top down. The model is as old as the country – keep money in people's hands and it will flow and redistribute throughout the country. There's just no incentives created for those with the most to reinvest in their community the US. ..."
"... I think the observations concerning how the financial industry have been totally unaccountable to the law, best practices and basic math are spot on. I embrace WS, but they cannot become so unmoored from the country that has bestowed luxurious benefits (loopholes) as to operate outside that frame without consequence. I am unsure of the monetary efficacy that investing in investing. If one is going bandy about "law and order" then to have any genuine legs – it's an across the board application. ..."
This year is shaping up to be the most unconventional moment in American politics
in a generation.
A race that mere months ago seemed to promise yet another Bush vs. another
Clinton has so far given us instead the populist insurgencies of Bernie Sanders
and Donald Trump. Whether or not either of them gets his party's nomination,
the neoliberal consensus of the past two decades seems about to shatter. Free
trade, immigration, waging war for democracy, and even the relative merits of
capitalism and "democratic socialism" have all come into question. Perhaps more
fundamentally, so has the right of Clintons and Bushes-and those like them-to
rule.
Trump is a billionaire, but his base of support rests among the people
once identified by the sociologist Donald Warren as "middle American radicals."
Nearly 40 years ago, Warren's idea was adapted by the hard-right political thinker
Sam Francis as the basis for paleoconservatism-a conservatism very unlike that
of the postwar conservative movement, one that would champion the class interests
and cultural attitudes of middle- and lower-income whites. The Pat Buchanan
presidential campaigns of 1992 and 1996 put Francis's ideas to the test. They
fell short of propelling Buchanan to the GOP nomination, and by the end of the
1990s there was nary a trace of paleo ideology to be found among conservatives
or Republicans. The return of the Bush family to power in 2000 seemed to confirm
that nothing had changed after a decade of skirmishes.
Now suddenly there's Trump. And on the left, there's Sanders, a throwback
to a time when progressives embraced the socialist label. That had fallen out
of fashion even before the end of the Cold War-indeed, the Democratic Leadership
Council, the policy group that paved the way for Bill Clinton's nomination,
was founded in 1985 precisely to move the Democratic Party toward "market-based
solutions."
That economic populism should find a foothold in both parties after the
Great Recession and eight years of lagging prosperity under Barack Obama is
not entirely surprising. What is more remarkable is the weakness of the bipartisan
establishment, whose conventional wisdom is no longer meekly accepted by the
rank and file of either party. Every Republican except Trump has tried, to one
degree or another, to present himself as a champion of conservative orthodoxy.
But that orthodoxy no longer commands the loyalty of a sufficient number of
voters to preclude a phenomenon like Trump. Nor does DLC-style neoliberalism
appear to be the consensus among Democrats any longer.
A void is opening in American politics, and Trump and Sanders are only
the first to try to fill it. Neither of them may succeed. Yet it is hard to
see any source of renewal for the crumbling establishment they are fighting
to replace. Just as the end of the Cold War marked the passing of an era,
and partially or wholly transformed the left and right alike, so another era
is drawing to a close now, with further political mutations to come. Trump and
Sanders need not be the future, but what Bush and Clinton represent is already
past-no matter who wins in November.
Conservatives of Burkean temperament view all of this warily. There is an
opportunity here to replace stale ideologies with a prudence that is ultimately
more principled than any mere formula can be. But there is also the risk that
the devil we know is only making way for another we don't. At times like these,
it is important to know what to conserve, which is not a label or ideology,
but a healthy and humane republic.
"At times like these, it is important to know what to conserve,
which is not a label or ideology, but a healthy and humane republic.
"
Amen.
My people have been here for hundreds of years, and I love my country
with a depth of feeling that is difficult to convey. Our hard-pressed republic
is our most precious possession, and it must be defended and shepherded
through the coming peril. That will require wisdom, strength, and courage,
and all the little platoons.
will require wisdom, strength, and courage, and all the little platoons.
"At times like these, it is important to know what to conserve …."
I think a lot of thoughtful Americans know what to conserve: the constitution.
With the possible exception of the Second Amendment, the constitution has
been virtually torched in its entirety. I just have to shake my head when
I listen to the debate over whether or not Apple should be required by law
to write a program to destroy the feature on its multi-million dollar product,
the iPhone, for which consumers buy it - security in their private information
and communication. And the Fourth Amendment, be damned.
How comes it that America - of all countries - is having that debate?
Were all those American security agencies always that amoral and I just
didn't notice?
The American constitution is not an instruction manual, it's a statement
of principles - fundamental principles upon which the massive superstructure
of law rests. Torch the constitution and it suddenly becomes easy not to
call to account those leaders who authorize and order torture, those bankers
who bring the world economy to its knees through fraud, those presidents
who commit war crimes through the practice of drone-murdering people because
they are merely suspected of terrorism. And it's just as easy to disenfranchise
voters with impunity by arguing on the basis of a rash of voter fraud that
everyone knows does not exist.
If the country no longer recognizes a constitution upon which laws prohibiting
on pain of punishment these and other crimes against democracy, then what
you've got is a nation of men - barbarians living in a state of nature -
not a nation of laws.
I agree with this editorial, but, as delia ruhe points out, this republic
has not been "healthy and humane" for quite some time. It's time for a national
renewal. I never thought Trump would be the agent of this renewal. There's
plenty to dislike about him, but if he's what it takes to right the ship
and either restore a "healthy and humane" republic or create the conditions
for someone else to do so afterwards, then so be it.
There are several holes in the 2016 is ending the Neoliberal changes:
1) Sanders road to the nomination is limited and HRC is taking 65
– 70% next week. Sanders had a good run but the Democratics winnowed down
to two candidates in October.
2) Why is Trump that much different that Perot? The Perot movement was
minimized by a strong economy and the unemployment rate is getting low in
2016.
3) What if there isn't another Trump? To whip the radical middle took
Trump to pull additional voters, there might not be another in 2020.
4) Is the number of radical middle voters slightly decreasing every election
cycle?
5) Finally, isn't the neoliberalism built on the changes made in
the Reagan Revolution?
I don't see as strong of a break from orthodoxy in the Democrat party.
Hillary will win the nomination and will validate within the Democrat party
the ideology of spreading the democracy gospel around the world through
force, and the domestic policy of open borders for future Democrat voters.
Its less certain that she will win the general election.
Want to solve the political-economy differences between citizens of collectivist
and individualist temperament? Eliminate all tax exemptions secretly written
into the tax code for individuals and organizations (they are identified
by language that applies only to that individual or organization), then
invest the proceeds for five years into a sovereign wealth trust fund that
pays $25,000 per year, adjusted for inflation, to all legal citizens beginning
at age 21 (or pass legislation directing the Federal Reserve to deposit
$10 Trillion dollars directly into the fund-quantitative easing for the
people, if you will).
This money would be used by citizens to cover life-cycle risk to income
from any source: job loss, divorce, illness, transportation and home repairs,
macroeconomic chaos, or anything else life throws as a person. The funds
would be retrievable as a person chooses: yearly, monthly, weekly, or in
a $50,000 lump sum once every three years. In addition, replace all income-based
taxes for individuals and organizations with a .005% tax on all transactions
cleared through the banking system, similar to the automated payments transaction
tax advocated by Wisconsin professor Edgar Feige. This would allow the supply
of products and services to roughly match the increased demand generated
by the basic income guarantee, thereby avoiding or mitigating the business
cycle and inflationary source of current economic problems.
The precise mechanism for this proposal is based on the Alaska Permanent
Fund dividend program, which takes monies from state-owned oil fields and
invests prudently in a diverse portfolio world-wide. In turn, this concept
is based on the "topsy-turvy nationalization" idea proposed by English economist
James E. Meade, who suggested governments purchase a 50% share of all publicly-traded
stocks, then pay a "social dividend" (Social Security for All) out of the
earnings from these investments to all citizens. Professor James A. Yunker
proposed a similar idea in his book Pragmatic Market Socialism, finding
under a general equilibrium analysis that output and equity, as measured
by a utilitarian social welfare function, both increased when income smoothing
was financed by pre-distributed social dividends rather than by increased
taxes.
Under this proposal, both conservatives and liberals would achieve what
they say they desire: non-paternalistic held for people's income fluctuations
for liberals, and real incentives to invest and work for conservatives.
Some might say this mechanism for socializing both risk and reward cannot
be implemented, as human nature suggests that people might not accept a
policy that also benefits rivals. Nonetheless, if we want a political-economic
modus vivendi, here is a solution.
Of course, there would still be problems faced by out society, and "solving"
the economic aspect of our malaise will not by itself generate nirvana.
But give people and organizations real security that does not also support
apathy (i.e., both equity and efficiency, as the economist call it), and
you would go a long way towards making the culture war less harsh (it is
mostly based on economic fears projected onto the "other"). In the socio-political
complex, one must honor humanity as it is , not as we wish, or are comfortable
with in our own lives. Replace neoliberalism with a respect for both tradition
and change.
@delia ruhe & may it be so – I fervently agree with you and the editors.
To save the republic and constitutional government, these wars in
the Middle East and elsewhere must be ended, we must get out of that region,
and the government must be made to perform the basic duty of securing our
own borders and finding and expelling those here illegally.
A government perpetually at war is a danger to the republic. It has
squandered our money and blood in foreign adventures half way around the
world and undermined our liberties and dignity here at home while shirking
its own basic duty.
The source of all of this republic's woes is an absence of competent,
responsible leadership. Neither of the 2 government parties has come close
to providing this at the national level. Everyone knows this, but now
– for the first time in at least 5 decades – people are starting to discuss
it openly. It really is a breath of fresh air.
One difference between Trump an Sanders is that The Democrat Washington
Establishment is beginning to show Sanders and his supporters the door,
where The GOP Washington Establishment is beginning to be shown the door
by Trump and his supporters.
The Cubano Twins, Tweedledum and Tweedledee appear to be a pair of
Neoconservative Big Money Donor Financed Bookends.
"The Democrat Washington Establishment is beginning to show Sanders
and his supporters the door, where The GOP Washington Establishment
is beginning to be shown the door by Trump and his supporters."
That's a problem with which the Democrat base must must come to grips.
Across the great political and cultural gulf that separates us, I salute
those honorable and decent Democrats and liberals who make the attempt.
But it is instructive to consider the very different trajectories of
Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party. Occupy Wall Street, having ebbed from
front pages and headlines long since, has now virtually disappeared into
Sanders' wickering campaign.
But the Tea Party kept at it. It has been stirring the pot for over six
years now, menacing the establishment, chronically kicking out incumbents
(including disappointing or coopted Tea Party incumbents), and continuing
to drive broad political developments.
Occupy is dead, Sanders is dying, and the Democrats will soon be
a wholly owned subsidiary of Clinton Inc. Rather, it is the widely
ridiculed and derided Tea Party tendency (not to be confused with the various
attempts at cooptation by groups using the name) that proved to be adults
with staying power, real agents of change. The pacts born of deep concern
for the republic made years ago in hearts, homes, conversations among friends
and coworkers, over the Web on sites like this one, is alive and well.
I'm sorry folks. Reaganomics is the era we may see coming to an end
– perhaps. And what did Bush Senior call it?: 'Voodoo Economics.'
The Soviets were not defeated by our military build-up – the fact that
their factories were turning out unusable junk and exploding TVs was what
defeated them. China saw the writing on the wall earlier in 1979.
But Reagan succeeded in creating massive deficits and building up
a military that was then primed for war. He was absolutely counter to Dwight
Eisenhower in almost every respect (who was arguably the last Great Republican
President).
The rise of Wall Street and unregulated finance also took place under
Reagan's watch. Declining investment in infrastructure. The power of lobbyists
became massive in the 80s after being relatively tame prior. This all set
the stage.
We all have confirmation biases (fueled by a personal history) in how
we choose to interpret history and how we bookend things.
The concluding paragraph is excellent. I pray we are not entering even
darker times and that there can be renewal for the American Republic.
"Occupy is dead, Sanders is dying, and the Democrats will soon
be a wholly owned subsidiary of Clinton Inc."
Only because older voters, particularly older black voters keep propping
it up. Not exactly a firm foundation. Sanders margins among young voters
along with the successful political work done by actual political groups
(rather than disruptive groups) like the Working Families Party show who
is going to inherit the Democratic Party.
That economic populism should find a foothold in both parties
after the Great Recession and eight years of lagging prosperity under
Barack Obama is not entirely surprising.
I've long wanted to read the Donald Warren book but it has been out of
print and unavailable at Amazon. If anyone knows of any online bookseller
that has used copies, please tell.
Thanks to @Blas another first on the pages of TAC: the words "Trump"
and "Humane" used in relation to one another.
And thanks to the Tea Party, a Congress that won't pass any sort of populist
reform simply because it might mean shaking hands across the aisle.
@AndyG "And thanks to the Tea Party, a Congress that won't pass any
sort of populist reform simply because it might mean shaking hands across
the aisle."
What a laugh.
"Across the aisle" from the Tea Party congressmen are Democrats who say
"What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable. You must not only tolerate
what is repugnant to you, you must accept it or I'll have you arrested.
The Federal judiciary is the engine of democracy. I only enforce laws I
like. Only a fanatic would try to balance or reduce the federal budget.
It's as impossible and absurd as controlling immigration. Wall Street is
just fine as long as it hires lots of Diversity Officers, and the only people
who oppose globalism and the corporations who fill my campaign coffers are
racists and bigots."
As to populist reforms that TP Republicans and Democrat dissidents might
have cooperated on, like reimposition of Glass-Steagel, or laws requiring
vigorous prosecution of Wall Street criminals and Wall Street-owned government
officials, or reining in the NSA, or ending the Middle East wars, the establishments
of both parties have collaborated to crush their efforts. Just ask Rand
Paul (R) and Ron Wyden (D).
Of course the Tea Party base is still fighting back hard. It's engaged
in mortal combat with the GOP establishment. God willing and with perseverence
it may prevail.
And what are those "across the aisle", the congressional Democrats, doing?
Other than politely watching Sanders sputter into oblivion as they prepare
for HRC's coronation? And what is the Democrat base doing other than making
that possible? Most of them aren't even going to the polls …
"Occupy is dead, Sanders is dying, and the Democrats will soon
be a wholly owned subsidiary of Clinton Inc. Rather, it is the widely
ridiculed and derided Tea Party tendency (not to be confused with the
various attempts at cooptation by groups using the name) that proved
to be adults with staying power, real agents of change."
I was heavily involved with the original Zucotti Park Occupy encampment,
doing outreach to unions and the working class. There was quite a bit of
hope for this in the early heady days of Occupy; but in the end, the priorities
of a movement run by and for impoverished and entitled graduate students
won out. Around this time I started to understand that the center of gravity
of real radicalism in this country was on the "right".
"Every Republican except Trump has tried, to one degree or another,
to present himself as a champion of conservative orthodoxy."
If you are having to measure it in degrees of this or ht, then there's
a good chance you don't represent what it is that you partially represent.
In my view conservative is not hodge podge, it's a mechanism or an a priori
vie point by which one approaches most or all of their life.
My guess is that people are not responding o a conservative orthodoxy
because they just don't see one. In my view Sen Cruz and Dr. Caron and even
(CEO) Mrs. Fiorina have the closest ties to a conservative view. Where i
seems to come undone is on the issue of (needlessly) aggressive foreign
policy. Mr. Trump is a conservative now, but his life has not fully reflected
as much.
The traditional conservative
very pro the "common man" Does not oppose wealth, but that is not
a goal in of itself.
does not pretend that that there is not objective realities - there
are facts that matter – Truth is not relative even if opinions, ideas
and tastes are.
prudence to change, why and what it's consequences.
fairness, fair play and undying desire or justice
economic efficiency (not just frugality)
a definitive sense of country and kinsmen – even if he or she thinks
they are less their cup of tea and morality –
a belief in a divine being with whom one is dynamically involved
with – while Christianity is my own preference it need not be the sole
belief that a conservative adhere's to.
I have to comprehend the community benefit for killing children
in the womb, much it's complete undermining of what innocents means.
It makes little practical sense for a community that pushes the choice
of homosexual expression a some kind norm when it adds nothing of community
value beyond individual satisfaction. That a dynamic which is retrograde
to community flourishing should be a national agenda is also incomprehensible
___________________
I am not inclined to give the "Tea Party much credit. They have been
part of the very problem. Though I guess, the shift to another direction
is a positive sign. As I recall the Tea Party was the last to give up the
ghost that the invasion of Iraq was worthwhile and certainly a leap from
conservative thought and practice, in almost every respect.
It dawned them rather belated that the PA and HMS was going to come back
to haunt them. And yet for those who are Christian , what they should have
known is that in the end, it is just such programs that will be used to
round them and send them packing - yet, they have been all for extreme forms
of government when it suited them. Now that democrats are using those against
their interests, they are suddenly awake - suddenly they are about the Constitution.
Yet they have been all to happy to abandon the same when it comes those
who come into contact with police. When Republicans should have embraced
civil protections, they shunned it as though such concerns were unconstitutional
the powers that began turned their sights on them. Hard to claim some populist
mandate unless the so called populism benefits your interests alone. I am
dubious that this is some kind middle and lower class uprising in the Republican
party - the support for Mr. Trump appears to be much broader.
_________________
Sadly, I think it is accurate that blacks have come to the rescue
of Sec. Clinton. It is sad, but it is understandable. I was walking
on campus yesterday. And having lived in these community for some time,
it struck me as deeply depressing that there were large groups of Asians
and Hispanics groups and it was starkly distressing to realize that that
for all of this country's embrace of diversity, blacks remain non existent
on campus. Considering that education is the now the bastion of democratic
and liberal life, blacks seem very ill served by the people they support.
I doubt the Rose Law firm is going to abandon overseeing contracts to support
cheap labor which will most impact negatively the lives of no few blacks.
But if you don't have th gumption to fight, the democratic broad rode is
a sensible choice. Fear of losing what you don't have is a liberal/democratic
tote bag.
I remain hopeful that one day, blacks will wake up and reject the liberal
bait and switch spoon fed them.
_________________________
Unfortunately,
Pres. Reagan has been saddled with the term "Reaganonmics". When
in fact, it never existed as designed and as result was never fully implemented.
Reality got in the way and as such subverted a good deal of the intent.
It is incorrect to posit the model as top down. The model is as old as the
country – keep money in people's hands and it will flow and redistribute
throughout the country. There's just no incentives created for those with
the most to reinvest in their community the US.
_____________
I think the observations concerning how the financial industry have
been totally unaccountable to the law, best practices and basic math are
spot on. I embrace WS, but they cannot become so unmoored from the country
that has bestowed luxurious benefits (loopholes) as to operate outside that
frame without consequence. I am unsure of the monetary efficacy that investing
in investing. If one is going bandy about "law and order" then to have any
genuine legs – it's an across the board application.
The concept of the unbiased political reporter is difficult to accept
today. The financial and commercial systems require us all to be economic
animals responding to self-advantage. It is only that handful of people
with more loot than they can spend who can step off the treadmill and act
honestly.
Can any of the political reporters be financially qualified in that way?
Seems highly unlikely.
The only thing that might produce an honest pollster is the fear of the
owners of the polling company that their venality will be exposed and they
will have to start another biz.
Congrats to Lambert for focusing his attention where it matters and not
on the prima donnas.
"... "President Putin has clearly realized that the neo-liberal "experiment" has failed. More likely, is that he was forced to let economic reality unfold under the domination of the liberals to the point it was clear to all internal factions that another road was urgently needed. Russia, like every country, has opposing vested interests and now clearly the neo-liberal vested interests are sufficiently discredited by the poor performance of the Kudrin group that the President is able to move decisively. In either case, the development around the Stolypin Group is very positive for Russia." ..."
I never knew about his existence. He was dead right about national economics
and free trade. The Smithian BS has been the root of much pain and suffering
over the last 200 years.
"President Putin has clearly realized that the neo-liberal "experiment"
has failed. More likely, is that he was forced to let economic reality
unfold under the domination of the liberals to the point it was clear
to all internal factions that another road was urgently needed. Russia,
like every country, has opposing vested interests and now clearly the
neo-liberal vested interests are sufficiently discredited by the poor
performance of the Kudrin group that the President is able to move decisively.
In either case, the development around the Stolypin Group is very positive
for Russia."
This is indeed big news, and the above paragraph is the money shot. Kudrin
is a tool, but Putin wisely did not make a martyr out of him by kicking
him to the curb until he had shown everyone that he was a tool. Now nobody
will dare intervene, "But what about Kudrin's plan?" And another western
voice stilled.
"... On the morning following the Austrian presidential election, when it became certain that the neo-nationalist candidate had not won the Austrian presidency (thanks to a few thousand overseas votes, mostly belonging to the middle class), there was a great sigh of relief from the Transnational Elite, (TE), i.e. the network of economic and political elites running the New World Order of Neoliberal Globalization (NWO), mainly based in the G7 countries. ..."
"... The elites are not used to "no" votes, and whenever the European peoples did not vote the 'correct' way in their plebiscites they were forced to vote again until they did so, or they were simply smashed – as was the case with the Greek plebiscite a year ago. ..."
"... In other words, the peoples' need for self-determination, in the NWO, had no other outlet but the nation-state, as, up to a few years ago, the world was dominated by nation–states, within which communities with a common culture, language, customs etc. could express themselves. ..."
"... The nation-state became again a means of self-determination, as it used to be in the 20th century for peoples under colonial rule struggling for their national liberation. The national culture is of course in clear contradiction with a globalist culture like the one imposed now 'from above' by the Transnational and national elites. ..."
"... In fact, the Transnational Elite launched several criminal wars in the last thirty years or so to "protect" human rights (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and indirectly Syria) leading to millions of deaths and dislocations of populations. ..."
"... Nationalism's emphasis was on the nation-state (or the aspiration for one), whereas neo-nationalism's emphasis is not so much on the nation but rather on sovereignty at the economic but also at the political and cultural levels, which has been phased out in the globalization process; ..."
"... Unlike old nationalism, neo-nationalism raises also demands that in the past were an essential part of the Left agenda, such as the demand for greater equality (within the nation-state and between nation-states), the demand to minimize the power of the elites, even anti-war demands. ..."
"... The neo-nationalist movement had already created strong roots all over the EU, from its Western part (France, UK) up to its Eastern part (Hungary, Poland) and now Austria. Even in the USA itself Donald Trump, who has called on Americans to resist "the false song of globalism", expresses to a significant extent neo-nationalist trends and may be tomorrow the next President of the "Free World". ..."
"... by the strong informal patriotic movement in Russia, which encompasses all those opposing the integration of the country into the NWO ––from neo-nationalists to communists and from orthodox Christians to secularists, while the leadership under Putin is trying to accommodate the very powerful globalist part of the elite (oligarchs, mass media, social media etc.) with this patriotic movement. ..."
"... it is mainly Le Pen's National Front party, more than any other neo-nationalist party in the West, that realized that globalization and membership in the NWΟ's institutions are incompatible with national sovereignty. ..."
"... "Globalization is a barbarity, it is the country which should limit its abuses and regulate it [globalization]." Today the world is in the hands of multinational corporations and large international finance" Immigration "weighs down on wages," while the minimum wage is now becoming the maximum wage" ..."
"... It is therefore obvious that the globalization process has already had devastating economic and social consequences on the majority of the world population. At the same time, the same process has also resulted in tremendous changes at the political and the cultural levels, in the past three decades or so. Last, but not least, it has led to a series of major wars by the Transnational Elite in its attempt to integrate any country resisting integration into the New World Order (NWO) defined by neoliberal globalization (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria) ..."
"... The neo-nationalist movement is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class that used to support the Left ..."
"... the only kind of 'fascism' still possible today is the one directly or indirectly supported by the TE (what we may call 'Euro-fascism'), which is therefore a kind of pseudo-fascism––although in terms of the bestial practices it uses, it may be even more genuine than the 'real thing' of the inter-war period. This is, for instance, the case of the Ukrainian Euro-fascists who are the closest thing to historical Nazism available today, not only in terms of their practices but also in terms of their history. ..."
"... The neo-nationalist parties are embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class which used to support the Left,[xxvii] whilst the latter has effectively embraced all aspects of globalization (economic, political, ideological and cultural) and has been fully integrated into the NWO––a defining moment in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy. ..."
On the morning following the Austrian presidential election, when it became certain that the
neo-nationalist candidate had not won the Austrian presidency (thanks to a few thousand overseas
votes, mostly belonging to the middle class), there was a great sigh of relief from the Transnational
Elite, (TE), i.e. the network of economic and political elites running the New World Order of Neoliberal
Globalization (NWO), mainly based in the G7 countries.
The huge expansion of the anti-globalization movement over the past few years was under control,
for the time being, and the EU elites would not have to resort to sanctions against a country at
the core of the Union – such as those which may soon be imposed against Poland.
In fact, the only reason they have not as yet been imposed is, presumably, the fear of Brexit,
but as soon as the British people finally submit to the huge campaign of intimidation ("Project Fear")
launched against them by the entire transnational elite, Poland's – and later Hungary's – turn will
come in earnest.
The elites are not used to "no" votes, and whenever the European peoples did not vote the
'correct' way in their plebiscites they were forced to vote again until they did so, or they were
simply smashed – as was the case with the Greek plebiscite a year ago. The interesting thing,
however, is that in the Greek case it was the so-called "NewLeft" represented by SYRIZA, which not
only accepted the worst package of measures imposed on Greece (and perhaps any other country) ever,[ii]
but which is also currently busy conducting a huge propaganda campaign (using the state media, which
it absolutely controls, as its main propaganda tool) to deceive the exhausted Greek people that the
government has even achieved some sort of victory in the negotiations! At the same time, the working
class – the traditional supporters of the Left – are deserting the Left en masse and heading towards
the neo-nationalist parties: from Britain and France to Austria. So how can we explain these seemingly
inexplicable phenomena?
Nationalism vs. neo-nationalism
As I tried to show in the past,[iii] the emergence of the modern nation-state in the 17th-18th
centuries played an important role in the development of the system of the market economy and vice
versa. However, whereas the 'nationalization' of the market was necessary for the development of
the 'market system' out of the markets of the past, once capital was internationalized and therefore
the market system itself was internationalized, the nation state became an impediment to further
'progress' of the market system. This is how the NWO emerged, which involved a radical restructuring
not only of the economy, with the rise of Transnational Corporations, but also of polity, with the
present phasing out of nation-states and national sovereignty.
Inevitably, the phasing out of the nation-state and national sovereignty led to the flourishing
of neo-nationalism, as a movement for self-determination. Yet, this development became inevitable
only because the alternative form of social organization, confederalism, which was alive even up
to the time of the Paris Commune had in the meantime disappeared.
In other words, the peoples' need for self-determination, in the NWO, had no other outlet
but the nation-state, as, up to a few years ago, the world was dominated by nation–states, within
which communities with a common culture, language, customs etc. could express themselves.
The nation-state became again a means of self-determination, as it used to be in the 20th
century for peoples under colonial rule struggling for their national liberation. The national culture
is of course in clear contradiction with a globalist culture like the one imposed now 'from above'
by the Transnational and national elites.
This globalist culture is based on the globalization ideology of multiculturalism, protection
of human rights etc., which in fact is an extension of the classical liberal ideology to the NWO.
In fact, the Transnational Elite launched several criminal wars in the last thirty years or so
to "protect" human rights (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and indirectly Syria) leading to
millions of deaths and dislocations of populations. It is not therefore accidental that globalist
ideologists characterize the present flourishing of what I called neo-nationalism, as the rise of
'illiberalism'.'[iv] It is therefore clear that we have to distinguish between old (or classical)
nationalism and the new phenomenon of neo-nationalism. To my mind, the main differences between them
are as follows:
a) Nationalism developed in the era of nation-states as a movement for uniting
communities with a common history, culture and usually language under the common roof of nation-states
that were emerging at the time but also even in the 20th century when national liberation movements
against colonialist empires were fighting for their own nation states. On the other hand, neo-nationalism
developed in the era of globalization with the aim of protecting the national sovereignty of nations
which was under extinction because of the integration of their states into the NWO;
b) Nationalism's emphasis was on the nation-state (or the aspiration for
one), whereas neo-nationalism's emphasis is not so much on the nation but rather on sovereignty at
the economic but also at the political and cultural levels, which has been phased out in the globalization
process;
c) Unlike old nationalism, neo-nationalism raises also demands that in the
past were an essential part of the Left agenda, such as the demand for greater equality (within the
nation-state and between nation-states), the demand to minimize the power of the elites, even anti-war
demands.
Naturally, given the origin of many neo-nationalist parties and their supporters, elements of
the old nationalist ideology may penetrate them, such as the Islamophobic and anti-immigration trends,
which provide the excuse to the elites to dismiss all these movements as 'far right'. However, such
demands are by no means the main reasons why such movements expand. Particularly so, as it can easily
be shown that the refugee problem is also part and parcel of globalization and the '4 freedoms' (capital,
labor, goods and services) its ideology preaches.
The rise of the neo-nationalist movement
Therefore, neo-nationalism is basically a movement that arose out of the effects of globalization,
particularly as far as the continuous squeezing of employees' real incomes is concerned––as a result
of liberalizing labor markets, so that labor could become more competitive. The present 'job miracle',
for instance, in Britain, (which is characterized as "the job creation capital of the western economies"),
hides the fact that, as an analyst pointed out, "unemployment is low, largely because British workers
have been willing to stomach the biggest real-terms pay cut since the Victorian era".[v]
The neo-nationalist movement had already created strong roots all over the EU, from its Western
part (France, UK) up to its Eastern part (Hungary, Poland) and now Austria. Even in the USA itself
Donald Trump, who has called on Americans to resist "the false song of globalism", expresses to a
significant extent neo-nationalist trends and may be tomorrow the next President of the "Free World".Of course, given the political and economic power that the elites have concentrated against these
neo-nationalist movements, it is possible that neither Brexit nor any of these movements may take
over, but this will not stop of course social dissent against the phasing out of national sovereignty.
The same process is repeated almost everywhere in Europe today, inevitably leading many people
(and particularly working class people) to turn to the rising neo-nationalist Right. This is not
of course because they suddenly became "nationalists" let alone "fascists", as the globalist "NewLeft"
(that is the kind of Left which is fully integrated into the NWO and does not question its institutions,
e.g. the EU) accuses them in order to ostracize them. It is simply because the present globalist
"NewLeft" does not wish to lead the struggle against globalization, while, at the same time, the
popular strata have realized that national and economic sovereignty is incompatible with globalization.
This is a fact fully realized, for example, by the strong informal patriotic movement in Russia,
which encompasses all those opposing the integration of the country into the NWO ––from neo-nationalists
to communists and from orthodox Christians to secularists, while the leadership under Putin is trying
to accommodate the very powerful globalist part of the elite (oligarchs, mass media, social media
etc.) with this patriotic movement.
But, it is mainly Le Pen's National Front party, more than any other neo-nationalist party
in the West, that realized that globalization and membership in the NWΟ's institutions are incompatible
with national sovereignty. As Le Pen stressed, (in a way that the "NewLeft" has abandoned long
ago!):
"Globalization is a barbarity, it is the country which should limit its abuses and regulate
it [globalization]." Today the world is in the hands of multinational corporations and large international
finance" Immigration "weighs down on wages," while the minimum wage is now becoming the maximum
wage".[vi]
In fact, the French National Front is the most important neo-nationalist party in Europe and may
well be in power following the next Presidential elections in 2017, unless of course a united front
of all globalist parties (including the "NewLeft" and the Greens), supported by the entire TE and
particularly the Euro-elites and the mass media controlled by them, prevents it from doing so (exactly
as it happens at present in Britain with respect to Brexit). This is how Florian Philippot the FN's
vice-president and chief strategist aptly put its case in a FT interview:
"The people who always voted for the left, who believed in the left and who thought that it
represented an improvement in salaries and pensions, social and economic progress, industrial
policies . these people have realized that they were misled."[vii]
As the same FT report points out, to some observers of French politics, the FN's economic policies,
which include exiting the euro and throwing up trade barriers to protect industry, read like something
copied from a 1930s political manifesto, while Christian Saint-Étienne, an economist for Le Figaro
newspaper, recently described this vision as "Peronist Marxism".[viii] In fact, in a more recent
FT interview, Marine Le Pen, the FN president went a step further in the same direction and she called,
apart from exiting from the Euro––that she expects to lead to the collapse of the Euro, if not of
the EU itself, (which she-rightly–welcomes)––for the nationalization of banks. At the same time she
championed public services and presented herself as the protector of workers and farmers in the face
of "wild and anarchic globalization which has brought more pain than happiness ".[ix]
For comparison, it never even occurred to SYRIZA (and Varoufakis who now wears his "radical" hat)
to use such slogans before the elections (let alone after them!) Needless to add that her foreign
policy is also very different from that of the French establishment, as she wants a radical overhaul
of French foreign policy in which relations with the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad would
be restored and those with the likes of Qatar and Turkey, which she alleges support terrorism, reviewed.
At the same time, Le Pen sees the US as a purveyor of dangerous policies and Russia as a more suitable
friend.
Furthermore, as it was also stressed in the same FT report, "the FN is not the only supposedly
rightwing European populist party seeking to draw support from disaffected voters on the left. Nigel
Farage, the leader of the UK Independence party has adopted a similar approach and has been discussing
plans "to ring-fence the National Health Service budget and lower taxes for low earners, among a
host of measures geared to economically vulnerable voters who would typically support Labor".[x]
Similar trends are noticed in other European countries like Finland, where the anti-NATO and pro-independence
from the EU parties had effectively won the last elections,[xi] as well as in Hungary, where neo-nationalist
forces are continuously rising,[xii] and Orban's government has done more than any other EU leader
in protecting his country's sovereignty, being as a result, in constant conflict with the Euro-elites.
Finally, the rise of a neo-nationalist party in Poland enraged Martin Schulz, the loudmouthed gatekeeper
of the TE in the European Parliament, who accused the new government as attempting a "dangerous 'Putinization'
of European politics."[xiii]
However, what Eurocrats like Martin Schulz "forget" is that since Poland joined the EU
in 2004, at least two million Poles have emigrated, many of them to the UK. The victory of the Law
and Justice Party (Prawo i Sprawiedliwosc, PiS) in October 2015 was due not just to a backlash by
traditional Polish voters to the bulldozing of their values by the ideology of globalization but
also to the fact, as Cédric Gouverneur pointed out, that "the nationalist, pro-religion, protectionist,
xenophobic PiS has attracted these disappointed people with an ambitious welfare programme: a family
allowance of 500 zloty ($130) a month per child, funded through a tax on banks and big business;
a minimum wage; and a return to a retirement age of 60 for women and 65 for men (PO had planned to
raise it to 67 for both).[xiv] In fact, PiS used to be a conservative pro-EU party when they were
in power between 2005 and 2007, following faithfully the neoliberal program, and since then they
have become increasingly populist and Eurosceptic. As a result, in the last elections they won the
parliamentary elections in both the lower house (Sejm) and the Senate, with 37.6% of the vote, against
24.1% for the neoliberals and 8.8% for the populist Kukiz while the "progressive" camp failed to
clear the threshold (5% for parties, 8% for coalitions) and have no parliamentary representation
at all!
The bankruptcy of the Left
It is therefore obvious that the globalization process has already had devastating economic
and social consequences on the majority of the world population. At the same time, the same process
has also resulted in tremendous changes at the political and the cultural levels, in the past three
decades or so. Last, but not least, it has led to a series of major wars by the Transnational Elite
in its attempt to integrate any country resisting integration into the New World Order (NWO) defined
by neoliberal globalization (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria).
Furthermore, there is little doubt anymore that it was the intellectual failure of the Left to
grasp the real significance of a new systemic phenomenon, (i.e. the rise of the Transnational Corporation
that has led to the emergence of the globalization era) and its consequent political bankruptcy,
which were the ultimate causes of the rise of a neo-nationalist movement in Europe. This movement
is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class
that used to support the Left, whilst the latter has effectively embraced not just economic globalization
but also political, ideological and cultural globalization and has therefore been fully integrated
into the New World Order. In fact, today, following the successful emasculation of the antisystemic
movement against globalization, thanks mainly to the activities of the globalist Left, it was left
to the neo-nationalist movement to fight against globalization in general and against the EU in particular.
Almost inevitably, in view of the campaigns of the TE against Muslim countries (Iraq, Afghanistan,
Libya, Syria), worrying Islamophobic trends have developed within several of these neo-nationalist
movements, some of them turning their old anti-Semitism to Islamophobia, supported on this by Zionists
themselves![xv] Even Marine Le Pen did not avoid the temptation to lie about Islamophobia and anti-Semitism,
stressing that "there is no Islamophobia in France but there is a rise in anti-Semitism".
Yet, she is well aware of the fact that Islamophobia was growing in France well before Charlie
Hebdo,[xvi] with racial attacks against Islamic immigrants, (most of whom live under squalid conditions
in virtual ghettos) being very frequent. At the same time, it is well known that the Jewish community
is mostly well off and shares a very disproportionate part of political and economic power in the
country to its actual size, as it happens of course also––and to an even larger extent–– in UK and
USA. This is one more reason why Popular Fronts for National and Social Liberation have to be built
in every country of the world to fight not only Eurofascism and the NWO-which is of course the main
enemy––but also any racist trends developing within these new anti-globalization movements, which
today take the form of neo-nationalism. This would also prevent the elites from using the historically
well-tested 'divide and rule' practice to divide the victims of globalization.
Similarly, the point implicitly raised by the stand of the British "NewLeft" in general on the
issue of Brexit cannot just be discussed in terms of the free trade vs. protectionism debate, as
the liberal (or globalist) "NewLeft" does (see for instance Jean Bricmont[xvii] and Larry Elliott[xviii]
of the Guardian). Yet, the point is whether it is globalization itself, which has led to the present
mass economic violence against the vast majority of the world population and the accompanying it
military violence. In other words, what all these "NewLeft" trends hide is that globalization is
a class issue. But, this is the essence of the bankruptcy of the "NewLeft" , which is reflected in
the fact that, today, it is the neo-nationalist Right which has replaced the Left in its role of
representing the victims of the system in its globalized form , while the Left mainly
represents those in the middle class or the petty bourgeoisie who benefit from globalization. Needless
to add that today's bankrupt "NewLeft" promptly characterized the rising neo-nationalist parties
as racist, if not fascist and neo-Nazis, fully siding with the EU's black propaganda campaign against
the rising movement for national sovereignty.
This is obviously another nail in the coffin of this kind of "NewLeft" , as the millions of European
voters who turn their back towards this degraded "NewLeft" are far from racists or fascists but simply
want to control their way of life rather than letting it to be determined by the free movement of
capital, labor and commodities, as the various Soroses of this world demand!
The neo-nationalist movement is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over
Europe, particularly the working class that used to support the Left,[xix] whilst the latter
has effectively embraced not just economic globalization but also political, ideological and cultural
globalization and has therefore been fully integrated into the New World Order––a defining moment
in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy. In the Austrian elections, it became once more
clear that the Left expresses now the middle class, while the neo-nationalists the working class.
As the super-globalist BBC presented the results:
Support for Mr Hofer was exceptionally strong among manual workers – nearly 90%. The vote for
Mr Van der Bellen was much stronger among people with a university degree or other higher education
qualifications. In nine out of Austria's 10 main cities Mr Van der Bellen came top, whereas Mr Hofer
dominated the rural areas, the Austrian broadcaster ORF reported (in German).[xx]
The process of the NewLeft's bankruptcy has been further enhanced by the fact that, faced with
political collapse in the May 2014 Euro-parliamentary elections, it allied itself with the elites
in condemning the neo-nationalist parties as fascist and neo-Nazi. However, today, following the
successful emasculation of the antisystemic movement against globalization (mainly through the World
Social Forum, thanks to the activities of the globalist "NewLeft" ),[xxi] it is up to the neo-nationalist
movement to fight globalization in general and the EU in particular. It is therefore clear that the
neo-nationalist parties which are, in fact, all under attack by the TE, constitute cases of movements
that have simply filled the huge gap created by the globalist "NewLeft" . Thus, this "NewLeft" ,
Instead of placing itself in the front line among all those peoples fighting globalization and the
phasing out of their economic and national sovereignty, it has indirectly promoted globalization,
using arguments based on an anachronistic internationalism, supposedly founded on Marxism.
On the other side, as one might expect, most members of the Globalist "NewLeft" have joined the
new 'movement' by Varoufakis to democratize Europe, "forgetting" in the process that 'Democracy'
was also the West's propaganda excuse for destroying Iraq, Libya and now Syria. Today, it seems that
the Soros circus is aiming to use exactly the same excuse to destroy Europe, in the sense of securing
the perpetuation of the EU elites' domination of the European peoples and therefore the continuation
of the consequent economic violence involved. The most prominent members of the globalist "NewLeft"
who have already joined this new DIEM 'movement' range from Noam Chomsky and Julian Assange to Suzan
George and Toni Negri, and from Hillary Wainwright of Red Pepper to CounterPunch and
other globalist "NewLeft" newspapers and journals all over the world. In this context, it is particularly
interesting to refer to Slavoj Žižek's commentary on the 'Manifesto' that was presented at the inaugural
meeting of Varoufakis's new movement in Berlin on February 2016.[xxii]
Neo-nationalism and immigration
So, the unifying element of neo-nationalists is their struggle for national sovereignty, which
they (rightly), see as disappearing in the era of globalization. Even when their main immediate motive
is the fight against immigration, indirectly their fight is against globalization, as they realize
that it is the opening of all markets, including the labor markets, particularly within economic
unions like the EU, which is the direct cause of their own unemployment or low-wage employment, as
well as of the deterioration of the welfare state, given that the elites are not prepared to expand
social expenditure to accommodate the influx of immigrants. Yet, this is not a racist movement but
a purely economic movement, although the TE and the Zionist elites, with the help of the globalist
"NewLeft" , try hard to convert it into an Islamophobic movement––as the Charlie Hebdo case
clearly showed[xxiii]–––so that they could use it in any way they see fit in the support of the NWO.
But, what is the relationship of both neo-nationalists and Euro-fascists to historical fascism
and Nazism? As I tried to show elsewhere,[xxiv] fascism, as well as National Socialism, presuppose
a nation-state, therefore this kind of phenomenon is impossible to develop in any country fully integrated
into the NWO, which, by definition, cannot have any significant degree of national sovereignty. The
only kind of sovereignty available in the NWO of neoliberal globalization is transnational sovereignty,
which, in fact, is exclusively shared by members of the TE. In other words, fascism and Nazism were
historical phenomena of the era of nation-state before the ascent of the NWO of neoliberal globalization,
when states still had a significant degree of national and economic sovereignty.
However, in the globalization era, it is exactly this sovereignty that is being phased out for
any country fully integrated into the NWO. Therefore, the only kind of 'fascism' still possible
today is the one directly or indirectly supported by the TE (what we may call 'Euro-fascism'), which
is therefore a kind of pseudo-fascism––although in terms of the bestial practices it uses, it may
be even more genuine than the 'real thing' of the inter-war period. This is, for instance, the case
of the Ukrainian Euro-fascists who are the closest thing to historical Nazism available today, not
only in terms of their practices but also in terms of their history. However, as there is overwhelming
evidence of the full support they have enjoyed by the Transnational Elite and (paradoxically?) even
by the Zionist elite,[xxv] they should more accurately be called Euro-fascists.
It is therefore clear that the neo-nationalist parties, which are all under attack by the TE,
constitute cases of movements that simply filled the huge gap left by the globalist Left, which,
instead of placing itself in the front line of all those peoples fighting globalization and the phasing
out of their economic and national sovereignty,[xxvi] indirectly promoted globalization, using arguments
based on an anachronistic internationalism, developed a hundred years ago or so. The neo-nationalist
parties are embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working
class which used to support the Left,[xxvii] whilst the latter has effectively embraced all aspects
of globalization (economic, political, ideological and cultural) and has been fully integrated into
the NWO––a defining moment in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy.
National and Social Liberation Fronts everywhere!
So, at this crucial historical juncture that will determine whether we shall all become subservient
to neoliberal globalization and the transnational elite (as the DIEM25 Manifesto implies through
our subordination to the EU) or not, it is imperative that we create a Popular Front in each country
which will include all the victims of globalization among the popular strata, regardless of their
current political affiliations.
In Europe, in particular, where the popular strata are facing economic disaster, what is urgently
needed is not an "antifascist" Front within the EU, as proposed by the 'parliamentary juntas' in
power and the Euro-elites, also supported by the globalist "NewLeft" (such as Diem25, Plan B in Europe,
Die Linke, the Socialist Workers' Party in the UK, SYRIZA in Greece and so on), which would, in fact,
unite aggressors and victims. An 'antifascist' front would simply disorient the masses and make them
incapable of facing the real fascism being imposed on them[xxviii] by the political and economic
elites, which constitute the transnational and local elites. Instead, what is needed is a Popular
Front for National and Social Liberation, which that could attract the vast majority of the people
who would fight for immediate unilateral withdrawal from the EU – which is managed by the European
part of the transnational elite – as well as for economic self- reliance, thus breaking with globalization.
To my mind, it is only the creation of broad Popular Fronts that could effect each country's exit
from the EU, NAFTA and similar economic unions, with the aim of achieving economic self-reliance.
Re-development based on self-reliance is the only way in which peoples breaking away from globalization
and its institutions (like the EU) could rebuild their productive structures, which have been dismantled
by globalization. This could also, objectively, lay the ground for future systemic change, decided
upon democratically by the peoples themselves. Therefore, the fundamental aim of the social struggle
today should be a complete break with the present NWO and the building of a new global democratic
community, in which economic and national sovereignty have been restored, so that peoples could then
fight for the ideal society, as they see it.
Takis Fotopoulos is a political philosopher, editor of Society & Nature/
Democracy and Nature/The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy. He has also been a columnist
for the Athens Daily Eleftherotypia since 1990. Between 1969 and 1989 he was Senior Lecturer in Economics
at the University of North London (formerly Polytechnic of North London). He is the author of over
25 books and over 1,500 articles, many of which have been translated into various languages.
This article is based on Ch. 4 of the book to be published next month by Progressive Press,
The New World Order in Action, vol. 1: The NWO, the Left and Neo-Nationalism. This is a major three-volume
project aiming to cover all aspects of the New World Order (NWO) of neoliberal globalization
http://www.progressivepress.com/book-listing/new-world-order-action
Notes:
Bruno Waterfield, "Juncker vows to use new powers to block the far-right", [i]The Times,
24/5/2016
[xviii] see for instance Larry Elliott, "How free trade became the hot topic vexing voters
and politicians in Europe and the US" , The Guardian , 28/3/2016
[xix] Francis Elliott et al. 'Working class prefers Ukip to Labour", The Times , 25/11/2014
"... Not only are "[v]ulnerable Senate Republicans are starting to side with Donald Trump (and Democrats) by opposing President Obama's signature trade deal," as the Washington Post ..."
As the White House prepares for its final "
all-out push " to pass the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) during the upcoming
lame-duck session of Congress, lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle
are being made vulnerable due to growing opposition to the controversial, corporate-friendly
trade deal.
"[I]n 2016," the Guardian
reported on Saturday, "America's faltering faith in free trade has become
the most sensitive controversy in D.C."
Yet President Barack Obama "has refused to give up," wrote Guardian
journalists Dan Roberts and Ryan Felton, despite the fact that the 12-nation
TPP "suddenly faces a wall of political opposition among lawmakers who had,
not long ago, nearly set the giant deal in stone."
... ... ...
Not only are "[v]ulnerable Senate Republicans are starting to side with
Donald Trump (and Democrats) by opposing President Obama's signature trade deal,"
as the Washington Post
reported Thursday, but once-supportive Dems are also poised to jump ship.
To that end, in a column this week, Campaign for America's Future blogger
Dave Johnson
listed for readers "28 House Democrat targets...who-in spite of opposition
from most Democrats and hundreds of labor, consumer, LGBT, health, human rights,
faith, democracy and other civil organizations-voted for the 'fast-track' trade
promotion authority (TPA) bill that 'greased the skids' for the TPP by setting
up rigged rules that will help TPP pass."
Of the list that includes Reps. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.), Jared Polis
(Colo.), and Ron Kind (Wis.), Johnson wrote: "Let's get them on the record before
the election about whether they will vote for TPP after the election."
"... It's gonna be so strong, nobody's gonna mess with us. But you know what? We can do it for a lot less. ..."
"... U.S. military spending is out of control. The Defense Department budget for 2016 is $573 billion. President Barack Obama's 2017 proposal ups it to $582 billion. By comparison, China spent around $145 billion and Russia around $40 billion in 2015. Moscow would have spent more, but the falling price of oil, sanctions and the ensuing economic crisis stayed its hand ..."
"... As Trump has pointed out many times, Washington can build and maintain an amazing military arsenal for a fraction of what it's paying now. He's also right about one of the causes of the bloated budget: expensive prestige weapons systems such as the Littoral Combat Ship and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. ..."
"... "I hear stories," Trump said in a speech before the New Hampshire primary, "like they're ordering missiles they don't want because of politics, because of special interests, because the company that makes the missiles is a contributor." ..."
"... America's defense is crucial. But something is wrong when Washington is spending almost five times as much as its rivals and throwing away billions on untested weapon systems. Most of the other presidential hopefuls agree. "We can't just pour vast sums back into the Pentagon," Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) said during a campaign stop in South Carolina. ..."
"... Cruz promised to rein in the military, audit the Pentagon and figure out why it's spending so much cash. Then he promised to add 125,000 troops to the Army, 177 ships to the Navy and expand the Air Force by 20 percent. ..."
"... Cruz wouldn't put a price tag on these additions. But his plan would likely up the annual defense budget by tens of billions of dollars – if not hundreds of billions. One military expert, Benjamin Friedman of the CATO Institute, estimated that the Cruz plan would cost roughly $2.6 trillion over the next eight years. ..."
"... He's not alone. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) wants to revitalize the Navy, double down on the troubled F-35 and develop a new amphibious assault vehicle. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, like Cruz, wanted to reform military spending while increasing the Pentagon budget by $1 trillion over the next 10 years. ..."
"... The Super PAC that backed Bush funded a string of attack ads accusing Kasich of going soft on defense. Not wanting to appear weak, the governor now talks about increasing defense spending by $102 billion a year. ..."
"... Even the Democrats are in on the game. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has yet to propose a military budget, but she has long pledged strong support for the troops. Meanwhile, she is calling for an independent commissioner to audit the Pentagon for waste, fraud and abuse – the usual suspects. ..."
"... Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is one candidate who has a clear record in terms of the Pentagon budget. He wants to reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal and has long supported a 50 percent cut in defense spending. ..."
"... At the same time, however, Sanders seems to tolerate the $1.5-trillion albatross, the F-35. Which makes sense if you consider that Vermont could lose a lot of jobs if the F-35 disappeared. Sanders persuaded the jet's manufacturer to put a research center in Vermont and bring 18 jets to the state National Guard. ..."
"... Sanders has a history of protecting military contractors - if they bring jobs to his state. When he was mayor of Burlington in the 1980s, he pushed its police force to arrest nonviolent protesters at a local General Electric plant. The factory produced Gatling guns and also was one of the largest employers in the area. ..."
"... During a radio program last October, for example, Trump called out the trouble-ridden F-35. "[Test pilots are] saying it doesn't perform as well as our existing equipment, which is much less expensive," Trump said. "So when I hear that, immediately I say we have to do something, because you know, they're spending billions." ..."
"... Like so many Trump plans, the specifics are hazy. But on this issue, he's got the right idea. ..."
"... In a political climate full of fear of foreign threats and gung-ho about the military, it could take a populist strongman like Trump to deliver the harsh truth: When it comes to the military, the United States can do so much more with so much less. ..."
Donald Trump could be the only presidential candidate talking sense about
for the American military's budget. That should scare everyone.
"I'm gonna build a military that's gonna be much stronger than it is right
now," the real- estate-mogul-turned-tautological-demagogue said on Meet the
Press. "It's gonna be so strong, nobody's gonna mess with us. But you
know what? We can do it for a lot less."
He's right.
U.S. military spending is out of control. The Defense Department budget
for 2016 is $573 billion. President Barack Obama's 2017 proposal ups it to $582
billion. By comparison, China spent around $145 billion and Russia around $40
billion in 2015. Moscow would have spent more, but the falling price of oil,
sanctions and the ensuing economic crisis stayed its hand
As Trump has pointed out many times, Washington can build and maintain
an amazing military arsenal for a fraction of what it's paying now. He's also
right about one of the causes of the bloated budget: expensive prestige weapons
systems such as the Littoral Combat Ship and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
The much-maligned F-35 will cost at least $1.5 trillion during the 55 years
that its manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, expects it to be flying. That number
is up $500 billion from the original high estimate. But with a long list of
problems plaguing the stealth fighter, that price will most likely grow.
"I hear stories," Trump said in a speech before the New Hampshire primary,
"like they're ordering missiles they don't want because of politics, because
of special interests, because the company that makes the missiles is a contributor."
America's defense is crucial. But something is wrong when Washington
is spending almost five times as much as its rivals and throwing away billions
on untested weapon systems. Most of the other presidential hopefuls agree. "We
can't just pour vast sums back into the Pentagon," Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.)
said during a campaign stop in South Carolina.
Cruz promised to rein in the military, audit the Pentagon and figure
out why it's spending so much cash. Then he promised to add 125,000 troops to
the Army, 177 ships to the Navy and expand the Air Force by 20 percent.
Cruz wouldn't put a price tag on these additions. But his plan would
likely up the annual defense budget by tens of billions of dollars – if not
hundreds of billions. One military expert, Benjamin Friedman of the CATO Institute,
estimated that the Cruz plan would cost roughly $2.6 trillion over the next
eight years.
Ballistic-missile-launching submarines aren't cheap, for example, and Cruz
wants 12 of them. "If you think it's too expensive to defend this nation," Cruz
said, "try not defending it."
He's not alone. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) wants to revitalize the
Navy, double down on the troubled F-35 and develop a new amphibious assault
vehicle. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, like Cruz, wanted to reform military
spending while increasing the Pentagon budget by $1 trillion over the next 10
years.
Ohio Governor John Kasich might be expected to have a more reasonable stance.
After all, he sat on the House Armed Services Committee for almost 18 years,
where he slashed budgets and challenged wasteful Pentagon projects.
But that past is a liability for him. The Super PAC that backed Bush
funded a string of attack ads accusing Kasich of going soft on defense. Not
wanting to appear weak, the governor now talks about increasing defense spending
by $102 billion a year.
Even the Democrats are in on the game. Former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton has yet to propose a military budget, but she has long pledged strong
support for the troops. Meanwhile, she is calling for an independent commissioner
to
audit the Pentagon for waste, fraud and abuse – the usual suspects.
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is one candidate who has a clear record
in terms of the Pentagon budget. He wants to
reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal and has long supported a 50 percent cut
in defense spending.
A Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II joint strike
fighter flies toward its new home at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, January
11, 2011. REUTERS/U.S. Air Force/Staff Sgt. Joely Santiago/Handout
At the same time, however, Sanders seems to tolerate the $1.5-trillion
albatross, the F-35. Which makes sense if you consider that Vermont could lose
a lot of jobs if the F-35 disappeared. Sanders persuaded the jet's manufacturer
to put a research center in Vermont and bring 18 jets to the state National
Guard.
Sanders has a history of protecting military contractors - if they bring
jobs to his state. When he was mayor of Burlington in the 1980s, he
pushed its police force to arrest nonviolent protesters at a local General
Electric plant. The factory produced Gatling guns and also was one of the largest
employers in the area.
Yet, Sanders ideological beliefs can sometimes
color his views. He was chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee
in 2014 as scandal swept the Department of Veterans Affairs. Even as many VA
supporters called for reforms, Sanders defended the hospital system because
he felt conservatives were attacking a major government social-welfare agency.
He still defends his stewardship of the committee. "When I was chairman,
what we did is pass a $15-billion piece of legislation,"
Sanders
said during a recent debate with Clinton. "We went further than any time
in recent history in improving the healthcare of the men and women in this country
who put their lives on the line to defend us."
In the age of terrorism and Islamic State bombers, the prevailing political
wisdom holds that appearing soft on defense can lose a candidate the general
election. For many of the 2016 presidential candidates, looking strong means
spending a ton of cash. Even if you're from the party that holds fiscal responsibility
as its cornerstone.
But Trump doesn't care about any of that. In speech after speech, he has
called out politicians and defense contractors for colluding to build costly
weapons systems at the price of national security.
During a radio program last October, for example, Trump called out the
trouble-ridden F-35. "[Test pilots are] saying it doesn't perform as well as
our existing equipment, which is much less expensive," Trump said. "So when
I hear that, immediately I say we have to do something, because you know, they're
spending billions."
Like so many Trump plans, the specifics are hazy. But on this issue,
he's got the right idea.
In a political climate full of fear of foreign threats and gung-ho about
the military, it could take a populist strongman like Trump to deliver the harsh
truth: When it comes to the military, the United States can do so much more
with so much less.
Imagine if the people of the Soviet Union had never heard of communism. The
ideology that dominates our lives has, for most of us, no name. Mention it in
conversation and you'll be rewarded with a shrug. Even if your listeners have
heard the term before, they will struggle to define it. Neoliberalism: do you
know what it is?
Its anonymity is both a symptom and cause of its power. It has played a major
role in a remarkable variety of crises: the
financial meltdown of 2007‑8, the offshoring of wealth and power, of which
the
Panama Papers offer us merely a glimpse, the slow collapse of public health
and education, resurgent child poverty,
the epidemic of loneliness, the collapse of ecosystems, the rise of
Donald
Trump. But we respond to these crises as if they emerge in isolation, apparently
unaware that they have all been either catalysed or exacerbated by the same
coherent philosophy; a philosophy that has – or had – a name. What greater power
can there be than to operate namelessly?
Inequality is recast as virtuous. The market ensures that everyone gets
what they deserve.
So pervasive has neoliberalism become that we seldom even recognise it as
an ideology. We appear to accept the proposition that this utopian, millenarian
faith describes a neutral force; a kind of biological law, like Darwin's theory
of evolution. But the philosophy arose as a conscious attempt to reshape human
life and shift the locus of power.
Neoliberalism sees competition as the defining characteristic of human relations.
It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised
by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency.
It maintains that "the market" delivers benefits that could never be achieved
by planning.
Bookmarks is our new weekly email from the books team with our pick of the
latest news, views and reviews, delivered to your inbox every Thursday
Read more
Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and
regulation should be minimised, public services should be privatised. The organisation
of labour and collective bargaining by
trade
unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of
a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous:
a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich
everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive
and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve.
We internalise and reproduce its creeds.
The rich persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit,
ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance and class – that may
have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their failures,
even when they can do little to change their circumstances.
Never mind structural unemployment: if you don't have a job it's because
you are unenterprising. Never mind the impossible costs of housing: if your
credit card is maxed out, you're feckless and improvident. Never mind that your
children no longer have a school playing field: if they get fat, it's your fault.
In a world governed by competition, those who fall behind become defined and
self-defined as losers.
Paul Verhaeghe: An economic system that rewards psychopathic
personality traits has changed our ethics and our personalities
Read more
Among the results, as Paul Verhaeghe documents in his book What About
Me? are epidemics of self-harm, eating disorders, depression, loneliness,
performance anxiety and social phobia. Perhaps it's unsurprising that Britain,
in which neoliberal ideology has been most rigorously applied, is
the loneliness capital of Europe. We are all neoliberals now.
***
The term neoliberalism was coined at a meeting in Paris in 1938. Among the
delegates were two men who came to define the ideology, Ludwig von Mises and
Friedrich Hayek. Both exiles from Austria, they saw social democracy, exemplified
by Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and the gradual development of Britain's welfare
state, as manifestations of a collectivism that occupied the same spectrum as
nazism and communism.
In The Road to Serfdom, published in 1944, Hayek argued that government
planning, by crushing individualism, would lead inexorably to totalitarian control.
Like Mises's book Bureaucracy, The Road to Serfdom was widely
read. It came to the attention of some very wealthy people, who saw in the philosophy
an opportunity to free themselves from regulation and tax. When, in 1947, Hayek
founded the first organisation that would spread the doctrine of neoliberalism
– the Mont Pelerin Society
– it was supported financially by millionaires and their foundations.
As it evolved, neoliberalism became more strident. Hayek's view that governments
should regulate competition to prevent monopolies from forming gave way – among
American apostles such as
Milton Friedman – to the belief that monopoly power could be seen as a reward
for efficiency.
Something else happened during this transition: the movement lost its name.
In 1951, Friedman was happy to
describe himself as a neoliberal. But soon after that, the term began to
disappear. Stranger still, even as the ideology became crisper and the movement
more coherent, the lost name was not replaced by any common alternative.
At first, despite its lavish funding, neoliberalism remained at the margins.
The postwar consensus was almost universal:
John Maynard Keynes's economic prescriptions were widely applied, full employment
and the relief of poverty were common goals in the US and much of western Europe,
top rates of tax were high and governments sought social outcomes without embarrassment,
developing new public services and safety nets.
But in the 1970s, when Keynesian policies began to fall apart and economic
crises struck on both sides of the Atlantic, neoliberal ideas began to enter
the mainstream. As Friedman remarked, "when the time came that you had to change
... there was an alternative ready there to be picked up". With the help of
sympathetic journalists and political advisers, elements of neoliberalism, especially
its prescriptions for monetary policy, were adopted by Jimmy Carter's administration
in the US and Jim Callaghan's government in Britain.
It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice should have been
promoted with the slogan 'there is no alternative'
After Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan took power, the rest of the package
soon followed: massive tax cuts for the rich, the crushing of trade unions,
deregulation, privatisation, outsourcing and competition in public services.
Through the IMF, the World Bank, the Maastricht treaty and the World Trade Organisation,
neoliberal policies were imposed – often without democratic consent – on much
of the world. Most remarkable was its adoption among parties that once belonged
to the left: Labour and the Democrats, for example. As Stedman Jones notes,
"it is hard to think of another utopia to have been as fully realised."
***
It may seem strange that a doctrine promising choice and freedom should have
been promoted with the slogan "there is no alternative". But,
as Hayek remarked on a visit to Pinochet's Chile – one of the first nations
in which the programme was comprehensively applied – "my personal preference
leans toward a liberal dictatorship rather than toward a democratic government
devoid of liberalism". The freedom that neoliberalism offers, which sounds so
beguiling when expressed in general terms, turns out to mean freedom for the
pike, not for the minnows.
Freedom from trade unions and collective bargaining means the freedom to
suppress wages. Freedom from regulation means the
freedom to poison rivers, endanger workers, charge iniquitous rates of interest
and design exotic financial instruments. Freedom from tax means freedom from
the distribution of wealth that lifts people out of poverty.
Naomi Klein documented that neoliberals
advocated the use of crises to impose unpopular policies while people were
distracted. Photograph: Anya Chibis for the Guardian
As Naomi Klein documents in
The Shock Doctrine, neoliberal theorists advocated the use of crises
to impose unpopular policies while people were distracted: for example, in the
aftermath of Pinochet's coup, the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina, which Friedman
described as "an opportunity to radically reform the educational system" in
New Orleans.
Where neoliberal policies cannot be imposed domestically, they are imposed
internationally, through trade treaties incorporating "investor-state
dispute settlement": offshore tribunals in which corporations can press
for the removal of social and environmental protections. When parliaments have
voted to restrict sales of
cigarettes, protect water supplies from mining companies, freeze energy
bills or prevent pharmaceutical firms from ripping off the state, corporations
have sued, often successfully. Democracy is reduced to theatre.
Neoliberalism was not conceived as a self-serving racket, but it rapidly
became one
Another paradox of neoliberalism is that universal competition relies upon
universal quantification and comparison. The result is that workers, job-seekers
and public services of every kind are subject to a pettifogging, stifling regime
of assessment and monitoring, designed to identify the winners and punish the
losers. The doctrine that Von Mises proposed would free us from the bureaucratic
nightmare of central planning has instead created one.
Neoliberalism was not conceived as a self-serving racket, but it rapidly
became one. Economic growth has been markedly slower in the neoliberal era (since
1980 in Britain and the US) than it was in the preceding decades; but not for
the very rich. Inequality in the distribution of both income and wealth, after
60 years of decline, rose rapidly in this era, due to the smashing of trade
unions, tax reductions, rising rents, privatisation and deregulation.
The privatisation or marketisation of public services such as energy, water,
trains, health, education, roads and prisons has enabled corporations to set
up tollbooths in front of essential assets and charge rent, either to citizens
or to government, for their use. Rent is another term for unearned income. When
you pay an inflated price for a train ticket, only part of the fare compensates
the operators for the money they spend on fuel, wages, rolling stock and other
outlays. The rest reflects the fact that
they have you over a barrel.
Those who own and run the UK's privatised or semi-privatised services make
stupendous fortunes by investing little and charging much. In Russia and India,
oligarchs acquired state assets through firesales. In Mexico,
Carlos Slim was granted control of almost all landline and mobile phone
services and soon became the world's richest man.
Financialisation, as Andrew Sayer notes in
Why We Can't Afford the Rich, has had a similar impact. "Like rent,"
he argues, "interest is ... unearned income that accrues without any effort".
As the poor become poorer and the rich become richer, the rich acquire increasing
control over another crucial asset: money. Interest payments, overwhelmingly,
are a transfer of money from the poor to the rich. As property prices and the
withdrawal of state funding load people with debt (think of the switch from
student grants to student loans), the banks and their executives clean up.
Sayer argues that the past four decades have been characterised by a transfer
of wealth not only from the poor to the rich, but within the ranks of the wealthy:
from those who make their money by producing new goods or services to those
who make their money by controlling existing assets and harvesting rent, interest
or capital gains. Earned income has been supplanted by unearned income.
Neoliberal policies are everywhere beset by market failures. Not only are
the banks too big to fail, but so are the corporations now charged with delivering
public services. As Tony Judt pointed out in
Ill Fares the Land, Hayek forgot that vital national services cannot
be allowed to collapse, which means that competition cannot run its course.
Business takes the profits, the state keeps the risk.
The greater the failure, the more extreme the ideology becomes. Governments
use neoliberal crises as both excuse and opportunity to cut taxes, privatise
remaining public services, rip holes in the social safety net, deregulate corporations
and re-regulate citizens. The self-hating state now sinks its teeth into every
organ of the public sector.
Perhaps the most dangerous impact of neoliberalism is not the economic crises
it has caused, but the political crisis. As the domain of the state is reduced,
our ability to change the course of our lives through voting also contracts.
Instead, neoliberal theory asserts, people can exercise choice through spending.
But some have more to spend than others: in the great consumer or shareholder
democracy, votes are not equally distributed. The result is a disempowerment
of the poor and middle. As parties of the right and
former left adopt similar neoliberal policies, disempowerment turns to disenfranchisement.
Large numbers of people have been shed from politics.
Chris Hedges
remarks that "fascist movements build their base not from the politically
active but the politically inactive, the 'losers' who feel, often correctly,
they have no voice or role to play in the political establishment". When political
debate no longer speaks to us, people become responsive
instead to slogans, symbols and sensation. To the admirers of Trump, for
example, facts and arguments appear irrelevant.
Judt explained that when the thick mesh of interactions between people and
the state has been reduced to nothing but authority and obedience, the only
remaining force that binds us is state power. The totalitarianism Hayek feared
is more likely to emerge when governments, having lost the moral authority that
arises from the delivery of public services, are reduced to "cajoling, threatening
and ultimately coercing people to obey them".
***
Like communism, neoliberalism is the God that failed. But the zombie doctrine
staggers on, and one of the reasons is its anonymity. Or rather, a cluster of
anonymities.
The invisible doctrine of the invisible hand is promoted by invisible backers.
Slowly, very slowly, we have begun to discover the names of a few of them. We
find that the Institute of Economic Affairs, which has argued forcefully in
the media against the further regulation of the tobacco industry,
has been secretly funded by British American Tobacco since 1963. We discover
that
Charles and David Koch, two of the richest men in the world, founded the
institute that set up the
Tea Party movement. We find that Charles Koch, in establishing one of his
thinktanks,
noted that "in order to avoid undesirable criticism, how the organisation
is controlled and directed should not be widely advertised".
The nouveau riche were once disparaged by those who had inherited their
money. Today, the relationship has been reversed
The words used by neoliberalism often conceal more than they elucidate. "The
market" sounds like a natural system that might bear upon us equally, like gravity
or atmospheric pressure. But it is fraught with power relations. What "the market
wants" tends to mean what corporations and their bosses want. "Investment",
as Sayer notes, means two quite different things. One is the funding of productive
and socially useful activities, the other is the purchase of existing assets
to milk them for rent, interest, dividends and capital gains. Using the same
word for different activities "camouflages the sources of wealth", leading us
to confuse wealth extraction with wealth creation.
A century ago, the nouveau riche were disparaged by those who had inherited
their money. Entrepreneurs sought social acceptance by passing themselves off
as rentiers. Today, the relationship has been reversed: the rentiers and inheritors
style themselves entre preneurs. They claim to have earned their unearned income.
These anonymities and confusions mesh with the namelessness and placelessness
of modern capitalism: the franchise model which ensures that workers
do not know for whom they toil; the companies registered through a network
of offshore secrecy regimes so complex that
even the
police cannot discover the beneficial owners; the tax arrangements that
bamboozle governments; the financial products no one understands.
The anonymity of neoliberalism is fiercely guarded. Those who are influenced
by Hayek, Mises and Friedman tend to reject the term, maintaining – with some
justice – that it is used today
only pejoratively. But they offer us no substitute. Some describe themselves
as classical liberals or libertarians, but these descriptions are both misleading
and curiously self-effacing, as they suggest that there is nothing novel about
The Road to Serfdom, Bureaucracy or Friedman's classic work,
Capitalism and Freedom.
***
For all that, there is something admirable about the neoliberal project,
at least in its early stages. It was a distinctive, innovative philosophy promoted
by a coherent network of thinkers and activists with a clear plan of action.
It was patient and persistent. The Road to Serfdom became the path to
power.
Letters: For neoliberals to claim that their view supports
the current distribution of property and power is almost as bonkers as the Lockean
theory of property itself
Read more
Neoliberalism's triumph also reflects the failure of the left. When laissez-faire
economics led to catastrophe in 1929, Keynes devised a comprehensive economic
theory to replace it. When Keynesian demand management hit the buffers in the
70s, there was an alternative ready. But when neoliberalism fell apart in 2008
there was ... nothing. This is why the zombie walks. The left and centre have
produced no new general framework of economic thought for 80 years.
Every invocation of Lord Keynes is an admission of failure. To propose Keynesian
solutions to the crises of the 21st century is to ignore three obvious problems.
It is hard to mobilise people around old ideas; the flaws exposed in the 70s
have not gone away; and, most importantly, they have nothing to say about our
gravest predicament: the environmental crisis. Keynesianism works by stimulating
consumer demand to promote economic growth. Consumer demand and economic growth
are the motors of environmental destruction.
What the history of both Keynesianism and neoliberalism show is that it's
not enough to oppose a broken system. A coherent alternative has to be proposed.
For Labour, the Democrats and the wider left, the central task should be to
develop an economic Apollo programme, a conscious attempt to design a new system,
tailored to the demands of the 21st century.
George Monbiot's How Did We Get into This Mess? is published this month
by Verso. To order a copy for £12.99 (RRP £16.99) ) go to
bookshop.theguardian.com or call 0330 333 6846. Free UK p&p over £10, online
orders only. Phone orders min p&p of £1.99.
All this discussion missed the most important point: Obama is neocon and neoliberal
and he did what he was supposed to do. "Change we can believe is" was a masterful
"bait and switch" operation to full the gullible electorate. he was just a useful
puppet for globalist. They used him and they will threw him to the dust bin of history
sweetened with $200k speeches.
Notable quotes:
"... The article is a waste of time! The real winners are the neoconservative corporate world with a one party corporate state! It is time for a third party in the United States that represents ordinary American people! ..."
"... So the best of Obama is ground troops in Iraq and Syria ? More drone strikes? ..."
"... Trump is more of an isolationist, he would do less against foreign countries than the Obama/Clinton government. Syria and Libya would never had happened under a Trump presidency. ..."
"... Clinton helped the distabilize Syria arming rebels who some joined IS: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/18328 ..."
"... 'The best of Barack Obama'? You mean he can commit mass murder by drone in even greater numbers and in more than the seven countries the US is not at war with???? ..."
"... Murder by Presidential decree - what a guy! ..."
"... Wow, that should really scare Trump! After 8 years, most of us -- even those who twice voted for him -- know there is no best in Barack. He has fumbled and bumbled all the way; Putin has run circles around him. He has destabilized the entire Mideast. He could not even close Guantanamo. He was elected on the promise of hope and leaves a legacy of despair and a horde of innocent drone victims. He calls it collateral damage; I call it murder. ..."
"... Obama's presidency: 1. Added 10T to national debt that future generations will be taxed to pay it up. 2. Record # of people living on food stamps. 3. Steady drop of labor participation rate (so he had to rig Job stats to hide it) 4. Stagnant income for average family 5. Driving living cost (such health insurance bills / student loans) up despite stagnant income. 6. Promised public an "affordable" health care plan only to drive insurance cost up. 7. Letting ISIS grow under his watch and calling it just "JV team" until its threat is too big to ignore. ... ... Incompetence and dishonesty are what people will remember Obama as. He is now shaping up to be worse than GWBush, which was unthinkable right after Bush's term was over. ..."
"... Wake up, we are the United States of America and our business is; has been and will be war and weapons. Eisenhower knew it in the 50's and nothing has changed. ..."
"... Well, Trump was against the Iraq war, the war in Libya and against intervention with the resulting war in Syria. That honours him. Compared that with Hillarys approach regarding these conflicts. ..."
"... Pity Obama wasn't so ruthless in preventing the massive theft of taxpayers money to bail out Wall Street. In fact didn't he appoint all those Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Citigroup executives to run his economic policy? He has always known where his bread was best buttered just like Bill and Hillary? Anyone out there willing to take on a few 30 minute speaking engagements for $100-200,000 a pop? Nice retirement. ..."
"... "This hyper-competitive president..."??? Surely you jest. This is the guy who tucked tail and ran every time the GOP threatened a filibuster as opposed to making them actually do it...who put zero banksters in prison for crashing the economy with fraudulent scams...who didn't close Gitmo...who gave us a healthcare reform that was a gift to the insurance and pharma industries. ..."
"... "Obama is a statesman"...then why he is the man who stutters endlessly when taken off a teleprompter? ..."
"... Attacked seven different countries with drones, killing around 2,600 innocent civilians. ..."
"... Prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other Presidents combined. ..."
"... Continued the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. ..."
"... Expanded our National Security State (Look up his new Patriot Act.) ..."
"... Appointed more corporate lobbyists to high government positions than Bush ever did. ..."
"... Destroyed Libya as a functioning state, with dozens of competing terrorist militias (many of whom we armed). ..."
"... Recognized the new Honduran right-wing government, which made it the most violent country in the world. And now he's decided to deport thousands of children who came here to escape the violence. ..."
"... Signed two more trade (corporate investment) agreements and pushed the TPP - granting corporations more legal rights than states. ..."
"... Gave trillions to the Banks and Wall Street. ..."
"... Carried out economic policies that actually increased inequality here, especially in communities of color, ..."
"... Replenished Israel's weapons - while they were bombing Gaza - and now plans to add a billion dollars a year in military aid to the right-wingers in control of that state. ..."
"... Arranged a $32 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia and sent them cluster bombs for their attack on Yemen ..."
"... Added a trillion dollars to "upgrade" our nuclear weapons. ..."
"... Which of these things make you "so proud?" ..."
"... You left out Obama's caving in on single-payer universal health care (Medicare could easily have provided a point of departure) instead of fighting for it. ..."
"... To him getting rid of Asad who poses no terrorism threat to US is more important than fighting ISIS, which is basically the same ol' GWBush neocon regime change strategy and absurd. ..."
"... This commentator nor the paper for which he writes will never in a million years ever even suggest the disdain Obama and the US government has for the rule of law - his lieutenants have been caught out lying to congress - no charges for the key apparatchiks of evil - hope that phrase catches on. ..."
"... Does Obama go after Mexican drug cartels, every bit as destructive as Isil but with a direct impact on the US? No. Does he go after other militant groups across the globe? No. He feeds the 'terrible Muslim' narrative by continuing to singularly pursue them as if they were the only problem in the world. ..."
"... Obama's predecessor was arguably the most manipulated, most moronic, completely un-qualified and utterly reckless war mongering shill ever put into the white house. Barack inherited a friggin mess of biblical proportions, created by treasonous ne-cons intent on fomenting war and destruction for no better reason than to forward the agenda of the military-industrial complex. ..."
"... I'm confident that Hillary Clinton will continue his work, because she recognizes the critical role played by diplomacy :-). She's not the hawk that Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders would have you believe ;-). ..."
"... TPP is all you need to know. Obama is just a puppet of this oligarchy. ..."
The article is a waste of time! The real winners are the neoconservative
corporate world with a one party corporate state! It is time for a third
party in the United States that represents ordinary American people!
kittehpavolvski
So, if we're about to see the best of Obama, what have we been seeing
hitherto?
waitforme
So the best of Obama is ground troops in Iraq and Syria ? More drone
strikes?
ForestTrees
Trump is more of an isolationist, he would do less against foreign
countries than the Obama/Clinton government. Syria and Libya would never
had happened under a Trump presidency.
'The best of Barack Obama'? You mean he can commit mass murder by
drone in even greater numbers and in more than the seven countries the US
is not at war with????
What a fatuous article about the world's leading terrorist.
And of course we shouldn't forget that he had prosecuted more whistleblowers
than all other presidents combined.
Let's not forget that he claims and has exercised his 'right' to murder
his own citizens on the basis of secret evidence - one being a 16 year old
boy. And when the White House spokesman was asked why the boy was murdered
by drone, he said 'He should have had a more responsible father'.
He sings off on his 'Kill List' of domestic and foreign nationals every
Tuesday, dubbed 'Terror Tuesday' by his staff.
Murder by Presidential decree - what a guy!
ID7715785
Wow, that should really scare Trump! After 8 years, most of us --
even those who twice voted for him -- know there is no best in Barack. He
has fumbled and bumbled all the way; Putin has run circles around him. He
has destabilized the entire Mideast. He could not even close Guantanamo.
He was elected on the promise of hope and leaves a legacy of despair and
a horde of innocent drone victims. He calls it collateral damage; I call
it murder.
ninjamia
Oh, I know. He'll repeat the snide and nasty remarks about Trump that
he gave at the Press Club dinner. Such style and grace - not.
Casting Donald Trump as the Big Bad Wolf doesn't bring about real change.
And sadly, in his almost 8 years in office (2 years with absolute control
over the Congress) Barack Obama has brought about little real change. For
him it is a slogan.
Larry Robinson
Obama's presidency:
1. Added 10T to national debt that future generations will be taxed to pay
it up.
2. Record # of people living on food stamps.
3. Steady drop of labor participation rate (so he had to rig Job stats to
hide it)
4. Stagnant income for average family
5. Driving living cost (such health insurance bills / student loans) up
despite stagnant income.
6. Promised public an "affordable" health care plan only to drive insurance
cost up.
7. Letting ISIS grow under his watch and calling it just "JV team" until
its threat is too big to ignore.
... ...
Incompetence and dishonesty are what people will remember Obama as. He
is now shaping up to be worse than GWBush, which was unthinkable right after
Bush's term was over.
shinNeMIN -> Larry Robinson
$500 million worth of arm supply?
hadeze242 -> Major MajorMajor
while Obama's messy military interventions become more and more confused,
chaotic and tragic his personal appearance gets ever more Hollywood: perfect
attire, smile and just the right words. I would prefer the inverse, less
tailoring and neat haircuts, but more honesty and transparency. e.g., Obama
lied about the NSA for how long in this first term. Answer: all four years
long and beyond into the 2nd term.
BostonCeltics
Six more months until he goes into the dustbin of history. Small minded
people in positions of power who take things personally are the epitome
of incompetence.
Mats Almgren
Obama became a worse president than Bush. Endless moneyprinting, bombing
nine countries, created a operation Condor 2.0 with interventions in Venezuela,
Brazil and Argentina, didn't withdraw any troops from Afghanistan, lifted
the weapon embargo on Vietnam to sell US weapons and at the same time forcing
Vietnam to not do trade deals with China, intimidating the Phillipines from
doing trade with China, restarted the cold war which had led to biggest
military ramp up in Eastern Europe since 1941, drone bombed weddings and
hospitals and what not, supported islam militants in Libya, Syria and Iraq
which has led to total devastation in these countries. And there has been
an increase in the constant US interventionism regarding European elections
and referendums. And has continuously protected the dollar hegemony causing
death and destruction thoughout the world.
With that track record it's easy to say that Obama might be worst US
president ever. And there has been hardly any critism and critical thinking
in the more and more propagandistic and agenda driven western media.
It's like living in the twilight zone reading the media in Sweden and
Britain.
Jose Sanchez -> Mats Almgren
Blame a president for trying to sell what we still manufacture are you?
Wake up, we are the United States of America and our business is;
has been and will be war and weapons. Eisenhower knew it in the 50's and
nothing has changed.
NewWorldWatcher
The new leader of the Republican party thinks that that it was stupid
to go into Iraq and Afghanistan but it would be good to carpet bomb ISIS.
He IS a great Republican. No wonder this party is on the fringe of extinction.
Mats Almgren -> NewWorldWatcher
Well, Trump was against the Iraq war, the war in Libya and against
intervention with the resulting war in Syria. That honours him. Compared
that with Hillarys approach regarding these conflicts.
trundlesome1
Pity Obama wasn't so ruthless in preventing the massive theft of
taxpayers money to bail out Wall Street. In fact didn't he appoint all those
Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and Citigroup executives to run his economic
policy? He has always known where his bread was best buttered just like
Bill and Hillary?
Anyone out there willing to take on a few 30 minute speaking engagements
for $100-200,000 a pop? Nice retirement.
zootsuitbeatnick
"This hyper-competitive president..."??? Surely you jest. This is
the guy who tucked tail and ran every time the GOP threatened a filibuster
as opposed to making them actually do it...who put zero banksters in prison
for crashing the economy with fraudulent scams...who didn't close Gitmo...who
gave us a healthcare reform that was a gift to the insurance and pharma
industries.
That's as hyper-competitive as Trump is selfless.
Try to be at least a little reality-based.
hadeze242
the best of Pres. Obama? Perhaps only someone living a life in the UK
could dream this strange dream? Great, compared to whom, to what? Never
since WW2 has the US & world seen such a weak, openly-prejudiced, non-performing
Pres. Remember O's plan to save Afghanistan? Lybia? Then, working (bombing)
with Putin's Russia to collaterally bomb the beautiful, developed, cultural
nation of Syria. To what end I ask? To create refugees? Obama has never
been at his best, always only at his worst. Ah, yes, his smooth-lawyered
sentences come with commas & periods and all that, but there is no feeling
inside the man. This man is a great, oratory actor. His promises are well-written
& endless, but delivery is never coming. Yes, we can .. was his electoral
phrase. No, we can't ... after 8 long, wasted yrs was his result.
NewWorldWatcher
In Las Vegas they are gaming on how many votes will Trump lose by not
who will win. A Trump loss will be in excess of 10 Million votes.......5to2
odds. The worse loss in recent history!
Janet Re Johnson -> NewWorldWatcher
From your mouth to God's ears. But I'm a big baseball fan, so I know
it ain't over till it's over.
Larry Robinson
Also it's when Obama talks out of outburst rather than from a teleprompter
that you can tell his true capability as a leader or lack thereof.
Notice that Obama said ... not once has an advisor tells him to use the
term "radical Islam" ... . Well Mr Obama, it's your own call to decide what
term to use on this issue so why are you bringing your advisors out for
credence. Right or wrong that's your own decision so you should stand behind
it. When you bring advisors in to defend what should be your own call it
shows WEAKNESS.
Obama basically tells everyone that he needs his advisors to tell him
what do b/c he does NOT know how to handle it by himself. So who's the leader
here, Obama or his advisors? Is Obama just a puppet that needs his advisors
to pull the string constantly? Ouch.
It's the prompter-free moment like this that the truth about Obama comes
out. I wonder why Trump has not picked this clear hole up yet.
raffine
The POTUS will crush Mr Trump like a 200 year old peanut.
Carolyn Walas Libbey -> raffine
The POTUS is about as useful as an old condom.
PortalooMassacre
Exposed to the toxic smugness of Richard Wolffe, I'm beginning to see
what people find attractive about Donald Trump's refreshing barbarism.
guy ventner -> synechdoche
"Obama is a statesman"...then why he is the man who stutters endlessly
when taken off a teleprompter?
Ron Shuffler
"Greatest President since Lincoln" "I am proud - so proud! - to say that
this man is MY President! Personally, I am ashamed that this man is my President.
But anyway, here's what Richard Wolffe and y'all are so proud of:
Here's what your favorite President actually did:
Attacked seven different countries with drones, killing around
2,600 innocent civilians.
Prosecuted more whistleblowers than all other Presidents combined.
Continued the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Deported at least 2.8 million "illegal" immigrants
Expanded our National Security State (Look up his new Patriot
Act.)
Appointed more corporate lobbyists to high government positions
than Bush ever did.
Destroyed Libya as a functioning state, with dozens of competing
terrorist militias (many of whom we armed).
Recognized the new Honduran right-wing government, which made
it the most violent country in the world. And now he's decided to deport
thousands of children who came here to escape the violence.
Signed two more trade (corporate investment) agreements and
pushed the TPP - granting corporations more legal rights than states.
Gave trillions to the Banks and Wall Street.
Carried out economic policies that actually increased inequality
here, especially in communities of color,
Left Guantanamo open (though as Commander-in-Chief he could have
closed it down with a phone call).
Replenished Israel's weapons - while they were bombing Gaza
- and now plans to add a billion dollars a year in military aid to the
right-wingers in control of that state.
Arranged a $32 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia and sent them
cluster bombs for their attack on Yemen
Sent billions of dollars to the new military rulers of Egypt
Added a trillion dollars to "upgrade" our nuclear weapons.
Which of these things make you "so proud?"
BG Davis -> Ron Shuffler
You left out Obama's caving in on single-payer universal health care
(Medicare could easily have provided a point of departure) instead of fighting
for it.
At the same time, you overestimate the simplicity of just closing Guantanamo
prison with "a phone call." So he makes the phone call; then what happens
to the prisoners? They aren't all innocent non-entities who just happened
to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Larry Robinson
It's only in the mind of die hard liberals that Obama has been strong
against terrorists. Just look at how he handles Syria situation. Asad -
a Shiite govt - is a sworn enemy to ISIS - a Sunni organization so if you
are serious about ISIS you should utilize Asad, right? Well no, Obama is
so hell-bent on unseating Asad that he supports those rebels that are also
Sunni-based and cozy with ISIS. To him getting rid of Asad who poses
no terrorism threat to US is more important than fighting ISIS, which is
basically the same ol' GWBush neocon regime change strategy and absurd.
Lafcadio1944
What part of Obama's criminal acts in office do think are the best? For
me the very best of Obama is how he can project power so suavely while standing
before the world as a prima facia criminal. TORTURE IS ILLEGAL!! Under the
law those who order and/or carry out torture MUST be prosecuted. THAT IS
INTERNATIONAL, TREATY AND DOMESTIC US LAW.
The oh so great and powerful Obama he of such dignity in office has SHOWN
UTTER CONTEMPT FOR THE RULE OF LAW!!!
But that's OK he will say bad things about Trump.
This commentator nor the paper for which he writes will never in
a million years ever even suggest the disdain Obama and the US government
has for the rule of law - his lieutenants have been caught out lying to
congress - no charges for the key apparatchiks of evil - hope that phrase
catches on.
I want to vomit when the press acts so hypocritically ready to jump all
over Putin or China in a heart beat - but challenge US officials who openly
violate the law - not a chance.
babymamaboy
Does Obama go after Mexican drug cartels, every bit as destructive
as Isil but with a direct impact on the US? No. Does he go after other militant
groups across the globe? No. He feeds the 'terrible Muslim' narrative by
continuing to singularly pursue them as if they were the only problem in
the world.
It would be really easy for him to call it like it is -- we don't care
who you worship, just don't mess with our oil. But he actively feeds the
narrative while chiding Trump for being too enthusiastic about it. I guess
that's what passes for US leadership these days.
urgonnatrip
Obama's predecessor was arguably the most manipulated, most moronic,
completely un-qualified and utterly reckless war mongering shill ever put
into the white house. Barack inherited a friggin mess of biblical proportions,
created by treasonous ne-cons intent on fomenting war and destruction for
no better reason than to forward the agenda of the military-industrial complex.
How has Barack done? He's held them in check and avoided an escalation
to WW3. I wish I could say the next president was going to continue the
trend but somehow I doubt it.
KerryB -> urgonnatrip
You had me right up until the last line. I'm confident that Hillary
Clinton will continue his work, because she recognizes the critical role
played by diplomacy :-). She's not the hawk that Donald Trump and Bernie
Sanders would have you believe ;-).
zolotoy -> KerryB
Yeah, just ignore Hillary Clinton's actual record, right?
AgnosticKen
TPP is all you need to know. Obama is just a puppet of this oligarchy.
This is an article from 2008 campaign. Still relevant.
Notable quotes:
"... Dr. Robert Hare, a pioneer in forensic psychology, tells us that many sociopaths are successful, even celebrated. I don't propose to diagnose Hillary Clinton by diary, but more modestly, to examine one characteristic Dr. Hare finds sociopaths have in common. From CEO to small-time swindler, the sociopath lies. Hillary lies, repeatedly and recklessly. ..."
"... In her run against Obama, Hillary has lied to show she's got the right stuff to be Commander-in-Chief. Before the Bosnian Bruhaha, she lied to pump up her senatorial role and to finesse positions she once held that could lose her the nomination. In turn, her lies substantiate two sides of the beautifully constructed Election 08 Hillary: courageous but caring. No one is as tough. No one cares as much. In Hillary's lies, Clara Barton meets Audie Murphy. ..."
"... Hillary does have more experience manipulating the interface of MSM and the American public. She knows that both are rapid cyclers. She knows that what's headlines one day is yesterday's onions the next. ..."
"... Surely, when she cast her vote to authorize Bush to skirt global consensus and wage a unilateral war against Iraq, she knew she'd have some 'splaining to do. But like Scarlett O'hara, she'd think about it tomorrow. I'm talking about her vote on the war in Iraq. ..."
"... In 2002, Hillary voted for war with her eye on the prize. Within a few days of the 9/11 attack on WTC, she knew if she was ever to have a shot at the U.S. presidency, she'd have to beat the drums for war. As Manhattan lay still burning, Hillary, the former war protester, formed a strategic political stance that would kill two birds with one stone. ..."
Dr. Robert Hare, a pioneer in forensic psychology, tells us that many sociopaths
are successful, even celebrated. I don't propose to diagnose Hillary Clinton
by diary, but more modestly, to examine one characteristic Dr. Hare finds sociopaths
have in common. From CEO to small-time swindler, the sociopath lies. Hillary
lies, repeatedly and recklessly.
She lies when she doesn't need to. And she lies as much for self-aggrandizement
as for political gain.
Sociopaths, driven by an unnatural appetite to get what they want NOW–a t.v.
set or the presidency– can't suffer the patience it takes to craft a lie
carefully. And their narcissism, coupled with a complete lack of morality,
enables them to advance the most outrageous lies. Lies that make you shake your
head in disbelief. Lies that end up on "Meet the Press."
What me worry Hillary. By the time she's busted, the lie has done its work.
Confronted, she's cool as a sociopath:"So, I made a mistake." Or I'm a victim
of someone else who lies. I voted for the Iraq war because Bush bamboozled
me.
In her run against Obama, Hillary has lied to show she's got the right
stuff to be Commander-in-Chief. Before the Bosnian Bruhaha, she lied to pump
up her senatorial role and to finesse positions she once held that could lose
her the nomination. In turn, her lies substantiate two sides of the beautifully
constructed Election 08 Hillary: courageous but caring. No one is as tough.
No one cares as much. In Hillary's lies, Clara Barton meets Audie Murphy.
Lies to show she's got CIC and foreign policy credentials claim she
"landed under sniper fire" in Bosnia.
"helped bring peace to Ireland"
"negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into Kosovo"
The historical record, various eye-witnesses, and contemporaneous sources
prove all three claims false "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Further, Hillary has taken the lion's share of credit for SCHIP. Orrin Hatch,
with the disclaimer that he likes her, felt honor-bound to answer this claim
honestly: "…does she deserve credit for SCHIP? No – Teddy does, but she doesn't."
It is clear from HRC's First Lady records, recently released by The National
Archives and President Clinton's Library, as well as numerous eye-witness and
Press reports that whatever her private thoughts, HRC was head cheerleader on
Bill's NAFTA team. Ironically, just days before the Ohio and Texas primaries,
Hillary exploited a timely but inaccurate AP report to raise doubts about Obama's
NAFTA stance. She succeeded in shifting the contest's outcome.
Days after AP was contradicted by its own sources within the Canadian government
and Press, she continued to hector her rival with yesterday's news until the
clock ran out. Though no longer news, latest developments point to Clinton as
the NAFTA waffler.
Hillary does have more experience manipulating the interface of MSM and
the American public. She knows that both are rapid cyclers. She knows that what's
headlines one day is yesterday's onions the next.
Surely, when she cast her vote to authorize Bush to skirt global consensus
and wage a unilateral war against Iraq, she knew she'd have some 'splaining
to do. But like Scarlett O'hara, she'd think about it tomorrow. I'm talking
about her vote on the war in Iraq.
Let's not mince words. I'm talking about her vote FOR the war in Iraq.
In 2002, Hillary voted for war with her eye on the prize. Within a few
days of the 9/11 attack on WTC, she knew if she was ever to have a shot at the
U.S. presidency, she'd have to beat the drums for war. As Manhattan lay still
burning, Hillary, the former war protester, formed a strategic political stance
that would kill two birds with one stone.
More next diary: From the ashes of 9/11, a new Hillary rises
Crooked Hillary will never release transcripts, but they might be leaked...
Politic is pro Clinton media, more like a part of her campaign staff, then independent
media. So it's surprising that they can't hide this skeleton in the closet under
the veil of silence. Looks like Hillary now is on hot stove with that. It's not
just lack of judgment and "make money fast" mentality on her part. This is plain
vanilla corruption.
Notable quotes:
"... Surrogates for both Democratic candidates sniped back and forth on the cable shows Friday over whether Hillary Clinton should release the transcripts of her paid speeches to financial institutions, as Bernie Sanders again suggested during the previous night's debate that the lack of disclosure bespeaks a lack of judgment. ..."
"... Speaking earlier in the day on CNN, Clinton supporter and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) appeared to break with the campaign line in remarking of the candidate's decision-making behind the release of transcripts, "I think she will. I think she's been clear that she's going to, and yes I would." ..."
"... Clinton has long maintained that she will release the transcripts of her paid speeches when every other candidate in both parties does the same. Asked whether that should be the standard, Gillibrand demurred. ..."
"... "I think everyone makes their own judgment," remarked Gillibrand, who like Finney, suggested tax returns as a better standard by which voters should judge the candidates. ..."
Surrogates for both Democratic candidates sniped back and forth on the cable
shows Friday over whether Hillary Clinton should release the transcripts of
her paid speeches to financial institutions, as Bernie Sanders again suggested
during the previous night's debate that the lack of disclosure bespeaks a lack
of judgment.
A senior adviser to Clinton's campaign on Friday decried the Sanders' campaign's
insinuation.
"This is what the Sanders campaign wants, right? The insinuation that there
is something nefarious," Karen Finney said during an interview on MSNBC, remarking
that when Sanders was asked directly about whether the speeches changed Clinton's
policies, he "had no answer."
Finney added, "I wish that on that stage, Sen. Sanders would have looked
Hillary Clinton in the eye and just said directly what he has insinuated time
and time again, that there is, you know, some connection, perhaps because she
got paid for making a speech, that somehow influenced any activity or action
she has ever taken. And that's what's really what's at the heart of this."
Chief pollster and strategist Joel Benenson insisted that Sanders himself
had put the issue to rest by failing to point to a specific instance.
The Sanders campaign, meanwhile, conceded that its candidate could have been
more direct in addressing whether money from Wall Street and other interests
has tainted Clinton's judgment and credibility.
"Well, I suppose he could have," senior adviser Tad Devine told MSNBC's "Andrea
Mitchell Reports." "There's a lot of issues he hasn't really gone nearly as
hard as he could."
In particular, Devine pointed to Clinton's 2001 vote as a senator for
the Bankruptcy Reform Act as one possible instance, after she opposed it as
first lady.
Clinton has explained the vote as one she changed at the insistence of then-Sen.
Joe Biden. When Mitchell made that point, Devine mused, "She also received enormous
contributions from the financial industry, too."
"Our argument is not that Hillary Clinton is corrupt," Devine said. "OK,
and I know everybody's looking for that argument. Bernie's argument is that
the system is corrupt, and if you're going to participate in it, you're not
going to be able to change things."
Finney, as other members of Clinton campaign have done, rejected the notion
that Clinton's paid speech transcripts are important to undecided voters.
"Well again, Sen. Sanders is trying to use this to make an allegation to
which he has absolutely no response when asked where is the proof. So I think
a lot of voters also find that very offensive," Finney said. "And moreover,
I have to tell you that if you are trying to figure out how to send your kid
to college, if you are trying to figure out how to take care of a sick parent
or wanting your child's schools to be improved, this is not something you care
about."
"I mean, I understand, I think we understand the sort of media fascination
with this," Finney said. "But I'm just telling you, I mean, I have been out
there on the road talking to voters. This never comes up."
Clinton's surrogates, meanwhile, continued to press Sanders to release his
tax returns. Sanders himself said he would release the 2014 returns at some
point later Friday.
Speaking earlier in the day on CNN, Clinton supporter and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand
(D-N.Y.) appeared to break with the campaign line in remarking of the candidate's
decision-making behind the release of transcripts, "I think she will. I think
she's been clear that she's going to, and yes I would."
Clinton has long maintained that she will release the transcripts of her
paid speeches when every other candidate in both parties does the same. Asked
whether that should be the standard, Gillibrand demurred.
"I think everyone makes their own judgment," remarked Gillibrand, who like
Finney, suggested tax returns as a better standard by which voters should judge
the candidates.
"... At the same time that people like you and me are thriving beyond the dreams of any plutocrats in history, the rest of the country-the 99.99 percent-is lagging far behind. The divide between the haves and have-nots is getting worse really, really fast. In 1980, the top 1 percent controlled about 8 percent of U.S. national income. The bottom 50 percent shared about 18 percent. Today the top 1 percent share about 20 percent; the bottom 50 percent, just 12 percent. ..."
"... The model for us rich guys here should be Henry Ford, who realized that all his autoworkers in Michigan weren't only cheap labor to be exploited; they were consumers, too. Ford figured that if he raised their wages, to a then-exorbitant $5 a day, they'd be able to afford his Model Ts. ..."
Memo: From Nick Hanauer To: My Fellow Zillionaires
You probably don't know me, but like you I am one of those .01%ers, a proud
and unapologetic capitalist. I have founded, co-founded and funded more than
30 companies across a range of industries-from itsy-bitsy ones like the night
club I started in my 20s to giant ones like Amazon.com, for which I was the
first nonfamily investor. Then I founded aQuantive, an Internet advertising
company that was
sold to Microsoft in 2007 for $6.4 billion. In cash. My friends and I own
a bank. I tell you all this to demonstrate that in many ways I'm no different
from you. Like you, I have a broad perspective on business and capitalism. And
also like you, I have been rewarded obscenely for my success, with a life that
the other 99.99 percent of Americans can't even imagine. Multiple homes, my
own plane, etc., etc. You know what I'm talking about. In 1992, I was selling
pillows made by my family's business, Pacific Coast Feather Co., to retail stores
across the country, and the Internet was a clunky novelty to which one hooked
up with a loud squawk at 300 baud. But I saw pretty quickly, even back then,
that many of my customers, the big department store chains, were already doomed.
I knew that as soon as the Internet became fast and trustworthy enough-and that
time wasn't far off-people were going to shop online like crazy. Goodbye, Caldor.
And Filene's. And Borders. And on and on.
Realizing that, seeing over the horizon a little faster than the next guy,
was the strategic part of my success. The lucky part was that I had two friends,
both immensely talented, who also saw a lot of potential in the web. One was
a guy you've probably never heard of named Jeff Tauber, and the other was a
fellow named Jeff Bezos. I was so excited by the potential of the web that I
told both Jeffs that I wanted to invest in whatever they launched, big time.
It just happened that the second Jeff-Bezos-called me back first to take up
my investment offer. So I helped underwrite his tiny start-up bookseller. The
other Jeff started a web department store called Cybershop, but at a time when
trust in Internet sales was still low, it was too early for his high-end online
idea; people just weren't yet ready to buy expensive goods without personally
checking them out (unlike a basic commodity like books, which don't vary in
quality-Bezos' great insight). Cybershop didn't make it, just another dot-com
bust. Amazon did somewhat better. Now I own a very large yacht.
But let's speak frankly to each other. I'm not the smartest guy you've ever
met, or the hardest-working. I was a mediocre student. I'm not technical at
all-I can't write a word of code. What sets me apart, I think, is a tolerance
for risk and an intuition about what will happen in the future. Seeing where
things are headed is the essence of entrepreneurship. And what do I see in our
future now?
I see pitchforks.
At the same time that people like you and me are thriving beyond the
dreams of any plutocrats in history, the rest of the country-the 99.99 percent-is
lagging far behind. The divide between the haves and have-nots is getting worse
really, really fast. In 1980, the top 1 percent
controlled about 8 percent of U.S. national income. The bottom 50 percent
shared about 18 percent. Today the top 1 percent share about 20 percent;
the bottom 50 percent,
just 12 percent.
But the problem isn't that we have inequality. Some inequality is intrinsic
to any high-functioning capitalist economy. The problem is that inequality is
at historically high levels and getting worse every day. Our country is rapidly
becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society. Unless our policies
change dramatically, the middle class will disappear, and we will be back to
late 18th-century France. Before the revolution.
Memo: From Nick Hanauer To: My Fellow Zillionaires
You probably don't know me, but like you I am one of those .01%ers, a proud
and unapologetic capitalist. I have founded, co-founded and funded more than
30 companies across a range of industries-from itsy-bitsy ones like the night
club I started in my 20s to giant ones like Amazon.com, for which I was the
first nonfamily investor. Then I founded aQuantive, an Internet advertising
company that was
sold to Microsoft in 2007 for $6.4 billion. In cash. My friends and I own
a bank. I tell you all this to demonstrate that in many ways I'm no different
from you. Like you, I have a broad perspective on business and capitalism. And
also like you, I have been rewarded obscenely for my success, with a life that
the other 99.99 percent of Americans can't even imagine. Multiple homes, my
own plane, etc., etc. You know what I'm talking about. In 1992, I was selling
pillows made by my family's business, Pacific Coast Feather Co., to retail stores
across the country, and the Internet was a clunky novelty to which one hooked
up with a loud squawk at 300 baud. But I saw pretty quickly, even back then,
that many of my customers, the big department store chains, were already doomed.
I knew that as soon as the Internet became fast and trustworthy enough-and that
time wasn't far off-people were going to shop online like crazy. Goodbye, Caldor.
And Filene's. And Borders. And on and on.
Realizing that, seeing over the horizon a little faster than the next guy,
was the strategic part of my success. The lucky part was that I had two friends,
both immensely talented, who also saw a lot of potential in the web. One was
a guy you've probably never heard of named Jeff Tauber, and the other was a
fellow named Jeff Bezos. I was so excited by the potential of the web that I
told both Jeffs that I wanted to invest in whatever they launched, big time.
It just happened that the second Jeff-Bezos-called me back first to take up
my investment offer. So I helped underwrite his tiny start-up bookseller. The
other Jeff started a web department store called Cybershop, but at a time when
trust in Internet sales was still low, it was too early for his high-end online
idea; people just weren't yet ready to buy expensive goods without personally
checking them out (unlike a basic commodity like books, which don't vary in
quality-Bezos' great insight). Cybershop didn't make it, just another dot-com
bust. Amazon did somewhat better. Now I own a very large yacht.
But let's speak frankly to each other. I'm not the smartest guy you've ever
met, or the hardest-working. I was a mediocre student. I'm not technical at
all-I can't write a word of code. What sets me apart, I think, is a tolerance
for risk and an intuition about what will happen in the future. Seeing where
things are headed is the essence of entrepreneurship. And what do I see in our
future now?
I see pitchforks.
At the same time that people like you and me are thriving beyond the dreams
of any plutocrats in history, the rest of the country-the 99.99 percent-is lagging
far behind. The divide between the haves and have-nots is getting worse really,
really fast. In 1980, the top 1 percent
controlled about 8 percent of U.S. national income. The bottom 50 percent
shared about 18 percent. Today the top 1 percent share about 20 percent;
the bottom 50 percent,
just 12 percent.
But the problem isn't that we have inequality. Some inequality is intrinsic
to any high-functioning capitalist economy. The problem is that inequality is
at historically high levels and getting worse every day. Our country is rapidly
becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society. Unless our policies
change dramatically, the middle class will disappear, and we will be back to
late 18th-century France. Before the revolution.
And so I have a message for my fellow filthy rich, for all of us who live
in our gated bubble worlds: Wake up, people. It won't last.
If we don't do something to fix the glaring inequities in this economy, the
pitchforks are going to come for us. No society can sustain this kind of rising
inequality. In fact, there is no example in human history where wealth accumulated
like this and the pitchforks didn't eventually come out. You show me a highly
unequal society, and I will show you a police state. Or an uprising. There are
no counterexamples. None. It's not if, it's when.
Many of us think we're special because "this is America." We think we're
immune to the same forces that started the Arab Spring-or the French and Russian
revolutions, for that matter. I know you fellow .01%ers tend to dismiss this
kind of argument; I've had many of you tell me to my face I'm completely bonkers.
And yes, I know there are many of you who are convinced that because you saw
a poor kid with an iPhone that one time, inequality is a fiction.
Here's what I say to you: You're living in a dream world. What everyone wants
to believe is that when things reach a tipping point and go from being merely
crappy for the masses to dangerous and socially destabilizing, that we're somehow
going to know about that shift ahead of time. Any student of history knows that's
not the way it happens. Revolutions, like bankruptcies, come gradually, and
then suddenly. One day, somebody sets himself on fire, then thousands of people
are in the streets, and before you know it, the country is burning. And then
there's no time for us to get to the airport and jump on our Gulfstream Vs and
fly to New Zealand. That's the way it always happens. If inequality keeps rising
as it has been, eventually it will happen. We will not be able to predict when,
and it will be terrible-for everybody. But especially for us.
***
The most ironic thing about rising inequality is how completely unnecessary
and self-defeating it is. If we do something about it, if we adjust our policies
in the way that, say, Franklin D. Roosevelt did during the Great Depression-so
that we help the 99 percent and preempt the revolutionaries and crazies, the
ones with the pitchforks-that will be the best thing possible for us rich folks,
too. It's not just that we'll escape with our lives; it's that we'll most certainly
get even richer.
The model for us rich guys here should be Henry Ford, who realized that
all his autoworkers in Michigan weren't only cheap labor to be exploited; they
were consumers, too. Ford figured that if he
raised their wages, to a then-exorbitant $5 a day, they'd be able to afford
his Model Ts.
What a great idea. My suggestion to you is: Let's do it all over again. We've
got to try something. These idiotic trickle-down policies are destroying my
customer base. And yours too.
It's when I realized this that I decided I had to leave my insulated world
of the super-rich and get involved in politics. Not directly, by running for
office or becoming one of the big-money billionaires who back candidates in
an election. Instead, I wanted to try to change the conversation with ideas-by
advancing what my co-author, Eric Liu, and I call "middle-out" economics. It's
the long-overdue rebuttal to the trickle-down economics worldview that has become
economic orthodoxy across party lines-and has so screwed the American middle
class and our economy generally. Middle-out economics rejects the old misconception
that an economy is a perfectly efficient, mechanistic system and embraces the
much more accurate idea of an economy as a complex ecosystem made up of real
people who are dependent on one another.
Which is why the fundamental law of capitalism must be: If workers have more
money, businesses have more customers. Which makes middle-class consumers, not
rich businesspeople like us, the true job creators. Which means a thriving middle
class is the source of American prosperity, not a consequence of it. The middle
class creates us rich people, not the other way around.
On June 19, 2013, Bloomberg published an
article I wrote called "The Capitalist's Case for a $15 Minimum Wage."
Forbes
labeled it "Nick Hanauer's near insane" proposal. And yet, just weeks after
it was published, my friend David Rolf, a Service Employees International Union
organizer, roused fast-food workers to go on strike around the country for a
$15 living wage. Nearly a year later, the city of Seattle
passed a $15 minimum wage. And just 350 days after my article was published,
Seattle Mayor Ed Murray signed that ordinance into law. How could this happen,
you ask?
It happened because we reminded the masses that they are the source of growth
and prosperity, not us rich guys. We reminded them that when workers have more
money, businesses have more customers-and need more employees. We reminded them
that if businesses paid workers a living wage rather than poverty wages, taxpayers
wouldn't have to make up the difference. And when we got done, 74 percent of
likely Seattle voters in a
recent poll agreed that a $15 minimum wage was a swell idea.
The standard response in the minimum-wage debate, made by Republicans and
their business backers and plenty of Democrats as well, is that raising the
minimum wage costs jobs. Businesses will have to lay off workers. This argument
reflects the orthodox economics that most people had in college. If you took
Econ 101, then you literally were taught that if wages go up, employment must
go down. The law of supply and demand and all that. That's why you've got John
Boehner and other Republicans in Congress insisting that if you price employment
higher, you get less of it. Really?
The thing about us businesspeople is that we love our customers rich
and our employees poor.
Because here's an odd thing. During the past three decades, compensation
for CEOs grew 127 times faster than it did for workers. Since 1950, the CEO-to-worker
pay ratio has increased 1,000 percent, and that is not a typo. CEOs
used to earn 30 times the median wage; now they rake in 500 times. Yet no
company I know of has eliminated its senior managers, or outsourced them to
China or automated their jobs. Instead, we now have more CEOs and senior executives
than ever before. So, too, for financial services workers and technology workers.
These folks earn multiples of the median wage, yet we somehow have more and
more of them.
The thing about us businesspeople is that we love our customers rich and
our employees poor. So for as long as there has been capitalism, capitalists
have said the same thing about any effort to raise wages. We've had 75 years
of complaints from big business-when the minimum wage was instituted, when women
had to be paid equitable amounts, when child labor laws were created. Every
time the capitalists said exactly the same thing in the same way: We're all
going to go bankrupt. I'll have to close. I'll have to lay everyone off. It
hasn't happened. In fact, the data show that when workers are better treated,
business gets better. The naysayers are just wrong.
Most of you probably think that the $15 minimum wage in Seattle is an insane
departure from rational policy that puts our economy at great risk. But in Seattle,
our current minimum wage of $9.32 is already nearly 30 percent higher than the
federal minimum wage. And has it ruined our economy yet? Well, trickle-downers,
look at the data here: The two cities in the nation with the highest rate of
job growth by small businesses
are
San Francisco and Seattle. Guess which cities have the highest minimum wage?
San Francisco and Seattle. The
fastest-growing big city in America? Seattle. Fifteen dollars isn't a risky
untried policy for us. It's doubling down on the strategy that's already allowing
our city to kick your city's ass.
It makes perfect sense if you think about it: If a worker earns $7.25 an
hour, which is
now
the national minimum wage, what proportion of that person's income do you
think ends up in the cash registers of local small businesses? Hardly any. That
person is paying rent, ideally going out to get subsistence groceries at Safeway,
and, if really lucky, has a bus pass. But she's not going out to eat at restaurants.
Not browsing for new clothes. Not buying flowers on Mother's Day.
Is this issue more complicated than I'm making out? Of course. Are there
many factors at play determining the dynamics of employment? Yup. But please,
please stop insisting that if we pay low-wage workers more, unemployment will
skyrocket and it will destroy the economy. It's utter nonsense. The most insidious
thing about trickle-down economics isn't believing that if the rich get richer,
it's good for the economy. It's believing that if the poor get richer, it's
bad for the economy.
I know that virtually all of you feel that compelling our businesses to pay
workers more is somehow unfair, or is too much government interference. Most
of you think that we should just let good examples like Costco or Gap lead the
way. Or let the market set the price. But here's the thing. When those who set
bad examples, like the owners of Wal-Mart or McDonald's, pay their workers close
to the minimum wage, what they're really saying is that they'd pay even less
if it weren't illegal. (Thankfully both companies have recently said they would
not oppose a hike in the minimum wage.) In any large group, some people absolutely
will not do the right thing. That's why our economy can only be safe and effective
if it is governed by the same kinds of rules as, say, the transportation system,
with its speed limits and stop signs.
Wal-Mart is our nation's largest employer with some 1.4 million employees
in the United States and more than
$25 billion in pre-tax profit. So why are Wal-Mart employees the largest
group of Medicaid recipients in many states? Wal-Mart could, say, pay each of
its 1 million lowest-paid workers an extra $10,000 per year, raise them all
out of poverty and enable them to, of all things, afford to shop at Wal-Mart.
Not only would this also save us all the expense of the food stamps, Medicaid
and rent assistance that they currently require, but Wal-Mart would still earn
more than $15 billion pre-tax per year. Wal-Mart won't (and shouldn't) volunteer
to pay its workers more than their competitors. In order for us to have an economy
that works for everyone, we should compel all retailers to pay living wages-not
just ask politely.
We rich people have been falsely persuaded by our schooling and the affirmation
of society, and have convinced ourselves, that we are the main job creators.
It's simply not true. There can never be enough super-rich Americans to power
a great economy. I earn about 1,000 times the median American annually, but
I don't buy thousands of times more stuff. My family purchased three cars over
the past few years, not 3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a
year, just like most American men. I bought two pairs of the fancy wool pants
I am wearing as I write, what my partner Mike calls my "manager pants." I guess
I could have bought 1,000 pairs. But why would I? Instead, I sock my extra money
away in savings, where it doesn't do the country much good.
So forget all that rhetoric about how America is great because of people
like you and me and Steve Jobs. You know the truth even if you won't admit it:
If any of us had been born in Somalia or the Congo, all we'd be is some guy
standing barefoot next to a dirt road selling fruit. It's not that Somalia and
Congo don't have good entrepreneurs. It's just that the best ones are selling
their wares off crates by the side of the road because that's all their customers
can afford.
So why not talk about a different kind of New Deal for the American people,
one that could appeal to the right as well as left-to libertarians as well as
liberals? First, I'd ask my Republican friends to get real about reducing the
size of government. Yes, yes and yes, you guys are all correct: The federal
government is too big in some ways. But no way can you cut government substantially,
not the way things are now. Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush each had eight
years to do it, and they failed miserably.
Republicans and Democrats in Congress can't shrink government with wishful
thinking. The only way to slash government for real is to go back to basic economic
principles: You have to reduce the demand for government. If people are getting
$15 an hour or more, they don't need food stamps. They don't need rent assistance.
They don't need you and me to pay for their medical care. If the consumer middle
class is back, buying and shopping, then it stands to reason you won't need
as large a welfare state. And at the same time, revenues from payroll and sales
taxes would rise, reducing the deficit.
This is, in other words, an economic approach that can unite left and right.
Perhaps that's one reason the right is beginning, inexorably, to wake up to
this reality as well. Even Republicans as diverse as Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum
recently came out in favor of raising the minimum wage, in defiance of the Republicans
in Congress.
***
One thing we can agree on-I'm sure of this-is that the change isn't
going to start in Washington. Thinking is stale, arguments even more so. On
both sides.
But the way I see it, that's all right. Most major social movements have
seen their earliest victories at the state and municipal levels. The fight over
the eight-hour workday, which ended in Washington, D.C., in 1938, began in places
like Illinois and Massachusetts in the late 1800s. The movement for social security
began in California in the 1930s. Even the Affordable Health Care Act-Obamacare-would
have been hard to imagine without Mitt Romney's model in Massachusetts to lead
the way.
Sadly, no Republicans and few Democrats get this. President Obama doesn't
seem to either, though his heart is in the right place. In his State of the
Union speech this year, he mentioned the need for a higher minimum wage but
failed to make the case that less inequality and a renewed middle class would
promote faster economic growth. Instead, the arguments we hear from most Democrats
are the same old social-justice claims. The only reason to help workers is because
we feel sorry for them. These fairness arguments feed right into every stereotype
of Obama and the Democrats as bleeding hearts. Republicans say growth. Democrats
say fairness-and lose every time.
But just because the two parties in Washington haven't figured it out yet
doesn't mean we rich folks can just keep going. The conversation is already
changing, even if the billionaires aren't onto it. I know what you think: You
think that Occupy Wall Street and all the other capitalism-is-the-problem protesters
disappeared without a trace. But that's not true. Of course, it's hard to get
people to sleep in a park in the cause of social justice. But the protests we
had in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis really did help to change the debate
in this country from death panels and debt ceilings to inequality.
It's just that so many of you plutocrats didn't get the message.
Dear 1%ers, many of our fellow citizens are starting to believe that capitalism
itself is the problem. I disagree, and I'm sure you do too. Capitalism, when
well managed, is the greatest social technology ever invented to create prosperity
in human societies. But capitalism left unchecked tends toward concentration
and collapse. It can be managed either to benefit the few in the near term or
the many in the long term. The work of democracies is to bend it to the latter.
That is why investments in the middle class work. And tax breaks for rich people
like us don't. Balancing the power of workers and billionaires by raising the
minimum wage isn't bad for capitalism. It's an indispensable tool smart capitalists
use to make capitalism stable and sustainable. And no one has a bigger stake
in that than zillionaires like us.
The oldest and most important conflict in human societies is the battle over
the concentration of wealth and power. The folks like us at the top have always
told those at the bottom that our respective positions are righteous and good
for all. Historically, we called that divine right. Today we have trickle-down
economics.
What nonsense this is. Am I really such a superior person? Do I belong at
the center of the moral as well as economic universe? Do you?
My family, the Hanauers, started in Germany selling feathers and pillows.
They got chased out of Germany by Hitler and ended up in Seattle owning another
pillow company. Three generations later, I benefited from that. Then I got as
lucky as a person could possibly get in the Internet age by having a buddy in
Seattle named Bezos. I look at the average Joe on the street, and I say, "There
but for the grace of Jeff go I." Even the best of us, in the worst of circumstances,
are barefoot, standing by a dirt road, selling fruit. We should never forget
that, or forget that the United States of America and its middle class made
us, rather than the other way around.
Or we could sit back, do nothing, enjoy our yachts. And wait for the pitchforks.
It is pretty interesting and educational to read such articles one year after
they are published.
Notable quotes:
"... Russia is already in dire straits. The economy has contracted by 4.9pc over the past year and the downturn is certain to drag on as oil prices crumble after a tentative rally. Half of Russia's tax income comes from oil and gas. ..."
"... Core inflation is running at 16.7pc and real incomes have fallen by 8.4pc over the past year, a far deeper cut to living standards than occurred following the Lehman crisis. ..."
"... This man "forecasted" Russia's demise last year. He has to show that that forecast is still liable to happen ..."
"... What Colby said is palpably true. That is why we don't hear real news and instead we are bombarded with news about their "celebs" ..."
"... He should know. And certainly, Western media coverage of the Ukraine crisis demonstrated to many millions of people in the West that major Western media is almost all controlled by the US neocons. Anyone with half a brain can see that - but clearly not you. ..."
"... Russia is not interested in invading anyone. The US has tried to force Russia to invade Ukraine in an iraq style trap but it didn't work. So they had to invent an invasion, the first in living memory without a single satellite, video or photo image of any air campaign, heavy armour, uniformed soldiers, testimony from friends & family of servicemen they could pay to get a statement, not even a mobile photo of a Russian sitting on a tank. ..."
"... As the merkins tell us a devalued dollar is your problem.. the devalued rouble is the EUs problem! ..."
"... So the political sanctions are bankrupting Russia because they dared to challenge EU expansion. Result millions of poor Russians will start to flow West and the UK will have another flood of Eastern Europeans. But at least we showed them our politicians are tough. ..."
"... Spelling it out for Russia (or Britain) that would mean giving up Byzantine based ambitions and prospering through alliances with the Muslim Nation or Countries, including Turkey. In the short term such a move would quell internal dissent of the 11m immigrants in Russia, reduce unsustainable security expenditure with its central Asian neighbours, open and expand market for Russian goods in the Middle East, Far East and North Africa, and eventually form and provide a military-commercial -political alliance (like NATO) for the Muslim nations with Russia (with partner strength based upon what is mostly commercial placed on the table (see the gist in the Vienna Agreement between P5+1 and Iran). ..."
"... The formation of such an alliance would trump Russia's (or Britain's) opponents ambitions and bring prosperity. ..."
"... Propaganda. Laughable coming from the UK hack when the UK has un-payable debt and Russia has little external debt plus we have no Gold and Russia has probably 20,000 tonnes. NATO surrounds Russia yet they are the aggressors. ..."
"... In the end, Ambrose is too ideological to be credible on the issue. Sure, Russia has couple lean years ahead, but it will come out of this ordeal stronger, not weaker. There are already reports of mini boomlets gathering steam under the surface. ..."
Russia is already in dire straits. The economy has contracted by 4.9pc
over the past year and the downturn is certain to drag on as oil prices crumble
after a tentative rally. Half of Russia's tax income comes from oil and gas.
Core inflation is running at 16.7pc and real incomes have fallen by 8.4pc
over the past year, a far deeper cut to living standards than occurred following
the Lehman crisis. This time there is no recovery in sight as Western sanctions
remain in place and US shale production limits any rebound in global oil prices.
"We've seen the full impact of the crisis in the second quarter. It is
now hitting light industry and manufacturing," said Dmitri Petrov from Nomura.
"Russia is going to be in a very difficult fiscal situation by 2017," said
Lubomir Mitov from Unicredit. "By the end of next year there won't be any money
left in the oil reserve fund and there is a humongous deficit in the pension
fund. They are running a budget deficit of 3.7pc of GDP but without developed
capital markets Russia can't really afford to run a deficit at all."
A report by the Higher School of Economics in Moscow warned that a quarter
of Russia's 83 regions are effectively in default as they struggle to cope with
salary increases and welfare costs dumped on them by President Vladimir Putin
before his election in 2012. "The regions in the far east are basically bankrupt,"
said Mr Mitov.
Russian companies have to refinance $86bn in foreign currency debt in the
second half of this year. They cannot easily roll this over since the country
is still cut off from global capital markets, so they must rely on swap funding
from the central bank.
Dave Hanson
For once, Flimflambrose paints a fairly accurate picture. His formula
is to take a few facts and stretch them to their illogical conclusion to
create a story that sells subscriptions to the Telegraph. Sort of like the
National Enquirer. He does that well. He only mentions the other side of
the story in a sentence or two, usually at the end of his column. The scary
headline at the top comes true perhaps one in a thousand times, just enough
to keep readers from totally dismissing him as a fruitcake. Not yellow journalism.
Clever journalism.
steph borne •
jezzam steph borne •a day ago
''Under Putin Russia has progressed from a respectable rank 60 on the
transparency international corruption index to an appalling rank 140. It
is now one of the most corrupt countries in the world, entirely due to Putin.''
http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
.
jezzam is using the Corruption Perceptions Index as fact?
but it is ''Perceptions''???
''The CPI measures perception of corruption due to the difficulty of measuring
absolute levels of corruption.[8]'' Wiki
Just more nonsense from Jezzam
soton
my wife is russian, she speak's to her mother on the phone every day,
from what she tell's me nothing has changed economically for the "average
joe" no doubt some of the abramovich types have seen the value of their
properties plunge
Rosbif2
So if Russia is financially sinking below the waves, how come AEP in
other articles claimed that Russia could buy themselves into Greece and
menace Europe?
It seems like Greece & Russia are two drowning men who would grab onto each
other & drown even faster
AEP seems to lack "joined up thinking" in his articles
giltedged
This man "forecasted" Russia's demise last year. He has to show that
that forecast is still liable to happen
What Colby said is palpably true. That is why we don't hear real
news and instead we are bombarded with news about their "celebs"
Real news to show that a new world economy is being built totally outside
the control of US Neocons and Globalists, that the world is now multi-polar,
that for example this journalist's capital city, London, now has officially
a majority of the population not merely non-British in origin, but non-European,
that his own country survives because of London property sales
Richard N
And isn't AEP rubbing his hands with glee at this supposedly desperate
situation of Russia!
Colby, the ex-boss of the CIA, said in retirement that there is no journalist
of consequence or influence in the Western media that the CIA 'does not
own'.
I often find myself remembering that, when I read Ambrose pumping out
the US neocon / CIA propaganda standard lines about 'Russian aggression'
in Ukraine, and so on - choosing to ignore the fact that Russia's action
in Crimea was in direct response and reaction to the US Neocons' coup in
Ukraine, which overthrew an elected government in a sovereign state, to
replace it with the current US puppet regime in Kiev.
Of course, this collapse of oil and gas prices are no accident at all
- but are part of America's full-scale economic war against Russia, aiming
to get Putin overthrown, and replaced by someone controlled by the US Globalists,
leaving then
China as the only major power centre in the world outside the Globalists'
control.
Richard N > jezzam • a day ago
If you bothered to read what I wrote carefully, you would see that, with
reference to journalists, I was simply repeating what ex-head of the CIA
Mr. Colby said.
He should know. And certainly, Western media coverage of the Ukraine
crisis demonstrated to many millions of people in the West that major Western
media is almost all controlled by the US neocons. Anyone with half a brain
can see that - but clearly not you.
steph borne
''Russian bear will roar once more, says World Bank''
01 Jun 2015
''Russia economy forecast to grow by 0.7pc next year, reversing negative
growth
forecast''
Carried on to the absurd extreme at which all the dollars are held outside
of America, the US simply prints more money thus devaluing it's currency
and favoring exports (which are then cheaper to produce and cheaper buy)
people giving their currency to the US in return for goods and services
and restoring economic balance.
I can understand that Russia doesn't have much experience with the 'boom
and bust' cycles of market economies. They've had less than 20 years experience
at it.
Did you know that in the 19th century China's trade surplus with Europe
was so vast that Europe almost went bankrupt and ran out of precious metals
buying Chinese goods, surely by your thinking it was truly a golden age
of eastern supremacy, western failure. Ask any Chinese person what the 19th
century means to them, you might be surprised.
steph borne > Halou
Shame you can't provide a link or two to back up your thoughts on trade
surpluses.. altho I know amongst bankrupt countries they tell you that money/assets
leaving the country is a good thing....
Strange that the Germans don't agree --
''Germany recorded a trade surplus of 19600 EUR Million in May of 2015.
Balance ...reaching an all time high of 23468.80 EUR Million in July of
2014...'' http://www.tradingeconomics.co...
Obviously another country heading for financial self-destruction
steph borne
02 Oct 2014 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... 02 Oct 2014
Russias-economy-is-being-hit-hard-by-sanctions.html
01 Sept 2014 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... 01 Sept 2014 Cameron-we-will-permanently-damage-Russias-economy.html
cameron says.??? Aha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
ha ha
29 Dec 2014 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin... 29 Dec 2014 /Recession-looms-for-Russia-as-economy-shrinks-for-first-time-since-2009.html
24 Nov 2014 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin... 24 Nov 2014 Russia-faces-recession-as-oil-crash-and-sanctions-cost-economy-90bn.html
22 Dec 2014 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin... 22 Dec 2014 Russia-starts-bailing-out-banks-as-economy-faces-full-blown-economic-crisis.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin... 29 Apr 2015
Ukraines-conflict-with-Russia-leaves-economy-in-ruins.htm
.
Still going!!!
Graham Milne
Russia has physical assets (oil, minerals and so on); we don't. It is
the UK which is toast, not Russia.
billsimpson > Graham Milne
Russia is way too big & resource rich to ever be total toast. And the
people are educated, even if they do drink a lot. But they could get a bit
hungry in another economic collapse. All the nukes they have is the real
problem. Those need to be kept secure, should another revolution occur,
or the country break apart after an economic collapse.
The US & Canada would never sit back and watch the UK melt down. Witness
the Five Eyes communal global spying system.
Electrify all the rail system that you can, so people can still get around
on less oil. Some oil is essential for growing and transporting food.
Sal20111
Russia can't just blame it on sanctions, or price wars in oil and gas.
They have not reinvested the proceeds of their prodigous fossil fuel sales
smartly and neither have they diversified quickly enough - the gas sales
to China was an afterthought after Ukraine.
Putin cracked down on some of the oligarchs but not all - national wealth
has clearly been sucked out by a few. Nepotism and favouritism seem to be
rife. They should have learnt the lesson from their communist history not
to concentrate power in state contriolled organisations. Not sure whether
there is much of a small to medium business culture.
With the amount of natural resources it has, and a well educated public,
particularly in math and technical skills, Russia should be doing much better.
rob22
Russia is not interested in invading anyone. The US has tried to
force Russia to invade Ukraine in an iraq style trap but it didn't work.
So they had to invent an invasion, the first in living memory without a
single satellite, video or photo image of any air campaign, heavy armour,
uniformed soldiers, testimony from friends & family of servicemen they could
pay to get a statement, not even a mobile photo of a Russian sitting on
a tank.
Russia is too busy building up an independent agriculture and import
substitution, not to mention creating economic and trade links with its
Eurasian neighbours like China & India via the silk road, BRICS, Eurasian
Ecconomic Union and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.
A total nightmare for the US which once hoped to divide & dominate the
region (see new American century doc)
Putin enjoys about 85% approval ratings (independent foreign stats) because
it knows to surrender to the US means a return to the 90`s where the nations
oil revenue went to wall st and everything else
If things get bad they`ll just devalue the ruble, get paid in dollars
and spend in rubles.
This is why most Russians are willing to dig in and play the long game.
Londonmaxwell
Over the top with Ambrose, as usual. Words like "depression", "crisis",
"plummet", and "shrivels"; and these only in the first two paragraphs! Moscow
looks absolutely normal to me: traffic jams, packed malls and restaurants,
crowded airports and train stations. Unemployment is low, inflation is tolerable.
Ambrose misses some key points.
First, if Gazprom's revenues fell from $146bn to $106bn, then this
implies (drumroll) a revenue increase from RUB 5.1 trillion to RUB 5.8
trillion. Since Gazprom/Lukoil/Rosneft et al have USD revenues but RUB
expenses, they are all doing quite nicely, as is the Russian treasury.
Second, while Russian companies do have foreign debt to pay back,
I suspect much of this "debt" is owed to (drumroll) Russian-controlled
companies in BVI, Cyprus, Luxie, Swissie, and the other usual suspects.
Third, if the oil price declines more in 2015, the Kremlin will simply
let the ruble slide, and the biggest losers will again be (drumroll)
European exporters.
Russia's present situation is not glorious, but it is not as precarious
as Ambrose portrays it to be. Be wary of writing off Russia. The great game
is just beginning.
energman58 > Londonmaxwell
Except that the slack has to be taken up by inflation and declining living
standards - Russia isn't unique; in Zimbabwe dollar terms almost every company
there did splendidly but the place is still bust. The problem is that most
of the debt is USD denominated and without the investment blocked by sanctions
they are looking at a declining production, low oil prices and an increasing
debt service burden. Presumably they could revert to the traditional model
of starving the peasants that has served them so well in the past but I
am not sure if the people with the real stroke will be quite so happy to
see their assets wither away...
Londonmaxwell > energman58
Comparing Russia with Mugabeland is a stretch, but I see your point.
If the sanctions stay and the oil price goes south permanently, then Moscow
has problems. But I question both assumptions. Merkel/Hollande/Renzi already
face huge pressure from their business leaders to resume normal relations
with Russia; i.e., drop the sanctions. As for oil prices, the USA's shale
sector is already in trouble. Russia's debt burden (both public and private)
is manageable and can scarcely worsen since it is cut off from the credit
markets. While the oil price slump certainly hurts Russia's economy, I don't
see the wheels falling off anytime soon.
AEP writes well and is always thought-provoking, but his view that Russia
is facing Armageddon because of oil prices and sanctions is way off the
mark.
steph borne
Here come the Ukrainian Nazis.. You lot must be very happy
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/e... 18 minutes in..
Maidan number 3 on the way as I predicted a year ago.
midnightrambler
Amazing how the narrative for military action is being fostered by articles
such as this one.
So many people eager for something they have no intention of getting
involved in themselves
snotcricket
It is rather odd the posts on this thread accusing any & all who question
the obvious US gov line in such articles.
Could it be that some have better memories ie the Ukrainian crisis was
in fact created by the support of the US & EU for but a few thousand sat
in Independence Sq just two years after the country had voted in the target
with a majority the likes of Cameron, Obama could only dream of.
Only an idiot could not have seen the Russki response to a situation
that could in but a very short timescale see NATO troops & kit but a literal
footstep from Russki soil....while the ports used by the Russki fleets would
be lost overnight usurped no doubt by a 'NATO' fleet of US proportions.....plainly
the US knew the likely outcome to the deposing of the elected leader & replaced
by the EU puppets....the Russki's had little option.....Putin or no Putin
this would have been the outcome.
With regard to the US led attack on the Russki economy with sanctions....well
those sanctions hurt the UK too...but of course not the US (they have lobbyist
for such matters) our farmers were hurting afore the sanctions....that became
a damn sight worse after the imposition.
The US attempts to turn off the oil/gas taps of Putin has done damage
to the Russkis, similarly its done damage to W. Europe thus ourselves as
oil prices are now held at a level by the sanctions reducing world supplies
(the US have lobbyists for such matters) thus the god of the US, the market
is skewed & forecourt prices too sighed Osborne as the overall taxation
gathers 67% of what goes through the retailers till.
This has been rumbling for over 3 years since the BRICS held their meeting
to create a currency that would challenge the $ in terms of the general
w.w economy but specifically oil. They did mistime the threat & should have
kept their powder dry as the US economy like our own lives on borrowed time
& money.....but they made the mistake the US was in such decline they couldn't
respond....of course the US have the biggest of all responses to any threat....its
armed forces & their technology that advances far more rapidly than any
economy.
Incidentally I write this sat at my laptop in the North of England in
between running my own business & contacting clients etc..........I suspect
my politics would make Putin wince.....however the chronology, actions/outcomes
& the general logic of the situation has now't to do with supporting one
or t'other.......& do remember the US grudgingly acknowledge without the
Russkis the er, er agreement with Iran & non-proliferation would still be
a can yet to be kicked down the road.
Personally I'd be more worried that Putin has made fools of the US/EU
leaders so many times thus wonder just what is the intent in assisting the
brokering of any deal? With the West & Iran.
steph borne
If Russia was worried about the oil price they would not have been so
helpful in getting the usa & Iran together on a deal which will put more
downward pressure on the oil price!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... Barack Obama praises Putin for help
clinching Iran deal
oleteo
Reading this article I saw only one message to be sent to the Russians:"Russians,surrender!"
The rumours about the desease and the ongoing decease of the Russian economy
are greatly exaggerated.
steph borne
June 17, 2015 at 1:44 pm Boeing said it struck a $7.4 billion deal to
sell 20 of its 747-8 freighters to Russia's Volga-Dnepr Group, providing
a much-needed boost to the jumbo-jet program amid flagging demand for four-engine
aircraft. http://www.seattletimes.com/bu...
MOSCOW, Russia (May 26, 2015) – Bell Helicopter,
a Textron Inc. (NYSE: TXT) company, announced today an agreement with
JSC Ural Works of Civil Aviation (UWCA) for the development of final
assembly capabilities by UWCA for the Bell 407GXP in order to support
UWCA in obtaining Russian registry to facilitate their operations. http://www.bellhelicopter.com/...
.
Oh business as normal at Bell looks like sanctions only to be paid heed
by the useful idiots in the EU
snotcricket > steph borne
Yes the sanctions do seem to TTIP more in the US favour than their Western,
er, er partners
Sonduh
Just like Brown Osborne is reducing borrowing but encouraging consumer
debt which is close to 120% GDP. By the end of next year household debt
will be 172% of earnings.Once household debt reaches saturation point and
they start defaulting on their debt as they did in 2008 -- Game over. I
hear the Black Sea is nice this time of year.
steph borne
A report by Sberbank warned that Gazprom's revenues are likely to drop
by almost a third to $106bn this year from $146bn in 2014, seriously eroding
Russia's economic base.''
Last year $146 billion bought 4672 billion pybs this year $106 billion
will buy 6148 Billion pybs
Gazprom alone generates a tenth of Russian GDP and a fifth of all budget
revenues. the Pyb devaluation vs. $ has led to a 31% increase in revenues..
Something Salmond should take notice of should the SNP want to go for
independence again. Inflation at 16% may well be but its the price of imported
stuff pushing up the prices.. mainly EU goods for sale .. that won't be
bought!
As the merkins tell us a devalued dollar is your problem.. the devalued
rouble is the EUs problem!
Nikki Santoro
What is happening is the Anglo-Muricuns are actively provoking the Chinese
and Russkies into a war. However once it is all said and done, they are
going to need a cover story. People are going to ask why the Russkies attacked.
And then the Anglo-Muricuns are going to say that Putin put all his eggs
in one basket. Yeah that is what happened but really if Putin does attack,
it will be because of the endless Anglo-Muricun provocations. Just as they
provoked Hilter to no end and Imperial Japan as well.
steph borne
Russian companies have to refinance $86bn....''
So what are you going to do if they default.. go in and repossess..You
and who's army? They are struggling trying to get Greece to comply..
Russia's trade surplus is still in the Billions of Dollars while the
usa's & UKs is mired in deficit.. Russia recorded a trade surplus of 17.142
USD Billion in May of 2015 http://www.tradingeconomics.co....
Debt public/ external debt ratios
U. K..................92%........317%
usa...................74%......... 98%
And
Russia...............8%..........40%
''And while UK growth could reach 3pc this year, our expansion is far
too reliant on rising personal and government debt. ''
''The UK, with an external deficit now equal to 6pc of GDP, the second-largest
in half a century,''
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin...
As ever the west points to Russia and says Look over there (for God's sake
don't look here!)
Sonduh > steph borne
And don't forget all their gold reserves. And all their natural resources.
Skalla
Prosperous countries are usually benevolent (the US being the exception
to the rule). Hungry countries get to be greedy and aggressive. The US with
its economic and financial manipulations will turn a sleepy bear into a
very awake and ravenous one, and after hibernation, the first thing bears
do is FEED --
vandieman
A cynic could say that the US is driving the oil prices down to push
Russia into a war.
Anth2305 > vandieman
Wait until Iranian oil comes fully on stream, which I heard some pundit
on TV say could drive the cost down to < $30 a barrel, forcing the Saudis
into having to eat massively into their foreign reserves.
gardiner
When the old USSR 'collapsed', what we call the 'Oligarchs' ( a collection
of the most highly influential State officials who pocketed practically
all the old State assets) corruption was at the very highest level, and
society was at its weakest.
The economy became dependant on resource exports.
Because the country's capital was so concentrated, there was practically
no 'middle class' of entrepreneurs who could invest capital in job creating,
internationally competitive industry.
Although a lot further down this road than the UK - the warning is stark!
beatonthedonis > gardiner
Abramovich wasn't a state official, he was a rubber-duck salesman. Berezovsky
wasn't a state official, he was an academic. Khodorkovsky wasn't a state
official, he was a PC importer. Gusinsky wasn't a state official, he was
an unlicensed cab driver. Smolensky wasn't a state official, he was a blackmarketeer.
Fridman wasn't a state official, he was a ticket tout.
daddyseanicus
So the political sanctions are bankrupting Russia because they dared
to challenge EU expansion. Result millions of poor Russians will start to
flow West and the UK will have another flood of Eastern Europeans.
But at least we showed them our politicians are tough.
Busufi > Jonathan
In the East there is a saying: Why use poison when sugar delivers the
same result. Or say as Deng said, It doesn't matter whether the Cat is black
or white, so long it catches the mice.
Spelling it out for Russia (or Britain) that would mean giving up
Byzantine based ambitions and prospering through alliances with the Muslim
Nation or Countries, including Turkey. In the short term such a move would
quell internal dissent of the 11m immigrants in Russia, reduce unsustainable
security expenditure with its central Asian neighbours, open and expand
market for Russian goods in the Middle East, Far East and North Africa,
and eventually form and provide a military-commercial -political alliance
(like NATO) for the Muslim nations with Russia (with partner strength based
upon what is mostly commercial placed on the table (see the gist in the
Vienna Agreement between P5+1 and Iran).
The formation of such an alliance would trump Russia's (or Britain's)
opponents ambitions and bring prosperity.
Sonduh
" They are running a budget deficit of 3.7pc of GDP but without developed
capital markets Russia can't really afford to run a deficit at all."
We are able to have a budget deficit of 4.8% and 90% national debt, 115%
non financial corporate debt , 200% financial corporate debt and 120% household
debt due to voodoo economics ie. countries can print money to buy your debt.
PS we also have unfunded liabilities like pensions which amounts to many
hundred pc of GDP.
The results showed the extraordinary sums that Britain has committed to
pay its future retirees. In total, the UK is committed to paying £7.1 trillion
in pensions to people who are currently either already retired or still
in the workforce.
This is equivalent to nearly five times the UK's total economic output.
Such a figure may be hard to put into proportion, as a trillion – a thousand
billion – is obviously a huge number.
And we think Russia is in a bad state.
georgesilver
Propaganda. Laughable coming from the UK hack when the UK has un-payable
debt and Russia has little external debt plus we have no Gold and Russia
has probably 20,000 tonnes. NATO surrounds Russia yet they are the aggressors.
Laughable but idiots still believe the propaganda.
tarentius > georgesilver
The entire world combined has 32,000 tonnes of gold reserves. Russia
has 1,200 tonnes.
Russia has government debt of 18% to GDP, a contracting GDP. It is forced
to pay interest of 15% on any newly issued bonds, and that's rising. And
it has a refinancing crisis on existing debt on the horizon.
Russia's regions are heavily in debt and about 25% of them are already
bankrupt. The number is rising.
And we haven't even gotten into the problem with Russian business loans.
Turn out the lights, the party's over for Russia.
Bendu Be Praised > mrsgkhan •
The issue is the medias portrayal of Putin .. If the UK media was straight
up with the people and just said .. "our friends in the US hate the Russians
.. The Russians are growing too big and scary therefore we are going to
join in destroying the Russian economy before they become uncatchable "
the people would back them ..
Lets be honest .. The Russians don't do anything that we don't .. Apart
from stand up to the US that is
Jim0341
Yesterday, AEP spread the gloom about China, today it is Russia. As ever,
he uses quotes from leading figures in banks and finance houses, which are
generally bemoaning low returns on investments, rather than the wellbeing,
or otherwise, of the national economy..
Whose turn is it tomorrow, AEP? My bet is Taiwan.
Bendu Be Praised > FreddieTCapitalist
I think you will find that the UK are just pretending the sanctions and
wars are not hurting us ..
Just look at the budget .. 40% cuts to public services .. America tried
to destroy the Russian economy by flooding the market with cheap oil but
it will come back to bite them ..
The UK should just back off .. lift sanctions against Russia and let
the US squabble with them by themselves ..
I sick of paying taxes for the US governments "War on the terror and
the rest of the world"
alec bell
This article makes no sense. First of all, there is no way that Gazprom
is responsible for 1/10th of Russia's GDP. That is mathematically impossible.
1/20th is more like it. Second, if push comes to shove, Russians are perfectly
capable of developing their own vitally-important technologies. Drilling
holes in the ground cannot be more complicated than conquering space.
Whatever problems Russia has, engineering impotence is not one of them.
And third, if Russians' reliance on resourses' exports has led to "the
atrophy of their industry" as AEP rightly points out, then it must logically
follow that disappearance of that revenue will inevitably result in their
industrial and agricultural renaissance.
In the end, Ambrose is too ideological to be credible on the issue.
Sure, Russia has couple lean years ahead, but it will come out of this ordeal
stronger, not weaker. There are already reports of mini boomlets gathering
steam under the surface.
alec bell > vlad
vlad, JFYI: According to research conducted by the World Economic Forum
(which excludes China and India due to lack of data), Russia leads the way,
producing an annual total of 454,000 graduates in engineering, manufacturing
and construction. The United States is in second position with 237,826 while
Iran rounds off the top three with 233,695. Developing economies including
Indonesia and Vietnam have also made it into the top 10, producing 140,000
and 100,000 engineering graduates each year respectively.
Nikki Santoro
Don't mess with the Anglo-Muricuns. They will jack you up bad. Unless
you are thousands of miles away and posting anonymously. But even still
they can lens you out and cleanse you out should you take it too far. However
their dominance is not some much because of their brilliance. They don't
have any despite their propaganda. But rather the depths they are willing
to stoop to in order to secure victory. Like blowing up an airliner and
then pinning it on you for instance. Or poisoning their own farmland.
steve_from_virginia
Futures' traders got burned earlier this year betting that oil prices
would rise right back to where they were a year previously. Now they have
'gotten smart'. They know now the problem isn't Saudi Arabia but billions
of bankrupt consumers the world around.
Customers are bankrupt b/c of QE and other easing which shifts purchasing
power claims from customers to drillers -- and to the banks. As the customers
go broke so do the banks: instead of gas lines there are ATM lines.
At the same time, ongoing 'success' at resource stripping is cannibalizing
the purchasing power faster than ever before. Soon enough, the claims will
be worthless! When the resource capital is inaccessible, so is the purchasing
power -- which is the ability to obtain that resource capital.
Business has caught itself in the net of its own propaganda; that there
is such a thing as material progress out of waste ... that a better future
will arrive the day after tomorrow.
Turns out tomorrow arrives and things get worse. Who could have thunk
it?
Brabantian
If AEP is as right about Russia as he was about the Yank shale gas 'boom'
- now collapsing into a pile of toxic bad debt -
Then our Russian friends have nothing to worry about
midnightrambler > Guest
The largest military spend - the US - bigger than the next 20 countries
combined
The most bases - the US with 800, including many in Germany
Nobody wants war - but the US needs it as their largest industry is defence
- apart from manipulative banking.
We are heading for a point of rupture between those who are peaceful and
those whose main aim is control and conflict.
Take your pick
A few leaders choose war - most people (who will fight those wars) choose
peace.
And of course all wars are bankers' wars - it is only they who profit
Timothy D. Naegele
Both Putin and Russia are in a spiral, from which they will not recover.
See https://naegeleblog.wordpress.... ("Putin Meets Economic Collapse
With Purges, Broken Promises")
Tony Cocks > Timothy D. Naegele
"Both Putin and Russia are in a spiral, from which they will not recover."
This from someone whose former President and gang of criminal henchmen
lied to the world on a monumental scale about WMD in Iraq , and waged an
illegal war on that country killing hundreds of thousands in the process
. Following that it was Libyas turn , then Syrias . Now its Russia the US
neo con warmongers are hounding, the difference being that Russia holds
the worlds biggest nuclear arsenal.
The US forces had their kicked out of Vietnam and were thoroughly beaten
despite throwing everything they had at the conflict save the nuclear option.
Imagine what will happen if it eventually comes to armed conflict with Russia.
midnightrambler > Timothy D. Naegele
A yank lawyer advocating killing.
From the land of citizen killers
What a surprise
Stay away
stephenmarchant
Instead of demonising Putin and banging on about the problems of the
Russian economy the MSM should be worried about indebted Western economies
including the UK and US. Russian Govt finances are not burdened with nearly
£2trn of debt that has funded unsustainable nominal growth. Here in the
UK the real GDP growth per capita is declining at over 3% per anum so as
a nation the UK is continuing its decline:-
Govt deficit at 5% per anum
Govt debt at about 80% GDP
Private debt and corporate debt each of a similar order
Record current account deficit of about 5% per anum
A deteriorating NIIP (Net International Investment Position)
Uncontrolled immigration
Our whole debt based fiat system is on the brink but few can see it whilst
they party with asset and property bubbles. A few of us foresaw the first
crash of 2007/8 but we now face a systemic collapse of our fiat system because
of the resulting 'extend and pretend' policy of Govts and central bankers.
In the final analysis the true prosperity of a nation will depend upon
its natural resources, infrastructure, skills of its workforce and social
cohesion.
Graham Milne > JabbaTheCat
The scale of Russian kleptocracy pales into vanishing insignificance
beside the criminality of western banks (and the government who 'regulate'
them). Europe and the USA are regimes run by criminals; worse than that,
they are run by traitors. At least Putin isn't a traitor to his country.
Busufi
The best way for Russia to beat the downturn in it's oil and gas is to
invest in down-stream strategic production of petroleum products that would
give Russia a competitive advantage on a global scale.
Selling raw natural resources is the Third World way of exports. Not
smart.
"... That means backing Wall Street, the neocons and the TPP. Shame on him! He told his followers to think of pie in the sky in the decades it will take to take over the Democratic Party from below, from school boards, etc. ..."
"... What on earth is revolution if it doesn't include either remove the rot in the Democratic Party, the Wall Street control, or start another party? It had to be one or the other. Here was his chance. I think he missed it. ..."
"... He did miss his chance. Some people were suggesting that he should walk and form his own party. Particularly how the party treated him. ..."
"... The Democrats and the Republicans together have made it almost impossible for a third party to get registered in every state. To run in every state. To get just all of the mechanics you need because of all the lawsuits against them. The Green Party is the only party that had already solved that. Apart from the Libertarian Party. ..."
"... The oligarchs have joined the Republicans and the Democrats are now seen to be the same party, called the Democratic Party. Here was his chance to make an alternative. ..."
"... I believe Hillary's the greater evil, not Trump, because Trump is incompetent and doesn't have the staff around him, or the political support that Hilary has. ..."
"... I have known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. I remember her, as you do, as a great first lady who broke precedent in terms of the role that a first lady was supposed to play as she helped lead the fight for universal health care. ..."
"... I served with her in the United States Senate and know her as a fierce advocate for the rights of children, for women and for the disabled. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her tonight! ..."
"... Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life. ..."
"... I agree with Hudson that HRC is the greater threat. I also agree with him that Bernie makes no sense. What the hell did Bernie have to lose? He could have accepted the prez nomination with the Greens. In fact, he should have run third party from the git-go. By sucking up to the dems that politically raped him, Bernie is exhibiting a variation of Stockholm syndrome. ..."
"... Bernie's problem in the end is that he couldn't see that in order to gain power in the Democratic Party (i.e., in order to dislodge the Clintons), the Left might (probably would) have to lose an election. ..."
"... The Democratic PoC (Party of Clinton) had to be shown as a party that could not win an election without its left half. He wrongly saw the powerless Trump as the greater threat, something that could only be done if he still at least marginally trusted Hillary to ever keep her word on anything. He will come to see that as his greatest mistake of all. ..."
"... Bernie reminds me of Gorbachev. Both clearly saw what the problem was with their respective societies, but still thought that things could be fixed by changing their respective parties. Bernie it seems, like Gorbachev before him, can not intellectually accept that effective reforms require radical action on the existing power structures. Gorbachev could not break with the Communist system and Bernie can not break with the Democratic party. ..."
"... I have known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. I remember her, as you do, as a great first lady who broke precedent in terms of the role that a first lady was supposed to play as she helped lead the fight for universal health care. ..."
"... I served with her in the United States Senate and know her as a fierce advocate for the rights of children, for women and for the disabled. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her tonight! ..."
"... Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life. ..."
PERIES: Let's turn to Sanders's strategy here. Now, Sanders is, of course,
asking people to support Hillary. And if you buy into the idea that she is the
lesser of two evils candidate, then we also have to look at Bernie's other strategy
– which is to vote as many people as we possibly can at various other levels
of the elections that are going on at congressional levels, Senate level, at
municipal levels. Is that the way to go, so that we can avoid some of these
choices we are offered?
HUDSON: Well, this is what I don't understand about Sanders's strategy. He
says we need a revolution. He's absolutely right. But then, everything he said
in terms of the election is about Trump. I can guarantee you that the revolution
isn't really about Trump. The way Sanders has described things, you have to
take over the Democratic Party and pry away the leadership, away from Wall Street,
away from the corporations.
Democrats pretend to be a party of the working class, a party of the people.
But it's teetering with Hillary as it's candidate. If ever there was a time
to split it, this was the year. But Bernie missed his chance. He knuckled under
and said okay, the election's going to be about Trump. Forget the revolution
that I've talked about. Forget reforming the Democratic Party, I'm sorry. Forget
that I said Hillary is not fit to be President. I'm sorry, she is fit to be
President. We've got to back her.
That means backing Wall Street, the neocons and the TPP. Shame on him!
He told his followers to think of pie in the sky in the decades it will take
to take over the Democratic Party from below, from school boards, etc.
Labor unions said this half a century ago. It didn't work. Bernie gave up
on everything to back the TPP candidate, the neocon candidate.
What on earth is revolution if it doesn't include either remove the rot
in the Democratic Party, the Wall Street control, or start another party? It
had to be one or the other. Here was his chance. I think he missed it.
PERIES: I think there's a lot of people out there that agree with
that analysis, Michael. He did miss his chance. Some people were suggesting
that he should walk and form his own party. Particularly how the party treated
him. But there is another choice out there. In fact, we at the Real News
is out there covering the Green Party election as we are speaking here, Michael.
Is that an option?
HUDSON: It would have been the only option for him. He had decided
that you can't really mount a third party, because it's so hard. The Democrats
and the Republicans together have made it almost impossible for a third party
to get registered in every state. To run in every state. To get just all of
the mechanics you need because of all the lawsuits against them. The Green Party
is the only party that had already solved that. Apart from the Libertarian Party.
So here you have the only possible third party he could have run on this
time, and he avoided it. I'm sure he must of thought about it. He was offered
the presidency on it. He could of used that and brought his revolution into
that party and then expanded it as a real alternative to both the Democrats
and the Republicans. Because the Republican Party is already split, by the fact
that the Tea Party's pretty much destroyed it. The oligarchs have joined
the Republicans and the Democrats are now seen to be the same party, called
the Democratic Party. Here was his chance to make an alternative.
I don't think there will be a chance like this again soon. I believe
Hillary's the greater evil, not Trump, because Trump is incompetent and doesn't
have the staff around him, or the political support that Hilary has. I
think Bernie missed his chance to take this party and develop it very quickly,
just like George Wallace could have done back in the 1960s when he had a chance.
I think Chris Hedges and other people have made this point with you. I have
no idea what Bernie's idea of a revolution is, if he's going to try to do it
within the Democratic Party that's just stamped on him again and again, you're
simply not going to have a revolution within the Democratic party.
I have known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. I remember her, as
you do, as a great first lady who broke precedent in terms of the role
that a first lady was supposed to play as she helped lead the fight
for universal health care.
I served with her in the United States Senate and know her as a fierce
advocate for the rights of children, for women and for the disabled.
Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud
to stand with her tonight!
Sanders' campaign was premised on exactly the opposite. How can anyone
now take Bernie seriously?
Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful
human being I've ever known in my life.
Okay. I know this comment will bring forth much backlash, but I'm gonna
put it out there anyway since my 'give-a-shitter' was severely cracked over
4 yrs ago (when 2 sheriff's deputies evicted me from my home while I had
been current on my pymts when the bank foreclosed and the response from
EVERY govt agency I contacted told me to "hire a lawyer", which I couldn't
afford, with one costing much more than I owed on my home of 20 yrs). I
had bought my first house by the time I graduated h.s. and had owned one
ever since until now.
My 'give-a-shitter' completely shattered this year with the election,
so here goes:
So it seems we are offered 3 choices when we vote. Trump, Hillary or
Green.
To someone who is among the 8-10 MILLION (depending on whose figures
you believe) whose home was illegally taken from them by the banksters,
I would welcome a 4th choice since none of the 3 offered will improve my
life before I die.
The consensus seems to be that it'll take decades to create change through
voting.
I'm a divorced woman turning 65. I don't feel I have decades to wait,
while I am forced to live in a place that doesn't even have a flush toilet
because it's all I can afford. To someone my age with no degrees or special
skills, the job market is nonexistent, even if I lived in a big city (where
I couldn't afford the rent).
When I see reports of an increase in new homes being built, I'd love
to see a breakdown showing exactly how many of those homes will be primary
residences and how many are second (or third, or fourth) homes.
There are 4 new custom homes being built within a half mile of me.
None will be primary residences. All will be 'vacation' homes.
Yet if we're to believe the latest figures, "the housing market is improving!"
For whom?
Yes, I'm extremely disappointed that Bernie bailed on us. I doubt either
of us will live long enough to see the change required to change this govt
and save the planet with our current choices this election.
I fear the only thing that this election has given me was initially great
hope for my future, before being plunged into the darkness of the same ol',
same ol' as my only choices.
I was never radical or oppositional in my life but I would now welcome
a revolution. I don't see me living long enough to welcome that change by
voting. Especially with the blatant voter suppression and all else that
transpired this election.
While the govt and political oligarchs may fear Russia & ISIS, if they
met 8-10 million of us victims of the banksters, they would come to realize
real fear, from those within their homeland.
Most are horrified when I offer this view, saying I'd be thrown in prison.
Hmmm…considering that…I'd be fed, clothed, housed-and I'd have a flush toilet!
Gads, I'd love to see millions of us march on Washington & literally
throw those in power out of their seats onto the lawn, saying "enough is
enough"!
So I guess my question is, does anyone else feel as 'at the end of their
rope' as I do?
Can you even truly imagine being in my position and what you would do or
how you would feel?
Yes. I screamed, cried, and wrote Bernie's campaign before his endorsement
speech was even completed, expressing my disappointment, after foregoing
meals to send him my meager contributions.
My hopes were shattered and I'm growing impatient for change.
crittermom/Bullwinkle – here's one of the articles by Chris Hedges on
Bernie Sanders:
"Because the party is completely captive to corporate power," Hedges
said. "And Bernie has cut a Faustian deal with the Democrats. And that's
not even speculation. I did an event with him and Bill McKibben, Naomi Klein
and Kshama Sawant in New York the day before the Climate March. And Kshama
Sawant ,the Socialist City Councilwoman from Seattle and I asked Sanders
why he wanted to run as a Democrat. And he said - because I don't want to
end up like Nader."
"He didn't want to end up pushed out of the establishment," Hedges said.
"He wanted to keep his committee chairmanships, he wanted to keep his Senate
seat. And he knew the forms of retribution, punishment that would be visited
upon him if he applied his critique to the Democratic establishment. So
he won't."
Fair enough. I don't know enough about Nader to care. To me, it was just
the about-face that Bernie did, going from denouncing Hillary (albeit not
very strongly) to embracing her. I think if I had been one of his supporters
who cheered him on, sent him money, got my hopes raised that he would go
all the way, I would have been very disappointed. Almost like a tease.
I'd wanted Bernie to run as an Independent more than anything, but I
can understand him wanting to keep his Senate seat and chairs. Without them,
he has no power to bring change.
I had believed he had a good chance to win, whipping a big Bernie Bird to
both parties and changing things in my lifetime, running Independent.
I now realize just how completely corrupt our political system is. Far
worse than I ever could have imagined. Wow, have my eyes been opened!
I'm beginning to think this election may just come down to who has the
bigger thugs, Trump or HRC.
I agree with Hudson that HRC is the greater threat. I also agree
with him that Bernie makes no sense. What the hell did Bernie have to lose?
He could have accepted the prez nomination with the Greens. In fact, he
should have run third party from the git-go. By sucking up to the dems that
politically raped him, Bernie is exhibiting a variation of Stockholm syndrome.
Bernie's problem in the end is that he couldn't see that in order
to gain power in the Democratic Party (i.e., in order to dislodge the Clintons),
the Left might (probably would) have to lose an election.
The Democratic PoC (Party of Clinton) had to be shown as a party
that could not win an election without its left half. He wrongly saw the
powerless Trump as the greater threat, something that could only be done
if he still at least marginally trusted Hillary to ever keep her word on
anything. He will come to see that as his greatest mistake of all.
Bernie reminds me of Gorbachev. Both clearly saw what the problem
was with their respective societies, but still thought that things could
be fixed by changing their respective parties. Bernie it seems, like Gorbachev
before him, can not intellectually accept that effective reforms require
radical action on the existing power structures. Gorbachev could not break
with the Communist system and Bernie can not break with the Democratic party.
Bernie is too nice for his own good. He should have used the DNC machinations
as an excuse to go back on his promise to endorse. "I made that promise
on the assumption that we would all be acting in good faith. Sadly, that
has proved not to be the case."
But no, he's too much of a politician, or too nice, or has too much sense
of personal pride…or had his life and his family threatened if he didn't
toe the line (not that I'm foily). Whatever his motivations, we don't get
a "Get out of Responsibility Free" card just because one dude
made some mis-steps. If that's all it takes to derail us, we're
so, so screwed.
I also agree with Hudson and EndOfTheWorld that HRC is the greater threat
and that Sanders makes no sense.
Sure, the Dems probably threatened to kick him off of Congressional Committees
and to back a rival in Vermont.
So what! With his tenure and at his age, what's really to lose? If he
couldn't face off someone in his home state, it's probably time to retire
anyway. And it's not like he was ever in it for the money.
The best he gets now is mild tolerance from his masters. "Give me your
followers and lick my boots." What a coward, could have made history, now
he's a goat.
It's actually not so surprising given his long history of working within
the mainstream system, simply along its fringes. I think many may have been
falling into the '08 Obama trap of seeing what they wanted to see in him.
As a senator he's had plenty of opportunities to grandstand, gum up the
works, etc, and he really never does. Even his "filibuster" a few years
back wasn't all that disruptive.
EndOfTheWorld- totally agree with you. I just shake my head at Bernie.
Diametrically opposed to Clinton, he suddenly turns around and embraces
her! What? I will never understand that.
"America needs an ineffective president. That's much better than an effective
president that's going to go to war with Russia, that's going to push for
the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that's going to protect Wall Street, and
that's going to oppose neoliberal austerity."
He's right too. I am absolutely terrified of Hillary Clinton becoming
President. She strikes me as having psychopathic tendencies. I mean, just
look at the scandals she and Bill have been involved in, and then when she
gets caught, she lies, feigns ignorance, deflects, blames others, lies some
more. Power and money are her goals.
She has called Putin "Hitler", said she wants to expand NATO, and again
said she wants to take out Assad. Well, how is she going to do that when
Russia is in there? God, she is scary. I just hope that there's a big Clinton
Foundation email leak to finish her off.
Trump is out there, but at least he wants to try to negotiate peace (of
course, if war wasn't making so many people rich, it would be stopped tomorrow).
He's questioning why NATO is necessary, never mind its continual expansion,
and he wants to stop the TPP.
God, I'd be happy with even one of the above. Hillary will give us TPP,
more NATO, more war, and a cackle. Please, if anyone has some loose emails
hanging around, now is the time!
I have known Hillary Clinton for 25 years. I remember her, as
you do, as a great first lady who broke precedent in terms of the role
that a first lady was supposed to play as she helped lead the fight
for universal health care.
I served with her in the United States Senate and know her as a fierce
advocate for the rights of children, for women and for the disabled.
Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud
to stand with her tonight!
Sanders' campaign was premised on exactly the opposite. How can anyone
now take Bernie seriously?
Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful
human being I've ever known in my life.
Butch – "…she helped lead the fight for universal health care." Did she
now? Here's a good quote on how she felt about universal health care:
"Hillary took the lead role in the White House's efforts to pass a corporate-friendly
version of "health reform." Along with the big insurance companies the Clintons
deceptively railed against, the "co-presidents" decided from the start to
exclude the popular health care alternative – single payer – from the national
health care "discussion." (Obama would do the same thing in 2009.)
"David, tell me something interesting." That was then First Lady Hillary
Clinton's weary and exasperated response – as head of the White House's
health reform initiative – to Harvard medical professor David Himmelstein
in 1993. Himmelstein was head of Physicians for a National Health Program.
He had just told her about the remarkable possibilities of a comprehensive,
single-payer "Canadian style" health plan, supported by more than two-thirds
of the U.S. public. Beyond backing by a citizen super-majority, Himmelstein
noted, single-payer would provide comprehensive coverage to the nation's
40 million uninsured while retaining free choice in doctor selection and
being certified by the Congressional Budget Office as "the most cost-effective
plan on offer."
vice presidential pick is a proxy for what we can expect from her administration.
Now we know the result.
Notable quotes:
"... "The super delegate vote will determine the healthy survival or possible death of the Democratic party! Hillary or Trump are both unacceptable candidates and would be disasters for the country! We should not be forced to choose between them! ..."
"... Are you high?!?! She has NO record of achieving ANYTHING of consequence, other than have a road and a post office named. And her "experience" includes things like supporting (and receiving money from) violent third-world dictators, peddling fracking all over the world, selling political favors in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation Money-Laundering Operation, and leaving a trail of bodies composed of people who "accidentally" died when they knew too much about her and her criminal/sexual predator husband. ..."
"... The article references tpp as a deal breaker for progressives, which of course it should be. The writer should have mentioned that Obama is pushing hard for the tpp - corporate sellout that he is. ..."
"... That's a pretty small consolation to struggling people and why they gravitate to a guy like Trump. Trump is successfully attacking from the left. I had a Trump supporter arguing TPP to me the other day. Democrats claim to be the "unity" party, but still tell those of us on the left to shut up and put up with their corporate policy. I have yet to have a Democrat argue anything but Trump fear in support of their candidate. ..."
"... Just a heads up. Trump is AGAINST TPP. Trump is AGAINST Super PAC's & ridiculous money in politics. Trump is AGAINST foreign interventionist wars. On the flip side, Hillary WILL sign TPP into law if elected. She will NEVER fight against Super PAC's or campaign finance because she IS the problem in that arena. Hillary is also a war hawk who not only supported the Iraq War, but also delivered us Libya, Syria, ISIS, and so on. ..."
"... The Guardian seemingly could care less about Hillary's crimes! They want to shove her cluelessness down everyones throats. She was a disaster as Secretary of State, and would be an even worse President. People are starting to wise up about the agenda of left-wing media. Hillary is a criminal, and the Guardian supports her totally... It speaks to the lack of integrity at the Guardian! ..."
"... And for the record, Hillary is NOT a progressive, will NEVER be a progressive, and has NO interest in progressives after they vote for her. THAT IS THE TRUTH. ..."
"... I won't vote for a party that rigged the primaries from Sanders by committing election fraud against his supporters. ..."
"For many progressives, and Democrats in general, it's a wait-and-see moment
around [Clinton's] vice presidential pick," said Stephanie Taylor of the Progressive
Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), who called the imminent decision "a proxy
for what we can expect from her administration".
"If she picks someone like [Massachusetts senator] Elizabeth Warren who has
this track record of fighting for the issues that people care about ... that
will be a signal that will energise greatly the Democratic base," Taylor told
the Guardian in an interview. Picking the moderate Virginia governor, Tim Kaine,
or the US agriculture secretary, Tom Vilsack, would do the opposite, she warned.
Despite some recent gestures toward the Warren and Sanders wing of the party,
progressives are nervous due to Clinton's refusal to budge on trade, where the
Obama administration has been trying to fast-track the Trans-Pacific Partnership
(TPP) agreement through Congress.
"There are very powerful corporate interests who are very strongly opposed
to blocking TPP," said Taylor. "It's the ugly reality of corporate capture that
we are seeing.
"If Clinton picks someone like Tim Kaine who voted for fast-track, that –
combined with the glaring omission of TPP from the Democratic platform – will
depress energy and will be an anaemic choice," she added.
... ... ...
"For many progressives, and Democrats in general, it's a wait-and-see moment
around [Clinton's] vice presidential pick," said Stephanie Taylor of the Progressive
Change Campaign Committee (PCCC), who called the imminent decision "a proxy
for what we can expect from her administration".
"If she picks someone like [Massachusetts senator] Elizabeth Warren who has
this track record of fighting for the issues that people care about ... that
will be a signal that will energise greatly the Democratic base," Taylor told
the Guardian in an interview. Picking the moderate Virginia governor, Tim Kaine,
or the US agriculture secretary, Tom Vilsack, would do the opposite, she warned.
Despite some recent gestures toward the Warren and Sanders wing of the party,
progressives are nervous due to Clinton's refusal to budge on trade, where the
Obama administration has been trying to fast-track the Trans-Pacific Partnership
(TPP) agreement through Congress.
"There are very powerful corporate interests who are very strongly opposed
to blocking TPP," said Taylor. "It's the ugly reality of corporate capture that
we are seeing.
"If Clinton picks someone like Tim Kaine who voted for fast-track, that –
combined with the glaring omission of TPP from the Democratic platform – will
depress energy and will be an anaemic choice," she added.
Rachman Cantrell
Trying to change the minds of Hillary fans is not productive at this
point in time. None of our votes matter until after the convention. Only
the super delegates can decide what happens with the Democratic nominee!
We need to put our efforts into changing their minds! The following is a
letter I sent to my state super delegates. Please use the following link
to write to your own delegates and feel free to copy or modify what I wrote.
"The super delegate vote will determine the healthy survival
or possible death of the Democratic party! Hillary or Trump are both
unacceptable candidates and would be disasters for the country! We should
not be forced to choose between them! Polls show that most Bernie
supporters will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances and I am
one of them! Hillary may survive her legal woes past the primary but
Trump will use them to win if she is the candidate. To avoid that probability
please vote for Bernie Sanders as the Democratic nominee for president!
Super delegates have a serious decision to make. Vote for Hillary with
the likelihood of a Trump presidency and a drastically shrinking party
or vote for Bernie and open the doors to millions of new Democrats with
a revitalized and growing party! I hope you make the right decision!
Thank you"
Use the link below to send to all super delegates. Copy my message, modify
or write your own. It only takes about fifteen minutes to send to all delegates
state by state but leave your zip code blank in the form. This may be our
last chance to get Bernie in the White House! http://www.lobbydelegates.com/engage.php
Eileen Kerrigan -> aguy777
Are you high?!?! She has NO record of achieving ANYTHING of consequence,
other than have a road and a post office named. And her "experience" includes
things like supporting (and receiving money from) violent third-world dictators,
peddling fracking all over the world, selling political favors in exchange
for donations to the Clinton Foundation Money-Laundering Operation, and
leaving a trail of bodies composed of people who "accidentally" died when
they knew too much about her and her criminal/sexual predator husband.
As for continuing in Obama's footsteps, that would mean more war, more
fracking, passing the TPP, more pollution, more corruption, more income
inequality, more offshore tax havens ... yeah, that sounds like a GREAT
plan!!
Vote for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate. Bernie should have endorsed
her, but took the safe route (for him to remain in the thick of the Dem
party).
toosinbeymen
The article references tpp as a deal breaker for progressives, which
of course it should be. The writer should have mentioned that Obama is pushing
hard for the tpp - corporate sellout that he is.
DrRoss555
I just watched Mrs. Clinton speak in Ohio. She is such a nasty, pandering
fear monger....I guess the other side is too, but this woman takes it to
unprecedented levels.
Nasty...no wonder black people are on the hunt for cops....just listen
to this woman
dougtheavenger -> DrRoss555
THE WAGES OF MOST BLACK AMERICANS ARE KEPT ARTIFICIALLY LOW BY POLICIES
ENDORSED BY HILLARY.
The influx of cheap, immigrant labor keeps wages low, but this is NOT
the result of free market forces. Cheap immigrant labor is subsidized by
the government. Without government subsidy 50% of immigrants would not come
and 100% of those earning less than $15/hour would not come. Lacking certain
advantages that natives have, immigrants cannot live on the wages half of
them earn. Only governmenT subsidy of low wages EITC, etc. make immigration
(at the cost of $7,000 for a family of 4) a rational choice for them.
SagiGirl -> DrRoss555
Jill Stein is such a contrast to Hillary. She's calm and cool, well spoken,
and has human-based values along with a mighty strength and intellect. I
can't wait to vote for her.
mjclarity
Clinton is the Blair of the Democratic party, a Republican/Tory in progressive
clothing. So emulating the failed politics of laying opposition cuckoos
in the progressive nest seems like a bad tactic to me.
dougtheavenger -> mjclarity
Hillary is mainly a crook. Yes, she supports TPP and NAFTA and other
policies that keep wages artificially low, but she does it for money, not
ideology.
ID704291
When Ann O'Leary says, "We are not going to get there unless we elect
Hillary Clinton to be president," she sounds pretty tone deaf. Kossacks
have banned all discussion of concerns about Clinton on their blog, basically
telling the left to get lost.
Democracy for America is toothless and leaderless, and its unattended
locals tend to go off the rails attracting neo Nazis and other extremists.
DNC is pushing education as they have since the 1980s, but that really only
means that if you cannot afford it, or aren't among the highest in your
class, you don't matter, and it's your fault you are doing better.
That's a pretty small consolation to struggling people and why they
gravitate to a guy like Trump. Trump is successfully attacking from the
left. I had a Trump supporter arguing TPP to me the other day. Democrats
claim to be the "unity" party, but still tell those of us on the left to
shut up and put up with their corporate policy. I have yet to have a Democrat
argue anything but Trump fear in support of their candidate.
Otterboxman Yep
Hillary will never get my vote. I've voted democrat in the past but will
not vote democrat this year. I can barely stand it when Trump opens his
mouth, but it is even worse when Hillary does. The current POTUS has taken
us so far off course that Hillary's plan will never bring us back on course.
It is about jobs, our productivity, and our pursuit of happiness. The two
parties don't get it. They want to make it about race, gender, abortion,
guns, citizenship...They should make it about the good things that the USA
had going for it and quit picking out which group got trampled to get there.
We were great but now we just sit across from each other pointing fingers
and calling names.
Stephen Mitchell 11h ago
1. Sanders: Clinton has backed "virtually every trade agreement that
has cost the workers of this country millions of jobs"
2. Sanders: Clinton is in the pocket of Wall Street
3. Sanders: Hillary Clinton = D.C. Establishment
4. Sanders: Democrat Establishment immigration policies would drive down
Americans' wages, create open borders
5. Sanders: Clinton supports nation-building in Middle East through war
and invasion
Sanders: "And now, I support her 100%."
DurbanPoisonWillBurn
Anyone who believes Hillary is progressive deserves the horrible outcome
a Hillary presidency will bring. How ANYONE can still support Hillary is
beyond me. The woman has accomplished NOTHING except chaos & failure. Wake
up folks. Hillary does NOT care about you. She cares about power, money,
and making deals that benefit HER. Vote Jill Stein
DurbanPoisonWillBurn JimJayuu
Just a heads up. Trump is AGAINST TPP. Trump is AGAINST Super PAC's
& ridiculous money in politics. Trump is AGAINST foreign interventionist
wars. On the flip side, Hillary WILL sign TPP into law if elected. She will
NEVER fight against Super PAC's or campaign finance because she IS the problem
in that arena. Hillary is also a war hawk who not only supported the Iraq
War, but also delivered us Libya, Syria, ISIS, and so on.
Daniel Staggers
"If she picks someone like [Massachusetts senator] Elizabeth Warren who
has this track record of fighting for the issues that people care about
... that will be a signal that will energise greatly the Democratic base,"
All that would mean is she knows that's all she'd have to do to get the
stupid people to vote for her. You know, like the person who wrote this
article? Never mind committing treason hundreds of times over, just get
Warren, right?
clicker2 -> Daniel Staggers
The Guardian seemingly could care less about Hillary's crimes! They
want to shove her cluelessness down everyones throats. She was a disaster
as Secretary of State, and would be an even worse President. People are
starting to wise up about the agenda of left-wing media. Hillary is a criminal,
and the Guardian supports her totally... It speaks to the lack of integrity
at the Guardian!
DurbanPoisonWillBurn -> Daniel Staggers
Pocahontas is a sellout just like Bernie. Elizabeth Warren is a fraud.
She claims progressive but lives like a neo-liberal war hawk. Just the sight
of Warren disgusts progressives the world over. And for the record,
Hillary is NOT a progressive, will NEVER be a progressive, and has NO interest
in progressives after they vote for her. THAT IS THE TRUTH.
Steve Connor
Hillary (and Bernie) shows just how low the Democrat party has become
in terms of true leadership and ideas for making America great again. They
have none. Bernie's popularity was with young voters looking for a free
ride and typical idealistic view of the world, Hillary was the embodiment
of corruption in politics and she rose to power on that, not what she did
for her adopted State of NY, or the country. Her ideas (not her's) are of
failed Democrat policy and ideas over the past 10 years and especially the
last 25.
Ezajur -> Steve Connor
Bernie was not about a free ride. He was about reprioritisation. His
ideas to make America great again are excellent.
eastbayradical
Wall Street's Warmongering Madame is the perfect foil for Donald Trump's
huckster-populism: a pseudo-progressive stooge whose contempt for the average
person and their intelligence is palpable.
She's an arch-environmentalist who has worked tirelessly to spread fracking
globally.
She supports fortifying Social Security but won't commit to raising the
cap on taxes to do so.
She's a humanitarian who has supported every imperial slaughter the US
has waged in the past 25 years.
She cares deeply about the plight of the Palestinians but supported the
starvation blockade and blitzkrieg of Gaza and couldn't bother to mention
them but in passing in a recent speech before AIPAC.
She's a stalwart civil libertarian, but voted for Patriot Acts 1 and
2 and believes Edward Snowden should be sent to federal prison for decades.
She stands with the working class but has supported virtually every international
pact granting increased mobility and power to the corporate sector at its
expense in the past 25 years.
She cares with all her heart about African-Americans but supports the
objectively-racist death penalty and the private prison industry.
She will go to bat for the poor but supported gutting welfare in the
'90s, making them easier prey to exploiters, many of whom supported her
husband and her financially.
She worries about the conditions of the poor globally, but while Sec.
of State actively campaigned against raising the minimum wage in Haiti to
60 cents an hour, thinking 31 cents an hour sounded better for the investor
class whose interests are paramount to her.
She's not a bought-and-paid-for hack, oh no, no, no, but she won't ever
release the Wall Street speeches for which she was paid so handsomely.
She's a true-blue progressive, just ask her most zealous supporters,
who aren't.
Missy Saugus
I won't vote for a party that rigged the primaries from Sanders by
committing election fraud against his supporters. Why is this being
ignored and shoved under the rug? The nomination rightfully belongs to Sanders.
It is the ultimate insult to expect people to vote for the ones who stole
this from Sanders. The ones who, now that the precedent has been set, will
be sure that the next Bernie Sanders has no chance. The Dems are dirty.
They are criminal. And apparently untouchable.
Bernie should have walked. #FreeBernie
ID550456
If Clinton picks a Clintonite neoliberal VP: pro TPP, pro GMO, pro banker,
pro oil, etc. I think it's a safe bet that most of Sanders' supporters will
either sit out the election or vote Green Party, however revolting the prospect
of Trump/Pence may be. I know I will.
Fear4Freedom
"A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll indicates one third of Bernie Sanders'
supporters cannot see themselves voting for Hillary Clinton in November.
This could spell trouble for Clinton who will likely need Sanders' backers
in order to win the White House." Hillary has a way with "everyday Americans",
it's just not a good way...no one wants to vote for someone they think is
"UNTRUSTWORTHY".
eastbayradical
The new talking point being put forward by Clinton's hapless supporters
is that she'll push to overturn Citizens United.
They know this because she said so in passing at a $20,000 a plate soiree
she had recently in Dollarsville County, USA.
Ezajur -> Rich Fairbanks
Her hapless supporters won primaries with media, establishment, DNC and
big money entirely for her and against Bernie. And he went from 3 to 46%
in 12 months. Now that's worth bragging about.
I suppose getting 54% for such a lousy candidate as Hillary is something
to brag about.
Ezajur -> markdman
I'm a Bernie supporter.
Killary. Drillary. Billary. Shillary.
Its all good.
I also hate Trump.
eastbayradical -> Joe Smith
"The Clinton platform is pretty good for any progressive..."
Clinton has shown a willingness to say whatever she feels needs to be
said to further her political career. She speaks in different dialects depending
the audience. She's a principle combatant against racism when speaking to
African-American audience. She's an ardent feminist when in front of liberal
women's groups. She's not one to spare a laudatory word for corporate America
and Wall Street when speaking before bankers.
What we can and should go on is her record going back to her time as
First Lady during the presidency of Bill Clinton (whom she never differed
with on policy and whom she says will manage the economy if elected).
Here are policies, initiatives, and actions that Hillary Clinton has
supported over the years:
--Deregulation of the investment banks (and against reinstatement of
Glass-Steagall)
--The destruction of welfare (which has caused the numbers living in extreme
poverty to double since its passage)
--NAFTA
--The Defense of Marriage Act
--TPP
--Fracking
--The objectively-racist death penalty
--The private prison industry
--Patriot Acts 1 and 2
--The Iraq War
--The bombing of Libya
--Military intervention in Syria
--The Saudi dictatorship
--Israel's starvation blockade and blitzkrieg against Gaza
--The right-wing coup in Honduras
--Investor-friendly repression and cronyism in Haiti
--A 31 cents/hour minimum wage in Haiti (and against attempts to raise it)
--The fight against free public university tuition
--The fight against single-payer health care
--Acceptance of tens of millions of dollars of corporate money
--Credit-card industry favored bankruptcy laws
--The bail-out of Wall Street
Her record is "pretty good for any progressive" whose head is lodged
in their ass.
eastbayradical
The bankers' buddy and spittle-flecked Clinton surrogate Barney Frank
just the other day declared contemptuously that party platforms are "irrelevant."
You know, party platforms--like the Democratic Party platform that's
being larded with Sanders-friendly "policy goals" that Wall Street's Warmongering
Madame will feel no obligation to fulfill if she's elected president.
With his coming endorsement, Sanders makes himself not simply useless
to the fight against the capitalist status quo; no--he has become a direct
impediment to it.
Whenever people on the left side of the political spectrum, whatever
their reasoning, vote for servants of Wall Street, the Pentagon, and the
national security apparatus, the political center of gravity moves another
notch decisively to the right.
We're constantly told that if we don't vote for the latest pseudo-progressive
stooge the Dems put forward that we're effectively voting for the Republicans.
In other words, if we don't vote for stooges who in many respects are
indistinguishable from Republicans, that systematically cede the political
initiative to Republicans, that it is we who might as well be Republicans!
Meanwhile, these same "progressives" are nowhere to be seen when a fight
kicks off in the streets against imperial war or austerity or police brutality
or lay-offs. No, of course not: they're too busy doing nothing waiting for
the next opportunity to vote for another crop of corporate liberals who'll
save us from the Republicans.
It's fair to ask what all this voting for corporate liberals has gotten
us over the past 25 years. Here's a list of signature policies supported
and/or enacted by the last two Democratic Party presidents, Bill Clinton
and Barack Obama:
--Deregulation of investment banks and telecommunications
--The Omnibus Crime Bill (mass incarceration)
--The destruction of welfare (which caused extreme poverty to double in
the 15 years after its passage)
--The sanctions regime against Iraq (which killed 500,000 Iraqi children)
--NAFTA
--CAFTA
--TPP
--Fracking
--The objectively-racist death penalty
--The Defense of Marriage Act
--Historic levels of repression against whistle-blowers
--Preservation of Bush-era tax cuts on the rich
--Patriots Acts 1 and 2
--Massive expansion of NSA spying
--Years of foot-dragging on climate change
--Support for Israeli atrocities
--Support for the right-wing coup in Honduras
--Support for fraudulent election in Haiti
--Support for the Saudi dictatorship
--Support for a 31 cents/hour minimum wage in Haiti and against attempts
to raise it
--Oil drilling on the Atlantic seaboard, Gulf of Mexico, and the Arctic
--A $1 trillion 20-year "modernization" of the US's nuclear weapons arsenal
--Historically high numbers of deportations
--Drone missile strikes that have killed large numbers of civilians and
inflamed anti-US hatred
--Health care reform that has fortified the power of the insurance cartel
not weakened or obliterated it
--Industry-approved bankruptcy "reform"
--The bail-out of Wall Street
ClearItUp
Her reflexive warmongering attitude is what majority of progressives
have problems with. There is absolutely nothing in this article about it.
Elizabeth Warren won't solve Hillary's problem, but a foreign policy, total
opposite of her last speech, that was reviewed by neocon talking heads,
as a sober analysis, is what is wrong. What people want to hear is: "We
made a mistake in Iraq, Libya, and Syria. We will do our best and resolve
them without machinations, and never engage in regime change." No ifs and
buts, we will defend out friends and allies, nonsense she constantly says,
no annihilating threat to any country, for any reason. Bring someone like
Phyllis Bennis on board as an adviser. Maybe she can teach Hillary a few
things. Only, then if she clearly shows she has changed course, she may
start getting a little ahead.
"... If undertaken in earnest, the exercise will prove uncomfortable. The establishment centrists who oppose Trump worry, as they should, that he will violate the civil liberties of Muslim Americans, yet few spoke up when Michael Bloomberg presided over a secret program that profiled and spied on Muslim American students, sowing mistrust while generating zero counterterrorism leads. ..."
"... The establishment centrists who denounced Edward Snowden would have to admit that, if Trump is half as bad as they fear, Americans will be better served knowing the scope and capabilities of NSA surveillance than living in ignorance of it. Some will be forced to admit to themselves that they hope the military remains sprinkled with whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning to speak out against serious abuses. ..."
"... For 16 years or more, establishment centrists have been complicit in a historically reckless trend. Come 2017, it may place Donald Trump at a big table, much like the one on The Apprentice ..."
Wake up, establishment centrists: Donald Trump is coming!
After the Vietnam War and Watergate and the spying scandals uncovered by
the Church Committee and the Nixon Administration cronies who nearly firebombed
the Brookings Institution, Americans were briefly inclined to rein in executive
power-a rebuke to Richard Nixon's claim that "if the president does it, that
means it's not illegal." Powerful committees were created to oversee misconduct-prone
spy agencies. The War Powers Resolution revived a legislative check on warmaking.
"In 34 years," Vice President Dick Cheney would lament to ABC News in a January
2002 interview, "I have repeatedly seen an erosion of the powers and the ability
of the president of the United States to do his job. I feel an obligation...
to pass on our offices in better shape than we found them to our successors."
The Bush Administration aggressively moved to expand executive power, drawing
on the dubious legal maneuvering of David Addington, John Yoo, and their enablers.
Starting in 2005, the junior senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, would repeatedly
insist that Bush's assertions of executive power violated the Constitution.
Nonetheless, Obama inherited a newly powerful executive branch, just as Cheney
had hoped. And rather than dismantle it, Obama spent two terms lending the imprimatur
of centrist, establishment bipartisanship to Cheney's vision.
Now, Donald Trump is coming.
Civil libertarians have long warned the partisans who trusted Bush and Obama,
and the establishment centrists who couldn't imagine anyone in the White House
besides an Al Gore or John Kerry or John McCain or Mitt Romney, that they were
underestimating both the seriousness of civil liberties abuses under Bush and
Obama and the likelihood of even less responsible leaders wreaking havoc in
the White House.
Three years ago, in "
All the Infrastructure a Tyrant Would Need, Courtesy of Bush and Obama ,"
I warned that "more and more, we're counting on having angels in office and
making ourselves vulnerable to devils," and that come January, 2017, an unknown
person would enter the Oval Office and inherit all of these precedents:
The president can order American citizens killed, in secret, without
any judicial or legislative review, by declaring them terrorists posing
an imminent threat.
The president can detain prisoners indefinitely without charges or trial.
The president can start a torture program with impunity.
The president can conduct warrantless surveillance on tens of millions
of Americans and tap a database that allows metadata archived in 2007 to
be accessed in 2017.
The federal government can
collect and store DNA swabs of people who have been arrested even if
they are released and never convicted of any crime.
Now, Donald Trump is coming. And many establishment centrists are professing
alarm. There is nothing more establishment than Robert Kagan, a fellow at the
Brookings Institution, writing an op-ed in the Washington Post. He
begins by observing that if Trump wins, his coalition will include tens of millions
of Americans.
"Imagine the power he would wield then," Kagan
wrote . "In addition to all that comes from being the leader of a mass following,
he would also have the immense powers of the American presidency at his command:
the Justice Department, the FBI, the intelligence services, the military. Who
would dare to oppose him then? Certainly not a Republican Party that laid down
before him even when he was comparatively weak. And is a man like Trump, with
infinitely greater power in his hands, likely to become more humble, more judicious,
more generous, less vengeful than he is today, than he has been his whole life?
Does vast power un-corrupt?"
Kagan's article seemed well-received and widely shared among establishment
centrists.
Yet neither he nor most others who share his fears have yet acknowledged
their bygone failures of imagination, or granted that civil libertarians were
right: The establishment has permitted the American presidency to get dangerously
powerful.
While writing or sharing articles that compare Trump to Hitler, Mussolini,
and Franco, few if any have called on Obama or Congress to act now "
to tyrant-proof the White House ." However much they fear Trump, however
rhetorically maximalist they are in warning against his elevation, even the
prospect of him controlling the entire apparatus of the national security state
is not enough to cause them to rethink their reckless embrace of what Gene Healy
calls "
The Cult of the Presidency ," a centrist religion that persisted across
the Bush administration's torture chambers and the Obama administration's unlawful
War in Libya.
With a reality-TV bully is on the doorstep of the White House, still they
hesitate to urge reform to a branch of government they've long regarded as more
than co-equal.
They needn't wait for the Nixon-era abuses to replay themselves as farce
or worse to change course. Their inaction is irresponsible. Just as the conservative
movement is duty bound to grapple with its role in a populist demagogue seizing
control of the Republican Party, establishment centrists ought to grapple with
the implicit blessing they've given to the extraordinary powers Trump would
inherit, and that even the less-risky choice, Hillary Clinton, would likely
abuse.
If undertaken in earnest, the exercise will prove uncomfortable. The
establishment centrists who oppose Trump worry, as they should, that he will
violate the civil liberties of Muslim Americans, yet few spoke up when Michael
Bloomberg presided over a secret program that profiled and spied on Muslim American
students, sowing mistrust while generating zero counterterrorism leads.
The establishment centrists who denounced Edward Snowden would have to
admit that, if Trump is half as bad as they fear, Americans will be better served
knowing the scope and capabilities of NSA surveillance than living in ignorance
of it. Some will be forced to admit to themselves that they hope the military
remains sprinkled with whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning to speak out against
serious abuses.
For 16 years or more, establishment centrists have been complicit in a historically
reckless trend. Come 2017, it may place Donald Trump at a big table, much like
the one on The Apprentice , where he'll decide not which B-list celebrity
to fire, but which humans to kill. Establishment centrists could work to strip
the presidency of that power.
"... The two lead families of the Democratic Party hate each other. ..."
"... Barack Obama comes off as narcissistic, lazy, and shielded from reality by advisor Valerie Jarrett, effectively the shadow president since 2009. ..."
"... I get the feeling the Clintons shrewdly used this book to get their version of events into play. ..."
"... The new news is the medical stuff. Hillary's health problems have been more serious than generally noted. And Bill's heart condition is serious; Klein quotes his doctor, by name, telling him the disease is progressive, i.e. it will continue to get steadily worse. Bill's obsession with sealing his own legacy by putting Hillary in the White House has become single-minded. It's suggested this is the primary thing he wants to get done before he dies. ..."
"... You see Obama good at campaigning and manipulating, but not much else. ..."
"... There's lots of dirt about both couples. Bill still womanizes intensively; you wonder if he'll die `in the saddle' like Nelson Rockefeller did. A guy with a bad heart condition? ..."
"... He and Hillary lead separate lives, talking daily on the phone but rarely in each other's presence, and Hillary tells friends he'll have little presence in her White House should she be elected. ..."
"... some presidential couples become closer in the White House, where they finally have physical proximity after years of separation on the campaign trail, but this didn't happen with the Obamas, who are effectively estranged. ..."
"... The same day, the Wall Street Journal had a front page story about Hillary distancing herself from the Obama administration. This is exactly what the book says she would do - it's half revenge, and half good politics, as seen by Bill Clinton, with the Obama administration in a tailspin on any number of fronts. ..."
The two lead families of the Democratic Party hate each other.
Edward Klein documents why and how in this entertaining and fast moving
book. It's a good political beach read.
It's mostly about three elections: that of 2008, where Barack Obama came
from behind to knock off front-runner Hillary Clinton for the nomination,
with charges and countercharges of race-card-playing in the South Carolina
primary; 2012, where Bill Clinton made a whizbang nominating speech for
someone he can't stand and Hillary drank the Kool-Aid in agreeing to lie
about Benghazi - `it was a spontaneous riot caused by a video' - to seal
Obama's reelection; and the 2016 election, where Obama promised Clinton
he'd support Hillary in exchange for their carrying his water, then reneged
on it.
There are tons of details and fly-on-the-wall accounts of conversations.
The Clintons come off much better than the Obamas do. We know most of the
Clintons' dirt already and, as a nation, don't seem to care too much, but
meanwhile they seem to have a clue about how to run the country, while the
Obamas don't. Barack Obama comes off as narcissistic, lazy, and shielded
from reality by advisor Valerie Jarrett, effectively the shadow president
since 2009.
I get the feeling the Clintons shrewdly used this book to get their
version of events into play. Klein found leakers near the Obamas who
are unhappy with them, but many Clinton sources appear to be lifelong friends
seemingly given the green light to talk for this book - people who wouldn't
jeopardize their relationship to do so. And for many of the quotations,
there would be no question in the Clintons' minds who had given them - people
party to conversations where only one or two others were present. So it
stands to reason the anonymous sources don't mind the Clintons knowing.
The Clintons, heavily covered for over 20 years, may realize there isn't
much that can hurt them that hasn't already been printed. We all know about
Monica, Clinton's womanizing, the financial scandals dating back to Arkansas
days, Hillary's temper and so on. And a lot of the inside poop here is either
flattering - Bill Clinton as political mastermind, say - or humanizing.
It's remarkable that the Clintons stay together after all they've been through,
but they seem politically fascinated with each other. And it's remarkable
how many times Hillary initially tells Bill off about something, only to
agree later that he's right and go ahead with it. Quite cute, say, is the
anecdote about how Bill convinced Hillary to "have some work done" on her
face after leaving the State Department, by first doing it himself.
The new news is the medical stuff. Hillary's health problems have
been more serious than generally noted. And Bill's heart condition is serious;
Klein quotes his doctor, by name, telling him the disease is progressive,
i.e. it will continue to get steadily worse. Bill's obsession with sealing
his own legacy by putting Hillary in the White House has become single-minded.
It's suggested this is the primary thing he wants to get done before he
dies.
The Obamas seem more on the defensive and more paranoid. You don't get
any sense of Klein's sources spinning the narrative back in their direction.
Barack comes across as a narcissist stemming from a deepset insecurity about
his lack of experience pre-presidency. He's someone who doesn't read much
beyond popular novels but thinks he's brilliant. He's visibly bored with
the dull business of running the country. He doesn't prepare in advance
for big international conferences, who he'll meet and what they'll talk
about; he figures he'll just wing it. Detractors (like Hillary) call his
administration "rudderless".
He's threatened by Bill Clinton, who not only isn't intimidated by him
but tries to lecture him. (There's a priceless account of a dinner between
the two couples - the strained conversations, Obama ignoring Clinton by
reading his Blackberry under the table, Obama sneaking out and coming back
a while later smelling of cigarettes.) He's shielded from much by Valerie
Jarrett, who surrounds him with sycophants and upon whom he relies too much.
She has her own room in the presidential quarters and is the only outsider
who eats with the family. He thinks he can move the world with his speeches.
You see Obama good at campaigning and manipulating, but not much
else. Michelle more or less invites herself and friends to Oprah Winfrey's
Hawaii estate for a joint birthday party, in part to draw her back into
the Obamas' camp and keep her out of Hillary's. The weeklong stay goes fine,
but Oprah resists any political rapprochement, and even starts promoting
Hillary not long afterwards.
Obama picks Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg (a third Democratic family as
powerful as the Obamas or Clintons) as ambassador to Japan, a way-too-late
thanks for Kennedy family support in 2008 - and, apparently, just to get
her halfway around the world from Hillary's candidacy.
It amazes me that the Obamas would work this hard to undermine their
own party's frontrunner for the 2016 nomination. The Clintons will have
raised a billion dollars for the run.
There's lots of dirt about both couples. Bill still womanizes intensively;
you wonder if he'll die `in the saddle' like Nelson Rockefeller did. A guy
with a bad heart condition?
His penthouse over the Clinton Library in Little Rock is his bachelor
pad - Hillary avoids Little Rock - and effectively the Playboy Mansion South,
the scene of many swinging parties. Klein suggests that the town not only
shields its favorite son from scrutiny, but that its women, married and
single alike, line up to sleep with him. Klein quotes one person saying
Clinton will hit on married women even in front of their own husbands. (You'd
think in Arkansas this would get a man shot, but then most other men there
don't enjoy lifelong Secret Service protection.) He and Hillary lead
separate lives, talking daily on the phone but rarely in each other's presence,
and Hillary tells friends he'll have little presence in her White House
should she be elected.
Klein notes some presidential couples become closer in the White
House, where they finally have physical proximity after years of separation
on the campaign trail, but this didn't happen with the Obamas, who are effectively
estranged. Michelle Obama, of whom White House staffers are terrified,
will burst in suddenly on her husband if he's in a room with other women;
she's suspicious of him, believing he'd like to emulate Clinton's ways.
Her post-White House plans, according to this book, don't include him. She
and Valerie Jarrett, who plans to follow her, envision a high life of globetrotting
funded by wealthy donors where they sit on corporate boards and don't have
to do much work.
Barack Obama wants to retain control of the party, but Bill Clinton already
sees him losing his clout and political capital.
The real question mark goes back to Bill Clinton's health. If he dies
- a guy with this bad a heart condition? Waitresses and Little Rock matrons,
think about it - some think Hillary, relying upon his advice forever, may
not go ahead with a presidential run. It often sounds like more his obsession
than hers, other than the first-woman-president thing. The family foundation's
reins have been handed to Chelsea, in part to take pressure off Bill, and
she is being positioned as his replacement as Mom's closest advisor and
confidante. Others think Chelsea would encourage her mother to run if Bill
dies because it's what he would have wanted. You get the feeling that Hillary,
for all her ambition, doesn't have all that much fire in the belly - that
it's Bill who's given her the vision, encouraged her, pushed her, made her
see a path through obstacles, and been willing to fight battles large and
small where she would have been more inclined to go along, get along and
acquiesce.
Truly surreal is the ending. Bill tells an appalled Hillary, in front
of friends, exactly how to stage his funeral if he dies before the election:
what to wear (widow's weeds), where to do it (Arlington, he's a former commander
in chief.) If properly done, he said, the video footage will be worth a
couple of million votes." Not for nothing do they call him the smartest
political mind of his time.
PS The day before I filed this, I saw a story online at Business Insider
quoting an unnamed Clinton confidante attacking this book as lies, all lies,
nothing but lies. The story didn't specifically rebut anything or cite any
specific error in the book; it reprised a finding of an error in one of
Klein's previous books. It suggests to me, though, this book is right, if
the attack against it is as unspecific as "lies, lies, nothing but lies."
Perhaps the Clinton camp is doing some preventive public fulminating so
that they can deny the unflattering or unfavorable parts of it. I still
think they planted a lot of this.
The same day, the Wall Street Journal had a front page story about
Hillary distancing herself from the Obama administration. This is exactly
what the book says she would do - it's half revenge, and half good politics,
as seen by Bill Clinton, with the Obama administration in a tailspin on
any number of fronts.
"... Valerie Jarrett is the third partner in the Obama marriage. She is the mother figure Obama turns to for solace while she is Michelle';s closet confidant. This tiger lady calls the shots influencing the POTUS and his power spouse. ..."
"... Both Hillary and Bill Clinton have serious health problems they seek to disguise. Hillary and Bill have both had extensive cosmetic surgery. ..."
Blood Feud is a political hardball slammed into the guts of the two most powerful
couples in the Democratic Party. Ed Klein who won fame for his earlier ":The
Amateur": book about the Obama dysfunctional White House has returned with another
blockbuster rich with gossip and political junkie insider poop.
Among the
revelations of Mr Klein":
The Clintons and Obamas loathe one another.
The Clintons worked hard for Obama to be re-elected in 2008. They anticipated
that this support would result in Obama';s support for Hillary in her anticipated
2016 quest for the POTUS. This deal has not seen fruition. The Clintons
accuse Obama of lying and a lack of loyalty to the Clintons.
Michelle Obama wears the pants in the family as Barack is an uxorious
husband. Michelle has considered a run for the Illinois Senate seat but
is wary of this political race due to the hard work it would entail.
Valerie Jarrett is the third partner in the Obama marriage. She
is the mother figure Obama turns to for solace while she is Michelle';s
closet confidant. This tiger lady calls the shots influencing the POTUS
and his power spouse.
Both Hillary and Bill Clinton have serious health problems they
seek to disguise. Hillary and Bill have both had extensive cosmetic surgery.
Bill Clinton continues his adulterous ways.
Look for a Hillary run for president in 2016 in a campaign masterminded
by Bill. Both Clintons are eager to return to the White House.
Oprah Winfrey feels betrayed by the Obamas and has little to do with
them. She will probably support Hillary in 2016 as will Caroline and the
Kennedy family.
Hillary and the State Department screwed up the Benghazi terrorist attack
and covered up to protect their butts.
Obama has proven to be a weak chief executive who is unable to work
well with congressional leaders. Obama is not well respected in the Democratic
Party.
Edward Klein has done yeoman-like work in presenting this short but very
revealing look into the lives of the Clintons and Obamas.
All readers who want to learn more about the kind of people leading our nation
should read this book and have their eyes opened.
Recommended and controversial. Read it and decide what you think!
"... "Anastasia Krasnosilska of the Anti-Corruption Action Center of Ukraine, said Poroshenko has only tackled abuses because of foreign pressure and then only after lengthy foot-dragging. ..."
"... "All recent successes in the fight against corruption were made possible because of pressure from the EU, IMF, and civil society," she said to CBC News. "If it weren't for the conditionalities the foreign donors and lenders imposed, and the feeling that the eye of foreign governments is on Ukraine, there would have been no reform." ..."
"... "According to the Kyiv Post, the IMF is planning to reduce a loan to Ukraine from a planned $1.7 billion to $1 billion over corruption concerns. ..."
"... Valeria Gontareva, Poroshenko's Porsche-driving political ally and business partner who now heads the National Bank of Ukraine, says she isn't concerned. "It's not a big deal for us," she told the publication, although the shortfall is equal to the total amount Canada has given to Ukraine since the Maidan rebellion ended in February 2014." ..."
Wow;
there's still endemic corruption in Ukraine – who knew? And Poroshenko is the richest among
the leaders of Europe, while he leads what must be just about Europe's poorest country. Ordinarily,
the press would be all over a dichotomy like that. I guess reporting on Ukraine requires a suspension
of curiosity.
"Anastasia Krasnosilska of the Anti-Corruption Action Center of Ukraine, said Poroshenko
has only tackled abuses because of foreign pressure and then only after lengthy foot-dragging.
"All recent successes in the fight against corruption were made possible because of pressure
from the EU, IMF, and civil society," she said to CBC News. "If it weren't for the conditionalities
the foreign donors and lenders imposed, and the feeling that the eye of foreign governments is
on Ukraine, there would have been no reform."
And it's starting to have an effect.
"According to the Kyiv Post, the IMF is planning to reduce a loan to Ukraine from a planned
$1.7 billion to $1 billion over corruption concerns.
Valeria Gontareva, Poroshenko's Porsche-driving political ally and business partner who
now heads the National Bank of Ukraine, says she isn't concerned. "It's not a big deal for us,"
she told the publication, although the shortfall is equal to the total amount Canada has given
to Ukraine since the Maidan rebellion ended in February 2014."
And yet the Ukrainian government still keeps on mouthing it up to the country's most likely
saviour – Russia. Although things have probably gone too far for that now, thanks to the west
trying to muscle into a position where whatever Russia does to benefit Ukraine benefits the west.
"... Sanders is a touchy subject with me. The man was offered a spot on the Green party ticket, and obviously didn't take it. Considering the public disgust with the two slimeballs we're stuck with now, I believe he'd have had a real shot at the presidency. Despite my rating him as a C- at best, I'd have voted for the man. It's my opinion he'd have gotten a whole lot of Trump's base too. The poorer members of the GOP know they're getting the shaft, and I suspect a great many of them would have defected too. ..."
"... There was a theory early-on that Sanders never was really serious, but instead was running as a "sheepdog" to lead the dirty hippy lefties to Clinton. ..."
Sanders is a touchy subject with me. The man was offered a spot on
the Green party ticket, and obviously didn't take it. Considering the public
disgust with the two slimeballs we're stuck with now, I believe he'd have
had a real shot at the presidency. Despite my rating him as a C- at best,
I'd have voted for the man. It's my opinion he'd have gotten a whole lot
of Trump's base too. The poorer members of the GOP know they're getting
the shaft, and I suspect a great many of them would have defected too.
There was a theory early-on that Sanders never was really serious,
but instead was running as a "sheepdog" to lead the dirty hippy lefties
to Clinton. That theory looks more plausible now than it did earlier.
"... The euro would really do its work when crises hit, Mundell explained. Removing a government's control over currency would prevent nasty little elected officials from using Keynesian monetary and fiscal juice to pull a nation out of recession. ..."
"... He cited labor laws, environmental regulations and, of course, taxes. All would be flushed away by the euro. Democracy would not be allowed to interfere with the marketplace ..."
"... Mundell was also the driving force for Reagan's supply side economics. ..."
The euro would really do its work when crises hit, Mundell explained.
Removing a government's control over currency would prevent nasty little
elected officials from using Keynesian monetary and fiscal juice to
pull a nation out of recession.
"It puts monetary policy out of the reach of politicians," he said.
"[And] without fiscal policy, the only way nations can keep jobs is
by the competitive reduction of rules on business."
He cited labor laws, environmental regulations and, of course,
taxes. All would be flushed away by the euro. Democracy would not be
allowed to interfere with the marketplace
Mundell was also the driving force for Reagan's supply side economics.
"... Sanders was clearly the sheep-dog, and I won't be surprised if an e-mail showing that reality appears. ..."
"... spitting in the face of the latest generation of suckers who thought that the elite plutocracy of the USA could be 'reformed' from within. ..."
"... sheepdog is accurate. I have been calling him a sheepdog since 2014 and predicting, correctly, that he would both lose the nomination and endorse Hillary. This was inevitable since he SAID he would endorse her from the start of his so-called campaign. ..."
Sanders was clearly the sheep-dog, and I won't be surprised if an
e-mail showing that reality appears. He is, in fact, with his total
and immediate roll-over, even as the corruption of the process was categorically
exposed by the e-mails, making no pretense otherwise, spitting in the
face of the latest generation of suckers who thought that the elite plutocracy
of the USA could be 'reformed' from within. He was the geriatric Obama,
dispensing more Hopium for the dopes. And when Clinton feigns adoption of
Sanders policy, like not signing the TPP, she is LYING.
Diana, July 28, 2016
Sanders' own campaign called him the "youth whisperer", but sheepdog
is accurate. I have been calling him a sheepdog since 2014 and predicting,
correctly, that he would both lose the nomination and endorse Hillary. This
was inevitable since he SAID he would endorse her from the start of his
so-called campaign. Perhaps he did so hoping that the DNC would play
fair, but that goes to show you he's no socialist. A real socialist would
have been able to size up the opposition, not made any gentleman's agreements
with them and waged a real campaign.
rtj1211, July 26, 2016
So far as I'm aware, there must be a mechanism for an Independent to
put their name on the ballot.
If the majority of people in the USA are really thinking that voting
for either Hillary or the Donald is worse than having unprotected sex with
an HIV+ hooker, then the Independent would barely need any publicity. They'd
just need to be on the ballot.
Course, the Establishment might get cute and put a far-right nutcase
up as 'another Independent' so as they would have someone who'd do as they
were told no matter what.
But until the US public say 'da nada! Pasta! Finito! To hell with the
Democrats and the GOP!', you'll still get the choice of 'let's invade Iran'
or 'let's nuke Russia'. You'll get the choice of giving Israel a blowjob
or agreeing to be tied up and have kinky sex with Israel. You'll get the
choice of bailing out Wall Street or bailing out Wall Street AND cutting
social security for the poorest Americans. You'll get the choice of running
the USA for the bankers or running the USA for the bankers and a few multinational
corporations.
Oh, they'll have to fight for it, just as Martin Luther King et al had
to fight for civil rights. They may have the odd candidate shot by the CIA,
the oil men or the weapons men. Because that's how US politics works.
But if they don't want a Republican or a Republican-lite, they need to
select an independent and vote for them.
The rest of us? We have to use whatever influence we have to try and
limit what they try to do overseas…….because we are affected by what America
does overseas…….
Sanders as a pupil of the king of "bait and switch" Obama
Notable quotes:
"... I think he will come to deeply regret what he has done. He has betrayed these people who believed in this political revolution. We heard this same kind of rhetoric, by the way, in 2008 around Obama. ..."
CHRIS HEDGES : Well, I didn't back Bernie Sanders because-and
Kshama Sawant and I had had a discussion with him before-because he said that
he would work within the Democratic structures and support the nominee.
And
I think we have now watched Bernie Sanders walk away from his political moment.
You know, he - I think he will come to deeply regret what he has done. He
has betrayed these people who believed in this political revolution. We heard
this same kind of rhetoric, by the way, in 2008 around Obama.
"... Bernie had cashed in on the Revolution that he had betrayed, citing as evidence the purchase of a third ..."
"... I said there might be more to the story, like the fact that Bernie had signed a book deal (ala the Clintons) where he would tell the story of his Glorious Revolution (which ended up with him dumping his foot soldiers into the vaults of the very machine they were warring against.) And guess what? I was right. ..."
On Tuesday afternoon, my friend Michael Colby, the fearless environmental
activist in Vermont,
sent me news that Bernie Sanders had just purchased a new waterfront house
on in North Hero, Vermont. I linked to the story on my Facebook page, quipping
that Bernie had cashed in on the Revolution that he had betrayed, citing
as evidence the purchase of a third house for the Sanders family, a
lakefront summer dacha for $600,000.
This ignited a firestorm on Zuckerburg's internet playpen. People noted that
Bernie and Jane lived a penurious existence, surviving on coupons and the kindness
of strangers, and the house was just a cramped four-bedroom fishing shack on
a cold icy lake with hardly any heat–a place so forsaken even the Iroquois of
old wouldn't camp there–which they were only able to afford because Jane sold
her dead parents' house.
I said there might be more to the story, like the fact that Bernie had
signed a book deal (ala the Clintons) where he would tell the story of his Glorious
Revolution (which ended up with him dumping his foot soldiers into the vaults
of the very machine they were warring against.) And guess what? I was right.
Coming in November to a bookstore near you….Our
Revolution by Thomas Dunne Books.
The love for Bernie is truly blind. It's also touching. I've never seen Leftists
defend the purchase of $600,000 lakefront summer homes with such tenacity!
... ... ...
By the way, the median cost of homes sold in North Hero, Vermont so far this
year is $189,000.
... ... ...
Fulfilling his pledge to Hillary, Bernie Sanders took to the pages of the
Los Angeles Times to plead with his followers to get behind Clinton
as the one person who could "unite the country" against Trump.
In the wake
of this pathetic capitulation to the Queen of Chaos, our Australian Shepard,
Boomer, drafted an Open Letter on behalf of all sheepdogs renouncing any association
with Bernie Sanders. One of the signatories (a Blue Healer from Brentwood) swore,
however, that she saw Sander's head popping out of Paris Hilton's handbag…
A friend lamented the fact that all of the fun and spirit had gone out of
the election campaign since Sanders was "neutralized." Was Bernie neutralized?
I thought that Bernie neutralized himself. And it was hard to watch. Like an
x-rated episode of Nip/Tuck.
"... I hope that Jonathan Steele's excellent critique of Richard Sakwa's book Frontline Ukraine ( Review , 21 February) will be widely read. It is the first piece I have discovered in the UK press to provide a realistic synopsis of the background to current events. ..."
"... the process was deliberately sabotaged by US intelligence agencies, working from the hypothesis that a tie-up between the EU and a democratic Russia would pose a major threat to American long-term economic interests. ..."
"... (Lieut Cdr, Ret'd; Former Nato intelligence analyst), Deddington, Oxfordshire ..."
I hope that Jonathan Steele's excellent critique of Richard Sakwa's book Frontline Ukraine
(Review,
21 February) will be widely read. It is the first piece I have discovered in the UK press to provide
a realistic synopsis of the background to current events.
The real ending of the cold war was in 1986, when the USSR leadership resolved on a five-year
programme to move to parliamentary democracy and a market economy. The intention in Moscow was to
use that period to achieve a progressive convergence with the EU.
There could have been huge benefits to Europe in such convergence, but the process was deliberately
sabotaged by US intelligence agencies, working from the hypothesis that a tie-up between the EU and
a democratic Russia would pose
a major threat to American long-term economic interests.
The chaos that we now have, and the distrust of America which motivates Russian policy, stems
primarily from decisions taken in Washington 30 years ago.
Martin Packard (Lieut Cdr, Ret'd; Former Nato intelligence analyst), Deddington, Oxfordshire
All candidates with the possible exception of Trump, are either neocons or neocon stooges: "Most revealing are their policies concerning
war and peace. Despite minor differences, all three (and those to come) want more military spending.
Each thinks the United States can and should manage stability in the Middle East, on Russia's border,
etc. All three demonize Russia and Iran, countries that do not threaten us. Thus they would risk war,
which would bolster government power while harming the American people and others."
Notable quotes:
"... "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence-it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master." ..."
"... "The state - or, to make matters more concrete, the government - consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get, and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time it is made good by looting 'A' to satisfy 'B'. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advanced auction on stolen goods." ..."
"... Do the four declared candidates really fit this picture? You can judge for yourself. Hillary Clinton, the sole Democrat so far, is long associated with activist government across the range of issues domestic and foreign. Her newfound rhetorical populism can't obscure her association with elitist social engineering. ..."
"... What about Republicans Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio? Are they "men of system"? Despite their talk about reining in government, I think the answer is yes. ..."
"... Most revealing are their policies concerning war and peace. Despite minor differences, all three (and those to come) want more military spending. Each thinks the United States can and should manage stability in the Middle East, on Russia's border, etc. All three demonize Russia and Iran, countries that do not threaten us. Thus they would risk war, which would bolster government power while harming the American people and others. ..."
Posted to Politics
As you may have heard, the 2016 presidential campaign is underway. Let's not miss the forest for
the trees. While the candidates will make promises to help the middle class or this or that subgroup,
remember this: each aspirant wants to govern, that is, rule, you – even those whose rhetoric
might suggest otherwise.
George Washington supposedly said:
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence-it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous
servant, and a fearful master."
Although no evidence links the quotation to the first president, its truth is indisputable. Like
it or not, government's distinguishing feature, beginning with its power to tax, is its legal authority
to use force against even peaceful individuals minding their own business. Ultimately, that's what
rule means, even in a democratic republic, where each adult gets a vote in choosing who
will rule.
As that keen observer of the American political scene, H. L. Mencken, put it years ago,
"The state - or, to make matters more concrete, the government - consists of a gang of
men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business
of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device
to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get, and to promise
to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time it is
made good by looting 'A' to satisfy 'B'. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and
every election is a sort of advanced auction on stolen goods."
If you keep that perspective during the coming campaign, you'll be in a much better position to
judge the candidates than if you take their solemn pronouncements at face value.
Do the four declared candidates really fit this picture? You can judge for yourself. Hillary Clinton,
the sole Democrat so far, is long associated with activist government across the range of issues
domestic and foreign. Her newfound rhetorical populism can't obscure her association with elitist
social engineering.
In The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), Adam Smith described such a politician as
"the man of system [who] seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great
society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does
not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that
which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every
single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature
might choose to impress upon it."
Has Clinton ever considered that we're not chess pieces in her grand schemes? We might like to
make our own decisions.
What about Republicans Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio? Are they "men of system"? Despite
their talk about reining in government, I think the answer is yes. At best they propose only
to tinker with the welfare-regulatory-warfare state without challenging the institutional privileges
that enrich the well-connected or the institutional barriers that impede the marginalized in improving
their lives.
One can see their obeisance toward government power in their support for the "war on drugs," the
presumption that government should monitor what we ingest and punish us for violating its prohibitions.
Another sign is the candidates' views on immigration. If people have natural rights, why do they
need the government's permission to live and work here? A third indicator is their position on world
trade. Can you imagine any of them advocating a laissez-faire trade policy with no role for government?
Most revealing are their policies concerning war and peace. Despite minor differences, all three
(and those to come) want more military spending. Each thinks the United States can and should manage
stability in the Middle East, on Russia's border, etc. All three demonize Russia and Iran, countries
that do not threaten us. Thus they would risk war, which would bolster government power while harming
the American people and others.
Appearances can deceive: they're persons of system all.
"... In January, the New York Times finally reported on a secret 2013 Presidential order to the CIA to arm Syrian rebels. As the account explained, Saudi Arabia provides substantial financing of the armaments, while the CIA, under Obama's orders, provides organizational support and training. ..."
"... What kinds of arms are the US, Saudis, Turks, Qataris, and others supplying to the Syrian rebels? Which groups are receiving the arms? What is the role of US troops, air cover, and other personnel in the war? The US government isn't answering these questions, and mainstream media aren't pursuing them, either. ..."
"... Through occasional leaks, investigative reports, statements by other governments, and rare statements by US officials, we know that America is engaged in an active, ongoing, CIA-coordinated war both to overthrow Assad and to fight ISIS. America's allies in the anti-Assad effort include Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and other countries in the region. The US has spent billions of dollars on arms, training, special operations forces, air strikes, and logistical support for the rebel forces, including international mercenaries. American allies have spent billions of dollars more. The precise sums are not reported. ..."
"... To those at the center of the US military-industrial complex, this secrecy is as it should be. Their position is that a vote by Congress 15 years ago authorizing the use of armed force against those culpable for the 9/11 attack gives the president and military carte blanche to fight secret wars in the Middle East and Africa. Why should the US explain publicly what it is doing? That would only jeopardize the operations and strengthen the enemy. The public does not need to know. ..."
"... I subscribe to a different view: wars should be a last resort and should be constrained by democratic scrutiny. This view holds that America's secret war in Syria is illegal both under the US Constitution (which gives Congress the sole power to declare war) and under the United Nations Charter, and that America's two-sided war in Syria is a cynical and reckless gamble. The US-led efforts to topple Assad are not aimed at protecting the Syrian people, as Obama and Clinton have suggested from time to time, but are a US proxy war against Iran and Russia, in which Syria happens to be the battleground. ..."
"... The stakes of this war are much higher and much more dangerous than America's proxy warriors imagine. As the US has prosecuted its war against Assad, Russia has stepped up its military support to his government. In the US mainstream media, Russia's behavior is an affront: how dare the Kremlin block the US from overthrowing the Syrian government? The result is a widening diplomatic clash with Russia, one that could escalate and lead – perhaps inadvertently – to the point of military conflict. ..."
"... This is the main reason why the US security state refuses to tell the truth. The American people would call for peace rather than perpetual war. Obama has a few months left in office to repair his broken legacy. He should start by leveling with the American people. ..."
Syria's civil war is the most dangerous and destructive crisis on the planet. Since early 2011,
hundreds of thousands have died; around ten million Syrians have been displaced; Europe has been
convulsed with Islamic State (ISIS) terror and the political fallout of refugees; and the United
States and its NATO allies have more than once come perilously close to direct confrontation with
Russia.
Unfortunately, President Barack Obama has greatly compounded the dangers by hiding the US role
in Syria from the American people and from world opinion. An end to the Syrian war requires an honest
accounting by the US of its ongoing, often secretive role in the Syrian conflict since 2011, including
who is funding, arming, training, and abetting the various sides. Such exposure would help bring
to an end many countries' reckless actions.
A widespread – and false – perception is that Obama has kept the US out of the Syrian war. Indeed,
the US right wing routinely criticizes him for having drawn a line in the sand for Syrian President
Bashar al-Assad over chemical weapons, and then backing off when Assad allegedly crossed it (the
issue remains murky and disputed, like so much else in Syria). A leading columnist for the Financial
Times, repeating the erroneous idea that the US has remained on the sidelines,
recently implied that Obama had rejected the advice of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
to arm the Syrian rebels fighting Assad.
Yet the curtain gets lifted from time to time. In January, the New York Times
finally reported on a secret 2013 Presidential order to the CIA to arm Syrian rebels. As the
account explained, Saudi Arabia provides substantial financing of the armaments, while the CIA, under
Obama's orders, provides organizational support and training.
Unfortunately, the story came and went without further elaboration by the US government or follow
up by the New York Times. The public was left in the dark: How big are the ongoing CIA-Saudi
operations? How much is the US spending on Syria per year? What kinds of arms are the US, Saudis,
Turks, Qataris, and others supplying to the Syrian rebels? Which groups are receiving the arms? What
is the role of US troops, air cover, and other personnel in the war? The US government isn't answering
these questions, and mainstream media aren't pursuing them, either.
On
more than a dozen occasions, Obama has told the American people that there would be "no US boots
on the ground." Yet every few months, the public is also notified in a brief government statement
that US special operations forces are being deployed to Syria. The Pentagon
routinely denies that they are in the front lines. But when Russia and the Assad government recently
carried out bombing runs and artillery fire against rebel strongholds in northern Syria, the US notified
the Kremlin that the attacks were threatening American troops on the ground. The public has been
given no explanation about their mission, its costs, or counterparties in Syria.
Through occasional leaks, investigative reports, statements by other governments, and rare
statements by US officials, we know that America is engaged in an active, ongoing, CIA-coordinated
war both to overthrow Assad and to fight ISIS. America's allies in the anti-Assad effort include
Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar, and other countries in the region. The US has spent billions of dollars
on arms, training, special operations forces, air strikes, and logistical support for the rebel forces,
including international mercenaries. American allies have spent billions of dollars more. The precise
sums are not reported.
The US public has had no say in these decisions. There has been no authorizing vote or budget
approval by the US Congress. The CIA's role has never been explained or justified. The domestic and
international legality of US actions has never been defended to the American people or the world.
To those at the center of the US military-industrial complex, this secrecy is as it should
be. Their position is that a vote by Congress 15 years ago authorizing the use of armed force against
those culpable for the 9/11 attack gives the president and military carte blanche to fight secret
wars in the Middle East and Africa. Why should the US explain publicly what it is doing? That would
only jeopardize the operations and strengthen the enemy. The public does not need to know.
I subscribe to a different view: wars should be a last resort and should be constrained by
democratic scrutiny. This view holds that America's secret war in Syria is illegal both under the
US Constitution (which gives Congress the sole power to declare war) and under the United Nations
Charter, and that America's two-sided war in Syria is a cynical and reckless gamble. The US-led efforts
to topple Assad are not aimed at protecting the Syrian people, as Obama and Clinton have suggested
from time to time, but are a US proxy war against Iran and Russia, in which Syria happens to be the
battleground.
The stakes of this war are much higher and much more dangerous than America's proxy warriors
imagine. As the US has prosecuted its war against Assad, Russia has stepped up its military support
to his government. In the US mainstream media, Russia's behavior is an affront: how dare the Kremlin
block the US from overthrowing the Syrian government? The result is a widening diplomatic clash with
Russia, one that could escalate and lead – perhaps inadvertently – to the point of military conflict.
These are issues that should be subject to legal scrutiny and democratic control. I am confident
that the American people would respond with a resounding "no" to the ongoing US-led war of regime
change in Syria. The American people want security – including the defeat of ISIS – but they also
recognize the long and disastrous history of US-led regime-change efforts, including in Afghanistan,
Iraq, Libya, Syria, Central America, Africa, and Southeast Asia.
This is the main reason why the US security state refuses to tell the truth. The American
people would call for peace rather than perpetual war. Obama has a few months left in office to repair
his broken legacy. He should start by leveling with the American people.
"... the Benghazi attack, for all its shock and tragedy, is but one detail in a panorama of misadventure, an in many ways unsurprising consequence of the hubris of liberal interventionism's false conviction that the American military can casually pop in and out of the whole world's problems without suffering cost or consequence ..."
"... as Tim Carney rightly argues at The Washington Examiner , and the "useful lesson from Benghazi isn't about a White House lying (shocking!), but about the inherent messiness of regime change and the impossibility of a quick, clean war." ..."
"... And the foreign policy establishment on the other side of the aisle must not be left without its due share of blame should that possibility come to pass. Though Benghazi committee chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) was right to attempt to widen the report's focus past Clinton specifically, neoconservatives' all-too-convenient attention to the errors of Benghazi make it all easy for them to gloss over the bigger issue at hand: that none of this would have happened had America stuck to a foreign policy of realism and restraint, minding our own business and defending our own interests instead of gallivanting off to play revolutionary in one more country with no vital connection to our own. ..."
"... Benghazi is a symptom-a serious one, at that-but the disease is interventionism. ..."
And the Benghazi attack, for all its shock and tragedy, is but one detail
in a panorama of misadventure, an in many ways unsurprising consequence of the
hubris of liberal interventionism's false conviction that the American military
can casually pop in and out of the whole world's problems without suffering
cost or consequence.
Indeed, the "2012 attack that killed four Americans was a consequence of
the disorder and violence the administration left in the wake of its drive-by
war," as Tim Carney
rightly argues at The Washington Examiner, and the "useful lesson
from Benghazi isn't about a White House lying (shocking!), but about the inherent
messiness of regime change and the impossibility of a quick, clean war."
Unfortunately, that is a lesson too few in Washington are willing to learn.
Clinton herself maintains in the face of overwhelming evidence that
her handiwork in Libya is an
example of "smart power at its best"-a phrase whose
blatant inaccuracy should haunt her for the rest of her political career.
With arguments in favor of Libya, round two already
swirling and Clinton's poll numbers holding strong, it is not difficult
to imagine a Clinton White House dragging America back to fiddle with a country
it was
never particularly interested in fixing by this time next year.
And the foreign policy establishment on the other side of the aisle must
not be left without its due share of blame should that possibility come to pass.
Though Benghazi committee chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) was right
to attempt to widen the report's focus past Clinton specifically, neoconservatives'
all-too-convenient attention to the errors of Benghazi make it all
easy for them to gloss over the bigger issue at hand: that none of this would
have happened had America stuck to a foreign policy of realism and restraint,
minding our own business and defending our own interests instead of gallivanting
off to play revolutionary in one more country with no vital connection to our
own.
Benghazi is a symptom-a serious one, at that-but the disease is interventionism.
That's the real story here, and it's a bipartisan failure of judgment which
shows all the signs of running on repeat.
"... Clearly Sidney Blumenthal was someone that Hillary Clinton trusted. Two months earlier, Secretary Clinton found his insights valuable enough to share with the entire State Department. But two weeks after her job as Secretary of State ends, she receives an e-mail from him claiming Saudi Arabia financed the assassination of an American ambassador and apparently did nothing with this information. Even if she didn't have to turn over this e-mail to the commission investigating the Benghazi attacks, wouldn't it be relevant? Shouldn't this be information she volunteers? And why didn't the Republicans who were supposedly so concerned about the Benghazi attacks ask any questions about Saudi involvement? ..."
"... Did Secretary Clinton not tell anyone what she knew about alleged Saudi involvement in the attacks because she didn't want to endanger the millions of dollars of Saudi donations coming in to the Clinton Foundation? These are exactly the kind of conflicts that ethical standards are designed to prevent. ..."
"... Do you really expect Obama's DOJ will do anything against Hitlery Clinton? It is one criminal gangster racket. ..."
"... The NeoCons and NeoLibs - McCain, Graham, Schumer, Feinstein and many others were totally involved with Iraq, the other endless wars and Benghazi. McCain was in Ukraine doing Nudelman/Soros zio bidding too. ..."
"... The Clintons came to power in to poor state of Arkansas, where Ollie North financed Iran-Contra running drugs through Mena AK while Bill was Gov. , of course with the sophisticated set-up of money laundering schemes and front businesses done by the CIA The CIA drug running through Mena continued after Iran-Contra, with George H.W. Bush's blessing and full knowledge. BCCI bank was one of the money laundering banks for the drug money and helped finance Clinton's first presidential campaign. Bush and Clinton's happy bromance is no surprise, and just the tip of the iceberg. It should be no surprise with the Bush family background that the Clintons have been so dirty and corrupt, yet so immune from serious pursuit of prosecution. ..."
"... Hillary Rodham Clinton is a lying, sleazy whore and is totally loyal to the Oligarchs and Sunni Moslems who've paid her billions of dollars in bribes. Like the pedophile pervert William Jefferson Clinton she would "rather climb a tree to tell a lie than tell the truth standing on the ground." ..."
"... Unless Blumenthal's emails contained information obtained from the US government, they would not have been classified when he sent them. So I don't see how he would be in trouble for sending them or Hillary for receiving them. If the government decided afterwards to make the information classified, then wouldn't he and Hillary have been obliged to delete them from their private servers? To me, the information seems more like gossip and I can't see either one of them getting into over these particular emails. ..."
"... If Hillary Clinton really cares about the future of this country and the Democratic party, she will step down now while there is still time to nominate another candidate. Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party, and the Democratic Party is Hillary Clinton. She will burn it to the ground before she gives up her dream. ..."
"... It's difficult to estimate if the Democrat lumpenproletariat will ever blame Hillary for anything, but objectively, if the lumpens realize that Hillary KNEW this was coming down and did NOTHING to prepare the Democrat Party to have a PLAN B (Joe Biden) ready, the lumpens should be mightily pissed. ..."
"... Look at the complexity of the emails and their concepts and compare that with the banal dumbed down soup which is served upp at each campaign speech. ..."
Something that has gone unnoticed in all the talk about the investigation
into Hillary Clinton's e-mails is the content of the original leak that started
the entire investigation to begin with. In March of 2013, a Romanian
hacker calling himself Guccifer hacked into the AOL account of Sidney Blumenthal
and leaked to Russia Today
four e-mails containing intelligence on Libya that Blumenthal sent to Hillary
Clinton.
For those who haven't been following this story, Sidney Blumenthal
is a long time friend and adviser of the Clinton family who in an unofficial
capacity sent many "intelligence memos" to Hillary Clinton during her tenure
as Secretary of State . Originally displayed on RT.com in Comic Sans
font on a pink background with the letter "G" clumsily drawn as a watermark,
no one took these leaked e-mails particularly seriously when they came out in
2013. Now, however, we can cross reference this leak with
the
e-mails the State Department released to the public .
The first three e-mails in the Russia Today leak from Blumenthal
to Clinton all appear word for word in the State Department release.
The
first e-mail Clinton
asks to have printed and she also
forwards it to her deputy chief of staff, Jake Sullivan. The
second e-mail Clinton describes as "useful insight" and
forwards it to Jake Sullivan asking him to circulate it. The
third e-mail is also
forwarded to Jake Sullivan . The fourth e-mail is missing from the State
Department record completely.
This missing e-mail
from February 16, 2013 only exists in the
original leak and states that French and Libyan intelligence agencies had
evidence that the
In Amenas and
Benghazi attacks were funded by "Sunni Islamists in Saudi Arabia."
This seems like a rather outlandish claim on the surface, and as such
was only reported by conspiracy types and fringe media outlets. Now, however,
we have proof that the other three e-mails in the leak were real correspondence
from Blumenthal to Clinton that she not only read, but thought highly enough
of to send around to others in the State Department. Guccifer speaks English
as a second language and most of his writing consists of rambling conspiracies,
it's unlikely he would be able to craft such a convincing fake intelligence
briefing. This means we have an e-mail from a trusted Clinton adviser
that claims the Saudis funded the Benghazi attack, and not only was this not
followed up on, but there is not any record of this e-mail ever existing except
for the Russia Today leak.
Why is this e-mail missing? At first I assumed it must be
due to some sort of cover up, but it's much simpler than that. The e-mail in
question was sent after February 1st, 2013, when John Kerry took over as Secretary
of State, so it was not part of the time period being investigated. No one is
trying to find a copy of this e-mail. Since Clinton wasn't Secretary of State
on February 16th, it wasn't her job to follow up on it.
So let's forget for a minute about the larger legal implications of the e-mail
investigation. How can it be that such a revelation about Saudi Arabia
was made public in a leak that turned out to be real and no one looked into
it? Clearly Sidney Blumenthal was someone that Hillary Clinton
trusted. Two months earlier, Secretary Clinton found his insights valuable enough
to share with the entire State Department. But two weeks after her job as Secretary
of State ends, she receives an e-mail from him claiming Saudi Arabia financed
the assassination of an American ambassador and apparently did nothing with
this information. Even if she didn't have to turn over this e-mail to the commission
investigating the Benghazi attacks, wouldn't it be relevant? Shouldn't this
be information she volunteers? And why didn't the Republicans who were supposedly
so concerned about the Benghazi attacks ask any questions about Saudi involvement?
Did Secretary Clinton not tell anyone what she knew about alleged Saudi
involvement in the attacks because she didn't want to endanger the
millions of dollars of Saudi donations coming in to the Clinton Foundation?
These are exactly the kind of conflicts that ethical standards are designed
to prevent.
Another E-Mail Turns Up Missing
Guccifer uncovered something else in his hack that could not be verified
until the last of the e-mails were released by the State Department last week.
In addition to the four full e-mails he released, he also
leaked a screenshot of Sidney Blumenthal's AOL inbox. If we cross reference
this screenshot with the Blumenthal e-mails in the State Department release,
we can see that the e-mail with the subject "H: Libya security latest.
Sid" is missing from the State Department e-mails.
This missing e-mail is certainly something that would have been requested
as part of the investigation as it was sent before February 1st and clearly
relates to Libya. The fact that it is missing suggests one of two possibilities:
The State Department does have a copy of this e-mail but deemed
it top secret and too sensitive to release, even in redacted form.
This would indicate that Sidney Blumenthal was sending highly classified
information from his AOL account to Secretary Clinton's private e-mail server
despite the fact that he never even had a security clearance to deal with
such sensitive information in the first place. If this scenario explains
why the e-mail is missing, classified materials were mishandled.
The State Department does not have a copy, and this e-mail was
deleted by both Clinton and Blumenthal before turning over their subpoenaed
e-mails to investigators, which would be considered destruction of evidence
and lying to federal officials. This also speaks to the reason
why the private clintonemail.com server may have been established in the
first place. If Blumenthal were to regularly send highly sensitive yet technically
"unclassified" information from his AOL account to Clinton's official government
e-mail account, it could have been revealed with a FOIA request. It has
already been established that Hillary Clinton deleted 15 of Sidney Blumenthal's
e-mails to her, this discrepancy was discovered when Blumenthal's e-mails
were subpoenaed, although
a State Department official claims that none of these 15 e-mails have
any information about the Benghazi attack. It would seem from the subject
line that this e-mail does. And it is missing from the public record.
In either of these scenarios, Clinton and her close associates are
in violation of federal law. In the most generous interpretation where
this e-mail is simply a collection of rumors that Blumenthal heard and forwarded
unsolicited to Clinton, it would make no sense for it to be missing. It would
not be classified if it was a bunch of hot air, and it certainly wouldn't be
deleted by both Blumenthal and Clinton at the risk of committing a felony.
In the least generous interpretation of these facts, Sidney Blumenthal
and Hillary Clinton conspired to cover up an ally of the United States funding
the assassination of one of our diplomats in Libya.
Why A Grand Jury Is Likely Already Convened
After the final e-mails were released by the State Department on February
29th, it has been reported in the last week that:
Clinton's IT staff member who managed the e-mail server, Bryan
Pagliano, has been
given immunity by a federal judge which suggests that he will be giving
testimony to a grand jury about evidence that relates to this investigation
and implicates himself in a crime. Until now, Pagliano has been pleading
the fifth and refusing to cooperate with the investigation.
The hacker Guccifer (Marcel Lazar Lehel) just had an 18-month temporary
extradition order to the United States
granted by a Romanian court , despite being indicted by the US back
in 2014. Is Guccifer being extradited now in order to testify to
the grand jury that the screengrab with the missing e-mail is real?
Attorney General Loretta Lynch was
interviewed by Bret Baier and she would not answer whether or not a
grand jury has been convened in this case. If there was no grand
jury she could have said so, but if a grand jury is meeting to discuss evidence
she would not legally be allowed to comment on it.
This scandal has the potential to completely derail the Clinton campaign
in the general election . If Hillary Clinton really cares about the
future of this country and the Democratic party, she will step down now while
there is still time to nominate another candidate. This is not a right wing
conspiracy, it is a failure by one of our highest government officials to uphold
the laws that preserve government transparency and national security. It's time
for us to ask Secretary Clinton to tell us the truth and do the right thing.
If the United States government is really preparing a case against Hillary
Clinton, we can't wait until it's too late.
Mrs. Clinton, and let's call her by her proper name Hillary Clinton -
not the familiar "Hillary" that even the most right-of-the-aisle commentators
use - is a compulsive liar.
Rhetorically: how can anyone give even a shred of credence to anything
that she might utter? She lies so much that the only conclusion that an
objectively observant informed person can reach is that she has permanently
lost touch with reality. Given that fact, she therefore is a psychotic personality.
I am amazed that no one in the medical profession, assuming that there are
independent minds within that group, has spoken out about this psychological
affliction of Mrs. Clinton's.
Mrs. Clinton is a blight upon the Nation. Seriously, I work and associate
with people who whole-heartedly support her candidacy for president. After
all that has been revealed since 2014 I can only conclude that continuing
political support for Mrs. Clinton can only stem from a profound anti-intellectualist
philosophy.
so let me get this straight....the saudis took down the twin towers on
911 2001 and then paid for the benghazi attacks and ambassador murders on
911 2012 and the Bush and Clinton families knew about this but made up stories
to protect their saudi pals?
BUSH killed 2 million people in Iraq for WMD he never found, but this
piece of brilliant journalism focuses on "missing" emails that "somehow"
should prove that the Saudis did it and hypothetically crucifies Hillary
who was just Secretary of State taking orders from Obama who's not mentioned
in this again brilliant piece. I guess the Saudis financed the American
Iraq invasion too.
The Bushes and Clintons have been best friends and See Eye Aye drug runners
going back to Mena, Arkansas.
The Romneys are also Bush best buddies. The Romneys and Bushes are best
friends with the Mormon hinckley family very well connected to Mormon Church
and their John Jr. tried to kill Reagan.
The NeoCons and NeoLibs - McCain, Graham, Schumer, Feinstein and
many others were totally involved with Iraq, the other endless wars and
Benghazi. McCain was in Ukraine doing Nudelman/Soros zio bidding too.
We're a Banana Republic pure and simple. Yes, we're the most powerful
Banana Republic to ever exist in the history of the world too.
The Clintons came to power in to poor state of Arkansas, where Ollie
North financed Iran-Contra running drugs through Mena AK while Bill was
Gov. , of course with the sophisticated set-up of money laundering schemes
and front businesses done by the CIA The CIA drug running through Mena
continued after Iran-Contra, with George H.W. Bush's blessing and full knowledge.
BCCI bank was one of the money laundering banks for the drug money and helped
finance Clinton's first presidential campaign. Bush and Clinton's happy
bromance is no surprise, and just the tip of the iceberg. It should be no
surprise with the Bush family background that the Clintons have been so
dirty and corrupt, yet so immune from serious pursuit of prosecution.
And yes, there is so much more. it's deep, dark and dirty.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is a lying, sleazy whore and is totally loyal
to the Oligarchs and Sunni Moslems who've paid her billions of dollars in
bribes. Like the pedophile pervert William Jefferson Clinton she would "rather
climb a tree to tell a lie than tell the truth standing on the ground."
That said, there is zero probability that the United States Department
of Injustice will indict her. Anyone expecting the Feral Bureau of Intimidation
and Department of Injustice to enforce equal application of the Law are
going to be disappointed. Again. The Rule of Law doesn't apply to the Oligarchs
who own the Feral government and their LOYAL political parasites.
I wouldn't be so sure about that dude. Have you seen Bill lately? He
looks beaten to a pulp. The dark side tends to eat their own when it benefits
their ultimate goals. Hillary might be that one, of many to (yet) come.
Hillary Rodham Clinton was bribed by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabian to
cover up their role in the assassination of Ambassador Stevens. All United
States Secretary's of State take bribes to cover up attacks by foreign governments
on United States diplomatic and Armed Forces personnel. At this point what
difference does it make?
Why would the Saudis fund that? Stevens was CIA working on arming the
jihadis in Syria against Assad. Some of which the US Army screwed up with
obsolete shit weapons, I think.
So lovely, the largest Israeli-Neocon ally being responsible for the
loss of Clinton, their main candidate other than Jeb.
God does work in mysterious way, explained by the great Discordian religious
principle : "Imposing order creates disorder". The greeks grokked it first.
Unless Blumenthal's emails contained information obtained from the
US government, they would not have been classified when he sent them. So
I don't see how he would be in trouble for sending them or Hillary for receiving
them. If the government decided afterwards to make the information classified,
then wouldn't he and Hillary have been obliged to delete them from their
private servers? To me, the information seems more like gossip and I can't
see either one of them getting into over these particular emails.
As server-gate progresses it will be interesting to see whether Hillary
learned anything from Watergate where Nixon got in trouble not because he
ordered the Watergate breakins, but because he tried to cover them up.
If Hillary Clinton really cares about the future of this country
and the Democratic party, she will step down now while there is still time
to nominate another candidate. Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party,
and the Democratic Party is Hillary Clinton. She will burn it to the ground
before she gives up her dream.
No, there are many political interests in the Democratic party, just
like the Republican Party. Same interests, in most cases, overlapping sets
of funding. That must be what the parties so contend over, more contributions?
Contending power centers, mafia rules, courtier rules, an ecosystem of
parasites specialized in their evolution for extracting carbon and energy
from the government. Parasites divert metabolic energy to their own uses,
and the host may die as a result.
If Hillary Clinton really cares about the future of this country
and the Democratic party, she will step down now while there is still
time to nominate another candidate.
It's difficult to estimate if the Democrat lumpenproletariat will
ever blame Hillary for anything, but objectively, if the lumpens realize
that Hillary KNEW this was coming down and did NOTHING to prepare the Democrat
Party to have a PLAN B (Joe Biden) ready, the lumpens should be mightily
pissed.
Anyone notice how the email says "Islamists in Saudi Arabia" but the
article hints that "The Saudis" funded it? I'm not an HRC fan, but I think
she gets a pass on this one. Like if David Duke gave a bunch of money to
Hezbollah and the papers said "The Americans are funding Hezbollah"...
BLumenthal and Killary need to be waterboarded until they give up their
sources. Look at the complexity of the emails and their concepts and
compare that with the banal dumbed down soup which is served upp at each
campaign speech.
They are living in the real world, we are their slaves.
"... The fact that interventionists "want to believe" what they're told by opposition figures in other countries reflects their general naivete about the politics of the countries where they want to intervene and their absurd overconfidence in the efficacy of U.S. action in general. ..."
"... Interventionists usually can't imagine any "far-reaching" consequences that aren't good, and they are predisposed to ignore all the many ways that a country and an entire region can be harmed by destabilizing military action. That failure of imagination repeatedly produces poor decisions that result in ghastly policies that wreck the lives of millions of people. ..."
"... This captures exactly what's wrong with Clinton on foreign policy, and why she so often ends up on the wrong, hawkish side of foreign policy debates. First, she is biased in favor of action and meddling, and second she often identifies action with military intervention or some other aggressive, militarized measures. Clinton doesn't need to be argued into an interventionist policy, because she already "wants to believe" that is the proper course of action. That guarantees that she frequently backs reckless and unnecessary U.S. actions that cause far more misery and suffering than they remedy. ..."
"... This is revealing in a few ways. First, it shows how resistant the administration initially was and how important Clinton's support for the war was in getting the U.S. involved. ..."
"... It was already well-known that Clinton owns the Libyan intervention more than any U.S. official besides the president, and this week we're being reminded once more just how crucial her support for the war was in making it happen. ..."
The New York Times
reports on
Hillary Clinton's role in the Libyan war. This passage sums up much of what's wrong with how
Clinton and her supporters think about how the U.S. should respond to foreign conflicts:
Mrs. Clinton was won over. Opposition leaders "said all the right things about supporting democracy
and inclusivity and building Libyan institutions, providing some hope that we might be able to
pull this off," said Philip H. Gordon, one of her assistant secretaries. "They gave us
what we wanted to hear. And you do want to believe." [bold mine-DL]
It's not surprising that rebels seeking outside support against their government tell representatives
of that government things they want to hear, but it is deeply disturbing that our officials are frequently
so eager to believe that what they are being told was true. Our officials shouldn't "want to believe"
the self-serving propaganda of spokesmen for a foreign insurgency, especially when that leads to
U.S. military intervention on their behalf. They should be more cautious than normal when they are
hearing "all the right things." Not only should our officials know from previous episodes that the
people saying "all the right things" are typically conning Washington in the hopes of receiving support,
but they should assume that anyone saying "all the right things" either doesn't represent the forces
on the ground that the U.S. will be called on to support or is deliberately misrepresenting the conditions
on the ground to make U.S. involvement more attractive.
"Wanting to believe" in dubious or obviously bad causes in other countries is one of the biggest
problems with ideologically-driven interventionists from both parties. They aren't just willing to
take sides in foreign conflicts, but they are looking for an excuse to join them. As long as they
can get representatives of the opposition to repeat the required phrases and pay lip service to the
"right things," they will do their best to drag the U.S. into a conflict in which it has nothing
at stake. If that means pretending that terrorist groups are democrats and liberals, that is what
they'll do. If it means whitewashing the records of fanatics, that is what they'll do. Even if it
means inventing a "moderate" opposition out of thin air, they'll do it. This satisfies their desire
to meddle in other countries' affairs, it provides intervention with a superficial justification
that credulous pundits and talking heads will be only too happy to repeat, and it frees them from
having to come up with plans for what comes after the intervention on the grounds that the locals
will take care of it for them later on.
The fact that interventionists "want to believe" what they're told by opposition figures in
other countries reflects their general naivete about the politics of the countries where they want
to intervene and their absurd overconfidence in the efficacy of U.S. action in general. If one
takes for granted that there must be sympathetic liberals-in-waiting in another country that will
take over once a regime is toppled, one isn't going to worry about the negative and unintended consequences
of regime change. Because interventionists have difficulty imagining how U.S. intervention can go
awry or make things worse, they are also unlikely to be suspicious of the motives or goals of the
"good guys" they want the U.S. to support. They tend to assume the best about their would-be proxies
and allies, and they assume that the country will be in good hands once they are empowered. The fact
that this frequently backfires doesn't trouble these interventionists, who will have already moved
on to the next country in "need" of their special attentions.
The article continues:
The consequences would be more far-reaching than anyone imagined, leaving
Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven, a place where the direst answers to Mrs. Clinton's
questions have come to pass.
If the article is referring to anyone in the administration, this might be true, but as a general
statement it couldn't be more wrong. Many skeptics and opponents of the intervention in Libya warned
about many of the things that the Libyan war and regime change have produced, and they issued these
warnings before and during the beginning of U.S. and allied bombing. Interventionists usually
can't imagine any "far-reaching" consequences that aren't good, and they are predisposed to ignore
all the many ways that a country and an entire region can be harmed by destabilizing military action.
That failure of imagination repeatedly produces poor decisions that result in ghastly policies that
wreck the lives of millions of people.
The report goes on to quote Anne-Marie Slaughter referring to Clinton's foreign policy inclinations:
"But when the choice is between action and inaction, and you've got risks in either direction,
which you often do, she'd rather be caught trying."
This captures exactly what's wrong with Clinton on foreign policy, and why she so often ends
up on the wrong, hawkish side of foreign policy debates. First, she is biased in favor of action
and meddling, and second she often identifies action with military intervention or some other aggressive,
militarized measures. Clinton doesn't need to be argued into an interventionist policy, because she
already "wants to believe" that is the proper course of action. That guarantees that she frequently
backs reckless and unnecessary U.S. actions that cause far more misery and suffering than they remedy.
Maybe the most striking section of the report was the description of the administration's initial
reluctance to intervene, which Clinton then successfully overcame:
France and Britain were pushing hard for a Security Council vote on a resolution supporting
a no-fly zone in Libya to prevent Colonel Qaddafi from slaughtering his opponents. Ms. Rice was
calling to push back, in characteristically salty language.
"She says, and I quote, 'You are not going to drag us into your shitty war,'" said Mr. Araud,
now France's ambassador in Washington. "She said, 'We'll be obliged to follow and support you,
and we don't want to.'
This is revealing in a few ways. First, it shows how resistant the administration initially
was and how important Clinton's support for the war was in getting the U.S. involved. It also
shows how confused everyone in the administration was about the obligations the U.S. owed to its
allies. The U.S. isn't obliged to indulge its allies' wars of choice, and it certainly doesn't have
to join them, but the administration was already conceding that the U.S. would "follow and support"
France and Britain in what they chose to do. As we know, in the end France and Britain definitely
could and did drag the U.S. into their "shitty war," and in that effort they received a huge assist
from Clinton.
It was already well-known that Clinton owns the Libyan intervention more than any U.S. official
besides the president, and this week we're being reminded once more just how crucial her support
for the war was in making it happen.
"... ...Ironically, even as U.S. officials confront defiance from the rival Libyan leaders in Tripoli and Tobruk, they have won cooperation from Abdelhakim Belhadj, who was the leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a jihadist militia whose members were once driven out of Libya by Col Muammar Gaddafi and developed close ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. ..."
"... After Gaddafi fled Tripoli and was captured in his home town of Sirte, U.S.-backed rebels sodomized him with a knife and murdered him. Upon hearing of Gaddafi's demise, Secretary of State Clinton clapped her hands in obvious glee and declared , "we came, we saw, he died." ..."
"... Now, Belhadj, who has since branched off into various business ventures including an airline, is viewed as a key American ally with his militia helping to protect Sirraj and other GNA officials operating from the Tripoli naval base. (Gee, how could an Al Qaeda-connected jihadist with an airline present a problem?) ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
"... Since the Cold War, we've been run by the Neo-Cons - Bill Clinton was a Neo-Con poorly disguised and his wife is an outright Neo-con and a very very dangerous woman. ..."
"... Bush/bin Laden family relationships, linked them to the Bush/CIA recruitment and launching of the CIA asset "al Qaeda" during the Russo/Afghan campaign, Al Qaeda, operating under CIA/Mossad aegis and control has been correctly identified ever since then as the manpower provider and major executor of most if not all of the "terrorism which has gone down in the past twenty years, thus making bin Laden and al Qaeda the much sought after black hats, the "boogeymen" behind and justifying all of this stuff. ..."
"... In any case, these people who were living in Libya had a strikingly different story to report re the standard of living that obtained in that country, Gaddafi's rule, etc., from what we were learning from the HRC-run US State Department. Moreover, for their trouble, for their wish to report their experience and tell their fellow Americans the real truth about Libya, they were muzzled and threatened, and from what I remember, soon found out that when you cross the US government and its foreign policy representatives by reporting truths they don't want the world to hear, the price will be very high. Very high indeed. I believe they soon found themselves unable to find gainful employment and had to subsist on hand-outs from interested and sympathetic listeners. ..."
"... It used to be a point of honor in Old Europe for a politician or a public servant who committed a monumental blunder or dishonorable act to resign from his office. If the act was sufficiently serious then suicide might have been called for. In Japan seppuku was a form of self-inflicted capital punishment for samurai and politicians who had committed serious offenses because they had brought shame to themselves and others with whom they were associated. ..."
"... Libya, Flight MH17, the corruption in Ukraine, missile sites being installed in Poland and Romania are never or hardly ever mentioned, and that's not because any of those subjects are not news worthy. It's good against evil. ..."
"... My worry is that Hillary will make a move to bring home the biggest prize of all, and that will be the conquering of Russia. This doesn't have anything to do with gender, it's what is inside ones soul, and of course their agenda. ..."
"... Authoritarians with a lust for power and/or wealth will seek to become autocrats ruling their fiefs according to their personal desires and ambitions without regard for and total indifference towards their subjects. If there is anyone among the tired, the poor, and huddled masses yearning to breathe free there will always be a need for people with courage to speak truth to power. ..."
"... The mass media are truly enemies of the people of the United States, and with the economic concentrations that support them, have waged economic and propaganda war upon the United States. They are thereby traitors, engaged in a right-wing revolution, and should be utterly destroyed in their ability to do ..."
The Obama administration is hoping that it can yet salvage Hillary Clinton's
signature project as Secretary of State, the "regime change" in Libya, via a
strategy of funneling Libya's fractious politicians and militias – referred
to by one U.S. official as chaotic water "droplets" – into a U.S.-constructed
"channel" built out of rewards and punishments.
...In recent days, competing militias, supporting elements of the three governments,
have converged on Sirte, where the Islamic State jihadists have established
a foothold, but the schisms among the various Libyan factions have prevented
anything approaching a coordinated attack. Indeed, resistance to the U.S.-backed
Government of National Accord (GNA) appears to be growing amid doubts about
the political competence of the hand-picked prime minister, Fayez Sirraj.
...Thus far, however, many Libyan political figures have been unwilling to
jump into the "channel," which has led the Obama administration to both impose
and threaten punishments against these rogue water "droplets," such as financial
sanctions and even criminal charges.
...Ironically, even as U.S. officials confront defiance from the rival
Libyan leaders in Tripoli and Tobruk, they have won cooperation from Abdelhakim
Belhadj, who was the leader of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a jihadist
militia whose members were once driven out of Libya by Col Muammar Gaddafi and
developed close ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
After the 9/11 attacks and the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, Belhadj was
tracked by the CIA and captured in Malaysia in 2004 before being renditioned
back to Libya, where he was imprisoned until 2010. In 2011, after Secretary
of State Clinton convinced President Obama to join an air war against the Gaddafi
regime on "humanitarian" grounds, Belhadj pulled together a jihadist force that
helped spearhead the decisive attack on Tripoli.
After Gaddafi fled Tripoli and was captured in his home town of Sirte,
U.S.-backed rebels sodomized him with a knife and murdered him. Upon hearing
of Gaddafi's demise, Secretary of State Clinton clapped her hands in obvious
glee and
declared,
"we came, we saw, he died."
Now, Belhadj, who has since branched off into various business ventures
including an airline, is viewed as a key American ally with his militia helping
to protect Sirraj and other GNA officials operating from the Tripoli naval base.
(Gee, how could an Al Qaeda-connected jihadist with an airline present a problem?)
... ... ...
Summing up the confusing situation, The New York Times reported on June 2,
"One Western official who recently visited the country said the political mood
in Libya had become increasingly confrontational during recent months as the
United Nations, acting under pressure from the United States and its allies,
has struggled to win acceptance for the unity government."
... ... ...
Now, the Obama administration is trying to re-impose order in the country
via a hand-picked group of new Libyan officials and by building a "channel"
to direct the flow of the nation's politics in the direction favored by Washington.
But many Libyan water "droplets" are refusing to climb in.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra
stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his
latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com).
Debbie Menon, June 4, 2016 at 4:07 pm
American Foreign Policy: Dumbed Down
Since the Cold War there has been a narrowing of foreign policy debate.
Does this explain why Washington blunders from one fiasco to another?
Since the Cold War, we've been run by the Neo-Cons - Bill Clinton
was a Neo-Con poorly disguised and his wife is an outright Neo-con and a
very very dangerous woman.
Erik, June 5, 2016 at 7:17 am
While the narrowing of debate may be attributed to control by economic
concentrations of the elections and mass media tools of democracy, it is
also due to a poorly structured government. Congress has never been able
to debate meaningfully due to politics, and the executive has stolen almost
all power of Congress over wars, and runs them continually to get campaign
contributions from military industry.
For example, Congress utterly failed to debate the Civil War issues from
1820 to 1860, producing nothing but tactical compromises, never bringing
the sides to common terms and recognition of the rights and interests of
each other. It never seriously debated the issues of Vietnam, nor the wars
since.
This is why I advocate a College of policy analysis as a fourth branch
of the federal government, to both analyze and debate the issues of each
region, preserving the minority viewpoint and the inconvenient solution.
It would make available commented summaries of history and fact, analyses
of current situations by each discipline and functional area, and debated
syntheses of anticipated developments, potential changes due to events human
or natural, and the impact of policy alternatives, with comments reflecting
the various viewpoints or possibilities. Not many of the uneducated would
read the results, but politicians and vocal citizens could more readily
be shown to violate what the experts generally agree is workable,
The College would be conducted largely by internet with experts at the
universities, applying expert analysis of every region with a broad range
of skills and disciplines, and moderated textual debate with the broadest
range of viewpoints.
Debbie Menon, June 4, 2016 at 5:02 pm
Robert has done a good job, and made the point again, which needs repeating
until it becomes common gospel.
Bush/bin Laden family relationships, linked them to the Bush/CIA
recruitment and launching of the CIA asset "al Qaeda" during the Russo/Afghan
campaign, Al Qaeda, operating under CIA/Mossad aegis and control has been
correctly identified ever since then as the manpower provider and major
executor of most if not all of the "terrorism which has gone down in the
past twenty years, thus making bin Laden and al Qaeda the much sought after
black hats, the "boogeymen" behind and justifying all of this stuff.
The fact that the spinmeisters were directed to tell us that Osama bin
Laden and al Qaeda are dead only tells us that they have some other means
of "justifying" the wars and what is going to happen next, which will lead
the sheeple into following them right over the edge of the cliff, and when
the time is right, run out the new and bigger version to carry the lie onward
to…. what?
One of the reasons I find it so difficult to write lately, is that I
feel I am repeating the same thing again, and again. Which does not inspire
the best of efforts.
Bill Bodden, June 4, 2016 at 5:53 pm
The theme of Hillary's blunders may be addressed constantly, but for
many of us the variations almost always reveal an aspect or element of which
we were not aware and another nail that should be driven into HRC's "coffin."
This person and her enablers and accomplices are a threat to countless people
around the world justifying a constant chorus of criticism until the polls
close on November 8th. The great tragedy is that her Republican opponent
is probably as perilous as she is.
Zachary Smith, June 4, 2016 at 9:22 pm
Publishing variations and new information and/or conclusions is useful
to interested current readers as well as those who are new to the site.
If an essay title doesn't appeal to me I don't always examine it at all.
After Gaddafi fled Tripoli and was captured in his home town of Sirte,
U.S.-backed rebels sodomized him with a knife and murdered him. Upon
hearing of Gaddafi's demise, Secretary of State Clinton clapped her
hands in obvious glee and declared, "we came, we saw, he died."
In any event, this one just can't be republished too often. The murderous
***** Hillary will – if allowed to become POTUS – be a disaster beating
out Bush the Dumber.
Obama had a job when he entered the White House – coddling and greasing
the skids for the lawless Bankers. He has done that very, very well. So
far as I can tell he merely outsourced the rest of the Presidency to the
neocons and neoliberals. How else can you explain Hillary and Victoria Nuland
and the TPP?
SFOMARCO, June 4, 2016 at 4:42 pm
"So what we're doing with the Government of National Accord is we're
trying to create a channel, for national unity and reconciliation, and for
building the institutions Libya needs, for building enough stability so
the economy can come back, so they can pump oil, which Libya needs for Libyans,
distribute the wealth fairly, equitably, in a way that brings people in,
and take advantage of Libya's natural resources to rebuild the country.
…" Seems like the status quo ante, sans Ghaddafi. Another expectation a
la "topple Saddam and the people will throw flowers and sweets at the liberators"?
And now a fluid mechanics metaphor to put Libya back to where it was in
2011?
Bob Van Noy, June 4, 2016 at 7:46 pm
I totally agree with your thought SFOMARCO. As I read this I was thinking,
so now it's a channel. It seems that coming up with a good metaphor is the
basis of American Foreign Policy. This is a hang-up of mine. Back in the
Vietnam War all we heard was about dominoes falling which makes such an
impressive mental "image." Several years ago I was stunned when I watched
Errol Morris' "Fog of War." When Morris sat Robert McNamara down with a
North Vietnamese contingent, and he was asked what the War was all about,
he started to explain The Domino Theory, and the Vietnamese became agitated
and basically told him that that was poor theory, and that he hadn't bothered
to educate himself on Vietnamese history or he would know better. I was
dumbfounded by that insight. 58,000 casualties because McNamara apparently
didn't have the time to understand Vietnamese History!
How many wars do we have going on now? What do we know of the countries
we're dealing with? We really need to get out of the Empire business once
and for all. I've watched Hillary enough to realize that regardless of her
Wellesley education; she's not that bright.
dahoit, June 5, 2016 at 11:18 am
Totally agree;She is an idiot,who just follows the current memes of her
Zionist masters. Not one damn evidence of critical thinking ever emanating
from her crooked mouth. Imagine if the moron hadn't gotten on the crazy
train of Iraq, and shown astute thinking, as every other astute thinker
realized (Zionists and toads excluded of course)that its destabilization
would bring chaos throughout the region.
Of course,this might have been purposeful, but only her Ziomasters knew
that, she is incapable.
Susan Raikes Sugar, June 4, 2016 at 5:38 pm
Yes, Debbie, you're probably right about the hands pulling the strings
in this devastating - and also demented - picture. The latter because I've
listened to people who were in Libya before we pulled our shenanigans there
a la Saddam and Iraq. It seems to be very very difficult for anyone in US
governing circles to learn lessons from an incident gone horribly wrong.
Could it be arrogance?
In any case, these people who were living in Libya had a strikingly
different story to report re the standard of living that obtained in that
country, Gaddafi's rule, etc., from what we were learning from the HRC-run
US State Department. Moreover, for their trouble, for their wish to report
their experience and tell their fellow Americans the real truth about Libya,
they were muzzled and threatened, and from what I remember, soon found out
that when you cross the US government and its foreign policy representatives
by reporting truths they don't want the world to hear, the price will be
very high. Very high indeed. I believe they soon found themselves unable
to find gainful employment and had to subsist on hand-outs from interested
and sympathetic listeners.
Bill Bodden, June 4, 2016 at 6:21 pm
It seems to be very very difficult for anyone in US governing
circles to learn lessons from an incident gone horribly wrong. Could
it be arrogance?
It used to be a point of honor in Old Europe for a politician or
a public servant who committed a monumental blunder or dishonorable act
to resign from his office. If the act was sufficiently serious then suicide
might have been called for. In Japan seppuku was a form of self-inflicted
capital punishment for samurai and politicians who had committed serious
offenses because they had brought shame to themselves and others with whom
they were associated.
In the United States and its satrapies, miscreants are much more "pragmatic."
They enlist public relations fabricators to hoodwink the people into believing
their naked emperor or empress is dressed in the finest of raiments so they
can continue to commit more travesties.
Abe, June 4, 2016 at 5:54 pm
What started out as an attempt to divide and destroy Iran's arc of influence
across the region has galvanized it instead.
Moving the mercenary forces
of IS out of the region is instrumental in ensuring they "live to fight
another day." By placing them in Libya, Washington and its allies hope they
will be far out of reach of the growing coalition truly fighting them across
the Levant. Further more, placing them in Libya allows other leftover "projects"
from the "Arab Spring" to be revisited, such as the destabilization and
destruction of Algeria, Tunisia and perhaps even another attempt to destabilize
and destroy Egypt.
IS' presence in Libya could also be used as a pretext for open-ended
and much broader military intervention throughout all of Africa by US forces
and their European and Persian Gulf allies. As the US has done in Syria,
where it has conducted operations for now over a year and a half to absolutely
no avail, but has managed to prop up proxy forces and continue undermining
and threatening targeted nations, it will likewise do so regarding IS in
Libya and its inevitable and predictable spread beyond.
Despite endless pledges by the US and Europe to take on IS in Libya,
neither has admitted they themselves and their actions in 2011 predictably
precipitated IS' rise there in the first place. Despite the predictable
danger destabilizing and destroying Libya posed to Europe, including a deluge
of refugees fleeing North Africa to escape the war in Libya, predicted by
many prominent analysts at the time even before the first of NATO's bombs
fell on the country, the US and Europe continued forward with military intervention
anyway.
One can only surmise from this that the US and Europe sought to intentionally
create this chaos, planning to fully exploit it both at home and abroad
to continue its campaign to geopolitically reorder MENA.
Of note is that the unity government is not of Libya nor of the Libyan
people. It is imposed by the US and is simply yet another example of US
Corpocracy (read control of democracy by US corps and banks). That the UN
gives it support demonstrates yet again that the UN has become an extension
of the 0.01%
rosemerry, June 5, 2016 at 3:25 pm
All those years of Gaddaffi being a friend, an enemy, a friend once more,
and all the time he worked effectively for Libyans and other Africans, building
giant works for water and agriculture in Libya, providing services, listening
to the people (!!!! who would do that in the USA?) and working to extend
communications to all Africa. Removing him, with all the other destruction,
was completely unforgivable and as we see has ruined yet another country.
Hillary's sins are many-no need to repeat it.
Zahid Kramet, June 5, 2016 at 4:06 am
Regime change, as envisaged by the US, will not survive.And neither will
capitalism in its present unregulated form.This is what the Arab Spring
was and is all about.The US 'plants' in the Middle East have no future,
thus the Clinton doctrine is doomed to fail.Trump, for all his inane ways
of expressing it, has the better idea:he wants to compete on the consumer
products front with an American label.The option is proxy wars led by the
Pentagon and military industrial complexes of the world's three great powers,
which will eventually lead to World War 111and the destruction of all mankind.
Susan Raikes Sugar, June 5, 2016 at 4:17 am
Here is a YouTube video from a series on Hillary's uncharmed life. Relevant
here because it treats the subject of Libya Before, and Libya After. That
we purposefully targeted this country in the same way we have targeted Syria,
Iraq, Yemen, Ukraine, Honduras, Iran (multiple pointless and unfounded threats),
as well as most recently Argentina, planted unrest and then pointed to our
dirty deeds as the reason our vaunted Secretary of State was compelled to
carry out regime-change - that's the story here. But for what reason? She's
an egomaniac whose rationale rests mostly on: Because we can, could, will
- and no one will dare stop us.
Evil? Wicked? It's hard to know how best to characterize someone like
this, but the repelling revelations are endless… If she becomes President
of the United States, the tragic end may be that there will be no more stories.
Someone with an incriminating past like Hillary's may not care about just
blowing the entire Earth away one day. I suspect she could be just that
selfish. She seems to be endowed with the mindset of a serial killer.
Channeling drops and running psy-ops, the machine Clinton helped set
in motion,
Is digging a ditch, the drainage from which, will accumulate sooner or later.
All will work out, though Republicans pout, and the pundits refute attribution-
The "A Team" is ready to lend a hand steady, and Clinton will calm this
commotion!
Now that Ukraine has become the refrain for successful destabilized mayhem,
The mission complete is a model replete with the fruits of a policy triumph.
The same in Brazil was achieved with good will, and the populace has been
preempted,
Chaos resulting through lack of consulting has adequately served to co-opt
them.
Those financial vultures and big-banking cultures will send in their
thieves for a banquet-
Behind those closed doors, the corporate whores are assembling cohorts adapted:
They'll get Saakashvili, he's touchy and feely, Jaresko will also be drafted-
They'll subvert with abandon inserted to stand-in, and as government puppets
they'll crank it.
Now that Brazil's got some corporate shills, and those cronies avoided
indictment,
Michel Temer may serve, because we observe, he's been banned for his acts
of corruption.
He'll now volunteer, and Wall Street will cheer, because Roussef got no
help from Clinton,
Touting motives progressive she's quite the obsessive 'til real women garner
excitement!
If Haftar gets sloppy, some bin Laden copy will step in to the fray and
replace him.
The margin of error for counterfeit terror is large, so there's no need
to worry,
The engineered fraud of a threat from abroad will be stoked by those waves
of migration.
If they run out of boats they'll use rubber tube floats, the Atlantic is
such a quick swim!
The only thing left, and the choice must be deft, is a foreign-born finance
advisor.
They're in ready supply, though Heaven knows why, and their provenance seems
quite consistent-
Like the one in Brazil, who gave banksters a thrill, he'll insure that the
Dinar will prosper.
Austerity measures will save all those treasures Gadaffi retained like a
miser!
Yes, that Neocon panel is digging a channel, that seems more akin to
a ditch,
But the "A Team" will fix it, and Haftar won't nix it, a Jihadi safe-zone
will emerge,
They'll be launching more strikes, we ain't seen the likes, that excrescence
will flow unabated.
The channel will capture to Neocon rapture all that spume and there won't
be a hitch.
But they'll need a Team Leader, a channeling seeder, with clandestine
skills leaner and meaner,
He'll have to have guts, not some amateur klutz, because courage will make
him or break him,
He'll be thrown in that ditch on behalf of the witch whose nefarious schemes
spew that stench:
A shadowy stranger they call "Carlos Danger", they can't trust just any
old wiener!
His fedora pulled low, and that trench-coat bestow a clandestine and
camouflaged perch.
He'll emerge from the mist, a cell phone in his fist, standing by to tweet
classified selfies,
If he opens that coat anywhere near the moat, it won't matter if boxers
or briefs,
The whole White House staff will get a good laugh, but he's got no image
to smirch.
He'll monitor droplets insuring the witch gets real-time situation reports.
As the channel gets filled with that sewage distilled from another R2P disaster,
She'll be watching the screen with her friend Abba Dean as intelligence
analysts squirm,
Classified pictures could compromise strictures if emails were found in
his shorts.
As drops coalesce, she'll rely on the press to obscure any overflow drama.
Suave Carlos Danger will make like a stranger, awaiting his next big assignment.
If the press were to ask us, that could be Damascus, but secrecy rules must
prevail.
There's no need to flaunt, he'll remain nonchalant, to prevent any legacy
trauma.
The Syrian gambit might be just a scam, but the Russians could really
get spooked.
Then something could drop with an ominous flop, and it won't be a laugh
or a cackle.
Engaged on that spectrum twixt knife and the the rectum may arise an indelible
quote:
"We spoke with a voice, but you gave us no choice. We came, and we saw,
and we nuked."
Joe Tedesky, June 5, 2016 at 1:23 pm
Muammar Gaddafi's biggest mistake was his believing he could govern a
sovereign nation. I use to think that it was all about oil. I believe that
the U.S. is largely carrying out Israel's Yinon plan, but there is more.
It's not so much a U.S. plan, as it is a U.S./London/Zionist conquest for
world hegemony. I realize how most of you who frequent this site, already
know this, but the majority of Americans I'm afraid don't have a clue. The
western media has promoted the narrative that America is fighting against
radical Muslims, and that by winning this war in the Middle East democracy
will soon follow. By Robert Parry keeping this Libyian story alive is a
good thing. Our MSM is papering over the real reason for all this war, by
reporting as much as they can the childish antics of our presidential candidates.
Libya, Flight MH17, the corruption in Ukraine, missile sites being
installed in Poland and Romania are never or hardly ever mentioned, and
that's not because any of those subjects are not news worthy. It's good
against evil.
My worry is that Hillary will make a move to bring home the biggest
prize of all, and that will be the conquering of Russia. This doesn't have
anything to do with gender, it's what is inside ones soul, and of course
their agenda.
Bill Bodden, June 5, 2016 at 2:00 pm
Beyond death and taxes there are two constants. Authoritarians with
a lust for power and/or wealth will seek to become autocrats ruling their
fiefs according to their personal desires and ambitions without regard for
and total indifference towards their subjects. If there is anyone among
the tired, the poor, and huddled masses yearning to breathe free there will
always be a need for people with courage to speak truth to power.
This nation has always been fortunate to have courageous people rise to
oppose malicious power – Thomas Paine, Eugene Debs, Emma Goldman, Mother
Jones, Muhammad Ali, Bradley/Chelsea Manning, Robert Parry, Daniel Ellsberg,
Edward Snowden, etc. – but they have had limited success against the plutocrats
and their puppets in the political oligarchies. That failure is due, in
part, to an ill-informed and apathetic populace.
Joe B, June 6, 2016 at 8:00 am
Very true and well said. The mass media are truly enemies of the
people of the United States, and with the economic concentrations that support
them, have waged economic and propaganda war upon the United States. They
are thereby traitors, engaged in a right-wing revolution, and should be
utterly destroyed in their ability to do so.
The failed Libyan policy was one of the key sources of hundred of thousand refugees in Europe now.
As well as Syrian events (where all this hired for overthrowing Gaddafi fighters went next)
Notable quotes:
"... a proper tally of the ideological culprits who have never been held to account should make special reference to Hillary Clinton's actions in Libya ..."
"... Specifically, her misstatements ought to have been corrected along these lines: Gaddafi didn't have "more blood on his hands of Americans than anybody else," unless you discount the Saudi support for Al Qaeda. He did not threaten "genocide," no matter how slack your definition of genocide. He threatened to kill the rebels in Benghazi; the threat was dismissed by US army intelligence as improbable and poorly sourced. But Hillary Clinton overrode US intelligence, outmaneuvered the Pentagon (the secretary of defense, Robert Gates, had opposed the NATO bombing unreservedly), mobilized liberal-humanitarian and conservative pro-war opinion in the media, and talked Obama into committing the US to effect regime change in a third Middle East country. ..."
"... Gaddafi was not "deposed." He was tortured and murdered, very likely by Islamists allied with NATO forces. The "radical elements" that are causing "a lot of turmoil and trouble" in "this arc of instability" are, in fact, Islamists whom Clinton picked as allies in the region, and she has pressed to supply them with arms in Syria as well as Libya. She really rates mention as an American mover of the "instability" in the region second only to Bush and Cheney. ..."
"... Hillary says she made a "mistake" on the Bush era Iraq invasion vote. She did not make a mistake she engaged in an deliberate act of political expediency and cowardice. Everyone with a brain knew Bush was cooking up the Iraq invasion based on nothing. She knew but took the political choice not an intelligent one. ..."
"... She has been a failure at just about every position she has held. She was fired from Watergate. A miserable failure leading healthcare reform (in the 90's- for those of you millienials that missed it). She did nothing as a Senator, having her eyes on the oval office. ..."
"... Dickerson to Clinton: "Let me ask you. So, Libya is a country in which ISIS has taken hold in part, because of chaos after Muammar Gaddafi. That was an operation you championed. President Obama says this is the lesson he took from that operation. In an interview he said, the lesson was, do we have an answer for the day after? Wasn't that supposed to be one of the lessons that we learned after the Iraq war? And how did you get it wrong with Libya if the key lesson of the Iraq war is to have a plan for after?" ..."
"... A day after assuming office as secretary of state, Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented Information Nondisclosure Agreement that laid out criminal penalties for "any unauthorized disclosure" of classified information. ..."
"... She is either lying or totally incompetent to perform any job in the United States Government. ..."
"... This article spotlights the failed Libyan policy which will gain importance as violence is exported beyond Syria and Mali and millions more refugees are created. ..."
"... Sanders or bust. No neolibs, no Dinos for me. This is not a Ralph Nader situation. I simply will not support any more fake Democrats. Bill neolibbed us. Obama neolibbed us. Hillary did and will neolib us. ..."
"... The Empire lies through its teeth, we all know that. The Colonel had actually been cleaning up his act to the point he was getting cautious praise from Washington ..."
Some of the better-informed commentators on the recent terrorist attacks by ISIS have noticed
the reassertion of the 2002-2003 understanding of the Middle East: that all-out war is the only sensible
policy and Israel is our most faithful ally in the region. It is an opportunist line, and it is being
pushed hardest by opportunists on the far right. But a proper tally of the ideological culprits
who have never been held to account should make special reference to Hillary Clinton's actions in
Libya. In the Democratic debate on November 14, Clinton got away with saying this unchallenged:
CLINTON: Well, we did have a plan, and I think it's fair to say that of all of the Arab
leaders, Gaddafi probably had more blood on his hands of Americans than anybody else. And when
he moved on his own people, threatening a massacre, genocide, the Europeans and the Arabs, our
allies and partners, did ask for American help and we provided it. And we didn't put a single
boot on the ground, and Gaddafi was deposed. The Libyans turned out for one of the most successful,
fairest elections that any Arab country has had. They elected moderate leaders. Now, there has
been a lot of turmoil and trouble as they have tried to deal with these radical elements which
you find in this arc of instability, from north Africa to Afghanistan. And it is imperative that
we do more not only to help our friends and partners protect themselves and protect our own homeland,
but also to work to try to deal with this arc of instability, which does have a lot of impact
on what happens in a country like Libya.
In response, Martin O'Malley said that Libya was "a mess" and Bernie Sanders said that Iraq had
produced half a million PTSD casualties among Americans who served there. Neither showed the slightest
indication of having mastered what happened in Libya: the centrality of Clinton's influence in the
catastrophic decision to overthrow the government, and the proven consequences -- civil war in Libya
itself and the opening of an Islamist pipeline from Libya to Syria and beyond.
Specifically, her misstatements ought to have been corrected along these lines: Gaddafi didn't
have "more blood on his hands of Americans than anybody else," unless you discount the Saudi support
for Al Qaeda. He did not threaten "genocide," no matter how slack your definition of genocide. He
threatened to kill the rebels in Benghazi; the threat was dismissed by US army intelligence as improbable
and poorly sourced. But Hillary Clinton overrode US intelligence, outmaneuvered the Pentagon (the
secretary of defense, Robert Gates, had opposed the NATO bombing unreservedly), mobilized liberal-humanitarian
and conservative pro-war opinion in the media, and talked Obama into committing the US to effect
regime change in a third Middle East country.
Gaddafi was not "deposed." He was tortured and murdered, very likely by Islamists allied with
NATO forces. The "radical elements" that are causing "a lot of turmoil and trouble" in "this arc
of instability" are, in fact, Islamists whom Clinton picked as allies in the region, and she has
pressed to supply them with arms in Syria as well as Libya. She really rates mention as an American
mover of the "instability" in the region second only to Bush and Cheney.
... ... ...
David Bromwich is a Professor of Literature, Yale University
Mike Rodriguez · Jacksonville, Florida
Hillary no. Sanders yes. The US political establishment of both parties no.
Lybia is the least of these "mistakes" . Bush and Obama and Congress never had a clue what
they were doing in the Middle East. We are paying a price for a weak and spiritless political
system characterized by voter apathy and ignorance.
Hillary? Why is she running? Why are the Republicans all running? Man alive we have got little
or nothing really. But one of these is going to win no matter how small the voter turnout.
Hillary says she made a "mistake" on the Bush era Iraq invasion vote. She did not make
a mistake she engaged in an deliberate act of political expediency and cowardice. Everyone with
a brain knew Bush was cooking up the Iraq invasion based on nothing. She knew but took the political
choice not an intelligent one.
Goethe Gunther · Las Cruces, New Mexico
Thank you for this piece. Hillary Clinton and Richard Perle drink from the same neo-con/neo-liberal
global political well. I CAN NOT vote for this person. Gaddafi was murdered as a matter of personal
vendetta to avoid exposing allege monies he offered Sarkozy's campaign, amongst other issues that
will take too much space to elucidate.
But Obama and Hillary, because of their actions in Libya, made the world a more dangerous place.
And herer is Hillary on the brutal murder of Gadaffi:
https://youtu.be/mlz3-OzcExI
Gero Lubovnik · Belarus Polyteknik University
How does Hillary continually escape the truth and proper vetting? She has been a failure
at just about every position she has held. She was fired from Watergate. A miserable failure leading
healthcare reform (in the 90's- for those of you millienials that missed it). She did nothing
as a Senator, having her eyes on the oval office. Libya and the rest of the middle east,
her "Reset Button" with Russia (how's that workin' out?) who blitzkreiged Crimea and screwed Ukraine
entirely, working toward parity of trade with China (who is building a military base in the South
China Sea). Abject failure. And then one has to wonder how she and Bill amassed a personal fortune,
providing no goods or products, nor services of meaningful value? [Answer: Clinton Foundation
money laundering machine- where magic happens in past, present and future quid pro quo]?
AND YOU WANT TO CORONATE HER AS PRESIDENT [EMPRESS], completel with pen and phone??? And then
you wonder why America is becoming a second or third world nation.
Charles Hill · Clifton High School
This was a HUGE error. Gaddafi used to say "the West would never overthrow him because they
did not want a Somalia on the Mediterranean coast". I guess Hillary and Obama did.
And you can not blame this on Bush. Bush got Gaddafi to give up his WMD and Gaddafi was causing
no trouble. He was only fighting the Islamists inside his country that Hillary and Obama decided
to support. Now ISIS is running things there.
Brian Donahue · New York, New York
The US has a habit of destabilizing these countries (Iraq and Libya). Chaos results. Hillary
will be very dangerous as president. She is too quick to use force with no end strategy at all.
Clarc King · Bronx, New York
A fair representation of the reality of American foreign policy taken over by the satanic,
elitist, neoliberal mob. Libya, once an ally and most progressive state in Africa, was destroyed
and is now governed, if you can call it that, by a CIA asset. No wonder people resist American
Regime Change. Hillary, a warmonger for Imperialism, cannot possibly be considered for the US
presidency. The US citizenry must act quickly and form a new presidential platform.
Linda LaRoque · Odessa College
If you're under 50 you really need to read this. If you're over 50, you lived through it, so
share it with those under 50.
Amazing to me how much I had forgotten! When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary
to assume authority over a health care reform. Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn't
even get a vote in a democratic controlled congress. This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about
$13 million in cost for studies, promotion, and other efforts.
Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her
first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood - both were forced to withdraw their names
from consideration.
Next she chose Janet Reno - husband Bill described her selection as "my worst mistake." Some
may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious
sect in Waco , Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.
Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission.
Lani Guanier was her selection. When a little probing led to the discovery of Ms. Guanier's radical
views, her name had to be withdrawn from consideration.
Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations.
She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White
House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department.
Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and
Kennedy was forced to resign.
Many younger votes will have no knowledge of "Travelgate." Hillary wanted to award unfettered
travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson - and the White House Travel Office refused
to comply. She managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired. This ruined their reputations,
cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one employee, Billy Dale
was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds.
A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours.
Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend,
Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security. When Livingstone was
investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and
the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the president denied even
knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House.
Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years
of service to seven presidents.
Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill
Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the "bimbo eruption" and scandal defense. Some of her more
notable decisions in the debacle were:
She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation
they settled with Ms. Jones.
She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr
as Special Prosecutor. After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation
led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs. Hillary's
devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for 'lying under oath'
to a grand jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives. Hillary
avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by
repeating, "I do not recall," "I have no recollection," and "I don't know" a total of 56 times
while under oath.
After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White
House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen.
Now we are exposed to the destruction of possibly incriminating emails while Hillary was Secretary
of State and the "pay to play" schemes of the Clinton Foundation - we have no idea what shoe
will fall next.
That's all well and good, and probably all true and then some, but the candidates running against
her, even with all their clearance for viewing information, have NO IDEA what Clinton and her
State Depertment were doing then. Only she and MAYBE Obama does. It has become clear that the
State Department was running rogue, just like the IRS and the AG's office were.
Terry Lee · Telgar
The State Department was running rogue?! Only she and MAYBE Obama knows what was going on?
It seems that you know what was going on, too. LOL!
Elizabeth Fichtl
The country is waking up.
Question put to HRC during the debate.
Dickerson to Clinton: "Let me ask you. So, Libya is a country in which ISIS has taken hold
in part, because of chaos after Muammar Gaddafi. That was an operation you championed. President
Obama says this is the lesson he took from that operation. In an interview he said, the lesson
was, do we have an answer for the day after? Wasn't that supposed to be one of the lessons that
we learned after the Iraq war? And how did you get it wrong with Libya if the key lesson of the
Iraq war is to have a plan for after?"
Leslie Ware · Preston High School
Just a few reasons to take Clinton to trial:
1.Under 18 USC 793 subsection F, the information does not have to be classified to count as
a violation. The intelligence source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity citing the sensitivity
of the ongoing probe, said the subsection requires the "lawful possession" of national defense
information by a security clearance holder who "through gross negligence," such as the use of
an unsecure computer network, permits the material to be removed or abstracted from its proper,
secure location.
Subsection F also requires the clearance holder "to make prompt report of such loss, theft,
abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer. "A failure to do so "shall be fined under
this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
The source said investigators are also focused on possible obstruction of justice. "If someone
knows there is an ongoing investigation and takes action to impede an investigation, for example
destruction of documents or threatening of witnesses, that could be a separate charge but still
remain under a single case," the source said. Currently, the ongoing investigation is led by the
Washington Field Office of the FBI.
2. A day after assuming office as secretary of state, Clinton signed a Sensitive Compartmented
Information Nondisclosure Agreement that laid out criminal penalties for "any unauthorized disclosure"
of classified information. … "I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized
retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States
or be used to advantage by a foreign nation," the agreement states.
Moreover, the agreement covers information of lesser sensitivity. ("In addition to her SCI
agreement, Clinton signed a separate NDA for all other classified information. It contains similar
language, including prohibiting 'negligent handling of classified information,' requiring her
to ascertain whether information is classified and laying out criminal penalties.") Well, that
is awkward, as the FBI continues its investigation into potential negligent handling of classified
information.
3. 18 U.S. Code § 1001
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction
of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly
and willfully-
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false,
fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves
international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years,
or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section
1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party's counsel,
for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a
judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a)
shall apply only to-
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement
of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document
required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer
within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee,
commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.
Its time to escalate this investigation and show the Country how unethical and criminal this
pretender to the presidency really is.
Clinton also should be totally disqualified from a Security Clearance, simply because of her
previous behavior and nonchalant lack of safeguarding of classified information. All the while
saying she did not recognize the information was CLASSIFIED. She is either lying or totally
incompetent to perform any job in the United States Government.
Clinton for Trial 2016.
Mike Kelly
OK, we get it. You don't like HRC.
The rest of this is a crock. There's simply no evidence that HRC Actually did any of the dire
things you are claiming in your long and tiresome post. Virtually all of the classified information
was classified by the State Department or CIA AFTER it was received and sent by HRC. As a result,
your allegations do not hold water. Certainly much different from outing a CIA agent for political
purposes, as was done during the previous administration.
David Auner · Springfield, Missouri
This article spotlights the failed Libyan policy which will gain importance as violence
is exported beyond Syria and Mali and millions more refugees are created. The point about
repubs being sharper is just wrong - they have honed absurd talking points with Luntz while wasting
tax dollars on Benghazi. O'Malley's mess comment was adequate - debate prep can not prepare for
every oddly crafted rewrite of history. Rebutting Clinton's narrative would involve hours of pointing
out the failures of State's and Obama's narratives in most of their tenure. Sanders knows more
than what this article has put forward but a vigorous debate would touch on classified information
about the CIA station in Benghazi and their disastrous activities - which candidates must avoid
for now. Debates fail easily - the author of this article fails with adequate time for a deeper
analysis.
Elvin B. Ross · University of Idaho
Sanders or bust. No neolibs, no Dinos for me. This is not a Ralph Nader situation. I simply
will not support any more fake Democrats. Bill neolibbed us. Obama neolibbed us. Hillary did and
will neolib us.
Paul Mountain · Works at Love_Unlimited
US politicians aren't paid to think, they're paid to follow the leader, and when it comes to
Middle Eastern policy that's Israel, the Bible, and the Congressional Military Industrial Complex.
Michael Rinella · Works at State University of New York Press
The Empire lies through its teeth, we all know that. The Colonel had actually been cleaning
up his act to the point he was getting cautious praise from Washington - and then when globalization
destablized his economy (foreign workers in eastern Libya taking jobs from the locals) they fell
over themselves to put a knife in his back.
James Charles O'Donnell III
Why is the institutional American left so frantic to nominate Sec. Clinton, the candidate who
is A) unquestionably THE LEAST PROGRESSIVE choice; and B) by far THE LEAST VIABLE contender in
a general election, with a cornucopia of baggage, not all of which is imaginary?
Hillary Clinton has managed DECADES of poor polling, with consistently high negative favorability
ratings, especially among independents -- and a huge "trustability" problem. That "dodging sniper
fire" fabrication she repeatedly told ON VIDEO will probably be exploited in the general election
to cement the American people's (accurate) perception that Ms. Clinton is dishonest, and that
will sink her electoral chances for good -- and the LEFT, too, unfortunately (so much for those
SCOTUS seats!).
With Bernie Sanders, AN ACTUAL PROGRESSIVE, looking for all the world like a national winner,
inspiring record-breaking crowds and grass-roots donations, the liberal establishment is bizarrely
(corruptly) pushing for the coronation of the ONLY Democrat who could possibly lose in 2016 --
and the one who, on policy, is an open neoconservative war hawk and Wall Street champion, a career
enemy of the 99%... UNBELIEVABLE.
Before the revolution, Libya was a secure, prospering, secular Islamic country
and a critical ally providing intelligence on terrorist activity post–September
11, 2001. Qaddafi was no longer a threat to the United States. Yet Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton strongly advocated and succeeded in convincing the
administration to support the Libyan rebels with a no-fly zone, intended to
prevent a possible humanitarian disaster that turned quickly into all-out war.
... ... ...
Despite valid ceasefire opportunities to prevent "bloodshed in Benghazi"
at the onset of hostilities, Secretary Clinton intervened and quickly pushed
her foreign policy in support of a revolution led by the Muslim Brotherhood
and known terrorists in the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. One of the Libyan
Rebel Brigade commanders, Ahmed Abu Khattala, would later be involved in the
terrorist attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. Articulating her indifference
to the chaos brought by war, Secretary Clinton
stated on May 18, 2013, to the House Oversight Committee and the American
public, "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk
one night and decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference, at this
point, does it make?"
... ... ...
U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Charles R. Kubic served worldwide for over 32 years
as a Navy Seabee, and retired in 2005. He served as a senior policy analyst
in the Reagan White House, and was appointed in March 2016 as a National Security
Policy Advisor to Donald Trump.
Financial oligarchy rule is now indisputable and subservience of politicians in congress and
administration is close to absolute. Financial oligarchy is the dominant power under neoliberalism.
No question about it. As Andrew Mellon (US Treasury Secretary, 1921 to 1932) used to say "Strong men
have sound ideas, and the force to make these ideas effective." Making Al Capone famous quote
more modern, "You can get more with a kind word and money than you can with a kind word alone."
Notable quotes:
"... I think that as Greenberger points out, once we were able to see Obama's early financial appointments, we knew that we had been had, once again. Despite his soaring rhetoric for change, he was a loyal member of the Wall Street wing. ..."
"... Obama and the Wall Street wing of the Democratic party, founded by the Clintons, is a brand , cobbled together and groomed for office by the moneyed interests, designed to misdirect and diffuse the angry reaction for reform by the people in the aftermath of the financial crisis. And it was a job well done. ..."
"... I strongly believe that Hillary has been and still remains a product of Wall Street money, and will continue to follow the money once in office no matter what rhetoric she may wear during any political campaign. ..."
Michael Greenberger has long been one of my favorite commenters on regulation, and in particular
on
futures price manipulation.
Within the context of the uphill battle against the status quo, Gary Gensler and Bart Chilton may
have looked 'good' as regulators, but all in all they looked better only by comparison with some very
horrible alternatives. Chilton, as you may recall, did not waste much time going through the
revolving door to put on the feedbag from the HFT crowd.
I think that as Greenberger points out, once we were able to see Obama's early financial appointments,
we knew that we had been had, once again. Despite his soaring rhetoric for change, he was a loyal
member of the Wall Street wing.
Obama and the Wall Street wing of the Democratic party, founded by the Clintons, is a
brand, cobbled together and groomed for office by the moneyed interests, designed
to misdirect and diffuse the angry reaction for reform by the people in the aftermath of the financial
crisis. And it was a job well done.
No matter what she says, no matter what promises she may make, no matter what identity branding
they may choose to spin for her, I strongly believe that Hillary has been and still remains a product
of Wall Street money, and will continue to follow the money once in office no matter what rhetoric
she may wear during any political campaign.
Further, the only major difference between the parties now is that the Republicans have sold out
wholesale to the moneyed interests, whereas the Dems have been doing it one despicable betrayal at
a time. They merely wear different masks. Money conquers all with this venal brood of vipers.
Financial reform comes with political campaign money reform. The two are inseparable.
"... Michele Flournoy, formerly the third-ranking civilian in the Pentagon under President Barack Obama, called for "limited military coercion" to help remove Assad from power in Syria, including a "no bombing" zone over parts of Syria held by U.S.-backed rebels. ..."
"Information Clearing House" - "Defense One" - The woman expected to run
the Pentagon under Hillary Clinton said she would direct U.S. troops to push
President Bashar al-Assad's forces out of southern Syria and would send more
American boots to fight the Islamic State in the region.
Michele Flournoy, formerly the third-ranking civilian in the Pentagon under
President Barack Obama, called for "limited military coercion" to help remove
Assad from power in Syria, including a "no bombing" zone over parts of Syria
held by U.S.-backed rebels.
A weak president with jingoistic and incompetent Secretary of State is a pretty
explosive mix. A sociopathic female president with neocons inspired jingoistic foreign
policy can be a disaster for the country.
Notable quotes:
"... Her conviction would be critical in persuading Mr. Obama to join allies in bombing Colonel Qaddafi's forces. In fact, Mr. Obama's defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, would later say that in a "51-49" decision, it was Mrs. Clinton's support that put the ambivalent president over the line. ..."
"... Anne-Marie Slaughter, her director of policy planning at the State Department, notes that in conversation and in her memoir, Mrs. Clinton repeatedly speaks of wanting to be "caught trying." In other words, she would rather be criticized for what she has done than for having done nothing at all. ..."
"... Libya's descent into chaos began with a rushed decision to go to war, made in what one top official called a "shadow of uncertainty" as to Colonel Qaddafi's intentions. ..."
"... She pressed for a secret American program that supplied arms to rebel militias, an effort never before confirmed. ..."
"... Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, has seized on her role in the larger narrative of the Libyan intervention; during a recent debate, he said he feared that "Secretary Clinton is too much into regime change." ..."
"... ...aftermath of the 2011 intervention: the Islamic State only "300 miles from Europe," a refugee crisis that "is a human tragedy as well as a political one" and the destabilization of much of West Africa. ..."
"... "She says, and I quote, 'You are not going to drag us into your shitty war,'" said Mr. Araud, now France's ambassador in Washington. "She said, 'We'll be obliged to follow and support you, and we don't want to.' The conversation got tense. I answered, 'France isn't a U.S. subsidiary.' It was the Obama policy at the time that they didn't want a new Arab war." ..."
"... "We don't want another war," she told Mr. Lavrov, stressing that the mission was limited to protecting civilians. "I take your point about not seeking another war," she recalled him responding. "But that doesn't mean that you won't get one." ..."
The president was wary. The secretary
of state was persuasive. But the ouster
of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi left Libya
a failed state and a terrorist haven.
Mrs. Clinton was won over. Opposition leaders "said all the right things
about supporting democracy and inclusivity and building Libyan institutions,
providing some hope that we might be able to pull this off," said Philip H.
Gordon, one of her assistant secretaries. "They gave us what we wanted to hear.
And you do want to believe."
Her conviction would be critical in persuading Mr. Obama to join allies
in bombing Colonel Qaddafi's forces. In fact, Mr. Obama's defense secretary,
Robert M. Gates, would later say that in a "51-49" decision, it was Mrs. Clinton's
support that put the ambivalent president over the line.
The consequences would be more far-reaching than anyone imagined, leaving
Libya a failed state and a terrorist haven, a place where the direst answers
to Mrs. Clinton's questions have come to pass.
This is the story of how a woman whose Senate vote for the Iraq war may have
doomed her first presidential campaign nonetheless doubled down and pushed for
military action in another Muslim country. As she once again seeks the White
House, campaigning in part on her experience as the nation's chief diplomat,
an examination of the intervention she championed shows her at what was arguably
her moment of greatest influence as secretary of state. It is a working portrait
rich with evidence of what kind of president she might be, and especially of
her expansive approach to the signal foreign-policy conundrum of today: whether,
when and how the United States should wield its military power in Syria and
elsewhere in the Middle East.
... ... ...
Anne-Marie Slaughter, her director of policy planning at the State Department,
notes that in conversation and in her memoir, Mrs. Clinton repeatedly speaks
of wanting to be "caught trying." In other words, she would rather be criticized
for what she has done than for having done nothing at all.
... ... ...
Libya's descent into chaos began with a rushed decision to go to war,
made in what one top official called a "shadow of uncertainty" as to Colonel
Qaddafi's intentions. The mission inexorably evolved even as Mrs. Clinton
foresaw some of the hazards of toppling another Middle Eastern strongman.
She pressed for a secret American program that supplied arms to rebel militias,
an effort never before confirmed.
... ... ...
Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, has seized on her role in the larger
narrative of the Libyan intervention; during a recent debate, he said he feared
that "Secretary Clinton is too much into regime change."
... ... ...
...aftermath of the 2011 intervention: the Islamic State only "300 miles
from Europe," a refugee crisis that "is a human tragedy as well as a political
one" and the destabilization of much of West Africa.
... ... ...
France and Britain were pushing hard for a Security Council vote on a resolution
supporting a no-fly zone in Libya to prevent Colonel Qaddafi from slaughtering
his opponents. Ms. Rice was calling to push back, in characteristically salty
language.
"She says, and I quote, 'You are not going to drag us into your
shitty war,'" said Mr. Araud, now France's ambassador in Washington. "She said,
'We'll be obliged to follow and support you, and we don't want to.' The conversation
got tense. I answered, 'France isn't a U.S. subsidiary.' It was the Obama policy
at the time that they didn't want a new Arab war."
... ... ...
"We don't want another war," she told Mr. Lavrov, stressing that the
mission was limited to protecting civilians. "I take your point about not seeking
another war," she recalled him responding. "But that doesn't mean that you won't
get one."
Lynch: How is your granddaughter Chelsea? Bubba: She's fine. How are your grandkids? Lynch: They're doing great too. Bubba: Too bad if anything were to happen to them
Looks like now line in 1920th the global pendulum moves toward nationalism.
So in a way neoliberalism breeds nationalism and transnational elite paves the way
for dictators like Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin in the past. Transnational elites
start to recognize the danger, but they can do nothing about it as Trump has shown
so vividly in the USA.
High unemployment logically lead to nationalism and all
those neoliberal politicians understood that they are destroying the county but
continue to plunder it anyway. Biden already cried uncle about the danger of far
right nationalism on CNN. But reality in the USA is not then different from the
reality in Britain.
Notable quotes:
"... No wonder Donald Trump's campaign has ignited a growing nationalism movement. We're creating jobs and giving them away. We've let globalization get away from us. It's abundantly clear that we don't have the right public policies in place to incentivize corporations to keep Americans gainfully employed. ..."
"... Grove's bold piece was embraced by some, panned by others and largely ignored. Whether he or Trump have exactly the right solution to the globalization and immigration problems plaguing free-market economies throughout the western world doesn't matter. What matters is that they've identified a problem that needs to be solved before it's too late. So did the British people when they voted to exit the EU. ..."
"... Economic prosperity and security must trump political correctness and ideology. The Brits got it right. Will we? ..."
It's hard to say if that was the wakeup call that led to a sharp reversal and
Thursday's historic vote to leave the EU, but it was nevertheless a stunning
realization that Prime Minister David Cameron had failed to stem the tide of
immigrant workers flooding the UK's job market, as he had promised to do.
Meanwhile, a laundry list of commentators from the
Washington Post and
Esquire to
Vox and the
New York Times chalked it all up to millions of racist xenophobes who are
terrified of immigrants mucking up their pristine white privileged world. If
that sounds at all similar to the anti-Trump rhetoric, you can sort of see where
this is going.
The thing is, there's nothing even remotely irrational or bigoted about the
alarming
transformation of Britain's job market. Since 1997, the number of foreign-born
workers has doubled to one in six. And since 2014, three EU migrants have found
jobs for every Brit, according to official government figures. And, as we'll
see in a minute, there are concerning parallels on this side of the pond, as
well.
I hear from college grads and experienced professionals looking for jobs
all the time, but a recent inquiry from a 27-year-old Edinburgh, Scotland woman
with a BS in microbiology and excellent grades got my attention. She has applied
for more than 400 jobs without managing to secure an interview. Not a single
one.
More concerning is that the workforce itself has continued to shrink over
the same period. Whether that reflects increasing competition, lack of in-demand
skillsets or both doesn't really matter. The net result is that foreigners are
getting more of our jobs, and that's as true of offshore jobs as it is of onshore
jobs.
Think about it. Apple has created well over a million jobs, but 90% of them
are outsourced to China. Google may not make phones and tablets, but the vast
majority of Android-enabled mobile devices are manufactured in Asia. Of course,
that's true of nearly every industry, old or new.
We may not face the identical migrant worker problem that the UK has, but
the net result is the same: By giving up more and more jobs we create to foreign-born
immigrants and offshore contractors, that leaves fewer and fewer jobs and increasing
competition for American citizens.
No wonder Donald Trump's campaign has ignited a growing nationalism
movement. We're creating jobs and giving them away. We've let globalization
get away from us. It's abundantly clear that we don't have the right public
policies in place to incentivize corporations to keep Americans gainfully
employed.
Back in 2010, former Intel chairman Andy Grove penned How America Can Create
Jobs. The front-page Bloomberg BusinessWeek feature clearly outlined the perils
of losing our manufacturing muscle and declared the need for public policy that
puts jobs first, even if it does means constraining free trade with tariffs,
trade war be damned.
Grove's bold piece was embraced by some, panned by others and largely ignored.
Whether he or Trump have exactly the right solution to the globalization and
immigration problems plaguing free-market economies throughout the western world
doesn't matter. What matters is that they've identified a problem that needs
to be solved before it's too late. So did the British people when they voted
to exit the EU.
Economic prosperity and security must trump political correctness and ideology.
The Brits got it right. Will we?
"... Applebaum's column title refers to "disastrous nonintervention," but the U.S. has been meddling in Syria's conflict to some degree for many years. Indeed, Syria is in such a miserable state because multiple outside states have been interfering and taking sides in the war. There may be no better example of how outside intervention prolongs and intensifies a civil war than Syria, and yet Syria hawks always conclude that the real problem is that Western governments haven't done more to add to the misery. The "consequences of nonintervention" are not, in fact, the consequences of the U.S. decision not to bomb in 2013, but rather they are the consequences of the actions that many actors (including the U.S.) have taken in Syria in their destructive efforts to "shape" the conflict. ..."
"... The backlash against proposed military action in Syria in 2013 was a remarkable moment in the U.S. and Britain. It was the first time that the U.S. and U.K. governments had their plan to attack another country effectively overruled by the people's elected representatives. As it turns out, it was a fleeting moment, and it doesn't seem likely to be repeated anytime soon. Popular resistance to the next war was virtually non-existent, and both the U.S. and British governments have returned to their old ways of starting and backing unnecessary wars. Obama has unfortunately learned the lesson that he should avoid consulting those representatives on these matters in the future, and so he has gone back to starting and waging wars without authorization. The foreign policy elite in the U.S. have similarly learned all the wrong things from this episode. Instead of recognizing how unpopular their preferred policies were/are and respecting what the public wanted, most have concluded that public opinion should simply be ignored from now on. ..."
"... The U.S. could have been more deeply involved in the conflict than it is for many years, but all that would have meant was that the U.S. was doing more to inflict death and destruction on a suffering country. When interventionists "mourn" a decision not to bomb, they are regretting the decision not to kill people in another country that posed no threat to the U.S. or any of our allies. That's a horrible position, and it's no wonder that most Americans still recoil from it. ..."
Anne Applebaum
bemoans the decision not to bomb Syria three years ago:
I repeat: Maybe a U.S.-British-French intervention would have ended in
disaster. If so, we would today be mourning the consequences. But sometimes
it's important to mourn the consequences of nonintervention too. Three years
on, we do know, after all, exactly what nonintervention has produced.
One of the more frustrating things about the debate over Syria policy is
the widely-circulated idea that refraining from military action makes a government
responsible for any or all of the things that happen in a foreign conflict later
on. Somehow our government is responsible for the effects of a war when it
isn't directly contributing to the conflict by dropping bombs, but
doesn't receive any blame when it is helping to stoke the same conflict by other
means. Many pundits lament the failure to bomb Syria, but far fewer object to
the harm done by sending weapons to rebels that have contributed to the overall
mayhem in Syria.
Applebaum's column title refers to "disastrous nonintervention," but
the U.S. has been meddling in Syria's conflict to some degree for many years.
Indeed, Syria is in such a miserable state because multiple outside states have
been interfering and taking sides in the war. There may be no better example
of how outside intervention prolongs and intensifies a civil war than Syria,
and yet Syria hawks always conclude that the real problem is that Western governments
haven't done more to add to the misery. The "consequences of nonintervention"
are not, in fact, the consequences of the U.S. decision not to bomb in 2013,
but rather they are the consequences of the actions that many actors (including
the U.S.) have taken in Syria in their destructive efforts to "shape" the conflict.
Let's remember what the Obama administration proposed doing in August 2013.
Obama was going to order attacks on the Syrian government to punish it for the
use of chemical weapons, but his officials insisted this would be an "unbelievably
small" action in order to placate skeptics worried about an open-ended war.
If the attack had been as "unbelievably small" as promised, it would have weakened
the Syrian government's forces but likely wouldn't have changed anything about
the overall conflict. Even judged solely by how much of the Syrian government's
chemical weapons arsenal it eliminated, it would have been less successful than
the disarmament agreement that was reached.
If the intervention had expanded and turned into a much more ambitious campaign,
as opponents of the proposed bombing feared it could, it would have almost certainly
redounded to the benefit of jihadist groups because it was attacking their enemies.
It seems fair to assume that a "successful" bombing campaign in 2013 would have
exposed more of Syria to the depredations of ISIS and other jihadists. It would
not have hurt ISIS or other jihadists in the least since they were not going
to be targeted by it, so it is particularly absurd to try to blame ISIS's later
actions on the decision not to attack. If the bombing campaign was perceived
to be "not working" quickly enough, that would have prompted demands for an
even larger U.S. military role in Syria in the months and years that followed.
Bombing Syria in 2013 would not have ended the war earlier, but would have made
the U.S. a more involved party to it than it is today. I fail to see how that
would have been a better outcome for the U.S. or the people of Syria. It is
doubtful that fewer Syrians overall would have been killed and displaced in
the wake of such a bombing campaign. It is tendentious in the extreme to assert
that the decision not to bomb is responsible for the war's later victims and
effects.
The backlash against proposed military action in Syria in 2013 was a remarkable
moment in the U.S. and Britain. It was the first time that the U.S. and U.K.
governments had their plan to attack another country effectively overruled by
the people's elected representatives. As it turns out, it was a fleeting moment,
and it doesn't seem likely to be repeated anytime soon. Popular resistance to
the next war was virtually non-existent, and both the U.S. and British governments
have returned to their old ways of starting and backing unnecessary wars. Obama
has unfortunately learned the lesson that he should avoid consulting those representatives
on these matters in the future, and so he has gone back to starting and waging
wars without authorization. The foreign policy elite in the U.S. have similarly
learned all the wrong things from this episode. Instead of recognizing how unpopular
their preferred policies were/are and respecting what the public wanted, most
have concluded that public opinion should simply be ignored from now on.
Perhaps the biggest flaw in the Applebaum's interventionist lament is the
complete failure to acknowledge that other states and groups have their own
agency and would have continued to do harm in Syria regardless of what the U.S.
did or didn't do. Bombing Syria in 2013 wouldn't have made the conflict any
easier to resolve, nor would it have altered the interests of the warring parties.
It would have been an exercise in blowing things up and killing people to show
that we were taking "action." It would have been the most senseless sort of
intervening for the sake of being seen to intervene.
The U.S. could have been
more deeply involved in the conflict than it is for many years, but all that
would have meant was that the U.S. was doing more to inflict death and destruction
on a suffering country. When interventionists "mourn" a decision not to bomb,
they are regretting the decision not to kill people in another country that
posed no threat to the U.S. or any of our allies. That's a horrible position,
and it's no wonder that most Americans still recoil from it.
According to Gowdy, "the committee immediately subpoenaed Clinton personally
after learning the full extent of her unusual email arrangement with herself, and
would have done so earlier if the State Department or Clinton had been forthcoming
that State did not maintain custody of her records and only Secretary Clinton herself
had her records when Congress first requested them."
Notable quotes:
"... According to Gowdy, "the committee immediately subpoenaed Clinton personally after learning the full extent of her unusual email arrangement with herself, and would have done so earlier if the State Department or Clinton had been forthcoming that State did not maintain custody of her records and only Secretary Clinton herself had her records when Congress first requested them." ..."
"... Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. The Republicans chant while Rome burns. How about Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq.... ..."
"... Did Clinton say she's never had a subpoena? Yes. Did a subpoena get issued? Yes. Was the whole interview at that point discussing a point in time months before the subpoena got issued? Yes. ..."
"... Karl Rove has so often said that it is who DOES NOT vote that determines the outcome, and now we have the Tea Party. ..."
"... The Clintons ARE very close personal family friends with the entire Bush clan. When the TV cameras are off and the reporters are gone, they are a very tight group who see the world thru like greedy eyes. Check this out. ..."
"... Having someone who is the brother of one former president and the son of another run against the wife of still another former president would be sweetly illustrative of all sorts of degraded and illusory aspects of American life, from meritocracy to class mobility. ..."
"... Wall Street has long been unable to contain its collective glee over a likely Hillary Clinton presidency. ..."
"... the matriarch of the Bush family (former First Lady Barbara) has described the Clinton patriarch (former President Bill) as a virtual family member, noting that her son, George W., affectionately calls his predecessor "my brother by another mother." ..."
"... If this happens, the 2016 election would vividly underscore how the American political class functions: by dynasty, plutocracy, fundamental alignment of interests masquerading as deep ideological divisions, and political power translating into vast private wealth and back again. ..."
"... Most of our presidents were horn dogs. Their wives know about it in many cases, but they knew that it was part of the package. The only difference was that before Clinton, the press would never think of reporting about sexual dalliances. ..."
"... Clinton is not materially different to many GOP candidates outside the loons. ..."
"... She has stiff competition: Madeleine Albright, Samantha Power, Carly Fiorina, etc. She might win the title, though. ..."
"... So after years of trying to turn Benghazi into a scandal, the email thing is mostly meaningless to Democrats. So congratulations Republicans, you blew your chance. ..."
In a statement on Wednesday, Republican congressman Trey Gowdy accused the
former secretary of state of making an "inaccurate claim" during an interview
on Tuesday. Responding to a question about the controversy surrounding her email
server while at the US state department, Clinton had told CNN: "I've never had
a subpoena."
But Gowdy said: "The committee has issued several subpoenas, but I have not
sought to make them public. I would not make this one public now, but after
Secretary Clinton falsely claimed the committee did not subpoena her, I have
no choice in order to correct the inaccuracy."
Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill told the Guardian that Gowdy's accusation
itself was inaccurate, insisting that the congressman had not issued a subpoena
until March.
"She was asked about her decision to not to retain her personal emails after
providing all those that were work-related, and the suggestion was made that
a subpoena was pending at that time. That was not accurate," Merrill wrote in
an email.
Gowdy also posted a copy of the subpoena on the Benghazi committee's website.
According to Gowdy, "the committee immediately subpoenaed Clinton personally
after learning the full extent of her unusual email arrangement with herself,
and would have done so earlier if the State Department or Clinton had been forthcoming
that State did not maintain custody of her records and only Secretary Clinton
herself had her records when Congress first requested them."
Lester Smithson 9 Jul 2015 16:00
Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. The Republicans chant while
Rome burns. How about Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq....
kattw 9 Jul 2015 12:41
Gotta love when people say they have no choice but to do something absurd,
then choose to do something absurd rather than not.
Did Clinton say she's never had a subpoena? Yes. Did a subpoena get
issued? Yes. Was the whole interview at that point discussing a point in
time months before the subpoena got issued? Yes.
Yes, Mr. Legislator: you DID subpoena Clinton. Several months AFTER she
did the thing in question, which the interviewer wanted to know why she
did in light of subpoenas. And really, what was she thinking? After all,
a subpoena had already been issued, ummm, 3 months into the future! Why
was she not psychic? Why did she not alter her actions based on something
that congress would do eventually? How DARE she not know what the fates
had decried!
Mr. Legislator, you were given the opportunity to not spin this as a
political issue, and to be honest about the committee's actions. You chose
to do otherwise. Nobody forced you to do so. You had plenty of choices -
you made one. Don't try to shift that onto a lie Clinton never told. She's
got plenty of lies in her closet, many stupidly obvious - calling one of
her truths a lie just shows how much of an ideological buffoon you really
are.
ExcaliburDefender -> Dan Wipper 8 Jul 2015 23:47
Whatever. Dick Cheney should have been tried in the Hague and incarcerated
for 50 lifetimes. Most voters have decided to vote party lines, the next
16 months is for the 10% undecided and a few that can be swayed.
Karl Rove has so often said that it is who DOES NOT vote that determines
the outcome, and now we have the Tea Party.
Plenty of time for outrage, faux or real. We haven't had a single debate
yet. Still get to hear from Chafee on the metric system and whether evolution
is real or not from the GOP.
Jill Stein for President <-------|) Paid for by David Koch and Friends
Herr_Settembrini 8 Jul 2015 23:25
Quite frankly, I've long since passed the point of caring about Benghazi,
and the reason why is extremely simple: this has been a nakedly partisan
investigation, stretching on for years now, that has tried to manufacture
a scandal and fake outrage in order to deny Obama re-election in 2012, and
now (since that didn't work) to deny Clinton the election in 2016.
The GOP doesn't have one shred of credibility left about this issue--
to the point that if they were able to produce photographs of Obama and
Clinton personally storming the embassy, America would collectively shrug
(except of course for the AM talk radio crowd, who are perpetually angry
anyway, so nobody would notice).
TET68HUE -> StevePrimus 8 Jul 2015 23:08
The Clintons ARE very close personal family friends with the entire
Bush clan. When the TV cameras are off and the reporters are gone, they
are a very tight group who see the world thru like greedy eyes. Check this
out.
JEB BUSH V. HILLARY CLINTON: THE PERFECTLY ILLUSTRATIVE ELECTION
BY GLENN GREENWALD
@ggreenwald
12/17/2014
Jeb Bush yesterday strongly suggested he was running for President in
2016. If he wins the GOP nomination, it is highly likely that his opponent
for the presidency would be Hillary Clinton. Having someone who is the
brother of one former president and the son of another run against the wife
of still another former president would be sweetly illustrative of all sorts
of degraded and illusory aspects of American life, from meritocracy to class
mobility. That one of those two families exploited its vast wealth
to obtain political power, while the other exploited its political power
to obtain vast wealth, makes it more illustrative still: of the virtually
complete merger between political and economic power, of the fundamentally
oligarchical framework that drives American political life.
Then there are their similar constituencies: what Politico termed "money
men" instantly celebrated Jeb Bush's likely candidacy, while the same publication
noted just last month how Wall Street has long been unable to contain
its collective glee over a likely Hillary Clinton presidency. The two
ruling families have, unsurprisingly, developed a movingly warm relationship
befitting their position: the matriarch of the Bush family (former First
Lady Barbara) has described the Clinton patriarch (former President Bill)
as a virtual family member, noting that her son, George W., affectionately
calls his predecessor "my brother by another mother."
If this happens, the 2016 election would vividly underscore how the
American political class functions: by dynasty, plutocracy, fundamental
alignment of interests masquerading as deep ideological divisions, and political
power translating into vast private wealth and back again. The educative
value would be undeniable: somewhat like how the torture report did, it
would rub everyone's noses in exactly those truths they are most eager to
avoid acknowledge. Email the author:
[email protected]
StevePrimus 8 Jul 2015 22:33
Clinton's nomination as a democratic candidate for president is a fait
accompli, as is Bush's nomination on the GOP card. The amusing side show
with Rubio, Trump, Sanders, Paul, Walker, Perry, Cruz, et al can be entertaining,
but note that Clinton and Bush seem much closer aligned with each other
than either sueems to be to Sanders on the left and Graham on the right.
MtnClimber -> CitizenCarrier 8 Jul 2015 20:41
Read some history books and learn.
Most of our presidents were horn dogs. Their wives know about it
in many cases, but they knew that it was part of the package. The only difference
was that before Clinton, the press would never think of reporting about
sexual dalliances.
Among those that cheated are:
Washington
Jefferson
Lincoln
Harding
FDR
Eisenhower
JFK
LBJ
Clinton
Not bad company, but they all cheated. It seems like greater sexual drive
is part of the package for people that choose to be president.
RossBest 8 Jul 2015 20:24
There is an obvious possible explanation here. She was talking about
things in the past and ineptly shifted in effect into the "historical present"
or "dramatic present" and didn't realize she was creating an ambiguity.
That is, she was talking about the times when she set up the email system
and used it and later deleted personal emails and she intended to deny having
received any relevant subpoenas AT THOSE TIMES.
I'm not a Clinton supporter but this seems plausible. But inept.
zchabj6 8 Jul 2015 20:10
The state of US politics...
Clinton is not materially different to many GOP candidates outside
the loons.
CitizenCarrier -> Carambaman 8 Jul 2015 17:54
My personal favorite was when as 1st Lady during a trip to New Zealand
she told reporters she'd been named in honor of Sir Edmund Hillary.
She was born before he climbed Everest. He was at that time an obscure
chicken farmer.
BorninUkraine -> duncandunnit 8 Jul 2015 17:44
You mean, she lies, like Bill? But as snakes go, she is a lot more dangerous
than him.
BorninUkraine -> Barry_Seal 8 Jul 2015 17:40
She has stiff competition: Madeleine Albright, Samantha Power, Carly
Fiorina, etc. She might win the title, though.
Dennis Myers 8 Jul 2015 16:30
This sort of thing is exactly why anything they throw at her won't stick.
Like the boy who cried wolf, when the wolf actually came, no one was listening
anymore. So after years of trying to turn Benghazi into a scandal, the
email thing is mostly meaningless to Democrats. So congratulations Republicans,
you blew your chance.
"... Even the normally supportive rightwing British media appears to be taken aback by the Conservative government's hypocritical fawning. ..."
"... Forget the British pomp and ceremony, gun salutes and royal indulgence. The bottom line is to secure billions of dollars-worth of investment that the British government is counting on the Chinese president to deliver. ..."
"... The showpiece investments being chased by Britain are those in nuclear energy and high-speed rail transport. "Investment in infrastructure tops the UK government's list of desired outcomes from this week's state visit by Xi Jinping," reports the Financial Times. ..."
"... Certainly, Beijing seems to have warmly accepted the offer of a new strategic relationship in which Britain has placed itself as "the most important Western partner". President Xi praised the British government for its wise choice of offering Beijing a strategic partnership. ..."
"... As the Financial Times quoted one former "influential" US official as saying: "What we are seeing is a case study in kowtow. It's not just [British Chancellor] Osborne, it's the whole Cameron government that is bending over incredibly backwards and this will definitely create problems for Great Britain in the future." ..."
"... Cameron has said there is "no conflict of interests" but it is unlikely that Washington will view Britain's coddling of China in such an insouciant way. ..."
"... For its part China has its own strategic calculations. By engaging with Britain, the Chinese government is no doubt happy to avail of new investment opportunities overseas at a time when its domestic economy is slowing. It also tends to mitigate American attempts at isolating Beijing. Good luck to China. ..."
"... But when it comes to China, the same British government evidently has no such concerns or scruples. Because billions of dollars of Chinese investment are being courted by Britain to shore up its crumbling infrastructure and pump up its financial centre in the City of London. ..."
Britain's lavish state reception for Chinese President Xi Jinping is
a dash-for-cash that shows how desperate the crumbling former empire is for
foreign investment.
British Prime Minister David Cameron is laying on the finest trappings of the
state to impress his Asian visitor – even as it causes misgivings within British
society and tensions in Britain's "special relationship" with Washington. But
Cameron has no choice. Britain is broke and badly needs capital investment.
Even the normally supportive rightwing British media appears to be taken
aback by the Conservative government's hypocritical fawning.
The Daily Express reported how premier David Cameron and his Tory government
are "rolling out the red carpet to beg for cash" during the Chinese leader's
first state visit to Britain. Meanwhile, the Financial Times gave prominence
to critics accusing Britain of "kowtowing" to China.
President Xi and his wife were this week treated to a state banquet at Buckingham
Palace, where the couple stayed as special guests of Queen Elizabeth. Throughout
the visit, Cameron and his Chancellor George Osborne are to accompany the Chinese
guests during the four-day itinerary.
Forget the British pomp and ceremony, gun salutes and royal indulgence.
The bottom line is to secure billions of dollars-worth of investment that the
British government is counting on the Chinese president to deliver.
"About 150 deals are expected to be sealed this week in areas such as healthcare,
aircraft manufacturing and energy… Britain hopes to advance efforts to turn
London into a key trading centre for China's currency, the renminbi, and
to boost trade with the world's second largest economy," according to the
Guardian
The showpiece investments being chased by Britain are those in nuclear
energy and high-speed rail transport.
"Investment in infrastructure tops the UK government's list of desired outcomes
from this week's state visit by Xi Jinping," reports the Financial Times.
Some might say that this lavish reception is just the best of British hospitality
afforded to the leader of the world's second biggest economy. There's nothing
wrong, they say, with Cameron calling for a "golden era" in relations between
Britain and China.
Certainly, Beijing seems to have warmly accepted the offer of a new strategic
relationship in which Britain has placed itself as "the most important Western
partner". President Xi praised the British government for its wise choice of
offering Beijing a strategic partnership.
Nevertheless, the dramatic appeal to China by British leaders has the unerring
whiff of unscrupulous money-grubbing. Human rights campaigners and readers of
Britain's liberal Guardian newspaper are displeased at what they say is the
Conservative government's "hypocrisy" on the issue of human rights. Critics
point to an alleged crackdown by Beijing authorities on media and civic groups,
as well as the repression of dissent in Hong Kong.
We don't have to agree with these critics in order to see that the British
government is being far from principled, according to its own much-vaunted "British
values".
Previously, Britain has made protests about human rights and over Hong Kong
in particular. Now, however, all that is being hushed up during President Xi's
visit – to the dismay of British rights campaigners.
Ironically, while Queen Elizabeth was entertaining President Xi, her son
Prince Charles stayed away from the banquet at Buckingham Palace.
It has been speculated that he was making a veiled protest over China's relations
with Tibet, where Charles is a keen supporter of the Dalai Lama.
Even more fraught is Britain's balancing act with the United States.
Just as Washington is sending a convoy of warships towards Chinese islands
in the South China Sea, London is rolling out the red carpet for the Chinese
leader.
As the Financial Times quoted one former "influential" US official as saying:
"What we are seeing is a case study in kowtow. It's not just [British Chancellor]
Osborne, it's the whole Cameron government that is bending over incredibly backwards
and this will definitely create problems for Great Britain in the future."
This is the second time that Britain has defied Uncle Sam over Chinese relations.
Last year, Britain signed up to the newly launched Beijing-based Asian Infrastructure
Investment Bank, defying Washington's efforts at isolating China.
Cameron has said there is "no conflict of interests" but it is unlikely
that Washington will view Britain's coddling of China in such an insouciant
way.
For its part China has its own strategic calculations. By engaging with
Britain, the Chinese government is no doubt happy to avail of new investment
opportunities overseas at a time when its domestic economy is slowing. It also
tends to mitigate American attempts at isolating Beijing. Good luck to China.
The point is that the whole affair shows a hypocritical expedience by the
British state. Cameron and his government have been foremost in criticising
Russia over alleged violations in Ukraine and human rights. On that score, London
has been a cheerleader for imposing Western economic sanctions against Moscow,
and dragging the rest of Europe to back Washington in a counterproductive stand-off.
But when it comes to China, the same British government evidently has
no such concerns or scruples. Because billions of dollars of Chinese investment
are being courted by Britain to shore up its crumbling infrastructure and pump
up its financial centre in the City of London.
So when David Cameron pontificates about the "best of British values", we
should know that chief among those "values" is hypocrisy. Followed by duplicity
and unscrupulousness.
Cameron and his government no doubt think they are being really "smart" by
playing such double-games. But in doing so, Britain exposes itself as being
bereft of any principles. On the world stage, it is just a broken-down imperial
has-been that now gets by with an oversized begging bowl and a posh accent.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and
do not necessarily reflect the official position of Sputnik.
"... A lot of commenters here do not understand the danger of yet another neocon warmonger as POTUS. A person who never has a war she did not like. They never experienced the horrors of wars in their lives. Only highly sanitized coverage from MSM. ..."
"... Demonizing of Trump went way too far in this forum. And a lot of commenters like most Web hamsters enjoy denigrating him, forgetting the fact that a vote for Hillary is the vote for a war criminal. ..."
"... Moreover, lesser evilism considerations are not working for war criminals. They are like absolute zero in Kelvin scale. You just can't go lower. ..."
"... But again those are secondary considerations. "War vs peace" question in the one that matters most. Another reckless warmongers and all bets might be off for the country (with an unexpected solution for global warming problem) ..."
Obama and Hill Clinton are Saudi tools same as W. Keeping AUMF going the
past 8 years lets W off a lot of the Iraq/WMD and Afghanistan hooks!
Bill's adventures included firing a general for commenting on the craziness
of losing people over Serbia.
Bill's evolutionary adventures in the Balkans are anti Russian neocon
trials. Their exceptionalism pushed Russia around and moved NATO eastward
reneging on deals Bush Sr. had with the Russians.
Hillary, extending Bill's neocon meme* over Ukraine and Libya are nearing
W level insanity.
Nuland (married to the neocon Kagan family) came with Strobe Talbot in
1993.
We really facing a vote for a person who would probably be convicted
by Nuremberg tribunal.
All those factors that are often discussed like Supreme court nominations,
estate tax, etc, are of secondary importance to the cardinal question --
"war vs peace" question.
A lot of commenters here do not understand the danger of yet another
neocon warmonger as POTUS. A person who never has a war she did not like.
They never experienced the horrors of wars in their lives. Only highly sanitized
coverage from MSM.
Demonizing of Trump went way too far in this forum. And a lot of commenters
like most Web hamsters enjoy denigrating him, forgetting the fact that a
vote for Hillary is the vote for a war criminal.
"Trump this and Trump that" blabbing can't hide this important consideration.
Moreover, lesser evilism considerations are not working for war criminals.
They are like absolute zero in Kelvin scale. You just can't go lower.
Moreover, after Bush II there is a consensus that are very few people
in the USA who are unqualified to the run the country. From this point of
view Trump is extremely qualified (and actually managed to master English
language unlike Bush II with his famous Bushisms ).
But again those are secondary considerations. "War vs peace" question
in the one that matters most. Another reckless warmongers and all bets might
be off for the country (with an unexpected solution for global warming problem)
Bill Clinton was a regular neoliberal bottom feeder (in essence not that different from drunkard
Yeltsin) without any strategical vision or political courage, He destroyed the golden possibility of
rapprochement of the USA and Russia (which would require something like Marshall plan to help Russia).
Instead he decided to plunder the country. It's sad that now Hillary will continue his policies, only
in more jingoistic, dangerous fashion. She learn nothing.
Notable quotes:
"... However, according to Simes in the years immediately following the dissolution of the USSR, Washington has made perhaps the greatest error of a winner: sold for complacency. ..."
"... Russia simply ceased to be a U.S. geopolitical variable in the equation, Moscow was irrevocably excluded from the strategic horizon. ..."
"... The result was that the former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott called at the time the policy of "eat and shut up": the Russian economy was collapsing, the Red Army reduced the ghost of the past and Yeltsin's entourage welcomed with open arms of the IMF aid. In short, Russia is a power failure and as such was treated by administering liberal economic recipes and submitting its projection to a geopolitical drastic weight loss. Everything apart from the feeling of the Russian leadership. ..."
"... This approach found its full realization, between 1999 and 2004, the expansion of NATO eastward: they were including Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Together with the U.S. intervention in Serbia during the Kosovo war (1999), this move Russia convinced that the cost of the American loans -- a dramatic and permanent reduction of the area of security and its own geopolitical ambitions - was too high . ..."
America won the Cold War. But in addition to the USSR, has it defeated Russia? This question,
which is still in the nineties sounded absurd to most people, began to appear in the last decade,
thanks to the work of historians such as Dimitri Simes, John Lewis Gaddis, or in Italy, Adriano Roccucci.
In the United States is widely believed that the collapse of the Soviet Union was caused in large
part by strategic decisions of the Reagan administration. Surely the military and economic pressure
exerted by these contributed to the disintegration of the Warsaw Pact and then the final crisis of
the Soviet system. However, according to Simes in the years immediately following the dissolution
of the USSR, Washington has made perhaps the greatest error of a winner: sold for complacency.
This has resulted, in retrospect, in an overestimation of U.S. policy choices in the mid-eighties
onwards, and in a parallel underestimation of the role played by the Soviet leadership. Gorbachev
came to power in 1985 determined to solve the problems left behind by Brezhnev: overexposure military
in Afghanistan and subsequent explosion of spending on defense, imposed on an economy tremendously
inefficient. But if Reagan pushed the USSR on the edge of the precipice, Gorbachev was disposable,
albeit unwittingly, triggering reforms that escaped the hands of his own theorist.
That fact has been largely removed from public debate and U.S. historiography which has led America
in the second mistake: underestimating the enemy defeated, confusing the defunct Soviet Union with
what was left of his heart - Russia.
In fact, Reagan and Bush Sr. after him fully understand the dangers inherent in the collapse of
the superpower enemy, dealing with Gorbachev touch, even without discounts: the Soviet leader was
refused the pressing demands for economic aid, incompatible with the military escalation Reagan once
to crush the Soviet Union under the weight of war spending.
Even the first Gulf War (1990-91), who saw the massive American intervention in a country (Iraq)
at the time near the borders of the USSR, did not provoke a diplomatic rupture between the two superpowers.
This Soviet weakness undoubtedly was the result of an empire in decline, but remember that even in
1990 no one - least of all, the leadership in Moscow - the Soviet Union finally gave up on us yet.
Despite an election campaign played on the charge to GH Bush to focus too much on foreign policy,
ignoring the economics (It's the economy, stupid), newly installed in the White House Bill Clinton
was not spared aid to Russia, agreeing to this line of credit to be logged on to the International
Monetary Fund (IMF), from June 1992. Clinton's support was directed mainly toward the figure of Yeltsin
and his policies, with the exception of waging war against Chechen separatism, in 1994.
If Clinton with these moves proved to understand, like its two predecessors, the importance of
"accompany" the Russian transition, avoiding - or at least contain - the chaos following the collapse
of a continental empire, the other part of his administration demonstrated sinful paternalism and,
above all, acquired the illusion of omnipotence that he saw in the "unipolar moment" end not only
the U.S. opposed the US-USSR, but also of any power ambitions of Russia. Russia simply ceased
to be a U.S. geopolitical variable in the equation, Moscow was irrevocably excluded from the strategic
horizon.
The result was that the former Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott called at the time
the policy of "eat and shut up": the Russian economy was collapsing, the Red Army reduced the ghost
of the past and Yeltsin's entourage welcomed with open arms of the IMF aid. In short, Russia is a
power failure and as such was treated by administering liberal economic recipes and submitting its
projection to a geopolitical drastic weight loss. Everything apart from the feeling of the Russian
leadership.
This went hand in hand with growing resentment for the permanent position of inferiority which
they were relegated by Washington. To the point that even the then Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev,
known by the nickname "Yes sir" for his acquiescence to the dictates of Americans, showed growing
impatience with the brutal Russian downgrading by America.
Indeed, the United States administration did not lack critics: former President Nixon, a number
of businessmen and experts of Russia expressed skepticism or opposition to the Clinton administration
attitude that did not seem to pay particular attention to wounded pride and the strategic interests
of a nation that continued to think of itself as empire. However, these positions does not affect
the dominant view in the administration of the establishment and much of the U.S., where consencus
was that Russia in no longer entitled to have an independent foreign policy.
This approach found its full realization, between 1999 and 2004, the expansion of NATO eastward:
they were including Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania, Estonia,
Latvia and Lithuania. Together with the U.S. intervention in Serbia during the Kosovo war (1999),
this move Russia convinced that the cost of the American loans -- a dramatic and permanent reduction
of the area of security and its own geopolitical ambitions - was too high .
Everything, absolutely everything demonstrates really terrifying level of incompetence: the transfer of emails to Apple laptop,
to Gmail account, then transfer back to window system, handing of USB drive. Amazing level of incompetence. This is really devastating
level of incompetence for the organization that took over a lot of CIA functions. Essentially Hillary kept the position which is close
to the role of the director of CIA What a tragedy for the country...
Notable quotes:
"... It is painfully clear that she traded access and favors for money and reciprocal favors. It is painfully clear that she made little distinction between working for the State Department, the Clinton foundation and her family and tried to keep the records of what was going on inaccessible. The more honest defense would be, all politicians do it, and you have to suck it up because Trump is worse. Which is true. But trying to downplay this and explain it away is offensive, not all of the public are complete idiots. ..."
"... Her brazen air of arrogance and entitlement is about to fade as she comes to realise, that albeit Comey having been got at, he has still succeeded in striking a severe blow against her, and in addition, at the not-so-tin-hat conspiracy of inappropriate, and increasingly overt, institutional support. ..."
"... All this in the face of documented lies, in your face hypocrisy, and unbridled corruption, oozing from every orifice of a maverick administration. ..."
"... Clinton is the one waging war in the middle east. She is the one being bullish and provocative with Russia. Trump has only been conciliatory with these issues, he has been against the war on Iraq ..."
"... HRC is still likely to be the next President, but this scandal does have legs. She put herself in a corner by claiming lack of recall due to a medical condition (i.e., the concussion). This leaves two possibilities, neither of which is helpful to her cause, to wit: either she was being dishonest or she was (and could still be) cognitively impaired. ..."
"... Reagan was certainly not someone I admired but at least he tried to reduce the chance of nuclear war. Clinton is an out and out Hawke with the blood of many innocent people on her hands in both Syria and Libya. She is hiding her communications because she does not want to be exposed for the role she played in The destruction of Libya and the gun running of weapons to terrorists in Syria. That is to Al Qaeda and ISIS. World War 3 is more likely under Clinton than any other world leader. Even Trump. ..."
"... Not forgetting that she was key in making sure the US didn't side with Assad. Had the US done at the beginning, instead of being at the behest of the Saudis and the petrodollar, then the whole thing would have been over in 6 months and IS would never have got more than a dusty district of northern Iraq. ..."
"... So the applicant to the US presidency does not know what (c) stands for in her emails, archives high security data on a laptop and then losses it for years, uploads same emails on Google's gmail account and then losses devices again. She does not recall many things, not even the training she received on handling the confidential and secure communication. She couldn't recall the procces of drone strikes. (Will she be killing people at a whim, without an accountable protocol?) She is either demented or dangerously reckless or lying. All of these conditions disbar her form her candidacy. ..."
"... If she could only manage a couple of hours a day because of concussion and a blood clot she should have temporarily stood down until she recovered fully, and had a senior official take over her duties until she was well. You can't have a brain-damaged person in charge of the US's affairs - even though there is a long history of nutters the State Dept. ( ie the Military Industrial Complex HQ). ..."
"... the clinton foundation does not pay taxes..and dont forget that slick willie has been on the paedophile plane more times than the pilot ..."
"... She failed to keep up with recordkeeping she agreed to, then when asked to turn over records, somebody destroyed them, but Clinton did not order destruction, or does not remember having done so. Turned over all records-oops I thought WE did! She either lied or has alzheimers ..."
"... Political baggage is a bitch. If this election cycle has demonstrated anything it is that the leadership of both parties is totally out of touch with the voters and really has no interest except supporting the Neoliberal tenet of fiscal nonintervention. This laissez-faire attitude toward corporate interests is paralysing the American government. ..."
"... I cannot believe Clinton has got this far in the election, I believe Obama wants her in to hide many of his embarrassing warmongering mistakes. ..."
"... Today of all days Hillary Clinton puts out a tweet with the following: 'America needs leadership in the White House, not a liability' -- As we have to assume she's not referring to herself it confirms people's suspicion that the person who writes Hillary's tweets is a hostile to her campaign. The tweets are often completely off the mark. ..."
"... Either Comey is on their payroll, or they have threatened his family. Either way it is business as usual. The NWO decided a long time ago that Hillary was their next puppet PONTUS. ..."
"... I was a low-level officer at US Embassies and Consulates in various foreign countries. Clinton's claim that she didn't know what (C) was, or that she "she did not pay attention to the difference between top secret, secret and confidential" and "could not recall any briefing or training by state related to the retention of federal records or handling of classified information." Are beyond ridiculous. Any fool knows enough to be aware of different levels of classified info, and the obvious fact that you don't get sloppy with classified info. ..."
"... to paraphrase Leona Helmsley's comment about paying taxes, "security is for little people." So in that respect Hillary is no different from the rest of them. ..."
"... You'd better hope she's lying, because if the incompetence is genuine she shouldn't be allowed near any confidential information ever again. I hate to admit it but Trump is right on this one. Jesus wept. ..."
"... The fact that the Sec State could have an email server built at her home and operate with such laughable gross negligence when it comes to national security is surreal and appalling. ..."
"... If the FBI were not themselves co-conspirators and hopelessly corrupt, they would indict some of the lower level actors and offer them immunity. They could start with the imbecile who put that laptop in the mail and couldn't remember if it was UPS or USPS. ..."
"... Caddell has voiced an interesting concern that others are beginning to share: that the news media has crawled so far in bed with Hillary Clinton they won't be able to get back out. That the news media in America has lost its soul. Even Jake Tapper started asking this question several weeks ago in the middle of his own show. ..."
"... The pyramid scheme of created debt has destroyed capitalism and democracy within 40 years of full operation. Captured Govt has bailed out incompetence and failure at every turn, and in so doing, inverted the yield curve and destroyed the future. It is for this reason alone I cannot respect these financial paedophiles or support anything they do. In this contest for the White House, Clinton is the manifestation of the establishment. ..."
"... "The documents provided a number of new details about Mrs. Clinton's private server, including what appeared to be a frantic effort by a computer specialist to delete an archive of her emails even after a congressional committee had requested they be preserved." -NY Times ..."
"... Hillary's treatment of top-secret US documents was willful and uncorrected. If she had done the same thing with medical records, the individuals whose medical records had been mishandled could have filed charges and Hillary would have been personally liable for up to $50,000 fine per incident. ..."
"... Clinton is an absolute liability. Apart from this scandal she's a status quo candidate for a status quo that no longer exists. She stands for neo-liberalism, US hegemony and capitalist globalization all of which are deader than the dodo. That makes her very dangerous in terms of world peace and of course she will do absolutely nothing for the millions of Americans facing joblessness, hunger, bankruptcy and homelessness except make things worse ..."
"... The entire corrupt establishment want Clinton at all cost, so that they can continue fleecing the future and enslaving the entire world in created debt. All right minded individuals should this as a flashing red light to turn round and vote the other way. ..."
A Clinton Foundation laptop and a thumb drive used to archive
Hillary
Clinton's emails from her time as secretary of state are missing, according to FBI notes released on Friday.
The phrase "Clinton could not recall" litters the summary of the FBI's investigation, which concluded in July
that
she should not face charges. Amid fierce Republican criticism of the Democratic presidential candidate, the party's nominee,
Donald Trump released a statement which said "Hillary Clinton's answers to the FBI about her private email server defy belief" and
added that he did not "understand how she was able to get away from prosecution".
he FBI documents describe how Monica Hanley, a former Clinton aide, received assistance in spring 2013 from Justin Cooper, a former
aide to Bill Clinton, in creating an archive of Hillary Clinton's emails. Cooper provided Hanley with an Apple MacBook laptop from
the Clinton Foundation – the family organisation currently
embroiled in controversy – and talked her through the process of transferring emails from Clinton's private server to the laptop
and a thumb drive.
"Hanley completed this task from her personal residence," the notes record. The devices were intended to be stored at Clinton's
homes in New York and Washington. However, Hanley "forgot" to provide the archive laptop and thumb drive to Clinton's staff.
In early 2014, Hanley located the laptop at her home and tried to transfer the email archive to an IT company, apparently without
success. It appears the emails were then transferred to an unnamed person's personal Gmail account and there were problems around
Apple software not being compatible with that of Microsoft.
The unnamed person "told the FBI that, after the transfer was complete, he deleted the emails from the archive laptop but did
not wipe the laptop. The laptop was then put in the mail, only to go missing. [Redacted] told the FBI that she never received the
laptop from [redacted]; however, she advised that Clinton's staff was moving offices at the time, and it would have been easy for
the package to get lost during the transition period.
"Neither Hanley nor [redacted] could identify the current whereabouts of the archive laptop or thumb drive containing the archive,
and the FBI does not have either item in its possession."
... ... ...
The FBI identified a total of 13 mobile devices associated with Clinton's two known phone numbers that potentially were used to
send emails using clintonemail.com addresses.
The 58 pages of notes released on Friday, several of which were redacted, also related that Hanley often purchased replacement
BlackBerry devices for Clinton during Clinton's time at the state department. Hanley recalled buying most of them at AT&T stores
in the Washington area. Cooper was usually responsible for setting them up and synching them to the server.
Clinton's closest aide, Huma Abedin, and Hanley "indicated the whereabouts of Clinton's devices would frequently become unknown
once she transitioned to a new device", the documents state. "Cooper did recall two instances where he destroyed Clinton's old mobile
devices by breaking them in half or hitting them with a hammer."
The notes also contain a string of admissions by Clinton about points she did not know or could not recall: "When asked about
the email chain containing '(C)' portion markings that state determined to currently contain CONFIDENTIAL information, Clinton stated
that she did not know what the '(C)' meant at the beginning of the paragraphs and speculated it was referencing paragraphs marked
in alphabetical order."
Clinton said she did not pay attention to the difference between top secret, secret and confidential but "took all classified
information seriously". She did not recall receiving any emails she thought should not have been on an unclassified system. She also
stated she received no particular guidance as to how she should use the president's email address.
In addition, the notes say: "Clinton could not recall when she first received her security clearance and if she carried it with
her to state via reciprocity from her time in the Senate. Clinton could not recall any briefing or training by state related to the
retention of federal records or handling of classified information."
Clinton was aware she was an original classification authority at the state department, but again "could not recall how often
she used this authority or any training or guidance provided by state. Clinton could not give an example of how classification of
a document was determined."
... ... ...
The House speaker, Paul Ryan, said: "These documents demonstrate Hillary Clinton's reckless and downright dangerous handling of
classified information during her tenure as secretary of state. They also cast further doubt on the justice department's decision
to avoid prosecuting what is a clear violation of the law. This is exactly why I have called for her to be denied access to classified
information."
Reince Priebus, chair of the Republican National Committee, said: "The FBI's summary of their interview with Hillary Clinton is
a devastating indictment of her judgment, honesty and basic competency. Clinton's answers either show she is completely incompetent
or blatantly lied to the FBI or the public.
"Either way it's clear that, through her own actions, she has disqualified herself from the presidency."
The Clinton campaign insisted that it was pleased the notes had been made public. Spokesman Brian Fallon said: "While her use
of a single email account was clearly a mistake and she has taken responsibility for it, these materials make clear why the justice
department believed there was no basis to move forward with this case."
Terrence James 3h ago
This is the equivalent of the dog ate my homework. This woman could not utter an honest sentence if her life depended on it.
She is a corrupt and evil person, I cannot stand Trump but I think I hate her more. Trump is just crazy and cannot help himself
but she is calculatingly evil. We are doomed either way, but he would be more darkly entertaining.
Smallworld5 3h ago
Has any of Clinton's state department employees purposely built their own server in their basement on which to conduct official
government business, in gross violation of department policy, protocols, and regulations, they would have been summarily fired
at a minimum and, yes, quite possibly prosecuted. That's a fact.
The issue at hand is why Clinton sycophants are so agreeable to the Clinton Double Standard.
The presumptive next president of the U.S. being held to a lower standard than the average U.S. civil servant. Sickening.
Laurence Johnson 8h ago
Hillary's use of gender has no place in politics. When it comes to the top job, the people need the best person for the job,
not someone who is given a GO because they represent a group that are encouraged to feel discriminated against.
foggy2 9h ago
For the FBI's (or Comey's) this is also a devastating indictment of their or his judgment, honesty and basic competency.
YANKSOPINION 10h ago
Perhaps she has early onset of Alzheimers and should not be considered for the job of POTUS. Or maybe she is just a liar.
AlexLeo 10h ago
It is painfully clear that she traded access and favors for money and reciprocal favors. It is painfully clear that she
made little distinction between working for the State Department, the Clinton foundation and her family and tried to keep the
records of what was going on inaccessible. The more honest defense would be, all politicians do it, and you have to suck it up
because Trump is worse. Which is true. But trying to downplay this and explain it away is offensive, not all of the public are
complete idiots.
KaleidoscopeWars
Actually, after you get over all of the baffooning around Trump has done, he actually would make an ideal president. He loves
his country, he delegates jobs well to people who show the best results, he's good at building stuff and he wants to do a good
job. I'm sure after he purges the terribly corrupted system that he'll be given, he'll have the very best advisors around him
to make good decisions for the American people. I'm sure Theresa May and her cabinet will be quick to welcome him and re-solidify
the relationship that has affected British politics so much in the past decade. Boris Johnson is perfect for our relations with
America under a Trump administration. Shame on you Barack and Hillary. Hopefully Trump will say ''I came, I saw, they died!''
Ullu001 12h ago
Ah, The Clintons. They have done it all: destruction of evidence, witness tampering, fraud, lying under oath, murder, witness
disappearance. Did I leave anything? Yet, they go unpunished. Too clever, I guess too clever for their own good!
samwoods77 12h ago
Hillary wants to be the most powerful person on earth yet claims she doesn't understand the classification system that even
the most most junior secretary can....deeply troubling.
Mistaron 13h ago
The 'masters' in the shadows are about to throw the harridan under the bus. Her brazen air of arrogance and entitlement
is about to fade as she comes to realise, that albeit Comey having been got at, he has still succeeded in striking a severe blow
against her, and in addition, at the not-so-tin-hat conspiracy of inappropriate, and increasingly overt, institutional support.
All this in the face of documented lies, in your face hypocrisy, and unbridled corruption, oozing from every orifice of
a maverick administration.
The seeds have been planted for a defense of diminished responsibility. Don't fall for it! Hillary, (and her illustrious spouse),
deserve not a smidgen of pity.
''We came, we saw, he died'', she enthusiastically and unempathically cackled.
Just about sums her up.
wtfbollos 14h ago
hiliary clinton beheaded libya and created a hell on earth. here is the proof:
Again, total misunderstanding about what is going on. Clinton is the one waging war in the middle east. She is the one
being bullish and provocative with Russia. Trump has only been conciliatory with these issues, he has been against the war on
Iraq. So far all evidences point to the fact that the Clintons want another big war and all evidence points to the fact that
Trump wants co operation. This has totally escape your analysis. It is a choice between the Plague and the Cholera, I agree, but
FGS try to be a little less biased.
ungruntled 15h ago
The best case for HC looks pretty grim.
She has no recollection of......??
Laptops and Thumb drives laying about unattended
Total lack of understanding about even the most basic of Data Securit arrangements
All of these things giver her the benefit of the doubt....That she wasnt a liar and a corrupted politician manipulating events
and people to suit her own ends.
So, with the benefit of the doubt given, ask yourself if this level of incompetance and unreliabilty makes a suitable candidate
for office?
In both cases, with and without BOTD, she shouldnt be allowed anywhere near the corridors of power, let alone the White House.
IAtheist 17h ago
Mrs Clinton is deeply divisive. Bought out since her husbands presidency by vested interests in Wall Street and the HMO's (private
healthcare insurance management businesses) and having shown lamentable judgement, Benghazi, private Email server used for classified
documents and material.
She has failed to motivate the Democrats white and blue collar working voters male and female. These are the voting demographic
who have turned to Trump is significant numbers as he does address their concerns, iniquitous tax rules meaning multi millionaires
pay less tax on capital gains and share dividends than employees do on their basic wages, immigration and high levels of drug
and gun crime in working class communities Black, White and Hispanic, funding illegal immigrants and failed American youth living
on a black economy in the absence of affordable healthcare or a basic welfare system.
Trump may very well win and is likely to be better for the US than Hilary Clinton.
digamey 18h ago
I sympathize with the American electorate - they have to choose between the Devil and the deep blue sea. Given their situation,
however, I would definitely choose the Devil I know over the Devil I don't! And that Devil is - - - ?
MoneyCircus -> digamey 10h ago
That willful ignorance is your choice! A public businessman can be examined more closely than most.
Besides, there is a long history of "placemen" presidents whose performance is determined by those they appoint to do the work.
Just look in the White House right now.
As for the Clinton record (they come, incontrovertibly, as a package) from Mena, Arkansas, to her husband's deregulation of
the banks which heralded the financial crash that devastated millions of lives... the same banks that are currently HRC's most
enthusiastic funders... is something that any genuine Democrat should not be able to stomach...
ID9761679 19h ago
My feeling is that she had more to worry about than the location of a thumb drive (I can't recall how many of those I've lost)
or even a laptop. When a Secretary of State moves around, I doubt that look after their own appliances. Has anyone asked her where
the fan is?
Karega ID9761679 18h ago
Problem is she handled top secret and classified information which would endanger her country's security and strategic interests.
She was then US Secretary of State. That is why how she handled her thumb drive, laptop nd desktops matter. And there lies the
difference between your numerous lost thumb drives and hers. I thought this was obvious?
EightEyedSpy 23h ago
HRC is still likely to be the next President, but this scandal does have legs. She put herself in a corner by claiming
lack of recall due to a medical condition (i.e., the concussion). This leaves two possibilities, neither of which is helpful to
her cause, to wit: either she was being dishonest or she was (and could still be) cognitively impaired.
1iJack -> EightEyedSpy 22h ago
either she was being dishonest or she was (and could still be) cognitively impaired.
Its entirely possible its both.
Dick York 24h ago
California survived Arnold Schwarzenegger, the U.S. survived Ronald Reagan, Minnesota survived Jesse "The Body" Ventura and
I believe that we will survive Donald Trump. He's only one more celebrity on the road.
providenciales -> Dick York 23h ago
You forgot Al Franken.
antipodes -> Dick York 21h ago
Reagan was certainly not someone I admired but at least he tried to reduce the chance of nuclear war. Clinton is an out
and out Hawke with the blood of many innocent people on her hands in both Syria and Libya. She is hiding her communications because
she does not want to be exposed for the role she played in The destruction of Libya and the gun running of weapons to terrorists
in Syria. That is to Al Qaeda and ISIS. World War 3 is more likely under Clinton than any other world leader. Even Trump.
The Democrats must disendorse her because the details of her criminality are now becoming available and unless she can stop it
Trump will win. Get rid of her Democrats and bring back Bernie Sanders.
Sam3456 1d ago
We cannot afford a lying, neo-liberal who is more than willing to make her role in government a for profit endeavor.
Four years of anyone else is preferable to someone who is more than willing for the right contribution to her foundation, sell
out the American worker and middle class.
MakeBeerNotWar 1d ago
I'm more interested $250k a pop speeches HRC gave to the unindicted Wall St bankster felon scum who nearly took down their
country and the global economy yet received a taxpayer bailout and their bonuses paid for being greedy incompetent crooks. How
soon we forget....
Its seems there is just one scandal after another with this women but she seems to be bullet proof mainly because the msm media
will not go after her for reasons best known to themselves this is causing them to lose credibility and readers who are deserting
them for alternative media .
bashh1 1d ago
Finally today in an article in The NY Times we learn where Clinton has been for a good part of the summer. In the Hamptons
and elsewhere at receptions for celebrities and her biggest donors like Calvin Klein and Harvey Weinstein, raking in the millions
for her campaign. Trump on the other hand has appeared in towns in Pennsylvania like Scranton, Erie and Altoona where job are
disappearing and times can be tough. Coronations cost money I guess.
chiefwiley -> bashh1 1d ago
She is doing what she does best --- raise money.
ksenak 1d ago
Not forgetting that she was key in making sure the US didn't side with Assad. Had the US done at the beginning, instead
of being at the behest of the Saudis and the petrodollar, then the whole thing would have been over in 6 months and IS would never
have got more than a dusty district of northern Iraq.
ksenak 1d ago
Hillary is humiliated woman. Humiliated to the core by her cheating hubby she would rather kill than let him go. She is paying
her evil revenge to the whole world. As a president of USA Hillary Clinton would destabilise the world and lead it to conflicts
that threaten to be very heavy.
As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was part of the "Arab Spring" (also part of the "Jasmine Revolution), which overthrew
leaders such as Gaddafi to Mubarak. Before Gaddafi was overthrown he told the US that without him IS will take over Libya. They
did.
-Benghazi Scandal which ended up killing a US Ambassador Christopher Stevens and other Americans.
The Arab Spring destabilized the Middle East, contributed to the Syrian civil war, the rise of ISIS and the exodus of Middle Eastern
Muslims.
Sam3456 OXIOXI20 1d ago
Meh. Obama characterized ISIS as the "JV Team" and refused to acknowledge the threat. I assume he was acting on information
provided by his Secretary of State, Clinton.
Michael109 1d ago
It's quite possible that Clinton, because she had a fall in 2012 and bonked her head, believes she is telling the truth when
she is lying, except that it is not lying when you believe you are telling the truth even though you are lying.
She said she did not recall 30 times in her interviews with the FBI. She could be suffering from some sort of early degeneration
disease. Either way, between her health and the lying and corruption she should be withdrawn as the Dem frontrunner.
1iJack -> LakumbaDaGreat 1d ago
She's going to blow it.
I think she already did. Its like all the shit in her life is coming back on her at once.
Early on, when it was announced she would run again, I remember one Democrat pundit in particular that didn't think she could
survive the existence of the Internet in the general election (I can't remember who it was, though). But it has turned out to
be a pretty astute prediction.
When asked what he meant by that remark, he went on to say "the staying power of the Internet will overwhelm Clinton with her
dirty laundry once she gets to the general election. The Clintons were made for the 24 hour news cycles of the past and not the
permanent unmanaged exposure of the digital world. Everything is new again on the internet. Its Groundhog Day forever on the Internet."
That's my best paraphrase of his thoughts. He felt Clinton was the last of the "old school" politicians bringing too much baggage
to an election. That with digital "bread crumbs" of some kind or another (email, microphones and cameras in phones, etc) the new
generation of politicians will be a cleaner lot, not through virtue, but out of necessity.
I've often thought back to his remarks while watching Hillary head into the general.
ImperialAhmed 1d ago
So the applicant to the US presidency does not know what (c) stands for in her emails, archives high security data on a
laptop and then losses it for years, uploads same emails on Google's gmail account and then losses devices again.
She does not recall many things, not even the training she received on handling the confidential and secure communication.
She couldn't recall the procces of drone strikes. (Will she be killing people at a whim, without an accountable protocol?)
She is either demented or dangerously reckless or lying. All of these conditions disbar her form her candidacy.
AudieTer 1d ago
If she could only manage a couple of hours a day because of concussion and a blood clot she should have temporarily stood
down until she recovered fully, and had a senior official take over her duties until she was well. You can't have a brain-damaged
person in charge of the US's affairs - even though there is a long history of nutters the State Dept. ( ie the Military Industrial
Complex HQ). And in the White House for that matter ...Nurse -- nurse -- Dubya needs his meds!
thedingo8 -> Lenthelurker 1d ago
the clinton foundation does not pay taxes..and dont forget that slick willie has been on the paedophile plane more times
than the pilot
Littlefella 1d ago
She destroyed devices and emails after they were told that all evidence had to be preserved. There are then two issues and
the FBI and DOJ have not taken any action on either.
It's no longer just about the emails, it's the corruption.
DaveG123 1d ago
Clinton's closest aide, Huma Abedin, and Hanley "indicated the whereabouts of Clinton's devices would frequently become unknown
once she transitioned to a new device"
-------------
Probably in the hands of a foreign government. Pretty careless behaviour. Incompetent. Part of a pattern of incompetance that
includes bad foreign policy decisions (Libya) and disrespect for rules surrounding conflict of interest (Clinton Foundation).
YANKSOPINION -> HansB09 1d ago
She failed to keep up with recordkeeping she agreed to, then when asked to turn over records, somebody destroyed them,
but Clinton did not order destruction, or does not remember having done so. Turned over all records-oops I thought WE did! She
either lied or has alzheimers
Andy White 1d ago
In addition, the notes say:
"Clinton could not recall when she first received her security clearance and if she carried it with her to state via reciprocity
from her time in the Senate. Clinton could not recall any briefing or training by state related to the retention of federal
records or handling of classified information."
Clinton was aware she was an original classification authority at the state department, but again "could not recall how often
she used this authority or any training or guidance provided by state. Clinton could not give an example of how classification
of a document was determined." ...................secretary of state and could not recall basic security protocols???
....and people complain about trump....this basic security was mentioned in the bloody west wing series for god's sake.....in
comparison even trump is a f'ing genius.......love him or hate him trump has to win over clinton,there is something very,very
wrong with her....she should NEVER be in charge of a till at asda......and she is a clinton so we all know a very practised liar
but this beggers belief,i can see why trump is angry if that was him he would have been publicly burnt at the stake.....this clinton
crap just stink's of the political elite....a total joke cover up and a terrible obvious one to....clinton is just a liar and
mentally i think she is very unstable....makes the DON look like hawking lol.....
namora 1d ago
Political baggage is a bitch. If this election cycle has demonstrated anything it is that the leadership of both parties
is totally out of touch with the voters and really has no interest except supporting the Neoliberal tenet of fiscal nonintervention.
This laissez-faire attitude toward corporate interests is paralysing the American government.
duncandunnit 1d ago
I cannot believe Clinton has got this far in the election, I believe Obama wants her in to hide many of his embarrassing
warmongering mistakes.
fedback 1d ago
Today of all days Hillary Clinton puts out a tweet with the following: 'America needs leadership in the White House, not
a liability' -- As we have to assume she's not referring to herself it confirms people's suspicion that the person who writes
Hillary's tweets is a hostile to her campaign. The tweets are often completely off the mark.
Hercolubus 1d ago
Either Comey is on their payroll, or they have threatened his family. Either way it is business as usual. The NWO decided
a long time ago that Hillary was their next puppet PONTUS.
BG Davis 2d ago
Clinton has always been a devious weasel, but this reveals a new low. I was a low-level officer at US Embassies and Consulates
in various foreign countries. Clinton's claim that she didn't know what (C) was, or that she "she did not pay attention to the
difference between top secret, secret and confidential" and "could not recall any briefing or training by state related to the
retention of federal records or handling of classified information." Are beyond ridiculous. Any fool knows enough to be aware
of different levels of classified info, and the obvious fact that you don't get sloppy with classified info.
That said, over the past few years the entire handling of classified info has become beyond sloppy - laptops left in taxis,
General Petraeus was sharing classified info with his mistress, etc. I guess nowadays, to paraphrase Leona Helmsley's comment
about paying taxes, "security is for little people." So in that respect Hillary is no different from the rest of them.
Scaff1 2d ago
You'd better hope she's lying, because if the incompetence is genuine she shouldn't be allowed near any confidential information
ever again. I hate to admit it but Trump is right on this one. Jesus wept. I said it before: Clinton is the only candidate
who could possibly make a tyrant like Trump electable.
charlieblue -> gizadog 2d ago
Where are you getting "looses 13 devices"? (Try loses, nobody is accusing Sec.Clinton of making things loose) I actually read
the article, so my information might not be as exciting as yours, but this article states that from the 13 devices that had access
to the Clinton server, two (a laptop and a thumb drive) used by one of her aids, are missing. This article doesn't specify whether
any "classified" information was on either of them. The FBI doesn't know, because, well... they are missing.
What the fuck is it with you people and your loose relationship with actual facts? Do you realize that just making shit up
undermines whatever point you imagine you are trying to make?
gizadog 2d ago
Also: Clinton told FBI she thought classified markings were alphabetical paragraphs
"When asked what the parenthetical 'C' meant before a paragraph ... Clinton stated she did not know and could only speculate
it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order," the FBI wrote in notes from its interview with her."
Wow...and there are people that want her to be president.
Casey13 2d ago
In my job as a government contractor we are extremely vigilant about not connecting removable devices to work computers, no
work email access outside of work, software algorithms that scan our work mails for any sensitive information, and regular required
training on information security. The fact that the Sec State could have an email server built at her home and operate with
such laughable gross negligence when it comes to national security is surreal and appalling. I could never vote for her and
neither could I vote for Trump.
MonotonousLanguor 2d ago
>>> A Clinton Foundation laptop and a thumb drive used to archive Hillary Clinton's emails from her time as secretary of state
are missing, according to FBI notes released on Friday.<<<
Oh golly gee, what a surprise. Should we offer a reward??? Maybe Amelia Earhart has the laptop and thumb drive. Were these
missing items taken by the Great Right Wing Conspiracy???
Dani Jenkins 2d ago
Wtf, from the sublime to the ridiculous, springs to mind..
Time to get a grip of the gravity involved, here at the Guardian.. This is a total whitewash of the absurd kind.. That leaves
people laughing in pure unadultered astonishment..
SHE lost not just a MacBook & thumb drive with such BS..
So Trump it is then , like many of us have stated ALL ALONG. Sanders was the only serious contender.. A complete mockery of
democracy & the so called Democrats have made the way for Trump to cruise all the way to the Whitewash House..
Well done Debbie , did the Don pay you?
chiefwiley -> Lenthelurker 2d ago
Because the revelations are essentially contradicting all of Hillary's defenses regarding her handling of highly classified
information. None of the requirements of the State Department mattered to her or her personal staff. It won't go away --- it will
get worse as information trickles out.
Casey13 2d ago
Being President of the USA used to be about communicating a vision and inspiring Americans to get behind that dream . Think
Lincoln abolishing slavery or JFK setting a goal to put man on the moon. Hillary is boring,has no charisma,and no vision for her
Presidency beyond using corruption and intimidation to secure greater power for her and her cronies . Nobody wants to listen to
her speeches because she is boring, uninspiring, and has no wit beyond tired cliches. Trump has a vision but that vision is a
nightmare for many Americans.
imperfetto 2d ago
Clinton is a dangerous warmonger. She is a danger to us Europeans, as she might drag us into a conflict with Russia. We must
get rid of her, politically, and re-educate the Americas to respect other nations, and give up exporting their corrupting values.
"After reading these documents, I really don't understand how she was able to get away from prosecution."
If the FBI were not themselves co-conspirators and hopelessly corrupt, they would indict some of the lower level actors
and offer them immunity. They could start with the imbecile who put that laptop in the mail and couldn't remember if it was UPS
or USPS. Or did he actually send it to the Ecuadorian embassy in the UK by accident?
1iJack 2d ago
"The job of the media historically, in terms of the First Amendment – what I call the unspoken compact in the First Amendment
– is that the free press, without restraint, without checks and balances, is there in order to protect the people from power.
Its job is to be a check on government, and those who rule the country, and not to be their lapdogs, and their support system.
That's what we're seeing in this election.
There is an argument to make that the major news media in this country, the mainstream media, is essentially serving against
the people's interest. They have made themselves an open ally of protecting a political order that the American people are
rejecting, by three quarters or more of the American people. That makes them a legitimate issue, in a sense they never have
been before, if Trump takes advantage of it."
Pat Caddell, 2 Sept 2016
Caddell has voiced an interesting concern that others are beginning to share: that the news media has crawled so far in
bed with Hillary Clinton they won't be able to get back out. That the news media in America has lost its soul. Even Jake Tapper
started asking this question several weeks ago in the middle of his own show.
Will the American press ever have credibility with Americans again? Even Democrats see it and will remember this the next time
the press turns against them. There was a new and overt power grab in this election that is still being processed by the American
people: the American press "saving" America from Donald Trump. They may never recover from this.
It even scares my Democrat friends.
ConBrio 2d ago
"An unknown individual using the encrypted privacy tool Tor to hide their tracks accessed an email account on a Clinton family
server, the FBI revealed Friday.
"The incident appears to be the first confirmed intrusion into a piece of hardware associated with Hillary Clinton's private
email system, which originated with a server established for her husband, former President Bill Clinton.
The FBI disclosed the event in its newly released report on the former secretary of state's handling of classified information.
Clinton is a very dodgy character and cannot be trusted.
Boris Johnson, UK Foreign Secretary on Clinton: "She's got dyed blonde hair and pouty lips, and a steely blue stare, like a
sadistic nurse in a mental hospital"
CleanPool330 2d ago
The collective mind of the establishment is mentally ill and spinning out of control. In all rites they should be removed but
their arrogance, corruption and self-entitlement mean they are incapable of admitting guilt. They have corrupted the weak minds
of the majority and will take everybody down with them.
The pyramid scheme of created debt has destroyed capitalism and democracy within 40 years of full operation. Captured Govt
has bailed out incompetence and failure at every turn, and in so doing, inverted the yield curve and destroyed the future. It
is for this reason alone I cannot respect these financial paedophiles or support anything they do. In this contest for the White
House, Clinton is the manifestation of the establishment.
unusedusername 2d ago
If I understand this correctly a laptop and a flashdrive full of classified emails was put in a jiffy bag and stuck in the
post and now they're missing and this is, apparently, just one of those things? Amazing!
Blair Hess 2d ago
I'm in the military. Not a high rank mind you. It defies all common logic that HRC has never had a briefing, training, or just
side conversation about classified information handling when i have about 50 trainings a year on it and i barely handle it. Sheeple
wake up and stop drinking the kool aid
Ullu001 2d ago
The Clintons have always operated on the edge of the law: extremely clever and dangerous lawyers they are.
USADanny -> Ullu001
Hillary may be criminally clever but legally: not so much. You do know that she failed the Washington DC bar exam and all of
her legal "success" after that was a result of being very spouse of a powerful politician.
calderonparalapaz 2d ago
"The documents provided a number of new details about Mrs. Clinton's private server, including what appeared to be a frantic
effort by a computer specialist to delete an archive of her emails even after a congressional committee had requested they be
preserved." -NY Times
Virtually every American healthcare worker has to take annual HIPAA training, pass a multiple-choice test and signed a document
attesting that they have taken the training and are fully aware of the serious consequences of inadvertent and willful violations
of HIPAA. Oh the irony – HIPAA is a Clinton era law.
Hillary's treatment of top-secret US documents was willful and uncorrected. If she had done the same thing with medical
records, the individuals whose medical records had been mishandled could have filed charges and Hillary would have been personally
liable for up to $50,000 fine per incident.
Other than Hillary negligently handling top-secret documents, having a head injury that by her own admission has impaired her
memory and using her relationship with the Clinton foundation when she was Secretary of State to extort hundreds of millions of
dollars, she is an excellent candidate for the president.
oeparty 2d ago
Clinton is an absolute liability. Apart from this scandal she's a status quo candidate for a status quo that no longer
exists. She stands for neo-liberalism, US hegemony and capitalist globalization all of which are deader than the dodo. That makes
her very dangerous in terms of world peace and of course she will do absolutely nothing for the millions of Americans facing joblessness,
hunger, bankruptcy and homelessness except make things worse.
And yet, and yet, we must vote Clinton simply to Stop Trump. He is a proto-fascist determined to smash resistance to the 1%
in America and abroad via military means. He is a realist who realises capitalism is over and only the purest and most overwhelming
violence can save the super rich and the elites now. Certainly their economy gives them nothing any more. The American Dream is
toast. The Green Stein will simply draw a few votes from Clinton and give Trump the victory and it is not like she is a genuinely
progressive candidate herself being something of a Putin fan just like Trump. No, vote Clinton to Stop Trump but only so that
we can use the next four years to build the revolutionary socialist alternative. To build the future.
dongerdo 2d ago
The Americans are screwed anyways because both easily are the most despicable and awful front runners I can think of in any
election of a western democracy in decades (and that is quite an achievement in itself to be honest), the only thing left to hope
for is a winner not outright horrible for the rest of the world on which front Clinton loses big time: electing her equals pouring
gasoline over half the world, she is up for finishing the disastrous job in the Middle East and North Africa started by her as
Secretary of State. Her stance on relations with Russia and China are utterly horrific, listening to her makes even the die-hard
GOP neo-cons faction sound like peace corps ambassadors.
If the choice is between that and some isolationist dimwit busy with making America great again I truly hope for the latter.
Who would have thought that one day world peace would depend on the vote of the American redneck.....
Michael109 2d ago
Clinton's "dog ate my server", I can't (30 times) remember, didn't know what C meant on top of emails - why it means Coventry
City, M'amm - excuses are the Dems trying to stagger over the line, everyone holding their noses. But even if she is elected,
which is doubtful, this is not going away and she could be arrested as USA President.
The FBI will rue the day they did not recommend charges against her when they had the chance. She's make Tony Soprano look
like the Dalia Lama.
CleanPool330 2d ago
The entire corrupt establishment want Clinton at all cost, so that they can continue fleecing the future and enslaving
the entire world in created debt. All right minded individuals should this as a flashing red light to turn round and vote the
other way.
"You're living in poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jobs, 58% of your youth is unemployed.
What the hell do you have to lose" by voting for Trump? the candidate asked. "At the end of four
years, I guarantee I will get over 95% of the African American vote."
The statement – highly unlikely given how poorly Republicans fare among black voters – continues
a theme the GOP presidential nominee has pounded this week as he courted African American voters.
He said Democrats take black voters for granted and have ignored their needs while governing cities
with large African American populations.
"America must reject the bigotry of Hillary Clinton, who sees communities of color only as votes,
not as human beings worthy of a better future," he said of his Democratic opponent.
... ... ...
Trump argued that Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's policies on issues such as
immigration and refugee resettlement harm African Americans.
=== quote ===
It has recently become commonplace to argue that globalization can leave people behind, and that
this can have severe political consequences. Since 23 June, this has even become conventional
wisdom. While I welcome this belated acceptance of the blindingly obvious, I can't but help feeling
a little frustrated, since this has been self-evident for many years now. What we are seeing,
in part, is what happens to conventional wisdom when, all of a sudden, it finds that it can no
longer dismiss as irrelevant something that had been staring it in the face for a long time.
=== end of quote ==
This is not about "conventional wisdom". This is about the power of neoliberal propaganda,
the power of brainwashing and indoctrination of population via MSM, schools and universities.
And "all of a sudden, it finds that it can no longer dismiss as irrelevant something that had
been staring it in the face for a long time." also has nothing to do with conventional wisdom.
This is about the crisis of neoliberal ideology and especially Trotskyism part of it (neoliberalism
can be viewed as Trotskyism for the rich). The following integral elements of this ideology no
longer work well and are starting to cause the backlash:
1. High level of inequality as the explicit, desirable goal (which raises the productivity).
"Greed is good" or "Trickle down economics" -- redistribution of wealth up will create (via higher
productivity) enough scrapes for the lower classes, lifting all boats.
2. "Neoliberal rationality" when everything is a commodity that should be traded at specific
market. Human beings also are viewed as market actors with every field of activity seen as a specialized
market. Every entity (public or private, person, business, state) should be governed as a firm.
"Neoliberalism construes even non-wealth generating spheres-such as learning, dating, or exercising-in
market terms, submits them to market metrics, and governs them with market techniques and practices."
People are just " human capital" who must constantly tend to their own present and future market
value.
3. Extreme financialization or converting the economy into "casino capitalism" (under neoliberalism
everything is a marketable good, that is traded on explicit or implicit exchanges.
4. The idea of the global, USA dominated neoliberal empire and related "Permanent war for permanent
peace" -- wars for enlarging global neoliberal empire via crushing non-compliant regimes either
via color revolutions or via open military intervention.
5. Downgrading ordinary people to the role of commodity and creating three classes of citizens
(moochers, or Untermensch, "creative class" and top 0.1%), with the upper class (0.1% or "Masters
of the Universe") being above the law like the top level of "nomenklatura" was in the USSR.
6. "Downsizing" sovereignty of nations via international treaties like TPP, and making transnational
corporations the key political players, "the deciders" as W aptly said. Who decide about level
of immigration flows, minimal wages, tariffs, and other matters that previously were prerogative
of the state.
So after 36 (or more) years of dominance (which started with triumphal march of neoliberalism
in early 90th) the ideology entered "zombie state". That does not make it less dangerous but its
power over minds of the population started to evaporate. Far right ideologies now are filling
the vacuum, as with the discreditation of socialist ideology and decimation of "enlightened corporatism"
of the New Deal in the USA there is no other viable alternatives.
The same happened in late 1960th with the Communist ideology. It took 20 years for the USSR
to crash after that with the resulting splash of nationalism (which was the force that blow up
the USSR) and far right ideologies.
It remains to be seen whether the neoliberal US elite will fare better then Soviet nomenklatura
as challenges facing the USA are now far greater then challenges which the USSR faced at the time.
Among them is oil depletion which might be the final nail into the coffin of neoliberalism and,
specifically, the neoliberal globalization.
"... As the de facto test subjects for the inexorable media-fueled march of this ubiquitous global model, disparate groups worldwide have become the unwitting faces of revolt against inevitability. Anonymized behind the august facades of global financial institutions, neoliberal capitalism under TINA has produced political rage, confusion, panic and a worldwide search for scapegoats and alternatives across the political spectrum. ..."
"... McWorld cuts its destructive path under a self-promoting presumption of historic inevitability, because after more than four decades of the TINA narrative, the underlying rationale of market predestination is no longer economic. It is theological. ..."
"... Descriptions such as "free-market fundamentalism" and "market orthodoxy" are not mere figures of speech. They point to a deeper, technologically powered religious metamorphosis of capitalism that needs to be understood before a meaningful political response can be mounted. One does not have to be Christian, nor Catholic, to appreciate Pope Francis' warnings against the danger to Christian values from "a deified market" with its "globalization of indifference." The pope is explicitly acknowledging a new theology of capital whose core ethos runs counter to the values of both classical and religious humanism. ..."
"... Under the radically altered metaphysics of theologized capitalism, market outcomes are sacred and inevitable. Conversely, humanity and the natural world have been desacralized and defined as malleable forms of expendable and theoretically inexhaustible capital. Even life-sustaining ecosystems and individual human subjectivity are subsumed under a market rubric touted as historically preordained. ..."
"... Economic historian Karl Polanyi warned in 1944 that a false utopian belief in the ability of unfettered markets to produce naturally balanced outcomes would produce instead a dystopian "stark utopia." Today's political chaos represents a spontaneous and uncoordinated eruption of resistance against this encroaching sense of inevitable dystopianism. As Barber noted, what he refers to as "Jihad" is not a strictly Islamic phenomenon. It is localism, tribalism, particularism or sometimes classical republicanism taking a stand, often violently, acting as de facto social and political antibodies against the viral contagions of McWorld. ..."
"... The historically ordained march of theologized neoliberal capitalism depends for its continuation on a belief by individuals that they are powerless against putatively inevitable forces of market-driven globalization. ..."
"... One lesson nonetheless seems clear. The "power of the powerless" has been awakened globally. Whether this awakening will spark a movement towards equitable, ecologically sustainable democratic self-governance is an open question. ..."
In the wake of the June 23 Brexit vote, global media have bristled with headlines
declaring the Leave victory to be the latest sign of a historic
rejection of "globalization" by working-class voters on both sides of the
Atlantic. While there is an element of truth in this analysis, it misses the
deeper historical currents coursing beneath the dramatic headlines. If our politics
seem disordered at the moment, the blame lies not with globalization alone but
with the "There Is No Alternative" (TINA) philosophy of neoliberal market inevitability
that has driven it for nearly four decades.
British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher introduced the TINA acronym to the
world in a 1980 policy speech that proclaimed
"There Is No Alternative" to a global neoliberal capitalist order. Thatcher's
vision for this new order was predicated on the market-as-god economic philosophy
she had distilled from the work of
Austrian School economists such as Friedrich Hayek and her own fundamentalist
Christian worldview. Western political life today has devolved into a series
of increasingly desperate and inchoate reactions against a sense of fatal historical
entrapment originally encoded in Thatcher's TINA credo of capitalist inevitability.
If this historical undercurrent is ignored, populist revolt will not produce
much-needed democratic reform. It will instead be exploited by fascistic nationalist
demagogues and turned into a dangerous search for political scapegoats.
The Rebellion Against Inevitability
Thatcher's formulation of neoliberal inevitability manifested itself in a
de facto policy cocktail of public sector budget cuts, privatization, financial
deregulation, tax cuts for the rich, globalization of capital flows and militarization
that were the hallmarks of her administration and a
template for the future of the world's developed economies. After the 1991
collapse of the Soviet Union, whose coercive state socialism represented capitalism's
last great power alternative, the underlying philosophy of economic inevitability
that informed TINA seemed like a prescient divination of cosmic design, with
giddy neoconservatives declaring the "end of history" and the triumph of
putatively democratic capitalism over all other historical alternatives.
Nearly four decades later, with neoliberalism having swept the globe in triumph
through a mix of technological innovation, exploitative financial engineering
and brute force, eclipsing its tenuous democratic underpinnings in the process,
disgraced British Prime Minister David Cameron maintained his devotion to TINA
right up to the moment of Brexit. In a 2013 speech delivered as his government
was preparing a
budget that proposed 40 percent cuts in social welfare spending , sweeping
privatization, wider war in Central Asia and continued austerity, he lamented
that "If there was another way, I would take it.
But there
is no alternative." Although they may want a change of makeup or clothes,
every G7 head of state heeds TINA's siren song of market inevitability.
As the de facto test subjects for the inexorable media-fueled march of
this ubiquitous global model, disparate groups worldwide have become the unwitting
faces of revolt against inevitability. Anonymized behind the august facades
of global financial institutions, neoliberal capitalism under TINA has produced
political rage, confusion, panic and a worldwide search for scapegoats and alternatives
across the political spectrum.
The members of ISIS have rejected the highest ideals of Islam in their search
for an alternative. Environmental activists attempt to counter the end-of-history
narrative at the heart of TINA with the scientific inevitability of global climate-induced
ecological catastrophe. Donald Trump offers a racial or foreign scapegoat for
every social and economic malady created by TINA, much like the far-right nationalist
parties emerging across Europe, while Bernie Sanders focuses on billionaires
and Wall Street. Leftist movements such as Podemos in Spain or Syriza in Greece
also embody attempted declarations of revolt against the narrative of inevitability,
as do the angry votes for Brexit in England and Wales.
Without judging or implying equality in the value of these varied expressions
of resistance, except to denounce the murderous ethos of ISIS and any other
call to violence or racism, it is clear that each offers seeming alternatives
to TINA's suffocating inevitability, and each attracts its own angry audience.
"Jihad" vs. "McWorld" and the New Theology of Capital
Benjamin Barber's 1992 essay and subsequent book, Jihad vs. McWorld
, is a better guide to the current politics of rage than the daily news
media. Barber describes a historic post-Soviet clash between the identity politics
of tribalism ("Jihad") and the forced financial and cultural integration of
corporate globalism ("McWorld").
McWorld is the financially integrated and omnipresent transnational order
of wired capitalism that has anointed itself the historic guardian of Western
civilization. It is viciously undemocratic in its pursuit of unrestricted profits
and violently punitive in response to any hint of economic apostasy. (See
Greece .) This new economic order offers the illusion of modernity with
its globally wired infrastructure and endless stream of consumerist spectacles,
but beneath the high-tech sheen, it is
spiritually empty , predicated on
permanent war ,
global poverty and is
destroying the biosphere .
McWorld cuts its destructive path under a self-promoting presumption
of historic inevitability, because after more than four decades of the TINA
narrative, the underlying rationale of market predestination is no longer economic.
It is theological. A historic transformation of market-based economic ideology
into theology underpins modern capitalism's instrumentalized view of human nature
and nature itself.
Descriptions such as
"free-market fundamentalism" and "market orthodoxy" are not mere figures
of speech. They point to a deeper, technologically powered religious metamorphosis
of capitalism that needs to be understood before a meaningful political response
can be mounted. One does not have to be Christian, nor Catholic, to appreciate
Pope Francis' warnings against the danger to Christian values from "a deified
market" with its "globalization of indifference." The pope is explicitly acknowledging
a new theology of capital whose core ethos runs counter to the values of both
classical and religious humanism.
Under the radically altered metaphysics of theologized capitalism, market
outcomes are sacred and inevitable. Conversely, humanity and the natural world
have been desacralized and defined as malleable forms of expendable and theoretically
inexhaustible capital. Even life-sustaining ecosystems and individual human
subjectivity are subsumed under a market rubric touted as historically preordained.
This is a crucial difference between capitalism today and capitalism even
50 years ago that is not only theological but apocalyptic in its refusal to
acknowledge limits. It has produced a global, social and economic order that
is increasingly feudal, while also connected via digital technologies.
Economic historian
Karl Polanyi warned in 1944 that a false utopian belief in the ability of
unfettered markets to produce naturally balanced outcomes would produce instead
a dystopian "stark utopia." Today's political chaos represents a spontaneous
and uncoordinated eruption of resistance against this encroaching sense of inevitable
dystopianism. As Barber noted, what he refers to as "Jihad" is not a strictly
Islamic phenomenon. It is localism, tribalism, particularism or sometimes classical
republicanism taking a stand, often violently, acting as de facto social and
political antibodies against the viral contagions of McWorld.
Pessimistic Optimism
The historically ordained march of theologized neoliberal capitalism
depends for its continuation on a belief by individuals that they are powerless
against putatively inevitable forces of market-driven globalization. It
is too early to know where the widely divergent outbreaks of resistance on display
in 2016 will lead, not least because they are uncoordinated, often self-contradictory
or profoundly undemocratic, and are arising in a maelstrom of confusion about
core causation.
One lesson nonetheless seems clear. The
"power of the powerless" has been awakened globally. Whether this awakening
will spark a movement towards equitable, ecologically sustainable democratic
self-governance is an open question. Many of today's leading political
theorists caution against an
outdated Enlightenment belief in progress and extol the
virtues of philosophic pessimism as a hedge against historically groundless
optimism. Amid today's fevered populist excitements triggered by a failure of
utopian faith in market inevitability, such cautionary thinking seems like sound
political advice. Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without
permission .
Michael Meurer is the founder of Meurer Education, a project offering classes
on the US political system in Latin American universities while partnering with
local education micro-projects to assist them with publicity and funding. Michael
is also president of Meurer Group & Associates, a strategic consultancy with
offices in Los Angeles and Denver.
"... So we have two problems now. One like the author points out, there is no coherent alternative from the left ..."
"... since is so diffuse a target it becomes a boogey man rather than actual target to be loathed. ..."
"... one area where neo-liberalism is dominant is that of 'welfare reform', a key component of the ideology, In this sphere the lack of interest and action by the left, civil society, etc, has been shameful, I can recall here in the UK that at one weekend during the New Labour reign at a Labour Party Conference 60,000 people protested anti-war issues while only about 80 were there for the Monday event against N/L's nascent Welfare Reform Bill which created the policy architecthure for all the coming changes.. ..."
"... New Labour was a con trick. JC's version will, imho, reverse a lot of the damage done - that's if the Blairites will stop throwing their toys out the pram. ..."
"... neoliberalism is so wide spread that those that are actual neo-liberals don't even know they are. neoliberalism is core of The Conservatives and New Labour ..."
"... In the 20th century more people were killed by their own governments than in war. But to the left the real threat to people comes not from a concentration of power wielded by governments but of concentrations of wealth in private hands. ..."
"... This is pretty much the only reason why I still read the Guardian. Monbiot and the quick crossword. ..."
"... Monbiot is the best journalist the Guardian has, he can actually make a logical fact based argument unlike the majority of Guardian journalist. ..."
"... 'The Invisible Hand' is not an ideology or dogma. It's just a metaphor to describe those with problems grasping abstract concepts: when there are a large number of buyers and suppliers for a good, the 'market finds a price' which is effectively the sum of all the intelligence of the participants, their suppliers, customers etc.. ..."
"... You clearly haven't read Wealth of Nations. The only mention of an invisible hand is actually a warning against what we now call neoliberalism. Smith said that the wealthy wouldn't seek to enrich themselves to the detriment of their home communities, because of an innate home bias. Thus, as if by an invisible hand, England would be spared the ravages of economic rationality. ..."
"... Your understanding of the 'invisible hand' is a falsehood perpetuated by neoliberal think tanks like the Adam Smith institute (no endorsement or connection to the author, despite using his name). ..."
"... I read, cannot remember where, that with neo liberalism the implementation is all that matters, you do not need to see the results. I suppose because the followers believe when implemented it will work perfectly. I think it's supporters think it is magic and must work because they believe it does. ..."
"... Yes, a high priest of neo-liberalism, Lord Freud, was given only 13 weeks to investigate and reform key elements of the the UK's welfare system, it hasn't worked and Freud is now invisible. ..."
"... Failed neoliberalism and not restricting markets that do not benefit the majority are the cause and we stand on the brink of falling further should the Brexiter's have their way. If there's one thing the EU excels at it's legislating against the excesses of business and extremism. ..."
Part of the problem is that Neoliberalism isn't as clearly defined as communism. This also
means that anything bad that happens in society today can be hung on to neoliberalism whether
warranted or not. Zika causes microcephaly? another consequence of neoliberalism to be sure!
So we have two problems now. One like the author points out, there is no coherent alternative
from the left (interestingly the Canadian NDP party tried and your much beloved Naomi Klein
was part of a group who sabotaged the effort and produced a neo-stalinist proposal instead that
went nowhere) and second, since is so diffuse a target it becomes a boogey man rather than
actual target to be loathed.
Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty.
Are they though? Even ignoring trade subsidies, it's a bit difficult to compete in e.g. politics,
the media, the law and many other areas unless you have money behind you. It's more a self-perpetuating
protectionist oligarchy. And therefore as much neoliberalism as North Korea is communism.
Another incisive article by George, one area where neo-liberalism is dominant is that of 'welfare
reform', a key component of the ideology, In this sphere the lack of interest and action by the
left, civil society, etc, has been shameful, I can recall here in the UK that at one weekend during
the New Labour reign at a Labour Party Conference 60,000 people protested anti-war issues while
only about 80 were there for the Monday event against N/L's nascent Welfare Reform Bill which
created the policy architecthure for all the coming changes..
Now there are suicides, misery for milllions, etc, it was left to a few disability groups,
a few allies, Unite Community, UkUncut, etc to challenge the behemoth. The Left has a hierarchy
of oppression which often means it operates in a bubble aloof from wider concerns.
People have been set up for decades to respond offensively to some words like unions, unemployed,
sole parents, Greenies (environmentalists), female leaders, you name it, anyone they don't like.
There is white trash, bogans, bludgers like trained pets they repeat the mantra as soon as anyone
opposes them and people go against their best interests.
New Labour was a con trick. JC's version will, imho, reverse a lot of the damage done - that's
if the Blairites will stop throwing their toys out the pram.
neoliberalism is so wide spread that those that are actual neo-liberals don't even know they
are. neoliberalism is core of The Conservatives and New Labour , Lid Dem even Green Party
could be classed as neo-liberals, so the alternative is the communist party who are actually against
staying in the EU or the idiots on the the right like UKIP and so on.
We need common sense party instead of the terrible state of politics we have all over the Globe.
The rise in the far-left and the far-right the non-platform anti free speech left with their phobia
labels or the neanderthals of the far-right like rise of Golden Dawn and the anti-Muslim rhetoric
by Trump.
Greens are neo-liberals? Mate, we're left of labour even now. We believe economic growth is fundamentally
incompatible with a sustainable future, for example
(academic research beyond the faulty national statistics supports this), and the only way to tackle
this is a wholesale redistrbutive system. The poor would be hit hardest by radical cuts in consumption
and carbon limits. Enough to impoverish millions in this country alone. So we need to be redistributive
in a far more radical way than even corbyns labour would be.
Agreed, it feels like there's a HUGE gap in politics that simply isn't being filled at the moment.
The false starts for real 'multi-party' politics that were the Lib Dem gains, Green Party and
UKIP have all turned out to be more of the same, damp squibs or total mess.
People are sick of politics, they're sick of bizarre single-issue parties and they're sick
of even the language of politics. Such opportunity and yet nothing is appearing.
Depends on which Greens. The German Greens, for instance, after some initial party, are now just
another corporate-friendly party that will compromise with anyone and anything.
Good article apart from the schoolboy error of characterizing the USSR as Communist. No advanced
Communist State has yet existed. For clarification of the theory, try reading Etienne Balibar's
On the Dictatorship of the Proletariat
Yes, Lenin's attempt at implementing the abstract theories of Marx (he believed he found a way
to short circuit the stages of socioevolution by skipping the Capitalist phase by jumping from
Feudalism.to Socialism - the goal of the USSR.
The people were the eggs in the theoretical omlet that was made.
The fact that so many were brutally murdered in the pursuit of and ends propagandized as 'liberation'
can never be a allowed to be forgotten.
The next time will not be different, nor the time after that or the one after that.
Well said.
But I think we are too far in it and cant see any opposition for this.
Big corpos will try to keep status quo or even push harder their own agenda. They have easy job
as they only have to buy (already done this) few politicians.
We haven't failed to come up with an alternative- we've been shouting it at you. Its name is socialism.
Thankfully we have Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn et al to represent our cause yet still it falls
on deaf ears with the press and the political establishment.
In the 20th century more people were killed by their own governments than in war. But to the
left the real threat to people comes not from a concentration of power wielded by governments
but of concentrations of wealth in private hands.
The problem is that concentration of wealth leads to the buying of government power.
It's not simple government bad, wealth good or indifferent. It's the wealthy using said wealth
to buy government power to further enrich the wealthy.
Government is just a tool, who drives it matters.
In addition to neoliberalism being adopted by the Democrats and Labour, another distinct ideology
has the traditional parties of the left tied in knots.
One YouTuber has called it 'Neoprogressivism' - the creed underpinning identity politics.
Above Monbiot describes how neoliberalism was in large part born as Hayek's alternative to
the early twentieth century nationalism/communism clash; worryingly it seems a century later our
politics is again hamstrung by two pernicious ideologies as the world blindly races towards another
disaster.
Whereas neoliberalism is now widely recognised and eviscerated, light is just starting to be
shone on 'Neoprogressivism'. I recommend the YouTube video of this title for an account of the
second 'rock' around which contemporary politics navigates.
'The Invisible Hand' is not an ideology or dogma. It's just a metaphor to describe those with
problems grasping abstract concepts: when there are a large number of buyers and suppliers for
a good, the 'market finds a price' which is effectively the sum of all the intelligence of the
participants, their suppliers, customers etc..
The Socialists, who have difficulty grasping this reality, want to 'fix' the price, which abnegates
the collective intelligence of the market participants, and causes severe problems.
Capitalism is freedom, Socialism is someone's ideology.
'The Invisible Hand' is... a metaphor to describe those with problems grasping abstract
concepts: when there are a large number of buyers and suppliers for a good, the 'market finds
a price' which is effectively the sum of all the intelligence of the participants
You clearly haven't read Wealth of Nations. The only mention of an invisible hand is actually
a warning against what we now call neoliberalism. Smith said that the wealthy wouldn't seek to
enrich themselves to the detriment of their home communities, because of an innate home bias.
Thus, as if by an invisible hand, England would be spared the ravages of economic rationality.
Your understanding of the 'invisible hand' is a falsehood perpetuated by neoliberal think
tanks like the Adam Smith institute (no endorsement or connection to the author, despite using
his name).
'The Invisible Hand' is not dogma.
You definitely know a lot about dogma (and false dichotomies):
Capitalism is freedom, Socialism is someone's ideology.
A coherent alternative has to be proposed. For Labour, the Democrats and the wider left,
the central task should be to develop an economic Apollo programme, a conscious attempt to
design a new system, tailored to the demands of the 21st century
All very well, but how? Did anyone hear the screams of rage when Sanders started threatening Hillary,
or when Corbyn trounced the Blairites? The dead hand of Bernays and Goebbels controls everything.
There is no alternative on offer by the left.
The socialist/trade union package is outmoded.
The failure to describe reality in a way that concurs with what ordinary people experience has
driven off much support and reduced credibility.
There is no credible model for investment and wealth creation.
The focus on social mobility upwards rather than on those who do not move has given UK leftism
a middle-class snobby air to it.
Those entering leftist politics have a very narrow range of life experience. The opposition to
rightist politics is cliched and outmoded.
There is a complete failure to challenge the emerging multi-polar plutocratic oligarchy which
runs the planet - the European left just seeks a comfy accommodation.
There is no attempt to develop a post-socialist, holistic worldview and ideology.
The trade union package, gave us meal breaks, holidays, sickness benefits, working hours restrictions,
as opposed to the right wing media agenda, that if you aint getting it nobody should, pour poison
on the unions, pour poison on the public sector, a fucking media led race to the bottom for workers,
and there were enough gullible (poor )mugs around to accept it. You can curse the middle class
socialists all you like, but without their support the labour movement would never have got off
the ground.
During the industrial revolution, profitability and productivity were off the scale because the
workforce were just commodities, Unionisation instigated the idea that without the workforce,
your entrepreneurs can't do anything on their own, Henry Ford wouldn't have become a millionaire
without the help of his workforce. 'Poorest performing structures' Guess what! some of us are
human beings not auto- matrons. I hope you dine well on sterling and dollars, cause they're not
the most important things in life.
What if the highest possible taxes, zero avoidance / evasion and high employment still equals
deficits and increasing national debt ?
The paragraph written above neatly describes the post WW2 years, where the UK was pretty much
in perpetual surplus. High employment does not equate to national debt/deficit. Quite the opposite,
the more people in gainful employment the better. Increasing unemployment, driving wages down
while simultaneously increasing the cost of living is a recipe for complete economic failure.
This whole economics gig is piss easy, when the general mass of people have cash to spare they
spend it, economy thrives. Hoard the cash into the hands of a minority and starve the masses of
cash, economy dies. It really is that simple.
Public deficits exist to match the private surplus created by the rich enriching themselves. To
get rid of the deficit therefore we need to get rid of the private wealth of the rich through
financial repression and taxation
I read, cannot remember where, that with neo liberalism the implementation is all that matters,
you do not need to see the results. I suppose because the followers believe when implemented it
will work perfectly. I think it's supporters think it is magic and must work because they believe
it does.
Yes, a high priest of neo-liberalism, Lord Freud, was given only 13 weeks to investigate and
reform key elements of the the UK's welfare system, it hasn't worked and Freud is now invisible.
Hopeful this is the start for change through identifying issues and avoiding pitfalls.
Failed neoliberalism and not restricting markets that do not benefit the majority are the
cause and we stand on the brink of falling further should the Brexiter's have their way. If there's
one thing the EU excels at it's legislating against the excesses of business and extremism.
"... Our leaders are shallow on the subject of war. No, worse than shallow-they're silent. Which is one reason they will likely not be fully trusted should they make rough decisions down the road on Syria, or Iran, or elsewhere. ..."
"... War is terrible. That should be said over and over, not because it's a box you ought to check on the way to the presidency but because you're human and have a brain. ..."
"... War is always terrible, and it is made even more so when it is waged when it doesn't have to be. Most wars are avoidable and unnecessary, and yet most of our political leaders are reliably in favor of every U.S. military intervention around the world when it matters. Some may later say they regret their support for a previous war, especially if it was a much costlier one than they expected, but at the time the "safe" and "smart" position for ambitious politicians to take is to be for bombing and/or invading. Almost all of the political incentives at least since Desert Storm have flowed in the direction of supporting military action, and so most of the people that seek the presidency have learned not to be an early opponent of any proposed intervention. ..."
"... While there is near-constant U.S. warfare somewhere in the world, hardly anyone in politics talks about the need for peace. Just as our candidates don't express their hatred of war, they typically don't profess their desire for peace for fear that they will be pilloried as "weak." ..."
Peggy Noonan wrote a thoughtful
column on the horrors of war last week:
Our leaders are shallow on the subject of war. No, worse than shallow-they're silent. Which
is one reason they will likely not be fully trusted should they make rough decisions down the
road on Syria, or Iran, or elsewhere.
War is terrible. That should be said over and over, not because it's a box you ought to
check on the way to the presidency but because you're human and have a brain.
War is always terrible, and it is made even more so when it is waged when it doesn't have
to be. Most wars are avoidable and unnecessary, and yet most of our political leaders are reliably
in favor of every U.S. military intervention around the world when it matters. Some may later say
they regret their support for a previous war, especially if it was a much costlier one than they
expected, but at the time the "safe" and "smart" position for ambitious politicians to take is to
be for bombing and/or invading. Almost all of the political incentives at least since Desert Storm
have flowed in the direction of supporting military action, and so most of the people that seek the
presidency have learned not to be an early opponent of any proposed intervention.
Noonan recounts a telling exchange with a politician in which she asked him if he hated war. After
being reassured that he wasn't walking into a trap, he said yes, but still qualified the answer by
saying that war is sometimes necessary. The trouble is that most of our politicians, and almost all
of our presidential candidates, have never seen a war that they thought was unnecessary. Reflexive
interventionists may sometimes include the caveat that they don't want war, but in the next breath
they are keen to tell you why "action" is imperative. Sometimes they dress this up with euphemisms.
They don't talk about going to war, but say that that the U.S. shouldn't be standing "on the sidelines"
or that the U.S. needs to "lead," but invariably this amounts to a demand that force be used in another
country. Sometimes they dress up calls for war with technical terms, such as the much-abused "no-fly
zone" phrase, that obscure what they are talking about. At other times, they simply acquiesce in
a policy of lending support to a client state's horrific war, and that way they don't have to say
anything and can pretend to have nothing to do with it.
It is in this environment that relatively dovish candidates have to emphasize their readiness
to use force while hawkish candidates are under much less pressure to prove that they aren't warmongers.
While there is near-constant U.S. warfare somewhere in the world, hardly anyone in politics talks
about the need for peace. Just as our candidates don't express their hatred of war, they typically
don't profess their desire for peace for fear that they will be pilloried as "weak."
Despite the fact that U.S. forces have been engaged in hostilities for Obama's entire presidency,
the loudest and most frequent criticisms of his foreign policy are that he is supposedly too reluctant
to use force and didn't bomb Syria. If one of the most activist, militarized presidencies in modern
U.S. history is being portrayed in the media as insufficiently aggressive, we aren't likely to hear
our leaders regularly condemning the evils of war.
"... Near the start of the speech, Clinton said, "We are an exceptional nation because we are an
indispensable nation. In fact, we are the indispensable nation." That isn't true, but Clinton's acceptance
of this claim confirms that she understands "American exceptionalism" in a particularly warped way that
justifies interfering all over the globe. That is what Albright's "indispensable nation" rhetoric meant
twenty years ago, and it's what Clinton's rhetoric means today. ..."
"... Cozying up to authoritarian rulers has been and continues to be a significant part of U.S.
"leadership," and if you are in favor of the latter you are going to be stuck with the former. This
rhetoric is especially absurd coming from someone who has repeatedly stressed the importance of supporting
U.S. clients in the Gulf. ..."
"... Overall, Clinton's speech could have been given by a conventional Republican hawk, and some
of the lines could have been lifted from the speeches of some of this year's Republican presidential
contenders. ..."
"... That's exactly what Clinton believes, unfortunately. When she unveiled her "stronger together"
slogan, one of the points she made was that we should have "a bipartisan, even non-partisan foreign
policy." She is basically a Scoop Jackson Democrat. ..."
"... Bill Kristol used to call himself a Scoop Jackson Democrat, too. Maybe he will again. Hillary
must be the only person left who actually thinks embracing the neocons is a way to win votes. But if
that were true, Rubio would be the GOP nominee, rather than the guy who, for all his many faults, didn't
pander to them. ..."
"... Cozying up to dictators is bad, unless they donate large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation.
In that case, you're not "cozying up" to the dictators - you're "reassuring allies" and "protecting
America's credibility." ..."
"... Would the mushroom cloud campaign ad that obliterated the Goldwater candidacy have the same
effect today upon a neocon candidate? Is the ad even copyrighted or otherwise available? ..."
"... Has the American Legion given any Democrat running for president a warm response? Muted sounds
about right to me. Clinton was speaking to many more people than the audience in front of her. She won't
get very many votes from those in the military. No Democrat ever does. Undecided voters (all 2 or 3%
of them), especially Republicans are her real target audience. She looks to sound suitably strong more
important, calm and measured. A safe if not perfect choice for President. Old World Order , August 31,
2016 at 4:32 pm She has learned nothing. Nothing at all. Indeed, she just doubled down on permanent
war. Not surprising, but deeply depressing all the same. ..."
"... If our foreign policy wasn't so obviously failed, I wouldn't mind bipartisan consensus but
since it is FUBAR, I want something new. I just wish I had the ear of any of my fellow Republicans who
consider themselves Religious Conservatives. I just can't get over their blind faith in U.S. hegemony,
especially when they screech at the thought of U.S. politicians doing something as benign as running
a Transportation Fund. Yet they have no problem inflicting these imbeciles with life and death decisions
on the rest of the world. ..."
"... When I see Ted Cruz or a Rubio gaze into the camera about how vital it is for the U.S. to suppress
Russia and China and run the M.E. (they use different words), it astounds me since it contradicts the
Protestant tradition so much where one should be suspicious of human nature. ..."
"... Indispensable to what? Wholesale destabilization of the Middle East? ..."
"... I don't want Trump to win, but neither do I want Clinton to think she has a mandate for this
kind of militarism. Sadly, when it comes foreign policy, it appears not to matter which party has the
presidency anymore. ..."
"... Meanwhile, over at the WaPo, neocon cheerleader Jennifer Rubin loves the same speech: Hillary
Clinton is a responsible centrist .. . ..."
"... If she gets elected I see a high probability of a hot war with Russia. She wouldn't start it
intentionally, it would be the pinnacle of our foreign policy establishment living in their own reality.
I actually have a scenario in mind, when I read Russian sourced sites it strengthens my convictions.
To bad our 'Russian experts' use Ouija boards and entrails instead of actually studying the Russians.
..."
"... Don't be surprised if Clinton pushes Russia to the edge or the US gets mired in a proxy war
with Russia. Everything is a Russian hack/conspiracy these days. They will find a reason to start something.
Smells like yellow cake to me. ..."
"... Hilary should figure out that she is losing votes to Johnson and Stein and perhaps tone back
the rhetoric. Granted she was probably trying to look all Commander in Chiefy but she is so tone deaf
on this stuff. ..."
"... The problem is that the cult that passes for Conservatives in this country values strength
over all. Clinton cannot afford to come across as weak to these people. She is aiming exactly for the
Jennifer Rubins of the world. In America, we do the strong thing, even if it is the wrong thing, because
we will go to hell if we appear to be weak. ..."
Hillary Clinton's
speech to the American Legion in Cincinnati didn't contain anything new or surprising. It was
billed as an endorsement of "American exceptionalism" defined as support for activist foreign policy
and global "leadership," and that is what Clinton delivered. One thing that struck me while listening
to it was the muted response from the audience. Despite Clinton's fairly heavy-handed efforts to
present herself as a friend of veterans and champion of the military, the crowd didn't seem very
impressed. The delivery of the speech was typically wooden, but then no one expects stirring oratory
from Clinton. Either the audience wasn't interested in what they were hearing, or they found Clinton
to be a poor messenger, or both.
The substance was mostly boilerplate cheerleading for the status quo in foreign policy, but a
few particularly jarring lines stood out. Near the start of the speech, Clinton said, "We are
an exceptional nation because we are an indispensable nation. In fact, we are the indispensable
nation." That isn't true, but Clinton's acceptance of this claim confirms that she understands "American
exceptionalism" in a particularly warped way that justifies interfering all over the globe. That
is what Albright's "indispensable nation" rhetoric meant twenty years ago, and it's what Clinton's
rhetoric means today.
Clinton thought that she was dinging Trump when she said, "We can't cozy up to dictators." That
would be all right if it were true, but it is hard to take seriously from a committed supporter of
U.S. "leadership." Cozying up to authoritarian rulers has been and continues to be a significant
part of U.S. "leadership," and if you are in favor of the latter you are going to be stuck with the
former. This rhetoric is especially absurd coming from someone who has repeatedly stressed the importance
of supporting U.S. clients in the Gulf. Clinton has made a point of promising that the U.S.
will stay quite cozy with our despotic clients when she is president, and it is likely that the U.S.
will probably get even cozier still if she has anything to say about it.
Overall, Clinton's speech could have been given by a conventional Republican hawk, and some
of the lines could have been lifted from the speeches of some of this year's Republican presidential
contenders. There were brief nods to the nuclear deal with Iran and New START that a Republican
wouldn't have made, but they were only mentioned in passing. Clinton insisted that "America must
lead" and conjured up a vision of the vacuums that would be created if the U.S. did not do this.
This is a standard hawkish line that implies that the U.S. always has to be involved in conflict
and crises no matter how little the U.S. has at stake in them.
At one point, Clinton asserted, "Defending American exceptionalism should always be above politics."
That amounts to saying that our foreign policy debates should always be narrowly circumscribed and
most of our current policies should always remain beyond challenge or major revision. That's not
healthy for the quality of our foreign policy debates or our foreign policy as a whole, and it shows
the degree to which Clinton is out of touch with much of the country that she thinks this is a credible
thing to say.
"At one point, Clinton asserted, 'Defending American exceptionalism should always be above politics.'
That amounts to saying that our foreign policy debates should always be narrowly circumscribed
and most of our current policies should always remain beyond challenge or major revision."
That's exactly what Clinton believes, unfortunately. When she unveiled her "stronger together"
slogan, one of the points she made was that we should have "a bipartisan, even non-partisan foreign
policy." She is basically a Scoop Jackson Democrat.
Broad consensus is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I'd argue that some degree of consensus
is necessary in order for a democratic system to function. But any such consensus should emerge
from vigorous debate, which does not exist in Washington or in the mainstream media. It should
not be simply imposed on the country by an unchallenged, ossified elite that is either stuck in
the Cold War past or has a vested interest in renewing the Cold War.
Bill Kristol used to call himself a Scoop Jackson Democrat, too. Maybe he will again. Hillary
must be the only person left who actually thinks embracing the neocons is a way to win votes.
But if that were true, Rubio would be the GOP nominee, rather than the guy who, for all his many
faults, didn't pander to them.
Cozying up to dictators is bad, unless they donate large amounts of money to the Clinton Foundation.
In that case, you're not "cozying up" to the dictators - you're "reassuring allies" and "protecting
America's credibility."
Would the mushroom cloud campaign ad that obliterated the Goldwater candidacy have the same
effect today upon a neocon candidate? Is the ad even copyrighted or otherwise available?
Has the American Legion given any Democrat running for president a warm response? Muted sounds
about right to me. Clinton was speaking to many more people than the audience in front of her.
She won't get very many votes from those in the military. No Democrat ever does.
Undecided voters (all 2 or 3% of them), especially Republicans are her real target audience.
She looks to sound suitably strong more important, calm and measured. A safe if not perfect choice
for President.
She has learned nothing. Nothing at all. Indeed, she just doubled down on permanent war. Not
surprising, but deeply depressing all the same.
Here's hoping that someone – anyone, really – keeps this loathsome throwback to the worst aspects
of US foreign policy of the past 20 years out of the White House.
If our foreign policy wasn't so obviously failed, I wouldn't mind bipartisan consensus but
since it is FUBAR, I want something new. I just wish I had the ear of any of my fellow Republicans
who consider themselves Religious Conservatives. I just can't get over their blind faith in U.S.
hegemony, especially when they screech at the thought of U.S. politicians doing something as benign
as running a Transportation Fund. Yet they have no problem inflicting these imbeciles with life
and death decisions on the rest of the world.
When I see Ted Cruz or a Rubio gaze into the camera about how vital it is for the U.S.
to suppress Russia and China and run the M.E. (they use different words), it astounds me since
it contradicts the Protestant tradition so much where one should be suspicious of human nature.
Do these people believe that corrupt politicians in the U.S. are suddenly anointed by God and
transformed into world leaders in a sudden act of Grace? Sorry for the rant but I would seriously
love to ask someone this question. This is not a troll at all. I have pondered this many times.
How would Huckabee respond to this? He wrote a lucid essay on Iran about 10yrs ago before he went
full Neocon.
What a choice we face in November – give full executive authority to either:
1. The volatile vulgarian who is smart enough to reject the tired nation-building, Democracy
Evangelization, Responsibility-to-Protect, and other dangerous establishment policies. But who
doesn't think much at all about foreign policy and could even blunder into a big war out of personal
pique.
OR
2. The champion of mindless and discredited bellicosity. Who is - probably - smart enough to
avoid a new large ground war or nuclear despite her dangerous anti-Russian rhetoric, but who will
CERTAINLY initiate one or more new unnecessary, unjust and futile military interventions.
I wish she would stop putting out this nonsense. I really don't want to skip my vote for president,
but this sort of nonsense leaves me cold. I don't want Trump to win, but neither do I want
Clinton to think she has a mandate for this kind of militarism. Sadly, when it comes foreign policy,
it appears not to matter which party has the presidency anymore.
We are an Exceptional nation because we are an Indispensable nation
This is a tautology. You can swap the words exceptional and indispensable and have the exact
same sentence.
Commenter Man, yet another example of how people will create their own reality. I am certain
I will read the same tripe tomorrow when I peruse the links on 'realclearpolitics.com'. It is
the only Neocon portal that I bother with.
If she gets elected I see a high probability of a hot war with Russia. She wouldn't start
it intentionally, it would be the pinnacle of our foreign policy establishment living in their
own reality. I actually have a scenario in mind, when I read Russian sourced sites it strengthens
my convictions. To bad our 'Russian experts' use Ouija boards and entrails instead of actually
studying the Russians.
Don't be surprised if Clinton pushes Russia to the edge or the US gets mired in a proxy war
with Russia. Everything is a Russian hack/conspiracy these days. They will find a reason to start
something. Smells like yellow cake to me.
Hilary should figure out that she is losing votes to Johnson and Stein and perhaps tone back
the rhetoric. Granted she was probably trying to look all Commander in Chiefy but she is so tone
deaf on this stuff.
The problem is that the cult that passes for Conservatives in this country values strength
over all. Clinton cannot afford to come across as weak to these people. She is aiming exactly
for the Jennifer Rubins of the world. In America, we do the strong thing, even if it is the wrong
thing, because we will go to hell if we appear to be weak.
"... As soon liberalism feels it can plausibly claim to have moved overcome the socialist and fascist challenges (the Fukuyamaist "end of history" and/or "end of ideology") these ideologues are empowered to act as if liberalism's adaptive response to the socialist and fascist challenges was never necessary in the first place - bye bye welfare state, hello neoliberalism ..."
"... I'm thinking more of local governments like the ones stereotypically predominant in the Southeast, or even the legendarily corrupt history of "machine" politics in cities like Chicago. ..."
"... So in order to uphold the legitimacy of the system as such we acknowledge that sure, someone in rural Louisiana might not always be able to get rid of their corrupt local mayors/sheriffs/judges/etc. through the ballot box directly, but at least they can vote in federal elections for the people and institutions that will ..."
"... Accordingly, to treat the federal system as itself no more inherently legitimate than the local ones - to treat the government in Washington as fundamentally the same kind of racket as the government in Ferguson - is to argue that it needs fundamentally the same kind of external oversight, and barring a foreign invasion or a world government, the only potentially equivalent overseer for the US federal government is a mass revolt. ..."
"... The elite project of putting neoliberalism into practice and of selling it to the masses has failed ..."
"... the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. From democracy or citizens. ..."
"... Neoliberalism has failed both in practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. ..."
"... That's why you have all of these Trump voters or Brexit voters or other tribalists who no longer believe what the center-right is selling them about lower taxes and less regulation delivering prosperity. About immigration and internationalism being a good thing. ..."
"... The elite project of putting neoliberalism into practice and of selling it to the masses has failed ..."
"... the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed. ..."
"... I do think it is helpful to see the deregulation of finance beginning in the Carter and Reagan Administrations leading eventually to the GFC of 2008 as an historical project and a political whole, in which there have been deviations between the stated intentions of advocates, the reasonable anticipation of consequences by experts and the self-interested pursuit of short-term advantage in regulatory evasion and reform. ..."
As far as a definition, at least on the level of ideology I'd go with the following simplified-to-the-utmost
historical overview…
1. Liberalism (the 18th- and 19th-century bourgeois ideology of capitalism) defeats conservatism
(the 18th- and 19th-century aristocratic ideology of anti-capitalism)
2. Triumphant liberalism faces insurgent ideological challenges from its left and right (i.e.
Quiggin's "three-party system" model, except the three parties are clearly understood to be socialism,
liberalism, and fascism)
3. Liberalism is forced to respond to these challenges, in particular responding to the socialist
critique with the ideology of Keynesian interventionist "welfare liberalism" - ideologues of older
liberalism consider this response itself a taint of corruption
4. As soon liberalism feels it can plausibly claim to have moved overcome the socialist
and fascist challenges (the Fukuyamaist "end of history" and/or "end of ideology") these ideologues
are empowered to act as if liberalism's adaptive response to the socialist and fascist challenges
was never necessary in the first place - bye bye welfare state, hello neoliberalism
In any case, it's utterly bizarre to see people object so stridently to "neoliberalism" who
simultaneously don't seem to have a problem with the imperialist, anti-intellectual, and quite
frankly racist connotations of the term "tribalism".
Will G-R 09.02.16 at 4:19 pm
Bruce @ 104, I'm not clued into the SoCal-specific issues (so I don't know exactly how much a
Chinatown -esque narrative should be raised in contrast to your description of LA water
infrastructure as "the best of civic boosterism") but I'm thinking more of local governments
like the ones stereotypically predominant in the Southeast, or even the legendarily corrupt history
of "machine" politics in cities like Chicago.
he fact that these sorts of governments exist and have existed in the US is why every American,
even those of us who are well aware of McCarthyism and COINTELPRO and so on, can breathe a sigh
of relief when we see the words "the Justice Department today announced a probe aimed at local
government officials in…" because it means that the legitimate parts of our system are
asserting their predominance over the potentially illegitimate parts.
So in order to uphold the legitimacy of the system as such we acknowledge that sure, someone
in rural Louisiana might not always be able to get rid of their corrupt local mayors/sheriffs/judges/etc.
through the ballot box directly, but at least they can vote in federal elections for the people
and institutions that will get rid of these officials if they overstep the bounds of
what we as a nation consider acceptable. (This also extends to more informal institutions
like the media: the local paper might not be shining the light on local corruption, but the media
as such can fulfill its function and redeem its institutional legitimacy if something too egregious
falls into the national spotlight.)
Accordingly, to treat the federal system as itself no more inherently legitimate than the
local ones - to treat the government in Washington as fundamentally the same kind of racket as
the government in Ferguson - is to argue that it needs fundamentally the same kind of external
oversight, and barring a foreign invasion or a world government, the only potentially equivalent
overseer for the US federal government is a mass revolt.
The center-right hasn't really delivered and neither has the center-left. The elite project
of putting neoliberalism into practice and of selling it to the masses has failed . This
is an opportunity for the left but also a time fraught with danger should the tribalists somehow
get the upperhand. I feel the U.S. is too diverse for this to happen but it might in other nations.
I am hoping that Trump suffers a sound beating but then the elites were telling us that Brexit
wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows
in part how neoliberalism has failed.
" American liberalism has always been internationalist and mildly pro-free-trade. It's also
been pro-union…"
Then why are unions in such bad shape? Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free
flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. From democracy or citizens.
Think about the TPP where corporate arbitration courts can be used by corporations to sue
governments without regard to those nations' legislation. I'd be more in favor of international
courts if they weren't used merely to further corporate interests and profits. Neoliberals argue
that what benefits these multinational corporations benefits their home country.
I pretty much agree with what Quiggin is saying here. Neoliberalism has failed both in
practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. The soft neoliberals have been putting
neoliberalism into practice over the objections of their electoral coalition partners. It hasn't
delivered.
That's why you have all of these Trump voters or Brexit voters or other tribalists who
no longer believe what the center-right is selling them about lower taxes and less regulation
delivering prosperity. About immigration and internationalism being a good thing.
The center-right hasn't really delivered and neither has the center-left. The elite project
of putting neoliberalism into practice and of selling it to the masses has failed. This is
an opportunity for the left but also a time fraught with danger should the tribalists somehow
get the upperhand. I feel the U.S. is too diverse for this to happen but it might in other nations.
I am hoping that Trump suffers a sound beating but then the elites were telling us that Brexit
wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows
in part how neoliberalism has failed.
... I do think it is helpful to see the deregulation of finance beginning in the Carter and
Reagan Administrations leading eventually to the GFC of 2008 as an historical project and a political
whole, in which there have been deviations between the stated intentions of advocates, the reasonable
anticipation of consequences by experts and the self-interested pursuit of short-term advantage
in regulatory evasion and reform.
"... Lesse evilism that Bill Clinton used for moving Democratic Party into neoliberal camp (as in "those f*ckers from trade unions will vote for Dems anyway, they have nowhere to go") no longer works. ..."
@111 The obvious explanation for union endorsements of Clinton is that they expected her to win
the Democratic nomination, as she did. And of course they would endorse her against any Republican.
What else could they do>
The most obvious test case is the teachers unions. Obama's administration was clearly hostile
to the (think of Rahm Emanuel!), but they nonetheless endorsed him, as the lesser evil.
likbez 09.04.16 at 7:29 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
John,
@112
"The most obvious test case is the teachers unions. Obama's administration was clearly hostile
to the (think of Rahm Emanuel!), but they nonetheless endorsed him, as the lesser evil."
Lesse evilism that Bill Clinton used for moving Democratic Party into neoliberal camp (as in
"those f*ckers from trade unions will vote for Dems anyway, they have nowhere to go") no longer
works.
Far right will absorb those working class and lower white collar votes. And they became a political
force to recon with, which disposed neocons from the Republican establishment (all those Jeb!,
Kasich, Cruz, and Rubio crowd ) despite all efforts of the party brass. Welcome to the second
reincarnation of Weimar republic.
Trade union management, which endorsed Hillary, now expects that more than half of union members
will probably vote against Hillary. In some cases up to 2/3.
So Dem neolibs became a party that is not supported by the working class and if identity politics
tricks fail to work, they might get a a blowback in November. They can rely only on a few voting
blocks that benefitted from globalization, such as "network hamsters" (programmers, system administrators,
some part of FIRE low level staff, and such) and few other mass professionals. That's it.
"... Let us hope. But let us expose the dirty hand of Uncle Sam working over time for the corporate trans border pirates down there. Barry once again has been a conspicuous useful idiot with his visit to Argentina. ..."
"... In the making since long before Smedley Butler realized the marines were serving US banks. ..."
Venezuela fundamental transformation proceeds apace ...
the crowd images are impressive
Venezuelans stage mass protest demanding recall to oust
president
"Venezuela's political opposition says Thursday's mass
demonstration - dubbed the "taking of Caracas" - against
President Nicolas Maduro brought one million people into
the streets demanding political change.
Opposition leaders Jesus Torrealba, of the Democratic
Unity Roundtable said it was the "biggest rally in recent
decades" with "between 950,000 and 1.1 million people"
taking part.
Dozens of city blocks were choked with people angry
about growing food shortages and an inflation rate that is
expected to top 700 percent this year.
Maduro led a comparatively small counter rally of
hard-core supporters, many of them state workers. The
number of participants was estimated at fewer than
30,000."
You have dismissed Doug Henwood for some bizarre reason.
He had a good interview on his radio show about the
left in Latin America which was specifically about the
coup in Brazil but talked about a lot more with a
historian of the left in Latin America.
This historian was hopeful despite what has been
happening. There are ebbs and flows but think of the
spontaneous support for Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn or
Podemos or Syriza.
There is real and popular or "organic" organizing of
the left in Latin America against corporate hegemony,
despite the supposed or real corruptions of official
leftist parties like in Brazil.
The left is much more durable than it appears.
There's more than meets the eye.
Paine -> Peter K....
, -1
Let us hope. But let us expose the dirty hand of Uncle
Sam working over time for the corporate trans border
pirates down there. Barry once again has been a
conspicuous useful idiot with his visit to Argentina.
Gage Skidmore / Flickr
In accepting the invitation of President Enrique Pena Nieto to fly to Mexico City, the
Donald was taking a major risk.
Yet it was a bold and decisive move, and it paid off in
what was the best day of Donald Trump's campaign.
Standing beside Nieto, graciously complimenting him and speaking warmly of Mexico and
its people, Trump looked like a president. And the Mexican president treated him like one,
even as Trump restated the basic elements of his immigration policy, including the border
wall.
The gnashing of teeth up at the
New York Times
testifies to Trump's triumph:
"Mr. Trump has spent his entire campaign painting Mexico as a nation of rapists, drug
smugglers, and trade hustlers. … But instead of chastising Mr. Trump, Mr. Pena Nieto
treated him like a visiting head of state … with side-by-side lecterns and words of
deferential mush."
As I wrote in August, Trump "must convince the nation … he is an acceptable, indeed, a
preferable alternative" to Hillary Clinton, whom the nation does not want.
In Mexico City, Trump did that.
He reassured
voters who are leaning toward him that he can be president. As for those who are
apprehensive about his temperament, they saw reassurance.
For validation, one need not rely on supporters of Trump. Even Mexicans who loathe Trump
are conceding his diplomatic coup.
"Trump achieved his purpose," said journalism professor Carlos Bravo Regidor. "He looked
serene, firm, presidential." Our "humiliation is now complete," tweeted an anchorman at
Televisa.
President Nieto's invitation to Trump "was the biggest stupidity in the history of the
Mexican presidency," said academic Jesus Silva-Herzog.
Not since Gen. Winfield Scott arrived for a visit in 1847 have Mexican elites been this
upset with an American.
Jorge Ramos of Univision almost required sedation.
When Trump got back to the States, he affirmed that Mexico will be paying for the wall,
even if "they don't know it yet."
Indeed, back on American soil, in Phoenix, the Donald doubled down. Deportations will
accelerate when he takes office, beginning with felons. Sanctuary cities for illegal
immigrants will face U.S. sanctions. There will be no amnesty, no legalization, no path to
citizenship for those who have broken into our country. All laws will be enforced.
Trump's stance in Mexico City and Phoenix reveals that there is no turning back. The die
is cast. He is betting the election on his belief that the American people prefer his
stands to Clinton's call for amnesty.
A core principle enunciated by Trump in Phoenix appears to be a guiding light behind his
immigration policy.
"Anyone who tells you that the core issue is the needs of those living here illegally
has simply spent too much time Washington. … There is only one core issue in the
immigration debate, and that issue is the well-being of the American people. … Nothing even
comes a close second."
The "well-being of the American people" may be the yardstick by which U.S. policies will
be measured in a Trump presidency. This is also applicable to Trump's stand on trade and
foreign policy.
Do NAFTA, the WTO, MFN for China, the South Korea deal, and TPP advance the "well-being
of the American people"? Or do they serve more the interests of foreign regimes and
corporate elites?
Some $12 trillion in trade deficits since George H.W. Bush gives you the answer.
Which of the military interventions and foreign wars from Serbia to Afghanistan to Iraq
to Libya to Yemen to Syria served the "well-being of the American people"?
Are the American people well-served by commitments in perpetuity to 60- and 65-year-old
treaties to wage war on Russia and China on behalf of scores of nations across Eurasia,
most of which have been free riders on U.S. defense for decades?
Trump's "core issue" might be called
Americanism.
Whatever the outcome of this election, these concerns are not going away. For they have
arisen out of a deeply dissatisfied and angry electorate that is alienated from the elites
both parties.
Indeed, alienation explains the endurance of Trump, despite his recent difficulties.
Americans want change, and he alone offers it.
In the last two weeks, Trump has seen a slow rise in the polls, matched by a perceptible
decline in support for Clinton. The latest Rasmussen poll now has Trump at 40, with Clinton
slipping to 39.
This race is now Trump's to win or lose. For he alone brings a fresh perspective to
policies that have stood stagnant under both parties.
And Hillary Clinton? Whatever her attributes, she is uncharismatic, unexciting, greedy,
wonkish, scripted, and devious, an individual you can neither fully believe nor fully
trust.
Which is why the country seems to be looking, again, to Trump, to show them that they
will not be making a big mistake if they elect him.
If Donald Trump can continue to show America what he did in Mexico City, that he can be
presidential, he may just become president.
"... Bernie disgraced himself and drove a dagger through the heart of youth involvement in the democratic process. Millions of kids believd in him. He's is even more repellent that Clinton. Faced with evidence that the DNC had rigged the nomination process in favour of Clinton, what did he do? He backed her. Beyond shame. ..."
Bernie sold out. If not that, then he was simply in it as faux opposition
from the start. Having unified the militant and disgruntled outliers, he
then readily doffed his cap and sheperded his gullible followers towards
the only practical Democratic alternative available.
Wasted effort. The 'masters' in the shadows are about to throw the harridan
under the bus. Her brazen air of arrogance and entitlement is about to fade
as she comes to realise, that albeit Comey having been got at, he's still
succeeded in striking a severe blow against her, and also at the not-so-tin-hat
conspiracy of inappropriate, and increasingly overt, institutional support,
in the face of documented lies, in your face hypocrisy, and corruption oozing
from every orifice of a maverick administration.
The seeds have been planted for a defense of diminished responsibility.
Don't fall for it! Hillary, (and her illustrious spouse), deserve not a
smidgen of pity.
''We came, we saw, he died'', she enthusiastically and unempathically
cackled.
Just about sums it up
Michael109 fflambeau 2d ago
Bernie disgraced himself and drove a dagger through the heart of
youth involvement in the democratic process. Millions of kids believd in
him. He's is even more repellent that Clinton. Faced with evidence that
the DNC had rigged the nomination process in favour of Clinton, what did
he do? He backed her. Beyond shame.
"... It is fascinating that younger US neoliberals (e.g. Matthew Yglesias) are totally sold on the the positives of 'metrics', statistics, testing, etc, to the point where they ignore all the negatives of those approaches, but absolutely and utterly loathe being tracked, having the performance of their preferred policies and predictions analyzed, and called out on the failures thereof. Is sure seems to me that the campaign to quash the use of the US, Charles Peters version of neoliberal is part of the effort to avoid accountability for their actions. ..."
"... If "conservative" is to be a third way to the opposition of "reactionary" and "revolutionary", the "liberals" are a species of conservative - like all conservatives, seeking to preserve the existing order as far as this is possible, but appealing to reason, reason's high principles, and a practical politics of incremental reform and "inevitable" progress. The liberals disguise their affection for social and political hierarchy as a preference for "meritocracy" and place their faith in the powers of Reason and Science to discover Truth. ..."
"... Liberalism adopts nationalism as a vehicle for popular mobilization which conservatives can share and as an ideal of governance, the self-governing democratic nation-state with a liberal constitution. ..."
"... It wasn't Liberalism Triumphant that faced a challenge from fascism; it was the abject failures of Liberalism that created fascism. ..."
"... he Liberal projects to create liberal democratic nation-states ran aground in Germany, Austria-Hungary and Russia between 1870 and 1910 and instead of gradual reform of the old order, Europe experienced catastrophic collapse, and Liberalism was ill-prepared to devise working governments and politics in the crisis that followed. ..."
"... What is called neoliberalism in American politics has a lot to do with New Deal liberalism running out of steam and simply not having a program after 1970. Some of that is circumstantial in a way - the first Oil Crisis, the breakup of Bretton Woods - but even those circumstances were arguably results of the earlier program's success. ..."
= = = I am actually honestly suggesting an intellectual exercise which, I think, might
be worth your (extremely valuable) time. I propose you rewrite this post without using the
word "neoliberalism" (or a synonym). = = =
It is fascinating that younger US neoliberals (e.g. Matthew Yglesias) are totally sold
on the the positives of 'metrics', statistics, testing, etc, to the point where they ignore all
the negatives of those approaches, but absolutely and utterly loathe being tracked, having the
performance of their preferred policies and predictions analyzed, and called out on the failures
thereof. Is sure seems to me that the campaign to quash the use of the US, Charles Peters version
of neoliberal is part of the effort to avoid accountability for their actions.
bruce wilder 09.03.16 at 7:47 pm
In the politics of antonyms, I suppose we are always going get ourselves confused.
Perhaps because of American usage of the root, liberal, to mean the mildly social democratic
New Deal liberal Democrat, with its traces of American Populism and American Progressivism, we
seem to want "liberal" to designate an ideology of the left, or at least, the centre-left. Maybe,
it is the tendency of historical liberals to embrace idealistic high principles in their contest
with reactionary claims for hereditary aristocracy and arbitrary authority.
If "conservative" is to be a third way to the opposition of "reactionary" and "revolutionary",
the "liberals" are a species of conservative - like all conservatives, seeking to preserve the
existing order as far as this is possible, but appealing to reason, reason's high principles,
and a practical politics of incremental reform and "inevitable" progress. The liberals disguise
their affection for social and political hierarchy as a preference for "meritocracy" and place
their faith in the powers of Reason and Science to discover Truth.
All of that is by way of preface to a thumbnail history of modern political ideology different
from the one presented by Will G-R.
Modern political ideology is a by-product of the Enlightenment and the resulting imperative
to find a basis and purpose for political Authority in Reason, and apply Reason to the design
of political and social institutions.
Liberalism doesn't so much defeat conservatism as invent conservatism as an alternative to
purely reactionary politics. The notion of an "inevitable progress" allows liberals to reconcile
both themselves and their reactionary opponents to practical reality with incremental reform.
Political paranoia and rhetoric are turned toward thinking about constitutional design.
Mobilizing mass support and channeling popular discontents is a source of deep ambivalence
and risk for liberals and liberalism. Popular democracy can quickly become noisy and vulgar, the
proliferation of ideas and conflicting interests paralyzing. Inventing a conservatism that competes
with the liberals, but also mobilizes mass support and channels popular discontent, puts bounds
on "normal" politics.
Liberalism adopts nationalism as a vehicle for popular mobilization which conservatives
can share and as an ideal of governance, the self-governing democratic nation-state with a liberal
constitution.
I would put the challenges to liberalism from the left and right well behind in precedence
the critical failures and near-failures of liberalism in actual governance.
Liberalism failed abjectly to bring about a constitutional monarchy in France during the first
decade of the French Revolution, or a functioning deliberative assembly or religious toleration
or even to resolve the problems of state finance and legal administration that destroyed the ancient
regime. In the end, the solution was found in Napoleon Bonaparte, a precedent that would arguably
inspire the fascism of dictators and vulgar nationalism, beginning with Napoleon's nephew fifty
years later.
It wasn't Liberalism Triumphant that faced a challenge from fascism; it was the abject
failures of Liberalism that created fascism. And, this was especially true in the wake of
World War I, which many have argued persuasively was Liberalism's greatest and most catastrophic
failure. T he Liberal projects to create liberal democratic nation-states ran aground in Germany,
Austria-Hungary and Russia between 1870 and 1910 and instead of gradual reform of the old order,
Europe experienced catastrophic collapse, and Liberalism was ill-prepared to devise working governments
and politics in the crisis that followed.
If liberals invented conservatism, it seems to me that would-be socialists were at pains to
re-invent liberalism, and they did it several times going in radically different directions, but
always from a base in the basic liberal idea of rationalizing authority. A significant thread
in socialism adopted incremental progress and socialist ideas became liberal and conservative
means for taming popular discontent in an increasingly urban society.
Where and when liberalism actually was triumphant, both the range of liberal views and the
range of interests presenting a liberal front became too broad for a stable politics. Think about
the Liberal Party landslide of 1906, which eventually gave rise to the Labour Party in its role
of Left Party in the British two-party system. Or FDR's landslide in 1936, which played a pivotal
role in the march of the Southern Democrats to the Right. Or the emergence of the Liberal Consensus
in American politics in the late 1950s.
What is called neoliberalism in American politics has a lot to do with New Deal liberalism
running out of steam and simply not having a program after 1970. Some of that is circumstantial
in a way - the first Oil Crisis, the breakup of Bretton Woods - but even those circumstances were
arguably results of the earlier program's success.
It is almost a rote reaction to talk about the Republican's Southern Strategy, but they didn't
invent the crime wave that enveloped the country in the late 1960s or the riots that followed
the enactment of Civil Rights legislation.
Will G-R's "As soon [as] liberalism feels it can plausibly claim to have . . .overcome the
socialist and fascist challenges [liberals] are empowered to act as if liberalism's adaptive response
to the socialist and fascist challenges was never necessary in the first place - bye bye welfare
state, hello neoliberalism" doesn't seem to me to concede enough to Clinton and Blair entrepreneurially
inventing a popular politics in response to Reagan and Thatcher, after the actual failures
of an older model of social democratic programs and populist politics on its behalf.
I write more about this
over at
my blog (in a somewhat different context).
John Quiggin 09.04.16 at 6:57 am
RW @113 I wrote a whole book using "market liberalism" instead of "neoliberalism", since I wanted
a term more neutral and less pejorative. So, going back to "neoliberalism" was something I did
advisedly. You say
The word is abstract and has completely different meanings west and east of the Atlantic. In
the USA it refers to weak tea center leftisms. In Europe to hard core liberalism.
Well, yes. That's precisely why I've used the term, introduced the hard/soft distinction and explained
the history. The core point is that, despite their differences soft (US meaning) and hard (European
meaning) neoliberalism share crucial aspects of their history, theoretical foundations and policy
implications.
=== quote ===
Neoliberalism is an ideology of market fundamentalism based on deception that promotes "markets"
as a universal solution for all human problems in order to hide establishment of neo-fascist regime
(pioneered by Pinochet in Chile), where militarized government functions are limited to external
aggression and suppression of population within the country (often via establishing National Security
State using "terrorists" threat) and corporations are the only "first class" political players.
Like in classic corporatism, corporations are above the law and can rule the country as they see
fit, using political parties for the legitimatization of the regime.
The key difference with classic fascism is that instead of political dominance of the corporations
of particular nation, those corporations are now transnational and states, including the USA are
just enforcers of the will of transnational corporations on the population. Economic or "soft"
methods of enforcement such as debt slavery and control of employment are preferred to brute force
enforcement. At the same time police is militarized and due to technological achievements the
level of surveillance surpasses the level achieved in Eastern Germany.
Like with bolshevism in the USSR before, high, almost always hysterical, level of neoliberal
propaganda and scapegoating of "enemies" as well as the concept of "permanent war for permanent
peace" are used to suppress the protest against the wealth redistribution up (which is the key
principle of neoliberalism) and to decimate organized labor.
Multiple definitions of neoliberalism were proposed. Three major attempts to define this social
system were made:
Definitions stemming from the concept of "casino capitalism"
Definitions stemming from the concept of Washington consensus
Definitions stemming from the idea that Neoliberalism is Trotskyism for the rich. This
idea has two major variations:
Definitions stemming from Professor Wendy Brown's concept of Neoliberal rationality
which developed the concept of Inverted Totalitarism of Sheldon Wolin
Definitions stemming Professor Sheldon Wolin's older concept of Inverted Totalitarism
- "the heavy statism forging the novel fusions of economic with political power that he
took to be poisoning democracy at its root." (Sheldon Wolin and Inverted Totalitarianism
Common Dreams )
The first two are the most popular.
likbez 09.04.16 at 5:03 pm
bruce,
@117
Thanks for your post. It contains several important ideas:
"It wasn't Liberalism Triumphant that faced a challenge from fascism; it was the abject failures
of Liberalism that created fascism."
"What is called neoliberalism in American politics has a lot to do with New Deal liberalism
running out of steam and simply not having a program after 1970. Some of that is circumstantial
in a way - the first Oil Crisis, the breakup of Bretton Woods - but even those circumstances were
arguably results of the earlier program's success."
Moreover as Will G-R noted:
"neoliberalism will be every bit the wellspring of fascism that old-school liberalism was."
Failure of neoliberalism revives neofascist, far right movements. That's what the rise of far
right movements in Europe now demonstrates pretty vividly.
"... The article cheekily flags the infamous case of the Chicago Boys, Milton Friedman's followers in Pinochet's Chile, as having been falsely touted as a success. If anything, the authors are too polite in describing what a train wreck resulted. A plutocratic land grab and speculation-fueled bubble led quickly to a depression, forcing Pinochet to implement Keynesian policies, as well as rolling back labor "reforms," to get the economy back on its feet. ..."
"... Overly mobile capital , meaning unrestricted cross-border money flows. The IMF paper points out that while the neoliberals claim that freely mobile money helps growth, there's not much concrete evidence to support that. By contrast, higher levels of capital flows lead to more instability and more frequent and severe financial and economic crisis. Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart determined that high levels of international capital flows were strongly correlated with bigger and nastier financial crises. The BIS also made a persuasive, well-documented case that excessive "financial elasticity" which means lots of cross-border funds mobility that can quickly collapse, was the cause of the 2008 crisis. ..."
"... It's also hard to see how highly mobile money can be a plus, particularly for smaller and even not so small economies. Look at the how much the yen has moved over the past decade. How can investors in things that would actually make an economy more productive (foreign direct investment, such as factories and other operations) make any kind of accurate assessment of returns to cross border investment with so much foreign exchange volatility? And that uncertainty will lead a foreign investor to require a higher rate of return. Similarly, even if there were measurable benefits from highly mobile money movements, the costs of the busts need to be offset against that. It's pretty hard to see how you "offset" the cost of the blowup just past, whose total cost is estimated at one times global GDP. ..."
"... The publication of this IMF paper is a sign that the zeitgeist is, years after the crisis, finally shifting. It is becoming too hard to maintain the pretense that the policies that produced the global financial crisis, which are almost entirely still intact, are working. And the elites and their economic alchemists may also recognize that if they don't change course pretty soon, they risk the loss of not just legitimacy but control. With Trump and Le Pen at the barricades, the IMF wake-up call may be too late. ..."
"... Call me a cynic, but something tells me this won't change anything for the people currently suffering under the IMF yoke. IMF has put out plenty of papers that actually take a realistic look at the world, but it hasn't stopped them from pursuing policies essentially guaranteed to immiserate the majority of the population. ..."
"... you finally figured out that neo-liberalism isn't all it's cracked up to be? Well what a bunch of frickin' geniuses! ..."
"... The point of the shifting rhetoric is not to introduce policies that will better serve the poor, or the citizenry generally, it is a defensive action on the part of the elites to maintain their legitimacy and control. ..."
"... even worse, it just proves that they are able to learn to speak the right language about the economy. while we peons wait on for the inevitable co-optation and corruption of it towards elite ends once again. ..."
"... All power flows from the barrel of a gun. ..."
"... Jefferson – Nice treason going eh? Boy some overconfident are in for a shock. The French army thought they were the shit until longbowmen showed up. Enough said. As to this article. No, there is no free lunch. There could be a free snack if the money was directed at productive endeavors. But they did not and now trust and the social contract is totally broken. Even Larry Summers by 2010 was calling for a new one. That all said, the last 40 years elite did get some good advancements in science and medicine done. I'll give credit where it is due but the empire building shit isn't a plus, that is for sure. ..."
"... Something that always bears repeating is that a split in elite factions is essential to implementing real change. Access to power, money, and influence is what is needed to move society in any direction. Thru my own experience in life, I find most people are not sociopaths, they generally will direct their actions in benevolent manner if the overall social convention is to do so. This is why leadership is so important, and points to the true crisis of our time. We have a crisis of leadership. ..."
"... The split in elite thinking is showing itself because we have reached a crisis point and the elite are finally feeling the heat. While it is easy to paint these class divisions with a broad brush, there is an underlying dynamic of the classes that has been lost in recent years. The sense of duty to ones people and nation. What we have now, at least in America, is a confused mess. You cannot serve the nation by impoverishing its people. ..."
"... Like Lord Ashby's observations that it typically takes 200 years before new knowledge makes its way into policies and institutions. Reduce that time somewhat due to internet, but even so his point is well made. He argues that policies and institutions only incorporate the new knowledge once a significant percentage of the general public has already accepted it. This says to me that new thinking has to happen from the ground up, and we should not expect it to happen from the top down. ..."
"... What's the old saying – "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." ..."
"... "Unrestricted cross-border money flows" absolutely shouts dynamic instability from the get go and how could it be otherwise? Foreign direct investment also smells of absentee cross-border slum lord -ism; out of sight out of mind irresponsibility. Common currency (the Euro) wipes out fault tolerance and resiliency in the system and hard wires contagion. Nobody even discusses trade imbalance instability from so-called "free trade". ..."
"... Neoliberal policy is to replace men, with whatever combined circuit is most efficient. It's not rocket science. ..."
"... Yves may wish to weigh in with a more detailed explanation (here is a recent treatment of the "neoliberal thought collective" ) but "Neoliberalism Expressed as Simple Rules" for rules of thumb that will enable you to detect neoliberals in your ordinary dealings in comment sections and on the twitter. If your interlocutor, for example, has a dogmatic faith in the workings of markets, you're dealing with a neoliberal. ..."
"... I would say neoliberalism has been the dominant ideology, across the board, since the mid-70s (in other words, pre-Reagan). I'd have a hard time finding any policy that fits within the Overton Window of permitted discourse of DC, from left to right, that is not neoliberal, scholastics-level fine-grained faction-driven distinctions aside. The current stasis of the Overton Window is being challenged a bit by the Sanders campaign (from the left) and the Trump campaign (from the right), granting for a moment that politics are bipolar. Too long an answer, I know! ..."
"... Please see Recent Items. We have a post on the Mirowski's paper on the Neoliberal Though Collective prominently displayed. ..."
"... How about this; hyper aggressive top down global economic integration no matter what the fallout. ..."
"... Keep the masses ignorant, wanting and distracted. Under the current social system, you are offered a choice: Be "SMART" and join in on the looting, or be exploited as one to the sheep. It seems humanity must evolve to a third position- one of collective benefit and sustainability or end in extinction. ..."
"... Neither a swindler nor a sucker be. Neither a looter nor a victim be. ..."
"... The Central Banks produced low inflation figures in the US, while massive inflation was occurring in the costs of housing, education and healthcare causing the cost of living to sky rocket. This fictitious inflation figure targeting seems to be a rather pointless exercise. There is no point in producing low inflation figures while the cost of living is sky rocketing. A global youth now sit at home with their parents unable to afford to move out due to high mortgage payments and rent. They are not starting families and the demographic problems are going to get a whole lot worse. Why is global aggregate demand so low? Suppressed wages with sky rocketing costs of living. Neo-Liberalism really is just silly. ..."
"... A look at the UK. We have followed the US idea of paid further education. One of the first things the US banks did in 2008 was to get the Government to back student loans as they were beginning to default on a large scale. In the UK we have linked repayments to RPI and not the CPI figure the Central Bank targets. The usual silliness for masking the rising costs of living and an opportunity to rip off young people. Another idea, unregulated, trickle down capitalism, which we had in the UK in the 19th Century. In the 19th Century those at the top were very wealthy those at the bottom lived in abject poverty, no trickledown. The first regulations to deal with wealthy UK businessman seeking profit, the abolition of slavery and child labour. ..."
"... If we abolish Free Trade and restore Protectionism, the American minimum wage won't HAVE to compete with China. Free Trade is the new Slavery. Protectionism is the new Abolition. ..."
"... The IMF is trying to wash its own face now. Too late. Both the IMF and the WB must stand Trial for Crimes Against Humanity. ..."
While the IMF's research team has for many years chipped away at mainstream economic thinking,
a short, accessible paper makes an even more frontal challenge. It's caused such a stir that the
Financial Times
featured
it on its front page . We've embedded it at the end of this post and encourage you to read it
and circulate it.
The article cheekily flags the infamous case of the Chicago Boys, Milton Friedman's followers
in Pinochet's Chile, as having been falsely touted as a success. If anything, the authors are too
polite in describing what a train wreck resulted. A plutocratic land grab and speculation-fueled
bubble led quickly to a depression, forcing Pinochet to implement Keynesian policies, as well as
rolling back labor "reforms," to get the economy back on its feet.
The papers describes three ways in which neoliberal reforms do more harm than good.
Overly mobile capital , meaning unrestricted cross-border money flows. The
IMF paper points out that while the neoliberals claim that freely mobile money helps growth, there's
not much concrete evidence to support that. By contrast, higher levels of capital flows lead to more
instability and more frequent and severe financial and economic crisis. Ken Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart
determined that high levels of international capital flows were strongly correlated with bigger and
nastier financial crises. The BIS also made a persuasive, well-documented case that excessive "financial
elasticity" which means lots of cross-border funds mobility that can quickly collapse, was the cause
of the 2008 crisis.
It's also hard to see how highly mobile money can be a plus, particularly for smaller and
even not so small economies. Look at the how much the yen has moved over the past decade. How can
investors in things that would actually make an economy more productive (foreign direct investment,
such as factories and other operations) make any kind of accurate assessment of returns to cross
border investment with so much foreign exchange volatility? And that uncertainty will lead a foreign
investor to require a higher rate of return. Similarly, even if there were measurable benefits from
highly mobile money movements, the costs of the busts need to be offset against that. It's pretty
hard to see how you "offset" the cost of the blowup just past, whose total cost is estimated at one
times global GDP.
Thus the paper argues that the heretical idea of capital controls can make sense as a way to choke
off a credit bubble stoked by foreign investment.
Austerity . The IMF article argues that while small countries may have no choice
other than to curtail their overall level of indebtedness, this is not a one-size-fits-all prescription.
For larger countries, running larger deficits, particularly after a financial crisis, is a better
option than belt-tighening.
This section of the article is frustrating, since it utterly fails to distinguish fiat currency
issuers from states that are not monetary sovereigns. It also blandly accepts the idea that high
levels of indebtedness are bad, when government debt increases typically make up for shortfalls in
private sector investment and demand. Recall that in the supposedly virtuous Clinton budget surplus
years, households, which are normally net savers in aggregate, managed to make up for the Federal
government fiscal drag by going on a big debt party. But it does have some zingers, at least by the
standards of policy wonkery:
Austerity policies not only generate substantial welfare costs due to supply-side channels,
they also hurt demand-and thus worsen employment and unemployment. The notion that fiscal consolidations
can be expansionary (that is, raise output and employment), in part by raising private sector
confidence and investment, has been championed by, among others, Harvard economist Alberto Alesina
in the academic world and by former European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet in the
policy arena. However, in practice, episodes of fiscal consolidation have been followed, on average,
by drops rather than by expansions in output. On average, a consolidation of 1 percent of GDP
increases the long-term unemployment rate by 0.6 percentage point and raises by 1.5 percent within
five years the Gini measure of income inequality (Ball and others, 2013)
Depicting "fiscal consolidation" as snake oil is radical, at least among Serious Economists.
Increasing inequality . The paper gratifyingly says that both austerity and highly
mobile capital increase inequality, and inequality is a negative for growth. And it firmly says Something
Must Be Done:
The evidence of the economic damage from inequality suggests that policymakers should be more
open to redistribution than they are.Of course, apart from redistribution, policies could be designed
to mitigate some of the impacts in advance-for instance, through increased spending on education
and training, which expands equality of opportunity (so-called predistribution policies). And
fiscal consolidation strategies-when they are needed-could be designed to minimize the adverse
impact on low-income groups. But in some cases, the untoward distributional consequences will
have to be remedied after they occur by using taxes and government spending to redistribute income.
Fortunately, the fear that such policies will themselves necessarily hurt growth is unfounded.
Mind you, this article is far from ideal. For instance, careful readers will see that it treats
the debunked loanable funds theory as valid.
In some ways, the fact that this article was written at all, and that it is apparently fomenting
debate in policy circles is more important than the details of its argument, since it does not break
new ground. Instead, it takes some of the findings and analysis of heterodox and forward-thinking
development economists and distills them nicely.
The publication of this IMF paper is a sign that the zeitgeist is, years after the crisis,
finally shifting. It is becoming too hard to maintain the pretense that the policies that produced
the global financial crisis, which are almost entirely still intact, are working. And the elites
and their economic alchemists may also recognize that if they don't change course pretty soon, they
risk the loss of not just legitimacy but control. With Trump and Le Pen at the barricades, the IMF
wake-up call may be too late.
Call me a cynic, but something tells me this won't change anything for the people currently
suffering under the IMF yoke. IMF has put out plenty of papers that actually take a realistic
look at the world, but it hasn't stopped them from pursuing policies essentially guaranteed to
immiserate the majority of the population. Talk is cheap, in other words. The IMF has caused
so much suffering and been responsible for propagandizing so much BS over the years that reports
like this just don't move me at all. Oh really , I think, you finally figured out
that neo-liberalism isn't all it's cracked up to be? Well what a bunch of frickin' geniuses!
The publication of this IMF paper is a sign that the zeitgeist is, years after the crisis,
finally shifting. It is becoming too hard to maintain the pretense that the policies that produced
the global financial crisis, which are almost entirely still intact, are working. And the elites
and their economic alchemists may also recognize that if they don't change course pretty soon,
they risk the loss of not just legitimacy but control.
The point of the shifting rhetoric is not to introduce policies that will better serve
the poor, or the citizenry generally, it is a defensive action on the part of the elites to maintain
their legitimacy and control.
i concur wholeheartedly with both of your above statements.
even worse, it just proves that they are able to learn to speak the right language about
the economy. while we peons wait on for the inevitable co-optation and corruption of it towards
elite ends once again.
The point of the shifting rhetoric is not to introduce policies that will better serve the
poor, or the citizenry generally, it is a defensive action on the part of the elites to maintain
their legitimacy and control.
Jefferson – Nice treason going eh? Boy some overconfident are in for a shock. The French
army thought they were the shit until longbowmen showed up. Enough said. As to this article. No,
there is no free lunch. There could be a free snack if the money was directed at productive endeavors.
But they did not and now trust and the social contract is totally broken. Even Larry Summers by
2010 was calling for a new one. That all said, the last 40 years elite did get some good advancements
in science and medicine done. I'll give credit where it is due but the empire building shit isn't
a plus, that is for sure.
That Tampa exercise is really something. Maybe it was a practice run to take out Maduro, since
they "messed it up" with Chavez. Or a warning to Others who don't play nice with the USA.
The IMF research side and the IMF program side operate separately from each other. However,
IMF research does influence other economists and media coverage. You are not going to see changes
in policy anywhere until you see changes in orthodox thinking.
And splits within the elites are a necessary but not sufficient condition for change. We are
seeing the start of a real split in the elites.
Something that always bears repeating is that a split in elite factions is essential to
implementing real change. Access to power, money, and influence is what is needed to move society
in any direction. Thru my own experience in life, I find most people are not sociopaths, they
generally will direct their actions in benevolent manner if the overall social convention is to
do so. This is why leadership is so important, and points to the true crisis of our time. We have
a crisis of leadership.
Two points that need to be driven home again and again. Government policy implemented in the
service of the people and the notion that the middle class was created thru public policy, not
some natural occurrence. It was a choice.
The split in elite thinking is showing itself because we have reached a crisis point and
the elite are finally feeling the heat. While it is easy to paint these class divisions with a
broad brush, there is an underlying dynamic of the classes that has been lost in recent years.
The sense of duty to ones people and nation. What we have now, at least in America, is a confused
mess. You cannot serve the nation by impoverishing its people.
True wealth, happiness, and stability can only be achieved through bonds of respect forged
between the ruling class and citizens. Without this functioning ideal, you will have strife and
hardship. The elite must make a choice. Keep doubling down on their oppression of the working
class, or decide they have a duty to humanity.
In the end, responsibility for ones actions in life cannot be avoided forever. As the destruction
of inequality grows ever more apparent, the elite must face their conscience or the mob, it would
seem to me, any sane person would rather choose the former than the later.
"IMF has put out plenty of papers that actually take a realistic look at the world, but it
hasn't stopped them from pursuing policies essentially guaranteed to immiserate the majority of
the population."
Not directly related to this subject, but this reminds me of book reviews. I have any number
of books that challenge orthodoxy of one kind or other (like, say, David Graeber's Debt: The First
5,000 Years) that feature quotes from reviews on the covers and first few pages that praise the
book as 'groundbreaking', 'important' etc. But then as far as I can see the publications that
issued those reviews absorb none of the new wisdom and continue parroting the status quo. Hell,
sometimes these books get awards or selected as best books of the year before whatever information
they contain is completely ignored.
Like Lord Ashby's observations that it typically takes 200 years before new knowledge makes
its way into policies and institutions. Reduce that time somewhat due to internet, but even so
his point is well made. He argues that policies and institutions only incorporate the new knowledge
once a significant percentage of the general public has already accepted it. This says to me that
new thinking has to happen from the ground up, and we should not expect it to happen from the
top down.
What's the old saying – "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents
and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation
grows up that is familiar with it."
And I'd say with something like economics, something much more similar to a religion than a
science, its more like "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you
know for sure that just ain't so"
1. Ignore it until it goes away.
2. Publish a counter example.
3. Claim that disaster will entail, and We Are Doing The Best We Can in an uncertain world, and
debt is bad because It Must Be Repaid.
4. Have an election, and Nothing Can Be Done until after the election (which is never in the US
because there is always an election looming)
5. Sex scandal. (The authorities have an ample supply, due to their pervasive surveillance)
6. If all else fails, then terrorism, because existential enemies, carefully built on a continuing
basis, and must have war, like Syria.
7. Refer it to a committee for further study.
"Unrestricted cross-border money flows" absolutely shouts dynamic instability from the
get go and how could it be otherwise? Foreign direct investment also smells of absentee cross-border
slum lord -ism; out of sight out of mind irresponsibility. Common currency (the Euro) wipes out
fault tolerance and resiliency in the system and hard wires contagion. Nobody even discusses trade
imbalance instability from so-called "free trade".
preterite: A person not elected to salvation by God? Not what my search says:
noun
1. a tense of verbs used to relate past action, formed in English by inflection of the verb, as
jumped, swam
2.a verb in this tense
adjective
3. denoting this tense
Word Origin
C14: from Late Latin praeteritum (tempus) past (time, tense), from Latin praeterīre to go by,
from preter- + īre to go
Add Pynchon to your search, or Calvinism.
One
blog post says:
Expat asks, what is Pynchon talking about when he refers to the "preterite?" Let me take
a hasty stab at an answer.
As I recall, the Calvinists thought that there were three kinds of people: the elect, the
preterite, and the damned. The elect are going to heaven. The damned very clearly are not.
The preterite can't be sure, so they do their very best to act like elect, since if they act
like the damned they won't be happy in the end.
3. Theol. A person not elected to salvation by God. Cf. preterition n. 3. rare.
1864 Fraser's Mag. May 533/2 The reprobates who are damned because they were always meant to be
damned, and the preterites who are damned because they were never meant to be saved.
2006 http://www.adequacy.org 5 Dec. (O.E.D.
Archive) Weren't the Elect who interbred with Preterites committing bestiality? Are they not therefore
condemned to Hell?
Admittedly rare, but as with Tom Allen nested in the comments, I came upon this meaning through
reading Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow, and taking in his ruminations upon the Calvinist classes
of humans, the elect, the damned, and the preterite. Fit in very nicely with the story line. Fits
in all too well with the way of the world, in my opinion.
I'd conclude the Calvinists misused a word. The Latin root seems to Indictate this.
If we are not chosen, then I'd also assery we are the dammed.
The Calvinists indeed there is some hope for salvation for their definition of preterite.
However, the Calvinists have a harsh, unforgiving creed, and consequently do not appear to
me to meet our Lord's definitions, especially the "let him who is without sin cast the first stone"
and certainly miss "judge not."
I'd conclude the Calvinists misused a word. The Latin root seems to Indictate this.
If we are not chosen, then I'd also assert we are the dammed.
The Calvinists indeed there is some hope for salvation for their definition of preterite.
However, the Calvinists have a harsh, unforgiving creed, and consequently do not appear to
me to meet our Lord's definitions, especially the "let him who is without sin cast the first stone"
and certainly miss "judge not."
Neoliberal policy is to replace men, with whatever combined circuit is most efficient.
It's not rocket science. Last time we approached -Johnson & Johnson, your bait and swap inversion
specializing in the baby slave trade, Yves was talking about credit unions and I was talking about
Proctor & Gamble.
I have no use for peer friends, and recognize no enemy among a herd. Labor is a tribe, with
as many different spirits / passion as possible, NOT a pyramid of rotated peer pressure groups,
under the all seeing eye of debt as money.
Theories are like people, NOT R&D is r&d. I have been teaching young women AI programming right
in front of your eyes, essentially what I would teach my daughters, funny, just as if they were
at my armchair, before dinner, after she played with mommy all day. Serious time.
Just because you are surrounded physically, doesn't mean that you are the prisoner.
You are moving awfully fast. I think if you print out several pieces, and recombine the sentences,
you will find/ the answer.
Essentially, farming people is a tuning problem, through DNA filters. The bananas up a ladder
experiment (look it up).
Feminism and chauvinism have their trade offs, more now and less later. Well it's later, and
young women like my daughters, thrown in that black hole, are NOTS, who will be far better programmers
than anything currently on the planet. But. Proof is in the pudding.
i just realized that i dont know what neo-liberalism is, other than a pejorative i've heard
used dozens of times…i couldnt even tell you who is one, and who isnt..
Yves may wish to weigh in with a more detailed explanation (here is a recent treatment
of the
"neoliberal thought collective" ) but
"Neoliberalism Expressed as Simple Rules" for rules of thumb that will enable you to detect
neoliberals in your ordinary dealings in comment sections and on the twitter. If your interlocutor,
for example, has a dogmatic faith in the workings of markets, you're dealing with a neoliberal.
I would say neoliberalism has been the dominant ideology, across the board, since the mid-70s
(in other words, pre-Reagan). I'd have a hard time finding any policy that fits within the Overton
Window of permitted discourse of DC, from left to right, that is not neoliberal, scholastics-level
fine-grained faction-driven distinctions aside. The current stasis of the Overton Window is being
challenged a bit by the Sanders campaign (from the left) and the Trump campaign (from the right),
granting for a moment that politics are bipolar. Too long an answer, I know!
I understand your nuanced depth UASI but I think that commentator was asking in laymens term.
Liberalism is spending other peoples money. It can be used by government for good or evil. Neo
liberalism implies such term on steroids. An always fair question as a taxpayer is this.:
Does what I am being taxed for increase my security, freedom and potential upward mobility?
The last 40 years tells me no. Mixed bag sometimes, not all evil but certainly the wrong direction
and alarming. Not only does the looting damage opportunity but those that got the money by stealing
have the worst attitudes in the world. Anybody with one penny or position over you has a shitty
attitude. By the way, I am my own boss so my observations are neutral.
Having a business model and political system that hoovers it all into the top guarantees a
global slum. The 'isms' (capitalism vs socialism, fascism, communsm) and democrate vs. republican
wind up being a flimsy excuse but serious distraction from looting.
This current cycle of it is double standards and law, looting. Call it whatever you want. Robbery
is part of many species, but so is wising up to it and defending oneself.
The IMF knows this cycle of looting is near over so there is not cost abandoning an 'ism'.
But they do want you to think free lunch can always be had. The snack can be, leave math asidethe
reason why is some perception can become a reality. Debt issued for productive purpose can have
a multiplyer effect. But when issued to hand out in to crony buddies or consumption of some things,
the economy grinds down to near halt.
Had to explain the term while simply explaining the context. The why is as important as a term
or nothing can be learned or improved.
But, because we have an unlimited supply of money then government would be spending money that
belongs to no individual. There can be no deficit spending, only spending. The new economics system
would be one that distributes rather than redistributes, Society would decide the rules for such
distribution and individuals can still be denied their "fair share." Rules of exchange and possession
of money would guide our interactions But the most important aspect of an unlimited supply of
money is that as individuals small children would learn that they will have enough money to go
as far as their talents and efforts can take them; they will learn that they will have equal access
to resources, opportunities, rights, and protections that will enable them to build long lives
worth living.
So we really don't have to worry about the supply of money, we just have to worry about a society
that really does give young humans equal access to resources, opportunities, rights, and protections.
The only government that has come close to reaching that goal was the democracy of ancient Athens.
Athens did not have an unlimited supply of money, but they spent their money for the common
good which included giving some money to people who needed it as well as spending great sums for
the common good rather than giving equal shares of those sums to its citizens.
Under our current systems of government and economics an unlimited supply of money would make
the rich richer and the poor poorer.
Under a democracy that has an unlimited amount of money the GDP would become the ADI, average
domestic income, and our success would be measured by the level and the growth of the ADI.
I have no idea why this paper is even here on NC. Because decades later the IMF is saying,
well, maybe we were a little wrong? They had to butcher people to put this crap in power and butcher
people to keep this crap in power. That's not a little wrong. The economy exists for the people;
not the other way around.
For rjs: For a good start on what neoliberalism means, a base definition to start with is the
exact opposite of Benedict@Large's statement above, "The economy exists for the people".
Most sane people feel that economic "science" is inherently a social, soft, science and that
economics as a field of study and policy determination exists to serve the people The neoliberal
contingent feels the economy is "the invisible hand", equivalent to God. We exist to serve the
economy.
Didn't anyone read John Gray? He laid bare all the neo-liberal fallacies in his 1998 book:
"False Dawn, The Delusions of Global Capitalism". So now the IMF comes along 18 years later and
states what was explained nearly two decades ago. Gray is an intellectual giant in a land of fools
so nobody paid any attention to him.
Keep the masses ignorant, wanting and distracted. Under the current social system, you
are offered a choice: Be "SMART" and join in on the looting, or be exploited as one to the sheep.
It seems humanity must evolve to a third position- one of collective benefit and sustainability
or end in extinction.
About time, the IMF and World Bank have been using these ideas for decades even before they
were adopted globally under the "Neo-Liberal" ideology.
They have a track record of nearly 50 years of unmitigated disaster.
When South American and African nations were in trouble the World Bank stepped in and offered
loans as long as they reformed their economies with less public spending, austerity and privatising
previously public companies.
It was a disaster.
In the Asian Crisis in 1998 the IMF stepped in and offered loans as long as they reformed their
economies with less public spending, austerity and privatising previously public companies.
It was a disaster.
When Greece got into trouble recently the IMF stepped in and offered loans as long as they
reformed their economy with less public spending, austerity and privatising previously public
companies.
The US and the UK were the first to adopt these ideas with Reagan and Thatcher.
One idea was to make countries competitive in a global economy.
Let's have a look at the US.
The minimum wage must cover the cost of living in that nation, what must the minimum wage cover
in the US?
1) The cost of sky high mortgage payments or rent
2) The repayments on student loans
3) The cost of all services that were once free or subsidised
4) The cost of healthcare
The minimum wage necessary to cover the cost of living in the US ensures it can never compete
with China.
Central Banks were supposed to keep inflation low to ensure the cost of living does not rise
too quickly ensuring wage inflation can be kept low.
The Central Banks produced low inflation figures in the US, while massive inflation was
occurring in the costs of housing, education and healthcare causing the cost of living to sky
rocket. This fictitious inflation figure targeting seems to be a rather pointless exercise. There
is no point in producing low inflation figures while the cost of living is sky rocketing. A global
youth now sit at home with their parents unable to afford to move out due to high mortgage payments
and rent. They are not starting families and the demographic problems are going to get a whole
lot worse. Why is global aggregate demand so low? Suppressed wages with sky rocketing costs of
living. Neo-Liberalism really is just silly.
A look at the UK. We have followed the US idea of paid further education. One of the first
things the US banks did in 2008 was to get the Government to back student loans as they were beginning
to default on a large scale. In the UK we have linked repayments to RPI and not the CPI figure
the Central Bank targets. The usual silliness for masking the rising costs of living and an opportunity
to rip off young people. Another idea, unregulated, trickle down capitalism, which we had in the
UK in the 19th Century. In the 19th Century those at the top were very wealthy those at the bottom
lived in abject poverty, no trickledown. The first regulations to deal with wealthy UK businessman
seeking profit, the abolition of slavery and child labour.
Where regulation is lax today? Factories in China with suicide nets. No wonder the French are
rioting and the populists are getting angry. Neo-Liberalism really is rather nasty.
Michael Hudson in "Killing the Host" goes into the rather more sensible thinking of Classical
Economists on how to make nations competitive. You lower the cost of living to the minimum, to
ensure the basic minimum wage is low enough to compete with other countries.
Pretty much the opposite of the US today:
1) Low housing costs
2) Free or subsidised education
3) Free or subsidised services
4) Free or subsidised healthcare
You need to get the cost of living down, so the minimum wage necessary is the same as that
in China.
If we abolish Free Trade and restore Protectionism, the American minimum wage won't HAVE
to compete with China. Free Trade is the new Slavery. Protectionism is the new Abolition.
"... Yet still we cannot bring ourselves to look the thing in the eyes. We cannot admit that we liberals bear some of the blame for its emergence, for the frustration of the working-class millions, for their blighted cities and their downward spiraling lives. So much easier to scold them for their twisted racist souls, to close our eyes to the obvious reality of which Trump_vs_deep_state is just a crude and ugly expression: that neoliberalism has well and truly failed. ..."
"... The only thing more ludicrous than voting for Donald Trump would be to vote for Hilary Clinton. Whilst Trump is evidently crude, vulgar, bombastic, xenophobic, racist and misogynistic, his manifest personality flaws pale into insignificance when compared to the the meglomaniacal, prevaricating, misandristic, puff adder, who is likely to oppose him! ..."
"... Clinton is the archetypal political parasite, who has spent a lifetime with her arrogant snout wedged firmly in the public trough. Like Obama, Bush, et al, Clinton is just another elitist Bilderberger sock puppet, a conniving conspirator in the venal kleptocracy, located in Washington D.C, otherwise known as the U.S. federal government. ..."
"... Trump at least is not in thrall to the system and thus, by default, can be perceived by the average blue-collar American as being an outsider to the systemic corruption that pervades the whole American political process. A horrible choice, but the lesser of two evils. ..."
"... Trump was always a Democrat, before now and so were a lot of other Americans. America is watching how the Democrat Party is destroying America. The race card is a low blow to Trump supporters. Illegal immigration is a legitimate issue in the US. It has nothing to do with racism. ..."
"... British capitalism grew because of two things cheap coal that made using the new steam engine and the protected monopoly markets offered by the empire which also provided monopoly access to the resources of those countries. American capitalism grew up behind high tariff walls, ditto Chinese capitalism now. ..."
"... TTIP will be used by big capital both here in Europe and in the US to drive down the wages and working conditions of workers in Europe and the US, and that is why the EU is solely a bosses agenda and workers here in Britain have more to gain by leaving the EU, an EU that has crucified workers in Greece just so German bankers don't lose. ..."
"... Politicians in the U.S. are inherently corrupt, both figuratively and literally (they just hide it better as perks and campaign contributions). Politicians in the U.S. make promises, but ultimately it is just rhetoric and nothing ever gets delivered on. Once elected, they revert to the Status Quo of doing nothing – or they vote for the bills of the interest groups that supported them during the election. ..."
"... It seems noone wants to talk about anything other than vilifying Trump supporters because their vested interests are all about grind working people into the dust so the high end of town can make every more money. No wonder Trump is cutting through. The whole world has been watching our leaders sell us down the river in these deals. ..."
"... The working class tens of millions have the votes and if need be, the guns. Thank you, second amendment. Essentially they're presented with the prospect of their kids spending their working lives slaving at $10-$20 an hour, or to die trying to alter the future of that elite-orchestrated course of events. What would an American choose? ..."
"... All Clinton has to offer is more of the same lying and "free trade" deals, and subterfuge and killing. Trump says he's gonna step up, bring the jobs back to America, get the mass of people moving forward again, so Trumps is gonna win this thing. ..."
"... Free trade isn't free. It has cost millions of Americans their jobs, even their homes and hopes for the future. Both parties have taken American workers for granted even worse than the Democrats have taken Blacks for granted lately. ..."
"... What we need is a Labor party to represent those of US who have to work to earn a living, as opposed to those who were born wealthy, or gained their wealth through stock manipulation/dividends and fraud. It is the working people who actually create new wealth. Trump's bigotry does not bother white blue collar workers because they mostly agree and hate and fear Blacks. The Venn diagram of bigots, white laborers and the south overlap almost 100%. ..."
"... Taibbi in the latest Rolling Stone says the same thing. Taibbi went to listen to Trump's speeches. Trump pillories Big Pharma, unemployment and trade deals and Wall Street. He's less warlike than Clinton. ..."
"... So it is very possible Clinton will be hit from the LEFT by Trump. That is how bad the Democratis really are. ..."
"... And 'change' – I.e more globalism, means less and less job security: economic security slipping away at a unprecedented rate. Transnational interests basically rule America, not to mention the mainstream media, whose job it is to attack Trump. Many millions have seen through this facade. Democrat or Republican, the incestuous political establishment is being exposed like never before. ..."
"... Trump is revealing what other candidates refuse to admit: that they are owned before they even step foot into Washington. I mean - Clinton is Goldman and Sachs, TTIP, Monsanto approved! And this is who the Guardian are siding with? Go figure... ..."
"... I think his denouncing trade deals is what made the Republicans, (aka, Corporatist Party of which Hillary should clearly be a part of-but save for another day) go bonkers. They cannot control this guy and he's making sense in the trade department. It's not as if suddenly the Republican party has grown a set of morals. ..."
"... Because Sanders will support Hillary as he promised to do -- does that sound like a revolutionary? Bill Clinton invented NAFTA. Get it? ..."
"... They abandoned the working classes in favour of grabbing middle class votes and relied on working class voters continuing to support them, because they had "nowhere else to go". ..."
"... This reminded me of something I heard on NPR this weekend: Charles Evers, Medgar Evers' brother and a prominent civil rights activist since the 50's, is endorsing Trump. ..."
"... Interestingly you have raised issues that are all very complex -- and that is just the problem. We have become a society that promotes complexity and then does not want to discuss and analyze those complex issues, but wants to oversimplify and fight and make the "other side" be a devil. Are we all getting dumbed down to slogans and cliches? ..."
"... The working people that the party used to care about, Democrats figured, had nowhere else to go, in the famous Clinton-era expression. The party just didn't need to listen to them any longer. ..."
"... Frank offers insights that Clintonites can ignore at their peril. As the widow of a hardworking man who was twice the victim of "outsourcing" to Malaysia and India, and whose prolonged illness brought with it savings-decimating drug costs, I can well see how Trump's appeal goes beyond xenophobia and racism. ..."
"... Trump is saying that NAFTA and neo-liberalism have failed the American people. ..."
"... You could be describing Hillary and Bill the fraudulent guy who "feels your pain". Liars and in the pockets of bankers, that couple is not your friend. ..."
"... I don't see a true value to trade if it involves loss of jobs and lowered pay. I do see value in fair trade where we receive somewhat equal return ..."
"... The Guardian's incessant Trump bashing disguises, unfortunately, how similarly repugnant Cruz(particularly) and Rubio are. Clinton is better, not by far, and Sanders though wonderfully idealist and full of integrity, will be able to accomplish nothing with the Republicans controlling Congress. ..."
"... I'm living in Japan, where in the past decade they have taken in 11 refugees. That's not 11 million or even 11 thousand. I mean 11. ..."
"... And guess what, they are not racist. They have borders and they are not racist. I know this is a hard concept for progressives to get their heads around, but believe it or not it is possible. ..."
"... The Guardian's incessant Trump bashing disguises, unfortunately, how similarly repugnant Cruz(particularly) and Rubio are. Clinton is better, not by far, and Sanders though wonderfully idealist and full of integrity, will be able to accomplish nothing with the Republicans controlling Congress. ..."
...the Republican frontrunner is hammering home a powerful message about free trade and its victims
....because the working-class white people who make up the bulk of Trump's fan base show up in
amazing numbers for the candidate, filling stadiums and airport hangars, but their views, by and
large, do not appear in our prestige newspapers. On their opinion pages, these publications take
care to represent demographic categories of nearly every kind, but "blue-collar" is one they persistently
overlook. The views of working-class people are so foreign to that universe that when New York Times
columnist Nick Kristof wanted to "engage" a Trump supporter last week, he made one up, along with
this imaginary person's responses to his questions.
When members of the professional class wish to understand the working-class Other, they traditionally
consult experts on the subject. And when these authorities are asked to explain the Trump movement,
they always seem to zero in on one main accusation: bigotry. Only racism, they tell us, is capable
of powering a movement like Trump's, which is blowing through the inherited structure of the Republican
party like a tornado through a cluster of McMansions.
... ... ...
Yes, Donald Trump talked about trade. In fact, to judge by how much time he spent talking about
it, trade may be his single biggest concern – not white supremacy. Not even his plan to build a wall
along the Mexican border, the issue that first won him political fame. He did it again during the
debate on 3 March: asked about his
political excommunication by Mitt Romney, he chose to pivot and talk about ... trade.
It seems to obsess him: the destructive free-trade deals our leaders have made, the many companies
that have moved their production facilities to other lands, the phone calls he will make to those
companies' CEOs in order to threaten them with steep tariffs unless they move back to the US.
Trump embellished this vision with another favorite left-wing idea: under his leadership, the
government would "start competitive bidding in the drug industry." ("We don't competitively bid!"
he marveled – another true fact, a
legendary boondoggle brought to you by the George W Bush administration.) Trump extended the
critique to the military-industrial complex, describing how the government is forced to buy
lousy but expensive airplanes thanks to the power of industry lobbyists.
... ... ...
Trade is an issue that polarizes Americans by socio-economic status. To the professional class,
which encompasses the vast majority of our media figures, economists, Washington officials and Democratic
power brokers, what they call "free trade" is something so obviously good and noble it doesn't require
explanation or inquiry or even thought. Republican and Democratic leaders alike agree on this, and
no amount of facts can move them from their Econ 101 dream.
To the remaining 80 or 90% of America, trade means something very different. There's a video going
around on the internet these days that shows a room full of workers at a Carrier air conditioning
plant in Indiana being told by an officer of the company that the factory is being moved to Monterrey,
Mexico and that they're all going to lose their jobs.
As I watched it, I thought of all the arguments over trade that we've had in this country since
the early 1990s, all the sweet words from our economists about the scientifically proven benevolence
of free trade, all the ways in which our newspapers mock people who say that treaties like the North
Atlantic Free Trade Agreement allow companies to move jobs to Mexico.
Well, here is a video of a company moving its jobs to Mexico, courtesy of Nafta. This is what
it looks like. The Carrier executive talks in that familiar and highly professional HR language about
the need to "stay competitive" and "the extremely price-sensitive marketplace." A worker shouts "Fuck
you!" at the executive. The executive asks people to please be quiet so he can "share" his "information".
His information about all of them losing their jobs.
But there is another way to interpret the Trump phenomenon. A map of his support may coordinate
with racist Google searches, but it coordinates even better with deindustrialization and despair,
with the zones of economic misery that 30 years of Washington's free-market consensus have brought
the rest of America.
Advertisement
It is worth noting that Trump is making a point of assailing that Indiana air conditioning company
from the video in his speeches. What this suggests is that he's telling a tale as much about economic
outrage as it is tale of racism on the march. Many of Trump's followers are bigots, no doubt, but
many more are probably excited by the prospect of a president who seems to mean it when he denounces
our trade agreements and promises to bring the hammer down on the CEO that fired you and wrecked
your town, unlike Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Here is the most salient supporting fact: when people talk to white, working-class Trump supporters,
instead of simply imagining what they might say, they find that what most concerns these people is
the economy and their place in it. I am referring to a study just published by Working America, a
political-action auxiliary of the AFL-CIO, which interviewed some 1,600 white working-class voters
in the suburbs of Cleveland and Pittsburgh in December and January.
Support for Donald Trump, the group found, ran strong among these people, even among self-identified
Democrats, but not because they are all pining for a racist in the White House. Their favorite aspect
of Trump was his "attitude," the blunt and forthright way he talks. As far as issues are concerned,
"immigration" placed third among the matters such voters care about, far behind their number one
concern: "good jobs / the economy."
"People are much more frightened than they are bigoted," is how the findings were described to
me by Karen Nussbaum, the executive director of Working America. The survey "confirmed what we heard
all the time: people are fed up, people are hurting, they are very distressed about the fact that
their kids don't have a future" and that "there still hasn't been a recovery from the recession,
that every family still suffers from it in one way or another."
Tom Lewandowski, the president of the Northeast Indiana Central Labor Council in Fort Wayne, puts
it even more bluntly when I asked him about working-class Trump fans. "These people aren't racist,
not any more than anybody else is," he says of Trump supporters he knows. "When Trump talks about
trade, we think about the Clinton administration, first with Nafta and then with [Permanent Normal
Trade Relations] China, and here in Northeast Indiana, we hemorrhaged jobs."
"They look at that, and here's Trump talking about trade, in a ham-handed way, but at least he's
representing emotionally. We've had all the political establishment standing behind every trade deal,
and we endorsed some of these people, and then we've had to fight them to get them to represent us."
Now, let us stop and smell the perversity. Left parties the world over were founded to advance
the fortunes of working people. But our left party in America – one of our two monopoly parties –
chose long ago to turn its back on these people's concerns, making itself instead into the tribune
of the enlightened professional class, a "creative class" that makes innovative things like derivative
securities and smartphone apps. The working people that the party used to care about, Democrats figured,
had nowhere else to go, in the famous Clinton-era expression. The party just didn't need to listen
to them any longer.
What Lewandowski and Nussbaum are saying, then, should be obvious to anyone who's dipped a toe
outside the prosperous enclaves on the two coasts. Ill-considered trade deals and generous bank bailouts
and guaranteed profits for insurance companies but no recovery for average people, ever – these policies
have taken their toll. As Trump says, "we have rebuilt China and yet our country is falling apart.
Our infrastructure is falling apart. . . . Our airports are, like, Third World."
Trump's words articulate the populist backlash against [neo]liberalism that has been building
slowly for decades and may very well occupy the White House itself, whereupon the entire world will
be required to take seriously its demented ideas.
Yet still we cannot bring ourselves to look the thing in the eyes. We cannot admit that we
liberals bear some of the blame for its emergence, for the frustration of the working-class millions,
for their blighted cities and their downward spiraling lives. So much easier to scold them for their
twisted racist souls, to close our eyes to the obvious reality of which Trump_vs_deep_state is just a crude
and ugly expression: that neoliberalism has well and truly failed.
Below is a letter that General Jonathan Wainwright sent to Soldiers discharged from the military,
following their service in World War II. As our military downsizes and many choose to leave the
service, I think this letter reminds us of the charge to continue to reflect the values of our
individual services and be examples within our communities.
To: All Personnel being Discharged from the Army of the United States.
You are being discharged from the Army today- from your Army. It is your Army because your
skill, patriotism, labor, courage and devotion have been some of the factors which make it
great. You have been a member of the finest military team in history. You have accomplished
miracles in battle and supply. Your country is proud of you and you have every right to be
proud of yourselves.
You have seen, in the lands where you worked and fought and where many of your comrades
died, what happens when the people of a nation lose interest in their government. You have
seen what happens when they follow false leaders. You have seen what happens when a nation
accepts hate and intolerance.
We are all determined that what happened in Europe and in Asia must not happen to our country.
Back in civilian life you will find that your generation will be called upon to guide our country's
destiny. Opportunity for leadership is yours. The responsibility is yours. The nation which
depended on your courage and stamina to protect it from its enemies now expects you as individuals
to claim your right to leadership, a right you earned honorably and which is well deserved.
Start being a leader as soon as you put on your civilian clothes. If you see intolerance
and hate, speak out against them. Make your individual voices heard, not for selfish things,
but for honor and decency among men, for the rights of all people.
Remember too, that No American can afford to be disinterested in any part of his government,
whether it is county, city, state or nation.
Choose your leaders wisely- that is the way to keep ours the country for which you fought.
Make sure that those leaders are determined to maintain peace throughout the world. You know
what war is. You know that we must not have another. As individuals you can prevent it if you
give to the task which lies ahead the same spirit which you displayed in uniform.
Accept and trust the challenge which it carries. I know that the people of American are
counting on you. I know that you will not let them down.
Goodbye to each an every one of you and to each and every one of you, good luck!
J.M. WAINWRIGHT
General, U.S. Army
Commanding
Albert Matchett
Why Americans are supporting him begins to make sense. A lot like here in the UK, our politicians
have reduced amount of money that people have available to spent And can not understand why sales
turnovers keeps going down.
No money, No sale. Companies say made abroad equals higher profits but Not if the goods made
can not be sold, Because we have to many unemployed or minimum hours contracts or low income people.
matt88008
The only thing more ludicrous than voting for Donald Trump would be to vote for Hilary
Clinton. Whilst Trump is evidently crude, vulgar, bombastic, xenophobic, racist and misogynistic,
his manifest personality flaws pale into insignificance when compared to the the meglomaniacal,
prevaricating, misandristic, puff adder, who is likely to oppose him!
Clinton is the archetypal political parasite, who has spent a lifetime with her arrogant
snout wedged firmly in the public trough. Like Obama, Bush, et al, Clinton is just another elitist
Bilderberger sock puppet, a conniving conspirator in the venal kleptocracy, located in Washington
D.C, otherwise known as the U.S. federal government.
Trump at least is not in thrall to the system and thus, by default, can be perceived by
the average blue-collar American as being an outsider to the systemic corruption that pervades
the whole American political process. A horrible choice, but the lesser of two evils.
Trump was always a Democrat, before now and so were a lot of other Americans. America is watching
how the Democrat Party is destroying America. The race card is a low blow to Trump supporters.
Illegal immigration is a legitimate issue in the US. It has nothing to do with racism.
Protecting America from potential terrorists entering the county is a real issue. We can look
what happened in Paris and Cologne. These are concerns of the people of America and they want
protection and solutions. It has nothing to do with racism.
The biggest reason people support Trump is because they trust his financial aptitude. They
honestly feel he can bring America back to greatness.
I personally don't care for his personality and don't completely trust him but I may have to
vote for him, considering my other choices. As soon as Rubio and Kasich drop out, Cruz will take
off. Rubio, if he truly hates Trump, as he acts, may want to drop out sooner than later.
British capitalism grew because of two things cheap coal that made using the new steam engine
and the protected monopoly markets offered by the empire which also provided monopoly access to
the resources of those countries. American capitalism grew up behind high tariff walls, ditto
Chinese capitalism now.
British capitalism went into relative decline from the mid nineteenth century because of the
opening up those monopoly markets to overseas competition.
TTIP will be used by big capital both here in Europe and in the US to drive down the wages
and working conditions of workers in Europe and the US, and that is why the EU is solely a bosses
agenda and workers here in Britain have more to gain by leaving the EU, an EU that has crucified
workers in Greece just so German bankers don't lose.
If the soft left and that includes much of what passes for the left in the PLP continues to
pander to the interests of big capital then the working classes will continue to be alienated
from the Labour party.
To the middle class soft left choose a side, there are only two, labour or capital
. If you choose capital you personally maybe ok for a while, but capitalist expansion is now
threatening the environment and with it food and water security. Capitalism rests on continuous
expansion but is now pushing against natural limits and when capitalist states come under too
many restrictions to their expansion you have the perfect recipe for war and in 2016 a war between
the largest capitalist states has the risk of going nuclear.
I'll just bet that if you were to look a little closer, you might find that there are a lot of
different races voting for Trump, so stop trying to brand him as racist. That is just another
trick the opposition wants you to fall for. The corporations are fearful that they might have
to actually give a high paying job to an American, tsk, tsk.
It's ironic that a billionaire is leading the inter-class revolution.
I don't completely buy into the premise (last paragraph) that most liberals are well educated
and well off and that it's liberals -- speaking of the electorate -- that have turned their backs
on blue collar workers. There are many working-class Democrats -- that's part of Bernie Sanders'
base, the youth of America is very liberal and very under-employed, non-Evangelical Black people
tend to vote liberal/Democrat -- at least according to the GOP, the Clinton campaign & the polls
-- so to state that it's liberals who've turned their backs on the blue collar class is folly.
Now, the statement that liberal politicians have turned their backs on their working-class
base, as well as the working-class Republicans, is very true, and that's a result of too much
money in politics. Pandering to lobbyists while ignoring the electorate.
What I don't understand about the liberal electorate is why so freakin' many low-income voters
choose Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. Why so many, supposed, educated people (at least smarter
than the rank-&-file Republican voter, goes the legend) would vote against their best interests
and support a lying, flip-flopping, war-mongering, say-anything-get-elected, establishment crony
is beyond comprehension.
If it comes down to it, at least with Trump you know where his money came from. How, exactly,
is it that the Clintons went from being broke as hell after leaving the White House to having
a net worth of over $111M in just 16 years? Since Slick Willy left office, except for the past
four years, hasn't Hillary always been a government employee? Except, you know, when she's campaigning.
She's worth $35M, herself, is there that much money in selling books? If not, then she got paid
-- bribed -- quite handsomely to speak at private functions.
Both Clintons exemplify Democratic politicians who've utterly ignored the working class while
pander to and serving only the executive class of America. Ronald Reagan would be proud of both
Bill and Hillary Clinton's devotion to the 'trickle down' theory of economics.
One thing that's important to consider, too, is how voting for politicians who claim to have
your back on wedge issues is really shooting yourself in the foot economically. Wedge issues are
the crumbs the Establishment allows the electorate to feast on while they (the Establishment)
rob the Treasury blind, have their crimes decriminalized, start wars to profiteer from, write
policy, off-shore jobs, suppress wedges, evade taxes, degrade the environment, monopolize markets,
bankrupt emerging markets, and generally hoard all the economic growth for themselves.
Friends don't let friends vote for neo-liberalists!
Politicians in the U.S. are inherently corrupt, both figuratively and literally (they just
hide it better as perks and campaign contributions). Politicians in the U.S. make promises, but
ultimately it is just rhetoric and nothing ever gets delivered on. Once elected, they revert to
the Status Quo of doing nothing – or they vote for the bills of the interest groups that supported
them during the election.
As far as racism is concerned, why is it racist to want to send undocumented people out of
a country that they entered illegally in the first place?
This seems to be the general accusation levied against Europeans and Americans (i.e. whites).
We seem to have the obligation to take in refugees from all over the world otherwise we are seen
as racists. Yet, I see no effort by the Gulf States, Saudi or any other Muslim country taking
some of the Syrians. This would make a lot more sense since they have the commonality of language,
religion and culture. But nobody deems them to be racists.
What a brilliant article. It seems noone wants to talk about anything other than vilifying
Trump supporters because their vested interests are all about grind working people into the dust
so the high end of town can make every more money. No wonder Trump is cutting through. The whole
world has been watching our leaders sell us down the river in these deals.
This is probably the first article I've read that gives a clear-eyed account of exactly why Trump
is gaining so much support. More of this and less of the sneery pieces would be much more enlightening
to those of us who have been baffled by his continuing success.
People had the opportunity to elect Ross Perot who focused on Trade without using racism, back
in 92. Perot, also a billionaire predicted all the catastrophic impact due to free trade and kept
warning everybody. The majority decided otherwise...
Correct! Even Obama won't use the words "working class"...they are now ' dirty words'.. The working
class are fed up being ignored, patronized, lied to, and manipulated with words by politicians
in both the US and Australia.
Politicians think that all they have to do is 'look good' and say the right thing. Then wait
a bit, change the words and continue to manipulate things from backrooms.
Trump doesn't do that-and that is why people are voting for him...
However, if he got into power he would have to do exactly the same as the others to survive
The working class tens of millions have the votes and if need be, the guns. Thank you, second
amendment. Essentially they're presented with the prospect of their kids spending their working
lives slaving at $10-$20 an hour, or to die trying to alter the future of that elite-orchestrated
course of events. What would an American choose?
The Guardian openly abuses blue collar workers on a daily basis and is at a loss to understand
why they can't connect with them. This is another non-story.
All Clinton has to offer is more of the same lying and "free trade" deals, and subterfuge
and killing. Trump says he's gonna step up, bring the jobs back to America, get the mass of people
moving forward again, so Trumps is gonna win this thing.
Almost all of Trump's proposals, as well as those of other candidates, cannot be implemented without
the concurrence of Congress. Tariffs must pass both houses, while ratification of treaties requires
a 2/3 supermajority in the Senate. A question for each of the so-called debates ought to concern
how each candidate intends to convince congress to pass his/her most contentious proposal.
Trump is awful but he taps into passion, fear and real concerns. If these corrupt phony political
parties can't help real people then this is what we get -- Trump, Hillary Clinton and fake revolutionary
Bernie Sanders who promised to support the evil Clinton when she wins the rigged nomination. Trump
is no worse than the other fake chumps pretending to be our friends.
"We liberals..." You disgust me. While you defend Trumps supporters as not entirely consumed with
racism as much as fear, as people who actually may have interests in the economy and in trade,
as workers who, just maybe, SHOULD have the right to work in an airconditioning factory that ISN'T
in Mexico, or China, or Indonesia.... while you defend these not-really-not-totally-racist working
class people you excoriate them and continue on your merry little way trashing Trump. Staying
safe, staying disgusted with the man, and walking the Party Line like a good little establishment
"liberal." The true liberal doesn't exist anymore. Your article sucks. If anyone other than Crass
Mr. Trump gets elected to the presidency of this country we will continue down the same road of
useless wars for the MIC and Banking Scum, the 1%, whatever you wish to call them and it will
be more painful than it is now. Because what's really important is the correct opinion on everything.
Not that things change radically and that the working classes of all colors and creeds begin to
see some fair shakes, which would happen under Trump.
I happen to know someone who worked in his company, who didn't even know the man but was on his
payroll. It got around to him that this employee had exhausted his health benefits with the company
he chose (he had leukemia) and he was hitting up other employees for money to pay his cancer care
bills so he could continue treatment. Trump got word of this and didn't even know this person
only that he worked for his company - and sent word to the hospital that he guaranteed payment
and that the hospital should take care of him as well as possible and he would be responsible.
He told the family to keep it a secret, but of course a few people got wind of it. THAT is exactly
the opposite of what Mr. Clean Romney did letting an employee drop dead for lack of health insurance,
but he'd be SUCH a better president, sooooo caring. Trump is the only one who isn't bought and
paid for on the Hill of Vipers and that's what attracts us racist, white, gun-toting, immigrant-hating,
blah blah blah fill-in-the-blanks-you-liberal-twit people towards Trump. And those pulling out
all the stops to "Stop Trump" are just making it more clear than ever that the presidency is and
has been hand picked and cleared as willing to dance on the puppeteer's strings and do the insiders
and oligarchy's bidding.
Thomas Frank is often right, but not this time. If working class white Americans of a certain
type wanted to support a candidate who is against all this neo-liberal free-trade nonsense, they
could easily support Bernie Sanders. He's an outsider like Trump as far as the American political
class goes, but has actually done good things as a Senator and stands up for workers. It's interesting
that it's not just NAFTA and job losses that these Trump supporters are interested in, it's the
xenophobia as well, the anti-Muslim hysteria, and the thuggish behavior of beating down protesters
at the Trump rallies. Frank just can't blame the media class for all that...it exists and happens
and Trump fans the flames. Trump could care LESS about working class Americans, he cares ONLY
about himself - the classic demagogue.
Free trade has undoubted winners and losers, but historically attempts to 'protect' or 'control'
a nation's economy have ended badly in stagnation and political authoritarianism. Obvious case
in point, the Soviet Union in the latter half of the twentieth century. Conversely opening up
the economy to competition seems to do exactly the opposite, eg the Chinese 'economic miracle'.
A controlled economy might count as 'left-wing' but its the kind of example of Socialism gone
bad that socialists feel embarrassed about.
As for racism, its not hard to pick up the racist signals from Trump, genuine or not, so anyone
supporting him has a nose-holding ability which those with moral sensibilities will find difficult.
Perhaps 'he/she's a racist but ...' is not such an uncommon stance, yet when it comes to the head
of state, its that much harder to turn a blind eye. Of course lots of Germans did it very successfully
in the 1930s and 40s.
Bullshit. Europe is doing better than both America and China. Free trade plus corruption does
not equal prosperity. A little less "free trade" and a little less corrupt elites goes a long
way towards prosperity.
Free trade isn't free. It has cost millions of Americans their jobs, even their homes and
hopes for the future. Both parties have taken American workers for granted even worse than the
Democrats have taken Blacks for granted lately.
The Republicans have kept most blue collar laborers in their party because they appeal to their
bigotry and their religious snobbery. Republicans have made few offers to even attempts to help
US because they don't have to and they don't want to.
Current Democrats are almost as bad, but at least they have a past track record of helping
create a vibrant middle class.
What we need is a Labor party to represent those of US who have to work to earn a living,
as opposed to those who were born wealthy, or gained their wealth through stock manipulation/dividends
and fraud. It is the working people who actually create new wealth. Trump's bigotry does not bother
white blue collar workers because they mostly agree and hate and fear Blacks. The Venn diagram
of bigots, white laborers and the south overlap almost 100%.
I believe the KISS principle is popular in America, is that why things go so well for Trump?
Have I applied the KISS principle Keep It Simple, Stupid. Don't be afraid to ask questions,
relax yourself and all else by calling yourself a simple, stupid, snail; I'll try to get there,
but you'll have to be pedagogic and it will take enough time, preferably I want to sleep a night
on the matter (sound judgement depends (but not only necessary but not sufficient) on considering
and weighing the significantly complete set of related aspects, and this complete set may take
considerable time to bring to the table another tip; in strong or new intellectual or emotional
states keep calm and imagine filter words with your palms covering your ears). Prestige and vanity
of own relative worth can be very expensive. If you do a wrong, more or less, try to neutralize
the wrong, rather than have the prestigious attitude that direct or implied admittance of wrong
is hurting your vain surface, since with accountability and a degree of transparency will ultimately
have consequences of the wrong, and by not swiftly correcting them you are accountable for this
reluctance too.
Part of the KISS principle is to remind you of assumptions, explicit and emotional, as well
as remind you of what's hidden. To be aware of what you do not know is a way of making emotional
assumptions explicit which help in explicit risk assessment. An emotional assumption such as "everything
feels fine" can turn into "I assume there is no hidden nearby hostile crocodiles in the Zambezi
river we're about to pass into."
So Trump's success is all about trade imbalance and its negative impact on the American working
class, which the author perceives as predominantly white. This is far from the truth: many if
not most workers in agricultural, custodial, fast food, landscaping, road maintenance...are Africa-American,
Hispanics, or undocumented workers.
Does Trump also speak for those people who work in jobs that have been turned down by the white
working class? Would he stand up for them by, for example, calling to raise the minimum wage to
$14 an hour?
Taibbi in the latest Rolling Stone says the same thing. Taibbi went to listen to Trump's speeches.
Trump pillories Big Pharma, unemployment and trade deals and Wall Street. He's less warlike than
Clinton.
So it is very possible Clinton will be hit from the LEFT by Trump. That is how bad the
Democratis really are.
And blah blah blah... Actually, Trump's is a very optimistic picture of the USA.
And 'change' – I.e more globalism, means less and less job security: economic security
slipping away at a unprecedented rate. Transnational interests basically rule America, not to
mention the mainstream media, whose job it is to attack Trump. Many millions have seen through
this facade. Democrat or Republican, the incestuous political establishment is being exposed like
never before.
Trump is revealing what other candidates refuse to admit: that they are owned before they
even step foot into Washington. I mean - Clinton is Goldman and Sachs, TTIP, Monsanto approved!
And this is who the Guardian are siding with? Go figure...
I think his denouncing trade deals is what made the Republicans, (aka, Corporatist Party of
which Hillary should clearly be a part of-but save for another day) go bonkers. They cannot control
this guy and he's making sense in the trade department. It's not as if suddenly the Republican
party has grown a set of morals.
The question of course is how serious is he? Is he true or co-opting Bernie's message? One
thing's for certain, he's against increasing the minimum wage.
"But, taxes too high, wages too high, we're not going to be able to compete against the
world. I hate to say it, but we have to leave it the way it is," he told debate moderator Neil
Cavuto when asked if he would raise wages. "People have to go out, they have to work really
hard and have to get into that upper stratum. But we cannot do this if we are going to compete
with the rest of the world. We just can't do it." Politico, 11/12/15
Brilliant, brilliant column! I will add, because no one else calls him on these things, that Obama
is still pushing TPP, has increased the number of H1B Visa holders in the US, and is now giving
the spouses of H1B Visa holders the right to work, meaning they, too can take a job that might
have gone to a US citizen, and Obama has essentially cut the retirement benefits working class
seniors have paid for all their lives. Yet no one calls him on these things, except Trump.
Where did this general theme of insulting voters come from? Calling Trump supporters racists idiots
is no way to win their votes. You can not win an election by being an insulting troller.
The same people who attack Trump engage in even worse behavior. No wonder Trump will win the
election.
What is your take on free trade? What is your take on protectionism? Well the real question
is "What is best for our country?" Work, services and manufacturing of goods, is a dynamic thing.
At some times there is lots of work for most people, at some times hardly any work is available.
The amount of work available is a factor of 3 things, 1. Initiatives to work. 2. Financing
of these initiatives. 3 Law and order. Either individuals start their own business through an
initiative and if people with money believe in that individual and initiative they get financed
as long as there is law and order so that the financing gives a return of investment. Or existing
business start their own initiatives with their own money, investors' money or loans.
When people sit on their money out of fear, lack of quality initiatives or qualified abilities,
the economy hurts and people are going to be out of work. It works like a downward spiral, when
people have no income, they cannot buy services and goods, and the business can therefore not
sell, more people lose their jobs, less people buy and so on.
On the other hand, if people are hired, more people get money and purchase things from businesses,
demand increases, businesses hire more people to meet demand, more people get money, and purchase
more things from the businesses. The economy goes in a thriving upward spiral.
What about trade between nations? Well as you have understood, there is a dynamic component
of the economy of a nation. There is an infrastructure, not only roads, electric grids, water
and sewage piping, but a business infrastructure. Institutions such as schools, universities,
private companies providing education to train the workforce. A network of companies that provide
tools, knowledge, material, so that a boss simply can purchase a turn-key solution from the market,
after minimal organising, after the financing has been made. These turn-key solutions to provide
goods and services to the market and thus make money for the initiative makers and provide both
jobs and functions as an equalising of resources. Equalising if the initiative makers take patents,
keep business secrets and have abilities that are more competitive than the rich AND do not sell
their money-making opportunity to the rich but fight in the market.
In other words, if you sit on a good initiative and notice you are expanding in the market
(and thus other players are declining in their market share, including the rich), don't be stupid.
Now a hostile nation to your nation, knows about this infrastructure. This infrastructure takes
time to build up. One way to fight nations is to destroy their infrastructure by outcompeting
them with low prices. All businesses in a sector is out-sourced. But the thing is, if a nation
tries to do this, and if you have floating currencies (and thus you have your own currency, which
is very important to a nation), your own currency will fall in relative value. (e.g. businesses
in China gets dollars for sold goods to USA, sell them (the dollars they got) and buy yuan (the
currency in China), this increased sell pressure will cause the dollar to drop in value) If you
import more than you export. Therefore your nation's business will have an easier time to sell
and export. Thus there is a natural balance.
But, if your nation borrows money from the hostile nation, then this correction of currency
value will not occur. The difference in export and import will be balanced by borrowing money
and the currency value will stay the same.
Thus all your manufacturing businesses and thus the infrastructure can be destroyed within
a nation because of imports are more than exports and the nation borrows money.
Then when the nation is weak and dependent on the industry of the hostile nation a decisive
stab in can occur and your nation will be destroyed and taken over by the hostile nation.
Free trade naturally includes the purchasing of land and property. Thus while we exchange perishable
goods for hard land and property, there is a slow over taking of the nation's long term resources,
all masked off under the parole of free trade. Like a drug addict we crave for the easy way out
buying cheap perishable goods while the land is taken over by foreign owners protected by our
own ownership laws. The only way out of this is replacing free trade with regulated trade. In
our nation's own interest.
Thus free trade can be very destructive. It really is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Trump is a disruptor -- and this moribund political economic system deserves disruption. The feeble
Democrats could only come up with Sanders (who cringingly promised to support Hillary once she
overwhelms him in the rigged system) is not in the same class. Bigoted clown in some ways he expresses
the anger millions feel. Get used to it.
Im sorry. No matter how smart you like to appear when you commenting on the Guardian after saying
things like "Trump is far and away the smartest, brainiest, most intelligent candidate running
on either side" how can anyone take your views serious?
Yeah maybe not all voters are racists. Sure. But most of them still are. Most Trump voters
are also extremely uneducated, ignorant and filled with right wing media false fact anger. "To
make America great again" I have never laughed so hard in my life before. America isn't in bad
shape right now. There are always problems but building a wall (which is hysterical) to save us
from immigrants for example is just plain crazy.
Trump of course inserts real issues like Veterans. Trade. Ok. Its easy to say one thing but
when you look at his past, he's ruined various businesses and is currently under investigation
for fraud.
To say that that DT is smart is crazy. The guy cannot articulate anything to save his life
and when you look at how protesters get (mis)handled at his rallies how can you even come on here
and say the things you do. YOu should be ashamed of yourself. But sure have a President that's
ignoring Climate change and you will see where Florida will be in a few years. Ironically they
vote for Trump so the joke in the end will be on them.
This article may have some good points but still, Donald Trump is nothing more but
an opportunist. He doesn't really give a shit about you, the little white class. He's not intelligent
or even capable to LEAD a country like ours. Europe is laughing at us already. The circus was
fun for a while but I think its time to get realistic and stop this monkey show for good.
Trump/Cruz are monsters who have plans for the take-over of the US. Trump will be like his friend
Carl Icahn. He will take all he can in profit. Sell off parts cheap off-shore. Ignore the ex-workers
living under a bridge. Cruz the Domionionist Evangelical will say Armageddon is in the Bible as
he creates it in the Middle East. Neither man should be running for President, but the system
has been captured by the likes of Rupert Murdoch who is drilling for oil in Syria with his friends
Cheney and the Rothschilds. The Koch Brothers Father set up the John Birch Society. Jeb Bush from
a family of many generations who supported Hitler too. We are seeing the bad karma of the West
in bright lights including the poor whites who thought being a white male meant something. They
flock to any help they think they can get from the master-con-man Trump or the Bible man Cruz.
Yes. The US was systematically gutted by people like Romney and friends who made fortunes for
themselves. One of Trump's best friends, Carl Icahn, the hostile take-over artist, knows exactly
how the game is run. It begins by doing and saying anything to get control. Americans are now
chum for the sharks and they know it. Following a cheap imitation of Hitler is not the answer.
Nor is the Evangelical Armageddon Cruz promised his Father.
What this article fails to understand is that racism was always an essential feature of Reaganomics.
Reagan told the mostly poorer white voters of the south and midwest to vote tax cuts for the 1%
on the theory this would increase general prosperity. When that prosperity failed to materialize,
the Republicans always blamed minorities: welfare queens, mexican rapists, etc. Racism was essentially
a feature of their economic model.
Now look at Trump's economic model. It's a neoliberal's dream. He doesn't have a meaningful
critique of the system - that's Bernie Sanders. Instead, Trump picks fights with the Chinese and
Mexicans, to further stoke the racism of his base under the guise of an economic critique. That's
just more of the same. It's what Republicans have been doing for three decades.
The only way in which any of this is new is that Trump fronts the racism instead of hiding
it. That has less to do with Trump than with the slightly deranged mindset of white Republicans
after 7 years of a black President. You think it's a coincidence these people are lining up for
King Birther?
Sorry, Thomas Frank - this is all about race. There are many flavors of neoliberal critique;
Trump has chosen the most flagrantly racist one. His entire appeal begins and largely ends with
race. It's the RACISM, stupid. That and little else.
You don't know what you are talking about. You are the one who is stupid. Obama is pushing bills
that destroy US jobs. Maybe you don't depend on a paycheck to live, but millions of people do.
Too bad you are so removed from reality that you can't empathize.
'Neoliberalism' is a tired cliche , a revanchist term designed to help pseudo-intellectual millenials
sound and feel quasi-intelligent about themselves as they grope, blindly towards a worldview they
feel safe about endorsing.
One must also look at the anti-Trump brigade to find many of his audience. Below in no particular
order are major reasons why he has millions of supporters.
The Anti-Trump Brigade
GOP
Tea Party
Politicians, elected officials in DC all parties.
DC media from TV to internet
Romney, Gingrich, Scarborough, Beck and other assorted losers.
One thing in common they all have very high negatives, particularly the politicians and media
outlets.
Yes! I got on the Trump train after seeing Fox News CEO Ailes' horrible press release insulting
Trump the day before Fox News was to moderate a GOP debate.
The lack of journalistic ethics was so egregious... and then when not one other media outlet
called Fox on their bullshit, not even NPR... I said hey, it is essential to democracy to treat
candidates fairly. they are not treating him fairly! The media hates democracy!?
Good article focusing in on what should really concern us - trade. In particular our inability
to make goods rather than provide services. This is one of the reasons for the slide in lower
middle class lifestyles which is fueling support for Trump
Protectionism can be very destructive. Japan forced Detroit to improve the quality of its cars.
Before Toyota and Honda did it, why would GM and Ford want to make a car that lasted 200,000 miles?
Cheap foreign labor was only one of the reasons for the decline of US manufacturing.
Redonfire,
When I tell one of my sons that globalisation has shafted the european working an d middle class,
he says" yes, but what about its creation of a Chinese and Indian middle class"
I reply that I care as much about them as they care about me.
And "service industry" jobs are also being offshored to call centers and the like. When was the
last time you heard a US accent when you called tech support or any other call center?
because ultimately, I feel based upon listening to my family members who are working class white
folks, they feel that Bernie is a communist, not a socialist, and they don't trust that (or likely
really know the difference). So unfortunately for Da Bern, he will never be able to attract most
of these votes, even though he and The great Hair have (in general) some of the same policies.
The real question is why will the left not turn to the Hair, and get 70% of what they want, having
to listen to bragado and Trump_vs_deep_states as the trade off?
He wants to deport millions upon millions of undocumented immigrants.
I have to say this doesn't seem wildly outrageous - many of them will be working in the black
economy, and helping to further undercut wages in the US. Actually seems quite reasonable. Trump
is still a buffoon, but why throw this at him, when there is soo much else to go at?
The weakness of Labour under Blair has caused the same problems. They abandoned the working
classes in favour of grabbing middle class votes and relied on working class voters continuing
to support them, because they had "nowhere else to go". It worked for "New Labour" for a
while, then us peasants got fed up with the Hampstead Set running the show for their own class
and we started voting UKIP or, as in my case, despairing and not voting at all.
Thank God Jeremy Corbyn has put Labour back on track & pushed the snobbish elements of the
people's party back to the margins!
This reminded me of something I heard on NPR this weekend: Charles Evers, Medgar Evers' brother
and a prominent civil rights activist since the 50's, is endorsing Trump.
The reason is because the media and most of the people are involved in character debates about
him and that's just a game. You support "your guy" and try to denigrate "their guy". It's a game
of insults and no-one ever won an argument by insulting their opponent.
Trump policies show that he wants a trade war, that he wants to build a wall, which will do
little or nothing, at great cost, and he wants to exclude Muslims, when Americans have experienced
more attacks from Christian Terrorists, and American civilians are still 25 times more likely
to die falling out of bed than in a terrorist attack.
He wants to abolish corporate tax entirely, without saying where the money will come from
instead (that means you).
He wants to cut spending on education. But hasn't said if that's because he wants someone
else to do the job, or because he wants a stupid electorate. The Federal Government spends
1.3% of it's budget on education - how much can actually be saved and doesn't the 4.3% spent
on national debt interest indicate somewhere where more can be saved ?
He opposes democracy in the Middle East & prefers the stability of dictators (despite the
chaos that existed in the US, right after independence).
He wants more sanctions on Iran - proving his detachment from reality. The Iran nuclear
deal was pragmatic. It was agreed when we knew Russia, China and India were preparing to lift
their own sanctions, leaving the world with no real leverage to get a better deal.
He supports gun rights, saying they save lives, even though more people die from accidental
shootings, than are saved when used defensively. I am a gun owner in favor of more gun control,
because I want to see the balance shifted to give law-abiding citizens a greater advantage
over criminals. (at this point, the gun nuts jump in saying "criminals don't obey the law".
Yes they do when in jail. If we abolished any law that was ever broken....we would have NO
LAWS).
He wants fewer vaccinations for children, to avoid the (discredited) problems with autism.
He wants a more isolationist diplomatic approach & more military.
He focuses on the criminal activity of illegal aliens, even though crime rates are lower
in their communities than in the general population.
He doesn't want the minimum wage raised, he wants more minimum wage jobs - even though
people on minimum wage often require state and federal financial assistance, just to live.
Interestingly you have raised issues that are all very complex -- and that is just the problem.
We have become a society that promotes complexity and then does not want to discuss and analyze
those complex issues, but wants to oversimplify and fight and make the "other side" be a devil.
Are we all getting dumbed down to slogans and cliches?
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
community standards
. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see
our FAQs .
and who signed the job-crushing NAFTA legislation that allowed companies to move jobs offshore?
Bill Clinton........ the Republican in Democrat clothing.
The working people that the party used to care about, Democrats figured, had nowhere
else to go, in the famous Clinton-era expression. The party just didn't need to listen to them
any longer.
"Neo-Liberalism" was given an impetus push with the waning days of the Carter administration when
de-regulation became a policy.....escalated tremendously during Reagan and the rest is history......participated
in by both major US political parties.
They never looked back and never looked deep into the consequences for the average folk. Famously
said, "You can't put the toothpaste back into the tube", applies to global trade also. The toothpaste
is out of the tube. Any real change will be regressive, brutal and probably bring about more wars
around the globe.
What has to change and can is the political attitude of the upcoming political leaders and
the publics willingness to focus more on what a, "progressive" society should be.
To totally eliminate the abject greed inherent in the "free economies" (an oxymoron if ever) that
is crushing most of the working classes around the world under "global free trade (agreements)"
will be impossible.
A re-focus on what is meant by the "commons" would help enormously. And an explanation that
would appeal to the common folk by pointing out the natural opportunities to all of us (with the
exception of the true elites) by developed intellectuals and common folk leaders would also benefit
all.
By the "commons" I mean:
General benefit to most common working class people which would include the "class" definition
of "middle classes"....which are in too many cases floundering in the current economic climate.
Universal health care.
An expansion of production "co-ops".
Universal education through at least 2-4 years of "college".
A general overhaul of our Military/Industrial/Intelligence etc./Complex.
A re-allocation of our collected tax priorities (applies to the above).
A "commons" focus on a total rebuilding of our rusted, commercially destroyed environments
all across this country (and across the world).
Capitalism is a game.
There needs to be a firewall between the free flows of rabid global capital and the true needs
of a progressive society.
The game of capitalism needs rules and referees to back up those rules.
There has to be political/public will to back up those rules and referees with force of law.
We need a total new vision for the globe.
Without it we will succumb to total social/economic chaos.
We here in the US have no true progressive vision exhibited by any candidate.
Bernie Sanders comes close but no cigar.
Hillary C. is trying to exert the vision of seeking the presidency as a kind of, "family business."
Trump is appealing to many who have been trashed by globalization.......
Continuous warfare is not a foreign policy. Greed and narcissism is not a national one. We
continue to fail in history lessons.
As I would expect, Thomas (The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule; What's the Matter With Kansas?)
Frank offers insights that Clintonites can ignore at their peril. As the widow of a hardworking
man who was twice the victim of "outsourcing" to Malaysia and India, and whose prolonged illness
brought with it savings-decimating drug costs, I can well see how Trump's appeal goes beyond xenophobia
and racism.
Everybody knows that Trump sends jobs overseas and employs illegals, even his devotees. This destroys
Frank's argument that people adore Trump because he sympathizes with their pain and actively wants
to help them.
Frank did not write that "people adore Trump because he sympathizes with their pain and actively
wants to help them." As Tom Lewandowski, the president of the Northeast Indiana Central Labor
Council in Fort Wayne, said, "We've had all the political establishment standing behind every
trade deal, and we endorsed some of these people, and then we've had to fight them to get them
to represent us."
Ill-considered trade deals (NAFTA ended a million jobs) and generous bank
bailouts and guaranteed profits for insurance companies but no recovery for average people, ever
– these policies have taken their toll.
Trump is saying that NAFTA and neo-liberalism have failed the American people.
You could be describing Hillary and Bill the fraudulent guy who "feels your pain". Liars and
in the pockets of bankers, that couple is not your friend.
Frank's argument is on what his followers believe to be true. Frank admits that their beliefs
may be naive. He is writing on the reasons for Trump's popularity.
Beyond who or what i vote for, It is nice to see a news article focusing on issues and platforms
instead of one of the many attacks or other issues seperating politics from legislation. I want
news on candidates positions, ideas, plans. This circus of he said she said and the other junk
used to sway votes or up ratings is beyond dumb.
Free trade is like all other good ideas, it only works if it is kept in balance.
Understanding the internal structure of the Atom is a good idea. Proliferating Hydrogen bombs,
the same idea taken way too far..
And as for bad human ideas, well just the worst thing on the planet.
People support Trump and the very different Corbyn because they can see that that our current
version of Free trade is hopelessly inefficient and screws everybody except the very rich.
They care about power. Progressives don't give a sod about the minorities or supposedly oppressed
groups they bang on about. They want power and they are getting lots of it. When the West burns,
those progressives who acquired enough power will be safe inside their walled fortresses with
their bodyguards.
Its' a sad truth that corporations have used trade deals to increase profits by shipping jobs
to areas where pay is sometimes 1/10 of pay in US. Sanders is the only other politician voicing
concern. In fact Sanders is responsible for the stall on the next trade deal with China and Japan.
Japan and China uses devaluation s a trade barrier and World Trade does nothing. we are constrained
in our ability to devalue our currency because of the effect on the stock market. many Americans
rely on money invested into stocks and bonds.
I don't see a true value to trade if it involves loss of jobs and lowered pay. I do see
value in fair trade where we receive somewhat equal return , like 60/40, like in China and
Japan where the return is more like 80 for them 20 for us.
Yes, Trump does talk about jobs/economy but let us not forget that the Third Reich also promised
to end runaway inflation and unemployment. To a large extent, they did low unemployment levels.
However, racism was an important galvanizing factor.
In the Middle Ages, racism was a galvanizing factor in the Crusades. Muslims dominated Mediterranean
trade and stop it, European monarchy used racism against Moors/Saracens/Turks to garner support
against the Muslims at that time.
So, for history,s sake, let,s just call a spade a spade..........Trump is racist and so are
his supporters (among other things).
While I'm no fan of big corporations or NAFTA (which was negotiated by Bush #1 and Brian Mulroney,
both conservatives), no one seems to be talking about the other side of the equation - demand.
Perhaps jobs are going to Mexico, China etc. in part because consumers won't pay the cost of a
product manufactured in rich nations. Small example - a big outdoors co-op here in Canada used
to sell paniers and other bike bags made by a company in Canada. Consumers would not buy them
because they cost more, so the firm closed down and that co-op's bike equipment now comes from
Viet Nam.
If Trump forces Apple or Ford to return jobs to the US, will the products they make
be too expensive for the consumers? If a tariff wall goes up around the US, will the notoriously
frugal American shoppers start to get annoyed because, while they have t-shirt factories in wherever
state, the products they want cost more than what they want (or can) pay for?
I don't have any special insight into the effects on consumer prices of tariffs, but I do think
it's at least prudent to include that in the discussion before starting a trade war.
Hilarious.. talk about "I love the uneducated!" Yeah because everything he rants about with free
trade he has benefited from.. let us not forget MADE IN CHINA Trump suits.
The Guardian's incessant Trump bashing disguises, unfortunately, how similarly repugnant Cruz(particularly)
and Rubio are. Clinton is better, not by far, and Sanders though wonderfully idealist and full
of integrity, will be able to accomplish nothing with the Republicans controlling Congress.
I'm living in Japan, where in the past decade they have taken in 11 refugees. That's not 11
million or even 11 thousand. I mean 11.
Progressives may be surprised to hear that Japan is a wonderful country, not only free from
imported terrorism but also mind-boggling safe. I mean "leave your laptop on the street all day
and it won't get stolen" safe. They also have cool anime and Pokemon and toilets which are like
the Space Shuttle.
And guess what, they are not racist. They have borders and they are not racist. I know
this is a hard concept for progressives to get their heads around, but believe it or not it is
possible.
By the way, they think Europeans are absolute INSANE to let in these touchy-feely economic
migrants. They're right, and Europe is going to pay one hell of a pric
Neil24
The Guardian's incessant Trump bashing disguises, unfortunately, how similarly repugnant
Cruz(particularly) and Rubio are. Clinton is better, not by far, and Sanders though wonderfully
idealist and full of integrity, will be able to accomplish nothing with the Republicans controlling
Congress.
"... neoliberalism is the ideology of the global managerial class. It encompasses leading political neoliberals such as Clinton(s), Blair, and Obama, Eurocrats, the upper management of multinationals, the management of large NGOs, higher-up Chinese Communist Party members, and everyone else who comes together to make the current world system work via characteristic international agreements and arrangements ..."
"... it has no mass base as such. ..."
"... Neoliberalism in policy becomes free trade agreements, austerity, the inability to address income inequality, free rides for banks, and general politics under the rubric of "there is no alternative" as elites loot whatever they can loot. ..."
"... Neoliberalism obeys the dictates of the elite without, itself, being composed of a classical wealth-owning elite: neoliberals are often very wealthy, but they are managers of other people's wealth rather than capitalists as such. But there is no base anywhere that demands austerity or the TPP, so neoliberalism always pretends to be a vaguely left centrism, and adopts left ideas on racism, sexism, homophobia and so on in the sense that it ideally treats people as meritocratically chosen. ..."
"... As a result of not being able to call neoliberals neoliberals, Thomas Frank has no real way to describe what happened other than by going through a lot of detail, most of which will be long familiar to any left reader in the U.S. ..."
"... Frank seems to believe that the Democratic Party can return to something like a New Deal coalition, something that I think is impossible. The system has moved on and can't be glued back together. The state fundamentally doesn't need most people and is looking for ways to shed them -- ways which neoliberalism makes possible -- and labor doesn't have the power that it once did, not because of the machinations of the elites (although those certainly are happening) but because we don't need as much labor or the same kind of labor as we once did. ..."
Thomas Frank's book _Listen, Liberal_ has a central problem: it describes U.S. political neoliberalism
in detail but never makes the jump to calling it something other than liberalism. As a result, it's
never quite sure what it's recommending. Something about going back to how liberalism was during
the New Deal era -- but what was it then, and can we really go back to that now, and how would we
get there?
Before writing more about his book I'll give a short description of what I think neoliberalism
is: neoliberalism is the ideology of the global managerial class. It encompasses leading political
neoliberals such as Clinton(s), Blair, and Obama, Eurocrats, the upper management of multinationals,
the management of large NGOs, higher-up Chinese Communist Party members, and everyone else who comes
together to make the current world system work via characteristic international agreements and arrangements.
It may more or less be held as an ideology by middle management, and by most professional economists
and international functionaries, but it has no mass base as such.
Neoliberalism in policy becomes free trade agreements, austerity, the inability to address
income inequality, free rides for banks, and general politics under the rubric of "there is no alternative"
as elites loot whatever they can loot. Neoliberalism is a liberalism, and depends on conservatism
being more objectionable than it is (and the left being generally absent), but it is not left-liberalism,
and it is not classical liberalism since it exists within a system that has contemporary political
actors in it.
Neoliberalism obeys the dictates of the elite without, itself, being composed of a classical
wealth-owning elite: neoliberals are often very wealthy, but they are managers of other people's
wealth rather than capitalists as such. But there is no base anywhere that demands austerity or the
TPP, so neoliberalism always pretends to be a vaguely left centrism, and adopts left ideas on racism,
sexism, homophobia and so on in the sense that it ideally treats people as meritocratically chosen.
Distinguishing neoliberalism from the remnant New Deal or left-liberal base of the Democratic
Party might have been a good thing for Frank's book to do, but it doesn't. Looking up "neoliberalism"
in the index, first the book mentions the U.S. Neoliberals of the early 1980s, then it refers to
NAFTA in 1993 as a landmark of neoliberalism, but there's nothing about how we got from one meaning
of the word to the other. This is a common confusion: there are still people who insist that neoliberalism
is a word that describes a U.S. movement of the early 1980s that then disappeared, or Britain under
Thatcher. But the rest of the world outside the U.S. has long since settled on the word "neoliberalism"
to describe a worldwide politics and a worldwide system. Using it only in its anglosphere-historical
sense is parochial.
As a result of not being able to call neoliberals neoliberals, Thomas Frank has no real way
to describe what happened other than by going through a lot of detail, most of which will be long
familiar to any left reader in the U.S. There's a lot about Clinton, Obama, and the prospective
HRC Presidency. I really didn't learn much from the bulk of the book, other than that microlending
has failed and indeed is rather like a predatory payday loan scheme for people outside of the U.S.
(something which I should have suspected, in retrospect). It would be a good book to read for someone
who still thinks that Obama is a left-liberal and who expects that from HRC.
But Frank's analysis
is a bit off when he identifies professionals as "the 10%" who support contemporary-Democratic-Party
politics. Professionals broadly may be sympathetic to neoliberalism and certainly to meritocracy,
but they don't broadly have the power to maintain a neoliberal system or the numbers to be a voting
base for it.
Frank seems to believe that the Democratic Party can return to something like a New Deal coalition,
something that I think is impossible. The system has moved on and can't be glued back together. The
state fundamentally doesn't need most people and is looking for ways to shed them -- ways which neoliberalism
makes possible -- and labor doesn't have the power that it once did, not because of the machinations
of the elites (although those certainly are happening) but because we don't need as much labor or
the same kind of labor as we once did.
A new party of the non-elites is going to have to be based on something other than labor power,
something that Frank's analysis isn't far enough from the mainstream to guess at. That said, this
will still a useful book for some people.
> Neoliberalism in policy becomes ...the inability to address income inequality, free rides
for banks, and general politics under the rubric of "there is no alternative" as elites loot whatever
they can loot.
So essentially you are *defining* neoliberalism as a bad thing. I guess you're entitled to,
if you don't like it, but it will then be dull if you draw the conclusion from that, that its
a bad thing.
Free trade is a good thing (sez I) but I agree with you it has no broad base of support, other
than amongst economists, who are the people that understand it.
I'm not really defining it as a bad thing: I'm saying that it has certain characteristics.
Systems are bad in comparison to other systems, so neoliberalism is worse than some systems and
better than others. For instance, the Paris Agreements are characteristic of neoliberalism, but
that doesn't mean that they are intrinsically bad: they are better than the non-agreement or active
denialism that would be all that some other systems could produce.
"... Already feeling marginalized and often targeted, the boys and men described themselves as "searchers" or "seekers," kids looking for a group with which to identify and where they would feel they belonged. "When you enter puberty, it's like you have to choose a branch," said one ex-Nazi. "You have to choose between being a Nazi, anti-Nazi, punk or hip- hopper-in today's society, you just can't choose to be neutral" (cited in Wahlstrom 2001, 13-14). ..."
"... The systematic deprivation of adequate rest and food may have been a deliberate ploy of the camp organizers to reduce the chances of dissent since time, energy, initiative, and planning are needed to develop a collective sense of grievance. ..."
"... Festivals are excellent opportunities for far-right groups to spread the word about their successes to like-minded activists and sympathizers, since visitors come from as far away as Italy to see White Power music bands. In the festival mentioned above, a folk-dance act in the afternoon attracted only some hundred spectators, but evening performances by the U.S. band Youngland drew a large crowd that pushed to the front of the stage, leaving only limited space for burly skinheads indulging in pogo dancing. The music created a ritual closeness and attachment among the audience, shaping the emotions and aggression of the like-minded crowd, initially in a playful way, but one that switched into brutality a few moments later. ..."
"... it is intriguing to see some of the same mechanisms and dynamics in play in creating and sustaining an extremist movement. The importance of performance and music in eliciting loyal participation from young adherents comes up in the articles about Germany, Sweden, and India. Likewise the importance of the emotional needs of boys as they approach manhood, and the hyper-masculine themes of violence and brutality in the neo-Nazi organizations that appeal to them, recurs in several of the essays. ..."
nderstand the dynamics of far-right extremism without understanding far-right extremists? Probably
not; it seems clear we need to have a much more "micro" understanding of the actors than we currently
have if we are to understand these movements so antithetical to the values of liberal democracy.
And yet there isn't much of a literature on this subject.
An important exception is a 2007 special issue of the Journal of Contemporary Ethnography
, curated by Kathleen Blee (
link ). This volume brings
together several ethnographic studies of extremist groups, and it makes for very interesting reading.
Kathleen Blee is a pioneer in this field and is the author of
Inside Organized Racism: Women in the Hate Movement (2002). She writes in Inside Organized
Racism :
Intense, activist racism typically does not arise on its own; it is learned in racist groups
. These groups promote ideas radically different from the racist attitudes held by many whites.
They teach a complex and contradictory mix of hatred for enemies, belief in conspiracies, and
allegiance to an imaginary unified race of "Aryans." (3)
One of Blee's key contributions has been to highlight the increasingly important and independent
role played by women in right-wing extremist movements in the United States and Europe.
The JCE issue includes valuable studies of right-wing extremist groups in India, France, Germany,
the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. And each of the essays is well worth reading, including especially
Blee's good introduction. Here is the table of contents:
Key questions concerning the mechanisms of mobilization arise in almost all the essays. What are
the mechanisms through which new adherents are recruited? What psychological and emotional mechanisms
are in play that keep loyalists involved in the movement? Contributors to this volume find a highly
heterogeneous set of circumstances leading to extremist activism. Blee argues that an internalist
approach is needed to allow us to have a more nuanced understanding of the social and personal
dynamics of extremist movements. What she means by externalist here is the idea that there
are societal forces and "risk factors" that contribute to the emergence of hate and racism within
a population, and that these factors can be studied in a general way. An internalist approach, by
contrast, aims at discovering the motives and causes of extremist engagement through study of the
actors themselves, within specific social circumstances.
But it is problematic to use data garnered in externalist studies to draw conclusions about micromobilization
since it is not possible to infer the motivations of activists from the external conditions in
which the group emerged. Because people are drawn to far-right movements for a variety of reasons
that have little connection to political ideology (Blee 2002)-including a search for community,
affirmation of masculinity, and personal loyalties- what motivates someone to join an anti-immigrant
group, for example, might-or might not-be animus toward immigrants. (120)
Based on interviews, participant-observation, and life-history methods, contributors find a mix of
factors leading to the choice of extremist involvement: adolescent hyper-masculinity, a desire to
belong, a history of bullying and abuse, as well as social exposure to adult hate activists. But
this work is more difficult than many other kinds of ethnographic research because of the secrecy,
suspiciousness, and danger associated with these kinds of activism:
Close-up or "internalist" studies of far-right movements can provide a better understanding of
the workings of far-right groups and the beliefs and motivations of their activists and supporters,
but such studies are rare because data from interviews with members, observations of group activities,
and internal documents are difficult to obtain.... Few scholars want to invest the considerable
time or to establish the rapport necessary for close-up studies of those they regard as inexplicable
and repugnant, in addition to dangerous and difficult. Yet, as the articles in this volume demonstrate,
internalist studies of the far right can reveal otherwise obscured and important features of extreme
rightist political mobilization. (121-122)
A few snippets will give some flavor of the volume. Here is Michael Kimmel's description
of some of the young men and boys attracted to the neo-Nazi movement in Sweden:
Insecure and lonely at twelve years old, Edward started hanging out with skinheads because he
"moved to a new town, knew nobody, and needed friends." Equally lonely and utterly alienated from
his distant father, Pelle met an older skinhead who took him under his wing and became a sort
of mentor. Pelle was a "street hooligan" hanging out in street gangs, brawling and drinking with
other gangs. "My group actually looked down on the neo-Nazis," he says, because "they weren't
real fighters." "All the guys had an insecure role as a man," says Robert. "They were all asking
'who am I?'" ...
Already feeling marginalized and often targeted, the boys and men described themselves
as "searchers" or "seekers," kids looking for a group with which to identify and where they would
feel they belonged. "When you enter puberty, it's like you have to choose a branch," said one
ex-Nazi. "You have to choose between being a Nazi, anti-Nazi, punk or hip- hopper-in today's society,
you just can't choose to be neutral" (cited in Wahlstrom 2001, 13-14). ...
For others, it was a sense of alienation from family and especially the desire to rebel against
their fathers. "Grown-ups often forget an important component of Swedish racism, the emotional
conviction," says Jonas Hallen (2000). "If you have been beaten, threatened, and stolen from,
you won't listen to facts and numbers."(209-210)
Here is Meera Sehgal's description of far-right Hindu nationalist training camps for
young girls in India:
The overall atmosphere of this camp and the Samiti's camps in general was rigid and authoritarian,
with a strong emphasis on discipline. ... A number of girls fell ill with diarrhea, exhaustion,
and heat stroke. Every day at least five to ten girls could be seen crying, wanting to go home.
They pleaded with their city's local Samiti leaders, camp instructors, and organizers to be allowed
to call their parents, but were not allowed to do so. ... Neither students nor instructors were
allowed to get sufficient rest or decent food.
The training was at a frenetic pace in physically trying conditions. Participants were kept
awake and physically and mentally engaged from dawn to late night. Approximately four hours a
day were devoted to physical training; five hours to ideological indoctrination through lectures,
group discussions, and rote memorization; and two hours to indoctrination through cultural programming
like songs, stories, plays, jokes, and skits. Many girls and women were consequently soon physically
exhausted, and yet were forced to continue. The systematic deprivation of adequate rest and
food may have been a deliberate ploy of the camp organizers to reduce the chances of dissent since
time, energy, initiative, and planning are needed to develop a collective sense of grievance.
Indoctrination, which was the Samiti's first priority, ranged from classroom lectures and small
and large group discussions led by different instructors, to nightly cultural programs where skits,
storytelling, songs, and chants were taught by the instructors and seasoned activists, based on
the lives of various "Hindu" women, both mythical and historical. (170)
And here is Fabian Virchow's description of the emotional power of music and spectacle
at a neo-Nazi rally in Germany:
Festivals are excellent opportunities for far-right groups to spread the word about their
successes to like-minded activists and sympathizers, since visitors come from as far away as Italy
to see White Power music bands. In the festival mentioned above, a folk-dance act in the afternoon
attracted only some hundred spectators, but evening performances by the U.S. band Youngland drew
a large crowd that pushed to the front of the stage, leaving only limited space for burly skinheads
indulging in pogo dancing. The music created a ritual closeness and attachment among the audience,
shaping the emotions and aggression of the like-minded crowd, initially in a playful way, but
one that switched into brutality a few moments later.
The aggression of White Power music is evident in the messages of its songs, which are either
confessing, demonstrating self-assertion against what is perceived as totally hostile surroundings,
or requesting action (Meyer 1995). Using Heavy Metal or Oi Punk as its musical basis, White Power
music not only attracts those who see themselves as part of the same political movement as the
musicians, but also serves as one of the most important tools for recruiting new adherents to
the politics of the far right (Dornbusch and Raabe 2002).
Since the festival I visited takes place only once a year, and because performances of White
Power bands are organized clandestinely in most cases and are often disrupted by the police, the
far-right movement needs additional events to shape and sustain its collective identity. As the
far right and the NPD and neo-Nazi groupuscules in particular regard themselves as a "movement
of action," it is no surprise that rallies play an important role in this effort. (151)
Each of these essays is based on first-hand observation and interaction, and they give some insight
into the psychological forces playing on the participants as well as the mobilizational strategies
used by the leaders of these kinds of movements. The articles published here offer a good cross-section
of the ways in which ethnographic methods can be brought to bear on the phenomenon of extremist right-wing
activism. And because the studies are drawn from five quite different national contexts (Sweden,
Germany, Netherlands, India, France), it is intriguing to see some of the same mechanisms and
dynamics in play in creating and sustaining an extremist movement. The importance of performance
and music in eliciting loyal participation from young adherents comes up in the articles about Germany,
Sweden, and India. Likewise the importance of the emotional needs of boys as they approach manhood,
and the hyper-masculine themes of violence and brutality in the neo-Nazi organizations that appeal
to them, recurs in several of the essays.
Along with KA Kreasap, Kathleen Blee is also the author of a 2010 review article on right-wing
extremist movements in Annual Reviews of Sociology (
link ). These are the kinds of hate-based organizations and activists tracked by the Southern
Poverty Law Center (
link ), and that seem to be more visible than ever before during the current presidential campaign.
The essay pays attention to the question of the motivations and "risk factors" that lead people to
join right-wing movements. Blee and Kreasap argue that the motivations and circumstances of mobilization
into right-wing organizations are substantially more heterogeneous than a simple story leading from
racist attitudes to racist mobilization would suggest. They argue that antecedent racist ideology
is indeed a factor, but that music, culture, social media, and continent social networks also play
significant causal roles.
"... Several recent posts have commented on the rise of a nationalistic, nativist politics in numerous contemporary democracies around the world. ..."
"... Wasserman emphasizes the importance of ideas and culture within the rise of Austrofascism, and he makes use of Gramsci's concept of hegemony as a way of understanding the link between philosophy and politics. The pro-fascist right held a dominant role within major Viennese cultural and educational institutions. ..."
"... The ideas represented within its institutions ran a broad spectrum, yet its discourse centered on radical anti-Semitism, German nationalism, völkisch authoritarianism, anti-Enlightenment (and antimodernist) thinking, and corporatism. The potential for collaboration between Catholic conservatives and German nationalists has only in recent years begun to attract scholarly attention. ..."
Several recent posts have commented on the rise of a nationalistic, nativist politics in numerous
contemporary democracies around the world. The implications of this political process are deeply
challenging to the values of liberal democracy. We need to try to understand these developments.
(Peter Merkl's research on European right-wing extremism is very helpful here;
Right-wing Extremism in the Twenty-first Century .)
One plausible approach to trying to understand the dynamics of this turn to the far right is to
consider relevantly similar historical examples. A very interesting study on the history of Austria's
right-wing extremism between the wars was published recently by Janek Wasserman,
Black Vienna: The Radical Right in the Red City, 1918-1938 .
Wasserman emphasizes the importance of ideas and culture within the rise of Austrofascism,
and he makes use of Gramsci's concept of hegemony as a way of understanding the link between philosophy
and politics. The pro-fascist right held a dominant role within major Viennese cultural and educational
institutions. Here is how Wasserman describes the content of ultra-conservative philosophy and
ideology in inter-war Vienna:
The ideas represented within its institutions ran a broad spectrum, yet its discourse centered
on radical anti-Semitism, German nationalism, völkisch authoritarianism, anti-Enlightenment
(and antimodernist) thinking, and corporatism. The potential for collaboration between Catholic
conservatives and German nationalists has only in recent years begun to attract scholarly attention.
(6)
This climate was highly inhospitable towards ideas and values from progressive thinkers. Wasserman
describes the intellectual and cultural climate of Vienna in these terms:
At the turn of the century, Austria was one of the most culturally conservative nations in Europe.
The advocacy of avant-garde scientific theories therefore put the First Vienna Circle- and its
intellectual forbears- under pressure. Ultimately, it left them in marginal positions until several
years after the Great War. In the wake of the Wahrmund affair, discussed in chapter 1, intellectuals
advocating secularist, rationalist, or liberal views faced a hostile academic landscape.
Ernst Mach, for example, was an intellectual outsider at the University of Vienna from 1895
until his death in 1916. Always supportive of socialist causes, he left a portion of his estate
to the Social Democrats in his last will and testament. His theories of sensationalism and radical
empiricism were challenged on all sides, most notably by his successor Ludwig Boltzmann. His students,
among them David Josef Bach and Friedrich Adler, either had to leave the country to find appointments
or give up academics altogether. Unable to find positions in Vienna, Frank moved to Prague and
Neurath to Heidelberg. Hahn did not receive a position until after the war. The First Vienna Circle
disbanded because of a lack of opportunity at home. (110-111)
Strange how elites get committed to failed policies which end
up biting them back as they become quagmires...America's
military adventurism, trickle down monetary policy, etc.
He and others have been saying these things for a while. I
was pleased he pointed out Junckers threat to do Britain in
so that no one else would want to leave. Not a little of that
still going on. Will lose them some exports for sure.
"... No markets are free and efficient. All markets have rules. Governments make and enforce the rules. Market efficiency is a product of the quality of the rules ..."
"... Those who cry "interference" are those who have gamed the system for advantage and want to protect that advantage ..."
Those comments are about his article
Want a Free Market? Abolish Cash - Narayana Kocherlakota
.
The rules are enforced by the state.
The state is an umpire of the markets,
However, as we saw under
neoliberalism, the state can be captured by wealthy special interests who then make, modify and
enforce the rules to their own benefit.
Narayana's article is
interesting, but I hate hate this trying to appease the right
with, "Like any government interference, this causes
inefficiencies." Such dangerous misleading. He knows very
well that often government "interference" incredibly
increases efficiency, like with externalities, asymmetric
information, high monopoly power,...
Just terrible to spread this dangerous misinformation that
government interference is always inefficient -- And you'll
never appease the right.
Amen
No markets are free and efficient.
All markets have rules.
Governments make and enforce the rules.
Market efficiency is a product of the quality of the rules
In this context the notion of interference is absurd.
Markets themselves are not natural, they are a product of
interference.
Those who cry "interference" are those who have gamed the
system for advantage and want to protect that advantage
"The rules are often however not
made and or enforced by the state"
No the rules are made and enforced
by the state.
However, the state can be captured
by wealthy special interests who
then make, modify and enforce the
rules to their own benefit.
The wealthy special interests
claim to be supporting "Free
markets"
They are actuality supporting more
corrupt markets.
Greater corruption of markets
leads to greater inefficiency.
We need to lose the term "free" as
applied to markets
I have no argument with your
characterization of state capture
Indeed state design has the
authorship of last centuries
New deal era corporate compromise
with the domestic job class
Since the counter reformation
CR began back in1976 or so
The social contract drawn up 30
years earlier has seen serious
erosions
Let us hope the 2008 crisis has
halted the CR
Now we must struggle on towards a
new social charter
social design
Ie mechanism design
And where appropriate
Aggressively
Imposed by the state
"
Controlling interest in the
"state" has been bought out by
*anti social design*. With the
freedom of speech that remains, We
the Lower Caste of folks worth
less than $1,000,000.00 can still
spread the word, the word of how
to cope, how to muddle through.
"Government interference" is in
fact the only thing that allows
markets to function and exist. The
real inefficiencies are created by
greed and dishonesty on the part
of buyers and sellers.
I should add (for the historical
record, as my genius will not be
recognized until long after my
time) that Narayana was also,
sadly, trying to increase his
appeal by trying to look more
"centrist" (as the truth has a
well known liberal bias), and less
liberal, so he lied; he horribly
mislead in a harmful way saying,
"Like any government interference,
this causes inefficiencies."
I like Narayana, and I
understand that he might have
thought that supporting this
profoundly harmful fallacy might
have been worth it to get a better
reception for his main message on
monetary policy. But it's up to
the rest of us to speak up against
horrible anti-government
simple-minded fallacies.
FBI officials failed to aggressively question Hillary Clinton about her intentions in setting up a private email system, Rep.
Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) claimed this week, exposing a potential key vulnerability in the bureau's investigation.
"I didn't see that many questions on that issue," Gowdy told Fox News's "The Kelly File" on Wednesday evening.
The detail could be crucial for Republican critics of the FBI's decision not to recommend charges be filed against the former
secretary of State for mishandling classified information.
... ... ...
"I looked to see what witnesses were questioned on the issue of intent, including her," he said on Fox News. "I didn't see that
many questions on that issue."
House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz(R-Utah) has called for the FBI to create unclassified versions of the Clinton
case file that it gave to Congress, so that the material can be released publicly. Gowdy reiterated the call on Fox News.
"There's no reason in the world you could not and should not be able to look at the same witness interviews that I had to go to
Washington and look at in a classified setting," he said.
"... So "Carthago delenda est" is the official policy. With heavy brainwashing from MSM to justify such a course as well as the demonization of Putin. ..."
"... The USA actions in Ukraine speak for themselves. Any reasonable researcher after this "color revolution" should print his/her anti-Russian comments, shred them and eat with borsch. Because the fingerprints of the USA neoliberal imperial policy were everywhere and can't be ignored. And Victoria Nuland was Hillary Clinton appointee. Not that Russia in this case was flawless, but just the fact that opposition decided not to wait till the elections was the direct result of the orders from Washington. ..."
All this anti-Russian warmongering from esteemed commenters here is suspect. And should be
taken with a grain of salt.
The USA neoliberal elite considers Russia to be an obstacle in the creation of the USA led
global neoliberal empire (with EU and Japan as major vassals),
So "Carthago delenda est" is the official policy. With heavy brainwashing from MSM to justify
such a course as well as the demonization of Putin.
The USA actions in Ukraine speak for themselves. Any reasonable researcher after this "color
revolution" should print his/her anti-Russian comments, shred them and eat with borsch. Because
the fingerprints of the USA neoliberal imperial policy were everywhere and can't be ignored. And
Victoria Nuland was Hillary Clinton appointee. Not that Russia in this case was flawless, but
just the fact that opposition decided not to wait till the elections was the direct result of
the orders from Washington.
That means that as bad as Trump is, he is a safer bet than Hillary, because the latter is a
neocon warmonger, which can get us in the hot war with Russia. And this is the most principal,
cardinal issue of the November elections.
All other issues like climate change record (although nuclear winter will definitely reverse
global warming), Supreme Court appointments, etc. are of secondary importance.
As John Kenneth Galbraith said, "Politics is the art of choosing between the disastrous and
the unpalatable."
Add to this Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Libya sex slaves to get a fuller picture. Looks like she is a
worthy descendant of south slave owners.
Notable quotes:
"... I would say we have a major election campaign going on right now where one candidate's campaign strategy with a mostly in the bag press seem to be all about 'hot button' secondary issues. Not that their opponent is so hot on the primary issues either, although I'd say they find a nut every couple of weeks. ..."
"... I'm encouraging everyone to watch the documentary Restrepo ..."
"... See that woman crying over her dead child, killed by an American bomb, dropped with impunity?…why don't you go tell her how much better off she is, now that she doesn't have to wear a burka….go on, tell her… ..."
Navy analysis found that a Marine's case would draw attention to Afghan 'sex slaves'
WaPo
The Martland case opened a dialogue in which numerous veterans of the war in Afghanistan said
they were told to ignore instances of child sex abuse by their Afghan colleagues. The Defense
Department's inspector general then opened an investigation into the sexual assault reports and
how they were handled by U.S. military officials who knew about them.
==========================================
US values in action – protecting the powerful and screwing the helpless…..
"This is a serious turning point for all the people of Afghanistan, but in particular for
the hard-fought gains women and girls have been able to enjoy." - Hillary Clinton, Nov 15,
2013
Found myself in a discussion with a recent ex-senator about invading Iraq. I had been attacking
the premise that we needed to attack Iraq because terrorism, AND military capabilities and that
it was based on lies and misinformation and doing pretty well, when the Senator said but think
about Afghanistan – women no longer have to wear the Burka, and girls are going to school. This
was after a report in the foreign press about attacks on schools with female students and how
women were choosing to wear the burka because the harassment of women wearing western clothing
being ignored. The utter ignorance of that statement floored me. I fully admit I was so gobsmacked
I was speechless, and he moved on. I ended up sending him the link to a very good series in Newsday
about how badly things were going in Afghanistan less than six months later. Already too late.
Funny how the women get mentioned at the most interesting times.
Your comment illuminates how politics focuses on "hot button" secondary issues to distract
attention from dismal primary issues.
When gross insecurity rules in a war zone, all other aspects of life (including gender equality)
take a back seat to survival. Indeed, war is correlated with social conservatism, so the cultural
climate is not receptive to change, and may even backslide.
Here's a glimpse into the lost world of Kabul University in the 1980s (complete with a dandy
in the left background who resembles an Afghan Tom Wolfe):
I would say we have a major election campaign going on right now where one candidate's campaign
strategy with a mostly in the bag press seem to be all about 'hot button' secondary issues. Not
that their opponent is so hot on the primary issues either, although I'd say they find a nut every
couple of weeks.
So much of the run up to the AUMF vote and the invasion reminds me of the current climate surrounding
the election.
I'm encouraging everyone to watch the documentary Restrepo , which
is available on both Netflix and Youtube (at present). The realities of what we're doing in Afghanistan
are indefensible.
See that woman crying over her dead child, killed by an American bomb, dropped with impunity?…why
don't you go tell her how much better off she is, now that she doesn't have to wear a burka….go
on, tell her…
My spouse, bless his heart, works for a company embedded in the military-industrial complex.
Three years ago, I accompanied him to the company Christmas bash (one of those compromises in
a marriage and besides I am living well on his paycheck) where the new CEO spoke to the 'troops.'
He ended his talk with a paean to the marvelous gains in freedom for Afghan women and girls
that the US's invasion (sorry, liberation) of Afghanistan has produced). The employees cheered
and I refrained from vomiting only by incredible force of will . And, I would have ruined my new
dress specially purchased at GoodWill for the occasion.
"They are dead, but thanks to us, they can be buried in a bikini…….."
The old "we had to destroy the village to save it" plan.
Somehow, I don't think we'd have gone to war in the Middle East, if "Fighting for Women's Rights"
was the justification.
"Personally, I don't think……..they don't really want to be involved in this war…….they took
our freedom away and gave it to the g##kers. But they don't want it. They would rather be alive
than free, I guess. Poor dumb bastards."
RE: Marine's case: Be sure to read two of the comments attached to this link - they're both
recent and show on the first page of comments:
From - Buckley Family: "… Bear in mind when Maj. Brezler wrote his report he had no Classified
Networks in his area. He used his personal computer to write that report and other reports many
which were Classified by the Higher Command once they received them. They failed to let Maj. Brezler
know that they had classified his reports. He was trying to do his job with the resources that
he had available to him."
From - tsn100: " … Afghans hide behind Islam, this is not at all what Islam teaches, this is
a cultural thing, Afghan culture allows this, the Taliban movement started when a young boy was
raped and the family came to Mullah Omar who was just an unknown preacher and asked him to help,
this was at the height of the Afghan civil war, Mullah Omar went and caught the culprit and had
him shot, or hanged cant remember, that
I just found this via Hacker News… perhaps it was in yesterday's links and I missed it. Truly
scary in the Orwellian sense and yet another reason not to use a smartphone. Chilling read.
SAN FRANCISCO - Want to invisibly spy on 10 iPhone owners without their knowledge? Gather their
every keystroke, sound, message and location? That will cost you $650,000, plus a $500,000 setup
fee with an Israeli outfit called the NSO Group. You can spy on more people if you would like
- just check out the company's price list.
The NSO Group is one of a number of companies that sell surveillance tools that can capture
all the activity on a smartphone, like a user's location and personal contacts. These tools can
even turn the phone into a secret recording device.
Since its founding six years ago, the NSO Group has kept a low profile. But last month, security
researchers caught its spyware trying to gain access to the iPhone of a human rights activist
in the United Arab Emirates. They also discovered a second target, a Mexican journalist who wrote
about corruption in the Mexican government.
Now, internal NSO Group emails, contracts and commercial proposals obtained by The New York
Times offer insight into how companies in this secretive digital surveillance industry operate.
The emails and documents were provided by two people who have had dealings with the NSO Group
but would not be named for fear of reprisals.
I could be wrong, but the promos for Sixty Minutes on the local news make it seem they might
be about this subject. Either way it is another scare you about what your cell phone can do story,
possibly justified this time.
An anecdote which I cannot support with links or other evidence:
A friend of mine used to work for a (non USA) security intelligence service. I was bouncing
ideas off him for a book I'm working on, specifically ideas about how monitoring/electronics/spying
can be used to measure and manipulate societies. He was useful for telling if my ideas (for a
Science Fiction novel) were plausible without ever getting into details. Always very careful to
keep his replies in the "white" world of what any computer security person would know, without
delving into anything classified.
One day we were way out in the back blocks, and I laid out one scenario for him to see if it
would be plausible. All he did was small cryptically, and point at a cell phone lying on a table
10 meters away. He wouldn't say a word on the subject.
It wasn't his cellphone, and we were in a relatively remote region with no cell phone coverage.
It told me that my book idea was far too plausible. It also told me that every cellphone is
likely recording everything all the time, for later upload when back in signal range. (Or at least
there was the inescapable possibility that the cell phones were doing so, and that he had to assume
foreign (or domestic?) agencies could be following him through monitoring of cell phones of friends
and neighbors.)
It was a clarifying moment for me.
Every cellphone has a monumental amount of storage space (especially for audio files). Almost
every cellphone only has a software "switch" for turning it off, not a hardware interlock where
you can be sure off is off. So how can you ever really be sure it is "off"? Answer- you can't
Sobering thought. Especially when you consider the Bluffdale facility in the USA.
"... "Vladimir Putin and Russian Statecraft," ..."
"... "In a bold decision… Putin made Russia the most important U.S. ally in the war against the Taliban," ..."
"... "Among other things, he accelerated deliveries of weapons to the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan so that when the Alliance marched into Kabul it did so with Russian, not American, weapons and vehicles. He encouraged the governments of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan to allow American military bases on their territory." ..."
"... "He opened Russian airspace for American overflights to bases in Central Asia so that the US could conduct search and rescue operations for U.S. airmen ..."
"... "there is no such thing as gratitude in politics" ..."
"... According to Stephen Cohen, the US repaid Putin for his "extraordinary assistance" by "further expanding NATO to Russia's borders and by unilaterally withdrawing from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, which Moscow regarded as the linchpin of its nuclear security." ..."
"... With friends like this who needs enemies? ..."
"... "red line" ..."
"... "within one week". ..."
"... "It absolutely is a diplomatic win by Putin right now," ..."
"... "If we think about this as judo, which is of course Mr. Putin's favorite sport, this is just one set of moves," ..."
"... "And right now, he's managed to get Obama off the mat, at least, and get the terms set down that play to his advantage." ..."
"... "scrap" ..."
"... "neutralize Russia's nuclear potential" ..."
"... "The US is attempting to achieve strategic military superiority, with all the consequences that entails," ..."
Putin provides 'extraordinary assistance' to 'War on Terror'
It is no secret that following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 against the US, Putin was
the first global leader to telephone US President George W. Bush. And he didn't call collect. Moreover,
the Russian leader offered more than just words of condolence. He pushed through a raft of legislation
to assist the US in the fight against terrorism.
In his 2011 book, "Vladimir Putin and Russian Statecraft," Allen C. Lynch documented
Putin's contributions to America's endless 'War on Terror'.
"In a bold decision… Putin made Russia the most important U.S. ally in the war against the
Taliban," Lynch wrote. "Among other things, he accelerated deliveries of weapons to the
Northern Alliance in Afghanistan so that when the Alliance marched into Kabul it did so with Russian,
not American, weapons and vehicles. He encouraged the governments of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan to
allow American military bases on their territory."
And here is my personal favorite: "He opened Russian airspace for American overflights to
bases in Central Asia so that the US could conduct search and rescue operations for U.S. airmen
(Please imagine the howl of pain that would echo across Washington if any US president allowed
Russian military overflights across US territory into South America!).
Despite Putin's extreme generosity bestowed upon the US military and intelligence apparatus, Washington
proved Graham Greene's adage "there is no such thing as gratitude in politics" by ratcheting
up pressure against Russia for no good reason whatsoever.
According to Stephen Cohen, the US
repaid Putin for his "extraordinary assistance" by "further expanding NATO to Russia's
borders and by unilaterally withdrawing from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, which Moscow
regarded as the linchpin of its nuclear security."
With friends like this who needs enemies?
6. Putin gives Washington a chance to pass on war (for a change)
After spending prodigious amounts of money, material and manpower fighting fundamentalists in
the desert, some might be tempted to think the US would relish any opportunity to avoid another military
misadventure. If you believed that, you haven't been paying attention to what's been occurring in
the Middle East since 2002 with the US invasion of Afghanistan.
Future historians (that is, assuming there is a future where historians may ponder the past) may
one day mark August 29, 2013 as the day when the American Empire first started showing signs of wear
and tear. That was when UK Prime Minister David Cameron failed to secure approval in the House of
Commons to join yet another US-led serial killing, this time in Syria, after President Bashar Assad
purportedly crossed Obama's whimsical "red line" and used chemical weapons against the
Syrian opposition (an assertion that was never proven).
This placed the Obama administration in a bind, eventually leading to a 'slip of the tongue' by
US Secretary of State John Kerry, who remarked that Syria could avoid an American blitzkrieg if it
agreed to surrender its chemical weapons "within one week". Infuriatingly for the US neocons,
Putin successfully
convinced Damascus to remove its chemical weapons with all due haste.
Predictably, however, US media and thinktankdom portrayed Putin's eleventh-hour diplomacy, which
delayed the obliteration of yet another Middle East state, as some sort of geopolitical ploy.
"It absolutely is a diplomatic win by Putin right now," Fiona Hill, director of the Center
on the United States and Europe at the Brookings Institution,
told
CNN.
I was almost expecting Fiona to employ some sort of judo analogy next. Oh wait, she did.
"If we think about this as judo, which is of course Mr. Putin's favorite sport, this is just
one set of moves," she said. "And right now, he's managed to get Obama off the mat, at least,
and get the terms set down that play to his advantage."
Think about that. If that was the best press Putin could get when he helped America to avoid yet
another military smash-up, chances are negligible that he would ever get positive reviews under normal
circumstances. And therein, dear reader, lies the rub: America has come to the psychotic point in
its foreign policy when avoiding military conflict is actually viewed as a setback.
5. Putin offers cooperation on US missile defense system in Eastern Europe
In May, the US put the finishing touches on its Aegis Ashore Missile Defense System in
Romania , the culmination of a decades-worth of
disingenuous negotiations with Moscow.
Washington's determination to build this system, which Moscow naturally views as a major security
threat smoking on its doorstep, has completely upset the strategic balance in the region. Russia
is now forced to respond to this system with more powerful and elusive ballistic missiles. In other
words, our tiny, fragile planet, thanks to the surrogate mother of global upheaval and chaos, Lady
Liberty, is experiencing the birth pains of another arms race between the world's two nuclear superpowers.
This did not have to be.
Early in his presidency, Obama
announced he would "scrap" the Bush administration's defense system, slated for Poland
and the Czech Republic, after it was determined that Iran was not the existential threat to Eastern
Europe that his predecessor had touted it as.
This seemed to indicate an open window of opportunity for Russia-US cooperation (in fact, the
fate of the New START nuclear disarmament treaty, signed into force between Dmitry Medvedev and Barack
Obama on April 8, 2010, hinged on bilateral cooperation). Russia even proposed the two countries
share the Qabala Radar in Azerbaijan, which Russia leased at the time, but the US rejected the proposal
even though it made more tactical sense.
Eventually, it became maddeningly apparent that the US was bluffing, dangling the carrot of mutual
cooperation with Russia at the same time a new missile defense system was moving forward.
In November, Putin rightly
accused the
US of attempting to "neutralize Russia's nuclear potential" by camouflaging their real designs
behind Iran and North Korea.
"The US is attempting to achieve strategic military superiority, with all the consequences
that entails," he said.
Obama's failure to cooperate with Putin on this game-changing system has been the real source
of bad blood between the two nuclear superpowers.
"... The Triad is the United States, Western and Central Europe, and Japan. This group of countries has become a single imperialist power, the leader of which is the US. This has led to the deepening of the depth of the crisis. The crisis is in the shape of an "L". The normal crisis is in the shape of a "U", the economy rises up after the decline. But this crisis is different. There is no way out of the crisis; the only way to get out is to move out of capitalism. There is no other possible solution. Capitalism should be considered as a moribund system. In order to survive it is moving to destruction and to wars. ..."
"... Maybe Russia is moving in this direction, but not as much as China, because it has paid a very big price for the destruction of the shock therapy from Gorbachev and Yeltsin. Those leaders have led Russia to a private oligarchy, closely related to the international financial capitalism of the US, Germany and others. This has reduced Russian capacity of control. But now Russia is moving gradually towards reestablishing control of the state over its own economy. ..."
"... The world now is in serious danger. The collective imperialism of the US, Western Europe and Japan are run by US leadership. In order to keep their exclusive control over the whole planet, they do not accept independence of other countries. They do not respect the independence if China and Russia. That is why we are about to face continuous wars all over the world. The radical Islamists are the allies of imperialism, because they are supported by the US in order to carry out destabilization. This is permanent war. I do believe that the best response to it is the Eurasian project. Russia should unite with China, Central Asian countries, Iran and Syria. This alliance could be also very attractive for Africa and good parts of Latin America. In such a case, imperialism would be isolated. ..."
Samir Amin, world-known economist, explains the reason of decadent condition of the modern
economy and gives the recipe of the salvation from global imperialism. An exclusive
interview for Katehon
I can sum my point of view on the situation over the modern economy in the following way. We have
been in a long systemic crisis of capitalism, which has started in 1975 with the end of the convertibility
of the Dollar in gold. It is not a like the famous financial crisis in 2008. No, it is a long systematic
crisis of monopoly capitalism which started forty years ago and it continues. The capitalists reacted
to the crisis with the sets of measures. The first one was to strengthen centralization of control
over the economy by the monopolies. An oligarchy is ruling all capitalist countries – the United
States, Germany, France, Great Britain and Russia as well. The second measure was to convert all
economic activity productions into subcontractors of monopoly capital. I mean, they have not even
a hint of freedom. Competition is just rhetoric, there is no competition. There is an oligarchy which
is controlling the whole economic system. Now, we are facing a united front of imperialist powers,
which are forming a Collective imperialism of the Triad.
The Triad is the United States, Western and Central Europe, and Japan. This group of countries
has become a single imperialist power, the leader of which is the US. This has led to the deepening
of the depth of the crisis. The crisis is in the shape of an "L". The normal crisis is in the shape
of a "U", the economy rises up after the decline. But this crisis is different. There is no way out
of the crisis; the only way to get out is to move out of capitalism. There is no other possible solution.
Capitalism should be considered as a moribund system. In order to survive it is moving to destruction
and to wars.
We have an alternative which is the socialism. I know that it is not very popular to say, but
the only solution is socialism. It is a long road which starts from reducing the power of the oligarchy,
reinforcing the state control and establish a state-capitalism, which should replace private capitalism.
It doesn't mean that private capitalism will not survive, but it should be subordinated to state
control. The state control should be used also in order to support a social progressive policy. This
should guarantee good full-employment, social services, education, transport, infrastructure, security
etc.
The role of China is very big, because it is, perhaps, the only country in the world today, which
has a sovereign project. That means that it is trying to establish a pattern of modern industry,
in which of course, private capital has a wide place, but it is under the strict control of the state.
Simultaneously it gives a view of the present to the culture. The other pattern of Chinese economy
culture is based on family producers. China is walking on two legs: following the traditions and
participating globalization. They accept foreign investments, but keep independence of their financial
system. The Chinese bank system is exclusively state-controlled. The Yuan is convertible only to
a certain extent, but under the control of the bank of China. That is the best model that we have
today to respond to the challenge of globalists imperialism.
Maybe Russia is moving in this direction, but not as much as China, because it has paid a
very big price for the destruction of the shock therapy from Gorbachev and Yeltsin. Those leaders
have led Russia to a private oligarchy, closely related to the international financial capitalism
of the US, Germany and others. This has reduced Russian capacity of control. But now Russia is moving
gradually towards reestablishing control of the state over its own economy.
The world now is in serious danger. The collective imperialism of the US, Western Europe and
Japan are run by US leadership. In order to keep their exclusive control over the whole planet, they
do not accept independence of other countries. They do not respect the independence if China and
Russia. That is why we are about to face continuous wars all over the world. The radical Islamists
are the allies of imperialism, because they are supported by the US in order to carry out destabilization.
This is permanent war. I do believe that the best response to it is the Eurasian project. Russia
should unite with China, Central Asian countries, Iran and Syria. This alliance could be also very
attractive for Africa and good parts of Latin America. In such a case, imperialism would be isolated.
"... The only way Russia can be acceptable to the West is to accept vassal status. ..."
"... Russia can end the Ukraine crisis by simply accepting the requests of the former Russian territories to reunite with Russia. Once the breakaway republics are again part of Russia, the crisis is over. Ukraine is not going to attack Russia. ..."
"... Russia doesn't end the crisis, because Russia thinks it would be provocative and upset Europe. Actually, that is what Russia needs to do-upset Europe. Russia needs to make Europe aware that being Washington's tool against Russia is risky and has costs for Europe. ..."
"... Instead, Russia shields Europe from the costs that Washington imposes on Europe and imposes little cost on Europe for acting against Russia in Washington's interest. Russia still supplies its declared enemies, whose air forces fly provocative flights along Russia's borders, with the energy to put their war planes into the air. ..."
"... Washington and only Washington determines "international norms." America is the "exceptional, indispensable" country. No other country has this rank ..."
"... A country with an independent foreign policy is a threat to Washington. The neoconservative Wolfowitz Doctrine makes this completely clear. The Wolfowitz Doctrine, the basis of US foreign and military policy, defines as a threat any country with sufficient power to act as a constraint on Washington's unilateral action. The Wolfowitz Doctrine states unambiguously that any country with sufficient power to block Washington's purposes in the world is a threat and that "our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of" any such country. ..."
"... If the Russian government thinks that Washington's word means anything, the Russian government is out to lunch. ..."
"... Iran is well led, and Vladimir Putin has rescued Russia from US and Israeli control, but both governments continue to act as if they are taking some drug that makes them think that Washington can be a partner. ..."
"... These delusions are dangerous, not only to Russia and Iran, but to the entire world. If Russia and Iran let their guard down, they will be nuked, and so will China. Washington stands for one thing and one thing only: World Hegemony. ..."
"... Just ask the Neoconservatives or read their documents. The neoconservatives control Washington. No one else in the government has a voice. For the neoconservatives, Armageddon is a tolerable risk to achieve the goal of American World Hegemony ..."
Russia so desperately desires to be part of the disreputable and collapsing West that Russia is
losing its grip on reality.
Despite hard lesson piled upon hard lesson, Russia cannot give up its hope of being acceptable
to the West. The only way Russia can be acceptable to the West is to accept vassal status.
Russia miscalculated that diplomacy could solve the crisis that Washington created in Ukraine and
placed its hopes on the Minsk Agreement, which has no Western support whatsoever, neither in Kiev
nor in Washington, London, and NATO.
Russia can end the Ukraine crisis by simply accepting the requests of the former Russian territories
to reunite with Russia. Once the breakaway republics are again part of Russia, the crisis is over.
Ukraine is not going to attack Russia.
Russia doesn't end the crisis, because Russia thinks it would be provocative and upset Europe.
Actually, that is what Russia needs to do-upset Europe. Russia needs to make Europe aware that being
Washington's tool against Russia is risky and has costs for Europe.
Instead, Russia shields Europe from the costs that Washington imposes on Europe and imposes little
cost on Europe for acting against Russia in Washington's interest. Russia still supplies its declared
enemies, whose air forces fly provocative flights along Russia's borders, with the energy to put
their war planes into the air.
This is the failure of diplomacy, not its success. Diplomacy cannot succeed when only one side
believes in diplomacy and the other side believes in force.
Russia needs to understand that diplomacy cannot work with Washington and its NATO vassals who
do not believe in diplomacy, but rely instead on force. Russia needs to understand that when Washington
declares that Russia is an outlaw state that "does not act in accordance with international norms,"
Washington means that Russia is not following Washington's orders. By "international norms," Washington
means Washington's will. Countries that are not in compliance with Washington's will are not acting
in accordance with "international norms."
Washington and only Washington determines "international norms." America is the "exceptional,
indispensable" country. No other country has this rank.
A country with an independent foreign policy is a threat to Washington. The neoconservative Wolfowitz
Doctrine makes this completely clear. The Wolfowitz Doctrine, the basis of US foreign and military
policy, defines as a threat any country with sufficient power to act as a constraint on Washington's
unilateral action. The Wolfowitz Doctrine states unambiguously that any country with sufficient power
to block Washington's purposes in the world is a threat and that "our first objective is to prevent
the re-emergence of" any such country.
Russia, China, and Iran are in Washington's crosshairs. Treaties and "cooperation" mean nothing.
Cooperation only causes Washington's targets to lose focus and to forget that they are targets. Russia's
foreign minister Lavrov seems to believe that now with the failure of Washington's policy of war
and destruction in the Middle East, Washington and Russia can work together to contain the ISIS jihadists
in Iraq and Syria. This is a pipe dream. Russia and Washington cannot work together in Syria and
Iraq, because the two governments have conflicting goals. Russia wants peace, respect for international
law, and the containment of radical jihadists elements. Washington wants war, no legal constraints,
and is funding radical jihadist elements in the interest of Middle East instability and overthrow
of Assad in Syria. Even if Washington desired the same goals as Russia, for Washington to work with
Russia would undermine the picture of Russia as a threat and enemy.
Russia, China, and Iran are the three countries that can constrain Washington's unilateral action.
Consequently, the three countries are in danger of a pre-emptive nuclear strike. If these countries
are so naive as to believe that they can now work with Washington, given the failure of Washington's
14-year old policy of coercion and violence in the Middle East, by rescuing Washington from the quagmire
it created that gave rise to the Islamic State, they are deluded sitting ducks for a pre-emptive
nuclear strike.
Washington created the Islamic State. Washington used these jihadists to overthrow Gaddafi in
Libya and then sent them to overthrow Assad in Syria. The American neoconservatives, everyone of
whom is allied with Zionist Israel, do not want any cohesive state in the Middle East capable of
interfering with a "Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates."
The ISIS jihadists learned that Washington's policy of murdering and displacing millions of Muslims
in seven countries had created an anti-Western constituency for them among the peoples of the Middle
East and have begun acting independently of their Washington creators.
The consequence is more chaos in the Middle East and Washington's loss of control.
Instead of leaving Washington to suffer at the hands of its own works, Russia and Iran, the two
most hated and demonized countries in the West, have rushed to rescue Washington from its Middle
East follies. This is the failure of Russian and Iranian strategic thinking. Countries that cannot
think strategically do not survive.
The Iranians need to understand that their treaty with Washington means nothing. Washington has
never honored any treaty. Just ask the Plains Indians or the last Soviet President Gorbachev.
If the Russian government thinks that Washington's word means anything, the Russian government
is out to lunch.
Iran is well led, and Vladimir Putin has rescued Russia from US and Israeli control, but both
governments continue to act as if they are taking some drug that makes them think that Washington
can be a partner.
These delusions are dangerous, not only to Russia and Iran, but to the entire world. If Russia and Iran let their guard down, they will be nuked, and so will China. Washington stands for one thing and one thing only: World Hegemony.
Just ask the Neoconservatives or read their documents. The neoconservatives control Washington. No one else in the government has a voice. For the neoconservatives, Armageddon is a tolerable risk to achieve the goal of American World
Hegemony.
Only Russia and China can save the world from Armageddon, but are they too deluded and worshipful
of the West to save Planet Earth?
There are dozens of digital spying companies that can
track everything a target does on a smartphone.
Credit
Spencer Platt/Getty Images
SAN FRANCISCO - Want to invisibly spy on 10
iPhone
owners without their knowledge? Gather their every keystroke, sound,
message and location? That will cost you $650,000, plus a $500,000 setup fee with an
Israeli outfit called the NSO Group. You can spy on more people if you would like -
just check out the company's price list.
The NSO Group is one of a number of companies that
sell surveillance tools
that can capture all the activity on a smartphone, like a
user's location and personal contacts. These tools can even turn the phone into a
secret recording device.
Since its founding six years ago, the NSO Group has kept a low profile. But last
month, security researchers
caught its spyware trying to gain access
to the iPhone of a human rights activist
in the United Arab Emirates. They also discovered a second target, a Mexican
journalist who wrote about corruption in the Mexican government.
Now, internal NSO Group emails, contracts and commercial proposals obtained by The
New York Times offer insight into how companies in this secretive digital
surveillance industry operate. The emails and documents were provided by two people
who have had dealings with the NSO Group but would not be named for fear of
reprisals.
The company is one of dozens of digital spying outfits that track everything a target
does on a smartphone. They aggressively market their services to governments and law
enforcement agencies around the world. The industry argues that this spying is
necessary to track terrorists, kidnappers and drug lords. The NSO Group's corporate
mission statement is "Make the world a safe place."
Ten people familiar with the company's sales, who refused to be identified, said that
the NSO Group has a strict internal vetting process to determine who it will sell to.
An ethics committee made up of employees and external counsel vets potential
customers based on human rights rankings set by the World Bank and other global
bodies. And to date, these people all said, NSO has yet to be denied an export
license.
But critics note that the company's spyware has also been used to track journalists
and human rights activists.
"There's no check on this," said Bill Marczak, a senior fellow at the Citizen Lab at
the University of Toronto's Munk School of Global Affairs. "Once NSO's systems are
sold, governments can essentially use them however they want. NSO can say they're
trying to make the world a safer place, but they are also making the world a more
surveilled place."
The NSO Group's capabilities are in higher demand now that companies like Apple,
Facebook and Google are using stronger encryption to protect data in their systems,
in the process making it harder for government agencies to track suspects.
The NSO Group's spyware finds ways around encryption by baiting targets to click
unwittingly on texts containing malicious links or by exploiting previously
undiscovered software flaws. It was taking advantage of
three such flaws in Apple software
- since fixed - when it was discovered by
researchers last month.
The cyberarms industry typified by the NSO Group operates in a legal gray area, and
it is often left to the companies to decide how far they are willing to dig into a
target's personal life and what governments they will do business with. Israel has
strict export controls for digital weaponry, but the country has never barred the
sale of NSO Group technology.
Since it is privately held, not much is known about the NSO Group's finances, but its
business is clearly growing. Two years ago, the NSO Group sold a controlling stake in
its business to Francisco Partners, a
private equity
firm based in San Francisco, for $120 million. Nearly a year
later, Francisco Partners was exploring a sale of the company for 10 times that
amount, according to two people approached by the firm but forbidden to speak about
the discussions.
The company's internal documents detail pitches to countries throughout Europe and
multimillion-dollar contracts with Mexico, which paid the NSO Group more than $15
million for three projects over three years, according to internal NSO Group emails
dated in 2013.
"Our intelligence systems are subject to Mexico's relevant legislation and have legal
authorization," Ricardo Alday, a spokesman for the Mexican embassy in Washington,
said in an emailed statement. "They are not used against journalists or activists.
All contracts with the federal government are done in accordance with the law."
Zamir Dahbash, an NSO Group spokesman, said that the sale of its spyware was
restricted to authorized governments and that it was used solely for criminal and
terrorist investigations. He declined to comment on whether the company would cease
selling to the U.A.E. and Mexico after last week's disclosures.
For the last six years, the NSO Group's main product, a tracking system called
Pegasus, has been used by a growing number of government agencies to target a range
of smartphones - including iPhones, Androids, and BlackBerry and Symbian systems -
without leaving a trace.
Among the Pegasus system's capabilities, NSO Group contracts assert, are the
abilities to extract text messages, contact lists, calendar records, emails, instant
messages and GPS locations. One capability that the NSO Group calls "room tap" can
gather sounds in and around the room, using the phone's own microphone.
Pegasus can use the camera to take snapshots or screen grabs. It can deny the phone
access to certain websites and applications, and it can grab search histories or
anything viewed with the phone's web browser. And all of the data can be sent back to
the agency's server in real time.
In its commercial proposals, the NSO Group asserts that its tracking software and
hardware can install itself in any number of ways, including "over the air stealth
installation," tailored text messages and emails, through public Wi-Fi hot spots
rigged to secretly install NSO Group software, or the old-fashioned way, by spies in
person.
Much like a traditional software company, the NSO Group prices its surveillance tools
by the number of targets, starting with a flat $500,000 installation fee. To spy on
10 iPhone users, NSO charges government agencies $650,000; $650,000 for 10 Android
users; $500,000 for five BlackBerry users; or $300,000 for five Symbian users - on
top of the setup fee, according to one commercial proposal.
You can pay for more targets. One hundred additional targets will cost $800,000, 50
extra targets cost $500,000, 20 extra will cost $250,000 and 10 extra costs $150,000,
according to an NSO Group commercial proposal. There is an annual system maintenance
fee of 17 percent of the total price every year thereafter.
What that gets you, NSO Group documents say, is "unlimited access to a target's
mobile devices." In short, the company says: You can "remotely and covertly collect
information about your target's relationships, location, phone calls, plans and
activities - whenever and wherever they are."
And, its proposal adds, "It leaves no traces whatsoever."
The problem with corruption in Washington these days is that they don't know it's corruption -
it's the atmosphere they breathe, the ocean they swim in.
People who want something from you give you gifts? Well, the gift-giving has nothing to do with
what they want you to do. They just like you. And you aren't at all influenced by the gifts and their
presumed affection. Unlike the rest of humanity, you aren't at all affected by your perception of
others' valuing of you. Really?
In a criminal trial, potential jurors who know anyone who will be involved in the trial are dismissed.
Silly courts? I don't think so. That level of ignorance between the governed and their representatives
is neither possible nor desirable, but its requirement where government will act is, I think, an
accurate indication of the probability of conscious or unconscious influence of relationships.
If gift giving to those in power isn't corrupt or corrupting, what's the problem with Citizens
United again?
In short, this pabulum about the real purity of backscratching is the crony justification of corruption.
It's not corruption. It's just the way nice honest grownup people with favors to give live.
"... Isnt that embezzlement or sth like that instead of corrupton ? ..."
"... Anti-corruption has been used to justify some shady stuff in the past, like voter registration
laws in the early 20th century. But it most definitely is not overblown in truth – corruption is absolutely
corrosive to society. ..."
"... As for large labor unions, they're human bureaucracies. Any sort of large, hierarchical bureaucracy
tends to pile up problems over time even with some degree of democratic accountability in theory – corruption,
nepotism, ladder-climbers, Company Men, in-fighters, self-righteous vested interests/gatekeepers, etc.
Maybe it's why it doesn't bother me especially when they have the same kind of problems as other big
organizations, only if they're exceptionally bad. ..."
"... The problem with the neo-liberal critique is making a invidious distinction between the for-profit
and not-for-profit sectors. Both have legal (but immoral) varieties of corruption and illegal varieties.
Both have trouble aligning the needs of executives (or other powerful individuals) with the needs of
the organization or its mission. Both can be insulated from supposedly corrective forces (i.e., the
market or the polity). Both suffer from the danger of executive "entrepreneurialism" in proportion to
potential spoils. ..."
"... Ah, the power of the invisible hand. Would that it were so. The only corporations of any size
I have ever observed that managed to maintain strong and reasonably effective control of peculation
were the (now essentially defunct) regulated utilities: telephone companies, electric utilities, some
banks. ..."
"... That sounds a bit too maximalistic and seems to concede too much ground to the neoliberals
and libertarians. Yes, corruption is very demoralising and debilitating, but almost all institutions,
movements, regimes and social forces exhibit corruption to some extent, even when they are beneficial
or less harmful than their alternatives. ..."
"... Contrary to the rhetoric of the Right, a trade union in which some corruption occurs can still
do some good work and its corruption is not a justification for busting trade unions, and a state in
which some corruption occurs can still do some good work and its corruption is not a justification for
privatisation or for abolishing the state. Similarly, a government in which some corruption occurs can
still do some good work and/or be preferable to its opposition. ..."
"... Institutions will never 'remove the muck of the ages.' Especially not powerful institutions
– as it goes, that power corrupts. This is the single most important insight against the tendencies
of the left, which are to empower monopoly institutions. ..."
"... The tendency of the corporate form is both to increase organisation and to increase power.
If all power tends to corrupt, that must include the power vested in corporations and the power vested
by corporations in individuals. The dictum is not restricted to 'monopoly power tends to corrupt' or
'government power tends to corrupt'. ..."
"... Corruption, embezzlement, and dishonesty are hard to eliminate; so long as there is trust,
there will be breaches of trust. But it is no solution never to trust. This is not to say that corruption
should be ignored when found, nor that anti-corruption efforts should be abandoned; only that hope should
not be abandoned solely because corruption persists. ..."
"... There's a lot of abstract hand-wringing on the centre-left about "inequality" that seems oddly
reluctant to connect the rapid increases in chief executive pay to a variety of ways in which institutional
trust and mission commitment can be undermined to fund executive "compensation". This case looks like
it will turn out to be a remarkably complex case, in which the corruption of the donors is at much at
issue as the corruption of the fund-raisers. ..."
"... When it comes to things like spending large amounts of other people's money, or counting votes
in an election, I don't want to have to trust people. There should be a system in place to, in the words
of Ronald Reagan, "Trust but verify". ..."
"... Ms. Coico tried to be too careful. The trick to making insiders comfortable with kleptocracy
is to just spend money freely on your mates, then blame capitalism when the bill comes. If you run around
asking for budget cuts and fee increases, don't be surprised when they suddenly take notions like fiduciary
duty and the sanctity of donor intention or tax-funded grants very seriously indeed. And even if it
turns out that your embezzlement is a fraction of the deficit, your head will still roll – the faculty
can't stop legislatures from refusing to fund them, but they can lash out at you instead. ..."
"... I live in a large Northeastern city, which has had moderately corrupt leadership and moderately
clean leadership. The clean leadership could afford to be clean because it was funded–completely legally–by
the plutocracy. The moderately corrupt leadership has been far more democratically accountable, somewhat
more effective in providing public services, and has been reasonably modest in its skim. I'm not saying
that corruption is necessary for democracy–I've also lived in squeaky-clean local governments that are
pretty responsive and responsible, and a damn sight lower in taxes. But corruption is not inimical,
if it's the right kind of corruption. ..."
"... Basically, some kinds of corruption can serve to align interests; Roosevelt's crackdown on
police corruption made for more damaging and predatory crime, and more violence (both state and non-state.)
..."
"... Corey hasn't explained why he's come to view corruption as "destroying everything." I'm still
with Foundling in #14 that there are things that are worse…and in a neoliberal meritocratic society
that's almost everything. Corruption at least tends to leave things unchanged rather than reformed towards
universal wage and debt slavery. ..."
"... Corey, it may amuse you and other social scientists to know that in my time at the World Bank,
corruption by client states implicitly encouraged by bank lending was known by the euphemism 'political
economy'. ..."
"... It might be noted that what is considered 'corruption' may vary as to environment and ideology,
and what would be considered corrupt in a government or a union or other den of leftist iniquity may
not be corrupt in business. For example, a large brokerage house I once worked for decided it had to
give its field agents a new customer information system. ..."
"... Requests for proposals were circulated and proposals received. A committee of hotshot engineers
investigated them full-time, and the opinions of dozens or maybe hundreds of others sought. A strongly
evidenced, strongly reasoned recommendation was made. ..."
"... The CEO then played golf with Paul Allen of Microsoft, and the recommendation went out the
window. Ultimately this decision wasted hundreds of millions of dollars. That would have been a crime
in government, in a union, or in many other institutions, but in business it's entirely legal and quite
common. And there is no recourse, except through the market; and markets are mentally unstable, and
often sort of dumb, just like the humans who constitute them. ..."
"... I think, though, that you started well. 'Institutions will never "remove the muck of the ages."
Especially not powerful institutions – as it goes, that power corrupts.' Well said. But then the Faith
took over, and led you astray. ..."
"... I'd be very suspicious of accusations of corruption. That has led, for example, to discriminatory
voter ID laws. And now the impeachment of leftist populism in Brazil, notably by those more corrupt.
Successful anticorruption can generally be assumed to be the greater corruption demolishing a lesser
one. The greatest corruption never falls unless overtaken by one even greater. ..."
The
City University of New York is investigating whether a recent $500,000 donation intended to
bolster the humanities and arts at its flagship school may have been improperly diverted.
The inquiry was prompted by senior faculty members at the school, the
City College of New York, who learned that an account that should have contained roughly $600,000,
thanks to the donation, had just $76. Faculty members asked City College officials for an explanation,
but were met with "silence, delay and deflection" before appealing directly the university's chancellor,
James B. Milliken. Mr. Milliken then asked Frederick P. Schaffer, the university's general counsel
and senior vice chancellor for legal affairs, to look into the "the expenditure of monies donated,"
according to documents obtained by The New York Times.
This is part of a followup to a piece the
Times ran last spring, which I
blogged about, and which claimed:
Documents obtained by The Times indicated that the college's 21st Century Foundation paid for
some of Ms. Coico's personal expenses, such as fruit baskets, housekeeping services and rugs,
when she took office in 2010. The foundation was then reimbursed for more than $150,000 from CUNY
's Research Foundation. That has raised eyebrows among governance experts, because such funds
are typically earmarked for research.
It's unclear what the $600,000 went to, and who made the decision. Hence, the investigation, which
involves federal prosecutors. But at a minimum, it seems clear that the money was used for purposes
it was not earmarked for.
I used to think that corruption was just one of those do-gooder good-government-type
concerns, a trope neoliberal IMF officials wielded in order to force capitalism down the throat of
developing countries. After years of hearing about stuff like this at CUNY , and
in some cases seeing
much worse, I've come to realize just how corrosive and politically debilitating corruption is.
It's like a fungus or a parasite. It attaches itself to a host, a body that is full of possibility
and promise, a body that contains so much of what we hope for, and it feeds off that body till it
dies.
One of the reasons why, politically, it's worse when corruption happens at an institution like
CUNY or in a labor union-as opposed to the legalized or even illegal corruption that goes on at the
highest reaches of the political economy-is that these are, or are supposed to be, sites of opposition
to all that is wrong and wretched in the world. These are institutions that are supposed to remove
the muck of ages.
It's hard enough to believe in that kind of transformative work, and those kinds of transformative
institutions, under the best of conditions. But when corruption becomes a part of the picture, it's
impossible.
Corruption is pure poison. It destroys everything. Even-or especially-the promise of that transformation.
Selected Skeptical Comments
hix 08.30.16 at 2:10 pm
Isnt that embezzlement or sth like that instead of corrupton ? (im a bit lost even with
the German legal terms here, but it still looks wrong)
BenK 08.30.16 at 2:47 pm
Institutions will never 'remove the muck of the ages.' Especially not powerful institutions –
as it goes, that power corrupts. This is the single most important insight against the tendencies
of the left, which are to empower monopoly institutions.
Corporations, if not tied directly to government (the monopoly beyond all monopolies and the
source and destination of all monopolies), have a difficult time being corrupt without attracting
the attention of upstart competition. Labor, as well (unless, again, it has a monopoly sanctioned
and enforced by the government).
The power of reform and repentance is with individuals, not organizations.
casmilus 08.30.16 at 3:21 pm
Make "Last Exit To Brooklyn" a compulsory text for all Humanities students at CUNY.
"labor union[s] … are, or are supposed to be, sites of opposition to all that is wrong and wretched
in the world. "
Strewth. I have clear memories of the antics of (some of) the UK trades unions in the 1970s and
1980s, or even nowadays, and I have heard interesting things about the Teamsters in the US. I
think "supposed to be" is carrying an intolerable amount of weight her.
Sebastian_H 08.30.16 at 7:20 pm
"I used to think that corruption was just one of those do-gooder good-government-type concerns,
a trope neoliberal IMF officials wielded in order to force capitalism down the throat of developing
countries."
About every 5-10 years I look back at things like that where I've dismissed things as overblown
and found that they are correct or at least have a lot more force than I thought. It turns out
we can't be right about everything.
Brett 08.30.16 at 9:12 pm
@8
I can sort of see where Corey might be coming on this. Anti-corruption has been used to
justify some shady stuff in the past, like voter registration laws in the early 20th century.
But it most definitely is not overblown in truth – corruption is absolutely corrosive to society.
As for large labor unions, they're human bureaucracies. Any sort of large, hierarchical
bureaucracy tends to pile up problems over time even with some degree of democratic accountability
in theory – corruption, nepotism, ladder-climbers, Company Men, in-fighters, self-righteous vested
interests/gatekeepers, etc. Maybe it's why it doesn't bother me especially when they have the
same kind of problems as other big organizations, only if they're exceptionally bad.
otpup 08.30.16 at 10:21 pm
I had a student job at Hunter this decade for a few years. I heard endless (and bitter) gossip
about the cronyism of the administration new at the time.
otpup 08.30.16 at 10:32 pm
The problem with the neo-liberal critique is making a invidious distinction between the for-profit
and not-for-profit sectors. Both have legal (but immoral) varieties of corruption and illegal
varieties. Both have trouble aligning the needs of executives (or other powerful individuals)
with the needs of the organization or its mission. Both can be insulated from supposedly corrective
forces (i.e., the market or the polity). Both suffer from the danger of executive "entrepreneurialism"
in proportion to potential spoils.
Cranky Observer 08.30.16 at 11:59 pm
= = =BenK @ 2:47 PM: Corporations, if not tied directly to government (the monopoly beyond
all monopolies and the source and destination of all monopolies), have a difficult time being
corrupt without attracting the attention of upstart competition.= = =
Ah, the power of the invisible hand. Would that it were so. The only corporations of any
size I have ever observed that managed to maintain strong and reasonably effective control of
peculation were the (now essentially defunct) regulated utilities: telephone companies, electric
utilities, some banks.
In all cases they were helped on the path to righteousness by strong external regulatory and
audit agencies, some degree of a spirit of public service in the operation and workforce, some
degree of public view into their operations and incentives for members of the public to use that
view, and legal limits on allowable profit. How fast that all can go away in the corporate world,
and the usual run of mutual board appointments, back scratching, nest feathering, every man for
himself and the most he can grab, etc take its place can be measured from 1994 in the electricity
industry. Took about 5 years IIRC.
F. Foundling 08.31.16 at 1:08 am
OP:
> I used to think that corruption was just one of those do-gooder good-government-type concerns,
a trope neoliberal IMF officials wielded in order to force capitalism down the throat of developing
countries.
>It's hard enough to believe in that kind of transformative work, and those kinds of transformative
institutions, under the best of conditions. But when corruption becomes a part of the picture,
it's impossible.
That sounds a bit too maximalistic and seems to concede too much ground to the neoliberals
and libertarians. Yes, corruption is very demoralising and debilitating, but almost all institutions,
movements, regimes and social forces exhibit corruption to some extent, even when they are beneficial
or less harmful than their alternatives.
They don't need to be perfect to be worthy of defence. Contrary to the rhetoric of the
Right, a trade union in which some corruption occurs can still do some good work and its corruption
is not a justification for busting trade unions, and a state in which some corruption occurs can
still do some good work and its corruption is not a justification for privatisation or for abolishing
the state. Similarly, a government in which some corruption occurs can still do some good work
and/or be preferable to its opposition.
Tabasco 08.31.16 at 1:50 am
The $600,000 might or not be missing because of corruption. If it was spent on a legitimate purpose
of the university, such as paying salaries of the IT staff, or fixing the plumbing, then that's
really bad, because the money was supposed to spent on the humanities and arts, and it might be
criminal, but it's not the same as paying a bribe or just someone just stealing the money.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 2:08 am
Of course, "we have no idea what happened to the money" means that it is not a prosecutable offense.
Just an occasion for an investigation upon which no one could possibly comment until the news
cycle has passed several times over.
Stipulating that corruption can be found in a variety of different contexts, the countries in
which it's most severe, to the point at which it becomes an inadequate descriptive word, tend
to be those in which regimes loot the surplus from resource extraction with the tacit or perhaps
in some cases active participation of multinationals operating in the country.
There are various possible examples (including several in subSaharan Africa and [I think] the
former Soviet central Asia) but I happen to be thinking specifically of Angola, which until the
decline in oil prices had, if I'm not mistaken, the most expensive (by some measures) city in
the world (Luanda) alongside one of the highest rates of child mortality in the world, if not
the highest. In general the so-called resource curse is pertinent here, i.e. regimes/countries
that have put all their eggs in the oil basket or something comparable.
The issue is not so much tsk-tsking about 'poor governance' but rather trying to sort out the
ways in which the global political economy and its m.o. facilitate or at least create permissive
conditions for these situations, in tandem w/ the local contexts.
Institutions will never 'remove the muck of the ages.' Especially not powerful institutions
– as it goes, that power corrupts. This is the single most important insight against the tendencies
of the left, which are to empower monopoly institutions.
Corporations, if not tied directly to government (the monopoly beyond all monopolies and
the source and destination of all monopolies), have a difficult time being corrupt without
attracting the attention of upstart competition. Labor, as well (unless, again, it has a monopoly
sanctioned and enforced by the government).
The power of reform and repentance is with individuals, not organizations.
The tendency of the corporate form is both to increase organisation and to increase power.
If all power tends to corrupt, that must include the power vested in corporations and the power
vested by corporations in individuals. The dictum is not restricted to 'monopoly power tends to
corrupt' or 'government power tends to corrupt'.
J-D 08.31.16 at 4:48 am
Corruption, embezzlement, and dishonesty are hard to eliminate; so long as there is trust,
there will be breaches of trust. But it is no solution never to trust. This is not to say that
corruption should be ignored when found, nor that anti-corruption efforts should be abandoned;
only that hope should not be abandoned solely because corruption persists.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 5:29 am
Trust? Trust in leadership.
"The fish rots from the head" is an expression, I think.
There's a lot of abstract hand-wringing on the centre-left about "inequality" that seems
oddly reluctant to connect the rapid increases in chief executive pay to a variety of ways in
which institutional trust and mission commitment can be undermined to fund executive "compensation".
This case looks like it will turn out to be a remarkably complex case, in which the corruption
of the donors is at much at issue as the corruption of the fund-raisers.
maidhc 08.31.16 at 6:47 am
I think there is a need to have independent accountants conduct periodic audits to verify that
all money was used for its intended purpose. That's true for public institutions because they
use the people's money, and it's true for publicly traded companies because it's the shareholders'
money. This is common practice at any large corporation I've been involved with, and I'm rather
surprised that it doesn't happen at a university.
The chancellor of UC Davis just lost her job for misusing university money, specifically by
hiring relatives into sinecures at inflated salaries. And other things. It's nice to hear that
sometimes there are consequences.
Most universities I know about are rather nit-picky about how you can spend money. Like you
can buy a tablet because it's a computing device, but you can't buy a phone because it's a personal
item.
When it comes to things like spending large amounts of other people's money, or counting
votes in an election, I don't want to have to trust people. There should be a system in place
to, in the words of Ronald Reagan, "Trust but verify".
That doesn't solve the problem of inflated salaries at the top, but that's a different problem.
david 08.31.16 at 7:58 am
"Several faculty members worried that the money had been spent instead on helping the college
close a budget deficit at the end of its fiscal year on June 30."
… which would have triggered a heroic resistance against capitalism and debt and budget cuts;
instead, whoops, it's tawdry embezzlement.
Ms. Coico tried to be too careful. The trick to making insiders comfortable with kleptocracy
is to just spend money freely on your mates, then blame capitalism when the bill comes. If you
run around asking for budget cuts and fee increases, don't be surprised when they suddenly take
notions like fiduciary duty and the sanctity of donor intention or tax-funded grants very seriously
indeed. And even if it turns out that your embezzlement is a fraction of the deficit, your head
will still roll – the faculty can't stop legislatures from refusing to fund them, but they can
lash out at you instead.
Ebenezer Scrooge 08.31.16 at 11:02 am
Corruption is a matter of kind, as well as degree.
I live in a large Northeastern city, which has had moderately corrupt leadership and moderately
clean leadership. The clean leadership could afford to be clean because it was funded–completely
legally–by the plutocracy. The moderately corrupt leadership has been far more democratically
accountable, somewhat more effective in providing public services, and has been reasonably modest
in its skim. I'm not saying that corruption is necessary for democracy–I've also lived in squeaky-clean
local governments that are pretty responsive and responsible, and a damn sight lower in taxes.
But corruption is not inimical, if it's the right kind of corruption.
Corruption, I think, is worse in civil society institutions than in government. Civil society
institutions are inherently not democratic–especially universities! (No–senior faculty is only
a demos in the Athenian sense of the term.) These things are governed by fiduciary principles,
which are inimical to corruption of any kind.
SamChevre 08.31.16 at 2:28 pm
The best introduction I know to the uses and dangers of corruption is the section on the NYC police
in The Autobiography of Lincoln Steffens .
Basically, some kinds of corruption can serve to align interests; Roosevelt's crackdown
on police corruption made for more damaging and predatory crime, and more violence (both state
and non-state.)
Michael Epton 09.01.16 at 7:11 am
This is why I took Larry Lessig's quixotic presidential candidacy seriously this year. In addition
to helping me understand how patent and copyright on steroids threatens the future of civilization,
he has lately undertaken the attack on corruption: the greater threat.
Charles Peterson 09.01.16 at 5:10 pm
Corey hasn't explained why he's come to view corruption as "destroying everything." I'm still
with Foundling in #14 that there are things that are worse…and in a neoliberal meritocratic society
that's almost everything. Corruption at least tends to leave things unchanged rather than reformed
towards universal wage and debt slavery.
Charles Peterson 09.02.16 at 5:18 am
The greatest of science, art, literature, and philosophy are all the residue of earlier corruption.
Charles Darwin was a gentleman, and it is impossible to imagine otherwise. That's to say he was
the beneficiary of an ancient corruption, the original theft.
It is precisely the successors of that original theft who would be the beneficiaries of the
perfect investment, if it were possible, which would benefit only the investor and neither be
a cost nor a benefit to anyone else in society.
That is to say that all the benefits to anyone and everyone else have come through the corruption
of capitalism, rather than its perfection.
Corey, it may amuse you and other social scientists to know that in my time at the World Bank,
corruption by client states implicitly encouraged by bank lending was known by the euphemism 'political
economy'.
BenK 08.30.16 at 2:47 pm @ 2 -
I see you have not worked much in private corporate environments.
It might be noted that what is considered 'corruption' may vary as to environment and ideology,
and what would be considered corrupt in a government or a union or other den of leftist iniquity
may not be corrupt in business. For example, a large brokerage house I once worked for decided
it had to give its field agents a new customer information system.
Requests for proposals were circulated and proposals received. A committee of hotshot engineers
investigated them full-time, and the opinions of dozens or maybe hundreds of others sought. A
strongly evidenced, strongly reasoned recommendation was made.
The CEO then played golf with Paul Allen of Microsoft, and the recommendation went out
the window. Ultimately this decision wasted hundreds of millions of dollars. That would have been
a crime in government, in a union, or in many other institutions, but in business it's entirely
legal and quite common. And there is no recourse, except through the market; and markets are mentally
unstable, and often sort of dumb, just like the humans who constitute them.
I think, though, that you started well. 'Institutions will never "remove the muck of the
ages." Especially not powerful institutions – as it goes, that power corrupts.' Well said. But
then the Faith took over, and led you astray.
Charles Peterson 09.03.16 at 3:49 am
I'd be very suspicious of accusations of corruption. That has led, for example, to discriminatory
voter ID laws. And now the impeachment of leftist populism in Brazil, notably by those more corrupt.
Successful anticorruption can generally be assumed to be the greater corruption demolishing a
lesser one. The greatest corruption never falls unless overtaken by one even greater.
And generally, if crime doth pay, none dare call it crime. So we have private healthcare insurance,
very costly to society, which performs exactly one function–the death panel function. And then,
Wall Street. I should have started with outgoing call marketing and spam, but those are technically
criminal in some cases.
But why stop there, when about the highest price is paid to rain endless warfare, or in some
previous brief periods the mere threat of it, on the imagined possible threats to global plutocracy.
Charles Peterson 09.03.16 at 4:24 am
And Tobacco, Oil, Coal, Fracking, Agrifuel, Agribusinesses of many kinds, the list of legal criminality
goes on.
President Vladimir Putin gave an interview to Bloomberg. The interview was recorded on
September 1, in Vladivostok.
SUBSCRIBE
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5kY...
"... The prospect of Trump TV is a source of real anxiety for some inside Fox.
The candidate took the wedge issues that Ailes used to build a loyal audience at
Fox News - especially race and class - and used them to stoke barely containable
outrage among a downtrodden faction of conservatives. ..."
Also, Ailes has made the Murdochs a lot of money - Fox News generates
more than $1 billion annually, which accounts for 20 percent of 21st Century
Fox's profits - and Rupert worried that perhaps only Ailes could run the
network so successfully. "Rupert is in the clouds; he didn't appreciate
how toxic an environment it was that Ailes created," a person close to the
Murdochs said. "If the money hadn't been so good, then maybe they would
have asked questions."
…
What NBC considered fireable offenses, Murdoch saw as competitive advantages.
He hired Ailes to help achieve a goal that had eluded Murdoch for a decade:
busting CNN's cable news monopoly. Back in the mid-'90s, no one thought
it could be done. "I'm looking forward to squishing Rupert like a bug,"
CNN founder Ted Turner boasted at an industry conference. But Ailes recognized
how key wedge issues - race, religion, class - could turn conservative voters
into loyal viewers.
…. The prospect of Trump TV is a source of real anxiety for some inside
Fox. The candidate took the wedge issues that Ailes used to build a loyal
audience at Fox News - especially race and class - and used them to stoke
barely containable outrage among a downtrodden faction of conservatives.
Where that outrage is channeled after the election - assuming, as polls
now suggest, Trump doesn't make it to the White House - is a big question
for the Republican Party and for Fox News. Trump had a complicated relationship
with Fox even when his good friend Ailes was in charge; without Ailes, it's
plausible that he will try to monetize the movement he has galvanized in
competition with the network rather than in concert with it. Trump's appointment
of Steve Bannon, chairman of Breitbart, the digital-media upstart that has
by some measures already surpassed Fox News as the locus of conservative
energy, to run his campaign suggests a new right-wing news network of some
kind is a real possibility. One prominent media executive told me that if
Trump loses, Fox will need to try to damage him in the eyes of its viewers
by blaming him for the defeat.
=======================================
Just to reiterate a point I have made time and again, with Murdoch it is
all about the money.
It will indeed be ironic if Fox news collapses because the ultimate outcome
of their brand of "conservatism" failed to become president.
I can see the new "network" questioning whether that Australian, an internationalist,
really wants whats best for America…
Cultural Imperialism and Perception Management: How Hollywood Hides US War Crimes Strategic Culture
Movies are used to identify which individuals, groups, peoples, and nations are heroes, victims,
aggressors, and villains. In this regard Hollywood vilifies countries like Iran, China, Russia, Cuba,
and North Korea while it lionizes the United States. Hollywood also warps historical narratives and
reifies revisionist narratives of history. In a far stretch from the historical facts and reality,
this is why most US citizens and many Western Europeans believe that the outcome of the Second World
War in Europe was decided in the Atlantic by the US and not in Eastern Europe and Central Asia by
the Soviet Union.
=======================================================
I would posit that Hollywood is culturally "liberal" (like dems, as a "brand") but operationally
"conservative" – that is Hillary liberalism that holds that America is "exceptional" and that the
motives of the country are always good. And "conservative" in the Murdochian view – the media is
too make money, and if people want to believe in "Merica, and the Easter Bunny, than a movie with
a machine gun welding Easter bunny freeing Syrians will be made… (and of course the bunny will have
as an ally a wise ass 12 year old hip hop spouting Syrian male teenager who saves the day by calling
in an air strike using his I-phone, as well as a sexy female middle eastern woman who keeps her head
covered but her decolettage uncovered as much as possible while keeping a PR-13 rating…..)
Once I emerged from the Old Ebbitt Grill in D.C. and was accosted by a well-groomed but temporarily
disheveled man in a tailored grey suit, who appeared to be quite drunk.
"Hey Senator … hey Senator!" he called out, following a few steps behind on the sidewalk.
You too can be Senator for a day. On the other hand, no one picked up the bar tab for my night
as a solon. :-(
On the other hand, no one picked up the bar tab for my night as a solon. :-(
Shocking! The US would be a far, far better place were it run under the precepts of Jim Haygood.
And should I ever have the pleasure of meeting you, I certainly will buy you a beer….tomorrow…
Anyone interested in "history" and scope of involvement of not just Hollywood but pretty much
every part of the intellectual and entertainment sectors might want to read "The Cultural Cold
War." By France's Stonor Saunders.
Here's a couple of briefer links that help "paint the picture" (and write the prose and poetry
and screenplays and the rest) of how the Really Smart and Evil People that aggregated in the CIA
to "advance American (sic) interests" went about it:
No, there's no such thing as a "deep state," maybe, but there sure are a whole lot of critters
that all seem to be pushing and pulling the political economy in the same direction, all while
us mopes who are dragged along, and sometimes help to our short-term poorly perceived chimerical
"gain" and actual disadvantage are along for the ride. Because of the nature of humans in their
individual and collective capacities.
Seems to me the "outcomes" that the larger political economy produces, the concentration of
wealth, the destruction for profit and looting we call so unadvisedly "war," may be an engineering
error in our genome. All this in service of the desire of a very few to do what? Maximize their
personal and class pleasure? Still scratching my head, to the point of raising wheals, over why
the Few who inherit the genes coded for accumulation and destruction also manage to lead the most
of us toward the cliff.
Most species, I believe, have an instinctual drive to survive (occasionally confused, as with
the male English crossbill, whose sexual success depends on the female getting hot at the sight
of a bigger bill than the next wiener, thanks to genetic wiring, on developing over generations
ever larger crossed bills, to the point that the species survival is threatened because the dumb
birds can screw but not eat.) We have runaway "tech" that has Really Smart Technologists building
New! Improved! Generations of nuclear weapons, autonomous war machines, and now I read that some
set of ass%%%%%s has sequenced and reproduced Y. pestis, particularly the worst version responsible
for enormous plagues, and that is just one of the many "revivals" of human and animal disease
organisms that are underway as so blandly described in the language of "science:"
http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3412127
And of course the many scary stories reported here of how vulnerable the grand Internet and
all our data and algomoney and personal information and tech-dependent infrastructure from dams
and power grids to code-driven cars and communicators to "lifesaving" (and profit-generating)
devices like pacemakers (but not Dick Cheney's, or maybe since he got a new heart he doesn't need
one any more).
So not that it matters an infinitesimal bit what my personal state of knowledge and awareness
is, I am completely puzzled at what the goal(s) of all the churning and burning and droning and
scientizing might happen to be.
What drives the very small bit of the species to keep ginning up threats, up to and including
serial financial collapses and global climate disaster and nuclear war and a "Terminator" future,"
to do what they do?
I would posit that Hollywood is culturally "liberal" (like dems, as a "brand") but operationally
"conservative"
Liberalism - and again, I draw a distinction between noblesse oblige liberalism (modulo the
darkies) that people seem to project onto FDR, and liberalism as a school of thought - is aspirational
and competitive, and therefore intrinsically and inevitably produces (and reproduces) the very
inequities to which it styles itself the solution. Championing inequity as a force for good, regardless
of the tendentiously self-serving rationalizations required, is no different than putting the
poor on the Gaza Strip Diet to "help" them, i.e. inherently, not operationally, conservative.
"... The article on the difficulty of taking over the Democratic Party hits the nail on the head, but it misses the Michels-ian problem: organizations have a tendency (but not this is a tendency, not a rule or fate) towards increasing oligarchy over time, and organizational members are socialized to trust and obey party leadership. ..."
"... if you and a faction entered and created a "Destroy the Dems" faction you'd be ignored or hunted out of the party, especially if you pointedly attacked the Dems oligarchy and were openly hostile to their officials, platform and the president – though I would argue you'd need exactly a "Destroy the Dems" faction to succeed in smashing the party oligarchy and changing the culture. ..."
"... Lack of democracy is a persistent theme in studies of parties for the last century. ..."
The article on the difficulty of taking over the Democratic Party hits the nail on the head,
but it misses the Michels-ian problem: organizations have a tendency (but not this is a tendency,
not a rule or fate) towards increasing oligarchy over time, and organizational members are socialized
to trust and obey party leadership. Factional dissidents within the Dems have to contend not
only with the party oligarchy and its formidable resources, the decentralized and sprawling nature
of the organization, but with a membership that barely participates but, when it does, turns out
when and how the leadership wants.
The Militant Labour tendency example isn't perfect – entryism into a Parliamentary party is easier
than our party system – but it speaks volumes. To get a hearing from the party membership you can
only criticize so much of the organization itself; if you and a faction entered and created a
"Destroy the Dems" faction you'd be ignored or hunted out of the party, especially if you pointedly
attacked the Dems oligarchy and were openly hostile to their officials, platform and the president
– though I would argue you'd need exactly a "Destroy the Dems" faction to succeed in smashing the
party oligarchy and changing the culture.
Keep in mind I do say this as a Green and a person who did his PhD on inner-party democracy (or
lack thereof). Lack of democracy is a persistent theme in studies of parties for the last century.
It would make more sense to really unite the left around electoral reform in the long run and
push for proportional representation at the state/local level for legislatures and city councils.
While it would probably be preferable for democracy's sake to have one big district elected with
an open-list vote, in the US context we'd probably go the German route of mixed-member proportional
that combines geographical single-member districts with proportional voting.
"... "Containment" of RC will continue to be the name of the exceptionalist game – whatever happens
on November 8. As far as the industrial-military-security-surveillance-corporate media complex is concerned,
there will be no reset . Proxies will be used – from failed state Ukraine to Japan in the East China
Sea, as well as any volunteering Southeast Asian faction in the South China Sea. ..."
"... The Grand Chessboard ..."
"... Hillary "Queen of War" Clinton of course does not subscribe to Brzezinski's "could be" school.
After all she's the official, Robert Kagan-endorsed, neocon presidential candidate. She's more in tune
with this sort of wacky "analysis" . ..."
"... "Our first objective is to prevent the reemergence of a new rival…This requires that we endeavor
to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control,
be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory
of the former Soviet Union and southwest Asia." ..."
"... The question is whether she – and virtually the whole Beltway establishment behind her – will
be mad enough to provoke RC and buy a one-way ticket to post-MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) territory.
..."
Defend
Democracy Press 31/08/2016 The next BRICS summit, in Goa, is less than two months away.
Compared to only two years ago, the geopolitical tectonic plates have moved with astonishing
speed. Most BRICS nations are mired in deep crisis; Brazil's endless political/economic/institutional
debacle may yield the Kafkaesque impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff.
BRICS is in a coma. What's surviving is RC: the Russia/China strategic partnership.
Yet even the partnership seems to be in trouble – with Russia still attacked by myriad metastases
of Hybrid War. The – Exceptionalist – Hegemon remains powerful, and the opposition is dazed
and confused.
Or is it?
Slowly but surely – see for instance
the
possibility of an ATM (Ankara-Tehran-Moscow) coalition in the making – global power continues
to insist on shifting East. That goes beyond Russia's pivoting to Asia; Germany's industrialists
are just waiting for the right political conjunction, before the end of the decade, to also pivot
to Asia, conforming a BMB (Berlin-Moscow-Beijing) coalition.
Germany already rules over Europe. The only way for a global trade power to solidify its reach
is to go East. NATO member Germany, with a GDP that outstrips the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand,
is not even allowed to share information with the "Five Eyes" secret cabal.
President Putin, years ago, was keen on a Lisbon-to-Vladivostok emporium. He may eventually be
rewarded – delayed gratification? – by BMB, a trade/economic union that, combined with the Chinese-driven
One Belt, One Road (OBOR), will eventually dwarf and effectively replace the dwindling post-WWII
Anglo-Saxon crafted/controlled international order.
This inexorable movement East underscores all the interconnections – and evolving
connectivity – related to the New Silk Roads, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the BRICS's
New Development Bank (NDB), the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the Eurasia Economic
Union (EEU). The crux of RC, the Russia-China strategic partnership, is to make the multipolar, post-Atlantic
world happen. Or, updating Ezra Pound, to Make It New.
Containing RC
Russia's pivot to Asia is of course only part of the story. The core of Russia's
industries, infrastructure, population is in the west of the country, closer to Europe. BMB would
allow a double pivot – simultaneously to Europe and Asia; or Russia exploiting to the max its Eurasian
character. Not accidently this is absolute anathema for Washington. Thus the predictable, ongoing
no holds barred exceptionalist strategy of preventing by all means necessary closer Russia-Germany
cooperation.
In parallel, pivoting to Asia is also essential because that's where the overwhelming majority
of Russia's future customers – energy and otherwise – are located. It will be a long, winding process
to educate Russian public opinion about the incalculable value for the nation of Siberia and the
Russian Far East. Yet that has already started. And it will be in full fruition by the middle of
the next decade, when all the interpolated New Silk Roads will be online.
"Containment" of RC will continue to be the name of the exceptionalist game – whatever
happens on November 8. As far as the industrial-military-security-surveillance-corporate media complex
is concerned,
there will be no reset . Proxies will be used – from failed state Ukraine to Japan in the East
China Sea, as well as any volunteering Southeast Asian faction in the South China Sea.
Still the Hegemon will be in trouble to contain both sides of RC simultaneously. NATO does not
help; its trade arm, TPP, may even collapse in the high seas before arriving on shore. No TPP – a
certainty in case Donald Trump is elected in November – means the end of US economic hegemony over
Asia. Hillary Clinton knows it; and it's no accident President Obama is desperate to have TPP approved
during a short window of opportunity, the lame-duck session of Congress from November 9 to January
3.
Against China, the Hegemon alliance in fact hinges on Australia, India and Japan.
Forget about instrumentalizing BRICS member India – which will never fall into the trap
of a war against China (not to mention Russia, with which India traditionally enjoys very good relations.)
Japan's imperial instincts were reawakened by Shinzo Abe. Yet hopeless economic stagnation persists.
Moreover, Tokyo has been prohibited by the US Treasury Dept. to continue unleashing quantitative
easing. Moscow sees as a long-term objective to progressively draw Japan away from the US orbit and
into Eurasia integration.
Dr. Zbig does Desolation Row
The Pentagon is terrified that RC is now a military partnership as well.
Compared to Russia's superior high-tech weaponry, NATO is a kindergarten mess; not to mention
that soon Russian territory will be inviolable to any Star Wars-derived scheme. China will soon have
all the submarines and "carrier-killer" missiles necessary to make life for the US Navy hell in case
the Pentagon harbors funny ideas. And then there are the regional details – from Russia's permanent
air base in Syria to military cooperation with Iran and, eventually, disgruntled NATO member Turkey.
No wonder such exceptionalist luminary ideologues as Dr. Zbig "Grand Chessboard" Brzezinski –
foreign policy mentor to President Obama – are
supremely dejected .
When Brzezinski looks at progressive Eurasia integration, he simply cannot fail to detect how
those "three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy" he outlined in The Grand Chessboard are simply dissolving; "to prevent collusion and maintain security
dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians
from coming together."
Those GCC vassals – starting with the House of Saud – are now terrified about their own security;
same with the hysteric Baltics. Tributaries are not pliant anymore – and that includes an array of
Europeans. The "barbarians" coming together are in fact old civilizations – China, Persia, Russia
– fed up with upstart-controlled unipolarity.
Unsurprisingly, to "contain" RC, defined as "potentially threatening" (the Pentagon
considers the threats are existential) Brzezinski suggests – what else – Divide and Rule; as in "containing
the least predictable but potentially the most likely to overreach." Still he doesn't know which
is which; "Currently, the more likely to overreach is Russia, but in the longer run it could be China."
Hillary "Queen of War" Clinton of course does not subscribe to Brzezinski's "could
be" school. After all she's the official, Robert Kagan-endorsed, neocon presidential candidate.
She's more in tune with this sort of wacky "analysis" .
So one should definitely expect Hillary's "project" to be all-out hegemony expansion all across
Eurasia. Syria and Iran will be targets. Even another war on the Korean Peninsula could be on the
cards. But against North Korea, a nuclear power? Exceptionalistan only attacks those who can't defend
themselves. Besides, RC could easily prevent war by offering some strategic carrots to the Kim family.
In many aspects, not much has changed from 24 years ago when, only three months after the dissolution
of the USSR, the Pentagon's Defense Planning Guidance proclaimed:
"Our first objective is to prevent the reemergence of a new rival…This requires that
we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated
control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia,
the territory of the former Soviet Union and southwest Asia."
Talk about a prescient road map of what's happening right now; the "rival", "hostile" power is
actually two powers involved in a strategic partnership: RC.
Compounding this Pentagon nightmare, the endgame keeps drawing near; the next manifestations and
reverberations of the never-ending 2008 financial crisis may eventually torpedo the fundamentals
of the global "order" – as in the petrodollar racket/tributary scam.
There will be blood. Hillary Clinton smells it already – from Syria to Iran to the South China
Sea. The question is whether she – and virtually the whole Beltway establishment behind her –
will be mad enough to provoke RC and buy a one-way ticket to post-MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction)
territory.
Just as we predicted on a sleepy Friday afternoon ahead of a long weekend, The FBI has released a detailed report on its
investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while she was secretary of state, as well as a
summary of her interview with agents, providing, what The Washington Post says is the most thorough look yet at
the probe that has dogged the campaign of the Democratic presidential nominee.
Today the FBI is releasing a summary of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's July 2, 2016 interview with the
FBI concerning allegations that classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on a personal e-mail server she used
during her tenure .
We also are releasing a factual summary of the FBI's investigation into this matter. We are making these materials
available to the public in the interest of transparency and in response to numerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.
Appropriate redactions have been made for classified information or other material exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
Additional information related to this investigation that the FBI releases in the future will be placed on The Vault,
the FBI's electronic FOIA library.
As The Washington Post adds, the documents released total 58 pages, though large portions and sometimes entire pages are
redacted.
FBI Director James B. Comey announced in July that his agency would not recommend criminal charges against Clinton for her
use of a private email server. Comey said that Clinton and her staffers were "extremely careless" in how they treated
classified information, but investigators did not find they intended to mishandle such material. Nor did investigators
uncover exacerbating factors - like efforts to obstruct justice - that often lead to charges in similar cases, Comey said.
The FBI turned over to several Congressional committees documents related to the probe and required they only be viewed
by those with appropriate security clearances, even though not all of the material was classified, legislators and their staffers
have said.
Those documents included an investigative report and summaries of interviews with more than a dozen senior Clinton staffers,
other State Department officials, former secretary of state Colin Powell and at least one other person. The documents released
Friday appear to be but a fraction of those.
...
Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon has said turning over the documents was "an extraordinarily rare step that
was sought solely by Republicans for the purposes of further second-guessing the career professionals at the FBI."
But he has said if the material were going to be shared outside the Justice Department, "they should be released widely
so that the public can see them for themselves, rather than allow Republicans to mischaracterize them through selective, partisan
leaks."
Though Fallon seems to have gotten his wish, the public release of the documents will undoubtedly draw more attention
to a topic that seems to have fueled negative perceptions of Clinton . A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found 41
percent of Americans had a favorable impression of Clinton, while 56 percent had an unfavorable one.
Key Excerpts...
*CLINTON DENIED USING PRIVATE EMAIL TO AVOID FEDERAL RECORDS ACT
*CLINTON KNEW SHE HAD DUTY TO PRESERVE FEDERAL RECORDS: FBI
*COLIN POWELL WARNED CLINTON PRIVATE E-MAILS COULD BE PUBLIC:FBI
*FBI SAYS CLINTON LAWYERS UNABLE TO LOCATE ANY OF 13 DEVICES
*AT LEAST 100 STATE DEPT. WORKERS HAD CLINTON'S E-MAIL ADDRESS
CLINTON SAID SHE NEVER DELETED, NOR INSTRUCTED ANYONE TO DELETE, HER EMAIL TO AVOID COMPLYING WITH FEDERAL RECORDS LAWS OR FBI
OR STATE REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION
CLINTON AIDES SAID SHE FREQUENTLY REPLACED HER BLACKBERRY PHONE AND THE WHEREABOUTS OF THE OLD DEVICE WOULD "FREQUENTLY
BECOME UNKOWN"
CLINTON CONTACTED POWELL IN JANUARY 2009 TO INQUIRE ABOUT HIS USE OF A BLACKBERRY WHILE IN OFFICE; POWELL ADVISED CLINTON
TO 'BE VERY CAREFUL
Hillary Clinton used 13 mobile devices and 5 iPads to access clintonemail.com. The FBI only had access to 2 of
the iPads and The FBI found no evidence of hacking on those 2...
And here is the email from Colin Powell telling her that emails would need to be part of the "government records"
...
And here is Clinton denying that she used a private server to "avoid [the] Federal Records Act" as she just assumed
that "based on her practice of emailing staff on their state.gov accounts, [that] communications were captured by State systems."
Yes, well what about the "official" communications had with people outside of the State Department? Did retention
of those emails ever cross Hillary's mind? * * * Full Report below...
"... The era of unchallenged neoliberal dominance is clearly over. Hopefully, it will prove to have been a relatively brief interruption in a long term trend towards a more humane and egalitarian society. Whether that is true depends on the success of the left in putting forward a positive alternative. ..."
"... Third, the "individualist" thingies work as long as people believe that they are on the winning side; but there is evidence enough today that most people are on the losing side of increasing inequality, so most people have reason to be pro leftish policies both in "moralistic" terms and in "crude self interest" terms. In the past this wasn't obvious, but today it is, and this drum should be banged more. ..."
"... Bob Zanelli @ 10, your comment perfectly embodies an ideological trap to be avoided at all costs. What Quiggin calls tribalism is precisely not ..."
"... I can't speak for other industrialized democracies, but in the US, there is essentially no ability for the left to engage in structural change. Every avenue has been either blocked by the 18th century political structures of the US (sometimes exploited in extraordinary ways by the monied powers that those structures enable) or subsumed by the neoliberal individualist marketification of everything. ..."
"... To just discount the reality of our evolutionary baggage by calling it sociobiology is an example of classic Marxist ideology which seems to require the perfectibility of human nature. ..."
"... I just think we should call what he calls "tribalism" by its proper name - fascism - instead of deliberately tainting our theories with overtones of an "enlightened civilized wisdom versus backwards tribal savages" narrative that itself is central to fascist/"tribalist" ideology and therefore belongs in the dustbin of history. Surely flouting Godwin's Law is a lesser sin than knowingly perpetuating the discourses of racism. ..."
"... Marxism isn't evil and Nazism is evil. So political ideology can be evil or just wrong and accomplish evil. We are indebted to Marx for describing the nature of class warfare and the natural trends of accumulation based economics , but we now know his solution is a failure. So either we learn from this or we cling on to outmoded ideas and remain irrelevant. ..."
"... It seems pretty hardwired, at least enough that not planning around it would be foolish. ..."
"... It turns out that you can't say things like "globalism is great for the UK GDP" and expect citizens of the 'UK' to be excited about it if they feel too alienated from the people who are making all of the money. ..."
"... Punching "globalism" into Google returns the following definition from Merriam-Webster: "a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper sphere for political influence - compare imperialism, internationalism." ..."
"... I agree with bob mcm that Trump_vs_deep_state isn't fascism. It's not a serious analysis to say that it is. ..."
"... I take note of the Florida primary results, just in: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz did just fine, as did her hand-picked Democratic Senate candidate, the horrible Patrick Murphy. ..."
"... Oh, and Rubio is back. Notice of the death of neoliberalism might be premature. ..."
"... I mean Judas Iscariot, I mean Bill Clinton, you can make a case that he did his best to salvage something from the wreckage. To repeat what I've said here before, when he was elected the Democrats had lost five of the last six elections, most by landslides. The one exception was the most conservative of the Democratic candidates, who was despised by the left. The American people had decisively rejected what the Democrats were selling. False consciousness, no doubt. ..."
"... The obscurity and complexity of, say, Obamacare or the Greek bailout is a cover story for the looting. ..."
"... The problem is not that the experts do not understand consequences. The problem is that a broken system pays the top better, so the system has to be broken, but not so broken that the top falls off in collapse. ..."
"... Very well said. Resource limits shadow the falling apart of the global order that the American Interest link Peter T points to. If the billionaires are looting from the top and the response is a criminal scramble at the bottom, the unnecessariat will be spit out uncomprehending into the void between. ..."
"... So much concern about the term tribalism. Well what is fascism? The use of tribalism to grasp political power and establish a totalitarian political order. Sound reasonable? Pick any fascism you like, the Nazis ( master race) the theocratic fascists in the US ( Christian rule ) Catholic Fascism ( Franco's Spain) , you name it. It walks and talks like tribalism. Trump-ism is the not so new face of American fascism. It's race based, it xenophobic, it's embraces violence, has a disdain for civil liberties and human rights, and it features the great leader. Doesn't seem to difficult to make the connection. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is the politics of controlled dismantling of the institutions of a society that formerly worked for a larger portion of its participants. Like a landlord realizing increased cash flow from a decision to forego maintenance and hire gangsters to handle rent collection, neoliberalism seeks to divert the dividends from disinvestment to the top ..."
"... The cadre managing this technically and politically difficult task - it is not easy to take things apart without critical failures exemplified by system collapse prompting insurrection or revolution - are rewarded as are society's owners, the 1/10th of 1%. Everybody else is screwed - either directly, or by the consequences of the social disintegration used to feed a parasitic elite. ..."
"... "Lesser evil" is a story told to herd the masses. If there are two neoliberal politicians, both are corrupt. Neither intends to deliver anything to you on net; they are competing to deliver you. ..."
"... I am not enthusiastic about this proposed distinction between "hard" and "soft" neoliberalism. Ideologically, conservative libertarians have been locked in a dialectic with the Clintonite / Blairite neoliberals - that's an old story, maybe an obsolete story, but apparently not one those insist on seeing neoliberalism as a monolithic lump fixed in time can quite grasp, but never mind. ..."
"... Good cop, bad cop. Only, the electorate is carefully divided so that one side's good cop is the other side's bad cop, and vice versa. ..."
"... In fact, there was a powerful fascist movement in many Allied states as well. Vichy France had deep, strong domestic roots in particular, but the South African Broederbond and Jim Crow USA with its lynchings show how fascism and democracy (as understood by anti-Communists) are not separate things, but conjunctural developments of the capitalist states, which are not organized as business firms. ..."
"... "an obligation to vote in a democracy" ..."
"... orders you to consent ..."
"... if the US government was ever thrown it would be by the far right ..."
"... Not voting is routinely interpreted as tacit consent. ..."
The failure of neoliberalism poses both challenges and opportunities for the
left. The greatest challenge is the need to confront rightwing tribalism as
a powerful political force in itself, rather than as a source of political support
for hard neoliberalism. Given the dangers posed by tribalism this is an urgent
task. One part of this task is that of articulating an explanation of the failure
of neoliberalism and explaining why the simplistic policy responses of tribalist
politicians will do nothing to resolve the problems. The other is to appeal
to the positive elements of the appeal of tribalism, such as solidarity and
affection for long-standing institutions and to counterpose them to the
self-seeking individualism central to neoliberalism, particularly in the hard
version with which political tribalism has long been aligned.
The great opportunity is to present a progressive alternative to the accommodations
of soft neoliberalism. The core of such an alternative must be a revival of
the egalitarian and activist politics of the postwar social democratic moment,
updated to take account of the radically different technological and social
structures of the 21st century. In technological terms, the most important development
is undoubtedly the rise of the Internet. Thinking about the relationship between
the Internet economy and public policy remains embryonic at best. But as a massive
public good created, in very large measure, by the public sector, the Internet
ought to present opportunities for a radically remodeled progressive policy
agenda.
In political terms, the breakdown of neoliberalism implies the need for a
political realignment. This is now taking place on the right, as tribalists
assert their dominance over hard neoliberals. The most promising strategy for
the left is to achieve a similar shift in power within the centre-left coalition
of leftists and soft neoliberals.
This might seem a hopeless task, but there are positive signs, notably in
the United States. Although Hillary Clinton, an archetypal soft neoliberal,
has won the Democratic nomination for the Presidency and seems likely to win,
her policy proposals have been driven, in large measure by the need to compete
with the progressive left. There is reason to hope that, whereas the first Clinton
presidency symbolised the capture of the Democratic Party by soft neoliberalism,
the second will symbolise the resurgence of social liberalism.
The era of unchallenged neoliberal dominance is clearly over. Hopefully,
it will prove to have been a relatively brief interruption in a long term trend
towards a more humane and egalitarian society. Whether that is true depends
on the success of the left in putting forward a positive alternative.
Brett 08.30.16 at 5:49 am
I don't know. I think for a true triumph over the existing order, we'd need
true international institutions designed to enhance other kinds of protections,
like environmental and labor standards world-wide. That doesn't seem to
be in the wings right now, versus a light version of protectionism coupled
with perhaps some restoration of the welfare state (outside of the US –
inside the US we're going to get deadlock mildly alleviated by the Supreme
Court and whatever types of executive orders Clinton comes up with for the
next eight years).
Andrew Bartlett 08.30.16 at 6:15 am
"The other is to appeal to the positive elements of the appeal of
tribalism, such as solidarity and affection for long-standing institutions"
My only worry with that is the strong overlap between tribalism and racism,
at least in it's political forms. Harking to the myth of a monocultural
past could be seen by some as 'affection for long-standing institutions'.
(I know that's not what the author is thinking, but left has had it's racism
and pro-discrimination elements, and I am wary of giving too much opportunity
for those to align with that of the right)
bruce wilder 08.30.16 at 7:29 am
I wonder, how do you envision this failure of neoliberalism?
It seems like an effective response would depend somewhat on how you
think this anticipated political failure of neoliberalism plays out over
the next few years. And, it is an anticipated failure, yes? or do you see
an actual political failure as an accomplished fact?
And, if it is still an anticipated failure, do you see it as a political
failure - the inability to marshall electoral support or a legislative coalition?
Or, an ideological style that's worn out its credibility?
Or, do you anticipate manifest policy failure to play a role in the dynamics?
MisterMr 08.30.16 at 9:31 am
"The other is to appeal to the positive elements of the appeal of tribalism,
such as solidarity and affection for long-standing institutions and to counterpose
them to the self-seeking individualism central to neoliberalism"
I don't agree with this. First, appealing to tribalism without actually
believing in it is a dick move. Second, actually existing tribalists are
arseholes, or rather everyone when is taken by the tribalist demon becomes
an arsehole.
Third, the "individualist" thingie work as long as people believe that
they are on the winning side; but there is evidence enough today that most
people are on the losing side of increasing inequality, so most people have
reason to be pro lftish policies both in "moralistic" terms and in "crude
self interest" terms. In the past this wasn't obvious, but today it is,
and this drum should be banged more.
PS: about increasing inequality, there are two different trends that
usually are mixed up:
1) When we look at inequality at an international level, the main determinant
is differential "productivity" among nations. The productivity of developing
nations (mostly China) went up a lot, and this causes a fall in international
inequality.
2) When we look at inequalityinside a nation, it depends mostly on how
exploitative the economic system is, and I think that the main indicator
of this is the wage share of total income; as the wage share fell, income
inequality increased. This happened both in developed and developing countries.
These two determinants of inequality are mixed up and this creates the
impression that, say, the fall in wages of American workers is caused by
the ascent of Chinese workers, whereas instead both American and Chinese
workes lost in proportion, but the increase in productivity more than compensated
the fall in relative wages.
Mixing up these two determinants causes the rise in nationalism, as workers
in developed nations believe that they have been sacrificed to help workers
in developing nations (which isn't true). This is my argument against nationalism
and the reason I'm skeptic of stuff like brexit, and this makes me sort
of allergic to tribalism.
Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 11:43 am
This analysis by Quiggin is spot on. Clearly the way forward holds both
promise and great peril, especially in the nuclear age. The notion that
Trump is just more of the same from the GOP is deluded. He represents a
dangerous insurgency of radical rightists , who can be quite fairly be called
racist and religious extremist based fascists. A Trump win could well close
the curtain on democracy in America. Neo liberalism is being repudiated
, will the elite now turn to the fascists to hold their ground, as happened
in Germany? It's a troubling question.
casmilus 08.30.16 at 11:46 am
"The great opportunity is to present a progressive alternative to the
accommodations of soft neoliberalism. The core of such an alternative
must be a revival of the egalitarian and activist politics of the postwar
social democratic moment, updated to take account of the radically different
technological and social structures of the 21st century. In technological
terms, the most important development is undoubtedly the rise of the
Internet."
Why is that any more important than the invention of digital computers,
starting from the 1940s? Just a further evolution. The real challenge is
from robotics, 3D printing and AI drivers for such processes. That really
will liquidate a lot of skilled labour; computing created a new industry
of jobs and manufacturing.
bob mcmanus 08.30.16 at 11:59 am
4: From my point of view, neoliberalism…long supply chains and logistics;
downward pressure on wages and the social wage; the growth of finance to
supply consumer credit to prop up effective demand; the culture of self-improvement
and self-management to reduce overhead and reproduction costs…no longer
supports accumulation of capital or reproduction of political legitimacy.
IOW, an economic failure.
(Anwar Shaikh's new book is definitive)
Martin 08.30.16 at 1:21 pm
Is there any knowledge of who supports tribalism? The analysis so far seems
to be in terms of tribalist policies, emotions etc, but not of who the tribalists
are, and why they support tribalist 'solutions' rather than say socialism.
Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 1:36 pm
Is there any knowledge of who supports tribalism? The analysis so far seems
to be in terms of tribalist policies, emotions etc, but not of who the tribalists
are, and why they support tribalist 'solutions' rather than say socialism.
Tribalism is hard wired in our genes. It can be over come with education
but too few voters ever get beyond an emotional response to what they perceive.
It's no accident that conservatives do anything they can to undermine education
and promote religious based ignorance. That's how they win elections. But
this is a dangerous game, sometimes a Hitler or a Trump shows up and steals
the show.
Will G-R 08.30.16 at 2:00 pm
MisterMr @ 5: Third, the "individualist" thingies work as long as
people believe that they are on the winning side; but there is evidence
enough today that most people are on the losing side of increasing inequality,
so most people have reason to be pro leftish policies both in "moralistic"
terms and in "crude self interest" terms. In the past this wasn't obvious,
but today it is, and this drum should be banged more.
This is where it becomes problematic that so much of this conversation
happens within individual First-World nation-states, because the inequalities
"tribalists" are interested in maintaining are precisely the inequalities
between nations on a global scale. If the "most people" you're
talking about includes the masses of recently-proletarianized working people
in the Third World, then sure "most people" have reason to be pro-left.
But when we have this conversation in a setting like this, we all implicitly
know that "most people" refers at best to the working classes of countries
like Australia and the US, and these people still perceive a decided
interest in maintaining the global economic hierarchies for which "tribalism"
serves this conversation as a signifier.
For the working classes of the First World wrapped up in their "tribalist"
defense of a global aristocracy of nations, to truly believe they're on
the losing side would mean to accept that the defense of national sovereignty
from neoliberal globalization is an inherently lost cause. If they're to
defect from the cause of "tribalism" and join the Left, this would mean
accepting a critique of the "long-standing institutions" of First-World
social democracy that appears to go much farther left even than John Quiggin
appears willing to go. (As in, the implementation of social-democratic institutions
in First-World capitalist societies is inherently a tool for enabling the
economic domination of the First World over the Third World, by empowering
a racialized labor aristocracy to serve as foot soldiers of global imperialism,
and so on and so on à la Lenin.)
Will G-R 08.30.16 at 2:09 pm
Bob Zanelli @ 10, your comment perfectly embodies an ideological trap
to be avoided at all costs. What Quiggin calls tribalism is precisely
not "hard-wired in our genes", it's an inherently modern creation
of the inherently modern political and economic forces that first created
the "imagined community" of the modern nation-state and continue to put
incredible amounts of energy into indoctrinating various populations in
its various national mythologies.
Far from being an inherent solution to this problem, education - within
the context of a national education system, educating its pupils as Americans/Australians/etc.
- is an utterly indispensable mechanism by which this process is accomplished.
Interestingly, I share all the premises, and yet none of the optimistic
conclusions. Because soft neoliberalism (and in fact even hard neoliberalism)
is much closer sociologically, politically and ideologically to the left
than tribalism is, I see the end of the hegemonic neoliberal ideology and
the correlative rise of tribalism as (somewhat paradoxically) the guarantee
for perpetual neoliberal power in the short and middle term, at least for
two reasons.
First of all, left-inclined citizens will most likely always vote for
neoliberal candidates if the alternative is a tribalist candidate (case
in point: in 9 months or so, I will in all likelihood be offered a choice
between a hard neoliberal and Marine Le Pen; what then?).
Moreover, even if/when tribalist parties gain power, their relative sociological
estrangement from the elite sand correlative relative lack of political
power all but guarantees in my mind that they will govern along the path
of least resistance for them; that is to say hard neoliberalism (with a
sprinkle of tribalist cultural moves). This is how the FPO ruled Carinthia,
for instance, and how I would expect Trump to govern in the (unlikely) eventuality
he reached power.
Finally, mass migration are bound to intensify because of climate change
(if for no other reason) and the trend internationally in advanced democratic
countries seems to be towards national divergence and hence national reversion.
I don't see how an ideologically coherent left-oriented force can emerge
in this context, but of course I would love to be proved wrong on all counts.
Lupita 08.30.16 at 2:22 pm
Bravo, Will G-R!
Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 2:37 pm
Will G-R 08.30.16 at 2:09 pm
Bob Zanelli @ 10, your comment perfectly embodies an ideological trap to
be avoided at all costs. What Quiggin calls tribalism is precisely not "hard-wired
in our genes", it's an inherently modern creation of the inherently modern
political and economic forces that first created the "imagined community"
of the modern nation-state and continue to put incredible amounts of energy
into indoctrinating various populations in its various national mythologies.
Far from being an inherent solution to this problem, education - within
the context of a national education system, educating its pupils as Americans/Australians/etc.
- is an utterly indispensable mechanism by which this process is accomplished.
)))))))))))))))
I don't agree. It's true that tribalism has morphed into what you call
national mythologies , but the basis for this is our evolutionary heritage
which divides the world into them and us. This no doubt had survival benefits
for hunter gatherer social units but it's dangerous baggage in today's world.
I find your comments about education curious. Are you advocating ignorance?
I think you confuse education with indoctrination , they are not the same
thing.
The question of what ideology an ideologically coherent left-oriented force
would come together around is indeed an important question, but I'll try
not to dwell on my hobbyhorses too much.
For now I'll add a slightly different area to consider this through:
current First World "left" populations (especially in the U.S.) want to
turn everything into individual moral questions through which a false solidarity
can be expressed and through which opposing people can be shamed. For instance,
I've thought a good deal about how environmental problems are the most important
problems in general at the moment, and how it's clear that they require
a redesign of our infrastructure. This is not an individual problem - no
amount of volunteer action will work. Yet people on the left continually
exert pressure to turn this into a conflict of morally good renouncers vs
wasters, something that the right is quite ready to enhance with their own
ridiculous tribal boundary markers (google "rolling coal").
You see this with appeals to racism. Racism is a real problem and destroys
real people's lives. But treating it as an individual moral problem rather
than a social, structural one is a way of setting boundaries around an elite.
The challenge for the left is going to be developing a left that, no matter
what it's based around, doesn't fall back into this individualist new-class
status preservation.
Will G-R 08.30.16 at 3:15 pm
@ Bob Zannelli, you're continuing to draw on the language of sociobiology
and evolutionary psychology without the social-scientific rigor to justify
it. (Of course, to many if not most social scientists, the very fields of
sociobiology and evopsych are largely premised on a lack of such rigor to
begin with, but that's another story.) In particular, the term doing the
heavy lifting to provide your get-out-of-rigor-free card is "morphed". What
has been the historical trajectory of this "morphing"? What social and political
institutions have been involved? With what political interests, and what
economic ones? If you think about those kinds of questions, you might make
some headway toward understanding why social scientists generally interpret
the sociocultural aspects of racism and fascism as essential, and the biological
aspects as essentially arbitrary.
To be fair, a large part of the fault here is John Quiggin's for using
a word with as much fraught ideological baggage as "tribalism" to do so
much of his own heavy lifting. The ironic thing is, the polemical power
that probably motivated Quiggin to use that word in the first place comes
from the very same set of ideological associations (e.g. "barbaric", "savage",
"uncivilized", etc.) whose application to modern political issues of race
and nationality he would probably characterize as "tribalist" in the first
place!
Holden Pattern 08.30.16 at 3:20 pm
@ comment 16:
I can't speak for other industrialized democracies, but in the US,
there is essentially no ability for the left to engage in structural change.
Every avenue has been either blocked by the 18th century political structures
of the US (sometimes exploited in extraordinary ways by the monied powers
that those structures enable) or subsumed by the neoliberal individualist
marketification of everything.
So what remains, especially given the latter, is marketing and individual
action - persuasion, shame, public expressions of virtue. That's all that
is available to the left in the United States, especially on issues like
racism and environmental problems.
So while it's good fun to bash the lefty elites in their tony coastal
enclaves and recount their clueless dinner party conversations, it's shooting
fish in a barrel. Easy for you and probably satisfying in a cheap way, but
the fish probably didn't put themselves in the barrel, and blaming them
for swimming in circles is… problematic.
Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 3:26 pm
@ Bob Zannelli, you're continuing to draw on the language of sociobiology
and evolutionary psychology without the social-scientific rigor to justify
it. (Of course, to many if not most social scientists, the very fields of
sociobiology and evopsych are largely premised on a lack of such rigor to
begin with, but that's another story.) In particular, the term doing the
heavy lifting to provide your get-out-of-rigor-free card is "morphed". What
has been the historical trajectory of this "morphing"? What social and political
institutions have been involved? With what political interests, and what
economic ones? If you think about those kinds of questions, you might make
some headway toward understanding why social scientists generally interpret
the sociocultural aspects of racism and fascism as essential, and the biological
aspects as essentially arbitrary.
)))))))))))
I hope it's clear that I do not discount the assertion that nationalism
and racism are part of social constructs that favor class interest. My point
is that political agendas have to work with the clay they start with. To
just discount the reality of our evolutionary baggage by calling it sociobiology
is an example of classic Marxist ideology which seems to require the perfectibility
of human nature. This is a dangerous illusion, it leads right to the gulags.
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
To be fair, a large part of the fault here is John Quiggin's for using
a word with as much fraught ideological baggage as "tribalism" to do so
much of his own heavy lifting. The ironic thing is, the polemical power
that probably motivated Quiggin to use that word in the first place comes
from the very same set of ideological associations (e.g. "barbaric", "savage",
"uncivilized", etc.) whose application to modern political issues of race
and nationality he would probably characterize as "tribalist" in the first
place!
"Easy for you and probably satisfying in a cheap way, but the fish probably
didn't put themselves in the barrel, and blaming them for swimming in
circles is… problematic."
I come out of the same milieu, so I don't see why it's problematic to
call attention to this. I
helped to change JQ's opinion on part of it (as he wrote later, the
facts were the largest influence on his change of opinion, but apparently
what I wrote helped) and he's an actual public intellectual in Australia.
As intellectuals our personal actions don't matter but sometimes our ideas
might.
Activism and social movements can help, even in the U.S. (I think that
350.org has had a measurable effect) so I wouldn't say that a structural
approach means that nothing is possible.
Will G-R 08.30.16 at 4:06 pm
@ Bob Zannelli: To just discount the reality of our evolutionary
baggage by calling it sociobiology is an example of classic Marxist
ideology which seems to require the perfectibility of human nature.
As hesitant as I am to play the
"Fallacy
Man" game, this is a common strawman about Marxism. In the words of
Mao Tse-Tung, as quoted by the eminent evolutionary biologist and Marxist
Richard Lewontin: "In a suitable temperature an egg changes into a chicken,
but no temperature can change a stone into a chicken, because each has a
different basis." As far as human biological capacities, it's perfectly
clear from any number of everyday examples that we're able to ignore all
sorts of outward phenotypic differences in determining which sorts of people
to consider more and less worthy of our ethical consideration, as long as
the ideological structure of our culture and society permits it - so the
problem is how to build the sort of culture and society we want to see,
and telling wildly speculative "Just-So stories" about how the hairless
ape got its concentration camps doesn't necessarily help in solving this
problem.
On the contrary, the desire to root social phenomena like what Quiggin
calls "tribalism" in our genes is itself an ideological fetish object of
our own particular culture, utilizing our modern reverence for science to
characterize social phenomena allegedly dictated by "biology" as therefore
natural, inevitable, or even desirable. Here, have a
reading /
listening recommendation.
RobinM 08.30.16 at 4:20 pm
Like Will G-R at 17 and Bob Zannelli at 19, I, too, found the use of the
term "tribalism" in the original post a bit disturbing. It's almost always
used as a pejorative. And it suggests that the "tribalists" require no deeper
analysis. I'm sure it's been around for much longer, but I think I first
took note of it when the Scottish National Party was shallowly dismissed
as a mere expression of tribalism. That the SNP (which, by the way, I do
not support) was raising questions about the deep failures of the British
system of politics and government long before these failures became widely
acknowledged was thus disregarded. Currently, an aspect of that deep failure,
the British Labour Party seems to be in the process of destroying itself,
again in part, in my estimation, because one side, among whom the 'experts'
must be numbered, seem to think that those who are challenging them can
be dismissed as "tribalists." There are surely a lot more examples.
More generally, the resort to "tribalism" as an explanation of what is
now transpiring is also, perhaps, neoliberalism's misunderstanding of its
own present predicaments even while it is part of the arsenal of weapons
neoliberals direct against their critics?
But in short, the evocation of "tribalism" is not only disturbing, it's
dangerously misleading. Those seeking to understand what may now be unfolding
should avoid using it, not least because there are also almost certainly
a whole lot of different "tribes."
awy 08.30.16 at 5:06 pm
so what's the neoliberal strategy for preserving good governance in the
face of insurgencies on the left and right?
Yankee 08.30.16 at 5:08 pm
This just in , about good tribalism (locality-based) vs bad tribalism
("race"-based, ie perceived or assumed common ancestry). It's about cultural
recognition; nationalism, based on shared allegiance to a power structure,
is different, although related (sadly)
"But as a massive public good created, in very large measure, by the public
sector .." With a large assist from non-profit-making community movements,
as with Wikipedia and Linux. (IIRC the majority of Internet servers run
on variants of the noncommercial Linux operating system, as do almost all
smartphones and tablets.) CT, with unpaid bloggers and commenters, is part
of a much bigger trend. Maybe one lesson for the state-oriented left is
to take communitarianism more seriously.
The Internet, with minimal state regulation after the vital initial pump-priming,
technical self-government by a meritocratic cooptative technocracy, an oligopolistic
commercial physical substructure, and large volumes of non-commercial as
well as commercial content, is an interesting paradigm of coexistence for
the future. Of course there are three-way tensions and ongoing battles,
but it's still working.
Will G-R 08.30.16 at 5:42 pm
RobinM, to clarify, I do think that what Quiggin calls tribalism is worth
opposing in pretty absolute terms, and I even largely agree with the meat
of his broader "three-party system" analysis. I just think we should
call what he calls "tribalism" by its proper name - fascism - instead of
deliberately tainting our theories with overtones of an "enlightened civilized
wisdom versus backwards tribal savages" narrative that itself is central
to fascist/"tribalist" ideology and therefore belongs in the dustbin of
history. Surely flouting Godwin's Law is a lesser sin than knowingly perpetuating
the discourses of racism.
Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 6:18 pm
In the words of Mao Tse-Tung, as quoted by the eminent evolutionary biologist
and Marxist Richard Lewontin:
Now Mao Tse-Tung, there's role model to be quoted. The thing about science
is that's it true whether you believe it not, the thing about Marxism is
that it's pseudo science and
it gave us Stalin , the failed Soviet Union, Pol Pot,, Mao Tse Tung and
the dear leader in North Korea to name the most obvious. I know, I know
, maybe someone will get it right some day.
A realist politics doesn't ignore science , this doesn't mean that socialism
is somehow precluded, in fact the exact opposite. We have to extend democracy
into the economic sphere, until we do this, we don't have a democratically
based society. It's because of human nature we need to democratize every
center of power, no elite or vanguard if you prefer can be ever be trusted.
But democracy isn't easy, you have to defeat ignorance , a useful trait
to game the system , by the elite, and create a political structure that
takes account of human nature , not try to perfect it. One would hope leftists
would learn something from history, but dogmas die hard.
Igor Belanov 08.30.16 at 6:50 pm
Bob Zannelli @27
"about Marxism is that it's pseudo science and it gave us Stalin
, the failed Soviet Union, Pol Pot,, Mao Tse Tung and the dear leader
in North Korea to name the most obvious."
To claim that Marxism 'gave us' all those wicked people must be one of
the least Marxist statements ever written! No doubt if Stalin and Pol Pot
hadn't come across the works of a 19th century German émigré then they would
have had jobs working in a florists and spending all the rest of their time
helping old ladies over the road.
Good to see Bob being consistent though. A few comments back he was suggesting
that humans are biologically 'tribalist', but now he's blaming all evil
on political ideology.
"I conceive, therefore, that a somewhat comprehensive socialisation of investment
will prove the only means of securing an approximation to full employment;
though this need not exclude all manner of compromises and of devices by
which public authority will co-operate with private initiative."
Sebastian_H 08.30.16 at 7:26 pm
'Tribalism' is giving members of what you perceive as your tribe more leeway
than you give others. (Or negatively being much more critical of others
than you would be of your tribe). It seems pretty hardwired, at least enough
that not planning around it would be foolish. Lots of 'civilization' is
about lubricating the rough spots created by tribalism while trying to leverage
the good sides.
One of the failures of neo-liberalism is in assuming that it can count
on the good side of tribalism while ignoring the perceived responsibilities
to one's own tribe. It turns out that you can't say things like "globalism
is great for the UK GDP" and expect citizens of the 'UK' to be excited about
it if they feel too alienated from the people who are making all of the
money. So then when it comes time to say "for the good of the UK we need
you to do X" lots of people won't listen to you. John asks a good question
in exploring what comes next, but it isn't clear.
Bob Zannelli 08.30.16 at 7:30 pm
about Marxism is that it's pseudo science and
it gave us Stalin , the failed Soviet Union, Pol Pot,, Mao Tse Tung and
the dear leader in North Korea to name the most obvious."
To claim that Marxism 'gave us' all those wicked people must be one of
the least Marxist statements ever written! No doubt if Stalin and Pol Pot
hadn't come across the works of a 19th century German émigré then they would
have had jobs working in a florists and spending all the rest of their time
helping old ladies over the road.
Good to see Bob being consistent though. A few comments back he was suggesting
that humans are biologically 'tribalist', but now he's blaming all evil
on political ideology.
)))))))))))))
Marxism isn't evil and Nazism is evil. So political ideology can
be evil or just wrong and accomplish evil. We are indebted to Marx for describing
the nature of class warfare and the natural trends of accumulation based
economics , but we now know his solution is a failure. So either we learn
from this or we cling on to outmoded ideas and remain irrelevant.
In the Soviet Union , science, art and literature were under assault,
with scientists, artist and writers sent to the gulag or murdered for not
conforming to strict Marxist Leninist ideology. Evolution, quantum mechanics,
and relativity were all attacked as bourgeois science. ( The need for nuclear
weapons forced Stalin later to allow this science to be sanctioned) These
days, like the Catholic Church which can no longer burn people at the stake
, old Marxists can just castigate opinions that don't meet Marxist orthodoxy.
Will G-R 08.30.16 at 8:53 pm
@ Sebastian_H: It seems pretty hardwired, at least enough that not
planning around it would be foolish.
But again, when we're talking about "tribalism" not in terms of some
vague quasi-sociobiological force of eternal undying human nature, but in
terms of the very modern historical phenomena of racism and nationalism,
we have to consider the way any well-functioning modern nation-state has
a whole host of institutions devoted to indoctrinating citizens in whatever
ideological mythology is supposed to underpin a shared sense of national
and/or racial identity. It should go without saying that whatever we think
about general ingroup/outgroup tendencies innately hardwired into human
nature or whatever, this way of relating our identities to historically
contingent social institutions and their symbols is only as innate or hardwired
as the institutions themselves.
It turns out that you can't say things like "globalism is great for
the UK GDP" and expect citizens of the 'UK' to be excited about it if they
feel too alienated from the people who are making all of the money.
At least in my view, economists are usually slipperier than that. The
arguments I've seen for neoliberal free trade (I'm not quite sure what to
make of the term "globalism") generally involve it being good for "the economy"
in a much more abstract sense, carefully worded to avoid specifying whether
the growth and prosperity takes place in Manchester or Mumbai. And there's
even something worth preserving in this tendency, in the sense that ideally
the workers of the world would have no less international/interracial solidarity
than global capital already seems to achieved.
To me the possibility that neoliberal free trade and its degradation
of national sovereignty might ultimately undermine the effectiveness of
all nationalist myths, forging a sense of global solidarity among the collective
masses of humanity ground under capital's boot, is the greatest hope or
maybe even the only real hope we have in the face of the neoliberal onslaught.
Certainly if there's any lesson from the fact that the hardest-neoliberal
political leaders are often simultaneously the greatest supporters or enablers
of chauvinistic ethnonationalism, it's that this kind of solidarity is also
one of global capital's greatest nightmares.
Will G-R 08.30.16 at 9:05 pm
Punching "globalism" into Google returns the following definition from
Merriam-Webster: "a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper
sphere for political influence - compare imperialism, internationalism."
I find it fascinating, and indicative of the ideological tension immanent
in fascist reactionaries' use of the term, that the two terms listed as
comparable to it are traditionally understood in modern political theory
as diametrically opposed to each other.
bob mcmanus 08.30.16 at 9:17 pm
Recommending Joshua Clover's new book. Riot -Strike – Riot Prime
The strike, the organized disruption at the point of production, is no
longer really available. Late capitalism, neoliberalism is now extracting
surplus from distribution, as it did before industrialism, and is at the
transport and communication streams that disruption will occur. And this
will be riot, and there won't be much organization, centralization, hierarchy
or solidarity. I am ok with "tribalism" although still looking for a better
expression, and recognizing that a tribe is 15-50 people, and absolutely
not scalable. Tribes can network, and people can have multiple and transient
affiliations.
Clover's model is the Paris Commune.
(PS: If you don't like "tribe" come up with a word or expression that
usefully describes the sociality of Black Lives Matter (movement, maybe)
or even better Crooked Timber.)
Almost all people are primarily led by emotions and use reason only secondarily,
to justify the emotions.
There is a rude set of socio-economic "principles" which they call upon
to buttress these arguments. You can hear these principles at any blue-collar
job site, and you can hear them in a college lecture on economics, too:
–nature is selfish
–resources are scarce
–money measures real value
–wants are infinite
–there ain't no such thing as a free lunch (TANSTAAFL)
–you have to work for your daily bread
–incentives matter
–people want to keep up with the Joneses
–labor should be geographically mobile
–government is inefficient
–welfare destroys families
–printing money causes inflation
–the economy is a Darwinian mechanism
These are either false, or else secondary and ephemeral, and/or becoming
inopportune and obsolete. None of them survives inspection by pure reason.
Yet this is an aggregate that buzzes around in almost everyone's head,
is INTERNALIZED as true, for expectations both personal and social. And
which causes most of our problems.
Consider TANSTAAFL: "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." Yet
obviously there is such a thing as a cheaper lunch, or else there would
be no such thing as the improvement in the standard of living. …Okay, you
say, but "resources are scarce." …Well no, we are quickly proceeding to
the point where technological change and substitution will end real scarcity,
and without ecological degradation. Therefore: can cheaper lunches proceed
to the point where they are effectively free for the purposes of meeting
human need, "your daily bread"? …Well no, you say, because people are greedy,
and beyond their needs, they have wants: "wants are infinite." …But wait,
wants really cannot be infinite, because a "want" takes mental time to have,
and you only have so many hours in every day, and so many days in your life.
In fact your wants are finite, and quite boring, and the Joneses' wants
are finite sand boring too. (Though why you want to keep up with those boneheads
the Joneses is a bit beyond me.) …Okay, you say, but "incentives matter":
if you give people stuff, they will just slack off: "welfare destroys families."
…But wait a minute. If we have insisted that people must work to feel self-worth,
yet capitalism puts people out of work until there are no jobs available,
and there are no business opportunities to provide ever-cheaper lunches,
isn't welfare the least of our problems, isn't welfare a problem that gets
solved when we solve the real problem?
But what is the real problem? Is the real problem that we don't know
how to interact with strangers without the use of money, and so we think
that money is a real thing? Is the real problem your certain feeling that
we need to work for our self-worth? Is the real problem that capitalism
is putting itself out of business, and showing that these so-called principles
are just a bunch of bad excuses? Is the real problem that we are all caught
in a huge emotional loop of bad thinking, now becoming an evident disaster?
bob mcmanus 08.30.16 at 9:26 pm
And also of course, people looking at Trump and his followers (or their
enemies and opponents in the Democratic Party) and seeing "tribalism" are
simply modernists engaging in nostalgia and reactionary analysis.
Trump_vs_deep_state is not fascism, and a Trump Rally is not Nuremberg. Much closer
to Carnival
Wiki: "Interpretations of Carnival present it as a social institution
that degrades or "uncrowns" the higher functions of thought, speech, and
the soul by translating them into the grotesque body, which serves to renew
society and the world,[37] as a release for impulses that threaten the
social order that ultimately reinforces social norms ,[38] as a social
transformation[39] or as a tool for different groups to focus attention
on conflicts and incongruities by embodying them in "senseless" acts."
I agree with bob mcm that Trump_vs_deep_state isn't fascism. It's not a serious
analysis to say that it is.
"Tribalism" was coined as a kind of shorthand for what Michael Berube
used to refer to "I used to consider myself a Democrat, but thanks to 9/11,
I'm outraged by Chappaquiddick." It's the wholesale adoption of what at
first looks like a value or belief system but is actually a social signaling
system that one belongs to a group. People on the left refer to this signaling
package as "tribal" primarily out of envy (I write somewhat jokingly) because
the left no longer has a similarly strong package on its side.
Greg McKenzie 08.30.16 at 11:47 pm
"Tribalism" feeds into the factionalism of parties. The left has a strong
faction both inside the ALP and the Liberal Party. The Right faction, in
the NLP, is currently in ascendancy but this will not last. Just as the
Right faction (in the ALP) was sidelined by clever ALP faction battles,
the current members of the NLP's Right faction are on borrowed time. But
all politicians are "mugs" as Henry Lawson pointed out over a hundred years
ago. Politicians can be talked into anything, if it gives them an illusion
of power. So "tribalism" is more powerful than "factionalism" simply because
it has more staying power. Left faction and Right faction merely obey the
demands of their tribal masters.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 1:47 am
. . . the left no longer has a similarly strong package on its side
honestly, I do not think "tribalism" is a "strong package" on Right or
Left. Part of the point of tribalism in politics is just how superficial
and media driven it is. The "signaling package" is put together and distributed
like cigarette or perfume samples: everybody gets their talking points.
Pretending to care dominates actually caring. On the right - as Rich
points out with the reference to "rolling coal", some people on the Right
who have donned their tribal sweatshirts get their kicks out of supposing
that somebody on the Left actually cares and they can tweak those foolishly
caring Lefties.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 1:57 am
I take note of the Florida primary results, just in: Debbie Wasserman-Schultz
did just fine, as did her hand-picked Democratic Senate candidate, the horrible
Patrick Murphy.
Oh, and Rubio is back. Notice of the death of neoliberalism might
be premature.
Martin 08.31.16 at 2:11 am
@ Bob Zannelli 10: To describe something as "hard wired" is to give up:
what course of action could we take? But, then, why isn't everyone a member
of the tribalist party? Has everyone, always, been of the tribalist party?
(I know someone could argue, 'everyone is racist' or 'all these white liberals
are just as racist really', but even if that is somehow true, most are members
of the socialist party or the neoliberal party).
Rather than deciding it is all too hard, we can at least find out who
supports tribalism, why it makes sense to them, whether it benefits them,
how it benefits them, if it does, and why they support it anyway, if it
does not benefit them.
I suppose (I am guessing here), some tribalists are benefiting from differential
government support, such as immigration policies that keep out rival potential
employees, or tariff policies that keep out competitors; or at least, that
they used to benefit like that. But Crooked Timber should have readers
who can answer this kind of question from their expertise.
I suppose it's too late to try to convince people here that the term "neoliberalism"
is a virus that devastates the analytic functions of the brain, but I'll
try. The term is based on a European use of the word "liberal" that has
never had any currency in the US. It's a wholly pejorative term based on
a misunderstanding of Hayek (who did *not* believe in laissez-faire), but
may be a reasonable approximation of the beliefs of , say, Thatcher. Then
that term was confounded with a totally unconnected term invented by Peters,
who was using the word "liberal" in the American sense. And presto, we have
a seamless worlwide philosophy with "hard" and "soft" variants.
As far as, say, H. Clinton is concerned, I can see no respect in which
it would be wrong to describe her as just a "liberal" in the American sense.
American liberalism has always been internationalist and mildly pro-free-trade.
It's also been pro-union– so we can just say that's *soft* neoliberalism
and preserve our sense that we are part of a world-wide struggle. Or not.
Bernie Sanders was celebrated by the left for supporting a tax on carbon
(without mentioning, of course, what price of gasoline he was contemplating),
but this is an excellent illustration of what Peters would have considered
a neoliberal policy. The term now just seems to mean anything I don't like.
As for Benedict Arnold, I mean Judas Iscariot, I mean Bill Clinton,
you can make a case that he did his best to salvage something from the wreckage.
To repeat what I've said here before, when he was elected the Democrats
had lost five of the last six elections, most by landslides. The one exception
was the most conservative of the Democratic candidates, who was despised
by the left. The American people had decisively rejected what the Democrats
were selling. False consciousness, no doubt.
So rather than spending a lot of time celebrating victory over this hegemonic
ideology, perhaps people should be talking about liberalism and whatever
we're calling the left alternative to it.
Peter T 08.31.16 at 10:54 am
"Tribalism" is unhelpful here, because it obscures the contribution "tribalism"
has made and can make to effective social democracy. It was on the basis
of class and national tribalisms (solidarities is a better word) that social
democracy was built, and its those solidarities that give it what strength
it still has. That others preferred, and still prefer, other forms of solidarity
– built around region or religion or language – should neither come as a
surprise nor be seen as basis for opposition. It's the content, not the
form, that matters.
Self-interest is too vague and shifting, international links too weak,
to make an effective politics. Our single most pressing problem – climate
change – can clearly only be dealt with internationally. Yet the environmental
and social problems that loom almost as large are clearly ones that can
best be dealt with on national or sub-national scales. As this becomes clearer
I expect the pressure to downsize and de-link from the global economy will
intensify (there are already signs in this direction). The social democrat
challenge is then to guide local solidarities towards democracy, not decry
them.
If we're really looking for a general word that works across national boundaries,
it's a well-used one: conservatism. People sometimes object that conservatives
in one country are not the same as conservatives in another country, but
really the differences are not much greater than in liberalism across countries,
socialism, etc. Conservatism includes the characteristics of authoritarianism
and nationalism. U.S. "tribalism" is its local manifestation: the use of
"tribalism" to denote a global style of conservatism denotes a particular,
contemporary type of conservatism, just as neoliberalism is a type of liberalism.
You could divide JQ's three groups into left, liberal, conservative but
since you're using neoliberal as the middle one (e.g. a contemporary mode)
then "tribalism" or something like it seems appropriate for the last.
Note that there is no word for a contemporary mode of leftism, because
there isn't one. The closest is the acephalous or consensus style of many
recent movements and groups, but that mode hasn't won elections or taken
power.
John Quiggin,
What I see as the missing point here, and perhaps we disagree upon it's
significance, is resource limitations. We can't avoid the violent reversion
to zero sum games unless we address the problem (exactly when it has or
will reach crisis point is perhaps a point of disagreement) of expanding
population meets finite resources (or even meets already fully owned resources).
I don't buy the argument that there a technological solution, or the
argument that population will stabilize before it gets too bad (I don't
see what will drive it – because Malthus was partly right).
If people are unable to survive where they are, they will try to move,
and people already living where they are moving to won't like it. Perhaps
we are already seeing some of this, perhaps not. But it will drive tribalism
(joining together to keep the "invaders" out) and won't drive the left.
I have a feeling that the "left" should be replaced by a "green" view of
the world, but for one thing, that will need a new economics – perhaps on
the lines sketched out by Herman Daly. Maybe the term "left" is too associated
with a Marxist view of the world to be useful any more.
Will G-R 08.31.16 at 2:00 pm
Apart from the obvious advantages "fascism" brings to the table - the sense
of describing "Trump_vs_deep_state" in terms of what it seeks to develop into and not
in terms of its current and clearly underdeveloped form, as well as the
sense of tying our current state of poorly grasped ideological confusion
back to WWII as the last clear three-way "battlefield of ideologies" pitting
liberalism against fascism against socialism - the term is broadly symbolically
appropriate for the same reasons it was originally adopted by Mussolini.
The sense of national solidarity and "strength through unity" (i.e. the
socialist element of National Socialism) is exactly what John Quiggin is
characterizing as "the positive elements of the appeal of tribalism", and
the direct invocation of the Roman fasces as a symbol of pure authority
is exactly what Z is getting at with the term "archism". Sure our latter-day
manifestation of fascism hasn't (yet) led to an honest-to-God fascist
regime in any Western country, but to kid ourselves that this isn't
what it seeks or that it couldn't potentially get there would be, well,
a bit too uncomfortably Weimar-ish of us.
Besides which, I get that pooh-poohing about Godwin's Law and "everybody
I don't like is Hitler" and so on is a nearly irresistible tic in today's
liberal discourse, but c'mon people… we're all comfortable using the term
"neoliberalism", which means we're all willing to risk having the same Poli
Sci 101 conversations over and over again in the mainstream ("yes, Virginia,
Hillary Clinton and Paul Ryan are both liberals!") for the sake
of our own theoretical clarity. At the very least "fascism" would have fewer
problematic discursive connotations than "tribalism", which I absolutely
refuse to use in this conversation without putting it in sneer quotes.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 2:17 pm
The problem with neoliberalism is that it isn't really compatible
with a modern free market economy. Simply because that system isn't
well enough understood to allow experts, let alone informed amateurs,
to reach a consensus on what a particular change will actually do. .
. . It is the inability of the neoliberal communication style to credibly
promise control that lost it.
You seem to be dancing around the elite corruption that is motivating
the rationales provided by neoliberalism. We are going to improve efficiency
by privatizing education, health care, pensions, prisons, transport. Innovation
is the goal of deregulating finance, electricity. That is what they say.
The obscurity and complexity of, say, Obamacare or the Greek bailout
is a cover story for the looting.
The problem is not that the experts do not understand consequences.
The problem is that a broken system pays the top better, so the system has
to be broken, but not so broken that the top falls off in collapse.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 2:35 pm
Will G-R @ 55
So you know what Trump_vs_deep_state wants to become, so we should call it that,
rather than describe what it is, because the ideological conflicts of 80
years ago were so much clearer.
We live in the age of inverted totalitarianism. Trump isn't Mussolini,
he's an American version of Berlusconi, a farcical rhyme in echo of a dead
past. We probably are on the verge of an unprecedented authoritarian surveillance
state, but Hillary Clinton doesn't need an army of blackshirts. The historical
fascism demanded everything in the state. Our time wants everything in an
iPhone app.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 2:54 pm
reason @ 54
Very well said. Resource limits shadow the falling apart of the global
order that the American Interest link Peter T points to. If the billionaires
are looting from the top and the response is a criminal scramble at the
bottom, the unnecessariat will be spit out uncomprehending into the void
between.
It is hard to see optimism as a growth stock. But, an effective left
would need something to reintroduce mass action into politics against an
elite that is groping toward a solution that entails replacing the masses
with robots.
Will G-R 08.31.16 at 3:38 pm
"Trump_vs_deep_state" may be the term du jour in the US, but let's try to kick our
stiflingly banal American habit of framing everything around our little
quadrennial electoral freak shows. After all, the US and our rigid two-party
system have always been an outlier in the vigor with which real political
currents have been forced to conform to the narrow partisan vocabulary of
either a left-liberal or a right-liberal major party. If hewing religiously
to a patriotic sense of US institutionalism is supposed to ultimately save
the liberal political sphere from the underlying political-economic forces
that threaten it, we might as well take a page from the Tea Party and start
marching around in powdered wigs and tricorn hats for all the good it'll
do us.
In the rest of the Western world, particularly in Central and Eastern
Europe, the "fascist" parties (Golden Dawn in Greece, Jobbik in Hungary,
Ataka in Bulgaria, etc.) are generally less euphemistic about their role
as fascist parties, and what forced sense of euphemism does exist
seems to provide little more than a rhetorical opportunity for mockingly
transparent coyness . To be fair, the predominant far-right parties
in richer Western European countries (the FN, AfD, UKIP, etc.) are a bit
more earnestly vague about their ambitions, so maybe a good compromise would
be to call them (along with Trump) "soft fascists" in contrast to the "hard
fascists" of Golden Dawn or Ataka. But fascism still makes much more sense
than any other existing "-ism" I've seen, unless we want to just make one
up.
Marc 08.31.16 at 3:48 pm
Analogies can obscure more than they illuminate.
RichardM 08.31.16 at 4:11 pm
> You seem to be dancing around the elite corruption that is motivating
the rationales provided by neoliberalism.
Fair point. On the other hand, if neoliberalism rule, then neoliberals
will be the rulers. And if not, not. Whatever the nature of the rulers,
they rarely starve. Worldwide, average corruption is almost certainly lower
in mostly-neoliberal countries than in less-neoliberal places like China,
Zimbabwe, North Korea, …
The key thing is, take two neoliberal politicians, only one of whom is
(unusually) corrupt. One entirely intends to deliver what you ask for, admittedly
while ensuring they personally have a nice life being well-fed, warm and
listened-to. The other plans to take it all and deliver nothing.
Given that nobody trustworthy knows anything, at least in a form they
can explain, you can't get useful information as to which is which. 300
hours of reading reports of their rhetoric in newspapers, blogs, etc. leaves
you none the wiser. And by the time you have a professional-level of knowledge
of what's going on, you are part of the problem.
Might as well just stick to looking at who has which label next to their
name, or who has good hair.
Will G-R 08.31.16 at 4:16 pm
Marc, the discourse of Godwin's Law has done a wonderful job solidifying
the delusion that what '20s-through-'40s-era fascists once represented is
categorically dead and buried, which is why it seems like the word can't
be used as anything other than an obtuse historical analogy. But it's not
an analogy - it's a direct insinuation that what these people currently
represent is a clear descendant of what those people once represented, however
mystified by its conditioned aversion to the word "fascism" itself. On the
contrary, if we surrender to the Godwin's Law discourse and accept that
fascism can never mean anything in contemporary discourse except
as an all-purpose "everything I don't like is Hitler" analogy or whatever,
it means we've forgotten what it means to actually be anti-fascist.
BTW, the link from the last comment isn't working for whatever reason,
so
here's Take 2 .
Bob Zannelli 08.31.16 at 5:27 pm
So much concern about the term tribalism. Well what is fascism? The
use of tribalism to grasp political power and establish a totalitarian political
order. Sound reasonable? Pick any fascism you like, the Nazis ( master race)
the theocratic fascists in the US ( Christian rule ) Catholic Fascism (
Franco's Spain) , you name it. It walks and talks like tribalism. Trump-ism
is the not so new face of American fascism. It's race based, it xenophobic,
it's embraces violence, has a disdain for civil liberties and human rights,
and it features the great leader. Doesn't seem to difficult to make the
connection.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 6:14 pm
RichardM: Whatever the nature of the rulers, they rarely starve.
Still not getting it. The operative question is whether the rulers feast
because the society works or because the society fails.
Neoliberalism is the politics of controlled dismantling of the institutions
of a society that formerly worked for a larger portion of its participants.
Like a landlord realizing increased cash flow from a decision to forego
maintenance and hire gangsters to handle rent collection, neoliberalism
seeks to divert the dividends from disinvestment to the top
The cadre managing this technically and politically difficult task
- it is not easy to take things apart without critical failures exemplified
by system collapse prompting insurrection or revolution - are rewarded as
are society's owners, the 1/10th of 1%. Everybody else is screwed - either
directly, or by the consequences of the social disintegration used to feed
a parasitic elite.
The key thing is, take two neoliberal politicians, only one of
whom is (unusually) corrupt. One entirely intends to deliver what you
ask for, admittedly while ensuring they personally have a nice life
being well-fed, warm and listened-to. The other plans to take it all
and deliver nothing.
Again, you are not getting it. This isn't about lesser evil. "Lesser
evil" is a story told to herd the masses. If there are two neoliberal politicians,
both are corrupt. Neither intends to deliver anything to you on net;
they are competing to deliver you.
Any apparent choice offered to you is just part of the b.s. The "300
hours of reading" is available if you need a hobby or the equivalent of
a frontal lobotomy.
I am not enthusiastic about this proposed distinction between "hard"
and "soft" neoliberalism. Ideologically, conservative libertarians have
been locked in a dialectic with the Clintonite / Blairite neoliberals -
that's an old story, maybe an obsolete story, but apparently not one those
insist on seeing neoliberalism as a monolithic lump fixed in time can quite
grasp, but never mind.
Good cop, bad cop. Only, the electorate is carefully divided so that
one side's good cop is the other side's bad cop, and vice versa.
Hillary Clinton is running the Democratic Party in such a way that she
wins the Presidency, but the Party continues to be excluded from power in
Congress and in most of the States. This is by design. This is the neoliberal
design. She cannot deliver on her corrupt promises to the Big Donors if
she cannot play the game Obama has played so superbly of being hapless in
the face of Republican intransigence.
In the meantime, those aspiring to be part of the credentialed managerial
classes that conduct this controlled demolition while elaborating the surveillance
state that is expected to hold things together in the neo-feudal future
are instructed in claiming and nurturing their individual political identity
against the day of transformation of consciousness, when feminism will triumph
even in a world where we never got around to regulating banks.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 6:33 pm
Will G-R, Bob Zannelli
Actual, historical fascism required the would-be fascists to get busy,
en masse . Trump (and Clinton) will be streamed on demand so you
can stay home and check Facebook. Hitler giving a two-hour 15000 word speech
and Trump, Master of the Twitterverse, belong to completely different political
categories, if not universes.
There are so many differences and those differences are so deep and pervasive
that the conversation hardly seems worth having.
stevenjohnson 08.31.16 at 7:54 pm
Historical fascism included not just Hitler's Germany, but Mussolini's Italy,
Franco's Spain, Salazar/Caetano's Portugal, Ionescu's Romania, the Ustase
in Croatia, Tiso's Slovakia, Petliura's movement in Ukraine, and, arguably,
Dollfuss' Austria, Horthy's Hungary, Imperial Japan, Peronist Argentina,
the Poland of the post Pilsudski junta (read Beck on the diplomatics of
a Jewish state in Uganda, which is I think symptomatic wishful thinking.)
There is a strong correlation between the nations whose rulers accepted
fascists into the government and losing WWI. The rest were new, insecure
states that could profit their masters by expansion. At the time, the so-called
Allies, except for the USSR, were essentially the official "winners" of
WWI and therefore united against the would be revisionists like Germany.
Therefore it was desirable to propagandize against the Axis as uniquely
fascist.
In fact, there was a powerful fascist movement in many Allied states
as well. Vichy France had deep, strong domestic roots in particular, but
the South African Broederbond and Jim Crow USA with its lynchings show how
fascism and democracy (as understood by anti-Communists) are not separate
things, but conjunctural developments of the capitalist states, which are
not organized as business firms.
Democracy is associated even with genocide, enslavement of peoples and
mass population transfers to colonists. It began with democracy itself,
with the Spartans turning Messenians into Helots and Athenians expropriating
Euboeans and massacring Melians. Russian Cossacks on the Caucasian steppes
or Paxton Boys in the US continued the process. When democracy came to the
Ottoman empire, making Turkey required the horrific expulsion of the Armenians.
(Their Trail of Tears was better publicized than the Cherokee's.) But the
structural need to unify a nation by excluding Others led to the bloody
expulsion of Greeks as well. The confirmation of national identity by a
mix of ethnic, religious and racial markers required mass violence and war,
as seen in the emergence of the international system of mercantilist capitalist
states.
The wide variations in historical fascism conclusively demonstrate every
notion of fascism is somehow something essentially, metaphysically, antithetical
is wrong. Fascism and democracy are not an antinomy. Particular doctrines
that assert this, like the non-concept of "totalitarianism," serve as a
kind of skeleton for political movements and parties. Since the triumph
of what we in the US call McCarthyism all mainstream and all acceptable
alternative politics share this same skeleton. It is unsurprising that such
a beast is somehow not organically equipped to be an effective left. It's
SYRIZA in Greece defining itself by the rejection of the KKE. There is no
such thing as repudiation of revolution that doesn't imply accepting counter-revolution.
Evan Neely 08.31.16 at 8:03 pm
The problem I have with attempts to appeal to the supposedly "positive"
aspects of tribalism, solidarity and the affection for longstanding institutions,
is that it's presuming these aren't just our abstractions of something that's
felt at a much more primal level. Tribalists don't love solidarity for the
sake of the principle of solidarity: they feel solidarity because they love
the specific people like them that they love and hate others.
One set of tribalists doesn't look at another and say "hey, we respect
the same principles." It says "they're not our tribe!!!" Point being, you're
never going to get them on your side with appeals to abstractions. You're
almost certainly never going to get them on your side no matter what you
do.
bruce wilder 08.31.16 at 9:07 pm
There is no vast neoliberal conspiracy . . .
There obviously is a vast political movement, coordinated in ideology
and the social processes of partisan politics and propaganda. Creating a
strawperson "conspiracy" does not erase actual Clinton fundraising practices
and campaign tactics, which exist independent of whatever narrative I weave
them into.
There are no corrupt promises from Clinton to big donors . . .
Calling our present-day GOP as led by Trump "fascism" is calling it a break
with the past GOP. Corey Robin has been over this quite a bit here, but
in many important respects there is no break. GWB, for instance, sometimes
required attendees at his rallies to take a personal loyalty oath. And GWB
is hailed by some people here as being the good conservative because he
said that not all Muslims were bad, while, of course, killing a million
Muslims. The contemporary GOP is an outgrowth of GOP tradition, and while
some leftists may find calling all conservatism fascism convincing, I think
that it's only convincing for the tiny number of people who adhere to their
ideology.
But conservatism and fascism are both right-wing and people can argue
indefinitely about where the boundary is. So rather than talk about ideal
types, let's look at how the rhetoric of calling it fascism works. Calling
Trump_vs_deep_state fascism is primarily the rhetoric of HRC supporters, because functionally,
what everyone pretty much agrees on is that when fascists appear, people
on the left through moderate right are supposed to drop everything and unite
in a Popular Front to oppose them.
I don't think that people should drop everything. I think that HRC is
going to win and that forming the mental habit of supporting the Democratic
Party is easy to do and hard to break, and I think that the people who become
Democratic Party supporters because of the threat of Trump / "fascism" are
going to spend the next four years working directly against actual left
interests.
Will G-R 08.31.16 at 10:06 pm
Rich, I think it would be a mistake to consider this as a question of "our
present-day GOP as led by Trump". First because Trump isn't "leading" the
GOP in any meaningful sense;
as Jay Rosen's recent Tweet-storm encapsulates nicely , the GOP's institutional
leadership is still liberal through and through, even if its ideological
organs pander in some ideally implicit sense to what might otherwise be
a fascist constituency. And second because Trump isn't really "leading"
his own constituents either; if he were to make a high-profile about-face
on the issues his voters care about, they'd likely be just as eager to dump
him as Bernie Sanders' most passionate leftist supporters were to ignore
his pro-Clinton appeals at the DNC.
What's interesting about Trump isn't really anything to do with Trump
per se, so much as what Trump's constituency would do if the normal functioning
of the liberal institutions constraining it were to be disrupted in a serious
way. Europe in the 1910s through 1940s was full of such disruptions, and
should such an era return, the ideological currents we're now viewing through
a heavily tinted institutional window would become much clearer.
Ragweed 08.31.16 at 10:23 pm
Val etc.
I think that John's use of the word "tribalist" here means a world-view
that explicitly values members of an in-group more than members not of the
in-group. It is different from racism because it may be over other factors
than race – religion, citizenship, nationalism, or even region. And the
key word is explicitly. The big difference between tribalist and both neoliberal
and left positions is that the other two are generally universalist.
Neoliberals profess that everyone will be better off with deregulation,
free markets, and technocratic solutions, and often explicitly reject the
idea of something benefitting one racial, religious, or national group over
another (though not the educated or wealthy, because these are allegedly
meritocratic outcomes of the neoliberal order).
The left likewise generally argues for an increase in equality and equal
distribution of resources for all, whether that be class-based or based
on some sort of gender, race, or sexual equality.
So on an issue like a free trade deal, a neoliberal argument would support
it, because gains of trade and various other reasons why it would make everyone
better off; a leftist argument would oppose it on the grounds that it would
make everyone worse off; and a tribalist argument would oppose it on the
grounds that it took jobs away from American citizens, but wouldn't worry
too much about the other guys.
Of course, the lines are not always clear and distinct, they often overlap,
mix, and borrow arguments from each other, and there are often hypocrisies'
and inconsistencies (and John's point anyway is that the neoliberals tend
to draw on coalitions with the other two factions), but I think it is a
good general description of the distinction.
And it is different from the more sociological use of tribal to mean
any in-group/out-group distinction and social solidarity formation. Everyone
is tribal in the sociological sense, but the tribalist that John is referring
explicitly approves of that tribalism. A left intellectual may look down
on "ignorant, racist, blue-collar Trump supporters", with as much bias as
any tribalist, but would generally want them to have better education and
a guarantee income so they were no longer ignorant and racist, whereas the
tribalist generally thinks the other guy is less deserving.
Sam Bradford 09.01.16 at 9:20 am
What I wonder/worry about is whether tribalism, nationalism, call it what
you will, is a necessity.
It's very difficult for me to imagine an internationalist order that
provides the kind of benefits to citizens that I'd want a state to provide.
It's much easier to imagine nation states operating as enclaves of solidarity
and mutual aid in an amorphous, anarchic and ruthless globalised environment.
Yet the creation of a nation requires the creation of an in-group and an
out-group, citizens and non-citizens.
To put it more concretely: in my own country, New Zealand, the traditional
Maori form of social organisation – a kind of communitarianism – currently
appeals to me as offering more social solidarity and opportunity for human
flourishing than our limp lesser-of-three-evils democracy. It is a society
in which there is genuine solidarity and common purpose. Yet it is, literally,
tribal; it admits no more than a few thousand people to each circle of mutual
aid. I am sometimes tempted to believe that it is the correct way for human
beings to live, despite my general dislike for biological determinism. I
think I would rather abandon my obligations to the greater mass of humanity
(not act against them, of course, just accept an inability to influence
events) and be a member of a small society than be a helpless and hopeless
atom in a sea of similar, utterly disenfranchised atoms.
Will G-R 09.01.16 at 4:32 pm
Bob Zannelli: Gee what a concept, an obligation to vote in a democracy.
As flawed as the US political process is, voting still matters and can affect
change. It's not easy , but then it's never easy to reform anything.
Just to give voice to
the
contrary perspective , voter turnout appears to play at least some role
in the ideological process by which the US electoral system claims legitimacy:
even though in purely procedural terms an election could work just fine
if the total number of ballots was an infinitesimal fraction of the number
of eligible voters ("Bill Clinton casts ballot, Hillary defeats Trump by
2 votes to 1!") low voter turnout is nonetheless depicted as a crisis not
just for any particular candidate or party but for the entire electoral
process. Accordingly, if I decide not to vote and thereby to decrease voter
turnout by a small-but-nonzero amount, I'm adding a small-but-nonzero contribution
to the public argument that the electoral process as presently institutionalized
is illegitimate, so unless we propose to add a "none of the above" option
to every single race and question on the ballot, to argue that citizens
have an obligation to vote is to argue that they are obliged not to "vote"
for the illegitimacy of the system as such. And plenty of ethical and political
stances could be consistent with such a "vote", not the least of which is
a certain historical stance whose proponents argued that "whenever any Form
of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or to abolish it…"
Will G-R 09.01.16 at 5:05 pm
I mean that just as people who believe the US government is legitimate should
have the right to express their political preference at the ballot box,
people who believe the US government is illegitimate should have the right
to express their political preference at (the abstention from) the ballot
box, and that it's at least possible for this to be a consistent political
and ethical stance. Do you disagree? Is the legitimacy of your government
a first premise for you? If so, Thomas Jefferson would like a word.
(Not to imply that I hold any particular fealty to the US nationalist
mythology of the "Founding Fathers" and so on, but hey, they articulated
a certain liberal political philosophy whose present-day adherents should
at least be consistent about it.)
Bob Zannelli 09.01.16 at 5:14 pm
I mean that just as people who believe the US government is legitimate should
have the right to express their political preference at the ballot box,
people who believe the US government is illegitimate should have the right
to express their political preference at (the abstention from) the ballot
box, and that it's at least possible for this to be a consistent political
and ethical stance. Do you disagree? Is the legitimacy of your government
a first premise for you? If so, Thomas Jefferson would like a word.
(Not to imply that I hold any particular fealty to the US nationalist
mythology of the "Founding Fathers" and so on, but hey, they articulated
a certain liberal political philosophy whose present-day adherents should
at least be consistent about it.) {}
Jefferson has never impressed me very much ( except for his church state
separation advocacy) His ideal of a democratic agrarian slave society I
find not too appealing. He talked about the blood of tyrants but he spent
his time drinking fine wines and being waiting on by his slaves during the
revolutionary war. You're entitled to any views you want, but you're not
entitled to be respected if you're views are nonsensical. Good luck on the
revolution, I hope that works out for you.
Will G-R 09.01.16 at 5:15 pm
Also, not to get personal, but the smarm here is so thick you could cut
it with a knife…
"Did I get you right? Is your response to an argument you find uncomfortable
to simply intone 'holy shit'? Holy shit…"
Will G-R 09.01.16 at 5:20 pm
So wait, did you not recognize the quote from the Declaration of Independence,
or what? Your argument invoked "an obligation to vote in a democracy"
. My counterargument is that if government is supposed to be premised
on the consent of the governed, there can never be "an obligation to vote
in a democracy", because not voting is a way of expressing one's lack of
consent. As Žižek might put it, your ideal appears to be a democratic system
that orders you to consent .
Bob Zannelli 09.01.16 at 5:37 pm
So wait, did you not recognize the quote from the Declaration of Independence,
or what? Your argument invoked "an obligation to vote in a democracy". My
counterargument is that if government is supposed to be premised on the
consent of the governed, there can never be "an obligation to vote in a
democracy", because not voting is a way of expressing one's lack of consent.
As Žižek might put it, your ideal appears to be a democratic system that
orders you to consent.{}
I think anyone who expects to move the country away from Neo Liberalism
to a more progressive direction without voting is a fool. What's the alternative
, over throwing the government? If this is the plan we better not discuss
it on social media. Of course it's all nonsense, if the US government was
ever thrown it would be by the far right as almost happened under FDR during
the hey day of fascism around the world. I think too many here are still
living in a Marxist fantasy world , no one here is going to establish the
dictatorship of the proletarians. Let's get real.
Will G-R 09.01.16 at 6:09 pm
if the US government was ever thrown it would be by the far right
So let's get this straight… the only choice we have is between the center
and the far right, yet it's far leftists' fault for not being centrists
that the politics of centrism itself keeps drifting farther and farther
to the right. Screw eating from the trashcan, it's like you're mainlining
pure grade-A Colombian ideology.
stevenjohnson 09.01.16 at 6:24 pm
Will G-R@86 "… because not voting is a way of expressing one's lack of consent."
Incorrect. Not voting is routinely interpreted as tacit consent. Not voting
is meaningless, and will be interpreted as suited.
Bob Zannelli@87 "Let's get real."
Okay. What's real is, the game is rigged but you insist on making everyone
ante up and play by the rules anyhow. What's real, is you have nothing to
do with the left, except by defining the Democratic Party as the left. What's
real is that the parties could just as well be labeled the "Ins" and the
"Outs," and that would have just as much to do with the left, which is to
repeat, nothing.
bruce wilder 09.01.16 at 6:59 pm
Bob Zannelli: What's the alternative?
There is no alternative.
Bob Zannelli 09.01.16 at 7:01 pm
So let's get this straight… the only choice we have is between the center
and the far right, yet it's far leftists' fault for not being centrists
that the politics of centrism itself keeps drifting farther and farther
to the right. Screw eating from the trashcan, it's like you're mainlining
pure grade-A Colombian ideology{}
Right because the left is too busy plotting the revolution to engage
in politics.
bruce wilder 09.01.16 at 7:09 pm
Hillary Clinton is engaging in politics and she's teh most librul librul
evah! Why isn't that enough? It is not her fault, surely, that the devil
makes her do unlibrul things - you have to be practical and practically,
there is no alternative. We have to clap louder. That's the ticket!
Will G-R 09.01.16 at 7:25 pm
stevenjohnson: Not voting is routinely interpreted as tacit consent.
So why then is low voter turnout interpreted as a problem for democracy?
Why wouldn't it be a cause for celebration if a large majority of the population
was so happy with the system that they'd be happy with whoever won? On the
contrary, a helpless person's tacit refusal to respond to a provocation
can be the exact opposite of consent if whoever has them at their mercy
actually needs a reaction: think of a torture victim who sits in
silence instead of pleading for mercy or giving up the information the torturer
is after. Whether or not it truly does need it, the ideology of liberal
democracy at least acts as if it needs the legitimating idea that its leaders
are freely and actively chosen by those they govern, and refusing to participate
in this choice can be interpreted as an effort to deprive this ideology
of its legitimating idea.
bruce wilder 09.01.16 at 7:45 pm
Will G-R @ 94
Low voter turnout is interpreted as a problem by some people on
some occasions. Why generalize to official "ideology" from their idiosyncratic
and opportunistic pieties?
Why are the concerns of, say, North Carolina's legislature that only
the right people vote not official ideology? Or, the election officials
in my own Los Angeles County, where we regularly have nearly secret elections
with hard-to-find-polling-places - we got down to 8.6% in one election in
2015.
Obama's DHS wants to designate the state election apparatus, critical
infrastructure. Won't that be great? I guess Putin may not be able to vote,
after all!
Will G-R 09.01.16 at 8:12 pm
Bob, my impression is that CT is supposed to be a philosophy-oriented discussion
space (or it wouldn't be named after a line from Kant for chrissake) and
in philosophy one is supposed to subject one's premises to ruthless and
unsparing criticism, or at least be able to fathom the possibility of doing
so - including in this case premises like the legitimacy of the US government
or the desirability of capitalism. Especially in today's neoliberal society
there are precious few spaces where a truly philosophical outlook is supposed
to be the norm, and honestly I'm offended that you seem to want to turn
CT into yet another space where it isn't.
stevenjohnson 09.01.16 at 8:27 pm
Bob Zannelli@95 Don't worry, your left credentials are quite in order. I'm
not a regular, I post here occasionally for the same reason I occasionally
post at BHL, sheer amazement at the insanity of it all. My views are quite
beyond the pale.
Nonetheless your views, even though they pass for left at CT, are nonsense.
Corey Robin's project to amalgamate all conservatism into a single psychopathology
of individual minds (characters? souls?) is not useful for real politics.
His shilling for Jacobinrag.com, etc., acquits SYRIZA for its total failure
in real politics because it accomplished the most important task…making
sure KKE couldn't use a major state crisis. Similarly OWS and the Battle
of Seattle are acceptable because they are pure, untainted by anything save
failure.
As for your dismissal of Marxist fantasies, I take it you do not believe
economic crisis is endemic to the capitalist world economy, nor that imperialism
leads to war to redivide the world. And despite your alleged interest in
the location of proletarian hordes you can't see any in other countries,
unlike this country where everybody is middle class.
Delusions like that are killing us all. This country doesn't need reform,
it needs regime change. That's happening. Nixon failed, Trump might fail,
but the long slow march of the owners through the institutions of power,
gentrifying as they go, continues.
Will G-R 09.01.16 at 8:46 pm
Bruce @ 95, correct me if I'm wrong but I feel that state and (especially)
local governments in the US typically are viewed as highly prone
to borderline-illegitimizing levels of corruption - imagine how we'd characterize
the legitimacy of a City-State of Ferguson, or a Republic of Illinois under
President Blagojevich - and part of what maintains the impression of legitimacy
is the possibility of federal intervention on the people's behalf if things
at the lower levels get out of hand. Where the federal government hasn't
done so, notably in the case of African-American communities before the
mid to late 20th century, is precisely where arguments for the illegitimacy
of the entire system have gained serious traction. So IMO there could actually
be quite a bit of subversive potential if the population at large were to
openly reject the elected officials in Washington, DC as no more inherently
legitimate than those in Raleigh, NC or Los Angeles County. (I briefly tried
to look up the location within LA of its county seat and found that
Wikipedia's article "Politics of Los Angeles County" was entirely about
its citizens' voting record in federal politics, which itself illustrates
the point.)
Delusions like that are killing us all. This country doesn't need reform, it needs regime change.
Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. ..."
"... Neoliberalism has failed both in practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. The soft neoliberals have been putting neoliberalism into practice over the objections of their electoral coalition partners. It hasn't delivered. ..."
"... I am hoping that Trump suffers a sound beating but then the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed. ..."
"... The fact that these sorts of governments exist and have existed in the US is why every American, even those of us who are well aware of McCarthyism and COINTELPRO and so on, can breathe a sigh of relief when we see the words "the Justice Department today announced a probe aimed at local government officials in…" because it means that the legitimate parts of our system are asserting their predominance over the potentially illegitimate parts. ..."
"... Accordingly, to treat the federal system as itself no more inherently legitimate than the local ones - to treat the government in Washington as fundamentally the same kind of racket as the government in Ferguson - is to argue that it needs fundamentally the same kind of external oversight, and barring a foreign invasion or a world government, the only potentially equivalent overseer for the US federal government is a mass revolt. ..."
"... Corey Robin's project to amalgamate all conservatism into a single psychopathology of individual minds (characters? souls?) is not useful for real politics. His shilling for Jacobinrag.com, etc., acquits SYRIZA for its total failure in real politics because it accomplished the most important task…making sure KKE couldn't use a major state crisis. Similarly OWS and the Battle of Seattle are acceptable because they are pure, untainted by anything save failure. ..."
"... I take it you do not believe economic crisis is endemic to the capitalist world economy, nor that imperialism leads to war to redivide the world. And despite your alleged interest in the location of proletarian hordes you can't see any in other countries, unlike this country where everybody is middle class. ..."
"... Delusions like that are killing us all. This country doesn't need reform, it needs regime change. ..."
" American liberalism has always been internationalist and mildly pro-free-trade. It's also
been pro-union…"
Then why are unions in such bad shape? Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free
flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. From democracy or
citizens. Think about the TPP where corporate arbitration courts can be used by corporations to
sue governments without regard to those nations' legislation. I'd be more in favor of international
courts if they weren't used merely to further corporate interests and profits. Neoliberals argue
that what benefits these multinational corporations benefits their home country.
I pretty much agree with what Quiggin is saying here. Neoliberalism has failed both in
practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. The soft neoliberals have been putting neoliberalism
into practice over the objections of their electoral coalition partners. It hasn't delivered.
That's why you have all of these Trump voters or Brexit voters or other tribalists who no longer
believe what the center-right is selling them about lower taxes and less regulation delivering
prosperity. About immigration and internationalism being a good thing.
The center-right hasn't really delivered and neither has the center-left.
The elite project of putting neoliberalism into practice and of selling it to the masses has
failed. This is an opportunity for the left but also a time fraught with danger should the tribalists
somehow get the upperhand.
I feel the U.S. is too diverse for this to happen but it might in other nations. I am hoping
that Trump suffers a sound beating but then the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen.
They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism
has failed.
Will G-R 09.02.16 at 4:19 pm
Bruce @ 104, I'm not clued into the SoCal-specific issues (so I don't know exactly how much a
Chinatown-esque narrative should be raised in contrast to your description of LA water
infrastructure as "the best of civic boosterism") but I'm thinking more of local governments like
the ones stereotypically predominant in the Southeast, or even the legendarily corrupt history
of "machine" politics in cities like Chicago.
The fact that these sorts of governments exist and have existed in the US is why every
American, even those of us who are well aware of McCarthyism and COINTELPRO and so on, can breathe
a sigh of relief when we see the words "the Justice Department today announced a probe aimed at
local government officials in…" because it means that the legitimate parts of our system are asserting
their predominance over the potentially illegitimate parts.
So in order to uphold the legitimacy of the system as such we acknowledge that sure, someone
in rural Louisiana might not always be able to get rid of their corrupt local mayors/sheriffs/judges/etc.
through the ballot box directly, but at least they can vote in federal elections for the people
and institutions that will get rid of these officials if they overstep the bounds of
what we as a nation consider acceptable. (This also extends to more informal institutions like
the media: the local paper might not be shining the light on local corruption, but the media as
such can fulfill its function and redeem its institutional legitimacy if something too egregious
falls into the national spotlight.)
Accordingly, to treat the federal system as itself no more inherently legitimate than the
local ones - to treat the government in Washington as fundamentally the same kind of racket as
the government in Ferguson - is to argue that it needs fundamentally the same kind of external
oversight, and barring a foreign invasion or a world government, the only potentially equivalent
overseer for the US federal government is a mass revolt.
stevenjohnson 09.01.16 at 8:27 pm
Bob Zannelli@95 Don't worry, your left credentials are quite in order. I'm not a regular, I post
here occasionally for the same reason I occasionally post at BHL, sheer amazement at the insanity
of it all. My views are quite beyond the pale.
Nonetheless your views, even though they pass for left at CT, are nonsense. Corey Robin's
project to amalgamate all conservatism into a single psychopathology of individual minds (characters?
souls?) is not useful for real politics. His shilling for Jacobinrag.com, etc., acquits SYRIZA
for its total failure in real politics because it accomplished the most important task…making
sure KKE couldn't use a major state crisis. Similarly OWS and the Battle of Seattle are acceptable
because they are pure, untainted by anything save failure.
As for your dismissal of Marxist fantasies, I take it you do not believe economic crisis
is endemic to the capitalist world economy, nor that imperialism leads to war to redivide the
world. And despite your alleged interest in the location of proletarian hordes you can't see any
in other countries, unlike this country where everybody is middle class.
Delusions like that are killing us all. This country doesn't need reform, it needs regime
change. That's happening. Nixon failed, Trump might fail, but the long slow march of the
owners through the institutions of power, gentrifying as they go, continues.
"... Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. From democracy or citizens. Think about the TPP where corporate arbitration courts can be used by corporations to sue governments without regard to those nations' legislation. I'd be more in favor of international courts if they weren't used merely to further corporate interests and profits. Neoliberals argue that what benefits these multinational corporations benefits their home country. ..."
"... Neoliberalism has failed both in practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. ..."
"... the elites were telling us that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed. ..."
" American liberalism has always been internationalist and mildly pro-free-trade. It's also
been pro-union…"
Then why are unions in such bad shape? Neoliberalism is all about markets and the free
flow of capital, not political interference from unions or government. From democracy or citizens.
Think about the TPP where corporate arbitration courts can be used by corporations to sue governments
without regard to those nations' legislation. I'd be more in favor of international courts if
they weren't used merely to further corporate interests and profits. Neoliberals argue that what
benefits these multinational corporations benefits their home country.
I pretty much agree with what Quiggin is saying here. Neoliberalism has failed both in
practice and as a means to indoctrinate the voters. The soft neoliberals have been putting
neoliberalism into practice over the objections of their electoral coalition partners. It hasn't
delivered.
That's why you have all of these Trump voters or Brexit voters or other tribalists who no longer
believe what the center-right is selling them about lower taxes and less regulation delivering
prosperity. About immigration and internationalism being a good thing. The center-right hasn't
really delivered and neither has the center-left. The elite project of putting neoliberalism into
practice and of selling it to the masses has failed. This is an opportunity for the left but also
a time fraught with danger should the tribalists somehow get the upperhand. I feel the U.S. is
too diverse for this to happen but it might in other nations.
I am hoping that Trump suffers a sound beating but then the elites were telling us
that Brexit wouldn't happen. They also assured us Trump wouldn't win the primary. The fact that
he did shows in part how neoliberalism has failed.
"... Donald Trump once denounced his Republican primary opponents as being "totally in cahoots" with the unlimited-money super PACs supporting their campaigns. But that was then, and this is now. This week, Trump announced he hired the man whose activism literally led to the creation of super PACs , and whose most recent gig was leading a pro-Trump super PAC. ..."
Donald Trump once denounced his Republican primary opponents as being "totally in cahoots" with
the unlimited-money super PACs supporting their campaigns. But that was then, and this is now. This
week, Trump announced he hired
the man whose activism literally led to the creation of super PACs , and whose most recent gig
was leading a pro-Trump super PAC.
That man is David Bossie. The longtime head of the conservative nonprofit Citizens United is now
Trump's deputy campaign manager. Yes, that Citizens United.
The conservative nonprofit group filed a lawsuit in 2007 against the Federal Election Commission.
The case eventually snowballed into a 2010 Supreme Court decision that legalized unlimited corporate
and union spending in elections, so long as it remained independent from candidates and political
parties. A subsequent lower court decision based entirely on the Citizens United ruling opened the
door to unlimited giving by wealthy individuals and, in turn, the FEC created super PACs to allow
for this money to flow.
Trump was once the candidate who denounced big money and declared his independence from donor
influence through his self-financing. Now, he's schmoozing with big donors and asking for their advice
as he prods them for money, while employing supporters of further campaign finance deregulation.
"It does paint Donald Trump's campaign as not being friendly to campaign finance reform," said
Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist for the pro-campaign finance reform group Public Citizen.
That may be of little surprise, considering the Republican Party platform calls for the elimination
of all campaign contribution limits
"... A direct approach to the objective exhausts the attacker and hardens the resistance by compression, where as an indirect approach loosens the defenders hold by upsetting his balance." ..."
"... advocated fighting the decisive battle after the opponent has been unbalanced. ..."
...Liddell Hart wrote Strategy: An Indirect Approach , in which he stated: "In strategy
the longest way around is often the shortest way there. A direct approach to the objective exhausts
the attacker and hardens the resistance by compression, where as an indirect approach loosens the
defenders hold by upsetting his balance."
Liddell exhaustively analyzed numerous battles throughout history and advocated fighting the
decisive battle after the opponent has been unbalanced.
... ... ...
Shimon Naveh, the founder and former head of the
Israel Defense Forces
' Operational Theory Research Institute, stated that after World War II Liddell Hart "created"
the idea of Blitzkrieg as a military doctrine: "It was the opposite of a doctrine. Blitzkrieg consisted
of an avalanche of actions that were sorted out less by design and more by success." [28] Naveh stated that,
"by manipulation and contrivance, Liddell Hart distorted the actual circumstances of the Blitzkrieg
formation and obscured its origins. Through his indoctrinated idealization of an ostentatious
concept he reinforced the myth of Blitzkrieg. By imposing, retrospectively, his own perceptions
of mobile warfare upon the shallow concept of Blitzkrieg, he created a theoretical imbroglio that
has taken 40 years to unravel". [29]
"Commentary: Who is hacking U.S. election databases and why are they so difficult to identify?"
[
Reuters ]. "This summer has been rife with news of election-related hacking. Last month it was
the Democratic National Committee; this week, voter election databases in Illinois and Arizona…
The
FBI has said that government-affiliated Russian hackers are responsible for both intrusions. Yet
the hackers' motivation is unclear. We don't know whether the hackers were engaging in espionage,
attempting to manipulate the election, or just harvesting low-hanging cyber-fruit for their own financial
gain." Well, the FBI is totes apolitical, so that settles that. There are brave Russkis out there.
Let's go kill them!
So much for keeping the military out of politics:
In a joint statement, two Four Star Generals, Bob Sennewald and David Maddox are endorsing
Hillary Clinton for President. Sennewald is the former Commanding General, U.S. Army Forces Command,
and Maddox was formerly Commander in Chief, U.S. Army- Europe. Clinton spoke at the American Legion
on Wednesday:
"Having each served over 34 years and retired as an Army 4- star general, we each have worked
closely with America's strongest allies, both in NATO and throughout Asia. Our votes have always
been private, and neither of us has ever previously lent his name or voice to a presidential candidate.
Having studied what is at stake for this country and the alternatives we have now, we see only
one viable leader, and will be voting this November for Secretary Hillary Clinton."
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) won her primary Tuesday, a positive development for the
congresswoman after a tumultuous past few months.
Wasserman Schultz beat progressive law professor Tim Canova, who
drew on the same anti-corporate momentum that fueled the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie
Sanders (I-Vt.), earning him national attention and
significant contributions from Sanders supporters. The political novice was even
raising more money than Wasserman Schultz during the campaign.
With
98 percent of the votes counted, Wasserman Schultz had 57 percent, to Canova's 43 percent, according
to The Associated Press.
Not that long ago, even talking about a possible Wasserman Schultz defeat would have been outlandish.
She ran the Democratic National Committee, held a
safe blue seat and had never had a competitive primary.
But
furor at Wasserman Schultz grew during the presidential primary as many progressives criticized
her for seeming to tip the scales in favor of Hillary Clinton, and lingering frustrations over her
management of the party spilled into the open. Canova campaigned against her as the "quintessential
corporate machine politician." In March, President Barack Obama
endorsed Wasserman Schultz, an early indication that the congresswoman needed some help in retaining
her seat.
Wasserman Schultz
resigned as DNC chair on the eve of the convention last month as Sanders supporters gathered
in Philadelphia
took to the streets and protested her. The catalyst was
a leak of DNC staffers' emails that seemed to show the party working to help get Clinton elected
― even though it was supposed to be neutral in the primary. The congresswoman wanted to keep her
speaking spot at the convention, but ultimately, she was
forced to give that up as well.
Wasserman Schultz also faced
outrage from progressives for co-sponsoring legislation to
gut new rules put forward by the Obama administration intended to rein in predatory payday lending.
The activist group Allied Progressive
released an ad in Florida, hitting the DNC chair for teaming up with Republicans to defeat the
policy.
For Sanders supporters, the race became a fight against corporate interests and a way to eke out
a victory after the senator's loss in the Democratic presidential primary.
Yet despite this dissatisfaction, Canova's candidacy lagged. Sanders sent out
fundraising emails on his behalf, but he never went to Florida and campaigned in person.
"There are a lot of people who
feel disappointed," Canova told The Atlantic. "There are a lot of people in South Florida who
wanted Bernie Sanders to come down."
Clinton, meanwhile,
paid a surprise visit to a Wasserman Schultz field office and praised the congresswoman when
she was in Miami last month. She also
won the district against Sanders by a landslide.
Being tied to Sanders could also have been a double-edged sword, as Canova told NBC News.
"Bernie ran
a lousy campaign in Florida," he said. "Bernie had his problems with certain constituencies that
I don't have problems with."
The 23rd district is heavily Democratic, and Wasserman Schultz is expected to win in November.
"... For much of the last century the illusion of social progress sold through the New Deal, the Great Society and more recently through capitalist enterprise 'freed' from the bind of social accountability, ..."
"... The Clinton's special gift to the people -- citizens, workers; the human condition as conceived through a filter of manufactured wants to serve the interests of an intellectually, morally and spiritually bankrupt 'leadership' class, lies in the social truths revealed by their actions. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump, poses the greater-evilism of an ossified political class against the facts of its own creation now in dire need of resolution- wars to end wars, environmental crisis to end environmental crises, economic predation to end economic predation and manufactured social misery to end social misery. Hillary Clinton's roster of donors is the neoliberal innovation on Richard Nixon's enemies list- government as a shakedown racket where friend or foe and policies promoted or buried, are determined by 'donation' status rather than personal animus. ..."
"... That is most ways conservative Republican Richard Nixon's actual policies were far Left of those of contemporary Democrats, including Mrs. Clinton, is testament to the ideological mobility of political pragmatism freed from principle. ..."
"... That Hillary Clinton is the candidate of officialdom links her service to Wall Street to America's wars of choice to dedicated environmental irresolution as the candidate who 'gets things done.' ..."
"... As historical analog, the West has seen recurrent episodes of economic imperialism backed by state power; in the parlance, neoliberal globalization, over the last several centuries. ..."
"... Left unstated in the competitive lesser-evilism of Party politics is the incapacity for political resolution in any relevant dimension. Donald Trump is 'dangerous' only by overlooking how dangerous the American political leadership has been for the last one and one-half centuries. So the question becomes: dangerous to whom? Without the most murderous military in the world, public institutions like the IMF dedicated to economic subjugation and predatory corporations that wield the 'free-choices' of mandated consumption, how dangerous would any politicians really be? And with them, how not-dangerous have liberal Democrats actually been? Candidates for political office are but manifestations of class interests put forward as systemic intent. ..."
"... The liberals and progressives in the managerial class who support the status quo and are acting as enforcers to elect Hillary Clinton are but one recession away from being tossed overboard by those they serve within the existing economic order. ..."
into political power. The structure of economic distribution seen through Foundation 'contributors;'
oil and gas magnates, pharmaceutical and technology entrepreneurs of public largesse, the murder-for-hire
industry (military) and various and sundry managers of social decline, makes evident the dissociation
of social production from those that produced it.
For much of the last century the illusion of social progress sold through the New Deal, the
Great Society and more recently through capitalist enterprise 'freed' from the bind of social accountability,
if not exactly from the need for regular and robust public support, served to hold at bay the perpetual
tomorrow of lives lived for the theorized greater good of accumulated self-interest. The Clinton's
special gift to the people -- citizens, workers; the human condition as conceived through a filter
of manufactured wants to serve the interests of an intellectually, morally and spiritually bankrupt
'leadership' class, lies in the social truths revealed by their actions.
Being three or more decades in the making, the current political season was never about the candidates
except inasmuch as they embody the grotesquely disfigured and depraved condition of the body politic.
The 'consumer choice' politics of Democrat versus Republican, Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump,
poses the greater-evilism of an ossified political class against the facts of its own creation now
in dire need of resolution- wars to end wars, environmental crisis to end environmental crises, economic
predation to end economic predation and manufactured social misery to end social misery. Hillary
Clinton's roster of donors is the neoliberal innovation on Richard Nixon's enemies list- government
as a shakedown racket where friend or foe and policies promoted or buried, are determined by 'donation'
status rather than personal animus.
That is most ways conservative Republican Richard Nixon's actual policies were far Left of
those of contemporary Democrats, including Mrs. Clinton, is testament to the ideological mobility
of political pragmatism freed from principle. The absurd misdirection that we, the people, are
driving this migration is belied by the economic power that correlates 1:1 with the policies put
forward and enacted by 'the people's representatives', by the answers that actual human beings give
to pollsters when asked and by the ever more conspicuous hold that economic power has over political
considerations as evidenced by the roster of pleaders and opportunists granted official sees by the
political class in Washington.
To state the obvious, dysfunctional ideology- principles that don't 'work' in the sense of promoting
broadly conceived public wellbeing, should be dispensable. But this very formulation takes at face
value the implausible conceits of unfettered intentions mediated through functional political representation
that are so well disproved by entities like the Clinton Foundation. Political 'pragmatism' as it
is put forward by national Democrats quite closely resembles the principled opposition of Conservative
Republicans through unified service to the economic powers-that-be. That Hillary Clinton is the
candidate of officialdom links her service to Wall Street to America's wars of choice to dedicated
environmental irresolution as the candidate who 'gets things done.'
As historical analog, the West has seen recurrent episodes of economic imperialism backed
by state power; in the parlance, neoliberal globalization, over the last several centuries.
The result, in addition to making connected insiders rich as they wield social power over less existentially
alienated peoples, has been the not-so-great wars, devastations, impositions and crimes-against-humanity
that were the regular occurrences of the twentieth century. The 'innovation' of corporatized militarization
to this proud tradition is as old as Western imperialism in its conception and as new as nuclear
and robotic weapons, mass surveillance and apparently unstoppable environmental devastation in its
facts.
Left unstated in the competitive lesser-evilism of Party politics is the incapacity for political
resolution in any relevant dimension. Donald Trump is 'dangerous' only by overlooking how dangerous
the American political leadership has been for the last one and one-half centuries. So the question
becomes: dangerous to whom? Without the most murderous military in the world, public institutions
like the IMF dedicated to economic subjugation and predatory corporations that wield the 'free-choices'
of mandated consumption, how dangerous would any politicians really be? And with them, how not-dangerous
have liberal Democrats actually been? Candidates for political office are but manifestations of class
interests put forward as systemic intent.
The complaint that the Greens- Jill Stein and Ajamu Baraka, don't have an effective political
program approximates the claim that existing political and economic arrangements are open to challenge
through the electoral process when the process exists to assure that effective challenges don't arise.
The Democrats could have precluded the likelihood of a revolutionary movement, Left or Right, for
the next half-century by electing Bernie Sanders and then undermining him to 'prove' that challenges
to prevailing political economy don't work. The lack of imagination in running 'dirty Hillary' is
testament to how large- and fragile, the perceived stakes are. But as how unviable Hillary Clinton
and Donald Trump are as political leaders becomes apparent- think George W. Bush had he run for office
after the economic collapse of 2009 and without the cover of '9/11,' the political possibilities
begin to open up.
The liberals and progressives in the managerial class who support the status quo and are acting
as enforcers to elect Hillary Clinton are but one recession away from being tossed overboard by those
they serve within the existing economic order. The premise that the ruling class will always
need dedicated servants grants coherent logic and aggregated self-interest that history has disproven
time and again. A crude metaphor would be the unintended consequences of capitalist production now
aggregating to environmental crisis.
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are both such conspicuously corrupt tools of an intellectually
and spiritually bankrupt social order that granting tactical brilliance to their ascendance, or even
pragmatism given the point in history and available choices, seems wildly generous. For those looking
for a political moment, one is on the way.
"... The Democratic presidential nominee called the United States an "exceptional nation," and said the country has a "unique and unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress." ..."
"... Recalling in their fevered minds the legendary Reagan Democrats who took the bait approved of a "walking tall" pitch, the Clintons believe millions of silent majority, Dick Cheney Democrats will cross the aisle to keep America great. ..."
"... Like Rome, we make a waste land and call it peace. ..."
"... It's very similar to the whole entire democracy at the end of a rifle thing we've been doing now for over a decade. Our exceptionally unique brand of freedom to choose as long as you choose as we wish if you will. Go America! ..."
"... "unique and unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress." LOL! ……Wha!/! she was serious!? Your sh*tting me! ..."
Hillary, liberator of Libya, preaches to the American Legion choir in Ohio:
The Democratic presidential nominee called the United States an "exceptional nation,"
and said the country has a "unique and unparalleled ability to be a force for peace and progress."
Recalling in their fevered minds the legendary Reagan Democrats who took the bait
approved of a "walking tall" pitch, the Clintons believe millions of silent majority,
Dick Cheney Democrats will cross the aisle to keep America great.
It's very similar to the whole entire democracy at the end of a rifle thing we've been
doing now for over a decade. Our exceptionally unique brand of freedom to choose as long as you
choose as we wish if you will. Go America!
"... The "Global War on Terror" ™ is now a member of the standard vocabulary of Hucksterism. Joining phrases like "Welfare Moms", "Illegal Aliens" "FreeSh#tArmy", etc. ..."
"... She cares so much about the veterans, she is going to make sure to create more of them! ..."
"... Someone should remind Hillary that presidents don't get to declare war. It's so nice to know though that she intends to carry on her proud tradition of foreign nationals having to buy their influence instead of getting it for free by way of hacking. ..."
"... I believe the Patriot Act views hacks by persons or non-governmental agencies as acts of terrorism. I'm sure I'll be corrected if this is wrong. I also had the impression the Patriot Act treats some of the kinds of sabotage commonly used in the labor movements of the last century as acts of terrorism. ..."
"... Obama's beefing up of our atomic arsenals and Hillary's push to out-hawk Obama mixed with the footsie our military and diplomacy seem inclined to play with Russia and China is extremely frightening. ..."
"... Hillary is exceptionally stupid apparently. She's been itching for a fight with Russia. There is no other explanation for Ukraine or Syria. The big ol moneypot that they can collect from war is just too tempting. ..."
It was extremely eerie
watching
Clinton deliver neo-fascist rhetoric in Ohio while an alert
flashed across the screen announcing Brazil's Senate's official removal of
Dilma Rousseff.
C-Span claims to offer transcripts, but they do not always work.
Some highlights:
– Hacks will be viewed as acts of war
– the VA will not be privatized (healthcare and education… meh those are okay)
– Quoted Reagan within the first 5-10 minutes
– We need to reevaluate our nuclear presence… to make it stronger. (!#$*)
– We are the best #MERica
Rather evilly brilliant, in the
Report From Iron Mountain
vein.
Terrorism as a permanent, amorphous threat is producing some cultural
fatigue. Good to have a War on Hackery on the back burner, since that will
never end either, and blame can be attributed freely (as the evil Russians
have already learnt to their sorrow).
The "Global War on Terror" ™ is now a member of the standard
vocabulary of Hucksterism. Joining phrases like "Welfare Moms", "Illegal
Aliens" "FreeSh#tArmy", etc.
Someone should remind Hillary that presidents don't get to declare
war. It's so nice to know though that she intends to carry on her proud
tradition of foreign nationals having to buy their influence instead of
getting it for free by way of hacking.
I believe the Patriot Act views hacks by persons or non-governmental
agencies as acts of terrorism. I'm sure I'll be corrected if this is wrong.
I also had the impression the Patriot Act treats some of the kinds of
sabotage commonly used in the labor movements of the last century as acts of
terrorism.
Obama's beefing up of our atomic arsenals and Hillary's push to
out-hawk Obama mixed with the footsie our military and diplomacy seem
inclined to play with Russia and China is extremely frightening.
This
27th of October I'll drink a shot to Vasili Arkhipov and make a little
prayer he didn't save the world in vain.
How inspiring and uplifting but than there's "Putin is Hitler" and other
masterful strokes from America's top diplomat Sect of State Clinton. She's
already earned her Noble Peace prize in Obama's tradition so let's
preemptively give it to her now and continue that precedent.
What will Clinton do when she realizes she's picking on someone who can
fight back?
BTW very interesting analysis from MoonofAlabama regarding Turkey's
invasion into Syria is not so good for US regime change in Syrian with hints
this is calculated btwn Russia/Turkey/Syria. Had assumed Turkey's invasion
was quite bad for Syria/Russia now I'm not sure.
The GWOT and Russia are meant to focus the rubes attention away from
the fact that:
-We are rapidly turning into a Banana Republic
-We have no Bananas. Or that 95% of the bananas we do have are owned
by 1% of the population, who use the money and influence generated by
having all the bananas to make sure the government doesn't interfere with
the goal of getting 100% of the remaining 5%.
– Our half-azzed GWOT has totally fooked things up in the Middle East.
Turkey, Iran and Russia are closer to the problem than we are. Doesn't
surprise me that they might cooperate in order to straighten out the
mess.
And if they can make our doofuses in Washington look like ineffectual
idiots while doing it, so much the better.
Looking back…….for a long time, even here in the USA, the US has
always backed the landowners/business owners/oligarchs/kleptocrats, when
confronted by any opposition wanting a more even "distribution of the
pie".
And since they can't say "We are going to war so US Multi-Nationals
can keep their stuff/increase their market share/gain access to raw
materials", the talk is all about "Liberating the (fill in the blank)
people from the (name of opposition dictator) regime.
Dictators turning machine guns on striking coal miners = "Repression
of worker rights"
US law enforcement/US Army turning machine guns on striking coal
miners = Suppressing Commie-inspired domestic unrest.
"Picking on someone who can fight back"
Um, America doesn't do that, we just smash the defenseless ones. And we
still lose, contrary to the Hollywood, media, and MIC myth-making. In the
main theater Putin would smash NATO in an afternoon, everywhere else it's
CIA Keystone cops, own goals, and drone bombs on kids in hospitals.
Hillary is exceptionally stupid apparently. She's been itching
for a fight with Russia. There is no other explanation for Ukraine or
Syria. The big ol moneypot that they can collect from war is just too
tempting.
Because we never misattribute hacks (see below)… I was afraid when Ronny
had access to the button, but I'm starting to get really fearful of HRC's
possible access. Saner heads in the DoD (if that can even be believed) might
have throw water on her.
It was saner heads in the DoD who restrained Obama from starting a war
against Syria. I realize many leftists are bigoted anti-militaritic anti-militarites.
That bigotry causes such left wing anti-militaritic bigots to miss some
events and trends of opinion within the military.
I am well aware of the fact the DoD already constrained Obama on
Syria. I actually am a fan of the Department of DEFENSE, yet the fact
that we have a $700B war budget shows there are many in the military
and Pentagon who are far from sane.
So we will now go to war with individuals? Or do we just declare war on
whatever country they're operating out of?
Does it count who's getting hacked? Or what? I know Hillary thinks her
private e-mails are best kept private, but do we go to war if someone hacks
them? Or do we only go to war because she mixed some state secrets in with
them? It quickly gets confusing. Or what if Hillary hacks Bill to see if
he's still messing around with Monica? Does who we go to war against depend
of whether he is or not?
And I know Hillary is pretty pissed that the DNC got hacked, but do they
count? Because a political party is more like a club, and is certainly not a
part of the government. And what about corporations? You know they're going
to want to get in on this fun. Corporate espionage? We'll declare war on
Microsoft at the request of Apple?
We're going to need a whole branch of government to figure this all out.
I was going to suggest Homeland Security, but they're pretty busy right now
bugging the reporters' interviews at the DNC lawsuit.
Heh, maybe some of us figure the wrath beats the alternative to sitting
through another presidential cycle of sternly worded letters and petitions
from the left.
*sigh*
It would be so much easier if I could get an HMO approved frontal lobotomy
than I could either join the GOp lynch mob who thinks everything is some
liberal plot or be hunky dory with representation that tells you to your
face that they've rigged the system to thwart you ever actually having an
individual that you actually want representing you.
They lost... Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz was re-elected.
Notable quotes:
"... Tad Devine, Mark Longabaugh, and Julian Mulvey, who helped lead Sanders' campaign and drove his highly acclaimed media presence, will help Democrat Tim Canova's campaign in the closing days of his race against Wasserman Schultz in South Florida, where congressional primaries will be held Aug. 30. ..."
"... While Wasserman Schultz is still the favorite in her race, people aligned with Sanders have seized on Canova's candidacy as a proxy for their disapproval of Wasserman Schultz's stewardship of the DNC, pouring money into his effort. The addition of DML signals an increasing professionalization of the anti-Wasserman Schultz effort. ..."
The consulting firm that made Bernie Sanders' ads in the 2016 presidential race
is going to work for Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's primary challenger.
Tad Devine, Mark Longabaugh, and Julian Mulvey, who helped lead Sanders'
campaign and drove his highly acclaimed media presence, will help Democrat Tim
Canova's campaign in the closing days of his race against Wasserman Schultz
in South Florida, where congressional primaries will be held Aug. 30.
It's the latest move from Sanders supporters to go after Wasserman Schultz,
after their outrage stemming from leaked emails drove her to resign as chairman
of the Democratic National Committee this week.
The move is a concrete step forward in Sanders' attempt to spread his "political
revolution" after the end of his presidential campaign and another boost to
Canova, a previously little-known law professor who has raised millions of dollars
for his run against Wasserman Schultz. It's also the first tangible sign of
heavier involvement from his political circles in down-ballot races between
now and November. Sanders had previously endorsed Canova and raised money online
for him and a selection of other congressional candidates.
While Wasserman Schultz is still the favorite in her race, people aligned
with Sanders have seized on Canova's candidacy as a proxy for their disapproval
of Wasserman Schultz's stewardship of the DNC, pouring money into his effort.
The addition of DML signals an increasing professionalization of the anti-Wasserman
Schultz effort.
The consultants' firm, Devine Mulvey Longabaugh, was behind spots like the
famous "America" ad that helped define Sanders' campaign as he rose to prominence
against Hillary Clinton, and it has worked for a wide range of down-ballot campaigns
this cycle. Canova's campaign was already working with Revolution Messaging,
Sanders' digital firm, as well.
"... Though Democrats were happy to take their votes on election day, lower-income Americans were increasingly faced with a party that had taken on a managerial posture, one characterized by both a growing commitment to market principles and an abandonment of the notion - fostered by the New Deal period - that government could play a significant role in improving the material conditions of the population. ..."
"... Because they eschew any honest critique of capitalism, these are the absurdities to which Democrats are confined: They must justify the economic order and insist that there are good and bad economic elites, those who, out of the kindness of their hearts, share the spoils with their workers and those who, like Trump, don't. ..."
"... The elite anger the Sanders insurgency provoked was telling: It made clear the opposition within the political establishment to " even mild social democracy ." It teased out the distinctions between those who believe corporate money is inherently corrupting and those who don't, those who support single-payer health care and those who don't, those who support a radical approach to both redistributing income and wealth and addressing the crisis of poverty and those who don't. ..."
"... With Hillary Clinton at the helm, though, it is unlikely that the Democrats' drift toward becoming " the cosmopolitan elite party " will slow, particularly if Trump_vs_deep_state becomes the dominant current within the GOP. Also, given Clinton's "embrace of amoral billionaires," notes Nathan Robinson, it is "highly unlikely that the party will follow through on any meaningful attempt to reduce American economic inequality." ..."
"... The problem is, ultimately, systemic: It is about who writes the rules, and how these rules act in the real world to create extraordinary gains for some while leaving others to compete, endlessly and ruthlessly, for the rest. ..."
"... The problem is no longer, as it was prior to the publication of Michael Harrington's famous study The Other America, that the poor are invisible, unseen by the political class and by those enjoying the gains of an " affluent society ." ..."
"... "No other advanced nation," writes Eduardo Porter, "tolerates this depth of deprivation." ..."
When Democrats
began their rightward lurch in the late 1960's, they were not content to merely broaden their
coalition in order to quell the rise of the ultra-reactionary right; they have been concerned, also,
with preventing
left-wing insurgencies that could spook their patrons and push the party left.
After Ronald Reagan's decisive victories - first in 1980 against an incumbent president whose
administration had, in many ways,
fueled the neoliberal turn , and again in 1984 - the efforts of Democrats eager to transform
the party, both superficially and ideologically, intensified.
... ... ...
Though it was often framed as a tactical move necessary to undercut movement conservatives, Democrats'
shift to the right was accompanied by lucrative material advantages, advantages that organized labor,
even at its peak, could not provide.
But the Democratic Leadership Council's takeover of the party didn't just have the effect of bringing
over business interests previously wary of Democrats' ostensible commitment to labor's causes - key
DLC advisers, noted Robert
Dreyfuss in an analysis of the Third Way's rise, included such corporate giants as Enron, Aetna,
British Petroleum, Chevron, and Philip Morris.
It also had a significant, and often
devastating , impact on the poorest Americans.
Though Democrats were happy to take their votes on election day, lower-income Americans were increasingly
faced with a party that had taken on a managerial posture, one characterized by both a growing commitment
to
market principles and an abandonment of the notion - fostered by the New Deal period - that government
could play a significant role in improving the material conditions of the population.
This message of business friendly "moderation" resonated with rich Americans.
.... ... ...
"The 1992 election marked an inflection point of sorts,"
notes Lee Drutman. The year in which "Democrats changed their policies, with Bill Clinton as
the standard bearer for a new pro-business, neoliberal centrism that sought to win over the growing
professional classes," the very rich began to find comfort within the party's ever-broadening tent.
Though there have been diversions, these trends have largely continued up to the present. "The
wealthiest 4 percent of voting-age Americans, by a narrow plurality," backed President Obama in 2012,
Drutman observes.
Today, confronting the flailing and odious candidacy of Donald Trump, Democrats have seized upon
yet another opportunity to expand their coalition. And, once more, they have looked not to the left
- the
diverse bloc of Sanders backers pushing for social democracy - but to wealthier constituencies,
including those that tend to
lean Republican .
Presenting the 2016 election as a vote for or against "American values," the Clinton campaign
has frequently deployed the
right-wing language of exceptionalism and patriotism, and Clinton herself has eagerly embraced
the
endorsements of billionaire businessmen and women eager to legitimize their own wealth by highlighting
Trump's history of fraud and abuse.
Of course, these moves are in no way ahistorical.
"There is,"
writes Carl Beijer, "a distinct history of Clintonian coalition-building with right-wing Republicans."
And as even the most cursory examination of this history reveals, Democrats' opportunistic and strategic
solidarity with the right has real-world consequences; in Beijer's words, such an approach is "undertaken
at the risk of normalizing their politics."
From the gross
demonization of poor minorities that permeated Bill Clinton's tenure to the Democratic Party's
tacit -
and in some cases eager - acceptance of a political process dominated by business interests,
this is largely what has happened.
Sky-high
wealth inequality has become the new normal, and far from embracing and aggressively pushing
a radical redistributionist agenda, Democrats have embraced a
meritocratic message , one that emphasizes the centrality of hard work, dedication, and personal
responsibility.
Such platitudes, while reassuring to the winners of globalization, ring hollow in the ears of
those who rightly feel abandoned by the political system in general - and by the Democratic Party
in particular.
This year, with the insurgent campaign of Bernie Sanders doing much to expose long-standing rifts
within the Democratic establishment, the flaws inherent in a party reliant on both
high-income and lower-income voters have been thrown into sharp relief.
In a recent piece for the New York Times, Thomas Edsall nicely captures this tension, using housing
as the focal point.
Contrasting Baltimore County - a majority white community where the median household income is
over $68,000 - and Baltimore City - a majority black community where the median household income
is just over $42,500 - Edsall details "how hard it is for the Democratic Party to reconcile the interests
of its upscale wing with those of its lower-income wing."
Baltimore City, Edsall notes, has always been a Democratic stronghold, but Baltimore County, "in
the wake of an influx of educated, higher income professionals, immigrants and minorities," has,
of late, been leaning Democratic, as well; Barack Obama beat Mitt Romney there decisively in 2012.
But progressive attempts to lift poor families in the city - to provide better opportunities for
housing, education, and other means of upward mobility - have been met with strong resistance from
wealthier communities that, though they increasingly vote Democratic, are wary of attempts to integrate
poor and rich neighborhoods.
The result, Edsall quotes former Maryland attorney general Stephen Sachs as saying, is "economic
apartheid."
To demonstrate the rifts between the county and the city, Edsall cites the recent efforts by Baltimore's
Housing Authority to buy homes "in prosperous suburbs to use as public housing." Attempts to provide
affordable housing have long been a key component of anti-poverty programs, but opposition to such
programs by wealthy county residents has proven intractable.
Despite attempts by public officials to work "under the radar" to provide opportunities for poor
families, anger was quick to mount.
"The reaction from many was outright racist," Doug Donovan, a journalist who has followed this
issue closely, told Edsall.
"The problems for Democrats on matters of race and housing subsidies are not confined to Baltimore,"
Edsall points out. "In Westchester County, just north of New York City, an ongoing battle over the
court-ordered construction of affordable housing has played a key role in the election and re-election
of a Republican county executive - in a suburban jurisdiction that, in presidential elections, has
become increasingly Democratic."
Given her attempts to take both sides on matters of class, and given her embrace of big-tent liberalism,
it makes sense that Hillary Clinton has been rather mute on this topic - despite the fact that, as
Edsall observes, Clinton owns a home that "happens to be located in the midst of an affordable housing
conflict."
This willingness to quietly accept a status quo that privileges wealthy communities at the expense
of the poor pervades the thinking not just of Clinton Democrats, but of the two-party system as a
whole.
"This willingness to quietly accept a status quo that privileges wealthy communities at the expense
of the poor pervades the thinking not just of Clinton Democrats, but of the two-party system as a
whole."
Across the board, the interests of organized wealth and economic elites are prioritized over those
of much of the population. The case of housing is just one example; health care, including Obamacare,
which was
subordinated to the interests of the private insurance and pharmaceutical industries at great
cost to the most vulnerable, is another.
In 1996, Adolph Reed
denounced
Clintonian neoliberalism as "a politics motivated by the desire for proximity to the ruling class
and a belief in the basic legitimacy of its power and prerogative. It is a politics which, despite
all its idealist puffery and feigned nobility, will sell out any allies or egalitarian objectives
in pursuit of gaining the Prince's ear."
Over the last several decades, the consequences of such a dynamic - one in which both major parties
are eager, above all, to serve the needs of their wealthiest constituents - have been stark. While
those at the very top are doing extremely well in the aftermath of decades of
deregulation and privatization , almost everyone else is in a state of stagnation or decline.
As Neil Irwin
observes , "81 percent of the United States population is in an income bracket with flat or declining
income over the last decade."
And while Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both vie for the support of
economically insecure middle class Americans, the poorest are virtually ignored.
"We don't have a full-voiced condemnation of the level or extent of poverty in America today,"
Matthew Desmond, the author of an essential book on evictions and deep poverty,
told the New York Times. "We aren't having in our presidential debate right now a serious conversation
about the fact that we are the richest democracy in the world, with the most poverty. It should be
at the very top of the agenda."
But it isn't. Not satisfied with a crime of omission, however, Democrats, particularly in 2016,
have moved in the opposite direction, earnestly courting and proclaiming the benevolence of "
the good billionaires
," in contrast with the pernicious Donald Trump.
Such distinctions say, in effect, that staggering systemic inequities are okay, just as long as
those benefiting from these inequities are admirable people - they're not, of course: Warren Buffett
has made a lot of money
exploiting the poor , and Michael Bloomberg has been quite Trump-like with his extensive history
of
sexist remarks .
Because they eschew any honest critique of capitalism, these are the absurdities to which Democrats
are confined: They must justify the economic order and insist that there are good and bad economic
elites, those who, out of the kindness of their hearts,
share the spoils with their workers and those who, like Trump, don't.
And often, Democrats have not merely capitulated to the anti-poor agenda of the right; they have
adopted swaths of it, pushing it on their own under the guise of political compromise. It is no wonder,
then, that the poorest
tend to not turnout on election day - they feel disowned by a political system that has, in actual
fact, disowned them.
The campaign of Bernie Sanders
helped to bring to the surface Democrats' history of rightward sprints, and it offered a brief
glimpse of the class and ideological warfare brewing within the confines of the Democratic Party,
a party divided by its ostensible commitment to "the people" and its actual commitment to the business
interests and the economic elites that have so skillfully
captured the legislative process .
This shaky coalition, Corey Robin
notes
, "rests upon the age-old powder keg of race, class, and real estate that's just waiting to explode.
Everything about the neoliberal Democratic Party depends upon suppressing this conflict."
We saw this throughout the primary process, during which the Sanders coalition, whose core priority
was an aggressive approach to income inequality, was smeared repeatedly as racist, sexist, and class-reductionist.
The
elite anger the Sanders insurgency provoked was telling: It made clear the opposition within
the political establishment to "
even mild social
democracy ." It teased out the distinctions between those who believe corporate money is inherently
corrupting and those who don't, those who support single-payer health care and those who don't, those
who support a radical approach to both redistributing income and wealth and addressing the crisis
of poverty and those who don't.
These are meaningful distinctions, and they will animate future political contests and, hopefully,
successful progressive movements and campaigns.
With Hillary Clinton at the helm, though, it is unlikely that the Democrats' drift toward becoming
"
the cosmopolitan elite party " will slow, particularly if Trump_vs_deep_state
becomes the dominant current within the GOP. Also, given Clinton's "embrace of amoral billionaires,"
notes
Nathan Robinson, it is "highly unlikely that the party will follow through on any meaningful attempt
to reduce American economic inequality."
But the crises we face - deep poverty is just one of many - reach far beyond the realm of electoral
politics, and even the election of the Right Leaders will not move us any closer to ameliorating
the suffering in America's most vulnerable communities.
The problem is, ultimately, systemic: It is about who writes the rules, and how these rules act
in the real world to create
extraordinary gains for some while leaving others to compete, endlessly and ruthlessly, for the
rest.
As long as those who write the rules are primarily concerned with securing gains for their wealthy
constituents, and as long as Democratic initiatives are shaped by the "
truly advantaged wing " of the party, there is little reason to believe the steps necessary to
eradicate poverty will be taken.
"The problem is that we have a political system almost wholly captured by those
hostile to the radical redistributive agenda necessary to ameliorate the suffering poverty inflicts
in communities throughout the world's wealthiest nation."
"If we are going to spend the bulk of our public dollars on the affluent - at least when it comes
to housing - we should own up to that decision and stop repeating the canard about this rich country
being unable to afford more," Matthew Desmond
writes . "If poverty persists in America, it is not for lack of resources. We lack something
else."
In the present, we lack the mass organization necessary to launch a meaningful counter-offensive
to combat "
the scourge of neoliberalism ," a political and economic framework that atomizes individuals
who would otherwise share common objectives, undercutting avenues for democratic reform and entrenching
the power of private capital.
And, according to the latest census
figures
, the costs of our inability to challenge these institutional powers are startling: Over 46 million
Americans live in poverty; the poverty rate for children under the age of 18 is 21.1 percent. Millions,
furthermore, live in
deep poverty ; over 17 million families suffer from
food insecurity .
The problem is no longer, as it was prior to the publication of Michael Harrington's famous study
The Other America, that the poor are invisible, unseen by the political class and by those enjoying
the gains of an "
affluent
society ."
The problem is that we have a political system almost wholly captured by those
hostile to the radical redistributive agenda necessary to ameliorate the suffering poverty inflicts
in communities throughout the world's wealthiest nation. We have, in other words, a political class
that sees the poor, but does nothing in response.
"No other advanced nation,"
writes Eduardo Porter, "tolerates this depth of deprivation."
In such a context, even the election of Bernie Sanders would not have been sufficient to alter
the nature of the political and economic order. Only
labor-based mass movements sustained beyond the extravaganzas of electoral politics and working
independently of the anti-democratic forces that so dominate Washington can produce sufficient force
to create lasting change.
Such efforts will be dismissed as Utopian, unfeasible, too idealistic; they will
fail more often than
they succeed; and they will always provoke a response from those uninterested in ceding the gains
they have gone to great lengths to consolidate - they are necessary, nonetheless, given the stakes.
"Never before has humanity depended so fully for the survival of us all on a social movement being
willing to bet on impracticality,"
write Mark and Paul Engler, in a similar vein as John Dewey's
observation
, penned in the midst of the Great Depression, that it is, ultimately, "the pressure of necessity
which creates and directs all political changes."
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
Looks like Israel count of IS to serve as a counterbalancing force able to weaken Hezbollah
Notable quotes:
"... A weak IS is, counterintuitively, preferable to a destroyed IS. IS is a magnet for radicalized Muslims in countries throughout the world. These volunteers are easier targets to identify, saving intelligence work. They acquire destructive skills in the fields of Syria and Iraq that are of undoubted concern if they return home, but some of them acquire shaheed ..."
"... Furthermore, Hizballah – a radical Shiite anti-Western organization subservient to Iran – is being seriously taxed by the fight against IS, a state of affairs that suits Western interests. A Hizballah no longer involved in the Syrian civil war might engage once again in the taking of western hostages and other terrorist acts in Europe. ..."
"... The West yearns for stability, and holds out a naive hope that the military defeat of IS will be instrumental in reaching that goal. But stability is not a value in and of itself. It is desirable only if it serves our interests. The defeat of IS would encourage Iranian hegemony in the region, buttress Russia's role, and prolong Assad's tyranny. Tehran, Moscow, and Damascus do not share our democratic values and have little inclination to help America and the West. ..."
"... Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, is professor emeritus of political studies at Bar-Ilan University and a fellow at the Middle East Forum. ..."
The Destruction of Islamic State is a Strategic Mistake
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The West should seek the further weakening of Islamic State, but not
its destruction. A weak but functioning IS can undermine the appeal of the caliphate among radical
Muslims; keep bad actors focused on one another rather than on Western targets; and hamper Iran's
quest for regional hegemony.
US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter recently gathered defense ministers from allied nations to
plan what officials hope will be the decisive stage in the campaign to eradicate the Islamic State
(IS) organization. This is a strategic mistake.
IS, a radical Islamist group, has killed thousands of people since it declared an Islamic caliphate
in June 2014, with the Syrian city of Raqqa as its de facto capital. It captured tremendous international
attention by swiftly conquering large swaths of land and by releasing gruesome pictures of beheadings
and other means of execution.
But IS is primarily successful where there is a political void. Although the offensives in Syria
and Iraq showed IS's tactical capabilities, they were directed against failed states with weakened
militaries. On occasions when the poorly trained IS troops have met well-organized opposition, even
that of non-state entities like the Kurdish militias, the group's performance has been less convincing.
When greater military pressure was applied and Turkish support dwindled, IS went into retreat.
It is true that IS has ignited immense passion among many young and frustrated Muslims all over
the world, and the caliphate idea holds great appeal among believers. But the relevant question is
what can IS do, particularly in its current situation? The terrorist activities for which it recently
took responsibility were perpetrated mostly by lone wolves who declared their allegiance to IS; they
were not directed from Raqqa. On its own, IS is capable of only limited damage.
A weak IS is, counterintuitively, preferable to a destroyed IS. IS is a magnet for radicalized
Muslims in countries throughout the world. These volunteers are easier targets to identify, saving
intelligence work. They acquire destructive skills in the fields of Syria and Iraq that are of undoubted
concern if they return home, but some of them acquire shaheed status while still away –
a blessing for their home countries. If IS is fully defeated, more of these people are likely to
come home and cause trouble.
If IS loses control over its territory, the energies that went into protecting and governing a
state will be directed toward organizing more terrorist attacks beyond its borders. The collapse
of IS will produce a terrorist diaspora that might further radicalize Muslim immigrants in the West.
Most counter-terrorism agencies understand this danger. Prolonging the life of IS probably assures
the deaths of more Muslim extremists at the hands of other bad guys in the Middle East, and is likely
to spare the West several terrorist attacks.
Moreover, a weak and lingering IS could undermine the attraction of the caliphate idea. A dysfunctional
and embattled political entity is more conducive to the disillusionment of Muslim adherents of a
caliphate in our times than an IS destroyed by a mighty America-led coalition. The latter scenario
perfectly fits the narrative of continuous and perfidious efforts on the part of the West to destroy
Islam, which feeds radical Muslim hatred for everything the West stands for.
The continuing existence of IS serves a strategic purpose. Why help the brutal Assad regime win
the Syrian civil war? Many radical Islamists in the opposition forces, i.e., Al Nusra and its offshoots,
might find other arenas in which to operate closer to Paris and Berlin. Is it in the West's interests
to strengthen the Russian grip on Syria and bolster its influence in the Middle East? Is enhancing
Iranian control of Iraq congruent with American objectives in that country? Only the strategic folly
that currently prevails in Washington can consider it a positive to enhance the power of the Moscow-Tehran-Damascus
axis by cooperating with Russia against IS.
Furthermore, Hizballah – a radical Shiite anti-Western organization subservient to Iran –
is being seriously taxed by the fight against IS, a state of affairs that suits Western interests.
A Hizballah no longer involved in the Syrian civil war might engage once again in the taking of western
hostages and other terrorist acts in Europe.
The Western distaste for IS brutality and immorality should not obfuscate strategic clarity. IS
are truly bad guys, but few of their opponents are much better. Allowing bad guys to kill bad guys
sounds very cynical, but it is useful and even moral to do so if it keeps the bad guys busy and less
able to harm the good guys. The Hobbesian reality of the Middle East does not always present a neat
moral choice.
The West yearns for stability, and holds out a naive hope that the military defeat of IS will
be instrumental in reaching that goal. But stability is not a value in and of itself. It is desirable
only if it serves our interests. The defeat of IS would encourage Iranian hegemony in the region,
buttress Russia's role, and prolong Assad's tyranny. Tehran, Moscow, and Damascus do not share our
democratic values and have little inclination to help America and the West.
Moreover, instability and crises sometimes contain portents of positive change. Unfortunately,
the Obama administration fails to see that its main enemy is Iran. The Obama administration has inflated
the threat from IS in order to legitimize Iran as a "responsible" actor that will, supposedly, fight
IS in the Middle East. This was part of the Obama administration's rationale for its nuclear deal
with Iran and central to its "legacy," which is likely to be ill-remembered.
The American administration does not appear capable of recognizing the fact that IS can be a useful
tool in undermining Tehran's ambitious plan for domination of the Middle East.
Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, is professor emeritus
of political studies at Bar-Ilan University and a fellow at the Middle East Forum.
BESA Center Perspectives Papers are published through the generosity of the Greg Rosshandler Family
"... As you note, its not clear that we in the US need ANY immigration; it's hard to claim that 300 million people is not enough. If we choose to allow immigration, it should be few and strongly selective, i.e. the cream of the crop and selected to benefit the US. ..."
"... But it benefits the Mandarin class, so opposition or even debate been defined by them as heresy. It appears that the non-Mandarin class, who has to live with the downsides, is staring to reject this orthodoxy. ..."
"... We import, legally, 50,000 people (plus families IIRC) via a random visa lottery. This verges on insanity. ..."
"... H1-B applicants require a BA or equivalent, but are then selected by lottery. Hardly selected specifically for the needs of the country. In 2015, 6 of the top 10 firms by number of applications approved were Indian IT firms (i.e. outsourcing. I'm sure you are aware of the long term and recent complaints concerning direct replacement of US citizens by these workers. ..."
"... I find the system you describe which relies, by design, on perpetually importing new waves of a helot underclass to be both immoral and unsustainable. ..."
It's remarkable how rarely the immigration debate is prefaced with an explicit
prior that we should give absolute priority to what is best for the receiving
county and their citizens.
As you note, its not clear that we in the US need ANY immigration;
it's hard to claim that 300 million people is not enough. If we choose to
allow immigration, it should be few and strongly selective, i.e. the cream
of the crop and selected to benefit the US.
Its not credible to complain about low employment/population ratios,
limited wage pressures, high poverty rates, overburdened social safety nets,
limited prospects for those on the left side of the bell curve, and inequality,
and simultaneously support more immigration of the poor, unskilled, or difficult
to assimilate.
But it benefits the Mandarin class, so opposition or even debate
been defined by them as heresy. It appears that the non-Mandarin class,
who has to live with the downsides, is staring to reject this orthodoxy.
We import, legally, 50,000 people (plus families IIRC) via a random
visa lottery. This verges on insanity.
H1-B applicants require a BA or equivalent, but are then selected
by lottery. Hardly selected specifically for the needs of the country. In
2015, 6 of the top 10 firms by number of applications approved were Indian
IT firms (i.e. outsourcing. I'm sure you are aware of the long term and
recent complaints concerning direct replacement of US citizens by these
workers.
I'm in favor of significant penalties for employing illegal workers.
Yes lets debate who is going to take care of washing and changing adult
diapers on 80 million baby boomers as they deteriorate towards their final
resting place, and who is going to dig the holes if we have deported all
those who know which end of a shovel is the business end.
"... Neoliberals use the term "alt-right" as shorthand for those who don't drink the Clinton neocon Kool-Aid. ..."
"... The bigotry of warmongering neoliberals against anyone who disagrees. ..."
"... The alt.* hierarchy is a major class of newsgroups in Usenet, containing all newsgroups whose name begins with "alt.", organized hierarchically. The alt.* hierarchy is not confined to newsgroups of any specific subject or type, although in practice more formally organized groups tend not to occur in alt.*. ... (Wikipedia) ..."
"... It basically was like snorting a line of Cocaine. We keep on going back and it is getting less and less pleasurable. ..."
"... The final stage will probably be the stripping of all national function with the economy. Much like the free market intellectuals want. This will finally expose it. White's will know. The government they were taught to hate, liquidated, instead a new market state replaced. Their democracy decayed and Capitalists running international slave states instead pushing less product for their indentured servitude. Then we are right back to Bismark and Wells. ..."
The burgeoning neolib dog whistle "alt-right" is short for "a$$hole
who thinks Clinton should go to jail for 1000 times the misconduct that
would get that a$$hole 10 years hard time".
Neoliberals use the term "alt-right" as shorthand for those who don't
drink the Clinton neocon Kool-Aid.
The bigotry of warmongering neoliberals against anyone who disagrees.
Fred C. Dobbs -> anne...
(So-called 'alt groups' have been around
since the earliest days of the internet.)
The alt.* hierarchy is a major class of newsgroups in Usenet, containing
all newsgroups whose name begins with "alt.", organized hierarchically.
The alt.* hierarchy is not confined to newsgroups of any specific subject
or type, although in practice more formally organized groups tend not to
occur in alt.*. ... (Wikipedia)
Ben Groves :
There are a lot of Jews in the "Alt-Right"(aka, a Spencer invented term,
that they need to at least admit). Most have ties to neo-conservatism in
their past outside the desperate paleo types hanging on. To me, they are
"racist", but lets face it, the gentile left can just be as racist and historically,
more dangerous. Trying to be reactionary is just not a neo-liberal thing.
Fabians were quite racist as HG Wells outright said he was. Their vision
of globalism was a Eurocentric world of socialism and those 3rd world "brownies"
were setting socialism back and needed it to be enforced on them. The Nazi's
took Fabian economics and that dream to the nadir.
The problem is, the 'Alt-Right' is so upfront about it with a typical
neo-liberal economic plan. Even their "nationalism" has a * by it. Economic
Nationalism isn't just about trade deals, but a organic, cohesive flow to
the nation. Being in business isn't about stuffing your pockets, it is about
serving your country and indeed, stuff like the Epi-pen price hikes would
be considered treason. You would lower your prices or off with your head.
This, is a area where the "Alt-Right" doesn't want to do. They are not true
connies in the Bismark-ian sense. They want a nominal judeo-christianity
inside a classically liberal mindset of market expansion where white's pull
the strings. That is simply dialectical conflict. Who invented capitalism?
It was Sephardic Jews(say, unlike Communism which attracted Ashkenazi much
to Herr Weitling chagrin). Modern materialism is all things like Trump really
care about. So do his handlers like Spencer. Without the Jews, there is
no capitalism period. They financed it through several different methods
since the 1600's. Even the American Revolution was financed by them and
the founders absolutely knew where the bread was buttered. The Great Depression
was really the death rattle of the House of Rothschild and its British Empire(with
the Federal Reserve pushing on the string to completely destroy them, but
that is another post for another time). Capitalism as a system does not
work and never has worked.
It basically was like snorting a line of Cocaine. We keep on going
back and it is getting less and less pleasurable.
The final stage will probably be the stripping of all national function
with the economy. Much like the free market intellectuals want. This will
finally expose it. White's will know. The government they were taught to
hate, liquidated, instead a new market state replaced. Their democracy decayed
and Capitalists running international slave states instead pushing less
product for their indentured servitude. Then we are right back to Bismark
and Wells.
ilsm -> Ben Groves, -1
"gentile left" bigotry is founded against po' white folk who are not as
educated in the logical fallacies the limo libruls use to continue plundering
them.
Everyone is so busy calling out Trumpistas they do not see their own
"inclusive frailty".
The immigration issue is the democrats' effort to distract Donald Trump's
outreach to the black community . . .
Mr. Trump has provided enough information on immigration. He has to put
the press and everyone else on notice: "He said enough for now!!!" The "flip-flop"
issue is minor at this point.
What's important is the "black vote" as his only logical road to the
White House. Mr. Trump must make it clear to the black community that he
needs their help.
He has little time and should immediately apologize for the Republican
Party's mistake of accepting the democrats' decades of influence over the
black community.
He must confront the Democratic Party's decades of neglect of minorities
(and the poor). What's "historical" about Donald Trump" campaign is he actually
represents "racial unity."
Those supporting Trump have the common bond of "poverty." Like President
Johnson he needs to use "poverty" to overcome a preceding president's popularity.
He has as his political base "poor whites." His efforts now must focus on
"winning" the support of "poor blacks."
He has "ONE JOB" as this point if he wants to be president . . . He must
make the black community understand "the opportunity presented."
Mr. Trump must go directly to the black community (not the black establishment
political brokers) and make things "clear" that a "VOTE" for Trump is the
black community's only available opportunity for racial equality.
Likewise, Mr. Trump needs to have his "poor white" political base understand
the importance of "moving past" those things that have separated us. Mr.
Trump needs "racial unity" rallies from this point forward.
The immigration issue is how he won the primaries and it is the issue that
has made him popular with his fans. It is typically the focus of his speeches.
How can you suggest that the democrats are attempting to distract anyone
on immigration? Trump is the one who talks about it constantly.
"... Your article fails to make a clear enough distinction between legal and illegal immigration. It suggests Trump is anti-immigration and anti-immigrants - which is not the case. This is a common error in the debate. ..."
"... You are so silly. How many times has Hillary changed her mind on immigration? In fact, I am sure all of you recall a time when she suggested a fence and deportation. ..."
"... Here's Hillary in favor of a wall and deportations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DckY2dRFtxc ..."
"... Hungary and Norway way are building walls..Israel has several ..Mexico put up one for the Guatemalen exodus..in the mean time Hillarys plan for improving Jobs for Black youth is importing tens of thousand more ..."
"... One of the prime reasons for the increase in illegal immigration from Mexico was NAFTA, which ended up displacing hundreds of thousands of farm owners and millions of farm workers due to NAFTA regulations. ..."
The immigration issue is the democrats' effort to distract Donald Trump's
outreach to the black community . . .
Mr. Trump has provided enough information on immigration. He has to put
the press and everyone else on notice: "He said enough for now!!!" The "flip-flop"
issue is minor at this point.
What's important is the "black vote" as his only logical road to the
White House. Mr. Trump must make it clear to the black community that he
needs their help.
He has little time and should immediately apologize for the Republican
Party's mistake of accepting the democrats' decades of influence over the
black community.
He must confront the Democratic Party's decades of neglect of minorities
(and the poor). What's "historical" about Donald Trump" campaign is he actually
represents "racial unity."
Those supporting Trump have the common bond of "poverty." Like President
Johnson he needs to use "poverty" to overcome a preceding president's popularity.
He has as his political base "poor whites." His efforts now must focus on
"winning" the support of "poor blacks."
He has "ONE JOB" as this point if he wants to be president . . . He must
make the black community understand "the opportunity presented."
Mr. Trump must go directly to the black community (not the black establishment
political brokers) and make things "clear" that a "VOTE" for Trump is the
black community's only available opportunity for racial equality.
Likewise, Mr. Trump needs to have his "poor white" political base understand
the importance of "moving past" those things that have separated us. Mr.
Trump needs "racial unity" rallies from this point forward.
Your article fails to make a clear enough distinction between legal
and illegal immigration. It suggests Trump is anti-immigration and
anti-immigrants - which is not the case. This is a common error in the
debate.
You are so silly.
How many times has Hillary changed her mind on immigration? In fact, I am sure all of you recall a time when she suggested a fence
and deportation.
Hungary and Norway way are building walls..Israel has several ..Mexico put
up one for the Guatemalen exodus..in the mean time Hillarys plan for improving
Jobs for Black youth is importing tens of thousand more .
If they are so good why doesn't Europe take them for us..
What gets lost in all of this how the USA allowed Mexico to spiral into
the corrupt, poor country they currently are.
It's time for the US to get firm with Mexico and help them get on their
feet - which their corrupt leaders will hate, but tough shit. There is no
excuse to border the United States of America and have such poor living
standards for their people.
Although not ideal, a wall is a very direct message to Mexico's govt
that the US will not tolerate their corrupt government and drug cartels.
What's wrong with Trump changing his stance? He listened to his supporters
(most of whom think some type of amnesty is appropriate) and tweaked his
immigration plan.. *gasp*
It seems like a mature, reasonable move from an intelligent strong leader
- which Trump is.
He will be an excellent President.
One of the prime reasons for the increase in illegal immigration from Mexico
was NAFTA, which ended up displacing hundreds of thousands of farm owners
and millions of farm workers due to NAFTA regulations.
The trouble with both candidates is the Believability Factor. No mater
what they may say, it's doubtful they will do what they say. There needs
to be election laws that make ignoring campaign 'promises' once in office
impeachable.
Trump's original platform of deporting 11 million illegals isn't doable.
That would involve round-ups and incarcerations last seen in Nazi Germany.
I don't think the American people at large would stand for that.
So the spiel has been morphing into something more palatable to Joe Average.
He keeps trying to placate his base by having his surrogates assure them
that nothing has changed but it obviously has.
"... the one thing about intelligence is we should stand for truth to power-meaning we should always say what we believe, and lay the facts out, lay the tough right facts out and then you let the policymakers make the decisions that they have to make. What has happened in the last 10 years, frankly in the last 8 years, is we have seen a level of dishonesty coming out of both the policy and the decision making structure with the American people." ..."
"... Because of the President's and the Secretary of State's-among other officials in the Obama administration-unwillingness to hear all the facts, including ones they needed to but didn't want to hear, Flynn says the President has presented a narrative to the American people about the war on terrorism and radical Islamism that is simply inaccurate. ..."
"... The intelligence process starts really at the ground level, but the priorities-the priorities, Matt, for an intelligence system and the intelligence community in our country and that's the President of the United States. ..."
"... "That means infiltrating into refugee populations, that means conducting of smart information operations," Flynn said. "Most people don't know but these guys have very sophisticated information operations going on, with publications of magazines and websites. They have leaders in their groups that have thousands and thousands-I'm talking tens of thousands of followers on social media and Instagram and Twitter. ..."
"... Then I call for in the book a new 21st century alliance. This is where we really come to how we take the Arab community to task on how they plan to fix this cancerous disease inside of their own body that has metastasized and grown exponentially over the last five or six years and certainly actually over the last eight to 10 years. So it's one thing to go after the ideology, just like we went after Communism for 40 years ..."
"... He is a street savvy strategic leader type person who has a vision for this country, and he's turned it into this phrase of 'Make America Great Again.'" ..."
NEW YORK CITY, New York - Retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, who served for more than two years as
the director of President Barack Obama's Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), leveled explosive charges
against the President and his former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in an exclusive hour-long
interview with Breitbart News Daily on Friday.
Specifically, during an exclusive interview about his book
The Field of Fight , Flynn said that Obama and Clinton were not interested in hearing
intelligence that did not fit their "happy talk" narrative about the Middle East. In fact, he alleged
the administration actively scrubbed training manuals and purged from the military ranks any thinking
about the concept of radical Islamism. Flynn argued that this effort by Obama, Clinton and others
to reduce the intelligence community to gathering only facts that the senior administration officials
wanted to hear-rather than what they needed to hear-helped the enemy fester and grow, while weakening
the United States on the world stage.
"The administration has basically denied the fact that we have this problem with 'Radical Islamists,'"
Flynn said during the interview. "And this is a very vicious, barbaric enemy and I recognize in the
book that there is an alliance of countries that are dedicated basically against our way of life
and they support different groups in the Islamic movement, principally the Islamic State and formerly
Al Qaeda-although Al Qaeda still exists. The administration denied the fact that this even existed
and then told those of us in the government to basically excise the phrase 'radical Islamism' out
of our entire culture, out of our training manuals, everything. That was a big argument I had internally
and I talked a little bit about it in the Senate testimony that I gave two years back."
Later in the interview, Flynn was even more specific, calling out Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama
for not wanting to hear all the facts about what was happening in the Middle East-only some of them.
"There's a narrative that the President and his team, including Hillary Clinton, wanted to
hear-instead of having the tough news or the bad news if you will that they needed to hear," Flynn
said. "Now, there's a big difference. And the one thing about intelligence is we should stand
for truth to power-meaning we should always say what we believe, and lay the facts out, lay the
tough right facts out and then you let the policymakers make the decisions that they have to make.
What has happened in the last 10 years, frankly in the last 8 years, is we have seen a level of
dishonesty coming out of both the policy and the decision making structure with the American people."
Because of the President's and the Secretary of State's-among other officials in the Obama
administration-unwillingness to hear all the facts, including ones they needed to but didn't want
to hear, Flynn says the President has presented a narrative to the American people about the war
on terrorism and radical Islamism that is simply inaccurate.
"The President has said they're jayvee, they're on the run, they're not that strong, what difference
does it make what we call-that's being totally dishonest with the American public," Flynn said.
"There's one thing that Americans are, and we're tough, resilient people but we have to be told
the truth. I think what a lot of this is, in fact what I know a lot of it is. It's a lot of happy
talk from a President who did not meet the narrative of his political ideology or his political
decision-making process to take our country in a completely different direction and frankly that's
why I'm sitting here talking to you here today, Matt. The intelligence process starts really
at the ground level, but the priorities-the priorities, Matt, for an intelligence system and the
intelligence community in our country and that's the President of the United States. "
The Obama administration's refusal to take these threats seriously and his, Flynn said, "has allowed
an enemy that is using very smart, savvy means to impact our way of life."
"That means infiltrating into refugee populations, that means conducting of smart information
operations," Flynn said. "Most people don't know but these guys have very sophisticated information
operations going on, with publications of magazines and websites. They have leaders in their groups
that have thousands and thousands-I'm talking tens of thousands of followers on social media and
Instagram and Twitter. So we are not even allowed to go after these kinds of things right
now. This is the problem-it's a big problem. In fact, if we don't change this we're going to see
this strengthening in our homeland."
Flynn also laid out how to defeat radical Islamism, a plan he has stated repeatedly that the Obama
Administration has ignored.
"The very first thing is we have to clearly define the enemy and we have to get our own house
in order, which this administration has not done," Flynn said. "We have to figure out how are
we going to organize ourselves. Then I call for in the book a new 21st century alliance. This
is where we really come to how we take the Arab community to task on how they plan to fix this
cancerous disease inside of their own body that has metastasized and grown exponentially over
the last five or six years and certainly actually over the last eight to 10 years. So it's one
thing to go after the ideology, just like we went after Communism for 40 years , but I also
say in the book we have to crush this enemy wherever they exist. We cannot allow them to have
any safe haven. We are dancing around the sort of head of a pin, when we know these guys are in
certain places around the world and our military is not allowed to go in there and get them. The
'mother may I' has to go all the way back up to the White House."
He said the fight has to be very similar to how the United States, over decades, thoroughly degraded
Communism on the world stage.
"There's no enemy that's unbeatable," Flynn said. "We can beat any enemy. We put our minds
to it, we decide to do that, we can beat any enemy. And there's no ideology in the world that's
better than the American ideology. We should not allow, because they mask themselves behind the
religion of Islam, we should not allow our ideology, our way of life, our system of principles,
our values that are based on a Judeo-Christian set that comes right out of our Constitution-we
should not fear that. In fact, we should fight those that try to impose a different way of life
on us. That's what we did against the Nazis, that's what we did against the Communists for the
better part of a half a century-in fact, more than half a century. Now we are dealing with another
Ism, and that's radical Islamism, and we're going to have to fight it-and we're going to be fighting
it for some time. But tactically we can defeat this enemy quickly. Then what we have to do is
we have to fight the ideology, and we can do that diplomatically, politically, informationally
and we can do that in very, very smart ways much greater than we're doing right now."
Flynn is a lifelong Democrat, and again served in this senior Obama administration position for
more than two years, but is now publicly supporting Republican nominee Donald Trump for president.
He spoke at the Republican National Convention in support of Trump, and has been publicly speaking
out in favor of the GOP nominee for some time now.
"My role as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency-that's almost a 20,000 person organization
in 140 plus countries around the world," Flynn said. "I was also the senior military and intelligence
officer not only for the Defense Department but for the country. So I mean I was basically told
'hey, you know what, what you're saying we don't like. So you're out.' To Donald Trump, though,
and I haven't known him that long but I met him a year ago-in fact a year ago this month. The
conversation that we had, which was an amazing conversation, I found a guy that like I to say,
'he gets it.' He gets it. He is a street savvy strategic leader type person who has a vision
for this country, and he's turned it into this phrase of 'Make America Great Again.'"
... ... ...
LISTEN TO LT. GEN. MICHAEL FLYNN ON BREITBART NEWS DAILY ON SIRIUSXM 125 THE PATRIOT CHANNEL:
"... With polling data being quantized and plugged into sophisticated computer models allowing Clinton
to tailor her message for each region and for each venue. ..."
"... As I said before, this is likely something that is being fed to her by her no doubt well paid
consultants. ..."
"... Still, I have made an interesting observation that I wonder if you noticed. You presented two
charts, one with holding corporations accountable placed at the top, and the other placing decline in
manufacturing jobs at the top in the same position. ..."
"... They are the same network; point by point. I even compared them using paint and found them
to be a perfect match. The only difference is that one is negative and the other is positive. ..."
"... This completely misunderstand Clinton's approach to the Vulgar people of the United States,
which is: Insectionality, not intersectionality, that is the Vulgar People are treated as Insects. ..."
"... The only Intersection understood by Hilarity Clinton is the one between herself, money and
power. All else is irrelevant. ..."
"... Hillary is an intersectional feminist? ..."
"... As another untrained clown in intersectional feminism, I'm skeptical about Clinton, especially
reading Thomas Frank's description of the International Women's Day event at the Clinton Foundation
one year ago: ..."
"... Microlending is a perfect expression of Clintonism, since it brings together wealthy financial
interests with rhetoric that sounds outrageously idealistic. Microlending permits all manner of networking,
posturing, and profit taking among the lenders while doing nothing to change actual power relations-the
ultimate win-win." ..."
"... Wait a minute that tangle of buzz phrases connected helter-skelter by lines is a REAL post
from the Clinton campaign? Until I read the whole piece I thought it was well done satire. I guess The
Onion being bought out doesn't really matter much. In modern American politics satire now seems roughly
as difficult a task as exceeding the speed of light in a vacuum or measuring the position and velocity
of an electron simultaneously. ..."
DFA = Democracy for America. This was Howard Dean's organization and part of his 50 state strategies.
During non-campaign seasons, he sent campaign organizers touring the country giving short classes
on how to organize and manage a political campaign. They came to Wichita and it was something
to see, a lot of local Democratic office holders, some even in the State House had signed up.
One guy had held his house seat for 8 years and much of the information they were bringing was
completely new to him. Yes, a state level Democrat had won 4 election cycles without even knowing
the basics. This was the state of the Democratic Party back then – and is largely that way now.
Now I am going from memory here, but Clinton's "intersectional" was covered in these classes,
with at least the basic idea. The idea was to consider how different elements within your campaign
plank are connected. And where those connections are poor, to build up a rhetorical foundation
on how to address the contradictions. As I said, the idea is not to build connections between
different parts of the planks, but how to present separate planks to the voter as being relevant.
It's a good exercise, a way of organizing your issues and thinking how they all might fit together.
Now Clintion's hairball – good word by the way – likely takes it to the absurd degree.
With polling data being quantized and plugged into sophisticated computer models allowing Clinton
to tailor her message for each region and for each venue.
–KACHING- As I said before, this is likely something that is being fed to her by her no
doubt well paid consultants.
Still, I have made an interesting observation that I wonder if you noticed. You presented
two charts, one with holding corporations accountable placed at the top, and the other placing
decline in manufacturing jobs at the top in the same position.
They are the same network; point by point. I even compared them using paint and found them
to be a perfect match. The only difference is that one is negative and the other is positive.
This completely misunderstand Clinton's approach to the Vulgar people of the United States,
which is: Insectionality, not intersectionality, that is the Vulgar People are treated as Insects.
The only Intersection understood by Hilarity Clinton is the one between herself, money
and power. All else is irrelevant.
As another untrained clown in intersectional feminism, I'm skeptical about Clinton, especially
reading Thomas Frank's description of the International Women's Day event at the Clinton Foundation
one year ago:
"What this lineup suggested is that there is a kind of naturally occurring solidarity between
the millions of women at the bottom of the world's pyramid and the tiny handful of women at its
very top The mystic bond between high-achieving American professionals and the planet's most victimized
people is a recurring theme in [Hillary Clinton's] life and work What the spectacle had to offer
ordinary working American women was another story.
She enshrined a version of feminism in which liberation is, in part, a matter of taking out
loans from banks in order to become an entrepreneur the theology of microfinance Merely by providing
impoverished individuals with a tiny loan of fifty or a hundred dollars, it was thought, you could
put them on the road to entrepreneurial self-sufficiency, you could make entire countries prosper,
you could bring about economic development itself What was most attractive about microlending
was what it was not, what it made unnecessary: any sort of collective action by poor people coming
together in governments or unions The key to development was not doing something to limit the
grasp of Western banks, in other words; it was extending Western banking methods to encompass
every last individual on earth.
Microlending is a perfect expression of Clintonism, since it brings together wealthy financial
interests with rhetoric that sounds outrageously idealistic. Microlending permits all manner of
networking, posturing, and profit taking among the lenders while doing nothing to change actual
power relations-the ultimate win-win."
I'm too confused with all of this, but it sounds to me like a concept called "interlocking
systems of oppression" and your figure two seems to provide useful diagrammatic example.
The diagram offers no understanding of the intersectional dynamics of oppression, carefully
cropping out the oppressors - most of whom are Hillary backers - along with the oppressed, who
are all affected differently in their lived experiences by their particular relationship
to oppressive conditions.
Lumping these focus-tested ill conditions together with a rat's nest of undistinguished connections
misleadingly equates the interests of persons with their set of group memberships (Fascism is
Italian for bundle-ism) and sets the stage for those conditions to be traded off and weighed against
each other on net in the future. I believe this is the essence of what is called "triangulation".
Wait a minute that tangle of buzz phrases connected helter-skelter by lines is a REAL post
from the Clinton campaign? Until I read the whole piece I thought it was well done satire. I guess
The Onion being bought out doesn't really matter much. In modern American politics satire now
seems roughly as difficult a task as exceeding the speed of light in a vacuum or measuring the
position and velocity of an electron simultaneously.
ilsm ->
Chris G
...
Obama certainly did nothing to put US into the nightmare of
peace and prosperity, while Killary will threw the US into
perpetual war with bigger adversaries than Sunni goatherds.
Obama certainly did nothing to put US into the nightmare of
peace and prosperity, while Killary will threw the US into
perpetual war with bigger adversaries than Sunni goatherds.
What are US "agents" doing on the ground in Syria?
Looks like they are trying to elect Hillary.
=== quote ===
It is almost as if some journalists believe that deliberately
damaging relations with Russia is a price worth paying to
embarrass and defeat Trump. If that is so, they are
delusional.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director
of the Council for the National Interest.
Trump, Russia, and the Washington Post: Reader Beware
There's more hype than evidence in the paper's claims that
Moscow orchestrates politics in Europe and America.
By PHILIP GIRALDI
"... In a column mocking the political ignorance of the "dumbed-down" American people and lamenting the death of "objective fact," New York Times columnist Timothy Egan shows why so many Americans have lost faith in the supposedly just-the-facts-ma'am mainstream media. ..."
"... Egan states [lies] as flat fact, "If more than 16 percent of Americans could locate Ukraine on a map, it would have been a Really Big Deal when Trump said that Russia was not going to invade it - two years after they had, in fact, invaded it." ..."
"... But it is not a "fact" that Russia "invaded" Ukraine – and it's especially not the case if you also don't state as flat fact that the United States has invaded Syria, Libya and many other countries where the U.S. government has launched bombing raids or dispatched "special forces." Yet, the Times doesn't describe those military operations as "invasions." ..."
"... The Times also played down the key role of neo-Nazis and extreme nationalists in killing police before the coup, seizing government building during the coup, and then spearheading the slaughter of ethnic Russian Ukrainians after the coup. If you wanted to detect the role of these SS-wannabes from the Times' coverage, you'd have to scour the last few paragraphs of a few stories that dealt with other aspects of the Ukraine crisis. ..."
"... A growing public recognition of that mainstream bias explains why so much of the American population has tuned out supposedly "objective" news (because it is anything but objective). ..."
"... Indeed, those Americans who are more sophisticated about Russia and Ukraine than Timothy Egan know that they're not getting the straight story from the Times and other MSM outlets. Those not-dumbed-down Americans can spot U.S. government propaganda when they see it. ..."
A New York Times columnist writes Americans are so "dumbed-down" that they don't know that Russia
"invaded" Ukraine two years ago, but that "invasion" was mostly in the minds of Times editors and
other propagandists, says Robert Parry.
In
a column mocking the political ignorance of the "dumbed-down" American people and lamenting the
death of "objective fact," New York Times columnist Timothy Egan shows why so many Americans have
lost faith in the supposedly just-the-facts-ma'am mainstream media.
Egan states [lies] as flat fact, "If more than
16 percent of Americans could locate Ukraine on a map, it would have been a Really Big Deal when
Trump said that Russia was not going to invade it - two years after they had, in fact, invaded it."
But it is not a "fact" that Russia "invaded" Ukraine – and it's especially not the case if you
also don't state as flat fact that the United States has invaded Syria, Libya and many other countries
where the U.S. government has launched bombing raids or dispatched "special forces." Yet, the Times
doesn't describe those military operations as "invasions."
Nor does the newspaper of record condemn the U.S. government for violating international law,
although in every instance in which U.S. forces cross into another country's sovereign territory
without permission from that government or the United Nations Security Council, that is technically
an act of illegal aggression.
In other words, the Times applies a conscious double standard when reporting on the actions of
the United States or one of its allies (note how Turkey's recent invasion of Syria was just an "intervention")
as compared to how the Times deals with actions by U.S. adversaries, such as Russia.
Biased on Ukraine
The Times' reporting on Ukraine has been particularly dishonest and hypocritical. The Times ignores
the substantial evidence that the U.S. government encouraged and supported a violent coup that overthrew
elected President Viktor Yanukovych on Feb. 22, 2014, including a pre-coup intercepted phone call
between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt
discussing who should lead the new government and how to "midwife this thing."
The Times also played down the key role of neo-Nazis and extreme nationalists in killing police
before the coup, seizing government building during the coup, and then spearheading the slaughter
of ethnic Russian Ukrainians after the coup. If you wanted to detect the role of these SS-wannabes
from the Times' coverage, you'd have to scour the last few paragraphs of a few stories that dealt
with other aspects of the Ukraine crisis.
While leaving out the context, the Times has repeatedly claimed that Russia "invaded" Crimea,
although curiously without showing any photographs of an amphibious landing on Crimea's coast or
Russian tanks crashing across Ukraine's border en route to Crimea or troops parachuting from the
sky to seize strategic Crimean targets.
The reason such evidence of an "invasion" was lacking is that Russian troops were already stationed
in Crimea as part of a basing agreement for the port of Sevastopol. So, it was a very curious "invasion"
indeed, since the Russian troops were on scene before the "invasion" and their involvement after
the coup was peaceful in protecting the Crimean population from the depredations of the new regime's
neo-Nazis. The presence of a small number of Russian troops also allowed the Crimeans to vote on
whether to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia, which they did with a 96 percent majority.
In the eastern provinces, which represented Yanukovych's political base and where many Ukrainians
opposed the coup, you can fault, if you wish, the Russian decision to provide some military equipment
and possibly some special forces so ethnic Russian and other anti-coup Ukrainians could defend themselves
from the assaults by the neo-Nazi Azov brigade and from the tanks and artillery of the coup-controlled
Ukrainian army.
"... those Americans who are more sophisticated about Russia and Ukraine than Timothy Egan know
that they're not getting the straight story from the Times and other MSM outlets."
But an honest newspaper and honest columnists would insist on including this context. They also
would resist pejorative phrases such as "invasion" and "aggression" – unless, of course, they applied
the same terminology objectively to actions by the U.S. government and its "allies."
That sort of nuance and balance is not what you get from The New York Times and its "group thinking"
writers, people like Timothy Egan. When it comes to reporting on Russia, it's Cold War-style propaganda,
day in and day out.
And this has not been a one-off problem. The unrelenting bias of the Times and, indeed, the rest
of the mainstream U.S. news media on the Ukraine crisis represents a lack of professionalism that
was also apparent in the pro-war coverage of the Iraq crisis in 2002-03 and other catastrophic U.S.
foreign policy decisions.
A growing public recognition of that mainstream bias explains why so much of the American population
has tuned out supposedly "objective" news (because it is anything but objective).
Indeed, those Americans who are more sophisticated about Russia and Ukraine than Timothy Egan
know that they're not getting the straight story from the Times and other MSM outlets. Those not-dumbed-down
Americans can spot U.S. government propaganda when they see it.
It is unclear to what extent Trump represents a threat to Washington establishment and how easily
or difficult it would be to co-opt him. In any case "deep state" will stay in place, so the capabilities
of POTUS are limited by the fact of its existence. But comments to the article are great !
Notable quotes:
"... It goes all the way back to the collapse of the old Soviet Union and the elder Bush's historically foolish decision to invade the Persian Gulf in February 1991. The latter stopped dead in its tracks the first genuine opportunity for peace the people of the world had been afforded since August 1914. ..."
"... Instead, it reprieved the fading remnants of the military-industrial-congressional complex, the neocon interventionist camp and Washington's legions of cold war apparatchiks. All of the foregoing would have been otherwise consigned to the dust bin of history. ..."
"... And most certainly, this lamentable turn to the War Party's disastrous reign had nothing to do with oil security or economic prosperity in America. The cure for high oil is always and everywhere high oil prices, not the Fifth Fleet. ..."
"... It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed by the War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant today in the middle east and beyond. ..."
"... Indeed, prior to 1991 Bin Laden and his mujahedeen, who had been trained and armed by the CIA and heralded in the west for their help in defeating purportedly godless communism in Afghanistan, had not declaimed against American liberty, opulence and decadence. They did not come to attack our way of life as the neocon propagandists have so speciously claimed. Misguided and despicable as their attack was, it was motivated by revenge and religious fanaticism that had never previously been directed against the American people. That is, not until the Washington War Party decided to intervene in the Persian Gulf in 1991. ..."
"... Not long thereafter in 1996, these same neocon warmongers produced for newly elected Israeli prime minister, Bibi Netanyahu, the infamous document called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy For Securing The Realm". ..."
"... There were several crucial moments along the way-–the first being the sacking of Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill by the White House praetorian guard led by Karl Rove. His sin was having the audacity to say that the Afghan and Iraqi wars were going to cost trillions, and that stiff tax increases and painful entitlements cuts were the only way to make ends meet. ..."
"... The great Dwight Eisenhower left office at the height of the cold war in 1961, warning the American public about the insatiable appetites for budgets and war of the military industrial complex. At the same time, however, his final budget attested to his conviction that $450 billion in today's purchasing power (2015 $) was enough to fund the Pentagon, foreign aid and security assistance and the needs of veterans of past wars. ..."
"... Thanks to the GOP War Party and neocons we are spending more than double that amount-upwards of $900 billion-–for those same purposes today. Yet unlike the nuclear threat posed by the Soviet Union at the peak of its industrial vigor, we no longer have any industrial state enemy left on the planet; we have appropriately been fired as the world's policeman and have no need for Washington's far flung imperium of bases and naval and air power projection; and would not even be confronted with the domestic policing challenges posed by highly limited and episodic homeland terrorist tempests had Washington not turned Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and others into failed states and economic rubble. ..."
"... But here's the thing. While spending a lifetime as a real estate speculator and self-created celebrity, The Donald apparently did not have time to get mis-educated by the Council On Foreign Relations or to hob knob with the GOP inner circle in Washington and the special interest group racketeers they coddle. ..."
"... But a nation tumbling into financial and fiscal crisis will welcome the War Party purge that Trump would surely undertake. He didn't allow the self-serving busy-bodies and fools who inhabit the Council on Foreign Relations to dupe him into believing that Putin is a horrible threat; or that the real estate on the eastern edge of the non-state of the Ukraine, which has always been either a de jure or de facto part of Russia, was any of our business. Likewise, he has gotten it totally right with respect to the sectarian and tribal wars of Syria and Iraq and Hillary's feckless destruction of a stable regime in Libya. ..."
"... Besides, unlike the boy Senator from Florida who wants to be President so he can play with guns, tanks, ships and bombs, The Donald has indicated no intention of tearing up the agreement on day one in office. ..."
"... Most importantly, The Donald has essentially proclaimed the obvious. Namely, that the cold war is over and that the American taxpayers have no business subsidizing obsolete relics like NATO and ground forces in South Korea and Japan. ..."
"... At the end of the day, the reason that the neocons are apoplectic is that Trump would restore the 1991 status quo ante. The nation's self-proclaimed greatest deal-maker might even take a leaf out of Warren G. Harding's playbook and negotiate sweeping disarmament agreements in a world where governments everywhere are on the verge of fiscal bankruptcy. ..."
"... Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.... A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic thought. He is not a mere ass: he is actually ill. H. L. Mencken ..."
"... Great read Mr. Stockman, and I can only hope you are right, that Super Tuesday really triggers the demise of the Military Industrial Complex, although I seriously doubt it can be removed, replaced or dismantled that easily. ..."
"... The roots of the neocons and neolibs go so deep - multi-generational, multi-faceted, and removing their control will require Open Regime Surgery, something I don't see anyone capable of performing quite yet. Surely they are going to want their shot at being the first rulers to control the entire earth - just before the energy runs out and the planet collapses in on itself due to being hollowed out :) ..."
"... David, you are missing some fairly strong evidence that 911 was an inside job. ..."
"... As an engineer, I find it impossible to fathom that building 7, not hit by any planes and only suffering minor fires, would fall straight into its own footprint at FREEFALL SPEED. This is exactly the sort of thing you would expect ONLY from a controlled demolition. ..."
"... I think that the neocons, in their meetings regarding the "Project for a New American Century" (PNAC), needed 911 to foment, foster and facilitate a push of patriotic pathos of the American people to go to war. ..."
"... So so true. Of course this is an abridged version of history. You speak the truth to power. This never makes the news or any of the debate tables with any of the mainstream media. Why...because the media is owned by the corporations that profit from war. ..."
"... There is no more liberal media unless you watch the Young Turks. With regards to Iran. There is more to their history than...CIA's coup of 1953. From my memory the British controlled the Iranian oilfields up until 1951 when they were nationalized. Why...because the British BP oil company was cheating Iran on the profit sharing deal. So the British are out. It is 1953 and the Americans want in. 1953 the Anglo-American Coup happened and the the profit sharing began again with American oil companies with the Shaw (Shell-mobil-Exxon..I can't remember which one) Of course the American oil companies breached the deal and shorted the POS Shah who then shorted his nation. Rulers forget, poor people are pissed off people. So all this "it was the CIA" crap is baloney...They were tools for corporate America. Don't kid yourself, it was about the oil. IMO ..."
"... As Stockman points out, it seems that Washington was set on then neocon automatic pilot. The policy of the Democrats was basically a continuation of a policy started prior to Reagan presidency. Both Obama and Hillary Clinton are involved in regime change plans when we thought that Neo-cons has been shown to be a band of idiots that worked for the military industrial complex. ..."
"... In the seventies, Brzezinski advocated support for the Islamic belt with fundamentalist regimes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey. These Islamo-fascist were supposed to control the perceived enemies of Capitalism. ..."
"... Thank you Mr. Stockman for fearlessly stating the facts. As to the 1st Iraq War, and the lies on which it was based, the only other significant detail I would have mentioned is that Saddam was suckered into invading Kuwait by the bitch, April Gillespie who, at the time, was serving as his special envoy to the middle east. ..."
"... @lloydholiday Billionaire "businessman" Glen Taylor owns the influential Minneapolis newspaper. He and his idiotic neocon editorial board ENDORSED RUBIO just before the Minnesota caucuses. Rubio may have made secret promises to Taylor, whose cannot possibly separate his many business interests from Minnesota and national politics. This explanation is as likely any, how the Little Napoleon won the ONLY state he is going to win, unless Floridians are somehow swayed to raise up a man toward the Presidency who isn't qualified to be dog catcher. ..."
"... As usual concise, accurate. Bush and Shrub were phonies in thrall to the Carlyle Group and their buddies the 'Kingdom' (source and supporter of al-Quaeda) plus the pro-Israeli neocons who wanted US boots on the ground to protect Israel. The Bush duumvirate played along in this duplicitous game, which Trump called them on. Enron also played a role: Shrub let them set policy in the Stans as their consortium sought pipeline rights from the Taliban. Crooks at play in the garden of evil. ..."
"... It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed by the War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant today in the middle east and beyond. ..."
"... Mr Stockman apparently has the bad manners to speak the truth. Washington is going to be PO'd at the blatant disrespect for their BS. ..."
"... @FreeOregon It will shocked me beyond words if he survives the primaries. Far too much is at stake. In fact, 100 years of lying, cheating, and thieving, and the wealth it has produced is at stake. The Rothschild Establishment, centered in London and Tel Aviv, will not sit idly by and watch as their lucrative racket is dismantled by an up-start politician that cannot be purchased and put under their control. ..."
"... All true....finally the politicians that have run our country into the ground are exposed for the puppets of oligarchs they are...it is obvious....both parties, phony conservatives and liberals alike, are waging war on Trump because he truly threatens the status quo......it's going to get real ugly now that the powers that be are threatened.....I wouldn't fly to much if I was Trump from here on in! ..."
Wow. Super Tuesday was an earthquake, and not just because Donald Trump ran the tables. The best
thing was the complete drubbing and humiliation that voters all over America handed to the little
Napoleon from Florida, Marco Rubio.
So doing, the voters began the process of ridding the nation of the GOP War Party and its neocon
claque of rabid interventionists. They have held sway for nearly three decades in the Imperial City
and the consequences have been deplorable.
It goes all the way back to the collapse of the old Soviet Union and the elder Bush's historically
foolish decision to invade the Persian Gulf in February 1991. The latter stopped dead in its tracks
the first genuine opportunity for peace the people of the world had been afforded since August 1914.
Instead, it reprieved the fading remnants of the military-industrial-congressional complex, the
neocon interventionist camp and Washington's legions of cold war apparatchiks. All of the foregoing
would have been otherwise consigned to the dust bin of history.
Yet at that crucial inflection point there was absolutely nothing at stake with respect to the
safety and security of the American people in the petty quarrel between Saddam Hussein and the Emir
of Kuwait.
The spate, in fact, was over directional drilling rights in the Rumaila oilfield which straddled
their respective borders. Yet these disputed borders had no historical legitimacy whatsoever. Kuwait
was a just a bank account with a seat in the UN, which had been created by the British only in 1899
for obscure reasons of imperial maneuver. Likewise, the boundaries of Iraq had been drawn with a
straight ruler in 1916 by British and French diplomats in the process of splitting up the loot from
the fall of the Ottoman Empire.
As it happened, Saddam claimed that the Emir of Kuwait, who could never stop stuffing his unspeakably
opulent royal domain with more petro dollars, had stolen $10 billion worth of oil from Iraq's side
of the field while Saddam was savaging the Iranians during his unprovoked but Washington supported
1980s invasion. At the same time, Hussein had borrowed upwards of $50 billion from Kuwait, the Saudis
and the UAE to fund his barbaric attacks on the Iranians and now the sheiks wanted it back.
At the end of the day, Washington sent 500,000 US troops to the Gulf in order to function as bad
debt collectors for three regimes that are the very embodiment of tyranny, corruption, greed and
religious fanaticism.
They have been the fount and exporter of Wahhabi fanaticism and have thereby fostered the scourge
of jihadi violence throughout the region. And it was the monumental stupidity of putting American
(crusader) boots on the ground in Saudi Arabia that actually gave rise to Bin Laden, al-Qaeda, the
tragedy of 9/11, the invasion and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Patriot Act and domestic
surveillance state and all the rest of the War Party follies which have followed.
Worse still, George H.W. Bush's stupid little war corrupted the very political soul and modus
operandi of Washington. What should have been a political contest over which party and prospective
leader could best lead a revived 1920s style campaign for world disarmament was mutated into a wave
of exceptionalist jingoism about how best to impose American hegemony on any nation or force on the
planet that refused compliance with Washington's designs and dictates.
And most certainly, this lamentable turn to the War Party's disastrous reign had nothing to do
with oil security or economic prosperity in America. The cure for high oil is always and everywhere
high oil prices, not the Fifth Fleet.
Indeed, as the so-called OPEC cartel crumbles into pitiful impotence and cacophony and as the
world oil glut drives prices eventually back into the teens, there can no longer be any dispute.
The blazing oilfields of Kuwait in 1991 had nothing to do with domestic oil security and prosperity,
and everything to do with the rise of a virulent militarism and imperialism that has drastically
undermined national security.
It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed by the
War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant today in
the middle east and beyond.
Indeed, prior to 1991 Bin Laden and his mujahedeen, who had been trained and armed by the CIA
and heralded in the west for their help in defeating purportedly godless communism in Afghanistan,
had not declaimed against American liberty, opulence and decadence. They did not come to attack our
way of life as the neocon propagandists have so speciously claimed. Misguided and despicable as their
attack was, it was motivated by revenge and religious fanaticism that had never previously been directed
against the American people. That is, not until the Washington War Party decided to intervene in
the Persian Gulf in 1991.
Yes, the wholly different Shiite branch of Islam centered in Iran had a grievance, too. But that
wasn't about America's liberties and libertine ways of life, either. It was about the left over liability
from Washington's misguided cold war interventions and, specifically, the 1953 CIA coup that installed
the brutal and larcenous Shah on the Peacock Throne.
The whole Persian nation had deep grievances about that colossal injustice--a grievance that was
wantonly amplified in the 1980s by Washington's overt assistance to Saddam Hussein. Via the CIA's
satellite reconnaissance, Washington had actually helped him unleash heinous chemical warfare attacks
on Iranian forces, including essentially unarmed young boys who had been sent to the battle front
as cannon fodder.
Still, with the election of Rafsanjani in 1989 there was every opportunity to repair this historical
transgression and normalize relations with Tehran. In fact, in the early days the Bush state department
was well on the way to exactly that. But once the CNN war games in the gulf put the neocons back
in the saddle the door was slammed shut by Washington, not the Iranians.
Indeed at that very time, the re-ascendant neocons explicitly choose to demonize the Iranian regime
as a surrogate enemy to replace the defunct Kremlin commissars. Two of the most despicable actors
in the post-1991 neocon takeover of the GOP--Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz--actually penned a secret
document outlining the spurious anti-Iranian campaign which soon congealed into a full-blown war
myth.
To wit, that the Iranian's were hell bent on obtaining nuclear weapons and had become an implacable
foe of America and fountain of state sponsored terrorism.
Not long thereafter in 1996, these same neocon warmongers produced for newly elected Israeli prime
minister, Bibi Netanyahu, the infamous document called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy For Securing
The Realm".
Whether he immediately signed off an all of its sweeping plans for junking the Oslo Accords and
launching regime change initiatives against the Baathist regimes in Iraq and Syria is a matter of
historical debate. But there can be no doubt that shortly thereafter this manifesto became the operative
policy of the Netanyahu government and especially its virulent campaign to demonize Iran as an existential
threat to Israel. And that when the younger Bush took office and brought the whole posse of neocons
back into power, it became Washington's official policy, as well.
After 9/11 the dual War Party of Washington and Tel Aviv was off to the races and the US government
began its tumble toward $19 trillion of national debt and an eventual fiscal calamity. That's because
the neocon War Party sucked the old time religion of fiscal rectitude and monetary orthodoxy right
out of the GOP in the name of funding what has in truth become a trillion dollar per year Warfare
State.
There were several crucial moments along the way-–the first being the sacking of Treasury Secretary
Paul O'Neill by the White House praetorian guard led by Karl Rove. His sin was having the audacity
to say that the Afghan and Iraqi wars were going to cost trillions, and that stiff tax increases
and painful entitlements cuts were the only way to make ends meet.
Right then and there the GOP was stripped of any fiscal virginity that had survived the Reagan
era of triple digit deficits. Right on cue the contemptible Dick Cheney was quick to claim that Reagan
proved "deficits don't matter", meaning from that point forward whatever it took to fund the war
machine trumped any flickering Republican folk memories of fiscal prudence.
The great Dwight Eisenhower left office at the height of the cold war in 1961, warning the
American public about the insatiable appetites for budgets and war of the military industrial complex.
At the same time, however, his final budget attested to his conviction that $450 billion in today's
purchasing power (2015 $) was enough to fund the Pentagon, foreign aid and security assistance and
the needs of veterans of past wars.
Thanks to the GOP War Party and neocons we are spending more than double that amount-upwards
of $900 billion-–for those same purposes today. Yet unlike the nuclear threat posed by the Soviet
Union at the peak of its industrial vigor, we no longer have any industrial state enemy left on the
planet; we have appropriately been fired as the world's policeman and have no need for Washington's
far flung imperium of bases and naval and air power projection; and would not even be confronted
with the domestic policing challenges posed by highly limited and episodic homeland terrorist tempests
had Washington not turned Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and others into failed
states and economic rubble.
The Bush era War Party also committed an even more lamentable error in the midst of all of its
foreign policy triumphalism and its utter neglect of the GOP's actual purpose to function as an advocate
for sound money and free markets in the governance process of our two party democracy. Namely, it
appointed Ben Bernanke, an avowed Keynesian and big government statist who had loudly proclaimed
in favor of "helicopter money", to a Federal Reserve system that was already on the verge of an economic
coup d'état led by the unfaithful Alan Greenspan.
That coup was made complete by the loathsome bailout of Wall Street during the 2008 financial
crisis. And the latter had, in turn, been a consequence of the massive speculation and debt build-up
that had been enabled by the Fed's own policies during the prior decade and one-half.
Now after $3.5 trillion of heedless money printing and 86 months of ZIRP, Wall Street has been
transformed into an unstable, dangerous casino. Honest price discovery in the capital and money markets
no longer exists, nor has productive capital been flowing into real investments in efficiency and
growth.
Instead, the C-suites of corporate America have been transformed into stock trading rooms where
business balance sheets have been hocked to the tune of trillions in cheap debt in order to fund
stock buybacks, LBOs and M&A deals designed to goose stock prices and the value of top executive
options.
Indeed, the Fed's unconscionable inflation of the third massive financial bubble of this century
has showered speculators and the 1% with unspeakable financial windfalls that are fast creating not
only an inevitable thundering financial meltdown, but, also, a virulent populist backlash. The Eccles
Building was where the "Bern" that is roiling the electorate was actually midwifed.
And probably even the far greater political tremblor represented by The Donald, as well.
Yes, as a libertarian I shudder at the prospect of a man on a white horse heading for the White
House, as Donald Trump surely is. His rank demoguery and poisonous rhetoric about immigrants, Muslims,
refugees, women, domestic victims of police repression and the spy state and countless more are flat-out
contemptible. And the idea of building a horizontal version of Trump Towers on the Rio Grande is
just plain nuts.
But here's the thing. While spending a lifetime as a real estate speculator and self-created
celebrity, The Donald apparently did not have time to get mis-educated by the Council On Foreign
Relations or to hob knob with the GOP inner circle in Washington and the special interest group racketeers
they coddle.
So even as The Donald's election would bring on a thundering financial crash on Wall Street and
political upheaval in Washington-–the truth is that's going to happen anyway. Look at the hideous
mess that US policy has created in Syria or the incendiary corner into which the Fed has backed itself
or the fiscal projections that show we will be back into trillion dollar annual deficits as the recession
already underway reaches full force. The jig is well and truly up.
But a nation tumbling into financial and fiscal crisis will welcome the War Party purge that
Trump would surely undertake. He didn't allow the self-serving busy-bodies and fools who inhabit
the Council on Foreign Relations to dupe him into believing that Putin is a horrible threat; or that
the real estate on the eastern edge of the non-state of the Ukraine, which has always been either
a de jure or de facto part of Russia, was any of our business. Likewise, he has gotten it totally
right with respect to the sectarian and tribal wars of Syria and Iraq and Hillary's feckless destruction
of a stable regime in Libya.
Even his bombast about Obama's bad deal with Iran doesn't go much beyond Trump's ridiculous claim
that they are getting a $150 billion reward. In fact, it was their money; we stole it, and by the
time of the next election they will have it released anyway.
Besides, unlike the boy Senator from Florida who wants to be President so he can play with
guns, tanks, ships and bombs, The Donald has indicated no intention of tearing up the agreement on
day one in office.
Most importantly, The Donald has essentially proclaimed the obvious. Namely, that the cold
war is over and that the American taxpayers have no business subsidizing obsolete relics like NATO
and ground forces in South Korea and Japan.
At the end of the day, the reason that the neocons are apoplectic is that Trump would restore
the 1991 status quo ante. The nation's self-proclaimed greatest deal-maker might even take a leaf
out of Warren G. Harding's playbook and negotiate sweeping disarmament agreements in a world where
governments everywhere are on the verge of fiscal bankruptcy.
He might also come down with wrathful indignation on the Fed if its dares push toward the criminal
zone of negative interest rates. As far as I know, The Donald was never mis-educated by the Keynesian
swells at Brookings, either. No plain old businessman would ever fall for the sophistry and crank
monetary theories that are now ascendant in the Eccles Building.
When it comes to the nation's current economy wreckers-in-chief, Janet Yellen and Stanley Fischer,
he might even dust off on day one the skills he honed during 10-years on the Apprentice.
Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable....
A man full of faith is simply one who has lost (or never had) the capacity for clear and realistic
thought. He is not a mere ass: he is actually ill. H. L. Mencken
The most curious social convention of the great age in which we live is the one to the effect
that religious opinions should be respected. Its evil effects must be plain enough to everyone.
... There is, in fact, nothing about religious opinions that entitles them to any more respect
than other opinions get. On the contrary, they tend to be noticeably silly. ... No, there is nothing
notably dignified about religious ideas. They run, rather, to a peculiarly puerile and tedious
kind of nonsense. At their best, they are borrowed from metaphysicians, which is to say, from
men who devote their lives to proving that twice two is not always or necessarily four. At their
worst, they smell of spiritualism and fortune telling. Nor is there any visible virtue in the
men who merchant them professionally. Few theologians know anything that is worth knowing, even
about theology, and not many of them are honest. ... But the average theologian is a hearty, red-faced,
well-fed fellow with no discernible excuse in pathology. He disseminates his blather, not innocently,
like a philosopher, but maliciously, like a politician. In a well-organized world he would be
on the stone-pile. But in the world as it exists we are asked to listen to him, not only politely,
but even reverently, and with our mouths open. H. L. Mencken
Great read Mr. Stockman, and I can only hope you are right, that Super Tuesday really triggers
the demise of the Military Industrial Complex, although I seriously doubt it can be removed, replaced
or dismantled that easily.
The roots of the neocons and neolibs go so deep - multi-generational, multi-faceted, and
removing their control will require Open Regime Surgery, something I don't see anyone capable
of performing quite yet. Surely they are going to want their shot at being the first rulers to
control the entire earth - just before the energy runs out and the planet collapses in on itself
due to being hollowed out :)
As an engineer, I find it impossible to fathom that building 7, not hit by any planes and
only suffering minor fires, would fall straight into its own footprint at FREEFALL SPEED. This
is exactly the sort of thing you would expect ONLY from a controlled demolition.
I think that the neocons, in their meetings regarding the "Project for a New American Century"
(PNAC), needed 911 to foment, foster and facilitate a push of patriotic pathos of the American
people to go to war.
So so true. Of course this is an abridged version of history. You speak the truth to power.
This never makes the news or any of the debate tables with any of the mainstream media. Why...because
the media is owned by the corporations that profit from war.
There is no more liberal media unless you watch the Young Turks. With regards to Iran.
There is more to their history than...CIA's coup of 1953. From my memory the British controlled
the Iranian oilfields up until 1951 when they were nationalized. Why...because the British BP
oil company was cheating Iran on the profit sharing deal. So the British are out. It is 1953 and
the Americans want in. 1953 the Anglo-American Coup happened and the the profit sharing began
again with American oil companies with the Shaw (Shell-mobil-Exxon..I can't remember which one)
Of course the American oil companies breached the deal and shorted the POS Shah who then shorted
his nation. Rulers forget, poor people are pissed off people. So all this "it was the CIA" crap
is baloney...They were tools for corporate America. Don't kid yourself, it was about the oil.
IMO
BTW the Kuwaiti Royalty were friends of the Bushes.
We also did Israel a favor as Saddam was funding suicide bombers in Palestine ($20,000.00 to
the family for every suicide bomber) Arab mothers were happy to have their kids blown up for that
Saddam "reward." Ever notice how the suicide bombs ended/slowed in Israel after Saddam was deposed.
I did. Also Saddam was amassing his military on the Saudi's border at that time (Saddam wanted
Saudi oil to pay off his war debt) and so as a favor the the Saudi King (Bush's buddy) we ended
that threat. Yipee for us. This is never brought out in serious debate or news coverage. So if
someone says it was not about the oil...It was about the oil and always has been. It is all about
the oil. Oil is short for corporate cash cow money.
SD is right, Osama hated the fact that Bush's infidels were in the land of Mecca, and that
was one of the major instigators for the 9/11 attacks. Efing arrogant, ignorant Bush keeping "Merica"
safe. Clinton could have done a much better job cleaning up those King George the 1st's foreign
policy blunders, so I fault him to a degree too.
There are some good web sites that talk about this..I don't have them handy.
You are absolutely right. As Chas Freeman, who was our ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the
1991 Gulf War, has recounted, the stationing of American troops on Saudi soil in response to Saddam's
invasion of Kuwait presented a serious issue given that "[m]any Saudis interpret their religious
tradition as banning the presence of non-Muslims, especially the armed forces of nonbelievers,
on the Kingdom's soil." Shortly after the invasion, Freeman was present at a meeting between King
Fahd and Vice-President Cheney at which the King, overruling most of the Saudi royal family, agreed
to allow U.S. troops to be stationed in his country. This decision was premised on the clear understanding,
stressed by Cheney, that the American forces would be removed from Saudi Arabia once the immediate
threat from Saddam was over.
When that did not happen, Fahd faced serious domestic problems. Several prominent Muslim clerics
who objected to his policies were sent into exile, further inflaming the religious community.
More significantly for us, Osama Bin Laden began to call for the overthrow of the monarchy and
elevated his jihadist fight against the U.S. His Saudi passport was revoked for his anti-government
rhetoric, and in April 1991, threatened with arrest, he secretly departed Saudi Arabia for the
Afghanistan-Pakistan border region, never to return. The result, ten years later, was 9-11.
As Stockman points out, it seems that Washington was set on then neocon automatic pilot.
The policy of the Democrats was basically a continuation of a policy started prior to Reagan presidency.
Both Obama and Hillary Clinton are involved in regime change plans when we thought that Neo-cons
has been shown to be a band of idiots that worked for the military industrial complex.
In the seventies, Brzezinski advocated support for the Islamic belt with fundamentalist
regimes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Turkey. These Islamo-fascist were supposed to control
the perceived enemies of Capitalism.
Now, we talk 24/7 about the Islamic threat, while the Islamists are being supported by our
closest allies and elements in the deep state in Washington.
We rarely hear about the Shah of Iran and OUR CIA back in 1953. Nor about OBL and his stated reason's
for 9/11. Including the vengeful and childish bombardment of highlands behind Beirut by our terribly
expensive recommissioned Battle Ship -- Imagine the thinking behind taking that 'thing' out of
mothballs to Scare the A - rabs. Invading Grenada was Ollie North's idea to save face.
Thank you Mr. Stockman for fearlessly stating the facts. As to the 1st Iraq War, and the lies
on which it was based, the only other significant detail I would have mentioned is that Saddam
was suckered into invading Kuwait by the bitch, April Gillespie who, at the time, was serving
as his special envoy to the middle east.
@lloydholiday I lived
in MPLS. You would be amazed at how sacrificially 'liberal' they are, much like Merkel and the
deluded Germans. Minn let in thousands of Ethiopians and other Muslims who are now giving natives
a major headache, much like Europe.
The women over 30 are nearly fanatic over Black oppression, voted for Obama in droves, and
appear to be willing to sacrifice the interests of their own children in favor of aliens and minorities
(my own niece raised in Minn is a fanatic in this regard). Rubbero is a loser with a wind up tongue.
They are easily impressed by patter however inarticulate.
@lloydholiday
Billionaire "businessman" Glen Taylor owns the influential Minneapolis newspaper. He and his
idiotic neocon editorial board ENDORSED RUBIO just before the Minnesota caucuses. Rubio may
have made secret promises to Taylor, whose cannot possibly separate his many business interests
from Minnesota and national politics. This explanation is as likely any, how the Little Napoleon
won the ONLY state he is going to win, unless Floridians are somehow swayed to raise up a man
toward the Presidency who isn't qualified to be dog catcher.
As usual concise, accurate. Bush and Shrub were phonies in thrall to the Carlyle Group and
their buddies the 'Kingdom' (source and supporter of al-Quaeda) plus the pro-Israeli neocons who
wanted US boots on the ground to protect Israel. The Bush duumvirate played along in this duplicitous
game, which Trump called them on. Enron also played a role: Shrub let them set policy in the Stans
as their consortium sought pipeline rights from the Taliban. Crooks at play in the garden of evil.
It is the bombs, drones, cruise missiles and brutal occupations of Muslim lands unleashed
by the War Party that has actually fostered the massive blowback and radical jidhadism rampant
today in the middle east and beyond.
Mr Stockman apparently has the bad manners to speak the truth. Washington is going to be
PO'd at the blatant disrespect for their BS.
If the GOP disappears, there's always the brain dead Democrats. What we need is an end to both
parties. The best way to accomplish that is to cancel the entirety of the Fed Gov. Just get rid
of all of it. Let the states become countries and compete on the world stage. Let all those holding
Federal paper (the national debt) use it in their bathroom as toilet paper. Cancel the debt -
ignore it - lets start fresh with no central bank and real money based on something that the politicians
can't conjure into existence. I suggest gold and silver as history has shown that they work well.
@bill5 What I never
hear anyone state is that if we had let the Russians alone in Afghanistan this whole mess would
have never happened. Isn't that what originally allowed the Taliban and Obama bin Laden rise to
power? I though Reagan was a great president but made a catastrophic error in aligning with the
islamic insurgents against Russia . The Russians knew a radical Islamic state on their border
would be a problem and the existing Afghan government, an ally of Russia, asked them to help quell
the islamist civil war. The Russians would have ruthlessly eliminated the islamists without worrying
about causing any greenhouse gas emissions or hurting anyones feelings.
@FreeOregon It will
shocked me beyond words if he survives the primaries. Far too much is at stake. In fact, 100 years
of lying, cheating, and thieving, and the wealth it has produced is at stake. The Rothschild Establishment,
centered in London and Tel Aviv, will not sit idly by and watch as their lucrative racket is dismantled
by an up-start politician that cannot be purchased and put under their control.
All true....finally the politicians that have run our country into the ground are exposed
for the puppets of oligarchs they are...it is obvious....both parties, phony conservatives and
liberals alike, are waging war on Trump because he truly threatens the status quo......it's going
to get real ugly now that the powers that be are threatened.....I wouldn't fly to much if I was
Trump from here on in!
What is amazing is that such column was published is such a sycophantic for Hillary and openly anti-Trump
rag as NYT. In foreign policy Hillary is the second incarnation of Cheney... Neocons rules NYT coverage
of Presidential race and, of course, they all favor Hillary. Of course chances that some on neocons
who so enthusiastically support her, crossing Party lines are drafted, get M16 and send to kill brown
people for Wall Street interests now is close to zero. Everything is outsourced now. But still, it is
simply amazing that even a lonely voice against neocon campaign of demonization of Trump got published
in NYT ...
MSM shilling for Hillary is simply overwhelming, so why this was in NYT is a mystery to me. But
this article of Maureen Dowd in on spot. Simply amazing how she manage to publish it !!!
Notable quotes:
"... Hillary will keep the establishment safe. Who is more of an establishment figure, after all? Her husband was president, and he repealed Glass-Steagall, signed the Defense of Marriage Act and got rid of those pesky welfare queens. ..."
"... Hillary often seems more Republican than the Gotham bling king, who used to be a Democrat and donor to Democratic candidates before he jumped the turnstile. ..."
"... Hillary is a reliable creature of Wall Street. Her tax return showed the Clintons made $10.6 million last year, and like other superrich families, they incorporated with the Clinton Executive Services Corporation (which was billed for the infamous server). Trump has started holding up goofy charts at rallies showing Hillary has gotten $48,500,000 in contributions from hedge funders, compared to his $19,000. ..."
"... Unlike Trump, she hasn't been trashing leading Republicans. You know that her pals John McCain and Lindsey Graham are secretly rooting for her. There is a cascade of prominent Republicans endorsing Hillary, donating to Hillary, appearing in Hillary ads, talking up Hillary's charms. ..."
"... Robert Kagan, a former Reagan State Department aide, adviser to the McCain and Mitt Romney campaigns and Iraq war booster, headlined a Hillary fund-raiser this summer. Another neocon, James Kirchick, keened in The Daily Beast , "Hillary Clinton is the one person standing between America and the abyss." ..."
"... The Democratic nominee put out an ad featuring Trump-bashing Michael Hayden, an N.S.A. and CIA chief under W. who was deemed "incongruent" by the Senate when he testified about torture methods. And she earned an endorsement from John Negroponte, a Reagan hand linked to American-trained death squads in Latin America. ..."
"... Politico reports that the Clinton team sent out feelers to see if Kissinger, the Voldemort of Vietnam, and Condi Rice, the conjurer of Saddam's apocalyptic mushroom cloud, would back Hillary. ..."
"... The Hillary team seems giddy over its windfall of Republicans and neocons running from the Trump sharknado. But as David Weigel wrote in The Washington Post, the specter of Kissinger, the man who advised Nixon to prolong the Vietnam War to help with his re-election, fed a perception that "the Democratic nominee has returned to her old, hawkish ways and is again taking progressives for granted." ..."
"... Hillary is a safer bet in many ways for conservatives. Trump likes to say he is flexible. What if he returns to his liberal New York positions on gun control and abortion rights? ..."
"... Trump is far too incendiary in his manner of speaking, throwing around dangerous and self-destructive taunts about "Second Amendment people" taking out Hillary, or President Obama and Hillary being the founders of ISIS ..."
"... Hillary, on the other hand, understands her way around political language and Washington rituals. Of course you do favors for wealthy donors. And if you want to do something incredibly damaging to the country, like enabling George W. Bush to make the worst foreign policy blunder in U.S. history, don't shout inflammatory and fabricated taunts from a microphone. ..."
"... You must walk up to the microphone calmly, as Hillary did on the Senate floor the day of the Iraq war vote, and accuse Saddam of giving "aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda," repeating the Bush administration's phony case for war. If you want to carry the GOP banner, your fabrications have to be more sneaky. ..."
"... "You must walk up to the microphone calmly, as Hillary did on the Senate floor the day of the Iraq war vote, and accuse Saddam of giving "aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda," repeating the Bush administration's phony case for war." ..."
"... Anyone who believes Bill Clinton didn't know exactly what was going on is just kidding themselves. One clue, for example. They moved the WMD 'intelligence" investigation to the DOD under Paul Wolfowitz. LOL! ..."
"... Thomas Frank, the author of "What's the Matter with Kansas?" and "Listen Liberal: Or What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?" echoes Ms. Dowd's sentiments. In a recent column Frank says that with Trump certain to lose, you can forget about a progressive Clinton. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/13/trump-clinton-elec... ..."
"... "America's two-party system itself has temporarily become a one-party system. And within that one party, the political process bears a striking resemblance to dynastic succession. Come November, Clinton will have won her great victory – not as a champion of working people's concerns, but as the greatest moderate of them all." ..."
"... We've also managed to select one of biggest dissemblers, enablers, war hawks, fungible flip-floppers, pay for play con artists, scandal mongerers candidates since Tricky Dicky. Congratulations America! We did it. As Alexis de Tocqueville said, "Wet get the government we deserve." ..."
"... The reaction by many to Ms Dowd's column clearly shows that the "save the world" "lesser evil" argument only works is one is willing to suspend belief on the demonstrated evil of Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... Clinton could well take us to war against Russia. In Syria, Clinton is spoiling to give Russia a punch in the nose, on the theory that Russia will back down and the US will have a free hand there. She advocates a a no-fly zone for Russian jets in Syria. The idea there is to create a confrontation, shoot down a couple of Russian jets and teach them a lesson. There is also the CIA and Pentagon "Plan B" for the Syrian negotiations. ..."
"... It's always wonderful to see when the truth comes out in the end: Hillary is the perfect Repulican candidate and this is also prove of the fact that on finance and economic issues Democrats and old mainstream Republicans have been in in the same pocket...even under Obama. ..."
"... One night after the election on the Carson show Goldwater quipped that he didn't know how unpopular a president he would have been until Johnson adopted his policies... ..."
"... All the things you say about Hillary are true. She is an establishment favorite. She did indeed vote to support Bush and his insane desire to invade Iraq. ..."
"... Did we all forget the millions who went for Bernie and his direct and aggressive confrontation of Hillary's Wall Street/corporate ties? That was a contest between what used to be the Dem party of the people and the corporate friendly Dem party of today. We understood then that Hillary represented the Right; why the surprise now? (The right pointing arrow on the "H" logo is so appropriate.) ..."
"... There are reasons Hillary is disliked and distrusted by nearly a majority of us. My reasons are she is of and for the oligarchs and deceitful enough to run as a populist. ..."
"... America tried to liberalize in the 1960's and the response was swift and violent as three of the greatest liberal lions and voices the country has ever known - JFK, MLK and RFK - were gunned down. ..."
"... While one can endlessly argue the specific details of those ghastly assassinations of America's liberal superstars, in my view, all three of those murders rest on the violent, nefarious right-wing shoulders and fumes of moneyed American 'conservatism' that couldn't stand to share the profits of their economic parasitism with society. ..."
"... I truly believe that Congressional Republicans in the House are already drafting articles of impeachment should Hillary become President. Dowd may claim that Republicans are in lock step with her, but don't be surprised when the talk of impeachment starts soon after Jan 20, 2017. ..."
"... We need a multi party system. With 2 parties dominating the politics, its like having a monopoly of liberalism or conservatism which just does not represent the width and depth of views our citizens resonate with. Having voted democrat all my life, to me Hillary does not represent my choice (Bernie does). ..."
"... This annoys me..."like enabling George W. Bush to make the worst foreign policy blunder in U.S. history" Maureen is talking about Hillary, but she might as well be talking about her own newspaper. Hillary got it wrong, but so did the New York Times editorial board. ..."
"... The Bush Administration hinted that the anti-war people were traitors and terrorist sympathizers and everybody got steamrolled. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/22/opinion/culture-war-with-b-2-s.html ..."
"... HRC couldn't have asked for a better opponent if she'd constructed him out of a six-foot pile of mildewed straw. By running against Trump, the whole Trump and nothing but the Trump, and openly courting neocon war criminals and "establishment" Republicans, she's outrageously giving CPR to what should have been a rotting corpse of a political party by now. ..."
"... By giving new life to the pathocrats who made Trump possible, Clinton is only making her own party weaker and more right-wing, only making it easier for down-ticket Republicans to slither their way back into power.... the better to triangulate with during the Clinton restoration. Grand Bargain, here we come. TPP, (just waiting for that fig leaf of meager aid for displaced American workers) here we come. Bombs away. ..."
"... She'll have to stop hoarding her campaign cash and share it with the down-ticket Democrats running against the same well-heeled GOPers she is now courting with such naked abandon. ..."
"... The Empress needs some new clothes to hide that inner Goldwater Girl. ..."
All these woebegone Republicans whining that they can't rally behind their flawed candidate is
crazy. The G.O.P. angst, the gnashing and wailing and searching for last-minute substitutes and exit
strategies, is getting old. They already have a 1-percenter who will be totally fine in the Oval
Office, someone they can trust to help Wall Street, boost the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, cuddle with
hedge funds, secure the trade deals beloved by corporate America, seek guidance from Henry Kissinger
and hawk it up - unleashing hell on Syria and heaven knows where else.
The Republicans have their candidate: It's Hillary. They can't go with Donald Trump. He's too
volatile and unhinged. The erstwhile Goldwater Girl and Goldman Sachs busker can be counted on to
do the normal political things, not the abnormal haywire things. Trump's propounding could drag us
into war, plunge us into a recession and shatter Washington into a thousand tiny bits.
Hillary will keep the establishment safe. Who is more of an establishment figure, after all?
Her husband was president, and he repealed Glass-Steagall, signed the Defense of Marriage Act and
got rid of those pesky welfare queens.
Pushing her Midwestern Methodist roots, taking advantage of primogeniture, Hillary often seems
more Republican than the Gotham bling king, who used to be a Democrat and donor to Democratic candidates
before he jumped the turnstile.
Hillary is a reliable creature of Wall Street. Her tax return showed the Clintons made $10.6
million last year, and like other superrich families, they incorporated with the Clinton Executive
Services Corporation (which was billed for the infamous server). Trump has started holding up goofy
charts at rallies showing Hillary has gotten $48,500,000 in contributions from hedge funders, compared
to his $19,000.
Unlike Trump, she hasn't been trashing leading Republicans. You know that her pals John McCain
and Lindsey Graham are secretly rooting for her. There is a cascade of prominent Republicans endorsing
Hillary, donating to Hillary, appearing in Hillary ads, talking up Hillary's charms.
Robert Kagan, a former Reagan State Department aide, adviser to the McCain and Mitt Romney
campaigns and Iraq war booster, headlined a Hillary fund-raiser this summer. Another neocon, James
Kirchick,
keened in The Daily Beast , "Hillary Clinton is the one person standing between America and the
abyss."
She has finally stirred up some emotion in women, even if it is just moderate suburban Republican
women palpitating to leave their own nominee, who has the retro air of a guy who just left the dim
recesses of a Playboy bunny club.
The Democratic nominee put out an ad featuring Trump-bashing Michael Hayden, an N.S.A. and
CIA chief under W. who was deemed "incongruent" by the Senate when he testified about torture
methods. And she earned an endorsement from John Negroponte, a Reagan hand linked to American-trained
death squads in Latin America.
Politico reports that the Clinton team sent out feelers to see if Kissinger, the Voldemort
of Vietnam, and Condi Rice, the conjurer of Saddam's apocalyptic mushroom cloud, would back Hillary.
Hillary has written that Kissinger is an "idealistic" friend whose counsel she valued as secretary
of state, drawing a rebuke from Bernie Sanders during the primaries: "I'm proud to say Henry Kissinger
is not my friend."
The Hillary team seems giddy over its windfall of Republicans and neocons running from the
Trump sharknado. But as
David Weigel wrote in The Washington Post, the specter of Kissinger, the man who advised Nixon
to prolong the Vietnam War to help with his re-election, fed a perception that "the Democratic nominee
has returned to her old, hawkish ways and is again taking progressives for granted."
And
Isaac Chotiner wrote in Slate, "The prospect of Kissinger having influence in a Clinton White
House is downright scary."
Hillary is a safer bet in many ways for conservatives. Trump likes to say he is flexible.
What if he returns to his liberal New York positions on gun control and abortion rights?
Trump is far too incendiary in his manner of speaking, throwing around dangerous and self-destructive
taunts about "Second Amendment people" taking out Hillary, or President Obama and Hillary being the
founders of ISIS. And he still blindly follows his ego, failing to understand the fundamentals
of a campaign. "I don't know that we need to get out the vote," he told Fox News Thursday. "I think
people that really wanna vote are gonna get out and they're gonna vote for Trump."
Hillary, on the other hand, understands her way around political language and Washington rituals.
Of course you do favors for wealthy donors. And if you want to do something incredibly damaging to
the country, like enabling George W. Bush to make the worst foreign policy blunder in U.S. history,
don't shout inflammatory and fabricated taunts from a microphone.
You must walk up to the microphone calmly, as Hillary did on the Senate floor the day of the
Iraq war vote, and accuse Saddam of giving "aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al
Qaeda," repeating the Bush administration's phony case for war. If you want to carry the GOP banner,
your fabrications have to be more sneaky.
As
Republican strategist Steve Schmidt noted on MSNBC, "the candidate in the race most like George
W. Bush and Dick Cheney from a foreign policy perspective is in fact Hillary Clinton, not the Republican
nominee."
And that's how Republicans prefer their crazy - not like Trump, but like Cheney.
JohnNJ, New jersey August 14, 2016
For me, this is her strongest point:
"You must walk up to the microphone calmly, as Hillary did on the Senate floor the day
of the Iraq war vote, and accuse Saddam of giving "aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including
Al Qaeda," repeating the Bush administration's phony case for war."
There are still people who believe her excuse that she only voted for authorization, blah,
blah, blah.
Anyone who believes Bill Clinton didn't know exactly what was going on is just kidding
themselves. One clue, for example. They moved the WMD 'intelligence" investigation to the DOD
under Paul Wolfowitz. LOL!
Red_Dog , Denver CO August 14, 2016
Thomas Frank, the author of "What's the Matter with Kansas?" and "Listen Liberal: Or What
Ever Happened to the Party of the People?" echoes Ms. Dowd's sentiments. In a recent column Frank
says that with Trump certain to lose, you can forget about a progressive Clinton.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/13/trump-clinton-elec...
"America's two-party system itself has temporarily become a one-party system. And within
that one party, the political process bears a striking resemblance to dynastic succession. Come
November, Clinton will have won her great victory – not as a champion of working people's concerns,
but as the greatest moderate of them all."
And great populist uprising of our times will be gone --- probably for many years.
FDR Liberal , Sparks, NV August 14, 2016
Spot on column Ms. Dowd.
As Americans we are to blame that these two major party candidates are the only viable ones
seeking the presidency. Yes, fellow citizens we are to blame because in the end we are the ones
that voted for them in various primaries and caucuses. And if you didn't attend a caucus or vote
in a primary, you are also part of problem.
In short, it is not the media's fault, nor is it the top .1%, 1% or 10% fault, nor your kids'
fault, nor your parents' fault, nor your neighbors' fault, etc.
It is our fault because we did this together. Yes, we managed y to select a narcissist, xenophobe,
anti-Muslim, racist, misogynist, and dare I say buffoon to the GOP ticket.
We've also managed to select one of biggest dissemblers, enablers, war hawks, fungible
flip-floppers, pay for play con artists, scandal mongerers candidates since Tricky Dicky. Congratulations
America! We did it. As Alexis de Tocqueville said, "Wet get the government we deserve."
Martin Brod, NYC August 14, 2016
The reaction by many to Ms Dowd's column clearly shows that the "save the world" "lesser
evil" argument only works is one is willing to suspend belief on the demonstrated evil of Hillary
Clinton.
The Green Party and Libertarian parties provide sane alternatives to the two most distrusted
candidates of the major parties. As debate participants they
would offer an alternative to evil at a time when the planets count-down clock is racing to mid-night.
pathenry, berkeley August 14, 2016
Clinton could well take us to war against Russia. In Syria, Clinton is spoiling to give
Russia a punch in the nose, on the theory that Russia will back down and the US will have a free
hand there. She advocates a a no-fly zone for Russian jets in Syria. The idea there is to create
a confrontation, shoot down a couple of Russian jets and teach them a lesson. There is also the
CIA and Pentagon "Plan B" for the Syrian negotiations.
If the negotiations fail, give stingers to our "vetted allies". Who will those stingers be
used against? Russia. At least the ones not smuggled to Brussels. And then there is the plan being
bandied about by our best and brightest to organize, arm and lead our "vetted allies" in attacks
on Russian bases in Syria. A Bay of Pigs in the desert. A dime to a dollar, Clinton is supportive
of these plans.
All of this is dangerous brinksmanship which is how you go to war.
Mike A. , East Providence, RI August 14, 2016
The second Pulitzer quality piece from the NYT op-ed columnists in less than a month (see Charles
Blow's "Incandescent With Rage" for the first).
heinrich zwahlen , brooklyn August 14, 2016
It's always wonderful to see when the truth comes out in the end: Hillary is the perfect
Repulican candidate and this is also prove of the fact that on finance and economic issues Democrats
and old mainstream Republicans have been in in the same pocket...even under Obama.
For real progressives it's useless to vote for her and high time to start a new party. Cultural
issues are not the main issues that pain America, it's all about the money stupid.
JohnD, New York August 14, 2016
... One night after the election on the Carson show Goldwater quipped that he didn't know
how unpopular a president he would have been until Johnson adopted his policies...
Lee Elliott , Rochester August 14, 2016
You've written the most depressing column I've read lately. All the things you say about
Hillary are true. She is an establishment favorite. She did indeed vote to support Bush and his
insane desire to invade Iraq. But it was that vote kept her from being president in 2008.
Perhaps that will convince her to keep the establishment a little more at arm's length. When there
is no other behind for them to kiss, then you can afford to be a little hard to get.
As for Trump, he is proving to be too much like Ross Perot. He looks great at first but begins
to fade when his underlying lunacy begins to bubble to the surface.
Speaking of Perot, I find it an interesting coincidence that Bill Clinton and now Hillary Clinton
will depend on the ravings of an apparent lunatic in order to get elected.
citizen vox, San Francisco August 14, 2016
Why the vitriol against Dowd? Did we all forget the millions who went for Bernie and his
direct and aggressive confrontation of Hillary's Wall Street/corporate ties? That was a contest
between what used to be the Dem party of the people and the corporate friendly Dem party of today.
We understood then that Hillary represented the Right; why the surprise now? (The right pointing
arrow on the "H" logo is so appropriate.)
Last week's article on how Hillary came to love money was horrifying; because Bill lost a Governor's
race, Hillary felt so insecure she called all her wealthy friends for donations. Huh?! Two Harvard
trained lawyers asking for financial help?! And never getting enough money to feel secure?! GIVE
ME A BREAK (to coin a phrase).
There are reasons Hillary is disliked and distrusted by nearly a majority of us. My reasons
are she is of and for the oligarchs and deceitful enough to run as a populist.
If readers bemoan anything, let it be that the populist movement of the Dem party was put down
by the Dem establishment. We have a choice between a crazy candidate of no particular persuasion
and a cold, calculating Republican. How discouraging.
Thanks, Maureen Dowd.
Chris, Louisville August 14, 2016
Maureen please don't ever give up on Hillary bashing. It needs to be done before someone accidentally
elects her as President. She is most like Angela Merkel of Germany. Take a look what's happening
there. That is enough never to vote for Hillary.
Susan e, AZ August 14, 2016
I recall the outrage I, a peace loving liberal who despised W and Cheney, felt while watching
the made for TV "shock and awe" invasion of Iraq. I recall how the"liberal Democrats" who supported
that disaster with a vote for the IRW could never quite bring themselves to admit their mistake
- and I realized that many, like Hillary, didn't feel it was a mistake. Not really. It was necessary
for their political careers.
For me, its not a vote for Hillary, its a vote for a candidate that sees killing innocent people
in Syria (or Libya, or Gaza, etc.) as the only way to be viewed as a serious candidate for CIC.
I'm old enough to remember another endless war, as the old Vietnam anti-war ballad went: "I ain't
gonna vote for war no more."
John, Switzerland August 14, 2016
Maureen Dowd is not being nasty, but rather accurate. It is nasty to support and start wars
throughout the ME. It is nasty to say (on mic) "We came, we saw, he died" referring to the gruesome
torture-murder of Qaddafi.
Will Hillary start a war against Syria? Yes or no? That is the the "six trillion dollar" question.
Socrates , is a trusted commenter Downtown Verona, NJ August 13, 2016
It's hard to a find a good liberal in these United States, not because there's anything wrong
with liberalism or progressivism, but because Americans have been taught, hypnotized and beaten
by a powerfully insidious and filthy rich right-wing to think that liberalism, progressivism and
socialism is a form of fatal cancer.
America tried to liberalize in the 1960's and the response was swift and violent as three
of the greatest liberal lions and voices the country has ever known - JFK, MLK and RFK - were
gunned down.
While one can endlessly argue the specific details of those ghastly assassinations of America's
liberal superstars, in my view, all three of those murders rest on the violent, nefarious right-wing
shoulders and fumes of moneyed American 'conservatism' that couldn't stand to share the profits
of their economic parasitism with society.
The end result is that political liberals are forced to triangulate for their survival in right-wing
America, and you wind up with Presidents like Bill Clinton and (soon) Hillary Clinton who know
how to survive in a pool of right-wing knives, assassins and psychopaths lurking everywhere representing
Grand Old Profit.
... ... ...
Dotconnector, New York August 14, 2016
The trickery deep within the dark art of Clintonism is triangulation. By breeding a nominal
Democratic donkey with a de facto Republican elephant, what you get is a corporatist chameleon.
There's precious little solace in knowing that this cynical political hybrid is only slightly
less risky than Trumpenstein.
And the fact that Henry Kissinger still has a seat at the table ought to chill the spine of
anyone who considers human lives -- those of U.S. service members and foreign noncombatants alike
-- to have greater value than pawns in a global chess game.
Bj, is a trusted commenter Washington,dc August 13, 2016
I truly believe that Congressional Republicans in the House are already drafting articles
of impeachment should Hillary become President. Dowd may claim that Republicans are in lock step
with her, but don't be surprised when the talk of impeachment starts soon after Jan 20, 2017.
They didn't succeed with Bill. And they were chomping at the bit to try to impeach Obama
over his use of executive orders and his decision not to defend an early same sex marriage case.
They are just waiting for inauguration to start this process all over again - another circus and
waste of taxpayer money.
petey tonei, Massachusetts August 14, 2016
Two party system is not enough for a country this big, with such a wide spectrum of political
beliefs. We need a multi party system. With 2 parties dominating the politics, its like having
a monopoly of liberalism or conservatism which just does not represent the width and depth of
views our citizens resonate with. Having voted democrat all my life, to me Hillary does not represent
my choice (Bernie does). Heard on NPR just today from on the ground reporters in Terre Haute,
Indiana, the bellwether of presidential elections, the 2 names that were most heard were Trump
and Bernie Sanders, not Hillary. Sadly, Bernie is not even the nominee but he truly represents
the guts, soul of mid America
Schrodinger, is a trusted commenter Northern California August 14, 2016
This annoys me..."like enabling George W. Bush to make the worst foreign policy blunder
in U.S. history" Maureen is talking about Hillary, but she might as well be talking about her
own newspaper. Hillary got it wrong, but so did the New York Times editorial board.
What about Ms Dowd herself? Of the four columns she wrote before the vote on October 11th,
2002, only two mentioned the war vote, and one of those was mostly about Hillary. Dowd said of
Hillary that, "Whatever doubts she may have privately about the war, she is not articulating her
angst as loudly as some of her Democratic colleagues. She knows that any woman who hopes to be
elected president cannot have love beads in her jewelry case."
In her column 'Culture war with B-2's', Dowd comes out as mildly anti-war. "Don't feel bad
if you have the uneasy feeling that you're being steamrolled", Dowd writes, "You are not alone."
Fourteen years later that column still looks good, and I link to it at the bottom. However, Dowd
could and should have done a lot more. I don't think that anybody who draws a paycheck from the
New York Times has a right to get on their high horse and lecture Hillary about her vote. They
ignored the antiwar protests just like they ignored Bernie Sanders' large crowds.
Karen Garcia , is a trusted commenter New Paltz, NY August 13, 2016
HRC couldn't have asked for a better opponent if she'd constructed him out of a six-foot
pile of mildewed straw. By running against Trump, the whole Trump and nothing but the Trump, and
openly courting neocon war criminals and "establishment" Republicans, she's outrageously giving
CPR to what should have been a rotting corpse of a political party by now.
By giving new life to the pathocrats who made Trump possible, Clinton is only making her
own party weaker and more right-wing, only making it easier for down-ticket Republicans to slither
their way back into power.... the better to triangulate with during the Clinton restoration. Grand
Bargain, here we come. TPP, (just waiting for that fig leaf of meager aid for displaced American
workers) here we come. Bombs away.
With three months to go before this grotesque circus ends, Trump is giving every indication
that he wants out, getting more reckless by the day. And that's a good thing, because with her
rise in the polls, Hillary will now have to do more on the stump than inform us she is not Trump.
She'll have to ditch the fear factor. She'll have to start sending emails and Tweets with something
other than "OMG! Did you hear what Trump just said?!?" on them to convince voters.
She'll have to stop hoarding her campaign cash and share it with the down-ticket Democrats
running against the same well-heeled GOPers she is now courting with such naked abandon.
The Empress needs some new clothes to hide that inner Goldwater Girl.
"... The "neocons" believe American greatness is measured by our willingness to be a great power-through vast and virtually unlimited global military involvement. Other nations' problems invariably become our own because history and fate have designated America the world's top authority. ..."
"... neoconservatism has always been sold through the narrative of America's "greatness" or "exceptionalism." This is essentially the Republican Party's version of the old liberal notion promoted by President Woodrow Wilson that it is America's mission to "make the world safe for democracy." (meaning for international corporations). Douthat describes Rubio as the "great neoconservative hope" because the freshman senator is seen by the neocon intelligentsia as one of the few reliable Tea Party-oriented spokesman willing to still promote this ideology to the GOP base. I say "still" because many Republicans have begun to question the old neocon foreign policy consensus that dominated Bush's GOP. Douthat puts the neoconservatives' worries and the Republicans' shift into context... ..."
"... Almost to a man they have done everything possible to avoid serving in the military as have their children. ..."
"... The problem with the neoconservatives isn't that they flog American exceptionalism, it's that they aren't really Americans. ..."
"... Your piece leaves out three important threads in understanding neoconservatives. First, the movement was started by and is largely populated by Jews. The so-called "father of the neoconservative movement" was Irving Kristol, the father of William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard. Another prominent founder was Norman Podhoretz, who succeeded the elder Kristol as editor of Commentary. Many of the most prominent neoconservatives are Jewish: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, etc., etc. ..."
"... " For the neoconservatives, religion is an instrument of promoting morality. Religion becomes what Plato called a noble lie. It is a myth which is told to the majority of the society by the philosophical elite in order to ensure social order… In being a kind of secretive elitist approach, Straussianism does resemble Marxism. These ex-Marxists, or in some cases ex-liberal Straussians, could see themselves as a kind of Leninist group, you know, who have this covert vision which they want to use to effect change in history, while concealing parts of it from people incapable of understanding it." ..."
"... Neoconservatives started out as Scoop Jackson Democratic Hawks. The several that I know well enough to know their non-war views are pretty much conventional Democrats in that they are pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-immigration, pro-big government. ..."
"... Their shift to the Republicans was tactical when they, led by Richard Perle, got their foot in the door of the Pentagon under Reagan. Under Bush 2, they completed the process and more-or-less took over the DoD. ..."
"... Neocons are mostly Zionist who put Israel interest above that of their country the USA. The majority are chicken hawks who never served a day in the military and have no problem sending other people kids to fight their wars. ..."
"... What's a neoconservative? An unrepentant Trotskyite, who recognized that Marxism wasn't the viable way to take over the world and so now proudly (and openly) pledges allegiance to America but always keeps Israel first in his heart. ..."
"... Exceptional is something I would hope other countries would say about us without having to remind them or ourselves. It's a form of group narcissism to keep bringing it up to convince ourselves our actions are just. ..."
"... What a fascinating article. The last paragraph was particularly smack on. When I spoke to a conservative friend recently, I was inflamed about our hyper-sized military and our overseas adventures as an example of very big government. ..."
"... The only thing I said in response was that he should take his 18 year old son by the arm and require him to sign up for the military to fight the battles he thinks we should be fighting. His response: "but he would rather go to college". I then reminded him that no American soldier has died for my freedom in my lifetime (I am 49 years old). That seemed to rankle him because the neocon argument concerning national defense requires that you buy into the propaganda that these soldiers are fighting for our freedom as a nation. ..."
"... Wish neoconservatism was a philosophy, but its not, only a bait-and-switch sales pitch for the military industrial complex. Since Scoop Jackson, the senator from Boeing, America's political-police-the-world crowd has been the complex's marketing firm. ..."
"... All work to keep the US government spending billions of dollars on mostly irrelevant military items. None seriously care about national defense: that's why no heads rolled when our billion-dollar air defense was helpless to protect the Pentagon against a small group of Muslem fanatics with box cutters. ..."
"... Re "American exceptionalism:" I am sixty-seven years old. When I was a child, my Dad (A Mustang officer), told me that the United States was exceptional for reason that the privileges of aristocracy in Europe were the ordinary civil rights of common equals here. ..."
"... They stand ready to compromise or to countenance disagreement on almost any strictly parochial American social or economic concern, so long as their foreign policy and other "high political" objectives are met. ..."
"... I had forgotten that I saved a copy of a book review by David Gordon that appeared in TAC this past October, entitled "Neoconservatism Defined." Actually, it is a combined review of two books, and it is a pretty good introduction to neoconservatism. http://www.amconmag.com/blog/anatomy-of-neoconservatism/ ..."
"... "Most, though certainly not all, of the leading neocons are Jewish and the defense of Israel is central to their political concerns." ..."
"... The neocons of the second age did not quit the Democratic Party until, after prolonged struggle, they had failed to take it over. They then discovered in the rising popularity of Ronald Reagan a new strategy to advance their goals; but even when Reagan and his aides received them warmly, many found it distinctly against the grain to vote for a Republican. Once they had overcome this aversion, the neocons proved able markedly to expand their political power and influence. Nevertheless, some neocons found Reagan insufficiently militant. For Norman Podhoretz, a literary critic who imagined himself a foreign policy expert, Reagan became an appeaser reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain. "In 1984-85, however, Podhoretz finally lost hope in his champion; he … lamented the president's desire to do whatever it took to present himself to Europeans and above all to American voters as a 'man of peace,' ready to negotiate with the Soviets." ..."
"... The "national greatness" neocons of our day continue the pattern of their second age predecessors in their constant warnings of peril and calls for a militant response. They do not apply the law of unintended consequences to foreign policy: skepticism about the efficacy of government action ends at the doors to the Pentagon." ..."
"... If military hostilities were actually going on in Libya, it certainly would be easy to distinguish between the offensive opponent (all the foreign countries operating under the NATO umbrella and firing all the missiles into Libya and dropping all the bombs on Libyan forces loyal to Qaddafi) and the defensive opponent (the Libyan forces loyal to Qaddafi, the nominal leader of Libya). ..."
"... What troubles me is that "Neoconservatism" has become mainstream Republicanism. In fact Ronald Reagan was perhaps the first Neocon president. And it looks as if the Tea Party has been hijacked by Palin, Bachmann and Rubio et al . Trying to change the Republican party from within simply will not work -- for Neocons don't just control the Republican party, they ARE the Republican party. We need a third party that overtly champions fiscal and social conservatism and international isolationism as its three main pillars! ..."
"... Gil, the GOP leadership may be neocon, but the grassroots are more or less non-interventionist. We see the same split on immigration. I think its too early to give up on the party. ..."
"... In 2011, a neoconservative is the person who always answers yes to the question "Are Israel's objectives always more important than the objectives of the USA?" ..."
"... They all believe in projecting US military might in order to foster democracy overseas. They ultimately seem to care more about the welfare of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Iraq and, Afghanistan than the United States. ..."
"... What bothers me is what we consider "mainstream" conservatism today in the form of talk radio, Rush, and others is basically a neconservative movement. ..."
"... It never ceases to amazes me why any true conservative would go any where near a member of the Bush administration and yet Sean has Rove and others on his show routinely when a case can be made that they should stand trial for being responsible for the abuse of those detainees. I have been student of the Holocaust my entire life and to see some of the circumstances of pre war Germany unfold in front of me, the "we have to take these steps in the name of defending the country" the dehumanizing of the muslims which made it easy to justify torturing them, it is all so very scary. ..."
This is a jingoistic political ideology of the Us elite preached by Killary and characterized
by an emphasis on free-market capitalism and an interventionist foreign policy.
The "neocons" believe American greatness is measured by our willingness to be a great power-through
vast and virtually unlimited global military involvement. Other nations' problems invariably become
our own because history and fate have designated America the world's top authority.
Critics say the US cannot afford to be the world's policeman. Neoconservatives not only say that
we can but we must-and that we will cease to be America if we don't. Writes Boston Globe neoconservative
columnist Jeff Jacoby: "Our world needs a policeman. And whether most Americans like it or not, only
their indispensable nation is fit for the job." Neocon intellectual Max Boot says explicitly that
the US should be the world's policeman because we are the best policeman.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) heartily champions the neoconservative view.
...neoconservatism has always been sold through the narrative of America's "greatness" or "exceptionalism."
This is essentially the Republican Party's version of the old liberal notion promoted by President
Woodrow Wilson that it is America's mission to "make the world safe for democracy." (meaning for
international corporations). Douthat describes Rubio as the "great neoconservative hope" because
the freshman senator is seen by the neocon intelligentsia as one of the few reliable Tea Party-oriented
spokesman willing to still promote this ideology to the GOP base. I say "still" because many Republicans
have begun to question the old neocon foreign policy consensus that dominated Bush's GOP. Douthat
puts the neoconservatives' worries and the Republicans' shift into context...
...But this has always been the neocon ruse-if neoconservatives can convince others that fighting
some war, somewhere is for America's actual defense, they will always make this argument and stretch
any logic necessary to do so. Whether or not it is true is less important than its effectiveness.
But their arguments are only a means to an end. Neoconservatives rarely show any reflection-much
less regret-for foreign policy mistakes because for them there are no foreign policy mistakes. America's
wars are valid by their own volition. America's "mission" is its missions. Writes Max Boot: "Why
should America take on the thankless task of policing the globe… As long as evil exists, someone
will have to protect peaceful people from predators."
Neoconservatives are primarily socially liberal hawks. Almost to a man they have done everything
possible to avoid serving in the military as have their children. Next to liberals they are the
greatest danger to our country.
Re "American exceptionalism". I thought America was exceptional until it started acting like any
old cynical, corrupt, doomed empire. It's silly to go about boasting of your exceptionalism even
as you repeat every hackneyed error of your predecessors, and trade your true character for a
handful of dust.
The problem with the neoconservatives isn't that they flog American exceptionalism, it's that
they aren't really Americans.
In 2011, a neoconservative is the person who always answers yes to the question "Are Israel's
objectives always more important than the objectives of the USA?"
Folks will say this is unfair and a gross distortion of reality, if not in fact a bigoted assertion,
but can you name any current neoconservative who is oppossed to US support for Israel? Or even
just wants tosee it reduced a bit. I suspect not.
On domestic issues, there's a greater range of variation across the neocon spectrum, but, unlike
the case back in the middle 70s when we first began to hear of this troubling new breed of political
apostates in the making, it's clear that foreign policy is of much greater importance to the neocons
than is domestic policy.
By the middle eastern sympathiesyou shall know them.
"My father suggested to me recently that it might be helpful to better explain what the term "neoconservative"
means. "A lot of people don't know," he said. As usual, Dad was right."
One of those people who didn't know what a "neoconservative" was is our former President, George
W. Bush. I remember reading somewhere that, when he was running for President in the late 90's,
George W. asked his father what a neoconservative was, and George H. W. replied that he had only
to remember one word to understand what a neoconservative was: Israel.
Your piece leaves out three important threads in understanding neoconservatives. First,
the movement was started by and is largely populated by Jews. The so-called "father of the neoconservative
movement" was Irving Kristol, the father of William Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard.
Another prominent founder was Norman Podhoretz, who succeeded the elder Kristol as editor of Commentary.
Many of the most prominent neoconservatives are Jewish: Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton,
etc., etc.
Secondly, the roots of neoconservatism traces back to very liberal political leanings, bordering
on socialism and even communism. The elder Kristol was a Trotskyite into his 20's. That would
explain their tendency to favor a strong central government, which, of course, allows them to
exert their influence more effectively despite their small numbers. It is also consistent with
the views of Leo Strauss, one of the great intellectual shapers of neoconservatism. According
to an account by a former neoconservative:
" For the neoconservatives, religion is an instrument of promoting morality. Religion becomes
what Plato called a noble lie. It is a myth which is told to the majority of the society by the
philosophical elite in order to ensure social order… In being a kind of secretive elitist approach,
Straussianism does resemble Marxism. These ex-Marxists, or in some cases ex-liberal Straussians,
could see themselves as a kind of Leninist group, you know, who have this covert vision which
they want to use to effect change in history, while concealing parts of it from people incapable
of understanding it."
Thirdly, as evidenced by the George H.W. Bush comment above, a strong underlying belief that
seems to unite the neoconservatives is in the perceived need, above all, to make the world safe
for Israel.
Great piece Jack! Neoconservatives started out as Scoop Jackson Democratic Hawks. The several
that I know well enough to know their non-war views are pretty much conventional Democrats in
that they are pro-abortion, pro-gay, pro-immigration, pro-big government.
Their shift to the Republicans
was tactical when they, led by Richard Perle, got their foot in the door of the Pentagon under
Reagan. Under Bush 2, they completed the process and more-or-less took over the DoD.
I expect
they are now triangulating frantically to determine if it in their best interests to remain nominally
Republicans or to slowly drift back to their natural habitat in the Democratic Party.
Neocons are mostly Zionist who put Israel interest above that of their country the USA. The
majority are chicken hawks who never served a day in the military and have no problem sending
other people kids to fight their wars.
let us not forget the distinction of constitutional authority for past interventions and the "now
in violation of the war powers act" Lybian effort. Those who call themselves conservatives, neo-con
or otherwise would do well to refer to their pocket constitution they claim to follow and carry.
Criticism of fellow party members who constitutionally oppose these interventions employ the same
hate-mongering tactics of the left. Silence the opposition at any cost and never stop feeding
the federal leviathan. Thanks to Church and Wilkow for the education.
What's a neoconservative? An unrepentant Trotskyite, who recognized that Marxism wasn't the viable
way to take over the world and so now proudly (and openly) pledges allegiance to America but always
keeps Israel first in his heart.
Exceptional is something I would hope other countries would say about us without having to
remind them or ourselves. It's a form of group narcissism to keep bringing it up to convince ourselves
our actions are just.
How about some American humility? More Gary Cooper and less Richard Simmons.
What a fascinating article. The last paragraph was particularly smack on. When I spoke to
a conservative friend recently, I was inflamed about our hyper-sized military and our overseas
adventures as an example of very big government.
The kind that he, as a conservative, should oppose. His retort, of course, was that national
security is one of the constitutional purposes of our government. There it is. This friend really
thinks that Iraq, Libya, our 1000's of bases all over the world, is what national defense is all
about. With his argument, there is literally no limit to the size of the military or the scope
of its mission. The neocons have defined it that way.
The only thing I said in response was that
he should take his 18 year old son by the arm and require him to sign up for the military to fight
the battles he thinks we should be fighting. His response: "but he would rather go to college".
I then reminded him that no American soldier has died for my freedom in my lifetime (I am 49 years
old). That seemed to rankle him because the neocon argument concerning national defense requires
that you buy into the propaganda that these soldiers are fighting for our freedom as a nation.
Wish neoconservatism was a philosophy, but its not, only a bait-and-switch sales pitch for
the military industrial complex. Since Scoop Jackson, the senator from Boeing, America's political-police-the-world
crowd has been the complex's marketing firm.
All work to keep the US government spending billions of dollars on mostly irrelevant military
items. None seriously care about national defense: that's why no heads rolled when our billion-dollar
air defense was helpless to protect the Pentagon against a small group of Muslem fanatics with
box cutters.
Worse, the military industrial complex will be entrenched until serious elected officials,
in the tradition of Dwight Eisenhower, create a peacetime economy to replace our warfare state.
Until then, too much money, too many jobs in America depend on the complex.
Re "American exceptionalism:" I am sixty-seven years old. When I was a child, my Dad (A
Mustang officer), told me that the United States was exceptional for reason that the privileges
of aristocracy in Europe were the ordinary civil rights of common equals here.
If I believe in "national greatness," by that I mean a nation of great- soul people,
the kind Aristotle calls megalopsychic .
"On domestic issues, there's a greater range of variation across the neocon spectrum,"
True, but then domestic issues cause a dull glaze to form over neoconservative eyes. They stand
ready to compromise or to countenance disagreement on almost any strictly parochial American social
or economic concern, so long as their foreign policy and other "high political" objectives are
met.
Revolutions are internal matters of a country … the revolution in Gypto was successful internally
… people were not killed, cities were not bombed, war was not raged, outside countries didn't
send their forces … whatever was done … it was within the country and by the people … without
outside support … that's a revolution.
Look at the massacre they are carrying out in Tibby … you call that a revolution man … you
call that an operation for the people?
Strictly speaking, a neoconservative, is a member of the traditional FDR coalition (unions, minorities
– including Catholics, Jews and African Americans, even Southern whites) who flipped to the Republican
party and some element of conservative ideology back in the 1970s. As a former FDR Democrat, Ronald
Reagan had elements of neoconservatism in his past.
And social liberalism is far from neocon orthodoxy. People like Gertrude Himmelfarb and John
Neuhaus were at the forefront of neoconservatism. Jeane Kirpatrick, by no means a wobbly or wimpy
neoconservative, had roots in socialist activism together with Irving Kristol and the like. Indeed,
losing its conservative moral sensibilities helped drive the Democratic Party mad.
It is only relatively recently that a few – but hardly all – Boom generation neocons such as
David Frum and David Brooks also contracted the same form of mental illness. Otherwise, this group
has become largely indistinguishable from the Republican mainstream, which draws its roots from
Roosevelt, Lincoln, Henry Clay and Alexander Hamilton.
Of course, with the onset of southern neocons with states rights and libertarian ideology,
the demographic advances of the GOP in the late 20th century imported Civil War divisions into
the party, a theme that Kevin Phillips has – sadistically – played upon. Still, one might well
say that there is nothing wrong with neoconservatism except for its detractors. Down with the
Traitor. Up with the Star.
A "great" power can be and is often less than a "good" power. So, the Neoconservatives manifesto
mandates foreign policy from the top – down! Who then, is there that stands – up for and represents,"We
the People"?
I had forgotten that I saved a copy of a book review by David Gordon that appeared in TAC
this past October, entitled "Neoconservatism Defined." Actually, it is a combined review of two
books, and it is a pretty good introduction to neoconservatism.
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/anatomy-of-neoconservatism/
In the course of the review, Gordon makes the following observation:
"Most, though certainly not all, of the leading neocons are Jewish and the defense of Israel
is central to their political concerns."
One of the books concentrates on the intellectual founder of neoconservatism, Leo Strauss,
and the review makes some consise observations about him.
David Gordon's book review also contains the following observations:
"No one who absorbs Vaïsse's discussion of this second age can harbor any illusions about whether
the neocons count as genuine conservatives. [Senator Henry] Jackson made no secret of his statist
views of domestic policy, but this did not in the least impede his neocons allies from enlisting
in his behalf.
Vaïsse by the way understates Jackson's commitment to socialism, which dated from
his youth. Contrary to what our author suggests, the League for Industrial Democracy, which Jackson
joined while in college, was not "a moderate organization that backed unions and democratic principles."
It was a socialist youth movement that aimed to propagate socialism to the public.
It was not Jackson's domestic policy, though, that principally drew the necons to him. They
had an elective affinity for the pursuit of the Cold War. Vaïsse stresses in particular that they
collaborated with Paul Nitze and other Cold War hawks. In a notorious incident, "Team B," under
the control of the hawks, claimed that CIA estimates of Russian armaments were radically understated.
It transpired that the alarms of Team B were baseless; they nevertheless served their purpose
in promoting a bellicose foreign policy.
The neocons of the second age did not quit the Democratic Party until, after prolonged struggle,
they had failed to take it over. They then discovered in the rising popularity of Ronald Reagan
a new strategy to advance their goals; but even when Reagan and his aides received them warmly,
many found it distinctly against the grain to vote for a Republican. Once they had overcome this
aversion, the neocons proved able markedly to expand their political power and influence. Nevertheless,
some neocons found Reagan insufficiently militant. For Norman Podhoretz, a literary critic who
imagined himself a foreign policy expert, Reagan became an appeaser reminiscent of Neville Chamberlain.
"In 1984-85, however, Podhoretz finally lost hope in his champion; he … lamented the president's
desire to do whatever it took to present himself to Europeans and above all to American voters
as a 'man of peace,' ready to negotiate with the Soviets."
The "national greatness" neocons of our day continue the pattern of their second age predecessors
in their constant warnings of peril and calls for a militant response. They do not apply the law
of unintended consequences to foreign policy: skepticism about the efficacy of government action
ends at the doors to the Pentagon."
"U.S. troops would enforce peace under Army study"
Excerpt:
The exercise was done by 60 officers dubbed "Jedi Knights," as all second-year SAMS students
are nicknamed.
The SAMS paper attempts to predict events in the first year of a peace-enforcement operation,
and sees possible dangers for U.S. troops from both sides.
It calls Israel's armed forces a "500-pound gorilla in Israel. Well armed and trained. Operates
in both Gaza and the West Bank. Known to disregard international law to accomplish mission. Very
unlikely to fire on American forces. Fratricide a concern especially in air space management."
Of the MOSSAD, the Israeli intelligence service, the SAMS officers say: "Wildcard. Ruthless
and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act."
This would have had some point 200 years ago. Unfortunately, cannon now shoot more than three miles,
the 3 mile limit on national sovereignty is obsolete. You cannot distinguish between an offensive
and defensive opponent.
"You cannot distinguish between an offensive and defensive opponent."
If military hostilities were actually going on in Libya, it certainly would be easy to distinguish
between the offensive opponent (all the foreign countries operating under the NATO umbrella and
firing all the missiles into Libya and dropping all the bombs on Libyan forces loyal to Qaddafi)
and the defensive opponent (the Libyan forces loyal to Qaddafi, the nominal leader of Libya).
Nice article! I believe that what constitutes a neoconservative has changed over the years. Sure,
in an academic sense, a "neoconservative" is someone who might have supported Scoop Jackson in
Washington or Strauss at U of Chicago in the 70's- in essence, someone with democratic roots who
became more hawkish on foreign policy.
However, most conservative pundits- Rush, Hannity, Beck,
etc, support projecting US power in order to achieve Democracy overseas. As do Bachmann, Palin,
Romney, Gingrich, Boener, Perry and most other establishment Republicans.
They all supported war
in Afghanistan and Iraq, all support Saudi Arabia, Israel, Kuwait, Bahrain, and big oil, and all
fundamentally decry any attempt to cut the US military budget.
What troubles me is that "Neoconservatism"
has become mainstream Republicanism. In fact Ronald Reagan was perhaps the first Neocon president.
And it looks as if the Tea Party has been hijacked by Palin, Bachmann and Rubio et al . Trying
to change the Republican party from within simply will not work -- for Neocons don't just control
the Republican party, they ARE the Republican party. We need a third party that overtly champions
fiscal and social conservatism and international isolationism as its three main pillars!
Gil, the GOP leadership may be neocon, but the grassroots are more or less non-interventionist.
We see the same split on immigration. I think its too early to give up on the party.
By the way, I don't consider RR a neocon President. Along with Eisenhower, he was the most
non interventionist prez in recent history.
WE HAVE A WINNER!;
'Steve, on June 23rd, 2011 at 11:10 am Said:
Oh, come on guys.
In 2011, a neoconservative is the person who always answers yes to the question "Are Israel's
objectives always more important than the objectives of the USA?"
Sure, much of the grassroots is non-interventionist, although many, many Evangelicals support
the Likud party in Israel for biblical reasons, and those Republicans who listen regularly to
Neocons like Hannity and Limbaugh and Dennis Miller, or watch Krauthammer, Kristol and O'Reilly
are influenced to support an interventionist foreign policy. Here is the problem! How can you
change the Republican party from within when the Tea Party Caucus is headed by an interventionist
Neocon like Michelle Bachmann?
Ronald Reagan was a semi-isolationist. Except, of course, for bombing Libya, stationing troops
in Lebanon, and docking the 6th fleet in Israel. Sorry, I know many people consider him a saint,
and on both fiscal and social issues he was wonderful. But let's face it- Reagan was a former
democratic Union head who became a conservative later on in life and projected US power overseas
when it wasn't necessary. A Neocon? At least 75%
A neoconservative as an actual social phenomenon – free from intellectual definition – is from the
social upheaval of the 'spirit of the 60's'. With all their socialism and revolution against white-western-protestant
civilization.
You are fundamentally correct with respect to the origins of most Neoconservative "intellectuals."
However, definitions morph and change over time until their origins become so cloudy as to be
practically irrelevant. Let's get real - how many young people know that Bill Kristol's dad used
to be a Socialist? How many people even know who Bill Kristol is or Scoop Jackson was?
Ultimately one can only judge people by their actions. And, in my definition, anyone who ACTS
like a Neoconservative- or puts others in harm's way in order to further their expansionist aims-
IS a Neoconservative.
And we will never win our battle against the Neoconservatives unless we
call things as they are, without getting bogged down in biographical details about people and
philosophers who nobody ever hears about. So, while David Frum, Bill Kristol, Sean Hannity, Rush
Limbaugh, Lindsay Graham Michelle Bachmann and just about every modern republican congressman
or senator or conservative think tank member inside the Washington Beltway may never have been
hippies in the 60's, and almost all can claim to have been lifelong conservatives, 99% are Neoconservatives
because their ACTIONS define who they are.
They all believe in projecting US military might in
order to foster democracy overseas. They ultimately seem to care more about the welfare of Israel,
Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Iraq and, Afghanistan than the United States.
What bothers me is what we consider "mainstream" conservatism today in the form of talk radio,
Rush, and others is basically a neconservative movement.
What I would consider true conservatism
you find here in TAC and also in the Libertarian publications like Reason and Liberty but the
reach of talk radio and the neocon blogs seems to be far greater than that of real conservatives
and the neocons appear to be setting the agenda these days. It is nothing short of appalling isn't
it to see "conservatives" defending torture and the secret prisons run under the Bush administration,
all in the name of "defending" the country.
It never ceases to amazes me why any true conservative
would go any where near a member of the Bush administration and yet Sean has Rove and others on
his show routinely when a case can be made that they should stand trial for being responsible
for the abuse of those detainees. I have been student of the Holocaust my entire life and to see
some of the circumstances of pre war Germany unfold in front of me, the "we have to take these
steps in the name of defending the country" the dehumanizing of the muslims which made it easy
to justify torturing them, it is all so very scary.
"... people need to realize what they read is not the truth.. words can and are used to deceive... propaganda seems to be one of the central roles of all media at this point in time... folks need to beware of this.. ..."
"... Mark Twain said that if you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you're misinformed. ..."
"... Do not pay attention to the fact the emperor has no clothes. Just look at this other guy!" ..."
"... Will we USAians ever wake up to 9/11 => Afghanistan => Iraq => Libya => Syria => Ukraine => Yemen ... ..."
"... How many innocents have 'our' emperors - Bush XLI, Clinton XLII, Bush XLIII, Obama XLIV, coming soon? Clinton XLV - killed in the runup to and execution of series of criminal aggressions post-9/11? Two million? If Clinton sets the world on fire the numbers will rise by two orders of magnitude. ..."
"... There have been rumours that the US government was helping to bankroll certain social media companies in return for access. I would say that the US government will step in and potentially rescue NYT and the like from being closed down. They serve an intrinsic and important service to the elite. They will not abandon it. ..."
"... The CIA has bankrolled many startups ... maybe they could take out ads for Raytheon and General Atomic products, run US military/CIA recruitment ads? Pay for placement of articles like Mark Sleboda 's, 'The Turkish Invasion Of Syria As Path To "Regime Change"'? ..."
"... The NYTimes going bellyup ... happened to the Washington Post and the WSJ. Maybe Eric Schmidt will buy it? Or Rupert Murdoch. ..."
"... I wonder if the CIA bankrolled Rupert Murdoch? The CIA took out a $500 million data storage contract with Amazon just before Bezos bought the WaPo. Come to think of it, having control of the WaPo, WSJ, and NYTimes archives would be just what Dr. Orwell ordered. Mark Sleboda could then work for the MiniTrue, revising the past as required. ..."
"... Like all psychopaths, they have a one-track mind that doesn't allow an effective strategy when it comes to bipedal meat units. Their answer to convincing you of their lies is to proffer more outrageous lies. It's kind of like the newspapers fighting declining advertising revenue by making the print smaller, stuffing the paper with more ads at higher rates and raising the price for a printed newspaper. Damn it, why won't you monkeys OBEY! ..."
"... That's an excellent point, b. I don't even remember the last time I've read anything truthful in any western MSM outlet. Almost everything is a spin of various degree. NYT is one of worst offenders, so another lying piece is not at all surprising. ..."
"... From the Wikipedia article Factoid : The term was coined in 1973 by American writer Norman Mailer to mean a "piece of information that becomes accepted as a fact even though it's not actually true, or an invented fact believed to be true because it appears in print." ..."
"... This is a basic tool of Western mainstream propaganda. Sprinkle every article full of "factoids" or small lies. These lies are not about the core topic of article, so they are unlikely to be challenged. Their only purpose is to enforce the narrative and demonize the enemy. When small lies or "lielets" are repeated often enough, they become factoids, meaning that they are no longer recognized as lies. ..."
The New York Times is desperate for new readers and therefore tries to branch into the
realm of The Onion and other satirical sites. It attempts to show that allegedly Russia
controlled media spread false stories for political purpose - by providing a false media story. The
purpose of the NYT doing such is yours to guess.
The sourcing of
that Page 1 story is as weak as its content. It starts with claiming that opponents of Sweden
joining NATO must be somehow Russia related and are spreading false stories:
As often happens in such cases, Swedish officials were never able to pin down the source of the
false reports.
Duh! But it must have been Russia. Because Swedish internal opposition to joining NATO would be
incapable of opining against it. Right? Likewise anti-EU reports and opposition to the EU within
the Czech Republic MUST be caused by Russian disinformation and can in now way be related to mismanagement
of the EU project itself.
The sourcing for the whole long pamphlet is extremely weak:
But they, numerous analysts and experts in American and European intelligence
point to Russia as the prime suspect, noting that preventing NATO expansion is a centerpiece of
the foreign policy of President Vladimir V. Putin, who invaded Georgia in 2008
largely to forestall that possibility.
Whoa! "Experts in American and European intelligence" can of course be trusted not to ever spread
false stories or rumors about Russia influencing "news". Such truth tellers they are and have always
been.
Then follows, in a claim about false stories(!) spread by Russia, that factually false claim that
Russia "invaded Georgia in 2008". It was obvious in the very first hours of the Georgia war,
as we then noted
, that Georgia started it. A European Union commission later
confirmed that it was
Georgia, incited by the Bush government, that started the war. The NYT itself
found
the same . All Russia did was to protect the areas of South Ossetia and Abchazia that it was
officially designated to protect by the United Nations! No invasion of Georgia took place.
And what was the alleged reason that Russia "invaded" Georgia for? "Largely to forestall".."NATO
expansion"? But it was NATO that
rejected Georgia's membership
in April 2008. Why then would Russia "invade" Georgia in August 2008 to prevent a membership
that was surely not gonna happen?
Utter a-historic nonsense.
The who tale, written by Neil MacFarquhar
, is a long list of hearsay where Russia is claimed to have influenced news but without
ever showing any evidence.
the extensive cooperation between the New York Times and the CIA with spying as well as with
manipulating foreign news
the acknowledged spreading of false stories about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq an behalf
of the Bush administration by the NY Times itself.
As Carl Bernstein
described in his
book about the CIA and the media:
Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the [Central Intelligence] Agency were
Williarn Paley of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Henry Luce of Tirne Inc., Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times
, Barry Bingham Sr. of the LouisviIle Courier‑Journal,
and James Copley of the Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA
include the American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press,
United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps‑Howard, Newsweek magazine, the
Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald‑Tribune.
By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been
with the New York Times , CBS and Time Inc.
Bernstein shows that the NYT cooperation with the U.S. government and its intelligence agencies
was very extensive and continues uninterrupted up to today.
To lament about alleged Russian influence on some news outlets while writing a disinformation
filled piece, based on "experts in American and European intelligence", for an outlet with proven
CIA cooperation in faking news, is way beyond hypocrisy.
Through this piece the NYT becomes its own parody. Did the author and editors recognize that?
Or are they too self-unconscious for even such simple insight?
Posted by b on August 29, 2016 at 11:04 AM |
Permalink
thanks b... people need to realize what they read is not the truth.. words can and are used
to deceive... propaganda seems to be one of the central roles of all media at this point in time...
folks need to beware of this..
Although, NYT, is bleeding and is losing audience, I am amazed that it is still in print. The
Guardian is posting loss in millions of pounds, and that is what I expect NYT to be doing.
"Do not pay attention to the fact the emperor has no clothes. Just look at this other guy!" That
seems to be the official US opinion on Russia as expressed by the Clinton campaign, the NYT, and
the other usual suspects purveying official US propaganda.
An amusing thing about the NYT's is the most-emailed/read lists, which are almost always well
represented by articles such as "what to cook this weekend" and "48hrs in Tulsa." This is often
despite the steady stream of heady world events. My take is that most readers of the Times want
to be seen/known as Times readers, but would really prefer to be reading tabloids. The difference
is becoming less obvious by the day.
One small quibble with this: But it was NATO that rejected Georgia's membership in April 2008.
. That April meeting did not really reject Georgia's membership. The discussion was just postponed
to a later meeting. It wasn't until after Russia thrashed Georgia in August that the US took the
membership issue off the table.
@3 wbl, "Do not pay attention to the fact the emperor has no clothes. Just look at this other
guy!"
That's the answer isn't it?
Will we USAians ever wake up to 9/11 => Afghanistan => Iraq => Libya => Syria => Ukraine
=> Yemen ...
How many innocents have 'our' emperors - Bush XLI, Clinton XLII, Bush XLIII, Obama XLIV,
coming soon? Clinton XLV - killed in the runup to and execution of series of criminal aggressions
post-9/11? Two million? If Clinton sets the world on fire the numbers will rise by two orders
of magnitude.
Don't look at Trump! Don't look at Me! Look at Vladimir, behind the tree!
Ya gotta wanna believe. How many USAians still wanna believe?
There have been rumours that the US government was helping to bankroll certain social media
companies in return for access. I would say that the US government will step in and potentially
rescue NYT and the like from being closed down. They serve an intrinsic and important service
to the elite. They will not abandon it.
It's been amusing to watch this electoral season as the Times has dropped all pretense of objectivity.
While actual news accounts continue to lightly pepper the broadsheet, the headlines, article placement
and, most importantly, what falls before and after the fold is so transparently partisan one is
increasingly startled to find well reported and honest journalism.
I remember back in the first Intifada when Abe Rosenthal had Palestinian youth throwing soviet
made rocks while he glossed Sabra and Shatila massacres. The Times was pretty "Onion"y then, but
the political coverage this year makes me weep for my country as what little good left in it chokes
on growing torrents of BS, obfuscation, prevarication and bombast.
The CIA has bankrolled many startups ... maybe they could take out ads for Raytheon and
General Atomic products, run US military/CIA recruitment ads? Pay for placement of articles like
Mark Sleboda 's, 'The Turkish Invasion Of Syria As Path To "Regime Change"'?
The NYTimes going bellyup ... happened to the Washington Post and the WSJ. Maybe Eric Schmidt
will buy it? Or Rupert Murdoch.
I wonder if the CIA bankrolled Rupert Murdoch? The CIA took out a $500 million data storage
contract with Amazon just before Bezos bought the WaPo. Come to think of it, having control of
the WaPo, WSJ, and NYTimes archives would be just what Dr. Orwell ordered. Mark Sleboda could
then work for the MiniTrue, revising the past as required.
jsn@12: do you really think that objectivity of NYT exhibits seasonal variation? Like neutral
to positive stories about Russia between Easter and Passover, and a more usual dreck for the rest
of the year?
There is still difference between NYT and tabloids. This is the most recent article in NY Post
about Russia in NY Post:
Putin is gobbling up whatever he can – while Obama does nothing
By Benny Avni August 17, 2016 | 8:22pm.
As Americans focus on who'll replace President Obama, Russian strongman Vladimir Putin marches
around the globe unabated, rushing to gobble up anything and everything he can before the new
president...
Are we already in the second of the four stages to victory?
I don't know much about the MSM, and even less about H. Clinton, but what was that all about
with the speech she made concerning the "alt-right"? Who in their right mind would bring to the
mainstream attention the existence of a body of contradictory writing?
Is it the same thing here with NYT? Is the sheer prevalence of opposing opinion from its readers
forcing the MSM - led by flagship NYT - to turn and address the phenomenon?
I could not have dared to hope we could already be at stage 2:
First they ignore you.
Then they ridicule you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.
--Gandhi
Grieved@17 - I'm going to argue we're at stage 2.5, Grieved. DDOS attacks on RT and Sputnik, 'managed'
Google search rankings, censored tweets, NSA on your desktop/cellphone. The powers that be and
western MSM are having a conniption fit and they are very angry.
Like all psychopaths, they have a one-track mind that doesn't allow an effective strategy
when it comes to bipedal meat units. Their answer to convincing you of their lies is to proffer
more outrageous lies. It's kind of like the newspapers fighting declining advertising revenue
by making the print smaller, stuffing the paper with more ads at higher rates and raising the
price for a printed newspaper. Damn it, why won't you monkeys OBEY!
Piotr@14,
The season to which I refer is, as I said, the electoral one!
The Times blows (or is it sucks?) very much with the political weather, though regretfully
our elections now blow for long enough to constitute multiple seasons proper.
I've long suspected that light seasoning of truth they sprinkle beneath the fold or deep inside
is there so that when the bogosity of one of their major narratives periodically explodes they
can scrape thin truths from the back pages and later paragraphs to claim the've been reporting
the truth all along!
That's an excellent point, b. I don't even remember the last time I've read anything truthful
in any western MSM outlet. Almost everything is a spin of various degree. NYT is one of worst
offenders, so another lying piece is not at all surprising.
Russia invading Georgia in 2008 fits the definition of factoid , as defined by Norman Mailer
in 1973:
From the Wikipedia article
Factoid : The term was coined in 1973 by American writer Norman Mailer to mean a "piece
of information that becomes accepted as a fact even though it's not actually true, or an invented
fact believed to be true because it appears in print."
This is a basic tool of Western mainstream propaganda. Sprinkle every article full of "factoids"
or small lies. These lies are not about the core topic of article, so they are unlikely to be
challenged. Their only purpose is to enforce the narrative and demonize the enemy. When small
lies or "lielets" are repeated often enough, they become factoids, meaning that they are no longer
recognized as lies.
"... As disgusted and determined as we might be, we still have to operate within the 'neoliberal' system. We are all 'us' in this context and we are all a product of our environment to some extent. however crap that environment might be. ..."
"... Combined with offshoring of as many jobs abroad as possible, free movement of unskilled workers and the use of agency labour to undercut pay and conditions, the future looks bleak. ..."
"... There is nothing meritocratic about neoliberlaism. Its about who you know. ..."
"... I understand what you say, and there is definitely an element within society which values Success above all else, but I do not personally know anyone like that. ..."
"... .....By "us" of course, you mean commies. I think you are inadvertently demonstrating another of Hares psychopath test features; a lack of empathy and self awareness. ..."
"... I've worked in a few large private companies over the years, and my experience is they increasingly resemble some sort of cult, with endless brainwashing programmes for the 'members', charismatic leaders who can do no wrong, groupthink, mandatory utilisation of specialist jargon (especially cod-psychological terminology) to differentiate those 'in' and those 'out', increased blurring of the lines between 'private' and 'work' life (your ass belongs to us 24-7) and of course, constant, ever more complex monitoring of the 'members' for 'heretical thoughts or beliefs'. ..."
"... And the most striking idea here: Our characters are partly moulded by society. And neo-liberal society, and it's illusions of freedom, has moulded many of us in ways that bring out the worst in us. ..."
"... Neo-liberalism has however killed off post war social mobility. In fact according to the OECD report into social mobility, the more egalitarian a developed society is, the more social mobility there is, the more productivity and the less poverty and social problems there are. ..."
As disgusted and determined as we might be, we still have to operate within the 'neoliberal'
system. We are all 'us' in this context and we are all a product of our environment to some extent.
however crap that environment might be.
There are constant laments about the so-called loss of norms and values in our culture.
Yet our norms and values make up an integral and essential part of our identity. So they cannot
be lost, only chaned
If you have no mandate for such change, it breeds resentment.
For example, race & immigration was used by NuLabour in a blatant attempt at mass societal
engineering (via approx 8%+ increase in national population over 13 years).
It was the most significant betrayal in modern democratic times, non mandated change extraordinaire,
not only of British Society, but the core traditional voter base for Labour.
To see people still trying to deny it took place and dismiss the fallout of the cultural elephant
rampaging around the United Kingdom is as disingenuous as it is pathetic.
It's a race to the bottom, and has lead to such "success stories" as G4S, Serco, A4E, ATOS, Railtrack,
privatised railways, privatised water and so on.
It's all about to get even worse with TTIP, and if that fails there is always TISA which mandates
privatisation of pretty much everything - breaking state monopolies on public services.
Combined with offshoring of as many jobs abroad as possible, free movement of unskilled
workers and the use of agency labour to undercut pay and conditions, the future looks bleak.
A neoliberal meritocracy would have us believe that success depends on individual effort
and talents
There is nothing meritocratic about neoliberlaism. Its about who you know. In the
UK things have gone backwards almost to the 1950s. Changes which were brought about by the expansion
of universities have pretty much been reversed. The establishment - politics, media, business
is dominated by the better=off Oxbridge elite.
It is difficult for me to agree. I have grown up within Neoliberalism being 35, but you describe
no one I know. People I know weigh up the extra work involved in a promotion and decide whether
the sacrifice is worth the extra money/success.
People I know go after their dreams, whether that be farming or finance. I understand what
you say, and there is definitely an element within society which values Success above all else,
but I do not personally know anyone like that.
He's saying people's characters are changed by their environment. That they aren't set in stone,
but are a function of culture. And that the socio-cultural shift in the last few decades is a
bad thing, and is bad for our characters. In your words: The dreams have changed.
It's convincing, except it isn't as clear as it could be.
I understand his principle but as proof, he sites very specific examples...
A highly skilled individual who puts parenting before their career comes in for criticism.
A person with a good job who turns down a promotion to invest more time in other things is
seen as crazy – unless those other things ensure success. A young woman who wants to become
a primary school teacher is told by her parents that she should start off by getting a master's
degree in economics – a primary school teacher, whatever can she be thinking of?
This is used as an example to show the shifting mindset. But as I stated, this describes no
one I know. We, us, commenting here are society. I agree that there has been a shift in culture
and those reaping the biggest financial rewards are the greedy. But has that not always been the
way, the self interested have always walked away with the biggest slice, perhaps at the moment
that slice has become larger still, but most people still want to have a comfortable life, lived
their way. People haven't changed as much as the OP believes.
The great lie is that financial reward is success and happiness.
This is used as an example to show the shifting mindset. But as I stated, this describes
no one I know
Indeed even in the "sociopathic" world of fund management and investment banking, the vast
majority of people establish a balance for how they wish to manage their work and professional
lives and evaluate decisions in light of them both.
Indeed. How come G4S keep winning contracts despite their behaviour being incompetent and veering
on criminal, and the fact they are despised pretty much universally. Hardly a meritocracy.
You can add A4E to that list and now Capita who have recruited all of 61 part time soldiers
in their contract to replace all the thousands of sacked professionals
.....By "us" of course, you mean commies. I think you are inadvertently demonstrating another
of Hares psychopath test features; a lack of empathy and self awareness.
"Since the living standards of majority in this country are on a downward trend"
The oil's running out. Living standards, on average, will continue to decline until either
it stops running out or fusion power turns out to work after all.
Whether you have capitalism or socialism won't make any difference to the declining energy
input.
I'm sure I read an article in the 80s predicting what the author has written. Economics and cultural
environment is bound to have an effect on behaviour. We now live in a society that worships at
the altar of the cult of the individual. Society and growth of poverty no longer matters, a lone
success story proves all those people falling into poverty are lazy good for nothing parasites.
The political class claims to be impotent when it comes to making a fairer society because the
political class is made up of people who were affluent in the first place or benefited from a
neo-liberal rigged economy. The claim is, anything to do with a fair society is social engineering
and bound to fail. Well, neo-liberal Britain was socially engineered and it is failing the majority
of people in the country.
There is a cognitive dissonance going on in the political narrative of neo-liberalism, not
everyone can make it in a neo-liberal society and since neo-liberalism destroys social mobility.
Ironically, the height of social mobility in the west, from the gradual rise through the 50s and
60s, was the 70s. The 80s started the the downward trend in social mobility despite all the bribes
that went along with introducing the property owning democracy, which was really about chaining
people to capitalism.
I'm sure I read an article in the 80s predicting what the author has written.
Well, a transformation of human character was the open battle-cry of 1980s proponents of neoliberalism.
Helmut Kohl, the German prime minister, called it the "geistig-moralische Wende", the "spiritual
and moral sea-change" - I think people just misunderstood what he meant by that, and laughed at
what they saw as empty sloganeering. Now we're reaping what his generation sowed.
OK, now can you tell us why individual freedom is such a bad thing?
The previous period of liberal economics ended a century ago, destroyed by the war whose outbreak
we are interminably celebrating. That war and the one that followed a generation later brought
in strict government control, even down to what people could eat and wear. Orwell's dystopia of
1984 actually describes Britain's wartime society continuing long after the real wars had ended.
It was the slow pace of lifting wartime controls, even slower in Eastern Europe, and the lingering
mindset that economies and societies could be directed for "the greater good" no matter what individual
costs there were that led to a revival of liberal economics.
Neoliberalism is a mere offshoot of Neofeudalism. Labour and Capital - those elements of both
not irretrievably bought-out - must demand the return of The Commons . We must extend our
analysis back over centuries , not decades - let's strike to the heart of the matter!
Collectivist ideologies including Fascism, Communism and theocracy are all similar to feudalism.
I've worked in a few large private companies over the years, and my experience is they
increasingly resemble some sort of cult, with endless brainwashing programmes for the 'members',
charismatic leaders who can do no wrong, groupthink, mandatory utilisation of specialist jargon
(especially cod-psychological terminology) to differentiate those 'in' and those 'out', increased
blurring of the lines between 'private' and 'work' life (your ass belongs to us 24-7) and of course,
constant, ever more complex monitoring of the 'members' for 'heretical thoughts or beliefs'.
'Collectivism' is not as incompatible with capitalism as you seem to think.
You sound like one of those 'libertarians'. Frankly, I think the ideals of such are only realisable
as a sole trader, or operating in a very small business.
Progress is restricted because the people are made poor by the predations of the state
Neoliberalism is firmly committed to individual liberty, and therefore to peace and mutual
toleration
It is firmly committed to ensuring that the boundaries between private and public entities
become blurred, with all the ensuing corruption that entails. In other words, that the state becomes
(through the taxpayers) a captured one, delivering a never ending, always growing, revenue stream
for favoured players in private enterprise. This is, of course, deliberate. 'Individual liberties
and mutual toleration' are only important insomuch as they improve, or detract, from profit-centre
activity.
You have difficulty in separating propaganda from reality, but you're barely alone in this.
Lastly, you also misunderstand feudalism, which in the European context, flourished before
there was a developed concept of a centralised nation state, indeed, the most classic examples
occurred after the decentralisation of an empire or suchlike. The primary feudal relation
was between the bondsman/peasant and his local magnate, who in turn, was subject to his liege.
In other words a warrior class bound by vassalage to a nobility, with the peasantry bound by
manorialism and to the estates of the Church.
Apart from that though, you're right on everything.
I completely agree with the general sentiment.
The specifics aren't that solid though:
- That we think our characters are independent of context/society: I certainly don't.
- That statement about "bullying is more widespread" - lacks justification.
The general theme of "meritocracy is a fiction" is compelling though.
As is "We are free-er in many ways because those ways no longer have any significance"
.
And the most striking idea here: Our characters are partly moulded by society. And neo-liberal
society, and it's illusions of freedom, has moulded many of us in ways that bring out the worst
in us.
The Rat Race is a joke. Too many people waste their lives away playing the capitalist game. As
long as you've got enough money to keep living you can be happy. Just ignore the pathetic willy-wavers
with their flashy cars and logos on their shirts and all that guff
All we need is "enough" - Posession isn't that interesting. More a doorway to doing interesting
stuff.
I prefer to cut out the posession and go straight to "do interesting stuff" myself. As long as
the rent gets paid and so on, obviously.
Doesn't always work, obviously, but I reckon not wanting stuff is a good start to the good
life (ref. to series with Felicity Kendall (and some others) intended :)
That, and Epicurus who I keep mentioning on CIF.
Rather naive. History is full of brilliant individuals who made it. Neo-liberalism has however
killed off post war social mobility. In fact according to the OECD report into social mobility,
the more egalitarian a developed society is, the more social mobility there is, the more productivity
and the less poverty and social problems there are.
I agree - the central dilemma is that neither individualism nor collectiviism works.
But is this dilemma real? Is there a third system? Yes there is - Henry George.
George's paradigm in nothing funky, it is simply Classical Liberal Economics - society works
best when individuals get to keep the fruits of thier labour, but pay rent for the use of The
Commons.
At present we have the opposite - labour and capital are taxed heavily and The commons are monopolised
by the 1%.
Hence unemployment
Hence the wealth gap
Hence the environmental crisis
Hence poverty
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
community standards
. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see
our FAQs .
So the values and morals that people have are so wafer thin that a variation in the political
system governing them can strip them away? Why do the left consistently have such a low opinion
of humanity?
"Why do the left consistently have such a low opinion of humanity?"
Open your eyes and take a lokk at the world. There is enough wealth in the world for everyone
to live free from poverty. Yet, the powerful look after themselves and allow poverty to not only
exist but spread.
>If you've ever dithered over the question of whether the UK needs a written constitution, dither
no longer. Imagine the clauses required to preserve the status of the Corporation. "The City of
London will remain outside the authority of parliament. Domestic and foreign banks will be permitted
to vote as if they were human beings, and their votes will outnumber those cast by real people.
Its elected officials will be chosen from people deemed acceptable by a group of medieval guilds
…".<
I agree with much of this. Working in the NHS, as a clinical psychologist, over the past 25 years,
I have seen a huge shift in the behaviour of managers who used to be valued for their support
and nurturing of talent, but now are recognised for their brutal and aggressive approach to those
beneath them. Reorganisations of services, which take place with depressing frequency, provide
opportunities to clear out the older, experienced members of the profession who would have acted
as mentors and teachers to the less experienced staff.
I worked in local authority social care, I can certainly see the very close similarities to what
you describe in the NHS, and my experience in the local authority.
I can well imagine there are big similarities. Friends of mine who work in education say the same
- there is a complete mismatch between the aims of the directors/managers and that of the professionals
actually providing the teaching/therapy/advice to the public. When I go to senior meetings it
is very rare that patients are even mentioned.
Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace.
This is an incredibly broad generalisation. I remember my grandfather telling me about what
went on in the mills he worked in in Glasgow before the war, it sounded like a pretty savage environment
if you didn't fit in. It wasn't called bullying, of course.
I put this simple statement to you: meritocratic neoliberalism favours certain personality
traits and penalises others.
Isn't this true of pretty much any system? And human relationships in general? I cannot think
of a system that is completely blind to the differences between people. If you happen to be lazy
or have a problem with authority you will never do as "well" (for want of a better term).
I have always said to people who claim they are Liberals that you must support capitalism,the
free market,free trade, deregulation etc etc when most of them deny that, I always say you are
not a Liberal then you're just cherry-picking the [Liberal] policies you like and the ones you
don't like,which is dishonest.
There is nothing neo about Liberalism,it has been around since the 19th century[?].People have
been brainwashed in this country [and the USA] since the 1960's to say they are liberals for fear
of being accused of being fascists,which is quite another thing.
I have never supported any political ideology,which is what Liberalism is,and believe all of them
should be challenged.By doing so you can evolve policies which are fair and just and appropriate
to the issue at hand.
Neoliberalism has only benefited a minority. Usually those with well connected and wealthy families.
And of course those who have no hesitation to exploit other's.
In my view, it is characterized by corruption, exploitation and a total lack of social justice.
Economically, the whole system is fully dependent on competition not co-operation. One day, the
consequences of this total failure will end in violence.
One day, the consequences of this total failure will end in violence.
And if we keep consuming all our resources on this finite planet in pursuit of profit and more
profit there will be no human race we will all be extinct.,and all that will be left is an exhausted
polluted planet that once harbored a vast variety of life.
Isent neolibral capitalism great.
As Marx so often claimed, values, ethics, morality and behaviours are themselves determined by
the economic and monetary system under which people live. Stealing is permitted if you are a banker
and call it a bonus or interest, murder is permitted if your government sends you to war, surveillance
and data mining is permitted if your state tells you there is a danger from terrorists, crime
is overlooked if it makes money for the perpetrator, benefit claimants are justified if they belong
to an aristocratic caste or political elite.......
There is no universal right or wrong, only that identified as such by the establishment at
that particular instance in history, and at that specific place on the planet. Outside that, they
have as much relevance today as scriptures instructing that slaves can be raped, adulterers can
be stoned or the hands of thieves amputated. Give me the crime and the punishment, and I will
give you the time and the place.
For a tiny elite sitting on the top everything has been going exactly as it was initially planned.
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men
living together in Society, they create for themselves in the
course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a
moral code that glorifies it".
F. Bastiat.
Excellent article.
I'm amazed that more isn't made of the relationship between political environment/systems and
their effect on the individual. Oliver James Affluenza makes a compelling case for the unhappiness
outputs of societies who've embraced neo liberalism yet we still blindly pursue it.
The US has long been world leader in both the demand and supply of psychotherapy and the relentless
pursuit of free market economics. these stats are not unconnected.
I once had a colleague with the knack of slipping into his conversation complimentary remarks
that other people had made about him. It wasn't the only reason for his rapid ascent to great
heights, but perhaps it helped.
That's one of my favourite characteristics of David Brent from 'The Office'. "You're all looking
at me, you're going, "Well yeah, you're a success, you've achieved you're goals, you're reaping
the rewards, sure. But, OI, Brent. Is all you care about chasing the Yankee dollar?"
Neoliberalism is another Social Darwinist driven philosophy popularised after leading figures
of our times (or rather former times) decided Malthus was probably correct.
So here we have it, serious growth in population, possibly unsustainable, and a growing 'weak
will perish, strong will survive' mentality. The worst thing is I used to believe in neoliberal
policies, until of course I understood the long term ramifications.
And the reality is that "neoliberalism" has, in the last few decades, freed hundreds of millions
in the developing word from a subsistence living to something resembling a middle class lifestyle.
This has resulted in both plummeting global poverty statistics and in greatly reduced fecundity,
so that we will likely see a leveling off of global population in the next few decades. And this
slowing down of population growth is the most critical thing we could for increasing sustainability.
The problem is a judeo-christian idea of "free choice" when experiments, undertaken by Benjamin
Libet and since, indicate that it is near to unlikely for there to be volitionally controlled
conscious decisions.
If we are not even free to intend and control our decisions, thoughts and ambitions, how can
anyone claim to be morally entitled to ownership of their property and have a 'right' to anything
as a reward for what decisions they made? Happening is pure luck: meaningful [intended] responsibility
and accountability cannot be claimed for decisions and actions and so entitlement cannot be claimed
for what acquisitions are causally obtained from those decisions and actions.There is no 'just
desserts' or decision-derived entitlement justification for wealth and owning property unless
the justifier has a superstitious and scientifically unfounded belief in free choice.
Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace
Compared to say, that experienced by domestic staff in big houses, small children in factories,
perhaps even amongst miners, dockers and steel workers in the halcyon days of the post-war decade
when apparently everything was rosy?
This whole article is a hodge podge of anecdote and flawed observations designed to shoehorn
behaviour into a pattern that supports an economic hypothesis - it is factually groundless.
Compared to say, that experienced by domestic staff in big houses, small children in factories
Yes, but if it was left to people like you, children would still be working in factories. So
please do not take credit for improvements that you would fight tooth and nail against
perhaps even amongst miners, dockers and steel workers in the halcyon days of the post-war
decade when apparently everything was rosy?
They had wages coming to them and didn't need to rely on housing benefit to keep a roof over
their head. Now people like you bitterly complain about poorly paid workers getting benefits to
sustain them.
People who "work hard and play hard" are nearly always kidding themselves about the second bit.
It seems to me that the trend in the world of neoliberalism is to think that "playing hard"
is defined as "playing with expensive, branded toys" during your two week annual holiday.
'Playing hard' in the careerist lexicon = getting blind drunk to mollify the feelings of despair
and emptiness which typify a hollow, debt-soaked life defined by motor cars and houses.
The "Max Factor" life. Selfishness and Greed. The compaction of life. Was it not in a scripture
in text?. The Bible. We as humans and followers of "Faith" in christian beliefs and the culture
of love they fellow man. The culture of words are a root to all "Evil. Depending on "Who's" the
Author and Scrolling the words; and for what reason?. The only way we can save what is left on
this planet and save man kind. Is eradicate the above "Selfishness and Greed" ?
We are indeed freer than before, in the sense that we can criticise religion, take advantage
of the new laissez-faire attitude to sex and support any political movement we like. We can
do all these things because they no longer have any significance – freedom of this kind is
prompted by indifference.
These changes listed (and then casually dismissed) are monumental social achievements. Many
countries in the world do not permit their 'citizens' such freedom of choice and I for one am
very grateful to live in a country where these things are possible.
Of course there is much more to be done. But I would suggest that to be born in Western Europe
today is probably about as safe, comfortable, and free than at any time and any place in human
history. I'm not being complacent about what we still have to achieve. But we won't achieve anything
if we take such a flippant attitude towards all the amazing things that have been bequeathed to
us.
Excellent observation, it's the same way that technology that has quite clearly changed our lives
and given us access to information, opportunity to travel and entertainment that would have been
beyond the comprehension of our grandparents is dismissed as irrelevant because its just a smart
phone and a not a job for life in a British Leyland factory.
It takes a peculairly spoilt and arrogant Westerner to claim that the freedom to criticise religion
isn't significant or that we're only allowed to do so because it's no longer important. Tell that
to a girl seeking to escape an arranged marriage in Bradford...
OK. Now off you go and apply the same methodology to people living in statist societies, or just
have a go at our own civil service or local government workers. Try social workers or the benefits
agency or the police.
The author makes some good points, although I wouldn't necessarily call our system a meritocracy.
I guess the key one is how unaware we are about the influence of economic policy on our values.
This kind of systems hurts everyday people and rewards psychopaths, and is damaging to society
as a whole over the long term.
Targetising everything is really insidious.
That neoliberalism puts tremendous pressure on individuals to conform to materialistic norms is
undeniable, but for a psychotherapist to disallow the choice of those individuals to nevertheless
choose how to live is an admission of failure.
In fact, many people today experience the shallowness and corrupt character of market society
and elect either to be in it, but not of it, or to opt out early having made enough money, often
making a conscious choice to relinquish the 'trappings' in return for a more meaningful existence.
Some do selfless service to their fellow human beings, to the environment or both, and thereby
find a degree of fulfillment that they always wanted.
To surrender to the external demands of a superficial and corrupting life is to ignore the
tremendous opportunity human life offers to all: self realization.
It's not either-or, system or individual, but some combination of the two.
Decision making may be 80% structure and 20% individual choice for the mainstream - or maybe the
other way round for the rebels amongst us that try to reject the system.
The theory of structuration (Giddens) provides one explanation of how social systems develop
through the interactions between the system and actors in it.
I partly agree with you but I think examples of complete self realisation are extremely rare.
That means stepping completely out of the system and out of our own personality. Neither this
nor that.
The point is that the individual has the choice to move in the right direction. When and if they
do make a decision to change their life, it will be fulfilling for them and for the system.
Our presumed freedom is tied to one central condition: we must be successful – that is,
"make" something of ourselves. You don't need to look far for examples. A highly skilled individual
who puts parenting before their career comes in for criticism. A person with a good job who
turns down a promotion to invest more time in other things is seen as crazy – unless those
other things ensure success.
I have been in the private sector for generations, and know tons of people who have behaved
precisely as described above. I don't know anyone who calls them crazy. In fact, I see the exact
opposite tendency - the growing acceptance that money isn't everything, and that once one has
achieved a certain level of success and financial security that it is fine to put other priorities
first rather than simply trying to acquire ever more.
The ATL article is rather stuffed full of stereotypes.
And speaking personally, I have turned down two offers of promotion to a management position
in the last ten years and neither time did I get the sense people thought I was crazy. They might
have done if I were in my late twenties rather than mid-fifties but that does reinforce the notion
that people - even bosses - can accept that there is more to life than a career.
I agree about the stereotypes. Also, has anyone ever seriously advised a primary school teacher
that they need a masters degree of economics?! I highly doubt that that is the norm!
I hate to break it to you but no matter how you organise society the nasty people get to the
top and the nice people end up doing all the work. "Neo-liberalism" is no different.
Or you could put it another way - 'neoliberalism' is the least worst economic/social system, because
most people are far more powerless and far more worse off under any other system that has ever
been developed by man...
For a start you need a system that is not based on rewarding and encouraging the worst aspects
of our characters. I try to encourage my kids not to be greedy, to be honest and to care about
others but in this day and age it's an uphill struggle.
"A neoliberal meritocracy would have us believe that success depends on individual effort and
talents, meaning responsibility lies entirely with the individual and authorities should give
people as much freedom as possible to achieve this goal."
In the UK we have nothing like a meritocracy with a privately educated elite.
Success and failure are just about parental wealth.
"So the values and morals that people have are so wafer thin that a variation in the political
system governing them can strip them away? Why do the left consistently have such a low opinion
of humanity?"
RidleyWalker, I can assue you that it is not the left but the right who consistently have a
low opinion of humanity. Anyway, what has left and right got to do with this? There are millions
of ordinary decent people whose lives are blighted by the obscentity that is neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism
is designed to make the rich richer at the expense of the poor. Neo-liberalism is responsible
for the misery for millions across the globe. The only happy ones are those at the top of the
heap...until even their bloated selfish world inevitably implodes.
Of course these disgusting parasites are primitive thinkers and cannot see that we could have
a better, happier world for everyone if societies become more equal. Studies demonstrate that
more equal societies are more stable and content than those with ever-widening gaps in wealth
between rich and poor.
Neoliberalism...disgusting parasites...primitive thinkers...misery of millions...bloated selfish
world
This reads like a Soviet pamphlet from the 1930's. Granted you've replaced the word 'capitalism'
with 'neoliberalism' - in other words subsstituted one meaningless abstraction for another. It
wasn't true then and it certainly isnt true now...
Not sure why you think all this is new or attributable to neoliberalism. Things were much the
same in the 1960's and 1970's. All that has changed is that instead of working on assembly lines
in factories under the watchful gaze of a foreman we now have university degrees and sit in cubicles
pressing buttons on keyboards. Micromanagement, bureaucracy, rules and regulations are as old
as the hills. Office politics has replaced shop floor politics; the rich are still rich and the
poor are still poor.
Well, except that people have more money, live longer and have more opportunities in life than
before - most people anyway. The ones left behind are the ones we need to worry about
Not sure why you think all this is new or attributable to neoliberalism. Things were much
the same in the 1960's and 1970's.
And you can read far more excoriating critiques of our shallow materialistic capitalism, culture
from those decades, now recast as some sort of prelapsarian Golden Age.
Actually, the 1929 crash was not the first by any means. The boom and bust cycle of modern economics
goes back a lot further. When my grandparents talked about the "Great Depression" they were referring
to the 1890's.
The nineteenth century saw major financial crises in almost every decade, 1825, 1837, 1847, 1857,
1866 before we even get to the Great Depression of 1873-96.
Socialism seems to be happy home of corruption & nepotism. The old saw that Tory MP's are brought
down by sex scandals whilst Labour MP's have issues with money still holds.
Why is that relevant? This is a critique of neo liberalism and it is a very accurate one at that.
It isn't suggesting that Socialism is better or even offers an alternative, just that neo liberalism
has failed society and explores some of how and why.
The main problem is that neoliberalism is a faith dressed up as a science and any evidence that
disproves the hypothesis (e.g. the 2008 financial collapse) only helps to reinforce the faith
of the fundamentalists supporting it.
The reason why "neoliberalism" is so successful is precisely because the evidence shows it does
work. It has not escaped peoples' notice that nations where governments heavily curtail individual
and commercial freedom are often rather wretched places to live.
It would be nice to curtail coprorate freedom without curtailing the freedom of individuals. I
don't see how that might work.
"hubris over free markets" might well be it.
But I might be understanding that in a different way from you. People were making irrational decisions
that didn't seem to take on basic logic of a free market, or even common sense. Such as "where
is all this money coming from" (madoff, house ladder), "of course this will work" (fred goodwin
and his takeovers) and even "will i get my money back" (sub-prime lending).
So why don't we do something about it....genuinely? There appears to be no power left in voting
unless people are given an actual choice....Is it not time then to to provide a well grounded
articulate choice? The research, in many different disciplines, is already out there.
What can we do? It appears we are stuck between the Labour party and the Conservatives. Is it
even possible for another party to come to power with the next couple of elections?
The sociologist Zygmunt Bauman neatly summarised the paradox of our era as: "Never have
we been so free. Never have we felt so powerless." We are indeed freer than before, in the
sense that we can criticise religion, take advantage of the new laissez-faire attitude to sex
and support any political movement we like. We can do all these things because they no longer
have any significance – freedom of this kind is prompted by indifference. Yet, on the other
hand, our daily lives have become a constant battle against a bureaucracy that would make Kafka
weak at the knees. There are regulations about everything, from the salt content of bread to
urban poultry-keeping.
Verhaeghe begins by criticizing free markets and "neo-liberalism", but ends by criticizing
the huge, stifling government bureaucracy that endeavours to micro-manage every aspect of its
citizens lives, and is the opposite of true classic liberalism.
probably not as confusing as it seems to be for you.
this is just the difference between neoliberalism in theory and in practise.
like the "real existierende sozialismus" in eastern germany fell somewhat short of the brilliant
utopia of the theorists.
verhaeghe does not criticise the theoretical model, but the practical outcome. And the worst governmant
and corporate bureaucracy that mankind has ever seen is part of it. The result of 30+ years of
neoliberal policies.
In my experience this buerocracy is gets worse in anglo saxon countries closest to the singularity
at the bottom of the neolib black hole.
I am aware that this is only a correlation, but correlations, while they do not prove causation,
still require explanation.
Some time ago, and perhaps still, it was/is fashionable for Toryish persons to denigrate the 1960s.
I look back to that decade with much nostalgia. Nearly everyone had a job of sorts, not terribly
well paid but at least it was a job. And now? You are compelled to toil your guts out, kiss somebody's
backside, run up unpayable debts - and, in the UK, live in a house that in many other countries
would have been demolished decades ago. Scarcely a day passes when I am not partly disgusted at
what has overtaken my beloved country.
An excellent article! The culture of the 80's has ruled for too long and its damage done.... its
down to our youth to start to shape things now and I think that's beginning to happen.
Neo-Liberalism as operated today. "Greed is Good" and senior bankers and those who sell and buy
money, commodities etc; are diven by this trait of humankind.
But we, the People are just as guilty with our drives for 'More'. More over everything, even
shopping at the supermarket - "Buy one & get ten free", must have.
Designer ;bling;, clothes, shoes, bags, I-Pads etc etc, etc. It is never ending. People seem
to be scared that they haven't got what next has, and next will think that they are 'Not Cool'.
We, the people should be satisfied with what have got, NOT what what we havn't got.
Those who "want" (masses of material goods) usually "Dont get!"
The current system is unsustainable as the World' population rises and rises. Nature (Gaia)
will take care of this through disease, famine, and of course the stupidity of Humankind - wars,
destruction and general stupidity.
What's a meritocracy? Oh, that's right - a fable that people who have a lot of money deserve it
somehow because they're so much better than the people who work for a living.
The world was an even nastier place before the current era. During the 1970s and early 1980s there
was huge inflation which robbed people of their saving, high unemployment, and (shudder) Disco.
People tend to view the past with rose-coloured glasses.
What neoliberalism? We've got a mixed economy, which seemingly upsets both those on the right
who wish to cut back the state and those on the left who'd bolster it.
I work in a law firm specialising in M&A, hardly the cuddliest of environments, but I recognise
almost nothing here as a description of my work place. Sure, some people are wankers but that's
true everywhere.
FDR, the Antichrist of the American Right, famously said that the only thing we have to fear is
fear itself. And here we are with this ideology which in many ways stokes the fear. The one thing
these bastards don't want most of us to feel is secure.
There is no "free market" anywhere. That is a fantasy. It is a term used when corporations want
to complain about regulations. What we have in most industrialized countries is corporate socialism
wherein corporations get to internalize profits and externalize costs and losses. It has killed
of our economies and our middle class.
Socialism or barbarism -- a starker choice today than when the phrase was coined.
So long, at least, as we have an evolved notion of what socialism entails. Which means, please,
not the state capitalism + benign paternalism that it's unfortunately come to mean for
most people, in the course of its parasitical relationship with capitalism proper, and so with
all capitalism's inventions (the 'nation', the modern bureaucracy, ever-more-efficient exploitation
to cumulatively alienating ends......)
It's just as unfortunate, in this light, that the term 'self-management' has been appropriated
by the ideologues of pseudo-meritocracy, in just the way the article describes..
Because it's also a term (from the French autogestion) used to describe what I'd argue is the
most nuanced and sophisticated collectivist alternative to capitalism -- an alternative that is
at one and the same time a rejection of capitalism.... and of the central role of the state
and 'nation' (that phony, illusory community that plays a more central role in empowering the
modern state than does its monopoly on violence)... and of the ideology of growth, and
of the ideal of monolithic, ruthlessly efficient economic totalities organised to this end....
It's a rejection, in other words, of all those things contemplation of which reminds us just
how little fundamental difference there is between capitalism and the system cobbled together
on the fly by the Bolsheviks -- same vertical organisation to the ends of the same exploitation,
same exploitation to the ends of expanding the scope and scale of vertical organisation, all of
it with the same destructive effects on the sociabilities of everyday life....
Self-management in this sense goes beyond 'workers control'; (I'd argue that) it envisions
a society in which most aspects of life have been cut free from the ties that bind people
vertically to sources of influence and control, however they're constituted (private and public
bureaucracies, market pressures, the illusory narratives of nation, mass media and commodity...).
The horizontal ties of workplace and local community would thus be constitutive, by default,
and society as a whole would become very little more than the sum of its parts -- mutating on
a molecular local level as people collectively and democratically decided, in circumstances that
actually granted them the power to do so, how to balance the conflicting needs and desires and
necessities that a complex society and a complex division of labour present. 'Balance' because
there really isn't any prospect of a utopian resolution of these conflicts -- they come with civilisation
-- or with barbarism, for than matter, in any of its modern incarnations.
What about those who disagree with such a radical reordering of society? How would the collective
deal with those who wished to exploit it?
I'm genuinely interested, beats working...
The horizontal ties of workplace and local community would thus be constitutive, by default,
and society as a whole would become very little more than the sum of its parts -- mutating
on a molecular local level as people collectively and democratically decided, in circumstances
that actually granted them the power to do so, how to balance the conflicting needs and desires
and necessities that a complex society and a complex division of labour present.
Why do socialists so often resort to such turgid, impenetrable prose? Could it be an attempt
to mask the vacuity of their position?
I read this article skeptically, but then realised how accurately he described my workplace. Most
people I know on the outside have nice middle class lives, but underneath it suffer from anxiety,
about 1 not putting enough into their careers 2 not spending enough time with their kids. When
I decided to cut my work hours in half when I had a child, 2 of my colleagues were genuinely concerned
for me over things like, I might be let go, how would I cope with the drop in money, I was cutting
my chances of promotion, how would it look in a review. The level of anxiety was frightening.
People on the forum seem to be criticizing what they see as the authors flippant attitude to
sexual freedom and lack of religious hold, but I see the authors point, what good are these freedoms
when we are stuck in the stranglehold of no job security and huge mortgage debt. Yes you can have
a quick shag with whoever you want and don't need to answer to anyone over it on a Sunday, but
come Monday morning its back to the the ever sharpening grindstone.
This reminds me of the world I started to work in in 1955. I accept that by 1985 it was ten times
worse and by the time I retired in 2002, after 47 years, I was very glad to have what I called
"survived". At its worst was the increasing difference between the knowledge base of "the boss"
when technology started to kick in. I was called into the boss's office once to be criticised
for the length of a report. It had a two page summery of the issue and options for resolving the
problem. I very meekly inquired if he had decided on any of the options to resolve the problem.
What options are you talking about? was his response, which told me that either he had not read
the report or did not understand the problem. This was the least of my problems as I later had
to spend two days in his office explaining the analysis we (I) were submitting to the Board.
A highly skilled individual who puts parenting before their career comes in for criticism.
A person with a good job who turns down a promotion to invest more time in other things is
seen as crazy – unless those other things ensure success. A young woman who wants to become
a primary school teacher is told by her parents that she should start off by getting a master's
degree in economics – a primary school teacher, whatever can she be thinking of?
Speak for yourself.
The current economic situation affects each of us as much as we allow it to. Some may well love
neo-liberalism and the concomitant dog eat dog attitude, but there are some of us who regard it
as little more than a culture of self-enrichment through lies and aggression. I see it as such,
and want nothing to do with it.
If you live by money and power, you'll die by money and power. I prefer to live and work with
consensus and co-operation.
I'll never be rich, but I'll never have many enemies.
Hedge-fund and private-equity managers, investment bankers, corporate lawyers, management consultants,
high-frequency traders, and top lobbyists.They're getting paid vast sums for their labors. Yet
it seems doubtful that society is really that much better off because of what they do. They play
zero-sum games that take money out of one set of pockets and put it into another. They demand
ever more cunning innovations but they create no social value. High-frequency traders who win
by a thousandth of a second can reap a fortune, but society as a whole is no better off. the games
consume the energies of loads of talented people who might otherwise be making real contributions
to society - if not by tending to human needs or enriching our culture then by curing diseases
or devising new technological breakthroughs, or helping solve some of our most intractable social
problems. Robert Reich said this and I am compelled to agree with him!
Brilliant article. It is not going to change anything, of course, because majority of people of
this planet would cooperate with just about any psychopath clever enough not to take away from
them that last bit of stinking warm mud to wallow in.
Proof? Read history books and take a look around you. We are the dumbest animals on Earth.
Rubbish. We are the most intelligent and successful creature that this planet has ever seen. We
have become capable of transforming it, leaving it and destroying it.
Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace.
I started work nearly 40 years ago and there were always some bullies in the workplace. Maybe
there are more now, I don't know but I suspect it is more widely reported now. Workplace bullies
were something of a given when I started work and it was an accepted part of the working environment.
Be careful about re-inventing history to suit your own arguments.
I'm surprised the normalization of debt was not mentioned. If you are debt free you have more
chance of making decisions that don't fit into the model.
So what do we do now, we train nearly 50% of our young that having large amounts of debt is
perfectly normal. When I was a student I lived off the grant and had a much lower standard of
living than I can see students having now, but of course I had no debt when I graduated. I know
student debt is administered differently, I'm talking about the way we are training them to accept
debt of all sorts.
Same applies to consumerism inducing the 'I want it and I want it now', increases personal
debt, therefore forcing people to fit in, same applies to credit cards and lax personal lending.
Although occasionally there are economic questions about large amounts of personal debt, politically
high personal debt is ideal.
Not sure if you're in the sector, in large parts that's kind of how academia works?
This is also what's referred to in the trade as an opinion piece, where an author will be presenting
his views and substantiating them with reference to the researches of others.
There is no mystery to neoliberalism -- it is an economic system designed to benefit the 0.1%
and leave the rest of us neck deep in shit. That's why our children will be paying for the bankers'
bonuses to the day they die. Let's celebrate this new found freedom with all the rest of the Tory
lickspittle apologists. Yippee for moral bankruptcy -- three cheers!
The Simple Summary is the state/ royality used to hold all the power over the merchants and the
public for centuries. Bit by bit the merchants stripped that power away from royality, until eventually
the merchants have now taken over everybody. The merchants hold all the power now and they will
never give that up as there is nobody to take it from them. By owning the state the merchants
now have everything that go with it. The army, police and the laws and the media.
David Harvey puts it all under the microscope and explains in great detail how they've achieved
their end game over the last 40 years.
There are millions of economists and many economic theories in our universities. Unfortunately,
the merchants will only fund and advertise and support economic theories that further their power
and wealth.
As history shows time and time again it will be the public who rip this power from their hands.
If they don't give it up it is only a matter of time. The merchants may now own the army, the
police, the laws and the parliament. They'll need all of that and more if the public decide to
say enough is enough.
Bullying used to be confined to schools? Can't agree with that at all. Bullying is an ingrained
human tendency which manifests in many contexts, from school to work to military to politics to
matters of faith. It is only bad when abused, and can help to form self-confidence.
I am not sure what "neo" means but liberal economics is the basis of the Western economies
since the end of feudalism. Some countries have had periods of pronounced social democracy or
even socialism but most of western Europe has reverted to the capitalist model and much of the
former east bloc is turning to it. As others have noted in the CiF, this does not preclude social
policies designed to alleviate the unfair effects of the liberal economies.
But this ship has sailed in other words, the treaties which founded the EU make it clear the
system is based on Adam Smith-type free market thinking. (Short of leaving the EU I don't see
how that can be changed in its essentials).
Finally, socialist countries require much more conformity of individuals than capitalist ones.
So you have to look at the alternatives, which this article does not from what I could see.
To be honest I don't think Neoliberalism has made much of a difference in the UK where personal
responsibility has always been king. In the Victorian age people were quite happy to have people
staving to death on the streets and before that people's problems were usually seen as either
their own fault or an act of God (which would also be your own fault due to sin). If anything
we are kinder to strangers now, than we have been, but are slipping back into our old habits.
I think the best way to combat extreme liberalism is to be knowing about our culture and realise
that liberalism is something which is embedded in British culture and is not something imposed
on us from else where or by some -ism. It is strengthen not just by politics but also by language
and the way we deal with personal and social issues in our own lives. We also need to acknowledge
that we get both good and bad things out of living in a liberal society but that doesn't mean
we have to put up with the bad stuff. We can put measures in place to prevent the bad stuff and
still enjoy the positives even though some capitalists may throw their toys out of the pram.
Personal responsibility is EXACTLY what neoliberalism avoids, even as it advocates it with every
breath.
What it means is that you get as much responsibility as you can afford to foist onto someone
else, so a very wealthy person gets none at all. It's always someone else's fault.
Neoliberalism has actually undermined personal responsibility at every single step, delegating
it according to wealth or perceived worth.
If Liberalism is the mindset of the British how come we created the NHS, Legal Aid, universal
education and social security? These were massive achievements of a post war generation and about
as far removed from today's evil shyster politics as it is possible to be.
"Our society constantly proclaims that anyone can make it if they just try hard enough, all the
while reinforcing privilege and putting increasing pressure on its overstretched and exhausted
citizens"
What to people mean when they use the word "society" in this context?
When we stopped having jobs and had careers instead, the rot set in. A career is the promotion
of the self and a job the means to realise that goal at the expense of everyone else around you.
The description of psychopathic behaviour perfectly describes a former boss of mine (female).
I liked her but knew how dangerous she was. She went easy on me because she knew that I could
do the job that she would claim credit for.
The pressure and stress of, for example open plan offices and evaluation reports are all part
of the conscious effort on behalf of employers to ensure compliance with this poisonous attitude.
The greatest promoter of this philosophy is the Media, step forward Evan Davies, the slobbering
lap dog of the rich and powerful.
On the positive side I detect a growing realisation among normal people of the folly of this worldview.
Self promoters are generally psychopaths who don't have any empathy for the people around them
who carry them everyday and make them look good. We call these people show bags. Full of shit
and you have to carry them all the time....
"meritocratic neoliberalism favours certain personality traits and penalises others..."
I put to you the simple premsie that you can substitute "meritocratic neoliberalism" with any
political system (communism, fascism, social democracy even) and it the same truism would emerge.
"Neoliberalism promotes individual freedom, limited government, and deregulation of the economy...whilst
individual freedom is a laudable idea, neoliberalism taken to a dogmatic extreme can be used to
justify exploitation of the less powerful and pillaging of the natural environment." - Don Ambrose.
Contrast with this:
"Neoliberal democracy, with its notion of the market uber alles ...instead of citizens,
it produces consumers. Instead of communities, it produces shopping malls. The net result is an
atomized society of disengaged individuals who feel demoralised and socially powerless." - Robert
W. McChesney in Profit over People, Noam Chomsky.
It is fairly clear that the neoliberal system is designed to exploit the less powerfull when
it becomes dogmatic, and that is exactly what it has become: beaurocracy, deregulation, privatisation,
and government power .
Neoliberalism is a virus that destroys people's power of reason and replaces it with extra greed
and self entitlement. Until it is kicked back to the insane asylum it came from it will only keep
trying to make us it's indentured labourers. The only creeds more vile were Nazism and Apartheid.
Eventually the neoliberals will kill us all, so they can have the freedom to have everything they
think they're worth.
Yet, on the other hand, our daily lives have become a constant battle against a bureaucracy
that would make Kafka weak at the knees. There are regulations about everything, from the salt
content of bread to urban poultry-keeping.
Isn't a key feature of neo-liberalism that governments de-regulate? It seems you're willing
to blame absolutely everything on neoliberalism, even those things that neoliberalism ostensibly
opposes.
The Professor is correct. We have crafted a nightmare of a society where what is considered good
is often to the detriment of the whole community. It is reflected in our TV shows of choice, Survivor,
Big Brother, voting off the weakest or the greatest rival. A half a million bucks for being the
meanest most sociopathic person in the group, what great entertainment.
Always a treat to read your articles, Mr Verhaeghe; well written and supported with examples and
external good links. I especially like the link to Hare's site which is a rich resource of information
and current discussions and presentations on the subject.
The rise of the psychopath in society has been noted for some time, as have the consequences
of this behaviour in wider society and and a growing indifference and increased tolerance for
this behaviour.
But what are practical solutions? MRI brain scans and early intervention? We know that behaviour
modification does not work, we know that antipsychotic and other psychiatric medication does not
alter this behaviour, we know little of genetic causes or if diet and nutrition play a role.
Maybe it is because successful psychopaths leverage themselves into positions of influence
and power and reduce the voice, choices and influence of their victims that psychopathy has become
such an unsolvable problem, or at least a problem that has been removed from the stage of awareness.
It is so much easier to see the social consequences of psychopathy than it is to see the causal
activity of psychopaths themselves.
Neoliberalism has entered centre stage politics not as a solution, it is just socialism with a
crowd pleasing face. What could the labour party do to get voted in when the leadership consisted
of self professed intellectuals in Donkey Jackets which they wore to patronise the working classes.
Like the animal reflected in the name they became a laughing stock. Nobody understood their language
or cared for it. The people who could understand it claimed that it was full of irrelevant hyperbole
and patronising sentiment.
It still is but with nice sounding buzz words and an endless sound bites, the face of politics
has been transformed into a hollow shell. Neither of the party's faithful are happy with their
leaders. They have become centre stage by understanding process more than substance. As long as
your face fits, a person has every chance of success. Real merit on the other hand is either sadly
lacking or non existant.
Most people's personalities and behaviour are environment driven, they are moulded by the social
context in which they find themselves. The system we currently inhabit is one which is constructed
on behalf of the holders of capital, it is a construct of the need to create wealth through interest
bearing debt.
The values of this civilisation are consumer ones, we validate and actualise ourselves through
ownership of goods, and also the middle-class norms of family life, which are in and of themselves
constructs of a liberal consumer based society.
We pride ourselves on tolerance, which is just veiled indifference to anything which we feel
as no importance to our own desires. People are becoming automatons, directed through media devices
and advertising, and also the implanted desires which the consumer society needs us to act upon
to maintain the current system of economy.
None of this can of course survive indefinitely, hence the constant state of underlying anxiety
within society as it ploughs along on this suicidal route.
Good article, however I would just like to add that the new breed of 'business psychopath' you
allude to are fairly easy to spot these days, and as such more people are aware of them, so they
could be displaced quite soon, hopefully.
Cameron and the Conservatives have long been condemning the lazy and feckless at the bottom of
society, but has Cameron ever looked at his aristocratic in-laws.
His father-in-law, Sir Reginald Sheffield, can be checked out on Wikipedia.
His only work seems to have been eight years as a conservative councillor (lazy).
He is a member of three clubs, so he likes to go pissing it up with his rich friends (feckless).
This seems to be total sum of his life's achievements.
He also gets Government subsidies for wind turbines on his land (on benefits).
His estate has been in the family since the 16th Century and the family have probably done very
little since, yet we worry about the lower classes having two generations without work, in the
upper classes this can go on for centuries.
Wasters don't just exist at the bottom of society.
Mr. Cameron have a closer look at your aristocratic in-laws.
This is the consequence of a system that prevents people from thinking independently and
that fails to treat employees as adults.
Fundamentally the whole concept is saying "real talent is to be hunted down since, if you do
not destroy it, it will destroy you". As a result we have a whole army of useless twats in high
positions with not an independent thought between them. The concept of the old boys network has
really taken over except now the members are any mental age from zero upwards.
And then we wonder why nothing is done prperly these days....
Neoliberalism is fine in some areas of self-development and actualization of potential, but taken
as a kind of religion or as the be-all and end-all it is a manifest failure. For a start it neglects
to acknowledge what people have in common, the idea of shared values, the notion of society, the
effects of synergy and the geo-biological fact that we are one species all inhabiting the same
single planet, a planet that is uniquely adapted to ourselves, and to which we are uniquely adapted.
Generally it works on the micro-scale to free up initiative, but on the macro-scale it is hugely
destructive, since its goals are not the welfare of the entire human race and the planet but something
far more self-interested.
I put this simple statement to you: meritocratic neoliberalism favours certain personality
traits and penalises others.
This is inevitable. All societies have this property. A warrior society rewards brave fighters
and inspiring leaders, while punishing weaklings and cowards. A theocracy rewards those who display
piety and knowledge of religious tradition, and punishes skeptics and taboo-breakers. Tyrannies
reward cunning, ruthless schemers while punishing the squeamish and naive. Bureaucratic societies
reward pernickety types who love rules and regulationsn, and punish those who are careless of
jots and tittles. And so on.
A neoliberal meritocracy would have us believe that success depends on individual effort
and talents
It does. In fact, it does in all societies to some extent, even societies that strive to be egalitarian,
and societies that try to restrict social mobility by imposing a rigid caste system. There are
always individuals who fall or rise through society as a result of their abilities or lack thereof.
The freer society is, the more this happens.
For those who believe in the fairytale of unrestricted choice, self-government and self-management
are the pre-eminent political messages, especially if they appear to promise freedom.
Straw man. Even anarchists don't believe in completely unrestricted choice, let alone neoliberals.
Neoliberalism accepts that people are inevitably limited by their abilities and their situation.
Personal responsibility does not depend on complete freedom. It depends on there being some
freedom. If you have enough freedom to make good or bad choices, then you have personal responsibility.
Along with the idea of the perfectible individual, the freedom we perceive ourselves as
having in the west is the greatest untruth of this day and age.
The idea of the perfectible individual has nothing to do with neoliberalism. On the other hand,
it is one of the central pillars of Marxism. In philosophy, Marx is noted as an example of thinker
who follows a perfectionist ethical theory.
A frightening article, detailing now the psychological strenngths of people are recruited, perverted
and rotted by this rat-race ethic.
Ironic that the photo, of Canary Wharf, shows one of the biggest "socialist" gifts of the country
(was paid largely by the British taxpayer, if memory serves me correctly, and more or less gifted
to the merchant bankers by Thatcher).
Meritocratic neoliberalism; superficial articulateness which I used to call 'the gift of the gab'.
In my job, I was told to be 'extrovert' and I bucked against this, as a prejudice against anyone
with a different personality and people wanting CLONES. Not sensible people, or people that could
do a job, but a clone; setting the system up for a specific type of person as stated above. Those
who quickly tell you, you are wrong. Those that make you think perhaps you are, owing to their
confidence. Until your quietness proves them to be totally incorrect, and their naff confidence
demonstrates the falseness of what they state.
Most of the richest people in the world are not bullshitters. There are some, to be sure, but
the majority are either technical or financial engineers of genius, and they've made their fortune
through those skills, rather than through bullshit.
Hague lied to the camera about GCHQ having permission to access anyone's electronic devices. He
did not blush, he merely stated that a warrant was required. Only the night before we were shown
a letter from GCHQ stating that they had access without any warrant.
The ability to LIE has become a VIRTUE that all of us could well LIVE WITHOUT.
That's not new. It has been widely held that rulers have a right (and sometimes a duty) to lie
ever since Machiavelli's Prince was published some 500 years ago.
The sociologist Zygmunt Bauman neatly summarised the paradox of our era as: "Never have
we been so free. Never have we felt so powerless." We are indeed freer than before, in the
sense that we can criticise religion, take advantage of the new laissez-faire attitude to sex
and support any political movement we like. We can do all these things because they no longer
have any significance – freedom of this kind is prompted by indifference.
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left lose.
-Janice Joplin
Actually it was written by Kris Kristofferson and, having a house, a job pension and an Old Age
Pension, frankly, I disagree. The Grateful Dead version is better anyway.
.... economic change is having a profound effect not only on our values but also on our
personalities.
I have long thought that introverts are being marginalised in our society. Being introvert
seems to be seen by some as almost an illness, by others as virtually a crime.
Not keen on attending that "team bonding" weekend? There must be something wrong with you.
Unwilling to set out your life online for all to see? What have you got to hide?
A few very driven and talented introverts have managed to find a niche in the world of IT and
computers, earnig fortunes from their bedrooms. But for most, being unwilling or unable to scream
their demands and desires across a crowded room is interpreted as "not trying" or being not worth
listening to.
It's important to be able to talk up your own capacities as much as you can – you know a
lot of people, you've got plenty of experience under your belt and you recently completed a
major project. Later, people will find out that this was mostly hot air, but the fact that
they were initially fooled is down to another personality trait: you can lie convincingly and
feel little guilt. That's why you never take responsibility for your own behaviour.
Perfectly describes our new ruling-class, doesn't it!
It's important to be able to talk up your own capacities as much as you can – you know a
lot of people, you've got plenty of experience under your belt and you recently completed a
major project. Later, people will find out that this was mostly hot air, but the fact that
they were initially fooled is down to another personality trait: you can lie convincingly and
feel little guilt. That's why you never take responsibility for your own behaviour.
Sounds like a perfect description of newspaper columnists to me.
It's just the general spirit of the place: it's on such a downer and no amount of theorising and
talking will ever solve anything. There isn't a good feeling about this country anymore just a
lot of tying everyone up in in repressive knots with a lot of hooey like talk and put downs. We
need to find freedom again or maybe shove all the pricks into one part of the country and leave
them there to fuck each other over so the rest of us can create a new world free of bullcrap.
I don't know. Place is a superficial mess: 'look at me; look at what I own; I can cook Coq Au
Vin and drink bottles of expensive plonk and keep ten cars on my driveway'
Nah. Fortuneately there are still some decent people left but it's been like Hamlet now for quite
some time - "show me an honest man and I'll show you one man in ten thousand" Sucks.
This article is spot on and reflects Karl Marx's analysis regarding the economic base informing
and determining the superstructure of a given society, that is, its social, cultural aspects.
A neo-liberal, monetarist economy will shape and influence social and work relationships in ways
that are not beneficial for the many but as the commentator states, will benefit those possessed
of certain thrusting,domineering character traits. The common use of the word "loser" in contemporary
society to describe those who haven't "succeeded" financially is in itself telling.
It would be the perfect first chapter (foreword/introduction) in a best seller that goes on,
chapter by chapter, to show that neoliberalism destroys everything it touches:
Personal relationships;
trust;
personal integrity;
trust;
relationships;
trust;
transactions and trade;
trust;
market systems;
trust;
communities;
trust;
political relationships;
trust;
James Meek seems to have nailed it in his recent book, where he pointed out that the socially
conservative Thatcher, who wanted a society based on good old fashioned values, helped to create
the precise opposite with her enthusiasm for the neoliberal model. Now we are sinking into a dog-eat-dog
dystopia.
Many of the good old fashioned conservatives had time honoured values. They believed in taking
care of yourself but they also believed in integrity and honesty. They believed in living modestly
and would save much of their money rather than just spend it, and so would put some aside for
a rainy day. They believed in the community and were often active about local issues. They cared
about the countryside and the wildlife. They often recycled which went along with their thriftiness
and hatred of waste.
This all vanished when Thatcher came in with her selfish 'greed is good' brigade. Loads of
money!
We are indeed freer than before, in the sense that we can criticise religion, take advantage
of the new laissez-faire attitude to sex and support any political movement we like. We can
do all these things because they no longer have any significance –
Capitalist alienation is a daily practise. The daily practise of competing with and using people.
This gives rise to the ideology that society and other people are but a means to an end rather
than an end in themselves that is of course when they are not a frightening a existential competitive
threat. Contempt and fear. That is what we are reduced to by the buying and selling of labour
power and yes, only a psychopath can thrive under such conditions.
According to the left if your only ambition is to watch Jeremy Kyle, pick up a welfare cheque
once a week and vote for which ever party will promise to give you £10 a week more in welfare:
you're an almost saint like figure.
If you actually do something to try to create a better and more independent life for yourself,
your family and your community: you're "displaying psychopathic tendencies" .
If you actually do something to try to create a better and more independent life for yourself,
your family and your community: you're "displaying psychopathic tendencies".
So how do you create a better community ?
By paying your taxes on your wealth that so many of you try to avoid. Here lies the crux of
the matter. There would be no deficit if taxes were paid.
Some of the rich are so psychpathic they think jsut because they employ people they shouldn't
pay any tax. They think the employees should pay thier tax for them.
Why has tax become such a dirty word ? Think about it before you answer.
The conclusion is for me is that it is a brilliant economic model. It is the sheer apathy of
the voters and that they are cowards because they don't make it work for them. They allow the
people who own the theory to run it for themselves and thus they get all the benefits from it.
I'll try and explain.
Their business plan.
The truth is neoliberalism has infact made the rich western countries poorer and helped so
many other poorer countries around the world get richer. Let's face facts here giving to charities
would never have achieved this and something needed to be done to even up this world inequality.
The only way you are ever going to achieve world peace is if everybody is equal. It's not by chance
this theory was introduced by America. They are trying to bring that equality to everyone so that
world peace can be achieved. How many more illegal wars and deaths this will take and for how
long nobody knows. They are also very sinister and selfish and greedy because if the Americans
do achieve what they are trying to do. They will own and countrol the world via washington and
the dollar. The way the Americans see it is that the inequality created within each country is
a bribe to each power structure within that country which helps America achieve it's long term
goals. It creates inequality within each country but at the same time creates equality on the
world stage. It might take 100 years to achieve and millions of deaths but eventually every country
will be another state of America and look and act like any American state. Once that is achieved
world peace will follow. America see it as a war and they also see millions of deaths as acceptable
to achieve their end game. I of course disagree there must be a better way. How will history look
at this dark period in history in 300 years time if it does achieve world peace in 150 years time
?
In each country neoliberalism works but at the moment it only works for the few because the
voters allow it. The voters allow them to get away with it through submission. They've allowed
their parliaments to be taken over without a fight and allowed their brains to be brainwashed
by the media controlled by the few. Which means the the whole story of neoliberalism has been
skewed into a very narrow view which always suits and promotes the voices of the few.
Why did the voters allow that to happen ?
Their biggest success the few had over the many was to create an illusion that made tax a toxic
word. They attacked tax with everything they had to form an illusion in the voters minds that
paying tax was a bad thing and it was everybodys enemy. Then they passed laws to enhance that
view and trotted out scare stories around tax and that if they had to pay it then everybody would
leave that country. They created a world set up for them and ulitimately destroyed any chance
at all, for the success of neoliberalism to be shared by the many. This was their biggest success
to make sure the wealth of neoliberalism stayed with them.
As the author of this piece says quite clearly. "An economic system that rewards psychopathic
personality traits has changed our ethics and our personalities"
One of these traits is that they believe they shouldn't pay tax because they are creating jobs
and the tax their employees pay should be the amount of tax these companies pay. Again this makes
sure that the wealth is not shared.
Since they now own and control parliaments they also use the state to pay these wages in the
way of tax credits and subsidies and grants as they refuse to pay their employees a living wage.
It is our taxes they use to do this. Again this is to make sure that the wealth is not shared.
There are too many examples to list of how they make sure that the wealth generated by neoliberalism
is not shared. Then surely it is up to the voters to make sure it does. Neoliberalism works and
it would work for everybody if the voters would just grow a set of balls. Tax avoidance was the
battle that won the war for the few. It is time the voters revisited that battle and re write
it so that the outcome was that the many won not just the few. For example there would be no deficit
if the many had won that battle. Of course they wouldn't have left a market of 60 million people
with money in their pockets, it would have been business suicide.
This is a great example of how they created an illusion, a false culture, a world that does
not exist. The focus is all on the deficit and how to fix it, as they socialise the losses and
privatise the profits. There is no eyes or light shed on why there is a deficit due to tax avoidance.
It's time we changed that and made Neoliberlaism work for us. If we don't then we can't complain
when it only works for the few.
Neoliberlaism works. It's about time we owned it for ourselves. Otherwise we'll always be slaves
to it. It's not the theory that is corrupt it is the people who own it.
There is no eyes or light shed on why there is a deficit due to tax avoidance.
... or because politicians have discovered that you can buy votes by giving handouts even to
those who don't need them, thereby making everyone dependent on the largesse of the state and,
by extension, promoting the interests of the most irresponsible politicians and the bureaucracies
they represent.
You seem to regard what you call neoliberalism as a creator of wealth. You then claim that the
reason for this wealth accruing almost entirely to an elite few is the "the voters" have prevented
neoliberalism from distributing the wealth more equitably.
I can't really follow the logic of your argument.
Neoliberalism seems to be working perfectly for those few who are in a position to exploit
it. It's doing what it's designed to do.
I agree that the ignorance of "the voters" is allowing the elite to get away with it. But the
voters should be voting for those who propose an alternative economic model. Unfortunately, in
the western world at the present time, they have no viable alternative to vote for, because the
neoliberals have captured all of the mainstream political parties and institutions.
However, you missed one of the main points. Our parliament has been taken over by the few.
One man used to and probably still does strike fear into the government. Murdoch. Problem is
there are millions like him that lobby and control policy and the media.
..."There are regulations about everything,"... Yes, but higher up the scale you go, the less
this regulation is enforced, less individual accountability and less transparency. Neoliberalism
has turned society on its head. We see ever growing corporate socialism subsidising the top 1%
and heavily regulated hard nosed market capitalism for the rest of us resulting in massive inequality
in wealth distribution. This inequality by design makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. We've
created a society where people who were once valued as an individual part of that society are
now treated as surplus to requirements and somehow need to be eliminated.
They're mostly tight g*ts who refuse to pay to use the Mail/Telegraph sites. This is just about
the last free forum left now and it's attracting all kinds of undesirables. The level of personal
insult has gone up enormously since they came here. Most of us traditional Ciffers don't bother
with many posts here any more, it's too boring now.
Our presumed freedom is tied to one central condition: we must be successful – that is,
"make" something of ourselves.
That's always been the way, I think. It's life.
We are all of us the descendants of a million generations of successful organisms, human and pre-human.
The ones that didn't succeed fel by the wayside.
We're the ones left to tell the tale.
"... As disgusted and determined as we might be, we still have to operate within the 'neoliberal' system. We are all 'us' in this context and we are all a product of our environment to some extent. however crap that environment might be. ..."
"... Combined with offshoring of as many jobs abroad as possible, free movement of unskilled workers and the use of agency labour to undercut pay and conditions, the future looks bleak. ..."
"... There is nothing meritocratic about neoliberlaism. Its about who you know. ..."
"... I understand what you say, and there is definitely an element within society which values Success above all else, but I do not personally know anyone like that. ..."
"... .....By "us" of course, you mean commies. I think you are inadvertently demonstrating another of Hares psychopath test features; a lack of empathy and self awareness. ..."
"... I've worked in a few large private companies over the years, and my experience is they increasingly resemble some sort of cult, with endless brainwashing programmes for the 'members', charismatic leaders who can do no wrong, groupthink, mandatory utilisation of specialist jargon (especially cod-psychological terminology) to differentiate those 'in' and those 'out', increased blurring of the lines between 'private' and 'work' life (your ass belongs to us 24-7) and of course, constant, ever more complex monitoring of the 'members' for 'heretical thoughts or beliefs'. ..."
"... And the most striking idea here: Our characters are partly moulded by society. And neo-liberal society, and it's illusions of freedom, has moulded many of us in ways that bring out the worst in us. ..."
"... Neo-liberalism has however killed off post war social mobility. In fact according to the OECD report into social mobility, the more egalitarian a developed society is, the more social mobility there is, the more productivity and the less poverty and social problems there are. ..."
As disgusted and determined as we might be, we still have to operate within the 'neoliberal'
system. We are all 'us' in this context and we are all a product of our environment to some extent.
however crap that environment might be.
There are constant laments about the so-called loss of norms and values in our culture.
Yet our norms and values make up an integral and essential part of our identity. So they cannot
be lost, only chaned
If you have no mandate for such change, it breeds resentment.
For example, race & immigration was used by NuLabour in a blatant attempt at mass societal
engineering (via approx 8%+ increase in national population over 13 years).
It was the most significant betrayal in modern democratic times, non mandated change extraordinaire,
not only of British Society, but the core traditional voter base for Labour.
To see people still trying to deny it took place and dismiss the fallout of the cultural elephant
rampaging around the United Kingdom is as disingenuous as it is pathetic.
It's a race to the bottom, and has lead to such "success stories" as G4S, Serco, A4E, ATOS, Railtrack,
privatised railways, privatised water and so on.
It's all about to get even worse with TTIP, and if that fails there is always TISA which mandates
privatisation of pretty much everything - breaking state monopolies on public services.
Combined with offshoring of as many jobs abroad as possible, free movement of unskilled
workers and the use of agency labour to undercut pay and conditions, the future looks bleak.
A neoliberal meritocracy would have us believe that success depends on individual effort
and talents
There is nothing meritocratic about neoliberlaism. Its about who you know. In the
UK things have gone backwards almost to the 1950s. Changes which were brought about by the expansion
of universities have pretty much been reversed. The establishment - politics, media, business
is dominated by the better=off Oxbridge elite.
It is difficult for me to agree. I have grown up within Neoliberalism being 35, but you describe
no one I know. People I know weigh up the extra work involved in a promotion and decide whether
the sacrifice is worth the extra money/success.
People I know go after their dreams, whether that be farming or finance. I understand what
you say, and there is definitely an element within society which values Success above all else,
but I do not personally know anyone like that.
He's saying people's characters are changed by their environment. That they aren't set in stone,
but are a function of culture. And that the socio-cultural shift in the last few decades is a
bad thing, and is bad for our characters. In your words: The dreams have changed.
It's convincing, except it isn't as clear as it could be.
I understand his principle but as proof, he sites very specific examples...
A highly skilled individual who puts parenting before their career comes in for criticism.
A person with a good job who turns down a promotion to invest more time in other things is
seen as crazy – unless those other things ensure success. A young woman who wants to become
a primary school teacher is told by her parents that she should start off by getting a master's
degree in economics – a primary school teacher, whatever can she be thinking of?
This is used as an example to show the shifting mindset. But as I stated, this describes no
one I know. We, us, commenting here are society. I agree that there has been a shift in culture
and those reaping the biggest financial rewards are the greedy. But has that not always been the
way, the self interested have always walked away with the biggest slice, perhaps at the moment
that slice has become larger still, but most people still want to have a comfortable life, lived
their way. People haven't changed as much as the OP believes.
The great lie is that financial reward is success and happiness.
This is used as an example to show the shifting mindset. But as I stated, this describes
no one I know
Indeed even in the "sociopathic" world of fund management and investment banking, the vast
majority of people establish a balance for how they wish to manage their work and professional
lives and evaluate decisions in light of them both.
Indeed. How come G4S keep winning contracts despite their behaviour being incompetent and veering
on criminal, and the fact they are despised pretty much universally. Hardly a meritocracy.
You can add A4E to that list and now Capita who have recruited all of 61 part time soldiers
in their contract to replace all the thousands of sacked professionals
.....By "us" of course, you mean commies. I think you are inadvertently demonstrating another
of Hares psychopath test features; a lack of empathy and self awareness.
"Since the living standards of majority in this country are on a downward trend"
The oil's running out. Living standards, on average, will continue to decline until either
it stops running out or fusion power turns out to work after all.
Whether you have capitalism or socialism won't make any difference to the declining energy
input.
I'm sure I read an article in the 80s predicting what the author has written. Economics and cultural
environment is bound to have an effect on behaviour. We now live in a society that worships at
the altar of the cult of the individual. Society and growth of poverty no longer matters, a lone
success story proves all those people falling into poverty are lazy good for nothing parasites.
The political class claims to be impotent when it comes to making a fairer society because the
political class is made up of people who were affluent in the first place or benefited from a
neo-liberal rigged economy. The claim is, anything to do with a fair society is social engineering
and bound to fail. Well, neo-liberal Britain was socially engineered and it is failing the majority
of people in the country.
There is a cognitive dissonance going on in the political narrative of neo-liberalism, not
everyone can make it in a neo-liberal society and since neo-liberalism destroys social mobility.
Ironically, the height of social mobility in the west, from the gradual rise through the 50s and
60s, was the 70s. The 80s started the the downward trend in social mobility despite all the bribes
that went along with introducing the property owning democracy, which was really about chaining
people to capitalism.
I'm sure I read an article in the 80s predicting what the author has written.
Well, a transformation of human character was the open battle-cry of 1980s proponents of neoliberalism.
Helmut Kohl, the German prime minister, called it the "geistig-moralische Wende", the "spiritual
and moral sea-change" - I think people just misunderstood what he meant by that, and laughed at
what they saw as empty sloganeering. Now we're reaping what his generation sowed.
OK, now can you tell us why individual freedom is such a bad thing?
The previous period of liberal economics ended a century ago, destroyed by the war whose outbreak
we are interminably celebrating. That war and the one that followed a generation later brought
in strict government control, even down to what people could eat and wear. Orwell's dystopia of
1984 actually describes Britain's wartime society continuing long after the real wars had ended.
It was the slow pace of lifting wartime controls, even slower in Eastern Europe, and the lingering
mindset that economies and societies could be directed for "the greater good" no matter what individual
costs there were that led to a revival of liberal economics.
Neoliberalism is a mere offshoot of Neofeudalism. Labour and Capital - those elements of both
not irretrievably bought-out - must demand the return of The Commons . We must extend our
analysis back over centuries , not decades - let's strike to the heart of the matter!
Collectivist ideologies including Fascism, Communism and theocracy are all similar to feudalism.
I've worked in a few large private companies over the years, and my experience is they
increasingly resemble some sort of cult, with endless brainwashing programmes for the 'members',
charismatic leaders who can do no wrong, groupthink, mandatory utilisation of specialist jargon
(especially cod-psychological terminology) to differentiate those 'in' and those 'out', increased
blurring of the lines between 'private' and 'work' life (your ass belongs to us 24-7) and of course,
constant, ever more complex monitoring of the 'members' for 'heretical thoughts or beliefs'.
'Collectivism' is not as incompatible with capitalism as you seem to think.
You sound like one of those 'libertarians'. Frankly, I think the ideals of such are only realisable
as a sole trader, or operating in a very small business.
Progress is restricted because the people are made poor by the predations of the state
Neoliberalism is firmly committed to individual liberty, and therefore to peace and mutual
toleration
It is firmly committed to ensuring that the boundaries between private and public entities
become blurred, with all the ensuing corruption that entails. In other words, that the state becomes
(through the taxpayers) a captured one, delivering a never ending, always growing, revenue stream
for favoured players in private enterprise. This is, of course, deliberate. 'Individual liberties
and mutual toleration' are only important insomuch as they improve, or detract, from profit-centre
activity.
You have difficulty in separating propaganda from reality, but you're barely alone in this.
Lastly, you also misunderstand feudalism, which in the European context, flourished before
there was a developed concept of a centralised nation state, indeed, the most classic examples
occurred after the decentralisation of an empire or suchlike. The primary feudal relation
was between the bondsman/peasant and his local magnate, who in turn, was subject to his liege.
In other words a warrior class bound by vassalage to a nobility, with the peasantry bound by
manorialism and to the estates of the Church.
Apart from that though, you're right on everything.
I completely agree with the general sentiment.
The specifics aren't that solid though:
- That we think our characters are independent of context/society: I certainly don't.
- That statement about "bullying is more widespread" - lacks justification.
The general theme of "meritocracy is a fiction" is compelling though.
As is "We are free-er in many ways because those ways no longer have any significance"
.
And the most striking idea here: Our characters are partly moulded by society. And neo-liberal
society, and it's illusions of freedom, has moulded many of us in ways that bring out the worst
in us.
The Rat Race is a joke. Too many people waste their lives away playing the capitalist game. As
long as you've got enough money to keep living you can be happy. Just ignore the pathetic willy-wavers
with their flashy cars and logos on their shirts and all that guff
All we need is "enough" - Posession isn't that interesting. More a doorway to doing interesting
stuff.
I prefer to cut out the posession and go straight to "do interesting stuff" myself. As long as
the rent gets paid and so on, obviously.
Doesn't always work, obviously, but I reckon not wanting stuff is a good start to the good
life (ref. to series with Felicity Kendall (and some others) intended :)
That, and Epicurus who I keep mentioning on CIF.
Rather naive. History is full of brilliant individuals who made it. Neo-liberalism has however
killed off post war social mobility. In fact according to the OECD report into social mobility,
the more egalitarian a developed society is, the more social mobility there is, the more productivity
and the less poverty and social problems there are.
I agree - the central dilemma is that neither individualism nor collectiviism works.
But is this dilemma real? Is there a third system? Yes there is - Henry George.
George's paradigm in nothing funky, it is simply Classical Liberal Economics - society works
best when individuals get to keep the fruits of thier labour, but pay rent for the use of The
Commons.
At present we have the opposite - labour and capital are taxed heavily and The commons are monopolised
by the 1%.
Hence unemployment
Hence the wealth gap
Hence the environmental crisis
Hence poverty
This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our
community standards
. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see
our FAQs .
So the values and morals that people have are so wafer thin that a variation in the political
system governing them can strip them away? Why do the left consistently have such a low opinion
of humanity?
"Why do the left consistently have such a low opinion of humanity?"
Open your eyes and take a lokk at the world. There is enough wealth in the world for everyone
to live free from poverty. Yet, the powerful look after themselves and allow poverty to not only
exist but spread.
>If you've ever dithered over the question of whether the UK needs a written constitution, dither
no longer. Imagine the clauses required to preserve the status of the Corporation. "The City of
London will remain outside the authority of parliament. Domestic and foreign banks will be permitted
to vote as if they were human beings, and their votes will outnumber those cast by real people.
Its elected officials will be chosen from people deemed acceptable by a group of medieval guilds
…".<
I agree with much of this. Working in the NHS, as a clinical psychologist, over the past 25 years,
I have seen a huge shift in the behaviour of managers who used to be valued for their support
and nurturing of talent, but now are recognised for their brutal and aggressive approach to those
beneath them. Reorganisations of services, which take place with depressing frequency, provide
opportunities to clear out the older, experienced members of the profession who would have acted
as mentors and teachers to the less experienced staff.
I worked in local authority social care, I can certainly see the very close similarities to what
you describe in the NHS, and my experience in the local authority.
I can well imagine there are big similarities. Friends of mine who work in education say the same
- there is a complete mismatch between the aims of the directors/managers and that of the professionals
actually providing the teaching/therapy/advice to the public. When I go to senior meetings it
is very rare that patients are even mentioned.
Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace.
This is an incredibly broad generalisation. I remember my grandfather telling me about what
went on in the mills he worked in in Glasgow before the war, it sounded like a pretty savage environment
if you didn't fit in. It wasn't called bullying, of course.
I put this simple statement to you: meritocratic neoliberalism favours certain personality
traits and penalises others.
Isn't this true of pretty much any system? And human relationships in general? I cannot think
of a system that is completely blind to the differences between people. If you happen to be lazy
or have a problem with authority you will never do as "well" (for want of a better term).
I have always said to people who claim they are Liberals that you must support capitalism,the
free market,free trade, deregulation etc etc when most of them deny that, I always say you are
not a Liberal then you're just cherry-picking the [Liberal] policies you like and the ones you
don't like,which is dishonest.
There is nothing neo about Liberalism,it has been around since the 19th century[?].People have
been brainwashed in this country [and the USA] since the 1960's to say they are liberals for fear
of being accused of being fascists,which is quite another thing.
I have never supported any political ideology,which is what Liberalism is,and believe all of them
should be challenged.By doing so you can evolve policies which are fair and just and appropriate
to the issue at hand.
Neoliberalism has only benefited a minority. Usually those with well connected and wealthy families.
And of course those who have no hesitation to exploit other's.
In my view, it is characterized by corruption, exploitation and a total lack of social justice.
Economically, the whole system is fully dependent on competition not co-operation. One day, the
consequences of this total failure will end in violence.
One day, the consequences of this total failure will end in violence.
And if we keep consuming all our resources on this finite planet in pursuit of profit and more
profit there will be no human race we will all be extinct.,and all that will be left is an exhausted
polluted planet that once harbored a vast variety of life.
Isent neolibral capitalism great.
As Marx so often claimed, values, ethics, morality and behaviours are themselves determined by
the economic and monetary system under which people live. Stealing is permitted if you are a banker
and call it a bonus or interest, murder is permitted if your government sends you to war, surveillance
and data mining is permitted if your state tells you there is a danger from terrorists, crime
is overlooked if it makes money for the perpetrator, benefit claimants are justified if they belong
to an aristocratic caste or political elite.......
There is no universal right or wrong, only that identified as such by the establishment at
that particular instance in history, and at that specific place on the planet. Outside that, they
have as much relevance today as scriptures instructing that slaves can be raped, adulterers can
be stoned or the hands of thieves amputated. Give me the crime and the punishment, and I will
give you the time and the place.
For a tiny elite sitting on the top everything has been going exactly as it was initially planned.
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men
living together in Society, they create for themselves in the
course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a
moral code that glorifies it".
F. Bastiat.
Excellent article.
I'm amazed that more isn't made of the relationship between political environment/systems and
their effect on the individual. Oliver James Affluenza makes a compelling case for the unhappiness
outputs of societies who've embraced neo liberalism yet we still blindly pursue it.
The US has long been world leader in both the demand and supply of psychotherapy and the relentless
pursuit of free market economics. these stats are not unconnected.
I once had a colleague with the knack of slipping into his conversation complimentary remarks
that other people had made about him. It wasn't the only reason for his rapid ascent to great
heights, but perhaps it helped.
That's one of my favourite characteristics of David Brent from 'The Office'. "You're all looking
at me, you're going, "Well yeah, you're a success, you've achieved you're goals, you're reaping
the rewards, sure. But, OI, Brent. Is all you care about chasing the Yankee dollar?"
Neoliberalism is another Social Darwinist driven philosophy popularised after leading figures
of our times (or rather former times) decided Malthus was probably correct.
So here we have it, serious growth in population, possibly unsustainable, and a growing 'weak
will perish, strong will survive' mentality. The worst thing is I used to believe in neoliberal
policies, until of course I understood the long term ramifications.
And the reality is that "neoliberalism" has, in the last few decades, freed hundreds of millions
in the developing word from a subsistence living to something resembling a middle class lifestyle.
This has resulted in both plummeting global poverty statistics and in greatly reduced fecundity,
so that we will likely see a leveling off of global population in the next few decades. And this
slowing down of population growth is the most critical thing we could for increasing sustainability.
The problem is a judeo-christian idea of "free choice" when experiments, undertaken by Benjamin
Libet and since, indicate that it is near to unlikely for there to be volitionally controlled
conscious decisions.
If we are not even free to intend and control our decisions, thoughts and ambitions, how can
anyone claim to be morally entitled to ownership of their property and have a 'right' to anything
as a reward for what decisions they made? Happening is pure luck: meaningful [intended] responsibility
and accountability cannot be claimed for decisions and actions and so entitlement cannot be claimed
for what acquisitions are causally obtained from those decisions and actions.There is no 'just
desserts' or decision-derived entitlement justification for wealth and owning property unless
the justifier has a superstitious and scientifically unfounded belief in free choice.
Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace
Compared to say, that experienced by domestic staff in big houses, small children in factories,
perhaps even amongst miners, dockers and steel workers in the halcyon days of the post-war decade
when apparently everything was rosy?
This whole article is a hodge podge of anecdote and flawed observations designed to shoehorn
behaviour into a pattern that supports an economic hypothesis - it is factually groundless.
Compared to say, that experienced by domestic staff in big houses, small children in factories
Yes, but if it was left to people like you, children would still be working in factories. So
please do not take credit for improvements that you would fight tooth and nail against
perhaps even amongst miners, dockers and steel workers in the halcyon days of the post-war
decade when apparently everything was rosy?
They had wages coming to them and didn't need to rely on housing benefit to keep a roof over
their head. Now people like you bitterly complain about poorly paid workers getting benefits to
sustain them.
People who "work hard and play hard" are nearly always kidding themselves about the second bit.
It seems to me that the trend in the world of neoliberalism is to think that "playing hard"
is defined as "playing with expensive, branded toys" during your two week annual holiday.
'Playing hard' in the careerist lexicon = getting blind drunk to mollify the feelings of despair
and emptiness which typify a hollow, debt-soaked life defined by motor cars and houses.
The "Max Factor" life. Selfishness and Greed. The compaction of life. Was it not in a scripture
in text?. The Bible. We as humans and followers of "Faith" in christian beliefs and the culture
of love they fellow man. The culture of words are a root to all "Evil. Depending on "Who's" the
Author and Scrolling the words; and for what reason?. The only way we can save what is left on
this planet and save man kind. Is eradicate the above "Selfishness and Greed" ?
We are indeed freer than before, in the sense that we can criticise religion, take advantage
of the new laissez-faire attitude to sex and support any political movement we like. We can
do all these things because they no longer have any significance – freedom of this kind is
prompted by indifference.
These changes listed (and then casually dismissed) are monumental social achievements. Many
countries in the world do not permit their 'citizens' such freedom of choice and I for one am
very grateful to live in a country where these things are possible.
Of course there is much more to be done. But I would suggest that to be born in Western Europe
today is probably about as safe, comfortable, and free than at any time and any place in human
history. I'm not being complacent about what we still have to achieve. But we won't achieve anything
if we take such a flippant attitude towards all the amazing things that have been bequeathed to
us.
Excellent observation, it's the same way that technology that has quite clearly changed our lives
and given us access to information, opportunity to travel and entertainment that would have been
beyond the comprehension of our grandparents is dismissed as irrelevant because its just a smart
phone and a not a job for life in a British Leyland factory.
It takes a peculairly spoilt and arrogant Westerner to claim that the freedom to criticise religion
isn't significant or that we're only allowed to do so because it's no longer important. Tell that
to a girl seeking to escape an arranged marriage in Bradford...
OK. Now off you go and apply the same methodology to people living in statist societies, or just
have a go at our own civil service or local government workers. Try social workers or the benefits
agency or the police.
The author makes some good points, although I wouldn't necessarily call our system a meritocracy.
I guess the key one is how unaware we are about the influence of economic policy on our values.
This kind of systems hurts everyday people and rewards psychopaths, and is damaging to society
as a whole over the long term.
Targetising everything is really insidious.
That neoliberalism puts tremendous pressure on individuals to conform to materialistic norms is
undeniable, but for a psychotherapist to disallow the choice of those individuals to nevertheless
choose how to live is an admission of failure.
In fact, many people today experience the shallowness and corrupt character of market society
and elect either to be in it, but not of it, or to opt out early having made enough money, often
making a conscious choice to relinquish the 'trappings' in return for a more meaningful existence.
Some do selfless service to their fellow human beings, to the environment or both, and thereby
find a degree of fulfillment that they always wanted.
To surrender to the external demands of a superficial and corrupting life is to ignore the
tremendous opportunity human life offers to all: self realization.
It's not either-or, system or individual, but some combination of the two.
Decision making may be 80% structure and 20% individual choice for the mainstream - or maybe the
other way round for the rebels amongst us that try to reject the system.
The theory of structuration (Giddens) provides one explanation of how social systems develop
through the interactions between the system and actors in it.
I partly agree with you but I think examples of complete self realisation are extremely rare.
That means stepping completely out of the system and out of our own personality. Neither this
nor that.
The point is that the individual has the choice to move in the right direction. When and if they
do make a decision to change their life, it will be fulfilling for them and for the system.
Our presumed freedom is tied to one central condition: we must be successful – that is,
"make" something of ourselves. You don't need to look far for examples. A highly skilled individual
who puts parenting before their career comes in for criticism. A person with a good job who
turns down a promotion to invest more time in other things is seen as crazy – unless those
other things ensure success.
I have been in the private sector for generations, and know tons of people who have behaved
precisely as described above. I don't know anyone who calls them crazy. In fact, I see the exact
opposite tendency - the growing acceptance that money isn't everything, and that once one has
achieved a certain level of success and financial security that it is fine to put other priorities
first rather than simply trying to acquire ever more.
The ATL article is rather stuffed full of stereotypes.
And speaking personally, I have turned down two offers of promotion to a management position
in the last ten years and neither time did I get the sense people thought I was crazy. They might
have done if I were in my late twenties rather than mid-fifties but that does reinforce the notion
that people - even bosses - can accept that there is more to life than a career.
I agree about the stereotypes. Also, has anyone ever seriously advised a primary school teacher
that they need a masters degree of economics?! I highly doubt that that is the norm!
I hate to break it to you but no matter how you organise society the nasty people get to the
top and the nice people end up doing all the work. "Neo-liberalism" is no different.
Or you could put it another way - 'neoliberalism' is the least worst economic/social system, because
most people are far more powerless and far more worse off under any other system that has ever
been developed by man...
For a start you need a system that is not based on rewarding and encouraging the worst aspects
of our characters. I try to encourage my kids not to be greedy, to be honest and to care about
others but in this day and age it's an uphill struggle.
"A neoliberal meritocracy would have us believe that success depends on individual effort and
talents, meaning responsibility lies entirely with the individual and authorities should give
people as much freedom as possible to achieve this goal."
In the UK we have nothing like a meritocracy with a privately educated elite.
Success and failure are just about parental wealth.
"So the values and morals that people have are so wafer thin that a variation in the political
system governing them can strip them away? Why do the left consistently have such a low opinion
of humanity?"
RidleyWalker, I can assue you that it is not the left but the right who consistently have a
low opinion of humanity. Anyway, what has left and right got to do with this? There are millions
of ordinary decent people whose lives are blighted by the obscentity that is neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism
is designed to make the rich richer at the expense of the poor. Neo-liberalism is responsible
for the misery for millions across the globe. The only happy ones are those at the top of the
heap...until even their bloated selfish world inevitably implodes.
Of course these disgusting parasites are primitive thinkers and cannot see that we could have
a better, happier world for everyone if societies become more equal. Studies demonstrate that
more equal societies are more stable and content than those with ever-widening gaps in wealth
between rich and poor.
Neoliberalism...disgusting parasites...primitive thinkers...misery of millions...bloated selfish
world
This reads like a Soviet pamphlet from the 1930's. Granted you've replaced the word 'capitalism'
with 'neoliberalism' - in other words subsstituted one meaningless abstraction for another. It
wasn't true then and it certainly isnt true now...
Not sure why you think all this is new or attributable to neoliberalism. Things were much the
same in the 1960's and 1970's. All that has changed is that instead of working on assembly lines
in factories under the watchful gaze of a foreman we now have university degrees and sit in cubicles
pressing buttons on keyboards. Micromanagement, bureaucracy, rules and regulations are as old
as the hills. Office politics has replaced shop floor politics; the rich are still rich and the
poor are still poor.
Well, except that people have more money, live longer and have more opportunities in life than
before - most people anyway. The ones left behind are the ones we need to worry about
Not sure why you think all this is new or attributable to neoliberalism. Things were much
the same in the 1960's and 1970's.
And you can read far more excoriating critiques of our shallow materialistic capitalism, culture
from those decades, now recast as some sort of prelapsarian Golden Age.
Actually, the 1929 crash was not the first by any means. The boom and bust cycle of modern economics
goes back a lot further. When my grandparents talked about the "Great Depression" they were referring
to the 1890's.
The nineteenth century saw major financial crises in almost every decade, 1825, 1837, 1847, 1857,
1866 before we even get to the Great Depression of 1873-96.
Socialism seems to be happy home of corruption & nepotism. The old saw that Tory MP's are brought
down by sex scandals whilst Labour MP's have issues with money still holds.
Why is that relevant? This is a critique of neo liberalism and it is a very accurate one at that.
It isn't suggesting that Socialism is better or even offers an alternative, just that neo liberalism
has failed society and explores some of how and why.
The main problem is that neoliberalism is a faith dressed up as a science and any evidence that
disproves the hypothesis (e.g. the 2008 financial collapse) only helps to reinforce the faith
of the fundamentalists supporting it.
The reason why "neoliberalism" is so successful is precisely because the evidence shows it does
work. It has not escaped peoples' notice that nations where governments heavily curtail individual
and commercial freedom are often rather wretched places to live.
It would be nice to curtail coprorate freedom without curtailing the freedom of individuals. I
don't see how that might work.
"hubris over free markets" might well be it.
But I might be understanding that in a different way from you. People were making irrational decisions
that didn't seem to take on basic logic of a free market, or even common sense. Such as "where
is all this money coming from" (madoff, house ladder), "of course this will work" (fred goodwin
and his takeovers) and even "will i get my money back" (sub-prime lending).
So why don't we do something about it....genuinely? There appears to be no power left in voting
unless people are given an actual choice....Is it not time then to to provide a well grounded
articulate choice? The research, in many different disciplines, is already out there.
What can we do? It appears we are stuck between the Labour party and the Conservatives. Is it
even possible for another party to come to power with the next couple of elections?
The sociologist Zygmunt Bauman neatly summarised the paradox of our era as: "Never have
we been so free. Never have we felt so powerless." We are indeed freer than before, in the
sense that we can criticise religion, take advantage of the new laissez-faire attitude to sex
and support any political movement we like. We can do all these things because they no longer
have any significance – freedom of this kind is prompted by indifference. Yet, on the other
hand, our daily lives have become a constant battle against a bureaucracy that would make Kafka
weak at the knees. There are regulations about everything, from the salt content of bread to
urban poultry-keeping.
Verhaeghe begins by criticizing free markets and "neo-liberalism", but ends by criticizing
the huge, stifling government bureaucracy that endeavours to micro-manage every aspect of its
citizens lives, and is the opposite of true classic liberalism.
probably not as confusing as it seems to be for you.
this is just the difference between neoliberalism in theory and in practise.
like the "real existierende sozialismus" in eastern germany fell somewhat short of the brilliant
utopia of the theorists.
verhaeghe does not criticise the theoretical model, but the practical outcome. And the worst governmant
and corporate bureaucracy that mankind has ever seen is part of it. The result of 30+ years of
neoliberal policies.
In my experience this buerocracy is gets worse in anglo saxon countries closest to the singularity
at the bottom of the neolib black hole.
I am aware that this is only a correlation, but correlations, while they do not prove causation,
still require explanation.
Some time ago, and perhaps still, it was/is fashionable for Toryish persons to denigrate the 1960s.
I look back to that decade with much nostalgia. Nearly everyone had a job of sorts, not terribly
well paid but at least it was a job. And now? You are compelled to toil your guts out, kiss somebody's
backside, run up unpayable debts - and, in the UK, live in a house that in many other countries
would have been demolished decades ago. Scarcely a day passes when I am not partly disgusted at
what has overtaken my beloved country.
An excellent article! The culture of the 80's has ruled for too long and its damage done.... its
down to our youth to start to shape things now and I think that's beginning to happen.
Neo-Liberalism as operated today. "Greed is Good" and senior bankers and those who sell and buy
money, commodities etc; are diven by this trait of humankind.
But we, the People are just as guilty with our drives for 'More'. More over everything, even
shopping at the supermarket - "Buy one & get ten free", must have.
Designer ;bling;, clothes, shoes, bags, I-Pads etc etc, etc. It is never ending. People seem
to be scared that they haven't got what next has, and next will think that they are 'Not Cool'.
We, the people should be satisfied with what have got, NOT what what we havn't got.
Those who "want" (masses of material goods) usually "Dont get!"
The current system is unsustainable as the World' population rises and rises. Nature (Gaia)
will take care of this through disease, famine, and of course the stupidity of Humankind - wars,
destruction and general stupidity.
What's a meritocracy? Oh, that's right - a fable that people who have a lot of money deserve it
somehow because they're so much better than the people who work for a living.
The world was an even nastier place before the current era. During the 1970s and early 1980s there
was huge inflation which robbed people of their saving, high unemployment, and (shudder) Disco.
People tend to view the past with rose-coloured glasses.
What neoliberalism? We've got a mixed economy, which seemingly upsets both those on the right
who wish to cut back the state and those on the left who'd bolster it.
I work in a law firm specialising in M&A, hardly the cuddliest of environments, but I recognise
almost nothing here as a description of my work place. Sure, some people are wankers but that's
true everywhere.
FDR, the Antichrist of the American Right, famously said that the only thing we have to fear is
fear itself. And here we are with this ideology which in many ways stokes the fear. The one thing
these bastards don't want most of us to feel is secure.
There is no "free market" anywhere. That is a fantasy. It is a term used when corporations want
to complain about regulations. What we have in most industrialized countries is corporate socialism
wherein corporations get to internalize profits and externalize costs and losses. It has killed
of our economies and our middle class.
Socialism or barbarism -- a starker choice today than when the phrase was coined.
So long, at least, as we have an evolved notion of what socialism entails. Which means, please,
not the state capitalism + benign paternalism that it's unfortunately come to mean for
most people, in the course of its parasitical relationship with capitalism proper, and so with
all capitalism's inventions (the 'nation', the modern bureaucracy, ever-more-efficient exploitation
to cumulatively alienating ends......)
It's just as unfortunate, in this light, that the term 'self-management' has been appropriated
by the ideologues of pseudo-meritocracy, in just the way the article describes..
Because it's also a term (from the French autogestion) used to describe what I'd argue is the
most nuanced and sophisticated collectivist alternative to capitalism -- an alternative that is
at one and the same time a rejection of capitalism.... and of the central role of the state
and 'nation' (that phony, illusory community that plays a more central role in empowering the
modern state than does its monopoly on violence)... and of the ideology of growth, and
of the ideal of monolithic, ruthlessly efficient economic totalities organised to this end....
It's a rejection, in other words, of all those things contemplation of which reminds us just
how little fundamental difference there is between capitalism and the system cobbled together
on the fly by the Bolsheviks -- same vertical organisation to the ends of the same exploitation,
same exploitation to the ends of expanding the scope and scale of vertical organisation, all of
it with the same destructive effects on the sociabilities of everyday life....
Self-management in this sense goes beyond 'workers control'; (I'd argue that) it envisions
a society in which most aspects of life have been cut free from the ties that bind people
vertically to sources of influence and control, however they're constituted (private and public
bureaucracies, market pressures, the illusory narratives of nation, mass media and commodity...).
The horizontal ties of workplace and local community would thus be constitutive, by default,
and society as a whole would become very little more than the sum of its parts -- mutating on
a molecular local level as people collectively and democratically decided, in circumstances that
actually granted them the power to do so, how to balance the conflicting needs and desires and
necessities that a complex society and a complex division of labour present. 'Balance' because
there really isn't any prospect of a utopian resolution of these conflicts -- they come with civilisation
-- or with barbarism, for than matter, in any of its modern incarnations.
What about those who disagree with such a radical reordering of society? How would the collective
deal with those who wished to exploit it?
I'm genuinely interested, beats working...
The horizontal ties of workplace and local community would thus be constitutive, by default,
and society as a whole would become very little more than the sum of its parts -- mutating
on a molecular local level as people collectively and democratically decided, in circumstances
that actually granted them the power to do so, how to balance the conflicting needs and desires
and necessities that a complex society and a complex division of labour present.
Why do socialists so often resort to such turgid, impenetrable prose? Could it be an attempt
to mask the vacuity of their position?
I read this article skeptically, but then realised how accurately he described my workplace. Most
people I know on the outside have nice middle class lives, but underneath it suffer from anxiety,
about 1 not putting enough into their careers 2 not spending enough time with their kids. When
I decided to cut my work hours in half when I had a child, 2 of my colleagues were genuinely concerned
for me over things like, I might be let go, how would I cope with the drop in money, I was cutting
my chances of promotion, how would it look in a review. The level of anxiety was frightening.
People on the forum seem to be criticizing what they see as the authors flippant attitude to
sexual freedom and lack of religious hold, but I see the authors point, what good are these freedoms
when we are stuck in the stranglehold of no job security and huge mortgage debt. Yes you can have
a quick shag with whoever you want and don't need to answer to anyone over it on a Sunday, but
come Monday morning its back to the the ever sharpening grindstone.
This reminds me of the world I started to work in in 1955. I accept that by 1985 it was ten times
worse and by the time I retired in 2002, after 47 years, I was very glad to have what I called
"survived". At its worst was the increasing difference between the knowledge base of "the boss"
when technology started to kick in. I was called into the boss's office once to be criticised
for the length of a report. It had a two page summery of the issue and options for resolving the
problem. I very meekly inquired if he had decided on any of the options to resolve the problem.
What options are you talking about? was his response, which told me that either he had not read
the report or did not understand the problem. This was the least of my problems as I later had
to spend two days in his office explaining the analysis we (I) were submitting to the Board.
A highly skilled individual who puts parenting before their career comes in for criticism.
A person with a good job who turns down a promotion to invest more time in other things is
seen as crazy – unless those other things ensure success. A young woman who wants to become
a primary school teacher is told by her parents that she should start off by getting a master's
degree in economics – a primary school teacher, whatever can she be thinking of?
Speak for yourself.
The current economic situation affects each of us as much as we allow it to. Some may well love
neo-liberalism and the concomitant dog eat dog attitude, but there are some of us who regard it
as little more than a culture of self-enrichment through lies and aggression. I see it as such,
and want nothing to do with it.
If you live by money and power, you'll die by money and power. I prefer to live and work with
consensus and co-operation.
I'll never be rich, but I'll never have many enemies.
Hedge-fund and private-equity managers, investment bankers, corporate lawyers, management consultants,
high-frequency traders, and top lobbyists.They're getting paid vast sums for their labors. Yet
it seems doubtful that society is really that much better off because of what they do. They play
zero-sum games that take money out of one set of pockets and put it into another. They demand
ever more cunning innovations but they create no social value. High-frequency traders who win
by a thousandth of a second can reap a fortune, but society as a whole is no better off. the games
consume the energies of loads of talented people who might otherwise be making real contributions
to society - if not by tending to human needs or enriching our culture then by curing diseases
or devising new technological breakthroughs, or helping solve some of our most intractable social
problems. Robert Reich said this and I am compelled to agree with him!
Brilliant article. It is not going to change anything, of course, because majority of people of
this planet would cooperate with just about any psychopath clever enough not to take away from
them that last bit of stinking warm mud to wallow in.
Proof? Read history books and take a look around you. We are the dumbest animals on Earth.
Rubbish. We are the most intelligent and successful creature that this planet has ever seen. We
have become capable of transforming it, leaving it and destroying it.
Bullying used to be confined to schools; now it is a common feature of the workplace.
I started work nearly 40 years ago and there were always some bullies in the workplace. Maybe
there are more now, I don't know but I suspect it is more widely reported now. Workplace bullies
were something of a given when I started work and it was an accepted part of the working environment.
Be careful about re-inventing history to suit your own arguments.
I'm surprised the normalization of debt was not mentioned. If you are debt free you have more
chance of making decisions that don't fit into the model.
So what do we do now, we train nearly 50% of our young that having large amounts of debt is
perfectly normal. When I was a student I lived off the grant and had a much lower standard of
living than I can see students having now, but of course I had no debt when I graduated. I know
student debt is administered differently, I'm talking about the way we are training them to accept
debt of all sorts.
Same applies to consumerism inducing the 'I want it and I want it now', increases personal
debt, therefore forcing people to fit in, same applies to credit cards and lax personal lending.
Although occasionally there are economic questions about large amounts of personal debt, politically
high personal debt is ideal.
Not sure if you're in the sector, in large parts that's kind of how academia works?
This is also what's referred to in the trade as an opinion piece, where an author will be presenting
his views and substantiating them with reference to the researches of others.
There is no mystery to neoliberalism -- it is an economic system designed to benefit the 0.1%
and leave the rest of us neck deep in shit. That's why our children will be paying for the bankers'
bonuses to the day they die. Let's celebrate this new found freedom with all the rest of the Tory
lickspittle apologists. Yippee for moral bankruptcy -- three cheers!
The Simple Summary is the state/ royality used to hold all the power over the merchants and the
public for centuries. Bit by bit the merchants stripped that power away from royality, until eventually
the merchants have now taken over everybody. The merchants hold all the power now and they will
never give that up as there is nobody to take it from them. By owning the state the merchants
now have everything that go with it. The army, police and the laws and the media.
David Harvey puts it all under the microscope and explains in great detail how they've achieved
their end game over the last 40 years.
There are millions of economists and many economic theories in our universities. Unfortunately,
the merchants will only fund and advertise and support economic theories that further their power
and wealth.
As history shows time and time again it will be the public who rip this power from their hands.
If they don't give it up it is only a matter of time. The merchants may now own the army, the
police, the laws and the parliament. They'll need all of that and more if the public decide to
say enough is enough.
Bullying used to be confined to schools? Can't agree with that at all. Bullying is an ingrained
human tendency which manifests in many contexts, from school to work to military to politics to
matters of faith. It is only bad when abused, and can help to form self-confidence.
I am not sure what "neo" means but liberal economics is the basis of the Western economies
since the end of feudalism. Some countries have had periods of pronounced social democracy or
even socialism but most of western Europe has reverted to the capitalist model and much of the
former east bloc is turning to it. As others have noted in the CiF, this does not preclude social
policies designed to alleviate the unfair effects of the liberal economies.
But this ship has sailed in other words, the treaties which founded the EU make it clear the
system is based on Adam Smith-type free market thinking. (Short of leaving the EU I don't see
how that can be changed in its essentials).
Finally, socialist countries require much more conformity of individuals than capitalist ones.
So you have to look at the alternatives, which this article does not from what I could see.
To be honest I don't think Neoliberalism has made much of a difference in the UK where personal
responsibility has always been king. In the Victorian age people were quite happy to have people
staving to death on the streets and before that people's problems were usually seen as either
their own fault or an act of God (which would also be your own fault due to sin). If anything
we are kinder to strangers now, than we have been, but are slipping back into our old habits.
I think the best way to combat extreme liberalism is to be knowing about our culture and realise
that liberalism is something which is embedded in British culture and is not something imposed
on us from else where or by some -ism. It is strengthen not just by politics but also by language
and the way we deal with personal and social issues in our own lives. We also need to acknowledge
that we get both good and bad things out of living in a liberal society but that doesn't mean
we have to put up with the bad stuff. We can put measures in place to prevent the bad stuff and
still enjoy the positives even though some capitalists may throw their toys out of the pram.
Personal responsibility is EXACTLY what neoliberalism avoids, even as it advocates it with every
breath.
What it means is that you get as much responsibility as you can afford to foist onto someone
else, so a very wealthy person gets none at all. It's always someone else's fault.
Neoliberalism has actually undermined personal responsibility at every single step, delegating
it according to wealth or perceived worth.
If Liberalism is the mindset of the British how come we created the NHS, Legal Aid, universal
education and social security? These were massive achievements of a post war generation and about
as far removed from today's evil shyster politics as it is possible to be.
"Our society constantly proclaims that anyone can make it if they just try hard enough, all the
while reinforcing privilege and putting increasing pressure on its overstretched and exhausted
citizens"
What to people mean when they use the word "society" in this context?
When we stopped having jobs and had careers instead, the rot set in. A career is the promotion
of the self and a job the means to realise that goal at the expense of everyone else around you.
The description of psychopathic behaviour perfectly describes a former boss of mine (female).
I liked her but knew how dangerous she was. She went easy on me because she knew that I could
do the job that she would claim credit for.
The pressure and stress of, for example open plan offices and evaluation reports are all part
of the conscious effort on behalf of employers to ensure compliance with this poisonous attitude.
The greatest promoter of this philosophy is the Media, step forward Evan Davies, the slobbering
lap dog of the rich and powerful.
On the positive side I detect a growing realisation among normal people of the folly of this worldview.
Self promoters are generally psychopaths who don't have any empathy for the people around them
who carry them everyday and make them look good. We call these people show bags. Full of shit
and you have to carry them all the time....
"meritocratic neoliberalism favours certain personality traits and penalises others..."
I put to you the simple premsie that you can substitute "meritocratic neoliberalism" with any
political system (communism, fascism, social democracy even) and it the same truism would emerge.
"Neoliberalism promotes individual freedom, limited government, and deregulation of the economy...whilst
individual freedom is a laudable idea, neoliberalism taken to a dogmatic extreme can be used to
justify exploitation of the less powerful and pillaging of the natural environment." - Don Ambrose.
Contrast with this:
"Neoliberal democracy, with its notion of the market uber alles ...instead of citizens,
it produces consumers. Instead of communities, it produces shopping malls. The net result is an
atomized society of disengaged individuals who feel demoralised and socially powerless." - Robert
W. McChesney in Profit over People, Noam Chomsky.
It is fairly clear that the neoliberal system is designed to exploit the less powerfull when
it becomes dogmatic, and that is exactly what it has become: beaurocracy, deregulation, privatisation,
and government power .
Neoliberalism is a virus that destroys people's power of reason and replaces it with extra greed
and self entitlement. Until it is kicked back to the insane asylum it came from it will only keep
trying to make us it's indentured labourers. The only creeds more vile were Nazism and Apartheid.
Eventually the neoliberals will kill us all, so they can have the freedom to have everything they
think they're worth.
Yet, on the other hand, our daily lives have become a constant battle against a bureaucracy
that would make Kafka weak at the knees. There are regulations about everything, from the salt
content of bread to urban poultry-keeping.
Isn't a key feature of neo-liberalism that governments de-regulate? It seems you're willing
to blame absolutely everything on neoliberalism, even those things that neoliberalism ostensibly
opposes.
The Professor is correct. We have crafted a nightmare of a society where what is considered good
is often to the detriment of the whole community. It is reflected in our TV shows of choice, Survivor,
Big Brother, voting off the weakest or the greatest rival. A half a million bucks for being the
meanest most sociopathic person in the group, what great entertainment.
Always a treat to read your articles, Mr Verhaeghe; well written and supported with examples and
external good links. I especially like the link to Hare's site which is a rich resource of information
and current discussions and presentations on the subject.
The rise of the psychopath in society has been noted for some time, as have the consequences
of this behaviour in wider society and and a growing indifference and increased tolerance for
this behaviour.
But what are practical solutions? MRI brain scans and early intervention? We know that behaviour
modification does not work, we know that antipsychotic and other psychiatric medication does not
alter this behaviour, we know little of genetic causes or if diet and nutrition play a role.
Maybe it is because successful psychopaths leverage themselves into positions of influence
and power and reduce the voice, choices and influence of their victims that psychopathy has become
such an unsolvable problem, or at least a problem that has been removed from the stage of awareness.
It is so much easier to see the social consequences of psychopathy than it is to see the causal
activity of psychopaths themselves.
Neoliberalism has entered centre stage politics not as a solution, it is just socialism with a
crowd pleasing face. What could the labour party do to get voted in when the leadership consisted
of self professed intellectuals in Donkey Jackets which they wore to patronise the working classes.
Like the animal reflected in the name they became a laughing stock. Nobody understood their language
or cared for it. The people who could understand it claimed that it was full of irrelevant hyperbole
and patronising sentiment.
It still is but with nice sounding buzz words and an endless sound bites, the face of politics
has been transformed into a hollow shell. Neither of the party's faithful are happy with their
leaders. They have become centre stage by understanding process more than substance. As long as
your face fits, a person has every chance of success. Real merit on the other hand is either sadly
lacking or non existant.
Most people's personalities and behaviour are environment driven, they are moulded by the social
context in which they find themselves. The system we currently inhabit is one which is constructed
on behalf of the holders of capital, it is a construct of the need to create wealth through interest
bearing debt.
The values of this civilisation are consumer ones, we validate and actualise ourselves through
ownership of goods, and also the middle-class norms of family life, which are in and of themselves
constructs of a liberal consumer based society.
We pride ourselves on tolerance, which is just veiled indifference to anything which we feel
as no importance to our own desires. People are becoming automatons, directed through media devices
and advertising, and also the implanted desires which the consumer society needs us to act upon
to maintain the current system of economy.
None of this can of course survive indefinitely, hence the constant state of underlying anxiety
within society as it ploughs along on this suicidal route.
Good article, however I would just like to add that the new breed of 'business psychopath' you
allude to are fairly easy to spot these days, and as such more people are aware of them, so they
could be displaced quite soon, hopefully.
Cameron and the Conservatives have long been condemning the lazy and feckless at the bottom of
society, but has Cameron ever looked at his aristocratic in-laws.
His father-in-law, Sir Reginald Sheffield, can be checked out on Wikipedia.
His only work seems to have been eight years as a conservative councillor (lazy).
He is a member of three clubs, so he likes to go pissing it up with his rich friends (feckless).
This seems to be total sum of his life's achievements.
He also gets Government subsidies for wind turbines on his land (on benefits).
His estate has been in the family since the 16th Century and the family have probably done very
little since, yet we worry about the lower classes having two generations without work, in the
upper classes this can go on for centuries.
Wasters don't just exist at the bottom of society.
Mr. Cameron have a closer look at your aristocratic in-laws.
This is the consequence of a system that prevents people from thinking independently and
that fails to treat employees as adults.
Fundamentally the whole concept is saying "real talent is to be hunted down since, if you do
not destroy it, it will destroy you". As a result we have a whole army of useless twats in high
positions with not an independent thought between them. The concept of the old boys network has
really taken over except now the members are any mental age from zero upwards.
And then we wonder why nothing is done prperly these days....
Neoliberalism is fine in some areas of self-development and actualization of potential, but taken
as a kind of religion or as the be-all and end-all it is a manifest failure. For a start it neglects
to acknowledge what people have in common, the idea of shared values, the notion of society, the
effects of synergy and the geo-biological fact that we are one species all inhabiting the same
single planet, a planet that is uniquely adapted to ourselves, and to which we are uniquely adapted.
Generally it works on the micro-scale to free up initiative, but on the macro-scale it is hugely
destructive, since its goals are not the welfare of the entire human race and the planet but something
far more self-interested.
I put this simple statement to you: meritocratic neoliberalism favours certain personality
traits and penalises others.
This is inevitable. All societies have this property. A warrior society rewards brave fighters
and inspiring leaders, while punishing weaklings and cowards. A theocracy rewards those who display
piety and knowledge of religious tradition, and punishes skeptics and taboo-breakers. Tyrannies
reward cunning, ruthless schemers while punishing the squeamish and naive. Bureaucratic societies
reward pernickety types who love rules and regulationsn, and punish those who are careless of
jots and tittles. And so on.
A neoliberal meritocracy would have us believe that success depends on individual effort
and talents
It does. In fact, it does in all societies to some extent, even societies that strive to be egalitarian,
and societies that try to restrict social mobility by imposing a rigid caste system. There are
always individuals who fall or rise through society as a result of their abilities or lack thereof.
The freer society is, the more this happens.
For those who believe in the fairytale of unrestricted choice, self-government and self-management
are the pre-eminent political messages, especially if they appear to promise freedom.
Straw man. Even anarchists don't believe in completely unrestricted choice, let alone neoliberals.
Neoliberalism accepts that people are inevitably limited by their abilities and their situation.
Personal responsibility does not depend on complete freedom. It depends on there being some
freedom. If you have enough freedom to make good or bad choices, then you have personal responsibility.
Along with the idea of the perfectible individual, the freedom we perceive ourselves as
having in the west is the greatest untruth of this day and age.
The idea of the perfectible individual has nothing to do with neoliberalism. On the other hand,
it is one of the central pillars of Marxism. In philosophy, Marx is noted as an example of thinker
who follows a perfectionist ethical theory.
A frightening article, detailing now the psychological strenngths of people are recruited, perverted
and rotted by this rat-race ethic.
Ironic that the photo, of Canary Wharf, shows one of the biggest "socialist" gifts of the country
(was paid largely by the British taxpayer, if memory serves me correctly, and more or less gifted
to the merchant bankers by Thatcher).
Meritocratic neoliberalism; superficial articulateness which I used to call 'the gift of the gab'.
In my job, I was told to be 'extrovert' and I bucked against this, as a prejudice against anyone
with a different personality and people wanting CLONES. Not sensible people, or people that could
do a job, but a clone; setting the system up for a specific type of person as stated above. Those
who quickly tell you, you are wrong. Those that make you think perhaps you are, owing to their
confidence. Until your quietness proves them to be totally incorrect, and their naff confidence
demonstrates the falseness of what they state.
Most of the richest people in the world are not bullshitters. There are some, to be sure, but
the majority are either technical or financial engineers of genius, and they've made their fortune
through those skills, rather than through bullshit.
Hague lied to the camera about GCHQ having permission to access anyone's electronic devices. He
did not blush, he merely stated that a warrant was required. Only the night before we were shown
a letter from GCHQ stating that they had access without any warrant.
The ability to LIE has become a VIRTUE that all of us could well LIVE WITHOUT.
That's not new. It has been widely held that rulers have a right (and sometimes a duty) to lie
ever since Machiavelli's Prince was published some 500 years ago.
The sociologist Zygmunt Bauman neatly summarised the paradox of our era as: "Never have
we been so free. Never have we felt so powerless." We are indeed freer than before, in the
sense that we can criticise religion, take advantage of the new laissez-faire attitude to sex
and support any political movement we like. We can do all these things because they no longer
have any significance – freedom of this kind is prompted by indifference.
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left lose.
-Janice Joplin
Actually it was written by Kris Kristofferson and, having a house, a job pension and an Old Age
Pension, frankly, I disagree. The Grateful Dead version is better anyway.
.... economic change is having a profound effect not only on our values but also on our
personalities.
I have long thought that introverts are being marginalised in our society. Being introvert
seems to be seen by some as almost an illness, by others as virtually a crime.
Not keen on attending that "team bonding" weekend? There must be something wrong with you.
Unwilling to set out your life online for all to see? What have you got to hide?
A few very driven and talented introverts have managed to find a niche in the world of IT and
computers, earnig fortunes from their bedrooms. But for most, being unwilling or unable to scream
their demands and desires across a crowded room is interpreted as "not trying" or being not worth
listening to.
It's important to be able to talk up your own capacities as much as you can – you know a
lot of people, you've got plenty of experience under your belt and you recently completed a
major project. Later, people will find out that this was mostly hot air, but the fact that
they were initially fooled is down to another personality trait: you can lie convincingly and
feel little guilt. That's why you never take responsibility for your own behaviour.
Perfectly describes our new ruling-class, doesn't it!
It's important to be able to talk up your own capacities as much as you can – you know a
lot of people, you've got plenty of experience under your belt and you recently completed a
major project. Later, people will find out that this was mostly hot air, but the fact that
they were initially fooled is down to another personality trait: you can lie convincingly and
feel little guilt. That's why you never take responsibility for your own behaviour.
Sounds like a perfect description of newspaper columnists to me.
It's just the general spirit of the place: it's on such a downer and no amount of theorising and
talking will ever solve anything. There isn't a good feeling about this country anymore just a
lot of tying everyone up in in repressive knots with a lot of hooey like talk and put downs. We
need to find freedom again or maybe shove all the pricks into one part of the country and leave
them there to fuck each other over so the rest of us can create a new world free of bullcrap.
I don't know. Place is a superficial mess: 'look at me; look at what I own; I can cook Coq Au
Vin and drink bottles of expensive plonk and keep ten cars on my driveway'
Nah. Fortuneately there are still some decent people left but it's been like Hamlet now for quite
some time - "show me an honest man and I'll show you one man in ten thousand" Sucks.
This article is spot on and reflects Karl Marx's analysis regarding the economic base informing
and determining the superstructure of a given society, that is, its social, cultural aspects.
A neo-liberal, monetarist economy will shape and influence social and work relationships in ways
that are not beneficial for the many but as the commentator states, will benefit those possessed
of certain thrusting,domineering character traits. The common use of the word "loser" in contemporary
society to describe those who haven't "succeeded" financially is in itself telling.
It would be the perfect first chapter (foreword/introduction) in a best seller that goes on,
chapter by chapter, to show that neoliberalism destroys everything it touches:
Personal relationships;
trust;
personal integrity;
trust;
relationships;
trust;
transactions and trade;
trust;
market systems;
trust;
communities;
trust;
political relationships;
trust;
James Meek seems to have nailed it in his recent book, where he pointed out that the socially
conservative Thatcher, who wanted a society based on good old fashioned values, helped to create
the precise opposite with her enthusiasm for the neoliberal model. Now we are sinking into a dog-eat-dog
dystopia.
Many of the good old fashioned conservatives had time honoured values. They believed in taking
care of yourself but they also believed in integrity and honesty. They believed in living modestly
and would save much of their money rather than just spend it, and so would put some aside for
a rainy day. They believed in the community and were often active about local issues. They cared
about the countryside and the wildlife. They often recycled which went along with their thriftiness
and hatred of waste.
This all vanished when Thatcher came in with her selfish 'greed is good' brigade. Loads of
money!
We are indeed freer than before, in the sense that we can criticise religion, take advantage
of the new laissez-faire attitude to sex and support any political movement we like. We can
do all these things because they no longer have any significance –
Capitalist alienation is a daily practise. The daily practise of competing with and using people.
This gives rise to the ideology that society and other people are but a means to an end rather
than an end in themselves that is of course when they are not a frightening a existential competitive
threat. Contempt and fear. That is what we are reduced to by the buying and selling of labour
power and yes, only a psychopath can thrive under such conditions.
According to the left if your only ambition is to watch Jeremy Kyle, pick up a welfare cheque
once a week and vote for which ever party will promise to give you £10 a week more in welfare:
you're an almost saint like figure.
If you actually do something to try to create a better and more independent life for yourself,
your family and your community: you're "displaying psychopathic tendencies" .
If you actually do something to try to create a better and more independent life for yourself,
your family and your community: you're "displaying psychopathic tendencies".
So how do you create a better community ?
By paying your taxes on your wealth that so many of you try to avoid. Here lies the crux of
the matter. There would be no deficit if taxes were paid.
Some of the rich are so psychpathic they think jsut because they employ people they shouldn't
pay any tax. They think the employees should pay thier tax for them.
Why has tax become such a dirty word ? Think about it before you answer.
The conclusion is for me is that it is a brilliant economic model. It is the sheer apathy of
the voters and that they are cowards because they don't make it work for them. They allow the
people who own the theory to run it for themselves and thus they get all the benefits from it.
I'll try and explain.
Their business plan.
The truth is neoliberalism has infact made the rich western countries poorer and helped so
many other poorer countries around the world get richer. Let's face facts here giving to charities
would never have achieved this and something needed to be done to even up this world inequality.
The only way you are ever going to achieve world peace is if everybody is equal. It's not by chance
this theory was introduced by America. They are trying to bring that equality to everyone so that
world peace can be achieved. How many more illegal wars and deaths this will take and for how
long nobody knows. They are also very sinister and selfish and greedy because if the Americans
do achieve what they are trying to do. They will own and countrol the world via washington and
the dollar. The way the Americans see it is that the inequality created within each country is
a bribe to each power structure within that country which helps America achieve it's long term
goals. It creates inequality within each country but at the same time creates equality on the
world stage. It might take 100 years to achieve and millions of deaths but eventually every country
will be another state of America and look and act like any American state. Once that is achieved
world peace will follow. America see it as a war and they also see millions of deaths as acceptable
to achieve their end game. I of course disagree there must be a better way. How will history look
at this dark period in history in 300 years time if it does achieve world peace in 150 years time
?
In each country neoliberalism works but at the moment it only works for the few because the
voters allow it. The voters allow them to get away with it through submission. They've allowed
their parliaments to be taken over without a fight and allowed their brains to be brainwashed
by the media controlled by the few. Which means the the whole story of neoliberalism has been
skewed into a very narrow view which always suits and promotes the voices of the few.
Why did the voters allow that to happen ?
Their biggest success the few had over the many was to create an illusion that made tax a toxic
word. They attacked tax with everything they had to form an illusion in the voters minds that
paying tax was a bad thing and it was everybodys enemy. Then they passed laws to enhance that
view and trotted out scare stories around tax and that if they had to pay it then everybody would
leave that country. They created a world set up for them and ulitimately destroyed any chance
at all, for the success of neoliberalism to be shared by the many. This was their biggest success
to make sure the wealth of neoliberalism stayed with them.
As the author of this piece says quite clearly. "An economic system that rewards psychopathic
personality traits has changed our ethics and our personalities"
One of these traits is that they believe they shouldn't pay tax because they are creating jobs
and the tax their employees pay should be the amount of tax these companies pay. Again this makes
sure that the wealth is not shared.
Since they now own and control parliaments they also use the state to pay these wages in the
way of tax credits and subsidies and grants as they refuse to pay their employees a living wage.
It is our taxes they use to do this. Again this is to make sure that the wealth is not shared.
There are too many examples to list of how they make sure that the wealth generated by neoliberalism
is not shared. Then surely it is up to the voters to make sure it does. Neoliberalism works and
it would work for everybody if the voters would just grow a set of balls. Tax avoidance was the
battle that won the war for the few. It is time the voters revisited that battle and re write
it so that the outcome was that the many won not just the few. For example there would be no deficit
if the many had won that battle. Of course they wouldn't have left a market of 60 million people
with money in their pockets, it would have been business suicide.
This is a great example of how they created an illusion, a false culture, a world that does
not exist. The focus is all on the deficit and how to fix it, as they socialise the losses and
privatise the profits. There is no eyes or light shed on why there is a deficit due to tax avoidance.
It's time we changed that and made Neoliberlaism work for us. If we don't then we can't complain
when it only works for the few.
Neoliberlaism works. It's about time we owned it for ourselves. Otherwise we'll always be slaves
to it. It's not the theory that is corrupt it is the people who own it.
There is no eyes or light shed on why there is a deficit due to tax avoidance.
... or because politicians have discovered that you can buy votes by giving handouts even to
those who don't need them, thereby making everyone dependent on the largesse of the state and,
by extension, promoting the interests of the most irresponsible politicians and the bureaucracies
they represent.
You seem to regard what you call neoliberalism as a creator of wealth. You then claim that the
reason for this wealth accruing almost entirely to an elite few is the "the voters" have prevented
neoliberalism from distributing the wealth more equitably.
I can't really follow the logic of your argument.
Neoliberalism seems to be working perfectly for those few who are in a position to exploit
it. It's doing what it's designed to do.
I agree that the ignorance of "the voters" is allowing the elite to get away with it. But the
voters should be voting for those who propose an alternative economic model. Unfortunately, in
the western world at the present time, they have no viable alternative to vote for, because the
neoliberals have captured all of the mainstream political parties and institutions.
However, you missed one of the main points. Our parliament has been taken over by the few.
One man used to and probably still does strike fear into the government. Murdoch. Problem is
there are millions like him that lobby and control policy and the media.
..."There are regulations about everything,"... Yes, but higher up the scale you go, the less
this regulation is enforced, less individual accountability and less transparency. Neoliberalism
has turned society on its head. We see ever growing corporate socialism subsidising the top 1%
and heavily regulated hard nosed market capitalism for the rest of us resulting in massive inequality
in wealth distribution. This inequality by design makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. We've
created a society where people who were once valued as an individual part of that society are
now treated as surplus to requirements and somehow need to be eliminated.
They're mostly tight g*ts who refuse to pay to use the Mail/Telegraph sites. This is just about
the last free forum left now and it's attracting all kinds of undesirables. The level of personal
insult has gone up enormously since they came here. Most of us traditional Ciffers don't bother
with many posts here any more, it's too boring now.
Our presumed freedom is tied to one central condition: we must be successful – that is,
"make" something of ourselves.
That's always been the way, I think. It's life.
We are all of us the descendants of a million generations of successful organisms, human and pre-human.
The ones that didn't succeed fel by the wayside.
We're the ones left to tell the tale.
"... Some "American" companies and public research institutions are surely victims of espionage, but for the most part private industry has brought this on itself by building offshore offices and *actively* directing their workers to transfer the knowledge and "train their replacements", so that they can do the work instead of US workers who are let go (or not again hired) because their skills are now "irrelevant". ..."
"... In "defense" or "national interest" related work, for the most part citizens of or even people originating from countries that are considered military or geopolitical adversaries are excluded from participation. This makes it much harder to infiltrate people in the US, as long as it is not offshored. But then the US govt and its contractors will pay higher rates for the product/service than US consumers who will have to do "more with less" (money). ..."
"... Oh, China (public and private entities) surely engages in those things it is accused of, but this is by far outweighed by US business captains shoving the "free" know-how and innovation down their throats to enable the short term "cost savings" (which will in short order be compensated for by declining aggregate demand when the formerly well paid local staff can only buy the cheapest stuff, and retail adjusts and mostly orders the cheapest). ..."
"... Likewise most "everybody else" also. I have a good number of colleagues from China and other Asian countries. Many of them take pride in coming up with their own solutions instead of copying stuff, like people everywhere. ..."
"... A German language article where this and other cases are mentioned: http://www.zeit.de/1998/28/199828.spionage.neu_.xml Nobody is squeaky clean in this game. ..."
"... At the time I was working in a tech company there, and new security protocols were instituted, like not sending certain confidential information by email or fax. There was even an anecdote (unverified) of how a foreign service (not US in that case) was allegedly intercepting business documents/negotiations that were conducted by fax, and making the information available to "their" own companies bidding for the same project. Whether true or not, that's what the management was concerned about. ..."
" If spying is the world's second oldest profession, the government of China has given it a
new, modern-day twist, enlisting an army of spies not to steal military secrets but the trade
secrets and intellectual property of American companies. It's being called "the great brain robbery
of America."
The Justice Department says that the scale of China's corporate espionage is so vast it constitutes
a national security emergency, with China targeting virtually every sector of the U.S. economy,
and costing American companies hundreds of billions of dollars in losses -- and more than two
million jobs.
John Carlin: They're targeting our private companies. And it's not a fair fight. A private
company can't compete against the resources of the second largest economy in the world."
John Carlin: This is a serious threat to our national security. I mean, our economy depends on
the ability to innovate. And if there's a dedicated nation state who's using its intelligence
apparatus to steal day in and day out what we're trying to develop, that poses a serious threat
to our country.
Lesley Stahl: What is their ultimate goal, the Chinese government's ultimate goal?
John Carlin: They want to develop certain segments of industry and instead of trying to out-innovate,
out-research, out-develop, they're choosing to do it through theft.
All you have to do, he says, is look at the economic plans published periodically by the Chinese
Politburo. They are, according to this recent report by the technology research firm INVNT/IP,
in effect, blueprints of what industries and what companies will be targeted for theft."
Some "American" companies and public research institutions are surely victims of espionage,
but for the most part private industry has brought this on itself by building offshore offices
and *actively* directing their workers to transfer the knowledge and "train their replacements",
so that they can do the work instead of US workers who are let go (or not again hired) because
their skills are now "irrelevant".
Likewise if a manufacturer outsources to an offshore supplier, they have to divulge some of
their secret sauce and technical skill to their "partner" if they want the product to meet specs
and quality metrics.
In "defense" or "national interest" related work, for the most part citizens of or even
people originating from countries that are considered military or geopolitical adversaries are
excluded from participation. This makes it much harder to infiltrate people in the US, as long
as it is not offshored. But then the US govt and its contractors will pay higher rates for the
product/service than US consumers who will have to do "more with less" (money).
Oh, China (public and private entities) surely engages in those things it is accused of, but
this is by far outweighed by US business captains shoving the "free" know-how and innovation down
their throats to enable the short term "cost savings" (which will in short order be compensated
for by declining aggregate demand when the formerly well paid local staff can only buy the cheapest
stuff, and retail adjusts and mostly orders the cheapest).
Likewise most "everybody else" also. I have a good number of colleagues from China and other
Asian countries. Many of them take pride in coming up with their own solutions instead of copying
stuff, like people everywhere.
"Stealing" of ideas is practiced everywhere. I know an anecdote from a "Western" company where
a high level engineering manager suggested inviting another academic/research group on the pretext
of exploring a collaboration, only to get enough of an idea of their approach, and then dump them.
Several of the present staff balked at this and it didn't go anywhere. But it was instructive.
I'd suggest stolen " recipes " to use Paul Romers term
Only encourage the parallel Han project
You can't really build something significantly novel
Simply out of specs
(1) How is it done (because we don't know)
(2) Which approach has been proven to work (out of many that we would have to try)
The focus in discussing the topic is often on (1), and it is certainly an important aspect,
perhaps the most important one if the adversary is in bootstrapping mode.
However once you are at a certain level, (2) becomes more important - the solution space is
simply too large, and knowing what has already worked elsewhere can cut through a lot of failed
experiments (including finding a better solution of course).
(2) also relates somewhat to "best practices" - don't try to innovate and create yet another
proprietary thing that only the people who created it understand, do what everybody else is doing,
then you can hire more people who "already know it", or if "others" improve or build on the existing
solution, that immediately applies to your version as well.
The downside is that your solution is not "differentiated". But if it is cheaper it doesn't
have to.
where US electronic surveillance was allegedly involved in a business dispute. In this case
there is no explicit claim about technology theft, but two companies were accusing each other
of patent violations, and espionage techniques were used to "obtain evidence".
BTW note the date - this kind of stuff was going on in the 90's. It is not a recent invention.
BTW this here was mentioned, you may have heard of it, in any case it was a big deal in Germany
where the US had several operational bases:
At the time I was working in a tech company there, and new security protocols were instituted,
like not sending certain confidential information by email or fax. There was even an anecdote
(unverified) of how a foreign service (not US in that case) was allegedly intercepting business
documents/negotiations that were conducted by fax, and making the information available to "their"
own companies bidding for the same project. Whether true or not, that's what the management was
concerned about.
"... 100% are published by oligarch media and the other half suffer cognitive dissonance. ..."
"... System Authorized experts lie half the time. And fake the rest ..."
"... "Experts lie 50% of the time"...probably a low estimate, since those anointed as experts are those who carry water for the investor class. The investor class promotes its interests by highlighting actual benefits, fabricating others, and marginalizing anyone who disagrees. ..."
"... Some are encouraged by keeping their jobs others are cognitive dissonants. In either case it is necessary for job security. ..."
"Experts lie 50% of the time"...probably a low estimate, since those anointed as experts are
those who carry water for the investor class. The investor class promotes its interests by highlighting
actual benefits, fabricating others, and marginalizing anyone who disagrees.
We see this not only in trade policy, but also in monetary policy and tax policy, where trickle
down is portrayed as the only reasonable path...the backlash is building...
ilsm -> JohnH... , -1
Some are encouraged by keeping their jobs others are cognitive dissonants. In either case
it is necessary for job security.
Humbug factories with the skilled application of unsound and invalid argument.
NYT is the cesspool of neoliberal propaganda and disinformation. Now serving as a part of
Hillary campaign. And those pressitute have chutzpah
to criticize others. Amazing...
Notable quotes:
"... The fundamental purpose of dezinformatsiya, or Russian disinformation, experts said, is to undermine the official version of events - even the very idea that there is a true version of events - and foster a kind of policy paralysis. ..."
"... Another message, largely unstated, is that European governments lack the competence to deal with the crises they face, particularly immigration and terrorism, and that their officials are all American puppets. ..."
"... Both depict the West as grim, divided, brutal, decadent, overrun with violent immigrants and unstable. "They want to give a picture of Europe as some sort of continent that is collapsing," Mr. Hultqvist, the Swedish defense minister, said in an interview --[that's exactly what western MSM do withRussia reporting ;-) ] . ..."
"... Margarita Simonyan, RT's editor in chief, said the channel was being singled out as a threat because it offered a different narrative from "the Anglo-American media-political establishment." RT, she said, wants to provide "a perspective otherwise missing from the mainstream media echo chamber." ..."
"... Speaking this summer on the 75th anniversary of the Soviet Information Bureau, Mr. Kiselyev said the age of neutral journalism was over. "If we do propaganda, then you do propaganda, too," he said, directing his message to Western journalists. ..."
"Moscow views world affairs as a system of special operations, and very sincerely believes that
it itself is an object of Western special operations," said Gleb Pavlovsky, who helped establish
the Kremlin's information machine before 2008. "I am sure that there are a lot of centers, some
linked to the state, that are involved in inventing these kinds of fake stories."
The planting of false stories is nothing new; the Soviet Union devoted considerable resources to
that during the ideological battles of the Cold War. Now, though, disinformation is regarded as
an important aspect of Russian military doctrine, and it is being directed at political debates
in target countries with far greater sophistication and volume than in the past.
The flow of misleading and inaccurate stories is so strong that both NATO and the European Union
have established special offices to identify and refute disinformation, particularly claims
emanating from Russia.
The Kremlin's clandestine methods have surfaced in the United States, too, American officials
say, identifying Russian intelligence as the likely source of leaked Democratic National
Committee emails that embarrassed Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.
The Kremlin uses both conventional media - Sputnik, a news agency, and RT, a television outlet -
and covert channels, as in Sweden, that are almost always untraceable.
Russia exploits both approaches in a comprehensive assault, Wilhelm Unge, a spokesman for the
Swedish Security Service, said this year when presenting the agency's annual report. "We mean
everything from internet trolls to propaganda and misinformation spread by media companies like
RT and Sputnik," he said.
The fundamental purpose of dezinformatsiya, or Russian disinformation, experts said, is to
undermine the official version of events - even the very idea that there is a true version of
events - and foster a kind of policy paralysis.
... ... ...
Moscow adamantly denies using disinformation to influence Western public opinion and tends to
label accusations of either overt or covert threats as "Russophobia."
"There is an impression that, like in a good orchestra, many Western countries every day accuse
Russia of threatening someone," Maria Zakharova, the Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, said
at a recent ministry briefing.
Tracing individual strands of disinformation is difficult, but in Sweden and elsewhere, experts
have detected a characteristic pattern that they tie to Kremlin-generated disinformation
campaigns.
"The dynamic is always the same: It originates somewhere in Russia, on Russia state media sites,
or different websites or somewhere in that kind of context," said Anders Lindberg, a Swedish
journalist and lawyer.
"Then the fake document becomes the source of a news story distributed on far-left or
far-right-wing websites," he said. "Those who rely on those sites for news link to the story, and
it spreads. Nobody can say where they come from, but they end up as key issues in a security
policy decision."
Although the topics may vary, the goal is the same, Mr. Lindberg and others suggested. "What the
Russians are doing is building narratives; they are not building facts," he said. "The underlying
narrative is, 'Don't trust anyone.'"
... ... ...
"The role of nonmilitary means of achieving political and strategic goals has grown, and, in many
cases, they have exceeded the power of force of weapons in their effectiveness," Gen. Valery V.
Gerasimov, the chief of the general staff of the Russian Armed Forces, wrote in 2013.
A prime Kremlin target is Europe, where the rise of the populist right and declining support for
the European Union create an ever more receptive audience for Russia's conservative,
nationalistic and authoritarian approach under Mr. Putin. Last year, the European Parliament
accused Russia of "financing radical and extremist parties" in its member states, and in 2014 the
Kremlin extended an $11.7 million loan to the National Front, the extreme-right party in France.
"The Russians are very good at courting everyone who has a grudge with liberal democracy, and
that goes from extreme right to extreme left," said Patrik Oksanen, an editorial writer for the
Swedish newspaper group MittMedia. The central idea, he said, is that "liberal democracy is
corrupt, inefficient, chaotic and, ultimately, not democratic."
Another message, largely unstated, is that European governments lack the competence to deal with
the crises they face, particularly immigration and terrorism, and that their officials are all
American puppets.
... ... ...
In the Czech Republic, alarming, sensational stories portraying the United States, the European
Union and immigrants as villains appear daily across a cluster of about 40 pro-Russia websites.
During NATO military exercises in early June, articles on the websites suggested that Washington
controlled Europe through the alliance, with Germany as its local sheriff. Echoing the
disinformation that appeared in Sweden, the reports said NATO planned to store nuclear weapons in
Eastern Europe and would attack Russia from there without seeking approval from local capitals.
A poll this summer by European Values, a think tank in Prague, found that 51 percent of Czechs
viewed the United States' role in Europe negatively, that only 32 percent viewed the European
Union positively and that at least a quarter believed some elements of the disinformation.
"The data show how public opinion is changing thanks to the disinformation on those outlets,"
said Jakub Janda, the think tank's deputy director for public and political affairs. "They try to
look like a regular media outlet even if they have a hidden agenda."
Not all Russian disinformation efforts succeed. Sputnik news websites in various Scandinavian
languages failed to attract enough readers and were closed after less than a year.
Both RT and Sputnik portray themselves as independent, alternative voices. Sputnik claims that it
"tells the untold," even if its daily report relies heavily on articles abridged from other
sources. RT trumpets the slogan "Question More."
Both depict the West as grim, divided, brutal, decadent, overrun with violent immigrants and
unstable. "They want to give a picture of Europe as some sort of continent that is collapsing,"
Mr. Hultqvist, the Swedish defense minister, said in an interview --[that's exactly what western
MSM do withRussia reporting ;-) ] .
RT often seems obsessed with the United States, portraying life there as hellish. Its coverage of
the Democratic National Convention, for example, skipped the speeches and focused instead on
scattered demonstrations. It defends the Republican presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump, as an
underdog maligned by the established news media.
Margarita Simonyan, RT's editor in chief, said the channel was being singled out as a threat
because it offered a different narrative from "the Anglo-American media-political establishment."
RT, she said, wants to provide "a perspective otherwise missing from the mainstream media echo
chamber."
Moscow's targeting of the West with disinformation dates to a Cold War program the Soviets called
"active measures." The effort involved leaking or even writing stories for sympathetic newspapers
in India and hoping that they would be picked up in the West, said Professor Mark N. Kramer, a
Cold War expert at Harvard.
The story that AIDS was a CIA project run amok spread that way, and it poisons the discussion
of the disease decades later. At the time, before the Soviet Union's 1991 collapse, the Kremlin
was selling communism as an ideological alternative. Now, experts said, the ideological component
has evaporated, but the goal of weakening adversaries remains.
In Sweden recently, that has meant a series of bizarre forged letters and news articles about
NATO and linked to Russia.
One forgery, on Defense Ministry letterhead over Mr. Hultqvist's signature, encouraged a major
Swedish firm to sell artillery to Ukraine, a move that would be illegal in Sweden. Ms. Nyh Radebo,
his spokeswoman, put an end to that story in Sweden, but at international conferences, Mr.
Hultqvist still faced questions about the nonexistent sales.
Russia also made at least one overt attempt to influence the debate. During a seminar in the
spring, Vladimir Kozin, a senior adviser to the Russian Institute for Strategic Studies, a think
tank linked to the Kremlin and Russian foreign intelligence, argued against any change in
Sweden's neutral status.
"Do they really need to lose their neutral status?" he said of the Swedes. "To permit fielding
new U.S. military bases on their territory and to send their national troops to take part in
dubious regional conflicts?"
Whatever the method or message, Russia clearly wants to win any information war, as Dmitry
Kiselyev, Russia's most famous television anchor and the director of the organization that runs
Sputnik, made clear recently.
Speaking this summer on the 75th anniversary of the Soviet Information Bureau, Mr. Kiselyev said
the age of neutral journalism was over. "If we do propaganda, then you do propaganda, too," he
said, directing his message to Western journalists.
"Today, it is much more costly to kill one enemy soldier than during World War II, World War I or
in the Middle Ages," he said in an interview on the state-run Rossiya 24 network. While the
business of "persuasion" is more expensive now, too, he said, "if you can persuade a person, you
don't need to kill him."
"... vote for Clinton is vote for globalization, while vote for Trump is vote for anti-globalization ..."
"... Recall that the Obomber passed the legislation that legalized propaganda (lying to the public) and permits no remedy other than the ability to protest in fenced in free speech zones until the cops show up as head knockers or agents provocateurs. ..."
"... You say that Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for him. Anyone's economic policies will be catastrophic for those most likely to vote for Trump. That's baked into the political and economic structure of things. It is part of the natural order. ..."
"... The difference with Trump is that after the economic catastrophe that will happen--is now happening , it may be possible under a Trump administration to pick things up and rebuild. Under any other likely regime, the aftermath of economic catastrophe will be limitless debt peonage and unlimited oligarchy. ..."
"... The shooting down of an Israeli warplane by Syria has not been reported by Western and Israeli media sources. According to Sputnik, on August 21, "the Israeli Air Force resumed airstrikes on Western Syria, targeting a government army base at Khan Al-Sheih in Damascus province and another in the al-Quneitra province after a six-hour halt in attacks that followed their multiple air raids over the Golan Heights." ..."
Some real beauties in there alright. Kerry giving himself yet another uppercut.
"...U.S. officials say it is imperative that Russia use its influence with Syrian President
Bashar Assad to halt all attacks on moderate opposition forces, ..."
Not Assad must go. Not close. Yet, still blissfully ignorant of the fact their more extreme
moderates are getting their jollies out of hacking sick 12 year old kids heads off with fishing
knive. I wonder at what point does 'moderate' become a dirty word...?
@Noirette Pt1
Big crowds scare Hillary these days. Best not to shake her up too much. I wonder though,
how she expects to compete with Trumps fervour... must be pretty happy that they can do a nice
back door job on election day. When opening act Rudy G is getting pummelled with calls of 'does
Rudy have Alzheimer's...?' you know you're doing something right - really, just...awesome political
theatre.
The ZioMedia is in the tank for Hillary. Impossible for a candidate who cannot draw a crowd to
be "ahead in the polls". And a candidate who packs 10K ppl into any given space at will to be
"behind in the polls". Humiliatingly low turnout for the HBomb is stage-crafted by all ziomedia
outlets to hide this embarrassing fact.
Recall that Billy Blowjob ushered in Media Consolidation which gave 5 ziomedia corporations
carte blanche to bullshit the public.
Recall that the Obomber passed the legislation that legalized propaganda (lying to the
public) and permits no remedy other than the ability to protest in fenced in free speech zones
until the cops show up as head knockers or agents provocateurs.
I was reading articles on the Turkish attack into Syria and there is no mention of the Syrian
government nor whether/when/if Turkey will engage the Syrian Army. But then I found this chart
from CNN:
For one thing, they pretend ISIS has no support. We all know differently. Also, it looks like
every one is fighting ISIS except ..... Free Syrian Army and Saudi Arabia and Gulf Allies.
You say that Trump's economic policies as U.S. president would be catastrophic for those most
likely to vote for him. Anyone's economic policies will be catastrophic for those most likely
to vote for Trump. That's baked into the political and economic structure of things. It is part
of the natural order.
The difference with Trump is that after the economic catastrophe that will happen--is now
happening , it may be possible under a Trump administration to pick things up and rebuild. Under
any other likely regime, the aftermath of economic catastrophe will be limitless debt peonage
and unlimited oligarchy.
The shooting down of an Israeli warplane by Syria has not been reported by Western and Israeli
media sources. According to Sputnik, on August 21, "the Israeli Air Force resumed airstrikes on
Western Syria, targeting a government army base at Khan Al-Sheih in Damascus province and another
in the al-Quneitra province after a six-hour halt in attacks that followed their multiple air
raids over the Golan Heights."
It was struck. An SA-9 from the Iftiraas Air Defense Base and an SA-2 near the Khalkhaala AB
were fired. But, the technical wizardry was most on display when an S-300 (SA-10 "Grumble) super-air-defense
missile was fired from the Republican Guard base near the Mazza AB at the foot of Qaasiyoon Mountain
west of Damascus. This was done so that the F-16's electronic countermeasures would first fix
on the SA-2 and SA-9 while the S-300 plowed forward to exterminate the vermin inside the Israeli
aircraft. The S-300 vaporized the Israeli bomber. No evidence was seen of the pilot ejecting.
Instead, eyewitness accounts described a ball of fire over the Golan and the remains scattering
into the air over the Huleh Valley in Palestine.
Also, the Israelis lost 2 helicopters while flying missions over the Golan Heights in an effort
to bolster the sagging morale of the Takfiri rats of Nusra/Alqaeda and Al-Ittihaad Al-Islaami
li-Ajnaad Al-Shaam. The 2 helicopters went down over the area near Qunaytra City and were reportedly
shot down by shoulder fired, heat-seeking missiles deployed throughout the Syrian Army.
The Hungarian billionaire appeared to have a fascination with not just fostering but creating
anti-Putin opposition forces inside of Russia in a bid to destabilize the country.
The recent
DC Leaks document dump of over 2,500 documents from George Soros' Open Society Foundations illustrates
a disturbing trend by the billionaire of using his wealth and influence to sow chaos across the world
in a bid to profit off of global suffering and impose neoliberal ideas on an international scale.
The leaks have already exposed Soros' efforts to destabilize the European Union by promoting
a policy of open borders and mass migration and fracturing Ukraine's government by fomenting an illegal
coup of a democratically elected government using neo-Nazi hardliners. Once dubbed the "puppet
master" by the fanatical Glenn Beck, Soros has also been linked to both corruption in the United
States and, according to some, positive social reform in his funding of the Black Lives Matter movement.
Yet the man who has brought regimes around the world to their knees has long wanted to bring
Putin's government crashing down, but has proven unsuccessful time and again. New memos from the
DC Leaks file dump show that this failure to oust Putin wasn't for lack of trying on the part of
Soros. In a November 2012 document titled "OSF [Open Society Foundation] Russia Strategic Planning
Meeting Notes" a team of anti-Putin international experts sat down to discuss how to "identify joint
priorities for OSF's Russia activities in the coming year. How can we most effectively collaborate,
considering the deteriorating political environment for our partners?"
Whereas that seems benign, the document minutes show that the meeting's participants hoped that
Medvedev's years as president would provide "an opening" for the Open Society Foundations to influence
and rattle the Russian government. A hope that disappeared when Putin returned to office.
"The Medvedev period allowed for a number of improvements and significant openings for NGOs…
However, pressure has come back very quickly in the short time that Putin has been back in power."
The NGO operation became quickly distrusted in Russia following the botched "Maidan like"
protests which were immediately dismantled before it could threaten the Russian government.
"The Russian protests deeply affected the life of NGO's," read the minutes. The meeting explains
that the government had attempted to encourage civil opposition by providing funds, "but by encouraging
self-organization, they had opened up Pandora's Box… the door was opened for self-mobilization."
The document proceeded to provide an extensive bullet point list of "what must be done" in
order to destabilize Russia including working to flood the country with migrants and influencing
the country's media operations.
The memo was followed up with what was called "the Russia Project" which called for identifying
and organizing opponents to Putin, advancing principles of globalism, and undermine Russia's image
in the lead up to the Sochi Winter Olympics.
Neocons will support Hillary breaking the ranks of Republican Party, as she is one of them:
"The only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton," Kagan warned. "The party cannot be saved, but
the country still can be."
Notable quotes:
"... Donald Trump calls the Iraq War a lie-fueled fiasco, admires Vladimir Putin and says he would be a "neutral" arbiter between Israel and the Palestinians. When it comes to America's global role he asks, "Why are we always at the forefront of everything?" ..."
"... Even more than his economic positions, Trump's foreign policy views challenge GOP orthodoxy in fundamental ways. But while parts of the party establishment are resigning themselves or even backing Trump's runaway train, one group is bitterly digging in against him: the hawkish foreign policy elites known as neoconservatives. ..."
"... In interviews with POLITICO, leading neocons - people who promoted the Iraq War, detest Putin and consider Israel's security non-negotiable - said Trump would be a disaster for U.S. foreign policy and vowed never to support him. So deep is their revulsion that several even say they could vote for Hillary Clinton over Trump in November. ..."
"... "Hillary is the lesser evil, by a large margin," said Eliot Cohen, a former top State Department official under George W. Bush and a strategic theorist who argues for a muscular U.S. role abroad. Trump's election would be "an unmitigated disaster for American foreign policy," Cohen said, adding that "he has already damaged it considerably." ..."
"... In a March 1 interview with Vox, Max Boot, a military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations who backed the Iraq War and often advocates a hawkish foreign policy, said that he, too, would vote for Clinton over Trump. "I'm literally losing sleep over Donald Trump," he said. "She would be vastly preferable to Trump." ..."
"... The letter was signed by dozens of Republican foreign policy experts, including Boot; Peter Feaver, a former senior national security aide in George W. Bush's White House; Robert Zoellick, a former deputy to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; and Dov Zakheim, a former Bush Pentagon official; and Kori Schake, a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and a former Bush State Department official. ..."
"... Kristol and Abrams have advised Florida senator Marco Rubio, the preferred choice of several neoconservatives, who admire his call for "moral clarity" in foreign policy and strong emphasis on human rights and democracy. ..."
"... Alarm brewing for months in GOP foreign policy circles burst into public view last week, when Robert Kagan, a key backer of the Iraq War and American global might, wrote in the Washington Post that a Trump nomination would force him to cross party lines. ..."
"... "The only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton," Kagan warned. "The party cannot be saved, but the country still can be." ..."
Donald Trump calls the Iraq War a lie-fueled fiasco, admires Vladimir Putin and says he would
be a "neutral" arbiter between Israel and the Palestinians. When it comes to America's global role
he asks, "Why are we always at the forefront of everything?"
Even more than his economic
positions, Trump's foreign policy views challenge GOP orthodoxy in fundamental ways. But while parts
of the party establishment are resigning themselves or even backing Trump's runaway train, one group
is bitterly digging in against him: the hawkish foreign policy elites known as neoconservatives.
In interviews with POLITICO, leading neocons - people who promoted the Iraq War, detest Putin
and consider Israel's security non-negotiable - said Trump would be a disaster for U.S. foreign policy
and vowed never to support him. So deep is their revulsion that several even say they could vote
for Hillary Clinton over Trump in November.
"Hillary is the lesser evil, by a large margin," said Eliot Cohen, a former top State Department
official under George W. Bush and a strategic theorist who argues for a muscular U.S. role abroad.
Trump's election would be "an unmitigated disaster for American foreign policy," Cohen said, adding
that "he has already damaged it considerably."
Cohen, an Iraq war backer who is often called a neoconservative but said he does not identify
himself that way, said he would "strongly prefer a third party candidate" to Trump, but added: "Probably
if absolutely no alternative: Hillary."
In a March 1
interview with Vox, Max Boot, a military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations who backed
the Iraq War and often advocates a hawkish foreign policy, said that he, too, would vote for Clinton
over Trump. "I'm literally losing sleep over Donald Trump," he said. "She would be vastly preferable
to Trump."
Cohen helped to organize an open letter signed by several dozen GOP foreign policy insiders -
many of whom are not considered neocons - that
was published Wednesday night by the military blog War on the Rocks. "[W]e are unable to support
a Party ticket with Mr. Trump at its head," the letter declared. It cited everything from Trump's
"admiration for foreign dictators" to his "inexcusable" support for "the expansive use of torture."
The letter was signed by dozens of Republican foreign policy experts, including Boot; Peter
Feaver, a former senior national security aide in George W. Bush's White House; Robert Zoellick,
a former deputy to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; and Dov Zakheim, a former Bush Pentagon official;
and Kori Schake, a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and a former Bush State Department
official.
Several other neocons said they find themselves in an impossible position, constitutionally incapable
of voting for Clinton but repelled by a Republican whose foreign policy views they consider somewhere
between nonexistent and dangerous - and disconnected from their views about American power and values
abroad.
"1972 was the first time I was old enough to vote for president, and I did not vote. Couldn't
vote for McGovern for foreign policy reasons, nor for Nixon because of Watergate," said Elliott Abrams,
a former national security council aide to George W. Bush who specializes in democracy and the Middle
East. "I may be in the same boat in 2016, unable to vote for Trump or Clinton."
Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol, something of a dean of Washington neoconservatives,
said he would seek out a third option before choosing between Trump and Clinton.
"If it's Trump-Clinton, I'd work with others to recruit a strong conservative third party candidate,
and do my best to help him win (which by the way would be more possible than people think, especially
when people - finally - realize Trump shouldn't be president and Hillary is indicted)," Kristol wrote
in an email.
Kristol and Abrams have advised Florida senator Marco Rubio, the preferred choice of several
neoconservatives, who admire his call for "moral clarity" in foreign policy and strong emphasis on
human rights and democracy.
Alarm brewing for months in GOP foreign policy circles burst into public view last week, when
Robert Kagan, a key backer of the Iraq War and American global might,
wrote in the Washington Post that a Trump nomination would force him to cross party lines.
"The only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton," Kagan warned. "The party cannot be
saved, but the country still can be."
In an interview, Kagan said his opposition to Trump "has nothing to do with foreign policy."
"... russia sees this bs crap about 'moderate' for what it is... just another shell game to play hide and seek, switch flags, etc, etc... until the 'moderate' opposition drop their military arms, it ain't 'moderate'... would 'moderate' opposition to the usa leadership be allowed to use weapons? that's the answer to that bs... ..."
OT GENEVA - The United States and Russia say they have resolved a number of issues standing in the
way of restoring a nationwide truce to Syria and opening up aid deliveries, but were unable once
again to forge a comprehensive agreement on stepping up cooperation to end the brutal war that
has killed hundreds of thousands.
After meeting off-and-on for nearly 10 hours in Geneva on Friday, U.S. Secretary of State John
Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov could point to only incremental progress in filling
in details of a broad understanding to boost joint efforts that was reached last month in Moscow.
Their failure to reach an overall deal highlighted the increasingly complex situation on the
ground in Syria - including new Russian-backed Syrian government attacks on opposition forces,
the intermingling of some of those opposition forces with an al-Qaida affiliate not covered by
the truce and the surrender of a rebel-held suburb of Damascus - as well as deep divisions and
mistrust dividing Washington and Moscow.
The complexities have also grown with the increasing internationalization of what has largely
become a proxy war between regional and world powers, highlighted by a move by Turkish troops
across the Syrian border against Islamic State fighters this week.
Kerry said he and Lavrov had agreed on the "vast majority" of technical discussions on steps
to reinstate a cease-fire and improve humanitarian access. But critical sticking points remain
unresolved and experts will remain in Geneva with an eye toward finalizing those in the coming
days, he said. ``` Lavrov echoed that, saying "we still need to finalize a few issues" and pointed to the need to
separate fighters from the al-Nusra Front, which has ties to al-Qaida, from U.S.-backed fighters
who hold parts of northwest Syria.
"We have continued our efforts to reduce the areas where we lack understanding and trust, which
is an achievement," Lavrov said. "The mutual trust is growing with every meeting."
Yet, it was clear that neither side believes an overall agreement is imminent or even achievable
after numerous previous disappointments shattered a brief period of relative calm earlier this
year.
The inability to wrest an agreement between Russia and the U.S. - as the major sponsors of
the opposing sides in the stalled Syria peace talks - all but spells another missed deadline for
the U.N. Syria envoy to get the Syrian government and "moderate" opposition back to the table.
``` In a nod to previous failed attempts to resurrect the cessation of hostilities, Kerry stressed
the importance of keeping the details secret. ``` And, underscoring deep differences over developments on the ground, Kerry noted that Russia disputes
the U.S. "narrative" of recent attacks on heavily populated areas being conducted by Syrian forces,
Russia itself and the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia. Russia maintains the attacks it has been
involved in have targeted legitimate terrorist targets, while the U.S. says they have hit moderate
opposition forces. ~~~ At the same time, the Obama administration is not of one mind regarding the Russians. The Pentagon
has publicly complained about getting drawn into greater cooperation with Russia even though it
has been forced recently to expand communication with Moscow. Last week, the U.S. had to call
for Russian help when Syrian warplanes struck an area not far from where U.S. troops were operating.
U.S. officials say it is imperative that Russia use its influence with Syrian President Bashar
Assad to halt all attacks on moderate opposition forces, open humanitarian aid corridors, and
concentrate any offensive action on the Islamic State group and other extremists not covered by
what has become a largely ignored truce.
For their part, U.S. officials say they are willing to press rebels groups they support harder
on separating themselves from the Islamic State and al-Nusra, which despite a recent name change
is still viewed as al-Qaida's affiliate in Syria.
Those goals are not new, but recent developments have made achieving them even more urgent
and important, according to U.S. officials. Recent developments include military operations around
the city of Aleppo, the entry of Turkey into the ground war, Turkish hostility toward U.S.-backed
Kurdish rebel groups and the presence of American military advisers in widening conflict zones.
Meanwhile, in a blow to the opposition, rebel forces and civilians in the besieged Damascus
suburb of Daraya were to be evacuated on Friday after agreeing to surrender the town late Thursday
after four years of grueling bombardment and a crippling siege that left the sprawling area in
ruins.
The surrender of Daraya, which became an early symbol of the nascent uprising against Assad,
marks a success for his government, removing a persistent threat only a few miles from his seat
of power.
Posted by: okie farmer | Aug 27, 2016 8:23:27 AM | 80
Re: Geneva negotiations...
Love the goto clause:
"In a nod to previous failed attempts to resurrect the cessation of hostilities, Kerry stressed
the importance of keeping the details secret."
Yeah, keeping the details secret so that next time the Yankees backstab Russia, observers won't
immediately realise that they were, in fact, just shooting themselves in the foot. Again.
russia sees this bs crap about 'moderate' for what it is... just another shell game to play
hide and seek, switch flags, etc, etc... until the 'moderate' opposition drop their military arms,
it ain't 'moderate'... would 'moderate' opposition to the usa leadership be allowed to use weapons?
that's the answer to that bs...
as for turkey, clearly the apk has a 'get rid of the kurds' agenda.. works well in their alliance
with isis up to a point.. as for turkish/usa alliance and a no fly zone - if russia goes along
with this, they better get a hell of a trade off out of it.. i can't see it, although i see the
usa continuing on in their support of saudi arabia etc, using their mercenary isis army and saudi
arabia to continue to funnel arms sales and weaponry... it is what they do best, bullshite artists
that they are...
"... I know it is a bit picky of me, but I am getting really tired of Democrats trying to take the high road on immigration. It ignores that our current Democratic President has deported more 'illegal' immigrants than any previous President before him. ..."
"... With all their concern, couldn't the Democrats have made some token stab at immigration reform? Instead there has been a huge gift to the for profit prison operators who now count their immigration detention centers as their biggest profit centers. ..."
"... The Dems want to have their cake and eat it too. They want cheap labor and they want virtue. They sell out my friends and neighbors and think themselves noble for empowering foreign nationals. ..."
I know it is a bit picky of me, but I am getting really tired of Democrats
trying to take the high road on immigration. It ignores that our current
Democratic President has deported more 'illegal' immigrants than any previous
President before him.
In 2014 he deported nine times more people than had
been deported twenty years earlier. Some years it was nearly double the
numbers under George W. Bush. And yes, I know it was not strict fillibuster
proof majority in the Senate for his first two years, but damn close and
the only thing we got was a half assed stimulus made up largely of tax stimulus
AND that gift to for profit medicine and insurance, the ACA.
With all their
concern, couldn't the Democrats have made some token stab at immigration
reform? Instead there has been a huge gift to the for profit prison operators
who now count their immigration detention centers as their biggest profit
centers.
Trump says mean things, but the Democrats, well once again actions should
speak louder than words but it isn't happening.
The Dems want to have their cake and eat it too. They want cheap labor
and they want virtue. They sell out my friends and neighbors and think themselves
noble for empowering foreign nationals.
I guess this is one way for a supposedly pro-labor party to liquidate
its working class elements.
"... the Clintons separated claims on economic production from that-which-was-produced. The claims went to one group- connected financiers, as the task of economic production remained with a freshly diminished working class. This politicized money system can be seen most clearly in the distance between those who received 'free' money in the Wall Street bailouts and those who didn't. ..."
"... Graph: the liberal economists who support Clinton-Obama-Clinton-omics have long claimed that job losses in 'low value-added' occupations like manufacturing would be made up for in the high value-added industries. In fact, employment for the prime-age workers who must work to live has plummeted since NAFTA was passed as low-wage and increasingly contingent service sector jobs have replaced manufacturing employment. This has required the robots-stole-their-jobs fallacy as productivity (the 'benefit' of automation) has fallen to five-decade lows. Source: St. Louis Federal Reserve. ..."
"... As the Wall Street bailouts demonstrated, the public purse is virtually bottomless when social emergencies require rectification. The problem is that Hillary Clinton has spent her career poisoning the well for public expenditures in the public interest through both the misdirection that taxes are a binding constraint on public expenditures and by corrupting the public realm to the point where nothing works as advertised. ..."
"... Graph: The Clinton's state-capitalism works for their Wall Street patrons by transferring a larger piece of an economy in decline to it while using identity politics to divide working class interests. Liberal economists understood that resurgent capitalism would redistribute income and wealth upward but argued that 'we all benefit' from the rich being made richer. This was derided as 'trickle-down' economics when Ronald Reagan re-introduced the concept. As history has it, the actual result is broad economic decline where the already wealthy use state power to immiserate the 'bottom' 80% – 90% of the population. Source: St. Louis Federal Reserve. ..."
"... Jay Gould once speculated that he "could hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." Rising liberal vitriol directed against working class supporters of Donald Trump pits the near-precariat with 'private' health insurance, pensions and recovered home equity against those without them with little apparent understanding of the broadly declining circumstances for all but the very rich (graph above). Democrats sold trade agreements, deregulation, privatization and balanced budgets as ways to 'grow the economic pie.' ..."
Those frightened at the prospect of Donald Trump being elected need to explain precisely where they
were when Democrats launched their three-decade-long class war against the great majority of the
American people. The Clintons passed NAFTA in 1994 after Republicans had been unable to get it passed
because of (righteous) opposition from organized labor. They 'freed' Wall Street from social accountability
while making it more dependent than ever on government bailouts. They cut social spending while increasing
the economic vulnerability of the poor. Both the dotcom stock bubble and the housing bubble began
under the Clintons and were caused by their finance-friendly policies. The Clintons are singularly
responsible for the Democrats' turn toward finance capitalism that has dispossessed the middle class,
immiserated the working class and left the poor to fight over the crumbs that fall to them.
In
the abstract, but never-the-less relevant, terms of economic theory the Clintons separated claims
on economic production from that-which-was-produced. The claims went to one group- connected financiers,
as the task of economic production remained with a freshly diminished working class. This politicized
money system can be seen most clearly in the distance between those who received 'free' money in
the Wall Street bailouts and those who didn't.
Bankers, hedge funds and private equity received billions
in low interest 'non-recourse' loans while the American political establishment urged austerity as
the moral antidote appropriate for the rest of us. The spectacle of bankers, with the support of
leading figures in the Obama administration, claiming that their clearly defrauded borrowers presented
a 'moral hazard' to them would be as implausible in fiction as it was true in fact.
Graph: the liberal economists who support Clinton-Obama-Clinton-omics have long claimed that
job losses in 'low value-added' occupations like manufacturing would be made up for in the high value-added
industries. In fact, employment for the prime-age workers who must work to live has plummeted since
NAFTA was passed as low-wage and increasingly contingent service sector jobs have replaced manufacturing
employment. This has required the robots-stole-their-jobs fallacy as productivity (the 'benefit'
of automation) has fallen to five-decade lows. Source: St. Louis Federal Reserve.
The political establishment now circling the wagons around Hillary Clinton feeds at the trough
of money creation and depends on the misdirection that in 'normal' circumstances nature ties its
distribution to economic product produced. Upon his election in 1992 Bill Clinton claimed to have
inherited an 'unexpectedly' large budget deficit that tied his hands with respect to social spending.
The result was that Mr. Clinton abandoned his political program except inasmuch as the 'private'
economy that included Wall Street, arms manufacturers, pharmaceutical and telecommunications companies
and the insurance industry were 'freed' from social accountability as government funds and privileges
continued to be directed to them. The money was somewhere 'found' to bomb Iraq for eight years but
that needed to keep the poor living indoors and eating regular meals had to be cut because the Federal
budget deficit required it.
Upon election Barack Obama did essentially the same thing claiming a fiscal emergency in 2010
that required cutting Social Security and Medicare as he spent
$6 trillion – $14 trillion to save
Wall Street. That unlimited funds were found for Wall Street but none could be found to restore the
fortunes of the victims of Democratic 'trade' agreements and the predatory finance of Wall Street
renders evident the class-war being perpetrated by the Democrats. Liberal economists- court jesters
dressed in the garb of storied academics, prattled on about the 'zero-lower bound' (cartoon monetary
economics) as the Clintons and Barack Obama forewent the power of the public purse that FDR used
to create the Federal jobs programs that brought tens of thousands of desperate citizens out of the
misery of the Great Depression.
When Hillary Clinton outlined her 'economic' program she claimed that upon election she would
direct Congress to create ten million jobs rebuilding infrastructure without explaining how this
jibed with her public career as a deficit hawk, how rebuilding infrastructure would create ten million
jobs when Mr. Obama's program created at best a few thousand and why this wouldn't be just one more
Clinton scam to shove public resources to their cronies? As the Wall Street bailouts demonstrated,
the public purse is virtually bottomless when social emergencies require rectification. The problem
is that Hillary Clinton has spent her career poisoning the well for public expenditures in the public
interest through both the misdirection that taxes are a binding constraint on public expenditures
and by corrupting the public realm to the point where nothing works as advertised.
Graph: The Clinton's state-capitalism works for their Wall Street patrons by transferring
a larger piece of an economy in decline to it while using identity politics to divide working class
interests. Liberal economists understood that resurgent capitalism would redistribute income and
wealth upward but argued that 'we all benefit' from the rich being made richer. This was derided
as 'trickle-down' economics when Ronald Reagan re-introduced the concept. As history has it, the
actual result is broad economic decline where the already wealthy use state power to immiserate the
'bottom' 80% – 90% of the population. Source: St. Louis Federal Reserve.
Bill Clinton and / or Barack Obama could have created government jobs programs to employ dispossessed
workers at living wages just like FDR did. They could have even claimed the economic emergencies
they helped create as reasons for doing so. Mainstream economic theory has 'free-trade' beneficiaries
compensating those displaced by it. However, the Clintons and Mr. Obama chose instead to promote
the right-wing lie of a binding budget constraint to limit and / or preclude increased social spending
more effectively than the old-line Republican misery squad could have ever imagined possible. So
the question for Hillary Clinton is: will she prove her husband and Barack Obama to be ruling class
tools for lying about Federal budget constraints on social spending or will she maintain the lie
to renege on her promise of creating ten million jobs?
Jay Gould once speculated that he "could hire one-half of the working class to kill the other
half." Rising liberal vitriol directed against working class supporters of Donald Trump pits the
near-precariat with 'private' health insurance, pensions and recovered home equity against those
without them with little apparent understanding of the broadly declining circumstances for all but
the very rich (graph above). Democrats sold trade agreements, deregulation, privatization and balanced
budgets as ways to 'grow the economic pie.' With history having demonstrated otherwise, the Party
leadership now wants to change the subject. Barack Obama is selling the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership)
'trade' agreement as a geopolitical endeavor. Hillary Clinton now claims she will recover the ghost
of FDR that national Democrats spent the last forty-years exorcising. In the parlance: whatever.
The day after Election Day will be like any other in the sense that the problems of looming environmental
catastrophe, gratuitous wars and long-term economic decline will remain profit-generating 'opportunities'
in the realm of official concern. The American political establishment is calcified and out of ideas.
The problem is that the residual rationales and institutional tendencies lean toward catastrophe
generation. Democrats saved Wall Street in particular, and finance capitalism more generally, to
kill again. The most destructive militarists in modern history have attached themselves to Hillary
Clinton and the American war machine. Unless functional politics are recovered and asserted outside
the electoral system more of the same is the outcome that Western political economy is designed to
produce.
Rob Urie is an artist and political economist. His book
Zen Economics
is published by CounterPunch Books.
Krauthammer is probably the most gifted neocon propagandist. Kind of
Joseph
Goebbels of neocons (I know, I know). But despite his considerable and undisputable gifts as a propagandist,
I can't read him without a shoot of Stoli. He is so predictably jingoistic that sometimes I think he
was hired by Putin to destroy any semblance of rational thinking in Washington establishment. An interesting
question is what he drinks to write such articles.
Notable quotes:
"... In Syria, the minds of the 7th century are doing their 7th century thing. Krauthammer's answer? Bomb them (read: assassinate Assad). ..."
"... In the Ukraine, another group of mid 18th Century thinking is doing their 18th century thing. Krauthammer's answer? Bomb them. ..."
"... These right wing neocon chickenhawks like Krauthammer and the politicians who ascribe to the "Just bomb 'em, invade 'em, and disband their military" school of thought are precisely the reason the world is in such "disarray". The sooner these blood thirsty miscreants are no longer influential, the sooner things might turn around. Certainly the security of the civilized world is at stake but bombing the heck out of everything (especially if they have brown skin) is not the answer. And given the damage the GHWB/Cheney and li'l bush/Cheney catastrophe CAUSED, the "sooner" part of the equation is likely to take another 100 years. Thanks neocons. Thanks for nothing but fear, blood, destruction, and grief. ..."
In the South China Sea, China is doing it's China thing. Krauthammer's answer? Bomb them.
In Syria, the minds of the 7th century are doing their 7th century thing. Krauthammer's
answer? Bomb them (read: assassinate Assad).
In the Ukraine, another group of mid 18th Century thinking is doing their 18th century
thing. Krauthammer's answer? Bomb them.
In Iran, the Iranians are doing what any sovereign nation would do when threatened by outside
forces (i.e. Israel and the US)- arm themselves in order to create a deterrent to invasion or
worse. Krauthammer's answer? Bomb them, destroy the deterrent, and invade.
As far as Cuba is concerned, bomb them too (I guess).
These right wing neocon chickenhawks like Krauthammer and the politicians who ascribe to
the "Just bomb 'em, invade 'em, and disband their military" school of thought are precisely the
reason the world is in such "disarray". The sooner these blood thirsty miscreants are no longer
influential, the sooner things might turn around. Certainly the security of the civilized world
is at stake but bombing the heck out of everything (especially if they have brown skin) is not
the answer. And given the damage the GHWB/Cheney and li'l bush/Cheney catastrophe CAUSED, the
"sooner" part of the equation is likely to take another 100 years. Thanks neocons. Thanks for
nothing but fear, blood, destruction, and grief.
"... The clear signals of Clinton's readiness to go to war appears to be aimed at influencing the course of the war in Syria as well as US policy over the remaining six months of the Obama administration ..."
"... Last month, the think tank run by Michele Flournoy, the former Defense Department official considered to be most likely to be Clinton's choice to be Secretary of Defense, explicitly called for "limited military strikes" against the Assad regime. ..."
"... earlier this month Leon Panetta, former Defense Secretary and CIA Director, who has been advising candidate Clinton, declared in an interview that the next president would have to increase the number of Special Forces and carry out air strikes to help "moderate" groups against President Bashal al-Assad. ..."
"... When Panetta gave a belligerent speech at the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday night, he was interrupted by chants from the delegates on the floor of "no more war!" ..."
The clear signals of Clinton's readiness to go to war appears to be aimed at influencing
the course of the war in Syria as well as US policy over the remaining six months of the Obama
administration. (She also may be hoping to corral the votes of Republican neoconservatives
concerned about Donald Trump's "America First" foreign policy.)
Last month, the think tank run by Michele Flournoy, the former Defense Department official
considered to be most likely to be Clinton's choice to be Secretary of Defense, explicitly called
for "limited military strikes" against the Assad regime.
And earlier this month Leon Panetta, former Defense Secretary and CIA Director, who has been
advising candidate Clinton, declared in an interview that the next president would have to
increase the number of Special Forces and carry out air strikes to help "moderate" groups against
President Bashal al-Assad.
When Panetta gave a belligerent speech at the Democratic National Convention on Wednesday
night, he was interrupted by chants from the delegates on the floor of "no more war!"
"... You know, here's somebody who actually pushed Obama to go into the Libyan operation. You know, Obama was reticent to enter the operation in Libya. The French were very eager. And Hillary Clinton led the charge against Libya. ..."
"... This shows, to my mind, a profound dangerous tendency to go into wars overseas, you know, damn the consequences. And I think, therefore, if you're looking at this from outside the United States, there's a real reason to be terrified that whoever becomes president -- as Medea Benjamin put it to me in an interview, whoever wins the president, there will be a hawk in the White House. ..."
You know, here's somebody who actually pushed Obama to go into the Libyan operation. You
know, Obama was reticent to enter the operation in Libya. The French were very eager. And Hillary
Clinton led the charge against Libya.
This shows, to my mind, a profound dangerous tendency to go into wars overseas, you know,
damn the consequences. And I think, therefore, if you're looking at this from outside the United
States, there's a real reason to be terrified that whoever becomes president -- as Medea Benjamin
put it to me in an interview, whoever wins the president, there will be a hawk in the White
House.
"... Q.-beyond that, do you still feel that if that information on those American servicemen who are missing in action is forthcoming from the Vietnamese, that then this country has a moral obligation to help rebuild that country, if that information is forthcoming? ..."
"... THE PRESIDENT [Carter]. Well, the destruction was mutual . You know, we went to Vietnam without any desire to capture territory or to impose American will on other people. We went there to defend the freedom of the South Vietnamese. And I don't feel that we ought to apologize or to castigate ourselves or to assume the status of culpability. ..."
"... Carter did when Brzezinski said the Shah of Iran was a friend of ours. ..."
When dealing with foreign policy it's important to think on at least 3
levels:
Grand Structure
State
Domestic
Will a Clinton presidency be hawkish?
A. Grand Structure: No clear successor to the United States as hegemon
has emerged to stymie hawkish ambitions. China and Russia exist, of course,
but can do little to stop US ambitions. Verdict, yes, hawkish.
B. State: though US hegemony is in a period of decline, clearly the
United States' ruling class is still very much interested and capable of
using the Middle East as a demented sandbox to cause other nations to
continue to need its security services. China looms as a potential rising
hegemon. Verdict: yes, still hawkish.
C. Domestic: the ruling class investor coalitions backing Clinton are
very, very interested in a robust foreign economic policy that favor an
interventionist foreign policy. The segments of US society that are opposed
to this will not be represented or listened to in Clinton's domestic
coalition, either: declining industries, the working class/labor. The
professional 10% that Thomas Frank identifies as the broader Dem base tends
to acquiesce to Democratic-led wars. Without a reborn, and far more
militant, anti-war movement, the verdict has to be: yes, Hawkish.
The professional 10% and much of middle class america, by and large,
doesn't serve in the military and doesn't encourage or let their kids
serve either, so they're ok with war. It also seems that the PTB through
a combination of corporate media marginalization, robust police state
repression, and the lack of conscription has minimized the impact of any
anti-war movement.
longer term movement politics to take power, at least before the PTB
blow us all up?
"[W]e should expect Clinton to shape her foreign policy to neutralise the
threat to her nomination in 2020 from the left of her party. So forget
Hillary the hawk. To consolidate her Democrat base she will be even more
cautious abroad than Barack Obama has been"
For the moment ignoring Obama's nuclear weapons policy and NATO
belligerence, don't I wish!
But this sounds very voluntaristic to me, as though the US doesn't face a
problem with its empire that might appear to oblige belligerence. For example,
if the case is valid that the US has much reason to fear economic consolidation
between Europe and Asia, then Clinton/Kagan/Nuland et al are servants of
empire, not mad dogs. If, as some say, such a consolidation would undermine
dollar hegemony, maybe they feel the script is written. That doesn't mean I
don't oppose them, it just means opposing them involves a lot more than being
for peace, nonviolent resolution of disputes and such.
Mike Whitney over at Counterpunch has an interesting article reviewing
Brzezinski's new book, The Broken Chessboard, with Brzezinski explaining that
the US has lost its ability to be the indispensable nation. Maybe HRC will
listen. Carter did when Brzezinski said the Shah of Iran was a friend of ours.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/08/25/the-broken-chessboard-brzezinski-gives-up-on-empire/
When has Clinton ever listened to anyone who wasn't promoting war, war,
and more war? Expecting Clinton to respond like Carter in respect to foreign
policy is as fruitless as expecting her foundation's "charitable works" to
be comparable to Carter's work with Habitat for Humanity.
Carter: 4 years in office without a single shot fired in anger,
imagine the moral and political fortitude required to keep the
Military-Monster-That-Must-Be-Fed at bay like that for so long. Yes
Carter played lots of footsie with special ops but perhaps we awarded the
recent Peace Prize to the wrong guy.
so it was the least bloody of any president? and carter did
pressure latin american dictators on human rights, unlike
presidents before and after him. east timor was the worst, no
defense of him there. we sent money to support the indonesian
regime. but carter was no clinton.
Clinton and Reagan didn't just appear fully formed. Carter
started trashing unions before they abandoned the Democrats in
1980. Carter created the Carter doctrine.
Bill is just a personally immoral version of Carter who is
capable of self reflection, but Jimmy was building those houses
to atone.
Carter still came in a strong post Vietnam Era. Sending
soldiers abroad wouldn't be too popular.
So many Carter favs (Timor, the Shah is an island of
stability, defending Samoza…) but this has to be
one of the best
:
Q.-beyond that, do you still feel that if that
information on those American servicemen who are missing
in action is forthcoming from the Vietnamese, that then
this country has a moral obligation to help rebuild that
country, if that information is forthcoming?
THE PRESIDENT [Carter].
Well, the
destruction was mutual
. You know, we went to
Vietnam without any desire to capture territory or to
impose American will on other people. We went there to
defend the freedom of the South Vietnamese. And I don't
feel that we ought to apologize or to castigate ourselves
or to assume the status of culpability.
My opinion: we went to Vietnam to keep the Golden
Triangle open for heroin trafficking to fund all the
covert CIA ops in the rest of the world. It shut down when
we lost. US then opened up Afghanistan route, thanks to
Jimmy Carter and Brezinski. Which is why we are where we
are today in Afghanistan. Just can't shake the poppy
monkey.
The problem with your theory is that the shift in
heroin production to the Golden Triangle didn't occur
until after the US involvement. Same as in Afghanistan.
And in Nicaragua. I.e., the pattern is the US invades
for other reasons, then the CIA starts running dope to
funnel guns to "freedom fighters", then drug use spikes
in the US.
Read Alfred McCoy, The Politics of Heroin in
Southeast Asia.
– The Obama administration's reckless foreign policy, particularly the
toppling of governments in Libya and Ukraine, has greatly accelerated the
rate at which these anti-American coalitions have formed. In other words,
Washington's enemies have emerged in response to Washington's behavior.
Obama can only blame himself.
was editorial or a quote from Brz himself, and the top headline was from
2012:
Zbigniew Brzezinski: The man behind Obama's foreign policy
Posty Masters
1
day ago
Good job. If every one can just get one
person to change, you will not have to put
up with more of the same. Lies, cheating
and selling out the American People.
Munchmá Fuzi Qüchi
5
days ago
She is straight up evil as fuck. If you can't see
that something is wrong with you.
John Henke
2
days ago
She has no soul.
cougar351
1
hour ago
She a trail of destruction. Imagine a state
official stealing money from the Haitians they
sorely needed for survival after the devastation
created by the massive earthquake. Very crooked
Neocons will support Hillary breaking the ranks of Republican Party, as she is one of them:
"The only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton," Kagan warned. "The party cannot be saved, but
the country still can be."
Notable quotes:
"... Donald Trump calls the Iraq War a lie-fueled fiasco, admires Vladimir Putin and says he would be a "neutral" arbiter between Israel and the Palestinians. When it comes to America's global role he asks, "Why are we always at the forefront of everything?" ..."
"... Even more than his economic positions, Trump's foreign policy views challenge GOP orthodoxy in fundamental ways. But while parts of the party establishment are resigning themselves or even backing Trump's runaway train, one group is bitterly digging in against him: the hawkish foreign policy elites known as neoconservatives. ..."
"... In interviews with POLITICO, leading neocons - people who promoted the Iraq War, detest Putin and consider Israel's security non-negotiable - said Trump would be a disaster for U.S. foreign policy and vowed never to support him. So deep is their revulsion that several even say they could vote for Hillary Clinton over Trump in November. ..."
"... "Hillary is the lesser evil, by a large margin," said Eliot Cohen, a former top State Department official under George W. Bush and a strategic theorist who argues for a muscular U.S. role abroad. Trump's election would be "an unmitigated disaster for American foreign policy," Cohen said, adding that "he has already damaged it considerably." ..."
"... In a March 1 interview with Vox, Max Boot, a military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations who backed the Iraq War and often advocates a hawkish foreign policy, said that he, too, would vote for Clinton over Trump. "I'm literally losing sleep over Donald Trump," he said. "She would be vastly preferable to Trump." ..."
"... The letter was signed by dozens of Republican foreign policy experts, including Boot; Peter Feaver, a former senior national security aide in George W. Bush's White House; Robert Zoellick, a former deputy to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; and Dov Zakheim, a former Bush Pentagon official; and Kori Schake, a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and a former Bush State Department official. ..."
"... Kristol and Abrams have advised Florida senator Marco Rubio, the preferred choice of several neoconservatives, who admire his call for "moral clarity" in foreign policy and strong emphasis on human rights and democracy. ..."
"... Alarm brewing for months in GOP foreign policy circles burst into public view last week, when Robert Kagan, a key backer of the Iraq War and American global might, wrote in the Washington Post that a Trump nomination would force him to cross party lines. ..."
"... "The only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton," Kagan warned. "The party cannot be saved, but the country still can be." ..."
Donald Trump calls the Iraq War a lie-fueled fiasco, admires Vladimir Putin and says he would
be a "neutral" arbiter between Israel and the Palestinians. When it comes to America's global role
he asks, "Why are we always at the forefront of everything?"
Even more than his economic
positions, Trump's foreign policy views challenge GOP orthodoxy in fundamental ways. But while parts
of the party establishment are resigning themselves or even backing Trump's runaway train, one group
is bitterly digging in against him: the hawkish foreign policy elites known as neoconservatives.
In interviews with POLITICO, leading neocons - people who promoted the Iraq War, detest Putin
and consider Israel's security non-negotiable - said Trump would be a disaster for U.S. foreign policy
and vowed never to support him. So deep is their revulsion that several even say they could vote
for Hillary Clinton over Trump in November.
"Hillary is the lesser evil, by a large margin," said Eliot Cohen, a former top State Department
official under George W. Bush and a strategic theorist who argues for a muscular U.S. role abroad.
Trump's election would be "an unmitigated disaster for American foreign policy," Cohen said, adding
that "he has already damaged it considerably."
Cohen, an Iraq war backer who is often called a neoconservative but said he does not identify
himself that way, said he would "strongly prefer a third party candidate" to Trump, but added: "Probably
if absolutely no alternative: Hillary."
In a March 1
interview with Vox, Max Boot, a military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations who backed
the Iraq War and often advocates a hawkish foreign policy, said that he, too, would vote for Clinton
over Trump. "I'm literally losing sleep over Donald Trump," he said. "She would be vastly preferable
to Trump."
Cohen helped to organize an open letter signed by several dozen GOP foreign policy insiders -
many of whom are not considered neocons - that
was published Wednesday night by the military blog War on the Rocks. "[W]e are unable to support
a Party ticket with Mr. Trump at its head," the letter declared. It cited everything from Trump's
"admiration for foreign dictators" to his "inexcusable" support for "the expansive use of torture."
The letter was signed by dozens of Republican foreign policy experts, including Boot; Peter
Feaver, a former senior national security aide in George W. Bush's White House; Robert Zoellick,
a former deputy to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; and Dov Zakheim, a former Bush Pentagon official;
and Kori Schake, a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and a former Bush State Department
official.
Several other neocons said they find themselves in an impossible position, constitutionally incapable
of voting for Clinton but repelled by a Republican whose foreign policy views they consider somewhere
between nonexistent and dangerous - and disconnected from their views about American power and values
abroad.
"1972 was the first time I was old enough to vote for president, and I did not vote. Couldn't
vote for McGovern for foreign policy reasons, nor for Nixon because of Watergate," said Elliott Abrams,
a former national security council aide to George W. Bush who specializes in democracy and the Middle
East. "I may be in the same boat in 2016, unable to vote for Trump or Clinton."
Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol, something of a dean of Washington neoconservatives,
said he would seek out a third option before choosing between Trump and Clinton.
"If it's Trump-Clinton, I'd work with others to recruit a strong conservative third party candidate,
and do my best to help him win (which by the way would be more possible than people think, especially
when people - finally - realize Trump shouldn't be president and Hillary is indicted)," Kristol wrote
in an email.
Kristol and Abrams have advised Florida senator Marco Rubio, the preferred choice of several
neoconservatives, who admire his call for "moral clarity" in foreign policy and strong emphasis on
human rights and democracy.
Alarm brewing for months in GOP foreign policy circles burst into public view last week, when
Robert Kagan, a key backer of the Iraq War and American global might,
wrote in the Washington Post that a Trump nomination would force him to cross party lines.
"The only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton," Kagan warned. "The party cannot be
saved, but the country still can be."
In an interview, Kagan said his opposition to Trump "has nothing to do with foreign policy."
Do I like Greg Mankiw's positions? No. But he and others of his
ilk are at least sane and intelligent, and certainly not "white
nationalists" (dog whistle: racists).
There are some many progressive
people here who perhaps aren't impressed with a lot of these
economists or HRC.
First off, there is only one practical goal: push HRC to more
progressive positions.
Second, elect and support progressives down the ballot.
Nihilism is an easy pose. Changing the world, a bit harder.
Like in 20th neoliberalism created the fertile soil for far
right.
So, in a way, those "sane and intelligent" neoliberals are
enablers and supporters of far right. That means that Greg Mankiw
can be legitimately viewed as an enabler of neofascism in the
USA.
You just need to see how this played in Europe to see the
writing on the wall. Boiling anger at neoliberal globalization,
stagnation or dramatic decline of family income (over 50 and
unemployed phenomena), growing debt, and loss of jobs (and perspectives)
is a dangerous, explosive mix.
Externality if you like, that neoliberals did not took into
account with all their rush to extract profits whenever they
can (vampire squid behavior is a neoliberal paradigm).
As Matt Tabbi aptly said "The world's most powerful investment
bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity,
relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells
like money." The problem is that this is a standard neoliberal
behavior and in no way it is limited to GS.
Putting a large part of the US population against the wall
of poverty (there is another country within the USA -- a third
world county inhabited by Wall-Mart workers, single mothers and
like) was deliberate, government supported, and a very destructive
action. The USDA Food and Nutrition Service reported that as
of September 2014, there were around 46.5 million individual
food stamp recipients (22.7 million households).
What happens if the Deep State pursues the usual pathological path of increasing repression?
The system it feeds on decays and collapses.
Catch-22 (from the 1961 novel set in World War II
Catch-22) has several shades of meaning (bureaucratic absurdity, for example), but at heart
it is a self-referential paradox: you must be insane to be excused from flying your mission, but
requesting to be excused by reason of insanity proves you're sane.
The Deep State in virtually every major nation-state is facing a form of Catch-22: the
Deep State needs the nation-state to feed on and support its power, and the nation-state requires
stability above all else to survive the vagaries of history.
The only possible output of extreme wealth inequality is social and economic instability.
The financial elites of the Deep State (and of the nation-state that the Deep State rules) generate
wealth inequality and thus instability by their very existence, i.e. the very concentration of wealth
and power that defines the elite.
So the only way to insure stability is to dissipate the concentrated wealth and power of the
financial Deep State. This is the Deep State's Catch-22.
What happens when extremes of wealth/power inequality have been reached? Depressions, revolutions,
wars and the dissolution of empires. Extremes of wealth/power inequality generate political,
social and economic instability which then destabilize the regime.
Ironically, elites try to solve this dilemma by becoming more autocratic and repressing whatever
factions they see as the source of instability.
The irony is they themselves are the source of instability. The crowds of enraged citizens
are merely manifestations of an unstable, brittle system that is cracking under the strains of extreme
wealth/power inequality.
Can anyone not in Wall Street, the corporate media, Washington D.C., K Street or the Fed look
at this chart and not see profound political disunity on the horizon?
"... The Elites have successfully revolted against the political and economic constraints on their wealth and power, and now the unprivileged, unprotected non-Elites are rebelling in the only way left open to them: voting for anyone who claims to be outside the privileged Elites that dominate our society and economy. ..."
The Elites have successfully revolted against the political and economic constraints on their
wealth and power.
Ours is an
Age of Fracture (the 2011 book by Daniel Rodgers) in which "earlier notions of history and society
that stressed solidity, collective institutions, and social circumstances gave way to a more individualized
human nature that emphasized choice, agency, performance, and desire."
A society that is fragmenting into cultural groups that are themselves fracturing into smaller
units of temporary and highly contingent solidarity is ideal for Elites bent on maintaining political
and financial control.
A society that has fragmented into a media-fed cultural war of hot-button identity-gender-religious
politics is a society that is incapable of resisting concentrations of power and wealth in the hands
of the few at the expense of the many.
If we set aside the authentic desire of individuals for equal rights and cultural liberation and
examine the political and financial ramifications of social fragmentation, we come face to face with
Christopher Lasch's insightful analysis on
The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy (1996 book).
"The new elites, the professional classes in particular, regard the masses with mingled scorn
and apprehension.... Middle Americans, as they appear to the makers of educated opinion, are hopelessly
shabby, unfashionable, and provincial, ill informed about changes in taste or intellectual trends,
addicted to trashy novels of romance and adventure, and stupefied by prolonged exposure to television.
They are at once absurd and vaguely menacing."
Extreme concentrations of wealth and power are incompatible with democracy, as Elites buy political
influence and promote cultural narratives that distract the citizenry with emotionally charged issues.
A focus on individual liberation from all constraints precludes an awareness of common economic-political
interests beyond the narrow boundaries of fragmenting culturally defined identities.
In a society stripped of broad-based social contracts and narratives that focus on the structural
forces dismantling democracy and social mobility, the Elites have a free hand to consolidate their
own personal wealth and power and use those tools to further fragment any potential political resistance
to their dominance.
The Elites have successfully revolted against the political and economic constraints on their
wealth and power, and now the unprivileged, unprotected non-Elites are rebelling in the only way
left open to them: voting for anyone who claims to be outside the privileged Elites that dominate
our society and economy.
The
Connecting the Dots series has convincingly shown a number of interconnected
reasons why the global system is in crisis, and why there is no way out without
a structural transformation of the dominant neoliberal system. In our contribution,
we want to stress the key importance of what we call a "value regime," or simply
put, the rules that determine what society and the economy consider to be of
value. We must first look at the underlying modes of production - i.e. how value
is created and distributed - and then construct solutions must that help create
these changes in societal values. The emerging answer for a new mode of value
creation is the re-emergence of the Commons.
With the growing awareness of the vulnerability of the planet and its people
in the face of the systemic crises created by late-stage capitalism, we need
to ready the alternatives and begin creating the next system now. To do so,
we need a full understanding of the current context and its characteristics.
In our view, the dominant political economy has three fatal flaws.
Pseudo-Abundance
The first is the characteristic need for the capitalist system to engage
in continuous capital accumulation and growth. We could call this pseudo-abundance,
i.e. the fundamental article of faith, or unconscious assumption, that the natural
world's resources are infinite. Capitalism creates a systemic ecological crisis
marked by the overuse and depletion of natural resources, endangering the balance
of the environment (biodiversity extinction, climate change, etc).
Scarcity Engineering
The second characteristic of capitalism is that it requires scarce commodities
that are subject to a tension between supply and demand. Scarcity engineering
is what we call this continuous attempt to undo natural abundance where it occurs.
Capitalism creates markets by the systemic re-engineering of potentially or
naturally abundant resources into scarce resources. We see this happening with
natural resources in the
development of "terminator seeds" that undo the seeds' natural regeneration
process. Crucially, we also see this in the creation of artificial scarcity
mechanisms for human culture and knowledge. "Intellectual property" is imposed
in more and more areas, privatizing common knowledge in order to create artificial
commodities and rents that create profits for a privileged "creator class."
These first two characteristics are related and reinforce each other, as
the problems created by pseudo-abundance are made quite difficult to solve due
to the privatization of the very knowledge required to solve them. This makes
solving major ecological problems dependent on the ability of this privatized
knowledge to create profits. It has been shown that the patenting of technologies
results in a systemic slowdown of technical and scientific innovation, while
un-patenting technologies accelerates innovation. A good
recent example of this "patent lag" effect is the extraordinary growth of
3D printing, once the technology
lost its patents.
Perpetually Increasing Social Injustice
The third major characteristic is the increased inequality in the distribution
of value, i.e. perpetually increasing social injustice.
As Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century shows us,
the logic of capital is to concentrate more and more wealth into fewer hands
through compound interest, rent seeking, purchasing legislation, etc. Our current
set of rules are hardwired to increase inequality and injustice.
"When the Democratic National Committee announced its $32 million fundraising
haul last month, it touted the result as evidence of 'energy and excitement'
for Hillary Clinton's nomination for the White House and other races down the
ballot. The influx of money, however, also owes in part to an unprecedented
workaround of political spending limits that lets the party tap into millions
of dollars more from Clinton's wealthiest donors" [
Bloomberg ]. "At least $7.3 million of the DNC's July total originated with
payments from hundreds of major donors who had already contributed the maximum
$33,400 to the national committee, a review of Federal Election Commission filings
shows. The contributions, many of which were made months earlier, were first
bundled by the Hillary Victory Fund and then transferred to the state Democratic
parties, which effectively stripped the donors' names and sent the money to
the DNC as a lump sum. Of the transfers that state parties made to the DNC for
which donor information was available, an overwhelming proportion came from
contributions from maxed-out donors."
Lovely. Doubling down on the Victory Fund scam. Word of the day: Effrontery.
Re: Clintons campaign possible strategy of making a vote for Clinton
'a vote for a winner'.
I know its conventional opinion that when in doubt, people prefer to
vote for who they perceive to be a 'winner', but I wonder if this really
applies with two such disliked candidates. I've a theory that one reason
Brexit won is that the polls beforehand saying it would be a narrow 'no',
gave 'permission' for people to vote with their conscience rather than their
pragmatism. In other words, presented with a 'pragmatic, but dirty' vote
for X, but a 'fun, but risky' vote for Y', people will vote X if its very
close or it looks like Y will win, but may be tempted to vote Y if they
are pretty sure X will win.
Part of me thinks the Clinton campaign would have tested the theory to
the limit before going for a strategy like this, but the evidence from the
nomination campaign is that they are all tactics, no strategy. It seems
to me to be a very risky game to play, not least because promoting Clinton
as a sure winner may make wavering progressives simply opt to stay at home.
I don't even think you have to be a progressive for that to be a concern
if you are the Clinton campaign.
They know the public is not enthusiastic about voting for her for the most
part, and yet they are setting up a meme where she is unbeatable. It isn't
necessarily going to just keep Trump voters home. But how many people who
don't want Clinton but really don't want Trump will be able to convince
themselves that there is no need to go hold their nose and vote for her.
Republicans who think she is too far left, but he is crazy for instance
will be just as likely to stay home as the lefties who know she is lying
Neoliberal War Criminal, but not fascist like Trump. (And I know the real
fascism signs are all with Clinton, but some may have missed it).
On fascism I had the exact same thought after reading Adolph Reeds "Vote
For the Lying, NeoLiberal War-Monger, It's Important" link last week.
Reed's critique was that communist leader Thallman failed to anticipate
Hitler's liquidation of all opposition, but frankly with Hillary's and Donald's
respective histories its hard for me to see how Trump is more dangerous
on this: Hillary has a deep and proven lethal track record and wherever
she could justify violent action in the past she has, she keeps an enemies
list, holds grudges and acts on them, all thoroughly documented.
I certainly won't speculate that Trump couldn't do the same or worse,
given the state of our propaganda and lawlessness amongst the elite, but
like all the other negatives in this campaign its hard to ascertain who
really will be worse. Lambert's bet on gridlock in a Trump administration
has the further advantage of re-activating the simulation of "anti-war,
anti-violence" amongst Dem nomenklatura.
We have collectively known Donald Trump and much of his family for the
last 30 or 40 years. Over the years, he has evoked different emotions in
me. (Usually being appalled by his big-city, realestate tycoon posturing
etc). However, I have never been frightened by him. To
me, he is more like a bombastic, well loved, show-off uncle.
Today I see Trump as a modern day prophet (spiritual teacher). A bringer
of light (clarity) to the masses. We live in a rigged system that gives
Nobel Peace Prizes to mass murderers; that charges a poor child $600 for
a $1 lifesaving Epipen. Trump is waking up The People. Finalllyyyyyy!!
In my experience, people usually do not change for the better as they
age. However, it does happen!; peasant girl (Joan of Arc), patent inspector
(Einstein)
It's not about what Trump will or won't do. It's about not handing all
three branches of government over to the GOP, which has the Libertarian
agenda of eliminating said government altogether. I find it interesting
that so many people scornful of identity politics nevertheless seem to be
as addicted as anyone to making this a horse race between two candidates
that has no real far-reaching consequences beyond with each will or won't
do in the Oval Office.
So true: "My view is that triumphalism from the Clinton campaign - which
now includes most of the political class, including the press and both party
establishments, and ignores event risk - is engineered to get early voters
to "go with the winner."–Lambert
I have noticed on Google News several "Clinton weighing cabinet choices"
articles, to me there is whistling past the graveyard quality to all this.
They want the election over now-the votes are just a formality.
They really really do not have any short term memory do they? I mean
it took sticking both thumbs on the scale and some handy dandy shenanigans
with voters to get her past the Primary finish line. And her opponent there
was much nicer about pointing out her flaws than her current opponent. It
is true they won't have any obvious elections that disprove their position
out there, but when you are spending millions and your opponent nothing
and he is still within the margin of error with you in the states that people
are watching the closest…
Although that isn't considering the fears of what other shoes have to
drop both in the world and in the news that could derail her victory parade,
they may have more to fear from that.
One of the problems Democrats have and the 50 state strategy addressed
is voting in very Democratic precincts. Without constant pressure, many
proud Democrats won't vote because they don't know any Republicans. It's
in the bag. College kids are the worst voters alive. They will forget come
election day or not be registered because they moved. Dean squeezed these
districts. These districts are where Democrats , out in 2010 and 2014 and
even a little in 2012. Mittens is a robber baron.
If Democratic turnout is low and Hillary wins with crossover votes, what
happens? It's very likely those Republicans vote for down ticket Republicans.
Even for the people who have to vote against Trump, if they believe he is
a special kind of super fascist will they bother to vote for the allies
of a crook such as Hillary? It's possible Hillary wins and drops a seat
in the Senate depending on turnout.
I think it's clear Hillary isn't going to bring out any kind of voter
activism. Judging from photos in Virginia where one would hope a commanding
Hillary victory could jump start the Democrats for next year's governors
and legislative races, the Democratic Party is dead or very close to it.
What if Hillary wins but does the unthinkable and delivers a Republican
pickup in the Senate? She needs to keep Republicans from coming out because
she isn't going to drive Democratic turnout to a spot where that can win
on its own.
Hillary needs to win to keep the never Trump crowd in the GOP from voting
because she knows the Democratic side which relies on very Democratic districts
and transient voters will not impress. An emboldened GOP congress will be
a tough environment for Hillary, and GOP voters won't tolerate bipartisanship
especially for anyone suspected of not helping the party 100%. Those House
Republicans have to face 2018 and the smaller but arguably more motivated
electorate. They will come down hard on Hillary if she can't win the Senate
which a literal donkey could do.
Hell I don't want Clinton to win by any margin. But if anyone thinks
that the bipartisan nature of her possible victory will mean anything but
Republicans hunting her scalp, and dare I say getting it, they are not paying
attention. As much as both the Benghazi and the email thing has them all
flummoxed because the real crimes involved with both are crimes they either
agree with or want to use. The Foundation on the other hand, not so much,
they will make the case that this is a global slush fund because it is.
And the McDonnell decision is not going to save her Presidency, much as
it would if she were indicted in a Court.
I should add, that is with or without winning the Senate. Much of the
loyalty any Dems there have towards her will disappear when it is obvious
that she keeps most of the money AND has no coattails. Oh, they might not
vote to impeach her, but that is about it.
Hillary's only defense is to win the Senate and to be able to stifle
investigations through the appearance of a mandate. 2018 is the 2012 cycle,
and that is 2006 which should be a good year for the Republicans (a credit
to Howard Dean). It's a tough map for Team Blue. If they don't win the Senate
in November, they won't win it in 2018.
With 2018 on its way, a weak Democratic situation will make the Democrats
very jumpy as Hillary is clearly not delivering the coattails they imagined.
She isn't going to have a mandate. Oh, the electoral college count might
look good. But regardless of who wins this sucker, I'm betting this is going
to be one of the lowest, if not the lowest, voter turnout for any Presidential
election in the last century. I would not be surpised if more people stay
home than vote. And that is not a mandate.
The Senate isn't going to stifle investigations. She doesn't even have
to help the Dems get a majority for that problem of conviction if impeached
to rear its ugly head. No way is there going to be 2/3 of the Senate in
one party or the other. That still won't stop the House. Just as it didn't
for her husband.
I know it is a bit picky of me, but I am getting really tired of Democrats
trying to take the high road on immigration. It ignores that our current
Democratic President has deported more 'illegal' immigrants than any previous
President before him. In 2014 he deported nine times more people than had
been deported twenty years earlier. Some years it was nearly double the
numbers under George W. Bush. And yes, I know it was not strict fillibuster
proof majority in the Senate for his first two years, but damn close and
the only thing we got was a half assed stimulus made up largely of tax stimulus
AND that gift to for profit medicine and insurance, the ACA. With all their
concern, couldn't the Democrats have made some token stab at immigration
reform? Instead there has been a huge gift to the for profit prison operators
who now count their immigration detention centers as their biggest profit
centers.
Trump says mean things, but the Democrats, well once again actions should
speak louder than words but it isn't happening.
The Dems want to have their cake and eat it too. They want cheap labor
and they want virtue. They sell out my friends and neighbors and think themselves
noble for empowering foreign nationals.
I guess this is one way for a supposedly pro-labor party to liquidate
its working class elements.
"... I check the CPI every now and then looking for the US to drop. The Corruption Perception Index depends on the perception which can be molded by the media. But as more people wake up, I expect the US ranking to drop. Our 2015 ranking is 16 (behind countries in north-east Europe and Canada and New Zealand). http://www.transparency.org/cpi2015 ..."
I check the CPI every now and then looking for the US to drop. The Corruption Perception Index
depends on the perception which can be molded by the media. But as more people wake up, I expect
the US ranking to drop. Our 2015 ranking is 16 (behind countries in north-east Europe and Canada
and New Zealand). http://www.transparency.org/cpi2015
Fox News' Shepard Smith appeared intent on having a guest on his program Thursday say that Republican
presidential nominee Donald Trump is a racist.
Wall Street Journal investigative reporter James Grimaldi joined Smith on Fox Reports immediately
after Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's speech in Reno, Nev., during which she charged that Trump
will "make America hate again."
"He is taking hate groups mainstream and helping a radical fringe take over the Republican Party,"
she said.
Smith said that "the problem with any attempt to rebut her" was that "she used Donald Trump's own
words, what's historically accurate on his policies on all reviewed points."
He turned to Grimaldi and said, "Where do you begin with this?"
"I don't know. It was pretty extraordinary and pretty hard-hitting," the reporter replied.
Grimaldi went on to explain that Trump "trades in hyperbole," giving Clinton more fodder to
work with.
Smith interjected: "He trades in racism, doesn't he?"
The Wall Street Journal reporter was not willing to go that far. "Well, I'll leave that up
to the commentators. … I'm not one to generally label people like that, so I would pass on that
question."
Any society that tolerates this systemic exploitation and corruption as "business as usual"
is not just sick--it's hopeless.
In noting that our society is sick, our economy exploitive and our politics corrupt, I'm not
saying anything you didn't already know. Everyone who isn't being paid to deny the obvious in
public (while fuming helplessly about the phony cheerleading in private) knows that our society is
a layer-cake of pathologies, our economy little more than institutionalized racketeering and our
politics a corrupt auction-house of pay-for-play, influence-peddling, money-grubbing and brazen pandering
for votes.
The fantasy promoted by do-gooders and PR hacks alike is that this corrupt system can be reformed
with a few minor policy tweaks. If you want a brief but thorough explanation of
Why Our Status Quo Failed and Is Beyond Reform, please take a look at my book (link above).
If you want an example of how the status quo has failed and is beyond reform, it's instructive
to examine the pharmaceutical industry, which includes biotech corporations, specialty pharmaceutical
firms and the global corporate giants known as Big Pharma.
I hope it won't come as too great a surprise that the pharmaceutical industry isn't about cures
or helping needy people--it's about profits. As a Big Pharma CEO reported in a brief moment of
truthfulness,
We're in Business
of Shareholder Profit, Not Helping the Sick
Here's an excerpt from the article:
"Already this year, Valeant has increased the price of 56 of the drugs in its portfolio
an average of 66 percent, highlighted by their recent acquisition, Zegerid, which they promptly
raised 550 percent. Not only does this have the unfortunate side effect of placing the price of
life-saving drugs out of reach for even moderately-insured people, but it has now begun to call
into question the sustainability of this rapidly-spreading business model.
Since being named CEO in 2008, Valeant has acquired more than 100 drugs and seen their stock
price rise more than 1,000 percent with Pearson at the helm."
"... But the party's latest generation of "New Democrats" - self-described "moderates" who are funded by Wall Street and are aggressively trying to steer the party to the right - have noticed this trend and are now fighting back. Third Way, a "centrist" think tank that serves as the hub for contemporary New Democrats, has recently published a sizable policy paper, " Ready for the New Economy ," urging the Democratic Party to avoid focusing on economic inequality. Former Obama chief of staff Bill Daley, a Third Way trustee, recently argued that Sanders' influence on the primary "is a recipe for disaster" for Democrats. ..."
"... The DLC's goal was to advance "a message that was less tilted toward minorities and welfare, less radical on social issues like abortion and gays, more pro-defense, and more conservative on economic issues," wrote Robert Dreyfuss in a 2001 article in The American Prospect . "The DLC thundered against the 'liberal fundamentalism' of the party's base - unionists, blacks, feminists, Greens, and cause groups generally." ..."
"... Within the DLC, populism was not merely out of favor; it was militantly opposed. The organization had virtually no grassroots supporters; it was funded almost entirely by corporate donors. Its executive council, Dreyfuss reported , was made up of companies that donated at least $25,000 and included Enron and Koch Industries. A list of its known donors includes scores of the United States' most powerful corporations, all of whom benefit from a Democratic Party that embraces big business and is less reliant on labor unions and the grassroots for support. ..."
"... The height of the DLC's triumph may well have been in the 1990s, when it claimed President Bill Clinton as its most prominent advocate, celebrating his disastrous welfare cuts (which were supported by Hillary Clinton as the first lady), his support for the North American Free Trade Agreement and his speech declaring that the "era of big government is over." These initiatives had the DLC's footprint all over them. ..."
"... The DLC's prescribed Third Way also found a home on Downing Street in England. Tony Blair, a major Clinton ally, was a staunch advocate of the DLC, adopted its strategies and lent his name to its website. According to the book Clinton and Blair: The Political Economy of the Third Way , he said in 1998 that it "is a third way because it moves decisively beyond an Old Left preoccupied by state control, high taxation and producer interests." ..."
"... When Bill Clinton left the White House, Hillary Clinton entered the Senate. She quickly became a major player for the DLC, serving as a prominent member of the New Democratic Caucus in the Senate, speaking at conferences on multiple occasions and serving as chair of a key initiative for the 2006 and 2008 elections. ..."
"... She also adopted the DLC's hawkish military stance. The DLC was feverishly in favor of Bush's "war on terror" and his invasion of Iraq. Will Marshall, one of the group's founders, was a signatory of many of the now infamous documents from the Project for the New American Century, which urged the United States to radically increase its use of force in Iraq and beyond. ..."
"... The DLC led efforts to take down Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign, citing his opposition to the war in Iraq as an example of his weakness. Two years later, the organization played a similar role against Ned Lamont's antiwar challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman, which the DLC decried as "The Return of Liberal Fundamentalism." ..."
"... However, the DLC's influence eventually waned . A formal affiliation with the organization became something of a deal breaker for some progressive voters. When Barack Obama first ran for the Senate in 2004, he had no affiliation with the DLC. So, when they wrongly included him in their directory of New Democrats, he asked the DLC to remove his name. In explaining this, he also publicly shunned the organization in an interview with Black Commentator. "You are undoubtedly correct that these positions make me an unlikely candidate for membership in the DLC," he wrote when pressed by the magazine . "That is why I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC." ..."
"... When the DLC closed, it records were acquired by the Clinton Foundation, which DLC founder Al From called an "appropriate and fitting repository." To this day, the Clinton Foundation continues to promote the work of the DLC's founding members. In September 2015, the foundation hosted an event to promote From's book The New Democrats and the Return to Power ..."
"... Citizens United ..."
"... So while the DLC may be a dirty word among many progressives, this didn't stop Obama from appointing New Democrats to key posts in his White House. The same Bill Daley who works for a hedge fund and is on the board of trustees for Third Way was also President Obama's White House chief of staff . And, as was noted above, he is now actively trying to influence the Democratic Party's direction in the 2016 election. ..."
"... The remaining champions of the DLC agenda have been increasingly active in trying to push back against populism. On October 28, 2015, Third Way published an ambitious paper, "Ready for the New Economy," that aims to do just that. The paper falsely argues that "the narrative of fairness and inequality has, to put it mildly, failed to excite voters," and says "these trends should compel the party to rigorously question the electoral value of today's populist agenda." ..."
"... When Clinton announced her tax plan, Dow Jones quoted Jim Kessler, a Third Way staffer, praising the plan. On social media , Third Way staffers are routinely cheering on Clinton and attacking Sanders and O'Malley . ..."
"... and where she will be ..."
"... Consider the case of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor and presidential candidate, who has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president . Dean's reputation as a fiery progressive has always been wildly overstated , but there was a rich irony about Dean's endorsement. His centrist record aside, Dean was once the face of the party's progressive base. During his campaign for the Democratic nomination in 2003 and 2004, Dean used his opposition to the war in Iraq to garner progressive support. He attracted a large group of partisan liberal bloggers, who coined the term "Netroots" in support of his candidacy . For a time, Dean was leading in the polls during the primary. ..."
"... Remember: The Dean campaign was taken down by the DLC, who attacked him for running a campaign from the "McGovern-Mondale wing" of the Democratic Party, "defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home." The rift between the DLC and Dean's supporters was so intense that Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas described it as a "civil war" between Democrats. Of course, when Dean announced his support for Clinton, he made no mention of the fact that she was the leader of the same group that ambushed his candidacy precisely because it appealed to the party's left-leaning base. ..."
"... The tendency of some progressives to downplay, ignore or deflect populist critiques of Clinton's record was observed by Doug Henwood in his 2014 Harper's piece "Stop Hillary." ..."
"... In the article, he describes the "widespread liberal fantasy of [Clinton] as a progressive paragon" as misguided. "In fact, a close look at her life and career is perhaps the best antidote to all these great expectations," Henwood writes. "The historical record, such as it is, may also be the only antidote, since most progressives are unwilling to discuss Hillary in anything but the most general, flattering terms." ..."
A discussion about how the Democrats could be compromised by their relationship with the
financial institutions that fund their campaigns was unthinkable in past presidential debates.
Such a discussion falls way outside the narrow parameters of debate that have dominated political
discourse in the mainstream media for decades. But at the
Democratic
debate in Iowa this November, this issue was front and center: Hillary Clinton was forced to
defend her financial relationship with Wall Street
numerous times on network television.
Within the DLC, populism was not merely out of favor; it was militantly opposed.
Clinton's response to populist attacks on her Wall Street connections has largely been to adopt
similar language and policy positions as her primary opponent, Bernie Sanders. In many ways she is
trying to minimize the differences between her and Sanders, rather than emphasize them. "The differences
among us," she said of her opponents at the
Iowa debate , "pale in comparison to what's happening on the Republican [side]."
But the party's latest generation of
"New Democrats" - self-described
"moderates" who
are funded by Wall Street and are aggressively trying to steer the party to the right - have
noticed this trend and are now fighting back. Third Way, a "centrist" think tank that serves as the
hub for contemporary New Democrats, has recently published a sizable policy paper, "
Ready for the
New Economy ," urging the Democratic Party to avoid focusing on economic inequality. Former Obama
chief of staff Bill Daley, a Third Way trustee, recently
argued that Sanders' influence on the primary "is a recipe for disaster" for Democrats.
This "ideological gulf" inside the party, as The Washington Post's
Ruth Marcus describes it , is not a new phenomenon. Before there was Third Way, there was the
Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). And before there was Bill Daley, there was Hillary Clinton -
a key member of the
DLC's leadership team during her entire tenure in the US Senate (2000-2008). As Clinton seeks
progressive support, it is important to consider her role in the influential movement to, as
The American Prospect describes
it , "reinvent the [Democratic] party as one pledged to fiscal restraint, less government, and
a pro-business, pro-free market outlook." This fairly recent history is an important part of Clinton's
record, and she owes it to primary voters to answer for it.
But before all of these events shaped public opinion, the party was largely guided by the ideas
of the Democratic Leadership Council.
Founded by Southern Democrats in 1985 , the group sought to transform the party by pushing it
to embrace more conservative positions and win support from big business.
Clinton adopted the DLC strategy in the way she governed.
The DLC's goal was to advance "a message that was less tilted toward minorities and welfare, less
radical on social issues like abortion and gays, more pro-defense, and more conservative on economic
issues," wrote Robert Dreyfuss in a 2001
article in The American Prospect
. "The DLC thundered against the 'liberal fundamentalism' of the party's base - unionists, blacks,
feminists, Greens, and cause groups generally."
Within the DLC, populism was not merely out of favor; it was militantly opposed. The organization
had virtually no grassroots supporters; it was funded almost entirely by corporate donors. Its executive
council, Dreyfuss reported
, was made up of companies that donated at least $25,000 and included Enron and Koch Industries.
A list of its known donors includes scores of the United States' most powerful corporations, all
of whom benefit from a Democratic Party that embraces big business and is less reliant on labor unions
and the grassroots for support.
The organization's influence was significant, especially in the 1990s. The New York Times
reported
that during that era "the Democratic Leadership Council was a maker of presidents." Its influence
continued into the post-Clinton years. Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt
and countless others all
lent their names in support of the organization. The DLC and its think tank, the
Progressive Policy Institute (PPI),
were well financed and published a seemingly endless barrage of
policy papers , op-eds
and declarations
in their numerous publications.
"It is almost hard to find anyone who wasn't involved with [the DLC]" said Mark Schmitt, a staffer
for the nonpartisan New America Foundation think tank, in an interview with Truthout. "This was before
there were a lot of organizations, and the DLC provided a way for politicians to get involved and
to be in the same room with important people."
The DLC's prescribed Third Way also
found a home on Downing
Street in England. Tony Blair, a major Clinton ally, was a staunch advocate of the DLC,
adopted its strategies and lent
his name to its website. According to the book Clinton and Blair: The Political Economy of the
Third Way ,
he said in 1998 that it "is a third way because it moves decisively beyond an Old Left preoccupied
by state control, high taxation and producer interests."
As recently as 2014, Blair has continued to urge the UK's Labour Party to remain committed to
these ideals. "Former UK prime minister Tony Blair has urged Labour leader Ed Miliband to stick to
the political centre ground, warning that the public has not 'fallen back in love with the state'
despite the global financial crisis,"
according to the Financial Times , which noted that the left-wing base of his party has rejected
his centrist leanings. "His decision as prime minister to join the US in its invasion of Iraq - as
well as his free-market leanings - have made him a
hate figure among the most leftwing Labour activists."
Hillary Clinton as a New Democrat
When Bill Clinton left the White House, Hillary Clinton entered the Senate. She quickly became
a major player for the DLC, serving as a
prominent member of
the New Democratic Caucus in the Senate, speaking at
conferences
on multiple occasions
and serving as
chair of a key initiative for the 2006 and 2008 elections.
New Democrats were never really about popular support; they were about bringing together big
business and the Democrats.
More importantly, Clinton adopted the DLC strategy in the way she governed. She tried to portray
herself as a crusader for family values when she
introduced legislation to ban violent video games and
flag burning in 2005.
She also
adopted the DLC's hawkish military stance. The DLC was feverishly in favor of Bush's "war on
terror" and his invasion of Iraq. Will Marshall, one of the group's founders, was a signatory of
many of the now infamous
documents from the Project for the New American Century, which urged the United States to radically
increase its use of force in Iraq and beyond.
The DLC led efforts to take down Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign, citing his opposition
to the war in Iraq as an example of his weakness. Two years later, the organization played a
similar role against
Ned Lamont's antiwar challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman, which the DLC decried as
"The Return of Liberal Fundamentalism."
However, the DLC's influence eventually
waned
. A formal affiliation with the organization became something of a deal breaker for some progressive
voters. When Barack Obama first ran for the Senate in 2004, he had no affiliation with the DLC. So,
when they wrongly included him in their directory of New Democrats, he asked the DLC to remove his
name. In explaining this, he also publicly shunned the organization in an interview with Black Commentator.
"You are undoubtedly correct that these positions make me an unlikely candidate for membership in
the DLC," he wrote when
pressed by the magazine
. "That is why I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC."
The DLC's decline continued: A growing sense of discontent among progressives, Clinton's loss
in 2008 and the economic crisis that followed turned the DLC into something of a political liability.
And in 2011, the Democratic Leadership Council
shuttered
its doors .
When the DLC closed, it records were
acquired by the Clinton Foundation, which DLC founder Al From called an "appropriate and fitting
repository." To this day, the Clinton Foundation continues to promote the work of the DLC's founding
members. In September 2015, the foundation
hosted an event to promote From's book The New Democrats and the Return to Power . Amazingly,
O'Malley provided a
favorable
blurb for the book, praising it as a "reminder of the core principles that still drive Democratic
success today."
The 2016 Election and New Democrats
The DLC's demise was seen as a victory by many progressives, and the populist tone of the 2016
primary is being celebrated as a sign of rising progressivism as well. But it is probably too soon
to declare that the "battle for the soul of the Democratic Party is coming to an end," as Adam Green,
cofounder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, recently
told the Guardian .
Consider the way Marshall spun the closing of the DLC. "With President Obama consciously reconstructing
a winning coalition by reconnecting with the progressive center, the pragmatic ideas of PPI and other
organizations are more vital than ever," he said in an
interview with Politico .
His reference to "PPI and other organizations" refers to the still-existing Progressive Policy
Institute and Third Way. These institutions have the same
Wall Street support and continue to push the same agenda that their predecessor did.
New Democrats' guns are aimed firmly at Sanders, and they are quick to defend Clinton.
Many of these "centrist" ideas lack popular support these days. But New Democrats were never really
about popular support; they were about bringing together big business and the Democrats. The group's
board of trustees is almost
entirely made up of Wall Street executives. Further, in the aftermath of the 2010 Citizens
United Supreme Court decision, these same moneyed interests
have more influence over the political process than ever before.
"These organizations now are basically just corporate lobbyists today," Schmitt said.
So while the DLC may be a dirty word among many progressives, this didn't stop Obama from appointing
New Democrats to key posts in his White House. The same Bill Daley who
works for a hedge fund and is on the
board of trustees for Third Way
was also President Obama's
White House chief of
staff . And, as was noted above, he is now actively trying to influence the Democratic Party's
direction in the 2016 election.
The remaining champions of the DLC agenda have been increasingly active in trying to push back
against populism. On October 28, 2015, Third Way published an ambitious paper,
"Ready for the
New Economy," that aims to do just that. The paper
falsely
argues that "the narrative of fairness and inequality has, to put it mildly, failed to excite
voters," and says "these trends should compel the party to rigorously question the electoral value
of today's populist agenda."
The report attacks Sanders' proposals for expanding Social Security and implementing a single-payer
health-care system directly, making
faulty
claims about both proposals. It also advises Democrats to avoid the "singular focus on income
inequality" because its "actual impact on the middle class may be small."
"Third Way and its allies are gravely misreading the economic and political moment," said Richard
Eskow, a writer for Campaign for America's Future, in a
rebuttal
to the paper. "If their influence continues to wane, perhaps one day Americans can stop paying
the price for their ill-conceived, corporation- and billionaire-friendly agenda."
Eskow is right to use the word "if" instead of "when." Progressives ignore these efforts at their
own peril. Despite their archaic and flawed ideas, Third Way's reports and speakers still get undue
attention in the mainstream media. For instance, The Washington Post
devoted 913 words to Third Way's new paper, describing it as part of a "big economic fight in
the Democratic Party." The article provided a platform for Third Way's president Jonathan Cowan to
attack Sanders. "We propose that Democrats be Democrats, not socialists," he said. This tone is the
status quo for New Democrats in the media. Their guns are aimed firmly at Sanders, and they are quick
to defend Clinton.
When Clinton was attacked for working with former Wall Street executives, The Wall Street Journal
quoted PPI president Will Marshall, defending her. "The idea that you have to excommunicate anybody
who ever worked in the financial sector is ridiculous,"
he said .
"The Necessities of the Moment": Will Clinton Run Back to the Right?
Of course, the New Democrats' preference for Clinton shouldn't surprise anyone. She has been an
ally for years. And while they have expressed concern over her leftward tilt, they are confident,
as
the Post reported , that "she'll tack back their way in a general election." For instance,
her recent opposition to the
Trans-Pacific Partnership - which Third Way is
supporting aggressively - has centrists "disappointed" but not worried.
"Everyone knew where she was on that and where she will be , but given the necessities
of the moment and a tough Democratic primary, she felt she needed to go there initially," New Democratic
Coalition chairman Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wisconsin)
told the Guardian (emphasis added).
Politics isn't a sporting event. It is important to be critical, even of candidates for whom
you will likely vote.
If New Democrats aren't worried that Clinton's populist rhetoric is sincere, progressives probably
should be worried that it isn't. As DLC founder Al From
told the Guardian : "Hillary will bend a little bit but not so much that she can't get herself
back on course in the general [election] and when she is governing."
Some, however, are confident that if elected, Clinton will have to spend political capital on
the very populist ideas she is now embracing.
"When you make these kind of promises it will be difficult to just go back on them," said the
New America Foundation's Mark Schmitt. "She will have to work on many of these issues if she is elected."
Adam Green, cofounder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, told Truthout that his group's
emphasis is to make any Democratic candidate responsive to the issues important to what he calls
the
"Warren wing" of the party, which espouses the more populist economic beliefs of Sen. Elizabeth
Warren (D-Massachusetts). Like Warren, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee hasn't endorsed
a candidate in the race as of now.
"It is not about one candidate; it is about trying to make all the candidates address the issues
we care about," Green said, citing debt-free education, expanding Social Security benefits and supporting
Black Lives Matter as key issues.
Liberals, Clinton and Partisan Amnesia
It is understandable why some progressives are hesitant to be critical of Clinton: They fully
expect that soon she will be the only thing standing between them and some candidate from the "Republican
clown car," as Green described the GOP field.
But voting pragmatically in a general election is one thing. Ignoring or apologizing for Clinton's
very recent and troubling record is another. Too many progressives are engaged in a sort of willful
partisan amnesia and are accepting the false narrative that Clinton is "a populist fighter who for
decades has been an advocate for families and children," as some unnamed
Clinton advisers told The New York Times.
Consider the case of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor and presidential candidate, who
has
endorsed Hillary Clinton for president . Dean's reputation as a fiery progressive has always
been
wildly overstated , but there was a rich irony about Dean's endorsement. His centrist record
aside, Dean was once the face of the party's progressive base. During his campaign for the Democratic
nomination in 2003 and 2004, Dean used his opposition to the war in Iraq to garner progressive support.
He attracted a large group of partisan liberal bloggers, who coined the term
"Netroots" in
support of his candidacy . For a time, Dean was
leading in the polls during the primary.
Remember: The Dean campaign was taken down by the DLC, who
attacked him
for running a campaign from the "McGovern-Mondale wing" of the Democratic Party, "defined principally
by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home." The rift between the DLC and
Dean's supporters was so intense that Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas
described it as a "civil war" between Democrats. Of course, when Dean announced his support for
Clinton, he made no mention of the fact that she was the leader of the same group that ambushed his
candidacy precisely because it appealed to the party's left-leaning base.
Once the primary is over, the chance to force Clinton to respond to left critiques will likely
not come again soon.
Yet Moulitsas recently
endorsed Clinton in a column for The Hill. Moulitsas was one of the key bloggers who supported
Dean in 2004 and helped create the Netroots in its infancy. His goal, he said often, was
"crashing the gate" of the Democratic establishment. But his uncritical support for Clinton,
the quintessential establishment candidate, has turned much of
his own blog into evidence of how some progressives are dismissing recent history for partisan
reasons. In the last contested Democratic primary, Moulitsas was extremely
critical
of Clinton. Now, he is helping her
do to Sanders what the DLC did to Dean.
Why are the likes of Dean and Moulitsas so quick to embrace Clinton after years of battling with
her and her allies in the so-called "vital center?" Only they know for sure. In the case of Dean,
it may well be because he was never a real populist to begin with. In 2003, Bloomberg did a story
asking Vermonters to talk about Dean's ideology. "Howard is not a liberal. He's a pro-business, Rockefeller
Republican,"
said Garrison Nelson, a political science professor at the University of Vermont. This sentiment
is shared by many Vermonters, on both the
left
and
right .
But for other self-identified progressives who have embraced the establishment candidate, such
as Moulitsas, the answers may be simpler: partisan loyalty and ambition. The fact is the odds of
Clinton winning the nomination are very good. And for the likes of Moulitsas - who now writes columns
for an establishment
DC paper and is a
major fundraiser for Democrats - being on the side of the winner will certainly make him more
friends in DC than supporting the self-identified socialist that opposes her.
Moulitsas argues that Clinton has dismissed "her husband's ideological baggage" and is "aiming
for a truly progressive presidency." He is now a true believer, he claims. It is up to readers to
decide if they find his argument to be credible, especially compared to the conflicting statements
he has made for many years. Many on
his own blog are skeptical.
But, lastly, the main reason many progressives are willing to overlook Clinton's record is simply
fear. They are afraid of a Republican president, and it is hard to blame them. The idea of a President
Trump - or Carson or Cruz - is extremely frightening for many people. This is entirely understandable.
But even if one feels obligated to vote for Clinton in the general election, should she win the nomination,
that does not mean her record ought to be ignored. Politics isn't a sporting event. It is important
to be critical, even of candidates for whom you will likely vote.
The Historical Record: "The Only Antidote"
The tendency of some progressives to downplay, ignore or deflect populist critiques of Clinton's
record was observed by Doug Henwood in his 2014 Harper's piece
"Stop Hillary."
In the article, he describes the "widespread liberal fantasy of [Clinton] as a progressive paragon"
as misguided. "In fact, a close look at her life and career is perhaps the best antidote to all these
great expectations," Henwood writes. "The historical record, such as it is, may also be the only
antidote, since most progressives are unwilling to discuss Hillary in anything but the most general,
flattering terms."
Cleary, Clinton's historical record reveals much to be concerned about, including her long career
as a New Democrat. For the first time in recent memory, however, progressives actually have some
leverage to make her answer for this record.
Clinton has a reasonably competitive opponent who has challenged her on her record of Wall Street
support, her
dismissal of the Glass-Steagall Act and her
vote for war in Iraq . She should also be challenged vigorously on her role with the DLC.
Circumstances have created a unique moment where Clinton has to answer these tough questions.
But it may be a fleeting moment. Once the primary is over, the chance to force Clinton - or any major
establishment politician - to respond to left critiques will likely not come again soon. Copyright,
Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission .
Michael Corcoran
is a journalist based in Boston. He has written for The Boston Globe, The Nation,
The Christian Science Monitor, Extra!, NACLA Report on the Americas and other publications. Follow
him on Twitter: @mcorcoran3 .
"... Syndicalist is not usually how we think of our current economic structure. But remember that syndicalism means economic control by the producers. Capitalism is different. It places by virtue of market structures all control in the hands of the consumers. The only question for syndicalists, then, is which producers are going to enjoy political privilege. It might be the workers, but it can also be the largest corporations. ..."
"... Autarky is the name given to the idea of economic self-sufficiency. Mostly this refers to the economic self determination of the nation-state. The nation-state must be geographically huge in order to support rapid economic growth for a large and growing population. ..."
The most definitive study on fascism written in these years was As We Go Marching by John T. Flynn.
Flynn was a journalist and scholar of a liberal spirit who had written a number of best-selling books
in the 1920s. It was the New Deal that changed him. His colleagues all followed FDR into fascism,
while Flynn himself kept the old faith. That meant that he fought FDR every step of the way, and
not only his domestic plans. Flynn was a leader of the America First movement that saw FDR's drive
to war as nothing but an extension of the New Deal, which it certainly was.
As We Go Marching came out in 1944, just at the tail end of the war, and right in the midst of
wartime economic controls the world over. It is a wonder that it ever got past the censors. It is
a full-scale study of fascist theory and practice, and Flynn saw precisely where fascism ends: in
militarism and war as the fulfillment of the stimulus spending agenda. When you run out of everything
else to spend money on, you can always depend on nationalist fervor to back more military spending.
Flynn, like other members of the Old Right, was disgusted by the irony that what he saw, almost
everyone else chose to ignore. After reviewing this long history, Flynn proceeds to sum up with a
list of eight points he considers to be the main marks of the fascist state.
As I present them, I will also offer comments on the modern American central state.
Point 1. The government is totalitarian because it acknowledges no restraint on its powers.
If you become directly ensnared in the state's web, you will quickly discover that there are indeed
no limits to what the state can do. This can happen boarding a flight, driving around in your hometown,
or having your business run afoul of some government agency. In the end, you must obey or be caged
like an animal or killed. In this way, no matter how much you may believe that you are free, all
of us today are but one step away from Guantanamo.
No aspect of life is untouched by government intervention, and often it takes forms we do not
readily see. All of healthcare is regulated, but so is every bit of our food, transportation, clothing,
household products, and even private relationships. Mussolini himself put his principle this way:
"All within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State." I submit to you that
this is the prevailing ideology in the United States today. This nation, conceived in liberty, has
been kidnapped by the fascist state.
Point 2. Government is a de facto dictatorship based on the leadership principle.
I wouldn't say that we truly have a dictatorship of one man in this country, but we do have a
form of dictatorship of one sector of government over the entire country. The executive branch has
spread so dramatically over the last century that it has become a joke to speak of checks and balances.
The executive state is the state as we know it, all flowing from the White House down. The role
of the courts is to enforce the will of the executive. The role of the legislature is to ratify the
policy of the executive. This executive is not really about the person who seems to be in charge.
The president is only the veneer, and the elections are only the tribal rituals we undergo to confer
some legitimacy on the institution. In reality, the nation-state lives and thrives outside any "democratic
mandate." Here we find the power to regulate all aspects of life and the wicked power to create the
money necessary to fund this executive rule.
Point 3. Government administers a capitalist system with an immense bureaucracy.
The reality of bureaucratic administration has been with us at least since the New Deal, which
was modeled on the planning bureaucracy that lived in World War I. The planned economy- whether in
Mussolini's time or ours- requires bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is the heart, lungs, and veins of the
planning state. And yet to regulate an economy as thoroughly as this one is today is to kill prosperity
with a billion tiny cuts.
So where is our growth? Where is the peace dividend that was supposed to come after the end of
the Cold War? Where are the fruits of the amazing gains in efficiency that technology has afforded?
It has been eaten by the bureaucracy that manages our every move on this earth. The voracious and
insatiable monster here is called the Federal Code that calls on thousands of agencies to exercise
the police power to prevent us from living free lives.
It is as Bastiat said: the real cost of the state is the prosperity we do not see, the jobs that
don't exist, the technologies to which we do not have access, the businesses that do not come into
existence, and the bright future that is stolen from us. The state has looted us just as surely as
a robber who enters our home at night and steals all that we love.
Point 4. Producers are organized into cartels in the way of syndicalism.
Syndicalist is not usually how we think of our current economic structure. But remember that syndicalism
means economic control by the producers. Capitalism is different. It places by virtue of market structures
all control in the hands of the consumers. The only question for syndicalists, then, is which producers
are going to enjoy political privilege. It might be the workers, but it can also be the largest corporations.
In the case of the United States, in the last three years, we've seen giant banks, pharmaceutical
firms, insurers, car companies, Wall Street banks and brokerage houses, and quasi-private mortgage
companies enjoying vast privileges at our expense. They have all joined with the state in living
a parasitical existence at our expense.
Point 5. Economic planning is based on the principle of autarky.
Autarky is the name given to the idea of economic self-sufficiency. Mostly this refers to the
economic self determination of the nation-state. The nation-state must be geographically huge in
order to support rapid economic growth for a large and growing population.
Look at the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. We would be supremely naive to believe that
these wars were not motivated in part by the producer interests of the oil industry. It is true of
the American empire generally, which supports dollar hegemony. It is the reason for the North American
Union.
Point 6. Government sustains economic life through spending and borrowing.
This point requires no elaboration because it is no longer hidden. In the latest round, and with
a prime-time speech, Obama mused about how is it that people are unemployed at a time when schools,
bridges, and infrastructure need repairing. He ordered that supply and demand come together to match
up needed work with jobs.
Hello? The schools, bridges, and infrastructure that Obama refers to are all built and maintained
by the state. That's why they are falling apart. And the reason that people don't have jobs is because
the state has made it too expensive to hire them. It's not complicated. To sit around and dream of
other scenarios is no different from wishing that water flowed uphill or that rocks would float in
the air. It amounts to a denial of reality.
As for the rest of this speech, Obama promised yet another long list of spending projects. But
no government in the history of the world has spent as much, borrowed as much, and created as much
fake money as the United States, all thanks to the power of the Fed to create money at will. If the
United States doesn't qualify as a fascist state in this sense, no government ever has.
Point 7. Militarism is a mainstay of government spending.
Have you ever noticed that the military budget is never seriously discussed in policy debates?
The United States spends more than most of the rest of the world combined. And yet to hear our leaders
talk, the United States is just a tiny commercial republic that wants peace but is constantly under
threat from the world. Where is the debate about this policy? Where is the discussion? It is not
going on. It is just assumed by both parties that it is essential for the US way of life that the
United States be the most deadly country on the planet, threatening everyone with nuclear extinction
unless they obey.
Point 8. Military spending has imperialist aims.
We've had one war after another, wars waged by the United States against noncompliant countries,
and the creation of even more client states and colonies. US military strength has led not to peace
but the opposite. It has caused most people in the world to regard the United States as a threat,
and it has led to unconscionable wars on many countries. Wars of aggression were defined at Nuremberg
as crimes against humanity.
Obama was supposed to end this. He never promised to do so, but his supporters all believed that
he would. Instead, he has done the opposite. He has increased troop levels, entrenched wars, and
started new ones. In reality, he has presided over a warfare state just as vicious as any in history.
The difference this time is that the Left is no longer criticizing the US role in the world. In that
sense, Obama is the best thing ever to happen to the warmongers and the military-industrial complex.
The Future
I can think of no greater priority today than a serious and effective antifascist alliance. In
many ways, one is already forming. It is not a formal alliance. It is made up of those who protest
the Fed, those who refuse to go along with mainstream fascist politics, those who seek decentralization,
those who demand lower taxes and free trade, those who seek the right to associate with anyone they
want and buy and sell on terms of their own choosing, those who insist they can educate their children
on their own, the investors and savers who make economic growth possible, those who do not want to
be felt up at airports, and those who have become expatriates.
It is also made of the millions of independent entrepreneurs who are discovering that the number
one threat to their ability to serve others through the commercial marketplace is the institution
that claims to be our biggest benefactor: the government.
How many people fall into this category? It is more than we know. The movement is intellectual.
It is political. It is cultural. It is technological. They come from all classes, races, countries,
and professions. This is no longer a national movement. It is truly global.
And what does this movement want? Nothing more or less than sweet liberty. It does not ask that
the liberty be granted or given. It only asks for the liberty that is promised by life itself and
would otherwise exist were it not for the Leviathan state that robs us, badgers us, jails us, kills
us.
This movement is not departing. We are daily surrounded by evidence that it is right and true.
Every day, it is more and more obvious that the state contributes absolutely nothing to our wellbeing;
it massively subtracts from it.
Back in the 1930s, and even up through the 1980s, the partisans of the state were overflowing
with ideas. This is no longer true. Fascism has no new ideas, no big projects-and not even its partisans
really believe it can accomplish what it sets out to do. The world created by the private sector
is so much more useful and beautiful than anything the state has done that the fascists have themselves
become demoralized and aware that their agenda has no real intellectual foundation.
It is ever more widely known that statism does not and cannot work. Statism is the great lie.
Statism gives us the exact opposite of its promise. It promised security, prosperity, and peace;
it has given us fear, poverty, war, and death. If we want a future, it is one that we have to build
ourselves. The fascist state will not give it to us. On the contrary, it stands in the way.
In the end, this is the choice we face: the total state or total freedom. Which will we choose?
If we choose the state, we will continue to sink further and further and eventually lose all that
we treasure as a civilization. If we choose freedom, we can harness that remarkable power of human
cooperation that will enable us to continue to make a better world.
In the fight against fascism, there is no reason to be despairing. We must continue to fight with
every bit of confidence that the future belongs to us and not them.
Their world is falling apart. Ours is just being built.Their world is based on bankrupt ideologies.
Ours is rooted in the truth about freedom and reality. Their world can only look back to the glory
days. Ours looks forward to the future we are building for ourselves.
Their world is rooted in the corpse of the nation-state. Our world draws on the energies and creativity
of all peoples in the world, united in the great and noble project of creating a prospering civilization
through peaceful human cooperation. We possess the only weapon that is truly immortal: the right
idea. It is this that will lead to victory.
"All of the leftists out themselves by stating Communists are Fascists."
I have only heard leftists
vehemently deny that communists are fascists. I have never heard a leftist say that communists
are fascists. Do you have a link?
BTW, what could possibly be more fascist than re-education camps?
The State is that which is controlled by the nation in question. A Government is not the state,
nor is it the nation. A government is a secular organization emplaced to impose a set of rules
that benefit one nation over all other under the same government.
The failure of the west is not that it allows any one given state to control the power, but
that it allows secular governments dominante and forcibly submit all nations to it's demands by
a foreign nation. The argument against the state is one that decries the European dominance in
the US. It's an anti-European control in European created countries narrative.
The state that is allowed to exist and hold power within the US is not the state of her citizens
or the nations they consist of. It is a foreign state claiming rightful sovereignty through both
economic terrorist and threats of force and active persecution.
The US has been under the rule of a global criminal cartel for decades now. That cartel is
a nation onto it's own, and it uses deception, propaganda and economic means to hide it's existence.
It is successful because it controls the media, which is the largest propaganda outlet to have
ever been devised. It can chose whom to promote and whom to deny the right to exist. We are at
this very moment reading an article from one of it's propaganda arms on a site controlled by a
different proganda arm that it also controls.
One way to judge the likely outcome is to look at what has happened
in the past. ...Kenneth Scheve ... and David Stasavage ... looked
at 20 countries over two centuries to see how societies have
responded to the less fortunate. Their primary finding may seem
disheartening: Taxes on the rich generally have not gone up when
inequality and economic hardship has increased. ...
Professor Scheve and Professor Stasavage found that democratic
countries have not consistently embraced more redistributive tax
policies, and most people do not vote strictly in their narrow
self-interest. ...
This is consistent with my own survey results, which focused on
inheritance taxes. ... Taxing around a third of wealth, more or
less, seemed fair to people. And perhaps it is reasonable, in the
abstract, yet what will we do in the future if this degree of
taxation won't produce enough revenue to meaningfully help the very
poor as well as the sagging middle class? ...
Angus Deaton..., commenting on what he called the "grotesque
expansions in inequality of the past 30 years," gave a pessimistic
prediction: "Those who are doing well will organize to protect what
they have, including in ways that benefit them at the expense of
the majority. " And Robert M. Solow ... said, "We are not good at
large-scale redistribution of income." ...
No one seems to have an effective plan to deal with the possibility
of much more severe inequality, should it develop. ...
Despite past failures, we should not lose hope in our ability to
improve the world. ...
Shiller made his name challenging the Efficient Markets
Hypothesis. I would call that heterodox even if it won him
a Nobel Prize. BTW - many economists have noted that we
have not done nearly enough to slow growing inequality.
Good to see Shiller's emphasis on this.
rayward :
, -1
Excessive inequality is self-correcting, absent
intervention by the government and the central bank.
History confirms it, recent history (2008) no less.
Excessive inequality leads to excessive risk taking (as
aggregate demand and returns falter) and ultimately
financial crisis and collapsing asset prices. Collapsing
asset prices, in turn, correct excessive inequality (since
the wealthy own most of the assets). Of course, the
correction can be painful; hence, intervention by the
government and central bank to restore asset prices and,
hence, inequality for the process to repeat. In his book,
Piketty assumes that governments and central banks will
always intervene in a financial crisis. Really?
Death Cry O F A Rally -> rayward...
, -1
collapsing asset prices. Collapsing asset prices, in turn,
correct excessive inequality (since the wealthy own most
of the assets). Of course, the correction can be painful;
"
painful to those who own the assets, the overlords!
Painful until FG buy up enough MBS, mortgage backed
securities to prop the price of both MBS and the
underlying asset, the houses enough to reinforce the
inequality, buy up securities and simultaneously expand
the money stock to inflate prices. Hey! If we can just
prop up the price of your home, them poor folks will never
be able to move into your neighbourhood. Happiness is
never having to say, "There goes the
"Despite past failures, we should not lose hope in our
ability to improve the world. In a recent column, I
described ways in which society might change a deep-rooted
sense of entitlement by radically broadening wage and job
insurance. Such a program would be a start in getting us
prepared to deal with some of the immense challenges that
may lie ahead."
And what are Hillary's center-left
proposals to tackle inequality? Minimal. Even center-left
flack Krugman admits her infrastructure plans are
substantially too small.
What are her plans for revenue sharing and aid to the
states? Does she have any? I doubt it.
Just the typical "leverage" the private sector with
inducements.
We need to become much more like the European
welfare-states but center-leftists like Hillary say it's a
bad idea.
pgl :
, -1
ECB buying corporate bonds. An enhanced version of QE:
In Europe, it is only 0.35% right now. Maybe the FED
should do something similar.
ken melvin :
, -1
How to cope with our changing economics:
Citizens of the United States and Europe now live in a
very changed economic environment, an economic environment
different from that of the middle twentieth century,
different from any we have ever known, different from any
that ever existed. Coming off a period of some forty years
of the mid twentieth century during which jobs in industry
provided the basis of the economy, and, through unions,
the most significant means of wealth distribution, we are
now well into the post industrial age, an age of
technology, a time when we don't have good and sufficient
mechanisms for insuring wealth distribution. Going
forward, there will less and less demand for labor for
fewer and fewer good jobs; labor will lose leverage, any
claim to parity it might once have had.
What to do in the face of this great transition? In the
past, with such periods of great transitions, we simply
muddled through. It took about 175 years to go from
agrarian based economic model to an industrial based
economic model that worked well. During which, every
draconian solution imaginable was applied at least once
while good, well intentioned minds sought solutions to the
problems presented by the transition.
The first step may be to recognize the change, the
magnitude of the change. How long before the leaders of
the eighteenth century grasp the scope, scale of the
change? What prompted Smith to take his critical look? Was
Smith without prejudice? Why the appearance of continuum
from slavery, serfdom, and capitalism? How great the
weight of the status quo when looking at a time of
transition?
We are now some forty years into this great transition.
Its coming was not a real surprise; but rather a common
topic in every computer science class in every university
by the late nineteen sixties. Was Rawls our Smith? Who
will be the Marx and how long before he or she steps on
stage? Fair to say any great insight will again come from
philosophers? Why philosophers? Because such as laws and
economics change when we change the way we think about
such things. This mean that we will not break the bonds of
the past until we take a critical look at the present. The
answer to the problems created by this great transition do
not lie in the past. No, presidential and congressional
candidates, we do not need to go back to what we were
doing in the past; we need to adapt to the reality of our
new technology based age.
Most of the economic models in use today evolved to
facilitate the economics of the industrial age. Our
adaptation to this new technologically dominated, resource
constrained, era will certainly require changes to these
economic models. We might even be better off to start
anew; to not carry forward the remnants of slavery,
serfdom, … capitalism - to let the application dictate.
most people do not vote strictly in their narrow
self-interest. ...
This is consistent with
"
~~Robert Shiller~
Most folks do vote strictly their own interest when
there is a policy to vote. In USA most of what we vote is
not policy but nominee. Sure!
There was proposition 13 in California, but most of our
choices are between two nearly identical candidates
equally capable of robbing the poor.
At the moment political solution to inequality is
merely a dream. A more practical solution to inequality is
frugality, hard work, and strict birth control that will
shrink the labour force thus raise wages by the law of
supply and demand
unemployed work force / wage level / job openings
supply / price / demand
Birth control will raise wages. Politicians will only
rob the poor. Hey! They can't rob the wealthy. Wealthy are
heavily armed,
armed and
dangerous --
Il carnevale di Venezia -> Information
Subway...
, -1
Did a famous investor once quip, "I can pay half the
workers to knock up the other half of the workers"?
The problem of income inequality, which has been deepening
these past thirty years, is profound and has potentially
complex consequences.
First is economic. Advanced
economies still depend largely on consumer spending. IF
that money is sitting in equities accounts or tax havens
it's sitting idle and demand is slack.
Second is ethical:the purpose our government is to
"promote the general welfare". Human well being, because
we are social and sentient, is relative; if we are poorer
than our neighbor, we feel bad. If we are poorer than our
parents, we feel a failure (some at least).
Third, most darkly, is political.If we continue down
the current path of inequality, demagogues, racial
acrimony and scapegoating, and all manner of instability
could ensue.
The US is still a very rich country, and there is no
need to risk divisions that would harm even the top 1
percent.
Peter K. -> David ...
, -1
"Third, most darkly, is political.If we continue down the
current path of inequality, demagogues, racial acrimony
and scapegoating, and all manner of instability could
ensue."
The sellout totebaggers like PGL want to point
the finger at Republicans but it's the center-left who are
not doing enough to solve the problem.
"... You're confusing the left with Democrats. One of the clarifying things about this year is how clear it is that's not true. ..."
"... There is ample evidence that a solid majority of those identifying as or tending to generally vote Democratic (not quite the same as party registration, but in less openly corrupt and weird times, that was how polling defined D voters) rejected Hillary Clinton as a candidate, but were prevented from knowing about her opponent, being able to vote in the primary, or having their completed ballot counted as they had marked it. ..."
"... Bernie's endorsement should have been tied to the release of those speeches. After all, he made quite a big deal about those speeches during his campaign appearances. ..."
And again, everyone is just pretending that the monumental election fraud that just occurred
is completely irrelevant. I'm mystified as to why. To me, it's a national catastrophe that a party
can simply suspend democracy completely, flip machine counts, deregister or reregister hundreds
of thousands of Bernie voters (and yes, it was very specifically Bernie voters), subtract votes
during the count and add them to Clinton in real time–and everyone accepts this as entirely legitimate?
Doesn't the complete cancellation of democracy by a dynastic family bother anyone??? Why even
vote?
Today's reminder that the Democratic Party (which, as Lambert points out below, is NOT the
same as "the left") did not nominate an Iraq War supporter through any kind of democratic process.
There is ample evidence that a solid majority of those identifying as or tending to generally
vote Democratic (not quite the same as party registration, but in less openly corrupt and weird
times, that was how polling defined D voters) rejected Hillary Clinton as a candidate, but were
prevented from knowing about her opponent, being able to vote in the primary, or having their
completed ballot counted as they had marked it.
My question is why should a progressive vote for Hillary Clinton?
If a progressive wants to show the strength of her movement and also the number of folks who
represent her values, a progressive would vote for Stein.
Perhaps it could be argued that if a certain progressive lives in a swing state, she should
consider voting for Clinton to prevent Trump from taking office, but that is no most progressive
voters.
But, in general, a progressive voting for a candidate such as Clinton who is so actively courting
big money and establishment Republicans. . .that would dilute and weaken the progressive presence
in my view.
Now that HRC released her taxes can we expect the transcripts, too? Hillary Clinton has been looking into releasing her transcripts for paid speeches to Wall St.
and other special interests for 189 days http://iwilllookintoit.com/
Bernie's endorsement should have been tied to the release of those speeches. After all, he
made quite a big deal about those speeches during his campaign appearances.
They got to Bernie somehow. Cf the scene in Godfather II where the mobster sees his Sicilian relative sitting in the back
of the room and changes his story.
That's very good. We're getting a lot of stories like this, including from our own #SlayTheSmaugs.
At some point, I'd like to aggregate them. Readers, do you know of any other field reports from Philly?
"... Everyone knows the expression "a wolf in sheep's clothing." Now, it seems the United States will invent the macho Republican in feminist, Democratic clothing. ..."
"... Bill Clinton had triangulated his presidency to Republican-hood. He had demolished Aid to Families With Dependent Children and bought into the bash-the-poor rhetoric of the right wing. He had passed a crime bill that targeted people of color; he had destroyed FDR's legacy, notably by abolishing the Glass-Steagall Act. ..."
"... Bill Clinton might not have inhaled marijuana, but he certainly had inhaled the poison of right-wing ideas. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton openly supported many of Bill Clinton's political measures. She used the terrible expression "superpredators," supported the crime bill and made a hash of health insurance reform . Liza Featherstone talks about Hillary Clinton's faux feminism , and she links her critique to class themes, which is as it should be. Feminists cannot be elite feminists or 1% feminists if they want to defend the rights of all women. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton's track record on issues of poverty, racial justice and justice for women is appalling. As a former member of the board of Walmart, she sided with the rich and powerful , which she also does when she gives speeches for Wall Street. ..."
"... On foreign policy issues, Hillary Clinton is not even an Eisenhower Republican, but a war hawk whose philosophy and shortsightedness is evidenced by the flippant way in which she advocated for war in Libya and the way in which she celebrated. "We came, we saw, he died," she said and laughed loudly. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton, like true neoliberals in the GOP, supported the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), so as Bill had said she supported the bond market and free trade. Now, she claims she did not, but, of course, she is lying. Her lies also have to do with Wall Street (she has not released the text of her speeches), support for people of color and her feminism. ..."
"... Feminism cannot be only about the equality of CEO compensations. Equality in CEO compensations in general should exist at a much-reduced level. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton is a 1% millionaire who now talks the progressive talk, but never really walked the progressive walk. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton is actually to the right of President Dwight D. Eisenhower -- "Ike." He refused to use the atom bomb in Asia, showing more geopolitical prudence than Hillary "we came and he died" Clinton. He also wanted to preserve the FDR advances that the Clintons have done so much to cancel or erase. ..."
"... the Republicans -- starting with Hillary Clinton's youth idol Barry Goldwater -- and the Democrats calling themselves "New Democrats" vied with each other to dismantle the New Deal ..."
"... GOP is not a political party any longer, but a radical insurgency ..."
"... The Democrats have become the Old Republicans and Hillary Clinton is more neocon than traditional conservative of the Eisenhower type. ..."
"... She is a pro-business, Koch-compatible lover of Wall Street who uses feminism like some pinkwashers or greenwashers use progressive agendas to sell regressive policies. Author Diana Johnstone calls her the " Queen of Chaos ." Clinton is the queen of deception, faux feminism and faux progressivism ..."
"... Charles Koch (whose hatred of progressivism is well documented by Jane Meyer in her book, Dark Money ) expressed some admiration for Bill and Hillary Clinton and said he could vote for Hillary this time around. ..."
...Everyone knows the expression "a wolf in sheep's clothing." Now, it seems the United States
will invent the macho Republican in feminist, Democratic clothing.
We're all Eisenhower Republicans here, and we are fighting the Reagan Republicans. We stand
for lower deficits and free trade and the bond market. Isn't that great?
Eisenhower Republicans were, by today's standards, quite moderate. The quote refers to the 1990s,
and already Bill Clinton had triangulated his presidency to Republican-hood. He had demolished
Aid to Families With Dependent Children and bought into the bash-the-poor rhetoric of the right wing.
He had passed a crime bill that targeted people of color; he had destroyed FDR's legacy, notably
by abolishing the Glass-Steagall Act. And he was so "tough on crime" that during the 1992 presidential
campaign season, he had gone back to his home state of Arkansas to witness the execution of Ricky
Ray Rector, who was "mentally deficient." Bill Clinton might not have inhaled marijuana, but
he certainly had inhaled the poison of right-wing ideas.
As we all know, Hillary Clinton openly supported many of Bill Clinton's political measures.
She used the terrible expression
"superpredators," supported
the crime bill and made a
hash of health
insurance reform. Liza Featherstone
talks about Hillary Clinton's faux feminism, and she links her critique to class themes, which
is as it should be. Feminists cannot be elite feminists or 1% feminists if they want to defend the
rights of all women.
Hillary Clinton's track record on issues of poverty, racial justice and justice for women
is appalling. As a former member of the board of Walmart, she
sided with the rich and powerful, which she also does when she gives speeches for Wall Street.
The really important question is how someone who has constantly sided with the rich can campaign
as a progressive, as a friend of people of color and even as a feminist? Michelle Alexander exposed
the hypocrisy of the situation in arguing that "Hillary
Clinton doesn't deserve the black vote."
On foreign policy issues, Hillary Clinton is not even an Eisenhower Republican, but a war
hawk whose philosophy and shortsightedness is evidenced by the flippant way in which she advocated
for war in Libya and the way in which she celebrated. "We came, we saw, he died,"
she said and laughed loudly.
This cruel statement does not take into account the mess and mayhem left behind after the intervention,
something President Obama calls a "shit
show" and his worst mistake. But it is the companion piece to her major fellow elite "feminist"
Madeleine Albright
declaring that killing half a million Iraqis is worth it.
Hillary Clinton, like true neoliberals in the GOP, supported the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA), so as Bill had said she supported the bond market and free trade. Now, she claims
she did not, but, of course, she is lying. Her lies also have to do with Wall Street (she has not
released the text of her speeches), support for people of color and her feminism.
... ... ...
Feminism cannot be only about the equality of CEO compensations. Equality in CEO compensations
in general should exist at a much-reduced level. In his book Listen, Liberal,
Thomas Frank tells the story of a Clinton convention meeting he attended and what he witnessed was
Hillary Clinton as "Ms. Walmart," pretending she cares about all women. Frank, who is genuinely worried
about rising inequality in the United States and racial justice, suggests that elite feminism
is worried about the glass ceiling for CEOs, but does not even worry about working-class women who
have "no floors" under them. Hillary Clinton is a 1% millionaire who now talks the progressive
talk, but never really walked the progressive walk.
It would indeed be a symbolic change if the US elected a woman president, but for the symbol
not to be empty, something more is needed. If a woman president does not improve the lot of the majority
of women, then what is the good of a symbol?
Hillary Clinton is actually to the right of President Dwight D. Eisenhower -- "Ike." He refused
to use the atom bomb in Asia, showing more geopolitical prudence than Hillary "we came and he died"
Clinton. He also wanted to preserve the FDR advances that the Clintons have done so much to cancel
or erase.
...the Republicans -- starting with Hillary Clinton's youth
idol Barry Goldwater -- and the Democrats calling themselves "New Democrats" vied with each other
to dismantle the New Deal and the Great Society programs that Democrats had set up.
Noam Chomsky argues that the GOP is not a political party any longer, but a radical insurgency,
for it has gone off the political cliff. The Democrats have become the Old Republicans and Hillary
Clinton is more neocon than traditional conservative of the Eisenhower type.
So Hillary Clinton, the Republican, is poised to win in November, but her Republicanism is
closer to George W. Bush's and even more conservative than Ronald Reagan's -- except on the societal
issues that have now reached a kind of quasi-consensus like same-sex marriage. She is a pro-business,
Koch-compatible lover of Wall Street who uses feminism like some pinkwashers or greenwashers use
progressive agendas to sell regressive policies. Author Diana Johnstone calls her the "Queen
of Chaos." Clinton is the queen of deception, faux feminism and faux progressivism, whose election
will be made easier by her loutish, vulgar, sexist loudmouth of an opponent.
In his book The Deep State, Mike Lofgren
quotes H.L. Mencken,
who gave away what explains the success of the political circus: "The whole aim of practical politics
is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an
endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the neoconservatives were past masters at this creation of
hobgoblins, but now Hillary Clinton, the opportunist, can outdo them and out-Republicanize them.
I think Ike would not like her; she might now be even more reactionary than Goldwater. Indeed,
Charles Koch (whose hatred of progressivism is well documented by Jane Meyer in her book,
Dark Money) expressed some admiration for Bill and Hillary Clinton and said he could vote
for Hillary this time around.
... ... ...
Pierre Guerlain is a professor
of American studies at Université Paris Ouest, Nanterre, France.
"... A letter from Clintons' top advisor Sidney Blumenthal to Hillary Clinton in 2011, proves that the West was losing control of the situation in Libya, very fast, already since 2011. Dangerous weapons were going to wrong hands through the black market. ..."
"... (Source Comment: According to very sensitive sources, the Libyan rebels are concerned that AQIM may also obtain SPIGOTT wire-guided anti-tank missiles and an unspecified number of Russian anti-tank mines made of plastic and undetectable by anti-mine equipment. This equipment again was coming through Niger and Mali, and was intended for the rebels in Libya. They note that AQIM is very strong in this region of Northwest Africa.) ..."
"... Yet, despite the absolute mess, the Western vultures are racing above the Libyan corpse to take as much as they can. ..."
"... Their primary goal was probably to overthrow the Chinese economic influence and prevent Russia to expand its sphere of influence. Apparently, preventing the destruction of a whole country is not a top priority issue for them. ..."
On March 16, 2016 WikiLeaks launched a searchable archive for 30,322 emails & email attachments
sent to and from Hillary Clinton's private email server while she was Secretary of State. The 50,547
pages of documents span from 30 June 2010 to 12 August 2014. 7,570 of the documents were sent by
Hillary Clinton.
The emails were made available in the form of thousands of PDFs by the US State Department as
a result of a Freedom of Information Act request. The final PDFs were made available on February
29, 2016.
A letter from
Clintons' top advisor Sidney Blumenthal to Hillary Clinton in 2011, proves that the West was
losing control of the situation in Libya, very fast, already since 2011. Dangerous weapons were going
to wrong hands through the black market.
The Western clowns have failed, one more time, to bring stability and led another country to absolute
chaos and destruction. Waves of desperate people are now trying to reach European shores to save
themselves from the hell in Libya, as it happens in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere.
Key parts:
During the early morning of May 2, 2011 sources with access to the leadership of the Libyan
rebellion's ruling Transitional National Council (TNC) stated in confidence that they are concerned
that the death of al Qa'ida leader Osama Bin Laden will inspire al Qa'ida in the Islamic Maghreb
(AQIM) to use weapons they have obtained, which were originally intended for the rebels in Libya,
to retaliate against the United States and its allies for this attack in Pakistan. These individuals
fear that the use of the weapons in this manner will complicate the TNC's relationship with NATO
and the United States, whose support is vital to them in their struggle with the forces of Muammar
al Qaddafi.
These individuals note that the TNC officials are reacting to reports received during the
week of April 25 from their own sources of information, the French General Directorate for External
Security (DGSE), and British external intelligence service (MI-6), stating that AQIM has acquired
about 10 SAM 7- Grail/Streela man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS or MPADS) from illegal
weapons markets in Western Niger and Northern Mali. These weapons were originally intended for
sale to the rebel forces in Libya, but AQIM operatives were able to meet secretly with these arms
dealers and purchase the equipment. The acquisition of these sophisticated weapons creates a serious
threat to air traffic in Southern Morocco, Algeria, Northern Mali, Western Niger, and Eastern
Mauritania.
(Source Comment: According to very sensitive sources, the Libyan rebels are concerned
that AQIM may also obtain SPIGOTT wire-guided anti-tank missiles and an unspecified number of
Russian anti-tank mines made of plastic and undetectable by anti-mine equipment. This equipment
again was coming through Niger and Mali, and was intended for the rebels in Libya. They note that
AQIM is very strong in this region of Northwest Africa.)
... Libyan rebel commanders are also concerned that the death of Bin Laden comes at a time
when sensitive information indicates that the leaders of AQIM are planning to launch attacks across
North Africa and Europe in an effort to reassert their relevance during the ongoing upheavals
in Libya, as well as the rest of North Africa and the Middle East. They believe the first step
in this campaign was the April 30 bombing of a café in Marrakesh, Morocco that is frequented by
Western tourists.
Their primary goal was probably to overthrow the Chinese economic influence and prevent Russia
to expand its sphere of influence. Apparently, preventing the destruction of a whole country is not
a top priority issue for them.
Hillary election means new wars and death of the US servicemen/servicewomen. So Khan gambit is
much more dangerous that it looks as it implicitly promoted militarism and endless "permanent war
for permanent peace".
Notable quotes:
"... Information warfare uses disinformation and propaganda to condition a population to hate a foreign nation or population with the intent to foment a war, which is the routine "business" of the best known U.S. think tanks. ..."
"... There are two levels to this information war. The first level is by the primary provocateur, such as the Rand Corporation, the American Enterprise Institute and the smaller war instigators found wherever a Kagan family member lurks. They use psychological "suggestiveness" to create a false narrative of danger from some foreign entity with the objective being to create paranoia within the U.S. population that it is under imminent threat of attack or takeover. ..."
"... Once that fear and paranoia is instilled in much of the population, it can then be manipulated to foment a readiness or eagerness for war, in the manner that Joseph Goebbels understood well. ..."
"... Nevertheless, showing the success that our primary war provocateurs have had in fomenting hostility and possibly war is that less militaristic and bellicose Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), ostensibly working for "peace," have adopted this false propaganda theme uncritically. ..."
"... The Carnegie Moscow Center Foundation, which includes Russians on its staff, is a prime example. Lately, it has routinely echoed the more provocative and facially false accusations made against Russia by the outright militaristic and war instigating U.S. think tanks. An example is in a recent article of Carnegie, entitled: " Russia and NATO Must Communicate Better. " ..."
"... So fanatics like the U.S. Generals whom we've seen at the recent political conventions and even worse, General Breedlove, are encouraged to be ever more threatening to the world's populations. ..."
"... Recognizing that must then be coupled with recognition of a U.S. law passed in 2012 providing for military detention of journalists and social activists as the Justice Department conceded in Hedges v. Obama. Add to that what the ACLU recently compelled the U.S. government to reveal in the "Presidential Policy Guidance" and it is plain to see which nation has become most "authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive." It is the United States. ..."
"... As this was when the Politburo was allegedly at its height in subverting and subjugating foreign countries as foreign policy, it should be exactly on point in describing current U.S. foreign policy. ..."
"... That U.S. think tanks, such as Rand and the American Enterprise Institute, put so much effort into promoting war should not come as a surprise when it is considered their funding is provided by the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) which President Eisenhower warned us about. ..."
U.S. "think tanks" rile up the American public against an ever-shifting roster of foreign "enemies"
to justify wars which line the pockets of military contractors who kick back some profits to the
"think tanks," explains retired JAG Major Todd E. Pierce.
The New York Times took notice recently of the role that so-called "think tanks" play in corrupting
U.S. government policy. Their review of think tanks "identified dozens of examples of scholars
conducting research at think tanks while corporations were paying them to help shape government policy."
Unfortunately, and perhaps predictably, while the Times investigation demonstrates well that the
U.S. is even more corrupt – albeit the corruption is better disguised – than the many foreign countries
which we routinely accuse of corruption, the Times failed to identify the most egregious form of
corruption in our system. That is, those think tanks are constantly engaged in the sort of activities
which the Defense Department identifies as "Information War" when conducted by foreign countries
that are designated by the U.S. as an enemy at any given moment.
Information warfare uses disinformation and propaganda to condition a population to hate a foreign
nation or population with the intent to foment a war, which is the routine "business" of the best
known U.S. think tanks.
There are two levels to this information war. The first level is by the primary provocateur, such
as the Rand Corporation, the American Enterprise Institute and the smaller war instigators found
wherever a Kagan family member lurks. They use psychological "suggestiveness" to create a false
narrative of danger from some foreign entity with the objective being to create paranoia within the
U.S. population that it is under imminent threat of attack or takeover.
Once that fear and paranoia is instilled in much of the population, it can then be manipulated
to foment a readiness or eagerness for war, in the manner that Joseph Goebbels understood well.
The measure of success from such a disinformation and propaganda effort can be seen when the narrative
is adopted by secondary communicators who are perhaps the most important target audience. That is
because they are "key communicators" in PsyOp terms, who in turn become provocateurs in propagating
the false narrative even more broadly and to its own audiences, and becoming "combat multipliers"
in military terms.
It is readily apparent now that Russia has taken its place as the primary target within U.S. sights.
One doesn't have to see the U.S. military buildup on Russia's borders to understand that but only
see the propaganda themes of our "think tanks."
The Role of Rand
A prime example of an act of waging information war to incite actual military attack is the Rand
Corporation, which, incidentally, published a guide to information war and the need to condition
the U.S. population for war back in the 1990s.
A
scene from "Dr. Strangelove," in which the bomber pilot (played by actor Slim Pickens) rides a
nuclear bomb to its target in the Soviet Union.
Rand was founded by, among others, the war enthusiast, Air Force General Curtis LeMay, who was
the model for the character of Gen. Buck Turgidson in the movie "Dr. Strangelove." LeMay once stated
that he would not be afraid to start a nuclear war with Russia and that spirit would seem to be alive
and well at Rand today as they project on to Vladimir Putin our own eagerness for inciting a war.
The particular act of information warfare by Rand is shown in a recent Rand article: "How to
Counter Putin's Subversive War on the West." The title suggests by its presupposition that Putin
is acting in the offensive form of war rather than the defensive form of war. But it is plain to
see he is in the defensive form of war when one looks at the numerous provocations and acts of aggression
carried out by American officials, such as Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and General
Philip Breedlove, and the U.S. and NATO military buildup on Russia's borders.
Within this Rand article however can be found no better example of psychological projection than
this propagandistic pablum that too many commentators, some witless, some not, will predictably repeat:
"Moscow's provocative active measures cause foreign investors and international lenders to see
higher risks in doing business with Russia. Iran is learning a similar, painful lesson as it persists
with harsh anti-Western policies even as nuclear-related sanctions fade. Russia will decide its own
priorities. But it should not be surprised if disregard for others' interests diminishes the international
regard it seeks as an influential great power."
In fact, an objective, dispassionate observation of U.S./Russian policies would show it has been
the U.S. carrying out these "provocative active measures" as the instigator, not Russia.
Nevertheless, showing the success that our primary war provocateurs have had in fomenting hostility
and possibly war is that less militaristic and bellicose Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), ostensibly
working for "peace," have adopted this false propaganda theme uncritically.
The Carnegie Moscow Center Foundation, which includes Russians on its staff, is a prime example.
Lately, it has routinely echoed the more provocative and facially false accusations made against
Russia by the outright militaristic and war instigating U.S. think tanks. An example is in a recent
article of Carnegie, entitled: "Russia and NATO Must Communicate Better."
It begins: "The risk of outright conflict in Europe is higher than it has been for years and the
confrontation between Russia and the West shows no sign of ending. To prevent misunderstandings and
dangerous incidents, the two sides must improve their methods of communication."
Unfortunately, that is now true. But the article's author suggests throughout that each party,
Russia and the U.S./NATO, had an equal hand in the deterioration of relations. He wrote: "The West
needs to acknowledge that the standoff with Russia is not merely the result of Russia turning authoritarian,
nationalistic, and assertive," as if Western officials don't already know that that accusation was
only a propaganda theme for their own populations to cover up the West's aggressiveness.
Blaming Russia
So Americans, such as myself, must acknowledge and confront that the standoff with Russia is not
only not "merely the result of Russia turning authoritarian, nationalistic, and assertive,"
but it is rather, that the U.S. is "turning authoritarian, nationalistic," and even more "assertive,"
i.e., aggressive, toward the world.
Suz Tzu wrote that a "sovereign" must know oneself and the enemy. In the case of the U.S. sovereign,
the people and their elected, so-called representatives, there is probably no "sovereign" in human
history more lacking in self-awareness of their own nation's behavior toward other nations.
So fanatics like the U.S. Generals whom we've seen at the recent political conventions and even
worse, General Breedlove, are encouraged to be ever more threatening to the world's populations.
When that then generates a response from some nation with a tin-pot military relative to our own,
with ours paid for by the privileged financial position we've put ourselves into post-WWII, our politicians
urgently call for even more military spending from the American people to support even more aggression,
all in the guise of "national defense."
Recognizing that must then be coupled with recognition of a U.S. law passed in 2012 providing
for military detention of journalists and social activists as the Justice Department conceded in
Hedges v. Obama. Add to that what the ACLU recently compelled the U.S. government to reveal in the
"Presidential Policy Guidance" and it is plain to see which nation has become most "authoritarian,
nationalistic, and assertive." It is the United States.
The Presidential Policy Guidance "establishes the standard operating procedures for when the United
States takes direct action, which refers to lethal and non-lethal uses of force, including capture
operations against terrorist targets outside the United States and areas of active hostilities."
What other nation, besides Israel probably, has a governmental "Regulation" providing for assassinations
outside "areas of active hostilities?"
It should readily be evident that it is the U.S. now carrying out the vast majority of provocative
active measures and has the disregard for others complained of here. At least for the moment, however,
the U.S. can still hide much of its aggression using the vast financial resources provided by the
American people to the Defense Department to produce sophisticated propaganda and to bribe foreign
officials with foreign aid to look the other way from U.S. provocations.
It is ironic that today, one can learn more about the U.S. military and foreign policy from the
Rand Corporation only by reading at least one of its historical documents, "The Operational Code
of the Politburo." This is described as "part of a major effort at RAND to provide insight into
the political leadership and foreign policy in the Soviet Union and other communist states; the development
of Soviet military strategy and doctrine."
As this was when the Politburo was allegedly at its height in subverting and subjugating foreign
countries as foreign policy, it should be exactly on point in describing current U.S. foreign policy.
That U.S. think tanks, such as Rand and the American Enterprise Institute, put so much effort
into promoting war should not come as a surprise when it is considered their funding is provided
by the Military Industrial Complex (MIC) which President Eisenhower warned us about. That this U.S.
MIC would turn against its own people, the American public, by waging perpetual information war against
this domestic target just to enrich their investors, might have been even more than Eisenhower could
imagine however.
Todd E. Pierce retired as a Major in the US Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps in
November 2012. His most recent assignment was defense counsel in the Office of Chief Defense Counsel,
Office of Military Commissions. [This article first appeared at
http://original.antiwar.com/Todd_Pierce/2016/08/14/inciting-wars-american-way/]
"... If Hillary Clinton wins, within a year of her inauguration, she will be under investigation by a special prosecutor on charges of political corruption, thereby continuing a family tradition. ..."
"... Of 154 outsiders whom Clinton phoned or met with in her first two years at State, 85 had made contributions to the Clinton Foundation, and their contributions, taken together, totaled $156 million. ..."
"... Conclusion: access to Secretary of State Clinton could be bought, but it was not cheap. Forty of the 85 donors gave $100,000 or more. Twenty of those whom Clinton met with or phoned dumped in $1 million or more. ..."
"... On his last day in office, January 20, 2001, Bill Clinton issued a presidential pardon to financier-crook and fugitive from justice Marc Rich, whose wife, Denise, had contributed $450,000 to the Clinton Library. ..."
Prediction: If Hillary Clinton wins, within a year of her inauguration, she will be under
investigation by a special prosecutor on charges of political corruption, thereby continuing a family
tradition.
... ... ...
Of 154 outsiders whom Clinton phoned or met with in her first two years at State, 85 had made
contributions to the Clinton Foundation, and their contributions, taken together, totaled $156 million.
Conclusion: access to Secretary of State Clinton could be bought, but it was not cheap. Forty
of the 85 donors gave $100,000 or more. Twenty of those whom Clinton met with or phoned dumped in
$1 million or more.
To get to the seventh floor of the Clinton State Department for a hearing for one's plea, the
cover charge was high. Among those who got face time with Hillary Clinton were a Ukrainian oligarch
and steel magnate who shipped oil pipe to Iran in violation of U.S. sanctions and a Bangladeshi economist
who was under investigation by his government and was eventually pressured to leave his own bank.
The stench is familiar, and all too Clintonian in character.
Recall. On his last day in office, January 20, 2001, Bill Clinton issued a presidential pardon
to financier-crook and fugitive from justice Marc Rich, whose wife, Denise, had contributed $450,000
to the Clinton Library.
The Clintons appear belatedly to have recognized their political peril.
Bill has promised that, if Hillary is elected, he will end his big-dog days at the foundation
and stop taking checks from foreign regimes and entities, and corporate donors. Cash contributions
from wealthy Americans will still be gratefully accepted.
One wonders: will Bill be writing thank-you notes for the millions that will roll in to the family
foundation-on White House stationery?
"... The Clinton approach from hereon in is one of masquerade: appropriate the Bernie Sanders aura, give the impression that the party has somehow miraculously moved leftward, and snap up a stash of votes come November. ..."
"... clinging to the fiction that the Clintons are somehow progressive. This ignores the fundamental fact that Bill Clinton, during his presidential tenure through the 1990s, made parts of the GOP strategy plan relatively progressive by way of comparison. Stunned by this embrace of hard right ideas, the Republicans would be kept out of the White House till 2000. ..."
The reality is that millions were readying themselves to vote for him come November precisely because
he was Sanders, meshed with the ideas of basic social democracy. He betrayed them.
The Clinton approach from hereon in is one of masquerade: appropriate the Bernie Sanders aura,
give the impression that the party has somehow miraculously moved leftward, and snap up a stash of
votes come November.
The approach of the Republicans will be self-defeating, clinging to the fiction that the Clintons
are somehow progressive. This ignores the fundamental fact that Bill Clinton, during his presidential
tenure through the 1990s, made parts of the GOP strategy plan relatively progressive by way of comparison.
Stunned by this embrace of hard right ideas, the Republicans would be kept out of the White House
till 2000.
Be wary of any language of change that is merely the language of promise. Keep in mind that US
politics remains a "binary" choice, an effective non-choice bankrolled by financial power.
"... He's no more a progressive revolutionary than any other member of Congress, nor Washington's bipartisan criminal class, bureaucrats included – Sanders a card-carrying member throughout his deplorable political career. ..."
"... A major concern is the group's tax status as a 501(c)(4) organization able to get large donations from anonymous sources – meaning the usual ones buying influence, letting Sanders pretend to be progressive and revolutionary while operating otherwise. ..."
"... Claire Sandberg was the initiative's organizing director. "I left and others left because we were alarmed that Jeff (Weaver) would mismanage this organization as he mismanaged the campaign," she explained. ..."
"... She fears Weaver will "betray its core purpose by accepting money from billionaires and not remaining grassroots funded and plowing that billionaire cash into TV instead of investing it in building a genuine movement." ..."
"... Vermont GOP vice chairman Brady Toensing blasted Sanders for "preach(ing) transparency and then tr(ying) to set up the most shadowy of shadowy fund-raising organization to support" what he claims to endorse. ..."
"... Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected] . ..."
"... His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III." ..."
He's no more a progressive revolutionary than any other member of Congress, nor Washington's
bipartisan criminal class, bureaucrats included – Sanders a card-carrying member throughout his deplorable
political career.
Endorsing Hillary Clinton after rhetorically campaigning against what she represents exposed his
duplicity – a progressive in name only. An opportunist for his own self-interest, he wants his extended
15 minutes of fame made more long-lasting.
Claiming his new initiative "will fight to transform America and advance the progressive agenda
(he) believe(s) in" belies his deplorable House and Senate voting records, on the wrong side of most
major issues, especially supporting most US wars of aggression.
A separate Sanders Institute intends operating like his Our Revolution initiative. Maybe his real
aim is cashing in on his high-profile persona – including a new book due out in mid-November titled
"Our Revolution: A Future To Believe In."
Save your money. Its contents are clear without reading it – the same mumbo jumbo he used while
campaigning.
It excludes his deplorable history of promising one thing, doing another, going along with Washington
scoundrels like Hillary to get along, betraying his loyal supporters – the real Sanders he wants
concealed.
On August 24, The
New York Times said his Our Revolution initiative "has been met with criticism and controversy
over its financing and management."
It's "draw(ing) from the same pool of 'dark money' (he) condemned" while campaigning. After
his former campaign manager Jeff Weaver was hired to lead the group, "the majority of its staff
resigned," said The Times – described as "eight core staff members…"
"The group's entire organizing department quit this week, along with people working in digital
and data positions." They refused to reconsider after Sanders urged them to stay on.
A major concern is the group's tax status as a 501(c)(4) organization able to get large donations
from anonymous sources – meaning the usual ones buying influence, letting Sanders pretend to be progressive
and revolutionary while operating otherwise.
Claire Sandberg was the initiative's organizing director. "I left and others left because we were
alarmed that Jeff (Weaver) would mismanage this organization as he mismanaged the campaign," she
explained.
She fears Weaver will "betray its core purpose by accepting money from billionaires and not remaining
grassroots funded and plowing that billionaire cash into TV instead of investing it in building a
genuine movement."
Vermont GOP vice chairman Brady Toensing blasted Sanders for "preach(ing) transparency and then
tr(ying) to set up the most shadowy of shadowy fund-raising organization to support" what he claims
to endorse.
"What I'm seeing here is a senator who is against big money in politics, but only when" it applies
to others, not himself, Toensing added.
Campaign Legal Center's Paul S. Ryan said "(t)here are definitely some red flags with respect
to the formation of this group…We're in a murky area."
Is Sanders' real aim self-promotion and enrichment? Is his Our Revolution more a scheme than an
honest initiative?
Is it sort of like the Clinton Foundation, Sanders wanting to grab all he can – only much less
able to match the kind of super-wealth Bill and Hillary amassed?
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at
[email protected].
His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive
for Hegemony Risks WW III."
Those who already think Clinton is too sleazy won't be voting for her, but those who
think she is too sick, or that she will be impeached, might
Notable quotes:
"... I would like to vote for Hillary because she's already harmless and looks friendly with her mild seizures, it's like nehi-nehi Indian dance. But I am so afraid of her corporate backers that they will exploit Hillary and Bill's weakness as ageing senior illuminati couple, how can you unite the Fed with CIA, FBI and US military, not too mention Wall Street. ..."
"... Are you talking about Hillary and Bill Clinton? Your are describing Hillary and her politics of corruption, bad judgment; incompetence, job outsourcing and total disregard for American people. if anyone is remotely suitable to become POTUS it is her. Only those who really hate America will be happy with its further decline and will vote for Hillary. However, Trump will become America's next President. ..."
"... After 40 years of EU lies they are more than imbued to being lied to by politicians - no wonder the people are utterly and totally disillusioned with the established parties who show such appalling contempt for the people and democracy. Nothing better explains the growing success of mavericks like Trump and Farage: frankly the people need them as a safety valve for their frustrations. ..."
"... Ok, let's forget that Farage was the only major political party leader to stand up for democracy. We also should forget that, despite all the horrific personal abuse he suffered, he carried on year after year against the almighty power of the establishment and managed to win us our sovereignty back. We definitely must forget that he is a libertarian and his party is the ONLY major political party that bans all previous members of racist parties from applying. ..."
"... Her beliefs change with her lobbyist's wishes, she lies openly on camera and in office, puts donors and enormous backhanders before the electorate that voted for her, uses her Clinton Foundation as a cream skimming perk where all cash is welcome and Gov policy a Clinton Foundation sellable asset and entertains despots, juntas and murderous thugs using State Dept as a gun-for-hire. ..."
"... Neocons seek power through creating social division so can never win more than a small majority and only for a short time. Exhibit A: Tony Useless Abbott, worst PM in Australia's history. ..."
"... Quote: "For the duration of my appointment as Secretary if I am confirmed, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which The William J. Clinton Foundation (or the Clinton Global Initiative) is a party or represents a party, unless I am first authorized to participate," -- Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... The ethics pledge Hillary violated at least 85 times, but go ahead and believe that she won't ever do it again... ..."
I would like to vote for Hillary because she's already harmless and looks friendly with her
mild seizures, it's like nehi-nehi Indian dance. But I am so afraid of her corporate backers
that they will exploit Hillary and Bill's weakness as ageing senior illuminati couple, how
can you unite the Fed with CIA, FBI and US military, not too mention Wall Street.
The real problem here is a political vacuum so huge you could fit trump's ego inside it. Just
a guess but from what I've seen this last year about half of trump supporters are wwhat could
be called die-hard racists. The one major failing of the workers movement that Sanders started
in the US was an inability to pull off the 50% of trump supporters who are not fundamentally
racist. T
here was no major appeal to the more rural agricultural communities by Sanders that
I ever heard. They may only represent 20% of the population but they are the backbone of the
US as they are unable to compete with large scale corporate farming they suffer the same ideological
loss that the rest of the working class suffer from. If the progressive movement cannot or
will not appeal to this group through small farming and organic farming subsidies then they
will go with someone like trump even though he promises them nothing. T
hey will, in the absence
of an alternative political path just choose 'f**k you' for their candidate. Probably too late
this time around but in the future the progressive movement needs to include these people or
they will be the 'third rail' the left dies on.
My husband is a liar and a cheat. He has cheated on me from the beginning and when I confront
him, he denies everything. What's worse, everyone knows he cheats on me. It's so humiliating.
Also, since he lost his job 14 years ago, he hasn't even looked for a new one. All he does
all day is smoke cigars, play golf, cruise around and shoot ball with his buddies and has sex
with hookers, while I work so hard to pay our bills.
Since our daughter went away to college and then got married; he doesn't even pretend to like
me, and hints that I may be a lesbian. What should I do?
Signed:
Confused
Answer..
Dear Confused:
Grow up and dump him.
You don't need him anymore!
Good grief woman, you're running for President of the United States!
Are you talking about Hillary and Bill Clinton? Your are describing Hillary and her politics
of corruption, bad judgment; incompetence, job outsourcing and total disregard for American
people. if anyone is remotely suitable to become POTUS it is her. Only those who really hate
America will be happy with its further decline and will vote for Hillary. However, Trump will
become America's next President.
Listen to his peaches - that would be time better spent than to spend time of defending
Hillary, who soon be either behind the bars or forgotten.
After 40 years of EU lies they are more than imbued to being lied to by politicians -
no wonder the people are utterly and totally disillusioned with the established parties who show
such appalling contempt for the people and democracy. Nothing better explains the growing success
of mavericks like Trump and Farage: frankly the people need them as a safety valve for their frustrations.
Nigel is not making any threats to USA as Obama did in UK (you'll be in back of the queue).
It was not Nigel who spoke about obama's ancestry. America has a tough choice Trump/Clinton. My brother
lives in Florida - he says he wouldn't vote for Clinton.
I voted UKIP and for LEAVE and think Nigel
Farage will go down in history as one of the most important men in politics for a very long time.
We supported him because he spoke for us and the other politicians stopped listening to us. These
snidey nasty comments are typical of leftie guardian readers. After all - they're probably going
to vote for Corby who hasn't a cat in hells chance of ever being PM!
Yes, you're right. It's this sentiment that has pushed the proletariat into the arms of Trump and
Farage. Funnily enough, during my time working with the EU there was a very strong push towards less
democracy and more population management. Most of it is being done via education and other soft power
platforms - reforming children's attitudes, self-awareness training, behavioral feedback and gender
confusion. This is being done under the guise of tolerance, diversity and identity politics. It keeps
the masses fighting amongst themselves while those in charge of them steal everything.
Ok, let's forget that Farage was the only major political party leader to stand up for democracy. We also should forget that, despite all the horrific personal abuse he suffered, he carried on year
after year against the almighty power of the establishment and managed to win us our sovereignty
back. We definitely must forget that he is a libertarian and his party is the ONLY major political party
that bans all previous members of racist parties from applying.
Now hand me some of that racism juice and point me to the bandwagon!
Her beliefs change with her lobbyist's wishes, she lies openly on camera and in office, puts donors
and enormous backhanders before the electorate that voted for her, uses her Clinton Foundation as
a cream skimming perk where all cash is welcome and Gov policy a Clinton Foundation sellable asset
and entertains despots, juntas and murderous thugs using State Dept as a gun-for-hire.
I see the Bremain crowd still out for some revenge. And who would Hillary invite from "Brits?"
Let's face it most Americans have no clue about other foreign leaders unless they are being splashed
across their TV screens as some evil incarnates ready to be bombed by American bombs. Thus Guardian
cheap shot at Farage as unknown is just cheap.
Indeed the whole reporting of that meeting between Farage and Trump is distasteful for a newsmedia
like Guardian. Purely designed to belittle Farage and, of course, portray Trump as a non-starter
in the race for White House.
Btw, i was going through list of media giants that have contributed and donated to the Clinton
Foundation. Let me confirm whether Guardian or its associates/affiliates are on the list!
The MSM is trying to make Hillary look popular at the few rallies she conducts when the reality is
her crowds are tiny.
You then have Trump doing multiple rallies a day where he regularly fills large sports stadiums.
It just goes to show how corrupt the MSM is and how they manipulate footage to create false impressions.
Neocons seek power through creating social division so can never win more than a small majority
and only for a short time. Exhibit A: Tony Useless Abbott, worst PM in Australia's history.
Isn't it strange to see so much bile and bitterness being directed towards Mr Farage? We've had
the referendum and Brexit won. Please can the many complainers here show some respect to the millions
who voted and who did so of the own volition (and without the nonsense of being under some spell
cast by imaginary bogeymen!). Can those complaining not accept that after 40 years of effort to
make the EU work people are entitled to say - sorry, its over - but hopefully we can still be
friends.
Farage was a good choice for a support speaker. He is the one person in Europe who has produced
a stunning electoral upset and then quit the scene. All the pollsters got it wrong.
It's distressing that some members of the audience knew nothing about the Brexit, despite efforts
by The Guardian and many others to relieve their ignorance. However, might not the same criticism
be applied to most American voters, of whatever ilk?
Quote: "For the duration of my appointment as Secretary if I am confirmed, I will not participate
personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which The
William J. Clinton Foundation (or the Clinton Global Initiative) is a party or represents a party,
unless I am first authorized to participate," -- Hillary Clinton.
The ethics pledge Hillary
violated at least 85 times, but go ahead and believe that she won't ever do it again...
"... Here is an up-to-date look at the massive amount of money that has been donated to Super PACs in this election cycle: http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2016/07/super-pacs-2016-awash-with-cash.html ..."
"... The wealthiest Americans still firmly believe that political control belongs to them. ..."
"... "The Labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to the maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by his extractions from the industrious merchant and the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his money. But every savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no landlords, no usurers and no tax gatherers." ..."
Do companies employ people to make its employees rich?
No they employ people to make a profit, the productive output of all employees is split to take
a profit for the company, cover costs and pay wages. The employee loses a slice of their productive output to the company for the company to take
as profit.
The employee takes out less than he puts in.
Someone with a trust fund receives an income from their trust fund without the fund going down.
They take out more than they put in.
The system trickles up and assuming it trickles down to lower taxes on the wealthy has polarized
personal wealth and is hitting global aggregate demand.
Adam Smith noted the system flowed upwards in the 18th Century.
"The Labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed to the maintaining
of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained in idleness and luxury by the labour
of his tenants. The moneyed man is supported by his extractions from the industrious merchant
and the needy who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his money. But
every savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no landlords, no usurers and no
tax gatherers."
Where did the idea of trickledown come from?
US billionaires after a long liquid lunch.
Across the country, the presence and influence of big money exerts a downward pressure on down-ticket
candidates across the board. Steve Israel's sentiments are widely shared; without direct and committed
backing from large (national-level) donors, candidates have to spend the greater part of their
election efforts just to raise money, this of course eats into their constituent outreach. Candidates
with expensive consultants/vendors and/or large staff may be under pressured to fundraise from
within their own campaign. HRC's decision to forego a visit to Louisiana flood victims may be
a case of in-house pressure; money can distort rational, not to mention compassionate, action.
And significant donations and/or political support can appear as if out of nowhere. I recently
spoke with a candidate for D.A. who was surprised to hear his own voice coming out of his car
radio; a national PAC had chosen to back him, and was buying local radio time. Since PACs can't
(shouldn't) coordinate with formal campaigns, this isn't too unusual. But he has had to answer
questions from media about why and how he got this support (they had interviewed him by phone
some months earlier, with no further direct contact). His opponent has since dropped out, citing
financial pressures and lack of sufficient contributions to continue. The opposing party is scrambling
to find a replacement to meet the State's requirements for submission of candidate names, no luck
so far; they could actually end up pulling an incumbent State Senator running for re-election
to vacate one slot to fill another.
The flood of money in politics, including the involvement of PACs, also raises the stakes for
prospective candidates, who are under increasing scrutiny from mainstream and independent media;
outside money drives media attention directly and indirectly, in addition to media capabilities
of well financed opposing candidates and parties. Money heats up the entire process, and the emotional
and physical (and financial) pressure is considerable. This also leads to more self-funding candidates,
and less opportunity for independents with lesser personal means. And the trend of antagonistic
campaigning, long of polarizing vitriol and short on substantial issue discussion, is also driven
by moneyed influences seeking traction of any kind, while bringing little or no substantial or
broadly popular policy agenda to a contest.
The Sanders direct fundraising model may be evidence of a countercurrent. Bernie famously spent
no time courting big donors, and was able to produce a formidable campaign war chest directly
from his message and persona. But even while competing favorably with Hillary's campaign fundraising,
Clinton benefited from massive PAC support which Sanders never matched. Sanders' campaign also
had a hard time finding experienced campaign staff (and possibly other resources); there was considerable
implicit (and some explicit) pressure within the Dem consultant stable to avoid opposing the Clinton
(Money) Machine. Jobs and careers on the line, with repercussions long after this election cycle.
"... The human rights context has greatly changed from 2006 to 2012: the Medvedev period allowed for a number of improvements and significant openings for NGOs. ..."
"... The Russian protests deeply affected the life of NGOs. The state had been providing money for self-organization, thinking this would defuse the possibility of large-scale opposition. But by encouraging self-organization, they had opened up a Pandora's Box. People became active and began to feel that it was possible to change something; the door was opened for self-mobilization. ..."
"... The document details in an extensive bullet point list, "what must be done" to destabilize Russia, focusing on many recurrent neo-liberal themes that Soros uses to infect host nations and overturn governments… ..."
"... We will mitigate the negative impact of new laws via domestic and international advocacy. Key allies in this regard are the growing numbers of diverse Russian citizens opposing the country's regression, along with the sizeable community of Russian legal experts with an in-depth knowledge of NGO law and a strong motivation to help the sector continue its activities. ..."
"... Engaging with Russian diaspora who oppose the current government, and mobilising the LGBT community through mass media propaganda, are recurrent themes in the Soros document. ..."
"... Our comparative advantage lies in the deep and wide networks that we have fostered these past years. A strategic use of these networks will maximize the long-term impact of the work that LGBT rights organizations are doing. LGBT rights groups in Russia are professional and effective, yet they lack the capacity to reach far beyond their immediate communities and galvanize other civil society players necessary for their long-term success. ..."
"... Destabilisation of a country the size of Russia does not come without a significant price tag, for which George Soros seems more than ready to pony up… ..."
"... Their can be no doubt that the 2014-2017 plan outlined by Soros NGOs, which even envisioned staff growth and Eurasian region restructuring, has hit a major speed bump with the 2015 law that saw these divisive forces operating within Russian finally get booted out of the country. ..."
"... Vlad, smoke this Globalist scum. American people will cheer you! ..."
"... MR. Soros needs to get wacked by someone as he is directly responsible for thousands of deaths in Ukraine alone and I won't even mention the Nazi informer days. ..."
The recent
DC Leaks , of over 2,500 documents from George Soros NGOs, has shed a bright light on how the
billionaire uses his vast wealth to create global chaos in an never ending push to deliver his neo-liberal
euphoria to the peasant classes.
While Soros has managed to thoroughly destabilise the European Union by promoting mass immigration
and open borders, divided the United States by actively funding Black Lives Matters and corrupting
the very corruptible US political class, and destroyed Ukraine by pushing for an illegal coup of
a democratically elected government using neo-nazi strong men… one country that Soros has not bee
able to crack has been The Russian Federation.
Russia's political pragmatism and humanist value system rooted in a traditional, "nation-state"
culture most likely infuriates Soros.
Russia is Soros' white whale... a creature he has been trying to capture and kill-off for nearly
a decade.
Unfortunately for Soros (and fortunately for the entire planet) the Russian government realised
the cancerous nature of Soros backed NGOs, and took the proper preventative measures…which in hindsight,
and after reviewing the DC Leaks memos, proved to be a very wise move.
Russian Prosecutor
General's Office issued a statement in which it recognized George Soros's Open Society Institute
and another affiliated organization as "undesirable groups", banning Russian citizens and organizations
from participation in any of their projects.
–prosecutors said the activities of the Open Society Institute and the Open Society Institute
Assistance Foundation were a threat to the foundations of Russia's Constitutional order and national
security . They added that the Justice Ministry would be duly informed about these conclusions
and would add the two groups to Russia's list of undesirable foreign organizations.
According to RT , prosecutors launched a probe into the activities of the two organizations
– both sponsored by the well-known US financier George Soros – in July this year, after Russian
senators approved the so-called "patriotic stop-list" of 12 groups that required immediate attention
over their supposed anti-Russian activities.
The Law on Undesirable Foreign Organizations came into force in early June this year. It requires
the Prosecutor General's Office and the Foreign Ministry to draw up an official list of undesirable
foreign organizations and outlaw their activities. Once a group is recognized as undesirable,
its assets in Russia must be frozen, its offices closed and the distribution of any of its materials
must be banned. That said, it is doubtful that Soros still has any active assets in Russia – his
foundation, which emerged in Russia in its early post-USSR years in the mid-1990s, wrapped up
active operations in 2003 when Putin cemented his control on power.
The huge document tranche released by DC Leaks
shows how dangerous the Open Society and George Soros were to the well being and preservation
of the Russian Federation and the Russian culture.
In a document from November 2012 entitled, "OSF [Open Society Foundation] Russia Strategic Planning
Meeting Notes" , Participants:
Leonard Benardo, Iva Dobichina, Elizabeth Eagen, Jeff Goldstein, Minna Jarvenpaa, Ralf Jürgens,
Elena Kovalevskaya, Vicki Litvinov, Tanya Margolin, Amy McDonough, Sara Rhodin, Yervand Shirinyan,
Becky Tolson
Discuss how to …
Identify joint priorities for OSF's Russia activities in the coming year. How can we most effectively
collaborate, considering the deteriorating political environment for our partners?
The main revelation of the document minutes comes from the hope that Medvedev's years as president
would provide the NGOs the "opening" they would need to finally break the Russian bear.
That all evaporated in 2012, when Vladimir Putin returned to the President's office.
The OSF, clearly distraught and disappointed, begins to lay down the groundwork for how to challenge
the Putin administration, in light of his very different approach to dealing with NGOs like the Open
Society Foundation.
The human rights context has greatly changed from 2006 to 2012: the Medvedev period allowed
for a number of improvements and significant openings for NGOs. Amendments to the NGO law in 2006
led to campaigning on behalf of NGOs; many of our grantees benefited during this period. Surkov
established ties with many groups that were willing to cooperate with the state and our partners
served as experts in key processes like police reform . A space was created for modernization
and for the inclusion of civil society during Medvedev's term. However, pressure has come back
very quickly in the short time that Putin has been back in power.
A major turning point for NGO operation in Russia came with the botched Russian "Maidan like"
protests, which were promptly dismantled before any damage could be inflicted.
The Russian protests deeply affected the life of NGOs. The state had been providing money for
self-organization, thinking this would defuse the possibility of large-scale opposition. But by
encouraging self-organization, they had opened up a Pandora's Box. People became active and began
to feel that it was possible to change something; the door was opened for self-mobilization.
The state has responded with repression and political prisoners, in order to instill fear in
the population. The state is also working to undermine social support for the protests. Its support
of socially-oriented ("good") NGOs is a way to divide the community, while the foreign agents
law frames the protests as foreign money undermining Russia.
Why the fascination with Russia? Why is it important for OSF to focus on Russia? With Russia comes
immense wealth and tremendous geo-political power.
Key open society themes and issues are highly relevant in Russia
– Transparency and accountability (anticorruption)
– Rights and justice (i.e., criminal justice, policing, rule of law, LGBT, women's rights)
– Migration
– Inclusive education (disability, Roma)
– Media freedom, access to information
– Health (access to medicines, HIV, harm reduction)
Copy-cat problem: Russian tactics are picked up by Central Asia (ie, anti-extremism law in
Kazakhstan)
Russia's influence in UN Human Rights Council – pushing resolution that says human rights should
take into consideration traditional values of country in question – very few HR orgs that are
following the council saw this coming – has large implications beyond Russia
Participation in global international regimes (G20, ICC, WTO) – a more open Russia creates
changes in international governing bodies
European Court litigation
The document details in an extensive bullet point list, "what must be done" to destabilize Russia,
focusing on many recurrent neo-liberal themes that Soros uses to infect host nations and overturn
governments…
– Political prisoners (Bolotnaya, etc.)
– Media censorship and control (pressure in independent media – work w/ NMP)
– Surveillance
– LGBT (push against propaganda laws, which are driven by local officials, not by the federal
gov't)
– Women's rights
– Disability rights and inclusive education
Prisons
– Lots of funding is going to monitoring; where is our money best placed?
– ONKs don't have sufficient $ for travel and legal representation
Policing and police violence (Public Verdict, Man and Law, etc.)
Migrants
Transparency and accountability
– State spending – monitoring, analysis
– Tracking cross-border transactions and business purchases
– Connections between accountability, human rights, and ordinary citizens' interests
Following the 2012 document, and the apparent disappointment expressed by OSF members at Russia's
resistance to the neo-liberal way of life,
DC Leaks provides a follow up memo entitled, "Russia Project Strategy, 2014-2017".
The document summary…
Russia today faces a regrettable backsliding into authoritarian practice. Confronted with serious
domestic challenges, the regime has become more insular and isolationist, seeking to solidify
its base. The progressively draconian laws promulgated since Putin's return to the presidency
have placed all foreign- funded organizations under threat of isolation and disrepute. Despite
these decidedly challenging conditions, it is essential that we continue to engage Russia, both
to preserve its extant democratic spaces, and to ensure that Russian voices do not go dark on
the broader global stage.
The destabilization of Russia, now aptly named, "the Russia Project" goes on to identify three
cornerstone concepts…
Amid the grim landscape, there nonetheless remain apertures for the Russia Project's intervention.
Exploiting all available opportunities, we will undertake the following three concepts, which
we deem vital in the current climate:
1) We will mitigate the negative impact of new laws via domestic and international advocacy.
Key allies in this regard are the growing numbers of diverse Russian citizens opposing the country's
regression, along with the sizeable community of Russian legal experts with an in-depth knowledge
of NGO law and a strong motivation to help the sector continue its activities.
2) We will integrate Russian voices into the global exchange of ideas. Given that Russian intellectuals,
practitioners and activists are increasingly sidelined domestically, and academics are often isolated
from the international community, we will support venues for inserting diverse, critical Russian
thinking into the global discourse. Such opportunities allow Russian actors to enter into mutually
beneficial collaborations on topics ranging from migration to digital activism, thus maintaining
their relevance and reducing their provincialization.
3) We aim to mainstream the rights and dignity of one of Russia's most marginalized populations:
LGBT individuals. The RP's diverse network of partners provides an opportunity to build a broader
base of civil society allies at a time when the LGBT community is under profound threat. We hope
to see a more balanced discourse on LGBT rights among the Russian public, as well as a strong
cohort of mainstream independent organizations actively incorporating LGBT interests into their
work.
Social mobilisation and the funding of alternative media networks, to promote social discourse
and dissatisfaction, are common tactics that Soros NGOs uses to build up towards a revolution.
Along with these initiatives, we remain committed to supporting three primary fields: (a) access
to justice and legal empowerment of marginalized groups, (b) access to independent information
and alternative media, and (c) platforms for critical debate, discussion, and social mobilization.
The RP plans to provide core support to our trusted partners in each of these fields, investing
in their growth and development, and remaining flexible about the funding arrangements necessary
to allow them to continue their essential work. We also seek to strengthen their legitimacy and
financial sustainability, in order to build a more transparent, effective, and organizationally
efficient third sector.
Russia is currently in a gradual, arbitrary, and haphazard process of becoming more closed.
Amid this background, the RP's cardinal role is to create a dense and wide-ranging field of independent
civil society actors, who can in the best case help set the agenda for a more open and democratic
future in Russia, and in the worst case survive the effects of new draconian legislation.
Engaging with Russian diaspora who oppose the current government, and mobilising the LGBT community
through mass media propaganda, are recurrent themes in the Soros document.
The media focus on LGBT rights in the run up to the Sochi winter Olympics was an opportunity not
to be missed by Soros.
In the short to mid-term, the RP aims to engender broader civil society support for this highly
marginalized group. Even though the "propaganda of homosexuality" law has gained unprecedented
international attention in the lead-up to the Winter Olympics in Sochi, the voices of Russian
activists are barely being heard over larger international LGBT organizations. We want to make
sure that our Russian partners have a leading role in shaping the strategy of the international
movement, that planned campaigns have a domestic rather than just an international focus, and
that the momentum gathering around Sochi does not dissipate immediately after the Olympics end.
Our comparative advantage lies in the deep and wide networks that we have fostered these past
years. A strategic use of these networks will maximize the long-term impact of the work that LGBT
rights organizations are doing. LGBT rights groups in Russia are professional and effective, yet
they lack the capacity to reach far beyond their immediate communities and galvanize other civil
society players necessary for their long-term success.
Destabilisation of a country the size of Russia does not come without a significant price tag,
for which George Soros seems more than ready to pony up…
Given the large number of grants in the RP portfolio, we see a need for additional staffing
in order to implement our strategic priorities and effectively monitor our activities. However,
as a number of programs in the Eurasia region are being restructured, we are awaiting the results
of this transition before making any substantive recommendations.
Their can be no doubt that the 2014-2017 plan outlined by Soros NGOs, which even envisioned staff
growth and Eurasian region restructuring, has hit a major speed bump with the 2015 law that saw these
divisive forces operating within Russian finally get booted out of the country.
They have a warrant out for his arrest if he ever steps foot in Russia (highly unlikely). If I
remember correctly another country does also.
MR. Soros needs to get wacked by someone as he is directly responsible for thousands of deaths
in Ukraine alone and I won't even mention the Nazi informer days.
"... This needs more play. I am a blue-collar refugee, and most of my circle are same. They all seem to be captive to the messaging of the business press, and Trump, that we have lost some "competition" with China, India, etc. for the manufacturing business. The corporations and their minions in gov. are guilty of the real "un-patriotic" acts. ..."
"... The entire logic of how great globalization is is flawed at its heart. A. We have a much higher standard of living than other countries; so B. Let's "level the playing field" with those other countries. So A + B = a reversion of our country's standard of living to the global mean. ..."
"... Cue globalists who insist the citizens benefit anyway because they get to buy cheap stuff…now that they're unemployed. Oops ..."
"…the administration is absolutely right that America needs tools to counter China's growing
influence in Asia and around the world…"
So US industry with tacit blessing of US industrial policy spends 2 decades transferring our
manufacturing capabilities to a communist state…so…now we need "tools" to cage the dragon we created?
Not saying I would ever vote for Trump but this circular bullshit boggles the mind and sends me
screaming into the night.
This needs more play. I am a blue-collar refugee, and most of my circle are same. They
all seem to be captive to the messaging of the business press, and Trump, that we have lost some
"competition" with China, India, etc. for the manufacturing business. The corporations and their
minions in gov. are guilty of the real "un-patriotic" acts.
I don't know that "communist" really is a qualifier, though. If an ostensibly "commie" country
is "winning" at capitalism, what does that say about capitalism as a belief system? If a person
thinks that a free market sorts all these issues, they would have to be willing to just not buy
the goods produced in the cheap labor/dirty environment country, in order to make "losers" out
of them…how feasible is this?
The entire logic of how great globalization is is flawed at its heart.
A. We have a much higher standard of living than other countries; so
B. Let's "level the playing field" with those other countries.
So A + B = a reversion of our country's standard of living to the global mean.
Quick question: who thinks that is a good idea (pick one):
1. The owners of the means of production since they get to dramatically lower their costs;
or
2. The citizens of the country.
(Cue globalists who insist the citizens benefit anyway because they get to buy cheap stuff…now
that they're unemployed. Oops.)
From the Financial Times article 8/14/16, "during the first decade of this century" Trump worked
with Bayrock. That was a shift away from his Real Estate business, the last? being his Trump Soho
that failed. The point being that he hasn't been active in real estate for nearly a decade and
his 'Trump labeling" may be enhancing his wealth, but it certainly isn't a sign of good business
acumen.
He is relying on people forgetting when he got out of the business that made him wealthy. Relying
on him, IMO is risky business.
We need China more than they need us? Why? For what purpose? We are the customer. They are
a provider of labor. We have unutilized labor here. ???
I really am curious as to why you said that.
"China National Chemical Corp. received approval from U.S. national security officials for
its takeover of Swiss agrochemical and seeds company Syngenta AG, seen as the biggest regulatory
hurdle that the $43 billion acquisition faces.
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. has cleared the transaction, the companies
said in a statement Monday. The deal, expected to be completed by the end of the year, is still
subject to antitrust review by regulators worldwide, according to the statement."
"... If anything, America is too often at the end of those chains, as the global consumer of last resort. It's not investing in domestic, let alone global, infrastructure. It is the world's largest debtor, and its role in the world economy is primarily to borrow and consume… ..."
"... CWA staffer and Sanders advisor Larry Cohen: "It was May of 2015. I'd been criticizing TPP at the time and they said, "He'd like to talk to you." What [Obama] told me was: 'I am too far down the road to change.' He repeated it over and over" [ Mother Jones ]. Terrific interview, well worth reading in full. ..."
"[T]he Obama administration has been careful not to let the Transatlantic
Trade and Investment Partnership fall by the wayside. Instead, an enormous
amount of work - including regular, bi-weekly communication between U.S.
Trade Representative Michael Froman and EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia
Malmström - has been ongoing" [Politico].
"While the administration is optimistic about its own ability to work hard
as a creative negotiating partner, it remains an open question as to whether
the Europeans are ready to go, the official said." Ouch!
"Why the TPP Deal Won't Improve Our Security" [Clyde Prestowitz,
New York Times]. "If anything, America is too often at the end of
those chains, as the global consumer of last resort. It's not investing in
domestic, let alone global, infrastructure. It is the world's largest
debtor, and its role in the world economy is primarily to borrow and
consume…. the administration is absolutely right that America needs
tools to counter China's growing influence in Asia and around the world. But
until America can come close to matching China's dynamism, it has no hope of
countering its economic and geopolitical influence with old-fashioned trade
agreements, no matter how monumental they are said to be."
CWA staffer and Sanders advisor Larry Cohen: "It was May of 2015. I'd
been criticizing TPP at the time and they said, "He'd like to talk to you."
What [Obama] told me was: 'I am too far down the road to change.' He
repeated it over and over" [Mother
Jones]. Terrific interview, well worth reading in full.
"When Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton announced her opposition to
TPP last fall, Mr. Obama was furious. He believed she was making a
political, not substantive, decision that was designed to diminish an
advantage her then-primary opponent Bernie Sanders, who opposed the trade
deal, had with Democratic voters" [Wall
Street Journal]. No. With Obama, it's about nobody ever making him look
bad. Clinton's "political" "decision" was to issue a statement filled with
lawyerly parsing designed to allow her to do the deed if Obama can't.
Already, however, the whole enterprise is in turmoil, thanks to the resignations of several of its
top staff members even before it was off the ground, who were angered by the decision of Senator
Sanders and his wife, Jane Sanders, to appoint his former campaign manager, John Weaver, as its top
officer over their very clearly expressed objections.
Among those heading to the exits was Claire
Sandberg, who was the digital organising director of the campaign and the organising director of
Our Revolution. Her entire department of four people quit, in fact.
She and the others who joined the revolt, including Kenneth Pennington, who was to be the digital
director of Our Revolution, were opposed to Mr Weaver's involvement both for reasons of personality
clashes and because they felt he mismanaged the Senator's campaign in part by spending too much money
on television advertising and failing to harness grassroots support.
They also contended that Mr Weaver would only exacerbate an additional concern they had with the
new entity namely that it has been set up as a so-called 501(c)(4) organisation, which, because of
its charitable status, is in theory not allowed to work directly with the election of political candidates
and is able to receive large sums from anonymous donors.
A large part of the premise of Mr Sanders's campaign for president had been precisely to wean
political campaigns from the flood of dark money that flows into them. That the Our Revolution entity
has been set up precisely to take such money looked to them like a betrayal.
According to several reports a majority of the staff appointed to run the new outfit resigned
as soon as the appointment of Mr Weaver was confirmed on Monday
"... And, pardon me for being a tinfoil-hatted conspiracy theorist, I wonder if this was the dirt that the Clinton campaign was planning to use against Bernie before he endorsed you-know-who on July 12. ..."
"... President Sanders was not to last long at BC and she left for still unknown circumstances soon after the purchase of the property. ..."
"... The next Presidents, Cjristine Plunkett, Mike Smith and Carol Moore then sold off large portions of the property to real estate developers and then, when the ship finally sank under increasingly hopeless and clueless leadership, all of whom could not increase enrollment or or raise any funds (in fact we were eventually told that the school had given up fund raising), Burlington College went into a relentless downward spiral which tragically and painfully closed its doors in May, 20016. ..."
"... It may ultimately have been the straw that broke the camel's back, and it looks terrible that Jane Sanders was at the helm and instrumental in making the decision, but it also sounds like it was a bold effort – that the Board of Directors signed off on – to change the school's fortunes, and one that unfortunately could not overcome years of struggle and financial instability. ..."
My comments on this link: Jane Sanders used to be president of Burlington
College.
And, pardon me for being a tinfoil-hatted conspiracy theorist, I wonder if this was the dirt
that the Clinton campaign was planning to use against Bernie before he endorsed you-know-who on
July 12.
But if she left five years ago, it is difficult to see how she could be blamed for this specific
problem. Whatever her role in the financial problems may have been (and I admit I don't understand
that well), her successors were responsible for what was done subsequently, and if they knew they
might have to close down should have taken steps to protect student records and ensure their future
accessibility.
This was a comment left on that article by someone named Sandy Baird:
Thank you for this reporting. The demise of Burlington College was not caused by Jane Sanders.
The Board of trustees and the then President Jane Sanders bought the property from the Catholic
diocese. President Sanders was an ambitious President and sought to increase the enrollment
by creating substantial, innovative and effective programs, which included the Burlington College/Cuba
Semester abroad and by increasing the profile of the school in the community and state. Jane's
plan always was to create a thriving campus for a growing student body and for a unique college
which had as its mission the "building of sustainable, just, humane and beautiful communities."
However, President Sanders was not to last long at BC and she left for still unknown circumstances
soon after the purchase of the property.
The next Presidents, Cjristine Plunkett, Mike Smith and Carol Moore then sold off large
portions of the property to real estate developers and then, when the ship finally sank under
increasingly hopeless and clueless leadership, all of whom could not increase enrollment or
or raise any funds (in fact we were eventually told that the school had given up fund raising),
Burlington College went into a relentless downward spiral which tragically and painfully closed
its doors in May, 20016.
The school, the property and the beach will now be picked up by the
developer, Eric Farrell and the beach goes to the City. In a final irony, Eric Farrell was
awarded an honorary doctorate degree at the final graduation of the school in May when its founder, Stu Lacase gave the graduation address.
Burlington College was always a fragile concern. Its website notes that in the early days,
it "had no financial backing, paid its bills when they came due, and paid its President when
it could." Jane Sanders's plan to place a big bet on expansion in order to put the school on
a more solid long-term footing was similar to decisions made by other college presidents, and
sometimes those bets simply don't work out.
On the last quote, that's how I read it. Owning real estate on the Lake Champlain waterfront
is not, ipso facto , a crazy thing to do. It sounds like the college just couldn't outrun
trouble. I still don't think it's a good look, though.
It may ultimately have been the straw that broke the camel's back, and it looks terrible that
Jane Sanders was at the helm and instrumental in making the decision, but it also sounds like
it was a bold effort – that the Board of Directors signed off on – to change the school's fortunes,
and one that unfortunately could not overcome years of struggle and financial instability.
The college should have provided the transcripts before it locked the doors, but it looks to
me like they wouldn't have been able to do it even then without the state's financial assistance.
If Jane had only known, she could have gotten the Board to approve a donation to the Clinton
Foundation, right?
Looks terrible? Seriously? I'm sorry, but I can't raise my pulse at all because someone took
a rational chance her successors were unable to carry through successfully.
As for providing the transcripts before locking the doors, that would have been problematic,
as so many places want original transcripts from the institution and won't accept something that
has come through the hands of the student. Those alumni are going to be dogged by that as long
as they need transcripts unless the state or somebody funds permanent access.
Amen, did anyone hear the screaming about this same scenario when small college had Ben Sasse
as President of College? He left, others followed and undid some of his actions and eventually
the small college suffered.
Apparently it is fine for some people to have these behaviors overlooked and not so for others.
I believe there is a word for that – hmmm, I'm sure it will come to me eventually.
I hate when people simplify a complex problem. Carbon fuels depletion might take care of CO2 emissions sooner that we think.
May be around 2050.
Also it is not clear what role CO2 emissions play globally in such a short time frame. 100 years is way too short period for
the trend to be established.
The crux of the so called climate crisis is supposedly human generated carbon dioxide, but not enough attention is paid to
the fact not debated that the amount of such human C02 is so minuscule as to be nearly undetectable. Do the math. Water vapour
is the main component of greenhouse gases at 95% leaving only < 4% for C02. Therefore water vapour is 25 times more prevalent
and three times more effective making it 75 times more important. The total contribution of C02 to the greenhouse effect is 0.013.
Further greenhouse gases combined cover only a small percentage of the atmosphere globally. This means that C02 of 400 pp per
million is surely almost imperceptible - 0.00013. This truly is just a trace amount very difficult to even imagine how it could
be so important as a heat covering gas. Water and C02 have the same specific gravity around 17 and in most cases clouds make the
climate cooler not warmer from shutting out the suns radiation. These facts make many scientists dubious about the apoplectic
global warming theory of the UN IPCC. "The amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere has varied a great deal over time.
Sometimes it has been lower than now and sometimes it has been much higher than now. It is also true that it has been both a lot
hotter and lot colder at various time in the past. There is no evidence that CO2 has caused the temperature to change in the
past. All studies of temperature and CO2 levels in the past show that it is the temperature changing which changes the CO2
level and not the other way round- ..Because most of the energy which CO2 can absorb was already being absBorbed before the CO2
level was increased any extra CO2 can only absorb a small extra bit of energy. Even if the atmosphere were heavily laden with
carbon dioxide, it would still only cause an incremental increase in the amount of infrared absorption over current levels and
temperatures would only go up incrementally. Doubling carbon dioxide would not double the amount of global warming...thinking
of adding blankets to your bed on a cold night: if you have no blankets, adding one will have a big effect. If you have a thousand
blankets, adding another thousand will have an unmeasurably small effect.
"... The politicians are battling it out for mindshare in both the electorate and the donor class for related but different reasons. ..."
"... The electorate is not so committed to serving the masters of capitalism, big finance and large corporations and the ownership class as their petty oligarchs are, but that is why campaign finance needs a makeover. ..."
"... In both cases though brainwashing starts at an early age. It just does not pay well enough for the general electorate to be as rigid in their thinking as it does for politicians to be rigid in their blinking. That is why media coverage of public affairs needs a makeover. ..."
The politicians and their electoral constituents are separate matters although there must obviously
be a stratum within which political allegiance can be triangulated. The politicians are battling
it out for mindshare in both the electorate and the donor class for related but different reasons.
The electorate is not so committed to serving the masters of capitalism, big finance and large
corporations and the ownership class as their petty oligarchs are, but that is why campaign finance
needs a makeover.
In both cases though brainwashing starts at an early age. It just does not pay well enough
for the general electorate to be as rigid in their thinking as it does for politicians to be rigid
in their blinking. That is why media coverage of public affairs needs a makeover.
"... The USA has no business at all in Syria, was not invited in, and if it is allowed to get its way in this it will progressively control more and more Syrian territory until it succeeds in its objective of unseating and replacing Assad. Once more, it has no right to be there, and I'm sure Russia will pursue that angle at the seat of international law. ..."
"... The USA also has no right to impose no-fly zones arbitrarily on its own recognition in another sovereign nation. That's a UN decision, and they will never get that through the Security Council. If they try the R2P approach, who are they exercising their right to protect? ISIL? ..."
"... The problem is that once the US sets a military foothold in Syria there is nothing – outside of using military power – that Russia can do to oust the US from Syria. The international law does not apply to the US because it can break the international law without sanctions being used against it. If there is no punishment there is no incentive for adhering the law either. ..."
"... American Special Forces have already been caught wearing parts of Kurdish uniforms and badges ..."
"... On second reading, it's beginning to sound more like American bluster to me. The press tried to pin him down to no-fly zones or not, and he didn't want to back down but he didn't want to go quite that far so he said "Call it what you want". The USA has no authority to unilaterally impose no-fly zones in a sovereign country. It has to go through the UN, and Russia and China will veto it. The USA is not in Syria with the Syrian government's permission, and it has had what must be called very questionable success so far with 'fighting ISIS'. If it wants to 'protect its forces', it can leave, and the Syrian government will not miss it a bit. ..."
This is all about securing that pipeline route that the West hopes that it can some day build
from Qatar through Syria to Turkey. The US now claims that part of Syrian territory is their own
and it will be used to build that pipeline.
There is one accurate statement in there. The last one in the article. It's endgame time.
The USA has no business at all in Syria, was not invited in, and if it is allowed to get
its way in this it will progressively control more and more Syrian territory until it succeeds
in its objective of unseating and replacing Assad. Once more, it has no right to be there, and
I'm sure Russia will pursue that angle at the seat of international law.
But at the same time, Russia is legally in Syria, and I am sure it is not going to allow the
USA to tell it where it can and cannot fly in Syria. If the USA is really ready to go to war in
Syria, it is going to get it. And I don't think I have to point out to you the kind of logistic
nightmare it would be, especially if it can no longer count on Turkey. And I find it hard to believe
Erdogan will come on board with the USA carving out a Kurdish homeland right next door. Washington
is getting desperate, and that's making it act crazy. Let's see what China says about it.
The USA also has no right to impose no-fly zones arbitrarily on its own recognition in
another sovereign nation. That's a UN decision, and they will never get that through the Security
Council. If they try the R2P approach, who are they exercising their right to protect? ISIL?
What's the USA got in Syria for anti-air systems? Russia has the S-400, and can cover most
of Syria without even putting one of its own planes in the air.
The problem is that once the US sets a military foothold in Syria there is nothing – outside
of using military power – that Russia can do to oust the US from Syria. The international law
does not apply to the US because it can break the international law without sanctions being used
against it. If there is no punishment there is no incentive for adhering the law either.
Well, I guess we'll just have to see how it shakes out, won't we? I can tell you that if Syrian
forces come knocking to drive out ISIS from other towns after Aleppo falls, and the USAF says
it is going to stop them because its forces are mixed with ISIS in the town (remember, American
Special Forces have already been caught wearing parts of Kurdish uniforms and badges) it
is going to cut no ice with the Syrians – it's their country.
On second reading, it's beginning to sound more like American bluster to me. The press
tried to pin him down to no-fly zones or not, and he didn't want to back down but he didn't want
to go quite that far so he said "Call it what you want". The USA has no authority to unilaterally
impose no-fly zones in a sovereign country. It has to go through the UN, and Russia and China
will veto it. The USA is not in Syria with the Syrian government's permission, and it has had
what must be called very questionable success so far with 'fighting ISIS'. If it wants to 'protect
its forces', it can leave, and the Syrian government will not miss it a bit.
"... That said, what I believe is needed in the USA is a doubling down on Corporate Boards of Directors and CEOs to create a crisis, an American intervention, if you will, that demands companies bring back the idea that Profits alone are not all that matters. Serving the Nation you are born in, raised in, educated in, and then making a profitable income from certainly needs to be focused in on. ..."
"... An additional factor in the financial woes of the falling middle class is the changing demographics here in the US - the growing numbers of single mothers, who are far more likely to struggle financially than a two income household. I make no judgment regarding how people form their family units, but life is especially hard for single mothers. ..."
"... Its even more difficult for journalists in Guardian. They have to destroy chances of only candidate addressing inequality and climate change (Bernie), completely surrender their integrity to corporations, lament over those issues post factum, and yet be paid miserably only in hundreds of thousands for such colossal betrayal of humanity. Its worth at billions to actively participate in destroying future of your kids. Or is it? ..."
"... We need a new Federal Minimum Wage, and the wealthiest need to start paying up. Trump claims that business in the US pay the highest tax rate. That's just not true. I'm not talking about putting the burden on small business, but the multi-nationals and Wall Street. ..."
"... And we can blame Billary and Hussein for it. Their "free-trade" decisions, along with their shameful endorsement of open-borders, have lowered wages for everyone, except for financiers. Interestingly, it was those who've suffered the brunt of the elites' decisions who voted for Britain to leave the EU. Ironically, those who professed to stand for the middle and lower classes, revealed their hypocrisy when they joined the Mandarins in opposing for Britain to leave the totalitarian EU. ..."
"... Like the Trojans fearing present-giving presents, so should the working man loath the elites who promised to have their best interests at heart. That is the same promise communism gave the workers, only to turn on and enslave them. Today the workers don't stand a chance: the Marxists and bankers are on the same side sneering at the working classes who are demeaned as being racist, jingoistic xenophobes. ..."
"... An article in Forbes that explains why Obamacare is a scam. ObamaCare Enriches Only The Health Insurance Giants and Their Shareholders ..."
"... I agree with you that he never did. Obama is a corporatist and globalist. If you think Obamacare is bad wait until his trade deals are past. He sold Americans out for the profits of multinational corporations. Hillary will continue his work. I understand the true meaning of his words now. ..."
"... The US middle class has been disintegrating for decades as inequity grows ..."
"... Clinton is in hiding. I can't find her in the Guardian today. She is a habitual liar and the whole world has all the evidence it needs. All of her promises are bullshit. Bernie has been right the whole time and he is smart not to endorse. Bernie has always known what she is and Bernie's supporters have no reason to support her. ..."
"... It means she is corrupt, dishonest, and unqualified to be anything but an inmate. ..."
"... the middle class has been decimated.. This financial category is only about 35% of was it was in the early 70's.. additionally the definition of middle class has changed drastically as well.. believe it or not your middle class if your earn more than 50k a year!.. this is part of the reason we are as a nation borrowing a trillion dollars a year.. when will the silenced majority wake up and start voting and stop spending on products that are vastly over priced. ..."
"... My kid had a persistent tummy ache. Doc said intestinal blockage; take him to the ER immediately. Seven hours and one inconclusive CAT scan later, he's home again with symptoms unchanged. Two days later the pain went away. Cost: $12,000 with about $10,000 covered by union health insurance. So that's at least $2,000 out of pocket to me for seven hours in hospital, zero diagnosis and zero relief from symptoms. Medicine as a criminal enterprise? So what? Who's gonna stop it? The press? The law? ..."
"... I sympathize. I also agree with you. The US medical system is criminal. It is cruel, discriminatory, ruthless, often ineffective, and often incompetent. The only reason the administrators ("health" maintenance corporations) aren't in jail is because they use some of their obscene profits to buy Congress -- which passes laws like Obama's ACA or Bush's big Pharma swindle. I have no idea what to do about it though -- maybe if everyone refused to pay their premiums and medical bills, the money managers would notice. A sort of strike. ..."
"... SIngle-payer is the answer. Of course, the insurance companies and big pharma use scare tactics to stop that from happening. They talk about government waste, completely ignoring their own waste. They ignore the billions of dollars that they skim off of the top each year before applying any money for actual medical care. Wake up, people. Medical care should be run by the government or non-profit organizations, not by for-profit corporations. ..."
"... Despite the financial situation in middle-and lower income families that has been steadily declining under the past 8 years of the Obama administration, most in that group will support Hillary and propagate the Same problems for 4 more years. They stand no hope unless they break from the knee-jerk support of the "Democratic" Party. ..."
"... So they should support Donald Trump and the conservative party? Last time I checked raising taxes on the middle class while lowering taxes on the rich didn't really help anyone but the rich. The Republican party never gave two shits about middle and lower class, and there's no point believing they will start now. ..."
"... Isn't choosing to have three children very selfish if you cannot support them financially. People always find someone else to blame. ..."
"... "Race" card!!?? Where the hell did I mention anything about race or are you really as dumb as your reply suggests. Plus, you don't require a test to decide if you can afford children or not. It basic family planning. It's people like you in society that has the place in a mess with your "blame anyone but meself attitude" If I'm considered horrible, at least I'm not totally dumb and irrisponsible like you. ..."
"... Bill Maher recently (July 1, 2016; Overtime) editorialized about the state "laboratories" where new ideas are tested and evaluated. Maher compared the divergent fates of California and Kansas plus Louisiana. ..."
"... It's interesting. According to my household income I'm in the "upper" tier for the DC-metro region. But it really doesn't feel that way. Even those of us who make a good income are more and more stretched. In comparison to most of the country, I am well off. I own a car, just bought a house, I can afford to go out to eat a couple times a week. But, I even get to the end of the month with only $100 in the bank. That's because other downward pressures on pay aren't taken into account, such as student debt. My expensive undergraduate and graduate education didn't come cheap, and while that education affords people higher pay, if you end up taking less of it home. It kinda equals out. ..."
"... Sometimes my husband and I think about having kids, and then we realise that even with our good paying jobs, we can't afford day care in our area. I get paid the most, so I can't quit my job but if my husband quit to care for a child, we would really be strapped. Can I really be considered an upper tier household if I can't afford to have kids? If I can't afford to go on vacation once a year? If I haven't bought new clothes in two years? If I have no savings and a freak medical bill might just tip me over the edge? ..."
"... Suggest you give Andrew Tobias' book a read to think outside the box a good education often constructs for us: https://www.amazon.com/Only-Investment-Guide-Youll-Ever/dp/0544781937?ie=UTF8&ref_=asap_bc ..."
"... You can cut student debt in the U.S. by attending a good community college for two years and then transferring to a state university. Most kids are unwilling to do this--no frats or prestige in community colleges! ..."
"... Beginning in the 1970s, a majority of the middle class began to resent the taxation needed to continue support for these liberal policies, and they began to vote for conservative politicians who promised to remove them as they "only helped the undeserving poor." White racism played a role in this as the lower class was invariably portrayed in political speeches and advertising as group of lazy black people. ..."
"... No, it was created in response to the Bolshevik revolution, in particular, to that genius who said "Let's just shoot the royal family and be done with this." ..."
"... All of these things have come under attack since the USSR fell apart, probably on that exact day. And who overthrew the USSR? Overeducated middle class, not the poor or the rich. Who was Occupy Wall Street, Arab Spring... the recent protests against the French labor law tightenings, ALL the middle class. ..."
"... The greatest threat to governments has, and always will be, from within. And this threat is from the middle class, almost exclusively. Therefore, we are to be crushed and controlled tightly ..."
"... funny how this media outlet didn't publish these types of reports while the primary was hot. It was all "Hilary is inevitable and supporting Bernie is supporting Trump" type garbage. ..."
"... Probably he means to say Americans habitually ask new acquaintances, "What do you do for a living?" That's absolutely a query about income and personal worth, though slightly disguised, and it's a question I have never widely encountered anywhere else in the world, nor while living overseas the last ten years. ..."
"... This article is extremely dishonest. First, it claims that she has 'three other jobs'. Second, she has children, for whom she presumably gets child support. So what's her *real* income? ..."
"... When those in poverty or on the verge of it are single mothers, you tend to wonder if there are some other issues as well. I don't recall a time in American history where a single mother of several children could take care of herself when completely on her own. ..."
"... I teach in inner city schools. There are so many problems, money is one of them but all the money won't solve the problem of poor learning attitudes, disaffection, poor discipline and nonexistent work ethic . ..."
"... A lot of the students get no discipline at home and their parents don't expect them to learn anything. They are resistant to the whole process of focus on new knowledge , absorb, drill, recall , deploy newly learned thing. ..."
"... I don't know what solution there is to this. My nieces and nephews did well in school, studied hard, and went on to university. They didn't do drugs, rape or be raped, and stayed away from unsavory kids. BUT--they went home to two parents every night, a father and mother, which I think would have made them successful at school no matter what their income. ..."
"... The US economy isn't competitive anymore. It started with the labor cost being too high, so factories moved out. Then the entire supply chain moved out. Now the main consumer market is also moving out. Once that is gone, we will have no more leverage. ..."
"... The US education is good, but students are lazy, undisciplined, and incurious. In silicon valley, more than 75% of highly paid technical personnel are foreign born. Corporations making money with foreign workers here and abroad, on foreign markets. Taking these away and you will see the economy crash. ..."
"... Labor costs were too high. Have some more kool-aid. The elite didn't want labor to have any bargaining power whatsoever . They wanted to dictate the terms to labor believing that they were the only ones who should have any say in matters. The elite wanted to maximize their profits at the expense of their own citizens. They wanted slave labor . They wanted powerless people to dance to their tune. How could an advanced nation's labor possibly compete with slave labor . ..."
"... Sadly ..... thee isn't any hope for these people in the foreseeable future . Their economic decline has been happening for quite some time now and shows no sign of abating whatsoever . The economic foundations of their lives have been steadily pulled out from under them by the financial elite and their subservient political cultures , the Republican and Democratic Parties . The Republicans have never really given a damn about them and the Democrats have long abandoned them . These poor people of North Carolina are adrift on a sinking raft on easy ocean of indifference by the political cultures of America . To those in power , they don't exist . They don't count . They don't matter . ..."
"... The trend in the U.S, along with almost every other major nation in the world over the past 35 years has been to exclusively serve the interests of the financial elite and only their needs . All sense of fairness , justice and decency have been totally discarded . ..."
"... Tax breaks after tax breaks , tax shelters , free movement of capital , etc., etc. would sum up the experience of the financial elite over the past 35 years . They have become incredibly wealthy now and are still not satisfied . They want more . They want it all . They want what little you have and their political servants which help them get . ..."
"... Political discourse pertaining to the plight of those like these folks in North Carolina is all window dressing . In the end , you can be certain that it will amount to nothing . Just like it has for decades now . The financial elite are in control and they are not going to give any of that control up . As a matter of fact , they are going to tighten their grip . They will invent crisis to have their agendas imposed upon an increasingly powerless and bewildered public . They will take advantage of every naturally occurring crisis to advance their agenda . ..."
"... The problem is the job exporting American elite class. NAFTA was an economics, political, and social experiment with all the downside on the former, mostly lower middle class. Non-aligned examination of the available data shows how disastrous NAFTA has been to America's bubbas. Thanks to Bush 41 and Bill Clinton. WTO was all Bill. Of the mistakes Obama has made TPP would be the worst. The question is, really, do we favor global fairness (an even playing field for all earth's peoples) and a climate-killing consumerist world, or our own disadvantaged (courtesy of our financial and political elite) citizens. Not an easy choice. Death by poison or hanging. No treaty can benegotiated fairly in secret. ..."
"... The tragic irony is that the anger against rule by the 1% manifests in things like support for Trump, a typical example of the greed and excess of the 1%. Americans need to question outside their desperately constrained paradigms more. It will help focus their anger more strategically, and possibly lead to solutions. Don't hold your breath, the inequality gap is accelerating the wrong way. ..."
"... I think the US is heDing for trouble. It is the middle class that maintains civil society and gives a sense of hope. This is an interesting open letter by a zillionaire to his peers warning them what happens without a string middle class. A thought provoking read. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014 ..."
"... The elite of the USA have done exactly what the Romans did and what the Pre-Revolutionary French did.... drain the lower classes while enriching themselves. "Taxes are for little people" is not just a pithy quote, it has become the reality as the elite rig the system so they benefit and the lower classes pay. They need to wake up or they will get exactly what the Romans Got (collapsed empire) or the French got (Violent Revolution). Wake up America! It is time to choose your side in the class war the elite continue to execute while telling us there is no "Class War" - you can't pull yourself up by your boot straps while they are pulling the rug out from under you! ..."
"... My wife used to employ recent graduates from Georgetown University with poli. sci., psychology, sociology degrees, to stack books for $10/hr. It took them on average 2-3 years, before finding work in their field. ..."
"... Education is NOT about finding a job! It's about learning ways to seek wisdom and rationality, and to assimilate (not deny) new knowledge throughout your life--and that's exactly what's lacking in the US! Our schools are factories to turn out standard robots to be used by the owners of this country, whether they practice law or flip burgers. ..."
I was stumped by the very idea that someone has the $money, the time, the energy to
go out and study for 3 bachelor degrees. This woman doesn't look old enough to have had time to get
3 degrees.
That said, what I believe is needed in the USA is a doubling down on Corporate Boards
of Directors and CEOs to create a crisis, an American intervention, if you will, that demands companies
bring back the idea that Profits alone are not all that matters. Serving the Nation you are born
in, raised in, educated in, and then making a profitable income from certainly needs to be focused
in on.
Why on earth isn't Main Stream Media doing this, along with all of CONGRESS and the President?
What is their excuse? Even if you brought back all the robotic jobs to US soil, you would also end
up bringing a large number of administrative jobs back here, too, just to keep up with the business
at hand. It is critical that we rebuild our infrastructure, yet we see NO immediate or Long-term
plans to do so. How can we, without the support of the Business Class to support the whole nation
through Paying their Taxes to the US Tax System? There is no excuse that will do, in my book. Profits
to the top tier need to be STOPPED so long as businesses are going outside of the United States Borders.
Period.
Typical of what's happening around the world. The trillions of dollars lurking in tax havens is
the reason why economies are stagnating. Money makes the world go round, however detouring to
the Cayman Islands, the flow stops and the poverty begins. Spend locally and reject multi national
corporations. Give your local communities a chance to prosper,
An additional factor in the financial woes of the falling middle class is the changing demographics
here in the US - the growing numbers of single mothers, who are far more likely to struggle financially
than a two income household. I make no judgment regarding how people form their family units,
but life is especially hard for single mothers.
"The 2016 presidential race has superficially been dominated by talk of this declining middle.
First from Bernie Sanders, then Hillary Clinton and even Donald Trump's promise to Make America
Great Again"
"And even"??? What a laugh. Even if you hate Trump its clear The Guardian has written every
article possible to prevent his rise and they have failed miserably. Hillary amd Sanders are dominating
conversatiin. Trump is by far.
One thing us for sure. 15 million illegals and thousands more every month is not making the
middle class more secure.
They are shrinking, and you expect them to tolerate "Make America Mexico Again"? In these times?
Donor money is ruining the country. They hate Trump because he doesnt need these arrogant donors
who have never heard "no" their whole lives.
Its even more difficult for journalists in Guardian. They have to destroy chances of only candidate
addressing inequality and climate change (Bernie), completely surrender their integrity to corporations,
lament over those issues post factum, and yet be paid miserably only in hundreds of thousands
for such colossal betrayal of humanity. Its worth at billions to actively participate in destroying
future of your kids. Or is it?
It isn't immigration that costing jobs - it's employers who know they can pay these people
less for their work. We need a new Federal Minimum Wage, and the wealthiest need to start
paying up. Trump claims that business in the US pay the highest tax rate. That's just not
true. I'm not talking about putting the burden on small business, but the multi-nationals and
Wall Street.
You can see in western Europe at the moment that a minimum wage desn't work without a whole host
of other protective legislation. A minimum wage doesn't reach to the self employed, and it doesn't
prevent the use of flexible or non-guaranteed hours contracts making use of a larger than is required
labour pool. Not to mention the black market / cash in hand trade.
And we can blame Billary and Hussein for it.
Their "free-trade" decisions, along with their shameful endorsement of open-borders, have lowered
wages for everyone, except for financiers.
Interestingly, it was those who've suffered the brunt of the elites' decisions who voted for Britain
to leave the EU.
Ironically, those who professed to stand for the middle and lower classes, revealed their hypocrisy
when they joined the Mandarins in opposing for Britain to leave the totalitarian EU.
Like the Trojans fearing present-giving presents, so should the working man loath the elites
who promised to have their best interests at heart.
That is the same promise communism gave the workers, only to turn on and enslave them.
Today the workers don't stand a chance: the Marxists and bankers are on the same side sneering
at the working classes who are demeaned as being racist, jingoistic xenophobes.
You realize most of the votes in favor of NAFTA were Republican and most against were Democratic,
right? You know that "free trade" has been an item in the Republican platform (and increasingly
the Democratic one) for years before Clinton and Obama were ever in office, right? Know some elementary
facts about U.S, politics before posting nonsense.
Ed Thurmann: it's not teacher-bashing, it's just the old recycled "black family values" spiel
that was introduced into the poverty debate in the '60s by Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Moynihan,
not so BTW, is Hillary Clinton's intellectual hero. So you can expect a hell of a lot more of
these cliches after January of next year.
An article in Forbes that explains why Obamacare is a scam. ObamaCare Enriches Only The Health Insurance Giants and Their Shareholders
Robert Lenzner , CONTRIBUTOR
I'm trying to wise up 300 million people about money & finance
So far in 2013 the value of the S& P health insurance index has gained 43%. Thats more than
double the gains made in the broad stock market index, the S & P 500. The shares of CIGNA are
up 63%, Wellpoint 47% and United Healthcare 28%. And if you go back to the early 2010 passage
of ObamaCare, you will find that Obama's sellout of the public interest has allowed the public
companies the ability to raise their premiums, especially on small business, dramatically multiply
their profits and send the value of their common stocks up by 200%-300%. This is bloody scandalous
and should be a cause for concern even as the Republican opponents of the bill threaten the close-down
of the government.
We warned you back on December4, 2009 in my blog " The Horrendous Truth About Health Care Reform"
that the Obama White House was handing a " free ride for the health insurance industry" that would
allow premium hikes of 8%-10% a year by CIGNA, Humana HUM +1.56%, Aetna AET +0.45%, UnitedHealth
Group UNH +0.58% and Wellpoint, and as well a $500 billion taxpayer subsidy, a half trillion dollars
without any requirement that the health insurers had to spend the subsidy on medical care. Several
US Senators including Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia spoke to me openly of the outrageous sellout
being foisted on the nation's uninsured citizens.
At the time I wrote, Goldman Sachs research operation estimated that the 5 giants would increase
profits by 10% a year from 2010 to 2019, sending their shares up an average of 59%. In truth,
the shares of CIGNA and some others are up a multiple of several times since the contest was resolved
by a very tight vote in early 2010. One startling reason for this amazing performance was that
Obama took off the table "proposals to significantly reduce health care costs" as the giveaway
in getting the bill through, according to Ron Susskind's best-selling book ,"Confidence Men,"
which I wrote about in a blog on September 24, 2011. ( "Obama's Incoherent Policy-Making") Some
3 years later, UnitedHealthCare Group(UNH) was rewarded by being added to the elite list of the
Dow 30 industrials.
I understood belatedly that there would have been no Affordable Care Act of 2010 if the White
House had not given into demands from the giant profit-making health insurance companies. Had
he not done so, I am being assured that there would have been no bill passed, a priority goal
that Obama promised in his 2008 Presidential campaign. How the profits have risen so impressively
requires further investigation as the bill is meant to limit the profits earned to 20% of the
revenues.
One of the other downsides to the supposed reform bill was the surprisingly unfair treatment
of small business owners who faced even larger potential premiums for their employees. It has
been the fear of these higher health costs that has resulted in the overwhelming trend toward
hiring part-time employees whom the employers need not offer healthcare insurance.
So much for the reforms embedded in the mis-labeled Affordable Care Act of 2010. It may not
die a bloody demise this month, but it is certain to be reformed itself, let's hope for the benefit
of the 300 million, not just the millions of lucky shareholders who may have understood the ramification
of ObamaCare, which was to multiply the profits of five giant insurance companies, just as the
major bank oligopoly was rewarded by the federal bailouts and Fed monetary policy.
I agree with you that he never did. Obama is a corporatist and globalist. If you think Obamacare
is bad wait until his trade deals are past. He sold Americans out for the profits of multinational
corporations. Hillary will continue his work. I understand the true meaning of his words now.
"We are a nation of immigrants" meaning he prefers cheap illegal labor when 46 million Americans
live in poverty. Soon cheap foriegn will be unlimited and legal in the US with worker mobility.
Even for professional jobs. Can you imagine competing with foreigners in the US who make 30 cents
an hour? It's depressing really. Here are some of the highlights of the TPP that will throw Americans
further into poverty.
My heart goes out to these beleaguered families. In the late 1970s/80s I held down a full-time
job in DC and freelanced feverishly to make ends meet. I lived below the official poverty line
in an expensive, yet thoroughly crappy, flat. That recession-riddled era of energy chaos, leading
into Reagan's 'voodoo' economics regime (the risible idea of 'trickle-down', the US becoming the
world's largest debtor), was another hot mess.
The US middle class has been disintegrating for
decades as inequity grows, thanks in large part to the poor governance of Republican presidents
(Nixon's stagflation, the disastrous shifts under GW Bush).
Clinton is in hiding.
I can't find her in the Guardian today.
She is a habitual liar and the whole world has all the evidence it needs.
All of her promises are bullshit.
Bernie has been right the whole time and he is smart not to endorse.
Bernie has always known what she is and Bernie's supporters have no reason to support her.
Her disapproval ratings will top Trump now.
The voters are now going to show her what the meaning of is, really is.
It means she is corrupt, dishonest, and unqualified to be anything but an inmate.
Her disapproval ratings are high, but not up with Trump's and they never will be. You can vote
for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, in November. Or Gary Johnson, the Libertarian. But
Bernie will not be a candidate, and he will eventually endorse Clinton -- after he is sure he's
won certain concessions in the Democratic platform. That's your reality in July 2016, not in February.
the middle class has been decimated.. This financial category is only about 35% of was it was
in the early 70's.. additionally the definition of middle class has changed drastically as well..
believe it or not your middle class if your earn more than 50k a year!.. this is part of the reason
we are as a nation borrowing a trillion dollars a year.. when will the silenced majority wake
up and start voting and stop spending on products that are vastly over priced..Turn off your phone,
stop buying all but essentials.. we need to force prices down until we complain and start voting
with our dollars little will change
What about the millions of married couples with kids..when the parents lose their jobs? That happens
very frequently. Should we take the kids away? Are you suggesting that poor people not be allowed to have children?
Then we have the religious nutcases that are against contraception and abortion, yet demonize
poor women for having children.
My kid had a persistent tummy ache. Doc said intestinal blockage; take him to the ER immediately.
Seven hours and one inconclusive CAT scan later, he's home again with symptoms unchanged. Two
days later the pain went away. Cost: $12,000 with about $10,000 covered by union health insurance. So that's at least $2,000 out of pocket to me for seven hours in hospital, zero diagnosis and
zero relief from symptoms. Medicine as a criminal enterprise? So what?
Who's gonna stop it? The press? The law?
Medicine as a criminal enterprise? So what?
Who's gonna stop it? The press? The law?
I sympathize. I also agree with you. The US medical system is criminal. It is cruel, discriminatory, ruthless, often ineffective, and often incompetent. The only reason the administrators ("health" maintenance corporations) aren't in jail is because
they use some of their obscene profits to buy Congress -- which passes laws like Obama's ACA or
Bush's big Pharma swindle. I have no idea what to do about it though -- maybe if everyone refused to pay their premiums
and medical bills, the money managers would notice. A sort of strike.
SIngle-payer is the answer. Of course, the insurance companies and big pharma use scare tactics to stop that from happening.
They talk about government waste, completely ignoring their own waste. They ignore the billions
of dollars that they skim off of the top each year before applying any money for actual medical
care. Wake up, people. Medical care should be run by the government or non-profit organizations,
not by for-profit corporations.
Corporations have only one goal...to make as much money as possible for themselves. Health
care is just a necessary nuisance.
Despite the financial situation in middle-and lower income families that has been steadily declining
under the past 8 years of the Obama administration, most in that group will support Hillary and
propagate the Same problems for 4 more years. They stand no hope unless they break from the knee-jerk
support of the "Democratic" Party.
So they should support Donald Trump and the conservative party? Last time I checked raising taxes
on the middle class while lowering taxes on the rich didn't really help anyone but the rich. The
Republican party never gave two shits about middle and lower class, and there's no point believing
they will start now.
This article mentions Latonia Best and her three children.
Is there a Mr Best around? It has always been tough to raise a family on the salary of a single parent.
The breakdown of the American family is a probably the biggest reason for the supposed struggles
of the middle class. People have to take responsibility for their lives.
traditionally, the middle class had the guy going out to work, and his wife staying at home to
look after the kids. Once children are in school and childcare is reduced, I don't see how a
woman working and raising her kids alone, is any more expensive than a man supporting himself,
his wife and their kids.
It used to be possible. It used to be doable. wealth disparity ind income inequality mean that
is no longer the case, at least certainly not for the average middle class. In the UK anyway,
it's now a sign of wealth. This has nothing top do with the family and everything to do with income
disparity.
Ah. I was waiting for some "bubba" to pull the race card. Congratulations.
Maybe we should make everyone take a test to prove that they can afford children. No children for poor people. Nice.
"Race" card!!?? Where the hell did I mention anything about race or are you really as dumb as
your reply suggests.
Plus, you don't require a test to decide if you can afford children or not. It basic family planning.
It's people like you in society that has the place in a mess with your "blame anyone but meself
attitude" If I'm considered horrible, at least I'm not totally dumb and irrisponsible like you.
$3,333.33 is actually not a lot of money to raise a family of four on. Let's do some math, shall
we?!
Taxes: $800 (rough estimate)
Health Insurance: I'm going to estimate $300 because she probably has dependents on her coverage
and that's what I paid one dependent a while back.
Car: I'm going to estimate $150. My car payment is $300, but let's say she got a cheaper, used
car.
Rent: Let's say $1,000/month (I did a quick search and found that this seemed like a good price
for a two bedroom)
Bills: Let's round up to $150/month for gas, electricity, water, sewage
Food: Let's say she spends $80/week, so roughly $320 a month (you know, she's a thrifty shopper)
All of that leaves about $313 left for gas, phone, college tuition, maybe internet and cable
at home. I don't know how she does it.
Worst of all was the town of Goldsboro – one of three metropolitan areas in North Carolina
at the bottom of the national league table.
North Carolina, Michigan, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma ... more ...
Sad stories in states run by Republicans. Toxic rivers, shootings, poisoned tap water, bankruptcy,
daily earthquakes ...
Bill Maher recently (July 1, 2016; Overtime) editorialized about the state "laboratories"
where new ideas are tested and evaluated. Maher compared the divergent fates of California and
Kansas plus Louisiana.
Only five countries produced more last year than California: the U.S., China, Japan, Germany
and the United Kingdom.
So -- North Carolina with fouled rivers, a collapsing middle class, discriminatory laws --
or a thriving California?
Goldsboro remains far from the sort of economic catastrophe seen in parts of the rust belt,
but these are signs of financial stress that are hard to ignore. The strain on the middle class
across much of the country may not have gone unnoticed by politicians, but locals here fear
there is little talk of the investment in skills, high-paying jobs and civic infrastructure
needed to arrest the slide.
Republican shills will have to admit -- finally that Republican policies ruin lives, ruin the
economy and ruin the environment. Truth appears more powerful than slogans and slanders. Who knows?
They might even acknowledge climate change.
I believe it is the wars and needs of the military-industrial-banking complex that sap far too
much from the economy. Both parties are guilty of supporting them.
North Carolina with fouled rivers, a collapsing middle class, discriminatory laws -- or a thriving
California?
Since 2013, North Carolina has the fastest GDP growth of any state. The NC economy is not in bad
shape. This lady lives in one of the poorest areas in the state, she should move 45 minutes north
to thriving Raleigh or Durham - the population in that area is booming, they need teachers.
The dumping of coal ash into the Dan river was a corporate crime, not a policy decision. Neither
party is responsible for criminal actions by individuals or corporations, that's just silly. (The
republicans have been too lax in holding Duke Energy to account but the damage done is not a political
issue)
HB2 is a disgrace but the legislature is in the process of correcting it and the Governor is likely
to lose the election in the fall which bodes well for anti-HB2 people. Don't forget that California
voters voted to ban gay marriage not even 10 years ago. It's not a paradise of wealth and enlightenment,
no place is.
Why should we feel sorry for the American middle class they have elected for all the misery that
has befallen them!
If America was a fascist state I could sympathise but it's not. Americans have let their social
rights being eroded by a mendacious and cunning establishment.
One good example of how Americans don't give a shit is the very expensive wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan which have cost gazillions to the US taxpayer and not a whimper from the US population.
If one can compare that to the Vietnam war which created its own critical cinema genre, protest
songs, large demonstrations etc...you know that todays average Americans responsibility for the
mess they find themselves in is non existent. They just bend over and take it and have little
whine about it from time to time.
What about the people that didn't vote for the "misery" as you call it?
What about the fact that whichever way you vote in the US you're screwed?
And I don't know about you, but you must not know many Americans. The number of my friends
who have been tear gassed during marches against the Iraq war flies in the face of your argument.
Have you, yourself, even uttered a whimper against it?
I will support proper child-support and healthcare and everything that can be done to make this
woman's life easier and secure her kids' futures BUT
Three kids is a LOT for two people to handle, let alone one.
To paraphrase Lady Bracknell, to raise one child alone may be regarded as a misfortune; to
attempt to raise three looks like carelessness. To try to raise three alone in the United States
is MADNESS.
I live in the USA. I'm in a stable long-term relationship. I don't make much money. I can't
afford kids.
2 + 2 = 4
Poor me. I don't say I have a right to kids because I need them or I have so much love to give
or blah, blah, blah. I just can't. Not here. This is a cruelly individualistic country. It is
built to serve those who serve themselves. Namely, the young, healthy, smart, motivated and single.
There is no political foundation or tradition of altruism here. Maybe back in Ireland where there's
a system to support me and some healthcare and family. Not here. Madness.
But she's got the kids now. What is she supposed to do? Hand them back to someone? If she and
the childrens' father had them when life was looking more stable and she didn't have to work 4
jobs to make ends meet, she can hardly be blamed now for their existence.
You are living in the now and choose not to have children because you feel you can't afford
them. However, in the future, you may find that you can afford them, and therefore choose to conceive.
If your circumstances change after that and you are no longer able to afford to care for them
without working excessive hours and living in poverty, there's not a lot you can do other than
get on with it. No point blaming her for something that is irreversible.
It's interesting. According to my household income I'm in the "upper" tier for the DC-metro region.
But it really doesn't feel that way. Even those of us who make a good income are more and more
stretched. In comparison to most of the country, I am well off. I own a car, just bought a house,
I can afford to go out to eat a couple times a week. But, I even get to the end of the month with
only $100 in the bank. That's because other downward pressures on pay aren't taken into account,
such as student debt. My expensive undergraduate and graduate education didn't come cheap, and
while that education affords people higher pay, if you end up taking less of it home. It kinda
equals out.
Sometimes my husband and I think about having kids, and then we realise that even with our
good paying jobs, we can't afford day care in our area. I get paid the most, so I can't quit my
job but if my husband quit to care for a child, we would really be strapped. Can I really be considered
an upper tier household if I can't afford to have kids? If I can't afford to go on vacation once
a year? If I haven't bought new clothes in two years? If I have no savings and a freak medical
bill might just tip me over the edge?
There's something very, very wrong. How rich do you need to be before you don't feel like you're
struggling?
You can cut student debt in the U.S. by attending a good community college for two years and then
transferring to a state university. Most kids are unwilling to do this--no frats or prestige in
community colleges!
The huge middle class in the USA was created by the liberal economic polices of the 1930s, which
were designed to help the lower class.
Beginning in the 1970s, a majority of the middle class began to resent the taxation needed
to continue support for these liberal policies, and they began to vote for conservative politicians
who promised to remove them as they "only helped the undeserving poor." White racism played a
role in this as the lower class was invariably portrayed in political speeches and advertising
as group of lazy black people.
What the middle class did not understand was that their continued existence depended on these
liberal programs, as most of the benefits went to the middle class, not the lower class as they
assumed. As the liberal programs began to disappear, so did the economic security of the middle
class.
One would think they would have figured all of this out by now, but they have not, and they
continue to vote for conservatives.
No, it was created in response to the Bolshevik revolution, in particular, to that genius who
said "Let's just shoot the royal family and be done with this."
When that happened, the ruling class got scared, and said "OK, minimum wage, vacation, sick
pay, 40 hr work week, no child labor, great schooling, etc"
All of these things have come under attack since the USSR fell apart, probably on that exact
day. And who overthrew the USSR? Overeducated middle class, not the poor or the rich. Who was
Occupy Wall Street, Arab Spring... the recent protests against the French labor law tightenings,
ALL the middle class.
The greatest threat to governments has, and always will be, from within. And this threat is
from the middle class, almost exclusively. Therefore, we are to be crushed and controlled tightly.
" squeezed middle class tell tales of struggle " Too bad they voted for the big squeeze herself -- Bernie
could have set them free from the path of exploitation she has planned for them immediately after
her election by imposing the TPP upon the very fools who will elect her. Stop watching
the Kartrashians and read about actual policy implications for your family and especially your
children, if you had, none of you would have supported Clinton.
funny how this media outlet didn't publish these types of reports while the primary was hot. It
was all "Hilary is inevitable and supporting Bernie is supporting Trump" type garbage.
I lived in Pittsburgh for 8 years, being European I sent them to public school...well, after a
year in which my six years old son was suspended twice for running around at lunchtime when he
shouldn't (six years old tend to do that), numerous recesses where they were put in front of a
TV (we cannot send them outside, insurance doesn't cover if they get hurt and we got sued before),
and notes from teachers full of spelling mistakes......I had to send them to private school perpetuating
a cycle of poor people in public system and rich people (or middle class as i was at the time)
to private schools....
i don't know what needs to be done to fix the issue but it's the whole society that is really
divided along money lines and race lines and inequality is getting worse. But money trumps everything,
the US is the only place int he world where it's not considered unpolite to ask people :"what's
your worth?" meaning how much you make, what are your assets, etc.....instilling in people a mentality
of self worth based on money and consequentially a cutthroat environment where the more you have
the more you are worth, so at the top they squeeze the lower end, to make more money but also
because they think they are really not that worthy....its a perverse cycle that history taught
us doesn't bring any good because at a certain point the poor reach a critical mass that will
just revolt......I'm waiting for that, good luck...
I'm afraid my friend we disagree on that, excellent public schools are exceptions, there are some
but they are a minority (International statistics on education quality validate that), I don't
live in the US anymore but travel a lot there for business (at least 20 times a year). As for
the worth question I had it asked to me quite a few times and kind of everywhere, maybe it's unpolite,
I believe it's unpolite, but it happens regularly and only in the US (let me rephrase, in the
rest of the world it wouldn't be considered unpolite, that's too mild of a term, it would be considered
inconceivable). Said that I hope the US makes it and the "American Values" that you talk about
prevail, but i am afraid those values have changed and being substituted by less noble ones...
Probably he means to say Americans habitually ask new acquaintances, "What do you do for a living?"
That's absolutely a query about income and personal worth, though slightly disguised, and it's
a question I have never widely encountered anywhere else in the world, nor while living overseas
the last ten years. The question is so ingrained, though, that Americans who ask it don't think
of it as a query about net worth. They do, however, react with overflowing respect toward those
who answer in certain ways, and something akin to sympathy to those who answer in other ways.
All my foreign friends have noticed it, and all think it's weird.
This article is extremely dishonest. First, it claims that she has 'three other jobs'. Second,
she has children, for whom she presumably gets child support. So what's her *real* income?
Agree, I did my last year of high school in the US, in North Carolina of all places, in a top
private school, i was a middling student in Europe with flashes of brilliance in some subjects
but definitely far from the top of the class. When I arrived (it was in the 80s) I didn't speak
English. Well, I graduated with high honors int he top 5% and got my high school diploma, honestly
without having to study that much, school was not totally comparable but definitely way less challenging.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, a lot of private schools in the United States are severely lacking
in the rigor department. This is even true for many--not all--private schools that cater to well-to-do
families.
When those in poverty or on the verge of it are single mothers, you tend to wonder if there are
some other issues as well. I don't recall a time in American history where a single mother of
several children could take care of herself when completely on her own.
I know of single mothers
who are doing fine, but they employed and are also being helped by siblings and parents who already
have some wealth and free time to take care of the child. Maybe the issue is the fact that these
people are having kids at the wrong time or without enough thought. Divorce rates are incredibly
high in the US, and the percentage of children who have non-birth parents is very high as well.
What this all means is that the USA isn't teaching its citizens about having kids and the responsibility.
The USA is also not teaching men and women about birth control, or about being holding potential
partners to higher standards (and I don't mean looks). A lot of people in the USA are too shallow
and focus too much on aesthetics over reliability and now we have single mothers with fathers
who refuse to pay child support at all costs. There are too many problems with the USA, but I
feel that personal hygiene and responsibility with sexual partners should be on the top.
I teach in inner city schools. There are so many problems, money is one of them but all the money
won't solve the problem of poor learning attitudes, disaffection, poor discipline and nonexistent
work ethic .
A lot of the students get no discipline at home and their parents don't expect them
to learn anything. They are resistant to the whole process of focus on new knowledge , absorb,
drill, recall , deploy newly learned thing.
Americans have a religious reverence for individualism
and learning new things is a humbling experience and many people don't like it. Sure the adults
bang on about education but they aren't serious about it. They think all you need is to spend
more money , not do any actual work.
The problems in the inner city are so intransigent that I doubt anything can fix it. I have three
friends, all dedicated teachers, who taught in inner city schools in New Jersey and the stories
they have told me make my mind reel: a mother who punched a teacher (and gave her a concussion)
who "disrespected" her kid (by failing him, deservedly, in algebra), 15-year-olds who had pagers
so their pimps could call them, children who had five brothers and sisters--all with different
fathers. You couldn't make this stuff up.
I don't know what solution there is to this. My nieces and nephews did well in school, studied
hard, and went on to university. They didn't do drugs, rape or be raped, and stayed away from
unsavory kids. BUT--they went home to two parents every night, a father and mother, which I think
would have made them successful at school no matter what their income.
The Pew survey you cited noted that "...the share living in middle-income households fell from
55% in 2000 to 51% in 2014. Reflecting the accumulation of changes at the metropolitan level,
the nationwide share of adults in lower-income households increased from 28% to 29% and the share
in upper-income households rose from 17% to 20% during the period." In other words, most of the
decline in the middle class was due to their moving into the upper class.
The article was mostly about a declining rural area. The Guardian grinding its usual axes and
reaching the conclusion it intended to reach?
Middle class job death inflicted by cronie capitalism entertained by the political establishment
(examples): Private equity is not scrutinized by anti-trust legislation, buys any company and
sends jobs overseas. Cronie supporters of politicians get help in that some industry gets indicted
(e.g. more or less entire coal industry) or regulated into oblivion, for fake reasons, so that
cronie (solar panel) company gets subsidies. Of course, the latter goes under, no company on IV
survives without IV. Banks get bailed out, others not. GM gets bailed out, to maintain jobs, then
outsources.
The old members of middle class are not tolerated by our government and the cronies. Who is tolerated
as middle class is any kind of civil servant, and new immigrants. Revenge from 2 sides. Or call
it cultural revolution Mao style: Take their habitat.
Growing up in the SF Bay Area during the 70's there was a large disparity in academics between
schools even in the same district. At 11 years old the school district was rezoned and the new
school that I attended had much lower standards. So much so, that I came home the very first day
and complained to my mother that I had been assigned to a class for slow learners. Being so bored,
my grades started to drop. At 13 years, I tested out of mathematics and eventually tested out
of high school altogether and joined the military.
There my intelligence was appreciated (believe
it or not). The military provided a valuable work ethic and training in technology that have provided
a decent career and lifestyle since. It's too bad that America can't seem to provide adequate learning to the vast majority.
The US economy isn't competitive anymore. It started with the labor cost being too high, so factories
moved out. Then the entire supply chain moved out. Now the main consumer market is also moving
out. Once that is gone, we will have no more leverage.
The US education is good, but students are lazy, undisciplined, and incurious. In silicon valley,
more than 75% of highly paid technical personnel are foreign born. Corporations making money with
foreign workers here and abroad, on foreign markets. Taking these away and you will see the economy
crash.
Then you have Hillary wanting to sub divide a rapidly diminishing pie, and Trump wanting to
return to 1946. Good luck to them both.
Labor costs were too high. Have some more kool-aid. The elite didn't want labor to have any bargaining power whatsoever . They wanted to dictate
the terms to labor believing that they were the only ones who should have any say in matters. The elite wanted to maximize their profits at the expense of their own citizens. They wanted slave labor . They wanted powerless people to dance to their tune. How could an advanced nation's labor possibly compete with slave labor .
This is the same argument that slave owning , southern plantation owners used to fight against
the freeing of slaves . They to said that they would not longer be competitive and the overall
economy would suffer .
Are you telling us that an economy needs slave labor to exist ?
Sadly ..... thee isn't any hope for these people in the foreseeable future .
Their economic decline has been happening for quite some time now and shows no sign of abating
whatsoever . The economic foundations of their lives have been steadily pulled out from under them by the
financial elite and their subservient political cultures , the Republican and Democratic Parties
. The Republicans have never really given a damn about them and the Democrats have long abandoned
them . These poor people of North Carolina are adrift on a sinking raft on easy ocean of indifference
by the political cultures of America . To those in power , they don't exist . They don't count . They don't matter .
The trend in the U.S, along with almost every other major nation in the world over the past
35 years has been to exclusively serve the interests of the financial elite and only their needs
. All sense of fairness , justice and decency have been totally discarded .
Tax breaks after tax breaks , tax shelters , free movement of capital , etc., etc. would sum
up the experience of the financial elite over the past 35 years . They have become incredibly wealthy now and are still not satisfied . They want more . They
want it all . They want what little you have and their political servants which help them get
.
Political discourse pertaining to the plight of those like these folks in North Carolina is
all window dressing . In the end , you can be certain that it will amount to nothing . Just like
it has for decades now . The financial elite are in control and they are not going to give any of that control up .
As a matter of fact , they are going to tighten their grip . They will invent crisis to have their
agendas imposed upon an increasingly powerless and bewildered public . They will take advantage
of every naturally occurring crisis to advance their agenda .
There will be an end to their abuse , greed and domination until one day when everything changes
. The day when people have had enough . When people can't take it any more . History has demonstrated
this fact so often before . The mighty do fall . They always fall ..... but their fall is nowhere
to be seen at this time .
There is going to a great deal more pain for average folk before things get better .
A Presidential election featuring Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is clear evidence of this
fact.
Hopefully , these two bottom feeding , utter human failures represent the bottom of the barrel
but I doubt if they do .
Good luck to the good folks of North Carolina and countless others like them .... they / we
/ myself are going to need it .
On the contrary .... it's money that the elite have not paid out in wages .
It's money that the elite have illegally hidden from the taxman . It's money the the elite need to pay for the infrastructure that makes it possible to do business
in the first place . It's money that has been made from insider trading and backroom deals . It's money from the wealth that labour has basically created in the first place .
It's money that contributes to the social maintenance on a safe , civil society . It's money that the wealthy do not need .... they have all they could ever need now .
It is money that when distributed fairly keeps money in motion creating it's transfer into
additional hands which further circulates that money creating even more spending by people and
the consumption of goods and services which result in the creation of even more wealth .
Static capital kills economies .
I know that the elite like to think that they are the exclusive ones to create wealth but wealth
creation is the marriage between capital and labour . You can have all of the capital in the world
but without labour transforming it into greater wealth it can not possibly grow .
If anyone is guilty of stealing money it is the elite who steal from the economy causing the
economy's ill health .
The last 35 years are more than testimony to this fact .
Economies are dying wherever the elite have gotten their way .
The elite are the real killers of wealth and economies . Just look at any economy in the world
throughout history where the elite had all of the wealth to themselves . Their economies are highly
dysfunctional and their societies are full of social problems and crime .
This is an indisputable fact .
Greed kills wealth development .
Wealth development is directly tied to the well being of labour which allows for mass consumption
of goods and services .
You would have to be a complete idiot not to see this fact .
So my good doctor .... the money in any given economy really belongs to everyone , not just
the greedy elite .
You need to get a real perspective instead of constantly eyeing you own pile of wealth .
so the woman chose to have 3 daughters, is now choosing to foot the bill for their college education,
and wants me to feel sorry because she has to work her ass off to do all these things? how about
this.... don't have children you can't afford. a little personal responsibility in one's life
goes a long, long way.
We need to redefine middle class. I grew up middle class. We had one TV. Not a lot of clothes.
Took short, cheap vacations. Had no credit cards. Our lives were perfectly enjoyable. Many people
here in the US live way beyond their means.
We piled into the station wagon and headed out on short trips in the region. We visited historic
sites and were enriched by the experience. None of this $1000s on the trip to Disneyland. We didn't
feel deprived or entitled.
The key is not money but optimism. America is still richer, cleaner, and better run than most
other places. But the gap is rapidly closing. Scaling back the spending would not help here. It
would only further reduce the drive.
As a North Carolinian, there are two major issues. One, the right to bear arms and also, teacher
tenure and working conditions. Republicans have already taken away tenure from my younger colleagues,
but as an older teacher, I still have mine. Secondly, democrats want to take away gun rights on
the federal level, but state dems are usually more pro-gun in the conservative state.
SO for me, I will vote for a democratic state government and a republican federal government.
I will be proudly putting a Roy Cooper bumper sticker on my car. But due to the peaceful liberals,
I would be afraid to put a TRUMP sticker on my car because of recent violence against Trump supporters.
The problem is the job exporting American elite class. NAFTA was an economics, political, and
social experiment with all the downside on the former, mostly lower middle class. Non-aligned
examination of the available data shows how disastrous NAFTA has been to America's bubbas. Thanks
to Bush 41 and Bill Clinton. WTO was all Bill. Of the mistakes Obama has made TPP would be the
worst. The question is, really, do we favor global fairness (an even playing field for all earth's
peoples) and a climate-killing consumerist world, or our own disadvantaged (courtesy of our financial
and political elite) citizens. Not an easy choice. Death by poison or hanging. No treaty can benegotiated
fairly in secret.
The tragic irony is that the anger against rule by the 1% manifests in things like support for
Trump, a typical example of the greed and excess of the 1%.
Americans need to question outside their desperately constrained paradigms more. It will help
focus their anger more strategically, and possibly lead to solutions. Don't hold your breath, the inequality gap is accelerating the wrong way.
Fake, fake fake.
A woman with $40k and three children would *not* be paying 1/3 of her income in tax.
This woman does *not* live on $40k net or gross - she has three other jobs.
And her name looks *very* made up.
The elite of the USA have done exactly what the Romans did and what the Pre-Revolutionary French
did.... drain the lower classes while enriching themselves. "Taxes are for little people" is not
just a pithy quote, it has become the reality as the elite rig the system so they benefit and
the lower classes pay. They need to wake up or they will get exactly what the Romans Got (collapsed
empire) or the French got (Violent Revolution). Wake up America! It is time to choose your side
in the class war the elite continue to execute while telling us there is no "Class War" - you
can't pull yourself up by your boot straps while they are pulling the rug out from under you!
My wife used to employ recent graduates from Georgetown University with poli. sci., psychology,
sociology degrees, to stack books for $10/hr. It took them on average 2-3 years, before finding
work in their field. I keep telling my kids you need to earn a degree that has a skill for life
and will always be in demand, i.e. doctor, dentist, vet, engineer, scientist. Additionally, include
work oversees in your career.
Education is NOT about finding a job! It's about learning ways to seek wisdom and rationality,
and to assimilate (not deny) new knowledge throughout your life--and that's exactly what's lacking
in the US! Our schools are factories to turn out standard robots to be used by the owners of this
country, whether they practice law or flip burgers.
I was lucky that my parents were born and
raised before that happened. They went to what used to be called "country schools"--my dad to
a 1-room schoolhouse. Some of the so-called "knowledge" was patriotic trash, serving only the
rich elites, but they learned to be sturdy and to think for themselves, so I was lucky and learned
a lot at home. Without parents who practice the empathetic, rational morality needed in a democracy,
all the jobs in the world--especially if most are for flipping burgers--won't save this dreary
country.
You make an excellent point. Thinking about your life rather than just going for a crip major
in college would be an excellent way NOT to wind up stacking books for $10 an hour with a degree.
I can't count the number of my kids friends who select communications majors, or sociology or
women's studies and then are completely surprised when there are no jobs demanding their educational
background. What is it that they think they will be qualified to do after college?
From the article....
"Some lucky families saw themselves promoted to the upper income bracket." Here in a nutshell we see the author's underlying worldview. Getting to the upper income bracket has nothing to do with effort. Rather it's the result of
luck. It's something that is done to you by an outside force.
She can not offer anything as she is "kick the can down the road" neoliberal candidate serving financial
oligarchy, so playing fear card is her the only chance...
UPDATE "'You can get rid of Manafort, but that doesn't end the odd bromance Trump has with Putin,'
Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said in a statement" [Washington
Post]. That's our Democrats; gin up a war scare all to win Eastern Europeans in a swing state
(Ohio). That's what this article, read closely, boils down to, read carefully. (I love Mook's "bromance,"
so reminiscent of the Clinton campaign's vile BernieBro smear.)
UPDATE "Republicans in North Carolina are pulling out all the stops to suppress the state's reliably
Democratic black vote. After the Fourth Circuit court reinstated a week of early voting, GOP-controlled
county elections boards are now trying to cut early-voting hours across the state. By virtue of holding
the governor's office, Republicans control a majority of votes on all county election boards and
yesterday they voted to cut 238 hours of early voting in Charlotte's Mecklenburg County, the largest
in the state. 'I'm not a big fan of early voting,' said GOP board chair Mary Potter Summa, brazenly
disregarding the federal appeals court's opinion. 'The more [early voting] sites we have, the more
opportunities exist for violations'" [The
Nation]. Bad Republicans. On the other hand, if the Democrats treated voter registration like
a 365/24/7 party function, including purchasing IDs in ID states for those who can't afford them,
none of this would be happening.
"... Andrew Gavin Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is currently studying Political Economy and History at Simon Fraser University. ..."
Following US geo-strategy in what Brzezinski termed the "global Balkans," the US government has
worked closely with major NGOs to "promote democracy" and "freedom" in former Soviet republics, playing
a role behind the scenes in fomenting what are termed "colour revolutions," which install US and
Western-friendly puppet leaders to advance the interests of the West, both economically and strategically.
Part 2 of this essay on "The Origins of World War III" analyzes the colour revolutions as being
a key stratagem in imposing the US-led New World Order. The "colour revolution" or "soft" revolution
strategy is a covert political tactic of expanding NATO and US influence to the borders of Russia
and even China; following in line with one of the primary aims of US strategy in the New World Order:
to contain China and Russia and prevent the rise of any challenge to US power in the region.
These revolutions are portrayed in the western media as popular democratic revolutions, in which
the people of these respective nations demand democratic accountability and governance from their
despotic leaders and archaic political systems. However, the reality is far from what this utopian
imagery suggests. Western NGOs and media heavily finance and organize opposition groups and protest
movements, and in the midst of an election, create a public perception of vote fraud in order to
mobilize the mass protest movements to demand "their" candidate be put into power. It just so happens
that "their" candidate is always the Western US-favoured candidate, whose campaign is often heavily
financed by Washington; and who proposes US-friendly policies and neoliberal economic conditions.
In the end, it is the people who lose out, as their genuine hope for change and accountability is
denied by the influence the US wields over their political leaders.
The soft revolutions also have the effect of antagonizing China and Russia, specifically, as it
places US protectorates on their borders, and drives many of the former Warsaw Pact nations to seek
closer political, economic and military cooperation. This then exacerbates tensions between the west
and China and Russia; which ultimately leads the world closer to a potential conflict between the
two blocs.
Serbia
Serbia experienced its "colour revolution" in October of 2000, which led to the overthrow of Serbian
leader Slobodan Milosevic. As the Washington Post reported in December of 2000, from 1999 on, the
US undertook a major "electoral strategy" to oust Milosevic, as "U.S.-funded consultants played a
crucial role behind the scenes in virtually every facet of the anti-Milosevic drive, running tracking
polls, training thousands of opposition activists and helping to organize a vitally important parallel
vote count. U.S. taxpayers paid for 5,000 cans of spray paint used by student activists to scrawl
anti-Milosevic graffiti on walls across Serbia, and 2.5 million stickers with the slogan "He's Finished,"
which became the revolution's catchphrase." Further, according to Michael Dobbs,writing in the Washington
Post, some "20 opposition leaders accepted an invitation from the Washington-based National Democratic
Institute (NDI) in October 1999 to a seminar at the Marriott Hotel in Budapest."
Interestingly, "Some Americans involved in the anti-Milosevic effort said they were aware of CIA
activity at the fringes of the campaign, but had trouble finding out what the agency was up to. Whatever
it was, they concluded it was not particularly effective. The lead role was taken by the State Department
and the U.S. Agency for International Development, the government's foreign assistance agency, which
channeled the funds through commercial contractors and nonprofit groups such as NDI and its Republican
counterpart, the International Republican Institute (IRI)."
The NDI (National Democratic Institute), "worked closely with Serbian opposition parties, IRI
focused its attention on Otpor, which served as the revolution's ideological and organizational backbone.
In March, IRI paid for two dozen Otpor leaders to attend a seminar on nonviolent resistance at the
Hilton Hotel in Budapest." At the seminar, "the Serbian students received training in such matters
as how to organize a strike, how to communicate with symbols, how to overcome fear and how to undermine
the authority of a dictatorial regime."[1]
As the New York Times revealed, Otpor, the major student opposition group, had a steady flow of
money coming from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a Congress-funded "democracy promoting"
organization. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) gave money to Otpor,
as did the International Republican Institute, "another nongovernmental Washington group financed
partly by A.I.D."[2]
Georgia
In 2003, Georgia went through its "Rose Revolution," which led to the overthrow of president Eduard
Shevardnadze, replacing him with Mikhail Saakashvili after the 2004 elections. In a November 2003
article in The Globe and Mail, it was reported that a US based foundation "began laying the brickwork
for the toppling of Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze," as funds from his non-profit organization
"sent a 31-year-old Tbilisi activist named Giga Bokeria to Serbia to meet with members of the Otpor
(Resistance) movement and learn how they used street demonstrations to topple dictator Slobodan Milosevic.
Then, in the summer," the "foundation paid for a return trip to Georgia by Otpor activists, who ran
three-day courses teaching more than 1,000 students how to stage a peaceful revolution."
This US-based foundation "also funded a popular opposition television station that was crucial
in mobilizing support for [the] 'velvet revolution,' and [it] reportedly gave financial support to
a youth group that led the street protests." The owner of the foundation "has a warm relationship
with Mr. Shevardnadze's chief opponent, Mikhail Saakashvili, a New York-educated lawyer who is expected
to win the presidency in an election scheduled for Jan. 4."
During a press conference a week before his resignation, Mr. Shevardnadze said that the US foundation
"is set against the President of Georgia." Moreover, "Mr. Bokeria, whose Liberty Institute received
money from both [the financier's foundation] and the U.S. government-backed Eurasia Institute, says
three other organizations played key roles in Mr. Shevardnadze's downfall: Mr. Saakashvili's National
Movement party, the Rustavi-2 television station and Kmara! (Georgian for Enough!), a youth group
that declared war on Mr. Shevardnadze [in] April and began a poster and graffiti campaign attacking
government corruption." [3]
The day following the publication of the previously quoted article, the author published another
article in the Globe and Mail explaining that the "bloodless revolution" in Georgia "smells more
like another victory for the United States over Russia in the post-Cold War international chess game."
The author, Mark MacKinnon, explained that Eduard Shevardnadze's downfall lied "in the oil under
the Caspian Sea, one of the world's few great remaining, relatively unexploited, sources of oil,"
as "Georgia and neighbouring Azerbaijan, which borders the Caspian, quickly came to be seen not just
as newly independent countries, but as part of an 'energy corridor'." Plans were drawn up for a massive
"pipeline that would run through Georgia to Turkey and the Mediterranean." It is worth quoting MacKinnon
at length:
When these plans were made, Mr. Shevardnadze was seen as an asset by both Western investors and
the U.S. government. His reputation as the man who helped end the Cold War gave investors a sense
of confidence in the country, and his stated intention to move Georgia out of Russia's orbit and
into Western institutions such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union played
well at the U.S. State Department.
The United States quickly moved to embrace Georgia, opening a military base in the country [in
2001] to give Georgian soldiers "anti-terrorist" training. They were the first U.S. troops to set
up in a former Soviet republic.
But somewhere along the line, Mr. Shevardnadze reversed course and decided to once more embrace
Russia. This summer, Georgia signed a secret 25-year deal to make the Russian energy giant Gazprom
its sole supplier of gas. Then it effectively sold the electricity grid to another Russian firm,
cutting out AES, the company that the U.S. administration had backed to win the deal. Mr. Shevardnadze
attacked AES as "liars and cheats." Both deals dramatically increased Russian influence in Tbilisi.
Following the elections in Georgia, the US-backed and educated Mikhail Saakashvili ascended to
the Presidency and "won the day."[4] This is again an example of the intimate relationship between
oil geopolitics and US foreign policy. The colour revolution was vital in pressing US and NATO interests
forward in the region; gaining control over Central Asia's gas reserves and keeping Russia from expanding
its influence. This follows directly in line with the US-NATO imperial strategy for the new world
order, following the collapse of the USSR. [This strategy is outlined in detail in Part 1 of this
essay: An Imperial Strategy for
a New World Order: The Origins of World War III].
Ukraine
In 2004, Ukraine went through its "Orange Revolution," in which opposition and pro-Western leader
Viktor Yushchenko became President, defeating Viktor Yanukovych. As the Guardian revealed in 2004,
that following the disputed elections (as happens in every "colour revolution"), "the democracy guerrillas
of the Ukrainian Pora youth movement have already notched up a famous victory – whatever the outcome
of the dangerous stand-off in Kiev," however, "the campaign is an American creation, a sophisticated
and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing that, in four countries
in four years, has been used to try to salvage rigged elections and topple unsavoury regimes."
The author, Ian Traynor, explained that, "Funded and organised by the US government, deploying
US consultancies, pollsters, diplomats, the two big American parties and US non-government organisations,
the campaign was first used in Europe in Belgrade in 2000 to beat Slobodan Milosevic at the ballot
box." Further, "The Democratic party's National Democratic Institute, the Republican party's International
Republican Institute, the US state department and USAid are the main agencies involved in these grassroots
campaigns as well as the Freedom House NGO" and the same billionaire financier involved in Georgia's
Rose Revolution. In implementing the regime-change strategy, "The usually fractious oppositions have
to be united behind a single candidate if there is to be any chance of unseating the regime. That
leader is selected on pragmatic and objective grounds, even if he or she is anti-American."
Traynor continues:
Freedom House and the Democratic party's NDI helped fund and organise the "largest civil regional
election monitoring effort" in Ukraine, involving more than 1,000 trained observers. They also organised
exit polls. On Sunday night those polls gave Mr Yushchenko an 11-point lead and set the agenda for
much of what has followed.
The exit polls are seen as critical because they seize the initiative in the propaganda battle
with the regime, invariably appearing first, receiving wide media coverage and putting the onus on
the authorities to respond.
The final stage in the US template concerns how to react when the incumbent tries to steal a lost
election.
[. . . ] In Belgrade, Tbilisi, and now Kiev, where the authorities initially tried to cling to
power, the advice was to stay cool but determined and to organise mass displays of civil disobedience,
which must remain peaceful but risk provoking the regime into violent suppression.[5]
As an article in the Guardian by Jonathan Steele explained, the opposition leader, Viktor Yushchenko,
who disputed the election results, "served as prime minister under the outgoing president, Leonid
Kuchma, and some of his backers are also linked to the brutal industrial clans who manipulated Ukraine's
post-Soviet privatization." He further explained that election rigging is mainly irrelevant, as "The
decision to protest appears to depend mainly on realpolitik and whether the challengers or the incumbent
are considered more 'pro-western' or 'pro-market'." In other words, those who support a neoliberal
economic agenda will have the support of the US-NATO, as neoliberalism is their established international
economic order and advances their interests in the region.
Moreover, "In Ukraine, Yushchenko got the western nod, and floods of money poured in to groups
which support him, ranging from the youth organisation, Pora, to various opposition websites. More
provocatively, the US and other western embassies paid for exit polls." This is emblematic of the
strategic importance of the Ukraine to the United States, "which refuses to abandon its cold war
policy of encircling Russia and seeking to pull every former Soviet republic to its side."[6]
One Guardian commentator pointed out the hypocrisy of western media coverage: "Two million
anti-war demonstrators can stream though the streets of London and be politically ignored, but a
few tens of thousands in central Kiev are proclaimed to be 'the people', while the Ukrainian police,
courts and governmental institutions are discounted as instruments of oppression." It was also explained
that, "Enormous rallies have been held in Kiev in support of the prime minister, Viktor Yanukovich,
but they are not shown on our TV screens: if their existence is admitted, Yanukovich supporters are
denigrated as having been 'bussed in'. The demonstrations in favour of Viktor Yushchenko have laser
lights, plasma screens, sophisticated sound systems, rock concerts, tents to camp in and huge quantities
of orange clothing; yet we happily dupe ourselves that they are spontaneous."[7]
In 2004, the Associated Press reported that, "The Bush administration has spent more than $65
million in the past two years to aid political organizations in Ukraine, paying to bring opposition
leader Viktor Yushchenko to meet U.S. leaders and helping to underwrite an exit poll indicating he
won last month's disputed runoff election." The money, they state, "was funneled through organizations
such as the Eurasia Foundation or through groups aligned with Republicans and Democrats that organized
election training, with human rights forums or with independent news outlets." However, even government
officials "acknowledge that some of the money helped train groups and individuals opposed to the
Russian-backed government candidate."
The report stated that some major international foundations funded the exit polls, which according
to the incumbent leader were "skewed." These foundations included "The National Endowment for Democracy,
which receives its money directly from Congress; the Eurasia Foundation, which receives money from
the State Department, and the Renaissance Foundation," which receives money from the same billionaire
financier as well as the US State Department. Since the State Department is involved, that implies
that this funding is quite directly enmeshed in US foreign policy strategy. "Other countries involved
included Great Britain, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Canada, Norway, Sweden and Denmark." Also involved
in funding certain groups and activities in the Ukraine was the International Republican Institute
and the National Democratic Institute, which was chaired by former Secretary of States Madeline Albright
at the time.[8]
Mark Almond wrote for the Guardian in 2004 of the advent of "People Power," describing it in relation
to the situation that was then breaking in the Ukraine, and stated that, "The upheaval in Ukraine
is presented as a battle between the people and Soviet-era power structures. The role of western
cold war-era agencies is taboo. Poke your nose into the funding of the lavish carnival in Kiev, and
the shrieks of rage show that you have touched a neuralgic point of the New World Order."
Almond elaborated:
"Throughout the 1980s, in the build-up to 1989′s velvet revolutions, a small army of volunteers
– and, let's be frank, spies – co-operated to promote what became People Power. A network of interlocking
foundations and charities mushroomed to organise the logistics of transferring millions of dollars
to dissidents. The money came overwhelmingly from Nato states and covert allies such as "neutral"
Sweden.
[ ...] The hangover from People Power is shock therapy. Each successive crowd is sold a multimedia
vision of Euro-Atlantic prosperity by western-funded "independent" media to get them on the streets.
No one dwells on the mass unemployment, rampant insider dealing, growth of organised crime, prostitution
and soaring death rates in successful People Power states.
As Almond delicately put it, "People Power is, it turns out, more about closing things than creating
an open society. It shuts factories but, worse still, minds. Its advocates demand a free market in
everything – except opinion. The current ideology of New World Order ideologues, many of whom are
renegade communists, is Market-Leninism – that combination of a dogmatic economic model with Machiavellian
methods to grasp the levers of power."[9]
As Mark MacKinnon reported for the Globe and Mail, Canada, too, supported the efforts of the youth
activist group, Pora, in the Ukraine, providing funding for the "people power democracy" movement.
As MacKinnon noted, "The Bush administration was particularly keen to see a pro-Western figure as
president to ensure control over a key pipeline running from Odessa on the Black Sea to Brody on
the Polish border." However, "The outgoing president, Leonid Kuchma, had recently reversed the flow
so the pipeline carried Russian crude south instead of helping U.S. producers in the Caspian Sea
region ship their product to Europe." As MacKinnon analyzes, the initial funding from western nations
came from Canada, although this was eventually far surpassed in amount by the United States.
Andrew Robinson, Canada's ambassador to Ukraine at the time, in 2004, "began to organize secret
monthly meetings of Western ambassadors, presiding over what he called "donor co-ordination" sessions
among 28 countries interested in seeing Mr. Yushchenko succeed. Eventually, he acted as the group's
spokesman and became a prominent critic of the Kuchma government's heavy-handed media control." Canada
further "invested in a controversial exit poll, carried out on election day by Ukraine's Razumkov
Centre and other groups, that contradicted the official results showing Mr. Yanukovich had won."
Once the new, pro-Western government was in, it "announced its intention to reverse the flow of the
Odessa-Brody pipeline."[10]
Again, this follows the example of Georgia, where several US and NATO interests are met through
the success of the "colour revolution"; simultaneously preventing Russian expansion and influence
from spreading in the region as well as advancing US and NATO control and influence over the major
resources and transport corridors of the region.
Daniel Wolf wrote for the Guardian that, "For most of the people gathered in Kiev's Independence
Square, the demonstration felt spontaneous. They had every reason to want to stop the government
candidate, Viktor Yanukovich, from coming to power, and they took the chance that was offered to
them. But walking through the encampment last December, it was hard to ignore the evidence of meticulous
preparation – the soup kitchens and tents for the demonstrators, the slickness of the concert, the
professionalism of the TV coverage, the proliferation of the sickly orange logo wherever you looked."
He elaborated, writing, "the events in the square were the result of careful, secret planning by
Yushchenko's inner circle over a period of years. The true story of the orange revolution is far
more interesting than the fable that has been widely accepted."
Roman Bessmertny, Yushchenko's campaign manager, two years prior to the 2004 elections, "put as
many as 150,000 people through training courses, seminars, practical tuition conducted by legal and
media specialists. Some attending these courses were members of election committees at local, regional
and national level; others were election monitors, who were not only taught what to watch out for
but given camcorders to record it on video. More than 10,000 cameras were distributed, with the aim
of recording events at every third polling station." Ultimately, it was an intricately well-planned
public relations media-savvy campaign, orchestrated through heavy financing. Hardly the sporadic
"people power" notion applied to the "peaceful coup" in the western media.[11]
The "Tulip Revolution" in Kyrgyzstan
In 2005, Kyrgyzstan underwent its "Tulip Revolution" in which the incumbent was replaced by the
pro-Western candidate through another "popular revolution." As the New York Times reported in March
of 2005, shortly before the March elections, "an opposition newspaper ran photographs of a palatial
home under construction for the country's deeply unpopular president, Askar Akayev, helping set off
widespread outrage and a popular revolt." However, this "newspaper was the recipient of United States
government grants and was printed on an American government-financed printing press operated by Freedom
House, an American organization that describes itself as 'a clear voice for democracy and freedom
around the world'."
Moreover, other countries that have "helped underwrite programs to develop democracy and civil
society" in Kyrgyzstan were Britain, the Netherlands and Norway. These countries collectively "played
a crucial role in preparing the ground for the popular uprising that swept opposition politicians
to power." Money mostly flowed from the United States, in particular, through the National Endowment
for Democracy (NED), as well as through "the Freedom House printing press or Kyrgyz-language service
of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, a pro-democracy broadcaster." The National Democratic Institute
also played a major financing role, for which one of the chief beneficiaries of their financial aid
said, "It would have been absolutely impossible for this to have happened without that help."
The Times further reported that:
"American money helps finance civil society centers around the country where activists and citizens
can meet, receive training, read independent newspapers and even watch CNN or surf the Internet in
some. The N.D.I. [National Democratic Institute] alone operates 20 centers that provide news summaries
in Russian, Kyrgyz and Uzbek.
The United States sponsors the American University in Kyrgyzstan, whose stated mission is, in
part, to promote the development of civil society, and pays for exchange programs that send students
and non-governmental organization leaders to the United States. Kyrgyzstan's new prime minister,
Kurmanbek Bakiyev, was one.
All of that money and manpower gave the coalescing Kyrgyz opposition financing and moral support
in recent years, as well as the infrastructure that allowed it to communicate its ideas to the Kyrgyz
people."
As for those "who did not read Russian or have access to the newspaper listened to summaries of
its articles on Kyrgyz-language Radio Azattyk, the local United States-government financed franchise
of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty." Other "independent" media was paid for courtesy of the US State
Department.[12]
As the Wall Street Journal revealed prior to the elections, opposition groups, NGOs and "independent"
media in Kyrgyzstan were getting financial assistance from Freedom House in the US, as well as the
US Agency for International Development (USAID). The Journal reported that, "To avoid provoking Russia
and violating diplomatic norms, the U.S. can't directly back opposition political parties. But it
underwrites a web of influential NGOs whose support of press freedom, the rule of law and clean elections
almost inevitably pits them against the entrenched interests of the old autocratic regimes."
As the Journal further reported, Kyrgyzstan "occupies a strategic location. The U.S. and Russia
both have military bases here. The country's five million citizens, mostly Muslim, are sandwiched
in a tumultuous neighborhood among oil-rich Kazakhstan, whose regime tolerates little political dissent;
dictatorial Uzbekistan, which has clamped down on foreign aid groups and destitute Tajikistan."
In the country, a main opposition NGO, the Coalition for Democracy and Civil Rights, gets its
funding "from the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, a Washington-based nonprofit
funded by the U.S. government, and from USAID." Other agencies reported to be involved, either through
funding or ideological-technical promotion (see: propaganda), are the National Endowment for Democracy
(NED), the Albert Einstein Institute, Freedom House, and the US State Department.[13]
President Askar Akayev of Kyrgyzstan had referred to a "third force" gaining power in his country.
The term was borrowed from one of the most prominent US think tanks, as "third force" is:
"… which details how western-backed non-governmental organisations (NGOs) can promote regime and
policy change all over the world. The formulaic repetition of a third "people power" revolution in
the former Soviet Union in just over one year – after the similar events in Georgia in November 2003
and in Ukraine last Christmas – means that the post-Soviet space now resembles Central America in
the 1970s and 1980s, when a series of US-backed coups consolidated that country's control over the
western hemisphere."
As the Guardian reported:
"Many of the same US government operatives in Latin America have plied their trade in eastern
Europe under George Bush, most notably Michael Kozak, former US ambassador to Belarus, who boasted
in these pages in 2001 that he was doing in Belarus exactly what he had been doing in Nicaragua:
"supporting democracy".
Further:
"The case of Freedom House is particularly arresting. Chaired by the former CIA director James
Woolsey, Freedom House was a major sponsor of the orange revolution in Ukraine. It set up a printing
press in Bishkek in November 2003, which prints 60 opposition journals. Although it is described
as an "independent" press, the body that officially owns it is chaired by the bellicose Republican
senator John McCain, while the former national security adviser Anthony Lake sits on the board. The
US also supports opposition radio and TV."[14]
So again, the same formula was followed in the Central Asian Republics of the former Soviet Union.
This US foreign-policy strategy of promoting "soft revolution" is managed through a network of American
and international NGOs and think tanks. It advances NATO and, in particular, US interests in the
region.
Conclusion
The soft revolutions or "colour revolutions" are a key stratagem in the New World Order; advancing,
through deceptions and manipulation, the key strategy of containing Russia and controlling key resources.
This strategy is critical to understanding the imperialistic nature of the New World Order, especially
when it comes to identifying when this strategy is repeated; specifically in relation to the Iranian
elections of 2009.
Part 1 of this essay outlined the US-NATO imperial strategy for entering the New World Order,
following the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991. The primary aim was focused on encircling Russia
and China and preventing the rise of a new superpower. The US was to act as the imperial hegemon,
serving international financial interests in imposing the New World Order. Part 2 outlined the US
imperial strategy of using "colour revolutions" to advance its interests in Central Asia and Eastern
Europe, following along the overall policy outlined in Part 1, of containing Russia and China from
expanding influence and gaining access to key natural resources.
The third and final part to this essay analyzes the nature of the imperial strategy to construct
a New World Order, focusing on the increasing conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Latin America,
Eastern Europe and Africa; and the potential these conflicts have for starting a new world war with
China and Russia. In particular, its focus is within the past few years, and emphasizes the increasing
nature of conflict and war in the New World Order. Part 3 looks at the potential for "A New World
War for a New World Order."
Andrew Gavin Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on Globalization
(CRG). He is currently studying Political Economy and History at Simon Fraser University.
The original source of this article is Global Research
Contrary to Kristol, far from being a non-interventionist, Obama conducted two interventions against
dictators in Egypt and Libya with disastrous consequences. The intervention in Libya, which Kristol
supported, has created two million refugees, hundreds of thousands of corpses, and a terrorist state.
One might suppose that a little re-thinking of interventionism would be in order. Trump's readiness
to rethink interventionism is hardly the same as Obama's strategy of retreat and surrender.
Contrary to Kristol's assertion, Trump is not opposed to all interventions against dictators.
He has promised to do what it takes to destroy ISIS, which includes bombing its oil facilities and
destroying its headquarters, and is obviously only possible with interventions in Syria and Iraq.
Destroying ISIS would also be an action to prevent mass slaughter, despite Kristol groundless claim.
As for Trump
proposing
"another re-set with Putin's Russia," there was no re-set with Russia under Obama. Attempting
a serious re-set - a re-set from strength - would seem reasonable and prudent, and would hardly be
a repeat of Obama's policies. It would be just the opposite.
"Getting out of the nation-building business and instead focusing on creating stability in the
world" is hardly an Obama policy, as Kristol suggests. Obama's intervention in Eygpt, put the Muslim
Brotherhood in power; when the Egyptian military then overthrew the Brotherhood, Obama sided with
the Brotherhood and alienated the most important power in the Middle East. These acts, together with
Obama's withdrawal from Iraq and waffling in Syria, created a power vacuum that spread instability
throughout the region.
"Avoiding nation-building, while focusing on creating stability" is a foreign policy any true
constitutional conservative would support - unless that conservative was driven by an irrational
hatred of Trump. Finally, Trump's promise to put American interests first and restore respect for
America through rebuilding American strength can only be described as a "national retreat" by a very
unprincipled - and careless - individual.
All these dishonesties and flim-flam excuses pale by comparison with the consequences Kristol
and his "Never Trump" cohorts are willing to risk by splitting the Republican vote. Obama has provided
America's mortal enemy, Iran, with a path to nuclear weapons, $150 billion dollars, and the freedom
to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles to deliver the lethal payloads. Trump has promised
to abandon the Iran deal, while Hillary Clinton and all but a handful of Democrats have supported
this treachery from start to finish. Kristol is now one of their allies.
I am a Jew who has never been to Israel and has never been a Zionist in the sense of believing
that Jews can rid themselves of Jew hatred by having their own nation state. But half of world Jewry
now lives in Israel, and the enemies whom Obama and Hillary have empowered - Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood,
Hezbollah, ISIS, and Hamas - have openly sworn to exterminate the Jews. I am also an American (and
an American first), whose country is threatened with destruction by the same enemies. To weaken the
only party that stands between the Jews and their annihilation, and between America and the forces
intent on destroying her, is a political miscalculation so great and a betrayal so profound as to
not be easily forgiven.
"... In the Dutch "Telegraph" an article has been published in which it is announced that it was all a tragic mistake explained by low-skilled Buka operators who were under stress. ..."
"... Tomorrow in the Dutch "Telegraph" appears new material about the downing over the Donbas of the Malaysian Boeing MH-17. There has been made an announcement, in which experts are referred to, that states that the Boeing was shot down accidentally (!), that it was "a huge, tragic mistake" and that no one at all had intended to shoot down the Boeing, only those people who were manning the BUK had low skill and had found themselves in a stress situation. In short, they fired a rocket at the Boeing by mistake. ..."
"... What I find hard to believe is that if these accusations had been made against the separatist militia or the Russian military, then the tone of this discussion would have been otherwise. Such a tone, however is fully appropriate in the Western mass media when relating to Ukrainian anti-aircraft operatives who had been approximately deployed at that place and at that time. There are photos and videos. ..."
"... It would be profoundly astonishing to me if there was even the slightest move toward Ukraine accepting responsibility, because of all Poroshenko's accusatory rhetoric and the eager baying of the western press, the British being the worst of the lot. The west would have to eat too much crow, while Ukraine would be the object of both disgust for its deliberate deception and renewed lawsuits by relatives of the dead. They've gone way too far to reverse themselves now. Fascinating, nonetheless. ..."
In the Dutch "Telegraph" an article has been published in which it is announced that it
was all a tragic mistake explained by low-skilled Buka operators who were under stress.
Tomorrow in the Dutch "Telegraph" appears new material about the downing over the Donbas of
the Malaysian Boeing MH-17. There has been made an announcement, in which experts are referred
to, that states that the Boeing was shot down accidentally (!), that it was "a huge, tragic mistake"
and that no one at all had intended to shoot down the Boeing, only those people who were manning
the BUK had low skill and had found themselves in a stress situation. In short, they fired a rocket
at the Boeing by mistake.
What I find hard to believe is that if these accusations had been made against the separatist
militia or the Russian military, then the tone of this discussion would have been otherwise. Such
a tone, however is fully appropriate in the Western mass media when relating to Ukrainian anti-aircraft
operatives who had been approximately deployed at that place and at that time. There are photos
and videos.
Extremely interesting, and quite a variation on what I thought would be the verdict; "We may never
know". But is this actually stipulating that it was non-separatist Ukrainian personnel who were
responsible? I don't see that – just 'stressed-out, poorly-trained Buka operators'. That could
be anyone.
It would be profoundly astonishing to me if there was even the slightest move toward
Ukraine accepting responsibility, because of all Poroshenko's accusatory rhetoric and the eager
baying of the western press, the British being the worst of the lot. The west would have to eat
too much crow, while Ukraine would be the object of both disgust for its deliberate deception
and renewed lawsuits by relatives of the dead. They've gone way too far to reverse themselves
now. Fascinating, nonetheless.
But is this actually stipulating that it was non-separatist Ukrainian personnel who were responsible?
The translation reads:
Such a tone, however is fully appropriate in the Western mass media when relating to Ukrainian
anti-aircraft operatives…
Are they classifying separatists as "Ukrainians" when using the term "Ukrainian anti-aircraft
operatives"? Wouldn't they have written "Russian backed separatist anti-aircraft operatives" if
they had meant those opposed to Kiev rule, or are the "Russian backed separatists" now recognized
by the "Telegraph" as being Ukrainian citizens, which they are, of course de jure .
"... Trump is right to accuse the Bush administration of creating the mess, and also right to blame Obama for withdrawing American forces in 2011. Once the mess was made, the worst possible response was to do nothing about it (except, of course, to covertly arm "moderate Syrian rebels" with weapons from Libyan stockpiles, most of which found their way to al-Qaeda or ISIS). ..."
The first step to finding a solution is to know that there's a problem. Donald Trump
understands that the Washington foreign-policy establishment caused the whole Middle Eastern
mess. I will review the problem and speculate about what a Trump administration might do about it.
For the thousand years before 2007, when the Bush administration hand-picked Nouri al-Maliki to
head Iraq's first Shia-dominated government, Sunni Muslims had ruled Iraq. Maliki was vetted both
by the CIA and by the head of Iran's Revolutionary Guards.
With Iraq in the hands of an Iranian ally, the Sunnis–disarmed and marginalized by the dismissal
of the Iraqi army–were caught between pro-Iranian regimes in both Iraq and Syria. Maliki, as Ken
Silverstein reports in the
New Republic, ran one of history's most corrupt regimes, demanding among other things a 45% cut
in foreign investment in Iraq. The Sunnis had no state to protect them, and it was a matter of simple
logic that a Sunni leader eventually would propose a new state including the Sunni regions of Syria
as well as Iraq. Sadly, the mantle of Sunni statehood fell on Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, who projected
not only an Islamic State but a new Caliphate as well. America had a dozen opportunities to preempt
this but failed to do so.
From a fascinating defector's account in the
Foreign Policy
website, we learn that the region's jihadists debated the merits of remaining non-state actors on
the al-Qaeda model versus attempting to form a state prior to the launch of ISIS. The defector reports
a 2013 meeting in which al-Baghdadi demanded the allegiance of al-Qaeda (that is, al-Nusra Front)
fighters in Syria:
Baghdadi also spoke about the creation of an Islamic state in Syria. It was important, he said,
because Muslims needed to have a dawla, or state. Baghdadi wanted Muslims to have their
own territory, from where they could work and eventually conquer the world….The participants differed
greatly about the idea of creating a state in Syria. Throughout its existence, al-Qaeda had worked
in the shadows as a non-state actor. It did not openly control any territory, instead committed
acts of violence from undisclosed locations. Remaining a clandestine organization had a huge advantage:
It was very difficult for the enemy to find, attack, or destroy them. But by creating a state,
the jihadi leaders argued during the meeting, it would be extremely easy for the enemy to find
and attack them….
Despite the hesitation of many, Baghdadi persisted. Creating and running a state was of paramount
importance to him. Up to this point, jihadis ran around without controlling their own territory.
Baghdadi argued for borders, a citizenry, institutions, and a functioning bureaucracy. Abu Ahmad
summed up Baghdadi's pitch: "If such an Islamic state could survive its initial phase, it was
there to stay forever."
Baghdadi prevailed, however, not only because he persuaded the al-Qaeda ragtag of his project,
but because he won over a
large number of officers from Saddam Hussein's disbanded army. America had the opportunity to
"de-Ba'athify" the Sunni-dominated Iraqi Army after the 2003 invasion, the way it de-Nazified the
German Army after World War II. Instead, it hung them out to dry. Gen. Petraeus' "surge" policy of
2007-2008 bought the Sunni's temporary forbearance with hundreds of millions of dollars in handouts,
but set the stage for a future Sunni insurgency, as I
warned in 2010.
Trump is right to accuse the Bush administration of creating the mess, and also right to blame
Obama for withdrawing American forces in 2011. Once the mess was made, the worst possible response
was to do nothing about it (except, of course, to covertly arm "moderate Syrian rebels" with weapons
from Libyan stockpiles, most of which found their way to al-Qaeda or ISIS).
Now the region is a self-perpetuating war of each against all. Iraq's Shia militias, which replaced
the feckless Iraqi army in fighting ISIS, are in reorganization under Iranian command on the model
of
Iran's Revolutionary Guards. The Kurds are fighting both ISIS and the Syrian government. ISIS
is attacking both the Kurds, who field the most effective force opposing them in Syria, as well as
the Turks, who are trying to limit the power of the Kurds. Saudi Arabia and Qatar continue to support
the Sunnis of Iraq and Syria, which means in effect funding either ISIS or the al-Nusra Front.
Russia, meanwhile, is flying bombing missions in Syria from Iranian air bases. Apart from its
inclination to bedevil the floundering United States, Russia has a dog in the fight: as a number
of foreign officials who have spoken with the Russian president have told me, Putin has told anyone
who asks that he backs the Iranian Shi'ites because all of Russia's Muslims are Sunni. Russia fears
that a jihadist regime in Iraq or Syria would metastasize into a strategic threat to Russia. That
is just what al-Baghdadi had in mind, as the Foreign Policy defector story made clear:
Baghdadi had another persuasive argument: A state would offer a home to Muslims from all over
the world. Because al-Qaeda had always lurked in the shadows, it was difficult for ordinary Muslims
to sign up. But an Islamic state, Baghdadi argued, could attract thousands, even millions, of
like-minded jihadis. It would be a magnet.
What Trump might do
What's needed is a deal, and a deal-maker. I have no information about Trump's thinking other
than news reports, but here is a rough sketch of what he might do:
Iraq's Sunnis require the right combination of incentives and disincentives. The disincentive
is just what Trump has proposed, an "extreme" and "vicious" campaign against the terrorist gang.
The United States and whoever wants to join it (perhaps the French Foreign Legion?) should exterminate
ISIS. That requires a combination of ruthless employment of air power with less squeamishness about
collateral damage as well as a division or two on the ground. America doesn't necessarily need to
deploy the kind of soldier who joined the National Guard to get a subsidy for college tuition. As
Erik Prince has suggested, private contractors could do the job cheaper, along with judicious
use of special forces.
While the US grinds up ISIS, it should find a former Iraqi general to lead a Sunni zone in Iraq,
and enlist former Iraqi army officers to join the war against ISIS. Gen. Petraeus no doubt still
has the payroll list for the "Sunni Awakening" and "Sons of Iraq." The Sunnis would get the incentive
of an eventual Sunni state, provided that they help crush the terrorists.
The US would give quiet support to the Kurds' aspirations for their own state, and encourage them
to take control of northern Syria along the Turkish border. If the US doesn't stand godfather to
a Kurdish state, the Russians will. The Turks won't like that, and it must be explained to them that
it is in their own best interests: the Kurds have twice as many children as ethnic Turks, and by
2045 will have more military-age men than do the Turks.
Possibly the US should propose a UN-supervised referendum to allow the Kurdish-majority provinces
of southeastern Turkey to secede and join the Iraqi and Syrian Kurds in a new state. That would be
good for Turkey. Those who vote "yes" are better off outside Turkey, and those who vote to stay in
Turkey have no excuse to support separatists in the future. There are several million Iranian Kurds,
and the US should encourage them to break away as well.
'Look, Vladimir, here's the deal'
The next conversation between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin might go something like this: "Look,
Vladimir, you say you're worried about Sunni terrorists destabilizing Russia. We're going to kill
all the terrorists or hire people to kill them for us. We're not going to arm jihadists to make trouble
for you like we did in Afghanistan during the Cold War. We leave you alone, and you get out of our
hair. You get to keep your naval station in Syria, and the Alawites get to have their own state in
the northwest. Give Basher Assad a villa in Crimea and put in someone else to replace him–anyone
you like. The Sunni areas of Syria will become a separate enclave, along with enclaves for
the Druze."
And Trump might add: "We're taking care of the Sunni terrorists. Now you help us take care of
the Iranians, or we'll do it ourselves, and you won't like that. You can either work together with
us and we tell the Iranians to shut down their centrifuges and their ballistic missile program, or
we'll bomb it. You don't want us to make the S-300 missiles you sold Iran look like junk–that's bad
for your arms business.
"As for Ukraine: let them vote on partition. If the eastern half votes to join Russia, you got
it. If not, you stay the hell out of it."
As Trump knows, everyone in a deal doesn't have to walk away happy. Only the biggest stakeholders
have to walk away happy. Everyone else can go suck eggs.
Russia can walk away with its Syrian naval station and some assurance that the Middle East jihad
won't spill over into its own territory. Syria's Alawites and Sunnis both can declare victory. The
Kurds, who provide the region's most effective boots on the ground, will be big winners. Iraq's Shi'ites
will be able to rule themselves but not over the Sunnis and Kurds, which is a better situation than
they had during the thousand years when the Sunnis ruled over them. Turkey won't like the prospect
of losing a chunk of its territory, even though it will be better off for it. Iran will lose its
aspirations to a regional empire, and won't like it at all, but no-one else will care.
Rebuilding America's military, one of Trump's campaign planks, is a sine qua non for
success. Russia as well as China should fear America's technological prowess today as much as Gorbachev
feared Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative in the 1980s. Russia and China are closing the
technology gap with the United States, and if the United States does not reverse that, not much else
it does will matter.
She can not offer anything as she is "kick the can down the road" neoliberal candidate serving financial
oligarchy, so playing fear card is her the only chance...
UPDATE "'You can get rid of Manafort, but that doesn't end the odd bromance Trump has with Putin,'
Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said in a statement" [Washington
Post]. That's our Democrats; gin up a war scare all to win Eastern Europeans in a swing state
(Ohio). That's what this article, read closely, boils down to, read carefully. (I love Mook's "bromance,"
so reminiscent of the Clinton campaign's vile BernieBro smear.)
UPDATE "Republicans in North Carolina are pulling out all the stops to suppress the state's reliably
Democratic black vote. After the Fourth Circuit court reinstated a week of early voting, GOP-controlled
county elections boards are now trying to cut early-voting hours across the state. By virtue of holding
the governor's office, Republicans control a majority of votes on all county election boards and
yesterday they voted to cut 238 hours of early voting in Charlotte's Mecklenburg County, the largest
in the state. 'I'm not a big fan of early voting,' said GOP board chair Mary Potter Summa, brazenly
disregarding the federal appeals court's opinion. 'The more [early voting] sites we have, the more
opportunities exist for violations'" [The
Nation]. Bad Republicans. On the other hand, if the Democrats treated voter registration like
a 365/24/7 party function, including purchasing IDs in ID states for those who can't afford them,
none of this would be happening.
"... The politicians are battling it out for mindshare in both the electorate and the donor class for related but different reasons. ..."
"... The electorate is not so committed to serving the masters of capitalism, big finance and large corporations and the ownership class as their petty oligarchs are, but that is why campaign finance needs a makeover. ..."
"... In both cases though brainwashing starts at an early age. It just does not pay well enough for the general electorate to be as rigid in their thinking as it does for politicians to be rigid in their blinking. That is why media coverage of public affairs needs a makeover. ..."
The politicians and their electoral constituents are separate matters although there must obviously
be a stratum within which political allegiance can be triangulated. The politicians are battling
it out for mindshare in both the electorate and the donor class for related but different reasons.
The electorate is not so committed to serving the masters of capitalism, big finance and large
corporations and the ownership class as their petty oligarchs are, but that is why campaign finance
needs a makeover.
In both cases though brainwashing starts at an early age. It just does not pay well enough
for the general electorate to be as rigid in their thinking as it does for politicians to be rigid
in their blinking. That is why media coverage of public affairs needs a makeover.
Contrary to Kristol, far from being a non-interventionist, Obama conducted two interventions against
dictators in Egypt and Libya with disastrous consequences. The intervention in Libya, which Kristol
supported, has created two million refugees, hundreds of thousands of corpses, and a terrorist state.
One might suppose that a little re-thinking of interventionism would be in order. Trump's readiness
to rethink interventionism is hardly the same as Obama's strategy of retreat and surrender.
Contrary to Kristol's assertion, Trump is not opposed to all interventions against dictators.
He has promised to do what it takes to destroy ISIS, which includes bombing its oil facilities and
destroying its headquarters, and is obviously only possible with interventions in Syria and Iraq.
Destroying ISIS would also be an action to prevent mass slaughter, despite Kristol groundless claim.
As for Trump
proposing
"another re-set with Putin's Russia," there was no re-set with Russia under Obama. Attempting
a serious re-set - a re-set from strength - would seem reasonable and prudent, and would hardly be
a repeat of Obama's policies. It would be just the opposite.
"Getting out of the nation-building business and instead focusing on creating stability in the
world" is hardly an Obama policy, as Kristol suggests. Obama's intervention in Eygpt, put the Muslim
Brotherhood in power; when the Egyptian military then overthrew the Brotherhood, Obama sided with
the Brotherhood and alienated the most important power in the Middle East. These acts, together with
Obama's withdrawal from Iraq and waffling in Syria, created a power vacuum that spread instability
throughout the region.
"Avoiding nation-building, while focusing on creating stability" is a foreign policy any true
constitutional conservative would support - unless that conservative was driven by an irrational
hatred of Trump. Finally, Trump's promise to put American interests first and restore respect for
America through rebuilding American strength can only be described as a "national retreat" by a very
unprincipled - and careless - individual.
All these dishonesties and flim-flam excuses pale by comparison with the consequences Kristol
and his "Never Trump" cohorts are willing to risk by splitting the Republican vote. Obama has provided
America's mortal enemy, Iran, with a path to nuclear weapons, $150 billion dollars, and the freedom
to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles to deliver the lethal payloads. Trump has promised
to abandon the Iran deal, while Hillary Clinton and all but a handful of Democrats have supported
this treachery from start to finish. Kristol is now one of their allies.
I am a Jew who has never been to Israel and has never been a Zionist in the sense of believing
that Jews can rid themselves of Jew hatred by having their own nation state. But half of world Jewry
now lives in Israel, and the enemies whom Obama and Hillary have empowered - Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood,
Hezbollah, ISIS, and Hamas - have openly sworn to exterminate the Jews. I am also an American (and
an American first), whose country is threatened with destruction by the same enemies. To weaken the
only party that stands between the Jews and their annihilation, and between America and the forces
intent on destroying her, is a political miscalculation so great and a betrayal so profound as to
not be easily forgiven.
"... In the Dutch "Telegraph" an article has been published in which it is announced that it was all a tragic mistake explained by low-skilled Buka operators who were under stress. ..."
"... Tomorrow in the Dutch "Telegraph" appears new material about the downing over the Donbas of the Malaysian Boeing MH-17. There has been made an announcement, in which experts are referred to, that states that the Boeing was shot down accidentally (!), that it was "a huge, tragic mistake" and that no one at all had intended to shoot down the Boeing, only those people who were manning the BUK had low skill and had found themselves in a stress situation. In short, they fired a rocket at the Boeing by mistake. ..."
"... What I find hard to believe is that if these accusations had been made against the separatist militia or the Russian military, then the tone of this discussion would have been otherwise. Such a tone, however is fully appropriate in the Western mass media when relating to Ukrainian anti-aircraft operatives who had been approximately deployed at that place and at that time. There are photos and videos. ..."
"... It would be profoundly astonishing to me if there was even the slightest move toward Ukraine accepting responsibility, because of all Poroshenko's accusatory rhetoric and the eager baying of the western press, the British being the worst of the lot. The west would have to eat too much crow, while Ukraine would be the object of both disgust for its deliberate deception and renewed lawsuits by relatives of the dead. They've gone way too far to reverse themselves now. Fascinating, nonetheless. ..."
In the Dutch "Telegraph" an article has been published in which it is announced that it
was all a tragic mistake explained by low-skilled Buka operators who were under stress.
Tomorrow in the Dutch "Telegraph" appears new material about the downing over the Donbas of
the Malaysian Boeing MH-17. There has been made an announcement, in which experts are referred
to, that states that the Boeing was shot down accidentally (!), that it was "a huge, tragic mistake"
and that no one at all had intended to shoot down the Boeing, only those people who were manning
the BUK had low skill and had found themselves in a stress situation. In short, they fired a rocket
at the Boeing by mistake.
What I find hard to believe is that if these accusations had been made against the separatist
militia or the Russian military, then the tone of this discussion would have been otherwise. Such
a tone, however is fully appropriate in the Western mass media when relating to Ukrainian anti-aircraft
operatives who had been approximately deployed at that place and at that time. There are photos
and videos.
Extremely interesting, and quite a variation on what I thought would be the verdict; "We may never
know". But is this actually stipulating that it was non-separatist Ukrainian personnel who were
responsible? I don't see that – just 'stressed-out, poorly-trained Buka operators'. That could
be anyone.
It would be profoundly astonishing to me if there was even the slightest move toward
Ukraine accepting responsibility, because of all Poroshenko's accusatory rhetoric and the eager
baying of the western press, the British being the worst of the lot. The west would have to eat
too much crow, while Ukraine would be the object of both disgust for its deliberate deception
and renewed lawsuits by relatives of the dead. They've gone way too far to reverse themselves
now. Fascinating, nonetheless.
But is this actually stipulating that it was non-separatist Ukrainian personnel who were responsible?
The translation reads:
Such a tone, however is fully appropriate in the Western mass media when relating to Ukrainian
anti-aircraft operatives…
Are they classifying separatists as "Ukrainians" when using the term "Ukrainian anti-aircraft
operatives"? Wouldn't they have written "Russian backed separatist anti-aircraft operatives" if
they had meant those opposed to Kiev rule, or are the "Russian backed separatists" now recognized
by the "Telegraph" as being Ukrainian citizens, which they are, of course de jure .
I think to the extent Israel elite interests are congruent with interests of the US neocons Clinton
is pro-Israel. If they stray, she can change. The key here are interests of global corporations and
neoliberal globalization. As such Israel is just a pawn in a big game.
Notable quotes:
"... So who is guilty of putting the interests of a foreign government ahead of those of the United States? I know there are advocates for any number of foreign states running around loose in Washington but the friends of Israel in government and the media come immediately to mind largely because there are so many of them, they are very much in-your-face and they are both extremely well-funded and very successful. Now deceased former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, often referred to as the congressman and senator from Israel. And there are many more: Chuck Schumer, Chuck Grassley, Ben Cardin, Bob Menendez, Tom Cotton, Mark Kirk, Nita Lowey, Ted Deutch, Brad Sherman, Ileana-Ros Lehtinen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to name only a few in the Congress. All are major recipients of Israel related PAC money and all are reliable defenders of Israel no matter what Benjamin Netanyahu does and no matter how it effects the United States. ..."
"... And then there are the Clintons. One only has to go back to Bill's one-sided pro-Israeli diplomacy at Camp David in 2000 to discern how the game was played. And then there was the widely condemned January 2001 last minute pardon of Mossad agent Marc Rich, whose wife Denise was a major contributor to the Clintons, to realize that there was always a deference to Israeli interests particularly when money was involved ..."
"... Trump's crime, per Morell, is that he is disloyal to the United States because he is not sufficiently hostile to the evil Vladimir Putin, which somehow means that he is being manipulated by the clever Russian. Trump has indeed called for a positive working relationship with Putin to accomplish, among other objectives, the crushing of ISIS. And he is otherwise in favor of leaving Bashar al-Assad of Syria alone while also being disinclined to get involved in any additional military interventions in the Middle East or elsewhere, which pretty much makes him the antithesis of the Clintonian foreign policy promoted by Morell. ..."
"... The leading individual foreign donor to the Clinton Foundation between 1999 and 2014 was Ukrainian Viktor Pinchuk, who "directed between $10 and $25 million" to its Global Initiative, has let the Clintons use his private jet, attended Bill's Hollywood 65 th birthday celebration and hosted daughter Chelsea and her husband on a trip to Ukraine. Pinchuk is a Jewish oligarch married to the daughter of notoriously corrupt former Ukrainian president Leonid Kuchma. He is very closely tied to Israel, a supporter of regime change in his country, who was simultaneously donating money and also lobbying in Washington while Hillary was Secretary of State and promoting a similar agenda as part of her $5 billion program to "democratize" Ukraine. Clinton arranged a dozen meetings with substantive State Department officers for Pinchuk. ..."
"... Clinton supported Israel's actions in the 2014 Gaza War, which killed more than 500 children, describing them as an appropriate response to a situation that was provoked by Hamas. On the campaign trail recently husband Bill disingenuously defended Hillary's position on Gaza, saying that "Hamas is really smart. When they decide to rocket Israel they insinuate themselves in the hospitals, in the schools " placing all the blame for the large number of civilian casualties on the Palestinians, not on the Israelis. When the media began to report on the plight of the civilians trapped in Gaza Hillary dismissed the impending humanitarian catastrophe, saying "They're trapped by their leadership, unfortunately." ..."
"... Earlier, as a Senator from New York, Hillary supported Israel's building of the separation barrier on Palestinian land and cheer-led a crowd at a pro-Israel rally that praised Israel's 2006 devastation of Lebanon and Gaza. She nonsensically characterized and justified the bombing campaign as "efforts to send messages to Hamas, Hezbollah, to the Syrians, to the Iranians – to all who seek death and domination instead of life and freedom " More than nine hundred civilians died in the onslaught and when a vote came up subsequently in Congress to stop the supply of cluster bombs to countries that use them on civilians Hillary voted against the bill together with 69 other pro-Israel senators. ..."
"... Hillary enjoys a particularly close relationship with Netanyahu, writing in November , "I would also invite the Israeli prime minister to the White House in my first month in office." She has worked diligently to "reaffirm the unbreakable bond with Israel – and Benjamin Netanyahu." She has boasted of her being one of the promoters of annual increases in aid to Israel while she was in the Senate and Secretary of State and takes credit for repeatedly using America's Security Council veto to defend it in the United Nations. ..."
"... o you know how Prince Bandar was coaching G.W. Bush to circumvent the enmity of neocons towards his father? ..."
"... It looks very much like the US public is starting to mirror the Eastern European public under Communism by automatically disregarding government media + there's the added feature of the internet as a new kind of high-powered Samizdat, that clearly worries the Establishment. ..."
On August 5th, Michael Morell, a former acting Director of the CIA, pilloried GOP presidential
candidate Donald Trump, concluding that he was an "unwitting agent of Russia." Morell, who entitled
his New York Times
op-ed "I Ran the CIA and now I'm endorsing Hillary Clinton," described the process whereby Trump
had been so corrupted. According to Morell, Putin, it seems, as a wily ex-career intelligence officer,
is "trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them. That is exactly what
he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities In the intelligence
business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian
Federation."
I have previously
observed
how incomprehensible the designation of "unwitting agent" used in a sentence together with "recruited"
is, but perhaps I should add something more about Morell that might not be clear to the casual reader.
Morell was an Agency analyst, not a spy, who spent nearly his entire career in and around Washington.
The high point of his CIA experience consisted of briefing George W. Bush on the President's Daily
Brief (PDB).
Morell was not trained in the arduous CIA operational tradecraft course which agent recruiters
and handlers go through. This means that his understanding of intelligence operations and agents
is, to put it politely, derivative. If he had gone through the course he would understand that when
you recruit an agent you control him and tell him what to do. The agent might not know whom exactly
he is really answering to as in a false flag operation, but he cannot be unwitting.
Morell appears to have a tendency to make promises that others will have to deliver on, but perhaps
that's what delegation by senior U.S. government officials is all about. He was also not trained
in CIA paramilitary operations, which perhaps should be considered when he drops comments about the
desirability of "covertly" killing Russians and Iranians to make a point that they should not oppose
U.S. policies in Syria, as he did in a
softball interview with Charlie Rose on August 6th.
Morell appears to be oblivious to the possibility that going around assassinating foreigners might
be regarded as state sponsored terrorism and could well ignite World War 3. And, as is characteristic
of chickenhawks, it is highly unlikely that he was intending that either he or his immediate family
should go out and cut the throats or blow the heads off of those foreign devils who seek to derail
the Pax Americana. Nor would he expect to be in the firing line when the relatives of those victims
seek revenge. Someone else with the proper training would be found to do all that messy stuff and
take the consequences.
Be that as it may, Morell was a very senior officer and perhaps we should accept that he might
know something that the rest of us have missed, so let's just assume that he kind of misspoke and
give him a pass on the "recruited unwitting agent" expression. Instead let's look for other American
political figures who just might be either deliberately or inadvertently serving the interests of
a foreign government, which is presumably actually what Michael Morell meant to convey regarding
Trump. To be sure a well-run McCarthy-esque ferreting out of individuals who just might be disloyal
provides an excellent opportunity to undertake a purge of those who either by thought, word or deed
might be guilty of unacceptable levels of coziness with foreign interests.
So who is guilty of putting the interests of a foreign government ahead of those of the United
States? I know there are advocates for any number of foreign states running around loose in Washington
but the friends of Israel in government and the media come immediately to mind largely because there
are so many of them, they are very much in-your-face and they are both extremely well-funded and
very successful. Now deceased former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively,
often referred to as the congressman and senator from Israel. And there are many more: Chuck Schumer,
Chuck Grassley, Ben Cardin, Bob Menendez, Tom Cotton, Mark Kirk, Nita Lowey, Ted Deutch, Brad Sherman,
Ileana-Ros Lehtinen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to name only a few in the Congress. All are
major recipients of Israel related PAC money and all are reliable defenders of Israel no matter
what Benjamin Netanyahu does and no matter how it effects the United States.
And then there are the Clintons. One only has to go back to Bill's
one-sided pro-Israeli
diplomacy at Camp David in 2000 to discern how the game was played. And then there was the widely
condemned January 2001 last minute
pardon of Mossad agent Marc Rich, whose wife Denise was a major contributor to the Clintons,
to realize that there was always a deference to Israeli interests particularly when money was involved.
The only problem is that the Clintons, relying on Morell's formulation, might more reasonably be
described as witting agents of Israel rather than unwitting as they have certainly known what they
have been doing and have been actively supporting Israeli policies even when damaging to U.S. interests
since they first emerged from the primordial political swamps in Arkansas. If one were completely
cynical it might be possible to suggest that they understood from the beginning that pandering to
Israel and gaining access to Jewish power and money would be a major component in their rise to political
prominence. It certainly has worked out that way.
Trump's crime, per Morell, is that he is disloyal to the United States because he is not sufficiently
hostile to the evil Vladimir Putin, which somehow means that he is being manipulated by the clever
Russian. Trump has indeed called for a positive working relationship with Putin to accomplish, among
other objectives, the crushing of ISIS. And he is otherwise in favor of leaving Bashar al-Assad of
Syria alone while also being disinclined to get involved in any additional military interventions
in the Middle East or elsewhere, which pretty much makes him the antithesis of the Clintonian foreign
policy promoted by Morell.
In comparison with the deeply and profoundly corrupt Clintons, Trump's alleged foreign policy
perfidy makes him appear to be pretty much a boy scout. To understand the Clintons one might consider
the hundreds of millions of dollars, much of it from foreign sources, that have flowed into the Clinton
Foundation while Hillary was Secretary of State. And there is the clear
email evidence that Hillary exploited her government position to favor both foreign and domestic
financial supporters.
The leading
individual foreign donor to the Clinton Foundation between 1999 and 2014 was Ukrainian Viktor
Pinchuk,
who "directed between $10 and $25 million" to its Global Initiative, has let the Clintons use
his private jet, attended Bill's Hollywood 65th birthday celebration and hosted daughter
Chelsea and her husband on a trip to Ukraine. Pinchuk is a Jewish oligarch married to the daughter
of notoriously corrupt former Ukrainian president Leonid Kuchma. He is very closely tied to Israel,
a supporter of regime change in his country, who was simultaneously
donating money and also lobbying in Washington while Hillary was Secretary of State and promoting
a similar agenda as part of her $5 billion program to "democratize" Ukraine. Clinton arranged a dozen
meetings with substantive State Department officers for Pinchuk.
Hillary and Bill's predilection for all things Israeli and her promise to do even more in the
future is a matter of public record. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz asserted
that of all the political candidates in the primaries "Clinton had the longest public record of engagement
with Israel, and has spent decades diligently defending the Jewish state." In a speech to AIPAC in
March
she promised to take the "U.S.-Israel alliance to the next level." Hillary's current principal
financial supporter in her presidential run is Haim Saban, an Israeli who has described himself as
a "one issue" guy and that issue is Israel.
Hillary Clinton boasts of having "stood with Israel my entire career." Her website
promises to maintain "Israel's qualitative military edge to ensure the IDF is equipped to deter
and defeat aggression from the full spectrum of threats," "stand up against the boycott, divestment
and sanctions movement (BDS)," and "cut off efforts to unilaterally recognize Palestinian statehood
outside of the context of negotiations with Israel." In a letter to Haim Saban, Hillary
declared that "we need to make countering BDS a priority," which means she is prepared to support
laws limiting First Amendment rights in the U.S. in defense of perceived Israeli interests.
As part of the Obama Administration Hillary Clinton at first supported his attempts to pressure
Israel over its illegal settlements but has now backed off from that position, only rarely criticizing
them as a "problem" but never advocating any steps to persuade Netanyahu to reverse his policy. Notably,
she has repeatedly decried terroristic attacks on Israelis but has never acknowledged the brutality
of the Israeli occupation of much of the West Bank in spite of the fact that ten Palestinians are
killed for each Jewish victim of the ongoing violence.
Clinton supported Israel's actions in the 2014 Gaza War, which killed more than 500 children,
describing them as an appropriate response to a situation that was provoked by Hamas. On the campaign
trail recently husband Bill disingenuously
defended Hillary's position on Gaza, saying that "Hamas is really smart. When they decide to
rocket Israel they insinuate themselves in the hospitals, in the schools " placing all the blame
for the large number of civilian casualties on the Palestinians, not on the Israelis. When the media
began to report on the plight of the civilians trapped in Gaza Hillary dismissed the impending humanitarian
catastrophe, saying "They're trapped by their leadership, unfortunately."
Earlier, as a Senator from New York, Hillary supported Israel's building of the separation
barrier on Palestinian land and cheer-led a crowd at a pro-Israel rally that praised Israel's 2006
devastation of Lebanon and Gaza. She nonsensically
characterized and justified the bombing campaign as "efforts to send messages to Hamas, Hezbollah,
to the Syrians, to the Iranians – to all who seek death and domination instead of life and freedom "
More than nine hundred civilians died in the onslaught and when a vote came up subsequently in Congress
to stop the supply of cluster bombs to countries that use them on civilians Hillary voted against
the bill together with 69 other pro-Israel senators.
Hillary enjoys a particularly close relationship with Netanyahu,
writing in November, "I would also invite the Israeli prime minister to the White House in my
first month in office." She has worked diligently to "reaffirm the unbreakable bond with Israel –
and Benjamin Netanyahu." She has boasted of her being one of the promoters of annual increases in
aid to Israel while she was in the Senate and Secretary of State and takes credit for repeatedly
using America's Security Council veto to defend it in the United Nations.
So I think it is pretty clear who is the presidential candidate promoting the interests of a foreign
country and it ain't Trump. Hillary would no doubt argue that Israel is a friend and Russia is not,
an interesting point of view as Israel is not in fact an ally and has spied on us and copied our
military technology
to re-export to countries like China. Indeed, the most damaging spy in U.S. history Jonathan
Pollard worked for Israel. In spite of all that Israel continues to tap our treasury for billions
of dollars a year while still ignoring Washington when requests are made to moderate policies that
damage American interests. Against that, what exactly has Moscow done to harm us since the Cold War
ended? And who is advocating even more pressure on Russia and increasing the rewards for Israel,
presumably in the completely illogical belief that to do so will somehow bring some benefit to the
American people? Hillary Clinton.
utu, August 23, 2016 at 4:29 am GMT • 100 Words
Find the true reason why G.H. Bush was not allowed to get the 2nd term. Do you remember his
attempt to reign in Yitzhak Shamir when GHB was riding high popularity wave after the Desert Storm?
Do you remember anti-Bush Safire and Friedman columns in NYT week after week? Why Ross Perrot
was called in? Don't you see similarity with Teddy Rosevelt's run to prevent Taft's reelection
and securing Wilson's win? Do you know how Prince Bandar was coaching G.W. Bush to circumvent
the enmity of neocons towards his father? Answer these questions and you will know for whom
Bill Clinton worked. One more thing, Clinton did not touch Palestinian issue until last several
months of his presidency. He did not make G.H. Bush's mistake.
Miro23, August 23, 2016 at 5:45 am GMT • 100 Words
This a straightforward factual article about the Clinton sellout to Israel. So the question
may come down to the effectiveness of MSM propaganda.
It looks very much like the US public is starting to mirror the Eastern European public
under Communism by automatically disregarding government media + there's the added feature of
the internet as a new kind of high-powered Samizdat, that clearly worries the Establishment.
If the script follows through, then there's a good likelihood that the Establishment and their
façade players (Clintons, Bush, Romney, McCain etc) are reaching the end of the line, since like
in E.Europe, there's a background problem of economic failure and extreme élite/public inequality
that can no longer be hidden.
Philip Giraldi, August 23, 2016 at 10:32 am GMT • 100 Words
@hbm
hbm – the FBI concluded that someone working in the White House was MEGA but they decided that
they did not necessarily have enough evidence to convince a jury. He is still around and appears
in the media. As I would prefer not to get sued I will not name him but he is not a Clinton (though
he worked for them as well as for the two Bushes).
The likelihood is that the Clinton presidency will be tumultuous.
No Honeymoon: On the left, there are fewer hopes about Clinton than about
Barack Obama. The pressure will begin even before she takes office in what is likely to be a battle
royal in the lame duck session of Congress as Obama tries to force through his TPP trade deal.
New Energy: If the Sanders supporters stay engaged, there could be an organizational
form – his OurRevolution and his institute – that can do what a political party should do: educate
and mobilize around progressive issues; recruit and support truly progressive candidates. This
insurgency may continue to grow.
New Generation: It can't be forgotten how overwhelmingly Sanders won young
voters. He not only won 3 of 4 millennial voters in the Democratic primaries, he won a majority
of young people of color voting. Some of this was his message. Much of it was the integrity of
someone consistent in his views spurning the big money corruptions of our politics. These young
people are going to keep moving. They won't find answers in a Clinton administration. We're going
to see more movements, more disruptions, and more mobilizations – around jobs, around student
debt, about inequality, around criminal justice, immigration, globalization, and climate and more.
New Coalitions: Sanders and Trump clearly have shaken the coalitions of their
parties. Trump combined populism with bigotry and xenophobia to break up the Republican establishment's
ability to use the latter to support their neoliberal economics. Sanders attracted support of
the young across lines of race, challenging the Democratic establishment's ability to use liberal
identity politics to fuse minorities and upper middle class professionals into a majority coalition.
Clinton fended off the challenge, but the shakeup has only begun.
New Ideas: The Davos era has failed. There is no way it can continue down
the road without producing more and more opposition. This is now the second straight "recovery"
in which most Americans will lose ground. Already the elite is embattled intellectually on key
elements of the neo-liberal agenda: corporate globalization, privatization, austerity, "small
government," even global policing. Joe Stiglitz suggests that the Davos era is over, but that
is premature. What is clear is that it has failed and the struggle to replace it has just begun.
And that waving the white flag because Trump is besmirching populism mistakes today's farce for
history's drama.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
"... about lesser-evil politics and what impact the election could have on the future of progressive politics. ..."
"... Ford quoted writer Steven Salait, who wrote recently, "Lesser evilism is possible only because we're so accustomed to seeing certain people as lesser human beings." ..."
"... Dr. Monteiro believes that Republican support for Clinton could signal the beginning of a "new Mccarthyism." ..."
"... "Now we've always known that the two-party system was essentially a one party system with two wings." he said, "But now, so many of the Republicans and the neocons and the liberals are gravitating to this big umbrella. But at the same time they're saying to anyone who would oppose their policy in Russia, or towards Korea or Syria, that somehow you are unpatriotic, you are on the payroll of Russia or some external force. So I would suggest that there's nothing more lethal than a Cold War liberal. They go beyond the conservatives." ..."
"... That's a real concern. When we look at Hillary Clinton, when we look at her support for surveillance, her lack of support for civil liberties…It's very important that we're not distracted by this issue of who people vote for, is it this party or that party ..."
"... "That's not to say that elections aren't important, they definitely are a gauge of where people are at, at any given point, but that's not where social change comes from. And we need to stand strong, we need to stand united, we need to be prepared to get out into the streets to continue to struggle around the issues, including issues that are to the left of the articulated position of Bernie Sanders himself, which are issues of peace and social justice that the Bernie movement resonated with." ..."
With election season in full swing, Democrats and defecting Republicans
have ramped up a campaign against the open bigotry of bombastic real estate magnate Donald Trump.
Radio Sputnik's Loud & Clear spoke with Jane Cutter, editor of Liberationnews.org; Dr. Anthony
Monteiro, W.E.B. DuBois scholar and member of the Black Radical Organizing Collective; and Derek
Ford, Assistant Professor of Education Studies at DePauw University, about lesser-evil politics
and what impact the election could have on the future of progressive politics.
Cutter
explained that, historically, "Who's sitting in the White House is ultimately not the determining
factor" of a movement's vitality, and points to the presidency of Richard Nixon, considered to
be one of America's most conservative presidents. Cutter noted the many progressive measures passed
under the Nixon Administration due to pressure from the Civil Rights, Black Power, feminist and
LGBTQ movements.
"At that time, people were organized, people were mobilized, people were militant and in the
streets and, as a result, the Nixon Administration and other elements of the ruling class were
forced to give up numerous concessions that were in fact quite beneficial to the working class
of this country," she said.
Ford quoted writer Steven Salait, who wrote recently, "Lesser evilism is possible only
because we're so accustomed to seeing certain people as lesser human beings."
"By that he was saying that to call Hillary Clinton the lesser evil is to call the people of
Palestine, in Syria, Libya and Iraq, as lesser human beings, because her actions and her policies
have been so steadfastly hawkish there. It also disarms the movement and any potential for popular
uprising."
Dr. Monteiro believes that Republican support for Clinton could signal the beginning of
a "new Mccarthyism."
"Now we've always known that the two-party system was essentially
a one party system with two wings." he said, "But now, so many of the Republicans and the neocons
and the liberals are gravitating to this big umbrella. But at the same time they're saying to
anyone who would oppose their policy in Russia, or towards Korea or Syria, that somehow you are
unpatriotic, you are on the payroll of Russia or some external force. So I would suggest that
there's nothing more lethal than a Cold War liberal. They go beyond the conservatives."
He added, "I think Hillary represents something that we have to be very frightened of and we
really have to mobilize and steel ourselves for a really intense struggle against what she represents."
Cutter agreed, saying, "That's a real concern. When we look at Hillary Clinton, when we
look at her support for surveillance, her lack of support for civil liberties…It's very important
that we're not distracted by this issue of who people vote for, is it this party or that
party."
"That's not to say that elections aren't important, they definitely are a gauge of where
people are at, at any given point, but that's not where social change comes from. And we need
to stand strong, we need to stand united, we need to be prepared to get out into the streets to
continue to struggle around the issues, including issues that are to the left of the articulated
position of Bernie Sanders himself, which are issues of peace and social justice that the Bernie
movement resonated with."
Yet his real foreign policy record is closer to Hillary's than he likes to admit. Yes, he
opposed the Iraq war – and then proceeded to routinely vote to fund that war: ditto Afghanistan.
In 2003, at the height of the Iraq war hysteria, then Congressman Sanders
voted for a
congressional resolution hailing Bush:
"Congress expresses the unequivocal support and appreciation of the nation to the President
as Commander-in-Chief for his firm leadership and decisive action in the conduct of military
operations in Iraq as part of the ongoing Global War on Terrorism."
As the drumbeat for war with Iran got louder, Rep. Sanders voted for the
Iran Freedom
Support Act, which codified sanctions imposed since the fall of the Shah and handed out
millions to "pro-freedom" groups seeking the overthrow of the Tehran regime. The Bush
administration, you'll
recall, was running a regime change operation at that point which gave covert support to
Jundullah, a terrorist group responsible for murdering
scores of
Iranian civilians. Bush was also
canoodling with the
Mujahideen-e-Khalq, a weirdo cult group once designated as a terrorist organization (a label
lifted by Hillary Clinton's State Department after a
well-oiled public relations campaign).
Sanders fulsomely supported the Kosovo war: when shocked antiwar activists visited his Senate
office in Burlington, Vermont, he
called the cops
on them. At a Montpelier public meeting featuring a debate on the war, Bernie
argued
passionately in favor of Bill Clinton's "humanitarian" intervention, and pointedly told hecklers
to leave if they didn't like what he had to say.
As a Senator, his votes on civil liberties issues show a distinct pattern. While he voted
against the Patriot Act, in 2006 he voted
in favor of
making fourteen provisions of the Act permanent, including those that codified the FBI's
authority to seize business records and carry out roving wiretaps. Sanders voted no on the
legislation establishing the Department of Homeland Security, but by the time he was in the
Senate he was regularly voting for that agency's ever-expanding budget.
The evolution of Bernie Sanders – from his days as a Liberty Unionist radical and Trotskyist
fellow-traveler, to his first political success as Mayor of Burlington, his election to Congress
and then on to the Senate – limns the course of the post-Sixties American left. Although birthed
in the turmoil of the Vietnam war, the
vaunted anti-interventionism of this crowd soon fell by the wayside as domestic political
tradeoffs trumped ideology. Nothing exemplifies this process of incremental betrayal better than
Sanders'
support for the troubled F-35 fighter jet, the classic case of a military program that exists
only to enrich the military-industrial complex. Although the plane has been plagued with
technical difficulties, and has toted up hundreds of billions of dollars in cost overruns,
Sanders has stubbornly defended and voted for it because Lockheed-Martin manufactures it in
Vermont.
TEHRAN, Feb. 14 (MNA) -- Most of the neoconservatives in the United States advocate globalization
and the neoliberal economic model. What's wrong with this picture?
At first glance, nothing is wrong with the statement because it is basically true. At second glance,
everything is wrong with it.
Liberal and conservative used to be opposites. Now we have neoliberal neoconservatives. If the
neocons are also neoliberals, how do we avoid confusion when using the words liberal and conservative?
It is natural for language to evolve, but when antonyms become synonyms, there is a problem.
The situation is similar to the Newspeak and doublethink of George Orwell's book 1984. Newspeak
was a language meant to control people by decreasing their power of reasoning through oversimplification
of the language and doublethink.
Orwell wrote: "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind
simultaneously, and accepting both of them."
There are now countless examples of this in the English language.
In war, civilian casualties are called collateral damage. The use of the expression collateral
damage allows people to avoid the unpleasantry of having to think about innocent civilians being
killed.
Every country used to have a war ministry, but they all later changed the name to the defense
ministry or the defense department. In 1984, it was called the Ministry of Peace, or Minipax in Newspeak.
Try this simple exercise. Imagine you are listening to the radio and the newscaster says: "The
war minister has just issued a statement."
Now suppose the newscaster said: "The defense minister has just issued a statement." Notice how
a change of one word changed your reaction.
Consider the many acronyms that have entered the language such as NATO, NAFTA, and CIA Their
complete names, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, North American Free Trade Agreement, and Central
Intelligence Agency, contain the words treaty, free, free trade, agreement, and intelligence. On
hearing these words, the mind naturally makes many free associations that cannot occur when the acronyms
are used.
The neoliberal neocons themselves use a form of Newspeak.
The most glaring example of this is when neoliberal neocon officials in the United States tell
citizens that they must take away some of their freedom in order to protect their freedom. Shades
of Orwell's "freedom is slavery".
U.S. officials have spoken of the need to cancel elections in order to safeguard democracy if
a serious crisis arises. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that in a national emergency the
U.S. Constitution may have to be temporarily suspended in order to protect the civil liberties enshrined
in that document.
Bizarrely, very few U.S. citizens are protesting. Apparently, they have already learned how to
employ doublethink.
Language is being used to control people. People are actually subconsciously brainwashing themselves
through the language they use.
The word neocon itself is Newspeak since its use in place of the longer form eliminates all the
connotations of the words neoconservative and conservative.
Let's look at a few more quotes from 1984 to get a better understanding of what is happening today.
"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed
lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and
believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to
it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to
forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment
when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process
to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and
then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand
the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink."
"The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies, the Ministry
of Love with torture and the Ministry of Plenty with starvation. These contradictions are not accidental,
nor do they result from ordinary hypocrisy; they are deliberate exercises in doublethink. For it
is only by reconciling contradictions that power can be retained indefinitely. In no other way could
the ancient cycle be broken. If human equality is to be for ever averted -- if the High, as we have
called them, are to keep their places permanently -- then the prevailing mental condition must be
controlled insanity."
"The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and
mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible.
It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical
thought -- that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc -- should be literally unthinkable,
at least so far as thought is dependent on words."
"Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was
indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum."
"But the special function of certain Newspeak words, of which oldthink was one, was not so much
to express meanings as to destroy them."
"The intention was to make speech, and especially speech on any subject not ideologically neutral,
as nearly as possible independent of consciousness."
"Ultimately it was hoped to make articulate speech issue from the larynx without involving the
higher brain centres at all."
The advocates of globalization often use a form of Newspeak.
When government officials and economists say the economy of a Third World country is booming,
despite the fact that they know the masses live in abject poverty, and the media repeat the lie,
that is doublethink through Newspeak. Of course, the economy of the country in question is only booming
for the globalist and local upper classes, and perhaps also for the middle classes, but somehow almost
nobody questions the lie. And the neoliberal globalists are laughing all the way to the bank.
The acceptance of such a lie by the general public is an even greater real-life catastrophe than
the fictional one described in 1984. Worse still, some people acknowledge that it is a lie but respond
with apathy or slavish resignation in the belief that nothing can be done about the situation.
Do we want to live in dystopia, the worst of all possible worlds, the doubleplusungood of all
possible worlds?
If not, we should watch our language and take care that we are still using our higher brain centers.
"... The evidence that ties the ShadowBrokers dump to the NSA comes in an agency manual for implanting
malware, classified top secret, provided by Snowden, and not previously available to the public. The
draft manual instructs NSA operators to track their use of one malware program using a specific 16-character
string, "ace02468bdf13579." That exact same string appears throughout the ShadowBrokers leak in code
associated with the same program, SECONDDATE. ..."
On Monday, a hacking group calling itself the "ShadowBrokers" announced an auction for what it claimed
were "cyber weapons" made by the NSA. Based on never-before-published documents provided by the whistleblower
Edward Snowden, The Intercept can confirm that the arsenal contains authentic NSA software,
part of a powerful constellation of tools used to covertly infect computers worldwide.
The provenance
of the code has been a matter of heated debate this week among cybersecurity experts, and while it
remains unclear how the software leaked, one thing is now beyond speculation: The malware is covered
with the NSA's virtual fingerprints and clearly originates from the agency.
The evidence that ties the ShadowBrokers dump to the NSA comes in an agency manual for implanting
malware, classified top secret, provided by Snowden, and not previously available to the public.
The draft manual instructs NSA operators to track their use of one malware program using a specific
16-character string, "ace02468bdf13579." That exact same string appears throughout the ShadowBrokers
leak in code associated with the same program, SECONDDATE.
SECONDDATE plays a specialized role inside a complex global system built by the U.S. government
to infect and monitor what one document
estimated to be millions of computers around the world. Its release by ShadowBrokers, alongside
dozens of other malicious tools, marks the first time any full copies of the NSA's offensive software
have been available to the public, providing a glimpse at how an elaborate system outlined in the
Snowden documents looks when deployed in the real world, as well as concrete evidence that NSA hackers
don't always have the last word when it comes to computer exploitation.
But malicious software of this sophistication doesn't just pose a threat to foreign governments,
Johns Hopkins University cryptographer Matthew Green told The Intercept:
The danger of these exploits is that they can be used to target anyone who is using a vulnerable
router. This is the equivalent of leaving lockpicking tools lying around a high school cafeteria.
It's worse, in fact, because many of these exploits are not available through any other means,
so they're just now coming to the attention of the firewall and router manufacturers that need
to fix them, as well as the customers that are vulnerable.
So the risk is twofold: first, that the person or persons who stole this information might
have used them against us. If this is indeed Russia, then one assumes that they probably have
their own exploits, but there's no need to give them any more. And now that the exploits have
been released, we run the risk that ordinary criminals will use them against corporate targets.
The NSA did not respond to questions concerning ShadowBrokers, the Snowden documents, or its malware.
A Memorable SECONDDATE
The offensive tools released by ShadowBrokers are organized under a litany of code names such
as POLARSNEEZE and ELIGIBLE BOMBSHELL, and their exact purpose is still being assessed. But we do
know more about one of the weapons: SECONDDATE.
SECONDDATE is a tool designed to intercept web requests and redirect browsers on target computers
to an NSA web server. That server, in turn, is designed to infect them with malware. SECONDDATE's
existence was
first reported by The Intercept in 2014, as part of a look at a global computer exploitation
effort code-named TURBINE. The malware server, known as FOXACID, has also been
described in previously released Snowden documents.
Other documents released by The Intercept today not only tie SECONDDATE to the ShadowBrokers
leak but also provide new detail on how it fits into the NSA's broader surveillance and infection
network. They also show how SECONDDATE has been used, including to spy on Pakistan and a computer
system in Lebanon.
The top-secret manual that authenticates the SECONDDATE found in the wild as the same one used
within the NSA is a 31-page document titled "FOXACID
SOP for Operational Management" and marked as a draft. It dates to no earlier than 2010. A section
within the manual describes administrative tools for tracking how victims are funneled into FOXACID,
including a set of tags used to catalogue servers. When such a tag is created in relation to a SECONDDATE-related
infection, the document says, a certain distinctive identifier must be used:
The same SECONDDATE MSGID string appears in 14 different files throughout the ShadowBrokers leak,
including in a file titled SecondDate-3021.exe. Viewed through a code-editing program (screenshot
below), the NSA's secret number can be found hiding in plain sight:
All told, throughout many of the folders contained in the ShadowBrokers' package (screenshot below),
there are 47 files with SECONDDATE-related names, including different versions of the raw code required
to execute a SECONDDATE attack, instructions for how to use it, and other related files.
.
After viewing the code, Green told The Intercept the MSGID string's occurrence in both
an NSA training document and this week's leak is "unlikely to be a coincidence." Computer security
researcher Matt Suiche, founder of UAE-based cybersecurity startup Comae Technologies, who has been
particularly vocal in his analysis of the ShadowBrokers this week, told The Intercept "there
is no way" the MSGID string's appearance in both places is a coincidence.
Where SECONDDATE Fits In
This overview jibes with previously unpublished classified files provided by Snowden that illustrate
how SECONDDATE is a component of BADDECISION, a broader NSA infiltration tool. SECONDDATE helps the
NSA pull off a "man in the middle" attack against users on a wireless network, tricking them into
thinking they're talking to a safe website when in reality they've been sent a malicious payload
from an NSA server.
According to one December 2010 PowerPoint presentation titled "Introduction
to BADDECISION," that tool is also designed to send users of a wireless network, sometimes referred
to as an 802.11 network, to FOXACID malware servers. Or, as the presentation puts it, BADDECISION
is an "802.11 CNE [computer network exploitation] tool that uses a true man-in-the-middle attack
and a frame injection technique to redirect a target client to a FOXACID server." As another
top-secret slide puts it, the attack homes in on "the greatest vulnerability to your computer:
your web browser."
One slide points out that the attack works on users with an encrypted wireless connection to the
internet.
That trick, it seems, often involves BADDECISION and SECONDDATE, with the latter described as
a "component" for the former. A series of diagrams in the "Introduction to BADDECISION" presentation
show how an NSA operator "uses SECONDDATE to inject a redirection payload at [a] Target Client,"
invisibly hijacking a user's web browser as the user attempts to visit a benign website (in the example
given, it's CNN.com). Executed correctly, the file explains, a "Target Client continues normal webpage
browsing, completely unaware," lands on a malware-filled NSA server, and becomes infected with as
much of that malware as possible - or as the presentation puts it, the user will be left "WHACKED!"
In the other top-secret presentations, it's put plainly: "How
do we redirect the target to the FOXACID server without being noticed"? Simple: "Use NIGHTSTAND
or BADDECISION."
The sheer number of interlocking tools available to crack a computer is dizzying. In the
FOXACID manual, government hackers are told an NSA hacker ought to be familiar with using SECONDDATE
along with similar man-in-the-middle wi-fi attacks code-named MAGIC SQUIRREL and MAGICBEAN. A top-secret
presentation on FOXACID lists further ways to redirect targets to the malware server system.
To position themselves within range of a vulnerable wireless network, NSA operators can use a
mobile antenna system running software code-named BLINDDATE, depicted in the field in what appears
to be Kabul. The software can even be attached to a drone. BLINDDATE in turn can run BADDECISION,
which allows for a SECONDDATE attack:
Elsewhere in these files, there are at least two documented cases of SECONDDATE being used to
successfully infect computers overseas: An April 2013
presentation boasts of successful attacks against computer systems in both Pakistan and Lebanon.
In the first, NSA hackers used SECONDDATE to breach "targets in Pakistan's National Telecommunications
Corporation's (NTC) VIP Division," which contained documents pertaining to "the backbone of Pakistan's
Green Line communications network" used by "civilian and military leadership."
In the latter, the NSA used SECONDDATE to pull off a man-in-the-middle attack in Lebanon "for
the first time ever," infecting a Lebanese ISP to extract "100+ MB of Hizballah Unit 1800 data,"
a special subset of the terrorist group dedicated to aiding Palestinian militants.
SECONDDATE is just one method that the NSA uses to get its target's browser pointed at a FOXACID
server. Other methods include sending spam that attempts to exploit bugs in popular web-based email
providers or entices targets to click on malicious links that lead to a FOXACID server. One
document, a newsletter for the NSA's Special Source Operations division, describes how NSA software
other than SECONDDATE was used to repeatedly direct targets in Pakistan to FOXACID malware web servers,
eventually infecting the targets' computers.
A Potentially Mundane Hack
Snowden, who worked for NSA contractors Dell and Booz Allen Hamilton, has offered some context
and a relatively mundane possible explanation for the leak: that the NSA headquarters was not hacked,
but rather one of the computers the agency uses to plan and execute attacks was compromised. In a
series of tweets,
he pointed out that the NSA often lurks on systems that are supposed to be controlled by others,
and it's possible someone at the agency took control of a server and failed to clean up after themselves.
A regime, hacker group, or intelligence agency could have seized the files and the opportunity to
embarrass the agency.
"... Buchanan: "The Czechs had their Prague Spring. The Tunisians and Egyptians their Arab Spring. When do we have our American Spring? The Brits had their 'Brexit' and declared independence of an arrogant superstate in Brussels. How do we liberate ourselves from a Beltway superstate that is more powerful and resistant to democratic change? Our CIA, NGOs and National Endowment for Democracy all beaver away for 'regime change' in faraway lands whose rulers displease us. How do we effect 'regime change' here at home?" ..."
"... He goes on to quote John F. Kennedy saying, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable," and closes with a reference to Credence Clearwater, "But if Hillary Clinton takes power, and continues America on her present course, which a majority of Americans rejected in the primaries, there is going to a bad moon rising." ..."
"... though both stood against the conservative mainstream to champion economic nationalism, the two men couldn't be further apart in their intellectual sophistication and their sense of poetry ..."
"... "Putin may be seeing the future with more clarity than Americans still caught up in a Cold War paradigm," Buchanan wrote. He also reassured readers that "Putin says his mother had him secretly baptized as a baby and professes to be a Christian." ..."
Straining for relevance, Buchanan attaches himself to Trump, expresses admiration for Vladimir
Putin.
... Buchanan, a senior advisor to Presidents Nixon, Ford and Reagan, and who was
once considered the go-to guy for paleoconservatives, seemed to have faded in importance from those
heady days when he co-hosted CNN's Crossfire, and gave the rousing and incendiary culture war speech
at the 1992 Republican Party convention.
As The Australian's Nikki Savva recently wrote, Buchanan "ran against the first George Bush for
the Republican nomination, promising to build a wall or dig a giant ditch along the border between
the US and Mexico. So it's not a new idea. The same people cheering Trump now applauded Buchanan
then - it's just their numbers have grown." Now, thanks to Donald Trump's candidacy, and the band
of white nationalists supporting him, Buchanan is in full pundefocating mode.
According to People for the American Way's Right Wing Watch, Buchanan, the author of the new book
"The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority," is all in
with Trump's claim that if he loses it will be because the election is rigged. And, furthermore,
according to Buchanan, Trump's loss could signal the beginning of a revolution in America.
In a WND column headlined "Yes, The System Is Rigged," Buchanan – whose column is syndicated in
a number of mainstream newspapers -- maintains that if the election "ends with a Clintonite restoration
and a ratification of the same old Beltway policies, would that not suggest there is something fraudulent
about American democracy, something rotten in the state?"
Buchanan: "The Czechs had their Prague Spring. The Tunisians and Egyptians their Arab Spring.
When do we have our American Spring? The Brits had their 'Brexit' and declared independence of an
arrogant superstate in Brussels. How do we liberate ourselves from a Beltway superstate that is more
powerful and resistant to democratic change? Our CIA, NGOs and National Endowment for Democracy all
beaver away for 'regime change' in faraway lands whose rulers displease us. How do we effect 'regime
change' here at home?"
He goes on to quote John F. Kennedy saying, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible
will make violent revolution inevitable," and closes with a reference to Credence Clearwater, "But
if Hillary Clinton takes power, and continues America on her present course, which a majority of
Americans rejected in the primaries, there is going to a bad moon rising."
... ... ...
Interestingly, in a post-GOP convention column, Slate's Reihan Salam argued that Trump missed
a golden opportunity to soften his image: "He should have taken a page from Pat Buchanan, a man who
is in many ways Trump's spiritual predecessor. Though both Buchanan and Trump have indulged in inflammatory
racial rhetoric, and though both stood against the conservative mainstream to champion economic
nationalism, the two men couldn't be further apart in their intellectual sophistication and their
sense of poetry. And while Buchanan came to his blend of traditionalism and nationalism honestly,
one still gets the sense that Trump simply saw an opportunity to exploit the GOP's working-class
primary electorate and went for it."
In addition to his "inflammatory racial rhetoric," in recent years, Buchanan has not been shy
in expressing his admiration for Russia's Vladimir Putin. As Boulder Weekly's Dave Anderson recently
pointed out, in a 2013 column titled "Is Putin One of Us?" Buchanan "noted that while a 'de-Christianized'
United States has been embracing 'homosexual marriage, pornography, promiscuity, and the whole panoply
of Hollywood values,' the Russian president has stood up for traditional values. He praised Putin's
disparaging of homosexuals, feminists and immigrants."
"Putin may be seeing the future with more clarity than Americans still caught up in a Cold
War paradigm," Buchanan wrote. He also reassured readers that "Putin says his mother had him secretly
baptized as a baby and professes to be a Christian."
Donald Trump says he'll implement tough new restrictions on administration officials and their
spouses giving paid speeches if he's elected to the White House.
The GOP nominee is telling a rally crowd in Wisconsin that he wants to ban the spouses of senior
government officials from collecting speaking fees as they serve.
He says he'll insist senior officials sign an agreement barring them from collecting speaking
fees from corporations with a registered lobbyist or any entity tied to a foreign government for
five years after leaving office.
Trump has criticized rival Hillary Clinton for the speaking fees she collected after leaving
her position as secretary of state and called on her to release the transcripts.
What a bunch of neoliberal piranha, devouring the poorest country in Europe, where pernneers exist
on $1 a day or less, with the help of installed by Washington corrupt oligarchs (Yanukovich was installed
with Washington blessing and was controlled by Washington, who was fully aware about the level of corruption
of its government; especially his big friend vice-president Biden).
Notable quotes:
"... Mr. Kalyuzhny was also a founding board member of a Brussels-based nongovernmental organization, the European Center for a Modern Ukraine, that hired the Podesta Group, a Washington lobbying firm that received $1.02 million to promote an agenda generally aligned with the Party of Regions. ..."
"... Because the payment was made through a nongovernmental organization, the Podesta Group did not register as a lobbyist for a foreign entity. A co-founder of the Podesta Group, John D. Podesta, is chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign, and his brother, Tony Podesta, runs the firm now. ..."
"... The Podesta Group, in a statement, said its in-house counsel determined the company had no obligation to register as a representative of a foreign entity in part because the nonprofit offered assurances it was not "directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed or subsidized in whole or in part by a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party." ..."
"... On Monday, Mr. Manafort issued a heated statement in response to an article in The New York Times that first disclosed that the ledgers - a document described by Ukrainian investigators as an under-the-table payment system for the Party of Regions - referenced a total of $12.7 million in cash payments to him over a five-year period. ..."
"... In that statement, Mr. Manafort, who was removed from day-to-day management of the Trump campaign on Wednesday though he retained his title, denied that he had personally received any off-the-books cash payments. "The suggestion that I accepted cash payments is unfounded, silly and nonsensical," he said. ..."
MOSCOW - The Ukrainian authorities, under pressure to bolster their assertion that once-secret
accounting documents show cash payments from a pro-Russian political party earmarked for Donald J.
Trump's campaign chairman, on Thursday released line-item entries, some for millions of dollars.
The revelations also point to an outsize role for a former senior member of the pro-Russian political
party, the Party of Regions, in directing money to both Republican and Democratic advisers and lobbyists
from the United States as the party tried to burnish its image in Washington.
The former party member, Vitaly A. Kalyuzhny, for a time chairman of the Ukraine Parliament's
International Relations Committee, had signed nine times for receipt of payments designated for the
Trump campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, according to Serhiy A. Leshchenko, a member of Parliament
who has studied the documents. The ledger covered payments from 2007 to 2012, when Mr. Manafort worked
for the party and its leader, Viktor F. Yanukovych, Ukraine's former president who was deposed.
Mr. Kalyuzhny was also a founding board member of a Brussels-based nongovernmental organization,
the European Center for a Modern Ukraine, that hired the Podesta Group, a Washington lobbying firm
that received $1.02 million to promote an agenda generally aligned with the Party of Regions.
Because the payment was made through a nongovernmental organization, the Podesta Group did
not register as a lobbyist for a foreign entity. A co-founder of the Podesta Group, John D. Podesta,
is chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign, and his brother, Tony Podesta, runs the firm now.
The role of Mr. Kalyuzhny, a onetime computer programmer from the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk,
in directing funds to the companies of the chairmen of both presidential campaigns, had not previously
been reported. Mr. Kalyuzhny was one of three Party of Regions members of Parliament who founded
the nonprofit.
The Associated Press, citing emails it had obtained, also reported Thursday that Mr. Manafort's
work for Ukraine included a secret lobbying effort in Washington that he operated with an associate,
Rick Gates, and that was aimed at influencing American news organizations and government officials.
Mr. Gates noted in the emails that he conducted the work through two lobbying firms, including
the Podesta Group, because Ukraine's foreign minister did not want the country's embassy involved.
The A.P. said one of Mr. Gates's campaigns sought to turn public opinion in the West against Yulia
Tymoshenko, a former Ukrainian prime minister who was imprisoned during Mr. Yanukovych's administration.
The Podesta Group, in a statement, said its in-house counsel determined the company had no
obligation to register as a representative of a foreign entity in part because the nonprofit offered
assurances it was not "directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed or subsidized
in whole or in part by a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party."
Reached by phone on Thursday, a former aide to Mr. Kalyuzhny said he had lost contact with the
politician and was unsure whether he remained in Kiev or had returned to Donetsk, now the capital
of a Russian-backed separatist enclave.
Ukrainian officials emphasized that they did not know as yet if the cash payments reflected in
the ledgers were actually made. In all 22 instances, people other than Mr. Manafort appear to have
signed for the money. But the ledger entries are highly specific with funds earmarked for services
such as exit polling, equipment and other services.
On Monday, Mr. Manafort issued a heated statement in response to an article in The New York
Times that first disclosed that the ledgers - a document described by Ukrainian investigators as
an under-the-table payment system for the Party of Regions - referenced a total of $12.7 million
in cash payments to him over a five-year period.
In that statement, Mr. Manafort, who was removed from day-to-day management of the Trump campaign
on Wednesday though he retained his title, denied that he had personally received any off-the-books
cash payments. "The suggestion that I accepted cash payments is unfounded, silly and nonsensical,"
he said.
Mr. Manafort's statement, however, left open the possibility that cash payments had been made
to his firm or associates. And details from the ledgers released Thursday by anticorruption investigators
suggest that may have occurred. Three separate payments, for example, totaling nearly $5.7 million
are earmarked for Mr. Manafort's "contract."
Another, from October 2012, suggests a payment to Mr. Manafort of $400,000 for exit polling, a
legitimate campaign outlay.
Two smaller entries, for $4,632 and $854, show payments for seven personal computers and a computer
server.
The payments do not appear to have been reported by the Party of Regions in campaign finance disclosures
in Ukraine. The party's 2012 filing indicates outlays for expenses other than advertising of just
under $2 million, at the exchange rate at the time. This is less than a single payment in the black
ledger designated for "Paul Manafort contract" in June of that year for $3.4 million.
Ukrainian investigators say they consider any under-the-table payments illegal, and that the ledger
also describes disbursements to members of the central election committee, the group that counts
votes.
Correction: August 20, 2016
Because of an editing error, an article on Friday about the political activities in Ukraine of
Donald J. Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, misidentified the office once held by
Yulia V. Tymoshenko, a rival of Mr. Manafort's client, the former president Viktor F. Yanukovych.
Ms. Tymoshenko served as prime minister of Ukraine, not its president.
No progressives worth their name would vote for Hillary. Betrayal of Sanders made the choice
more difficult, but still there no alternative. Clinton "No passaran!". Also "Clinton proved capable
of coming to an agreement with Sanders. He received good money,
bought a new house, published a book, and joined with Clinton, calling on his supporters to vote
for her"...
Crappy slogans like "hold
her feet to the fire" are lies. Has there ever been serious detail about that? I've seen this line over
and over. Hillary is dyed-in-the-wool neoliberal and will behave as such as soon as she get
into office. You can view her iether as (more jingoistic) Obama II or (equally reckless) Bush III.
If she wins, the next opportunity to check her neoliberal leaning will
be only during the next Persidential election.
Notable quotes:
"... ...was Clinton the better progressive choice against Sanders? Almost no Sanders-supporting Democratic voter would say yes to that. Not on trade, not on climate, not on breaking up too-big Wall Street banks, not on criminally prosecuting (finally) "too big to jail" members of the elite - not on any number of issues that touch core progressives values. ..."
"... It's time for progressives who helped Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the primary to take the lead on holding her accountable. ..."
"... She's now appointed two pro-TPP politicians to key positions on her campaign - Tim Kaine as her Vice President and Ken Salazar to lead her presidential transition team. It's time for progressives who helped Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the primary to take the lead on holding her accountable. ..."
"... The choice of Salazar is a pretty good sign that as expected we'll be seeing the 'revolving door' in full force in a Clinton administration. As head of the transition he'll have enormous influence on who fills thousands of jobs at the White House and federal agencies. ..."
"... It is really important to stop referring to "job-killing trade deals" and point out every single time they are mentioned that the TPP, TTIP and TISA are about GOVERNANCE, not about "trade" in any sense that a normal person understands it. ..."
"... TPP & its ilk, like NAFTA and CAFTA before them, are about world government by multinational corporations via their Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions. ..."
"... Regulatory arb, slice of corruption, and like shareholder value memes an equity burnishing tool… ..."
"... One thing I liked about Thom Hartmann was he relentlessly drove home the point that the US succeeded, grew, and became the dominant economic power in the world through the use of TARIFFS. Tariffs are necessary. ..."
"... The nafta-shafta deals relinquish the right to even think about tariffs. You don't have a sovereign nation any more. ..."
"... You can visit the prosperous Samsung-suburb of Suwon, Korea and see all the abandoned manufacturing space (where Korea was just a step on the path to Vietnam and Bangladesh). ..."
"... Information revolution automation is substituting machines for human intelligence. Here the race to the bottom is a single step, and these "trade" deals are all about rules of governance that will apply when people have been stripped of all economic power. ..."
"... merely infinite wealth and power for a thin oligarchy of robot/machine owners? ..."
"... Globalization and Technologization is a canard they use to explain the impoverishment and death of the working class. ..."
"... The fact that auto manufactures moved plants to low wage, nonunion, right to work states actually highlights the fact that labor costs drive the decision where to locate manufacturing plants. ..."
...was Clinton the better progressive choice against Sanders? Almost no Sanders-supporting Democratic
voter would say yes to that. Not on trade, not on climate, not on breaking up too-big Wall Street
banks, not on criminally prosecuting (finally) "too big to jail" members of the elite - not on any
number of issues that touch core progressives values.
... ... ...
Becky Bond on the Challenge to Clinton Supporters
...Bond looks at what the primary has wrought, and issues this challenge to activists who helped
defeat Sanders: You broke it, you bought it. Will you now take charge in the fight to hold Clinton
accountable? Or will you hang back (enjoying the fruits) and let others take the lead? ("Enjoying
the fruits" is my addition. As one attendee noted, the Democratic Convention this year seemed very
much like "a jobs fair.")
Bond says this, writing in
The Hill (my emphasis):
Progressive Clinton supporters: You broke it, you bought it
It's time for progressives who helped Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the primary to
take the lead on holding her accountable.
With Donald Trump tanking in the polls, there's room for progressives to simultaneously
crush his bid for the presidency while holding Hillary Clinton's feet to the fire on the TPP
.
And yet:
She's now appointed two pro-TPP politicians to key positions on her campaign - Tim Kaine as her Vice President and Ken Salazar to lead her presidential transition team. It's
time for progressives who helped Clinton beat Bernie Sanders in the primary to take the lead on
holding her accountable.
... ... ...
Bond has more on Salazar and why both he and Tim Kaine are a "tell," a signal of things to come
from Hillary Clinton: "The choice of Salazar is a pretty good sign that as expected we'll be seeing
the 'revolving door' in full force in a Clinton administration. As head of the transition he'll have
enormous influence on who fills thousands of jobs at the White House and federal agencies."
It is really important to stop referring to "job-killing trade deals" and point out every single
time they are mentioned that the TPP, TTIP and TISA are about GOVERNANCE, not about "trade" in
any sense that a normal person understands it.
This is the evil behind the lie of calling these
"trade" agreements and putting the focus on "jobs." TPP & its ilk, like NAFTA and CAFTA before
them, are about world government by multinational corporations via their Investor State Dispute
Settlement (ISDS) provisions.
That's what's at stake; not jobs. The jobs will be lost to automation
anyway; they are never coming back. The TPP et al legal straight jackets do not sell out jobs,
that's already been done. No, what these phony trade agreements do is foreclose any hope of achieving
functioning democracies. Please start saying so!
I miss-typed above. Of course I meant TPP and not ttp.
Yes, WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA, etc., certainly killed jobs. However, those jobs are not coming back
to these shores. In the higher wage countries, "good" jobs - in manufacturing and in many "knowledge"
and "service" sectors - as well as unskilled jobs, are being or have been replaced with automated
means and methods.
Just a few examples: automobile assemblers; retail cashiers; secretaries; steelworkers; highway
toll collectors; gas station attendants. ETC. Here's what's happened so far just in terms of Great
Lakes freighters:
"The wheelman stood behind Captain Ross, clutching a surprisingly tiny, computerized steering
wheel. He wore driving gloves and turned the Equinox every few seconds in whatever direction the
captain told him to. The wheel, computer monitors and what looked like a server farm filling the
wheelhouse are indicative of changes in the shipping industry. Twenty years ago, it took 35 crew
members to run a laker. The Equinox operates with 16, only a handful of whom are on duty at once."
TPP, TTIP and TISA are about GOVERNANCE, not trade, and only very incidentally, jobs. The rulers
of the universe vastly prefer paying no wages to paying low wages, and whatever can be automated,
will be, eventually in low-wage countries as well as here and in Europe. A great deal of this
has already happened and it will continue. Only 5 sections of the TPP even deal with trade–that's
out of 29. Don't take this on my authority; Public Citizen is the gold standard of analysis regarding
these so-called "trade" agreements.
It took the OverClass several decades to send all those jobs away from our shores. It would
take several decades to bring those jobs back to our shores. But it could be done within a context
of militant belligerent protectionism.
Americans are smart enough to make spoons, knives and forks. We used to make them. We could
make them again. The only obstacles are contrived and artificial political-economic and policy
obstacles. Apply a different Market Forcefield to the American Market, and the actors within that
market would act differently over the several decades to come.
One thing I liked about Thom Hartmann was he relentlessly drove home the point that the US
succeeded, grew, and became the dominant economic power in the world through the use of TARIFFS.
Tariffs are necessary. They protect your industries while at the same time bringing in a lot of
revenue.
The nafta-shafta deals relinquish the right to even think about tariffs. You don't have a
sovereign
nation any more.
The first round of industrial revolution automation substituted machines for human/horse mechanical
exertion. We reached "peak horse" around 1900, and the move to low-wage/low-regulation states
was just a step on the global race to the bottom. You can visit the prosperous Samsung-suburb
of Suwon, Korea and see all the abandoned manufacturing space (where Korea was just a step on
the path to Vietnam and Bangladesh).
Information revolution automation is substituting machines for human intelligence. Here the
race to the bottom is a single step, and these "trade" deals are all about rules of governance
that will apply when people have been stripped of all economic power.
Will the rise of the machines lead to abundance for all, or merely infinite wealth and power
for a thin oligarchy of robot/machine owners? TPP and it's ilk may be the last chance for we the
people to have any say in it.
Manufacturing
is in decline due to Reagan's tax cuts and low investment. Globalization and Technologization
is a canard they use to explain the impoverishment and death of the working class.
@Squirrel – Labor costs, as you say, are a driving force; they are not the only one.
Notice that the products you mentioned are all large heavy items. In these cases the transportation
costs are high enough that the companies want their production to be close to their final market.
The lower cost of labor elsewhere is not enough to compensate for the higher shipping costs from
those locations. In addition, the wage gap between the US and other places has narrowed over the
past 20 years, mostly due to the ongoing suppression of wage gains in the US. Your examples are
exceptions that do not falsify the original premise that a huge amount of manufacturing has moved
to lower wage locations. And those moves are still ongoing, e.g., Carrier moving to Mexico.
The cost of manufactured goods has not fallen because the labor savings is going to profit
and executive compensation, not reduced prices.
The fact that auto manufactures moved plants to low wage, nonunion, right to work states actually
highlights the fact that labor costs drive the decision where to locate manufacturing plants.
"... All these elections are equally fake. At some point you're going to have to stop pecking B.F. Skinner's levers, because the pellets have stopped coming out. But there's no point reasoning with you till your extinction burst finally subsides. ..."
"... This is not a very good piece for several reasons, one being only in the nonsense universe of US mainstream discourse can Clinton be termed a 'centrist' or can someone be depicted as a bona fide 'progressive' and also be a supporter of Clinton. I wouldn't waste a moment trying to pressure 'Clinton progressives' on anything – there is no historical evidence she or Bill have ever had the slightest interest in the public interest. At best a 'Clinton progressive' might claim to be 'defending' some existing public good, but good luck there as well – as Trump is not the source of any real 'threat', that distinction belonging to the existing power elites (military, financial, corporate, legal, media etc.) Clinton serves. ..."
"... The idea that Clinton ever was 'open' to progressives reminds me of why the putrid Rahm Emmanuel could dismiss the left as a 'bunch of retards'. Time to make them eat those words by taking ourselves and our values and our thinking seriously enough we stop fearing not being taken 'seriously' by so loathsome a crew as the Clintons. ..."
Here in Temple Grandin's touchy-feely slaughterhouse, Sanders gets 45% of the vote and leads
them down Hillary's cattle chute for slaughter – not cooption, not marginalization, but the bolt
gun to the head, with lots of sadistic poleaxing straight out of an illegal PETA video. The surviving
livestock are auctioned off for flensing through gleeful trading in influence. This we learn,
is not beyond redemption. In some demented psycho-Quaker sense, perhaps. What the fuck WON'T you
put up with?
In this psychotic mindset, Kim Jong Un's 99.97% victory proves he's like twice as worthwhile
as any Dem. Write him in. Nursultan Nazarbayev, too, his 98% success speaks for itself. Write
him in. All these elections are equally fake. At some point you're going to have to stop pecking
B.F. Skinner's levers, because the pellets have stopped coming out. But there's no point reasoning
with you till your extinction burst finally subsides.
Then we can talk about how you knock over moribund regimes.
This is not a very good piece for several reasons, one being only in the nonsense universe
of US mainstream discourse can Clinton be termed a 'centrist' or can someone be depicted as a
bona fide 'progressive' and also be a supporter of Clinton. I wouldn't waste a moment trying to
pressure 'Clinton progressives' on anything – there is no historical evidence she or Bill have
ever had the slightest interest in the public interest. At best a 'Clinton progressive' might
claim to be 'defending' some existing public good, but good luck there as well – as Trump is not
the source of any real 'threat', that distinction belonging to the existing power elites (military,
financial, corporate, legal, media etc.) Clinton serves.
There are 3 critical issues 'progressives', Greens, lefties, libertarians and others must come
together en masse to resist: TPP immediately, US foreign policy of permanent wars of aggression
now involving the entire Muslim world and fossil fuels. Don't waste any time hoping to influence
Clinton (you won't) or fretting about Trump. First TPP, then anti-War/anti-fossil fuels.
I am convinced TPP can be beaten – not with 'Clinton activists', but with a broad coalition
of interests. And once it has been beaten, the supremely idiotic 'war on terror' is next up. Americans'
votes and electoral desires have been ignored and suppressed. Other legitimate means therefore
must be taken up and utilized to change critical policy failures directly.
The idea that Clinton ever was 'open' to progressives reminds me of why the putrid Rahm Emmanuel
could dismiss the left as a 'bunch of retards'. Time to make them eat those words by taking ourselves
and our values and our thinking seriously enough we stop fearing not being taken 'seriously' by
so loathsome a crew as the Clintons.
"... "People, who argue Trump might start a nuclear war out of personal pique because he insults people on teevee might want to examine Clinton's bellicose foreign policy record and positions on, say, Israel, Iran, Ukraine, NATO expansion or the South China Sea." ..."
"... Or, as Ian Welsh points out, her position on Syria. She seems to have advocated for a no-fly zone in Syria after Russia came in, which would presumably put us in the position of shooting down Russian warplanes or having a good chance of doing so. Maybe if she does take on Kissinger as an advisor he'll tell her that superpower conflicts have to be done through proxies or they're too dangerous. ..."
"... Gen. Wesley Clark standing off against Russians at Belgrade and the missile attack on the Chinese embassy and the bombing of Bulgaria. ..."
"... Under Obama, support for fascists in Ukraine, near war over chemical weapons in Syria, gunboat diplomacy in South China Sea, shift to preemptive war plans against North Korea, ground troops in Libya and other parts of Africa, and last but not least, blind support for the psychotic Saudi attack on Yemen. ..."
"... Democrat or Republican, it is the US system of government which is militarist and adventurist. It will not change if either Clinton or Trump is elected, the delusions of Putin et al. notwithstanding. It wouldn't change if Bernie or the rational libertarian of the month was elected either because they do not, didn't and never will stand for real change. Criticizing Clinton and Trump from the right will make sure there is not even a chance of political realignment. At this point, the question is whether that's the point? ..."
BW: "People, who argue Trump might start a nuclear war out of personal
pique because he insults people on teevee might want to examine Clinton's
bellicose foreign policy record and positions on, say, Israel, Iran, Ukraine,
NATO expansion or the South China Sea."
Or, as Ian Welsh points out, her position on Syria. She seems to
have advocated for a no-fly zone in Syria after Russia came in, which would
presumably put us in the position of shooting down Russian warplanes or
having a good chance of doing so. Maybe if she does take on Kissinger as
an advisor he'll tell her that superpower conflicts have to be done through
proxies or they're too dangerous.
For the larger question of whether these comment threads are a good place
to campaign or advocate, I sort of come down in a different place than you
do. If these comment threads were about good-faith argument, then sure this
kind of advocacy might be bad, but I don't think that most people here are
capable of good-faith argument even if they were attempting it (most of
the time they aren't attempting it). In that case the comment threads serve
an alternate purpose of seeing what kinds of beliefs are out there, at least
among the limited group of people likely to comment on CT threads. Of course
people can be kicked out if they habitually make the threads too difficult
to moderate (or really, for whatever other reason an OP decides on), but
the well has long since been poisoned and one more drop isn't really going
to do much more damage.
Gen. Wesley Clark standing off against Russians at Belgrade and the
missile attack on the Chinese embassy and the bombing of Bulgaria.
Under Obama, support for fascists in Ukraine, near war over chemical
weapons in Syria, gunboat diplomacy in South China Sea, shift to preemptive
war plans against North Korea, ground troops in Libya and other parts of
Africa, and last but not least, blind support for the psychotic Saudi attack
on Yemen.
None of which was unilaterally determined by Clinton who was nothing
but Secretary of State, who does not determine foreign policy anyhow, or
took place after her tenure. Renovation of the nuclear weapons stockpile
isn't her doing either.
Democrat or Republican, it is the US system of government which is
militarist and adventurist. It will not change if either Clinton or Trump
is elected, the delusions of Putin et al. notwithstanding. It wouldn't change
if Bernie or the rational libertarian of the month was elected either because
they do not, didn't and never will stand for real change. Criticizing Clinton
and Trump from the right will make sure there is not even a chance of political
realignment. At this point, the question is whether that's the point?
"... studies in animals show that steroid-induced aggression is not impulsive, nor uncontrolled. Steroid-treated rats remain attuned to the context of the fight: who their opponent is and where the fight takes place. This suggests that anabolic steroids can promote not only spur-of-the-moment aggression, but also premeditated violence. ..."
"... "Anabolic" refers to their muscle-building properties. (Not all steroids are anabolic; cortisol is a steroid widely prescribed as an anti-inflammatory agent.) Despite a variety of pharmaceutical names (e.g. nandrolone, boldenone, dianabol), all anabolic steroids are derivatives of testosterone, the major steroid produced by the testes in men. ..."
"... In 2011, testosterone was the most-common banned substance found in urine tests administered by the World Anti-Doping Agency. It remains a popular choice for doping by elite athletes because it is challenging to distinguish injected testosterone from naturally occurring sources. ..."
"... Rank-and-file users choose testosterone because of its low cost and easy availability. Despite being declared controlled substances in 1991, anabolic steroids are widely available through personal trainers in gyms and can be purchased online from international sources ..."
"... It is estimated that as many as 3 million Americans have availed themselves of these outlets - far more than most people realize. Anabolic steroids are in high schools, fitness centers and "rejuvenation" clinics. A typical user is a young man in his late teens or early 20s. Among U.S. high school students, 4% to 6% of boys have used anabolic steroids, comparable to the rates of crack cocaine or heroin use. Among men in their 20s, that rate is even higher. ..."
"... Many anabolic steroid users show signs of addiction: They take more than intended and are reluctant to quit because of withdrawal symptoms and loss of muscle mass. In addition, heightened testosterone levels give users a sense of invulnerability and increase their risk-taking. The resulting behavior can endanger themselves and others: fighting, unsafe sex, drinking and driving, carrying a weapon. A Swedish study of anabolic steroid users showed high rates of death from homicide, suicide and drug overdose. ..."
"... today there is real evidence of the risks from surveys of current users and clinical studies of volunteers, supplemented with research in animals. So instead of just worrying about doped athletes during each Olympic cycle, we should focus on how widespread the use of anabolic steroids is and how dangerous they are for any users - and even those around them. ..."
The popular image of "road-rage" is a sudden and exaggerated response to a minimal provocation, like
"The Incredible Hulk." But that's not how it works. Instead, studies in animals show that steroid-induced
aggression is not impulsive, nor uncontrolled. Steroid-treated rats remain attuned to the context
of the fight: who their opponent is and where the fight takes place. This suggests that anabolic
steroids can promote not only spur-of-the-moment aggression, but also premeditated violence.
Some background information on anabolic steroids may prove useful. Steroids are organic molecules
with rings that resemble chicken wire. "Anabolic" refers to their muscle-building properties.
(Not all steroids are anabolic; cortisol is a steroid widely prescribed as an anti-inflammatory agent.)
Despite a variety of pharmaceutical names (e.g. nandrolone, boldenone, dianabol), all anabolic steroids
are derivatives of testosterone, the major steroid produced by the testes in men.
At normal levels, testosterone builds muscle and contributes to characteristic "masculine" behavior.
Anabolic steroid users may boost their testosterone up to 100 times normal levels.
In 2011, testosterone was the most-common banned substance found in urine tests administered by
the World Anti-Doping Agency. It remains a popular choice for doping by elite athletes because it
is challenging to distinguish injected testosterone from naturally occurring sources.
Rank-and-file users choose testosterone because of its low cost and easy availability. Despite
being declared controlled substances in 1991, anabolic steroids are widely available through personal
trainers in gyms and can be purchased online from international sources.
It is estimated that as many as 3 million Americans have availed themselves of these outlets
- far more than most people realize. Anabolic steroids are in high schools, fitness centers and "rejuvenation"
clinics. A typical user is a young man in his late teens or early 20s. Among U.S. high school
students, 4% to 6% of boys have used anabolic steroids, comparable to the rates of crack cocaine
or heroin use. Among men in their 20s, that rate is even higher.
Anabolic steroid users may be loath to admit it, but for most the drugs are just a shortcut to
bigger muscles. Still, some people defend their use as a "healthy lifestyle choice" that allows them
to work out harder and recover faster.
My own research on the effects of anabolic steroids on brain and behavior show that there's nothing
healthy about it. Many anabolic steroid users show signs of addiction: They take more than intended
and are reluctant to quit because of withdrawal symptoms and loss of muscle mass. In addition, heightened
testosterone levels give users a sense of invulnerability and increase their risk-taking. The resulting
behavior can endanger themselves and others: fighting, unsafe sex, drinking and driving, carrying
a weapon. A Swedish study of anabolic steroid users showed high rates of death from homicide, suicide
and drug overdose.
Research into these behavioral changes was slow to accumulate because steroid use became prevalent
only in the late 1980s. Though anabolic steroid abuse remains understudied, today there is real evidence
of the risks from surveys of current users and clinical studies of volunteers, supplemented with
research in animals. So instead of just worrying about doped athletes during each Olympic cycle,
we should focus on how widespread the use of anabolic steroids is and how dangerous they are for
any users - and even those around them.
Ruth Wood, chair of the department of cell and neurobiology at USC's Keck School of Medicine,
studies the effects of anabolic steroids on brain and behavior.
"... Perhaps the most surreal point of the night is when a military leader speaks to how much butt we're going to kick once Hillary is elected, the Sanders delegates start the chant, "Peace, Not War", and the rest of the arena drowns this out with chants of 'U.S.A ..."
"... We discussed how it felt Orwellian, like the two minutes of hate in 1984. "Having chants of 'No More War' attempted to be drowned out by chants of 'USA' was baffling," Alan Doucette, Bernie delegate from Las Vegas, said. "To me, USA is a symbol of justice and equality and not warmongering and looking for excuses to go to war. That's what I want it to be and what it should be." ..."
"... "The most dislocating experience was General Allen's speech, with so many military brass on display, and the 'fight' between No More War and USA. That was chilling. Note, No More War is not: War Criminal! Or similarly 'disrespectful' stuff; it's simply a demand not to make our present worse with more 'hawkish' 'interventionist' 'regime change' wars and war-actions." ..."
"... The US 2016 election is different. You actually have a huge choice to make. Do you vote(or not vote) to support the Washington establishment, which is clearly pushing for war with Russia, or do you vote Trump who doesn't want such a war? Your choice. ..."
"... why would you even contemplate gambling that we can survive 4 years of Clinton without a nuclear war? ..."
Mark Lasser (CO): "Perhaps the most surreal point of the night is when a military leader
speaks to how much butt we're going to kick once Hillary is elected, the Sanders delegates start
the chant, "Peace, Not War", and the rest of the arena drowns this out with chants of 'U.S.A.'"
Carole Levers (CA): " I was harassed by five Hillary delegates who got in my face while I was
sitting in my seat. They told me that we needed to quit chanting, go home, and that we did not belong
there. They added that by chanting "No More Wars" we were disrespecting the veterans. I replied that
none of us were disrespecting the veterans. We were honoring them by NOT WANTING ANY MORE DEAD VETERANS,
killed in illegal wars for the profits of the wealthy. I reiterated that we were exercising our first
amendment rights to which one replied that WE (Bernie delegates) had no rights. I was later shoved
by a Hillary delegate into the metal frame of the seats."
Carol
Cizauskas (NV): "We heard other Bernie delegates chanting "No more war" and then the "opposing
team" of Hillary delegates thundering over those chants with "USA." It was darkly eerie. We discussed
how it felt Orwellian, like the two minutes of hate in 1984. "Having chants of 'No More War' attempted
to be drowned out by chants of 'USA' was baffling," Alan Doucette, Bernie delegate from Las Vegas,
said. "To me, USA is a symbol of justice and equality and not warmongering and looking for excuses
to go to war. That's what I want it to be and what it should be."
#SlayTheSmaugs (NY): "The most dislocating experience was General Allen's speech, with so
many military brass on display, and the 'fight' between No More War and USA. That was chilling. Note,
No More War is not: War Criminal! Or similarly 'disrespectful' stuff; it's simply a demand not to
make our present worse with more 'hawkish' 'interventionist' 'regime change' wars and war-actions."
Lauren Steiner (CA): "[Clinton supporters] decided to chant with us when we chanted 'Black Lives
Matter.' But for some reason, they found 'No More War' to be offensive and shouted "USA" right after.
At first, I was puzzled by the fact that they were shouting exactly what Trump supporters shout at
his rallies. Then, after all the bellicose speeches and the fact that they had so many Republicans
endorsing Clinton, it hit me that perhaps it was because they were courting Republicans now. They
didn't care about our support anymore."
Ike, August 18, 2016 at 1:02 pm
I am reading Primary Colors by Anonymous. It is entertaining as well as reaffirming a suspected
baseline of conduct.
Lambert Strether, August 18, 2016 at 1:11 pm
Primary Colors (by Joke Line (Joe Klein)) is terrific. The movie is good too. I am so happy
and amazed that I live in a world where John Travolta plays Bill Clinton in a movie.
Jeremy Grimm, August 18, 2016 at 1:31 pm
The harassment and dirty tricks pulled against the Sanders people - as described in these collected
reports - leaves me wondering whether Sanders actually won the nomination. It would have been
much more politic for the Hillary people to let the Sanders delegates blow off steam and wait
until the nomination and end of the convention to circle the wagons in "unity". If Hillary clearly
won the nomination then the stupidity and arrogance in team Hillary's treatment of the Sanders
people speaks to a new level of disdain for the 99%. The business about the $700 hotels and the
misinformation and lack of information provided from team Sanders raises other questions.
trent, August 18, 2016 at 2:17 pm
Wow, all those testimonials from the democrat convention are an eye opener, for some. Hillary's
soft Nazism on full display for any of the still true believers. Yet the press calls trump the
Nazi. Trump is crazy, but its almost an honest craziness compared to Hillary. She's nuts, but
manipulates everything she can to hide it. I'll take out in the open crazy, easier to plan for.
EoinW, August 19, 2016 at 8:51 am
I haven't voted in years. In Canada, however, we've never been given a choice on anything.
Doesn't matter if the election is federal, provincial or municipal, no issues just personalities.
The US 2016 election is different. You actually have a huge choice to make. Do you vote(or
not vote) to support the Washington establishment, which is clearly pushing for war with Russia,
or do you vote Trump who doesn't want such a war? Your choice.
But why would you even contemplate gambling that we can survive 4 years of Clinton without
a nuclear war? Speculating on global warming or third party movements kind of lose their
significance during a nuclear winter.
Patricia
This young woman turned it into a tale, "The Bullshittery of the DNC":
"... Congrats! The author discovered the obvious: Hillary is a warmongering neocon willing to pursue totally suicidal policy with Russia. She is not called "Mrs. WWIII" for nothing. If we are to survive, this monster should be nowhere near the White House. ..."
"... Hillary just follows the money, preferring the consensus between AIPAC and Saudis. The buyers and the goods they buy are all disgusting. ..."
"... While Russia (and this author) may (correctly) believe that fighting terrorism is a common interest of Russia and the US, the fact is, the US has no interest in fighting terrorism. Long ago Bush openly declared that he is not concerned about Osama bin Laden, and Obama continues to arm the so-called moderates, who are really a faction of al Qaeda. These neocon regime change wars are not about terrorism -- except in the sense that the US uses terrorist factions to attempt to overthrow legitimate leaders like Assad and Gaddafi. Rather than fighting terrorism, the US uses it as a weapon. The Russians are playing by one set of rules, but the US is using another. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton was instrumental in pushing for the Invasion of Iraq, which turned what was essentially a functional state into an ISIS hellhole. As Secretary of State, she was THE personality behind the destruction of Libya, now another Islamist breeding machine with a ruined economy & brutalized population. She has done everything in her power to destabilize Syria & has succeeded beyond her wildest dreams. Now millions of economic migrants are flooding into Europe, which will likely become a Caliphate under Sharia law within 100 years. Clinton's hands are soaked in blood of tens of thousands of men, women, & children. Her thirst for more is unquenchable. She is as much of a war criminal as her hero & good friend Henry Kissinger. All the media can do is scream endless unfounded accusations of Trump being a racist, yet they never mention a whisper of what Clinton has done & intends to do. ..."
"... Trump has shown he is not a captive to the foreign policy consensus of the economic, social, and political elite of the New York-Wash DC beltway. He does not believe in intervention anywhere and everywhere. That I heartily endorse. ..."
One especially disturbing trend in global affairs is the marked deterioration in relations between
the United States and Russia. Much will depend on the outcome of the upcoming U.S. presidential election.
Donald Trump has staked out a reasonably conciliatory policy toward Moscow. And in the highly improbable
event that Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson emerged victorious, the United States would certainly
pursue a less interventionist, confrontational
foreign policy toward Russia as well as other countries.
But
Trump and a handful of
otherdissenters
have triggered the
wrath of the foreign-policy establishment by daring to suggest that Washington's Russia policy
may be unwise and that the two countries have important
mutual interests. Most anti-Russian hawks are backing Hillary Clinton, and the implications of
a Clinton victory are extremely ominous. When Russia annexed Crimea, Clinton
compared Russian president Vladimir Putin to Adolf Hitler-a comparison so extreme that it drew
dissents even from some usual
supporters. Yet there is no doubt that she would take a very hard line toward Moscow. Among other
things, Clinton recommended that the United States impose a
no-fly
zone in Syria despite the risk that it could mean shooting down Russian military aircraft that were
operating at the request of the Syrian government. Anyone who is that reckless is not likely to retreat
from confrontations in eastern Europe or other arenas. Indeed, she has already called for not only
more financial assistance but more
military aid to Ukraine.
... ... ...
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato
Institute and a contributing editor at the National Interest, is the author of 10 books and more
than 600 articles on international affairs.
Informed • 2 days ago
Congrats! The author discovered the obvious: Hillary is a warmongering neocon willing
to pursue totally suicidal policy with Russia. She is not called "Mrs. WWIII" for nothing. If
we are to survive, this monster should be nowhere near the White House.
Anthony Informed • 2 days ago
It's not her it's George Soros he's funding her and Merkel two of the most pathetic
politicians I've seen especially dopey Merkel. Soros is also funding blm and a Arab version in
israel look at the leaked emails. If you don't know sata... I mean soros then you should just
type his name into Google he sold his own people out to Hitler and said it was the best thing
he ever did enough said
Informed Anthony • 2 days ago
You might be right. Soros looks like he had died already, but he is as greedy as ever.
Looks like he plans to bribe God almighty: otherwise why would he need so much money so late
in his life? Soros or CIA must have something really damning on Merkel: she is consistently
working against her own country for more than two years now. Hillary just follows the
money, preferring the consensus between AIPAC and Saudis. The buyers and the goods they buy
are all disgusting.
donnasaggia • 7 hours ago
We need to shift the analysis somewhat. While Russia (and this author) may (correctly)
believe that fighting terrorism is a common interest of Russia and the US, the fact is, the US
has no interest in fighting terrorism. Long ago Bush openly declared that he is not concerned
about Osama bin Laden, and Obama continues to arm the so-called moderates, who are really a
faction of al Qaeda. These neocon regime change wars are not about terrorism -- except in the
sense that the US uses terrorist factions to attempt to overthrow legitimate leaders like
Assad and Gaddafi. Rather than fighting terrorism, the US uses it as a weapon. The Russians
are playing by one set of rules, but the US is using another.
Frank Blangeard • a day ago
There will be no 'second Cold War' because the United States never ended the first Cold War.
alan Frank Blangeard • a day ago
Amen, brother!
alan • a day ago
No other country on earth, save Israel, has legitimate interests or security concerns other than
the United States. No spheres other than the western hemispheric one under the control of the US
are ever to be considered acceptable. This arrogant hegemon is headed for a fall. Preferably,
since I am an American I hope it will be a long slow peaceful one. Athens was as arrogant as the
American empire. Athens was defeated by a coalition led by Sparta.
Joe Stevens alan • a day ago
Pride always comes before the fall. In this case, it will be a big fall!
ApqIA • 2 days ago
A needed countermeasure, a difficult one, even unlikely -- but it would stand a chance of
deterring the US' insane ambitions.
A full military alliance between Russia and China, with integrated conventional and nuclear
forces, that would consider an attack on one an attack on both, and a two-nation nuclear
retaliation for any nuclear attack. The alliance could also offer membership to other threatened
nations, such as Iran.
Would include technology transfers between the two partners, which among other things would
assure China of adequate engines for its aircraft. Perhaps joint business ventures would ease
Russian unease at losing business: they can sell armaments together.
The US points nuclear warheads at both nations, so the US constitutes a credible existential
threat to both nations.
Its depraved, aggressive idea of global "leadership" is a threat to all humanity, and any and all
measures to deter it are worth the effort.
Want evidence? Here's its OWN map of the world, divided into American military provinces.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
This development would confront Washington with something like Hitchcock's "Birds" scenario --
how many "fronts" can the US fight in at once? scenario. The Eurasian land mass is a vast,
impregnable fortress and US military planners already despair at Russian mobile nukes.
Unfortunately, only even greater insanity can really hope to deter the American lunatics and
self-absordbed interventionists like Hillary.
ApqIA -> Duane • a day ago
Georgia was a US-sponsored comic opera.
Syria was an attempt to use terrorists to get rid of Assad. Failing.
Ukraine was an attempt to get Ukraine in NATO, taking Crimea was a step to avoid a NATO
base in the Black Sea.
Since before Pearl Harbor, the US has employed the tactic of creating a situation where an
opponent has to choose an unacceptable outcome or use force.
What's the rate for a US-salaried troll?
Bilguun Khurelbaatar -> ApqIA • 12 hours ago
Actually I believe that all those who call others as "Russian troll" are mostly Ukrainian
trolls. It's easy to find them, they call everyone, even neutral minded people as putin troll,
and all they demand is to arm Ukraine, nuke Russia etc...
Robert Willis • 18 hours ago
Excellent article. Hillary Clinton was instrumental in pushing for the Invasion of
Iraq, which turned what was essentially a functional state into an ISIS hellhole. As Secretary
of State, she was THE personality behind the destruction of Libya, now another Islamist
breeding machine with a ruined economy & brutalized population. She has done everything in her
power to destabilize Syria & has succeeded beyond her wildest dreams. Now millions of economic
migrants are flooding into Europe, which will likely become a Caliphate under Sharia law
within 100 years. Clinton's hands are soaked in blood of tens of thousands of men, women, &
children. Her thirst for more is unquenchable. She is as much of a war criminal as her hero &
good friend Henry Kissinger. All the media can do is scream endless unfounded accusations of
Trump being a racist, yet they never mention a whisper of what Clinton has done & intends to
do.
deliaruhe • 19 hours ago
"Unfortunately, given the growing probability of a Clinton victory in November,
U.S.-Russian relations, already in bad shape, are likely to deteriorate further."
Hillary isn't exactly known for her wisdom and judgement (especially in her choice of role
models and mentors--i.e., Albright and Kissinger), and she's very good at shooting herself in
the foot on a regular basis (e.g., her Putin-as-Hitler hyperbole). She will soon become the
imperial president of an empire in decline, and empires in decline are at their most
dangerous.
I think this will end up being the saddest American election ever.
(Excellent article, by the way.)
Dank Lastname • 2 days ago
If Hillary dragged NATO into a war with Russia her incompetent leadership would see the
collapse of the US and the Russian occupation of Eastern Europe.
Mikhailovich • 15 hours ago
When the money is your god and financial elite employs politicians to run the country, what
else we can expect? It looks the American militarism can be tamed by efficient nuclear
deterrent or other major power and there are no other way to avoid big war.
alan -> JPH • a day ago
That's the tragedy of the situation. Trump has shown he is not a captive to the foreign
policy consensus of the economic, social, and political elite of the New York-Wash DC beltway.
He does not believe in intervention anywhere and everywhere. That I heartily endorse. On
all other points he is totally unqualified and unacceptable. We are left with a war-mongering
Neo-Con thug. When She takes office, begin the countdown---war is coming, a very big war
"... Former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul penned a scathing piece in the Washington Post accusing the Kremlin of intervening in the American election, based solely on the evidence of a harsh article regarding Clinton published by Sputnik News. Boy, was he wrong! ..."
"... On Wednesday night, Michael McFaul took to the Washington Post to opine that the article was part of a Kremlin-led conspiracy to subvert the American election, referring to the person running the Sputnik Twitter account (that particular day being me) as a "Russian official," before warning (threatening) that we "might want to think about what we plan to do" if Clinton becomes president. ..."
"... Pursuant to 18 US Code Chapter 115, I'd be writing this article to you from prison, if not awaiting a death sentence, if I were writing content ordered down to me by the Kremlin with a view towards subverting the American election. I am instead writing this piece from my favorite coffeeshop in downtown DC. I am not a Russian official. Our staff members are not Russian officials. We are not Kremlin controlled. We do not speak with Vladimir Putin over our morning coffee. ..."
"... In fact, the Atlantic Council's Ben Nimmo leveled a completely different view on Friday morning, calling our coverage "uncharacteristically balanced," but arguing that, because we report generally negative stories on both candidates, our real target is American democracy itself. ..."
"... It may surprise Mr. McFaul and Mr. Nimmo to learn that, in my previous work on political campaigns, I actually helped fundraise for Hillary Clinton - the candidate whose inner circle is now labelling my colleagues and I as foreign saboteurs. It is neither my fault nor Sputnik's fault that Secretary Clinton's campaign has devolved into one predicated upon fear and conspiracy, where the two primary lines are "the Russians did it" and that she is not Trump. ..."
"... The fact that more than 50% of the country dislikes both presidential candidates is not a Kremlin conspiracy. Would it be appropriate for us to present to our readers an alternate universe a la MSNBC, which defended Clinton's trustworthiness by saying she only perjured herself three times? ..."
"... Returning to the substance of the article to which Mr. McFaul took exception. This piece was written because it was newsworthy - it informed our readers and forced them to think. The provocative headline of the story was based on a statement by Trump that is a bit of a stretch (notice the air quotes on the title), but which highlights a major policy decision made by this administration that has not been properly scrutinized by the mainstream media. In the article, for those who actually read it, I refer to the 2012 DNI report that correctly calculated that Obama's policy in Syria would lead to the development of a Salafist entity controlling territory and that this outcome was "wanted." Hence, the title. ..."
"... Today, the Obama Administration grapples with a similar debate over whether to continue to support the "moderate rebels" in Syria, despite the fact that they have now melded with al-Nusra (an al-Qaeda affiliate until they rebranded), under the banner of the Army of Conquest in Syria. ..."
Former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul penned a scathing piece in the Washington Post
accusing the Kremlin of intervening in the American election, based solely on the evidence of a harsh
article regarding Clinton published by Sputnik News. Boy, was he wrong!
My name is Bill Moran. A native Arizonan, I have worked on dozens of Democratic Party campaigns,
and am more recently a proud writer for Sputnik's Washington, DC bureau.
It also seems, as of Thursday morning, that I am the source of controversy between the United
States and Russia - something I never quite could have imagined - for writing an article that was
critical of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with a stinging headline and a harsh hashtag.
So, what is this controversy all about? This weekend I published a piece with the headline, "Secret
File Confirms Trump Claim: Obama, Hillary 'Founded ISIS' to Oust Assad." I also tweeted out this
story from our platform with the hashtag #CrookedHillary. Guilty as charged.
On Wednesday night,
Michael McFaul took to the Washington Post to opine that the article was part of a Kremlin-led
conspiracy to subvert the American election, referring to the person running the Sputnik Twitter
account (that particular day being me) as a "Russian official," before warning (threatening) that
we "might want to think about what we plan to do" if Clinton becomes president.
I feel it is necessary to pause, here, before having a substantive argument about the article's
merits and purpose within the public discourse, to address the severity of the accusation leveled
against me and Sputnik's staff (not by name until now), and its disturbing implications on freedom
of speech, dissent, and American democracy - implications that I hope Mr. McFaul, other public proponents
of the Hillary campaign, and the cadre of Russian critics consider.
Pursuant to 18 US Code Chapter 115, I'd be writing this article to you from prison, if not
awaiting a death sentence, if I were writing content ordered down to me by the Kremlin with a view
towards subverting the American election. I am instead writing this piece from my favorite coffeeshop
in downtown DC. I am not a Russian official. Our staff members are not Russian officials. We are
not Kremlin controlled. We do not speak with Vladimir Putin over our morning coffee.
Mr. McFaul worked side-by-side with the former Secretary of State in the Obama Administration, and
his routine accusations that Trump supporters are siding with Putin leaves me to imagine that he
is a Clinton insider if not a direct campaign surrogate. That such a public official would suggest
reprisals against those with differing viewpoints in the event that she wins is disturbing.
Our
outlet does not endorse or support any particular US presidential candidate, but rather reports news
and views for the day in as diligent a manner as we possibly can. This is evident in our very harsh
headlines on Trump, which Mr. McFaul failed to review before making his attack.
In fact, the Atlantic Council's Ben Nimmo leveled a completely different view on Friday morning,
calling our coverage "uncharacteristically balanced," but arguing that, because we report generally
negative stories on both candidates, our real target is American democracy itself.
It may surprise Mr. McFaul and Mr. Nimmo to learn that, in my previous work on political campaigns,
I actually helped fundraise for Hillary Clinton - the candidate whose inner circle is now labelling
my colleagues and I as foreign saboteurs. It is neither my fault nor Sputnik's fault that Secretary
Clinton's campaign has devolved into one predicated upon fear and conspiracy, where the two primary
lines are "the Russians did it" and that she is not Trump.
Donald Trump has the lowest approval rating since presidential polling began. Until recently,
Clinton had the second lowest approval rating since presidential polling began. Their numbers are
worse than even Barry Goldwater and George Wallace, in fact.
The fact that more than 50% of the country dislikes both presidential candidates is not a
Kremlin conspiracy. Would it be appropriate for us to present to our readers an alternate universe
a la MSNBC, which defended Clinton's trustworthiness by saying she only perjured herself three times?
There is a reason why both presidential candidates have received less than fawning coverage from
our outlet: they have not done anything to warrant positive coverage. My colleagues, also Americans,
like so many others in this country, wish they would.
Returning to the substance of the article to which Mr. McFaul took exception. This piece was
written because it was newsworthy - it informed our readers and forced them to think.
The provocative headline of the story was based on a statement by Trump that is a bit of a stretch
(notice the air quotes on the title), but which highlights a major policy decision made by this administration
that has not been properly scrutinized by the mainstream media.
In the article, for those who actually read it, I refer to the 2012 DNI report that correctly calculated
that Obama's policy in Syria would lead to the development of a Salafist entity controlling territory
and that this outcome was "wanted." Hence, the title.
Today, the Obama Administration
grapples with a similar debate over whether to continue to support the "moderate rebels" in Syria,
despite the fact that they have now melded with al-Nusra (an al-Qaeda affiliate until they rebranded),
under the banner of the Army of Conquest in Syria.
We do not pretend that these decisions exist in a vacuum with a clear right and wrong answer upon
which no two intelligent people differ, but this is a matter worthy of public discourse.
And what about that hashtag? Why would I use #CrookedHillary? I mean, I could have put #Imwithher,
but I wasn't trying to be ironic. When a hashtag is featured at the end of a sentence, its purpose
is for cataloging. Some people, usually non-millennials, use hashtags as text to convey a particular
opinion. I was not doing that. I also used #NeverTrump in a separate article.
But Mr. McFaul lazily cherry-picked, and then labeled (maybe unwittingly) Sputnik's American writers
traitors to this country.
Her embrace of hawks is more than an electoral strategy.
The Hillary Clinton campaign has recently been trumpeting endorsements from
neoconservatives. The candidate's embrace of figures such as Robert Kagan, Max
Boot, and Eliot Cohen-all once regarded as anathema to the contemporary left-has
engendered a wave of pushback from progressive critics.
Jane Sanders, wife
of Bernie, is the most recent high-profile objector,
publicly expressing queasiness about Clinton's perceived allying with "architects
of regime change." Now, predictably, the pushback has been met with its own
pushback,
including from Brian Beutler of The New Republic, who cautions progressives
not to fret.
... ... ...
Kagan, who not so long ago was denounced by liberal Iraq War opponents,
co-signed a June report with Michèle Flournoy-the likely candidate for defense
secretary under Clinton-calling for escalated U.S. military presence in Syria,
a policy that could lead to all-out ground war or direct confrontation with
Russia. So it seems he may already be on Clinton's hawkish team in waiting.
Few reputable critics would argue that Hillary is herself a neoconservative.
Far more plausible is that she'll enable the implementation of a neoconservative
foreign-policy agenda by casting the neoconservatives' goals in liberal-interventionist
terms, thus garnering Democratic support for initiatives that would face widespread
opposition were they spearheaded by a Republican president. Lobe has
written that Hillary represents "the point of convergence between liberal
interventionism … and neoconservatism," and Hillary's willingness to empower
a foreign-policy establishment featuring neoconservatives shows that they have
in fact received concrete reputational benefit from lining up behind her.
Hillary may operate on the premise that anything that might conceivably garner
her additional votes is justified on that basis alone. Yet even on that premise,
heralding neoconservative ideologues doesn't make sense. Again, neoconservatives
have virtually no support in the electorate, as the recent Republican primary
contest indicated. Their base is mostly among elites. Beyond that, there's a
serious chance that continuing to tout these people will actually damage
her electoral fortunes by alienating left-wing voters who might be cajoled into
voting for the Democratic ticket, but can't countenance the possibility of ushering
the Iraq-invasion architects of the George W. Bush era back into power.
So if there's no obvious electoral upside, the most likely reason why Hillary
is reaching out to such characters is a deceptively simple one: she shares common
interests with them, respects their supposed expertise, and wants to bring them
into her governing coalition. For that, anyone interested in a sane foreign
policy over the next eight years should be exceedingly worried.
Michael Tracey is a journalist based in New York City.
"... "I want our party to be the home of the African-American voter once again. I want a totally inclusive country and I want an inclusive party," he said in a speech at the Fredericksburg Expo and Conference Center. ..."
US presidential candidate Donald Trump promised on Saturday to make
the Republican party inclusive and reach out to black voters, at a campaign rally in Fredericksburg,
Virginia.
MOSCOW (Sputnik) - Opinion polls regularly give Trump less than 10 percent of the vote of the
40 million-strong African-American community. Speaking in the key battleground state, Trump said
that the GOP "must do better and will do better."
"I want our party
to be the home of the African-American voter once again. I want a totally inclusive country and
I want an inclusive party," he said in a speech at the Fredericksburg Expo and Conference Center.
The real-estate mogul promised earlier that if elected, his policies would restore African-American
fortunes so dramatically that they would overwhelmingly vote for his reelection in 2020.
Another debt shark is circling this poor country after feeling blood in the water...
Notable quotes:
"... Pyatt seemed open to the idea of guiding Ukraine towards a decentralization of power just short of Lavrov's recommendation for a federalized Ukraine, but George Soros pushed back stating that a federalization model would result in Russia gaining influence over eastern regions of the country which the Hungarian billionaire disapproved of. ..."
"... Ambassador Pyatt's position towards decentralization also appeared to shake as the correspondence continued saying that the "Russian propaganda machine is telling Kharkhiv and Donbass residents that the government in Western Ukraine is looking to take away their resources and rights ..."
"... In a separate meeting, titled "Civil Society Roundtable Meeting," George Soros directly calls for the formation of a Ukrainian "fifth column" – a group whose sole purpose is to undermine a larger group – in order to push Ukraine away from Russia. ..."
"... "We would rather have people there as fifth column – pivotal thing for future of Ukrainian society – continue to work with Crimean people" said the document regarding the disputed territory only highlighting that there was potentially improper interference by Soros in Ukraine's civil society. ..."
New documents released by hackers who compromised George Soros' Open
Society Foundations raise serious questions about the Hungarian billionaire's role in Ukraine.
A leaked document, from the massive 2,500 file dump by DC Leaks of George Soros' most sensitive Open
Society Foundations communications, show the inordinate amount of power and authority the Hungarian
billionaire wielded over Ukraine in the immediate aftermath of the Maidan government overthrow.
Soros, along with key executives from the Open Society Foundations, held extensive meetings with
nearly every actor involved in the Maidan coup including Ukraine's Ministers of Foreign Affairs,
Justice, Health and Education as well as US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt and the regional director of
USAID. However, the documents do exclude one key official, Victoria Nuland, who was allegedly involved
in steering the opposition to the Yanukovych government.
The records focus on plans to minimize and counter Russian influence and cultural ties to Ukraine
with a focus towards steering Kiev towards social and economic reforms that Soros favored. The Hungarian
billionaire has not been bashful about his acts or intent to influence politics in Ukraine establishing
the NGO, International Renaissance Foundation (IRF) to spearhead the formation of the "New Ukraine."
Most troubling in the document leak appears to be a file titled
"Breakfast with US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt" to discuss Ukraine's future. In the meeting, which
took place on March 31, 2014, just months after the Maidan coup and weeks prior to civil strife following
Ukrainian forces assault on Donbass, US Ambassador Pyatt outlines a PR war against Putin, a position
George Soros viewed favorably in the meeting.
"The short term issue that needs to be addressed will be the problem in getting the message out
from the government through professional PR tools, especially given Putin's own professional smear
campaigns," said the US Ambassador.
George Soros responded, "Agreement on the strategic communications issue – providing professional
PR assistance to the Ukrainian government would be very useful."
Pyatt seemed open to the idea of guiding Ukraine towards a decentralization of power just short
of Lavrov's recommendation for a federalized Ukraine, but George Soros pushed back stating that a
federalization model would result in Russia gaining influence over eastern regions of the country
which the Hungarian billionaire disapproved of.
The Ambassador noted that Secretary of State John Kerry "would be interested to hear George Soros'
views on the situation directly, upon return from his trip" raising the question why one wealthy
foreign individual, neither from Ukraine nor Russia, had such access to influence American policy.
Ambassador Pyatt's position towards decentralization also appeared to shake as the correspondence
continued saying that the "Russian propaganda machine is telling Kharkhiv and Donbass residents that
the government in Western Ukraine is looking to take away their resources and rights through the
decentralization process, feeding into Lavrov's line that the Ukrainian government is dysfunctional
and not successful as a unitary state, making it a necessity to have federalization.
Then, in a full capitulation, the American diplomat point blank asks George Soros, "what should
the US government be doing and what is the US government currently doing."
To which, George Soros responded, "Obama has been too soft on Putin, and there is a need to impose
potent smart sanctions." He then called on the US government to "impose sanctions on Russia for 90
days or until the Russian government recognizes the results of the presidential elections."
In a separate meeting, titled "Civil Society Roundtable Meeting," George Soros directly calls
for the formation of a Ukrainian "fifth column" – a group whose sole purpose is to undermine a larger
group – in order to push Ukraine away from Russia.
"We would rather have people there as fifth column – pivotal thing for future of Ukrainian society
– continue to work with Crimean people" said the document regarding the disputed territory only highlighting
that there was potentially improper interference by Soros in Ukraine's civil society.
Amazon review of Thomas Frank's The Wrecking Crew... the word "conservative" was replaced by "neoliberal" as it more correctly
reflect the concept behind this social process.
Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberal ideology is championed on behalf of corporate elites who have now secured total control, even ownership, of the federal government. ..."
"... Elites need federal government revenue transferred to their realm via fat government contracts and juicy subsidies. They want government without regulation, and they want taxation imposed on the masses without real representation, but not on them. ..."
"... Neoliberals drew up a long term strategy to sabotage and disrupt the liberal apparatus. There ensued a vast selling-off of government assets (and favors) to those willing to fund the neoliberal movement. The strategy was concocted as a long term plan - the master blueprint for a wholesale transfer of government responsibilities to private-sector contractors unaccountable to Congress or anyone else. An entire industry sprung up to support conservatism - the great god market (corporate globalism) replaced anti-communism as the new inspiration. (page 93) ..."
"... But capitalism is not loyal to people or anything once having lost its usefulness, not even the nation state or the flag ..."
"... According to Frank, what makes a place a free-market paradise is not the absence of governments; it is the capture of government by business interests. ..."
"... Neoliberals don't want efficient government, they want less competition and more profits - especially for defense contractors. Under Reagan, civil servants were out, loyalists were in. ..."
"... Contractors are now a fourth branch of government with more people working under contracts than are directly employed by government - making it difficult to determine where government stops and the contractors start in a system of privatized government where private contractors are shielded from oversight or accountability ..."
"... The first general rule of neoliberal administration: cronies in, experts out. ..."
"... Under Reagan, a philosophy of government blossomed that regarded business as its only constituent. ..."
"... Watergate poisoned attitudes toward government - helping sweep in Ronald Reagan with his anti-government cynicism. Lobbying and influence peddling proliferated in a privatized government. Lobbying is how money casts its vote. It is the signature activity of neoliberal governance - the mechanism that translates market forces into political action. ..."
"... Neoliberalism speaks of not compromise but of removing adversaries from the field altogether. ..."
"... One should never forget that it was Roosevelt's New Deal that saved capitalism from itself. Also, one should not forget that capitalism came out of the classical liberal tradition. Capitalists had to wrest power away from the landowning nobility, the arch neoliberal tradition of its time. ..."
Thomas Frank's The Wrecking Crew is another classic. This work, along with his more notable What's
The Matter With Kansas?, is another ground breaking examination into a major phenomenon of American
politics by one of America's foremost social analysts and critics. While What's The Matter With
Kansas? looked more at cultural behavior in explaining why Red State Americans have embraced corporate
elitist ideology and ballot casting that militates against their own economic self-interest, even
their very survival, this title deals more with structural changes in the government, economy,
and society that have come about as a result of a Republican right wing agenda. It is a perplexing
and sorry phenomenon that deserves the attention of a first rate pundit like Frank.
Neoliberal ideology is championed on behalf of corporate elites who have now secured total
control, even ownership, of the federal government. The Wrecking Crew is about a Republican
agenda to totally eliminate the last vestiges of the New Deal and Great Society, which have provided
social safety nets for ordinary working class Americans through programs such as Social Security
and Medicare. Corporate elites want to demolish only that part of government that doesn't benefit
the corporation. Thus, a huge military budget and intrusive national security and police apparatus
is revered, while education, health, welfare, infrastructure, etc. are of less utility for the
corporate state. High taxes on the corporations and wealthy are abhorred, while the middle class
is expected to shoulder a huge tax burden. Although Republicans rail against federal deficits,
when in office they balloon the federal deficits in a plan for government-by-sabotage. (Page 261)
Elites need federal government revenue transferred to their realm via fat government contracts
and juicy subsidies. They want government without regulation, and they want taxation imposed on
the masses without real representation, but not on them. The big government they rail at
is the same government they own and benefit from. They certainly do not want the national security
state (the largest part of government) or the national police system to go away, not even the
IRS. How can they fight wars without a revenue collection system? The wellspring of conservatism
in America today -- preserving connections between the present and past -- is a destroyer of tradition,
not a preserver. (Page 267)
Neoliberals drew up a long term strategy to sabotage and disrupt the liberal apparatus.
There ensued a vast selling-off of government assets (and favors) to those willing to fund the
neoliberal movement. The strategy was concocted as a long term plan - the master blueprint for
a wholesale transfer of government responsibilities to private-sector contractors unaccountable
to Congress or anyone else. An entire industry sprung up to support conservatism - the great god
market (corporate globalism) replaced anti-communism as the new inspiration. (page 93)
Market populism arose as business was supposed to empower the noble common people. But
capitalism is not loyal to people or anything once having lost its usefulness, not even the nation
state or the flag. (page 100) While the New Deal replaced rule by wealthy with its brain
trust, conservatism, at war with intellectuals, fills the bureaucracy with cronies, hacks, partisans,
and creationists. The democracy, or what existed of it, was to be gradually made over into a plutocracy
- rule by the wealthy. (Page 252) Starting with Reagan and Thatcher, the program was to hack open
the liberal state in order to reward business with the loot. (Page 258) The ultimate neoliberal
goal is to marketize the nation's politics so that financial markets can be elevated over vague
liberalisms like the common good and the public interest. (Page 260)
According to Frank, what makes a place a free-market paradise is not the absence of governments;
it is the capture of government by business interests. The game of corporatism is to see
how much public resources the private interest can seize for itself before public government can
stop them. A proper slogan for this mentality would be: more business in government, less government
in business. And, there are market based solutions to every problem. Government should be market
based. George W. Bush grabbed more power for the executive branch than anyone since Nixon. The
ultra-rights' fortunes depend on public cynicism toward government. With the U.S. having been
set up as a merchant state, the idea of small government is now a canard - mass privatization
and outsourcing is preferred. Building cynicism toward government is the objective. Neoliberals
don't want efficient government, they want less competition and more profits - especially for
defense contractors. Under Reagan, civil servants were out, loyalists were in.
While the Clinton team spoke of entrepreneurial government - of reinventing government - the
wrecking crew under Republicans has made the state the tool of money as a market-based system
replaced civil service by a government-by-contractor (outsourcing). Page 137 This has been an
enduring trend, many of the great robber barons got their start as crooked contractors during
the Civil War. Contractors are now a fourth branch of government with more people working under
contracts than are directly employed by government - making it difficult to determine where government
stops and the contractors start in a system of privatized government where private contractors
are shielded from oversight or accountability. (Page 138)
The first general rule of neoliberal
administration: cronies in, experts out. The Bush team did away with EPA's office of enforcement
- turning enforcement power over to the states. (Page 159) In an effort to demolish the regulatory
state, Reagan, immediately after taking office, suspended hundreds of regulations that federal
agencies had developed during the Carter Administration. Under Reagan, a philosophy of government
blossomed that regarded business as its only constituent. In recent years, neoliberals have
deliberately piled up debt to force government into crisis.
Watergate poisoned attitudes toward government - helping sweep in Ronald Reagan with his
anti-government cynicism. Lobbying and influence peddling proliferated in a privatized government.
Lobbying is how money casts its vote. It is the signature activity of neoliberal governance -
the mechanism that translates market forces into political action. (Page 175)
It is the goal of the neoliberal agenda to smash the liberal state. Deficits are one means
to accomplish that end.- to persuade voters to part with programs like Social Security and Medicare
so these funds can be transferred to corporate contractors or used to finance wars or deficit
reduction.. Uncle Sam can raise money by selling off public assets.
Since liberalism depends on fair play by its sworn enemies, it is vulnerable to sabotage by
those not playing by liberalism's rules/ (Page 265) The Liberal State, a vast machinery built
for our protection has been reengineered into a device for our exploitation. (Page 8) Liberalism
arose out of a long-ago compromise between left-wing social movements and business interests.
(Page 266) Neoliberalism speaks of not compromise but of removing adversaries from the field altogether.
(Page 266) No one dreams of eliminating the branches of state that protect Neoliberalism's constituents
such as the military, police, or legal privileges granted to corporations, neoliberals openly
scheme to do away with liberal bits of big government. (Page 266)
Liberalism is a philosophy of
compromise, without a force on the Left to neutralize the magneticism exerted by money, liberalism
will be drawn to the right. (Page 274)
Through corporate media and right wing talk show, liberalism has become a dirty word. However,
liberalism may not be dead yet. It will have to be resurrected from the trash bin of history when
the next capitalist crisis hits. One should never forget that it was Roosevelt's New Deal
that saved capitalism from itself. Also, one should not forget that capitalism came out of the
classical liberal tradition. Capitalists had to wrest power away from the landowning nobility,
the arch neoliberal tradition of its time.
"... Last week we reported on the DC Leaks hack of what was over 2,500 documents detailing how George Soros and his NGOs influence world leaders, drive foreign policy, and help to create unrest in sovereign nations, that many times leads to chaos and civil war. ..."
Last week we reported on the
DC Leaks hack of what was over 2,500 documents detailing how George Soros and his NGOs influence
world leaders, drive foreign policy, and help to create unrest in sovereign nations, that many times
leads to chaos and civil war.
One country of particular focus for George Soros and his NGOs is Ukraine. It is now
accepted fact that Soros was deeply involved in the Maiden protests in 2014 and the violent coup,
that saw a democratically elected government overthrown in the name of "EU values". What is even
more troubling, as revealed by the DC Leaks hack, is how Soros and his network of "non-profit organisations"
worked to lobby EU member states into not only buying his Ukraine "Maidan" narrative, but to also
disavow any ties and support for Russia.
Leaked documents show that George Soros was active in mapping out the Greek media landscape with
generous grants, so as to further his Ukraine project, while also using his deep pockets to get Greek
media to turn against the Russian Federation…in what can only be described as a well-funded and orchestrated
smear campaign.
In one document entitled: "Open Society Initiative For Europe (OSIFE). Mapping the Ukrainian
debate in Greece" (Ukraine and Europe-greece-tor ukraine debate mapping greece.docx), Soros
offers a consultant a remuneration of $6,500 (gross) for "at least 15 full working
days in carrying out this task" plus all expenses paid.
The aim of this task:
The consultant is expected to chart the main players in the Greek debate on Ukraine, outline
the key arguments and their evolution in the past 18 months. Specifically, the report will take
stock of any existing polling evidence provide a 'who is who?' with information about
at least
– 6 newspapers,
– 10 audiovisual outlets (TV and radio),
– 6 internet sites,
– About 50 opinion leaders and trends in social networks[1].
Categorize the main strains of discussion and eventually identify different sides / camps of
the discussion.
Provide a brief account of how Russia has tried to influence the Greek debate on Ukraine
through domestic actors and outlets
Include a section with recommendations on
– What are the spaces OSF should engage and would most likely to have impact?
– What are the voices (of reason or doubt) that should be amplified?
Open Society Initiative For Europe (OSIFE) selected Iannis Carras for the Greek media mapping
grant. The justification why he was chosen…
All contracts were for the same amount. We needed to find highly specialized researchers to
map the debate on Ukraine in Europe, therefore we identified a shortlist of candidates in consultation
with colleagues in the Think Tank Fund, OSEPI and in consultation with members of the OSIFE board
and chose the most qualified who could produce the report in the time allowed. I n the
case of Greece we agreed that Iannis Carras, an economic and social historian of Balkan and Russian
relations with expert knowledge of Greece's NGOs and social movements, was the best suited to
the task.
What is even more interesting is not the grant from OSIFE, but a letter from grant winner Carras
to a person named Mathew (another Greek speaker???), outlining his plan in detail for pushing Soros'
Ukraine agenda in Greece.
Of significance is how Carras tells Mathew about Greek society's overall suspicion of The Open
Society after the roll in played in seeding unrest in Yugoslavia. Carras even tells Mathew
to not mention The Open Society in Greece.
"Do you want your name to appear alongside mine on the paper? Do make comments on all of the
below.
In general, and at your discretion, do not say you are doing this for Open Society
because it is likely to close down doors. There's a lot of suspicion about Open Society in Greece,
mainly because of its positions vis-à-vis the former Yugoslavia. As I am simultaneously
writing an article for Aspen Review Eastern Europe that can be used as the organisation for which
research like this is taking place."
Carras then goes on to outline his approach in manipulating Greek society, covering topics such
as:
1. Media.
2. Political parties and think tanks
3. Opinion polls.
4. Business relations.
5. Religious and cultural ties.
6. Migration and diaspora.
7. Greece and Ukraine in the context of Greece's economic crisis.
8. Greece, Ukraine and the Cyprus issue.
9. Names and brief description of significant actors: a 'who is who?' with information on at least
50 opinion leaders
Carras notes how Russia has much goodwill in Greece, exercising "significant soft power".
Carras notes that Greece is, at this moment, a weak player in the Ukraine debate and the
Greek Foreign Minister Kotzias realises this.
Summary: I am working on the hypotheses largely born out by the interviews
carried out so far that Russia has significant soft power in Greece though this does not
easily convert into hard power (e.g. vetoing EU sanctions). Greeks are basically
not very interested in Ukraine and the crisis there. They reflect and understand that
conflict through their own economic crisis and their relations with Europe (nowadays primarily
Europe and not US). To the extent that relations with Europe remain the focus and do not go off
the rails, Greece will bark but will not bite. If they improve, Greece might
not even bark (as can be seen with Greece's policy on Israel, Kotzias can be very much a realist).
Carras does warn that should Greece's economic situation deteriorate further, than Greece may
very well look to Russia for support, and this has implications on the Ukraine plan.
If they deteriorate however, Greece will be looking to Russia for increased support
and will alter its Ukraine policies accordingly. Do you agree with these hypotheses?
Can you find confirmation for or against them in the media outlets examined?
Carras places extra emphasis on influencing the media in Greece, citing various large news outlets
that the Soros NGO can target, including approaching left wing and right wing blogs.
This is the bulk of the work (we have to think about how to divide the work up). We have to
provide a 'who is who?' with information about at least 6 newspapers, 10 audio-visual outlets
(TV and radio) and 6 internet sites. Some of these will be obvious, but, even in these cases,
change over time (at least eighteen months) is an important consideration. Here are some suggestions
for newspapers: Kathimerini, Avgi, Ta Nea, Vima, Efymerida Syntakton, Eleutherotypia,
Proto Thema, Rizospastis? etc. What else? Protagon? Athens Review of Books? (info on
Kotzias). As for TV, we'll just do the main ones. What about left wing blogs? What about commercial
radio stations? I think we should cover Aristera sta FM. Sky. What else? Anything from
the nationalist and far right? My choice would be Ardin (already looking at this) which
at least tries to be serious. Patria is even more unsavoury. I'll deal with the religious web
sites in the culture and religion appendix. I think we should interview Kostas Nisenko (
http://www.kathimerini.gr/757296/article/epikairothta/kosmos/viaih-epi8e... ) and Kostas Geropoulos
of New Europe to get into the issues involved… not at all sure though that it's advisable
to talk to the Russia correspondents Thanasis Avgerinos, Dimitris Liatsos, Achileas Patsoukas
etc. (I know all of them). Also if we come across articles with interesting information
on any one of the topics, we should mail them to one another.
Attention is placed on influencing political parties. Carras sees this as a more difficult task,
as parties in Greece would not be warm towards turning their back on Russia.
Who if anyone deals with Russia / Ukraine within each of the political parties? How important
are political parties in formulating policies? (my hunch is totally unimportant). I must
admit I have little idea of how to proceed with this one, but I have written to the academic
Vassilis Petsinis and I hope I'll get to skype with him soon. Think-tanks are easier,
and, I think, more important. I have already interviewed Thanos Dokos (director Greek foreign
policy institute, ELIAMEP) in person.
Carras notes how he has approached various religious leaders, academics and actors, to gauge a
sense of how deep Russia's influence and "soft power" runs in Greek society and culture.
So far I have interviewed by telephone Metropolitan John of Pergamum (one of the top figures
in the inner circle of the Istanbul based Ecumenical Patriarchate). I have read Metropolitan Nektarios
of the Argolid's recent book (2014), "Two bullets for Donetsk". I have tried but so far not succeeded
in contacting Metropolitan Nektarios himself, and have started work on two of the main religious
news websites romfea.gr and amen.gr .
With respect to culture I intend to contact Georgos Livathinos, leading director of Russian
and other plays and Lydia Koniordou, actress. Also the management of the Onassis Centre, particularly
Afroditi Panagiotakou, the executive vice-director who is quite knowledgeable in this field having
travelled to both Ukraine and Russia.
In 2016 Greece and Russia will be hosting each other as the focus of cultural events in the
two respective countries. I will be looking to understand the extent to which Russia's
unparalleled cultural soft-power might translate into Greek policy making.
Greek military is the final point of influence, with Carras interviewing Ambassadors and policy
decision makers.
Foreign policy and the Greek military. So far I have interviewed in person Ambassador Elias
Klis (formerly ambassador of Greece to Moscow, advisor to the current Foreign Minister, advisor
to the Greek Union of Industrialists. He is perhaps the single most important person for understanding
Greek-Russian diplomatic relations at present). Ambassador Alexandros Philon (formerly ambassador
of Greece to Washington, to whom I am related). Captain Panos Stamou (submarines, extensive contacts
in Crimea, also secretary and leading light of the Greek-Russian historical association) who emphasised
the non-political tradition of the Greek armed forces. Tempted to talk to Themos Stoforopoulos
for a nationalist left wing view. I have also read foreign minister Kotzias' latest book. All
of this has provided me with useful insights for appendices 7 and 8, and particularly for the
connection to the Cyprus issue (which at the moment Greece is very keen to downplay).
Carras places an emphasis on Cyprus, perhaps recognising the islands affinity to support Russia
and its large Russian diaspora community.
The recommendations will be for the medium and the short term, cited here based on interviews
carried out so far. Medium term recommendations will include a cultural event (to be specified
later) and a one-day conference on Ukraine and international law, citing precedents for dealing
with the situation in Ukraine (particularly Cyprus). Recommendations may include capacity building
for local Ukrainian migrant spokesperson(s). Short term recommendations will include an action
pack on what Greece has at stake in Ukraine, and ways to narrate parallels in interactions between
nation and empire vis-à-vis Greece / Ukraine. Think about whether these work / what else we might
recommend?
"... There is a mystery to the way Washington works-how an entire political class came to see as American policy that that Russia be humiliated at its own doorstep as logical, without ever reflecting upon whether this was a good idea in the larger scheme of global politics nor whether the West had the means and will to see it through ..."
"... Russia's leaders and diplomats have been telling America to butt out of Ukraine in unambiguous terms for a decade or more . Did American diplomats and CIA agents push for an anti-Russian coup d'etat in Kiev knowing that and pursue it anyway? The sheer recklessness of such an action would border on criminal-but oddly enough, no one who truly counts in Washington, Republican or Democrat, seems even to consider it even slightly misguided. ..."
On hawkish autopilot, America's leaders ignore the obvious off-ramp to the escalating
Ukraine crisis.
Consider an analogy to get a sense of how Russia might perceive America's Ukraine policy. It is
imperfect of course, because unlike Russia, America has no history of being invaded, unless you count
the War of 1812. But a comparison might be instructive nonetheless:
By 2034, China's power position has risen relative to America's. America has evacuated its
East Asian bases, under peaceful but pressured circumstances. The governments of Korea and Japan
and eventually the Philippines had, by 2026, concluded it was better off with a "less provocative"
more neutral arrangement. The huge naval base at Subic Bay became home to a multilateral UN contingent.
China's economy had been larger than America's for a while, though American per capita income
is still somewhat higher. American technological innovation edge has largely disappeared, America
still has a lot of soft power-people over the world prefer Hollywood movies to Chinese and America's
nuclear arsenal exceeds the Chinese. But the countries are far more equal than today, and throughout
much of the world it is assumed that China will be tomorrow's dominant "hyperpower."
A political crisis erupts in Mexico. Mexico has a freely elected but typically corrupt government,
whose leading figures are linked to Wall Street and Miami Beach by ties of marriage and money.
But many in Mexico-where anti-gringo nationalism remains a potent force-want to become the first
"North American partner" in the China led Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere. Young Mexicans
proclaim defiantly they are "people of color" and laud the fact non-white China is rising while
America, country of aging white people, is in decline. Their sentiments, materialistic and infused
with personal ambitions are so permeated with anti-American, anti-imperialist "third worldist"
rhetoric that it is difficult for outsiders to sort out the true motivations. When the Mexican
government, under American pressure, rejects a Chinese invitation for candidate membership in
China's East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, long prepared protests erupt in Mexico City.
The core group of protest leaders and organizers have been on the Chinese payroll for some
time, as the heads of various civic action and popular democracy initiatives, many with an obvious
anti-gringo flavor. Soon Chinese politicians and movie stars begin flocking to Mexico City to
be photographed with the protesters. Thus encouraged, protester demands escalate, including not
only the resignation of the government, Mexico's adhesion to the Chinese economic bloc, but a
military alliance with China. The NSA captures a cell phone conversation of the Chinese ambassador
discussing who will hold what posts in the next Mexican cabinet. Three days later, sniper fire
of undetermined origin riddles the protestors and police, and any semblance of order breaks down.
Mexico's president flees to Miami.
The above scenario parallels pretty directly the run-up to the Ukraine crisis, before Russia began
to respond forcefully. One can of course see the ambiguities of right and wrong. Why should America
have anything to say about whether Mexico has a revolution and joins an anti-American military alliance,
some would ask. Mexico is sovereign, and should be able to join any international grouping it wants.
What is most striking about the Ukraine crisis is how much the Washington debate lacks any sense
of how the issue might look to other interested parties, particularly Russia. Putin is analysed of
course-is he, as Hillary Clinton suggested, following Hitler's playbook? Or is he merely an aggressive
autocrat? Or perhaps he is "in his own world" and not quite sane? But in open Washington conversation
at least, and perhaps even at the more reflective levels of government, all talk begins with the
premise that Russia's leader is somewhere on the continuum between aggressive and the irrational.
That he might be acting reactively and defensively, as any leader of a large power would be in response
to threatening events on its doorstep, is not even part of the American conversation. Thus in the
waning days of American unipolarism, America diplomacy sinks into a mode of semi-autism, able to
perceive and express its own interests, perceptions, and desires, while oblivious to the concerns
of others.
A rare and welcome exception to blindness was the publication in Foreign Affairs of John
Mearsheimer's
cogent essay on the Ukraine crisis, which with characteristic directness argues that Western
efforts to move Ukraine in the Nato/EE orbit were the "taproot" of the present crisis. Prior to Mearsheimer,
one could find analyses tracing how various neoliberal and neoconservative foundations had, with
their spending and sponsorship of various "pro-Western" groups, fomented a revolution in Ukraine,
but they were generally sequestered in left-liberal venues habitually critical of American and Western
policies. In the Beltway power loop, such voices were never heard. The policy of pushing NATO eastward,
first incorporating Poland and Bulgaria and then going right up to Russia's borders moved forward
as if on mysterious autopilot. That such a policy was wise and necessary was considered a given when
it was discussed at all, which was seldom. Was Obama even aware that
a leading neoconservative,
a figure from Dick Cheney's staff, was in charge formulating American policy towards Ukraine-with
designs on igniting revolutionary regional transformation? One has to assume not; confrontation with
Russia had not been part of Obama's presidential campaign or style, and since the crisis began his
comments have always been more measured than the actions of the government he purportedly leads.
As Mearsheimer points out, there remains still a fairly obvious and quite attractive off-ramp:
a negotiation with Russia which settles formally Ukraine's non-aligned status. There are useful precedents
for this: Eisenhower's negotiation with Krushchev that brought about the withdrawal of foreign troops
from Austria in 1955 is one, and so of course is Finland. No one who contemplates where the Ukraine
crisis might lead otherwise-with a war that devastates the country or perhaps brings in outside powers
to devastate all of Europe, or even explodes the entire northern hemisphere-could sanely consider
Austria or Finland-prosperous and free countries-to be bad outcomes. Nevertheless the entire conversation
in Washington revolves around measures to make Putin back down, and accept the integration of Ukraine
into the EU and eventually NATO. People act baffled that he won't.
There is a mystery to the way Washington works-how an entire political class came to see as American
policy that that Russia be humiliated at its own doorstep as logical, without ever reflecting upon
whether this was a good idea in the larger scheme of global politics nor whether the West had the
means and will to see it through. Because to see it through likely means war with Russia over Ukraine.
(The West-leaning Ukrainians of course, be they democratic or fascist, want nothing more than to
have American troops fighting beside them as they become NATO partners, a tail wagging the dog).
America's policy makes sense only if it is taken for granted that Russia is an eternal enemy, an
evil power which must be surrounded weakened and ultimately brought down. But very few in Washington
believe that either, and virtually no one in the American corporate establishment does. So it's a
mystery-a seemingly iron-clad Washington consensus formed behind a policy, the integration of Ukraine
in the West, to whose implications no one seems to have given any serious thought.
Amazon review of Thomas Frank's The Wrecking Crew... the word "conservative" was replaced by "neoliberal" as it more correctly
reflect the concept behind this social process.
Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberal ideology is championed on behalf of corporate elites who have now secured total control, even ownership, of the federal government. ..."
"... Elites need federal government revenue transferred to their realm via fat government contracts and juicy subsidies. They want government without regulation, and they want taxation imposed on the masses without real representation, but not on them. ..."
"... Neoliberals drew up a long term strategy to sabotage and disrupt the liberal apparatus. There ensued a vast selling-off of government assets (and favors) to those willing to fund the neoliberal movement. The strategy was concocted as a long term plan - the master blueprint for a wholesale transfer of government responsibilities to private-sector contractors unaccountable to Congress or anyone else. An entire industry sprung up to support conservatism - the great god market (corporate globalism) replaced anti-communism as the new inspiration. (page 93) ..."
"... But capitalism is not loyal to people or anything once having lost its usefulness, not even the nation state or the flag ..."
"... According to Frank, what makes a place a free-market paradise is not the absence of governments; it is the capture of government by business interests. ..."
"... Neoliberals don't want efficient government, they want less competition and more profits - especially for defense contractors. Under Reagan, civil servants were out, loyalists were in. ..."
"... Contractors are now a fourth branch of government with more people working under contracts than are directly employed by government - making it difficult to determine where government stops and the contractors start in a system of privatized government where private contractors are shielded from oversight or accountability ..."
"... The first general rule of neoliberal administration: cronies in, experts out. ..."
"... Under Reagan, a philosophy of government blossomed that regarded business as its only constituent. ..."
"... Watergate poisoned attitudes toward government - helping sweep in Ronald Reagan with his anti-government cynicism. Lobbying and influence peddling proliferated in a privatized government. Lobbying is how money casts its vote. It is the signature activity of neoliberal governance - the mechanism that translates market forces into political action. ..."
"... Neoliberalism speaks of not compromise but of removing adversaries from the field altogether. ..."
"... One should never forget that it was Roosevelt's New Deal that saved capitalism from itself. Also, one should not forget that capitalism came out of the classical liberal tradition. Capitalists had to wrest power away from the landowning nobility, the arch neoliberal tradition of its time. ..."
Thomas Frank's The Wrecking Crew is another classic. This work, along with his more notable What's
The Matter With Kansas?, is another ground breaking examination into a major phenomenon of American
politics by one of America's foremost social analysts and critics. While What's The Matter With
Kansas? looked more at cultural behavior in explaining why Red State Americans have embraced corporate
elitist ideology and ballot casting that militates against their own economic self-interest, even
their very survival, this title deals more with structural changes in the government, economy,
and society that have come about as a result of a Republican right wing agenda. It is a perplexing
and sorry phenomenon that deserves the attention of a first rate pundit like Frank.
Neoliberal ideology is championed on behalf of corporate elites who have now secured total
control, even ownership, of the federal government. The Wrecking Crew is about a Republican
agenda to totally eliminate the last vestiges of the New Deal and Great Society, which have provided
social safety nets for ordinary working class Americans through programs such as Social Security
and Medicare. Corporate elites want to demolish only that part of government that doesn't benefit
the corporation. Thus, a huge military budget and intrusive national security and police apparatus
is revered, while education, health, welfare, infrastructure, etc. are of less utility for the
corporate state. High taxes on the corporations and wealthy are abhorred, while the middle class
is expected to shoulder a huge tax burden. Although Republicans rail against federal deficits,
when in office they balloon the federal deficits in a plan for government-by-sabotage. (Page 261)
Elites need federal government revenue transferred to their realm via fat government contracts
and juicy subsidies. They want government without regulation, and they want taxation imposed on
the masses without real representation, but not on them. The big government they rail at
is the same government they own and benefit from. They certainly do not want the national security
state (the largest part of government) or the national police system to go away, not even the
IRS. How can they fight wars without a revenue collection system? The wellspring of conservatism
in America today -- preserving connections between the present and past -- is a destroyer of tradition,
not a preserver. (Page 267)
Neoliberals drew up a long term strategy to sabotage and disrupt the liberal apparatus.
There ensued a vast selling-off of government assets (and favors) to those willing to fund the
neoliberal movement. The strategy was concocted as a long term plan - the master blueprint for
a wholesale transfer of government responsibilities to private-sector contractors unaccountable
to Congress or anyone else. An entire industry sprung up to support conservatism - the great god
market (corporate globalism) replaced anti-communism as the new inspiration. (page 93)
Market populism arose as business was supposed to empower the noble common people. But
capitalism is not loyal to people or anything once having lost its usefulness, not even the nation
state or the flag. (page 100) While the New Deal replaced rule by wealthy with its brain
trust, conservatism, at war with intellectuals, fills the bureaucracy with cronies, hacks, partisans,
and creationists. The democracy, or what existed of it, was to be gradually made over into a plutocracy
- rule by the wealthy. (Page 252) Starting with Reagan and Thatcher, the program was to hack open
the liberal state in order to reward business with the loot. (Page 258) The ultimate neoliberal
goal is to marketize the nation's politics so that financial markets can be elevated over vague
liberalisms like the common good and the public interest. (Page 260)
According to Frank, what makes a place a free-market paradise is not the absence of governments;
it is the capture of government by business interests. The game of corporatism is to see
how much public resources the private interest can seize for itself before public government can
stop them. A proper slogan for this mentality would be: more business in government, less government
in business. And, there are market based solutions to every problem. Government should be market
based. George W. Bush grabbed more power for the executive branch than anyone since Nixon. The
ultra-rights' fortunes depend on public cynicism toward government. With the U.S. having been
set up as a merchant state, the idea of small government is now a canard - mass privatization
and outsourcing is preferred. Building cynicism toward government is the objective. Neoliberals
don't want efficient government, they want less competition and more profits - especially for
defense contractors. Under Reagan, civil servants were out, loyalists were in.
While the Clinton team spoke of entrepreneurial government - of reinventing government - the
wrecking crew under Republicans has made the state the tool of money as a market-based system
replaced civil service by a government-by-contractor (outsourcing). Page 137 This has been an
enduring trend, many of the great robber barons got their start as crooked contractors during
the Civil War. Contractors are now a fourth branch of government with more people working under
contracts than are directly employed by government - making it difficult to determine where government
stops and the contractors start in a system of privatized government where private contractors
are shielded from oversight or accountability. (Page 138)
The first general rule of neoliberal
administration: cronies in, experts out. The Bush team did away with EPA's office of enforcement
- turning enforcement power over to the states. (Page 159) In an effort to demolish the regulatory
state, Reagan, immediately after taking office, suspended hundreds of regulations that federal
agencies had developed during the Carter Administration. Under Reagan, a philosophy of government
blossomed that regarded business as its only constituent. In recent years, neoliberals have
deliberately piled up debt to force government into crisis.
Watergate poisoned attitudes toward government - helping sweep in Ronald Reagan with his
anti-government cynicism. Lobbying and influence peddling proliferated in a privatized government.
Lobbying is how money casts its vote. It is the signature activity of neoliberal governance -
the mechanism that translates market forces into political action. (Page 175)
It is the goal of the neoliberal agenda to smash the liberal state. Deficits are one means
to accomplish that end.- to persuade voters to part with programs like Social Security and Medicare
so these funds can be transferred to corporate contractors or used to finance wars or deficit
reduction.. Uncle Sam can raise money by selling off public assets.
Since liberalism depends on fair play by its sworn enemies, it is vulnerable to sabotage by
those not playing by liberalism's rules/ (Page 265) The Liberal State, a vast machinery built
for our protection has been reengineered into a device for our exploitation. (Page 8) Liberalism
arose out of a long-ago compromise between left-wing social movements and business interests.
(Page 266) Neoliberalism speaks of not compromise but of removing adversaries from the field altogether.
(Page 266) No one dreams of eliminating the branches of state that protect Neoliberalism's constituents
such as the military, police, or legal privileges granted to corporations, neoliberals openly
scheme to do away with liberal bits of big government. (Page 266)
Liberalism is a philosophy of
compromise, without a force on the Left to neutralize the magneticism exerted by money, liberalism
will be drawn to the right. (Page 274)
Through corporate media and right wing talk show, liberalism has become a dirty word. However,
liberalism may not be dead yet. It will have to be resurrected from the trash bin of history when
the next capitalist crisis hits. One should never forget that it was Roosevelt's New Deal
that saved capitalism from itself. Also, one should not forget that capitalism came out of the
classical liberal tradition. Capitalists had to wrest power away from the landowning nobility,
the arch neoliberal tradition of its time.
"... The problem with just sitting back and let you invade any country you like is that we all have to live in the world you make. You're certainly correct to point out that there are many things 'we foreigners' don't understand about America. ..."
"... What we do know is that whatever you tell yourself about the sacrifices US soldiers are making in your peacemaking wars in the ME, the overwhelming majority of those killed and wounded in modern US led military actions are not Americans. I fully believe that many Americans are intensely patriotic and love their country. I also believe that there are many subcultures within America that 'we foreigners' cannot understand. ..."
"... You believe your nation's commitment to its military is somehow special? Prove it. Instead we get American exceptionalism proudly on display. ..."
84@ The problem with just sitting back and let you invade any country you like is that
we all have to live in the world you make. You're certainly correct to point out that there are
many things 'we foreigners' don't understand about America.
What we do know is that whatever you tell yourself about the sacrifices US soldiers are
making in your peacemaking wars in the ME, the overwhelming majority of those killed and wounded
in modern US led military actions are not Americans. I fully believe that many Americans are intensely
patriotic and love their country. I also believe that there are many subcultures within America
that 'we foreigners' cannot understand.
What is also clear from your comment is that you, and perhaps some others, believe that this
love of country and rich tapestry of subcultures somehow makes Americans very, very special and
beyond criticism.
We understand this much: Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor – 68 civilian casualties.
The US response: "..on the night of March 9-10, 1945…LeMay sent 334 B-29s low over Tokyo from
the Marianas. Their mission was to reduce the city to rubble, kill its citizens, and instill terror
in the survivors, with jellied gasoline and napalm that would create a sea of flames. Stripped
of their guns to make more room for bombs, and flying at altitudes averaging 7,000 feet to evade
detection, the bombers, which had been designed for high-altitude precision attacks, carried two
kinds of incendiaries: M47s, 100-pound oil gel bombs, 182 per aircraft, each capable of starting
a major fire, followed by M69s, 6-pound gelled-gasoline bombs, 1,520 per aircraft in addition
to a few high explosives to deter firefighters. [25] The attack on an area that the US Strategic
Bombing Survey estimated to be 84.7 percent residential succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of
air force planners…
The Strategic Bombing Survey, whose formation a few months earlier provided an important signal
of Roosevelt's support for strategic bombing, provided a technical description of the firestorm
and its effects on Tokyo: The chief characteristic of the conflagration . . . was the presence
of a fire front, an extended wall of fire moving to leeward, preceded by a mass of pre-heated,
turbid, burning vapors . . . . The 28-mile-per-hour wind, measured a mile from the fire, increased
to an estimated 55 miles at the perimeter, and probably more within. An extended fire swept over
15 square miles in 6 hours . . . . The area of the fire was nearly 100 percent burned; no structure
or its contents escaped damage."
The survey concluded-plausibly, but only for events prior to August 6, 1945-that
"probably more persons lost their lives by fire at Tokyo in a 6-hour period than at any time
in the history of man. People died from extreme heat, from oxygen deficiency, from carbon monoxide
asphyxiation, from being trampled beneath the feet of stampeding crowds, and from drowning. The
largest number of victims were the most vulnerable: women, children and the elderly."
The raids continue for all the 'best' military reasons…
"In July, US planes blanketed the few remaining Japanese cities that had been spared firebombing
with an "Appeal to the People." "As you know," it read, "America which stands for humanity, does
not wish to injure the innocent people, so you had better evacuate these cities." Half the leafleted
cities were firebombed within days of the warning. US planes ruled the skies. Overall, by one
calculation, the US firebombing campaign destroyed 180 square miles of 67 cities, killed more
than 300,000 people and injured an additional 400,000, figures that exclude the atomic bombing
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." (My italics)
http://apjjf.org/-Mark-Selden/2414/article.html
kidneystones 08.03.16 at 12:59 am
@ 86 Both my parents served. My grand-fathers served, and most of my uncles and great-uncles
served – you know, the whole mess from being shot to dying in hospitals years after the war from
gas attacks. And I served, nothing special about any of this.
You believe your nation's commitment to its military is somehow special? Prove it. Instead
we get American exceptionalism proudly on display.
Should all the foreigners in your debt salute, or simply prostrate ourselves in awe?
Obama is a neocon and is fully dedicated to expansion and maintenance of the US global neoliberal
empire, at any cost for the US population. Racism card play against Trump, who opposes neoliberal interventionism,
is a variant of the classic " Divide et impera" strategy
Notable quotes:
"... Incidentally, historical amnesia also includes forgetting Barack Obama was the boss when Clinton was secretary and forgetting Barack Obama is still president pursuing insane war-mongering policies long after Clinton is gone ..."
"... Historical amnesia means forgetting the Democratic Party isn't socialist or leftist ..."
"... Historical amnesia means forgetting all foundations are ways for the wealthy to shelter money and exercise influence, Koch's, Rockefeller's, Carnegie's, Ford's, Soros', not just Clintons'. Historical amnesia means forgetting this government has always conducted foreign policy at the behest of special interests. ..."
"... Vilifying millions of people in preference to even asking if Trump hasn't got massive elite support is deeply, profoundly reactionary. Divide et impera has been the rulers' game for centuries. ..."
Incidentally, historical amnesia also includes forgetting Barack Obama was the boss when Clinton
was secretary and forgetting Barack Obama is still president pursuing insane war-mongering policies
long after Clinton is gone and forgetting Barack Obama is still president, and won't even
be a lame duck till November.
Historical amnesia means forgetting the Democratic Party isn't
socialist or leftist, despite Bernie Sanders' long career as a sort of socialist (only informally
a Democrat.)
Historical amnesia means forgetting to even ask what "Watergate" was, and if or how it mattered
(or didn't.)
Historical amnesia means forgetting all foundations are ways for the wealthy to shelter
money and exercise influence, Koch's, Rockefeller's, Carnegie's, Ford's, Soros', not just Clintons'.
Historical amnesia means forgetting this government has always conducted foreign policy at the
behest of special interests.
(Yes, Lupita believes that imperialism actually pays off for the whole country, which
presumably is why when her preferred rich people try to get their own she'll be for that. Nonetheless,
the idea is bullshit. At this point, I can only imagine people don't call her out on that because
they actually agree that "we" are all in it together with our owners.)
Historical amnesia includes forgetting Trump has run for president before, with the same personality
and the same tactics and the same party base. It is unclear how the essentially racist nature
of the vile masses has changed so much in four years.
Vilifying millions of people in preference to even asking if Trump hasn't got massive elite
support is deeply, profoundly reactionary. Divide et impera has been the rulers' game for centuries.
"... The violation of norms was similar, but Tom DeLay invented his scheme as a way of strengthening his Party and making it more
powerful in Congress, which was kinda his job, and he was quite successful in adding Republicans to the Texas delegation. ..."
"... Debbie Wasserman Schultz wasn't just violating the norms; she was trying to weaken her Party, draining away resources to the
Clinton campaign that they had no legitimate claim to from parts of the Party that needed those resources. And, it is part of a pattern
of leadership action to weaken the Party. (Patrick Murphy, her hand-picked candidate for U.S. Senate from Florida is exhibit one.) ..."
"... I think it is fair and accurate to describe the HVF transfer arrangements as a means of circumventing campaign financing limits
and using the State parties to subsidize the Clinton campaign. ..."
"... Between the creation of the victory fund in September and the end of [June], the fund had brought in $142 million, . . . 44
percent [to] DNC ($24.4 million) and Hillary for America ($37.6 million), . . . state parties have kept less than $800,000 of all the
cash brought in by the committee - or only 0.56 percent. ..."
"... Beyond the transfers, much of the fund's $42 million in direct spending also appears to have been done to directly benefit
the Clinton campaign, as opposed to the state parties ..."
"... The fund has paid $4.1 million to the Clinton campaign for "salary and overhead expenses" to reimburse it for fundraising efforts.
And it has directed $38 million to vendors such as direct marketing company Chapman Cubine Adams + Hussey and digital consultant Bully
Pulpit Interactive - both of which also serve the Clinton campaign - for mailings and online ads that sometimes closely resemble Clinton
campaign materials. ..."
Wasn't Tom DeLay indicted and driven from Congress over a similar sort of money shuffle?
The violation of norms was similar, but Tom DeLay invented his scheme as a way of strengthening his Party and making it
more powerful in Congress, which was kinda his job, and he was quite successful in adding Republicans to the Texas delegation.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz wasn't just violating the norms; she was trying to weaken her Party, draining away resources to
the Clinton campaign that they had no legitimate claim to from parts of the Party that needed those resources. And, it is part
of a pattern of leadership action to weaken the Party. (Patrick Murphy, her hand-picked candidate for U.S. Senate from Florida
is exhibit one.)
bruce wilder 08.03.16 at 1:08 am
Layman @ 79
I am not interested in a prolonged back and forth, but I will lay out a bare outline of facts. I do not find much support for
your characterization of these arrangements, which give new meaning to the fungibility of funds. I think it is fair and accurate
to describe the HVF transfer arrangements as a means of circumventing campaign financing limits and using the State parties to
subsidize the Clinton campaign. Court rulings have made aggregate fund raising legal and invites this means of circumventing
the $2700 limit on individual Presidential campaign donations. Whether the circumvention is legal - whether it violates the law
to invite nominal contributions to State Parties of $10,000 and channel those contributions wholly to operations in support of
Clinton, while leaving nothing in State Party coffers is actually illegal, I couldn't say; it certainly violates the norms of
a putative joint fundraising effort. It wasn't hard for POLITICO to find State officials who said as much. The rest of this comment
quotes POLITICO reports dated July 2016.
Hillary Victory Fund, which now includes 40 state Democratic Party committees, theoretically could accept checks as large as
$436,100 - based on the individual limits of $10,000 per state party, $33,400 for the DNC, and $2,700 for Clinton's campaign.
Between the creation of the victory fund in September and the end of [June], the fund had brought in $142 million, . .
. 44 percent [to] DNC ($24.4 million) and Hillary for America ($37.6 million), . . . state parties have kept less than $800,000
of all the cash brought in by the committee - or only 0.56 percent.
. . . state parties have received $7.7 million in transfers, but within a few days of most transfers, almost all of the cash
- $6.9 million - was transferred to the DNC . . .
The only date on which most state parties received money from the victory fund and didn't pass any of it on to the DNC was
May 2, the same day that POLITICO published an article exposing the arrangement.
Beyond the transfers, much of the fund's $42 million in direct spending also appears to have been done to directly benefit
the Clinton campaign, as opposed to the state parties.
The fund has paid $4.1 million to the Clinton campaign for "salary and overhead expenses" to reimburse it for fundraising
efforts. And it has directed $38 million to vendors such as direct marketing company Chapman Cubine Adams + Hussey and digital
consultant Bully Pulpit Interactive - both of which also serve the Clinton campaign - for mailings and online ads that sometimes
closely resemble Clinton campaign materials.
"... The problem with just sitting back and let you invade any country you like is that we all have to live in the world you make. You're certainly correct to point out that there are many things 'we foreigners' don't understand about America. ..."
"... What we do know is that whatever you tell yourself about the sacrifices US soldiers are making in your peacemaking wars in the ME, the overwhelming majority of those killed and wounded in modern US led military actions are not Americans. I fully believe that many Americans are intensely patriotic and love their country. I also believe that there are many subcultures within America that 'we foreigners' cannot understand. ..."
"... You believe your nation's commitment to its military is somehow special? Prove it. Instead we get American exceptionalism proudly on display. ..."
84@ The problem with just sitting back and let you invade any country you like is that
we all have to live in the world you make. You're certainly correct to point out that there are
many things 'we foreigners' don't understand about America.
What we do know is that whatever you tell yourself about the sacrifices US soldiers are
making in your peacemaking wars in the ME, the overwhelming majority of those killed and wounded
in modern US led military actions are not Americans. I fully believe that many Americans are intensely
patriotic and love their country. I also believe that there are many subcultures within America
that 'we foreigners' cannot understand.
What is also clear from your comment is that you, and perhaps some others, believe that this
love of country and rich tapestry of subcultures somehow makes Americans very, very special and
beyond criticism.
We understand this much: Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor – 68 civilian casualties.
The US response: "..on the night of March 9-10, 1945…LeMay sent 334 B-29s low over Tokyo from
the Marianas. Their mission was to reduce the city to rubble, kill its citizens, and instill terror
in the survivors, with jellied gasoline and napalm that would create a sea of flames. Stripped
of their guns to make more room for bombs, and flying at altitudes averaging 7,000 feet to evade
detection, the bombers, which had been designed for high-altitude precision attacks, carried two
kinds of incendiaries: M47s, 100-pound oil gel bombs, 182 per aircraft, each capable of starting
a major fire, followed by M69s, 6-pound gelled-gasoline bombs, 1,520 per aircraft in addition
to a few high explosives to deter firefighters. [25] The attack on an area that the US Strategic
Bombing Survey estimated to be 84.7 percent residential succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of
air force planners…
The Strategic Bombing Survey, whose formation a few months earlier provided an important signal
of Roosevelt's support for strategic bombing, provided a technical description of the firestorm
and its effects on Tokyo: The chief characteristic of the conflagration . . . was the presence
of a fire front, an extended wall of fire moving to leeward, preceded by a mass of pre-heated,
turbid, burning vapors . . . . The 28-mile-per-hour wind, measured a mile from the fire, increased
to an estimated 55 miles at the perimeter, and probably more within. An extended fire swept over
15 square miles in 6 hours . . . . The area of the fire was nearly 100 percent burned; no structure
or its contents escaped damage."
The survey concluded-plausibly, but only for events prior to August 6, 1945-that
"probably more persons lost their lives by fire at Tokyo in a 6-hour period than at any time
in the history of man. People died from extreme heat, from oxygen deficiency, from carbon monoxide
asphyxiation, from being trampled beneath the feet of stampeding crowds, and from drowning. The
largest number of victims were the most vulnerable: women, children and the elderly."
The raids continue for all the 'best' military reasons…
"In July, US planes blanketed the few remaining Japanese cities that had been spared firebombing
with an "Appeal to the People." "As you know," it read, "America which stands for humanity, does
not wish to injure the innocent people, so you had better evacuate these cities." Half the leafleted
cities were firebombed within days of the warning. US planes ruled the skies. Overall, by one
calculation, the US firebombing campaign destroyed 180 square miles of 67 cities, killed more
than 300,000 people and injured an additional 400,000, figures that exclude the atomic bombing
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki." (My italics)
http://apjjf.org/-Mark-Selden/2414/article.html
kidneystones 08.03.16 at 12:59 am
@ 86 Both my parents served. My grand-fathers served, and most of my uncles and great-uncles
served – you know, the whole mess from being shot to dying in hospitals years after the war from
gas attacks. And I served, nothing special about any of this.
You believe your nation's commitment to its military is somehow special? Prove it. Instead
we get American exceptionalism proudly on display.
Should all the foreigners in your debt salute, or simply prostrate ourselves in awe?
Clinton betrayal and sell out of Democratic Party to Wall Street was actually a phenomenon affecting
other similar parties, especially in Europe. And not only in Great Britain, where Tony Bliar was a real
copycat.
Notable quotes:
"... Ideology or political philosophy may matter to the skilled politician, but it matters less as a matter of conviction than as the précis of a novel's plot. It is like a key they use to encode rhetorical poses for the occasion, to signal that they understand the concerns of whatever group they are speaking to. ..."
"... It is one of the odd (to me) features of political attitude formation that so many people have amnesia where there should be some basic appreciation for what politics, at base, is about. (Politics is about who gets what, when, how, in Harold Lasswell's immortal title.) ..."
"... Neoliberalism is possibly the most important set of political phenomena -- certainly the most consequential -- in our generation's experience of political ideas and movements, and yet a common impulse is to deny it is exists or labels anything more meaningful than a catch-all "don't like it". ..."
"... I do think think there's something to the contention that a political re-alignment is underway and the iron hold that neoliberalism has on the Media discourse is rusting. Rusting or not, the structures of propaganda and manipulation remain highly centralized, so even if the rhetorical tropes lose their meaning and emotional resonance, it isn't clear that the structures of authority won't continue, their legitimacy torn and tattered but not displaced. Because there's no replacement candidate, yet. ..."
"... I agree, of course, that Marxism is obsolete. But, it does furnish a model of what an ideology can do to explain political economy and its possibilities, providing a rally point and a confession of faith. The contrast to our present common outlook highlights that several things are clearly missing for us now: one is economic class antagonism, the idea that the rich are the enemy, that rich people make themselves rich by preying on the society, and that fundamental, structural remedies are available thru politics. ..."
"... I do think there's a reservoir of inchoate anger about elite betrayal and malfeasance. The irony of being presented the choice of Trump and Clinton as a remedy is apparently not fully appreciated by our commenters, let alone the irony of rummaging the attic and bringing down Sanders, like he was a suit of retro clothes last worn by one's grandfather. ..."
"... Above, Layman reminds us that George W Bush sold himself as a compassionate conservative. Quite a few adults voted for him I understand. Supposedly quite a few did so thinking that dry drunk would be a good fellow to have a beer with. Because . . . I guess some pundits thought to tell them that that is what politics is about, having a guy in the most powerful office in the federal government that you identify with - a guy who cuts brush at his ranch with a chainsaw. ..."
F Foundling @ 605: The 'self' one can rely on is mostly features of temperament and style,
not policy. The 'brand' is also to a large extent about style, not substance, and it is subject
to change, too.
The handful of politicians I have known personally have had fewer and lighter personal commitments
to political policy preferences, than most, say, news junkies. They are trying to get political
power, which rests at the nexus of conflicting forces. They have to put themselves at the crossroads,
so to speak, and - maybe this is one of the paradoxes of power -- if they are to exercise power
from being at a nexus, they have to be available to be used; they have to be open to persuasion,
if they are to persuade.
Ideology or political philosophy may matter to the skilled politician, but it matters less
as a matter of conviction than as the précis of a novel's plot. It is like a key they use to encode
rhetorical poses for the occasion, to signal that they understand the concerns of whatever group
they are speaking to.
T: If inequality remains the same or increases and growth remains low (and I believe they
are very much linked) there will be new challengers from both the right and left and one of them
will win. It did take a good 70 yrs to vanquish the robber barons.
If there's a perennial lodestar for politics, it is this: the distribution of income, wealth
and power. Follow the money is a good way to make sense of any criminal enterprise.
F. Foundling: For decades already, so-called centre-left parties all over the world (can't
vouch for *every* country) have been engaged to varying extents in deregulation, privatisation,
welfare state reduction, TTIP-style neoliberal globalism and now, most recently, austerity (not
to mention a slavish pro-US foreign policy).
Yes.
It is one of the odd (to me) features of political attitude formation that so many people have
amnesia where there should be some basic appreciation for what politics, at base, is about. (Politics
is about who gets what, when, how, in Harold Lasswell's immortal title.)
I suspect that William the Conqueror had scarcely summered twice in England before someone
was explaining to the peasantry that he was building those castles to protect the people.
Neoliberalism is possibly the most important set of political phenomena -- certainly the
most consequential -- in our generation's experience of political ideas and movements, and yet
a common impulse is to deny it is exists or labels anything more meaningful than a catch-all "don't
like it".
RP: A lot of what people seem to be talking about is Overton Window stuff. I'm not convinced.
I do think think there's something to the contention that a political re-alignment is underway
and the iron hold that neoliberalism has on the Media discourse is rusting. Rusting or not, the
structures of propaganda and manipulation remain highly centralized, so even if the rhetorical
tropes lose their meaning and emotional resonance, it isn't clear that the structures of authority
won't continue, their legitimacy torn and tattered but not displaced. Because there's no replacement
candidate, yet.
By replacement candidate, I mean some set of ideas about how society and political economy
can be positively structured and legitimated as functional.
I agree, of course, that Marxism is obsolete. But, it does furnish a model of what an ideology
can do to explain political economy and its possibilities, providing a rally point and a confession
of faith. The contrast to our present common outlook highlights that several things are clearly
missing for us now: one is economic class antagonism, the idea that the rich are the enemy, that
rich people make themselves rich by preying on the society, and that fundamental, structural remedies
are available thru politics.
I do think there's a reservoir of inchoate anger about elite betrayal and malfeasance. The
irony of being presented the choice of Trump and Clinton as a remedy is apparently not fully appreciated
by our commenters, let alone the irony of rummaging the attic and bringing down Sanders, like
he was a suit of retro clothes last worn by one's grandfather.
bruce wilder 08.11.16 at 10:36 pm
Lee A. Arnold: I don't think I've met anyone over the age of consent who doesn't know what
politicians are all about.
Above, Layman reminds us that George W Bush sold himself as a compassionate conservative. Quite
a few adults voted for him I understand. Supposedly quite a few did so thinking that dry drunk
would be a good fellow to have a beer with. Because . . . I guess some pundits thought to tell
them that that is what politics is about, having a guy in the most powerful office in the federal
government that you identify with - a guy who cuts brush at his ranch with a chainsaw. How many
times did Maureen Dowd tell the story of dog strapped to the roof on the Romney family vacation?
In my comment, you may have read "politician" but I actually wrote, "politics". And, I did
not write that there was only inchoate anger. You added "only".
"... People don't yet understand that this is just how neoliberals are. The two fundamental loyalties in a state party system have nothing to do with solidarity: they're loyalty up, and loyalty down. Neoliberals are happy to accept whatever loyalty up they are given by fools and suckers: they have no loyalty down at all and will never do the elementary political operations of repaying their base ..."
"... On solidarity: solidarity isn't about the (hierarchy of) relationships among politicians or political operatives. Solidarity is about membership, not leadership. ..."
"... Solidarity is the means to great common, coordinated efforts, that is to trust in leadership and that great solvent of political stalemate: sacrifice to the common good. ..."
"... Solidarity is a powerful force, sometimes historically an eruptive force, and though not by itself intelligent, not necessarily hostile to intelligent direction, but it calls on the individual's narcissism and anger not rational understanding or calculation. It is present as a flash in riots and a fire in insurrections and a great raging furnace in national wars of total mobilization. Elites can fear it or be enveloped by it or manipulate it cynically or with cruel callousness. Though it is a means to common effort and common sacrifice, it demands wages for its efforts and must be fed prodigious resources if it is long at work. ..."
"... What we've got here is a distorted or atrophied sense of the relationship between solidarity and the consent of the governed, between democracy and legitimacy, or more generally, between the individual and the collective ..."
"... If so, maybe we ought to try being a little more honest about what we're willing to pay as individuals for what we get as members of a group. Otherwise, it's hard to see how we can come to terms with our confusion, or survive the malignancies that being confused has introduced into all our group dynamics, not just the overtly political ones. ..."
CR: "that strategy actually runs the risk of harming down-ballot Democrats
running for office in Congress and state legislatures. It may help Clinton,
but it's not good for the party."
It's Obama redux. Remember how he wanted
to work with his friends across the aisle in a Grand Bargain that would
bring moderation and centrist agreement to all things? He validated budget-balance
mania during austerity and would have bargained away Social Security if
he could have. He predictably lost the Congress in the first mid-term election
and did nothing to build the party back up.
People don't yet understand that this is just how neoliberals are.
The two fundamental loyalties in a state party system have nothing to do
with solidarity: they're loyalty up, and loyalty down. Neoliberals are happy
to accept whatever loyalty up they are given by fools and suckers: they
have no loyalty down at all and will never do the elementary political operations
of repaying their base or creating a party that will work for anyone
else. This goes beyond ordinary political selfishness to the fact that they
don't really want a populist party: that would push them to harm the interests
of their real base.
And people don't react to this, fundamentally, because they don't really
do politics outside of 4-year scareathons. Look at LFC's description above
about how people should march if candidates don't follow through on their
promises. Why aren't they marching now: why haven't they in the Obama years?
I am with you on your main thesis, but I thought
I would offer this sidenote.
On solidarity: solidarity isn't about the (hierarchy of) relationships
among politicians or political operatives. Solidarity is about membership,
not leadership.
Solidarity can feel good. "We are all in this together, united."
Or, it can feel constricting, as it demands conformity and senseless uniformity,
obeisance to unnecessary authority. Resentments are its solvent and
its boundary-keepers. Social affiliation and common rituals are its nurturers
in its fallow times, which can be historically frequent and long. Solidarity
is the means to great common, coordinated efforts, that is to trust in leadership
and that great solvent of political stalemate: sacrifice to the common good.
Solidarity is a powerful force, sometimes historically an eruptive
force, and though not by itself intelligent, not necessarily hostile to
intelligent direction, but it calls on the individual's narcissism and anger
not rational understanding or calculation. It is present as a flash in riots
and a fire in insurrections and a great raging furnace in national wars
of total mobilization. Elites can fear it or be enveloped by it or manipulate
it cynically or with cruel callousness. Though it is a means to common effort
and common sacrifice, it demands wages for its efforts and must be fed prodigious
resources if it is long at work.
As American Party politics have degenerated, solidarity has come to have
a fraught relationship with identity politics. In both Parties.
I don't see anything in the conceptual logic driving things forward.
I see this state of affairs as the playing out of historical processes,
one step after another. But, this year's "scareathon" puts identity politics
squarely against the economic claims of class or even national solidarity.
The identity politics frame of equal opportunity exploitation has Paul Krugman
talking up "horizontal inequality". Memes float about suggesting that free
trade is aiding global equality even if it is at the expense of increasing
domestic inequality. Or, suggesting that labor unions were the implacable
enemy of racial equality back in the day or that FDR's New Deal was only
for white people. Hillary Clinton's stump speech, for a while, had her asking,
"If we broke up the big banks tomorrow, . . . would that end racism? would
that end sexism?"
It is convenient politics in several ways. First, no one can hold Clinton
responsible for not ending racism and sexism any more than GWB could be
held responsible for not winning the war on terrorism. These are perpetual
struggles by definition.
Second, it combines the display of righteous do-good ism with a promise
of social progress that might actually benefit directly the most ambitious,
even if it leaves most people without support. People who have done well
in the system, or who might expect to, can feel good about themselves. And,
ignore the system or rationalize away the system's manifest shortcomings.
The people who are complaining are racists! BernieBros! It is all about
the loss of status being experienced by white men, and they shouldn't be
heard anyway.
The moral righteousness of identity politics adds in an element that
goes way beyond the lazy failure to hold politicians accountable or the
tendency to explain away their more Machiavellian maneuvers. There's both
an actual blindness to the reactionary conservatism of equal opportunity
exploitation and a peremptory challenge to any other claim or analysis.
If police practices and procedures are trending in an authoritarian direction,
they can only be challenged on grounds of racist effect or intent. The authoritarianism
cannot be challenged on its own merit, so the building of the authoritarian
state goes on unimpeded, since the principle that is challenged is not authoritarianism,
but a particular claim of racism or sexism.
What we've got here is a distorted or atrophied sense of the relationship
between solidarity and the consent of the governed, between democracy and
legitimacy, or more generally, between the individual and the collective.
I suppose you could argue that we've evolved beyond what we were when we
first came to understand these relationships in the abstract (in the 18th
century?), and that, accordingly, they can no longer be understood in the
way we once thought we understood them.
If so, maybe we ought to try
being a little more honest about what we're willing to pay as individuals
for what we get as members of a group. Otherwise, it's hard to see how we
can come to terms with our confusion, or survive the malignancies that being
confused has introduced into all our group dynamics, not just the overtly
political ones.
"... This suggests a civil war between factions that are fighting on a roughly level playing field with civilians caught in the middle, sometimes deliberately killed and sometimes dying because of indiscriminate fire. American politicians including Clinton sometimes talk as though Assad's forces are doing all the killing. It also seems odd that we are told the rebels need outside help so they can stand to Assad. Obviously they have had plenty of outside help– the death toll is what it is because the war keeps dragging on, but to hear Americans talk you'd think it was outgunned rebels along with civilians being massacred year after year, yet it seems 50,000 regular Syrian military along with tens of thousands of pro regime militia have been killed by the poorly armed rebels. ..."
I already answered your question RNB– the mainstream press, HRW, Amnesty, and various blogs. But
if you look at the numbers released, they don't quite fit the narrative. For example
Note a couple of things from the Syrian Observatory figures. First, civilians are about a third
of the total. The number of Syrian military dead plus associated militia is comparable to the
number of civilian dead ( not counting the estimated group) and the rebel dead, adding up the
different categories including outside forces, are smaller than the dead on Theproud government
side.
This suggests a civil war between factions that are fighting on a roughly level playing field
with civilians caught in the middle, sometimes deliberately killed and sometimes dying because
of indiscriminate fire. American politicians including Clinton sometimes talk as though Assad's
forces are doing all the killing. It also seems odd that we are told the rebels need outside help
so they can stand to Assad. Obviously they have had plenty of outside help– the death toll is
what it is because the war keeps dragging on, but to hear Americans talk you'd think it was outgunned
rebels along with civilians being massacred year after year, yet it seems 50,000 regular Syrian
military along with tens of thousands of pro regime militia have been killed by the poorly armed
rebels.
In the much smaller scale Gaza War the bulk of the deaths were Palestinian civilians– maybe
1500. Hundreds of Hamas fighters were killed and dozens of Israeli soldiers. That's more the kind
of ratio I would expect if the Syrian civil war fit into the framework given by American politicians
and pundits.
"... Dem hacks are promoting the fiction that Sanders, again an Independent, will magically become the most powerful voice in the senate and a strong check (cough, cough) on the worst excesses of HRC and her many neocon friends and admirers. ..."
"... Given that the 'security establishment' consists almost entirely of quasi-fascists and grifters looking to get richer acting as agents for defense manufacturers and private security companies, these folks clearly see which candidate is likely to provide more of the filthy lucre. Wall st. and the Kochs both want a Clinton-Ryan partnership for 2016. ..."
Do you expect Philip Zelikow, John Negroponte, Eliot Cohen and the other 'natl security' signatories
of the letter, and now Susan Collins, to behave other than as they are behaving?
Is Negroponte
going to sign a letter saying "I am a right-wing jerk w blood on my hands who worked for, among
others, that idiot Reagan and by the way I can't vote for Trump who is also a jerk, very much
in line w the jerk I worked for"?
Is Susan Collins going to write an oped saying "I am a (supposedly) moderate Repub Senator
from Maine who supported McCain and now I'm going to be inconsistent and not vote for Trump even
though he's basically not too different from McCain. Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds."?
[I think Trump is somewhat worse than McCain, but I'm accepting the premise for the sake of argument.]
As for Alter, maybe he shd know better than to tweet the Collins oped, but I'm not going to
get into that.
kidneystones 08.09.16 at 2:28 am
Perhaps the best part of supporting Trump is that he's almost universally loathed by virtually
all the 'right people' elites on both sides of the aisle, and the 'morally-minded' billionaires.
I've argued before that I expect he'll accomplish less than 1/10th of what he wants to do.
Dem hacks are promoting the fiction that Sanders, again an Independent, will magically
become the most powerful voice in the senate and a strong check (cough, cough) on the worst excesses
of HRC and her many neocon friends and admirers.
Given that the 'security establishment' consists almost entirely of quasi-fascists and
grifters looking to get richer acting as agents for defense manufacturers and private security
companies, these folks clearly see which candidate is likely to provide more of the filthy lucre.
Wall st. and the Kochs both want a Clinton-Ryan partnership for 2016.
So, take your chances with Trump, or be prepared for another 4-8 years of no press conferences,
no transparency, and the same screw everyone but the rich policies that have brought us all to
this unhappy pass. Safer with Hillary?
You betcha!
Keith 08.09.16 at 3:20 am
RNB, our military-intelligence sector is so dedicated to spending their whole budget every
year, even to the detriment of our national defense, that any idiot could see through them.
And any idiot clearly has.
Donald 08.09.16 at 11:57 am
I suspect the reason that neocons hate Trump is not because he is a dangerous maniac, but became
he isn't the precise type of dangerous maniac they prefer. He shows contempt for the establishment
idiots that favored the Iraq War, not that Trump opposed it himself. That by itself would be unforgivable
for them.
Sanders was hated by many Democrats for the same reason–he pointed out that Clinton
supported the Iraq War and therefore had bad judgment, which undercuts the whole argument based
on her expertise in foreign policy. I am in no way saying that Sanders is the same as Trump. I
voted for Sanders and would vote for almost anyone against Trump.
It's possible to be terrified by the possibility of a Trump presidency and also be cynical
about the motives of the torture apologists and warmongers who criticize him.
Donald: "I suspect the reason that neocons hate Trump is not because he is a dangerous maniac,
but became he isn't the precise type of dangerous maniac they prefer."
The whole concept of
"recklessness" doesn't really have much meaning in this context. The foreign policy establishment
failed to actually reduce the number of nuclear weapons when it was possible to do so, for no
better reason than because it would have harmed the military-industrial complex. They have signally
failed to do anything to restrain the ability of the President to declare war at will, instead
preferring convenience in carrying out whatever ad hoc goal is current. They are steadily in the
process of converting alliances from deterrents to war to possible triggers for war. They did
not take any steps to sanction or put on trial war criminals who committed aggressive war and
torture. And the establishment candidate, HRC, just accused (through surrogates) of carrying out
an act of war against the U.S. (the supposed hacking incident) and declared Russia to be our enemy.
And if and when all of this falls into the hands of a demagogue, it will supposedly be the demagogue
that is reckless, not the establishment. Therefore we must always vote for the establishment,
because they've made the machine so dangerous to run that supposedly if they step away from the
controls for a moment it will blow up. That's nonsense. If they continue doing that for long enough,
eventually people will vote for a demagogue as the only other choice - and Trump won't be the
last one.
Another bit of nonsense is the whole constellation of ideas around unity, solidarity, allyship,
"we must work together", "no circular firing squad" etc. There is no unity or solidarity and the
whole idea that there is is manipulative - the people who call on it are not anyone's allies.
People have different goals. If the reason we're supposed to work together despite having different
goals is to defeat Trump, then we are not allies. We're each just going to do the minimum needed
to defeat Trump, and then we're enemies.
For all the talk of how Trump is endangering Republican Party candidates down ballot, Clinton
is working hard to take no advantage for the Democratic Party or progressive ideas. The "minimum
needed to defeat Trump" is conspicuously not anything likely to discredit or drive from office
the corrupt war mongers. Clinton seems determined to leave the Republican Party strong and progressive
Democrats weak and marginalized.
"... These are of course very nice, but what I was hoping to buy was an end to things like rendition, torture, and death by killer robots from the sky. I guess it takes more money to buy nice things like that. ..."
That's a story about contributions of $200 or more. I'm guessing those contributions
buy no influence at all. In fact, I'm not guessing: I, personally, donated a total of $9600 to
Obama's campaigns, which were so influential that I was able to score 7 (so far) White House Christmas
cards, genuinely autopenned by President and Mrs. Obama.
These are of course very nice, but what I was hoping to buy was an end to things like rendition,
torture, and death by killer robots from the sky. I guess it takes more money to buy nice things
like that.
"... In particular, criticizing Clinton by falsely assigning her responsibility for Obama's policies fails because it's so transparently dishonest. The notion that Clinton made Libya policy for the UN ambassador Power is dubious enough. ..."
"... The further implication that she manipulated Obama is silly on the face of it. It was Obama who dealt with Cameron and Sarkozy, who were above her pay grade. The Syrian policies continued after she was gone, nearly coming to open war entirely without her. ..."
"... Also, the insistence on using the years of nonsense dispensed by rabid right wingers spouting all sorts of crazed BS about how crooked Billary is, is endorsing the Mighty Wurlitzer. Jerry Falwell was speaking truth to power when he ranted about Vince Foster? ..."
"... It is of course true that Trump isn't unprecedented. His great precedent is of course Richard Nixon, who also had a plan. ..."
"... Whether Trump or Clinton, the next president is very likely to be impeached and convicted ..."
"... The infunny thing is, either Pence (a Ted Cruz without testicles,) or Kaine (an Obama DNC chair and thoroughly vetted Armed Service committeeman,) are nightmares. ..."
Criticizing Clinton from the right is just as reactionary as criticizing Trump from the right.
Further, assigning an individual such personal responsibility denies the reality of a bipartisan
system that administers an imperialist government with only a formal simulacrum of popular support.
That is, this "criticism" is fundamentally from the right.
In particular, criticizing Clinton by falsely assigning her responsibility for Obama's
policies fails because it's so transparently dishonest. The notion that Clinton made Libya policy
for the UN ambassador Power is dubious enough. The careers of Stevenson and Bolton alone
show that the potential importance of security council veto means the President reserves direct
supervision for himself, no matter what an organizational chart may say.
The further implication that she manipulated Obama is silly on the face of it. It was Obama
who dealt with Cameron and Sarkozy, who were above her pay grade. The Syrian policies continued
after she was gone, nearly coming to open war entirely without her. The implication that
for a Secretary of State to sell weapons to foreign nations isn't constituent service borders
on the silly. Besides, isolationism is not left win, never has been, never was.
And the implication that the any US government would ever favor supporting a leftish president
in Latin America because of its commitment to democracy thoroughly falsifies the nature of the
US government. Disappearing left criticism of Obama is thoroughly reactionary.
Also, the insistence on using the years of nonsense dispensed by rabid right wingers spouting
all sorts of crazed BS about how crooked Billary is, is endorsing the Mighty Wurlitzer. Jerry
Falwell was speaking truth to power when he ranted about Vince Foster? Buying into this is
buying decades of reactionary propaganda. I suppose this is mindlessness enough to satisfy people
who alleged that SYRIZA was going to save Greece (the rock that should by the way have sunk Jacobin
magazines credibility, leaving next to the Titanic,) or Bernie Sanders was starting a revolution.
It is of course true that Trump isn't unprecedented. His great precedent is of course Richard
Nixon, who also had a plan. I suppose F. Foundling eager awaits Trump's great "Nixon goes
to China" moment. I have no idea why.
Whether Trump or Clinton, the next president is very likely to be impeached and convicted.
As to which one it is, there has really never been much doubt that Clinton in the end will gain
enough minority support to carry the big cities. But if the reactionaries depress the turnout
enough, Trump has a shot at an electoral college victory, especially given the precedents on how
votes are counted.
The infunny thing is, either Pence (a Ted Cruz without testicles,) or Kaine
(an Obama DNC chair and thoroughly vetted Armed Service committeeman,) are nightmares.
"... How many ordinary Americans under the age of 40 can look in the mirror and find the stuff of not one, but two autobiographies? That certainly speaks a remarkable level of – what shall we call it? Well, probably not modesty. ..."
"... 'if you don't support O, you're David Duke in a dress' stuff. No need to dredge up the practical politics of Hope and Change at this late date. ..."
@ 668 "Mr. Obama told Patrick Gaspard, his political director, at the start of the 2008 campaign,
according to The New Yorker. "I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy
directors."
"But there's more evidence that he's batshit crazy. He declaimed that he knew more
about ISIS than all the generals. He will trust no one's judgment but his own."
So, your argument is that Obama (your Muslim socialist) should never have been trusted to be
in the Oval Office.
And that by these, your standards, Trump is no crazier than the current Democratic president.
Oh, you don't need to. That boat sailed the moment you decided to make Obama level hubris grounds
for ineligibility. Obama's 'accomplishments prior to entering the Senate in 2004 are the stuff
of legend to the clueless, of course.
How many ordinary Americans under the age of 40 can look in the mirror and find the stuff
of not one, but two autobiographies? That certainly speaks a remarkable level of – what shall
we call it? Well, probably not modesty.
My life twice – plenty for everyone like to learn from! The perfect preparation for
a great presidency. That and my love of basketball. That's what makes me so smart! Did anyone
notice I'm young, black and handsome? Ignore that, please.
And we are where we are. I've elided the 'if you don't support O, you're David Duke in
a dress' stuff. No need to dredge up the practical politics of Hope and Change at this late date.
"... Increased border controls, concessions to anti-immigrant feeling, withdrawal by middle-tier Asian nations from the consensus, alternative institutions fostered by the BRICs, Brexit, revivals of western interest in industry policy, increasing questioning of the financial industry – all moves away from the platform. ..."
neo-liberalism has been dying for over a decade. It's just that these transitions
are a slow process (think of how most western countries are still adjusting to the fact that the
30-year growth spurt 1950-80 is well and truly over).
Increased border controls, concessions to
anti-immigrant feeling, withdrawal by middle-tier Asian nations from the consensus, alternative
institutions fostered by the BRICs, Brexit, revivals of western interest in industry policy, increasing
questioning of the financial industry – all moves away from the platform.
It
won't be fast, it won't be all (or mostly) in directions the left wants, it won't be a
consistent or continuous change, but it is happening.
In addition to shattering world records and breaking down barriers, the swimmers at the
Rio Olympics have managed another feat of sorts: reigniting international sport's Cold War. On
the self-proclaimed forces of good: swimmers from Western nations who broke unwritten Olympic
etiquette by speaking out against competitors they deemed "drug cheats."
The story mentions that in track and field, the US has an extensive history of doping and concluded:
Americans may stack up medals on the track in Rio, but they'll have to table their righteousness
on that podium.
…In a newspaper interview on Tuesday, Bout's wife, Alla Bout, said her husband could have
gotten away with a considerably lighter sentence had he agreed to testify against a senior Russian
government official. Speaking to Moscow-based daily Izvestia, Alla Bout said her husband had been
approached by American authorities after being extradited to the United States from Thailand.
He was told that US authorities wanted him to testify against Igor Sechin, a powerful Russian
government official, whom American prosecutors believed was Bout's boss. In return for his testimony,
US prosecutors allegedly promised a jail sentence that would not exceed two years, as well as
political asylum for him and his family following his release from prison. Alla Bout added that
her husband's American lawyers were told by the prosecution that the 'merchant of death' "would
be able to live in the US comfortably, along with his wife and daughter", and that his family
could stay in America during his trial "under conditions". Alla Bout claimed she was told this
by Bout himself and by members of his American legal team…
####
It goes to show how desperate Washington is, not to mention its extremely short term thinking.
No one in their right minds in Russia would trust anyone in Washington worth a damn, and that
has major implications for all sorts of state-to-state dealings running in to the future. If Washington
thinks saying "It's all water under the bridge" will return relations back to normal just like
that, then they are sorely retarded.
In addition to shattering world records and breaking down barriers, the swimmers at the
Rio Olympics have managed another feat of sorts: reigniting international sport's Cold War. On
the self-proclaimed forces of good: swimmers from Western nations who broke unwritten Olympic
etiquette by speaking out against competitors they deemed "drug cheats."
The story mentions that in track and field, the US has an extensive history of doping and concluded:
Americans may stack up medals on the track in Rio, but they'll have to table their righteousness
on that podium.
"... If the New York Post is their Pravda , then The Weekly Standard is the neocons' Iskra , where the ideological twists and turns of the Party Line are explicated at some length ..."
"... The cynical might suspect that this last is a form of neoconservative special pleading, designed to spirit the war party intellectuals away from the scene when the Bush policy goes down in flames ..."
"... Robert Kagan and Max Boot are shilling for Hillary, with more of their comrades soon to follow-the former Scoop Jackson Democrats have come full circle, their survival skills fully intact. ..."
"... They "certainly won't disappear in the way that American communism or segregation have," says McConnell , and one big reason is because "Perhaps most importantly neoconservatism still commands more salaries-able people who can pursue ideological politics as fulltime work in think tanks and periodicals-than its rivals." Which means "the reports of the movement's demise"-and I've authored a few of those-"are thus very much exaggerated." ..."
"... McConnell isn't just an observer, with a keen eye for detail: he projects himself into these geopolitical conundrums, imbued with the sort of empathy that connects both himself and the reader to real human suffering, a quality that makes him a trenchant critic of U.S. policy in the Middle East. ..."
"... McConnell likes the Israelis, supports their right to nationhood, and yet insists that we treat them as a normal country, not a pampered child who throws tantrums to get what it wants. He is measured, rational, compassionate, and, most of all, very well informed. We find out many things along the way, such as the real nature of the "good deal" that Yasser Arafat rejected, and rightly so. ..."
McConnell's wit, especially sharp when cutting up his former comrades, had me laughing out loud.
Describing Fred Barnes's Rebel in Chief , a hagiography of George W. Bush,
he writes : "For readers who might wonder what it is like to be a North Korean and required to
read formulaic biographies of great helmsman Kim Il Sung and his son, an afternoon spent with
Rebel in Chief should provide a proximate answer."
If the New York Post is their Pravda , then The Weekly Standard is the neocons'
Iskra , where the ideological twists and turns of the Party Line are explicated at some length,
and not without some elegance, as McConnell notes. The weekly's key role in diverting the Bush administration
into Iraq after the 9/11 attacks is here laid out in all its Machiavellian sinuosity. And the distinctly
Soviet air of the Kristolian style is illustrated quite nicely by McConnell's
description of the magazine's covers, a typical one being "George W. Bush, gesticulating before
an audience of troops, arm extended in a Caesarian pose. 'The Liberator,' the Standard headline
proclaimed. Flatter the leader who will do your bidding."
Yet there is a bit more to the literature of the courtier than appears on the surface. Flatter
the king, get close enough to whisper in his ear-and then, if necessary, bury the knife deep in his
back. Barnes depicts Bush as the bold leader who defied "the crabbed views of experts. And lest we
forget, it is Bush alone who has done this, not his advisors. The cynical might suspect that this
last is a form of neoconservative special pleading, designed to spirit the war party intellectuals
away from the scene when the Bush policy goes down in flames." Which is precisely what happened,
as McConnell chronicles in detail.
The damage this political cult has done to the American polity, and to the Middle East, cannot
even be calculated: how much, after all, is a human life worth? What about hundreds of thousands
of lives? Yet they never seem to be finally defeated:
as
McConnell puts it , "if disrespecting the neoconservatives is emerging as a minor national sport,
it should be enjoyed and tempered with realism." Sure, "the last few years have been difficult for
the faction," but "they have other options." As they stream back into the Democratic Party after
being steamrollered by Donald Trump- Robert Kagan and Max Boot are shilling for Hillary, with
more of their comrades soon to follow-the former Scoop Jackson Democrats have come full circle, their
survival skills fully intact.
They "certainly won't disappear in the way that American communism or segregation have,"
says
McConnell , and one big reason is because "Perhaps most importantly neoconservatism still commands
more salaries-able people who can pursue ideological politics as fulltime work in think tanks and
periodicals-than its rivals." Which means "the reports of the movement's demise"-and I've authored
a few of those-"are thus very much exaggerated."
Well, yes, that's unfortunately true. We've heard of the neocons' demise so many times that the
prospect has now become somewhat hopeless: they just keep reincarnating themselves in another form.
But that shouldn't stop us from hoping against hope.
In spite of this book's title, there is much more to it than the storied history of the neocons
as seen from inside the tent. There are sections on Israel, the run up to the Iraq war, President
Obama, reflections on history, Russia and NATO, racial politics, and more. McConnell is at his best
when he writes in the first person: a trip through Syria and Palestine, detailed in "
Divided
and Conquered ," reveals a perception honed to the finest detail, and a sensitivity and compassion
that invariably breaks through a reserved WASP-y persona. McConnell isn't just an observer, with
a keen eye for detail: he projects himself into these geopolitical conundrums, imbued with the sort
of empathy that connects both himself and the reader to real human suffering, a quality that makes
him a trenchant critic of U.S. policy in the Middle East.
That critique is laid out in a long essay, "
The Special Relationship With Israel: Is It Worth the Cost? " in which the history and consequences
of our protracted and expensive patronage of the Jewish state is analyzed and detailed in ways you
haven't seen or read before. McConnell likes the Israelis, supports their right to nationhood, and
yet insists that we treat them as a normal country, not a pampered child who throws tantrums to get
what it wants. He is measured, rational, compassionate, and, most of all, very well informed. We
find out many things along the way, such as the real nature of the "good deal" that Yasser Arafat
rejected, and rightly so.
At the end of a long "
Open Letter to David Horowitz
on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict ," in which the author takes apart the irascible pro-Israel
fanatic's argument that the Palestinians aren't really a people and should just get lost,
he writes; "David, I hope you know this letter is written in a spirit of friendly, even comradely,
disagreement and that it comes from someone who has plenty of appreciation for everything you have
done since you came out as a 'Lefty for Reagan' seventeen years ago, and who was an avid Ramparts
reader a dozen years before that."
For my part, he gives Horowitz far too much credit, but that's an essential part of the author
of Ex-Neocon : a gentleness that allows him to appreciate the talent and achievements of his
ideological opposite numbers, even as he tears their arguments to shreds. His personality comes through
in a way that is understated and yet strong.
Here he is in Virginia
Beach , canvassing for Obama during the 2012 election, riding around with a bunch of female volunteers,
two black and one white:
It was a curiously moving experience. … I have led most of my life not caring very much whether
the poor voted, and indeed have sometimes been aware my interests aligned with them not voting
at all. But that has changed. And so one knocks on one door after another in tiny houses and apartments
in Chesapeake and Newport News, some of them nicely kept and clearly striving to make the best
of a modest lot, others as close to the developing world as one gets in America. And at moments
one feels a kind of calling-and then laughs at the Alinskian presumption of it all. Yes, we are
all connected.
So what was this ex-neocon, former campaign manager for Pat Buchanan's last presidential run,
and former editor of The American Conservative doing canvassing for Barack Obama? You really
have to read this book to find out.
Which means
Ukraine's actions will come under close scrutiny once again, and in this instance the plaintiffs
have plenty of evidence, since it was broadly agreed at the outset that Ukraine bore responsibility
for its own airspace.
Now, hopefully, there will be some questions asked about Ukraine's odd approach
to record-keeping and its determination to control aircraft without any primary radars available.
"... "US security experts however are blaming the leak on Russian hackers, according to Bloomberg, in a similar reaction seen in the wake of the DNC leaks." ..."
More than 2,500 files from the raft of organizations run by billionaire George Soros have been
leaked by hackers.
Saturday's leak, published by DC leaks, includes hundreds of internal
documents from multiple departments of Soros' groups, predominantly the Open Society Foundations.
Explosive. Early analysis says the leak shows his NGO's manipulating EU elections.
"US
security experts however are blaming the leak on Russian hackers, according to Bloomberg, in
a similar reaction seen in the wake of the DNC leaks."
Careful, boys; one day you'll go to the well and there won't be any more water. It's always
the Russians.
Interesting that Soros' Open Society Foundations funds the International Consortium of Investigative
Journalists which would explain why when the Panama Papers were released, there were no US
individuals or companies named as clients of Mossack Fonseca. So the Panama Papers were released
with intent to expose Vladimir Putin's supposed corruption, only for the release itself to
backfire when the only connection to Putin turned out to be a childhood friend violinist.
Interesting Timeline of how the downing of MH17 was first reported in the Ukrainian media. Basically,
the Ukrainian government spokesman announced that the rebels had a BUK, but just at the time the
Malaysian flight was coming down.
"The headline at 17:26 EEST translates to "NSDC said that
militants have equipment that can hit planes at a high altitude." The headline at 17:49 translates
to "Source: A passenger jet was shot down in Donetsk region." So, it is interesting that an hour
after MH17 crashed and 23 minutes before they (and probably most other news) announced that a
passenger jet was shot down, NSDC and Ukrainian Pravda announced that separatists suddenly now
possess a Buk, which can reach a passenger jet."
Very interesting indeed, since it implies premeditation. And since it is one of the few Ukrainian
statements which was decisively refuted by western intelligence.
…In a newspaper interview on Tuesday, Bout's wife, Alla Bout, said her husband could have
gotten away with a considerably lighter sentence had he agreed to testify against a senior Russian
government official. Speaking to Moscow-based daily Izvestia, Alla Bout said her husband had been
approached by American authorities after being extradited to the United States from Thailand.
He was told that US authorities wanted him to testify against Igor Sechin, a powerful Russian
government official, whom American prosecutors believed was Bout's boss. In return for his testimony,
US prosecutors allegedly promised a jail sentence that would not exceed two years, as well as
political asylum for him and his family following his release from prison. Alla Bout added that
her husband's American lawyers were told by the prosecution that the 'merchant of death' "would
be able to live in the US comfortably, along with his wife and daughter", and that his family
could stay in America during his trial "under conditions". Alla Bout claimed she was told this
by Bout himself and by members of his American legal team…
####
It goes to show how desperate Washington is, not to mention its extremely short term thinking.
No one in their right minds in Russia would trust anyone in Washington worth a damn, and that
has major implications for all sorts of state-to-state dealings running in to the future. If Washington
thinks saying "It's all water under the bridge" will return relations back to normal just like
that, then they are sorely retarded.
In addition to shattering world records and breaking down barriers, the swimmers at the
Rio Olympics have managed another feat of sorts: reigniting international sport's Cold War. On
the self-proclaimed forces of good: swimmers from Western nations who broke unwritten Olympic
etiquette by speaking out against competitors they deemed "drug cheats."
The story mentions that in track and field, the US has an extensive history of doping and concluded:
Americans may stack up medals on the track in Rio, but they'll have to table their righteousness
on that podium.
"... If the New York Post is their Pravda , then The Weekly Standard is the neocons' Iskra , where the ideological twists and turns of the Party Line are explicated at some length ..."
"... The cynical might suspect that this last is a form of neoconservative special pleading, designed to spirit the war party intellectuals away from the scene when the Bush policy goes down in flames ..."
"... Robert Kagan and Max Boot are shilling for Hillary, with more of their comrades soon to follow-the former Scoop Jackson Democrats have come full circle, their survival skills fully intact. ..."
"... They "certainly won't disappear in the way that American communism or segregation have," says McConnell , and one big reason is because "Perhaps most importantly neoconservatism still commands more salaries-able people who can pursue ideological politics as fulltime work in think tanks and periodicals-than its rivals." Which means "the reports of the movement's demise"-and I've authored a few of those-"are thus very much exaggerated." ..."
"... McConnell isn't just an observer, with a keen eye for detail: he projects himself into these geopolitical conundrums, imbued with the sort of empathy that connects both himself and the reader to real human suffering, a quality that makes him a trenchant critic of U.S. policy in the Middle East. ..."
"... McConnell likes the Israelis, supports their right to nationhood, and yet insists that we treat them as a normal country, not a pampered child who throws tantrums to get what it wants. He is measured, rational, compassionate, and, most of all, very well informed. We find out many things along the way, such as the real nature of the "good deal" that Yasser Arafat rejected, and rightly so. ..."
McConnell's wit, especially sharp when cutting up his former comrades, had me laughing out loud.
Describing Fred Barnes's Rebel in Chief , a hagiography of George W. Bush,
he writes : "For readers who might wonder what it is like to be a North Korean and required to
read formulaic biographies of great helmsman Kim Il Sung and his son, an afternoon spent with
Rebel in Chief should provide a proximate answer."
If the New York Post is their Pravda , then The Weekly Standard is the neocons'
Iskra , where the ideological twists and turns of the Party Line are explicated at some length,
and not without some elegance, as McConnell notes. The weekly's key role in diverting the Bush administration
into Iraq after the 9/11 attacks is here laid out in all its Machiavellian sinuosity. And the distinctly
Soviet air of the Kristolian style is illustrated quite nicely by McConnell's
description of the magazine's covers, a typical one being "George W. Bush, gesticulating before
an audience of troops, arm extended in a Caesarian pose. 'The Liberator,' the Standard headline
proclaimed. Flatter the leader who will do your bidding."
Yet there is a bit more to the literature of the courtier than appears on the surface. Flatter
the king, get close enough to whisper in his ear-and then, if necessary, bury the knife deep in his
back. Barnes depicts Bush as the bold leader who defied "the crabbed views of experts. And lest we
forget, it is Bush alone who has done this, not his advisors. The cynical might suspect that this
last is a form of neoconservative special pleading, designed to spirit the war party intellectuals
away from the scene when the Bush policy goes down in flames." Which is precisely what happened,
as McConnell chronicles in detail.
The damage this political cult has done to the American polity, and to the Middle East, cannot
even be calculated: how much, after all, is a human life worth? What about hundreds of thousands
of lives? Yet they never seem to be finally defeated:
as
McConnell puts it , "if disrespecting the neoconservatives is emerging as a minor national sport,
it should be enjoyed and tempered with realism." Sure, "the last few years have been difficult for
the faction," but "they have other options." As they stream back into the Democratic Party after
being steamrollered by Donald Trump- Robert Kagan and Max Boot are shilling for Hillary, with
more of their comrades soon to follow-the former Scoop Jackson Democrats have come full circle, their
survival skills fully intact.
They "certainly won't disappear in the way that American communism or segregation have,"
says
McConnell , and one big reason is because "Perhaps most importantly neoconservatism still commands
more salaries-able people who can pursue ideological politics as fulltime work in think tanks and
periodicals-than its rivals." Which means "the reports of the movement's demise"-and I've authored
a few of those-"are thus very much exaggerated."
Well, yes, that's unfortunately true. We've heard of the neocons' demise so many times that the
prospect has now become somewhat hopeless: they just keep reincarnating themselves in another form.
But that shouldn't stop us from hoping against hope.
In spite of this book's title, there is much more to it than the storied history of the neocons
as seen from inside the tent. There are sections on Israel, the run up to the Iraq war, President
Obama, reflections on history, Russia and NATO, racial politics, and more. McConnell is at his best
when he writes in the first person: a trip through Syria and Palestine, detailed in "
Divided
and Conquered ," reveals a perception honed to the finest detail, and a sensitivity and compassion
that invariably breaks through a reserved WASP-y persona. McConnell isn't just an observer, with
a keen eye for detail: he projects himself into these geopolitical conundrums, imbued with the sort
of empathy that connects both himself and the reader to real human suffering, a quality that makes
him a trenchant critic of U.S. policy in the Middle East.
That critique is laid out in a long essay, "
The Special Relationship With Israel: Is It Worth the Cost? " in which the history and consequences
of our protracted and expensive patronage of the Jewish state is analyzed and detailed in ways you
haven't seen or read before. McConnell likes the Israelis, supports their right to nationhood, and
yet insists that we treat them as a normal country, not a pampered child who throws tantrums to get
what it wants. He is measured, rational, compassionate, and, most of all, very well informed. We
find out many things along the way, such as the real nature of the "good deal" that Yasser Arafat
rejected, and rightly so.
At the end of a long "
Open Letter to David Horowitz
on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict ," in which the author takes apart the irascible pro-Israel
fanatic's argument that the Palestinians aren't really a people and should just get lost,
he writes; "David, I hope you know this letter is written in a spirit of friendly, even comradely,
disagreement and that it comes from someone who has plenty of appreciation for everything you have
done since you came out as a 'Lefty for Reagan' seventeen years ago, and who was an avid Ramparts
reader a dozen years before that."
For my part, he gives Horowitz far too much credit, but that's an essential part of the author
of Ex-Neocon : a gentleness that allows him to appreciate the talent and achievements of his
ideological opposite numbers, even as he tears their arguments to shreds. His personality comes through
in a way that is understated and yet strong.
Here he is in Virginia
Beach , canvassing for Obama during the 2012 election, riding around with a bunch of female volunteers,
two black and one white:
It was a curiously moving experience. … I have led most of my life not caring very much whether
the poor voted, and indeed have sometimes been aware my interests aligned with them not voting
at all. But that has changed. And so one knocks on one door after another in tiny houses and apartments
in Chesapeake and Newport News, some of them nicely kept and clearly striving to make the best
of a modest lot, others as close to the developing world as one gets in America. And at moments
one feels a kind of calling-and then laughs at the Alinskian presumption of it all. Yes, we are
all connected.
So what was this ex-neocon, former campaign manager for Pat Buchanan's last presidential run,
and former editor of The American Conservative doing canvassing for Barack Obama? You really
have to read this book to find out.
Which means
Ukraine's actions will come under close scrutiny once again, and in this instance the plaintiffs
have plenty of evidence, since it was broadly agreed at the outset that Ukraine bore responsibility
for its own airspace.
Now, hopefully, there will be some questions asked about Ukraine's odd approach
to record-keeping and its determination to control aircraft without any primary radars available.
Interesting presentation. Especially the idea why Clinton betrayed previous base of Democratic
Party and sold it to Wall Street. Another interesting idea is that in meritocracy there is no
solidarity.
Thomas Frank, Author, What's the Matter with Kansas? and Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened
to the Party of the People?
James Taylor, Ph.D., Director of African American Studies and Professor of Political Science,
University of San Francisco-Moderator
Come hear the best-selling author of What's the Matter with Kansas? echo that question as it relates
to the Democratic Party. Frank says liberals like to believe that if only Democrats can continue
to dominate national elections, if only those awful Republicans are beaten into submission, then
the country will be on the right course. But he says this view fundamentally misunderstands the modern
Democratic Party. Frank says that the Democrats have in fact done little to advance traditional liberal
goals: expanding opportunity, fighting for social justice, and ensuring that workers get a fair deal.
Indeed, he argues that Democrats have occupied the White House for 16 of the last 24 years, and yet
the decline of the middle class has only accelerated, Wall Street gets its bailouts, wages keep falling,
and the free-trade deals keep coming.
In this critical election year, Frank recalls the Democrats back to their historic goals-what
he says is the only way to reverse the ever-deepening rift between the rich and the poor in America.
A former columnist for The Wall Street Journal and Harper's, Frank is the founding editor of The
Baffler and writes regularly for Salon.
Social mobility was stunted by the onslaught of neoliberalism, which simultaneously celebrates
self-cultivation while pulling the ladder up on millions of people, burdening them with credit
card and student debt, lowering the quality of public education, raising the costs of healthcare
and devising clever Wall St strategies that raid commercial banks and now the SS fund. It's a
theatre of cruelty, as Henry Giroux describes it. More to the point, it is economic fascism.
Well if Trump signals the death of the Republican Party then surely the Clinton dynasty will mark
the death of the Dem party. The working class people of this country, the environment cannot survive
another neoliberal Clinton and their TPP, this is endgame stuff right here. TPP means the inability
to peacefully change the system.
Taylor states that Obama was the most progressive president between 2008 and 2010 and then the
conservatives, Tea Party and others attached him. What utter nonsense. During that period of time
Obama and the Democrats controlled both houses of the Congress and he did almost nothing to advance
a "liberal" agenda. He wouldn't even allow single payer advocates a seat at the negotiating table
and Obamacare was essentially drafted by a healthcare/insurance industry lobbyist. Obama gave
a "free get out of jail card" to all the financial criminals on Wall Street. Obama chose James
Rubin, son of #1 financial crook Robert Rubin, to fill all his administration's financial positions,
Obama chose the very smart but incompetent knucklehead Larry Summers. Obama won "Ad Age Marketer
of the Year" award for his 2008 campaign. That says it all; it was an ad campaign much like selling
a breakfast serial that is just sugar and empty carbohydrates but tastes good. He was groomed
and supported very early on by a couple of very wealthy families (Pritzkers and Crowns) and had
the support of Wall Street. He received more funds from Wall Street than his opponent, John McCain,
much more.
Bill Ayers
Hillary For Prison 2016
Penniless Punk
The word "union" wasn't simply attacked by the right. It was also eroded by the corruption
within its own ranks. Unions lost power when NAFTA was enacted, so they simply kept collecting
dues even though they couldn't do a fucking thing. If they had told their workers to strike, the
company would have moved to another location and union popularity would go down anyway. No one
wants to pay dues to someone who makes their family suffer only to lose the battle. So instead,
unions sucked up to management and just kept collecting dues so the company would stick around
here..where they CAN collect dues. They don't collect dues in Mexico or Canada. THAT's why the
word "union" stinks anymore. It means "sell out who ignores the problems of their team mates to
save their own skin."
"... "US security experts however are blaming the leak on Russian hackers, according to Bloomberg, in a similar reaction seen in the wake of the DNC leaks." ..."
More than 2,500 files from the raft of organizations run by billionaire George Soros have been
leaked by hackers.
Saturday's leak, published by DC leaks, includes hundreds of internal
documents from multiple departments of Soros' groups, predominantly the Open Society Foundations.
Explosive. Early analysis says the leak shows his NGO's manipulating EU elections.
"US
security experts however are blaming the leak on Russian hackers, according to Bloomberg, in
a similar reaction seen in the wake of the DNC leaks."
Careful, boys; one day you'll go to the well and there won't be any more water. It's always
the Russians.
Interesting that Soros' Open Society Foundations funds the International Consortium of Investigative
Journalists which would explain why when the Panama Papers were released, there were no US
individuals or companies named as clients of Mossack Fonseca. So the Panama Papers were released
with intent to expose Vladimir Putin's supposed corruption, only for the release itself to
backfire when the only connection to Putin turned out to be a childhood friend violinist.
Interesting Timeline of how the downing of MH17 was first reported in the Ukrainian media. Basically,
the Ukrainian government spokesman announced that the rebels had a BUK, but just at the time the
Malaysian flight was coming down.
"The headline at 17:26 EEST translates to "NSDC said that
militants have equipment that can hit planes at a high altitude." The headline at 17:49 translates
to "Source: A passenger jet was shot down in Donetsk region." So, it is interesting that an hour
after MH17 crashed and 23 minutes before they (and probably most other news) announced that a
passenger jet was shot down, NSDC and Ukrainian Pravda announced that separatists suddenly now
possess a Buk, which can reach a passenger jet."
Very interesting indeed, since it implies premeditation. And since it is one of the few Ukrainian
statements which was decisively refuted by western intelligence.
"... I suggested that if he possessed any private information regarding so astonishing a possibility-that the Kennedy Administration might have considered a nuclear first strike against the USSR-perhaps he had a duty to bring the facts to public awareness lest they be lost to history. ..."
"... Obviously no nuclear attack took place, so the plans must have been changed at some point or discarded, and there were various indications that President Kennedy had had important doubts from the very beginning. But the argument made was that at the time, the first strike proposal was taken very seriously by America's top political and military leadership. Once we accept that idea, other historical puzzles more easily fall into place. ..."
"... In a later footnote, Galbraith even mentioned that he subsequently had his interpretation personally confirmed by Kennedy's former National Security Advisor: "When once I asked the late Walt Rostow if he knew anything about the National Security Council meeting of July 20, 1961 (at which these plans were presented), he responded with no hesitation: `Do you mean the one where they wanted to blow up the world?'" ..."
"... And there is also a sequel on this same topic. In 2001 military affairs writer Fred Kaplan published a major article in The Atlantic with the explicit title " JFK's First-Strike Plan." Drawing on a wealth of newly declassified archival documents, he similarly described how the Kennedy Administration had prepared plans for a nuclear first strike against the Soviets. His analysis was somewhat different, suggesting that Kennedy himself had generally approved the proposal, but that the attack was intended as an option to be used during a hypothetical future military confrontation rather than being aimed for a particular scheduled date. ..."
"... Consider a particularly troubling thought-experiment. Suppose that the proposed nuclear attack on Russia had actually gone ahead, resulting in millions or tens of millions dead from the bombs and worldwide radioactive fallout, perhaps even including a million or more American casualties if the first strike had failed to entirely eliminate all retaliatory capability. Under such a dire scenario, is it not likely that every American media organ would have been immediately enlisted to sanitize and justify the terrible events, with virtually no dissent allowed? ..."
I suggested that if he possessed any private information regarding so astonishing a possibility-that
the Kennedy Administration might have considered a nuclear first strike against the USSR-perhaps
he had a duty to bring the facts to public awareness lest they be lost to history.
He replied that he'd indeed found persuasive evidence that the US military had carefully planned
a nuclear first strike against the Soviet Union in the early 1960s, and agreed about the historical
importance. But he'd already published an article laying out the case. Twenty years earlier. In
The American Prospect , a very respectable though liberal-leaning magazine. So I located a
copy on the Internet:
I quickly read the article and was stunned. The central document was a Top Secret/Eyes Only summary
memo of a July 1961 National Security Council meeting written by Howard Burris, the military aide
to then-Vice President Lyndon Johnson, which was afterward deposited in the Johnson Archives and
eventually declassified. The discussion focused on the effectiveness of a planned nuclear first strike,
suggesting that 1963 would be the optimal date since America's relative advantage in intercontinental
nuclear missiles would be greatest at that point. Galbraith's student, Heather A. Purcell, had discovered
the memo and co-authored the article with him, and as they pointed out, this meeting was held soon
after the US military had discovered that the Soviet missile forces were far weaker than previously
had been realized, leading to the plans for the proposed attack and also proving that the first strike
under discussion could only have been an American one.
This history was quite different from the deterrent-based framework of American nuclear-war strategy
that I had always absorbed from reading my textbooks and newspapers.
Obviously no nuclear attack took place, so the plans must have been changed at some point
or discarded, and there were various indications that President Kennedy had had important doubts
from the very beginning. But the argument made was that at the time, the first strike proposal was
taken very seriously by America's top political and military leadership. Once we accept that idea,
other historical puzzles more easily fall into place.
Consider, for example, the massive campaign of "civil defense" that America launched immediately
thereafter, leading to the construction of large numbers of fallout shelters throughout the country,
including the backyard suburban ones which generated some famous ironic images. Although I'm hardly
an expert on nuclear war, the motivation had never made much sense to me, since in most cases the
supplies would only have been sufficient to last a few weeks or so, while the deadly radioactive
fallout from numerous Soviet thermonuclear strikes on our urban centers would have been long-lasting.
But an American first strike changes this picture. A successful U.S. attack would have ensured that
few if any bombs fell on American soil, with the shelters intended merely to provide a couple of
weeks of useful protection until the global radioactive dust-clouds resulting from the nuclear destruction
of the Soviet Union had dissipated, and these anyway would have only reached America in highly attenuated
form.
Furthermore, we must reassess the background to the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, certainly one of
the most important and dangerous events of that era. If Soviet military analysts had reached conclusions
similar to those of their American counterparts, it is hardly surprising that their political leaders
would have taken the considerable risk of deploying nuclear warheads on intermediate range missiles
close to American cities, thereby greatly multiplying their deterrent capability immediately prior
to their point of greatest strategic vulnerability. And there was also the real possibility that
their intelligence agents might have somehow gotten hints of the American plans for an actual nuclear
first strike. The traditional view presented in the American media has always been that an unprovoked
American attack was simply unimaginable, any Soviet paranoia notwithstanding, but if such an attack
was not only imagined but actually planned, then our Cold War narrative must be significantly modified.
Indeed, perhaps important aspects of the superpower confrontations of that era should be completely
inverted.
Could such a momentous historical discovery have been so totally ignored by our mainstream journalists
and historians that I'd never heard of it during the previous twenty years? Gossipy rumors of an
additional JFK infidelity might periodically make the headlines, but why was there no discussion
of serious plans to launch a non-defensive global thermonuclear war likely to kill many millions?
I have limited expertise in either analyzing nuclear warfare strategy or interpreting national
security documents, so I could easily be making an error in evaluating the strength of the case.
But in a later issue of TAP , William Burr and David Alan Rosenberg, scholars proficient in
exactly those areas, published
a lengthy rebuttal to the article , followed by a rejoinder from Galbraith and Purcell. And in
my own opinion, the Burr/Rosenberg critique was quite unpersuasive.
Correspondence: Nuclear Scare
William Burr, David Alan Rosenberg, James K. Galbraith, Heather A. Purcell, The American Prospect
, Spring 1995
In their arguments, they emphasized that the key document was found in the Vice Presidential archives,
while the National Archives and those of President Kennedy himself are usually a far better source
of important material. But perhaps that's exactly the point. The authenticity of the Burris document
was never disputed, and Burr/Rosenberg cite absolutely no contradictory archival material, implying
that the documentary evidence was not available to them. So the materials dealing with such an extraordinarily
explosive proposal had either elsewhere not been declassified or might even have been removed from
the main archives, with only the less direct Burris summary memo in a secondary location surviving
the purge and later being declassified, perhaps because its treatment of the subject was much less
explicit.
Meanwhile, a careful reading of the Burris memo seems to strongly support the Galbraith/Purcell
interpretation, namely that in July 1961 President Kennedy and his top national security officials
discussed cold-blooded plans for a full nuclear attack against the Soviet Union in roughly two years'
time, when the relative imbalance of strategic forces would be at its maximum. The proposal seemed
quite concrete, rather than merely being one of the numerous hypotheticals endlessly produced by
all military organizations.
In a later footnote, Galbraith even mentioned that he subsequently had his interpretation
personally confirmed by Kennedy's former National Security Advisor: "When once I asked the late Walt
Rostow if he knew anything about the National Security Council meeting of July 20, 1961 (at which
these plans were presented), he responded with no hesitation: `Do you mean the one where they wanted
to blow up the world?'"
Once I accepted the reasonable likelihood of the analysis, I was shocked at how little attention
the remarkable article had received. When I simply Googled the names of the authors "Galbraith Heather
Purcell" I mostly discovered very brief mentions scattered here and there, generally in specialized
books or in articles written by Galbraith himself, and found absolutely nothing in the major media.
Possibly one of the most important revisions to our entire history of the Cold War-with huge implications
for the Cuban Missile Crisis-seems to have never achieved any significant public awareness.
And there is also a sequel on this same topic. In 2001 military affairs writer Fred Kaplan
published a major article in The Atlantic with the explicit title "
JFK's First-Strike Plan." Drawing on a wealth of newly declassified archival documents, he similarly
described how the Kennedy Administration had prepared plans for a nuclear first strike against the
Soviets. His analysis was somewhat different, suggesting that Kennedy himself had generally approved
the proposal, but that the attack was intended as an option to be used during a hypothetical future
military confrontation rather than being aimed for a particular scheduled date.
The government plans unearthed by Kaplan are clearly referring to the same strategy discussed
in the Burris memo, but since Kaplan provides none of the documents themselves, it is difficult to
determine whether or not the evidence is consistent with the somewhat different Galbraith/Purcell
interpretation. It is also decidedly odd that Kaplan's long article gives no indication that he was
even aware of that previous theory or its differing conclusions, containing not a single sentence
mentioning or dismissing it. I find it very difficult to believe that a specialist such as Kaplan
remained totally unaware of the earlier TAP analysis, but perhaps this might possibly be explained
given the near-total media blackout. Prior to the establishment of the Internet or even in its early
days, important information ignored by the media might easily vanish almost without a trace.
Kaplan's long article seems to have suffered that similar fate. Aside from a few mentions in some
of Kaplan's own later pieces, I found virtually no references at all in the last 15 years when I
casually Googled it. Admittedly, the timing could not have been worse, with the article appearing
in the October 2001 edition of the magazine, released in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks,
but the silence is still troubling.
The unfortunate fact is that when a massively important story is reported only once, with virtually
no follow-up, the impact may be minimal. Only a small slice of the public encounters that initial
account, and the lack of any repetition would eventually lead even those individuals to forget it,
or perhaps even vaguely assume that the subsequent silence implied that the claims had been mistaken
or later debunked. Every standard historical narrative of the 1960s that continues to exclude mention
of serious plans for an American nuclear first strike constitutes a tacit denial of that important
reality, implicitly suggesting that the evidence does not exist or had been discredited. As a consequence,
I doubt whether more than a sliver of those seemingly informed Americans who carefully read the NYT
and WSJ each morning are aware of these important historical facts, and perhaps the same is even
true of the journalists who write for those esteemed publications. Only repetition and continuing
coverage gradually incorporates a story into our framework of the past.
It is easy to imagine how things might have gone differently. Suppose, for example, that similarly
solid evidence of plans for a devastating and unprovoked nuclear attack on the Soviet Union had been
found in the archival records of the presidential administrations of Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan.
Is there not a far greater likelihood that the story have been heavily covered and then endlessly
repeated in our media outlets, until it had become full embedded in our standard histories and was
known to every informed citizen?
In some respects, these discussions of events from over a half-century ago have little relevance
for us today: the individuals involved are now all merely names in our history books and the world
is a very different place. So although the sharp differences between the Galbraith/Purcell analysis
and that of Kaplan might engage academic specialists, the practical differences would today be minimal.
But what has enormous significance is the media silence itself. If our media failed to report
these shocking new facts about the early 1960s, how much can we rely upon it for coverage of present-day
events of enormous importance, given the vastly more immediate pressures and political interests
which are surely brought to bear? If our mainstream histories of what happened fifty years ago are
highly unreliable, what does that suggest about the stories we read each morning concerning the ongoing
conflicts in Ukraine or the South China Sea or the Middle East?
Consider a particularly troubling thought-experiment. Suppose that the proposed nuclear attack
on Russia had actually gone ahead, resulting in millions or tens of millions dead from the bombs
and worldwide radioactive fallout, perhaps even including a million or more American casualties if
the first strike had failed to entirely eliminate all retaliatory capability. Under such a dire scenario,
is it not likely that every American media organ would have been immediately enlisted to sanitize
and justify the terrible events, with virtually no dissent allowed?
Surely John F. Kennedy would have been enshrined as our most heroic wartime president-greater
than Lincoln and FDR combined-the leader who boldly saved the West from an imminent Soviet attack,
a catastrophic nuclear Pearl Harbor. How could our government ever admit the truth? Even decades
later, this patriotic historical narrative, uniformly endorsed by newspapers, books, films, and television,
would have become almost unassailable. Only the most marginal and anti-social individuals would dare
to suggest that
"... The CIA agents running the Deraa operation from their office in Jordan had already provided the weapons and cash needed to fuel the flames of revolution in Syria. With enough money and weapons, you can start a revolution anywhere in the world. ..."
"... In reality, the uprising in Deraa in March 2011 was not fueled by graffiti written by teenagers, and there were no disgruntled parents demanding their children to be freed. This was part of the Hollywood style script written by skilled CIA agents, who had been given a mission: to destroy Syria for the purpose of regime change. Deraa was only Act 1: Scene 1. ..."
"... The Libyans stockpiled weapons at the Omari Mosque well before any rumor spread about teenagers arrested for graffiti. The cleric, visually impaired and elderly, was unaware of the situation inside his Mosque, or of the foreign infiltrators in his midst. ..."
"... The weapons came into Deraa from the CIA office in Jordan. The US government has close ties to the King of Jordan. Jordan is 98% Palestinian, and yet has a long lasting peace treaty with Israel, despite the fact that 5 million of the Jordanian citizen's relatives next door in Occupied Palestine are denied any form of human rights. ..."
"... However, the US strategy was to create a "New Middle East", which would do away with safety in Syria; through the ensuing tornado, aka 'winds of change'. ..."
"... Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and then Syria were the stepping stones in the garden of the "Arab Spring". But, the scenario in the Syrian mission did not stay on script. It went over deadline and over budget. The final credits have yet to be rolled, and the curtain has yet to fall on the stage. ..."
"... Syrians were wondering how Western writers could take the side of the terrorists who were foreigners, following Radical Islam and attacking any unarmed civilian who tried to defend their home and family. The media was portraying the terrorists as freedom fighters and heroes of democracy, while they were raping, looting, maiming, kidnapping for ransom and murdering unarmed civilians who had not read the script before the shooting began in Deraa. ..."
"... Deraa was the opening act of tragic epic which has yet to conclude. The cleric who was a key character in the beginning scenes, Sheikh Sayasneh, was first put under house arrest, and then he was smuggled out to Amman, Jordan in January 2012. He now gives lectures in America near Washington, DC. Just like aspiring actors usually find their way to Hollywood, which is the Mecca of the film industry, Sheikh Sayasneh found his way to the Mecca of all regime change projects. ..."
The day before September 11, 2001 was like any normal day in New York City. September 10, 2001
was unaware of the earthshaking events which would happen the next day.
Similarly, one might think the day before the violence broke out in Deraa, Syria in March 2011
would have been an uneventful day, unaware of the uprising about to begin.
But, that was not the case. Deraa was teaming with activity and foreign visitors to Syria
well before the staged uprising began its opening act.
The Omari Mosque was the scene of backstage preparations, costume changes and rehearsals. The
Libyan terrorists, fresh from the battlefield of the US-NATO regime change attack on Libya, were
in Deraa well ahead of the March 2011 uprising violence. The cleric of the Omari Mosque was Sheikh
Ahmad al Sayasneh . He was an older man with a severe eye problem, which caused him to wear special
dark glasses, and severely hampered his vision. He was not only visually impaired, but light sensitive
as well, which caused him to be indoors as much as possible and often isolated. He was accustomed
to judging the people he talked with by their accent and voice. The Deraa accent is distinctive.
All of the men attending the Omari Mosque were local men, all with the common Deraa accent. However,
the visitors from Libya did not make themselves known to the cleric, as that would blow their cover.
Instead, they worked with local men; a few key players who they worked to make their partners and
confidants. The participation of local Muslim Brotherhood followers, who would assist the foreign
Libyan mercenaries/terrorists, was an essential part of the CIA plan, which was well scripted and
directed from Jordan.
Enlisting the aid and cooperation of local followers of Salafism allowed the Libyans to move in
Deraa without attracting any suspicion. The local men were the 'front' for the operation.
The CIA agents running the Deraa operation from their office in Jordan had already provided
the weapons and cash needed to fuel the flames of revolution in Syria. With enough money
and weapons, you can start a revolution anywhere in the world.
In reality, the uprising in Deraa in March 2011 was not fueled by graffiti written by
teenagers, and there were no disgruntled parents demanding their children to be freed. This
was part of the Hollywood style script written by skilled CIA agents, who had been given a mission:
to destroy Syria for the purpose of regime change. Deraa was only Act 1: Scene 1.
The fact that those so-called teenaged graffiti artists and their parents have never been found,
never named, and never pictured is the first clue that their identity is cloaked in darkness.
In any uprising there needs to be grassroots support. Usually, there is a situation
which arises, and protesters take to the streets. The security teams step in to keep the peace and
clear the streets and if there is a 'brutal crackdown' the otherwise 'peaceful protesters' will react
with indignation, and feeling oppressed and wronged, the numbers in the streets will swell.
This is the point where the street protests can take two directions: the protesters
will back down and go home, or the protesters can react with violence, which then will be met with
violence from the security teams, and this sets the stage for a full blown uprising.
The staged uprising in Deraa had some locals in the street who were unaware of their participation
in a CIA-Hollywood production. They were the unpaid extras in the scene about to be shot.
These unaware extras had grievances, perhaps lasting a generation or more, and perhaps rooted in
Wahhabism, which is a political ideology exported globally by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the
Royal family and their paid officials.
The Libyans stockpiled weapons at the Omari Mosque well before any rumor spread about
teenagers arrested for graffiti. The cleric, visually impaired and elderly, was unaware
of the situation inside his Mosque, or of the foreign infiltrators in his midst.
The weapons came into Deraa from the CIA office in Jordan. The US government
has close ties to the King of Jordan. Jordan is 98% Palestinian, and yet has a long lasting peace
treaty with Israel, despite the fact that 5 million of the Jordanian citizen's relatives next door
in Occupied Palestine are denied any form of human rights. The King of Jordan has to do a daily high-wire
balancing act between his citizens, the peace and safety in his country and America's interests and
projects in the Middle East. King Abdullah is not only a tight-rope walker, but a juggler at the
same time, and all of this pressure on him must be enormous for him, and Queen Rania, who is herself
Palestinian. These facts must be viewed in the forefront of the background painted scenery of The
Syrian Arab Republic, which has for the last 40 years had a cornerstone of domestic and foreign policy
carved and set in the principle of Palestinian human rights and Palestinian freedom and justice.
The US policy to attack Syria for the purpose of regime change was not just about the
gas lines, the oil wells, the strategic location and the gold: but it was about crushing that cornerstone
of Palestinian rights into dust. To get rid of President Bashar al Assad was to get rid of one of
the few Arab leaders who are an unwavering voice of Palestinian rights.
Deraa's location directly on the Jordanian border is the sole reason it was picked for the location-shoot
of the opening act of the Syrian uprising. If you were to ask most Syrians, if they had ever been
to Derra, or ever plan to go, they will answer, "No." It is a small and insignificant agricultural
town. It is a very unlikely place to begin a nationwide revolution. Deraa has a historical importance
because of archeological ruins, but that is lost on anyone other than history professors or archeologists.
The access to the weapons from Jordan made Deraa the perfect place to stage the uprising which has
turned into an international war. Any person with common sense would assume an uprising or revolution
in Syria would begin in Damascus or Aleppo, the two biggest cities. Even after 2 ½ years
of violence around the country, Aleppo's population never participated in the uprising, or call for
regime change.
Aleppo: the large industrial powerhouse of Syria wanted nothing to do with the CIA mission, and
felt that by staying clear of any participation they could be spared and eventually the violence
would die out, a natural death due to lack of participation of the civilians. However, this was not
to play out for Aleppo. Instead, the US supported Free Syrian Army, who were mainly from Idlib and
the surrounding areas, invited in their foreign partners, and they came pouring into Aleppo from
Turkey, where they had taken Turkish Airlines flights from Afghanistan, Europe, Australia and North
Africa landing in Istanbul, and then transported by buses owned by the Turkish government to the
Turkey-Aleppo border. The airline tickets, buses, paychecks, supplies, food, and medical
needs were all supplied in Turkey by an official from Saudi Arabia. The weapons were all
supplied by the United States of America, from their warehouse at the dock of Benghazi, Libya. The
US-NATO regime change mission had ended in success in Libya, with America having taken possession
of all the weapons and stockpiles formerly the property of the Libyan government, including tons
of gold bullion taken by the US government from the Central Bank of Libya.
Enter the Libyans stage right. Mehdi al Harati, the Libyan with an Irish passport, was put in
charge of a Brigade of terrorists working under the pay and direction of the CIA in Libya. Once his
fighting subsided there, he was moved to Northern Syria, in the Idlib area, which was the base of
operation for the American backed Free Syrian Army, who Republican Senator John McCain lobbied for
in the US Congress, and personally visited, illegally entering Syria without any passport or border
controls. In Arizona, Sen. McCain is in favor of deporting any illegal alien entering USA,
but he himself broke international law by entering Syria as an illegal and undocumented alien.
However, he was in the company of trusted friends and associates, the Free Syrian Army:
the same men who beheaded Christians and Muslims, raped females and children of both sexes, sold
girls as sex slaves in Turkey, and ate the raw liver of a man, which they proudly videoed and uploaded.
Previously, Syria did not have any Al Qaeda terrorists, and had passed through the war in neighboring
Iraq none the worse for wear, except having accepted 2 million Iraqis as refugee guests. Shortly
before the Deraa staged uprising began, Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie were in Damascus and being driven
around by the President and First Lady. Pitt and Jolie had come to visit and support the Iraqi war
refugees in Damascus. Brad Pitt was amazed that the Syrian President would drive him around personally,
and without any body guards or security detail. Pitt and Jolie were used to their own heavy security
team in USA. Pres. Assad explained that he and his wife were comfortable in Damascus, knowing that
it was a safe place. Indeed, the association of French travel agents had deemed Syria as the safest
tourist destination in the entire Mediterranean region, meaning even safer than France itself.
However, the US strategy was to create a "New Middle East", which would do away with safety
in Syria; through the ensuing tornado, aka 'winds of change'.
Tunisia, Libya, Egypt and then Syria were the stepping stones in the garden of the "Arab
Spring". But, the scenario in the Syrian mission did not stay on script. It went over deadline
and over budget. The final credits have yet to be rolled, and the curtain has yet to fall on the
stage.
We can't under estimate the role that mainstream media had to play in the destruction
of Syria. For example, Al Jazeera's Rula Amin was in Deraa and personally interviewed the
cleric Sayasneh at the Omari Mosque. Al Jazeera is the state owned and operated media for the Prince
of Qatar. The Prince of Qatar was one of the key funders of the terrorists attacking Syria. The USA
was sending the weapons, supplies and providing military satellite imagery, however the cash to make
payroll, to pay out bribes in Turkey, and all other expenses which needed cold cash in hand was being
paid out by the Prince of Qatar and the King of Saudi Arabia, who were playing their roles as closest
Middle East allies of the United States of America. This was a production team between USA, EU, NATO,
Turkey, Jordan, Israel and the Persian Gulf Arab monarchies of Saudi Arabia and Qatar primarily.
The CIA has no problem with covert operations in foreign countries, and even full scale attacks,
but the matter of funding needs to come from a foreign country, because the American voters don't
care about killing people in Syria, but they would never agree to pay for it. As long as
the Arabs were paying for the project, that was OK by Mr. John Q. Public, who probably was not able
to find Syria on a map anyway.
Rula Amin and others of the Al Jazeera staff, and including the American CNN, the British BBC
and the French France24 all began deliberate political propaganda campaign against the Syrian government
and the Syrian people who were suffering from the death and destruction brought on by the terrorists
who were pretending to be players in a local uprising. Some days, the scripts were so similar that
you would have guessed they were all written in the same hotel room in Beirut. Onto the stage stepped
the online media personalities of Robert Fisk, from his vantage point in Beirut and Joshua Landis
from his perch in Oklahoma. These 2 men, sitting so far removed from the actual events, pretended
to know everything going on in Syria. British and American readers were swayed by their deliberate
one-sided explanations, while the actual Syrians living inside Syria, who read in English online,
were baffled.
Syrians were wondering how Western writers could take the side of the terrorists
who were foreigners, following Radical Islam and attacking any unarmed civilian who tried to defend
their home and family. The media was portraying the terrorists as freedom fighters and heroes of
democracy, while they were raping, looting, maiming, kidnapping for ransom and murdering unarmed
civilians who had not read the script before the shooting began in Deraa.
There was one
global movie trailer, and it was a low budget cell phone video which went viral around the world,
and it sold the viewers on the idea of Syria being in the beginning of a dramatic fight for freedom,
justice and the American way. From the very beginning, Al Jazeera and all the rest of the media were
paying $100.00 to any amateur video shot in Syria. A whole new cottage industry sprang up in Syria,
with directors and actors all hungry for the spotlight and fame. Authenticity was not questioned;
the media just wanted content which supported their propaganda campaign in Syria.
Deraa was the opening act of tragic epic which has yet to conclude. The cleric
who was a key character in the beginning scenes, Sheikh Sayasneh, was first put under house arrest,
and then he was smuggled out to Amman, Jordan in January 2012. He now gives lectures in America near
Washington, DC. Just like aspiring actors usually find their way to Hollywood, which is the
Mecca of the film industry, Sheikh Sayasneh found his way to the Mecca of all regime change projects.
PERIES: Ok. And, John, give us a sense of what Russia's interests are in this meeting. I mean, although
it was downplayed, they did have the meeting with Erdogan, and they were the first to acknowledge
and provide some support to Erdogan after the coup. We know that–
HELMER: –No support. No, no, that's not quite right. Russian policy is for stability on its borders,
its neighbors. Russia does not consider its national interests, its security interests, its border
stability, to be advanced if there are coups and revolutions in countries around the neighborhood,
whether that's Ukraine, the US did sponsor a coup in Kiev in February 2014, whether it's in Iran,
whether it's in North Korea, whether it's in China, or whether it's in Turkey. So the Russian position
was, stability in the neighborhood. The Russian position was Mr. Erdogan is the elected, constitutional
leader of that country, and what was happening was an attempt to kill him, overthrow him, so Russia's
position was stability in the neighborhood. That was the Russian position. It was stated rather quicker
than Mr. Kerry was capable of stating it when he was trying to put some money on whoever was the
winner and wasn't sure who would be the winner.
But the Russian position is really simple. It's good neighbor policy if you like, but let me try
and make it quick and short for you. First, Turkey should stop supporting and fueling and providing
safe haven and supplies for groups that threaten Russia to the North, threaten Syria to the south.
Threaten Iraq to the east. That means and end to support for ISIS, an end to support for the Chechen
Rebellion in the Russian Caucasus. It means an end to support for Crimean Tatar opposition to Russia.
It means an end Turkish support for the war against Armenia. That's number one. Number two, Russia
has always for the last several hundred years, as long as there are ships, and as long as there's
the sea, Russia wants free passage through the so-called Turkish straits, between the Black Sea,
the Aegean Sea, and the Mediterranean. The Turks claim that it's a territorial war, they often claim
that they lost several wars over this. Russia wants to see no expansion of NATO or enemy operations,
naval operations, in the Black Sea, facilitated through the Bosphorus, through the Dardanelles, through
the Turkish straits, at the behest and at the permission and the encouragement of the Turkish government.
Those are security issues, right? No response from Erdogan. In fact, he said at the press conference,
we didn't even talk about Syria, we'll talk about that a bit later in the afternoon. But as for that
meeting, there is no record that anything was said, because as I said before the Russian Foreign
Ministry has yet to acknowledge there was such a meeting. More important, on the [crosstalk] morning
on the day Erdogan– HELMER: Well, let me go back a minute. On the morning of Erdogan's arrival in
Saint Petersburg, there is a 30 minute interview that he gave to Russian state television, to the
Tass News Agency, which he made a number of statements which he didn't repeat in his press conference.
He called again for the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad. He again explicitly referred to support for
the Crimean Tatars and their opposition to Crimea's accession, to the Russian Federation.
Those are two very big no-no's, negatives. Aggressive remarks to make on the eve of your arrival
in Russia, so that there was nothing left to discuss when he got there. Instead there's a lot of
talk about talking.
A lot of talk about talking about the future economic relations between the two countries. The
revival of the two gas pipeline projects, the Turkish Stream and South Stream for Gazprom. The revival
of the nuclear reactor project, which is Russia's building at Akkuyu. Talk about reviving investment,
talk about improving visa conditions for Turkish workers in Russia.
On none of those things, none of those things was any agreement announced. All the sides did,
all the presidents said at their press conference was that they agreed to continue talking. And for
all Mr. Erdogan's dear friend Putin remark he kept making roughly, I timed him, every three to four
minutes of the time he's in front of the camera, nobody believes it. And he didn't offer anything
on which the Russian side could say we've reached a new stage.
He did, yes he apologized for the shoot down of the SU24, but he did not offer Turkish compensation
for the murdered pilot, Captain Peshkov. It was very clear Russian policy that Turkey should pay
compensation, just as it's been Turkish policy that Israel should pay compensation for the killing
of Turkish citizens in the famous vessel incident off the Gaza coast several years ago. Turkey insisted
on compensation from Israel. It took years, it's been achieved. Yet Turkey offers no compensation
when Russia has insisted, on little issues, on big issues, Erdogan offered nothing.
PERIES: And John, what now? In terms of moving forward with these two countries who are very pivotal
and very strategically located in terms of the Syrian conflict.
HELMER: Well, I wouldn't say that the direction is forward. From a Greek point of view, there
is increasing chaos. From a Greek and Cyprian point of view, there is increasing chaos in Turkey,
and around Turkey. And from one point of view, that's a small positive because it makes the Turkish
army less capable of expanding aggressively east, south, or west.
There is not improvement on Turkey's readiness to reach a solution for the withdrawal of troops
from Northern Cyprus, illegally there since the invasion of '74. There is no sign that Turkey will
relent in its support for the overthrow of Syria. There is no sign that Turkey will do anything to
remove the Chechen threat to Russia inside Turkey, so we're going to move sideways.
We're going to move, we will simply watch and see if Mr. Erdogan himself can survive. But the
way he describes his survival is that he's the democratic leader of Turkey, well that's true.
He produces these street displays of public support, and at the same time he distrusts his own
military forces so much that he not only purges the general, generals staff, he couldn't bring a
military officer in his delegation to Moscow yesterday. Not one military officer does Mr. Erdogan
trust enough to bring to the party in Moscow. Sorry, in St. Petersburg. The chief of the Russian
General Staff was there but no Turkish counterpart officer. Steve H. ,
August 14, 2016 at 10:27 am
Instability seems to be the best description. Erdogan has so many horses attached to his cart
it's hard to see what he wants. Beyond the billions stashed in the walls of his estates; I think
it was Russia that released the phone calls with his son talking about moving the cash.
We know he wants the cash, but is he an Islamic sultan first, or is his main horse the Turkic
language group, which pushes into the X-istans to the east? Or is he a Euro, or a Russian lackey?
Easier to see the view from Russia. No Islamic fundamentalism is a foundation stone. The Kurds
have been better friends to Russia on this, and Russia
reinforces success . That's close to a deal-killer for Erdogan. But he has to deal with the
strategic fact that Russia can control the Black Sea by closing the Bosphorus unilaterally. Assad
has managed to keep the same deal with Russia as the Kurds, so far. Erdogan has a lot of enemies
to keep close. Does he have any friends?
Funny, it's all speculation but I had the opposite thought.
Erdogan, allegedly in a position of weakness, runs to Mother Russia for help in his time of
need. But as Helmer notes, he brought bupkis to the table: no concessions on Syria, on Chechen
seperatist groups, on trade, or even bones of lesser contention like Nato troops in Cyprus or
fruit trade. The most obvious conclusion should be that his "failed" trip to Moscow was more signalling
than a desperate appeal for help. And at whom is Erdogan's signalling aimed? Well Helmer again
tells us: the only ones who think it was a salient rapprochment are the Western Press: yes the
same Western Press that are currently hyperventillating that the Russians Are Coming! To wit,
if you are Erdogan and you thought Victoria Nuland was going to be the next US Secretary of State,
what would be the best way to get the stuff you wanted? Especially when it comes to Cyprus, arms
to kill kurds, the overthrow of Assad, leverage with the EU, escalation vs. Iran….
And on top of this, Erdogan has priors: he used the European press paranoia about immigrants
to blackmail Merkl. He shot down a Russian fighter jet to ingratiate himself to Nato. And he's
actively re-courting Israel. None of this indicates a realignment toward Russia– in fact his lack
of concessions indicates the opposite.
Like I said, at this point we can only speculate, and I personally lean more to the possibility
that Erdogan saw the possibility of the coup happening and realised it could be to his advantage.
But if you look at his position before the coup: weak domestically, not fully accepted by the
West… and compare that to what he gets from the coup: elimination of enemies in a purge and the
ability to use the threat of a Putin-alignment to blackmail the US, I don't see how the self-coup
theory has been knocked on the head.
I think your theory is as likely as any. Its very hard to see what Erdogan is doing. I suspects
its a situation where he has been too clever by half and has wrapped himself up in knots in his
various schemes. But its also possible he is actively trying to create as much ambiguity and uncertainty
as possible in order to extract as much as possible from his 'allies'.
Seems Erdogan is playing hard ball negotiations. Hopes Russia needs him more than Turkey needs
Russia. And certainly he is doing the same with the EU. Undoubtedly he is playing both sides against
each other for the best deal he can get. Wonder if he is competent enough to play those sort of
games with someone like Putin.
Although an alternative possibility is that Erdogan is completely out of his depth and burning
bridges with everyone by making irrational demands on the EU, the US and Russia.
Putin seems to be the most rational statesman in all this.
One of the best things about Trump, I think, is that he realizes this and wants to work with
him rather than demonize him in support of imperialistic type goals.
If Erdogan can pretend to change his Syria policy while not doing so, he can also pretend to
not change this policy while doing so. When is he deceitful and when is he honest? We may need
more time for Turkey's new policies to become apparent. Does anyone know what policy Gulen or
the coup plotters wants toward Syria?
Does anyone know what policy Gulen or the coup plotters wants toward Syria?
Seems to be about as confused as Erdogan's.
This article on his website from 2011 is supportive of regime change, but this article from
2014 suggests that Gülenists within the media and the miltary/police/security organizations are
against intervention in Syria.
Interestingly,
this article from 2014 says almost the exact same things as we're seeing today about a Turkish
rapprochement with Russia and Iran.
Erodgan wants to be the caliph of the new Ottoman Empire, with the support of the Salafis in
Turkey, ISIS (or whatever) and Saudi Arabia.
As a supplier to ISIS for these reasons, he has no common ground with Russia, who wants an
end to Muslim Unrest, because it fuels problems for the Russian like Chechnya, and the other Muslim
states along the silk road.
Russia wants to ensure the Black Sea is no blockaded, because Sevastopol is their warm water
port, and has been both very important and controlled by Russia for over 400 years.
Erdogan, one expects,is hoping for "approval" from the United States to invade Syria to "keep
the peace," which would be a great step towards a unified Salafi empire.
The Middle East was, is, and will be the cockpit of the world for the foreseeable future.
Before considering events in the Middle East:
1. Know you history
2. Know your geography – look at the maps of borders for the last 1,000 years
3. Analyze ambitions in,and for, the Middle East
This opens the door for others, about a month ago the Russians, Iran's, Syrians meet in Russia.
They need to put aside their differences because Hillary coming back onto the world stage with
every bat-shit-crazy neo-conn at her command. Turkey sees that also. They are all stronger together
and throw in China in the back ground and who knows.
Erdogan awaits the results of America's election. He hopes that Clinton gets elected because
Clinton shares Ergogan's goal of toppling Assad in order to install a Jihadi Cannibal Terrorist
LiverEater government over all of Syria.
If Trump defeats Clinton ( unlikely I know), and if Trump then purges hundreds or thousands
of pieces of radioactive Clintonite Filth out of the relevant parts of the Administrative Branch
of Government ( even unlikelier) such that he can forcibly and semi-violently impose a "peace
with Russia" policy upon an unwilling DC FedRegime Government; then Erdogan may eventually give
up on getting Trump's support to topple Assad and install a Jihadi Terrorist government. What
would Ergogan do then? Where would he turn?
I think that some of the other commentators here are overly disparaging of Erdogan.
Erdogan is a skilful and gutsy politician, with a large body of support in his country.
I mean, for God's sake, we just saw that man totally punk the old-line Kemalists in
Turkish officer corps!
Late last year, despite the Syrian imbroglio and mounting tension with the Kurds, Erdogan won
a convincing electoral victory. His party formed an outright parliamentary majority.
When Erdogan meets Putin, that is a meeting of peers.
I'll repeat the prediction I have already made a couple of times on this site: Erdogan is stringing
Putin along until after the US election.
By the time Clinton is inaugurated in 2017, Erdogan will have finished purging the suspect
elements in the Turkish officer corps. Turkey will then be ready to play an important role in
the US-led escalation of the conflict against Syria and Russia.
But for the next 5-6 months, Erdogan wants to keep relations with Russia from going foul. That
way the Russians might not want to make a more intense effort to help the Syrians recapture all
of Aleppo.
It's a tough situation for Putin. If Russia steps up the offensive at Aleppo, it would be easy
for Erdogan and Clinton to use that as a pretext for their own escalation. If Putin waits for
2017, Erdogan and Clinton are likely to escalate anyhow–they'll make whatever pretext they need.æ
A reasonable argument, but if Putin knows anything, it's that he can't trust Erdogan, no matter
what the truth vis a vis US involvement in the coup or who may have tipped off or otherwise saved
Erdogan's regime. Erdogan was an utter fool to become involved in Syria, and like the Saudis and
Saddam before him, allow his ego to be captured by dreams of wider regional power and influence
under US auspices – in exchange, as always, for going to war against a US enemy. Anyone as encumbered
as Erdogan is an ally to be kept close enough to be useful, but not within striking distance.
I think the meeting was likely very serious, and I expect Erdogan and Putin both were looking
for something from the other indicating where there might be wiggle room vis a vis what everyone
expects is coming under Clinton, but which may already be underway – a major influx of new rebels/ISIS
into the fray in Syria amidst escalating calls for direct US intervention as per Libyan version
of a 'no-fly zone'.
Too bad for Turkey. Had they not become involved in this disastrous regime-change operation,
Erdogan could've maintained his balancing act with relative ease. The focus of his Government
would've been the continued development of what has become a large, dynamic economy capable of
playing the role of Bridge from the West to an East that included Russia.
I don't know how many rabbits can be left in Putin's hat. The US really wants its 30 years
of war to transform all the regions attacked back into desert and I really don't expect Putin
to go all the way to the wall to stop them. But he does want the world to know what's happening.
That's a fair assessment. What I wonder is how much Erdogan's Islamic beliefs effect his judgement
and how much his wanting to revive the Ottoman Empire effects it. Seems to me that betraying ISIS
would have been an easy concession for him to make to Russia. Yet he's still determined to get
rid of Assad and anyone who says that supports ISIS because ISIS is the only means of achieving
that result. Does Erdogan continue as an ISIS ally because of: 1) ideologically they are two sides
of the same coin? 2) The Saudis are sending him money he doesn't want to give up? 3) he wants
continued chaos to have the opportunity to take advantage at Syria's or the Kurds expense? 4)
he fears the US more than Russia? After all, America destroys countries, Russia uses diplomacy,
which is less threatening.
Could go on endlessly with all these questions. I suspect the easiest conclusion to reach is
that Erdogan is biding his time until the US election results. After all, you couldn't have a
more starker choice: Clinton and full support for anything anti-Russian or Trump and a healing
of relations, in which case being Russia's would be a good thing. I guess the fly in the ointment
is a NeoCon Presidency producing another neocon disaster, meaning Russia kicks NATO's butt, including
Turkey.
I can't help but note that what Erodgan offers to each party – Russia, the US and Europe –
is negative. Doesn't that make it inevitable he ends up with no friends? For goodness sake, he
only runs Turkey – and a divided Turkey! He's a few centuries too late for that to strike any
existential fear into his adversaries. Overplaying his hand perhaps?
likbez
> I guess the fly in the ointment is a NeoCon Presidency producing another neocon disaster,
meaning Russia kicks NATO's butt, including Turkey.
The next "neocon disaster" is the most probable outcome, but there one a countervailing factor
to "new American militarism" (Bacevich) type of adventurism. The idea that the establishing and
maintaining the global neoliberal empire by direct interventions is worth the price we pay as
it will take the USA into the period of unprecedented peace and prosperity is now discredited.
Prosperity is reserved to top one or ten percent and that factor can't be hidden any longer.
I think the US elite became split and a smaller part of Washington establishment started to
understand that the US neocons overextended the country in permanent wars for permanent peace.
In wars for extension of the global neoliberal empire. Much like Britain became exhausted from
British empire project before.
It well might be that soon the impoverishment of the population and, especially, lack of job
and shirking middle class, become an internal political instability factor that will force some
changes.
With the total surveillance in place the elite has probably pretty decent picture of the mood
of the population. And it is definitely not too encouraging for another reckless neocon experiment.
Also the power of MSM brainwashing started to wear down and neoliberalism as an ideology that
keeps the current Washington elite in power is in crisis.
The USSR crushed approximately in 20 years after the communist ideology became discredited
by the inability to raise the standard of living of the population. The same is happening with
neoliberalism. If we count from 2008, neoliberalism probably still has another 12 years or three
presidential terms. That means that if "this Trump" fails to be elected, the "next Trump" might
be much more dangerous for Washington neocons.
In a way, emergence of Trump is a sign that the elite can't govern the old way and population
does not want to live the old way. Degeneration of the US neoliberal elite is another factor.
Looks at quality of presidential candidates - Hillary and the bunch of narrow minded fanatics
they produced for Republican nomination as well as the level of Washington detachment from reality
- "let them eat cakes" stance , Those factors will only increase internal political tension that
already demonstrated itself in recent riots.
Situation with oil is also dangerous. Artificial suppression of oil prices destroys the US
oil producers. They probably will manage to keep the prices low in 2016. Then what?
After the dissolution of the USSR the US elute went completely off rails and started to devour
not only other countries, but the USA itself. Neoliberals (like Bolsheviks int he past) are
cosmopolitan by definition and consider the USA as just a host to implement their plan. They have
zero affinity with the common people of the USA. For them they are just tools for creation and
maintnace of the global neoliberal empire. So their allegiance is not to the USA but to the global
neoliberal empire. It's the same behaviour that characterized Bolsheviks in Russia.
Notable quotes:
"... Then, once the Obama administration had massively escalated the CIA's drone program as an alternative
to kidnapping and indefinite detention at Guantanamo, it became even harder to acknowledge that this
is a policy of cold-blooded murder that provokes widespread anger and hostility and is counter-productive
to legitimate counterterrorism goals – or to admit that it violates the U.N. Charter's prohibition on
the use of force, as U.N. special rapporteurs on extrajudicial killings have warned . ..."
"... The deviant U.S. foreign policy bureaucracy has branded the formal rules that are supposed
to govern our country's international behavior as "obsolete" and "quaint", as a White House lawyer wrote
in 2004 . And yet these are the very rules that past U.S. leaders deemed so vital that they enshrined
them in constitutionally binding international treaties and U.S. law. ..."
"... In 1945, after two world wars killed 100 million people and left much of the world in ruins,
the world's governments were shocked into a moment of sanity in which they agreed to settle future international
disputes peacefully. The U.N. Charter therefore prohibits the threat or use of force in international
relations. ..."
"... The U.N. Charter's prohibition against the threat or use of force codifies the long-standing
prohibition of aggression in English common law and customary international law, and reinforces the
renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy in the 1928 Kellogg Briand Pact . The judges
at Nuremberg ruled that, even before the U.N. Charter came into effect, aggression was already the "supreme
international crime." ..."
"... No U.S. leader has proposed abolishing or amending the U.N. Charter to permit aggression by
the U.S. or any other country. And yet the U.S. is currently conducting ground operations, air strikes
or drone strikes in at least seven countries: Afghanistan; Pakistan; Iraq; Syria; Yemen; Somalia; and
Libya. U.S. "special operations forces" conduct secret operations in a hundred more . U.S. leaders still
openly threaten Iran, despite a diplomatic breakthrough that was supposed to peacefully settle bilateral
differences. ..."
"... Although torture was authorized from the very top of the chain of command, the most senior
officer charged with a crime was a Major and the harshest sentence handed down was a five-month prison
sentence. ..."
"... –U.S. rules of engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan have included: systematic, theater-wide use
of torture ; orders to "dead-check" or kill wounded enemy combatants; orders to "kill all military-age
males" during certain operations; and "weapons-free" zones that mirror Vietnam-era "free-fire" zones.
..."
"... A U.S. Marine corporal told a court martial that "Marines consider all Iraqi men part of the
insurgency", nullifying the critical distinction between combatants and civilians that is the very basis
of the Fourth Geneva Convention. ..."
"... –For the past year, U.S. forces bombing Iraq and Syria have operated under loosened rules of
engagement that allow the in-theater commander General McFarland to approve bomb- and missile-strikes
that are expected to kill up to 10 civilians each. ..."
"... Left In The Dark ..."
"... Nobody was charged over the Ghazi Khan raid in Kunar province on Dec. 26, 2009, in which U.S.
special forces summarily executed at least seven children, including four who were only 11 or 12 years
old. ..."
"... More recently, U.S. forces attacked a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, killing 42
doctors, staff and patients, but this flagrant violation of Article 18 of the Fourth Geneva Convention
did not lead to criminal charges either. ..."
"... Richard Barnet explored the deviant culture of Vietnam-era U.S. war leaders in his 1972 book
Roots Of War ..."
"... The U.S. role in anti-democratic coups in Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, Brazil, Indonesia, Ghana,
Chile and other countries was veiled behind thick layers of secrecy and propaganda. A veneer of legitimacy
was still considered vital to U.S. policy, even as a culture of deviance was being normalized and institutionalized
beneath the surface. ..."
"... When Nicaragua asked the U.N. Security Council to enforce the payment of reparations ordered
by the court, the U.S. abused its position as a Permanent Member of the Security Council to veto the
resolution. Since the 1980s, the U.S. has vetoed twice as many Security Council resolutions as the other
Permanent Members combined, and the U.N. General Assembly passed resolutions condemning the U.S. invasions
of Grenada (by 108 to 9) and Panama (by 75 to 20), calling the latter "a flagrant violation of international
law." ..."
"... President George H.W. Bush and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher obtained U.N. authorization
for the First Gulf War and resisted calls to launch a war of regime change against Iraq in violation
of their U.N. mandate. Their forces massacred Iraqi forces fleeing Kuwait , and a U.N. report described
how the "near apocalyptic" U.S.-led bombardment of Iraq reduced what "had been until January a rather
highly urbanized and mechanized society" to "a pre-industrial age nation." ..."
"... Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq ..."
The U.S. foreign policy establishment and its mainstream media operate with a pervasive set of
hypocritical standards that justify war crimes - or what might be called a "normalization of deviance,"
writes Nicolas J S Davies.
Sociologist Diane Vaughan coined the term
"normalization of deviance" as she was investigating the explosion of the Challenger space
shuttle in 1986. She used it to describe how the social culture at NASA fostered a disregard for
rigorous, physics-based safety standards, effectively creating new, lower de facto standards
that came to govern actual NASA operations and led to catastrophic and deadly failures.
Vaughan published her findings in her
prize-winning
book , The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture and Deviance at NASA
, which, in her words, "shows how mistake, mishap, and disaster are socially organized and systematically
produced by social structures" and "shifts our attention from individual causal explanations to the
structure of power and the power of structure and culture – factors that are difficult to identify
and untangle yet have great impact on decision making in organizations."
President George W. Bush announcing the start of his invasion of Iraq on March
19, 2003.
When the same pattern of organizational culture and behavior at NASA persisted until the loss
of a second shuttle in 2003, Diane Vaughan was appointed to NASA's accident investigation board,
which belatedly embraced her conclusion that the "normalization of deviance" was a critical factor
in these catastrophic failures.
The normalization of deviance has since been cited in a wide range of corporate crimes and institutional
failures, from
Volkswagen's rigging of emissions tests to deadly medical mistakes in hospitals. In fact, the
normalization of deviance is an ever-present danger in most of the complex institutions that govern
the world we live in today, not least in the bureaucracy that formulates and conducts U.S. foreign
policy.
The normalization of deviance from the rules and standards that formally govern U.S. foreign policy
has been quite radical. And yet, as in other cases, this has gradually been accepted as a normal
state of affairs, first within the corridors of power, then by the corporate media and eventually
by much of the public at large.
Once deviance has been culturally normalized, as Vaughan found in the shuttle program at NASA,
there is no longer any effective check on actions that deviate radically from formal or established
standards – in the case of U.S. foreign policy, that would refer to the rules and customs of international
law, the checks and balances of our constitutional political system and the experience and evolving
practice of generations of statesmen and diplomats.
Normalizing the Abnormal
It is in the nature of complex institutions infected by the normalization of deviance that insiders
are incentivized to downplay potential problems and to avoid precipitating a reassessment based on
previously established standards. Once rules have been breached, decision-makers face a cognitive
and ethical conundrum whenever the same issue arises again: they can no longer admit that an action
will violate responsible standards without admitting that they have already violated them in the
past.
This is not just a matter of avoiding public embarrassment and political or criminal accountability,
but a real instance of collective cognitive dissonance among people who have genuinely, although
often self-servingly, embraced a deviant culture. Diane Vaughan has compared the normalization of
deviance to an elastic waistband that keeps on stretching.
At the start of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, President George W. Bush ordered
the U.S. military to conduct a devastating aerial assault on Baghdad, known as "shock and awe."
Within the high priesthood that now manages U.S. foreign policy, advancement and success are based
on conformity with this elastic culture of normalized deviance. Whistle-blowers are punished or even
prosecuted, and people who question the prevailing deviant culture are routinely and efficiently
marginalized, not promoted to decision-making positions.
For example, once U.S. officials had accepted the Orwellian "doublethink" that "targeted killings,"
or "manhunts"
as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called them, do not violate long-standing
prohibitions against
assassination , even a new administration could not walk that decision back without forcing a
deviant culture to confront the wrong-headedness and illegality of its original decision.
Then, once the Obama administration had
massively
escalated the CIA's drone program as an alternative to kidnapping and indefinite detention at
Guantanamo, it became even harder to acknowledge that this is a policy of cold-blooded murder that
provokes widespread anger and hostility and is counter-productive to legitimate counterterrorism
goals – or to admit that it violates the U.N. Charter's prohibition on the use of force,
as U.N. special rapporteurs on extrajudicial killings have warned .
Underlying such decisions is the role of U.S. government lawyers who provide legal cover for them,
but who are themselves shielded from accountability by U.S. non-recognition of international courts
and the extraordinary deference of U.S. courts to the Executive Branch on matters of "national security."
These lawyers enjoy a privilege that is unique in their profession, issuing legal opinions that they
will never have to defend before impartial courts to provide legal fig-leaves for war crimes.
The deviant U.S. foreign policy bureaucracy has branded the formal rules that are supposed
to govern our country's international behavior as "obsolete" and "quaint", as
a White House lawyer wrote in 2004 . And yet these are the very rules that past U.S. leaders
deemed so vital that they enshrined them in
constitutionally binding
international treaties and U.S. law.
Let's take a brief look at how the normalization of deviance undermines two of the most critical
standards that formally define and legitimize U.S. foreign policy: the U.N. Charter and the Geneva
Conventions.
In 1945, after two world wars killed 100 million people and left much of the world in ruins,
the world's governments were shocked into a moment of sanity in which they agreed to settle future
international disputes peacefully. The U.N. Charter therefore prohibits the threat or use of force
in international relations.
As President Franklin Roosevelt
told a joint session of Congress on his return from the Yalta conference, this new "permanent
structure of peace … should spell the end of the system of unilateral action, the exclusive alliances,
the spheres of influence, the balance of power, and all the other expedients that have been tried
for centuries – and have always failed."
The U.N. Charter's prohibition against the threat or use of force codifies the long-standing
prohibition of aggression in English common law and customary international law, and reinforces the
renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy in the
1928 Kellogg Briand
Pact . The judges at Nuremberg ruled that, even before the U.N. Charter came into effect, aggression
was already the "supreme international
crime."
No U.S. leader has proposed abolishing or amending the U.N. Charter to permit aggression by
the U.S. or any other country. And yet the U.S. is currently conducting ground operations, air strikes
or drone strikes in at least seven countries: Afghanistan; Pakistan; Iraq; Syria; Yemen; Somalia;
and Libya. U.S. "special operations forces" conduct secret operations in
a hundred more . U.S. leaders still openly threaten Iran, despite a diplomatic breakthrough that
was supposed to peacefully settle bilateral differences.
President-in-waiting
Hillary Clinton still believes in backing U.S. demands on other countries with illegal threats
of force, even though every threat she has backed in the past has only served to create a pretext
for war, from Yugoslavia to Iraq to Libya. But the U.N. Charter prohibits the threat as well as the
use of force precisely because the one so regularly leads to the other.
The only justifications for the use of force permitted under the U.N. Charter are proportionate
and necessary self-defense or an emergency request by the U.N. Security Council for military action
"to restore peace and security." But no other country has attacked the United States, nor has the
Security Council asked the U.S. to bomb or invade any of the countries where we are now at war.
The wars we have launched since 2001 have
killed
about 2 million people , of whom nearly all were completely innocent of involvement in the crimes
of 9/11. Instead of "restoring peace and security," U.S. wars have only plunged country after country
into unending violence and chaos.
Like the specifications ignored by the engineers at NASA, the U.N. Charter is still in force,
in black and white, for anyone in the world to read. But the normalization of deviance has replaced
its nominally binding rules with looser, vaguer ones that the world's governments and people have
neither debated, negotiated nor agreed to.
In this case, the formal rules being ignored are the ones that were designed to provide a viable
framework for the survival of human civilization in the face of the existential threat of modern
weapons and warfare – surely the last rules on Earth that should have been quietly swept under a
rug in the State Department basement.
Courts martial and investigations by officials and human rights groups have exposed "rules of
engagement" issued to U.S. forces that flagrantly violate the Geneva Conventions and the protections
they provide to wounded combatants, prisoners of war and civilians in war-torn countries:
–The
Command's Responsibility report by Human Rights First examined 98 deaths in U.S. custody
in Iraq and Afghanistan. It revealed a deviant culture in which senior officials abused their authority
to block investigations and guarantee their own impunity for murders and torture deaths that
U.S. law defines as capital
crimes .
Although torture was authorized from the very top of the chain of command, the most senior
officer charged with a crime was a Major and the harshest sentence handed down was a five-month prison
sentence.
A U.S. Marine corporal told a court martial that "Marines consider all Iraqi men part of the
insurgency", nullifying the critical distinction between combatants and civilians that is the very
basis of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
When junior officers or enlisted troops have been charged with war crimes, they have been exonerated
or given light sentences because courts have found that they were acting on orders from more senior
officers. But the senior officers implicated in these crimes have been allowed to testify in secret
or not to appear in court at all, and no senior officer has been convicted of a war crime.
–For the past year, U.S. forces bombing Iraq and Syria have operated under
loosened
rules of engagement that allow the in-theater commander General McFarland to approve bomb-
and missile-strikes that are expected to kill up to 10 civilians each. But Kate Clark of
the Afghanistan Analysts Network has documented that U.S. rules of engagement already permit
routine targeting of civilians based only on cell-phone records or "guilt by proximity" to
other people targeted for assassination. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has determined
that
only 4 percent of thousands of drone victims in Pakistan have been positively identified as
Al Qaeda members, the nominal targets of the CIA's drone campaign.
–Amnesty International's 2014 report
Left In The Dark documented a complete lack of accountability for the killing of civilians
by U.S. forces in Afghanistan since President Obama's escalation of the war in 2009 unleashed
thousands more air strikes and special forces night raids.
Nobody was charged over the
Ghazi Khan raid in Kunar province on Dec. 26, 2009, in which U.S. special forces summarily executed
at least seven children, including four who were only 11 or 12 years old.
More recently,
U.S. forces attacked a Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, killing 42 doctors, staff
and patients, but this flagrant violation of Article 18 of the Fourth Geneva Convention did not lead
to criminal charges either.
Although the U.S. government would not dare to formally renounce the Geneva Conventions, the normalization
of deviance has effectively replaced them with elastic standards of behavior and accountability whose
main purpose is to shield senior U.S. military officers and civilian officials from accountability
for war crimes.
The Cold War and Its Aftermath
The normalization of deviance in U.S. foreign policy is a byproduct of the disproportionate economic,
diplomatic and military power of the United States since 1945. No other country could have got away
with such flagrant and systematic violations of international law.
But in the early days of the Cold War, America's World War II leaders rejected calls to exploit
their new-found power and temporary monopoly on nuclear weapons to unleash an aggressive war against
the U.S.S.R.
General Dwight Eisenhower gave
a speech in St. Louis in 1947 in which he warned, "Those who measure security solely in terms
of offensive capacity distort its meaning and mislead those who pay them heed. No modern nation has
ever equaled the crushing offensive power attained by the German war machine in 1939. No modern nation
was broken and smashed as was Germany six years later."
But, as Eisenhower later warned, the Cold War soon gave rise to a
"military-industrial
complex" that may be the case par excellence of a highly complex tangle of institutions
whose social culture is supremely prone to the normalization of deviance. Privately,
Eisenhower lamented,
"God help this country when someone sits in this chair who doesn't know the military as well
as I do."
That describes everyone who has sat in that chair and tried to manage the U.S. military-industrial
complex since 1961, involving critical decisions on war and peace and an
ever-growing military budget . Advising the President on these matters are the Vice President,
the Secretaries of State and Defense, the Director of National Intelligence, several generals and
admirals and the chairs of powerful Congressional committees. Nearly all these officials' careers
represent some version of the "revolving door" between the military and "intelligence" bureaucracy,
the executive and legislative branches of government, and top jobs with military contractors and
lobbying firms.
Each of the close advisers who have the President's ear on these most critical issues is in turn
advised by others who are just as deeply embedded in the military-industrial complex, from
think-tanks funded by weapons manufacturers to Members of Congress with military bases or missile
plants in their districts to journalists and commentators who market fear, war and militarism to
the public.
With the rise of sanctions and financial warfare as a tool of U.S. power, Wall Street and the
Treasury and Commerce Departments are also increasingly entangled in this web of military-industrial
interests.
The incentives driving the creeping, gradual normalization of deviance throughout the ever-growing
U.S. military-industrial complex have been powerful and mutually reinforcing for over 70 years, exactly
as Eisenhower warned.
Richard Barnet explored the deviant culture of Vietnam-era U.S. war leaders in his 1972 book
Roots
Of War . But there are particular reasons why the normalization of deviance in U.S. foreign
policy has become even more dangerous since the end of the Cold War.
In the aftermath of World War II, the U.S. and U.K. installed allied governments in Western and
Southern Europe, restored Western colonies in Asia and
militarily occupied South Korea . The divisions of Korea and
Vietnam
into north and south were justified as temporary, but the governments in the south were U.S.
creations imposed to prevent reunification under governments allied with the U.S.S.R. or China. U.S.
wars in Korea and Vietnam were then justified, legally and politically, as military assistance to
allied governments fighting wars of self-defense.
The U.S. role in anti-democratic coups in Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, Brazil, Indonesia, Ghana,
Chile and other countries was veiled behind thick layers of secrecy and propaganda. A veneer of legitimacy
was still considered vital to U.S. policy, even as a culture of deviance was being normalized and
institutionalized beneath the surface.
The Reagan Years
It was not until the 1980s that the U.S. ran seriously afoul of the post-1945 international legal
framework it had helped to build. When the U.S. set out to destroy the revolutionary
Sandinista government of Nicaragua by mining its harbors and dispatching a mercenary army to
terrorize its people, the
International
Court of Justice (ICJ) convicted the U.S. of aggression and ordered it to pay war reparations.
The U.S. response revealed how far the normalization of deviance had already taken hold of its
foreign policy. Instead of accepting and complying with the court's ruling, the U.S. announced its
withdrawal from the binding jurisdiction of the ICJ.
When Nicaragua asked the U.N. Security Council to enforce the payment of reparations ordered
by the court, the U.S. abused its position as a Permanent Member of the Security Council to veto
the resolution. Since the 1980s, the
U.S.
has vetoed twice as many Security Council resolutions as the other Permanent Members combined,
and the U.N. General Assembly passed resolutions condemning the U.S. invasions of Grenada (by 108
to 9) and Panama (by 75 to 20), calling the latter "a flagrant violation of international law."
President George H.W. Bush and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher obtained U.N. authorization
for the First Gulf War and resisted calls to launch a war of regime change against Iraq in violation
of their U.N. mandate. Their forces massacred
Iraqi forces fleeing Kuwait , and
a U.N. report described how the "near apocalyptic" U.S.-led bombardment of Iraq reduced what
"had been until January a rather highly urbanized and mechanized society" to "a pre-industrial age
nation."
But new voices began to ask why the U.S. should not exploit its unchallenged post-Cold War military
superiority to use force with even less restraint. During the Bush-Clinton transition, Madeleine
Albright confronted General Colin Powell over his "Powell doctrine" of limited war, protesting, "What's
the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?"
Public hopes for a "peace dividend" were ultimately trumped by a
"power dividend" sought
by military-industrial interests. The neoconservatives of the Project for the New American Century
led the push for war on Iraq, while
"humanitarian
interventionists" now use the "soft power" of propaganda to selectively identify and demonize
targets for U.S.-led regime change and then justify war under the "responsibility to protect" or
other pretexts. U.S. allies (NATO, Israel, the Arab monarchies et al) are exempt from such campaigns,
safe within what Amnesty International has labeled an
"accountability-free zone."
Madeleine Albright and her colleagues branded Slobodan Milosevic a "new Hitler" for trying to
hold Yugoslavia together, even as they ratcheted up their own
genocidal
sanctions against Iraq . Ten years after Milosevic died in prison at the Hague,
he was posthumously exonerated by an international court.
In 1999, when U.K. Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told Secretary of State Albright the British government
was having trouble "with its lawyers" over NATO plans to attack Yugoslavia without U.N. authorization,
Albright told him he should
"get new lawyers."
By the time mass murder struck New York and Washington on September 11, 2001, the normalization
of deviance was so firmly rooted in the corridors of power that voices of peace and reason were utterly
marginalized.
Former Nuremberg prosecutor
Ben Ferencz told NPR
eight days later, "It is never a legitimate response to punish people who are not responsible for
the wrong done. … We must make a distinction between punishing the guilty and punishing others. If
you simply retaliate en masse by bombing Afghanistan, let us say, or the Taliban, you will kill many
people who don't approve of what has happened."
But from the day of the crime, the war machine was in motion,
targeting
Iraq as well as Afghanistan.
The normalization of deviance that promoted war and marginalized reason at that moment of national
crisis was not limited to Dick Cheney and his torture-happy acolytes, and so the global war they
unleashed in 2001 is still spinning out of control.
When President Obama was elected in 2008 and awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, few people understood
how many of the people and interests shaping his policies were the same people and interests who
had shaped President George W. Bush's, nor how deeply they were all steeped in the same deviant culture
that had unleashed war, systematic war crimes and intractable violence and chaos upon the world.
A Sociopathic Culture
Until the American public, our political representatives and our neighbors around the world can
come to grips with the normalization of deviance that is corrupting the conduct of U.S. foreign policy,
the existential threats of nuclear war and escalating conventional war will persist and spread.
President George W. Bush pauses for applause during his State of the Union Address
on Jan. 28, 2003, when he made a fraudulent case for invading Iraq. Seated behind him are Vice President
Dick Cheney and House Speaker Dennis Hastert. (White House photo)
This deviant culture is sociopathic in its disregard for the value of human life and for the survival
of human life on Earth. The only thing "normal" about it is that it pervades the powerful, entangled
institutions that control U.S. foreign policy, rendering them impervious to reason, public accountability
or even catastrophic failure.
The normalization of deviance in U.S. foreign policy is driving a self-fulfilling reduction of
our miraculous multicultural world to a "battlefield" or testing-ground for the latest U.S. weapons
and geopolitical strategies. There is not yet any countervailing movement powerful or united enough
to restore reason, humanity or the rule of law, domestically or internationally, although new political
movements in many countries offer viable alternatives to the path we are on.
As the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
warned when it advanced the hands of the Doomsday Clock to 3 minutes to midnight in 2015, we
are living at one of the most dangerous times in human history. The normalization of deviance in
U.S. foreign policy lies at the very heart of our predicament.
Nicolas J S Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and
Destruction of Iraq . He also wrote the chapters on "Obama at War" in Grading the 44th President:
a Report Card on Barack Obama's First Term as a Progressive Leader.
Alastair Crooke, a former British diplomat and founder of the
Conflicts Forum, discusses how Washington's foreign
policy hawks are trying to
stall an
Obama-Putin agreement on Syria until Hillary Clinton is (presumably) elected so the new Cold
War with Russia can proceed unabated.
"For Michael Morell, as with many other CIA careerists, his strongest suit seemed to be pleasing
his boss and not antagonizing the White House" His loyalty is to qhoewver occupies White House, not
necessarily to the truth. "Morell [was] at the center of two key fiascoes: he "coordinated the
CIA review" of Secretary of State Colin Powell's infamous Feb. 5, 2003 address to the United Nations
and he served as the regular CIA briefer to President George W. Bush. Putting Access Before Honesty"
Rise of Another CIA Yes Man – Consortiumnews
Notable quotes:
"... Let the bizarreness of that claim sink in, since it is professionally impossible to recruit an agent who is unwitting of being an agent, since an agent is someone who follows instructions from a control officer. ..."
"... However, since Morell apparently has no evidence that Trump was "recruited," which would make the Republican presidential nominee essentially a traitor, he throws in the caveat "unwitting." Such an ugly charge is on par with Trump's recent hyperbolic claim that President Obama was the "founder" of ISIS. ..."
"... Looking back at Morell's record, it was not hard to see all this coming, as Morell rose higher and higher in a system that rewards deserving sycophants. I addressed this five years ago in an article titled "Rise of Another CIA Yes Man." That piece elicited many interesting comments from senior intelligence officers who knew Morell personally; some of those comments are tucked into the end of the article. ..."
As for Morell's claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin is somehow controlling Donald Trump,
well, even Charlie Rose had stomach problems with that and with Morell's "explanation." In the Times
op-ed, Morell wrote: "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr.
Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."
Let the bizarreness of that claim sink in, since it is professionally impossible to recruit an
agent who is unwitting of being an agent, since an agent is someone who follows instructions from
a control officer.
However, since Morell apparently has no evidence that Trump was "recruited," which would make
the Republican presidential nominee essentially a traitor, he throws in the caveat "unwitting." Such
an ugly charge is on par with Trump's recent hyperbolic claim that President Obama was the "founder"
of ISIS.
Looking back at Morell's record, it was not hard to see all this coming, as Morell rose higher
and higher in a system that rewards deserving sycophants. I addressed this five years ago in
an article
titled "Rise of Another CIA Yes Man." That piece elicited many interesting comments from senior intelligence
officers who knew Morell personally; some of those comments are tucked into the end of the article.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour
in inner-city Washington. He is a 30-year veteran of the CIA and Army intelligence and co-founder
of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern served for considerable periods
in all four of CIA's main directorates.
After disappearing for a couple of weeks, the hacker "Guccifer 2.0" returned late this afternoon to provide a new headache
for Democrats.
In a post to his WordPress blog, the vandal–who previously provided nearly 20,000 Democratic National Committee e-mails
to Wikileaks–uploaded an Excel file that includes the cell phone numbers and private e-mail addresses of nearly every Democratic
member of the House of Representatives.
The Excel file also includes similar contact information for hundreds of congressional staff members (chiefs of staff, press
secretaries, legislative directors, schedulers) and campaign personnel.
In announcing the leak of the document, "Guccifer 2.0" reported that the spreadsheet was stolen during a hack of the Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee. " As you see I wasn't wasting my time! It was even easier than in the case of the DNC breach,"
the hacker wrote.
"... Neo McCarthyism witch hunt against Trump instead of debate of a proper national policy is a sign of corrupted neoliberal media. They want the preservation and expantion of thier global empire at any cost for american people. ..."
"... Reckless branding of Trump as Russian agent is coming from Clinton campaign and it needs to stop ..."
Neo McCarthyism witch hunt against Trump instead of debate of a proper national policy is a sign
of corrupted neoliberal media. They want the preservation and expantion of thier global empire at
any cost for american people.
Reckless branding of Trump as Russian agent is coming from Clinton campaign and it needs to stop
This is what "New
American Militarism" the term coined by Bacevich is about. And it reflect dominance of jingoism
among Washington bureaucrats -- war is a source of money and career advancement.
Notable quotes:
"... At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA, ..."
"... he also reveals that Morell "coordinated the CIA review" of Secretary of State Colin Powell's infamous Feb. 5, 2003 speech to the United Nations – a dubious distinction if there ever was one. ..."
"... The Great War of Our Time ..."
"... It is sad to have to remind folks almost 14 years later that the "intelligence" was not "mistaken;" it was fraudulent from the get-go. Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a five-year study by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller described the intelligence conjured up to "justify" war on Iraq as "uncorroborated, contradicted, or even non-existent." ..."
"... For services rendered, Tenet rescued Morell from the center of the storm, so to speak, sending him to a plum posting in London, leaving the hapless Stu Cohen holding the bag. Cohen had been acting director of the National Intelligence Council and nominal manager of the infamous Oct. 1, 2002 National Intelligence Estimate warning about Iraq's [nonexistent] WMD. ..."
"... The Great War of Our Time ..."
"... When the storm subsided, Morell came back from London to bigger and better things. He was appointed the CIA's first associate deputy director from 2006 to 2008, and then director for intelligence until moving up to become CIA's deputy director (and twice acting director) from 2010 until 2013. ..."
"... Reading his book and watching him respond to those softball pitches from Charlie Rose on Monday, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that glibness, vacuousness and ambition can get you to the very top of US intelligence in the Twenty-first Century – and can also make you a devoted fan of whoever is likely to be the next President. ..."
"... Let the bizarreness of that claim sink in, since it is professionally impossible to recruit an agent who is unwitting of being an agent, since an agent is someone who follows instructions from a control officer. ..."
"... However, since Morell apparently has no evidence that Trump was "recruited," which would make the Republican presidential nominee essentially a traitor, he throws in the caveat "unwitting." Such an ugly charge is on par with Trump's recent hyperbolic claim that President Obama was the "founder" of ISIS. ..."
"... Looking back at Morell's record, it was not hard to see all this coming, as Morell rose higher and higher in a system that rewards deserving sycophants. I addressed this five years ago in an article titled "Rise of Another CIA Yes Man." That piece elicited many interesting comments from senior intelligence officers who knew Morell personally; some of those comments are tucked into the end of the article. ..."
Perhaps former CIA acting director Michael Morell's shamefully provocative rhetoric toward Russia
and Iran will prove too unhinged even for Hillary Clinton. It appears equally likely that it will
succeed in earning him a senior job in a possible Clinton administration, so it behooves us to have
a closer look at Morell's record.
My initial reaction of disbelief and anger was the same as that
of my VIPS colleague, Larry Johnson, and
the points Larry made about Morell's behavior in the Benghazi caper, Iran, Syria, needlessly
baiting nuclear-armed Russia, and how to put a "scare" into Bashar al-Assad give ample support to
Larry's characterization of Morell's comments as "reckless and vapid." What follows is an attempt
to round out the picture on the ambitious 57-year-old Morell.
I suppose we need to start with Morell telling PBS/CBS interviewer Charlie Rose on Aug. 8 that
he (Morell) wanted to "make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. … make the Russians pay a price in
Syria."
Rose: "We make them pay the price by killing Russians?"
Morell: "Yeah."
Rose: "And killing Iranians?"
Morell: "Yes … You don't tell the world about it. … But you make sure they know it in Moscow
and Tehran."
You might ask what excellent adventure earned Morell his latest appearance with Charlie Rose?
It was a highly unusual Aug. 5 New York Times
op-ed titled "I ran the CIA Now I'm Endorsing Hillary Clinton."
Peabody award winner Rose – having made no secret of how much he admires the glib, smooth-talking
Morell – performed true to form. Indeed, he has interviewed him every other month, on average, over
the past two years, while Morell has been a national security analyst for CBS.
This interview,
though, is a must for those interested in gauging the caliber of bureaucrats who have bubbled to
the top of the CIA since the disastrous tenure of George Tenet (sorry, the interview goes on and
on for 46 minutes).
A Heavy Duty
Such interviews are a burden for unreconstructed, fact-based analysts of the old school. In a
word, they are required to watch them, just as they must plow through the turgid prose of "tell-it-all"
memoirs. But due diligence can sometimes harvest an occasional grain of wheat among the chaff.
For example, George W. Bush's memoir, Decision Points, included a passage the former
president seems to have written himself. Was Bush relieved to learn, just 15 months before he left
office, the "high-confidence," unanimous judgment of the U.S. intelligence community that Iran had
stopped working on a nuclear weapon in 2003 and had not resumed work on such weapons? No way!
In his memoir, he complains bitterly that this judgment in that key 2007 National Intelligence
Estimate "tied my hands on the military side. … After the NIE, how could I possibly explain using
the military to destroy the nuclear facilities of a country the intelligence community said had no
active nuclear weapons program?" No, I am not making this up. He wrote that.
In another sometimes inadvertently revealing memoir, At the Center of the Storm: My Years
at the CIA, CIA Director George Tenet described Michael Morell, whom he picked to be CIA's briefer
of President George W. Bush, in these terms: "Wiry, youthful looking, and extremely bright, Mike
speaks in staccato-like bursts that get to the bottom line very quickly. He and George Bush hit it
off almost immediately. Mike was the perfect guy for us to have by the commander-in-chief's side."
Wonder what Morell was telling Bush about those "weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" and the
alleged ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Was Morell winking at Bush the same way Tenet winked
at the head of British intelligence on July 20, 2002, telling him that "the intelligence and facts
were being fixed around the policy" of invading Iraq?
High on Morell
Not surprisingly, Tenet speaks well of his protégé and former executive assistant Morell. But
he also reveals that Morell "coordinated the CIA review" of Secretary of State Colin Powell's
infamous Feb. 5, 2003 speech to the United Nations – a dubious distinction if there ever was one.
So Morell reviewed the "intelligence" that went into Powell's thoroughly deceptive account of
the Iraqi threat! Powell later called that dramatic speech, which wowed Washington's media and foreign
policy elites and was used to browbeat the few remaining dissenters into silence, a "blot" on his
record.
In Morell's own memoir, The Great War of Our Time, Morell apologized to former Secretary
of State Powell for the bogus CIA intelligence that found its way into Powell's address. Morell
told CBS: "I thought it important to do so because … he went out there and made this case, and
we were wrong."
It is sad to have to remind folks almost 14 years later that the "intelligence" was not "mistaken;"
it was fraudulent from the get-go. Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a
five-year study by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller described the intelligence
conjured up to "justify" war on Iraq as "uncorroborated, contradicted, or even non-existent."
It strains credulity beyond the breaking point to think that Michael Morell was unaware of the
fraudulent nature of the WMD propaganda campaign. Yet, like all too many others, he kept quiet and
got promoted.
Out of Harm's Way
For services rendered, Tenet rescued Morell from the center of the storm, so to speak, sending
him to a plum posting in London, leaving the hapless Stu Cohen holding the bag. Cohen had been acting
director of the National Intelligence Council and nominal manager of the infamous Oct. 1, 2002 National
Intelligence Estimate warning about Iraq's [nonexistent] WMD.
Cohen made a valiant attempt to defend the indefensible in late November 2003, and was still
holding out some hope that WMD would be found. He noted, however, "If we eventually are proved
wrong – that is, that there were no weapons of mass destruction and the WMD programs were dormant
or abandoned – the American people will be told the truth …" And then Stu disappeared into the woodwork.
In October 2003, the 1,200-member "Iraq Survey Group" commissioned by Tenet to find those elusive
WMD in Iraq had already reported that six months of intensive work had turned up no chemical, biological
or nuclear weapons. By then, the U.S.-sponsored search for WMD had already cost $300 million, with
the final bill expected to top $1 billion.
In Morell's The Great War of Our Time, he writes, "In the summer of 2003 I became CIA's
senior focal point for liaison with the analytic community in the United Kingdom." He notes that
one of the "dominant" issues, until he left the U.K. in early 2006, was "Iraq, namely our failure
to find weapons of mass destruction." (It was a PR problem; Prime Minister Tony Blair and Morell's
opposite numbers in British intelligence were fully complicit in the "dodgy-dossier" type of intelligence.)
When the storm subsided, Morell came back from London to bigger and better things. He was
appointed the CIA's first associate deputy director from 2006 to 2008, and then director for intelligence
until moving up to become CIA's deputy director (and twice acting director) from 2010 until 2013.
Reading his book and watching him respond to those softball pitches from Charlie Rose on Monday,
it is hard to avoid the conclusion that glibness, vacuousness and ambition can get you to the very
top of US intelligence in the Twenty-first Century – and can also make you a devoted fan of whoever
is likely to be the next President.
... ... ...
As for Morell's claim that Russian President Vladimir Putin is somehow controlling Donald Trump,
well, even Charlie Rose had stomach problems with that and with Morell's "explanation." In the Times
op-ed, Morell wrote: "In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr.
Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."
Let the bizarreness of that claim sink in, since it is professionally impossible to recruit
an agent who is unwitting of being an agent, since an agent is someone who follows instructions from
a control officer.
However, since Morell apparently has no evidence that Trump was "recruited," which would make
the Republican presidential nominee essentially a traitor, he throws in the caveat "unwitting." Such
an ugly charge is on par with Trump's recent hyperbolic claim that President Obama was the "founder"
of ISIS.
Looking back at Morell's record, it was not hard to see all this coming, as Morell rose higher
and higher in a system that rewards deserving sycophants. I addressed this five years ago in
an article
titled "Rise of Another CIA Yes Man." That piece elicited many interesting comments from senior intelligence
officers who knew Morell personally; some of those comments are tucked into the end of the article.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. He is a 30-year veteran of the CIA and Army intelligence and co-founder
of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern served for considerable periods
in all four of CIA's main directorates.
This week we also published
a terrific
piece
by John LaForge, which demolishes once and for one of America's most cherished lies: that
the US simply
had
to drop two nuclear bombs on Japanese cities to end the war and save hundreds
of thousands of US and Japanese lies. Even Curtis "Mad Bomber" LeMay knew this was bullshit. So did
Ike, who sent word to Truman that he thought the plan was insane. You can see why the myth took root.
What nation that sees itself a force of goodness and virtue and humanity could live with itself after
incinerating two cities and unleashing nuclear terror upon the world?
As the current US President and Nobel Peace Prize winner prepares to leave office with a record of
a Tuesday
morning kill list, unconscionable drone attacks on civilians, initiating bombing campaigns where
there were none prior to his election and, of course, taunting Russian President Vladimir Putin with
unsubstantiated allegations, the US-backed NATO has scheduled
AEGIS anti ballistic missile shields to be constructed in Romania and Poland, challenging the
integrity of
INF Treaty for the first time in almost thirty years.
In what may shed new light on NATO/US
build-up in eastern Europe, Russian Foreign Secretary Sergei Lavrov
denied US charges in June, 2015 that Russia had violated the Treaty and that the US had "failed
to provide evidence of Russian breaches." Commenting on US plans to deploy land-based missiles
in Europe as a possible response to the alleged "Russian aggression" in the Ukraine, Lavrov warned
that ''building up militarist rhetoric is absolutely counterproductive and harmful.' Russian
Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov suggested the United States was leveling accusations against
Russia in order to justify its own military plans.
In early August, the US Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration authorized
the final development phase (prior to actual production in 2020) of the
B61-21 nuclear bomb at a cost of $350 – $450 billion. A
thermonuclear weapon with the capability of reaching Europe and Moscow, the B61-21 is part
of President Obama's
$1 trillion request for modernizing the US aging and outdated nuclear weapon arsenal.
Isn't it about time for the President to do something to earn that Peace Prize?
Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU's Florida State Board of Directors and
president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in
Colorado, an environmental lobbyist and staff member of the US House of Representatives in
Washington DC.
Alastair Crooke, a former British diplomat and founder of the
Conflicts Forum, discusses how Washington's foreign
policy hawks are trying to
stall an
Obama-Putin agreement on Syria until Hillary Clinton is (presumably) elected so the new Cold
War with Russia can proceed unabated.
It seems like I've known Nicholas
Schou forever, though we just pressed flesh for the first time last year in the LBC. His ground-breaking
reporting on the Contra-Cocaine network in southern California was crucial source material for a
book that Cockburn and I wrote called Whiteout. Nick's own book on Gary Webb is excellent and it
was turned into a fine movie,
Kill the Messenger. Now Nick has published a new book, Spooked,
a terrific and timely history of how the CIA manipulates the media and Hollywood (both useful idiots
of the Agency). And, speaking of the devil, here Nick is telling us all about it in the latest installment
of CounterPunch
Radio with the indefatigable Eric Draitser.
"... As prospects for peace appear dim in places like the Ukraine, Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Afghanistan and now with a renewed bombing of Libya, the President of the United States (and his heiress apparent) continue to display an alarming lack of understanding of the responsibilities as the nation's highest elected officer. As has been unsuccessfully litigated, Article II of the Constitution does not give the President right to start war; only Congress is granted that authority (See Article I, Section 8). ..."
"... Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU's Florida State Board of Directors and president of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist and staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. ..."
As prospects for peace appear dim in places like the Ukraine, Syria, Yemen,
Iraq and Afghanistan and now with a renewed bombing of Libya, the President
of the United States (and his heiress apparent) continue to display an alarming
lack of understanding of the responsibilities as the nation's highest elected
officer. As has been unsuccessfully litigated, Article II of the Constitution
does not give the President right to start war; only Congress is granted
that authority (See Article I, Section 8).
So for the nation's Chief
Executive Officer to willy-nilly arbitrarily decide to bomb here and bomb there
and bomb everywhere in violation of the Constitution might be sufficient standard
for that CEO to be regarded as a war criminal.
Surely, consistently upping
the stakes with a strong US/NATO military presence in the Baltics with the US
Navy regularly cruising the Black and Baltic Seas, accompanied by a steady stream
of confrontational language and picking a fight with a nuclear-armed Russia
may not be the best way to achieve peace.
In 1980, there was strong opinion among liberals that Ronald Reagan was close
to, if not a direct descendant of the Neanderthals and that he stood for everything
that Democrats opposed – and his eight years in office confirmed much of that
sentiment. In those days, many lefties believed that the Democrats were still
the party of FDR and JFK but today, the undeniable illusion is that the Dems
are now the party of war and big money and not the political party some of us
signed up for as new voters.
Ronald Reagan (R) was elected President as an ardent anti-communist who routinely
referred to Russia as the 'evil empire', a fierce free market proponent of balanced
budgets who in two terms in office never balanced a budget, a President who
dramatically slashed domestic social programs even though his family benefited
from FDR's New Deal and whose foreign policy strategy was to 'build-up to
build-down' (a $44 billion.20% increase in one year , 1982-1983) so as to
force the Russians to the table. Reagan, who was ready to engage in extensive
personal diplomacy, was an unlikely peacemaker yet he achieved an historic accomplishment
in the nuclear arms race that is especially relevant today as NATO/US are reintroducing
nuclear weapons into eastern Europe.
After having ascended to the USSR's top leadership position in March, 1985,
an intelligent and assertive Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev was
eager to improve relations with the United States but thought Reagan a "political
dinosaur" who was regarded by much of the American public as a 'trigger-happy
cowboy".
Even before the American President and Russian leader met, NATO ministers
in 1979 had unanimously adopted a strategy that included arms control
negotiations and a modernization of its current missile system as Russia deployed
its updated, most lethal generation of the
SS 20 Saber missiles. With an improved maximum range, an increased area
covered by multiple warheads and a more improved accuracy than earlier versions,
it was a missile that could easily reach western Europe with terrifying results.
As formal talks began between the US, Russia and NATO in 1981, massive anti
nuclear weapon demonstrations were taking place in the US and Europe adding
a political urgency for both countries to initiate discussions.
At that time, Reagan announced a proposal to abandon the Pershing I missiles
in exchange for elimination of the SS 20 which Gorbachev rejected.
By 1983,
the Soviets walked out and there were no talks in 1984 until a resumption in
March, 1985. US Secretary of State George Shultz had continued to meet with
Russian Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin since 1983. Shultz suggested that the
President meet with Dobrynin who had expressed his frustration to Shultz that
they were not dealing with the 'big
issues" and was rumored to be leaving his diplomatic post due to the Americans
unwillingness to negotiate. Two weeks earlier Russian Foreign Minister Andrei
Gromyko had publicly suggested a summit between the two nuclear power countries.
According to published reports at the time, while most of the White House
staff opposed the Dobrynin meeting, Reagan gave Shultz the green light.
By the time Reagan first met Gorbachev in
1985 in Geneva, the President was already driven by a deep instinctive fear
that modern civilization was on the brink of a biblical nuclear Armageddon that
could end the human race.
According to Jack Matlock who served as Reagan's senior policy coordinator
for Russia and later US Ambassador to Russia in his book, "Reagan
and Gorbachev: How the Cold War Ended,"one of Reagan's pre-meeting
notes to himself read "avoid any demand for regime change." From the beginning,
one of Reagan's goals was to establish a relationship that would be able to
overcome whatever obstacles or conflicts may arise with the goal of preventing
a thermonuclear war.
The meeting began with a traditional oval table diplomatic dialogue with
Reagan, who had no foreign policy experience, lecturing on the failings of the
"despised" Russian system and support for the SDI (Star Wars) program. Gorbachev,
who arrived looking like a spy complete with KGB-issue hat and overcoat, responded
by standing up to Reagan ("you are not a prosecutor and I am not the accused")
and was visibly irritated "why do you repeat the same thing (on the SDI); stop
this rubbish."
After a lengthy personal, private conversation, it became obvious that the
two men had struck a
cord of mutual respect with Reagan recognizing that the youthful articulate
Gorbachev was not the out- moded Politburo politician of his predecessors. At
the conclusion of Geneva, a shared trust necessary to begin sober negotiations
to ban nuclear weapons had been established. Both were well aware that the consequences
of nuclear war would be a devastation to mankind, the world's greatest environmental
disaster. At the end of their Geneva meeting, Reagan and Gorbachev agreed that
"nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought."
During their October, 1986
Reykjavik meeting, the real possibility of a permanent, forever ban on all
nuclear weapons appeared possible until Gorbachev insisted on the elimination
of SDI's (Star Wars) from the final agreement and Reagan walked away. Gorbachev
relented; saving the potential long range treaty from failure and ultimately,
the SDI sunk under the weight of its own impossibility. While the summit ended
with measured progress, Reagan's stubbornness on SDI represented a significant
lost opportunity that would never come again.
In April, 1987 with Secretary Shultz in Moscow, Gorbachev proposed the elimination
of U.S. and Soviet shorter-range missiles and by June, NATO foreign ministers
announced support for the global elimination of all U.S. and Soviet intermediate-range
and shorter-range missile systems. In June, all the participating parties were
in agreement as Reagan agreed to eliminate all U.S. and Soviet shorter-range
missile systems.
As high level negotiations continued, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl added
icing to the cake, in August, 1987 by announcing that Germany, on its own, would
dismantle all of its 72
Pershing I missiles that Reagan-Gorbachev had earlier been unable to eliminate.
In December of 1987, Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev arrived in
Washington DC to sign the bilateral
Intermediate-Range
Nuclear Forces (including Short Range Missiles) known as the INF Treaty.
The Treaty eliminated 2,611 ground launched ballistic and cruise missile systems
with a range of between 500 and 5500 kilometers (310 -3,400 miles). Paris is
2,837 (1,762 miles) kilometers from Moscow.
In May 1988, the INF Treaty was
ratified by the US Senate in a surprising vote of 93 – 5 (four Republicans
and one Democrat opposed) and by May, 1991, all Pershing I missiles in Europe
had been dismantled. Verification of Compliance of the INF Treaty, delayed because
of the USSR breakup, was completed in December, 2001.
At an outdoor press briefing during their last meeting together and after
the INF was implemented, Reagan put his arm around Gorbachev. A reporter asked
if he still believed in the 'evil empire' and Reagan answered 'no." When asked
why, he replied "I was talking about another time, another era."
After the INF Treaty was implemented,
right wing opponents and columnists like George Will attacked Reagan as
a pawn for "Soviet propaganda" and being an "apologist for Gorbachev."
Some things never change.
Whether the Treaty could have been more far-reaching is questionable given
what we now know of Reagan's mental deterioration and yet despite their differences,
there is no indication that during the six year effort the two men treated each
other with anything other than esteem and courtesy.
In 1990, Secretary General Mikhail Gorbachev won the Nobel Peace Prize while
President Reagan, largely credited with ending the Cold War and bringing nuclear
stability to the world and back from a nuclear confrontation, was not nominated.
As the current US President and Nobel Peace Prize winner prepares to leave
office with a record of a Tuesday morning kill list, unconscionable drone attacks
on civilians, initiating bombing campaigns where there were none prior to his
election and, of course, taunting Russian President Vladimir Putin with unsubstantiated
allegations, the US-backed NATO has scheduled
AEGIS
anti ballistic missile shields to be constructed in Romania and Poland, challenging
the integrity of
INF Treaty for the first time in almost thirty years.
In what may shed new light on NATO/US build-up in eastern Europe, Russian
Foreign Secretary Sergei Lavrov
denied US charges in June, 2015 that Russia had violated the Treaty and
that the US had "failed to provide evidence of Russian breaches." Commenting
on US plans to deploy land-based missiles in Europe as a possible response to
the alleged "Russian aggression" in the Ukraine, Lavrov warned that ''building
up militarist rhetoric is absolutely counterproductive and harmful.' Russian
Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov suggested the United States was leveling
accusations against Russia in order to justify its own military plans.
In early August, the US Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security
Administration authorized the final development phase (prior to actual production
in 2020) of the
B61-21 nuclear bomb at a cost of $350 – $450 billion. A
thermonuclear weapon with the capability of reaching Europe and Moscow,
the B61-21 is part of President Obama's
$1 trillion request for modernizing the US aging and outdated nuclear weapon
arsenal.
Renee Parsons has been a
member of the ACLU's Florida State Board of Directors and president of the ACLU
Treasure Coast Chapter. She has been an elected public official in Colorado,
an environmental lobbyist and staff member of the US House of Representatives
in Washington DC.
"... It is providing a steady stream of military-age Sunni males to sow ever more creative chaos (terrorism, crime and other forms of "cultural enrichment") in the European and American homelands. Obama and Hillary have been faithful servants of this policy. The architects of this policy will not allow it to be derailed by some big-mouth real-estate developer. ..."
"... Defense Intelligence Agency document declassified last year shows that the Obama administration was warned in August of 2012 that if it continued it's policies, a radical Islamic regime could form in eastern Syria. Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State at this time. ..."
"... So in my humble opinion, not only are Obama and Clinton the founders of ISIS, they are the parents that gave birth to his freak of nature known as ISIL/ISIS. ..."
"... Bush had to invade...of all countries....Iraq....while the perpetrators of 911 were in Afghanistan, and in the Saudi Royal family which bankrolled the 911 operation. The invasion and destruction of Iraq, the phony elections of leaders who walked away with pallets of US dollars, only handed Iraq to Iran through the Shii'ia imams ..."
"... Bush started a war in the wrong country, this makes him one of the worst presidents in History... ..."
The US/European/Saudi/Israeli policy in the ME and Central Asia can be summed up by one word:
Destabilization. Or what the neocon globalists call "creative chaos". What did it create? Artificially
high oil prices to line the pockets of the House of Saud and the House of Bush. It created the conditions
for ramping up heroin production from Afghanistan, pipelined through the DIA/CIA with military assets.
(The US government is the largest drug cartel ever). It is providing a steady stream of military-age
Sunni males to sow ever more creative chaos (terrorism, crime and other forms of "cultural enrichment")
in the European and American homelands. Obama and Hillary have been faithful servants of this policy.
The architects of this policy will not allow it to be derailed by some big-mouth real-estate developer.
Bill, 7 hours ago
Defense Intelligence Agency document declassified last year shows that the Obama administration
was warned in August of 2012 that if it continued it's policies, a radical Islamic regime could form
in eastern Syria. Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State at this time.
The report said "There is
the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria,
and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition wants, in order to isolate the Syrian
regime". Lt. General Michael Flynn said; "it was a willful decision to do what they're doing. Supporting
Salafist's, Al Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood". So in my humble opinion, not only are Obama
and Clinton the founders of ISIS, they are the parents that gave birth to his freak of nature known
as ISIL/ISIS.
Al, 14 hours ago
When America was attacked on 911, the world inhaled waiting for our response. It could have been
anything from a nuke on Afghanistan's mountains where the Taliban and Al Qaeda came together with
Osama, or an invasion of Afghanistan and the rounding up of all these thugs for hangings.
The world
would never have said even a word, including Russia. But, no Bush had to invade...of all countries....Iraq....while
the perpetrators of 911 were in Afghanistan, and in the Saudi Royal family which bankrolled the 911
operation. The invasion and destruction of Iraq, the phony elections of leaders who walked away with
pallets of US dollars, only handed Iraq to Iran through the Shii'ia imams.
Bush started a war in the wrong country, this makes him one of the worst presidents in History...
"... What struck me in the article was a conflict between attributing the DNC hack and a possible Clinton hack that the authors didn't even attempt to address. They claim analysts are very confident that Russian hackers, working for the government, hacked the DNC. But as to the possibility that anyone hacked Clinton's private server; well, if they did, they would have been way to savvy to leave any traces that they'd done so. A DNC hack; those sloppy Russian government hackers did it. A personal server; a real pro job. ..."
What struck me in the article was a conflict between attributing the DNC hack and a possible
Clinton hack that the authors didn't even attempt to address. They claim analysts are very confident
that Russian hackers, working for the government, hacked the DNC. But as to the possibility that
anyone hacked Clinton's private server; well, if they did, they would have been way to savvy to
leave any traces that they'd done so. A DNC hack; those sloppy Russian government hackers did
it. A personal server; a real pro job.
IhaveLittleToAdd | Aug 11, 2016 12:00:03 PM | 2
I actually find it possible, namely that the firewall in DNC was sloppy, and paranoid Hillary
had best computer security consultants she could find. Moreover, hers was a small operation and
easier to keep secure, unlike DNC with many employees and many interactive activities. I speculate
here, but this is plausible.
========
More importantly, was there a public opprobrium, "How did they dare!" about the putative Russian
hack? This is actually an interesting angle. Sometimes public suspects that the government is
doing illegal stuff in other countries, it is thinly denied (or "our policy is no to comment"),
and most of the citizens are glad that our leaders are so resourceful. But the side effect is
that this type of activity becomes "normal", and detecting or convincingly suspecting it exits
yawning response.
For example, there were two assassination or "near assassination" attempts on Israeli diplomatic
personal and Iran was suspected. "Sure, didn't they have a string of assassination of nuclear
assassinations in Tehran? By the way, what is the weather this weekend?" If I recall, Tehran assassinations
stopped.
Similarly, after American cyber-successes, cyber attacks became a new normal.
"... WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Tuesday floated a theory that the Democratic National Committee staffer who was shot dead in the streets of Washington last month had been targeted because the operative was an informant. ..."
"... In an interview on Dutch television, the Australian cyberactivist invoked the unsolved killing of Seth Rich, 27, earlier this summer to illustrate the risks of being a source for his organization. Citing WikiLeaks protocol, Assange refused to confirm whether or not Rich was in fact a source for WikiLeaks, which has released thousands of internal DNC emails, some of them politically embarrassing. Experts and U.S. government officials reportedly believe that hackers linked to the Russian government infiltrated the DNC and gave the email trove to WikiLeaks. ..."
"... The Metropolitan Police Department in Washington has not established a motive for the killing but reportedly told the young man's family that he likely died during a robbery attempt turned tragic. His father, however, told Omaha CBS-affiliate KMTV he did not think it was a robbery because nothing was stolen: his watch, money, credit cards and phone were still with him. ..."
"... The WikiLeaks founder said that others have suggested that Rich was killed for political reasons and that his organization is investigating the incident. ..."
"... "I think it is a concerning situation. There isn't a conclusion yet. We wouldn't be able to state a conclusion, but we are concerned about it," he continued. "More importantly, a variety of WikiLeaks sources are concerned when that kind of thing happens." ..."
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Tuesday floated a theory that the
Democratic National Committee staffer who was shot dead in the streets of Washington
last month had been targeted because the operative was an informant.
In an interview on Dutch television, the Australian cyberactivist invoked
the unsolved killing of Seth Rich, 27, earlier this summer to illustrate the
risks of being a source for his organization.
Citing WikiLeaks protocol, Assange refused to confirm whether or not Rich
was in fact a source for WikiLeaks, which has released thousands of internal
DNC emails, some of them politically embarrassing. Experts and U.S. government
officials reportedly believe that hackers linked to the Russian government infiltrated
the DNC and gave the email trove to WikiLeaks.
But Assange was apparently interested in hinting about an even darker theory.
"Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material, and often very
significant risks. There's a 27-year-old, works for the DNC, who was shot in
the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking
down the street in Washington," Assange said on Nieuwsuur. BuzzFeed drew more
attention to the interview in the U.S.
Somewhat startled, news anchor Eelco Bosch van Rosenthal said, "That was
just a robbery, I believe - wasn't it?"
"No, there's no finding," Assange responded. "I'm suggesting that our sources
take risks, and they become concerned to see things occurring like that."
"Why make the suggestion about a young guy being shot in the streets of Washington?"
van Rosenthal asked.
"Because we have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States,"
Assange said, "and that our sources face serious risks. That's why they come
to us, so we can protect their anonymity."
The Metropolitan Police Department in Washington has not established a motive
for the killing but reportedly told the young man's family that he likely died
during a robbery attempt turned tragic. His father, however, told Omaha CBS-affiliate
KMTV he did not think it was a robbery because nothing was stolen: his watch,
money, credit cards and phone were still with him.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Tuesday floated a theory that the Democratic
National Committee staffer who was shot dead in the streets of Washington last
month had been targeted because the operative was an informant.
In an interview on Dutch television, the Australian cyberactivist invoked
the unsolved killing of Seth Rich, 27, earlier this summer to illustrate the
risks of being a source for his organization.
Citing WikiLeaks protocol, Assange refused to confirm whether or not Rich
was in fact a source for WikiLeaks, which has released thousands of internal
DNC emails, some of them politically embarrassing. Experts and U.S. government
officials reportedly believe that hackers linked to the Russian government infiltrated
the DNC and gave the email trove to WikiLeaks.
But Assange was apparently interested in hinting about an even darker theory.
"Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material, and often very
significant risks. There's a 27-year-old, works for the DNC, who was shot in
the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking
down the street in Washington," Assange said on Nieuwsuur. BuzzFeed drew more
attention to the interview in the U.S.
Somewhat startled, news anchor Eelco Bosch van Rosenthal said, "That was
just a robbery, I believe - wasn't it?"
"No, there's no finding," Assange responded. "I'm suggesting that our sources
take risks, and they become concerned to see things occurring like that."
"Why make the suggestion about a young guy being shot in the streets of Washington?"
van Rosenthal asked.
"Because we have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States,"
Assange said, "and that our sources face serious risks. That's why they come
to us, so we can protect their anonymity."
The Metropolitan Police Department in Washington has not established
a motive for the killing but reportedly told the young man's family that he
likely died during a robbery attempt turned tragic. His father, however, told
Omaha CBS-affiliate KMTV he did not think it was a robbery because nothing was
stolen: his watch, money, credit cards and phone were still with him.
The WikiLeaks founder said that others have suggested that Rich was killed
for political reasons and that his organization is investigating the incident.
"I think it is a concerning situation. There isn't a conclusion yet.
We wouldn't be able to state a conclusion, but we are concerned about it," he
continued. "More importantly, a variety of WikiLeaks sources are concerned when
that kind of thing happens."
WikiLeaks further fanned the flames of conspiracy by offering a $20,000 reward
for anyone with information leading to the conviction of the person responsible
for killing Rich.
This week we also published
a terrific
piece
by John LaForge, which demolishes once and for one of America's most cherished lies: that
the US simply
had
to drop two nuclear bombs on Japanese cities to end the war and save hundreds
of thousands of US and Japanese lies. Even Curtis "Mad Bomber" LeMay knew this was bullshit. So did
Ike, who sent word to Truman that he thought the plan was insane. You can see why the myth took root.
What nation that sees itself a force of goodness and virtue and humanity could live with itself after
incinerating two cities and unleashing nuclear terror upon the world?
Alastair Crooke, a former British diplomat and founder of the
Conflicts Forum, discusses how Washington's foreign
policy hawks are trying to
stall an
Obama-Putin agreement on Syria until Hillary Clinton is (presumably) elected so the new Cold
War with Russia can proceed unabated.
It has been said that you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all
of the people some of the time. Apparently, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders
wishes to fool all of the people, at least those who were once his loyal
devotees, all of the time. This writer received an enthusiastic email from some
organization talking about the next steps in Mr. Sanders 'revolution', and
requesting that this writer hold a house party to watch a speech to be given by
the senator, as part of the initiation of a new organization called 'Our
Revolution'.
Well, there is certainly something revolting about all this, but
it has nothing to do with a social change.
Mr. Sanders, that avowed socialist with a long and undistinguished career in
what passes in the U.S. for public service (well-paid 'service', that is), lost
all credibility with any but his most blindly loyal followers when, after
months of railing against everything that Hillary Clinton stands for, even to
the point of calling her unfit to be president, he put on a happy face and gave
her a glowing endorsement at the Democratic Convention. Does this sound to the
reader like a man of integrity? Does endorsing Miss Wall Street 2016 have that
ring of revolutionary fervor? Does such glowing support of the Princess of
Israel sound like part of revolutionary change
Methinks not. No, his support for Mrs. Clinton, and his forthcoming address
about 'Our Revolution', seem to be the work of a career politician who wants to
bask in whatever remains of the adulation of his naive and enthusiastic
youthful followers, while at the same time enjoying all the perquisites of 'the
good old boys' club'. The only thing he sacrifices along the way (in addition,
of course, to self-respect, but who in elected office has that anyway?), is
credibility. Oh, and integrity. And honesty. Well, maybe he does make many
sacrifices to enjoy both the prestige of change agent and maintainer of the
status quo. But really, does anyone do it better than he?
It seems like I've known Nicholas
Schou forever, though we just pressed flesh for the first time last year in the LBC. His ground-breaking
reporting on the Contra-Cocaine network in southern California was crucial source material for a
book that Cockburn and I wrote called Whiteout. Nick's own book on Gary Webb is excellent and it
was turned into a fine movie,
Kill the Messenger. Now Nick has published a new book, Spooked,
a terrific and timely history of how the CIA manipulates the media and Hollywood (both useful idiots
of the Agency). And, speaking of the devil, here Nick is telling us all about it in the latest installment
of CounterPunch
Radio with the indefatigable Eric Draitser.
"... It is providing a steady stream of military-age Sunni males to sow ever more creative chaos (terrorism, crime and other forms of "cultural enrichment") in the European and American homelands. Obama and Hillary have been faithful servants of this policy. The architects of this policy will not allow it to be derailed by some big-mouth real-estate developer. ..."
"... Defense Intelligence Agency document declassified last year shows that the Obama administration was warned in August of 2012 that if it continued it's policies, a radical Islamic regime could form in eastern Syria. Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State at this time. ..."
"... So in my humble opinion, not only are Obama and Clinton the founders of ISIS, they are the parents that gave birth to his freak of nature known as ISIL/ISIS. ..."
"... Bush had to invade...of all countries....Iraq....while the perpetrators of 911 were in Afghanistan, and in the Saudi Royal family which bankrolled the 911 operation. The invasion and destruction of Iraq, the phony elections of leaders who walked away with pallets of US dollars, only handed Iraq to Iran through the Shii'ia imams ..."
"... Bush started a war in the wrong country, this makes him one of the worst presidents in History... ..."
The US/European/Saudi/Israeli policy in the ME and Central Asia can be summed up by one word:
Destabilization. Or what the neocon globalists call "creative chaos". What did it create? Artificially
high oil prices to line the pockets of the House of Saud and the House of Bush. It created the conditions
for ramping up heroin production from Afghanistan, pipelined through the DIA/CIA with military assets.
(The US government is the largest drug cartel ever). It is providing a steady stream of military-age
Sunni males to sow ever more creative chaos (terrorism, crime and other forms of "cultural enrichment")
in the European and American homelands. Obama and Hillary have been faithful servants of this policy.
The architects of this policy will not allow it to be derailed by some big-mouth real-estate developer.
Bill, 7 hours ago
Defense Intelligence Agency document declassified last year shows that the Obama administration
was warned in August of 2012 that if it continued it's policies, a radical Islamic regime could form
in eastern Syria. Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State at this time.
The report said "There is
the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria,
and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition wants, in order to isolate the Syrian
regime". Lt. General Michael Flynn said; "it was a willful decision to do what they're doing. Supporting
Salafist's, Al Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood". So in my humble opinion, not only are Obama
and Clinton the founders of ISIS, they are the parents that gave birth to his freak of nature known
as ISIL/ISIS.
Al, 14 hours ago
When America was attacked on 911, the world inhaled waiting for our response. It could have been
anything from a nuke on Afghanistan's mountains where the Taliban and Al Qaeda came together with
Osama, or an invasion of Afghanistan and the rounding up of all these thugs for hangings.
The world
would never have said even a word, including Russia. But, no Bush had to invade...of all countries....Iraq....while
the perpetrators of 911 were in Afghanistan, and in the Saudi Royal family which bankrolled the 911
operation. The invasion and destruction of Iraq, the phony elections of leaders who walked away with
pallets of US dollars, only handed Iraq to Iran through the Shii'ia imams.
Bush started a war in the wrong country, this makes him one of the worst presidents in History...
"... These are strong words and accusations, not against the athletes, but against the Russian government. It seems the Russian Paralympic athletes are being collectively punished as a means to punish the Russian government. ..."
"... Another fact is that this problem exists in many if not all countries, especially since professional athletics is big business. WADA data shows that many countries have significant numbers of doping violations. ..."
"... In contrast with the accusations, the scientific data prepared by WADA indicates that Russian athletes have a fairly low incidence of positive drug tests in international certified laboratories. The biggest question is whether the Russian government has been "sponsoring" or somehow supervising prohibited doping. This has been repeated many times and is now widely assumed to be true. ..."
"... But the evidence is far from compelling. The accusations are based primarily on the testimony of three people: the main culprit and mastermind Grigory Rodchenkov who was extorting athletes and "whistle-blowers" Vitaliy and Yuliya Stepanov. The Stepanovs were the star witnesses in the "60 Minutes" feature on this topic. ..."
"... The "60 Minutes" story also failed to include the important fact that Vitaliy was directly involved in his wife's doping. ..."
"... Vitaliy even helps his wife with doping, procures the drugs, leads a kind of double life. ..."
"... If the IPC final number is accurate, it means the committee confirmed 11 Paralympic athletes who tested positive between 2012 and 2015 but had their positive tests "disappeared" to allow these athletes to compete. If that's true, these athletes should be suspended or banned. Instead of doing that, the IPC banned the entire 267-member Russian Paralympic team. ..."
"... The McLaren Report looks like a rush to judgment. The report was launched after the sensational New York Times story based on Grigory Rodchenkov and the "60 Minutes" segment based on the Stepanovs. Before he was half way done his investigation, Richard McLaren was advising the IAAF to ban the entire Russian team. ..."
The West's anti-Russian bias is so strong that normal standards of fairness are cast aside whenever
a propaganda edge can be gained, a factor swirling around the treatment of Russian athletes at the
Rio Olympics, Rick Sterling says.
There is an ugly anti-Russian mood in various Rio Olympic venues. When the Russian swimmers entered
the pool for the 4×100-meter Freestyle team event, they were loudly booed. When the Russian team
barely lost third place, the announcer happily announced that Russian had been "kept off the medal
stand".
Last Sunday, it was announced that the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) had decided to
ban the entire Russian team from the upcoming Paralympics to be held in Rio in September. Next day,
The
Associated Press story opened as follows: "After escaping a blanket ban from the Olympics,
Russia was kicked out of the upcoming Paralympics on Sunday as the ultimate punishment for the state
running a doping operation that polluted sports by prioritizing 'medals over morals.'"
IPC President Sir Phillip Craven issued a
statement full of accusations and moral outrage. He said, "In my view, the McLaren Report
marked one of the darkest days in the history of all sport." However, the McLaren Report is deeply
biased. Here are some of the problems with the report:
–It relied primarily on the testimony of one person, the former Director of Moscow Laboratory
Grigory Rodchenkov, who was implicated in extorting Russian athletes for money and was the chief
culprit with strong interest in casting blame somewhere else.
–It accused Russian authorities without considering their defense and contrary information.
–It excluded a written submission and documents provided by a Russian authority.
–It failed to identify individual athletes who benefited but instead cast suspicion on the entire
team.
–It ignored the statistical data compiled by WADA which show Russian violations to be NOT exceptional.
–It did not provide the source for quantitative measurements.
–It claimed to have evidence but failed to reveal it.
A detailed critique of the McLaren Report can be found at
Sports Integrity Initiative,
Consortiumnews, Counterpunch,
Dissident Voice, True Publica, Global Research, Telesur, and other sites.
Collective Punishment
The IPC explanation of why they banned the entire Paralympic team boils down to the accusation
that "the State-sponsored doping programme that exists within Russian sport regrettably
extends to Russian Para sport as well. The facts really do hurt; they are an unprecedented attack
on every clean athlete who competes in sport. The anti-doping system in Russia is broken, corrupted
and entirely compromised.
"The doping culture that is polluting Russian sport stems from the Russian government and has
now been uncovered in not one, but two independent reports commissioned by the World Anti-Doping
Agency. I believe the Russian government has catastrophically failed its Para athletes. Their medals
over morals mentality disgusts me. The complete corruption of the anti-doping system is contrary
to the rules and strikes at the very heart of the spirit of Paralympic sport."
These are strong words and accusations, not against the athletes, but against the Russian government.
It seems the Russian Paralympic athletes are being collectively punished as a means to punish the
Russian government.
But what are the facts? First, it's true some Russian athletes have used prohibited steroids or
other performance enhancing drugs (PEDs). The documentaries by
Hajo Seppelt expose examples of Russian athletes admitting to taking PEDs, a banned coach clandestinely continuing
to coach, and another banned coach dealing in prohibited drugs.
Another fact is that this problem exists in many if not all countries, especially since professional
athletics is big business.
WADA data shows that many countries have significant numbers of doping violations.
It is claimed that doping by elite athletes is pervasive in Russia but is this true? To answer
that accurately would require an objective examination, not a sensation seeking media report. In
the current controversy the accusations and assumptions rely substantially on individual anecdotes
and testimony which has been publicized through media reports (ARD documentaries, "60 Minutes" report
and New York Times stories) with very little scrutiny.
In contrast with the accusations, the scientific
data prepared by WADA indicates that Russian athletes have a fairly low incidence of positive
drug tests in international certified laboratories. The biggest question is whether the Russian government
has been "sponsoring" or somehow supervising prohibited doping. This has been repeated many times
and is now widely assumed to be true.
But the evidence is far from compelling. The accusations are based primarily on the testimony
of three people: the main culprit and mastermind Grigory Rodchenkov who was extorting athletes and
"whistle-blowers" Vitaliy and Yuliya Stepanov. The Stepanovs were the star witnesses in the "60 Minutes"
feature on this topic.
The report was factually flawed: it mistakenly reports that Vitaliy had a "low level job at the
Russian Anti Doping Agency RUSADA." Actually he was adviser to the Director General, close to the
Minister of Sports and a trainer of doping control officers.
The "60 Minutes" story also failed to include the important fact that Vitaliy was directly involved
in his wife's doping. According to Seppelt's documentary
"The Secrets of Doping,"
"First, Vitaliy even helps his wife with doping, procures the drugs, leads a kind of double life."(5:45)
Adding to the argument there may be a political bias in these accusations, all three witnesses (Rodchenkov
and the Stepanovs) are now living in the United States.
The "proof" of Russian state-sponsored doping rests on remarkably little solid evidence. The principal
assertion is that the Deputy Minister of Sports issued email directives to eliminate positive tests
of "protected" athletes. McLaren claims to have "electronic data" and emails proving this. But he
has not revealed the emails.
If the emails are authentic, that would be damning. How would the Ministry of Sports officials
explain it? Do they have any alternative explanation of the curious directives to "Quarantine" or
"Save" doping test samples? Astoundingly, McLaren decided not to ask them and he still has not shown
the evidence he says that he has.
Tampering with Bottles?
Another controversial issue is regarding the opening and replacement of "tamper proof" bottles.
The Rodchenkov account is that in the middle of the night, in cahoots with FSB (successor to KGB),
they would replace "dirty" urine with "clean" urine. Rodchenkov says they found a way to open the
tamper-proof urine sample bottles. But the
Swiss manufacturer Berlinger continues to stand by its product and has effectively challenged
the veracity of the Rodchenkov/McLaren story.
Since the release of the McLaren Report, Berlinger has issued a
statement saying:
–To the statement in the McLaren investigation report that some such bottles proved possible to
open Berlinger Special AG cannot offer any authoritative response at the present time.
–Berlinger Special AG has no knowledge at present of the specifications, the methods or the procedures
involved in the tests and experiments conducted by the McLaren Commission.
–Berlinger Special AG conducts its own regular reappraisals of its doping kits, and also has its
products tested and verified by an independent institute that has been duly certificated by the Swiss
authorities.
–In neither its own tests nor any tests conducted by the independent institute in Switzerland
has any sealed Berlinger Special AG urine sample bottle proved possible to open.
–This also applies to the "Sochi 2014" sample bottle model.
–The specialists at Berlinger Special AG are able at any time to determine whether one of the
company's sample bottles has been tampered with or unlawfully replicated.
McLaren says he does not know how the Russians were opening the bottles but he knows it can be
done because someone demonstrated it to him personally. In contrast with McLaren's assertions, Berlinger
states unequivocally: "In neither its own tests nor any tests conducted by the independent institute
in Switzerland has any sealed Berlinger Special AG urine sample bottle proved possible to open. This
also applies to the 'Sochi 2014' sample bottle model."
If McLaren's claims are true, why has he not discussed this with the manufacturer? If McLaren's
claims are true, isn't it of the highest importance to identify the weakness in the system so that
doping test samples cannot be swapped?
McLaren further claims to be able to forensically determine when a "tamper proof" bottle has been
opened by the "marks and scratches" on the inside of the bottle caps. His report does not include
photos to show what these "marks and scratches" look like, nor does it consider the possibility of
a mark or scratch resulting from some other event such as different force being applied, cross-threading
or backing off on the cap.
In this area also, McLaren has apparently not had his findings confirmed by the Swiss manufacturer
despite the fact that the company states: "The specialists at Berlinger Special AG are able at any
time to determine whether one of the company's sample bottles has been tampered with or unlawfully
replicated."
If the findings of McLaren's "marks and scratches expert" are accurate, why did they not get confirmation
from the specialists at Berlinger? Perhaps it is because Berlinger disputes McLaren's claims and
says "Our kits are secure."
The IPC decision substantially rests on the fact-challenged McLaren report. The IPC statement
falsely claims that the McLaren bottle top "scratches and marks" expert has "corroborated the claim
that the State directed scheme involved Russian Paralympic athletes."
Rush to Judgment
The IPC report includes data that purports to show widespread doping manipulation in Russia, saying:
"Professor McLaren provided the names of the athletes associated with the 35 samples and whether
the sample had been marked QUARANTINE or SAVE." These 35 samples are presumably the same Paralympic
35 which are identified on page 41 of the McLaren Report as being "Disappearing Positive Test Results
by Sport Russian Athletes."
There is no source for this data but supposedly it covers testing between 2012 and 2015. McLaren
provided another 10 samples thus making 45 samples relating to 44 athletes.
It is then explained that 17 of these samples are actually not from IPC administered sport. So
the actual number is 27 athletes (44-minus-17) implicated. However, in another inconsistency, the
IPC statement says not all these samples were marked "SAVE" by Moscow Laboratory. That was only done
for "at least" 11 of the samples and athletes.
If the IPC final number is accurate, it means the committee confirmed 11 Paralympic athletes who
tested positive between 2012 and 2015 but had their positive tests "disappeared" to allow these athletes
to compete. If that's true, these athletes should be suspended or banned. Instead of doing that,
the IPC banned the entire 267-member Russian Paralympic team.
The McLaren Report looks like a rush to judgment. The report was launched after the sensational
New York Times story based on Grigory Rodchenkov and the "60 Minutes" segment based on the Stepanovs.
Before he was half way done his investigation, Richard McLaren was advising the IAAF to ban the entire
Russian team.
The McLaren Report, with all its flaws and shortcomings, was published just a few weeks ago on
July 16. Then, on Aug. 7, the IPC issued its decision to ban the Russian Paralympic Team from the
September Rio Paralympics.
The IPC statement claims that the committee "provided sufficient time to allow the Russian Paralympic
Committee to present their case to the IPC" before they finalized the decision. While the Russian
Paralympic Committee appeared before the IPC, it's doubtful they had sufficient time to argue their
case or even to know the details of the accusations.
In summary, the accusation of Russian "state sponsored doping" by McLaren and Craven is based
on little solid evidence. Despite this, the accusations have resulted in the banning of many hundreds
of clean athletes from the Olympics and Paralympics and are contributing to the ugly "ant-Russian"
prejudice and discrimination happening at the Olympics right now.
This seems to violate the purpose of the
Olympics movement which is to promote international peace, not conflict and discrimination.
Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist. He can be contacted at [email protected]
Doping scandal is a larger problem the Russian athletes, who is this case are simply scapegoats.
It is an international problem of huge proportions, which essentially is a cancer of professional
sport in general, not only Olympics in particular.
Throughout the Soviet period, disabled people were largely banished. In Russian cities, even now,
you see the elderly amputees being wheeled to a begging pitch on a trolley
Mary Dejevsky
To my mind, such a blanket ban is an outrage. It is not just illogical, but unjust and
grievously short-sighted.
I personally considered even the partial IOC ban on Russia as too harsh on the grounds that
a higher standard of proof was effectively set for Russians compared with their non-Russian peers.
But the treatment of Russia's Paralympians takes the pillorying of Russian sport to a whole new
level
The team as a whole is being made to answer for the sins of the Russian state – or, to
be more accurate, its still largely Soviet-era sports establishment .
####
OK, how long do you guys think it will be before we hear that "Mary Djevsky has left the Independent
by mutual agreement with the paper"? She's a bit all over the place herself, but in general I
like reading her pieces despite the casual generalizations she makes.
"... "From Claudia Kash: I know why Seth Rich had to die. There were 2 sets of polling places this primary season -- one set for most of the voters, who went on state websites to find their polling locations -- a second set for Hillary Clinton supporters who looked on Hillary Clinton's website to find their polling location. The Secretary of State for each state had one set of locations on >the record; the other set of locations, the ones listed on Hillary's website, were not on the state record. I know this because I looked on her website to find where a friend should vote -- then double-checked the state >website, which showed a different address. I thought there must be a mistake -- I kept checking, right up to election day. ..."
"... But until they killed Seth Rich, I couldn't figure out why there would be two different polling places. This is how I think the scam worked: While most voters look up their location on their state website, voters who were signed up as Hillary Clinton supporters would be directed to her site to find their polling place. It was set up the same as any other DNC polling place -- with DNC volunteers, regular voting machines, etc. -- and a duplicate voter roster, the same as the roster at the other polling place. Voters would be checked off on the roster, same as at the other polling place... and after the polls closed, the DNC supervisor would pick up the roster and the ballots. ..."
"... Seems a straight Machiavellian operation. Murder the young insider, Seth Rich, that leaked the emails to Assange's Wikileaks and then blame it on an enemy that none can fact check on. DNC= Deep National Control ..."
The media reporting on keeps making the statement from the police 'that nothing was missing from his body or belongings'. The
guy was walking around at 4 AM, and apparently no one but his killers actually saw him. So, I guess he couldn't be carrying anything
outside of his pockets? In has hands?
"From Claudia Kash: I know why Seth Rich had to die. There were 2 sets of polling places this primary season -- one set
for most of the voters, who went on state websites to find their polling locations -- a second set for Hillary Clinton supporters
who looked on Hillary Clinton's website to find their polling location. The Secretary of State for each state had one set of locations
on >the record; the other set of locations, the ones listed on Hillary's website, were not on the state record. I know this because
I looked on her website to find where a friend should vote -- then double-checked the state >website, which showed a different
address. I thought there must be a mistake -- I kept checking, right up to election day.
But until they killed Seth Rich, I couldn't figure out why there would be two different polling places. This is how I think
the scam worked: While most voters look up their location on their state website, voters who were signed up as Hillary Clinton
supporters would be directed to her site to find their polling place. It was set up the same as any other DNC polling place --
with DNC volunteers, regular voting machines, etc. -- and a duplicate voter roster, the same as the roster at the other polling
place. Voters would be checked off on the roster, same as at the other polling place... and after the polls closed, the DNC supervisor
would pick up the roster and the ballots.
The supervisor would then pick up the roster at the legitimate polling place and the ballots there. He(or she) >would
then replace a number of Bernie Sanders ballots with an equal number of the ballots from the Hillary >Clinton voting location.
Then the duplicate roster from the HRC would be shredded and thrown away, along >with all the Bernie Sanders ballots that had
been replaced. That way the number of people who voted (on the >remaining roster) still matches the number of ballots. This is
why so many states reported a "lower than expected voter turnout".
Seth Rich, who was responsible for the app that helped voters find their polling places, did not realize that there were two
sets of polling places until he himself went to vote. He lived in Washington DC, which voted at the end of the primary season,
a week after Clinton had already been declared the winner. I believe he discovered it then, and had started asking questions about
why the polling places on Hillary's website didn't match the ones on the DC website.
But even if he didn't say a word to anybody, it would have been dangerous to let him live. He would have >figured it out sooner
or later -- and he would have reported it when he did."
Seems a straight Machiavellian operation. Murder the young insider, Seth Rich, that leaked the emails to Assange's Wikileaks
and then blame it on an enemy that none can fact check on. DNC= Deep National Control.
It wasn't yesterday but it was determined to be suicide by train...because a brilliant attorney
could not think of any easier way to commit suicide than throw himself in front of a moving train.
I can forsee a number of FBI agents also being hit by trains in the near future."
If they've had the proper training they won't be standing near the track or watching the train
as it approaches. If they've had the proper training, the person who tries to push them will go
under the train.
Martial arts, firearms, pursuit and evasive driving, general situational awareness - all part
of FBI training. Not as easy as bumping a lawyer or journalist.
I've never understood people who stand toes to the line when a train enters the station. You
know it's going to stop, so what's the rush? Situational Awareness demands that you stand well
back from any potential danger, near an exit, facing the entrance, etc.
Police and military are well aware of these principles - even in defensive driving you have
the slogan "where is the present danger?" Walk facing oncoming traffic, step out and away from
dark doorways, back alleys, bridge pillars etc.
Take the stairs sometimes, take the elevator other times - drive to work one route, drive a
different route home - mix them up. Take a taxi, get out at a random location and take a bus the
rest of the way. Eat at different restaurants at different times. Do not establish a pattern.
At all times carry a firearm.
These principles should be part of basic lawyer training, especially when taking on dangerous
cases. Same goes for journalists. There are professional courses that deal with these subjects.
Take one.
Whatever your goals in life, you can't achieve them if you don't survive. Last night I passed
a fatal traffic accident where it was obvious the person turning left was killed by someone running
a red light. Don't move off on the green right away.... pause and look around. That person is
dead because he didn't follow that basic rule. So much for his life goals.
I'm preaching to the choir here, but maybe someone who doesn't know will read this and it will
help them survive. As the Donald said, it's all about winning and you can't win if you don't survive.
"... CBS can go shove itself in its own collective anus: http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/syria/120820162 Daesh retreats from Manbij with 2000 civilian hostages. Some humanitarians. ..."
"... Good catch. I hope Assad knows better than to give any legroom to these monkeys, because the SDF is just a rebranded Free Syrian Army. Most are not even Syrian, but Libyan and other mercenaries. Washington keeps changing their acronyms, but the aim remains unchanged – the overthrow and replacement of Assad. ..."
Watching CBS news as I write :
– Rebels rescuing women and children and taking to hospitals (looking staged for cameras)
– Air strikes destroy only remaining hospitals (videos showing piles of medical equipment which
did not appear to have been damaged by fire or blast)
– Syrian government would not respond to inquiries from CBS news about air strikes on hospitals
in Aleppo. The reporter inferred that since the government did not deny the air strikes, they
must be the perpetrators.
Amazing. Child beheaders are portrayed as rescuers of women and children and the forces trying
to defeat them are labeled as murderers.
Remarkable. But a time-tested technique frequently used in the past to portray Palestinian violence
against Israelis. And Hezbollah has been frequently accused as well of faking damage and deaths
in order to cultivate sympathy. I guess everybody does it. But it is in western interests to portray
'rebels', especially pet 'rebels' like the White Helmets, as closet humanitarians and the Syrian
government as the liver-eaters. I think a lot of observers just expect it now and automatically
discount about half of what is said.
Good catch. I hope Assad knows better than to give any legroom to these monkeys, because the
SDF is just a rebranded Free Syrian Army. Most are not even Syrian, but Libyan and other mercenaries.
Washington keeps changing their acronyms, but the aim remains unchanged – the overthrow and replacement
of Assad. After that, things will go one of two ways; Assad will be replaced by a compliant
western toady who will let Washington have a free hand to dabble, or he will be replaced by someone
ineffective who will lead the country to collapse, at which time the west will have to step in
to save it.
"... individuals' innate psychological predispositions to intolerance ("authoritarianism") interacting with changing conditions of societal threat. The threatening conditions, particularly resonant in the present political climate, that exacerbate authoritarian attitudes include, most critically, great dissension in public opinion and general loss of confidence in political leaders. Using purpose-built experimental manipulations, cross-national survey data and in-depth personal interviews with extreme authoritarians and libertarians, the book shows that this simple model provides the most complete account of political conflict across the ostensibly distinct domains of race and immigration, civil liberties, morality, crime and punishment, and of when and why those battles will be most heated. ..."
"... But the latent authoritarianism within them is triggered when they perceive a threat to the stable moral order. ..."
"... It's at this point in the talk when Haidt surely began to make his audience squirm. He says that in his work as an academic and social psychologist, he sees colleagues constantly demonizing and mocking conservatives. He warns them to knock it off. "We need political diversity," he says. And: "They are members of our community." ..."
"... The discourse and behavior of the Left, says Haidt, is alienating millions of ordinary people all over the West. It's not just America. We are sliding towards authoritarianism all over the West, and there's really only one way to stop it. ..."
"... we can reduce intolerance and defuse the conflict by focusing on sameness. We need unifying rituals, beliefs, institutions, and practices, he says, drawing on Stenner's research. The romance the Left has long had with multiculturalism and diversity (as the Left defines it) has to end, because it's helping tear us apart. ..."
"... If we don't have a feasible conservative party, we open the way for authoritarianism. ..."
"... I don't think the center can hold anymore. It's too late. The cultural left in this country is very authoritarian, at least as regards orthodox Christians and other social conservatives. On one of the Stenner slides, we see that she defines one characteristic of authoritarians as "punishing out groups." Conservative Christians are the big out group for the cultural left, and have been for a long time. ..."
"... The threat to the moral order is very real, and not really much of a threat anymore; it's a reality. ..."
"... Haidt says that the authoritarian impulse comes when people cease trusting in leaders. Yep, that's where a lot of us are, and not by choice. ..."
If you look back far enough in humankind's history, you will observe that you don't see civilizations
starting without their building temples first. Haidt, who is a secular liberal, is not making a theistic
point, not really. He's saying that the work of civilization can only be accomplished when a people
binds itself together around a shared sense of the sacred. It's what makes a people a people, and
a civilization a civilization. "It doesn't have to be a god," says Haidt. Anything that we hold
sacred, and hold it together, is enough.
The thing is, this force works like an electromagnetic
field: the more tightly it binds us, the more alien others appear to us, and the more we find it
impossible to empathize with them. This is what Haidt means by saying that morality binds and blinds.
Haidt quizzes the 700-800 people in the hall about their Hillary vs. Trump feelings. The group
- all psychologists, therapists, professors of psychology, and so forth - were overwhelmingly pro-Hillary
and anti-Trump. No surprise there. But then he tells them that if they believe that they could treat
without bias a patient who is an open Trump supporter, they're lying to themselves. In the America
of 2016, political bias is the most powerful bias of all - more polarizing by far than race, even.
Haidt turns to the work of social psychologist Karen Stenner, and her 2005 book
The Authoritarian Dynamic. The publisher describes the book like this (boldface emphases
mine):
What are the root causes of intolerance? This book addresses that question by developing a
universal theory of what determines intolerance of difference in general, which includes racism,
political intolerance, moral intolerance and punitiveness. It demonstrates that all these seemingly
disparate attitudes are principally caused by just two factors: individuals' innate psychological
predispositions to intolerance ("authoritarianism") interacting with changing conditions of societal
threat. The threatening conditions, particularly resonant in the present political climate,
that exacerbate authoritarian attitudes include, most critically, great dissension in
public opinion and general loss of confidence in political leaders. Using purpose-built
experimental manipulations, cross-national survey data and in-depth personal interviews with extreme
authoritarians and libertarians, the book shows that this simple model provides the most complete
account of political conflict across the ostensibly distinct domains of race and immigration,
civil liberties, morality, crime and punishment, and of when and why those battles will be most
heated.
Haidt says Stenner discerns three strands of contemporary political conservatism: 1) laissez-faire
libertarians (typically, business Republicans); 2) Burkeans (e.g., social conservatives who value
stability); and 3) authoritarians.
Haidt makes a point of saying that it's simply wrong to call Trump a fascist. He's too individualistic
for that. He's an authoritarian, but that is not a synonym for fascist, no matter how much the Left
wants to say it is.
According to Haidt's reading of Stenner, authoritarianism is not a stable personality trait. Most
people are not naturally authoritarian. But the latent authoritarianism within them is triggered
when they perceive a threat to the stable moral order.
It's at this point in the talk when Haidt surely began to make his audience squirm. He says that
in his work as an academic and social psychologist, he sees colleagues constantly demonizing and
mocking conservatives. He warns them to knock it off. "We need political diversity," he says. And:
"They are members of our community."
The discourse and behavior of the Left, says Haidt, is alienating millions of ordinary people
all over the West. It's not just America. We are sliding towards authoritarianism all over the West,
and there's really only one way to stop it.
At the 41:37 point in the talk, Haidt says that we can reduce intolerance and defuse the conflict
by focusing on sameness. We need unifying rituals, beliefs, institutions, and practices, he says,
drawing on Stenner's research. The romance the Left has long had with multiculturalism and diversity
(as the Left defines it) has to end, because it's helping tear us apart.
This fall, the Democrats are taking Stenner's advice brilliantly, says Haidt, referring to the
convention the Dems just put on, and Hillary's speech about how we're all better off standing together.
Haidt says this is actually good advice, period. "It's not just propaganda you wheel out at election
time," he says. If we don't have a feasible conservative party, we open the way for authoritarianism.
To end the talk, Haidt focuses on what his own very tribe - psychologists and academics - can
do to make things better. They can start by being aware of their own extreme bias. "We lean very
far left," he says, then shows a graph tracking how far from the center the academy has become over
the past 20 years.
Haidt says we don't need "equality" - that is, an equal number of conservatives and liberals in
the academy. We just need to have diversity enough for people to be challenged in their viewpoints,
so an academic community can flourish according to its nature. But this is not what we have. According
to the research Haidt presents, in 1996, liberals in the academy outnumbered conservatives 2:1. Today,
it's 5:1 - and the conservatives are concentrated in engineering and other technical fields. Says
Haidt: "In the core areas of the university - in the humanities and social sciences - it's 10 to
1 and 40 to 1."
The Right has left the university faculties, he said - and a lot of that is because they got tired
of the "hostile climate and discrimination"
"People who are not on the left … are often in the closet," says Haidt. "They can't speak up.
They can't criticize. They hear somebody say something, they believe it's false, but they can't speak
up and say why they believe it's false. And that is a breakdown in our science."
Until they repent (my word, not his), university professors will continue to be part of the problem,
not the solution, says Haidt. He ends by calling on his colleagues to "get our hearts in order."
To stop being moralistic hypocrites. To be humble. To be more forgiving, and more open to hearing
what their opponents have to say. Says Haidt, "If we want to change things, we need to do it more
from the perspective of love, not of hate."
I don't think the center can hold anymore. It's too late. The cultural left in this country is
very authoritarian, at least as regards orthodox Christians and other social conservatives.
On one of the Stenner slides, we see that she defines one characteristic of authoritarians as "punishing
out groups." Conservative Christians are the big out group for the cultural left, and have been for
a long time.
We are the people who defile what they consider most sacred: sexual liberty, including abortion
rights and gay rights. The liberals in control now (as distinct from all liberals, let me be clear)
have made it clear that they will not compromise with what they consider to be evil. We are the Klan
to them. Error has no rights in this world they're building.
If you'll recall my blogging about Hillary Clinton's convention speech, I really liked it in theory
- the unity business. The thing is, I don't believe for one second that it is anything but election
propaganda. I don't believe that the Democratic Party today has any interest in making space for
us. I wish I did believe that. I don't see any evidence for it. They and their supporters will drive
us out of certain professions, and do whatever they can to rub our noses in the dirt.
I know liberal readers of this blog will say, "But we don't!" To which I say: you don't,
maybe, but you're not running the show, alas.
The threat to the moral order is very real, and not really much of a threat anymore; it's a reality.
As I've written in this space many times, this is not something that was done to us; all of
us, Republicans and Democrats, Christians and non-Christians, have done this to ourselves. At this
point, all I want for my tribe is to be left alone. But the crusading Left won't let that happen
anymore.
They don't even want the Mormons to be allowed to play football foe the Big 12, for heaven's
sake. This assault is relentless. Far too many complacent Christians believe it will never hurt them,
that it will never happen where they live. It can and it will.
There is no center anymore. Alasdair MacIntyre was right. I may not be able to vote in good conscience
for Trump (and I certainly will not vote for Hillary Clinton), but I know exactly why a number of
good people have convinced themselves that this is the right thing to do. Haidt says that the authoritarian
impulse comes when people cease trusting in leaders. Yep, that's where a lot of us are, and not by
choice.
This week, I've been interviewing people for the Work chapter of my Benedict Option book. In all
but one case, the interviewees - lawyers, law professors, a doctor, corporate types, academics -
would only share their opinion if I promised that I wouldn't use their name. They know what things
are like where they work. They know that this is going to spread. That fear, that remaining inside
the closet, tells you something about where you are. When professionals feel that to state their
opinion would be to put their careers at risk, we are not in normal times.
The center has not held. I certainly wish Jon Haidt well. He's a good man doing brave, important
work. And I hope he proves me wrong on this. I honestly do. Because if I'm right, there goes America.
On the other hand, reasoning that this must not be true therefore it is not true is a good
way to get run over.
"... These are strong words and accusations, not against the athletes, but against the Russian government. It seems the Russian Paralympic athletes are being collectively punished as a means to punish the Russian government. ..."
"... Another fact is that this problem exists in many if not all countries, especially since professional athletics is big business. WADA data shows that many countries have significant numbers of doping violations. ..."
"... In contrast with the accusations, the scientific data prepared by WADA indicates that Russian athletes have a fairly low incidence of positive drug tests in international certified laboratories. The biggest question is whether the Russian government has been "sponsoring" or somehow supervising prohibited doping. This has been repeated many times and is now widely assumed to be true. ..."
"... But the evidence is far from compelling. The accusations are based primarily on the testimony of three people: the main culprit and mastermind Grigory Rodchenkov who was extorting athletes and "whistle-blowers" Vitaliy and Yuliya Stepanov. The Stepanovs were the star witnesses in the "60 Minutes" feature on this topic. ..."
"... The "60 Minutes" story also failed to include the important fact that Vitaliy was directly involved in his wife's doping. ..."
"... Vitaliy even helps his wife with doping, procures the drugs, leads a kind of double life. ..."
"... If the IPC final number is accurate, it means the committee confirmed 11 Paralympic athletes who tested positive between 2012 and 2015 but had their positive tests "disappeared" to allow these athletes to compete. If that's true, these athletes should be suspended or banned. Instead of doing that, the IPC banned the entire 267-member Russian Paralympic team. ..."
"... The McLaren Report looks like a rush to judgment. The report was launched after the sensational New York Times story based on Grigory Rodchenkov and the "60 Minutes" segment based on the Stepanovs. Before he was half way done his investigation, Richard McLaren was advising the IAAF to ban the entire Russian team. ..."
The West's anti-Russian bias is so strong that normal standards of fairness are cast aside whenever
a propaganda edge can be gained, a factor swirling around the treatment of Russian athletes at the
Rio Olympics, Rick Sterling says.
There is an ugly anti-Russian mood in various Rio Olympic venues. When the Russian swimmers entered
the pool for the 4×100-meter Freestyle team event, they were loudly booed. When the Russian team
barely lost third place, the announcer happily announced that Russian had been "kept off the medal
stand".
Last Sunday, it was announced that the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) had decided to
ban the entire Russian team from the upcoming Paralympics to be held in Rio in September. Next day,
The
Associated Press story opened as follows: "After escaping a blanket ban from the Olympics,
Russia was kicked out of the upcoming Paralympics on Sunday as the ultimate punishment for the state
running a doping operation that polluted sports by prioritizing 'medals over morals.'"
IPC President Sir Phillip Craven issued a
statement full of accusations and moral outrage. He said, "In my view, the McLaren Report
marked one of the darkest days in the history of all sport." However, the McLaren Report is deeply
biased. Here are some of the problems with the report:
–It relied primarily on the testimony of one person, the former Director of Moscow Laboratory
Grigory Rodchenkov, who was implicated in extorting Russian athletes for money and was the chief
culprit with strong interest in casting blame somewhere else.
–It accused Russian authorities without considering their defense and contrary information.
–It excluded a written submission and documents provided by a Russian authority.
–It failed to identify individual athletes who benefited but instead cast suspicion on the entire
team.
–It ignored the statistical data compiled by WADA which show Russian violations to be NOT exceptional.
–It did not provide the source for quantitative measurements.
–It claimed to have evidence but failed to reveal it.
A detailed critique of the McLaren Report can be found at
Sports Integrity Initiative,
Consortiumnews, Counterpunch,
Dissident Voice, True Publica, Global Research, Telesur, and other sites.
Collective Punishment
The IPC explanation of why they banned the entire Paralympic team boils down to the accusation
that "the State-sponsored doping programme that exists within Russian sport regrettably
extends to Russian Para sport as well. The facts really do hurt; they are an unprecedented attack
on every clean athlete who competes in sport. The anti-doping system in Russia is broken, corrupted
and entirely compromised.
"The doping culture that is polluting Russian sport stems from the Russian government and has
now been uncovered in not one, but two independent reports commissioned by the World Anti-Doping
Agency. I believe the Russian government has catastrophically failed its Para athletes. Their medals
over morals mentality disgusts me. The complete corruption of the anti-doping system is contrary
to the rules and strikes at the very heart of the spirit of Paralympic sport."
These are strong words and accusations, not against the athletes, but against the Russian government.
It seems the Russian Paralympic athletes are being collectively punished as a means to punish the
Russian government.
But what are the facts? First, it's true some Russian athletes have used prohibited steroids or
other performance enhancing drugs (PEDs). The documentaries by
Hajo Seppelt expose examples of Russian athletes admitting to taking PEDs, a banned coach clandestinely continuing
to coach, and another banned coach dealing in prohibited drugs.
Another fact is that this problem exists in many if not all countries, especially since professional
athletics is big business.
WADA data shows that many countries have significant numbers of doping violations.
It is claimed that doping by elite athletes is pervasive in Russia but is this true? To answer
that accurately would require an objective examination, not a sensation seeking media report. In
the current controversy the accusations and assumptions rely substantially on individual anecdotes
and testimony which has been publicized through media reports (ARD documentaries, "60 Minutes" report
and New York Times stories) with very little scrutiny.
In contrast with the accusations, the scientific
data prepared by WADA indicates that Russian athletes have a fairly low incidence of positive
drug tests in international certified laboratories. The biggest question is whether the Russian government
has been "sponsoring" or somehow supervising prohibited doping. This has been repeated many times
and is now widely assumed to be true.
But the evidence is far from compelling. The accusations are based primarily on the testimony
of three people: the main culprit and mastermind Grigory Rodchenkov who was extorting athletes and
"whistle-blowers" Vitaliy and Yuliya Stepanov. The Stepanovs were the star witnesses in the "60 Minutes"
feature on this topic.
The report was factually flawed: it mistakenly reports that Vitaliy had a "low level job at the
Russian Anti Doping Agency RUSADA." Actually he was adviser to the Director General, close to the
Minister of Sports and a trainer of doping control officers.
The "60 Minutes" story also failed to include the important fact that Vitaliy was directly involved
in his wife's doping. According to Seppelt's documentary
"The Secrets of Doping,"
"First, Vitaliy even helps his wife with doping, procures the drugs, leads a kind of double life."(5:45)
Adding to the argument there may be a political bias in these accusations, all three witnesses (Rodchenkov
and the Stepanovs) are now living in the United States.
The "proof" of Russian state-sponsored doping rests on remarkably little solid evidence. The principal
assertion is that the Deputy Minister of Sports issued email directives to eliminate positive tests
of "protected" athletes. McLaren claims to have "electronic data" and emails proving this. But he
has not revealed the emails.
If the emails are authentic, that would be damning. How would the Ministry of Sports officials
explain it? Do they have any alternative explanation of the curious directives to "Quarantine" or
"Save" doping test samples? Astoundingly, McLaren decided not to ask them and he still has not shown
the evidence he says that he has.
Tampering with Bottles?
Another controversial issue is regarding the opening and replacement of "tamper proof" bottles.
The Rodchenkov account is that in the middle of the night, in cahoots with FSB (successor to KGB),
they would replace "dirty" urine with "clean" urine. Rodchenkov says they found a way to open the
tamper-proof urine sample bottles. But the
Swiss manufacturer Berlinger continues to stand by its product and has effectively challenged
the veracity of the Rodchenkov/McLaren story.
Since the release of the McLaren Report, Berlinger has issued a
statement saying:
–To the statement in the McLaren investigation report that some such bottles proved possible to
open Berlinger Special AG cannot offer any authoritative response at the present time.
–Berlinger Special AG has no knowledge at present of the specifications, the methods or the procedures
involved in the tests and experiments conducted by the McLaren Commission.
–Berlinger Special AG conducts its own regular reappraisals of its doping kits, and also has its
products tested and verified by an independent institute that has been duly certificated by the Swiss
authorities.
–In neither its own tests nor any tests conducted by the independent institute in Switzerland
has any sealed Berlinger Special AG urine sample bottle proved possible to open.
–This also applies to the "Sochi 2014" sample bottle model.
–The specialists at Berlinger Special AG are able at any time to determine whether one of the
company's sample bottles has been tampered with or unlawfully replicated.
McLaren says he does not know how the Russians were opening the bottles but he knows it can be
done because someone demonstrated it to him personally. In contrast with McLaren's assertions, Berlinger
states unequivocally: "In neither its own tests nor any tests conducted by the independent institute
in Switzerland has any sealed Berlinger Special AG urine sample bottle proved possible to open. This
also applies to the 'Sochi 2014' sample bottle model."
If McLaren's claims are true, why has he not discussed this with the manufacturer? If McLaren's
claims are true, isn't it of the highest importance to identify the weakness in the system so that
doping test samples cannot be swapped?
McLaren further claims to be able to forensically determine when a "tamper proof" bottle has been
opened by the "marks and scratches" on the inside of the bottle caps. His report does not include
photos to show what these "marks and scratches" look like, nor does it consider the possibility of
a mark or scratch resulting from some other event such as different force being applied, cross-threading
or backing off on the cap.
In this area also, McLaren has apparently not had his findings confirmed by the Swiss manufacturer
despite the fact that the company states: "The specialists at Berlinger Special AG are able at any
time to determine whether one of the company's sample bottles has been tampered with or unlawfully
replicated."
If the findings of McLaren's "marks and scratches expert" are accurate, why did they not get confirmation
from the specialists at Berlinger? Perhaps it is because Berlinger disputes McLaren's claims and
says "Our kits are secure."
The IPC decision substantially rests on the fact-challenged McLaren report. The IPC statement
falsely claims that the McLaren bottle top "scratches and marks" expert has "corroborated the claim
that the State directed scheme involved Russian Paralympic athletes."
Rush to Judgment
The IPC report includes data that purports to show widespread doping manipulation in Russia, saying:
"Professor McLaren provided the names of the athletes associated with the 35 samples and whether
the sample had been marked QUARANTINE or SAVE." These 35 samples are presumably the same Paralympic
35 which are identified on page 41 of the McLaren Report as being "Disappearing Positive Test Results
by Sport Russian Athletes."
There is no source for this data but supposedly it covers testing between 2012 and 2015. McLaren
provided another 10 samples thus making 45 samples relating to 44 athletes.
It is then explained that 17 of these samples are actually not from IPC administered sport. So
the actual number is 27 athletes (44-minus-17) implicated. However, in another inconsistency, the
IPC statement says not all these samples were marked "SAVE" by Moscow Laboratory. That was only done
for "at least" 11 of the samples and athletes.
If the IPC final number is accurate, it means the committee confirmed 11 Paralympic athletes who
tested positive between 2012 and 2015 but had their positive tests "disappeared" to allow these athletes
to compete. If that's true, these athletes should be suspended or banned. Instead of doing that,
the IPC banned the entire 267-member Russian Paralympic team.
The McLaren Report looks like a rush to judgment. The report was launched after the sensational
New York Times story based on Grigory Rodchenkov and the "60 Minutes" segment based on the Stepanovs.
Before he was half way done his investigation, Richard McLaren was advising the IAAF to ban the entire
Russian team.
The McLaren Report, with all its flaws and shortcomings, was published just a few weeks ago on
July 16. Then, on Aug. 7, the IPC issued its decision to ban the Russian Paralympic Team from the
September Rio Paralympics.
The IPC statement claims that the committee "provided sufficient time to allow the Russian Paralympic
Committee to present their case to the IPC" before they finalized the decision. While the Russian
Paralympic Committee appeared before the IPC, it's doubtful they had sufficient time to argue their
case or even to know the details of the accusations.
In summary, the accusation of Russian "state sponsored doping" by McLaren and Craven is based
on little solid evidence. Despite this, the accusations have resulted in the banning of many hundreds
of clean athletes from the Olympics and Paralympics and are contributing to the ugly "ant-Russian"
prejudice and discrimination happening at the Olympics right now.
This seems to violate the purpose of the
Olympics movement which is to promote international peace, not conflict and discrimination.
Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist. He can be contacted at [email protected]
Downing Street-controlled BBC disapproves the thawing of relations between Russia and Turkey.
Russia and Turkey: An 'alliance of misfits'?
It was a gesture that ended a crisis. The leaders of Russia and Turkey met on Tuesday to
shake hands and declare a formal end to an eight-month long war of words and economic sanctions.
"... The 90's represent a time of relative economic prosperity and geopolitical dominance in the collective American imagination. Race relations, though briefly inflamed during the Los Angeles riots of 1992, remained relatively placid by the standards of U.S. history, and with the fall of the USSR, the United States became an unquestioned Global Hegemon. ..."
"... In this sense at least, the 90's were high times for the Clintons and their Neo-Liberal fellow travelers. Who had convinced themselves, along with much of the populace of the United States, that they had finally entered Francis Fukuyama's prophesied "End of History." ..."
"... Though Donald Trump promises to "Make America Great Again," his rhetoric recalls, not the beloved 1990s of the Clintons, but rather the decade from 1953 to 1963, the time between the Korean war and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. An era of middle-class flourishing and industrial expansion, when good paying factory work allowed unskilled laborers to achieve the "American Dream" of Suburban tranquility and economic comfort. An era of low crime and common purpose. An era when a beloved President first dreamt of landing a man on the moon and the covers of magazines like "Popular Mechanics" showcased grand visions of a future dominated by the wonders and comforts of American technology. Though of course profoundly philistine and materialist in nature (and thus genuinely American), it is a vision which remains quite distinct from violent, pathological visions dreamt of by the Clintons and their associates. ..."
"... This universal, imperialist programme of exploitation and domination is the explicit goal of the ideology of Neo-Liberalism, whose cause will seem all the more urgent to a newly elected and empowered Hillary Clinton. She will then have to face the reality of both a divided country at home and a rapidly decaying Neoliberal world order abroad. As Russia, China, Iran, and others begin to push back against the reign of U.S. led cultural Imperialism. ..."
"... A more cautious Trump presidency would likely approach the situation with a good deal of pragmatism by letting the United State's moment of unipolar hegemony naturally fade away as the world slowly drifts into the more organic and sustainable state of Multipolarity. ..."
"... Though derided by her detractors as a dangerous, ideologically driven hawk on foreign policy and praised by her devotees as a steady, experienced hand, possessing considerable analytic acumen. The truth is that, in reality, both assessments are correct. It is important to note, however, that for Hillary Clinton, the latter merely acts as a veneer for the former. Her strategic acumen, however potent it may be, remains merely the servant of the powerful chthonic forces which drive her damaged psyche. Despite any appearances to the contrary, in her purest essence, she remains a genuine fanatic. ..."
"... Regardless of these rumors, it is entirely fair to assert that Clinton, whether or not she is a practicing lesbian, is at least a functional one. Her projected persona, from the androgynous pantsuits to her open contempt for the Traditional female roles of wife and mother coupled with a fanatical devotion to the cause of universal LGBT "human rights," is an almost exact emulation of a butch lesbian aesthetic and sensibility. It is a direct mimicry of Western conceptions of corporate masculinity reconceptualized through the funhouse mirror of 1970's feminist ideology. It is this barely cryptic Lesbianism, which serves as the primary ideological scaffolding for Clinton's thought and action. An ideology that is driven almost purely by a profound ressentiment of all those who do not affirm its tenets. ..."
"... The very first action to be taken by a future Clinton administration will be an immediate reset of the U.S. policy on Syria. This intention has already been explicitly articulated and publicized in the international press and will mark a stark break with the Obama administration's previously more pragmatic approach. Syria was a war Obama was never particularly interested in and which he involved himself in only after intense pressure from his advisors (such as then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland). Although Obama would, of course, have favored a solution that resulted in the replacement of Assad with a malleable puppet regime which was friendly to both American and Zionist ambitions in the Region. His better instincts led him to avoid the more extreme Anti-Assad approach favored by the most hawkish members of his cabinet. ..."
"... Clinton's stratagem will be the direct inverse of Obama's more tolerant approach to Assad. For Clinton, destroying Assad, and by extension, the millions of innocents which his government protects from Jihadi terror represents a triple opportunity. Enabling her to strike a direct blow simultaneously against Iranian and Russian interests in the region while also appeasing her Zionist backers. Thus, it will become an immediate priority for her administration. ..."
"... The full weight of U.S. power will be used to reignite a conflict in the Donbass region, which will be justified under the pretense of restoring the "territorial integrity" of the Ukrainian Junta. This will enable the U.S. to continue its encirclement of Russia while also bleeding it of resources. This will make it, it is hoped by the U.S., more vulnerable, over the long term, to a hostile, U.S. funded, regime change which will be carried out by Atlanticist Fifth Columnist inside Russia. ..."
"... Clinton's domestic policies will be similarly reckless and aggressive. These will focus primarily upon stamping out any dissent, whether on the Left or the Right, to her rule. This should not be a difficult task, as the vast majority of Media elites in the United States are open supporters of her ideology. These elites will be in a particularly foul mood after the Election, as they have come to view Trump, and especially his supporters, as a mortal threat to their continued hegemony. A Clinton victory would then give them the leverage and pretext they need to begin punishing and marginalizing the Trump electorate that they so deeply despise. ..."
"... Needless to say, dissenters will suffer greatly under a Clinton regime. Those who oppose further aggressive U.S. actions across the globe will be dealt with as borderline traitors. Others who oppose the normalization of Sodomy and other related deviancies, such as Transgenderism, will be labeled bigots and suffer economic consequences as they are forced out of their jobs under the pretext of creating "safe work environmen ..."
The Summer of 2016 is proving to be a decisive one in both the United States and the
rest of the world. The long shadows currently being thrown against the wall by history will soon
morph into their full forms come November when the presidential contest is finally decided. With
the longest and most ominous being the potential ascension of Hillary Rodham Clinton to the office
of President of the United States of America.
Most Americans are instinctively aware of this, and it is this instinct which has seen
Hillary Clinton's unfavorable ratings rise to
historic levels.
This anti-Clinton aversion is born as much from experience as it is from intuition,
as Americans vividly recall her Husband's presidency and assume, correctly, that a second Clinton
presidency would repeat all of the vices of the first but without any of its virtues.
Indeed, the 1990's still loom large in the imagination of most Clintonites.
The 90's
represent a time of relative economic prosperity and geopolitical dominance in the collective American
imagination. Race relations, though briefly inflamed during the Los Angeles riots of 1992, remained
relatively placid by the standards of U.S. history, and with the fall of the USSR, the United States
became an unquestioned Global Hegemon.
A Hegemon which possessed the perfect freedom to strike its
enemies, both real and perceived, with near impunity across the Globe. As the people of Serbia and
Iraq learned, only too well, through horrible experience.
In this sense at least, the 90's were high
times for the Clintons and their Neo-Liberal fellow travelers. Who had convinced themselves, along
with much of the populace of the United States, that they had finally entered Francis Fukuyama's
prophesied "End of History."
Though Donald Trump promises to "Make America Great Again," his rhetoric recalls, not
the beloved 1990s of the Clintons, but rather the decade from 1953 to 1963, the time between the
Korean war and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. An era of middle-class flourishing and industrial
expansion, when good paying factory work allowed unskilled laborers to achieve the "American Dream"
of Suburban tranquility and economic comfort. An era of low crime and common purpose. An era when
a beloved President first dreamt of landing a man on the moon and the covers of magazines like "Popular
Mechanics" showcased grand visions of a future dominated by the wonders and comforts of American
technology. Though of course profoundly philistine and materialist in nature (and thus genuinely
American), it is a vision which remains quite distinct from violent, pathological visions dreamt
of by the Clintons and their associates.
In contrast, to Trump's inward looking, Populist-Nationalist synthesis, Clinton offers
Americans what is perhaps the most thoroughly pure version of Neo-Liberalism yet put forward on a
national political stage. Consisting of both unapologetic support for international capitalist exploitation
of labor as well as a virulent dedication to the continued unipolar geopolitical dominance of the
United State's burgeoning Imperium. Its explicit goal is not merely to enable its own citizens to
live the good life of uninhibited, rootless hedonism (the American Dream) but also to impose this
concept of "the good life" upon the rest of the world.
This universal, imperialist programme of exploitation and domination is the explicit
goal of the ideology of Neo-Liberalism, whose cause will seem all the more urgent to a newly elected
and empowered Hillary Clinton. She will then have to face the reality of both a divided country at
home and a rapidly decaying Neoliberal world order abroad. As Russia, China, Iran, and others begin
to push back against the reign of U.S. led cultural Imperialism.
A more cautious Trump presidency would likely approach the situation with a good deal
of pragmatism by letting the United State's moment of unipolar hegemony naturally fade away as the
world slowly drifts into the more organic and sustainable state of Multipolarity.
The same cannot be said, of course, for the path a potential Clinton administration
would take, however. Clinton will have no choice but to throw all of her energies behind a shrill,
last-ditch defense of the American Imperium, in both its physical, cultural and psychological manifestations.
Though derided by her detractors as a dangerous, ideologically driven hawk on foreign
policy and praised by her devotees as a steady, experienced hand, possessing considerable analytic
acumen. The truth is that, in reality, both assessments are correct. It is important to note, however,
that for Hillary Clinton, the latter merely acts as a veneer for the former. Her strategic acumen,
however potent it may be, remains merely the servant of the powerful chthonic forces which drive
her damaged psyche. Despite any appearances to the contrary, in her purest essence, she remains a
genuine fanatic.
When one looks back on the trajectory of her political career, it is not difficult to
perceive it as a series of carefully calculated moves which served only to move her continually closer
to capturing the presidency and the ultimate power it offers. While this is not exactly original
analysis, it is still startling and instructive to contemplate the truly bizarre length and breadth
of the ambition which has propelled her this far. Her husband's philandering, which has become the
stuff of legend in the United States and has resulted in at least one serious claim of sexual assault,
was obviously known to her from the beginning of their relationship. Her apparent ambivalence (if
not open approval) regarding her husband's behavior is likewise an open secret and has, at least
in part, contributed to the constant rumors regarding her potential homosexuality.
Regardless of these rumors, it is entirely fair to assert that Clinton, whether or not
she is a practicing lesbian, is at least a functional one. Her projected persona, from the androgynous
pantsuits to her open contempt for the Traditional female roles of wife and mother coupled with a
fanatical devotion to the cause of universal LGBT "human rights," is an almost exact emulation
of a butch lesbian aesthetic and sensibility. It is a direct mimicry of Western conceptions of corporate
masculinity reconceptualized through the funhouse mirror of 1970's feminist ideology. It is this
barely cryptic Lesbianism, which serves as the primary ideological scaffolding for Clinton's thought
and action. An ideology that is driven almost purely by a profound ressentiment of all those who
do not affirm its tenets.
It is this ressentiment which serves as the motivator for all of her endeavors, both
of the past and of the future. Once Clinton secures the full powers of the U.S. presidency, she will
then have the ultimate tool with which to wage war upon her perceived tormentors, i.e. all those
who do not willingly affirm her particularly deviant ideological proclivities.
This campaign of revenge will be waged on two separate fronts, one foreign and one domestic
and will seek an utter subjugation or eradication of her perceived enemies.
On the foreign front Clinton will immediately seek to reestablish U.S. dominance over
the three primary regions of Modern Geopolitical Conflict: The Greater Middle East, the South China
Sea, and Europe with a special focus on subduing the Russian Federation
The very first action to be taken by a future Clinton administration will be an immediate
reset of the U.S. policy on Syria. This intention has already been explicitly articulated and publicized
in the international press
and will mark a stark break with the Obama administration's previously
more pragmatic approach. Syria was a war Obama was never particularly interested in and which he
involved himself in only after intense pressure from his advisors (such as then-Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland). Although Obama would, of course, have favored a solution that
resulted in the replacement of Assad with a malleable puppet regime which was friendly to both American
and Zionist ambitions in the Region. His better instincts led him to avoid the more extreme Anti-Assad
approach favored by the most hawkish members of his cabinet.
Clinton's stratagem will be the direct inverse of Obama's more tolerant approach to
Assad. For Clinton, destroying Assad, and by extension, the millions of innocents which his government
protects from Jihadi terror represents a triple opportunity. Enabling her to strike a direct blow
simultaneously against Iranian and Russian interests in the region while also appeasing her Zionist
backers. Thus, it will become an immediate priority for her administration.
The policy will most likely take the form of a deluge of advanced armaments to the Syrian
Islamists currently at war with the Assad government, potentially including Jabhat Al Nusra whose
recent split with Al-Qaeda proper will make it a tempting potential ally in the new crusade against
Assad.
In addition to this new flow of arms, an attempt to establish a "no-fly zone" over Syria
will be made with the expressed purpose of denigrating the Syrian government's ability to defend
its people from Islamist terrorists. How this will be accomplished is still unclear, with the presence
of the Russian military posing an especially difficult challenge. However, a U.S. provocation to
open war is not entirely out of the question. Especially since a Clinton administration may view
Syria as a theatre which, given U.S. superiority in power projection, would potentially enable a
seemingly easy victory over Russian and Syrian forces.
Everything will depend on the actions of the Russian government, whether it decides
to double down on its ally or surrender to U.S. intimidation, as well as the disposition of Turkey.
In this sense, the recent Coup attempt may serve as a blessing in disguise, as it is well known that,
if not explicitly planned by the CIA, the Coup attempt was at the very least tacitly endorsed by
the Obama administration. These facts will weigh heavily on President Erdogan's mind if and when
a request is made to use Turkish airbases to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria.
The second theatre, which will serve as the medium-term priority, will be a renewed
attempt to further isolate and weaken the Russian Federation. This will involve both new deployments
of American Military forces and equipment to both the Baltic states and Eastern Ukraine.
The full
weight of U.S. power will be used to reignite a conflict in the Donbass region, which will be justified
under the pretense of restoring the "territorial integrity" of the Ukrainian Junta. This will enable
the U.S. to continue its encirclement of Russia while also bleeding it of resources. This will make
it, it is hoped by the U.S., more vulnerable, over the long term, to a hostile, U.S. funded,
regime change which will be carried out by Atlanticist Fifth Columnist inside Russia.
The third theatre, which will serve as the long-term priority, will be attempting to
contain China from asserting its sovereignty in the South China Sea and the island of Taiwan. This
will be by far the most difficult task facing a potential Clinton administration. China will possess
a distinct military advantage over U.S. forces in the region owing to its advanced area-denial capabilities
which will enable it effectively to neutralize the main tool of U.S. power projection: the aircraft
carrier. The exact course a Clinton administration would take in a potential showdown with China
is still unclear but given her past proclivities; it would not be a stretch to assume a choice for
confrontation over compromise would be made.
Clinton's domestic policies will be similarly reckless and aggressive. These will focus
primarily upon stamping out any dissent, whether on the Left or the Right, to her rule. This should
not be a difficult task, as the vast majority of Media elites in the United States are open supporters
of her ideology. These elites will be in a particularly foul mood after the Election, as they have
come to view Trump, and especially his supporters, as a mortal threat to their continued hegemony.
A Clinton victory would then give them the leverage and pretext they need to begin punishing and
marginalizing the Trump electorate that they so deeply despise.
This will involve not only formal purges of journalists and academics (which has already
become a regular occurrence in the U.S.) but also a renewed push to further hollow out what remains
of the American Middle class, as well as continuing to push an intrinsically violent LGBT ideology
further upon America's children.
Needless to say, dissenters will suffer greatly under a Clinton regime. Those who oppose
further aggressive U.S. actions across the globe will be dealt with as borderline traitors. Others
who oppose the normalization of Sodomy and other related deviancies, such as Transgenderism, will
be labeled bigots and suffer economic consequences as they are forced out of their jobs under the
pretext of creating "safe work environmen
ts".
Tax exemption for religiously affiliated schools and nonprofit organizations will be
revoked unless they agree to adhere to anti-discrimination laws which will require the affirmation
of LGBT ideology.
"... individuals' innate psychological predispositions to intolerance ("authoritarianism") interacting with changing conditions of societal threat. The threatening conditions, particularly resonant in the present political climate, that exacerbate authoritarian attitudes include, most critically, great dissension in public opinion and general loss of confidence in political leaders. Using purpose-built experimental manipulations, cross-national survey data and in-depth personal interviews with extreme authoritarians and libertarians, the book shows that this simple model provides the most complete account of political conflict across the ostensibly distinct domains of race and immigration, civil liberties, morality, crime and punishment, and of when and why those battles will be most heated. ..."
"... But the latent authoritarianism within them is triggered when they perceive a threat to the stable moral order. ..."
"... It's at this point in the talk when Haidt surely began to make his audience squirm. He says that in his work as an academic and social psychologist, he sees colleagues constantly demonizing and mocking conservatives. He warns them to knock it off. "We need political diversity," he says. And: "They are members of our community." ..."
"... The discourse and behavior of the Left, says Haidt, is alienating millions of ordinary people all over the West. It's not just America. We are sliding towards authoritarianism all over the West, and there's really only one way to stop it. ..."
"... we can reduce intolerance and defuse the conflict by focusing on sameness. We need unifying rituals, beliefs, institutions, and practices, he says, drawing on Stenner's research. The romance the Left has long had with multiculturalism and diversity (as the Left defines it) has to end, because it's helping tear us apart. ..."
"... If we don't have a feasible conservative party, we open the way for authoritarianism. ..."
"... I don't think the center can hold anymore. It's too late. The cultural left in this country is very authoritarian, at least as regards orthodox Christians and other social conservatives. On one of the Stenner slides, we see that she defines one characteristic of authoritarians as "punishing out groups." Conservative Christians are the big out group for the cultural left, and have been for a long time. ..."
"... The threat to the moral order is very real, and not really much of a threat anymore; it's a reality. ..."
"... Haidt says that the authoritarian impulse comes when people cease trusting in leaders. Yep, that's where a lot of us are, and not by choice. ..."
If you look back far enough in humankind's history, you will observe that you don't see civilizations
starting without their building temples first. Haidt, who is a secular liberal, is not making a theistic
point, not really. He's saying that the work of civilization can only be accomplished when a people
binds itself together around a shared sense of the sacred. It's what makes a people a people, and
a civilization a civilization. "It doesn't have to be a god," says Haidt. Anything that we hold
sacred, and hold it together, is enough.
The thing is, this force works like an electromagnetic
field: the more tightly it binds us, the more alien others appear to us, and the more we find it
impossible to empathize with them. This is what Haidt means by saying that morality binds and blinds.
Haidt quizzes the 700-800 people in the hall about their Hillary vs. Trump feelings. The group
- all psychologists, therapists, professors of psychology, and so forth - were overwhelmingly pro-Hillary
and anti-Trump. No surprise there. But then he tells them that if they believe that they could treat
without bias a patient who is an open Trump supporter, they're lying to themselves. In the America
of 2016, political bias is the most powerful bias of all - more polarizing by far than race, even.
Haidt turns to the work of social psychologist Karen Stenner, and her 2005 book
The Authoritarian Dynamic. The publisher describes the book like this (boldface emphases
mine):
What are the root causes of intolerance? This book addresses that question by developing a
universal theory of what determines intolerance of difference in general, which includes racism,
political intolerance, moral intolerance and punitiveness. It demonstrates that all these seemingly
disparate attitudes are principally caused by just two factors: individuals' innate psychological
predispositions to intolerance ("authoritarianism") interacting with changing conditions of societal
threat. The threatening conditions, particularly resonant in the present political climate,
that exacerbate authoritarian attitudes include, most critically, great dissension in
public opinion and general loss of confidence in political leaders. Using purpose-built
experimental manipulations, cross-national survey data and in-depth personal interviews with extreme
authoritarians and libertarians, the book shows that this simple model provides the most complete
account of political conflict across the ostensibly distinct domains of race and immigration,
civil liberties, morality, crime and punishment, and of when and why those battles will be most
heated.
Haidt says Stenner discerns three strands of contemporary political conservatism: 1) laissez-faire
libertarians (typically, business Republicans); 2) Burkeans (e.g., social conservatives who value
stability); and 3) authoritarians.
Haidt makes a point of saying that it's simply wrong to call Trump a fascist. He's too individualistic
for that. He's an authoritarian, but that is not a synonym for fascist, no matter how much the Left
wants to say it is.
According to Haidt's reading of Stenner, authoritarianism is not a stable personality trait. Most
people are not naturally authoritarian. But the latent authoritarianism within them is triggered
when they perceive a threat to the stable moral order.
It's at this point in the talk when Haidt surely began to make his audience squirm. He says that
in his work as an academic and social psychologist, he sees colleagues constantly demonizing and
mocking conservatives. He warns them to knock it off. "We need political diversity," he says. And:
"They are members of our community."
The discourse and behavior of the Left, says Haidt, is alienating millions of ordinary people
all over the West. It's not just America. We are sliding towards authoritarianism all over the West,
and there's really only one way to stop it.
At the 41:37 point in the talk, Haidt says that we can reduce intolerance and defuse the conflict
by focusing on sameness. We need unifying rituals, beliefs, institutions, and practices, he says,
drawing on Stenner's research. The romance the Left has long had with multiculturalism and diversity
(as the Left defines it) has to end, because it's helping tear us apart.
This fall, the Democrats are taking Stenner's advice brilliantly, says Haidt, referring to the
convention the Dems just put on, and Hillary's speech about how we're all better off standing together.
Haidt says this is actually good advice, period. "It's not just propaganda you wheel out at election
time," he says. If we don't have a feasible conservative party, we open the way for authoritarianism.
To end the talk, Haidt focuses on what his own very tribe - psychologists and academics - can
do to make things better. They can start by being aware of their own extreme bias. "We lean very
far left," he says, then shows a graph tracking how far from the center the academy has become over
the past 20 years.
Haidt says we don't need "equality" - that is, an equal number of conservatives and liberals in
the academy. We just need to have diversity enough for people to be challenged in their viewpoints,
so an academic community can flourish according to its nature. But this is not what we have. According
to the research Haidt presents, in 1996, liberals in the academy outnumbered conservatives 2:1. Today,
it's 5:1 - and the conservatives are concentrated in engineering and other technical fields. Says
Haidt: "In the core areas of the university - in the humanities and social sciences - it's 10 to
1 and 40 to 1."
The Right has left the university faculties, he said - and a lot of that is because they got tired
of the "hostile climate and discrimination"
"People who are not on the left … are often in the closet," says Haidt. "They can't speak up.
They can't criticize. They hear somebody say something, they believe it's false, but they can't speak
up and say why they believe it's false. And that is a breakdown in our science."
Until they repent (my word, not his), university professors will continue to be part of the problem,
not the solution, says Haidt. He ends by calling on his colleagues to "get our hearts in order."
To stop being moralistic hypocrites. To be humble. To be more forgiving, and more open to hearing
what their opponents have to say. Says Haidt, "If we want to change things, we need to do it more
from the perspective of love, not of hate."
I don't think the center can hold anymore. It's too late. The cultural left in this country is
very authoritarian, at least as regards orthodox Christians and other social conservatives.
On one of the Stenner slides, we see that she defines one characteristic of authoritarians as "punishing
out groups." Conservative Christians are the big out group for the cultural left, and have been for
a long time.
We are the people who defile what they consider most sacred: sexual liberty, including abortion
rights and gay rights. The liberals in control now (as distinct from all liberals, let me be clear)
have made it clear that they will not compromise with what they consider to be evil. We are the Klan
to them. Error has no rights in this world they're building.
If you'll recall my blogging about Hillary Clinton's convention speech, I really liked it in theory
- the unity business. The thing is, I don't believe for one second that it is anything but election
propaganda. I don't believe that the Democratic Party today has any interest in making space for
us. I wish I did believe that. I don't see any evidence for it. They and their supporters will drive
us out of certain professions, and do whatever they can to rub our noses in the dirt.
I know liberal readers of this blog will say, "But we don't!" To which I say: you don't,
maybe, but you're not running the show, alas.
The threat to the moral order is very real, and not really much of a threat anymore; it's a reality.
As I've written in this space many times, this is not something that was done to us; all of
us, Republicans and Democrats, Christians and non-Christians, have done this to ourselves. At this
point, all I want for my tribe is to be left alone. But the crusading Left won't let that happen
anymore.
They don't even want the Mormons to be allowed to play football foe the Big 12, for heaven's
sake. This assault is relentless. Far too many complacent Christians believe it will never hurt them,
that it will never happen where they live. It can and it will.
There is no center anymore. Alasdair MacIntyre was right. I may not be able to vote in good conscience
for Trump (and I certainly will not vote for Hillary Clinton), but I know exactly why a number of
good people have convinced themselves that this is the right thing to do. Haidt says that the authoritarian
impulse comes when people cease trusting in leaders. Yep, that's where a lot of us are, and not by
choice.
This week, I've been interviewing people for the Work chapter of my Benedict Option book. In all
but one case, the interviewees - lawyers, law professors, a doctor, corporate types, academics -
would only share their opinion if I promised that I wouldn't use their name. They know what things
are like where they work. They know that this is going to spread. That fear, that remaining inside
the closet, tells you something about where you are. When professionals feel that to state their
opinion would be to put their careers at risk, we are not in normal times.
The center has not held. I certainly wish Jon Haidt well. He's a good man doing brave, important
work. And I hope he proves me wrong on this. I honestly do. Because if I'm right, there goes America.
On the other hand, reasoning that this must not be true therefore it is not true is a good
way to get run over.
"... These are strong words and accusations, not against the athletes, but against the Russian government. It seems the Russian Paralympic athletes are being collectively punished as a means to punish the Russian government. ..."
"... Another fact is that this problem exists in many if not all countries, especially since professional athletics is big business. WADA data shows that many countries have significant numbers of doping violations. ..."
"... In contrast with the accusations, the scientific data prepared by WADA indicates that Russian athletes have a fairly low incidence of positive drug tests in international certified laboratories. The biggest question is whether the Russian government has been "sponsoring" or somehow supervising prohibited doping. This has been repeated many times and is now widely assumed to be true. ..."
"... But the evidence is far from compelling. The accusations are based primarily on the testimony of three people: the main culprit and mastermind Grigory Rodchenkov who was extorting athletes and "whistle-blowers" Vitaliy and Yuliya Stepanov. The Stepanovs were the star witnesses in the "60 Minutes" feature on this topic. ..."
"... The "60 Minutes" story also failed to include the important fact that Vitaliy was directly involved in his wife's doping. ..."
"... Vitaliy even helps his wife with doping, procures the drugs, leads a kind of double life. ..."
"... If the IPC final number is accurate, it means the committee confirmed 11 Paralympic athletes who tested positive between 2012 and 2015 but had their positive tests "disappeared" to allow these athletes to compete. If that's true, these athletes should be suspended or banned. Instead of doing that, the IPC banned the entire 267-member Russian Paralympic team. ..."
"... The McLaren Report looks like a rush to judgment. The report was launched after the sensational New York Times story based on Grigory Rodchenkov and the "60 Minutes" segment based on the Stepanovs. Before he was half way done his investigation, Richard McLaren was advising the IAAF to ban the entire Russian team. ..."
The West's anti-Russian bias is so strong that normal standards of fairness are cast aside whenever
a propaganda edge can be gained, a factor swirling around the treatment of Russian athletes at the
Rio Olympics, Rick Sterling says.
There is an ugly anti-Russian mood in various Rio Olympic venues. When the Russian swimmers entered
the pool for the 4×100-meter Freestyle team event, they were loudly booed. When the Russian team
barely lost third place, the announcer happily announced that Russian had been "kept off the medal
stand".
Last Sunday, it was announced that the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) had decided to
ban the entire Russian team from the upcoming Paralympics to be held in Rio in September. Next day,
The
Associated Press story opened as follows: "After escaping a blanket ban from the Olympics,
Russia was kicked out of the upcoming Paralympics on Sunday as the ultimate punishment for the state
running a doping operation that polluted sports by prioritizing 'medals over morals.'"
IPC President Sir Phillip Craven issued a
statement full of accusations and moral outrage. He said, "In my view, the McLaren Report
marked one of the darkest days in the history of all sport." However, the McLaren Report is deeply
biased. Here are some of the problems with the report:
–It relied primarily on the testimony of one person, the former Director of Moscow Laboratory
Grigory Rodchenkov, who was implicated in extorting Russian athletes for money and was the chief
culprit with strong interest in casting blame somewhere else.
–It accused Russian authorities without considering their defense and contrary information.
–It excluded a written submission and documents provided by a Russian authority.
–It failed to identify individual athletes who benefited but instead cast suspicion on the entire
team.
–It ignored the statistical data compiled by WADA which show Russian violations to be NOT exceptional.
–It did not provide the source for quantitative measurements.
–It claimed to have evidence but failed to reveal it.
A detailed critique of the McLaren Report can be found at
Sports Integrity Initiative,
Consortiumnews, Counterpunch,
Dissident Voice, True Publica, Global Research, Telesur, and other sites.
Collective Punishment
The IPC explanation of why they banned the entire Paralympic team boils down to the accusation
that "the State-sponsored doping programme that exists within Russian sport regrettably
extends to Russian Para sport as well. The facts really do hurt; they are an unprecedented attack
on every clean athlete who competes in sport. The anti-doping system in Russia is broken, corrupted
and entirely compromised.
"The doping culture that is polluting Russian sport stems from the Russian government and has
now been uncovered in not one, but two independent reports commissioned by the World Anti-Doping
Agency. I believe the Russian government has catastrophically failed its Para athletes. Their medals
over morals mentality disgusts me. The complete corruption of the anti-doping system is contrary
to the rules and strikes at the very heart of the spirit of Paralympic sport."
These are strong words and accusations, not against the athletes, but against the Russian government.
It seems the Russian Paralympic athletes are being collectively punished as a means to punish the
Russian government.
But what are the facts? First, it's true some Russian athletes have used prohibited steroids or
other performance enhancing drugs (PEDs). The documentaries by
Hajo Seppelt expose examples of Russian athletes admitting to taking PEDs, a banned coach clandestinely continuing
to coach, and another banned coach dealing in prohibited drugs.
Another fact is that this problem exists in many if not all countries, especially since professional
athletics is big business.
WADA data shows that many countries have significant numbers of doping violations.
It is claimed that doping by elite athletes is pervasive in Russia but is this true? To answer
that accurately would require an objective examination, not a sensation seeking media report. In
the current controversy the accusations and assumptions rely substantially on individual anecdotes
and testimony which has been publicized through media reports (ARD documentaries, "60 Minutes" report
and New York Times stories) with very little scrutiny.
In contrast with the accusations, the scientific
data prepared by WADA indicates that Russian athletes have a fairly low incidence of positive
drug tests in international certified laboratories. The biggest question is whether the Russian government
has been "sponsoring" or somehow supervising prohibited doping. This has been repeated many times
and is now widely assumed to be true.
But the evidence is far from compelling. The accusations are based primarily on the testimony
of three people: the main culprit and mastermind Grigory Rodchenkov who was extorting athletes and
"whistle-blowers" Vitaliy and Yuliya Stepanov. The Stepanovs were the star witnesses in the "60 Minutes"
feature on this topic.
The report was factually flawed: it mistakenly reports that Vitaliy had a "low level job at the
Russian Anti Doping Agency RUSADA." Actually he was adviser to the Director General, close to the
Minister of Sports and a trainer of doping control officers.
The "60 Minutes" story also failed to include the important fact that Vitaliy was directly involved
in his wife's doping. According to Seppelt's documentary
"The Secrets of Doping,"
"First, Vitaliy even helps his wife with doping, procures the drugs, leads a kind of double life."(5:45)
Adding to the argument there may be a political bias in these accusations, all three witnesses (Rodchenkov
and the Stepanovs) are now living in the United States.
The "proof" of Russian state-sponsored doping rests on remarkably little solid evidence. The principal
assertion is that the Deputy Minister of Sports issued email directives to eliminate positive tests
of "protected" athletes. McLaren claims to have "electronic data" and emails proving this. But he
has not revealed the emails.
If the emails are authentic, that would be damning. How would the Ministry of Sports officials
explain it? Do they have any alternative explanation of the curious directives to "Quarantine" or
"Save" doping test samples? Astoundingly, McLaren decided not to ask them and he still has not shown
the evidence he says that he has.
Tampering with Bottles?
Another controversial issue is regarding the opening and replacement of "tamper proof" bottles.
The Rodchenkov account is that in the middle of the night, in cahoots with FSB (successor to KGB),
they would replace "dirty" urine with "clean" urine. Rodchenkov says they found a way to open the
tamper-proof urine sample bottles. But the
Swiss manufacturer Berlinger continues to stand by its product and has effectively challenged
the veracity of the Rodchenkov/McLaren story.
Since the release of the McLaren Report, Berlinger has issued a
statement saying:
–To the statement in the McLaren investigation report that some such bottles proved possible to
open Berlinger Special AG cannot offer any authoritative response at the present time.
–Berlinger Special AG has no knowledge at present of the specifications, the methods or the procedures
involved in the tests and experiments conducted by the McLaren Commission.
–Berlinger Special AG conducts its own regular reappraisals of its doping kits, and also has its
products tested and verified by an independent institute that has been duly certificated by the Swiss
authorities.
–In neither its own tests nor any tests conducted by the independent institute in Switzerland
has any sealed Berlinger Special AG urine sample bottle proved possible to open.
–This also applies to the "Sochi 2014" sample bottle model.
–The specialists at Berlinger Special AG are able at any time to determine whether one of the
company's sample bottles has been tampered with or unlawfully replicated.
McLaren says he does not know how the Russians were opening the bottles but he knows it can be
done because someone demonstrated it to him personally. In contrast with McLaren's assertions, Berlinger
states unequivocally: "In neither its own tests nor any tests conducted by the independent institute
in Switzerland has any sealed Berlinger Special AG urine sample bottle proved possible to open. This
also applies to the 'Sochi 2014' sample bottle model."
If McLaren's claims are true, why has he not discussed this with the manufacturer? If McLaren's
claims are true, isn't it of the highest importance to identify the weakness in the system so that
doping test samples cannot be swapped?
McLaren further claims to be able to forensically determine when a "tamper proof" bottle has been
opened by the "marks and scratches" on the inside of the bottle caps. His report does not include
photos to show what these "marks and scratches" look like, nor does it consider the possibility of
a mark or scratch resulting from some other event such as different force being applied, cross-threading
or backing off on the cap.
In this area also, McLaren has apparently not had his findings confirmed by the Swiss manufacturer
despite the fact that the company states: "The specialists at Berlinger Special AG are able at any
time to determine whether one of the company's sample bottles has been tampered with or unlawfully
replicated."
If the findings of McLaren's "marks and scratches expert" are accurate, why did they not get confirmation
from the specialists at Berlinger? Perhaps it is because Berlinger disputes McLaren's claims and
says "Our kits are secure."
The IPC decision substantially rests on the fact-challenged McLaren report. The IPC statement
falsely claims that the McLaren bottle top "scratches and marks" expert has "corroborated the claim
that the State directed scheme involved Russian Paralympic athletes."
Rush to Judgment
The IPC report includes data that purports to show widespread doping manipulation in Russia, saying:
"Professor McLaren provided the names of the athletes associated with the 35 samples and whether
the sample had been marked QUARANTINE or SAVE." These 35 samples are presumably the same Paralympic
35 which are identified on page 41 of the McLaren Report as being "Disappearing Positive Test Results
by Sport Russian Athletes."
There is no source for this data but supposedly it covers testing between 2012 and 2015. McLaren
provided another 10 samples thus making 45 samples relating to 44 athletes.
It is then explained that 17 of these samples are actually not from IPC administered sport. So
the actual number is 27 athletes (44-minus-17) implicated. However, in another inconsistency, the
IPC statement says not all these samples were marked "SAVE" by Moscow Laboratory. That was only done
for "at least" 11 of the samples and athletes.
If the IPC final number is accurate, it means the committee confirmed 11 Paralympic athletes who
tested positive between 2012 and 2015 but had their positive tests "disappeared" to allow these athletes
to compete. If that's true, these athletes should be suspended or banned. Instead of doing that,
the IPC banned the entire 267-member Russian Paralympic team.
The McLaren Report looks like a rush to judgment. The report was launched after the sensational
New York Times story based on Grigory Rodchenkov and the "60 Minutes" segment based on the Stepanovs.
Before he was half way done his investigation, Richard McLaren was advising the IAAF to ban the entire
Russian team.
The McLaren Report, with all its flaws and shortcomings, was published just a few weeks ago on
July 16. Then, on Aug. 7, the IPC issued its decision to ban the Russian Paralympic Team from the
September Rio Paralympics.
The IPC statement claims that the committee "provided sufficient time to allow the Russian Paralympic
Committee to present their case to the IPC" before they finalized the decision. While the Russian
Paralympic Committee appeared before the IPC, it's doubtful they had sufficient time to argue their
case or even to know the details of the accusations.
In summary, the accusation of Russian "state sponsored doping" by McLaren and Craven is based
on little solid evidence. Despite this, the accusations have resulted in the banning of many hundreds
of clean athletes from the Olympics and Paralympics and are contributing to the ugly "ant-Russian"
prejudice and discrimination happening at the Olympics right now.
This seems to violate the purpose of the
Olympics movement which is to promote international peace, not conflict and discrimination.
Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist. He can be contacted at [email protected]
Downing Street-controlled BBC disapproves the thawing of relations between Russia and Turkey.
Russia and Turkey: An 'alliance of misfits'?
It was a gesture that ended a crisis. The leaders of Russia and Turkey met on Tuesday to
shake hands and declare a formal end to an eight-month long war of words and economic sanctions.
Arguments of Sanders supporters against Hillary are not perfectly applicable to Hillary vs Trump
contest.
Notable quotes:
"... If Bernie does not get the nomination it will be the wilderness for the Democrats - no young voters no independents - unless they can conjure a principled candidate somehow from somewhere. ..."
"... You'll then cycle back to the lesser of two evils, that Democrats like Obama and Clinton are needed to help the poor blacks and minorities. To me this is a myth. The poor get fucked no matter what party is in office. ..."
"... What planet African Americans are doing "better off" on is unknown. What is known is that President Obama is about to leave office with African Americans in their worst economic situation since Ronald Reagan . ..."
"... Of course not. But when you have an issue you can continually put bandaids on the symptoms or you can perform a root cause analysis and then proceed to fix these root causes. The fact is that politicians are disinclined to put the needs of voters first, they tend to pay lip service to the needs of voters, while spending 60% of their time interacting with rich donors, who are very good are articulating their needs, as they hand over large sums of money. This system creates a log jam to reform. If we can return the immutable link to the voters interests, and congress them reform of economic distortions that support racism become far far easier. Motive of change and motives of votes become transparent. ..."
"... the world is divided in two, half who are nauseated by the above and the other half who purr in admiration at the clever way Clinton has fucked the public once again. As Mencken said democracy is that system of government in which it is assumed that the common man knows what he wants and deserves to get it good and hard. ..."
"... I don't believe her core statements. Sorry but as a person I just can't buy into the package. Both republicans and democrats on a vague macro level will try to lower unemployment but neither will talk about falling participation. Clinton had already proved she's probably as likely as Trump to get bullets flying. It's her judgement. She's part of the same old we need to intervene yet never understanding the real issues. I despise her unflinching support of Saudi Arabia. That policy is insane!!! Etc etc etc. ..."
"... I believe both parties represent essentially the same with small regional differences . ..."
"... One wonders what makes them call themselves Democrats? ..."
"... Certainly not economic and political justice, peace, democracy, or integrity in governance. ..."
"... Yes, it's been the single most shocking revelation of the entire election year for me as well. Not just the cynicism of the rank-and-file, but the arrogance and isolation of our corrupt Democratic party elite, many of whom still don't seem to grasp that a revolt by progressive Democrats and Independents is already under way. This is one of the forms it may take. ..."
"... Hilary Clinton has various comments that reveals somebody who certainly fits the psychopath spectrum. Among the lowest of the low was "We came, we saw, he died!" Accompanied by a cackle of laughter. This was announced in full view of the media and public when Gadhaffi was overthrown by US assistance. Are some Democrats so brainwashed that they think a woman president is the answer regardless of what kind of person that woman is? Since when do decent people in politics exult in death like this? Libya's murdered leader was no angel but Hitler he was not and as older people have told me, the deaths of Hitler and Stalin and the like were greeted publicly with muted and dignified relief by western representatives. ..."
"... Wake up Democrats. At least read a book called The Unravelling by an American journalist whose name I forget. This heartbreaking book says it all about the realities for the non privileged and non powerful in todays' America. ..."
"... If Clinton is the Dem nominee it does more than give me shivers. Heck, I view Hillary as demonstrably more dangerous with foreign policy. ..."
"... Both their economic/domestic policies do little or worse for the current situation. Both are untrustworthy and any rhetoric on policy is highly questionable (although Clinton is certainly the worst in this regard). About the only good thing between either is that Trump is willing to question our empire abroad, which is well overdue (meanwhile Clinton seems to want to expand it). ..."
"... Uh huh and your supporting a person: That voted for the Iraq War, destabilized Libya, Benghazi, gave tacit approval to a military junta in Honduras as Secretary of State, called black youth super predators, supports trade agreements that destroy our own manufacturing jobs, takes more money from special interests than her constituency, has made millions in speeches from the bank lobby and won't disclose the transcripts......yeah she's real HONEST. ..."
"... Money buys the influence to be selected as a candidate. Normally. 99% of the time. Sometimes a Huey Long populist breaks through the process and scares the fuck out of the power structures. But you know how candidates are selected. Poor smart people never get to run for president unless they build a populist power base. The existing political parties defer to donors. Donors like the Koch Brothers, who happily funded Bill Clinton and the DLC made their preferences clear. They didn't invest in a fit of altruistic progressivism. They wanted the DNC to swing right. And voila it did and Bill was anointed as the "one" to run. Don't be so naive. ..."
Robin is relentless is arguing AGAINST, but he is quite light on arguing for anything. It is an
interesting question as to what he stands for.
His main argument is that zero information from "right wing" press is true. He seems unaware
that at times, actual facts are presented or not presented or suppressed by either media outlet,
depending on their corporate ownership and management slant of what should be reported. Me? I
read everything and decide if something is a fact. It is strange that factual reporting about
the actual many many FOIA lawsuits only gets printed in right wing press. They of course have
an agenda, but does not negate the facts they report. Like Clinton being allowed to be deposed
in a civil FOIA suit. That is a fact, with quotes from the Judge. CNN? I guess they couldn't afford
to report this factual development.
When you only read the press looking for a partisan set of narratives, you end up being partisan
and ill informed. When you read all the flavours of press in an desire to inform yourself, when
your goal is not a narrative but factual accounts of the truth, then you can be better informed.
So we have partisans, who only view Fox and we also have partisans who only view CNN. Both are
as bad as each other. One must be capable of decreeing the motives of each, and discarding the
nonfactual narratives, and then one can be fully informed.
Robin makes the assumption that facts only occur in his selected set of informational partisan
sources. Why? Because he is partisan. This then enables him to argue against a narrative, rather
than support his own narrative. He plays the neat trick of simply discarding any factual reporting
from places like Breibart. One can see interesting lacks of coverage on google search.
"Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any
communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a
person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession."
So surely in America, Clinton with her wealth would take some legal action? I would if I
had her money, and wealth. Interesting that she has not? Perhaps you could write to her and
suggest she defend herself in a real and palpable way?
Yes and a lot of the press are trying to bury the news about another Sanders success. When you
look at how many voting districts he comes out top in, in is a large percentage. Clinton tends
to get closer or take the district if their is a higher population density.
The influence of the super delegates is a scandal in a "democratic process".
First I would be very careful taking what G gives, it is nowadays "fixing" news like Fox. Most
reliable, if speaking about polls the word can be used, is results of metastudies:
If Bernie does not get the nomination it will be the wilderness for the Democrats - no young voters
no independents - unless they can conjure a principled candidate somehow from somewhere.
Clinton won't cut it and she won't beat Trump. Trump will out her on every crooked deal she
has been involved in.
You'll then cycle back to the lesser of two evils, that Democrats like Obama and Clinton are needed
to help the poor blacks and minorities. To me this is a myth. The poor get fucked no matter what
party is in office.
Is this is a Fox News plant article? yeah yeah, let's vote Clinton who promises a continuation
of Obama's policies. Will Trump make this much worse? Maybe. Trump or Clinton will in my opinion
do little to improve these issues quoted below. You have a different opinion. Great.
"Like the rest of America, Black America, in the aggregate, is better off now than it was when
I came into office," said President Obama on December 19, in response to a question by Urban Radio
Networks White House Correspondent April Ryan.
What planet African Americans are doing "better off" on is unknown. What is known is that
President Obama is about to leave office with African Americans in their worst economic situation
since Ronald Reagan . A look at every key stat as President Obama starts his sixth year in
office illustrates that.
Unemployment. The average Black unemployment under President Bush was 10 percent. The average
under President Obama after six years is 14 percent. Black unemployment, "has always been double"
[that of Whites] but it hasn't always been 14 percent. The administration was silent when Black
unemployment hit 16 percent – a 27-year high – in late 2011 .
Poverty. The percentage of Blacks in poverty in 2009 was 25 percent; it is now 27 percent.
The issue of poverty is rarely mentioned by the president or any members of his cabinet. Currently,
more than 45 million people – 1 in 7 Americans – live below the poverty line.
The Black/White Wealth Gap. The wealth gap between Blacks and Whites in America is at a 24-year
high. A December study by PEW Research Center revealed the average White household is worth $141,900,
and the average Black household is worth $11,000. From 2010 to 2013, the median income for Black
households plunged 9 percent.
Income inequality. "Between 2009 and 2012 the top one percent of Americans enjoyed 95 percent
of all income gains, according to research from U.C. Berkeley," reported The Atlantic. It was
the worst since 1928. As income inequality has widened during President Obama's time in office,
the president has endorsed tax policy that has widened inequality, such as the Bush Tax cuts.
Education: The high school dropout rate has improved during the Obama administration. However,
currently 42 percent of Black children attend high poverty schools, compared to only 6 percent
of White students. The Department of Education's change to Parent PLUS loans requirements cost HBCU's more than $150 million and interrupted the educations of 28,000-plus HBCU students.
SBA Loans. In March 2014, the Wall Street Journal reported that only 1.7 percent of $23 billion
in SBA loans went to Black-owned businesses in 2013, the lowest loan of SBA lending to Black businesses
on record. During the Bush presidency, the percentage of SBA loans to Black businesses was 8 percent
– more than four times the Obama rate.
"All the equations showed strikingly uni- form statistical results: racism as we have measured
it was a significantly disequalizing force on the white income distribution, even when other factors
were held constant. A 1 percent increase in the ratio of black to white median incomes (that is,
a 1 percent decrease in racism) was associated with a .2 percent decrease in white inequality,
as measured by the Gini coefficient. The corresponding effect on top 1 percent share of white
income was two and a half times as large, indicating that most of the inequality among whites
generated by racism was associated with increased income for the richest 1 percent of white families.
Further statistical investigation reveals that increases in the racism variable had an insignifi-
cant effect on the. share received by the poorest whites and resulted in a decrease in the income
share of the whites in the middle income brackets."
"What I said, and still maintain, is that the struggle against racism is as important as the struggle
against other forms of oppression, including those with economic and financial causes."
We can agree on this statement. However, do we need to recognise that legislation alone will
not solve racism. A percentage of poor people turn against the "other" and apportion blame for
their issues.
" that campaign finance and banking reform will fix everything"
Of course not. But when you have an issue you can continually put bandaids on the symptoms
or you can perform a root cause analysis and then proceed to fix these root causes. The fact is
that politicians are disinclined to put the needs of voters first, they tend to pay lip service
to the needs of voters, while spending 60% of their time interacting with rich donors, who are
very good are articulating their needs, as they hand over large sums of money. This system creates
a log jam to reform. If we can return the immutable link to the voters interests, and congress
them reform of economic distortions that support racism become far far easier. Motive of change
and motives of votes become transparent.
"The various forms of discrimination are not separable in real life. Employers' hiring and
promotion practices; resource allocation in city schools; the structure of transportation sys-
tems; residential segregation and housing quality; availability of decent health care; be- havior
of policemen and judges; foremen's prejudices; images of blacks presented in the media and the
schools; price gouging in ghetto stores-these and the other forms of social and economic discrimination
interact strongly with each other in determining the occupational status and annual income, and
welfare, of black people. The processes are not simply additive but are mutually reinforcing.
Often, a decrease in one narrow form of discrimination is accompanied by an increase in another
form. Since all aspects of racism interact, an analysis of racism should incorporate all its as-
pects in a unified manner."
My thesis is this: build economic equality and the the pressing toxins of racism diminish.
But yeah dismiss Sanders as a one issue candidate. he is a politician, which I acknowledge. He
has a different approach to clinton who will micro triangulate constantly depending on who she
in front of. I find his approach ore honest. Your mileage may vary.
" money spent on campaigns does not correlate very highly to winning"
No but overall money gets to decide on a narrow set of compliance in the candidates. But it
still correlates to winning. Look at the Greens with no cash. Without the cash, they will never
win. Sanders has proved that 1. We do not need to depend on the rich power brokers to select narrowly
who will be presented as a candidate. 2. He has proved that a voter can donate and compete with
corporate donations. I would rather scads of voter cash financing rather than corporate cash buying
influence. ABSCAM was a brief flash, never repeated to show us what really happens in back rooms
when a wad of cash arrives with a politician. That we cannot PROVE what happens off the grid,
we can and should rely on common sense about the influence of money. 85% of the American people
believe cash buys influence. The only influence on a politician should be the will of the people.
Sure, corporates can speak. Speech is free. Corporate cash as speech is a different matter. It
is a moral corruption.
"most contributions come after electoral success"
Yes part of the implied contract of corporates and people like the Koch Brothers: Look after
us and we will look after you. We will keep you in power, as long as you slant the legislation
to favour us over the voters.
You do realise the Clinton Foundation bought the assets of the DLC, a defunct organisation.
Part of the assets are the documents and records that contain the information about the Koch Brothers
donations and their executives joining the "management" of the DLC. Why would a Charity be interested
in the DLC documents? Ah it is a Clinton Foundation. Yeah yeah, there is no proof of anything
is there. No law was broken. Do I smell something ? Does human nature guide my interpretation
absent a clear statement from the Foundation of this "investment"?? Yes.
We have to start SOMEWHERE. Root causes are the best place to start.
Democrat or Republican, Blacks and Whites at the bottom are thrown in a race for the bottom
and this helps fuel the impoverishment of both. It is fuel to feed racism. My genuine belief.
Why is it wrong for democrats to pick their own party leader? Also Obama beat Hilary last time
so what's Bernies problem now? Also why moan about a system that's been in place for decades now,
surely the onus was on Sanders to attract more middle of the road dem voters? Finally I'm sure
republicans would also love to vote in Sanders, easy to demolish with attack ads before the election
(you'll note they've studiously ignored him so far).
the world is divided in two, half who are nauseated by the above and the other half who purr in
admiration at the clever way Clinton has fucked the public once again. As Mencken said democracy
is that system of government in which it is assumed that the common man knows what he wants and
deserves to get it good and hard.
explain to me why the blacks and Hispanics vote for her because it is a mystery to me. She
stands for everything they have had to fight against. So you have a 1%er-Wall St.-invade
Iraq-subprime-cheat the EU-Goldman Sachs-arms dealing-despot cuddling-fuck the environment
coalition. And blacks and Hispanics too? Are they out of their minds?
BERNIE SANDERS - OR ZIG AGAINST ZAG
.
If the American people don't come to their senses and give Bernie Sanders the Democratic nomination,
we're going to end up with a choice between Zig and Zag. Zig is Donald Trump, and Zag is Hillary
Clinton. To paraphrase Mort Sahl back in the sixties, the only difference between the two is if
Donald 'Zig' Trump sees a Black child lying in the street, he'd simply order his chauffeur to
run over him. If Hillary 'Zag' Clinton saw the kid, she'd also order her chauffeur to run over
him, but she'd weep, and go apologize to the NAACP, after she felt the bump.
.
WAKE UP, BLACK PEOPLE!!!
Giving aid to the Republicans? If you honestly believe that any criticisms I have is worse than
what I discuss, you need to give up politics and get a hobby. Trump will for example use her FOIA/email
issues like a stick to beat her with. This is not Soviet Russia where we all adopt the party line.
I'm not not ever have been a member of the Democratic Party. I COULD have been this year. Now?
Never. The solution to the nations problems will come from outside this party.
I prefer neither. You love fearmongering about how worse it will be under trump. Hmmm. I don't
buy that tale. Take Black family incomes. In the toilet. Under either party it goes south. Abortion?
Like slavery nothing ...... Nothing is going to change. It's too late to change that one. But
it's a useful tool to make us believe ONLY Clinton can protect us. Economically the Democrats
are essentially the same as the Republicans, more of the same corporate welfare. Would Clinton
cut Social Security? Maybe. I don't believe her core statements. Sorry but as a person I just
can't buy into the package. Both republicans and democrats on a vague macro level will try to
lower unemployment but neither will talk about falling participation. Clinton had already proved
she's probably as likely as Trump to get bullets flying. It's her judgement. She's part of the
same old we need to intervene yet never understanding the real issues. I despise her unflinching
support of Saudi Arabia. That policy is insane!!! Etc etc etc.
You believe a black family gays and women will sing Kumbaya under Clinton and all will be well.
I believe both parties represent essentially the same with small regional differences .
It would be perhaps remotely marxist if he said comrades. But even that was used by democrats,
socialists and even fascists and nazists so I would say that no, there is nothing marxist about
it. One of his central messages is that we need to come together and improve our society, that
we are all the same, without race or religion, with the same needs and fears as humans.
I even disagree with people saying that he promotes class struggle, he is talking about
fair share and he is an ardent supporter of following the laws even when they are against his
ideology, which is something that radicals do not tend to do. Radicals do not give a damn
about laws and neither do Marxists or far-right wingers, fascists etc. Those groups believe in
changing the society through struggle into a model that fits their idea of the world whatever
that may be. He simply states his beliefs and suggests laws to adjust the society to human
needs, to eat, to live, to prosper in an equal footing.
It is a rather sad commentary on how the bar of integrity and honesty has been so lowered
that it doesn't even faze them
One wonders what makes them call themselves Democrats? Their stance on gun and abortion issues?
Certainly not economic and political justice, peace, democracy, or integrity in governance.
Yes, it's been the single most shocking revelation of the entire election year for me as well.
Not just the cynicism of the rank-and-file, but the arrogance and isolation of our corrupt Democratic
party elite, many of whom still don't seem to grasp that a revolt by progressive Democrats and
Independents is already under way. This
is one of the forms it may take.
Recharging is always a good idea ... and never more so than in an election year as turbulent,
crazy, uplifting, disillusioning, energizing, maddening and fascinating as this one. I'll also
be away (for weeks) toward the end of this month.
Before you go, here's Carl Bernstein's interview with Don Lemon, in case you missed it:
Hilary Clinton has various comments that reveals somebody who certainly fits the psychopath spectrum.
Among the lowest of the low was "We came, we saw, he died!" Accompanied by a cackle of laughter.
This was announced in full view of the media and public when Gadhaffi was overthrown by US assistance.
Are some Democrats so brainwashed that they think a woman president is the answer regardless of
what kind of person that woman is? Since when do decent people in politics exult in death like
this? Libya's murdered leader was no angel but Hitler he was not and as older people have told
me, the deaths of Hitler and Stalin and the like were greeted publicly with muted and dignified
relief by western representatives.
Add to that the continual lies that are being aired in public and this is why the USA has lost
its way.
Hillary will not see that one criminal in the financial world of the USA will face justice for
their mafia-like actions and destruction of billions of dollars and assets while stealing the
savings of Americans and non Americans. President Obama hasn't done it and he is not the buddy
Hilary is to these people.
And since when does the USA have the ethical superiority to attack countries like Russia for cronyism
etc? This is unbelievable - a presidential nominee candidate is being investigated by the FBI
and she doesn't stand down?
Wake up Democrats. At least read a book called The Unravelling by an American journalist whose
name I forget. This heartbreaking book says it all about the realities for the non privileged
and non powerful in todays' America.
I recall David Bowie's beautiful song This Is Not America. The Bernie supporters understand
that, all power to him, those who think like him, and his supporters.
Please. She lost that race in South Carolina when her husband, along with Geraldine Ferraro,
called Obama being president a fairy tale and an affirmative action candidate, respectively.
You can't win with only minority support, but you can't win without any of it if you are a
Dem. Up until SC, the Clintons had minority support in the bag--most black people had never
heard of Obama. Things changed real fast.
Like its not obvious? There is now no paper trail to enable ensuring computer votes are true.
A man on the moon can now ensure who is going to be President, that was said by a premier computer
security expert.
Along with extensive disenfranchisement, numerous ways its pretty clear these outcomes are
preordained. Guess I am not going to be voting for either of the two appointed runners, its
pointless. I will vote for Bernie when its time in California.
And to branch out a bit, there are so many empty stock phrases to choose from in her 2016 campaign
alone, including "I'm with her" and "Breaking down barriers" courtesy of her 2008 campaign manager,
Mark Penn. Speaking of Penn, there's a hilarious little passage in "Clinton, Inc" (p. 65) which
describes Penn running through possible campaign slogans for 2008. "Penn began to walk through
all the iterations of Hillary slogans: Solutions for America, Ready for a change, Ready to lead,
Big challenges, Real Solutions; Time to pick a President... but then he seem to get a little lost...Working
for change, Working for you. There was silence, then snickers as Penn tried to remember all the
bumper stickers which run together sounded absurd and indistinguishable. The Hillary I know."....
Oy. ^__^
But to pick out my favorite Hillary statement of the week, in honor of her close associate
and fellow gonif, Hillary superdelegate, Sheldon Silver, who recently got 12 years in the slammer:
In 2000, Silver was integral in Clinton's Senate campaign. According to The New York Times,
Silver helped Hillary lobby members of the state assembly for their support
So I guess the former speaker of the NY assembly is just gonna have to vote for Hillary
from behind bars, instead of at the DNC? How "super-inconvenient."
If Clinton is the Dem nominee it does more than give me shivers. Heck, I view Hillary as demonstrably
more dangerous with foreign policy. Both use identity politics as a decisive issue- which only
is a distraction from their lack of policy.
Both their economic/domestic policies do little or
worse for the current situation. Both are untrustworthy and any rhetoric on policy is highly questionable
(although Clinton is certainly the worst in this regard). About the only good thing between either
is that Trump is willing to question our empire abroad, which is well overdue (meanwhile Clinton
seems to want to expand it).
If it's between those two I vote Green and take the 'Jesse Ventura' option: vote anyone not
Dem or Rep. Both parties are two corrupt subsidiaries of their corporate masters.
Most effective senator for the last 35 years and as Mayor or Burlington stopped corporate real
estate developers from turning Burlington into Aspen east coast version.
She voted for the Iraq war, being investigated by the FBI for her emails, there was Benghazi,
turning Libya into a ISIS hotbed, allowed a military junta to assassinate a democratically elected
president in Honduras and said nothing,
takes $675k from Goldman for 3 speeches and refuses to disclose the transcripts because she
KNOWS it'll hurt her, voted for trade deals that's gutted manufacturing in the USA....should I
go on?
So please please explain how Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to wave a wand and fix racism? I
already know she will not fix poverty, she will slap a few ersatz bandaids onto bills that won't
pass and like the spoiled child will seek praise every time mommy gets him to shit on the potty.
You might recall a guy called Martin Luther King. he had some words about economic fairness and
poverty.
"" In the treatment of poverty nationally, one fact stands out: there are twice as many
white poor as Negro poor in the United States. Therefore I will not dwell on the experiences
of poverty that derive from racial discrimination, but will discuss the poverty that affects white
and Negro alike . "
nihilism: the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life
is meaningless. The belief that nothing in the world has a real existence.
You love that word but rejection of the dysfunctional state of DNC politics is NOT
nihilism. Moral corruption around campaign finance is real. Moral corruption around money and
lobbyists is real. The desire to fix this, this is real. Seeking real change is not nihilism.
But yes, if it pleases you to continue in every other post with this word, do so. It's misuse
says more about you than Sanders.
Please tell me exactly how much HRC has done for the U.S.? I'm from NYC and when she brought her
carpet bagging ass here and as a 2 term senator she pushed 3 pieces of legislation thru. If you
look at Bernie Sanders voting record:
He's been one of the most effective senators in Congress and has been able to get things done
with cooperation from both sides of the aisle.
So tell me again, what's she done that's so notable?
Uh huh and your supporting a person:
That voted for the Iraq War, destabilized Libya, Benghazi, gave tacit approval to a military junta
in Honduras as Secretary of State, called black youth super predators, supports trade agreements
that destroy our own manufacturing jobs, takes more money from special interests than her constituency,
has made millions in speeches from the bank lobby and won't disclose the transcripts......yeah
she's real HONEST......riiigggghhhhttttt....
Money buys the influence to be selected as a candidate. Normally. 99% of the time. Sometimes
a Huey Long populist breaks through the process and scares the fuck out of the power structures.
But you know how candidates are selected. Poor smart people never get to run for president unless
they build a populist power base. The existing political parties defer to donors. Donors like
the Koch Brothers, who happily funded Bill Clinton and the DLC made their preferences clear. They
didn't invest in a fit of altruistic progressivism. They wanted the DNC to swing right. And voila
it did and Bill was anointed as the "one" to run. Don't be so naive.
"... The only phrase that I've heard that sticks in my mind and think that is important was that before the talks, Russian official sources said there would be a "step-by-step" reduction of sanctions against Turkey. ..."
"... As others have pointed out, Erdogan from being the principle backer of Jihadis in Syria (save Saudi Arabia and the UAE), needs to somehow cover his own back as the Jihadis will come for him. Not that I am sympathetic, but not black and white. ..."
I don't know what to make of the InSultin' Erdogan and Pootie Poot meet. There's been BS called
from both sides, from swapping the West for Russia to Russia not gaining anything.
The only phrase that I've heard that sticks in my mind and think that is important was that
before the talks, Russian official sources said there would be a "step-by-step" reduction of sanctions
against Turkey. Now excuse me if I don't understand english properly, but such a phrase implies
that one side (in this case Russia), takes the first step and lifts in part or limited sanctions
against Turkey. Then it is for Turkey to reciprocate some way. Then Russia lifts another 'step'
etc. etc.
Some anal-ists have been crawing that " Russia done got no-thing *" and that Russia
was economically desperate to renew trade relations with Turkey, and you have to wonder what else
they have been smoking.
As others have pointed out, Erdogan from being the principle backer of Jihadis in Syria (save
Saudi Arabia and the UAE), needs to somehow cover his own back as the Jihadis will come for him.
Not that I am sympathetic, but not black and white.
Canada: The 'former' politeness capital of the world. Canadian politicians, making political mischief
in order to gain electoral capital with the Ukrainian diaspora (who made Canada what it is dontcha
know), have turned the country into a camp of morally offended Russophobes. I often wonder how
they got away with this as the 'average Canadian' has no real reason to adopt these sentiments,
let alone put them on display. It might be that they (our politicians) are using our sense of
'politeness', (referring to a generally believed Canadian pretense toward 'justice in social relations')
against us.
If you told Canadians they have to send their sons and daughters to Afghanistan to protect
Western (American) geopolitical dominance and business interests they would mostly tell you to
go to perdition. So just tell them it's so Afghan girls can go to school and they'll agree to
that, even happy to oblige.
And there is no choice in the matter. Where I live in Etobicoke I had to chose between two
candidates. The Tory came to my door telling me that V. Putin was the biggest evil facing us today."Of
course you believe that Ted", I told him, "you wouldn't last longer than a spit bubble in your
caucus if you didn't, but I know you are spouting warmongering drivel."
The liberal came talking junk ( like liberals do) about our mutual respect for sentiments of
goodwill and after he's elected I see him grinning like a hamster on Demerol standing with Andriy
Parubiy and Nadiya Savchenko as his new best friends.
Nice one Boris. You couldn't resist your 'inner Pole' from getting the better of you. I guess
even Neo-Nazis can have a 'goodwill ambassador'.
So Canadians have been lured into believing that their frontier forged community ethics, (it
was a northern frontier by the way, not a western one) compels them to call out the no-so-nice
actors (Russians in this case) that are doing the wrong things. Except in our case we're behaving
in the wrong way because we willingly believe the wrong things.
The problems is with Olympic sport as whole. It became too politicized to be of value. The achievements
displayed by athletes now are such that you suspect systematic doping program to be mainstream and revelations
about individual athletes doping are just the tip of the iceberg. It might be a time to replace Olympic
games with something else.
Notable quotes:
"... "It's something not usually heard at the Olympic Games. Booing. Loud, sustained booing. The rain of fury is directed at a common enemy: Russian athletes. The contingent, clouded and shrouded by drug scandal, has quickly emerged as the villains of these Rio 2016 Games. Like Cold War days of old, the Russians are once again the global bad guys. ..."
"... After avoiding a full Olympic ban, some wondered how fans and fellow athletes would treat Russian athletes. That answer came quickly. At the opening ceremony, even athletes from pariah nations were given polite applause. But fans interrupted the global Kumbya moment to let the Russians know their presence wasn't welcome." ..."
"... " It's kind of sad that today in sports in general, not just in swimming, there are people who are testing positive and are allowed back in the sport, and multiple times. I think it just breaks what sport is meant to be and that pisses me off." ..."
"... "We in Australia have been less than impressed with the efforts in America, and if you were to do a survey of the athletes, they'll tell you the country that's the major problem." ..."
"... "They came to me and asked me to participate in a project in which they wanted to give athletes what they called ATP injections – that's aginicent triphosphate. That's the fuel that muscle cells actually operate on and I refused on the basis that i thought it was unethical to give people things in a non-medical fashion for non-treatment, but just to see if it would help performance. I also thought that even if that substance wasn't directly named or on the IOC list, that it was at least aimed in the direction of doping." ..."
"... "They've got the facilities, they've got the research, they've got the motivation to be using drugs across the board in many different sports." ..."
"... Sports Illustrated ..."
"... The Orange County Register ..."
"... "The World Anti-Doping Agency steered the Stepanovs to a reporter at the German television network ARD. Their tapes became the centerpiece of this documentary which aired in December 2014 and sent shockwaves through the world of sports." ..."
"... "The report released Monday was the result of a 10-month investigation by an independent commission of WADA. Its inquiry stemmed from a December 2014 documentary by the German public broadcaster ARD , which drew on accounts from Russian athletes, coaches and antidoping officials, who said that the Russian government had helped procure drugs for athletes and cover up positive test results." ..."
"... "Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov, the director of the Moscow lab whom Monday's report accused of having solicited and accepted bribes, dismissed the suggestions. "This is an independent commission which only issues recommendations," he said. "There are three fools sitting there who don't understand the laboratory." ..."
"... "Conte, who spent four months in prison for his role in the affair, said he has offered to provide expert insights to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), only to be turned down. "I've made myself available, put forward names, addresses, websites, protocols but you know what they told me? That we can't trust someone who's been sentenced ," he added." ..."
"... Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for Russian president Vladimir Putin, said Tuesday that "as long as there is no evidence [of state-sponsored doping in Russia], it is difficult to consider the accusations, which appear rather unfounded." How do you respond to that? ..."
"... That doesn't surprise me. He and others have said that before. But I would expect that won't be the same refrain by the end of the week once they have a chance to study the report. When you draw the connections across the board about what's going on, you can't just say this is just a few isolated people or some of the old coaches dictating out of the Soviet era and nobody else. ..."
"... Dmitry's correct. We don't have any evidence of a systematic, state-wide doping mechanism. If we did, we would have published it and so we have to go on the inference. But across a vast country [with] all sorts of different training camps, it has to be somehow state supported but we can't actually describe for you how that operates. We can only draw the inference. We've given them a chance to reform, so why don't you reform and join the rest of the world instead of fighting it. ..."
"... " The IP did not seek to interview persons living in the Russian Federation . I did not seek to meet with Russian government officials and did not think it necessary " ..."
"... on no grounds but their nationality ..."
"... "Additionally, no reliance can be made on the McLaren Report as evidence, as it is not complete, it has secret parts that were not shared with or available to the Athlete and there was no date of the sample taking in the information provided by Mr. McLaren." ..."
"... "FISA applied the criterion and was satisfied that the Athlete was 'clearly implicated' by the McLaren Report and was therefore excluded from the Rio Games." ..."
"... "Additionally, Mr. McLaren, in his amicus curiae, while not providing the emails on grounds of confidentiality, revealed to the Panel the exact date and times of the message from the Moscow laboratory that the screen of the Athlete's A sample revealed positive for the prohibited substance GW 1516 and the response from the Deputy Minister to change the positive into a negative, following the DPM. While these additional details were not before FISA (primarily due to the lack of time) they have been considered by the Panel in this de novo procedure". ..."
"... "I have to respect (the track authorities') decision even if it is something I don't necessarily agree with," King said. "No, do I think people who have been caught doping should be on the team? They shouldn't. It is unfortunate we have to see that. ..."
"... "In the United States, it is a matter of law. If you are not under a ban, regardless of what you may have served in the past, you are fully eligible to be on the team." ..."
"... "For one, a blanket ban on Russian athletes would likely have been derailed by numerous legal hurdles. The Court of Arbitration for Sport, among others, would likely overturn a universal ban that included athletes who haven't been implicated in doping. ..."
"... "We were mindful of the need for justice for clean athletes," IOC vice-president John Coates told reporters. "We did not want to penalize athletes who are clean with a collective ban and, therefore, keeping them out of the Games." ..."
According to the CBC – the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a Crown corporation and the official
voice of the nation – Russian athletes are "emerging
as the villains of the Rio Olympics". And maybe it's just me, but the tone seems approving, self-righteous judgy.
As if the official mouthpiece of Canada is delighted to sign on to the Get Russia program offered
by its southern neighbour and business partner to all its toadies and would-be chambermaids.
In a word, this is disappointing. I used that word because I didn't want to start swearing so
early, although I'm sure we'll get to it.
Just so we're clear – whose interests does it serve for Canada to enthusiastically sign on to
booing and hooting like howler monkeys whenever Russian athletes step up to compete, like we were
English football hooligans? Canada's? How?
In fact, as everyone who is not thick as a BC pine knows, it serves Washington's interests, because
the USA wants Russia isolated and alone and friendless because it is pissed off at it for other things,
and the more disrespect and ignorance and rudeness it gets from the former politeness capital of
the world, the better Uncle Sam likes it. WADA is going after every medal Russia ever won, and it
is not even looking at anyone else. And that entire effort rests on the credibility of two people;
one who was convicted of doping herself and barred from competition for two years for it, and her
husband who knew and did nothing about it while he worked for the national anti-doping agency.
We'll get to that.
"It's something not usually heard at the Olympic Games. Booing. Loud, sustained booing. The
rain of fury is directed at a common enemy: Russian athletes. The contingent, clouded and shrouded
by drug scandal, has quickly emerged as the villains of these Rio 2016 Games. Like Cold War days
of old, the Russians are once again the global bad guys.
After avoiding a full Olympic ban, some wondered how fans and fellow athletes would treat
Russian athletes. That answer came quickly. At the opening ceremony, even athletes from pariah nations
were given polite applause. But fans interrupted the global Kumbya moment to let the Russians know
their presence wasn't welcome."
Disappointing. Disappointing to see how easy it is to get people who probably are reasonably nice
under ordinary circumstances to get on board with the mob mentality, because it's kind of fun. Why
is the western audience (because that's who it is, mostly – the North Americans, the Australians
and the English) booing the Russians? Because the whole nation is implicated in a doping scandal.
Is that all it takes to make otherwise-sensible people make one-syllable sounds of disapproval
simultaneously, in a deliberately-insulting fashion? Good. Let's hear a long, sustained 'boooooo .."
for the cheatingest nation on the planet – the United States of America.
Worldly-wise 19-year-old American 100-meter backstroke champion Lilly
King unloaded on silver-medalist Russian Yulia Efimova,
calling her a drug cheat and sounding off to reporters that the 'twice-banned' Russian athlete
should not be allowed at the games; Efimova was booed by the crowd every time she appeared on the
pool deck. World-class jackass Michael Phelps, American team leader, went further as he applauded
King's rudeness; " It's kind of sad that today in sports in general, not just in swimming, there
are people who are testing positive and are allowed back in the sport, and multiple times. I think
it just breaks what sport is meant to be and that pisses me off."
That so, Michael? All about self-discipline, are you? Did you learn
that
in rehab? "I honestly didn't care about my training" leading up to the 2012 London Olympics;
wasn't that you? Is that what sport is meant to be? Isn't this you, with
a bong in your face? What's up with that, voice of clean sports?
While we're having this heart-to-heart, Michael, let me tell you what
pisses me off. Hypocrisy.
Before the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney even started, Dr. Wade Exum
– former director of the US Olympic Committee's (USCOC) drug-testing program – announced that
more than half of all US
athletes caught doping prior to the Atlanta games (1996) suffered no penalty whatever and were
permitted to compete at those games, where some of them won medals. At the time, ally Australia's
opinion of America's drug-testing efforts was decidedly negative.
"We in Australia have been less than impressed with the efforts
in America, and if you were to do a survey of the athletes, they'll tell you the country that's the
major problem."
And let me tell you this – that same country is still the
major problem. It has hit upon the novel approach that rather than control the athletes and what
they are taking, you control the testing process and develop performance enhancements which are ever
harder to detect. Within months of Exum's joining USOC in 1991, the organization came to him with
a proposal to trial a new injection 'just to see if it enhances performance'.
"They came to me and asked me to participate in a project in which
they wanted to give athletes what they called ATP injections – that's aginicent triphosphate. That's
the fuel that muscle cells actually operate on and I refused on the basis that i thought it was unethical
to give people things in a non-medical fashion for non-treatment, but just to see if it would help
performance. I also thought that even if that substance wasn't directly named or on the IOC list,
that it was at least aimed in the direction of doping."
Other Australians were less circumspect in their criticism. Sean Murphy,
chair of the Australian Olympic Committee at the time, said, "They've got the facilities, they've
got the research, they've got the motivation to be using drugs across the board in many different
sports."
There was no World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) then; it was founded by
Dick Pound in 1999 and he served as president until 2007. But WADA and Dick Pound were certainly
around in 2003, when Exum
released more than 30,000 pages of documents to Sports Illustrated and The Orange
County Register, documents which proved beyond doubt that American athletes and champions such
as Carl Lewis and Mary Jo Fernandez tested positive for banned substances in American screening but
were allowed to compete anyway. USOC called Exum's accusations 'baseless'. Were they? Evidently not
– here's Carl Lewis's reaction:
So
I was doping, who cares?
That's the accused, ladies and gentleman. It sounds awfully like a
confession to me. What does that mean? That the United States Olympic Committee was comprised of
and headed by liars, whose word on anything to do with the clean performance of American athletes
was not and is not to be trusted. It also screams "State-sponsored doping program" in chrome letters
18 feet high; USOC is the national authority for Olympic sport, and of the top ten doping scandals
of all time in Track and Field,
six are Americans.
Can anybody tell me the last time the United States did not send a
team to the Olympics because it was awarded a blanket ban for doping? That's right – never. Nor has
any identifiable component of its team, such as Track and Field, been banned from competition, despite
ample evidence of doping which was covered up by American sports organizations and its Olympic Commission.
But Mr. Clean, Dick Pound, was adamant that Russia be banned completely from competition at Rio,
and was vocal in his disappointment that only the Track and Field team was denied the opportunity
to compete, including world champion gold medalist Yelena Isinbayeva, who has never, ever failed
a drug test conducted by any authority. What a disgrace. But Dick Pound was one of the three members
of the 'Independent Commission' appointed to investigate Russia's alleged state-sponsored doping
program.
Let's go back to the Sydney Games, 2000. That event was dogged by allegations
that American athletes had used performance-enhancing drugs to win medals. Rubbish, said USOC. An
investigation was ordered. Enter Professor Richard McLaren, who headed the probe
Boom.
The BALCO Scandal hit,
three years later. The Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative, headed by Victor Conte, whipped up performance
cocktails for American athletes. He admitted to it, and implicated dozens of athletes. Perhaps the
most well-known was Marion Jones, who won 5 medals at the Sydney Olympics, 3 of them gold. Marion
Jones vehemently denied any involvement with drugs, and sued Conte for defamation. Not until 2007
did she finally admit tearfully that it was all true, and was awarded 6 months in jail for lying
to federal investigators, as well as being stripped of her medals. Regina Jacobs was also netted,
and awarded a 4-year suspension from competition; the same year the BALCO scandal broke, she set
a world record in the indoor 1500 meter. Alvin Harrison, who won a gold and a silver for the USA
at the Sydney Olympics; he was not stripped of any medals until 2008, when a teammate admitted he
had used performance-enhancing drugs. Michelle Collins, the 2003 world-record holder for the 200-meter
indoor sprint. She was banned from competition for 8 years, threatened to take the United States
Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) to court, and they backed down and cut her suspension to 4 years. The
current head of USADA is the alliteratively-named Travis T. Tygart, who bayed like a hound for a
Russian national ban at Rio. 'Cause, you know, enough is enough.
Kevin Toth, a US shot-putter who was United States Track and Field
(USATF)
Athlete of the Week in April that same year; he got a 2-year suspension. John McEwen, 2-year
suspension. Dwain Chambers, a British sprinter – think word got around about the USA's new line of
undetectable performance enhancers? He was the top European performer at his Olympic debut at – you
guessed it – the Sydney Olympics; 2-year suspension. Calvin Harrison, identical twin brother of the
previously-named Alvin Harrison, gold medalist at Sydney in the 4oo-meter relay – 2-year suspension.
We could go on with this for quite a while, but I think you get the point.
Here's what I bet you didn't get, though. Professor McLaren's investigation
did not catch any of those people. They were all exposed by the BALCO scandal and press releases
like those generated by Exum. McLaren's investigation wrapped up in 2001, and a year after that USATF
was still
suppressing the case files and refusing to reveal the name of an American athlete who had been
cleared to compete at the Sydney Olympics and had won a medal for the USA. USATF defied an order
and threats of de-registration from IOC president Dr. Jacques Rogge. What was done about it? Fuck
all, as you probably knew.
Professor McLaren was the public voice of the 'Independent Commission'
that recommended a complete national ban for Russia at Rio. The third member was Gunter Younger,
a former head of a Bavarian cybercrime division, who was just appointed as
WADA's new head of Intelligence and Investigations this past June. Younger headed the actual
investigation into Russian doping, and was 'given a free hand' by Dick Pound to use the covert recordings
from the German television ARD documentary which initially broke the story of Russian doping.
Well, sort of. Actually ARD was steered onto the story by WADA, who
had acquired the services of the whistle-blowing Stepaonovs, Yulia (nee Rusanova), a doper athlete
and her urine-testing husband with the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA). WADA told Valery Stepanov
that it did not have the power to investigate inside Russia. So WADA
steered the Stepanovs to ARD with their story, which was released as a documentary and which
WADA then pounced on as evidence of 'a culture of cheating'.
"The World Anti-Doping Agency steered the Stepanovs to a reporter
at the German television network ARD. Their tapes became the centerpiece of this documentary which
aired in December 2014 and sent shockwaves through the world of sports."
"The report released Monday was the result of a 10-month investigation
by an independent commission of WADA. Its inquiry stemmed from a December 2014 documentary
by the German public broadcaster ARD, which drew on accounts from Russian athletes, coaches
and antidoping officials, who said that the Russian government had helped procure drugs for athletes
and cover up positive test results."
But WADA considers the Stepanovs 100% credible. It has to – that's
the only evidence it has. Grigory Rodchenkov, the former director of the Moscow laboratory, was not
always on board, and as recently as November 2015 described the Independent Commission as 'three
fools'.
"Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov, the director of the Moscow lab whom Monday's
report accused of having solicited and accepted bribes, dismissed the suggestions. "This is an independent
commission which only issues recommendations," he said. "There are three fools sitting there who
don't understand the laboratory."
Yet only months later he was in the WADA camp and singing like a canary.
Perhaps the revelation that Vitaly Stepanov recorded 15 hours of their conversations without his
knowledge inspired a conversion. Oddly enough, that is generally illegal in Canada, and cannot be
used as evidence except in exceptional circumstances. There is a blanket exemption, though, for consent,
and this is implied if the person making the recording is a party to the conversation. Still, it
kind of makes Rodchenkov sound like the kind of guy who will say anything. Just to give you an idea
how ridiculous that is, Victor Conte – the executive in charge of BALCO – offered after the scandal
broke to act as an expert assistant to WADA (probably as an effort to plea-bargain; he served four
months in prison).
"Conte, who spent four months in prison for his role in the affair, said he has offered to
provide expert insights to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), only to be turned down. "I've made
myself available, put forward names, addresses, websites, protocols but you know what they told
me? That we can't trust someone who's been sentenced," he added."
But they can trust someone who just got through saying the Investigative Commissioners were three
fools who don't have any power to do anything and don't know what the fuck they're talking about,
when he suddenly says, Yesiree, boss, it was exactly like you said. I'm a crook. And you know who
else is a crook? The whole Russian government. Uh huh.
Which brings me to my favourite part – the legal implications. The McLaren Report is careful not
to name names for public consumption, because WADA fears getting sued by individuals. As well it
might. So McLaren prefers to leave the oomph of his report to a statement that it proves there is
a state sponsored doping program in Russia which is known and countenanced by the highest levels
of government. And he's said that, on a number of occasions, and the press has dutifully repeated
it. It's basically the most damaging finding of the McLaren Report.
Which is why it would be odd for him to say that WADA has no evidence of a state-sponsored doping
program.
Like he did here, after the report came out.
CBCSports.ca: Dmitry Peskov, a spokesman for Russian president Vladimir Putin,
said Tuesday that "as long as there is no evidence [of state-sponsored doping in Russia], it is difficult
to consider the accusations, which appear rather unfounded." How do you respond to that?
McLaren:That doesn't surprise me. He and others have said that before. But
I would expect that won't be the same refrain by the end of the week once they have a chance to study
the report. When you draw the connections across the board about what's going on, you can't just
say this is just a few isolated people or some of the old coaches dictating out of the Soviet era
and nobody else.
Dmitry's correct. We don't have any evidence of a systematic, state-wide doping mechanism.
If we did, we would have published it and so we have to go on the inference. But across
a vast country [with] all sorts of different training camps, it has to be somehow state supported
but we can't actually describe for you how that operates. We can only draw the inference. We've given
them a chance to reform, so why don't you reform and join the rest of the world instead of fighting
it.
The 'Independent Commission'
did
not question or interview any Russian athletes or officials except for the Stepanovs and Grigory
Rodchenkov. " The IP did not seek to interview persons living in the Russian Federation . I
did not seek to meet with Russian government officials and did not think it necessary "
And, you see, that's a problem. Because athletes on the Track and Field team who have never failed
a drug test were banned, by association, from competing, on no grounds but their nationality.
Others were banned in highly ambiguous circumstances, just because their names appeared in McLaren's
testimony. Like Russian rower Ivan Balandin, whose appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS)
is featured
here.
The whole case is worth reading, as there are many juicy bits, but the upshot was his appeal was
rejected on the grounds that he had made out he was unfairly denied the chance to compete because
the McLaren Report fingered him for doping, which was not the case – he was fingered as 'ineligible'
because one of his samples had allegedly tested positive, except McLaren did not even know when the
test was allegedly administered, that information helpfully being provided by the UK, the second-most-Russophobic
of the western countries. I'm damned if I can see the difference, but I'm not a lawyer. Anyway, I'd
just like to draw your attention to page 7, where we read,
"Additionally, no reliance can be made on the McLaren Report as evidence, as it is not complete,
it has secret parts that were not shared with or available to the Athlete and there was no date of
the sample taking in the information provided by Mr. McLaren."
But on the same page, it reports, "FISA applied the criterion and was satisfied that the Athlete
was 'clearly implicated' by the McLaren Report and was therefore excluded from the Rio Games."
Wha wha what??? The reference which did not meet evidentiary standards was relied upon in the decision?
Oh, dear; on Page 11 "Additionally, Mr. McLaren, in his amicus curiae, while not providing
the emails on grounds of confidentiality, revealed to the Panel the exact date and times of the message
from the Moscow laboratory that the screen of the Athlete's A sample revealed positive for the prohibited
substance GW 1516 and the response from the Deputy Minister to change the positive into a negative,
following the DPM. While these additional details were not before FISA (primarily due to the lack
of time) they have been considered by the Panel in this de novo procedure".
FISA and the Panel both made decisions based on evidence furnished by McLaren that they never
examined or even saw. There just wasn't time. McLaren's report provides the evidence of a state-run
doping program, except he doesn't have any evidence of that and says so, although he does and it's
secret and he hasn't shown it to anyone.
Bullshit. From start to finish. No western athlete would have to put up with a ban on competition
just because he or she was American or Canadian or Dutch, and he or she would damned sure not be
told to accept a ban where he or she had not even seen the evidence against him or her because it
was secret.
Which brings us back to the hooting and booing like the audience at a taping of the Arsenio Hall
Show. On the occasion of Ms. King flipping out on Ms. Efimova, some reports of the incident recount
the rest of the conversation – in which the reporter asked Ms. King if she thought American doper
athletes like Justin Gatlin and Tyson Gay should be allowed to compete. To her credit, she didn't
flinch, and said
absolutely not.
"I have to respect (the track authorities') decision even if it is something I don't necessarily
agree with," King said. "No, do I think people who have been caught doping should be on the team?
They shouldn't. It is unfortunate we have to see that.
"In the United States, it is a matter of law. If you are not under a ban, regardless of what
you may have served in the past, you are fully eligible to be on the team."
Which describes Ms. Efimova's circumstances to a 'T'. What would be the American response to an
Olympics audience which booed loudly every time Gay or Gatlin took the field? Low-class? You bet.
"For one, a blanket ban on Russian athletes would likely have been derailed by numerous legal
hurdles. The Court of Arbitration for Sport, among others, would likely overturn a universal ban
that included athletes who haven't been implicated in doping.
"We were mindful of the need for justice for clean athletes," IOC vice-president John Coates
told reporters. "We did not want to penalize athletes who are clean with a collective ban and, therefore,
keeping them out of the Games."
Totally oblivious to fairness, apparently, are the Olympic crowds booing like a bunch of fourth-graders,
and getting across the message so helpful to Washington that 'you Russian cheaters are not welcome
here', fattened on non-stop propaganda from the world's biggest cheater and seasoned by the McLaren
Report which proves Russia has a state culture of cheating, except it doesn't.
WADA argued for a total ban. Travis Tygart of USADA argued for a total ban, because it would likely
mean more medals for Americans. Neither of them gives a tin weasel whether it would be legal or not.
Because that's the way things are done now – you just smash ahead by brute force and momentum, and
hope that everyone mistakes action for justification.
And that's what you're cheering for when you boo the Russians. I'm ashamed of you.
There will be a price exacted for this later. I will be surprised if Russia does not take WADA
to court, and even if it does not, the angry split between WADA and the IOC is evident. The McLaren
Report does not prove anything it purports to prove, and it will not stand up to a challenge. At
a minimum, WADA should be moved out of Canada to the USA, whose policies and interests it serves,
depriving that country of an opportunity to internationalize its own initiatives.
"... "The larger conclusion from the data is that the Trump campaign - both through the support Trump generates among working-class whites and the opposition he generates among better educated, more affluent voters - has accelerated the ongoing transformation of the Democratic Party. ..."
"... Once a class-based coalition, the party has become an alliance between upscale well-educated whites and, importantly, ethnic and racial minorities, many of them low income" ..."
"Democrats' Tactic of Accusing Critics of Kremlin Allegiance Has Long, Ugly History in U.S." [The
Intercept].
The party left me
"The larger conclusion from the data is that the Trump campaign - both through the support
Trump generates among working-class whites and the opposition he generates among better educated,
more affluent voters - has accelerated the ongoing transformation of the Democratic Party.
Once a
class-based coalition, the party has become an alliance between upscale well-educated whites and,
importantly, ethnic and racial minorities, many of them low income"
"... By Kevin O'Rourke, Chichele Professor of Economic History, All Souls College, University of Oxford; and Programme Director, CEPR. Originally published at VoxEU . ..."
"... I completely agree that the backlash has been a long time coming. We are decades into a slow motion train wreck at this point. The evidence is there for any who wish to see it. ..."
Aug 12, 2016 |
By Kevin O'Rourke, Chichele Professor of Economic History, All Souls College,
University of Oxford; and Programme Director, CEPR.
Originally published at VoxEU.
After the Brexit vote, it is obvious to many that globalisation in general, and European integration
in particular, can leave people behind – and that ignoring this for long enough can have severe political
consequences. This column argues that this fact has long been obvious. As the historical record demonstrates
plainly and repeatedly, too much market and too little state invites a backlash. Markets and states
are political complements, not substitutes.
The main point of my 1999 book with Jeff Williamson was that globalisation produces both winners
and losers, and that this can lead to an anti-globalisation backlash (O'Rourke and Williamson 1999).
We argued this based on late-19th century evidence. Then, the main losers from trade were European
landowners, who found themselves competing with an elastic supply of cheap New World land. The
result was that in Germany and France, Italy and Sweden, the move towards ever-freer trade that had
been ongoing for several years was halted, and replaced by a shift towards protection that benefited
not only agricultural interests, but industrial ones as well. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic,
immigration restrictions were gradually tightened, as workers found themselves competing with
European migrants coming from ever-poorer source countries.
...
The globalisation experience of the Atlantic economy prior to the Great War
speaks directly and eloquently to globalisation debates today – and the
political lessons from this are sobering.
"Politicians, journalists, and
market analysts have a tendency to extrapolate the immediate past into the
indefinite future, and such thinking suggests that the world is irreversibly
headed toward ever greater levels of economic integration. The historical
record suggests the contrary."
"Unless politicians worry about who gains and who loses,î we continued,
ìthey may be forced by the electorate to stop efforts to strengthen global
economy links, and perhaps even to dismantle them … We hope that this book will
help them to avoid that mistake – or remedy it."
...If the English want continued Single Market access, they will have to swallow continued labour
mobility. There are complementary domestic policies that could help in making that politically
feasible. We will have to wait and see what the English decide. But there are also lessons for the
27 remaining EU states (28 if, as I hope, Scotland remains a member). Too much market and too little
state invites a backlash. Take the politics into account, and it becomes clear (as Dani Rodrik has
often argued) that markets and states are complements, not substitutes.
UK Toryism today is not so much a political party espousing an ideology as
it is an ideology that has taken over a political party. It is the ideolgy of
exploitation of a tiny clique over an entire society and has become, through
extensive and relentless propoganda, embedded the fabric of UK society. It is a
class ideology that requires a middle classes and poorer apirants to the middle
classes to accept cuts to their influence and hence wealth by creating an
demonising a constructed underclass. The underclass serves as:
1. a frightening lesson to those who do not conform
2. scapegoats for every kind of social and cultural ill
3. a fungible source of wandering labour who can be compelled to exploitation
and discarded at will
It demands the destruction of the state that supports people and replaces it
with a state that supports business interests only. Everything must become a
commodity – especially humans. It is an ideology that decries income
distribution to the less wealthy but in every instance creates laws that ensure
distribution of vast majority of wealth to the wealthiest. It is the insurance
company for the wealthy as well. The taxpayer is the insurer.
The greatest single example of wealth redistribution from the politically
weak is the student loan wheeze. The mob in their greatest exploits could not
have contrived a more elaborate form of extortion. As Tory idoeology
'crapifies' every job in the UK, they goad the young into what have become
school factories, turning out people with certificates but often very little
relevant qualification for a shrinking economy. Meanwhile the governement sells
the loans to "investors" (themselves and their friends) for pence on the pound.
Create the law that create the conditions that create the cash flow, and
never lift a finger to do a real days work.
What's not to like?
Given the over population of the island, that oil is running out, and that
they have gutted any social and cultural cohesive factor, and even if Brexit
evaporates, the long term bodes ill anyway.
paul
So if the EU was completely different in action and intent, we would not
have had brexit?
Is labour mobility a really an expression of individual freedom, or coercive
displacement in the face of the internal devaluation insisted upon by the
technocrats?
Its the former for JC Juncker and the latter for the workers at the
sports direct gulags.
Globalisation is a mechanism to strengthen corporations and the elites that
own them, we would never had heard of the term otherwise.
The europroject has steadfastly committed itself to this end and nothing
will be allowed to interfere with it.
A highly coupled,regionally constrained 'free trade' area is the only way to
achieve this end.
Why is brexit going to be painful? The same reason a chinese finger trap is
difficult to get out of, it's designed that way.
The eurogroup cannot admit that it now only serves as an iron lung for the
financial sector.
Popular reaction against it is to be welcomed, It's the only thing that will
work.
windsock
"It is astonishing in retrospect how few people argued strongly for more
services rather than fewer people."
Well, Jeremy Corbyn did…
"Learning abroad and working abroad, increases the opportunities and skills
of British people and migration brings benefits as well as challenges at home.
But it's only if there is government action to train enough skilled workers
to stop the exploitation of migrant labour to undercut wages and invest in
local services and housing in areas of rapid population growth that they will
be felt across the country.'
And this Government has done nothing of the sort. Instead, its failure to
train enough skilled workers means we have become reliant on migration to keep
our economy functioning."
and
"It is sometimes easier to blame the EU, or worse to blame foreigners, than
to face up to our own problems. At the head of which right now is a
Conservative Government that is failing the people of Britain."
…but the Tories couldn't – they have been demonising the service users as
"scroungers" and "skivers" since Osborne introduced his austerity policies in
2010. Why on earth would he and Cameron – leading the Remain campaign, take the
opinions of such people (like me) into account?
Art Eclectic
I don't believe the lack of skilled workers is the problem. The problem
is the wages that professionals WANT to pay for skills do match up with what
labor needs/wants to make. Tech workers are a perfect example. US tech
companies want more HB1 visas, claiming there is not enough skilled labor.
The part they leave out is the skilled labor wages. A US citizen carrying
six figures in student load dept demands a higher wage than an Indian
immigrant on an HB1.
The professional class and corporations want to pay lower wages for
everything from child care to roofers to junior managers, so of course they
are all in favor of globalization and worker movement. There's bit of
classism there as well. The senior manager is pissed that some random coder
is making almost as much as he is. The professional is offended that a child
care worker can afford their own home and drive a middle class car. Keeping
wages low allows the professionals to maintain distinction of rank and
value.
You can see that impact in every discussion about minimum wages and
people complaining about fast food workers getting $15 a hour for
"low-skill" work.
Ancaeus
Lambert,
The subtext of this article is a fawning acceptance of the desirability of
globalization. Many of us reject globalization outright. We don't believe that
it can, or ever will, be "tamed". Nor do we desire to live in a world where its
pernicious effects must be forever mitigated. We do not want to be the
recipients of such long-term mitigation, with the consequent loss of dignity.
Instead, let us return to local products and services, produced by our
neighbors. The money we spend will stay in our community. What's more, the
social benefits of such local trade and the resulting thriving local economy go
well beyond economic ones.
The destruction of social cohesion is the primary externality that results
from "free trade". And, in my opinion, no amount of money can adequately
compensate for it. Returning to Brexit question, it is not clear to me that
these non-economic costs of free trade are made worthwhile by the supposed
non-economic benefits of the European project. From this side of the Atlantic,
it seems doubtful.
Agreed. I come at it from the other side: I think the (reasonably
controlled) exchange of people, ideas, goods, and services across national
borders is a good thing; however, I respect the right of those who dislike
globalization to do so. This post instead treats them with a thinly veiled
heaping of scorn on top of an implicit claim of calling people both stupid
and racist.
The notion at the end of the article that Brexit specifically, or
opposition to globalization more generally, is about market vs. the state is
nonsensical bordering on purposeful obtuseness. Western society today is not
characterized by too little state. The problem is what the state does.
Sound of the Suburbs
The BoE has taken more action that won't help and its been a long time since
2008.
More and more people have read Richard Koo's book and know fiscal stimulus
is required.
Ben Bernake and Janet Yellen had read Richard Koo's book and ensured the US
didn't impose austerity and go over the fiscal cliff.
Mario hasn't read Richard Koo's book and pushed the Club-Med nations over
the fiscal cliff.
The harsh austerity on Greece, killed the Greek economy altogether.
Reading Richard Koo's book is important, if only Mario would get a copy
before he wipes out the Club-Med economies and banking systems.
Mark Carney is from the Goldman stable and is naturally slow on the uptake
and is set in his old-fashioned banker ways.
Before you make a complete fool of yourself like Mario, here is an essential
video:
The IMF and World Bank spent 50 years imposing austerity, selling off
previously public companies and insisting on lower Government spending. The
trail of wreckage is spread across the world, South America, Africa, Asia and
finally Greece.
Bankers don't take responsibility for anything and so never learn from their
mistakes.
Well, The IMF, after 50 years, has finally realised this doesn't work.
At 15.30 mins. into the video you can see the UK situation.
There are massive bank reserves, adding to them will make no difference.
Comparing the charts, the UK's borrowing has gone down more since 2008 than
the US and the Euro-zone.
We are doing all the wrong things, like austerity.
If we had done the right things straight away the UK might still be
in the EU
(The Euro-zone figures look OK because the strong Northern nations aren't
doing too badly, looking at the Club-Med nations and Greece, it's a very
different story. The chart of Greece shows a nation being run into the ground.)
hotairmail
I voted Brexit not for the 'immigration issue' but for democracy. The EU
bureaucracy has too much power and leverages its Central Bank to keep wayward
states in line such as Greece, deliberately causing deflationary depressions
and mass unemployment in their wake. The disdain with which democratic leaders
are treated is typified by a rather famous video where a drunk Juncker greets
various heads of democratic governments and proceeds to treat them
disgracefully (search "Juncker bitch slap" on Youtube). That is not simply a
video of a drunk man being inappropriate – it shows you where the power lies
and what the bureaucracy routinely believes it can get away with.
Britain decided not to join the Euro bloc. It is well documented that its
design is not sustainable. It will either blow up and the thing will fall
apart, or they will need to implement new fiscal transfers from the rich parts
of the bloc to the less well off, as with an ordinary country. The Euro bloc
will need to make big changes to ensure the Euro stays together which involves
large costs to the richer nations such as Germany and Holland. But as most of
the EU decision making at inter governmental level is majority voting, it is
likely the UK would be outvoted to implement this via the EU – NOT the Euro
bloc. They will want to pick the pockets of the UK even though the reasons for
the transfers is nothing to do with the UK.
Turning to the immigartion issue itself, it seems to me this is just as much
about tax and benefits policy and its effects, as it is for free movement. As
an EU citizen when you come to the UK, you are automatically treated the same
as a UK citizen. This means you instantly have access to free health, free
schools, housing benefit and in work tax credits. These sums really add up. The
effect of these supports is to make labour very cheap to employers in the UK –
people can do very low value work and still make their way. The expansion of
the EU to the east made a vast pool of relatively poor labour available to
employers and we have witnessed an explosion of low value added work from "hand
car washes" to picking fruit (whilst fruit lays unpicked in their home
countries). People wring ther hands about why productivity and tax revenue
isn't growing despite rising employment coupled with an exploding housing
benefit and tax credit bill, pressure on schools and healthcare. Put quite
simply the UK cannot afford the services it has become used to with low value
added work, so something has to give. At the end of the day, a decent welfare
state in fact is NOT compatible with open borders. This is something the left
wing have yet to face properly. And ordinary people, far from being simply
'racist' and xenophobic, are simply exercising their choice at the ballot box
and they basically don't want to to see their lives get worse with lower wages,
fewer opportunities, poorer housing and reduced welfare and services.
A word of warning though about whether Brexit or the EU is protectionist or
left wing etc – there are actually quite well argued opinions on both sides.
For many Brexiteers, the EU actually represents a protectionist bloc that
hinders free trade with the world. Many on the left, coming from the pure
"international socialism" of the proper left wing also believe in fighting for
protections of workers on the international stage such as the EU and therefore
are not necessarily in step with their less well off followers, wondering who
stole their cheese. A free trading nation but with a controlled immigration
policy is actually quite appealing and may help to squeeze out the explosion of
low value added work.
On the democratic front, our politicians for decades have blamed the EU for
why they can't do x or y. Add in that for the ordinary Brit we've only ever
read articles about rules to implement "straight bananas" and the like, whilst
our media spends far more time covering the anglophone American election, you
can see there is no proper functioning "demos". And at the end of the day
although "status quo" was always the position of the Remain side of things,
this was never on the table. First we have the Euro issue and then we always
have the Rome Treaty we signed up to which clearly states "Ever closer union".
One final point about the vote split from the Ashcroft poll. You should note
that only 2 parties voters supported Leave – UKIP (96%) and the Tories (56%).
Labour and SNP were about the same at 62/63% to Remain. The idea that those who
voted Leave are council house dwelling northerners is far from the mark. If you
discount the fact that nationalist issues dominated proceedings in Scotland and
Northern Ireland, the vote was more decisive than at first glance – hence why
the Tories are treating this seemingly marginal result as so decisive – both
amongst their own voters and the prize of the UKIP support in the future.
Sorry for the rambling comment but there are lots of different angles to the
EU issue – I'd just like to leave you with how I feel the split amongst the
electorate occurs. Imagine a 4 box matrix, 2×2, with 'left' and 'right' on the
top and 'nightmare' and 'dream' along the left. Left wingers who voted to
remain have an international socialist dream. Right wingers who voted to Remain
see it as a rampant free trade dream. Those who voted to leave on the right saw
it as a socialist, protectionist nightmare. Those who voted leave on the left
saw it as a neo liberal nightmare. So, you can see the split isn't just about
whether you are left or right, free trade or protectionist – it has to be
overlaid with whether the EU better represents your hopes or is a threat. The
motivations for the vote are even more confusing than the coverage of those
supposed reasons.
sd
Shorter version: the only way
to keep capitalism in check is to pair it with a strong dose of socialism which
the greed of those in power rarely allows. Outcome is always the same: the
peasants revolt and management wonders why.
lyman alpha blob
The only reason globalization works for the meritorious technocrat class
that supports it is because they are able to take advantage of differences in
local currency values.
Funny how you hear all this talk about global trade being necessary and
unavoidable but never a global currency.
And now in France, a so-called Socialist government has weakened labor
protections. A situation where a proletariat forced to swallow this, along with
an easy immigration program, would spell trouble to anyone who has a knowledge
of history and human nature.
Plus, an even more immediate concern is that it appears globalization is an
environmental disaster that we may very well have precious little time to
correct.
dw
globalization isnt even all that popular among professionals since even
their jobs are at risk now. but its extremely popular among executives because
it makes their job easier. until their jobs end up being subject to it too. but
among the among 1% its very popular, at least until it becomes very hard to
make a profit or grow their business, since they all loose customers , and cant
raise prices
Mary Wehrheim
The reason why popular opinion turns toward solutions involving immigration
restriction rather than expansion of services is because….deficits. Watching
the GOP primary ads in the hermetically sealed conservative bubble that passes
for Kansas one would think that was the most pressing problem facing the US …
course they throw in the usual memes of terrorist and Obama care dangers with a
short sop about "more jobs" as rather an aside. The Powell memo propaganda
machine has been very successful in redirecting the popular world view through
the gaze of the 1%. Taxes = theft, just work harder (that one is finally
wearing a bit thin though after the wives got into the work force and people
got into deep debt over the past 40 years in a vain attempt to try and rise
above stagnant salaries), safety net = dependency, poverty = lazy habits,
privatization= efficiency, government and regulation = serfdom, and unions
interfere with the celestial harmony of the spheres that is markets.
Pookah Harvey
These same arguments can be made for the replacement of low skilled jobs by
robots, Closing borders will not help in this situation. Governments need to
start planning for a world where there will be less of what we now consider"
jobs" More services provided by government and lowering hours in the work week
soon have to be on the agenda for forward looking politicians or Dune's
Butlerian Jihad may come sooner than we think.
A guy named Karl Marx had an interesting little theory of value in
capitalism which explains that the more hours a person works = more profit
for the company. As automation deepens and spreads, companies will lay
people off, but they will never willingly reduce the hours worked for the
remaining employees.
Unless capitalism willingly adopts socialistic measures (and it never
will), it will keep herding workers – and eventually, itself – off a cliff.
Ché Pasa
These stories and the studies they're grounded in have been told over and
over again for decades now. They're true, and in some cases they are so
complete and compelling as to demolish once and for all the consensus ideology
of Neo-LibCon rule, and yet…
Our rulers do not listen. Our rulers do not care. They are lost in a
post-modern decoupling of truth and fact from anything they need concern
themselves with.
It's pure religion tangled with power.
The more stories and studies showing just how wrong they and their
ideology/religion are, the more they don't listen, the more they don't care.
Ulysses
"Our rulers do not listen. Our rulers do not care. They are lost in a
post-modern decoupling of truth and fact from anything they need concern
themselves with.
It's pure religion tangled with power.
The more stories and studies showing just how wrong they and their
ideology/religion are, the more they don't listen, the more they don't
care."
Very well said! Here in the U.S. we have enshrined in our fundamental law
the right: "to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This
first right amongst the bill of rights was only granted to us after Shay's
Rebellion showed the elites that the people wouldn't simply roll over and
subject themselves to an authoritarian government.
When this petitioning failed, in the 1770s, to produce satisfactory
results our independent nation was born amidst great tumult. Now we face a
similar crossroads: move forward into a potentially better life, after
toppling the transnational kleptocracy, or guarantee the further degradation
of humanity by failing to do more than meekly petition the kleptocrats to
throw us a few more crumbs.
We need to stop trying to persuade those who benefit from exploiting us
to stop through constructing ever more convincing arguments. The kleptocrats
need to suffer tangible consequences for their crimes, through massive
non-compliance with their wishes and monkey-wrenching of their systems.
Indigenous peoples in Brazil have just shown us how to proceed by halting
the dam.
Zvi Namenwirth. He did a pioneering early study measuring the rhetoric of
wealth transfer in American party platforms. I noticed twenty years ago that
the swings tacked according to Kondratieff curves, which measure shifts between
growth in manufacturing vs. agriculture. That's likely what you're seeing now
with the balance shifting from labor to capital (the 1%) since the early '70s.
It's not as important to look at general inflation as it is to measure the
relative changes in prices among different sectors. Given that parties
represent different interest groups, it's likely these stresses show up in
political speech.
But then that would mean politics drives economics and no economist wants to
admit that.
washunate
I completely agree that the backlash has been a long time coming. We are
decades into a slow motion train wreck at this point. The evidence is there for
any who wish to see it.
I completely disagree, though, with the conclusion. What is going on is not
about an insufficiently large state. Rather, it's that the state has been
entrenching inequality rather than addressing it. Our contemporary experience
with excessive concentration of wealth and power is not an outcome of markets.
It's an outcome of public policy. Implying that Brexit voters specifically, or
anti-globalization advocates more generally, are stupid and racist says a lot
more about the biases and blind spots in our intellectual class than it does
about the victims of globalization as western governments have implemented it
over the past few decades.
This lesser evilness trap is a standard trick inherent in two party system setup, designed to prevent
voting for third party candidate and essentially limiting public discourse to selection between two
oligarchy stooges. Moreover Hillary is definitely greater evil. Invoking of Nader to justify voting
for Hillary is pure neoliberal propaganda designed to get the establishment candidate (who has significant
and dangerous for any politician, to say nothing about POTUS, health problems) into White House. that
why neoliberal MSM are baking non-stop at Trump, trying exaggerate any his misstep to galactic proportions.
...
Notable quotes:
"... Michael, in a recent article that you penned on your website, you argued that Hillary Clinton's campaign is using a very clever strategy in that it is trying to associate criticism of Clinton with support for Trump and therefore support for Russia, which in the end is anti-American ..."
"... Trump opposes the neocon line toward Russia, and because he criticizes NATO, Russia benefits. Therefore Putin must have stolen the leaks and put them out, to make America weaker, not stronger, by helping the Trump campaign by showing the DNC's dirty tricks toward Bernie's followers. ..."
"... Most of all, Hillary is still the war candidate. Trump already has said, "Look at what she did to Libya." By displacing Libya, she turned its arms cache over to terrorist groups that have become ISIS, Al-Nusra, and the other terrorist in the Near East. So she's the Queen of Chaos. Finally, she's the candidate of Wall Street, given the fact even the Koch Brothers have said they're not going to back Trump, they're going to back Hillary because she's on their side. George Soros and most other big moguls and billionaires are now siding with the Democratic Party, not Trump. ..."
"... She is a candidate of Wall Street and she is as you say, now being supported even by the neocons. They're holding fundraisers for her. And the Koch brothers and so on. ..."
"... Trump will win if he can make the election all about Hillary, and Hillary will win if she can make the election all about Trump. ..."
"... "America needs an ineffective president. That's much better than an effective president that's going to go to war with Russia, that's going to push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that's going to protect Wall Street, and that's going to oppose neoliberal austerity." ..."
"... I am absolutely terrified of Hillary Clinton becoming President. She strikes me as having psychopathic tendencies. I mean, just look at the scandals she and Bill have been involved in, and then when she gets caught, she lies, feigns ignorance, deflects, blames others, lies some more. Power and money are her goals. ..."
"... I'm sure he will quash TPP, renegotiate nafta and be less belligerent with Russia. But what will happen when he and his non-government-indoctrinated team of advisers finally see every bit of redacted and "confidential" information that has been routinely hidden from the public and lied about for decades? ..."
"... The loss of sovereignty inherent in the "trade" agreements and incoherent Middle East policies, to name a few "strategies" this country is pursuing, have a larger purpose. We private citizens have just not been privy to it. How private citizen Trump will proceed if he is elected and comes to know the government's deepest, darkest secrets is anybody's guess. ..."
"... I think its a safe assumption that if Trump is elected he will be carefully 'minded' to ensure he can't gain access to information that would upset the applecart. ..."
"... As for Donnie taking down TPP and being the peace candidate, I think people should sit down and take a few deep breaths. As a New Yorker who's observed him for his entire public life, and as a 90 second scanning of his career demonstrates, the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about anything ..."
"... You're right. He'll make a good court jester. That's about it. as for "the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about anything" reminds me of someone who gets on TeeVee and does that well. And he really didn't have any experience but he got himself good handlers and others who ran the country. ..."
"... Exactly right! Trump is dangerous…to the establishment. And the establishment is what we have to get rid of. ..."
"... As flawed a character as Trump is, he still represents our last chance to challenge the establishment. It won't be a pretty presidency – but it will be entertaining – however the alternative is the ultimate horror show. Plus you are gambling that Clinton won't start a nuclear war and end the human race. Why would anyone in their right mind touch that wager? ..."
"... It is unlikely that Trump will be able to deport more people than Obama's record breaking administration. ..."
"... Obama actually ended up rejecting Clinton's continuous advice for more more more military intervention. ..."
"... I agree with you that Trump is not likable, and an unknown. The problem is that the known is despicable. Neither, let me repeat, neither candidate should be anywhere near this close to the White House. ..."
"... You have obviously chosen the despicable hateful war mongering devil you know. Others are willing to roll the dice with the guy who has incoherently at least given a nod to the idea that war with Russia is not a smart plan, and that our current military choices are not effective – not to mention a far more coherent case that our trade policy is screwed up and needs to be changed. ..."
"... Trump wants to stop "illegal" immigration so that poor Americans can have jobs. Illegals lower wages (because American employers pay them less), they increase rents (supply and demand), and they cost a fortune in medical and educational costs. He's for "legal" immigration when the country needs more workers. I don't think that is being racist, although he doesn't have a very nice way of saying things. ..."
"... Muslim immigration stopped until they can be properly vetted? That's just being prudent and careful, but again he could say things in a much kinder way. ..."
"... He's a wild man, but at least he's upfront about it. I see her as being a narcissist that just hides it better than he does. She could get us all killed. ..."
"... While Trump is upfront (yikes, I know), I see Hillary as the secretive, conniving, manipulative, scheming, backstabbing type. When someone slights Trump, out comes his response right back at them. It's over. But I would not want to cross her. I see her as cold, with very, very little conscience. I mean, would you ever have tried to pull off the scandals she has been involved in? No. She seeks power and money, and look out if you ever got in her way. She never says she's sorry, not really. Most you get out of her is she made a "mistake". ..."
"... Her outright aggression towards Russia, Syria, Libya, Ukraine should give you a hint of what lurks inside. And she doesn't attack these countries to better the U.S. She's doing it solely for her own person gain: money into the Clinton Foundation, business for her speech-giving husband, all to further the Clinton's. ..."
"... IMO, a very dangerous person, a very dangerous couple. And she has said, if she's elected, she will put Bill Clinton in charge of "economic affairs"! Can you just imagine what more deregulation will do for the banks? He repealed Glass-Steagall and brought us the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, as well as NAFTA. Get ready to hear a "huge" sucking sound if Hillary is elected. The place will be gutted. ..."
"... Perhaps with a hateful, racist, despicable con man trying to tell them what to do, congress just might re-assert its authority instead of acting as a rubber stamp. Which is the LOTE – Trump antagonizing congress into gridlock or HRC manipulating them into moar war? ..."
"... It sounds like you're talking about HRC when you're talking about Trump. She coined the term "super predators" so they could enrich the private prison industry by filling the jails with black people, she has waged wars against brown people in the middle east for no particular reason except corporate profits and power, no respect for their theocracies or the delicate balance that "supposed" tyrants there accomplished that had enduring peace there (some may argue). Where has Trump exhibited such hatred and racism? His policies? What policies? No one that has worked for him ever described him as hateful, racist or despicable. Stop believing the propaganda on TV. ..."
"... You might think Obama doesn't like us, the 99%, but Hillary probably hates us. Pay attention, the most "effective evil" is the evil to fear. ..."
"... If it's not close in my state, I will vote 3rd party. If it is close, I'll vote for Clinton over Trump. There is a good interview with Chomsky on this on youtube which I'm too lazy to look up right now. ..."
"... "Hillary took the lead role in the White House's efforts to pass a corporate-friendly version of "health reform." Along with the big insurance companies the Clintons deceptively railed against, the "co-presidents" decided from the start to exclude the popular health care alternative – single payer – from the national health care "discussion." (Obama would do the same thing in 2009.) ..."
"... Beyond backing by a citizen super-majority, Himmelstein noted, single-payer would provide comprehensive coverage to the nation's 40 million uninsured while retaining free choice in doctor selection and being certified by the Congressional Budget Office as "the most cost-effective plan on offer." ..."
"... That whole article deals with the "fake liberalism" exhibited by the Clinton's and Obama. It says they only "pretend" to care. ..."
"... clinton is the more effective evil for another reason; she is respected by other neoliberals who rule the world in other countries. even if trump wanted to pass the TPP, TTIP and TISA, the intense dislike of him would make it easier to reject the bills in countries like Canada, Australia, the EU. A Hillary presidency would just about guarantee they'd sign. ..."
"... it's common knowledge that the current "rigged" system, as Donald Trump keeps calling it, has been instrumental in bringing American politics and government to their present state of dysfunction at local, state and national levels. Americans hate and despise this elitist system; everyone is disgusted with the political donor class whose billions of dollars underwrite the election-rigging televised attack ads that dominate it. ..."
"... At the Demo Convention Bernie Sanders neatly pinpointed the topics with which this bogus system is obsessed: "Let me be as clear as I can be. … This election is not about political gossip. It's not about polls. It's not about campaign strategy. It's not about fundraising. It's not about all the things the media spends so much time discussing." ..."
"... Do you see it as possible that empowered citizens will truly be willing to take on big capital, even when big capital goes to war on them? I'm skeptical ..."
"... The evil to fear is the most effective evil. Hillary IS both sides of the aisle and Congress will allow her all her neocon neoliberal desires, Trump is neither side of the aisle and would be ineffective because he doesn't belong to the neoliberal neocons, he's not an insider and obviously won't play their games. ..."
"... Oh heck yes. This is a fight that has been going on for decades with battles like the War Powers Act and Nixon's impeachment. Supposedly the Founding Fathers didn't want an all powerful chief executive and thought that Congress would be the dominant force. But in modern times, even before Clinton v Trump, we already had gone much too far in the direction of a caudillo. Internally one person with a bully pulpit will never be able to change the current course and overseas presidents have a frightening amount of power that they can wield and then dare Congress to do something about it afterwards. ..."
"... HRC has got the big corporate money behind her, the media too. Trump is fighting an uphill battle. If you watch CNN, which I watch very little of, they spend almost the whole time pulling apart what Trump has said, and very, very little press on Hillary's email, the Clinton Foundation, etc. ..."
"... They are going after Trump with all that they have. They want the status quo to remain, and they are very worried that he might change it. Hillary is Wall Street, multinational corporations, arms dealers, weapons manufacturers, the military-industrial complex ..."
"... "When you join the dots to Trump also preaching a policy revolt against the insatiable corporate jaws feeding on trillions of dollars of public budgets in Washington, the meaning becomes clear. But that connected meaning is blacked out. In its place, the corporate media and politicians present an egomaniac blowhard bordering on fascism who preaches hate, racism and sexism. ..."
"... He is on record saying he will cut the Pentagon's budget "by 50%". No winning politician has ever dared to take on the military-industrial complex, with even Eisenhower only naming it in his parting speech. ..."
"... Trump also says that the US "must be neutral, an honest broker" on the Israeli-Palestine conflict – as unspeakable as it gets in US politics ..."
"... Hillary and her team will try to paint Trump as a lover of Putin, as a racist, bigot, bring the narrative down to this only. This way, no one ends up talking about the corporate elites she represents. Good, read some more, crittermom, and open your eyes even more. There's a lot more going on than meets the eye. ..."
"... Recently I asked a wise person I know what historically follows an oligarchy (which is what I believe we have been in for awhile now). He told me that an oligarchy is usually followed by a dictatorship. ..."
"... A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy". ..."
"... How could Trump become a dictator? Congress will be hostile. Judiciary will be hostile. Pentagon will be hostile (didn't you see all those generals and admirals, in uniform, literally lining up behind Clinton?) Civil administration will be sullen, uncooperative, and leaking like crazy. ..."
"... Trump does not have his own freestanding parallel state organization, ready to move in and take over the bureaucracy and the armed forces. It would be physically impossible for Trump to attempt a mass purge. ..."
"... Just think: if you elect Trump, you would actually get to see the US Constitution's fabled "checks and balances" come into play for once in your life! ..."
"... How could Trump become a dictator? ..."
"... This is complete rhetorical garbage, the same kind of nonsense displayed when he is shock quoted and only the narrative supporting text is copied (such as the convenient omission that the fabled day in which Clinton could be assassinated would be "horrible"). It also fits well with the Democrats' habit of burying themselves instead of putting up a fight. ..."
"... While Trump is a buffoon who might lead us into bad situations as he stumbles around, Hillary Clinton displays an undeniable and proven malice aforethought that he does not. ..."
PERIES: So Michael, in a recent article that you penned on your website, you argued that Hillary
Clinton's campaign is using a very clever strategy in that it is trying to associate criticism of
Clinton with support for Trump and therefore support for Russia, which in the end is anti-American
. Now, this type of association game, which is supposed to make it difficult for Sanders supporters
to criticize Clinton, what implication does this have on the overall politics in this country?
HUDSON: Well, it certainly changed things in earlier elections. The Republican convention was
as is normal, all about their candidate Trump. But surprisingly, so was the Democratic convention.
That was all about Trump too – as the devil. The platform Hillary's running on is "I'm not Trump.
I'm the lesser evil."
She elaborates that by saying that Trump is Putin's ploy. When the Democratic National Committee
(someone within it, or without) leaked the information to Wikileaks, the Democrats and Hillary asked,
"Who benefits from this"? Ah-ha. Becaue Trump opposes the neocon line toward Russia, and because
he criticizes NATO, Russia benefits. Therefore Putin must have stolen the leaks and put them out,
to make America weaker, not stronger, by helping the Trump campaign by showing the DNC's dirty tricks
toward Bernie's followers.
Then Assange did an Internet interview and implied that it was not a cyberwar attack but a leak
– indicating that it came from an insider inn the DNC. If this is true, then the Democrats are simply
trying to blame it all on Trump – diverting attention from what the leaks' actual content!
This is old-fashioned red baiting. I saw it 60 years ago when I was a teenager. I went to a high
school where teachers used to turn in reports on what we said in class to the FBI every month. The
State Department was emptied out of "realists" and staffed with Alan Dulles-type Cold Warriors. One
couldn't talk about certain subjects. That is what red-baiting does. So the effect at the Democratic
Convention was about Hillary trying to avoid taking about her own policies and herself. Except for
what her husband said about "I met a girl" (not meaning Jennifer Flowers or Monica Lewinski.)
The red baiting succeeded, and the convention wasn't about Hillary – at least, not her economic
policies. It was more about Obama. She tied herself to Obama, and next to Trump = Putin, the convention's
second underlying theme was that Hillary was going to be Obama's third term. That's what Obama himself
said when he came and addressed the convention.
The problem with this strategy is it's exactly the problem the Republicans faced in 2008, when
voters turned against George Bush's administration. Voters wanted change. And they do today. Hillary
did not say "I'm going to have hope and change from the last years of Obama." She said, in effect,
"I'm not going to change anything. I'm going to continue Obama's policies that have made you all
so prosperous." She talked about how employment is rising and everyone is better off.
Well, the problem is that many people aren't better off than the last eight years. Ten million
families have lost their homes, and most peoples' budgets are being squeezed. Obama saved the banks
not the economy. So Trump's line and the Republican line in this election could well be: "Are you
really better off than you were eight years ago? Or, are you actually worse off? Where are all your
gains? You're further in debt. You're having more difficulty meeting your paychecks, you're running
up your student loans. You're really not better off and we're going to be the party of hope and change."
Hillary can't really counter that with the policies she has. Trump and the Republicans can say
that even though she disavowed the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the trade agreement with Europe,
all the Democratic representatives that voted for the TPP have won re-nomination, and it's still
on the burner.
Most of all, Hillary is still the war candidate. Trump already has said, "Look at what she
did to Libya." By displacing Libya, she turned its arms cache over to terrorist groups that have
become ISIS, Al-Nusra, and the other terrorist in the Near East. So she's the Queen of Chaos. Finally,
she's the candidate of Wall Street, given the fact even the Koch Brothers have said they're not going
to back Trump, they're going to back Hillary because she's on their side. George Soros and most other
big moguls and billionaires are now siding with the Democratic Party, not Trump.
What did Hilary actually say at the convention besides "I'm not Trump, Trump is worse." She's
trying to make the whole election over her rival, not over herself.
PERIES: Okay, so everything you say about Hillary Clinton may be true, and it's more in your favor
that it is true. She is a candidate of Wall Street and she is as you say, now being supported
even by the neocons. They're holding fundraisers for her. And the Koch brothers and so on. So
when we opened this interview we were talking about what the Bernie Sanders supporters should now
do, because Trump is starting to appeal like he's the candidate of ordinary people. So what are they
to do?
HUDSON: Well, if the election is between the most unpopular woman candidate in America and the
most unpopular male candidate, the winner is going to be whoever can make the election fought over
the other person. Trump will win if he can make the election all about Hillary, and Hillary will
win if she can make the election all about Trump. It looks like she's able to do this, because
Trump is even more narcissistic than she is.
EndOfTheWorld- totally agree with you. I just shake my head at Bernie. Diametrically opposed
to Clinton, he suddenly turns around and embraces her! What? I will never understand that.
"America needs an ineffective president. That's much better than an effective president
that's going to go to war with Russia, that's going to push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership,
that's going to protect Wall Street, and that's going to oppose neoliberal austerity."
He's right too. I am absolutely terrified of Hillary Clinton becoming President. She strikes
me as having psychopathic tendencies. I mean, just look at the scandals she and Bill have been
involved in, and then when she gets caught, she lies, feigns ignorance, deflects, blames others,
lies some more. Power and money are her goals.
She has called Putin "Hitler", said she wants to expand NATO, and again said she wants to take
out Assad. Well, how is she going to do that when Russia is in there? God, she is scary. I just
hope that there's a big Clinton Foundation email leak to finish her off.
Trump is out there, but at least he wants to try to negotiate peace (of course, if war wasn't
making so many people rich, it would be stopped tomorrow). He's questioning why NATO is necessary,
never mind its continual expansion, and he wants to stop the TPP.
God, I'd be happy with even one of the above. Hillary will give us TPP, more NATO, more war,
and a cackle. Please, if anyone has some loose emails hanging around, now is the time!
I honestly don't think there's any way to predict what Donald Trump will do if elected. He's
effectively a private citizen who, all of a sudden, will have access to every government secret
and lie, and no culpability for any of it. It's almost impossible to imagine what that would be
like.
And it's what makes him so "dangerous."
I'm sure he will quash TPP, renegotiate nafta and be less belligerent with Russia. But
what will happen when he and his non-government-indoctrinated team of advisers finally see every
bit of redacted and "confidential" information that has been routinely hidden from the public
and lied about for decades?
The loss of sovereignty inherent in the "trade" agreements and incoherent Middle East policies,
to name a few "strategies" this country is pursuing, have a larger purpose. We private citizens
have just not been privy to it. How private citizen Trump will proceed if he is elected and comes
to know the government's deepest, darkest secrets is anybody's guess.
I think its a safe assumption that if Trump is elected he will be carefully 'minded' to
ensure he can't gain access to information that would upset the applecart. I doubt he would
be able to get much done as there would be an establishment consensus to keep him firmly under
wraps. He would mostly busy himself with jetting around meeting foreign leaders and he might actually
be quite productive at that.
or he'll pass what he campaigns on which is standard Republican policy (sometimes) through
an entirely Republican legislature duh. So tax cuts, cuts to regulation etc.. Really he's campaigning
on these things and they CAN pass a Republican congress.
Yes, if Donnie is elected, we'll see some form of a Regency; that's what Pence is there for.
Donnie will be Clown Prince, while more traditionally evil Republican/DC technocrats "run" things.
It would be a re-doing of the Reagan/Bush-Baker and Bush/Cheney dynamic, as seen on reality TV.
As for Donnie taking down TPP and being the peace candidate, I think people should sit
down and take a few deep breaths. As a New Yorker who's observed him for his entire public life,
and as a 90 second scanning of his career demonstrates, the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully
about anything. Does he lie exactly the way Hillary does? Of course not, she's the accomplished
professional, while Donnie spins plates and tries to misdirect by finding someone to insult when
they fall and shatter.
Vote for Hillary or not (I most likely won't, but can't predict much of anything in this all-bets-are-off
opera buffa), but by believing anything Donnie says, you risk being the chump he already thinks
you are.
You're right. He'll make a good court jester. That's about it. as for "the man cannot be
trusted to speak truthfully about anything" reminds me of someone who gets on TeeVee and does
that well. And he really didn't have any experience but he got himself good handlers and others
who ran the country.
Exactly right! Trump is dangerous…to the establishment. And the establishment is what we
have to get rid of.
When was the last time a political candidate in any country was as hated by the establishment
as Trump is? That's all you need to know. As flawed a character as Trump is, he still represents
our last chance to challenge the establishment. It won't be a pretty presidency – but it will
be entertaining – however the alternative is the ultimate horror show. Plus you are gambling that
Clinton won't start a nuclear war and end the human race. Why would anyone in their right mind
touch that wager?
It is unlikely that Trump will be able to deport more people than Obama's record breaking
administration. Something, that for all her rhetoric, there is no reason to believe that
Clinton will change. As for waging war, we have a whole lot of information that for all his massive
drone wars and interventions in the Middle East, Obama actually ended up rejecting Clinton's
continuous advice for more more more military intervention.
I agree with you that Trump is not likable, and an unknown. The problem is that the known
is despicable. Neither, let me repeat, neither candidate should be anywhere near this close to
the White House.
You have obviously chosen the despicable hateful war mongering devil you know. Others are
willing to roll the dice with the guy who has incoherently at least given a nod to the idea that
war with Russia is not a smart plan, and that our current military choices are not effective –
not to mention a far more coherent case that our trade policy is screwed up and needs to be changed.
Once again, people are choosing from known despicable, unknown possibly lesser possibly greater
despicable, and unlikely to win third parties or write ins – everyone can only do that for themselves.
One New York reporter (sorry, I don't have the link) said that he has watched Trump his whole
life and he said, though he could say many bad things about Trump, racism wasn't one of them.
He said he had never in all his years of watching him known Trump to be racist in any way.
Trump wants to stop "illegal" immigration so that poor Americans can have jobs. Illegals
lower wages (because American employers pay them less), they increase rents (supply and demand),
and they cost a fortune in medical and educational costs. He's for "legal" immigration when the
country needs more workers. I don't think that is being racist, although he doesn't have a very
nice way of saying things.
Muslim immigration stopped until they can be properly vetted? That's just being prudent
and careful, but again he could say things in a much kinder way.
He's a wild man, but at least he's upfront about it. I see her as being a narcissist that
just hides it better than he does. She could get us all killed.
While Trump is upfront (yikes, I know), I see Hillary as the secretive, conniving, manipulative,
scheming, backstabbing type. When someone slights Trump, out comes his response right back at
them. It's over. But I would not want to cross her. I see her as cold, with very, very little
conscience. I mean, would you ever have tried to pull off the scandals she has been involved in?
No. She seeks power and money, and look out if you ever got in her way. She never says she's sorry,
not really. Most you get out of her is she made a "mistake".
Her outright aggression towards Russia, Syria, Libya, Ukraine should give you a hint of
what lurks inside. And she doesn't attack these countries to better the U.S. She's doing it solely
for her own person gain: money into the Clinton Foundation, business for her speech-giving husband,
all to further the Clinton's.
IMO, a very dangerous person, a very dangerous couple. And she has said, if she's elected,
she will put Bill Clinton in charge of "economic affairs"! Can you just imagine what more deregulation
will do for the banks? He repealed Glass-Steagall and brought us the Commodity Futures Modernization
Act, as well as NAFTA. Get ready to hear a "huge" sucking sound if Hillary is elected. The place
will be gutted.
That's preposterous about Donnie not being racist. When the Central Park Five (released from
prison and compensated by the state for false impisonment) were arrested, Donnie took out full
page ads for days in the NYC papers, all but calling for those (innocent) boy's lynching. He was
raised in an explicitly racist milieu – his father arrested at a KKK tussle in Queens in the 1920's,
and successfully sued by the Nixon DOJ for his discriminatory rental policies…) and has a long
history of saying ignorant, absurd and racist things about "The Blacks."
"Clinton is awful, but that doesn't mean it's a better idea to elect a hateful, racist,
despicable con man"
Perhaps with a hateful, racist, despicable con man trying to tell them what to do, congress
just might re-assert its authority instead of acting as a rubber stamp. Which is the LOTE – Trump
antagonizing congress into gridlock or HRC manipulating them into moar war?
It sounds like you're talking about HRC when you're talking about Trump. She coined the
term "super predators" so they could enrich the private prison industry by filling the jails with
black people, she has waged wars against brown people in the middle east for no particular reason
except corporate profits and power, no respect for their theocracies or the delicate balance that
"supposed" tyrants there accomplished that had enduring peace there (some may argue). Where has
Trump exhibited such hatred and racism? His policies? What policies? No one that has worked for
him ever described him as hateful, racist or despicable. Stop believing the propaganda on TV.
Hatred and racism is exhibited in leaders by being a war monger and gutting this nation with
the TPP and lousy trade deals that sell off our national sovereignty and democracy. You might
think Obama doesn't like us, the 99%, but Hillary probably hates us. Pay attention, the most "effective
evil" is the evil to fear.
I am with
Noam Chomsky on this. If it's not close in my state, I will vote 3rd party. If it is close,
I'll vote for Clinton over Trump. There is a good interview with Chomsky on this on youtube which
I'm too lazy to look up right now.
But as Pat said above, everyone must make up his or her own mind.
Has there ever been any evidence that this type of strategic voting has ever done any good
whatsoever or ever had its intended result? Just speculation but I'm guessing that only a very
few of the very politically astute would even bother. I say vote your conscience regardless and
let the chips fall where they may.
Not the voters fault that this is the best the two major parties could come up with.
Speaking of revolution, I emailed Chomsky yesterday and he replied. The below is my message
to him.
Professor Chomsky,
In the last years of his life, Martin Luther King, Jr. organized the Poor People's Campaign,
which essentially planned to occupy Capitol Hill. The campaign still happened after his death,
but not enough people showed up for it to have a great impact.
I've begun to advocate what would essentially be a continuation of the Poor People's
Campaign, but with a broader focus on the numerous crises facing humanity: climate change,
poverty, illegal wars, etc.
Would you possibly be interested in providing rhetorical support for this action?
Thank you so much for your efforts to make a better world.
The below is Chomsky's reply.
It was a wonderful and very important initiative, cruelly undermined by his assassination.
I hope you manage to revive it.
Butch – "…she helped lead the fight for universal health care." Did she now? Here's a good
quote on how she felt about universal health care:
"Hillary took the lead role in the White House's efforts to pass a corporate-friendly version
of "health reform." Along with the big insurance companies the Clintons deceptively railed against,
the "co-presidents" decided from the start to exclude the popular health care alternative – single
payer – from the national health care "discussion." (Obama would do the same thing in 2009.)
"David, tell me something interesting." That was then First Lady Hillary Clinton's weary and
exasperated response – as head of the White House's health reform initiative – to Harvard medical
professor David Himmelstein in 1993. Himmelstein was head of Physicians for a National Health
Program. He had just told her about the remarkable possibilities of a comprehensive, single-payer
"Canadian style" health plan, supported by more than two-thirds of the U.S. public. Beyond
backing by a citizen super-majority, Himmelstein noted, single-payer would provide comprehensive
coverage to the nation's 40 million uninsured while retaining free choice in doctor selection
and being certified by the Congressional Budget Office as "the most cost-effective plan on offer."
clinton is the more effective evil for another reason; she is respected by other neoliberals
who rule the world in other countries. even if trump wanted to pass the TPP, TTIP and TISA, the
intense dislike of him would make it easier to reject the bills in countries like Canada, Australia,
the EU. A Hillary presidency would just about guarantee they'd sign.
I love Michael Hudson. But like everyone commenting here he is needlessly thinking inside the
crumbling box of America's existing top-down, money-driven system of political discourse. So what
is it that keeps us from thinking outside this godawful box? I think we're all so deeply and habitually
embedded in the mode of being status quo critics that we're unable to enter the problem-solving
mode of finding alternatives to it. But to make government work in America, we need to think in
both modes.
So let's think outside the box for a minute. After all, it's common knowledge that the
current "rigged" system, as Donald Trump keeps calling it, has been instrumental in bringing American
politics and government to their present state of dysfunction at local, state and national levels.
Americans hate and despise this elitist system; everyone is disgusted with the political donor
class whose billions of dollars underwrite the election-rigging televised attack ads that dominate
it.
At the Demo Convention Bernie Sanders neatly pinpointed the topics with which this bogus
system is obsessed: "Let me be as clear as I can be. … This election is not about political gossip.
It's not about polls. It's not about campaign strategy. It's not about fundraising. It's not about
all the things the media spends so much time discussing." Yet like all presidential candidates
this year Bernie didn't take the next, logical step: he didn't call for the creation of a new
political discourse system. (Note that Hillary alone among the top three candidates never, ever
has a bad word to say against the current system.)
OK, so what might a new system look like? First off, it would be non-partisan, issue-centered
and deliberative. And citizen-participatory. It would make citizens and governments responsive
and accountable to each other in shaping the best futures of their communities. That's its core
principal.
More specifically, the format of a reality TV show like The Voice or American Idol could readily
be adapted to create ongoing, prime-time, issue-centered searches for solutions to any and all
of the issues of the day. And of course problem-solving Reality TV is just of any number of formats
that could work for TV. Other media could develop formats tap their strengths and appeal to their
audiences.
Thanks to the miracle of modern communications technologies, there's nothing to stop Americans
from having a citizen-participatory system of political discourse that gives all Americans an
informed voice in the political and government decisions that affect their lives. Americans will
flock in drove to ongoing, rule-governed problem-solving public forums that earn the respect and
trust of citizens and political leaders alike. When we create them, governments at local, state
and national levels will start working again. If we don't, our politics will continue to sink
deeper into the cesspool we're in now.
Do you see it as possible that empowered citizens will truly be willing to take on big
capital, even when big capital goes to war on them? I'm skeptical, unless there is a real
socialist-ish movement out there educating and politicizing. In other words, while the political
system is indeed broken, the economy is also broken and it is hard to see "empowered" citizens
fixing the economy. What I think would happen is the politicians elected by these empowered citizens
would be opposed by big business and the politicians they own, nothing good would get done, and
there would be a business-financed media drumbeat that more democracy has been "proven" not to
work.
I don't think our political problems can be solved simply be electing better politicians –
though of course we do need better politicians.
The evil to fear is the most effective evil. Hillary IS both sides of
the aisle and Congress will allow her all her neocon neoliberal desires, Trump is neither side
of the aisle and would be ineffective because he doesn't belong to the neoliberal neocons, he's
not an insider and obviously won't play their games.
I have not had nearly the hardship you have had crittermom and I have not lived as long either,
but at 27, and being someone who has been discontent with social structure since middle school,
I have absolutely had enough. Genetics, environment, the combination of internal-external factors,
whatever it was I have always had a very ("annoying" and sarcastic) curiousity or oppositional
approach to things, especially things people do not question and accept as is (religion, government…).
Growing older has only led me to greater understanding of the pit we reside within and how
we probably will not get out. This election season in particular has been ridiculously… indescribable.
The utter incompetence of our selfish administrations is finally coming to a head and people are
completely oblivious, pulling the same stale BS that we have seen every four years since before
I was born.
Bernie totally blew it but, outside your hardship, don't ever think you effort was a waste.
For once an honest candidate appeared who was backed by the policies we need and you supported
that (as I did). That is the most we can do at this point. Bernie the man should absolutely be
criticized because he wanted a "revolution" then sold out to the Junta instead of biting back
when it would have really sent a message to the people and high rollers. He wasn't willing to
sacrifice what was necessary to make a stand. Instead he sided with the people that have made
careers sacrificing citizens like you–and that is terrible. The reality these people live in and
teach to others is such a lie.
Oh heck yes. This is a fight that has been going on for decades with battles like the War
Powers Act and Nixon's impeachment. Supposedly the Founding Fathers didn't want an all powerful
chief executive and thought that Congress would be the dominant force. But in modern times, even
before Clinton v Trump, we already had gone much too far in the direction of a caudillo. Internally
one person with a bully pulpit will never be able to change the current course and overseas presidents
have a frightening amount of power that they can wield and then dare Congress to do something
about it afterwards.
So despite his potty mouth there's something to be said for Mr. Trump Goes to Washington. By
the time he figures out how to be caudillo it may be time for another election.
crittermom – HRC has got the big corporate money behind her, the media too. Trump is fighting
an uphill battle. If you watch CNN, which I watch very little of, they spend almost the whole
time pulling apart what Trump has said, and very, very little press on Hillary's email, the Clinton
Foundation, etc.
They are going after Trump with all that they have. They want the status quo to remain,
and they are very worried that he might change it. Hillary is Wall Street, multinational corporations,
arms dealers, weapons manufacturers, the military-industrial complex. Who would have thought
that the guy running for the right wants to keep jobs in America, wants to stop wars, and the
one on the left is for the monied class! Right is left and left is right. Upside down world.
The following article is old now, from April, but it gives you an idea of "Why the Establishment
Hates Trump" and what he is planning on doing. Watch them go after him; they will vilify him.
"When you join the dots to Trump also preaching a policy revolt against the insatiable
corporate jaws feeding on trillions of dollars of public budgets in Washington, the meaning
becomes clear. But that connected meaning is blacked out. In its place, the corporate media
and politicians present an egomaniac blowhard bordering on fascism who preaches hate, racism
and sexism.
But the silenced policies he advocates are more like jumping into a crocodile pit. He
is on record saying he will cut the Pentagon's budget "by 50%". No winning politician has ever
dared to take on the military-industrial complex, with even Eisenhower only naming it in his
parting speech.
Trump also says that the US "must be neutral, an honest broker" on the Israeli-Palestine
conflict – as unspeakable as it gets in US politics.
Big Pharma is also called out with "$400 billion to be saved by government negotiation of
prices". The even more powerful HMO's are confronted by the possibility of a "one-payer system",
the devil incarnate in America's corporate-welfare state."
Hillary and her team will try to paint Trump as a lover of Putin, as a racist, bigot, bring
the narrative down to this only. This way, no one ends up talking about the corporate elites she
represents. Good, read some more, crittermom, and open your eyes even more. There's a lot more
going on than meets the eye.
So I don't usually post here, just mostly read what other folks have to say.
Recently I asked a wise person I know what historically follows an oligarchy (which is
what I believe we have been in for awhile now). He told me that an oligarchy is usually followed
by a dictatorship.
So if that is the case is Trump going to take us into the land of dictatorship (which I believe
is highly likely) or are any of us going to be able to tread water for a little longer with HRC
(who I agree is ugh a non-choice but hopefully the lesser of the two evils).
Looking this up I found the concept of the Tytler Cycle. Interesting and scary. This is off
wikipedia:
Two centuries ago, a somewhat obscure Scotsman named Tytler made this profound observation:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the
majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority
always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses
because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a
monarchy".
Anyway can someone refute this for me so I can sleep tonight? Thanks, in advance.
How could Trump become a dictator? Congress will be hostile. Judiciary will be hostile.
Pentagon will be hostile (didn't you see all those generals and admirals, in uniform, literally
lining up behind Clinton?) Civil administration will be sullen, uncooperative, and leaking
like crazy.
Trump does not have his own freestanding parallel state organization, ready to move in
and take over the bureaucracy and the armed forces. It would be physically impossible for
Trump to attempt a mass purge.
So exactly how the hell would Trump impose his will on the American masses? Answer: No Way.
President Trump can only be a relatively weak president.
Just think: if you elect Trump, you would actually get to see the US Constitution's fabled
"checks and balances" come into play for once in your life!
Thank you! The same question I have been asking repeatedly throughout this charade. Everyone's
favorite line is "Trump will be a dictator [be afriad]!" The obvious question… how
?!
How is Trump going to have the same or any more power within or over the system than any president
before him?? What is a reasonable strategy with which he could upend and create domination over
this system with? This is complete rhetorical garbage, the same kind of nonsense displayed
when he is shock quoted and only the narrative supporting text is copied (such as the convenient
omission that the fabled day in which Clinton could be assassinated would be "horrible"). It also
fits well with the Democrats' habit of burying themselves instead of putting up a fight.
I have felt for a long time but have struggled to put into words the deep, strong aversion
I have towards Clinton (et al.)and that I feel any time I read about her or see her. There is
a phrase in the song Art War , by the Knack, that caught my ear; what I originally heard as, "malice
of forethought". To me this represents the idea that terrible, harmful, far-reaching, incompetent
decisions are made completely on purpose. After doing some research I discovered that the phrase
is actually "malice aforethought", related to murderous intent in legal definitions. A
second, more appropriate
definition here is "a general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned
for the lives of others". This represents my internal shuddering exactly – a sort of willful, deadly
incompetence.
While Trump is a buffoon who might lead us into bad situations as he stumbles around, Hillary
Clinton displays an undeniable and proven malice aforethought that he does not.
"... CNN exit polls show that only about 47 percent of the Nader voters would have voted for Gore in a two way race, while 21 percent would have voted for Bush and 30 percent would have abstained from voting in the Presidential contest altogether. ..."
Well, a counterfactual: Bush v Gore 2000. I have heard arguments that if Nader had not run,
or if no one voted for him, Gore would have won Florida and hence the election.
Mike, I've no links to provide you with -you can easily find them – but the rebuttal to the
Nader-Gave-Us-Bush line is typically that 1) hundreds of thousands of registered Democrats in
Florida voted for Bush, and 2) Gore could not win his "home" (though he's really a pure product
of Washington, DC) state of Tennessee.
The Blame Nader narrative also ignores the fact that the Dems did little or nothing to contest
the blatant stealing of the election.
Thanks, Michael. They only way I see to disprove it is if they interviewed all 90,000+
Nader voters and > 50% in FL swore they would have voted for Bush - or some such.
It seems tough to disprove such an historical counterfactual hypothetical!
At any rate, I think this is what underlies Chomsky's reasoning.
Thanks for the link. From the Alternet article linked to at the end:
CNN exit polls show that only about 47 percent of the Nader voters would have voted for
Gore in a two way race, while 21 percent would have voted for Bush and 30 percent would have abstained
from voting in the Presidential contest altogether.
This would be the relevant evidence to prove the counterfactual hypothesis. I note that it
seems to be contradicted by the CNN polling data in the Truthdig article; what is unclear to me
is whether they are talking about FL voters, or national voters. It makes a difference if we are
focusing solely on FL (which in itself could be problematic if Nader's elimination swung the result
in other states - which I don't know.)
Anyway, as I said above, I do think it is this example and reasoning that underlies Chomsky's
logic. And mine. But I admit, I am abjectly unenthusiastic about it. I expect and hope that I
shall be able to vote 3rd party - I vote in NY.
Thanks again. And to you and all, I appreciate the civility of tone in this engagement. I realize
my view is probably in the minority here.
Gore got more votes overall than Bush and not all the votes were counted in FL in 2000 thanks
to a corrupt Supreme court. Bush was appointed, not elected, and that isn't Nader's fault.
Nader ran in 2004 too and got ,< 1% of the vote. Of course that election was stolen too but
neither Gore nor Kerry bothered to raise a fuss.
I think we ought to be concentrating more on the integrity of our elections in this country
rather than wringing our hands about who might be a 'spoiler'.
Can't stand the republicans but I haven't heard them whinging about Ross Perot for the last
20 years.
Sooooo tired of this analogy. And I voted for Gore in 2000. First, a couple of differences:
Gore was clearly a much better candidate and would have been a much better president than Bush.
And Gore was great on the environment.
Also, Gore lost primarily because of a tilted "liberal media" that seemed to MUCH prefer Bush.
Secondarily because he (or his people) ran one of the worst presidential campaigns I've ever seen.
Maybe the worst presidential campaign I've ever seen, as far as trying to take advantage of the
candidate's strengths (Trump in this general is working on catching up, though!)
Third was Clinton fatigue, which was very real at the time and did not help at all. Nader and
the cheating in Florida and the horrid Supreme Court decision (complete w/failures to recuse that
were kinda eyebrow raising) were also relevant, but none of this should have even come into play.
Gore had a lot to work with, Bush was a godawful candidate, and a competent campaign combined
with something even vaguely resembling fair media coverage would have made this a slam dunk 5+
% win despite the polarized country and a strong desire on the part of many to get rid of anything
associated with Bill. Even with all that, and Nader, if we hadn't allowed a truly criminal purge
of non-criminals from Florida's voter rolls, Gore wins. This was followed by the count fiasco,
more horribly biased media coverage (they were as desperate for Gore to quit then as they were
for Bernie to quit the last several months of his campaign, gotta give Bernie credit for fighting
harder and longer against worse odds), Gore inexplicably rolling over in a display that still
makes me shake my head in disbelief, and a just plain wrong Supreme Court decision that only happened
because justices w/family members working on Bush's campaign didn't recuse themselves.
But still, biggest difference for me? Neither of these are someone I want in the oval office.
FITRAKIS: Well one of the obvious things in this election was the visible hijacking of Bernie Sanders
voters. Bernie brought in what political scientists would call an asymmetrical entrance of new voters.
He went out and got a lot of people that hadn�t voted previously and at first emerged in New York
City, in Brooklyn where you had 126 thousand people. Overwhelmingly new voters supporting Bernie
that were purged at the last second from the voting rolls. And that�s being investigated but it turned
out to be a clerk said to have Republican leanings. But just prior to the purge, the daughter of
a Clinton super delegate had bought property from her. A million and a half dollars over the street
value that wasn�t even being listed. So at least it calls into question, whether it was an old fashioned
Tammany Hall bribe for purging voters.
So it�s what me and my co-author Harvey [Wasserman] call
vote stripping, right? I think before this is all through the leaks by the Democratic National Committee,
you�ll find that somebody had access to those databases and were targeting the Bernie people to purge
them.
NOOR: And can you talk about what the tactics were that were used in order to target these Bernie
supporters and as youre saying, discount their votes?
FITRAKIS: Well, you simply purge them from the voting rolls. And that can be done in a variety of
ways depending upon the state. In most states people dont realize it but you privatize with companies,
the voter databases. And also you have often these poll books. Many of them are electronic that are
also created by proprietary companies.
So the US is the only democracy in the world that allows private for profit partisan companies
those that actually make contributions as did Dominion, the remnants of [Depolled] that went out
of business for worldwide fraud following the 04 election and Hart Intercivic. So Hart Intercivic
and Dominion both made contributions to the Clinton foundation. So you wonder, when a candidates
running for president, why are voting machine companies making donations to their campaigns?
So we allow these private, for-profit partisan companies to count our vote, to set our databases
with secret proprietary software that nobody can look at. It violates every principle of transparency.
And the only person on a high level willing to talk about this is Jimmy Carter, who says to Der Spiegel
that America has a dysfunctional democracy and that we dont meet minimum standards of transparency.
... ... ...
So all the evidence says were the absolute worst. But youve got this enculturation. Youve got
two parties and both historically corporate capitalists parties, particularly since the Koch brothers
decided we needed a DLC following the 84 election that they wanted a corporate wing of the Republican
Party and they got that in 1992 in the form of Bill Clinton and Al Gore, which were both DLC people.
Two corporate capitalist free trade parties. People wouldnt even, many people think Sanders was very
progressive and he was and he spoke as a democratic socialist.
But Jerry Brown in 1992 called for a 50% cut in the U.S. military. I mean, thats territory. But George
Herbert Walker Bush actually talked about a peace dividend. We dont even talk anymore about nearly
half of the money on planet earth beings spent in the U.S. military. And weve got soldier arguably
or advisers in 181 out of 203 nations no one wants to say in great detail. And Sanders was touching
on all these issues that that appears to be imperialism.
But these the Stein campaign has enormous room to actually talk about what is happening in the United
States. She asked people on the stage at this convention actually used the correct term, imperialism.
And they actually do talk about a rigged election system. Because its systematically rigged when
you bring these private contractors in and then they say its a computer glitch. In 2004 [D Bolt]
two weeks before the election, accidentally glitched 10,000 voters in the city of Cleveland who were
going to vote 95% for John Kerry.
I dont believe those are glitches. I believe private contractors in this privatization has allowed
big money to come in in the form of the corporation. And theres an old axiom, theres not much money
in counting vote but theres a lot of money in the voting results.
This lesser evilness trap is a standard trick inherent in two party system setup, designed to prevent
voting for third party candidate and essentially limiting public discourse to selection between two
oligarchy stooges. Moreover Hillary is definitely greater evil. Invoking of Nader to justify voting
for Hillary is pure neoliberal propaganda designed to get the establishment candidate (who has significant
and dangerous for any politician, to say nothing about POTUS, health problems) into White House. that
why neoliberal MSM are baking non-stop at Trump, trying exaggerate any his misstep to galactic proportions.
...
Notable quotes:
"... Michael, in a recent article that you penned on your website, you argued that Hillary Clinton's campaign is using a very clever strategy in that it is trying to associate criticism of Clinton with support for Trump and therefore support for Russia, which in the end is anti-American ..."
"... Trump opposes the neocon line toward Russia, and because he criticizes NATO, Russia benefits. Therefore Putin must have stolen the leaks and put them out, to make America weaker, not stronger, by helping the Trump campaign by showing the DNC's dirty tricks toward Bernie's followers. ..."
"... Most of all, Hillary is still the war candidate. Trump already has said, "Look at what she did to Libya." By displacing Libya, she turned its arms cache over to terrorist groups that have become ISIS, Al-Nusra, and the other terrorist in the Near East. So she's the Queen of Chaos. Finally, she's the candidate of Wall Street, given the fact even the Koch Brothers have said they're not going to back Trump, they're going to back Hillary because she's on their side. George Soros and most other big moguls and billionaires are now siding with the Democratic Party, not Trump. ..."
"... She is a candidate of Wall Street and she is as you say, now being supported even by the neocons. They're holding fundraisers for her. And the Koch brothers and so on. ..."
"... Trump will win if he can make the election all about Hillary, and Hillary will win if she can make the election all about Trump. ..."
"... "America needs an ineffective president. That's much better than an effective president that's going to go to war with Russia, that's going to push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, that's going to protect Wall Street, and that's going to oppose neoliberal austerity." ..."
"... I am absolutely terrified of Hillary Clinton becoming President. She strikes me as having psychopathic tendencies. I mean, just look at the scandals she and Bill have been involved in, and then when she gets caught, she lies, feigns ignorance, deflects, blames others, lies some more. Power and money are her goals. ..."
"... I'm sure he will quash TPP, renegotiate nafta and be less belligerent with Russia. But what will happen when he and his non-government-indoctrinated team of advisers finally see every bit of redacted and "confidential" information that has been routinely hidden from the public and lied about for decades? ..."
"... The loss of sovereignty inherent in the "trade" agreements and incoherent Middle East policies, to name a few "strategies" this country is pursuing, have a larger purpose. We private citizens have just not been privy to it. How private citizen Trump will proceed if he is elected and comes to know the government's deepest, darkest secrets is anybody's guess. ..."
"... I think its a safe assumption that if Trump is elected he will be carefully 'minded' to ensure he can't gain access to information that would upset the applecart. ..."
"... As for Donnie taking down TPP and being the peace candidate, I think people should sit down and take a few deep breaths. As a New Yorker who's observed him for his entire public life, and as a 90 second scanning of his career demonstrates, the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about anything ..."
"... You're right. He'll make a good court jester. That's about it. as for "the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully about anything" reminds me of someone who gets on TeeVee and does that well. And he really didn't have any experience but he got himself good handlers and others who ran the country. ..."
"... Exactly right! Trump is dangerous…to the establishment. And the establishment is what we have to get rid of. ..."
"... As flawed a character as Trump is, he still represents our last chance to challenge the establishment. It won't be a pretty presidency – but it will be entertaining – however the alternative is the ultimate horror show. Plus you are gambling that Clinton won't start a nuclear war and end the human race. Why would anyone in their right mind touch that wager? ..."
"... It is unlikely that Trump will be able to deport more people than Obama's record breaking administration. ..."
"... Obama actually ended up rejecting Clinton's continuous advice for more more more military intervention. ..."
"... I agree with you that Trump is not likable, and an unknown. The problem is that the known is despicable. Neither, let me repeat, neither candidate should be anywhere near this close to the White House. ..."
"... You have obviously chosen the despicable hateful war mongering devil you know. Others are willing to roll the dice with the guy who has incoherently at least given a nod to the idea that war with Russia is not a smart plan, and that our current military choices are not effective – not to mention a far more coherent case that our trade policy is screwed up and needs to be changed. ..."
"... Trump wants to stop "illegal" immigration so that poor Americans can have jobs. Illegals lower wages (because American employers pay them less), they increase rents (supply and demand), and they cost a fortune in medical and educational costs. He's for "legal" immigration when the country needs more workers. I don't think that is being racist, although he doesn't have a very nice way of saying things. ..."
"... Muslim immigration stopped until they can be properly vetted? That's just being prudent and careful, but again he could say things in a much kinder way. ..."
"... He's a wild man, but at least he's upfront about it. I see her as being a narcissist that just hides it better than he does. She could get us all killed. ..."
"... While Trump is upfront (yikes, I know), I see Hillary as the secretive, conniving, manipulative, scheming, backstabbing type. When someone slights Trump, out comes his response right back at them. It's over. But I would not want to cross her. I see her as cold, with very, very little conscience. I mean, would you ever have tried to pull off the scandals she has been involved in? No. She seeks power and money, and look out if you ever got in her way. She never says she's sorry, not really. Most you get out of her is she made a "mistake". ..."
"... Her outright aggression towards Russia, Syria, Libya, Ukraine should give you a hint of what lurks inside. And she doesn't attack these countries to better the U.S. She's doing it solely for her own person gain: money into the Clinton Foundation, business for her speech-giving husband, all to further the Clinton's. ..."
"... IMO, a very dangerous person, a very dangerous couple. And she has said, if she's elected, she will put Bill Clinton in charge of "economic affairs"! Can you just imagine what more deregulation will do for the banks? He repealed Glass-Steagall and brought us the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, as well as NAFTA. Get ready to hear a "huge" sucking sound if Hillary is elected. The place will be gutted. ..."
"... Perhaps with a hateful, racist, despicable con man trying to tell them what to do, congress just might re-assert its authority instead of acting as a rubber stamp. Which is the LOTE – Trump antagonizing congress into gridlock or HRC manipulating them into moar war? ..."
"... It sounds like you're talking about HRC when you're talking about Trump. She coined the term "super predators" so they could enrich the private prison industry by filling the jails with black people, she has waged wars against brown people in the middle east for no particular reason except corporate profits and power, no respect for their theocracies or the delicate balance that "supposed" tyrants there accomplished that had enduring peace there (some may argue). Where has Trump exhibited such hatred and racism? His policies? What policies? No one that has worked for him ever described him as hateful, racist or despicable. Stop believing the propaganda on TV. ..."
"... You might think Obama doesn't like us, the 99%, but Hillary probably hates us. Pay attention, the most "effective evil" is the evil to fear. ..."
"... If it's not close in my state, I will vote 3rd party. If it is close, I'll vote for Clinton over Trump. There is a good interview with Chomsky on this on youtube which I'm too lazy to look up right now. ..."
"... "Hillary took the lead role in the White House's efforts to pass a corporate-friendly version of "health reform." Along with the big insurance companies the Clintons deceptively railed against, the "co-presidents" decided from the start to exclude the popular health care alternative – single payer – from the national health care "discussion." (Obama would do the same thing in 2009.) ..."
"... Beyond backing by a citizen super-majority, Himmelstein noted, single-payer would provide comprehensive coverage to the nation's 40 million uninsured while retaining free choice in doctor selection and being certified by the Congressional Budget Office as "the most cost-effective plan on offer." ..."
"... That whole article deals with the "fake liberalism" exhibited by the Clinton's and Obama. It says they only "pretend" to care. ..."
"... clinton is the more effective evil for another reason; she is respected by other neoliberals who rule the world in other countries. even if trump wanted to pass the TPP, TTIP and TISA, the intense dislike of him would make it easier to reject the bills in countries like Canada, Australia, the EU. A Hillary presidency would just about guarantee they'd sign. ..."
"... it's common knowledge that the current "rigged" system, as Donald Trump keeps calling it, has been instrumental in bringing American politics and government to their present state of dysfunction at local, state and national levels. Americans hate and despise this elitist system; everyone is disgusted with the political donor class whose billions of dollars underwrite the election-rigging televised attack ads that dominate it. ..."
"... At the Demo Convention Bernie Sanders neatly pinpointed the topics with which this bogus system is obsessed: "Let me be as clear as I can be. … This election is not about political gossip. It's not about polls. It's not about campaign strategy. It's not about fundraising. It's not about all the things the media spends so much time discussing." ..."
"... Do you see it as possible that empowered citizens will truly be willing to take on big capital, even when big capital goes to war on them? I'm skeptical ..."
"... The evil to fear is the most effective evil. Hillary IS both sides of the aisle and Congress will allow her all her neocon neoliberal desires, Trump is neither side of the aisle and would be ineffective because he doesn't belong to the neoliberal neocons, he's not an insider and obviously won't play their games. ..."
"... Oh heck yes. This is a fight that has been going on for decades with battles like the War Powers Act and Nixon's impeachment. Supposedly the Founding Fathers didn't want an all powerful chief executive and thought that Congress would be the dominant force. But in modern times, even before Clinton v Trump, we already had gone much too far in the direction of a caudillo. Internally one person with a bully pulpit will never be able to change the current course and overseas presidents have a frightening amount of power that they can wield and then dare Congress to do something about it afterwards. ..."
"... HRC has got the big corporate money behind her, the media too. Trump is fighting an uphill battle. If you watch CNN, which I watch very little of, they spend almost the whole time pulling apart what Trump has said, and very, very little press on Hillary's email, the Clinton Foundation, etc. ..."
"... They are going after Trump with all that they have. They want the status quo to remain, and they are very worried that he might change it. Hillary is Wall Street, multinational corporations, arms dealers, weapons manufacturers, the military-industrial complex ..."
"... "When you join the dots to Trump also preaching a policy revolt against the insatiable corporate jaws feeding on trillions of dollars of public budgets in Washington, the meaning becomes clear. But that connected meaning is blacked out. In its place, the corporate media and politicians present an egomaniac blowhard bordering on fascism who preaches hate, racism and sexism. ..."
"... He is on record saying he will cut the Pentagon's budget "by 50%". No winning politician has ever dared to take on the military-industrial complex, with even Eisenhower only naming it in his parting speech. ..."
"... Trump also says that the US "must be neutral, an honest broker" on the Israeli-Palestine conflict – as unspeakable as it gets in US politics ..."
"... Hillary and her team will try to paint Trump as a lover of Putin, as a racist, bigot, bring the narrative down to this only. This way, no one ends up talking about the corporate elites she represents. Good, read some more, crittermom, and open your eyes even more. There's a lot more going on than meets the eye. ..."
"... Recently I asked a wise person I know what historically follows an oligarchy (which is what I believe we have been in for awhile now). He told me that an oligarchy is usually followed by a dictatorship. ..."
"... A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy". ..."
"... How could Trump become a dictator? Congress will be hostile. Judiciary will be hostile. Pentagon will be hostile (didn't you see all those generals and admirals, in uniform, literally lining up behind Clinton?) Civil administration will be sullen, uncooperative, and leaking like crazy. ..."
"... Trump does not have his own freestanding parallel state organization, ready to move in and take over the bureaucracy and the armed forces. It would be physically impossible for Trump to attempt a mass purge. ..."
"... Just think: if you elect Trump, you would actually get to see the US Constitution's fabled "checks and balances" come into play for once in your life! ..."
"... How could Trump become a dictator? ..."
"... This is complete rhetorical garbage, the same kind of nonsense displayed when he is shock quoted and only the narrative supporting text is copied (such as the convenient omission that the fabled day in which Clinton could be assassinated would be "horrible"). It also fits well with the Democrats' habit of burying themselves instead of putting up a fight. ..."
"... While Trump is a buffoon who might lead us into bad situations as he stumbles around, Hillary Clinton displays an undeniable and proven malice aforethought that he does not. ..."
PERIES: So Michael, in a recent article that you penned on your website, you argued that Hillary
Clinton's campaign is using a very clever strategy in that it is trying to associate criticism of
Clinton with support for Trump and therefore support for Russia, which in the end is anti-American
. Now, this type of association game, which is supposed to make it difficult for Sanders supporters
to criticize Clinton, what implication does this have on the overall politics in this country?
HUDSON: Well, it certainly changed things in earlier elections. The Republican convention was
as is normal, all about their candidate Trump. But surprisingly, so was the Democratic convention.
That was all about Trump too – as the devil. The platform Hillary's running on is "I'm not Trump.
I'm the lesser evil."
She elaborates that by saying that Trump is Putin's ploy. When the Democratic National Committee
(someone within it, or without) leaked the information to Wikileaks, the Democrats and Hillary asked,
"Who benefits from this"? Ah-ha. Becaue Trump opposes the neocon line toward Russia, and because
he criticizes NATO, Russia benefits. Therefore Putin must have stolen the leaks and put them out,
to make America weaker, not stronger, by helping the Trump campaign by showing the DNC's dirty tricks
toward Bernie's followers.
Then Assange did an Internet interview and implied that it was not a cyberwar attack but a leak
– indicating that it came from an insider inn the DNC. If this is true, then the Democrats are simply
trying to blame it all on Trump – diverting attention from what the leaks' actual content!
This is old-fashioned red baiting. I saw it 60 years ago when I was a teenager. I went to a high
school where teachers used to turn in reports on what we said in class to the FBI every month. The
State Department was emptied out of "realists" and staffed with Alan Dulles-type Cold Warriors. One
couldn't talk about certain subjects. That is what red-baiting does. So the effect at the Democratic
Convention was about Hillary trying to avoid taking about her own policies and herself. Except for
what her husband said about "I met a girl" (not meaning Jennifer Flowers or Monica Lewinski.)
The red baiting succeeded, and the convention wasn't about Hillary – at least, not her economic
policies. It was more about Obama. She tied herself to Obama, and next to Trump = Putin, the convention's
second underlying theme was that Hillary was going to be Obama's third term. That's what Obama himself
said when he came and addressed the convention.
The problem with this strategy is it's exactly the problem the Republicans faced in 2008, when
voters turned against George Bush's administration. Voters wanted change. And they do today. Hillary
did not say "I'm going to have hope and change from the last years of Obama." She said, in effect,
"I'm not going to change anything. I'm going to continue Obama's policies that have made you all
so prosperous." She talked about how employment is rising and everyone is better off.
Well, the problem is that many people aren't better off than the last eight years. Ten million
families have lost their homes, and most peoples' budgets are being squeezed. Obama saved the banks
not the economy. So Trump's line and the Republican line in this election could well be: "Are you
really better off than you were eight years ago? Or, are you actually worse off? Where are all your
gains? You're further in debt. You're having more difficulty meeting your paychecks, you're running
up your student loans. You're really not better off and we're going to be the party of hope and change."
Hillary can't really counter that with the policies she has. Trump and the Republicans can say
that even though she disavowed the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the trade agreement with Europe,
all the Democratic representatives that voted for the TPP have won re-nomination, and it's still
on the burner.
Most of all, Hillary is still the war candidate. Trump already has said, "Look at what she
did to Libya." By displacing Libya, she turned its arms cache over to terrorist groups that have
become ISIS, Al-Nusra, and the other terrorist in the Near East. So she's the Queen of Chaos. Finally,
she's the candidate of Wall Street, given the fact even the Koch Brothers have said they're not going
to back Trump, they're going to back Hillary because she's on their side. George Soros and most other
big moguls and billionaires are now siding with the Democratic Party, not Trump.
What did Hilary actually say at the convention besides "I'm not Trump, Trump is worse." She's
trying to make the whole election over her rival, not over herself.
PERIES: Okay, so everything you say about Hillary Clinton may be true, and it's more in your favor
that it is true. She is a candidate of Wall Street and she is as you say, now being supported
even by the neocons. They're holding fundraisers for her. And the Koch brothers and so on. So
when we opened this interview we were talking about what the Bernie Sanders supporters should now
do, because Trump is starting to appeal like he's the candidate of ordinary people. So what are they
to do?
HUDSON: Well, if the election is between the most unpopular woman candidate in America and the
most unpopular male candidate, the winner is going to be whoever can make the election fought over
the other person. Trump will win if he can make the election all about Hillary, and Hillary will
win if she can make the election all about Trump. It looks like she's able to do this, because
Trump is even more narcissistic than she is.
EndOfTheWorld- totally agree with you. I just shake my head at Bernie. Diametrically opposed
to Clinton, he suddenly turns around and embraces her! What? I will never understand that.
"America needs an ineffective president. That's much better than an effective president
that's going to go to war with Russia, that's going to push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership,
that's going to protect Wall Street, and that's going to oppose neoliberal austerity."
He's right too. I am absolutely terrified of Hillary Clinton becoming President. She strikes
me as having psychopathic tendencies. I mean, just look at the scandals she and Bill have been
involved in, and then when she gets caught, she lies, feigns ignorance, deflects, blames others,
lies some more. Power and money are her goals.
She has called Putin "Hitler", said she wants to expand NATO, and again said she wants to take
out Assad. Well, how is she going to do that when Russia is in there? God, she is scary. I just
hope that there's a big Clinton Foundation email leak to finish her off.
Trump is out there, but at least he wants to try to negotiate peace (of course, if war wasn't
making so many people rich, it would be stopped tomorrow). He's questioning why NATO is necessary,
never mind its continual expansion, and he wants to stop the TPP.
God, I'd be happy with even one of the above. Hillary will give us TPP, more NATO, more war,
and a cackle. Please, if anyone has some loose emails hanging around, now is the time!
I honestly don't think there's any way to predict what Donald Trump will do if elected. He's
effectively a private citizen who, all of a sudden, will have access to every government secret
and lie, and no culpability for any of it. It's almost impossible to imagine what that would be
like.
And it's what makes him so "dangerous."
I'm sure he will quash TPP, renegotiate nafta and be less belligerent with Russia. But
what will happen when he and his non-government-indoctrinated team of advisers finally see every
bit of redacted and "confidential" information that has been routinely hidden from the public
and lied about for decades?
The loss of sovereignty inherent in the "trade" agreements and incoherent Middle East policies,
to name a few "strategies" this country is pursuing, have a larger purpose. We private citizens
have just not been privy to it. How private citizen Trump will proceed if he is elected and comes
to know the government's deepest, darkest secrets is anybody's guess.
I think its a safe assumption that if Trump is elected he will be carefully 'minded' to
ensure he can't gain access to information that would upset the applecart. I doubt he would
be able to get much done as there would be an establishment consensus to keep him firmly under
wraps. He would mostly busy himself with jetting around meeting foreign leaders and he might actually
be quite productive at that.
or he'll pass what he campaigns on which is standard Republican policy (sometimes) through
an entirely Republican legislature duh. So tax cuts, cuts to regulation etc.. Really he's campaigning
on these things and they CAN pass a Republican congress.
Yes, if Donnie is elected, we'll see some form of a Regency; that's what Pence is there for.
Donnie will be Clown Prince, while more traditionally evil Republican/DC technocrats "run" things.
It would be a re-doing of the Reagan/Bush-Baker and Bush/Cheney dynamic, as seen on reality TV.
As for Donnie taking down TPP and being the peace candidate, I think people should sit
down and take a few deep breaths. As a New Yorker who's observed him for his entire public life,
and as a 90 second scanning of his career demonstrates, the man cannot be trusted to speak truthfully
about anything. Does he lie exactly the way Hillary does? Of course not, she's the accomplished
professional, while Donnie spins plates and tries to misdirect by finding someone to insult when
they fall and shatter.
Vote for Hillary or not (I most likely won't, but can't predict much of anything in this all-bets-are-off
opera buffa), but by believing anything Donnie says, you risk being the chump he already thinks
you are.
You're right. He'll make a good court jester. That's about it. as for "the man cannot be
trusted to speak truthfully about anything" reminds me of someone who gets on TeeVee and does
that well. And he really didn't have any experience but he got himself good handlers and others
who ran the country.
Exactly right! Trump is dangerous…to the establishment. And the establishment is what we
have to get rid of.
When was the last time a political candidate in any country was as hated by the establishment
as Trump is? That's all you need to know. As flawed a character as Trump is, he still represents
our last chance to challenge the establishment. It won't be a pretty presidency – but it will
be entertaining – however the alternative is the ultimate horror show. Plus you are gambling that
Clinton won't start a nuclear war and end the human race. Why would anyone in their right mind
touch that wager?
It is unlikely that Trump will be able to deport more people than Obama's record breaking
administration. Something, that for all her rhetoric, there is no reason to believe that
Clinton will change. As for waging war, we have a whole lot of information that for all his massive
drone wars and interventions in the Middle East, Obama actually ended up rejecting Clinton's
continuous advice for more more more military intervention.
I agree with you that Trump is not likable, and an unknown. The problem is that the known
is despicable. Neither, let me repeat, neither candidate should be anywhere near this close to
the White House.
You have obviously chosen the despicable hateful war mongering devil you know. Others are
willing to roll the dice with the guy who has incoherently at least given a nod to the idea that
war with Russia is not a smart plan, and that our current military choices are not effective –
not to mention a far more coherent case that our trade policy is screwed up and needs to be changed.
Once again, people are choosing from known despicable, unknown possibly lesser possibly greater
despicable, and unlikely to win third parties or write ins – everyone can only do that for themselves.
One New York reporter (sorry, I don't have the link) said that he has watched Trump his whole
life and he said, though he could say many bad things about Trump, racism wasn't one of them.
He said he had never in all his years of watching him known Trump to be racist in any way.
Trump wants to stop "illegal" immigration so that poor Americans can have jobs. Illegals
lower wages (because American employers pay them less), they increase rents (supply and demand),
and they cost a fortune in medical and educational costs. He's for "legal" immigration when the
country needs more workers. I don't think that is being racist, although he doesn't have a very
nice way of saying things.
Muslim immigration stopped until they can be properly vetted? That's just being prudent
and careful, but again he could say things in a much kinder way.
He's a wild man, but at least he's upfront about it. I see her as being a narcissist that
just hides it better than he does. She could get us all killed.
While Trump is upfront (yikes, I know), I see Hillary as the secretive, conniving, manipulative,
scheming, backstabbing type. When someone slights Trump, out comes his response right back at
them. It's over. But I would not want to cross her. I see her as cold, with very, very little
conscience. I mean, would you ever have tried to pull off the scandals she has been involved in?
No. She seeks power and money, and look out if you ever got in her way. She never says she's sorry,
not really. Most you get out of her is she made a "mistake".
Her outright aggression towards Russia, Syria, Libya, Ukraine should give you a hint of
what lurks inside. And she doesn't attack these countries to better the U.S. She's doing it solely
for her own person gain: money into the Clinton Foundation, business for her speech-giving husband,
all to further the Clinton's.
IMO, a very dangerous person, a very dangerous couple. And she has said, if she's elected,
she will put Bill Clinton in charge of "economic affairs"! Can you just imagine what more deregulation
will do for the banks? He repealed Glass-Steagall and brought us the Commodity Futures Modernization
Act, as well as NAFTA. Get ready to hear a "huge" sucking sound if Hillary is elected. The place
will be gutted.
That's preposterous about Donnie not being racist. When the Central Park Five (released from
prison and compensated by the state for false impisonment) were arrested, Donnie took out full
page ads for days in the NYC papers, all but calling for those (innocent) boy's lynching. He was
raised in an explicitly racist milieu – his father arrested at a KKK tussle in Queens in the 1920's,
and successfully sued by the Nixon DOJ for his discriminatory rental policies…) and has a long
history of saying ignorant, absurd and racist things about "The Blacks."
"Clinton is awful, but that doesn't mean it's a better idea to elect a hateful, racist,
despicable con man"
Perhaps with a hateful, racist, despicable con man trying to tell them what to do, congress
just might re-assert its authority instead of acting as a rubber stamp. Which is the LOTE – Trump
antagonizing congress into gridlock or HRC manipulating them into moar war?
It sounds like you're talking about HRC when you're talking about Trump. She coined the
term "super predators" so they could enrich the private prison industry by filling the jails with
black people, she has waged wars against brown people in the middle east for no particular reason
except corporate profits and power, no respect for their theocracies or the delicate balance that
"supposed" tyrants there accomplished that had enduring peace there (some may argue). Where has
Trump exhibited such hatred and racism? His policies? What policies? No one that has worked for
him ever described him as hateful, racist or despicable. Stop believing the propaganda on TV.
Hatred and racism is exhibited in leaders by being a war monger and gutting this nation with
the TPP and lousy trade deals that sell off our national sovereignty and democracy. You might
think Obama doesn't like us, the 99%, but Hillary probably hates us. Pay attention, the most "effective
evil" is the evil to fear.
I am with
Noam Chomsky on this. If it's not close in my state, I will vote 3rd party. If it is close,
I'll vote for Clinton over Trump. There is a good interview with Chomsky on this on youtube which
I'm too lazy to look up right now.
But as Pat said above, everyone must make up his or her own mind.
Has there ever been any evidence that this type of strategic voting has ever done any good
whatsoever or ever had its intended result? Just speculation but I'm guessing that only a very
few of the very politically astute would even bother. I say vote your conscience regardless and
let the chips fall where they may.
Not the voters fault that this is the best the two major parties could come up with.
Speaking of revolution, I emailed Chomsky yesterday and he replied. The below is my message
to him.
Professor Chomsky,
In the last years of his life, Martin Luther King, Jr. organized the Poor People's Campaign,
which essentially planned to occupy Capitol Hill. The campaign still happened after his death,
but not enough people showed up for it to have a great impact.
I've begun to advocate what would essentially be a continuation of the Poor People's
Campaign, but with a broader focus on the numerous crises facing humanity: climate change,
poverty, illegal wars, etc.
Would you possibly be interested in providing rhetorical support for this action?
Thank you so much for your efforts to make a better world.
The below is Chomsky's reply.
It was a wonderful and very important initiative, cruelly undermined by his assassination.
I hope you manage to revive it.
Butch – "…she helped lead the fight for universal health care." Did she now? Here's a good
quote on how she felt about universal health care:
"Hillary took the lead role in the White House's efforts to pass a corporate-friendly version
of "health reform." Along with the big insurance companies the Clintons deceptively railed against,
the "co-presidents" decided from the start to exclude the popular health care alternative – single
payer – from the national health care "discussion." (Obama would do the same thing in 2009.)
"David, tell me something interesting." That was then First Lady Hillary Clinton's weary and
exasperated response – as head of the White House's health reform initiative – to Harvard medical
professor David Himmelstein in 1993. Himmelstein was head of Physicians for a National Health
Program. He had just told her about the remarkable possibilities of a comprehensive, single-payer
"Canadian style" health plan, supported by more than two-thirds of the U.S. public. Beyond
backing by a citizen super-majority, Himmelstein noted, single-payer would provide comprehensive
coverage to the nation's 40 million uninsured while retaining free choice in doctor selection
and being certified by the Congressional Budget Office as "the most cost-effective plan on offer."
clinton is the more effective evil for another reason; she is respected by other neoliberals
who rule the world in other countries. even if trump wanted to pass the TPP, TTIP and TISA, the
intense dislike of him would make it easier to reject the bills in countries like Canada, Australia,
the EU. A Hillary presidency would just about guarantee they'd sign.
I love Michael Hudson. But like everyone commenting here he is needlessly thinking inside the
crumbling box of America's existing top-down, money-driven system of political discourse. So what
is it that keeps us from thinking outside this godawful box? I think we're all so deeply and habitually
embedded in the mode of being status quo critics that we're unable to enter the problem-solving
mode of finding alternatives to it. But to make government work in America, we need to think in
both modes.
So let's think outside the box for a minute. After all, it's common knowledge that the
current "rigged" system, as Donald Trump keeps calling it, has been instrumental in bringing American
politics and government to their present state of dysfunction at local, state and national levels.
Americans hate and despise this elitist system; everyone is disgusted with the political donor
class whose billions of dollars underwrite the election-rigging televised attack ads that dominate
it.
At the Demo Convention Bernie Sanders neatly pinpointed the topics with which this bogus
system is obsessed: "Let me be as clear as I can be. … This election is not about political gossip.
It's not about polls. It's not about campaign strategy. It's not about fundraising. It's not about
all the things the media spends so much time discussing." Yet like all presidential candidates
this year Bernie didn't take the next, logical step: he didn't call for the creation of a new
political discourse system. (Note that Hillary alone among the top three candidates never, ever
has a bad word to say against the current system.)
OK, so what might a new system look like? First off, it would be non-partisan, issue-centered
and deliberative. And citizen-participatory. It would make citizens and governments responsive
and accountable to each other in shaping the best futures of their communities. That's its core
principal.
More specifically, the format of a reality TV show like The Voice or American Idol could readily
be adapted to create ongoing, prime-time, issue-centered searches for solutions to any and all
of the issues of the day. And of course problem-solving Reality TV is just of any number of formats
that could work for TV. Other media could develop formats tap their strengths and appeal to their
audiences.
Thanks to the miracle of modern communications technologies, there's nothing to stop Americans
from having a citizen-participatory system of political discourse that gives all Americans an
informed voice in the political and government decisions that affect their lives. Americans will
flock in drove to ongoing, rule-governed problem-solving public forums that earn the respect and
trust of citizens and political leaders alike. When we create them, governments at local, state
and national levels will start working again. If we don't, our politics will continue to sink
deeper into the cesspool we're in now.
Do you see it as possible that empowered citizens will truly be willing to take on big
capital, even when big capital goes to war on them? I'm skeptical, unless there is a real
socialist-ish movement out there educating and politicizing. In other words, while the political
system is indeed broken, the economy is also broken and it is hard to see "empowered" citizens
fixing the economy. What I think would happen is the politicians elected by these empowered citizens
would be opposed by big business and the politicians they own, nothing good would get done, and
there would be a business-financed media drumbeat that more democracy has been "proven" not to
work.
I don't think our political problems can be solved simply be electing better politicians –
though of course we do need better politicians.
The evil to fear is the most effective evil. Hillary IS both sides of
the aisle and Congress will allow her all her neocon neoliberal desires, Trump is neither side
of the aisle and would be ineffective because he doesn't belong to the neoliberal neocons, he's
not an insider and obviously won't play their games.
I have not had nearly the hardship you have had crittermom and I have not lived as long either,
but at 27, and being someone who has been discontent with social structure since middle school,
I have absolutely had enough. Genetics, environment, the combination of internal-external factors,
whatever it was I have always had a very ("annoying" and sarcastic) curiousity or oppositional
approach to things, especially things people do not question and accept as is (religion, government…).
Growing older has only led me to greater understanding of the pit we reside within and how
we probably will not get out. This election season in particular has been ridiculously… indescribable.
The utter incompetence of our selfish administrations is finally coming to a head and people are
completely oblivious, pulling the same stale BS that we have seen every four years since before
I was born.
Bernie totally blew it but, outside your hardship, don't ever think you effort was a waste.
For once an honest candidate appeared who was backed by the policies we need and you supported
that (as I did). That is the most we can do at this point. Bernie the man should absolutely be
criticized because he wanted a "revolution" then sold out to the Junta instead of biting back
when it would have really sent a message to the people and high rollers. He wasn't willing to
sacrifice what was necessary to make a stand. Instead he sided with the people that have made
careers sacrificing citizens like you–and that is terrible. The reality these people live in and
teach to others is such a lie.
Oh heck yes. This is a fight that has been going on for decades with battles like the War
Powers Act and Nixon's impeachment. Supposedly the Founding Fathers didn't want an all powerful
chief executive and thought that Congress would be the dominant force. But in modern times, even
before Clinton v Trump, we already had gone much too far in the direction of a caudillo. Internally
one person with a bully pulpit will never be able to change the current course and overseas presidents
have a frightening amount of power that they can wield and then dare Congress to do something
about it afterwards.
So despite his potty mouth there's something to be said for Mr. Trump Goes to Washington. By
the time he figures out how to be caudillo it may be time for another election.
crittermom – HRC has got the big corporate money behind her, the media too. Trump is fighting
an uphill battle. If you watch CNN, which I watch very little of, they spend almost the whole
time pulling apart what Trump has said, and very, very little press on Hillary's email, the Clinton
Foundation, etc.
They are going after Trump with all that they have. They want the status quo to remain,
and they are very worried that he might change it. Hillary is Wall Street, multinational corporations,
arms dealers, weapons manufacturers, the military-industrial complex. Who would have thought
that the guy running for the right wants to keep jobs in America, wants to stop wars, and the
one on the left is for the monied class! Right is left and left is right. Upside down world.
The following article is old now, from April, but it gives you an idea of "Why the Establishment
Hates Trump" and what he is planning on doing. Watch them go after him; they will vilify him.
"When you join the dots to Trump also preaching a policy revolt against the insatiable
corporate jaws feeding on trillions of dollars of public budgets in Washington, the meaning
becomes clear. But that connected meaning is blacked out. In its place, the corporate media
and politicians present an egomaniac blowhard bordering on fascism who preaches hate, racism
and sexism.
But the silenced policies he advocates are more like jumping into a crocodile pit. He
is on record saying he will cut the Pentagon's budget "by 50%". No winning politician has ever
dared to take on the military-industrial complex, with even Eisenhower only naming it in his
parting speech.
Trump also says that the US "must be neutral, an honest broker" on the Israeli-Palestine
conflict – as unspeakable as it gets in US politics.
Big Pharma is also called out with "$400 billion to be saved by government negotiation of
prices". The even more powerful HMO's are confronted by the possibility of a "one-payer system",
the devil incarnate in America's corporate-welfare state."
Hillary and her team will try to paint Trump as a lover of Putin, as a racist, bigot, bring
the narrative down to this only. This way, no one ends up talking about the corporate elites she
represents. Good, read some more, crittermom, and open your eyes even more. There's a lot more
going on than meets the eye.
So I don't usually post here, just mostly read what other folks have to say.
Recently I asked a wise person I know what historically follows an oligarchy (which is
what I believe we have been in for awhile now). He told me that an oligarchy is usually followed
by a dictatorship.
So if that is the case is Trump going to take us into the land of dictatorship (which I believe
is highly likely) or are any of us going to be able to tread water for a little longer with HRC
(who I agree is ugh a non-choice but hopefully the lesser of the two evils).
Looking this up I found the concept of the Tytler Cycle. Interesting and scary. This is off
wikipedia:
Two centuries ago, a somewhat obscure Scotsman named Tytler made this profound observation:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the
majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority
always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses
because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a
monarchy".
Anyway can someone refute this for me so I can sleep tonight? Thanks, in advance.
How could Trump become a dictator? Congress will be hostile. Judiciary will be hostile.
Pentagon will be hostile (didn't you see all those generals and admirals, in uniform, literally
lining up behind Clinton?) Civil administration will be sullen, uncooperative, and leaking
like crazy.
Trump does not have his own freestanding parallel state organization, ready to move in
and take over the bureaucracy and the armed forces. It would be physically impossible for
Trump to attempt a mass purge.
So exactly how the hell would Trump impose his will on the American masses? Answer: No Way.
President Trump can only be a relatively weak president.
Just think: if you elect Trump, you would actually get to see the US Constitution's fabled
"checks and balances" come into play for once in your life!
Thank you! The same question I have been asking repeatedly throughout this charade. Everyone's
favorite line is "Trump will be a dictator [be afriad]!" The obvious question… how
?!
How is Trump going to have the same or any more power within or over the system than any president
before him?? What is a reasonable strategy with which he could upend and create domination over
this system with? This is complete rhetorical garbage, the same kind of nonsense displayed
when he is shock quoted and only the narrative supporting text is copied (such as the convenient
omission that the fabled day in which Clinton could be assassinated would be "horrible"). It also
fits well with the Democrats' habit of burying themselves instead of putting up a fight.
I have felt for a long time but have struggled to put into words the deep, strong aversion
I have towards Clinton (et al.)and that I feel any time I read about her or see her. There is
a phrase in the song Art War , by the Knack, that caught my ear; what I originally heard as, "malice
of forethought". To me this represents the idea that terrible, harmful, far-reaching, incompetent
decisions are made completely on purpose. After doing some research I discovered that the phrase
is actually "malice aforethought", related to murderous intent in legal definitions. A
second, more appropriate
definition here is "a general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned
for the lives of others". This represents my internal shuddering exactly – a sort of willful, deadly
incompetence.
While Trump is a buffoon who might lead us into bad situations as he stumbles around, Hillary
Clinton displays an undeniable and proven malice aforethought that he does not.
Amazing: neoliberalism -- the social system under which everybody in the USA lives is not mentioned
onece. This looks like Politburo in the USSR prohibit mentioning communism by name. Clinton health
problems, reckless gingoism and neocon domonance in forigh policy also are not discussed. As oif they
do not exist. The fact that Demorats lost owrking class was by design as Clinton sold
the party to Wall Streeet, counting that blue color workers has nowhere to go. Which was rthe case until
2016 election (actually the king of bait-and-switch Obama striggled in 2012 and if Republican have has
better candidate he would be a toast). Betraysl of New Deal hangs like a curse of neoliberal Democtatic
Party. Those sucher need to pay for the betrayls and it might that time has come. .
Notable quotes:
"... In case you weren't convinced Democrats are becoming the cosmopolitan elite party. ..."
"... They abdicated too easily to market fundamentalism and bought in to its central tenets. Worse still, they led the hyper-globalization movement at crucial junctures. The enthroning of free capital mobility – especially of the short-term kind – as a policy norm by the European Union, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the IMF was arguably the most fateful decision for the global economy in recent decades. ..."
"... Instead of serving as the political arm of working and middle class voters seeking to move up the ladder, the Democratic Party faces the prospect of becoming the party of the winners, in collaboration with many of those in the top 20 percent who are determined to protect and secure their economic and social status. ..."
"... increasingly disconnected from working-class America. I mean that in a very specific sense. Our residences are increasingly segregated by class. Our schools are increasingly segregated by class. Our extended families are increasingly separated by class. ..."
"... working-class whites, based in the South and West and suburbs and exurbs everywhere. They will favor universal, contributory social insurance systems that benefit them and their families and reward work effort - programs like Social Security and Medicare. ..."
On Aug. 7, Lee Drutman, a senior fellow at New America, a center-left Washington think tank, posted
some of the findings from an Aug. 1
CNN survey on Twitter
with a succinct comment:
In case you weren't convinced Democrats are becoming the cosmopolitan elite party.
... ... ...
"The voice of the left - especially the old social democratic left - has lost force in recent
years," Ian Buruma, a professor of democracy, human rights, and journalism at Bard College, wrote
me in an email.
This is partly because leftwing parties since the 1960s began to switch their attention from working
class struggle to identity politics.
There is, Buruma went on,
a common anxiety about the effects of globalism, multinational corporate power, immigration.
More and more people feel unrepresented. When they complained about immigration or the bewildering
changes effected by a global economy, such people were too easily dismissed as racists and bigots.
Now they blame the "liberal elites" for all their anxieties.
Dani Rodrik, a professor of international political economy at Harvard, is even harsher in his
critique of contemporary liberalism. "Economists and technocrats on the left bear a large part of
the blame," Rodrik writes, in an essay, "
The Abdication of the Left ," published in July by Project Syndicate.
Rodrik does not let up:
They abdicated too easily to market fundamentalism and bought in to its central tenets.
Worse still, they led the hyper-globalization movement at crucial junctures. The enthroning of
free capital mobility – especially of the short-term kind – as a policy norm by the European Union,
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the IMF was arguably the most fateful
decision for the global economy in recent decades.
Left policy makers and analysts, Rodrik writes, face
the paradox that earlier waves of reforms from the left – Keynesianism, social democracy, the
welfare state – both saved capitalism from itself and effectively rendered themselves superfluous.
If [neo]liberal public policy intellectuals are unable develop "a clear program to refashion capitalism
and globalization for the twenty-first century," Rodrik warns, "the field will be left wide open
for populists and far-right groups who will lead the world – as they always have – to deeper division
and more frequent conflict."
Instead of serving as the political arm of working and middle class voters seeking to move
up the ladder, the Democratic Party faces the prospect of becoming the party of the winners, in collaboration
with many of those in the top 20 percent who are
determined to protect and secure their economic and social status.
In an interview
published by Vox.com on Aug. 8, Robert Putnam, a professor of public policy at Harvard, described
the consequences of the emergence of "liberal cosmopolitans, really the upper and middle class of
America," who are
increasingly disconnected from working-class America. I mean that in a very specific sense.
Our residences are increasingly segregated by class. Our schools are increasingly segregated by
class. Our extended families are increasingly separated by class.
Writing in
Politico magazine in May , Michael Lind, also a fellow at New America, argues that this cultural
conflict created the political environment that made the Trump phenomenon possible in the first place:
Most culture-war conflicts involve sexuality, gender, or reproduction. Social issues spurred
a partisan realignment by changing who considered themselves Democrats and Republicans. Over decades,
socially conservative working-class whites migrated from the Democratic Party to join the Republican
Party, especially in the South. Socially moderate Republicans, especially on the East Coast, shifted
to the Democratic coalition.
The result, in Lind's view, is an emerging Republican Party dominated by
working-class whites, based in the South and West and suburbs and exurbs everywhere. They
will favor universal, contributory social insurance systems that benefit them and their families
and reward work effort - programs like Social Security and Medicare. But they will tend to
oppose means-tested programs for the poor whose benefits they and their families cannot enjoy.
This shift, Lind points out, will powerfully alter the Democratic coalition, too. The Democrats
will become
even more of an alliance of upscale, progressive whites with blacks and Latinos, based in large
and diverse cities. They will think of the U.S. as a version of their multicultural coalition
of distinct racial and ethnic identity groups writ large. Many younger progressives will take
it for granted that moral people are citizens of the world, equating nationalism and patriotism
with racism and fascism.
From this vantage point, Trump and the pro-social insurance populist right that has emerged in
much of Europe are as much the result of the vacuum created by traditional liberal political parties
as they are a function of the neglect of working class interests by conservatives.
Matthew Carnicelli is a trusted commenter Brooklyn, New York
5 hours ago
Tom, I keep reading these elite analyses of the political restructuring that the Drumpf campaign
is allegedly ushering in - and yet fail to see where the actual institutional support for these
policies will come from within the Republican Party.
Paul Ryan is still talking down Social Security and Medicare, and he is considered the GOP's
intellectual leader. Drumpf was recently quoted as agreeing with Ryan's critique of Social Security.
The conservative think tanks like AEI and Heritage still have Social Security and Medicare
within their crosshairs - and are still peddling the same old supply side snake oil, as is Drumpf
with his tax plan. And Drumpf's plan can only be paid for by savage cuts in every other area of
the Federal budget.
The problem with this entire argument is that Drumpf believes in nothing but "winning" - and
will say absolutely anything to win, anything at all, even if it has a snowball's chance of hell
of finding support with the Republican Party.
If Drumpf managed to win the Presidency, his single term (and he would only get one) would
either be the mother of all political train wrecks - or a complete and utter repudiation of everything
he ran on as a candidate, aside from the racism, xenophobia, and collective insanity that has
overtaken the right.
As a person far more comfortable parsing zeitgeist, let me suggest that it's a terrible idea
to draw conclusions while in the middle of a wave that you've yet to even identify.
HDNY is a trusted commenter New York, N.Y.
3 hours ago
The Times has reverted to its previous position of pretending that Bernie Sanders and his millions
of supporters don't exist. This article pretends all Democrats are willful Clinton supporters and
that Republicans are forced between choosing Donald Trump's Republican Party or Hillary Clinton's
Democratic Party.
The Times' editors' refusal to give credibility to the Sanders campaign actually shows their complicity
in making the Democratic Party more elitist, more corporate and Wall St. oriented, and less involved
with the needs of the poor and lower middle classes. Now they are bequeathing that emphasis to Trump,
still refusing to acknowledge the impact of the Sanders campaign and its supporters.
What's even odder is that the article points out the Republican 'Reformocons', a group that made
a far less significant impact on this election than did Bernie Sanders.
The good points made in this article are lost by painting the American political scene with such
a broad brush. The Times needs to pay more attention to what's really happening in this country.
"A pox on both their houses." What we have seen over the past 30 years is the end of the social
balance between Big Business, Big Government and Big Labor. Today it we have one force--that of the
corporate goliaths--in control of government through their funding of politicians who have worked
to eliminate labor as a force. If their is one critique on the Bernie Sanders left and the Donald
Trump right, it's been the almost total disenfranchisement of working Americans. While the focus
is on trade agreement written in secret by corporations, it needs to focus of workers who can bargain
collectively to ensure they share in their productivity gains and whose rights are protected from
the "race-to-the-bottom" trade agreements. Both political parties have failed here and neither the
new Trump right nor the Sanders left have put forward a real pro-worker, pro-Big Labor agenda. If
workers are left behind, as we've seen in the rise of communism in the past, we have immense social
unrest. And, until we remove the corporate choke-hold on Big Government by getting money out of politics,
we will continue to move away from the balance of social forces essential to a viable democracy toward
an oligarchy either by an autocratic Trump or a Wall Street corporate Clinton.
The main conclusion of the studies cited by Professor Edsall seems to center on the inability
of either political party to mobilize the long-term support of the white working class. The Republicans
remain in thrall to corporate America, as reflected in Paul Ryan's stubborn attachment to discredited
supply-side nostrums. The Democrats, although still committed to a higher minimum wage and the social
safety net, focus their policies on helping the middle and professional classes.
The main responsibility for this situation falls on the Democrats. The GOP never represented the
interests of the working class, but FDR's party had achieved political dominance by doing so. In
the 1960s, LBJ made the momentous decision to stake his party's future on support of the civil right's
revolution, a choice he believed would alienate the white south for a generation.
At the same time, however, he launched his war on poverty, a program with the potential to unite
the interests of black Americans with those of the white working class, in the south as well as elsewhere.
The failure of that ambitious initiative, caused in part by the diversion of resources and political
energy to the war in Vietnam, soured the Democratic leadership after 1968 on expensive programs designed
to help the very groups gloabalization would threaten.
The Clintons won in 1992 by jettisoning their party's social democratic agenda. Even Bernie Sanders
paid attention mainly to the needs of the middle class.
We certainly hope so. Neither party represents the vast majority of citizens. Instead both major
parties represent the interests of the elite, the financial elite, which populate the spectrum of
what passes for political thought from extreme liberals, such as Soros, Holloywood and Ivy League
tax-free endowments to extreme conservatives, such as Kochs and Limbaugh. From taxation, to trade
policies to criminal justice applications to protection of banksters, the major parties are complicit
in and responsible for the appalling state of our affairs. A wreck of an election that tarnishes
their brands and ushers in alternatives is perhaps too much to expect; it is not however too much
to hope for.
Recking? More like exposing. No secret the Dems' all-inclusive rhetoric is just that RHETORIC.
The party has abandoned the working class. Once American "middle class" was the pride of the world.
But what was that "middle class"? It was working class with good jobs and homes, and with the opportunity
of yet better life for their children. The only thing lacking was universal health care and inclusion
of POC.
But it never happened. After achieving this amazing success of turning working class into middle
class, US has been steadily moving away from that ideal. Both parties have abandoned the working
class. Even if the cue came from Reps, Democratic Leadership Council associated Dems (such as Clintons)
have been outdoing Reps in the area of "free trade"(=losing manufacturing jobs), dismantling safety
net in form of welfare, to make things worse reforming foster care to make taking children away from
impoverished working class biological families easier. Dems have been paying lip service to idea
of universal healthcare, affordable medications, affordable college, yet rely on the money from these
industries. While Democratic rhetoric is inclusive of minorities, and they sponsor special programs
for minorities, still not enough to offset the effect their policies on minorities ho are disproportionately
represented in the working class. Externally Dems have been pursuing same imperialistic politics
as Republicans. Clinton asking Kissinger for endorsement puts a seal on that.
I am also puzzled by this column. The young want a New Deal type society. Also, it seems to me
the much vaunted self-interest of the newly affluent Democrats would include shoring up the fortunes
of the working class so as to increase the tax base to finance a more comfortable infrastructure
and also to avoid having their own heads blown off by the mob.
The Republican Party for obvious reasons, but they've had it coming for a long time and deserve
and need to be crushed.
The Democratic Party almost got crushed as well in 2016, equally deserved, and only survived by rigging
the nomination process for the status quo candidate, quelling the populist reform movement. The military
industrial complex and Wall Street have now completely moved over to the traditional blue collar
Democratic Party.
There is a good chance the traditional Republican Party will not recover from the 2016 election,
becoming a long-time minority party at the presidential election level.
The base of the Democratic Party, Latinos, Blacks and young people might finally realize that
electing Wall Street, elite Democrats is not the answer to the critical issues facing the nation.
Once white working class people, equally disaffected with trade deals that ship their jobs overseas,
with endless wars and military conflicts that are supported by both parties, join forces with the
democratic base in 2020, there is a real prospect for a political realignment that could revolutionize
American politics for decades to come.
Thank you, Mr.Edsall, for this this very perceptive analysis of what is happening in the 2016
election.
As a first response, Bernie Sanders obviously would have been the remedy to the kind of Clintonite
Democratic Party you are describing.
Because there is a path toward a social, economic and cultural justice coalition that appeals to
the working class and the casts swaths of college-educated who, due to financial pressures, are effectively
working-class themselves.
So close this year. Will we have another chance?
Both parties were beset by populist insurrections in the recently concluded primaries. The Democratic
Party repulsed insurrectionist Sanders and dispatched him to the wilds of Vermont, never to be heard
from again. But insurrectionist Trump stormed the Republican Party gates and now takes his insurrection
into the general election contest.
My point is, powerful populist movements attacked both parties from below. That could only happen
because both parties were out of touch with a significant portion of the electorate. If Clinton wins
in November, the establishment wins again and the populists will be sent away to brood. But this
disconnection from the political establishment will surface again.
There's nothing particularly "bewildering" about the effects of the global economy. It is being
structured heavily in favor of the rich and their multinational corporations, without regard for
the economic well-being of the hundreds of millions of Americans being victimized. It's not difficult
to understand the psychology of people being robbed with nowhere to turn because the perpetrators
are both political parties using our government as their instrument. How does this article explain
the Senator Bernie Sanders phenomenon? Bernie was a low profile, social democrat who received 46%
of the Democratic vote. The Republicans are owned lock, stock and barrel by Organized Money and the
only real hope is to recapture the Democratic Party.
No, I would say Hillary bears most of the responsibility for the schisms in the democratic party
this election cycle, but, Democrats never pull together. We are famous for it.
Hillary is a business-friendly economic-moderate. She and Susan Collins have more in common than
Hillary has in common with Bernie Sanders and that angers a lot of liberals. I am old enough that
I am used to it, and, in general, economically liberal democrats don't win the presidency even when
they manage to win the nomination.
Don't let perfection be the enemy of adequacy. Besides, is compromise really such a horrible thing?
What is happening to the democratic party seems very similar to what has been happening to the
Labor party in the UK. At least until they elected the new leader of labor, Jeremy Corbyn.
As an aside, this article was dull as dirt and felt like it was written on note cards.
As members of the cosmopolitan elite intelligentsia Lee Drutman, Dani Rodrik, and Robert Putnam
have an insular view of Amercia. Maybe they should spend some time living in a small town...
High level military commanders are more politicians then commanders. And if they belong to
neocons this is a dangerous and potentially explosive combination. Especially if State
Department is fully aligned with Pentagon, like happened under Secretary Clinton tenure.
Notable quotes:
"... He had exaggerated Russian activities in eastern Ukraine with the overt goal of delivering weapons to Kiev. ..."
"... "I think POTUS sees us as a threat that must be minimized,... ie do not get me into a war????" Breedlove wrote in one email, using the acronym for the president of the United States. How could Obama be persuaded to be more "engaged" in the conflict in Ukraine -- read: deliver weapons -- Breedlove had asked former Secretary of State Colin Powell. ..."
"... Breedlove sought counsel from some very prominent people, his emails show. Among them were Wesley Clark, Breedlove's predecessor at NATO, Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs at the State Department, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the US ambassador to Kiev. ..."
"... One name that kept popping up was Phillip Karber, an adjunct assistant professor at Georgetown University in Washington DC and president of the Potomac Foundation, a conservative think tank founded by the former defense contractor BDM. By its own account, the foundation has helped eastern European countries prepare their accession into NATO. Now the Ukrainian parliament and the government in Kiev were asking Karber for help. ..."
"... According to the email, Pakistan had offered, "under the table," to sell Ukraine 500 portable TOW-II launchers and 8,000 TOW-II missiles. The deliveries could begin within two weeks. Even the Poles were willing to start sending "well maintained T-72 tanks, plus several hundred SP 122mm guns, and SP-122 howitzers (along with copious amounts of artillery ammunition for both)" that they had leftover from the Soviet era. The sales would likely go unnoticed, Karber said, because Poland's old weapons were "virtually undistinguishable from those of Ukraine." ..."
"... Karber noted, however, that Pakistan and Poland would not make any deliveries without informal US approval. Furthermore, Warsaw would only be willing to help if its deliveries to Kiev were replaced with new, state-of-the-art weapons from NATO. Karber concluded his letter with a warning: "Time has run out." Without immediate assistance, the Ukrainian army "could face prospect of collapse within 30 days." ..."
"... In March, Karber traveled again to Warsaw in order to, as he told Breedlove, consult with leading members of the ruling party, on the need to "quietly supply arty ( eds: artillery ) and antitank munitions to Ukraine." ..."
"... In an email to Breedlove, Clark described defense expert Karber as "brilliant." After a first visit, Breedlove indicated he had also been impressed. "GREAT visit," he wrote. Karber, an extremely enterprising man, appeared at first glance to be a valuable informant because he often -- at least a dozen times by his own account -- traveled to the front and spoke with Ukrainian commanders. The US embassy in Kiev also relied on Karber for information because it lacked its own sources. "We're largely blind," the embassy's defense attaché wrote in an email. ..."
"... At times, Karber's missives read like prose. In one, he wrote about the 2014 Christmas celebrations he had spent together with Dnipro-1, the ultranationalist volunteer battalion. "The toasts and vodka flow, the women sing the Ukrainian national anthem -- no one has a dry eye." ..."
"... Karber had only good things to report about the unit, which had already been discredited as a private oligarch army. He wrote that the staff and volunteers were dominated by middle class people and that there was a large professional staff that was even "working on the holiday." Breedlove responded that these insights were "quietly finding their way into the right places." ..."
"... In fact, Karber is a highly controversial figure. During the 1980s, the longtime BDM employee, was counted among the fiercest Cold War hawks. Back in 1985, he warned of an impending Soviet attack on the basis of documents he had translated incorrectly. ..."
"... He also blundered during the Ukraine crisis after sending photos to US Senator James Inhofe, claiming to show Russian units in Ukraine. Inhofe released the photos publicly, but it quickly emerged that one had originated from the 2008 war in Georgia. ..."
"... The reasons that Breedlove continued to rely on Karber despite such false reports remain unclear. Was he willing to pay any price for weapons deliveries? Or did he have other motives? The emails illustrate the degree to which Breedlove and his fellow campaigners feared that Congress might reduce the number of US troops in Europe. ..."
"... General Breedlove's departure from his NATO post in May has done little to placate anyone in the German government. After all, the man Breedlove regarded as an obstacle, President Obama, is nearing the end of his second term. His possible successor, the Democrat Hillary Clinton, is considered a hardliner vis-a-vis Russia. ..."
"... What's more: Nuland, a diplomat who shares many of the same views as Breedlove, could move into an even more important role after the November election -- she's considered a potential candidate for secretary of state. ..."
"... The now famous and appropriate quote from President Eisenhower: ..."
"... In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. ..."
"... The idea of NATO as a defence organisation, following the 2nd World War was quite rational. The history of this organisation however, has shown, how a well meant intention can be misused to force through policies, which have nothing to do with the original purpose. Currently it would appear to have no other role, than to provide high ranking army officers with well paid employment, which can only be justified by way of international conflicts. In the absence of conflict, NATO would have no other cause for existence. ..."
"... The Cold War continues, only the enemy is not the Soviet Union but Russia. Ever since the war against Napoleon Russia has emerged as a threat to certain European interests, at first liberal and nationalist interests. After the Bolshevik Revolution the enemy was still Russia, now revitalized with extreme Bolshevik ideology. Hitler used this effectively to target liberals, leftists and especially Jews. ..."
"... After the fall of Communism nothing has really changed. The West is still urged to resist the Russian threat, a threat invented by Polish, Baltic, and Ukrainian nationalists and perhaps Fascists. Donald Trump alone seems impervious to this propaganda. Let's at least give him credit in this case, if not in many others. NATO has become a permanent anti-Russian phony alliance, financed by America. ..."
"... These people are hell-bent to bring the world to the brink of war, with lies and excuses about fear of Russian attacks. So Poland was willing to step into the conflict with Ukraine and deliver lethal armament? All the while afraid of Russia invading it? ..."
"... Philip Breedlove is a war monger and should be fired from his position. The efforts of the group around him seeking to secure weapons for the Ukraine to intensify the conflict must have happened with Breedlove's knowledge and support. If not, then he is not capable to meet the demands of his job and should be dismissed for incompetence. Either way, this guy is unacceptable. ..."
"... Ms. Nuland is the same us official recorded by Russian intelligence trying to manipulate events in Ukraine before the overthrow of the president and all the tragic events that followed. That she is still working for US state dept. is puzzling to say the least. ..."
"... Very simple, he is attempting to INVENT a NEW ROLE for NATO, as it is well known in the domain of sociology: any organization strives for survival, especially when it becomes OBSOLETE. ..."
"... nato Breedhate? ..."
"... SPON was always parotting him. And SPON member Benjamin Bidder and many other SPON guys were foaming at the mouth with war rhetoric all the time in 2014-15. Shame on those fools. Finally, with this contribution you are approaching your real job. And this is to distribute information instead of propaganda. ..."
The newly leaked emails reveal a clandestine network of Western agitators around the NATO military
chief, whose presence fueled the conflict in Ukraine. Many allies found in Breedlove's alarmist public
statements about alleged large Russian troop movements cause for concern early on. Earlier this year,
the general was assuring the world that US European Command was "deterring Russia now and preparing
to fight and win if necessary."
The emails document for the first time the questionable sources from whom Breedlove was getting
his information. He had exaggerated Russian activities in eastern Ukraine with the overt goal of
delivering weapons to Kiev.
The general and his likeminded colleagues perceived US President Barack Obama, the commander-in-chief
of all American forces, as well as German Chancellor Angela Merkel as obstacles. Obama and Merkel
were being "politically naive & counter-productive" in their calls for de-escalation, according to
Phillip Karber, a central figure in Breedlove's network who was feeding information from Ukraine
to the general.
"I think POTUS sees us as a threat that must be minimized,... ie do not get me into a war????"
Breedlove wrote in one email, using the acronym for the president of the United States. How could
Obama be persuaded to be more "engaged" in the conflict in Ukraine -- read: deliver weapons -- Breedlove
had asked former Secretary of State Colin Powell.
Breedlove sought counsel from some very prominent people, his emails show. Among them were Wesley
Clark, Breedlove's predecessor at NATO, Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European
and Eurasian affairs at the State Department, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the US ambassador to Kiev.
One name that kept popping up was Phillip Karber, an adjunct assistant professor at Georgetown
University in Washington DC and president of the Potomac Foundation, a conservative think tank founded
by the former defense contractor BDM. By its own account, the foundation has helped eastern European
countries prepare their accession into NATO. Now the Ukrainian parliament and the government in Kiev
were asking Karber for help.
Surreptitious Channels
On February 16, 2015, when the Ukraine crisis had reached its climax, Karber wrote an email to
Breedlove, Clark, Pyatt and Rose Gottemoeller, the under secretary for arms control and international
security at the State Department, who will be moving to Brussels this fall to take up the post of
deputy secretary general of NATO. Karber was in Warsaw, and he said he had found surreptitious channels
to get weapons to Ukraine -- without the US being directly involved.
According to the email, Pakistan had offered, "under the table," to sell Ukraine 500 portable
TOW-II launchers and 8,000 TOW-II missiles. The deliveries could begin within two weeks. Even the
Poles were willing to start sending "well maintained T-72 tanks, plus several hundred SP 122mm guns,
and SP-122 howitzers (along with copious amounts of artillery ammunition for both)" that they had
leftover from the Soviet era. The sales would likely go unnoticed, Karber said, because Poland's
old weapons were "virtually undistinguishable from those of Ukraine."
AFP
A destroyed airport building in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk : Thousands were killed
in fighting during the Ukraine conflict.
Karber noted, however, that Pakistan and Poland would not make any deliveries without informal
US approval. Furthermore, Warsaw would only be willing to help if its deliveries to Kiev were replaced
with new, state-of-the-art weapons from NATO. Karber concluded his letter with a warning: "Time has run out." Without immediate assistance,
the Ukrainian army "could face prospect of collapse within 30 days."
"Stark," Breedlove replied. "I may share some of this but will thoroughly wipe the fingerprints
off."
In March, Karber traveled again to Warsaw in order to, as he told Breedlove, consult with leading
members of the ruling party, on the need to "quietly supply arty ( eds: artillery ) and antitank
munitions to Ukraine."
Much to the irritation of Breedlove, Clark and Karber, nothing happened. Those responsible were
quickly identified. The National Security Council, Obama's circle of advisors, were "slowing things
down," Karber complained. Clark pointed his finger directly at the White House, writing, "Our problem
is higher than State," a reference to the State Department.
... ... ...
'The Front Is Now Everywhere'
Karber's emails constantly made it sound as though the apocalypse was only a few weeks away. "The
front is now everywhere," he told Breedlove in an email at the beginning of 2015, adding that Russian
agents and their proxies "have begun launching a series of terrorist attacks, assassinations, kidnappings
and infrastructure bombings," in an effort to destabilize Kiev and other Ukrainian cities.
In an email to Breedlove, Clark described defense expert Karber as "brilliant." After a first
visit, Breedlove indicated he had also been impressed. "GREAT visit," he wrote. Karber, an extremely
enterprising man, appeared at first glance to be a valuable informant because he often -- at least
a dozen times by his own account -- traveled to the front and spoke with Ukrainian commanders. The
US embassy in Kiev also relied on Karber for information because it lacked its own sources. "We're
largely blind," the embassy's defense attaché wrote in an email.
At times, Karber's missives read like prose. In one, he wrote about the 2014 Christmas celebrations
he had spent together with Dnipro-1, the ultranationalist volunteer battalion. "The toasts and vodka
flow, the women sing the Ukrainian national anthem -- no one has a dry eye."
Karber had only good things to report about the unit, which had already been discredited as a
private oligarch army. He wrote that the staff and volunteers were dominated by middle class people
and that there was a large professional staff that was even "working on the holiday." Breedlove responded
that these insights were "quietly finding their way into the right places."
Highly Controversial Figure
In fact, Karber is a highly controversial figure. During the 1980s, the longtime BDM employee,
was counted among the fiercest Cold War hawks. Back in 1985, he warned of an impending Soviet attack
on the basis of documents he had translated incorrectly.
He also blundered during the Ukraine crisis after sending photos to US Senator James Inhofe, claiming
to show Russian units in Ukraine. Inhofe released the photos publicly, but it quickly emerged that
one had originated from the 2008 war in Georgia.
By November 10, 2014, at the latest, Breedlove must have recognized that his informant was on
thin ice. That's when Karber reported that the separatists were boasting they had a tactical nuclear
warhead for the 2S4 mortar. Karber himself described the news as "weird," but also added that "there
is a lot of 'crazy' things going on" in Ukraine.
The reasons that Breedlove continued to rely on Karber despite such false reports remain unclear.
Was he willing to pay any price for weapons deliveries? Or did he have other motives? The emails
illustrate the degree to which Breedlove and his fellow campaigners feared that Congress might reduce
the number of US troops in Europe.
Karber confirmed the authenticity of the leaked email correspondence. Regarding the questions
about the accuracy of his reports, he told SPIEGEL that, "like any information derived from direct
observation at the front during the 'fog of war,' it is partial, time sensitive, and perceived through
a personal perspective." Looking back with the advantage of hindsight and a more comprehensive perspective,
"I believe that I was right more than wrong," Karber writes, "but certainly not perfect." He adds
that, "in 170 days at the front, I never once met a German military or official directly observing
the conflict."
Great Interest in Berlin
Breedlove's leaked email correspondences were read in Berlin with great interest. A year ago,
word of the NATO commander's "dangerous propaganda" was circulating around Merkel's Chancellery.
In light of the new information, officials felt vindicated in their assessment. Germany's Federal
Foreign Office has expressed similar sentiment, saying that fortunately "influential voices had continuously
advocated against the delivery of 'lethal weapons.'"
Karber says he finds it "obscene that the most effective sanction of this war is not the economic
limits placed on Russia, but the virtual complete embargo of all lethal aid to the victim. I find
this to be the height of sophistry -- if a woman is being attacked by a group of hooligans and yells
out to the crowd or passersby, 'Give me a can of mace,' is it better to not supply it because the
attackers could have a knife and passively watch her get raped?"
General Breedlove's departure from his NATO post in May has done little to placate anyone in the
German government. After all, the man Breedlove regarded as an obstacle, President Obama, is nearing
the end of his second term. His possible successor, the Democrat Hillary Clinton, is considered a
hardliner vis-a-vis Russia.
What's more: Nuland, a diplomat who shares many of the same views as Breedlove, could move into
an even more important role after the November election -- she's considered a potential candidate
for secretary of state.
bubasan 07/28/2016
Upon reading this article, I am reminded of Dwight D Eisenhowers Farewell speech to the American
Public on January 17, 1961. So long as we continue the PC mentality of NOT Teaching History, as
it really was, we are going to repeat past mistake's. The now famous and appropriate quote
from President Eisenhower:
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted
influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.
Inglenda2 07/28/2016
The idea of NATO as a defence organisation, following the 2nd World War was quite rational.
The history of this organisation however, has shown, how a well meant intention can be misused
to force through policies, which have nothing to do with the original purpose. Currently it would
appear to have no other role, than to provide high ranking army officers with well paid employment,
which can only be justified by way of international conflicts. In the absence of conflict, NATO
would have no other cause for existence.
PeterCT 07/28/2016
Why is Breedlove so fat? He is setting a bad example to his troops. Show all comments
turnipseed 07/29/2016
The Cold War continues, only the enemy is not the Soviet Union but Russia. Ever since the
war against Napoleon Russia has emerged as a threat to certain European interests, at first liberal
and nationalist interests. After the Bolshevik Revolution the enemy was still Russia, now revitalized
with extreme Bolshevik ideology. Hitler used this effectively to target liberals, leftists and
especially Jews.
After the fall of Communism nothing has really changed. The West is still urged to resist
the Russian threat, a threat invented by Polish, Baltic, and Ukrainian nationalists and perhaps
Fascists. Donald Trump alone seems impervious to this propaganda. Let's at least give him credit
in this case, if not in many others. NATO has become a permanent anti-Russian phony alliance,
financed by America.
90-grad 07/31/2016
Quite detailed article. Not being published in the german website. How to describe these people,
basically just trying to ignite bigger conflicts, or even war. Hardliner, hawks, to me not strong
enough. These are criminals of war, and they should be named accordingly. These are exactly the
kind of persons, who helped Bush to invade Irak, basing on false informations to the public. And
their peace endangering activities help politicians like H.Clinton to keep the peoble in fear,
solely to their own benefit. Disgusting!
huguenot1566 07/31/2016
Extremely disturbing
I don't even know here to begin. Breedlove, Karber, Clark all Americans, seemingly on their
own without Obama's permission, trying to exaggerate or fabricate evidence in order to start a
war with Russia and the danger to the world is profoundly terrifying (Iraq 2003). The US Embassy
in Ukraine saying they were in the dark and therefore relying on information from a college professor,
Karber, who still thinks we're in the Cold War along with Clark who was retired & meddling in
an unofficial capacity as far as the story implies tells me they should be brought up on charges.
And Breedlove is supposed to follow orders not make up his own policy & then try & manufacture
evidence supporting that policy to start war. If the US Embassy in Ukraine says they were in the
dark then clearly they were fishing for info to proactively involve themselves in another nation
& region's personal business. Congress & the U.S. military should investigate as these actions
violate the U.S. Constitution. Thankfully, Germany and NATO is able to say no. It tells Americans
that something isn't right on their end of this.
verbatim128 07/31/2016
Look who was crying wolf!
These people are hell-bent to bring the world to the brink of war, with lies and excuses about
fear of Russian attacks. So Poland was willing to step into the conflict with Ukraine and deliver
lethal armament? All the while afraid of Russia invading it? We, public opinion and most Western
peace-loving folk, are played like a fiddle to step into the fray to "protect" and further some
age-old ethnic and nationalistic rivalries. Time to put an end to this.
gerhard38 08/01/2016
Fucking war monger
Philip Breedlove is a war monger and should be fired from his position. The efforts of the
group around him seeking to secure weapons for the Ukraine to intensify the conflict must have
happened with Breedlove's knowledge and support. If not, then he is not capable to meet the demands
of his job and should be dismissed for incompetence. Either way, this guy is unacceptable.
aegiov 08/01/2016
Ms. Nuland is the same us official recorded by Russian intelligence trying to manipulate events
in Ukraine before the overthrow of the president and all the tragic events that followed. That
she is still working for US state dept. is puzzling to say the least. good reporting. thank you.
titus_norberto 08/02/2016
The Front Is Now Everywhere, indeed...
Quote: 'The Front Is Now Everywhere', yes indeed, we can go back to the Wilson administration,
he invented the League of Nations and his nation did not even joined.
There is a folly in American presidents, they believe they can solve worlds problems, especially
in the Middle East, with two invariable results:
1- utter failure plus CHAOS; and
2- utter disregard for DOMESTIC GOVERNANCE.
Now, the fact that the front is NOW 2016 everywhere is the result of failure one. Donald Trump
is the result of failure two. There is another aspect to consider, what is General Breedlove doing
? Very simple, he is attempting to INVENT a NEW ROLE for NATO, as it is well known in the domain
of sociology: any organization strives for survival, especially when it becomes OBSOLETE.
vsepr1975 08/03/2016
nato
Breedhate?
w.schuler 08/09/2016
Fat Bredlove is a war monger
This is true and it was obvious from the very beginning. But SPON was always parotting him.
And SPON member Benjamin Bidder and many other SPON guys were foaming at the mouth with war rhetoric
all the time in 2014-15. Shame on those fools. Finally, with this contribution you are approaching
your real job. And this is to distribute information instead of propaganda.
High level military commanders are more politicians then commanders. And if they belong to
neocons this is a dangerous and potentially explosive combination. Especially if State
Department is fully aligned with Pentagon, like happened under Secretary Clinton tenure.
Notable quotes:
"... He had exaggerated Russian activities in eastern Ukraine with the overt goal of delivering weapons to Kiev. ..."
"... "I think POTUS sees us as a threat that must be minimized,... ie do not get me into a war????" Breedlove wrote in one email, using the acronym for the president of the United States. How could Obama be persuaded to be more "engaged" in the conflict in Ukraine -- read: deliver weapons -- Breedlove had asked former Secretary of State Colin Powell. ..."
"... Breedlove sought counsel from some very prominent people, his emails show. Among them were Wesley Clark, Breedlove's predecessor at NATO, Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs at the State Department, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the US ambassador to Kiev. ..."
"... One name that kept popping up was Phillip Karber, an adjunct assistant professor at Georgetown University in Washington DC and president of the Potomac Foundation, a conservative think tank founded by the former defense contractor BDM. By its own account, the foundation has helped eastern European countries prepare their accession into NATO. Now the Ukrainian parliament and the government in Kiev were asking Karber for help. ..."
"... According to the email, Pakistan had offered, "under the table," to sell Ukraine 500 portable TOW-II launchers and 8,000 TOW-II missiles. The deliveries could begin within two weeks. Even the Poles were willing to start sending "well maintained T-72 tanks, plus several hundred SP 122mm guns, and SP-122 howitzers (along with copious amounts of artillery ammunition for both)" that they had leftover from the Soviet era. The sales would likely go unnoticed, Karber said, because Poland's old weapons were "virtually undistinguishable from those of Ukraine." ..."
"... Karber noted, however, that Pakistan and Poland would not make any deliveries without informal US approval. Furthermore, Warsaw would only be willing to help if its deliveries to Kiev were replaced with new, state-of-the-art weapons from NATO. Karber concluded his letter with a warning: "Time has run out." Without immediate assistance, the Ukrainian army "could face prospect of collapse within 30 days." ..."
"... In March, Karber traveled again to Warsaw in order to, as he told Breedlove, consult with leading members of the ruling party, on the need to "quietly supply arty ( eds: artillery ) and antitank munitions to Ukraine." ..."
"... In an email to Breedlove, Clark described defense expert Karber as "brilliant." After a first visit, Breedlove indicated he had also been impressed. "GREAT visit," he wrote. Karber, an extremely enterprising man, appeared at first glance to be a valuable informant because he often -- at least a dozen times by his own account -- traveled to the front and spoke with Ukrainian commanders. The US embassy in Kiev also relied on Karber for information because it lacked its own sources. "We're largely blind," the embassy's defense attaché wrote in an email. ..."
"... At times, Karber's missives read like prose. In one, he wrote about the 2014 Christmas celebrations he had spent together with Dnipro-1, the ultranationalist volunteer battalion. "The toasts and vodka flow, the women sing the Ukrainian national anthem -- no one has a dry eye." ..."
"... Karber had only good things to report about the unit, which had already been discredited as a private oligarch army. He wrote that the staff and volunteers were dominated by middle class people and that there was a large professional staff that was even "working on the holiday." Breedlove responded that these insights were "quietly finding their way into the right places." ..."
"... In fact, Karber is a highly controversial figure. During the 1980s, the longtime BDM employee, was counted among the fiercest Cold War hawks. Back in 1985, he warned of an impending Soviet attack on the basis of documents he had translated incorrectly. ..."
"... He also blundered during the Ukraine crisis after sending photos to US Senator James Inhofe, claiming to show Russian units in Ukraine. Inhofe released the photos publicly, but it quickly emerged that one had originated from the 2008 war in Georgia. ..."
"... The reasons that Breedlove continued to rely on Karber despite such false reports remain unclear. Was he willing to pay any price for weapons deliveries? Or did he have other motives? The emails illustrate the degree to which Breedlove and his fellow campaigners feared that Congress might reduce the number of US troops in Europe. ..."
"... General Breedlove's departure from his NATO post in May has done little to placate anyone in the German government. After all, the man Breedlove regarded as an obstacle, President Obama, is nearing the end of his second term. His possible successor, the Democrat Hillary Clinton, is considered a hardliner vis-a-vis Russia. ..."
"... What's more: Nuland, a diplomat who shares many of the same views as Breedlove, could move into an even more important role after the November election -- she's considered a potential candidate for secretary of state. ..."
"... The now famous and appropriate quote from President Eisenhower: ..."
"... In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. ..."
"... The idea of NATO as a defence organisation, following the 2nd World War was quite rational. The history of this organisation however, has shown, how a well meant intention can be misused to force through policies, which have nothing to do with the original purpose. Currently it would appear to have no other role, than to provide high ranking army officers with well paid employment, which can only be justified by way of international conflicts. In the absence of conflict, NATO would have no other cause for existence. ..."
"... The Cold War continues, only the enemy is not the Soviet Union but Russia. Ever since the war against Napoleon Russia has emerged as a threat to certain European interests, at first liberal and nationalist interests. After the Bolshevik Revolution the enemy was still Russia, now revitalized with extreme Bolshevik ideology. Hitler used this effectively to target liberals, leftists and especially Jews. ..."
"... After the fall of Communism nothing has really changed. The West is still urged to resist the Russian threat, a threat invented by Polish, Baltic, and Ukrainian nationalists and perhaps Fascists. Donald Trump alone seems impervious to this propaganda. Let's at least give him credit in this case, if not in many others. NATO has become a permanent anti-Russian phony alliance, financed by America. ..."
"... These people are hell-bent to bring the world to the brink of war, with lies and excuses about fear of Russian attacks. So Poland was willing to step into the conflict with Ukraine and deliver lethal armament? All the while afraid of Russia invading it? ..."
"... Philip Breedlove is a war monger and should be fired from his position. The efforts of the group around him seeking to secure weapons for the Ukraine to intensify the conflict must have happened with Breedlove's knowledge and support. If not, then he is not capable to meet the demands of his job and should be dismissed for incompetence. Either way, this guy is unacceptable. ..."
"... Ms. Nuland is the same us official recorded by Russian intelligence trying to manipulate events in Ukraine before the overthrow of the president and all the tragic events that followed. That she is still working for US state dept. is puzzling to say the least. ..."
"... Very simple, he is attempting to INVENT a NEW ROLE for NATO, as it is well known in the domain of sociology: any organization strives for survival, especially when it becomes OBSOLETE. ..."
"... nato Breedhate? ..."
"... SPON was always parotting him. And SPON member Benjamin Bidder and many other SPON guys were foaming at the mouth with war rhetoric all the time in 2014-15. Shame on those fools. Finally, with this contribution you are approaching your real job. And this is to distribute information instead of propaganda. ..."
The newly leaked emails reveal a clandestine network of Western agitators around the NATO military
chief, whose presence fueled the conflict in Ukraine. Many allies found in Breedlove's alarmist public
statements about alleged large Russian troop movements cause for concern early on. Earlier this year,
the general was assuring the world that US European Command was "deterring Russia now and preparing
to fight and win if necessary."
The emails document for the first time the questionable sources from whom Breedlove was getting
his information. He had exaggerated Russian activities in eastern Ukraine with the overt goal of
delivering weapons to Kiev.
The general and his likeminded colleagues perceived US President Barack Obama, the commander-in-chief
of all American forces, as well as German Chancellor Angela Merkel as obstacles. Obama and Merkel
were being "politically naive & counter-productive" in their calls for de-escalation, according to
Phillip Karber, a central figure in Breedlove's network who was feeding information from Ukraine
to the general.
"I think POTUS sees us as a threat that must be minimized,... ie do not get me into a war????"
Breedlove wrote in one email, using the acronym for the president of the United States. How could
Obama be persuaded to be more "engaged" in the conflict in Ukraine -- read: deliver weapons -- Breedlove
had asked former Secretary of State Colin Powell.
Breedlove sought counsel from some very prominent people, his emails show. Among them were Wesley
Clark, Breedlove's predecessor at NATO, Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European
and Eurasian affairs at the State Department, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the US ambassador to Kiev.
One name that kept popping up was Phillip Karber, an adjunct assistant professor at Georgetown
University in Washington DC and president of the Potomac Foundation, a conservative think tank founded
by the former defense contractor BDM. By its own account, the foundation has helped eastern European
countries prepare their accession into NATO. Now the Ukrainian parliament and the government in Kiev
were asking Karber for help.
Surreptitious Channels
On February 16, 2015, when the Ukraine crisis had reached its climax, Karber wrote an email to
Breedlove, Clark, Pyatt and Rose Gottemoeller, the under secretary for arms control and international
security at the State Department, who will be moving to Brussels this fall to take up the post of
deputy secretary general of NATO. Karber was in Warsaw, and he said he had found surreptitious channels
to get weapons to Ukraine -- without the US being directly involved.
According to the email, Pakistan had offered, "under the table," to sell Ukraine 500 portable
TOW-II launchers and 8,000 TOW-II missiles. The deliveries could begin within two weeks. Even the
Poles were willing to start sending "well maintained T-72 tanks, plus several hundred SP 122mm guns,
and SP-122 howitzers (along with copious amounts of artillery ammunition for both)" that they had
leftover from the Soviet era. The sales would likely go unnoticed, Karber said, because Poland's
old weapons were "virtually undistinguishable from those of Ukraine."
AFP
A destroyed airport building in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk : Thousands were killed
in fighting during the Ukraine conflict.
Karber noted, however, that Pakistan and Poland would not make any deliveries without informal
US approval. Furthermore, Warsaw would only be willing to help if its deliveries to Kiev were replaced
with new, state-of-the-art weapons from NATO. Karber concluded his letter with a warning: "Time has run out." Without immediate assistance,
the Ukrainian army "could face prospect of collapse within 30 days."
"Stark," Breedlove replied. "I may share some of this but will thoroughly wipe the fingerprints
off."
In March, Karber traveled again to Warsaw in order to, as he told Breedlove, consult with leading
members of the ruling party, on the need to "quietly supply arty ( eds: artillery ) and antitank
munitions to Ukraine."
Much to the irritation of Breedlove, Clark and Karber, nothing happened. Those responsible were
quickly identified. The National Security Council, Obama's circle of advisors, were "slowing things
down," Karber complained. Clark pointed his finger directly at the White House, writing, "Our problem
is higher than State," a reference to the State Department.
... ... ...
'The Front Is Now Everywhere'
Karber's emails constantly made it sound as though the apocalypse was only a few weeks away. "The
front is now everywhere," he told Breedlove in an email at the beginning of 2015, adding that Russian
agents and their proxies "have begun launching a series of terrorist attacks, assassinations, kidnappings
and infrastructure bombings," in an effort to destabilize Kiev and other Ukrainian cities.
In an email to Breedlove, Clark described defense expert Karber as "brilliant." After a first
visit, Breedlove indicated he had also been impressed. "GREAT visit," he wrote. Karber, an extremely
enterprising man, appeared at first glance to be a valuable informant because he often -- at least
a dozen times by his own account -- traveled to the front and spoke with Ukrainian commanders. The
US embassy in Kiev also relied on Karber for information because it lacked its own sources. "We're
largely blind," the embassy's defense attaché wrote in an email.
At times, Karber's missives read like prose. In one, he wrote about the 2014 Christmas celebrations
he had spent together with Dnipro-1, the ultranationalist volunteer battalion. "The toasts and vodka
flow, the women sing the Ukrainian national anthem -- no one has a dry eye."
Karber had only good things to report about the unit, which had already been discredited as a
private oligarch army. He wrote that the staff and volunteers were dominated by middle class people
and that there was a large professional staff that was even "working on the holiday." Breedlove responded
that these insights were "quietly finding their way into the right places."
Highly Controversial Figure
In fact, Karber is a highly controversial figure. During the 1980s, the longtime BDM employee,
was counted among the fiercest Cold War hawks. Back in 1985, he warned of an impending Soviet attack
on the basis of documents he had translated incorrectly.
He also blundered during the Ukraine crisis after sending photos to US Senator James Inhofe, claiming
to show Russian units in Ukraine. Inhofe released the photos publicly, but it quickly emerged that
one had originated from the 2008 war in Georgia.
By November 10, 2014, at the latest, Breedlove must have recognized that his informant was on
thin ice. That's when Karber reported that the separatists were boasting they had a tactical nuclear
warhead for the 2S4 mortar. Karber himself described the news as "weird," but also added that "there
is a lot of 'crazy' things going on" in Ukraine.
The reasons that Breedlove continued to rely on Karber despite such false reports remain unclear.
Was he willing to pay any price for weapons deliveries? Or did he have other motives? The emails
illustrate the degree to which Breedlove and his fellow campaigners feared that Congress might reduce
the number of US troops in Europe.
Karber confirmed the authenticity of the leaked email correspondence. Regarding the questions
about the accuracy of his reports, he told SPIEGEL that, "like any information derived from direct
observation at the front during the 'fog of war,' it is partial, time sensitive, and perceived through
a personal perspective." Looking back with the advantage of hindsight and a more comprehensive perspective,
"I believe that I was right more than wrong," Karber writes, "but certainly not perfect." He adds
that, "in 170 days at the front, I never once met a German military or official directly observing
the conflict."
Great Interest in Berlin
Breedlove's leaked email correspondences were read in Berlin with great interest. A year ago,
word of the NATO commander's "dangerous propaganda" was circulating around Merkel's Chancellery.
In light of the new information, officials felt vindicated in their assessment. Germany's Federal
Foreign Office has expressed similar sentiment, saying that fortunately "influential voices had continuously
advocated against the delivery of 'lethal weapons.'"
Karber says he finds it "obscene that the most effective sanction of this war is not the economic
limits placed on Russia, but the virtual complete embargo of all lethal aid to the victim. I find
this to be the height of sophistry -- if a woman is being attacked by a group of hooligans and yells
out to the crowd or passersby, 'Give me a can of mace,' is it better to not supply it because the
attackers could have a knife and passively watch her get raped?"
General Breedlove's departure from his NATO post in May has done little to placate anyone in the
German government. After all, the man Breedlove regarded as an obstacle, President Obama, is nearing
the end of his second term. His possible successor, the Democrat Hillary Clinton, is considered a
hardliner vis-a-vis Russia.
What's more: Nuland, a diplomat who shares many of the same views as Breedlove, could move into
an even more important role after the November election -- she's considered a potential candidate
for secretary of state.
bubasan 07/28/2016
Upon reading this article, I am reminded of Dwight D Eisenhowers Farewell speech to the American
Public on January 17, 1961. So long as we continue the PC mentality of NOT Teaching History, as
it really was, we are going to repeat past mistake's. The now famous and appropriate quote
from President Eisenhower:
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted
influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.
Inglenda2 07/28/2016
The idea of NATO as a defence organisation, following the 2nd World War was quite rational.
The history of this organisation however, has shown, how a well meant intention can be misused
to force through policies, which have nothing to do with the original purpose. Currently it would
appear to have no other role, than to provide high ranking army officers with well paid employment,
which can only be justified by way of international conflicts. In the absence of conflict, NATO
would have no other cause for existence.
PeterCT 07/28/2016
Why is Breedlove so fat? He is setting a bad example to his troops. Show all comments
turnipseed 07/29/2016
The Cold War continues, only the enemy is not the Soviet Union but Russia. Ever since the
war against Napoleon Russia has emerged as a threat to certain European interests, at first liberal
and nationalist interests. After the Bolshevik Revolution the enemy was still Russia, now revitalized
with extreme Bolshevik ideology. Hitler used this effectively to target liberals, leftists and
especially Jews.
After the fall of Communism nothing has really changed. The West is still urged to resist
the Russian threat, a threat invented by Polish, Baltic, and Ukrainian nationalists and perhaps
Fascists. Donald Trump alone seems impervious to this propaganda. Let's at least give him credit
in this case, if not in many others. NATO has become a permanent anti-Russian phony alliance,
financed by America.
90-grad 07/31/2016
Quite detailed article. Not being published in the german website. How to describe these people,
basically just trying to ignite bigger conflicts, or even war. Hardliner, hawks, to me not strong
enough. These are criminals of war, and they should be named accordingly. These are exactly the
kind of persons, who helped Bush to invade Irak, basing on false informations to the public. And
their peace endangering activities help politicians like H.Clinton to keep the peoble in fear,
solely to their own benefit. Disgusting!
huguenot1566 07/31/2016
Extremely disturbing
I don't even know here to begin. Breedlove, Karber, Clark all Americans, seemingly on their
own without Obama's permission, trying to exaggerate or fabricate evidence in order to start a
war with Russia and the danger to the world is profoundly terrifying (Iraq 2003). The US Embassy
in Ukraine saying they were in the dark and therefore relying on information from a college professor,
Karber, who still thinks we're in the Cold War along with Clark who was retired & meddling in
an unofficial capacity as far as the story implies tells me they should be brought up on charges.
And Breedlove is supposed to follow orders not make up his own policy & then try & manufacture
evidence supporting that policy to start war. If the US Embassy in Ukraine says they were in the
dark then clearly they were fishing for info to proactively involve themselves in another nation
& region's personal business. Congress & the U.S. military should investigate as these actions
violate the U.S. Constitution. Thankfully, Germany and NATO is able to say no. It tells Americans
that something isn't right on their end of this.
verbatim128 07/31/2016
Look who was crying wolf!
These people are hell-bent to bring the world to the brink of war, with lies and excuses about
fear of Russian attacks. So Poland was willing to step into the conflict with Ukraine and deliver
lethal armament? All the while afraid of Russia invading it? We, public opinion and most Western
peace-loving folk, are played like a fiddle to step into the fray to "protect" and further some
age-old ethnic and nationalistic rivalries. Time to put an end to this.
gerhard38 08/01/2016
Fucking war monger
Philip Breedlove is a war monger and should be fired from his position. The efforts of the
group around him seeking to secure weapons for the Ukraine to intensify the conflict must have
happened with Breedlove's knowledge and support. If not, then he is not capable to meet the demands
of his job and should be dismissed for incompetence. Either way, this guy is unacceptable.
aegiov 08/01/2016
Ms. Nuland is the same us official recorded by Russian intelligence trying to manipulate events
in Ukraine before the overthrow of the president and all the tragic events that followed. That
she is still working for US state dept. is puzzling to say the least. good reporting. thank you.
titus_norberto 08/02/2016
The Front Is Now Everywhere, indeed...
Quote: 'The Front Is Now Everywhere', yes indeed, we can go back to the Wilson administration,
he invented the League of Nations and his nation did not even joined.
There is a folly in American presidents, they believe they can solve worlds problems, especially
in the Middle East, with two invariable results:
1- utter failure plus CHAOS; and
2- utter disregard for DOMESTIC GOVERNANCE.
Now, the fact that the front is NOW 2016 everywhere is the result of failure one. Donald Trump
is the result of failure two. There is another aspect to consider, what is General Breedlove doing
? Very simple, he is attempting to INVENT a NEW ROLE for NATO, as it is well known in the domain
of sociology: any organization strives for survival, especially when it becomes OBSOLETE.
vsepr1975 08/03/2016
nato
Breedhate?
w.schuler 08/09/2016
Fat Bredlove is a war monger
This is true and it was obvious from the very beginning. But SPON was always parotting him.
And SPON member Benjamin Bidder and many other SPON guys were foaming at the mouth with war rhetoric
all the time in 2014-15. Shame on those fools. Finally, with this contribution you are approaching
your real job. And this is to distribute information instead of propaganda.
Amazing: neoliberalism -- the social system under which everybody in the USA lives is not mentioned
onece. This looks like Politburo in the USSR prohibit mentioning communism by name. Clinton health
problems, reckless gingoism and neocon domonance in forigh policy also are not discussed. As oif they
do not exist. The fact that Demorats lost owrking class was by design as Clinton sold
the party to Wall Streeet, counting that blue color workers has nowhere to go. Which was rthe case until
2016 election (actually the king of bait-and-switch Obama striggled in 2012 and if Republican have has
better candidate he would be a toast). Betraysl of New Deal hangs like a curse of neoliberal Democtatic
Party. Those sucher need to pay for the betrayls and it might that time has come. .
Notable quotes:
"... In case you weren't convinced Democrats are becoming the cosmopolitan elite party. ..."
"... They abdicated too easily to market fundamentalism and bought in to its central tenets. Worse still, they led the hyper-globalization movement at crucial junctures. The enthroning of free capital mobility – especially of the short-term kind – as a policy norm by the European Union, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the IMF was arguably the most fateful decision for the global economy in recent decades. ..."
"... Instead of serving as the political arm of working and middle class voters seeking to move up the ladder, the Democratic Party faces the prospect of becoming the party of the winners, in collaboration with many of those in the top 20 percent who are determined to protect and secure their economic and social status. ..."
"... increasingly disconnected from working-class America. I mean that in a very specific sense. Our residences are increasingly segregated by class. Our schools are increasingly segregated by class. Our extended families are increasingly separated by class. ..."
"... working-class whites, based in the South and West and suburbs and exurbs everywhere. They will favor universal, contributory social insurance systems that benefit them and their families and reward work effort - programs like Social Security and Medicare. ..."
On Aug. 7, Lee Drutman, a senior fellow at New America, a center-left Washington think tank, posted
some of the findings from an Aug. 1
CNN survey on Twitter
with a succinct comment:
In case you weren't convinced Democrats are becoming the cosmopolitan elite party.
... ... ...
"The voice of the left - especially the old social democratic left - has lost force in recent
years," Ian Buruma, a professor of democracy, human rights, and journalism at Bard College, wrote
me in an email.
This is partly because leftwing parties since the 1960s began to switch their attention from working
class struggle to identity politics.
There is, Buruma went on,
a common anxiety about the effects of globalism, multinational corporate power, immigration.
More and more people feel unrepresented. When they complained about immigration or the bewildering
changes effected by a global economy, such people were too easily dismissed as racists and bigots.
Now they blame the "liberal elites" for all their anxieties.
Dani Rodrik, a professor of international political economy at Harvard, is even harsher in his
critique of contemporary liberalism. "Economists and technocrats on the left bear a large part of
the blame," Rodrik writes, in an essay, "
The Abdication of the Left ," published in July by Project Syndicate.
Rodrik does not let up:
They abdicated too easily to market fundamentalism and bought in to its central tenets.
Worse still, they led the hyper-globalization movement at crucial junctures. The enthroning of
free capital mobility – especially of the short-term kind – as a policy norm by the European Union,
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the IMF was arguably the most fateful
decision for the global economy in recent decades.
Left policy makers and analysts, Rodrik writes, face
the paradox that earlier waves of reforms from the left – Keynesianism, social democracy, the
welfare state – both saved capitalism from itself and effectively rendered themselves superfluous.
If [neo]liberal public policy intellectuals are unable develop "a clear program to refashion capitalism
and globalization for the twenty-first century," Rodrik warns, "the field will be left wide open
for populists and far-right groups who will lead the world – as they always have – to deeper division
and more frequent conflict."
Instead of serving as the political arm of working and middle class voters seeking to move
up the ladder, the Democratic Party faces the prospect of becoming the party of the winners, in collaboration
with many of those in the top 20 percent who are
determined to protect and secure their economic and social status.
In an interview
published by Vox.com on Aug. 8, Robert Putnam, a professor of public policy at Harvard, described
the consequences of the emergence of "liberal cosmopolitans, really the upper and middle class of
America," who are
increasingly disconnected from working-class America. I mean that in a very specific sense.
Our residences are increasingly segregated by class. Our schools are increasingly segregated by
class. Our extended families are increasingly separated by class.
Writing in
Politico magazine in May , Michael Lind, also a fellow at New America, argues that this cultural
conflict created the political environment that made the Trump phenomenon possible in the first place:
Most culture-war conflicts involve sexuality, gender, or reproduction. Social issues spurred
a partisan realignment by changing who considered themselves Democrats and Republicans. Over decades,
socially conservative working-class whites migrated from the Democratic Party to join the Republican
Party, especially in the South. Socially moderate Republicans, especially on the East Coast, shifted
to the Democratic coalition.
The result, in Lind's view, is an emerging Republican Party dominated by
working-class whites, based in the South and West and suburbs and exurbs everywhere. They
will favor universal, contributory social insurance systems that benefit them and their families
and reward work effort - programs like Social Security and Medicare. But they will tend to
oppose means-tested programs for the poor whose benefits they and their families cannot enjoy.
This shift, Lind points out, will powerfully alter the Democratic coalition, too. The Democrats
will become
even more of an alliance of upscale, progressive whites with blacks and Latinos, based in large
and diverse cities. They will think of the U.S. as a version of their multicultural coalition
of distinct racial and ethnic identity groups writ large. Many younger progressives will take
it for granted that moral people are citizens of the world, equating nationalism and patriotism
with racism and fascism.
From this vantage point, Trump and the pro-social insurance populist right that has emerged in
much of Europe are as much the result of the vacuum created by traditional liberal political parties
as they are a function of the neglect of working class interests by conservatives.
Matthew Carnicelli is a trusted commenter Brooklyn, New York
5 hours ago
Tom, I keep reading these elite analyses of the political restructuring that the Drumpf campaign
is allegedly ushering in - and yet fail to see where the actual institutional support for these
policies will come from within the Republican Party.
Paul Ryan is still talking down Social Security and Medicare, and he is considered the GOP's
intellectual leader. Drumpf was recently quoted as agreeing with Ryan's critique of Social Security.
The conservative think tanks like AEI and Heritage still have Social Security and Medicare
within their crosshairs - and are still peddling the same old supply side snake oil, as is Drumpf
with his tax plan. And Drumpf's plan can only be paid for by savage cuts in every other area of
the Federal budget.
The problem with this entire argument is that Drumpf believes in nothing but "winning" - and
will say absolutely anything to win, anything at all, even if it has a snowball's chance of hell
of finding support with the Republican Party.
If Drumpf managed to win the Presidency, his single term (and he would only get one) would
either be the mother of all political train wrecks - or a complete and utter repudiation of everything
he ran on as a candidate, aside from the racism, xenophobia, and collective insanity that has
overtaken the right.
As a person far more comfortable parsing zeitgeist, let me suggest that it's a terrible idea
to draw conclusions while in the middle of a wave that you've yet to even identify.
HDNY is a trusted commenter New York, N.Y.
3 hours ago
The Times has reverted to its previous position of pretending that Bernie Sanders and his millions
of supporters don't exist. This article pretends all Democrats are willful Clinton supporters and
that Republicans are forced between choosing Donald Trump's Republican Party or Hillary Clinton's
Democratic Party.
The Times' editors' refusal to give credibility to the Sanders campaign actually shows their complicity
in making the Democratic Party more elitist, more corporate and Wall St. oriented, and less involved
with the needs of the poor and lower middle classes. Now they are bequeathing that emphasis to Trump,
still refusing to acknowledge the impact of the Sanders campaign and its supporters.
What's even odder is that the article points out the Republican 'Reformocons', a group that made
a far less significant impact on this election than did Bernie Sanders.
The good points made in this article are lost by painting the American political scene with such
a broad brush. The Times needs to pay more attention to what's really happening in this country.
"A pox on both their houses." What we have seen over the past 30 years is the end of the social
balance between Big Business, Big Government and Big Labor. Today it we have one force--that of the
corporate goliaths--in control of government through their funding of politicians who have worked
to eliminate labor as a force. If their is one critique on the Bernie Sanders left and the Donald
Trump right, it's been the almost total disenfranchisement of working Americans. While the focus
is on trade agreement written in secret by corporations, it needs to focus of workers who can bargain
collectively to ensure they share in their productivity gains and whose rights are protected from
the "race-to-the-bottom" trade agreements. Both political parties have failed here and neither the
new Trump right nor the Sanders left have put forward a real pro-worker, pro-Big Labor agenda. If
workers are left behind, as we've seen in the rise of communism in the past, we have immense social
unrest. And, until we remove the corporate choke-hold on Big Government by getting money out of politics,
we will continue to move away from the balance of social forces essential to a viable democracy toward
an oligarchy either by an autocratic Trump or a Wall Street corporate Clinton.
The main conclusion of the studies cited by Professor Edsall seems to center on the inability
of either political party to mobilize the long-term support of the white working class. The Republicans
remain in thrall to corporate America, as reflected in Paul Ryan's stubborn attachment to discredited
supply-side nostrums. The Democrats, although still committed to a higher minimum wage and the social
safety net, focus their policies on helping the middle and professional classes.
The main responsibility for this situation falls on the Democrats. The GOP never represented the
interests of the working class, but FDR's party had achieved political dominance by doing so. In
the 1960s, LBJ made the momentous decision to stake his party's future on support of the civil right's
revolution, a choice he believed would alienate the white south for a generation.
At the same time, however, he launched his war on poverty, a program with the potential to unite
the interests of black Americans with those of the white working class, in the south as well as elsewhere.
The failure of that ambitious initiative, caused in part by the diversion of resources and political
energy to the war in Vietnam, soured the Democratic leadership after 1968 on expensive programs designed
to help the very groups gloabalization would threaten.
The Clintons won in 1992 by jettisoning their party's social democratic agenda. Even Bernie Sanders
paid attention mainly to the needs of the middle class.
We certainly hope so. Neither party represents the vast majority of citizens. Instead both major
parties represent the interests of the elite, the financial elite, which populate the spectrum of
what passes for political thought from extreme liberals, such as Soros, Holloywood and Ivy League
tax-free endowments to extreme conservatives, such as Kochs and Limbaugh. From taxation, to trade
policies to criminal justice applications to protection of banksters, the major parties are complicit
in and responsible for the appalling state of our affairs. A wreck of an election that tarnishes
their brands and ushers in alternatives is perhaps too much to expect; it is not however too much
to hope for.
Recking? More like exposing. No secret the Dems' all-inclusive rhetoric is just that RHETORIC.
The party has abandoned the working class. Once American "middle class" was the pride of the world.
But what was that "middle class"? It was working class with good jobs and homes, and with the opportunity
of yet better life for their children. The only thing lacking was universal health care and inclusion
of POC.
But it never happened. After achieving this amazing success of turning working class into middle
class, US has been steadily moving away from that ideal. Both parties have abandoned the working
class. Even if the cue came from Reps, Democratic Leadership Council associated Dems (such as Clintons)
have been outdoing Reps in the area of "free trade"(=losing manufacturing jobs), dismantling safety
net in form of welfare, to make things worse reforming foster care to make taking children away from
impoverished working class biological families easier. Dems have been paying lip service to idea
of universal healthcare, affordable medications, affordable college, yet rely on the money from these
industries. While Democratic rhetoric is inclusive of minorities, and they sponsor special programs
for minorities, still not enough to offset the effect their policies on minorities ho are disproportionately
represented in the working class. Externally Dems have been pursuing same imperialistic politics
as Republicans. Clinton asking Kissinger for endorsement puts a seal on that.
I am also puzzled by this column. The young want a New Deal type society. Also, it seems to me
the much vaunted self-interest of the newly affluent Democrats would include shoring up the fortunes
of the working class so as to increase the tax base to finance a more comfortable infrastructure
and also to avoid having their own heads blown off by the mob.
The Republican Party for obvious reasons, but they've had it coming for a long time and deserve
and need to be crushed.
The Democratic Party almost got crushed as well in 2016, equally deserved, and only survived by rigging
the nomination process for the status quo candidate, quelling the populist reform movement. The military
industrial complex and Wall Street have now completely moved over to the traditional blue collar
Democratic Party.
There is a good chance the traditional Republican Party will not recover from the 2016 election,
becoming a long-time minority party at the presidential election level.
The base of the Democratic Party, Latinos, Blacks and young people might finally realize that
electing Wall Street, elite Democrats is not the answer to the critical issues facing the nation.
Once white working class people, equally disaffected with trade deals that ship their jobs overseas,
with endless wars and military conflicts that are supported by both parties, join forces with the
democratic base in 2020, there is a real prospect for a political realignment that could revolutionize
American politics for decades to come.
Thank you, Mr.Edsall, for this this very perceptive analysis of what is happening in the 2016
election.
As a first response, Bernie Sanders obviously would have been the remedy to the kind of Clintonite
Democratic Party you are describing.
Because there is a path toward a social, economic and cultural justice coalition that appeals to
the working class and the casts swaths of college-educated who, due to financial pressures, are effectively
working-class themselves.
So close this year. Will we have another chance?
Both parties were beset by populist insurrections in the recently concluded primaries. The Democratic
Party repulsed insurrectionist Sanders and dispatched him to the wilds of Vermont, never to be heard
from again. But insurrectionist Trump stormed the Republican Party gates and now takes his insurrection
into the general election contest.
My point is, powerful populist movements attacked both parties from below. That could only happen
because both parties were out of touch with a significant portion of the electorate. If Clinton wins
in November, the establishment wins again and the populists will be sent away to brood. But this
disconnection from the political establishment will surface again.
There's nothing particularly "bewildering" about the effects of the global economy. It is being
structured heavily in favor of the rich and their multinational corporations, without regard for
the economic well-being of the hundreds of millions of Americans being victimized. It's not difficult
to understand the psychology of people being robbed with nowhere to turn because the perpetrators
are both political parties using our government as their instrument. How does this article explain
the Senator Bernie Sanders phenomenon? Bernie was a low profile, social democrat who received 46%
of the Democratic vote. The Republicans are owned lock, stock and barrel by Organized Money and the
only real hope is to recapture the Democratic Party.
No, I would say Hillary bears most of the responsibility for the schisms in the democratic party
this election cycle, but, Democrats never pull together. We are famous for it.
Hillary is a business-friendly economic-moderate. She and Susan Collins have more in common than
Hillary has in common with Bernie Sanders and that angers a lot of liberals. I am old enough that
I am used to it, and, in general, economically liberal democrats don't win the presidency even when
they manage to win the nomination.
Don't let perfection be the enemy of adequacy. Besides, is compromise really such a horrible thing?
What is happening to the democratic party seems very similar to what has been happening to the
Labor party in the UK. At least until they elected the new leader of labor, Jeremy Corbyn.
As an aside, this article was dull as dirt and felt like it was written on note cards.
As members of the cosmopolitan elite intelligentsia Lee Drutman, Dani Rodrik, and Robert Putnam
have an insular view of Amercia. Maybe they should spend some time living in a small town...
Last month Seth Rich, a data analyst who worked for the DNC, was shot near his home in Washington DC. He was on the
phone to his girlfriend when it happened. Police were called to the scene and discovered the young man's body at roughly
4.20am. It was reported that Rich was "covered in bruises", shot "several times" and "at least once in the back".
[Rich's] hands were bruised, his knees are bruised, his face is bruised, and yet he had two shots to his back, and
yet they never took anything."
On August 9th Julian Assange gave an interview on Dutch television in which he seemed to imply that Rich's death was
politically motivated, and perhaps suggest he had been a source for the DNC e-mail leak:
That same day wikileaks tweeted that they were offering a $20,000 dollar reward for information on the killing of Mr
Rich.
These are the facts of the case, so far. And they are undisputed.
I'm not going to take a position on the motive for Mr Rich's killing, or possible suspects. But I do want to point
out the general level of media silence. Take these facts and change the names – imagine Trump's email had been hacked,
and then a staffer with possible ties to wikileaks was inexplicably shot dead. Imagine this poor young man had been a
Kremlin whistleblower, or a Chinese hacker, or an Iranian blogger.
If this, as yet unsolved, murder had ties to anyone other than Hillary Clinton, would it be being so ritually and
rigourously ignored by the MSM?
Seth was bruised, and shot twice in the back; there was no robbery. Former Clinton partner James MacDougall was
separated from his heart medication by prison guards; he died in solitary confinement.
And these suspicious deaths aren't connected? Who do they think they're kidding? We weren't all born stupid! Is
this a massive cover up? You bet it is, and we're eventually going to find out who ordered those killings!
The Washington Post said, "Nothing was taken, but robbery has not been ruled out????"
What does that mean? If
nothing was taken, then there is no robbery. Who wrote this for the Washington Post? Is English their native
language?
Julian Assange did not say Rich was a source. It is highly unlikely Rich was a source, I can't see Wikileaks
revealing a source regardless of circumstance. Wikileaks obviously have information pointing to the idea that this
was a politically motivated killing. He is concerned that this, in turn will lead to all dissidents being
frightened to stand up and speak out.
Maybe wikileaks doesn't know who their source was. The DNC authenticated the e-mails by their response, then
they float the "Russia influencing US elections narrative" to distract from Seth's murder.
Has there be ANY
evidence that Russia was behind the hack? Where did that rumer start?? WikiLeaks has a vested interest in
Seth's murder being solved because they don't want people being afraid to give them information, so I
understand them offering a reward, even if he wasn't their source, once the rumors started, they wouldn't want
to scare off the real source, or futur sources.
http://www.prosewestand.org
Don't be afraid! The "Problem" will not come after you because True Americans are watching every political
detail and the Problem knows that! If common people start dying for their free speech–many American's are
waiting for a reason to make a stand against the Problem, their constituency and their conspiracies! If you
think about it, some of the press is helping the Problem take away your free speech as well! This is not going
unnoticed. CNN is the worst conspirator out there!!
The Problem is afraid of Donald Trump because he will
shake up their house! Mrs. Clinton and the press want to put you in politically-correct bondage experienced in
much of the world. Those countries are ruled by their Problem and worse. The only way to maintain the balance
of powers in America is that True Americans exercise their constitutional leverage with free speech! Exercise
it freely every day!
In this day and age any unprotected informant should have a concealed carry permit and a gun! I will refrain
from getting into the 2nd Amendment discussion–may not be appropriate for this discussion ..
No matter how it turns out, my condolences to the family of Seth Rich
Also, around the same time of Rich Seth and Shawn Lucas deaths, Victor Thorn, who wrote at least 20
anti-Clinton books, supposedly committed suicide. Makes one wonder what is really going on
So many theories and those, who appear to want to profit. This young man is dead with an on going investigation.
Given his connection whatever verdict is reached will be a whitewash, can we blame those who disbelieve? A history
of victims with throats cut, gunshot wounds to the back, judged as suicides or bizarrely as natural causes? We are
surrounded by the most callous whose trade is 'the good of society', are we to be a part of that? Whatever the
motive a lost life and decimated family cannot be used for gain, whether it be ratings, publicity or a
confirmation of ones own theories.
the road to the clinton power regime is littered with bodies. vince foster and ron brown. and more recently john
ashe and shawn lucas. add seth rich to the list. good luck if you work for the dnc or in her campaign. the
clintons are completely corrupt and morally bankrupt.
The Clinton rumors have been around for over 20 years. Clintons had nothing to do with this. He was probably
involved in something deeper. There are no missing bodies. Monica Lewinsky, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones and
Ken Starr are all still around and they would be the ones to go. Get a clue. No one's missing and Foster
suffered from severe depression. Do some research.
The lead investigator, Manuel Rodriguez, resigned from the case because when he followed the leads that
clearly showed MURDER he found HIMSELF investigated! Here, read his resignation letter:
http://www.dcdave.com/article5/MiguelRodriguezLetter.htm
Quick quote (USPP stands for US Park Police. THAT is who had jurisdiction on the possible murder of a United
States politician. The Park Police):
(10) the existing FBI interview reports and USPP interview reports do not accurately reflect witness
statements; (11) four emergency medical personnel identified, having refreshed their recollection with
new photographic evidence, trauma each had observed on Foster's right neck area; and (12) blurred and
obscured blow-ups of copies of (polaroid [sic] and 35mm) photographs have been offered and utilized.
After uncovering this information, among other facts, my own conduct was questioned and I was internally
investigated.
All of those people you mentioned were constantly in yhe public eye. In fact, they've been household names
for over 20 years. If they were to die "mysteriously," it would shoot up too many red flags and would make
it a lot easier to connect the dots to the Clintons. They might have wanted these people to disappear, but
it would have been way too risky to make that happen. .. which is why some of them went out of their ways to
remain relevant. As far as the murdered individuals are concerned I think you should consider this fact.
During the course of a very lengthy political career, it's entirely possible for one or two people to die of
unnatural, non disease related causes, but when the death toll surpasses 50 and is still counting, that just
might be the smoke from a fire raging out of control. Hence, the so called conspiracy theories.
Please keep this brutal murder in the spotlight. Julian isn't offering $20.000 without an inkling it's tied to
the Clinton's campaign.
The press are too busy destroying trump.
It's rather scary.
Is Ecuador some kind of Shangri La anarchist freedom republic or
"The administration of President Rafael Correa has expanded state control over media and civil society and
abused its power to harass, intimidate, and punish critics. In 2015, thousands of people participated in public
demonstrations against government policies, and security forces on multiple occasions responded with excessive
force. Abuses against protesters, including arbitrary arrests, have not been adequately investigated."
I was being sarcastic. Assange was supposed to be some way out there anarchist, anti capitalist hacker. He
might have been before he was busted and 'pardoned' from a 10 year prison sentence in Australia.
"In 1991,
at the age of 20, Assange and some fellow hackers broke into the master terminal of Nortel, the Canadian
telecom company. He was caught and pleaded guilty to 25 charges; six other charges were dropped. Citing
Assange's "intelligent inquisitiveness," the judge sentenced him only to pay the Australian state a small
sum in damages".
A crazy hasbaranik has landed! 'Human Rights Watch, in my very firm opinion, are a rabble of mostly
Judeofascist hypocrites who work hand in glove with the US regime to blackguard and vilify states targeted for
regime change for attempting to create decent societies for their people. I wouldn't cross the street to piss
on them if they were on fire.
"But the group ran in to problems even before WikiLeaks was launched. The organisers approached John Young, who
ran another website that posted leaked documents, Cryptome, and asked him to register the WikiLeaks website in his
name. Young obliged and was initially an enthusiastic supporter but when the organisers announced their intention
to try and raise $5m he questioned their motives, saying that kind of money could only come from the CIA or George
Soros. Then he walked away.
"WikiLeaks is a fraud," he wrote in an email when he quit. "Fuck your cute hustle and disinformation campaign
against legitimate dissent. Same old shit, working for the enemy." Young then leaked all of his email
correspondence with WikiLeak's founders, including the messages to Ellsberg."
Wikileaks pretty plainly started as a US tool to attack the likes of China, but then Assange may or may not
have gone 'off reservation', so he was set up by US stooge regime Sweden, in the usual blatant fashion. And
Assange's little buddies at the Guardian cess-pool turned against him with Old Testament fury, in particular
unleashing their pack of feminazi Harpies to vilify him. I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.
Wikileaks was created to foment internal trouble in the Middle East states and trigger the Arab Spring. It's
basically the NSA's own conspiracy generator.
elenits:
Tried to "like" your post, but for some reason I can only reply, and face the login screen when I try
to "like." Loved the comment. Twang! (I'm using that!)
Killing it! It seems more and more like Trump's the plant, huh? A true know-nothing that can ONLY do what his
advisors tell him to. And the Trump election is likely to bring whatever Americans can muster up as a race war
into being (comment directed at the fact everybody's fluoridated to the gills these days and likely UNABLE to
really riot). I think the controllers really, really, really want that.
My GUT told me all this about Assange
when he first appeared. Same thing with "please-employ-encryption-so-we-know-who-to-watch" Snowden.
Encryption's just about the FIRST thing I was interested in when I bought my first laptop, so the LAW barring
encryption past a certain strength on the open market was one of the first things I found out about! Whatever
encryption you can get is hacked. Period.
Ambrose Evans Pritchard is in the forefront of the Clinton exposure:
Wikipedia:
"During his time as the Sunday Telegraph's Washington, D.C. bureau chief in the early 1990s, Evans-Pritchard
became known for his controversial stories about President Bill Clinton, the 1993 death of Vincent Foster, and
the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.
He is the author of The Secret Life of Bill Clinton: The Unreported Stories
(1997) which was published by conservative publishing firm Regnery Publishing.[1] In this book, he elaborates
on assertions that the Oklahoma City bombing was a sting operation by the FBI that went horribly wrong, that
ATF agents were warned against reporting to work in the Murrah Building the morning of the attack, and that the
Justice Department subsequently engaged in a cover-up.[2]
Coverage of US politics
During his time in Washington, his stories often attracted the ire of the Clinton administration, and on
Evans-Pritchard's departure from Washington in 1997, a White House aide was quoted in George saying, "That's
another British invasion we're glad is over. The guy was nothing but a pain in the ass". His efforts in
ferreting out the witness, Patrick Knowlton, whose last name had been spelled "Nolton" in the Park Police
report on Foster's death, resulted eventually in a lawsuit by Knowlton against the FBI and the inclusion of
Knowlton's lawyer's letter as an appendix to Kenneth Starr's report on Foster's death.[3] In his book,
Evans-Pritchard responded vigorously to White House charges against him.
It's hard to overstate the amount of caution we should all display with this story, but it's too newsworthy to ignore.
It starts
with this interview with Wikileaks founder Julian Assange where he brings up
murdered DNC staffer,
Seth Rich, unprompted.
Here's the juicy part:
ASSANGE: Our whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks. There's a 27 year
old that works for the DNC, he was shot in the back. Murdered, uh just a few weeks ago, uh, for unknown reasons as he was walking
down the street in Washington. So...
INTERVIEWER: That was, that was just a robbery I believe. Wasn't it?
ASSANGE: No. There's no finding. So...
INTERVIEWER: What are you suggesting? What are you suggesting?
ASSANGE: I'm suggesting our sources take risks and they uh, become concerned, uh to see things occurring, like that.
INTERVIEWER: Was he one of your sources then? I mean...
ASSANGE: We don't comment on who our sources are.
INTERVIEWER: Then why make the suggestion about a young guy being shot in the streets of Washington?
ASSANGE: Because we have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States. And our sources are ... you know... our
sources face serious risks. That's why they come to us, so we can protect their anonymity.
Then comes the news that Wikileaks is offering a $25,000 reward for any information leading to the capture of Rich's murderer.
An awesome interview. I'm on the left so this is making me feel uncomfortable, but Trump is unapologetic
about wanting to end the cold war with Putin, that's worth voting for. Trump is not a Neocon. Is he
a con artist, or could he have the guts to kick the Neocons out? And he wants NATO to
"... But the lowest point his critics have gone to is to insinuate, or even claim outright, that Hagel is an anti-Semite. That slanderous
charge is being led by Elliott Abrams. He's now a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, but you might remember him as the man
convicted in 1991 of two counts of withholding information from Congress (he was pardoned by outgoing President George H.W. Bush). He
claims that Hagel "seems to have some kind of problem with Jews," and, in the Weekly Standard ..."
"... Of course, the reason the opposition to Hagel is so desperate and so focused on side-issues or made-up charges is because they
don't want a debate that would shine a spotlight on their spectacular and disastrous failure in Iraq. "This is the neocons' worst nightmare,"
says Richard Armitage, who was Deputy Secretary of State under Colin Powell, "because you've got a combat soldier, successful businessman
and senator who actually thinks there may be other ways to resolve some questions other than force." ..."
If President Obama's second term includes decision making as bold and intelligent as his nomination of Chuck Hagel to be Secretary
of Defense, his presidency might finally fulfill the promise of audacity and change that rallied so many to his campaign five years
ago. In fact, the more ridiculous the claims being made by Hagel's critics become, the more the real reasons they don't want him
-- and the wisdom of the choice -- come into stark relief.
The latest canard is about Hagel's supposed "temperament." The charge
was made this past Sunday by Tennessee Senator Bob Corker, appearing on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos.
"I think another thing, George, that's going to come up is just his overall temperament," said Corker, "and is he suited to
run a department or a big agency or a big entity like the Pentagon?" Given that this was a new one, Stephanopoulos asked, slightly
incredulously, "Do you have questions about his temperament?" Corker replied, "I think there are numbers of staffers who are coming
forth now just talking about the way he has dealt with them."
Ah yes, his temperament. It's a modern-day male version of the old dig that used to be directed at women, that they might be "PMSing"
and therefore shouldn't be put too close to big boy military equipment. It's also worth pointing out that this line of attack is
coming from a party that thoroughly approved of that shrinking violet of a Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. It's further worth
noting that the opposition to Hagel is being led partly by Senator John McCain, the same guy who thought it prudent to potentially
put Sarah Palin second in line to the presidency -- and whose own "temperament" has often been
called into question.
But if Hagel's temperament is somehow relevant, it puts me in mind of the quote by Lincoln who, when approached by some of Grant's
critics about the general's drinking, is supposed to have
said: "Let me know what brand of whiskey Grant uses. For if it makes fighting generals like Grant, I should like to get some
of it for distribution."
In response to Corker's charge, Politico's Playbook
quoted an email from a senior administration
official: "This line of attack is a new low. By contrast, Sen. Hagel intends to take the high road in the confirmation process as
he defends his strong record." Well, it's certainly a contemptible charge, but whether it's a new low is debatable. There's already
been plenty of competition for that title.
Now, I'm not saying Chuck Hagel is perfect or that I agree with every position he's
ever taken, but leadership isn't about conforming to a checklist. Hagel is being nominated for a particular job, and for that job,
he has a strong record. And this is exactly why his critics are grasping for straws -- because they don't want to discuss that record,
nor what this debate is really about: the Iraq War.
Yes, then-Senator Hagel voted for the resolution to authorize the war. But even before the vote, he expressed more reservations than
most of his colleagues. "You can take the country into a war pretty fast,"
he said in 2002,
"but you can't get us out as quickly, and the public needs to know what the risks are." In his 2008 book America: Our Next Chapterhe writes that he voted
to authorize military force only as a last option, but the Bush administration had not tried to "exhaust all diplomatic efforts,"
and that "it all comes down to the fact that we were asked to vote on a resolution based on half truths, untruths, and wishful thinking."
And after the war began, he became one of the administration's most vocal critics. Among his statements over the course of the war:
That "Iraq is not going to turn out
the way that we were promised it was."
That the Iraqi people "want the United States
out of Iraq."
That the Iraq War
was "ill-conceived" and "poorly prosecuted."
As I wrote
back in 2006, criticisms like these were much stronger than what most Democrats were saying at the time. And Hagel was right. We
often bemoan the fact that those in Washington who get it wrong never seem to be held accountable, and those who get it right (even
if not right away) always seem to be marginalized. Well, this nomination is how the system should -- but seldom does -- work. That's
why this nomination, even though Hagel is a Republican, shouldn't be looked at as another attempt by President Obama to curry favor
with the opposition. It's the best kind of decision -- one made not to placate some interest group, but, rather, in the interest
of the country. As Senator Jack Reed
said
of the nomination on Sunday, "Chuck has the wherewithal and the ability to speak truth to power. He's demonstrated that throughout
his entire career. That is a value that is extraordinarily important to the president." And to the country.
"When I think of issues like Iraq," Hagel
said in 2006, "of how we
went into it -- no planning, no preparation, no sense of consequences, of where we were going, how we were going to get out, went
in without enough men, no exit strategy, those kinds of things -- I'll speak out. I'll go against my party."
And that kind of thinking
is all the more powerful coming from a man with two Purple Hearts -- and who still has shrapnel lodged in his chest as a reminder,
not that he needs one, of what war is really like.
"Chuck knows that war is not an abstraction," the president
said when announcing the nomination. "He understands that sending young Americans to fight and bleed in the dirt and mud, that's
something we only do when it's absolutely necessary. 'My frame of reference,' he has said, is 'geared towards the guy at the bottom
who's doing the fighting and the dying.'" That's why, in the lead up to the Iraq War, Hagel
pointed out the
fact that decisions were being made by those who hadn't "sat in jungles or foxholes and watched their friends get their heads blown
off." And for that he was called an "appeaser."
The president
added that it was in the Senate where he came to admire Hagel's "courage and his judgment, his willingness to speak his mind
-- even if it wasn't popular, even if it defied the conventional wisdom."
And if you doubt whether Hagel's views go against the conventional wisdom, at least in Washington, just witness the hysterical, desperate
pushback to his nomination. This isn't about temperament, or abortion or gay rights (not that those aren't important issues). It's
about the path U.S. foreign policy took at the beginning of the last decade, directed by the neocons. As the New York Times'
Jim Rutenberg
put it,
"The campaign now being waged against Mr. Hagel's nomination as secretary of defense is in some ways a relitigation of that decade-old
dispute."
He's right -- to an extent. Where I think he's off is that this isn't a relitigation -- because the disaster that was,
and is, the Iraq War was never actually litigated in the first place. We've never really had that debate. Those who conceived it
(badly) and executed it (even more badly) were never held accountable. And they are now the ones trying to torpedo the very idea
that someone who is thoughtful and careful about sending our soldiers to die might actually have a role in that decision.
Rutenberg writes that this debate is "a dramatic return to the public stage by the neoconservatives whose worldview remains a powerful
undercurrent in the Republican Party." That is some undercurrent. If it's below the surface, then what is the top current?
It's
not like Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham are back-benchers. The latter
called Hagel's
nomination an "in-your-face nomination" and an "incredibly controversial choice." Sadly, in today's Washington the idea that someone
who is skeptical and cautious about the consequences of U.S. military intervention should lead the Pentagon is indeed "incredibly
controversial." Turning around conventional wisdom in Washington is no small endeavor, which is why this nomination is so important.
A week later, with an almost comical lack of self-awareness, Senator Graham
contrasted
Hagel's decision making with that of Graham's BFF, Senator McCain. "I think [Hagel] was very haunted by Vietnam," Graham said, unlike
McCain who "doesn't look at every conflict through the eyes of his Vietnam experience -- you know, 'We shouldn't have been there,
it went on too long, we didn't have a plan.'" Yes, thank God we left that kind of thinking back in Vietnam -- no instances of it
since then, right?
The relationship between Hagel and McCain goes back a long time. McCain was one of Hagel's earliest supporters
and Hagel was one of the few who jumped on the "Straight Talk Express," back when McCain was taking on what he called "agents of
intolerance" in the Republican Party. Unlike McCain, Hagel managed to stay on the Straight Talk Express. And now McCain is grasping
at straws over Hagel's skepticism about success of the surge strategy in Iraq, something McCain
finds "bizarre." Back when it was being considered, Hagel
said "This is a Ping-Pong game with American lives," and that "we better be damn sure we know what we're doing, all of us, before
we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder."
Since then it's become accepted gospel in Washington that the surge was successful. Accepted gospel that is, once again, wrong. Doug
Ollivant was an army planning officer in Iraq who was one of those who actually implemented the surge. "The surge really didn't work,
per se," Ollivant, now with the New America Foundation,
says, adding,
"Fundamentally, it was the Iraqis trying to find a solution, and they did."
A study by U.S. Special Forces officer Maj. Joshua
Thiel came to the same conclusion. Thiel looked at where and when the additional surge troops were deployed and compared that to
subsequent drops in violence. As Foreign Policy's Robert Haddick
put it,
Thiel concluded that there was no significant correlation between the arrival of U.S. reinforcements and subsequent changes in
the level of violence in Iraq's provinces... the connection between surge troops and the change in the level of incidents seems
entirely random.
Another straw being grasped at by McCain is the
question, "Why would [Hagel] oppose calling the Iranian revolutionary guard a terrorist organization?"
He's referring to the
fact that Hagel didn't sign a letter to the European Union designating Hezbollah a terror group. Hagel's
defense was that he "didn't sign on to certain resolutions and letters because they were counter-productive and didn't solve
a problem." In other words, Hagel refused to posture. A cardinal sin in Washington. Just as he
also said that use of reductivist
buzzwords and phrases like "cut and run" cheapen the debate and debase the seriousness of war. How refreshing. And it points to the
fact that not only do we need better military policy, we also need a more intelligent way of talking about that policy as a means
of making it better.
But the lowest point his critics have gone to is to insinuate, or even claim outright, that Hagel is an anti-Semite. That slanderous
charge is being led by Elliott Abrams. He's now a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, but you might remember him as the man
convicted in 1991 of two counts of withholding information from Congress (he was pardoned by outgoing President George H.W. Bush).
He
claims that Hagel "seems to have some kind of problem with Jews," and, in the
Weekly Standard, offers
as evidence "the testimony of the Jewish community that knew him best is most useful: Nebraskans. And the record seems unchallenged:
Nebraskan Jewish activists and officials have said he was hostile, and none -- including Obama supporters and Democratic party activists
-- have come forward to counter that allegation."
Actually, it has been challenged -- by, among others, activist Gary Javitch,
who, according to the
Forward is "considered by locals to be an expert on the local Jewish political scene." Though Javitch is no fan of Hagel,
when asked by the Forward if he though Hagel was biased against Jews, he said "no." He also said that "to make such an accusation
you need to be very careful," and that Hagel "never demonstrated anything like that in all the meetings I had with him."
What's amazing is that the Council on Foreign Relations would allow its credibility to be used to advance an accusation like this.
In response, a CFR official
toldAl-Monitor's Laura Rozen that the views of their experts are "theirs only" and that "the Council on Foreign Relations
takes no institutional position on matters of policy." But this isn't policy, it's character assassination. Does the Council take
no official position on that? As the Daily Beast's Ali Gharib
writes:
Abrams should be challenged by media and by his fellow scholars in the think tank world to find any member in good standing of
the Nebraska Jewish community who will say on the record that they consider their former Senator an anti-Semite. Failing that,
Abrams should issue a public apology to Hagel for making this scurrilous charge.
Of course, the reason the opposition to Hagel is so desperate and so focused on side-issues or made-up charges is because they
don't want a debate that would shine a spotlight on their spectacular and disastrous failure in Iraq. "This is the neocons' worst
nightmare," says
Richard Armitage, who was Deputy Secretary of State under Colin Powell, "because you've got a combat soldier, successful businessman
and senator who actually thinks there may be other ways to resolve some questions other than force."
In the first installment, Howard Fineman
writes
that "Obama is in an unusually strong position to deliver on the potential of his second term -- but only if he has the will and
wherewithal to turn ballot-box victory into real-life results," and asks whether Obama "will be shrewd, persistent and tough enough
to turn great promise into true greatness."
We'll see. But if the nomination of Chuck Hagel is any indication, the road forward is looking much better than what's behind
us. Though the upcoming hearings on Hagel's nomination are unlikely to feature the real debate on Iraq that the country deserves,
hopefully his tenure will indeed be the departure from the kind of thinking that got us into it that his critics so desperately fear.
There's always a lot of competition for the title of "Lying Neocon War Propagandist." I
would like to nominate for this week's award, one George Will. In the course of a
long-winded hissy fit over Donald Trump's political success to date published in
Jewish World
Review, Will goes berserk over Trump's intransigence over the neocon
agenda of starting a war with Russia. Smoke must have been coming out of his ears
when he quoted Trump as saying that the U.S. government has killed a lot of
people, too, referring to all of the government's endless military interventions
in the Middle East, after being told of the alleged killing of journalists in
Russia.
George Will responded to this by saying: "Putin kills journalists, the U.S.
kills terrorists." Will is not stupid; he cannot possibly believe that all
deaths in the Middle East caused by U.S. military intervention over the past
quarter of a century have been of "terrorists." There are numerous sources of the
civilian death count there, and it is safe to say that Donald Trump is right and
George Will is wrong: The civilian death count is in the
hundreds of
thousands. This includes at least
200 journalists such as Tareq Ayoub, who was killed on April 3, 2003 when a
U.S. warplane bombed the Al Jazeera offices in Baghdad. And of course the U.S.
military also bombs hospitals, as the entire world learned a few months ago.
(Thanks to Chris C. for info on the bombing of the Al Jazeera offices).
And by the way, there is obviously no evidence that Putin ordered the murder of
journalists. ABC News "journalist" (Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!) George Stephanopoulos
repeated this latest neocon talking point in an interview with Trump. When Trump
asked him for proof, he had NONE). This doesn't prove that Putin did not order
the murder of journalists, something the U.S. government has done hundreds of
times, but it does prove what a liar and establishment shill George Stephanopoulos
is.
"... But the lowest point his critics have gone to is to insinuate, or even claim outright, that Hagel is an anti-Semite. That slanderous
charge is being led by Elliott Abrams. He's now a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, but you might remember him as the man
convicted in 1991 of two counts of withholding information from Congress (he was pardoned by outgoing President George H.W. Bush). He
claims that Hagel "seems to have some kind of problem with Jews," and, in the Weekly Standard ..."
"... Of course, the reason the opposition to Hagel is so desperate and so focused on side-issues or made-up charges is because they
don't want a debate that would shine a spotlight on their spectacular and disastrous failure in Iraq. "This is the neocons' worst nightmare,"
says Richard Armitage, who was Deputy Secretary of State under Colin Powell, "because you've got a combat soldier, successful businessman
and senator who actually thinks there may be other ways to resolve some questions other than force." ..."
If President Obama's second term includes decision making as bold and intelligent as his nomination of Chuck Hagel to be Secretary
of Defense, his presidency might finally fulfill the promise of audacity and change that rallied so many to his campaign five years
ago. In fact, the more ridiculous the claims being made by Hagel's critics become, the more the real reasons they don't want him
-- and the wisdom of the choice -- come into stark relief.
The latest canard is about Hagel's supposed "temperament." The charge
was made this past Sunday by Tennessee Senator Bob Corker, appearing on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos.
"I think another thing, George, that's going to come up is just his overall temperament," said Corker, "and is he suited to
run a department or a big agency or a big entity like the Pentagon?" Given that this was a new one, Stephanopoulos asked, slightly
incredulously, "Do you have questions about his temperament?" Corker replied, "I think there are numbers of staffers who are coming
forth now just talking about the way he has dealt with them."
Ah yes, his temperament. It's a modern-day male version of the old dig that used to be directed at women, that they might be "PMSing"
and therefore shouldn't be put too close to big boy military equipment. It's also worth pointing out that this line of attack is
coming from a party that thoroughly approved of that shrinking violet of a Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. It's further worth
noting that the opposition to Hagel is being led partly by Senator John McCain, the same guy who thought it prudent to potentially
put Sarah Palin second in line to the presidency -- and whose own "temperament" has often been
called into question.
But if Hagel's temperament is somehow relevant, it puts me in mind of the quote by Lincoln who, when approached by some of Grant's
critics about the general's drinking, is supposed to have
said: "Let me know what brand of whiskey Grant uses. For if it makes fighting generals like Grant, I should like to get some
of it for distribution."
In response to Corker's charge, Politico's Playbook
quoted an email from a senior administration
official: "This line of attack is a new low. By contrast, Sen. Hagel intends to take the high road in the confirmation process as
he defends his strong record." Well, it's certainly a contemptible charge, but whether it's a new low is debatable. There's already
been plenty of competition for that title.
Now, I'm not saying Chuck Hagel is perfect or that I agree with every position he's
ever taken, but leadership isn't about conforming to a checklist. Hagel is being nominated for a particular job, and for that job,
he has a strong record. And this is exactly why his critics are grasping for straws -- because they don't want to discuss that record,
nor what this debate is really about: the Iraq War.
Yes, then-Senator Hagel voted for the resolution to authorize the war. But even before the vote, he expressed more reservations than
most of his colleagues. "You can take the country into a war pretty fast,"
he said in 2002,
"but you can't get us out as quickly, and the public needs to know what the risks are." In his 2008 book America: Our Next Chapterhe writes that he voted
to authorize military force only as a last option, but the Bush administration had not tried to "exhaust all diplomatic efforts,"
and that "it all comes down to the fact that we were asked to vote on a resolution based on half truths, untruths, and wishful thinking."
And after the war began, he became one of the administration's most vocal critics. Among his statements over the course of the war:
That "Iraq is not going to turn out
the way that we were promised it was."
That the Iraqi people "want the United States
out of Iraq."
That the Iraq War
was "ill-conceived" and "poorly prosecuted."
As I wrote
back in 2006, criticisms like these were much stronger than what most Democrats were saying at the time. And Hagel was right. We
often bemoan the fact that those in Washington who get it wrong never seem to be held accountable, and those who get it right (even
if not right away) always seem to be marginalized. Well, this nomination is how the system should -- but seldom does -- work. That's
why this nomination, even though Hagel is a Republican, shouldn't be looked at as another attempt by President Obama to curry favor
with the opposition. It's the best kind of decision -- one made not to placate some interest group, but, rather, in the interest
of the country. As Senator Jack Reed
said
of the nomination on Sunday, "Chuck has the wherewithal and the ability to speak truth to power. He's demonstrated that throughout
his entire career. That is a value that is extraordinarily important to the president." And to the country.
"When I think of issues like Iraq," Hagel
said in 2006, "of how we
went into it -- no planning, no preparation, no sense of consequences, of where we were going, how we were going to get out, went
in without enough men, no exit strategy, those kinds of things -- I'll speak out. I'll go against my party."
And that kind of thinking
is all the more powerful coming from a man with two Purple Hearts -- and who still has shrapnel lodged in his chest as a reminder,
not that he needs one, of what war is really like.
"Chuck knows that war is not an abstraction," the president
said when announcing the nomination. "He understands that sending young Americans to fight and bleed in the dirt and mud, that's
something we only do when it's absolutely necessary. 'My frame of reference,' he has said, is 'geared towards the guy at the bottom
who's doing the fighting and the dying.'" That's why, in the lead up to the Iraq War, Hagel
pointed out the
fact that decisions were being made by those who hadn't "sat in jungles or foxholes and watched their friends get their heads blown
off." And for that he was called an "appeaser."
The president
added that it was in the Senate where he came to admire Hagel's "courage and his judgment, his willingness to speak his mind
-- even if it wasn't popular, even if it defied the conventional wisdom."
And if you doubt whether Hagel's views go against the conventional wisdom, at least in Washington, just witness the hysterical, desperate
pushback to his nomination. This isn't about temperament, or abortion or gay rights (not that those aren't important issues). It's
about the path U.S. foreign policy took at the beginning of the last decade, directed by the neocons. As the New York Times'
Jim Rutenberg
put it,
"The campaign now being waged against Mr. Hagel's nomination as secretary of defense is in some ways a relitigation of that decade-old
dispute."
He's right -- to an extent. Where I think he's off is that this isn't a relitigation -- because the disaster that was,
and is, the Iraq War was never actually litigated in the first place. We've never really had that debate. Those who conceived it
(badly) and executed it (even more badly) were never held accountable. And they are now the ones trying to torpedo the very idea
that someone who is thoughtful and careful about sending our soldiers to die might actually have a role in that decision.
Rutenberg writes that this debate is "a dramatic return to the public stage by the neoconservatives whose worldview remains a powerful
undercurrent in the Republican Party." That is some undercurrent. If it's below the surface, then what is the top current?
It's
not like Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham are back-benchers. The latter
called Hagel's
nomination an "in-your-face nomination" and an "incredibly controversial choice." Sadly, in today's Washington the idea that someone
who is skeptical and cautious about the consequences of U.S. military intervention should lead the Pentagon is indeed "incredibly
controversial." Turning around conventional wisdom in Washington is no small endeavor, which is why this nomination is so important.
A week later, with an almost comical lack of self-awareness, Senator Graham
contrasted
Hagel's decision making with that of Graham's BFF, Senator McCain. "I think [Hagel] was very haunted by Vietnam," Graham said, unlike
McCain who "doesn't look at every conflict through the eyes of his Vietnam experience -- you know, 'We shouldn't have been there,
it went on too long, we didn't have a plan.'" Yes, thank God we left that kind of thinking back in Vietnam -- no instances of it
since then, right?
The relationship between Hagel and McCain goes back a long time. McCain was one of Hagel's earliest supporters
and Hagel was one of the few who jumped on the "Straight Talk Express," back when McCain was taking on what he called "agents of
intolerance" in the Republican Party. Unlike McCain, Hagel managed to stay on the Straight Talk Express. And now McCain is grasping
at straws over Hagel's skepticism about success of the surge strategy in Iraq, something McCain
finds "bizarre." Back when it was being considered, Hagel
said "This is a Ping-Pong game with American lives," and that "we better be damn sure we know what we're doing, all of us, before
we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder."
Since then it's become accepted gospel in Washington that the surge was successful. Accepted gospel that is, once again, wrong. Doug
Ollivant was an army planning officer in Iraq who was one of those who actually implemented the surge. "The surge really didn't work,
per se," Ollivant, now with the New America Foundation,
says, adding,
"Fundamentally, it was the Iraqis trying to find a solution, and they did."
A study by U.S. Special Forces officer Maj. Joshua
Thiel came to the same conclusion. Thiel looked at where and when the additional surge troops were deployed and compared that to
subsequent drops in violence. As Foreign Policy's Robert Haddick
put it,
Thiel concluded that there was no significant correlation between the arrival of U.S. reinforcements and subsequent changes in
the level of violence in Iraq's provinces... the connection between surge troops and the change in the level of incidents seems
entirely random.
Another straw being grasped at by McCain is the
question, "Why would [Hagel] oppose calling the Iranian revolutionary guard a terrorist organization?"
He's referring to the
fact that Hagel didn't sign a letter to the European Union designating Hezbollah a terror group. Hagel's
defense was that he "didn't sign on to certain resolutions and letters because they were counter-productive and didn't solve
a problem." In other words, Hagel refused to posture. A cardinal sin in Washington. Just as he
also said that use of reductivist
buzzwords and phrases like "cut and run" cheapen the debate and debase the seriousness of war. How refreshing. And it points to the
fact that not only do we need better military policy, we also need a more intelligent way of talking about that policy as a means
of making it better.
But the lowest point his critics have gone to is to insinuate, or even claim outright, that Hagel is an anti-Semite. That slanderous
charge is being led by Elliott Abrams. He's now a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, but you might remember him as the man
convicted in 1991 of two counts of withholding information from Congress (he was pardoned by outgoing President George H.W. Bush).
He
claims that Hagel "seems to have some kind of problem with Jews," and, in the
Weekly Standard, offers
as evidence "the testimony of the Jewish community that knew him best is most useful: Nebraskans. And the record seems unchallenged:
Nebraskan Jewish activists and officials have said he was hostile, and none -- including Obama supporters and Democratic party activists
-- have come forward to counter that allegation."
Actually, it has been challenged -- by, among others, activist Gary Javitch,
who, according to the
Forward is "considered by locals to be an expert on the local Jewish political scene." Though Javitch is no fan of Hagel,
when asked by the Forward if he though Hagel was biased against Jews, he said "no." He also said that "to make such an accusation
you need to be very careful," and that Hagel "never demonstrated anything like that in all the meetings I had with him."
What's amazing is that the Council on Foreign Relations would allow its credibility to be used to advance an accusation like this.
In response, a CFR official
toldAl-Monitor's Laura Rozen that the views of their experts are "theirs only" and that "the Council on Foreign Relations
takes no institutional position on matters of policy." But this isn't policy, it's character assassination. Does the Council take
no official position on that? As the Daily Beast's Ali Gharib
writes:
Abrams should be challenged by media and by his fellow scholars in the think tank world to find any member in good standing of
the Nebraska Jewish community who will say on the record that they consider their former Senator an anti-Semite. Failing that,
Abrams should issue a public apology to Hagel for making this scurrilous charge.
Of course, the reason the opposition to Hagel is so desperate and so focused on side-issues or made-up charges is because they
don't want a debate that would shine a spotlight on their spectacular and disastrous failure in Iraq. "This is the neocons' worst
nightmare," says
Richard Armitage, who was Deputy Secretary of State under Colin Powell, "because you've got a combat soldier, successful businessman
and senator who actually thinks there may be other ways to resolve some questions other than force."
In the first installment, Howard Fineman
writes
that "Obama is in an unusually strong position to deliver on the potential of his second term -- but only if he has the will and
wherewithal to turn ballot-box victory into real-life results," and asks whether Obama "will be shrewd, persistent and tough enough
to turn great promise into true greatness."
We'll see. But if the nomination of Chuck Hagel is any indication, the road forward is looking much better than what's behind
us. Though the upcoming hearings on Hagel's nomination are unlikely to feature the real debate on Iraq that the country deserves,
hopefully his tenure will indeed be the departure from the kind of thinking that got us into it that his critics so desperately fear.
There's always a lot of competition for the title of "Lying Neocon War Propagandist." I
would like to nominate for this week's award, one George Will. In the course of a
long-winded hissy fit over Donald Trump's political success to date published in
Jewish World
Review, Will goes berserk over Trump's intransigence over the neocon
agenda of starting a war with Russia. Smoke must have been coming out of his ears
when he quoted Trump as saying that the U.S. government has killed a lot of
people, too, referring to all of the government's endless military interventions
in the Middle East, after being told of the alleged killing of journalists in
Russia.
George Will responded to this by saying: "Putin kills journalists, the U.S.
kills terrorists." Will is not stupid; he cannot possibly believe that all
deaths in the Middle East caused by U.S. military intervention over the past
quarter of a century have been of "terrorists." There are numerous sources of the
civilian death count there, and it is safe to say that Donald Trump is right and
George Will is wrong: The civilian death count is in the
hundreds of
thousands. This includes at least
200 journalists such as Tareq Ayoub, who was killed on April 3, 2003 when a
U.S. warplane bombed the Al Jazeera offices in Baghdad. And of course the U.S.
military also bombs hospitals, as the entire world learned a few months ago.
(Thanks to Chris C. for info on the bombing of the Al Jazeera offices).
And by the way, there is obviously no evidence that Putin ordered the murder of
journalists. ABC News "journalist" (Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!) George Stephanopoulos
repeated this latest neocon talking point in an interview with Trump. When Trump
asked him for proof, he had NONE). This doesn't prove that Putin did not order
the murder of journalists, something the U.S. government has done hundreds of
times, but it does prove what a liar and establishment shill George Stephanopoulos
is.
"... It is no coincidence that the doping scandals have started around Russian sportsmen. After all, professional athletes from other countries also use steroids. The West needs to strike at Russia's image since sanctions didn't bring about the planned affect and Moscow is not giving in to political and economic pressure. ..."
"... As in politics, sports is filled with a variety of scandals which have taken place quite often in the history of the Olympic Games and other major events. However, in the case of violations by athletes, things should be handled fairly and objective. Otherwise, having achieved their goal (and all Western law is based on precedent), certain lobbies will begin to repeat the practice of discrediting athletes from other countries, thus not serving the interests of sports at all. ..."
International sporting events have a clear political nature: nation-states enter the stadium under
their national anthem, represent their countries, and, in the case of victory, their rank increases.
In other words, sports is an instrument of "soft power" if we use Joseph Nye's term. Moreover, the
country hosting a sporting event can improve its image, as was the case with the Sochi Winter Olympic
Games.
Thus, athletes, just like politicians, are paid careful attention by their "partners" and
detractors. It is no coincidence that the doping scandals have started around Russian sportsmen.
After all, professional athletes from other countries also use steroids. The West needs to strike
at Russia's image since sanctions didn't bring about the planned affect and Moscow is not giving
in to political and economic pressure.
We should recall that the first article about such was published in the New York Times in May.
The media has statutes for tribute for ordered articles, so it is very easy to identify the initiators.
Russia has the right to maintain sovereign positions on many other issues, but it is also necessary
to reach consensus through skillful diplomatic work in international organizations. This is not always
effective (for example, in recent years the United Nations has supported sodomites in Russia at the
expense of traditional family values), but it is individual persons who often have the last word.
The doping scandal was put to an end by the head of the International Olympic Committee, Thomas
Bach, who is in office since 2013. The Russian Olympic team will not be banned from the competition
in Rio de Janeiro. The federation will pass decisions on individual athletes. Bach called this approach
distinguishing between "clean" and doping athletes who have the chance to prove their case.
Although the number of Russian athletes will in fact still be smaller, there still exists the
space for a political message: the anthem, the flag, and the possibility to win in different sports.
Perhaps some can see a pro-Russian position in Bach's activities, since he is against the US'
political order on this occasion. He is in fact trying to protect the traditions and mechanisms of
big sports.
As in politics, sports is filled with a variety of scandals which have taken place quite often
in the history of the Olympic Games and other major events. However, in the case of violations by
athletes, things should be handled fairly and objective. Otherwise, having achieved their goal (and
all Western law is based on precedent), certain lobbies will begin to repeat the practice of discrediting
athletes from other countries, thus not serving the interests of sports at all.
Reports that US General John F. Campbell was the organizer of a coup d'etat in Turkey surprised
no one. Recall that the July 25th edition of the Turkish Yeni Safak, close to President Recep Erdogan's
AKP party,
reported
that General John F. Campbell, former U.S. commander of the International Security Assistance
Force (ISAF), a NATO-led security mission in Afghanistan, was the organizer of the July 15th military
coup attempt in Turkey. The sources stated that he was also involved in the financing of the coup
participants and the reshuffling of air base personnel while visiting the base on the eve of the
coup attempt. After an unsuccessful coup attempt the Turkish generals
Cahit Bakır and Şener Topçu were detained in Dubai airport. Both worked with Campbell in Afghanistan,
where they commanded the Turkish contingent within the NATO forces.
However, these are not the only clues in the Turkish coup plot which directly points to NATO as
the mastermind of the coup. There are some other information regarding this issue:
1. The same coup participants stationed at the Turkish Air Force, were the most NATO-integrated
structures of the Turkish Military, and this gave to the observers the first evidence of NATO involvement
in the military putsch. The Incirlik Air Base, where the US military was based was used by the putschists
to launch air strikes on the Turkish parliament. The base is jointly used by the US and Turkish Air
Forces. After the coup attempt, it was suppressed by the Turkish commander of the base. General Bekir
Ercan Van was arrested by the troops loyal to Erdogan. General Van sought asylum from the United
States but was denied. In the aftermath of the coup, external electrical power from Turkey was cut
to the base and a Turkish no fly order had been put into effect for US military aircraft in the area.
On July 30th the base was blocked by Turkish troops on information about a second coup attempt.
2. From the very beginning Western media spread disinformation, that President Erdogan flee the
country. American NBS mentioned high ranking US military, proving the information. Thus the US military
was directly involved in the disinformation during the most critical early hours of the failed coup
operation.
The US alternative media Newsbud
has identified Former NATO Commander-Retired US Army General John F. Campbell as the 'likely'
NBC News' source.
3. The majority of those arrested after the coup attempt were people related to the NATO structure.
The the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, speaking at a forum on security organized
by the Aspen Institute in Colorado last week, declared that after the coup "many of our interlocutors
have been purged or arrested".
Curtis Scaparrotti, NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe confirmed this information,
stating that:
"Some of the officers that we have our relationships with in Turkey are now either detained, in
some cases retired as a result of the coup"
Thus, NATO de-facto recognized, that their people were in the ranks on the presumptive putschists
4. It was revealed that NATO aggressively promoted their agents, who then actively participated
in the coup:
According to Erdogan's supporters, thousands of Turkish officers recruited to Gulen's network
went up the ladder in their military career on "on high speed" , reaching ranks of generals and
colonels in key positions. In sharp contrast, in the Kemalist army base, their former fellows remained
captains or majors.
5. The three most important regiments which participated in the coup were part of Turkey's 'NATO
Rapid Deployable Corps'. The registration plates on military vehicles of the putschists, show that
they belonged to the 2nd Armoured Brigade, stationed in the Istanbul district of Kartal, and the
66th Mechanised Infantry Brigade, which is based in Hasdal together with the 6th Regiment. The transcript
of WhatsApp messagess of the plotters,
provided by Bellingcat showed that the group in communications also used the emblem and slogan
used by NATO's Rapid Deployable Corps (a quote of Ataturk) : "Peace at home, peace in the world.".
6. And finally, once again the news from Yeni Safak. It revealed information that the Guvercinlik
First Army Aviation Regiment's Maintenance Battalion Commander Lieutenant Colonel Murat Bolat told
prosecutors that the US was ready to help them to assassinate Erdogan during the coup.
"Americans were to provide the exact coordinates of Erdoğan, if the team was unable to find him
in the hotel. They also said that up to four persons with civil dress have been tracking Erdoğan
", – the Turkish newspaper quotes the rebel.
The same fact, that Erdogan's newspaper attacks the US and NATO so fiercely corroborates that
Turkish authorities are preparing for harsh anti-US moves, including leaving NATO. And they have
a lot of the evidence of NATO's involvement in the coup.
"... German parliamentarians are preparing to ask for sanctions against the USA, Britain and France also. According to those parliamentarians, by implementing the Chaos Strategy in the Middle East, in order to "promote democracy", as they kept saying, Washington, London and Paris are directly responsible for the refugee crisis, the terror attacks and the whole pattern of instability which has now engulfed Turkey as well. ..."
"... Mr. Erdogan, President of one of the most important NATO countries, did not meet any of his Western counterparts, but he is going to Russia to meet President Putin, and his closest advisors are proposing that he should institute an alliance with Russia, like Kemal, and wage war against "the Crusaders". ..."
"... The perspective of a strategic alliance between Ankara and Moscow is the definition of a nightmare for US and Israeli planners. They certainly did not start all those wars just to see a bloc of Russia, Turkey, Iran and Syria being formed in the Middle East, not to mention, potentially, a huge crisis in NATO. ..."
According to our information this is only the first step. German parliamentarians are preparing
to ask for sanctions against the USA, Britain and France also. According to those parliamentarians,
by implementing the Chaos Strategy in the Middle East, in order to "promote democracy", as they kept
saying, Washington, London and Paris are directly responsible for the refugee crisis, the terror
attacks and the whole pattern of instability which has now engulfed Turkey as well.
According also to our information, top US and Israeli officials are outraged at what is happening.
They now have to cancel all family vacation planning and concentrate on how to handle an unbelievable
new situation. Mr. Erdogan, President of one of the most important NATO countries, did not meet
any of his Western counterparts, but he is going to Russia to meet President Putin, and his closest
advisors are proposing that he should institute an alliance with Russia, like Kemal, and wage war
against "the Crusaders".
The perspective of a strategic alliance between Ankara and Moscow is the definition of a nightmare
for US and Israeli planners. They certainly did not start all those wars just to see a bloc of Russia,
Turkey, Iran and Syria being formed in the Middle East, not to mention, potentially, a huge crisis
in NATO.
We are still not there and nobody knows if we will reach that point. Russia and Turkey, as history
proves, have seriously conflicting interests. As for Erdogan himself, he cannot win over the Kurds
by military means and neither can the Kurds win what they want by war. All that is certain is that
we are heading straight for very serious conflicts.
Fortunately for them, and probably for us also, European politicians do not consider any alteration
of their vacation programs. They are continuing their enjoyment of their holidays, waiting for Washington
to take its decisions.
"... Putin is a monster to feed the imagination of the masses, systematically depicted as a psychopathic
tyrant, responsible for massacres, cynical weaver of imperialistic plots. ..."
"... Things are changing. The resolute intervention of Russia against the Daesh terrorists unmasked
ambiguities in Turkish and Saudi Arabian policy The West as a whole was stunned. Russophobic propaganda
went into panic mode Slowly and steadily another truth is coming out and being glimpsed. The winners
of the Cold War were already convinced that Russia was defeated and colonized. ..."
By now it is clear: the crisis in which the West is struggling does not resemble anything known.
It is a crisis of values, democracy, economic, financial, environmental, an unprecedented political
crisis. All paradigms are collapsing, the US leadership is no longer invincible: clearly it is in
serious danger. And when power feels weak, it looks for an enemy to target: somebody to blame, somebody
to frighten people with. All is grist for the mill. Instead of an admission of the truth, namely
that the crisis is inside the west, is a by-product of the West, instead of an admission that resources
are running out and the system is marching toward collapse, Russia is made the enemy. So it was in
the past, so it is today. The obsession returns in updated form. Russia with its strongman Vladimir
Putin is the new "enemy number one". Reviving Cold War slogans, they (the West, the USA), are reproducing
the idea of the Evil Empire, and Putin is a monster to feed the imagination of the masses, systematically
depicted as a psychopathic tyrant, responsible for massacres, cynical weaver of imperialistic plots.
The war in Ukraine, the economic sanctions, even the denial of the Russian role in the defeat
of Nazism: everything is pushing in that direction. But is it really so, or is the "Putinophobia"
that is being touted by the bulk of the media just a big mirror in which the West sees its own shortcomings
and troubles reflected?
Things are changing. The resolute intervention of Russia against the Daesh terrorists unmasked
ambiguities in Turkish and Saudi Arabian policy The West as a whole was stunned. Russophobic propaganda
went into panic mode Slowly and steadily another truth is coming out and being glimpsed. The winners
of the Cold War were already convinced that Russia was defeated and colonized.
They were looking to China as the next enemy to be destroyed or reduced to submission. They have
been taken by surprise. Putin's Russia, the phoenix reborn from its ashes, is the only superpower
that can derail the train that is hurtling towards catastrophe. But it may be also the last hope
for the West too. If, obviously, the West can bring itself to understand that it is not, in any case,
going to be able to rule over seven billion people.
"... German parliamentarians are preparing to ask for sanctions against the USA, Britain and France also. According to those parliamentarians, by implementing the Chaos Strategy in the Middle East, in order to "promote democracy", as they kept saying, Washington, London and Paris are directly responsible for the refugee crisis, the terror attacks and the whole pattern of instability which has now engulfed Turkey as well. ..."
"... Mr. Erdogan, President of one of the most important NATO countries, did not meet any of his Western counterparts, but he is going to Russia to meet President Putin, and his closest advisors are proposing that he should institute an alliance with Russia, like Kemal, and wage war against "the Crusaders". ..."
"... The perspective of a strategic alliance between Ankara and Moscow is the definition of a nightmare for US and Israeli planners. They certainly did not start all those wars just to see a bloc of Russia, Turkey, Iran and Syria being formed in the Middle East, not to mention, potentially, a huge crisis in NATO. ..."
According to our information this is only the first step. German parliamentarians are preparing
to ask for sanctions against the USA, Britain and France also. According to those parliamentarians,
by implementing the Chaos Strategy in the Middle East, in order to "promote democracy", as they kept
saying, Washington, London and Paris are directly responsible for the refugee crisis, the terror
attacks and the whole pattern of instability which has now engulfed Turkey as well.
According also to our information, top US and Israeli officials are outraged at what is happening.
They now have to cancel all family vacation planning and concentrate on how to handle an unbelievable
new situation. Mr. Erdogan, President of one of the most important NATO countries, did not meet
any of his Western counterparts, but he is going to Russia to meet President Putin, and his closest
advisors are proposing that he should institute an alliance with Russia, like Kemal, and wage war
against "the Crusaders".
The perspective of a strategic alliance between Ankara and Moscow is the definition of a nightmare
for US and Israeli planners. They certainly did not start all those wars just to see a bloc of Russia,
Turkey, Iran and Syria being formed in the Middle East, not to mention, potentially, a huge crisis
in NATO.
We are still not there and nobody knows if we will reach that point. Russia and Turkey, as history
proves, have seriously conflicting interests. As for Erdogan himself, he cannot win over the Kurds
by military means and neither can the Kurds win what they want by war. All that is certain is that
we are heading straight for very serious conflicts.
Fortunately for them, and probably for us also, European politicians do not consider any alteration
of their vacation programs. They are continuing their enjoyment of their holidays, waiting for Washington
to take its decisions.
"... It is no coincidence that the doping scandals have started around Russian sportsmen. After all, professional athletes from other countries also use steroids. The West needs to strike at Russia's image since sanctions didn't bring about the planned affect and Moscow is not giving in to political and economic pressure. ..."
"... As in politics, sports is filled with a variety of scandals which have taken place quite often in the history of the Olympic Games and other major events. However, in the case of violations by athletes, things should be handled fairly and objective. Otherwise, having achieved their goal (and all Western law is based on precedent), certain lobbies will begin to repeat the practice of discrediting athletes from other countries, thus not serving the interests of sports at all. ..."
International sporting events have a clear political nature: nation-states enter the stadium under
their national anthem, represent their countries, and, in the case of victory, their rank increases.
In other words, sports is an instrument of "soft power" if we use Joseph Nye's term. Moreover, the
country hosting a sporting event can improve its image, as was the case with the Sochi Winter Olympic
Games.
Thus, athletes, just like politicians, are paid careful attention by their "partners" and
detractors. It is no coincidence that the doping scandals have started around Russian sportsmen.
After all, professional athletes from other countries also use steroids. The West needs to strike
at Russia's image since sanctions didn't bring about the planned affect and Moscow is not giving
in to political and economic pressure.
We should recall that the first article about such was published in the New York Times in May.
The media has statutes for tribute for ordered articles, so it is very easy to identify the initiators.
Russia has the right to maintain sovereign positions on many other issues, but it is also necessary
to reach consensus through skillful diplomatic work in international organizations. This is not always
effective (for example, in recent years the United Nations has supported sodomites in Russia at the
expense of traditional family values), but it is individual persons who often have the last word.
The doping scandal was put to an end by the head of the International Olympic Committee, Thomas
Bach, who is in office since 2013. The Russian Olympic team will not be banned from the competition
in Rio de Janeiro. The federation will pass decisions on individual athletes. Bach called this approach
distinguishing between "clean" and doping athletes who have the chance to prove their case.
Although the number of Russian athletes will in fact still be smaller, there still exists the
space for a political message: the anthem, the flag, and the possibility to win in different sports.
Perhaps some can see a pro-Russian position in Bach's activities, since he is against the US'
political order on this occasion. He is in fact trying to protect the traditions and mechanisms of
big sports.
As in politics, sports is filled with a variety of scandals which have taken place quite often
in the history of the Olympic Games and other major events. However, in the case of violations by
athletes, things should be handled fairly and objective. Otherwise, having achieved their goal (and
all Western law is based on precedent), certain lobbies will begin to repeat the practice of discrediting
athletes from other countries, thus not serving the interests of sports at all.
"... Putin is a monster to feed the imagination of the masses, systematically depicted as a psychopathic
tyrant, responsible for massacres, cynical weaver of imperialistic plots. ..."
"... Things are changing. The resolute intervention of Russia against the Daesh terrorists unmasked
ambiguities in Turkish and Saudi Arabian policy The West as a whole was stunned. Russophobic propaganda
went into panic mode Slowly and steadily another truth is coming out and being glimpsed. The winners
of the Cold War were already convinced that Russia was defeated and colonized. ..."
By now it is clear: the crisis in which the West is struggling does not resemble anything known.
It is a crisis of values, democracy, economic, financial, environmental, an unprecedented political
crisis. All paradigms are collapsing, the US leadership is no longer invincible: clearly it is in
serious danger. And when power feels weak, it looks for an enemy to target: somebody to blame, somebody
to frighten people with. All is grist for the mill. Instead of an admission of the truth, namely
that the crisis is inside the west, is a by-product of the West, instead of an admission that resources
are running out and the system is marching toward collapse, Russia is made the enemy. So it was in
the past, so it is today. The obsession returns in updated form. Russia with its strongman Vladimir
Putin is the new "enemy number one". Reviving Cold War slogans, they (the West, the USA), are reproducing
the idea of the Evil Empire, and Putin is a monster to feed the imagination of the masses, systematically
depicted as a psychopathic tyrant, responsible for massacres, cynical weaver of imperialistic plots.
The war in Ukraine, the economic sanctions, even the denial of the Russian role in the defeat
of Nazism: everything is pushing in that direction. But is it really so, or is the "Putinophobia"
that is being touted by the bulk of the media just a big mirror in which the West sees its own shortcomings
and troubles reflected?
Things are changing. The resolute intervention of Russia against the Daesh terrorists unmasked
ambiguities in Turkish and Saudi Arabian policy The West as a whole was stunned. Russophobic propaganda
went into panic mode Slowly and steadily another truth is coming out and being glimpsed. The winners
of the Cold War were already convinced that Russia was defeated and colonized.
They were looking to China as the next enemy to be destroyed or reduced to submission. They have
been taken by surprise. Putin's Russia, the phoenix reborn from its ashes, is the only superpower
that can derail the train that is hurtling towards catastrophe. But it may be also the last hope
for the West too. If, obviously, the West can bring itself to understand that it is not, in any case,
going to be able to rule over seven billion people.
"... the whole way the campaign was conducted, and the timing of the publication of the various WADA reports, shows that the agenda all along was to get the whole of Team Russia expelled from the Olympic Games. ..."
"... The president of the Australian Olympic Committee, John Coates, who is also an IOC vice president, reportedly wrote to Australia's Health Minister Susan Ley, saying that the IOC had a "lack of confidence in WADA." ..."
"... We encourage a full report by Professor McLaren before we make any full and frank decisions ..."
More evidence of deep divisions between the IOC and WADA over the Russian doping scandal have
emerged in two articles in The Australian. One article, which is
behind a paywall, derives from off-the-record conversations with IOC officials. The
other article, which is open access, gives Professor McLaren's side of the story. It alludes
to the article behind the paywall and reproduces some of its material.
For an open source account of what is in the article behind the paywall, one is obliged to turn
to RT.
It claims that the article says
" .that there are members within the International Olympic Committee (IOC) who believe the
release of the McLaren report on the eve of the Olympics was designed to set off the "nuclear
option" of issuing a blanket ban on Russia competing at the games."
This is very similar to what I said in an
article I wrote a few
days ago. I said that the whole way the campaign was conducted, and the timing of the publication
of the various WADA reports, shows that the agenda all along was to get the whole of Team Russia
expelled from the Olympic Games. Here is what I said:
"That this was indeed the agenda is clear enough from the way the whole anti-doping campaign
against Russia has been conducted. It seems that a decision to expel Russia from the Olympic
movement was taken probably around the time of the failure of the campaign to boycott the Winter
Olympics in Sochi in 2014. All the various allegations of doping in Russia that have circulated
since 2010 and even before were then sifted through to construct a case. Someone then put
them all together in a dossier, spicing them up with witness testimony from people like Stepanova
and Rodchenkov. A series of lurid articles and documentaries then appeared in the Western
media, reviving all the allegations and putting the worst possible spin on them. A series
of reports from WADA then followed in quick succession starting in the autumn of last year, timed
to make the maximum possible impact and to leave the least possible time for proper independent
fact checking or for any other steps to be taken before the start of the Rio Games. That
way the allegations could not be properly and independently assessed and no fully fair arrangements
could be made to allow for the admission of all indisputably clean Russian athletes. That
opened the way, just as the Rio Games were about to start, for the IOC to be presented with a
demand for a blanket ban."
In my article I also said on the basis of certain comments by IOC President Thomas Bach that all
the facts pointed to the IOC being furious with WADA for its conduct of the whole affair. Again
RT's summary of the article behind the paywall confirms as much.
"Once it was clear that the IOC was not going to support a full ban, the author of the report,
the Canadian lawyer Richard McLaren, handed over the names of Russian athletes who had been cited
in his document to the 28 federations. These names had initially not been published when the report
was first made public on July 18. However, The paper's sources reportedly said that WADA now has
a problem as it "had been caught short not having enough detail to justify some of the claims
against athletes."
"They sexed it up which is crazy because now the entire report is under scrutiny and I am sure
most of the report is absolutely accurate. It just puts question marks where question marks should
not be," a sports official told the publication.
The president of the Australian Olympic Committee, John Coates, who is also an IOC vice
president, reportedly wrote to Australia's Health Minister Susan Ley, saying that the IOC had
a "lack of confidence in WADA."
"McLaren said there was evidence that 170 Russian athletes, the majority of whom were set to
compete in Rio, had previously had positive doping tests destroyed by the Moscow Anti-Doping Laboratory.
Following further analysis of the samples carried out at the Moscow laboratory, it was found that
Russian samples were split into four separate categories of seriousness. However, one of these
categories was for samples which were not considered serious at all.
"We were asked to make a judgment about Russian competitors based on McLaren's report but without
having any of the detail to understand the significance of them being named," a senior sports
official said, as cited by The Australian. "Now to be told that there were four different categories
– why weren't we told this at the very beginning? It's a mess and it's WADA's fault.''"
That RT is reproducing the article accurately is confirmed by the
open access article. It corroborates RT's account of the article behind the paywall:
"Sports officials have accused WADA of "sexing up" the case against Russian athletes by handing
over to sporting federations the names of competitors who had no evidence against them in order
to invoke the "nuclear option" of expelling Russia from the Games. IOC spokesman Mark Adams
said yesterday the confusion showed the dangers of working with an unfinished report: "To have
someone who didn't (commit) a competition doping offence but was counted as such is a very dangerous
thing. We encourage a full report by Professor McLaren before we make any full and
frank decisions.''"
"In any rational world what ought to have happened is that when Stepanova's and Rochenkov's
allegations became public a full and proper investigation ought to have been set up, with all
the witnesses examined and represented by legal counsel, and with the forensic evidence examined
by a variety of scientific experts, who could have been cross-examined and whose reports would
have been made public. Since this would have taken time – a year at least – arrangements
of the sort now set up by the IOC should have been made in the meantime to ensure that there was
no cheating by Russian athletes at Rio. Given the scale of the allegations and the suspicion
of state involvement in the doping, this would inevitably have involved barring Russian athletes
already found to have cheated from competing in Rio, harsh though that is. At the end of
this process the investigation would have delivered a proper report – not like the deeply flawed
report provided by McLaren – either confirming or refuting the allegations, and making specific
recommendations to prevent the problem arising again."
The IOC is obviously right to complain that it should not have been asked to make a decision on
the basis of an incomplete report provided just 2 weeks before the Games in Rio were due to begin.
However, given his actions in preparing his report and the way he presented it, Professor McLaren
is obviously the wrong person to prepare the full report IOC spokesman Mark Adams is referring to.
The open access article in The Australian shows the extent to which McLaren and WADA have been
thrown onto the defensive. It reports McLaren complaining that
"The focus has been completely lost and the discussion is not about the Russian labs and Sochi
Olympic Games, which was under the direction of the IOC. But what is going on is a hunt for people
supposed to be doping but that was never part of my work, although it is starting to (become)
so. My reporting on the state-based system has turned into a pursuit of individual athletes.''
I am at a total loss to understand how Professor McLaren thinks that a report supposedly about
an alleged state-sponsored system of doping should not look into the evidence of doping on the part
of individual athletes, when it is precisely those individual cases of doping which are the evidence
that there was a state-sponsored system of doping in the first place.
Obviously there was insufficient time to look into each and every allegation of doping properly
in the 57 days in which Professor McLaren's investigation was conducted. However that merely
points to the fact that conducting a proper investigation within a timeframe of just 57 days was
impossible. Professor McLaren should have admitted as much and asked for more time to conduct
his investigation properly, leaving it to WADA and the IOC to put in place proper arrangements to
prevent possible cheating by Russian athletes at the Olympic Games in Rio in the meantime. However
that is not what he did. Instead he delivered an incomplete and defective report and
demanded a blanket ban on the strength of it.
Frankly I cannot see in Professor McLaren's words anything other than confirmation that that was
his objective all along. Judging from what IOC officials are reported to have told The Australian,
it seems that is their opinion too.
Further confirmation that this was the objective is provided by the way WADA is now desperately
trying to retreat from the way McLaren "implicated" individual athletes in his report. In order
to explain this away WADA's chief executive Olivier Niggli is quoted by The Australian as providing
what can only be called a twisted explanation of what happened.
"WADA chief executive Olivier Niggli said the confusion arose because sports officials had
not understood what the word ''implicated'' meant. ''Professor McLaren gave each sport the
list of the athletes who were implicated. That was the word used by the IOC; which athletes were
appearing there in the report. Then we get to the confusing part. He gave the international federations
everything he had, every name.'' There was no further information about some names, yet the sports
federations believed listing meant they were ''implicated'' and they should withdraw the athletes
and, following IOC guidelines, they should withdraw them from Olympics competition."
That Professor McLaren (who is a lawyer) "implicated" athletes in a way that was not intended
to cast suspicion on them strikes me as frankly absurd. On the contrary it is now starting
to look as if he presented his findings in such a way as to create the impression that there was
more evidence of Russian athletes being involved in doping than was actually the case.
All this is of course grist to the mill for the lawyers in the court cases which the Russian athletes
are now bringing. Some of the comments on the thread to the
article
in which I discussed these court cases doubted that they would have much effect. On the contrary
it is precisely because these court cases are being brought that the IOC and WADA are now so publicly
at odds with each other. What one can see in these angry exchanges and recriminations are the
frantic steps of the two sporting bodies as they try desperately to cover their positions in anticipation
of the court cases that are now coming. Moreover in any court case there is a legal duty of
full disclosure which the Russian athletes can use to demand sight of all the correspondence (including
telephone records and emails) which led to the decision to exclude them being made. I expect
their lawyers to advise them to use this right to the hilt. This is beginning to look like
a debacle. As I have said before this affair is only at its start.
"... At the end of June the Investigative Committee filed a request with US authorities to help with carrying out the questioning of Rodchenkov, as part of the criminal case against him. ..."
"... This guy should be dealt with harshly for he has used, other wise, athletes that would have used better judgment. Temptation in the eyes of rising stars with the promises. Tragic now that they are sideline. Gods speed with this calamity. ..."
The former head of the Moscow anti-doping laboratory set up a doping scheme in which he sold illegal
substances to athletes while also promising to help them obtain a clean doping record, a Russian
investigation has revealed.
Investigators cited witnesses implicating Grigory Rodchenkov in a doping scheme.
"According to preliminary information, he [Rodchenkov] purchased these substances in the US and
when selling them to clients, promised to cover the fact that banned substances had been detected
in their samples," Vladimir Markin, spokesman for the Russian Investigative Committee said in a statement
published on Monday.
The committee has reason to think that Rodchenkov was the mastermind behind the illegal trade,
the statement continued to say. There is as of yet no information about his possible accomplices.
"He could have destroyed the samples to conceal the selling of prohibited substances and avoid
criminal responsibility that would bring him a much stricter punishment, than that [which exists]
for violating WADA [World Anti-Doping Agency] standards," Markin also wrote.
Another detail revealed by the Investigative Committee is that Rodchenkov's sister had been convicted
in 2012 for the illegal trafficking of substances that could have been used for doping. It is yet
to be established where she bought the drugs.
The case against Rodchenkov was launched in the middle of June. He faces charges in Russia of
abuse of authority based on World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) reports and media reports which suggested
Rodchenkov and Russian athletes violated anti-doping regulations.
Rodchenkov deliberately decided to destroy 1,437 blood samples in December 2014, despite receiving
a letter from WADA requesting that he keep the samples, the investigation stated.
The former head of the Moscow anti-doping lab is currently in the US where he fled, stating that
he has been fearing for his safety.
In May, Rodchenkov said in an interview with NYT that he substituted more than 100 samples given
by Russian athletes during the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics which was all part of a state-run "decade-long
effort to perfect" Russia's performance at international competitions.
Russian Sports Minister Vitaly Mutko subsequently rejected the claims, stressing that no doping
program had ever existed in Russian sports.
At the end of June the Investigative Committee filed a request with US authorities to help with
carrying out the questioning of Rodchenkov, as part of the criminal case against him.
Blue Sushi -> Red Fish
"Is anybody stupid enough to think Russia would have admitted its drugs problem on its own?"
Does any nation?
ethan hunt
Grigory Rodchenkov made an allegation and its only right that he provides proof/evidence to
backed his allegations.
Russia does not want to shut him up but it does wanted Rodchenkov to present evidence to claim
so that the necessary steps can be taken.
MeBituman
Simple question who destroyed the samples that were expressly requested by WADA to be preserved?
This is your guilty party. No?
ethan hunt
An allegation was made and no evidence was presented. Did the IAAF and WADA actually
presented evidence? They did not, their decision was based on the "allegations" made.
James Hickey
This guy should be dealt with harshly for he has used, other wise, athletes that would
have used better judgment. Temptation in the eyes of rising stars with the promises. Tragic
now that they are sideline. Gods speed with this calamity.
"... From the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) to the Southern Common Market (Mercosur) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Washington has been playing a dangerous game of intrigue and deception with regard to steering these organizations in a pro-American direction. The Obama administration has decided that the halls, offices, and conference rooms of international organizations are acceptable battlefields to wage propaganda and sanctions wars. ..."
From the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the Fédération Internationale de
Football Association (FIFA) to the Southern Common Market (Mercosur) and the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Washington has been playing a dangerous game of intrigue and
deception with regard to steering these organizations in a pro-American direction. The Obama
administration has decided that the halls, offices, and conference rooms of international
organizations are acceptable battlefields to wage propaganda and sanctions wars.
The first American target of note was the international football association, FIFA. Not content
with trying to sully the reputation of the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics with issues of gay rights
and doping of athletes, the US disinformation boiler rooms began a full-scale attack on FIFA. The
major reason is Russia's hosting of the 2018 FIFA World Cup. The US Justice Department, in a
major move toward the internationalization of domestic US law, began unsealing indictment after
indictment of FIFA officials for financial crimes. The actual target of these indictments was
Russia.
... ... ...
Resisting pressure from Washington, IOC president Thomas Bach wisely decided to avoid a
blanket ban of Russian athletes. Bach called such a unilateral ban on Russia participating in the
Rio games as a "nuclear option". He also said that such a "nuclear option" would have resulted in
"collateral damage" among innocent athletes. Bach's use of two geopolitical military terms was no
mistake and it bore the mark of someone responding to familiar American "shock and awe" pressure.
The United States used its compliant stooges, Germany and Canada, as well as the dubious World
Anti-Doping Agency, run by a Scottish lawyer, to call for a total ban on Russian athletes in Rio.
Fish rots from the head: doping is the most rampant in the USA...
Notable quotes:
"... Federal officials said earlier Tuesday that Bosch would agree to plead guilty to a charge of distributing steroids in a conspiracy that stretched from big league club houses to South Florida high schools and youth baseball leagues to sandlots in the Caribbean. ..."
"... "These defendants were motivated by one thing: money," United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Wifredo Ferrer, said. "They did this by lining their pockets, by exploiting the pressures of athletes and others to be bigger, to be stronger and to play better." ..."
"... Bosch told investigators that he provided the illegal substances to at least 18 minors, Ferrer said. ..."
"... Bosch and his associates distributed the drugs to minors who attended a number of public and private high schools in South Florida. He would charge the teenagers and their parents between $250 and $600 a month, promising that the concoctions -- which included black market steroids -- would improve their game. ..."
Tony Bosch, the founder of the now-defunct Biogenesis anti-aging clinic in Miami, is not a
licensed doctor, but portrayed himself as one, federal officials said Tuesday.
Officials said he dispensed
performance-enhancing drugs to professional baseball players such as suspended New York
Yankees slugger Alex Rodriguez and to impressionable high school athletes in South Florida and
teenagers in the Dominican Republic.
Bosch, 50, surrendered to the Drug Enforcement Administration in Florida on Tuesday. At a court
appearance, he pleaded not guilty and a judge set bail at $100,000.
Federal officials said
earlier Tuesday that Bosch would agree to plead guilty to a charge of distributing steroids in a
conspiracy that stretched from big league club houses to South Florida high schools and youth
baseball leagues to sandlots in the Caribbean.
One of his attorneys, Susy Ribero-Ayala, said there is a plea agreement in place and Bosch will
change his plea later.
"Mr. Bosch has never had and does not have a DEA registration," said Mark Trouville, special
agent in charge of the DEA Miami. "He is not a licensed medical professional. He is not a doctor.
He is a drug dealer."
Also charged in the scandal were Yuri Sucart, a cousin of Rodriguez, and Juan Carlos Nunez, who
was named in a scheme to clear All-Star Melky Cabrera after a positive 2012 testosterone test,
authorities said.
Other defendants include Carlos Acevedo, a longtime associate of Bosch's, former University of
Miami coach Lazaro "Lazer" Collazo, Jorge Velasquez, and Christopher Engroba.
Acevedo and three other men, including CarlosLuis Ruiz, a Florida Highway Patrol trooper, also
were charged in a separate conspiracy involving the sale of the drug MDMA, or molly.
Eight of
the 10 men charged appeared in court. Acevedo and Engroba also entered not guilty pleas. The
other men didn't enter a plea.
Lengthy investigation
The drug conspiracy charges against the men stemmed from
from a 21-month DEA investigation.
"These defendants were motivated by one thing: money," United States Attorney for the Southern
District of Florida, Wifredo Ferrer, said. "They did this by lining their pockets, by exploiting
the pressures of athletes and others to be bigger, to be stronger and to play better."
Bosch
could face a 10-year prison term in the case.
Bosch told investigators that he provided the illegal substances to at least 18 minors, Ferrer
said.
Bosch and his associates distributed the drugs to minors who attended a number of public and
private high schools in South Florida. He would charge the teenagers and their parents between
$250 and $600 a month, promising that the concoctions -- which included black market steroids --
would improve their game.
In addition, investigators said, Bosch and
the others operated in the Dominican Republic, where boys as young as 12 were given new baseball
equipment and treated with testosterone-loaded syringes in an effort to get them signed with big
league teams. Talents scouts working with the children would keep as much as 50 % of their
signing bonuses.
"These defendants provided easy access to dangerous concoctions of steroids and human growth
hormones to impressionable high school kids," Ferrer said. "Simply put: Doping children is
unacceptable. It is wrong. It is illegal and it is dangerous and Bosch and his reckless
recruiters and his black market suppliers ignored the serious health risks posed to their so
called patients, all to make a profit."
Using lollipops
The drugs were administered in a number of ways, through injections, pills, creams and even
lollipops, according to a source with direct knowledge of the investigation.
Masking agents
were used to hide the drugs. "It was so good. The key was being able to fool testers with the
league (Major League Baseball), the source said. "The masking agents in the creams would hide the
actual drug, and (Bosch) would know the timing involved. He knew if the athlete took the drug
right before a game, they'd be tested 12 hours later and the drug would no longer be detectable."
Earlier this year, Major League Baseball dropped its lawsuit against Bosch and the company the
league claims provided performance-enhancing drugs to a number of players, including
Rodriguez. The league had agreed to drop the suit if Bosch cooperated in the investigation,
according to published reports.
In a statement Tuesday, Rodriguez's lawyer, Joe Tacopina, said:
"This obviously is the beginning of the end of this sordid chapter in baseball."
Authorities said professional athletes recruited by the clinic paid between $2,000 and $12,000
per month for the drugs.
The investigation led to the suspension of 14 players for violating the league's drug policy.
Besides Rodriguez, suspended players included
Milwaukee Brewers outfielder Ryan Braun, the 2011 National League MVP, who served part of his
suspension last season.
Bosch's Biogenesis clinic became part of the story in late January 2013, when the Miami New Times
reported that more than a dozen professional baseball players and other athletes had been named
in records kept over several years by the clinic.
Two months later, MLB filed its lawsuit
against the clinic in Florida's Miami-Dade County.
Its 14-page complaint named Biogenesis, its predecessor company and six individuals -- among them
program director Bosch, others at the company, someone who worked at a sports agency, a former
University of Miami baseball player and a "self-proclaimed chemist" who supplied substances.
"... That's a excellent article; good catch. I wrote to the Canadian Minister for Sport about it and urged her to revisit Canada's position on this, which is to essentially act as a spear carrier for Washington. ..."
"... The 'Independent Commission' was McLaren, Dick Pound (who has already made his feelings on banning Russia from the Olympics quite clear), and Gunter Younger, who was just appointed WADA's Chief of Intelligence and Investigations this past June. A reward? I wonder. Whatever the case, you could hardly imagine a more ideological and biased team of 'investigators'. ..."
I came across this guy, Rick Sterling, being interviewed on RT about the ban on Russia's paralympic
team where he mentioned that he'd produced a critique of the McLaren report. It's a substantial
analysis and worth reading:-
"The report concludes that Rodchenkov is credible and truthful with little demonstrated
proof. In contrast, the November 2015 Independent Commission report concluded that Dr. Rodchenkov
was not credible. The fact that Rodchenkov knew techniques of manipulating test results is not
evidence of "state controlled doping program," especially since he was the main culprit. The information
spread in previous reports on Russian doping that Rodchenkov was involved in extorting money from
athletes – this information suggests opportunism on his part rather than integrity. The former
director of Moscow Laboratory has admitted his involvement in urine sample swapping, design of
a steroid cocktail not easily traced, and more. He was instrumental in helping some athletes cheat
the system. He is also the person with most motivation to implicate others, even if unjustly.
His testimony obviously needs careful scrutiny and cross-checking."
That's a excellent article; good catch. I wrote to the Canadian Minister for Sport about it and
urged her to revisit Canada's position on this, which is to essentially act as a spear carrier
for Washington. I am sure there is going to be an independent legal review of the McLaren Report
after the Olympics is over, and that it will find it a shambles.
The 'Independent Commission'
was McLaren, Dick Pound (who has already made his feelings on banning Russia from the Olympics
quite clear), and Gunter Younger, who was
just appointed WADA's Chief of Intelligence and Investigations this past June. A reward? I
wonder. Whatever the case, you could hardly imagine a more ideological and biased team of 'investigators'.
The International Olympic Committee has decided Russian athletes can attend the Rio Olympic Games
– participation to be individually decided by federations. This is the right decision, but a dangerous
precedent has been established – entire teams can be targeted for political reasons.
The IOC probably realized it was playing with fire. The U.S. and some of allies have gone to great
lengths to "isolate" Russia for Washington's blunders in Ukraine and elsewhere. The strategy to "isolate"
means no stone will be left unturned to damage Russia, including the areas of sports and other prestige
events. By banning the Russian team the IOC probably drew the conclusion that itself would face isolation
from hundreds of million of sports enthusiasts.
Also, the IOC probably reflected on what any Olympics would be like without Russia – one of the
pillars of international sports. Without the Russians, all medals would have been deemed less worthy.
... ... ...
Washington's neocons and their fellow travelers have been dealt a blow – there are surely feeling
they lost an important PR coup. They will certainly regroup and continue their vengeful assault on
Russia and international legal norms. The Rio Games have been saved, but the reputation of the IOC
has been damaged. Doping must not be tolerated, but neither should the politicizing of sport.
Peter Lavelle is host of RT's political debate program CrossTalk. His views may or
may not reflect those of his employer.
"... Yulia Stepanova's husband is Vitaly Stepanov a former staffer at RUSADA. He had lived and studied in the US since he was 15, but later decided to return to Russia. In 2008, Vitaly Stepanov began working for RUSADA as a doping-control officer. Vitaly met Yulia Rusanova in 2009 at the Russian national championships in Cheboksary. Stepanov now claims that he sent a letter to WADA detailing his revelations back in 2010, but never received an answer. ..."
"... One fact that deserves attention is that Vitaly has confessed that he was fully aware that his wife was taking banned substances, both while he worked for RUSADA as well as after he left that organization. ..."
"... In early June he admitted that WADA had not only helped his family move to America, but had also provided them with $30,000 in financial assistance. ..."
"... Threatened with prosecution, Gregory Rodchenkov began to behave oddly and was repeatedly hospitalized and "subjected to a forensic psychiatric examination." A finding was later submitted to the court, claiming that Rodchenkov suffered from "schizotypal personality disorder," exacerbated by stress. As a result, all the charges against Rodchenkov were dropped. But the most surprising thing was that someone with a "schizotypal personality disorder" and a sister convicted of trafficking in performance-enhancing drugs continued as the director of Russia's only WADA-accredited anti-doping laboratory ..."
"... All the evidence to be used by the prosecution is subject to challenge, and if some fact included in those charges can be interpreted to the defendant's advantage, then the court is obliged to exclude that fact from the materials at the disposal of the prosecution. ..."
"... As a lawyer, McLaren understands all this very well. Hundreds of lawsuits filed by Russian athletes resulting in an unambiguous outcome would not only destroy his reputation and ruin him professionally – they could form the basis of a criminal investigation with obvious grounds for accusing him of intentionally distorting a few facts, which in his eyes can be summarized as follows. ..."
The 6thFundamental
Principle of Olympism (non-discrimination of any kind, including nationality and political opinion)
seems to be forgotten long ago. In ancient Greece the competition of best athletes was able
to halt a war and serve as a bridge of understanding between two recent foes. But in the twentieth
century the Olympics have become a political weapon. Back in 1980 the US and its allies boycotted
the games in Moscow as a protest against the Soviet troops that entered Afghanistan at the request
of that country's legitimate government (in contrast, the
1936 Olympics in Nazi Germany were
held as usual, to the applause of the "civilized" world).
On May 8, 2016 the CBS program 60 Minutes aired a
broadcast about doping in Russia. The interviews featured recorded conversations between
a former staffer with the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA), Vitaly Stepanov, and the ex-director
of Russia's anti-doping laboratory in Moscow, Grigory Rodchenkov. That program was just the
fourth installment in a lengthy
series about the alleged existence of a system to support doping in Russian sports.
A few days later the New York Times
published an interview with Rodchenkov. There that former official claims that a state-supported
doping program was active at the Sochi Olympics, and that the orders for that program had come almost
directly from the Russian president.
One important fact that escaped most international observers was that a media campaign, which
had begun shortly after the 2014 deep freeze in Russian-Western relations, was constructed around
the "testimonies" of three Russian citizens who were all interconnected and complicit in a string
of doping scandals, and who later left Russia and are trying to make new lives in the West.
A 29-year-old middle-distance runner, Yulia Stepanova, can be seen as the instigator of this scandal.
This young athlete's personal best in global competition was a bronze medal at the European Athletics
Indoor Championship in 2011. At the World Championships that same year she placed eighth.
Stepanova's career went off the rails in 2013, when the Russian Athletic Federation's Anti-Doping
Commission disqualified her for two years based on "blood fluctuations in her Athlete Biological
Passport." Such fluctuations are considered evidence of doping. All of Stepanova's results
since 2011 have been invalidated. In addition, she had to return the prize money she had won
running in professional races in 2011-2012. Stepanova, who had been suspended for doping, acted
as the primary informant for ARD journalist
Hajo Seppelt, who had begun filming a documentary about misconduct in Russian sports. After
the release of ARD's first documentary in December 2014, Stepanova left Russia along with her husband
and son. In 2015 she requested political asylum in Canada. Even after her suspension
ended in 2015, Stepanova told the WADA Commission (p.142 of the
Nov. 2015 WADA Report) that she had tested positive for doping during the Russian Track and Field
Championships in Saransk in July 2010 and paid 30,000 rubles (approximately $1,000 USD at that time)
to the director of the Russian anti-doping laboratory in Moscow, Gregory Rodchenkov, in exchange
for concealing those test results.
Yulia Stepanova's husband is Vitaly Stepanov a former staffer at RUSADA. He had lived
and studied in the US since he was 15, but later decided to return to Russia. In 2008, Vitaly
Stepanov began working for RUSADA as a doping-control officer. Vitaly met Yulia Rusanova in
2009 at the Russian national championships in Cheboksary. Stepanov now claims that he sent
a letter to WADA detailing his revelations back in 2010, but never received an answer.
In 2011 Stepanov left RUSADA. One fact that deserves attention is that Vitaly has confessed
that he was fully aware that his wife was taking banned substances, both while he worked for RUSADA
as well as after he left that organization. Take note that Stepanova's blood tests went positive
starting in 2011 – i.e., from the time that her husband, an anti-doping officer, left RUSADA. With
a clear conscience, the Stepanovs, now married, accepted prize money from professional races until
Yulia was disqualified. Then they no longer had a source of income and the prize money suddenly
had to be returned, at which point Vitaly Stepanov sought recourse in foreign journalists, offering
to tell them the "truth about Russian sports." In early June he
admitted that WADA had not only helped his family move to America, but had also provided them
with $30,000 in financial assistance.
And finally, the third figure in the campaign to expose doping in Russian sports – the former
head of the Russian anti-doping laboratory in Moscow,Gregory Rodchenkov. According to Vitaly
Stepanov, he was the man who sold performance-enhancing drugs while helping to hide their traces,
and had also come up with the idea of "doped
Chivas mouth swishing" (pg. 50), a technique that transforms men into Olympic champions.
This 57-year-old native of Moscow is acknowledged to be the best at what he does. He graduated
from Moscow State University with a Ph.D. in chemistry and began working at the Moscow anti-doping
lab as early as 1985. He later worked in Canada and for Russian petrochemical companies, and
in 2005 he became the director of Russia's national anti-doping laboratory in Moscow. In 2013
Marina Rodchenkova – Gregory Rodchenkov's sister – was found guilty and received a sentence for selling
anabolic steroids to athletes. Her brother was also the subject of a criminal investigation
into charges that he supplied banned drugs.
Threatened with prosecution, Gregory Rodchenkov began to behave oddly and was repeatedly hospitalized
and "subjected to a forensic psychiatric examination." A finding was later submitted to the
court, claiming that Rodchenkov suffered from "schizotypal personality disorder," exacerbated by
stress. As a result, all the charges against Rodchenkov were dropped. But the most surprising
thing was that someone with a "schizotypal personality disorder" and a sister convicted of trafficking
in performance-enhancing drugs continued as the director of Russia's only WADA-accredited anti-doping
laboratory.
In fact, he held this job during the 2014 Olympics. Rodchenkov was not dismissed until the
fall of 2015, after the eruption of the scandal that had been instigated by the broadcaster ARD and
the Stepanovs. In September 2015 the WADA Commission accused Rodchenkov of intentionally destroying
over a thousand samples in order to conceal doping by Russian athletes. He personally denied
all the charges, but then resigned and left for the US where he was warmly embraced by filmmaker
Bryan Fogel, who was shooting yet anothermade-to-order
documentary about doping in Russia.
As this article is being written, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is studying a
report
from an "Independent Person," the Canadian professor Richard H. McLaren, who has accused the entire
Russian Federation, not just individual athletes, of complicity in the use of performance-enhancing
drugs. McLaren was quickly summoned to speak with WADA shortly after
the
NYT published interview with Rodchenkov. The goal was clear: to concoct a "scientific report"
by mid-July that would provide the IOC with grounds to ban the Russian team from the Rio Olympics.
At a press conference on July 18 McLaren himself
acknowledged that with a timeline of only
57 days he was unable "to identify any athlete that might have benefited from such manipulation to
conceal positive doping tests." WADA's logic here is clear – they need to avoid any accusations
of bias, unprofessionalism, embellishment of facts, or political partisanship. No matter what
duplicity and lies are found in the report – it was drafted by an "independent person," period.
However, he does not try to hide that the entire report is based on the testimony of a single person
– Rodchenkov himself, who is repeatedly presented as a "credible and truthful" source. Of course
that man is accused by WADA itself of destroying 1,417 doping tests and faces deportation to Russia
for doping-linked crimes, but he saw an opportunity become a "valuable witness" and "prisoner of
conscience" who is being persecuted by the "totalitarian regime" in Russia.
The advantage enjoyed by this "independent commission" – on the basis of whose report the IOC
is deciding the fate of Russia's Olympic hopefuls – is that its accusations will not be examined
in court, nor can the body of evidence be challenged by the lawyers for the accused. Nor is
the customary legal presumption of innocence anywhere in evidence.
It appears from Professor McLaren's statement that no charges will be brought against any specific
Russian athletes. Moreover, they can all compete if they refuse to represent Russia at the
Olympics. There are obvious reasons for this selectivity. A law professor and longstanding
member of the Court of Arbitration for Sport, Professor McClaren knows very well that any charges
against specific individuals that are made publicly and result in "legally significant acts" (such
as a ban on Olympic participation) can and will be challenged in court, in accordance with international
law and on the basis of the presumption of innocence. All the evidence to be used by the
prosecution is subject to challenge, and if some fact included in those charges can be interpreted
to the defendant's advantage, then the court is obliged to exclude that fact from the materials at
the disposal of the prosecution.
As a lawyer, McLaren understands all this very well. Hundreds of lawsuits filed by Russian
athletes resulting in an unambiguous outcome would not only destroy his reputation and ruin him professionally
– they could form the basis of a criminal investigation with obvious grounds for accusing him of
intentionally distorting a few facts, which in his eyes can be summarized as follows.
During the Sochi Olympics, an FSB officer named Evgeny Blokhin switched the doping tests taken
from Russian athletes, exchanging them for "clean" urine samples. This agent is said to have
possessed a plumbing contractor's security clearance, allowing him to enter the laboratory.
In addition, there are reports that Evgeny Kurdyatsev, – the head of the Registration and Biological
Sample Accounting Department – switched the doping tests at night, through a "mouse hole" in the
wall (!). Awaiting them in the adjascent building was the man who is now providing "credible
evidence" – Gregory Rodchenkov – and some other unnamed individuals, who passed Blokhin the athletes'
clean doping tests to be used to replace the original samples. If the specific gravity of the
clean urine did not match the original profile, it was "adapted" using table salt or distilled water.
But of course the DNA was incompatible. And all of this was going on in the only official,
WADA-accredited anti-doping laboratory in Russia!
How would something like that sound in any court? We have witnesses, but the defense team
cannot subject them to cross-examination. We cannot prove that Blokhin is an FSB agent, but
we believe it. We do not possess any of the original documents – not a single photograph or
affidavit from the official examination – but we have sufficient evidence from a single criminal
who has already confessed to his crime. We did not submit the emails provided by Rodchenkov
to any experts to be examined, but we assert that the emails are genuine, that all the facts they
contain are accurate, and that the names of the senders are correct. We cannot accuse the athletes,
so we will accuse and punish the state!
To be honest, we still do not believe that the Olympic movement has sunk so low as to deprive
billions of people of the pleasure of watching the competitions, forgetting about politics and politicians.
That would mean waving goodbye to the reputations of the WADA and the IOC and to the global system
of sports as a whole. Perhaps a solution to the colossal problem of doping is long overdue,
but is that answer to be found within the boundaries of only one country, even a great country like
Russia? Should we take a moment here and now to dwell upon the
multi-volume history of
doping scandals in every single country in the world? And in view of these facts that have
come to light, is not WADA itself the cornerstone of the existing and far-reaching system to support
and cover up athletic doping all over the world?
In conclusion, we cite below the complete translation of the Russian Olympic Committee'sstatement
in response to the WADA report:
"The accusations against Russian sports found in the report by Richard McLaren are so serious
that a full investigation is needed, with input from all parties. The Russian Olympic Committee
has a policy of zero tolerance and supports the fight against doping. It is ready to provide
its full assistance and work together, as needed, with any international organization.
We wholeheartedly disagree with Mr. McLaren's view that the possible banning of hundreds of
clean Russian athletes from competition in the Olympic Games is an acceptable 'unpleasant consequence'
of the charges contained in his report.
The charges being made are primarily based on statements by Grigory Rodchenkov. This
is solely based on testimony from someone who is at the epicenter of this criminal scheme, which
is a blow not only to the careers and fates of a great many clean athletes, but also to the integrity
of the entire international Olympic movement.
Russia has fought against doping and will continue to fight at the state level, steadily stiffening
the penalties for any illegal activity of this type and enforcing a precept of inevitable punishment.
The Russian Olympic Committee fully supports the harshest possible penalties against anyone
who either uses banned drugs or encourages their use.
At the same time, the ROC – acting in full compliance with the Olympic Charter – will always
protect the rights of clean athletes. Those who throughout their careers – thanks to relentless
training, talent, and willpower – strive to realize their Olympic dreams should not have their
futures determined by the unfounded, unsubstantiated accusations and criminal acts of certain
individuals. For us this is a matter of principle."
American Special Forces within Nusra? If true that's rich...
Notable quotes:
"... Has al Nusra proven to be a capable fighting force on its own? Or has it proven capable at using the weapons gifted it by its regime-change uncle and with the support of the USAF and American Special Forces? ..."
"... Natalya Nougayrède hits all the familiar high points in this typical hagiography – Putin is in Syria because he wants to show everyone his penis, and avenge the catastrophic defeat of Soviet forces in Afghanistan while restoring Russia's image as a serious military power. ..."
"... But despite her love-letter to western imperialism, Nougayrède seems quite clear that Assad is not losing ..."
Has al Nusra proven to be a capable fighting force on its own? Or has it proven capable at
using the weapons gifted it by its regime-change uncle and with the support of the USAF and American
Special Forces?
Natalya Nougayrède hits all the familiar high points in
this typical hagiography – Putin is in Syria because he wants to show everyone his penis,
and avenge the catastrophic defeat of Soviet forces in Afghanistan while restoring Russia's image
as a serious military power. Putin was in the KGB. It has absolutely fuck-all to do with
the article, but Putin was in the KGB, just to be sure you know. It was terribly embarrassing
for the Soviet Union to be defeated by a ragtag army of Afghan Mujaheddin, but apparently it is
not embarrassing at all for America to experience the
profound failure of its military policy in Afghanistan . Or perhaps it is embarrassing,
since it dares not leave.
But despite her love-letter to western imperialism, Nougayrède seems quite clear that Assad
is not losing, although she plainly would be delighted if that were the case. She also points
out that Aleppo is the last remaining significant opposition stronghold. If al Nusra is such an
awesome fighting force, why are they surrounded in the last significant objective they hold? Why
are they not spreading out and taking more territory?
Stiglitz: AUG 5, 2016 8
Globalization and its New Discontents
NEW YORK – Fifteen years ago, I wrote a little book, entitled Globalization
and its Discontents, describing growing opposition in the developing world
to globalizing reforms. It seemed a mystery: people in developing countries
had been told that globalization would increase overall wellbeing. So why
had so many people become so hostile to it?
Now, globalization's opponents in the emerging markets and developing
countries have been joined by tens of millions in the advanced countries.
Opinion polls, including a careful study by Stanley Greenberg and his associates
for the Roosevelt Institute, show that trade is among the major sources
of discontent for a large share of Americans. Similar views are apparent
in Europe.
How can something that our political leaders – and many an economist
– said would make everyone better off be so reviled?
One answer occasionally heard from the neoliberal economists who advocated
for these policies is that people are better off. They just don't know it.
Their discontent is a matter for psychiatrists, not economists.
But income data suggest that it is the neoliberals who may benefit from
therapy. Large segments of the population in advanced countries have not
been doing well: in the US, the bottom 90% has endured income stagnation
for a third of a century. Median income for full-time male workers is actually
lower in real (inflation-adjusted) terms than it was 42 years ago. At the
bottom, real wages are comparable to their level 60 years ago.
The effects of the economic pain and dislocation that many Americans
are experiencing are even showing up in health statistics. For example,
the economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton, this year's Nobel laureate, have
shown that life expectancy among segments of white Americans is declining.
Things are a little better in Europe – but only a little better.
Branko Milanovic's new book Global Inequality: A New Approach for the
Age of Globalization provides some vital insights, looking at the big winners
and losers in terms of income over the two decades from 1988 to 2008. Among
the big winners were the global 1%, the world's plutocrats, but also the
middle class in newly emerging economies. Among the big losers – those who
gained little or nothing – were those at the bottom and the middle and working
classes in the advanced countries. Globalization is not the only reason,
but it is one of the reasons.
Under the assumption of perfect markets (which underlies most neoliberal
economic analyses) free trade equalizes the wages of unskilled workers around
the world. Trade in goods is a substitute for the movement of people. Importing
goods from China – goods that require a lot of unskilled workers to produce
– reduces the demand for unskilled workers in Europe and the US.
This force is so strong that if there were no transportation costs, and
if the US and Europe had no other source of competitive advantage, such
as in technology, eventually it would be as if Chinese workers continued
to migrate to the US and Europe until wage differences had been eliminated
entirely. Not surprisingly, the neoliberals never advertised this consequence
of trade liberalization, as they claimed – one could say lied – that all
would benefit.
The failure of globalization to deliver on the promises of mainstream
politicians has surely undermined trust and confidence in the "establishment."
And governments' offers of generous bailouts for the banks that had brought
on the 2008 financial crisis, while leaving ordinary citizens largely to
fend for themselves, reinforced the view that this failure was not merely
a matter of economic misjudgments.
In the US, Congressional Republicans even opposed assistance to those
who were directly hurt by globalization. More generally, neoliberals, apparently
worried about adverse incentive effects, have opposed welfare measures that
would have protected the losers.
But they can't have it both ways: if globalization is to benefit most
members of society, strong social-protection measures must be in place.
The Scandinavians figured this out long ago; it was part of the social contract
that maintained an open society – open to globalization and changes in technology.
Neoliberals elsewhere have not – and now, in elections in the US and Europe,
they are having their comeuppance.
Globalization is, of course, only one part of what is going on; technological
innovation is another part. But all of this openness and disruption were
supposed to make us richer, and the advanced countries could have introduced
policies to ensure that the gains were widely shared.
Instead, they pushed for policies that restructured markets in ways that
increased inequality and undermined overall economic performance; growth
actually slowed as the rules of the game were rewritten to advance the interests
of banks and corporations – the rich and powerful – at the expense of everyone
else. Workers' bargaining power was weakened; in the US, at least, competition
laws didn't keep up with the times; and existing laws were inadequately
enforced. Financialization continued apace and corporate governance worsened.
Now, as I point out in my recent book Rewriting the Rules of the American
Economy, the rules of the game need to be changed again – and this must
include measures to tame globalization. The two new large agreements that
President Barack Obama has been pushing – the Trans-Pacific Partnership
between the US and 11 Pacific Rim countries, and the Transatlantic Trade
and Investment Partnership between the EU and the US – are moves in the
wrong direction.
The main message of Globalization and its Discontents was that the problem
was not globalization, but how the process was being managed. Unfortunately,
the management didn't change. Fifteen years later, the new discontents have
brought that message home to the advanced economies.
Isn't it interesting that the communists of China are seeking a long-term partnership with Russia
– a nominally capitalist country? Of course, Russia is seeking the same with China.
July 1, China marked an important date on July 1. It was the 95th anniversary of the founding
of the Chinese Communist Party. Chairman Xi Jinping addressed the solemn meeting devoted to this
event. In addition to the praises of "Long live!" (And deservedly so, since the CCP has much to
be proud of) there was Chairman Xi's speech which was short, but very important.
"The world is on the verge of radical change. We see how the European Union is gradually
collapsing, as is the US economy - it is all over for the new world order. So, it will never again
be as it was before, in 10 years we will have a new world order in which the key will be the union
of China and Russia. "
If the above translation is accurate I wonder what is meant by …key will be the union of
China and Russia . In any event, it appears that ideology is not at the core of the unity;
its something much deeper and more resilient. I offer that it is a shared view that embraces a
realization that the world can no longer accept global hegemony from the West otherwise catastrophe
is virtually certain in the form of (pick one or two): nuclear war, financial or ecological collapse.
Their mission is basically to save the world from Western insanity which handily trumps anything
that may separate them.
And, I think that the Chinese and Russians are far too wise to seek global hegemony for themselves.
The trick for them will be taking down the Western house of cards without triggering a catastrophic
miscalculation by the West. …Whew, now time for an hot fudge sundae.
I think it's mutual disgust with the USA's blatant and shameless rigging of the playing field
in every contest. If America can't win, then it's a loss for all of mankind. And it blabbers constantly
and loudly about its values, and then does things which completely contradict those supposed values,
and never appears to notice anything unusual or untoward about it.
"... Andrew Stewart is a documentary film maker and reporter who lives outside Providence. His film, AARON BRIGGS AND THE HMS GASPEE, about the historical role of Brown University in the slave trade, is available for purchase on Amazon Instant Video or on DVD. ..."
Bill Clinton, who is certainly savvy of the media as an engine of
electioneering, knew exactly what he was doing when he called Donald Trump up
in spring 2015 to tell him he might have a shot as a political candidate.
Clinton knew that the public had as much interest in his wife as a chance for
staph infection. Try as they might since 2012, they never were able to tap into
a public interest in the idea of President Hillary. The book tours were
stilted, boring affairs that would make Tolstoy complain about the length. The
pathetic attempts by David Brock and Media Matters to imitate Alexander
Cockburn's brand of media critique were the internet equivalent of an
inflatable sex toy. Sidney Blumenthal's ridiculous impersonation of Arthur
Schlesinger Jr., going on television to lecture about the implosion of the
Republicans in comparison to the collapse of the Whigs and implying, by
extension, that his candidate was akin to Lincoln, had all the sincerity of
Bugs Bunny planting a kiss on Yosemite Sam.
A lifelong union man and Vietnam vet friend of mine put it best, "It's her
election to lose and she is doing a phenomenal job of it." Hell, an ornery New
Deal-Great Society Pentagon Keynesian with a harsh Brooklyn accent and all the
style of Statler and Waldorf on
The Muppet Show
nearly wiped the floor
of the electoral stage with her upholstered behind! This was National Lampoon's
Presidential Campaign from the start.
... ... ...
Return to the propaganda model provided by Chomsky and Herman:
-How will this impact ownership?
-How will this impact our advertisers?
-How will this impact the willingness of our regular sources, such as the
White House or 10 Downing Street, to provide us with information?
-What sort of 'flak', negative reactions, will we get from our consumers
and particularly those consumers within the established power structure?
-Can the subject(s) of this story be presented in a fashion that would be
broadly described as either anti-Communist or based on notions of fear so to
preserve the credibility and unchallenged authority of the power structure?
The media has been the sole party that is responsible for both the hegemony
of neoliberalism and the rise of Trump. Both are instances of how they serve
their advertisers.
Let us consider the former for a moment. The case of the public pension
heist that was perpetrated in Rhode Island is illustrative. John Arnold, an
Enron alumnus, donated good money to PBS so to get a false-flag "pension
crisis" narrative put on the
NewsHour
broadcasts that everyone thought
were "neutral". The public pension systems in America are simply one of the
largest reserves of capital in America at a value total of $4 trillion. Arnold
then made a series of campaign donations to up-and-coming politicians like
then-Treasurer and now-Governor Gina Raimondo, who in turn "reformed" the
pension system, investing it in high-stakes high-fee hedge funds, effectively
activating a pipeline from the public pocket into Wall Street. Of course this
was not new for PBS, their support of neoliberalism dates back at least to when
they gave that quack Milton Friedman a ten-part television series. It was PBS
in the 1970's that flooded the airwaves with the grammar of seemingly-sane
neoliberalism while the advertisers took up the frontal action of extolling
"markets" and their infinite wisdom. Simultaneously the United States engaged
in a new Cold War, restarted by Carter after the detente policies of Nixon, so
to thoroughly demonize not just "Communism" (though the Soviet system was
everything but that by the end) but anything remotely akin to "central planning
in the economy" (which was called welfare state Keynesian economics when my
grandparents were birthing Baby Boomers). Here, in order to keep funding coming
through major donors, a taxpayer-supported public broadcasting system engaged
in a wholesale fraud that attempted to rob those same taxpayers of literally
multi-trillions of dollars on behalf of a swindler and con man who I have been
unable to discern ever having an actual job. We should understand this media
assault as a frontal attack by capital on our social safety net.
Return to the propaganda model provided by Chomsky and Herman:
-How will this impact ownership?
-How will this impact our advertisers?
-How will this impact the willingness of our regular sources, such as the
White House or 10 Downing Street, to provide us with information?
-What sort of 'flak', negative reactions, will we get from our consumers
and particularly those consumers within the established power structure?
-Can the subject(s) of this story be presented in a fashion that would be
broadly described as either anti-Communist or based on notions of fear so to
preserve the credibility and unchallenged authority of the power structure?
The media has been the sole party that is responsible for both the hegemony
of neoliberalism and the rise of Trump. Both are instances of how they serve
their advertisers.
Let us consider the former for a moment. The case of the public pension
heist that was perpetrated in Rhode Island is illustrative. John Arnold, an
Enron alumnus, donated good money to PBS so to get a false-flag "pension
crisis" narrative put on the
NewsHour
broadcasts that everyone thought
were "neutral". The public pension systems in America are simply one of the
largest reserves of capital in America at a value total of $4 trillion. Arnold
then made a series of campaign donations to up-and-coming politicians like
then-Treasurer and now-Governor Gina Raimondo, who in turn "reformed" the
pension system, investing it in high-stakes high-fee hedge funds, effectively
activating a pipeline from the public pocket into Wall Street. Of course this
was not new for PBS, their support of neoliberalism dates back at least to when
they gave that quack Milton Friedman a ten-part television series. It was PBS
in the 1970's that flooded the airwaves with the grammar of seemingly-sane
neoliberalism while the advertisers took up the frontal action of extolling
"markets" and their infinite wisdom. Simultaneously the United States engaged
in a new Cold War, restarted by Carter after the detente policies of Nixon, so
to thoroughly demonize not just "Communism" (though the Soviet system was
everything but that by the end) but anything remotely akin to "central planning
in the economy" (which was called welfare state Keynesian economics when my
grandparents were birthing Baby Boomers). Here, in order to keep funding coming
through major donors, a taxpayer-supported public broadcasting system engaged
in a wholesale fraud that attempted to rob those same taxpayers of literally
multi-trillions of dollars on behalf of a swindler and con man who I have been
unable to discern ever having an actual job. We should understand this media
assault as a frontal attack by capital on our social safety net.
Return to the propaganda model provided by Chomsky and Herman:
-How will this impact ownership?
-How will this impact our advertisers?
-How will this impact the willingness of our regular sources, such as the
White House or 10 Downing Street, to provide us with information?
-What sort of 'flak', negative reactions, will we get from our consumers
and particularly those consumers within the established power structure?
-Can the subject(s) of this story be presented in a fashion that would be
broadly described as either anti-Communist or based on notions of fear so to
preserve the credibility and unchallenged authority of the power structure?
The media has been the sole party that is responsible for both the hegemony
of neoliberalism and the rise of Trump. Both are instances of how they serve
their advertisers.
Let us consider the former for a moment. The case of the public pension
heist that was perpetrated in Rhode Island is illustrative. John Arnold, an
Enron alumnus, donated good money to PBS so to get a false-flag "pension
crisis" narrative put on the
NewsHour
broadcasts that everyone thought
were "neutral". The public pension systems in America are simply one of the
largest reserves of capital in America at a value total of $4 trillion. Arnold
then made a series of campaign donations to up-and-coming politicians like
then-Treasurer and now-Governor Gina Raimondo, who in turn "reformed" the
pension system, investing it in high-stakes high-fee hedge funds, effectively
activating a pipeline from the public pocket into Wall Street. Of course this
was not new for PBS, their support of neoliberalism dates back at least to when
they gave that quack Milton Friedman a ten-part television series. It was PBS
in the 1970's that flooded the airwaves with the grammar of seemingly-sane
neoliberalism while the advertisers took up the frontal action of extolling
"markets" and their infinite wisdom. Simultaneously the United States engaged
in a new Cold War, restarted by Carter after the detente policies of Nixon, so
to thoroughly demonize not just "Communism" (though the Soviet system was
everything but that by the end) but anything remotely akin to "central planning
in the economy" (which was called welfare state Keynesian economics when my
grandparents were birthing Baby Boomers). Here, in order to keep funding coming
through major donors, a taxpayer-supported public broadcasting system engaged
in a wholesale fraud that attempted to rob those same taxpayers of literally
multi-trillions of dollars on behalf of a swindler and con man who I have been
unable to discern ever having an actual job. We should understand this media
assault as a frontal attack by capital on our social safety net.
Trump is a rear-guard assault, though it seems now with Mike Pence on the
ticket Wall Street feels more comfortable. The media props him up in the way it
propped up "terrorists" to justify the militarizing of the police and the
shredding of the Bill of Rights and habeas corpus. He scares well-intentioned
but still-racist white liberals into a self-aggrandizing pity party wherein
they will say anything and everything about how we just
must
elect
Hillary Clinton. They fail to recognize and accept that Clinton has been
targeting the Social Security system for privatization for decades, best
illustrated in a fantastic essay by
Robin Blackburn
I have been re-reading and circulating on an almost daily
basis this year. The Democratic Party platform plank supporting Social Security
seems as adamantine as wet toilet paper, capital wants that public resource on
Wall Street and Obama himself has been making moves over the last eight years
to actualize that plan. Trump scares the sheep into the wolf's den while Bernie
Sanders barks at them should they go astray. And Trump is only able to do that
with the aid and support of a corporate media that throws up a farcical wall of
integrity and objectivity so to actualize it.
This is the synthesis of Trump
and Clinton in the montage Eisenstein described. Both are pro-war, anti-Social
Security, racist, misogynist, awful people. One and the same in almost every
sense.
Andrew Stewart
is a documentary film maker and reporter who lives outside
Providence. His film, AARON BRIGGS AND THE HMS GASPEE, about the historical role of Brown
University in the slave trade, is available for purchase on
Amazon
Instant Video
or on
DVD.
Yeah, right! With Gary Johnson, Libertarian, nipping at his
heels, a surge in third party voting is going to help the
Donald! [NOT!] If anything, discouraging people from voting
third party is going to help Trump.
But apparently Fred C. Dobbs doesn't like the idea of
voting third party to vote your conscience and register your
disgust with the two evils...
Monessen, Pennsylvania (CNN)Donald Trump on Tuesday trashed U.S. trade policies that he
said have encouraged globalization and wiped out American manufacturing jobs in a speech in which
he promised to herald a U.S. economic resurgence.
Speaking before a colorful backdrop of crushed aluminum cans, Trump pitched himself at a factory
in Rust Belt Pennsylvania as a change agent who would bring back manufacturing jobs and end the "rigged
system," which he argued presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton represents.
Trump promised sweeping changes if elected -- including killing the Trans-Pacific Partnership
trade deal and renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement -- and urged voters to be wary
of a "campaign of fear and intimidation" aimed at swaying them away from his populist message.
"Our politicians have aggressively pursued a policy of globalization -- moving our jobs, our wealth
and our factories to Mexico and overseas," he said, reading from prepared remarks and using teleprompters.
"Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very, very wealthy. I used
to be one of them. Hate to say it, but I used to be one of them."
Trump repeatedly slammed Clinton for supporting free trade agreements and argued that under a
Clinton presidency "nothing is going to change."
"The inner cities will remain poor. the factories will remain closed," Trump said at Alumisource,
a raw material producer for the aluminum and steel industries in Monessen, Pennsylvania, an hour
south of Pittsburgh. "The special interests will remain firmly in control."
Echoing Clinton's chief
rival for the Democratic nomination, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Trump also argued that Clinton
has "voted for virtually every trade agreement" and accused her of supporting trade deals that have
hurt U.S. workers.
Trump's speech drew a swift rebuke Tuesday from opposing ends of the political spectrum.
The Chamber of Commerce, the big business lobby that traditionally backs Republicans, issued a
swift statement warning that Trump's proposed policies would herald another U.S. recession.
"Under Trump's trade plans, we would see higher prices, fewer jobs, and a weaker economy," the
group tweeted, linking to a lengthier article
warning that a recession would hit the U.S. "within the first year" of a Trump presidency.
"I'd love for him to explain how all of that fits with his talk about 'America First,'" Clinton
said in a speech last week.
Trump moved quickly on Tuesday to insulate himself from the criticism from his rival's campaign
and others opposed to his vision of radically changing U.S. economic policies.
Trump repeatedly warned Americans to gird themselves against a "campaign of fear" he argued Clinton
and others are running against him -- a notable criticism given the accusations that several of his
policies, including a ban on Muslims and a plan to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, have
played to voters' fears.
The de facto GOP nominee promised to instruct his treasury secretary to "label China a currency
manipulator" and to order the U.S. trade representative to bring lawsuits against China at the World
Trade Organization and in U.S. courts to combat what he characterized as unfair trade policies.
And he also warned of potentially levying tariffs on imports from China and other countries, reviving
a common theme of his campaign.
Trump has frequently argued on the stump that the U.S. is getting "killed" by other countries on
trade and threatened to raise certain tariffs on China and Mexico up to 35%.
Early on in his yearlong campaign, Trump singled out specific American companies -- notably Ford
and Nabisco -- for plans to move some of their manufacturing plants abroad.
Slamming Nabisco for building a factory in Mexico, Trump has vowed he's "not eating Oreos anymore."
A senior Trump aide told CNN earlier on Tuesday the speech would be "the most detailed economic address
he has given so far."
Trump has frequently lamented the economic slowdown working-class communities in America have faced
as a result of a drop in American manufacturing, particularly in the last decade.
"... Who knows if he'll embrace better relations with Russia...? We don't. You cant know. He's all over the shop. We do know trigger-happy-hitlery's objectives though. That I would probably vote for him if I were a US citizen doesn't say anything about me, it speaks more about the state of decay the American political system is in - in dire need of a coup, a radical. ..."
"... The Don's security detail need to be very wary of any grassy knolls. ..."
...
As Hillary Clinton's Democratic Party's "motion to dismiss" was nearing to be heard by the US
Federal Court, this report notes, the main witness for JamPAC was attorney Lucas-but who, according
to the Washington D.C. police report, was mysteriously discovered dead on 2 August: "R-1 reports
she arrived home at 1913 hours and located her boyfriend Subject-1 laying unconscious on the bathroom
floor. R-1 immediately called 911.DCFD Engine 9 responded and found no signs consistent with life.
Subject-1 remained on scene".
With attorney Lucas now being the latest victim of Hillary Clinton's
"killing spree", this report says, the lawsuit against her Democratic Party will now be postponed
because he is unable to testify, and it may be dismissed entirely because his testimony was so
crucial as to if proper service was made or not-and that the Clinton cabal "obviously" knew about
beforehand when filing their motion a fortnight before his death.
As to how Hillary Clinton's cabal is able to accomplish their "Night of the Long Knives" murderous
acts, this report continues, is due to the "assassin network" established by what the SVR labels
as one of the most feared CIA operatives ever encountered by Russian intelligence-former CIA director,
and deputy director, Mike Morell.
Director Morell, this report explains, joined the CIA in 1980 and became an important operative
in "Operation Cyclone" that sought to destroy the government of Afghanistan that had been aligned
with the then Soviet Union.
Morell's main duties within the CIA during the early 1980's, this report details, was in establishing
a network whereby terrorists, assassins and weapons were able to flow freely between the United
States, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan-and was aided by one of his top Pakistani operatives Khizr
Khan-about whom the SVR previously reported on, and as we detailed in our report US Media Support
Of Khizr Khan Who Enabled 9/11, Boston Marathon And San Bernardino Terror Attacks Stuns Russia.
So entrenched was Morell in the CIA's "active terror network", this report continues, he was
not only present with President Bush during the 11 September 2001 (9/11) attacks, he was, also,
present when President Obama ordered the killing of CIA operation Tim Osman-otherwise known as
Osama bin Laden.
With Morell being a "diehard supporter" of Hillary Clinton, and responsible for the lies she
told about the Benghazi terror attack, this report continues, in 2013 he left the CIA a month
after Clinton resigned as Secretary of State and founded a mysterious private intelligence company
called Beacon Global Strategies LLC (BGS) where he is listed as a "Senior Consular".
Beacon Global Strategies, however, this report details, is far from a "normal" private intelligence
company as the SVR categorizes it as an "assassination/propaganda" organization created expressly
for the use and protection of top American elites and whose funding came from Claude Fontheim,
a former Clinton adviser who now serves as a lobbyist to the US-China Exchange Foundation, a nonprofit
reportedly used by Chinese government officials and Hong Kong tycoons to shape American policy
toward China-and whose clients, including Hillary Clinton, include Senators Ted Cruz and Marco
Rubio.
...
james @ 4. Digging a bit deeper we might want to characterize the fundamental nature
of the US Empire or err 'Pax Amerikana.' This is actually, for me, very difficult
to do, as compared, say to the British Empire. How to describe it fully?
Chatter about AFRICOM, a 1000 military bases, Wall Street, the destruction of Lybia,
etc. isn't explanatory enough.
Part of the problem is that much is hidden from sight (Deep State shadow dealings),
and the 'rule based' aspect is (post WW2 structure, UN, EU, etc.) very strong, with
the rules moot, applied selectively through arm-twisting, etc. Coupled with another
aspect, i.e. the prevalent US-W ideology, which is a kind of end-of-history dictate:
free-market capitalism of a kind, pro-"democracy", 'freedom' from despots, dictators,
God anointed/religious rule, very narrow personal 'freedom' (identity politics, sexual
mores, social rising thru competition, etc.) This system easily manipulates ppl into
an Orwellian space (more J. Huxley in fact.)
It also has many characteristics of Mafia-type arrangements, a criminal class dominating,
aspect not much discussed. The upshot: the system is opaque, secretive and highly
complex. In its multiple ramifications, intersections amongst them (military, Gvmt/politics,
security, finance, corporate, media, int'l relations..) Power of whatever kind (military,
media, whatever) is only effective when it can coordinate with others to effect control.
(Imagine a mess of a systemic diagram with 100s of boxes, nodes, heavy and light arrows.)
Not looking good for the US at present.
Trump is proposing (provided we read his confused comments, pronoucements, at face
value, and interpret) a simplification of the system, which is the only thing to do
with complex systems that get out of hand. (Turn off district 3, put all efforts into
fixing pipelines in 1..)
Others in their own ways are doing the same. Le Pen with 'New Nationalism', even
ISIS in way (long story, as supported by outsiders…) Sanders is a different case -
he tried once again to exploit the 'hopie changie' with a 'harking back to the past'
- a 'new' New Deal - while not adressing any vital issues in any way.
- not shilling for the Donald - attention should be put on non-est. candidates,
music of the future.
One coup deserves another. You're right about how the establishment is not able
to correct it's path without a radical shift, a guy like Sanders would have been absorbed
and subverted - he offered merely band aid solutions. Ron Pauls platform may well
have worked...his 'End The Fed' policy attacked a pillar, a thick root cause of how
the establishment is able to baffle with bullshit.
In some way, The Don's schizophrenic-stream-of-consciousness delivery is perfect
for much the subliminally mindf*cked US electorate. He gives all the sound bites a
host of large demographics need, let's just throw a tonne of shit out there now, see
what happens, and tighten up the message later on. Even if he contradicts what he
says the very next moment he opens his mouth it doesn't matter...his charisma can
counter that most of the time.
Who knows if he'll embrace better relations with Russia...? We don't. You cant
know. He's all over the shop. We do know trigger-happy-hitlery's objectives though.
That I would probably vote for him if I were a US citizen doesn't say anything about
me, it speaks more about the state of decay the American political system is in -
in dire need of a coup, a radical.
The Don's security detail need to be very wary of any grassy knolls.
@61 noirette/63 madmax/65 jfl - noirette- i like the way you process all the myriad
ways of considering the american empire... i do the same. it's impossible to come
up with a clear vision of how it works, which is one ongoing part of it - to remain
a mystery.. it will always be a part of a process of change too.
whether some force/s have hi-jacked the usa for their own narrower agenda - it
sure appears that way to me.. trump appears to offer a spontaneous response to ordinary
americans place in a country spiraling out of the realm it was thought to be (out
of control basically), not that any one view on a country remains static.. the idea
of the simplicity of his message with regard to foreign policy is appealing.. what
he would do in power is more of an unknown then what history tells us hillary clinton
will do... i would be voting for trump if i was in the usa, partly the msm witch hunt
on him which i think in my own way is more of those mysterious forces behind the scene
guiding the usa into an ever widening ditch of it's own making, leaving many more
people to suffer or worse.. thanks for everyone's comments..
His campaign ended with him performing the classic role of shipdog for Hillary,
who shares none of his ideas and economic policies. If this is not Obama style "bait
and switch' I do not know what is...
Bernie Sanders: I support Hillary Clinton. So should everyone
who voted for me http://fw.to/mVDxuLJ
The conventions are over and the general election has officially begun.
In the primaries, I received 1,846 pledged delegates, 46% of the total.
Hillary Clinton received 2,205 pledged delegates, 54%. She received 602
superdelegates. I received 48 superdelegates. Hillary Clinton is the Democratic
nominee and I will vigorously support her.
Donald Trump would be a disaster and an embarrassment for our country
if he were elected president. His campaign is not based on anything of substance
- improving the economy, our education system, healthcare or the environment.
It is based on bigotry. He is attempting to win this election by fomenting
hatred against Mexicans and Muslims. He has crudely insulted women. And
as a leader of the "birther movement," he tried to undermine the legitimacy
of our first African American president. That is not just my point of view.
That's the perspective of a number of conservative Republicans.
In these difficult times, we need a president who will bring our nation
together, not someone who will divide us by race or religion, not someone
who lacks an understanding of what our Constitution is about.
On virtually every major issue facing this country and the needs of working
families, Clinton's positions are far superior to Trump's. Our campaigns
worked together to produce the most progressive platform in the history
of American politics. Trump's campaign wrote one of the most reactionary
documents.
Clinton understands that Citizens United has undermined our democracy.
She will nominate justices who are prepared to overturn that Supreme Court
decision, which made it possible for billionaires to buy elections. Her
court appointees also would protect a woman's right to choose, workers'
rights, the rights of the LGBT community, the needs of minorities and immigrants
and the government's ability to protect the environment.
Trump, on the other hand, has made it clear that his Supreme Court appointees
would preserve the court's right-wing majority.
Clinton understands that in a competitive global economy we need the
best-educated workforce in the world. She and I worked together on a proposal
that will revolutionize higher education in America. It will guarantee that
the children of any family in this country with an annual income of $125,000
a year or less – 83% of our population – will be able to go to a public
college or university tuition free. This proposal also substantially reduces
student debt.
Trump, on the other hand, has barely said a word about higher education.
Clinton understands that at a time of massive income and wealth inequality,
it is absurd to provide huge tax breaks to the very rich.
Trump, on the other hand, wants billionaire families like his to enjoy
hundreds of billions of dollars in new tax breaks.
Clinton understands that climate change is real, is caused by human activity
and is one of the great environmental crises facing our planet. She knows
that we must transform our energy system away from fossil fuels and move
aggressively to energy efficiency and sustainable energy.
Trump, on the other hand, like most Republicans, rejects science and
the conclusions of almost all major researchers in the field. He believes
that climate change is a "hoax," and that there's no need to address it.
Clinton understands that this country must move toward universal healthcare.
She wants to see that all Americans have the right to choose a public option
in their healthcare exchange, that anyone 55 or older should be able to
opt in to Medicare, and that we must greatly improve primary healthcare
through a major expansion of community health centers. She also wants to
lower the outrageously high cost of prescription drugs.
And what is Donald Trump's position on healthcare? He wants to abolish
the Affordable Care Act, throw 20 million people off the health insurance
they currently have and cut Medicaid for lower-income Americans.
During the primaries, my supporters and I began a political revolution
to transform America. That revolution continues as Hillary Clinton seeks
the White House. It will continue after the election. It will continue until
we create a government which represents all of us and not just the 1 percent
– a government based on the principle of economic, social, racial and environmental
justice.
I understand that many of my supporters are disappointed by the final
results of the nominating process, but being despondent and inactive is
not going to improve anything. Going forward and continuing the struggle
is what matters. And, in that struggle, the most immediate task we face
is to defeat Donald
"... Curiously, when a country 'can't make anything', the west rolls about and mocks and ridicules it for its perceived inadequacy. When it makes a quality product that western companies want to buy at a price with which western producers cannot compete, western governments erase that advantage so as to force their consumers to buy domestic product. I guess that's democracy and freedom and progress. Gee; it smells funny. ..."
…"In the wake of the global steel overcapacity crisis, the Commission is
applying the trade defense instruments to re-establish a level-playing field
between EU and foreign producers," a statement read.
The duties range from 18.7% to 36.1% for Russian companies and between
19.7% and 22.1% on Chinese firms Angang Group and Shougang Group…. ####
For whys? There's barely a word about Russia. Just another excuse to
impose yet more sanctions?
From an extremely brief look at above (YAWN!), it looks like the
Commission made its calculations and when the exporters complained, the
Commission said "
GIve us more information to change our mind " but
didn't find such information 'convincing' enough to do so.
Curiously, when a country 'can't make anything', the west rolls about and
mocks and ridicules it for its perceived inadequacy. When it makes a
quality product that western companies want to buy at a price with which
western producers cannot compete, western governments erase that
advantage so as to force their consumers to buy domestic product. I guess
that's democracy and freedom and progress. Gee; it smells funny.
Isn't it interesting that the communists of China are seeking a long-term partnership with Russia
– a nominally capitalist country? Of course, Russia is seeking the same with China.
July 1, China marked an important date on July 1. It was the 95th anniversary of the founding
of the Chinese Communist Party. Chairman Xi Jinping addressed the solemn meeting devoted to this
event. In addition to the praises of "Long live!" (And deservedly so, since the CCP has much to
be proud of) there was Chairman Xi's speech which was short, but very important.
"The world is on the verge of radical change. We see how the European Union is gradually
collapsing, as is the US economy - it is all over for the new world order. So, it will never again
be as it was before, in 10 years we will have a new world order in which the key will be the union
of China and Russia. "
If the above translation is accurate I wonder what is meant by …key will be the union of
China and Russia . In any event, it appears that ideology is not at the core of the unity;
its something much deeper and more resilient. I offer that it is a shared view that embraces a
realization that the world can no longer accept global hegemony from the West otherwise catastrophe
is virtually certain in the form of (pick one or two): nuclear war, financial or ecological collapse.
Their mission is basically to save the world from Western insanity which handily trumps anything
that may separate them.
And, I think that the Chinese and Russians are far too wise to seek global hegemony for themselves.
The trick for them will be taking down the Western house of cards without triggering a catastrophic
miscalculation by the West. …Whew, now time for an hot fudge sundae.
I think it's mutual disgust with the USA's blatant and shameless rigging of the playing field
in every contest. If America can't win, then it's a loss for all of mankind. And it blabbers constantly
and loudly about its values, and then does things which completely contradict those supposed values,
and never appears to notice anything unusual or untoward about it.
"... Yulia Stepanova's husband is Vitaly Stepanov a former staffer at RUSADA. He had lived and studied in the US since he was 15, but later decided to return to Russia. In 2008, Vitaly Stepanov began working for RUSADA as a doping-control officer. Vitaly met Yulia Rusanova in 2009 at the Russian national championships in Cheboksary. Stepanov now claims that he sent a letter to WADA detailing his revelations back in 2010, but never received an answer. ..."
"... One fact that deserves attention is that Vitaly has confessed that he was fully aware that his wife was taking banned substances, both while he worked for RUSADA as well as after he left that organization. ..."
"... In early June he admitted that WADA had not only helped his family move to America, but had also provided them with $30,000 in financial assistance. ..."
"... Threatened with prosecution, Gregory Rodchenkov began to behave oddly and was repeatedly hospitalized and "subjected to a forensic psychiatric examination." A finding was later submitted to the court, claiming that Rodchenkov suffered from "schizotypal personality disorder," exacerbated by stress. As a result, all the charges against Rodchenkov were dropped. But the most surprising thing was that someone with a "schizotypal personality disorder" and a sister convicted of trafficking in performance-enhancing drugs continued as the director of Russia's only WADA-accredited anti-doping laboratory ..."
"... All the evidence to be used by the prosecution is subject to challenge, and if some fact included in those charges can be interpreted to the defendant's advantage, then the court is obliged to exclude that fact from the materials at the disposal of the prosecution. ..."
"... As a lawyer, McLaren understands all this very well. Hundreds of lawsuits filed by Russian athletes resulting in an unambiguous outcome would not only destroy his reputation and ruin him professionally – they could form the basis of a criminal investigation with obvious grounds for accusing him of intentionally distorting a few facts, which in his eyes can be summarized as follows. ..."
The 6thFundamental
Principle of Olympism (non-discrimination of any kind, including nationality and political opinion)
seems to be forgotten long ago. In ancient Greece the competition of best athletes was able
to halt a war and serve as a bridge of understanding between two recent foes. But in the twentieth
century the Olympics have become a political weapon. Back in 1980 the US and its allies boycotted
the games in Moscow as a protest against the Soviet troops that entered Afghanistan at the request
of that country's legitimate government (in contrast, the
1936 Olympics in Nazi Germany were
held as usual, to the applause of the "civilized" world).
On May 8, 2016 the CBS program 60 Minutes aired a
broadcast about doping in Russia. The interviews featured recorded conversations between
a former staffer with the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA), Vitaly Stepanov, and the ex-director
of Russia's anti-doping laboratory in Moscow, Grigory Rodchenkov. That program was just the
fourth installment in a lengthy
series about the alleged existence of a system to support doping in Russian sports.
A few days later the New York Times
published an interview with Rodchenkov. There that former official claims that a state-supported
doping program was active at the Sochi Olympics, and that the orders for that program had come almost
directly from the Russian president.
One important fact that escaped most international observers was that a media campaign, which
had begun shortly after the 2014 deep freeze in Russian-Western relations, was constructed around
the "testimonies" of three Russian citizens who were all interconnected and complicit in a string
of doping scandals, and who later left Russia and are trying to make new lives in the West.
A 29-year-old middle-distance runner, Yulia Stepanova, can be seen as the instigator of this scandal.
This young athlete's personal best in global competition was a bronze medal at the European Athletics
Indoor Championship in 2011. At the World Championships that same year she placed eighth.
Stepanova's career went off the rails in 2013, when the Russian Athletic Federation's Anti-Doping
Commission disqualified her for two years based on "blood fluctuations in her Athlete Biological
Passport." Such fluctuations are considered evidence of doping. All of Stepanova's results
since 2011 have been invalidated. In addition, she had to return the prize money she had won
running in professional races in 2011-2012. Stepanova, who had been suspended for doping, acted
as the primary informant for ARD journalist
Hajo Seppelt, who had begun filming a documentary about misconduct in Russian sports. After
the release of ARD's first documentary in December 2014, Stepanova left Russia along with her husband
and son. In 2015 she requested political asylum in Canada. Even after her suspension
ended in 2015, Stepanova told the WADA Commission (p.142 of the
Nov. 2015 WADA Report) that she had tested positive for doping during the Russian Track and Field
Championships in Saransk in July 2010 and paid 30,000 rubles (approximately $1,000 USD at that time)
to the director of the Russian anti-doping laboratory in Moscow, Gregory Rodchenkov, in exchange
for concealing those test results.
Yulia Stepanova's husband is Vitaly Stepanov a former staffer at RUSADA. He had lived
and studied in the US since he was 15, but later decided to return to Russia. In 2008, Vitaly
Stepanov began working for RUSADA as a doping-control officer. Vitaly met Yulia Rusanova in
2009 at the Russian national championships in Cheboksary. Stepanov now claims that he sent
a letter to WADA detailing his revelations back in 2010, but never received an answer.
In 2011 Stepanov left RUSADA. One fact that deserves attention is that Vitaly has confessed
that he was fully aware that his wife was taking banned substances, both while he worked for RUSADA
as well as after he left that organization. Take note that Stepanova's blood tests went positive
starting in 2011 – i.e., from the time that her husband, an anti-doping officer, left RUSADA. With
a clear conscience, the Stepanovs, now married, accepted prize money from professional races until
Yulia was disqualified. Then they no longer had a source of income and the prize money suddenly
had to be returned, at which point Vitaly Stepanov sought recourse in foreign journalists, offering
to tell them the "truth about Russian sports." In early June he
admitted that WADA had not only helped his family move to America, but had also provided them
with $30,000 in financial assistance.
And finally, the third figure in the campaign to expose doping in Russian sports – the former
head of the Russian anti-doping laboratory in Moscow,Gregory Rodchenkov. According to Vitaly
Stepanov, he was the man who sold performance-enhancing drugs while helping to hide their traces,
and had also come up with the idea of "doped
Chivas mouth swishing" (pg. 50), a technique that transforms men into Olympic champions.
This 57-year-old native of Moscow is acknowledged to be the best at what he does. He graduated
from Moscow State University with a Ph.D. in chemistry and began working at the Moscow anti-doping
lab as early as 1985. He later worked in Canada and for Russian petrochemical companies, and
in 2005 he became the director of Russia's national anti-doping laboratory in Moscow. In 2013
Marina Rodchenkova – Gregory Rodchenkov's sister – was found guilty and received a sentence for selling
anabolic steroids to athletes. Her brother was also the subject of a criminal investigation
into charges that he supplied banned drugs.
Threatened with prosecution, Gregory Rodchenkov began to behave oddly and was repeatedly hospitalized
and "subjected to a forensic psychiatric examination." A finding was later submitted to the
court, claiming that Rodchenkov suffered from "schizotypal personality disorder," exacerbated by
stress. As a result, all the charges against Rodchenkov were dropped. But the most surprising
thing was that someone with a "schizotypal personality disorder" and a sister convicted of trafficking
in performance-enhancing drugs continued as the director of Russia's only WADA-accredited anti-doping
laboratory.
In fact, he held this job during the 2014 Olympics. Rodchenkov was not dismissed until the
fall of 2015, after the eruption of the scandal that had been instigated by the broadcaster ARD and
the Stepanovs. In September 2015 the WADA Commission accused Rodchenkov of intentionally destroying
over a thousand samples in order to conceal doping by Russian athletes. He personally denied
all the charges, but then resigned and left for the US where he was warmly embraced by filmmaker
Bryan Fogel, who was shooting yet anothermade-to-order
documentary about doping in Russia.
As this article is being written, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) is studying a
report
from an "Independent Person," the Canadian professor Richard H. McLaren, who has accused the entire
Russian Federation, not just individual athletes, of complicity in the use of performance-enhancing
drugs. McLaren was quickly summoned to speak with WADA shortly after
the
NYT published interview with Rodchenkov. The goal was clear: to concoct a "scientific report"
by mid-July that would provide the IOC with grounds to ban the Russian team from the Rio Olympics.
At a press conference on July 18 McLaren himself
acknowledged that with a timeline of only
57 days he was unable "to identify any athlete that might have benefited from such manipulation to
conceal positive doping tests." WADA's logic here is clear – they need to avoid any accusations
of bias, unprofessionalism, embellishment of facts, or political partisanship. No matter what
duplicity and lies are found in the report – it was drafted by an "independent person," period.
However, he does not try to hide that the entire report is based on the testimony of a single person
– Rodchenkov himself, who is repeatedly presented as a "credible and truthful" source. Of course
that man is accused by WADA itself of destroying 1,417 doping tests and faces deportation to Russia
for doping-linked crimes, but he saw an opportunity become a "valuable witness" and "prisoner of
conscience" who is being persecuted by the "totalitarian regime" in Russia.
The advantage enjoyed by this "independent commission" – on the basis of whose report the IOC
is deciding the fate of Russia's Olympic hopefuls – is that its accusations will not be examined
in court, nor can the body of evidence be challenged by the lawyers for the accused. Nor is
the customary legal presumption of innocence anywhere in evidence.
It appears from Professor McLaren's statement that no charges will be brought against any specific
Russian athletes. Moreover, they can all compete if they refuse to represent Russia at the
Olympics. There are obvious reasons for this selectivity. A law professor and longstanding
member of the Court of Arbitration for Sport, Professor McClaren knows very well that any charges
against specific individuals that are made publicly and result in "legally significant acts" (such
as a ban on Olympic participation) can and will be challenged in court, in accordance with international
law and on the basis of the presumption of innocence. All the evidence to be used by the
prosecution is subject to challenge, and if some fact included in those charges can be interpreted
to the defendant's advantage, then the court is obliged to exclude that fact from the materials at
the disposal of the prosecution.
As a lawyer, McLaren understands all this very well. Hundreds of lawsuits filed by Russian
athletes resulting in an unambiguous outcome would not only destroy his reputation and ruin him professionally
– they could form the basis of a criminal investigation with obvious grounds for accusing him of
intentionally distorting a few facts, which in his eyes can be summarized as follows.
During the Sochi Olympics, an FSB officer named Evgeny Blokhin switched the doping tests taken
from Russian athletes, exchanging them for "clean" urine samples. This agent is said to have
possessed a plumbing contractor's security clearance, allowing him to enter the laboratory.
In addition, there are reports that Evgeny Kurdyatsev, – the head of the Registration and Biological
Sample Accounting Department – switched the doping tests at night, through a "mouse hole" in the
wall (!). Awaiting them in the adjascent building was the man who is now providing "credible
evidence" – Gregory Rodchenkov – and some other unnamed individuals, who passed Blokhin the athletes'
clean doping tests to be used to replace the original samples. If the specific gravity of the
clean urine did not match the original profile, it was "adapted" using table salt or distilled water.
But of course the DNA was incompatible. And all of this was going on in the only official,
WADA-accredited anti-doping laboratory in Russia!
How would something like that sound in any court? We have witnesses, but the defense team
cannot subject them to cross-examination. We cannot prove that Blokhin is an FSB agent, but
we believe it. We do not possess any of the original documents – not a single photograph or
affidavit from the official examination – but we have sufficient evidence from a single criminal
who has already confessed to his crime. We did not submit the emails provided by Rodchenkov
to any experts to be examined, but we assert that the emails are genuine, that all the facts they
contain are accurate, and that the names of the senders are correct. We cannot accuse the athletes,
so we will accuse and punish the state!
To be honest, we still do not believe that the Olympic movement has sunk so low as to deprive
billions of people of the pleasure of watching the competitions, forgetting about politics and politicians.
That would mean waving goodbye to the reputations of the WADA and the IOC and to the global system
of sports as a whole. Perhaps a solution to the colossal problem of doping is long overdue,
but is that answer to be found within the boundaries of only one country, even a great country like
Russia? Should we take a moment here and now to dwell upon the
multi-volume history of
doping scandals in every single country in the world? And in view of these facts that have
come to light, is not WADA itself the cornerstone of the existing and far-reaching system to support
and cover up athletic doping all over the world?
In conclusion, we cite below the complete translation of the Russian Olympic Committee'sstatement
in response to the WADA report:
"The accusations against Russian sports found in the report by Richard McLaren are so serious
that a full investigation is needed, with input from all parties. The Russian Olympic Committee
has a policy of zero tolerance and supports the fight against doping. It is ready to provide
its full assistance and work together, as needed, with any international organization.
We wholeheartedly disagree with Mr. McLaren's view that the possible banning of hundreds of
clean Russian athletes from competition in the Olympic Games is an acceptable 'unpleasant consequence'
of the charges contained in his report.
The charges being made are primarily based on statements by Grigory Rodchenkov. This
is solely based on testimony from someone who is at the epicenter of this criminal scheme, which
is a blow not only to the careers and fates of a great many clean athletes, but also to the integrity
of the entire international Olympic movement.
Russia has fought against doping and will continue to fight at the state level, steadily stiffening
the penalties for any illegal activity of this type and enforcing a precept of inevitable punishment.
The Russian Olympic Committee fully supports the harshest possible penalties against anyone
who either uses banned drugs or encourages their use.
At the same time, the ROC – acting in full compliance with the Olympic Charter – will always
protect the rights of clean athletes. Those who throughout their careers – thanks to relentless
training, talent, and willpower – strive to realize their Olympic dreams should not have their
futures determined by the unfounded, unsubstantiated accusations and criminal acts of certain
individuals. For us this is a matter of principle."
Least we forget what the British empire was about then:
In 1839, England went to war with China because it was upset that Chinese officials had
shut down its drug trafficking racket and confiscated its dope.
Stating the historical record so plainly is shocking - but it's true, and the consequences
of that act are still being felt today.
From Charles Dickens "Our Mutual Friend", the heroine Bella Wilfer is fantasizing about her beloved
Papa becoming a rich opium trader:
"Now Pa was going to China in that handsome three-masted ship, to bring home opium, with
which he would forever cut out Chicksey, Veneering, and Stobble, and to bring home silks and shawls
without end for the decoration of his charming daughter."
"... From the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) to the Southern Common Market (Mercosur) and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Washington has been playing a dangerous game of intrigue and deception with regard to steering these organizations in a pro-American direction. The Obama administration has decided that the halls, offices, and conference rooms of international organizations are acceptable battlefields to wage propaganda and sanctions wars. ..."
From the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the Fédération Internationale de
Football Association (FIFA) to the Southern Common Market (Mercosur) and the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Washington has been playing a dangerous game of intrigue and
deception with regard to steering these organizations in a pro-American direction. The Obama
administration has decided that the halls, offices, and conference rooms of international
organizations are acceptable battlefields to wage propaganda and sanctions wars.
The first American target of note was the international football association, FIFA. Not content
with trying to sully the reputation of the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics with issues of gay rights
and doping of athletes, the US disinformation boiler rooms began a full-scale attack on FIFA. The
major reason is Russia's hosting of the 2018 FIFA World Cup. The US Justice Department, in a
major move toward the internationalization of domestic US law, began unsealing indictment after
indictment of FIFA officials for financial crimes. The actual target of these indictments was
Russia.
... ... ...
Resisting pressure from Washington, IOC president Thomas Bach wisely decided to avoid a
blanket ban of Russian athletes. Bach called such a unilateral ban on Russia participating in the
Rio games as a "nuclear option". He also said that such a "nuclear option" would have resulted in
"collateral damage" among innocent athletes. Bach's use of two geopolitical military terms was no
mistake and it bore the mark of someone responding to familiar American "shock and awe" pressure.
The United States used its compliant stooges, Germany and Canada, as well as the dubious World
Anti-Doping Agency, run by a Scottish lawyer, to call for a total ban on Russian athletes in Rio.
The neoliberal empire requires wars for resources and ruthless psychopaths at top position to
impose the will on transactionals on other nations.
Paul Craig Roberts:
Washington has raised the cost of being a member of its Empire too high. Vassals such as France and
Germany are beginning to exercise independent policies toward Russia. Observing the cracks in its
Empire, Washington has decided to bind its vassals to Washington with terror. Most likely what we
are witnessing in the French and German attacks is Operation Gladio. Washington's policy toward
Russia, which has been imposed by Washington on all of Europe, benefits no one but the handful of
American ideologues known as neoconservatives. Neoconservatives are crazed psychopaths willing to
destroy Earth in behalf of American hegemony.
Notable quotes:
"... Hilarious part is, it was West that fomented nationalism in the USSR in order to break it up, and it included Russian Republic - Yeltsin suppressed Commies with a cry "Russia for the Russians", Communists failed to gain support, and USSR collapsed. West at the time applauded this, and Russian nationalism was treated as good as Polish nationalism and Latvian nationalism etc. ..."
"... However, whereas Poland, Latvia etc were happy to become Western vassal states (and there's nothing wrong with that, those countries are too small to amount to anything geopolitically by themselves), Russian nationalism took Russia on a bit of a collision course with the West. Now West lost control of the process, and is blaming Russia for it. How predictable. ..."
"... On another note, Putin is on some level the Angry Older White Guy who progressives have thought were killed off in the 70s in our cultural sphere, and that's why they vehemently loathe him in a way they don't the Soviet Union. It's also why some of the hardest hawks on the Soviet Union are some of the most friendly people in the USA to Putin. We are again in a Cold War, but this time, our government is the revolutionary one pushing for changing society around the globe. ..."
"... Russian liberals while more competent on international trade and economics will sell the country for an iPhone. You need somebody who can continue to develop market economy yet at the same time pursue Russian interests on international stage and not be a doormat. ..."
"... US has OK relationship with current Atlanticist European elite, and even that is rocky at times (see NSA spying on Merkel). European right populist forces are not happy about this arrangement, and they are steadily gaining ground. Ask Marine Le Pen what she thinks about NATO and US some time. ..."
"... Russian population has stabilized a few years ago, and life expectancy has been increasing a lot under Putin. Excluding currency game that are mostly political, Russian economy on PPP basis is about the same as Germany. ..."
...Partly through interviews with the Russian president himself, it also offers a window on
Putin's own realpolitik perspective, one that I've found to be widely shared throughout Russia
over many years of living in the country-a worldview according to which international relations
consist of competing blocs of nations pursuing their interests, and the violation of sovereignty
is a recipe for instability. This stands in contrast to Obama's own position, which he stated at
the UN two years ago, that "sovereignty cannot be a shield for tyrants to commit wanton murder,
or an excuse for the international community to turn a blind eye to slaughter."
"I believe," Putin tells Solovyov, "that no one should ever impose any sort of values he
considers correct on anyone. We have our own values, our own conceptions of justice." Putin
doesn't name names here, but the implication is clear throughout: World Order endeavors to
incriminate American foreign policy and place the blame for the current chaos in the Middle East
on the United States.
... some of its criticisms of wrongheaded U.S. policies and blundering
interventions in the Middle East since September 11, 2001, would give American liberals,
centrists, and even a few conservatives little cause for dispute. Yet the documentary goes
further, leaving the strong impression that greedy, bungling, incorrigibly myopic conspirators
"from across the ocean" (a phrase Putin uses repeatedly in the film to describe the U.S.
leadership) bent on world domination are to blame; Russia comes off as unjustly demonized and
Russians themselves forced to suffer economically as a result.
... the root of all international evils is the American penchant for
democracy-spreading, both subtle (via U.S. support for "color revolutions" in the post-Soviet
sphere) and overt (as in overthrowing Saddam Hussein). Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov
declares that the Arab Spring was fomented from abroad, disregarding the Middle Eastern region's
widespread popular discontent with official corruption, political stasis, and lack of job
opportunities. The United States intervenes despite bitter experience within living memory; the
American director Oliver Stone appears onscreen to tell viewers that "America didn't learn the
lesson of Vietnam, which is you shouldn't go around invading other countries."
But Putin denies chiding Obama directly at the UN for the consequences of the Arab Spring. "I
wasn't saying this [to President Obama]" Putin tells Solovyov, but to the constellation of
leaders, both American and European, who have been meddling in Muslim lands since 2001. "I have
always been telling [these leaders] that they have to act carefully. It's wrong to impose one's
scheme ... of ideas concerning good and evil, or in this case, good and democracy," on countries
"with differing cultures, a different religion, with other traditions. But frankly, no one
listens, because they apparently consider themselves infallible and great." No one, he adds,
holds those leaders accountable, whatever the outcome. When an "operation" produces the wrong
results, Putin says, the (again, unnamed) leaders in question just say, "Oh well. Next!" After
all, "They're great and sitting across the ocean, the dollar is the world's currency, they have
the biggest economy in the world."
The "operations" to which Putin refers include, of course, the 2003 Iraq war,
which Russia, France, and Germany opposed. Then-French President Jacques Chiraq, Putin claims,
even foresaw that terrorist attacks in Europe, resembling those that occurred in Paris this year,
could grow out of the anarchy that would result from Saddam's overthrow. Another is the
imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya in 2011 (to prevent the regime from using its air force to
stage a massacre-a fact that goes unmentioned). The film replays video of then-Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton's
remark, delivered with a callous laugh, about Libyan strongman Muammar Qaddafi's subsequent
death-"We came, we saw, he died!"-followed by footage of the tyrant's brutal murder, which drives
home the real-life consequences of the intervention and its bloody aftermath. (Eerily, the film
also shows Qaddafi addressing Arab leaders at a 2011 Arab League summit, and asking, after Saddam
Hussein's execution, "Who among you is next?").
The Wikileaks founder Julian Assange also makes an appearance, citing cables revealing U.S.
efforts to undermine the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad-though American officials
continue to maintain that Assad must go eventually, the cables in question most likely concern
Wikileaks revelations made in 2006. The film shows Syrians lamenting the chaos the presumably
American-backed terrorists have unleashed.
But the message of World Order, as the title
implies, extends geographically wider and historically further back than America's
post-September 11 policies in the Middle East. As the film, and presumably Putin, have it,
the real problem today is not the rise of ISIS but the breakdown in relations between
Russia and the West. A key cause of this conflict has been the eastward expansion of NATO
since the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, which has brought with it the stationing of troops on
Russia's border with the Baltics, plans to one day
admit Ukraine (and Georgia), and, as an eventual result, Russia's intervention in
Ukraine.
"Why did [the West] support the coup?" Putin asks...
Few would dispute Putin's damning description of
Ukraine's post-Maidan
straits: "The standard of living has fallen catastrophically. ... What have they gotten in
return? Possibly [Ukrainians] will be allowed to travel to Europe without a visa. And possibly
not."
But Putin emphasizes that he does not blame Europeans for the policies of the
United States, since, in his view, they are nothing more than "vassals" taking orders "from
across the ocean," at least as far as foreign policy goes. He surely understands the relationship
to be more complicated than that, but such an approach places the blame for the standoff between
Russia and the West on America, and lets him make a direct overture to Europe. "We don't expect
our European partners to give up their Euro-Atlantic orientation" but they would do well to
"unite with Russia" to resolve "economic, political, security, and economic problems. ... We are
ready to work with them and aren't about to pout about the sanctions," he says.
... ... ...
The upshot, according to World Order: Putin considers possible a renewed relationship with
Europe, but sees no such likelihood with the United States. This is one area where the views from
Washington and Moscow aren't so different-and that is bad news.
Antonov
>to prevent the regime from using its air force to stage a massacre-a fact that goes
unmentioned
Unmentioned because it was, in fact, bullsh!t. Qaddafi took lots of towns before Benghazi: no
massacres. Those breathless claims of thousands dead (UNHRC estimated 15,000 dead by June)?
Yeah, also bullsh!t. Estimates for total casualties for the whole war even from the post-war
government (which was probably slightly more credible than Baghdad Bob) were under 10,000. As
for civilians massacred, when the dust cleared and you could actually make a decent accounting
- and, crucially, after everybody had stopped paying attention - know how many you find
pre-intervention? Couple hundred tops, and no evidence of deliberate massacres.
You know where civilians were *actually* massacred? Tawergha. By our proxies. Who were only
capable of doing it because of our support. And who targeted Tawergha because it was inhabited
by blacks. Somehow Rice and Powers and Clinton and the rest of the imbecilic R2P crowd didn't
care about THAT, no more than they cared about Rabaa or Pearl Roundabout.
But no, only the Russians engage in comically obvious propaganda. Keep telling yourselves
that; maybe if you wish hard enough it'll come true.
nebulafox > chemicalbank
"Freedom" as heralded by American elites in the 1990s, in the Russian POV, brought economic
misery, near starvation, social decay, massive levels of disorder and crime, an incompetent
alien overtoned government, and national humiliation. Putin brought an end to all of that. If
I were Russian, I'd support him, and I'd imagine that most people here would be doing that
rather than being some dissident, whatever they think or say. Tone deaf denial of this
strengthens Putin's hand in the propaganda war. Russians have entirely rational reasons for
trusting him on the issue.
You aren't going to convince Russians to give democracy another try-if ever-if what comes to
mind is the 1990s or blithely ignore the fact that Russia is a very different-not better or
worse, but different-culture from the US and that any system of government must take this into
account. And this goes beyond Russia. The CCP is doing their damnedest to make sure that when
Chinese people hear American leaders talk about democracy, they think of Iraq or 90s Russia.
Our foreign and domestic policies have subverted rather than strengthened the democratic cause
there: in the 90s in China, the USA was what people looked to for the future, but now that's
not the case.
agorabum > nebulafox
Americans think of revolutions, and they think of George Washington. Russians think of
revolution, they think of the Red and White terrors of 1918-1922 and the collapse of the
economy in the 90s (although that collapse came more from the underlying, decades long
failures of the Soviet system in the 70s and 80s). It is natural that they would prefer
caution and order over revolution.
nebulafox > agorabum
Exactly.
As another example, Americans think of student protests, they think of the 60s, flower power,
liberation, anti-war sentiments, etc. No matter how caricatured or idealized that view can be
for certain people, it pretty much dominates our media due to the Boomers, and it is indelibly
part of the national fabric.
Chinese think of that, they also think of the 60s, but that brings the Cultural Revolution to
mind. Not exactly peace and love, more in the direction of terror, chaos, and lives being
ruined. It elicits a very powerful reaction to this day among older generations of Chinese,
and the CCP always makes sure to invoke it when pointing out the need for law and order.
Edward Olson > nebulafox
And we Americans are always going on and on about Tiananmen Square, which was a garden
party compared to the Cultural Revolution.
mal > chemicalbank
What will to power? Russia does have a pretty big prison colony, but it is still only about
half that of the US (in per capita terms). In Russia, i can tell you it will be United
Russia/Putin who will win the elections, in US, i can tell you it will be Hillary
Clinton/Democratic Party with almost the same certainty - they are both establishment
candidates.
I lived in Russia in the 90's, and it wasn't pretty, so your typical Russian doesn't want to
go back to that, which is understandable.
Hilarious part is, it was West that fomented nationalism in the USSR in order to break it
up, and it included Russian Republic - Yeltsin suppressed Commies with a cry "Russia for the
Russians", Communists failed to gain support, and USSR collapsed. West at the time applauded
this, and Russian nationalism was treated as good as Polish nationalism and Latvian
nationalism etc.
However, whereas Poland, Latvia etc were happy to become Western vassal states (and
there's nothing wrong with that, those countries are too small to amount to anything
geopolitically by themselves), Russian nationalism took Russia on a bit of a collision course
with the West. Now West lost control of the process, and is blaming Russia for it. How
predictable.
nebulafox > mal
Putin's position is secure, it's the levels below him jockeying for power you have to worry
about should some disaster ever happen. Remove Putin, and all hell breaks loose. Russia is the
last country you want that happening in. He's not Josef Stalin: he has had to court of lot
people and hammer out a delicate balance.
I've said it multiple times that the best chance for a good Russo-US relationship is to stop
thinking in terms of friendship and affection. It's not happening now for the same reasons
that Nixon and Brezhnev said in 1973-we are both just too big. We will have interests that
inevitably collide. We also yet again have ideologies that collide, at least in terms of the
Beltway ruling class. (This time around, however, they are alienating swathes of the American
people that are a little more important than spoiled college brats.) What we can do is put
parameters on conflicts that come up so we don't blow up the world, and cooperate where it is
useful. We will probably always be rivals to some extent. Being enemies is unnecessary. And we
do have interests that coincide. Or we should. I'd rather that Moscow not be the one in charge
of the Middle East, as a hardened American nationalist. But far, far worse is letting Islamism
spread
The brand of Salafi jihadism that faces the West must be exterminated. The danger with
Putin is very different from that, however conflicting his ideology is with DC-it's not an
existential threat by itself. It is if he thinks the West is so feeble and weak that he ends
up doing something that causes a chain reaction beyond everybody's control.
Herein lies the rub: At a very deep, if unstated subconscious level, Muslims or Chinese
acting "uncivilized" (as defined by the "WEIRD" demographic that dominates our media and
cultural life) and not obeying Western norms is part of the script and isn't as surprising.
Russians are white. They are Europeans of a sort. Yet they act completely differently. That's
probably part of it, no matter how futile it is to get anybody to think about it. On
another note, Putin is on some level the Angry Older White Guy who progressives have thought
were killed off in the 70s in our cultural sphere, and that's why they vehemently loathe him
in a way they don't the Soviet Union. It's also why some of the hardest hawks on the Soviet
Union are some of the most friendly people in the USA to Putin. We are again in a Cold War,
but this time, our government is the revolutionary one pushing for changing society around the
globe.
mal > nebulafox
It's not too bad - United Russia has Medvedev, Rogozin and Shoigu at least to continue once
Putin retires. As far as Beltway goes, as long as nobody directly shoots down Russian jets
(Turkey is finding out this the hard way in Syria right now) in a no fly zone, i don't think
there anything that can't be resolved diplomatically.
And yeah, Russia and US will always be rivals to a degree. But it will most often be a
friendly competition. This has to do with technological power - Russia is the only power in
the planet that is smart and tech advanced enough to hurt US (Europe is smart but US keeps
Europe weak), so there will always be parity of sorts between Russians and US, and Beltway
doesn't like situations where it can't bomb if it pleases. And Russians are easily seduced but
are impossible to bully, this is a problem for anyone trying to look tough at Russian expense.
nebulafox > mal
Putin's inner circle is very small and consists exclusively of siloviki-can the delicate
dance go on forever? Then again, the dice will roll again: what comes will come.
No. Russia gets all the news, but China exists as well and has been just as active in their
intelligence offensive against the US. And the world is getting more fragmented, not less. I
fully expect China by the end of the century, should current political trends go to their
logical conclusion, to be more powerful than either the US or Russia. India, Brazil, other
regional powers will make the balance even more predictable.
Bomb... or socially engineer, depending on who is in power. Or both, if you look at the
neoconservatives. We haven't had anybody who has understood how the world worked ever since
1992. I occasionally wonder if the fall of the Soviet Union had something to do with that.
Hah! Let me tell you something-the Eurocrats don't need us to be weak. No, sir! They do that
all by their damn selves and affect our elite culturally these days, not the other way around.
They won't fight for anything, not even their lives, their nations, and thus will become
increasingly easy prey for the Kremlin backed far-right if the situation with the Muslims gets
worse. And it will, particularly since Russian intelligence will look to make it worse.
Looking at it from that angle, it's no wonder that our bien-pensants love the personalities of
Brussels.
Sanctions are stupid. Russians will just endure as they always have, and will probably find a
wry, ironic pleasure in doing so. The thing I've noticed about Russia is that if you want to
defeat it, you never, ever go for the direct approach and hit it with a hammer. Everybody who
has tried that has failed. But that nation is very vulnerable to internal bleeding, to
viruses-the great strength of its size and endless territory is also an Achilles heel.
Everybody who has tried that has succeeded. I'm sure Volodya is more aware of this than
anybody.
mal > nebulafox
"The thing I've noticed about Russia is that if you want to defeat it, you never, ever go
for the direct approach and hit it with a hammer. Everybody who has tried that has failed. But
that nation is very vulnerable to internal bleeding. Everybody who has tried that has
succeeded."
This is exactly what i mean by 'Russians are easily seduced, but impossible to bully'.
Putin is super popular for a good reason, but United Russia party is at about 50% approval
rating which in parliamentary system is not too bad. So i think after Putin retires, Russia
will be in good hands.
Yeah about sanctions. In 1998, before i came to US, i weighed 140 lbs, and i'm 6" tall. We
couldn't buy food. But that's fine, we get over that. When Americans complain about trigger
warnings i get confused. Anyway, please sanctions Russians if you think it is best for Western
domestic policy - Russians won't notice, and if it will make diplomacy better, great.
As far as Europe goes, i have no clue what Putin has in mind there, but i personally think
strong Europe is in Russia's best interest - not a vassal of US anymore, but a true
representative of multipolar world.
veerkg_23 > mal
Europe has never been a vassal. Confusing allies and vassals is a very discredited (and
Russian) thing.
mal > veerkg_23
Lol that's why US has giant military base occupying Germany and NSA spies on Merkel's
private phone calls. Some allies.
Winston Smith > mal
You sound like you really hate the United States.
mal > Winston Smith
I don't. I hate neocons and their idiotic policies. I am and have always been
anti-communist, now, and back in USSR, and I consider Putin's United Russia a pretty good
alternative to Communist Party. Russian nationalist conservatives are viable for modern time,
I think.
Winston Smith > mal
I like your adding , " I think." Shows open mindedness!
mal > Winston Smith
Well, consider the alternatives - Communism is a dead end, nobody wants to stand in line
for toilet paper anymore, and Russian liberals while more competent on international trade
and economics will sell the country for an iPhone. You need somebody who can continue to
develop market economy yet at the same time pursue Russian interests on international stage
and not be a doormat.
It's a tricky balance.
Jazzy_C > mal
Outside of military technology Russia is not as technologically advanced as the U.S.,
Japan, or even China.
Name one Russian brand, or manufactured cellphone, laptop, or other consumer electronic device
that has been commercially successful?
mal > Jazzy_C
"Name one Russian brand, or manufactured cellphone, laptop, or other consumer electronic
device that has been commercially successful?"
yotaphone? Yandex? Mail.ru?
At any rate, your exclusion of military technology is hilarious - in geopolitics, this is the
only tech that matters really. IPhones would not have protected Qadaffi. Russian ballistic
missiles would.
Jazzy_C > mal
"IPhones would not have protected Qadaffi. Russian ballistic missiles would."
Saddam's Russian weaponry really helped when the U.S. raided Iraq in 2003.
mal > Jazzy_C
You are absolutely right - Russia was weak and worthless still in 2003, with Yelstin's
horrible decade just a few years behind, and struggling to contain Chechnya. Russia did
protest at the time, and so did most of the rest of the world, including Germany and France,
but it was pointless. Protestations mean nothing against hard power, Russia learned its lesson
well in 2003, and 2011. With that, North Vietnam did fine with Russian weapons when applied
judiciously, and surprisingly, so did Afghanistan - pro-Soviet Afghan government did't
collapse well until after USSR's collapse. Russian tech works for a long time.
Anyway, decade of the 90's must not be repeated in Russia. I think Russians understand it
well, and yes, i think Iraqis think so too, with them setting up intel centers with the
Russians and such.
mal > Dr. Preobrazhensky
In a strategic sense, nothing lasts forever, especially stability. Putin is very popular,
but he is also old and is about to retire eventually, so stability is something that needs
hard work.
mal > Winston Smith
Current balance of power between US and EU is so lopsided, vassals is a charitable
definition. I mean US military base in Germany is probably stronger than the entire German
military.
Winston Smith > mal
I'm sorry but I didn't think we were in an adversarial relationship with Europe. I thought
after WWII we were their friends!?!
mal > Winston Smith
US has OK relationship with current Atlanticist European elite, and even that is rocky
at times (see NSA spying on Merkel). European right populist forces are not happy about this
arrangement, and they are steadily gaining ground. Ask Marine Le Pen what she thinks about
NATO and US some time.
Arcite > mal
Russia now has less than a third of the US population and continues to shrink. They have
the lowest life expectancy in EU and an economy smaller than Italy.
mal > Arcite
Russian population has stabilized a few years ago, and life expectancy has been
increasing a lot under Putin. Excluding currency game that are mostly political, Russian
economy on PPP basis is about the same as Germany.
Your information is outdated and is correct for Yeltsin era, not modern Russia.
Dr. Preobrazhensky > mal
"However, whereas Poland, Latvia etc were happy to become Western vassal states
Not a correct interpretation.
mal > Dr. Preobrazhensky
Really? Care to tell me why Poland invaded Iraq in 2003? What pressing national interest
did it serve?
Dr. Preobrazhensky > mal
They actually hoped to get a share of Iraq's oil, plus wanted military experience, plus
expected compensation from the USA in exchange.
mal > Dr. Preobrazhensky
There are easier ways to get oil - just sign a deal with Saudi Arabia. Invading countries
is a bit drastic. You are on a firmer ground with earning browny points from US. Indeed,
Poland invaded Iraq to provide Public Relations support to US. As far as Polish national
interest goes though, this decision is highly questionable.
"... "These three instances are representative of a broader trend in the Western media to offer sensationalistic and misleading coverage that exacerbates poor relations with Russia. The most recent example of the media, including the New York Times and the Washington Post , moving from reporting on events to becoming outright propagandists came during the run-up to the Iraq War. Today, coverage of Russia is starting to resemble the unanimity of opinion that prevailed over a decade ago on Iraq and it is seeping into a variety of outlets." Russia, Trump and Manafort: A Test of the News ..."
A surprisingly reasonable article in the Atlantic (or perhaps 'surprisingly' is a wrong adverb
considering the article was written by
a Moscow-based author):
By the way, do you perhaps remember that journalist, Rachel Bauman, who has written an acidic
response to William Browder a couple months ago? That's what she writes now:
"These three instances are representative of a broader trend in the Western media to offer
sensationalistic and misleading coverage that exacerbates poor relations with Russia. The most
recent example of the media, including the New York Times and the Washington Post, moving
from reporting on events to becoming outright propagandists came during the run-up to the Iraq
War. Today, coverage of Russia is starting to resemble the unanimity of opinion that prevailed
over a decade ago on Iraq and it is seeping into a variety of outlets."
Fish rots from the head: doping is the most rampant in the USA...
Notable quotes:
"... Federal officials said earlier Tuesday that Bosch would agree to plead guilty to a charge of distributing steroids in a conspiracy that stretched from big league club houses to South Florida high schools and youth baseball leagues to sandlots in the Caribbean. ..."
"... "These defendants were motivated by one thing: money," United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Wifredo Ferrer, said. "They did this by lining their pockets, by exploiting the pressures of athletes and others to be bigger, to be stronger and to play better." ..."
"... Bosch told investigators that he provided the illegal substances to at least 18 minors, Ferrer said. ..."
"... Bosch and his associates distributed the drugs to minors who attended a number of public and private high schools in South Florida. He would charge the teenagers and their parents between $250 and $600 a month, promising that the concoctions -- which included black market steroids -- would improve their game. ..."
Tony Bosch, the founder of the now-defunct Biogenesis anti-aging clinic in Miami, is not a
licensed doctor, but portrayed himself as one, federal officials said Tuesday.
Officials said he dispensed
performance-enhancing drugs to professional baseball players such as suspended New York
Yankees slugger Alex Rodriguez and to impressionable high school athletes in South Florida and
teenagers in the Dominican Republic.
Bosch, 50, surrendered to the Drug Enforcement Administration in Florida on Tuesday. At a court
appearance, he pleaded not guilty and a judge set bail at $100,000.
Federal officials said
earlier Tuesday that Bosch would agree to plead guilty to a charge of distributing steroids in a
conspiracy that stretched from big league club houses to South Florida high schools and youth
baseball leagues to sandlots in the Caribbean.
One of his attorneys, Susy Ribero-Ayala, said there is a plea agreement in place and Bosch will
change his plea later.
"Mr. Bosch has never had and does not have a DEA registration," said Mark Trouville, special
agent in charge of the DEA Miami. "He is not a licensed medical professional. He is not a doctor.
He is a drug dealer."
Also charged in the scandal were Yuri Sucart, a cousin of Rodriguez, and Juan Carlos Nunez, who
was named in a scheme to clear All-Star Melky Cabrera after a positive 2012 testosterone test,
authorities said.
Other defendants include Carlos Acevedo, a longtime associate of Bosch's, former University of
Miami coach Lazaro "Lazer" Collazo, Jorge Velasquez, and Christopher Engroba.
Acevedo and three other men, including CarlosLuis Ruiz, a Florida Highway Patrol trooper, also
were charged in a separate conspiracy involving the sale of the drug MDMA, or molly.
Eight of
the 10 men charged appeared in court. Acevedo and Engroba also entered not guilty pleas. The
other men didn't enter a plea.
Lengthy investigation
The drug conspiracy charges against the men stemmed from
from a 21-month DEA investigation.
"These defendants were motivated by one thing: money," United States Attorney for the Southern
District of Florida, Wifredo Ferrer, said. "They did this by lining their pockets, by exploiting
the pressures of athletes and others to be bigger, to be stronger and to play better."
Bosch
could face a 10-year prison term in the case.
Bosch told investigators that he provided the illegal substances to at least 18 minors, Ferrer
said.
Bosch and his associates distributed the drugs to minors who attended a number of public and
private high schools in South Florida. He would charge the teenagers and their parents between
$250 and $600 a month, promising that the concoctions -- which included black market steroids --
would improve their game.
In addition, investigators said, Bosch and
the others operated in the Dominican Republic, where boys as young as 12 were given new baseball
equipment and treated with testosterone-loaded syringes in an effort to get them signed with big
league teams. Talents scouts working with the children would keep as much as 50 % of their
signing bonuses.
"These defendants provided easy access to dangerous concoctions of steroids and human growth
hormones to impressionable high school kids," Ferrer said. "Simply put: Doping children is
unacceptable. It is wrong. It is illegal and it is dangerous and Bosch and his reckless
recruiters and his black market suppliers ignored the serious health risks posed to their so
called patients, all to make a profit."
Using lollipops
The drugs were administered in a number of ways, through injections, pills, creams and even
lollipops, according to a source with direct knowledge of the investigation.
Masking agents
were used to hide the drugs. "It was so good. The key was being able to fool testers with the
league (Major League Baseball), the source said. "The masking agents in the creams would hide the
actual drug, and (Bosch) would know the timing involved. He knew if the athlete took the drug
right before a game, they'd be tested 12 hours later and the drug would no longer be detectable."
Earlier this year, Major League Baseball dropped its lawsuit against Bosch and the company the
league claims provided performance-enhancing drugs to a number of players, including
Rodriguez. The league had agreed to drop the suit if Bosch cooperated in the investigation,
according to published reports.
In a statement Tuesday, Rodriguez's lawyer, Joe Tacopina, said:
"This obviously is the beginning of the end of this sordid chapter in baseball."
Authorities said professional athletes recruited by the clinic paid between $2,000 and $12,000
per month for the drugs.
The investigation led to the suspension of 14 players for violating the league's drug policy.
Besides Rodriguez, suspended players included
Milwaukee Brewers outfielder Ryan Braun, the 2011 National League MVP, who served part of his
suspension last season.
Bosch's Biogenesis clinic became part of the story in late January 2013, when the Miami New Times
reported that more than a dozen professional baseball players and other athletes had been named
in records kept over several years by the clinic.
Two months later, MLB filed its lawsuit
against the clinic in Florida's Miami-Dade County.
Its 14-page complaint named Biogenesis, its predecessor company and six individuals -- among them
program director Bosch, others at the company, someone who worked at a sports agency, a former
University of Miami baseball player and a "self-proclaimed chemist" who supplied substances.
"... Who knows if he'll embrace better relations with Russia...? We don't. You cant know. He's all over the shop. We do know trigger-happy-hitlery's objectives though. That I would probably vote for him if I were a US citizen doesn't say anything about me, it speaks more about the state of decay the American political system is in - in dire need of a coup, a radical. ..."
"... The Don's security detail need to be very wary of any grassy knolls. ..."
...
As Hillary Clinton's Democratic Party's "motion to dismiss" was nearing to be heard by the US
Federal Court, this report notes, the main witness for JamPAC was attorney Lucas-but who, according
to the Washington D.C. police report, was mysteriously discovered dead on 2 August: "R-1 reports
she arrived home at 1913 hours and located her boyfriend Subject-1 laying unconscious on the bathroom
floor. R-1 immediately called 911.DCFD Engine 9 responded and found no signs consistent with life.
Subject-1 remained on scene".
With attorney Lucas now being the latest victim of Hillary Clinton's
"killing spree", this report says, the lawsuit against her Democratic Party will now be postponed
because he is unable to testify, and it may be dismissed entirely because his testimony was so
crucial as to if proper service was made or not-and that the Clinton cabal "obviously" knew about
beforehand when filing their motion a fortnight before his death.
As to how Hillary Clinton's cabal is able to accomplish their "Night of the Long Knives" murderous
acts, this report continues, is due to the "assassin network" established by what the SVR labels
as one of the most feared CIA operatives ever encountered by Russian intelligence-former CIA director,
and deputy director, Mike Morell.
Director Morell, this report explains, joined the CIA in 1980 and became an important operative
in "Operation Cyclone" that sought to destroy the government of Afghanistan that had been aligned
with the then Soviet Union.
Morell's main duties within the CIA during the early 1980's, this report details, was in establishing
a network whereby terrorists, assassins and weapons were able to flow freely between the United
States, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan-and was aided by one of his top Pakistani operatives Khizr
Khan-about whom the SVR previously reported on, and as we detailed in our report US Media Support
Of Khizr Khan Who Enabled 9/11, Boston Marathon And San Bernardino Terror Attacks Stuns Russia.
So entrenched was Morell in the CIA's "active terror network", this report continues, he was
not only present with President Bush during the 11 September 2001 (9/11) attacks, he was, also,
present when President Obama ordered the killing of CIA operation Tim Osman-otherwise known as
Osama bin Laden.
With Morell being a "diehard supporter" of Hillary Clinton, and responsible for the lies she
told about the Benghazi terror attack, this report continues, in 2013 he left the CIA a month
after Clinton resigned as Secretary of State and founded a mysterious private intelligence company
called Beacon Global Strategies LLC (BGS) where he is listed as a "Senior Consular".
Beacon Global Strategies, however, this report details, is far from a "normal" private intelligence
company as the SVR categorizes it as an "assassination/propaganda" organization created expressly
for the use and protection of top American elites and whose funding came from Claude Fontheim,
a former Clinton adviser who now serves as a lobbyist to the US-China Exchange Foundation, a nonprofit
reportedly used by Chinese government officials and Hong Kong tycoons to shape American policy
toward China-and whose clients, including Hillary Clinton, include Senators Ted Cruz and Marco
Rubio.
...
james @ 4. Digging a bit deeper we might want to characterize the fundamental nature
of the US Empire or err 'Pax Amerikana.' This is actually, for me, very difficult
to do, as compared, say to the British Empire. How to describe it fully?
Chatter about AFRICOM, a 1000 military bases, Wall Street, the destruction of Lybia,
etc. isn't explanatory enough.
Part of the problem is that much is hidden from sight (Deep State shadow dealings),
and the 'rule based' aspect is (post WW2 structure, UN, EU, etc.) very strong, with
the rules moot, applied selectively through arm-twisting, etc. Coupled with another
aspect, i.e. the prevalent US-W ideology, which is a kind of end-of-history dictate:
free-market capitalism of a kind, pro-"democracy", 'freedom' from despots, dictators,
God anointed/religious rule, very narrow personal 'freedom' (identity politics, sexual
mores, social rising thru competition, etc.) This system easily manipulates ppl into
an Orwellian space (more J. Huxley in fact.)
It also has many characteristics of Mafia-type arrangements, a criminal class dominating,
aspect not much discussed. The upshot: the system is opaque, secretive and highly
complex. In its multiple ramifications, intersections amongst them (military, Gvmt/politics,
security, finance, corporate, media, int'l relations..) Power of whatever kind (military,
media, whatever) is only effective when it can coordinate with others to effect control.
(Imagine a mess of a systemic diagram with 100s of boxes, nodes, heavy and light arrows.)
Not looking good for the US at present.
Trump is proposing (provided we read his confused comments, pronoucements, at face
value, and interpret) a simplification of the system, which is the only thing to do
with complex systems that get out of hand. (Turn off district 3, put all efforts into
fixing pipelines in 1..)
Others in their own ways are doing the same. Le Pen with 'New Nationalism', even
ISIS in way (long story, as supported by outsiders…) Sanders is a different case -
he tried once again to exploit the 'hopie changie' with a 'harking back to the past'
- a 'new' New Deal - while not adressing any vital issues in any way.
- not shilling for the Donald - attention should be put on non-est. candidates,
music of the future.
One coup deserves another. You're right about how the establishment is not able
to correct it's path without a radical shift, a guy like Sanders would have been absorbed
and subverted - he offered merely band aid solutions. Ron Pauls platform may well
have worked...his 'End The Fed' policy attacked a pillar, a thick root cause of how
the establishment is able to baffle with bullshit.
In some way, The Don's schizophrenic-stream-of-consciousness delivery is perfect
for much the subliminally mindf*cked US electorate. He gives all the sound bites a
host of large demographics need, let's just throw a tonne of shit out there now, see
what happens, and tighten up the message later on. Even if he contradicts what he
says the very next moment he opens his mouth it doesn't matter...his charisma can
counter that most of the time.
Who knows if he'll embrace better relations with Russia...? We don't. You cant
know. He's all over the shop. We do know trigger-happy-hitlery's objectives though.
That I would probably vote for him if I were a US citizen doesn't say anything about
me, it speaks more about the state of decay the American political system is in -
in dire need of a coup, a radical.
The Don's security detail need to be very wary of any grassy knolls.
@61 noirette/63 madmax/65 jfl - noirette- i like the way you process all the myriad
ways of considering the american empire... i do the same. it's impossible to come
up with a clear vision of how it works, which is one ongoing part of it - to remain
a mystery.. it will always be a part of a process of change too.
whether some force/s have hi-jacked the usa for their own narrower agenda - it
sure appears that way to me.. trump appears to offer a spontaneous response to ordinary
americans place in a country spiraling out of the realm it was thought to be (out
of control basically), not that any one view on a country remains static.. the idea
of the simplicity of his message with regard to foreign policy is appealing.. what
he would do in power is more of an unknown then what history tells us hillary clinton
will do... i would be voting for trump if i was in the usa, partly the msm witch hunt
on him which i think in my own way is more of those mysterious forces behind the scene
guiding the usa into an ever widening ditch of it's own making, leaving many more
people to suffer or worse.. thanks for everyone's comments..
"... any knee jerk withdrawal, boycott, etc., would "prove" Russia is covering up its "misbehaviour" and is a "sore loser". Right now, the Russian athletes in Rio cannot be smeared with the same brush. ..."
"... I am really hoping that multiple legal actions are launched against WADA and any enablers of its libel ..."
"... Challenging it in the public political space is doomed to failure since the average sheep does not have enough IQ or desire to evaluate such reports on their merits and simply defers to the "authorities" and their "evidence". ..."
Regarding Russia, WADA and the Rio Olympics. The current Russian approach seems optimal. Russian
athletes have managed to clear the hurdles set up before them and will participate. That is a
major fail for Uncle Scam and his WADA cronies. They were hoping for Russia to knee jerk with
indignation. It is something I would have done. But any knee jerk withdrawal, boycott, etc.,
would "prove" Russia is covering up its "misbehaviour" and is a "sore loser". Right now, the Russian
athletes in Rio cannot be smeared with the same brush.
I am really hoping that multiple legal actions are launched against WADA and any enablers
of its libel. This is the right medicine for this scum. They have no legal case and use some
two bit propaganda report to smear all Russian athletes. This report will not stand up in court
and that is where it should be challenged.
Challenging it in the public political space is doomed to failure since the average
sheep does not have enough IQ or desire to evaluate such reports on their merits and simply defers
to the "authorities" and their "evidence".
I was watching the Games' opening ceremony from Rio on the BBC and when the Russian team appeared
in the parade, we had a quick re-hash of the doping 'scandal'. Then one of the commentators did
something surprising – she said, of course, many of these athletes are probably clean and we wish
them well. I suspect someone has raised the issues of defamation, slander and libel and possible
future legal action and commentators have been warned to take care in what they say.
Here's another interesting point I learned from last night's BBC coverage – Thomas Bach, newly-labelled
as a Putin-stooge for not enforcing a ban on the whole Russian team, was in competition for his
post against a Ukrainian. I wonder whether the plan to ruin Russia's Olympics was hatched a while
back with the West hoping it would have a Ukrainian in the key job?
I had the same initial reaction as you and now agree with your conclusions. Russia has also consistently
used a similar "high road" approach in its foreign policy decisions with great results.
Of course, it takes a savvy (and moral) domestic population to understand the strategy. It
would seem that a majority of Western populations would not be able to comprehend, much less support,
such actions. They have grown to expect if not demand bellicose, insulting and vindictive actions
by their governments over the slightest real or imagined challenge to US hegemony.
"Democratic voters tried to express these frustrations through the Sanders campaign, but the
party leaders have been and probably will continue to be too dense to listen."
Notable quotes:
"... But to read the papers in the last two days is to imagine that we didn't just spend a year witnessing the growth of a massive grassroots movement fueled by loathing of the party establishment, with some correspondingly severe numerical contractions in the turnout department (though she won, for instance, Clinton received 30 percent fewer votes in California this year versus 2008, and 13 percent fewer in New Jersey). ..."
"... The twin insurgencies of Trump and Sanders this year were equally a blistering referendum on Beltway politics. ..."
Hohmann's thesis was that the "scope and scale" of Clinton's wins Tuesday night meant
mainstream Democrats could now safely return to their traditional We won, screw you posture of
"minor concessions" toward the "liberal base."
Hohmann focused on the fact that with Bernie out of the way, Hillary now had a path to victory
that would involve focusing on Trump's negatives. Such a strategy won't require much if any
acquiescence toward the huge masses of Democratic voters who just tried to derail her candidacy.
And not only is the primary scare over, but Clinton and the centrist Democrats in general are in
better shape than ever.
"Big picture," Hohmann wrote, "Clinton is running a much better and more organized campaign than
she did in 2008."
Then there was Jonathan Capehart, also of the Post, whose "This is how Bernie Sanders and Donald
Trump are the same person" piece describes Sanders as a "stubborn outsider" who "shares the same
DNA" as Donald Trump. Capeheart snootily seethes that both men will ultimately pay a karmic price
for not knowing their places.
"In the battle of the outsider egos storming the political establishment, Trump succeeded where
Sanders failed," he wrote. "But the chaos unleashed by Trump's victory could spell doom for the
GOP all over the ballot in November. Pardon me while I dab that single tear trickling down my
cheek."
If they had any brains, Beltway Dems and their clucky sycophants like Capeheart would not be
celebrating this week. They ought to be horrified to their marrow that the all-powerful
Democratic Party ended up having to dig in for a furious rally to stave off a quirky Vermont
socialist almost completely lacking big-dollar donors or institutional support.
They should be freaked out, cowed and relieved, like the Golden State Warriors would be if they
needed a big fourth quarter to pull out a win against Valdosta State.
But to read the papers in the last two days is to imagine that we didn't just spend a year
witnessing the growth of a massive grassroots movement fueled by loathing of the party
establishment, with some correspondingly severe numerical contractions in the turnout department
(though she won, for instance, Clinton received 30 percent fewer votes in California this year
versus 2008, and 13 percent fewer in New Jersey).
The twin insurgencies of Trump and Sanders this year were equally a blistering referendum on
Beltway politics. But the major-party leaders and the media mouthpieces they hang out with
can't see this, because of what that friend of mine talked about over a decade ago: Washington
culture is too far up its own backside to see much of anything at all.
In D.C., a kind of incestuous myopia very quickly becomes part of many political jobs.
Congressional aides in particular work ridiculous hours for terrible pay and hang out almost
exclusively with each other. About the only recreations they can afford are booze, shop-talk, and
complaining about constituents, who in many offices are considered earth's lowest form of life,
somewhere between lichens and nematodes.
It's somewhat understandable. In congressional offices in particular, people universally dread
picking up the phone, because it's mostly only a certain kind of cable-addicted person with too
much spare time who calls a politician's office.
"Have you ever called your congressman? No, because you have a job!" laughs Paul Thacker, a
former Senate aide currently working on a book about life on the Hill. Thacker recounts tales of
staffers rushing to turn on Fox News once the phones start ringing, because "the people" are
usually only triggered to call Washington by some moronic TV news scare campaign.
In another case, Thacker remembers being in the office of the senator of a far-Northern state,
watching an aide impatiently conduct half of a constituent phone call. "He was like, 'Uh huh,
yes, I understand.' Then he'd pause and say, 'Yes, sir,' again. This went on for like five
minutes," recounts Thacker.
Finally, the aide firmly hung up the phone, reared back and pointed accusingly at the receiver.
"And you are from fucking Missouri!" he shouted. "Why are you calling me?"
These stories are funny, but they also point to a problem. Since The People is an annoying beast,
young pols quickly learn to be focused entirely on each other and on their careers. They get
turned on by the narrative of Beltway politics as a cool power game, and before long are way too
often reaching for Game of Thrones metaphors to describe their jobs. Eventually, the only action
that matters is inside the palace.
Financial oligarchy now is really afraid of losing power... They have weak neocon stooge Hillary
-- an old woman with frail health, blood clots in the brain and probably other unknown to public
ailments. And will fight back tooth and nail to preserve
it. Like trump said -- expect the elections to be rigged.
In "How
American Politics Went Insane," Brookings Institute Fellow Jonathan Rauch spends
many thousands of words arguing for the reinvigoration of political machines, as a means
of keeping the ape-citizen further from power.
He portrays the public as a gang of
nihilistic loonies determined to play mailbox baseball with the gears of state.
"Neurotic hatred of the political class is the country's last universally acceptable
form of bigotry," he writes, before concluding:
"Our most pressing political problem today is that the country abandoned the
establishment, not the other way around."
Rauch's audacious piece, much like Andrew Sullivan's clarion call for a
less-democratic future in New York magazine ("Democracies
end when they are too democratic"), is not merely a warning about the threat posed
to civilization by demagogues like Donald Trump.
It's a piece that praises Boss Tweed's Tammany Hall (it was good for the
Irish!), the smoke-filled room (good for "brokering complex compromises"), and
pork (it helps "glue Congress together" by giving members "a kind of currency
to trade").
Rauch even chokes multiple times on the word "corruption,"
seeming reluctant to even mention the concept without shrouding it in flurries
of caveats. When he talks about the "ever-present potential for corruption"
that political middlemen pose, he's quick to note the converse also applies
(emphasis mine):
"Overreacting to the threat of corruption is just as harmful. Political
contributions, for example, look unseemly, but they play a vital role as
political bonding agents."
The basic thrust is that
shadowy back-room mechanisms, which Rauch absurdly describes as being relics of a lost
era, have a positive role and must be brought back.
He argues back-room relationships and payoffs at least committed the actors involved to
action. Meanwhile, all the transparency and sunshine and access the public is always
begging for leads mainly to gridlock and frustration.
In one passage, Rauch blames gridlock on the gerrymandering that renders most
congressional elections meaningless. In a scandal that should get more media play,
Democrats and Republicans have divvied up territory to make most House districts "safe"
for one party or another. Only about 10 to 20 percent of races are really contested in
any given year (one estimate in 2014 described an incredible 408 of the 435 races as
"noncompetitive").
As Rauch notes, meaningless general elections make primaries the main battlegrounds.
This puts pressure on party candidates to drift to extremes...
... ... ...
But it's all bull.
Voters in America not only aren't over-empowered, they've for decades now been almost
totally disenfranchised, subjects of one of the more brilliant change-suppressing
systems ever invented.
We have periodic elections, which leave citizens with the
feeling of self-rule. But in reality people are only allowed to choose between
candidates carefully screened by wealthy donors. Nobody without a billion dollars and
the approval of a half-dozen giant media companies has any chance at high office.
People have no other source of influence. Unions have been crushed. Nobody has any job
security. Main Street institutions that once allowed people to walk down the road to
sort things out with other human beings have been phased out. In their place now rest
distant, unfeeling global bureaucracies.
Has a health insurance company wrongly denied your sick child coverage? Good luck even
getting someone on the phone to talk it over, much less get it sorted out. Your
neighborhood bank, once a relatively autonomous mechanism for stimulating the local
economy, is now a glorified ATM machine with limited ability to respond to a community's
most basic financial concerns.
One of the underpublicized revelations of the financial crisis, for instance,
was that millions of Americans found themselves unable to get answers to a
simple questions like, "Who
holds the note to my house?"
People want more power over their own lives.
They want to feel some connection to society. Most particularly, they don't
want to be dictated to by distant bureaucrats who don't seem to care what
they're going through, and think they know what's best for everyone.
These are legitimate concerns. Unfortunately, they came out in this past
year in the campaign of Donald Trump, who'd exposed a tiny flaw in the system.
People are still free to vote, and some peculiarities in the structure of
the commercial media, combined with mountains of public anger, conspired to put
one of the two parties in the hands of a coverage-devouring billionaire running
on a "Purge the Scum" platform.
Donald Trump is dangerous because as president, he'd likely have little respect for
law. But a gang of people whose metaphor for society is "We are the white cells, voters
are the disease" is comparably scary in its own banal, less click-generating way.
These self-congratulating cognoscenti could have looked at the events of the last
year and wondered why people were so angry with them, and what they could do to make
government work better for the population.
Instead, their first instinct is to dismiss voter concerns as baseless, neurotic bigotry
and to assume that the solution is to give Washington bureaucrats even more leeway to
blow off the public. In the absurdist comedy that is American political life, this is
the ultimate anti-solution to the unrest of the last year, the mathematically perfect
wrong ending.
Trump is going to lose this election, then live on as the reason for an emboldened, even
less-responsive oligarchy. And you thought this election season couldn't get any worse.
In this scheme adopted by West "who did it" does not matter, because when the truth eventually surface,
the necessary effect was already achieved.
Notable quotes:
"... MH17 was just another opportunity to justify sanctions against Russia. Tank the Russian economy, promote a coup. Innit? Except the West and particularly the US are stuck in their own echo chamber. ..."
"... Anyone even mildly critical of their strategy had seen the way the wind is blowing or has been forced out. Thinktankland has been gutted of critical thought, ironically to the detriment of the US itself. A great example of perfect short term thinking that dominates western thinking and long term thinking based on false premise. ..."
Naah, you follow the way forged by the Dutch Safety Board in investigating what brought down MH17:
you decide that the Russians are to blame and then you look for and put out the evidence that
leads to your chosen decision and ignore all other evidence that leads away from your belief.
Well that's what the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the Hague did
with Milosevic. The 'surprise' finding in the Karadzic judgment that one of the Stooges posted
recently is anything but surprising, but that's not the point. It is neutralizing a 'threat' for
a determined time frame to take them out of a political equation and make way for more pliable
actors.
MH17 was just another opportunity to justify sanctions against Russia. Tank the Russian
economy, promote a coup. Innit? Except the West and particularly the US are stuck in their own
echo chamber.
Anyone even mildly critical of their strategy had seen the way the wind is blowing or has
been forced out. Thinktankland has been gutted of critical thought, ironically to the detriment
of the US itself. A great example of perfect short term thinking that dominates western thinking
and long term thinking based on false premise.
"... But to read the papers in the last two days is to imagine that we didn't just spend a year witnessing the growth of a massive grassroots movement fueled by loathing of the party establishment, with some correspondingly severe numerical contractions in the turnout department (though she won, for instance, Clinton received 30 percent fewer votes in California this year versus 2008, and 13 percent fewer in New Jersey). ..."
"... The twin insurgencies of Trump and Sanders this year were equally a blistering referendum on Beltway politics. ..."
Hohmann's thesis was that the "scope and scale" of Clinton's wins Tuesday night meant
mainstream Democrats could now safely return to their traditional We won, screw you posture of
"minor concessions" toward the "liberal base."
Hohmann focused on the fact that with Bernie out of the way, Hillary now had a path to victory
that would involve focusing on Trump's negatives. Such a strategy won't require much if any
acquiescence toward the huge masses of Democratic voters who just tried to derail her candidacy.
And not only is the primary scare over, but Clinton and the centrist Democrats in general are in
better shape than ever.
"Big picture," Hohmann wrote, "Clinton is running a much better and more organized campaign than
she did in 2008."
Then there was Jonathan Capehart, also of the Post, whose "This is how Bernie Sanders and Donald
Trump are the same person" piece describes Sanders as a "stubborn outsider" who "shares the same
DNA" as Donald Trump. Capeheart snootily seethes that both men will ultimately pay a karmic price
for not knowing their places.
"In the battle of the outsider egos storming the political establishment, Trump succeeded where
Sanders failed," he wrote. "But the chaos unleashed by Trump's victory could spell doom for the
GOP all over the ballot in November. Pardon me while I dab that single tear trickling down my
cheek."
If they had any brains, Beltway Dems and their clucky sycophants like Capeheart would not be
celebrating this week. They ought to be horrified to their marrow that the all-powerful
Democratic Party ended up having to dig in for a furious rally to stave off a quirky Vermont
socialist almost completely lacking big-dollar donors or institutional support.
They should be freaked out, cowed and relieved, like the Golden State Warriors would be if they
needed a big fourth quarter to pull out a win against Valdosta State.
But to read the papers in the last two days is to imagine that we didn't just spend a year
witnessing the growth of a massive grassroots movement fueled by loathing of the party
establishment, with some correspondingly severe numerical contractions in the turnout department
(though she won, for instance, Clinton received 30 percent fewer votes in California this year
versus 2008, and 13 percent fewer in New Jersey).
The twin insurgencies of Trump and Sanders this year were equally a blistering referendum on
Beltway politics. But the major-party leaders and the media mouthpieces they hang out with
can't see this, because of what that friend of mine talked about over a decade ago: Washington
culture is too far up its own backside to see much of anything at all.
"... Ugh. Hey, Jonathan: Voters don't want candidates who agree with them about everything. They just want one who isn't going to completely take them for granted. If that's become too much to ask, maybe there's something wrong with the Democratic Party, not people like Ralph Nader or Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... As of June 6th, Hillary Clinton had won nearly 13 million primary votes, while Trump had gotten some 11.5 million. ..."
Jonathan Chait of New York magazine
wrote a column about Ralph Nader this morning that uses some interesting language. Noting that
it's now been 16 years since Nader ran for president and garnered enough dissenting votes to help
elect George W. Bush, he wrote (emphasis mine):
Instead of a reality check for the party, it'll be smugness
redoubled
"That isenough time for Nader to confess his role in enabling
one of the most disastrous presidencies in American history, or at least to come up with a better
explanation for his decision. Instead, Nader has repeated his same litany of evasions, most recently
in an interview with
Jeremy Hobson on WBUR, where he dismissed all criticisms of his 2000 campaign as 'fact deprived.'"
It would be foolish to argue that Nader's run in 2000 didn't enable Bush's presidency. Though
there were other factors, Nader's presence on the ballot was surely a big one.
But the career Democrats of the Beltway and their buddies in the press have turned the Nader episode
into something very like the creation story of the Third Way political movement. And like many religious
myths, it's gotten very tiresome.
The Democratic Party leaders have trained their followers to perceive everything in terms of one
single end-game equation: If you don't support us, you're supporting Bush/Rove/Cheney/Palin/Insert
Evil Republican Here.
That the monster of the moment, Donald Trump, is a lot more monstrous than usual will likely make
this argument an even bigger part of the Democratic Party platform going forward.
It's a sound formula for making ballot-box decisions, but the people who push it never seem content
to just use it to win elections. They're continually trying to make an ethical argument out of it,
to prove people who defy The Equation are, whether they know it or not, morally wrong and in league
with the other side.
Beltway Democrats seem increasingly to believe that all people who fall within a certain broad
range of liberal-ish beliefs owe their votes and their loyalty to the Democratic Party.
That's why, as a socially liberal person who probably likes trees and wouldn't want to see
Roe v. Wade overturned, Nader's decision to take votes from the party-blessed candidate Gore
is viewed not as dissent, but as a kind of treason.
The problem with this line of thinking is that there's no end to it. If you think I owe you my
vote because I recycle and enjoyed To Kill a Mockingbird, you're not going to work very
hard to keep it. That's particularly true if the only standard you think you need to worry about
is not being worse than Donald Trump, which is almost the same as no standard at all.
This is why the thinking within the Democratic Party has gotten so flabby over the years. It increasingly
seems to rejoice in its voters' lack of real choices, and relies on a political formula that requires
little input from anyone outside the Beltway.
It's heavily financed by corporate money, and the overwhelming majority of its voters would never
cast a vote for the nut-bar God-and-guns version of Republicanism that's been their sole opposition
for decades.
So the party gets most of its funding without having to beg for it door to door, and it gets many
of its votes by default. Except for campaign-trail photo ops, mainstream Democrats barely need to
leave Washington to stay in business.
Still, the Democratic Leadership Council wing of the Democrats have come to believe they've earned
their status, by being the only plausible bulwark against the Republican menace.
This sounds believable because party officials and pundits like Chait keep describing critics
of the party as far-leftists and extremists, whose platform couldn't win a national election.
Dissenting voices like this year's version of Nader, Bernie Sanders, are inevitably pitched as
quixotic egotists who don't have the guts to do what it takes to win. They're described as just out
for 15 minutes of fame, and maybe a few plaudits from teenagers and hippies who'll gush over their
far-out idealism.
But that characterization isn't accurate. The primary difference between the Nader/Sanders platform
and the Gore/Clinton platform isn't rooted in ideology at all, but money.
The former camp refuses to be funded by the Goldmans and Pfizers of the world, while the latter
camp embraces those donors. That's really all this comes down to. There's nothing particularly radical
about not taking money from companies you think you might need to regulate someday. And there's nothing
particularly centrist or "realistic" about taking that same money.
When I think about the way the Democrats and their friends in the press keep telling me I owe
them my vote, situations like the following come to mind. We're in another financial crisis. The
CEOs of the ten biggest banks in America, fresh from having wrecked the economy with the latest harebrained
bubble scheme, come to the Oval Office begging for a bailout.
In that moment, to whom is my future Democratic president going to listen: those bankers or me?
It's not going to be me, that's for sure. Am I an egotist for being annoyed by that? And how exactly
should I take being told on top of that that I still owe this party my vote, and that I should keep
my mouth shut about my irritation if I don't want to be called a Republican-enabler?
The collapse of the Republican Party and its takeover by the nativist Trump wing poses all sorts
of problems, not the least of which being the high likelihood that the Democrats will now get even
lazier when it comes to responding to their voters' interests. The crazier the Republicans get, the
more reflexive will be the arguments that we can't afford any criticism of Democrats anymore, lest
we invite in the Fourth Reich.
I didn't vote for Nader in 2000, and I don't have a problem with anyone arguing this coming Election
Day that we shouldn't all do whatever we can to keep Donald Trump out of office.
What's problematic is the way Beltway media types are forever turning postmortems on the candidacies
of people like Nader or Sanders into parables about the perils of voting your conscience, when what
we're really talking about is the party's unwillingness to untether itself from easy money. This
is how Chait sums up Nader (again, emphasis mine):
"Nader goes on to defend his idiosyncratic belief that people are under no obligation to consider
real-world impacts in their voting behavior. Vote for a third-party candidate, write in a candidate,
follow your own conscience: 'I think voters in a democracy should vote for anybody
they want, including write in or even themselves. I don't believe in any kind of reprimand of voters
who stray from the two-party tyranny.'
"Why should people vote for candidates at all? Since, by definition, the person we most closely
agree with is ourselves, why not just write your own name in every time?"
Ugh. Hey, Jonathan: Voters don't want candidates who agree with them about everything. They just
want one who isn't going to completely take them for granted. If that's become too much to ask, maybe
there's something wrong with the Democratic Party, not people like Ralph Nader or Bernie Sanders.
As of June 6th, Hillary Clinton had won nearly 13 million primary votes, while Trump had gotten
some 11.5 million.
"... "The rise and fall of American resistance to organized wealth and power." Simply stated, that mystery was: Why do people rebel at certain moments and acquiesce in others? ..."
"... A "silent majority" would no longer remain conveniently silent. The Tea Party howled about every kind of political establishment in bed with Wall Street, crony capitalists, cultural and sexual deviants, free-traders who scarcely blinked at the jobs they incinerated ..."
"... In the face-off between right-wing populism and neoliberalism, Tea Party legions and Trumpists now find Fortune 500 CEOs morally obnoxious and an economic threat, ..."
"... I couldn't disagree more with this parasite that is attempting to twist history, so as to continue the elitist programming of youth with more distorted understanding of their heritage! ..."
"... If you doubt me then do a little research it what the foundation of 'May Day' is all about! ..."
"... Then check and see how many modern nations all over the world celebrate it as a national holiday (over 100) and then ask why it is not celebrated in America, where it was founded on the blood and sweat of American workers! ..."
"... Yes, there was a socialist system built into this nation and that system was called a society based upon a 'Commonwealth' that translated into todays terminology could be defined as a 'Democratic Socialism'!! ..."
"... "As Chomsky says, 'neoliberalism isn't new and it isn't liberal.' (the 'liberal' refers to the markets, not the politics of its purveyors - Reagan, Thatcher, Clinton were all NLs)" ..."
"... Soon, very soon, Sanders shall do what he keeps promising to do, and endorse the dangerous Warmonger of Wall Street, with whom he pretends to disagree, on so many issues. He might even be her Vice Presidential choice, in order to better neuter his supporters, and to minimize the political contortions that he'll have to go through, to convince his supporters to vote for her. Gird yourselves. ..."
"... If you keep in mind that Capitalism is a Pyramid Scheme, the whole thing makes better sense. ..."
"... The problem today is that the worship of money has taken on such proportions, that even the least among us has thoughts of riches coming their way, at any moment, even if it's the false hope of winning the "Lottery", the big one!! And as long as they have those dreams, the cognition of what is happening around them is dulled. ..."
"... I have neighbors who play the state lottery every week. Now and then I mention to them that buying lotto tickets is a fools bet. They reply like trained parrots "you can't win if you don't play", and mumble something about lotto proceeds and "education". ..."
"... "But Republicans have more than shared in this; they have, in fact, often taken the lead in implanting a market- and finance-driven economic system that has produced a few "winners" and legions of losers. Both parties heralded a deregulated marketplace, global free trade, the outsourcing of manufacturing and other industries, the privatization of public services, and the shrink-wrapping of the social safety net." ..."
"... Yes. Reagan was a neoliberal. Both Bushes too... wanna hear something really crazy? Hillary is both a neoliberal AND a neoconservative... true story. ..."
A year ago, in my book
The
Age of Acquiescence, I attempted to resolve a mystery hinted at in its subtitle: "The
rise and fall of American resistance to organized wealth and power." Simply stated, that mystery
was: Why do people rebel at certain moments and acquiesce in others?
Resisting all the hurts,
insults, threats to material well-being, exclusions, degradations, systematic inequalities, over-lordship,
indignities, and powerlessness that are the essence of everyday life for millions would seem natural
enough, even inescapable, if not inevitable. Why put up with all that?
... ... ...
A "silent majority" would no longer remain conveniently silent. The Tea Party howled about
every kind of political establishment in bed with Wall Street, crony capitalists, cultural and sexual
deviants, free-traders who scarcely blinked at the jobs they incinerated, anti-taxers who had
never met a tax shelter they didn't love, and decriers of big government who lived off state subsidies.
In a zip code far, far away, a privileged sliver of Americans who had gamed the system, who had indeed
made gaming the system into the system, looked down on the mass of the previously credulous, now
outraged, incredulously.
...it was The Donald who magically rode that
Trump Tower escalator down to the ground floor to pick up the pieces. His irreverence for
established authority worked. ...worked for millions who had grown infatuated with all the
celebrated Wall Street conquistadors of the
second Gilded Age.
... .. ..
In the face-off between right-wing populism and neoliberalism, Tea Party legions and Trumpists
now find Fortune 500 CEOs morally obnoxious and an economic threat, grow irate at Federal Reserve
bail-outs, and are fired up by the multiple crises set off by global free trade and the treaties
that go with it.
... ... ...
The Sanders campaign had made its stand against the [neo]iberalism of the Clinton elite. It has
resonated so deeply because the candidate, with all his grandfatherly charisma and integrity, repeatedly
insists that Americans should look beneath the surface of a liberal capitalism that is economically
and ethically bankrupt and running a political confidence game, even as it condescends to "the forgotten
man."
Steve Fraser's new book, "The Limousine Liberal: How an Incendiary Image United the Right and
Fractured America" is being published on May 10 by Basic Books. His other books include Every Man
a Speculator, Wall Street, and Labor Will Rule, which won the Philip Taft Award for the best book
in labor history. He also is the co-editor of The Rise and Fall of the New Deal Order. His work has
appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, The Nation, The American Prospect, Raritan,
and the London Review of Books. He has written for the online site Tomdispatch.com, and his work
has appeared on the Huffington Post, Salon, Truthout, and Alternet, among others. He lives in New
York City.
R B, Jun 4, 2016
I truly believe that this author, Steve Fraser through his writings has clearly revealed his
role as that of a member of the elite class or even worse one of the blood sucking hounds that
pit the lower classes against each other!!! He defends the capitalists by indicating that for
anyone to think or speak of any form of socialism is a crime against America and that it is counter
to everything this nation has EVER stood for! I couldn't disagree more with this parasite
that is attempting to twist history, so as to continue the elitist programming of youth with more
distorted understanding of their heritage!
Our Fore Fathers wrapped this society in a specific form of government that encouraged free-enterprise,
not capitalism! Guess what Americans, they are different in goals! These Fore Fathers recognized
that a healthy society included a system of economic stimulation, but more importantly that it
has a sense of unity and equality, that left no one to beg in the streets! They achieved this
even in those early and rugged days of colonialism through a system that the capitalists and republicans
have always hated and have done everything in their power to destroy in the past century!
If you doubt me then do a little research it what the foundation of 'May Day' is all about!
Where it began and what it was based upon, who celebrated the day and how it came to be drowned
out of American society. Then check and see how many modern nations all over the world celebrate
it as a national holiday (over 100) and then ask why it is not celebrated in America, where it
was founded on the blood and sweat of American workers!
Yes, there was a socialist system built into this nation and that system was called a society
based upon a 'Commonwealth' that translated into todays terminology could be defined as a 'Democratic
Socialism'!! So Mr. Fraser, I state that you have been writing not to enlighten the general
citizenry of the reality to their world, but to the continued domination of the 'One Percent'!!!
trt3, Jun 3, 2016
@Blueflash The author does not use the term in its proper context ether. I wish people would
stop using the term at all. It does not mean new liberal as in neoconservative, neo-fascist, or
neo-nazi. History of the term can be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
Over the last year or so many commenters have attempted to paint HRC's economic platform as neoliberalism
as a smear because she takes donations from Wall Street.. Or, that Bill Clinton, because he had
to work with the congress of Newt Gingrich, worked to deregulate investment bankers.
If you want to see the effects of modern day neoliberalism look at Kansas and the devastation
that the Chicago school of economics brings, (as opposed to California with a more Keynesian economic
approach).
Tristero1, Jun 3, 2016
@trt3 @Blueflash From below:
"As Chomsky says, 'neoliberalism isn't new and it isn't liberal.' (the 'liberal' refers
to the markets, not the politics of its purveyors - Reagan, Thatcher, Clinton were all NLs)"
If there are no more conservatives, "They're all the same" rules the day and the artists formerly
known as conservatives rule the planet.
Jayne Cullen, Jun 3, 2016
Soon, very soon, Sanders shall do what he keeps promising to do, and endorse the dangerous
Warmonger of Wall Street, with whom he pretends to disagree, on so many issues. He might even
be her Vice Presidential choice, in order to better neuter his supporters, and to minimize the
political contortions that he'll have to go through, to convince his supporters to vote for her.
Gird yourselves.
Faulkner, Jun 3, 2016
The IMF and German banks of the neoliberal international aristocracy are forcing Greece to
rescind its social safety net and assets in order to keep making interest payments - a scheme
to keep them debt slaves to the new financial imperialism, similar to what is happening to Puerto
Rico and the US.
This is neoliberalism's endgame - to create a modern day feudalism, which is why it must be
stopped.
If you keep in mind that Capitalism is a Pyramid Scheme, the whole thing makes better sense.
Just the same way your older brother or sister beat the snot outta you playing monopoly as a kid,
so are the richest among us, burying us, in debt, and in isolation. Now back in TR's day there
was a little better sense about fair play, and helping your fellow man. That was not an overwhelming
altruistic thought that swept the country, at that time, but rather it grew out of years of degrading
abuse imposed by rich Industrialists. This caused a backlash, and corrections were made.
The problem today is that the worship of money has taken on such proportions, that even
the least among us has thoughts of riches coming their way, at any moment, even if it's the false
hope of winning the "Lottery", the big one!! And as long as they have those dreams, the cognition
of what is happening around them is dulled. There will be riots, I am sure. If this persistent
process of moving money to the top, and appreciably nowhere else, the backlash will be inevitable,
and harsh. The longer it takes, the harsher it will be. And if you think not, you've been watching
too many Disney Movies.
cactusbill, Jun 3, 2016
I have neighbors who play the state lottery every week. Now and then I mention to them
that buying lotto tickets is a fools bet. They reply like trained parrots "you can't win if you
don't play", and mumble something about lotto proceeds and "education".
So when you notice the glazed eyes and fist pumping at a Drumpf rally, remember how many Americans
spend rent and food money on lotto tickets.
It's the same people.
AJS197, Jun 3, 2016
@Joel Graham As Chomsky says, 'neoliberalism isn't new and it isn't liberal.' (the 'liberal'
refers to the markets, not the politics of its purveyors - Reagan, Thatcher, Clinton were all
NLs). A closer read and you will recognize he implicates both parties in the neoliberal ascent:
"But Republicans have more than shared in this; they have, in fact, often taken the
lead in implanting a market- and finance-driven economic system that has produced a few "winners"
and legions of losers. Both parties heralded a deregulated marketplace, global free trade,
the outsourcing of manufacturing and other industries, the privatization of public services,
and the shrink-wrapping of the social safety net."
AJS1972, Jun 3, 2016
Yes. Reagan was a neoliberal. Both Bushes too... wanna hear something really crazy? Hillary
is both a neoliberal AND a neoconservative... true story.
"... The NSA identified Peña's cellphone and those of his associates using advanced software that can filter out specific phones from the swarm around the candidate. These lines were then targeted. The technology, one NSA analyst noted, "might find a needle in a haystack." The analyst described it as "a repeatable and efficient" process. ..."
"... Another NSA operation, begun in May 2010 and codenamed FLATLIQUID, targeted Pena's predecessor, President Felipe Calderon. The NSA, the documents revealed, was able "to gain first-ever access to President Felipe Calderon's public email account." ..."
"... At the same time, members of a highly secret joint NSA/CIA organization, called the Special Collection Service, are based in the U.S. embassy in Mexico City and other U.S. embassies around the world. It targets local government communications, as well as foreign embassies nearby. For Mexico, additional eavesdropping, and much of the analysis, is conducted by NSA Texas, a large listening post in San Antonio that focuses on the Caribbean, Central America and South America. ..."
"... Unlike the Defense Department's Pentagon, the headquarters of the cyberspies fills an entire secret city. Located in Fort Meade, Maryland, halfway between Washington and Baltimore, Maryland, NSA's headquarters consists of scores of heavily guarded buildings. The site even boasts its own police force and post office. ..."
"... One top-secret operation, code-named TreasureMap, is designed to have a "capability for building a near real-time interactive map of the global Internet. … Any device, anywhere, all the time." Another operation, codenamed Turbine, involves secretly placing "millions of implants" - malware - in computer systems worldwide for either spying or cyberattacks. ..."
"... Yet there can never be a useful discussion on the topic if the Obama administration continues to point fingers at other countries without admitting that Washington is engaged heavily in cyberspying and cyberwarfare. ..."
"... The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA From 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America ..."
National attention is focused on Russian eavesdroppers' possible targeting of U.S. presidential candidates
and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Yet, leaked top-secret National Security Agency
documents show that the Obama administration has long been involved in major bugging operations against
the election campaigns -- and the presidents -- of even its closest allies.
The United States is,
by far, the world's
most aggressive
nation when it comes to cyberspying and cyberwarfare. The National Security Agency has been eavesdropping
on foreign cities, politicians, elections and entire countries since it first turned on its receivers
in 1952. Just as other countries, including Russia, attempt to do to the United States. What is new
is a country leaking the intercepts back to the public of the target nation through a middleperson.
There is a strange irony in this. Russia, if it is actually involved in the hacking of the computers
of the Democratic National Committee, could be attempting to influence a U.S. election by leaking
to the American public the falsehoods of its leaders. This is a tactic Washington used against the
Soviet Union and other countries during the Cold War.
In the 1950s, for example, President Harry S Truman created the Campaign of Truth to reveal to
the Russian people the "Big Lies" of their government. Washington had often discovered these lies
through eavesdropping and other espionage.
Today, the United States has morphed from a Cold War, and in some cases a hot war, into a cyberwar,
with computer coding replacing bullets and bombs. Yet the American public manages to be "shocked,
shocked" that a foreign country would attempt to conduct cyberespionage on the United States.
NSA operations have, for example, recently delved into elections in Mexico, targeting its
last presidential campaign. According to a top-secret PowerPoint presentation leaked by former NSA
contract employee Edward Snowden, the operation involved a "surge effort against one of Mexico's
leading presidential candidates, Enrique Peña Nieto, and nine of his close associates." Peña won
that election and is now Mexico's president.
The NSA identified Peña's cellphone and those of his associates using advanced software that can
filter out specific phones from the swarm around the candidate. These lines were then targeted. The
technology, one NSA analyst noted, "might find a needle in a haystack." The analyst described it
as "a repeatable and efficient" process.
Another NSA operation, begun in May 2010 and codenamed FLATLIQUID, targeted Pena's predecessor,
President Felipe Calderon. The NSA, the documents revealed, was able "to gain first-ever access to
President Felipe Calderon's public email account."
At the same time, members of a highly secret joint NSA/CIA organization, called the Special Collection
Service, are based in the U.S. embassy in Mexico City and other U.S. embassies around the world.
It targets local government communications, as well as foreign embassies nearby. For Mexico, additional
eavesdropping, and much of the analysis, is conducted by NSA Texas, a large listening post in San
Antonio that focuses on the Caribbean, Central America and South America.
Unlike the Defense Department's Pentagon, the headquarters of the cyberspies fills an entire secret
city. Located in Fort Meade, Maryland, halfway between Washington and Baltimore, Maryland, NSA's
headquarters consists of scores of heavily guarded buildings. The site even boasts its own police
force and post office.
And it is about to grow considerably bigger, now that the NSA cyberspies have merged with the
cyberwarriors of U.S. Cyber Command, which controls its own Cyber Army, Cyber Navy, Cyber Air Force
and Cyber Marine Corps, all armed with state-of-the-art cyberweapons. In charge of it all is a four-star
admiral, Michael S. Rogers.
Now under construction inside NSA's secret city, Cyber Command's new $3.2- billion headquarters
is to include 14 buildings, 11 parking garages and an enormous cyberbrain - a 600,000-square-foot,
$896.5-million supercomputer facility that will eat up an enormous amount of power, about 60 megawatts.
This is enough electricity to power a city of more than 40,000 homes.
In 2014, for a cover story in Wired and a PBS documentary, I spent three days in Moscow
with Snowden, whose last NSA job was as a contract cyberwarrior. I was also granted rare access to
his archive of documents. "Cyber Command itself has always been branded in a sort of misleading way
from its very inception," Snowden told me. "It's an attack agency. … It's all about computer-network
attack and computer-network exploitation at Cyber Command."
The idea is to turn the Internet from a worldwide web of information into a global battlefield
for war. "The next major conflict will start in cyberspace," says one of the secret NSA documents.
One key phrase within Cyber Command documents is "Information Dominance."
The Cyber Navy, for example, calls itself the Information Dominance Corps. The Cyber Army is providing
frontline troops with the option of requesting "cyberfire support" from Cyber Command, in much the
same way it requests air and artillery support. And the Cyber Air Force is pledged to "dominate cyberspace"
just as "today we dominate air and space."
Among the tools at their disposal is one called Passionatepolka, designed to "remotely brick network
cards." "Bricking" a computer means destroying it – turning it into a brick.
One such situation took place in war-torn Syria in 2012, according to Snowden, when the NSA attempted
to remotely and secretly install an "exploit," or bug, into the computer system of a major Internet
provider. This was expected to provide access to email and other Internet traffic across much of
Syria. But something went wrong. Instead, the computers were bricked. It
took down the Internet across the country for a period of time.
While Cyber Command executes attacks, the National Security Agency seems more interested in tracking
virtually everyone connected to the Internet, according to the documents.
One top-secret operation, code-named TreasureMap, is designed to have a "capability for building
a near real-time interactive map of the global Internet. … Any device, anywhere, all the time." Another
operation, codenamed Turbine, involves secretly placing "millions of implants" - malware - in computer
systems worldwide for either spying or cyberattacks.
Yet, even as the U.S. government continues building robust eavesdropping and attack systems, it
looks like there has been far less focus on security at home. One benefit of the cyber-theft of the
Democratic National Committee emails might be that it helps open a public dialogue about the dangerous
potential of cyberwarfare. This is long overdue. The
possible security problems for the U.S. presidential election in November are already being discussed.
Yet there can never be a useful discussion on the topic if the Obama administration continues
to point fingers at other countries without admitting that Washington is engaged heavily in cyberspying
and cyberwarfare.
In fact, the United States is the only country ever to launch an actual cyberwar -- when the Obama
administration used a cyberattack to destroy thousands of centrifuges, used for nuclear enrichment,
in Iran. This was an illegal act of war, according to the Defense Department's own definition.
Given the news reports that many more DNC emails are waiting to be leaked as the presidential
election draws closer, there will likely be many more reminders of the need for a public dialogue
on cybersecurity and cyberwarfare before November.
(James Bamford is the author of The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA From 9/11 to the
Eavesdropping on America. He is a columnist for Foreign Policy magazine.)
"... It's hard not to notice, during the American Presidential election drama, that despite all the debates and speeches, and multiple candidates, the terms "Neoliberalism" and "austerity" have yet to be employed, much less explained, these being the two necessary words to describe the dominant economic "regime" of the past 35 years. And this despite the fact that most observers recognize that a "populist revolt" driven by economic unhappiness is underway via the campaigns of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. With Trump, of course, we are getting much more, the uglier side of American populism: racism, xenophobia and misogyny, at least; the culture wars at a higher pitch. ..."
"... the underlying driver of his supporters' anger is economic distress, not the ugly cultural prejudices. ..."
It's hard not to notice, during the American Presidential election drama, that despite all the
debates and speeches, and multiple candidates, the terms "Neoliberalism" and "austerity" have yet
to be employed, much less explained, these being the two necessary words to describe the dominant
economic "regime" of the past 35 years. And this despite the fact that most observers recognize that
a "populist revolt" driven by economic unhappiness is underway via the campaigns of Donald Trump
and Bernie Sanders. With Trump, of course, we are getting much more, the uglier side of American
populism: racism, xenophobia and misogyny, at least; the culture wars at a higher pitch.
Yet when Trump commented on the violence which canceled his Chicago rally on the evening of March
11th, he stated that the underlying driver of his supporters' anger is economic distress, not
the ugly cultural prejudices. The diagnoses for the root cause of this anger thus lie at the
heart of the proposed solutions. For students of the Great Depression, this will sound very familiar.
That is because, despite many diversions and sub-currents, we are really arguing about a renewed
New Deal versus an ever more purified laissez-faire, the nineteenth century term for keeping government
out of markets – once those markets had been constructed. "Interventions," however, as we will see,
are still required, because no one, left or right, can live with the brutalities of the workings
of "free markets" except as they exist in the fantasyland of the American Right.
In this scheme adopted by West "who did it" does not matter, because when the truth eventually surface,
the necessary effect was already achieved.
Notable quotes:
"... MH17 was just another opportunity to justify sanctions against Russia. Tank the Russian economy, promote a coup. Innit? Except the West and particularly the US are stuck in their own echo chamber. ..."
"... Anyone even mildly critical of their strategy had seen the way the wind is blowing or has been forced out. Thinktankland has been gutted of critical thought, ironically to the detriment of the US itself. A great example of perfect short term thinking that dominates western thinking and long term thinking based on false premise. ..."
Naah, you follow the way forged by the Dutch Safety Board in investigating what brought down MH17:
you decide that the Russians are to blame and then you look for and put out the evidence that
leads to your chosen decision and ignore all other evidence that leads away from your belief.
Well that's what the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the Hague did
with Milosevic. The 'surprise' finding in the Karadzic judgment that one of the Stooges posted
recently is anything but surprising, but that's not the point. It is neutralizing a 'threat' for
a determined time frame to take them out of a political equation and make way for more pliable
actors.
MH17 was just another opportunity to justify sanctions against Russia. Tank the Russian
economy, promote a coup. Innit? Except the West and particularly the US are stuck in their own
echo chamber.
Anyone even mildly critical of their strategy had seen the way the wind is blowing or has
been forced out. Thinktankland has been gutted of critical thought, ironically to the detriment
of the US itself. A great example of perfect short term thinking that dominates western thinking
and long term thinking based on false premise.
[Aug 07, 2016] Does WADA has facts to prove allegations ? If they are lying or cannot furnish any real evidence, the case is in serious trouble
Professional sport is now almost pure politics and not only athletes destroy their health by taking
drugs, the corrupt politicians play their dirty games with impunity. As perforce enhancing drags are
not a real menace, singling out Russia as the most egregious abuser based on testimony of the corrupt
turncoat (who destroyed the evidence and is under criminal investigation in Russia) looks like a dirty
game.
Notable quotes:
"... That is a slippery slope in which WADA is putting all its eggs in the Rodchenkov/Stepanov basket. If they are lying or cannot furnish any real evidence, the case is in serious trouble, and it looks like it is only going to heat up after Rio rather than dying down. ..."
"... If I remember correctly, Dick Pound is not part of WADA any more, or any Olympic organization – he's retired, just (allegedly) 'well-respected' and a former WADA official. He's a co-founder of WADA and a former president, and he had several jobs in both the Canadian and international Olympic committees. but now he's just an international busybody without portfolio, and obviously possessed of the belief that the Russians are what is wrong with clean sport and everything they ever won, they cheated to get. conversely, North America represents everything that's right with clean sport, and has an international obligation to squeeze out those Russian state-sponsored dopers and everyone else who shames their nation. The United States is happy to use him and McLaren because they like to internationalize their Russophobia. ..."
"... I'm sure there are good reasons for Russia to just bow its head and accept it for now, and probably that's the best thing in the long run, especially if WADA ends up discredited. And hopefully Russia will press it hard once the Olympics is over. But I would be hurt and angry if I were in charge, and I would withdraw from the Olympics, do everything I could to damage it as an institution and it would never see another dime out of me. ..."
"... I would be exactly the kind of reactionary leader Washington wishes was in charge in Russia. Because the USA would be delighted to see Russia as isolated as it is trying to make it. Here's a very interesting Canadian policy document on the drive for medals in international sport, and how much it means politically. It specifically cites how much Russia spends on sport, and I am sure I'm not speaking out of turn when I say screwing Russia out of medals is a western objective, and one that would not be necessary if they could be easily beaten just by superior athletes. ..."
"... "International sporting success has many outcomes, which I would argue are beneficial and far reaching. Governments seem to agree with what appears to be a continuing and increasing "arms race" with the hopes of further medals . As but one example on October 11, 2014, Russia announced a new federal funding program worth RUB70 billion ($1.8 billion) to further develop physical education and sports. Understanding how to best invest these funds in any country is difficult, however, as creating world champions is a complicated algorithm. In part, it was this recognition that led to the creation of the Canadian Sport for Life Long-Term Athlete Development (CS4L–LTAD) pathway. ..."
"... Another way to help answer the question of how to best invest in sport is SPLISS (Sport Policies Leading to International Sporting Success), a theoretical model for understanding (as the name suggests) what policies administrators can influence that will lead to medals in Summer Olympic Games ..."
"... Forget that 'just do your best; you can do no more' shit. It's about international prestige and winning lots of gold medals gives you a bigger dick to swing around on the world stage. And that's what it's all about. ..."
"... We've spoken before about the limitations of the human body set against the expectations that new world records will be set at every Olympics. The body can only do so much, and there are thresholds for human performance. These are young people in the prime of health who train every day, and it is not unrealistic to imagine at some point a person is going to lift the greatest weight of which a human is capable of lifting without taking some sort of drug to boost his strength or dull the pain that warns him he is destroying something. ..."
"... the IOC smackdown is a double kick in the sack. ..."
"... For all the slurry WADA, the US and its allies have spread in the direction of Russia, two thirds of (now angry) Russian athletes are going to the Olympics. ..."
"... I'm not for keeping Russian athletes at home. This is about history. It will be another chapter in a series of attempts by the West to pawn Putin that he handles with his usual Judo throw/chess move, at his timing and choice. ..."
"... I think WADA is going to end up getting its peepee slapped. I certainly hope so, anyway, and I hope Reedie comes through on naming athletes fingered by WADA's 'whistleblowers' because that will leave both the 'whistleblowers' and WADA open to lawsuits. ..."
"... Let's hope Russia goes after WADA and McClaren once the Games are over – let's see how well his 'evidence' stands up in an actual court rather than the fictious one he seems to have created in his mind. ..."
"... He looks to be sweating in the picture. I'd say he should get used to that. He just admitted to convicting an entire country on secret evidence that he has shared with nobody else. ..."
"... Did he actually go to Russia to obtain the samples he alludes to having? If not, I hope he has a chain of custody for them, because they could have come from anywhere and he probably got every bit of it from Rodchenkov. ..."
Moscow knows very well that McLaren has no real evidence, and is pinning everything on Rodchenkov's
and the Stepanovs' testimony – he has said as much. Will their wild tales hold up? We'll see.
But the public rift between the IOC and WADA, and increasing talk about reform at the latter does
not spell confidence in WADA's allegations to me. It would be pretty sweet if their whole case
fell through and Russia took WADA to court. They've been strutting around throwing bans and cutting
a wide swath as Washington uses them as yet one more of its political tools, but just maybe they
have overstepped this time.
I notice WADA was
not able to reward its star nightingale , Yulia Stepanova, with an Olympic slot. The IOC put
paid to that proposition, as their quarrel gets more public.
Speaking of WADA, Russia appears to have goaded its president, Craig Reedie, into announcing
that WADA was ready to reveal the names
of the Russian athletes who allegedly took performance-enhancing drugs during the Sochi Olympics.
That is a slippery slope in which WADA is putting all its eggs in the Rodchenkov/Stepanov
basket. If they are lying or cannot furnish any real evidence, the case is in serious trouble,
and it looks like it is only going to heat up after Rio rather than dying down.
I think the legal route will be pretty well inevitable unless WADA rows back. It doesn't actually
have to go to court, as you have pointed out their rather whimiscal 'evidence', that I highly
doubt would pass the legal smell test to even get beyond a hearing. I would expect that WADA &
the IOC may simply be happy to drop the ban with little or no fanfare and 'no comment', after
Rio if possible.
Those re-tested samples would need to be tested even again…
I suppose the question is what happens to those officials in WADA who backed & demanded the
ban. I don't see how anyone could have further confidence in WADA if they remain in place. They
may pretend not to be responsible or take any blame but I don't see how they could stay (apart
from their government's insistence) without all credibility being lost.
If I remember correctly, Dick Pound is not part of WADA any more, or any Olympic organization
– he's retired, just (allegedly) 'well-respected' and a former WADA official. He's a co-founder
of WADA and a former president, and he had several jobs in both the Canadian and international
Olympic committees. but now he's just an international busybody without portfolio, and obviously
possessed of the belief that the Russians are what is wrong with clean sport and everything they
ever won, they cheated to get. conversely, North America represents everything that's right with
clean sport, and has an international obligation to squeeze out those Russian state-sponsored
dopers and everyone else who shames their nation. The United States is happy to use him and McLaren
because they like to internationalize their Russophobia.
I'm sure there are good reasons for Russia to just bow its head and accept it for now,
and probably that's the best thing in the long run, especially if WADA ends up discredited. And
hopefully Russia will press it hard once the Olympics is over. But I would be hurt and angry if
I were in charge, and I would withdraw from the Olympics, do everything I could to damage it as
an institution and it would never see another dime out of me.
I would be exactly the kind of reactionary leader Washington wishes was in charge in Russia.
Because the USA would be delighted to see Russia as isolated as it is trying to make it. Here's
a very interesting Canadian
policy document on the drive for medals in international sport, and how much it means politically.
It specifically cites how much Russia spends on sport, and I am sure I'm not speaking out of turn
when I say screwing Russia out of medals is a western objective, and one that would not be necessary
if they could be easily beaten just by superior athletes.
Here's a teaser:
"International sporting success has many outcomes, which I would argue are beneficial
and far reaching. Governments seem to agree with what appears to be a continuing and
increasing "arms race" with the hopes of further medals . As but one example on October
11, 2014, Russia announced a new federal funding program worth RUB70 billion ($1.8 billion)
to further develop physical education and sports. Understanding how to best invest these funds
in any country is difficult, however, as creating world champions is a complicated algorithm.
In part, it was this recognition that led to the creation of the Canadian Sport for Life Long-Term
Athlete Development (CS4L–LTAD) pathway.
Another way to help answer the question of how to best invest in sport is SPLISS (Sport
Policies Leading to International Sporting Success), a theoretical model for understanding
(as the name suggests) what policies administrators can influence that will lead to medals
in Summer Olympic Games . This model has evolved following rigorous study that began in
the early 2000s. At that time, researchers from Belgium, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom
recognized that other models were too anecdotal or descriptive in their attempts to understand
how to better invest for medal success ."
Forget that 'just do your best; you can do no more' shit. It's about international prestige
and winning lots of gold medals gives you a bigger dick to swing around on the world stage. And
that's what it's all about.
We've spoken before about the limitations of the human body set against the expectations
that new world records will be set at every Olympics. The body can only do so much, and there
are thresholds for human performance. These are young people in the prime of health who train
every day, and it is not unrealistic to imagine at some point a person is going to lift the greatest
weight of which a human is capable of lifting without taking some sort of drug to boost his strength
or dull the pain that warns him he is destroying something. At the next Olympics, somebody
will still win a gold medal in that event, but they will not be able to break the record, and
that will be disappointing because it will force everyone to acknowledge that humans have limits.
Interestingly, Craig Reedie is not only President of WADA, but Vice-President of the IOC. He
is British, unsurprisingly – he had to be either that or an American because nobody hates the
Russians like the British and the Americans do. So the IOC smackdown is a double kick in the
sack. I guess we know who the "1" was in the 84-1 vote, or whatever it was.
I think you've just failed your job interview with Vladimir Putin! Never mind.
Let's look at this dispassionately. For all the slurry WADA, the US and its allies have
spread in the direction of Russia, two thirds of (now angry) Russian athletes are going to the
Olympics. By not winning a ban, they have already lost. It was the best they could do and
there was no way for them to square the circle short of declaring that Russia does not exist and
thus cannot be present a the Olympics.
Then there's the longburn that we've all discussed and heavily speculated upon. Who knows how
it is going to shake out, but what we do know is that Putler takes his time and likes to serve
his revenge cold, and usually indirectly with little fanfare. It may not garner headlines, but
it will be an obvious slap in the face with a large fish a la Asterix to Russia's opponents.
I'm not for keeping Russian athletes at home. This is about history. It will be another
chapter in a series of attempts by the West to pawn Putin that he handles with his usual Judo
throw/chess move, at his timing and choice. This will be stuff taught to new cadres of diplomats
as textbook 'handling dat shit and then some'. No one is perfect and certainly not Putin (disbanding
the firewarning/volunteer service for example), but it is a master class of playing whatever cards
you've got their best advantage.
…"For me was that after this decision you have to be able to look into the eyes of all the
athletes and during my many visits to the village here in Rio I have been looking into eyes of
many athletes."
McLaren has accused the IOC of misrepresenting his findings, with several Russian athletes
challenging bans based on their inclusion within the report. But Bach defended the process, which
left those Russian athletes who did travel in limbo until the eve of the Olympics.
"I think this is a very thorough, strict and clear procedure and you will see the results of
the individual analyses and on the application of justice in order to ensure a level playing field
here at the Olympic Games," he said.
As he has since the beginning of the saga, he said that while the presumption of innocence
had been reversed, "natural justice does not allow us to deprive human beings of the right to
prove their innocence".
Bach pointed to the near unanimous support he received from members at the IOC decision,
with only Britain's Adam Pengilly voting against. ..
Still a lot of mouth from the western press against the IOC, and although I think Bach's position
is secure, you can bet that an effort to muscle him out and a compliant toady into his position
will depend on how further investigations into the McLaren report go after the Olympics are over.
For the moment McLaren seems pretty cocky, saying the IOC misrepresented his findings, but he
got all of his testimonial evidence from WADA and its president is vice-president of the IOC!
What's the chances of that being true, do you think?
I think WADA is going to end up getting its peepee slapped. I certainly hope so, anyway,
and I hope Reedie comes through on naming athletes fingered by WADA's 'whistleblowers' because
that will leave both the 'whistleblowers' and WADA open to lawsuits.
Looks like the wheels are coming off the WADA wagon and McClaren is getting a tad worried hence
the somewhat hysterical tone of this:
"I have the evidence, I have it secured. I have the evidence backed up by forensic analysis
of databases, sample bottles, I have laboratory evidence of some of those samples. It's true
I haven't revealed," he said.
"But if you conduct a proper investigation, you don't put the evidence out there to create
misinformation. I was at the stage where I could say what I knew beyond reasonable doubt. I
wouldn't put anything in the report that I didn't have evidence of and wouldn't meet the criminal
standard in any court around the world," he added.
I don't know what standard of jurisprudence he's used to but it's a mighty odd one. How can
he really have established the provenance of any samples his 'whistleblower' presented him with?
Other than the word of his informant, what actual evidence has he got of the involvement of the
Russian state? Why did McClaren make no effort to discuss his 'evidence' with Russian officials?
Let's hope Russia goes after WADA and McClaren once the Games are over – let's see how
well his 'evidence' stands up in an actual court rather than the fictious one he seems to have
created in his mind.
He looks to be sweating in the picture. I'd say he should get used to that. He just admitted
to convicting an entire country on secret evidence that he has shared with nobody else.
Yeah, but he said that it appeared that way to him beyond reasonable doubt .
If that's good enough for this one-man judge-jury-executioner, then it should be good enough for
the rest of us.
He said he had secret evidence that nobody had seen but him, and that the purpose of his report
was never to establish individual guilt, but to demonstrate that there was a state-sponsored doping
program. He admitted publicly before he commenced his research that he had no such evidence, so
he must have obtained it between the time he announced he had none and the time his report was
released. Did he actually go to Russia to obtain the samples he alludes to having? If not,
I hope he has a chain of custody for them, because they could have come from anywhere and he probably
got every bit of it from Rodchenkov.
He's just saying nobody else has seen it to avoid saying where he got it, and a conviction
in which the accused was not permitted to challenge the veracity of the evidence would not stand
up anywhere else in the world except for America, where they are just so exceptional that they
can do things that any other country would be condemned for doing. And rightly so.
"... But to read the papers in the last two days is to imagine that we didn't just spend a year witnessing the growth of a massive grassroots movement fueled by loathing of the party establishment, with some correspondingly severe numerical contractions in the turnout department (though she won, for instance, Clinton received 30 percent fewer votes in California this year versus 2008, and 13 percent fewer in New Jersey). ..."
"... The twin insurgencies of Trump and Sanders this year were equally a blistering referendum on Beltway politics. ..."
Hohmann's thesis was that the "scope and scale" of Clinton's wins Tuesday night meant
mainstream Democrats could now safely return to their traditional We won, screw you posture of
"minor concessions" toward the "liberal base."
Hohmann focused on the fact that with Bernie out of the way, Hillary now had a path to victory
that would involve focusing on Trump's negatives. Such a strategy won't require much if any
acquiescence toward the huge masses of Democratic voters who just tried to derail her candidacy.
And not only is the primary scare over, but Clinton and the centrist Democrats in general are in
better shape than ever.
"Big picture," Hohmann wrote, "Clinton is running a much better and more organized campaign than
she did in 2008."
Then there was Jonathan Capehart, also of the Post, whose "This is how Bernie Sanders and Donald
Trump are the same person" piece describes Sanders as a "stubborn outsider" who "shares the same
DNA" as Donald Trump. Capeheart snootily seethes that both men will ultimately pay a karmic price
for not knowing their places.
"In the battle of the outsider egos storming the political establishment, Trump succeeded where
Sanders failed," he wrote. "But the chaos unleashed by Trump's victory could spell doom for the
GOP all over the ballot in November. Pardon me while I dab that single tear trickling down my
cheek."
If they had any brains, Beltway Dems and their clucky sycophants like Capeheart would not be
celebrating this week. They ought to be horrified to their marrow that the all-powerful
Democratic Party ended up having to dig in for a furious rally to stave off a quirky Vermont
socialist almost completely lacking big-dollar donors or institutional support.
They should be freaked out, cowed and relieved, like the Golden State Warriors would be if they
needed a big fourth quarter to pull out a win against Valdosta State.
But to read the papers in the last two days is to imagine that we didn't just spend a year
witnessing the growth of a massive grassroots movement fueled by loathing of the party
establishment, with some correspondingly severe numerical contractions in the turnout department
(though she won, for instance, Clinton received 30 percent fewer votes in California this year
versus 2008, and 13 percent fewer in New Jersey).
The twin insurgencies of Trump and Sanders this year were equally a blistering referendum on
Beltway politics. But the major-party leaders and the media mouthpieces they hang out with
can't see this, because of what that friend of mine talked about over a decade ago: Washington
culture is too far up its own backside to see much of anything at all.
"... "The rise and fall of American resistance to organized wealth and power." Simply stated, that mystery was: Why do people rebel at certain moments and acquiesce in others? ..."
"... A "silent majority" would no longer remain conveniently silent. The Tea Party howled about every kind of political establishment in bed with Wall Street, crony capitalists, cultural and sexual deviants, free-traders who scarcely blinked at the jobs they incinerated ..."
"... In the face-off between right-wing populism and neoliberalism, Tea Party legions and Trumpists now find Fortune 500 CEOs morally obnoxious and an economic threat, ..."
"... I couldn't disagree more with this parasite that is attempting to twist history, so as to continue the elitist programming of youth with more distorted understanding of their heritage! ..."
"... If you doubt me then do a little research it what the foundation of 'May Day' is all about! ..."
"... Then check and see how many modern nations all over the world celebrate it as a national holiday (over 100) and then ask why it is not celebrated in America, where it was founded on the blood and sweat of American workers! ..."
"... Yes, there was a socialist system built into this nation and that system was called a society based upon a 'Commonwealth' that translated into todays terminology could be defined as a 'Democratic Socialism'!! ..."
"... "As Chomsky says, 'neoliberalism isn't new and it isn't liberal.' (the 'liberal' refers to the markets, not the politics of its purveyors - Reagan, Thatcher, Clinton were all NLs)" ..."
"... Soon, very soon, Sanders shall do what he keeps promising to do, and endorse the dangerous Warmonger of Wall Street, with whom he pretends to disagree, on so many issues. He might even be her Vice Presidential choice, in order to better neuter his supporters, and to minimize the political contortions that he'll have to go through, to convince his supporters to vote for her. Gird yourselves. ..."
"... If you keep in mind that Capitalism is a Pyramid Scheme, the whole thing makes better sense. ..."
"... The problem today is that the worship of money has taken on such proportions, that even the least among us has thoughts of riches coming their way, at any moment, even if it's the false hope of winning the "Lottery", the big one!! And as long as they have those dreams, the cognition of what is happening around them is dulled. ..."
"... I have neighbors who play the state lottery every week. Now and then I mention to them that buying lotto tickets is a fools bet. They reply like trained parrots "you can't win if you don't play", and mumble something about lotto proceeds and "education". ..."
"... "But Republicans have more than shared in this; they have, in fact, often taken the lead in implanting a market- and finance-driven economic system that has produced a few "winners" and legions of losers. Both parties heralded a deregulated marketplace, global free trade, the outsourcing of manufacturing and other industries, the privatization of public services, and the shrink-wrapping of the social safety net." ..."
"... Yes. Reagan was a neoliberal. Both Bushes too... wanna hear something really crazy? Hillary is both a neoliberal AND a neoconservative... true story. ..."
A year ago, in my book
The
Age of Acquiescence, I attempted to resolve a mystery hinted at in its subtitle: "The
rise and fall of American resistance to organized wealth and power." Simply stated, that mystery
was: Why do people rebel at certain moments and acquiesce in others?
Resisting all the hurts,
insults, threats to material well-being, exclusions, degradations, systematic inequalities, over-lordship,
indignities, and powerlessness that are the essence of everyday life for millions would seem natural
enough, even inescapable, if not inevitable. Why put up with all that?
... ... ...
A "silent majority" would no longer remain conveniently silent. The Tea Party howled about
every kind of political establishment in bed with Wall Street, crony capitalists, cultural and sexual
deviants, free-traders who scarcely blinked at the jobs they incinerated, anti-taxers who had
never met a tax shelter they didn't love, and decriers of big government who lived off state subsidies.
In a zip code far, far away, a privileged sliver of Americans who had gamed the system, who had indeed
made gaming the system into the system, looked down on the mass of the previously credulous, now
outraged, incredulously.
...it was The Donald who magically rode that
Trump Tower escalator down to the ground floor to pick up the pieces. His irreverence for
established authority worked. ...worked for millions who had grown infatuated with all the
celebrated Wall Street conquistadors of the
second Gilded Age.
... .. ..
In the face-off between right-wing populism and neoliberalism, Tea Party legions and Trumpists
now find Fortune 500 CEOs morally obnoxious and an economic threat, grow irate at Federal Reserve
bail-outs, and are fired up by the multiple crises set off by global free trade and the treaties
that go with it.
... ... ...
The Sanders campaign had made its stand against the [neo]iberalism of the Clinton elite. It has
resonated so deeply because the candidate, with all his grandfatherly charisma and integrity, repeatedly
insists that Americans should look beneath the surface of a liberal capitalism that is economically
and ethically bankrupt and running a political confidence game, even as it condescends to "the forgotten
man."
Steve Fraser's new book, "The Limousine Liberal: How an Incendiary Image United the Right and
Fractured America" is being published on May 10 by Basic Books. His other books include Every Man
a Speculator, Wall Street, and Labor Will Rule, which won the Philip Taft Award for the best book
in labor history. He also is the co-editor of The Rise and Fall of the New Deal Order. His work has
appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, The Nation, The American Prospect, Raritan,
and the London Review of Books. He has written for the online site Tomdispatch.com, and his work
has appeared on the Huffington Post, Salon, Truthout, and Alternet, among others. He lives in New
York City.
R B, Jun 4, 2016
I truly believe that this author, Steve Fraser through his writings has clearly revealed his
role as that of a member of the elite class or even worse one of the blood sucking hounds that
pit the lower classes against each other!!! He defends the capitalists by indicating that for
anyone to think or speak of any form of socialism is a crime against America and that it is counter
to everything this nation has EVER stood for! I couldn't disagree more with this parasite
that is attempting to twist history, so as to continue the elitist programming of youth with more
distorted understanding of their heritage!
Our Fore Fathers wrapped this society in a specific form of government that encouraged free-enterprise,
not capitalism! Guess what Americans, they are different in goals! These Fore Fathers recognized
that a healthy society included a system of economic stimulation, but more importantly that it
has a sense of unity and equality, that left no one to beg in the streets! They achieved this
even in those early and rugged days of colonialism through a system that the capitalists and republicans
have always hated and have done everything in their power to destroy in the past century!
If you doubt me then do a little research it what the foundation of 'May Day' is all about!
Where it began and what it was based upon, who celebrated the day and how it came to be drowned
out of American society. Then check and see how many modern nations all over the world celebrate
it as a national holiday (over 100) and then ask why it is not celebrated in America, where it
was founded on the blood and sweat of American workers!
Yes, there was a socialist system built into this nation and that system was called a society
based upon a 'Commonwealth' that translated into todays terminology could be defined as a 'Democratic
Socialism'!! So Mr. Fraser, I state that you have been writing not to enlighten the general
citizenry of the reality to their world, but to the continued domination of the 'One Percent'!!!
trt3, Jun 3, 2016
@Blueflash The author does not use the term in its proper context ether. I wish people would
stop using the term at all. It does not mean new liberal as in neoconservative, neo-fascist, or
neo-nazi. History of the term can be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
Over the last year or so many commenters have attempted to paint HRC's economic platform as neoliberalism
as a smear because she takes donations from Wall Street.. Or, that Bill Clinton, because he had
to work with the congress of Newt Gingrich, worked to deregulate investment bankers.
If you want to see the effects of modern day neoliberalism look at Kansas and the devastation
that the Chicago school of economics brings, (as opposed to California with a more Keynesian economic
approach).
Tristero1, Jun 3, 2016
@trt3 @Blueflash From below:
"As Chomsky says, 'neoliberalism isn't new and it isn't liberal.' (the 'liberal' refers
to the markets, not the politics of its purveyors - Reagan, Thatcher, Clinton were all NLs)"
If there are no more conservatives, "They're all the same" rules the day and the artists formerly
known as conservatives rule the planet.
Jayne Cullen, Jun 3, 2016
Soon, very soon, Sanders shall do what he keeps promising to do, and endorse the dangerous
Warmonger of Wall Street, with whom he pretends to disagree, on so many issues. He might even
be her Vice Presidential choice, in order to better neuter his supporters, and to minimize the
political contortions that he'll have to go through, to convince his supporters to vote for her.
Gird yourselves.
Faulkner, Jun 3, 2016
The IMF and German banks of the neoliberal international aristocracy are forcing Greece to
rescind its social safety net and assets in order to keep making interest payments - a scheme
to keep them debt slaves to the new financial imperialism, similar to what is happening to Puerto
Rico and the US.
This is neoliberalism's endgame - to create a modern day feudalism, which is why it must be
stopped.
If you keep in mind that Capitalism is a Pyramid Scheme, the whole thing makes better sense.
Just the same way your older brother or sister beat the snot outta you playing monopoly as a kid,
so are the richest among us, burying us, in debt, and in isolation. Now back in TR's day there
was a little better sense about fair play, and helping your fellow man. That was not an overwhelming
altruistic thought that swept the country, at that time, but rather it grew out of years of degrading
abuse imposed by rich Industrialists. This caused a backlash, and corrections were made.
The problem today is that the worship of money has taken on such proportions, that even
the least among us has thoughts of riches coming their way, at any moment, even if it's the false
hope of winning the "Lottery", the big one!! And as long as they have those dreams, the cognition
of what is happening around them is dulled. There will be riots, I am sure. If this persistent
process of moving money to the top, and appreciably nowhere else, the backlash will be inevitable,
and harsh. The longer it takes, the harsher it will be. And if you think not, you've been watching
too many Disney Movies.
cactusbill, Jun 3, 2016
I have neighbors who play the state lottery every week. Now and then I mention to them
that buying lotto tickets is a fools bet. They reply like trained parrots "you can't win if you
don't play", and mumble something about lotto proceeds and "education".
So when you notice the glazed eyes and fist pumping at a Drumpf rally, remember how many Americans
spend rent and food money on lotto tickets.
It's the same people.
AJS197, Jun 3, 2016
@Joel Graham As Chomsky says, 'neoliberalism isn't new and it isn't liberal.' (the 'liberal'
refers to the markets, not the politics of its purveyors - Reagan, Thatcher, Clinton were all
NLs). A closer read and you will recognize he implicates both parties in the neoliberal ascent:
"But Republicans have more than shared in this; they have, in fact, often taken the
lead in implanting a market- and finance-driven economic system that has produced a few "winners"
and legions of losers. Both parties heralded a deregulated marketplace, global free trade,
the outsourcing of manufacturing and other industries, the privatization of public services,
and the shrink-wrapping of the social safety net."
AJS1972, Jun 3, 2016
Yes. Reagan was a neoliberal. Both Bushes too... wanna hear something really crazy? Hillary
is both a neoliberal AND a neoconservative... true story.
After the financial crash of 2007-2008 caused an economic
collapse, and after it became clear that the Bush and Obama
administrations were unwilling to actually
investigate,
prosecute and
incarcerate financial and banking executives for the
crimes committed, many politically active people in USA and
other countries began to dig deep into the philosophy of
political economy that had allowed the
financial industry to occupy such an
overwhelming position of
dominance over the rest of the economy.
The
philosophical wreckage they have been excavating has
generally come to be called "neoliberalism." It is a word which
confuses many people, because it serves as a name for a set of
economic beliefs and policies which are more easily recognized
as being associated with political conservatism and
libertarianism: the opening of the Wikipedia entry on
"neoliberalism" is accurate enough on these economic beliefs and
policies, which "include extensive economic liberalization
policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation,
free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to
enhance the role of the private sector in the economy."
Generally, neoliberals believe that markets with
untrammeled pricing mechanisms are a much fairer and more
efficient means of allocating society's resources than any level
of government oversight and intervention.
Neoliberals themselves actively seek to add to the confusion
by denying they have a shared, coherent philosophy. A good,
recent example-and from someone who is a self-professed
"liberal" not a conservative-was this
comment on DailyKos this past week: "Neoliberalism is not
actually a thing." It is exactly what neo-liberals themselves
say. It is a smokescreen, intended to confuse and stymie
inquiry. Philip Mirowski, a historian of economic thought at
Notre Dame, and co-editor of one of the best expositions of
neo-liberalism (The
Road from Mont Pelerin: The Making of the Neoliberal Thought
Collective, Harvard University Press, 2009; now available in
paperback), took on this deception earlier this year in a paper
entitled,
The Political Movement that Dared not Speak its own Name.
I do not recommend anyone go read the above links right now,
unless you are already familiar with the debate over
neoliberalism and are prepared for some hefty intellectual
lifting. For those people unfamiliar with the term
"neoliberalism" and seeking to understand how it differs from
liberalism, I recommend this excellent review of another book,
including many of the comments in the thread, on
These are all excellent discussions and expositions of
neoliberalism. Also excellent is the work of Corey Robin. See,
for example,
When Neoliberalism Was Young: A Lookback on Clintonism before
Clinton, from April 2016, and Robin's
response to critics. Robin puts his finger on a diseased
main artery in our political discourse today, when he writes
neoliberals, even those, such as Barack Obama and the Clintons,
who refuse to call themselves neoliberals,
would recoil in horror at the policies and programs of
mid-century liberals like Walter Reuther or John Kenneth
Galbraith or even Arthur Schlesinger, who claimed that
"class conflict is essential if freedom is to be preserved,
because it is the only barrier against class domination."
My own conclusion thus far is that much confusion will
persist until neoliberalism is understood in the historical
context of USA political economy, along with three other terms
crucial to understanding this history:
Mercantilism
Republicanism
Liberalism.
My firm conviction is that people cannot, and do not,
understand what an insidious, and potent, danger neoliberalism
thought is, until they understand republicanism. And in
political economy, you also need to understand mercantilism, and
how the USA theory and practice of republicanism interacted
with, and changed, mercantilism. As for liberalism, for now
suffice it to note that contemporary neoliberal thought has
more to do with economic liberalism, than it does political
liberalism. In fact, to some extent-and at the risk of my only
adding further to the confusion-it may be useful to assert here
that there is a strain of European political liberalism that
developed in opposition to the USA theory and practice of
republicanism. This strain of European political liberalism
resulted in granting the right to vote to most subjects of
polities which remained monarchies, as an expedient for the
necessity imposed by modern warfare for mass mobilization of a
country's male population. The obvious period is that of World
War One. In USA, at similar type of political liberalism arose
in response to the acquisition and consolidation of monopolistic
economic power by the trusts led by John D. Rockefeller, the
Morgan banking interests, and other misnamed, so called
"captains of industry" of the Gilded Age.
In my Introduction to my annotated abridgement of The Power to Govern: The Constitution -- Then and Now,
by Douglass Adair and Walton H. Hamilton (W.W. Norton &
Co., New York, NY, 1937, available on Amazon as a Kindle ebook,
here), I write that the creation the American republic and
its Constitution must be understood in the
context of the shift from the economic and political
systems of feudalism, to mercantilism and modern nationalism.
The ecclesiastical and warlord authoritarianism of feudal
Europe was being reluctantly and painfully dragged off the
stage of world history, making way for national states. In
the process, these national states developed-without,
Hamilton and Adair note, much theoretical foundation-an
accretion of laws and policies generally called mercantilism, intended to ensure economic activity added
to, rather than detracted from, a nation's wealth and power.
Hamilton and Adair present the evidence that the Framers were
entirely familiar with mercantilist policies, and that the
intent behind the Constitution was most emphatically not laissez faire and unregulated market capitalism, but a
careful and deliberate plan to ensure that all economic
activity was channeled and directed to the promotion of the
general welfare and national development….
The words "mercantilist" and "mercantilism" are generally
used whenever government powers are used to promote a state's
economic powers. By specifying in the Constitution that
government powers are used to promote a state's economic
powers in promotion of the general welfare, the
American republic made a sharp break from European
mercantilism, in which the welfare of a sole monarch or small
group of oligarchs was often conflated with the general
welfare of a state or nation….
As a body of economic thought, liberalism developed as the
economic and political philosophy of a revolt by a rising middle
class against the power and privileges of European ruling
oligarchs and monarchs, who used their connections and influence
at royal courts to gain economic monopolies and other privileges
(in other words, the system of mercantilism.)
The intent of classical economic liberalism was to sweep away,
or at least greatly circumscribe, the power of these
oligarchical and monarchical elites and states to make room for
greater economic freedoms and property rights for the rising
middle class.
In this sense, the culmination of liberalism was the creation
of the American republic, However-let me stress again-it is
crucial to note that under the Constitution of the new American
republic, economic freedoms and property rights were subject to
the Constitutional mandate to promote the general
welfare.
In advanced industrial economies, the way a sovereign
nation-state promotes and protects the general welfare is by
imposing environmental, workplace, and consumer regulations on
economic activity.
This is where we should discuss the concept of republicanism.
Remember, the United States is established as a republic, not as
a democracy. But what does that mean?
In a monumental book that is crucial to understanding the
historical and cultural context we are here examining, The
Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787 (Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press, 1969), Gordon Wood wrote,
"Republicanism meant more for Americans than simply the
elimination of a king and the institution of an elective system.
It added a moral dimension, a utopian depth, to the political
separation from England - a depth that involved the very
character of their society."
Wood continues:
To eighteenth-century American and European radicals
alike, living in a world of monarchies, it seemed only too
obvious that the great deficiency of existing governments was
precisely their sacrificing of the public good to the private
greed of small ruling groups.... The sacrifice of individual
interests to the greater good of the whole formed the essence
of republicanism and comprehended for Americans the
idealistic goal of their Revolution.... "The word republic," said Thomas Paine, "means the
public good,
or the good of the whole, in contradistinction to the
despotic form, which makes the good of the sovereign, or of
one man, the only object of the government."
(The first two thirds of "Republicanism," Chapter II from
Gordon Wood's The Creation of the American Republic,
has been
posted online here. I highly recommend it as a very
productive and uplifting Sunday read. Also, here is the
Wiki-summary of the entire book.)
In the closing decades of the 1700s, there was general
agreement that for republicanism to work as a system of
government, the citizens of the republic needed to be virtuous.
There were two types of virtue: private virtue and public
virtue. Political theorists of the time insisted that the two
were intertwined, but for sake of brevity, we need only look at
public virtue, which simply meant that
an individual citizen was willing to suppress his or her own
self-interest when the greater good of society required it.
What this meant in practice was that individuals must submit
to the authority of the state out of the self-abnegation which
flowed from understanding-and desiring-that the consideration
the general welfare must rule supreme. This required that the
citizens develop an entirely different character than
subjects in a monarchy, in which obedience to the state flowed
from the awe and fear of the immense, regal power of the monarch
and his supporting military apparatus. As Wood explains,
loyalists warned that
by resting the whole structure of government on the
unmitigated willingness of the people to obey, the Americans
were making a truly revolutionary transformation in the
structure of authority. In shrill and despairing pamphlets
[the Tories] insisted that the [Revolutionaries] ideas were
undermining the very principle of order. If respect and
obedience to the established governments were refused and if
republicanism were adopted, then... "the bands of society
would be dissolved, the harmony of the world confounded, and
the order of nature subverted." [The tories insisted that
]The principles of the Revolutionaries were directed
"clearly and literally against authority." They were
destroying "not only all authority over us as it now exists,
but any and all that it is possible to constitute." The Tory
logic was indeed frightening. Not only was the rebellion
rupturing the people's habitual obedience to the constituted
government, but by the establishment of republicanism the
[Revolutionaries] were also founding their new governments
solely on the people's voluntary acquiescence. And, as
Blackstone had pointed out, "obedience is an empty name, if
every individual has a right to decide how far he himself
shall obey." [Which of course, becomes the issue in the
Civil War eight decades later.-AKW]
Wood points out that the Revolutionaries did not actually
desire to do away with governmental and social authority, only
to supplant what motivated obedience to them by changing the
very character of the people, so that the motivating force came
from within each citizen, instead of from outside.
The Revolution was designed to change the flow of
authority-indeed the structure of politics as the colonists
had known it - but it was in no way intended to do away with
the principle of authority itself. "There must be," said John
Adams in 1776, "a Decency, and Respect, and Veneration
introduced for Persons in Authority, of every Rank, or We are
undone."
....In a monarchy each man's desire to do what was right
in his own eyes could be restrained by fear or force. In a
republic, however, each man must somehow be persuaded to
submerge his personal wants into the greater good of the
whole. This willingness of the individual to sacrifice his
private interests for the good of the community - such
patriotism or love of country - the eighteenth century termed
"public virtue." A republic was such a delicate polity
precisely because it demanded an extraordinary moral
character in the people. Every state in which the people
participated needed a degree of virtue; but a republic which
rested solely on the people absolutely required it... The
eighteenth-century mind was thoroughly convinced that a
popularly based government "cannot be supported without
Virtue." Only with a public-spirited, self-sacrificing people
could the authority of a popularly elected ruler be obeyed,
but "more by the virtue of the people, than by the terror of
his power." Because virtue was truly the lifeblood of the
republic, the thoughts and hopes surrounding this concept of
public spirit gave the Revolution its socially radical
character - an expected alteration in the very behavior of
the people, "laying the foundation in a constitution, not
without or over, but within the subjects."
Wood and other historians have written that the adoption of
the Constitution came about because many Americans-most
especially the leaders of the Revolution-were increasingly
horrified at the spectacle of self-interest dominating the work
of all the state legislatures. The republican public virtue
which had called forth the sacrifices of the Revolutionary War,
appeared to be ebbing, and there was a serious debate over
whether Americans remained virtuous enough for self-government
to survive. (See Wood, The Creation of the American
Republic, Chapter Ten, "Vices of the System.") Note that
this perceived diminution of virtue focused not only on the
personal corruption of individual state legislators, but also on
how the various state legislatures consistently and repeatedly
placed state and regional interests ahead of the national
interest.
The most pronounced social effect of the Revolution was
not harmony or stability but the sudden appearance of new men
everywhere in politics and business. "When the pot boils, the
scum will rise:' James Otis had warned in 1776; but few
Revolutionary leaders had realized just how much it would
rise....
Everywhere "Specious, interested designing men:' "men,
respectable neither for their property, their virtue, nor
their abilities:' were taking a lead in public affairs that
they had never quite had before, courting "the suffrages of
the people by tantalizing them with improper indulgences."
Thousands of the most respectable people "who obtained their
possessions by the hard industry, continued sobriety and
economy of themselves or their virtuous ancestors" were now
witnessing, so the writings of nearly all the states
proclaimed over and over, many men "whose fathers they would
have disdained to have sat with the dogs of their flocks,
raised to immense wealth, or at least to carry the appearance
of a haughty, supercilious and luxurious spendthrift."
"Effrontery and arrogance, even in our virtuous and
enlightened days:' said John Jay "are giving rank and
Importance to men whom Wisdom would have left in
obscurity."....
The republican emphasis on talent and merit in place of
connections and favor now seemed perverted, becoming
identified simply with the ability to garner votes....
The self-sacrifice and patriotism of 1774-75 [had] seemed
to give way to greed and profiteering at the expense of the
public good. Perhaps, it was suggested, that
peculiar-expression of virtue in those few years before
Independence had been simply the consequence of a momentary
period of danger. At one time public spirit had been "the
governing principle and distinguishing characteristic of
brave Americans. But where was it now? Directly the reverse.
We daily see the busy multitude.engaged in. accumulating what
thy fondly call riches, by forestalling [buy up goods in
order to profit to achieve a monopoly position and impose an
artificially high price], extortioning and imposing upon each
other... Everywhere "Private Interest seemed to predominate
over every Consideration that regarded the public weal.
The leaders who later became known as Federalists assembled
in the Constitutional Convention, and cobbled together a
framework of government of checks and balances intended to
safeguard the republic against both the machinations of a
tyrant, and the passions of the masses. I think the left is
making a huge, tragic mistake by focusing an the founders' fear
of democracy, and condemning the founders as mere elitists. I
would point to Trump and the Republican Convention as an example
of exactly why the Founders sought to curb the power of both a
tyrant, and the people. I agree with
Ian Welsh that Trump just might get elected, because Hillary
and Democratic establishment behind her refuse to acknowledge
the economic devastation caused by their neoliberalism over the
past four decades. So, if Trump gets elected, it is going to be
the Founders' framework of checks and balances we are going to
desperately seize hold of to try and prevent Trump from going to
the very end that his supporters want him to go to. Will lefties
come to appreciate the Founders' concerns then? A few will, but
I think most will not.
But, back to American history. So, we get the republic, and
it is generally understood that for republican self-government
to work, the people with public virtue must lead the government.
This is why George Washington was elected President unanimously
twice by the electoral college. Note that by the time of
Washington's second election to President, in 1792, the
political fight between the Federalists, led by Hamilton, and
the anti-Federalists (soon to be called Republicans), led by
Jefferson and Madison, had broken into the open, but both
factions supported Washington for President, because only he was
perceived to be virtuous beyond question. (In his second term,
Jefferson and Madison led a campaign of vitriol and lies against
Washington that is truly astonishing, accusing Washington of
being a mere dupe of Hamilton, and surrounding himself in regal
splendor intended to prepare Americans' sentiments for an
abandonment of republicanism and its replacement by a monarchy.
And this, while Jefferson continued to serve as Vice-President.)
So what happens is the very idea of public virtue comes under
attack. As Wood writes:
In these repeated attacks on deference and the capacity of
a conspicuous few to speak for the whole society-which was to
become in time the distinguishing feature of American
democratic politics - the Antifederalists struck at the roots
of the traditional conception of political society. If the
natural elite, whether its distinctions were ascribed or
acquired, was not in any organic way connected to the
"feelings, circumstances, and interests" of the people and
was incapable of feeling "sympathetically the wants of the
people," then it followed that only ordinary men, men not
distinguished by the characteristics of aristocratic wealth
and taste, men "in middling circumstances" untempted by the
attractions of a cosmopolitan world and thus "more temperate,
of better morals, and less ambitious, than the great," could
be trusted to speak for the great body of the people, for
those who were coming more and more to be referred to as "the
middling and lower classes of people." The differentiating
influence of the environment was such that men in various
ranks and classes now seemed to be broken apart from one
another, separated by their peculiar circumstances into
distinct, unconnected, and often incompatible interests. With
their indictment of aristocracy the Antifederalists were
saying, whether they realized it or not, that the people of
America even in their several states were not homogeneous
entities each with a basic similarity of interest for which
an empathic elite could speak. Society was not an organic
hierarchy composed of ranks and degrees indissolubly linked
one to another; rather it was a heterogeneous mixture of
"many different classes or orders of people, Merchants,
Farmers, Planter Mechanics and Gentry or wealthy Men. "In
such a society men from one class or group, however educated
and respectable they may have been, could never be acquainted
with the "Situation and Wants" of those of another class or
group. Lawyers and planters could never be "adequate judges
of tradesmens concerns." If men were truly to represent the
people in government, it was not enough for them to be for
the people; they had to be actually of the people. "Farmers,
traders and mechanics . . . all ought to have a competent
number of their best informed members in the legislature "
The anti-Federalist basically argue that no individual can
ever set aside their own self-interests to achieve the level of
public virtue (disinterest is a key word to look for if
you read accounts of this period) required to govern the
republic. Well, if the leaders of government are just as selfish
and self-interested as you and I, we are therefore just as
capable of governing as they are, and all this talk about the
leaders being virtuous is a deception.
So, in this historical context, neoliberalism is a revolt
against the very heart of the republican philosophy of the
American republic. Neoliberalism is a philosophical insistence
that public virtue is a dangerous encumbrance on the "animal
spirits" of modern capitalism-never mind that nowhere in the USA
Constitution is "capitalism" mentioned, or any particular
economic structure mandated. (Back in 1982, the American
Enterprise Institute had a forum and published a book
How Capitalistic is the Constitution? All the
contributors except one never really addressed the question,
instead regurgitating the usual hosannas to British imperial
apologists Adam Smith and John Locke. The one exception was
historian Forrest McDonald, who wrote an excellent biography of
Alexander Hamilton-excellent because McDonald understands the
important stuff about political economy and not the neoliberal
crap-wrote one of the papers in the book, and his answer, in
short, is "not very." As in, the Constitution does not create a
capitalist economy at all. Now, I suspect McDonald pulled his
punches, because he did not want to too greatly upset his AEI
hosts. McDonald's paper is probably the only completely
truthful thing AEI has ever published.)
In fact, the leading philosophers of neoliberalsim are
explicit in their attack on the Constitutional
mandate to promote the general welfare, arguing it
is "the slippery slope to the tyranny of the nanny state." As
Friedrich von Hayek titled his 1944 paean to neo-liberalism, the
republican insistence of promoting the general welfare is The Road to Serfdom.
Philip Pilkington, in
The Origins of Neoliberalism, Part I – Hayek's Delusion
(January 2013) makes the astute observation
Hayek thought that all totalitarianisms had their origins
in forms of economic planning. Economic planning was the
cause of totalitarianism for Hayek, rather than the being
just a feature of it. Underneath it all this was a rather
crude argument. One may as well make the observation that
totalitarianism was often accompanied by arms build-up,
therefore arms build-ups "cause" totalitarianism.
Von Hayek and his fellow Austrian aristocrats who were
forced to flee from the fruits of their economic programs,
did a complete revision of history and retold that same story
as if the very opposite of reality had happened. Once they
were safely in England and America, sponsored and funded by
oligarch grants, hacks like von Mises and von Hayek started
pushing a revisionist history of the collapse of Weimar
Germany blaming not their austerity measures, but rather
big-spending liberals who were allegedly in charge of
Germany's last government. Somehow, von Hayek looked at
Chancellor Bruning's policies of massive budget cuts combined
with pegging the currency to the gold standard, the policies
that led to Weimar Germany's collapse, policies that became
the cornerstone of Hayek's cult-and decided that Bruning
hadn't existed.
In USA, neoliberals who openly self-identify as political
conservatives or libertarians don't even have sense enough to
try to hide their hideous historical holocausts, like von Hayek
and von Mises try to. I have already discussed the importance
and significance of the mandate to promote the General Welfare
in the USA Constitution. The Confederacy (yes, that
Confederacy, of the mid-1800s, dominated by an oligarchy of rich
slaveholders who decided to tear apart the Union in a
fratricidal war rather than do a single thing that might lead to
eventual elimination of slavery) largely copied the USA
Constitution, but, crucially, eliminated mention of the
General Welfare from its Constitution. The libertarian
von Mises Institute has a
June 1992 article on its website by Randall G. Holcombe
which explicitly states this was an important "improvement":
But the differences in the documents, small as they are,
are extremely important. The people who wrote the Southern
Constitution had lived under the federal one. They knew its
strengths, which they tried to copy, and its weaknesses,
which they tried to eliminate. One grave weakness in the U.S.
Constitution is the "general welfare" clause, which the
Confederate Constitution eliminated….
The Southern drafters thought the general welfare clause
was an open door for any type of government intervention.
They were, of course, right.
Immediately following that clause in the Confederate
Constitution is a clause that has no parallel in the U.S.
Constitution. It affirms strong support for free trade and
opposition to protectionism: "but no bounties shall be
granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on
importation from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster
any branch of industry." ….The Confederate Constitution
prevents Congress from appropriating money "for any internal
improvement intended to facilitate commerce" except for
improvement to facilitate waterway navigation. But "in all
such cases, such duties shall be laid on the navigation
facilitated thereby, as may be necessary to pay for the costs
and expenses thereof..."
According to
Wikipedia, Holcombe "is a Research Fellow at
The Independent Institute, a Senior Fellow and member of the
Research Advisory Council at
The James Madison Institute, and past president of the
Public Choice Society. From 2000 to 2006 he served on
GovernorJeb Bush's Council of Economic Advisors." (Emphasis mine.)
So much for the conservative and libertarian brands of
neoliberals. What about those neoliberals who self-identify on
today's accepted political spectrum as liberals or even
progressives, such as Barack Obama and the Clintons? In
The Origins of Neoliberalism, Part II – The Americanisation of
Hayek's Delusion, Pilkington details how the ideas of
neoliberalism came to completely dominate the economics
profession and academia. (Also see the July 2009 Adbusters-the
people who conceived of Occupy Wall Street-attack
on the leading economics textbook, authored by Harvard
economist and head of George W. Bush Jr.'s Council of Economic
Advisors, H. Gregory Mankiw.) The result is that very, very few
people have been exposed to, let alone learned, any alternative
to the economic nostrums of neoliberalis. It is not that Obama
and the Clintons have a malignant intent to impose
economic ruin on their country and fellow countrymen, it's just
that they are profoundly ignorant in matters of
political economy-and, I would venture to guess, the history of
republicanism. As
William Neal explains, it is this socially pervasive
indoctrination in neoliberalism that prevents "almost the entire
Democratic Party short of Senator Sanders and a few members of
the Progressive Caucus" from pushing for such things as a
government direct jobs program. They simply accept the "common
wisdom"
that "only the private sector can create jobs." In order
to believe this fiction, one does indeed have to bury the
history of the New Deal, which is the still barely breathing
historical legacy which refutes it (along with the domestic
production record during World War II), the Civilian
Conservation Corps and the WPA's public work projects now
nearly erased from citizen memory.
The problem neoliberalism confronts us with is the means by
which a people decide and carry into practice their preferred
vision for their economic destiny as a nation. If the
neoliberals are correct, then there is no room for visionaries
of a better future for everyone, because the purest collective
expression of the wills of all individual are the sum of
transactions in the economic markets. At the time of the
Revolution and the writing of the Constitution, this was known
as
Bernard Mandelville's "private vices lead to public virtue,"
which became Adam Smith's "invisible hand." And every book I've
read about these matters noted that Americans at the time
repeatedly and emphatically rejected Mandelville's idea.
In a sense, the past half-century of theoretical and policy
dominance by neoliberalism has been a colossal social experiment
in replacing the public virtue of republicanism, with the
economic liberalism of a market economy. By any measure I care
about, the experiment has been a disastrous failure. A solid
majority of citizens have repeatedly told pollsters they desire
an end to a dependence on fossil fuels, and a solution to the
problem of climate change, but no effective responses have been
delivered from a political system held in thrall to neoliberal
ideas. The very idea of government intervention into the economy
to achieve such goals is held by the neoliberal ideologues to be
a mis-allocation of resources and an encroachment by government
on the "liberties of the people" But if the citizens cannot use
their government-the government that supposedly derives its
powers from their consent, and which therefore professes its
sovereignty to reside in the people-to impose their will on "the
market," then what instrument do they have to decide their own
destiny?
Neoliberalism is the new justification for the newly arisen
class of corporatist oligarchs and plutocrats who are enraged
that the promotion of the general welfare by modern sovereign
nation-states involves laws and regulations which "stifle" their
"business opportunities" and "economic creativity."
"... The NSA identified Peña's cellphone and those of his associates using advanced software that can filter out specific phones from the swarm around the candidate. These lines were then targeted. The technology, one NSA analyst noted, "might find a needle in a haystack." The analyst described it as "a repeatable and efficient" process. ..."
"... Another NSA operation, begun in May 2010 and codenamed FLATLIQUID, targeted Pena's predecessor, President Felipe Calderon. The NSA, the documents revealed, was able "to gain first-ever access to President Felipe Calderon's public email account." ..."
"... At the same time, members of a highly secret joint NSA/CIA organization, called the Special Collection Service, are based in the U.S. embassy in Mexico City and other U.S. embassies around the world. It targets local government communications, as well as foreign embassies nearby. For Mexico, additional eavesdropping, and much of the analysis, is conducted by NSA Texas, a large listening post in San Antonio that focuses on the Caribbean, Central America and South America. ..."
"... Unlike the Defense Department's Pentagon, the headquarters of the cyberspies fills an entire secret city. Located in Fort Meade, Maryland, halfway between Washington and Baltimore, Maryland, NSA's headquarters consists of scores of heavily guarded buildings. The site even boasts its own police force and post office. ..."
"... One top-secret operation, code-named TreasureMap, is designed to have a "capability for building a near real-time interactive map of the global Internet. … Any device, anywhere, all the time." Another operation, codenamed Turbine, involves secretly placing "millions of implants" - malware - in computer systems worldwide for either spying or cyberattacks. ..."
"... Yet there can never be a useful discussion on the topic if the Obama administration continues to point fingers at other countries without admitting that Washington is engaged heavily in cyberspying and cyberwarfare. ..."
"... The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA From 9/11 to the Eavesdropping on America ..."
National attention is focused on Russian eavesdroppers' possible targeting of U.S. presidential candidates
and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Yet, leaked top-secret National Security Agency
documents show that the Obama administration has long been involved in major bugging operations against
the election campaigns -- and the presidents -- of even its closest allies.
The United States is,
by far, the world's
most aggressive
nation when it comes to cyberspying and cyberwarfare. The National Security Agency has been eavesdropping
on foreign cities, politicians, elections and entire countries since it first turned on its receivers
in 1952. Just as other countries, including Russia, attempt to do to the United States. What is new
is a country leaking the intercepts back to the public of the target nation through a middleperson.
There is a strange irony in this. Russia, if it is actually involved in the hacking of the computers
of the Democratic National Committee, could be attempting to influence a U.S. election by leaking
to the American public the falsehoods of its leaders. This is a tactic Washington used against the
Soviet Union and other countries during the Cold War.
In the 1950s, for example, President Harry S Truman created the Campaign of Truth to reveal to
the Russian people the "Big Lies" of their government. Washington had often discovered these lies
through eavesdropping and other espionage.
Today, the United States has morphed from a Cold War, and in some cases a hot war, into a cyberwar,
with computer coding replacing bullets and bombs. Yet the American public manages to be "shocked,
shocked" that a foreign country would attempt to conduct cyberespionage on the United States.
NSA operations have, for example, recently delved into elections in Mexico, targeting its
last presidential campaign. According to a top-secret PowerPoint presentation leaked by former NSA
contract employee Edward Snowden, the operation involved a "surge effort against one of Mexico's
leading presidential candidates, Enrique Peña Nieto, and nine of his close associates." Peña won
that election and is now Mexico's president.
The NSA identified Peña's cellphone and those of his associates using advanced software that can
filter out specific phones from the swarm around the candidate. These lines were then targeted. The
technology, one NSA analyst noted, "might find a needle in a haystack." The analyst described it
as "a repeatable and efficient" process.
Another NSA operation, begun in May 2010 and codenamed FLATLIQUID, targeted Pena's predecessor,
President Felipe Calderon. The NSA, the documents revealed, was able "to gain first-ever access to
President Felipe Calderon's public email account."
At the same time, members of a highly secret joint NSA/CIA organization, called the Special Collection
Service, are based in the U.S. embassy in Mexico City and other U.S. embassies around the world.
It targets local government communications, as well as foreign embassies nearby. For Mexico, additional
eavesdropping, and much of the analysis, is conducted by NSA Texas, a large listening post in San
Antonio that focuses on the Caribbean, Central America and South America.
Unlike the Defense Department's Pentagon, the headquarters of the cyberspies fills an entire secret
city. Located in Fort Meade, Maryland, halfway between Washington and Baltimore, Maryland, NSA's
headquarters consists of scores of heavily guarded buildings. The site even boasts its own police
force and post office.
And it is about to grow considerably bigger, now that the NSA cyberspies have merged with the
cyberwarriors of U.S. Cyber Command, which controls its own Cyber Army, Cyber Navy, Cyber Air Force
and Cyber Marine Corps, all armed with state-of-the-art cyberweapons. In charge of it all is a four-star
admiral, Michael S. Rogers.
Now under construction inside NSA's secret city, Cyber Command's new $3.2- billion headquarters
is to include 14 buildings, 11 parking garages and an enormous cyberbrain - a 600,000-square-foot,
$896.5-million supercomputer facility that will eat up an enormous amount of power, about 60 megawatts.
This is enough electricity to power a city of more than 40,000 homes.
In 2014, for a cover story in Wired and a PBS documentary, I spent three days in Moscow
with Snowden, whose last NSA job was as a contract cyberwarrior. I was also granted rare access to
his archive of documents. "Cyber Command itself has always been branded in a sort of misleading way
from its very inception," Snowden told me. "It's an attack agency. … It's all about computer-network
attack and computer-network exploitation at Cyber Command."
The idea is to turn the Internet from a worldwide web of information into a global battlefield
for war. "The next major conflict will start in cyberspace," says one of the secret NSA documents.
One key phrase within Cyber Command documents is "Information Dominance."
The Cyber Navy, for example, calls itself the Information Dominance Corps. The Cyber Army is providing
frontline troops with the option of requesting "cyberfire support" from Cyber Command, in much the
same way it requests air and artillery support. And the Cyber Air Force is pledged to "dominate cyberspace"
just as "today we dominate air and space."
Among the tools at their disposal is one called Passionatepolka, designed to "remotely brick network
cards." "Bricking" a computer means destroying it – turning it into a brick.
One such situation took place in war-torn Syria in 2012, according to Snowden, when the NSA attempted
to remotely and secretly install an "exploit," or bug, into the computer system of a major Internet
provider. This was expected to provide access to email and other Internet traffic across much of
Syria. But something went wrong. Instead, the computers were bricked. It
took down the Internet across the country for a period of time.
While Cyber Command executes attacks, the National Security Agency seems more interested in tracking
virtually everyone connected to the Internet, according to the documents.
One top-secret operation, code-named TreasureMap, is designed to have a "capability for building
a near real-time interactive map of the global Internet. … Any device, anywhere, all the time." Another
operation, codenamed Turbine, involves secretly placing "millions of implants" - malware - in computer
systems worldwide for either spying or cyberattacks.
Yet, even as the U.S. government continues building robust eavesdropping and attack systems, it
looks like there has been far less focus on security at home. One benefit of the cyber-theft of the
Democratic National Committee emails might be that it helps open a public dialogue about the dangerous
potential of cyberwarfare. This is long overdue. The
possible security problems for the U.S. presidential election in November are already being discussed.
Yet there can never be a useful discussion on the topic if the Obama administration continues
to point fingers at other countries without admitting that Washington is engaged heavily in cyberspying
and cyberwarfare.
In fact, the United States is the only country ever to launch an actual cyberwar -- when the Obama
administration used a cyberattack to destroy thousands of centrifuges, used for nuclear enrichment,
in Iran. This was an illegal act of war, according to the Defense Department's own definition.
Given the news reports that many more DNC emails are waiting to be leaked as the presidential
election draws closer, there will likely be many more reminders of the need for a public dialogue
on cybersecurity and cyberwarfare before November.
(James Bamford is the author of The Shadow Factory: The Ultra-Secret NSA From 9/11 to the
Eavesdropping on America. He is a columnist for Foreign Policy magazine.)
"... "Rodchenkov used his authority despite the legal interests of the aforementioned organization and with the purpose of gaining personal advantages and benefits, thus having abused rights and legal interests," ..."
"... "Thus, the Anti-Doping Center lost the right for work. Rodchenkov's activities also have affected the interests of state, damaging its reputation, discrediting the country's anti-doping policies, and caused revoking of the international license from the laboratory, which had been established at expense of the federal budget." ..."
Of particular note is Rodchenkov's decision to deliberately destroy evidence after being asked
by WADA to preserve and freeze blood samples in December 2014.
The Investigative Committee's spokesman, Vladimir Markin, explained the case by chronicling the
events that eventually led to the suspension of the Moscow lab, as well as creating massive suspicion
and mistrust of Russian athletes.
On December 9, 2014, WADA sent a letter to Rodchenkov, then-director of the Anti-Doping Center,
asking that all blood samples that had been taken in the previous three months (as well as those
taken in the future) were to be frozen and stored until further instructions from WADA.
On December 10, Rodchenkov confirmed by e-mail receipt of the letter and assured that the samples
would be properly stored.
On December 12, in violation of the Anti-Doping lab's regulations, Rodchenkov issued a verbal
order to his staff to discard 1,437 samples. His staff complied the same day.
"Rodchenkov used his authority despite the legal interests of the aforementioned organization
and with the purpose of gaining personal advantages and benefits, thus having abused rights and legal
interests," Markin said.
"Thus, the Anti-Doping Center lost the right for work. Rodchenkov's activities also have affected
the interests of state, damaging its reputation, discrediting the country's anti-doping policies,
and caused revoking of the international license from the laboratory, which had been established
at expense of the federal budget."
It's surprising to me how little talk there is about the estate tax. When Bill
Clinton was president, the estate tax rate was 55% on estates over $1.5 million.
The Bush tax cuts eliminated the estate tax, but only in the last year of the ten
years that the tax cuts were in effect. So, certain high asset taxpayers like
George Steinbrenner of NY Yankees fame, paid no estate tax because they died that
year.
When the Democratic congress was unable to pass a new tax law in the fall of 2010,
with all of the Bush tax cuts expiring, Obama was left to negotiate with
Republicans on the new tax rates. The estate tax rate is now 40% on estates over
$5 million.
If Democrats ever regain control of Congress, I suggest that they consider a
tiered estate tax, similar to the tiered income tax. Let the 40% rate stay for
estates from $5 million to say $25 million. Then, move to a 50% rate for estates
from $25 to $100 million. Finally, have a 60% rate for estates above $100 million.
Zachary Smith
August 6, 2016 11:12 am
"We have starved the IRS while assigning it more and more functions, meaning it
is much harder for the IRS to effectively enforce the laws, allowing wealthy
people and big corporations with sophisticated lawyers a better chance to scam the
system while ordinary people pay taxes due through withholding."
I'd quibble with the "we" part of this statement, but this was a really good
read overall.
I don't see things getting any better. Both of the presidential candidates are
quite wealthy. One was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and has no idea at
all what it's like to live in the "real world". The other is nouveau riche, and
that mix of relative poverty and newly found wealth has warped her viewpoint of
the world.
I'm a hardliner on the estate tax. Anything exceeding some arbitrary point –
say $100 million – would be taxed at 95%. Can't see THAT happening, either. The
propagandists for the rich would use extreme examples – What If You Won The Power
Ball? And Joe Sixpack would buy it. Just as he has been against his own interests
for generations.
EMichael
August 6, 2016 11:25 am
ZS,
Nice to see your consistency. Amazing how you can come to an opinion about
different topics(like the estate tax) and what Clinton believes without making any
effort to find out the truth.
Must be nice to know everything without reading anything.
Joel
August 6, 2016 1:42 pm
Why not tax estates like income? The person who inherits the windfall didn't
earn it, I know, but like every taxable transaction, money has changed hands.
Tax inherited income as income. Tax dividend income as income. Why privilege
some kinds of income over others?
"... It's hard not to notice, during the American Presidential election drama, that despite all the debates and speeches, and multiple candidates, the terms "Neoliberalism" and "austerity" have yet to be employed, much less explained, these being the two necessary words to describe the dominant economic "regime" of the past 35 years. And this despite the fact that most observers recognize that a "populist revolt" driven by economic unhappiness is underway via the campaigns of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. With Trump, of course, we are getting much more, the uglier side of American populism: racism, xenophobia and misogyny, at least; the culture wars at a higher pitch. ..."
"... the underlying driver of his supporters' anger is economic distress, not the ugly cultural prejudices. ..."
It's hard not to notice, during the American Presidential election drama, that despite all the
debates and speeches, and multiple candidates, the terms "Neoliberalism" and "austerity" have yet
to be employed, much less explained, these being the two necessary words to describe the dominant
economic "regime" of the past 35 years. And this despite the fact that most observers recognize that
a "populist revolt" driven by economic unhappiness is underway via the campaigns of Donald Trump
and Bernie Sanders. With Trump, of course, we are getting much more, the uglier side of American
populism: racism, xenophobia and misogyny, at least; the culture wars at a higher pitch.
Yet when Trump commented on the violence which canceled his Chicago rally on the evening of March
11th, he stated that the underlying driver of his supporters' anger is economic distress, not
the ugly cultural prejudices. The diagnoses for the root cause of this anger thus lie at the
heart of the proposed solutions. For students of the Great Depression, this will sound very familiar.
That is because, despite many diversions and sub-currents, we are really arguing about a renewed
New Deal versus an ever more purified laissez-faire, the nineteenth century term for keeping government
out of markets – once those markets had been constructed. "Interventions," however, as we will see,
are still required, because no one, left or right, can live with the brutalities of the workings
of "free markets" except as they exist in the fantasyland of the American Right.
After posting a 64 character hex code
that is believed to be an encryption key, the internet worries that the famed
whistleblower may have been killed or captured resulting in the triggering of a dead
man's switch and potentially the release of many more US national secrets.
A dead man's switch is a message set up to be automatically sent if the holder
of an account does not perform a regular check-in. The whistleblower has acknowledged
that he has distributed encrypted files to journalists and associates that have not
yet been released so in Snowden's case, the dead man's switch could be an encryption
key for those files.
As of this time, Edward Snowden's Twitter account has gone silent for over 24
hours which is far from unprecedented for the whistleblower but is curious at a time
when public concern has been raised over his well-being. The 64 hex characters in the
code do appear to rule out the initial theory that Edward Snowden, like so many
of us, simply butt dialed his phone, but instead is a clearly a secure hash algorithm
that can serve as a signature for a data file or as a password.
The timing shortly after the "It's Time" tweet also have caused concern for some
Reddit theorists
such as a user named stordoff who believes that the nascent
Twitter post "was intended to set something in motion." The user postulates that it
is an encrypted message, a signal, or a password.
Snowden's initial data release in 2013 exposed what many had feared about the NSA
for years, that the agency had gone rogue and undertaken a massive scheme of domestic
surveillance. However, it is also known that the information released was only part
of the document cache he had acquired from government servers.
It has been reported that additional government data was distributed in encrypted
files to trusted journalists who were told to not release the information unless they
received a signal urging them to – information that the whistleblower determined was
too sensitive for release at the time.
The possibility also exists that Snowden has decided that after three years
in hiding that additional information needed to be released to the public independent
of some physical harm to himself, but the whistleblower's fans and privacy advocates
across the world will continue to sit on the edge of their seats in worry until and
unless he tweets to confirm that he is safe.
"... they make the point that Hillary Clinton is a deeply flawed candidate, notably so in matters related to national security. Clinton is surely correct that allowing Trump to make decisions related to war and peace would be the height of folly . Yet her record in that regard does not exactly inspire confidence. ..."
"... When it comes to foreign policy, Trump's preference for off-the-cuff utterances finds him committing astonishing gaffes with metronomic regularity. ..."
"... By comparison, the carefully scripted Clinton commits few missteps, as she recites with practiced ease the pabulum that passes for right thinking in establishment circles. But fluency does not necessarily connote soundness. Clinton, after all, adheres resolutely to the highly militarized "Washington playbook" that President Obama himself has disparaged - a faith-based belief in American global primacy to be pursued regardless of how the world may be changing and heedless of costs. ..."
"... First, and most important, the evil effects of money: ..."
"... Republic Lost, Version 2.0 ..."
"... Second, the perverse impact of identity politics on policy ..."
"... Third, the substitution of "reality" for reality ..."
"... The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America ..."
"... According to Boorstin, more than five decades ago the American people were already living in a "thicket of unreality." By relentlessly indulging in ever more "extravagant expectations," they were forfeiting their capacity to distinguish between what was real and what was illusory. Indeed, Boorstin wrote, "We have become so accustomed to our illusions that we mistake them for reality." ..."
"... While ad agencies and PR firms had indeed vigorously promoted a world of illusions, Americans themselves had become willing accomplices in the process. ..."
"... "The American citizen lives in a world where fantasy is more real than reality, where the image has more dignity than its original. We hardly dare to face our bewilderment, because our ambiguous experience is so pleasantly iridescent, and the solace of belief in contrived reality is so thoroughly real. We have become eager accessories to the great hoaxes of the age. These are the hoaxes we play on ourselves." ..."
"... Real Housewives of ..."
"... Game of Thrones ..."
"... The Apprentice ..."
"... "The making of the illusions which flood our experience has become the business of America," wrote Boorstin. It's also become the essence of American politics, long since transformed into theater, or rather into some sort of (un)reality show. ..."
"... This emphasis on spectacle has drained national politics of whatever substance it still had back when Ike and Adlai commanded the scene. It hardly need be said that Donald Trump has demonstrated an extraordinary knack - a sort of post-modern genius - for turning this phenomenon to his advantage. ..."
"... The thicket of unreality that is American politics has now become all-enveloping. The problem is not Trump and Clinton, per se. It's an identifiable set of arrangements - laws, habits, cultural predispositions - that have evolved over time and promoted the rot that now pervades American politics. As a direct consequence, the very concept of self-government is increasingly a fantasy, even if surprisingly few Americans seem to mind. ..."
"... I know Clinton is one of this gang. And I am sure that given his personality, Trump will succumb to this madness almost at once. Give a narcissistic jerk that much power and good luck to all of us (of course, give that much power to a rabid insider like Clinton and good luck to all of us). Of course, their partisans will say, "Trump will just ignore the entire vast apparatus of the permanent government and the security state and do whatever he likes" or "Nixon went to China, and Clinton can metaphorically do the same when she realizes she's no longer a cheerleader at State and the buck stops at her desk", but I don't believe either of those assertions. ..."
"... Thanks james, to the annoying chest thumpers the image of dems chanting USA USA to drown out No More Wars really signals an alternate reality. I think AB went way too easy on clinton, ..."
"... It's depressing to see Andrew Bacevich, one of our country's most astute observers of the national security scene and a retired military officer, come down on the side of Hilary Clinton as the lesser evil candidate. He can only do so by totally ignoring her central role in the ignition of Cold War 2.0 in his litany of her liabilities. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton offers more of the same bad news, only worse. Trump scares everybody from the MIC, which includes Bacevich, who after all draws a hefty monthly pension from the Defense Dept., because he indicates he actually wants to be the boss, to call the shots, to shake things up, to rattle some cages. The last prez who actually tried to boss around the MIC was JFK, and he had his brain tissue splattered onto the Dallas street in broad daylight. Trump was kind of a stealth candidate in the primaries, in that the bigwigs were unable to take him seriously, even after he won some primaries. By the time they marshaled enough opposition to stop him, it was too late. ..."
"... The people, in the eyes of miscreants like Obama, are mere pawns to be manipulated, stolen from, etc. He's implying the GOP should have had a superdelegate fix, like the dems, to overcome any spurt of independent thinking from the electorate. ..."
"... Clinton may be a non-introspective narcissist who has an poor understanding of the historical results of policy and current affairs, who never admits mistakes/grievous wrongs ("Libya needs more time") and whose most significant personal decision was to recognize that, after failing the bar exam in Washington DC, it was time to go to Arkansas and hitch her wagon to Bill Clinton's career. ..."
"... Trump is a novice at government, yes, but he has experienced dealing with foreign countries as a businessman. HRC is much scarier-she is capable of rattling off the neocon doctrine as it pertains to a lot of countries. Great. I'd much prefer the novice. I would love to have the neocons and neolibs destroyed. ..."
"... Hillary is scary because I think she and Victory Nuland are going to push us into a war with Putin – Trump is an idiot, but we already know that Hillary has a taste for blood. Libya and Iraq are two prime examples. ..."
Even by Washington standards, Secretary Clinton exudes a striking sense of entitlement combined
with a nearly complete absence of accountability. She shrugs off her
misguided vote in support of invading Iraq back in 2003, while serving as senator from New York.
She neither explains nor apologizes for pressing to depose Libya's Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, her most
notable "
accomplishment " as secretary of state. "We came, we saw, he died," she
bragged back then, somewhat prematurely given that Libya has since fallen into anarchy and become
a haven for ISIS.
She clings to the demonstrably false claim that her use of a private server for State Department
business compromised
no classified information . Now opposed to the Trans Pacific Partnership (TTP) that she
once described as the "gold standard in trade agreements," Clinton rejects charges of political
opportunism. That her change of heart occurred when attacking the TPP was helping Bernie Sanders
win one Democratic primary after another is merely coincidental. Oh, and the big money accepted from
banks and
Wall Street as well as the
tech sector for minimal work and
the bigger money still from leading figures in the Israel lobby? Rest assured that her acceptance
of such largesse won't reduce by one iota her support for "working class families" or her commitment
to a just peace settlement in the Middle East.
Let me be clear: none of these offer the slightest reason to vote for Donald Trump. Yet together
they make the point that Hillary Clinton is a deeply flawed candidate, notably so in matters
related to national security. Clinton is surely correct that allowing Trump to make decisions related
to war and peace would be the
height of folly . Yet her record in that regard does not exactly inspire confidence.
When it comes to foreign policy, Trump's preference for off-the-cuff utterances finds him
committing astonishing gaffes with metronomic regularity. Spontaneity serves chiefly to expose
his staggering ignorance.
By comparison, the carefully scripted Clinton commits few missteps, as she recites with practiced
ease the pabulum that passes for right thinking in establishment circles. But fluency does not necessarily
connote soundness. Clinton, after all, adheres resolutely to the highly militarized "Washington playbook"
that President Obama himself has
disparaged - a faith-based belief in American global primacy to be pursued regardless of how
the world may be changing and heedless of costs.
On the latter point, note that Clinton's acceptance speech in Philadelphia included not a
single mention of Afghanistan. By Election Day, the war there will have passed its 15th anniversary.
One might think that a prospective commander-in-chief would have something to say about the longest
conflict in American history, one that continues with no end in sight. Yet, with the Washington playbook
offering few answers, Mrs. Clinton chooses to remain silent on the subject.
So while a Trump presidency holds the prospect of the United States driving off a cliff, a Clinton
presidency promises to be the equivalent of banging one's head against a brick wall without evident
effect, wondering all the while why it hurts so much.
Pseudo-Politics for an Ersatz Era
But let's not just blame the candidates. Trump and Clinton are also the product of circumstances
that neither created. As candidates, they are merely exploiting a situation - one relying on intuition
and vast stores of brashness, the other putting to work skills gained during a life spent studying
how to acquire and employ power. The success both have achieved in securing the nominations of their
parties is evidence of far more fundamental forces at work.
In the pairing of Trump and Clinton, we confront symptoms of something pathological. Unless Americans
identify the sources of this disease, it will inevitably worsen, with dire consequences in the realm
of national security. After all, back in Eisenhower's day, the IEDs planted thanks to reckless presidential
decisions tended to blow up only years - or even decades - later. For example, between the 1953 U.S.-engineered
coup that restored the Shah to his throne and the 1979 revolution that converted Iran overnight from
ally to adversary, more than a quarter of a century elapsed. In our own day, however, detonation
occurs so much more quickly - witness the almost instantaneous and explosively unhappy consequences
of Washington's post-9/11 military interventions in the Greater Middle East.
So here's a matter worth pondering: How is it that all the months of intensive fundraising, the
debates and speeches, the caucuses and primaries, the avalanche of TV ads and annoying robocalls
have produced two presidential candidates who tend to elicit from a surprisingly large number of
rank-and-file citizens disdain, indifference, or at best hold-your-nose-and-pull-the-lever acquiescence?
Here, then, is a preliminary diagnosis of three of the factors contributing to the erosion of
American politics, offered from the conviction that, for Americans to have better
choices next time around, fundamental change must occur - and soon.
First, and most important, the evil effects of money: Need chapter and verse? For a tutorial,
see this essential 2015 book by Professor Lawrence Lessig of Harvard:
Republic
Lost, Version 2.0 . Those with no time for books might spare 18 minutes for Lessig's brilliant
and deeply disturbing
TED talk . Professor Lessig argues persuasively that unless the United States radically changes
the way it finances political campaigns, we're pretty much doomed to see our democracy wither and
die.
Needless to say, moneyed interests and incumbents who benefit from existing arrangements take
a different view and collaborate to maintain the status quo. As a result, political life has increasingly
become a pursuit reserved for those like Trump who possess vast personal wealth or for those like
Clinton who display an aptitude for persuading the well to do to open their purses, with all that
implies by way of compromise, accommodation, and the subsequent repayment of favors.
Second, the perverse impact of identity politics on policy : Observers make much of the
fact that, in capturing the presidential nomination of a major party, Hillary Clinton has shattered
yet another glass ceiling. They are right to do so. Yet the novelty of her candidacy starts and ends
with gender. When it comes to fresh thinking, Donald Trump has far more to offer than Clinton - even
if his version of "fresh" tends to be synonymous with wacky, off-the-wall, ridiculous, or altogether
hair-raising.
The essential point here is that, in the realm of national security, Hillary Clinton is utterly
conventional. She subscribes to a worldview (and view of America's role in the world) that originated
during the Cold War, reached its zenith in the 1990s when the United States proclaimed itself the
planet's "sole superpower," and persists today remarkably unaffected by actual events.
On the campaign trail, Clinton attests to her bona fides by routinely reaffirming her belief in American
exceptionalism , paying fervent tribute to "
the world's greatest military ," swearing that she'll be "listening to our generals and admirals,"
and vowing to get tough on America's adversaries. These are, of course, the mandatory rituals of
the contemporary Washington stump speech, amplified if anything by the perceived need for the first
female candidate for president to emphasize her pugnacity.
A Clinton presidency, therefore, offers the prospect of more of the same - muscle-flexing and
armed intervention to demonstrate American global leadership - albeit marketed with a garnish of
diversity. Instead of different policies, Clinton will offer an administration that has a different
look, touting this as evidence of positive change.
Yet while diversity may be a good thing, we should not confuse it with effectiveness. A national
security team that "looks like America" (to use the phrase originally coined by Bill Clinton) does
not necessarily govern more effectively than one that looks like President Eisenhower's. What matters
is getting the job done.
Since the 1990s women have found plentiful opportunities to fill positions in the upper echelons
of the national security apparatus. Although we have not yet had a female commander-in-chief, three
women have served as secretary of state and two as national security adviser. Several have filled
Adlai Stevenson's old post at the United Nations. Undersecretaries, deputy undersecretaries, and
assistant secretaries of like gender abound, along with a passel of female admirals and generals.
So the question needs be asked: Has the quality of national security policy improved compared
to the bad old days when men exclusively called the shots? Using as criteria the promotion of stability
and the avoidance of armed conflict (along with the successful prosecution of wars deemed unavoidable),
the answer would, of course, have to be no. Although Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice, Susan
Rice, Samantha Power, and Clinton herself might entertain a different view, actually existing conditions
in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, and other countries across the Greater
Middle East and significant parts of Africa tell a different story.
The abysmal record of American statecraft in recent years is not remotely the
fault of women; yet neither have women made a perceptibly positive difference. It turns out that
identity does not necessarily signify wisdom or assure insight. Allocating positions of influence
in the State Department or the Pentagon based on gender, race, ethnicity, or sexual orientation -
as Clinton will assuredly do - may well gratify previously disenfranchised groups. Little evidence
exists to suggest that doing so will produce more enlightened approaches to statecraft, at least
not so long as adherence to the Washington playbook figures as a precondition to employment. (Should
Clinton win in November, don't expect the redoubtable ladies of
Code Pink to be tapped for
jobs at the Pentagon and State Department.)
In the end, it's not identity that matters but ideas and their implementation. To contemplate
the ideas that might guide a President Trump along with those he will recruit to act on them - Ivanka
as national security adviser? - is enough to elicit shudders from any sane person. Yet the prospect
of Madam President surrounding herself with an impeccably diverse team of advisers who share her
own outmoded views is hardly cause for celebration.
Putting a woman in charge of national security policy will not in itself amend the defects exhibited
in recent years. For that, the obsolete principles with which Clinton along with the rest of Washington
remains enamored will have to be jettisoned. In his own bizarre way (albeit without a clue as to
a plausible alternative), Donald Trump seems to get that; Hillary Clinton does not.
Third, the substitution of "reality" for reality : Back in 1962, a young historian by
the name of Daniel Boorstin published
The
Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America . In an age in which Donald Trump and
Hillary Clinton vie to determine the nation's destiny, it should be mandatory reading. The Image
remains, as when it first appeared, a fire bell ringing in the night.
According to Boorstin, more than five decades ago the American people were already living in a
"thicket of unreality." By relentlessly indulging in ever more "extravagant expectations," they were
forfeiting their capacity to distinguish between what was real and what was illusory. Indeed, Boorstin
wrote, "We have become so accustomed to our illusions that we mistake them for reality."
While ad agencies and PR firms had indeed vigorously promoted a world of illusions, Americans
themselves had become willing accomplices in the process.
"The American citizen lives in a world where fantasy is more real than reality, where the image
has more dignity than its original. We hardly dare to face our bewilderment, because our ambiguous
experience is so pleasantly iridescent, and the solace of belief in contrived reality is so thoroughly
real. We have become eager accessories to the great hoaxes of the age. These are the hoaxes we play
on ourselves."
This, of course, was decades before the nation succumbed to the iridescent allure of Facebook,
Google, fantasy football, " Real Housewives of _________," selfies, smartphone apps,
Game of Thrones , Pokémon GO - and, yes, the vehicle that vaulted Donald Trump to stardom,
The Apprentice .
"The making of the illusions which flood our experience has become the business of America," wrote
Boorstin. It's also become the essence of American politics, long since transformed into theater,
or rather into some sort of (un)reality show.
Presidential campaigns today are themselves, to use Boorstin's famous term, "pseudo-events" that
stretch from months into years. By now, most Americans know better than to take at face value anything
candidates say or promise along the way. We're in on the joke - or at least we think we are. Reinforcing
that perception on a daily basis are media outlets that have abandoned mere reporting in favor of
enhancing the spectacle of the moment. This is especially true of the cable news networks, where
talking heads serve up a snide and cynical complement to the smarmy fakery that is the office-seeker's
stock in trade. And we lap it up. It matters little that we know it's all staged and contrived, as
long as - a preening Megyn Kelly getting under Trump's skin, Trump himself denouncing "lyin' Ted"
Cruz, etc., etc. - it's entertaining.
This emphasis on spectacle has drained national politics of whatever substance it still had back
when Ike and Adlai commanded the scene. It hardly need be said that Donald Trump has demonstrated
an extraordinary knack - a sort of post-modern genius - for turning this phenomenon to his advantage.
Yet in her own way Clinton plays the same game. How else to explain a national convention organized
around the idea of "
reintroducing to the American people" someone who served eight years as First Lady, was elected
to the Senate, failed in a previous high-profile run for the presidency, and completed a term as
secretary of state? The just-ended conclave in Philadelphia was, like the Republican one that preceded
it, a pseudo-event par excellence, the object of the exercise being to fashion a new "image" for
the Democratic candidate.
The thicket of unreality that is American politics has now become all-enveloping. The problem
is not Trump and Clinton, per se. It's an identifiable set of arrangements - laws, habits, cultural
predispositions - that have evolved over time and promoted the rot that now pervades American politics.
As a direct consequence, the very concept of self-government is increasingly a fantasy, even if surprisingly
few Americans seem to mind.
At an earlier juncture back in 1956, out of a population of 168 million, we got Ike and Adlai.
Today, with almost double the population, we get - well, we get what we've got. This does not represent
progress. And don't kid yourself that things really can't get much worse. Unless Americans rouse
themselves to act, count on it, they will.
Americans are annoying chest-thumpers but the average Jane or Joe has no power in their own
lives. In contrast, the Washington foreign policy elite has power, the power of life and death,
over billions across the globe, and they exercise it regularly. This power has utterly corrupted
the elite and gone to their heads. That is why any defiance is met with such rage. They are used
to getting their own way, and woe to the country that acts or even thinks otherwise.
I know Clinton is one of this gang. And I am sure that given his personality, Trump will succumb
to this madness almost at once. Give a narcissistic jerk that much power and good luck to all
of us (of course, give that much power to a rabid insider like Clinton and good luck to all of
us). Of course, their partisans will say, "Trump will just ignore the entire vast apparatus of
the permanent government and the security state and do whatever he likes" or "Nixon went to China,
and Clinton can metaphorically do the same when she realizes she's no longer a cheerleader at
State and the buck stops at her desk", but I don't believe either of those assertions.
Thanks james, to the annoying chest thumpers the image of dems chanting USA USA to drown out
No More Wars really signals an alternate reality. I think AB went way too easy on clinton, and
the misogyny claim was one cheap shot (True, antipathy directed toward Hillary Clinton draws some
of its energy from incorrigible sexists along with the "vast right wing conspiracy" whose members
thoroughly loathe both Clintons. Yet the antipathy is not without basis in fact.) but I think
he retakes that ground when he labels her "utterly conventional", On balance a good article but
as with many prominent figures he can make a laundry list of her downsides and still come out
sounding like a supporter of hers. I share your conclusion, good luck
It's depressing to see Andrew Bacevich, one of our country's most astute observers of the national
security scene and a retired military officer, come down on the side of Hilary Clinton as the
lesser evil candidate. He can only do so by totally ignoring her central role in the ignition
of Cold War 2.0 in his litany of her liabilities.
Hillary Clinton offers more of the same bad news, only worse. Trump scares everybody from the
MIC, which includes Bacevich, who after all draws a hefty monthly pension from the Defense Dept.,
because he indicates he actually wants to be the boss, to call the shots, to shake things up,
to rattle some cages. The last prez who actually tried to boss around the MIC was JFK, and he
had his brain tissue splattered onto the Dallas street in broad daylight. Trump was kind of a
stealth candidate in the primaries, in that the bigwigs were unable to take him seriously, even
after he won some primaries. By the time they marshaled enough opposition to stop him, it was
too late.
Obama, for his part, has indicated the republican party was negligent in its duties
by letting the people vote this guy into the nomination. The people, in the eyes of miscreants
like Obama, are mere pawns to be manipulated, stolen from, etc. He's implying the GOP should have
had a superdelegate fix, like the dems, to overcome any spurt of independent thinking from the
electorate.
Clinton may be a non-introspective narcissist who has an poor understanding of the historical
results of policy and current affairs, who never admits mistakes/grievous wrongs ("Libya needs
more time") and whose most significant personal decision was to recognize that, after failing
the bar exam in Washington DC, it was time to go to Arkansas and hitch her wagon to Bill Clinton's
career.
Trump is a novice at government, yes, but he has experienced dealing with foreign countries
as a businessman. HRC is much scarier-she is capable of rattling off the neocon doctrine as it
pertains to a lot of countries. Great. I'd much prefer the novice. I would love to have the neocons
and neolibs destroyed.
As Bacevich says, Ike was not a bad president, and he had no gov't experience before he was elected.
My dad was a democrat, I guess, but the one thing I remember hearing him utter regarding politics
was praise of Ike: " Things were good in the 50's-we had General Motors, General Electric, and
General Eisenhower!"
Hillary is scary because I think she and Victory Nuland are going to push us into a war with
Putin – Trump is an idiot, but we already know that Hillary has a taste for blood.
Libya and Iraq are two prime examples.
"... Russia is aware of the United States' plans for nuclear hegemony ..."
"... The Russian president also highlighted the fact that although the United States missile system is referred to as an "anti-missile defense system," the systems are just as offensive as they are defensive: ..."
"... Putin further explained the implications of this missile defense system's implementation without any response from Russia. The ability of the missile defense system to render Russia's nuclear capabilities useless would cause an upset in what Putin refers to as the "strategic balance" of the world. Without this balance of power, the U.S. would be free to pursue their policies throughout the world without any tangible threat from Russia. Therefore, this "strategic balance," according to Putin, is what has kept the world safe from large-scale wars and military conflicts. ..."
(ANTIMEDIA)
As the United States continues to
develop and upgrade their nuclear weapons capabilities at an alarming rate,
America's ruling class refuses to heed warnings from President Vladimir Putin
that Russia will respond as necessary.
In his most
recent
attempt to warn his Western counterparts about the impending danger of a
new nuclear arms race, Putin told the heads of large foreign companies and business
associations that Russia is aware of the United States' plans for nuclear
hegemony. He was speaking at the 20th St. Petersburg International Economic
Forum.
"We know year by year what will happen, and they know that we know,"
he said.
Putin argued that the rationale the U.S. previously gave for maintaining
and developing its nuclear weapons system is directed at the so-called "Iranian
threat." But that threat has been drastically reduced since the U.S. proved
instrumental in reaching an
agreement with Iran that should
put to rest any possible Iranian nuclear potential.
The Russian president also highlighted the fact that although the United
States missile system is referred to as an "anti-missile defense system," the
systems are just as offensive as they are defensive:
"They say [the missile systems] are part of their defense capability,
and are not offensive, that these systems are aimed at protecting them from
aggression. It's not true the strategic ballistic missile defense is part
of an offensive strategic capability, [and] functions in conjunction with
an aggressive missile strike system."
This missile system has been launched throughout Europe, and despite
American promises at the end of the Cold War that NATO's expansion would
not move "as much as a thumb's width further to the East," the missile system
has been implemented in many of Russia's neighboring countries, most recently
in Romania.
Russia views this as a direct attack on their security.
"How do we know what's inside those launchers? All one needs to do
is reprogram [the system], which is an absolutely inconspicuous task,"
Putin stated.
Putin further explained the implications of this missile defense system's
implementation without any response from Russia. The ability of the missile
defense system to render Russia's nuclear capabilities useless would cause an
upset in what Putin refers to as the "strategic balance" of the world. Without
this balance of power, the U.S. would be free to pursue their policies throughout
the world without any tangible threat from Russia. Therefore, this "strategic
balance," according to Putin, is what has kept the world safe from large-scale
wars and military conflicts.
Following
George W. Bush's 2001 decision to unilaterally withdraw the U.S. from the
1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, Russia was, according to Putin, left with
no choice but to upgrade their capabilities in response.
Putin warned:
"Today Russia has reached significant achievements in this field.
We have modernized our missile systems and successfully developed new generations.
Not to mention missile defense systems We must provide security not only
for ourselves. It's important to provide strategic balance in the world,
which guarantees peace on the planet.
Neutralizing Russia's nuclear potential will undo, according to Putin,
"the mutual threat that has provided [mankind] with global security for decades."
It should, therefore, come as no surprise that NASA scientists want to
colonize the moon by 2022 - we may have to if we don't drastically alter
the path we are on. As Albert Einstein
famously stated:
"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World
War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
"... Whatever the character of America's involvement in the Middle East before 1980, when Bacevich's account begins, it was not a war, at least not in terms of American casualties. "From the end of World War II to 1980, virtually no American soldiers were killed in action while serving in that region," he notes. "Within a decade," however, "a great shift occurred. Since 1990, virtually no American soldiers have been killed in action anywhere except in the Greater Middle East." ..."
"... The sequence of events, lucidly related by Bacevich, would be a dark absurdist comedy if it weren't tragically real. To check Iran, the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War of 1980–88, whose final phase, the so-called "Tanker War," involved direct U.S. military engagement with Iranian naval forces. (Bacevich calls this the real first Persian Gulf War.) ..."
"... Finally, George W. Bush decided to risk what his father had dared not: invading Iraq with the objective of "regime change," he launched a third Gulf War in 2003. The notion his neoconservative advisers put into Bush's head was that, with only a little help from American occupation and reconstruction, the void left by Saddam Hussein's removal would be filled by a model democracy. ..."
"... Yet the first Bush had been right: Iran, as well as ISIS, reaped the rewards of regime change in Baghdad. And so America is now being drawn into a fourth Gulf War, reintroducing troops-styled as advisors-into Iraq to counter the effects of the previous Gulf War, which was itself an answer to the unfinished business of the wars of 1991 and the late 1980s. Our military interventions in the Persian Gulf have been a self-perpetuating chain reaction for over three decades. ..."
"... "Wolfowitz adhered to an expansive definition of the Persian Gulf," notes Bacevich, which in that young defense intellectual's words extended from "the region between Pakistan and Iran in the northeast to the Yemens in the southwest." Wolfowitz identified two prospective menaces to U.S. interests in the region: the Soviet Union-this was still the Cold War era, after all-and "the emerging Iraqi threat"; to counter these Wolfowitz called for "advisors and counterinsurgency specialists, token combat forces, or a major commitment" of U.S. forces to the Middle East. ..."
"... The military bureaucracy took advantage of the removal of one enemy from the map-Soviet Communism-to redirect resources toward a new region and new threats. As Bacevich observes, "What some at the time were calling a 'peace dividend' offered CENTCOM a way of expanding its portfolio of assets." Operation Desert Storm, and all that came afterward, became possible. ..."
"... The final lesson of this one is simple: "Perpetuating the War for the Greater Middle East is not enhancing American freedom, abundance, and security. If anything, it is having the opposite effect." ..."
Bacevich's latest book, America's War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History,
is a bookend of sorts to American Empire. The earlier work was heavy on theory and institutional
development, the groundwork for the wars of the early 21st century. The new book covers the history
itself-and argues persuasively that the Afghanistan, Iraq, and other, smaller wars since 9/11 are
parts of a larger conflict that began much earlier, back in the Carter administration.
Whatever the character of America's involvement in the Middle East before 1980, when Bacevich's
account begins, it was not a war, at least not in terms of American casualties. "From the end of
World War II to 1980, virtually no American soldiers were killed in action while serving in that
region," he notes. "Within a decade," however, "a great shift occurred. Since 1990, virtually no
American soldiers have been killed in action anywhere except in the Greater Middle East."
Operation Eagle Claw, Carter's ill-fated mission to rescue Americans held hostage in Iran, was
the first combat engagement in the war. Iran would continue to tempt Washington to military action
throughout the next 36 years-though paradoxically, attempts to contain Iran more often brought the
U.S. into war with the Islamic Republic's hostile neighbor, Iraq.
The sequence of events, lucidly related by Bacevich, would be a dark absurdist comedy if it
weren't tragically real. To check Iran, the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the Iran-Iraq
War of 1980–88, whose final phase, the so-called "Tanker War," involved direct U.S. military engagement
with Iranian naval forces. (Bacevich calls this the real first Persian Gulf War.)
Weakened and indebted by that war, and thinking the U.S. tolerant of his ambitions, Saddam then
invaded Kuwait, leading to full-scale U.S. military intervention against him: Operation Desert Storm
in 1991. (By Bacevich's count, the second Gulf War.) President George H.W. Bush stopped American
forces from pushing on to Baghdad after liberating Kuwait, however, because-among other things-toppling
Saddam would have created a dangerous vacuum that Iran might fill.
A decade of sanctions, no-fly zones, and intermittent bombing then ensued, as Washington, under
Bush and Clinton, would neither depose Saddam Hussein nor permit him to reassert himself. Finally,
George W. Bush decided to risk what his father had dared not: invading Iraq with the objective of
"regime change," he launched a third Gulf War in 2003. The notion his neoconservative advisers put
into Bush's head was that, with only a little help from American occupation and reconstruction, the
void left by Saddam Hussein's removal would be filled by a model democracy. This would set a
precedent for America to democratize every trouble-making state in the region, including Iran.
Yet the first Bush had been right: Iran, as well as ISIS, reaped the rewards of regime change
in Baghdad. And so America is now being drawn into a fourth Gulf War, reintroducing troops-styled
as advisors-into Iraq to counter the effects of the previous Gulf War, which was itself an answer
to the unfinished business of the wars of 1991 and the late 1980s. Our military interventions in
the Persian Gulf have been a self-perpetuating chain reaction for over three decades.
Iran released its American hostages the day Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president: January 20,
1981. So what accounts for another 35 years of conflict with Iran and Iraq? The answer begins with
oil.
Bacevich takes us back to the Carter years. "By June 1979, a just-completed study by a then-obscure
Defense Department official named Paul Wolfowitz was attracting notice throughout the national security
bureaucracy." This "Limited Contingency Study" described America's "vital and growing stake in the
Persian Gulf," arising from "our need for Persian-Gulf oil and because events in the Persian Gulf
affect the Arab-Israeli conflict."
"Wolfowitz adhered to an expansive definition of the Persian Gulf," notes Bacevich, which
in that young defense intellectual's words extended from "the region between Pakistan and Iran in
the northeast to the Yemens in the southwest." Wolfowitz identified two prospective menaces to U.S.
interests in the region: the Soviet Union-this was still the Cold War era, after all-and "the emerging
Iraqi threat"; to counter these Wolfowitz called for "advisors and counterinsurgency specialists,
token combat forces, or a major commitment" of U.S. forces to the Middle East.
(Bacevich is fair to Wolfowitz, acknowledging that Saddam Hussein was indeed an expansionist,
as the Iraqi dictator would demonstrate by invading Iran in 1980 and seizing Kuwait a decade later.
Whether this meant that Iraq was ever a threat to U.S. interests is, of course, a different question-as
is whether the Soviet Union could really have cut America off from Gulf oil.)
Wolfowitz was not alone in calling for the U.S. to become the guarantor of Middle East security-and
Saudi Arabia's security in particular-and President Carter heeded the advice. In March 1980 he created
the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (RDJTF), predecessor to what we now know as the U.S. Central
Command (CENTCOM), which has military oversight for the region. The RDJTF's second head, Lt. Gen.
Robert Kingston, described its mission, in admirably frank language, as simply "to ensure the unimpeded
flow of oil from the Arabian Gulf."
Iraq and Iran both posed dangers to the flow of oil and its control by Saudi Arabia and other
Arab allies-to use the term loosely-of the United States. And just as the U.S. was drawn into wars
with Iran and Iraq when it tried to play one against the other, America's defense of Saudi Arabia
would have grave unintended consequences-such as the creation of al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden was outraged
when, in 1990, Saudi Arabia's King Fahd declined his offer to wage holy war against Saddam Hussein
and instead turned to American protection, even permitting the stationing of American military personnel
in Islam's sacred lands. "To liberate Kuwait," writes Bacevich, bin Laden had "offered to raise an
army of mujahedin. Rejecting his offer and his protest, Saudi authorities sought to silence the impertinent
bin Laden. Not long thereafter, he fled into exile, determined to lead a holy war that would overthrow
the corrupt Saudi royals." The instrument bin Laden forged to accomplish that task, al-Qaeda, would
target Americans as well, seeking to push the U.S. out of Muslim lands.
Bin Laden had reason to hope for success: in the 1980s he had helped mujahedin defeat another
superpower, the Soviet Union, in Afghanistan. That struggle, of course, was supported by the U.S.,
through the CIA's "Operation Cyclone," which funneled arms and money to the Soviets' Muslim opponents.
Bacevich offers a verdict on this program:
Operation Cyclone illustrates one of the central ironies of America's War for the Greater Middle
East-the unwitting tendency, while intently focusing on solving one problem, to exacerbate a second
and plant the seeds of a third. In Afghanistan, this meant fostering the rise of Islamic radicalism
and underwriting Pakistan's transformation into a nuclear-armed quasi-rogue state while attempting
to subvert the Soviet Union.
America's support for the mujahedin succeeded in inflicting defeat on the USSR-but left Afghanistan
a haven and magnet for Islamist radicals, including bin Laden.
Another irony of Bacevich's tale is the way in which the end of the Cold War made escalation of
the War for the Greater Middle East possible. The Carter and Reagan administrations never considered
the Middle East the centerpiece of their foreign policy: Western Europe and the Cold War took precedence.
Carter and Reagan were unsystematic about their engagement with the Middle East and, even as they
expanded America's military presence, remained wary of strategic overcommitment. Operation Eagle
Claw, Reagan's deployment of troops to Lebanon in 1983 and bombing of Libya in 1986, and even the
meddling in Iran and Iraq were all small-scale projects compared to what would be unleashed after
the fall of the Berlin Wall.
The military bureaucracy took advantage of the removal of one enemy from the map-Soviet Communism-to
redirect resources toward a new region and new threats. As Bacevich observes, "What some at the time
were calling a 'peace dividend' offered CENTCOM a way of expanding its portfolio of assets." Operation
Desert Storm, and all that came afterward, became possible.
The
Greater Middle East of Bacevich's title centers strategically, if not geographically, upon Saudi
Arabia, Iraq, and Iran. But its strategic implications and cultural reach are wide, encompassing
Libya, Somalia, and other African states with significant Muslim populations; Afghanistan and Pakistan
(or "AfPak," in the Obama administration's parlance); and even, on the periphery, the Balkans, where
the U.S. intervened militarily in support of Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s. That Clinton-era
intervention is examined in detail by Bacevich: "Today, years after NATO came to their rescue," he
writes, "a steady stream of Bosnians and Kosovars leave their homeland and head off toward Syria
and Iraq, where they enlist as fighters in the ongoing anti-American, anti-Western jihad."
Much as George W. Bush believed that liberal democracy would spring up in Saddam Hussein's wake,
the humanitarian interventionists who demanded that Bill Clinton send peacekeepers to Bosnia and
bomb Serbia on behalf of the Kosovars thought that they were making the world safe for their own
liberal, multicultural values. But as Bacevich notes, the Balkan Muslims joining ISIS today are "waging
war on behalf of an entirely different set of universal values."
Bacevich's many books confront readers with painful but necessary truths. The final lesson
of this one is simple: "Perpetuating the War for the Greater Middle East is not enhancing American
freedom, abundance, and security. If anything, it is having the opposite effect."
Daniel McCarthy is the editor of The American Conservative.
Hillary is a warmonger and is very dangerous in any high position in government (look how much damage
she managed to do while being the Secretary of State), to say nothing about being POTUS. Among other
things Hillary and just too old and too sick to be a President.
Notable quotes:
"... A vote for Stein is a vote against empire. It's a vote against the neocons and their plans to bring the entire world under our rule. ..."
"... Look who Hillary picked as her VP! Look who she hired in her campaign. She doesn't give a damn. Instead of demanding the progressive vote to avoid disaster, have her change course and deserve that vote. People have had enough already. ..."
"... Bernie Sanders sold out. Time to forget him and forget his advice, as the worst vote would be a vote for a neocon and the wars she would bring us. ..."
"... I mean if this was a contest between Hitler and Stalin there would still be people asking others to vote for Stalin so that Hitler wasn't elected and arguing that voting for another candidate is wasting your vote. If you want to vote tactically, vote tactically, and if you want to vote for what you believe, vote for what you believe, but understand what you are saying and don't act as if there was any kind of moral obligation to vote for Clinton, because there isn't. ..."
"... Independent studies and reports have proven that the primaries were rigged beyond any doubt. ..."
"... Hillary's biggest supporters spend most of their time on Wall St, in oil companies, or in corrupt foreign governments. ..."
"... There simply isn't any logic to this OMG Trump will be the worst thing ever. So one must then assume that the argument is created and perpetuated simply to manipulate and mislead. ..."
"... Trump, a detestable person, would get very little of his extreme views passed. Clinton, a detestable person, would get very much of her extreme views passed. ..."
"... Because Clinton is to the right of Obama (accurate provided you aren't a rabid partisan) she is far more likely to get every awful military action she wants. Since she's apparently the "pragmatic" one, how quickly do any of these policy proposals get watered down or gutted entirely in the name of compromise and political realities and "politics being the art of the possible"? ..."
"... True. It ends here. A vote for Hillary is a vote that supports and condones the corruption of the DNC and Clinton 's campaign. Clearly, they had handicapped Sanders from the start. Starting with an 'insurmountable 400+ superdelegates before Bernie entered the race which the MSM, who, in collusion with the DNC, pushed as "an impossible lead to overcome" skewed the primaries results in favor of Clinton. ..."
"... I won't vote for someone who has to nuance her answers when it comes to the way in which she's conducted herself during her tenure at the Department of State. This from a former Clinton supporter in 2008. ..."
"... Glad to know that they would rather have a Trump presidency instead of banding together with the Dems. ..."
"... Please see what you will be doing if Trump becomes president. He doesn't stand for ANYTHING that Bernie stands for. ..."
"... Not this election. Certainly not the next election. Or the one after that. At least Hilly is Dem. Best laugh of the day. ..."
"But I am concerned that the DNC elected Hillary in the first place. Because they [Trump and Clinton]
are either tied or she's even losing in some polls. Whereas Bernie consistently beat Trump by double
digits [in hypothetical match-up polls]. We could win the House and the Senate back with those kind
of numbers."
... ... ...
"I've read hundreds of the DNC leaked emails. I feel that our votes were stolen. I don't think
she won the primary fair and square. And if she had to cheat to do it, maybe she shouldn't become
the first woman president."
"I think by me voting for the third-party candidate, along with millions of other Bernie supporters,
it will maybe show that the third party is possible in the future." JCDavis Tom J. Davis
What has Jill Stein ever done that qualifies her to lead a large nation with international
obligations and not just those to it's own citizens?
A vote for Stein is a vote against empire. It's a vote against the neocons and their plans
to bring the entire world under our rule.
pdehaan -> Tom J. Davis
It's quite something for democrats to demand the progressive votes for Hillary and trying to
induce a guilt trip in order to avoid Trump from being elected.
Why don't you demand Hillary Clinton to earn that vote?? For example, by having her guarantee
in no uncertain means that she'll oppose TPP and associated trade deals in any form or fashion
(instead of in it's current form)? Why don't you demand Hillary Clinton to be less hawkish and
dangerous wrt foreign policy instead? Why don't you demand her to work towards a $15 minimum wage,
income equality and social protection instead? It's very easy to demand one's vote just because
the other side is even worse. This issue comes up every election and it's just maintaining the
status quo.
Look who Hillary picked as her VP! Look who she hired in her campaign. She doesn't give
a damn. Instead of demanding the progressive vote to avoid disaster, have her change course and
deserve that vote. People have had enough already.
JCDavis -> palindrom
Bernie Sanders sold out. Time to forget him and forget his advice, as the worst vote would
be a vote for a neocon and the wars she would bring us.
JCDavis -> davshev
Think of it this way--Trump may be a clown, but Hillary is a warmonger who will bring us war
with Russia. and a war with Russia will be a disaster for everyone. So if your vote for Stein
gives us Trump, that is not as bad as it could be.
cynictomato
Oh Please! If you want to vote for Clinton just vote for her but let the rest do whatever they
want. The idea that if you vote for another candidate besides the two main ones you are wasting
your vote is what has turned the USA in a two party democracy and is detrimental for the citizens
because the main parties only have to worry about presenting a better option than their rival,
not about presenting a good candidate.
I mean if this was a contest between Hitler and Stalin there would still be people asking
others to vote for Stalin so that Hitler wasn't elected and arguing that voting for another candidate
is wasting your vote. If you want to vote tactically, vote tactically, and if you want to vote
for what you believe, vote for what you believe, but understand what you are saying and don't
act as if there was any kind of moral obligation to vote for Clinton, because there isn't.
The idea that the Democratic National Committee, and the Clinton campaign, "rigged" the Democratic
primary is fairly widespread
It's not an IDEA it's a FACT.
Independent studies and reports have proven that the primaries were rigged beyond any doubt.
(Guardian please study these reports and write an in depth article on the rigged primaries)
On foreign policy, Clinton is certainly not "the much lesser threat to their ideology". She
has made it clear that aggressive stance on Syria/Ukraine will be taken, increasing the odds of
an uncontained global conflict.
NoOneYouKnowNow -> kevdflb
Hillary's biggest supporters spend most of their time on Wall St, in oil companies, or
in corrupt foreign governments.
mrmetrowest -> Iskierka
Are Nader voters more responsible for Bush than the hundreds of thousands of Democrats that
voted for him? Are they more responsible than the millions who stayed home? The 'Nader cost Gore
the election' canard is one of the least logical pieces of conventional wisdom ever.
Mrs Clinton is on record as supporting a no-fly zone in Syria - an act that will further embroil
us in the Middle East and might get us into a blow-up with Russia. If this happens, are Clinton
supporters willing to be responsible for her actions?
Vote Green, if that's what your conscience says. The anti-Trump voters' moral position is less
pure than they think; in four years they'll be voting against someone else. This goes on forever.
mrmetrowest -> Rolf Erikson
In 1964, voters were presented with a choice between LBJ and Goldwater. Goldwater was considered
to hold extreme political views which caused many to vote for LBJ, who won a landslide victory.
LBJ did great things domestically, however he massively escalated the war in Vietnam, leading
to the deaths on tens of thousands of Americans and millions of Vietnamese. To what extent are
those who voted for LBJ responsible for those deaths? Likewise, if Mrs Clinton gets us into a
war in Syria, or Iran, will you accept responsibility for helping put her in office?
Cue the trolls insisting that you must, must vote for their preferred candidate. If people vote
Green, that is their democratic choice and right. It is also because the Democratic Party saw fit
to foist a terrible candidate on the people.
Bernie has #DemExit and is returning to his roots as an Independent and said he will run in
2018 for the Senate as an Independent! Follow Bernie's lead and exit the corrupt, neoLiberal Democratic
Party! Do you want 4 more War Years? Peace NOW or nothing later!
Vote for peace and prosperity - Dr Jill Stein and the Green Economy!
Sawant is a complete pile-driver of a debater, a devastatingly accurate verbal machine gun,
and she utterly crushed...but, to me, Traister still won. The 'vote your heart' constituency diagnose
the situation near perfectly, and push for political action that isn't beholden to election cycles
but they then just fall short; they then turn on a dime and act like the electoral system isn't
broken, like a General Election is an 'end game' and is meaningful. Whereas L.E.V. adherents don't
close their eyes to what's on offer and it's they, not 'vote your heart' people, who see a General
Election for what it is: a broken democracy offering a "choice" between two types of terrible
but one type of terrible is always going to be less terrible. Underneath Traister's tiresome,
wilfully blind, if well written, Hillary hagiographies, I think that she knows this too.
Of course, the Hillary supporters and media cheerleaders will spin around from beseeching for
a vote against Miller/Barron/Drumpf/von Clownstick to then, if Hillary gets a solid victory, claiming
a great win, after all -"look at the votes *for* Hillary Clinton!" - when she would only win because
of votes *against* the short-fingered hysteric. They'll steal votes cast against Drumpf and disingenuously
claim them as votes *for* Hillary. So what? 'Cynical, dishonest narcissists in cynical, dishonest
narcissism' shock! "Let the baby have its bottle", as they say, and let them stew in their own
juice after progressives perhaps bolt to the formation of a new party or a re-structured Green
party after election day.
Think outside of election cycles and it's precisely *because* one should do so, and treat General
Elections as unimportant towards the big scheme of things, that one should vote for better of
two historically disliked candidates because other days will offer less sickening choices and
huge swathes of the country will gain/be better off even if you don't. It would ironically be
Clintonian to punish Clinton and the DNC for not having a sufficiently collectivist outlook by
personally selling out others and allowing the short-fingered vulgarian to snake oil his tiny-handed
way in. Women seeking to retain the right to choose
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/07/mike-pence-says-roe-v-wade-will-be-overturned.html Mexican
people, Muslim people, immigrants in general will be just some of those who'll be in your spiritual
debt if you're a swing state voter who'll bite the bullet. You don't have to support someone in
order to give them your vote.
The idea that the Democratic National Committee, and the Clinton campaign, "rigged" the
Democratic primary is fairly widespread among Sanders supporters
This is something that really annoys me. You're implying that this is not an undeniable fact clearly
backed by written evidence fact by calling it an ''idea''.
The thing about Hilary is that she is not by any stretch of imagination a good candidate. She
is deeply unpopular because of who she is as a politician. You cannot expect people to ignore
this. When the DNC willingly and knowingly rigged the election in favour of a bad candidate it
was done based on the partly flawed calculation that the fear of any Republican winning over a
Democrat would suffice to back their candidate no matter what.
And I say partly true, because a lot of the people who would vote for Democrats anyways will
do so even if they backed Bernie.
However Bernie (and to a far smaller extent Trump) energised and brought in people who might
not normally vote at all because they're fed up with the establishment. Once they found their
voice in Bernie and got fired up, they will vote but on for the thing they despise the most (aka
the establishment like Clinton). Nor should they. It was up to the Democratic Party to recognise
the candidate that would have taken advantage of this and they willingly failed in doing so. Even
when picking a VP for Clinton they failed to make even the smallest gesture to these people. So,
no there is no reason good enough for them to switch and vote for someone they despise and know
for sure represents the things they hate.
Now there is also the irony that they're attacking Trump for his fear mongering, while they
themselves are also creating fear mongering amongst voters about what a monster Trump would be.
It's all about fear even when they pretend it's not and that is sickening.
There simply isn't any logic to this OMG Trump will be the worst thing ever. So one must then
assume that the argument is created and perpetuated simply to manipulate and mislead.
Trump, a detestable person, would get very little of his extreme views passed. Clinton,
a detestable person, would get very much of her extreme views passed.
Because Clinton is to the right of Obama (accurate provided you aren't a rabid partisan)
she is far more likely to get every awful military action she wants. Since she's apparently the
"pragmatic" one, how quickly do any of these policy proposals get watered down or gutted entirely
in the name of compromise and political realities and "politics being the art of the possible"?
And of course, the useless, vapid, Democrat partisans will, for the most part, say nothing.
See: 8-years of Obama as Bush 2.0.
Get your facts straight. Those have been labeled FALSE!
However the corruption and neoLiberal war supporter that is hung on Clinton has been proven
by her actions with "regime change" in Libya and coup support in Honduras. And then there is the
corruption of weapons for charitable contributions for the Clinton Foundation!
Do we want peace and prosperity that only ill Stein can bring with her Green Economy or do
we want 4 more years of war and job loss? Simple choice.
Obama was very different to bush on almost every issue, the differences might not be massive but
they have a real impact on people. For example on climate change obama successfully pushed for
polices that will help reduce emissions while bush did literally nothing. It will be the same
for clinton.
You are correct that Obama was different from Bush, you're just wrong about the direction.
Drones/Illegal Wars: Expanded
Wall St/Corporate Corruption: Went unpunished & expanded
Domestic Spying: Expanded
Constitutional Violations: Expanded
War or Whistleblowers: Created
He has done nothing but act like climate change is important. He has not done anything meaningful
except offer more hopeful rhetoric, the only thing the Democratic candidates seem to be good at
lately.
You're being ridiculous. If Trump wins, the republicans win the Senate and the House and he will
sign dozens of Republican bills that will set the progressive movement back a decade or more.
He will also nominate a right wing judge to replace Scalia Anna the SCOTUS will be in conservative
hands for another generation.
If you don't see that, you have a severe case of denial.
You are aware that you can vote for candidates for other positions that are not in the same as
the party as the president you vote for, yes? You can not vote Clinton but still vote Team D everywhere
else.
As an institution, SCOTUS has held back progress almost as often as it has helped it. So no,
i'm not one of those easily swayed by the terrible "but think of the appointments!" argument.
Perhaps it becoming even clearer that it is an anti-democratic institution is the best way to
achieve real justice.
The old worse of two evils logic that guarantees an eternity of bad candidates.
Cliff Olney
True. It ends here. A vote for Hillary is a vote that supports and condones the corruption
of the DNC and Clinton 's campaign. Clearly, they had handicapped Sanders from the start. Starting
with an 'insurmountable 400+ superdelegates before Bernie entered the race which the MSM, who,
in collusion with the DNC, pushed as "an impossible lead to overcome" skewed the primaries results
in favor of Clinton.
What a hollow victory it must be for Hillary, but then, one must have a conscience to feel
such things, and as we can see from her support for the coup in Honduras, she lacks this empathy.
"Give them a good attorney before we deport the children back to Honduras", resonates with those
of us that have a conscience.
Not going to happen.
Sanders was honest. So is Stein. I won't vote for someone who has to nuance her answers
when it comes to the way in which she's conducted herself during her tenure at the Department
of State. This from a former Clinton supporter in 2008.
Clinton or Trump? The duopoly's choice for president is a dry heave.
BradStorch -> Mardak
How will you push Clinton to the left? What leverage will you have after you gave her a pass
on Iraq, Libya, Wall Street etc.? If she runs against Ted Cruz in 2020 you'll vote for her whether
or not she started any wars or did anything from Bernie's platform, right?
brooks303
Glad to know that they would rather have a Trump presidency instead of banding together with
the Dems. I understand the need for a three, or even four party system. We should work toward
that at the ballot box.
But not with this election. Please see what you will be doing if Trump
becomes president. He doesn't stand for ANYTHING that Bernie stands for. At least Hillary is a
Democrat.
Indie60 -> brooks303
Not this election. Certainly not the next election. Or the one after that. At least Hilly
is Dem. Best laugh of the day.
christinaak -> brooks303
We would have to amend the Constitution to have an effective multiparty system, because of
the current requirement of 270 electoral votes to win the Presidency. Under the current system
it would be all but impossible for one candidate to obtain 270 electoral votes in a truly competitive
multiparty system. If one candidate does not obtain the required number then the House of Representatives
gets
"... But there is hardly a single valid reason to be found anywhere why someone would want to vote for either them. Some have argued that Trump is less likely to cause World War III, because his instincts are those of a businessman, and he is primarily interested in making money, not war; but Clinton likes money just as much as Trump-just look at her gigantic private slush fund known as the Clinton Foundation! ..."
"... A 2014 study, "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page conclusively showed how the preferences of average citizens matter not a whit, while those of moneyed elites and interest groups certainly do. ..."
"... no need to concern yourself with who is the "lesser evil," or which candidate made which meaningless promises. You will not be casting a vote for someone; you will be casting a vote against the entire process. Think of yourself as a soldier who volunteered in defense of liberty: you will simply be carrying out your orders. The charge has been laid by someone else; your mission, should you wish to accept it, is to light the fuse and walk away. This should at once motivate you to go and vote and make the voting process easy and stress-free. You are going to show up, subvert the dominant paradigm, and go watch the fireworks. ..."
"... In any case, the two major parties are dying, and the number of non-party members is now almost the same as the number of Democrats and Republicans put together. ..."
"... Try the line "This penny can't be bought." Don't argue or debate; rattle off your "elevator speech," hand over the penny and move on. ..."
"... And that, my fellow Americans, is how you can change a "you lose-they win" outcome to a more just and equitable "you lose-they lose" in this particular game of strategy. ..."
In all my years of watching politics in the US, never have I seen a presidential election
generate such overwhelmingly negative emotions. Everyone hates Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, or,
increasingly, both of them. This is creating a severe psychological problem for many people: they
want to tell their friends and the world that Clinton is mentally unstable and a crook, but they
are conflicted because they realize that by so doing they would be supporting Trump. Or they want
to tell everyone what a vulgar, narcissistic, egotistical blowhard Trump is, but they are
conflicted because they realize that by so doing they would be supporting Clinton. Some are
abandoning the two-party duopoly in favor of minor parties, ready to vote for Jill Stein the
Green or Gary Johnson the Libertarian, but are conflicted because voting for Stein would take
votes away from Clinton the crook and thus support Trump the blowhard, while voting for Johnson
would take votes away from Trump the blowhard and thus support Clinton the crook. There is just
no winning! Or is there?
There is a long list of arguments for voting against either of the major candidates, some of them
seemingly valid. At the top of the list of the seemingly valid ones are that Clinton is corrupt
and a warmonger, while Trump is inexperienced and socially divisive.
But there is hardly a
single valid reason to be found anywhere why someone would want to vote for either them. Some
have argued that Trump is less likely to cause World War III, because his instincts are those of
a businessman, and he is primarily interested in making money, not war; but Clinton likes money
just as much as Trump-just look at her gigantic private slush fund known as the Clinton
Foundation!
On the other hand, perhaps Trump will like the idea of peace only until the
moment he is elected, at which point it will be explained to him that the US empire is an
extortion racket, and that breaking legs (a.k.a. war) is how it comes up with the ink. And then
he will like war just as much as Clinton does. None of this makes it easy for a lover of liberty
and peace to vote for either one of them in good conscience.
I heard Jill Stein say that people should be able to vote their conscience. Yes, let's concede
that voting against your conscience is probably bad for your soul, if not your pocketbook. But
this makes it sound as if the voting booth were a confessional rather than what it is-an
apparatus by which people can assert their very limited political power. But do you have any
political power, or are American elections just a game of manipulation in which you lose no
matter how you vote?
A 2014 study, "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest
Groups, and Average Citizens" by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page conclusively showed how the
preferences of average citizens matter not a whit, while those of moneyed elites and interest
groups certainly do.
Thus, the question as to whether you are the winner or the loser in the
game of US electoral politics is easily answered: if you are a multibillionaire and a captain of
industry, then you might win; if you are an average citizen, then the chances of you winning are
precisely zero.
Given that you are going to lose, how should you play? Should you behave like a Furious Sheep,
obeying all the signals fed to you by the candidates, their organizations and the political
commentators in the mass media? Should you do your part to hand the largest possible victory to
those who are manipulating the political process to their advantage? Or should you withhold
cooperation to the largest extent possible and try to unmask them and neutralize their efforts at
political manipulation?
Sure, there are some cheap thrills to be had for the Furious Sheep-endorphins from jumping up and
down while waving mass-produced signs and shouting slogans pre-approved by campaign committees.
But if you are the sort of person who likes to have an independent thought now and again, what
you are probably looking for are three things:
avoid psychological damage from having to observe and participate in this absurd and
degrading spectacle;
experience the delicious thrill of watching this system fail and those behind it lose
face; and
regain some amount of faith in the possibility of a future for your children and
grandchildren that might involve something actually resembling some sort of democracy rather
than a humiliating, sordid, rigged game.
Before we can play, we have to understand what variety of game this is in technical terms.
There are many different kinds of games: games of strength (tug-of-war), games of skill (fencing)
and games of strategy (backgammon). This one is a game of strength, fought using large bags of
money, but it can be turned into a game of strategy by the weaker side, not to win but to deny
victory to the other side.
Most of us are brought up with the nice idea that games should be fair. In a fair game both
sides have a chance at victory, and there is normally a winner and a loser, or, failing that, a
tie. But fair games represent only a subset of games, while the rest-the vast majority-are
unfair. Here, we are talking about a specific type of unfair game in which your side always
loses. But does that mean that the other side must always win? Not at all! There are two possible
outcomes: "you lose-they win" and "you lose-they lose."
Now, if you, being neither a multibillionaire nor a captain of industry, are facing the
prospect of spending the rest of your life on the losing side, which outcome should you wish for?
Of course, you should want the other side to lose too! The reason: if those on the other side
start losing, then they will abandon this game and resort to some other means of securing an
unfair victory. In the case of the game of American electoral politics, this would pierce the
veil of faux-democracy, generating a level of public outrage that might make the restoration of
real democracy at least theoretically possible.
So, how do you change the outcome from "you lose-they win" to "you lose-they lose"?
The first question to answer is whether you should bother voting at all, and the answer is,
Yes, you should vote. If you don't vote, then you abandon the playing field to the Furious Sheep
who, being most easily manipulated, will hand an easy victory to the other side. And so the
remaining question is, How should you vote to make the other side lose? This should not be
regarded as a matter of personal choice;
no need to concern yourself with who is the "lesser
evil," or which candidate made which meaningless promises. You will not be casting a vote for
someone; you will be casting a vote against the entire process. Think of yourself as a soldier
who volunteered in defense of liberty: you will simply be carrying out your orders. The charge
has been laid by someone else; your mission, should you wish to accept it, is to light the fuse
and walk away. This should at once motivate you to go and vote and make the voting process easy
and stress-free. You are going to show up, subvert the dominant paradigm, and go watch the
fireworks.
Next, you have to understand the way the electoral game is played. It is played with
money-very large sums of money-with votes being quite secondary. In mathematical terms, money is
the independent variable and votes are the dependent variable, but the relationship between money
and votes is nonlinear and time-variant. In the opening round, the moneyed interests throw huge
sums of money at both of the major parties-not because elections have to be, by their nature,
ridiculously expensive, but to erect an insurmountable barrier to entry for average citizens. But
the final decision is made on a relatively thin margin of victory, in order to make the electoral
process appear genuine rather than staged, and to generate excitement. After all, if the moneyed
interests just threw all their money at their favorite candidate, making that candidate's victory
a foregone conclusion, that wouldn't look sufficiently democratic. And so they use large sums to
separate themselves from you the great unwashed, but much smaller sums to tip the scales.
When calculating how to tip the scales, the political experts employed by the moneyed
interests rely on information on party affiliation, polling data and historical voting patterns.
To change the outcome from a "lose-win" to a "lose-lose," you need to invalidate all three of
these:
The proper choice of party affiliation is "none," which, for some bizarre reason, is
commonly labeled as "independent,"
(and watch out for American Independent Party, which is
a minor right-wing party in California that has successfully trolled people into joining it by
mistake). Be that as it may; let the Furious Sheep call themselves the "dependent" ones.
In any case, the two major parties are dying, and the number of non-party members is now
almost the same as the number of Democrats and Republicans put together.
When responding to a poll, the category you should always opt for is "undecided," up to
and including the moment when you walk into the voting booth.
When questioned about your
stands on various issues, you need to remember that the interest in your opinion is
disingenuous: your stand on issues matters not a whit (see study above) except as part of an
effort to herd you, a Furious Sheep, into a particular political paddock. Therefore, when
talking to pollsters, be vaguely on both sides of every issue while stressing that it plays no
role in your decision-making. Should you be asked what does matter to you, concentrate on such
issues as the candidates' body language, fashion sense and demeanor. Doing so will effectively
short-circuit any attempt to manipulate you using your purely fictional ability to influence
public policy. You cannot be for or against a candidate being forthright and well-spoken; nor
is there a litmus test for comportment or fashion sense. Politicians are supposed to be able
to herd Furious Sheep by making promises they have no intention of keeping. But what if the
voters (wise to the fact that their opinions no longer matter) suddenly start demanding better
posture, more graceful hand gestures, a more melodious tone of voice and a sprightlier step?
Calamity! What was supposed to be a fake but tidy ideological battleground with fictional but
clearly delineated front lines suddenly turns into a macabre beauty pageant held on a uniform
field of liquefied mud.
The final step is to invalidate historical voting patterns.
Here, the perfectly
obvious solution is to vote randomly. Random voting will produce not random but chaotic
results, invalidating the notion that the electoral process is about party platforms,
policies, issues or popular mandates. More importantly, it will invalidate the process by
which votes are purchased, in effect getting money out of politics. You just have to remember
to bring a penny into the voting booth with you. Here is a flowchart that explains how you
should decide who to vote for once you are standing in the voting booth holding a penny:
If you want to be an activist, bring a pocketful of pennies and hand them out to people
while standing in line at the polling place. You won't need to convince that many people to
produce the intended effect. Remember, in order to maintain the appearance of a democratic
process, the artificial, financially induced margin of victory is kept quite thin, and even
a small amount of added randomness is enough to wipe it out. Point out the word "liberty"
prominently embossed on each penny. Briefly explain what a Furious Sheep is, and how the
exercise of liberty is the exact opposite of being a Furious Sheep.
Then explain to them how the pennies are to be used: the first flip of the penny
determines whether you are voting for the left or the right; the second-whether you are
voting for the major or the minor candidate. Be sure to mention that this is a sure-fire
way to get money out of politics.
Try the line "This penny can't be bought." Don't
argue or debate; rattle off your "elevator speech," hand over the penny and move on.
The last detail everyone needs to remember is how to respond to exit polls, in order to
deprive the other side of any understanding of what has just happened. When asked how you
voted, say: "I voted by secret ballot."
Then you can go home, turn on the idiot box and watch a fun spectacle featuring the gnashing
of teeth, the rending of garments and the scattering of ashes upon talking heads. You won't get
to see the behind-the-scenes rancor and the recriminations among the moneyed elites, but you can
imagine just how furious they will be, having had their billions of dollars defeated by a few
handfuls of pennies.
You might think that random voting, with each candidate getting an equal share of the votes,
would be perfectly predictable, making it possible to secure a victory by hacking a few voting
machines. But this would never be the case in the real world, because not everyone will vote
randomly. You might then think that it would still be possible to manipulate the nonrandom voters
into voting a certain way. But how can anyone predict who will vote randomly and who won't? And
if every vote is, in essence, purchased, how would someone go about buying random votes, or
figuring out which candidate such a purchase would favor? In this situation, buying votes would
only serve to further confuse the outcome. Thus, the effect of added randomness on the outcome
will not be random; it will be chaotic.
And that, my fellow Americans, is how you can change a "you lose-they win" outcome to a
more just and equitable "you lose-they lose" in this particular game of strategy.
Dmitry Orlov was born in Leningrad and immigrated to the United States in the 1970's. He is
the author of Reinventing Collapse, Hold Your Applause! and Absolutely Positive, and publishes
weekly at the phenomenally popular blog
www.ClubOrlov.com
.
"... I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region. ..."
"... Because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society, because whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program in the next 10 years during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them. ..."
"... The warmongering neocon woman gets a little careless in the second part of her statement, forgetting "nuclear" and reverting to the 2008 declaration. Worse, she says that even if they don't have nukes quite yet, an attack on Holy Israel means it's "glow-in-the-dark" time in Iran. ..."
"... It really is a tragic thing to be talking about. That's the way the Madeleine Albright ***** – the one who has declared that any woman who doesn't vote for Hillary will go to hell – put it when speaking of 500,000 dead Iraqi kids. Darned shame, but it had to be done. ..."
"... Don't even think about a possibility why Hillary might be so devoted to Israel. When she was in the Senate the woman went to a prayer breakfast with some of the most repulsive of the Conservative Republicans. Nobody at all is talking about Hillary's religion. If she is one of the Rapture types, her access to nukes would mean an End-Timer finally has a chance to force God to get off the pot and start with the Second Coming. ..."
"... Just think of it – the First and the Last woman president. ..."
"... You are right. She is a huge danger. Not only due to her frail health, age and history of blood clots. As Huma Abedin noted in her deposition, she often is "confused". Which means that she does not have "normal" level of situational awareness. ..."
"... After the dissolution of the USSR and the "triumphal march" of neoliberalism, the US elite by-and-large lost the sense of self-preservation. ..."
"... Like sociopaths she has no self-control, no sense of self-preservation, no boundaries. ..."
Hillary 2008: "George Stephanopoulos: "Senator Clinton, would you [extend
our deterrent to Israel]?"
Hillary Clinton: "Well, in fact I think that we should be looking
to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel.
Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel
would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the
same with other countries in the region."
Massive Retaliation has always had the meaning of a 'massive' nuclear
attack.
Hillary 2016: "MR. CUOMO: Iran: some language recently. You said if Iran
were to strike Israel, there would be a massive retaliation. Scary words.
Does massive retaliation mean you'd go into Iran? You would bomb Iran? Is
that what that's supposed to suggest?
SEN. CLINTON: Well, the question was if Iran were to launch a nuclear
attack on Israel, what would our response be? And I want the Iranians to
know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to
understand that.
Because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their
society, because whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear
weapons program in the next 10 years during which they might foolishly consider
launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.
That's a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to
understand that, because that perhaps will deter them from doing something
that would be reckless, foolish, and tragic."
The warmongering neocon woman gets a little careless in the second
part of her statement, forgetting "nuclear" and reverting to the 2008 declaration.
Worse, she says that even if they don't have nukes quite yet, an attack
on Holy Israel means it's "glow-in-the-dark" time in Iran.
It really is a tragic thing to be talking about. That's the way the
Madeleine Albright ***** – the one who has declared that any woman who doesn't
vote for Hillary will go to hell – put it when speaking of 500,000 dead
Iraqi kids. Darned shame, but it had to be done.
But move on – it's the insane Trump who can't be trusted with nukes.
Don't even think about a possibility why Hillary might be so devoted
to Israel. When she was in the Senate the woman went to a prayer breakfast
with some of the most repulsive of the Conservative Republicans. Nobody
at all is talking about Hillary's religion. If she is one of the Rapture
types, her access to nukes would mean an End-Timer finally has a chance
to force God to get off the pot and start with the Second Coming.
Just think of it – the First and the Last woman president.
likbez , August 5, 2016 11:29 pm
Hi Zachary,
> Just think of it – the First and the Last woman president.
You are right. She is a huge danger. Not only due to her frail health,
age and history of blood clots. As Huma Abedin noted in her deposition,
she often is "confused". Which means that she does not have "normal" level
of situational awareness.
For some specialties like airplane pilots this is a death sentence. Unfortunately,
if elected, she can take the country with her.
While the USSR existed, as bad as it was for people within its borders,
it was a blessing for the people of the USA, as it kept the elite in check
and frightful to behave in "natural, greedy and delusional "Masters of the
Universe" way".
After the dissolution of the USSR and the "triumphal march" of neoliberalism,
the US elite by-and-large lost the sense of self-preservation.
If you read what Hillary utters like "no fly zone" in Syria and other
similar staff, to me this looks like a sign of madness, plain and simple.
No reasonable politician should go of the cliff like that, if stakes are
not extremely high.
And MSM try to sell her as a more reasonable politician then Trump. In
reality she is like Kelvin absolute zero. You just can't go lower. The only
hope is that she is a puppet and it does not matter what she utters.
But if we take her statements about Syria and Russia at face value, she
is either dangerously ignorant or (more probably) is a female sociopath.
Like sociopaths she has no self-control, no sense of self-preservation,
no boundaries.
So her arrogant and reckless behavior as for "getting rich quick" and
with the private "bathroom" email server is a sign of more general and more
dangerous tendency.
Neocons are still way too powerful. They dominate MSM and essentially
dictate the agenda.
"... Politically, the Reagan/Thatcher period broke the socially-democratic post-WWII consensus in favour of economic neo-liberalism, which became the new consensus... and once the Cold War was over, there was no real 'peace dividend' and the agreements for global free-trade/globalisation were struck. ..."
"... We weren't robbed. We gave our country away. Republics that operate in a Democratic manner cannot be left to themselves any more than one should leave a three-year-old child alone...but we did. ..."
"... Is the middle class disappearing? Since the middle class is the majority, one has to ask why. Why is the majority population of the United States slipping into "Lower Class" status? Simple: the Majority allowed it to happen by not saying "No!" often enough. ..."
"... Our government here in the United States is a wonder, a thing of genius passed down from the Founders (most of whom would be on "Do not Fly" lists today). ..."
"... Politics: policies are never discussed in detail in ANY election. The WHAT, HOW, WHERE, WHEN, WHY and COST is never provided in detail by the politicians. Every thing in the politicians mind is open ended, and may or may not be adopted, considered, or maybe a totally different thing than what they were elected for. ..."
"... WWII's impact on media tended to paper over many of the differences and tensions that have been present in American life. Aside from the period during WWII and in the few decades after, vitriol has been the norm in U.S. media going back to the 1790s. The idea of a media culture that was objective and bipartisan is a newer idea. ..."
"... Noam Chomsky talked about this in "The Corporation." Our division and increased level of emotional isolation is a direct result of marketing attacks on the human psyche designed to get us to buy more products and services. ..."
"... While some may fantasize about a society run by women, what we know from experience is that women in power act and speak just like men, that is, they also act solely in their own parochial personal political interest and say whatever is necessary to win their next election. ..."
"... Civility and all the claims about it are largely the reason the abominable Reagan era free market economics have shattered the U.S. Economy. ..."
"... Much the better to forget civility in the face of bankster monsters who have worked to destroy the English speaking world and everyone else in it. Civilty is just plain crap in the face of the policies of neoliberalism. ..."
I suspect we're seeing the consequences of two events... one political, the other financial (heavily
determined by the political, which happened first).
Politically, the Reagan/Thatcher period broke the socially-democratic post-WWII consensus
in favour of economic neo-liberalism, which became the new consensus... and once the Cold War
was over, there was no real 'peace dividend' and the agreements for global free-trade/globalisation
were struck.
That lead to the banking crisis/collapse in 2008, and to the 'solution' whereby most governments
imposed 'austerity' and debt on ordinary people to keep most of the bankers 'functional' and 'solvent'
...and not only were the bankers not adequately regulated to curtail their activities, but they
carried on paying themselves mega-currency bonuses for using taxpayer guarantees to rescue their
dysfunctional businesses.
As the UK-EU Referendum result has proved, populist politicians spouting bullsh*t can succeed
in this environment; especially when 'decent politicians' abdicate their responsibilities.
Here in the U.S. we're learning that we've created a monster by essentially doing nothing. While
the Police turned themselves into "Occupying Forces" who "Enforced the laws on a resistant populace"
and created a poisonous "Us vs. Them" situation...we were watching game shows. As the Elites in
the government crafted laws to protect themselves from the civil laws that govern the rest of
us, we were obsessing over soap operas. As fellow citizens were targeted on account of race, nationality,
or language, we were busy with planning our vacations and where to spend them.
We weren't robbed. We gave our country away. Republics that operate in a Democratic manner
cannot be left to themselves any more than one should leave a three-year-old child alone...but
we did.
Now, the would-be powerful use Hate and Race and Nationality as a means of dividing us and
turning us against ourselves. This is done for the same reason the magician's "assistant" doesn't
wear enough clothing to flag down a passing car - the magician wants us to be distracted while
he sets up for the next trick.
It's easy to get the public to turn away from the basic rights that our nation was founded upon;
just frighten them and then promise that by simply surrendering those rights they will be made
"safe" from possible harms. Never mind that Ben Franklin said, "Those who would surrender their
basic liberties for the illusion of safety deserve neither." Schools don't teach that anymore.
They teach conformity to authority, any authority. Schools teach obedience, not critical thought;
and they punish those who question things very severely.
Is the middle class disappearing? Since the middle class is the majority, one has to ask
why. Why is the majority population of the United States slipping into "Lower Class" status? Simple:
the Majority allowed it to happen by not saying "No!" often enough. We chose to lose because
we didn't do what was necessary to win. The United States of Laziness, long may it watch the idiot
box and not do anything to change what's happening to it.
Our government here in the United States is a wonder, a thing of genius passed down from
the Founders (most of whom would be on "Do not Fly" lists today). Under our system we are
treated to the fairest form of government that has ever been devised: We get the Government and
the Society under that government... that we DESERVE. We don't get what we want, we get what we
deserve. Let the apologists claim that the country is "Changing". Let them say, "We're growing
into something new!" We aren't. We're simply living down to the historical model of failed societies.
Politics: policies are never discussed in detail in ANY election. The WHAT, HOW, WHERE, WHEN,
WHY and COST is never provided in detail by the politicians. Every thing in the politicians mind
is open ended, and may or may not be adopted, considered, or maybe a totally different thing than
what they were elected for.
That is the disaster that what current politicians totally fail. That needs to change. Will
such, I doubt it.
The current so called political platforms or manifestos, are basically useless and used only
for propaganda.
Many excellent points. I think the divisions are easier to exploit in part because the society
has become so greatly divided based of income inequality. People have completely different frames
of reference in terms of their experience, and anxieties, and so it becomes easier to dismiss
the concerns of others out-of-hand as illegitimate. You can also overlay racism as part of the
equation, which has always been present with varying degrees of intensity in the U.S.
WWII's impact on media tended to paper over many of the differences and tensions that have
been present in American life. Aside from the period during WWII and in the few decades after,
vitriol has been the norm in U.S. media going back to the 1790s. The idea of a media culture that
was objective and bipartisan is a newer idea.
It was codified by things like the Fairness Doctrine as well, which tended to moderate, and
censor, public discussion through broadcast media. When the Fairness Doctrine fell apart you had
people like Limbaugh go national with a highly partisan infotainment model.
The media became more fragmented as well. Broadcast media also used to be seen as a public
service. But in the 1970s the major networks started to understand that it could also be a profit
center -- and you had another shift in values, where the public function took a back-seat to profit
maximization. The market also has become more cut-throat as the media environment has become more
fragmented.
Noam Chomsky talked about this in "The Corporation." Our division and increased level of emotional
isolation is a direct result of marketing attacks on the human psyche designed to get us to buy
more products and services. I'm not sure how much of it is Machiavellian and how much is
just pure greed reaping it's inevitable harvest.
Vitriolic and polemical speech has been a ubiquitous ritual since the earliest democracies. When
candidates wish to distinguish themselves or appeal to various segments of the electorate, there
is nothing like a lot of demagoguery and fear mongering to bring attention to a candidate and
his issues. In the end, self-interest motivates voters, and fear is the biggest self-interest
of all.
Using the specter of the opposition to scare small children and those who think like them is
a time honored tradition and well alive today. Further, as groups begin to prosper and start being
assimilated into the broader society, the individual self-interests diverge and it becomes harder
to hold them together as a cohesive group whose votes can be counted on. It then becomes all the
more necessary to drive hysteria and to rely on fear and the hyped common threat to maintain solidarity.
While some may fantasize about a society run by women, what we know from experience is
that women in power act and speak just like men, that is, they also act solely in their own parochial
personal political interest and say whatever is necessary to win their next election.
Civility and all the claims about it are largely the reason the abominable Reagan era free
market economics have shattered the U.S. Economy. The phony claim that civility is politically
useful belies that all manner of suffering like homelessness is not now or ever heard by the deliberately
unhearing administrators of this economy. All civility got anyone is a thin veneer repectabilty
covering up a society in which the rich have robbed the rest of us.
Much the better to forget
civility in the face of bankster monsters who have worked to destroy the English speaking world
and everyone else in it. Civilty is just plain crap in the face of the policies of neoliberalism.
As Scott Adams noted: "Clinton's campaign has such strong persuasion going right now that she is
successfully equating her actual misdeeds of the past with Trump's imaginary mental issues and
imaginary future misdeeds".
They use a Rovian strategy: Assault the enemy's strength. You've got to admire the
Chutzpah: Killing your parents, then complaining you're an orphan. The candidate who didn't raise a
voice against the Iraq War and pushed the administration in favor of war with Libya (which we're now
bombing again) paints their opponent as a lunatic warmonger.
Notable quotes:
"... it's hard not to applaud when he pisses off the stuff shirts at the Washington Post. ..."
"... the frustration with Obama's foreign policy - the continuation of wars, the expansion of drone attacks, the failure to reduce nuclear weapons - has prompted some to piece through Donald Trump's sayings in a desperate search for something, anything, that could possibly represent an alternative. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... If we cannot be properly reimbursed for the tremendous cost of our military protecting other countries, and in many cases the countries I'm talking about are extremely rich. Then if we cannot make a deal, which I believe we will be able to, and which I would prefer being able to, but if we cannot make a deal…. I would be absolutely prepared to tell those countries, "Congratulations, you will be defending yourself. ..."
"... We will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem. And we will send a clear signal that there is no daylight between America and our most reliable ally, the state of Israel. The Palestinians must come to the table knowing that the bond between the United States and Israel is absolutely, totally unbreakable. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton has traditionally adopted foreign policy positions to the right of Barack Obama. As president, she will likely tack in a more hawkish direction. ..."
"... John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus. ..."
Trump's foreign policy isn't an alternative to U.S. empire. It's just a cruder rendition of
it. ;
Donald Trump may be a bigot and a bully, but it's hard not to applaud when he pisses off the
stuff shirts at the Washington Post.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has staked out a foreign policy position quite
distinct from his opponent, Hillary Clinton. It is not, however, "isolationist" (contra
Jeb Bush and many others) or "less aggressively militaristic" (economist Mark Weisbrot
in The Hill ) or "a jolt of realpolitik " (journalist Simon Jenkins
in The Guardian ).
With all due respect to these sources, they're all wrong. Ditto John Pilger's
claim that Clinton represents the greater threat to the world, John Walsh's
argument that Trump is "the relative peace candidate," and Justin Raimondo's
assertion
that if Trump wins then "the military-industrial complex is finished, along with the globalists
who dominate foreign policy circles in Washington."
...His comments on foreign policy have frequently been incoherent, inconsistent, and just plain
ignorant. He hasn't exactly rolled out a detailed blueprint of what he would do to the world if elected
(though that old David Levine
cartoon of Henry Kissinger beneath the sheets comes to mind)...
However, over the last year Trump has said enough to pull together a pretty good picture of what
he'd do if suddenly in a position of
nearly unchecked power (thanks to the expansion of executive authority under both Bush and Obama).
President Trump would offer an updated version of Teddy Roosevelt's old dictum: speak loudly and
carry the biggest stick possible.
It's not an alternative to U.S. empire - just a cruder rendition of it.
The Enemy of My Enemy
Both liberals and conservatives in the United States,
as I've written , have embraced
economic policies that have left tens of millions of working people in desperate straits. The desperation
of the "left behind" faction is so acute, in fact, that many of its members are willing to ignore
Donald Trump's obvious disqualifications - his personal wealth, his disdain for "losers," his support
of tax cuts for the rich - in order to back the Republican candidate and stick it to the elite.
A similar story prevails in the foreign policy realm. On the left, the frustration with Obama's
foreign policy - the continuation of wars, the expansion of drone attacks, the failure to reduce
nuclear weapons - has prompted some to piece through Donald Trump's sayings in a desperate search
for something, anything, that could possibly represent an alternative. ... ... ...
Examined more carefully, his positions on war and peace, alliance systems, and human rights break
no new ground. He is old white whine in a new, cracked bottle.
Trump on War
... ... ...
True, Trump has criticized the neoconservative espousal of the use of military force to promote
democracy and build states. But that doesn't mean he has backed off from the use of military force
in general. Trump has
pledged to use the military "if there's a problem going on in the world and you can solve the
problem," a rather open-ended approach to the deployment of U.S. forces. He agreed, for instance,
that the Clinton administration was right to intervene in the Balkans to prevent ethnic cleansing
in Kosovo.
In terms of current conflicts, Trump
has promised to "knock the hell out of ISIS" with airpower and
20,000-30,000 U.S. troops on the ground. He even
reserves the right to use nuclear weapons against the would-be caliphate. By suggesting to allies
and adversaries alike that he is possibly unhinged, Trump has resurrected one of the most terrifying
presidential strategies of all time, Richard Nixon's
"madman" approach to bombing North Vietnam.
This is not isolationism. It's not even discriminate deterrence. As in the business world, Trump
believes in full-spectrum dominance in global affairs. As Zack Beauchamp
points out in Vox , Trump is an ardent believer in colonial wars of conquest to seize oil fields
and pipelines.
About the only place in the world that Trump has apparently ruled out war is with Russia. Yes,
it's a good thing that he's against the new cold war that has descended on U.S.-Russian relations...
... ... ...
Trump on Alliances
Trump has made few friends in Washington with his criticisms of veterans and their families and
his "joke" encouraging Russia to release any emails from Hillary Clinton's account that it might
have acquired in its hacking. Yet it's Trump's statements about NATO that have most unsettled the
U.S. foreign policy elite.
In an interview with The New York Times , Trump said:
If we cannot be properly reimbursed for the tremendous cost of our military protecting
other countries, and in many cases the countries I'm talking about are extremely rich. Then if
we cannot make a deal, which I believe we will be able to, and which I would prefer being able
to, but if we cannot make a deal…. I would be absolutely prepared to tell those countries, "Congratulations,
you will be defending yourself.
... ... ...
Again, I doubt Trump actually believes in abandoning NATO. Rather, he believes that threats enhance
one's bargaining position. In the Trump worldview, there are no allies. There are only competitors
from whom one extracts concessions.
We will move the American embassy to the eternal capital of the Jewish people, Jerusalem.
And we will send a clear signal that there is no daylight between America and our most reliable
ally, the state of Israel. The Palestinians must come to the table knowing that the bond between
the United States and Israel is absolutely, totally unbreakable.
Ultimately President Trump would extend the same reassurances to other allies once he is briefed
on exactly how much they contribute to maintaining U.S. hegemony in the world.
Trump on Pentagon Spending
Critics like Jean Bricmont
rave about Trump's willingness to take on the U.S. military-industrial complex: "He not only
denounces the trillions of dollars spent in wars, deplores the dead and wounded American soldiers,
but also speaks of the Iraqi victims of a war launched by a Republican president."
But Donald Trump, as president, would be the military-industrial complex's best friend. He has
stated on numerous occasions
his intention to "rebuild" the U.S. military: "We're going to make our military so big, so strong
and so great, so powerful that we're never going to have to use it."
More recently, in an interview with conservative
columnist Cal Thomas , he said, "Our military has been so badly depleted. Who would think the
United States is raiding plane graveyards to pick up parts and equipment? That means they're being
held together by a shoestring. Other countries have brand-new stuff they have bought from us." That
the United States already has the most powerful military in the world by every conceivable measure
seems to have escaped Trump. And our allies never get any military hardware that U.S. forces don't
already have.
Well, perhaps Trump will somehow strengthen the U.S. military by cutting waste and investing that
money more effectively. But Trump has promised to
increase
general military spending as well as the resources devoted to fighting the Islamic State. It's
part of an overall incoherent plan that includes large tax cuts and a promise to balance the budget.
An Exceptional Ruler
Let me be clear: Hillary Clinton has traditionally adopted foreign policy positions to the
right of Barack Obama. As president, she will likely tack in a more hawkish direction.
... ... ...
John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus.
In case your wondering who the US is financing in Ukraine, its these Nazis who have now killed
over 10,000 ethnic Russian civilians while the corrupt US media has intentionally covered it up.
It's heresy in the GOP to question the neoconservative paradigm – just ask Rand Paul. It's
assumed, as an article of faith, that America is the moral leader of the world; that we must not
only defend our values across the world, we must also use force to remake it in our image. This
is the thinking that gave us the Iraq War. It's the prism through which most of the GOP still
views international politics. Trump – and Bernie Sanders – represents a departure from this
paradigm.
Although it's unlikely to happen, a Trump-Sanders general election would have been refreshing for
at least one reason: it would have constituted a total rejection of neoconservatism.
Most Americans understand, intuitively, that the differences between the major parties are often
rhetorical, not substantive. That's not to say substantive differences don't exist – surely they
do, especially on social issues. But the policies from administration to administration overlap
more often than not, regardless of the party in charge. And that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Much of the stability is due to money and the structure of our system, which tends toward dynamic
equilibrium. And there are limits to what the president can do on issues like the economy and
health care.
But one area in which the president does have enormous flexibility is foreign policy. Which is
why, as Politico reported this week, the GOP's national security establishment is "bitterly
digging in against" Trump. Indeed, more than any other wing of the Republican Party, the
neoconservatives are terrified at the prospect of a Trump nomination.
"Hillary is the lesser evil, by a large margin," said Eliot Cohen, a former Bush official with
neoconservative ties. Trump would be "an unmitigated disaster for American foreign policy."
Another neocon, Max Boot, says he'd vote for Clinton over Trump: "She would be vastly preferable
to Trump." Even Bill Kristol, the great champion of the Iraq War, a man who refuses to consider
the hypothesis that he was wrong about anything, is threatening to recruit a third party
candidate to derail Trump for similar reasons.
Just this week, moreover, a group of conservative foreign policy intellectuals, several of whom
are neocons, published an open letter stating that they're "united in our opposition to a Donald
Trump presidency." They offer a host of reasons for their objections, but the bottom line is they
don't trust Trump to continue America's current policy of policing the world on ethical grounds.
Trump isn't constrained by the same ideological conventions as other candidates, and so he
occasionally stumbles upon unpopular truths. His comments about the Iraq War are an obvious
example. But even on an issue like the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, Trump says what any
reasonable observer should: we ought to maintain neutrality and work to solve the dispute with an
eyes towards our national interest. Now, Trump couldn't explain the concept of "realism" to save
his life, but this position is perfectly consistent with that tradition. And if Republicans
weren't blinkered by religious fanaticism, they'd acknowledge it as well. The same is true of
Trump's nebulous critiques of America's soft imperialism, which again are sacrilege in Republican
politics.
"... PNAC members, and signees to its policy documents, include: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wofowitz, Jeb Bush, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Scooter Libby, Elliot Abrams, Richard Armitage, William Bennet, William Kristol, and Zalmy Khalilzad - men with their hands deep in the private defense, oil, and multi-national corporate industries poised to make vast sums of money and secure huge tracts of power and influence if PNAC policy evolved into U.S. Government policy. Nine months after they rose to power, and assumed central positions of leadership up and down the spectrum of military, civilian, domestic, and international agencies, they got their 'New Pearl Harbor'. And PNAC policy essentially evolved into the Bush Administration's official agenda. While this alarmingly convenient coincidence does not prove anything in and of itself, it does establish motive. And it certainly would raise the eyebrows of concern from any serious investigator looking into the facts of September 11. ..."
"... In an interview with journalist Alex Jones , Hilton reports that, under the supervision of Strauss, his senior thesis detailed a plan to establish a Presidential Dictatorship using a fabricated 'Pearl Harbor-like incident' as justification. He further states that he, Perle, Wolfowitz, and other students of Strauss discussed an array of different plots and incidents 'like September 11th' and 'flying airplanes into buildings way back in the 60s'. ..."
In the summer of 2000, the
Project
for the New American Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think tank riddled with soon to be Bush
administration officials and advisors, issued a document calling for the radical restructuring of
U.S. government and military policies. It advocated the massive expansion of defense spending, the
re-invasion of Iraq, the military and economic securing of Afghanistan and Central Asia, increased
centralized power and funds for the CIA, FBI, and NSA, among a slew of other policies that would,
in the near future, be enacted upon their ascension to power. In the same document, they cite a potential
problem with their plan. Referring to the goals of transforming the U.S. and global power structure,
the paper states that because of the American Public's slant toward ideas of democracy and freedom,
"this process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing
event - like a new Pearl Harbor." (ibid.)
PNAC members, and signees to its policy documents,
include: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wofowitz, Jeb Bush, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Scooter
Libby, Elliot Abrams, Richard Armitage, William Bennet, William Kristol, and Zalmy Khalilzad - men
with their hands deep in the private defense, oil, and multi-national corporate industries poised
to make vast sums of money and secure huge tracts of power and influence if PNAC policy evolved into
U.S. Government policy. Nine months after they rose to power, and assumed central positions of leadership
up and down the spectrum of military, civilian, domestic, and international agencies, they got their
'New Pearl Harbor'. And PNAC policy essentially evolved into the Bush Administration's official agenda.
While this alarmingly convenient coincidence does not prove anything in and of itself, it does establish
motive. And it certainly would raise the eyebrows of concern from any serious investigator looking
into the facts of September 11.
Another alarming coincidence surrounding PNAC and September 11 has been revealed by attorney Stanley
Hilton. Hilton, a graduate of Harvard Law School and former senior advisor and lead counsel for Bob
Dole, attended the University of Chicago as an undergraduate in the 1960s. He studied under the infamous
Leo Strauss, considered by
many the father of neo-conservatism. Fellow students and acquaintances of Hilton's at the time included
Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. In an interview with journalist
Alex Jones,
Hilton reports that, under the supervision of Strauss, his senior thesis detailed a plan to establish
a Presidential Dictatorship using a fabricated 'Pearl Harbor-like incident' as justification. He
further states that he, Perle, Wolfowitz, and other students of Strauss discussed an array of different
plots and incidents 'like September 11th' and 'flying airplanes into buildings way back in the 60s'.
In light of these revelations, it is no surprise that Hilton has been trying to blow the whistle
on government involvement in 9/11 for years. He has also filed a lawsuit against the government on
behalf of a number of victims' families. As a result of his actions, Hilton has been harassed, threatened,
burgled, and hounded repeatedly by the authorities.
"... On the contrary, the Persian Gulf should be deemed a region of vital interest to the security of the United States. ..."
"... We also reject Iran's attempt to blame others for regional tensions it is aggravating, as well as its public campaign to demonize the government of Saudi Arabia. ..."
Wahhab proclaimed those who did not accept his puritan monotheism as apostates and idolaters who
should be killed immediately. And now, Shiites, Alawites, Zaidis, Druze, Ismailis - and Kurds, who
are mostly Sunni Muslim - are defending themselves and their families from the truly fundamentalist
zealotry of neo-Wahhabism that murders all whom it deems apostate. To reverse the narrative and cast
their efforts to defend themselves as somehow sectarian is bizarre - especially since the bulk of
the Syrian army and Kurds fighting ISIS
are
themselves Sunni Muslims.
To fight ISIS is not anti-Sunni. To fight ISIS is to be against Wahhab's revived doctrines. The
leading Iraqi commentator Hayder al-Khoei highlighted that in a recent
op-ed
:
The tip of the spear in Falluja is not an Iranian-backed paramilitary group but the U.S.-created
Counter Terrorism Service and its elite U.S.-trained Special Forces known locally as the Golden
Division. These forces, besides being a mixed Shia-Sunni unit, are led by a Kurdish commander
... At a time when sectarian dynamics is one of many factors fueling the crises in Iraq and beyond,
it is important for Western journalists and analysts to not be more sectarian than the Iraqis
on the ground actually fighting ISIS.
In short, the ephemeral global narrative does not relate well to the facts on the ground where there
is much less sectarianism than this Western-Gulf narrative purports to exist.
But let that pass.
This narrative,
echoed widely
beyond the
Financial Times
, is Orwellian in
another way. It serves another deeper purpose. It has much to do with finding and articulating, as
Jim Lobe
notes
, the point of intersection between liberal interventionism and neoconservatism. This intersection
is the subject of a May 16
report
from the Center for a New American Security, which was drawn up by a bipartisan task force
of 10 senior members of the U.S. foreign policy establishment and augmented by six dinner discussions
with invited experts.
Their approach is to cast Iran as the source of all 'regional tensions' and
to hold onto America's Gulf bases in order to be a 'force that can flex across several different
mission sets and prevail.'
It is, in a sense, the riposte from the two interventionist wings of American politics to Trump's
iconoclasm in foreign policy. And, Lobe writes, "it's fair to predict that the above-mentioned report
is likely to be the best guide to date of where a Hillary Clinton presidency will want to take the
country's foreign policy."
The report is all about how to maintain America's benevolent hegemony
- or how to maintain and expand today's "rules-based international order," which implies maintaining
and expanding the geo-financial order as much as the political order. As we saw in U.S. Defense Secretary
Ashton Carter's
interview
with Vox, there are clear, though somewhat cushioned,
echoes
of the 1992 U.S. Defense Planning Guidance.
The CNAS report states, "[F]rom a resurgent Russia to a rising China that is challenging the rules-based
international order to chaos, and the struggle for power in the Middle East, the United States needs
a force that can flex across several different mission sets and prevail." The report simply
restates
in more nuanced language many of ideas that underline the concept of the "
American
Century
" and U.S.-led unipolar world order.
What does this have to do with propagating the
meme that the war on ISIS is a disguised sectarian war on Sunni Islam? Well, quite a lot. Consider
this from the report (italics mine):
The United States should adopt a comprehensive strategy, employing an appropriate mix of military,
economic and diplomatic resources, to undermine and defeat Iran's hegemonic ambitions in the Greater
Middle East. Whether in Lebanon, Yemen, Syria or Bahrain, Tehran's advances and longer-term ambitions
should be regarded as a threat to stability that it is in the U.S. interest to counter and deter.
The next administration must make abundantly clear that it has no interest in pursuing an off-shore
balancing strategy, such as the 'new equilibrium' some have suggested, which envisages a significant
U.S. military drawdown from the region.
On the contrary, the Persian
Gulf should be deemed a region of vital interest to the security of the United States.
As
such, U.S. military forces in the region should be sufficient to ensure the security of Gulf allies
and the Strait of Hormuz against potential Iranian aggression. At the same time, Gulf allies should
have access to sufficient defense articles and services to deter Tehran even if U.S. forces are
not present or immediately available to assist.
We also reject Iran's attempt to blame others for regional tensions
it is aggravating, as well as its public campaign to demonize the government of Saudi Arabia.
The last sentence is truly amazing. So the spread of
cultural and militant Wahhabism
has nothing to do with tension in the region? Here we see that
the crux of the joint neocon, liberal-interventionist foreign policy for the Middle East is to cast
Iran as the source of all "regional tensions" and secondly, to hold onto America's Gulf bases - in
order to "flex across several different mission sets and prevail."
Saudi Arabia is mildly rebuked
in the CNAS report for having helped radicalize Sunni Islamist groups in the past, but the Kingdom
receives applause for its law enforcement and intelligence cooperation. It is very clear from the
report's context that a makeover of Saudi Arabia's status as a U.S. ally is underway and that this
rehabilitation is seen as integral to aiding America's "hard-nosed enforcement strategy ... to counter
Iran's destabilizing activities throughout the region, from its support to terrorist groups like
Hezbollah to its efforts to sow instability in the Sunni Arab states."
The old Western standby of using psychologically inflamed Sunni radicalism
as a means to weaken opponents seems like it won't be dismantled completely.
Another gloss in the CNAS report is striking: while ISIS as a threat is made much of, and a call
is issued to "uproot" it, when it comes to Syria, the report simply states that "it is also essential
to assist in the formation of a Sunni alternative to ISIS and the [Syria President Bashar] Assad
regime" and to create "a safe space ... where moderate opposition militias can arm, train, and organize."
Yet there is no mention of Jabhat al-Nusra, al Qaeda's Syria wing. Its role simply is not addressed.
This conscious lacuna suggests that the authors do not want to embarrass Saudi Arabia for all
its fired-up Sunni jihadist tools. The old Western standby of using psychologically inflamed Sunni
radicalism as a means to weaken opponents seems like it won't be dismantled completely. It is fine,
evidently, to make a hoo-ha about ISIS while Nusra is to be slipped quietly into the Syrian calculus
in order to shift the military balance and convince Assad that he cannot remain in power.
This
new/old policy platform is well assisted by broadcasting a narrative that those fighting ISIS on
the ground (Iran and its allies) are the "naked sectarians" who compound their sectarian intent by
provoking Sunnis to rally to ISIS, their defender. Thus, Iran becomes the threat to regional security,
and the CNAS case against Iran is crystalized. This is working quite well, it seems, to judge by
its play in the media.
It may be fairly asked however, why these eminent American foreign policy
hands should be espousing what many might see as such a retrograde stance. Promoting Saudi Arabia
and Gulf states as key U.S. allies would seem to go against the grain of contemporary - even Congressional
- sentiment. Ditto for maintaining America's necklace of (expensive) military bases around the globe
in order to project American military power. Are Americans not tiring of endless war? And has not
the arming and training of a Sunni opposition in Syria been tried several times and failed? Why should
this policy be any more successful next time around?
ISIS is the consensual scapegoat to be lambasted by all and sundry, but its
spirit - neo-Wahabbism - is not to be rooted out.
It is not that the report's authors don't grasp these points, but if the neocons have one constancy,
it has been their unwavering support for Israel. They think that the Gulf states are ready for a
normalization with Israel and wish to do profitable business with it. What stands in the way of this
rapprochement, in the neocon view, is Iran, Syria and Hezbollah's vehement opposition - and their
ability to ignite public opinion across the Muslim world on behalf of the Palestinians.
So what
is the final takeaway from all this? It is that ISIS is the consensual scapegoat to be lambasted
by all and sundry, but its spirit - neo-Wahabbism - is not to be rooted out. It is too useful to
Saudi Arabia and Turkey and to Western interests - to weaken Assad, for example, and to contain Iran
and fight
Hezbollah
.
Whether in the form of Nusra or Ahrar al-Sham,
another al Qaeda-allied rebel group in Syria, this chameleon-like Sunni jihadist force collectively
provides a useful pivot around which neocons and liberal interventionists alike can pursue interventionism
and the continuance of "the American Century." It also provides a valuable intersection between Israel
and Gulf interests. As Lobe wryly
notes
, "the authors' undisguised hostility toward Tehran pours forth with specific policy recommendations
that, frankly, could have been written as a joint paper submitted by Saudi Arabia and Israel."
Will the report, like the neocon Project for the New American Century, to which it is perhaps conceived
as a successor, come to form the basis of American foreign policy if a Democrat won the forthcoming
election? Possibly, yes.
But there is also an intangible feeling of something passé in these policy prescriptions, a sense
that they belong to a former era. The current presidential campaign, with all its iconoclasm and
evidence of widespread popular anger towards the status quo, suggests that such a palpable replay
of the past is not tenable.
"... Nuland would survive the controversy over the October 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission/CIA facility in Benghazi, Libya. Initially, many conservative Republicans criticized Nuland for her role in providing ambassador to the UN Susan Rice with "talking points" explaining away the failure of the U.S. to protect the compound from an attack that killed U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. personnel. All it took was a tap on the shoulder from Nuland's husband Kagan and his influential friends in the neo-con hierarchy for the criticism of his wife to stop. And stop it did as Nuland was confirmed, without Republican opposition, to be the new Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, a portfolio that gave her a clear mandate to interfere in the domestic policies of Ukraine and other countries, including Russia itself. ..."
"... Although McCain was defeated by Obama in 2008, Kagan's influence was preserved when his wife became a top foreign policy adviser to Obama. The root of this control by neo-cons of the two major U.S. political parties is the powerful Israel Lobby and is the reason why in excess of 95 percent of neo-cons are also committed Zionists. ..."
"... Kagan's writings and pronouncements from Brookings have had a common thread: anti-Vladimir Putin rhetoric and a strong desire to see Ukraine and Georgia in NATO, Bashar al Assad falling in Syria and thus eliminating a Russian ally, no further expansion of Shanghai Cooperation Organization membership and the eventual collapse of the counter-NATO organization, and the destabilization of Russia's southern border region by radical Salafists and Wahhabists funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Qatar, not coincidentally, hosts a Brookings Institution office that advises the Qatari government. ..."
Nuland would survive the controversy over the October 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission/CIA
facility in Benghazi, Libya. Initially, many conservative Republicans criticized Nuland for her role
in providing ambassador to the UN Susan Rice with "talking points" explaining away the failure of
the U.S. to protect the compound from an attack that killed U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens and
three other U.S. personnel. All it took was a tap on the shoulder from Nuland's husband Kagan and
his influential friends in the neo-con hierarchy for the criticism of his wife to stop. And stop
it did as Nuland was confirmed, without Republican opposition, to be the new Assistant Secretary
of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, a portfolio that gave her a clear mandate to interfere
in the domestic policies of Ukraine and other countries, including Russia itself.
Kagan began laying the groundwork for his wife's continued presence in a Democratic administration
when, in 2007, he switched sides from the Republicans and aligned with the Democrats. This was in
the waning days of the Bush administration and, true to form, neo-cons, who politically and family-wise
hail from Trotskyite chameleons, saw the opportunity to continue their influence over U.S. foreign
policy.
With the election of Obama in 2008, Kagan was able to maintain a PNAC presence, through his wife,
inside the State Department. Kagan, a co-founder of PNAC, monitors his wife's activities from his
perch at the influential Brookings Institution. And it was no surprise that McCain followed Nuland
to Maidan Square. Kagan was one of McCain's top foreign policy advisers in the 2008 campaign, even
though he publicly switched to the Democrats the year before. Kagan ensured that he kept a foot in
both parties. Although McCain was defeated by Obama in 2008, Kagan's influence was preserved
when his wife became a top foreign policy adviser to Obama. The root of this control by neo-cons
of the two major U.S. political parties is the powerful Israel Lobby and is the reason why in excess
of 95 percent of neo-cons are also committed Zionists.
Kagan's writings and pronouncements from Brookings have had a common thread: anti-Vladimir
Putin rhetoric and a strong desire to see Ukraine and Georgia in NATO, Bashar al Assad falling in
Syria and thus eliminating a Russian ally, no further expansion of Shanghai Cooperation Organization
membership and the eventual collapse of the counter-NATO organization, and the destabilization of
Russia's southern border region by radical Salafists and Wahhabists funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Qatar, not coincidentally, hosts a Brookings Institution office that advises the Qatari government.
But dominance of U.S. foreign policy does not end with Nuland and her husband. Kagan's brother,
Fred Kagan, is another neo-con foreign policy launderer. Residing at the American Enterprise Institute,
Fred Kagan was an "anti-corruption" adviser to General David Petraeus. Kagan held this job even as
Petraeus was engaged in an extra-marital affair, which he corruptly covered up. Fred Kagan's wife
is Kimberly Kagan. She has been involved in helping to formulate disastrous U.S. policies for the
military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Fred and Kimberly have also worked on U.S. covert operations
to overthrow the government of Iran. No family in the history of the United States, with the possible
exception of John Foster and Allen Dulles, has had more blood on its hands than have the Kagans.
And it is this family that is today helping to ratchet up the Cold War on the streets of Kyiv.
Victoria Nuland is, indeed, the proper "Doughnut Dolly" for the paid George Soros, U.S. Agency
for International Development, National Endowment for Democracy, and Freedom House provocateurs on
Maidan Square. Political prostitutes representing so many causes, from nationalistic Ukrainian fascists
to pro-EU globalists, require a symbol. There is no better symbol for the foreign-made "Orange Revolution
II" than the biscuit-distributing Victoria Nuland.
Her unleavened biscuits have found the hungry mouths of America's "Three Stooges" of ex-boxer
and political opportunist Vitaly Klitschko, globalist Arseny Yatsenyuk, and neo-Nazi Oleg
Tyagnibok.
Wayne MADSEN Investigative journalist, author and syndicated columnist. A member of the Society of Professional
Journalists (SPJ) and the National Press Club
US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Vicrotia Nuland was appointed
by Hillary nu the forigh policy is domain of the President, so she executed policy hatched by "Obama
the neocon", who is great admirer of books by Robert Kagan...
Notable quotes:
"... Nuland is a Democrat? Boy they let anybody in. I only ask because she's supposed to be a Bush holdover but maybe worked for the Clintons before that? ..."
"... Nuland started out with Bill Clinton, then moved on to Dick Cheney . She certainly is nimble! ..."
"... Because of her marriage to Kagan, most Europeans believe she's a Republican, but her hawkish approach to Russia isn't entirely unique within the Obama administration. ..."
"... FP professionals don't need no stinkin' party affiliations. They are the other half of the "Double Government" that most voters have never heard of. You know, the half that makes sure foreign policy is consistent from one administration (and party) to the next. Works great! ..."
"... You start out wherever your opportunity lies. Once established you can follow your heart. Where does her heart lead her when Cheney leaves office? Drum roll… Why, it's Hillary! ..."
Following along with his good friend, Republican Robert Kagan (married, in good bipartisan
power couple fashion, to Victoria Nuland, rumored to be inline for Clinton's Secretary of State,
but I don't think so. Not even Clinton could be that crazy).
I can't find a link that makes her party affiliation explicit.
Foreign
Policy :
Because of her marriage to Kagan, most Europeans believe she's a Republican, but her
hawkish approach to Russia isn't entirely unique within the Obama administration.
But FP does not then go on to clarify. I assumed she was a Democrat because of the Clinton
connection. My bad!
FP professionals don't need no stinkin' party affiliations. They are the other half of
the "Double Government" that most voters have never heard of. You know, the half that makes sure
foreign policy is consistent from one administration (and party) to the next. Works great!
You start out wherever your opportunity lies. Once established you can follow your heart.
Where does her heart lead her when Cheney leaves office? Drum roll… Why, it's Hillary!
Hugoodanode?
It's probably bias, but my sense is Republicans love to parade anyone who is Jewish or not
white in front of cameras who can say, "im a Republican" without drooling or dying a little on
the inside. Since Nuland is Jewish, the GOP would have her on their book tour if she was suspected
Republican especially given the GOP obsession with winning Florida Jewish retirees.
"... Interestingly, in a self-promoting recent review of Henry Kissinger's new book World Order, Clinton both defines her own Kissinger-esque foreign policy strategy and also concedes that it is more-or-less the same as Obama's. Clinton wrote that Kissinger's world view "largely fits with the broad strategy behind the Obama administration's effort over the past six years to build a global architecture of security and cooperation for the 21st century." ..."
"... Clinton inevitably confuses leadership with hegemony, clearly believing as one of her predecessors at State put it, that America is the "indispensable nation." Nor can she discern that few outside the beltway actually believe the hype. It would be difficult to make the case that the United States either stands for justice or is willing to tolerate any kind of international order that challenges American interests. ..."
"... Any plan to "destroy" ISIS without serious consideration of what that might entail means that the U.S. will inevitably assume the leadership role. Because air strikes cannot defeat any insurgency, and the moderate Syrian rebels waiting to be armed are a fiction, the Obama plan invites escalation and will make the Islamist group a poster child for those who want to see Washington fail yet again in the Middle East. ..."
"... Yanukovych, an admittedly corrupt autocrat, nevertheless became Prime Minister after a free election. Nuland, who is the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department, provided open support to the Maidan demonstrators opposed to Yanukovych's government, to include media friendly appearances passing out cookies on the square to encourage the protesters. ..."
"... The replacement of the government in Kiev was only the prelude to a sharp break and escalating conflict with Moscow over Russia's attempts to protect its own interests in Ukraine, most particularly in Crimea. ..."
"... And make no mistake about Nuland's broader intention to expand the conflict and directly confront Russia. In Senate testimony in May she cited how the administration is "providing support to other frontline states like Moldova and Georgia." Frontline? Last week Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel seemed to confirm that the continued expansion of NATO is indeed administration policy, saying that Georgia would be next to join in light of "Russia's blatant aggression in Ukraine." ..."
"... The president also reportedly is an admirer of her husband's articles and books which argue that the U.S. must maintain its military power to accommodate its "global responsibilities." So in response to the question "Why does Victoria Nuland still have her job?" the answer must surely be because the White House approves of what she has been doing, which should give everyone pause. ..."
A new administration only gave interventionism a confused, humanitarian face-lift.
President Barack Obama presents something of a dilemma. I voted for him twice in the belief that
he was basically a cautious operator who would not rush into a new war in Asia, unlike his Republican
opponents who virtually promised to attack Iran upon assuming office. Unfortunately, Obama's second
term has revealed that his instinct nevertheless is to rely on America's ability to project military
power overseas as either a complement to or a substitute for diplomacy that differs only from George
W. Bush in its style and its emphasis on humanitarian objectives.
That the president is indeed cautious has made the actual process of engagement different, witness
the ill-fated involvement in Libya and the impending war-without-calling-it-war in Syria and Iraq,
both of which are framed as having limited objectives and manageable risk for Washington even when
that is not the case. Obama's foreign and security policy is an incremental process mired in contradictions
whereby the United States continues to involve itself in conflicts for which it has little understanding,
seemingly doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past thirteen years but without the shock and awe.
Obama's actual intentions might most clearly be discerned by looking at his inner circle. Three
women are prominent in decision making relating to foreign policy: Samantha Power at the United Nations,
Susan Rice heading the National Security Council, and Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett in the White
House. One might also add Hillary Clinton who, as Secretary of State, operated far more independently
than her successor John Kerry, putting her own stamp on policy much more than he has been able to
do. Where Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel fits into the decision making is unclear, but it is notable
that both he and Kerry frequently appear to be somewhat out of sync with the White House.
What does the Obama team represent? Certain things are obvious. They are hesitant to involve the
United States in long, drawn out military adventures like Iraq and Afghanistan but much more inclined
to intervene than was George W. Bush when there is an apparent humanitarian crisis, operating under
the principle of responsibility to protect or R2P. That R2P is often a pretext for intervention that
actually is driven by other less altruistic motives is certainly a complication but it is nevertheless
the public face of much of American foreign policy, as the nation is currently witnessing regarding
ISIS.
Hillary Clinton has criticized Obama foreign policy because on her view he did not act soon enough
on ISIS and "Great nations need organizing principles, and 'don't do stupid stuff' is not an organizing
principle." Her criticism is odd as she was a formulator of much of what the president has been doing
and one should perhaps assume that her distancing from it might have something to do with her presidential
ambitions. Interestingly, in a self-promoting recent review of Henry Kissinger's new book World Order,
Clinton both defines her own Kissinger-esque foreign policy strategy and also concedes that it is
more-or-less the same as Obama's. Clinton wrote that Kissinger's world view "largely fits with the
broad strategy behind the Obama administration's effort over the past six years to build a global
architecture of security and cooperation for the 21st century."
Now if all of that is true, and it might just be putting lipstick on a pig to create an illusion
of coherency where none exists, then the United States might just be engaging in a sensible reset
of its foreign policy, something like the Nixon Doctrine of old. But the actual policy itself suggests
otherwise, with the tendency to "do stupid stuff" prevailing, perhaps attributable to another Clinton
book review assertion of "a belief in the indispensability of continued American leadership in service
of a just and liberal order."
Clinton inevitably confuses leadership with hegemony, clearly believing as one of her
predecessors at State
put it, that America is the "indispensable nation." Nor can she discern that few outside the beltway
actually believe the hype. It would be difficult to make the case that the United States either stands
for justice or is willing to tolerate any kind of international order that challenges American interests.
And the arrogance that comes with power means that the country's leadership is not often able to
explain what it is doing. Currently, the administration has failed to make any compelling case that
the United States is actually threatened by ISIS beyond purely conjectural "what if" scenarios, suggesting
that the policy is evolving in an ad hoc but risk-averse fashion to create the impression
that something is actually being accomplished. Any plan to "destroy" ISIS without serious consideration
of what that might entail means that the U.S. will inevitably assume the leadership role. Because
air strikes cannot defeat any insurgency, and the moderate Syrian rebels waiting to be armed are
a fiction, the Obama plan invites escalation and will make the Islamist group a poster child for
those who want to see Washington fail yet again in the Middle East.
The tendency to act instead of think might be attributable to fear of appearing weak with
midterm elections approaching, but it might also be due to the persistence of neoconservative national
security views within the administration, which brings us to
Victoria Nuland. Nuland,
many will recall, was the driving force behind efforts to destabilize the Ukrainian government of
President Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych, an admittedly corrupt autocrat, nevertheless became
Prime Minister after a free election. Nuland, who is the Assistant Secretary of State for European
and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department, provided open support to the Maidan demonstrators opposed
to Yanukovych's government, to include media friendly appearances
passing out cookies on the square to encourage the protesters.
A Dick Cheney and Hillary
Clinton protégé who is married to leading neocon Robert Kagan, Nuland openly sought regime change
for Ukraine by brazenly supporting
government opponents in spite of the fact that Washington and Kiev had ostensibly friendly relations.
It is hard to imagine that any U.S. administration would tolerate a similar attempt by a foreign
nation to interfere in U.S. domestic politics, particularly if it were backed by a
$5 billion budget,
but Washington has long believed in a global double standard for evaluating its own behavior.
Nuland is most famous for her
foul language when referring to the potential European role in managing the unrest that she and
the National Endowment for Democracy had helped create. To be sure, her aggressive guidance of U.S.
policy in Eurasia is a lot more important than whatever plays out in Syria and Iraq over the remainder
of Obama's time in office in terms of palpable threats to actual American interests. The replacement
of the government in Kiev was only the prelude to a sharp break and escalating conflict with Moscow
over Russia's attempts to protect its own interests in Ukraine, most particularly in Crimea.
Victoria Nuland is playing with fire. Russia, as the only nation with the military capability
to destroy the U.S., is not a sideshow like Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Backing Moscow into a corner with
no way out by using threats and sanctions is not good policy. Washington has many excellent reasons
to maintain a stable relationship with Moscow, including counter-terrorism efforts, and little to
gain from moving in the opposite direction. Russia is not about to reconstitute the Warsaw Pact and
there is no compelling reason to return to a Cold War footing by either arming Ukraine or permitting
it to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
And make no mistake about Nuland's broader intention to expand the conflict and directly confront
Russia. In Senate testimony in May
she cited how
the administration is "providing support to other frontline states like Moldova and Georgia." Frontline?
Last
week Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel seemed to confirm that the continued expansion of NATO
is indeed administration policy, saying that Georgia would be next to join in light of "Russia's
blatant aggression in Ukraine."
In 2009 President Barack Obama received
the Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and
cooperation between peoples." In retrospect it was all hat and no cattle given the ongoing saga in
Afghanistan, the reduction of a relatively stable Libya to chaos, meddling in Ukraine while simultaneously
threatening Russia, failure to restrain Israel and the creation of an Islamic terror state in the
Arab heartland. Not to mention "pivots" and additional developments in Africa and Asia. It is not
a record to brag about and it certainly does not suggest that the administration is as strategically
agile as Hillary Clinton would like to have one believe.
Victoria Nuland is a career civil servant and cannot easily be fired but she could be removed
from her top-level policy position and sent downstairs to head the mailroom at the State Department.
It would send the message that aggressive democracy promotion is not U.S. policy, but President Obama
has kept her on the job. The president also reportedly is an
admirer of her husband's articles and books which argue that the U.S. must maintain its military
power to accommodate its "global responsibilities." So in response to the question "Why does Victoria
Nuland still have her job?" the answer must surely be because the White House approves of what she
has been doing, which should give everyone pause.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National
Interest.
If Hillary wins the White House, expect Victoria Nuland to be at her side.
The other day, a question popped up on a Facebook thread I was commenting on: "Where is Victoria
Nuland?" The short answer, of course, is that she is still holding down her position as assistant
secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs.
But a related question begs for a more expansive response: Where will Victoria Nuland be after
January? Nuland is one of Hillary Clinton's protégés at the State Department, and she is also greatly
admired by hardline Republicans. This suggests she would be easily approved by Congress as secretary
of state or maybe even national-security adviser-which in turn suggests that her foreign-policy views
deserve a closer look.
Nuland comes from what might be called the First Family of Military Interventionists. Her husband,
Robert Kagan, is a leading neoconservative who co-founded the Project for the New American Century
in 1998 around a demand for "regime change" in Iraq. He is currently a senior fellow at the Brookings
Institution, an author, and a regular contributor to the op-ed pages of a number of national newspapers.
He has already declared that he will be voting for Hillary Clinton in November, a shift away from
the GOP that many have seen as a clever career-enhancing move for both him and his wife.
Robert's brother, Fred, is with the hawkish American Enterprise Institute, and his sister-in-law,
Kimberly, is the head of the Institute for the Study of War, which is largely funded by defense contractors.
The Kagans work to encourage military action, both through their positions in government and by influencing
the public debate through think-tank reports and op-eds. It is a family enterprise that mirrors the
military-industrial complex as a whole, with think tanks coming up with reasons to increase military
spending and providing "expert" support for the government officials who actually promote and implement
the policies. Defense contractors, meanwhile, benefit from the largesse and kick back some money
to the think tanks, which then develop new reasons to spend still more on military procurement.
The Kagans' underlying belief is that the United States has both the power and the obligation
to replace governments that are considered either uncooperative with Washington (the "Leader of the
Free World") or hostile to American interests. American interests are, of course, mutable, and they
include values like democracy and the rule of law as well as practical considerations such as economic
and political competition. Given the elasticity of the interests, many countries can be and are considered
potential targets for Washington's tender ministrations.
For what it's worth, President Obama is reportedly an
admirer of Robert Kagan's books, which argue that the U.S. must maintain its military power to
accommodate its "global responsibilities." The persistence of neoconservative foreign-policy views
in the Obama administration has often been remarked upon, though Democrats and Republicans embrace
military interventionism for different reasons. The GOP sees it as an international leadership imperative
driven by American "exceptionalism," while the Dems romanticize "liberal intervention" as a sometimes-necessary
evil undertaken most often for humanitarian reasons. But the result is the same, as no administration
wants to be seen as weak when dealing with the outside world. George W. Bush's catastrophic failures
in Afghanistan and Iraq continue to bear fruit under a Democratic administration, while Obama has
added a string of additional "boots on the ground" interventions in Libya, Syria, Yemen, the Philippines,
and Somalia.
And Nuland herself,
many will recall, was the driving force behind efforts to destabilize the Ukrainian government of
President Viktor Yanukovych in 2013-14. Yanukovych, admittedly a corrupt autocrat, nevertheless assumed
office after a free election. In spite of the fact that Washington and Kiev ostensibly had friendly
relations, Nuland provided open support for the Maidan Square demonstrators opposed to Yanukovych's
government,
passing out cookies to protesters on the square and holding photo ops with a beaming Sen. John
McCain.
Nuland started her rapid rise as an adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney. Subsequently, she was
serially promoted by secretaries of state Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, attaining her current position
in September 2013. But it was her behavior in Ukraine that made her a media figure. It is hard to
imagine that any U.S. administration would tolerate a similar attempt by a foreign nation to interfere
in domestic politics, particularly if it were backed by a
$5 billion budget,
but Washington has long adhered to a double standard when evaluating its own behavior.
Nuland is most famous for using
foul language when referring to the potential European role in managing the unrest in Ukraine
that she and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) had helped create. She even discussed with
U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt who the new leader of Ukraine ought to be. "Yats is the guy" she said
(referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk), while pondering how she would "glue this thing" as Pyatt simultaneously
considered how to "midwife" it. Their insecure phone call was
intercepted and leaked,
possibly by the Russian intelligence service, though anyone equipped with a scanner could have done
the job.
The inevitable replacement of the government in Kiev, actually a coup but sold to the media as
a triumph for "democracy," was only the prelude to a sharp break-and escalating conflict-with Moscow
over Russia's attempts to protect its own interests in Ukraine. The new regime in Kiev, as corrupt
as its predecessor and supported by neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalists, was consistently whitewashed
in the Western media, and the conflict was depicted as "pro-democracy" forces resisting unprovoked
"Russian aggression."
Indeed, the real objective of interfering in Ukraine was, right from the start, to install a regime
hostile to Moscow. Carl Gershman, the head of the taxpayer-funded NED,
called Ukraine "the biggest prize" in the effort to topple Russian President Vladimir Putin,
who "may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself." But
Gershman and Nuland were playing with fire in their assessment, as Russia had vital interests at
stake and is the only nation with the military capability to destroy the U.S.
And make no mistake about Nuland's clear intention to expand the conflict and directly confront
Moscow. In Senate testimony in May of 2014,
she noted how
the Obama administration was "providing support to other frontline states like Moldova and Georgia."
Nuland and her neoconservative allies celebrated their "regime change" in Kiev oblivious to the
fact that Putin would recognize the strategic threat to his own country and would react, particularly
to protect the historic Russian naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea. Barack Obama responded predictably,
initiating what soon became something like a new Cold War against Russia, risking escalation into
a possible nuclear confrontation. It was a crisis that would not have existed but for Nuland and
her allies.
Though there was no evidence that Putin had initiated the Ukraine crisis and much evidence to
the contrary, the U.S. government propaganda machine rolled into action, claiming that Russia's measures
in Ukraine would be the first step in an invasion of Eastern Europe. Former Secretary of State Clinton
dutifully
compared Putin to Adolf Hitler. And Robert Kagan provided the argument for more intervention,
producing a lengthy essay in The New Republic entitled "Superpowers
Don't Get to Retire," in which he criticized President Obama for failing to maintain American
dominance in the world. The New York Times
revealed that the essay was apparently part of a joint project in which Nuland regularly edited
her husband's articles, even though this particular piece attacked the administration she worked
for.
As the situation in Ukraine continued to deteriorate in 2014, Nuland exerted herself to scuttle
several European attempts to arrange a ceasefire. When NATO Commander Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove
was cited as being in favor of sending more weapons to the Ukrainian government to "raise the battlefield
cost for Putin," Nuland
commented, "I'd strongly urge you to use the phrase 'defensive systems' that we would deliver
to oppose Putin's 'offensive systems.'"
To return to the initial question of where Victoria Nuland is, the long answer would be that while
she is not much in the news, she is continuing to provide support for policies that the White House
apparently approves of. Late last month, she was again in Kiev. She criticized Russia for its lack
of press freedom and its "puppets" in the Donbas region
while telling
a Ukrainian audience about a "strong U.S. commitment to stand with Ukraine as it stays on the path
of a clean, democratic, European future. … We remain committed to retaining sanctions that apply
to the situation in Crimea until Crimea is returned to Ukraine." Before that, she was in
Cyprus and France discussing
"a range of regional and global issues with senior government officials."
But one has to suspect that, at this point, she is mainly waiting to see what happens in November.
And wondering where she might be going in January.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National
Interest.
"... Politically, the Reagan/Thatcher period broke the socially-democratic post-WWII consensus in favour of economic neo-liberalism, which became the new consensus... and once the Cold War was over, there was no real 'peace dividend' and the agreements for global free-trade/globalisation were struck. ..."
"... We weren't robbed. We gave our country away. Republics that operate in a Democratic manner cannot be left to themselves any more than one should leave a three-year-old child alone...but we did. ..."
"... Is the middle class disappearing? Since the middle class is the majority, one has to ask why. Why is the majority population of the United States slipping into "Lower Class" status? Simple: the Majority allowed it to happen by not saying "No!" often enough. ..."
"... Our government here in the United States is a wonder, a thing of genius passed down from the Founders (most of whom would be on "Do not Fly" lists today). ..."
"... Politics: policies are never discussed in detail in ANY election. The WHAT, HOW, WHERE, WHEN, WHY and COST is never provided in detail by the politicians. Every thing in the politicians mind is open ended, and may or may not be adopted, considered, or maybe a totally different thing than what they were elected for. ..."
"... WWII's impact on media tended to paper over many of the differences and tensions that have been present in American life. Aside from the period during WWII and in the few decades after, vitriol has been the norm in U.S. media going back to the 1790s. The idea of a media culture that was objective and bipartisan is a newer idea. ..."
"... Noam Chomsky talked about this in "The Corporation." Our division and increased level of emotional isolation is a direct result of marketing attacks on the human psyche designed to get us to buy more products and services. ..."
"... While some may fantasize about a society run by women, what we know from experience is that women in power act and speak just like men, that is, they also act solely in their own parochial personal political interest and say whatever is necessary to win their next election. ..."
"... Civility and all the claims about it are largely the reason the abominable Reagan era free market economics have shattered the U.S. Economy. ..."
"... Much the better to forget civility in the face of bankster monsters who have worked to destroy the English speaking world and everyone else in it. Civilty is just plain crap in the face of the policies of neoliberalism. ..."
I suspect we're seeing the consequences of two events... one political, the other financial (heavily
determined by the political, which happened first).
Politically, the Reagan/Thatcher period broke the socially-democratic post-WWII consensus
in favour of economic neo-liberalism, which became the new consensus... and once the Cold War
was over, there was no real 'peace dividend' and the agreements for global free-trade/globalisation
were struck.
That lead to the banking crisis/collapse in 2008, and to the 'solution' whereby most governments
imposed 'austerity' and debt on ordinary people to keep most of the bankers 'functional' and 'solvent'
...and not only were the bankers not adequately regulated to curtail their activities, but they
carried on paying themselves mega-currency bonuses for using taxpayer guarantees to rescue their
dysfunctional businesses.
As the UK-EU Referendum result has proved, populist politicians spouting bullsh*t can succeed
in this environment; especially when 'decent politicians' abdicate their responsibilities.
Here in the U.S. we're learning that we've created a monster by essentially doing nothing. While
the Police turned themselves into "Occupying Forces" who "Enforced the laws on a resistant populace"
and created a poisonous "Us vs. Them" situation...we were watching game shows. As the Elites in
the government crafted laws to protect themselves from the civil laws that govern the rest of
us, we were obsessing over soap operas. As fellow citizens were targeted on account of race, nationality,
or language, we were busy with planning our vacations and where to spend them.
We weren't robbed. We gave our country away. Republics that operate in a Democratic manner
cannot be left to themselves any more than one should leave a three-year-old child alone...but
we did.
Now, the would-be powerful use Hate and Race and Nationality as a means of dividing us and
turning us against ourselves. This is done for the same reason the magician's "assistant" doesn't
wear enough clothing to flag down a passing car - the magician wants us to be distracted while
he sets up for the next trick.
It's easy to get the public to turn away from the basic rights that our nation was founded upon;
just frighten them and then promise that by simply surrendering those rights they will be made
"safe" from possible harms. Never mind that Ben Franklin said, "Those who would surrender their
basic liberties for the illusion of safety deserve neither." Schools don't teach that anymore.
They teach conformity to authority, any authority. Schools teach obedience, not critical thought;
and they punish those who question things very severely.
Is the middle class disappearing? Since the middle class is the majority, one has to ask
why. Why is the majority population of the United States slipping into "Lower Class" status? Simple:
the Majority allowed it to happen by not saying "No!" often enough. We chose to lose because
we didn't do what was necessary to win. The United States of Laziness, long may it watch the idiot
box and not do anything to change what's happening to it.
Our government here in the United States is a wonder, a thing of genius passed down from
the Founders (most of whom would be on "Do not Fly" lists today). Under our system we are
treated to the fairest form of government that has ever been devised: We get the Government and
the Society under that government... that we DESERVE. We don't get what we want, we get what we
deserve. Let the apologists claim that the country is "Changing". Let them say, "We're growing
into something new!" We aren't. We're simply living down to the historical model of failed societies.
Politics: policies are never discussed in detail in ANY election. The WHAT, HOW, WHERE, WHEN,
WHY and COST is never provided in detail by the politicians. Every thing in the politicians mind
is open ended, and may or may not be adopted, considered, or maybe a totally different thing than
what they were elected for.
That is the disaster that what current politicians totally fail. That needs to change. Will
such, I doubt it.
The current so called political platforms or manifestos, are basically useless and used only
for propaganda.
Many excellent points. I think the divisions are easier to exploit in part because the society
has become so greatly divided based of income inequality. People have completely different frames
of reference in terms of their experience, and anxieties, and so it becomes easier to dismiss
the concerns of others out-of-hand as illegitimate. You can also overlay racism as part of the
equation, which has always been present with varying degrees of intensity in the U.S.
WWII's impact on media tended to paper over many of the differences and tensions that have
been present in American life. Aside from the period during WWII and in the few decades after,
vitriol has been the norm in U.S. media going back to the 1790s. The idea of a media culture that
was objective and bipartisan is a newer idea.
It was codified by things like the Fairness Doctrine as well, which tended to moderate, and
censor, public discussion through broadcast media. When the Fairness Doctrine fell apart you had
people like Limbaugh go national with a highly partisan infotainment model.
The media became more fragmented as well. Broadcast media also used to be seen as a public
service. But in the 1970s the major networks started to understand that it could also be a profit
center -- and you had another shift in values, where the public function took a back-seat to profit
maximization. The market also has become more cut-throat as the media environment has become more
fragmented.
Noam Chomsky talked about this in "The Corporation." Our division and increased level of emotional
isolation is a direct result of marketing attacks on the human psyche designed to get us to buy
more products and services. I'm not sure how much of it is Machiavellian and how much is
just pure greed reaping it's inevitable harvest.
Vitriolic and polemical speech has been a ubiquitous ritual since the earliest democracies. When
candidates wish to distinguish themselves or appeal to various segments of the electorate, there
is nothing like a lot of demagoguery and fear mongering to bring attention to a candidate and
his issues. In the end, self-interest motivates voters, and fear is the biggest self-interest
of all.
Using the specter of the opposition to scare small children and those who think like them is
a time honored tradition and well alive today. Further, as groups begin to prosper and start being
assimilated into the broader society, the individual self-interests diverge and it becomes harder
to hold them together as a cohesive group whose votes can be counted on. It then becomes all the
more necessary to drive hysteria and to rely on fear and the hyped common threat to maintain solidarity.
While some may fantasize about a society run by women, what we know from experience is
that women in power act and speak just like men, that is, they also act solely in their own parochial
personal political interest and say whatever is necessary to win their next election.
Civility and all the claims about it are largely the reason the abominable Reagan era free
market economics have shattered the U.S. Economy. The phony claim that civility is politically
useful belies that all manner of suffering like homelessness is not now or ever heard by the deliberately
unhearing administrators of this economy. All civility got anyone is a thin veneer repectabilty
covering up a society in which the rich have robbed the rest of us.
Much the better to forget
civility in the face of bankster monsters who have worked to destroy the English speaking world
and everyone else in it. Civilty is just plain crap in the face of the policies of neoliberalism.
"... But there is hardly a single valid reason to be found anywhere why someone would want to vote for either them. Some have argued that Trump is less likely to cause World War III, because his instincts are those of a businessman, and he is primarily interested in making money, not war; but Clinton likes money just as much as Trump-just look at her gigantic private slush fund known as the Clinton Foundation! ..."
"... A 2014 study, "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens" by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page conclusively showed how the preferences of average citizens matter not a whit, while those of moneyed elites and interest groups certainly do. ..."
"... no need to concern yourself with who is the "lesser evil," or which candidate made which meaningless promises. You will not be casting a vote for someone; you will be casting a vote against the entire process. Think of yourself as a soldier who volunteered in defense of liberty: you will simply be carrying out your orders. The charge has been laid by someone else; your mission, should you wish to accept it, is to light the fuse and walk away. This should at once motivate you to go and vote and make the voting process easy and stress-free. You are going to show up, subvert the dominant paradigm, and go watch the fireworks. ..."
"... In any case, the two major parties are dying, and the number of non-party members is now almost the same as the number of Democrats and Republicans put together. ..."
"... Try the line "This penny can't be bought." Don't argue or debate; rattle off your "elevator speech," hand over the penny and move on. ..."
"... And that, my fellow Americans, is how you can change a "you lose-they win" outcome to a more just and equitable "you lose-they lose" in this particular game of strategy. ..."
In all my years of watching politics in the US, never have I seen a presidential election
generate such overwhelmingly negative emotions. Everyone hates Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, or,
increasingly, both of them. This is creating a severe psychological problem for many people: they
want to tell their friends and the world that Clinton is mentally unstable and a crook, but they
are conflicted because they realize that by so doing they would be supporting Trump. Or they want
to tell everyone what a vulgar, narcissistic, egotistical blowhard Trump is, but they are
conflicted because they realize that by so doing they would be supporting Clinton. Some are
abandoning the two-party duopoly in favor of minor parties, ready to vote for Jill Stein the
Green or Gary Johnson the Libertarian, but are conflicted because voting for Stein would take
votes away from Clinton the crook and thus support Trump the blowhard, while voting for Johnson
would take votes away from Trump the blowhard and thus support Clinton the crook. There is just
no winning! Or is there?
There is a long list of arguments for voting against either of the major candidates, some of them
seemingly valid. At the top of the list of the seemingly valid ones are that Clinton is corrupt
and a warmonger, while Trump is inexperienced and socially divisive.
But there is hardly a
single valid reason to be found anywhere why someone would want to vote for either them. Some
have argued that Trump is less likely to cause World War III, because his instincts are those of
a businessman, and he is primarily interested in making money, not war; but Clinton likes money
just as much as Trump-just look at her gigantic private slush fund known as the Clinton
Foundation!
On the other hand, perhaps Trump will like the idea of peace only until the
moment he is elected, at which point it will be explained to him that the US empire is an
extortion racket, and that breaking legs (a.k.a. war) is how it comes up with the ink. And then
he will like war just as much as Clinton does. None of this makes it easy for a lover of liberty
and peace to vote for either one of them in good conscience.
I heard Jill Stein say that people should be able to vote their conscience. Yes, let's concede
that voting against your conscience is probably bad for your soul, if not your pocketbook. But
this makes it sound as if the voting booth were a confessional rather than what it is-an
apparatus by which people can assert their very limited political power. But do you have any
political power, or are American elections just a game of manipulation in which you lose no
matter how you vote?
A 2014 study, "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest
Groups, and Average Citizens" by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page conclusively showed how the
preferences of average citizens matter not a whit, while those of moneyed elites and interest
groups certainly do.
Thus, the question as to whether you are the winner or the loser in the
game of US electoral politics is easily answered: if you are a multibillionaire and a captain of
industry, then you might win; if you are an average citizen, then the chances of you winning are
precisely zero.
Given that you are going to lose, how should you play? Should you behave like a Furious Sheep,
obeying all the signals fed to you by the candidates, their organizations and the political
commentators in the mass media? Should you do your part to hand the largest possible victory to
those who are manipulating the political process to their advantage? Or should you withhold
cooperation to the largest extent possible and try to unmask them and neutralize their efforts at
political manipulation?
Sure, there are some cheap thrills to be had for the Furious Sheep-endorphins from jumping up and
down while waving mass-produced signs and shouting slogans pre-approved by campaign committees.
But if you are the sort of person who likes to have an independent thought now and again, what
you are probably looking for are three things:
avoid psychological damage from having to observe and participate in this absurd and
degrading spectacle;
experience the delicious thrill of watching this system fail and those behind it lose
face; and
regain some amount of faith in the possibility of a future for your children and
grandchildren that might involve something actually resembling some sort of democracy rather
than a humiliating, sordid, rigged game.
Before we can play, we have to understand what variety of game this is in technical terms.
There are many different kinds of games: games of strength (tug-of-war), games of skill (fencing)
and games of strategy (backgammon). This one is a game of strength, fought using large bags of
money, but it can be turned into a game of strategy by the weaker side, not to win but to deny
victory to the other side.
Most of us are brought up with the nice idea that games should be fair. In a fair game both
sides have a chance at victory, and there is normally a winner and a loser, or, failing that, a
tie. But fair games represent only a subset of games, while the rest-the vast majority-are
unfair. Here, we are talking about a specific type of unfair game in which your side always
loses. But does that mean that the other side must always win? Not at all! There are two possible
outcomes: "you lose-they win" and "you lose-they lose."
Now, if you, being neither a multibillionaire nor a captain of industry, are facing the
prospect of spending the rest of your life on the losing side, which outcome should you wish for?
Of course, you should want the other side to lose too! The reason: if those on the other side
start losing, then they will abandon this game and resort to some other means of securing an
unfair victory. In the case of the game of American electoral politics, this would pierce the
veil of faux-democracy, generating a level of public outrage that might make the restoration of
real democracy at least theoretically possible.
So, how do you change the outcome from "you lose-they win" to "you lose-they lose"?
The first question to answer is whether you should bother voting at all, and the answer is,
Yes, you should vote. If you don't vote, then you abandon the playing field to the Furious Sheep
who, being most easily manipulated, will hand an easy victory to the other side. And so the
remaining question is, How should you vote to make the other side lose? This should not be
regarded as a matter of personal choice;
no need to concern yourself with who is the "lesser
evil," or which candidate made which meaningless promises. You will not be casting a vote for
someone; you will be casting a vote against the entire process. Think of yourself as a soldier
who volunteered in defense of liberty: you will simply be carrying out your orders. The charge
has been laid by someone else; your mission, should you wish to accept it, is to light the fuse
and walk away. This should at once motivate you to go and vote and make the voting process easy
and stress-free. You are going to show up, subvert the dominant paradigm, and go watch the
fireworks.
Next, you have to understand the way the electoral game is played. It is played with
money-very large sums of money-with votes being quite secondary. In mathematical terms, money is
the independent variable and votes are the dependent variable, but the relationship between money
and votes is nonlinear and time-variant. In the opening round, the moneyed interests throw huge
sums of money at both of the major parties-not because elections have to be, by their nature,
ridiculously expensive, but to erect an insurmountable barrier to entry for average citizens. But
the final decision is made on a relatively thin margin of victory, in order to make the electoral
process appear genuine rather than staged, and to generate excitement. After all, if the moneyed
interests just threw all their money at their favorite candidate, making that candidate's victory
a foregone conclusion, that wouldn't look sufficiently democratic. And so they use large sums to
separate themselves from you the great unwashed, but much smaller sums to tip the scales.
When calculating how to tip the scales, the political experts employed by the moneyed
interests rely on information on party affiliation, polling data and historical voting patterns.
To change the outcome from a "lose-win" to a "lose-lose," you need to invalidate all three of
these:
The proper choice of party affiliation is "none," which, for some bizarre reason, is
commonly labeled as "independent,"
(and watch out for American Independent Party, which is
a minor right-wing party in California that has successfully trolled people into joining it by
mistake). Be that as it may; let the Furious Sheep call themselves the "dependent" ones.
In any case, the two major parties are dying, and the number of non-party members is now
almost the same as the number of Democrats and Republicans put together.
When responding to a poll, the category you should always opt for is "undecided," up to
and including the moment when you walk into the voting booth.
When questioned about your
stands on various issues, you need to remember that the interest in your opinion is
disingenuous: your stand on issues matters not a whit (see study above) except as part of an
effort to herd you, a Furious Sheep, into a particular political paddock. Therefore, when
talking to pollsters, be vaguely on both sides of every issue while stressing that it plays no
role in your decision-making. Should you be asked what does matter to you, concentrate on such
issues as the candidates' body language, fashion sense and demeanor. Doing so will effectively
short-circuit any attempt to manipulate you using your purely fictional ability to influence
public policy. You cannot be for or against a candidate being forthright and well-spoken; nor
is there a litmus test for comportment or fashion sense. Politicians are supposed to be able
to herd Furious Sheep by making promises they have no intention of keeping. But what if the
voters (wise to the fact that their opinions no longer matter) suddenly start demanding better
posture, more graceful hand gestures, a more melodious tone of voice and a sprightlier step?
Calamity! What was supposed to be a fake but tidy ideological battleground with fictional but
clearly delineated front lines suddenly turns into a macabre beauty pageant held on a uniform
field of liquefied mud.
The final step is to invalidate historical voting patterns.
Here, the perfectly
obvious solution is to vote randomly. Random voting will produce not random but chaotic
results, invalidating the notion that the electoral process is about party platforms,
policies, issues or popular mandates. More importantly, it will invalidate the process by
which votes are purchased, in effect getting money out of politics. You just have to remember
to bring a penny into the voting booth with you. Here is a flowchart that explains how you
should decide who to vote for once you are standing in the voting booth holding a penny:
If you want to be an activist, bring a pocketful of pennies and hand them out to people
while standing in line at the polling place. You won't need to convince that many people to
produce the intended effect. Remember, in order to maintain the appearance of a democratic
process, the artificial, financially induced margin of victory is kept quite thin, and even
a small amount of added randomness is enough to wipe it out. Point out the word "liberty"
prominently embossed on each penny. Briefly explain what a Furious Sheep is, and how the
exercise of liberty is the exact opposite of being a Furious Sheep.
Then explain to them how the pennies are to be used: the first flip of the penny
determines whether you are voting for the left or the right; the second-whether you are
voting for the major or the minor candidate. Be sure to mention that this is a sure-fire
way to get money out of politics.
Try the line "This penny can't be bought." Don't
argue or debate; rattle off your "elevator speech," hand over the penny and move on.
The last detail everyone needs to remember is how to respond to exit polls, in order to
deprive the other side of any understanding of what has just happened. When asked how you
voted, say: "I voted by secret ballot."
Then you can go home, turn on the idiot box and watch a fun spectacle featuring the gnashing
of teeth, the rending of garments and the scattering of ashes upon talking heads. You won't get
to see the behind-the-scenes rancor and the recriminations among the moneyed elites, but you can
imagine just how furious they will be, having had their billions of dollars defeated by a few
handfuls of pennies.
You might think that random voting, with each candidate getting an equal share of the votes,
would be perfectly predictable, making it possible to secure a victory by hacking a few voting
machines. But this would never be the case in the real world, because not everyone will vote
randomly. You might then think that it would still be possible to manipulate the nonrandom voters
into voting a certain way. But how can anyone predict who will vote randomly and who won't? And
if every vote is, in essence, purchased, how would someone go about buying random votes, or
figuring out which candidate such a purchase would favor? In this situation, buying votes would
only serve to further confuse the outcome. Thus, the effect of added randomness on the outcome
will not be random; it will be chaotic.
And that, my fellow Americans, is how you can change a "you lose-they win" outcome to a
more just and equitable "you lose-they lose" in this particular game of strategy.
Dmitry Orlov was born in Leningrad and immigrated to the United States in the 1970's. He is
the author of Reinventing Collapse, Hold Your Applause! and Absolutely Positive, and publishes
weekly at the phenomenally popular blog
www.ClubOrlov.com
.
"... PNAC members, and signees to its policy documents, include: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wofowitz, Jeb Bush, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Scooter Libby, Elliot Abrams, Richard Armitage, William Bennet, William Kristol, and Zalmy Khalilzad - men with their hands deep in the private defense, oil, and multi-national corporate industries poised to make vast sums of money and secure huge tracts of power and influence if PNAC policy evolved into U.S. Government policy. Nine months after they rose to power, and assumed central positions of leadership up and down the spectrum of military, civilian, domestic, and international agencies, they got their 'New Pearl Harbor'. And PNAC policy essentially evolved into the Bush Administration's official agenda. While this alarmingly convenient coincidence does not prove anything in and of itself, it does establish motive. And it certainly would raise the eyebrows of concern from any serious investigator looking into the facts of September 11. ..."
"... In an interview with journalist Alex Jones , Hilton reports that, under the supervision of Strauss, his senior thesis detailed a plan to establish a Presidential Dictatorship using a fabricated 'Pearl Harbor-like incident' as justification. He further states that he, Perle, Wolfowitz, and other students of Strauss discussed an array of different plots and incidents 'like September 11th' and 'flying airplanes into buildings way back in the 60s'. ..."
In the summer of 2000, the
Project
for the New American Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think tank riddled with soon to be Bush
administration officials and advisors, issued a document calling for the radical restructuring of
U.S. government and military policies. It advocated the massive expansion of defense spending, the
re-invasion of Iraq, the military and economic securing of Afghanistan and Central Asia, increased
centralized power and funds for the CIA, FBI, and NSA, among a slew of other policies that would,
in the near future, be enacted upon their ascension to power. In the same document, they cite a potential
problem with their plan. Referring to the goals of transforming the U.S. and global power structure,
the paper states that because of the American Public's slant toward ideas of democracy and freedom,
"this process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing
event - like a new Pearl Harbor." (ibid.)
PNAC members, and signees to its policy documents,
include: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wofowitz, Jeb Bush, Richard Perle, John Bolton, Scooter
Libby, Elliot Abrams, Richard Armitage, William Bennet, William Kristol, and Zalmy Khalilzad - men
with their hands deep in the private defense, oil, and multi-national corporate industries poised
to make vast sums of money and secure huge tracts of power and influence if PNAC policy evolved into
U.S. Government policy. Nine months after they rose to power, and assumed central positions of leadership
up and down the spectrum of military, civilian, domestic, and international agencies, they got their
'New Pearl Harbor'. And PNAC policy essentially evolved into the Bush Administration's official agenda.
While this alarmingly convenient coincidence does not prove anything in and of itself, it does establish
motive. And it certainly would raise the eyebrows of concern from any serious investigator looking
into the facts of September 11.
Another alarming coincidence surrounding PNAC and September 11 has been revealed by attorney Stanley
Hilton. Hilton, a graduate of Harvard Law School and former senior advisor and lead counsel for Bob
Dole, attended the University of Chicago as an undergraduate in the 1960s. He studied under the infamous
Leo Strauss, considered by
many the father of neo-conservatism. Fellow students and acquaintances of Hilton's at the time included
Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. In an interview with journalist
Alex Jones,
Hilton reports that, under the supervision of Strauss, his senior thesis detailed a plan to establish
a Presidential Dictatorship using a fabricated 'Pearl Harbor-like incident' as justification. He
further states that he, Perle, Wolfowitz, and other students of Strauss discussed an array of different
plots and incidents 'like September 11th' and 'flying airplanes into buildings way back in the 60s'.
In light of these revelations, it is no surprise that Hilton has been trying to blow the whistle
on government involvement in 9/11 for years. He has also filed a lawsuit against the government on
behalf of a number of victims' families. As a result of his actions, Hilton has been harassed, threatened,
burgled, and hounded repeatedly by the authorities.
"... On the contrary, the Persian Gulf should be deemed a region of vital interest to the security of the United States. ..."
"... We also reject Iran's attempt to blame others for regional tensions it is aggravating, as well as its public campaign to demonize the government of Saudi Arabia. ..."
Wahhab proclaimed those who did not accept his puritan monotheism as apostates and idolaters who
should be killed immediately. And now, Shiites, Alawites, Zaidis, Druze, Ismailis - and Kurds, who
are mostly Sunni Muslim - are defending themselves and their families from the truly fundamentalist
zealotry of neo-Wahhabism that murders all whom it deems apostate. To reverse the narrative and cast
their efforts to defend themselves as somehow sectarian is bizarre - especially since the bulk of
the Syrian army and Kurds fighting ISIS
are
themselves Sunni Muslims.
To fight ISIS is not anti-Sunni. To fight ISIS is to be against Wahhab's revived doctrines. The
leading Iraqi commentator Hayder al-Khoei highlighted that in a recent
op-ed
:
The tip of the spear in Falluja is not an Iranian-backed paramilitary group but the U.S.-created
Counter Terrorism Service and its elite U.S.-trained Special Forces known locally as the Golden
Division. These forces, besides being a mixed Shia-Sunni unit, are led by a Kurdish commander
... At a time when sectarian dynamics is one of many factors fueling the crises in Iraq and beyond,
it is important for Western journalists and analysts to not be more sectarian than the Iraqis
on the ground actually fighting ISIS.
In short, the ephemeral global narrative does not relate well to the facts on the ground where there
is much less sectarianism than this Western-Gulf narrative purports to exist.
But let that pass.
This narrative,
echoed widely
beyond the
Financial Times
, is Orwellian in
another way. It serves another deeper purpose. It has much to do with finding and articulating, as
Jim Lobe
notes
, the point of intersection between liberal interventionism and neoconservatism. This intersection
is the subject of a May 16
report
from the Center for a New American Security, which was drawn up by a bipartisan task force
of 10 senior members of the U.S. foreign policy establishment and augmented by six dinner discussions
with invited experts.
Their approach is to cast Iran as the source of all 'regional tensions' and
to hold onto America's Gulf bases in order to be a 'force that can flex across several different
mission sets and prevail.'
It is, in a sense, the riposte from the two interventionist wings of American politics to Trump's
iconoclasm in foreign policy. And, Lobe writes, "it's fair to predict that the above-mentioned report
is likely to be the best guide to date of where a Hillary Clinton presidency will want to take the
country's foreign policy."
The report is all about how to maintain America's benevolent hegemony
- or how to maintain and expand today's "rules-based international order," which implies maintaining
and expanding the geo-financial order as much as the political order. As we saw in U.S. Defense Secretary
Ashton Carter's
interview
with Vox, there are clear, though somewhat cushioned,
echoes
of the 1992 U.S. Defense Planning Guidance.
The CNAS report states, "[F]rom a resurgent Russia to a rising China that is challenging the rules-based
international order to chaos, and the struggle for power in the Middle East, the United States needs
a force that can flex across several different mission sets and prevail." The report simply
restates
in more nuanced language many of ideas that underline the concept of the "
American
Century
" and U.S.-led unipolar world order.
What does this have to do with propagating the
meme that the war on ISIS is a disguised sectarian war on Sunni Islam? Well, quite a lot. Consider
this from the report (italics mine):
The United States should adopt a comprehensive strategy, employing an appropriate mix of military,
economic and diplomatic resources, to undermine and defeat Iran's hegemonic ambitions in the Greater
Middle East. Whether in Lebanon, Yemen, Syria or Bahrain, Tehran's advances and longer-term ambitions
should be regarded as a threat to stability that it is in the U.S. interest to counter and deter.
The next administration must make abundantly clear that it has no interest in pursuing an off-shore
balancing strategy, such as the 'new equilibrium' some have suggested, which envisages a significant
U.S. military drawdown from the region.
On the contrary, the Persian
Gulf should be deemed a region of vital interest to the security of the United States.
As
such, U.S. military forces in the region should be sufficient to ensure the security of Gulf allies
and the Strait of Hormuz against potential Iranian aggression. At the same time, Gulf allies should
have access to sufficient defense articles and services to deter Tehran even if U.S. forces are
not present or immediately available to assist.
We also reject Iran's attempt to blame others for regional tensions
it is aggravating, as well as its public campaign to demonize the government of Saudi Arabia.
The last sentence is truly amazing. So the spread of
cultural and militant Wahhabism
has nothing to do with tension in the region? Here we see that
the crux of the joint neocon, liberal-interventionist foreign policy for the Middle East is to cast
Iran as the source of all "regional tensions" and secondly, to hold onto America's Gulf bases - in
order to "flex across several different mission sets and prevail."
Saudi Arabia is mildly rebuked
in the CNAS report for having helped radicalize Sunni Islamist groups in the past, but the Kingdom
receives applause for its law enforcement and intelligence cooperation. It is very clear from the
report's context that a makeover of Saudi Arabia's status as a U.S. ally is underway and that this
rehabilitation is seen as integral to aiding America's "hard-nosed enforcement strategy ... to counter
Iran's destabilizing activities throughout the region, from its support to terrorist groups like
Hezbollah to its efforts to sow instability in the Sunni Arab states."
The old Western standby of using psychologically inflamed Sunni radicalism
as a means to weaken opponents seems like it won't be dismantled completely.
Another gloss in the CNAS report is striking: while ISIS as a threat is made much of, and a call
is issued to "uproot" it, when it comes to Syria, the report simply states that "it is also essential
to assist in the formation of a Sunni alternative to ISIS and the [Syria President Bashar] Assad
regime" and to create "a safe space ... where moderate opposition militias can arm, train, and organize."
Yet there is no mention of Jabhat al-Nusra, al Qaeda's Syria wing. Its role simply is not addressed.
This conscious lacuna suggests that the authors do not want to embarrass Saudi Arabia for all
its fired-up Sunni jihadist tools. The old Western standby of using psychologically inflamed Sunni
radicalism as a means to weaken opponents seems like it won't be dismantled completely. It is fine,
evidently, to make a hoo-ha about ISIS while Nusra is to be slipped quietly into the Syrian calculus
in order to shift the military balance and convince Assad that he cannot remain in power.
This
new/old policy platform is well assisted by broadcasting a narrative that those fighting ISIS on
the ground (Iran and its allies) are the "naked sectarians" who compound their sectarian intent by
provoking Sunnis to rally to ISIS, their defender. Thus, Iran becomes the threat to regional security,
and the CNAS case against Iran is crystalized. This is working quite well, it seems, to judge by
its play in the media.
It may be fairly asked however, why these eminent American foreign policy
hands should be espousing what many might see as such a retrograde stance. Promoting Saudi Arabia
and Gulf states as key U.S. allies would seem to go against the grain of contemporary - even Congressional
- sentiment. Ditto for maintaining America's necklace of (expensive) military bases around the globe
in order to project American military power. Are Americans not tiring of endless war? And has not
the arming and training of a Sunni opposition in Syria been tried several times and failed? Why should
this policy be any more successful next time around?
ISIS is the consensual scapegoat to be lambasted by all and sundry, but its
spirit - neo-Wahabbism - is not to be rooted out.
It is not that the report's authors don't grasp these points, but if the neocons have one constancy,
it has been their unwavering support for Israel. They think that the Gulf states are ready for a
normalization with Israel and wish to do profitable business with it. What stands in the way of this
rapprochement, in the neocon view, is Iran, Syria and Hezbollah's vehement opposition - and their
ability to ignite public opinion across the Muslim world on behalf of the Palestinians.
So what
is the final takeaway from all this? It is that ISIS is the consensual scapegoat to be lambasted
by all and sundry, but its spirit - neo-Wahabbism - is not to be rooted out. It is too useful to
Saudi Arabia and Turkey and to Western interests - to weaken Assad, for example, and to contain Iran
and fight
Hezbollah
.
Whether in the form of Nusra or Ahrar al-Sham,
another al Qaeda-allied rebel group in Syria, this chameleon-like Sunni jihadist force collectively
provides a useful pivot around which neocons and liberal interventionists alike can pursue interventionism
and the continuance of "the American Century." It also provides a valuable intersection between Israel
and Gulf interests. As Lobe wryly
notes
, "the authors' undisguised hostility toward Tehran pours forth with specific policy recommendations
that, frankly, could have been written as a joint paper submitted by Saudi Arabia and Israel."
Will the report, like the neocon Project for the New American Century, to which it is perhaps conceived
as a successor, come to form the basis of American foreign policy if a Democrat won the forthcoming
election? Possibly, yes.
But there is also an intangible feeling of something passé in these policy prescriptions, a sense
that they belong to a former era. The current presidential campaign, with all its iconoclasm and
evidence of widespread popular anger towards the status quo, suggests that such a palpable replay
of the past is not tenable.
Something very strange is happening. The great majority of the mainstream western media are "under-reporting"
the quite monumental events affecting one of the most important NATO allies.
In the same time more and more accusations and more concrete ones are coming out of Turkey about
the West supporting the failed coup! Still western media and capitals behave like it is just normal
for leaders and officials of a NATO country to accuse the United States of supporting a coup in their
country!
It is true that Erdogan is not a popular politician in the West and he is considered rather authoritarian.
He made a lot of things to justify this accusation. But the question is they don't like because he
is authoritarian or because he became too "uncontrollable"?
Anyway there is a distance between criticizing a leader (elected by the way) for his authoritarianism
and supporting military coups against him. To impose a military dictatorship in Turkey is hardly
a way to promote "democracy", as it was hardly the repeated wars in the Middle East (USA and France
have just begun a new one against Libya!)
President Erdogan has again accused the West for its attitude towards his country, just one day
after the visit to Turkey of the chief of the US Armed Forces
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is refusing to back House Speaker Paul D. Ryan
[Social Security-cutting, TPP dirt-bag #1
] in his upcoming primary election,
saying in an interview Tuesday that he is "not quite there yet" in endorsing his party's
top-ranking elected official. Trump also said he was not supporting Sen. John McCain [
scum-bag
#2
] in his primary in Arizona, and he singled out Sen. Kelly Ayotte [
fraud #3
]
as a weak and disloyal leader in New Hampshire, a state whose presidential primary Trump won
handily. With Ryan's Wisconsin primary scheduled for next Tuesday, Trump praised the House
speaker's underdog opponent, Paul Nehlen, for running "a very good campaign."
Diplomacy & respect crucial to our relationship with Russia
Q: This week we're going to see a lot of world leaders come to Manhattan. Might you have a
meeting with Russian president Vladimir Putin?
TRUMP: Well, I had heard that he wanted to meet
with me. And certainly I am open to it. I don't know that it's going to take place, but I know
that people have been talking. We'll see what happens. But certainly, if he wanted to meet, I
would love to do that. You know, I've been saying relationship is so important in business, that
it's so important in deals, and so important in the country. And if President Obama got along
with Putin, that would be a fabulous thing. But they do not get along. Putin does not respect our
president. And I'm sure that our president does not like him very much.
Putin has no respect for America; I will get along with him
Q: What would you do right now if you were president, to get the Russians out of Syria?
TRUMP:
Number one, they have to respect you. He has absolutely no respect for President Obama. Zero. I
would talk to him. I would get along with him. I believe I would get along with a lot of the
world leaders that this country is not getting along with. I think I will get along with Putin,
and I will get along with others, and we will have a much more stable world.
We must deal with the maniac in North Korea with nukes
[With regards to the Iranian nuclear deal]: Nobody ever mentions North Korea where you have this
maniac sitting there and he actually has nuclear weapons and somebody better start thinking about
North Korea and perhaps a couple of other places. You have somebody right now in North Korea who
has got nuclear weapons and who is saying almost every other week, "I'm ready to use them." And
we don't even mention it.
China is our enemy; they're bilking us for billions
China is bilking us for hundreds of billions of dollars by manipulating and devaluing its
currency. Despite all the happy talk in Washington, the Chinese leaders are not our friends. I've
been criticized for calling them our enemy. But what else do you call the people who are
destroying your children's and grandchildren's future? What name would you prefer me to use for
the people who are hell bent on bankrupting our nation, stealing our jobs, who spy on us to steal
our technology, who are undermining our currency, and who are ruining our way of life? To my
mind, that's an enemy. If we're going to make America number one again, we've got to have a
president who knows how to get tough with China, how to out-negotiate the Chinese, and how to
keep them from screwing us at every turn.
When you love America, you protect it with no apologies
I love America. And when you love something, you protect it passionately--fiercely, even. We are
the greatest country the world has ever known. I make no apologies for this country, my pride in
it, or my desire to see us become strong and rich again. After all, wealth funds our freedom. But
for too long we've been pushed around, used by other countries, and ill-served by politicians in
Washington who measure their success by how rapidly they can expand the federal debt, and your
tax burden, with their favorite government programs.
American can do better. I think we deserve
the best. That's why I decided to write this book. The decisions we face are too monumental, too
consequential, to just let slide. I have answers for the problems that confront us. I know how to
make American rich again.
By 2027, tsunami as China overtakes US as largest economy
There is a lot that Obama and his globalist pals don't want you to know about China's strength.
But no one who knows the truth can sit back and ignore how dangerous this economic powerhouse
will be if our so-called leaders in Washington don't get their acts together and start standing
up for American jobs and stop outsourcing them to China. It's been predicted that by 2027, China
will overtake the United States as the world's biggest economy--much sooner if the Obama
economy's disastrous trends continue. That means in a handful of years, America will be engulfed
by the economic tsunami that is the People's Republic of China--my guess is by 2016 if we don't
act fast.
For the past thirty years, China's economy has grown an average 9 to 10 percent each
year. In the first quarter of 2011 alone, China's economy grew a robust 9.7 percent. America's
first quarter growth rate? An embarrassing and humiliating 1.9 percent. It's a national disgrace.
A lot of life is about survival of the fittest and adaption, as Darwin pointed out. It's not all
there is, but it's an indication of how the world has evolved in historical terms. We've seen
many empires come and go -- the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire -- there have always been surges
of power. Sometimes they last for centuries. Even so, some of us have never learned of them as of
today. In other words, things change. We have to keep up with the changes and move forward.
Source: Think Like a Champion, by Donald Trump, p. 23-4 , Apr 27,
2010
Criticized Buchanan's view on Hitler as appeasement
In Buchanan's book, he actually said the Western allies were wrong to stop Hitler. He
argued that we should have let Hitler take all of the territories to his east. What of the
systematic annihilation of Jews, Catholics, and Gypsies in those countries? You don't have to be
a genius to know that we were next, that once Hitler seized control of the countries to his east
he would focus on world domination.
Pat Buchanan was actually preaching the same policy of appeasement that had failed for Neville
Chamberlain at Munich. If we used Buchanan's theory on Hitler as a foreign policy strategy, we
would have appeased every world dictator with a screw loose and we'd have a brainwashed
population ready to go postal on command.
After I [wrote an article on this for] Face the Nation, Buchanan accused me of
⌠ignorance." Buchanan, who believes himself an expert, has also called Hitler ⌠a political
organizer of the first rank." Buchanan is a fan.
Post-Cold War: switch from chess player to dealmaker
In the modern world you can't very easily draw up a simple, general foreign policy. I was busy
making deals during the last decade of the cold war. Now the game has changed. The day of the
chess player is over. Foreign policy has to be put in the hands of a dealmaker.
Two dealmakers have served as president-one was Franklin Roosevelt, who got us through WWII,
and the other was Richard Nixon, who forced the Russians to the bargaining table to achieve the
first meaningful reductions in nuclear arms.
A dealmaker can keep many balls in the air, weigh the competing interests of other nations,
and above all, constantly put America's best interests first. The dealmaker knows when to be
tough and when to back off. He knows when to bluff and he knows when to threaten, understanding
that you threaten only when prepared to carry out the threat. The dealmaker is cunning,
secretive, focused, and never settles for less than he wants. It's been a long time since America
had a president like that.
I don't understand why American policymakers are always so timid in dealing with Russia on issues
that directly involve our survival. Kosovo was a perfect case in point: Russia was holding out
its hand for billions of dollars in IMF loans (to go along with billions in aid the U.S. has
given) the same week it was issuing threats and warnings regarding our conduct in the Balkans. We
need to tell Russia and other recipients that if they want our dime they had better do our dance,
at least in matters regarding our national security. These people need us much more than we need
them. We have leverage, and we are crazy not to use it to better advantage.
Few respect
weakness. Ultimately we have to deal with hostile nations in the only language they know:
unshrinking conviction and the military power to back it up if need be. There and in that order
are America's two greatest assets in foreign affairs.
China: lack of human rights prevents consumer development
Why am I concerned with political rights? I'm a good businessman and I can be amazingly
unsentimental when I need to be. I also recognize that when it comes down to it, we can't do much
to change a nation's internal policies. But I'm unwilling to shrug off the mistreatment of
China's citizens by their own government. My reason is simple: These oppressive policies make it
clear that China's current government has contempt for our way of life.
We want to trade with China because of the size of its consumer market. But if the regime
continues to repress individual freedoms, how many consumers will there really be? Isn't it
inconsistent to compromise our principles by negotiating trade with a country that may not want
and cannot afford our goods?
We have to make it absolutely clear that we're willing to trade with China, but not to trade
away our principles, and that under no circumstances will we keep our markets open to countries
that steal from us.
Our biggest long-term challenge will be China. The Chinese people still have few political rights
to speak of. Chinese government leaders, though they concede little, desperately want us to
invest in their country. Though we have the upper hand, we're way to eager to please. We see them
as a potential market and we curry favor with them at the expense of our national interests. Our
China policy under Presidents Clinton and Bush has been aimed at changing the Chinese regime by
incentives both economic and political. The intention has been good, but it's clear that the
Chinese have been getting far too easy a ride.
Despite the opportunity, I think we need to take
a much harder look at China. There are major problems that too many at the highest reaches of
business want to overlook, [primarily] the human-rights situation.
Q: Would you block Syrian refugees from entering the US?
RUBIO: The problem is we can't background check them. You can't pick up the phone and call
Syria. And that's one of the reasons why I said we won't be able to take more refugees. It's not
that we don't want to. The bottom line is that this is not just a threat coming from abroad. What
we need to open up to and realize is that we have a threat here at home, homegrown violent
extremists, individuals who perhaps have not even traveled abroad, who have been radicalized
online. This has become a multi-faceted threat. In the case of what's happening in Europe, this
is a swarm of refugees. And as I've said repeatedly over the last few months, you can have 1,000
people come in and 999 of them are just poor people fleeing oppression and violence but one of
them is an ISIS fighter.
Q: Russia has invaded Ukraine, and has put troops in Syria. You have said you will have a good
relationship with Mr. Putin. So, what does President Trump do in response to Russia's aggression?
TRUMP: As far as Syria, if Putin wants to go and knock the hell out of ISIS, I am all for it,
100%, and I can't understand how anybody would be against it.
Q: They're not doing that.
TRUMP: They blew up a Russian airplane. He cannot be in love with these people. He's going in,
and we can go in, and everybody should go in. As far as the Ukraine is concerned, we have a group
of people, and a group of countries, including Germany--why are we always doing the work? I'm all
for protecting Ukraine--but, we have countries that are surrounding the Ukraine that aren't doing
anything. They say, "Keep going, keep going, you dummies, keep going. Protect us." And we have to
get smart. We can't continue to be the policeman of the world.
Provide economic assistance to create a safe zone in Syria
Q: Where you are on the question of a safe zone or a no-fly zone in Syria?
TRUMP: I love a safe
zone for people. I do not like the migration. I do not like the people coming. What they should
do is, the countries should all get together, including the Gulf states, who have nothing but
money, they should all get together and they should take a big swath of land in Syria and they do
a safe zone for people, where they could to live, and then ultimately go back to their country,
go back to where they came from.
Q: Does the U.S. get involved in making that safe zone?
TRUMP: I would help them economically, even though we owe $19 trillion.
US should not train rebels it does not know or control
Q: The Russians are hitting Assad as well as people we've trained.
TRUMP: Where they're hitting
people, we're talking about people that we don't even know. I was talking to a general two days
ago. He said, "We have no idea who these people are. We're training people. We don't know who
they are. We're giving them billions of dollars to fight Assad." And you know what? I'm not
saying Assad's a good guy, because he's probably a bad guy. But I've watched him interviewed many
times. And you can make the case, if you look at Libya, look at what we did there-- it's a mess--
if you look at Saddam Hussein with Iraq, look what we did there-- it's a mess-- it's going be
same thing.
Q: You came across to me as if you welcomed Putin's involvement in Syria. You said you saw very
little downside. Why?
TRUMP: I want our military to be beyond anything, no contest, and
technologically, most importantly. But we are going to get bogged down in Syria. If you look at
what happened with the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, that's when they went bankrupt.
Q: So, you think Putin's going to get suckered into--
TRUMP: They're going to get bogged down. Everybody that's touched the Middle East, they've
gotten bogged down. Now, Putin wants to go in and I like that Putin is bombing the hell out of
ISIS. Putin has to get rid of ISIS because Putin doesn't want ISIS coming into Russia.
Q: Why do you trust him and nobody else does?
TRUMP: I don't trust him. But the truth is, it's not a question of trust. I don't want to see
the United States get bogged down. We've spent now $2 trillion in Iraq, probably a trillion in
Afghanistan. We're destroying our country.
What does Donald Trump believe? Iran and Israel: Walk away from nuclear talks. Increase
sanctions.
Trump has said that the U.S. is mishandling current Iran negotiations and should
have walked away from the table once Tehran reportedly rejected the idea of sending enriched
uranium to Russia. He would increase sanctions on Iran. Trump has been sharply critical of the
Obama administration's handling of relations with Israel and has called for a closer alliance
with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu.
Source: PBS News Hour "2016 Candidate Stands" series , Jun 16, 2015
Iran deal was signed when Hillary was not the Secretary of state (her last month was Feb 2013).
Is Trump delusional or stupid ?
Notable quotes:
"... whatever the 'ransom', both Clinton and Trump are hellbent on undermining the Iranian deal. idiots. ..."
"... The more I think about it, US deserve to have Trump as president. He will screw up the US so royally that may shock American people to start thinking straight. ..."
"... Trump would certainly screw up the US, but if 8 years of Bush couldn't get them to start thinking straight, I am not sure what would. ..."
"... Hillary hates Iran more than Trump does... she's just extremely good in deceiving.. Remember when Sanders said to reach out to Iran about the Syrian conflict? Her reply was exactly this; "asking Iran for cooperation in Syria is like asking a pyromaniac to extinguish a fire" .. when president, I fear she will not only avoid cooperation but will be playing real hardball with Iran, where Trump, as someone who seems to be sympathetic to the Russian regime, might get more friendly with Iran (the friends of your friends...) ..."
"... It's a mess anyways... trump changes like how the wind blows, and Hillary is a snake (understatement of the year) ..."
"... The US has not held up to the term of the nuclear agreement! The banks are still afraid of US to deal with Iran. Congress has stopped the beoing deal, etc. The US congress is acting as bully! Actually not holding itself with the very deal the US signed is very bad! I can see Iran reluctant to negotiate any deal with a bunch of liars ..."
"... There were no bank relations between the US and Iran, so cash was the only option. It was conducted in secret because who's going to announce that a plane full of cash is in route to, well, anywhere? ..."
"... The US owed that money to Iran. The transfer was kept secret for the reason mentioned by bob. ..."
"... Ultimately, Mr. Trump's outrage over the $ (true or not) is yet another dodge avoiding the real question that he needs to be asked: "Do you want a war with Iran?" ..."
"... Course, I think everybody probably already knows the answer. It'd just be nice to have it print (or a tweet as the case may be). ..."
"... If the reports about Trump asking his foreign policy advisers about the utility of using nuclear weapons are accurate, there are probably several nations, including Iran, who'd be wise to acquire nuclear weapons as soon as possible to let him know why they shouldn't be used. ..."
It was Iran's money that Washington froze . Besides, if I recall, the great Republican hero
Ronnie Reagan traded weapons to Iran for hostages.
Joel Marcuson
It probably hasn't dawned on him that Hillary has not been a member of the current Gov't
for about 4 yrs now. How could she possibly be responsible for that decision, the type our
Gov't has made all along for as long as I can remember? What a screwball.
onu labu
whatever the 'ransom', both Clinton and Trump are hellbent on undermining the Iranian
deal. idiots.
trucmat
The gist of reality here is that the US confiscated a bunch of Iranian money and are
decades later starting to give it back. Scandalous!
ViktorZK
They should be attacking Clinton over the DNC resignations and a whole bunch more. But the
entire week has been taken up damping down fires Trump and his surrogates keep lighting. Even
this story (which is a non-event really) will struggle for oxygen. The biggest headline today
is GOP ELDERS PLAN INTERVENTION TO REHABILITATE FAILING CAMPAIGN. Hard to top that.
macmarco 1h
One must remember that Obama early and often said Reagan was his political hero. The same
Reagan who bought hostages freedom with a cake, a bible and a bunch of weapons.
ClearItUp
The more I think about it, US deserve to have Trump as president. He will screw up the
US so royally that may shock American people to start thinking straight.
rberger -> ClearItUp
Trump would certainly screw up the US, but if 8 years of Bush couldn't get them to
start thinking straight, I am not sure what would.
ChangeIranNow
At this point, with tens of billions of dollars in frozen assets already on their way to
Iran and a virtual Tehran gold rush in which Western firms are seeking to profit from the
collapse of sanctions going on, revisiting the way the Iran deal was sold to the nation seems
beside the point. But with Iran already signaling that it will demand even more Western
appeasement to keep complying with the terms of the nuclear pact, an examination into the
cash-for-hostages' aspect of the story is important. Let us hope our next president is willing
to harden its stance on the Iran regime and support an era of domestically-fostered peace and
stability.
doublreed legalimmigrant
DryBack, Voilà: Wikileaks recently released documents proving that Hillary Clinton took
$100,000 of cash from a company she ran (and worked for in the 80's and 90's) that also funded
ISIS in Syria. French industrial giant, Lafarge, gave money to the Islamic state to operate
their (Lafarge's) cement plant in Syria, and purchased oil from ISIS. Lafarge are also large
donators to Clinton's election and the Clinton Foundation. More is here: http://yournewswire.com/clinton-was-director-of-company-that-donated-money-to-isis/
Lafarge is a regular donor to the Clinton Foundation – the firm's up to $100,000 donation was
listed in its annual donor list for 2015.
Zepp
Who on Earth would consider Tom Cotton and the Wall Street Journal to be credible sources?
They took the (true, verified) story of the Bush administration flying pallets of $100
bills into Baghdad where they promptly vanished, filed the numbers of, and resurrected it for
this story. The WSJ is a Murdoch organ, and Cotton is a crackpot.
itsmeLucas
Hillary hates Iran more than Trump does... she's just extremely good in deceiving..
Remember when Sanders said to reach out to Iran about the Syrian conflict? Her reply was
exactly this; "asking Iran for cooperation in Syria is like asking a pyromaniac to extinguish
a fire" .. when president, I fear she will not only avoid cooperation but will be playing real
hardball with Iran, where Trump, as someone who seems to be sympathetic to the Russian regime,
might get more friendly with Iran (the friends of your friends...)
It's a mess anyways... trump changes like how the wind blows, and Hillary is a snake
(understatement of the year)
coffeeclutch
Donald Trump and Tom Cotton are the verifying sources for this information? Tom Cotton, who
claimed that Iran needed to be stopped because "[they] already control Tehran?"
The circus act of American politics is really beyond belief. I'm still in awe the Republicans
faced no consequences for issuing a warning letter to a foreign government in the midst of
diplomatic negotiations with the President and the State Department. All while running around
Obama's back and inviting Israel's Prime Minister to address them directly in suggesting how
Americans should approach their foreign policy.
WorkingEU
To shift focus to an Iranian deal seems a good line of attack. But from a historical
perspective it may be a little guileless. The Iranian Revolution was a populist revolt against
globalization, elitism, corruption, foreign treachery and all the other abundant evils.
The clergy promised the earth, and delivered heaven. I confess this is a somewhat superficial
analysis when compared to the profound depth of the Trump campaign.
coffeeclutch -> WorkingEU
If I recall correctly the religious sphere was also one of the areas of social life not
micromanaged and controlled by the Shah (secular authority at that time was rather hands-off
on its approach to the clergy), so the clergy were in a unique position to manipulate a lot of
desperate people by presenting themselves as an "open and freer" alternative to the grossly
exploitative, corrupt, and often violent rule of the secular regime.
Of course once the were able to wrest enough power to shunt aside the various leftist and
student protest groups rising up at the same time, all that concern about anti-corruption and
public welfare was immediately tossed into the bin. Pretty much a Scylla and Charybdis
situation.
jokaz
The US has not held up to the term of the nuclear agreement! The banks are still afraid
of US to deal with Iran. Congress has stopped the beoing deal, etc. The US congress is acting
as bully! Actually not holding itself with the very deal the US signed is very bad! I can see
Iran reluctant to negotiate any deal with a bunch of liars
DBakes
I would like to understand more details about the cash payment and the reason. Was it
really a secret payment? That being said I will never vote for Trump who to me is an imminent
threat to national security.
bobj1156 -> DBakes
There were no bank relations between the US and Iran, so cash was the only option. It
was conducted in secret because who's going to announce that a plane full of cash is in route
to, well, anywhere?
MtnClimber -> DBakes
The US owed that money to Iran. The transfer was kept secret for the reason mentioned
by bob.
MiltonWiltmellow
The US state department has denied this.
The WSJ quoted Tom Cotton, a Republican senator from Arkansas, as accusing the Obama
administration of ...
Does the accusation even matter?
A Murdoch rag prints an unsubstantiated political accusation made a Murdoch political
sympathizer and somehow it becomes credible enough for the Guardian to repeat the smear?
Here's what those of us who live in the Real World™ say.
Where's your fucking proof??
williamdonovan
However, although the cash payment to Iran coincided with the release of a group of Iranian
American prisoners, there is no evidence to suggest any link between the two events.
Evidence maybe not but the read could draw easily make a "inference"
Blacks Law 4th Edition
INFERENCE. In the law of evidence. A truth or proposition drawn from another which is
sup- posed or admitted to be true. A process of reasoning by which a fact or proposition
sought to be established is deduced as a logical consequence from other facts, or a state
of facts, already proved or admitted. Whitehouse v. Bolster, 95 Me. 458, 50 A. 240; Joske
v. Irvine, 91 Tex. 574, 44 S.W. 1059.
A deduction which the reason of the jury makes from the facts proved, without an express
direction of law to that effect. Puget Sound Electric Ry. v. Benson, C.C.A. Wash., 253 F.
710, 714.
A "presumption" and an "inference" are not the same thing, a presumption being a deduction
which the law requires a trier of facts to make, an inference being a deduction which the
trier may or may not make, according to his own conclusions; a presumption is mandatory, an
INFERENCE
eyeinlurk -> williamdonovan
Kind of like the Reagan arms for hostages deal with...uh...Iran. Back in the 80's.
I'm starting to miss the 80's, and I never thought I'd say that.
Ranger4 -> eyeinlurk
And they used the cash to .............fund an insurrection
williamdonovan -> eyeinlurk
I was working at the Pentagon then and found myself having inside knowledge of Iran-Contra
before it unfolded to the rest of the world. Given that the information was highly classified
Top Secret/SRA access. I had been given access to what I thought at the time was two
completely unrelated events moving of the missiles and the training and arming of the contras.
The information was compartmented meaning few people knew about either program and even far
fewer people new both programs where related (it wasn't called Iran-Contra until after much
later) Just weeks before the public new. I was given access to the complete picture. Even then
I couldn't figure how could something like this be legal. Because as we know now it was not.
You could easily draw inference between the these two events.
As I already have!
jrcdmc6670
Ultimately, Mr. Trump's outrage over the $ (true or not) is yet another dodge avoiding
the real question that he needs to be asked: "Do you want a war with Iran?"
Course, I think everybody probably already knows the answer. It'd just be nice to have it
print (or a tweet as the case may be).
jrcdmc6670
If the reports about Trump asking his foreign policy advisers about the utility of
using nuclear weapons are accurate, there are probably several nations, including Iran, who'd
be wise to acquire nuclear weapons as soon as possible to let him know why they shouldn't be
used.
Donald J. Trump unabashedly trumpeted his support for warmer relations with Russia
at a campaign rally here on Monday night, acidly mocking opponents who say he is too
friendly to Vladimir V. Putin, the country's
strongman president. Mr. Trump,
who has been under fire from Democrats and some conservative national security
leaders for his accommodating stance toward Mr. Putin, cast his supportive remarks as
a matter of practical necessity. By aligning itself with Russia, he said, the United
States could more easily take on the Islamic State and other terrorist groups. "If we
could get Russia to help us get rid of ISIS -- if we could actually be friendly with
Russia -- wouldn't that be a good thing?" Mr. Trump, the Republican presidential
nominee, said. Repeating the question moments later, he won loud applause
from the crowd: "If we could get along with Russia, wouldn't that be a good
thing, instead of a bad thing?"
"... The Neoconservatives and the Neoliberals have created madness and mayhem in the world today. Real change will happen only if resources are available for all in a co-operative capitalistic way that raises the standard of living for all rather than the few. We now have socialism of the rich and low productivity with the standard of living becoming more about quantity rather than quality. ..."
Liberals ,conservatives and progressives need to put ideologies behind and form a coalition to
demand change. Just exercising our right to vote will change nothing.
We will continue to get
blow back in the form of terrorism as long as we do not change the foreign policy in the Middle
East which goes back to Sykes -Picot and the aftermath of World War One.
The Neoconservatives and the Neoliberals have created madness and mayhem in the world today.
Real change will happen only if resources are available for all in a co-operative capitalistic
way that raises the standard of living for all rather than the few. We now have socialism of the
rich and low productivity with the standard of living becoming more about quantity rather than
quality.
"... Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the conclusion of the Cold War (" the end of history ," as Francis Fukuyama, called it), there was no global enemy for America to face down. No big nasty to spur weapons procurement, to justify a huge standing military with hundreds of bases around the world or to pick fights with to allow a president down in the polls to morph into a superhero. ..."
"... Americans are already well-prepared by the old Cold War to see Russia again as an evil empire, and Putin does look the part. The Russians are involved in Syria's civil war, so there is some sense of continuity. A new Cold War with Russia would require America to buy more expensive military hardware, plus discover new areas of Europe, like the Baltic states, to garrison. It might even breathe new life into a North Atlantic Treaty Organization that is confused about its role vis-a-vis terrorism. For politicians, ceaselessly shouting about the Muslim threat has proved to have downsides: It has inflamed many Muslims, perhaps pushing them toward radicalization. In addition, it turns out there are Muslim voters in the United States, and people who respect Muslims. The Kahn family's moving speech to the Democratic National Convention about the death of their soldier son was proof of that. ..."
"... On the other hand, Putin doesn't vote, only a handful of far leftists think he's a good guy, and he can be slapped around in sound bites without risk that he will actually launch a war against the United States. Why, he can even be accused, without penalty, of meddling in our democratic processes. ..."
"... Putin the Thug is a political-military-industrial-complex dream candidate. Expect him to feature heavily in the next administration's foreign policy. ..."
There is a near-certainty in American political speech, going back to the 1980s: When a senior
United States official labels you a thug, trouble follows. "Thug" is the safest go-to word in the
lexicon of
American Exceptionalism.
So, it is with concern that folks are lining up at the mic to call Russian President Vladimir
Putin just that. President Obama called him a "thug,"
as did presidential hopeful Marco Rubio, who added "gangster" for good measure. Republican House
Speaker Paul Ryan's spokesperson found fault with Putin and his whole nation, even adding an adjective:
"Russia is a global menace led by a
DEVIOUS thug." One rarely hears ruffian, hooligan, vandal, hoodlum or villain, but watch out
for thug.
While throwing the term at Putin is tied to the
weak public evidence supposedly linking Russian government hacker(s) to the Democratic National
Committee
computer
breach, there may be larger issues in the background.
It seems the word "thug" is a sort of dog whistle that when blown signals Americans and their
media to psyche up for a new fight. For example:
Secretary of State John Kerry on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad: "A
thug and murderer." Kerry also said, "Daesh [Islamic State] is in fact nothing more than a mixture
of killers, of kidnappers, of criminals, of thugs ..."
Then-President George W. Bush on al Qaeda: "If we let down our guard against this group of thugs,
they will hurt us again." Bush also thought Saddam Hussein was
a thug.
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders
on Muammar Gaddafi: "Look, everybody understands Gaddafi is a thug and murderer."
Madeleine Albright found thugs in Somalia and the Balkans for the wars of her era as secretary
of state.
But why Putin, and why now? Perhaps what we're seeing is preparation for the next iteration of
America's perpetual state of war.
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the conclusion of the Cold War ("the
end of history," as Francis Fukuyama, called it), there was no global enemy for America to face
down. No big nasty to spur weapons procurement, to justify a huge standing military with hundreds
of bases around the world or to pick fights with to allow a president down in the polls to morph
into a superhero.
A lot of people had a lot of power and money in play that demanded some real bad guys. An attempt
was made in the 1980s to make drug lords the new major threat, but they were too few in number to
sustain the media campaign. Following 9/11, the bad guys were "the terrorists." The George W. Bush
administration riffed off that theme in appointing Saddam Hussein as a weapons-of-mass-destruction
threat and in tagging Iran and North Korea as members of an "axis of evil."
Saddam Hussein turned out to be a bust, and the war in Iraq was ultimately very unpopular. Osama
bin Laden never launched a second attack on the United States, and the Taliban were dragged down
by a war that seemed to lose its focus after 15 years. Iran and North Korea make a lot of noise but
never seemed able to do real harm to America. The United States made a good-faith effort trying to
label all sorts of others – Gaddafi, Assad, Islamic State – as global enemies worthy of perpetual
war, but the Middle East in general has turned into a quagmire. America likes a winner, or at least
the appearance of winning.
Ahead of the next administration, Washington really needs an arch enemy, a poster-child kind of
guy who looks like a James Bond villain. And preferably one with nuclear weapons he'll brandish but
never use.
Enter Putin the Thug.
Americans are already well-prepared by the old Cold War to see Russia again as an evil empire,
and Putin does look the part. The Russians are involved in Syria's civil war, so there is some sense
of continuity. A new Cold War with Russia would require America to buy more expensive military hardware,
plus discover new areas of Europe, like the Baltic states, to garrison. It might even breathe new
life into a North Atlantic Treaty Organization that is confused about its role vis-a-vis terrorism.
For politicians, ceaselessly shouting about the Muslim threat has proved to have downsides: It
has inflamed many Muslims, perhaps pushing them toward radicalization. In addition, it turns out
there are Muslim voters in the United States, and people who respect Muslims. The Kahn family's moving
speech to the Democratic National Convention about the death of their soldier son was proof of that.
On the other hand, Putin doesn't vote, only a handful of far leftists think he's a good guy,
and he can be slapped around in sound bites without risk that he will actually launch a war against
the United States. Why, he can even be accused, without penalty, of meddling in our democratic processes.
Putin the Thug is a political-military-industrial-complex dream candidate. Expect him to feature
heavily in the next administration's foreign policy.
Peter Van Buren, who served in the State Department for 24 years, is the author of "We Meant
Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People," a look at the waste
and mismanagement of the Iraqi reconstruction. His latest book is "Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of
the #99 Percent." He is on Twitter @WeMeantWell
The two men are not so far apart on many policies. Both are millionaires whose worldview is informed
by the realism of having built major businesses, employed scores of workers and survived government
interference. Johnson started a construction company in New Mexico right after college, which became
one of the state's most successful builders. He ultimately sold it in 1999. Trump, of course, is
a significant commercial real estate developer.
Johnson first entered politics in 1994
advocating
a "common sense business approach" and financing his first run for governor with his own money.
He ran on a platform of lower taxes, job creation and law and order. Sound familiar?
Both candidates are socially liberal and are wary of our military entanglements overseas. It's
a start.
Though Trump has embraced GOP orthodoxy opposing abortion, it is clear this is not an important
issue to him personally. Johnson's campaign website says he "believes in the sanctity of the unborn"
but recognizes that legal abortion is the law of the land.
While both men support simplifying our tax system and reducing taxes, Johnson goes further, advocating
getting rid of the IRS.
Asked about Trump's controversial questioning of our NATO commitments, Johnson does not rule out
reassessing our long-standing alliances, including NATO.
The two men are most at odds over immigration, which
Johnson embraces as positive for the economy. He insists that people entering the
country illegally are taking only the jobs that Americans do not want, and notes that the number
of undocumented people crossing the border has dropped. Despite his fiery rhetoric, Trump also endorses
immigration – but only if it is legal.
Other areas of disagreement include Johnson's support for the TPP trade pact, which Trump opposes.
Also, Johnson is on record wanting to slash military spending, while Trump has vowed to reverse recent
declines. At the same time, Johnson has taken a more aggressive posture of late in combatting ISIS,
which may require some retooling of his 2012 enthusiasm for military retrenchment.
Where Johnson and Trump are most in sync is in their dislike for Hillary Clinton. Though he once
extolled her as a "wonderful public servant," Johnson has most recently described Clinton as "beholden"
and decries her "establishment" credentials as well as her hawkish inclinations. In an interview
with the Los Angeles Times, he said that if she is elected, "Nothing's gonna really change, government's
gonna have the answer to everything, and that's gonna mean taxes are gonna go up."
Polls show Johnson now attracting an average of 7.5 percent of a four-way vote (which includes
Green Party nominee Jill Stein). More important,
he is gathering momentum in critical swing states. According to Quinnipiac, Johnson grabs
between 8 percent and 10 percent in Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio, a number that could determine
those contests.
"... Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the conclusion of the Cold War (" the end of history ," as Francis Fukuyama, called it), there was no global enemy for America to face down. No big nasty to spur weapons procurement, to justify a huge standing military with hundreds of bases around the world or to pick fights with to allow a president down in the polls to morph into a superhero. ..."
"... Americans are already well-prepared by the old Cold War to see Russia again as an evil empire, and Putin does look the part. The Russians are involved in Syria's civil war, so there is some sense of continuity. A new Cold War with Russia would require America to buy more expensive military hardware, plus discover new areas of Europe, like the Baltic states, to garrison. It might even breathe new life into a North Atlantic Treaty Organization that is confused about its role vis-a-vis terrorism. For politicians, ceaselessly shouting about the Muslim threat has proved to have downsides: It has inflamed many Muslims, perhaps pushing them toward radicalization. In addition, it turns out there are Muslim voters in the United States, and people who respect Muslims. The Kahn family's moving speech to the Democratic National Convention about the death of their soldier son was proof of that. ..."
"... On the other hand, Putin doesn't vote, only a handful of far leftists think he's a good guy, and he can be slapped around in sound bites without risk that he will actually launch a war against the United States. Why, he can even be accused, without penalty, of meddling in our democratic processes. ..."
"... Putin the Thug is a political-military-industrial-complex dream candidate. Expect him to feature heavily in the next administration's foreign policy. ..."
There is a near-certainty in American political speech, going back to the 1980s: When a senior
United States official labels you a thug, trouble follows. "Thug" is the safest go-to word in the
lexicon of
American Exceptionalism.
So, it is with concern that folks are lining up at the mic to call Russian President Vladimir
Putin just that. President Obama called him a "thug,"
as did presidential hopeful Marco Rubio, who added "gangster" for good measure. Republican House
Speaker Paul Ryan's spokesperson found fault with Putin and his whole nation, even adding an adjective:
"Russia is a global menace led by a
DEVIOUS thug." One rarely hears ruffian, hooligan, vandal, hoodlum or villain, but watch out
for thug.
While throwing the term at Putin is tied to the
weak public evidence supposedly linking Russian government hacker(s) to the Democratic National
Committee
computer
breach, there may be larger issues in the background.
It seems the word "thug" is a sort of dog whistle that when blown signals Americans and their
media to psyche up for a new fight. For example:
Secretary of State John Kerry on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad: "A
thug and murderer." Kerry also said, "Daesh [Islamic State] is in fact nothing more than a mixture
of killers, of kidnappers, of criminals, of thugs ..."
Then-President George W. Bush on al Qaeda: "If we let down our guard against this group of thugs,
they will hurt us again." Bush also thought Saddam Hussein was
a thug.
Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders
on Muammar Gaddafi: "Look, everybody understands Gaddafi is a thug and murderer."
Madeleine Albright found thugs in Somalia and the Balkans for the wars of her era as secretary
of state.
But why Putin, and why now? Perhaps what we're seeing is preparation for the next iteration of
America's perpetual state of war.
Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the conclusion of the Cold War ("the
end of history," as Francis Fukuyama, called it), there was no global enemy for America to face
down. No big nasty to spur weapons procurement, to justify a huge standing military with hundreds
of bases around the world or to pick fights with to allow a president down in the polls to morph
into a superhero.
A lot of people had a lot of power and money in play that demanded some real bad guys. An attempt
was made in the 1980s to make drug lords the new major threat, but they were too few in number to
sustain the media campaign. Following 9/11, the bad guys were "the terrorists." The George W. Bush
administration riffed off that theme in appointing Saddam Hussein as a weapons-of-mass-destruction
threat and in tagging Iran and North Korea as members of an "axis of evil."
Saddam Hussein turned out to be a bust, and the war in Iraq was ultimately very unpopular. Osama
bin Laden never launched a second attack on the United States, and the Taliban were dragged down
by a war that seemed to lose its focus after 15 years. Iran and North Korea make a lot of noise but
never seemed able to do real harm to America. The United States made a good-faith effort trying to
label all sorts of others – Gaddafi, Assad, Islamic State – as global enemies worthy of perpetual
war, but the Middle East in general has turned into a quagmire. America likes a winner, or at least
the appearance of winning.
Ahead of the next administration, Washington really needs an arch enemy, a poster-child kind of
guy who looks like a James Bond villain. And preferably one with nuclear weapons he'll brandish but
never use.
Enter Putin the Thug.
Americans are already well-prepared by the old Cold War to see Russia again as an evil empire,
and Putin does look the part. The Russians are involved in Syria's civil war, so there is some sense
of continuity. A new Cold War with Russia would require America to buy more expensive military hardware,
plus discover new areas of Europe, like the Baltic states, to garrison. It might even breathe new
life into a North Atlantic Treaty Organization that is confused about its role vis-a-vis terrorism.
For politicians, ceaselessly shouting about the Muslim threat has proved to have downsides: It
has inflamed many Muslims, perhaps pushing them toward radicalization. In addition, it turns out
there are Muslim voters in the United States, and people who respect Muslims. The Kahn family's moving
speech to the Democratic National Convention about the death of their soldier son was proof of that.
On the other hand, Putin doesn't vote, only a handful of far leftists think he's a good guy,
and he can be slapped around in sound bites without risk that he will actually launch a war against
the United States. Why, he can even be accused, without penalty, of meddling in our democratic processes.
Putin the Thug is a political-military-industrial-complex dream candidate. Expect him to feature
heavily in the next administration's foreign policy.
Peter Van Buren, who served in the State Department for 24 years, is the author of "We Meant
Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People," a look at the waste
and mismanagement of the Iraqi reconstruction. His latest book is "Ghosts of Tom Joad: A Story of
the #99 Percent." He is on Twitter @WeMeantWell
The people will stop this, dirt-bag:
Obama predicts TPP 'trade' deal will be ratified after election | 02 Aug 2016 | President
Barack Obama
dismissed Hillary Clinton's [phony] opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement
corporate takeover Tuesday and suggested that her disapproval of the deal may be politically
motivated. [*Duh.*] "Right now, I'm president, and I'm for it," he said
at a news conference with Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong...While Obama and Lee were speaking,
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump was addressing supporters at a rally in Ashburn, Virginia,
just miles from the capital. In a statement, Trump said a victory by him in November is the only
way to stop a "TPP catastrophe."
"... If the rabidly pro-Israel Hillary Clinton takes the White House, you can expect that this concession will be re-negotiated: in any case, the Israel lobby will wield its considerable resources to get Congress to pressure the White House. ..."
"... As Glenn Greenwald points out in The Intercept , the Israelis have cradle-to-grave health care. Their life-expectancy is nearly a decade longer than ours. Their infant mortality rate is lower. By any meaningful measure, their standard of living is higher. They should be sending us aid: instead, the opposite is occurring. ..."
"... We made possible the Israeli Sparta : a state armed to the teeth which thrives on the misery and enslavement of its dispossessed Palestinian helots. Furthermore, our policy of unconditional support for Israel has encouraged the growth and development of a polity that is rapidly going fascist. And I don't use the "f"-word lightly. I've been chronicling Israel's slide toward a repulsive ethno-nationalism for years , and today – with the rise of ultra-rightist parties that openly call for the expulsio n of Arabs and the expansion of the Israeli state to its Biblically-ordained borders – my predictions are coming true. ..."
"... The "special relationship" is a parasitic relationship: the Israelis have been feeding off US taxpayers since the Reagan era. This in spite of the numerous insults , slights, and outright sabotage they have directed our way. It's high time to put an end to it. To borrow a phrase from You Know Who: it's time to put America first. ..."
"... What this means in practice is: 1) End aid to Israel, 2) Call out the Israelis for their shameful apartheid policies, and 3) end the power of the Israel lobby by enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration Act and compelling AIPAC and its allied organizations to register as foreign agents. Because that's just what they are. ..."
Washington is preparing to
increase US aid to Israel by billions of dollars, with a ten-year ironclad agreement that couldn't
be altered by President Obama's successor. But that isn't good enough for Bibi Netanyahu. He wants
more. Much more.
Unlike the case with other countries, the US engages in protracted and often difficult negotiations
with Israel over how much free stuff they're going to get come budget time. This year, the talks
are taking on a particularly urgent tone because of … you guessed it, Donald Trump. While Trump is
fervently pro-Israel, he has said that the Israelis, like our NATO allies, are going to have to
start paying for their
own defense (although with him,
you never know what his position is from
one day to the next ). This uncertainty has the two parties racing to sign an agreement before
President Obama's term is up in January. And it also has inspired the inclusion of a novel clause:
a ten-year guarantee that aid will remain at the agreed level, with no possibility that the new President
– whoever that may be – will lower it.
The Israelis
currently receive over half the foreign aid doled out by Uncle Sam annually, most of it in military
assistance with an extra added dollop for "refugee resettlement." That combined with loan guarantees
comes to roughly $3.5 billion per year – with all the money handed to them up front, in the first
weeks of the fiscal year, instead of being released over time like other countries.
So how much is this increase going to amount to? With negotiations still ongoing, the US isn't
releasing any solid figures, although Bibi, we are told, is demanding $5 billion annually. The
New York Times is
reporting the final sum could "top $40 billion." What we do know is that the administration told
Congress in a letter that they are prepared to offer Tel Aviv an aid package "that would constitute
the largest pledge of military assistance to any country in US history." In addition, it would guarantee
US aid for Israel's missile defense, taking it out of the annual appropriations song-and-dance, and
immunizing it from any cuts.
Aside from the "haggling" – as the Times put it – over the amount, there is another issue:
the Israeli exception to a rule that applies to all other recipients of American aid. Other countries
must spend their welfare check in dollars – that is, they must buy American. Not the Israelis. They're
allowed to spend up to 25% of their aid package at home: which means that US taxpayers have been
subsidizing the Israeli military-industrial complex to the tune of multi-billions since the 1980s,
when this special arrangement was legislated. However, in an era where "America First" is now a popular
political slogan – popularized by You Know Who – the Obama administration is trying to end this exception
to the rules. Naturally, the Israelis are resisting, but,
according to Ha'aretz
:
"The Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth said the White House was prepared to let Israel keep
the arrangement for the first five years of the new MOU but it would be gradually phased out in the
second five years, except for joint U.S.-Israeli military projects."
If the rabidly pro-Israel Hillary Clinton takes the White House, you can expect that this
concession will be re-negotiated: in any case, the Israel lobby will wield its considerable resources
to get Congress to pressure the White House.
In their letter to Congress, national security honcho Susan Rice and OMB chief Shaun Donovan evoke
the Iran deal as justification for this new and sweeter aid package. Yet this argument undermines
the administration's contention that the agreement with Iran doesn't endanger Israel – because if
it doesn't, then why do the Israelis need billions more in aid in the first place?
What the letter tiptoes around is the fact that this aid package is extortion, pure and simple.
It's a purely political attempt by the Obama White House to appease the Israelis, and mobilize the
Israel lobby behind the Democrats in a crucial election year. It's important to keep
Haim Saban happy.
As Glenn Greenwald
points out in The Intercept , the Israelis have cradle-to-grave health care. Their life-expectancy
is nearly a decade longer than ours. Their infant mortality rate is lower. By any meaningful measure,
their standard of living is higher. They should be sending us aid: instead, the opposite is
occurring.
What in the heck is going on here?
We made possible the
Israeli Sparta : a state armed to the teeth which thrives on the misery and enslavement of its
dispossessed Palestinian helots. Furthermore, our policy of unconditional support for Israel has
encouraged the growth and development of a polity that is rapidly going fascist. And I don't use
the "f"-word lightly. I've been
chronicling Israel's slide
toward a
repulsive ethno-nationalism
for years , and today –
with the rise of ultra-rightist parties that openly call for the
expulsio n of Arabs and the expansion of the Israeli state to its Biblically-ordained borders
– my predictions are coming true.
The "special relationship" is a parasitic relationship: the Israelis have been feeding off
US taxpayers since the Reagan era. This in spite of the numerous
insults
, slights, and outright
sabotage they have directed our way. It's high time to put an end to it. To borrow a phrase from
You Know Who: it's time to put America first.
What this means in practice is: 1) End aid to Israel, 2) Call out the Israelis for their shameful
apartheid policies, and 3) end the power of the Israel lobby by enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration
Act and compelling AIPAC and its allied organizations to register as foreign agents. Because that's
just what they are.
"... The mass migration of apparently hundreds of nominally GOP neocon apparatchiks to the Hillary Clinton camp has moved Democratic Party foreign policy farther to the right, not that the presidential nominee herself needed much persuading. The Democratic convention platform is a template of the hardline foreign policy positions espoused by Clinton and the convention itself concluded with a prolonged bout of Russian bashing that could have been orchestrated by Hillary protégé Victoria Nuland. ..."
"... The inside the beltway crowd has realized that when in doubt it is always a safe bet to blame Vladimir Putin based on the assumption that Russia is and always will be an enemy of the United States. Wikileaks recently published some thousands of emails that painted the Democratic National Committee, then headed by Hillary loyalist Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in a very bad light. Needing a scapegoat, Russia was blamed for the original hack that obtained the information, even though there is no hard evidence that Moscow had anything to do with it. ..."
"... Another interesting aspect of the Russian scandal is the widespread assertion that Moscow is attempting to interfere in U.S. politics and is both clandestinely and openly supporting Donald Trump. This is presumably a bad thing, if true, because Putin would, according to the pundits, be able to steamroll "Manchurian Candidate" President Trump and subvert U.S. foreign policy in Russia's favor. Alternatively, as the narrative continues, the stalwart Hillary would presumably defend American values and the right to intervene militarily anywhere in the world at any time against all comers including Putin and those rascals in China and North Korea. Professor Inboden might no doubt be able to provide a reference to the part of the Constitution that grants Washington that right as he and his former boss George W. Bush were also partial to that interpretation. ..."
"... And the alleged Russian involvement leads inevitably to some thoughts about interference by other governments in our electoral system. Israel and its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did so in a rather heavy handed fashion in 2012 on behalf of candidate Mitt Romney but I don't recall even a squeak coming out of Hillary and her friends when that took place. That just might be due to the fact that Netanyahu owns Bill and Hillary, which leads inevitably to consideration of the other big winner now that the two conventions are concluded. The team that one sees doing the victory lap is the state of Israel, which dodged a bigtime bullet when it managed to exploit its bought and paid for friends to eliminate any criticism of its military occupation and settlements policies. Indeed, Israel emerged from the two party platforms as America's best friend and number one ally, a position it has occupied since its Lobby took control of the Congress, White House and the mainstream media around thirty years ago. ..."
"... Donald Trump, who has perversely promised to be an honest broker in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, has also described himself as the best friend in the White House that Tel Aviv is ever likely to have. In addition to Trump speaking for himself, Israel was mentioned fourteen times in GOP convention speeches, always being described as the greatest ally and friend to the U.S., never as the pain in the ass and drain on the treasury that it actually represents. ..."
"... Team Hillary also ignored chants from the convention floor demanding "No More War" and there are separate reports suggesting that one of her first priorities as president will be to initiate a "full review" of the "murderous" al-Assad regime in Syria with the intention of taking care of him once and for all. "No More War" coming from the Democratic base somehow became "More War Please" for the elites that run the party. ..."
"... If you read through the two party platforms on foreign policy, admittedly a brutal and thankless task, you will rarely find any explanation of actual American interests at play in terms of the involvement of the U.S. in what are essentially other people's quarrels. That is as it should be as our political class has almost nothing to do with reality but instead is consumed with delusions linked solely to acquisition of power and money. That realization on the part of the public has driven both the Trump and Sanders movements and, even if they predictably flame out, there is always the hope that the dissidents will grow stronger with rejection and something might actually happen in 2020. ..."
The mass migration of apparently hundreds of nominally GOP neocon apparatchiks to the Hillary
Clinton camp has moved Democratic Party foreign policy farther to the right, not that the presidential
nominee herself needed much persuading. The Democratic convention platform is a template of the hardline
foreign policy positions espoused by Clinton and the convention itself concluded with a prolonged
bout of Russian bashing that could have been orchestrated by Hillary protégé Victoria Nuland.
The inside the beltway crowd has realized that when in doubt it is always a safe bet to blame
Vladimir Putin based on the assumption that Russia is and always will be an enemy of the United States.
Wikileaks recently published some thousands of emails that painted the Democratic National Committee,
then headed by Hillary loyalist Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in a very bad light. Needing a scapegoat,
Russia was blamed for the original hack that obtained the information, even though there is
no hard evidence that Moscow had anything to do with it.
Those in the media and around Hillary who were baying the loudest about how outraged they were
over the hack curiously appear to have no knowledge of the existence of the National Security Agency,
located at Fort Meade Maryland, which routinely breaks into the government computers of friends and
foes alike worldwide. Apparently what is fair game for American codebreakers is no longer seen so
positively when there is any suggestion that the tables might have been turned.
Republican nominee Donald Trump noted that if the Russians were in truth behind the hack he would
like them to search for the 30,000 emails that Hillary Clinton reportedly deleted from her home server.
The comment, which to my mind was sarcastically making a point about Clinton's mendacity, brought
down the wrath of the media, with the New York Times
reporting that "foreign policy experts," also sometimes known as "carefully selected 'Trump haters,'"
were shocked by The Donald. The paper quoted one William Inboden, allegedly a University of Texas
professor who served on President George W. Bush's National Security Council. Inboden complained
that the comments were "an assault on the Constitution" and "tantamount to treason." Now I have never
heard of Inboden, which might be sheer ignorance on my part, but he really should refresh himself
on what the Constitution
actually says about
treason, tantamount or otherwise. According to Article III of the Constitution of the United States
one can only commit treason if there is a declared war going on and one is actively aiding an enemy,
which as far as I know is not currently the case as applied to the U.S. relationship with Russia.
Another interesting aspect of the Russian scandal is the widespread assertion that Moscow
is attempting to interfere in U.S. politics and is both clandestinely and openly supporting Donald
Trump. This is presumably a bad thing, if true, because Putin would, according to the pundits, be
able to steamroll "Manchurian Candidate" President Trump and subvert U.S. foreign policy in Russia's
favor. Alternatively, as the narrative continues, the stalwart Hillary would presumably defend American
values and the right to intervene militarily anywhere in the world at any time against all comers
including Putin and those rascals in China and North Korea. Professor Inboden might no doubt be able
to provide a reference to the part of the Constitution that grants Washington that right as he and
his former boss George W. Bush were also partial to that interpretation.
And the alleged Russian involvement leads inevitably to some thoughts about interference by
other governments in our electoral system. Israel and its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did so
in a rather heavy handed fashion in 2012 on behalf of candidate Mitt Romney but I don't recall even
a squeak coming out of Hillary and her friends when that took place. That just might be due to the
fact that Netanyahu owns Bill and Hillary, which leads inevitably to consideration of the other big
winner now that the two conventions are concluded. The team that one sees doing the victory lap is
the state of Israel, which dodged a bigtime bullet when it managed to exploit its bought and paid
for friends to eliminate any criticism of its military occupation and settlements policies. Indeed,
Israel emerged from the two party platforms as America's best friend and number one ally, a position
it has occupied since its Lobby took control of the Congress, White House and the mainstream media
around thirty years ago.
Donald Trump, who has perversely promised to be an honest broker in negotiations between Israel
and the Palestinians, has also described himself as the best friend in the White House that Tel Aviv
is ever likely to have. In addition to Trump speaking for himself, Israel was mentioned fourteen
times in GOP convention speeches, always being described as the greatest ally and friend to the U.S.,
never as the pain in the ass and drain on the treasury that it actually represents.
No other foreign country was mentioned as often as Israel apart from Iran, which was regularly
cited as an enemy of both the U.S. and – you guessed it – Israel. Indeed, the constant thumping of
Iran is a reflection of the overweening affection for Netanyahu and his right wing government. Regarding
Iran, the GOP foreign policy
platform states "We consider the Administration's deal with Iran, to lift international sanctions
and make hundreds of billions of dollars available to the Mullahs, a personal agreement between the
President and his negotiating partners and non-binding on the next president. Without a two-thirds
endorsement by the Senate, it does not have treaty status. Because of it, the defiant and emboldened
regime in Tehran continues to sponsor terrorism across the region, develop a nuclear weapon, test-fire
ballistic missiles inscribed with 'Death to Israel,' and abuse the basic human rights of its citizens."
The final written
Republican platform for 2016 as relating to the Middle East, drawn up
with the input
of two Trump advisors Jason Greenblatt and David Friedman, rather supports the suggestion that Trump
would be pro-Israel rather than the claim of impartiality. The plank entitled "Our Unequivocal Support
of Israel and Jerusalem," promises to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, praises Israel in five
different sections, eulogizing it as a "beacon of democracy and humanity" brimming over with freedom
of speech and religion while concluding that "support for Israel is an expression of Americanism."
It pledges "no daylight" between the two countries, denies that Israel is an "occupier," and slams
the peaceful Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS), which it describes as anti-Semitic
and seeking to destroy Israel. It calls for legal action to "thwart" BDS. There is no mention of
a Palestinian state or of any Palestinian rights to anything at all.
The
Democratic plank on the Middle East gives lip service to a two state solution for Israel-Palestine
but is mostly notable for what it chose to address. Two Bernie Sanders supporters on the platform
drafting committee James Zogby and Cornel West wanted to remove any illegal under international
law affirmation that Jerusalem is the undivided capital of Israel and also sought to eliminated any
condemnation of BDS. They failed on both issues and then tried to have included mild language criticizing
Israel's occupation of the West Bank and its settlement building. They were outvoted by Hillary supporters
on all the issues they considered important. Indeed, there is no language at all critical in any
way of Israel, instead asserting that "a strong and secure Israel is vital to the United States because
we share overarching strategic interests and the common values of democracy, equality, tolerance,
and pluralism." That none of that was or is true apparently bothered no one in the Hillary camp.
The Democratic platform document explicitly condemns any support for BDS. Hillary Clinton, who
has promised to take the relationship with Israel to a whole new level, has reportedly
agreed to an anti-BDS
pledge to appease her principal financial supporter Haim Saban, an Israeli-American film producer.
Clinton also directly and personally intervened through her surrogate on the committee Wendy Sherman
to make sure that the party platform would remain pro-Israel.
But many Democrats on the floor of the convention hall have, to their credit, promoted a somewhat
different perspective, displaying signs and stickers while calling for support of Palestinian
rights. One demonstrator outside the convention center burned an Israeli flag, producing a
sharp response from Hillary's spokeswoman for Jewish outreach Sarah Bard, "Hillary Clinton has
always stood against efforts to marginalize Israel and incitement, and she strongly condemns this
kind of hatred. Burning the Israeli flag is a reckless act that undermines peace and our values."
Bill meanwhile was
seen in the hall wearing a Hillary button written in Hebrew. It was a full court press pander
and one has to wonder how Hillary would have felt about someone burning a Russian flag or seeing
Bill sport a button in Cyrillic.
Team Hillary also ignored chants from the convention floor demanding "No More War" and there
are separate reports suggesting that one of her
first priorities as president will be to initiate a "full review" of the "murderous" al-Assad
regime in Syria with the intention of taking care of him once and for all. "No More War" coming from
the Democratic base somehow became "More War Please" for the elites that run the party.
The Democratic platform also
beats down on Iran, declaring only tepid support for the nuclear deal while focusing more on
draconian enforcement, asserting that they would "not hesitate to take military action if Iran violates
the agreement." It also cited Iran as "the leading state sponsor of terrorism" and claimed that Tehran
"has its fingerprints on almost every conflict in the Middle East." For what it's worth, neither
assertion about Iran's regional role is true and Tehran reportedly has complied completely with the
multilateral nuclear agreement. It is the U.S. government that is failing to live up to its commitments
by refusing to allow Iranian access to financial markets while the Congress has even blocked an Iranian
bid to buy Made-in-the-U.S.A. civilian jetliners.
So those of us who had hoped for at least a partial abandonment of the hitherto dominant foreign
policy consensus have to be disappointed as they in the pro-war crowd in their various guises as
liberal interventionists or global supremacy warriors continue to control much of the discourse from
left to right. Russia continues to be a popular target to vent Administration frustration over its
inept posturing overseas, though there is some hope that Donald Trump might actually reverse that
tendency. Iran serves as a useful punchline whenever a politician on the make runs out of other things
to vilify. And then there is always Israel, ever the victim, perpetually the greatest ally and friend.
And invariably needing some extra cash, a warplane or two or a little political protection in venues
like the United Nations.
If you read through the two party platforms on foreign policy, admittedly a brutal and thankless
task, you will rarely find any explanation of actual American interests at play in terms of the involvement
of the U.S. in what are essentially other people's quarrels. That is as it should be as our political
class has almost nothing to do with reality but instead is consumed with delusions linked solely
to acquisition of power and money. That realization on the part of the public has driven both the
Trump and Sanders movements and, even if they predictably flame out, there is always the hope that
the dissidents will grow stronger with rejection and something might actually happen in 2020.
In addition, American voters don't trust Hillary Clinton. At what point will critics of Bernie Sanders
realize that American voters will never vote for a candidate they don't trust and don't like? In
October of 2015, I explained in the following
YouTube segment why Clinton
is unelectable, and in another
segment why Clinton must
always evolve on key issues.
53.8% of all American voters have an "unfavorable" view of Hillary Clinton.
67%
of American voters find Hillary Clinton "not honest and trustworthy," compared with
59%
for Donald Trump. Yes, more people trust Donald Trump.
After all, it's difficult to trust a politician who
completely fabricated a story about being fired upon by snipers. Like
POLITIFACT states, "it's hard to understand how she could err on something so significant as
whether she did or didn't dodge sniper bullets."
"... If the rabidly pro-Israel Hillary Clinton takes the White House, you can expect that this concession will be re-negotiated: in any case, the Israel lobby will wield its considerable resources to get Congress to pressure the White House. ..."
"... As Glenn Greenwald points out in The Intercept , the Israelis have cradle-to-grave health care. Their life-expectancy is nearly a decade longer than ours. Their infant mortality rate is lower. By any meaningful measure, their standard of living is higher. They should be sending us aid: instead, the opposite is occurring. ..."
"... We made possible the Israeli Sparta : a state armed to the teeth which thrives on the misery and enslavement of its dispossessed Palestinian helots. Furthermore, our policy of unconditional support for Israel has encouraged the growth and development of a polity that is rapidly going fascist. And I don't use the "f"-word lightly. I've been chronicling Israel's slide toward a repulsive ethno-nationalism for years , and today – with the rise of ultra-rightist parties that openly call for the expulsio n of Arabs and the expansion of the Israeli state to its Biblically-ordained borders – my predictions are coming true. ..."
"... The "special relationship" is a parasitic relationship: the Israelis have been feeding off US taxpayers since the Reagan era. This in spite of the numerous insults , slights, and outright sabotage they have directed our way. It's high time to put an end to it. To borrow a phrase from You Know Who: it's time to put America first. ..."
"... What this means in practice is: 1) End aid to Israel, 2) Call out the Israelis for their shameful apartheid policies, and 3) end the power of the Israel lobby by enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration Act and compelling AIPAC and its allied organizations to register as foreign agents. Because that's just what they are. ..."
Washington is preparing to
increase US aid to Israel by billions of dollars, with a ten-year ironclad agreement that couldn't
be altered by President Obama's successor. But that isn't good enough for Bibi Netanyahu. He wants
more. Much more.
Unlike the case with other countries, the US engages in protracted and often difficult negotiations
with Israel over how much free stuff they're going to get come budget time. This year, the talks
are taking on a particularly urgent tone because of … you guessed it, Donald Trump. While Trump is
fervently pro-Israel, he has said that the Israelis, like our NATO allies, are going to have to
start paying for their
own defense (although with him,
you never know what his position is from
one day to the next ). This uncertainty has the two parties racing to sign an agreement before
President Obama's term is up in January. And it also has inspired the inclusion of a novel clause:
a ten-year guarantee that aid will remain at the agreed level, with no possibility that the new President
– whoever that may be – will lower it.
The Israelis
currently receive over half the foreign aid doled out by Uncle Sam annually, most of it in military
assistance with an extra added dollop for "refugee resettlement." That combined with loan guarantees
comes to roughly $3.5 billion per year – with all the money handed to them up front, in the first
weeks of the fiscal year, instead of being released over time like other countries.
So how much is this increase going to amount to? With negotiations still ongoing, the US isn't
releasing any solid figures, although Bibi, we are told, is demanding $5 billion annually. The
New York Times is
reporting the final sum could "top $40 billion." What we do know is that the administration told
Congress in a letter that they are prepared to offer Tel Aviv an aid package "that would constitute
the largest pledge of military assistance to any country in US history." In addition, it would guarantee
US aid for Israel's missile defense, taking it out of the annual appropriations song-and-dance, and
immunizing it from any cuts.
Aside from the "haggling" – as the Times put it – over the amount, there is another issue:
the Israeli exception to a rule that applies to all other recipients of American aid. Other countries
must spend their welfare check in dollars – that is, they must buy American. Not the Israelis. They're
allowed to spend up to 25% of their aid package at home: which means that US taxpayers have been
subsidizing the Israeli military-industrial complex to the tune of multi-billions since the 1980s,
when this special arrangement was legislated. However, in an era where "America First" is now a popular
political slogan – popularized by You Know Who – the Obama administration is trying to end this exception
to the rules. Naturally, the Israelis are resisting, but,
according to Ha'aretz
:
"The Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth said the White House was prepared to let Israel keep
the arrangement for the first five years of the new MOU but it would be gradually phased out in the
second five years, except for joint U.S.-Israeli military projects."
If the rabidly pro-Israel Hillary Clinton takes the White House, you can expect that this
concession will be re-negotiated: in any case, the Israel lobby will wield its considerable resources
to get Congress to pressure the White House.
In their letter to Congress, national security honcho Susan Rice and OMB chief Shaun Donovan evoke
the Iran deal as justification for this new and sweeter aid package. Yet this argument undermines
the administration's contention that the agreement with Iran doesn't endanger Israel – because if
it doesn't, then why do the Israelis need billions more in aid in the first place?
What the letter tiptoes around is the fact that this aid package is extortion, pure and simple.
It's a purely political attempt by the Obama White House to appease the Israelis, and mobilize the
Israel lobby behind the Democrats in a crucial election year. It's important to keep
Haim Saban happy.
As Glenn Greenwald
points out in The Intercept , the Israelis have cradle-to-grave health care. Their life-expectancy
is nearly a decade longer than ours. Their infant mortality rate is lower. By any meaningful measure,
their standard of living is higher. They should be sending us aid: instead, the opposite is
occurring.
What in the heck is going on here?
We made possible the
Israeli Sparta : a state armed to the teeth which thrives on the misery and enslavement of its
dispossessed Palestinian helots. Furthermore, our policy of unconditional support for Israel has
encouraged the growth and development of a polity that is rapidly going fascist. And I don't use
the "f"-word lightly. I've been
chronicling Israel's slide
toward a
repulsive ethno-nationalism
for years , and today –
with the rise of ultra-rightist parties that openly call for the
expulsio n of Arabs and the expansion of the Israeli state to its Biblically-ordained borders
– my predictions are coming true.
The "special relationship" is a parasitic relationship: the Israelis have been feeding off
US taxpayers since the Reagan era. This in spite of the numerous
insults
, slights, and outright
sabotage they have directed our way. It's high time to put an end to it. To borrow a phrase from
You Know Who: it's time to put America first.
What this means in practice is: 1) End aid to Israel, 2) Call out the Israelis for their shameful
apartheid policies, and 3) end the power of the Israel lobby by enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration
Act and compelling AIPAC and its allied organizations to register as foreign agents. Because that's
just what they are.
"... The mass migration of apparently hundreds of nominally GOP neocon apparatchiks to the Hillary Clinton camp has moved Democratic Party foreign policy farther to the right, not that the presidential nominee herself needed much persuading. The Democratic convention platform is a template of the hardline foreign policy positions espoused by Clinton and the convention itself concluded with a prolonged bout of Russian bashing that could have been orchestrated by Hillary protégé Victoria Nuland. ..."
"... The inside the beltway crowd has realized that when in doubt it is always a safe bet to blame Vladimir Putin based on the assumption that Russia is and always will be an enemy of the United States. Wikileaks recently published some thousands of emails that painted the Democratic National Committee, then headed by Hillary loyalist Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in a very bad light. Needing a scapegoat, Russia was blamed for the original hack that obtained the information, even though there is no hard evidence that Moscow had anything to do with it. ..."
"... Another interesting aspect of the Russian scandal is the widespread assertion that Moscow is attempting to interfere in U.S. politics and is both clandestinely and openly supporting Donald Trump. This is presumably a bad thing, if true, because Putin would, according to the pundits, be able to steamroll "Manchurian Candidate" President Trump and subvert U.S. foreign policy in Russia's favor. Alternatively, as the narrative continues, the stalwart Hillary would presumably defend American values and the right to intervene militarily anywhere in the world at any time against all comers including Putin and those rascals in China and North Korea. Professor Inboden might no doubt be able to provide a reference to the part of the Constitution that grants Washington that right as he and his former boss George W. Bush were also partial to that interpretation. ..."
"... And the alleged Russian involvement leads inevitably to some thoughts about interference by other governments in our electoral system. Israel and its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did so in a rather heavy handed fashion in 2012 on behalf of candidate Mitt Romney but I don't recall even a squeak coming out of Hillary and her friends when that took place. That just might be due to the fact that Netanyahu owns Bill and Hillary, which leads inevitably to consideration of the other big winner now that the two conventions are concluded. The team that one sees doing the victory lap is the state of Israel, which dodged a bigtime bullet when it managed to exploit its bought and paid for friends to eliminate any criticism of its military occupation and settlements policies. Indeed, Israel emerged from the two party platforms as America's best friend and number one ally, a position it has occupied since its Lobby took control of the Congress, White House and the mainstream media around thirty years ago. ..."
"... Donald Trump, who has perversely promised to be an honest broker in negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, has also described himself as the best friend in the White House that Tel Aviv is ever likely to have. In addition to Trump speaking for himself, Israel was mentioned fourteen times in GOP convention speeches, always being described as the greatest ally and friend to the U.S., never as the pain in the ass and drain on the treasury that it actually represents. ..."
"... Team Hillary also ignored chants from the convention floor demanding "No More War" and there are separate reports suggesting that one of her first priorities as president will be to initiate a "full review" of the "murderous" al-Assad regime in Syria with the intention of taking care of him once and for all. "No More War" coming from the Democratic base somehow became "More War Please" for the elites that run the party. ..."
"... If you read through the two party platforms on foreign policy, admittedly a brutal and thankless task, you will rarely find any explanation of actual American interests at play in terms of the involvement of the U.S. in what are essentially other people's quarrels. That is as it should be as our political class has almost nothing to do with reality but instead is consumed with delusions linked solely to acquisition of power and money. That realization on the part of the public has driven both the Trump and Sanders movements and, even if they predictably flame out, there is always the hope that the dissidents will grow stronger with rejection and something might actually happen in 2020. ..."
The mass migration of apparently hundreds of nominally GOP neocon apparatchiks to the Hillary
Clinton camp has moved Democratic Party foreign policy farther to the right, not that the presidential
nominee herself needed much persuading. The Democratic convention platform is a template of the hardline
foreign policy positions espoused by Clinton and the convention itself concluded with a prolonged
bout of Russian bashing that could have been orchestrated by Hillary protégé Victoria Nuland.
The inside the beltway crowd has realized that when in doubt it is always a safe bet to blame
Vladimir Putin based on the assumption that Russia is and always will be an enemy of the United States.
Wikileaks recently published some thousands of emails that painted the Democratic National Committee,
then headed by Hillary loyalist Debbie Wasserman Schultz, in a very bad light. Needing a scapegoat,
Russia was blamed for the original hack that obtained the information, even though there is
no hard evidence that Moscow had anything to do with it.
Those in the media and around Hillary who were baying the loudest about how outraged they were
over the hack curiously appear to have no knowledge of the existence of the National Security Agency,
located at Fort Meade Maryland, which routinely breaks into the government computers of friends and
foes alike worldwide. Apparently what is fair game for American codebreakers is no longer seen so
positively when there is any suggestion that the tables might have been turned.
Republican nominee Donald Trump noted that if the Russians were in truth behind the hack he would
like them to search for the 30,000 emails that Hillary Clinton reportedly deleted from her home server.
The comment, which to my mind was sarcastically making a point about Clinton's mendacity, brought
down the wrath of the media, with the New York Times
reporting that "foreign policy experts," also sometimes known as "carefully selected 'Trump haters,'"
were shocked by The Donald. The paper quoted one William Inboden, allegedly a University of Texas
professor who served on President George W. Bush's National Security Council. Inboden complained
that the comments were "an assault on the Constitution" and "tantamount to treason." Now I have never
heard of Inboden, which might be sheer ignorance on my part, but he really should refresh himself
on what the Constitution
actually says about
treason, tantamount or otherwise. According to Article III of the Constitution of the United States
one can only commit treason if there is a declared war going on and one is actively aiding an enemy,
which as far as I know is not currently the case as applied to the U.S. relationship with Russia.
Another interesting aspect of the Russian scandal is the widespread assertion that Moscow
is attempting to interfere in U.S. politics and is both clandestinely and openly supporting Donald
Trump. This is presumably a bad thing, if true, because Putin would, according to the pundits, be
able to steamroll "Manchurian Candidate" President Trump and subvert U.S. foreign policy in Russia's
favor. Alternatively, as the narrative continues, the stalwart Hillary would presumably defend American
values and the right to intervene militarily anywhere in the world at any time against all comers
including Putin and those rascals in China and North Korea. Professor Inboden might no doubt be able
to provide a reference to the part of the Constitution that grants Washington that right as he and
his former boss George W. Bush were also partial to that interpretation.
And the alleged Russian involvement leads inevitably to some thoughts about interference by
other governments in our electoral system. Israel and its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did so
in a rather heavy handed fashion in 2012 on behalf of candidate Mitt Romney but I don't recall even
a squeak coming out of Hillary and her friends when that took place. That just might be due to the
fact that Netanyahu owns Bill and Hillary, which leads inevitably to consideration of the other big
winner now that the two conventions are concluded. The team that one sees doing the victory lap is
the state of Israel, which dodged a bigtime bullet when it managed to exploit its bought and paid
for friends to eliminate any criticism of its military occupation and settlements policies. Indeed,
Israel emerged from the two party platforms as America's best friend and number one ally, a position
it has occupied since its Lobby took control of the Congress, White House and the mainstream media
around thirty years ago.
Donald Trump, who has perversely promised to be an honest broker in negotiations between Israel
and the Palestinians, has also described himself as the best friend in the White House that Tel Aviv
is ever likely to have. In addition to Trump speaking for himself, Israel was mentioned fourteen
times in GOP convention speeches, always being described as the greatest ally and friend to the U.S.,
never as the pain in the ass and drain on the treasury that it actually represents.
No other foreign country was mentioned as often as Israel apart from Iran, which was regularly
cited as an enemy of both the U.S. and – you guessed it – Israel. Indeed, the constant thumping of
Iran is a reflection of the overweening affection for Netanyahu and his right wing government. Regarding
Iran, the GOP foreign policy
platform states "We consider the Administration's deal with Iran, to lift international sanctions
and make hundreds of billions of dollars available to the Mullahs, a personal agreement between the
President and his negotiating partners and non-binding on the next president. Without a two-thirds
endorsement by the Senate, it does not have treaty status. Because of it, the defiant and emboldened
regime in Tehran continues to sponsor terrorism across the region, develop a nuclear weapon, test-fire
ballistic missiles inscribed with 'Death to Israel,' and abuse the basic human rights of its citizens."
The final written
Republican platform for 2016 as relating to the Middle East, drawn up
with the input
of two Trump advisors Jason Greenblatt and David Friedman, rather supports the suggestion that Trump
would be pro-Israel rather than the claim of impartiality. The plank entitled "Our Unequivocal Support
of Israel and Jerusalem," promises to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, praises Israel in five
different sections, eulogizing it as a "beacon of democracy and humanity" brimming over with freedom
of speech and religion while concluding that "support for Israel is an expression of Americanism."
It pledges "no daylight" between the two countries, denies that Israel is an "occupier," and slams
the peaceful Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement (BDS), which it describes as anti-Semitic
and seeking to destroy Israel. It calls for legal action to "thwart" BDS. There is no mention of
a Palestinian state or of any Palestinian rights to anything at all.
The
Democratic plank on the Middle East gives lip service to a two state solution for Israel-Palestine
but is mostly notable for what it chose to address. Two Bernie Sanders supporters on the platform
drafting committee James Zogby and Cornel West wanted to remove any illegal under international
law affirmation that Jerusalem is the undivided capital of Israel and also sought to eliminated any
condemnation of BDS. They failed on both issues and then tried to have included mild language criticizing
Israel's occupation of the West Bank and its settlement building. They were outvoted by Hillary supporters
on all the issues they considered important. Indeed, there is no language at all critical in any
way of Israel, instead asserting that "a strong and secure Israel is vital to the United States because
we share overarching strategic interests and the common values of democracy, equality, tolerance,
and pluralism." That none of that was or is true apparently bothered no one in the Hillary camp.
The Democratic platform document explicitly condemns any support for BDS. Hillary Clinton, who
has promised to take the relationship with Israel to a whole new level, has reportedly
agreed to an anti-BDS
pledge to appease her principal financial supporter Haim Saban, an Israeli-American film producer.
Clinton also directly and personally intervened through her surrogate on the committee Wendy Sherman
to make sure that the party platform would remain pro-Israel.
But many Democrats on the floor of the convention hall have, to their credit, promoted a somewhat
different perspective, displaying signs and stickers while calling for support of Palestinian
rights. One demonstrator outside the convention center burned an Israeli flag, producing a
sharp response from Hillary's spokeswoman for Jewish outreach Sarah Bard, "Hillary Clinton has
always stood against efforts to marginalize Israel and incitement, and she strongly condemns this
kind of hatred. Burning the Israeli flag is a reckless act that undermines peace and our values."
Bill meanwhile was
seen in the hall wearing a Hillary button written in Hebrew. It was a full court press pander
and one has to wonder how Hillary would have felt about someone burning a Russian flag or seeing
Bill sport a button in Cyrillic.
Team Hillary also ignored chants from the convention floor demanding "No More War" and there
are separate reports suggesting that one of her
first priorities as president will be to initiate a "full review" of the "murderous" al-Assad
regime in Syria with the intention of taking care of him once and for all. "No More War" coming from
the Democratic base somehow became "More War Please" for the elites that run the party.
The Democratic platform also
beats down on Iran, declaring only tepid support for the nuclear deal while focusing more on
draconian enforcement, asserting that they would "not hesitate to take military action if Iran violates
the agreement." It also cited Iran as "the leading state sponsor of terrorism" and claimed that Tehran
"has its fingerprints on almost every conflict in the Middle East." For what it's worth, neither
assertion about Iran's regional role is true and Tehran reportedly has complied completely with the
multilateral nuclear agreement. It is the U.S. government that is failing to live up to its commitments
by refusing to allow Iranian access to financial markets while the Congress has even blocked an Iranian
bid to buy Made-in-the-U.S.A. civilian jetliners.
So those of us who had hoped for at least a partial abandonment of the hitherto dominant foreign
policy consensus have to be disappointed as they in the pro-war crowd in their various guises as
liberal interventionists or global supremacy warriors continue to control much of the discourse from
left to right. Russia continues to be a popular target to vent Administration frustration over its
inept posturing overseas, though there is some hope that Donald Trump might actually reverse that
tendency. Iran serves as a useful punchline whenever a politician on the make runs out of other things
to vilify. And then there is always Israel, ever the victim, perpetually the greatest ally and friend.
And invariably needing some extra cash, a warplane or two or a little political protection in venues
like the United Nations.
If you read through the two party platforms on foreign policy, admittedly a brutal and thankless
task, you will rarely find any explanation of actual American interests at play in terms of the involvement
of the U.S. in what are essentially other people's quarrels. That is as it should be as our political
class has almost nothing to do with reality but instead is consumed with delusions linked solely
to acquisition of power and money. That realization on the part of the public has driven both the
Trump and Sanders movements and, even if they predictably flame out, there is always the hope that
the dissidents will grow stronger with rejection and something might actually happen in 2020.
A very important, informative interview. Outlines complexity of challenges of modern society and
the real power of "alphabet agencies" in the modern societies (not only in the USA) pretty
vividly. You need to listen to it several times to understand better the current environment.
Very sloppy security was the immanent feature both of Hillary "bathroom" server and DNC emails hacks.
So there probably were multiple parties that has access to those data not a single one (anti Russian
hysteria presumes that the only party are Russian and that's silly; what about China, Iran and
Israel?).
Russian government would not use a "known attack" as they would immediately be traced back.
Anything, any communications that goes over the network are totally. 100% exposed to NSA data
collection infrastructure. Clinton email messages are not exception. NSA does have
information on them, including all envelopes (the body of the message might be encrypted and that's
slightly complicate the matter, but there is no signs that Clinton of DNC used encryption of them)
NSA has the technical capabilities to trace the data back and they most probably have most if not
all of deleted mail. The "total surveillance", the total data mailing used by NSA definitely includes
the mail envelopes which makes possible to enumerate all the missing mails.
Notable quotes:
"... The National Security Agency (NSA) has "all" of Hillary Clinton's deleted emails and the FBI could gain access to them if they so desired, William Binney, a former highly placed NSA official, declared in a radio interview broadcast on Sunday. ..."
"... Binney referenced testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2011 by then-FBI Director Robert S. Mueller in which Meuller spoke of the FBI's ability to access various secretive databases "to track down known and suspected terrorists." ..."
"... "Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA database by the FBI and the CIA Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those emails." ..."
"... Listen to the full interview here: ... ..."
"... And the other point is that Hillary, according to an article published by the Observer ..."
The National Security Agency (NSA) has "all" of Hillary Clinton's deleted emails and the FBI
could gain access to them if they so desired, William Binney, a former highly placed NSA official,
declared in a radio interview broadcast on Sunday.
Speaking as an analyst, Binney raised the possibility that the hack of the Democratic National
Committee's server was done not by Russia but by a disgruntled U.S. intelligence worker concerned
about Clinton's compromise of national security secrets via her personal email use.
Binney was an architect of the NSA's surveillance program. He became a famed whistleblower when
he resigned on October 31, 2001, after spending more than 30 years with the agency.
He was speaking on this reporter's Sunday radio program, "Aaron
Klein Investigative Radio," broadcast on New York's AM 970 The Answer and Philadelphia's NewsTalk
990 AM.
Binney referenced
testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2011 by then-FBI Director Robert S.
Mueller in which Meuller spoke of the FBI's ability to access various secretive databases "to track
down known and suspected terrorists."
Stated Binney:
"Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown
of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA
database by the FBI and the CIA Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that
NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those emails."
"So if the FBI really wanted them they can go into that database and get them right now," he stated
of Clinton's emails as well as DNC emails.
Asked point blank if he believed the NSA has copies of "all" of Clinton's emails, including the
deleted correspondence, Binney replied in the affirmative.
"Yes," he responded. "That would be my point. They have them all and the FBI can get them right
there."
Listen to the full interview here: ...
Binney surmised that the hack of the DNC could have been coordinated by someone inside the U.S.
intelligence community angry over Clinton's compromise of national security data with her email use.
And the other point is that Hillary, according to an
article published
by the Observer in March of this year, has a problem with NSA because she compromised Gamma
material. Now that is the most sensitive material at NSA. And so there were a number of NSA
officials complaining to the press or to the people who wrote the article that she did that. She
lifted the material that was in her emails directly out of Gamma reporting. That is a direct compromise
of the most sensitive material at the NSA. So she's got a real problem there. So there are many
people who have problems with what she has done in the past. So I don't necessarily look at the Russians
as the only one(s) who got into those emails.
The Observer defined the GAMMA classification:
GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive
information (for instance, decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was).
Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He
is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, "Aaron
Klein Investigative Radio." Follow him on
Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow
him on Facebook.
The Us intervention were dictate by needs of global corporation that control the US foreigh
policy. And they need to open market, press geopolitical rivals (Ukraine, Georgia) and grab
resources (Iraq, Libya). The American people are now hostages in their own country and can do
nothing against the establishement militaristic stance. They will fight and die in unnecessary wars
of neoliberal globalization.
Notable quotes:
"... With Democrats howling that Vladimir Putin hacked into and leaked those 19,000 DNC emails to help Trump, the Donald had a brainstorm: Maybe the Russians can retrieve Hillary Clinton's lost emails. Not funny, and close to "treasonous," came the shocked cry. Trump then told the New York Times that a Russian incursion into Estonia need not trigger a U.S. military response ..."
"... Behind the war guarantees America has issued to scores of nations in Europe, the Mideast and Asia since 1949, the bedrock of public support that existed during the Cold War has crumbled. We got a hint of this in 2013. Barack Obama, claiming his "red line" against any use of poison gas in Syria had been crossed, found he had no public backing for air and missile strikes on the Assad regime. The country rose up as one and told him to forget it. He did. We have been at war since 2001. And as one looks on the ruins of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen, and adds up the thousands dead and wounded and trillions sunk and lost, can anyone say our War Party has served us well? ..."
"... The first NATO supreme commander, General Eisenhower, said that if U.S. troops were still in Europe in 10 years, NATO would be a failure. In 1961, he urged JFK to start pulling U.S. troops out, lest Europeans become military dependencies of the United States. Was Ike not right? Even Barack Obama today riffs about the "free riders" on America's defense. Is it really so outrageous for Trump to ask how long the U.S. is to be responsible for defending rich Europeans who refuse to conscript the soldiers or pay the cost of their own defense, when Eisenhower was asking that same question 55 years ago? ..."
"... In 1997, geostrategist George Kennan warned that moving NATO into Eastern Europe "would be the most fateful error of American policy in the post-Cold War era." He predicted a fierce nationalistic Russian response. Was Kennan not right? ..."
With Democrats howling that Vladimir Putin hacked into and leaked those 19,000 DNC emails
to help Trump, the Donald had a brainstorm: Maybe the Russians can retrieve Hillary Clinton's lost
emails. Not funny, and close to "treasonous," came the shocked cry. Trump then told the New York
Times that a Russian incursion into Estonia need not trigger a U.S. military response.
Even more shocking. By suggesting the U.S. might not honor its NATO commitment, under Article
5, to fight Russia for Estonia, our foreign policy elites declaimed, Trump has undermined the security
architecture that has kept the peace for 65 years. More interesting, however, was the reaction of
Middle America. Or, to be more exact, the nonreaction. Americans seem neither shocked nor horrified.
What does this suggest?
Behind the war guarantees America has issued to scores of nations in Europe, the Mideast and
Asia since 1949, the bedrock of public support that existed during the Cold War has crumbled. We
got a hint of this in 2013. Barack Obama, claiming his "red line" against any use of poison gas in
Syria had been crossed, found he had no public backing for air and missile strikes on the Assad regime.
The country rose up as one and told him to forget it. He did. We have been at war since 2001. And
as one looks on the ruins of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen, and adds up the thousands
dead and wounded and trillions sunk and lost, can anyone say our War Party has served us well?
On bringing Estonia into NATO, no Cold War president would have dreamed of issuing so insane a
war guarantee. Eisenhower refused to intervene to save the Hungarian rebels. JFK refused to halt
the building of the Berlin Wall. LBJ did nothing to impede the Warsaw Pact's crushing of the Prague
Spring. Reagan never considered moving militarily to halt the smashing of Solidarity.
Were all these presidents cringing isolationists? Rather, they were realists who recognized that,
though we prayed the captive nations would one day be free, we were not going to risk a world war,
or a nuclear war, to achieve it. Period. In 1991, President Bush told Ukrainians that any declaration
of independence from Moscow would be an act of "suicidal nationalism."
Today, Beltway hawks want to bring Ukraine into NATO. This would mean that America would go to
war with Russia, if necessary, to preserve an independence Bush I regarded as "suicidal."
Have we lost our minds?
The first NATO supreme commander, General Eisenhower, said that if U.S. troops were still
in Europe in 10 years, NATO would be a failure. In 1961, he urged JFK to start pulling U.S. troops
out, lest Europeans become military dependencies of the United States. Was Ike not right? Even Barack
Obama today riffs about the "free riders" on America's defense. Is it really so outrageous for Trump
to ask how long the U.S. is to be responsible for defending rich Europeans who refuse to conscript
the soldiers or pay the cost of their own defense, when Eisenhower was asking that same question
55 years ago?
In 1997, geostrategist George Kennan warned that moving NATO into Eastern Europe "would be
the most fateful error of American policy in the post-Cold War era." He predicted a fierce nationalistic
Russian response. Was Kennan not right? NATO and Russia are today building up forces in the
eastern Baltic where no vital U.S. interests exist, and where we have never fought before - for that
very reason. There is no evidence Russia intends to march into Estonia, and no reason for her to
do so. But if she did, how would NATO expel Russian troops without air and missile strikes that would
devastate that tiny country? And if we killed Russians inside Russia, are we confident Moscow would
not resort to tactical atomic weapons to prevail? After all, Russia cannot back up any further. We
are right in her face.
On this issue Trump seems to be speaking for the silent majority and certainly raising issues
that need to be debated.
How long are we to be committed to go to war to defend the tiny Baltic republics against a
Russia that could overrun them in 72 hours?
When, if ever, does our obligation end? If it is eternal, is not a clash with a revanchist
and anti-American Russia inevitable?
Are U.S. war guarantees in the Baltic republics even credible?
If the Cold War generations of Americans were unwilling to go to war with a nuclear-armed
Soviet Union over Hungary and Czechoslovakia, are the millennials ready to fight a war with Russia
over Estonia?
Needed now is diplomacy. The trade-off: Russia ensures the independence of the Baltic republics
that she let go. And NATO gets out of Russia's face. Should Russia dishonor its commitment, economic
sanctions are the answer, not another European war.
"... Not a Trump supporter, but Trump was right when he said Democrats wrote Khizr Khan's speech. In the middle of attacking Trump for the Mexican wall and ban on Muslims, he attacked Trump for opposing free trade. (Something only Clintonista weasels would dream up.) ..."
Not a Trump supporter, but Trump was right when he said Democrats wrote Khizr Khan's
speech. In the middle of attacking Trump for the Mexican wall and ban on Muslims, he
attacked Trump for opposing free trade. (Something only Clintonista weasels would dream
up.)
It's ridiculous to suggest that a politician is not allowed to say anything in defense
of attacks leveled by "sacred" parents of slain soldiers. Their point was that they are
Muslim and American and their son died fighting for America. His point: why didn't the
speechwriters give the wife a couple of lines? Is this husband a social-conservative Muslim
who doesn't permit his wife to speak? Those are not American values.
BTW, do people think Trump's ban on Muslims is bad? The fact is, America is at war with
a number of Muslim nations and factions. FDR declared war on Japan. Then put Japanese
Americans in concentration camps. Trump has yet to get FDR on their asses!
ilsm said in reply to
Ron Waller...
I am a Vietnam era
veteran, I earned a pension, with no disability, and I think the 6000 KIA from Clinton's
Universal perpetual war vote are discredited by Clinton using a family of a KIA to rub
Trumps nose in his "screen muslims position".
Reply
Monday, August 01, 2016
at 04:31 PM
Ron Waller said in reply to ilsm...
Ha. Didn't even realize
the hypocrisy.
I did notice it in Hillary's attack on Trump for using outsourcing yet opposing free
trade. She helped put the TPP together and called it the 'gold standard' of trade deals.
(By gold standard I take it she means big on investor protection limiting the scope of
democratic government.)
This is the same as calling Warren Buffet a hypocrite calling for higher taxes on the
rich, but not willing to donate the difference to the government.
Business people operate in the business environment and the existing supply chains.
They have to play by the existing rules or lose out to their competitors. No business
person is a hypocrite calling for reforms to the system. Only government regulations can
change the system.
Trump is putting his money where his mouth is by vowing to tear up terrible trade
deals that could cut into his profits.
Hillary's position on the TPP is don't ask/don't tell. Don't ask if she'll tear up
the agreement and she won't tell she's already taken the bribe money.
Reply
Monday, August 01, 2016
at 05:32 PM
chriss1519 said...
Frankly, I find Paul Ryan
more vile than Trump. Trump says some awful things, but at least his policies come from
a place where he has some concern for the little guy. Ryan is all too happy to see the
poor ground into the dirt. Ideological consistency above all else.
Reply
Monday, August 01, 2016
at 02:30 AM
lilnev said in reply
to chriss1519...
Trump is all too happy to
screw the little guy. That's been his behavior all his life. He has found that applause
lines about the little guy are a great way to promote himself, that's all.
I do find Paul Ryan more heinous, though. The man who wouldn't even let Congress vote on
Zika funding because he knew it would pass. That's a much more calculated evil than the
filth that spews out of Trump.
Reply
Monday, August 01, 2016
at 05:39 AM
Sanjait said in reply
to chriss1519...
If you think Trump cares
about the little guy, I have a degree program from Trump University to sell you ...
But I take your point about Ryan,
RC AKA Darryl, Ron said...
"...But democracy isn't about
making a statement, it's about exercising responsibility. And indulging your feelings at a
time like this amounts to dereliction of your duty as a citizen..."
[Paul Krugman appears to
confuse the way the world actually works with how he thinks the world should work. I guess
that is how voting works in his model, but if it really worked that way in reality then there
is no way to explain the existence of either of our two mainstream political parties. You
don't get to where we are with our political system by exercising responsibility and that has
been true all my life. Politics has been entirely about triangulating demographic groups by
their susceptibility to leveraging their contradictions between their aspirations and their
fears.]
Peter K. said in reply to RC
AKA Darryl, Ron...
They tell you to choose between
Coke and Pepsi and make the responsible choice. Politics is more than that.
It's about that
almighty dollar.
As Obama said in his speech in Philly:
"So if you agree that there's too much inequality in our economy, and too much money in our
politics, we all need to be as vocal and as organized and as persistent as Bernie Sanders'
supporters have been."
The New Democrats like Bill Clinton who triangulate do so in part to attract wealthy
donors. Sanders showed you don't have to with his numerous small contributions.
But when you appeal to the wishes of wealthy donors you demoralize your base and depress
the vote.
If Hillary isn't progressive enough, she'll create more Trump voters. How is that
responsible?
jjhman said in reply to RC
AKA Darryl, Ron...
In these discussions my mind
alwasy turns back to, as said above, how things actually work instead of what we would like or
the constitution may require.
The way things really work is that political elites run the
show. For government to work the elites have to give the voters rational choices that depend
on elites doing thier homework and actually having reasons for why one path or the other would
advance the needs of the society. The system only works when there is some sense of noblesse
oblige in the elites and the voters believe that the elites actually are trying to make things
better.
The success of the Trump and Sanders campaigns show that large numbers of voters don't
believe that the actors in the two parties are working to solve the country's problems. And
there is certainly evidence that the Paul Ryans and Mitch McConnells care more about their own
careers than the good of the country or even of any ideology.
EMichael said in reply
to jjhman...
I love the idea that
somehow, in 2016, there is a change in the feelings of the American people from other
elections.
The first election I paid attention to was in the 60s. Starting then, and
continuing right through today every single election has been about how bad things are
and what can make them better. And either the previous admin paid no attention to those
things or we just need to build on what the previous admin did.
Reply
Monday, August 01, 2016
at 09:45 AM
RC AKA Darryl, Ron
said in reply to jjhman...
I would agree with all of
that if you were to omit the word "rational." Elites give voters choices. It is not
rational to expect that those choices would actually be in the interest of the majority
of voters anywhere near as much in the interest of elites except in those instances that
the electorate is on the verge of rebellion and insurrection. The US Constitution was
never structured to serve a democracy in any egalitarian manner. The Constitution
provided for a system of elite privilege based on property rights and inheritance
instead of bloodline and inheritance. We have been given the means to rebel
democratically within the Constitutional provisions for elections within the republic,
but instead we cling to elites for guidance and are fated to eternally fall to
disappointment and regret. Solidarity can render the existing party system irrelevant.
Don't re-elect anyone until they all do what we want. We just lack solidarity.
Reply
Monday, August 01, 2016
at 10:45 AM
David said...
The more I think about
Trump the less I know what I could rationally think to say about him.
The Republican
party has advantages that are structured in gerrymandering and just demographics, in the
South. As a national party, they are losing these advantages, and will continue to do
so.
But one point: in my youth, the right wing was always paranoid in a weird way about
communism. The Manchurian Candidate, Dr. Strangelove. The Vietnam war. The cold war. So
I honestly thought when the cold war ended that the paranoia and hate would stop.
Then we get Bill Clinton. And the hate and paranoia increased! The point is, hate and
paranoia is right wing oxygen - without it they die, they have no raison d'etre.
But even some of the right wingers have seen hate and paranoia can be twisted,
manipulated by someone who, let's be honest, has no idea of what he's doing, no
self-control, and no understanding global politics. He's like a child who wanders into
the middle of a movIe:
But he's a dangerous child.
Observer said in reply to
David ...
Judging buy the comments here,
there is plenty of "hate and paranoia" on both sides.
ilsm said in reply to pgl...
Kissinger and Albright endorsed
Clinton!
Sanjait said in reply to
Eric377...
There is something weird about
fear of communism *taking over the United States*. It was never going to happen and it was
always obvious it was never going to happen.
It's only less ridiculous by a matter of degree
than people who fear "creeping Sharia law" in the US.
jjhman said in reply to
Sanjait...
The hysterical fear of communism
in the US goes back at least to the Red Scare era following the Russian revolution. I have
always wondered how much effort the industrial magnates of that post-gilded age had to invest
in the media to get that horse running and keep it running for the rest of the 20th century.
It seems that the fear-mongerers of today have abandoned socialism for Islamic terrorism. I
suspect that was one reason why Bernie could slip into a national election with his socialism
barely an issue.
ilsm said in reply to David
...
The bat @*&^ war mongers have
gone blue. Maybe the bat @*&^ GOPsters are going isolation.
The neocons Kagan and so forth
are backing the Clinton war wagon.
Fits with Bill breaking up Serbia, pushing the Kremlin's nose in it and reneging on keeping
NATO in the west.
I love it when the Clinton campaign kids who would never put on a uniform say: "we have to
honor alliances" that have no relation to the common defense.
I am old enough to not worry about nuclear winter, it is faster than climate disaster!
RGC said...
PK has jumped the shark.
He is now pure political hack.
He ignores what those "center-left" policies of the DLC
democrats have done, the Clinton's role in that and the resulting frustration and anger
of the people affected.
A majority of Americans now see no decent future for themselves and their children
and they are frustrated. They are doing what people do in that situation - they are
looking for someone to blame and punish.
PK and the DLC democrats point them to the republicans. The republicans point to the
democrats. But the truth is that they both created the economic malaise that now exists
on behalf of their plutocrat sponsors. The difference between them is cultural - not
economic.
Trump has the advantage of not having participated in creating that malaise. He is
also voicing some truths about US foreign policy that exposes the neocon element in both
parties. He is a terrible choice for president but when you are drowning you grab for
any piece of flotsam that floats by.
PK has played his part in getting us to this point by protecting the left flank of
economic policy from effective but "socialist" answers. But being a neoliberal isn't
enough, now he is a neocon too.
Reply
Monday, August 01, 2016
at 05:46 AM
JF said in reply to
RGC...
And I hope that the
Clinton campaign reads this.
They need to find positioning like the one Sanders had,
imo, or your characterization could end up being true at the polls.
Using PK in the positioning is using the wrong kind of person.
Reply
Monday, August 01, 2016
at 06:16 AM
Pinkybum said in reply to
RGC...
Yeah that's right Paul Krugman
is keeping the working class down in cahoots with the DLC democrats.
Sure the turn to
austerity in 2010 was an economic own-goal but it wasn't Obama who turned down a jobs bill in
2011 worth $447 billion.
RGC said in reply to
Pinkybum...
It was Obama who appointed 'deregulatin
Larry' Summers and 'tax-evading Timmy' Geithner. It was Obama who proposed cutting social
security. It was Obama who proposed austerity by saying we had to live within our means just
like any household.
Etc., etc.
Peter K. said in reply to
RGC...
It's Obama pushing the TPP.
RGC said in reply to
Tmb81...
I think Obama could have gotten
all that and more. I think he disappeared the day after the election.
I think he was bought and paid for just like Hillary is.
ilsm said in reply to RGC...
Obama reneged and acted as if he
supported AUMF from 2002 on!
ilsm said in reply to
Johannes Y O Highness...
UN needs to establish witness
protection for Russian hackers!
Obama calls off the FBI, someone has to look into Clinton
corruption.
IAW the mafia it is a crime to be a stool pigeon.
Bob said...
Just remember that the same
billionaires that employ Hillary also employ Krugman.
My advice: Beware of pollsters bearing forecasts, especially anyone trying to peek
into the future, especially those with money to bet.
Some 20 years ago, I
constructed a formula, The
Primary Model, that has predicted the winner of the popular vote in all five
presidential elections since it was introduced. It is based on elections dating to
1912. The formula was wrong only once: The 1960 election. That one hurt because
John F. Kennedy was my preferred candidate.
The Primary Model consists of two ingredients: The swing of the electoral
pendulum, and the outcomes of primaries.
You can see the pendulum work with the naked eye. After two terms in office,
the presidential party in power loses more often than not. In fact, over the past
65 years, it managed to win a third term only once. In 1988, President George H.W.
Bush extended Ronald Reagan's presidency by one more term. Reagan made this
possible by winning re-election by a bigger margin than when he first got elected.
That spells continuity, a desire for more of the same.
President Barack Obama has not left such a legacy for a Democratic successor.
He did worse in his re-election victory over Mitt Romney in 2012 than when he beat
John McCain in 2008. That spells, "It's Time for a Change!" The pendulum points to
the GOP in 2016, no matter whether the candidate was named Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco
Rubio, John Kasich or whoever.
Now add the outcomes of presidential primaries. Although some experts claim
primary votes have no bearing on general elections, the fact is that primaries
prove uncanny in forecasting the winner in November. Take the first election with
a significant number of primaries, in 1912. In November that year, Woodrow Wilson,
the winner in Democratic primaries, defeated William Howard Taft, the loser in
Republican primaries; Taft was renominated since most states then did not use
primaries. In general, the party with the stronger primary candidate wins the
general election.
This year, Trump has wound up as the stronger of the two presidential nominees.
He won many more primaries than did Clinton. In fact, this was apparent as early
as early March. Trump handily won the first two primaries, New Hampshire and South
Carolina, while Clinton badly lost New Hampshire to Sen. Bernie Sanders before
beating him in South Carolina.
The Primary Model predicts that Trump will defeat Clinton with 87 percent
certainty. He is the candidate of change. When voters demand change, they are
willing to overlook many foibles of the change candidate. At the same time, the
candidate who touts experience will get more intense scrutiny for any missteps and
suspicions of misconduct of the record of experience.
Trump may be lucky to have picked an election in which change trumps experience
and experience may prove to be a mixed blessing.
Helmut Norpoth is the director of undergraduate studies and political
science professor at Stony Brook University.
Most of us knew this already, but now here's proof.
Is Bernie going down fighting for his political beliefs like a real presidential
candidate would? Is he even being remotely honest with his supporters at this
point? Nope. He's keeping his mouth shut and staying on script for Hillary -
who everyone knows will be the worst kind of tyrannical dictator - saying, "I'm
proud to stand with her".
For those of us who didn't know this, Bernie was like a magical fairy unicorn.
People want so badly to believe it's real... but it just isn't... and it never
was. Feel the burn...
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance
is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright
statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal
use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
Lemmy Fuque
1 day ago
For decades the Clintons have run a criminal organization of fraud, deception,
hypocrisy, conspiracy, bribes, blackmail, espionage, treason, murder, assassination,
money laundering, sex-slaves, pedophilia, etc. that would leave Capone and
Giancana in awe. Leaked DNC emails is your proof that Bernie was just another
Clinton pawn. (Add Seth Rich to the Clinton body count after leaking DNC
emails). Though Bernie attracted a lot of followers, do NOT under estimate
the stupidity of the brainwashed Libtard electorate to vote the skank criminal
cunt for POTUS. Clintons run the $100B criminal Clinton Foundation & Global
initiative and get what they want-or they will take you out. Libtards will
be the easiest and first lead to FEMA camps for NWO depopulation.
You can't blame Bernie for he is a Professional politician after all. To
survive in that game, one has to play ball with party management. Half the
trouble in this country comes from the two parties who make the decisions....Not
the people.
like jessse venture said ..politics is exactly like wrestling - In front
of the cameras they hate each other , but when it's off they eating lunch
together
Bernies reaction that night when Clinton dared to thank him said it all
,sad fact is he refuses to say they fucked him and lied and cheated because
she has offered him something or he is scared.
A very important, informative interview. Outlines complexity of challenges of modern society and
the real power of "alphabet agencies" in the modern societies (not only in the USA) pretty
vividly. You need to listen to it several times to understand better the current environment.
Very sloppy security was the immanent feature both of Hillary "bathroom" server and DNC emails hacks.
So there probably were multiple parties that has access to those data not a single one (anti Russian
hysteria presumes that the only party are Russian and that's silly; what about China, Iran and
Israel?).
Russian government would not use a "known attack" as they would immediately be traced back.
Anything, any communications that goes over the network are totally. 100% exposed to NSA data
collection infrastructure. Clinton email messages are not exception. NSA does have
information on them, including all envelopes (the body of the message might be encrypted and that's
slightly complicate the matter, but there is no signs that Clinton of DNC used encryption of them)
NSA has the technical capabilities to trace the data back and they most probably have most if not
all of deleted mail. The "total surveillance", the total data mailing used by NSA definitely includes
the mail envelopes which makes possible to enumerate all the missing mails.
Notable quotes:
"... The National Security Agency (NSA) has "all" of Hillary Clinton's deleted emails and the FBI could gain access to them if they so desired, William Binney, a former highly placed NSA official, declared in a radio interview broadcast on Sunday. ..."
"... Binney referenced testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2011 by then-FBI Director Robert S. Mueller in which Meuller spoke of the FBI's ability to access various secretive databases "to track down known and suspected terrorists." ..."
"... "Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA database by the FBI and the CIA Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those emails." ..."
"... Listen to the full interview here: ... ..."
"... And the other point is that Hillary, according to an article published by the Observer ..."
The National Security Agency (NSA) has "all" of Hillary Clinton's deleted emails and the FBI
could gain access to them if they so desired, William Binney, a former highly placed NSA official,
declared in a radio interview broadcast on Sunday.
Speaking as an analyst, Binney raised the possibility that the hack of the Democratic National
Committee's server was done not by Russia but by a disgruntled U.S. intelligence worker concerned
about Clinton's compromise of national security secrets via her personal email use.
Binney was an architect of the NSA's surveillance program. He became a famed whistleblower when
he resigned on October 31, 2001, after spending more than 30 years with the agency.
He was speaking on this reporter's Sunday radio program, "Aaron
Klein Investigative Radio," broadcast on New York's AM 970 The Answer and Philadelphia's NewsTalk
990 AM.
Binney referenced
testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March 2011 by then-FBI Director Robert S.
Mueller in which Meuller spoke of the FBI's ability to access various secretive databases "to track
down known and suspected terrorists."
Stated Binney:
"Now what he (Mueller) is talking about is going into the NSA database, which is shown
of course in the (Edward) Snowden material released, which shows a direct access into the NSA
database by the FBI and the CIA Which there is no oversight of by the way. So that means that
NSA and a number of agencies in the U.S. government also have those emails."
"So if the FBI really wanted them they can go into that database and get them right now," he stated
of Clinton's emails as well as DNC emails.
Asked point blank if he believed the NSA has copies of "all" of Clinton's emails, including the
deleted correspondence, Binney replied in the affirmative.
"Yes," he responded. "That would be my point. They have them all and the FBI can get them right
there."
Listen to the full interview here: ...
Binney surmised that the hack of the DNC could have been coordinated by someone inside the U.S.
intelligence community angry over Clinton's compromise of national security data with her email use.
And the other point is that Hillary, according to an
article published
by the Observer in March of this year, has a problem with NSA because she compromised Gamma
material. Now that is the most sensitive material at NSA. And so there were a number of NSA
officials complaining to the press or to the people who wrote the article that she did that. She
lifted the material that was in her emails directly out of Gamma reporting. That is a direct compromise
of the most sensitive material at the NSA. So she's got a real problem there. So there are many
people who have problems with what she has done in the past. So I don't necessarily look at the Russians
as the only one(s) who got into those emails.
The Observer defined the GAMMA classification:
GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive
information (for instance, decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was).
Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He
is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, "Aaron
Klein Investigative Radio." Follow him on
Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow
him on Facebook.
The problem wit this comment is why it was made at all. You do not announce forthcoming explosive
information for several reasons: 1. You may be assassinated. 2. You may be blackmailed. 3. You
allow the people time to respond 4. The information may be stolen. Think about it. When has an
individual promised ahead of time a release of blockbuster info, and then delivered. Perhaps Assange
is waiting to be paid off not to release the information.
The NWO is the only benefiting entity of war. Who owns the companies that manufactures and sells
all armament to both side? the same ones that supplied WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the American
Civil war, and revolutions all over the world for the last two-hundred years... need I go on.
They have made trillions on weapons, armament, and armored vehicles to lock down America and take
everything. The biggest land grab in history. Who always comes out on top in every Wall Street
crash? They keep pushing for war because its the only means for unending power and profit. Know
one wants a war because no one sees a need. We are all saner than the NWO thugs. You realize,
there are 7.5 billion of us in the world, all manipulated, killed, and blamed for all those thugs
do. They are only a drop in the toilet. WE don't comply, their reality vaporizes over night. Know
where they are right now? under ground. Their scared to death because they've been discovered
and tracked. They should be. Don't believe the network media. Rely on your own best judgement.
Nothing can fall that we can't rebuild stronger and better. Who needs them? Is humanity better
off without the Devil? There's only one answer.
Daly Jones
I randomly found this video and realized that you made one of my favorite documentaries!!!!
I try to get everyone I know to watch it....The Money Masters! It's one of the best/horrifyingly
true documentaries I've ever watched. Thank you sir! You have just earned another subscriber
Rudy Hassen
Question: why do entrenched entities hate dissemination of information? As reference....see
North Korea......or DNC.
Rudy Hassen
BTW....unlikely Russia is behind the leaks. Putin is a much better chess player the Obama,
Clinton and probably Trump as well. Don't he surprised if it's DNC insiders behind this.
Da Guy
How can anyone trust someone that lied, cheated and conned to get the nomination, just because
they now say they won't lie, cheat and con anymore now that they got what they wanted by lying,
cheating and conning & got caught w/evidence proving it, otherwise they would still be denying
it. All I hear and see now is how Hillary and the DNC can spin what they got caught & proven doing
to get votes from the very people they lied to, cheated and conned. I would no longer trust anything
Hillary or the DNC said or promised unless someone like Bernie cleaned it up of corrupt people.
Why isn't the FBI investigating/attacking/prosecuting this coup??? The email leaks, college &
research analysis of elections and results did a lot of their job already.
If a con, lied, cheated and conned you out of your life savings, would you trust them a few
days later w/your kids life savings just because they say: sure that guy exposed our personal
communications that proved we lied, cheated & conned you out of your life saving but were different
now and you can trust us w/your kids life savings, now that we got what we wanted. (note to self):
make sure no one can get a hold of our personal communications in the future so no one can prove
anything we do, this way we can blame anything &/or anyone else for the loss of their kids life
savings. "take Hillary's lead, delete and scrub the memories so nothing is retrievable and all
released info has to go through our lawyers. We can tell them our lawyers are looking out for
their best interest not ours". Once a con, always a con. This is an attempted theft of a country
or a coup.
I would not only feel a traitor to my Country, kids & future generations if I just accepted
this and joined the coup: I WOULD BE A TRAITOR. If this coup fails and Trump gets elected, it's
on you, the collaborators and coup member, not anyone else. Look what the leaders or the head
person of other countries do to the people that attempt a coup in their country. We pretend it's
not happening. And if this coup succeeds, we all live under false pretenses and have allowed our
country to betray what it's supposed to stand for "again", the spiral down from there will be
easy. I've never been so ashamed of my country & worried about the future of this planet as I
am now.
Clinton campaign is trying to hide their very serious domestic allegation tried to play "Russians
are coming" trick... Sanders campaign was sabotages by crooks in DNC.
Also does this presstitute who interviewed Julian Assange any moral right to ask question about
the legitimacy of foreign interference if this interference is the cornerstone of the US foreign policy.
As in color revolutions and similar subversive actions against "not neoliberal enough" government of
countries with natural resources or of some geopolitical value.
This is the situation of "king is naked" -- the state that teaches other countries about democracy
has completely corrupted election process, like a typical banana republic.
Notable quotes:
"... According to the leaked emails, he, Chuck Todd, is part of the rigging process. ..."
"... Their Motive is to tell the truth. Clearly that why they released the information before the convention and delegates still went forward with corruption. That defies the DNC, case closed ..."
"... Because we've never interfered in another government or anything right? what a joke! ..."
Chuck Todd, Establishment Gatekeeper and Chief Presstitute. He proves that the Fourth Estate needs
a total overhaul, and that the MSM needs to be broken-up like the banks & other institutions need
to be in order to become truly competitive rather than in name only. The tightening grip
of oligarchs must be pried apart! Assange is doing his part to expose the powers that oppress
us, and should be commended for his work!
Loki7072
This interviewer is obviously a democrat , trying to blame the Russians for the content of
the emails , so sad the democratic corruption in this country runs so deep
Charles W
According to the leaked emails, he, Chuck Todd, is part of the rigging process.
Anthony Marin
Chuck Todd isn't a journalist, just another government PR person. Corporate media is a joke.
Rafael Reyes
Their Motive is to tell the truth. Clearly that why they released the information before
the convention and delegates still went forward with corruption. That defies the DNC, case closed.
Now do the constituents of that party still have faith in staying with that party? That's totally
up to the ppl. Whether of not it was domestic or foreign info isn't important, due to the fact
that the information was authentic and proven true by our own officials who investigated the digital
encryption of the files.
Frank Rizzo
Because we've never interfered in another government or anything right? what a joke!
Notecrusher
So what if the Russian government was the source? I have gratitude to WHOEVER provided the
leak. Now we know the truth about the DNC's crimes and corruption. I hope they burn.
Guardian presstitutes are trying hard to please their owners...
Notable quotes:
"... Joe Biden's son has major business interests in Ukraine. Is that why Biden is so supportive of Ukraine? Paul Manafort is a rat, like all the major league campaign operatives ..."
"... Under globalism, it is only natural for corporations and their CEOs to have more contact with foreign entities and their leaders. Apple and CEO Tim Cook has made a huge commitment to communist China, one that he told President Obama will not be shaken or reduced. ..."
"... This is all so entertaining for as much as they try they cannot lay a finger on Putin.. the PBS special on Putin wealth ended an hour of innuendo with this.. ''How much is a matter of speculation and some educated guesswork.'' ..."
"... I have family in the military and the last thing we need is Clinton leading us into another cold war. ..."
"... Clinton: corruption you can believe in. ..."
"... Well looks like Hillary has stared the cold war again before she ever got into office. This is worse than anything Trump could do...but very beneficial to her military/security industrial complex backers. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton = Dick Cheney ..."
"... Julian Assange is not a Republican. He's an Australian with no vested interest in the election. I'd be worried if I were a Clinton supporter. ..."
"... The extremely well informed Israeli website Debkafile is confident that the Russians didn't hack the DNC or any aspect of the Democrats. Debka believes the signatures on the hack are so easy to find and so obviously intended to be found that the real culprit lies somewhere within an anti-Clinton faction of the Democrats. ..."
"... This is a fantasy article, pie in the sky stuff. I can't stand Trump and I am sure neither can the Russian government, he's unpredictable, unstable, what he says today he changes his mind on tomorrow and so on. Now, Clinton isn't much better all said. Anyone who would trust either needs to see a psychiatrist urgently. Russia is but a bystander in the US presidential race, except for the conspiracy theorists at The Guardian. ..."
"... So a former official of that russophobic neocon infested State Department which ran both the 2004 Orange Revolution and the 2014 coup in Kiev also member of the US-Ukraine business council is now supposed to have helped Yanokovich in 2010 and be in bed with Putin. How gullible do you think we are? ..."
"... Stop the presses! Trump and people associated with him have had dealings with people from the LARGEST country in the world. If that doesn't prove he's an active Manchurian candidate on The Kremlin payroll, then nothing will. ..."
"... What it really proves is that by going the low road of McCarthyist red-baiting, the Democrats seemed determined to blow another election by not running a campaign on Hillary's supposed merits and attacking Trump for rational, verifiable reasons. ..."
"... You are all a school of piranhas waiting to tear the flesh of anyone who is against 'Her'. I have noticed your comments towards any rational reply is met with condescending and abusive tones. You've probably realised I am poorly educated. However, I have common sense which I believe most of you don't. Most of you comment in order to receive recognition and votes in order to make you feel good because of low self esteem and belonging issues. ..."
"... I believe we in the west currently live in a pluralist society for now. If Hillary is elected I reckon she will lay the foundation for sharia law, Merkel is doing her bit. Anyway, how can anyone vote for this vile human being? ..."
"... Hillary Rodman Clinton does not care about YOU! Its all about her wanting power to control YOU. Have you ever asked yourself why does she want to be President? What is her motivation? ..."
"... Oh, come on, Hillary has all 30 of the admirals and generals that previously endorsed Jeb. Can't Donald have one general? The US military is in schism between the moderates (represented by Flynn) and the hawks (represented by Allen, presumably). Hillary's hawks got booed off the stage at the convention. Allen was trying to shout down the protesters but they were pretty feisty. ..."
"... Follow the money. The Clinton elite and the military/security industrial complex will MAKE BILLIONS with a new cold war. As much as they made off of Iraq and MORE! ..."
"... Julian Assange showed to the DNC who they are, but they are not angry at him, they are angry at Donald Trump. Of course, how can anyone be angry at the mirror because it has shown its ugly face.:-))) ..."
"... A vote against Hillary is not a vote for Trump any more than a vote against the Iraq War was a vote for Saddam Hussein. ..."
"... Hilarious. This Red Scare is ridiculous, will only carry weight with the over 60s. It is just one of the many missteps in Hillary's tone deaf campaign which is going to cost her the presidency. ..."
"... Not a Trump supporter, but this shitty rag attacks everyone except the Red Queen...who is responsible for many acts of terror and murder...documented. ..."
"... Ta, much of the information, especially what Tom Curley (formerly AP chief) revealed, has been removed from the net. I wish I had saved the pdf of his Kansas speech before it vanished everywhere. There was also something on a British server, but that stopped being fed. ..."
"... Often we could see it on the posters' string, how many in how many hours, hence the attempts to hide it through multi ID facility. For disqus, they block the string. We know we are being manipulated. And very few people take things at face value these days, or do they? ..."
"... That single sentence exposes the Guardian as a completely fraudulent news reporting medium. With tears in my eyes I ask you "How does Putin releasing e-mails about the secret and illegal American electoral shenanigans amount to an attack on western democracy?" ..."
"... The old saying "you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time" is demonstrated by the Guardians reporting without sources, other than anonymous so-called "experts". Your journalistic integrity is little higher than the height of Hillary Clinton's honesty, or the level of the Donald's business ethics. Shame on you. Double shame for being so blatantly easy to expose. ..."
"... The western media, controlled by special interest groups, are driving your low-level sputum which tries to pass for accurate and unbiased reportage. ..."
"... On the whole I would have to agree with you. The picture painted by the Western News Media is that the US is the White Knight when it comes to democracy, they never interfere in other countries political affairs, never try to break into computer systems of other countries, try to topple or assassinate leaders of other countries. They never carry out torture and they ignore the 30m on the poverty line in their own country. ..."
"... Well at least Trump is fostering positive relations with Russia - Hillary Clinton is pushing us to the brink of nuclear war with them. You Tube it. Wishing Good Luck to all people of courage and honesty. ..."
"... Reuters/Ipsos changed it polling methodology as soon as they saw a 17 point swing in favor of Donald the Drumpf. When the methodology by their own admission was under reporting Trump support and over reporting Hillbilly's numbers they did nothing. So don't believe any polls. There is no enthusiasm for Hillbilly in the Democratic party, so the Democratic turn out will be low, on the other hand people want to shake things up, they will vote for Drumpf. I just wished Donald had half a brain in his head to see how much good he could do, with the opportunity he has. ..."
"... A lot of associations and coincidences have been listed here. But no hard evidence linking the hacking to Putin, nor Putin to Trump. It sounds like a load of muckraking. ..."
"... True. If it was the other way round, Guardian journalists and establishment shills would be screaming 'tin-foil' when they should be holding that woman to account. ..."
Joe Biden's son has major business interests in Ukraine. Is that why Biden is so supportive
of Ukraine? Paul Manafort is a rat, like all the major league campaign operatives. All that
is important to them is the win and those that can jump over each other to rent their expertise
around the globe to whatever scumbag has money. It is a bipartisan gig. To spin this in such a
partisan manner when the entire political machinery on both sides operates like this is is either
knowingly deceitful or just plain ignorant. When it is nearly impossible to just get straight
balanced news from a newspaper, when the coverage is just so obviously slanted, real journalism
is dead. This style of news by innuendo and the selective parsing of fact is shoddy reportage.
Shame.
macmarco
Under globalism, it is only natural for corporations and their CEOs to have more contact
with foreign entities and their leaders. Apple and CEO Tim Cook has made a huge commitment to
communist China, one that he told President Obama will not be shaken or reduced.
US tax laws that allow 'profit centers' to be claimed anywhere around the world will almost
certainly bring corporate leaders and foreign leaders closer together as their interests merge
and intertwine.
Political parties will have difficulty claiming this or that country is now an enemy depending
on how much corporate investment and profit holdings were made in the new 'enemy'. One could see
the enormous difficulty the DNC/Hillary would have if they had to make a case against communist
China hacking their emails. Apple, Walmart etal would be working overtime to protect the relationship
at all costs.
notindoctrinated
Has it ever occurred to you Yanks that Putin may be playing global political chess. I'm sure
he is shrewd enough to realize that open support to Trump could be a "kiss of death". A Democratic
presidency may be in Russia's long-term interest, if they want the US to go further down the drain:
Overrunning of the US by Hispanics, as well as Muslims from North Africa and the Mideast,
the latter resulting in increasing insecurity and terrorist attacks at home
Destruction of US economy by the pursuit of green fanatic policies.
Of course a trigger-happy Clinton presidency increases the risk for WW3, therefore Putin's
finger will never be far from the nuke-button.
2. The number one US economic strain is War.....not windfarms.
3. Clinton is a bit more hawkish than I would like, but she is far from trigger happy. Also,
she can handle an insult without declaring the need to punch someone in the face :p
Sam3456
I love the entitled Hillary fans are trying to stifle any dissent of the Queen with "You're
a Putin Bot, You're a commie, your a Trumpster."
Stifling dissent allows for corruption and abuse of power and is what got us into the Iraq
War.
Their condescending attitude is what we can expect from a Clinton Administration?
JohnManyjars
Putin bashing idiots...choke on your spittle! At least he puts the interests of his country
first, unlike US/UK sell outs to Israel-First traitors.
R. Ben Madison -> JohnManyjars
Yet another antisemitic diatribe from the Hillary-haters.
Lee Van Over -> JohnManyjars
Lol, the US supports Israel because its in the best interests of the US, not Israel. They,
unfortunately, are our little forward base of operations in the Mid-east.
John Smith
Burisma is the largest non-governmental gas producer in Ukraine, it was incorporated in 2006
and is based in Limassol, Cyprus - a European tax haven
April 18, 2014, Burisma Holdings announced us VP Biden's son Hunter Biden appointed to the board
Aleksander Kwaśniewski,took up in a director's post named in January.[27] Kwaśniewski was President
of the Republic of Poland from 1995 to 2005 permitted the CIA torture ops in Poland during the
G. W. Bush presidency
Chairman of Burisma is the Wall Street former Merrill Lynch investment banker Alan Apter
Devon Archer, Hunter Biden's partner at the US investment firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners, and
a manager of the family wealth fund of Secretary of State John Kerry's wife Theresa Heinz Kerry,
And all friends together in a company that should be helping Ukraine recover nestled away in
a tax haven!
The director of the US-Ukraine Business Council Morgan Williams pointed to an "American tradition
that frowns on close family members of government working for organizations with business links
to active politics". Williams stated Biden appears to have violated this unwritten principle:
"... when you're trying to keep the political sector separate from the business sector, and reduce
corruption, then it's not just about holding down corruption, it's also the appearance.
This is all so entertaining for as much as they try they cannot lay a finger on Putin..
the PBS special on Putin wealth ended an hour of innuendo with this.. ''How much is a matter of
speculation and some educated guesswork.''
And thats what it was speculation & guesswork!
he may be the richest man on the planet.. he may be richer than god... but they just can't
find it.. they can't find a bankstatement with billions or trillions in it they can't even find
the shoebox with all his cash under his bed... they got nothing!
MtnClimber -> John Smith
They found Putin's money. It's cared for by "friends". One is a concert cellist with over a
billion dollars. They must pay musicians well in Russia.
You seem to like dictators. Do you like the complete censorship of the media in Russia? Do
you like the new laws that allow Putin to jail anyone that denounces him or Russia?
Given that Russians are only allowed to post good things about Putin, what do you expect to
see from them?
John Smith -> MtnClimber
there were plenty of russians in that PBS 'show' complaining about putin and they are still
alive n well..
the only time russian critics become endangered is when they are of no further use to the yankee
and then they come to a sticky end and then the finger gets pointed at putin.. then they have
fully 'outlived' their usefulness.. more useful dead!
annberk
It is obvious that Trump will benefit financially from being nice to Putin and his inner circle.
Trump combs the world for projects and money and Russia must be seen as a target. Win or lose
the election he'll be seen as a friend who deserves to be rewarded. At some point in the next
year or so, the Trump Corporation will announce at least one landmark Russian hotel/condo tower.
I'd bet money on it. Meanwhile, poor old Hillary who has devoted her life to doing good, is being
bullied and lied about by the serfs who want to elect him. (Read 'Dark Money' to see what I mean
by serfs. Trump's adherents won't benefit in the slightest from his policies.)
Sam3456
I have family in the military and the last thing we need is Clinton leading us into another
cold war.
delphicvi
What a lame lead in i.e. "Donald Trump and Russia: a web that grows more tangled all the time.
Donald Trump travelled to Moscow in 2013 to meet Vladimir Putin hoping to discuss plans for
a Trump Tower near Red Square."
Did it really take four 'journalists' viz. Peter Stone, David Smith, Ben Jacobs, Alec Luhn
and Rupert Neate to write this fluff? More worthy of a supermarket check out rag than a serious
newspaper. This facile attempt to stitch together the incongruous and the bizarre is downright
amazing for a paper that puffs itself as the leaker of truth. By the bye, Ukraine is not Russia.
And Russia is not Ukraine.
Sam3456
The Director of National Intelligence says Washington is still unsure of who might be behind
the latest WikiLeaks release of hacked Democratic National Committee emails, while urging that
an end be put to the "reactionary mode" blaming it all on Russia.
"We don't know enough to ascribe motivation regardless of who it might have been," Director
of National Intelligence James Clapper said speaking at Aspen's Security Forum in Colorado, when
asked if the media was getting ahead of themselves in fingering the perpetrator of the hack.
John Smith -> Sam3456
Anonymous have been quietly busy in the background... laughing at the merkins blaming everything
on Russia..
clintons corrupt... and its Russia's fault??
''The State Department misplaced and lost some $6 billion due to the improper filing of contracts
during the past six years, mainly during the tenure of former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton,
according to a newly released Inspector General report.
I know billions don't mean much today after the american laundering of Trillions of $s worth
of their bad mortgage debt causing the 2008 crash....... BUT SURELY $6 Billion missing must count
for something!
So again...
what really happened in Benghazi? in September 2012
Were they sending gaddafi's weapons to unsavouries in Syria and Assad got wind of it & sent a
team to stop it?
Because it was not a youtube vid or some people on a friday night out deciding to kill americans
as clinton would have us believe. What we have is a clandestine operation.. a democrat version
of reagans ''Arms for Iran''.. or shall we say 'Arms for ISIS' Did they get Ollie North out of
retirement for this??
Having failed this gun running operation...
They then went to Plan B..
''claimed 3,000 tons of weapons dating back to the former Yugoslavia have been sent in 75 planeloads
from Zagreb airport to the rebels, largely via Jordan since November (2012).'' 3000 tons of weapons!!......
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9918785/US-and-Europe-in-major-airlift-of-arms-to-Syrian-rebels-through-Zagreb.html
But When they arrived in Jordan..
''Weapons shipped into Jordan by the Central Intelligence Agency and Saudi Arabia intended
for Syrian rebels have been systematically stolen by Jordanian intelligence operatives and sold
to arms merchants on the black market, according to American and Jordanian officials.'' I mean
can the CIA be that incompetent? or is this incompetence covering up something else...?
Well looks like Hillary has stared the cold war again before she ever got into office.
This is worse than anything Trump could do...but very beneficial to her military/security industrial
complex backers.
Hillary Clinton = Dick Cheney.
Oldiebutgoodie
With all the tension and volatility in the world, we need mature, rational people leading our
countries. Let's hope that's what we get -- * Vote thoughtfully.
While we watch campaign circuses, a serious situation is taking place in Turkey that will effect
Europe, the West, and the Middle East.
- Erdogan has taken control of, and is purging all sectors of Turkish society.
Julian Assange is not a Republican. He's an Australian with no vested interest in the election.
I'd be worried if I were a Clinton supporter.
spraydrift
'Trump's links to Russia are under scrutiny after a hack of Democratic national committee emails,'
The extremely well informed Israeli website Debkafile is confident that the Russians didn't
hack the DNC or any aspect of the Democrats. Debka believes the signatures on the hack are so
easy to find and so obviously intended to be found that the real culprit lies somewhere within
an anti-Clinton faction of the Democrats. Now who might that be?
Greg Popa -> spraydrift
Wired.com's Noah Shachtman wrote in 2001 that the site "clearly reports with a point of view;
the site is unabashedly in the hawkish camp of Israeli politics".[4] Yediot Achronot investigative
reporter Ronen Bergman states that the site relies on information from sources with an agenda,
such as neo-conservative elements of the US Republican Party, "whose worldview is that the situation
is bad and is only going to get worse," and that Israeli intelligence officials do not consider
even 10 percent of the site's content to be reliable.[1] Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf
calls Debka his "favorite alarmist Israeli website trading in rumors."[5]
The site's operators, in contrast, state that 80 percent of what Debka reports turns out to
be true, and point to its year 2000 prediction that al-Qaeda would again strike the World Trade
Center, and that it had warned well before the 2006 war in Lebanon that Hezbollah had amassed
12,000 Katyusha rockets pointed at northern Israel.[1]
mandzorp
This is a fantasy article, pie in the sky stuff. I can't stand Trump and I am sure neither
can the Russian government, he's unpredictable, unstable, what he says today he changes his mind
on tomorrow and so on. Now, Clinton isn't much better all said. Anyone who would trust either
needs to see a psychiatrist urgently. Russia is but a bystander in the US presidential race, except
for the conspiracy theorists at The Guardian.
errovi
"The coordinator of the Washington diplomatic corps for the Republicans in Cleveland was Frank
Mermoud, a former state department official involved in business ventures in Ukraine via Cub Energy,
a Black Sea-focused oil and gas company of which he is a director. He is also on the board of
the US Ukraine Business Council."
So a former official of that russophobic neocon infested State Department which ran both
the 2004 Orange Revolution and the 2014 coup in Kiev also member of the US-Ukraine business council
is now supposed to have helped Yanokovich in 2010 and be in bed with Putin. How gullible do you
think we are?
Oldiebutgoodie -> errovi
Seems every news media outlet and reporter is looking into his Russian business dealings and
funding.
Stop the presses! Trump and people associated with him have had dealings with people from
the LARGEST country in the world. If that doesn't prove he's an active Manchurian candidate on
The Kremlin payroll, then nothing will.
What it really proves is that by going the low road of McCarthyist red-baiting, the Democrats
seemed determined to blow another election by not running a campaign on Hillary's supposed merits
and attacking Trump for rational, verifiable reasons.
John Smith -> MentalToo
drivel.. Nuland admitted/boasted about spendin $5 billion in ''bring democracy to ukraine..
$5 Billion is a lot of money in Ukraine..
Did they build schools No
Did they build hospitals No!
They just destabilised the country...
So $5 billion wasted and the yanks wonder why they don't really have a space program... coz $5
Billion would have bought 3 Space shuttles!
jezzam -> John Smith
The US spent 5 billion over 25 years - trying to encourage the basic institutions of democracy
in Ukraine. Without these corruption cannot be eliminated. Without the elimination of corruption,
none of the things you mention are possible. Non-coincidentally such institutions have been eliminated
in Russia since Putin came to power.
Brian Burman -> jezzam
Yes, those NGOs encouraged democracy so well that they instigated a violent coup against the
elected government. Halt, you say, that government was corrupt!?! But by all standards, the current
government is more corrupt than the one that was overthrown, and polls in the last year show that
Ukrainians are convinced of that fact. Infact, the man hand-picked by Victoria Nuland to be Prime
Minister, "Yats" Yatesenyuk, had to resign under accusations of corruption. Andbthe current Kiev
reginme continues to bomb the civilian population of Donbass and terrorize them with neo-Nazi
militias...ah, the wonders of US funded "democracy".
Виктор Захаров
I wonder, if you say that you are democrats why you are not interested in truth about Malaysian
Boing? Now in the West, Merkel, Obama etc, no one worried about this tragedy because now it's
clear that Ukrainian authorities did it. It's barbarian blasphemous....
Henrychan
Hello all Hillary supporters,
You are all a school of piranhas waiting to tear the flesh of anyone who is against 'Her'.
I have noticed your comments towards any rational reply is met with condescending and abusive
tones. You've probably realised I am poorly educated. However, I have common sense which I believe
most of you don't. Most of you comment in order to receive recognition and votes in order to make
you feel good because of low self esteem and belonging issues.
I believe we in the west currently live in a pluralist society for now. If Hillary is elected
I reckon she will lay the foundation for sharia law, Merkel is doing her bit. Anyway, how can
anyone vote for this vile human being?
You must be either:
Ignorant
Misinformed
Lack common sense or
Mentally ill
Hillary Rodman Clinton does not care about YOU! Its all about her wanting power to control
YOU. Have you ever asked yourself why does she want to be President? What is her motivation?
Comment all you like, you Hillary supporter are defending a witch. I'm not with HER.
Oilyheart
Bernie Sanders visited the USSR. Does that make him a communist? Bernie Sanders visited the
Vatican. Does that make him a Catholic? Gen. Flynn visited RT. Does that make him Scott Pelley?
Bill visits a lot of places.
Виктор Захаров
First of all why Obama calls yourself democrat? It's nonsense, by definition democrats those
who against the coup! Having lied once who would believe you ( Russian saying ). Obama continued
to lie. Malaysian Boing had been shot down by Ukrainian jet, radars neither in Dnepro nor in Rostov
hadn't seen buk missile, buk missile weighs 700 kg radar could not to see it. But radars had seen
Ukrainian jet, Ukrainian authorities restricted access to records....
Oilyheart
Oh, come on, Hillary has all 30 of the admirals and generals that previously endorsed Jeb.
Can't Donald have one general? The US military is in schism between the moderates (represented
by Flynn) and the hawks (represented by Allen, presumably). Hillary's hawks got booed off the
stage at the convention. Allen was trying to shout down the protesters but they were pretty feisty.
Try not to bogart all the retired general officers, Democrats. The moderates are trying to
de-escalate tensions with Russia, is that so wrong? Does gangsterism have to proliferate all over
the place? Does the whole world have to break bad like Walter White into gangsterism and chaos
because it's cool?
GODsaysBRESCAPE
Clinton wants a new cold war with Russia, forget the real enemy the Islamists. She is showing
her warmongering stripes again already. Shame on you Sanders for your betrayal of your supporters,
that will now be your ever lasting and shameful legacy.
Sam3456 -> GODsaysBRESCAPE
Follow the money. The Clinton elite and the military/security industrial complex will MAKE
BILLIONS with a new cold war. As much as they made off of Iraq and MORE!
HRC is Dick Cheney in a pants suit.
GODsaysBRESCAPE
The media, big business and the pentagon: "a web that grows more tangled all the time"
dikcheney
I have to do this. #canthackHillary.
I cant hack her lies
I cant hack her faux ignorance of IT security
I cant hack her unbelievability
I cant hack her attacks on any challenger
I cant hack the cloth she didn't use to wipe her server
I cant hack the way she puts USA security at risk to protect her "private" shenanigans
I cant hack her capacity to corrupt any decent process associated with democray
I cant hack her network of "get out of jail free cards"
I cant hack her transparent deceptions
I cant hack her associates
I cant hack her war criminal mentors
I cant hack her media admirers and shills
I cant hack her Wall Street buddies
I cant hack her mate Obama
Is there anyone out there who can hack Hillary?
Shatford Shatford -> dikcheney
You left out Clinton Foundation donors who receive lucrative contracts in disaster zones or
in African dictatorships.
nnedjo
Julian Assange showed to the DNC who they are, but they are not angry at him, they are
angry at Donald Trump. Of course, how can anyone be angry at the mirror because it has shown its
ugly face.:-)))
Shatford Shatford -> nnedjo
Bless cognitive dissonance for keeping everyone from seeing the truth.
Shatford Shatford -> NewWorldWatcher
I'm sure once Hillary cheats her way into the White House, she'll sick the IRS on him since
she does that to all of her enemies. And naturally, all of her and her husband's crimes will go
unpunished as they always have. Her husband almost got impeached. Not for getting a hummer from
an intern, but because there was so much other bullshit they wanted to nail him on and lying under
oath was the only thing they could use because the Clintons are very good at buying people off.
nnedjo
The Democratic Party and its vassal media proves for the umpteenth time that they have nothing
to do with democracy. If the opposition is called traitors and accused of collaboration with foreign
governments without any evidence, then it is not a democracy, it is called a dictatorship.
So if they think they have evidence that Trump is a traitor, they should arrest him. Otherwise,
they have to admit that Donald Trump is genuine representative of American democracy, and that
they would rather belong to a kind of dictatorship.
gondwanaboy -> nnedjo
So if they think they have evidence that Trump is a traitor, they should arrest him.
They don't have any evidence. This is mud slinging and a diversion from the DNC email corruption
scandal that actually has proof
miri84
Analysts suggest three primary motivations for the WikiLeaks email dump, quite probably overlapping:
doing harm to the US political process to undermine its credibility; doing harm to Clinton (WikiLeaks
founder Julian Assange is no friend); and boosting Trump
The hack would not have succeeded in any of these areas, had the DNC been conducting its operations
fairly and with integrity.
guest88888
Donald Trump and Russia: a web that grows more tangled all the time
Only if you're full of BS, and lack even a shred of journalistic integrity.
McCarthy would be proud. After years of pretending otherwise, it seems the US government has
finally returned to its old and proud tradition of smearing anyone it finds undesirable as in
cahoots with the ever-changing 'enemy.'
All of this is merely a diversion to avoid talking about the mountain of corruption revealed
about both parties in recent days. Not to mention a diversion from talking about the key issue,
that the US is increasingly antagonizing nuclear armed powers like Russia and China, which if
not stopped will lead to a war capable of killing millions.
selvak
I am not Trump but I would much rather ally with Russia than Saudi Arabia. Both have plenty
of oil by the way. Only one is spreading a Death cult over the Globe but still Presidents Bush
and Obama bowed for the Saudi king. More money the be made out of Arab oil for a few uber rich
in the US Establishment I guess. Less 'competition" for the Pentagon from Riyadh too.
sejong -> selvak
Bibi and King Salman will get joint custody of Clinton, so don't worry.
PCollens
100% bullshit, lies and a psy-op being fed to us from all sides on this.
Seriously Graun, what gives with this bullshit? Confirms my conclusion that the Graun, like the
rest of the MSM, has been infiltrated by an Operation Mockingbird as well.
So many psychopaths - GOP, DNC, Trump, the US deep state petro-nazis, the oligarchs in all countries
- all panicking more and more now, out of control.
Here comes some kind of armagedon. Sorry, sheeple - but its bad news for us all.
Alec Dacyczyn
It's worth mentioning the context of the "the US would not automatically come to the aid of
Nato allies" thing. He wants for other Nato countries to either pull their own weight militarily
(2% of GDP) or pay to cover the costs of other countries for defend them. The threat of willingness
to "walk away" is negotiating leverage. He's making a gamble that they will capitulate rather
than be left defenseless.
I believe it's a reasonable safe bet. So until these Nato countries indicate that they'd rather
not spend that much on their militarizes I reject the argument that a President Trump would result
in a weaker Nato alliance and that Putin want Trump to win for that reason (I suspect Putin would
indeed prefer Trump, but because he views Clinton as a neo-con warmonger who would rather bomb
someone than negotiate a deal).
Bruno Costa Alec Dacyczyn
I hate Trump, but this is a VERY safe bet.
Russia will not invade Poland or the Baltic. The world change. Putin has an agenda different from
Ivan the Terrible...
NATO countries will pay their bills and psychopaths like Erdogan will think twice before put down
a Russian fighter.
That was insane. The most dangerous act since the 80's!
Made by a religious fanatical dictator who is ending Turkey secular tradition.
If Russia had responded, protecting Erdogan would've been fair? NATO starting 3rd WW because of
a authoritarian guy that should be expelled is reasonable?
Sam3456
A vote against Hillary is not a vote for Trump any more than a vote against the Iraq War
was a vote for Saddam Hussein.
niftydude
Hilarious. This Red Scare is ridiculous, will only carry weight with the over 60s. It is
just one of the many missteps in Hillary's tone deaf campaign which is going to cost her the presidency.
livingstonfc
Not a Trump supporter, but this shitty rag attacks everyone except the Red Queen...who
is responsible for many acts of terror and murder...documented.
BSchwartz
Trump is married to a woman who grew up under communism. Some his closest advisors have worked
for communists. Many of his own business dealings are with Russians. He has claimed a relationshp
with Putin and says he admires him. He has amended Republican policies to favour Russia. He called
on the Russian's to undertake espionage into Hillary Clinton. There is a pattern here.
A man like Trump, who believed in the conspiracy theory that Obama was Kenyan, should understand
that conspiracies grow as evidence build. There was no evidence to sustain Trump's conspiracy
regarding Obama.
But Trump himself provides much evidence to sustain the theory that his interests are closer
to the Russians than to much of America.
Sam3456 -> BSchwartz
Really? Democrats red baiting and calling people "commies" how shameful and ignorant of you
history. What next Hillary comes out with a "list of Trump/Putin sympathizers"? Shame.
Bruno Costa -> BSchwartz
Hahahahahahahahahaha OMG! Are you going beyond Manchurian Candidate and saying that Trump is
communist? Do you really understand how funny this is?
PCollens -> BSchwartz
A-ha! I see it now! Trump is a commie Manchurian candidate, cleverly hidden as a son of a rich
guy who became a billionaire, spreading capitalist ideology to the masses as a front for his USSR
commie masters. Its obvious! Wake up sheeple!
Gem59
The Clinton-Media machine in full force....Those Russians are in bed with Trump! It must be
the barbarians! Shame on you traitor Donald! Whatever it takes, corrupted Media! Here is an interview
with Julian Assange who argues there is no evidence of any hacking by Russians
Russian literature, the language, the culture...all quite beautiful. OK, and maybe the women
too. But this 'relationship' between Trump and Russia makes me feel uncomfortable. I'm willing
to admit that I may simply be conditioned to be wary of Russian involvement because of all those
Cold War years. Still...creepy!
Ta, much of the information, especially what Tom Curley (formerly AP chief) revealed, has
been removed from the net. I wish I had saved the pdf of his Kansas speech before it vanished
everywhere. There was also something on a British server, but that stopped being fed.
Often we could see it on the posters' string, how many in how many hours, hence the attempts
to hide it through multi ID facility. For disqus, they block the string. We know we are being
manipulated. And very few people take things at face value these days, or do they?
Ping2fyoutoo
"experts argue Vladimir Putin has attempted in the past to damage western democracy."
That single sentence exposes the Guardian as a completely fraudulent news reporting medium.
With tears in my eyes I ask you "How does Putin releasing e-mails about the secret and illegal
American electoral shenanigans amount to an attack on western democracy?"
It doesn't. It's something the western mainstream media should be doing to enlighten the people
about the depths of the crookedness and the evil chicanery surrounding "western democracy" (as
practised today in the US). That omission is what weakens and threatens western democracy.
The old saying "you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all
of the people all of the time" is demonstrated by the Guardians reporting without sources, other
than anonymous so-called "experts". Your journalistic integrity is little higher than the height
of Hillary Clinton's honesty, or the level of the Donald's business ethics. Shame on you. Double
shame for being so blatantly easy to expose.
The western media, controlled by special interest groups, are driving your low-level sputum
which tries to pass for accurate and unbiased reportage.
And please let us know who these "experts" are that you say that you are quoting.
Alexander Dunnett -> Ping2fyoutoo
On the whole I would have to agree with you. The picture painted by the Western News Media
is that the US is the White Knight when it comes to democracy, they never interfere in other countries
political affairs, never try to break into computer systems of other countries, try to topple
or assassinate leaders of other countries. They never carry out torture and they ignore the 30m
on the poverty line in their own country.
PCollens -> Ping2fyoutoo
Agreed. There is a Deep State mole inside the Graun.
Its Operation Mockingbird for sure.
normankirk
So Starbucks is in Russia,sinister? or is it just that globalisation means financial interests
are worldwide.
And why is no one mentioning that James Clapper head of the NSA, who should know, says that he
is "taken aback by the media's hyperventilations" and that no one knows who was behind the hack
of the DNC.
Suga
Whatever Lies you believe or even think of HRC...
Clinton is our only hope of keeping the White House from The Insane Republican Party!.
Please...Check-out this excellent interview with Michael Ruppert, who tracked exactly what took
place under The Horrible Bush/Cheney Reign Of Terror that brought down America on 9/11!
(Ruppert supposedly committed suicide in 2014) It's amazing this interview is still available...it
will absolutely shock you into realizing that we cannot give the White House back to the GOP...they
are surrounded by Pure Evil!
Brilliant! - Bless you. Mike Ruppert is the greatest hero to emerge from all this.
Copy-paste the following - it is pure fact, forensic level evidence, of the most serious issues,
yet it always gets taken down. I've concluded that this is by the moles in the MSM, including
the Graun, sadly:
Chapter and verse on the drills of terror attacks being run on 911 which removed the air defences
– an coordinated by Cheney: 9/11 Synthetic Terror https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar6I0jUg6Vs
The Chief CIA back-channel asset who exposed the fore-knowledge of 911 survived the attempts
to rub her out, and finally told the truth:
CIA WhistleBlower Susan Lindauer EXPOSES Everything - "Extreme Prejudice" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68LUHa_-OlA
Well at least Trump is fostering positive relations with Russia - Hillary Clinton is pushing
us to the brink of nuclear war with them. You Tube it. Wishing Good Luck to all people of courage
and honesty.
Eddie2000
Reds under the bed! Reds under the bed! Surely they can beat Trump without resorting to this
nonsense?
woof92105
****warning - This comment area is infested with russian trolls. It becomes easy to spot their
bizarre but consistent pro-putin statements. They reply to each other and uprate each other, etc.
These people are in Russia and are paid by Putin's cronies. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html?_r=0
sejong -> woof92105
Accuracy score 1/10.
normankirk -> woof92105
and how do we know you aren't part of the cyber warrior force thats become a growth industry
in the US and UK?
Gina Mihajlovska -> woof92105
Your an idiot. It's not about Putin it's about how the public is being played. No matter where
the leak came from the dnc is corrupt.focus on the prize. Not on the BS....
shaftedpig
Trump might have his faults, like being a motor mouth but he's not even in the same category
as GW Bush or HR Clinton when it comes to corruption, the Democrats haven't got much on Trump,
so they resort to tin-foil hat conspiracy theories, when what is staring at us directly in the
face is out-and-out full-on corruption by HRC.
This is not about left vs right, it's about right vs wrong. Read any book by investigative
journalist, Roger Stone who nails HRC. If you're on the left and feel let down by Bernie, at least
consider Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, I can't for the life of me understand why Americans revere
corrupt officials when you got decent potential presidents who aren't in the pockets of banksters
like HRC.
Reuters/Ipsos changed it polling methodology as soon as they saw a 17 point swing in favor
of Donald the Drumpf. When the methodology by their own admission was under reporting Trump support
and over reporting Hillbilly's numbers they did nothing. So don't believe any polls. There is
no enthusiasm for Hillbilly in the Democratic party, so the Democratic turn out will be low, on
the other hand people want to shake things up, they will vote for Drumpf. I just wished Donald
had half a brain in his head to see how much good he could do, with the opportunity he has.
So the dreaded ruskies are trying to help Trump? Oh my goodness!
Meanwhile, Clinton's big love for Israel remains unmentioned during most of the Primaries and
even now. I've done a lot of work around the Middle East. The reason certain people hate us is
because the US has vetoed all UN efforts to right the wrongs committed by Israel against the Palestinians.
And with Netanyahu in his 4th term, gelding the news media, and rolling more completely fascist,
we can expect more rubber stamping of territory occupation (that seems like a very simple and
illegal act, but since the USA - and only the USA - disagrees, it's okay) and abuses that will
further fuel hatred from people who'd, at minimum, appreciate it if justice could apply to them.
Let the candidate without sin cast the first stone of superiority!
BTW - What the Russians want is more cash for their wealthiest, trusted oligarchs. That's exactly
what Clinton and Trump are working to do. So why can't they all just be friends?
ahmedfez
A lot of associations and coincidences have been listed here. But no hard evidence linking
the hacking to Putin, nor Putin to Trump. It sounds like a load of muckraking.
shaftedpig -> ahmedfez
True. If it was the other way round, Guardian journalists and establishment shills would
be screaming 'tin-foil' when they should be holding that woman to account.
"... The EU has been jerking Turkey around forever about joining the EU. They clearly intend not to let a Muslim country join but keep pretending they might as a key NATO ally. ..."
"... Merely assuming an official posture of neutrality, as Nasser famously did, would be a big setback for the US and a big gain for Russia ..."
"... The fact that the heads of NATO and the US government, along with their "brain trusts" get so panicky about a possible warming of relations between Russia and Turkey is ridiculous. These asshats have been behaving all along as if the Soviet Union never fell and that Russia is the same thing it was while the heart of the USSR. ..."
"... NATO gets aggressive and spreads itself all over Eastern Europe with the intention of kicking the Bear and then gets its panties in a twist when the Bear, quite reasonably, reacts to their aggressive actions. ..."
"... I literally cannot think of a single thing that Russia has done since the end of the Soviet Union that in any way, shape, or form alarms me or makes me think, "These guys are planning to invade or start a war!" ..."
"... US aggression in Syria HAD to be responded to by Russia. Russia has LONG time major military bases in Syria. How would the US respond if Russia turned the UAE into a chaotic shithole in order to try and kick the US out of its HUGE military bases there? The initiating of chaos would be the aggressive act, NOT the US response to the chaos. The generating of massive chaos in Syria (by the US and its allies) was the aggressive act, NOT Russia's quite reasonable and understandable reaction. Same goes for Ukraine. ..."
"... The US is bound and determined to FORCE Russia to be a major foe for Cold War 2.0 whether Russia wants to be or not. The US cannot see any other way to drive its shitty economic system than to fire up the defense industries to full throttle again, ala Cold War 1.0. Instead of dumping the military economic basis to the US and Western economies to focus on truly beneficial development, they are going with the boogieman…both for the economic shot it will provide, but also in an attempt to quell unrest due to income inequality and the rape/pillage economic system of the West. Make the people afraid of being invaded or nuked into oblivion and they wont complain about no more retirement, inability to buy a decent home, or send their kids to college. ..."
"... If the first Presidents Bush and Clinton had attempted conversion and used some crumbs to mitigate the Soviet collapse, instead of unleashing the worst pack of intellectual sophists, strategists, and black market dregs, then Russia today would probably be neatly colonized into an international system, but after the violent class conflict of decolonization during the Cold War a new world order that appeared like Gore Vidal's semi-sarcastic paradigm-shattering essay in the Nation would prematurely speed up de-colonization with "white privilege" too uncamouflaged: ..."
"... Thank you. I have been wondering about the relationship between the Gulen movement and the CIA that relationship might shed light about whether the US was involved in or pushed or green lighted the coup. Of course, CIA assets have been known to go rogue as well. ..."
"... While exploring this subject, there's a good article and talk given by a career CIA case officer (undercover) who now works for a think tank of some sort. (So I assume she's still with the CIA, even if supposedly she's not.) Her book describes the extent of the Gulen network, including the criminal investigations underway for Gulen's charter schools network. (Did you know Gulen has the largest network of charter schools in the USA?!) This presentation implicitly acknowledged the dangerous / illegal aspects to the Gulen movement. ..."
"... But at a higher, strategic level, CIA seems to be obviously harboring and supporting Gulen, as Edmonds says. ..."
"... Edmonds has also done some amazing work regarding Hastert's pedophile connections–reported this formally to US law agencies in multiple years, and was interviewed for a triple-fact-checked Vanity Fair article. The FBI agents who were doing the investigating (knowing about Hastert's pedophilia 10-20 years ago) thought they were preparing for a criminal investigation. They became disillusioned when they realized after a couple of years that their FBI higher-ups had no intention of prosecuting. Apparently the issue is so widespread, and everyone knows–Edmonds describes a certain palace in Turkey where US Congress members get taken on VIP trips, where the VIP suites were being monitored / videotapes simultaneously by FBI, DIA, DoJ, criminal gangs, and foreign governments. Yet when most recently Hastert comes to public attention, all the known pedophile activities are not mentioned, just the financial money-laundering aspects. Because so many of our officials & media & prominent people have been compromised by pedophilia that no one is willing to speak out about it. ..."
"... Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has a number of insightful video interviews and papers about Turkey. She predicted the coup about 18 months ago–pointing out that the CIA was preparing to replace Erdogan, and showing the pattern with other regime changes with USA involvement. Both the recent and past interviews give a lot of insight–e.g., into Gulen's CIA-backed financial, cultural and political empire spanning Turkey, Turkik-friendly caucasus countries and deeply embedded within the USA and Congress. ..."
"... For background on Sibel Edmonds, a short 2006 documentary "Kill the Messenger" about her whistleblowing while an FBI translator is a good starting point. ..."
"... Ever wondered why Russia hasn't attempted to internally overthrow any of the Gulf States or Saudi Arabia since the Iraqi invasion? They are definitely fragile, internally vulnerable states and closely aligned with the west. Two can definitely play these color revolution games. I suspect it is due to the vulnerability of their own, Russian, populations and increased Middle east instability could produce blowback in Russia proper. However the US and allies have been playing hard this game of disrupting Middle East stability for the last 13 years. At what point, would the Russians decide, well, Middle East stability is already gone and it is time to strike back at US allies using our own tactics? Personally, I think Putin is too smart for that but what about after Putin? ..."
"... Russia's historical ties were with the Byzantine Empire, with which it shared – after the 9th century A.D. – a crucial common feature, viz. Orthodoxy. The center of Orthodoxy was of course Constantinople, with which the Russian Archbishopric and later, Patriarchate, experienced complicated relations. Upon the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453, and the loss of Constantinople to Orthodoxy, Russia envisioned its own capital, Moscow, as taking up the mantle and succeeding Constantinople (the "Second Rome") as Christendom's "Third Rome". The title conflates the relationship between the two countries/empires in the Byzantine period with that during the Ottoman period (i.e., the [Sublime] "Porte"). ..."
"... But for non-U.S. citizens and U.S. citizens who live near the world's hottest geopolitical hotspot, the prospect of Victoria Nuland (of Ukraine regime change fame) as SoS is not at all a happy one. ..."
It's rather improbable to see a Russo-Turkish alliance against US and NATO. The US and the
Russians have probably already agreed on the new Middle East map which includes Kurdish state.
This explains to a great extent why Erdogan is so nervous, making sloppy and dangerous moves.
Um, given reports that the Turks
briefly closed the airbase that the US uses to conduct operations in Syria over the weekend,
Erdogan seems plenty pissed with the US for not turning over Gulen, as he has repeatedly requested.
Europe has agreed to give him only 3 billion euros to halt the refugee flow into Europe, which
is hardly adequate, and a vague promise that maybe the EU will give Turks the freedom of movement
too. The EU has been jerking Turkey around forever about joining the EU. They clearly intend
not to let a Muslim country join but keep pretending they might as a key NATO ally.
Merely assuming an official posture of neutrality, as Nasser famously did, would be a big
setback for the US and a big gain for Russia
Thanks for mentioning the Real News Network fundraiser, Yves. They have a dollar-for-dollar
matching grant going on as well, doubling the impact of every donation.
The fact that the heads of NATO and the US government, along with their "brain trusts"
get so panicky about a possible warming of relations between Russia and Turkey is ridiculous.
These asshats have been behaving all along as if the Soviet Union never fell and that Russia is
the same thing it was while the heart of the USSR.
They take it on faith that the US/West and Russia MUST be at odds, no matter what, to the point
that they create out of whole cloth conflicts where none existed before. NATO gets aggressive
and spreads itself all over Eastern Europe with the intention of kicking the Bear and then gets
its panties in a twist when the Bear, quite reasonably, reacts to their aggressive actions.
Personally, I couldn't care less if Turkey and Russia get kissy-faced with each other. Big
wup. Russia is NOT preparing to invade Western Europe (as much as NATO WISHES it were). Russia
is NOT invading countries and overthrowing their governments to install puppet regimes, that's
the USA and NATO ONLY. The West transgresses, grossly, again and again and when Russia coughs
or clears its throat in opposition, it is "RUSSIAN AGGRESSION! Yaaaa! The Russians are coming!
The Russians are coming!!!!"
I literally cannot think of a single thing that Russia has done since the end of the Soviet
Union that in any way, shape, or form alarms me or makes me think, "These guys are planning to
invade or start a war!" On the other hand, I've seen nothing BUT war starting by the West.
First NATO takes something that wasn't, in all actuality, THAT bad a situation (the breakup of
Yugoslavia) and turns it into a complete hell in Europe.
US aggression in Syria HAD to be responded to by Russia. Russia has LONG time major military
bases in Syria. How would the US respond if Russia turned the UAE into a chaotic shithole in order
to try and kick the US out of its HUGE military bases there? The initiating of chaos would be
the aggressive act, NOT the US response to the chaos. The generating of massive chaos in Syria
(by the US and its allies) was the aggressive act, NOT Russia's quite reasonable and understandable
reaction. Same goes for Ukraine.
The US is bound and determined to FORCE Russia to be a major foe for Cold War 2.0 whether
Russia wants to be or not. The US cannot see any other way to drive its shitty economic system
than to fire up the defense industries to full throttle again, ala Cold War 1.0. Instead of dumping
the military economic basis to the US and Western economies to focus on truly beneficial development,
they are going with the boogieman…both for the economic shot it will provide, but also in an attempt
to quell unrest due to income inequality and the rape/pillage economic system of the West. Make
the people afraid of being invaded or nuked into oblivion and they wont complain about no more
retirement, inability to buy a decent home, or send their kids to college.
If the first Presidents Bush and Clinton had attempted conversion and used some crumbs
to mitigate the Soviet collapse, instead of unleashing the worst pack of intellectual sophists,
strategists, and black market dregs, then Russia today would probably be neatly colonized into
an international system, but after the violent class conflict of decolonization during the Cold
War a new world order that appeared like Gore Vidal's semi-sarcastic paradigm-shattering essay
in the Nation would prematurely speed up de-colonization with "white privilege" too uncamouflaged:
There is now only one way out. The time has come for the United States to make
common cause with the Soviet Union. The bringing together of the Soviet landmass (with all
its natural resources) and our island empire (with all its technological resources) would be
of great benefit to each society, not to mention the world. Also, to recall the wisdom of the
Four Horsemen who gave us our empire, the Soviet Union and our section of North America combined
would be a match, industrially and technologically, for the Sino-Japanese axis that will dominate
the future just as Japan dominates world trade today. But where the horsemen thought of war
as the supreme solvent, we now know that war is worse than useless. Therefore, the alliance
of the two great powers of the Northern Hemisphere will double the strength of each and give
us, working together, an opportunity to survive, economically, in a highly centralized Asiatic
world.
Rereading this it sacrifices coherence to venting. The premise is that historical contiguity
with the racial residues of empire could be confronted or not if they were more simply transparent.
The bigger point I wanted to make is the current demographic disaster may be intentional if
one looks at the recent Russian experience as an experiment. Broken Force? Then social pressure
through thwarting the traditional modes of reproduction of labor leading to a reinvigorated military
economy in 15 years.
Yeah the whole "soviet threat" issue vanished the day Stalin passed. But i fear that the US,
and thus NATO, needed it to maintain compliance within their own nations.
And thus the threat was stoked until the 90s, then it was eased back as they thought they had
the old bear chained down while Yeltsin was in office, only for their antics to cause a blowback
that is still ongoing once Putin took over.
Last week I got curious to have a better understanding of the Turkey situation than what I
was getting from MSM. I decided to see if Sibel Edmonds had spoken up–and discovered that she
predicted this coup 18 months ago.
The "BellingTheCat" website with WhatsApp translated messages of Turkish military during the
coup, which Helmers also mentions,
are here . Helmers says this website is a NATO-sponsored website and that it is not always
trustworthy, but isn't sure in this case. Edmonds doesn't mention this website being linked to
NATO.
For background on Edmonds see "
Kill the Messenger ",
a 2006 documentary about her whistleblowing within the FBI.
Thank you. I have been wondering about the relationship between the Gulen movement and
the CIA that relationship might shed light about whether the US was involved in or pushed or
green lighted the coup. Of course, CIA assets have been known to go rogue as well.
While exploring this subject, there's a good article and talk given by a career CIA case
officer (undercover) who now works for a think tank of some sort. (So I assume she's still with
the CIA, even if supposedly she's not.) Her book describes the extent of the Gulen network, including
the criminal investigations underway for Gulen's charter schools network. (Did you know Gulen
has the largest network of charter schools in the USA?!) This presentation implicitly acknowledged
the dangerous / illegal aspects to the Gulen movement.
But at a higher, strategic level, CIA seems to be obviously harboring and supporting Gulen,
as Edmonds says.
Within the CIA there are therefore different angles / understandings / strategies. The upper
echelon strategy seems to be about supporting Gulen (including helping clandestinely Gulen–or
his puppet-master(s)–to effect regime change). LIHOP is too weak an argument, given the kind of
support Gulen receives from his USA base. Probably he's just a figurehead and the real power is
out of view. (USA? Off-world?)
Edmonds has also done some amazing work regarding Hastert's pedophile connections–reported
this formally to US law agencies in multiple years, and was interviewed for a triple-fact-checked
Vanity Fair article. The FBI agents who were doing the investigating (knowing about Hastert's
pedophilia 10-20 years ago) thought they were preparing for a criminal investigation. They became
disillusioned when they realized after a couple of years that their FBI higher-ups had no intention
of prosecuting. Apparently the issue is so widespread, and everyone knows–Edmonds describes a
certain palace in Turkey where US Congress members get taken on VIP trips, where the VIP suites
were being monitored / videotapes simultaneously by FBI, DIA, DoJ, criminal gangs, and foreign
governments. Yet when most recently Hastert comes to public attention, all the known pedophile
activities are not mentioned, just the financial money-laundering aspects. Because so many of
our officials & media & prominent people have been compromised by pedophilia that no one is willing
to speak out about it.
Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds has a number of insightful video interviews and papers about
Turkey. She predicted the coup about 18 months ago–pointing out that the CIA was preparing to
replace Erdogan, and showing the pattern with other regime changes with USA involvement. Both
the recent and past interviews give a lot of insight–e.g., into Gulen's CIA-backed financial,
cultural and political empire spanning Turkey, Turkik-friendly caucasus countries and deeply embedded
within the USA and Congress.
A longer post with a number of links has been sidetracked to moderation. In case it disappears
I'm posting this short comment.
For background on Sibel Edmonds, a short 2006 documentary "Kill the Messenger" about her
whistleblowing while an FBI translator is a good starting point.
How would the US respond if Russia turned the UAE into a chaotic shithole in order to
try and kick the US out of its HUGE military bases there?
Ever wondered why Russia hasn't attempted to internally overthrow any of the Gulf States
or Saudi Arabia since the Iraqi invasion? They are definitely fragile, internally vulnerable states
and closely aligned with the west. Two can definitely play these color revolution games. I suspect
it is due to the vulnerability of their own, Russian, populations and increased Middle east instability
could produce blowback in Russia proper. However the US and allies have been playing hard this
game of disrupting Middle East stability for the last 13 years. At what point, would the Russians
decide, well, Middle East stability is already gone and it is time to strike back at US allies
using our own tactics? Personally, I think Putin is too smart for that but what about after Putin?
This thread seems to have petered out rather early on, not sure how much to add.
For those (if anyone is still out there) interested, Pat Lang's site SST has been posting regularly
on Turkey, and he has commenters from the region and who are knowledgeable about ME/NE military
and political affairs.
I had read the John Helmer piece on his blog when it was first posted, and forwarded it to
a friend who's similar in many respects to Lang (career military officer, now retired; author
of historical studies and books; keen student of the Eastern Mediterranean, Turkey, Cyprus, the
Balkans) except that he's Greek.
In return he sent me a link to his own latest two pieces on a Greek blog. One discusses the
"coup" in considerable detail. Some random factoids I picked up on, in no particular order or
hierarchy:
-Russia is not interested in regime change in Turkey at the moment;
-Russia is very interested in maintaining its buffer zone (called "The Rimland" by the
late Nicholas Spykman, a geopolitics theoretician), of which Turkey forms perhaps the key part
(historically, and now);
-Russia turned the shooting down of that SU 24 into an opportunity to install S400s or
possibly, S500s, in Syria;
-The current situation in Syria is more or less a proxy war between the U.S. and Russia;
-Russia has recently become very active in the so-called "Northern Corridor" (aka, the
Arctic Circle), something most analysts forget;
-By 2020, Russia will be 100% self-sufficient in food production;
-It is likely that Russian surveillance technology picked up the news of the impending
coup and informed Erdogan of it;
-The presence of nuclear weapons at Incirlik is in violation of Article 2 of the 1975 Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty.
-Russia wants/needs a "southern corridor" to move LNG to the Med. Turkey is in the right
geographic location to serve this purpose.
The historical relationship between Turkey and Russia comes out a bit garbled in Helmer's (original
post) title, i.e. "The New Byzantine Alliance: The Kremlin and the Porte," etc.
Russia's historical ties were with the Byzantine Empire, with which it shared – after the
9th century A.D. – a crucial common feature, viz. Orthodoxy. The center of Orthodoxy was of course
Constantinople, with which the Russian Archbishopric and later, Patriarchate, experienced complicated
relations. Upon the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453, and the loss of Constantinople
to Orthodoxy, Russia envisioned its own capital, Moscow, as taking up the mantle and succeeding
Constantinople (the "Second Rome") as Christendom's "Third Rome". The title conflates the relationship
between the two countries/empires in the Byzantine period with that during the Ottoman period
(i.e., the [Sublime] "Porte").
Short version: when you start messing around in somebody else's backyard, trouble ensues.
The 2016 election offers voters two rather stark choices. Another blog I read, LGM, recently
had a comment on a thread about Trump-Clinton (there are so many, one loses count) that laid out
why voters are choosing one or the other candidate very neatly. If one is in the U.S. and is relatively
or very well-off, the Democrats' championing (qualified, I would say) of identity politics looks
pretty good, or at least, not as bad as the Republicans' (I'm still aghast at how black voters
are so staunchly supportive of someone whose husband shoved TANF through in place of AFDC, but
hey). But for non-U.S. citizens and U.S. citizens who live near the world's hottest geopolitical
hotspot, the prospect of Victoria Nuland (of Ukraine regime change fame) as SoS is not at all
a happy one.
"... What cannot be ignored is that Hilary Clinton has supported a war machine that has resulted in the death of millions, while also supporting a neoliberal economy that has produced massive amounts of suffering and created a mass incarceration state. ..."
"... It is crucial to note that Clinton hides her crimes in the discourse of freedom and appeals to democracy ..."
What cannot be ignored is that Hilary Clinton has supported a war machine that has resulted in
the death of millions, while also supporting a neoliberal economy that has produced massive amounts
of suffering and created a mass incarceration state. Yet, all of that is forgotten as the mainstream
press focuses on stories about Clinton's emails and the details of her electoral run for the presidency.
It is crucial to note that Clinton hides her crimes in the discourse of freedom and appeals to democracy
while Trump overtly disdains such a discourse. In the end, state and domestic violence saturate American
society and the only time this fact gets noticed is when the beatings and murders of Black men are
caught on camera and spread through social media.
A very weak article, but some ideas are worth quoting. I think "Make America Great" again is
a slogan of paleoconservatives, who are organically opposed neoconservatives -- the groups most closely
related to neofascism (despite the fact that it consists mainly of Jewish intellectuals and policymakers).
So
Henry A. Giroux is wrong on this particular slogan: neofascism is first of all the wars of
[neoliberal] conquest and Noninterventionalism is not compatible with neofascism. In this sense
Hillary Clinton is truly neofascist candidate in the current race.
Notable quotes:
"... State-manufactured fear offers up new forms of domestic terrorism embodied in the rise of a surveillance state while providing a powerful platform for militarizing many aspects of society. ..."
"... Under such circumstance, the bonds of trust dissolve, while hating the other becomes normalized and lawlessness is elevated to a matter of commonsense. ..."
Across the globe, fascism and white supremacy in their diverse forms are on the rise. In Greece,
France, Poland, Austria and Germany, among other nations, right-wing extremists have used the hateful
discourse of racism, xenophobia and white nationalism to demonize immigrants and undermine democratic
modes of rule and policies. As
Chris Hedges observes, much of the right-wing, racist rhetoric coming out of these countries
mimics what Trump and his followers are saying in the United States.
One consequence is that the
public spheres that produce a critically engaged citizenry and make a democracy possible are under
siege and in rapid retreat. Economic stagnation, massive inequality, the rise of religious fundamentalism
and growing forms of ultra-nationalism now aim to put democratic nations to rest. Echoes of the right-wing
movements in Europe have come home with a vengeance.
Demagogues wrapped in xenophobia, white supremacy and the false appeal to a lost past echo a brutally
familiar fascism, with slogans similar to Donald Trump's call to "Make America Great Again" and "Make
America Safe Again." These are barely coded messages that call for forms of racial and social cleansing.
They are on the march, spewing hatred, embracing forms of anti-semitism and white supremacy, and
showing a deep-seated disdain for any form of justice on the side of democracy. As
Peter Foster points out in The Telegraph, "The toxic combination of the most prolonged period
of economic stagnation and the worst refugee crisis since the end of the Second World War has seen
the far-Right surging across the continent, from Athens to Amsterdam and many points in between."
State-manufactured lawlessness has become normalized and extends from the ongoing and often brutalizing
and murderous police violence against Black people and other vulnerable groups to a criminogenic
market-based system run by a financial elite that strips everyone but the upper 1% of a future, not
only by stealing their possessions but also by condemning them to a life in which the only available
option is to fall back on one's individual resources in order to barely survive. In addition, as
Kathy Kelly points out, at the national level, lawlessness now drives a militarized foreign policy
intent on assassinating alleged enemies rather than using traditional forms of interrogation, arrest
and conviction. The killing of people abroad based on race is paralleled by (and connected with)
the killing of Black people at home. Kelly correctly notes that the whole world has become a battlefield
driven by racial profiling, where lethal violence replaces the protocols of serve and protect.
Fear is the reigning ideology and war its operative mode of action, pitting different groups against
each other, shutting down the possibilities of shared responsibilities, and legitimating the growth
of a paramilitary police force that kills Black people with impunity. State-manufactured fear
offers up new forms of domestic terrorism embodied in the rise of a surveillance state while providing
a powerful platform for militarizing many aspects of society. One consequence is that, as Charles
Derber argues, America has become a warrior society whose "culture and institutions... program civilians
for violence at home as well as abroad." And, as Zygmunt Bauman argues in his book Liquid Fear, in
a society saturated in violence and hate, "human relations are a source of anxiety" and everyone
is viewed with mistrust. Compassion gives way to suspicion and a celebration of fear and revulsion
accorded to those others who allegedly have the potential to become monsters, criminals, or even
worse, murderous terrorists. Under such circumstance, the bonds of trust dissolve, while hating
the other becomes normalized and lawlessness is elevated to a matter of commonsense.
Politics is now a form of warfare creating and producing an expanding geography of combat zones
that hold entire cities, such as Ferguson, Missouri, hostage to forms of extortion, violence lock
downs and domestic terrorism -- something I have demonstrated in detail in my book America at War
with Itself. These are cities where most of those targeted are Black. Within these zones of racial
violence, Black people are often terrified by the presence of the police and subject to endless forms
of domestic terrorism. Hannah Arendt once wrote that terror was the essence of totalitarianism. She
was right and we are witnessing the dystopian visions of the new authoritarians who now trade in
terror, fear, hatred, demonization, violence and racism. Trump and his neo-Nazi bulldogs are no longer
on the fringe of political life and they have no interests in instilling values that will make America
great. On the contrary, they are deeply concerned with creating expanding constellations of force
and fear, while inculcating convictions that will destroy the ability to form critical capacities
and modes of civic courage that offer a glimmer of resistance and justice.
... ... ...
In short, this emerging American neo-fascism in its various forms is largely about social and
racial cleansing and its end point is the construction of prisons, detention centers, enclosures,
walls, and all the other varieties of murderous apparatus that accompany the discourse of national
greatness and racial purity. Americans have lived through 40 years of the dismantling of the welfare
state, the elimination of democratic public spheres, such as schools and libraries, and the attack
on public goods and social provisions. In their place, we have the rise of the punishing state with
its support for a range of criminogenic institutions, extending from banks and hedge funds to state
governments and militarized police departments that depend on extortion to meet their budgets.
Bernie Sanders delegates were forcefully locked out of a DNC meeting
on Saturday as the Democratic National Committee attempted to block superdelegate
reforms.
The meeting of 187 rules committee members took place in a small room at
the Wells Fargo Center where they unceremoniously voted to reject a proposal
that would ban superdelegates in future primaries.
The DNC's Rules Committee,
which is co-chaired by former Massachusetts Congressman and outspoken
Clinton surrogate Barney Frank, is made up of representatives of both campaigns
in proportion to how many delegates each campaign won during the primary
process.
DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz also appointed 25 members of the Rules
Committee who are able to vote on each proposal. The superdelegate elimination
proposal and related measures were easily the most high-profile votes of
the day.
On Saturday afternoon, the committee voted to reject a proposal eliminating
the role of superdelegates in future Democratic presidential primaries -
something that
multiple state Democratic conventions voted in favor of earlier this
year. Similar proposals to minimize or limit the power of superdelegates
were also defeated.
A very weak article, but some ideas are worth quoting. I think "Make America Great" again is
a slogan of paleoconservatives, who are organically opposed neoconservatives -- the groups most closely
related to neofascism (despite the fact that it consists mainly of Jewish intellectuals and policymakers).
So
Henry A. Giroux is wrong on this particular slogan: neofascism is first of all the wars of
[neoliberal] conquest and Noninterventionalism is not compatible with neofascism. In this sense
Hillary Clinton is truly neofascist candidate in the current race.
Notable quotes:
"... State-manufactured fear offers up new forms of domestic terrorism embodied in the rise of a surveillance state while providing a powerful platform for militarizing many aspects of society. ..."
"... Under such circumstance, the bonds of trust dissolve, while hating the other becomes normalized and lawlessness is elevated to a matter of commonsense. ..."
Across the globe, fascism and white supremacy in their diverse forms are on the rise. In Greece,
France, Poland, Austria and Germany, among other nations, right-wing extremists have used the hateful
discourse of racism, xenophobia and white nationalism to demonize immigrants and undermine democratic
modes of rule and policies. As
Chris Hedges observes, much of the right-wing, racist rhetoric coming out of these countries
mimics what Trump and his followers are saying in the United States.
One consequence is that the
public spheres that produce a critically engaged citizenry and make a democracy possible are under
siege and in rapid retreat. Economic stagnation, massive inequality, the rise of religious fundamentalism
and growing forms of ultra-nationalism now aim to put democratic nations to rest. Echoes of the right-wing
movements in Europe have come home with a vengeance.
Demagogues wrapped in xenophobia, white supremacy and the false appeal to a lost past echo a brutally
familiar fascism, with slogans similar to Donald Trump's call to "Make America Great Again" and "Make
America Safe Again." These are barely coded messages that call for forms of racial and social cleansing.
They are on the march, spewing hatred, embracing forms of anti-semitism and white supremacy, and
showing a deep-seated disdain for any form of justice on the side of democracy. As
Peter Foster points out in The Telegraph, "The toxic combination of the most prolonged period
of economic stagnation and the worst refugee crisis since the end of the Second World War has seen
the far-Right surging across the continent, from Athens to Amsterdam and many points in between."
State-manufactured lawlessness has become normalized and extends from the ongoing and often brutalizing
and murderous police violence against Black people and other vulnerable groups to a criminogenic
market-based system run by a financial elite that strips everyone but the upper 1% of a future, not
only by stealing their possessions but also by condemning them to a life in which the only available
option is to fall back on one's individual resources in order to barely survive. In addition, as
Kathy Kelly points out, at the national level, lawlessness now drives a militarized foreign policy
intent on assassinating alleged enemies rather than using traditional forms of interrogation, arrest
and conviction. The killing of people abroad based on race is paralleled by (and connected with)
the killing of Black people at home. Kelly correctly notes that the whole world has become a battlefield
driven by racial profiling, where lethal violence replaces the protocols of serve and protect.
Fear is the reigning ideology and war its operative mode of action, pitting different groups against
each other, shutting down the possibilities of shared responsibilities, and legitimating the growth
of a paramilitary police force that kills Black people with impunity. State-manufactured fear
offers up new forms of domestic terrorism embodied in the rise of a surveillance state while providing
a powerful platform for militarizing many aspects of society. One consequence is that, as Charles
Derber argues, America has become a warrior society whose "culture and institutions... program civilians
for violence at home as well as abroad." And, as Zygmunt Bauman argues in his book Liquid Fear, in
a society saturated in violence and hate, "human relations are a source of anxiety" and everyone
is viewed with mistrust. Compassion gives way to suspicion and a celebration of fear and revulsion
accorded to those others who allegedly have the potential to become monsters, criminals, or even
worse, murderous terrorists. Under such circumstance, the bonds of trust dissolve, while hating
the other becomes normalized and lawlessness is elevated to a matter of commonsense.
Politics is now a form of warfare creating and producing an expanding geography of combat zones
that hold entire cities, such as Ferguson, Missouri, hostage to forms of extortion, violence lock
downs and domestic terrorism -- something I have demonstrated in detail in my book America at War
with Itself. These are cities where most of those targeted are Black. Within these zones of racial
violence, Black people are often terrified by the presence of the police and subject to endless forms
of domestic terrorism. Hannah Arendt once wrote that terror was the essence of totalitarianism. She
was right and we are witnessing the dystopian visions of the new authoritarians who now trade in
terror, fear, hatred, demonization, violence and racism. Trump and his neo-Nazi bulldogs are no longer
on the fringe of political life and they have no interests in instilling values that will make America
great. On the contrary, they are deeply concerned with creating expanding constellations of force
and fear, while inculcating convictions that will destroy the ability to form critical capacities
and modes of civic courage that offer a glimmer of resistance and justice.
... ... ...
In short, this emerging American neo-fascism in its various forms is largely about social and
racial cleansing and its end point is the construction of prisons, detention centers, enclosures,
walls, and all the other varieties of murderous apparatus that accompany the discourse of national
greatness and racial purity. Americans have lived through 40 years of the dismantling of the welfare
state, the elimination of democratic public spheres, such as schools and libraries, and the attack
on public goods and social provisions. In their place, we have the rise of the punishing state with
its support for a range of criminogenic institutions, extending from banks and hedge funds to state
governments and militarized police departments that depend on extortion to meet their budgets.
@72 Many good USians have been murdered (Phill Marshall, sen. Paul Wellstone, JFK junior - competing
with Hitlary for the Senate seat), silenced, imprisoned, intimidated, disenfranchised for standing
up to the criminal elite.
They deserve our utmost respect.
Do not use collective responsibility, Bolshevik style.
"... However, to ease tensions with the Clinton wing of the party, Obama selected Clinton to be his Secretary of State, one of the first and most fateful decisions of his presidency. He also kept on George W. Bush's Defense Secretary Robert Gates and neocon members of the military high command, such as Gen. David Petraeus. ..."
"... Inside Obama's foreign policy councils, Clinton routinely took the most neoconservative positions, such as defending a 2009 coup in Honduras that ousted a progressive president. ..."
"... Clinton also sabotaged early efforts to work out an agreement in which Iran surrendered much of its low-enriched uranium, including an initiative in 2010 organized at Obama's request by the leaders of Brazil and Turkey. Clinton sank that deal and escalated tensions with Iran along the lines favored by Israel's right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a Clinton favorite. ..."
"... But no one should be gullible enough to believe that Clinton's invasion of Syria would stop at a "safe zone." As with Libya, once the camel's nose was into the tent, pretty soon the animal would be filling up the whole tent. ..."
"... Perhaps even scarier is what a President Clinton would do regarding Iran and Ukraine, two countries where belligerent U.S. behavior could start much bigger wars. ..."
"... In Ukraine, would Clinton escalate U.S. military support for the post-coup anti-Russian Ukrainian government, encouraging its forces to annihilate the ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine and to "liberate" the people of Crimea from "Russian aggression" (though they voted by 96 percent to leave the failed Ukrainian state and rejoin Russia)? ..."
"... Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the neocon Project for the new American Century, has endorsed Clinton, saying "I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy. If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else." [See Consortiumnews.com's " Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Neocon. "] ..."
"... So, by selecting Clinton, the Democrats have made a full 360-degree swing back to the pre-1968 days of the Vietnam War. After nearly a half century of favoring a more peaceful foreign policy – and somewhat less weapons spending – than the Republicans, the Democrats are America's new aggressive war party. ..."
... But former Secretary of State Clinton has made it clear that she is eager to use military
force to achieve "regime change" in countries that get in the way of U.S. desires. She abides by
neoconservative strategies of violent interventions especially in the Middle East and she strikes
a belligerent posture as well toward nuclear-armed Russia and, to a lesser extent, China.
Amid the celebrations about picking the first woman as a major party's presumptive nominee, Democrats
appear to have given little thought to the fact that they have abandoned a near half-century standing
as the party more skeptical about the use of military force. Clinton is an unabashed war hawk who
has shown no inclination to rethink her pro-war attitudes.
As a U.S. senator from New York, Clinton voted for and avidly supported the Iraq War, only cooling
her enthusiasm in 2006 when it became clear that the Democratic base had turned decisively against
the war and her hawkish position endangered her chances for the 2008 presidential nomination, which
she lost to Barack Obama, an Iraq War opponent.
However, to ease tensions with the Clinton wing of the party, Obama selected Clinton to be
his Secretary of State, one of the first and most fateful decisions of his presidency. He also kept
on George W. Bush's Defense Secretary Robert Gates and neocon members of the military high command,
such as Gen. David Petraeus.
This "Team of Rivals" – named after Abraham Lincoln's initial Civil War cabinet – ensured a powerful
bloc of pro-war sentiment, which pushed Obama toward more militaristic solutions than he otherwise
favored, notably the wasteful counterinsurgency "surge" in Afghanistan in 2009 which did little beyond
get another 1,000 U.S. soldiers killed and many more Afghans.
Clinton was a strong supporter of that "surge" – and Gates
reported in his memoir that she acknowledged only opposing the Iraq War "surge" in 2007
for political reasons. Inside Obama's foreign policy councils, Clinton routinely took the most
neoconservative positions, such as defending a 2009 coup in Honduras that ousted a progressive president.
Clinton also sabotaged early efforts to work out an agreement in which Iran surrendered much
of its low-enriched uranium, including an initiative in 2010 organized at Obama's request by the
leaders of Brazil and Turkey. Clinton
sank that deal and escalated
tensions with Iran along the lines favored by Israel's right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,
a Clinton favorite.
Pumping for War in Libya
In 2011, Clinton successfully lobbied Obama to go to war against Libya to achieve another "regime
change," albeit cloaked in the more modest goal of establishing only a "no-fly zone" to "protect
civilians."
Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi had claimed he was battling jihadists and terrorists who were building
strongholds around Benghazi, but Clinton and her State Department underlings accused him of slaughtering
civilians and (in one of the more colorful lies used to justify the war) distributing Viagra to his
troops so they could rape more women.
Despite resistance from Russia and China, the United Nations Security Council fell for the deception
about protecting civilians. Russia and China agreed to abstain from the vote, giving Clinton her
"no-fly zone." Once that was secured, however, the Obama administration and several European allies
unveiled their real plan, to destroy the Libyan army and pave the way for the violent overthrow of
Gaddafi.
Privately, Clinton's senior aides viewed the Libyan "regime change" as a chance to establish what
they called the "Clinton Doctrine" on using "smart power" with plans for Clinton to rush
to the fore and claim credit once Gaddafi was ousted. But that scheme failed when President Obama
grabbed the limelight after Gaddafi's government collapsed.
But Clinton would not be denied her second opportunity to claim the glory when jihadist rebels
captured Gaddafi on Oct. 20, 2011, sodomized him with a knife and then murdered him. Hearing of Gaddafi's
demise, Clinton went into a network interview and
declared , "we came,
we saw, he died" and clapped her hands in glee.
Clinton's glee was short-lived, however. Libya soon descended into chaos with Islamic extremists
gaining control of large swaths of the country. On Sept. 11, 2012, jihadists attacked the U.S. consulate
in Benghazi killing Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other American personnel. It turned
out Gaddafi had been right about the nature of his enemies.
Undaunted by the mess in Libya, Clinton made similar plans for Syria where again she marched in
lock-step with the neocons and their "liberal interventionist" sidekicks in support of another violent
"regime change," ousting the Assad dynasty,
a top neocon/Israeli goal since the 1990s.
Clinton pressed Obama to escalate weapons shipments and training for anti-government rebels who
were deemed "moderate" but in reality
collaborated closely with radical Islamic forces, including Al Nusra Front (Al Qaeda's Syrian
franchise) and some even more extreme jihadists (who coalesced into the Islamic State).
Again, Clinton's war plans were cloaked in humanitarian language, such as the need to create a
"safe zone" inside Syria to save civilians. But her plans would have required a major U.S. invasion
of a sovereign country, the destruction of its air force and much of its military, and the creation
of conditions for another "regime change."
In the case of Syria, however, Obama resisted the pressure from Clinton and other hawks inside
his own administration. The President did approve some covert assistance to the rebels and allowed
Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf states to do much more, but he did not agree to an outright U.S.-led
invasion to Clinton's disappointment.
Parting Ways
Clinton finally left the Obama administration at the start of his second term in 2013, some say
voluntarily and others say in line with Obama's desire to finally move ahead with serious negotiations
with Iran over its nuclear program and to apply more pressure on Israel to reach a long-delayed peace
settlement with the Palestinians. Secretary of State John Kerry was willing to do some of the politically
risky work that Clinton was not.
Many on the Left deride Obama as "Obomber" and mock his hypocritical acceptance of the Nobel Peace
Prize in 2009. And there is no doubt that Obama has waged war his entire presidency, bombing at least
seven countries by his own count. But the truth is that he has generally been among the most dovish
members of his administration, advocating a "realistic" (or restrained) application of American power.
By contrast, Clinton was among the most hawkish senior officials.
A major testing moment for Obama came in August 2013 after a sarin gas attack outside Damascus,
Syria, that killed hundreds of Syrians and that the State Department and the mainstream U.S. media
immediately blamed on the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
There was almost universal pressure inside Official Washington to militarily enforce Obama's "red
line" against Assad using chemical weapons. Amid this intense momentum toward war, it was widely
assumed that Obama would order a harsh retaliatory strike against the Syrian military. But U.S. intelligence
and key figures in the U.S. military smelled a rat, a provocation carried out by Islamic extremists
to draw the United States into the Syrian war on their side.
At the last minute and at great political cost to himself, Obama listened to the doubts of his
intelligence advisers and called off the attack, referring the issue to the U.S. Congress and then
accepting a Russian-brokered deal in which Assad surrendered all his chemical weapons though continuing
to deny a role in the sarin attack.
Eventually, the sarin
case against Assad would collapse. Only one rocket was found to have carried sarin and
it had a very limited range placing its firing position likely within rebel-controlled territory.
But Official Washington's conventional wisdom never budged. To this day, politicians and pundits
denounce Obama for not enforcing his "red line."
There's little doubt, however, what Hillary Clinton would have done. She has been eager for a
much more aggressive U.S. military role in Syria since the civil war began in 2011. Much as she used
propaganda and deception to achieve "regime change" in Libya, she surely would have done the same
in Syria, embracing the pretext of the sarin attack – "killing innocent children" – to destroy the
Syrian military even if the rebels were the guilty parties.
Still Lusting for War
Indeed, during the 2016 campaign – in those few moments that have touched on foreign policy –
Clinton declared that as President she would order the U.S. military to invade Syria. "Yes, I do
still support a no-fly zone," she said during the April 14 debate. She also wants a "safe zone" that
would require seizing territory inside Syria.
But no one should be gullible enough to believe that Clinton's invasion of Syria would stop
at a "safe zone." As with Libya, once the camel's nose was into the tent, pretty soon the animal
would be filling up the whole tent.
Perhaps even scarier is what a President Clinton would do regarding Iran and Ukraine, two
countries where belligerent U.S. behavior could start much bigger wars.
For instance, would President Hillary Clinton push the Iranians so hard – in line with what Netanyahu
favors – that they would renounce the nuclear deal and give Clinton an excuse to bomb-bomb-bomb Iran?
In Ukraine, would Clinton escalate U.S. military support for the post-coup anti-Russian Ukrainian
government, encouraging its forces to annihilate the ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine and
to "liberate" the people of Crimea from "Russian aggression" (though they voted by 96 percent to
leave the failed Ukrainian state and rejoin Russia)?
Would President Clinton expect the Russians to stand down and accept these massacres? Would she
take matters to the next level to demonstrate how tough she can be against Russian President Vladimir
Putin whom she has compared to Hitler? Might she buy into the latest neocon dream of achieving "regime
change" in Moscow? Would she be wise enough to recognize how dangerous such instability could be?
Of course, one would expect that all of Clinton's actions would be clothed in the crocodile tears
of "humanitarian" warfare, starting wars to "save the children" or to stop the evil enemy from "raping
defenseless girls." The truth of such emotional allegations would be left for the post-war historians
to try to sort out. In the meantime, President Clinton would have her wars.
Having covered Washington for nearly four decades, I always marvel at how selective concerns for
human rights can be. When "friendly" civilians are dying, we are told that we have a "responsibility
to protect," but when pro-U.S. forces are slaughtering civilians of an adversary country or movement,
reports of those atrocities are dismissed as "enemy propaganda" or ignored altogether. Clinton is
among the most cynical in this regard.
Trading Places
But the larger picture for the Democrats is that they have just adopted an extraordinary historical
reversal whether they understand it or not. They have replaced the Republicans as the party of aggressive
war, though clearly many Republicans still dance to the neocon drummer just as Clinton and "liberal
interventionists" do. Still, Donald Trump, for all his faults, has adopted a relatively peaceful
point of view, especially in the Mideast and with Russia.
While today many Democrats are congratulating themselves for becoming the first major party to
make a woman the presumptive nominee, they may soon have to decide whether that distinction justifies
putting an aggressive war hawk in the White House. In a way, the issue is an old one for Democrats,
whether "identity politics" or anti-war policies are more important.
At least since 1968 and the chaotic Democratic convention in Chicago, the party has advanced,
sometimes haltingly, those two agendas, pushing for broader rights for all and seeking to restrain
the nation's militaristic impulses.
In the 1970s, Democrats largely repudiated the Vietnam War while the Republicans waved the flag
and equated anti-war positions with treason. By the 1980s and early 1990s, Ronald Reagan and George
H.W. Bush were making war fun again – Grenada, Afghanistan, Panama and the Persian Gulf, all relatively
low-cost conflicts with victorious conclusions.
By the 1990s, Bill Clinton (along with Hillary Clinton) saw militarism as just another issue to
be triangulated. With the Soviet Union's collapse, the Clinton-42 administration saw the opportunity
for more low-cost tough-guy/gal-ism – continuing a harsh embargo and periodic air strikes against
Iraq (causing the deaths of a U.N.-estimated half million children); blasting Serbia into submission
over Kosovo; and expanding NATO to the east toward Russia's borders.
But Bill Clinton did balk at the more extreme neocon ideas, such as the one from the Project for
the New American Century for a militarily enforced "regime change" in Iraq. That had to wait for
George W. Bush in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. As a New York senator, Hillary Clinton made sure
she was onboard for war on Iraq just as she sided with Israel's pummeling of Lebanon and the Palestinians
in Gaza.
Hillary Clinton was taking triangulation to an even more acute angle as she sided with virtually
every position of the Netanyahu government in Israel and moved in tandem with the neocons as they
cemented their control of Washington's foreign policy establishment. Her only brief flirtation with
an anti-war position came in 2006 when her political advisers informed her that her continued support
for Bush's Iraq War would doom her in the Democratic presidential race.
But she let her hawkish plumage show again as Obama's Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013 – and
once she felt she had the 2016 Democratic race in hand (after her success in the southern primaries)
she pivoted back to her hard-line positions in full support of Israel and in a full-throated defense
of her war on Libya, which she still won't view as a failure.
The smarter neocons are already lining up to endorse Clinton, especially given Donald Trump's
hostile takeover of the Republican Party and his disdain for neocon strategies that he views as simply
spreading chaos around the globe. As The New York Times has
reported, Clinton is "the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring their hopes."
Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the neocon Project for the new American Century, has endorsed
Clinton, saying "I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy. If she pursues a policy which we
think she will pursue it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters
are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else." [See Consortiumnews.com's
"Yes,
Hillary Clinton Is a Neocon."]
So, by selecting Clinton, the Democrats have made a full 360-degree swing back to the pre-1968
days of the Vietnam War. After nearly a half century of favoring a more peaceful foreign policy –
and somewhat less weapons spending – than the Republicans, the Democrats are America's new aggressive
war party.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen
Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com).
How about WAPO does some real reporting and compares the two candidate on the issues at hand and
leaves out all the speculation"
Judging from comments the level of brainwashing of WaPo readship is just staggering... Far above
that existed in soviet Russia (were most people were supciously about Soviet nomeklatura and did not
trust them).
Notable quotes:
"... In their zeal to portray Donald Trump as a dangerous threat to national security, the Clinton campaign has taken a starkly anti-Russian stance, one that completes a total role reversal for the two major American parties on U.S.-Russian relations that Hillary Clinton will now be committed to, if she becomes president. ..."
"... And now, for mostly political reasons, the Clinton campaign has decided to escalate its rhetoric on Russia. ..."
"... This year, the Clinton team is accusing Putin of waging information warfare against the Democratic candidate in order to help elect the Republican candidate. Clinton is also running ads claiming she stood up to Putin. Meanwhile, Trump is called for a weakening of NATO and his staff worked to remove an anti-Russia stance on Ukraine from the GOP platform. ..."
"... Now that the Democrats are the tough-on-Russia party, they should explain exactly what that means. What would Clinton do about Russia's increasingly aggressive cyber-espionage and information warfare in Europe and around the world? Would she expand sanctions on Russia in response to the hacks? Would she use U.S. cyber forces to retaliate? Would she abandon President Obama's plan to deepen U.S.-Russian military and intelligence cooperation in Syria? ..."
"... if Clinton wins, she will be committed to implementing the anti-Putin, tough-on-Russia policy she is running on and Democrats will need to fall in line ..."
"... I am not a national security expert but it does not look intelligent to antagonize Russia and China at the same time. But I think it is unfair to blame Hillary for this, Obama has been antagonizing Russia and China for some time now. He has being very successful at that, for the first time in many years now Russia and China are BFF doing naval exercises together. ..."
"... In other words, her use of a homebrew email server constituted a threat to national security? ..."
"... The Dems and their Washington Post surrogates are apoplectic over Donald Trump's supposed affinity for the Russians. Russia is now America's mortal enemy in the current Dem narrative. ..."
"... Mook's claim of Russian involvement would be more convincing if he had offered any proof. Otherwise it just looks like pure deflection and distraction and disinformation. ..."
In their zeal to portray Donald Trump as a dangerous threat to national security, the Clinton
campaign has taken a starkly anti-Russian stance, one that completes a total role reversal for the
two major American parties on U.S.-Russian relations that Hillary Clinton will now be committed to,
if she becomes president.
The side switching between the parties on Russia is the result of two converging trends. U.S.-Russian
relations have gone downhill since Russian President Vladimir Putin came back to power in 2012, torpedoing
the Obama administration's first term outreach to Moscow, which Clinton led. Then, in the past year,
Trump's Russia-friendly policy has filled the pro-engagement space that Democrats once occupied.
And now, for mostly political reasons, the Clinton campaign has decided to escalate its rhetoric
on Russia. After Trump
suggested Wednesday that if Russia had indeed hacked Clinton's private email server it should
release the emails, the Clinton campaign sent out its Democratic surrogates to bash Russia and Trump
in a manner traditionally reserved for Republicans.
"This has gone from being a matter of curiosity, and a matter of politics, to being a national
security issue," Clinton senior foreign policy adviser Jake Sullivan said.
Set to one side that Trump was probably joking. Russia clearly does not need Trump's permission
to hack U.S. political organizations or government institutions. And there's no consensus that Russia
released the Democratic National Committee emails in order to disrupt the presidential election.
In fact, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who has his own personal vendetta against Clinton, claimed
that he alone chose the timing of the release of the DNC emails.
Regardless, the idea that a GOP presidential nominee would endorse Russian cyber-espionage was
too tempting for the Clinton campaign to resist, especially on the day their convention was dedicated
to painting Trump as dangerous on national security.
At an event on the sidelines of the convention Wednesday, several top Clinton national security
surrogates focused on Trump's latest comments to argue that they embolden Russia in its plan to destabilize
and dominate the West. Former national security adviser Tom Donilon said that Russia is interfering
with elections all over Europe and said Trump is helping Russia directly.
"The Russians have engaged in cyberattacks in a number of places that we know about, in Georgia,
in Estonia and in Ukraine. . . . In the Russian takeover of Crimea, information warfare was a
central part of their operations," Donilon said. "To dangerously embrace a set of strategies by
the Russian Federation that are intent on undermining key Western institutions . . . is playing
into the hands of Russian strategy."
Former defense secretary and CIA director Leon Panetta said that if Donilon was still in the White
House, he would have tasked the CIA to retaliate against Moscow. Panetta then doubled down on Sullivan's
argument that Trump's comments by themselves are making the United States less safe.
"This is crazy stuff, and yet somehow you get the sense that people think it's a joke. It has
already represented a threat to our national security," Panetta said. "Because if you go abroad
and talk to people, they are very worried that someone like this could become president of the
United States."
In 2008, the Russian government was definitely not rooting for the Republican candidate for president.
Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) had made a feature of his campaign a pledge to stand up to Russian aggression
and dispatched two top surrogates to Georgia after the Russian invasion.
In 2012, Mitt Romney warned that Russia was the United States' "number one geopolitical foe."
Then-Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John F. Kerry mocked Romney at the Democratic National
Convention in Charlotte, saying that Romney got his information about Russia from the movie "Rocky
IV."
This year, the Clinton team is accusing Putin of waging information warfare against the Democratic
candidate in order to help elect the Republican candidate. Clinton is also running ads claiming she
stood up to Putin. Meanwhile, Trump is called for a weakening of NATO and his staff worked to remove
an anti-Russia stance on Ukraine from the GOP platform.
Now that the Democrats are the tough-on-Russia party, they should explain exactly what that
means. What would Clinton do about Russia's increasingly aggressive cyber-espionage and information
warfare in Europe and around the world? Would she expand sanctions on Russia in response to the hacks?
Would she use U.S. cyber forces to retaliate? Would she abandon President Obama's plan to deepen
U.S.-Russian military and intelligence cooperation in Syria?
The Clinton team hasn't said. For now, they are content to use Trump's statements about Russia
to make the argument that he's not commander-in-chief material. But if Clinton wins, she will
be committed to implementing the anti-Putin, tough-on-Russia policy she is running on and Democrats
will need to fall in line . If Putin wasn't rooting for Trump before, he is now.
NotaClinton , 7/28/2016 6:25 PM EDT
So TRUMP is threat to NATIONAL SECURITY for asking RUSSIA for the emails she destroyed? Because
they would be the one likely to have them since she completely ignored Security protocol while
in Russia? WOW they get better every day. They have already explain Russia could have been in
and out of her accounts all along because of her complete lack of security of her devises. She
had less security than a commercial account using the private server the way she did. And she
did cause a breach in national security. She fwd classified email to an intern and it did get
hacked. Whether or not Russia got any info from her we will never know. Because the lack of security
on her server Russia could have got her password and and the info leaving no tracks.
NotaClinton , 7/28/2016 5:22 PM EDT
People agree with PUTIN you know like the ones in CRIMEA and SYRIA. I'd rather see a PUTIN
TRUMP ticket. I like what I see in PUTIN doing in the world. He seems to be the one SAVING people
around the world. Assad let the people have freedom of religion. These Sunni the USA is arming
want to force Sharia law. I don't approve of my tax dollars being spent arming those terrorists
nor do I consider Saudi Arabia an ally!!! I would rather see a TRUMP PUTIN ticket and add 75 more
stars to our flag. Than what the current government is. Although I would more so like to see the
USA government take a much more democratic stance. Change our government to be more like Switzerland
Norway and the Netherlands. Who were inspired by the USA constitution. Our constitution and democracy
has been lost to corruption!!!!
George1955, 7/28/2016 5:08 PM EDT
I am not a national security expert but it does not look intelligent to antagonize Russia
and China at the same time. But I think it is unfair to blame Hillary for this, Obama has been
antagonizing Russia and China for some time now. He has being very successful at that, for the
first time in many years now Russia and China are BFF doing naval exercises together. Maybe
there is a very profound strategy in that (everybody says that Obama is a genius) but I cannot
see what is the logic of provoking at the same time the two biggest military powers apart of the
United States while weakening our military forces with budget cuts.
It is the worst foreign policy since the Arab Spring brought us ISIS. They are incapable of
intelligent policy. Their whole idea was to "not do stupid stuff" and here they are. They just
can't help themselves.
chayapartiya, 7/28/2016 5:01 PM EDT
The only thing standing between a highly productive US/Russian relationship are the other relationships
the United States has, both institutional and personal among our elites.
Russia is the sworn enemy of many US allies and has barred our richest citizens from taking
charge of large sectors of the Russian economy. That is the source of our new Cold War.
Lacking Communist ideology Russia will never be an existential threat to the United States
or our way of life. On the other hand, Islam is. On the other hand, Red China is.
You have to be willing to abandon the entire US foreign policy establishment to turn our relationship
with Russia around, and if we did maintaining our relationships with Poland, the Baltics, Georgia,
Turkey, Saudi Arabia and more would become vastly more difficult.
But the idea is too good of one to abandon, Russia is far too influential to ignore. I'm glad
one major party is going to recognize that now.
invention13, 7/28/2016 5:01 PM EDT
"This has gone from being a matter of curiosity, and a matter of politics, to being a national
security issue," Clinton senior foreign policy adviser Jake Sullivan said.
In other words, her use of a homebrew email server constituted a threat to national security?
I'm finding this whole flap just too funny. The whole point was probably to step on the news
coverage of the convention on the night that the president and vice president were to speak. Trump
is happy to fan the flames a bit. This is what he does when there is something he doesn't want
people to pay attention to (whether it is unfavorable coverage of Trump University, or a convention).
He throws out something outrageous that sucks the oxygen out of the news cycle. This whole thing
will die down, simply because in the absence of hard evidence, most people don't believe it is
true that Trump is Putin's agent. He may admire him, but work for him? I doubt it.
NotaClinton, 7/28/2016 5:44 PM EDT
Her actions DID once agains threaten NATIONAL SECURITY there was no doubt about that. She fwd
classified email to her interns who got hacked. That is definitely a threat to national security.
She carried her Blackberry and laptop into countries while acting as head of state. Which was
not recommended for anyone to do even if there devices were secured by the state. She took hers
to countries with her personal server that had zero security less than a commercial account. Then
there was the fact she deleted and kept her business out of reach of FOIA. Zero respect for those
laws. All federal employees are allowed to have a personal email for there person life. But Hilary
decides she is above the law. Those federal laws don't apply to her and got away with it. When
Comey was asked about that. He said he wasn't asked to investigate whether she broke those federal
laws. He wasn't investigating whether she broke the law. But only if he should charge her for
violating security. His conclusion was yes she violated the law. But he sees the law meant nothing
so why file a criminal charge.
Trump only requested information that they very well may have. Because Hilary handed it to
them. it's hard to believe the Russians hacked the DNC. They most likely had the passwords from
Hilary's accounts. Which would leave no footprints.
OswegoTex , 7/28/2016 2:54 PM EDT
The Dems and their Washington Post surrogates are apoplectic over Donald Trump's supposed
affinity for the Russians. Russia is now America's mortal enemy in the current Dem narrative.
Wasn't Romney ridiculed by a snarky and arrogant Obama and his press sycophants for identifying
Russia as a major geopolitical threat in the 2012 election cycle. What happened? Oh-- I know---
the Clinton/Obama "reset".
stella blue, 7/28/2016 2:45 PM EDT
Very interesting article. Hillary is a neocon. She never saw a war she didn't like. I don't
know what would be so wrong with having good relations with Russia. Wasn't that what Hillary's
stupid reset button was all about?
NotaClinton, 7/28/2016 6:11 PM EDT [Edited]
I admire PUTIN and so do a lot of people. If you are a Citizens and believe in our values and
the constitution. He held a democratic Legal election in Crimea. Where the people voted unanimously
in favor of Belonging to Russia, A Vote that would be exactly the same today. The USA invades
Syria with terrorists from countries whose own people wouldn't vote them in.
All I have seen Putin do is save people. He saved Syria finally. i don't know what took him
so long. Maybe WMDs he knew the opposition would use and some more dirty filthy rotten tricks
that have been happening there. He turned the war around on less money than a shipment of weapons
and training to the rebels forces costed the USA. those shipments and training was going on since
before the conflict broke out. What was the point?
Why has the USA spent a dime in that country other than they should have immediately neutralized,
destroyed or recovered all the military equipment that was stolen from Iraq. I you like Russian
your anti american? If you don't like illegal Immigrants your a racist. That is to be expected
from those educated Hilary Voters...
Nikdo, 7/28/2016 4:26 PM EDT
Mook's claim of Russian involvement would be more convincing if he had offered any proof.
Otherwise it just looks like pure deflection and distraction and disinformation.
The video accompanying the article is actually better the the text. John Bolton made some interesting
remarks. For example he said that it is stunning that Hillary Clinton said something about damage from
hack of DNC server. What she though by engaging in her reckless behaviors with bathroom server four
years while she were in office. He also suggested that points to Russia might be just attempt if disinformation
from a real perpetuator.
Notable quotes:
"... In her acceptance speech, Clinton reaffirmed a commitment to NATO, saying she was "proud to stand by our allies in NATO against any threat they face, including from Russia." ..."
"... As U.S. secretary of state, Clinton in 2009 presented her Russian counterpart with a red button intended to symbolize a "reset" in relations between the two countries, one of U.S. President Barack Obama's initiatives. In Russia, the gesture is best remembered for the misspelling of the word in Russian, while the reset itself failed in the face of Putin's return as Russian president in 2012 and Russia's seizure of Crimea from Ukraine two years later. ..."
"... Clinton once compared the annexation of Crimea to Adolf Hitler's moves into Eastern Europe at the start of World War II, a comparison that was deeply offensive in Russia, where the country's victory over Nazi Germany remains a prime source of national pride. ..."
"... "And as far as the Ukraine is concerned, it's a mess. And that's under the Obama's administration with his strong ties to NATO. So with all of these strong ties to NATO, Ukraine is a mess," Trump said. "Crimea has been taken. Don't blame Donald Trump for that." ..."
"... Putin was outraged by U.S. support for Ukraine and by U.S. military intervention around the world, particularly in Libya, on Clinton's watch. But it was what he saw as interference in Russia that really rankled. ..."
"... When Clinton described Russia's 2011 parliamentary elections as rigged, Putin said she was "sending a signal" to his critics. He then accused the U.S. State Department of financially supporting the protests that drew tens of thousands of people to the streets of Moscow to demand free elections and an end to Putin's rule. ..."
"... Channel One began its report by introducing Clinton as "a politician who puts herself above the law, who is ready to win at any cost and who is ready to change her principles depending on the political situation." The anchorwoman couched the description by saying that was how Clinton is seen by Trump's supporters - but it was a nuance viewers could easily miss. ..."
MOSCOW – To understand what the Kremlin thinks about the prospect of Hillary Clinton becoming
the U.S. president, it was enough to watch Russian state television coverage of her accepting the
Democratic nomination.
Viewers were told that Clinton sees Russia as an enemy and cannot be trusted, while the Democratic
Party convention was portrayed as further proof that American democracy is a sham.
In her acceptance speech, Clinton reaffirmed a commitment to NATO, saying she was "proud to
stand by our allies in NATO against any threat they face, including from Russia."
In doing so, she was implicitly rebuking her rival, Republican nominee Donald Trump, who has questioned
the need for the Western alliance and suggested that if he is elected president, the United States
might not honor its NATO military commitments, in particular regarding former Soviet republics in
the Baltics.
While Trump's position on NATO has delighted the Kremlin, Clinton's statement clearly stung.
"She mentioned Russia only once, but it was enough to see that the era of the reset is over,"
Channel One said in its report.
As U.S. secretary of state, Clinton in 2009 presented her Russian counterpart with a red button
intended to symbolize a "reset" in relations between the two countries, one of U.S. President Barack
Obama's initiatives. In Russia, the gesture is best remembered for the misspelling of the word in
Russian, while the reset itself failed in the face of Putin's return as Russian president in 2012
and Russia's seizure of Crimea from Ukraine two years later.
Clinton once compared the annexation of Crimea to Adolf Hitler's moves into Eastern Europe
at the start of World War II, a comparison that was deeply offensive in Russia, where the country's
victory over Nazi Germany remains a prime source of national pride.
Trump, on the other hand, told ABC's "This Week" in a broadcast Sunday that he wants to take a
look at whether the U.S. should recognize Crimea as part of Russia. "You know, the people of Crimea,
from what I've heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were," Trump said.
This runs counter to the position of the Obama administration and the European Union, which have
imposed punishing sanctions on Russia in response to the annexation.
"And as far as the Ukraine is concerned, it's a mess. And that's under the Obama's administration
with his strong ties to NATO. So with all of these strong ties to NATO, Ukraine is a mess," Trump
said. "Crimea has been taken. Don't blame Donald Trump for that."
Putin was outraged by U.S. support for Ukraine and by U.S. military intervention around the
world, particularly in Libya, on Clinton's watch. But it was what he saw as interference in Russia
that really rankled.
When Clinton described Russia's 2011 parliamentary elections as rigged, Putin said she was
"sending a signal" to his critics. He then accused the U.S. State Department of financially supporting
the protests that drew tens of thousands of people to the streets of Moscow to demand free elections
and an end to Putin's rule.
In the years since, the Kremlin has defended Russian elections in part by implying they are no
different than in the United States, a country it says promotes democracy around the world while
allowing its business and political elite to determine who wins at home.
The Democratic Convention, which ended Friday morning Moscow time, was given wide coverage throughout
the day on the nearly hourly news reports on state television, the Kremlin's most powerful tool for
shaping public opinion.
Channel One began its report by introducing Clinton as "a politician who puts herself above the
law, who is ready to win at any cost and who is ready to change her principles depending on the political
situation." The anchorwoman couched the description by saying that was how Clinton is seen by Trump's
supporters - but it was a nuance viewers could easily miss.
The reports ran excerpts of Clinton's speech, but the camera swung repeatedly to a sullen Sen.
Bernie Sanders of Vermont, her Democratic challenger, and his disappointed supporters. The Rossiya
channel also showed anti-Clinton protesters outside the convention hall who it said "felt they have
been betrayed after the email leak that showed Bernie Sanders was pushed out of the race."
Russia is a prime suspect in the hacking of Democratic National Committee computers, which led
to the release of emails showing that party officials favored Clinton over Sanders for the presidential
nomination.
The Kremlin has denied interfering in the U.S. election. A columnist at Russia's best-selling
newspaper, however, said it would have been a smart move.
"I would welcome the Kremlin helping those forces in the United States that stand for peace with
Russia and democracy in America," Israel Shamir wrote in Komsomolskaya Pravda.
Trump, meanwhile, has encouraged Russia to seek and release more than 30,000 other missing emails
deleted by Clinton. Democrats accused him of trying to get a foreign adversary to conduct espionage
that could affect this November's election, but Trump later said he was merely being sarcastic.
whollop
Putin has tried to remind the world what a mistake break up of Yugoslavia was and corruption
involved and lies, no one listens. Next leader of Russia might not be so restrained and patient.
Sad we are letting such bad minds lead US now. What is it about Clinton's that make ppl so gullible?
whollop
Read "how the srebrenica massacre redefined US policy," by US professor. Media distorts truth
everywhere, all the time. Bought and paid for.
Russians didn't start last 2 WW's either. You can bet if ISIS attacks Russia, Pres O won't
go to their aid.
This constant demonizing of Russia has pushed them closer to China. Obama and Clinton and Bill
Clinton (from earlier and beyond) have made a mess of the world because their values are built
on wrong philosophy. German rationalism does not mesh with American freedom and love of law.
Trump17
Her and Obama interfered in their affairs and now without any proof they are blaming Russia
for a hacking of the DNC. Back in March the FBI told the DNC it was hacked and wanted information
to conduct an investigation which Hillary of course blocked. Now they are crying the blues..
HmmIsee
Dems have hated Russia ever since Reagan disbanded their beloved USSR
teabone
Russia and the U.S. used to have a common enemy, radical/extremist Islamism.
Not anymore since Obama and Clinton loves Muslims more than they like American citizens.
Looks like this is a new part of Hillary strategy to take Trump down
Notable quotes:
"... "We know that Russian intelligence services hacked into the DNC," Clinton said, in her first interview with Fox in more than five years. "And we know that they arranged for a lot of those emails to be released and we know that Donald Trump has shown a very troubling willingness to back up Putin, to support Putin." ..."
Clinton answered tough questions on Benghazi, her emails and her campaign and policies, and focused
her own attack on her opponent's alleged links to Russia and Putin.
"We know that Russian intelligence services hacked into the DNC," Clinton said, in her first interview
with Fox in more than five years. "And we know that they arranged for a lot of those emails to be
released and we know that
Donald Trump has shown
a very troubling willingness to back up Putin, to support Putin."
Asked if she believed Putin wanted Trump to win the presidency, Clinton said she would not make
that conclusion. "But I think laying out the facts raises serious issues about Russian interference
in our elections, in our democracy," she said.
The US would not tolerate that from any other country, Clinton said, adding: "For Trump to both
encourage that and to praise Putin despite what appears to be a deliberate effort to try to affect
the election, I think, raises national security issues."
"... …and vote FOR the person who voted for the invasion of Iraq, supported NAFTA and the undermining of universal health coverage in support of private insurance companies/managed care, was likely the deciding factor in overthrowing the Libyan government, was instrumental in supporting multiple dictatorships in Haiti (good pieces linked to that on NC recently), was possibly instrumental in and for sure responsible for the support after the fact of the coup in Honduras, was a founder of what might go down in history as one of the largest fraudulent charities ever (with those tentacles doing the very same things the DNC is accusing Putin of doing), has a history of quid pro quo dealings with predator international investment banks and vulture capitalists (which Elizabeth Warren has identified in speeches that are available on Youtube)… one could go on and on, but basically the candidate who has never met a nation state or corrupt business dealing that she didn't want to stick herself in the middle of the dealings with… ..."
"... I would think the xenophobe might look more attractive to non-passport holders of the American empire simply based upon a cursory reading of history. But nothing should surprise me anymore. ..."
This is some irresponsible stuff. For all of Naked Capitalism's concerns
with Clinton's neocon tendencies, you neglect to understand that we are
terrified of Trump here in Europe, and as a Brazilian, I do not know a single
person from my country who would prefer him as President. 2016 Democrats
are not "neoliberals," even as they operate in a neoliberal structure. The
only thing any of this indicates is Trump has is that he has *no record*
– Hudson thinks that every last thing that happened under the Obama government
was out of the President's personal desire to make it so. If Trump had a
political career, he would be no better, if not much worse. Trump's career
in business does not support Hudson's optimism, at all.
I do agree with you. I have many friends in Europe and Australia who
are literally begging me to vote for Clinton – and they don't like her much
either.
I love NC, but I disagree with the fawning acceptance of Trump as somehow
fit to be President. He's a racist, bigoted, xenophobic, homophobic, sexist
jerk with no really good plans in place. The so-called "ideas" or "plans"
that he has do not pencil out and would bankrupt this country should they
ever be implemented. I agree that Clinton is awful and was well nigh disgusted
with the DNC convention (but expected nothing less or different).
But voting for Trump is irresponsible in my opinion. I just cannot go
there. Yet and still in this nation today, you are free to vote for who
you want.
You would rather vote against the egomaniacal, sexist, xenophobe,
who is willing to downshift international military interventions, lessen
spending on NATO, work WITH the Russians on ISIS, possibly exit trade neoliberal
trade agreements like NAFTA and the WTO (while not adopting the TPP), etc…
…and vote FOR the person who voted for the invasion of Iraq, supported
NAFTA and the undermining of universal health coverage in support of private
insurance companies/managed care, was likely the deciding factor in overthrowing
the Libyan government, was instrumental in supporting multiple dictatorships
in Haiti (good pieces linked to that on NC recently), was possibly instrumental
in and for sure responsible for the support after the fact of the coup in
Honduras, was a founder of what might go down in history as one of the largest
fraudulent charities ever (with those tentacles doing the very same things
the DNC is accusing Putin of doing), has a history of quid pro quo dealings
with predator international investment banks and vulture capitalists (which
Elizabeth Warren has identified in speeches that are available on Youtube)…
one could go on and on, but basically the candidate who has never met a
nation state or corrupt business dealing that she didn't want to stick herself
in the middle of the dealings with…
I would think the xenophobe might look more attractive to non-passport
holders of the American empire simply based upon a cursory reading of history.
But nothing should surprise me anymore.
There were some newbie walk-ins at the top of the thread who were keen
on Trump, which I agree was creepy.
But aside from our relentless jgordon, no regular LIKES Trump. The ones
who say they will vote for him weigh that choice against Jill Stein. They
see themselves reluctantly voting for Trump as the "less effective evil,"
that as an outsider, hated by his own party, he won't get much done. Think
Jimmy Carter cubed. The other reasons for being willing to consider Trump
are that Hilary clearly wants a hot war with Russia, and that she will push
for the TPP, which is a dangerous and irrevocable deal.
As someone who consistently advocates here for Trump being the lesser
evil, I want to chime in behind Yves. I do not like Trump. I just consider
putting him into the Presidency to be a far safer choice than enabling Clinton
into power, and I recognize that however I choose to vote, one of those
two people will be President. I also value highly the possibility of weakening
the hold of big finance and corporations over the Democratic Party by purging
the Clintons and leaving the party too weak to be of much use to its current
owners.
Fundamentally, I am Anyone But Clinton, a handy catchphrase that captures
my perspective exactly. I will probably end up voting for a socialist third
party no one ever discusses here, because why not support the party closest
to my own values and policy desires? But if Stein OR Trump actually got
enough traction to possibly take my state, I'd add my vote to that pile,
happily. Well, "happily" in that I would feel I was making the best possible
choice with whatever tiny amount of agency my vote represents. But the next
four years are likely to be quite grim, no matter what.
As I live in CA, which is assumed to be in the bag for HRC, my vote against
her is only of import to me.
This election is akin to someone who desperately needs a tricky surgery
and their choice of surgeons is limited to two with long records of malpractice
but with good media advertising campaigns.
When I visualize a President Hillary Clinton, my only hope is that once
she has successfully climbed the Presidential mountain she has so doggedly
pursued (as her faux "namesake" Sir Edmund did his), she might realize she
should serve the people, not the elite.
But my hope in the original trademarked "Hope" candidate Obama dissipated
rather quickly.
And Hillary has a lifetime record of serving herself, her family and
her ambitions, not the people.
Look, I live in Australia and the msm Clinton bias verges on
is ridiculous. Why is Europe more terrified of Trump than Clinton?
The media? I understand Trump is problematic, but do you know Hillary's
history? Looking forward to a hot war with Russia?
As an Argentinian, I urge you to vote for Trump.
As bad as Bush was for you and for Middle East, in Latin America we enjoy
the possibility of finding our own ways to develop, as Bush did not care
about us.
Once Obama got to office, the wave changed starting from the Honduras' coup,
followed by Paraguay coup. Now, the only countries resisting are the ones
that reformed its constitution: Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia.
Policies of Democrats to Latin America, from some reason that I do not comprehend,
have been particularly bad for Latin America. The only exception I remember
is the active policies of Jimmy Carter against the violation of human rights
in Argentina.
Not surprised by the European take on Trump. I've caught bits and pieces
of CBC coverage(can't stomach much of it) and they make CNN look objective!
Trump has been neatly inserted into the bad guy role and all coverage assumes
the viewers only care about one thing: stopping Trump. You'd think they
were still covering Iraq and talking about Saddam, not Donald. I can't call
the CBC's coverage of Trump juvenile because it's barely infantile in its
simplicity. Other Canadian media outlets are pretty much falling in with
the CBC narrative. After all, you think pro-neocon/pro-war Sun Media is
going to give Trump and his anti-war rhetoric any chance?
To put it simply: Canadian media is a captured entity. No surprise as
Canada has always done what it takes to have a presence in the imperial
court(even if it's a spot in the far corner). This is Canada's reason for
being: to kiss the imperial ass. First the British Empire and now the American
Empire. As a good loyal supplicant, we've now stepped forward to combat
the latest imperial threat: Donald Trump.
The irony is delightful. Part of the national narrative here is how much
better educated we are than those ignorant Americans. I'm sure Europeans
share the same conceit. Yet we are the ones swallowing all the establishment
propaganda while Americans are seeing through all the media lies, are engaged
and demanding change. I guess this makes sense. After all, Americans have
run the world, while Europeans are the "has beens" and Canadians the "never
have been at all"!
"... In essence, this is a confession that "civilizing" capitalism cannot be done only "externally" by relying on the "harmony of private interests" but that the state has a bigger role that goes beyond ensuring the protection of property rights, taxation and redistribution. ..."
"... The past 35 years have shown that the neo-liberal conception of capitalism, combined with its global reach, has increased inequality to often unsustainable levels, left large segments of the population in the rich world without significant increase in real income and with heightened insecurity, and brought populist policies with a vengeance. ... ..."
"... Importing foreign labor with heavily curtailed rights has been a mainstay in many societies. Initially it was war prisoners and slaves, then with the capitalist mode of production and abolition of slavery, economic refugees from economically depressed regions. ..."
"... "Nothing wrong with Christianity except that no one ever tried it." ~George Bernard Shaw ..."
"... "Once the globalization genie got out of the bottle, there's no putting the genie back in." Oft said, but this may be a full employment statement, one that does not hold in a low equilibrium, especially for a country with a large economy that could do much more internal trade, to the detriment of many other smaller countries not so fortunately endowed. ..."
"... It may be possible to tariff away globalization for such an economy to the great benefit of those who bore its costs. ..."
"... Before abandoning neo-liberalism I'd like to see the "redistribution" part tried. ..."
"... Redistribution is best done by forcing people with money to pay workers. ..."
"... What the "neoliberal" invention is the free lunch. Lend money to the poor so the business can sell stuff without paying workers enough to buy what they want to sell. ..."
"... There has been a resurgence in leftwing movements which have coalesced around figures like Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn. There has been a rise of demagogues like Trump who blame immigrants and foreigners. ..."
The forthcoming changes in capitalism?: Sometimes it's useful to put
symbolic dates on when a different era begins. The end of Thatcherism, it
could be argued,
came on July 10 in the then PM-candidate speech by Theresa May. It was
perhaps appropriate that another woman, a Tory Prime Minister, would be
credited with the ending of Thatcherism. The key words, which immediately
attracted attention (see
also Philip Stevens in today's "Financial Times") were not those about
inequality (which has become a common place these days) but about the changes
in the internal structure of capitalism: reintroduction of workers' and
consumers' representatives on management boards, limits on the executive
pay, reduction of job insecurity for the young people and much greater access
to top jobs for those coming from less privileged backgrounds.
For the
first time since the late 1970s (at the top level of policy-making), we
are back to the issues of reforms in the way capitalism functions rather
than discussing the ways in which the external environment would be made
more market friendly. In essence, this is a confession that "civilizing"
capitalism cannot be done only "externally" by relying on the "harmony of
private interests" but that the state has a bigger role that goes beyond
ensuring the protection of property rights, taxation and redistribution.
The past 35 years have shown that the neo-liberal conception of capitalism,
combined with its global reach, has increased inequality to often unsustainable
levels, left large segments of the population in the rich world without
significant increase in real income and with heightened insecurity, and
brought populist policies with a vengeance. ...
He goes on to identify three areas where he can imagine change.
cm -> am...
Importing foreign labor with heavily curtailed rights has been a
mainstay in many societies. Initially it was war prisoners and slaves, then
with the capitalist mode of production and abolition of slavery, economic
refugees from economically depressed regions.
Business overall doesn't want free agents. One major point of work visa
program abuse is that it is (still?) socially unacceptable to curtail the
rights of working citizens to e.g. take the option to "not work", or not
for a specific employer, at their own choosing (provided ability to survive
without a wage or finding another job).
For example, one provision of the H1-B program is that one cannot stay
in the country without being officially employed (and within the skill set
for which one was brought in).
Thi$ World'$ Banker$ -> DeDude...
"revise capitalism than just burning it"
Perhaps we should also revise the holder within which capitalism spins.
The Milieu encapsulating present day capitalism is inflation. This inflationary
holder nearly requires folks to invest, to buy shares in capitalization,
shares with risk. By transplanting capitalism into a deflationary holder,
capitalism could continue to perform its many functions without requiring
nearly everyone to buy shares, to buy risk.
Within deflation, savings are rewarded with a ROI by way of the expanding
buying power of each dollar saved, an automatic ROI that frees savings from
the risk of capitalism. Sure!
The experts would continue to take calculated risks, Bill. The rank and
file would no longer need to buy shares in preparation for their retirement.
And yes, bailouts for fat bankers should be allowed to die a gruesome death.
Hey!
Our bankruptcy lawyers have been cheated out of their fun for far too
long.
Deflation is also healthy for the GTF, global Triffin fiat that we print
for profit. At present we print bonds also, but with deflation there would
be no need to print bonds, just more fiat that would give poor folk the
same ROI that is now enjoyed only by wealthy bond holders.
Deflation is also healthier for nations that operate with religious restrictions
against charging interest for bank loans. During the middle ages Christians
were not allowed to charge interest. Do we still have Christians today?
"Nothing wrong with Christianity except that no one ever tried
it." ~George Bernard Shaw
rayward
Why would the beneficiaries of globalization want to invest in public
goods in America? They wouldn't, and they don't. I suspect that many of
the beneficiaries already know it, but in the emerging phase of globalization,
American firms will be competing with China rather than collaborating with
China.
Once the globalization genie got out of the bottle, there's no putting
the genie back in. American firms shifting alliances to Vietnam from China
won't solve the problems in America and will ratchet up the potential problems
in the far east, including trade wars and real wars that are often triggered
by trade wars.
Turning inward (as the populists would do) won't make goods produced
in America more competitive in global markets; it will make them less competitive.
point -> rayward...
"Once the globalization genie got out of the bottle, there's no putting
the genie back in." Oft said, but this may be a full employment statement,
one that does not hold in a low equilibrium, especially for a country with
a large economy that could do much more internal trade, to the detriment
of many other smaller countries not so fortunately endowed.
It may be possible to tariff away globalization for such an economy
to the great benefit of those who bore its costs.
I won't hold my breath waiting...
ThaomasH
Before abandoning neo-liberalism I'd like to see the "redistribution"
part tried.
mulp -> ThaomasH...
Redistribution is best done by forcing people with money to pay workers.
Option 1: heavily tax people with lots of money they aren't spending
productively and then pay workers to build productive capital assets
that can generate returns on investment by taxes, eg, gas tax, water
fees, income taxes that rise with income return to education.
Option 2: don't tax money paid to workers to build productive capital
assets (but tax the income from those assets).
Few people are totally unable to be productive, but the investment cost
(labor) might be higher than the income. Some people with lots of money
will pay workers to invest in the disabled for a small productive return
instead of paying taxes out of concern or for a sense of duty to charity,
and that should be encouraged by not taxing money paid to labor.
For all labor income, social insurance should be taken by tax so workers
are paying to care for themselves and families collectively at a baseline.
Basically, returning to the "tax and spend" of the 60s, with every faction
getting to find groups of workers to pay. The conservatives likely love
to pay workers to make guns and bombs and pay men to act like an army -
that trained lots of idle young men with no direct, and a lot of airline
pilots. For liberals, pay workers to teach and do research. For the common
man, pay workers to build roads, railroads, schools, water and sewer, anything
to put people to work to make sure everyone gets paid a good income.
mrrunangun
Making top jobs more accessible to those from less privileged backgrounds
will require more affordable higher education and graduate professional
education for those from less privileged backgrounds. Experience has shown
that making large loans available for education does not actually make education
more affordable to those from modest backgrounds.
Progressives have discussed price controls on the health sector and indeed
Medicare has gone a long way in that direction already. Price controls in
the higher ed and especially professional schools should be considered if
we are to make these opportunities realistically available to those of modest
means.
Free Juco has been proposed by Chicago mayor Emmanuel and Tennessee governor
Haslem. That means tax increases for the rest of the citizens to replace
the money tuition provides now. That seems to me to be a reasonable proposal,
provided the tax increase actually replaced the tuition and was not subject
to the usual 50% rake-off for the political system that most taxes in Illinois
are subject to.
Back in the 1955-75 era, well-paid jobs were plentiful enough and university
education inexpensive enough that young men and women from modest backgrounds
could and did supply their own money for their own educations when parents
could not provide it. People could and did work their ways thru law school
tending bar and waiting tables then. It wasn't easy but it was doable for
ambitious bootstrappers. I doubt that could be done today. Education has
become so expensive in the contemporary world that few jobs available to
students can support the tuition + the personal expenses entailed in getting
a university education.
To recreate that kind of opportunity for today's young people, either
jobs that can support tuition and expenses have to be made available to
them or the cost of tuition and expenses need to be brought into line with
what the jobs available will support. Or a little of both. Tough challenges
either way.
John San Vant -> mrrunangun...
55-75 was about the only time in American history "well paid" Jobs were
plentiful. It also created a mess with how capitalism functions.
mulp -> John San Vant...
How so? Profits were low. Share prices tracked the labor cost of the
productive capital assets. The tax structure and demand for goods and services
from government ensured production required paying workers to the degree
that wages were bid up even for the unskilled worker. And you hired the
unskilled and trained them because you had no choice to meet demand for
your production.
Banks were tightly regulated so they couldn't rent seeking. Thus they
would lend only to people with income so lower incomes forced reduced consumption
lower profits leading to widespread support for government spending building
stuff businesses wanted so workers had more money to spend.
What the "neoliberal" invention is the free lunch. Lend money to
the poor so the business can sell stuff without paying workers enough to
buy what they want to sell.
Peter K.
"The past 35 years have shown that the neo-liberal conception of capitalism,
combined with its global reach, has increased inequality to often unsustainable
levels, left large segments of the population in the rich world without
significant increase in real income and with heightened insecurity, and
brought populist policies with a vengeance."
Again the term "populist." I don't like it.
There has been a resurgence in leftwing movements which have coalesced
around figures like Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn. There has been a rise
of demagogues like Trump who blame immigrants and foreigners.
What will the center-left do? Will Hillary and May actually put in place
policies that work? Will they try?
Or will they continue to make excuses and engage in diversions?
I liked how Obama nodded to Bernie Sanders in his speech where if you
cared about inequality or money in politics you rallied to Bernie. What
was left unsaid there?
David
He makes three (kind of vague) proposals :
The middle class needs to be encouraged or facilitated to acquire
capital as a means of reducing inequality.
Development NGOs should focus on "hard"' infrastructure development
such as roads and schools.
Europe cannot, due to demographics, become "fortress Europe" and
needs to implement immigrant worker policies that don't necessarily
grant citizenship, just the right to work and then return home (many
countries currently do this - South Korea has thousands of American
and Canadian and Australian English teachers who will never be citizens
of SK).
1. I think this is interesting. First you need a minimum wage that allows
people to save a portion of their income and invest it - 15 bucks an hour
say.
Then, remember those classes like home economics in high school? They
need to try a finance class in which kids learn how to get an online account,
and basic investment strategies like investing in index funds or mutual
funds.
I say this as someone who has a portfolio that is currently 6x my yearly
salary. I got lucky b/c I got in 2010. But long term index funds will kill
treasury bonds if secular stagnation has any truth to it.
I would had another thing: strengthen social security by a lot.
2. Infrastructure investment is vital. NGOs should be held accountable
for their budgets and should in fact be well regulated.
3. Euhhhhh, immigration. A temporary foreign worker policy would be economically
useful. But if there's more terrorist attacks in France...
"... Older people–and older AAs are no exception–I think just are less receptive to the Sanders message. They've been propagandized for too long and too successfully. Actually I don't just think this, the polling data fairly screams it. It might be a waste of time chasing those AA church lady grandmothers, they are right wing conservatives in almost any objective sense who minus the identity politics woo woo would be Republicans but just need a safe space to be that way without rubbing shoulders with overt white racists, and the corporate neocon-neolib DP mainstream is a perfect fit for them. ..."
"... Obama, who pretty much could be George W Bush in blackface, is the perfect identity politics totem for that role. ..."
We will have to wait for the campaign tell-alls to understand what the Sanders
campaign believed its strategy was, and whether the campaign believes
it was successful, or not. While it is true that reform efforts in the Democrat
Party have a very poor track record, it's also true that third parties have
a terrible track record. (It's worth noting that in the eight years just past,
with the capitol occupations, Occupy proper, Black Lives Matter, fracking campaigns
all on the boil, the Green Party was flatlined, seeminly unable to make an institutional
connection with any of these popular movements. It may be that 2016 is different.
It may also be that the iron law of institutions applies to the GP just as much
as it does to any other party.) Therefore, "working within the Democrat Party"
- which Sanders consistently said he would do; the label on the package
was always there - is not, a priori , a poor strategic choice, especially
if "working within" amounts to a hostile takeover followed by a management purge.
And it's hard for me to recall another "working within" approach that garnered
45% of the vote, severed the youth of the party - of all identities - from the
base of the ruling faction, and invented an entirely new and highly successful
funding model. Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition, which the dominant faction
in today's Democrat Party destroyed, would be the closest parallel, and the
material conditions of working people are worse today than they were in Jackson's
time, and institutions generally far less likely to be perceived as legitimate.
And if we consider the idea that one of Sander's strategic goals was not the
office but the successful propagation of the socialist idea - as a Johnny Appleseed,
rather than
a happy warrior - then the campaign was a success by any measure. (That
said, readers know my priors on this: I define victory in 2016 as the creation
of independent entities with a left voice; an "Overton Prism," as it were, three-sided,
rather than an Overton Window, two-sided. I've got some hope that this victory
is on the way, because it's bigger than any election.)
With those views as background, most of the attacks on Sanders accuse him
of bad faith. This was the case with the Green Party's successfully propagated
"sheepdog" meme; it's also the case with the various forms of post-defeat armchair
cynicism, all of which urge, that in some way Sanders succeeded by betraying
his supporters in some way. (This is, I suppose, easier to accept than the idea
that Sanders got a beating by an powerful political campaign with a ton of money
and the virtually unanimous support of the political class.)
If Sanders had defined success as betraying his supporters, I would expect
him to act and behave like a successful man. That's not the case. Here is Sanders
putting Clinton's name into nomination:
It's a sad, even awful, moment, I agree, but politics ain't beanbag. While
it would be irresponsible to speculate that Sanders looks so strained and unhappy
because he found a horse's head in his bed (
"Mrs. Clinton never asks a second favor once she's refused the first, understood?"
), his body language certainly doesn't look like he's a happy man, a man
who is happy with the deal he's made, or a man who has achieved success through
the betrayal of others; you'd have to look at the smiling faces on the Democrat
main stage for that.
I don't know the psychology of Sanders, but, how much did he really expect
to win in the early days of his campaign? Could "getting the Socialism ball
rolling" have been his definition of success in the beginning? Like Trump,
the other disruptional candidate, could his very success in the primary
season have surprised him? If so, then his pivot back to the Senate and
Socialist coalition movement building makes perfect sense.
In this sense, the anger focused on Sanders would be a displacement
of the groundswell of anger by the general public at the sheer brazenness
of the DNC's anti public policies. The DNC has shown contempt and disdain
for the very people they purport to work for. Whoever shifted the popular
anger from the DNC onto Sanders has done a masterful job of propaganda.
Saint Bernays would be proud.
I don't think he was expecting to win when he started, but at the same
time he was probably thinking it was worth a running a primary challenge
to change the conversation. His political strategy of trying to increase
turnout of working class voters was not a bad one, considering that Democrat
primary voters have lately been the demographics who support either neoliberalism
or would be racially biased against a non-Christian candidate. He was mainly
hurt by three things, two of which were largely out of his control: (1)
he lacked the polish/media saavy to not get dragged into minor issues that
distracted from his core message (like the flap about calling Clinton unqualified,
or his visit to the Vatican), (2) he literally had the entire media and
political establishment working against him, and arguably inciting voter
suppression and fraud , and (3) his non-Christianity limited his ability
to coalesce support from older African-Americans, which hurt him in the
South and hurt him from a perception standpoint.
What remains to be seen is where his supporters go now. Dissatisfaction
with the status quo will only continue to increase. Something interesting
though, is that Tulsi Gabbard seems to be setting herself to be the continuation
of the Sanders movement. I am unfamiliar with her policies, but her positioning
is in stark contrast to the rest of the Democrat Party.
Older people–and older AAs are no exception–I think just are less
receptive to the Sanders message. They've been propagandized for too long
and too successfully. Actually I don't just think this, the polling data
fairly screams it. It might be a waste of time chasing those AA church lady
grandmothers, they are right wing conservatives in almost any objective
sense who minus the identity politics woo woo would be Republicans but just
need a safe space to be that way without rubbing shoulders with overt white
racists, and the corporate neocon-neolib DP mainstream is a perfect fit
for them.
Obama, who pretty much could be George W Bush in blackface, is the
perfect identity politics totem for that role. The good news is obviously
that this demographic is dying off and young AAs don't share their elders'
pretty extreme right wing Christian viewpoint. I don't think the left needs
to fix that "problem" or even can. Time will fix it and nothing much else
can.
"... You have succeeded in making Hillary's coronation unpleasant for her. Embarrassed her with her shady past, and demonstrated on topics on which she has a firm interest in pas$$ing (TPP). ..."
"... For those of you who believe Jill Stein is worthy of a vote, I do not believe so. If she were motivated then she would be copying Bernie's fundraising activities, and not off in her own world of irrelevance (and possibly privilege). The Iron Law of Institutions hold here, she is happier in her position and has demonstrated no incentive to change things. ..."
"... Of course Clinton does not respect my views. But the idea that Donald Trump "respects my views" is patently ludicrous. ..."
I'll be blunt. You and you beliefs will be thrown under the bus, and trampled into the dust.
Hilary has plans to attract
Republican Votes
to secure the presidency, as predicted.
You have succeeded in making Hillary's coronation unpleasant for her. Embarrassed her with
her shady past, and demonstrated on topics on which she has a firm interest in pas$$ing (TPP).
Note:
The DNC has also informed Sanders delegates that they will have their credentials taken
away for holding up anti-TPP signage as well
That is not the action of a person who respects your views in any manner at all.
For those of you who believe Jill Stein is worthy of a vote, I do not believe so. If she
were motivated then she would be copying Bernie's fundraising activities, and not off in her own
world of irrelevance (and possibly privilege). The Iron Law of Institutions hold here, she is
happier in her position and has demonstrated no incentive to change things.
So who will you vote for? That's a poor question, a better question is who will you vote against?
Why do I write that? Well, you can vote for (Jill, the Looser, Stein), a person who will damage
you (Hillary the Honest), or a person who might help you (Donald the Magnificent). – Just to be
clear, sarcasm is intended in all three instances.
Good luck with that decision, mine is made, and I made it months ago (a list of preferences,
1, 2 3), 3 was ABC – Anyone but Clinton, for I believe firmly that she will do me no good, and
probably do myself and my children and my grandchildren much harm.
What I read here is people somewhere in the stages of grief. Time to move on, at least by November.
Of course Clinton does not respect my views. But the idea that Donald Trump "respects my
views" is patently ludicrous.
And is a fallacy of false choice. I'm surprised you offer that. The fact that Trump doesn't "respect
your views" doesn't make HRC a more acceptable choice.
...Although I know other people who are convinced that Clinton is the lesser evil. Anyhow,
Lesser Evilism is only relevant in swing states. Everywhere else, people ought to vote strategically.
They should look to the future, and choose a candidate who will help create positive outcomes
in future elections. We already know that the result of the 2016 election will be a disaster.
European colonization exacted tremendous violence, extracted critical
resources, disrupted social structures, and weakened the health of
indigenous populations. European nations broke their promise to protect and
promote the welfare of the indigenous African people. Instead the Belgians
dehumanized and debased African societies producing the social determinants
of death that gave rise to deadly infectious diseases.
Disclaimer: I grew up in a UK colony.
In the passage above I intensely dislike the transition from the general
'European colonization" to specific "Belgian." The Congo was a Belgian disaster
from start to finish.
I
highly
recommend Hochschild's book,
King Leopold's
Ghost
, mentioned in fn 4 of the article. It's a detailed description of
the horrific circumstances in the Congo under the Belgians. Most of the
papers and other sources were burned or kept hidden until Hochschild's
inquiry and book. That's why you didn't learn about it in history class.
[Well, that and a few other reasons.]
My favorite* part of Imperial Reckoning is that after it came
out there were a bunch of other historians who criticized it and
claimed Elkins numbers for the amount of people detained and killed
were inflated and completely implausible.
Well, excuse me, but she makes it very clear that the British
records regarding the final period of the colonization of Kenya
were conspicuously absent, both in Kenya and in the home archives
back in Britain. As in there were giant empty sections on the
shelves, completely out of character for the normally anally
retentive British record keeping. The only possible explanation
being that a vast number of documents were destroyed to hide what
they contained. Even so, she managed to find enough surviving
documentation to piece together a very dismal picture. And she was
the only person who ever bothered to go archive mining in regards
to Kenya (in addition to a lot of time spent traveling around Kenya
interviewing people who witnessed events first hand).
For the sake of argument, maybe her numbers are inflated. But
there is literally no other historian who has done the kind of work
on the subject that Elkins did, so how the hell would they have any
idea if her numbers were right or wrong?
*actually second favorite, since my number one favorite is the
blurb from self-hating Scotsman and British Empire apologist Niall
Ferguson on the back of the book to the effect that it provides a
sobering account of the 'excesses' of Empire, as if Empire could
ever be anything but an inherent excess.
My comment was specific to the Belgian excesses in the Congo.
Your comment is a misunderstanding of the subject of my comment.
As to the horrors of British Imperialism, I am aware they exist
(for example: Black Hole response), and did not comment. I would
also point out the the British Imperialism would have to be viewed
under the contemporaneous activities of the world. I recommend
reviewing Madam Tinabu's efforts in Nigeria, or Shaka's and
Dingan's efforts in South Africa, and most recently, Mugabe's
efforts in Matabeleland.
In modern times: Stalin's efforts in the USSR. Or WW I, or WW
II, or the US in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, its Monroe
doctrine in South America, or the Saudis' in Yemen, are much worse
than British Imperialism.
And yes, that is my biased opinion. The British never promise to
respect democracy, and then continually undermine the will of the
people with military coup after military coup, or sanctions for
ever, followed by Dictator after Dictator.
The US, and many of its people, appear to have a predilection
for Sanctimony coupled with Hypocrisy.
You sure love to engage in slavery apologism. You refer to
Tinabu constantly. She and Shaka/Dingane had been dead for
decades before the British colony in Kenya was even established.
Maybe not in in history class, but Conrad's Heart of Darkness is a
pretty ubiquitous piece of culture. Apocalypse Now is probably more
famous and strips the story of its African setting, but the core
attributes still remain. Especially the implicit moral that any
'civilization' that engages in mass butchery and exploitation of
natives is nowhere near as civilized as it fancies itself. And the
natives are never as 'primitive' as the colonial overlords think they
are.
It is good that detailed information is coming out about the Belgian
Congo.
But I don't see how the whole subject can be considered a surprise.
In his story "The Heart of Darkness"–which is usually taken to have
something to do with African savagery–Joseph Conrad plainly describes how
the Belgians did not feed their slave labor because it was cheaper to get
new slaves than to feed the slaves they had. Typically, when the slaves
weakened, they were thrown in pits to die and new slaves were acquired.
The "Congo Free State" wasn't Belgian, it was a private colony of King
Leopold II. It was officially established at the
Berlin Conference
, which involved all the powers of Europe, and part of
the deal for the other European countries was that there would be "free
trade" without any favour shown to Belgian traders (though this turned out
to be a lie). One of the major exploiters of the "products of the forest"
was the
Anglo-Belgian India Rubber Company
, which, as the name indicates, had
British and Belgian owners. So in many ways the "humanitarian mission" in
the Congo was a European, rather than just Belgian, project.
I recall SCOTUS Justice R Bader Ginsburg mentioned if Trump is elected, she
might take her husband's advice that if Murica gets too crazy, retire to the civilized
New Zealand.
I thought rich/OECD nations' immigration departments do not want older immigrants, not in the
50s much less the 80ish R Bader Ginsburg.
I assume R Bader Ginsburg has at least $1M in "disposable wealth" & thus is eligible for the 1%er
(or is it 0.1%er) Transnational "Investor" visa? If I understand correctly, if you are rich, you
can "invest" & move to many nations, including Murica. I recall a clip (IIRC on PBS Newshour) where
Chinese rich were emigrating to the US by investing $800K in expensive condos a few blocks from the
Barclay's Center arena in NYC, on some program that was designed "to improve affordable housing".
I would like to better understand this 1%er Transnational "Investor" visa phenomenon, perhaps
an article exists that explains it?
Perhaps its existence is a factor in explaining how US 1% BigBiz & their owned BigPols like HClinton
& P Ryan are so callous about 99% economic issues inclding slashing the already crapified US social
insurance, whether 0bama Grand Ripoff style raising of Social Security age above 67 & Medicare above
65; or the P Ryan approach of worsening 0bama by ACA Exchange-esque SS & MC & giving an inadequate
coupon subsidy, & if you can't pay the remainder – Go Die (c) Lambert's Neoliberalism Rule.
These BigPols with a spare $1M (e.g. most of them) have the option of permanent residency in Toronto/Melbourne/etc,
a Get of of Jail, er Get out of Murica card should they need to use it, in actually Civilized nations
with actual social insurance systems.
That's pretty much every country. The rich, like their money and their
businesses, are transnational, nationalities are a fungible commodity. 10MM,
you can live in any country you like, 100MM and you are above such petty
concerns as borders at all. Those are for the miserable plebes.
The Russian theme has expectedly become one of the most important in the US presidential election.
Democrats are unsurprisingly engaged in anti-Russian hysteria. Donald Trump says that he will establish
good relations with Russia and is ready to discuss the issue of recognition of the referendum in
the Crimea.
Noise and hysteria
Mass hysteria on the part of the Democrats, neocons, ultra-liberals and plain and simple Russophobes,
was provoked by the recent statements of Donald Trump. Speaking at a press conference in Florida,
Trump called on Russia to hand over the 30,000 emails "missing" from the Hillary Clinton's email
server in the US. Their absence is a clear sign that Clinton destroyed evidence proving that she
used her personal e-mail server to send sensitive information. Democrats immediately accused Trump
of pandering to Russian hackers, although in reality the multi-billionaire rhetorically hinted that
the data that Clinton hid from the American investigation is in the hands of foreign intelligence
services. So, Clinton is a possible target for blackmail.
Trump's statement that he is ready to
discuss the status of Crimea and the removal of anti-Russian sanctions caused even more noise. This
view is not accepted either in the Democrat or in the Republican mainstream. Trump also said that
Vladimir Putin does not respect Clinton and Obama, while Trump himself hopes to find a common language
with him. Trump appreciates Putin's leadership and believes that the US must work together with Russia
to deal with common threats, particularly against Islamic extremism.
The establishment's tantrum
Both Democrats and Republicans are taking aim at Trump. The vice-presidential candidate, Mike Pence,
made threats to Russia. The head of the Republican majority in Congress, Paul Ryan, became somewhat
hysterical. He said that Putin is "a thug and should stay out of these elections."
It is Putin
personally, and the Russian security services, who are accused of leaking correspondences of top
employees of the National Committee of the Democratic Party. This unverified story united part of
the Republicans and all of the Democrats, including the Clinton and Barack Obama themselves. Trump
supporters note that the Russian threat is used to divert attention from the content of these letters.
And these show the fraud carried out during the primaries which favored Hillary Clinton.
The pro-American candidate
The "Russian scandal" demonstrates that on the one hand the thesis of the normalization of relations
with Russia, despite the propaganda, is becoming popular in US society. It is unlikely that Donald
Trump has made campaign statements that are not designed to gain the support of the public in this
election. On the other hand - Trump - a hard realist, like Putin, is not pro-Russian, but a pro-American
politician, and therefore the improvement of relations with Russia in his eyes corresponds to the
US's national interests. Trump has never to date done anything that would not be to his advantage.
Sometimes he even said he would order US fighter jets to engage with Russian ones, and declared he
would have a hard stance in relations with Russia.
Another thing is that his understanding of US
national interests is fundamentally different from the dominant American globalist elite consensus.
For Trump, the US should not be the source of a global liberal remaking of the world, but a national
power, which optimizes its position just as efficiently as any commercial project. And in terms of
optimizing the position of the United States, he says there should be a normal American interaction
with Putin and Russia in the field of combating terrorism and preventing the sliding of the two countries
into a global war. He claims this is to be the priority instead of issues relating to the promotion
of democracy and the so-called fight against "authoritarian regimes".
"... "In order to rally people, governments need enemies. They want us to be afraid, to hate, so we will rally behind them. And if they do not have a real enemy, they will invent one in order to mobilize us." ..."
"... Plus there's the psychological advantage of having some country/countries to blame for the lack of US success, or to distract attention away from US problems that need it. ..."
"... I've always thought the US inherited the hatred of Russia from the Brits and the Brits hated Russia at least back as far as the Crimean War in 1853. Not saying this as fact and am happy to get updated. ..."
"... Official Brit hatred of Russia got started right after the Napoleonic Wars. About 4 centuries of Brit hatred of France got transferred, lock, stock, and barrel, to Russia, since Russia then became the most powerful land power in the world. ..."
"... Russia's primary offense is that it has dared to have its own national interests. ..."
"... Today, all those "freedom-loving" people of former USSR, even including all those scores of West Ukrainians who hate Russian guts and Middle Asian "nationalists" flock to Russia "in pursuit of happiness". ..."
"... I am not saying that all those people are bad, but the question I do ask sometimes is this: you hated us, you evicted (sometimes with bloodshed) us, Russians, from your places. You got what you asked for, why then, do you come to Russia in millions (I am not exaggerating, in fact, most likely underestimating)? What happened? Of course, we all know what happened. ..."
"... I read before that Obama was pushing back against this lunacy. Now the HRC-NEOCON camp are in full attack mode. I honestly think I'll be voting for Trump because I feel he can't do all of the things that I would hate for him to do. I KNOW that Hillary would get away with murder. I'm quite serious. ..."
"... "I KNOW that Hillary would get away with murder. I'm quite serious." It has already happened on this watch, see the case of MH-17. ..."
"... The American talking point about the Crimea is a laughable piece of High School Debating Team rhetoric. The people in charge know full well the truth about Ukraine's claim to the Crimea. The thing that hurts is that the whole point of the "Nuland Putsch",and the rise of a western aligned govt., was to provide the crown jewel in Nato's (read America) crown: Eliminating Russia's naval base at Sevastopol completing the encirclement of Russia in the west (except for the always vulnerable Kaliningrad). ..."
"... Once the FreeMarketDemocratic Reformers were removed from power, Russia began to recover. The birth rate started to improve immediately, and Russia's death rate started to decline in 2006. By 2009, the gap between Russia's births and deaths closed sufficiently that immigration could fill it, and so the Russian population was growing. By 2012, births in the Russian Federation exceeded deaths, for the first time since 1991. ..."
"... In the mid-2000s, Putin proposed measures to support families having children. Western politicians and demographers poured scorn on the very idea that Russian demographics might improve. In fact, the U.S. Census Bureau's population projections had Russia's population declining by 500,000/year as recently as 2015. Now Western politicians and demographers are reduced to claiming that "Putin had nuthin' to do with it!" ..."
"... Putin inherited a helpless, bankrupt, dying Russia. ..."
"... Russia, for all the Borg media grandstanding, seems to only be concerned with Russian related interests. There is no indication of greater plan for global domination. They are upgrading and preparing for a future war, sure. Any country would be smart to prepare accordingly to defend itself (and their interests). ..."
"... Russia became the enemy of United States in early 2000's after Putin started cracking down on the oligarchs that had taken over Russia's economy during Yeltsin's privatization efforts. It is estimated that seven individuals were controlling as much as 50% of Russia's economy at its peak during the late 90's: ..."
"... The ruling ideology of the West is the free movement of capital and people together with the dismantling of sovereign states and replacing them with global institutions and corporate trade pacts. Donald Trump's "America First" threatens this so he is subject to full throated attacks by the media and the connected. Vladimir Putin stands in the way of the global hegemony and the return of Russia to the 1990s. Thus, the western hybrid war for a Kremlin regime change. ..."
"... If Clinton takes over for Obama it will only mean continued escalation by the US against any country resisting a unipolar world. There are a lot more than Russia and China resisting US hegemony and that attacks, subtle as they are, continue unabated. If Trump dials that back this can only be a good thing for world peace. The neocons apparently are betting the farm on Hillary. Good, I pray they lose and are cleansed permanently from the US political landscape. Personally, I see a win by Clinton as the end of mankind. ..."
"... I remember the end of Cold War extremely well, when the relations warmed up and the danger of nuclear exchange faded. In Russia, at that time, this was precisely the idea what you described but, as Pat Buchanan wrote several days ago "The inability to adapt was seen when our Cold War adversary extended a hand in friendship, and the War Party slapped it away." ..."
"... In the early 1880s the U.S. government decided to become a global seapower. Hostility towards the world's largest landpower followed, as night follows day. ..."
The Democratic Party convention and the media are full of the assumption that Russia is the enemy
of the United States. What is the basis for that assumption?
Russian support for the Russian ethnic minority in eastern Ukraine? How does that threaten
the United States?
Russian annexation of the Crimea? Khrushchev arbitrarily transferred that part of Russia to
Ukraine during his time as head of the USSR. Khrushchev was a Ukrainian. Russia never accepted
the arbitrary transfer of a territory that had been theirs since the 18th Century. How does this
annexation threaten the United States?
Russia does not want to see Syria crushed by the jihadis and acts accordingly? How does that
threaten the United States?
Russia threatens the NATO states in eastern Europe? Tell me how they actually do that. Is
it by stationing their forces on their side of the border with these countries? Have the Russians
made threatening statements about the NATO states?
Russia has made threatening and hostile statements directed at the United States? When and
where was that?
Russia does not accept the principle of state sovereignty? Really? The United States is on
shaky ground citing that principle. Remember Iraq?
Russian intelligence may have intercepted and collected the DNC's communications (hacked)
as well as HC's stash of illegal e-mails? Possibly true but every country on earth that has the
capability does the same kind of thing every single day. That would include the United States.
The Obama Administration is apparently committed to a pre-emptive assertion that Russia is a world
class committed enemy of the United States. The Borgist media fully support that.
We should all sober up. pl
Valissa
"In order to rally people, governments need enemies. They want us to be afraid, to hate,
so we will rally behind them. And if they do not have a real enemy, they will invent one in order
to mobilize us."
-- Thich Nhat Hanh
Not to mention the financial advantages to the Military-Industrial-Thinktank complex (I'm including
NATO in this) and all the politicians that benefit from the lobbying monies from that complex.
Plus there's the psychological advantage of having some country/countries to blame for
the lack of US success, or to distract attention away from US problems that need it.
Grizziz -> Ghostship...
I've always thought the US inherited the hatred of Russia from the Brits and the Brits
hated Russia at least back as far as the Crimean War in 1853. Not saying this as fact and am happy
to get updated.
rkka said in reply to Grizziz...
Official Brit hatred of Russia got started right after the Napoleonic Wars. About 4 centuries
of Brit hatred of France got transferred, lock, stock, and barrel, to Russia, since Russia then
became the most powerful land power in the world.
Maritime empires hate, with undying passion, the most powerful land power in the world.
And its a funny thing, the U.S. hatred of Russia dates from the early 1880s, right when the
U.S. began laying down a new steel navy to replace the rotting wooden navy built for the Civil
War, started with the explicit intention of making the U.S. a global power.
Tel said in reply to Valissa...
Quote: "Plus there's the psychological advantage of having some country/countries to blame
for the lack of US success, or to distract attention away from US problems that need it."
Clinton and Obama are busy campaigning that the USA has been completely successful, nothing
is going wrong, everyone has jobs, etc.
I dunno who would believe this, but that's their story and for the time being they are sticking
to it. You have never had it so good.
Dave Schuler
Russia's primary offense is that it has dared to have its own national interests.
SmoothieX12 -> kooshy ...
Today, all those "freedom-loving" people of former USSR, even including all those scores
of West Ukrainians who hate Russian guts and Middle Asian "nationalists" flock to Russia "in pursuit
of happiness".
I am not saying that all those people are bad, but the question I do ask sometimes is this:
you hated us, you evicted (sometimes with bloodshed) us, Russians, from your places. You got what
you asked for, why then, do you come to Russia in millions (I am not exaggerating, in fact, most
likely underestimating)? What happened? Of course, we all know what happened.
NotTimothyGeithner said...
Moscow is large enough to be a mommy figure for a small country with an interest in dealing
with China which doesn't want to be swamped by Beijing's sheer size. Moscow is a threat to U.S.
financial and military domination without firing a shot, engaging in a trade war, or leading a
diplomatic revolt.
The average American doesn't care about a loss of hegemony. We naturally want cooperation and
hippie peace, love, dope. The Western industries with effective monopolies abroad would see immense
profits under threat because the Chinese and Russian competitors would drive prices down in finance,
defense, pharmaceuticals, tech, and so forth. So they are turning to the Goering play book to
keep the Russians out of the world stage. The professional Risk players in the neoconservatives
would see their plans fall apart if the Erdogan-Putin meeting is a positive one.
Also, Putin embarrassed Obama over Syria in 2013 and then was magnanimous. Obama hasn't forgotten
that perceived slight.
SmoothieX12 -> NotTimothyGeithner...
Moscow is large enough to be
A medium-size European country herself. It is also a very peculiar economic entity. I do, however,
have a question on what do you mean by a "mommy for a small country"? No matter how small the
country is, in my understanding, it still will have a fair degree of freedom when building trade
relations with any entity, even of such mammoth size as China.
Cee:
Col. Lang,
I read before that Obama was pushing back against this lunacy. Now the HRC-NEOCON camp
are in full attack mode. I honestly think I'll be voting for Trump because I feel he can't do
all of the things that I would hate for him to do. I KNOW that Hillary would get away with murder.
I'm quite serious.
"I KNOW that Hillary would get away with murder. I'm quite serious." It has already happened
on this watch, see the case of MH-17.
Erik
The American talking point about the Crimea is a laughable piece of High School Debating
Team rhetoric. The people in charge know full well the truth about Ukraine's claim to the Crimea.
The thing that hurts is that the whole point of the "Nuland Putsch",and the rise of a western
aligned govt., was to provide the crown jewel in Nato's (read America) crown: Eliminating Russia's
naval base at Sevastopol completing the encirclement of Russia in the west (except for the always
vulnerable Kaliningrad).
All the rest about Russia's alleged expansionism is similar debating team poppycock.
Looking at the history of empire building and aggressive wars, one is well served to think
in terms of the 3 legged stool of criminology (for aggressive wars are simply, as Jackson said
at Nurnberg, the supreme international crime) and consider means, opportunity, and motive.
We have motive, the Russians do not. The motive in this case is theft, plain and simple. Russia
with its small population and vast real estate holdings is already provided with more resources
than she knows what to do with. We, on the other hand are not, and have not been since at least
the seventies. Russia has its work cut out for it to develop what it owns already and why would
they want to conquer populous resource poor neighbor states?
Not only has Putin snatched away the score of the century by re-asserting Russian control over
Crimea, but he had since 2000 or so been forestalling the western feeding frenzy on the carcass
of the Soviet Union that had Americans creaming their jeans. Re assertion of Russian true sovereignty
was his real offense.
What's so poignant is the long standing western ambition to be able to steal what Russia has.
2 centuries of western aggression against Russia, and all dedicated to theft. Same now, and the
drumbeat of warmongering rhetoric now directed at Russia is hilarious in a dangerous way. We really
are using the Goering argument to drag our unwilling population towards war.
James said...
If I might be permitted to express some thoughts about why Russians feel the way they do about
Putin ...
Median income in Russia increased 260% (in inflation adjusted terms) during the first 10 years
that Putin was in power. That is a staggering increase in people's financial well being. The Economist
and its brethren like to dismiss this achievement as being "solely due to the increased price
of oil" - but if you look at Canada, its oil production per capita was and is equal to that of
Russia yet Canada's median income only increased 9% during the same time period.
I think a good way to get a better sense of how the Russian's feel about Putin is to watch
the Russian film "Bimmer" (if you can get access to a copy with English subtitles):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimmer_(film)
I took a trip in Africa where our white South African guides favorite catch phrase was "In
Africa, anything is possible." Dystopias are terribly messed up and most people living in them
suffer greatly - but there is something really sexy about them, about the feeling that anything
is possible.
Russia was dystopic like this before Putin came to power - utter anarchy, crime, poverty, worse
corruption than now despite what you hear from the Borg ... but at the same time, anything was
possible. Bimmer depicts the transition from the anarchy of the Yeltsin years to the greater prosperity
and rule of law that Russia now enjoys - while at the same time communicating the fact that many
Russians can't help but feel some nostalgia for the time when anything was possible.
(I visited Russia before, during, and after this transition. I have friends who live there.)
kao_hsien_chih said in reply to James...
The 260% increase in the Russian median income (an important point--the middle Russian became
financial secure under Putin) under Putin's watch underscores the other point: before Putin, Russia
was a total and complete economic wreck. People who saw economic ruin firsthand don't cavalierly
dismiss hard won economic security.
rkka -> Ulenspiegel...
While Russia was being run by FreeMarketDemocratic Reformers, Russians were dying off at the
rate of nearly a million/year.
Once the FreeMarketDemocratic Reformers were removed from power, Russia began to recover.
The birth rate started to improve immediately, and Russia's death rate started to decline in 2006.
By 2009, the gap between Russia's births and deaths closed sufficiently that immigration could
fill it, and so the Russian population was growing. By 2012, births in the Russian Federation
exceeded deaths, for the first time since 1991.
In the mid-2000s, Putin proposed measures to support families having children. Western
politicians and demographers poured scorn on the very idea that Russian demographics might improve.
In fact, the U.S. Census Bureau's population projections had Russia's population declining by
500,000/year as recently as 2015. Now Western politicians and demographers are reduced to claiming
that "Putin had nuthin' to do with it!"
Putin inherited a helpless, bankrupt, dying Russia.
Russia now has a future. That's what Putin did, and he is rightly popular with Russians, Russians
who pine for the days of the drunken incompetent comprador buffoon Yeltsin excepted.
SmoothieX12 -> Ulenspiegel...
Putin is judged by his ability to transform the Russian economy from an exporter of oil, gas
and academics to something more sustainable.
It seems like you are one of those thinkers who thinks that repeating popular BS will create
new reality. FYI, Russia now is #1 exporter of grain in the world. If you didn't catch real news
from Russia, Rosatom's portfolio of contracts exceeds 100 billion USD. Evidently you also missed
the fact that Russia is #2 exporter of many #1 weapon systems in the world, some of which are
beyond the expertise (industrial and scientific) of Europe (I assume you are from that part of
the world). Do you know what it takes and what host of real hi-tech goes into production of a
top fighter jet or modern SSK? Russia is an active and a dominant player at the commercial space
launch business, in fact whole US Atlas program flies on Russian-made RD-180 rocket engines. I
will repeat again, learn facts on the ground, which is relatively easy to do in the world of global
IT. And finally, Russia will never live as well as US or Canada, for starters--there is a colossal
difference in consumer patterns between Russians and North Americans (albeit there are many similarities
too) but there is very little doubt that standard of living in Russia grew tremendously and a
lot of it has very little to do with gas or oil prices. It has, however, a lot to do with retooling
and re-industrialization of the country, which was ongoing since circa 2008. It is a very significant
year. Last, but not least--Russia is huge own consumer market (and then some due to markets of
former USSR) and that is a key. German MTU followed sanctions, well, guess what--it will never
appear again on Russian markets. Thales loved to sell IR matrices to Russia, well, guess what.....you
may fill in the blanks.
SmoothieX12 said in reply to different clue...
In terms of pork and poultry Russia produces 100% of that and, which did surprise me, even
exports turkey. Beef--about 80% covered. Most of what Russia consumes in food stuff is home grown
or made. Exceptions are some luxury food items and things like well-aged cheeses. Russian food
stores can give any best US or European grocery chain a run for their money. Variety is excellent
and most of it affordable. Per salmon, as far as I know it is both farm-raised and wild. What
are the proportions, I don't know. I can, however, testify to the fact that, say, in Troitsky
supermarket you can buy alive strelyad' (sturgeon). ...
SmoothieX12,
This is good to hear. When the "sanction Russia" crowd began embargoing various food-items
being sold to Russia, they unintentionally began without realizing it an economic experiment in
Protectionism. The food embargo against food going into Russia amounts to a kind of Protectionism
for Russian food production within a protectionized and defended Russian market.
If it ends up allowing more monetizable food-as-wealth to be produced withIN Russia, that will
allow all sorts of sectors and people to buy and sell more monetizable non-food goods and non-food
services FROM withIN Russia TO withIN Russia as well. If that allows Russia to become more all-sectors-in-balance
wealthier, that fact would be hard to hide eventually. And various farm-sector advocates in America
could seize upon it and point to it as evidence that Protectionism WORKS to allow a country to
increase its own net production and enjoyment of overall wealth withIN its own borders. And it
might inspire more people to suggest we try it here within America as well. And through the abolition
of NAFTA, allow Mexico to revive Protectionism for its agricultural sector as well. It might allow
for enough broad-based ground-up revival of economic activity withIN Mexico that some of the millions
of NAFTAstinian exiles in America might decide they have a Mexican economy to go back to again.
And some of them might go back.
IF! NAFTA can be abolished and Mexico set free to re-protectionize its own agricultural economy.
Perhaps if enough Mexican political-economic analysts look at events in Russia and see the ongoing
success there, they too might agitate for the abolition of NAFTA and the re-protectionization
of farm-country Mexico.
SmoothieX12 -> different clue...
Protectionism WORKS to allow a country to increase its own net production and enjoyment of
overall wealth withIN its own borders
Free Trade fundamentalism (which is a first derivative of liberalism) is what killing USA and,
I assume, Mexico. Most "academic" so called economists and bankers (monetarists) are clueless
but it is them who set the framework of discussion on economy. It is a long discussion but let
me put it this way--all their "theories" are crap. As for Russia--she is largely self-sustainable
for years now.
kao_hsien_chih -> Ulenspiegel...
That Russia before Putin provides for better explanation of his support than even the 260%.
Yes, Russia is still a relatively poor country, but only a decade before, it was a total and complete
basketcase and people remember that Putin is responsible for putting things back to a semblance
of normalcy.
Daniel Nicolas
In another thread, it was mentioned that countries have no friends, only interests.
Russia, for all the Borg media grandstanding, seems to only be concerned with Russian related
interests. There is no indication of greater plan for global domination. They are upgrading and
preparing for a future war, sure. Any country would be smart to prepare accordingly to defend
itself (and their interests).
Obama's USA has been far too hostile to Russia without apparent cause. A Clinton administration
would likely swing even further. While Russia has openly declared that it not want a new hot war,
they are preparing accordingly because they have no choice but to prepare for the possible future
USA being even more hostile.
The Germans are obviously still sore about it all.
EricB
Russia became the enemy of United States in early 2000's after Putin started cracking down
on the oligarchs that had taken over Russia's economy during Yeltsin's privatization efforts.
It is estimated that seven individuals were controlling as much as 50% of Russia's economy at
its peak during the late 90's:
The ruling ideology of the West is the free movement of capital and people together with
the dismantling of sovereign states and replacing them with global institutions and corporate
trade pacts. Donald Trump's "America First" threatens this so he is subject to full throated attacks
by the media and the connected. Vladimir Putin stands in the way of the global hegemony and the
return of Russia to the 1990s. Thus, the western hybrid war for a Kremlin regime change.
Hillary Clinton is supremely qualified to maintain the status quo. If Donald Trump wins, it
has to be due to the perfidious Russians hacking the election; not Globalism's Losers voting against
their exploitation by the insanely wealthy and the enabling technocrats. Meanwhile, the "War of
Russian Aggression" heats up, Turkey turns Islamist and the EU splinters due to the war refugees
and austerity.
Old Microbiologist -> Bill Herschel...
Bill,
I am with you all the way. It, of course, goes much further. There are ongoing US-manufactured
destabilization events unfolding all around Russia. Then you have the economic attacks via sanctions
and trade which have arguably crippled Russia. On top of that you have these insipid attacks via
things like SWIFT bank transfers, IMF, World Bank and idiocy such as attempting to ban the entire
Russian Olympic team from the Olympics. Russia senses these attacks on all fronts and was unfortunately
caught early being unprepared. During the Soviet Union Russia was 100% self sufficient but as
mentioned in other comments under Yeltsin's "privatization" programs an awful lot of that industry
was sold or closed. Now Russia has had to start from scratch replacements for things not available
in Russia and yet still has a budget surplus (unlike the US with a near $20 trillion deficit).
They have created alternates to SWIFT, VISA/Mastercard, the IMF and even the G8.
The Crimea debacle was a clear attempt to kick Russia out of their base in Sevastopol which
was brilliantly countered. However, the cost has been enormous. Little commented on is that Ukraine
under US leadership has cut off water, gas, and electricity to the peninsula and blocked all traffic
to the mainland. Russia is nearing the completion of the bridge to Crimea from Russia and water/power
are already being delivered. This is a huge effort which shows the dedication to their control
of Crimea.
Then they have undertaken to directly thwart the anti-Assad US-led coalition in Syria and have
hoisted the US on its own petard. It hasn't been easy nor cheap and all of this has been happening
simultaneously. On top of all of this we have buildups on the Russian borders so Putin also has
to upgrade his military to counter any potential EU/NATO/US invasion of Russia. The aggression
has all been one sided but delusional citizens in the US see our aggression as defensive as bizarre
as that is. Outside the US people see US aggression for what it is and are not fooled into believing
that we are trying to help anyone except the rich plutocrats. The immigrant invasion of Europe
is seen as a US caused problem for these continuous insane wars that never end nor apparently
have any actual purpose.
If Clinton takes over for Obama it will only mean continued escalation by the US against
any country resisting a unipolar world. There are a lot more than Russia and China resisting US
hegemony and that attacks, subtle as they are, continue unabated. If Trump dials that back this
can only be a good thing for world peace. The neocons apparently are betting the farm on Hillary.
Good, I pray they lose and are cleansed permanently from the US political landscape. Personally,
I see a win by Clinton as the end of mankind.
Peter Reichard said...
Have always thought Russians and Americans were more like each other than either of us were
like Europeans. Both a little crude, crazy, traditionally religious and musical with big countries
created from an expanding frontier and thinking big in terms of infrastructure and vehicles. We
ought to be natural allies as we were in the nineteenth century in opposition to the British Empire
and again in World War 2. Russia, a land power in the heart of the world island in balance with
the US, an ocean power on the other side of the planet with mutual respect could create a stable
multi-polar world.
SmoothieX12 -> Peter Reichard...
That is generally true. There are a lot of similarities. And I remember the end of Cold
War extremely well, when the relations warmed up and the danger of nuclear exchange faded. In
Russia, at that time, this was precisely the idea what you described but, as Pat Buchanan wrote
several days ago "The inability to adapt was seen when our Cold War adversary extended a hand
in friendship, and the War Party slapped it away."
kao_hsien_chih -> SmoothieX12...
In mid-19th century, Russia was extremely friendly to United States, where many remained deeply
suspicious of the British Empire. Somehow, by the end of 19th century, United States became peculiarly
fond of the British Empire and inexplicably hostile to Russia--Mahan was both an Anglophile and
Russophobe, as I understand, and his sentiments shows up in his ideas, or so I've heard. (I imagine
SmoothieX12, as an ex Soviet navy man, is far more familiar with this than I ever could). How
did that happen?
rkka -> kao_hsien_chih...
"How did that happen?"
In the early 1880s the U.S. government decided to become a global seapower. Hostility towards
the world's largest landpower followed, as night follows day.
"... Westen is a Democrat and he basically wrote this book to try and help Democrats win more presidential election, though the research portion in the beginning of the book shows how people in both parties are biased in their interpretation of political events based on their political party allegiance. ..."
"... Then a year or two later he wrote some follow up articles whining and complaining about how disappointed he was in Obama not being much different from Bush, etc, etc ..."
"... The fact that Mr. Western could wake up to Obama's basic Bushness in only one or two years means that Mr. Western had a freer mind than most Obama supporters. ..."
"... Good find. Yes and yes. They never stop manipulating. Now the MSM will finally have to admit that the machines are compromised ONLY when it serves the interests of th few. ..."
Two "liberal" IT luminaries today pick up the (totally unproven) assertion that Russia hacked
and published via wikileaks the DNC shennigens of preferring Clinton.
The used this to (preemptively) accuse Russia of manipulating the U.S. election via voting
computers on November 9.
I think this is a sign that both Schneier and Doctorow are democrats who fear Trump. Tribal allegiance
exerts a very powerful, and irrational, force on the so-called rational mind.
Warning, Westen is a Democrat and he basically wrote this book to try and help Democrats
win more presidential election, though the research portion in the beginning of the book shows
how people in both parties are biased in their interpretation of political events based on their
political party allegiance.
When Obama first ran in 2007-2008, Westen had clearly been drinking the glorious pro-Obama
koolaid as was evident in some HuffPo articles he wrote at the time.
Then a year or two later he wrote some follow up articles whining and complaining about
how disappointed he was in Obama not being much different from Bush, etc, etc.
Clearly this man was so caught up in his tribal allegiance he couldn't recognize the very biases
his research showed. Btw, he is still a consultant to the Democrats... attempting to be the Frank
Luntz of the left.
The fact that Mr. Western could wake up to Obama's basic Bushness in only one or two years
means that Mr. Western had a freer mind than most Obama supporters.
Good find. Yes and yes. They never stop manipulating. Now the MSM will finally have to
admit that the machines are compromised ONLY when it serves the interests of th few.
If the intent is to expose corruption then that is doing a public service. The public's interest
is the content of the e-mails and the dirty tricks played by the DNC and Clinton. The e-mails
clearly show that the journalists are in bed with the DNC/Clinton and this article is just another
example of this corruption of the media
Notable quotes:
"... Reading the comments it is hard to understand what is wrong with a lot of you commenters. You seem to swallow whole one side or the other and march off the cliff just like lemming. This argument is a few sentences and is about proper handling of the leaks, not the leaks themselves. The leaks show Hillary supporters helped steal the primary votes from Sanders when the DNC was supposed to be neutral. That is a crime against democracy, an attack on you, it is third world corruption. If you believe Hillary is for you than you are just hopeless. ..."
"... All the noise about Russian plots and secret agendas is a bit ironic as it seems the truth is that the DNC and their presidential candidate are the ones with a secret agenda that was made public. ..."
"... The collapse of the government and Google as a-censor is imminent. ¨ Everyone is switching to Duckduckgo.com ..."
"... How this backfire ??? We just get proof how the DNC establishment nominate what candidate they want not what people want. If after this Sanders supporters will still vote for Hillary, they just simply give the establishment green lite to do it same thing anytime they want and democracy really is just the empty word...... ..."
"... Wikileaks only confirms that DNC has rigged the primaries to help Hillary Clinton, that's why Debbie W. Schultz had to resign her Chair. Whether that will cost Clinton her election depends on how many of the Bernie Sanders supporters are angry enough to boycott the election. ..."
"... The problem in America is that we have a two party political system that can be easily manipulated by the wealthy and those with evil intent .When that happens you have basically one party speaking double talk , controlled by the few and sewing confusion among the voters in order to divide and polarize the country . ..."
"... It is interesting (albeit unsurprising) that since the leak makes Hillary Clinton's backers in the DNC look bad, the media is so interested in the motives of the leakers. This was never the case with the anti-Bush crowd in the 2000's. Going back a bit further, anyone involved in exposing the Watergate break-in is practically treated like a national hero. Suddenly, the "truth to power" crowd has become the "can't handle the truth" crowd. ..."
"... This #$%$ article is just ridiculous! "Oh, well, the leak hasn't revealed anything important". Hello! Wake up! It has shown how crooked the DNC was during this election cycle ..."
"... Did you notice there's no (By-Line) for this article? Because what is IN the emails is most important. Firstly, they blame the Russians. Then they blame Trump. Then they blame the Russians and Trump. Now they don't know who to blame. But, the FBI said for certain the server was hacked and there were indications of who hacked it. This was established in a couple of short weeks - or less. The FBI had Hillary's server for a year and couldn't make a determination. ..."
"... The most important question to ask is about the motives of American Journalists is there report a distraction from the truth are they in fact trying to do damage control are they being controlled by a political party as these E-MAILS seem to suggest . The motive of the leaker is less important than the truth. ..."
"... The DNC had to hire actors at $50 a pop by advertising on Craigslist so Hillary Clinton wouldn't look like the clown she is in front of a half-empty DNC stadium during her acceptance speech. ..."
"... The exodus of hundreds, if not thousands, of Bernie Sanders supporters from the convention made crystal clear the extent of discord among Democratic voters. ..."
"... It's a sad state of affairs in that we are depending on Julian Assange to save the Republic from corrupt Hillary and the Clinton foundation. If Clinton becomes President she will basically place the United States up for sale so that the globalists can destroy what little remains of the American middle class. America will truly become a third world nation with only rich and poor. ..."
"... We can not allow this to happen. Trump may be a little "rough around the edges" however he is a true American who will bring back jobs, try his best to eliminate illegal immigration, and take America back from the globalists. This will help middle class Americans to thrive -- Vote Trump for President in 2016 -- ..."
"... I think most commenters are missing the point that Snowden made: what is the intent of the leak? If the intent is to expose corruption then that is doing a public service. ..."
"... All look at the bang up job the FBI did with Clinton's email wrong doings. She broke the law and lied and the FBI tip toed around it by not taking her statements under oath so she wouldn't be charged. ..."
"... Another article to divert from the content of the emails, which were so damning that the DNC used all their Media contacts to create the "Russia Hack" scenario and then accused Trump of conspiring with Russia. As of yet not one DNC official has denied the facts or content in the e-mails. ..."
"... I found it interesting you didn't mention that Politico was found in cahoots with the DNC as well in the emails.. Just like the mainstream media didn't hardly cover the protesters at the DNC convention but surely did at the RNC convention. You pick & choose what you want to report don't you. ..."
Reading the comments it is hard to understand what is wrong with a lot of you commenters.
You seem to swallow whole one side or the other and march off the cliff just like lemming. This
argument is a few sentences and is about proper handling of the leaks, not the leaks themselves.
The leaks show Hillary supporters helped steal the primary votes from Sanders when the DNC was
supposed to be neutral. That is a crime against democracy, an attack on you, it is third world
corruption. If you believe Hillary is for you than you are just hopeless.
DoctorNoDoctorNo
At what point in civilization did the truth become unethical? No one is denying that the information
contained in these e-mails is not true. All the noise about Russian plots and secret agendas
is a bit ironic as it seems the truth is that the DNC and their presidential candidate are the
ones with a secret agenda that was made public.
We have one presidential candidate under IRS, FBI and State Department investigation and another
who opens their mouth only to change feet placing the American voter in an untenable position
come November.
fudmer
@ Tim Schultze Humanity refuses to be ruled by the few! ¨
The collapse of the government and Google as a-censor is imminent. ¨ Everyone is switching
to Duckduckgo.com
Enough Oligarch monopoly and control. Yesterday 40 civilians bombed to death and 50 more injured
in Syria by US Air force and marines killed in actions in Yemen. What the hell is the USA doing
in Syria or Yemen?
Democracy is freedom of movement, action and thought, not controlled, restricted and regulated
movement, not punishment for each action that challenges the established monopolies, and not mind
control and media propaganda as a total cultural environment.
Everywhere world wide humanity, Christian, Jew, Hindu, or Moslem [except the wabahi Sunni]
are rising to the challenge the few.
nobodynobody
"The DNC email leak has backfired on WikiLeaks, and arguably Russia and Trump, because
theorizing about who leaked these emails has been far more intriguing to journalists and the
general public than the emails themselves."
How this backfire ??? We just get proof how the DNC establishment nominate what candidate
they want not what people want. If after this Sanders supporters will still vote for Hillary,
they just simply give the establishment green lite to do it same thing anytime they want and democracy
really is just the empty word......
AlitaAlita,
Wikileaks only confirms that DNC has rigged the primaries to help Hillary Clinton, that's
why Debbie W. Schultz had to resign her Chair. Whether that will cost Clinton her election depends
on how many of the Bernie Sanders supporters are angry enough to boycott the election.
JohnJohn
The problem in America is that we have a two party political system that can be easily
manipulated by the wealthy and those with evil intent .When that happens you have basically one
party speaking double talk , controlled by the few and sewing confusion among the voters in order
to divide and polarize the country . Which leads to a lack of unity and everyone for him
or her self . What we need is not more or fewer political parties but a more informed public
Scotty P.Scotty P.
It is interesting (albeit unsurprising) that since the leak makes Hillary Clinton's backers
in the DNC look bad, the media is so interested in the motives of the leakers. This was never
the case with the anti-Bush crowd in the 2000's. Going back a bit further, anyone involved in
exposing the Watergate break-in is practically treated like a national hero. Suddenly, the "truth
to power" crowd has become the "can't handle the truth" crowd.
Similarly, Edward Snowden proudly violated national security laws, in the name of exposing
government corruption. But now that someone else has done it to a politcal base Snowden finds
more tolerable (he's a known liberal), he takes issue with it? Get over yourself, Ed. You're no
better than WikiLeaks, and your agenda is no more "pure" than theirs.
Lastly, the author of this article saying the leak has "backfired" is truly rich. This isn't
the 90's, when feckless partisans tried to take down the Clintons, only to have disgraced themselves-
although Newt Gingrich still ATTEMPTS to be relevant. (But I digress.) This time, the Clintons
have angered a lot of people on the left, who see that the Democrats are no more a "party of the
people" than the Republicans are- although anyone paying attentions wouldn't need WikiLeaks to
tell them that.
SomeSome
Talk about playing it down, this proved media collusion further evidenced by the blackout of
delegates lack of media coverage when over 1,000 walked out after roll call and stormed the media
tents. (Video's all over YouTube)
My Revolution brothers and sisters, even though we are separated by #DemExit, I understand
and appreciate your fight from within. I am fighting to build a new home in the Green party. We
are still together even when we are apart.
If you can't fly then run,
If you can't run then walk,
If you can't walk then crawl,
But whatever you do you have to keep moving forward!
michael
Another is a long line of distortion and lies by the establishment to make the establishment
Queen elected. The lies just never stop. Snowden tweeted a sentence and Wikileaks tweeted by another.
from this a whole pyramid of lies and distortions was written. There is zero evidence the Russians
government hacked these emails, zero, nada, nothing. What is important is the DNC was for Hillary
and was trying to sabotage another Democrat, Sanders, running for the same office. That is corruption
pure and simple, nothing less. Third world corruption going on at the DNC.
TimmyTimmy
This #$%$ article is just ridiculous! "Oh, well, the leak hasn't revealed anything important".
Hello! Wake up! It has shown how crooked the DNC was during this election cycle, and in truth
the RNC probably isn't any better. But here we have PROOF of just how crooked hilary and her cronies
are, and they are all getting a free pass. No one sees a problem with this?
Gordon
Did you notice there's no (By-Line) for this article? Because what is IN the emails is
most important. Firstly, they blame the Russians. Then they blame Trump. Then they blame the Russians
and Trump. Now they don't know who to blame. But, the FBI said for certain the server was hacked
and there were indications of who hacked it. This was established in a couple of short weeks -
or less. The FBI had Hillary's server for a year and couldn't make a determination.
Too much of this just doesn't add up. The Democrats went into immediate Damage Control mode
when the emails came out and Not ONE person was screaming, "This ain't True!". Nope, not even
a whisper. We can't tell who's pulling the strings on this. But, there's dammed sure someone behind
the curtain.
Richard
The most important question to ask is about the motives of American Journalists is there
report a distraction from the truth are they in fact trying to do damage control are they being
controlled by a political party as these E-MAILS seem to suggest . The motive of the leaker is
less important than the truth. Wiki-leaks hates Clinton , Russia hacked the DNC server that
is another subject . The fact weather or not the DNC acted in a unethical manner is the subject.
JULEA
There is nothing wrong with Transparency. We need MORE of it. How long did WE Hack and Spy
on Germany, Merkel? They were suing US. What ever happened about this? We ALSO need more transparency
about TPP and who can be sued for some Corporation losing profits..even if they are doing wrong
to make their profits. I think something falls on States, counties, even citizens. Even SCIENCE
for proving harmful things involved. We just need Transparency and who is giving money to who
and why. The DNC became VERY Undemocratic and this just a BIG BIG BIG No to every Liberal and
should not be covered up for anything. WE HACK EVERY COUNTRY.
DickDick
Nobody except America's enemies wants vital secrets that jeopardize our well being hacked.
On the other hand we have a national interest in finding out what our leaders have been hiding
that jeopardize our liberties. Snowden exposed extreme violations of the fourth amendment by the
NSA. Wikileaks exposed political chicanery by the democrat central committee. Hiding information
like this is harmful and only benefits those who are trying to cover up something just to protect
themselves. Both Snowden and wikileaks have done good deeds.
Snowden, who risked his life to spill the beans, said he would reveal all in return for immunity.
But too many people have reason to fear the truth so I doubt if he will be granted it. A shame.
mike
Democrat or Republican they both pull this kind of #$%$. The only answer is to vote all of
them out of office and put term limits in place . We need to stop the Life long politicians who
are in it for their own riches. And we know its "All" of them, they find out how easy it is to
rip the American people off and get by with it.
DavidSDavidS
This attempt to paint Clinton the victim is sooooo over played. She has been the "victim" all
her life. Focus on just how corrupt she and everyone around her is. DWS didn't get punished for
what she did (or allowed), she was rewarded. Doesn't that speak volumes about Clinton? The more
corrupt you are, the more she and hers will reward. Wake up people, there was a time when a single
lie told to the public was a career ending blotch. Now it's who can tell the biggest.
Ron
I love how this story tries to downplay the content of the emails and focus on the hackers.
The emails exposed a coordinated effort to rob Bernie. Journalists may be having more fun speculating
on who hacked them, but Bernies followers could care less. They know the old man got robbed.
Lord Doom
The Leak disclosed how the main stream media has bias with the DNC. Yahoo news wants to blow
down the story and mask its importance it seems to me.
Idontwanngiveit
Dan Seitz.... Do you practice being a political dolt or does it come naturally?
The DNC had to hire actors at $50 a pop by advertising on Craigslist so Hillary Clinton
wouldn't look like the clown she is in front of a half-empty DNC stadium during her acceptance
speech.
The exodus of hundreds, if not thousands, of Bernie Sanders supporters from the convention
made crystal clear the extent of discord among Democratic voters.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the devastating fall-out of the WikiLeaks
e-mail dump on Hillary Clinton's election bid. She is the No. 1 casualty -- albeit "collateral
damage" -- inflicted by the party upon itself!
Prior to the WikiLeaks e-mail showing how Bernie got jerked around by a rigged system, most
of his supporters would have held their nose and grudgingly voted for Hillary in November. Now,
since learning how party officials conspired against them, they want and deserve blood!
The disgruntled masses who stormed out of the DNC represent a microcosm of the equally disgruntled
masses of Democrats nation-wide who are incensed over the party's machinations and shenanigans.
The ones in Pennsylvania and those watching on TV, following events on the Internet and reading
newspapers at home are fully informed about what took place and will now do one of three things:
Sit out the election entirely our of frustration over a status-quo system that's patently
rigged against them, which benefits Donald Trump.
Vote for a third-candidate, which splits the Democratic ticket and, again, benefits Trump.
Vote for Donald Trump directly out of shear spite to show the Democratic Party exactly what
it deserves for screwing with them, which also Trump.
Even if all those people constitute just 5 or 10 percent of the Party's voting base, their
loss and its effect on Hillary's chances of winning the White House will be devastating!
So, as a staunch Trump supporter myself, Thank you, Julian Assange! Thank you very much for
your generous and very helpful assistance in securing the Oval Office for Donald J. Trump on Nov.
8.
Oh yeah. And one other thing.... Please keep those Democratic Party internal e-mails coming.
They're absolutely fascinating!
Joseph
It's a sad state of affairs in that we are depending on Julian Assange to save the Republic
from corrupt Hillary and the Clinton foundation. If Clinton becomes President she will basically
place the United States up for sale so that the globalists can destroy what little remains of
the American middle class. America will truly become a third world nation with only rich and poor.
We can not allow this to happen. Trump may be a little "rough around the edges" however
he is a true American who will bring back jobs, try his best to eliminate illegal immigration,
and take America back from the globalists. This will help middle class Americans to thrive -- Vote
Trump for President in 2016 !
Elizabeth
I think most commenters are missing the point that Snowden made: what is the intent of
the leak? If the intent is to expose corruption then that is doing a public service. Leaking
private information like credit card numbers and SS numbers only makes the victims vulnerable
to thieves and does not fall in the "need to know" category. Wiki could have edited the leak to
expose the DNC while protecting private information.
joanjoan
All look at the bang up job the FBI did with Clinton's email wrong doings. She broke the
law and lied and the FBI tip toed around it by not taking her statements under oath so she wouldn't
be charged.
A Yahoo reader
What could be more hypocritical of this pro-Clinton commentary questioning the objectivity
of documents released with no commentary at all. Any rational person appreciates being provided
the truth. It's of no consequence that the truth provider doesn't like Clinton. There's no law
that says people have to like Clinton, at least not yet.
alfredalfred
Nice try to discredit the emails. They happened. She resigned. Democrats are terrible people.
They get away with it because we are stupid and believe everything this media tells us.
Danny
OK, you won't listen to a guy (Edward Snowden) about issues, when he releases information that
the public NEEDS to know, but "MAY BE" detrimental to the people in National Security, you put
him on the World's MOST WANTED LIST, take his citizenship away. So what is his choice, he HAS
NO CHOICE, he goes on the offense, obtaining and releasing even more information, and working
with whomever will protect him.
There is no evidence Russia is holding him prison, just protecting him. There is no evidence
he can't leave anytime he wants, even come back to his own country. Yet our government continues
to villanize Snowden.
Look at the data released - It is true, it proves ALL the crooks are in our own government
and politics, there is no evidence Russia is doing anything but helping people find, obtain and
release material our politicians create.
So, Killary, DNC, Obama, one and all attack Snowden and Russia, even adding Trump to the mix.
I think we need to pack up all these crooked Democrats, including Obama, and ship them off to
another country and tell them to GET A JOB. Then, let Snowden back into his country and let him
do his job of protecting the United States of America. And Trump doesn't have anything to do with
Killary, Obama and DNCs crooked politics.
krainkrain
Then there is the language issue. "I hate being attributed to Russia," the Guccifer 2.0 account
told Motherboard, probably accurately. The person at the keyboard then claimed in a chat with
Motherboard's Lorenzo Franceschi-Bicchierai that Guccifer 2.0 was from Romania, like the original
Guccifer, a well-known hacker. But when asked to explain his hack in Romanian, he was unable to
respond colloquially and without errors. Guccifer 2.0's English initially was also weak, but in
subsequent posts the quality improved sharply, albeit only on political subjects, not in technical
matters-an indication of a team of operators at work behind the scenes.
VernyVerny
The government is protecting Hillary and the Clinton Gang, so "leaks and hacks" are the only methodology of showing Americans the truth about Hillary, the most corrupt politician in American history.
Jayster b
Another article to divert from the content of the emails, which were so damning that
the DNC used all their Media contacts to create the "Russia Hack" scenario and then accused
Trump of conspiring with Russia. As of yet not one DNC official has denied the facts or
content in the e-mails. So, Assange scored in this first round so much that Debbie is no
longer head of the DNC, and the FBI has demanded access to the DNC server to analyze it,
meaning they will have access to all the donor information from foreign countries that are
helping the Democrats steal the nomination from Bernie. What a crazy world. Assange 1, DNC 0
TomTom
I found it interesting you didn't mention that Politico was found in cahoots with the
DNC as well in the emails.. Just like the mainstream media didn't hardly cover the protesters
at the DNC convention but surely did at the RNC convention. You pick & choose what you want to
report don't you.
As my colleague Glenn Greenwald
told
WNYC on Monday, while there may never be conclusive evidence that the Democratic National Committee
was hacked by Russian intelligence operatives to extract
the trove of embarrassing emails
published by WikiLeaks, it would hardly be shocking if that was what happened.
"Governments do spy on each other and do try to influence events in other countries," Glenn noted.
"Certainly the U.S. government has
a very long and
successful history of doing exactly that."
Even so, he added, given the ease with which we were misled into war in Iraq by false claims about
weapons of mass destruction - and
the long history
of Russophobia in American politics - it is vital to cast a skeptical eye over whatever evidence
is presented to support the claim, made by Hillary Clinton's aide Robby Mook, that this is all part
of a Russian plot to sabotage the Democrats and help Donald Trump win the election.
The theory
gained some traction , particularly among Trump's detractors, in part because the candidate has
seemed obsessed at times with reminding crowds that Russian President Vladimir Putin once said
something sort of nice about him (though
not, as Trump falsely
claims , that the American is "a genius"). Then last week, Trump's campaign staff watered down
a pledge to help Ukraine defend its territory from Russian-backed rebels and the candidate
told the New York Times he would not necessarily honor the NATO treaty commitment that
requires the United States military to defend other member states from a direct attack by Russia.
Since Trump has refused to release his tax returns, there are also questions about whether or
not his businesses might depend to some extent on Russian investors. "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate
cross-section of a lot of our assets," Trump's son Donald Jr. told a real estate conference in 2008,
the Washington Post reported last month. "We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."
Paul Manafort, who is directing Trump's campaign and was for years a close adviser of a Putin
ally, former President Viktor Yanukovych of Ukraine,
called the theory that Trump's campaign had ties to the Russian government "absurd." (On Monday,
Michael Isikoff of Yahoo News
reported that a DNC researcher looking into Manafort's ties to pro-Russian politicians in Ukraine
in May had been warned that her personal Yahoo email account was under attack. "We strongly suspect
that your account has been the target of state-sponsored actors," the warning from the email service
security team read.)
Unhelpfully for Trump, his most senior adviser with knowledge of the world of hacking, retired
Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency,
told Bloomberg View that he "would not be surprised at all" to learn that Russia was
behind the breach of the DNC network. "Both China and Russia have the full capability to do this,"
he said.
Later on Monday, Trump himself then
attributed
the attack on the DNC to "China, Russia, one of our many, many 'friends,'" who "came in and hacked
the hell out of us."
Since very few of us are cybersecurity experts, and the Iraq debacle is a reminder of how dangerous
it can be to put blind faith in experts whose claims might reinforce our own political positions,
there is also the question of who we can trust to provide reliable evidence.
One expert in the field, who is well aware of the evidence-gathering capabilities of the U.S.
government, is Edward Snowden, the former Central Intelligence Agency technician and National Security
Agency whistleblower who exposed the extent of mass surveillance and has been given temporary asylum
in Russia.
"If Russia hacked the #DNC, they should be condemned for it,"
Snowden wrote
on Twitter on Monday, with a link to
a 2015 report on the U.S. government's response to the hacking of Sony Pictures. In that case,
he noted, "the FBI presented evidence" for its conclusion that North Korea was responsible for the
hacking and subsequent release of internal emails. (The FBI is now investigating the breach of the
DNC's network, which officials
told the Daily Beast they first made the committee aware of in April.)
What's more, Snowden added, the NSA has tools that should make it possible to trace the source
of the hack. Even though the Director of National Intelligence usually opposes making such evidence
public, he argued, this is a case in which the agency should do so, if only to discourage future
attacks.
Edward Snowden
✔ @Snowden
Even if the attackers try to obfuscate origin, #XKEYSCORE makes following exfiltrated data easy.
I did this personally against Chinese ops.
Edward Snowden
✔ @Snowden
Evidence that could publicly attribute responsibility for the DNC hack certainly exists at #NSA,
but DNI traditionally objects to sharing.
Edward Snowden
✔ @Snowden
The aversion to sharing #NSA evidence is fear of revealing "sources and methods" of intel collection,
but #XKEYSCORE is now publicly known.
Edward Snowden2 Verified account ?
@Snowden
Without a credible threat that USG can and will use #NSA capabilities to publicly attribute responsibility,
such hacks will become common.
The other day on the pages of "Correspondent" that quoted figures given by the State Statistics
Service there was published data on the Ukrainian demographic catastrophe. It turns out that the
population of the Ukraine (excluding the Crimea) as of January 1, 2016, amounted to 42,76,500
people, which is 6.3% or 2,873,000 persons fewer than there were in January 1, 2012 .
That is to say, the number of Ukrainian citizens has been reduced by approximately 3 million
people over a period of 5 years. If this sad trend continues, then in 70 years no "Ukrainians"
will remain.
"... This is how these fucks build their cases, it's just like the massive disinformation about everything Ukraine. If you pick it apart and study each case of a "fake" or whatever, most (if not all) of it suddenly seems less insidious and more sensible, in the light of medias being medias, people being people, bad translations being bad translations and what not. Heck, a lot of the "fakes" are actually fakes by the alleged fake-spottters. Anyway, that's why the tsunami approach is being used, just a torrent of stuff that nobody will bother picking apart as you have no choice but to submit to the sheer volume of it. ..."
"... Or take the Sochi Olympics. Total tsunami there as well, by the time false assertion #1 had been debunked by some brave soul there were 300 other assertions stacked on top. Or anything Russia in general, it doesn't matter, it's the same crap all over. ..."
"... Oh, and one last observation. The Russia disinformation tsunami approach reminds me of something very similar, namely tin foil hats peddling alien conspiracies and so on. They typically set out with their minds made up and then present "evidence" A, B, C. Once these have been debunked, they go "fine, but what about D, E, F" all the way to Z. Once that's been exhausted they jump all the way back to A, B, C as if nothing's happened at all, though this way around they typically attempt to overwhelm by referencing D-Z from the get go. Good god, it's depressing. ..."
I've been finding a lot of these things being forwarded on Twitter etc:
I find it rather amazing, actually. Russian media is being accused of "fakes" and "lies" when
the reality is that they're almost always quoting Western media in verbatim on all these things.
In this particular case, Swedish media reported a "powerful explosion, possibly several",
and "a man holding a gun-like object" and "police has been called to the scene" and so on. Yep, that
they did. Since it was in the central parts of the capital and all these things gave the impression
something big could be brewing, international media quickly went nuts with it as well:
The Russians followed suit, naturally. Now, soon thereafter it turned out to be a case of overblown
hysteria and the story quickly died out following that, with all media issuing retractions, including
Russian dito.
But, quelle surprise – it's obviously yet another "Russia fake".
This is how these fucks build their cases, it's just like the massive disinformation about everything
Ukraine. If you pick it apart and study each case of a "fake" or whatever, most (if not all) of it
suddenly seems less insidious and more sensible, in the light of medias being medias, people being
people, bad translations being bad translations and what not. Heck, a lot of the "fakes" are actually
fakes by the alleged fake-spottters. Anyway, that's why the tsunami approach is being used,
just a torrent of stuff that nobody will bother picking apart as you have no choice but to submit
to the sheer volume of it.
Or take the Sochi Olympics. Total tsunami there as well, by the time false assertion #1 had been
debunked by some brave soul there were 300 other assertions stacked on top. Or anything Russia
in general, it doesn't matter, it's the same crap all over.
Also, regarding the above "Russia fake" – just to further prove what bullshit this is, this is
what Sweden's most-read news site wrote at the time it had just occurred: http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article21715154.ab
" A powerful detonation was heard on Södermalm in Stockholm at lunch time.
Police arrived on site with several patrols and the street was cordoned off.
– We don't know what has happened , says Albin Näverberg of the Stockholm police.
The blast, that witnesses describe as being powerful , was heard at 11:40 AM near
Brännkyrkagatan on Södermalm. The street was cordoned off. A large police force was called to
the site. Rescue services were there as well."
"Rescue services" meaning firefighters and/or paramedics. Clearly everybody thought some shit
had gone down and there were multiple emergency vehicles, cordons and so on.
Oh, and one last observation. The Russia disinformation tsunami approach reminds me of something
very similar, namely tin foil hats peddling alien conspiracies and so on. They typically set out
with their minds made up and then present "evidence" A, B, C. Once these have been debunked, they
go "fine, but what about D, E, F" all the way to Z. Once that's been exhausted they jump all the
way back to A, B, C as if nothing's happened at all, though this way around they typically attempt
to overwhelm by referencing D-Z from the get go. Good god, it's depressing.
(Washington, DC 7/25) As I was idly wondering what Vladimir Putin would say about the DNC
email scandals, I received a call from Vladimir Putin himself. He said he wanted to talk about
the Wikileaks release of DNC emails. When I asked why he picked me to contact, he said "I
probably strarted at the wrong end of the list" and laughed heartily.
MC:
President Putin, did the Russian government hack the DNC email server and then publically
release those emails through Wikileaks the day before the Democratic convention?
Putin:
Yes.
MC:
Yes! Are you serious?
Putin
: I'm quite serious.
MC:
How can you justify this open meddling in United States politics?
Putin:
Your question should be what took Russia so long. The US oligarchs and their minions
surround us with military bases and nuclear missiles, damage our trade to Europe, and seek to
destabilize our domestic politics. These emails are nothing in the big picture. But they're sort
of funny, don't you agree?
MC:
I'm not sure that funny is the right word. What do you mean by that?
Putin:
You've got Hillary Clinton running as a strong and independent woman. Of course,
nobody would know who she is had she not married Bill Clinton. She's not independent. Quite the
contrary. She had to marry a philandering redneck to get to where she is. When it comes to
strength, I can say only this. How strong can you be if you have to cheat and create a rigged
game to win the nomination?
MC:
Anything else about your leak to cheer us up?
Putin:
This situation is the epitome of ironic humor. After the emails were released, the
focus was all on DNC Chair and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. That's fine for now but
what happens when people start asking why Wasserman-Schultz had the DNC screw Sanders and boost
Hillary? Did she just wake up one day and decide this on her own?. Not likely. She was and
remains Hillary's agent. It will take people a while to arrive that answer. When enough people
hear about Wasserman-Schultz's key role in the Clinton campaign, everything will be clear. It's
adios Hillary. That inevitable conclusion, by the way, is the reason the DNC made such a big deal
about Russia hacking the DNC. That was diversion one right out of the gate.
MC:
Is Russia an equal opportunity hacker? What about the Trump campaign?
Putin:
Why not? I hear there are some very rather graphic home movies and videos of Mr. Trump
with some interesting playmates. But that can wait. Enjoy Hillary's hypocrisy to the fullest.
When it comes to either candidate, my only advice is
let the buyer beware
.
That was it for my time with the man. I'd like to think it was Putin. Even if it wasn't, this
is what I suspect Putin would say.
Why those unknown forces (probably a disgruntled insider) leaked this bombshell so late. At this
point it does not affect Sanders chances to beat Hillary.
Notable quotes:
"... "The same people on the Clinton team who made enormous efforts to claim her private email server-which operated unencrypted over the Internet for three months, including during trips to China and Russia, and which contained top-secret national-security data-was not hacked by the Russians now are certain that the DNC server was hacked by the Russians" http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/unpacking-the-dnc-emails/ ..."
"... The British government has learned that Vladimir Putin recently sought significant quantities of malware from Africa. ..."
"... Well, golly, if you're going to create a bright, shiny object to distract people from the actual content of the e-mails, why not blame little green men from Mars? I mean, seriously, isn't what this is all about – deflecting away from what the DNC was up to, so as to keep as much of it as possible from further tarnishing the already-clouded view of both the process and the major candidate whom it benefited? ..."
"... And in addition to this little bit of obviousness, how can it possible have escaped anyone with a functioning brain that this escalating hysteria about the DNC hack was noticeably absent with respect to Clinton's own email operation? ..."
"... I also find it deeply and almost-hilariously ironic that we're all supposed to be livid at the idea of some foreign government trying to manipulate the US elections when not only is the Democratic Party's flagship organization flagrantly engaged in trying to manipulate the outcome, but the AMERICAN MEDIA wouldn't know what to do with itself if it wasn't constantly fking around with the entire process. ..."
"... Looks like another false flag propaganda ploy. The Obama Admin flares up with phony indignation and immediately swears there will be more sanctions. The FBI wants to prosecute ( or is it persecute) the messenger instead of investigating the real crimes. The e-mails and their contents are real. The noise is to cover up this fact! ..."
"... The CNN poll in yesterday's Links shows Trump beats Hillary by huge margins (12 points) on the economy and terrorism. She beats him on foreign policy (and nothing else). Dragging in Russian hackers and foreign intelligence services plays to her strength. ..."
"... In reality, politically motivated attacks like this are almost always domestic in origin. To go to Wikileaks specifically I expect an inside whistleblower is responsible. The same thing happened to Sony and the Swiss banks. Elites simply don't understand how many people they work with are disgusted by their policies. To them this is a perfectly believable thing. ..."
"... It reminds me very much of the French Fries to Freedom Fries movement. If you have a critical mass of people in on the fun, it can work, at least for a time. But what happens when most people don't care about being excommunicated from the DNC Serious People List? ..."
"... Obvious clues pointing back at a known adversary…strategically-timed leaks from anonymous intelligence sources…vague statements on the record from the President and other high-level officials…stories fed to sympathetic media outlets…yep, sounds a lot like the playbook used by the Bush White House for the run-up to the Iraq War. Except there's no way that the Democrats would ever ..."
"... No matter who is responsible for the hack, I'm just glad that the information about the DNC corruption is out in the open. I'm disappointed that this didn't happen before June 7, when California, New Jersey, and several other states had their primaries. Better late than never, I guess. ..."
"... why hadn't our press revealed this? ..."
"... It's now so routine to spin-doctor aggressively that the elites have lost any sense of whether what they are saying is credible or not. ..."
"... I thought Trump's comments today about wanting the Russians to find Hillary's emails were genius. He fans the flames of this whole Russia-Putin thing on day 3 of the Dem convention and what are the media outlets talking about? Plus, Hillary's campaign, in it's rebuttal to Trump, is indirectly reminding everyone that her homebrew server was putting national security at risk. ..."
Washington's Blog asked the highest-level NSA whistleblower in history, William Binney – the NSA
executive who created the agency's mass surveillance program for digital information, who served
as the senior technical director within the agency, who managed six thousand NSA employees, the 36-year
NSA veteran widely regarded as a "legend" within the agency and the NSA's best-ever analyst and code-breaker,
who mapped out the Soviet command-and-control structure before anyone else knew how, and so predicted
Soviet invasions before they happened ("in the 1970s, he decrypted the Soviet Union's command system,
which provided the US and its allies with real-time surveillance of all Soviet troop movements and
Russian atomic weapons") – what he thinks of such claims:
Edward Snowden says the NSA could easily determine who hacked Hillary Clinton's emails:
Evidence that could publicly attribute responsibility for the DNC hack certainly exists
at #NSA , but DNI traditionally
objects to sharing.
The mainstream media is also trumpeting the meme that Russia was behind the hack, because it
wants to help Trump get elected. In other words, the media is trying to deflect how damaging the
email leaks are to Clinton's character by trying to somehow associate Trump with Putin. See e.g.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/us/politics/kremlin-donald-trump-vladimir-putin.html
Who's right?
Binney responded:
Snowden is right and the MSM is clueless. Here's what I said to Ray McGovern and VIPS with
a little humor at the end. [McGovern is a 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence
Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George
H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other
senior government officials. McGovern is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for
Sanity ("VIPS" for short).]
Ray, I am suspicious that they may have looked for known hacking code (used by Russians). And,
I'm sure they were one probably of many to hack her stuff. But, does that mean that they checked
to see if others also hacked in?
Further, do they have evidence that the Russians downloaded and later forwarded those emails
to wikileaks? Seems to me that they need to answer those questions to be sure that their assertion
is correct. Otherwise, HRC and her political activities are and I am sure have been prime targets
for the Russians (as well as many others) but without intent of course.
I would add that we proposed to do a program that would monitor all activity on the world-wide
NSA network back in 1991/92. We called it "Wellgrounded." NSA did not want anyone (especially
congress) to know what was going on inside NSA and therefore rejected that proposal. I have not
read what Ed has said, but, I do know that every line of code that goes across the network is
logged in the network log. This is where a little software could scan, analyze and find the intruders
initially and then compile all the code sent by them to determine the type of attack. This is
what we wanted to do back in 1991/92.
The newest allegation tying the Clinton email hack to Russia seems to be
all innuendo .
Binney explained to us:
My problem is that they have not listed intruders or attempted intrusions to the DNC site.
I suspect that's because they did a quick and dirty look for known attacks.
Of course, this brings up another question; if it's a know attack, why did the DNC not have
software to stop it? You can tell from the network log who is going into a site. I used that on
networks that I had. I looked to see who came into my LAN, where they went, how long they stayed
and what they did while in my network.
Further, if you needed to, you could trace back approaches through other servers etc. Trace
Route and Trace Watch are good examples of monitoring software that help do these things. Others
of course exist … probably the best are in NSA/GCHQ and the other Five Eyes countries. But, these
countries have no monopoly on smart people that could do similar detection software.
Question is do they want to fix the problems with existing protection software. If the DNC
and OPM are examples, then obviously, they don't care to fix weakness probably because the want
to use these weaknesses to their own advantage.
Why is this newsworthy?
Well, the mainstream narrative alleges that the Clinton emails are not important … and that it's
a conspiracy between Putin and Trump to make sure Trump – and not Clinton – is elected.
But there are other issues, as well …
For example, an allegation of hacking could
literally lead to
war .
So we should be skeptical of such serious and potentially far-reaching allegations – which may
be true or may be false – unless and until they are proven .
Yup, as a former server admin it is patently absurd to attribute a hack to anyone in particular
until a substantial amount of forensic work has been done. (read, poring over multiple internal
log files…gathering yet more log files of yet more internal devices, poring over them, then –
once the request hops out of your org – requesting logfiles from remote entities, poring over
*those* log files, requesting further log files from yet more upstream entities, wash rinse repeat
ad infinitum)
For example, at its simplest, I would expect a middling-competency hacker to find an open wifi
hub across town to connect to, then VPN to server in, say, Tonga, then VPN from there to another
box in Sweden, then connect to a PC previously compromised in Iowa, then VPN to yet another anonymous
cloud server in Latvia, and (assuming the mountain dew is running low, gotta get cracking) then
RDP to the target server and grab as many docs as possible. RAR those up and encrypt them, FTP
them to a compromised media server in South Korea, email them from there to someones gmail account
previously hacked, xfer them to a P2P file sharing app, and then finally access them later from
a completely different set of servers.
In many cases where I did this sort of analysis I still ended up with a complete dead end:
some sysadmins at remote companies or orgs would be sympathetic and give me actual related log
files. Others would be sympathetic but would not give files, and instead do their own analysis
to give me tips. Many never responded, and most IPs ended up at unknown (compromised) personal
PCs, or devices where the owner could not be found anyway.
If the hacker was sloppy and left other types of circumstantial evidence you might get lucky
– but that demographic mostly points back to script kiddies and/or criminal dweebs – i.e., rather
then just surreptitiously exfiltrating the goods they instead left messages or altered things
that seemed to indicate their own backgrounds or prejudices, or left a message that was more easily
'traced'. If, of course, you took that evidence at face value and it was not itself an attempt
at obfuscation.
Short of a state actor such as an NSA who captures it ALL anyway, and/or can access any log
files at any public or private network at its own whim – its completely silly to attribute a hack
to anyone at this point.
So, I guess I am reduced to LOL OMG WTF its fer the LULZ!!!!!
hah, well I had a nice long answer but cloudflare blocked me. heh…apparently it doesnt like
certain words one uses when describing this stuff. Understandable!
I guess try looking up 'phishing' and 'privilege elevation' on wikipedia. Former is easiest,
latter gives you street cred.
Just to clarify on the "…If the hacker was sloppy and left other types of circumstantial evidence…"
– this is basically what I have seen reported as 'evidence' pointing to Russia: the Cyrillic keyboard
signature, the 'appeared to cease work on Russian holidays' stuff, and the association with 'known
Russian hacking groups'.
Thats great and all, but in past work I am sure my own 'research' could easily have gotten
me 'associated' with known hacking groups. Presumably various 'sophisticated' methods and tools
get you closer to possible suspects…but that kind of stuff is cycled and recycled throughout the
community worldwide – as soon as anything like that is known and published, any reasonably competent
hacker (or org of hackers) is learning how to do the same thing and incorporating such things
into their own methods. (imitation being the sincerest form of flattery)
I guess I have a lot more respect for the kinds of people I expect to be getting a paycheck
from foreign Intelligence agencies then to believe that they would leave such obvious clues behind
'accidentally'. But if we are going to be starting wars over this stuff w/Russia, or China, I
guess I would hope the adults in the room don't go all apesh*t and start chanting COMMIES, THE
RUSSIANS ARE COMING!, etc. before the ink is dry on the 'crime'.
Even then, I fail to see why this person (foreign, domestic, professional, amateur, state-sponsored,
or otherwise) hasn't done us a great service by exposing the DNC corruption in the first place.
Hell, I would love to give them the Medal of Freedom for this and (hopefully) the next boot to
drop! :)
There is a problem with those who argue that these are sophisticated Nation State attackers
and then point to the most basic circumstantial evidence to support their case. I'd bet that,
among others, the Israelis have hacked some Russian servers to launch attacks from and have some
of their workers on a Russian holiday schedule. Those things have been written about in attack
analysis so much over the last 15-20 years that they'd be stupid not to.
Now, I'm not saying the Israelis did it. I'm saying that the evidence provided so far by those
arguing it is Russia is so flaky as to prove that the Russia accusers are blinded
or corrupted by their own political agenda.
Oh, "they" just use the system management features baked right into the embedded computers
either the ones inside the "secure server" itself or (much more convenient and easy to do), they
attack the cheap-ish COTS lapdog that the support techie will be using to access the "secure server"
with:
– if there's a non-NSA evidence the attacks originated from Russia, then someone wanted the
world to know it was from Russia (or was just a private snoop).
– even if there was a technical evidence that the attack originated from Russia, unless it
could be tied very specifically to an institution (as opposed to a "PC in Russia"), it does not
prove that it was Russia. All it proves that someone using a computer in Russia initiated it.
Well phooey. My theory now goes up in smoke: Here we can clearly see an attempt at disinformation
from a Russian Operative, likely FSB – possibly from Putin's inner circle.
We know this through 2 things:
A.) The name, 'Vlad' – inequivocally a Russian given name, and not a common one at that.
B.) Note the slightly wrong grammar: "…a non-NSA evidence…" & "..was a technical evidence".
Clearly not a native English speaker.
See how easy that was? Yves, no need for log files to track IP here…case closed. In Soviet
Russia, crow eats me.
Anyone gots some nuke launch codes handy? 00000000 doesn't work for me anymore…
The recently murdered DNC Date Director Seth Rich being the leaker, or at least knowing who
the leaker was, as was hinted at recently by Julian Assange himself, makes a far more interesting
conspiracy theory.
Ten days after the murder of promising Democratic staffer Seth Rich, the Washington D.C.
slaying remains unsolved and police say they have no suspects in the crime.
Rich, a Jewish data analyst for the Democratic National Committee who worked on polling
station expansion, was shot and killed as he walked home on Sunday, July 10.
Police told Rich's parents that they believed his death was the result of a botched robbery.
Though Rich's killer did not take his wallet or phone, D.C. Police Commander William Fitzgerald
said that "there is no other reason (other than robbery) for an altercation at 4:30 in the
morning" at a community meeting on Monday.
The meeting was meant to address the recent uptick in robberies in the Bloomingdale neighborhood
near Howard University. Police reports say robberies in the area are down 20%, but an investigation
by the Washington Post found that armed robberies are actually up over 20% compared
with July 2015.
Of course there is absolutely no proof of Seth Rich's involvement, but I suppose it is a reasonable
surmise, as George Will recently said about the Russia allegations! In any case a possible crypto-BernieBro
tech-guy mole from within the DNC, as the source of the DNCLeaks, would make a much better made-for-TV
movie than the Russian theory. And if it was an internal mole, what better way to cover their
tracks than to leave some "traces" of a Russian hack.
Its one thing for Republicans to resort to the old chestnut of red scare mongering, but for
the Democrats to use the same ammo they once had lobed at them is surreal….
"The same people on the Clinton team who made enormous efforts to claim her private email
server-which operated unencrypted over the Internet for three months, including during trips to
China and Russia, and which contained top-secret national-security data-was not hacked by the
Russians now are certain that the DNC server was hacked by the Russians"
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/unpacking-the-dnc-emails/
Well, golly, if you're going to create a bright, shiny object to distract people from the
actual content of the e-mails, why not blame little green men from Mars? I mean, seriously, isn't
what this is all about – deflecting away from what the DNC was up to, so as to keep as much of
it as possible from further tarnishing the already-clouded view of both the process and the major
candidate whom it benefited?
And in addition to this little bit of obviousness, how can it possible have escaped
anyone with a functioning brain that this escalating hysteria about the DNC hack was noticeably
absent with respect to Clinton's own email operation?
I also find it deeply and almost-hilariously ironic that we're all supposed to be livid
at the idea of some foreign government trying to manipulate the US elections when not only is
the Democratic Party's flagship organization flagrantly engaged in trying to manipulate the outcome,
but the AMERICAN MEDIA wouldn't know what to do with itself if it wasn't constantly fking around
with the entire process.
I'm not sure we're ever coming out of this rabbit-hole-to-hell.
Looks like another false flag propaganda ploy. The Obama Admin flares up with phony indignation
and immediately swears there will be more sanctions. The FBI wants to prosecute ( or is it persecute)
the messenger instead of investigating the real crimes. The e-mails and their contents are real.
The noise is to cover up this fact!
"Why play the Russian/Putin/Trump card with the DNC email hack?" – An excellent question for
which you have provided a logical potential answer. Beyond that, this generally seems like an
act of desperation. I am nowhere near an expert on the details of hacking like the two who have
commented above, but what I see is a desperate attempt to capture the "stupid" vote. The whole
Democrat dog and pony show being put on now only serves to make those who will vote for Hillary
no matter what, feel self satisfied that they are right minded. What matters though is how they
connect with those not inclined to vote for her. In their logic it follows that the HIllary crowd
basically believes that anyone who would consider voting for Trump is very stupid, and this is
a desperate attempt to convince the "stupid's" to vote for Hillary. I have no idea how Trump will
act if he is elected President, but the critical factor for me is that there is now overwhelming
evidence that the entire Democrat establishment is just like Hillary (as made clear by Mr. Comey):
They are either grossly negligent and incompetent, or criminals who are not being prosecuted.
Anyone but her and her merry band of thieves will leave us all better off after November.
The association the Dems want to create is "scary foreign people support Trump".
The CNN poll in yesterday's Links shows Trump beats Hillary by huge margins (12 points)
on the economy and terrorism. She beats him on foreign policy (and nothing else). Dragging in
Russian hackers and foreign intelligence services plays to her strength.
In reality, politically motivated attacks like this are almost always domestic in origin.
To go to Wikileaks specifically I expect an inside whistleblower is responsible. The same thing
happened to Sony and the Swiss banks. Elites simply don't understand how many people they work
with are disgusted by their policies. To them this is a perfectly believable thing.
I also wonder whether there are significant numbers of Poles and Eastern Europeans generally
in the industrial precincts in some swing states; a vote against Russia in the form of a vote
against Trump might appeal to them.
I doubt it's that strategic–looks more like classic red-baiting (minus any communism but saying
"Russia" still evokes the same emotional response for people of a certain age) of the sort a former
Goldwater girl like Hillary would understand all too well.
Linking the hack and delivery of DNC emails to WIkiLeaks by Putin as a way of helping Trump
may strategically backfire.
Agreed. There are so many moving parts at this point the blowback looks to happen more rapidly
than they can manage perception, especially with things online. They spent so much time segmenting
and dismissing the various developments as disparate conspiracy theories, and now in one fell
swoop they've both legitimized critiques and connected them together (they run the risk that even
criticism that isn't true will still stick more than it otherwise would have). I'm not sure they
fully realize what they've done yet. It's a simple equation to them: Wikileaks = Bad. Russia =
Bad. Wikileaks + Russia = DoubleBad.
It reminds me very much of the French Fries to Freedom Fries movement. If you have a critical
mass of people in on the fun, it can work, at least for a time. But what happens when most people
don't care about being excommunicated from the DNC Serious People List?
Obvious clues pointing back at a known adversary…strategically-timed leaks from anonymous
intelligence sources…vague statements on the record from the President and other high-level officials…stories
fed to sympathetic media outlets…yep, sounds a lot like the playbook used by the Bush White House
for the run-up to the Iraq War. Except there's no way that the Democrats would ever do
something so shady.
Admin feeds story to crony media –> media report story as if independently sourced –> admin
then uses those reports to corroborate its own claims
It's not like they can reasonably deny anymore that they do this. The DNC leak provides hard
evidence. So plant your stories now, before there's a run!
Hey why fix our cybersecurity problems when we can just bomb Russia instead? To a hammer with
bombs everything looks like a nail.
Perhaps the biggest tell regarding our clueless, and mostly geriatric, establishment is their
superstitious misunderstanding of modern technology. Every toddler these days probably knows that
you don't put controversial material in emails or on cellphones unless you are willing to take
the kind of precautions Snowden talks about. The notion of ginning up an international conflict
over hacking is like Hollywood's idea of five years in jail for stealing one of Meryl Streep's
movies. The punishment doesn't fit the crime.
Plus of course there's the immense irony of the US, home of the NSA, getting huffy about other
countries doing the same thing. As always with out elites it's "do as we say, not as we do."
No matter who is responsible for the hack, I'm just glad that the information about the
DNC corruption is out in the open. I'm disappointed that this didn't happen before June 7, when
California, New Jersey, and several other states had their primaries. Better late than never,
I guess.
1. Before the evidence comes out: "The DNC is secretly sabotaging Sanders? Laughable conspiracy
theory!"
2. After the evidence comes out: "There's nothing new here, everyone knew this was happening,
it made no difference anyway! Sore loser."
Was flipping through 'convention' last night and happened upon Bernie's face as they try to
thank/bury him. It was the look of resignation to corruption, like Mr. Smith's just before Claude
Rains goes extra-Hollywood, tries to off himself, then says 'Arrest me', etc.
Bernie, you should have just run against both of them, damn the torpedoes.
It doesn't matter if Russia hacked it or someone else. The really important issue this brings
up is why hadn't our press revealed this? Why do we need to here about this from outsiders? And
why, now that it has been released, do they spend the bulk of their time speculating on the source
and not the content? Me thinks it's because our corporate main stream media, that merely masquerades
as a press entity, was complicit.
I think the leaked emails establish that the DNC was working closely with the 'press'. Anyone
who watched CNN during the primary season would not be surprised at the revelation that the 'press'
was complicit in the coronation of Hillary.
The DNCLeaks showed that the DNC (aka the Clinton Machine) was heavily influencing,
if not totally controlling, much of the mass media, using it to smear HRC's rivals and to
whitewash her crimes.
This fascist totalitarian control of the mass media by the DNC/Clinton campaign
has been exposed but that doesn't mean it has stopped! It hasn't. Ergo, one
will see minimal to no coverage, or whitewashing or diversionary coverage.
Why isn't it just as grave a concern that the primary contest of one of the 2 major political
parties was rigged to favor one candidate? Heck, people worried more about deflategate.
an aside: "A separate story pointed out that Trump's primary banking relationships are with
mid-sized players, and that makes sense too. He's be a third-tier account at a too-big-to-fail
banks (see here on how a much richer billionaire was abused by JP Morgan). Trump would get much
better service at a smaller institution. "
From what I've read at NC I think everyone would get much better service at a smaller
bank than at a TBTF.
"I joked early on that in the Obama administration that its solution to every problem was
better propaganda. What is troubling is how so many other players have emulated that strategy.
It's now so routine to spin-doctor aggressively that the elites have lost any sense of
whether what they are saying is credible or not. And as a skeptical consumer of media,
I find it uncomfortable to be living in an informational hall of mirrors."
It's no coincidence that trust in institutions is at an all-time low.
Eroded public trust translates to crappy, Banana Republic economies - and politics so venal that
it requires constant deceit to (mal)function.
On the upside, the dwindling credibility of institutions is providing opportunities for outlets
like The Young Turks (via YouTube), which take a lot of time unpacking propaganda and looking
for alternative perspectives. Ditto 'The Real News Network' (RNN). And ditto NC.
When I hear the "reporters" and "newscasters" on our American MSM speak, it reminds me of something
Wolfgang Leonhard taught: "Pravda lies in such a a way that not even the opposite of what they
say is true."
Huh. It is clear and irrefutable that the NSA (ie, the USA) has hacked Germany, France, Britain,
Japan, etc, etc, etc, etc. So…since hacking is an "act of war" we are now at war with our allies.
Yes?
Or does a war-worthy hack HAVE to originate in Russia (or China) to be an "act of war"? If
the USA is doing it it's an act of peacylove?
If the issue is the hack itself and its perpetrator(s), as opposed to the content of the hack,
I remain curious about the inattention to this fact: One of the documents in the DNC cache released
by Wikileaks was an excel spreadsheet of Trump donors. I haven't heard
anyone question the origin of a document that would itself appear to be the product of a hack
by the DNC (the only other possibility that comes to mind is a mole inside the Trump campaign).
I certainly haven't seen a request by the Trump campaign or anybody else for an FBI investigation
of what would seem to be prima facie evidence of a hack by the DNC of Trump computers in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1030.
But, then, there's been relative silence, generally, by the DNC with regard to leaks of donor
information. At least I haven't seen any PR-ly apology by the DNC, or Trump's organization for
that matter, for the insecure storing of donor information and a promise that steps have been
taken to make sure it doesn't happen again. Maybe I just missed that public apology. But I also
wonder if there isn't a reluctance to draw any attention whatsoever to that now public information.
Trump's affection for Putin and all things Russian has been known for years. In Russia, however,
Trump is considered to be clownish. Putin's affection for Trump might best be characterized as
condescending. Trump is the preference of the Putin crowd. And why not? Russian oligarch money
has been flowing into Trump's coffers for at least a decade. Why? Well, after four bankruptcies,
where else is Trump going to borrow money? There is solid evidence of financial ties between Trump
advisors and Putin's circle. Try the website Ballotpedia and look up "Carter Page," Trump's advisor
on all things Russian. Other examples are out there.
That said, I would not absolutely eliminate Putin and his operatives of conspiring with hackers
to obtain and then release documents that would denigrate the Democratic party and HRC.
I find it interesting that Trump telegraphed to the world a skeptical view of NATO allies,
especially the Putin-coveted Baltics, and signaled that he might not come to their defense if
attacked. Those views were expressed in an interview with the New York Times on Thursday, July
21. These comments, predictably, set off alarms all across Europe, and had Republicans scrambling
to backpedal. And then the next day, come the DNC leaks.
And now rumors of Scalia's assassination are being floated again! Distraction after distraction!
KKR, Blackstone, Apollo, etc al, have bankrupted HUNDREDS of companies each. Yet they not only
do they have no trouble borrowing money, they are eagerly pursued by Wall Street.
Trump has never gone bankrupt personally. He had four companies go bankrupt. Trump has started
and operated hundreds of corporate entities. That makes his ratio of bankruptcies way lower than
average and thus means he's a good credit, and much better than private equity. I'm not about
to waste time tracking it down, but the media has already reported on who Trump's regular lender
is, and it's a domestic financial institution, but not one of the TBTF banks.
In addition, I had a major NYC real estate developer/syndicator, a billionaire, in the late
1980s. The early 1990s recession hit NYC real estate very hard and every developer was in serious
trouble. My former client and Trump were the only big NYC developers not to have to give up major
NY properties to the banks.
And as far as your NATO remarks are concerned, you've clearly not been paying attention. Trump
has been critical of the US role in NATO for months, and has already gotten plenty of heat for
that.
Finally, as even the New York Times was forced to concede, the timing of the hacks was all
wrong to be intended to help Trump. It started long before he was a factor on the Republican side.
The DNC hired Crowdstrike to get 2 major Russian hacks off the DNC network prior to this guccifer2.0
nonsense.
You write: "Binney explained to us:
My problem is that they have not listed intruders or attempted intrusions to the DNC site. I suspect
that's because they did a quick and dirty look for known attacks."
But they have listed the initial intruders, see links below.
Binny keeps describing how he would check his LAN back in 1991. His experience is that of a
dinosaur. This article is a mess, conflating the Hrc email scandal with the DNC scandal. What
is at issue, as stated in the FAIR link, is whether the leak to gawker and wiki etc was perpetrated
by a lone Romanian hacker or by the Russian government, not whether the DNC was spied upon by
the Russian; it was.
I am not arguing the the Clinton campaign did not figure out how to use this to their advantage,
guccifer 2.0 and crowd strike stuff both came out in June but was not the subject of much crowing
until now…
> not whether the DNC was spied upon by the Russian; it was.
Based on what evidence? So many blanket statements we're supposed to accept as fact. No.
Guccifer 1.0, who is Romanian, hacked Sidney Blumenthal's email. Generally speaking, Romanians
like many Eastern Europeans hate Russia. Guccifer 1.0 was extradited to the US and made various
statements to the press about Clinton's private email server. I'm not aware of anything he said
about the DNC.
Guccifer 2.0 released DNC documents to the public and apparently to WikiLeaks. There is no
evidence he is Russian or connected to the Russians.
The mainstream media is also trumpeting the meme that Russia was behind the hack, because it
wants to help Trump get elected. In other words, the media is trying to deflect how damaging the
email leaks are to Clinton's character by trying to somehow associate Trump with Putin. See e.g.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/us/politics/kremlin-donald-trump-vladimir-putin.html "
don't you mean MSM wants to get Clinton elected, not Trump?
think the sentence was trying to express the idea that "Russia" "wants to help Trump get elected–the
"it" referring to "Russia" and not to "mainstream media"–as that idea is the predicate of a meme
that the mainstream media is trumpeting.
Always better to repeat the noun you are referring to, rather than use a pronoun, where use
of a pronoun could create ambiguity, as "it" (or should I have said, " such use" ?) did here.
Did any one see the recent docu ' Zero days' re STUXNET worm (invented by combined efforts
of US _NSA,CIA + Israeli intelligent +?UK) introduced into the NET to take down the Nulc program
in IRAN!
There is fascinating discussion and the threat of cyber terrorism from any one from any where
to the infra structures – Energy grid, transportation ++
It has lot of bearing on this Hillary E-mail gate scandal
Did you bother reading the comments earlier in this thread by JacobiteInTraining and Hacker,
who confirm that the claims don't stand up to scrutiny?
And you appear not to have been following this at all. Right after the story broke, a hacker
who called himself Guccifer 2.0 posted two sets of DNC docs and said more were coming, which was
presumed even then to be a Wikileaks releases (Assange had separately said lots of material on
Clinton was coming).
Because Hillary's campaign has insisted that national security was not compromised with her
use of a homebrew email server. Which would be the higher value target to a foreign intelligence
service – email she used as sec state, or the DNC server? Which would probably have better security
– the homebrew server, or the DNC server? If you buy into the idea that the Russians hacked the
DNC server, you have to admit there is a _strong_ probability they hacked her personal server
as well. I find it kindof amusing that her campaign, in it's response to Trump today, is basically
making the same point (even though it hasn't sunk in yet).
That's why it's relevant.
I can't speak to what security Hillary had in place. But I can say with 100% certainty that
it is I direly easier to secure a small network for one or two people over a large network that
has 100s or 1000s.
I have been working in network security for 20 years. I guarantee that I could build a small
network that would be close to impossible to break into regardless of the ability of the attacker.
So I reject the premise that we should presume that Hillary was hacked
I suggest you get up to speed on this story before making assumptions and assertions based
on them. It has been widely reported that Hillary's tech had no experience in network security
whatsoever, so the issue re the size of the network is irrelevant.
Bryan Pagliano's
resume , which the State Department recently turned over to Judicial Watch, shows he had
neither experience nor certification in protecting email systems against cyber security threats
His main qualification seems to be that he had been an IT director for the Clinton campaign
in 2006. CNN points out he was hired at State as a "political appointee":
Again, irrelevant to my point. The fact that the DNC mail servers were hacked does NOT mean
that Clinton's mail servers were hacked. Clinton's mail servers may have been hacked and Assange
is claiming that he has documents that prove it was. But, to date, no evidence has been provided
to show that her mail servers were hacked.
What we DO know is that the State Department mail servers were hacked, at least twice and at
least once by the Russians.
Regardless, none of this has anything to do with whether the Russians hacked the DNC mail servers
and whether they gave that information to Wikileaks.
Crowdstrike ,
Fiedlis Cybersecurity , and Mandiant all independently corroborated that it was the Russians.
The German government corroborated that an SSL cert found on the DNC servers was the same cert
that was used to infiltrate the German Parliament.
guccifer 2.0 is some guy that made a claim that made a claim the day AFTER Crowdstrike released
their report. He/She offered no evidence to support their claim.
So perhaps 3 different professional IT security companies are incompetent, despite all evidence
to the contrary, or Guccifer 2.0 is just some guy trying to take credit for something they didn't
do or it is a Russian agent trying to actively distract people from the actual culprits.
It is possible that the Russians weren't the ones to give the docs to wikileaks. But they almost
certainly were the ones who perpetrated an attack into the DNC mail servers. That in itself is
a huge problem.
I'm curious, is your background on the computer side or the policy side? You're making some
leaps where I think I follow your meaning, but the actual logic/evidence/warrant isn't there,
so I'm not sure exactly what you're claiming.
Aside from questions of whether elements of the Russian government attacked the DNC,
for example, you imply that the Russians were the only people attacking the DNC. Do you
have any technical reason to conclude that? Or is it just sloppy sentence construction, and you
didn't mean to imply that? Because at a policy level, it seems a reasonably solid understanding
of the world we inhabit that elements of many foreign governments attack US computer
systems, both for active penetration of documents and for more passive denial of service by legitimate
users. For goodness sakes, elements of the USFG itself attack US computer systems.
Anyone who can stand up straight for 5 minutes without falling over backwards and has half
a brain and an ounce of institutional memory knows it wasn't the Russkies who dropped the email
dime on the DNC shenanigans…
I thought Trump's comments today about wanting the Russians to find Hillary's emails were
genius. He fans the flames of this whole Russia-Putin thing on day 3 of the Dem convention and
what are the media outlets talking about? Plus, Hillary's campaign, in it's rebuttal to Trump,
is indirectly reminding everyone that her homebrew server was putting national security at risk.
This whole Russia-Putin connection thing won't work – it really isn't that believable in the
first place, the timing is suspect, and a lot of people in this country really don't care that
deeply about Putin one way or the other.
I am missing a white sock from the laundry I did over the weekend. I know Putin did it, I'm
just not sure how he broke into my basement to steal it. All the other sock-stealing suspects,
Hussein, Khadafy, bin Laden, they've all been killed. So it has to be Putin.
"... Seems Putin controls Trump and Clinton! The man is amazing. ..."
"... Hold on there, Clintonites - Both I and the World remember seeing Madame
Clinton herself hand over to Putin that gigantic red Reset button. ..."
"... So now, of course - he's resetting EVERYTHING! And you, dear lady, you
gave it to him! I rest my case. ..."
"... Putin is god--it is well-known scientific fact. He actually controls the
weather and even Earth's rotation speed. Russians always knew it, now, with the
advancement of information technologies (also controlled by Putin--ah yes, he, not
Al Gore, invented the internet) decadent West can witness his powers and omnipresence.
Remember Katrina? Putin! Remember the water main break in NYT--also Putin. I had
a constipation last week--damn Putin. Got rid of constipation and back to normal
BMs--Putin's hand was definitely in it. If you look attentively at HRC for 20+ minutes
you will see Putin's image surfacing on her face. ..."
"... In an interview Andrew Bacevich spoke about what he saw at various institutes,
academic, etc. conferences he attended as an academic which I believe has effected
his later known books. He noted among other things, that there was an inability
for empathic thinking. He did not mean sympathy, but rather the act of trying to
understand the actions of other people. I think the phrase is to treat people as
rational actors. As horrific as Hitler was, historians dug into his motivations
for example, for his invasion of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... The propaganda demonization of Putin and the Russians is part of the same
playbook republicans and the neocons used to fertilize the field of popular belief
for the justification of war and invasion of Iraq to the American people (but now
followed by democrats). Every one of those articles is a bit of propaganda manure
which will eventually sprout the seeds of conflict and war. ..."
"... What I find alarming about all of this Putin bashing and Hillary using
it in her campaign is that I am seeing many of my acquaintances who identify as
liberal/progressive Democrats are becoming more and more anti-Russian. ..."
"... I like a good meme as much as the next guy, but there wasn't any putin-did-it
in that Reuters article about the ferry accident in NY. ..."
"... 'But Russia is secretly plotting even more nefarious schemes. Putin is
infiltrating Europe. And not only Europe.' US regime would never infiltrate europe...its
already there! ..."
"... All I can say here is ... this is Sheer Comedy Gold. Hollywood couldn't
make this stuff up. ..."
"... PS - anyone know what Putin does on the seventh day? ..."
"... @60 He really is versatile. No sooner had he finished rigging the Brexit
vote than he was off to France in a truck. Then he was spotted in Kabul. This week
he has been busy making trouble in Germany and he still finds time to fake HRC's
emails. The man must be stopped! ..."
"... Indeed. Democrats have become hysterical and unhinged in all things regarding
Clinton. I have been reading a few Democrat partisan sites. With the DNC blaming
Putin/Russians for the release of the DNC emails, the partisans are demanding what
amounts to McCarthy era witch hunts, and some strong immediate NATO action against
the Russians for the evil act. One supporter had a posting showing how the Russians
plan to invade the Baltics with graphics showing the invasion route -- good grief.
It is curious to see that those not buying the propaganda are drawing comparisons
to the witch hunts of the 1950s'. ..."
"... When I post or talk to partisan Dems I don't get accused of supporting
Trump but called a Putin lackey/stooge. ..."
"... Thanks for quote-will use it . You did something readers of anti-Russian/Putin
propaganda don't do. Actually listen to or read what Putin says. I am still puzzled
even though I shouldn't be when I read descriptions of Putin in the Western media,
and then read what he actually said or acted on: two people from two different planets.
I was listening to Stephen Cohen, and he said the same thing. Nobody bothers to
read what Putin says, forget his actions. ..."
M of A - Clinton Asserts Putin Influence On Trump - After Taking Russian
Bribes
Off topic but still within context of the West's "lets bash Russia/Putin
at every chance we get"..
Seems the BBC and their assorted groupies just got eggs all over their
collective faces after the IOC ruled that Russian athletes can compete in
the olympics. The British press are crying foul - dunno if they're afraid
of losing to Russian athlete or something.
This whole doping thing stunk from day one.. All the accusers pretends
they never dope before. But then, anything to humiliate Russia and Putin
will do. How many American athletes have been caught doping - yet nobody
called for a blanket ban on the American Olympic team. The hypocrisy is
just beyond stupid!!!
Watch this space, won't be long before we see a campaign to oust the
current OIC chief..lol
Clinton/Kaine certainly confident that the MSM will not report. For all
the money given to the Clinton's it didn't prevent the Ukraine disasters.
Of course, Ukraine may not have been a concern among the particular oligarchs
who made these bribes.
Putin is god--it is well-known scientific fact. He actually controls
the weather and even Earth's rotation speed. Russians always knew it, now,
with the advancement of information technologies (also controlled by Putin--ah
yes, he, not Al Gore, invented the internet) decadent West can witness his
powers and omnipresence. Remember Katrina? Putin! Remember the water main
break in NYT--also Putin. I had a constipation last week--damn Putin. Got
rid of constipation and back to normal BMs--Putin's hand was definitely
in it. If you look attentively at HRC for 20+ minutes you will see Putin's
image surfacing on her face.
In an interview Andrew Bacevich spoke about what he saw at various institutes,
academic, etc. conferences he attended as an academic which I believe has
effected his later known books. He noted among other things, that there
was an inability for empathic thinking. He did not mean sympathy, but rather
the act of trying to understand the actions of other people. I think the
phrase is to treat people as rational actors. As horrific as Hitler was,
historians dug into his motivations for example, for his invasion of the
Soviet Union.
So we get with Putin not a rational understanding of what he does and
why, but rather cartoon psychological and religious explanations which cannot
be argued against as they defy rationality. How can one argue against people
calling Putin evil as that person has not invoked a rational argument.
The propaganda demonization of Putin and the Russians is part of
the same playbook republicans and the neocons used to fertilize the field
of popular belief for the justification of war and invasion of Iraq to the
American people (but now followed by democrats). Every one of those articles
is a bit of propaganda manure which will eventually sprout the seeds of
conflict and war.
What I find alarming about all of this Putin bashing and Hillary using
it in her campaign is that I am seeing many of my acquaintances who identify
as liberal/progressive Democrats are becoming more and more anti-Russian.
By the time she becomes president there will be a majority of Democrats
clamoring for war against Russia. This is something to worry about. Recall
that liberal Democrat Truman got us involved in the Korean war and it was
liber LBJ that led us to war in Vietnam. I recall very clearly how the liberal
press in the US was advocating for and supporting war in Vietnam between
1964 and 1968. The liberalists of all liberal Democrats Hubert Humphrey
was leading that charge.
Democratic Party partisans are losing their common sense in this effort
to back Clinton. A year ago I could carry on rational discussion with those
I know about how unwise our Ukraine policy is -- today when I try to defend
Russia I am accused of backing Trump.
'But Russia is secretly plotting even more nefarious schemes. Putin
is infiltrating Europe. And not only Europe.' US regime would never infiltrate
europe...its already there!
@60 He really is versatile. No sooner had he finished rigging the Brexit
vote than he was off to France in a truck. Then he was spotted in Kabul.
This week he has been busy making trouble in Germany and he still finds
time to fake HRC's emails. The man must be stopped!
Yes, yes, it's all true; Vladimir Putin, master of the universe; the
Whirlwind; omnipotent; everywhere and nowhere all at the same time.
I'm so glad people are waking up to reality. :-)
Indeed. Democrats have become hysterical and unhinged in all things
regarding Clinton. I have been reading a few Democrat partisan sites. With
the DNC blaming Putin/Russians for the release of the DNC emails, the partisans
are demanding what amounts to McCarthy era witch hunts, and some strong
immediate NATO action against the Russians for the evil act. One supporter
had a posting showing how the Russians plan to invade the Baltics with graphics
showing the invasion route -- good grief. It is curious to see that those
not buying the propaganda are drawing comparisons to the witch hunts of
the 1950s'.
When I post or talk to partisan Dems I don't get accused of supporting
Trump but called a Putin lackey/stooge.
@ Relis 44
Thanks for quote-will use it . You did something readers of anti-Russian/Putin
propaganda don't do. Actually listen to or read what Putin says. I am still
puzzled even though I shouldn't be when I read descriptions of Putin in
the Western media, and then read what he actually said or acted on: two
people from two different planets. I was listening to Stephen Cohen, and
he said the same thing. Nobody bothers to read what Putin says, forget his
actions.
Putin should hire an agent and get a role on the TV series SHIELD as
the new head of HYDRA. And then attend comic-cons giving out autographs.
Fort-Russ has the video of '
Putin's full speech ' at St. Petersburg International Economic Forum
- 2016 with subtitles, I
transcribed the subtitles , if any one else is interested in reading
what he actually said on the subject of the US auto-missile defense in Romania
and Poland.
Probably one of the best pieces I have read on the doping scandal…..it does highlight what
a nonsensical approach it is to punish summer Olympic athletes for Winter Olympic "offences" (which
the author knocks down comprehensively).
This is now both Browder and Rodchenkov, …2 guys punished for offences in Russia, both flee
to the USA, both have undetermined locations of residence, both have their bollocks supported
in massive PR campaigns by the American state, both can make criminal allegations… but both are
unindictable…….and both are allowed to cause harm to the Russian state.
Unless it is fully disclosed what Rodchenkov is doing in the United States, who is paying him
…and that some of his "evidence" is made public….then the IOC should discard this entire WADA
and Mclaren report
That is a good piece, and it very effectively makes an important point. He's right that
this is an angle on it that nobody has covered. It will be interesting to see what comes of the
Speigel report on new discoveries relating to doping at Beijing and in the UK. But of course they
would never ban any entire country but Russia.
This is bringing the real haters out of their holes, the ones who reacted with jubilation to
the Russian ban. I can't protest the decision by ignoring the Olympics, because I don't pay any
attention to them anyway, only checking the medals standings once in awhile online. Now I won't
be interested enough even to do that. But I think there is going to be a significant decline in
interest in the Games this time around; that's unfortunate for Brazil, because Washington is agitating
for the Games to be a failure to discredit Brazil, as well. But in the end I think the effect
will be positive – Brazil will learn a valuable lesson, and hopefully the blame for spoiling the
Olympics as a sports venue will be laid at America's door where it belongs. If America cannot
own something totally and brag about how thoroughly it is under its control, it must piss all
over it to ruin it for everyone else.
This guy nails it, regarding the alleged Russian doping. Like I said a week ago or so, all
of this was a way for Rodchenkov and the Stepanovs to secure some sort of future career after
having been disgraced in Russia. That's all there is too it. I wonder if the IOC noticed this
in their decision NOT to ban Russia from Rio, or if something else was at play.
Yes, most of it is a reprint of the Oriental Review piece. I'm so confused now that I don't know
what is what. Is Russia banned from the Summer Olympics, or just its Track Team, or anyone or
everyone? There's so much conflicting testimony. I think that Russia should not attend, as a protest
to the way it has been treated, but as I mentioned before, it will be the last chance for some
of them to set a new world record. That's balanced against Washington's probable heckling from
the gallery and the probability that American officials will conspire to rig samples. Washington
simply cannot be trusted, and this latest example of its perfidy was a grievous overstep which
is building international sympathy for Russia. That will be imperiled if Russia participates.
But of course it is up to the athletes.
"As a result of the negligent actions of an employee of the cleaning company, the World
Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has lost all samples of American athletes who played for team USA since
1990", reports the BBC.
"As a result of the negligent actions of an employee of the cleaning company,…"
I think that was my brother-in-law, he's a real screw-up.
Always blame the cleaning crew.
Yes, I wouldn't have believed it if I had not
seen it with my own eyes : Putin again. The Russian state obviously does not give him enough
to do. He seems to have plenty of time on his hands to meddle around the world and to tirelessly
work to thwart that nice Mrs. Clinton's plans. There is a real danger that Putin will suffer some
sort of embolism in a laughing fit. What can you do but laugh? The United States government is
so ridiculous, how humiliating for Americans.
As usual, it escapes unnoticed that Russian hackers must have gained access to Mrs. Clinton's
illegal email server, which she was repeatedly warned against having in the first place, yet pretended
various authorities had signed off on it and she was allowed to have it. She denied anyone else
had gained access to it but now Putin is rolling around in a pile of her emails; how is that possible?
She therefore deliberately and willfully put American security at risk. How does the FBI not see
this? Would it have happened if she had used the government's server as she was supposed to do?
Well, how many hacks has Putin offered up from that system? Pavlo Svolochenko
,
July 24, 2016 at 6:28 pm
If she treats all her staff like she used to treat the secret service, then the source of the
leaks is probably much closer to home.
Published on 24 Jul 2016
Polish lawmakers have adopted a resolution calling the massacres committed between 1943 and 1945
by Ukrainian nationalists against Polish people, genocide.
The document makes July 11 a day of remembrance for the victims of the atrocity.
According to The Daily Mail, it would not have been beyond the realms of possibility for Putin
to have had a hand in organising the Volyn massacre. In a past life, he sat for Leonardo da
Vinci and his portrait now hangs in the Louvre.
One of the commenters pointed out that Putin also served as the model (in 1350) for "Satan" in
this detail of "The Last Judgement" by medieval painter Jacopo da Bologna:
The man in the picture is
Giovanni Arnolfini
, but actually a time-travelling Putin in disguise. His purpose in going back in time to Italy
was to impregnate the lady in green. This was the year 1434.
The ultimate goal was to give birth to
Antonio Grimani ,
who went on to cause several colossal military defeats, in favor of Ottoman Turkey.
This was Putin's way of changing history and propping up the Ottoman Empire back in the day. Presumably
as a counter-weight to Western Europe.
Playing a very deep and very long game, which is little understood.
Oh, and the little dog was in on it too. 'cause remember that Putin can talk with the animals.
Putin must have been an evil Time Lord in disguise – The Master perhaps? – and the dog his trusty
alien companion who asks dumb questions (so that TV viewers understand the plot). 'Cos you know,
Time Lords don't time-travel alone.
He's like the original 'Highlander'; immortal, pretending to die every couple of decades, and
coming back as some new guy. But in that movie, if you put all the names together and ran them
through a sophisticated computer program, it would reveal that they are all anagrams of one another,
and are really all the same name with the letters rearranged. Too clever by half, Mr. Putin! Or
should I call you Napassoulasvalintsocanoline?
Jen is on to something about Putin being a Timelord. But I don't think he is the Master, because
the Master is COMPLETELY nuts in the head, he is, like, LA-LA-LA-LALLALALALA!, and the Master's
schemes are always of the most hare-brained variety.
The Master will concoct some uber-complex plot to rule the universe which, after the twists and
turns, basically boils down to cloning more Daleks. And in the end is always hoisted upon his
own petard. Putin does not show any of this kind of impulsiveness, except in the case of nuzzling
children's bellies.
Instead, I believe there is evidence that Putin is Lord Rassilon himself.
This is why the Presdient of Russia wears the Belt of Rassilon, the Tie of Rassilon, and even
the Watch of Rassilon.
"... Clinton and the Democrats have far more to worry about from Wikileaks than they do disaffected Sanders supporters. ..."
"... The game is rigged and the house always win. You should know that by now. ..."
"... the neoconservatives do not support or trust Trump or anyone who makes nice with Putin. Hillary is a dependable hawk. Victoria Nuland worked in her State Dept. The empire will continue with Hillary in the White House. ..."
"... The other reason she is vulnerable to Trump is because she is almost as loathed as he is but unlike Trump she doesn't generate the adulation to counter it. ..."
"... I think the election could be compared to the EU referendum because just like the EU it's very hard to feel much enthusiasm for Clinton, wheras just like the Brexit campaign, Trump generates strong support with a bunch of easy answers and cheap soundbites ..."
"... Even Bill Clinton chose someone other than Hillary ... shouldn't we? ..."
"... If Trump is elected. who knows what will happen, but we know what will happen if the Clintons are elected. I will vote for Trump and watch the events and hope that the DNC fragments and then watch as a revolution and a rebuilding of our political system begins. I do not anymore wars. With the Clintons, there will be a continuation and new wars, perhaps a conflict with Russia and mankind will vanish. ..."
"... Obama didn't equal huge positive change, so why do we think Trump can create huge negative change ??? ..."
"... There won't be a video, Goldman Sachs own her. And with either Clinton or Trump, we will still be living under the dictate of Wall Street. ..."
"... Once again this election is proof positive that you BUY elections. The masters of the DNC ordained that Clinton represent them and they were so insulated in their rich little world that they failed to recognize that she is unelectable; the republican turnout will be higher than it has ever been in history, so polarizing is she. People like me, poor people who crave change, will NOT vote for banks so, by default, Trump wins. ..."
If Bernie won the nomination, and Clinton gave him 'belated and tepid support', he would still
win the election by a large margin. Which is testament to Clinton's ineptitude as a politician
I had hoped Obama would deliver genuine economic change – but that didn't happen. Before
becoming a journalist, I even moved to Pennsylvania for a couple of months to volunteer for
Barack Obama's campaign. I was enamored by his intelligence and the beautiful ways he wrote
and spoke about race. But I was also thrilled (naively) that Obama seemed to get his money
from small donors, and that he might break Wall Street's stranglehold on the Democrats.
The game is rigged and the house always win. You should know that by now.
George won the vote in Florida because Cubans in Dade and Broward counties voted for him 4-1 over
Gore. Why do you think she went to Miami last week and her V.P. is fluent in Spanish?
Latinos and women will vote in the tens of millions for Hillary. Plus, the neoconservatives
do not support or trust Trump or anyone who makes nice with Putin. Hillary is a dependable hawk.
Victoria Nuland worked in her State Dept. The empire will continue with Hillary in the White House.
Sanders would never have lost to Trump.
Hillary is incredibly vulnerable to Trump.
The Media and the DNC's obsession with making sure that Hillary won may go down as one of the
greatest mistakes in American history.
Obviously she can win. But Sanders looks infinitely more capable of beating Trump in the states
where it's going to be dog fight. Whereas Hillary represents everything Trump has specialised
in opposing with such great success.
Sanders would have brushed Trump off like a fly and peeled off large parts of his blue collar
support. And Rep leaders would blush and giggle when discussing his integrity and honesty. But
instead we get Hillary and her baggage train. Lousy.
Whereas Hillary represents everything Trump has specialised in opposing with such great
success.
Very good point.
The other reason she is vulnerable to Trump is because she is almost as loathed as he is
but unlike Trump she doesn't generate the adulation to counter it.
I think the election could be compared to the EU referendum because just like the EU it's
very hard to feel much enthusiasm for Clinton, wheras just like the Brexit campaign, Trump generates
strong support with a bunch of easy answers and cheap soundbites.
If the Democrats are to bring about a different outcome they need to recognise just how bad
their candidate is and really concentrate on running an anti-Trump campaign. As I see it it's
the only they can win.
If Trump is elected. who knows what will happen, but we know what will happen if the Clintons
are elected. I will vote for Trump and watch the events and hope that the DNC fragments and then
watch as a revolution and a rebuilding of our political system begins. I do not anymore wars.
With the Clintons, there will be a continuation and new wars, perhaps a conflict with Russia and
mankind will vanish.
Poor whites in the U.S. are not voting for the "Left" because they have been dismissed, if not
vilified, by the cosmopolitan luvvies of the Democratic Party who are in thrall to every trendy
identity politics of the moment.
The elections are the X-Factor theatre for us lot every 4/5 years.
The shadow government (Wall Street/global corporations/war machine) always remains the same
throughout the decades, regardless of the rolling red/blue figurehead.
You can't get anywhere near the top job without being in the pocket of the kingmakers.
If only you could take the money out of politics. Maybe in a parallel universe we'll have grown
up sufficiently to understand that it's absolutely this that kills any hope of democracy.
Would a Trump presidency be a disaster? Yes. Would it cause all manner of economic, legal,
political and moral crises? Definitely. Yup. Would a good chunk of Trump voters – even angry
white Trump voters – grow to regret their votes? No doubt.
Would poor people and people of color – especially immigrants, those assumed to be immigrants
and Muslims – pay the highest price?
Why would it be a disaster ?
Would it cause all manner of economic, legal, political and moral crises?
Would poor people and people of color – especially immigrants, those assumed to be immigrants
and Muslims – pay the highest price?
I don't think you can categorically say it would be a disaster, any policy would still need
to be voted through, and congress isn't suddenly going to change based on the President.
You thought Obama was going to change everything for the better, but he couldn't due to the
restrictions of power on a president, so why do people think Trump is suddenly going to have unlimited
power.
Obama didn't equal huge positive change, so why do we think Trump can create huge negative
change ???
Bernie actually brought in the young crowd who frankly sees Clinton as an establishment dragging
the sack candidate and would have never voted for her. Ron Paul did the same for Republicans.
He did actually start a conversation about what it means to be a socialist and have all the
great ideas and no way to pay for them, except raise taxes.
Neither Bernie or Hillary have a response to get people employed. Their answer is to send people
to school till they actually want to drop out of the perpetual education carousel and try and
get a job.
I wouldn't consider the same old steal (tax) the working stiffs money from them under a different
acronym (slush fund) a viable plan.
At last some rational commentary coming from the Guardian. The democratic party nominated Hillary
Clinton last night and elected Donald Trump.. Blame Clinton, Wasserman and the rest of the crooked
DNC cabal for what may well be the disintegration for the Democratic Party...
If Hillary Clinton hadn't been married to Bill Clinton she would have come nowhere, she wouldn't
have been a senator, the same principal as the Bush legacy, where would GWBush have got in the
selection process if his father hadn't have been pulling strings. The US needs a president on
merit, not who they are related to or married to. It is like a monarchy, just what the American
revolution was carried out to escape from.
There really is only one party at the Federal level and that is the $ party. The rest is just
a carnival con game with the banners and shouting. The truth is that all of us but the very rich,
have been abandoned by what is supposed to be representative govt. Sanders supporters have learned
a hard lesson, that you can't reform this level of corruption from inside the system.
Another interesting aspect will be the Wall Street speeches that no one has mentioned for a while.
Clinton still refuses to disclose anything about those but now, she's up against the very people
to whom those speeches were delivered. They not only have transcripts, they doubtless have VIDEO and that video will probably surface at the least-convenient time for Clinton.
> the Democrats seem bent on putting up people and policies that
> will redistribute money to Wall Street and ignore the 99% when their
> base been screaming at them to stop this.
> Americans might not regret casting a vote for Trump until it's too late.
>
One of the policies that Trump advocates is less of a seeming oneness with Wall Street. If Obama
couldn't divorce himself of that sort of thing, why do you think that Hillary Big Banks Pay Me
Big Bucks For Speeches Clinton would?
Once again this election is proof positive that you BUY elections. The masters of the DNC
ordained that Clinton represent them and they were so insulated in their rich little world that
they failed to recognize that she is unelectable; the republican turnout will be higher than it
has ever been in history, so polarizing is she. People like me, poor people who crave change,
will NOT vote for banks so, by default, Trump wins.
"... As life exceeds satire, one can imagine that within a week Wikileaks will
produce those "missing e-mails". And later Hillary's Wall Street speeches, following
the next appeal from Trump. ..."
"... PB @ 4, confirming some earlier analysis that trump is playing the media
for suckers over HRC's hysteria. "Trump calls on Kremlin to commit acts of espionage
against Hillary Clinton." omg. ..."
"... they cannot afford to have the truth about ISIS revealed. They need the
next president to continue their lies. It is terrifying. ..."
"... Even if Russia did the hack and leaked that information (no evidence) --
so what? We have done and do the same all the time in other countries. Just doesn't
feel as good when you are at the receiving end. ..."
"... It's like 9/11. What do you desperately want to believe? What are you desperately
afraid to admit? ..."
"... No amount of 'debunking' of the DNC's assertions will affect the beliefs
of those who want to believe, who are afraid to admit that they are going to vote
for the corporate whore who mocks them with her pathetic ruses. The corporate media
have suffered irreparable damage to their credibility over the past decade, at least.
..."
"... What is scary about this campaign is that the anti-Russian hysteria is
being incorporated by Hillary supporters. By the time she is elected there will
be many millions of Democrats crying for war against Russia. The last time a Democrat
ran to the right of the Republican in a presidential election was the Kennedy-Nixon
race. That resulted in Kennedy entering office and believing his own bs. He then
very quickly carried out the Bay of Pigs fiasco but much worse the near start of
WWIII during the Cuban missile crisis. ..."
"... Hillary is definitely stupid enough to listen to her neocon advisers and,
fueled with self righteous Russian hatred, get us involved in some shooting war
with them in Syria, Ukraine or the Baltic region. Very dangerous times ahead I fear.
This why I am moving closer and closer to voting for Trump rather than a third party.
..."
"... Great observation. Cuts to the chase, to bedrock reality. We are the Evil
Empire that Ronald Reagan ranted about. Have been since the Dulles Boys' coup. ..."
"... Trump is beginning to look like the lessor of two evils. And we Americans
are proven suckers for that line of 'reasoning'. The champion poll forecaster now
'shows Donald Trump leading Hillary Clinton with a shocking 15 percentage point-greater
chance of winning if the general election were held today.'. ..."
Usually, the only thing that stops mass- and self-delusion (and the attending
propaganda) on this scale is the massive intervention of reality. I worry
that many casualties will ensue.
Trump apparently said in his press conference that the US should
cooperate to with Russia to destroy ISIS. The panic created in DC by this
man must be incredible.
ELECTION 2016
Trump Calls for Russia's Help to Expose Emails Clinton Deleted
By ASHLEY PARKER 11:44 AM ET (NYT)
"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails
that are missing," Donald J. Trump said, referring to messages deemed personal
by Hillary Clinton and deleted from her private email server.
===
As life exceeds satire, one can imagine that within a week Wikileaks
will produce those "missing e-mails". And later Hillary's Wall Street speeches,
following the next appeal from Trump.
PB @ 4, confirming some earlier analysis that trump is playing the media
for suckers over HRC's hysteria. "Trump calls on Kremlin to commit acts
of espionage against Hillary Clinton." omg.
There is just not enough of Orville Redenbacher's popcorn to last to the
end of this crazy 2016 . I think if Putin came out personally and said that
he did it the world would cheer . yet for some reason Russia needs to be
vilified ...Thanks for the work you do b ...
What cracks me up about the idea that the Russians were behind the DNC hack
is that Putin has little to fear from the accusation. It would probably
help him politically at home and seriously, what are we going to do about
it? Go to war? More sanctions? Denounce Russia in the UN? He's probably
having a good laugh over the whole thing.
Here are a couple of links to techie stories about the issue. They each
have links and educational comments. How deep down the rabbit hole do you
want to go?
Assange Timed WikiLeaks Release of Democratic Emails to Harm Hillary
Clinton
The New York Times
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
5 hrs ago
WASHINGTON - Six weeks before the anti-secrecy organization WikiLeaks
published an archive of hacked Democratic National Committee emails ahead
of the Democratic convention, the organization's founder, Julian Assange,
foreshadowed the release - and made it clear that he hoped to harm Hillary
Clinton's chances of winning the presidency.
Mr. Assange's remarks in a June 12 interview underscored that for all
the drama of the...
Essentially: "Even if Russia did the hack and leaked that information
(no evidence) -- so what? We have done and do the same all the time in other
countries. Just doesn't feel as good when you are at the receiving end."
Thanks, b - a very acute analysis. It reminds me of the warning of false
narrative the "Merlin" sponsors were peddling which Control warned George
Smiley about in Le Carre's "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy":
"They're buying their way in with false money, George."
It's like 9/11. What do you desperately want to believe? What are you
desperately afraid to admit?
Trump made light of the charges with 'hope the Russians find the 30,000
missing emails' crack, but his vp immediately made a show of taking the
claim seriously ... he looks to be the mole set up by the RNC to take down
Trump.
No amount of 'debunking' of the DNC's assertions will affect the
beliefs of those who want to believe, who are afraid to admit that they
are going to vote for the corporate whore who mocks them with her pathetic
ruses. The corporate media have suffered irreparable damage to their credibility
over the past decade, at least.
The D-N-Cee,
the men-a-ger-ie,
they're not for you,
and they're not for me!
They're runnin' in circles,
around the tree.
When they turn to butter, let's make pancakes. I'm so hungry I could
eat one hundred and sixty-nine! Breakfast for us indigenes.
What is scary about this campaign is that the anti-Russian hysteria
is being incorporated by Hillary supporters. By the time she is elected
there will be many millions of Democrats crying for war against Russia.
The last time a Democrat ran to the right of the Republican in a presidential
election was the Kennedy-Nixon race. That resulted in Kennedy entering office
and believing his own bs. He then very quickly carried out the Bay of Pigs
fiasco but much worse the near start of WWIII during the Cuban missile crisis.
Hillary is definitely stupid enough to listen to her neocon advisers
and, fueled with self righteous Russian hatred, get us involved in some
shooting war with them in Syria, Ukraine or the Baltic region. Very dangerous
times ahead I fear. This why I am moving closer and closer to voting for
Trump rather than a third party.
Credit to Julian Assange for having guts. If Clinton should win it's foreseeable
that a major effort to regime-change Ecuador will ensue so they can get
him booted from the London embassy straight into a CIA jet.
Putin knows the zionists hate him, and Trump. I don't believe he would release
this stuff. just because of the anti Russian BS the MSD would stir, which
wo proof, they are anyway.
I read it was Guccifer?somewhere,a Russian? blogger.
This will all backfire,as the American people have been had too many
times by the serial liars.
What if this came from GB,say?What would be the reaction then?
And why is Russia,who has never done a thing to US,in history,an enemy,when
the Zionists spy,bribe and control our whole nation,nakedly,shamelessly,but
there is the ol'crickets only, chirping in the weeds?
Yahoo to Putin; Hey, you are cutting in on our action.
WaPo comment sections are full of people who seem to be true believers in
the ideology of the new Cold War. Or maybe they only say that because they're
being paid to do so. Hard to believe so many people could be so stupid.
I was thinking the other day that Putin should send a squad of angry babushkas
after the sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits running the DNC. Evidently
this is already in the works.
#UKRAINE-UA police released warning that the "#HolyCross Procession
includes violent grandmas who provoke Ukrainian youth to beat them up."
Great observation. Cuts to the chase, to bedrock reality. We are
the Evil Empire that Ronald Reagan ranted about. Have been since the Dulles
Boys' coup.
Still I agree with yours and with Toivo S' point just above. Trump
is beginning to look like the lessor of two evils. And we Americans are
proven suckers for that line of 'reasoning'. The
champion poll forecaster now 'shows Donald Trump leading Hillary Clinton
with a shocking 15 percentage point-greater chance of winning if the general
election were held today.'.
Before the Dulles Boy's coup there was the changing of the motto in the
1950's from E Pluribus Unum (Out of many, one) to In Gawd We Trust.
Before that in 1913 the Fed was created with the 12 regional banks owned
privately.
Has the City of London and that empire ever died?
Has the City of Rome corner of the global financial system ever been
made clear?
The basic tenets of the Western way are private ownership of property
enhanced by rampant inheritance at the top and private finance owned and
operated by historical families and others unknown. It is sad to me when
commenter here and other places rail on about bankers and corporations and
not the global cabal that own them all.
Why can't humanity evolve beyond private finance to totally sovereign
finance and, at a minimum, neuter inheritance laws globally so that none
can accumulate enough to control social policy? Private finance is a cancer
humanity can no loner afford.
"... See, I believe progressive people are sick of collecting the little scraps they're thrown after the real corporate agenda has been set in stone. If there was ever a time to not go along with this, stand firm and say ''No more'', this is it. ..."
"... This movement is bigger than Bernie Sanders. If Hillary loses to Trump, it won't be the fault of Sanders supporters, but the slimy lies and corruption of her and the DNC. It has been said that the Democratic party is the place where social movements die. Good to know that "Berners" still want to fight for the greater good, something establishment politics doesn't provide. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton = Jeb! + Gun Control ..."
"... Sanders supporters will get more for their vote with Trump than with Hillary. ..."
"... If Bernie truly believes that Hillary would "make an outstanding president" why did he stand against her in the first place? ..."
"... Hillary is an imperialist. If there's actually a "lesser evil" out of these two, I don't see it. ..."
"... A vote for Clinton is condemning Middle Eastern people to their deaths with the obvious invasions that she'll likely cook up. ..."
"... Trump wants to make jobs, better the education system and raise salaries. Voting for Trump will bring Sanders supporters more of what they want and less is they vote for Clinton. ..."
"... I cancelled my visit to the Democratic convention in Philadelphia when I realised it was going to be Hilary Clinton. She is a female version of Tony Blair, even, more dishonest and unscrupulous. Had the blacks and latinos voted for Sanders in numbers, this result could have been avoided. But we have to live with it. The hope is that Bernie has started a movement that will survive and perhaps one day we will have a social democratic president in the USA. ..."
"... Make Sanders VP and then Assange plus the FBI will take care of the details. Simple. ..."
"... I may have voted Hillary, but then "DWS". Tomorrow I become a independent. F@ck the DNC 30 years a Dem now a disappointed. ..."
"... It's Billary who intends to pursue a more 'muscular' foreign policy http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-middle-east_us_56f06ab2e4b09bf44a9e3177 ..."
"... Crooked Clinton and her crooked backers are laughing their asses off at Bernie. The old fool is being used. ..."
"... She's dishonest, She has no clear principles, and She has a long history of questionable judgement/ethics. The first two issues are ones of degree: just about all of us are guilty of the occasional fib, and people often alter their views to what is fashionable. Politicians tend to be especially bad in both regards. But even by the low standards of politicians, Clinton stands out. Clinton's "flexible reality" is really something to behold. ..."
"... Or take the Trans Pacific Partnership, which Clinton stewarded during her tenure as Secretary of State. Caught in a close fight with far-left candidate Bernie Sanders, Clinton was quick to jettison the TPP and distance herself from it, even though her husband and she have decades of unequivocal support for free trade. The list could go on and on. There are plenty of politicians who equivocate on important issues, and whose views "evolve" to magically fit what voters want. But Clinton is special in her ability to (a) voice strong views on various issues and then (b) act as though those who remember her prior views are crazy. The problem that most people have with Clinton is that if free trade returned to being en vogue in 2018, or there was a successful movement to amend the Constitution to prohibit gay marriage, there's a pretty good chance that Clinton would be at the forefront, claiming that those were "always" her views, and that prior statements to the contrary were taken out of context/the work of the "vast, right-wing conspiracy." ..."
"... Oh, and another thing, which I'll never get tired of repeating: if the past few years proved anything, is that a President can only do so much against a hostile House. ..."
"... While it's obvious why the Clinton camp would want to convince people a Trump presidency would bring forth the Armageddon, the true battle is not for the president: it's for the two houses. It will be the two houses that determine who the next SCOTUS is, it will be the two houses that pass legislation, it will be the two houses that approve or reject the next President's war plans. A red house will make a Clinton presidency irrelevant, and a blue house will make a Trump presidency harmless. ..."
"... Clinton on the other hand, is a chicken hawk psychopath establishment lackey who believes the rule of Law simply doesn't apply to her and also has a husband who deregulated all the financial sector, removed welfare, deregulated healthcare to the benefit of big business, has links to Iran Contra, is sexually dysfunctional and if you believe multiple credible authors (including Christopher Hitchens) is probably a rapist. She too would be a terrible President. ..."
"... I can't believe you're seriously suggesting that voting for a member of the Clinton Crime family is so much better and the only option but then again, you believe in the 2 party system and talk about Democrats and Republicans in a ridiculously tribal and childish way. It's time for you to wake up and smell the coffee. Trump is almost certainly a narcissistic, uneducated, racist, self-obsessed sociopath whose sole obsession in life is the acquisition of material wealth. He would undoubtedly be a terrible President. Clinton on the other hand, is a chicken hawk psychopath establishment lackey who believes the rule of Law simply doesn't apply to her and also has a husband who deregulated all the financial sector with disastrous results, removed welfare, deregulated healthcare to the benefit of big business, has links to Iran Contra, is sexually dysfunctional and if you believe multiple credible authors (including Christopher Hitchens) is probably a rapist. Clinton too would be a terrible President. ..."
"... The Clinton team have been busy insulting progressives for the past year and they did not give us much in the massaged platform. The choice of VP was another slap in the face along with Debbie's new job. ..."
"... The Clintonites are nothing but bullies, gutless wonders willing to grovel before power. In supporting her they betray every good thing this nation ever stood for. They are willing to accept corruption, lies, and incompetence for reasons I don't comprehend, ignoring clear lawbreaking in order to install their false idol. ..."
"... Leave it and join the Greens, join the Libertarians, join anything but the party of the corrupt, the party of betrayal, the party of the oligarchs. ..."
"... The Guardian comment on the leaked emails: 'this seems to mark a new development in the constant struggle of propaganda and disinformation' ... could easily be said about its own approach. Oh the irony. ..."
"... If you haven't seen this amazing rant by a Bernie delegate, your life is missing something: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydIbIgg7djI ..."
"... This was never about Sanders. The Clinton folks spent so much time portraying us as blind followers that they started to believe their own hype. It was always about progressive policies and values and if Sanders endorses a candidate who doesn't share those valued, a candidate who will take to us war it's time to say: thanks you Sanders for all you've done but I can't join you on the path you are walking on now. ..."
"... Clinton and cronies will say or do anything to bring over the Bernie fans. When she no longer needs them she will throw them away along with their ideas. The important decisions were made long before anyone showed up in Phila. The fact DWS was given a job on HC's staff after getting fired says it all. Now Bernie sells out. Don't you feel just a little used? ..."
"... With the exception of one super delegate, the majority of the DNC super delegates had already endorsed Hilary before the first primary, and none changed his/her vote when Bernie got traction. Even his closest ally, in ideology, Liz Warren, did not endorse Bernie. That is how corrupt & controlling the DNC leadership has become: in this election they clearly are the king makers, while the GOP produced 18 well-known candidates that tore each other to pieces. That tells you how planned this whole thing was with the Democrats. Both parties are corrupt; but while the GOP suffers from internal Chaos & cannibalism, the DNC acted with a script that fits more the way Russians have been picking their presidents. ..."
"... Well, perhaps a Trump victory can finally help DNC internalize the message of America's Progressives. So, I have a better analogy for not voting & possibly seeing Trump win; sometimes you lose an arm in order to save the body. ..."
"... Chicken hawk psychopath with innumerable foreign policy disasters on her watch including Libya; ..."
"... Bought and paid for by the usual suspects - Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan etc; ..."
"... A security risk to the US i.e. used an unencrypted private server which was contrary to the rules, was routinely hacked by foreign powers, contained information about covert US black sites and was also obviously designed to hide Clinton Foundation business dealings/shenanigans. This had nothing to do with convenience; - Subverted the democratic process with regards to her nomination. ..."
"... Do I really need to go on? ..."
"... Reagan started deregulation, but Billy Boy and Robert Rubin continued with devastating abandon. Just one piece of legislation: Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 - largely the cause of the 2007/2008 subprime derivatives crisis. ..."
Sanders is being just being a political realist. He knows that Hillary is a lying sociopath, but
she will still be easier to deal with than Trump who is also stupid and erratic.
The best way to push Hillary to the left is to vote for her and then keep up the pressure through
every political means available. Contribute to truly progressive organizations (not the DNC),
volunteer, demonstrate, etc.
I think the problem here is that while it is only rational for Americans to vote Hillary to big
up the anti-Trump vote and stop him getting in, there is a double bind in the sense that if Hillary
takes power with her traditional Democrat big business/small time social reform politics, then
it may make people complacent. I think this what the Bernie radical edge is concerned about; the
last few decades have shown that people are really, really easy to pacify if they are able to
just cruise on the mediocrity of self-interested neoliberal governments that throw a few crumbs
from the table.
I don't necessarily think the argument is a good enough excuse if it means handing Trump the
presidency. After all, he might not be able to do everything he says going to do with congress
in the way, but he could still do an awful lot of damage whereever he can get support,
and it's irresponsible to let him get away with it when you could have helped try to stop him.
The most important thing is that people do not forget that their job is to go above and beyond
the supporting of any particular leader, and maintain pressure on whoever is in power to turn
things around dramatically and irreversibly.
Sanders's supporters are correct not to trust Hillary. Throughout their careers in politics, both
Clintons have repeatedly demonstrated that when they are caught up in personal scandals they react
by making enormous concessions to conservatives, completely undermining the liberals who elected
them.
This might not be a problem if the Clintons' scandals were rare, but Bill is a serial abuser
of lower-status women and Hillary will do anything for money. They just can't control themselves.
They are always involved in unsavory activities which is why they are so paranoid and secretive.
You would think that liberals would have realized that these two can't be trusted but many
liberals are hopelessly naïve and they focus on rhetoric and not past behavior when choosing a
candidate.
Here are the 6 steps I recommend US progressives take in the coming months to get the best outcome
from the November elections and beyond:
1) Support progressive Democratic candidates wherever they are running.
2) In the presidential race: in states that are solidly Democratic or Republican, vote for Jill
Stein
3) In swing states, vote for Hillary Clinton to ensure Trump is defeated
4) Keep the pressure on Clinton to ensure she abides by the policy commitments she made to Bernie
Sanders
5) Raise awareness among progressives, moderates and all minority groups about the need to change
the voting system to proportional representation, and lobby Democratic politicians to support
this change also
6) Keep building the political movement that Bernie has inspired, and be willing to transform
ideals into action by becoming involved in politics and effective activism in a long-term way.
The DNC is a corrupt organisation. There is no doubt.
So is the Republican party.
The choice people are faced with is unpalatable to say the least. It's one of the starkest
examples of a lesser of two evils decision as I've ever seen.
Clinton is a right leaning democrat, heavily enmeshed in the Washington machine. She's 100%
a part of the establishment. She's a hawk.
She's everything wrong with the political system in the US.
You would only vote for her if you were faced with something worse...
The elephant in the room in the whole Hillary vs Bernie vs Trump debate is the US voting system.
The current US electoral system is a variation of 'first past the post', which is the worst type
of voting system it is possible to have in a democracy. Not only does it promote the dominance
of one or two massive corporatised parties, but it punishes those who vote for smaller parties
and independents by effectively denying their vote any value in determining the candidate who
will be elected. The preferential system (used in Australia) is better, but still tends to result
in a 2 party state.
If progressive activists want to create a more conducive environment for electing progressive
leaders in the future, they need to start campaigning for a move to proportional representation,
as favoured by the vast majority of democracies, including virtually all European states, New
Zealand, Israel, South Africa and most developing nations. This system allows for greater representation
for all voices in the political process, and does not disenfranchise those who vote for smaller
parties.
This change is unlikely to happen in a hurry, but it does need to happen at some stage, unless
progressives want to continually be forced into choosing between voting for an undesirable centre-right
candidate such as Clinton, or voting for a stronger candidate, such as Bernie Sanders or Jill
Stein, and potentially losing the value of their vote.
This does all beg the question as to why the Democrats couldn't find a better 'mainstream' candidate
than Clinton if she's that unpopular. The answer I suspect is 'money'.
the Vermont senator was "bending reality in favour of what he feels is the most responsible
course".
See, I believe progressive people are sick of collecting the little scraps they're thrown
after the real corporate agenda has been set in stone. If there was ever a time to not go along
with this, stand firm and say ''No more'', this is it.
It's about punishing the corrupt system that always gets away with murder and making it pay
the price. Because the people WILL pay the price if either Trump or Hilary gets elected. And the
blame for this won't lie with those that don't vote for a corrupt politician like Hilary, the
blame will lie with those that rigged the system and those who did vote for her.
I am astonished that The Secretary of State would go on record and be filmed personally insulting
Putin, when this is such a sensitive time, or at ANY time.
Most of this sounds pretty reasonable to me- vote Clinton if a swing state, otherwise Stein; put
pressure on Clinton to deliver concrete policy proposals (eg on TPP); recognition that progressive
politics doesn't begin and end with Sanders (important because it means this isn't just populism
focused on a single leader).
But...does anyone ever raise the possibility of voting reform in the US? Because the way the
landscape is now cannot be comfortably accommodated by two parties. It should be no surprise that
many Sanders supporters can't abide Clinton, (nor that trad republicans despair at Trump). In
most Western democracies Clinton and Sanders would naturally belong in different parties.
Q: HRC meetings with Goldman and others?
I dunno. But I did public speaking. Its fun
Q: What do you think she is giving away in those meetings?
She doesn't want the people knowing about her relationships on Wall Street She wants to achieve
consistency and the best way to do that is to keep the people ignorant
The naivete of some people who still fall for the politics of "lesser evils" is staggering. There
is no good outcome of this election. On one hand you have a fascist with little clue of what he's
doing and has made a campaign of empty soundbites. The other is an imperialist war hawk for whom
bombing people in the Middle East is a hobby and said Iraq brought good business opportunities.
Fascism at home and imperialism abroad are two sides of the same coin and if you actually dispute
that, I feel sorry for you.
This movement is bigger than Bernie Sanders. If Hillary loses to Trump, it won't be the
fault of Sanders supporters, but the slimy lies and corruption of her and the DNC. It has been
said that the Democratic party is the place where social movements die. Good to know that "Berners"
still want to fight for the greater good, something establishment politics doesn't provide.
The Bush and Clinton crime families stand for the same thing.
They are the same thing.
Wish Jeb! had won the GOP nomination? Vote for Hillary, you'll get the same thing (except you'll
also lose the 2nd Amendment - that's the only difference).
Spoken like a true partisan hack.
Trump is a fascist, Hillary is an imperialist. If there's actually a "lesser evil" out of
these two, I don't see it.
A vote for Trump is throwing America into the deep end, emboldening of the far right and likely
to end in economic disaster. A vote for Clinton is condemning Middle Eastern people to their
deaths with the obvious invasions that she'll likely cook up.
Anyone who calls themselves socialist after Bernie's campaign should realise that socialism
is about resisting hatred at home and abroad
Trump wants to make jobs, better the education system and raise salaries. Voting for Trump
will bring Sanders supporters more of what they want and less is they vote for Clinton.
I cancelled my visit to the Democratic convention in Philadelphia when I realised it was going
to be Hilary Clinton. She is a female version of Tony Blair, even, more dishonest and unscrupulous.
Had the blacks and latinos voted for Sanders in numbers, this result could have been avoided.
But we have to live with it. The hope is that Bernie has started a movement that will survive
and perhaps one day we will have a social democratic president in the USA.
I may have voted Hillary, but then "DWS". Tomorrow I become a independent. F@ck the DNC 30
years a Dem now a disappointed.
OH no The orange man will destroy the world, who cares about Fracking, NATO, Monsanto, Health
care and Pharmaceuticals... Not HIllary and her bestie's Debbie Wassermann Schultz, Barbara Boxer,
Roberta Lange etc... Let it burn I seriously don't give a sh#t Whats the Donalds gonna do... Push
through religious agendas?
OH that already happened while Obama was POTUS. Export jobs? that happened with NAFTA ( Bill
Clinton ), close down woman's health clinics, take away women's rights to choose and right to
preferred birth control? that happened. Triple the cost of Health Insurance? Pharmaceuticals?
Back Monsanto? TPP? I guess either way we are just screwed... HILLARY+DONALD = Equally Toxic!
Piss on the Press... vote in a new congress, house, state and local.
This fascinates me. I draw very close similarities with J. Corbyn over here. In short, in the
Anglo-Saxon world the 'left' has split into a centre (your Clinton, T. Blair in the past) and
a 'purer' left. Now, for us (Latins for instance) away from strict binary systems, it makes more
sense if at least four parties were to represent most population's views: a 'harder' left, a centre-left-right,
and a 'harder' right. I am aware of the potential pitfalls, such as unstable governments etc.
but two parties cannot cover, or even attempt to cover, the political ideas spectrum of whole
nations. And it can causes odd outcomes, such as Trump (!?!) as a representative for a whole electorate
who doesn't want to vote Clinton. Could you have three-four candidates system?
Crooked Clinton and her crooked backers are laughing their asses off at Bernie. The old fool
is being used.
I have a problem with Clinton for three main reasons:
She's dishonest, She has no clear principles, and She has a long history of questionable
judgement/ethics.
The first two issues are ones of degree: just about all of us are guilty of the occasional fib,
and people often alter their views to what is fashionable. Politicians tend to be especially bad
in both regards. But even by the low standards of politicians, Clinton stands out. Clinton's "flexible
reality" is really something to behold.
Let's use a recent example of gay rights. Personally, I suspect that Hillary Clinton has always
been a proponent of gay rights, and doesn't have a homophobic bone in her body. But in 2004, when
gay marriage was a hot issue and many states were amending their constitutions to define marriage
as being between a man and a woman, Clinton gave a speech on the Senate floor in defence of traditional
marriage that could have been written by Jesse Helms. In other words, she didn't just bite her
tongue or give lukewarm support to one side or the other; she went "all in" in her opposition
to legalizing gay marriage, because that was a winning approach in 2004. Now that gay marriage
is legal in all 50 states and the LGBT community is an important Democrat voting bloc, Clinton
wants to pretend that she's always been at the vanguard on gay rights, as though her vocal opposition
to gay marriage just a decade earlier somehow never happened. Indeed, Clinton has thrown out trial
balloons suggesting that her opposition to gay marriage was somehow designed to defend gay rights
from even more extreme elements in Congress!
Or take the Trans Pacific Partnership, which Clinton stewarded during her tenure as Secretary
of State. Caught in a close fight with far-left candidate Bernie Sanders, Clinton was quick to
jettison the TPP and distance herself from it, even though her husband and she have decades of
unequivocal support for free trade. The list could go on and on. There are plenty of politicians
who equivocate on important issues, and whose views "evolve" to magically fit what voters want.
But Clinton is special in her ability to (a) voice strong views on various issues and then (b)
act as though those who remember her prior views are crazy. The problem that most people have
with Clinton is that if free trade returned to being en vogue in 2018, or there was a successful
movement to amend the Constitution to prohibit gay marriage, there's a pretty good chance that
Clinton would be at the forefront, claiming that those were "always" her views, and that prior
statements to the contrary were taken out of context/the work of the "vast, right-wing conspiracy."
And as for crossing the line, there are too many examples to mention. The Clintons are not
wrong to accuse Republicans of being out to get them, and too often, Republicans have played into
the Clintons' hands by attempting to make mountains out of molehills. But the Clintons perpetually
find themselves in hot water because they can't resist bending the rules and associating with
questionable people. Does anyone really believe that Hillary Clinton legitimately made a small
fortune trading cattle futures? Does anyone honestly believe that Clinton's use of a private email
server while Secretary of State was due to a lack of technological sophistication and not a desire
to subvert public record-keeping law? Does anyone accept that taking in millions of dollars in
speaking fees/charitable donations from questionable sources has no impact on her ability to govern
impartially? If you answered yes to any of those questions, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell
you. The fact that Clinton hasn't gone to prison doesn't mean that she's conducted herself in
a manner befitting the leader of the US.
Oh, and another thing, which I'll never get tired of repeating: if the past few years proved
anything, is that a President can only do so much against a hostile House.
While it's obvious why the Clinton camp would want to convince people a Trump presidency
would bring forth the Armageddon, the true battle is not for the president: it's for the two houses.
It will be the two houses that determine who the next SCOTUS is, it will be the two houses that
pass legislation, it will be the two houses that approve or reject the next President's war plans.
A red house will make a Clinton presidency irrelevant, and a blue house will make a Trump presidency
harmless.
To recap, vote blue for the Congress, vote blue for the Senate (that applies for Republicans
as well: if you're secretly scared of what Trump might do, keep him in check by electing a democrat
house), but vote for whomever you want (Clinton, Trump, Johnson, Stein, Sanders, Claire Underwood
or Tyrion Lannister. It really makes no difference) for President.
It's hard not to lose all respect for Americans when they suggest with a straight face that voting
for a member of the Clinton Crime family is so much better and the only option.
Trump is almost certainly a narcissistic, uneducated, racist, self-obsessed sociopath whose
sole obsession in life is the acquisition of material wealth. He would undoubtedly be a terrible
President.
Clinton on the other hand, is a chicken hawk psychopath establishment lackey who believes
the rule of Law simply doesn't apply to her and also has a husband who deregulated all the financial
sector, removed welfare, deregulated healthcare to the benefit of big business, has links to Iran
Contra, is sexually dysfunctional and if you believe multiple credible authors (including Christopher
Hitchens) is probably a rapist. She too would be a terrible President.
You Americans, have the political system you deserve by continuously voting for a rigged,
failed two party state that has been completely corrupted by Corporate lobbying. Someone once
said "the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different
results." Yet, the US still do this every election cycle.
Anyone who continues to vote for the lesser evil is still voting evil so they're just as ridiculous
as those voting Trump.
Either way, the US are in for a bumpy ride in the next 4 years especially when there's another
financial crash - which is just around the corner.
I can't believe you're seriously suggesting that voting for a member of the Clinton Crime
family is so much better and the only option but then again, you believe in the 2 party system
and talk about Democrats and Republicans in a ridiculously tribal and childish way. It's time
for you to wake up and smell the coffee.
Trump is almost certainly a narcissistic, uneducated, racist, self-obsessed sociopath whose
sole obsession in life is the acquisition of material wealth. He would undoubtedly be a terrible
President.
Clinton on the other hand, is a chicken hawk psychopath establishment lackey who believes the
rule of Law simply doesn't apply to her and also has a husband who deregulated all the financial
sector with disastrous results, removed welfare, deregulated healthcare to the benefit of big
business, has links to Iran Contra, is sexually dysfunctional and if you believe multiple credible
authors (including Christopher Hitchens) is probably a rapist. Clinton too would be a terrible
President.
You Americans, have the political system you deserve by continuously voting for a rigged, failed
two party state that has been completely corrupted by Corporate lobbying. Someone once said "the
definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results."
Yet, you and many others in the US still do this every election cycle.
The Democrats and Republicans are 2 cheeks of the same arse both funded by and told what to
do by the financial sector, the military industrial complex, oil and big business. You'll eventually
realise this if you ever wake up.
Anyone who continues to vote for the lesser evil is still voting evil so they're just as ridiculous
as those voting Trump.
Either way, the US are in for a bumpy ride in the next 4 years especially when there's another
financial crash - which is just around the corner.
The Clinton team have been busy insulting progressives for the past year and they did not
give us much in the massaged platform. The choice of VP was another slap in the face along with
Debbie's new job. I am so glad the Sanders supporters are protesting the very questionable
elections. If the DNC Were behaving like rational adults, they would have given us more at the
platform and chosen a more Left VP and stopped the insults. We have not been treated with respect
that our election numbers merit.
Time for Clintonites to show some moral strength and some semblance of ethical behavior, and stop
supporting corruption, stop blaming those who DO have some sense of ethics and what's best for
this nation for voting their conscience.
The Clintonites are nothing but bullies, gutless wonders willing to grovel before power.
In supporting her they betray every good thing this nation ever stood for. They are willing to
accept corruption, lies, and incompetence for reasons I don't comprehend, ignoring clear lawbreaking
in order to install their false idol.
The contemptuousness with which they attack those who desire some modicum of honesty, empathy
, and ethical behavior in a candidate is utterly shameful.
They, like all bullies, seem to think that insults, threats, and contempt will force the results
they want.
Little do they realize that they are only making enemies of those who wanted to be friends,creating
an anger that won't fade for years.
Never vote for Democrats again, that party has entirely lost what little credibility it had
left.
Leave it and join the Greens, join the Libertarians, join anything but the party of the
corrupt, the party of betrayal, the party of the oligarchs.
They've had more than enough chances to prove their worth, and have failed miserably.
The Guardian comment on the leaked emails: 'this seems to mark a new development in the constant
struggle of propaganda and disinformation' ... could easily be said about its own approach. Oh
the irony.
This was never about Sanders. The Clinton folks spent so much time portraying us as blind
followers that they started to believe their own hype. It was always about progressive policies
and values and if Sanders endorses a candidate who doesn't share those valued, a candidate who
will take to us war it's time to say: thanks you Sanders for all you've done but I can't join
you on the path you are walking on now.
Clinton and cronies will say or do anything to bring over the Bernie fans. When she no longer
needs them she will throw them away along with their ideas. The important decisions were made
long before anyone showed up in Phila. The fact DWS was given a job on HC's staff after getting
fired says it all. Now Bernie sells out. Don't you feel just a little used?
The mistake of establishment - Thinking people will obey Bernie's orders, nope they will get convinced
only Hillary changes some policies. 15$ and free education was a good start and that showed good
poll results for her but after this Dncleak she needs to do more than this.
The mistakes of the establishment, in this case the DNC, were numerous. The DNC thought they knew
better than anyone else who should be the party's nominee. Form the time HRC lost to Obama, they
planned for Hilary to run essentially unchallenged by any other Democrat in 2016. Her campaign
manager was made the DNC chairwoman who as we now know did her best to diminish Bernie's chances;
Hilary was offered the position of SOS to boost her credentials. She knew she could quit being
SOS in 2012 to prepare to run in 2016; and she lied for the next three years about whether or
not she would run for President because she could, as a private citizen, continue to cash in on
her speeches to the business elite and set up a network of political and business elite who could
then support her.
I have no explanation why Kerry or Biden did not run for President except that they knew better
than to challenge what was already decided. The only person willing to go for it was the most
discounted Senate member, an Independent, who for two decades had made no attempt to build a support
system within the political establishment.
With the exception of one super delegate, the majority of the DNC super delegates had already
endorsed Hilary before the first primary, and none changed his/her vote when Bernie got traction.
Even his closest ally, in ideology, Liz Warren, did not endorse Bernie. That is how corrupt &
controlling the DNC leadership has become: in this election they clearly are the king makers,
while the GOP produced 18 well-known candidates that tore each other to pieces. That tells you
how planned this whole thing was with the Democrats. Both parties are corrupt; but while the GOP
suffers from internal Chaos & cannibalism, the DNC acted with a script that fits more the way
Russians have been picking their presidents.
Despite the huge surprise success of Bernie's campaign, the passion he aroused, the young he
managed to draw in, and the millions of $27 contributions he raised, the DNC continued to weigh
more on HRC's side and, as we now know, tried to work against him behind the scenes.
The DNC's biggest mistake, however, is that they are out of touch with the young Progressives
that are their future voters, despite the fact that they can see how a sense of betrayal and disappointment
has caused the virtual demise of the GOP political elite. HRC shares the arrogance of the DNC
in thinking she can collect millions of dollars from special interests in speaking fees and then
tell us she is for Bernie's reforms. She thinks she can regurgitate much of what Bernie says,
then choose the most centrist Democratic politician to be her running mate, and still count on
the majority of Bernie's supporters to vote for her because … well, Trump is a monster. She is
wrong; the DNC is also wrong; real progressive do not cast their vote because they are afraid
of Trump; they vote for what they believe in. Voting for HRC from fear of Trump is a vote for
status quo; it does not help me if I am against status quo. The DNC has no sense of what Bernie
Sanders evoked in the young Progressive because like their GOP counterparts they too are political
automatons out of touch with real humans.
I have been told that by not voting in November, I am cutting off my nose to spite my face,
because Trump may win. Well, perhaps a Trump victory can finally help DNC internalize the
message of America's Progressives. So, I have a better analogy for not voting & possibly seeing
Trump win; sometimes you lose an arm in order to save the body.
I don't judge Hillary just on the actions of her husband. There's plenty to get my teeth into:
- Chicken hawk psychopath with innumerable foreign policy disasters on her watch including
Libya;
- Bought and paid for by the usual suspects - Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan etc;
- A security risk to the US i.e. used an unencrypted private server which was contrary to
the rules, was routinely hacked by foreign powers, contained information about covert US black
sites and was also obviously designed to hide Clinton Foundation business dealings/shenanigans.
This had nothing to do with convenience;
- Subverted the democratic process with regards to her nomination.
Reagan started deregulation, but Billy Boy and Robert Rubin continued with devastating abandon.
Just one piece of legislation: Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 - largely the cause
of the 2007/2008 subprime derivatives crisis.
Warning: Bellingcat is a disinformation outpost probably created by some intelligence agency. It
lied about MH17 extensively.
Notable quotes:
"... Beware Bellingcat; he's been busted more than once publishing fraudulent information; especially re: Putin and Ukraine ..."
"... This is an interesting article that explores possibilities (if only partially) of an extremely murky event: the recent coup in Turkey. One very keen observation is that this coup has one extraordinary aspect: nobody seems to blame Putin! The second observation is that it is not typical for a coup that it is not possible to trace who was running it, while indisputably, someone activated a bunch of conspirators to action. In the past, even failed coup had an identified leader. ..."
3 Turkish specialized NATO regiments (20,000+ troops?} led coup attempt. Using Bellingcat translated
records of coup communications, Sybil Edmonds explains:
This is an interesting article that explores possibilities (if only partially) of an extremely
murky event: the recent coup in Turkey. One very keen observation is that this coup has one extraordinary
aspect: nobody seems to blame Putin! The second observation is that it is not typical for a coup
that it is not possible to trace who was running it, while indisputably, someone activated a bunch
of conspirators to action. In the past, even failed coup had an identified leader.
[Tinfoil hat on] This points to a masterful hand behind the plot, perhaps a bit deficient in
purely military details but very capable in conspiratorial techniques. [delete]Gulen[end delete]
Putin! Putin theory could have a weak spot, namely that he is competent in purely military details,
but it can be elegantly rescued by the fact that he had no interest in actually replacing Erdogan,
but merely in rendering him ineffective against Russia. As Russians know only too well, the most
effective way of disabling a military organization is to imbue the national leader with total
paranoia. [Tinfoil hat off, malignant waves enter brain again]
Clearly, Erdogan is another person who benefits from the coup, and who has much simpler means
to assure that the leadership of the coup remains unclear: his devoted stooges run the investigation
after all! Moreover, Akira correctly observed that the past actions attributed to Gulen's movement
lacked outright violence. In my opinion, this stems from religious principles of Gulen himself,
his own interpretation of Islam (which clearly allows for intrigue and subterfuge). Gulen did
not create his movement in vacuum, he became a leader of followers of Said Nursi who died in 1960.
The way those movements (Nur of Nursi, Hizmet of Gulen) operated is compared to Sufi brotherhoods
which may be loosely hierarchical and highly conspiratorial. Some Sufi movements may be violent,
by calling to armed Jihad etc. However, Nursi was a pacifist. As I said, unlike some other Muslim
movements in Turkey. Erdogan has a somewhat murky religious movement of his own, and he clearly
accepts the concept of violent Jihad.
One can dwell more of it, but pretty safe conclusion is that we have two likely possibilities:
Erdogan pulling the strings (in that case, using Hakan Fidan, his spy master) and going to some
lengths to make the appearance that Guelen does it, or the reverse. Because of that, no single
piece of evidence is conclusive, any single person can be a double/multiple agent etc. And because
those possibilities are both so compelling, the true guiding master hand remains hidden (Putin!!!!).
Great stuff pb. I think that Erdo's 'genius' lies in his ability to react rather than act.
He just waits to see his chances then takes 'em. Having plans opens one up to having one's plans
divined by others and so defeated. His strength lies in his nihilism, the g-forces alone of his
about faces would so distort the physique of any ordinary man that he could never survive. But
Erdo is focused exclusively on his own ends - and possesses the magical ability of convincing
his followers of his invincibility and hence, of theirs. His survival of his seemingly endless
stream of volte faces proves this in the eyes of his followers and so confounds his more or less
principled opposition that their very bones melt and they puddle.
So the CIA, who have kept Gulen bottled up in their Pennsylvania super-fortress all these years,
perhaps their secret, kryptonite-like antidote to al-CIAduh, sprang him to avail Erdogan of yet
another of his nine-times-nine-lives, in order to keep his ego-driven presence alive and disruptive
on their geostrategic gameboard.
The terrifying thing from the CIA's/USA's point of view would be any kind of coherent coincidence
of aims among Russia, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, the Caucasus, and the stans of Central Asia.
They feel that they can rely upon Erdo to keep the Caucasus and Central Asia high on its own version
of the Ottoman dream, and in competition with the Sunni/IS, the Shia, and Kurdish Axes.
If the Turkmen and the Shia were to cohere rather than contend, or, worse, the Turkmen-Shia-Kurds
were to do so, there would be far too much constructive activity in the Middle East for the empire
of chaos to survive there let alone prevail. The opposite hand of Putin did it! is ... the CIA
did it! I say the CIA did it. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.
The real story will become apparent in the fullness of time.
"... So, there you have it. The guy who suspected his campaign was being intentionally marginalized by the party apparatus learns in fact he, his campaign and most importantly, his voters were indeed intentionally marginalized by the leadership of the Democratic Party. The chairman of the Party is Barack Obama. He appoints the Director who we all know is Wasserman Schultz. Thus, the entirety of the DNC leadership knowingly and with intent marginalized Sanders and his voters. Yet, Sanders remains loyal and naively believes his voters will stay with him if he sticks with the party and their chosen candidate that screwed him and them. ..."
"... His response reminds me of battered wife syndrome. He has absolutely bonded with his abusers. He is a sick man as in mentally impaired, maybe fatigued, and should seriously consider some rest. ..."
"... Think about all that man has put himself, his family, his workers, his voters through this last year. His efforts were ginormous. Yet, within less than 48 hours the man dismisses the gravity of how his life's work was deliberately, with intent, sabotaged by the DNC and goes onto say it's not important, the issues are. ..."
"... Sure the issues are important to his voters but their learning the DNC put their resources behind their chosen candidate vs remaining neutral as their Bylaws require, would seriously piss me off. Hell it does piss me off and I'm not even a Sanders supporter. ..."
"... And why on earth would any of Sanders voters ever believe that the same party that marginalized him and his efforts would ever give weight to the issues he's fighting for! ..."
For those who have a Twitter account, checkout #dncleak or #dncleaks on the
latest over the Wikileaks release of the DNC emails.
Here's one -"Hillary Clinton is now blaming the Russians for leaking the
emails. Like that makes it any better that you rigged the primary."
Sanders to Chuck Todd on the leaks -
Todd: "So just to sum up here, these leaks, these emails, it hasn't given
you any pause about your support for Hillary Clinton?"
Sanders: "No, no, no. We are going to do everything that we can to protect
working families in this country. And again, Chuc, I know media is not necessarily
focused on these things. But what a campaign is about is not Hillary Clinton,
it's not Donald Trump. It is the people of this country, blah blah blah..."
"[...] And I'm going to go around the country discussing them [issues] and
making sure Hillary Clinton is elected president."
So, there you have it. The guy who suspected his campaign was being intentionally
marginalized by the party apparatus learns in fact he, his campaign and most
importantly, his voters were indeed intentionally marginalized by the leadership
of the Democratic Party. The chairman of the Party is Barack Obama. He appoints
the Director who we all know is Wasserman Schultz. Thus, the entirety of the
DNC leadership knowingly and with intent marginalized Sanders and his voters.
Yet, Sanders remains loyal and naively believes his voters will stay with him
if he sticks with the party and their chosen candidate that screwed him and
them.
UNFRIGGINBELIEVABLE!
His response reminds me of battered wife syndrome. He has absolutely
bonded with his abusers. He is a sick man as in mentally impaired, maybe fatigued,
and should seriously consider some rest.
I cannot imagine learning after years of planning, hard work and personal
sacrifices being made to fulfill my lifelong ambition to get within a whisker
of achieving my goals, only to learn within weeks after capitulating, that my
entire life's effort was undermined from the beginning by the very apparatus
I aligned with, albeit as an Indy, for decades. An apparatus that must remain
neutral.
Think about his response to Todd. Think about all that man has put himself,
his family, his workers, his voters through this last year. His efforts were
ginormous. Yet, within less than 48 hours the man dismisses the gravity of how
his life's work was deliberately, with intent, sabotaged by the DNC and goes
onto say it's not important, the issues are.
If I were a Bernie supporter I'd be starting a campaign to convince that
man to take some serious time off. Go fishing. Go for hikes whatever. Just get
away from the bubble and clear your head and soul.
Sure the issues are important to his voters but their learning the DNC
put their resources behind their chosen candidate vs remaining neutral as their
Bylaws require, would seriously piss me off. Hell it does piss me off and I'm
not even a Sanders supporter.
And why on earth would any of Sanders voters ever believe that the same
party that marginalized him and his efforts would ever give weight to the issues
he's fighting for!
Seems the Clinton and her assorted groupies just need a scapegoat :-). Seems Putin controls Trump
and Clinton! The man is amazing.
Notable quotes:
"... From Bloomberg - "If the Democrats can show the hidden hand of Russian intelligence agencies, they believe that voter outrage will probably outweigh any embarrassing revelations, a person familiar with the party's thinking said' ..."
"... Ha! Fat chance. I'm thinking the American voter is going to start sending Thank You notes to the Kremlin! As usual, their heads are stuck so far up the arse of their donkey they incapable of gauging Main Street sentiment. ..."
"... She is just a symptom of the DNC disease. And yes, she'll take the fall for the team, but make no mistake, the cancer remains and will continue to metastasize. ..."
Russia is weaponizing everything : Word files, federalism, finance and Jedi mind tricks - everything
is transformed into a weapon if Russia or its president Putin is imagined to come near it.
Putin, the President of the Russian Federation, is influencing, manipulating and controlling many
"western" politicians, parties and movements - in Europe AND in the United States.
Here are,
thanks
to Mark Sleboda , a partial list
of political entities and issue Putin secretly manipulates and controls:
Putin is
in cahoots with the Republican presidential candidate Trump -
claims the Clinton
campaign . Putin is behind, it asserts, the leak of the DNC emails which prove that the Democratic
National Committee
has been working against Sanders to promote Hillary Clinton. The leak of the DNC emails, says
the Clinton campaign, is ..:
.. further evidence the Russian government is trying to influence the outcome of the election.
The Clinton campaign has not looked thoroughly enough into Putin's schemes. Reveal we can that
Putin has penetrated U.S. politics even deeper than thought - right down into the Clinton Foundation
and the
Clinton family itself:
As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009
to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium
One's chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million.
That money, surely, had no influence on then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's decisions? And
what about her husband?
Mr. Clinton received $500,000 ... from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin
These undisputed facts demonstrate that Putin is indeed waging influence by bribing U.S. politicians.
But the Clinton campaign is be a bit more hesitant in pointing these out.
Clinton/Kaine certainly confident that the MSM will not report.
For all the money given to the Clinton's it didn't prevent the Ukraine disasters. Of course,
Ukraine may not have been a concern among the particular oligarchs who made these bribes.
HOw could this anti-russian hysteria/bashing go on, I mean the level of paranoia and disinformation
against Russia and Putin is plain crazy.
From Bloomberg - "If the Democrats can show the hidden hand of Russian intelligence agencies,
they believe that voter outrage will probably outweigh any embarrassing revelations, a person
familiar with the party's thinking said'
Ha! Fat chance. I'm thinking the American voter is going to start sending Thank You notes
to the Kremlin! As usual, their heads are stuck so far up the arse of their donkey they incapable
of gauging Main Street sentiment.
Funny though, Schultz takes her orders from Obama, as the Chairman of the Party, the DNC Board
of Directors and team Hillary. Period. If any blame should go around it should splash onto all
individuals NOT just Schultz.
She is just a symptom of the DNC disease. And yes, she'll take the fall for the team, but
make no mistake, the cancer remains and will continue to metastasize.
"... Well that isn't surprising. Hillary Clinton is a loser and a weak candidate ..."
"... I think Trump will win because the e-mail scandal has destroyed whatever credibility Hillary Clinton had. Sanders would beat Trump by a landslide, Elizabeth Warren would too. But Hillary is doomed. ..."
"... Polls are nonsense; particularly this far out in an unconventional election. The pollsters themselves are scratching their heads as to how to properly frame the poll questions and establish the correct survey demographics. It's all new territory for them ..."
"... Three of the four latest polls that showed Trump ahead of Clinton were conducted via telephone. So, maybe the latest polling boost for Trump isn't about increasing popularity but about emboldened supporters ..."
"... "also a few Scalias". There are worse things than Scalias. Like Hillarys. ..."
"... I think Hillary is far more dangerous. She wants war with Russia, Syria, etc ..."
"... Hilary is a poor candidate and Obama shifted the world in a significantly amoral direction. ..."
"... Nate predicts a trump win now, and for good reason. Clinton's numbers will only continue to drop with each new email leak, State Department report, Clinton Foundation pay to play allegation, and lie from her own mouth reinforcing to the majority of the electorate why they distrust and dislike her. ..."
"... Sorry liberal apologists, this is not an ordinary "post convention bump". The polls indicate that 3/4 of Americans do not believe that their country is headed in the right direction. Trump is a protest vote. ..."
"... As repugnant as some of you may find Trump's brash personality and idiotic rhetoric to be, many view him as refreshing. Most American are tired of the "establishment" and would prefer anybody to another corrupt / dishonest / smug Bush or Clinton in the White House. They have also grown tired of a neutered society and a political correctness that has quashed individuality and freedom of speech. ..."
"... Trump has built an empire and employed people. By contrast, Clinton policies have (i) caused the subprime housing crisis, (ii) exported jobs to Mexico via NAFTA, (iv) destroyed the US educational system with no child left behind, and (iv) have caused numerous foreign policy blunders. Ms. Clinton has systematically failed at everthing that she has done. More would have been accomplished by doing the opposite. ..."
"... Hillary is toast. ..."
"... Since Cruz dropped out of the primaries, the mainstream media has been engaged in a non-stop assault on Trump, fought with the kind of raw brutality last seen in the battle of Stalingrad. The Washington Post runs at least four anti-Trump opinion pieces every day. (Yes, almost 30 per week.) Yet, Trump's poll numbers continue to improve. Hillary has spent big money on advertising in the last month, and Trump has spent nothing. Yet, Trump's poll numbers continue to improve. The Republican poobahs refused to attend the convention. Yet, Trump's poll numbers continue to improve. Ted Cruz detonated a suicide bomb at the convention. Yet, Trump's poll numbers continue to improve. ..."
"... Also, as crazy as Trump is, he didn't alienate his base with his VP pick. Instead, he sought to appease the far right of his party with Mike Pence. Meanwhile, Hillary has sought to move the Green Party's polling numbers into the double digits by picking a running mate who is opposed to abortion, presided over executions, supported a coal-fired power plant, and supports the TPP. The arrogance displayed by Hillary in picking Kaine makes Trump look humble. ..."
"... DinoMight, Leftist here again. Kain is far right on what matters - Money. Pro TPP and wants to let banks be less regulated. Also, Trump is being pounded negatively by the MSM nearly as much as Sanders was denigrated or ignored. MSM, owned by Murdock and other large corporations want Clinton. She's the money man. Trump may pull this off due to low demo turn out and objection to Clinton big $$$$$. ..."
"... As was seen with Brexit....and the death of Bruce Lee ..the Guardian is about to learn a harsh lesson it will refuse to believe is real. ..."
"... Trump will win in November because of the simple reason of whom his opponent is. ..."
I think elections reinforce discontent narratives against incumbents, and politicians wont contradict
wide spread sentiments that they don't agree with, but they instead look for some way to neutralise
them.
Hillary has two problems, as a democrat linked to Obama she is effectively the incumbent here.
Obama ran on hope and change, but provided very little change in peoples lives. Without the change
part, second time around its difficult to inspire hope.
This was the lesson of Brexit, the incumbents (Remain) were unable to offer any real change,
but their opposition (Leave) where offering real change, and therefore Hope!
So you have Clinton effectively offering people who are crying out for change, no change, and
therefore little control of their lives, and therefore little hope.
And you've got Trump offering much change, an opportunity to take back control, and therefore
much hope!
The extent to which Trumps message will resonate with voters will determine who wins. How many
people get left behind by Globalisation?...In the West look at Britain, look at Europe, look at
America....I'd say most, mainly because one size doesn't fit all.
These polls are completely skewed. CNN's poll included NO ONE UNDER 35 years old.
Last week's sample by Reuters was 78% white. The electorate in 2012 was 72% white and given
demographic changes, the electorate will be even less white this time around, while Trump's share
of non-white vote will be even smaller than Romney's was.
Meh. Clinton is actually more of a hawk that Trump. He is actually an isolationist. Clinton has
voted for more war and is for more aggressive use of the military than Trump would be.
I fear Trump would be a problem on other fronts but as far as involving us in more war and
negotiating bad trade agreements Hillary is to be feared more than Trump.
Smug limousine liberals and money printing rent seekers with no clothes swanning about. La dee
da aren't you so pretty. As John Stewart said we're not allowed to have a country. So it's yours?
Whose is it? I think it's a question that needs answering.
Trumps going to win! Sanders people will not vote. Young will not vote.
Trump 52-48
Clinton is branded crooked and e mails , no matter what just shows many this.
Predictable response? Hillary Clinton is objectively the weaker Democratic candidate this year
who always lost against nearly all Republican nominees except for Trump who even then, she is
starting to lose now.
I think Trump will win because the e-mail scandal has destroyed whatever credibility Hillary
Clinton had. Sanders would beat Trump by a landslide, Elizabeth Warren would too. But Hillary
is doomed.
Hillary might win if the non-whites come out to vote in unprecedented numbers but that is unlikely.
Trump's supporters are more motivated. The white working class will swing to Trump because Hillary
predicatably played cowardly and refused her chance to nominate Sanders or Warren for the VP slot,
choosing instead a boring fellow who is big on free trade.
The only consolation is that Trump is no Hitler and the US president will be arrested and jailed
the moment he breaks the law. May even be executed. The Americans are very very very tough on
issues like that.
Polls are nonsense; particularly this far out in an unconventional election. The pollsters
themselves are scratching their heads as to how to properly frame the poll questions and establish
the correct survey demographics. It's all new territory for them
The headline to this story is very certain reading "Why Trump's bump in the polls IS
more significant than ever" (meant to catch your eye) but in the very next sentence the words
start backpeddling to "his rise in the polls COULD be different".
So which is it Guardian ?
It is also stated in the article " Three of the four latest polls that showed Trump ahead
of Clinton were conducted via telephone. So, maybe the latest polling boost for Trump isn't about
increasing popularity but about emboldened supporters ".......could it be that these calls
went to land lines, which are skewed very much towards older voters? Young folks are more cell
phone / smart phone oriented. In that case it's capturing the older white Fox News crowd with
a heavy implicit bias...doubling down on nonsense at this point.
In the last presidential lection the polls by Nate Silver got the result exactly. This year
in Canada Nanos Polls got the general lection result accurate to 0,5 percent.
In Uk elections, typically the polls prove accurate enough.
"In Uk elections, typically the polls prove accurate enough".
Actually in the last two polls, the general election and the referendum, the polls have been
hopelessly wrong as wrong therefore as you calling woodyTX an "illiterate doit", whatever a doit
is.
Trump better have a person at every voting precinct watching those Deibold machines. Clinton got
quite good at stealing, misdirecting, shredding and generally restricting votes in a handful of
key states. When there was a paper trail, Sanders won 53% - 49%. When no paper trail, Clinton
65% to Sanders' 35%. These elections are quite rigged.
I believe that in usa is going to happen something similar with the Brexit. All the polls show
a victory of Clinton, and at the end we finish with a triumph of Trump.
The pollsters are doing and are done a very bad work in the last polls.
I ask myself, who pay them...
Its clear Trump will win.We can handle a reality TV star
We cannot handle the corrupt Clinton Machine, nor a corrupt Democratic party.
They overplayed their hand.
1. Trump is an idiot and an embarrassment.
2. Hillary is a liar.
3. The "up-side" to a Trump presidency is 4 years of entertainment. He does after all have multiple
years of the Apprentice on his resume.
4. There is no "up-side" to a Clinton presidency.
5. The "down-side" to a Trump presidency is chaos at the top levels of government.
6. The "down-side" to a Clinton presidency is another Arab-Israeli war and likely US troops committed
and dying somewhere in order to make Clinton "look" tough and gritty.
So we'll take the entertainment. Will be four years of a Rodney Dangerfield show played out
live with an unwitting lead actor.
I don't believe polls when there's a vested interest, like the Brexit ones. Yet I believe Trump
will be the next president of the US. Hilary is a poor candidate and Obama shifted the world in a significantly amoral direction.
Many will dismiss this, but a huge chunk of voters feel it is important. I'm one such.
The media has pretty much discredited itself over the years by seldom doing the complex research
necessary to report current events and hiring journalists with the education, intelligence, and
ethics to communicate realities to the readers.
The result is that even with the internet version of the newspapers, few really take their
reporting and recommendations seriously.
The public just decides for itself knowing that whether it is spin on felonious Clinton, Distracted
Sanders ("We are sick of your e-mails"), Benito Trump, or Gift-Accepting Little Don Kaine the
media will not represent anything fairly and inaccurately.
Even heaven doesn't know who is going to win the presidency this year, which is compelling
in its own way.
These polls are very bad news for those who want to believe that Hillary Clinton has already won
the election. The size of the bump is far less important then the fact that there was one. Much
of the media believes that the Republican's convention performance drastically diminished their
chances in November. It is likely that everyone will have to wait until the votes are counted
in November to know how this election plays out. But, these polls are very bad news for those
who dream of establishing the idea that Donald Trump is outside the political mainstream and that
there is something wrong with anyone who votes for him.
Obamas presidency is ending in a disaster. Foreign policy failure and a divided and violent domestic
society. All the while he seems to revel in playing the joker and appearing like the cool uncle
at a wedding.
"Three of the four latest polls that showed Trump ahead of Clinton were conducted via telephone."
Who the hell responds to a phone survey? People with a brain just hang up on them.
Instead of cherry-picked polls to justify this "story" how about the facts that matter?
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton
Has Trump gained? Yes.
Is he leading "the polls?" No. Unless you leave out the polls that show Clinton leading.
Why did Hillary have the DNC sabotage Bernie? She didn't need to. She's her own worst enemy. Now
many Bernie backers won't vote for her.
I'll never vote for Trump. Usually I vote for a candidate who promises to stop the war on drugs
because such a stance entails other views I find congenial
You are right about the US, but it's hard to share your optimism. Rich enclaves like La Jolla
and Carmel and Santa Barbara are full of educated bigots, fearful people who take their instructions
from the likes of Rush Limbaugh. (One rich idiot told me that Obama was going to raise property
taxes.) And the DNC emails - plus the tone-deaf response - make it harder for Clinton than it
was already.
Trump or Brexit will never happen in an undemocratic country. A democracy controlled by a "progressive"
and "compassionate" elite through PC triple speak is not a democracy. The fears and insecurities
of people need to be addressed and not dismissed or scoffed at. Trump will win in Nov. because
he is addressing them while Hillary is not. Hillary's issues are all very old like wealth redistribution,
various rights, gun control, etc. etc. the same as those of Fidel Castro and as old too.
Superdelegates have moments left to spare the world a trump presidency by nominating Sanders instead
of Clinton.
Nate predicts a trump win now, and for good reason. Clinton's numbers will only continue
to drop with each new email leak, State Department report, Clinton Foundation pay to play allegation,
and lie from her own mouth reinforcing to the majority of the electorate why they distrust and
dislike her.
Nominate Clinton and head over the cliff to a trump presidency.
Nominate Sanders and save the white house for the Democrats with the influx of Independent and
disenfranchised Democratic voters who will never vote for Clinton.
Not necessarily true. Double edged sword. Trump and the GOP will attack Bernie "Socialist" Sanders
relentlessly. Even disenfranchised Democrats and Independents will not sacrifice the country to
the likes of Trump. There's too much as stake. The Dems have four months to turn this around and
show the American people that Trump is full of sh*t...his tax plan would make himself even reach
and save his estate billions by doing away with inheritance tax. He's not fit be be president
per his own party even Governor Chris Christie said this. Trump and the GOP will do everything
to distract the people away from the real issues...their policies and ideology is corrupt and
bankrupt. Trump like the Leave Campaign in the UK has no game plan. Just hollow words and GOP
tax policies that have time and time again been proven wrong. What George H.W. Bush called voodoo
economics. The GOP have controlled both Houses of Congress for 4 years now...and DONE absolutely
nothing to move the country forward.
Sorry liberal apologists, this is not an ordinary "post convention bump". The polls indicate
that 3/4 of Americans do not believe that their country is headed in the right direction. Trump
is a protest vote.
As repugnant as some of you may find Trump's brash personality and idiotic rhetoric to
be, many view him as refreshing. Most American are tired of the "establishment" and would prefer
anybody to another corrupt / dishonest / smug Bush or Clinton in the White House. They have also
grown tired of a neutered society and a political correctness that has quashed individuality and
freedom of speech.
Trump has built an empire and employed people. By contrast, Clinton policies have (i) caused
the subprime housing crisis, (ii) exported jobs to Mexico via NAFTA, (iv) destroyed the US educational
system with no child left behind, and (iv) have caused numerous foreign policy blunders. Ms. Clinton
has systematically failed at everthing that she has done. More would have been accomplished by
doing the opposite.
The "back-and-forthing" involved in these polls is grimly hilarious. I don't put a lot of stock
in anything taken before Labor Day, but all the same, just try to imagine the picture of the average
voter conjured up by time-lapsed poll results: "I think I'll vote for Hillary .... well, maybe
I'll vote for Trump ... no, make that Hillary .... dang it all, I'm a-goin' for Trump! ... uh,
maybe not ............" Do people just decide who to vote for based on whose face they last saw
on their television screen? What the hell is up with that? Or is there a better way to construe
the see-sawing results than my rather unflattering construction? If there is, I would be interested
in hearing it because I don't like sounding so ungenerous towards my fellow Americans.
In any case, I'll continue to hope for the best -- i.e. that the majority of us reject the
fake populism of Donald Trump.
Since Cruz dropped out of the primaries, the mainstream media has been engaged in a non-stop
assault on Trump, fought with the kind of raw brutality last seen in the battle of Stalingrad.
The Washington Post runs at least four anti-Trump opinion pieces every day. (Yes, almost 30 per
week.) Yet, Trump's poll numbers continue to improve. Hillary has spent big money on advertising
in the last month, and Trump has spent nothing. Yet, Trump's poll numbers continue to improve.
The Republican poobahs refused to attend the convention. Yet, Trump's poll numbers continue to
improve. Ted Cruz detonated a suicide bomb at the convention. Yet, Trump's poll numbers continue
to improve.
Also, as crazy as Trump is, he didn't alienate his base with his VP pick. Instead, he sought
to appease the far right of his party with Mike Pence. Meanwhile, Hillary has sought to move the
Green Party's polling numbers into the double digits by picking a running mate who is opposed
to abortion, presided over executions, supported a coal-fired power plant, and supports the TPP.
The arrogance displayed by Hillary in picking Kaine makes Trump look humble.
Trump's handling of the media is interesting. I consider it to be one of his greatest talents.
It is undeniable that the majority of pundits (on both the left and the right) dislike Trump.
He's getting attacked from all sides whether it is the traditional pro-democrat pundits to even
a lot of the traditional republican ones (especially ones who support things like free trade and
what not, traditional republican platforms)
However, Trump himself gets a ton of air time, deservedly so I might add. When he shows up
on TV, ratings go up. People want to see him on TV, people want to see his interviews. He doesn't
need to pay for ads when there are tons and tons of reporters who want to interview him! He is
earning his own air time!
DinoMight, Leftist here again. Kain is far right on what matters - Money. Pro TPP and wants
to let banks be less regulated. Also, Trump is being pounded negatively by the MSM nearly as much
as Sanders was denigrated or ignored. MSM, owned by Murdock and other large corporations want
Clinton. She's the money man. Trump may pull this off due to low demo turn out and objection to
Clinton big $$$$$.
I've heard some people recently commenting that they are going to vote for Trump not because they
particularly like Trump but rather because they actively dislike Hillary. As in the case of president
Obama there are many who cannot get their heads around that someone other than a white man could
be president. Sanders was a breath of fresh air but the political machine that is the Democratic
party had already chosen Hillary. Sadly, it's a contest that will be about which candidate is
the lessor of two weevils.
Well, to base an article on a speculation that Trump's post-convention bump will be like no other
is a bit silly. Best to wait until the end of the Democratic Party's convention before jumping
to any conclusions.
"... Sanders was always just the shiny carrot used to attract the naive youth and rope them in to Clinton's campaign. It's all a charade as it's always been. ..."
"... Well Clinton is a neoliberal. They believe in destroying someone's whole life for making a mistake once. So perhaps she is getting a taste of her own medicine. ..."
"... bernie is a accomplice sell out….sanders sold out to the criminal psychopath clinton…what a disappointment he turned out to be... ..."
"... In different manner, Mr Trump has shaken the Republican Party to its foundations. He too has been subject to a devious counter-campaign. Thus, this is a unique moment for the USA: each of the two dominant political parties is reeling and given the right push shall either reform or fall. ..."
"... Victoria Nuland and Hunter Biden as instrumental supporters of a fascist coup in the Ukraine...fascist coup. Support for Nazis. "We came, we saw; he died", said Hilary Rodham Clinton following the bloody Benghazi incident. There you have two excellent examples of Fascism and Authoritarianism, M.C.. Words and acts. ..."
"... Sanders is trying to hold back the tide for change , and he will be found out. He is an utter hypocrite, who is reneging on everything that he said so recently. The Democrats are a party for the 1% ---whoever is the leader. A new, mass party of socialism is urgently needed. ..."
"... Trump is a Bully, Hillary is a War Criminal. If Bernie won't lead a REVOLT--then We, the People will. ..."
"... Loons. Hillary Clinton is just Dick Cheney without the long, ah, nose... ..."
"... Hillary is indisputably a Neoliberal and Necon (warmonger), she's a threat to humanity. ..."
"... Actually Hillary Clinton is perched quite a bit to the right of the Party. ..."
"... Let me correct the record: it is nuts to support a candidate that is trusted by only 28% of the population! Nate Silver came out with a new projection that shows Hillary will lose to Trump. In a poll with a three way race Hillary, Trump, and with Johnson opposing Trump, Hillary STILL loses to Trump even though Johnson got a nice little chunk of the right leaning voters... ..."
"... How is somebody not going to jail? And, why isn't there talk of holding a fair and Democratic primary? ..."
"... HRCand DWS brought it on themselves. I am a registered democrat. I wanted a relatively clean establishment democrat without looming scandals to run. That didn't happen because Hillary ran. ..."
"... She gives me the heebie jeebies. Julian Assange has apparently got something on her which will deliver the coup de grace. I am loving Wikileaks at the moment. ..."
"... I hope Clinton will become less and less popular in the run up to the election, what would be fantastic is if we see Bernie running as an independent, America needs to have real democracy for once. ..."
"... People say lock her up ..."
"... No, she's above the law. As ex-Guardian columnist states so eloquently, there are 2 sets of laws in America---1 for elites like the Clintons, and another for everybody else. ..."
Sanders was always just the shiny carrot used to attract the naive youth and rope them in to Clinton's
campaign. It's all a charade as it's always been.
Well Clinton is a neoliberal. They believe in destroying someone's whole life for making a
mistake once. So perhaps she is getting a taste of her own medicine.
Mr Sanders is wrong to continue support for Clinton.
Not only has Clinton admitted wilful breach of sensible electronic communication security arrangements
but also her associates, likely with her tacit blessing, have done all in their power to undermine
Mr Sanders. Allegations of vote rigging (e.g. excluding people entitled to vote, closing polling
stations in locations where support for Clinton is thin, and strong presumptive statistical evidence
that voting machines have been tampered with) give little credence to Clinton being fit for the
presidency.
Even Mr Trump has condemned this behaviour and I don't believe that wholly to be through political
opportunism.
There is an open offer for Mr Sanders to jump ship and front the Green Party. Else, he could
stand as an independent democrat. What Mr Sanders must not do is lie down and accept having been
shafted. He has pledged support to Clinton. He did this without full knowledge of the facts of
Clinton's duplicity. Thus he is no longer honour bound to stick to his word. Indeed, by accepting
the manipulated would-be status quo he becomes tainted by Clinton's malodorous persona.
Mr Sanders is of an age when it soon shall be increasingly difficult to meet the physical demands
of running for high office. This is his one and only chance for the presidency. Regardless of
whether he succeeds, his stab at the presidency will give heart to a huge number of disenchanted
US voters and bring about major changes to the Democratic Party establishment, to its electoral
procedures and to its longer term policy platform; an alternative being collapse of that party
and replacement by an entity better suited to the 21st century.
In different manner, Mr Trump has shaken the Republican Party to its foundations. He too has
been subject to a devious counter-campaign. Thus, this is a unique moment for the USA: each of
the two dominant political parties is reeling and given the right push shall either reform or
fall.
Victoria Nuland and Hunter Biden as instrumental supporters of a fascist coup in the Ukraine...fascist
coup. Support for Nazis. "We came, we saw; he died", said Hilary Rodham Clinton following the
bloody Benghazi incident. There you have two excellent examples of Fascism and Authoritarianism,
M.C.. Words and acts.
Remember how Team Clinton kept pushing the lie about Bernie supporters throwing chairs at the
Nevada convention? I think I saw that mentioned in articles here more than once as well.
Who needs to look at facts would be you and the other willfully blind Hillary supporters.
Notably, the FBI DID NOT investigate this law...why didn't the Hillary loyalist, Loretta Lynch,
include this one as part of their investigation? Hmmm. I wonder...
Hillary Clinton broke this law.
http://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1663-protection-government-property-protection-public-records-and
Subsection (b) of 18 U.S.C. § 2071 contains a similar prohibition specifically directed at custodians
of public records. Any custodian of a public record who "willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes,
mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys (any record) shall be fined not more than $2,000
or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified
from holding any office under the United States." While the range of acts proscribed by this subsection
is somewhat narrower than subsection (a), it does provide the additional penalty of forfeiture
of position with the United States.
Sanders is trying to hold back the tide for change , and he will be found out. He is an utter hypocrite,
who is reneging on everything that he said so recently. The Democrats are a party for the 1% ---whoever
is the leader. A new, mass party of socialism is urgently needed.
Let me correct the record: it is nuts to support a candidate that is trusted by only 28% of the
population! Nate Silver came out with a new projection that shows Hillary will lose to Trump.
In a poll with a three way race Hillary, Trump, and with Johnson opposing Trump, Hillary STILL
loses to Trump even though Johnson got a nice little chunk of the right leaning voters...
Who is nuts, now, dude?
HRCand DWS brought it on themselves. I am a registered democrat. I wanted a relatively clean establishment
democrat without looming scandals to run. That didn't happen because Hillary ran.
I wanted a clean looking election with few glaring conflicts of interests. That didn't happen
because DWS didn't step down and high level party members couldn't keep their mouths shut over
email.
Now, we're expected to smile, nod, look the other way, and vote for Hillary. I will do that
this time, but, if Hillary loses, I will never support her again.
She gives me the heebie jeebies. Julian Assange has apparently got something on her which will deliver the coup de grace. I am loving Wikileaks at the moment.
I hope Clinton will become less and less popular in the run up to the election, what would be
fantastic is if we see Bernie running as an independent, America needs to have real democracy
for once.
No, she's above the law. As ex-Guardian columnist states so eloquently, there are 2 sets of laws
in America---1 for elites like the Clintons, and another for everybody else.
Bernie Sanders Gets Booed When He Asks Delegates to Elect Hillary Clinton | 25 July 2016 |The
crowd of delegates in the convention center ballroom didn't come for unity: They came for Bernie
Sanders. Sanders, the Vermont senator whose bid to beat back Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination
fell short, took the stage this afternoon to speak to his delegates before he'll take a bigger stage
in a few hours-at the Democratic National Convention on its opening night, in a bid to promote unity
in the party as it gears up to face Republican Donald Trump in the fall. The packed ballroom cheered
and chanted as Sanders recounted the successes of his campaign...But when he finally got around to
speaking about the woman who will actually be the Democratic nominee, the crowd soured on their hero.
"... So, there you have it. The guy who suspected his campaign was being intentionally
marginalized by the party apparatus learns in fact he, his campaign and most importantly,
his voters were indeed intentionally marginalized by the leadership of the Democratic
Party. The chairman of the Party is Barack Obama. He appoints the Director who we
all know is Wasserman Schultz. Thus, the entirety of the DNC leadership knowingly
and with intent marginalized Sanders and his voters. Yet, Sanders remains loyal
and naively believes his voters will stay with him if he sticks with the party and
their chosen candidate that screwed him and them. ..."
"... His response reminds me of battered wife syndrome. He has absolutely bonded
with his abusers. He is a sick man as in mentally impaired, maybe fatigued, and
should seriously consider some rest. ..."
"... I cannot imagine learning after years of planning, hard work and personal
sacrifices being made to fulfill my lifelong ambition to get within a whisker of
achieving my goals, only to learn within weeks after capitulating, that my entire
life's effort was undermined from the beginning by the very apparatus I aligned
with, albeit as an Indy, for decades. An apparatus that must remain neutral. ..."
"... Think about all that man has put himself, his family, his workers, his
voters through this last year. His efforts were ginormous. Yet, within less than
48 hours the man dismisses the gravity of how his life's work was deliberately,
with intent, sabotaged by the DNC and goes onto say it's not important, the issues
are. ..."
"... Sure the issues are important to his voters but their learning the DNC
put their resources behind their chosen candidate vs remaining neutral as their
Bylaws require, would seriously piss me off. Hell it does piss me off and I'm not
even a Sanders supporter. ..."
"... And why on earth would any of Sanders voters ever believe that the same
party that marginalized him and his efforts would ever give weight to the issues
he's fighting for! ..."
"... AFAICT he got very little for his support (will he get a cabinet position
for himself?). He didn't have to endorse Hillary. He doesn't have to speak at the
Convention (but he will tonight). ..."
For those who have a Twitter account, checkout #dncleak or #dncleaks on the
latest over the Wikileaks release of the DNC emails.
Here's one -"Hillary Clinton is now blaming the Russians for leaking the
emails. Like that makes it any better that you rigged the primary."
Sanders to Chuck Todd on the leaks -
Todd: "So just to sum up here, these leaks, these emails, it hasn't
given you any pause about your support for Hillary Clinton?"
Sanders: "No, no, no. We are going to do everything that we can
to protect working families in this country. And again, Chuc, I know media
is not necessarily focused on these things. But what a campaign is about
is not Hillary Clinton, it's not Donald Trump. It is the people of this
country, blah blah blah..."
"[...] And I'm going to go around the country discussing them [issues] and
making sure Hillary Clinton is elected president."
So, there you have it. The guy who suspected his campaign was being intentionally
marginalized by the party apparatus learns in fact he, his campaign and most
importantly, his voters were indeed intentionally marginalized by the leadership
of the Democratic Party. The chairman of the Party is Barack Obama. He appoints
the Director who we all know is Wasserman Schultz. Thus, the entirety of the
DNC leadership knowingly and with intent marginalized Sanders and his voters.
Yet, Sanders remains loyal and naively believes his voters will stay with him
if he sticks with the party and their chosen candidate that screwed him and
them.
UNFRIGGINBELIEVABLE!
His response reminds me of battered wife syndrome. He has absolutely
bonded with his abusers. He is a sick man as in mentally impaired, maybe fatigued,
and should seriously consider some rest.
I cannot imagine learning after years of planning, hard work and personal
sacrifices being made to fulfill my lifelong ambition to get within a whisker
of achieving my goals, only to learn within weeks after capitulating, that my
entire life's effort was undermined from the beginning by the very apparatus
I aligned with, albeit as an Indy, for decades. An apparatus that must remain
neutral.
Think about his response to Todd. Think about all that man has put himself,
his family, his workers, his voters through this last year. His efforts were
ginormous. Yet, within less than 48 hours the man dismisses the gravity of how
his life's work was deliberately, with intent, sabotaged by the DNC and goes
onto say it's not important, the issues are.
If I were a Bernie supporter I'd be starting a campaign to convince that
man to take some serious time off. Go fishing. Go for hikes whatever. Just get
away from the bubble and clear your head and soul.
Sure the issues are important to his voters but their learning the DNC
put their resources behind their chosen candidate vs remaining neutral as their
Bylaws require, would seriously piss me off. Hell it does piss me off and I'm
not even a Sanders supporter.
And why on earth would any of Sanders voters ever believe that the same
party that marginalized him and his efforts would ever give weight to the issues
he's fighting for!
His response reminds me of battered wife syndrome.
You are assuming that Sanders is a victim instead of a conspirator.
Why
would anyone give any politician in our corrupt system the benefit of the
doubt? Even one that seems to be against 'the system'?
Why didn't Bernie release more than one year of tax returns?
Especially since Hillary cited this as a reason not to release
the transcripts of her speaches to Goldman Sachs.
Why didn't Bernie use the emails against Hillary after the State
Department Inspector General released their report?
This official report clearly demonstrated that Hillary
had consistently misled the nation about her emails.
Why didn't Bernie attack Obama's record on Black/Minority affairs?
Obama's support is part of the reason that Blacks/Minorities
were voting for Hillary. Obama never went to Feruson or New York
or Baltimore. Obama's weak economic stimulous and austerity policies
have been very bad for blacks/minorities. Obama bailed out banks
that targeted minorities for toxic loans. Etc.
Why does Bernie, at 74-years old, care more about Hillary (which
he calls a friend of 25 years) and the Democratic Party than his principles?
AFAICT he got very little for his support (will he get a
cabinet position for himself?). He didn't have to endorse Hillary.
He doesn't have to speak at the Convention (but he will tonight).
"... "it's been 15 years now since the dawn of the criminal 'New American Century'," You must be young. The New American Century was announced at the UN in November, 1991 by George Herbert Walker Bush. ..."
"... Bush lost the election twelve months later, but the criminal who won was even more effective in establishing this new world order than Bush could have ever been. ..."
jfl @ 2, you note that "it's been 15 years now since the dawn of the criminal 'New American Century',"
You must be young. The New American Century was announced at the UN in November, 1991 by George Herbert
Walker Bush. I watched him on television that evening announcing a "new world order" and my blood
ran cold. I knew that evening where all this was leading to. It was leading to where we are right
now.
Bush lost the election twelve months later, but the criminal who won was even more effective in
establishing this new world order than Bush could have ever been.
The New American Century was announced in November, 1991. Internationally, the policy began
with Bush senior urging Sadaam to invade Kuwait, thereby creating a cassus belli for everything that
has happened since.
Domestically, it began with the wanton siege of the Waco religious sect and the murder of Randy
Weaver's wife and baby.
"... Robert Mackey would like you to know that many in the Arab-speaking world are doing some genuine soul-searching about their culture's own role in the emergence of ISIS and that these conspiracy theories have simply been a haven for the obstinate and the self-deluded; Muslims who are too afraid to look themselves and their societies in the mirror. ..."
"... Ha, ha. "Washington." What buffoons! ..."
"... In a report this week on the blistering efficiency and military prowess of ISIS, ABC News reporter James Gordon Meek got an incredibly great, short answer as to where the Islamic State gained its technical expertise: "Probably the Chechens," a U.S. official said. ..."
"... ISIS, or ISIL, or the Islamic State-whatever you want to call it-was nearly dead in 2007, after U.S. forces in Iraq and local Sunni tribes successfully joined forces against the group. It wasn't until the Syrian uprisings that it reemerged as a potent force, after a failed merger with the al-Qaida-affiliated Syrian rebel group al-Nusra, lead most of al-Nusra's foreign-born jihadis to defect to ISIS . ..."
"... "Foreign-born jihadis" here meaning career Islamists like the Chechen groups, which have been conducting terror campaigns, kidnappings, and suicide bombings in Russia , with a reasonable degree of success, for over 15 years now. Some of the most prominent leaders now fighting with ISIS are Chechens: the ginger-bearded "rising star" Omar al-Shishani and the group's Che Guevara, Muslem al-Shishani (the unnervingly studly viking face pictured above). In addition to Saudi and Pakistani assistance, many of the Chechens were led and supported by the CIA-trained Afghan mujahideen, up-to-and-including Osama bin Laden: ace mentors, in other words, with proven experience in a professional terror setting. ..."
"... When not actively defending the Chechen extremists with weirdly bipartisan neocon-neoliberal advocacy groups , policy makers and government officials in Washington have turned a proactively blind eye to Chechen Islamist activities in Russia and here in the United States with infamously fatal consequences. Both the 9/11 Commission Report and FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley have shown that senior-level officials refused to classify Islamic terrorists in Chechnya-like their then-leader Ibn al Khattab who had direct contact with bin Laden-as actual terrorists, thus preventing the FBI from properly investigating "20th hijacker" Zaccarias Moussaoui before 9/11. ..."
"... A big part of the reason for this sensitivity is that covertly letting the Saudis and their Islamic radicals chip away at the oil-rich rubble on the fringes of the collapsed Soviet empire has been America's favored strategy for collecting the spoils of the Cold War. ..."
"... "The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries worked marvelously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army," a former CIA analyst told Swiss journalist Richard Labévière back in the late 1990s . "The same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains of Russian power, and especially to counter the Chinese influence in Central Asia." ..."
Wise Men of Foreign Affairs have jumped at the chance
to debunk a wild rumor that Hillary Clinton bragged about creating ISIS in her new memoir-truly
an easy layup in the annals of punditry. The rumor even got the name of Clinton's memoir wrong. But,
that's OK: The remaining facts still allow America to feel guilty.
According to
at least one Egyptian blogger, the conspiracy theory-complete with fake quotes from a fantasy
version of Clinton's memoir entitled Plan 360-emerged from the hothouse of Egypt's Pro-Mubarak/Pro-Military
Facebook pages: a social circle in which it is already de rigueur to suggest that the U.S.
and the Muslim Brotherhood secretly conspired to orchestrate the Arab Spring. This screenshot of
a Facebook page for the Egyptian military's counter-terrorism and special operations unit,
Task Force 777, and its reconnaissance
special operations unit, Task Force 999, depicts one of the earliest appearances of the fake Clinton
quotes:
Leaving aside for the moment the question of why Clinton would brag about this covert operation,
in progress, in her memoir, what foreign policy objectives could possibly be achieved by America
manufacturing ISIS? Like: Why do that? To what ends?
One version involves Israel (obviously), and something about balkanizing Israel's Mid-East neighbors
to both justify their nefarious Zionist expansion, or whatever, and remove opposition to it. Another
version,
as The Week pointed out Tuesday, claims that the U.S. would plan to recognize an ISIS
caliphate and that this caliphate would turn out to be (somehow) very amenable to America's strategic
and economic interests.
The hashtag #HilaryClintonsMemoirs (
#مذكرات_هيلاري_كلينتون)
quickly started trending across social media in the region,
Huffington Post UK reported, "with satirical tweets mocking the theory with outlandish claims
about what else the Secretary of State might have written-like a secret CIA plot to close all the
restaurants in Cairo and replace them with McDonalds."
Good one, the Middle East. I'm lovin' it.
Not everyone appreciated the Middle East's jokes, however.
Writing in his "Open Source" column for the
New York Times, Robert Mackey would like you to know that many in the Arab-speaking world
are doing some genuine soul-searching about their culture's own role in the emergence of ISIS and
that these conspiracy theories have simply been a haven for the obstinate and the self-deluded; Muslims
who are too afraid to look themselves and their societies in the mirror.
For instance, the Lebanese scholar Ziad Majed
wrote
on his blog that at least six factors from the recent history of the Middle East helped give
birth to the militant movement, including "despotism in the most heinous form that has plagued
the region," as well as "the American invasion of Iraq in 2003," and "a profound crisis, deeply
rooted in the thinking of some Islamist groups seeking to escape from their terrible failure to
confront the challenges of the present toward a delusional model ostensibly taken from the seventh
century."
That sort of introspection is not for everyone, of course, so a popular conspiracy theory has
spread online that offers an easier answer to the riddle of where ISIS came from: Washington.
Ha, ha. "Washington." What buffoons!
Let's learn a valuable lesson from the psychological projections of these weak-willed Third World
plebes: desert Archie Bunkers and izaar-clad Tony Sopranos too parochial in their worldview
and too much in denial of their own culpability to face this present danger.
America is better than that.
Let us examine with clear eyes all the ways in which our own democratically elected government-in
Washington-is responsible for where ISIS came from.
U.S. Policy in Chechnya
In a report this week on the blistering efficiency and military prowess of ISIS, ABC News
reporter James Gordon Meek got
an incredibly great, short answer as to where the Islamic State gained its technical expertise:
"Probably the Chechens," a U.S. official said.
ISIS, or ISIL, or the Islamic State-whatever you want to call it-was nearly dead in 2007,
after U.S. forces in Iraq and local Sunni tribes successfully joined forces against the group. It
wasn't until the Syrian uprisings that it reemerged as a potent force, after a failed merger with
the al-Qaida-affiliated Syrian rebel group al-Nusra,
lead most of al-Nusra's foreign-born jihadis to defect to ISIS.
"Foreign-born jihadis" here meaning career Islamists like the Chechen groups, which have been
conducting
terror
campaigns, kidnappings, and suicide bombings in Russia, with a reasonable degree of success,
for over 15 years now. Some of the most prominent leaders now fighting with ISIS are Chechens:
the ginger-bearded "rising star" Omar al-Shishani and
the group's Che Guevara, Muslem al-Shishani (the unnervingly studly viking face pictured above).
In addition to Saudi and Pakistani assistance, many of the Chechens were led and supported by the
CIA-trained Afghan mujahideen, up-to-and-including Osama bin Laden: ace mentors, in other words,
with proven experience in a professional terror setting.
When not actively defending the Chechen extremists with
weirdly
bipartisan neocon-neoliberal advocacy groups, policy makers and government officials in Washington
have turned a proactively blind eye to Chechen Islamist activities in Russia and here in the United
States with infamously fatal consequences. Both
the 9/11 Commission Report and
FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley have shown that senior-level officials refused to classify Islamic
terrorists in Chechnya-like their then-leader Ibn al Khattab who had direct contact with bin Laden-as
actual terrorists, thus preventing the FBI from properly investigating "20th hijacker" Zaccarias
Moussaoui before 9/11. Another pre-9/11 FBI investigation, this time into a Florida summer camp
run by the Saudi-funded
World Assembly
of Muslim Youth (WAMY), discovered that the group was showing children videos praising Chechen
bombers, only to be pulled off the case according to an FBI memo,
ID 1991-WF-213589, uncovered by
Greg Palast for the BBC and Vice.
Upon further digging by Palast:
Several insiders repeated the same story: U.S. agencies ended the investigation of the bin
Laden-terrorist-Chechen-jihad connection out of fear of exposing uncomfortable facts. U.S. intelligence
had turned a blind eye to the Abdullah bin Laden organisation [yes, WAMY was run by a bin Laden
brother] because our own government was more than happy that our Saudi allies were sending jihadis
to Afghanistan, then, via WAMY, helping Muslims to fight in Bosnia then, later, giving the Russians
grief in Chechnya. The problem is that terrorists are like homing pigeons – they come home to
roost.
As Joe Trento of the National Security News Service, who helped me on the investigation, said,
"It would be unseemly if [someone] were arrested by the FBI and word got back that he'd once been
on the payroll of the CIA What we're talking about is blow-back. What we're talking about is embarrassing,
career-destroying blow-back for intelligence officials."
A big part of the reason for this sensitivity is that covertly letting the Saudis and their
Islamic radicals chip away at the oil-rich rubble on the fringes of the collapsed Soviet empire has
been America's favored strategy for collecting the spoils of the Cold War.
"The policy of guiding the evolution of Islam and of helping them against our adversaries
worked marvelously well in Afghanistan against the Red Army,"
a former CIA analyst told Swiss journalist Richard
Labévière back in the late 1990s. "The same doctrines can still be used to destabilize what remains
of Russian power, and especially to counter the Chinese influence in Central Asia."
Granted: The events of September 11th made this
grand strategy
a little tricky, domestically, but as you may have noticed over the past few years,
particularly in Russian-allied Syria, it's mostly back on track.
"... Speaking at the White House today, President Obama denied unequivocally that the US had any prior knowledge of last week's failed military coup in Turkey, calling on Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to make sure everyone in Turkey knows the US wasn't involved. ..."
"... The early US reaction to the coup has raised a lot of speculation, as Secretary of State John Kerry, during the coup, issued a tepid comment just urging "stability." The US only condemned the coup when it became clear, later that evening, that it was going to fail. ..."
Obama Denies Advance Knowledge of Turkish Coup; Insists US Had No Involvement in Failed Coup
Speaking at the White House today, President Obama denied unequivocally that the US had any
prior knowledge of last week's failed military coup in Turkey, calling on Turkish President Recep
Tayyip Erdogan to make sure everyone in Turkey knows the US wasn't involved.
The early US reaction to the coup has raised a lot of speculation, as Secretary of State John
Kerry, during the coup, issued a tepid comment just urging "stability." The US only condemned the
coup when it became clear, later that evening, that it was going to fail.
Turkey cut power to the Incirlik Air Base, where many US warplanes and dozens of US nuclear weapons
are based, and jailed the commander as a co-conspirator to the coup. That, and Turkey's blaming of
cleric Fethullah Gulen, exiled to the US, as being behind the plot, are likely the source of a lot
of the speculation.
The US has been keen to keep its ties close to Turkey, whoever ends up running it, and the Obama
Administration is understandably eager to distance itself from any suspicion. This is a key part
of why the US has been so reluctant to seriously criticize Turkey's post-coup purge, and why Turkey
feels comfortable pressuring them to extradite Gulen without any evidence.
TEHRAN (FNA)- Arab media outlets quoted diplomats in Ankara as disclosing that Turkey's President
Erdogan was alerted by Russia against an imminent army coup hours before it was initiated on Friday,
while a western media outlet said Erdogan asked his supporters to remain in the streets after receiving
advice from Tehran.
Several Arab media outlets, including Rai Alyoum, quoted diplomatic sources
in Ankara as saying that Turkey's National Intelligence Organization, known locally as the MIT, received
intel from its Russian counterpart that warned of an impending coup in the Muslim state.
The unnamed diplomats said the Russian army in the region had intercepted highly sensitive army
exchanges and encoded radio messages showing that the Turkish army was readying to stage a coup against
the administration in Ankara.
The exchanges included dispatch of several army choppers to President Erdogan's resort hotel to
arrest or kill the president.
The diplomats were not sure of the Russian station that had intercepted the exchanges, but said
the Russian army intelligence unit deployed in Khmeimim (also called Hmeimim) in Syria's Northern
province of Lattakia is reportedly equipped with state-of-the-art electronic and eavesdropping systems
to gather highly sensitive information for the Russian squadrons that are on an anti-terrorism mission
in Syria.
Khmeimim in Northwestern Syria is the only Russian air force base in the war-ravaged country that
provides cover for Syrian army and popular forces in multiple fronts across the country, in addition
to bombing missions against terrorist targets. The Russian naval fleet, including its only aircraft
carrier, are deployed along the coasts of Lattakia border province to provide logistical aid to the
air base in a short time. Meantime, Russia has deployed its highly sophisticated S-400 air defense
shield at Khmeimim and announced that it covers the entire Syrian skies with the same air defense
system.
Last year, Turkey shot down a Russian Sukhoi bomber over Syrian skies and President Erdogan who
was then a staunch enemy of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad rejected extending an apology to Moscow
for about a year, although economic sanctions by Russia as well as growing victories by the Syrian
army, popular forces, Hezbollah fighters, Iranian advisors and Russian air force that cornered the
terrorists in Syria and similar victories against ISIL in Iraq convinced the Turkish president to
not just apologize for the Sukhoi incident, but also show signs of a U-turn in foreign policy, saying
that he is dropping his opposition to President Assad.
Four days after the coup, officials in Ankara announced that the two Turkish pilots who played
a role in the downing of the Russian plane in November were in custody over the recent failed coup.
"Two pilots who were part of the operation to down the Russian Su-24 in November 2015 are in custody,"
a Turkish official told journalists on Tuesday, adding that they were detained over links to the
coup bid.
Russian President Vladimir Putin called his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Sunday,
describing the attempted coup as unacceptable and voicing hope for a speedy return to stability.
The diplomatic sources said the shift in Erdogan's foreign policy stated only a week before the
coup has been "a major cause pushing several foreign states to provoke and promise support for the
army to stage the coup, and the same shift also saved him" as it was not clear if the Russians would
provide Ankara with their intel, otherwise.
Officials of neither country have made any comment on the report yet. In Ankara, official sources,
including the Army itself, confirmed that the Turkish army's top generals had been informed of last
week's coup by the MIT hours before the plot came into action.
A statement issued by the army on July 19 described the events that took place on July 15, saying
a majority within the military managed to suppress the coup attempt due to information provided by
the MIT some five hours before the coup plot became public, national newspaper Hurriyet reported.
"The information given by the National Intelligence Organization on July 15, 2016, at around 4:00
p.m. was evaluated at the General Staff headquarters with the attendance of Chief of Staff General
Hulusi Akar, Chief of the Army General Salih Zeki Colak and Deputy Chief of Staff General Yasar Guler."
In order to counter the coup, high ranking officials within the Turkish army gave orders for all
air and ground forces around the country to immediately cease operations including military vehicles
such as tanks, planes and helicopters.
A report by Al-Jazeera Arabic suggests the coup plotters initiated the operation six hours ahead
of time as they had previously planned to launch the coup at 3:00 a.m. local time on July 16.
While the report does not indicate the reason for the coup being initiated ahead of time, the
revelation by the military suggests the coup plotters understood their plans had been compromised
and decided to act. 1
Reports also suggest the coup plotters had orders to kidnap or kill President Recep Tayyip Erdogan
as helicopters headed toward the hotel he was staying in at the holiday resort of Marmaris. But Erdogan
had left 44 minutes before they arrived, according to Al-Jazeera's report.
The official statements coming out from Ankara are in full compliance with the Arab media reports
quoting the diplomatic sources on the Russian intel.
Only four days after the coup, Erdogan appeared on the media saying that he plans to declare a
crucial turn in foreign policy that would "end differences with Turkey's neighboring states".
Less than a day later, Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov announced that President Erdogan would
visit Russia early in August to meet with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin.
Meantime, Iran rushed to condemn the Turkish army coup only two hours after it started. Several
top security and foreign policy officials in Tehran were in constant contact with President Erdogan
and his cabinet ministers all throughout Friday.
As July 15 was coming to an end in Tehran, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif was on
the phone with his Turkish counterpart Mevlut Cavusoglu, whose government was under the threat of
being overthrown by a military coup. Meanwhile, Ali Shamkhani, the secretary of Iran's Supreme National
Security Council (SNSC), was on another line with security officials in Ankara. All the while, Qassem
Soleimani, the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' Quds Force, Iran's regional military
arm, was busy pursuing and reviewing various scenarios that might emerge.
"It's not a secret anymore," an Iranian official told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity. "Zarif,
Shamkhani and Soleimani were executing higher orders. The whole establishment was too concerned.
Turkey is a neighboring state. President Erdogan and his government are strong partners of Iran.
Our nations enjoy strong brotherly ties, so it's the least we can do to show solidarity and try to
offer any help they might need in such critical times."
"Another Iranian official saw parallels between the successful coup against Iranian Prime Minister
Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953 and this year's coup attempt in Turkey," Al-Monitor said.
The official told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity, "What we know is that this move was triggered
by foreign hands. We went through the same in the past, and because Mr. Erdogan is today looking
forward to playing a better role in the region, they want him down." The Iranian official said, "There
was a message that was conveyed to Turkish security officials: Don't leave the streets. This coup
might be made up of several waves; it happened in Iran in 1953. When the first coup failed, they
had another one ready - and they succeeded."
In Ankara, the government claims the coup and the generals behind it are loyal followers of US-based
Islamic cleric Fethullah Gulen, who was once Erdogan's key ally before a major fallout in 2012. Many
believe that Gulen is the main cause of why Ankara officials have repeatedly accused the US of masterminding
the plot.
Gulen is running a multi-billion dollar enterprise in Saudi Arabia and has grown into a serious
bone of contention in Ankara-Riyadh ties. Saudi Arabia reserved condemnation of the coup in a suspicious
move. Later, reports surfaced the media that the top brass in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi – two strong allies
of the US with unbreakably intimate ties with each other in the Persian Gulf – were involved in the
coup.
Saudi whistle-blower Mujtahid, who is believed to be a member of or have a well-connected source
in the royal family, dislosed that senior government officials in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi had been informed
of the coup in Turkey long before it took place.
Mujtahid wrote on his twitter page on Monday that the UAE leaders had played a role in the coup
and the Turkish spy agencies have come to decode this involvement, adding that the UAE leaders had
also alerted the Saudis about the impending coup.
"Saudi Deputy Crown Prince and Defense Minister Mohammad bin Salman had been informed of the military
coup in Turkey," Mujtahid wrote on his twitter page on Monday.
"There are reasons to prove that given his intimate relations with Mohammad bin Zayed bin Sultan
Al-Nahyan (the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and Deputy Supreme Commander of the UAE Armed Forces), Mohammad
bin Salman had been filled with information about this coup," he added.
According to Mujtahid, Turkish intelligence agencies had received information about some negative
collaboration between bin Salman and bin Zayed, but the Saudis managed to convince the Justice and
Development party to rest assured and be optimistic about Riyadh's actions.
He revealed that bin Salman has been trying to convince the Turks to conceal the UAE's role in
the coup and has promised a large amount of cash in retribution.
The last week coup in Turkey is now growing into a major regional confrontation over Turkey's
shift in its Syria policy now. If confirmed, the Russian and Iranian aid to Erdogan would mean the
power balance and equations in the region ought to be redefined.
Trump may not know or care to know that Barack Obama has spent eight years pounding on al Qaeda,
not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but also through the use of drones and other covert campaigns in
Syria, Somalia, and Yemen. In his two terms, George W. Bush ordered 49 drone strikes against al Qaeda
and Taliban-associated targets in the tribal areas of Pakistan. Obama, during his first two years
of office, ordered 174. These are facts, but to Trump and Giuliani, they may not matter. After all,
what good does killing radical Islamic terrorists do if Obama refuses to call the enemy by its name?
1). You uncritically express the establishment line that "Obama is killing radical terrorists,"
when the most accurate description is "Obama is killing people suspected of something, and also killing
those near them."
2). 90% of drone strike victims are not the intended target.
3). Obama's militarism is founded on Full Spectrum Dominance for corporate America and allied
interests, not "fighting terrorism."
4). Chest-pounding to boast Obama is a violent bastard like the Republicans is – while true –
obscene.
W0X0F July 23 2016, 9:57 p.m.
Giuliani is one of the bad guys. He has helped cover up the 9/11 deception. Bldg 7 contained his
emergency HQ. We all know it was "pulled"!
Orville, July 23 2016, 9:05 p.m.
Alas, Guliani is still around. I remember how the media announced him as the winner of a
presidential debate, solely for going against Ron Paul's factual statement that we are hated
for our overseas meddling. (Never mind that various intelligence figures backed Paul-
including Michael Scheuer, who endorsed Paul the next day, or that the voters themselves
backed Paul in the polls and primaries.
George C, July 23 2016, 8:40 p.m.
"Man has an intense need for certainty; he wants to believe that there is no need to doubt
that the method by which he makes his decisions is right. In fact, he would rather make the
"wrong" decision and be sure about it than the "right" decision and be tormented with doubt
about its validity. This is one of the psychological reasons for man's belief in idols and
political leaders. They all take out doubt and risk from his decision making; this does not
mean that there is not a risk for his life, freedom, etc., after the decision has been made,
but that there is no risk that the method of his decision making was wrong. For many centuries
certainty
Fromm, Erich. The Revolution of Hope: Toward a Humanized Technology
photosymbiosis -> rrheard, July 23 2016, 8:45 p.m.
I don't know, I appreciate the focus on Giuliani who is an utter slimeball in the same mold
as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and the Clintons.
However, a more careful analysis of Giuliani's background in the second section ('Altar Boys')
would have had a more devastating impact. Giuliani is the perfect example of a corrupt
prosecutor; his claim to fame was prosecuting a Italian mafia drug ring – and then he went to
work for the Purdue Pharma oxycontin drug ring. He's also a close long-time associate of FBI
Director Louis Freeh, who notably went to work for the Wall Street credit giant MBNA (#2 Bush
donor after Enron) after his FBI term ended. MBNA was later bought by Bank of America, who
wrote off $60 billion in shady MBNA credit loans from 2008-2010, probably got a taxpayer
bailout for that too. Who are the crooks, again?
See David Vise's "The Bureau and the Mole" about FBI agent / Soviet mole (and Opus Dei member)
Robert Hannsen, about the Giuliani-Freeh connection.
http://blogcritics.org/spy-vs-spy-the-bureau-and/
Really, all of Giuliani's talk about "law and order" is utter BS; the guy is a crook as his
lobbying the DEA to get Purdue Pharma off criminal charges for illegal oxycontin distribution
shows. This was all done through a shady firm he set up after leaving office called "Giuliani
Partners" c.2002
Crooked Rudy Giuliani, Lyin' Rudy Giuliani – basically a con artist in the same mold as the
Clintons, cashing in with the corporate crooks every chance they can get. (Giuliani pulled in
$11 million in speaking fees in 2006 alone, outdoing Clinton I think).
Fellow Citizen, July 23 2016, 7:29 p.m.
How are Republicans going to make America great again when the problem is Democrats
becoming Republicans by destroying the American middle class, and placeing our poor in what
now has become a state of abject poverty?
"... FBI agents who worked on the investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server reportedly had to sign an unusual non-disclosure form banning them from talking about the case unless they were called to testify. ..."
"... Unnamed sources tell the New York Post they'd never heard of the special form - known as a "case briefing acknowledgment" - being used before, though all agents initially have to sign nondisclosure agreements to obtain security clearance. ..."
FBI agents who worked on the investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server reportedly had to sign an unusual
non-disclosure form banning them from talking about the case unless they were called to testify.
Unnamed
sources tell the New York Post they'd never heard of the special form - known as a "case briefing acknowledgment" - being
used before, though all agents initially have to sign nondisclosure agreements to obtain security clearance.
"This is very, very unusual. I've never signed one, never circulated one to others," one unnamed retired FBI chief tells the Post.
"I have never heard of such a form. Sounds strange," an anonymous FBI agent said.
The Post additionally reports some FBI agents are disappointed that Director James Comey decided against recommending that
charges be broughtagainst Clinton for her mishandling of classified information.
"FBI agents believe there was an inside deal put in place after the [Attorney
General] Loretta Lynch/Bill Clinton tarmac meeting" just hours before the release of a House report on the Benghazi, Libya
terror attack in 2012, one unnamed source tells the Post.
Another Justice Department source tells the newspaper he was "furious" with Comey, deriding him for having "managed to piss off right
and left."
"... Campaign manager Robbie Mook and communications director Jennifer Palmieri-who would later help coax the candidate into issuing an apology-agreed, according to people close to the situation. ..."
"... One thing was quite clear: Clinton was in no mood to apologize for, or even admit to, an error in judgment. She'd repeatedly tell her staff "I have done nothing wrong" and maintained she was simply following the example set by George W. Bush's first secretary of state, Colin Powell, who had transacted much of his own State Department business over private email. ..."
Hillary Clinton is a hard woman to counsel during
a crisis. She is at times warm, at times withering-when staffers offer excuses, her favorite rejoinder
is "shoulda, woulda, coulda!"-and she's prone to fretting that her staff doesn't have her back.
For all the dysfunction on her famously infighting 2008 campaign, Clinton's team that year was
made up of many old friends who knew how to navigate her moods and reassure her when things went
sour. Facing the server scandal, Clinton headed into battle surrounded by people she hardly knew,
and a staff so new that many weren't even officially on the payroll yet. The fact that she spent
most of her time working out of a Manhattan office and seldom visited her cubicle-farm headquarters
in seriously un-hip downtown Brooklyn didn't help either.
When the story splashed onto the New York Times website on the evening of March 2, Clinton
was above all angry, and in the first strategy sessions-over the phone -- she defaulted to what old
Clinton hands refer to as "pity party mode," dismissing the media frenzy over the emails as a whiffle-ball
Whitewater while railing against the very real right-wing campaign amassed against her.
Podesta, often speaking on the road or from his home in Washington, counseled transparency and
disclosure within the legal restrictions placed on him by Kendall. Clinton's new pollster and strategist,
Joel Benenson-a longtime Obama adviser with no longstanding personal relationship with the candidate
-- advised her to take responsibility for what had been, at the least, a political mistake. Campaign
managerRobbie Mook and communications director Jennifer Palmieri-who would later help coax
the candidate into issuing an apology-agreed, according to people close to the situation.
Even Mills, Clinton's most trusted and protective adviser-a lawyer who had been aware of the server
setup as Clinton's chief of staff at the State Department-agreed on the politics. Nonetheless, Mills
had a knack for expressing the advice in the most frightening terms possible: Air your linen, she'd
say, but you'll pay a terrible personal price.
One thing was quite clear: Clinton was in no mood to apologize for, or even admit to, an error
in judgment. She'd repeatedly tell her staff "I have done nothing wrong" and maintained she was simply
following the example set by George W. Bush's first secretary of state, Colin Powell, who had transacted
much of his own State Department business over private email.
"... This research documents that the negative effects of globalization on employment and wages are larger than many people realized. In addition, it recognizes that most of the benefits have accrued to those at the top of the income distribution while the costs -- lost jobs, lower wages and fewer attractive employment opportunities -- have fallen mainly on the working class. ..."
The toughest question about global trade: This year's battle for the
White House has put international trade in the spotlight. Donald Trump has
led the charge against trade agreements, but Hillary Clinton's reversal
of her support for President Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) also
reflects the evolving view of the benefits of globalization.
The American public has long been suspicious of international trade, but
economists have been much more supportive. However, new evidence in the
economics literature has caused a rethinking of how to evaluate trade agreements.
This research documents that the negative effects of globalization
on employment and wages are larger than many people realized. In addition,
it recognizes that most of the benefits have accrued to those at the top
of the income distribution while the costs -- lost jobs, lower wages and
fewer attractive employment opportunities -- have fallen mainly on the working
class.
One response from many advocates is to point out that international trade
has lifted millions of people around the world out of poverty and that reducing
the pace of globalization would slow the rate of global poverty reduction.
All of which brings up an important and rather difficult question: Just
how should we value international trade? ...
Tom aka Rusty said...
Who decided that US workers would be required to sacrifice to create a middle
class in China (and the Chinese military, oops)? Why didn't the elites join
in the sacrifice? Why no transparency? Or was this pushed with great theories
that didn't work? Just wondering.
"... On Monday night, aides for the former secretary of state held a private conference call with members of the Democratic National Committee's Rules Committee and laid out how the campaign would like those members to vote at an upcoming rules meeting in Philadelphia. The purpose of the conference call was to answer any questions and ensure that the Rules Committee members, picked by DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and by Clinton, remained in lockstep with the presumptive Democratic nominee. ..."
"... The stars will ultimately align and the convention will go smoothly and without a hitch. Bernie and Liddy Warren will continue their unabashed endorsement of Her, the party will be united, and the good of the American people will be top priority on the go forward. Curtain. Exit stage left. Thank you for attending another Clinton Theater production. ..."
Looks like there's a slightly different dynamic in the Clinton camp:
On Monday night, aides for the former secretary of state held a private conference call
with members of the Democratic National Committee's Rules Committee and laid out how the campaign
would like those members to vote at an upcoming rules meeting in Philadelphia. The purpose
of the conference call was to answer any questions and ensure that the Rules Committee members,
picked by DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and by Clinton, remained in lockstep with
the presumptive Democratic nominee.
The roughly 30-minute call was a glimpse into how Clinton officials have sought to shape
the party platform and party rules with minimal public drama. Campaign officials have corresponded
with members via text messages to direct them how to vote and counseled them to bring concerns
directly to the campaign, rather than follow a process laid out by the DNC for submitting amendments
and resolutions. …
The plea to keep any policy disputes in-house, and off-camera, underscores the campaign's
determination to present a united front at the convention, and stave off any conflict between
the Clinton-aligned committee members and Sanders members during the drafting process. A few
months ago, Sanders was vowing to take his policy sticking points all the way to the convention
floor.
This is nothing more than a ploy to get Sanders supporters to watch the convention coverage,
so we can become acquainted with the "new" Hillary Clinton, and thus vote for Her in November.
"Let's all tune in; maybe the Bernie delegates will turn the party upside down". Expect to
be disappointed.
The stars will ultimately align and the convention will go smoothly and without a hitch. Bernie
and Liddy Warren will continue their unabashed endorsement of Her, the party will be united, and
the good of the American people will be top priority on the go forward. Curtain. Exit stage left.
Thank you for attending another Clinton Theater production.
Oh, and none of the speeches will result in legislation that actually benefits the American
people, but at least they won't be plagiarized!
"... Real income stagnation over a far longer period than any since the second world war is a fundamental political fact. But it cannot be the only driver of discontent. For many of those in the middle of the income distribution, cultural changes also appear threatening. So, too, does immigration - globalisation made flesh. Citizenship of their nations is the most valuable asset owned by most people in wealthy countries. They will resent sharing this with outsiders. Britain's vote to leave the EU was a warning. ..."
"... First, understand that we depend on one another for our prosperity. It is essential to balance assertions of sovereignty with the requirements of global co-operation. ..."
"... Second, reform capitalism. The role of finance is excessive. The stability of the financial system has improved. But it remains riddled with perverse incentives. The interests of shareholders are given excessive weight over those of other stakeholders in corporations. ..."
"... Above all, recognise the challenge. Prolonged stagnation, cultural upheavals and policy failures are combining to shake the balance between democratic legitimacy and global order. The candidacy of Mr Trump is a result. ..."
Real income stagnation over a longer period than any since the war is a fundamental political
fact
For every complex problem, there is an answer that is
clear, simple and wrong." HL Mencken could have been thinking of today's politics. The western
world undoubtedly confronts complex problems, notably, the dissatisfaction of so many citizens. Equally,
aspirants to power, such as Donald Trump in the US and Marine Le Pen in France, offer clear, simple
and wrong solutions - notably, nationalism, nativism and protectionism.
The remedies they offer are bogus. But the illnesses are real. If governing elites continue to
fail to offer convincing cures, they might soon be swept away and, with them, the effort to marry
democratic self-government with an open and co-operative world order.
What is the explanation for this backlash? A large part of the answer must be economic. Rising
prosperity is a good in itself.
But it also creates the possibility of positive-sum politics. This underpins democracy because
it is then feasible for everybody to become better off at the same time. Rising prosperity reconciles
people to economic and social disruption. Its absence foments rage.
The
McKinsey Global Institute sheds powerful light on what has been happening in a report entitled,
tellingly, Poorer than their Parents?, which demonstrates how many households have been suffering
from stagnant or falling real incomes. On average between 65 and 70 per cent of households in 25
high-income economies experienced this between 2005 and 2014. In the period between 1993 and 2005,
however, only 2 per cent of households suffered stagnant or declining real incomes. This applies
to market income. Because of fiscal redistribution, the proportion suffering from stagnant real disposable
incomes was between 20 and 25 per cent. (See charts.)
McKinsey has examined personal satisfaction through a survey of 6,000 French, British and Americans.
The consultants found that satisfaction depended more on whether people were advancing relative to
others like them in the past than whether they were improving relative to those better off than themselves
today. Thus people preferred becoming better off, even if they were not catching up with contemporaries
better off still. Stagnant incomes bother people more than rising inequality.
The main explanation for the prolonged stagnation in real incomes is the financial crises and
subsequent weak recovery. These experiences have destroyed popular confidence in the competence and
probity of business, administrative and political elites. But other shifts have also been adverse.
Among these are ageing (particularly important in Italy) and declining shares of wages in national
income (particularly important in the US, UK and Netherlands).
Real income stagnation over a far longer period than any since the second world war is a fundamental
political fact. But it cannot be the only driver of discontent. For many of those in the middle of
the income distribution, cultural changes also appear threatening. So, too, does immigration - globalisation
made flesh. Citizenship of their nations is the most valuable asset owned by most people in wealthy
countries. They will resent sharing this with outsiders. Britain's vote to leave the EU was a warning.
So what is to be done? If Mr Trump were to become president of the US,
it might already be too late. But suppose that this does not happen or, if it does, that the
result is not as dire as I fear. What then might be done?
First, understand that we depend on one another for our prosperity. It is essential to
balance assertions of sovereignty with the requirements of global co-operation. Global governance,
while essential, must be oriented towards doing things countries cannot do for themselves. It
must focus on providing the
essential global public goods. Today this means climate change is a higher priority than further
opening of world trade or capital flows.
Second, reform capitalism. The role of finance is excessive. The stability of the financial
system has improved. But it remains riddled with perverse incentives. The interests of shareholders
are given excessive weight over those of other stakeholders in corporations.
Third, focus international co-operation where it will help governments achieve significant
domestic objectives.
Perhaps the most important is taxation. Wealth owners, who depend on the security created
by legitimate democracies, should not escape taxation.
Fourth, accelerate economic growth and improve opportunities. Part of the answer is stronger
support for aggregate demand, particularly in the eurozone. But it is also essential to promote
investment and innovation.
It may be impossible to transform economic prospects. But higher minimum wages and generous
tax credits for working people are effective tools for raising incomes at the bottom of the distribution.
Fifth, fight the quacks. It is impossible to resist pressure to control flows of unskilled
workers into advanced economies. But this will not transform wages. Equally, protection against
imports is costly and will also fail to raise the share of manufacturing in employment significantly.
True, that share is far higher in Germany than in the US or UK. But Germany runs a huge trade
surplus and has a strong comparative advantage in manufacturing. This is not a generalisable state
of affairs. (See chart.)
Above all, recognise the challenge. Prolonged stagnation, cultural upheavals and policy failures
are combining to shake the balance between democratic legitimacy and global order. The candidacy
of Mr Trump is a result. Those who reject the chauvinist response must come forward with imaginative
and ambitious ideas aimed at re-establishing that balance. It is not going to be easy. But failure
must not be accepted.
Our civilisation itself is at stake.
Three days after the mysterious Turkish coup that was put down almost instantly, Turkish
president Erdogan has conducted massive purges of the judiciary and the military. He even
referred to the coup as a "godsend" that would allow him to rid the government of those who are
disloyal. The purges have focused attention in Washington and Brussels, where he is being warned
that talks for EU membership - and even existing NATO membership - may be at risk if the
government crackdown gets more serious. Is the US and EU bluffing? After all, Erdogan currently
has nearly three million Syrian refugees on Turkish soil that he could send to Europe at any
time. And closing the US base at Incirlik would create havoc for US "power projection" in the
region. We examine these and more in today's Ron Paul Liberty Report:
News reports about the recently released 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry into the 9/11 attacks
are typically dismissive: this is nothing new, it's just circumstantial evidence, and there's no
"smoking gun." Yet given what the report actually says – and these news accounts are remarkably
sparse when it comes to verbatim quotes – it's hard to fathom what would constitute a smoking
gun.
To begin with, let's start with what's not in these pages: there are numerous redactions. And
they are rather odd. When one expects to read the words "CIA" or "FBI," instead we get a
blacked-out word. Entire paragraphs are redacted – often at crucial points. So it's reasonable to
assume that, if there is a smoking gun, it's contained in the portions we're not allowed to see.
Presumably the members of Congress with access to the document prior to its release who have been
telling us that it changes their entire conception of the 9/11 attacks – and our relationship
with the Saudis – read the unredacted version. Which points to the conclusion that the omissions
left out crucial information – perhaps including the vaunted smoking gun.
In any case, what we have access to makes more than just a substantial case: it shows that the
Saudi government – including top officials, such as then Saudi ambassador to the US, Prince
Bandar bin Sultan, and other members of the royal family – financed and actively aided the
hijackers prior to September 11, 2001.
"... The Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, maintained this secrecy for several reasons. First, it was concerned that the documents would jeopardize its relations with Saudi Arabia, which, after Israel, is Washington's closest ally in the Middle East, a partner in bloody operations from Afghanistan to Syria to Yemen, and the world's biggest buyer of American arms. ..."
"... Even more importantly, it was concerned that the 28 pages would further expose the abject criminality of the US government's role in facilitating the attacks of 9/11 and then lying about their source and exploiting them to justify savage wars of aggression, first against Afghanistan and then against Iraq. These wars have claimed over a million lives. The false narrative created around the September 11 attacks remains the ideological pillar of the US campaign of global militarism conducted in the name of a "war on terror." ..."
"... The report focuses in part on the role of one Omar al-Bayoumi, who was described to the FBI as a Saudi intelligence officer, and, according to FBI files, "provided substantial assistance to hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi after they arrived in San Diego in February 2000." ..."
"... According to the report, al-Bayoumi had previously worked for the Saudi Civil Aviation Association and, in the period leading up to 9/11, was "in frequent contact with the Emir at the Saudi Defense Ministry responsible for air traffic control." Phone records showed him calling Saudi government agencies 100 times between January and May of 2000. ..."
"... Bassnan's wife also received a monthly stipend from Princess Haifa, the Saudi ambassador's wife, to the tune of $2,000 a month. As well, the FBI found one $15,000 check written by Bandar himself in 1998 to Bassnan. The report states that FBI information indicated that Bassnan was "an extremist and supporter of Usama Bin Ladin," who spoke of the Al Qaeda leader "as if he were god." ..."
"... The obvious anomalies in the Pentagon incident and the Shanksville, Pennsylvania crash merely add to the mountain of evidence that exists pointing to some cabal that ran a MIHOP operation that day. This is not new information and has been made available by the many independent investigators who have been diligently digging into this signal event for nearly 15 years now. ..."
"... Much more likely suspects would be those Americans named by Kevin Ryan in his book "Another Nineteen", and/or the Israeli Mossad and military agents (5 of whom were arrested in New Jersey while making a video record of "the event" and who were noticed by an outraged citizen who called local police who arrested them and the spent 2 months in U.S. jails, finally released by dual Israeli / U.S. citizen Michael Chertoff, 3 of them appeared later on Israeli TV and bragged about the operation in plain Hebrew). ..."
"... My father was a structural design engineer who designed heavy steel structures like the WTC and also nuclear power plants and wind tunnels for NASA. He was an expert on types of steel, how it was made and what its properties were. The moment he saw the first tower collapse into it own footprint, he said 'That's a controlled demolition." He knew that fire alone would not have been enough to even dent the steel in the WTC, let alone pulverize it. Everything in the building could have burned and the steel would have remained standing, slightly scorched, but largely intact. To believe otherwise is not to believe in the laws of physics or the science of metallurgy. ..."
"... 9/11 was/is a criminally managed event involving some of America's highest officials. ..."
"... Ahhhh yes, and no less a group of people than members of the NYFD who charged up into those buildings were not concerned about them collapsing. In fact one team of firefighters who made it up to the impact zone in one of the towers reported the fire there as "no big deal" and "easily controlled". Other firefighters and various police did, however, report many explosions, most of them deep in the buildings far below the impact zones. ..."
"... Dutch controlled demolition expert Danny Jowenko, upon seeing a video of the collapse of Tower 7 immediately said (I think this comment was made in 2007) "This is controlled demolition"; of course he died in a suspicious one car accident, in which his car hit a tree head on on July 16th, 2011 (similar to how some of the JFK assassination witnesses were eliminated). A couple of videos of his comments can be seen in a "Veteran's Today" article found at < http://www.veteranstoday.com/2... >. ..."
"... One should ask why the Mossad and the extremely powerful Israel lobby have seen fit to participate in the cover-up for so long. They certainly would have ignored the U.S. government's desire for secrecy and gotten this information out (which they surely knew from their own sources) if they didn't have something to hide. But that cover-up continues. ..."
"... The true "smoking gun" of the 9/11 atrocities is the eight-second symmetrical free-fall collapse of WTC #7. The claim that this occurred because of office fires is ludicrous, entirely impossible. It was a conventional implosion, carried off in one of the most secure buildings in NYC, sheltering the CIA, FBI and the mayor's emergency bunker and would have taken weeks to prepare. ..."
"... I saw the video on TV and was surprised that it went unquestioned on why it collapsed. Even the clean symmetrical fall of the second tower to collapse, was neat and symmetric. ..."
"... In my educated opinion, supported by facts of the case conveniently omitted, the release of the small section of the Congressional report kept secret for 13 years is what they call in the CIA a "limited hangout", which is contains a mix of both truth and omissions or outright lies, and exposes the audience to a falsity more dangerous and misleading than an outright lie. ..."
"... The best evidence if this were ever taken to court, would be the stand down by the military that morning in the intercepting of these "hijackers" as they made their way to their targets. And Cheneys barking orders to a subordinate in the crisis control room beneath the white house that yes the orders still stand, as flight 175? made its way toward the Pentagon ..."
"... Excuse me, but the towers of the WTC WERE very heavy structurally. Particularly the central cores, which contained heavily redundant layers of steel, and special steel at that. ..."
The Obama White House, the CIA, the Saudi monarchy and the corporate media have all tried to portray
the documents-released on a Friday afternoon to assure minimal exposure-as somehow exonerating the
Saudi regime of any culpability in the 9/11 attacks.
"This information does not change the assessment
of the US government that there's no evidence that the Saudi government or senior Saudi individuals
funded al-Qaeda," Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary said Friday, boasting that the main
significance of their release was its proof of the Obama administration's commitment to "transparency."
In reality, the 28 pages have been kept under lock and key since 2002, with only members of Congress
allowed to read them, in a Capitol Hill basement vault, while prohibited from taking notes, bringing
members of their staff or breathing a word of their content.
The Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, maintained this secrecy
for several reasons. First, it was concerned that the documents would jeopardize its relations with
Saudi Arabia, which, after Israel, is Washington's closest ally in the Middle East, a partner in
bloody operations from Afghanistan to Syria to Yemen, and the world's biggest buyer of American arms.
Even more importantly, it was concerned that the 28 pages would further expose the abject
criminality of the US government's role in facilitating the attacks of 9/11 and then lying about
their source and exploiting them to justify savage wars of aggression, first against Afghanistan
and then against Iraq. These wars have claimed over a million lives. The false narrative created
around the September 11 attacks remains the ideological pillar of the US campaign of global militarism
conducted in the name of a "war on terror."
Media reports on the 28 pages invariably refer to the absence of a "smoking gun," which presumably
would be tantamount to an order signed by the Saudi king to attack New York and Washington. The evidence
is described as "inconclusive." One can only imagine what would have been the response if, in place
of the word "Saudi," the documents referred to Iraqi, Syrian or Iranian actions. The same evidence
would have been proclaimed an airtight case for war.
Among those who were involved in preparing the report, John Lehman, the former secretary of the
navy, directly contradicted the official response to the release of the previously censored section.
"There was an awful lot of participation by Saudi individuals in supporting the hijackers, and some
of those people worked in the Saudi government," he said. "Our report should never have been read
as an exoneration of Saudi Arabia."
... ... ...
The report focuses in part on the role of one Omar al-Bayoumi, who was described to the FBI
as a Saudi intelligence officer, and, according to FBI files, "provided substantial assistance to
hijackers Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi after they arrived in San Diego in February 2000."
The inquiry report deals with al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar only from after they arrived in California,
and says nothing about the circumstances under which they were allowed to enter the country in the
first place. Both were under CIA surveillance while attending an Al Qaeda planning meeting in 2000
in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and placed on a "watch list" for FBI monitoring if they came to the United
States. Nonetheless, the two men were allowed to enter the United States on January 15, 2000, landing
at Los Angeles International Airport, eventually going to San Diego. From then on, they were permitted
to operate freely, attending flight training school in preparation for their role as pilots of hijacked
planes on September 11, 2001.
Al-Bayoumi, the report establishes, "received support from a Saudi company affiliated with the
Saudi Ministry of Defense," drawing a paycheck for a no-show job. The report states that the company
also had ties to Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
According to the report, al-Bayoumi had previously worked for the Saudi Civil Aviation Association
and, in the period leading up to 9/11, was "in frequent contact with the Emir at the Saudi Defense
Ministry responsible for air traffic control." Phone records showed him calling Saudi government
agencies 100 times between January and May of 2000.
FBI documents also established that the $465 in "allowances" that al-Bayoumi received through
the Saudi military contractor, jumped to over $3,700 shortly after the arrival of al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar.
During this period, al-Bayoumi initially allowed the two future hijackers to stay in his apartment
before finding them their own place-with an informant of the San Diego FBI-cosigning their lease
and advancing them a deposit and the first month's rent.
The report states that FBI investigations following 9/11 indicated that al-Bayoumi had "some ties
to terrorist elements." His wife, meanwhile, was receiving a $1,200 a month stipend from Princess
Haifa Bint Sultan, the wife of Prince Bandar, then the Saudi ambassador to the US and later head
of Saudi intelligence.
Also named in the document as a likely Saudi intelligence agent is one Osama Bassnan, who lived
across the street from the two hijackers in San Diego and was in telephone contact with al-Bayoumi
several times a day during this period. He apparently placed the two in contact with a Saudi commercial
airline pilot for discussions on "learning to fly Boeing jet aircraft," according to an FBI report.
Bassnan's wife also received a monthly stipend from Princess Haifa, the Saudi ambassador's wife,
to the tune of $2,000 a month. As well, the FBI found one $15,000 check written by Bandar himself
in 1998 to Bassnan. The report states that FBI information indicated that Bassnan was "an extremist
and supporter of Usama Bin Ladin," who spoke of the Al Qaeda leader "as if he were god."
Appearing before the Congressional inquiry in October 2002, FBI Executive Assistant Director for
Counterterrorism Pasquale D'Amuro reacted with undisguised cynicism and contempt when asked about
the payments from the Saudi ambassador's wife to the wives of the two reputed intelligence agents
involved with the 9/11 hijackers.
"She gives money to a lot of different groups and people from around the world," he said. "We've
been able to uncover a number of these… but maybe if we can discover that she gives to 20 different
radical groups, well, gee, maybe there's a pattern here." Spoken like a man who believes he is above
the law in defense of a figure that he clearly sees as untouchable.
Mr Van Auken presents a Let It Happen on Purpose (LIHOP) position in this article. Clearly it
is better to have arrived at that level of awareness than to just swallow the absurd "official
story" that is, unfortunately, the position of much of the so-called Left in the U.S., e.g. Noam
Chomsky and his ilk. The LIHOP position suffers from a fatal flaw, the 3 towers that collapsed
in Lower Manhattan that could not conceivably have done so due to just the plane impacts (on Towers
1 & 2, which were specifically designed to withstand impacts by one or more Boeing 707s full of
fuel, a plane similar in size to the 767s that did hit the towers) and/or the fairly insignificant
office fires the occurred in all three towers (this includes Tower 7 that collapsed after some
minor office fires and was never hit by a plane). Tower 7 was an absolutely classic example of
a controlled demolition / implosion, while Towers 1 & 2 are modified controlled demolitions meant
to make it look like the planes had caused the collapses. The implications of controlled demolitions
are that only a Make it Happen on Purpose (MIHOP) process can actually explain what happened in
New York on that day.
The obvious anomalies in the Pentagon incident and the Shanksville, Pennsylvania crash
merely add to the mountain of evidence that exists pointing to some cabal that ran a MIHOP operation
that day. This is not new information and has been made available by the many independent investigators
who have been diligently digging into this signal event for nearly 15 years now.
Certainly Bin Laden (dying from kidney failure and reportedly in his cave in Afghanistan) and
his team of largely dim-witted plotters (some of whom spent a lot of time at titty bars snorting
cocaine and drinking whisky) did not have the wherewithal to 1). place the explosives in the 3
towers and the Pentagon, 2). run the 45 or more related drills, over 15 of which were in operation
on that very day, including such actions as sending the bulk of the fighter aircraft to northern
Canada or the Caribbean, placing fake radar images on military and FAA radar sets, 3). order the
flight in Pennsylvania to be shot down and leave an 8 mile long debris field with absolutely no
debris where it supposedly crashed, 4). supposedly make the impossible approach to the Pentagon,
hitting the area where various accountants and Naval investigators were working on some issues,
including the trillions of dollars missing from Pentagon accounts, rather than make the easy crash
into the roof in the area where the high command offices were located, 5). ensure that the FBI
immediately confiscated all 85+ video recordings that had some view of the Pentagon crash site,
and so on and so on.
Much more likely suspects would be those Americans named by Kevin Ryan in his book "Another
Nineteen", and/or the Israeli Mossad and military agents (5 of whom were arrested in New Jersey
while making a video record of "the event" and who were noticed by an outraged citizen who called
local police who arrested them and the spent 2 months in U.S. jails, finally released by dual
Israeli / U.S. citizen Michael Chertoff, 3 of them appeared later on Israeli TV and bragged about
the operation in plain Hebrew).
The Left Forum, held at John Jay College, had several worthwhile sessions about the Deep State
and 9-11, the sessions are archived at NoLiesRadio <
http://noliesradio.org/archive... > and are well worth a watch. The evidence for MIHOP orchestrated
by the U.S. Deep State and its Zionist faction/allies is overwhelming, no doubt the Saudis played
a role in all this, but a secondary one.
My father was a structural design engineer who designed heavy steel structures like the WTC
and also nuclear power plants and wind tunnels for NASA. He was an expert on types of steel, how
it was made and what its properties were. The moment he saw the first tower collapse into it own
footprint, he said 'That's a controlled demolition." He knew that fire alone would not have been
enough to even dent the steel in the WTC, let alone pulverize it. Everything in the building could
have burned and the steel would have remained standing, slightly scorched, but largely intact.
To believe otherwise is not to believe in the laws of physics or the science of metallurgy.
To brutally manipulate public opinion, 9/11 was/is a criminally managed event involving some
of America's highest officials.
Too many characters in the 9/11 truth movement, and their
observations have often engrossed me -- until I got weary of discovering the inevitable snake
oils always up for sale.
That said, some people might find this contribution of my own interesting/amusing/puerile:
Ahhhh yes, and no less a group of people than members of the NYFD who charged up into those
buildings were not concerned about them collapsing. In fact one team of firefighters who made
it up to the impact zone in one of the towers reported the fire there as "no big deal" and "easily
controlled". Other firefighters and various police did, however, report many explosions, most
of them deep in the buildings far below the impact zones.
Dutch controlled demolition expert Danny Jowenko, upon seeing a video of the collapse of
Tower 7 immediately said (I think this comment was made in 2007) "This is controlled demolition";
of course he died in a suspicious one car accident, in which his car hit a tree head on on July
16th, 2011 (similar to how some of the JFK assassination witnesses were eliminated). A couple
of videos of his comments can be seen in a "Veteran's Today" article found at <
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2... >.
This does not change my extremely high opinion of WSWS and Bill Van Auken in particular, it
was just a bit disappointing to see them still hewing to a fairly standard line on this critical
issue. The whole bottom falls out of the Global War on Terror argument if the average person realizes
who really attacked the U.S. on that day.
One should ask why the Mossad and the extremely powerful Israel lobby have seen fit to participate
in the cover-up for so long. They certainly would have ignored the U.S. government's desire for
secrecy and gotten this information out (which they surely knew from their own sources) if they
didn't have something to hide. But that cover-up continues.
We might ask the several Israeli Mossad agents (they were later interviewed on Israeli TV as such)
who were filming the atrocity from across the river in New Jersey, dancing about and high-fiving
in celebration as the towers came down. They were arrested, held for a few weeks and released
without comment.
The true "smoking gun" of the 9/11 atrocities is the eight-second symmetrical free-fall collapse
of WTC #7. The claim that this occurred because of office fires is ludicrous, entirely impossible.
It was a conventional implosion, carried off in one of the most secure buildings in NYC, sheltering
the CIA, FBI and the mayor's emergency bunker and would have taken weeks to prepare.
See my comment above regarding my father, an engineer and an expert on steel. He recognized instantly
that the building was "blown" -- i.e., controlled demolition.
I saw the video on TV and was surprised that it went unquestioned on why it collapsed. Even
the clean symmetrical fall of the second tower to collapse, was neat and symmetric.
In my educated opinion, supported by facts of the case conveniently omitted, the release of
the small section of the Congressional report kept secret for 13 years is what they call in the
CIA a "limited hangout", which is contains a mix of both truth and omissions or outright lies,
and exposes the audience to a falsity more dangerous and misleading than an outright lie.
Of course the Saudis were involved, but if you research exactly what they did, it
was simply to escort a handful of patsies around the country on behalf of the CIA and give them
money to spend, creating a story to be later used as a diversion. The fact is, half the supposed
hijackers within a week of the buildings exploding made their presence known to authorities, saying
yoo-hoo, here we are, what's all this news regarding our deaths aboard airplanes?
Second point is that airplanes loaded with fuel don't cause buildings like the Trade Towers
to collapse from heat, this is an engineering impossibility and has been proven dozens of times.
In addition, a plane constructed of a thin aluminum skin stretched on an aluminum frame with a
hollow nose can't penetrate a steel curtain wall like the ones the towers were built with. But
the YouTube videos show the planes being absorbed into the buildings as though the craft were
made of liquid.
To assume that the release of this is significant, is to be fooled by the tricks of the intelligence
agencies who were responsible for the massacres in the first place.
My friend, you are mistaken, 120 ton airliners at a speed of 500 miles an hour can and have penetrated
building facades before (Empire State Bldg). This theory by some that these planes were holograms
or some sort of visual trickery is absurd and of course a distraction.
The world trade centers towers 1 and 2 were a combination of steel curtain and precast spandrels
at spans between several floors of approx. 30'. They are not that strong. The edges of the concrete
floors consist of angle iron between the floor joists which span from 4' to 6' on centers. If
buildings were constructed strong enough to stop or substantially slow a commercial airliner,
they would 1. be too heavy structurally and 2. thus be prohibitively costly.
The best evidence if this were ever taken to court, would be the stand down by the military
that morning in the intercepting of these "hijackers" as they made their way to their targets.
And Cheneys barking orders to a subordinate in the crisis control room beneath the white house
that yes the orders still stand, as flight 175? made its way toward the Pentagon
Excuse me, but the towers of the WTC WERE very heavy structurally. Particularly the central
cores, which contained heavily redundant layers of steel, and special steel at that.
I doubt many public figures were happier than Bernie Sanders to see the seemingly endless presidential
election carnival overtaken by other news last week. Beneath the headlines on race and criminal justice,
the nominal socialist "revolution" advocate Sanders got to make his official endorsement of the right-wing
corporatist and war hawk Hillary Clinton with the public's eyes focused on different and more immediately
hideous matters.
Anyone on the left who was surprised or disappointed by Bernie's long-promised Cowardly Lion endorsement
of Mrs. Clinton one week ago hadn't paid serious attention to his campaign and career. Sanders' "democratic
socialism" has always been a leaky cloak for a mildly social-democratic liberalism that is fiscally
and morally negated by his commitment to the nation's giant Pentagon System.
More
"... Admitting that the Iraq war was a grievous, horrible error is necessary but not sufficient to reform Republican foreign policy. ..."
"... The trouble with the rest of the 2016 field wasn't just that many of the candidates were Iraq war dead-enders, but that they were so obsessed with the idea of American "leadership" that almost all of them thought that the U.S. needed to be involved in multiple conflicts in different parts of the world in one way or another. ..."
"... Almost none of the declared 2016 candidates opposed the Libyan war at the time, and very few concluded that the problem with intervening in Libya was the intervention itself. The standard hawkish line on Libya for years has been that the U.S. should have committed itself to another open-ended exercise in stabilizing a country we helped to destabilize. ..."
"... Until Republican politicians and their advisers start to understand that reflexive support for "action" (and some kind of military action at that) is normally the wrong response, we can't expect much to change. Most Republican foreign policy professionals seem to hold the same shoddy assumptions that led them to endorse all of the interventions of the last 15 years without exception, and nothing that has happened during that time has caused most of them to reexamine those assumptions. ..."
"... Until they stop fetishizing American "leadership" and invoking "American exceptionalism" as an excuse to meddle in every new crisis, Republicans will end up in the same cul-de-sac of self-defeating belligerence. ..."
"... Opposition to the deal reflects so many of the flaws in current Republican foreign policy views: automatic opposition to any diplomatic compromise that might actually work, grossly exaggerating the potential threat from another state, conflating U.S. interests with those of unreliable client states, continually moving goalposts to judge a negotiated deal by unreasonable standards, insisting on maximalist concessions from the other side while refusing to agree to minimal concessions from ours, and making spurious and unfounded allegations of "appeasement" at every turn to score points against political adversaries at home. ..."
It would be a good start if all future presidential candidates could acknowledge the disastrous
and costly folly of the Iraq war, but it would only be a start. Admitting that the Iraq war was a
grievous, horrible error is necessary but not sufficient to reform Republican foreign policy.
The
trouble with the rest of the 2016 field wasn't just that many of the candidates were Iraq war dead-enders,
but that they were so obsessed with the idea of American "leadership" that almost all of them thought
that the U.S. needed to be involved in multiple conflicts in different parts of the world in one
way or another.
Almost none of the declared 2016 candidates opposed the Libyan war at the time, and
very few concluded that the problem with intervening in Libya was the intervention itself. The standard
hawkish line on Libya for years has been that the U.S. should have committed itself to another open-ended
exercise in stabilizing a country we helped to destabilize. Most Republican politicians are so wedded
to a belief in the efficacy of using hard power that they refuse to admit that there are many problems
that the U.S. can't and shouldn't try to solve with it.
Until Republican politicians and their advisers start to understand that reflexive support
for "action" (and some kind of military action at that) is normally the wrong response, we can't
expect much to change. Most Republican foreign policy professionals seem to hold the same shoddy
assumptions that led them to endorse all of the interventions of the last 15 years without exception,
and nothing that has happened during that time has caused most of them to reexamine those assumptions.
Until they stop fetishizing American "leadership" and invoking "American exceptionalism" as
an excuse to meddle in every new crisis, Republicans will end up in the same cul-de-sac of self-defeating
belligerence. Unless Republicans adopt a much less expansive definition of "vital interests,"
they will routinely end up on the wrong side of most major foreign policy debates.
Finally, unless most Republican politicians and their advisers overcome their aversion to diplomatic
engagement they will end up supporting costlier, less effective, and more destructive policies for
lack of practical alternatives. The virtually unanimous opposition to the nuclear deal with Iran
is a good example of the sort of thing that a reformed Republican Party wouldn't do.
Opposition to
the deal reflects so many of the flaws in current Republican foreign policy views: automatic opposition
to any diplomatic compromise that might actually work, grossly exaggerating the potential threat
from another state, conflating U.S. interests with those of unreliable client states, continually
moving goalposts to judge a negotiated deal by unreasonable standards, insisting on maximalist concessions
from the other side while refusing to agree to minimal concessions from ours, and making spurious
and unfounded allegations of "appeasement" at every turn to score points against political adversaries
at home.
Obviously these are habits cultivated over decades and are not going to be fixed quickly
or easily, but if the next Republican administration (whenever that may be) doesn't want to conduct
foreign policy as disastrously as the last one did they are habits that need to be broken.
Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC, where he also keeps a solo blog. He has been
published in the New York Times Book Review, Dallas Morning News, Orthodox Life, Front Porch
Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and is a columnist for The Week. He holds a PhD in
history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Dallas. Follow him on Twitter.
"... Nonetheless, the Platform Committee's debates last week were interesting to watch and a good barometer of where the Republican Party stands on certain issues. The interactions on foreign policy and national security were especially revealing, and they all led to the same conclusion: neoconservatives are still very much the leaders of the GOP's foreign-policy machinery. ..."
"... If they were driven by public opinion, then, the delegates would have brought the platform's national-security proposals in a less hawkish and more realist direction. But every single amendment from libertarian-esque and anti-interventionist delegate Eric Brakey was defeated by voice vote without much debate. ..."
In the grand scheme of things, a political party's platform is an insignificant document. The
Republican Party's platform this year doesn't change this; despite the media's fascination with
the fact that Donald Trump's border wall made its way into the platform, the document is still a
non-binding, ideological missive, more of a goodie bag for conservative activists than an
operational plan.
Nonetheless, the Platform Committee's debates last week were interesting to watch and a good
barometer of where the Republican Party stands on certain issues. The interactions on foreign
policy and national security were especially revealing, and they all led to the same conclusion:
neoconservatives are still very much the leaders of the GOP's foreign-policy machinery.
According to a May 2016 Pew Research Center survey, a majority of Americans would rather let
other countries deal with their own affairs (57 percent) than plunge manpower and money overseas
to help other countries confront their challenges (37 percent). 62 percent of Republicans
surveyed want the United States to start taking its own domestic problems more seriously, and Pew
reports that "roughly 55 percent of Republicans view global economic engagement negatively." In
addition, the single most consequential foreign-policy decision that neoconservatives have
made-the invasion and occupation of Iraq-has been labeled a failure by a majority of Americans.
If they were driven by public opinion, then, the delegates would have brought the platform's
national-security proposals in a less hawkish and more realist direction. But every single
amendment from libertarian-esque and anti-interventionist delegate Eric Brakey was defeated by
voice vote without much debate. International diplomacy, the life-blood of U.S. foreign
policy and the option of first resort, was largely overshadowed by provisions that resemble the
doomsday scenarios you would find in an apocalyptic Hollywood thriller.
... ... ...
Daniel R. DePetris is an analyst at Wikistrat, Inc., a geostrategic consulting firm, and a
freelance researcher. He has also written for CNN.com, Small Wars Journal, and the Diplomat.
It is pre-emptive coup :-) (fake coupe in order to clear the military deck)
It looks to me that this time Turkish political elite pulled pre-emptive coup on Turkish military
so it can purge her from the elements that are influenced by remote control from outside the country.
In one word this is Turkish version of Brexit. Basically financial, political, and military international
structures that were established after II world war are crumbling because the interests of individual
countries are so diametrical.
In one word this is Turkish version of Brexit. Basically financial, political, and military
international structures that were established after II world war are crumbling because the interests
of individual countries are so diametrical.
Oh Shit! Get ready for a new, old style caliphate and the ushering in of another couple hundred
years of dark ages… The Ottomans are coming!
Fred, Ottomans are not coming.. Chinese are coming with trade deals on Orient express train from
Beijing…via Istanbul…you guys are so misinformed about what's going in the world that you will
be in state of shock when IMF, EU, NATO close the shop all in one day.
1. Sanders: Clinton has backed "virtually every trade agreement that has cost the workers
of this country millions of jobs"
2. Sanders: Clinton is in the pocket of Wall Street
3. Sanders: Hillary Clinton = D.C. Establishment
4. Sanders: Democrat Establishment immigration policies would drive down Americans' wages,
create open borders
5. Sanders: Clinton supports nation-building in Middle East through war and invasion
Sanders: "And now, I support her 100%."
DurbanPoisonWillBurn
Anyone who believes Hillary is progressive deserves the horrible outcome a Hillary
presidency will bring. How ANYONE can still support Hillary is beyond me. The woman has
accomplished NOTHING except chaos & failure. Wake up folks. Hillary does NOT care about you.
She cares about power, money, and making deals that benefit HER. Vote Jill Stein
Dutch media say there are no further details because both parties have agreed to secrecy.
A memorial service was held for the victims on Sunday near Schiphol.
Under the Montreal Convention, which regulates air travel, airlines must pay damages of up to
about $145,000 (£109,000) to victims' families, regardless of the circumstances of a crash.
"... It appears the Army has the MIT Headquarters under siege right now with scattered reports that Army helicopters are firing on it. Too soon to tell but we might be looking at a Turkish civil war. ..."
"... The Turkish military is quite good at fulfilling it's role as the protector of the country and arbiter of the Constitution. Which usually means overthrowing Islamist governments that brazenly cross over legal lines. ..."
From a friend in Ankara minutes ago, "Oh shit, this has all the hallmarks of a fight between
two fractions within the state. It's said that Fethullah Gulen and his supporters in the military
tried this because of the imminent purge. There was a armed clash in Ankara between the military
forces (Gulen movement) and tgr police/intelligence agency (Tayyip). It's been going for a while,
this feud. Now it seems like it's grown a full blown war. Airports are also closed. "
Good observation by your friend. Broadly speaking I'd say the fight is between Islamists and
secular elements of the state. The Islamists have purged the police and MIT (intelligence) of
any secular influence under Erdogan. With the secular crowd maintaining it's traditional hold
over the military.
It appears the Army has the MIT Headquarters under siege right now with scattered reports that
Army helicopters are firing on it. Too soon to tell but we might be looking at a Turkish civil
war.
I'll just be the first with the conspiracy theory about the usual suspects: US, regime change,
Obama, and the Clinton Foundation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BClen_movement
They would like a much more compliant government in place than Erdogan.
Also interesting that Germany refused Erdogan asylum after his plane was turned away in Istanbul.
Very bad move for Erdogan to head out of town at a time like this as lots of Roman emperors could
attest.
I'm skeptical that the Gulen movement is behind this. The Turkish military is quite good at
fulfilling it's role as the protector of the country and arbiter of the Constitution. Which usually
means overthrowing Islamist governments that brazenly cross over legal lines. Furthermore Colonel Muharrem Kose ( wiki
) might've been purged for being associated with Gulen but it doesn't make the allegations true.
As a matter of principle I'm not in favor of military coups but for Erdogan I can make an exception.
Turkish Prime Minister Yildirim broadcast a statement that the situation is being dealt with
by "security forces" from an apparently privately owned TV channel, while soldiers have been reported
at the state broadcaster TRT in Ankara.
I'm wondering if the Turkish military wants more or less war than Erdogan, could be like the
generals at the Pentagon, telling the White House they didn't think a Libya war was a wise idea
while Hilary was shrieking for more blood.
(We came…we saw…he died).
Or maybe the military wants more secularism than Erdogan?
If the military still has enough left-over Kemalists inside it to be bitter at the Erdogist
degradation of secular republican Turkey into an Islamic Emirate in-the-making; those Kemalists
may indeed be making one last try to purge and erase Erdogism from all positions of power and
re-Kemalize the State.
The politics are different. This isn't the Cold War. Any coup government done without street
support (outside Istanbul, this might be tough and even then…a military coup isn't good precedence)
is going to have problems.
The issue isn't the Kemalists, but the Kemalists are too far removed from Attaturk. An Attaturk
aide will simply have more legitimacy than some, random preening general. Well, the aides are
dead by now. The successors of the aides have no legitimacy without an election.
I don't think the coup will fly without serious repercussions.
The Kemalists traditionally tend to lavish attention on Istanbul and the coastal elites while
dealing with the Kurds and their role in NATO.
The heartland (Anatolia. What's that about Constantinople?) has traditionally been ignored
by the Kemalists. The Kemalists would say they took important small steps and not to throw the
baby out with the bathwater. In the mean time, the religious nuts took power and used private
charity to do poorly what the government wasn't doing and found sympathy with the majority. I
know it sounds familiar.
External pressure especially from the EU forced electoral reforms which gave power to the majority
of the country in the heartland instead of being controlled by coastal elites.
Erdogan's policies have provoked anger, but his actions against the old guard have never seemed
to irritate even the coastal population, partially because the old guard wasn't that great. They
just received good press. Better dead than Red.
My sense is young coastal Turks are more or less like their counterparts in other European
cities, so I imagine the army making decisions won't go over too well.
Erdogan is popular in the heartland, largely because he delivered on promises to improve infrastructure,
jobs, and so forth even though he skims. For rural Turkey, everything of nothing is still nothing,
so who cares if Erdogan skims?
Erdogan. ..more like Erdo well he's not going to be there anymore.
Let's see:
-Merkels refugee plan
-NATO dealing with a coup after the fall of the USSR
-Syria
-ISIS
-Kurds
-collapse of Turkish tourism
-Erdogan was popular in the Anatolian heartland
Words of caution to everyone. There are at least four [4] armed sides participating in tonight's
chaos:
1) Military (obviously)
2) Armed National Police (pro-Erdogan)
3) Criminals (who are exploiting the situation as cover to settle scores) - Cannot prove this,
but it is consistent with prior civil unrest history in other nations.
4) Terrorists - IS / Daesh. Probably not organized, but shooting unarmed civilians on camera would
exacerbate the situation as both major sides blame each other.
______________
The RUSSIAN Reaction?
Not advocating a conspiracy theory, but ex-KGB Putin has a jet downed by Erdogan's government.
There may be Russian involvement.
Even if the Russians were surprised, the Russian Black Sea Fleet needs to be able to transit
the Bosphorus to support Syrian operations. Expect Putin to quickly make favorable offers to the
new military leadership if Erdogan falls.
You forgot Kurds as a potential player. I have no clue what PKK or TAK will do under these
circumstances but I imagine it wouldn't necessarily involve doing nothing.
I don't think Gulen is primarily behind the coup. I mean I know that's what Erdogan said but
when the military released it's first letter to the public it had Kemalist written all over it.
don't 'we' win either way?
Uhh, it's complicated. Secretary of State Kerry is in Moscow today negotiating an anti-jihadi
pact/alliance in Syria. While a few days ago Kerry publicly labeled the Saudi-back Jaish al-Islam
as no different from Al Qaeda and the neocon crowd had a hissyfit over it. The gap between how
the US and Russian governments perceive the rebel-jihadi alliance is closer than it's ever been.
Meanwhile it just so happens that the 28 pages from the 9/11 report implicating Saudi involvement
and a military coup in Turkey is overthrowing the Islamist government of Erdogan. Both governments
have supported the rebel-jihad alliance in Syria so this could just be a huge coincidence… except
I don't believe in coincidences that strain my gullibility.
Any speculation beyond that point is tin foil hat territory.
German fingerprints on turkish coup…not foily…ribbi gulan is in a very historic german german
bund part of Pennsylvania…not by my laptop to scrape reports but there have been continued reports
of sultan erdo asking for and receiving asylum from Germany…
of all the places to go hang out…
schaeubleland is not one of them…
my other thought was the sah-oodz since that little 28 page thingee was distributed on a friday,
just a few hours before the parade in istanbul…
I call it a parade as the new coup position information is there was a grand total of less
than 150 gulanis involved…
which made sense since the same photos of hardly 50 soldiers kept getting played over and over…
the saud argument is technically more foily…
but my money would be on field marshall schaeuble…
would put money down that he "resigns/retires" for health reasons in 90 dayz if sultan erdo
"holds" as he now appears to have landed his plane at the airport in istanbul…
On a technical side, two weeks from now there is the annual kiss the sultans ring moment in
the military and it has been suggested erdo was going to ax in a very publicly some gulanis…
and some colonel that has been named as a top coup boy had recently been bounced due to his
ties to the gulanis….
Bernie on Monday to his supporters : Thanks for comin', see ya!
Notable quotes:
"... Donations to Jill Stine skyrocket after Sander's endorsement. https://www.rt.com/usa/351129-jill-stein-bernie-donations/ ..."
"... And, let me guess: Sanders' much-vaunted e-mailing list has a pesky shrinkage problem. Which started on Tuesday. ..."
"... Bernie denouement is the best thing that could have happened to Stein and the Greens. ..."
"... The Stein campaign seems unprepared. They simply don't have any staff to deal with volunteers. There is a well trained group out there now, so they need gear, packets, flyers, talking points. ..."
"... Sanders will attempt to maintain his supporters by focusing their time, skills and money on his new institute. Should serve to keep a good number from paying attention to Stein. ..."
Bernie denouement is the best thing that could have happened to Stein and the Greens. If Bernie
and West had started with the Greens, they would have gotten zero traction. Another noble cause
no one's ever heard of. Instead, Bernie started something that came close to blowing up the Democrats
the way Trump blew up the Republicans.
Now a lot of the Bernie sisses and bros are looking for somewhere to go. Stein is well placed
to pick up the pieces if she knows what to do with them.
The Stein campaign seems unprepared. They simply don't have any staff to deal with volunteers.
There is a well trained group out there now, so they need gear, packets, flyers, talking points.
Sanders will attempt to maintain his supporters by focusing their time, skills and money on
his new institute. Should serve to keep a good number from paying attention to Stein.
Donald Trump comments on the end of what he called the "FBI Primary," saying that Bernie
Sanders has so far refused to drop out of the race for the Democratic nomination in hopes that
Clinton might be indicted. He says that the FBI's recommendation not to indict proves Sanders was
right when he said the Democratic primary was "rigged."
Today is the best evidence ever that we have seen that our system is totally, absolutely
rigged," Trump said at a rally in North Carolina.
"It's rigged," Trump said. "And I used that term nationally when I was running in the Republican
primaries, and I was the first to use it, and then all of a sudden it became a hot term and
everyone was using the word rigged, rigged, rigged. But if you remember, I won Louisiana. And I
didn't get enough delegate, what happened? Places like Colorado, which was so good to me, but all
of a sudden we find out that they don't have the vote... I'll be honest, if I didn't win in
landslides, I wouldn't be standing here. You would be watching some politician who will lose to
Hillary.
"I learned about the rigged system really fast. All of a sudden, Bernie started using it and now
everyone talks about the system being rigged," he said.
"I'm going to keep using it because I was the one that brought it up."
"I asked a couple of political pros," he said. "Think of Bernie Sanders. I think the one with the
most to be angry about. The one with the most to lose is Bernie Sanders, because honestly, he was
waiting for the FBI primary, and guess what? He just lost today the FBI primary!"
"He lost the FBI primary! Bernie, my poor Bernie, oh, Bernie! I feel so badly for Bernie, but you
know what? A lot of Bernie Sanders supporters are going to be voting for Trump, because Bernie
Sanders was right! Bernie Sanders was right about a couple of things. He's right about the system
being rigged, but he's also right about trade. Our trade deals are a disaster. They're killing
our jobs. They're killing our families. They're killing our incomes."
Bernie Sanders is this election's Democratic sheepdog. The sheepdog is a card the Democratic
party plays every presidential primary season when there's no White House Democrat running for
re-election. The sheepdog is a presidential candidate running ostensibly to the left of the
establishment Democrat to whom the billionaires will award the nomination. Sheepdogs are herders,
and the sheepdog candidate is charged with herding activists and voters back into the Democratic
fold who might otherwise drift leftward and outside of the Democratic party, either staying home
or trying to build something outside the two party box.
...As the very sharp Patrick Iber tweeted somewhere, the usual response to economic distress
in democracies with broad franchises is: "Throw the bastards out!" Consider the Great Depression:
Labour collapses in Britain in 1931. The Republicans collapse in the U.S. in 1932. And in
Germany…
shudder
.
Then, I think, Dani firmly grasps the correct thread:
A greater weakness of the left [is] the absence of a clear
program to refashion capitalism and globalization for the
twenty-first century…. The left has failed to come up with
ideas that are economically sound and politically popular,
beyond ameliorative policies such as income transfers.
Economists and technocrats on the left bear a large part of
the blame. Instead of contributing to such a program, they
abdicated too easily to market fundamentalism and bought in
to its central tenets.
In retrospect, who can disagree? We misjudged the proper
balance between state and market, between command-and-control
and market-incentive roads to social democratic ends.
But then I must, again, dissent in part. Dani:
Worse still, [Economists and technocrats on the left] led
the hyper-globalization movement at crucial junctures. The
enthroning of free capital mobility-especially of the
short-term kind-as a policy norm by the European Union, the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and
the IMF was arguably the most fateful decision for the global
economy in recent decades. As Harvard Business School
professor Rawi Abdelal has shown, this effort was spearheaded
in the late 1980s and early 1990s not by free-market
ideologues, but by French technocrats such as Jacques Delors
(at the European Commission) and Henri Chavranski (at the
OECD), who were closely associated with the Socialist Party
in France. Similarly, in the US, it was technocrats
associated with the more Keynesian Democratic Party, such as
Lawrence Summers, who led the charge for financial
deregulation. France's Socialist technocrats appear to have
concluded from the failed Mitterrand experiment with
Keynesianism in the early 1980s that domestic economic
management was no longer possible, and that there was no real
alternative to financial globalization. The best that could
be done was to enact Europe-wide and global rules, instead of
allowing powerful countries like Germany or the US to impose
their own.
Tom aka Rusty said...
Going back to 1997, Rodrik is one of the few
economists who earned his pay.
Much of economics
has not been worth reading and not been worth
believing.
"... Bernie supporters are crowing about his great success at influencing the Democratic Party platform. How exciting is that? Is there anything less useful than the platform of a political party? Screen doors in a submarine come to mind. A political party platform has all of the significance and impact of a good healthy a fart in the midst of a hurricane. ..."
"... bernie sanders, when it comes right down to it, is either a liar, or is willing to support hillary in spite of who and what she stands for.. trumps comments on this are indeed bang on. ..."
"... The Sanders move is straight out of the Democratic Party playbook of the last 100 years, as so many predicted. The Democrats have co-opted every grass-roots movement that has arisen in the US, co-opted and quashed it. ..."
"... The party primaries in the USA are not intended to be representative, democratic elections: they simply serve as a sort of consumer survey to see which of their candidates would be most popular in the general election. ..."
"... Bernie Sanders claims some concessions were achieved in the platform committee document. But one issue of greatest importance, on trade issues,--specifically the rejection of TPP, is a lost cause. Bernie threw in the towel. The phony sideshow of reconstituted New Deal hoopla is merely the same tired fantasy narrative that the Democrats predictably trot out for every presidential election. ..."
"... The dear old man who started this campaign with this gem of rhetoric: "What we need is a revolution in the streets", is ending his monkeyshines with a ringing endosement of one of the most politically corrupt figures in our history. ..."
"... Jill Stein, who ran for president on the Green Party platform, says that Bernie's endorsement of Hillary is the "last nail in the coffin" which turns Sanders' revolution over to a counter-revolutionary party. ..."
"... Trump would do well to attract Bernie Voters now, by exploiting areas of agreement. The TPP is one example. ..."
"... He led people to believe that he had principles - that he really was against Wall St. and SuperPACs and all that Hillary stands for. He also (late in the race) began talking about 'revolution' to play to the discontented and young idealists. ..."
"... Its all just bullshit when he ultimately supports Hillary. But those who support Hillary (like rufus does) try hard to finesse Sanders failing because they value the "service" that Sanders performed for the Obama-Hillary "Third Way" Democratic Party. ..."
"... What chance do we have with Hillary?--a back-stabbing, forked-tongue, daughter of Goldman Sachs, whose speeches to the industrialists and bankers are practically a state secret? Yes, Hillary!--who is coated from head to toe with a patina of blood, and smells of corpses? ..."
"... US corporations aren't stupid. They know bad, expensive education, decaying infrastructure and violence in the street are bad for business. They might even realize that corruption is bad for them. And that worker representation makes life easier all around. ..."
"... In fact, Sanders pulled several key punches in the race ..."
"... he failed to call Hillary out on her emails after the State Inspector General report was release and it was CLEAR that she had lied about her emails; ..."
"... he is close/friendly with all of the top Democrats: Obama campaigned for him to win his Senate seat; Schumer endorses him; he calls Hillary a 'friend' of 25 years. ..."
"... Except in style, Hillary is no different than Obama, Bush II, or her husband. Whereas earlier presidents felt the need to put on a show of decency -- well, okay, Bush II let it drop now and then -- H. Clinton will be a bitch Cheney, going out of her way to rub everyone's face in it and bragging there's nothing they can do about it. ..."
"... There's a bright side however. She's dumb and knows no bounds. Think Louis XVI. That, along with her arrogance, may finally bring a tipping point of sorts. With things coming apart everywhere, a smooth-talking fraud like Reagan or Obama might be able to somehow hold it together a little longer. Hillary's nastiness could actually bring real change. God in his infinite irony. ..."
"... To say there is a deep state controlling Clinton may be an over simplification. More likely their are lots of competing and conflicting forces working in the dark, none with any clear idea or plan (or inkling of what other powers are doing) each pushing for immediate gains without a thought for the future. ..."
"... In the struggle for power everyone. including H. Clinton, is a useful fool and a potential patsy. Those hidden powers have a history of eating their own. ..."
"... Sanders has been a great disappointment. In order to prevent Trump from getting the votes, he is embracing and selling his soul and his supporters to a demon! In fact Sanders has more in common with Trump that he has with Hillary. ..."
"... "Bernie Sanders endorsing Crooked Hillary Clinton is like Occupy Wall Street endorsing Goldman Sachs" ..."
"... His followers were fools. I think some of them know that now. ..."
"... I for one, hoped for more than "sheepdog" from Sanders, but, alas, those who said so, were totally correct ..."
"... in American politics, none of these people are for dismantling the biggest budgetary fraud & boondoggle in human history: the pentagon. anybody saying they are for "small gov't" who doesn't immediately propose to slash the military/para-military budget (not the VA, not now) by 50% every year for the next 500 years is lying. ..."
"... Hillary represents a continuation of the last 8 years, or even perhaps the last 16 or 24+ years. There is absolutely no doubt about that. ..."
"... People taken in by Sanders learned no lessons from gushing over Obama. They hurt themselves again and are sociopathically indifferent to the far greater harm they have done to those who were not gullible. ..."
"... Even if she had given any "significant concession", it would have been meaningless noise with not an iota of intention to implement such concessions. She is a POS who will say anything at all to get elected. The only thing we really know is she relishes confrontation on the foreign policy scene. Otherwise nobody can rely on her to act in their interests in the domestic realm, except big corporate entities. ..."
"... It is stupid for B to keep linking to Trumps quotes exclusively. Why does b not link to Jill Stein criticism. Sure Trumps criticism of evil Hillarys corruption will gather important support, but exclusively giving torture loving warmongering Trump ammunition, strangles other better candidates in their political birth in the alternative to status quo attention. In the same way that the Sanders, Chomsky, and other shortsighted cowards react by strangle politically strangling a desperate new movement. ..."
"... Congrats to those who labeled the 'Sheepdog' so early. Such an apt description. Good call. ..."
"... Sanders released only one year of tax returns (2015). His campaign manager claimed his taxes held no surprises. Well they didn't for 2015. But why didn't Sanders release earlier years? Any serious Presidential candidate would expect to release at least 3 years of tax returns. ..."
"... Given the 'service' that he performed, it might be especially interesting to have seen his taxes for 2014, the year before he entered the race. The lack of transparency and Sanders' 'sheepdogging' raises questions of whether he received any inducements to enter the race. ..."
"... The Plan was always from the start for Bernie to hold down the Left, so Hillary could capture Center-Right, and Donald could lead the Far Right into Smackdown. Then Bernie would deliver the Left to Hillary. And so it has come to pass. ..."
"... Strange bedfellows? Not at all. The Israelis and the GCC countries, the USG and EU, are all soul brothers : tiny 'elite' minorities attempting to rule their respective roosts by technological means encompassing everything from drones to the media to their ubiquitous taps. ..."
"... in loco parentis ..."
"... In 1963 there was a coup in America. Since then the military-industrial complex has run the country. It has been most apparent in its foreign policy, which has been the conquest of natural resources (especially oil and gas) worldwide. America's resentment with the USSR/Russia has to do with their living on top of resources. ..."
"... But in order to continue the illusion of democracy in the US, it was necessary to maintain some differences between the two parties so that Americans would think that they have a choice. Meanwhile, the party that is supposed to represent the working class has been sliding into the arms of the corporatists. Essentially, in order to give Americans a "choice" Trump has been pushed as the demonic clown versus H. Clinton. Unfortunately, for good reasons as well as because of endless propaganda from the right, most Americans distrust Clinton, as well they should. Her casual announcement about enforcing a "no-fly zone" over Syria is essentially a declaration of war against Russia. ..."
"... Going back to the coup in 1963, in order to maintain control of the population it was necessary for the ruling class to continue to generate candidates each election cycle to pretend to care about the working class. I have long suspected that early on in their careers both Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton were recruited by US intelligence. During his time in Britain Bill's classmates assumed that he was CIA ..."
"... I suspect it was the beginning of her career in US power politics. Shortly after she wrote a pro-Vietnam speech for Melvin Laird in 1968, she was involved with the various Black Panther trials around the US. ..."
"... It's hard to believe that the Hillary who stands before us now was ever a political ally of the Panthers. Rather, I suspect she was observing for an intelligence agency, the FBI or CIA She sat through a Panther trial in New Haven, Connecticut, and then spent a summer in Oakland working for the law firm that was representing the Panthers in the Bay Area. Essentially, she was in the right place at the right time to glean information for COINTELPRO, the massive spying program directed against anti-war and black movements. A few years later she worked on the Democrats' legal team for Watergate, another good place for a government informant to be. Bill, during his time at Oxford, would have functioned like the thousands of informants who sat in on peace group meetings across American campuses. ..."
"... Later, when the CIA was dumping cocaine at Mena, Arkansas, Bill Clinton was in position to make sure state police left the operation alone. It's not surprising that George W. Bush's first head of the DEA was Asa Hutchinson, who'd been the incurious federal prosecutor over that part of Arkansas when the drugs came in. ..."
"... The Clintons were prominent in the Democratic Leadership Council, which was an organization within the Democratic Party pushing it to the right. In 1992 Bill pushed trade agreements that would destroy the American middle class. Since then the party has been hopelessly corrupted by Wall Street money. ..."
"... I cannot think of another president in memory who is more wed to military adventurism than Hillary. ..."
"... But if she polls badly enough, Democratic establishment may see the light and go for Sanders. ..."
Jun 13, 2016 |
Bernie Sanders folded. This without gaining any significant concession from Hillary Clinton on
programmatic or personal grounds. (At least as far as we know.) He endorsed Clinton as presidential
candidate even as she gave no ground for his voters' opinions. This disenfranchises the people who
supported him.
... ... ...
I expect the "Not Hillary" protest vote to be very strong in the November election. There is still
more significant dirt to be dug up about her and her family foundation. Trumps current lows in the
polls will recover when the media return to the "close race" mantra that makes them money. He still
has a decent chance to win.
It is long, long past the time to see the world we really live in; the realities of our western
faux democracies. Until and unless we recognise the facts, as they are, nothing can be changed.
The problem/s must be identified for it/them to be solved.
It doesn't take a critical mass of
people; but it takes more than a few; far more than evidenced this election cycle...
Bernie supporters are crowing about his great success at influencing the Democratic Party
platform. How exciting is that? Is there anything less useful than the platform of a political
party? Screen doors in a submarine come to mind. A political party platform has all of the significance
and impact of a good healthy a fart in the midst of a hurricane.
thanks b, for highlighting these sad realities. bernie sanders, when it comes right down to
it, is either a liar, or is willing to support hillary in spite of who and what she stands for..
trumps comments on this are indeed bang on.
the labour. party is run by a gang of thugs.. i hope the people who want corbyn are able to
overcome the mostroisity the labour party has become.
i echo @1 v. arnolds comments..
@2 bill..bernie spporters better not show how stupid they are by also voting for hillary..
The Sanders move is straight out of the Democratic Party playbook of the last 100 years, as
so many predicted. The Democrats have co-opted every grass-roots movement that has arisen in the
US, co-opted and quashed it.
Even as deliberately unplugged as I've been from this race, it's been easy to see at a glance
that Sanders magnetized the next wave of concerned citizens - of course the young people rallied
to his banner - and will now leave them broken and in disarray, or delivered to the Democrats.
He was an independent. He so simply could have turned the Green Party into a ten-percent force
in the US, making it hugely important, and advancing in one leap the cause of multi-party governance.
The party primaries in the USA are not intended to be representative, democratic elections:
they simply serve as a sort of consumer survey to see which of their candidates would be most
popular in the general election.
Registering for a party does not mean that you are a member of a particular party or even support
it, you are simply choosing to vote in their primary elections (if you live in a state with closed
primaries). That is something a lot of Bernie supporters found out much too late. But that is
not a "rigged system", those rules were in place long before Sanders decided to run as a Democrat.
And rules differ from state to state: some places allot delegates proportionally, in others
it is winner-take-all. Some states hold a general election, other hold a caucus:you have to travel
to a certain place at a certain time to cast your vote, which means you have to have the time
and money in order to participate.
I have never seen a similar system in place anywhere else. Usually it is only card-carrying,
dues-paying party members who are allowed to select their candidates.
Seventh is the real possibility Bernie has inspired of a third party – if the Democratic Party
doesn't respond to the necessity of getting big money out of politics and reversing widening
inequality, if it doesn't begin to advocate for a single-payer healthcare system, or push hard
for higher taxes on the wealthy - including a wealth tax - to pay for better education and
better opportunities for everyone else, if it doesn't expand Social Security and lift the cap
on income subject to the Social Security payroll tax, if it doesn't bust up the biggest banks
and strengthen antitrust laws, and expand voting rights.
If it doesn't act on these critical issues. the Democratic Party will become irrelevant
to the future of America, and a third party will emerge to address them.
From the first I hoped that the revolutionary left would be able to capitalize on the issues
raised by Sanders' insurgency. You will win support by winning concrete gains for real people.
Not by shrill denunciations of the masses ignorance or gullibility.
Very good observations from b. Bernie Sanders claims some concessions were achieved in the
platform committee document. But one issue of greatest importance, on trade issues,--specifically
the rejection of TPP, is a lost cause. Bernie threw in the towel. The phony sideshow of reconstituted
New Deal hoopla is merely the same tired fantasy narrative that the Democrats predictably trot
out for every presidential election.
The dear old man who started this campaign with this gem of rhetoric: "What we need is
a revolution in the streets", is ending his monkeyshines with a ringing endosement of one of the
most politically corrupt figures in our history. And once again, every 1930s, New Deal trope
and hurrah, is to be trotted out, even though the former Clinton administration drove a stake
into the heart of most of FDR's work.
Get in line sheep. Mutton will be served.
Jill Stein, who ran for president on the Green Party platform, says that Bernie's endorsement
of Hillary is the "last nail in the coffin" which turns Sanders' revolution over to a counter-revolutionary
party.
Trump would do well to attract Bernie Voters now, by exploiting areas of agreement. The TPP
is one example.
Owned by Goldman Bilderberg and the CFR, the Den of Lying Thieves and Whores - aka the Democratic
Party - now has sneakily moved forward to tee up the TPP for passage by Crooked Hillary if not
Oilbomber.
Note: The Republican Party is also a Den of Lying Thieves and Whores.
rufus: Sanders did what he said he would from the start ...
He led people to believe that he had principles - that he really was against Wall St. and
SuperPACs and all that Hillary stands for. He also (late in the race) began talking about 'revolution'
to play to the discontented and young idealists.
Its all just bullshit when he ultimately supports Hillary. But those who support Hillary
(like rufus does) try hard to finesse Sanders failing because they value the "service" that Sanders
performed for the Obama-Hillary "Third Way" Democratic Party.
Those who said that Sanders was a sheepdog from the start were right: the Democratic
Party led by "Third Way" sellouts is hopeless. Long past time to move on.
Now now Jackrabbit, go easy on rufus. You have to remember that cognitive dissonance is infinitely
extensible across a mind that is captured by delusion.
Yes Virginia, they are all hucksters -- Surely the microscopic communist party, or its
pale American likeness, of which rufus is a mustache twirling member, is less of a political fantasy,
than the Green Party!
What chance do we have with Hillary?--a back-stabbing, forked-tongue, daughter of Goldman
Sachs, whose speeches to the industrialists and bankers are practically a state secret? Yes, Hillary!--who
is coated from head to toe with a patina of blood, and smells of corpses?
So it is basically the British Trade Unions making sure their members dominate in the leadership
election?
The US democratic party is a huge income generating corporation with some worker representation.
Sanders is correct to stay inside if he wants to change politics. If Sandernistas continue the
fight (they will, it is generational, same as the Clintons were generational) seat for seat they
will change the party. They will get changed themselves in the process for sure.
It seems the Libertarian party succeeds in splitting Republicans. For Sanders to split Democrats
would be voting for Trump. He would have to live with this fame outside of the Democratic Party
with no one to team up in the Senate.
US corporations aren't stupid. They know bad, expensive education, decaying infrastructure
and violence in the street are bad for business. They might even realize that corruption is bad
for them. And that worker representation makes life easier all around.
Jill goes easy on Sanders in her statement because she wants to attract his supporters.
In fact, Sanders pulled several key punches in the race:
> he was late in calling out Hillary-DNC collusion - campaign financing got the headlines but
what about the DNC's silence about: a) media bias toward Hillary and b) voter irregularities:
AP called the race for Hillary the day before California voted based on secret polling of
Super-delegates! ;
> he failed to attack Obama's record on black/minority affairs - despite Sanders having
conducted a fake filibuster over the Fiscal Cliff/Sequester - Hillary walked away with
the black vote;
> he failed to call Hillary out on her emails after the State Inspector General report was
release and it was CLEAR that she had lied about her emails;
And Sanders is not an "independent" as any ordinary person would interpret that term:
> he has caucused with the Democrats for a very long time (nearly 20 years?);
> he runs in the Vermont Democratic Primary when running for House/Senate with the understanding
that he will not run in general election as a Democrat (this effectively blocks opposition
from a Democratic candidate);
> he is close/friendly with all of the top Democrats: Obama campaigned for him to win
his Senate seat; Schumer endorses him; he calls Hillary a 'friend' of 25 years.
The strategy of lesser evilism has been an utter disaster for the 99%. Effectively unchallenged
by the left, the Democratic Party helped the Republican Party to push the agenda steadily to
the right over the past decades. As Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein has aptly
put it, "the politics of fear has delivered everything we were afraid of."
... Bernie's endorsement will be used in an attempt to prop up that same rotten establishment
... [that makes] Sanders endorsement of Clinton is [sic] a fundamental failure of leadership.
...
We can't afford to follow Bernie's error. It is time for us to move on. ... That is why I'm
endorsing Green Party candidate Jill Stein. ... There can be no doubt that Jill's campaign
is the clear continuation of our political revolution, and deserves the broadest possible support
from Sandernistas.
Mark Stoval @ 16 -- We've had a fascist economic system (since the 30s)...
Even before. At least since 1913 with the establishment of the Federal Reserve, which transferred
the holdings of the U.S. treasury to international bankers.
b, me too. For the first time I think Clinton may actually be president. Sanders never had
a chance for the simple reason -- never stated -- that he is too old. When he took office he would
have been only a few years short of the age Reagan was when he left.
(For some reason age has never come up with this elderly bunch. Both Bill Clinton (as co-president)
and Trump will be older than Reagan was on election day, and Hillary will be only a few months
younger. You'd think we'd be seeing clips of Hillary chopping logs and Trump free climbing the
face of cliffs -- the sort of stuff they put poor old Ron through.)
A scary thought is that age has never come up because the powers that pick presidents don't
intend for them to be in office long.
Except in style, Hillary is no different than Obama, Bush II, or her husband. Whereas earlier
presidents felt the need to put on a show of decency -- well, okay, Bush II let it drop now and
then -- H. Clinton will be a bitch Cheney, going out of her way to rub everyone's face in it and
bragging there's nothing they can do about it.
Her style's different, but the same game will go on.
There's a bright side however. She's dumb and knows no bounds. Think Louis XVI. That, along
with her arrogance, may finally bring a tipping point of sorts. With things coming apart everywhere,
a smooth-talking fraud like Reagan or Obama might be able to somehow hold it together a little
longer. Hillary's nastiness could actually bring real change. God in his infinite irony.
To riff off a comment by Banger a few posts back. To say there is a deep state controlling
Clinton may be an over simplification. More likely their are lots of competing and conflicting
forces working in the dark, none with any clear idea or plan (or inkling of what other powers
are doing) each pushing for immediate gains without a thought for the future.
It's often said here that the plan is chaos. Maybe, or it could be that there is such confusion
and turmoil and chaos is so prevalent, that it looks like it must be a plan. Or taking a longer
view, it could be what we're seeing everywhere is the inevitable collapse of a vast culture that
has grown too complex.
In the struggle for power everyone. including H. Clinton, is a useful fool and a potential
patsy. Those hidden powers have a history of eating their own.
Sanders has been a great disappointment. In order to prevent Trump from getting the votes,
he is embracing and selling his soul and his supporters to a demon! In fact Sanders has more in
common with Trump that he has with Hillary.
One hopes that disenchanted Sanders supporters will either abstain or vote for Trump.
Having the choice only of two candidates is an absurdity.
"Bernie Sanders endorsing Crooked Hillary Clinton is like Occupy Wall Street endorsing Goldman
Sachs" is not a valid statement.
Sanders is a long time member of The Party and Congress. One cannot be a member of those clubs
for so long -- particularly during the years spanning the turn of the last century -- and not
be rotten to the core.
His followers were fools. I think some of them know that now.
Like million and millions of Americans you have been fooled not once but repeatedly and still
believe in democracy and Democratic party. Get real, Sanders probably a better lair than most
liars but not as good as Obomo and Hillary. Understands million and millions still believe these
two liars (dun believes me look at the most recent poll).
Do the smart things vote the opposite what the masses or MSM tells you. Better still vote Trump
and end the drip, drip and drips. Buy yourself a good cheap pitchfork, snows shovel or whatever
in yr local Craigslist or yard sales. Get ready for the final solution.
I for one, hoped for more than "sheepdog" from Sanders, but, alas, those who said so, were
totally correct. Trump and HRC are 2 sides of the same coin. It matters not who wins. With
either one, workers of the world are fucked. The corporate global takeover rolls on.
jules @ 46: in American politics, none of these people are for dismantling the biggest budgetary
fraud & boondoggle in human history: the pentagon. anybody saying they are for "small gov't" who
doesn't immediately propose to slash the military/para-military budget (not the VA, not now) by
50% every year for the next 500 years is lying.
PS-I guess, to distill the question, one might say.. Should corporations serve the people, or
should people serve the corporations? As of now, "the powers that are", believe in the latter.
People taken in by Sanders learned no lessons from gushing over Obama. They hurt themselves
again and are sociopathically indifferent to the far greater harm they have done to those who
were not gullible.
"Bernie Sanders folded. This without gaining any significant concession from Hillary Clinton on
programmatic or personal grounds. (At least as far as we know.) He endorsed Clinton as presidential
candidate even as she gave no ground for his voters' opinions. This disenfranchises the people
who supported him."
Even if she had given any "significant concession", it would have been meaningless noise
with not an iota of intention to implement such concessions.
She is a POS who will say anything at all to get elected. The only thing we really know is she
relishes confrontation on the foreign policy scene. Otherwise nobody can rely on her to act in
their interests in the domestic realm, except big corporate entities.
Syriza...oops, Sanders, was always more loyal to the Democratic party then his ideology. ALWAYS.
I don't know why his supporters are surprised. Did they actually think he was lying when he said
he would support Hillary Clinton.
And not only that, he out right lied saying that the Democrats have the most progressive platform
in Democrat history !!! A fucking ludicrous lie to protect evil Hillary. Disgraceful.
Most of The left are so pathetic it's embarrassing, it's a great invitation to be dominated
by the right wing.
I believe every threat that the despicable right wing will bring, I do not believe the ideology
commitment the vast majority of the left wing in power. Miserable lying cowards.
It is stupid for B to keep linking to Trumps quotes exclusively. Why does b not link to Jill
Stein criticism. Sure Trumps criticism of evil Hillarys corruption will gather important support,
but exclusively giving torture loving warmongering Trump ammunition, strangles other better candidates
in their political birth in the alternative to status quo attention. In the same way that the
Sanders, Chomsky, and other shortsighted cowards react by strangle politically strangling a desperate
new movement.
Congrats to those who labeled the 'Sheepdog' so early. Such an apt description. Good call.
Yesterday I had two emails from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, giddy with joy
over Sanders endorsement of Clinton. Today I had another, which made me giddy with joy:
After Bernie's call for unity yesterday, we just figured Democrats would...well...unify.
But instead, everything is falling apart.
FIRST: We heard barely a peep from grassroots Democrats.
THEN: A Quinnipiac poll showed Trump and Clinton tied in Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania.
NOW: We're questioning whether the Democratic Party can unify at all.
Great to hear that they're falling on their faces. The DCCC recruits ex-Republicans, Republicans-Lite,
and conservative Democrats to run for Congress, and actively oppose liberal candidates. Long may
they fail. Support worthy individual candidates.
Don't know if anyone's mentioned this book: "The Clinton's war on Women." There's a good long
review posted here, http://thesaker.is/the-clintons-war-on-women/
Lots of potential mud for Trump to sling that will stick.
Sanders released only one year of tax returns (2015). His campaign manager claimed his taxes
held no surprises. Well they didn't for 2015. But why didn't Sanders release earlier years? Any
serious Presidential candidate would expect to release at least 3 years of tax returns.
Given the 'service' that he performed, it might be especially interesting to have seen
his taxes for 2014, the year before he entered the race. The lack of transparency and Sanders'
'sheepdogging' raises questions of whether he received any inducements to enter the race.
Donald Trump is even worse. He hasn't released any tax info. He claims that the IRS
is auditing him (and that they have for many years) . But why not release estimates and/or
earlier tax returns?
We have gone through the looking glass. This evening on Public Broadcasting Service television
news hour Dr. Assad was interviewed by Judy Woodruff, a talking head teleprompter reading hand
puppet. Dr. Assad was asked if Donald Trump was elected President would his lack of foreign relations
diplomacy chops hinder his administrations abilities to achieve their goals. The question was
of no import. Nor was the answer. THE FACT THAT DR. ASSAD WAS TREATED AS AN EQUAL and not "Assad
must go" is a very significant event. VERY SIGNIFICANT!
He's a democratic socialist, so such affiliations and tactics are not unusual. The Democratic
Socialists of America, for example, a Socialist International section, is wholly within the Democratic
Party.
The Plan was always from the start for Bernie to hold down the Left, so Hillary could capture
Center-Right, and Donald could lead the Far Right into Smackdown. Then Bernie would deliver the
Left to Hillary. And so it has come to pass.
I thought everyone knew Bernie, Hillary and Donald are all bought and sold by Goldman? Hillary
and Donald sold their progeny to The Tribe, and Bernie is a woo-woo already. The traitor Chosen
sold US into slavery with Gramm-Leich-Bliley, and fawning sycophant Al-Clintonim signed that bill
into 'law' (sic), in return for her US Senate seat from NY.
Badda-boom, badda-bing!
These are the Vampire Squid, the Takers, Mafia Elites 'who settled the Western Frontier' and
now are the 'Disruptors' of the Public Space into a privatized Fivrr-Uber hell. They own you.
You are owned by the Private Central Bankim. Even a small child will tell you that your only real
'free choice' is to write-in "HELL NO!" in November, then flee to the 3W.
Sanders didn't release his other tax returns even when it became an issue in the campaign
.
Hillary said that she wouldn't release the transcripts of her Goldman speeches until Sanders
had released more tax returns. Her reasoning: she had complied with what was expected of a Presidential
candidate while the other had not yet done so.
Why wouldn't he immediately release those returns - which his campaign had claimed contained
no surprises - so as to force Hillary to release the transcripts?
Not only are staffers subjected to this,
volunteers are as well. "The tight control of volunteers stands in stark contrast to not only
American political-campaign norms but also Trump's reputation for speaking his mind."
Combine that with his statement that he'd like to
change libel laws to make it easier for himself to sue news organizations that down fawn all
over him. Does he seem like the sort to encourage whistle-blowers like Manning or Snowden? Will
he be logging all his email traffic for future FOIA requests? Or maybe he'll kill that off, too.
News Flash: Israel wins U.S. election; Iran to be nuked during inauguration
Trump just picked Mike Pence as running mate. And from (((
Forward ))):
"...Pence has said his support of Israel is deeply rooted in his Christian faith, as well as
in his strong relationship with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Pence was introduced
to AIPAC members in 2009 by then-board member Marshall Cooper at an AIPAC policy conference.
"Let me say emphatically, like the overwhelming majority of my constituents, my Christian
faith compels me to cherish the state of Israel," then-Rep. Pence said.
Cooper described Pence to the audience as "Israel's good friend."..."
So whether Hillary or Trump gets the job (or Obama declares a national emergency an remains)
Israel will be the de-facto new commander-in-chief of the U.S., henceforth to be know as Palestine
West.
The new Falcon Eye surveillance system-sold to the UAE by an Israeli defense contractor-"links
thousands of cameras spread across the city, as well as thousands of other cameras installed
at facilities and buildings in the emirate," the Abu Dhabi Monitoring and Control Center said
in an official statement. The Falcon Eye will "help control roads by monitoring traffic violations
while also monitoring significant behaviors in (Abu Dhabi) such as public hygiene and human
assemblies in non-dedicated areas."
Strange bedfellows? Not at all. The Israelis and the GCC countries, the USG and EU, are all soul
brothers : tiny 'elite' minorities attempting to rule their respective roosts by technological
means encompassing everything from drones to the media to their ubiquitous taps.
Totalitarianism is alive and well in the Middle East ... and in North America, the UK, Europe
... the last thing to be tolerated, the first things to be crushed, are 'human assemblies in non-dedicated
areas' over which their corporate selves would rule.
The Powers That Are are thicker than thieves. Among mere thieves competition remains. The PTA
are acting in loco parentis ... taking 'care' of us all for their own good.
Mike Gravel used to describe our present political situation as 'adolescent': mature enough
to understand the fix we're in, too immature to do anything but complain to 'those in charge'.
We're in charge. We've just been asleep at the wheel. Time to wake up, finally? Before our
whole world become Nice?
I agree that if Sanders had gone on to the Green Party he could have gotten significant support,
enough to guarantee Clinton's loss. But that's not what he wanted to do, whatever his reasons
for running. Folks overseas who think that Trump is anything more than a loudmouth, racist who
would be controlled by the same forces as Clinton is controlled by are fooling themselves. If
Sanders ran as a "pied piper" it wasn't successful. If anything, he presented a contrast to what
the Democratic Party has become.
In 1963 there was a coup in America. Since then the military-industrial complex has run the
country. It has been most apparent in its foreign policy, which has been the conquest of natural
resources (especially oil and gas) worldwide. America's resentment with the USSR/Russia has to
do with their living on top of resources.
But in order to continue the illusion of democracy in the US, it was necessary to maintain
some differences between the two parties so that Americans would think that they have a choice.
Meanwhile, the party that is supposed to represent the working class has been sliding into the
arms of the corporatists. Essentially, in order to give Americans a "choice" Trump has been pushed
as the demonic clown versus H. Clinton. Unfortunately, for good reasons as well as because of
endless propaganda from the right, most Americans distrust Clinton, as well they should. Her casual
announcement about enforcing a "no-fly zone" over Syria is essentially a declaration of war against
Russia.
Going back to the coup in 1963, in order to maintain control of the population it was necessary
for the ruling class to continue to generate candidates each election cycle to pretend to care
about the working class. I have long suspected that early on in their careers both Bill Clinton
and Hillary Clinton were recruited by US intelligence. During his time in Britain Bill's classmates
assumed that he was CIA At about this time Hillary, who'd been raised a rabid Republican, went
to both the Republican and Democratic national conventions in 1968. Not only was it a rather expensive
thing to do for a college student, but most people who are interested in one party aren't interested
in the other. I suspect it was the beginning of her career in US power politics. Shortly after
she wrote a pro-Vietnam speech for Melvin Laird in 1968, she was involved with the various Black
Panther trials around the US.
It's hard to believe that the Hillary who stands before us now was ever a political
ally of the Panthers. Rather, I suspect she was observing for an intelligence agency, the FBI
or CIA She sat through a Panther trial in New Haven, Connecticut, and then spent a summer in
Oakland working for the law firm that was representing the Panthers in the Bay Area. Essentially,
she was in the right place at the right time to glean information for COINTELPRO, the massive
spying program directed against anti-war and black movements. A few years later she worked on
the Democrats' legal team for Watergate, another good place for a government informant to be.
Bill, during his time at Oxford, would have functioned like the thousands of informants who sat
in on peace group meetings across American campuses.
Later, when the CIA was dumping cocaine at Mena, Arkansas, Bill Clinton was in position
to make sure state police left the operation alone. It's not surprising that George W. Bush's
first head of the DEA was Asa Hutchinson, who'd been the incurious federal prosecutor over that
part of Arkansas when the drugs came in.
The Clintons were prominent in the Democratic Leadership Council, which was an organization
within the Democratic Party pushing it to the right. In 1992 Bill pushed trade agreements that
would destroy the American middle class. Since then the party has been hopelessly corrupted by
Wall Street money.
It's now Hillary's turn. If you've always wanted to take a vacation somewhere or wanted to
do something before you die, I suggest you make time for it this year. I cannot think of another
president in memory who is more wed to military adventurism than Hillary.
Proportional representation etc. is not a panaceum. I think that party solidarity, even if the
party is only partially satisfactory is a good tool. What is happening is that Sanders who represents
"turn left" for Democrats is now more electable than Clinton. This has a potential for a big change,
much bigger than ephemeral "relative success" of the Greens, who are fated to collect less votes
than Libertarians (they may have their best year in a long, long time).
Of course, the "right wing of the left" discards party solidarity with ease. They more or less
rejected McGovern and Carter. Hillary's health care reform had the same fate. But they have very
hard time copying with change. Hillary basically promised good old times, and this is not good
enough. I suspect that her game plan is to unload full blast of "Trump's corruption" ads closer
to elections and keep the "positive tone" for now, and that may even work.
But if she polls badly enough, Democratic establishment may see the light and go for Sanders.
"... The mainstream US news media have never liked the brash billionaire Trump. He makes good circulation figures for sure, but the large coverage the Republican contender has received from the outset is preponderantly negative. ..."
"... Trump's campaign has instead been buoyed by the popular vote, not by endorsement from the elite establishment, including the Republican Party leadership and the corporate media. Now that the race for the presidency is turning into a two-horse contest between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Trump, the media's antipathy towards Trump is moving to an all-out barrage of attacks. Attacks, it has to be said, that are bordering on hysteria and which only a corporate machine could convey. ..."
"... Trump vehemently rebuffed the claims. He said it was simply a star, like the ones that US Marshals use. When his campaign team reacted to the initial media furor by replacing the red star with a circle it only served to fuel accusations against Trump because he was seen to be acting defensively. However, he later defiantly rebuked his campaign team and said they should have stuck with the star image and let him defend that choice of image as simply an innocuous star shape. For what it's worth, Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who is Jewish, subsequently rallied to the tycoon's defense and said he was not racist nor anti-Semitic and that the controversy was a media-contrived storm in a teacup. ..."
"... Trump makes a valid point that Clinton's abuse of state secrecy – whether intentional or negligent – has in fact posed a national security threat. Yet the media focus is decidedly not on his Democrat rival. It is rather centered on overblown concerns about the wealthy real estate developer. ..."
"... Trump is right. The political system in the US is rigged . Not just in terms of double standards of the justice system, but in the bigger context of how candidates are screened and vetted – in this case through undue vilification. ..."
"... Trump's reactionary views on immigration, race relations and international politics are certainly questionable. His credibility as the next president of the US may be dubious. But is his credibility any less than that of Hillary Clinton? Her melding of official capacity with private gain from Wall Street banks and foreign governments acting as donors to her family's fund-raising Clinton Foundation has the pungent whiff of selling federal policy for profit. Her penchant for criminal regime change operations in Honduras, Libya, Syria and Ukraine speak of a political mafia don. ..."
"... American politics has long been derided as a "dog and pony show" ..."
"... But what we are witnessing is a brazen display of how the powers-that-be (Wall Street, media, Pentagon, Washington, etc) are audaciously intervening in this electoral cycle to disenfranchise the voting population. ..."
Presidential hopeful Donald Trump is right: the 'system is 'rigged'. The media barrage against
the billionaire demonstrates irrefutably how the power establishment, not the people, decides who
sits in the White House.
Trump is increasingly assailed in the US media with alleged character flaws. The latest blast
paints Trump as a total loose cannon who would launch World War III. In short, a "nuke nut".
In the Pentagon-aligned Defense One journal, the property magnate is described as someone who
cannot be trusted with his finger on the nuclear button. Trump would order nuclear strikes equivalent
to 20,000 Hiroshima bombings as "easy as ordering a pizza", claimed the opinion piece.
If that's not an example of "project fear" then what is?
The mainstream US news media have never liked the brash billionaire Trump. He makes good circulation
figures for sure, but the large coverage the Republican contender has received from the outset is
preponderantly negative.
Trump's campaign has instead been buoyed by the popular vote, not by endorsement from the elite
establishment, including the Republican Party leadership and the corporate media. Now that the race
for the presidency is turning into a two-horse contest between Democrat Hillary Clinton and Trump,
the media's antipathy towards Trump is moving to an all-out barrage of attacks. Attacks, it has to
be said, that are bordering on hysteria and which only a corporate machine could convey.
Like a giant screening process, the Trump candidacy and his supporters are being systematically
disenfranchised. At this rate of attrition, by the time the election takes place in November the
result will already have been all but formally decided – by the powers-that-be, not the popular will.
The past week provides a snapshot of the intensifying media barrage facing Trump. Major US media
outlets have run prominent claims that Trump is a fan of the former brutal Iraqi dictator Saddam
Hussein. Those claims were based on a loose interpretation of what Trump said at a rally when he
referred to Saddam's strong-arm suppression of terrorism. He didn't say he liked Saddam. In fact,
called him a "bad guy". But Trump said that the Iraqi dictator efficiently eliminated terrorists.
A second media meme to emerge was "Trump the anti-Semite". This referred to an image his campaign
team tweeted of Hillary Clinton as "the most corrupt candidate ever". The words were emblazoned on
a red, six-pointed star. Again, the mainstream media gave copious coverage to claims that the image
was anti-Semitic because, allegedly, it was a Jewish 'Star of David'.
Trump vehemently rebuffed the claims. He said it was simply a star, like the ones that US Marshals
use. When his campaign team reacted to the initial media furor by replacing the red star with a circle
it only served to fuel accusations against Trump because he was seen to be acting defensively. However,
he later defiantly rebuked his campaign team and said they should have stuck with the star image
and let him defend that choice of image as simply an innocuous star shape.
For what it's worth, Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who is Jewish, subsequently rallied to
the tycoon's defense and said he was not racist nor anti-Semitic and that the controversy was a media-contrived
storm in a teacup.
Not only that but the Trump-risks-Armageddon article also refers to him being in the same company
as Russian leader Vladimir Putin and North Korea's Kim Jung Un who, we are told, "also have their
finger on the nuclear button".
Under the headline, 'How to slow Donald Trump from pushing the nuclear button', a photograph shows
the presidential contender with a raised thump in a downward motion. The answer being begged is:
Don't vote for this guy – unless you want to incinerate the planet!
This is scare-tactics to the extreme thrown in for good measure along with slander and demonization.
And all pumped up to maximum volume by the US corporate media, all owned by just six conglomerates.
Trump is having to now spend more of his time explaining what he is alleged to have said or did
not say, instead of being allowed to level criticisms at his Democrat rival or to advance whatever
political program he intends to deliver as president.
The accusation that Trump is a threat to US national security is all the more ironic given that
this week Hillary Clinton was labelled as "extremely careless" by the head of the FBI over her dissemination
of state secrets through her insecure private email account.
Many legal experts and former US government officials maintain that Clinton's breach of classified
information is deserving of criminal prosecution – an outcome that would debar her from contesting
the presidential election.
Why the FBI should have determined that there is no case for prosecution even though more than
100 classified documents were circulated by Clinton when she was Secretary of State (2009-2013) has
raised public heckles of "double standards".
The controversy has been compounded by the US Attorney General Loretta Lynch also declaring that
no charges will be pressed and the case is closed – a week after she met with Hillary's husband,
Bill, on board her plane for a hush-hush chat.
Trump
makes a valid point that Clinton's abuse of state secrecy – whether intentional or negligent
– has in fact posed a national security threat. Yet the media focus is decidedly not on his Democrat
rival. It is rather centered on overblown concerns about the wealthy real estate developer.
Trump is right. The political system in the US is
rigged. Not just in terms of double standards of the justice system, but in the bigger context
of how candidates are screened and vetted – in this case through undue vilification.
Trump's reactionary views on immigration, race relations and international politics are certainly
questionable. His credibility as the next president of the US may be dubious. But is his credibility
any less than that of Hillary Clinton? Her melding of official capacity with private gain from Wall
Street banks and foreign governments acting as donors to her family's fund-raising Clinton Foundation
has the pungent whiff of selling federal policy for profit. Her penchant for criminal regime change
operations in Honduras, Libya, Syria and Ukraine speak of a political mafia don.
American politics has long been derided as a "dog and pony show", whereby powerful lobbies
buy the pageant outcome. Trump's own participation in the election is only possible because he is
a multi-billionaire who is able to fund a political campaign. That said, however, the New York businessman has garnered a sizable popular following from his
maverick attacks on the rotten Washington establishment.
But what we are witnessing is a brazen display of how the powers-that-be (Wall Street, media,
Pentagon, Washington, etc) are audaciously intervening in this electoral cycle to disenfranchise
the voting population.
Clinton has emerged as the candidate-of-choice for the establishment, and the race to the White
House is being nobbled – like never before.
It is difficult to imagine how the Trump rank and file and the party's corporate
"establishment" will paper over their irreconcilable differences, rooted in the party's failure
to preserve skin privilege and good jobs in a White Man's Country.
Just as brazenly, Trump, the rabble rousing billionaire, has violated the most sacred ruling
class taboos by rejecting the
national security rationale for the hyper-aggressive, ever-expanding, global U.S. military
presence. If Trump fails to convincingly recant such heresies, the rulers will deal with him with
extreme prejudice.
Thanks. A quick visual inspection suggests that they "only" blacked
out about 10% of the document. Some pages almost everything is visible,
and on a few, almost half of the text is obscured.
A couple of days ago there was a discussion of infantilization by
politicians via the use of emojis. I think that preventing people from
reading the full report is a far more serious form of infantilization.
Only the elite philosopher kings are allowed access to information. The
rest of us children might be traumatized if we could read the full
report.
The information about the dry-run of 1999 on America West flight from
Phx to DC Saudi Embassy party was especially interesting to me. I suspect
that Saudi Arabia played both sides (al-quaeda and the US) in order to
bring about the Sunni alliance we are currently being worked out in Libya
and Syria. Iraq was on this analysis definitely an expected casualty of
the events of 9/11, which suggests that the Saudis had good reason to
believe that US officials were already waiting for any excuse to take
over that country.
There's this sort of hole prior to 9-11-2001 where it sounds like no
one knows anything but actually, the Joint Forces intelligence group knew
quite a bit. The Joint Inquiry never interviewed anyone from DO-5.
So strange! Why it seems just yesterday Chancellor Merkel and
other wise EU leaders were trying to get Turkey admitted to the
European Union, enabling Turks to move freely about the Continent,
and they were pressing that nice Mr. Erdogan to accept billions of
Euros to handle Muslim refugees for them. How could a stable
European society like Turkey still be experiencing things like
military coups? There must be a more polite explanation for what's
really going on over there.
"... I think that dissent will continue as long as the United States continues. We don't know exactly what forms it will take, or what causes dissenters will take up. But we do have a pretty good idea from history that dissenters will always push for more freedom, more liberty, more economic equality, and that there will be counter-dissenters who will seek to deprive them of these goals. There always seems to be that for every two steps forward, there's one step back. ..."
What do you foresee as far as the future of dissent is concerned in the United States?
I think that dissent will continue as long as the United States continues. We don't know exactly
what forms it will take, or what causes dissenters will take up. But we do have a pretty good idea
from history that dissenters will always push for more freedom, more liberty, more economic equality,
and that there will be counter-dissenters who will seek to deprive them of these goals. There always
seems to be that for every two steps forward, there's one step back.
What is gained for leftist movements today by anchoring themselves a positive account of the
nation's founding (accounts that suggest that this nation has leftist impulses at its core)?
I think that leftist movements today have a deep, abiding faith in "democracy." And in that way,
they are the true heirs of the American Revolution. Even if most of the "founding fathers" like [George]
Washington and [Alexander] Hamilton and [Thomas] Jefferson were elites who distrusted the masses,
they did give lip service to liberty and equality, and they did formulate fundamental arguments promoting
the idea of a government of the people. Today, their ideas are more broadly conceived than they themselves
conceived them. Because leftists today believe in the value of democracy, what they are in essence
doing is holding America's feet to the fire. They are demanding that the United States live up to
those ideals ensconced in our founding documents. "Be true to what you said on paper," as Martin
Luther King Jr. expressed it in his last speech on April 3, 1968, in Memphis.
What is inevitably lost or papered over when one embraces a positive founding narrative about
a nation-state?
What is papered over is that the majority of the "founding fathers" were slave owners. And the
institution of slavery gave them the leisure time to devote to thinking and writing about such high-fallutin'
and precious concepts as democracy, liberty and republican forms of government. Historian Edmund
S. Morgan, in his book American Slavery, American Freedom, makes a compelling argument that the notions
we have of freedom, that the basis for American freedom is slavery. If it weren't for slavery, we
would never have developed as we have. So it is rather presumptuous of us, even for the left, to
feel that we've embraced freedom and believe in equality for all. Still, despite that, it doesn't
mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water. What it does mean is that we should aspire
to those ideals, even if the "founding fathers" didn't fully believe in them themselves, even if
they were disingenuous hypocrites who framed a constitution solely to benefit and protect the property
rights and aristocratic status of their class.
Today, we need to take those ideals seriously and work toward making the reality of American society
more closely resemble the ideals they espoused in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
"... "We have been offering Bernie Sanders, basically to sit down and talk and to explore how we might be collaborate, because I can't give away the nomination," ..."
"... "could certainly work with him for all sorts of possibilities, including leading the ticket." ..."
"... "truly saw the light," ..."
"... "the green light, that we do need independent politics." ..."
"... "the revolution is now being stuffed back into a counter-revolutionary party," ..."
"... "leading the charge for Wall Street, for wars and for the Walmart economy." ..."
"... "Bernie said let's forget the past, but I don't think people can forget this movement that they've worked so hard to build," ..."
"... "there were a lot of people who were watching this endorsement in complete and utter disbelief." ..."
"... "I think there are a lot of broken hearts out there among the Bernie campaign. A lot of people who are feeling burned by the Democratic Party, who are not going to simply resign themselves to an election that offers them either a billionaire, one hand, or a cheerleader for the billionaires," she added. ..."
Following Sanders officially dropping out of the race, Stein reminded RT viewers
of her proposal to step aside in order to offer him the nomination in her Green
Party.
"We have been offering Bernie Sanders, basically to sit down and
talk and to explore how we might be collaborate, because I can't give away the
nomination," Stein told RT, stressing that even though she cannot take
the delegates' role of assigning nominations, she "could certainly work
with him for all sorts of possibilities, including leading the ticket."
This could be possible, she said, if Sanders "truly saw the light,"
meaning "the green light, that we do need independent politics."
In Stein's view, "the revolution is now being stuffed back into a counter-revolutionary
party," whose standard bearer, Clinton, she scorns for "leading the
charge for Wall Street, for wars and for the Walmart economy."
"Bernie said let's forget the past, but I don't think people can forget
this movement that they've worked so hard to build," Stein said, adding
that on Tuesday "there were a lot of people who were watching this endorsement
in complete and utter disbelief."
.... ... ...
Sanders supporters have taken to social media in a stern backlash against
the former Democratic presidential candidate.
"They also can't forget Hillary Clinton's record, which is very much the
opposite of what they have been working for the past year," Stein says.
"I think there are a lot of broken hearts out there among the Bernie
campaign. A lot of people who are feeling burned by the Democratic Party,
who are not going to simply resign themselves to an election that offers
them either a billionaire, one hand, or a cheerleader for the billionaires,"
she added.
She says that after primaries in California where "it became clear that the
Democratic Party was really shutting [Sanders] out," her Green Party began to
see people's interest surge.
"We are seeing that now, in the last 24 to 36 hours as well, as people realize
that the game is over," Stein said.
@MajorCallowayLeader
Well, now it's Stein or Trump - time will tell.
Sanders is the worst kind of turncoat.
How can he possibly support the Laughing Butcher of Libya? He must have
been a lost soul to begin with, or sold it long ago.
"... In late April I was among the 25 Vermonters who occupied Congressman Bernie Sanders' Burlington office to protest his support of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia and the ongoing war against Iraq. Calling ourselves the "Instant Antiwar Action Group," we decided to bring our outrage at Bernie's escalating hypocrisy directly to his office, an action that resulted in 15 of us being arrested for trespass. ..."
"... Dissident Voices ..."
"... Despite his own claims, Sanders has not been an antiwar leader. . . . His hawkish [stance] drove one of his key advisers, Jeremy Brecher, to resign from his staff. Brecher wrote in his resignation letter, "Is there a moral limit to the military violence you are willing to participate in or support?" ..."
"... Dissident Voices ..."
"... Under the Bush regime, Sanders' militarism has only grown worse. While he called for alternative approaches to the war on Afghanistan, he failed to join the sole Democrat, Barbara Lee, to vote against Congress' resolution that gave George Bush a blank check to launch war on any country he deemed connected to the September 11 attacks. ..."
"... After thousands of people are killed in the World Trade Center and Pentagon, President George Bush and Congress declared war on Afghanistan. Sanders joined the bandwagon and voted to adopt the joint resolution that authorized the President to use the United States Armed Forces against anyone involved with the attacks of September 11th, 2001 and any nation that harbors these individuals. ..."
"... While Sanders voted against the original authorization to use military force against Iraq, he followed that vote with several subsequent votes authorizing funding of that war and the debacle in Afghanistan. ..."
What also stands out in the above criticism is that Sanders, seeking the
Democratic nomination as a Tea Party of the Left outlier, has a long-standing
history of supporting presidential military forays: anathema to aggressive
progressives.
In 1999, Congressman Sanders signed onto President Bill Clinton's military
interventions into Kosovo. Peace activists crashed his Burlington, VT Congressional
Office. One of the protesters commented on
the Liberty Union Party website :
In late April I was among the 25 Vermonters who occupied Congressman
Bernie Sanders' Burlington office to protest his support of the NATO bombing
of Yugoslavia and the ongoing war against Iraq. Calling ourselves the "Instant
Antiwar Action Group," we decided to bring our outrage at Bernie's escalating
hypocrisy directly to his office, an action that resulted in 15 of us being
arrested for trespass.
Dissident Voices blasted Sanders not just for cozying up with
the Democratic Party, but war authorizations throughout his tenure in the
House of Representatives.
Despite his own claims, Sanders has not been an antiwar leader. .
. . His hawkish [stance] drove one of his key advisers, Jeremy Brecher,
to resign from his staff. Brecher wrote in his resignation letter, "Is there
a moral limit to the military violence you are willing to participate in
or support?"
Under the Bush regime, Sanders' militarism has only grown worse.
While he called for alternative approaches to the war on Afghanistan, he
failed to join the sole Democrat, Barbara Lee, to vote against Congress'
resolution that gave George Bush a blank check to launch war on any country
he deemed connected to the September 11 attacks.
Indeed,
Barbara
Lee (D-CA) was the lone vote against granting this extended power to
President Bush. Sanders joined with both parties on this issue. Of course.
While Presidential candidate Sanders
has
relaunched his speech on the House floor opposing the War on Iraq in
2002,
Counterpunch has already exposed Sanders' connections with
Bush 43's military ventures:
After thousands of people are killed in the World Trade Center and
Pentagon, President George Bush and Congress declared war on Afghanistan.
Sanders joined the bandwagon and voted to adopt the joint resolution that
authorized the President to use the United States Armed Forces against anyone
involved with the attacks of September 11th, 2001 and any nation that harbors
these individuals.
And then:
While Sanders voted against the original authorization to use military
force against Iraq, he followed that vote with several subsequent votes
authorizing funding of that war and the debacle in Afghanistan.
Sanders has followed a pattern of voting against initial efforts to expand
government resources into the War on Terror, then voted for funding them
afterwards.
The Democratic Party's 2016 Presidential bench is a clown-car of political
dysphoria. From Hillary Clinton's early yearning for Republican Barry Goldwater,
to Lincoln Chafee's former GOP US Senator status, and Jim Webb's service
in the Reagan Administration, now left-wing partisans can argue that "Weekend
at Bernie" Sanders
is right-wing warmonger .
Sanders has spent a lot of time and energy convincing voters that Clinton had
no place in the Oval Office.
The following are just a few examples.
1 – "Are you qualified to be President of the United States when
you're raising millions of dollars from Wall Street whose greed, recklessness
and illegal behavior helped to destroy our economy?" – Philadelphia rally,
April 2016.
However, Sanders may be singing a different tune when he is back in Philadelphia
for the Democratic National Convention. His change of heart Tuesday included
telling the audience: "I have come here to make it as clear as possible as to
why I am endorsing Hillary Clinton and why she must become our next president."
2 – "I proudly stood with the workers. Secretary Clinton stood
with the big money interests" – Youngstown, Ohio March 14
Sanders has frequently attacked Clinton's use of Super PACs and potential
interest from elite banks. While the former secretary of state has been endorsed
by many unions, such as the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees,
Sanders' speech swapped that rhetoric for something a little more flattering.
In his endorsement speech, he said: "Hillary Clinton understands that we
must fix an economy in America that is rigged and that sends almost all new
wealth and income to the top one percent."
3 – "Do I have a problem, when a sitting Secretary of State and
a Foundation ran by her husband collects many millions of dollars from foreign
governments, governments which are dictatorship… um yeah, do I have a problem
with that? Yeah I do."
Sanders passionately attacked the Clinton Foundation in June, calling its
reception of money from foreign governments such as Saudi Arabia a "conflict
of interest." However, on Tuesday he told the audience that Clinton "knows that
it is absurd that middle-class Americans are paying an effective tax rate higher
than hedge fund millionaires, and that there are corporations in this country
making billions in profit while they pay no federal income taxes in a given
year because of loopholes their lobbyists created."
4 – "She was very reluctant to come out in opposition. She is running
for president. She concluded it was a good idea to oppose the TPP, and she did."
Clinton's slow opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) raised the
ire of both Sanders and his supporters. Perhaps through intense negotiations
to make Clinton's campaign more progressive, he is now willing to focus more
on Clinton's interior economy, saying, "She wants to create millions of new
jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure – our roads, bridges, water
systems and wastewater plants."
5 – "Well, I don't think Hillary Clinton can lead a political revolution"
Commenting on Clinton's potential to carry the torch for the political revolution
he claimed he was spearheading, Sanders lacked faith in her ability to make
the changes he deemed necessary back in June, when he was on CBS's "Face the
Nation."
However, perhaps through negotiating the terms of his endorsement, Clinton's
platform sounds more and more like Sanders' when he talks about it. Describing
new platforms such as lowering student debt and making free education attainable
without accruing massive amounts of debt, along with expanding the use of generic
medicine and expanding community health centers all sound like shades of Sanders.
6 – "When you support and continue to support fracking, despite
the crisis that we have in terms of clean water… the American people do not
believe that that is the kind of president that we need to make the changes
in America to protect the working families of this country."
Back in an April debate, many voters were frustrated when Clinton gave a
lengthy, difficult explanation about her stance on fracking. Sanders, a longtime
opponent of hydraulic fracturing.
However, since the CNN Democratic Debate, Sanders and Clinton may have both
shifted their positions on the matter that was once clear cut for the senator
from Vermont.
According to Sanders, "Hillary Clinton is listening to the scientists who
tell us that if we do not act boldly in the very near future there will be more
drought, more floods, more acidification of the oceans, more rising sea levels."
7 – "When this campaign began, I said that we got to end the starvation
minimum wage of $7.25, raise it to $15. Secretary Clinton said let's raise it
to $12 ... To suddenly announce now that you're for $15, I don't think is quite
accurate."
At the same CNN debate in Brooklyn, Sanders hammered on Clinton's inconsistent
stance on raising the minimum wage. While her opinion has shifted from debate
to debate, it seems that Sanders' has as well.
"She believes that we should raise the minimum wage to a living wage," Sanders
said, without specifying what the minimum wage would be increased to under her
more progressive campaign.
8– "Almost all of the polls that… have come out suggest that I
am a much stronger candidate against the Republicans than is Hillary Clinton."
Sanders might be eating crow for this one. His entire endorsement speech
often focused on the party's need to defeat presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump.
Throughout the speech, Sanders contrasted the new and improved Clinton strategy
that includes more of Sanders' talking points with those from Trump.
Sanders went as far as to place the importance of the election on keeping
Trump away from the Supreme Court, saying, "If you don't believe this election
is important, take a moment to think about the Supreme Court justices that Donald
Trump will nominate, and what that means to civil liberties, equal rights and
the future of our country."
9 – "[Super predators] was a racist term and everybody knew it
was a racist term."
Clinton's involvement with the criminal justice reform of the 1990s that
contributed to the mass incarceration has frequently been a contentious point
in this election. In 1996, she went on to warn the public about the existence
of "super predators," or children with "no conscience, no empathy, we can talk
about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel."
However, both Clinton and Sanders have a track record of working with the
civil rights movements, and now Sanders may not be so quick to put Clinton and
racist in the same sentence.
"Hillary Clinton understands that our diversity is one of our greatest strengths,"
he said Tuesday.
Note the NYT was afraid to open comment section for this article :-)
Notable quotes:
"... "Intelligent Bernie supporters will NEVER support her because she stands for everything were fighting against," he said. "Just because Bernie has left our movement does not mean it is over." ..."
"... Despite Hillary's penchant for flip-flopping rhetoric, she's spent decades serving the causes of the Wall Street, war, & Walmart economy. ..."
Daniel Whitfield, of Discovery Bay, Calif., insisted that the political revolution Mr. Sanders
had championed did not have to end just because the senator had given up. However, he said that
voting for Mrs. Clinton was not an option.
"Intelligent Bernie supporters will NEVER support her because she stands for everything were
fighting against," he said. "Just because Bernie has left our movement does not mean it is over."
... ... ...
Some of the lesser-known candidates running for president sought to capitalize on the moment.
Jill Stein, the Green Party's presidential nominee, sent out a barrage of Twitter posts as Mr.
Sanders made his endorsement arguing that Mrs. Clinton's policies were antithetical to a liberal
progressive agenda.
Dr. Jill Stein
✔ @DrJillStein
Despite Hillary's penchant for flip-flopping rhetoric, she's spent decades serving the causes
of the Wall Street, war, & Walmart economy.
Gov. Gary Johnson
✔ @GovGaryJohnson
If joining Sen. Sanders in the Clinton Establishment isn't a good fit, there IS another
option... #afterthebern
For those who believed that Mr. Sanders still had a chance to snatch the nomination at the
convention in Philadelphia, it was too soon after his endorsement to consider alternatives. It
would take time for the mix of anger and disbelief to subside.
"You chose her over us," Jessica Watrous Boyer, of Westerly, R.I., wrote on Mr. Sanders's
Facebook page, lamenting that he had broken his promise to take the fight to the convention.
"Truly shocked and saddened by this."
Some of Bernie Sanders' most loyal backers have turned into his biggest bashers on the heels
of his Hillary Clinton endorsement.
The Vermont senator, who slammed Clinton repeatedly during the presidential primary campaign,
offered his unwavering support to the presumptive Democratic nominee at a rally in New Hampshire
Tuesday.
"Hillary Clinton will make a great president and I am proud to stand with her today," he said.
What followed was an avalanche of angry tweets, blogs and other social media posts from those who
had been feeling the 'Bern' -- and now just feel burned.
In New York, Monroe County Sanders activist Kevin Sweeney told the Democrat & Chronicle he's
shifting his donations to Green Party candidate Jill Stein. "A lot of Bernie supporters are
making $27 donations to Jill Stein's campaign today," he said.
Others were more direct, as the hashtag #SelloutSanders and others took off on Twitter....
... ... ...
Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, jumped in on the action.
He tweeted, "Bernie Sanders endorsing Crooked Hillary Clinton is like Occupy Wall Street
endorsing Goldman Sachs. "
brendajc
Bernie supporters.......trump welcomes you
1. We are and have been socialist since FDR....welfare...unemployment ...medicare....social
security. ...,studebt loans....these a3 socialist programs.
nobody wants these socialist programs gone
We just don't want communism
And we want fiscal responsibility.
Come join us.
are122
I sometimes think Bernie was nothing more then a setup or a patsy encouraged to run by the
DNC. With all the "superdelegates" supporting HC, the Bern had to know he virtually had no
chance to win but put on a show anyway. He's suddenly very nice to all those that basically
shafted him in advance.
hotdogsdownhallways
Cannot wait until we find out how much the Clinton Foundation gave him.
From Twitter: Bernie Sanders, We didn't donate $230M to vote for a warmonger with 4 superPACs,
scam charity and $150M speeches who sabotaged your campaign
Notable quotes:
"... Today, you decided to officially express your support for Hillary Clinton in the race for president of the United States. Unlike many, I will not label you a "sellout." Though I'm disappointed in your decision, I would also like to thank you for your contribution to American politics. ..."
"... But I reject the political hive-mind's notion that you had to endorse Hillary. You did not. You've been an independent for decades, refusing to officially associate yourself with a party that you didn't fully believe in. ..."
Today, you decided to officially express your support for Hillary Clinton in the race for
president of the United States. Unlike many, I will not label you a "sellout." Though I'm
disappointed in your decision, I would also like to thank you for your contribution to American
politics.
... ... ...
Like me and many other conservatives, your supporters now stand without a candidate to believe
in. And, like me, they are disappointed in your decision to bow to the pressure exerted by the
political muscle that the Clintons have been flexing for decades. I understand that your arm has
been twisted by every establishment Democrat from the top down...
But I reject the political hive-mind's notion that you had to endorse Hillary. You did
not. You've been an independent for decades, refusing to officially associate yourself with a
party that you didn't fully believe in. Throughout the campaign, you highlighted all of the
problems with your opponent, and even went so far as to declare her "unfit" for the office of the
presidency. You told America that you were starting a political revolution. By its very nature,
though, a revolution refuses to be cowed by the protectors of the status quo. It can concede
temporary defeat in certain battles, sure, but it can't survive if betrayed by its leaders. It is
disingenuous for you to pretend that you will continue your revolution despite your endorsement -
or even worse, imply that Hillary will. I thought you were better than that.
...During your endorsement speech, once more you called out the Wall Street billionaires for
whom you've so often expressed unqualified loathing over the last 14 months. But this time,
something was wrong: There stood, bobbing her head next to you, someone who has made a career out
of selling favors to those very same billionaires. I thought you were someone who put principles
before politics, and that you would never hesitate to stick to your guns, regardless of the
pressure. I guess not. Despite feeling disappointed and deflated, I want to thank you for helping
to rekindle my faith and interest in politics.
... ... ...
Sincerely, Andrew - Andrew Badinelli is an intern at National Review.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437758/bernie-sanders-wrong-beliefs-ideologically-principled
Alessandro Bianchi:
I would start from a brutal question: what kind of country
has become one that offers Donald Trump as the best candidate?
Peter Koenig:
The United States is a country, almost hermetically closed to the
rest of the real world, brainwashed to the core with lies and propaganda – and every day being told
how great America is. This propaganda is not new, though. It has been going on for as long as the
US exists, but has rapidly intensified after WWII and especially during the Cold War – and then again
after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
And thus, Americans, meaning North Americans – not mixing them up with Latin America which is
also part of the Americas – the vast majority of the US citizens cannot see what is really going
on. They are blinded by propaganda – and immobilized by their comfort. They love comfortable lives,
many of them – and although they do realize that something is not as it should be, it would give
them an uneasy feeling searching for the truth. The truth they suspect is too hard to swallow.
In such an ambiance someone like Donald Trump can flourish. He is different and he has a personality
the populace in general lack. The populace is unhappy with what's going on in their country, though
they are 'comfortable' how they live and how they lived all their lives. Change is uncomfortable.
Trump personalizes their change, without having to do anything. And Trump reconfirms their values
– of a great country – supremacy above all. – Trump is an 'old Nazi', while Hillary, better called
'Killary' is a new Nazi, or a neo-Nazi.
You see – fascism is difficult to escape in the US of A.
But what's the alternative to Trump? – Killary? –
With her you know whom she is working for – the Zionists, of whom she is actually part; neoliberals,
of whom she is part; corporate and financial elites by whom she is paid; Israel, as the Israeli influence
through AIPAC in the US and the US Congress is unparalleled and unbeatable to the point of the going
saying that "the tail (Israel, the Zionists) wags the Dog (US)". They, the Zionists support her,
she supports them. The circle is perfect. And both go to war. They want the total chaos in the Middle
East, to be dominated by the Israel of Netanyahu and Washington. Killary is the war candidate – perfect
for the Pentagon and the Military Industrial Complex.
So – I believe, the 'system' – the 'elite system' behind the mysterious Lucifer eye on top of
the pyramid on the dollar bill, this system will make Killary their next president. She is perfect
for them. She and trump are but two sides of the same coin. Therefore, no chance that anything will
change towards peace in the US of A in the coming years. Change may come only if people at home wake
up and take politics in their own hands – seeking peace, seeking true unification – not dominion
– with the rest of the world.
Peoples of the world do not need a sledgehammer, a dictator – one that enslaves them, robs them,
rapes and exploits them, kills them if they don't behave as the Masters in Washington deem necessary.
People in the US suffer the same from a Trump or Killary as would the rest of the world. Poverty
and injustice, the advancement of the police- and military dictatorship in the US is alarming, depriving
citizens of their rights, their livelihood, their freedom. But they must wake up to stop this process.
AB:
In a recent survey over 53% of Americans were against both Hillary Clinton
and Donald Trump. How long will we continue to consider the United States a democracy? And why, in
your opinion, abstention is the only form of "rebellion" of a completely excluded from the decision-making
stage population?
PK:
I don't know anyone, other than the mainstream media (MSM), that considers
the US a democracy. Indeed, the last form of 'rebellion' – of active protest that no military can
stop, is abstention from voting, not going to the polls – staying home. In a system where the people
are given the candidates that the evil eye pre-selects for them – and where none of theirs would
stand a chance – in such a system NOT voting may be the only solution, the only way to send a strong
message of disagreement. It would, however, take an organization of campaigning much harder than
folding into the mood of every four years, listening to the same lies and propaganda over and over
again – and what's worse, taking the candidates seriously. Debating Killary and Trump is already
taking them too seriously, giving them credit they don't deserve. They are both criminals – with
Killary being a murderer.
AB:
Bernie Sanders was really the change that many in Europe have described?
PK:
Not at all. Bernie is a fake. He was and I guess, still is a test case for
the system. Lucifer wants to see how far he can go – and what is it that the people want to hear.
Accordingly, will be adjusted the discourse of the two candidates. Sanders has a (Senate) voting
record which does not portray what he pledges to stand for. He is someone who when it suits him to
be politically correct, calls Chavez a dead dictator, distancing himself from this great mentor of
a free world.
What kind of a worthy candidate would do that?
Sanders, early on has said that if he should not succeed, he would support Killary. Hello! what message
does that convey? – That he would support a warmonger par excellence? – Europeans like many Americans
have been fooled by Bernie's charm and rebellious appearance. All fake!
AB:
What would happen to the world with a Hillary Clinton's presidency?
PK:
The short answer – WWIII – if it hadn't already started as one of Obama's
last agenda item to be achieved before leaving office. Killary and Israel – they would certainly
not stop from annihilating the Middle East on the way to achieve The PNAC's (Plan for a New American
Century) sole objective – Full Spectrum Dominance – controlling the world. To do so, wars with Russia
and China are unavoidable. I still hope – Hope dies last! – that Presidents Putin and Xi, the real
visionaries and excellent chess players in this geopolitical game, will be able to gently pull out
all the plugs from the monster octopus, deflating the beast economically – so as to spill as little
blood as possible -and, so as the rest of the world can continue living with a peaceful economic
and monetary system, the one being designed by Russia, China, India (the BRICS, now without the 'B'),
the central and eastern Asian countries of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and those also
belonging to the EEU (Eurasian Economic Union) covering some 50% of the world population and controlling
about a third of the world's economic output.
AB:
What did you feel when you saw Obama speaking recently at Hiroshima not apologizing
for what was done by his country and declaring almost sarcastically – as the head of the world's
first atomic power – to hope for a world without nuclear weapons?
PK:
Utter disgust – a hypocrite on top of his class.
AB:
Will the growing US expansionism come to a breaking point and collision with
China?
PK:
As I said before, let's hope China and Russia will be able to deflate the
monster's steady aggressions through encroachment of Russia by NATO and China by the US Navy fleet
in the South China Sea. They are a constant provocation. But so far Russia and China haven't fallen
into the trap.
What is more worrisome – the European vassals, especially Germany, France and the UK, they are totally
enslaved- or bought? – by Washington. They let the expansion of NATO going on, even pay for it!!!
– while not realizing – are they really so blind? – that the next war, WWIII, would play out again
in Europe? – Europe the third time in 100 years the theatre of war, destruction and annihilation.
This time to the end of life – very likely.
AB:
Although it is NATO that is bringing his installations more and more to the
east, in Europe our information feeds a danger of an aggressive Russia. Who benefits feed this feeling
of Russophobia?
PK:
The information in Europe and elsewhere in the western world is controlled
to literally 90% by 6 giant Anglo-Zionist media corporations. Every piece of propaganda news – LIES
– is repeated at nauseatum by all the MSM outlets. It's an old doctrine, Hitler and many before him
knew, when you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth. That's happening to an agonizing
degree in Europe – a sheer continent of vassals. – They harm themselves most – and, of course, support
Lucifer behind his clandestine eye on top of the pyramid.
AB:
Since the advent of the so-called Arab Spring, which began with the famous
Obama's speech at the University of Cairo in 2009, the Eastern Mediterranean has become a powder
keg. Was it an external plan planned destruction of states hostile rulers in Washington, Libya and
Syria in particular, or real quest for democracy and freedom?
PK:
Well, my friend, you know that it had and has nothing to do with democracy.
The 'Arab Spring' was as planned by the CIA, Mossad and other secret services of the evil powers
as were the so-called Color Revolutions in the former Soviet Republics – and of course, the last
one we have witnessed to the extreme, Ukraine, where Washington didn't relent before a pure Nazi
Government was installed; a Nazi Government – for which such (in)famous newspapers like the Swiss
NZZ (Neue Zürcher Zeitung) seek support by asking the west to go to war against Russia. Can you imagine!
None of the destroyed states were 'hostile' to Washington. It is, as always, the
other way around, hostility is instigated by Washington, to provoke wars and 'regime change' that's
precisely what has happened in the Middle East – and continues to happen until all those countries
that have to fall – as it is planned in the PNAC – will eventually fall. The only ones that can stop
that merciless killing machine are Russia and China.
AB:
Is right to define today Aleppo as the "Stalingrad of Syria" and "the cemetery
of the dreams of fascist Erdogan" as stated by the Syrian President Assad?
PK:
Yes, President Assad may be right. This is an interesting allegation and
association. But then again – Aleppo still stands today and Mr. Putin will not let it fall.
AB:
What do you think will be the final scenario for Syria. It risks a crystallization
like Cold War-style situation between the two blocks – Damascus, Russia and regional allies, on the
one hand, and Kurds with the United States on the other – with Raqqa which will become a new Berlin?
PK:
It's very difficult to predict the outcome of the Syria conflict – a US instigated
conflict, let me make that very clear. In any case, as it stands now, the axis Syria-Iran is still
alive and well. China, the single largest client of Iran's hydrocarbons, will not let Iran fall.
Mr. Putin, likewise, will, in my opinion, not let Mr. Assad be overthrown by Lucifer and his minions.
And let's hope that they prevail. To prevail, however, Washington would have to take some major blows,
some weakening blows. This is currently the case. The empire is on its last legs, as many say – breathing
heavily, like an angry beast in agony – it lashes around itself and kills indiscriminately whatever
it can, so nobody may survive its demise. This could well happen. The US triggering WWIII – a nuclear
annihilation. But let's hope it will NOT happen.
AB:
What role, in your opinion, the human rights NGOs play in the current international
context?
PK:
What Human rights NGOs? – There is none left that deserves the term. They
are all bought. Have you ever seen, for example, Amnesty international accusing the empire of whatever
human rights abuses they have carried out – the most flagrant human rights abuser in the universe
is never mentioned by AI? – What a joke! – Same with Human Rights Watch and others. They are all
subdued, even Green Peace – probably all financed by the dollars of which the FED has taken on its
own the power to create unlimited quantities from thin air.
AB:
14 years ago, the coup in Venezuela against the democratically elected President
Hugo Chavez failed and began the US exit from Latin America. Shortly after, the US invaded Iraq.
Today that the hegemony in the eastern Mediterranean wobbles, Washington uses all its weapons known
to return in Latin America. Was in your opinion the President Rafael Correa right when he says that
we are facing a new Plan Condor in the region?
PK:
Of course, President Correa is right, when he refers to a new Plan Condor.
It is happening very fast. Thinking of it makes one sick. We – those who foster hope to the end –
have been hoping that at least one important part of the world, Latin America, or especially South
America, will withstand the pressure of Washington. But no. These governments, Brazil, Argentina,
Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, they seem to be too honest – maybe not astute enough – to use the same
weapons the neoliberals do. For example, it goes beyond me that Dilma Rousseff did not stop the propaganda
media, kick them out, declare Martial Law to reinstate the rule of Law, of the democratically elected
Government. Macri, as you know, closed immediately TeleSUR, the only media that brings the truth
to South America. He got away with it. He is the neo-Nazi leader of Argentina.
The same with Mr. Maduro. Why does he not order the military to distribute food to the stores
and assure that the electricity grid functions? We know that food is available, but the distribution
is interrupted by the local rightwing forces supported and trained by Washington. The same that the
CIA did in Chile to organize a coup against President Allende – they interrupted the food chain,
and people took to the streets. It's all orchestrated from Washington. Old methods in new clothes.
Especially if it worked the first time, why wouldn't it work a second and third time? – People have
very short memories.
AB:
And if so, considering also what happened in Brazil, Ecuador and Bolivia,
which techniques are used today?
PK:
The techniques of infiltration. Vulnerable, buyable locals from the opposition
are bought, trained in the US or even sometime on location, by the CIA and other foreign and western
forces – some in the form of foreign do-gooder 'NGOs', to create and instigate peoples' unhappiness
– through strikes, blockages, as mentioned before, interruptions of food chains. The media propaganda.
In all these countries the foreign media is by far domineering. And the local media are in the hands
of oligarchs, the elite, and of course want any left-leaning government to disappear as fast and
lasting as possible. And they get the steady support from Washington. The 'election coup' in Argentina
was orchestrated largely by the media. Although there was some fraud going on during and after the
elections. But most of it was done by the western rightwing media.
The 'parliamentary coup' in Brazil, and before in Paraguay in 2012, were remote-guided from Washington.
That is not surprising. But what is surprising to me is that people just let it happen, that Dilma
Rousseff just looked on as her government was being destroyed – by corrupt scoundrels who themselves
should be and will eventually be in prison. Michel Temer, Brazil's interim President, is constitutionally
not allowed to stand for public office for the next at least 8 years, as he is convicted for corruption
in the 'Car Wash' scandal. Yet, he heads Brazil's interim government. What a farce. It's like kids'
play – they – Lucifer's vassals – go as far as they can, until somebody stops them. Nobody, inside
or outside Brazil has had the guts to say 'stop' and take the necessary actions.
Never forget, money is plentiful. May it cost whatever ridiculously astronomic amount is needed to
influence and buy people, money is just being produced by the empire which still has the dollar monopoly
– that the rest of the world – except Russia and China – adheres to. So, that's how everything is
financed – weapons, including a destructive media bulldozer. Other, 'normal' countries do not have
access to unlimited amounts of money. Therefore, they will not win a media war. Unless, they do what
they are allowed to do: stop a slander and lie-driven media campaign, by force. This has nothing
to do with free-press or freedom of expression. The Government has a democratic and constitutional
right to stop lies and slander. Dilma did not use her power to stop the media lies and slander.
AB:
The future of the world offers at the moment two possible tracks: a US unilateralism,
particularly in the event of Clinton's presidency, made up of areas of "free" trade treaty around
the world on the NAFTA model (such as the TTIP in Europe), with millions the desperate poor products,
profits only for multinationals and the planned destruction of all countries who rebel against this
vision in Libya and Syria style; or, second hypothesis, a period of multilateralism, respect for
sovereignty, self-determination and peace if to prevail is the alternative project to the Washington
Consensus of the Brics and the regional integration in Latin America designed and built by Chavez,
Lula and Kirchner. Are we a lot far from reality? And which of the two views will prevail in your
opinion?
PK:
US unilateralism, or a free world of sovereign countries, peacefully trading
with each other well, you know which one should prevail, and I must say that a positive outlook
has a lot to do with what eventually will happen. The 'power of the mind' effect of human thinking
and will-power is amazing. But, indeed, it may take a long time until we will be living in a world
of peace, justice and equality. Foremost, it will take awakening of the "We, the People" to a different
consciousness. Even if darkness will prevail for a while longer – light will overwhelmingly outshine
darkness, eventually.
Peter Koenig
is an economist and geopolitical analyst.
He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment
and water resources. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, Sputnik, PressTV, Chinese
4th Media, TeleSUR, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of
Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed
– fiction
based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author
of
The World
Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance
.
"... Hillary Clinton may not be indicted on criminal charges over her handling of classified email, but the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, all but indicted her judgment and competence on Tuesday - two vital pillars of her presidential candidacy - and in the kind of terms that would be politically devastating in a normal election year. ..."
Hillary Clinton may not be indicted on criminal charges over her handling of classified email, but the
F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, all but indicted her judgment and competence on Tuesday - two vital pillars of her presidential
candidacy - and in the kind of terms that would be politically devastating in a normal election year.
... ... ...
To her charge that he is "reckless," Mr. Trump may now respond by citing Mr. Comey's rebuke: that Mrs. Clinton and her team "were
extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."
To her promises to defend the United States, Mr. Trump may now retort with Mr. Comey's warning that "it is possible that hostile
actors gained access" to Mrs. Clinton's email account and the top secret information it contained.
And to her reproofs about his temperament and responsibility, Mr. Trump may now point to Mr. Comey's finding that "there is evidence
of potential violations of the statutes" on handling classified information - though Mr. Comey said that other factors, like Mrs.
Clinton's intent, argued against criminal charges.
Worst of all was the totality of Mr. Comey's judgment about Mrs. Clinton's judgment.
She is running as a supremely competent candidate and portraying Mr. Trump, in essence, as irresponsible and dangerous. Yet the
director of the F.B.I. basically just called her out for having committed one of the most irresponsible moves in the modern history
of the State Department.
... ... ...
Her clearest selling point - that she, unlike Mr. Trump, can manage challenging relationships with allies and adversaries - has
now been undercut because she personally mismanaged the safeguarding of national security information.
"That empowerment must be both economic and political. Workers deserve
to be compensated fairly for their work, and have generous social support
programs to rely upon when economic changes that are out of their control
throw them out of work or force them to accept lower paying jobs.
We should not hesitate to ask those who have gained so much from
globalization and technological change to give something back to those
who have paid the costs of their success."
All this would have been especially great, say, forty or even thirty
years ago.
Of course Bernie Sanders appears to have sold out emerging from a White
House meeting with President Barack Obama vowing to work together with Hillary
Clinton to defeat Donald Trump in November. Bernie would rather endorse
a traitor who has sold her influence as Secretary of State just to save
the Democratic Party. Obama assured Bernie, no doubt, that he would not
allow Hillary to be indicted. And to further rig the game, the State Department
refuses to release her emails until
AFTER the election. But the actual date they gave was
November 31st, 2016, which does not exist since November has only 30 days.
Once she is president, no doubt they will vanish altogether.
It appears that Bernie is betraying all those who supported him. Hillary
will raise $1 billion to buy the White House. That kind of money does not
come from bankers without strings. Wall Street supports Hillary – not Trump.
That says it all. How Bernie can just give up is amazing. What happened
to his "revolution" will never be discussed.
"Text of Bernie Sanders' speech endorsing Hillary Clinton" [MarketWatch].
Lambert here: Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin. The moment had to come,
and now it has come. Will Sanders, in practice, have proven to be a sheepdog?
Will Sanders' endorsement decapitate his movement? To me, the open question
is what actions Sanders voters will take, going forward, beyond the ballot
box, and as organizers. I'm not really sanguine about that, because the
Chicago conference didn't give me confidence the left could unsilo itself,
and distinguish itself, as a single institutional force ready to take power,
from the (neoliberal) liberals (mostly Democrats) and the (neoliberal) conservatives
(some Democrats, mostly Republicans). That said, the Sanders campaign did
more than the left could have expected in its wildest dreams. To the text:
[SANDERS:] I have come here today not to talk about the past but
to focus on the future. That future will be shaped more by what happens
on November 8 in voting booths across our nation than by any other event
in the world. I have come here to make it as clear as possible as to
why I am endorsing Hillary Clinton and why she must become our next
president.
During the last year I had the extraordinary opportunity to speak
to more than 1.4 million Americans at rallies in almost every state
in this country. I was also able to meet with many thousands of other
people at smaller gatherings. And the profound lesson that I have learned
from all of that is that this campaign is not really about Hillary Clinton,
or Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders, or any other candidate who sought
the presidency. This campaign is about the needs of the American people
and addressing the very serious crises that we face. And there is no
doubt in my mind that, as we head into November, Hillary Clinton is
far and away the best candidate to do that.
I'd prefer the position that Clinton hasn't won the nomination until
there's a vote on the convention floor, which I had understood to be the
position of the Sanders campaign.
[SANDERS:] Hillary Clinton understands that we must fix an economy
in America that is rigged and that sends almost all new wealth and income
to the top one percent.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
[SANDERS:] This election is about the grotesque level of income and
wealth inequality that currently exists, the worst it has been since
1928. Hillary Clinton knows that something is very wrong when the very
rich become richer while many others are working longer hours for lower
wages.
Assumes facts not in evidence.
[SANDERS:] I am happy to tell you that at the Democratic Platform
Committee which ended Sunday night in Orlando, there was a significant
coming together between the two campaigns and we produced, by far, the
most progressive platform in the history of the Democratic Party. Our
job now is to see that platform implemented by a Democratic Senate,
a Democratic House and a Hillary Clinton president - and I am going
to do everything I can to make that happen.
Platform as a highly inadequate baseline and a method to hold Clinton's
feet to the fire? Yes. Not negligible, but not much. And
Clinton immediately showed - before the rally! - that she didn't
take it seriously.
[SANDERS:] Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and
I am proud to stand with her here today.
I don't see how the institutionalized corruption of both legacy parties
generally and the Clinton Dynasty in particular make any of this possible.
One door closes, another opens…
"'I can't help but say how much more enjoyable this election is going
to be when we are on the same side,' [Clinton] said. "You know what? We
are stronger together!'" [CNN].
Whichever Clinton operative decided to deploy the "stronger together" slogan
shouldn't be expected to have known that it's also a slogan developed by
the military junta in Thailand. But whatever.
"Tuesday's rally drew supporters of Clinton and Sanders, some of whom
chanted 'Bernie' while others chanted 'unity.' Some Sanders supporters left
their seats when Sanders endorsed Clinton. Earlier, when New Hampshire Sen.
Jeanne Shaheen said 'we need to elect Hillary,' she was interrupted by shouts
of 'No!' and chants of "Bernie, Bernie' [USA
Today]. "But there were deafening cheers as Sanders said Clinton would
'make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her here today.'"
"The most ringing portion of the endorsement came at the end, with Sanders
bringing up some of the personal reasons why he had chosen to support Clinton.
But even this portion felt a bit lifeless, with Sanders citing Clinton's
intellect and passion on children's issues, and failing to address her integrity,
which he directly challenged during the campaign and which will continue
to be an issue the Republicans attack in the wake of the conclusion of the
FBI's investigation into her email scandal" [Slate].
And what happened here?
Do we have any readers who were on that conference call?
"[I]n a nod to Sanders's successful fundraising efforts that brought
in millions of dollars from small donors, with at one time an average donation
of $27, Clinton's campaign has made $27 an option on its online donor page"
[CNN].
"About 85 percent of Democrats who backed Mr. Sanders in the primary
contests said they planned to vote for her in the general election, according
to a Pew poll released last week. Yet she has struggled to appeal to the
independents and liberals who rallied behind the senator's call for a 'political
revolution' to topple establishment politicians, Mrs. Clinton included"
[New
York Times]. 85% of declared Democrats. Not such a good number from
a third of the electorate.
"I am not voting for Hillary Clinton, regardless of her endorsement by
Bernie Sanders. My decision isn't because of the scandal around her emails
or because of some concern over her character. My reasons are pretty straightforward.
I don't agree with her ideologically" [Eddie S. Glaude,
Time].
The Trail
"The final amendment to the Democratic Party platform was meant to sprinkle
Hillary Clinton's name throughout the document, putting a contentious and
drawn-out primary process to rest in favor of a unified party. It never
came up for a vote" [Bloomberg].
"Despite having the support of both the Clinton and Bernie Sanders campaign
staffs, the amendment hadn't been run by committee members or Sanders supporters
in the audience, some of whom angrily shouted down the language because,
they argued, Clinton isn't the official nominee yet. The moment highlighted
the state of the party after a long weekend of intense debates in Orlando,
Florida, that left some tempers frayed, and extensive back-room policy negotiations
between the two campaigns…."
"On Tuesday, the [Trump and Indiana Governor Mike Pence] will put their
compatibility to the test when they appear together at a rally near Indianapolis,
the latest in a string of public auditions for the running mate role" [RealClearPolitics].
""Hillary Clinton's campaign is vetting James G. Stavridis, a retired
four-star Navy admiral who served as the 16th supreme allied commander at
NATO, as a possible running mate" [New
York Times].
From the Wikipedia entry, which seems to have been written by a Clinton
operative: "Stavridis has long advocated the use of "Smart Power," which
he defines as the balance of hard and soft power taken together. In numerous
articles[17] and speeches, he has advocated creating security in the 21st
century by building bridges, not walls." I mean, come on.
jo6pac
Those that sent money to Bernie please let Lambert and us know if dddc
or dnc ask for $$$$$$. Then may be it will just be a letter from the foundation
asking for $$$$$$$$$$$$.
Roger Smith
I will update should I receive anything. I am curious about the list
as well.
Arizona Slim
I just unsubscribed from Bernie's e-mailing list.
Rick
As did I. I will keep the poster I bought from his campaign as a reminder
of a now passed moment of hope.
cwaltz
The moment hasn't passed unless you were expecting Bernie Sanders to
do all the heavy lifting.
The reality is that each and every person disappointed today should make
a concerted effort to let the DNC know in no uncertain terms did their lying,
cheating and outright rigging of this primary mean that they'll be getting
a vote this November. It also means that each and every person find their
spine and support someone other than the Democratic nominee. Expect to hunker
down for 4 years no matter what because if Clinton or Trump are the nominees
then you can pretty much expect there won't be many benefits for average
Americans.
"... "A Sanders endorsement of Clinton would be the ultimate betrayal of his supporters, especially those of us that poured money into his campaign." ..."
"... "Bernie, if you endorse Hillary Clinton, after is NOW A PROVEN FACT she lied to the American people, then you sir are a FRAUD." ..."
"... "Bernie, endorsing Clinton destroys every point you made and everything you stood for in the race. You are letting the people who supported you down. You made a promise to fight in the end, but instead you are conceding. You are not the elected leader you lead us to believe in. Shame on you." ..."
"Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand
with her here today," Sanders said at the end of the rally.
This proclamation is a far cry from how his stance was a couple months
ago, when he claimed that Clinton wasn't qualified for the presidency.
"I don't believe that she is qualified," Sanders said in a Philadelphia
rally back in April, as reported by thinkprogress.org. "[I]f she is, through
her super PAC, taking tens of millions of dollars in special interest funds.
I don't think that you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street
through your super PAC."
Trump was one of the first to call Sanders a sell-out on Twitter, comparing
his endorsement of "Crooked Hillary Clinton" to Occupy Wall Street endorsing
Goldman Sachs.
"I am somewhat surprised that Bernie Sanders was not true to himself
and his supporters," Trump tweeted. "They are not happy that he is selling
out!"
While some Democrats are happy that the party has seemed to have finally
united, like the Communications Workers of America who have now changed
their endorsement from Sanders to Clinton, other supporters share Trumps
sentiments, feeling outraged and disappointed at Bernie's sudden change
of heart.
"A Sanders endorsement of Clinton would be the ultimate betrayal
of his supporters, especially those of us that poured money into his campaign."
"Bernie, if you endorse Hillary Clinton, after is NOW A PROVEN FACT
she lied to the American people, then you sir are a FRAUD."
"Bernie, endorsing Clinton destroys every point you made and everything
you stood for in the race. You are letting the people who supported you
down. You made a promise to fight in the end, but instead you are conceding.
You are not the elected leader you lead us to believe in. Shame on you."
These are just some of the comments people have been leaving on Sander's
Facebook page, as reported on the Forward Progressives website.
Other supporters have asked him to wait for the Democrats Party convention,
to run in a third-party or to join Jill Stein in the Green Party ticket.
Now that Sanders has endorsed Clinton, Clinton's campaign will most likely
focus on convincing his supporters to join them in their fight for the presidency.
Bernie is anti war, anti Wall St., anti TPP. If that is not a betrayal of his
supporters and his principles what is it then. Endorsing Clinton is like taking
a job at Goldman-Sachs.
So why exactly he endorses her? We still don't know.
The Democrats has good political operatives. There is Barack, the "change-no-change"
"black not for blacks" candidate, and Bernie, The Revolutionary who stands
staunchly behind Goldman Sachs and everything it presents.
Of course the real governing task is delegated to Hillary Clinton and
the "experts" from the banks.
Hey guys. Good job. Just remember: ultimately there is that cliff you're
marching towards.
Why is he not doing as he promised and taking his message and challenge
all the way to the convention? The super delegates are still an play and
I doubt they've even finished counting California...This is very disheartening...
Prepare for eternal war.
I'd like to formally thank Bernie Sanders for endorsing my wife Hillary
today. I know how tough it was for Bernie to stump for her today. Especially
considering Hillary is even more crooked than my 4-inch yogurt slinger.
As many of my young interns know, that's really crooked!
I'd also like to formally apologize to Bernie for all the death threats
and that severed horse's head my guys left in his bed. lol whoops! Ok, gotta
go make another phone call to my good friend Trump now.....
You could just crawl back into your socialist hole and not say anything
Bernie, but no, you're just another fool brought by Clinton because she
needs your votes like she needs air. Congratulations on becoming another
member of the Clinton foundations bankroll
The problem isnt her most recent rhetoric, it is her person, and trusting
to do the things she says (as she has held every side of every position).
The endorsement doesn't fix the problem that we still don't want her...
I think many of us will be looking for at the third party alternatives.
If we give into this lesser of two evils every election cycle, we'll soon
find candidates worse than Trump.
1. Party platforms are consolation bullshit. They mean nothing, especially
when the big money funding the campaign is against the platform. This is
just a political fact.
2. Therefore, Bernie's campaign has not started a revolution, but rather
has dead-ended with a big bowl of nothing.
3. Parties are the vehicles through which policies get pushed and accomplished.
Since it was re-engineered by the Clinton's in the 1990's, the Democratic
Party is like a vehicle with its steering welded to turn right.
4. Therefore the only way to achieve a successful and peaceful political
revolution is to re-engineer the vehicle; and this requires breaking it
down and putting it back together.
In other words, for the sake of progress, the D.N.C. as presently constituted
and managed had to be destroyed.
5. The only way to destroy the D.N.C. would have been to hand Hillary
a defeat on a platter. This would have driven home, in the only way politicians
understand, that progressive Americans will not be played and fooled.
6. The willingness to do this requires strategic fortitude -- a willingness
to think in long term objectives and to endure immediate and temporary inconveniences.
Four years of Trump will not be the "sky-is-falling" disaster the Hillary
Hens are clucking over. Eight years of Hillary will only solidify the grip
corporations, banks and neo-con militarists, have on the country.
7. Bernie should have run as an independent, precisely in order to defeat
Hillary. Only then could a four year hiatus be used to clean out the D.N.C.,
and revitalize it with real progressive blood. Then and only then will progressives
get the "platform" they want. Is four years of Clown Trump worth it? You
bet.
I disagree. Chris Hedges believes that Sanders intended to mislead voters
and intentionally funnel them back to Hillary Clinton under the belief that
they would uncritically support her. That seems to be completely false,
and even if it were true, it's seems he made a terrible sheepdog as many
of us will not support Hillary. The problem was that although he saw no
chance for an independent to win, the Democratic Party is a dead end for
real change as well. I guess we all know that now.
When it comes to intention I guess that I believed that he was genuine
in his attempt to win and bring about change (except on the nation that
cannot be criticised and on foreign policy) but the endorsement of HRC is
another blow for the massive desire to remove these two corporatist parties.
With the DNC having decided to support fracking, settlements etc the
American people (and the world) are in for more of the same, war, privatisation,
alienation of the poor, secret trade deals that give more power to corporations
and environmental destruction etc. etc. etc
"He's lending credibility to a party that is completely corporatized.
He has agreed that he will endorse the candidate, which, unless there
is some miracle, will probably be Hillary Clinton."
You bottled it in the end. Sad. I never liked him much, but in running
as an independent or siding with the Greens he could have showed that he
stands for something. Endorsing Clinton is like taking a job at Goldman-Sachs.
Oh, so he admitted it'd be better to support a lesser evil? How should you
support an evil anyway? How about quietly withdrawing from the race and
not saying anything that violates his own principles? I don't see what that's
difficult to understand myself!
There was never a doubt that Democrats would eventually unite behind whoever
ended up being the nominee. The problem is that all those NON-Democrats
who so passionately supported Bernie will not. He was the real deal, and
our best hope of actually engaging them, expanding our party, and having
the wave election we need to actually get progress done.
I have been actively trying to recruit folks like this into our ranks
for many years now, so trust me when I tell you that we are in very serious
trouble this year. No matter what Bernie says or does, these non-Dems will
not feel the bern for her. We are heading to a low voter turnout election
with two major candidates that have record low net favorability ratings,
and Republicans usually do best in situations like that since they have
the most reliable voting base.
In my book, when you've run against somebody, you must think that guy would
be a bad choice. When you think a person is a bad choice, how come you endorse
that person? Bernie lost my respect (even though he doesn't care)!
F*** this lesser-of-two-evils rubbish. We paid for his campaign, to resist
this criminal and what she represents with every fibre of his body and he's
sold us out. Jill Stein offered him something that could have brought real
change and he sold us out. He is there because of the money and faith we
put in him.
What a turncoat bastard. I am disgusted.
For a vast library of information detailing the many crimes of the ghastly
Clinton crime syndicate, please see the following link.
http://www.arkancide.com
Super delegates have yet to vote, Hillary has not made it past the threshold,
so if Sanders torpedos her, he gets booted out as a Dem nominee by party
rules. So in order to stay to the convention he is doing what he has to.
Has he conceded? No! If Bernie showed and asked me to vote for Hillary
I would tell him no.
At this point, Bernie's endorsement of Hillary does not matter at all. The
genie of his movement is already out of the bottle, and it cannot be put
back in.
The movement never belonged to him, he belongs to the movement, and Bernie
knows it. He knows it even as he pronounces the endorsement. He has played
his enormously important part in that movement through his candidacy and
now he will go back to fighting for the progressive cause from inside the
Democratic party, because that is what he has been doing for twenty years
and before he launched that candidacy. But the forces that he has unleashed
will keep growing and gathering strength on their own.
Same old shit then. The Plutocrats won again and can freely go on
selling 'war for profit' as 'fighting for freedoms.'
With the useful benefit that La Clinton can now swan about on stage draped
in a coat made from the hide of an old leftie.
"We came, we saw we skinned it." And oh how the laughter rang out the entire
length of Wall Street.
So the warmongers and wall street win again. For the moment at least. The
struggle continues. A new front opens under the banner of the Greens. In
the UK the Grassoots on the left now have the whole power of the elite arrayed
against them, with dirty tricks and media lies. The right wing blairites
are using every trick in the book to split our Labouur Movement and remove
our democratically elected Leader Corbyn. We are hanging in. Wish us luck,
American friends! Looks like we are going to need it. No surrender!
There was never any doubt, in any election ever fought in the USA, that
the military-industrial-financial complex would be the winner. They always
are.
The left in the UK are tearing themselves apart Life of Brian
style (how prescient that film was!). It will be generations before they
every wield power in this country, if ever. I'll probably see out my days
under a vicious Tory administration.
It's a shame it has come to this but kind of expected.
Bernie wants to stop Trump now, and he believes that his is the way to
do it. I don't personally this will have the desired effect enough people
despise Clinton, but we will see.
If I was a US citizen and had a vote, I would have thrown my full support
behind Bernie, but this endorsement certainly would not make me vote for
Hillary either (I certainly wouldn't support Trump, I'm not totally insane),
I'd prefer to abstain completely.
Strategic voting is an expression of support for the rigid, corrupt and
self-serving political system that led to self-serving cretins like Trump
and Clinton being among the elite ruling class in the first place.
All it does is prolong the death rattles of the lower orders of society.
Fellow Americans: Our country was demolished by Clinton, and Obama has been
running a kill list for extra judicial killins, and he is the sitting president
under wich a police force appears to be on a rampage to coloured people.
The first black president leading a nation of multiple racist killings.
Do
Not
Ever
Vote
Democrats
Again
The word lie doesnt cover it. The word lying says it doesnt want anything
to do with Democrats. Trump, or any other republican, is a far better bet.
bring back George Bush jr for all I care. Anyone but a Demorcratic president.
Dont do it.
To endorse Hillary Clinton is to be in alliance with a cynical and utterly
corrupt liar who is willing to say anything to get elected. By endorsing
Hillary you, Bernie, have become a part of everything you have been complaining
about. Never mind. It never was about you and your endorsement isn't worth
shit.
After the progressive cause was successively sold out to Goldman Sachs by
Paul Krugman, Gloria Steinem, John Lewis and the Congressional black caucus,
Lena Dunham, Beyonce, George Clooney and Elizabeth Warren (Did I forget
any of the earlier hate figures here?) it was inevitable that Bernie would
ultimately also be revealed as a neoliberal sellout.
Has to be viewed in the context of the global threat of Donald Trump
though
yeah imagine anyone daring to public oppose further neo-conservative
onslaught.
Obviously the man's unhinged and has to be stopped pronto.
fortunately bill kristol, victoria nuland, robert kagan et al are hot on
the case and 100% on board with hillary (& bill) on this
Sanders and Warren are now subsumed into the maw of the Empire of the Exceptionals
and are pledging their loyalty to it. Just like Obama all hopie changie
during campaigns but when the chips are down they show their true colors
as Neoliberal sycophants and support every policy the claimed to oppose.
I for one will never support a now proven corrupt and dishonest career politician.
Sorry Bernie, but the political revolution can never take place within a
party as establishment focused as the Democratic Party. A sad and depressing
time for all real progressives.
Trump is a man whose uncompromising attitude means he'll get even less
done than Obama. He'd be remembered as an ineffective washout of a president,
unable to get anything done and sorely disappointing a lot of voters.
Hillary is a smooth political operator who's in it for her own gain and
will get an awful lot done - just not the things you want her to do. She'll
be hawkish against Russia, interventionist against the Middle East, she'll
throw her full weight behind the establishment in both America and Europe,
and she'll make sure her paymasters at Goldman Sachs aren't disappointed
in her.
I suppose voting for Hillary to stop Trump might be an unavoidable course
of action. But few people realize the danger Hillary represents to the United
States... not because of what she will do, but because of what she won't
do.
Across the Western world, the centre is rapidly crumbling. Without a
significant course correction, it will soon fall and what replaces it is
hard to predict – but I doubt it will be pretty. Austria almost elected
a far right president, the UK voted for Brexit, the GOP nominated Trump.
You're a fool if you think this is the anti-establishment backlash... it's
only the beginning, and these events are just canaries in the mine. The
real backlash is yet to come.
With 4-8 years of a Clinton-led status quo government, resentment will
grow, inequality and hopelessness will increase... and eventually a right
wing demagogue who is much smarter than Trump will see an opportunity and
pounce. I suspect it'll happen right after the next market crash, which
Clinton will do nothing to prevent.
Historically illiterate people are constantly looking out for the "next
Hitler" and so point their finger at the likes of Trump. But that's the
wrong question. Anyone who understands the events that led to Nazism realizes
the true question is who is the next Von Hindenburg . Clinton looks
like a pretty good candidate in that respect.
"... "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas" ..."
"... The German Ideology ..."
"... By Lambert Strether of Corrente . ..."
"... Yves dropped the phrase "the looting professional class," and I said "I've got to post on that!"
..."
"... The question we posed then as now: "How do these people live with themselves?" (For a discussion
of the medical aspects of opioids in general and the regulatory state of play, see here and here .)
..."
"... Based purely on timing, it seems likely that developments in the medical and pharmaceutical
industries played a significant role in setting off the epidemic of drug poisonings, which increased
more than sixfold in the white-middle-aged demographic between 1999 and 2013, and which played an important
role in raising its over-all mortality rate. By many accounts, the widespread misuse of prescription
drugs, particularly opioid painkillers, such as OxyContin, began in the late nineties and rapidly became
a chronic problem. ..."
"... There is, however, something that does make white men and women in the U.S. unique compared
with other demographics around the world: their consumption of prescription opioids. Although the U.S.
constitutes only 4.6 percent of the world's population, Americans use 80 percent of the world's opioids.
As Skinner and Meara point out in their study, a disproportionate amount of these opioid users are white,
and past studies have shown that doctors are much more willing to treat pain in white patients than
in blacks. ..."
"... The body count is comparable to the AIDS epidemic ..."
"... We calculated that about 500,000 middle-age Americans died who would still be alive. AIDS has
killed more than that but the numbers are in the same ballpark. The comparison is useful because people
have a hard time thinking about changes in mortality rates-so many per 100,000. And everyone knows about
HIV/AIDS: People wear ribbons and it is seen as a national tragedy. But there are no ribbons, no awareness
for this, and there should be. ..."
"... OxyContin was successfully marketed by Purdue Pharma ("successfully" rather in the way that
HIV is successful, only with different transmission vectors). ..."
"... The American Journal of Public Health ..."
"... Los Angeles Times ..."
"... I was shocked by the LA Times reporting on Purdue. They clearly knew that they were part of
the supply chain with Distributors, Pharmacies, Doctors and old fashioned drug dealers who were facilitating
thousands of deaths though Oxycontin addiction and overdoses. They set up safety monitoring committees
which did practically nothing by design. Selling death for profit. Shame on them. ..."
"... Purdue had one final shot at avoiding trial: A motion for summary judgment. … To make this
critical argument, the company tapped Eric Holder Jr ., who had been the nation's first African American
deputy attorney general. On Oct. 13, 2004, the man who would become President Obama's attorney general
argued that West Virginia prosecutors didn't have sufficient evidence to warrant a trial. ..."
"... I'm sure a Psychologist could say this more factually than I, but if you job depends on it
or at least benefits from it, 2 degrees of separation from cause and effect is enough to declare moral
innocence in ones mind. ..."
"... Professionals are intelligent enough to fool themselves into believing this with hi consistency.
In that respect they are no different from the looting bankers. ..."
"... The general idea is that the more distant an object is from the individual, the more abstract
it will be thought of, while the closer the object is, the more concretely it will be thought of. ..."
"... Ethical Amnesia . ..."
"... Although you are making a strong argument against our particular credentialed class, my sense
is that this behavior will arise in any social hierarchy with more than four or five levels. ..."
"... Distance makes it abstract. The dangerous part is when abstraction makes it distant…like when
a human is reduced to 'what do you do for a living?' – the polite version of 'How much do you make?'
"I am a professor." ..."
"... Does the professor know how many molecules have to be moved to make a buck? Not too many, with
oxycontin. A particularly efficient enterprise whose externality is the exact opposite of a ride on
the last ship out. ..."
"... Remember the famous Millgram experiment? Two degrees of separation- Physical because the subject
was behind a mirror in a "laboratory" observation room, and psychological because the "scientist" in
a lab coat supported and encouraged extreme levels of torture which the subjects complied with. ..."
"... Rather similar to the level of detachment exhibited by Obama when he participates in selecting
targets for assassination by remote control drone. Or Hellary Clinton chortling as she recalls viewing
video of Gaddafi being sodomized with a bayonet. ..."
"... Self-delusion is the opium of the people. ..."
"... I'm not sure it's simply a matter of obliviousness. In the case of the database designer, the
institution feeding him/her the data needs him/her to not get too curious, in other words to willfully
remain oblivious. This is quite often achieved by means of an implicit threat: in tech, it's usually
the threat of being replaced by someone much younger or by a H1B visa holder. In sales, individuals
and teams are often pitted against each other in strict competition, a practice that has ruined several
companies, most notably Sears. Marketing is an extremely cutthroat field, and firms will do practically
anything to one up each other, including the unethical and illegal. The implicit war of all against
all creates a Zeitgeist of insecurity that incentivizes looking the other way or adopting a cultivated
obliviousness. ..."
"... Yes those professions didn't strike me as too hot either. I.T. fields are flooded with H1Bs,
being a salesrep can at times be an easy job to get but often isn't (and so salesreps often put up with
a lot of crazy) etc.. ..."
"... We all pick our poison and how much we can live with. And yet most people believe in the ideology
of making people scramble for money. They think it makes people "work hard" or "compete" or "add value"
but just as absolutely it will make people cut corners. Because they have to because they need that
money to live. And yet we still think completion is good. ..."
"... There are still people trying to run up the down escalator. But people who own the escalator
keep cranking up the speed. ..."
"... As a life-long member of this credentialed professional class (specifically, media, even though
the credentials are informal at best), I can say from experience at several of the large media corporations
that many, if not most, employees in the editorial ranks are well aware of the damage the industry does
to this country (it's more abstract, perhaps, than the pharma example, but it's real). Many speak up,
but no one can speak up every time they are asked to execute an unethical or mindless order whose sole
goal is to increase ratings and, by extension, "shareholder value." ..."
"... well most heroin in the usa comes from mexico and the Jalisco Boys cartel, helped by nafta.
afghani heroin supplies europe and asia. just an fyi. ..."
"... Dreamland: The True Tale of America's Opiate Epidemic ..."
"... The story of oxycodone is one of rampant criminality: the clinical trials, the approval process,
and the marketing are all riddled with probable fabrications and manifest misrepresentations. ..."
"... The behavior described in this article is clearly terrible, but it doesn't seem fair to blame
20% of the population for this type of thing. You often advise us that generations don't have agency,
and the same can be said for economic classes. Most of the people in the richest 20% could be classified
as "professionals", as in doctors, lawyers, stock brokers, engineers, managers, etc., but I suspect
there are some master plumbers and electricians in that category as well. ..."
"... I think (a) the lessons of the Milgram experiment (trust your boss; go with the program) and
(b) the U. Sinclair notion of can't believe X if you're paycheck depends on not-X … these 2 factors
have a lot to do with the separation of the 20% from the 80%. They don't explain the origin, but I think
they speak to the persistence. ..."
"... See also pharmaceuticals promotion of effective pain management schemes and punishment of those
not adhering to the narrative. ..."
"... Profiting from supplying opioids is one thing, but what happens when billionaire real estate
developers and hedge fund cash start getting into the recovery and mental health business? ..."
"... In my opinion, Americans are getting slowly poisoned and they are not getting any help either
because the US food industry is allowed to sabotage the access to unadulterated foodstuff. This is one
of many reasons that people "here" hate the TTIP & Co: We don't want to be American! We don't want US
business practices. ..."
"... Looting is definitely the right term here. I suspect there are many actors who became fabulously
wealthy from the prescription opioid (and amphetamine – ADD medications like Adderal are analogues to
street Methamphetamine) scam. ..."
"... The kind of destructive social conduct was noted by cultural anthropologists studying cultures
affected by Euopean colonization. As the meaning of the culture was drained by colonial predation, the
societies degraded, people lost direction, language changed rapidly and the previous social networks
unraveled. Essentially, the colonized no longer saw or felt that there was a place for them. ..."
"... Everything about constant sitting is bad for the body, and when the sedentary body starts moving,
things get worse, because terrible movement patterns are ingrained. There'd have to be nationwide physical
therapy to solve it. I recommend reading and following 'deskbound' by Kelly Starrett, if you're a sedentary
person. ..."
So Yves and I were chatting the other day, the Yves dropped the phrase "the looting professional
class," and I said "I've got to post on that!" This is that post, and I'm going to use that
concept as a lens to examine the opioid epidemic in the white working class, since the professional
classes - and not all individuals so classed! - enabled so much of it. The question we posed
then as now: "How do these people live with themselves?" (For a discussion of the medical aspects
of opioids in general and the regulatory state of play, see
here and
here .)
Deaths from Opiods are like the AIDS Epidemic
Let's start by looking at the briefly famous Case-Deaton study, and its study of mortality in
the white working class, taking education levels as a proxy for class[1]. (For NC's late 2015 discussion
of the Case-Deaton study, with an embedded copy of the study itself,
see here , and for a follow-up from Barbara Ehrenreich,
see here .)
From WaPo , on the study and its interpretation:
The research showed that the mortality rate for whites between the ages of 45 and 54 with a
high school education or less rose dramatically between 1999 and 2013, after falling even more
sharply for two decades before that.
That reversal, almost unknown for any large demographic group in an advanced nation, has not
been seen in blacks or Hispanics or among Europeans, government data show. The report points to
a surge in overdoses from opioid medication and heroin, liver disease and other problems that
stem from alcohol abuse, and suicides.
[Deaton's] analysis: "There's this widening between people at the top and the people who have
a ho-hum education and they're not tooled up to compete in a technological economy. … Not only
are these people struggling economically, but they're experiencing this health catastrophe too,
so they're being hammered twice."
Another economist who reviewed the study for PNAS used almost the same words.
"An increasingly pessimistic view of their financial future combined with the increased availability
of opioid drugs has created this kind of perfect storm of adverse outcomes," said Jonathan Skinner,
a professor of economics at Dartmouth College.
(The Case-Deaton study had a moment in early 2016, as pundits connected it to Trump voters (
"America's Self-Destructive Whites" ), and then dropped off the radar. And it wasn't all that
easy to get Case-Deaton on the radar in the first place; it was
instantly rejected by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and the
New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), before being published in the less prestigious Proceedings
of the National Academy of Science.)
Let's look more closely at the potential role of opiods, and in particular OxyContin, in Case-Deaton
results.
Kevin Drum writes:
On a related note, the famous Case/Deaton paper showing a rise in white mortality since 2000
breaks out three categories of death: suicides, liver disease (a proxy for alcohol abuse), and
drug poisoning. All three have gone up, but poisoning has gone up far, far more than the others.
The first two have increased about 50 percent since 2000. Poisoning has increased about 1,500
percent. This coincides with the period when Oxy became popular, and probably accounts for a big
part of the difference between increased white mortality in America vs. other countries. Oxy is
a famously white drug, and may also account for the fact that mortality has increased among whites
but not blacks or Hispanics.
Based purely on timing, it seems likely that developments in the medical and pharmaceutical
industries played a significant role in setting off the epidemic of drug poisonings, which increased
more than sixfold in the white-middle-aged demographic between 1999 and 2013, and which played
an important role in raising its over-all mortality rate. By many accounts, the widespread misuse
of prescription drugs, particularly opioid painkillers, such as OxyContin, began in the late nineties
and rapidly became a chronic problem.
The Times analyzed nearly 60 million death certificates collected by the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention from 1990 to 2014…
The analysis shows that the rise in white mortality extends well beyond the 45- to 54-year-old
age group documented by a pair of Princeton economists in a research paper that startled policy
makers and politicians two months ago…
While the death rate among young whites rose for every age group over the five years before
2014, it rose faster by any measure for the less educated, by 23 percent for those without a high
school education, compared with only 4 percent for those with a college degree or more.
The drug overdose numbers were stark. In 2014, the overdose death rate for whites ages 25 to
34 was five times its level in 1999, and the rate for 35- to 44-year-old whites tripled during
that period. The numbers cover both illegal and prescription drugs.
Rising rates of overdose deaths and suicide appear to have erased the benefits from advances
in medical treatment for most age groups of whites. Death rates for drug overdoses and suicides
"are running counter to those of chronic diseases," like heart disease, said Ian Rockett, an epidemiologist
at West Virginia University.
In fact, graphs of the drug overdose deaths look like those of deaths from a new infectious
disease, said Jonathan Skinner, a Dartmouth economist. "It is like an infection model, diffusing
out and catching more and more people," he said.
There is, however, something that does make white men and women in the U.S. unique compared
with other demographics around the world: their consumption of prescription opioids. Although
the U.S. constitutes only 4.6 percent of the world's population, Americans use 80 percent of the
world's opioids. As Skinner and Meara point out in their study, a disproportionate amount of these
opioid users are white, and past studies have shown that doctors are much more willing to treat
pain in white patients than in blacks.
You told the New York Times that HIV/AIDS is the only good analogue as far as these
death rates go. Can you expand on that comparison?
We calculated that about 500,000 middle-age Americans died who would still be alive. AIDS
has killed more than that but the numbers are in the same ballpark. The comparison is useful because
people have a hard time thinking about changes in mortality rates-so many per 100,000. And everyone
knows about HIV/AIDS: People wear ribbons and it is seen as a national tragedy. But there are
no ribbons, no awareness for this, and there should be.
"No ribbons." Odd, that. Or not[3].
Summing up: We're looking at a deadly epidemic, in the white working class, previously unnoticed,
fueled in part by OxyContin[2], and only briefly "on the radar." So where does the "looting professional
class" come in? To understand that, let's turn to how Oxycontin is marketed and delivered through
the pharmaceutical supply chain.
The "Looting Professional Class" as a Transmission Vector
OxyContin was successfully marketed by Purdue Pharma ("successfully" rather in the way that
HIV is successful, only with different transmission vectors).Pacific Standard has
a fine summary :
Starting in 1996, Purdue Pharma expanded its sales department to coincide with the debut of
its new drug. According to an article published in The American Journal of Public Health
, " The Promotion
and Marketing of OxyContin: Commercial Triumph, Public Health Tragedy ," Purdue increased
its number of sales representatives from 318 in 1996 to 671 in 2000. By 2001, when OxyContin was
hitting its stride, these sales reps received annual bonuses averaging over $70,000, with some
bonuses nearing a quarter of a million dollars. In that year Purdue Pharma spent $200 million
marketing its golden goose. Pouring money into marketing is
not uncommon for Big Pharma , but proportionate to the size of the company, Purdue's OxyContin
push was substantial.
Boots on the ground was not the only stratagem employed by Purdue to increase sales for OxyContin.
Long before the rise of big data, Purdue was compiling profiles of doctors and their prescribing
habits into databases. These databases then organized the information based on location to indicate
the spectrum of prescribing patterns in a given state or county. The idea was to pinpoint the
doctors prescribing the most pain medication and target them for the company's marketing onslaught.
That the databases couldn't distinguish between doctors who were prescribing more pain meds
because they were seeing more patients with chronic pain or were simply looser with their signatures
didn't matter to Purdue. The
Los Angeles Times reported that by 2002 Purdue Pharma had identified hundreds of
doctors who were prescribing OxyContin recklessly, yet they did little about it. The same article
notes that it wasn't until June of 2013, at a drug dependency conference in San Diego, that the
database was ever even discussed in public.
Combining the physician database with its expanded marketing, it would become one of Purdue's
preeminent missions to make primary care doctors less judicious when it came to handing out OxyContin
prescriptions.
Beginning around 1980, one of the more significant trends in pain pharmacology was the increased
use of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. Like other pharmaceutical companies, Purdue likely
sought to capitalize on the abundant financial opportunities of this trend. The logic was simple:
While the number of cancer patients was not likely to increase drastically from one year to the
next, if a company could expand the indications for use of a particular drug, then it could boost
sales exponentially without any real change in the country's health demography.
This was indeed one of OxyContin's greatest tactical successes. According to "The Promotion
and Marketing of OxyContin," from 1997 to 2002 prescriptions of OxyContin for non-cancer pain
increased almost tenfold.
(These people are super-smart, and you've got to admire the brilliance. It's shiny!) Pulling out
the professionals from that narrative, we have:
CEOs Marketing executives Database developers Marketing collateral designers The sales force Middle
managers of all kinds. And doctors.
But Purdue Pharma's marketing effort is not the only transmission vector. Let's look at the entire
supply chain. From
a report (PDF) by Kaiser titled "Follow the Pill" (and which might more useful be titled "From
Vat to Vein"):
The pharmaceutical supply chain is the means through which prescription medicines are delivered
to patients. Pharmaceuticals originate in manufacturing sites; are transferred to wholesale distributors;
stocked at retail, mail-order, and other types of pharmacies; subject to price negotiations and
processed through quality and utilization management screens by pharmacy benefit management companies
(PBMs); dispensed by pharmacies; and ultimately delivered to and taken by patients. There are
many variations on this basic structure, as the players in the supply chain are constantly evolving,
and commercial relationships vary considerably by geography, type of medication, and other factors.
….
The pharmaceutical supply system is complex, and involves multiple organizations that play
differing but sometimes overlapping roles in drug distribution and contracting. This complexity
results in considerable price variability across different types of consumers, and the supply
chain is not well understood by patients or policymakers. Increased understanding of these issues
on the part of policymakers should assist in making rational policy decisions for the
Medicare and Medicaid programs.
It certainly should, given that the entire supply chain is a vector for an AIDS-like epidemic,
eh? So, again, we have:
CEOs Marketing executives Database developers Marketing collateral designers The sales force Middle
managers of all kinds.
Except now not merely for Purdue's marketing effort, but for OxyContin manufacturers, wholesale
distributors, pharmacy benefit management companies, and pharmacies. That's a biggish tranche of
the 10%, no?
Conclusion
CEOs, marketing executives, database developers, marketing collateral designers, the sales force,
middle managers of all kinds, and doctor: All these professions are highly credentialed. And all
have, or should have, different levels of responsibility for the mortality rates from the opoid epidemic;
executives have fiduciary responsibility; doctors take the Hippocratic Oath; those highly commissioned
sales people knew or should have known what they were selling. Farther down the line, to a database
designer, OXYCONTIN_DEATH_RATE might be just another field. Or not! And due to information
asymmetries in corporate structures, the different professions once had different levels of knowledge.
For some it can be said they did not know. But now they know; the story is out there. As reader Clive
wrote:
Increasingly, if you want to get and hang on to a middle class job, that job will involve dishonesty
or exploitation of others in some way.
And you've got to admit that serving as a transmission vector for an epidemic falls into the category
of "exploitation of others."
But where does the actual looting come in? The easiest answer is through our regimen
of intellectual property rights.
Pacific Standard once
again :
In its first year, OxyContin accounted for $45 million in sales for its manufacturer, Stamford,
Connecticut-based pharmaceutical company Purdue Pharma. By 2000 that number would balloon to $1.1
billion, an increase of well over 2,000 percent in a span of just four years. Ten years later,
the profits would inflate still further, to $3.1 billion. By then the potent opioid accounted
for about 30 percent of the painkiller market. What's more, Purdue Pharma's patent for the original
OxyContin formula didn't expire until 2013. This meant that a single private, family-owned pharmaceutical
company with non-descript headquarters in the Northeast controlled nearly a third of the entire
United States market for pain pills.
Would Purdue's CEOs (and sales force) have been so incentivized to loot profit from the suffering
flesh of working class people without that looming patent expiration? Probably not. The epidemic,
then, might not have been so virulent. But I think the issue of looting is both deeper and more pervasive.
Returning to the story of Tony , the stressed-out pharmacist who wanted to do right by his patients,
instead of following the profit-driven scripts of his managers:
Recall again that corruption, as Zephyr Teachout explains, is not a quid pro quo, but the use
of public office for private ends. I think the point of credentials is to create the expectation
that the credentialed is in some sense acting in a quasi-official capacity, even if not an agent
of the state. Tony, a good pharmacist, was and is trying to maintain a public good, on behalf
of the public: Not merely the right pill for the patient, but the public good of trust between
professional and citizen, which Boots is trying to destroy, on behalf of the ruling idea of "shareholder
value." Ka-ching.
If economists ask themselves "What good is a degree?" the answer is "to signal a requirement
for a higher salary!" (because it's not easy to rank the professions by the quality of what they
deliver). We as citizens might answer that professionals are in some ways amphibians: They serve
both private ends and preserve public goods, and the education for which they are granted their
credentials forms them for this service. For example, a doctor who prescribes medications for
his patients because Big Pharma takes him golfing is no doctor but corrupt; he's mixed up public
and private. He didn't follow his oath.
Consider trust as a public good. We might, then, look at that public good as "good will" on the
balance sheet of the professional class. The looting comes as professionals draw down the good will
for (as executives) stock options, for (as managers) bonuses, for (as sales people) commissions,
and for the small fry salaries, wages, and the wonderful gift of continued employment status. And
all the professionals who willingly served as transmission vectors for the AIDS-like opioid epidemic
will be seen to have looted their professional balance sheet as the workings of the system of which
they were a part become matters of public knowledge.
How do they live with themselves?[4]
NOTES
[1]
The New Yorker does this beautifully exactly because it's so unconscious of its moves: "The big
puzzle is why the recent experience of middle-aged white Americans with modest educations
has been so different." Always credentials, eh?
[2] I don't want to get into a chicken-or-egg discussion of whether working class suffering fueled
the drugs, or working class drugs the suffering. Linear thinking isn't useful when an epidemic has
complex causes, so I say both, mutually reinforcing each other. For a humane look at the epidemic
in context, see
the writing ,
the tweeting
, and
the photography of Chris Arnade, former bond trader.
[3] The facts that researchers were "startled" by the Case-Deaton results, and that both NEJM
and JAMA immediately rejected their paper - on an epidemic of an AIDS-like scale, too - really does
cry out for explanation. Since it would be irresponsible not to speculate, I'd urge that consideration
be given to the idea that
(vulgar) identity politics , which is one of the "ruling ideas" in the professional classes,
makes virtue signalling by professionals on working class topics difficult, and virtue signalling
on white working class issues nearly impossible. Professors Case and Deaton are exceptions
to this rule, of course, but perhaps they were not virtue signalling at all, but acting as disinterested,
honorable scholars. There is always that possibility, even today!
[4] Let me issue my ritual disclaimer: I don't want to come off as priggish. If I had hostages
to fortune, and especailly if I had to support a family, especially in today's new normal, I might
put my head down and save ethics for the home. "Person must not do what person cannot do." - Marge
Piercy, Woman on the Edge of Time.
I was shocked by the LA Times reporting on Purdue. They clearly knew that they were part
of the supply chain with Distributors, Pharmacies, Doctors and old fashioned drug dealers who
were facilitating thousands of deaths though Oxycontin addiction and overdoses. They set up safety
monitoring committees which did practically nothing by design. Selling death for profit. Shame
on them.
Is this pharmaceutical, and many others, like the gun-makers in this case? Should they not
be excluded, but should be held accountable, as Hillary claims regarding gunmakers?
Having read to the end of comments below and not seeing this info, I think it is worthwhile
noting a couple of the identities of specific class agents who have had a hand in this. From
Part 1 of the LA
Times series:
1.To obtain FDA approval, Purdue had to demonstrate that OxyContin was safe and as effective
as other pain drugs on the market. Under agency guidelines for establishing duration, the company
had to show that OxyContin lasted 12 hours for at least half of patients. Purdue submitted
the Puerto Rico study, which showed that.
The FDA approved the application in 1995.
Dr. Curtis Wright, who led the agency's medical review of the drug , declined
to comment for this article. Shortly after OxyContin's approval, he left the FDA and,
within two years, was working for Purdue in new product development , according to
his sworn testimony in a lawsuit a decade ago.
2. In the fall of 2004, in a remote courthouse in Appalachia, the 12-hour dosing issue came
close to a public airing. The West Virginia attorney general was pressing a lawsuit against
Purdue demanding reimbursement of "excessive prescription costs" paid by the state through
programs for the poor and elderly. The state accused the company of deceptive marketing, including
the 12-hour claim.
…
Purdue's legal team made numerous attempts to get the suit dismissed or moved from state
to federal court, where the company had succeeded in getting many cases tossed out. All these
efforts failed.
Purdue had one final shot at avoiding trial: A motion for summary judgment. … To make
this critical argument, the company tapped Eric Holder Jr ., who had been
the nation's first African American deputy attorney general. On Oct. 13, 2004, the man who
would become President Obama's attorney general argued that West Virginia prosecutors didn't
have sufficient evidence to warrant a trial.
I'm not saying the computer programmer doesn't have a moral obligation to do the right thing.
But some class agents are clearly more powerful than others.
I'm sure a Psychologist could say this more factually than I, but if you job depends on
it or at least benefits from it, 2 degrees of separation from cause and effect is enough to declare
moral innocence in ones mind.
Professionals are intelligent enough to fool themselves into believing this with hi consistency.
In that respect they are no different from the looting bankers.
Excellent formulation, but can anybody back it up with analysis? (The nice thing about formulating
this as a supply chain is that the degrees of separation become quite evident.)
You might consider
Construal Level
Theory which considers psychological distance. The general idea is that the more distant
an object is from the individual, the more abstract it will be thought of, while the closer the
object is, the more concretely it will be thought of.
And of course as part of our increasingly mapped human nature there is Ethical Amnesia .
Although you are making a strong argument against our particular credentialed class, my
sense is that this behavior will arise in any social hierarchy with more than four or five levels.
Distance makes it abstract. The dangerous part is when abstraction makes it distant…like
when a human is reduced to 'what do you do for a living?' – the polite version of 'How much do
you make?' "I am a professor."
"Hey, I think that enhances your chance, as the spouse or partner, of getting on that last
ship out of a dying Earth."
(Instead of abstraction, an example is offered here).
Does the professor know how many molecules have to be moved to make a buck? Not too many,
with oxycontin. A particularly efficient enterprise whose externality is the exact opposite of
a ride on the last ship out.
Remember the famous Millgram experiment? Two degrees of separation- Physical because the
subject was behind a mirror in a "laboratory" observation room, and psychological because the
"scientist" in a lab coat supported and encouraged extreme levels of torture which the subjects
complied with.
Rather similar to the level of detachment exhibited by Obama when he participates in selecting
targets for assassination by remote control drone. Or Hellary Clinton chortling as she recalls
viewing video of Gaddafi being sodomized with a bayonet.
I'm not sure it's simply a matter of obliviousness. In the case of the database designer,
the institution feeding him/her the data needs him/her to not get too curious, in other words
to willfully remain oblivious. This is quite often achieved by means of an implicit threat: in
tech, it's usually the threat of being replaced by someone much younger or by a H1B visa holder.
In sales, individuals and teams are often pitted against each other in strict competition, a practice
that has ruined several companies, most notably Sears. Marketing is an extremely cutthroat field,
and firms will do practically anything to one up each other, including the unethical and illegal.
The implicit war of all against all creates a Zeitgeist of insecurity that incentivizes looking
the other way or adopting a cultivated obliviousness.
Even in the hallowed halls of academe, you see this play out. When the graduate student union
was negotiating its most recent contract with the U of Iowa, the dean of the graduate college
said straight out that the contract they wanted would "price them out of the market." Lo and behold,
since then, the University has met all of the increased demand on teaching (higher enrollment=more
classes) by hiring ad hoc contingent faculty. The number of permanent positions created to meet
this demand is functionally zero.
Purdue pharma saleswoman Kimberly workman…involved in first case of pill mill dox charged with
murder, dr denis deonanine (acquitted)…in sun sentinal article, june 11,2002, she is quoted as
having testified when confronted by pharmacist kenneth zie***** that deonanine was overboard and
going to be a problem…
her response was…
"well that's really a shame"…
but during trial pharmacist kenneth also testified kimberly called complaining when he stopped
selling the 160 dosage…
It appears that "in theory" she was not working for purdue as the trial progressed…
But…she $hows up on a web search as having submitted and funded a research study for purdue
in 2013.
as its original patent expired purdue arranged with the fda to "ban" any generics as being:
"too dangerous"…
but the new and improved(vit dem helpz oft demz german koompanee tex-know-low-geez) oxykraken
which now prevents the capacity to melt it on a spoon and shoot it up, is available with the new
expandapatent program from the fda (federal dollar addition) program…
Yes those professions didn't strike me as too hot either. I.T. fields are flooded with
H1Bs, being a salesrep can at times be an easy job to get but often isn't (and so salesreps often
put up with a lot of crazy) etc..
We all pick our poison and how much we can live with. And yet most people believe in the
ideology of making people scramble for money. They think it makes people "work hard" or "compete"
or "add value" but just as absolutely it will make people cut corners. Because they have to because
they need that money to live. And yet we still think completion is good.
Competition will get tough, when in the future, everyone needs to get a college degree, and
lacking money for tuition is no longer a setback, except the 'IQ not sufficiently high' barrier
(for those not taking the less traveled path).
Then, you will need a master's or a Ph.D. to beat back your fellow serf-competitors for that
money to live.
Maybe they are no different from the minimum wage worker who takes a job at McDonalds. We know
McDonalds food isn't healthy, it likely increases heart attacks, strokes, cancer, diabetes etc.
So is the minimum wage worker who is helping this by taking a job at Mikey D's also intelligent
enough to fool themselves into believing this with consistency and no different than the looting
bankers?
Oh the minimum wage worker might be more desperate for work, but frankly while they may pay
more, half the professions listed above don't have a good job market either if we are actually
going to be honest about things.
As a life-long member of this credentialed professional class (specifically, media, even
though the credentials are informal at best), I can say from experience at several of the large
media corporations that many, if not most, employees in the editorial ranks are well aware of
the damage the industry does to this country (it's more abstract, perhaps, than the pharma example,
but it's real). Many speak up, but no one can speak up every time they are asked to execute an
unethical or mindless order whose sole goal is to increase ratings and, by extension, "shareholder
value."
The chronic complainer will be considered a narcissistic idealist and eventually be fired (typically
in a downsizing purge) or, at best, be marginalized. The only hope for those honest people in
the ranks is to find an ally slightly higher in the food chain who is willing to fight some of
these battles. And that person, in turn, is also in the same boat anyway. The people with families
are in the tightest bind and I've never envied them (I have no family to take care of). For years
now I went home at night ashamed of what I do. The only satisfying days were those in which I
did speak up and someone above welcomed my opinion or even agreed. The worst days were when someone
above just laughed dismissively at my concerns.
Not to mention the Military-Industrial Complex where I think this type of analysis is directly
applicable, only the degree of separation is 3 or 4. I see this type of behavior in the building
industry. But with this Industry, Errors & Omissions Insurance tends to keep malfeasance and ignorance
at bay. Since my work has to be documented and the results are relatively immediate and prominent
in the Environment, the degree of separation is kept to one or zero. And maybe that is the solution?
Keeping the degree of separation at a negligible number?
The campaign contributions to both my state and CONgress Members by the opiate industry
is extensive. Which of course makes sense, as Massachusetts has a large footprint in this industry,
as well as opiate overdoses/deaths.
A recent article featuring a local police chief here shows that Narcan must now be used 2-3
times to revive folks. However, quantifying what an "epidemic" is has been difficult. If a friend
or family member has died from opiate over dosage, then it would probably appear to be an epidemic.
Then again, now that drug cartels from all corners of the globe can now manufacture opiates,
supply & demand rules, along with unfettered access to a market where appetites to get high need
to be satiated.
The lack of ethical behavior from the credentialed class has many origins. The best attitude
when dealing with the credentialed class is caveat emptor . Especially in a society where
accumulation of money (and celebrity) is the pinnacle of "success".
I'm part of the credentialed class, but after sour experience with other doctors, lawyers,
architects, priests, and politicians the only prudent path is to watch what they do, not what
they say.
Call me a freaky conspiracy theorist, but the availability first of oxy and then later of heroin
in North America coincides with the US occupation of Afghanistan. That's not an accident. Thebaine
isn't something we can synthesize yet, so it has to come from somewhere.
thank you for clarifying. now the mexican cartels are producing fentanyl which is even stronger
than heroin and adding it to heroin. police are reporting more overdoses because of this deadly
combo.
I remember a movie the panic in needle park where the junkies were always worried about then
the shipment would arrive. you might remember the french connection. that was the 70s when poppies
were grown in places like turkey.
Now there are never panics. there's always mexican black tar.
I checked it out a bit too, out of professional interest. To get started, one would need two
courses: "Introductory laboratory techniques" and "Experimental synthetic biology" both available
at the "Danish Technical University" (DTU) for a modest fee (About 800 USD). If there is enough
people signing up, they will run these courses over the summer holidays (usually, there is, the
summer courses are supplementary lessons for students who flunked their semester exams).
Part of the reason for the collapse and trouble we are in, is that scarcity is more or less
over, so, it has to be manufactured to protect all the investments in obsolete thinking and no-longer-needed
imperial acquisitions.
This analysis applies to the epidemic of doctor-prescribed amphetamines by adolescents and
increasingly younger children. Dr. Peter Breggin is a source for informed outrage on this issue.
"before being published in the less prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.)"
this raised an eyebrow, since the PNAS was about the most prestigious place to publish among biochemists
(when I was in that world, back in the 70s);
Prestige seems not to be the appropriate angle here, since the journals in question are all
in the same echelon. What's more interesting is a point Deaton himself makes about the second
rejection, namely that simply identifying an alarming phenomenon was insufficient in itself, that
they had to additionally provide some kind of causal justification for this phenomenon. This is
beyond strange and seems to indicate what you imply elsewhere in that paragraph, that there seems
to be a willful desire not to know this analogous to the way "education reformers" constantly
overlook the fact that poverty is the only reliable indicator of failing or sub par schools.
I presume education and neoliberalism is on the docket at some point? It's probably to most
well-documented example of crapification.
I appreciate this article in several ways, but you lose me with "Consider trust as a public
good".
This goes in contrast to the quote from Clive:
Increasingly, if you want to get and hang on to a middle class job, that job will involve
dishonesty or exploitation of others in some way.
We're over-populated and competing with each other, how could it be otherwise? Trust, without
some amount of research, coupled with a period of observation, is a completely naive idea. It
always entails risk. The conflation of "trust" with some kind of faith that has an actual
consequent effect is mystical thinking.
Trust can be observed in small isolated communities where everyone knows each other; in that
kind of context, dishonesty and exploitation are quickly recognized. That's the context from which
it entered our cultures and "moralities". But increase population drastically, and also increase
the range of movement between regions, and and the research and observation become complex, more
difficult to perform and even more difficult to persist. Socio-economic complexities make it easier
and easier to avoid the encumberments of past error, or dishonesty. (I hope I don't have to explain
how the internet fails to solve this problem, and also can't).
And even further, a form of trust is actually operating within exploitative groups like the
aggregates of CEOs/Marketing executives/Database developers/Marketing collateral designers/The
sales force/Middle managers of all kinds. The trusted principle is, play along and we'll all make
some money, and woe to the one that upsets our apple cart. To the extent that trust exists and
operates, it's not necessarily a good thing.
I would love to live in a world where trust, as a discrete positive value, was more viable,
but at the moment, this isn't it. So let's please get past that, and look at how we can conduct
ourselves as a community in which the members must continue to prove themselves in every instance.
Because that is what is required in any case.
Okay I lied. I actually like this world. The pretenses of trust are being shown for what they
are (which is, false and lazy). I think it's a good time to be alive and seek dignity; the fact
that it's becoming more difficult just makes it more important and worthwhile to do so. And global
warming, too? Bring it!
Hmm. I'm not sure that's true. I was thinking of what Graeber IIRC calls everyday communism;
the idea that stranger A asking B for directions to the post office gets directions to the post
office. Well, granted, not in some cultures that are really people pleasing, but at least you
won't get directions that take you over a hidden pit of knives, or under a tripwire that will
explode a bomb. That's a basic level of trust, society-wide, and I think these professionals are
violating it.
Now, if there's some economist-techie-geeky reason why that's not a public good I need to think
again, but it certainly seems like a public good to me.
No argument that the individuals in question (pros or otherwise) are violating trust, at least
collectively, and in some cases individually.But this doesn't mean that credentials are a good
medium for establishing trust. My argument is that short of verification by reference and observation,
there is no sure and durable source for trust (other than faith, which can even be maintained
after the trust has been violated). Verification and observation, those are the "public goods";
"trust" is their abstract product.
My travelling experiences suggest that asking a stranger for post office directions is considerably
more risky if one is clearly an outsider to the community (language, dress, complexion, etc).
No pits or bombs, but knives and similar weapons were involved more than once. But then, I do
not limit myself to the touristy destinations (in tourist context, the visitor is considered to
be something of a community member).
I think the ideal that a stranger will, or even should, get equal treatment with established
community members is suspect. It's one of the fallacies in the imperialist capitalist dream of
access to everywhere (and look, they have a McDonalds!), king for a day every day, no matter where
I go, because my money is good. Bourgeois socialists have funny blind spots in the vicinity of
conceits they retain from their native cultural contexts, I think this is one of them.
Strangers are either guests (which requires some kind of sponsorship, with conventions applying
to both courtesy and restraint), or potentially hostile until proven otherwise. This is the rule
of the road, and not just for humans. And the reasons for this go back to research (reference,
or the absence of it) and observation over time being the basis for valid trust. An ignorant visitor
and ignorant local are both at risk until sufficient information has been exchanged and accepted.
The risk may have nothing to do with malign intent; disease, ignorance of local safety concerns,
protection of natural resources…
The locals that waylaid me were (trying to) retain some of the wealth passing through their
turf for their local economy; the profits of tourist hotels and shops largely bypassed their communities.
I had absolutely no problem in principle with them doing it, and on some occasions made friends
from these initial encounters (in other cases merely escaping).
To tail it back to the original topic, then value of credentials (as a trust medium) weakens
in relation to the sizes of the population and the region. Hucksters busted in one town move on
to the next; the larger their range of options and marks, the easier it is for them. Credentials
can be forged, their references can be corrupted, their media can be hacked. As tokens of trust,
they're problematic at best. Credentials may not be intrinsically useless, but unless we understand
the operation of trust (by any media) in practice, and how it can fail, we shouldn't invoke them
as either a solution or a problem.
I think that the idea that fraud and corruption can be safely curtailed by philosophy or legislation
(something of a static trust mechanism) alone is also suspect; we're inquisitive problem solvers
and keen observers, any weaknesses of flaws in a system will eventually be discovered, and unless
understood and addressed, exploited. All living things do this (although not always as individuals,
or even at the phenotype level).
So what's the solution to corruption and fraud? Pay freakin attention and check the math. On
everything. Expect problems, and solve them as you go…. people make honest mistakes, too. But
don't get fooled twice.
The story of oxycodone is one of rampant criminality: the clinical trials, the approval
process, and the marketing are all riddled with probable fabrications and manifest misrepresentations.
Thanks for this useful summary!
Maybe someday our country will have a criminal justice system to punish acts like mass murder.
If you are a doctor seeing 4 patients per hour, 8+ hours per working day, and also covering
weekend rotations, you are time constrained. Given the brief time you are able to spend with patients
(plus the fact that the drug rep dropped in earlier), it is simpler for most doctors to write
one more prescription; they do it all day.
Having been looted for tens of thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket medical costs over the
past five years, this post hits home. Like other patients fed up with being on meds, I started
looking for alternatives. They exist.
Prediction: one of the next shifts in health care will be called Functional Medicine.
And it is one response, one 'push back' to the incentivized looting and drug dependency of current
medical care.
Here is a one-minute clip from a BBC series of a doctor taking a Functional Medicine approach:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3JNtgbT234
Note the absence of exam room settings; the doctor is going out into the community, including
people's homes.
And at no point does he simply hand out prescriptions; he dumps the crap out of their kitchen
cupboards, advises them on how to shop for groceries, introduces patients to new foods, works
out with at least one of them, and provides feedback about their progress.
His patients are far, far less likely to be looted than your conventional patient.
And he is able to develop the insight, time, and trust to be able to help patients make choices
that improve their health – in some cases, tremendously.
My link is to a BBC video, because I'm unaware of a US equivalent for this content.
I am, however, very aware of doctors in the US who are implementing versions of this, or trying
new ways to make more time to meet with patients, and create lifestyle-oriented interventions
(as opposed to writing prescriptions).
This is the future of health care, partly because the greed of looting is killing the Golden
Goose of the (insured) American middle class.
Good and decent people do not spend years of their lives in medical school in order to become
part of an entrenched system of looting: the people that I know, who are passionate about health
care, do not want to play by The Looting Rules. Those crappified rules lead to poor patient outcomes.
Smart, competent doctors do not want to squander their talent by enabling looters.
There are brilliant, insightful people who are thinking hard, and risking plenty, to develop new
means of health care delivery. They are gutsy as hell, and determined.
I think that this post could be multiple by 1,000,000 if you think of all the people who are
actively attempting to revitalize health care and make it more patient-focused. This post has
a tiger by the tail.
Kudos to Yves and Lambert for this gem.
For providing symptom relief to actual physical pain obviously marijuana is an alternative
to opiates, maybe not strong enough for late stage cancer and the like so opiates still have their
limited and legitimate uses, but an alternative for many other things being treated with opiates.
We're only allowed to legalize it now that the Oxy patent has worn off.
Minor semi-opiates like Kratum can also sometimes be used an alternative although they have
more addictive potential than marijuana.
"the looting professional class" the salaried (or professional (or "20%")) classes
The behavior described in this article is clearly terrible, but it doesn't seem fair to
blame 20% of the population for this type of thing. You often advise us that generations don't
have agency, and the same can be said for economic classes. Most of the people in the richest
20% could be classified as "professionals", as in doctors, lawyers, stock brokers, engineers,
managers, etc., but I suspect there are some master plumbers and electricians in that category
as well.
We don't have clear language for this (for some reason). I'm trying to tease it out by contextualizing
the professions in the supply chain, and by underlining that there are honorable professionals
in every field. I'm aware that the language is deeply imperfect - people have trouble speaking
in Venn diagrams, it seems to be a feature that English doesn't support - but I'm working to improve
it. As the granularity improves, the sense of agency improves. (Of course, I can think of professions
that shouldn't exist at all, like "Concentration Camp Guard" or "Trofim Lysenko Chair of Genetics"
but those are edge cases.)
Adding, income is a poor proxy for social relations, sadly. It's what we have!
This exchange and the one above with 'dk' pulled me in. I fear I don't have clear language
either, but I want to add this about 'trust' and the professional class:
I think (a) the lessons of the Milgram experiment (trust your boss; go with the program)
and (b) the U. Sinclair notion of can't believe X if you're paycheck depends on not-X … these
2 factors have a lot to do with the separation of the 20% from the 80%. They don't explain the
origin, but I think they speak to the persistence.
I would also refer to recent medical study on pain medications' effect on continuation of pain
sensation after pain relief occurring in placebo groups.
Profiting from supplying opioids is one thing, but what happens when billionaire real estate
developers and hedge fund cash start getting into the recovery and mental health business?
It is not surprising that JAMA and NEJM immediately rejected the paper. From the health care
community point of view Case-Deaton
(1) just tabulated the same CDC data that thousands of other people also do routinely in the same
way as soon as it is published each year – epidemiologists, actuaries, public health planners
etc. who also routinely do population adjustments and look at trends for the total population
and sub-populations. This isn't publishable. It's the equivalent of publishing baseball standings.
These trends were no secret.
(2) Everyone in actual health care besides the data tabulators already knew this – everyone except
the health care pundit class. All the emergency department staff and morgue staff and pathologists
and managers and people handling death certificates knew these as routine deaths – especially
in small town and rustbelt hospitals. Hospital mortality and underlying etiology – both for patients
and DOAs – is a big deal in every hospital and is reviewed by many people.
Thus their paper produced a "so tell me what I don't know" reaction in people in actual healthcare.
I totally agree with describing this as looting. It disgusts nearly everyone who have had to
deal with the results.
CDC has been publishing reports on the incredibly rising incidence in non-Hispanic whites for
years.
NCHS Data Brief ■ No. 22 ■ September 2009
Increase in Fatal Poisonings Involving Opioid Analgesics in the United States, 1999–2006
Margaret Warner, Lli Hui Chen and Diane m. Makuc
Vital Signs: Overdoses of Prescription Opioid Pain Relievers - United States, 1999–2008
Weekly. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report, November 4, 2011 / 60(43);1487-1492
The inclusion of database developers as a responsible party is absolutely absurd, and it betrays
an ignorance of what database (and software) developers do. We build the informational "machinery"
that stores and retrieves data, according to the specs handed to us by business types. We do not
typically monitor/summarize/report on the data itself as it rolls in, unless we happen to be specifically
tasked with such a thing.
It only proves the point if the McDonalds burger flipper is also guilty for also working for
a firm of questionable morality. Now of course one could argue that it's a lot different to work
at a firm producing Oxy than in fast food (even though the later does kill) and I don't think
that's unreasonable.
I just think that has absolutely NOTHING to do with being a professional or being a working
class prole. That factor is irrelevant.
What about if you work on the database for Coca Cola, are you guilty of increasing diabetes?
What about if you work upselling it (ie management says you must ask customers if they would like
to supersize their soda or something) at McDonalds?
Oxy may be worse that such things. We all pick our poison. Some people's picks go far further
than our conscience would ever allow us to go. Sometimes professionals have more wiggle room financially
but the stats on how few people have a few hundred or thousand bucks in savings makes that questionable.
I honestly suspect most jobs are a bit corrupt. Even if one works for a non-profit,even many
non-profits are stealing massive amounts of the donations for administration. Etc.
So you get asked to create a database that tracks sales rep's visits to specific doctors and
a doctor's number of prescriptions of all drugs and some specific drugs, (undoubtedly from a long
list) and from doing that, the developers are supposed to know that they just helped push opiod
addiction?
I'm REALLY not seeing your point.
The people that PLANNED this system MIGHT have known the purpose, and the system architect,
maybe, but the guys pushing out the code and making sure the database does what is asked probably
have NO IDEA about things like that. It's just not something they would even notice.
It seems to become a non-obvious question. We need MORE DATA :). No really we just need more
information.
Is the only med Purdue Pharma makes opiates? Then one could say one is working for an opiate
provider. Were the employees even full time employees of Purdue Pharma? Sure they might be H1Bs,
but also for a time limited database development job they are often 3-6 month contractors, it's
VERY common. You could argue the 1099s have some guilt even so though. There is even a possiblity
the database development was contracted out to an external firm.
Is it obvious the harm opiates cause? Well it is NOW. I guess it's why I tend to latch on to
the question of if the firm one works for is ethical because I don't believe the wrongdoing is
always obvious from say the data. But a firm itself could be said to be unethical and thus it
could be argued it is unethical to work for an unethical firm.
But if you don't understand what the functions the specs are describing, how can you build
a good database? And summarizing and reporting are often in the purview of the developer.
There is a point to be made here. Managed structures can insulate task fulfillers from the
full context(s) of their work. The implementors may not be immediately aware of or fully understand
the consequences and implications of their work.
But there are many scenarios where the database developer has, or should have, full knowledge
of the operational aspects of their work relating to compliance, safety, and contractual/fiduciary
responsibilities.
Take for example HIPAA, with several defined rules required for compliant implementation of
data management. The database developer should be at least aware of the specifics of the requirements,
since they directly address significant aspects of storage and retrieval functions. HIPAA compliance
is required by law for handling of any patient, treatment, provider, or payment information (protected
health information (PHI)).
Another example: political fundraising. It is explicitly illegal to sell or use names and addresses
of individuals from FEC records as a primary source for solicitations (
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/saleuse.shtml
). However it is very easy to do so, and the data manager that does it is breaking the law,
as much as a person (or document) instructing them (who actually gets prosecuted is another matter
entirely).
Yea HIPPA requires compliance and knowledge on the part of a lot of involved employees, that
is part of the law itself. But that workers have knowledge of all aspects of a business is NOT
part of the law. So on the other hand management may be scamming the shareholders say and a database
developer might not know depending, just because knowledge is shielded in many ways.
In essence you are arguing that it is acceptable that your profession is fine and that you
can all be little Eichmanns now. Your profession has plausible deniablity built into its structure.
Speaking of credentialism, it was "prestigious" JAMA (and I would suggest applying the term
to an academic journal automatically casts doubt on its intellectual respectability) that once
rushed to publish a badly designed "study" ostensibly by a child who apparently was actually coached
by her mother's MD boyfriend, all to discredit an alternative medicine therapy because the AMA
hates alternative medicine. The method has continued to be studied, with intriguing articles being
published occasionally in less political, more research-oriented journals such as the Journal
of Orthopaedic Research and Annals of Internal Medicine.
For those interested in the subject, Therapeutic Touch International Association, therapeutic-touch.org,
provides some literature citations and an 89-page (pdf) copyrighted bibliography.
Moral: Avoid prestige (and Google ratings) when seeking information.
I know there's a problem with opioids. But for some of us its very beneficial, provided you
have a certain amount of self-discipline. Two years ago I was diagnosed with severe spinal stenosis.
It was so bad that I could hold a fork, button my shirt , or zipper my fly. If I didn't have surgery.
I would have been paralyzed and incontinent. The surgery worked. I lead a normal life. But without
Percocet, the pain would be unbearable. I've tried marijuana. It's not that effective. I do Tai-Chi
and physical therapy exercises. I even walk and swim. I worry that the pain puritans will take
power and insist that I must suffer.
The major changes that I have seen since 1961 include widespread pornography, casino gambling,
drug addiction, homelessness, forever wars, economic crashes and student debt. In each case someone
is making money and the costs to society are discounted. Privatizing gains. Socializing costs.
This post on the opioid epidemic is an excellent specific example of this. The gutting of the
Western Middle Class and the economy and morality that support it is extremely destabilizing.
Either there is a restoration of the rule of law and punishment for crimes against society or
"Peace and Prosperity" will be a quaint phrase from half a century ago. That is if mankind survives
climate change and/or the Cold War 2.0 with Russia.
"Although the U.S. constitutes only 4.6 percent of the world's population, Americans use 80
percent of the world's opioids."
Eighty percent? I'd love to see the data mining in that study. That's a ridiculous number.
Opioids are used in almost every culture, just not the drive-thru pharmacy variety.
My American colleagues, at the same age as me, are all, with a few exceptions, consuming a
ridiculous amount of prescription medicine for all manner of things.
My prejudiced opinion (because I don't really know) is that many of them started off with some
minor but chronic disease, then they got side-effects from the treatment, then they get treated
for the side effects, etcetera. The whole thing escalates and they are now bound to eating 15+
different "meds".
My father was trapped in this bullshit for maybe 20 years, before the government created "palliative
teams" – a team of doctors who will go through the medication and illness history of chronic patients.
They re-evaluate and re-design their treatment. Usually with life-saving effects, as in: Unexpected
years of improved quality of life.
The cause of the "minor, but chronic disease" is (again in my biased opinion) probably due
to unhealthy food; The medicated men can't cook, their wives cannot cook anything "from scratch".
They rely on food items in bags, boxes or frozen "because the nutritional values are printed on
them, so we know what we are getting(!)".
The exceptions … they can cook proper food.
In my opinion, Americans are getting slowly poisoned and they are not getting any help
either because the US food industry is allowed to sabotage the access to unadulterated foodstuff.
This is one of many reasons that people "here" hate the TTIP & Co: We don't want to be American!
We don't want US business practices.
Looting is definitely the right term here. I suspect there are many actors who became fabulously
wealthy from the prescription opioid (and amphetamine – ADD medications like Adderal are analogues
to street Methamphetamine) scam.
Just to put the scale of looting into perspective it should be noted, for readers that live
in New York City, that the Sackler family which founded Purdue Pharma funded the Sackler Wing
at the Metropolitan Museum of Art which houses the Egyptian Temple of Dendur and study centers
for Chinese and Japanese Art History. They are truly magnificent for those who have never visited.
Below is a link to additional organizations the Sackler family has endowed:
• The Raymond and Beverly Sackler Foundation Fellowship at Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques
(IHÉS), France, to fund invited researchers from Israel at IHÉS, 1990
• The Raymond and Beverly Sackler American Fellowship at IHÉS, France, to fund invited researchers
from the USA at IHÉS, 2002
• Raymond and Beverly Sackler Institute of Biophysics, Raymond and Beverly Sackler Faculty of
Exact Sciences, Tel Aviv University, 2004
• The Raymond and Beverly Sackler Distinguished Lectureship at IHÉS, France, 2004
• The Raymond & Beverly Sackler Institute for Biological, Physical, and Engineering Sciences,
Yale University, 2008
• Raymond & Beverly Sackler Laboratories of Biomedical and Biophysical Studies, Rockefeller University,
2008
• Raymond and Beverly Sackler Center for Biomedical and Physical Sciences, Weill Cornell Medical
College, including a program in cardiac stem cell research dedicated to friend and colleague Professor
Isadore Rosenfeld, 2008
• Raymond and Beverly Sackler Fund for Biomedical and Physical Sciences (in honor of Phillip A.
Sharp), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2010
• Raymond and Beverly Sackler Laboratory of Biomedical and Physical Sciences, University of Washington,
Seattle, Washington, 2010
• Raymond and Beverly Sackler Laboratories in the Physics of Medicine, University of Cambridge,
Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2010
• Raymond and Beverly Sackler Center for Biomedical, Biological, Physical and Engineering Sciences,
University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, Connecticut, 2011
• Raymond and Beverly Sackler Center for Biomedical, Physical and Engineering Sciences in honor
of Emilio Segre, University of California, Berkeley, 2011
• Raymond and Beverly Sackler Laboratories for Biomedical, Physical and Engineering Sciences in
honor of Saul J. Farber, New York University, School of Medicine, 2011
• Raymond and Beverly Sackler Center for Convergence of Biomedical, Physical and Engineering Sciences
in honor of David Baltimore, California Institute of Technology, 2012
• Raymond and Beverly Sackler Center for Convergence of Biomedical, Physical and Engineering Sciences
in honor of Herbert Pardes, New York Presbyterian Hospital, Columbia University Medical Center,
2012
• The Raymond & Beverly Sackler Convergence Laboratory, Tufts University School of Medicine, 2013
Not a bad payday for facilitating worldwide opioid addiction.
"He endowed galleries at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and Princeton University, the Arthur
M. Sackler Museum at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, the Arthur M. Sackler Museum
of Art and Archaeology at Peking University in Beijing, the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery of the Smithsonian
Institution, in Washington, D.C., and the Jillian & Arthur M. Sackler Wing at the Royal Academy,
London. "
• Sackler Library at the University of Oxford
• Sackler Laboratories at the University of Reading
• Sackler Musculoskeletal Research Centre, University College London
• Sackler Institute of Pulmonary Pharmacology at King's College London[2]
• Sackler Crossing – a walkway over the lake at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
• Sackler Biodiversity Imaging Laboratory at the Natural History Museum, London
The kind of destructive social conduct was noted by cultural anthropologists studying cultures
affected by Euopean colonization. As the meaning of the culture was drained by colonial predation,
the societies degraded, people lost direction, language changed rapidly and the previous social
networks unraveled. Essentially, the colonized no longer saw or felt that there was a place for
them.
In the present case, the working class that formed out of and as a consequence
of two world wars no longer has a place in this country. Thus, similar responses to this displacement.
In the present case, the colonizers are the credentialed class of mandarins who see themselves
as separate from their fellow citizens.
Something I think is lost in the opioid deaths discussion is the fact that these people had
real pain. Terrible pain. Treating that pain is good. But a doctor can't change a sedentary culture
that creates much of that pain. Everything about constant sitting is bad for the body, and
when the sedentary body starts moving, things get worse, because terrible movement patterns are
ingrained. There'd have to be nationwide physical therapy to solve it. I recommend reading and
following 'deskbound' by Kelly Starrett, if you're a sedentary person.
"To move large amounts of prescription painkillers in America, you need somebody to write the
prescriptions. You need doctors. Hiring doctors to sell drugs is easy, says George. He found his
doctors by posting ads on Craigslist. At their peak, when they were running the largest pill mill
operation in the U.S., the George twins had roughly a dozen doctors working for them.
George says not a single doctor he interviewed ever turned down a job offer. Although he was
always younger than the doctors he was interviewing-he was in his late twenties at the time-George
says he made a professional impression. "I had such a big office; it was an easy sell," says George.
"They didn't walk into some hole-in-the-wall place. The hours were good. The pay was good."
What the jobs lacked in prestige, they made up for in wages. According to George's indictment,
doctors at his clinics were paid a flat fee for each opioid prescription they wrote-typically,
$75 to $100 a pop. To help maximize their efficiency, doctors were given prescription stamps they
could use quickly, over and over. It was common for physicians at American Pain to see 100 patients
a day, he says. At that rate a doctor would earn roughly $37,500 a week-or $1.95 million a year.
It was a doctor who first advised him to go into the industry. At the time, he and his brother
were running a hormone-replacement therapy business and selling steroids online. Along the way
they got to know a doctor who told them that painkillers were a much bigger market and advised
them on how to get started. The doctor later died in a car crash overseas, but he left the George
brothers with a lucrative business model. According to prosecutors, the twins' pain clinics, over
their two-year run, sold 20 million oxycodone pills and brought in $40 million."
One minor cavil in your article, Lambert, and that concerns labelling PNAS a "less prestigious
journal", as opposed to JAMA or NEJM. Back in the day when I was an active research scientist,
publication of original work in PNAS was considered a very worthy accomplishment indeed, as were
papers published in Nature, Science, etc. It is a multidiscipline journal, taking in a broad cross-section
of the physical and social sciences, as well as medical research, wherein submission of articles
for publication must be done by a member of the National Academy of Sciences, a very "prestigious"
group, to say the least…peer-review and all that, of course. Now, whatever the reasons for manuscript
rejection by the two strictly medical journals, only their respective editors would know; but
I suspect it may have to do with…yes, "credentials", as neither of the two authors have any sort
of specialised medical background or even one in epidemiology, but are economists, not the usual
senior authors JAMA prefers. And, "failure" – a rather loaded word – to gain acceptance in a specialty
journal in no way reflects the essential merits of the work, which clearly has been reflected
in the immense reception and subsequent citations received in the lay press and media. I look
at this as JAMA/NEJM's loss, and PNAS's gain, quite simply.
"... Neoliberalism is a form of economism in our day that strikes at every moment at every sector of our community. It is a form of extremism. ..."
"... Every totalitarianism starts as distortion of language, as in the novel by George Orwell. Neoliberalism has its Newspeak and strategies of communication that enable it to deform reality. In this spirit, every budgetary cut is represented as an instance of modernization of the sectors concerned. If some of the most deprived are no longer reimbursed for medical expenses and so stop visiting the dentist, this is modernization of social security in action! ..."
"... Social Darwinism predominates, assigning the most stringent performance requirements to everyone and everything: to be weak is to fail. The foundations of our culture are overturned: every humanist premise is disqualified or demonetized because neoliberalism has the monopoly of rationality and realism. Margaret Thatcher said it in 1985: "There is no alternative." Everything else is utopianism, unreason and regression. The virtue of debate and conflicting perspectives are discredited because history is ruled by necessity. ..."
"... In spite of the crisis of 2008 and the hand-wringing that followed, nothing was done to police the financial community and submit them to the requirements of the common good. Who paid? Ordinary people, you and me. ..."
By Manuela Cadelli, President of the Magistrates' Union of Belgium
The time for rhetorical reservations is over. Things have to be called by their name to make it
possible for a co-ordinated democratic reaction to be initiated, above all in the public services.2
Liberalism was a doctrine derived from the philosophy of Enlightenment, at once political and
economic, which aimed at imposing on the state the necessary distance for ensuring respect for liberties
and the coming of democratic emancipation. It was the motor for the arrival, and the continuing progress,
of Western democracies.
Neoliberalism is a form of economism in our day that strikes at every moment at every sector of
our community. It is a form of extremism.
Fascism may be defined as the subordination of every part of the State to a totalitarian and nihilistic
ideology. I argue that neoliberalism is a species of fascism because the economy has brought under subjection
not only the government of democratic countries but also every aspect of our thought.1 The state is now at the disposal of the economy and of finance, which treat it as a subordinate
and lord over it to an extent that puts the common good in jeopardy.
The austerity that is demanded by the financial milieu has become a supreme value, replacing politics.
Saving money precludes pursuing any other public objective. It is reaching the point where claims
are being made that the principle of budgetary orthodoxy should be included in state constitutions.
A mockery is being made of the notion of public service.
The nihilism that results from this makes possible the dismissal of universalism and the most
evident humanistic values: solidarity, fraternity, integration and respect for all and for differences.
There is no place any more even for classical economic theory: work was formerly an element in
demand, and to that extent there was respect for workers; international finance has made of it a
mere adjustment variable.
Every totalitarianism starts as distortion of language, as in the novel by George Orwell. Neoliberalism
has its Newspeak and strategies of communication that enable it to deform reality. In this spirit,
every budgetary cut is represented as an instance of modernization of the sectors concerned. If some
of the most deprived are no longer reimbursed for medical expenses and so stop visiting the dentist,
this is modernization of social security in action!
Abstraction predominates in public discussion so as to occlude the implications for human beings.
Thus, in relation to migrants, it is imperative that the need for hosting them does not lead to
public appeals that our finances could not accommodate. Is it In the same way that other individuals
qualify for assistance out of considerations of national solidarity?
The cult of evaluation
Social Darwinism predominates, assigning the most stringent performance requirements to everyone
and everything: to be weak is to fail. The foundations of our culture are overturned: every humanist
premise is disqualified or demonetized because neoliberalism has the monopoly of rationality and
realism. Margaret Thatcher said it in 1985: "There is no alternative." Everything else is utopianism,
unreason and regression. The virtue of debate and conflicting perspectives are discredited because
history is ruled by necessity.
This subculture harbours an existential threat of its own: shortcomings of performance condemn
one to disappearance while at the same time everyone is charged with inefficiency and obliged to
justify everything. Trust is broken. Evaluation reigns, and with it the bureaucracy which imposes
definition and research of a plethora of targets, and indicators with which one must comply. Creativity
and the critical spirit are stifled by management. And everyone is beating his breast about the wastage
and inertia of which he is guilty.1
The neglect of justice
The neoliberal ideology generates a normativity that competes with the laws of parliament. The
democratic power of law is compromised. Given that they represent a concrete embodiment of liberty
and emancipation, and given the potential to prevent abuse that they impose, laws and procedures
have begun to look like obstacles.
The power of the judiciary, which has the ability to oppose the will of the ruling circles, must
also be checkmated. The Belgian judicial system is in any case underfunded. In 2015 it came last
in a European ranking that included all states located between the Atlantic and the Urals. In two
years the government has managed to take away the independence given to it under the Constitution
so that it can play the counterbalancing role citizens expect of it. The aim of this undertaking
is clearly that there should no longer be justice in Belgium.
A caste above the Many
But the dominant class doesn't prescribe for itself the same medicine it wants to see ordinary
citizens taking: well-ordered austerity begins with others. The economist Thomas Piketty has perfectly
described this in his study of inequality and capitalism in the twenty-first century (French edition,
Seuil, 2013).
In spite of the crisis of 2008 and the hand-wringing that followed, nothing was done to police
the financial community and submit them to the requirements of the common good. Who paid? Ordinary
people, you and me.
And while the Belgian State consented to 7 billion-euro ten-year tax breaks for multinationals,
ordinary litigants have seen surcharges imposed on access to justice (increased court fees, 21% taxation
on legal fees). From now on, to obtain redress the victims of injustice are going to have to be rich.
All this in a state where the number of public representatives breaks all international records.
In this particular area, no evaluation and no costs studies are reporting profit. One example: thirty
years after the introduction of the federal system, the provincial institutions survive. Nobody can
say what purpose they serve. Streamlining and the managerial ideology have conveniently stopped at
the gates of the political world.
The security ideal
Terrorism, this other nihilism that exposes our weakness in affirming our values, is likely to
aggravate the process by soon making it possible for all violations of our liberties, all violations
of our rights, to circumvent the powerless qualified judges, further reducing social protection for
the poor, who will be sacrificed to "the security ideal".
Salvation in commitment
These developments certainly threaten the foundations of our democracy, but do they condemn us
to discouragement and despair?
Certainly not. 500 years ago, at the height of the defeats that brought down most Italian states
with the imposition of foreign occupation for more than three centuries, Niccolo Machiavelli urged
virtuous men to defy fate and stand up against the adversity of the times, to prefer action and daring
to caution. The more tragic the situation, the more it necessitates action and the refusal to "give
up" (The Prince, Chapters XXV and XXVI).
This is a teaching that is clearly required today. The determination of citizens attached to the
radical of democratic values is an invaluable resource which has not yet revealed, at least in Belgium,
its driving potential and power to change what is presented as inevitable. Through social networking
and the power of the written word, everyone can now become involved, particularly when it comes to
public services, universities, the student world, the judiciary and the Bar, in bringing the common
good and social justice into the heart of public debate and the administration of the state and the
community.
Neoliberalism is a species of fascism. It must be fought and humanism fully restored.4
"... As the world reels from the Brexit shock, it is dawning on economists and policymakers that they severely underestimated the political fragility of the current form of globalization. The popular revolt that appears to be underway is taking diverse, overlapping forms: reassertion of local and national identities, demand for greater democratic control and accountability, rejection of centrist political parties, and distrust of elites and experts. ..."
"... As an emerging new establishment consensus grudgingly concedes, globalization accentuates class divisions between those who have the skills and resources to take advantage of global markets and those who don't. Income and class cleavages, in contrast to identity cleavages based on race, ethnicity, or religion, have traditionally strengthened the political left. So why has the left been unable to mount a significant political challenge to globalization? ..."
"... Latin American democracies provide a telling contrast. These countries experienced globalization mostly as a trade and foreign-investment shock, rather than as an immigration shock. Globalization became synonymous with so-called Washington Consensus policies and financial opening. Immigration from the Middle East or Africa remained limited and had little political salience. So the populist backlash in Latin America – in Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador, and, most disastrously, Venezuela – took a left-wing form. ..."
"... Economists and technocrats on the left bear a large part of the blame. Instead of contributing to such a program, they abdicated too easily to market fundamentalism and bought in to its central tenets. Worse still, they led the hyper-globalization movement at crucial junctures. ..."
"... The enthroning of free capital mobility – especially of the short-term kind – as a policy norm by the European Union, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the IMF was arguably the most fateful decision for the global economy in recent decades. ..."
"... Similarly, in the US, it was technocrats associated with the more Keynesian Democratic Party, such as Lawrence Summers, who led the charge for financial deregulation. ..."
"... France's Socialist technocrats appear to have concluded from the failed Mitterrand experiment with Keynesianism in the early 1980s that domestic economic management was no longer possible, and that there was no real alternative to financial globalization. The best that could be done was to enact Europe-wide and global rules, instead of allowing powerful countries like Germany or the US to impose their own. ..."
"... The good news is that the intellectual vacuum on the left is being filled, and there is no longer any reason to believe in the tyranny of "no alternatives." Politicians on the left have less and less reason not to draw on "respectable" academic firepower in economics. ..."
"... Consider just a few examples: Anat Admati and Simon Johnson have advocated radical banking reforms; Thomas Piketty and Tony Atkinson have proposed a rich menu of policies to deal with inequality at the national level; Mariana Mazzucato and Ha-Joon Chang have written insightfully on how to deploy the public sector to foster inclusive innovation; Joseph Stiglitz and José Antonio Ocampo have proposed global reforms; Brad DeLong, Jeffrey Sachs, and Lawrence Summers (the very same!) have argued for long-term public investment in infrastructure and the green economy. There are enough elements here for building a programmatic economic response from the left. ..."
"... Economists have finally admitted that offshoring has resulted in the loss of American jobs. They no long mention that only a few years they claimed that offshoring created newer and higher paying American jobs. Isn't science wonderful. Middle and working class women went to work to maintain living standards, eventually the middle and working classes resorted to debt resulting in the Great Recession. ..."
"... In addition to economic instability and decline of the lower orders the federal government has sought to encourage immigration, H1-Bs, refugees and others. These people take jobs from Americans (economist dogma notwithstanding) or reduce American incomes if they are not on public assistance. ..."
"... Even Krugman has characterized America as a plutocracy. ..."
"... Yet the sudden success of Trump shows that many Americans are too angry to listen to plans for distant economic melioration or to tolerate cultural destabilization at the hands of government that no longer represents their interests, economic or cultural. Liberals can castigate them and dismiss their political judgment but it might help to spend some time trying to see the world from their perspective ..."
"... As they don't seem to fit into the equations and theories of the economists, both civic virtue and public trust have been assigned an economic value of zero and factored out of the "it's the ecomomy stupid" world view entirely. Or so it seems to me. ..."
"... "Who's rich?" is an easier question to answer than "who's trustworthy." ..."
"... The Washington consensus was pure Hayek. Summers was the purest of the pure on the Washington consensus. As Summers destroyed Yeltsin's good economic reform in 1993, Stiglitz was his chief adversary in government. Stiglitz wrote about how utterly ideological Summers was. And was under Obama. Now he is for the pittance of infrastructure Clinton wants in the hope she will name him Fed chief. ..."
"... The utter hysteria about Trump on the "left" is very illuminating . One judges a populist like Trump at one's peril. But the evidence strongly suggests that Hank Paulson and George Will--and others like them--understand Trump and Clinton quite well on domestic policy. She is the Republican--and as in 1964, a Goldwater Republican at that. He is on the left. The left does not want a left-wing policy. ..."
"... IS THERE THE MENTION OF THE WORD "LABOR UNION" IN THERE ANYWHERE -- ADMITTEDLY ONLY COMPLETELY MISSING IN THE US? ..."
"... When you have the US congress acting like a Roman senate but without a Ceasar, legislating left and right as if they are the supremos on the world stage and destroying anything and everything in their path and other world leaders following the orders of their masters in the US without questioning or even a say, how can one expect anything to work. ..."
[T]he experience in Latin America and southern Europe reveals perhaps a greater weakness of
the left: the absence of a clear program to refashion capitalism and globalization for the twenty-first
century. From Greece's Syriza to Brazil's Workers' Party, the left has failed to come up with
ideas that are economically sound and politically popular, beyond ameliorative policies such as
income transfers.
Economists and technocrats on the left bear a large part of the blame. Instead of contributing
to such a program, they abdicated too easily to market fundamentalism and bought in to its central
tenets. Worse still, they led the hyper-globalization movement at crucial junctures.
As the world reels from the Brexit shock, it is dawning on economists and policymakers that
they severely underestimated the political fragility of the current form of globalization. The popular
revolt that appears to be underway is taking diverse, overlapping forms: reassertion of local and
national identities, demand for greater democratic control and accountability, rejection of centrist
political parties, and distrust of elites and experts.
This backlash was predictable. Some economists, including me, did warn about the consequences of
pushing economic globalization beyond the boundaries of institutions that regulate, stabilize, and
legitimize markets. Hyper-globalization in trade and finance, intended to create seamlessly integrated
world markets, tore domestic societies apart.
The bigger surprise is the decidedly right-wing tilt the political reaction has taken. In Europe,
it is predominantly nationalists and nativist populists that have risen to prominence, with the left
advancing only in a few places such as Greece and Spain. In the United States, the right-wing demagogue
Donald Trump has managed to displace the Republican establishment, while the leftist Bernie Sanders
was unable to overtake the centrist Hillary Clinton.
As an emerging new establishment consensus grudgingly concedes, globalization accentuates
class divisions between those who have the skills and resources to take advantage of global markets
and those who don't. Income and class cleavages, in contrast to identity cleavages based on race,
ethnicity, or religion, have traditionally strengthened the political left. So why has the left been
unable to mount a significant political challenge to globalization?
One answer is that immigration has overshadowed other globalization "shocks." The perceived threat
of mass inflows of migrants and refugees from poor countries with very different cultural traditions
aggravates identity cleavages that far-right politicians are exceptionally well placed to exploit.
So it is not a surprise that rightist politicians from Trump to Marine Le Pen lace their message
of national reassertion with a rich dose of anti-Muslim symbolism.
Latin American democracies provide a telling contrast. These countries experienced globalization
mostly as a trade and foreign-investment shock, rather than as an immigration shock. Globalization
became synonymous with so-called Washington Consensus policies and financial opening. Immigration
from the Middle East or Africa remained limited and had little political salience. So the populist
backlash in Latin America – in Brazil, Bolivia, Ecuador, and, most disastrously, Venezuela – took
a left-wing form.
The story is similar in the main two exceptions to right-wing resurgence in Europe – Greece and
Spain. In Greece, the main political fault line has been austerity policies imposed by European institutions
and the International Monetary Fund. In Spain, most immigrants until recently came from culturally
similar Latin American countries. In both countries, the far right lacked the breeding ground it
had elsewhere.
But the experience in Latin America and southern Europe reveals perhaps a greater weakness of
the left: the absence of a clear program to refashion capitalism and globalization for the twenty-first
century. From Greece's Syriza to Brazil's Workers' Party, the left has failed to come up with ideas
that are economically sound and politically popular, beyond ameliorative policies such as income
transfers.
Economists and technocrats on the left bear a large part of the blame. Instead of contributing
to such a program, they abdicated too easily to market fundamentalism and bought in to its central
tenets. Worse still, they led the hyper-globalization movement at crucial junctures.
The enthroning of free capital mobility – especially of the short-term kind – as a policy
norm by the European Union, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the IMF
was arguably the most fateful decision for the global economy in recent decades. As Harvard
Business School professor Rawi Abdelal has shown, this effort was spearheaded in the late 1980s and
early 1990s not by free-market ideologues, but by French technocrats such as Jacques Delors (at the
European Commission) and Henri Chavranski (at the OECD), who were closely associated with the Socialist
Party in France. Similarly, in the US, it was technocrats associated with the more Keynesian
Democratic Party, such as Lawrence Summers, who led the charge for financial deregulation.
France's Socialist technocrats appear to have concluded from the failed Mitterrand experiment
with Keynesianism in the early 1980s that domestic economic management was no longer possible, and
that there was no real alternative to financial globalization. The best that could be done was to
enact Europe-wide and global rules, instead of allowing powerful countries like Germany or the US
to impose their own.
The good news is that the intellectual vacuum on the left is being filled, and there is no
longer any reason to believe in the tyranny of "no alternatives." Politicians on the left have less
and less reason not to draw on "respectable" academic firepower in economics.
Consider just a few examples: Anat Admati and Simon Johnson have advocated radical banking
reforms; Thomas Piketty and Tony Atkinson have proposed a rich menu of policies to deal with inequality
at the national level; Mariana Mazzucato and Ha-Joon Chang have written insightfully on how to deploy
the public sector to foster inclusive innovation; Joseph Stiglitz and José Antonio Ocampo have proposed
global reforms; Brad DeLong, Jeffrey Sachs, and Lawrence Summers (the very same!) have argued for
long-term public investment in infrastructure and the green economy. There are enough elements here
for building a programmatic economic response from the left.
A crucial difference between the right and the left is that the right thrives on deepening divisions
in society – "us" versus "them" – while the left, when successful, overcomes these cleavages through
reforms that bridge them. Hence the paradox that earlier waves of reforms from the left – Keynesianism,
social democracy, the welfare state – both saved capitalism from itself and effectively rendered
themselves superfluous. Absent such a response again, the field will be left wide open for populists
and far-right groups, who will lead the world – as they always have – to deeper division and more
frequent conflict.
Dani Rodrik is Professor of International Political Economy at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. He is the author of The Globalization Paradox: Democracy and the Future of the World Economy and, most recently, Economics Rules: The Rights and Wrongs of the Dismal Science.
Tom Shillock JUL 12, 2016
The distribution of a society's benefits and burdens at any point in time is zero sum. Over
the past four decades financial deregulation, tax laws and numerous federal government
policies transferred the bulk of the gains from GDP to the upper class while causing numerous
financial crises (100+ according to Martin Wolf, The Shifts and The Shocks). Economists
have finally admitted that offshoring has resulted in the loss of American jobs. They no long
mention that only a few years they claimed that offshoring created newer and higher paying
American jobs. Isn't science wonderful. Middle and working class women went to work to
maintain living standards, eventually the middle and working classes resorted to debt
resulting in the Great Recession.
In addition to economic instability and decline of the lower orders the federal government
has sought to encourage immigration, H1-Bs, refugees and others. These people take jobs from
Americans (economist dogma notwithstanding) or reduce American incomes if they are not on
public assistance. The effects are working their way up the 'skill' level. This at a time
when middle and working class Americans lack universal health care, are being priced out of
higher education, lack job security, lack decent unemployment benefits and have one of the
worst social safety net in the OECD.
Self-styled American "liberals" don't seem to distinguish between the legitimate claims of
their fellow citizens and the sympathy or empathy for foreigners. Surely, citizens, especially
the middle and working classes, should have first claim to the country's resources; not the
rich and not foreigners. Citizens of a country also have a right to their culture, to not have
their taxes pay to suddenly impose large numbers of people from foreign cultures on them. Is
it an wonder that many Americans feel abandoned by their government?
America has never been a "melting pot" (Cf. Beyond the Melting Pot by Nathan Glazer and Daniel
Patrick Moynihan). Should it surprise that "liberals" provoke a backlash by trying to impose
their utopian idea of American society on Americans who have seen their economic prospects
decline for four decades with little prospect of improvement? Even Krugman has
characterized America as a plutocracy. Piketty argues that inequality will increase
absent countervailing policies. Yet the sudden success of Trump shows that many Americans
are too angry to listen to plans for distant economic melioration or to tolerate cultural
destabilization at the hands of government that no longer represents their interests, economic
or cultural. Liberals can castigate them and dismiss their political judgment but it might
help to spend some time trying to see the world from their perspective
Denis Drew JUL 12, 2016
" Consider just a few examples: Anat Admati and Simon Johnson have advocated radical
banking reforms; Thomas Piketty and Tony Atkinson have proposed a rich menu of policies to
deal with inequality at the national level; Mariana Mazzucato and Ha-Joon Chang have written
insightfully on how to deploy the public sector to foster inclusive innovation; Joseph
Stiglitz and José Antonio Ocampo have proposed global reforms; Brad DeLong, Jeffrey Sachs, and
Lawrence Summers (the very same!) have argued for long-term public investment in
infrastructure and the green economy. There are enough elements here for building a
programmatic economic response from the left. "
I wonder though if the hegemony of the economic perspective in modern society hasn't played
a vital role in both the abdication of the left AND the corruption of the right?
As they don't seem to fit into the equations and theories of the economists, both civic
virtue and public trust have been assigned an economic value of zero and factored out of the
"it's the ecomomy stupid" world view entirely. Or so it seems to me.
"Who's rich?" is an easier question to answer than "who's trustworthy."
Perhaps it isn't that "economic globalizations" has been pushed too far, but that the
reduction of all human values to economic terms has.
Jerry F. Hough Jun 11, 2016
I have long followed Dani's work and agreed with his general analysis. He has an unusual
knowledge of developing country politics, especially in Turkey and the Middle East
As a person involved for 55 years--really 60 years- in Soviet-American relations and policy
politics or now for the last 15 years research and teaching on American political history and
presidential politics, I would like to add a few points.
First, there are very few left-wingers on the left-wing. Free trade is Hayek applied to the
international sphere where there is no government at all and, except for some bankers and the
like, not even the common norms that Hayek substituted for government.
The Washington consensus was pure Hayek. Summers was the purest of the pure on the
Washington consensus. As Summers destroyed Yeltsin's good economic reform in 1993, Stiglitz
was his chief adversary in government. Stiglitz wrote about how utterly ideological Summers
was. And was under Obama. Now he is for the pittance of infrastructure Clinton wants in the
hope she will name him Fed chief.
Second, as we in Soviet studies understood, the left and right meet at the extremes and are
not that different. Nazi was appropriately named. Hitler was National Socialist -- truly awful
on the Nationalist side, but also quite socialist in domestic economic policy. Mussolini began
as a Communist.
The New Left and Goldwater right of the 1960s had a very different set of views from the
nationalistic socialists, but they were alike in being very, very similar in their libertarian
views. Russell KIrk and Gordon Tullock were right in calling them anarchisti.
The utter hysteria about Trump on the "left" is very illuminating . One judges a
populist like Trump at one's peril. But the evidence strongly suggests that Hank Paulson and
George Will--and others like them--understand Trump and Clinton quite well on domestic policy.
She is the Republican--and as in 1964, a Goldwater Republican at that. He is on the left. The
left does not want a left-wing policy.
In foreign policy the evidence is even stronger that Trump would transform American foreign
policy in the Middle East. Just as Nixon attacked "Communism" to reconcile with the Soviet
Union and, as his chief adviser on the Soviet Union says, Reagan had a military buildup to
prepare the public to accept real peace with the Soviet Union (and Obama had pro-Muslim
rhetoric to hide the giving of all power to Cheney's man Brenner and the killing of Muslims),
Trump's anti Muslim talk is almost surely a set-up for an anti-Netanyahu policy. The utter,
utter, utter hysteria of the Netanyahu lobby shows they understand.
But the American "left-wing" is the New Left of the 1960s. It rejected the Old Left and a
positive role for government. It was as libertarian in economics as in cultural life. Summers,
who was 18 years old in the 1972 of McGovern is the epitome. (Krugman was 19). Bill Clinton,
who conducted the libertarian revolution of 1992 was 26 in 1972.
This generation is passing. Trump, born in 1946, unfortunately, was raised in the
confrontational atmosphere and retains its spirit. but at least he was in business and not
part of the politics of the street. By the 2020s the millennials of the 1980s who came of age
from 2000 to 2015 will be in power for three decades and have a very different set of
assumptions.
Let us just hope the West survives until then. Read less
IS THERE THE MENTION OF THE WORD "LABOR UNION" IN THERE ANYWHERE -- ADMITTEDLY ONLY
COMPLETELY MISSING IN THE US?
As long as nobody else talks about re-unionization (as the beginning and the end of
re-constituting the American dream) - nobody thinks it is possible to talk about …
… or something.
Easy as pie to make union busting a felony in our most progressive states f(WA, OR, CA, NV,
IL, NY, MD) - and then get out of the way as the first 2000 people in the many telephone
directories re-define our future.
Do this or do nothing.
M M Jun 11, 2016
Dani, one should stop blaming migration (which is totally different from the refugees
influx) and the right, centre and left parties. Based on the latest UK and US events, it very
clear to the wise that none of these factors is a cause of the rise in nationalism or the
discontent by the population. When you have the US congress acting like a Roman senate but
without a Ceasar, legislating left and right as if they are the supremos on the world stage
and destroying anything and everything in their path and other world leaders following the
orders of their masters in the US without questioning or even a say, how can one expect
anything to work.
Enough of the passing of the buck and of blaming the abstract. All problems started since
this US administration came to office and due to its weakness or concealed collusion in
resolving the important issues affecting the US and the world economies.
"... The reality is that prosecutors don't normally consider the legislative history or possible unconstitutionality of criminal statutes. Why? Because that's not their job. ..."
"... We can say, accurately, that the judgment of the FBI in its investigation into Clinton and her associates ― and Comey confirmed Clinton was indeed a "subject" of the investigation ― is that Clinton is a criminal. ..."
"... whether criminal statutes on the books had been violated ..."
"... criminal statutes had been violated ..."
"... So, my first point: for Comey to imply that there is any prosecutor in America uncomfortable with the "constitutionality" of criminal statutes predicated on "negligent," "reckless," or "knowing" mental states is not just laughable but an insult to both the prosecutorial class and our entire criminal justice system. Whatever issue Comey may have had with the felony statute he agrees Clinton violated, that wasn't it. ..."
"... specific intent ..."
"... Black's Law Dictionary ..."
"... First he asked, "What would other prosecutors do?" That's not a question prosecutors are charged to ask, and we now see why: as Comey himself concedes, countless prosecutors have already come out in public to say that, had they been investigating Clinton, they would have prosecuted her. A standard for prosecutorial discretion in which you weigh what others in your shoes might do based on some sort of a census leads immediately to madness, not just for the reasons I'm articulating here but many others too numerous to go into in detail in this space. ..."
"... Comey found credible that Clinton had created her private basement server set-up purely out of "convenience"; yet he also found that old servers, once replaced, were "stored and decommissioned in various ways." Wait, "various ways"? If Clinton was trying to create a streamlined, convenient personal process for data storage, why were things handled so haphazardly that Comey himself would say that the servers were dealt with "in various ways" over time? ..."
"... And indeed, the evidence Comey turned up showed that Clinton's staff was aware ― was repeatedly and systematically made aware ― that the Secretary's set-up had the effect of evading FOIA requests. And Clinton was, by her own admission, clear with her inferiors that "avoiding access to the personal" was key to her private basement-server set-up. That's very different from "convenience." ..."
"... completely different and more stringent protocols and requirements for data storage ..."
1. According to Comey, Clinton committed multiple federal felonies and misdemeanors.
Many people will miss this in the wash of punditry from non-attorneys in the mainstream media that
has followed Comey's public remarks and Congressional testimony.
The issue for Comey wasn't that
Clinton hadn't committed any federal crimes, but that in his personal opinion the federal felony
statute Clinton violated (18 U.S.C. 793f) has been too rarely applied for him to feel comfortable
applying it to Clinton. This is quite different from saying that no crime was committed; rather,
Comey's position is that crimes were committed, but he has decided not to prosecute those crimes
because (a) the statute he focused most on has only been used once in the last century (keeping in
mind how relatively rare cases like these are in the first instance, and therefore how rarely we
would naturally expect a statute like this to apply in any case), and (b) he personally believes
that the statute in question might be unconstitutional because, as he put it, it might punish people
for crimes they didn't specifically intend to commit (specifically, it requires only a finding of
"gross negligence," which Comey conceded he could prove). Comey appears to have taken the extraordinary
step of researching the legislative history of this particular criminal statute in order to render
this latter assessment.
The reality is that prosecutors don't normally consider the legislative history or possible
unconstitutionality of criminal statutes. Why? Because that's not their job. Their job is to
apply the laws as written, unless and until they are superseded by new legislation or struck down
by the judicial branch. In Comey's case, this deep dive into the history books is even more
puzzling as, prior to Attorney General Loretta Lynch unethically having a private meeting with Bill
Clinton on an airport tarmac, Comey wasn't even slated to be the final arbiter of whether Clinton
was prosecuted or not. He would have been expected, in a case like this, to note to the Department
of Justice's career prosecutors that the FBI had found evidence of multiple federal crimes, and then
leave it to their prosecutorial discretion as to whether or not to pursue a prosecution. But more
broadly, we must note that when Comey gave his public justification for not bringing charges ― a
public justification in itself highly unusual, and suggestive of the possibility that Comey knew
his inaction was extraordinary, and therefore felt the need to defend himself in equally extraordinary
fashion ― he did not state the truth: that Clinton had committed multiple federal crimes per statutes
presently on the books, and that the lack of a recommendation for prosecution was based not on the
lack of a crime but the lack of prosecutorial will (or, as he might otherwise have put it, the exercise
of prosecutorial discretion).
The danger here is that Americans will now believe many untrue things about the executive branch
of their government. For instance, watching Comey's testimony one might believe that if the executive
branch exercises its prosecutorial discretion and declines to prosecute crimes it determines have
been committed, it means no crimes were committed. In fact, what it means (in a case like this) is
that crimes were committed but will not be prosecuted. We can say, accurately, that the judgment
of the FBI in its investigation into Clinton and her associates ― and Comey confirmed Clinton was
indeed a "subject" of the investigation ― is that Clinton is a criminal. She simply shouldn't,
in the view of the FBI, be prosecuted for her crimes. Prosecutorial discretion of this sort is relatively
common, and indeed should be much more common when it comes to criminal cases involving
poor Americans; instead, we find it most commonly in law enforcement's treatment of Americans with
substantial personal, financial, sociocultural, and legal resources.
Americans might also wrongly believe, watching Comey's testimony, that it is the job of executive-branch
employees to determine which criminal statutes written by the legislative branch will be acknowledged.
While one could argue that this task does fall to the head of the prosecuting authority in a given
instance ― here, Attorney General Loretta Lynch; had an independent prosecutor been secured in this
case, as should have happened, that person, instead ― one could not argue that James Comey's
role in this scenario was to decide which on-the-books criminal statutes matter and which don't.
Indeed, Comey himself said, during his announcement of the FBI's recommendation, that his role was
to refer the case to the DOJ for a "prosecutive decision" ― in other words, the decision on whether
to prosecute wasn't his. His job was only to determine whether criminal statutes on the books
had been violated.
By this test, Comey didn't just not do the job he set out to do, he wildly and irresponsibly
exceeded it, to the point where its original contours were unrecognizable. To be blunt: by obscuring,
in his public remarks and advice to the DOJ, the fact that criminal statutes had been violated
― in favor of observing, more broadly, that there should be no prosecution ― he made it not just
easy but a fait accompli for the media and workaday Americans to think that not only would no prosecution
commence, but that indeed there had been no statutory violations.
Which there were.
Americans might also wrongly take at face value Comey's contention that the felony statute Clinton
violated was unconstitutional ― on the grounds that it criminalizes behavior that does not
include a specific intent to do wrong. This is, as every attorney knows, laughable. Every single
day in America, prosecutors prosecute Americans ― usually but not exclusively poor people ― for crimes
whose governing statutes lack the requirement of "specific intent." Ever heard of negligent homicide?
That's a statute that doesn't require what lawyers call (depending on the jurisdiction) an "intentional"
or "purposeful" mental state. Rather, it requires "negligence." Many other statutes require only
a showing of "recklessness," which likewise is dramatically distinct from "purposeful" or "intentional"
conduct. And an even larger number of statutes have a "knowing" mental state, which Comey well knows
― but the average American does not ― is a general- rather than specific-intent mental state (mens
rea, in legal terms).
And the term "knowingly" is absolutely key to the misdemeanors Comey appears to concede
Clinton committed, but has declined to charge her for.
To discuss what "knowingly" means in the law, I'll start with an example. When I practiced criminal
law in New Hampshire, it was a crime punishable by up to a year in jail to "knowingly cause unprivileged
physical contact with another person." The three key elements to this particular crime, which is
known as Simple Assault, are "knowingly," "unprivileged," and "physical contact." If a prosecutor
can prove each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant could, at the discretion
of a judge, find themselves locked in a cage for a year. "Physical contact" means just about exactly
what you'd expect, as does "unprivileged" ― contact for which you have no claim of privilege, such
as self-defense, defense of another, permission of the alleged victim, and so on. But what the heck
does "knowingly" mean? Well, as any law student can tell you, it means that you were aware of the
physical act you were engaged in, even if you didn't intend the consequences that act caused. For
instance, say you're in the pit at a particularly raucous speed-metal concert, leaping about, as
one does, in close proximity with many other people. Now let's say that after one of your leaps you
land on a young woman's foot and break it. If charged with Simple Assault, your defense won't be
as to your mental state, because you were "knowingly" leaping about, even if you intended no harm
in doing so. Instead, your defense will probably be that the contact (which you also wouldn't contest)
was "privileged," because the young lady had implicitly taken on, as had you, the risks of being
in a pit in the middle of a speed-metal concert. See the difference between knowingly engaging in
a physical act that has hurtful consequences, and "intending" or having as your "purpose" those consequences?
Just so, I've seen juveniles prosecuted for Simple Assault for throwing food during an in-school
cafeteria food fight; in that instance, no one was hurt, nor did anyone intend to hurt anybody, but
"unprivileged physical contact" was "knowingly" made all the same (in this case, via the instrument
of, say, a chicken nugget).
So, my first point: for Comey to imply that there is any prosecutor in America uncomfortable
with the "constitutionality" of criminal statutes predicated on "negligent," "reckless," or "knowing"
mental states is not just laughable but an insult to both the prosecutorial class and our entire
criminal justice system. Whatever issue Comey may have had with the felony statute he agrees Clinton
violated, that wasn't it.
What about the misdemeanor statute?
Well, there's now terrifying evidence available for public consumption to the effect that Director
Comey doesn't understand the use of the word "knowingly" in the law ― indeed, understands it less
than even a law student in his or her first semester would. Just over an hour (at 1:06) into the
six-hour
C-SPAN video of Comey's Congressional testimony, Representative Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) makes a
brief but absolutely unimpeachable case that, using the term "knowingly" as I have here and as it
is used in every courtroom in America, Secretary Clinton committed multiple federal misdemeanors
inasmuch as she, per the relevant statute (Title 18 U.S.C. 1924), "became possessed of documents
or materials containing classified information of the United States....and knowingly removed such
documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials
at an unauthorized location." Comey, misunderstanding the word "knowingly" in a way any law school
student would scream at their TV over, states that the FBI would still, under that statutory language,
need to prove specific intent to convict Clinton of a Title 18 U.S.C. 1924 violation. Lummis
points out that Comey is dead wrong ― and she's right, he is wrong. Per the above, all Clinton
had to be aware of is that (a) she was in possession of classified documents, and (b) she had removed
them to an unauthorized location. Comey admits these two facts are true, and yet he won't prosecute
because he's added a clause that's not in the statute. I can't emphasize this enough: Comey makes
clear with his answers throughout his testimony that Clinton committed this federal misdemeanor,
but equally makes clear that he didn't charge her with it because he didn't understand the statute.
(At 1:53 in the video linked to above, Representative Ken Buck of Colorado goes back to the topic
of Title 18 U.S.C. 1924, locking down that Comey is indeed deliberately adding language to that federal
criminal statute that quite literally is not there.)
Yes, it's true. Watch the video for yourself,
look up the word "knowingly" in Black's Law Dictionary, and you'll see that I'm right.
This is scary stuff for an attorney like me, or really for any of us, to see on television ― a government
attorney with less knowledge of criminal law than a first-year law student.
2. Comey has dramatically misrepresented what prosecutorial discretion looks like.
The result of this is that Americans will fundamentally misunderstand our adversarial system of justice.
Things like our Fourth and Fifth Amendment are part and parcel of our "adversarial" system of
justice. We could have elected, as a nation, to have an "inquisitorial" system of justice ― as some
countries in Europe, with far fewer protections for criminal defendants, do ― but we made the decision
that the best truth-seeking mechanism is one in which two reflexively zealous advocates, a prosecutor
and a defense attorney, push their cases to the utmost of their ability (within certain well-established
ethical strictures).
James Comey, in his testimony before Congress, left the impression that his job as a prosecutor
was to weigh his ability to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt not as a prosecutor, but as a
member of a prospective jury. That's not how things work in America; it certainly, and quite spectacularly,
isn't how it works for poor black men. In fact, what American prosecutors are charged to do is imagine
a situation in which (a) they present their case to a jury as zealously as humanly possible within
the well-established ethical code of the American courtroom, (b) all facts and inferences are taken
by that jury in the prosecution's favor, and then (c) whether, given all those conditions, there
is a reasonable likelihood that all twelve jurors would vote for a conviction.
That is not the standard James Comey used to determine whether to prosecute Hillary Clinton.
What Comey did was something else altogether.
First he asked, "What would other prosecutors do?" That's not a question prosecutors are charged
to ask, and we now see why: as Comey himself concedes, countless prosecutors have already come out
in public to say that, had they been investigating Clinton, they would have prosecuted her. A standard
for prosecutorial discretion in which you weigh what others in your shoes might do based on some
sort of a census leads immediately to madness, not just for the reasons I'm articulating here but
many others too numerous to go into in detail in this space.
The second thing Comey did was ask, "Am I guaranteed to win this case at trial?" Would that
this slowed the roll of prosecutors when dealing with poor black men! Instead, as I discuss later
on, prosecutors ― via the blunt instrument of the grand jury ― usually use the mere fact of misdemeanor
or felony charges against a defendant as a mechanism for ending a case short of trial. Even prosecutors
who ultimately drop a case will charge (misdemeanor) or indict (felony) it first, if only to give
themselves time ― because defendants do have speedy trial rights, and statutes of limitation do sometimes
intercede ― to plan their next move.
Third, Comey imagined his case at trial through the following lens: "How would we do at trial
if the jury took every fact and presumption ― as we already have ― in Clinton's favor?" Indeed, I'm
having more than a hard time ― actually an impossible time ― finding a single unknown or unclear
fact that Comey took in a light unfavorable to Clinton (including, incredibly, the facts that became
unknowable because of Clinton's own actions and evasions). Instead, Hillary was given the benefit
of the doubt at every turn, so much so that it was obvious that the only evidence of "intent" Comey
would accept was a full confession from Clinton. That's something prosecutors rarely get, and certainly
(therefore) never make a prerequisite for prosecution. But Comey clearly did here.
I have never seen this standard used in the prosecution of a poor person. Not once.
3. Comey left the indelible impression, with American news-watchers, that prosecutors
only prosecute specific-intent crimes, and will only find a sufficient mens
rea (mental state) if and when a defendant has confessed. Imagine, for a moment, if
police officers only shot unarmed black men who were in the process of confessing either verbally
("I'm about to pull a gun on you!") or physically (e.g., by assaulting the officer). Impossible to
imagine, right? That's because that's not how this works; indeed, that's not how any of this works.
Prosecutors, like police officers, are, in seeking signs of intent, trained to read ― and conceding
here that some of them do it poorly ― contextual clues that precede, are contemporaneous with, and/or
follow the commission of a crime.
But this apparently doesn't apply to Hillary Clinton.
It would be easier to identify the contextual clues that don't suggest Clinton had consciousness
of guilt than those that do ― as there are exponentially more of the latter than the former.
But let's do our best, and consider just a few of the clear signs that Clinton and her team, judging
them solely by their words and actions, knew that what they were doing was unlawful.
For instance, Clinton repeatedly said she used one server and only one device ― not that she
thought that that was the correct information, but that she knew it was. Yet the
FBI found, per Comey's July 5th statement, that Clinton used "several different servers" and "numerous
mobile devices." So either Clinton didn't know the truth but pretended in all her public statements
that she did; or she was given bad information which she then repeated uncritically, in which case
a prosecutor would demand to know from whom she received that information (as surely that
person would know they'd spread misinformation); or she knew the truth and was lying. A prosecutor
would want clear, on-the-record answers on these issues; instead, Comey let other FBI agents have
an unrecorded, untranscripted interview with Clinton that he himself didn't bother to attend. It's
not even clear that that interview was much considered by the FBI; Comey declared his decision just
a few dozen hours after the interview was over, and word leaked that there would be no indictment
just two hours after the interview. Which, again, incredibly ― and not in keeping with any
law enforcement policy regarding subject interviews I'm aware of ― was unrecorded, untranscripted,
unsworn, and unattended by the lead prosecutor.
This in the context of a year-long investigation for which Clinton was the primary subject.
Since when is an hours-long interview with an investigation's subject so immaterial to the charging
decision? And since when is such an interview treated as such a casual event? Since never. At least
for poor people.
And since when are false exculpatory statements not strong evidence of intent?
Since never - at least for poor people.
Comey found credible that Clinton had created her private basement server set-up purely out
of "convenience"; yet he also found that old servers, once replaced, were "stored and decommissioned
in various ways." Wait, "various ways"? If Clinton was trying to create a streamlined, convenient
personal process for data storage, why were things handled so haphazardly that Comey himself would
say that the servers were dealt with "in various ways" over time? Just so, Comey would naturally
want to test Clinton's narrative by seeing whether or not all FOIA requests were fully responded
to by Clinton and her staff in the four years she was the head of the State Department. Surely, Clinton
and her staff had been fully briefed on their legal obligations under FOIA ― that's provable ― so
if Clinton's "convenience" had caused a conflict with the Secretary's FOIA obligations that would
have been immediately obvious to both Clinton and her staff, and would have been remedied immediately
if the purpose of the server was not to avoid FOIA requests but mere convenience. At a minimum, Comey
would find evidence (either hard or testimonial) that such conversations occurred. And indeed,
the evidence Comey turned up showed that Clinton's staff was aware ― was repeatedly and systematically
made aware ― that the Secretary's set-up had the effect of evading FOIA requests. And Clinton was,
by her own admission, clear with her inferiors that "avoiding access to the personal" was key to
her private basement-server set-up. That's very different from "convenience."
Even if Comey believed that "avoiding access to the personal," rather than "convenience," was
the reason for Clinton's server set-up, that explanation would have imploded under the weight
of evidence Clinton, her team, and her attorneys exercised no due caution whatsoever in determining
what was "personal" and what was not personal when they were wiping those servers clean. If Clinton's
concern was privacy, there's no evidence that much attention was paid to accurately and narrowly
protecting that interest ― rather, the weight of the evidence suggests that the aim, at all times,
was to keep the maximum amount of information away from FOIA discovery, not just "personal" information
but (as Comey found) a wealth of work-related information.
But let's pull back for a moment and be a little less legalistic. Clinton claimed the reason for
her set-up was ― exclusively ― "convenience"; nevertheless, Comey said it took "thousands of hours
of painstaking effort" to "piece back together" exactly what Clinton was up to. Wouldn't that fact
alone give the lie to the claim that this system was more "convenient" than the protocols State already
had in place? "Millions of email fragments ended up in the server's 'slack space'," Comey said of
Clinton's "convenient" email-storage arrangement. See the contradiction? How would "millions of email
fragments ending up in a server's 'slack space'" in any way have served Clinton's presumptive desire
for both (a) convenience, (b) FOIA complicance, (c) a securing of her privacy, and (d) compliance
with State Department email-storage regulations? Would any reasonable person have found this set-up
convenient? And if not ― and Comey explicitly found not ― why in the world didn't that help
to establish the real intent of Clinton's private basement servers? Indeed, had Clinton
intended on complying with FOIA, presumably her own staff would have had to do the very same painstaking
work it took the FBI a year to do. But FOIA requests come in too fast and furious, at State, for
Clinton's staff to do the work it took the FBI a year to do in a matter of days; wouldn't this in
itself establish that Clinton and her staff had no ability, and therefore well knew they had no intention,
of acceding to any of the Department's hundreds or even thousands of annual FOIA requests in full?
And wouldn't ignoring all those requests be not just illegal but "inconvenient" in the extreme? And
speak to the question of intent?
It took Clinton two years to hand over work emails she was supposed to hand over the day she left
office; and during that time, she and her lawyers, some of whom appear to have looked at classified
material without clearance, deleted thousands of "personal" emails ― many of which turned out the
be exactly the sort of work emails she was supposed to turn over the day she left State. In this
situation, an actor acting in good faith would have (a) erred on the side of caution in deleting
emails, (b) responded with far, far more alacrity to the valid demands of State to see all work-related
emails, and (c) having erroneously deleted certain emails, would have rushed to correct the mistake
themselves rather than seeing if they could get away with deleting ― mind you ― not just work emails
but work emails with (in several instances) classified information in them. How in the world was
none of this taken toward the question of intent? Certainly, it was taken toward the finding of "gross
negligence" Comey made, but how in the world was none of it seen as relevant to Clinton's
specific intent also? Why does it seem the only evidence of specific intent Comey would've looked
at was a smoking gun? Does he realize how few criminal cases would ever be brought against anyone
in America if a "smoking gun" standard was in effect? Does anyone realize how many poor black men
wouldn't be in prison if that standard was in effect for them as well as Secretary Clinton?
4. Comey made it seem that the amount and quality of prosecutorial consideration he gave
Clinton was normal. The mere fact that Comey gave public statements justifying his prosecutorial
discretion misleads the public into thinking that, say, poor black men receive this level of care
when prosecutors are choosing whether to indict them.
While at least he had the good grace to call the fact of his making a public statement "unusual"
― chalking it up to the "intense public interest" that meant Clinton (and the public) "deserved"
an explanation for his behavior ― that grace ultimately obscured, rather than underscored, that what
Comey did in publicly justifying his behavior is unheard of in cases involving poor people. In the
real America, prosecutors are basically unaccountable to anyone but their bosses in terms of their
prosecutorial discretion, as cases in which abuse of prosecutorial discretion is successfully alleged
are vanishingly rare. Many are the mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers of poor black men who
would love to have had their sons' (or brothers', or fathers') over-charged criminal cases explained
to them with the sort of care and detail Hillary Clinton naturally receives when she's being investigated.
Clinton and the public "deserve" prosecutorial transparency when the defendant is a Clinton; just
about no one else deserves this level of not just transparency but also ― given the year-long length
of the FBI investigation ― prosecutorial and investigative caution.
What's amazing is how little use Comey actually made of all the extra time and effort. For instance,
on July 5th he said that every email the FBI uncovered was sent to the "owning" organization to see
if they wanted to "up-classify" it ― in other words, declare that it should have been classified
at the time it was sent and/or received, even if not marked that way at the time. One might think
Comey would want this information, the better to determine Clinton's intent with respect to those
emails (i.e., given Clinton's training, knowledge, and experience, how frequently did she "miss"
the classified nature of an email, relative to the assessment of owning agencies that a given email
was effectively and/or should have been considered classified ― even if not marked so ― at the time
Clinton handled it?) Keep in mind, here, that certain types of information, as Clinton without a
doubt knew, are "born classified" whether marked as such or not. And yet, just two days after July
5th, Comey testified before Congress that he "didn't pay much attention" to "up-classified" emails.
Why? Because, said Comey, they couldn't tell him anything about Clinton's intent. Bluntly,
this is an astonishing and indeed embarrassing statement for any prosecutor to make.
Whereas every day knowledge and motives are imparted to poor black men that are, as the poet Claudia
Rankine has observed, purely the product of a police officer's "imagination," the actual and indisputable
knowledge and motives and ― yes ― responsibilities held by Clinton were "downgraded" by Comey to
that of merely an average American. That is, despite the fact that Clinton was one of the most powerful
people on Earth, charged with managing an agency that collects among the highest number of classified
pieces of information of any agency anywhere; despite the fact that Clinton's agency had the strictest
policies for data storage for this very reason; despite the fact that State is, as Clinton well knew,
daily subjected to FOIA requests; despite all this, Comey actually said the following: "Like many
email users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted emails..."
What?
How in the world does the "many email users" standard come into play here? Clinton's server, unlike
anyone else's server, was set up in a way that permitted no archiving, an arrangement that one now
imagines led (in part) to the person who set up that server taking the Fifth more than a hundred
times in interviews with the FBI; even assuming Clinton didn't know, and didn't request, for her
server to be set up in this astonishing way ― a way, again, that her own employees believe could
incriminate them ― how in the world could she have been sanguine about deleting emails "like many
email users" when the agency she headed had completely different and more stringent protocols
and requirements for data storage than just about any government agency on Earth? Just so, once
it was clear that Clinton had deleted (per Comey) "thousands of emails that were work-related" instead
of turning them over to State, in what universe can no intent be implied from the fact that her attorneys
purged 30,000 emails simply by looking at their headers? At what point does Clinton, as
former Secretary of State, begin to have ill intent imputed to her by not directing her attorneys
to actually read emails before permanently destroying them and making them unavailable to the FBI
as evidence? If you were in her situation, and instead of saying to your team either (a) "don't delete
any more emails," or (b) "if you delete any emails, make sure you've read them in full first," would
you expect anyone to impute "no specific intent" to your behavior?
The result: despite saying she never sent or received emails on her private basement server that
were classified "at the time," the FBI found that 52 email chains on Clinton's server ― including
110 emails ― contained information that was classified at the time (eight chains contained
"top secret" information; 36, "secret" information; and another eight "confidential" information).
Moreover, Clinton's team wrongly purged ― at a minimum ― "thousands" of work-related emails. (And
I'm putting aside entirely here the 2,000 emails on Clinton's server that were later "up-classified.")
At what point does this harm become foreseeable, and not seeing it ― when you're one of the best-educated,
smartest, most experienced public servants in U.S. history, as your political team keeps reminding
us ― become evidence of "intent"? Comey's answer? Never.
Indeed, Comey instead makes the positively fantastical observation that "none [of the emails Clinton
didn't turn over but was supposed to] were intentionally deleted." The problem is, by Comey's own
admission all of those emails were intentionally deleted, under circumstances in which the
problems with that deletion would not just have been evident to "any reasonable person" but specifically
were clear ― the context proves it ― to Clinton herself. During her four years as Secretary of State
Clinton routinely expressed concern to staff about her own and others' email-storage practices, establishing
beyond any doubt that not only was Clinton's literal key-pressing deliberate ― the "knowing" standard
― but also its repeated, systemic effect was fully appreciated by her in advance. Likewise, that
her attorneys were acting entirely on their own prerogative, without her knowledge, is a claim no
jury would credit.
Clinton's attorneys worked Clinton's case in consultation with Clinton ― that's how things work.
In other words, Clinton's lawyers are not rogue actors here. So when Comey says, "They [Clinton and
her team] deleted all emails they did not produce for State, and the lawyers then cleaned their devices
in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery," we have to ask, what possible reason would
an attorney have for wiping a server entirely within their control to ensure that no future court
order could access the permanently deleted information? In what universe is such behavior not
actual consciousness of guilt with respect to the destruction of evidence? Because we must be clear:
Comey isn't saying Clinton and her lawyers accidentally put these emails outside even a hypothetical
future judicial review; they did so intentionally.
There's that word again.
The result of these actions? The same as every other action Clinton took that Comey somehow
attributes no intent to: a clear legal benefit to Clinton and a frustration, indeed an obstruction,
of the FBI's investigation. As Comey said on July 5th, the FBI can't know how many emails are "gone"
(i.e., permanently) because of Clinton and her team's intentional acts after-the-fact. So Comey is
quite literally telling us that the FBI couldn't conclude their investigation with absolute confidence
that they had all the relevant facts, and that the reason for this was the intentional destruction
of evidence by the subject of the investigation at a time when there was no earthly reason to destroy
evidence except to keep it from the FBI.
In case you're wondering, no, you don't need a legal degree to see the problem there.
As an attorney, I can't imagine destroying evidence at a time I knew it was the subject of a federal
investigation. And if I ever were to do something like that, I would certainly assume that all such
actions would later be deemed "intentional" by law enforcement, as my intent would be inferred from
my training, knowledge, and experience as an attorney, as well as my specific awareness of a pending
federal investigation in which the items I was destroying might later become key evidence. That Clinton
and her team repeatedly (and falsely) claimed the FBI investigation was a mere "security review"
― yet another assertion whose falseness was resoundingly noted by Comey in his public statements
― was clearly a transparent attempt to negate intent in destroying those emails. (The theory being,
"Well, yes, I destroyed possible evidence just by looking at email headers, but this was all just
a 'security review,' right? Not a federal investigation? Even though I knew the three grounds
for referral of the case to the FBI, and knew that only one of them involved anything like a 'security
review'?")
And certainly, none of this explains Comey's (again) gymnastic avoidance of stating the obvious:
that crimes were committed.
Listen to his language on July 5th: "Although we did not find clear evidence that Clinton or her
colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information" (emphasis
in original) ― actually, let's stop there. You'd expect the second half of that sentence to be something
like, "...they nevertheless did violate those laws, despite not intending to." It's the natural continuation
of the thought. Instead, Comey, who had prepared his remarks in advance, finished the thought this
way: "....there is evidence that they were extremely careless with very sensitive, highly
classified information" (emphasis in original).
Note that Comey now uses the phrase "extremely careless" instead of "gross negligence," despite
using the latter phrase ― a legal phrase ― at the beginning of his July 5th remarks. That matters
because at the beginning of those remarks he conceded "gross negligence" would lead to a statutory
violation. So why the sudden shift in language, when from a legal standpoint "extreme carelessness"
and "gross negligence" are synonymous ― both indicating the presence of a duty of care, the failure
to meet that duty, and moreover a repeated failure on this score? Comey also avoids finishing
his sentence with the obvious thought: that they may not have intended to violate criminal
statutes, but they did nonetheless. Remember that, just like our hypothetical raver may not have
intended to commit a Simple Assault by stepping on that poor young woman's foot, he nevertheless
could be found to have done so; just so, had Comey accepted the statute as written, Clinton's "gross
negligence" would have forced him to end the above sentence with the finding of a statutory violation,
even if there had been no "specific intent" to do so.
This is how the law works. For poor black men, just not for rich white women.
5. Comey, along with the rest of Congress, left the impression, much like the Supreme
Court did in 2000, that legal analyses are fundamentally political analyses. Not only is
this untrue, it also is unspeakably damaging to both our legal system and Americans' understanding
of that system's operations.
I'm a staunch Democrat, but I'm also an attorney. Watching fellow Democrats twist themselves into
pretzels to analyze Clinton's actions through a farcically slapdash legal framework, rather than
merely acknowledging that Clinton is a human being and, like any human being, can both (a) commit
crimes, and (b) be replaced on a political ticket if need be, makes me sick as both a Democrat and
a lawyer. Just so, watching Republicans who had no issue with George W. Bush declaring unilateral
war in contravention of international law, and who had no issue with the obviously illegal behavior
of Scooter Libby in another recent high-profile intel-related criminal case, acting like the rule
of law is anything they care about makes me sick. Our government is dirty as all get-out, but the
one thing it's apparently clean of is anyone with both (a) legal training, and (b) a sense of the
ethics that govern legal practice. Over and over during Comey's Congressional testimony I heard politicians
noting their legal experience, and then going on to either shame their association with that august
profession or honor it but (in doing so) call into question their inability or unwillingness to do
so in other instances.
When Comey says, "any reasonable person should have known" not to act as Clinton did, many don't
realize he's quoting a legal standard ― the "reasonable person standard." A failure to meet that
standard can be used to establish either negligence or recklessness in a court of law. But here,
Clinton wasn't in the position of a "reasonable person" ― the average fellow or lady ― and Comey
wasn't looking merely at a "reasonableness" standard, but rather a "purposeful" standard that requires
Comey to ask all sorts of questions about Clinton's specific, fully contextualized situation and
background that he doesn't appear to have asked. One might argue that, in keeping with Clinton's
campaign theme, no one in American political history was more richly prepared ― by knowledge, training,
experience, and innate gifts ― to know how to act properly in the situations Clinton found herself.
That in those situations she failed to act even as a man or woman taken off the street and put in
a similar situation would have acted is not indicative of innocence or a lack of specific intent,
but the opposite. If a reasonable person wouldn't have done what Clinton did, the most exquisitely
prepared person for the situations in which Clinton found herself must in fact have been providing
prosecutors with prima facie evidence of intent by failing to meet even the lowest threshold
for proper conduct. Comey knows this; any prosecutor knows this. Maybe a jury would disagree with
Comey on this point, but his job is to assume that, if he zealously advocates for this extremely
powerful circumstantial case, a reasonable jury, taking the facts in the light most favorable to
the government, would see things his way.
Look, I can't possibly summarize for anyone reading this the silly nonsense I have seen prosecutors
indict people for; a common saying in the law is that the average grand jury "would indict a ham
sandwich," and to be clear that happens not because the run-of-the-mill citizens who sit on grand
juries are bloodthirsty, but because the habitual practice of American prosecutors is to indict first
and ask questions later ― and because indictments are absurdly easy to acquire. In other words, I've
seen thousands of poor people get over-charged for either nonsense or nothing at all, only to have
their prosecutors attempt to leverage their flimsy cases into a plea deal to a lesser charge. By
comparison, it is evident to every defense attorney of my acquaintance that I've spoken to that James
Comey bent over backwards to not indict Hillary Clinton ― much like the hundreds of state
and federal prosecutors who have bent over backwards not to indict police officers over the past
few decades. Every attorney who's practiced in criminal courts for years can smell when the fix is
in ― can hear and see when the court's usual actors are acting highly unusually ― and that's what's
happened here. The tragedy is that it will convince Americans that our legal system is fundamentally
about what a prosecutor feels they can and should be able to get away with, an answer informed largely,
it will seem to many, by various attorneys' personal temperaments and political prejudices.
No one in America who's dedicated their life to the law can feel any satisfaction with how Hillary
Clinton's case was investigated or ultimately disposed of, no more than we can feel sanguine about
prosecutors whose approach to poor black defendants is draconian and to embattled police officers
positively beatific. What we need in Congress, and in prosecutor's offices, are men and women of
principle who act in accordance with their ethical charge no matter the circumstances. While James
Comey is not a political hack, and was not, I don't believe, in any sense acting conspiratorially
in not bringing charges against Hillary Clinton, I believe that, much like SCOTUS did not
decide in the 2000 voting rights case Bush v. Gore, Comey felt that this was a bad time
for an executive-branch officer to interfere with the workings of domestic politics. Perhaps Comey
had the best of intentions in not doing his duty; perhaps he thought letting voters, not prosecutors,
decide the 2016 election was his civic duty. Many Democrats could wish the Supreme Court had felt
the same way in 2000 with respect to the role of judges. But the fact remains that the non-indictment
of Hillary Clinton is as much a stain on the fair and equal administration of justice as is the disparate
treatment of poor black males at all stages of the criminal justice system. I witnessed the latter
injustice close up, nearly every day, during my seven years working as a public defender; now America
has seen the same thing, albeit on a very different stage, involving a defendant of a very different
class and hue.
To have prosecuted Clinton, said Comey, he would need to have seen "clearly intentional and willful
mishandling of classified information, or vast quantities of information exposed in such a way as
to support an inference of intentional misconduct, or....efforts to obstruct justice..." When Comey
concludes, "we do not see those things here," America should ― and indeed must ― wonder what facts
he could possibly be looking at, and, moreover, what understanding of his role in American life he
could possibly be acting upon. The answers to these two questions would take us at least two steps
forward in discussing how average Americans are treated by our increasingly dysfunctional system
of justice.
Seth Abramson is the Series Editor for Best American Experimental Writing (Wesleyan University)
and the author, most recently, of
DATA (BlazeVOX, 2016).
Neoliberal MSM response to latest FBI director Comey testimony is a textbook example of brainwashing (or groupthink). It shows to
me again that you need to go to the source watch at least the fragments of the testimony on YouTube. It deadly serious situation for
Hillary. No person with even cursory knowledge of security can avoid thinking that she should be in jail. Republicans know it and will
not let her off the hook. Probably special prosecutor will be appointed. See for example
https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/House-Letter-to-FBI-Director-1.pdf
Now Comey is under strong fire and need to save his own skin. You can tell anything about Republican members of House of Representative,
but it is now quite clear to me that several of them are brilliant former lawyers/prosecutor/judges.
From now on they will block all attempt to swipe this matter under the carpet and unless Hillary withdraw they might try to implicate
Obama in the cover-up (and they have facts: he recklessly corresponded with her on this account).
They already requested all FBI files on Clinton. Soon they will have all the dirty laundering from Hillary server and FBI probably
recovered most of it.
From this point it is up-hill battle for Obama, and might well think about finding appropriate sacrificial lamp NOW. My impression
is that she lost her chance to became the President. With FBI files in hand, In four month they can do so much damage that she would
be better to take her toys and leave the playground.
And this topic hopefully already influence super-delegates. I think her best option now is give Sanders a chance. Because the real
threat now is not that she will go to jail. She belongs to the elite and is above the law. Now the real threat is that all her close
associates might.
On Tuesday, the FBI assumed the role of prosecutor and not simply investigator and took the unprecedented act of proclaiming that
no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Based on the perception that a decision has been made by the FBI that has seemingly
ignored facts that the FBI itself found in its own investigation, we have additional questions that are aimed at ensuring that the
cloud which now hovers over our justice system is at least minimally pierced:
1) As a former prosecutor, please explain your understanding of the legal difference between actions performed with "gross negligence"
and those done "extremely carelessly." How did you determine that "extreme carelessness" did not equate to "gross negligence?"
2) You said that no reasonable prosecutor would decide to prosecute the Clinton case on the evidence found by FBI agents during
the Bureau's investigation over the past year. We have multiple former prosecutors in Congress, and it is not far-fetched for many
of us to envision a successful prosecution of someone for doing far less than that which was committed by Secretary Clinton. Is your
statement not an indictment and prejudgment against any Assistant United States Attorney who is now tasked with reviewing the evidence
you presented Tuesday? In your judgment, does it not follow that you would think that a prosecutor who moved forward with the instant
prosecution of Secretary Clinton would be "unreasonable?"
3) Are you aware of any internal opinions by FBI agents or management who were intimately aware of the Clinton investigation which
differed from your eventual decision to not recommend the case for prosecution?
4) You mentioned that Top Secret Special Access Programs (SAPs) were included in emails sent and received by Secretary Clinton. SAP
material is some of the most highly classified and controlled material of the U.S. Government. If an agency of the U.S. Government
were to encounter similar information from a foreign adversary, it would be extremely valuable data for us to exploit. Did the FBI
assess how SAP information, due to its controlled nature, ever made it onto unclassified systems that were not air-gapped or physically
blocked from outside Internet access? Is it not "gross negligence" to permit such SAP data to leave the confines of the most protective
and secure governmental enclaves? Or even "intentional" conduct that allowed that to happen?
5) You mentioned that this investigation
stemmed from a referral from the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community to determine whether classified information had
been transmitted on an unclassified personal system. Following your investigation, it is clear that Secretary Clinton transmitted
classified information on an unclassified system. Secretary Clinton on multiple occasions has said that she did not send or receive
classified information or information marked as classified.3 In light of your decision to also not refer a false statements charge
under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for prosecution, we can only presume that Secretary Clinton admitted during her interview with your agents
that she, in fact, sent and received emails containing classified information. Please confirm.
6) Are you aware of whether any deleted emails which the FBI was able to forensically recover from Secretary Clinton's servers
pertained to the Clinton Foundation?
7) You stated Tuesday, "Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary
Clinton's personal e-mail account." Is the FBI's Counterintelligence Division still involved in determining the level of damage related
to possible exploitation of Secretary Clinton's or her associates' email accounts and other communications?
8) If the FBI performed a background check on an applicant for employment with the FBI or elsewhere in the U.S. Government, and
that applicant engaged in conduct committed by Secretary Clinton, would a security clearance ever be granted to that person?
Mr. Comey said the emails included eight chains of emails and replies, some written by her, that contained information classified
as "top secret: special access programs." That classification is the highest level, reserved for the nation's most highly guarded
intelligence operations or sources.
Another 36 chains were "secret," which is defined as including information that "could be expected to cause serious damage to
the national security"; eight others had information classified at the lowest level, "confidential."
"... [The world] respected our strengths, and when they saw to an exaggerated degree that we were not as strong as they thought, that Russia was "a colossus on clay legs," then the picture changed immediately, domestic and foreign enemies raised their heads, and the indifferent stopped paying attention to us. ..."
"... Dimitri K. Simes, publisher and CEO of the ..."
"... , is president of the Center for the National Interest. ..."
ONE REASON for avoiding a sense of inevitable confrontation with Russia is that
Moscow's truculence is primarily a function of what America does rather than
who it is. To the extent that Russia has an ideology, it is an assertive
nationalism that allows cooperation with any nation that does not challenge
Russian geopolitical interests or its system of government. Russia thus
maintains good relations with authoritarian countries like China and Qatar, and
with democracies like India and Israel. In part because its leaders are
pragmatic rather than messianic, Russia's authoritarianism is still relatively
soft and incorporates many democratic procedures including meaningful if not
entirely free or fair elections, a judicial branch that is autonomous most of
the time and a semi-independent media. Transitions to democracy in other
countries are only a problem for Russia's live-and-let-live foreign policy when
the Kremlin sees them as either destabilizing (as in some cases in the Middle
East) or anti-Russian (as in some cases in its immediate neighborhood).
While a U.S.-Russian conflict is not inevitable, Russia's estrangement from
the West after the Cold War probably stemmed from the unrealistic and
contrasting expectations held on both sides. When Mikhail Gorbachev and his
liberal allies like Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze, Central Committee
Secretary Alexander Yakovlev, and foreign-policy aide Anatoly Chernyaev began
articulating and implementing Gorbachev's "new thinking," which emphasized
universal human values at the expense of national interests, they assumed that
the Soviet Union could cease being a global superpower, give up its system of
alliances, rely increasingly on foreign economic assistance and still benefit
from others' deference to Moscow as a key player in world affairs. If Soviet
leaders had consulted Russia's own history, they would have realized how
profoundly unrealistic their expectations were.
Sergei Witte, who became Russia's first constitutionally appointed prime
minister under Czar Nicholas II following the country's humiliating defeat in
the Russo-Japanese War, would have immediately foreseen what was to come. "It
was not because of our culture or our bureaucratic church or our wealth and
welfare that the world respected us," Witte wrote.
[The world] respected our strengths, and when they saw to an exaggerated
degree that we were not as strong as they thought, that Russia was "a colossus
on clay legs," then the picture changed immediately, domestic and foreign
enemies raised their heads, and the indifferent stopped paying attention to us.
Of course, the Soviet Union did not suffer a military defeat in the 1980s
like the Russian Empire's loss in 1905. Nor did the changes in Russian
government, policy and philosophy follow a domestic rebellion; instead, they
were imposed from the top by a leadership that decided it was on the wrong side
of history. Notwithstanding the motives of Gorbachev and, later, President
Boris Yeltsin, Western officials showed little gratitude for their roles in
destroying the Soviet empire once it became clear that a Russia collapsing upon
itself was unwilling to use force and had very little remaining economic
leverage. Similarly, while most Russians not only counted on massive Western
assistance but even thought of themselves as Western allies in destroying the
USSR, most in the West, particularly in central Europe, determined that the
time had finally come to act on historical grievances against Moscow or felt
that a weak, corrupt and unstable Russia did not deserve to be taken seriously,
much less accepted as an equal partner with the United States and the European
Union.
... ... ...
THE DARING combination of NATO expansion and growing interventionism further accentuated
Russia's alienation from the West. Remarkably, NATO failed to consider how its dramatically
different conduct would affect relations with Russia or world politics in general. With post–Cold
War triumphalism increasingly seeping into conventional wisdom, most assumed that when the United
States and major European powers wanted to do something in the international arena, they could
impose their will without significant costs. Though this new NATO assertiveness was not
deliberately directed against Russia, few within the alliance took seriously Moscow's
concerns-which were met by most with either indifference or contemptuous disregard. Rarely if
ever did U.S. leaders critically assess how they themselves would react if a powerful (and not
even necessarily hostile) alliance sought to add Canada and Mexico to its ranks while excluding
the United States.
... ... ...
Advocates of NATO expansion argued that Russia could not really object to the
process. Neither Washington nor anyone else signed an agreement with Gorbachev
or Yeltsin to limit NATO to its current membership, they said. And anyway, the
central and eastern European countries themselves were asking to join. Beyond
that, advocates said, expansion would actually make Russia more secure because
new members under NATO's security umbrella would be less afraid of their former
imperial master and would accordingly be better able to set aside their past
grievances to begin new relationships with Moscow. Since Yeltsin was
instrumental in achieving relatively peaceful independence for the Baltic
states by refusing to allow Russian citizens to participate in any military
action against them, some expected Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to be
especially grateful. Nevertheless, all these arguments were either incomplete,
superficial or just plain wrong.
It is true that the George H. W. Bush
administration did not provide any formal guarantees that NATO would not expand
further east. That was perfectly appropriate since neither Gorbachev nor
Yeltsin asked for a legally binding agreement. Nevertheless, as their memoirs
and other documents make clear, President Bush, James Baker and Brent Scowcroft
may not have considered post-Communist Russia to be a superpower, but they did
view it as a friendly power. They intended to treat Moscow with respect and
dignity and to work to provide it what they saw as an appropriate place in the
new European security architecture. This attitude discouraged Gorbachev and
Yeltsin from insisting on legally binding guarantees.
... ... ...
In the absence of a serious foreign-policy debate, few Americans understood what an ambitious
project Washington was undertaking in allowing NATO's expansion and interventionism to proceed
blindly until the alliance had incorporated most of Europe. Yet looking at the last two centuries
of Europe's history, a nation or a group of nations has only attempted to dominate Europe three
times. Napoleon Bonaparte, World War I's victorious allies and the Third Reich each tried and
failed. Napoleon and Hitler were defeated by a countercoalition; the World War I allies created
an unsustainable security architecture in Europe that contributed to the rise of Nazism and World
War II. Moreover, while Westerners may believe that NATO's eastward expansion has been peaceful
and voluntary, Russians see it as inseparable from NATO's European and global military exploits.
How could bringing small new members into NATO and mollifying them outweigh the danger of
provoking Russia's anti-Western militarism?
... ... ...
Many say that without Ukraine Russia cannot be an empire. This is true, to a
point. Conversely, however, Russia's elite and much of its public believes that
Russia can never be secure if Ukraine becomes a hostile nation and particularly
if it joins a hostile alliance. Russian leaders have already seen how NATO's
new members have changed the character of the alliance in its dealings with
Moscow. A NATO influenced by not only Poland and the Baltic states, but also
Ukraine, may form an existential threat for Moscow. This in turn would place
both Ukraine's and NATO's security in terrible jeopardy-a development that
America should seek to avoid.
Relations between the two sides have
deteriorated to dangerous levels. It's in the U.S. national interest to explore
better relations with Russia from a position of strength, something that will
require both patience and realism in acknowledging that the effort may not
succeed. If Moscow refuses to oblige, Washington should do whatever is
necessary to protect its interests. Since this is likely to be risky and
costly, it should not be America's first choice.
Dimitri K. Simes, publisher and CEO of the National Interest,
is president of the Center for the National Interest.
"... Maureen Dowd is right today, but she didn't really bring out the big guns, like Clinton's ties to Wall Street, Haiti, Syria or a coup in South America. ..."
"... Or maybe she could have written about the Clinton Foundation and those so called "private" emails. And I don't think she won the primary fair and square. Thousands and thousands showed up at Sanders' rallies. Clinton's average was 347 people. ..."
"... After being rescued by FBI director James Comey this week, Mrs. Clinton is both unapologetic and uncontrite for her actions. Particularly galling is her comment dismissing Comey's statements about her actions as "speculative." ..."
"... If the superdelegates care about reversing 35 years of Reaganomics and reversing our slide to oligarchy they would support Bernie Sanders ..."
"... Furthermore, Hillary knew it or should have known it, by knowing that subject matter is classified. She was Sec of State, she knew which things she was doing were Top Secret. Drones. Her Libyan war. Her attempts to expand the Syrian war. Her efforts in Ukraine. ..."
"... For Hillary and Bill to have maintained their positions for decades and stroked their shared sense of entitlement, others collectively needed to bear the consequences of all the karma debt they accumulated. It's as if these they glide along committing what outrages they will, incurring no personal damage, yet those around them populate some portrait of Dorian Gray, collectively taking the blows while the principles smile and move on to the next disaster without a mark on them. ..."
"... She shut down objections to reckless behavior that defied the new, clear, written rules enacted to deal with past problems. It was reckless. It was reckless disregard of the rules and dangers they were designed to prevent. That is one of the definitions of criminal negligence. It was a crime ..."
"... I read an article where someone called Hillary's appointment to be Secretary of State a "vanity appointment." I think that is exactly how she saw it. Just a stepping stone to the presidency and payback from Obama for winning against her. She didn't take the office seriously, and clearly didn't take the requirements of the office seriously, as far as security. The article cited in the column contains a quote where Hillary makes a joke about hacking by the Chinese into an account at the State Department. ..."
"... This column accurately depicts the "Tom and Daisy Buchanan of American Politics." In their eyes, they are the victims of their enemies' ethical standards. It should be possible to agree with the facts that Dowd presents without having to read 30 responses about how terrible Trump is and how necessary she is to avoid a Trump presidency. I don't want Trump as president, but Clinton deserves this critical analysis. It's unfortunate that she has thus far been incapable of accepting criticism and changing her actions. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton benefits from a double standard in evaluating security risks; she is running for President and has the support of the President. Others, at lower levels, who have arguably created far fewer security risks, have been stripped of security clearances, fired, or prosecuted. Those at her top level of government (positions requiring Senate confirmation) are not prosecuted, but are forced to resign. A few examples only, at Clinton's level: former Defense Secretary John Deutsch and former General David Petraeus. ..."
"... What is lost in all the discussion of what emails were classified, when and at what level, is a far bigger issue: Clinton tried to control what information would be available to future historians; in short, she tried to edit future history. ..."
"... Like Nixon, Hillary is a paranoid. She can't wrap her mind around disagreement with her views, preferring instead to think it comes from unfair, mean-spirited bias or worse. Like Nixon, Hillary wants to live a public life but detests scrutiny. Like Nixon, Hillary believes she has earned the privilege to live above those silly ethical rules that should only apply to other people. After all, she knows better than anyone else what the people want and need. And finally, like Nixon, Hillary, if elected, will be the President no one truly wants, elected by default. ..."
"... The parallels are amazing. In retrospect, Nixon turned out to be the very type of person who should never be President. Let's see whether history repeats itself. ..."
"... Well if the voters are 'careless' they will elect her. If we can't blame Hillary for carelessness, why should voters be blamed for being careless. I mean, I guess Nixon was careless to. So was Martha Stewart. Maybe Snowden was careless. And surely Gen. David Petraeus was just a tad careless. Yet the rest went to jail, or resigned, or ran to Russia. ..."
"... Anyone who voted for the Iraq War is not qualified to be president in my opinion. In addition to voting for an unnecessary war, Clinton pushed for intervention in Libya, Syria, Honduras, and Ukraine. ..."
"... For all those that love Clinton, imagine if an R had pulled any of these stunts. The R's kicked Nixon to the curb for far less. Meanwhile if Trump were a D, the press would be eating up his populist message by the spoonful. He would be the next messianic D figure. One big advantage of Trump vs Clinton? At worst, he's a one term mistake. If he doesn't perform, both the R's and D's will toss him aside in a heartbeat. Clinton? She is a two term mistake. As this email case has proven, she is either incredibly incompetent and/or incredibly corrupt ..."
"... NB, Ms. Clinton lied that she had a private e-mail server and she lied that the server contained confidential e-mails. This is the crux of this article, the result of the FBI investigation and the report from the Department of State. And, this article is no longer about e-mail, it is about Ms. Clinton's ethics, or lack of them. ..."
"... Best column in a long time, but are you really that scared of Trump? He may bluster, but in the long run I think he is less likely to get us into a war than Ms. Hillary ..."
"... If Bernie took up Jill Stein's offer to run with her, I've vote for them, and so would millions of others. ..."
"... "So many lawyers in this column, so little law." That is one of the things lawyers are good for. That is what the Bush Admin used them for, from signing statements to memos justifying torture and rendition. They're baaack, like the Terminator. And they bring a good many of the neocons with them. It really isn't much different from W's team. ..."
"... Exactly, but Hillary has often advocated taking us back into that criminal joyride in Mesopotamia. ASAP, she'll do far worse than emails, she'll do Bush Admin neicon policy, on steroids, in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and start it in Ukraine too. She's promised AIPAC to pick an early fight with Iran. She wants to fight at the same time with China and North Korea. ..."
"... The emails are not the problem, they are the warning. ..."
"... Maureen, as brilliant as ever in your absolute, perfect take on a woman who is not just Teflon, but dangerous...as are all the people in her "machine." Read the WP today about the case in the nineties when the same scenario took place, when the judge could not convict, she lied, and yet, she slipped right through. ..."
"... For us mortals who are honest, have a moral core, and know right from wrong, there are no words to express the exasperation that befalls us all at this most dangerous woman ..."
"... Maureen, how about a column on your former Times colleague Judith Miller whose fabricated articles about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq help make the Bush administration's case. She and they should be tried as war criminals. Instead you write about this stupid, non-issue. Clinton made a stupid mistake. Get over it. ..."
"... Well, I think that we've at least laid to rest the oft-repeated accusation that Hillary is calculating. No calculating politician intending to run for president would have committed the silly error ..."
"... He is less likely to get us into wars, because she is near certain to leap gleefully into wars. We already know the multiple ones she'll start with. But it is "pick your poison" because Trump will do other things, not wars, but cause no end of problems all the same. Those many nutty things he says? He'd keep saying them, and start doing them. ..."
"... Her competence is questionable at best resting as it does on a paper-resume, but her dishonesty and ability to lie in your face is beyond any doubt. ..."
"... "Hillary willfully put herself above the rules - again - and a president, campaign and party are all left twisting themselves into pretzels defending her." Twisting like a plane in a death spiral. You'll note that Clinton never puts herself above the rules to take political risks for progressives or progressive causes. She never sticks her neck out to do something bravely principled. ..."
"... Hence, the democratic party has squandered the surge of strength that came with Obama's election in 2008 to end up instead twisted-pretzel-selling exactly what Obama was embraced to refute and replace, feebly marketing it to an electorate that has only grown more informed, engaged, and impatient for the change Obama fell inexplicably short of delivering. ..."
"... That, politically, the Hillary play, so long in the planning, so tedious in the execution, is a self-destructive, backwards-sliding strategic move on nearly every level only underscores that other priorities and constituencies are driving the party. Driving it right off the cliff. ..."
"... Same with the influence peddling. She and Bill took hundreds of millions in speech money while she was Senator, Secretary, and then presumed Dem nominee. The Foundation, the Clinton slushy, took in a billion more. Much of this money all came from very shady places, people needing to buy influence, and the Clinton for sale sign was in blinking neon. They will get away with, however, only because these were not technically gifts, but were speech payments and "charity" donations. ..."
"... Thanks again Maureen for enlightening those who read the NYTimes with the truth about Mrs. Clinton and her extremely reckless behavior. It is obvious there are many rabid Hillary supporters who refuse to accept what you have to say. Old news. A waste of ink. Move on. But the truth is the truth. ..."
"... Sainthood is not a qualification for the office. We could do worse than Clinton ..."
Why not pick a clean candidate? There's still time. Bernie Sanders has not endorsed Clinton,
nor has he backed out of the campaign. Maybe there is a good reason. I can't see endorsing her
if I were him. I still have hope the delegates will understand how tainted Clinton is and how
Trump will make mince meat of her. Maureen Dowd is right today, but she didn't really bring
out the big guns, like Clinton's ties to Wall Street, Haiti, Syria or a coup in South America.
Or maybe she could have written about the Clinton Foundation and those so called "private"
emails. And I don't think she won the primary fair and square. Thousands and thousands showed
up at Sanders' rallies. Clinton's average was 347 people. Except for NYTimes readers, the
rest of the country simply doesn't like her. For that matter they don't care for Trump either.
70% of the independents are for Sanders. In the electorate, 39% are independents. That means 29%
are Republicans and 31% are Democrats. With some Repubicans voting Sanders, DO THE MATH! Clinton
can't win.
Alison, Menlo Park, California 18 hours ago
After being rescued by FBI director James Comey this week, Mrs. Clinton is both unapologetic
and uncontrite for her actions. Particularly galling is her comment dismissing Comey's statements
about her actions as "speculative."
Nick Metrowsky, is a trusted commenter Longmont, Colorado 15 hours ago
Wow. I never expected this in the newspaper that tooted the Clinton horn, since last January,
when they endorsed her. This is quite an honest assessment; effectively the NYT honeymoon is over.
The words here have been said in many ways, by those who seen through Ms. Clinton and those
trying to get her into office, at all costs. It is no longer about e-mails; it was never about
e-mails; it comes down to the ends the the Clintons will go to attain and keep power. That is
lie, cheat, steal. And go further, to poison anyone and anything they touch.
Ms. Clinton could end up in the White House, but a number of people were damaged in the process.
Her aides, members of the Obama Administration, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Biden, the DNC, journalists and
the media. There is still time to undo this possibility.
This sums up things up perfectly:
"We're resigned to the Clintons focusing on their viability and disregarding the consequences
of their heedless actions on others. They're always offering a Faustian deal. This year's election
bargain: Put up with our iniquities or get Trump's short fingers on the nuclear button.
RLS, is a trusted commenter Virginia 19 hours ago
If the superdelegates care about reversing 35 years of Reaganomics and reversing our slide
to oligarchy they would support Bernie Sanders. A Sanders candidacy would help to change
the makeup of Congress because he attracts more Independents and Millennials, and some Republicans.
A bonus in supporting Sanders: no scandals, and no unethical deals and conflicts of interest
(see the Clinton Foundation).
Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich 16 hours ago
No, many more were classified when sent, 14 entire chains about Top Secret matters were sent.
In order for them to "not be marked" someone had to remove the markings by retyping them into
the non-secure system. But that was illegal. Those were already classified.
Furthermore, Hillary knew it or should have known it, by knowing that subject matter is
classified. She was Sec of State, she knew which things she was doing were Top Secret. Drones.
Her Libyan war. Her attempts to expand the Syrian war. Her efforts in Ukraine.
Richard Luettgen, is a trusted commenter New Jersey 23 hours ago
Maureen will be lambasted by the usual suspects here, as offering up yet another dose of humble
pie to the woman who would be president. But of course everything she writes is true. There's
a natural law, the Conservation of Political Viability. For Hillary and Bill to have maintained
their positions for decades and stroked their shared sense of entitlement, others collectively
needed to bear the consequences of all the karma debt they accumulated. It's as if these they
glide along committing what outrages they will, incurring no personal damage, yet those around
them populate some portrait of Dorian Gray, collectively taking the blows while the principles
smile and move on to the next disaster without a mark on them.
However, as the NYT has noted, eMailGate is a ready-made Republican attack ad. Certainly, the
right's establishment as well as the supportive Super-PACs will exploit Comey's dreadful condemnation
of her behavior. We'll see if Trump can get his act together sufficiently to benefit from it in
more than an indirect manner. But those attack ads no doubt are going into the can as we write,
Hillary's poll numbers will go down and the commentariat here as well as much of Dem America will
again wring its blue hands that Trump could win.
Me, very little that Hillary does surprises me; and neither did I want her in prison for this
or expected it to happen. It remains that with an opposed Congress she wouldn't accomplish anything
as president but Trump just might.
Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich 19 hours ago
"Hillary was trying to make her job more efficient and protect her privacy."
No she wasn't. She was entitled and paranoid. She shut down objections to reckless behavior
that defied the new, clear, written rules enacted to deal with past problems. It was reckless.
It was reckless disregard of the rules and dangers they were designed to prevent. That is one
of the definitions of criminal negligence. It was a crime.
Shellie F., Kensington, Md. 10 hours ago
I read an article where someone called Hillary's appointment to be Secretary of State a
"vanity appointment." I think that is exactly how she saw it. Just a stepping stone to the presidency
and payback from Obama for winning against her. She didn't take the office seriously, and clearly
didn't take the requirements of the office seriously, as far as security. The article cited in
the column contains a quote where Hillary makes a joke about hacking by the Chinese into an account
at the State Department.
All of the people here who are supporting her, whether because you want her or because you
are afraid of Trump, really confuse me. Maureen Dowd is absolutely correct about the bizarre behavior
of the Clintons and the sleazy crowd that will return to the White House if she is elected.
anne d, ca 10 hours ago
This column accurately depicts the "Tom and Daisy Buchanan of American Politics." In their
eyes, they are the victims of their enemies' ethical standards. It should be possible to agree
with the facts that Dowd presents without having to read 30 responses about how terrible Trump
is and how necessary she is to avoid a Trump presidency. I don't want Trump as president, but
Clinton deserves this critical analysis. It's unfortunate that she has thus far been incapable
of accepting criticism and changing her actions.
Aram Hollman, Arlington, MA 11 hours ago
Hillary Clinton benefits from a double standard in evaluating security risks; she is running
for President and has the support of the President. Others, at lower levels, who have arguably
created far fewer security risks, have been stripped of security clearances, fired, or prosecuted.
Those at her top level of government (positions requiring Senate confirmation) are not prosecuted,
but are forced to resign. A few examples only, at Clinton's level: former Defense Secretary John
Deutsch and former General David Petraeus.
President Obama's directives to government employees, forbidding them to talk to the media
and promising dire consequences to those who do, have been far more stringent than any other president,
have decreased the openness and transparency of the federal government. Too bad his directives
applied only to the disclosure of government records, not their confiscation.
Clinton is smart, well-spoken, and has used her legal training to navigate the gap between
what is prohibited by guidelines and what is prohibited by law; her private server was the former
(State Dept. rules), not the latter.
What is lost in all the discussion of what emails were classified, when and at what level,
is a far bigger issue: Clinton tried to control what information would be available to future
historians; in short, she tried to edit future history.
Look for a future trend, former Presidents whose Presidential Libraries' content will be more
and more limited.
steven, g 10 hours ago
Thank you Maureen, for perfectly summarizing where things are with the Clintons. What is wrong
with the American people that so many can't see what you so clearly articulate? Hillary and Bill
are a pox on our nation, and yes maybe she is preferrable to Trump, but then let's vote for her,
but that's it. No rallies, no signs, no enthusiasm. Don't give her the wrong impression. Let's
send a message to her that we know she is dishonest. We are simply choosing, as Russell Crowe
once said in a movie, the lesser of two weevils.
AR Clayboy, Scottsdale, AZ 9 hours ago
In an odd way, Hillary Clinton is the second coming of Richard Nixon. Like Nixon, Hillary grew
up as the unpopular, socially awkward over-achiever, whose achievements always were more about
proving the popular kids wrong than the joy of actually accomplishing anything. Like Nixon, Hillary's
resume is hollow -- plenty of appointments and titles, but very little of substance to show for
it. Like Nixon, Hillary is a paranoid. She can't wrap her mind around disagreement with her
views, preferring instead to think it comes from unfair, mean-spirited bias or worse. Like Nixon,
Hillary wants to live a public life but detests scrutiny. Like Nixon, Hillary believes she has
earned the privilege to live above those silly ethical rules that should only apply to other people.
After all, she knows better than anyone else what the people want and need. And finally, like
Nixon, Hillary, if elected, will be the President no one truly wants, elected by default.
The parallels are amazing. In retrospect, Nixon turned out to be the very type of person
who should never be President. Let's see whether history repeats itself.
Paul, Texas 10 hours ago
Well if the voters are 'careless' they will elect her. If we can't blame Hillary for carelessness,
why should voters be blamed for being careless. I mean, I guess Nixon was careless to. So was
Martha Stewart. Maybe Snowden was careless. And surely Gen. David Petraeus was just a tad careless.
Yet the rest went to jail, or resigned, or ran to Russia.
Think carefully folks as to who you really want for President. Votes do matter, and Presidents
can do a great good or grievous damage to this country and to this world.
JJ, Georgia 20 hours ago
This election makes me think of a bank considering a new chief executive. Do you hire a person
with a questionable skill set and personality similar to a Jerry Lewis movie character or the
person known to have embezzled and is unrepentant except for having been caught. For the first
time I am giving the other 3rd party candidates a look.
RLS, is a trusted commenter Virginia 20 hours ago
Anyone who voted for the Iraq War is not qualified to be president in my opinion. In addition
to voting for an unnecessary war, Clinton pushed for intervention in Libya, Syria, Honduras, and
Ukraine.
Jack, Texas 10 hours ago
For all those that love Clinton, imagine if an R had pulled any of these stunts. The R's
kicked Nixon to the curb for far less. Meanwhile if Trump were a D, the press would be eating
up his populist message by the spoonful. He would be the next messianic D figure. One big advantage
of Trump vs Clinton? At worst, he's a one term mistake. If he doesn't perform, both the R's and
D's will toss him aside in a heartbeat. Clinton? She is a two term mistake. As this email case
has proven, she is either incredibly incompetent and/or incredibly corrupt, yet still garners
support of her party.
Nick Metrowsky, is a trusted commenter Longmont, Colorado 16 hours ago
NB, Ms. Clinton lied that she had a private e-mail server and she lied that the server
contained confidential e-mails. This is the crux of this article, the result of the FBI investigation
and the report from the Department of State. And, this article is no longer about e-mail, it is
about Ms. Clinton's ethics, or lack of them.
phil morse, cambridge, ma 8 hours ago
So much to dislike about Hillary and so little time. I hope that Maureen keeps venting because
I think she sees Hillary more clearly than almost anybody else, even the Donald. NY Times readers
can carp about the damage, but most of the people who will vote for Trump despise the Times. Echo
chamber that it is, a discordant note is a good thing. Soldier on Ms Dowd.
Jean, Scarsdale, NY 20 hours ago
Best column in a long time, but are you really that scared of Trump? He may bluster, but
in the long run I think he is less likely to get us into a war than Ms. Hillary
Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich 20 hours ago
If Bernie took up Jill Stein's offer to run with her, I've vote for them, and so would
millions of others. It might be Teddy Roosevelt coming close but failing with the Bull Moose
Party, or it might be Lincoln succeeding with the original Republican Party's creation. Either
way, we've been here before, and we went third party.
Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich 22 hours ago
"So many lawyers in this column, so little law." That is one of the things lawyers are
good for. That is what the Bush Admin used them for, from signing statements to memos justifying
torture and rendition. They're baaack, like the Terminator. And they bring a good many of the
neocons with them. It really isn't much different from W's team.
Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich 20 hours ago
"Compare Benghazi and the emails to what Bush/Cheney did. Hundreds of souls are still
dying in Iraq because of our criminal joyride in Mesopotamia."
Exactly, but Hillary has often advocated taking us back into that criminal joyride in Mesopotamia.
ASAP, she'll do far worse than emails, she'll do Bush Admin neicon policy, on steroids, in Iraq,
Syria, Libya, Yemen, and start it in Ukraine too. She's promised AIPAC to pick an early fight
with Iran. She wants to fight at the same time with China and North Korea.
The emails are not the problem, they are the warning.
Susan, Mass 9 hours ago
Maureen, as brilliant as ever in your absolute, perfect take on a woman who is not just
Teflon, but dangerous...as are all the people in her "machine." Read the WP today about the case
in the nineties when the same scenario took place, when the judge could not convict, she lied,
and yet, she slipped right through. To say there is something pathological, in this woman's
DNA would be too kind. But, the bottom line...or two..is "how does this continue to happen?" And,
"What difference does it make?"
For us mortals who are honest, have a moral core, and know right from wrong, there are
no words to express the exasperation that befalls us all at this most dangerous woman
Michigander, Alpena, MI 6 hours ago
Did she start a war in Afghanistan with no clue how to end it?
Did she lie us into a war with Iraq?
Did she out a CIA agent?
Did she declare "Mission Accomplished" when the 13 year and counting war had only just begun?
Was she responsible for Abu Ghraib and authorize torture?
Was she the one who told Brownie that he was doing a heck of a job while New Orleans was washing
into the ocean?
Was it Hillary who allowed a financial crises and unprecedented deficit to trigger the worst recession
since the Great Depression?
No, her offense is much worse: she used a private email server.
Peter, Cambridge, MA 7 hours ago
Another success for the GOP propaganda machine. Karl Rove, Colin Powell, and General Petraeus
and scores of other Republican officials all used private email servers, one of them located at
the Republican National Committee headquarters, and tens of thousands of their emails were destroyed.
No complaints from the GOP then. They all knew what Clinton knew - the State Department's non-classified
system was cumbersome and leaked like a sieve, and they didn't have the funds to fix it.
It's just like Benghazi "scandal": during the GWBush administration there were 14 terror attacks
on embassies or consulates, with 100 people killed, including a US diplomat. Where was the Republican
outrage then? No investigations, no hearings. Maureen, you should do some homework before leaping
on the Fox Noise bandwagon.
Realist, Santa Monica, Ca 7 hours ago
Isn't it painfully obvious than Hillary set up this private system because she didn't want
every gumshoe on the Koch payroll investigating every action and breath she took in hopes of discovering
a "scandal" that would lead to an "investigation." So this time it backfired big time and she
wound up with more "transparency" than she bargained for. But in the end, what did she do that
was so bad. If Russia is hacking the US Government payroll records, I can hardly see how some
how drone mission intelligence is going to tip the balance of power.
It's just that, since Reagan, Republicans will simply not accept a Democratic (NOT Democrat!)
president. It's all rule or ruin with those guys. How can they blame Obama for a mess when they
scuttled his plans at every turn?
And speaking of Saint Ronnie, where was the fine-tooth-comb "investigation" of Reagan after
he injected US Marines into the Lebanese civil war and got them all killed? And how about an investigation
into how the basic rule of law disintegrated after the Marines took Baghdad. How was all that
looting and secular murder a good thing Mr. Gowdy? Maybe you should look into it, ha ha.
Bruce, MA 8 hours ago
Maureen, how about a column on your former Times colleague Judith Miller whose fabricated
articles about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq help make the Bush administration's case. She
and they should be tried as war criminals. Instead you write about this stupid, non-issue. Clinton
made a stupid mistake. Get over it. This nation faces some very serious issues: racism and
injustice, weapons on our streets, student debt crisis, social security insolvency to name a few.
As we said in the 60's, "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the pollution." Get
with it Maureen. Stop polluting.
Allie, New York 8 hours ago
Well, I think that we've at least laid to rest the oft-repeated accusation that Hillary
is calculating. No calculating politician intending to run for president would have committed
the silly error of for which she is now being pilloried (again!) by Maureen Dowd.
I find Hillary's decision with respect to her private email server understandable, however
unfortunate. Ever since she was first lady her every word has been parsed (remember "baking cookies"?),
her every action dissected and subjected to the most unfavorable interpretation. She has been
accused of murder. She has been repeatedly investigated by Republican partisans in their effort
to besmirch her, or worse and despite being exonerated each time, she has been vilified by vindictive
people like Dowd. And, speaking of "goo," at the time of the Lewinsky scandal, instead of being
an object of sympathy, she suffered the intrusion of the public into her private life and condemnation
for not leaving her husband.
Is it any wonder that a person so treated over such a long period would be skittish about public
scrutiny of communications she considered exempt from it?
Hillary Clinton may be a flawed human being, like the rest of us, but she is neither arrogant
nor entitled, and compared to Trump she is a sage and and a saint.
Mark Thomason, is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich 20 hours ago
He is less likely to get us into wars, because she is near certain to leap gleefully into
wars. We already know the multiple ones she'll start with. But it is "pick your poison" because
Trump will do other things, not wars, but cause no end of problems all the same. Those many nutty
things he says? He'd keep saying them, and start doing them.
Dick Purcell, Leadville, CO 4 hours ago
"Obama tried to get Hillary without the shadiness. (Which is what we all want, of course.)"
No, we don't all want that. Wih or without shadiness, Hillary represents Rule of the Money-Insider
Royalty at home, which is what The People have risen up against, and Wars Abroad.
We the People do not want these things.
Applarch, Lenoir City TN 6 hours ago
No Mo, self-described "lifelong Republican" Comey was far out of line with his highly irregular
press conference. He pushed Republican narratives as far as he could get away with, in the process
doing a grave disservice to FBI and Justice Department traditions, policy, and procedure. The
picture he (and you) paint bears little relationship to the truth.
Here's what he should have said. "If it's a crime for people to ever use personal accounts
for government work, whether hosted by a public service or a private server, we'd have to charge
millions of people. We investigated something else: classified information on email systems. In
the 30,000 emails exchanged among 300 top officials at the State Department that included Secretary
Clinton on distribution, only a tiny number had any indication of classification, and these turned
out to not be classified. We also discovered a difference of opinion on about fifty discussions.
The intelligence community's senior professionals believe that these require classification, while
State Department senior professionals believe they do not. Clearly we need to define consistent
classification standards that all federal agencies can agree to. As to the notion that there is
any criminality associated with this difference of opinion, it makes absolutely no sense that
the entire senior ranks of the State Department professional civil service, a group numbering
in the hundreds, needs to be charged, or that we should single out the Secretary."
Vsh Saxena, New Jersey 4 hours ago
It is a lamentable state of political maturity in US that the 'cherub faced con woman' has
an almost inevitable shot at the Presidency.
Her competence is questionable at best resting as it does on a paper-resume, but her dishonesty
and ability to lie in your face is beyond any doubt.
Four months before the election we know this, and are we so helpless as a nation state that
- with Trump as the non-alternative - there is nothing we can do about it?
R.C.W., Heartland 7 hours ago
Pardon my French, but the Clintons are really nothing other than the earliest and biggest example
of the reverberating power of double-career couples-- especially when the couples are in the same
field.
You will see more of this-- in law firms, universities, hospitals, and corporations.
The Clintons are more like Bonnie and Clyde than the Buchanans of the Great Gatsby -- the Buchanans
were simply born into old money, and didn't really work. By contrast, the Clintons are still strivers,
ambitious, determined to see their meritocratic rise via the Ivy League to its most grandiose
fulfillment.
But we have seen this movie before--Imelda Marcos, for example-- and the Macbeths of corse.
But I fear the apparent quid pro quo with Lynch and the FBI director may not be as obvious
as hoping to keep one's job in the new, seemingly inevitable, Clinton administration.
What about their retaliation once in power? Would anyone really dare to cross this powerful
pair?
J, NYC 4 hours ago
"Hillary willfully put herself above the rules - again - and a president, campaign and
party are all left twisting themselves into pretzels defending her."
Twisting like a plane in a death spiral. You'll note that Clinton never puts herself above
the rules to take political risks for progressives or progressive causes. She never sticks her
neck out to do something bravely principled.
Hence, the democratic party has squandered the surge of strength that came with Obama's
election in 2008 to end up instead twisted-pretzel-selling exactly what Obama was embraced to
refute and replace, feebly marketing it to an electorate that has only grown more informed, engaged,
and impatient for the change Obama fell inexplicably short of delivering.
That, politically, the Hillary play, so long in the planning, so tedious in the execution,
is a self-destructive, backwards-sliding strategic move on nearly every level only underscores
that other priorities and constituencies are driving the party. Driving it right off the cliff.
leitskev, Andover, Ma. 15 hours ago
I'm glad to see a rare Democrat not drinking the kool aid. The Clintons will skate on charges
here because it's difficult to prove criminal intent, though we all know she did this to avoid
oversight, knew she was breaking the rules, delayed turning over her emails by years, and then
lied to the public.
Same with the influence peddling. She and Bill took hundreds of millions in speech money
while she was Senator, Secretary, and then presumed Dem nominee. The Foundation, the Clinton slushy,
took in a billion more. Much of this money all came from very shady places, people needing to
buy influence, and the Clinton for sale sign was in blinking neon. They will get away with, however,
only because these were not technically gifts, but were speech payments and "charity" donations.
One might prefer Hillary to Trump, that argument can be made. But no one should fool themselves
about just how corrupt the Clintons are. When you cheer for them, understand what you are enabling.
ss, nj 4 hours ago
Dowd is correct. The crux of the problem is Hillary's continuing pattern of dissembling and
obfuscation. Hillary has demonstrated questionable judgement for a presidential candidate. Equally
disturbing is the self-igniting quality of Bill and Hillary, who create many of their own problems,
like the server fiasco and Bill's recent inappropriate conversation with Lynch. What unpleasant
surprises does the Clinton Foundation yet hold?
While Trump is not a viable candidate, I fear a Clinton administration mired in scandal and
characterized by opacity and secrecy. I realize that in voting for Hillary, I choose to ignore
the red flag waving chaotically for the Clinton's pattern of poor judgement, and their belief
that they are above the law. It is difficult to muster a sanguine outlook for a Clinton presidency,
because established patterns of behavior don't easily change.
tmann, los angeles 4 hours ago
Thanks again Maureen for enlightening those who read the NYTimes with the truth about Mrs.
Clinton and her extremely reckless behavior. It is obvious there are many rabid Hillary supporters
who refuse to accept what you have to say. Old news. A waste of ink. Move on. But the truth is
the truth. And once again you have bravely gone where those who deny and deny, spin and spin
refuse to go. Bravo to you and keep the ink flowing!
John Plotz, Hayward, CA 4 hours ago
Sainthood is not a qualification for the office. We could do worse than Clinton --
witness any Republican you can name. We could do very much worse -- witness her opponent, that
orange lunatic.
N B, is a trusted commenter Texas 17 hours ago
Mark, your love affair with Bernie is messing with your judgment. Sending classified emails
to those with classified clearance seems like a low voltage issue. I get email chains that are
tomes long. I don't read to the fist link ever.
La Mirada, CA 13 hours ago
Well, what I remember is what happened after Bill Clinton had the temerity to reject the received
wisdom of the political class and raise taxes in the early 1990s when the economy flourished to
such a degree that he ended his final years as President with both a robust economy and budget
surpluses sufficient to pay off the entire national debt in just another decade. Then, GWB was
elected, and as usual after electing a Republican, disaster ensued. I don't want to go down the
GWB road again. We've already tried stupid, and it simply doesn't work.
c. thomas, washington 5 hours ago
Hillary released her emails-50K of them. My current job is in public disclosure. So I read
zillions of public officials' emails. Most of the elected are having to be trained to stop using
their private emails, cell phones, etc to conduct business. Why do they do it?
Because it is something they have been doing forever, because it is easier, because they did
it before they became officials, because they are older people and have a harder time figuring
out how to direct their devices to the shared servers.
Hillary admitted she made a mistake.
Jeb Bush used a private server to handle state business when he was governor, but no one made
a big deal about that. Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell also used personal email accounts that
had classified emails in them. It has been distressing to see people attack Clinton viciously
for everything that I have to believe they would not do to a man. She was crucified as the First
Lady for doing more than giving tea parties, for forgiving her husband for cheating, for being
a strong smart woman with ambition.
This article attempts to tarnish her because of who she is married to, again, the wife role.
And it brands her actions in gutter terms that are not supported by the investigation. Hillary
is a role model to many of us who thought none of us would see the possibility of a smart brave
woman at the helm. Obama is right on about Hillary. Even Republicans praised her as a rock star
for her performance as Secretary of State.
This thread is interesting by presence of complete lunatics like
Brett Dunbar , who claims tha capitalism leads to peace.
Notable quotes:
"... Militarism is the belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively [^1] to defend or promote national interests ..."
"... Bringing Bush, Blair, and Aznar to justice would be the greatest deterrent for further war. I like the part about economic crimes. Justice brings peace. ..."
"... War is a tool of competition for resources. Think Iraq. ..."
"... the Nuremberg War Crimes tribunal hanged Nazis for doing exactly what Bush 2 and company did ..."
"... The Labour leader said last year Blair could face trial if the report found he was guilty of launching an illegal war. ..."
"... John Quiggin, I think your definition of militarism is flawed. I think that cultural attitudes and the social status of the military are very important as well. To paraphrase Andrew Bacevich, Militarism is the idea that military solutions to a country's problems are more effective than they really are. Militarism assumes that the military's way of running things is inherently correct. A militaristic society glorifies violence and the people who carry it out in the name of the state. ..."
"... They chose force first and dealt with the consequences later. So militarism can exist and flourish on a tight budget. Its all about mentality. ..."
"... The notion that capitalism is peaceful is preposterous, even if you accept the bizarre notion that only wars between the capitalist Great Powers really count as wars. It's true that it's tacitly presumed by many, perhaps most, learned authorities. But that is an indictment of the authorities, not a justification for the claim. The closely related claim that capitalism is responsible for technological advancement on inspection suggests that the real story is that technological progress enabled the European states to begin empires that funded capitalist development. ..."
"... Russia and China had achieved success in Central Asia, unlike the United States, by pursuing a respectful [sic] foreign policy based on mutual interest. ..."
"... Although the term 'global policeman' (or 'cops of the world') is mostly used ironically (in my experience), 'policeman' does have a straight meaning, denoting a person who operates under the authority of law, whereas the supreme Mafia capo is a law and authority unto himself, at least until someone assassinates him. I think this second metaphor more closely approximates the position and behavior of the present United States. ..."
100 years after the Battle of the Somme, it's hard to see that much has been learned from the
catastrophe of the Great War and the decades of slaughter that followed it. Rather than get bogged
down (yet again) in specifics that invariably decline into arguments about who know more of the historical
detail, I'm going to try a different approach, looking at the militarist ideology that gave us the
War, and trying to articulate an anti-militarist alternative.
Wikipedia offers a definition
of militarism which, with the deletion of a single weasel word, seems to be entirely satisfactory
and also seems to describe the dominant view of the political class, and much of the population in
nearly every country in the world.
Militarism is the belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain
a strong military capability and be prepared to use it
aggressively[^1] to defend or promote national
interests
Wikipedia isn't as satisfactory (to me) on
anti-militarism, so I'll
essentially reverse the definition above, and offer the following provisional definition
Anti-militarism is the belief or desire that a military expenditure should held to the minimum
required to protect a country against armed attack and that, with the exception of self-defense,
military power should not be used to promote national interests
I'd want to qualify this a bit, but it seems like a good starting point.
... ... ...
My case for anti-militarism has two main elements.
First, the consequentialist case against the discretionary use of military force is overwhelming.
Wars cause huge damage and destruction and preparation for war is immensely costly. Yet it is
just about impossible to find examples where a discretionary decision to go to war has produced
a clear benefit for the country concerned, or even for its ruling class. Even in cases where war
is initially defensive, attempts to secure war aims beyond the status quo ante have commonly led
to disaster.
Second, war is (almost) inevitably criminal since it involves killing and maiming people who
have done nothing personally to justify this; not only civilians, but soldiers (commonly including
conscripts) obeying the lawful orders of their governments.
Having made the strong case, I'll admit a couple of exceptions. First, although most of the above
has been posed in terms of national military power, there's nothing special in the argument that
requires this. Collective self-defense by a group of nations is justified (or not) on the same grounds
as national self-defense.
... ... ...
[^1]: The deleted word "aggressive" is doing a lot of work here. Almost no government ever admits
to being aggressive. Territorial expansion is invariable represented as the restoration of historically
justified borders while the overthrow of a rival government is the liberation of its oppressed people.
So, no one ever has to admit to being a militarist.
Is it obvious that limiting use of military force to self-defense entails a minimal capability
for force projection?
If the cost of entirely securing a nation's territory (Prof Q, you will
recognise the phrase "Fortress Australia") is very high relative to the cost of being able to
threaten an adversary's territorial interests in a way that is credible and meaningful – would
it not then be unavoidably tempting to appeal to an expanded notion of self-defence and buy a
force-projection capability, even if your intent is genuinely peaceful?
To speculate a little further – I would worry that so many people would need to be committed
to "national defence" on a purely defensive model that it would have the unintended side effect
of promoting a martial culture that normalises the use of armed force.
Of course, none of this applies if everyone abandons their force-projection capability – but
is that a stable equilibrium, even if it could be achieved?
Well, you'll be pleased to know that they're working hard on WWI's perception [1]. Many of us
working against militarism. Not easy. And the linked NYtimes piece is worth reading.
I think it'd make sense to talk about imperialism, rather than militarism. Military is just a
tool. One could, for example, bribe another country's military leaders, or finance a paramilitary
force in the targeted state, or just organize a violence-inciting mass-media campaign to produce
the same result.
We'd need an alternative history of the Cold War to work through the ramifications of a less aggressive
Western military. Russia would have developed nuclear weapons even if there hadn't been an army
at its borders, and the borders of the Eastern bloc were arguably more the result of opportunity
than necessity. The colonial wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan and everywhere else could be similarly
described.
After World War I, the chastened combatants sheepishly disarmed, cognizant of their
insanity. World War II taught a different lesson, perhaps because, in contrast to the previous
kerfuffle, both the Russian and American behemoths became fully engaged and unleashed their full
industrial and demographic might, sweeping their common foes from the field, and found themselves
confronting each other in dubious peace.
Both sides armed for the apocalypse with as many ways to bring about the end of civilization
as they could devise, all the while mindlessly meddling with each other around the globe. Eventually
the Russians gave up; their system really was as bad as we thought, and Moore's law is pitiless:
the gap expands exponentially. They've shrunk, and so has their military.
So why is America such a pre-eminent bully, able to defeat the rest of the world combined in
combat? Habit, pride, domestic politics, sure; but blame our allies as well. Britain and France
asked us to to kick ass in Libya, and Syria is not that different. We've got this huge death-dealing
machine and everyone tells us how to use it.
Ridiculous as it is, it's not nearly as bad as it was a hundred years ago, or seventy, or forty.
We may still be on course to extinguish human civilization, but warfare no longer looks like its
likely cause.
david 07.04.16 at 8:14 am
As you point out in fn1, nobody seems to ever fight "aggressive" wars. By the same token, there's
no agreed status quo ante. For France in 1913, the status quo ante bellum has Lorraine restored
to France. Also, Germany fractures into Prussia and everyone else, and the Germans should go back
to putting out local regionalist fires (as Austria-Hungary is busy doing) rather than challenging
French supremacy in Europe and Africa please.
The position advanced in the essay is one for
an era where ships do not hop from coaling station to coaling station, where the supremacy of
the Most Favoured Nation system means that powerful countries do not find their domestic politics
held hostage for access to raw materials controlled by other countries, where shipping lanes are
neutral as a matter of course, and where the Green Revolution has let rival countries be content
to bid, not kill, for limited resources. We can argue over whether this state of affairs is contingent
on the tiger-repelling rock or actual, angry tigers, but I don't think we disagree that this is
the state of affairs, at least for the countries powerful enough to matter.
But, you know, that's not advice that 1913 would find appealing, which is a little odd given
the conceit that this is about the Somme. The Concert of Europe bounced from war to war to war.
Every flag that permits war in this 'anti-militarist' position is met and then some. It was unending
crisis after crisis that miraculously never escalated to total war, but no country today would
regard crises of those nature as acceptable today – hundreds of thousands of Germans were besieging
Paris in 1870! Hundreds of thousands of Frenchmen were dead! If Napoleon III had the Bomb he would
have used it. But he did not. There was no three score years of postwar consumer economy under
the peaceful shadow of nuclear armageddon.
Anderson 07.04.16 at 9:07 am
3: "After World War I, the chastened combatants sheepishly disarmed, cognizant of their insanity."
One could only wish this were true. Germany was disarmed by force and promptly schemed for the
day it would rearm; Russia's civil war continued for some years; France and Britain disarmed because
they were broke, not because they'd recognized any folly.
… Quiggin, I don't know if you read Daniel Larison at The American Conservative; his domestic
politics would likely horrify us both, but happily
jake the antisoshul sohulist 07.04.16 at 1:32 pm
Other than the reference to "the redempive power of war", the mythification of the military
is not mentioned in the definition of militarism. I don't think a definition of militarism can
focus only on the political/policy aspects and ignore the cultural aspects.
Militarism is as much cultural as it is political, and likely even more so.
Theophylact 07.04.16 at 2:17 pm
Tacitus:
Auferre, trucidare, rapere, falsis nominibus imperium; atque, ubi solitudinem faciunt,
pacem appellant (To plunder, butcher, steal, these things they misname empire: they make a
desolation and they call it peace).
LFC 07.04.16 at 4:55 pm
from the OP:
100 years after the Battle of the Somme, it's hard to see that much has been learned from
the catastrophe of the Great War
The counterargument to this statement is that the world's 'great powers' did indeed learn
something from the Great War: namely, they learned that great-power war is a pointless
endeavor. Hitler of course didn't learn that, which is, basically, why WW2 happened. But there
hasn't been a great-power war - i.e., a sustained conflict directly between two or more
'great' or major powers - since WW2 (or some wd say the Korean War qualifies as a great-power
war, in which case 1953 wd be the date of the end of the last great-power war).
The next step is to extend the learned lesson about great-power war to other kinds of war.
That extension has proven difficult, but there's no reason to assume it's forever impossible.
-–
p.s. There are various extant definitions of 'great power', some of which emphasize factors
other than military power. For purposes of this comment, though, one can go with Mearsheimer's
definition: "To qualify as a great power, a state [i.e., country] must have sufficient
military assets to put up a serious fight in an all-out conventional war against the most
[militarily] powerful state in the world" (The Tragedy of Great Power Politics (2001), p.5).
Using this definition of 'great power', the last war in which two or more great powers
directly fought each other in any kind of sustained fashion (i.e. more than a short conflict
of roughly a week or two [or less]) was, as stated above, either WW2 or Korea (depending on
one's view of whether China qualified as a great power at the time of the Korean War).
Lupita 07.04.16 at 7:06 pm
ZM @ 7 quoting Mary Kaldor:
An emphasis on justice and accountability for war crimes, human rights violations and economic
crimes, is something that is demanded by civil society in all these conflicts. Justice is
probably the most significant policy that makes a human security approach different from
current stabilisation approaches.
Bringing Bush, Blair, and Aznar to justice would be the greatest deterrent for further
war. I like the part about economic crimes. Justice brings peace.
Kevin Cox 07.04.16 at 9:19 pm
The place to start is with the Efficient Market Hypothesis as the mechanism to allocate
resources. This hypothesis says that entities compete for markets. War is a tool of
competition for resources. Think Iraq.
Instead of allocating resources via markets let us allocate resources cooperatively via the
ideas of the Commons. Start with "Think like a Commoner: A short introduction to the Life of
the Commons" by David Bollier.
A country that uses this approach to the allocation of resources will not want to go to war
and will try to persuade other countries to use the same approach.
The place to start is with renewable energy. Find a way to "distribute renewable energy" based
on the commons and anti militarism will likely follow.
Anarcissie 07.05.16 at 12:31 am
Lupita 07.04.16 at 10:22 pm @ 46 -
While the Nuremberg War Crimes tribunal hanged Nazis for doing exactly what Bush 2 and
company did, I doubt if starting a war of aggression is against U.S. law in an
enforceable way. However, since the war was completely unjustified, I suppose Bush could be
charged with murder (and many other crimes). This sort of question is now rising in the UK
with regard to Blair because of the Chilcot inquiry.
Ze K 07.05.16 at 1:29 pm
Not in internal national politics, but in international law. There's something called
'crimes againt peace', for example. Obviously it's not there to prosecute leaders of
boss-countries, but theoretically it could. And, in fact, the fact that it's accepted that the
leaders of powerful countries are not to be procesuted is exactly a case of perversion of
justice you are talking about… no?
Anarcissie 07.05.16 at 1:56 pm
Watson Ladd 07.05.16 at 3:57 am @ 56 -
According to what I read at the time the US, or at least some of its leadership, encouraged
the Georgian leadership to believe that if they tried to knock off a few pieces of Russia, the
US would somehow back them up if the project didn't turn out as well as hoped. Now, I get this
from the same media that called the Georgian invasion of Russia 'Russian aggression' so it may
not be very reliable, but that's what was said, and the invasion of a state the size of Russia
by a state the size of Georgia doesn't make much sense unless the latter thought they were
going to get some kind of help if things turned out badly. I guess the model was supposed to
be the dismemberment of Yugoslavia, but bombing the hell out of Serbia is one thing and
bombing the hell out of Russia quite another.
It is interesting in regard to Georgia 2008 to trace the related career of Mr. Saakashvili,
who was then the president of Georgia, having replaced Mr. Shevardnadze in one of those color
revolutions, and was reported to have said that he wanted Georgia to become America's Israel
in central Asia. The Georgians apparently did not relish this proposed role once they found
out what it entailed and kicked him out. He subsequently popped up in Ukraine, where according
to Wikipedia he is the governor of the Odessa Oblast, whatever that means. Again, I get this
from our media, so it may all be lies; but it does seem to make a kind of sense which I
probably don't need to spell out.
Ze K 07.05.16 at 2:10 pm
No, south Ossetia was a part of Georgia. They were fighting for autonomy (Georgia is a bit
of an empire itself), and Russian peacekeeping troops were placed there to prevent farther
infighting. One day, Georgian military, encouraged by US neocons, started shelling South
Ossetian capital, killing, among other people, some of the Russian peacekeeprs, and this is
how the 2008 war started.
Ze K 07.05.16 at 2:31 pm
…a lot of these ethnic issues in Georgia are really the legacy of stalinism, when in many
places (Abkhazia, for sure) local populations suffered mass-repressions with ethnic Georgians
migrating there and becaming majorities (not to mention, bosses). Fasil Iskander, great Abkhaz
writer, described that. Once the USSR collapsed, it all started to unwind, and Georgia got
screwed. Oh well.
Anarcissie 07.05.16 at 4:34 pm
Ze K 07.05.16 at 2:38 pm @ 80 -
The Russian ruling class experimented with being the US ruling class's buddy in the 1990s,
sort of. It didn't work well for them. The destruction of Yugoslavia, the business in Abkhazia
and Ossetia, the coup in Ukraine, the American intervention in Syria which must seem (heh) as
if aimed at the Russian naval base at Tartus, the extensions of NATO, the ABMs, and so on,
these cannot have been reassuring. Reassurance then had to come from taking up bordering
territory, building weapons, and the like. Let us hope the Russian leadership do not also come
to the conclusion that the best defense is a good offense.
Lupita 07.05.16 at 5:52 pm
We're a nation of killers.
Justice can ameliorate that problem. For example, Pinochet being indicted, charged, and
placed under house arrest until his death (though never convicted) for crimes against
humanity, murder, torture, embezzlement, arms trafficking, drugs trafficking, tax fraud, and
passport forgery and, in Argentina, Videla getting a life sentence plus another 500 being
convicted with many cases still in progress, at the very least may give pause to those who
would kill and torture as a career enhancement move in these countries and, hopefully,
throughout Latin America. Maybe one of these countries can at least indict Kissinger for
Operación Cóndor and give American presidents something extra to plan for when planning their
covert operations.
For heads of state to stop behaving as if they were untouchable and people believing that they
are, we need more convictions, more accountability, more laws, more justice.
Asteele 07.05.16 at 7:42 pm
In a capitalist system if you can make money by impoverishing others you do it. There are
individual capitalists and firms that make money off of war, the fact that the public at large
sees no aggregate benefit in not a problem for them.
Anarcissie 07.05.16 at 8:35 pm
LFC 07.05.16 at 5:28 pm @ 85 -
I think that, on the evidence, one must doubt (to put it mildly) that either the Russian or
the American leadership care whether Mr. Assad is a nice person or not. They have not worried
much about a lot of other not-nice people over recent decades as long as the not-nice people
seemed to serve their purposes. Hence I can only conclude that the business in Syria, which
goes back well before the appearance of the Islamic State, is dependent on some other
variable, like maybe the existence of a Russian naval base in mare nostrum. I'm just guessing,
of course; more advanced conspiratists see Israeli, Iranian, Saudi, and Turkish connections.
Note as well that the business in Ukraine involved a big Russian naval base. And I used to
heard it said that navies were obsolete!
ZM 07.06.16 at 7:06 am
There has been coverage in The Guardian about the Chilcot report into the UK military
interventions in Iraq.
"The former civil servant promised that the report would answer some of the questions raised
by families of the dead British soldiers. "The conversations we've had with the families were
invaluable in shaping some of the report," Chilcot said.
Some of the families will be at the launch of the report at the Queen Elizabeth II Centre, at
Westminster. Others will join anti-war protesters outside who are calling for Blair to be
prosecuted for alleged war crimes at the international criminal court in The Hague.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Wednesday, Karen Thornton, whose son Lee was
killed in Iraq in 2006, said she was convinced that Blair had exaggerated intelligence about
Iraq's capabilities.
"If it is proved that he lied then obviously he should be held accountable for it," she said,
adding that meant a trial for war crimes. "He shouldn't be allowed to just get away with it,"
she said. But she did not express confidence that Chilcot's report would provide the
accountability that she was hoping for. "Nobody's going to be held to account and that's so
wrong," she said. "We just want the truth."
Chilcot insisted that any criticism would be supported by careful examination of the evidence.
"We are not a court – not a judge or jury at work – but we've tried to apply the highest
possible standards of rigorous analysis to the evidence where we make a criticism."
…
Jeremy Corbyn, who will respond to the report in parliament on Wednesday, is understood to
have concluded that international laws are neither strong nor clear enough to make any war
crimes prosecution a reality. The Labour leader said last year Blair could face trial if
the report found he was guilty of launching an illegal war.
Corbyn is expected to fulfil a promise he made during his leadership campaign to apologise on
behalf of Labour for the war. He will speak in the House of Commons after David Cameron, who
is scheduled to make a statement shortly after 12.30pm. "
Only Tony Blair could read the Chilcot report and claim it vindicates his conduct.
LFC 07.06.16 at 5:48 pm
B. Dunbar @123
Interstate wars have declined, and the 'logic' you identify might be one of various reasons
for that.
The wars dominating the headlines today - e.g. Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan,
Ukraine/Donetsk/Russia - are not, however, classic interstate wars. They are either civil wars
or 'internationalized' civil wars or have a civil-war aspect. Thus the 'logic' of
business-wants-peace-and-trade doesn't really apply there. Apple doesn't want war w China but
Apple doesn't care that much whether there is a prolonged civil war in Sri Lanka, Afghanistan,
etc.
So even if one accepted the argument that 'capitalism' leads to peace, we'd be left w a set of
wars to which the argument doesn't apply. I don't have, obvs., the answer to the current
conflicts. I think (as already mentioned) that there are some steps that might prove helpful
in general if not nec. w.r.t. specific conflict x or y.
The Kaldor remark about reversing the predatory economy - by which I take it she means, inter
alia, black-market-driven, underground, in some cases criminal commerce connected to war - is
suggestive. Easier said than done, I'm sure. Plus strengthening peacekeeping. And one cd come
up w other things, no doubt.
Ze K 07.06.16 at 6:35 pm
@120, 121, yes, Georgians living in minority areas did suffer. But ethnic
cleansing/genocides that would've most likely taken place should the Georgian government have
had its way were prevented. Same as Crimea and Eastern Ukraine two years ago. This is not too
difficult to understand – if you try – is it? Similarly (to Georgians in Abkhasia) millions of
ethnic Russians suffered in the new central Asian republics, in Chechnya (all 100% were
cleansed, many killed), and, in a slightly softer manner, in the Baltic republics… But that's
okay with you, right? Well deserved? It's only when Abkhazs attack Georgians, then it's the
outrage, and only because Russia was defending the Abkhazs, correct?
Lupita 07.07.16 at 3:23 pm
My impression since yesterday is that, while Brits are making a very big deal out of the
Chilcot report, with much commentary about how momentous it is and the huge impact it will
have, coverage of this event by the US media is notoriously subdued, particularly compared
with the hysterical coverage Brexit got just some days ago. This leads me to believe that it
is indeed justice that is feared the most by western imperialists such as Bush, Blair, Howard,
Aznar, and Kwaśniewski and the elites that supported them and continue to cover up for them. I
take this cowardly and creepy silence in the US media as an indicator that Pax Americana is so
weakened that it cannot withstand the light of justice being shined upon it and that the end
is near.
Anarcissie 07.07.16 at 3:46 pm
Lupita 07.07.16 at 3:23 pm @ 147 - For the kind of people in the US who pay attention to
such things, the Chilcot Report is not really news. And the majority don't care, as witness
the fortunes of the Clintons.
Anarcissie 07.08.16 at 12:25 am
Brett Dunbar 07.07.16 at 11:47 pm @ 160 -
If capitalist types are so totally against war, it's hard to understand why the grand
poster child of capitalism, the plutocratic United States, is so addicted to war. It is hard
to consider it an aberration when the US has attacked dozens of countries not threatening it
over the last fifty or sixty years, killed or injured or beggared or terrorized millions of
noncombatants, and maintains hundreds of overseas bases and a world-destroying nuclear
stockpile. What could the explanation possibly be?
As human powers of production increase, at least in potential, existing scarcities of basic
goods such as food, medicine, and housing are overcome. If people now become satisfied with
their standard of living - not totally satisfied, but satisfied enough not to sweat and strain
all the time for more - sales, profits, and employment will fall, and capitalists will become
less important. In order to retain their ruling-class role, there needs to be a constant
crisis of production-consumption which only the capitalist masters of industry can solve.
Hence new scarcities must be produced. The major traditional methods of doing this have been
imperialism, war, waste, and consumerism (including advertising). Conceded, major processes of
environmental destruction such as climate change and the vitiating of antibiotics may lead to
powerful new self-reinforcing scarcities which will take their place next to their traditional
relatives, so that producing new scarcities would be less of a problem.
Anarcissie 07.08.16 at 2:30 am
LFC 07.08.16 at 1:30 am @ 163:
'OTOH, I don't think capitalism esp. needs war to create this kind of scarcity….'
But then one must explain why the major capitalist powers have engaged in so much of it, since
it is so dirty and risky. I suppose one possible explanation is that whoever has the power to
do so engages in it, capitalist or not; it is hardly a recent invention. However, I am mindful
of the position of the US at the end of World War 2, with 50% of the worlds total productive
capacity. Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive! So war turned out to be pretty handy for some
people. And now we have lots of them.
Matt_L 07.08.16 at 3:32 am
John Quiggin, I think your definition of militarism is flawed. I think that cultural
attitudes and the social status of the military are very important as well. To paraphrase
Andrew Bacevich, Militarism is the idea that military solutions to a country's problems are
more effective than they really are. Militarism assumes that the military's way of running
things is inherently correct. A militaristic society glorifies violence and the people who
carry it out in the name of the state.
I also think that just reducing military spending or the capacity for military action is
not enough to counter serious militarism. Austria-Hungary was a very militaristic society, but
it spent the less on armaments than the other European Powers in the years leading up to 1914.
The leaders of the Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy caused World War One by invading Serbia for
a crime committed by a Bosnian Serb subject of the Monarchy. They had some good guesses that
the Serbian military intelligence was involved, but not a lot of proof.
Franz Joseph and the other leaders chose to solve a foreign policy problem by placing armed
force before diplomacy and a complete criminal investigation. Their capacity to wage war
relative to the other great powers of Europe did not enter into their calculations. They
chose force first and dealt with the consequences later. So militarism can exist and flourish
on a tight budget. Its all about mentality.
stevenjohnson 07.08.16 at 9:29 pm
"Great Power warfare became a lot less common after 1815, at the same point that the most
advanced of the great powers developed capitalism."
In Europe, locus of the alleged Long Peace, there were the Greek Rebellion; the First and
Second Italian Wars of Independence; the First and Second Schleswig Wars; the Seven Weeks War;
the Crimean War; the Franco-Prussian War; the First and Second Balkan Wars. Wars between a
major capitalist state and another well established modern state included the Opium Wars; the
Mexican War; the French invasion of Mexico; the War of the Triple Alliance; the War of the
Pacific; the Spanish-American War; the Russo-Japanese War. Assaults by the allegedly peaceful
capitalist nations against non-state societies or weak traditional states are too numerous to
remember, but the death toll was enormous, on a scale matching the slaughter of the World
Wars.
Further the tensions between the Great Powers threatened war on numerous occasions, such as
conflict over the Oregon territory; the Aroostook "war;" the Trent Affair; two Moroccan
crises; the Fashoda Incident…again, these are too numerous to remember.
The notion that capitalism is peaceful is preposterous, even if you accept the bizarre
notion that only wars between the capitalist Great Powers really count as wars. It's true that
it's tacitly presumed by many, perhaps most, learned authorities. But that is an indictment of
the authorities, not a justification for the claim. The closely related claim that capitalism
is responsible for technological advancement on inspection suggests that the real story is
that technological progress enabled the European states to begin empires that funded
capitalist development.
Hidari 07.09.16 at 11:13 am
' Capitalist states tend to avoid war with their trading partners.'
This has an element of truth in it, but it can be parsed in a number of ways. For example,
'Rich, powerful countries tend to avoid war with other rich, powerful countries'. After all,
in the 2nd half of the 20th century, the US avoided going to war with Russia, despite having
clear economic interests in doing so (access to natural resources, markets) mainly because
Russia was strong (not least militarily) and the cost-benefit matrix never made sense (i.e.
from the Americans' point of view).
A much stronger case can be made that self-proclaimed Socialist states tend not to go to war
with each other. After all, there were big fallings out between the socialist (or 'socialist',
depending on your point of view) countries in the 20th century but they rarely turned to war,
and when they did (Vietnam-Cambodia, Vietnam-China) they were short term and relatively
limited in scope. The Sino-Soviet split was a split, not a war.
But again this is probably not the best way to look at it. A much stronger case can be made
that the basic reason for the non-appearance of a Chinese-Russian war was simply the size and
population of those countries. The risks outweighed any potential benefits.
Of course, between 1914 and 1945, lots of capitalist states went to war with each other.
Anarcissie 07.09.16 at 3:22 pm
Layman 07.09.16 at 2:59 pm @ 188 -
One explanation, I think already given, is that the capitalist powers were too busy with
imperial seizures in what we now call the Third World to fight one another. In the New World,
the United States and some South American states were busy annihilating the natives, speaking
of ethnic cleansing. If capitalism is a pacific influence, the behavior of the British and
American ruling classes since 1815 seems incomprehensible, right down to the present: the
plutocrat Clinton ought to be the peace candidate, not the scary war freak.
Hidari 07.09.16 at 5:44 pm
Surely (assuming that it's real) the decline in wars in some parts of the world since 1945
is because of the Pax Americana?
Most countries are too frightened to attack (at least directly) the United States. There is a
sense in which the US really is the 'Global Policeman'.
…WaPo continues that Trump is "broadly noninterventionist, questioning the need for the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization and calling for Europe to play a larger role in ensuring its
security." Page, too, "has regularly criticized U.S. intervention":
In one article for Global Policy Journal, he wrote, "From U.S. policies toward Russia to Iran
to China, sanctimonious expressions of moral superiority stand at the root of many problems
seen worldwide today."
Page wrote that the war in eastern Ukraine was "precipitated by U.S. meddling in the Maidan
revolution…
And so, here we are: Trump is the lesser evil in this cycle. Vote Trump, save the world.
LFC 07.10.16 at 2:40 pm
Hidari @192
Surely (assuming that it's real) the decline in wars in some parts of the world since 1945
is because of the Pax Americana?
Started to write a long reply but decided no point. Shorter version: reasons for no
WW2-style-war in Europe from '45 to '90 are multiple; 'pax Americana' only one factor of many.
End of CW was destabilizing in various ways (e.g., wars in ex-Yugoslavia) but so far not
enough to reverse the overall trend in Europe. Decline in destructiveness of conflict in some
(not all) other parts of the world has to do in large part w change in nature/type of conflict
(sustained interstate wars have traditionally been the most destructive and they don't happen
much or at all anymore, for reasons that are somewhat debatable, but, again, pax Americana wd
be only one of multiple reasons, if that).
LFC 07.10.16 at 2:54 pm
Re Carter Page (see Ze K @194)
Page refused [speaking in Moscow] refused to comment specifically on the U.S. presidential
election, his relationship with Trump or U.S. sanctions against Russia, saying he was in
Russia as a "private citizen." He gave a lecture, titled "The Evolution of the World Economy:
Trends and Potential," in which he noted that Russia and China had achieved success in
Central Asia, unlike the United States, by pursuing a respectful [sic] foreign policy based on
mutual interest.
He generally avoided questions on U.S. foreign policy, but when one attendee asked him
whether he really believed the United States was a "liberal, democratic society," Page told
him to "read between the lines."
"If I'm understanding the direction you're coming from, I tend to agree with you that it's
not always as liberal as it may seem," he said. "I'm with you."
In a meeting with The Washington Post editorial board in March, Trump named Page, a former
Merrill Lynch executive in Moscow who later advised the Russian state energy giant Gazprom on
major oil and gas deals, as one of his foreign policy advisers. Page refused to say whether
his Moscow trip included a meeting with Russian officials. He is scheduled to deliver a
graduation address Friday at the New Economic School, a speech that some officials are
expected to attend.
Above quote is from the Stars & Stripes piece, evidently republished from WaPo, linked at the
'Washington's Blog' that Ze K linked to.
If you want to put for. policy in the hands of the likes of Carter Page (former Merrill Lynch
exec., Gazprom adviser), vote Trump all right.
HRC's for. policy advisers may not be great, but I don't think this guy Page is better. He
does have connections to the Russian govt as a past consultant, apparently, which is no doubt
why Ze K is so high on him.
Ze K 07.10.16 at 3:16 pm
You bet this guy Page is better. Anyone is better.
And why would I care at all (let alone "no doubt") if he was a Gazprom consultant? What the
fuck was that supposed to mean? Asshole much?
LFC 07.10.16 at 5:25 pm
And why would I care at all (let alone "no doubt") if he was a Gazprom consultant?
B.c Gazprom is a Russian state-owned company and a fair inference from your many comments on
this blog (not just this thread but others) is that you are, in general, favorably disposed to
the present Russian govt. and its activities. Not Gazprom in particular necessarily, but the
govt in general. You make all these comments and then get upset when they are read to say what
they say.
You consistently attack HRC as a war-monger, as corrupt etc. You consistently say anyone wd
be better. "Vote Trump save the world." You said there was no Poland in existence in '39 when
the USSR invaded it. Your comments and exchanges in this thread are here for anyone to read,
so I don't have to continue.
Ze K 07.10.16 at 5:44 pm
"You make all these comments and then get upset when they are read to say what they
say. "
You're right; come to think of it, you've been into slimeball-style slur for a while now,
and I should've gotten used to it already, and just ignored you. Fine, carry on.
Anarcissie 07.11.16 at 2:19 am
@Hidari 07.10.16 at 2:57 pm @ 197 -
Although the term 'global policeman' (or 'cops of the world') is mostly used ironically
(in my experience), 'policeman' does have a straight meaning, denoting a person who operates
under the authority of law, whereas the supreme Mafia capo is a law and authority unto
himself, at least until someone assassinates him. I think this second metaphor more closely
approximates the position and behavior of the present United States.
"... House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) formally requested Thursday that Clinton's security clearance be revoked because of the careless handling of classified material that the FBI investigation revealed. ..."
"... Clinton's personal system did not have full-time security staff ensuring that its protection was up to date. ..."
"... Comey said as many as ten people who did not have clearance had access to the system. ..."
"... Unconfirmed media reports had indicated that the FBI investigation spread to look at the activities of the Clinton Foundation as well ..."
House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) formally requested Thursday that Clinton's security clearance be revoked because of the careless
handling of classified material that the FBI investigation revealed.
... ... ...
While Comey maintained that nobody else would face criminal prosecution for doing the same things Clinton did, he emphasized in
his testimony that there would be consequences if a current government employee did it. This could include termination, administrative
sanctions, or losing clearance.
He refused to definitively assess a hypothetical situation where someone like Clinton was seeking security clearance for an FBI
job, though.
... ... ...
Gmail: One aspect of Clinton's actions that Comey said was particularly troubling was that he could not completely exclude
the possibility that her email account was hacked. Unlike the State Department or even email providers like Gmail, Clinton's
personal system did not have full-time security staff ensuring that its protection was up to date.
... ... ...
Clearance: Clinton and her top aides had security clearance to view the classified material that was improperly being transmitted
on the server, but Comey said as many as ten people who did not have clearance had access to the system.
... ... ...
Clinton Foundation:Unconfirmed media reports had indicated that the FBI investigation spread to look at the activities
of the Clinton Foundation as well
Trey Gowdy GRILLS James Comey On Hillary Clinton Emails. Hillary Clinton Email Investigation FBI Director James Comey testified
at a hearing on the FBI's investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of private email servers while serving as secretary of state,
as well as the decision to not recommend criminal charges against her. Rep. Gowdy Q&A - Oversight of the State Department.
At a congressional hearing Thursday, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) grilled FBI director James Comey about several of Hillary Clinton's
statements to the public, which the FBI investigation revealed to be untrue. For instance, Clinton had previously claimed that she
had never received or sent classified information to or from her private email server; Comey conceded to Rep. Gowdy that that was
not true.
Another claim of Clinton's, which the investigation revealed to be untrue, was that she had retained all work-related emails.
Comey noted that they had uncovered "thousands" of work-related emails not returned to the State Department. "In the interest of
time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon," Gowdy concluded after running through a catalogue of Clinton's claims,
"I'm not going to go through any more of the false statements."
But Gowdy determined that "false exculpatory statements" can be used to determine intention and consciousness of guilt.
Wesley Eskildsen
Is this guy a Starfish from Bikini Bottom!? If Hillary gave her Lawyer, or anyone without the proper Security Clearance AND
the "Need to know", access to her Server containing classified information then she is in violation of Federal Law. If she were
on active Duty she would be court-martialed. that is Chaffetz point exactly!
John Doe
As a democrat, I am disgusted that every member of my party, when givin the opportunity to ask some questions, not one of these
cowards asked a real question and instead focussed on basically explaining about what a wonderful human being Hillary Clinton
is, and what terrible people the republicans are....
Wayne Paul
This chick Maloney just throwing softballs I have no clue why she is even talking.
aadrgtagtwe aaqerytwerhywerytqery
Comey is a liar, look at his reaction when asked about what questions did FBI ask hillary during the 3 and a half hour interview.
He said he couldn't remember at the moment. How is that possible? The only question to ask hillary during the fbi interview was:
"Did you send and receive classified top secret emails through your servers?"
Both answers Hillary could have given, would have been enough to indict her. If she said "Yes", then she would have been indicted
for sending top secret info. If she said "No" , she would have lied, because the report that Comey presented said that "top secret
emails were sent and received, and they were top secret at the time they were sent and received. Fbi didn't ask that question
at all. That tells you that the whole interview was a sham, Hillary was never interviewed.
The propaganda-media reported "hillary was grilled by fbi during 3 and a half hour interview". What unbelievable bullshit!
WE WANT JUSTICE!!!!!!!!! For all those people who are now in jail for the rest of their lives for doing much less than the criminal-hillary!!!!!!!
"... At a contentious hearing of the House oversight committee, Mr. Comey acknowledged under questioning that a number of key assertions that Mrs. Clinton made for months in defending her email system were contradicted by the FBI's investigation. ..."
"... Mr. Comey said that Mrs. Clinton had failed to return "thousands" of work-related emails to the State Department, despite her public insistence to the contrary, and that her lawyers may have destroyed classified material that the F.B.I. was unable to recover. He also described her handling of classified material as secretary of state as "negligent" - a legal term he avoided using when he announced on Tuesday that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring a case against her. ..."
... He also provided new details that could prove damaging to her just weeks before she is to be named the Democrats' presidential
nominee.
At a contentious hearing of the House oversight committee, Mr. Comey acknowledged under questioning that a number of key assertions
that Mrs. Clinton made for months in defending her email system were contradicted by the FBI's investigation.
Mr. Comey said that Mrs. Clinton had failed to return "thousands" of work-related emails to the State Department, despite her
public insistence to the contrary, and that her lawyers may have destroyed classified material that the F.B.I. was unable to recover.
He also described her handling of classified material as secretary of state as "negligent" - a legal term he avoided using when he
announced on Tuesday that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring a case against her.
"... I also made this comment during the morning links, but I think it bears repeating. Robinson considers this to be a great day for Clinton? By what standard? The FBI director went on national television and described her as "extremely careless," and then essentially called her a liar. Is a politician considered to be ethical if he or she is not indicted? ..."
"... Called her a liar? Un-indicted liar or perjurer because the investigators are reasonable. ..."
"... What an inversion – this must be the first time it was good for Hillary that her husband had a scandalous private meeting with a younger woman. ..."
"... In Hillary's nomination victory speech a month ago she argued she has the moral high ground and Trump's response was to focus on the problems in the economy. If the recession starts to hit hard enough late this year, Trump will win, and he will tell Hillary and Bill, "Its the economy stupid!" ..."
"... It is a SAD day when a President of the US cheers for an "extremely careless" leaker after being the most aggressive prosecutor of whistleblowers under the Espionage Act ever. Can I haz my money back? ..."
"... When "mere mortals" undertake the kind of reckless action with regard to classified material that Clinton did, wouldn't a likely and appropriate sanction be to pull that person's security clearance? ..."
"... Can a president operate without having a security clearance? ..."
"... "Mere mortals" get indicted. Here is the complaint filed in U.S.A v. Bryan Nishimura, July 24, 2015 ..."
"... BRYAN H. NISHIMURA, defendant herein, from on or about January 2007 through April 2012, while deployed outside of the United States on active military duty with the United States Navy Reserve in Afghanistan and thereafter at his residence located in the County of Sacramento, State and Eastern District of California, being an officer and employee of the United States, specifically: a United States Navy Reserve Commander, and, by virtue of his office and employment as such, becoming possessed of documents and materials containing classified information of the United States, specifically: CLASSIFIED United States Army records, did knowingly remove such documents and materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents and materials at his residence in the County of Sacramento, an unauthorized location, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1924(a), a Class A misdemeanor. ..."
"... In a decision Tuesday in a case not involving Clinton directly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that messages contained in a personal email account can sometimes be considered government records subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. ..."
"... Apparently Hillary's problems with the FOIA cases will worsen. ..."
"Comey and Lynch asked to testify before Congress on Clinton probe" [MarketWatch].
From my armchair at 30,000 feet: If the Republicans really want to make Lynch squirm, they just have to ask Lynch one question, which
Comey - strong passive-aggressive move, there, Jim! - handed to them on a silver platter at his presser, yesterday. I've helpfully
written it down (quoted phrases
from Comey's press release, parsed here):
Q: Attorney General Lynch, what "security or administrative sanctions" do you feel are appropriate for Secretary Clinton's
"extremely careless" handling of her email communications at the State Department?
No speeches instead of questions, no primping on camera for the folks back home, nothing about the endless lying, no Benghazi
red meat, no sphincter-driven ranting about "security", tie gormless Trey Gowdy up in a canvas bag and stuff him under a desk. Just
ask that one question. And when Lynch dodges, as she will, ask it again. I don't ever recall having written a sentence that
includes "the American people want," but what the American people want is to see some member of the elite, some time, any time, held
accountable for wrong-doing. If it's Clinton's "turn" for that, then so be it. She should look at the big picture and consider the
larger benefit of continued legitimacy for the Republic and take one for the team. So let's see if the Republicans overplay their
hand. They always have. UPDATE This
is a good, that
is, sane letter from Bob Goodlatte (pdf), chair of the House Judiciary Committee (via MsExPat). But don't get down in the goddamned
weeds!! K.I.S.S.!!!
"Comey's solo appearance Tuesday stood out for historical reasons, because it's highly unusual for the FBI to make public findings
when investigators have decided no charges should be brought" [CNN].
This purports to be the inside story of how Comey "stood alone" to make the announcement. But there are some holes in the narrative:
Matthew Miller, the former top Justice spokesman under Attorney General Eric Holder, called Comey's announcement "outrageous."
"The FBI's job is to investigate cases and when it's appropriate to work with the Justice Department to bring charges," he said
on CNN. House Republican
sides with Comey over Trump on Clinton emails. Instead, Miller said: "Jim Comey is the final arbiter in determining the appropriateness
of Hillary Clinton's conduct. That's not his job."
When you've lost Eric Holder's spokesperson And then there's this. After Clinton's "long-awaited" Fourth-of-July weekend three
hours of testimony:
Officials said it was already clear that there wasn't enough evidence to bring criminal charges. The interview cemented that
decision among FBI and Justice officials who were present.
By Monday night, Comey and other FBI officials decided the public announcement should come at the earliest opportunity.
The fact that Tuesday would also mark the first public campaign appearance by Obama alongside Hillary Clinton didn't enter
in the calculation, officials said.
But as Yves points out, there was no time to write an official report of Clinton's "interview" over the weekend. So for this narrative
to work, you've got to form a mental picture of high FBI officials scanning the transcript of Clinton's "interview," throwing up
their hands, and saying "We got nuthin'. You take it from here, Jim." That doesn't scan. I mean, the FBI is called a
bureau for good reason. So to me, the obvious process violation means that political pressure was brought
to bear on Comey, most likely by Obama, despite the denials (those being subject to the Rice-Davies Rule). But Comey did the bare
minimum to comply, in essence carefully building a three-scoop Sundae of Accountability, and then handing it, with the cherry ("security
or administrative sanctions"), to Lynch, so Lynch could have the pleasant task of making the decision about whether to put the cherry
on top. Or not. Of course, if our elites were as dedicated to public service as they were in Nixon's day, there would have been a
second Saturday Night Massacre (link for those who
came in late), but these are different times. (Extending the sundae metaphor even further, it will be interesting to see if the
ice cream shop staff knows what else is back in the freezer, the nuts and syrups that Comey decided not to add; Comey certainly made
the ethical case for leaks.)
"Hillary Clinton's email problems might be even worse than we thought " [Chris Cilizza,
WaPo]. Cillizza, for whom I confess a sneaking affection, as for Nooners, isn't the most combative writer in WaPo's stable
voteforno6, July 6, 2016 at 2:12 pm
Re: "Hillary Clinton's great day"
I also made this comment during the morning links, but I think it bears repeating. Robinson considers this to be a great day
for Clinton? By what standard? The FBI director went on national television and described her as "extremely careless," and then essentially
called her a liar. Is a politician considered to be ethical if he or she is not indicted?
MyLessThanPrimeBeef, July 6, 2016 at 3:29 pm
Called her a liar? Un-indicted liar or perjurer because the investigators are reasonable.
Elizabeth Burton, July 6, 2016 at 6:17 pm
The cultish nature of Clinton followers struck me months ago; it's quite plain to anyone who's done any amount of study of cults.
The giddy insistence now that the Comey statement is total vindication is a case in point, and any attempt to point out how damning
it actually was only brings an "innocent until proven guilty" reply.
One can only surmise that a large number of people have been so inured to corruption they no longer consider it a negative unless
the perpetrator goes to jail; and even then there would likely be more insistence that person was railroaded.
Tertium Squid, July 6, 2016 at 2:15 pm
What an inversion – this must be the first time it was good for Hillary that her husband had a scandalous private meeting
with a younger woman.
Tim, July 6, 2016 at 2:40 pm
On election day hindsight will show the real inversion with the Clintons is:
In 1990s Bob Dole ran on a platform of having the moral high ground, while Bill Clinton said "it's the economy stupid", and Bill
won.
In Hillary's nomination victory speech a month ago she argued she has the moral high ground and Trump's response was to focus
on the problems in the economy. If the recession starts to hit hard enough late this year, Trump will win, and he will tell Hillary
and Bill, "Its the economy stupid!"
Isolato, July 6, 2016 at 2:18 pm
It is a SAD day when a President of the US cheers for an "extremely careless" leaker after being the most aggressive prosecutor
of whistleblowers under the Espionage Act ever. Can I haz my money back?
Kokuanani, July 6, 2016 at 3:19 pm
When "mere mortals" undertake the kind of reckless action with regard to classified material that Clinton did, wouldn't a
likely and appropriate sanction be to pull that person's security clearance?
Can we hope for that to happen to Clinton? [Why not?]
Can a president operate without having a security clearance?
3.14e-9, July 6, 2016 at 6:05 pm
When "mere mortals" undertake the kind of reckless action with regard to classified material that Clinton did, wouldn't
a likely and appropriate sanction be to pull that person's security clearance?
"Mere mortals" get indicted. Here is the complaint filed in U.S.A v. Bryan Nishimura, July 24, 2015:
The United States Attorney charges: THAT BRYAN H. NISHIMURA, defendant herein, from on or about January 2007 through April
2012, while deployed outside of the United States on active military duty with the United States Navy Reserve in Afghanistan and
thereafter at his residence located in the County of Sacramento, State and Eastern District of California, being an officer and
employee of the United States, specifically: a United States Navy Reserve Commander, and, by virtue of his office and employment
as such, becoming possessed of documents and materials containing classified information of the United States, specifically: CLASSIFIED
United States Army records, did knowingly remove such documents and materials without authority and with the intent to retain
such documents and materials at his residence in the County of Sacramento, an unauthorized location, in violation of Title 18,
United States Code, Section 1924(a), a Class A misdemeanor.
voteforno6, July 6, 2016 at 6:13 pm
Since the classification program falls under the President by law, it is impossible for a President to not have a security clearance.
Pookah Harvey, July 6, 2016 at 2:54 pm
Clinton supporters seem to feel the fat lady has sung but it might be they are only hearing someone who is slightly chunky. From
Politico:
On the same day that the FBI announced that the criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server is
likely to conclude without any charges, a federal appeals court issued a ruling that could complicate and prolong a slew of ongoing
civil lawsuits over access to the messages Clinton and her top aides traded on personal accounts.
In a decision Tuesday in a case not involving Clinton directly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that
messages contained in a personal email account can sometimes be considered government records subject to Freedom of Information
Act requests.
Apparently Hillary's problems with the FOIA cases will worsen.
Rep. Ken Buck questions FBI Director James Comey about his insertion of the term "willfully"
into 18 U.S. Code § 1924. Comey says he "imputes" the term in line with the Department of
Justice's history/tradition of enforcing the statute.
The above clip is taken from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's hearing
regarding Hillary Clinton's criminal email conduct.
"... ...Mr. Comey also referenced a more obscure provision of the Espionage Act that has little to do with intent or state of mind, but rather makes it a crime to disclose classified information through "gross negligence." ..."
"... But the crime of "gross negligence" in the Espionage Act doesn't appear to require proof of any intentional mishandling of documents, according to Stephen I. Vladeck , a national security scholar at the University of Texas. ..."
"... Specifically, the law makes it a felony to permit classified information relating to national defense to be "removed from its proper place of custody" through gross negligence. ..."
"... Why are you focusing on the gross negligence aspect? ..."
"... Where is the removal from the proper place of custody? I've seen nothing in any legal analysis in this paper that talks about it. Is the presence of classified material on a private server of one who is authorized to have it equivalent to such a removal? ..."
"... She was specifically not authorized to have a private server. ..."
"... "From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State Department in 2014, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was TOP SECRET at the time they were sent; 36 of those chains contained SECRET information at the time; and eight contained CONFIDENTIAL information at the time. That's the lowest level of classification." ..."
"... "We assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account." ..."
"... Making an argument for the difference between "gross negligence" and "extreme carelessness" is the sort of semantic hair-splitting that Hillary Clinton ought to have been compelled to do in court - in the same way that her husband prevaricated over "what the meaning of the word 'is' is," shortly before he lost his law license. ..."
...Mr. Comey also referenced a more obscure provision of
the Espionage Act that has little to
do with intent or state of mind, but rather makes it a crime to disclose classified information through
"gross negligence."
That provision of the Espionage Act, the primary law governing the handling of classified information,
could require at least proof that the offender knew the classified information disclosed could harm
the United States or benefit a foreign power if it got into the wrong hands.
But the crime of "gross negligence" in the Espionage Act doesn't appear to require proof of any
intentional mishandling of documents, according to
Stephen I. Vladeck, a national security scholar at the University of Texas.
Specifically, the law makes it a felony to permit classified information relating to national
defense to be "removed from its proper place of custody" through gross negligence.
What would constitute a degree of recklessness that rises to gross negligence? Mr. Vladeck offered
an example of accidentally leaving a briefcase stuffed with classified national security secrets
on a busy sidewalk in Washington, D.C.
... ... ...
Charles Silva
Why are you focusing on the gross negligence aspect?
Where is the removal from the proper place of custody? I've seen nothing in any legal analysis
in this paper that talks about it. Is the presence of classified material on a private server
of one who is authorized to have it equivalent to such a removal?
Lee Hartwig
@Charles Silva She was specifically not authorized to have a private server.
Clifford Crouch
@Michael Piston
"From the group of 30,000 emails returned to the State Department in 2014, 110 emails in 52
email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the
time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was TOP SECRET
at the time they were sent; 36 of those chains contained SECRET information at the time; and eight
contained CONFIDENTIAL information at the time. That's the lowest level of classification."
-FBI Director James Comey, July 5, 2016
"We assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal
email account."
-James Comey, July 5, 2016
Making an argument for the difference between "gross negligence" and "extreme carelessness"
is the sort of semantic hair-splitting that Hillary Clinton ought to have been compelled to do
in court - in the same way that her husband prevaricated over "what the meaning of the word 'is'
is," shortly before he lost his law license.
Hillary coped her emails and gave all of the to her private lawyer, who has no security clearance, on the USB stick.
That's alone qualifies for gross negligence.
Notable quotes:
"... Hillary Clinton also used the department's secure email system for transmitting classified information, but the FBI found that some of the regular communications with her staff on the personal server involved facts and details that she should have known were classified. In a few cases, the emails bore markings to indicate they contained classified information. ..."
"... Stewart Baker, a top national security lawyer in the Bush administration, called Comey's statement "pretty damning for Secretary Clinton, even if the facts don't make for an impressive criminal case. He suggests that she should have been, or arguably could still be, subjected to 'security or administrative sanctions.' What he doesn't say, but what we can infer, is that she ran those incredible risks with national security information because she was more worried about the GOP reading her mail than of Russian or Chinese spies reading it. That's appalling," he said. ..."
"... HIllary lied about her servers, she lied about sending classified information, she lied about the re-classification of confidential, secret and SAP documents. Some two hours after Comey's announcement, she and Obama took off on Air Force One for a rally together. ..."
"... But a new security regimen is dawning for those who hold security clearances. According to the FBI, they are now free to transfer data between secure and non-secure networks without punishment, as long as the INTENT is not to harm the United States. ..."
"... A retired FBI agent on Fox said this : The Comey conference was to take the heat off of Lynch - because if the FBI had just been quiet with their results, and it would have been Lynch who came out and said...No charges - AFTER the Phoenix scandal, people would really be skeptical. end - ..."
"... Of course this took AG-LL off the hook. NOW - for all of this to fall in place? Had to be some meetings beforehand - AG - FBI and Whitehouse general council - 3 US government lawyers colluding this event - to make SURE they have jobs the next 4 years and the GRATITUDE of Potus Hillary. ..."
"... Corrupt? I would not go that far...let's just say DIRTY. ..."
"... "Gross negligence" is the standard under 18 U.S.C., section 793-f. FBI Director Comey said Hillary Clinton was "extremely careless" in her handling of highly classified information. What's the difference, other than semantics, between "gross negligence" and "extremely careless?" ..."
"... Hillary's emails may be great confirmation of Hillary's war role in the Mid-east and even Ukraine. However, more to the point they confirm for all Democrats that Hillary's agenda is the Neo-con one of Geo. W. Bush's handlers from PNAC, Chicago School of Economics, Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan and his wife Victoria Nuland. (The Neo-con/Neo-liberal company includes Larry Summers, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.) She is not a run of the mill hawk like John McCain, she is a New World Order marionette just as Geo W was. She needs to be dumped as she is beholden to anti-democratic values of elitism. ..."
"... Bill Kristol is attacking Donald Trump because his candidate is Hillary. ..."
"... This was historical. Law enforcement does not make decisions on prosecution. That is left to prosecutors. Law enforcement are fact finders who should have presented the case to a career professional prosecutor to make a decision. ..."
"... The question is, why was well established policy and protocol violated and the case not presented to a prosecutor for a decision? Ask any local D.A. If they reject a case, they write a "reject" documenting their rationale. In a very public or complicated case, that reject is written in great detail regarding each and every potential charge. ..."
"... The Obama Administration has prosecuted more people under the same WW I espionage act than all other administrations COMBINED. Comey has prosecuted a person under this act for a 21-word email .not 30,000 destroyed emails. ..."
"... Everybody knows this was fixed. The examples of similar incidents, putting people in jail, are coming out of the shadows. It is time to vote the career politicians out of office and take our country back. ..."
"... NSA has copies of every email sent to/from US, & likely most others, for last 10+ years. So they have all 30,000+ of the emails she deleted. ..."
"... When in the Navy I saw a LT. career destroyed for leaving a top secret safe open over night. We did not know who maybe got in. The assumption by NCIS was that someone did enter and Top Secret information was taken. He was prosecuted for maybe forgetting and Clinton no prosecution for being dumb? ..."
"It's just not a crime under current law to do nothing more than share sensitive information over unsecured networks," said Stephen
Vladeck, a law professor at the University of Texas. "Maybe it should be, but that's something for Congress to decide going forward."
John M. Deutch, another former CIA director, narrowly avoided a misdemeanor charge for having taken hundreds of top secret files
home on his laptop computer. He was pardoned by Clinton before charges were filed.
... ... ...
Hillary Clinton also used the department's secure email system for transmitting classified information, but the FBI found
that some of the regular communications with her staff on the personal server involved facts and details that she should have known
were classified. In a few cases, the emails bore markings to indicate they contained classified information.
However, investigators did not find evidence she knowingly or intentionally disclosed government secrets or that she exposed secrets
through gross negligence. Clinton's apparent interest was in maintaining her privacy.
... ... ...
Stewart Baker, a top national security lawyer in the Bush administration, called Comey's statement "pretty damning for Secretary
Clinton, even if the facts don't make for an impressive criminal case. He suggests that she should have been, or arguably could still
be, subjected to 'security or administrative sanctions.' What he doesn't say, but what we can infer, is that she ran those incredible
risks with national security information because she was more worried about the GOP reading her mail than of Russian or Chinese spies
reading it. That's appalling," he said.
knox.bob.xpg
No amount of facts, no amount of evidence, and no amount of lies will change the minds of supporters of Hillary Clinton. Her
coronation was pre-determined. Ideology is more important to her supporters than the quality of the candidate. While brash, Trump
nailed it yesterday. The fix was in and the optics played out.
HIllary lied about her servers, she lied about sending classified information, she lied about the re-classification of
confidential, secret and SAP documents. Some two hours after Comey's announcement, she and Obama took off on Air Force One for
a rally together.
Obama would have never done this if Comey's decision was to seek criminal charges. Presidential travel is not spur
of the moment, it is carefully planned weeks in advance. So what happened here ? I believe Comey knew that DOJ would not seek
criminal charges against her despite the overwhelming evidence of gross negligence.
Comey "fried" her yesterday and now she will be tried in the court of public opinion. There are simply some people who believe
that global warming, income inequality, and transgender bathrooms are more important than ISIS, our economy, terror, or national
debt.
unclesmrgol
Hillary has been freed from any punishment, for some animals are more important than others.
But a new security regimen is dawning for those who hold security clearances. According to the FBI, they are now free to
transfer data between secure and non-secure networks without punishment, as long as the INTENT is not to harm the United States.
That is the new standard, and a mighty fine one it is -- right?
SandyDago
A retired FBI agent on Fox said this : The Comey conference was to take the heat off of Lynch - because if the FBI had
just been quiet with their results, and it would have been Lynch who came out and said...No charges - AFTER the Phoenix scandal,
people would really be skeptical. end -
That seems very obvious at this point...The FBI does not do - what James Comey did yesterday. No comment is how they roll -
Yet we get a play by play yesterday.
Of course this took AG-LL off the hook. NOW - for all of this to fall in place? Had to be some meetings beforehand - AG
- FBI and Whitehouse general council - 3 US government lawyers colluding this event - to make SURE they have jobs the next 4 years
and the GRATITUDE of Potus Hillary.
Corrupt? I would not go that far...let's just say DIRTY.
Chris Crusade
"Gross negligence" is the standard under 18 U.S.C., section 793-f. FBI Director Comey said Hillary Clinton was "extremely
careless" in her handling of highly classified information. What's the difference, other than semantics, between "gross negligence"
and "extremely careless?"
lon.ball
Hillary's emails may be great confirmation of Hillary's war role in the Mid-east and even Ukraine.
However, more to the point they confirm for all Democrats that Hillary's agenda is the Neo-con one of Geo. W. Bush's handlers
from PNAC, Chicago School of Economics, Bill Kristol, Robert Kagan and his wife Victoria Nuland. (The Neo-con/Neo-liberal company
includes Larry Summers, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.) She is not a run of the mill hawk like John McCain, she is a New
World Order marionette just as Geo W was. She needs to be dumped as she is beholden to anti-democratic values of elitism.
Bill Kristol is attacking Donald Trump because his candidate is Hillary. (See this article
in this issue.) So, it is not about Democrat vs. Republican. The new political dichotomy is Centralization (corporatism, totalitarian,
collectivism) vs. Personal Constitutional freedom. I am a lifelong Democrat and Sanders man who is "never Hillary" for good reason.
I cannot sit by idly and watch as our national Democracy continues to devolve into world fascism with the Neo-cons. Hillary is
a traitor to the Nation and to the late great Democratic Party.
It is time for the old right and old progressive left to unite for preservation of the US Constitution
and personal freedom. Never Hillary; never New World Order!"
less
tommy501
This was historical. Law enforcement does not make decisions on prosecution. That is left to prosecutors. Law enforcement
are fact finders who should have presented the case to a career professional prosecutor to make a decision.
The question is, why was well established policy and protocol violated and the case not presented to a prosecutor for a
decision? Ask any local D.A. If they reject a case, they write a "reject" documenting their rationale. In a very public or complicated
case, that reject is written in great detail regarding each and every potential charge.
Something's fishy.
andytek2
@tommy501 he didn't make a prosecutorial decision he only said that no reasonable prosecutor would file charges.
DennisWV
The Obama Administration has prosecuted more people under the same WW I espionage act than all other administrations COMBINED.
Comey has prosecuted a person under this act for a 21-word email .not 30,000 destroyed emails.
Everybody knows this was fixed. The examples of similar incidents, putting people in jail, are coming out of the shadows.
It is time to vote the career politicians out of office and take our country back.
Outside the Herd
NSA has copies of every email sent to/from US, & likely most others, for last 10+ years. So they have all 30,000+ of the
emails she deleted.
FBI & O knew months ago what was in all of them, & delayed looking away until primaries were clinched. Which was also crooked,
ask Bernie's peep's.
Andre-Leonard
"A second law makes it a crime to "remove" secret documents kept by the government or to allow them to be stolen through
"gross negligence."
Funny how they went after Edward Snowden for the very same thing. Yet no one in their 'right' mind expected a Justice Department
led by Obama to allow for Billary to be indicted. It's all about favorites here and justice is 'not' really blind.
kenwrite9
When she was in foreign countries she should have known that those countries spy on American officials. I now that, why she
did not is strange. When in the Navy I saw a LT. career destroyed for leaving a top secret safe open over night. We did not
know who maybe got in. The assumption by NCIS was that someone did enter and Top Secret information was taken. He was prosecuted
for maybe forgetting and Clinton no prosecution for being dumb?
"... Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18) ..."
"... The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence. ..."
"... It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. ..."
"... Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged. ..."
"... Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we've decided she shouldn't be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information. ..."
"... To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton's conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case. ..."
Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18):
With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from
its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent
violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was "extremely careless" and strongly suggested
that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence
services.
In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not
require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence
is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry
out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant.
People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.
... ... ...
It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has
not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse
the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged.
Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration
of the crimes that actually have been charged. It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today. It has told the public
that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require
proof of intent to harm the United States.
Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of
classified information, we've decided she shouldn't be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information.
I think highly of Jim Comey personally and professionally, but this makes no sense to me. Finally, I was especially unpersuaded
by Director Comey's claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI.
To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through
gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the
statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton's conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions
are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.
"... The truth is that the pretext for military intervention was almost as thin in Yugoslavia as it was in Libya. ..."
"... SANCTIONS HAVE been the favorite smart weapon of both Clintons. Iraq was the target country for Bill in the 1990s, as Iran would be for Hillary starting in 2009. The point of sanctions is to inflict pain, in response to which (it is hoped) the people will blame their government. The point is therefore also to create the conditions for regime change. Neither of the Clintons seems to have absorbed a central lesson of the Amnesty International Report on Cuba in 1975–76: that the "persistence of fear, real or imagined, of counterrevolutionary conspiracies" bore the primary responsibility for "the early [Cuban] excesses in the treatment of political prisoners"; and that "the removal of that fear has been largely responsible for the improvements in conditions." Both Clintons have felt pressed to perform supererogatory works to show that liberals can be tough. For Mrs. Clinton, there is the additional need-from self-demand as much as external pressure-to prove that a female leader can be tougher than her male counterpart. ..."
"... Those sentences are notable for a historical omission and a non sequitur. The NATO expansion that began under George H. W. Bush, was enhanced in the presidency of Bill Clinton and continued under George W. Bush and Obama, was not a widely appreciated moderate policy, as Mrs. Clinton implies. The policy was subject to skeptical challenge from the first, and one of its sharpest critics was George F. Kennan. (He described it, coincidentally, as "a tragic mistake.") Leaving aside the abridgment of history, there is a disturbing logical jump in Clinton's dismissal of the challenge regarding NATO. The gratitude expressed by newly admitted member states does nothing at all to "refute" the fact that Vladimir Putin, along with many Western diplomats, thought the post–Cold War expansion of a Cold War entity was a hostile policy directed provocatively against Russia in its own backyard. ..."
"... Her sentences about NATO could have been written by Tony Blair; and this explains why at least three neoconservatives-Eliot A. Cohen, Max Boot and Robert Kagan, in ascending order of enthusiasm-have indicated that a Clinton presidency would be agreeable to them. She is a reliable option for them. ..."
"... Her comparison of Putin to Hitler in March 2014 and her likening of Crimean Russians to Sudeten Germans were reminiscent, too, of the specter of Munich evoked by an earlier secretary of state, Dean Rusk, to defend the escalation of the Vietnam War in 1965-the kind of tragic mistake that Hillary Clinton seems prepared to repeat for the most laudable of humanitarian reasons. ..."
An incorrigible belief in the purity of one's motives is among the most dangerous endowments a
politician can possess.
... ... ...
Clinton gave two pages to the war in her memoir Living History. She sympathized there with the burden of responsibility borne by
President Johnson for "a war he'd inherited," which turned out to be "a tragic mistake." Johnson
is her focus: the man of power who rode a tiger he could not dismount. On a second reading, "mistake"
may seem too light a word to characterize a war that destroyed an agrarian culture forever and killed
between one and three million Vietnamese. "Mistake" is also the word that Hillary Clinton has favored
in answering questions about her vote for the Iraq War.
Like every Democrat who has run for
president since 1960, Clinton sometimes talks as if she wished foreign policy would go away. A president's
most important responsibility, she agrees, is to strengthen the bonds of neighborhood and community
at home, to assure a decent livelihood for working Americans and an efficient system of benefits
for all. Yet her four years as secretary of state-chronicled in a second volume of memoirs,
Hard Choices-have licensed her
to speak with the authority of a veteran in the world of nations. War and diplomacy, as that book
aimed to show, have become an invaluable adjunct to her skill set. Clinton would want us to count
as well a third tool besides war and diplomacy. She calls it (after a coinage by Joseph Nye) "smart
power." Smart power, for her, denotes a kind of pressure that may augment the force of arms and the
persuasive work of diplomacy. It draws on the network of civil society, NGOs, projects for democracy
promotion and managed operations of social media, by which the United States over the past quarter
of a century has sought to weaken the authority of designated enemies and to increase leverage on
presumptive or potential friends. Smart power is supposed to widen the prospects of liberal society
and assist the spread of human rights. Yet the term itself creates a puzzle. Hillary Clinton's
successful advocacy of violent regime change in Libya and her continuing call to support armed insurgents
against the Assad government in Syria have been arguments for war, but arguments that claim a special
exemption. For these wars-both the one we led and the one we should have led-were "humanitarian wars."
This last phrase Clinton has avoided using, just as she has avoided explaining her commitment to
the internationalist program known as "Responsibility to Protect," with its broad definition of genocide
and multiple triggers for legitimate intervention. Instead, in a Democratic primary debate in October
2015, she chose to characterize the Libya war as "smart power at its best."
The NATO action to overthrow Muammar el-Qaddafi, in which Clinton played so decisive a role,
has turned out to be a catastrophe with strong resemblances to Iraq-a catastrophe smaller in degree
but hardly less consequential in its ramifications, from North Africa to the Middle East to southern
Europe. The casus belli was the hyperbolic threat by Qaddafi to annihilate a rebel force in Benghazi.
His vow to hunt down the rebels "like rats" door to door could be taken to mean a collective punishment
of inhabitants of the city, but Qaddafi had marched from the west to the east of Libya, in command
of an overwhelming force, without the occurrence of any such massacre, and the Pentagon and U.S.
intelligence assigned low credibility to the threat. Clinton took more seriously an alarmist reading
of Qaddafi by Bernard-Henri Lévy, Nicolas Sarkozy, David Cameron, Susan Rice and Samantha Power,
and chose to interpret his threat as a harbinger of "genocide."
Landler, in his book Alter Egos on the Clinton-Obama relationship, joins the consensus
that has lately emerged from the reporting of Patrick Cockburn, Anne Barnard and other journalists
on the ground. "Libya," Landler writes, "has descended into a state of Mad Max–like anarchy";
the country is now "a seedbed for militancy that has spread west and south across Africa"; it "has
become the most important Islamic State stronghold outside Syria and Iraq"; "it sends waves of desperate
migrants across the Mediterranean, where they drown in capsized vessels within sight of Europe."
Clinton's most recent comments, however, leave no doubt that she continues to believe in the healing
virtue of smart power. The belief appears to be genuine and not tactical.
FOLLOW HER definition a little further and a host of perplexities arise. Cyber war could presumably
be justified as a use of smart power, on the Clinton model, since it damages the offensive capabilities
of a hostile power in an apparently bloodless way. Shall we therefore conclude that the deployment
of the Stuxnet worm against Iran's nuclear program was an achievement of smart power? Or consider
a related use that would disrupt the flow of water or electricity in a city of three million persons
controlled by a government hostile to the United States-an action aimed at stirring discontents to
spur an insurrection. Could that be called smart power? We approach a region in which terminological
ingenuity may skirt the edge of sophistry; yet this is the rhetorical limbo in which a good deal
of U.S. policy is conceived and executed.
Clinton also plainly has in view the civil associations that we subsidize abroad, and the democracy-promotion
groups, funded indirectly through USAID, the National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House and
other organizations. The nonviolent protests that turned bloody in Tahrir Square in Cairo, and in
the Maidan in Kiev, received indications of American support by means both avowed and unavowed-a
fact acknowledged by Victoria Nuland (assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs)
when in December 2013 she said that more than $5 billion had been spent on democracy promotion in
Ukraine since 1992. If the story of the Syrian Civil War is ever fully told, we are likely to discover
that the early "liberal" or "moderate" rebels were encouraged in their misreading of U.S. intentions
through social-media messaging approved by forces within the U.S. government.
In Ideal Illusions-a study
of the history of NGOs, the international culture of rights and U.S. foreign policy-James Peck noticed
how the responsibilities of the caretakers of human rights had expanded after the 1970s "from prisoners
of conscience to the rights of noncombatants to democratization to humanitarian intervention." It
is the last of these elements that completes the R2P package; and Hillary Clinton is among its warmest
partisans. The Western powers have a moral obligation to intervene, she believes, especially when
that means guarding the rights of women and assuring the welfare of the neediest children. Her mistakes
in the cause have been not tragic like President Johnson's in Vietnam but, as she sees them, small,
incidental and already too harshly judged. One ought to err on the side of action, of intervention.
And military intervention in this regard bears a likeness to the "community intervention" that may
save the life of a child in an abusive family.
The bombing, invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 were, among other things, an experiment to
prove the neoconservative strategy of "force projection." The experiment did not work out as planned.
By contrast, the test for liberal interventionists was Kosovo, and popular memory has abetted the
legend that Kosovo was a success. Thus Anne-Marie Slaughter was able to
write in a tweet
regarding the Munich Security Conference of February 2014: "Contrast b/w Serb-Kosovo panel this morning
& ME panel now at #msc50 so striking; in Balkans US was willing to ACT w/ diplomacy AND force." Recall
that, in order to create the nation of Kosovo, NATO acted against the nation of Yugoslavia with smart
power whose leading articulation was seventy-seven days of bombing. The satisfied pronouncements
on Kosovo and Libya that emanate from liberal interventionists show a striking continuity. As a director
of policy planning in Clinton's State Department, Slaughter had written to her boss three days after
the start of the NATO bombing of Libya: "I have NEVER been prouder of having worked for you."
The truth is that the pretext for military intervention was almost as thin in Yugoslavia as
it was in Libya. There, too, genocide was said to be in progress-the slaughter of tens of thousands
of ethnic Albanians-but the reports were chimerical. In
First Do No Harm: Humanitarian Intervention and
the Destruction of Yugoslavia, David Gibbs concluded that approximately two thousand
had been killed before the NATO bombing; whereas, during the bombing itself and in retaliation for
it, Serbian security forces killed approximately ten thousand. Given the status of the episode in
liberal mythology, the treatment of Kosovo in Living History is oddly minimal: less than a
paragraph, all told, scattered over several chapters. Living History was published in 2003;
and it seems possible that Clinton had an inkling of the mob violence that would break out in March
2004 in the nationwide pogrom against the Serbs of Kosovo-violence that would lead in early 2016
to the construction of tent cities in the capital, Pristina, and the firing of tear gas canisters
in parliament to protest the abridgment of the political rights of the remaining ethnic minority.
The aftermath of the Kosovo intervention has recently entered a new chapter. "How
Kosovo Was Turned Into Fertile Ground for ISIS" was the astute headline of a New York Times
story by Carlotta Gall, on May 21, 2016. Gall's opening sentence offers a symptomatic tableau:
"Every Friday, just yards from a statue of Bill Clinton with arm aloft in a cheery wave, hundreds
of young bearded men make a show of kneeling to pray on the sidewalk outside an impoverished mosque
in a former furniture store."
SANCTIONS HAVE been the favorite smart weapon of both Clintons. Iraq was the target country
for Bill in the 1990s, as Iran would be for Hillary starting in 2009. The point of sanctions is to
inflict pain, in response to which (it is hoped) the people will blame their government. The point
is therefore also to create the conditions for regime change. Neither of the Clintons seems to have
absorbed a central lesson of the Amnesty International Report on Cuba in 1975–76: that the "persistence
of fear, real or imagined, of counterrevolutionary conspiracies" bore the primary responsibility
for "the early [Cuban] excesses in the treatment of political prisoners"; and that "the removal of
that fear has been largely responsible for the improvements in conditions." Both Clintons have felt
pressed to perform supererogatory works to show that liberals can be tough. For Mrs. Clinton, there
is the additional need-from self-demand as much as external pressure-to prove that a female leader
can be tougher than her male counterpart.
Landler's account suggests that neither the Iran nuclear deal nor the restoration of diplomatic
relations with Cuba would have been likely to occur in a Hillary Clinton presidency. When President
Obama
announced the thaw with Cuba in December 2014, he said that the United States "wants to be a
partner in making the lives of ordinary Cubans a little bit easier, more free, more prosperous."
Clinton, by contrast, warned that the Cuban regime should not mistake the gesture for a relaxation
of hostility; and
on a visit to Miami in July 2015, she threw in a characteristic warning and proviso: "Engagement
is not a gift to the Castros. It's a threat to the Castros." She thereby subverted the meaning of
Obama's policy while ostensibly supporting the measure itself.
"Superpowers
Don't Get to Retire" was the title and message of a New Republic essay by Robert Kagan,
published in May 2014, about the time it became clear that President Obama would not be confronting
Russia over its annexation of Crimea and would disappoint the neoconservative appetite for regime
change in Syria. Writing in Hard Choices of the eastward expansion of NATO, Clinton concurred:
"In the wake of Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea in early 2014, some have argued that
NATO expansion either caused or exacerbated Russia's aggression. I disagree with that argument,
but the most convincing voices refuting it are those European leaders and people who express their
gratitude for NATO membership."
Those sentences are notable for a historical omission and a non sequitur. The NATO expansion
that began under George H. W. Bush, was enhanced in the presidency of Bill Clinton and continued
under George W. Bush and Obama, was not a widely appreciated moderate policy, as Mrs. Clinton implies.
The policy was subject to skeptical challenge from the first, and one of its sharpest critics was
George F. Kennan. (He described it, coincidentally, as "a tragic mistake.") Leaving aside the abridgment
of history, there is a disturbing logical jump in Clinton's dismissal of the challenge regarding
NATO. The gratitude expressed by newly admitted member states does nothing at all to "refute" the
fact that Vladimir Putin, along with many Western diplomats, thought the post–Cold War expansion
of a Cold War entity was a hostile policy directed provocatively against Russia in its own backyard.
It would do no harm to her persuasiveness if Clinton admitted a degree of truth in the case made
by her opponents, whether on the Libya war, the advisability of repeating that experiment in Syria,
or the innocent design of propagating democracy that drove the expansion of NATO. An incorrigible
belief in the purity of one's motives is among the most dangerous endowments a politician can possess.
Her sentences about NATO could have been written by Tony Blair; and this explains why at least
three neoconservatives-Eliot A. Cohen, Max Boot and Robert Kagan, in ascending order of enthusiasm-have
indicated that a Clinton presidency would be agreeable to them. She is a reliable option for them.
Her comparison of Putin to Hitler in March 2014 and her likening of Crimean Russians to Sudeten
Germans were reminiscent, too, of the specter of Munich evoked by an earlier secretary of state,
Dean Rusk, to defend the escalation of the Vietnam War in 1965-the kind of tragic mistake that Hillary
Clinton seems prepared to repeat for the most laudable of humanitarian reasons.
"... Built with public subsidies, a Montréal firm can shift its 'head office' to a tax haven and workforce abroad, but Ottawa will continue to use its diplomatic, economic and military might to advance the company's reactionary international interests. ..."
Built with public subsidies, a Montréal firm can shift its 'head office' to a tax
haven and workforce abroad, but Ottawa will continue to use its diplomatic, economic
and military might to advance the company's reactionary international interests.
As
part of its coverage of the Panama Papers, the Toronto Star recently
reported that Gildan Activewear paid only a
2.8% tax rate on more than $1.3 billion US in declared income the last five years
and it's unclear
if any of the apparel company's measly $38 million in tax was paid in Canada.
"... So Warren left the GOP because they were becoming too much for banking and wall street. And now she joins with Clinton who takes tens of millions a year from big banks and Wall Street. Go figure. ..."
"... The writer I think is trying to imply Clinton is not a neoliberal. This is dog whistle media politics of implying something else about Clinton who comprehensively not what this person is writing as if. So once she is elected courtesy I must say of Trump she will immediately act behind the scenes to effect neoliberal goals and policies. ..."
"... Warren the converted republican is just another neoliberal pretender to progressive stances. ..."
"... sHillary should fess up to her corruption and crimes, face criminal charges, and acknowledge that we need Bernie. The young people would happy indeed. ..."
"... This is a beautiful metaphor for after brexit: "This is really a battle between the pimps of Wall Street and the whores of Wall Street." Redistribution of wealth again to rich again. ..."
"... This is completely unfair..... Clinton listens to the young. The young bankers, the young hedge funders, the young trust funders, all are welcome as long as they pay. ..."
"... Lots of older people are specifically rejecting the dog-eat-dog globalization game, even as 30-something tech industrialists fight for ever fewer barriers to capital flight, cheaper immigrant workers and disruptive technologies. ..."
"... When nearly half of federal tax money is spent on death destruction and endless war and when the only thing our leaders can agree on is spending for more of the same all to the benefit of Central Banking and the MIC you think the young voting for Killary will put things right? Dream on, good luck and good night. Get off your ass. ..."
"... So, regardless of what the media call it, the question is how long the system will resist the torrent of protests of the people angered due to miserable socio-economic situation in which they find themselves without a big fault of their own. ..."
"... What is more interesting, Bernie Sanders who was unjustly called "a radical" is actually very careful in its demands, addressing at the same time dissatisfied people and the state establishment as well, and trying to find a point of an agreement between the first and the later. ..."
"... So, in my opinion, there are only two options here. The establishment can accept this alleviated form of socialism promoted by Bernie, or by Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, all together with the vocabulary of "socialist euphemisms" that they are using now. ..."
"... Hillary has no interest in "winning" Bernie supporters. She simply expects us to come to heel, and Donald Trump is the rolled-up newspaper we are threatened to be smacked with, unless we obey. ..."
"... Warren-Clinton would be a respectable ticket. Clinton-Warren is significantly less so, and both seem highly unlikely to me ..."
"... The problem Bernie supporters have with Hillary is more about policy than it is about genitalia. If you don't figure that out before November, you'll be quite surprised when a large number of reputedly misogynist "young Bernie men" end up voting for Jill Stein. ..."
"... Wrong answer. Hillary should pay no attention to the young. Hillary listens only to those who pay her, like Wall Street. Hillary pays the Clinton foundation money only to those guaranteed to vote in blocs, and she monitors them. Ethnic and single-issue groups can be counted on to vote as paid. ..."
"... It's her's, Obama's and the rest of the party leadership on both the left and the right that have created a vacuum on issues such as immigration. They refuse to acknowledge real problems associated with large scale and unrestricted immigration. ..."
"... Clinton's campaign/DNC supporters are already going showing their non-progressive stances, they have just voted down progressive amendments, including minimum wage, fracking and TPP. ..."
"... Lawless illegal immigration has nothing to do with diversity. It's basically preferred cheap labor over our own citizens. If only Hillary and the DNC fought that hard for the 46 million Americans living in poverty. They put their party's interests before our country. ..."
"... One more article that only if $hillary can triangulate, with some meaningless platitudes she will win over the Bernie Voters. I am a Boomer and I voted for Bernie in the Primary in my state and donated to his campaign. I still have the Bernie yard sign in my from yard and Bernie Bumper Sticker. I will not be triangulated by $hillary. If Bernie is not on the ballot for President I will vote for Jill Stein. ..."
"... I guess it is a case of $hillary's Oligarchs are better than the Koch Bros. ..."
"... You must be new to Mrs. Clinton. She listens to her handlers who work up carefully scripted and rehearsed sound bites that can trick people into believing that she is authentic and cares about the problems of the 99%. For everything else, the communication is transmit-only. Now curtsy, close your trap, and move along - she doesn't have time for your drivel! ..."
"... Clinton is all talk and Trump is all nonsense. As soon as she gets her tiara, she'll be right back to doing whatever she feels like doing. The two of them are off-the-charts narcissists who simply want power and the ability to use that power. Everything either of their supporters project onto them is just nonsensical wishful thinking. ..."
"... The basic problem is that New Democrats like Bill Clinton threw the traditional Democratic constituencies under the bus. I gather that something similar happened in the UK, and that New Labour under Tony Blair did likewise. ..."
Hillary is not a progressive she is a neoliberal. The business community has done what it does
to cut costs - globalization is not much more than a scheme to cut labor costs. It is the job
of our political leaders to see to it that our trade policies promote prosperity for all Americans.
It is impossible to expect politicians who depend on money from financial interests - including
Hillary - to fulfill that mandate to the American public.
The young should see Hillary for what she is, a corrupt part of the old guard of politicians
serving the business community and should vote for candidates who serve social justice. Which
of course why the young liberals supported Bernie Sanders.
So Warren left the GOP because they were becoming too much for banking and wall street. And
now she joins with Clinton who takes tens of millions a year from big banks and Wall Street. Go
figure.
The writer I think is trying to imply Clinton is not a neoliberal. This is dog whistle media
politics of implying something else about Clinton who comprehensively not what this person is
writing as if. So once she is elected courtesy I must say of Trump she will immediately act behind
the scenes to effect neoliberal goals and policies.
There is not the slightest chance that Clinton will do anything progressive. The current painting
of Elizabeth Warren as the great progressive banner holder is part of this nonsense. Warren
the converted republican is just another neoliberal pretender to progressive stances. Being
for bankruptcy is not a meaningful progressive position to take. Their pretense hides their deep
ties to Wall Street, and the election of Clinton and her promoting neoliberalism will be just
the sort of thing the young need to see that betrays their trust so that change can happen over
these "politically bankrupt" polls.
That's actually a great idea... sHillary should fess up to her corruption and crimes, face
criminal charges, and acknowledge that we need Bernie. The young people would happy indeed.
This is a beautiful metaphor for after brexit: "This is really a battle between the pimps
of Wall Street and the whores of Wall Street." Redistribution of wealth again to rich again.
This is completely unfair..... Clinton listens to the young. The young bankers, the young
hedge funders, the young trust funders, all are welcome as long as they pay.
This is really a battle between the pimps of Wall Street and the whores of Wall Street. No
one else really has any skin in the game.
"Young people are rejecting dog-eat-dog economics and welcoming diversity, while large chunks
of our older and supposedly wiser compatriots do the exact opposite. "
Is that what you think your older compatriots' think? How ageist.
Lots of older people are specifically rejecting the dog-eat-dog globalization game, even
as 30-something tech industrialists fight for ever fewer barriers to capital flight, cheaper immigrant
workers and disruptive technologies.
That Abbott Labs just forced their fired IT staff to train their H1-B visa replacements and
sign contracts to remain silent, doesn't mean they're against immigration or diversity. Just,
against insidious ways corporations seek to replace domestic workers with uncomplaining indentured
servants from India.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-abbott-layoffs-durbin-0302-biz-20160301-story.html
No age group is a monolith. How about older and younger people try to work together for a country
we'd all like to live in.
Spot on: "The great test of whether Clinton understands the generational opportunity will be her
selection of a running mate. If she plays it safe with a conservative white male in the hopes
of not offending furious older voters, she'll risk leaving young Americans disgusted by Trump
but uninspired by her. On the other hand, selecting a vice presidential nominee with a clear track
record of progressive policies, such as an Elizabeth Warren, would send a clear signal that Clinton
hears the voice of a generation demanding more from the future than a slightly kinder neoliberalism."
Actually, the same thing happened with Obama. He chose Biden (and Rahm Emanuel as his chief
of staff) making huge mistakes on both men. They helped kill real change.
Hillary Clinton needs to chose Warren or the Sanders backers will simply not support her. They
will either abstain from voting or vote for Jill Stein.
When nearly half of federal tax money is spent on death destruction and endless war and when
the only thing our leaders can agree on is spending for more of the same all to the benefit of
Central Banking and the MIC you think the young voting for Killary will put things right? Dream
on, good luck and good night. Get off your ass.
Hillary supporters do not frequent the internet and where they do not in places they are likely
to find valuable information. There is a search tool. you can research all of Hillary's history
and it is not pretty. Like this it is not some grand conspiracy. she really was at the gmo Association.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1AkrQaWwMc
At least as it was told to us, socialism as a state project has failed some 25 years ago. Then,
some eight years ago capitalism has also come to a major crisis, the biggest since the Great Depression
of the 30s. And this has led to a revival of socialist ideas exactly where it was least expected,
that is, in the capitalist West. From Greece, through Spain, Great Britain ... and all the way
to the United States, the people cheered again essentially socialist ideas, and the election campaigns
takes the form of popular movements, which are commonly called by the media as a "populism" .
So, regardless of what the media call it, the question is how long the system will resist
the torrent of protests of the people angered due to miserable socio-economic situation in which
they find themselves without a big fault of their own.
What is more interesting, Bernie Sanders who was unjustly called "a radical" is actually
very careful in its demands, addressing at the same time dissatisfied people and the state establishment
as well, and trying to find a point of an agreement between the first and the later.
To make sure that this is true, it is sufficient to note that Sanders' statements are
full of euphemisms. He is a "democratic socialist," and not just "socialist," and his "revolution"
is just a "political revolution". Then, Bernie talks about "rigged economy" that is rigged in
favor of the richest 1%, or even worse, one-tenth of one percent. But if you'd asked, "Since when
the economy is rigged this way?", every true socialists including Bernie would probably replied,"Ever
since the capitalism was created!" :-)))
So, in my opinion, there are only two options here. The establishment can accept this alleviated
form of socialism promoted by Bernie, or by Jeremy Corbyn in the UK, all together with the vocabulary
of "socialist euphemisms" that they are using now.
And the other option is that the establishment will soon be faced with another kind
of Socialists, who will openly propagate the pure socialism without any euphemisms or any excuses.
With this kind of guys it would be difficult to make any compromise, because they are fighting
because "they have nothing to lose". And if the establishment would say to them that their ideas
are disaster for the country, they would then reply: "So what? If we are already perishing, let
perish together!"
Hillary has no interest in "winning" Bernie supporters. She simply expects us to come to heel,
and Donald Trump is the rolled-up newspaper we are threatened to be smacked with, unless we obey.
I've voted blue-no-matter-who too many times in the 35 years since I first registered
Democratic. No more. Never Hillary, Never Trump -- Political Revolution NOW
Warren-Clinton would be a respectable ticket. Clinton-Warren is significantly less so, and
both seem highly unlikely to me. The first because Clinton doesn't seem the type that would
want to play second fiddle in a figurehead role, and the second because Warren as VP would be
a waste of her talents, and she's come as close as she can to refusing it outright without actually
ruling it out. No thinking person should want to waste Warren in the VP role.
The problem Bernie supporters have with Hillary is more about policy than it is about genitalia.
If you don't figure that out before November, you'll be quite surprised when a large number of
reputedly misogynist "young Bernie men" end up voting for Jill Stein.
Wrong answer. Hillary should pay no attention to the young. Hillary listens only to those
who pay her, like Wall Street. Hillary pays the Clinton foundation money only to those guaranteed
to vote in blocs, and she monitors them. Ethnic and single-issue groups can be counted on to vote
as paid.
Youth constitutes no bloc vote. They are all over the place and they are not herdable.
Also far too many youth are hampered by principles and ideals.
That's strange, I'd have suggested the very opposite to Clinton. It's her's, Obama's and the
rest of the party leadership on both the left and the right that have created a vacuum on issues
such as immigration. They refuse to acknowledge real problems associated with large scale and
unrestricted immigration.
Not only have they refused to acknowledge those problems, but they accuse anyone who's views
differ, of racism and bigotry. in doing so, they've allowed Trump to fill that populist void.
Clinton would be wise to not give a populist full control of such topics and moderate her stance.
Not doing so, as Britain has demonstrated, only further divides a citizenry.
Clinton's campaign/DNC supporters are already going showing their non-progressive stances,
they have just voted down progressive amendments, including minimum wage, fracking and TPP.
I'm a Boomer. And I fully support the political revolution led by Bernie Sanders. I will not vote
for Hillary Clinton for any reason. Big Media and the DNC colluded with Hillary from the very
start. If the DNC really cared for the working class, it would have promoted fairness. Look at
the actions; do they match the words? No.
The Chinese economy stopped being Communist long ago. You could make a case that it's fascist
since one definition of fascism is a free market economy in tight cahoots with an autocratic government.
But whatever you call it, Chinese Millenials have a more positive attitude toward their futures
than western ones do.
Lawless illegal immigration has nothing to do with diversity. It's basically preferred cheap
labor over our own citizens. If only Hillary and the DNC fought that hard for the 46 million Americans
living in poverty. They put their party's interests before our country.
One more article that only if $hillary can triangulate, with some meaningless platitudes she
will win over the Bernie Voters. I am a Boomer and I voted for Bernie in the Primary in my state
and donated to his campaign. I still have the Bernie yard sign in my from yard and Bernie Bumper
Sticker. I will not be triangulated by $hillary. If Bernie is not on the ballot for President
I will vote for Jill Stein.
When the party establishments only offer garbage, why does anyone bother to vote? The choices
all lead to no improvement at all, so I find it hard to blame anyone for not coming out. I vote
every time, but I am finding myself writing people in for positions as a protest because too many
candidates don't deserve the office they seek.
Oh Horseshit. Young people know next to Goddamn nothing. All of us older folks know that because
, believe it or not, we were once young people ourselves.
Free college tuition is a give away to the white middle class. College tuition would fall into
a reasonable range tomorrow if we reinstated a Federal student Loan Program with a max amount
allowed a year. Tuituion at public universities would be within a $1,000 bucks of that in short
order.
The current problem had its start when Bush Junior created a private banking program for student
loans. Kids starting borrowing massive amounts and schools started raising tuition like it was
going out of style. Tuition has more than doubled at penn State and Pitt in the last 10 years,
for no reason apparent to anybody.
Free college tuition is a give away to the white middle class.
If everyone is taxed to pay for tuition, how can it possibly be considered a "giveaway" specifically
to the middle class? Why is the middle class the only group that should pay for college (it's
nothing to the rich to afford and the poor get grants)?
You must be new to Mrs. Clinton. She listens to her handlers who work up carefully scripted
and rehearsed sound bites that can trick people into believing that she is authentic and cares
about the problems of the 99%. For everything else, the communication is transmit-only. Now curtsy,
close your trap, and move along - she doesn't have time for your drivel!
Saying Clinton is the better choice over Trump is like saying Mussolini is a better choice over
Stalin.
And just the same, want nothing to do with these scumbags.
Clinton is all talk and Trump is all nonsense. As soon as she gets her tiara, she'll be
right back to doing whatever she feels like doing. The two of them are off-the-charts narcissists
who simply want power and the ability to use that power. Everything either of their supporters
project onto them is just nonsensical wishful thinking.
The best and only answer with such a galling selection is to follow the path that gets
either of them out of office as fast as possible.
Hillary is too busy warmongering to listen. She's too busy threatening Snowden to listen. She
has too much Wall Street money stuffed in her ears to listen.
The basic problem is that New Democrats like Bill Clinton threw the traditional Democratic
constituencies under the bus. I gather that something similar happened in the UK, and that New
Labour under Tony Blair did likewise.
From what I can see here, it's hardly Jeremy Corbyn's fault that those traditional Labour constituencies
refused to do as they were told. Instead, they chose to make a stand against immigration, globalization,
and free trade. Of course, they get called racists for all that. It's the customary rejoinder
these days.
What needs to happen here and there is the re-empowerment of those people. They need the means
to stand up to globalization and free trade. The ideology that holds that these are some kind
of inevitable natural process, rather than the results of political decisions that hurt most people,
needs to go. This means tariffs and trade barriers on foreign manufactured goods, to bring the
factories back and revive organized labor.
"... In the late 1900s, it was Richard Mellon Scaife and later John M. Olin, who directed and slipped "Trojan-horses" of libertarian ideas into academic institutions, think tanks, courts, statehouses, Congress and finally, the presidency, most notably with the election of 2000. Now the Koch brothers engineer, through semi-annual secret meetings and Citizen United tax-free organizations, most of the efforts to topple democracy. ..."
"... As Republicans acted on the plutocratic plan to polarize and conquer, many predicted that GOP partisan demagoguery would reach a radical extreme, but maybe not be represented by the exploits of narcissist, Donald Trump. Perhaps, more shocking, well after the conservative campaign spread globally, was the British vote on Brexit. In fact, it was almost comical that a stooge of conservatives, David Cameron, confidently – even arrogantly - directed a vote he thought he was sure to win. ..."
"... The motivation for Trump supporters and Brexit voters is not too deep to fathom. Both are angry about inequality, unresponsive government, and institutions that don't work for them. Brexit voters, distrusting a pompous government, see their tormentors as immigrants competing for jobs. Trump supporters, confused about their real enemies, are looking for those unlike themselves as scapegoats. ..."
A natural progression has arisen 40 years after billionaires laid plans for a cultural revolution,
in large part by using fake
organizations of philanthropy – replete with tax breaks – to fund it. It was a masterful
- even outrageous - plan, to make American taxpayers help finance a campaign against us. Most of
their political activities were then and still are written off as tax-deductible "philanthropy."
With this bitter irony, I am sure a number of the corporate moguls "laugh their asses off," to put
it crudely.
In the late 1900s, it was Richard Mellon Scaife and later John M. Olin, who directed and slipped
"Trojan-horses" of libertarian ideas into academic institutions, think tanks, courts, statehouses,
Congress and finally, the presidency, most notably with the election of 2000. Now the Koch brothers
engineer, through semi-annual secret meetings and Citizen United tax-free organizations, most
of the efforts to topple democracy.
But the relentless exploitation of Americans did not end there. Add to that the outright fraud
and thievery by Wall Street of billions of dollars, taken from unsuspecting investors, retirement
funds, and consumers. Bogus investments and the effects of the 2008 recession trashed retirement
accounts for many Americans. Then their allies, the Bush administration, gave them taxpayer money
to bail out the dire impacts of their grifting, followed by the bankruptcy-fearing Obama administration.
The events have been predictable, though some, surprising. For example, in the US, if you really
studied financial conditions, you could have predicted the housing crash and the great recession,
results of unbridled greed and a deregulated Wall Street, events practically inviting abuse.
As Republicans acted on the plutocratic plan to polarize and conquer, many predicted that GOP
partisan demagoguery would reach a radical extreme, but maybe not be represented by the exploits
of narcissist, Donald Trump. Perhaps, more shocking, well after the conservative campaign spread
globally, was the British vote on Brexit. In fact, it was almost comical that a stooge of conservatives,
David Cameron, confidently – even arrogantly - directed a vote he thought he was sure to win.
The motivation for Trump supporters and Brexit voters is not too deep to fathom. Both are angry
about inequality, unresponsive government, and institutions that don't work for them. Brexit voters,
distrusting a pompous government, see their tormentors as immigrants competing for jobs. Trump supporters,
confused about their real enemies, are looking for those unlike themselves as scapegoats.
Meanwhile the GOP feeds the division in our country. They are the worst in terms of supporting
corporate moguls, but the Democrats are compromised as well.
Even Democrat Bill Clinton participated in permitting the mogul-managed, financial free-for-all
in 1999. He joined with Republicans in passing the Financial Services Modernization Act which
did away with restrictions on the integration of banking, insurance and stock trading imposed by
the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. This act had barred commercial banks from engaging in speculative
ventures for almost seventy years and had served the country well, that is until Wall State executives
were made free to swindle – through their own casino capitalism.
The following year, the presidential election of 2000 helped cement a plutocratic takeover when
the conservative members of the Supreme Court appointed George W. Bush as president, stopping a recount
in the Florida election.
Governor Jeb Bush, with his secretary of state, Katherine Harris, oversaw the disenfranchisement
of thousands of black electors in Florida and made the vote closer than it otherwise would have been.
The Bush administration spread the fruits of the conservative revolution, one example being Olin-Foundation
educated John Yoo, the author of the Bush administration's "torture
memo."
The Great Recession of 2008 was
a predictable result of mixing the ingredients of deregulation, casino capitalism, corporate and
private entitlements, and unvarnished greed. Wall Street bankers made extraordinary sums of
money through fraud and never were held accountable. Meanwhile local crime in poorer communities
warranted long prison terms and overstuffed prisons.
Access of the rich to government through thousands of lobbyists and Citizens United elections
pushed the vast majority of Americans out of any government access. Impotency for the majority of
voters became the rule rather than the exception.
The declaration of war by billionaire interests, beginning in the 1970s, was a screaming success.
At the time, the people's government actually protected our environment against polluters, banning
DDT and monitoring drinking water.
The rich were beside themselves. This was not to be tolerated. Indeed, requiring the curtailing
of particle pollution in cities and requiring catalytic convertors on cars was a slap in the face
through the newly created Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). And protecting the people against
toxic foodstuffs and harmful drugs through another agency, the FDA, was downright unfriendly to the
"makers."
Their
Powell Manifesto presented a comprehensive plan of attack that would sweep a corporate culture
into all facets of American and - keeping pace with global developments - global life. With their
piles of money and a reach that swept into the media, courts, publishing, education, and all aspects
of the economy, they conquered.
In once what was a democracy, a peaceful revolution took place right under our noses. Installing
a dictatorship was not needed like pre-world-war-II Germany or the post-1912 Soviet Union or like
South American banana republics. It was done quite skillfully, surreptitiously, by billionaire interests
and billionaire money – with the help of taxpayers, don't forget.
It was a gradual evolution that two generations didn't really notice because others like the poor
were harmed first. The middle class got shafted only gradually: being overlooked for raises, losing
company retirements, manufacturing jobs going away, fringe benefits gradually cut, your share of
health care premiums going up or benefits going away, and privatization and subcontracting becoming
the rule.
Meanwhile, billionaires bought elections in several states. Wisconsin set unions against others
prejudiced by untold hours of watching and listening to right-wing talk shows; then gave tax breaks
to the rich and ruined a great education system. The GOP was installed in North Carolina mainly with
Art
Pope money and went wildly radical: lower taxes for the rich, polluting with coal ash, non-white
voter suppression, reverse Robin Hood, judges for sale, gutting public education and state-sponsored
religion.
The rich, who consider underlings children, perhaps, think that is what Christ meant when he said,
"Suffer my children"? His children did suffer under the coup.
Is this your America now? The democrats partially represent us. Labor union membership is stifled
and more jobs are being exported.
Deal with it, or just find someone other than rich corporate interests to blame – maybe non-whites
or immigrants.
James Hoover is a recently retired systems engineer. He has advanced degrees in
Economics and English. Prior to his aerospace career, he taught high school, and he has also taught
college courses. He recently published a science fiction novel called
Extraordinary
Visitors and writes political columns on several websites.
Read other articles by James.
"... The permanent war state is the 800-pound gorilla in US society and political life. As the old joke goes, the answer to the question, "Where does an 800-pound gorilla eat?" is, "Anywhere he likes." As long as the organs of "national security" continue to retain the extraordinary power to appropriate budgetary resources and to involve the United States in foreign conflicts without real accountability, US politics will be grotesquely distorted to the profound disadvantage of the movement for fundamental change. The Pentagon, the CIA and the National Security Agency will continue to control most of the $1.1 trillion federal discretionary spending budget, crowding out programs that would benefit people. And beyond wielding that obvious financial power, by maintaining the premise that the United States must continue to make war indefinitely, they will also wield an ideological weapon that helps the economic elite maintain the status quo. ..."
"... For more original Truthout election coverage, check out our election section, "Beyond the Sound Bites: Election 2016." ..."
"... But that fundamental obstacle to change was not even mentioned by any of the speakers who introduced the main themes of the conference on the first night. On the second day, US Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) strongly denounced moves by powerful interests for a new war for regime change in Syria, but she did not address the underlying system of institutional interests and power that keeps the United States at permanent war. There was one breakout session entitled "Healthcare Not Warfare," which highlighted what people already know -- that spending for war and preparation for war robs the people of resources needed to build a more prosperous and equitable society. But it was evidently an afterthought for conference organizers, and did not interest many of the attendees, drawing perhaps 30 people. ..."
"... The Sanders campaign never explicitly raised the issue of the permanent war state during the primary election contest, either. He did present a sharp contrast to Hillary Clinton when they debated foreign policy, effectively demolishing her position urging a more militarily aggressive policy in Syria. He called for a policy that "destroys ISIS" but "does not get us involved in perpetual warfare in the quagmire of the Middle East."But he never talked about ending the unprecedented power that national security institutions have seized over the resources and security of the American people. ..."
"... The power of the military-industrial-congressional complex that has morphed into a permanent war state has long been the real "third rail" in US politics, which anyone aspiring to national office touches only at the risk of being branded "anti-American." News media coverage constantly reinforces the idea that US global military presence and aggressiveness are legitimate responses to foreign threats. So, for politicians, explaining why the power of that combination of institutions is a danger not only to people's economic interests, but also to their physical security is seen as extremely difficult and fraught with political risk. Sanders, who had no problem opposing specific wars, undoubtedly feared that an effort to deal with the interests and power behind the wars that most Americans oppose would force him to respond to attacks from the Clinton camp and the corporate media, and thus interfere with his populist message. ..."
"... Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare ..."
The People's Summit in Chicago June 17-19 dramatically displayed both the strengths and the vulnerabilities
of what has emerged in 2016 as one of the most potentially powerful movements for fundamental change
in the United States in many decades. The event, which brought together 3,000 committed movement
activists to rally in support of the "political revolution" given impetus by Bernie Sanders' campaign,
was an opportunity to ensure that the movement will not dissipate in the wake of Hillary Clinton's
clinching the Democratic nomination.
The leaders of the movement sought to use the summit to reconcile conflicting activist views on
the relationship between movement organizations and electoral politics. The summit may have succeeded
in keeping the coalition of those who privilege electoral politics and those who see it as a distraction
from their local struggles from splitting up. But despite the political sophistication and pragmatism
of the organizers, the gathering failed to deal seriously with the problem of the "permanent war
state" -- the central power bloc in the US government that looms menacingly over everything the movement
hopes to accomplish.
The permanent war state is the 800-pound gorilla in US society and political life. As the
old joke goes, the answer to the question, "Where does an 800-pound gorilla eat?" is, "Anywhere he
likes." As long as the organs of "national security" continue to retain the extraordinary power to
appropriate budgetary resources and to involve the United States in foreign conflicts without real
accountability, US politics will be grotesquely distorted to the profound disadvantage of the movement
for fundamental change. The Pentagon, the CIA and the National Security Agency will continue to control
most of the $1.1 trillion federal discretionary spending budget, crowding out programs that would
benefit people. And beyond wielding that obvious financial power, by maintaining the premise that
the United States must continue to make war indefinitely, they will also wield an ideological weapon
that helps the economic elite maintain the status quo.
But that fundamental obstacle to change was not even mentioned by any of the speakers who
introduced the main themes of the conference on the first night. On the second day, US Rep. Tulsi
Gabbard (D-Hawaii) strongly denounced moves by powerful interests for a new war for regime change
in Syria, but she did not address the underlying system of institutional interests and power that
keeps the United States at permanent war. There was one breakout session entitled "Healthcare Not
Warfare," which highlighted what people already know -- that spending for war and preparation for
war robs the people of resources needed to build a more prosperous and equitable society. But it
was evidently an afterthought for conference organizers, and did not interest many of the attendees,
drawing perhaps 30 people.
The permanent war state is the 800-pound gorilla in US society and political life.
The Sanders campaign never explicitly raised the issue of the permanent war state during the
primary election contest, either. He did present a sharp contrast to Hillary Clinton when they debated
foreign policy, effectively demolishing her position urging a more militarily aggressive policy in
Syria. He called for a policy that "destroys ISIS" but "does not get us involved in perpetual warfare
in the quagmire of the Middle East."But he never talked about ending the unprecedented power that
national security institutions have seized over the resources and security of the American people.
It is not difficult to see why Sanders did not take on that larger issue. The power of the
military-industrial-congressional complex that has morphed into a permanent war state has long been
the real "third rail" in US politics, which anyone aspiring to national office touches only at the
risk of being branded "anti-American." News media coverage constantly reinforces the idea that US
global military presence and aggressiveness are legitimate responses to foreign threats. So, for
politicians, explaining why the power of that combination of institutions is a danger not only to
people's economic interests, but also to their physical security is seen as extremely difficult and
fraught with political risk. Sanders, who had no problem opposing specific wars, undoubtedly feared
that an effort to deal with the interests and power behind the wars that most Americans oppose would
force him to respond to attacks from the Clinton camp and the corporate media, and thus interfere
with his populist message.
The permanent war state also appears to be outside the political comfort zone of National Nurses
United, the single most influential organization in planning and funding the People's Summit. As
a senior official of National Nurses United explained, the organization is able to talk about corporate
control of the health care system because nurses constantly see the consequences in their own work,
but most have no such personal experiences enabling them to talk about the war system.
But despite these understandable reasons for taking a pass on the issue, the leadership of the
movement inspired by the Sanders campaign is making a big mistake by failing to take on the problem
of the permanent war state. The popular organizations represented in Chicago understand this, but
they have hesitated to go up against the most powerful combination bureaucratic interests the world
has ever known, in part because they have not had any clear idea about how those interests could
be defeated. What has been not been tried, however, is a strategy that attacks the war system where
it is most vulnerable -- the fact that the war system bureaucrats have systematically pursued their
own personal and institutional interests at the expense of the American people.
The publicly available records of US intervention and war, especially since the beginning of the
Cold War, reveal an endless succession of policies and programs that were utterly useless and provoked
reactions from states and from non-state actors that threatened the safety of the American people.
But the policy makers preferred those policies, because they gave them and their organizations more
power, more budgetary resources, more people under their command, more new technology, more foreign
bases and perquisites, and more lucrative jobs and contracts when they leave the government for private
companies.
All the services were looking for a boost in military appropriations when they pushed Presidents
John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson to intervene militarily in Vietnam. The US Air Force sold its
"shock and awe" strategy for regime change in Iraq to then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in
order to capture a larger share of the military budget. The CIA got control over a major new mission
when it convinced President George W. Bush to launch a drone war in Pakistan.
But the American people suffered the direct and indirect consequences of these wars in each case.
The fundamental conflict between the national interest and the personal and bureaucratic interests
of the policy makers of the permanent war state explains why the system has continued to produce
uniformly disastrous policies decade after decade.
So the strategy of the movement that the Sanders campaign has mobilized must include a broadly
concerted campaign that explains to young people, disaffected working-class people and others how
the permanent war state produces winners and losers. The winners are the national security organs
themselves, as well as those who make careers and fortunes from the permanent state of war. The losers
are those who must suffer the socioeconomic and other consequences of such reckless policies. Such
a campaign should aim at nothing less than taking away the flow of money and the legal authority
that the permanent war state has seized on the pretext of "threats" that are largely of its own making.
Even though the permanent war state seems to be at the peak of its power, like all essentially
hollow institutions, it has a serious political vulnerability. Millions of Americans know that the
wars the war-state agencies have wrought over the past half century -- from the Vietnam War to the
war in Afghanistan -- were worse than useless. So the legitimacy of the permanent war state is extremely
tenuous. A determined campaign to challenge that legitimacy, carried out with sufficient resources
over a few years with the participation of a broad coalition, could shake it to its roots. Such a
campaign must be included in the work to open up new political spaces and propel the movement for
change. Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission
.
Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist and historian writing on US national
security policy. His latest book, Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear
Scare , was published in February of 2014. Follow him on Twitter:
@GarethPorter .
"... There is an interesting campaign going on in Washington right now pushing for a no-fly zone over Syria. As we saw in an earlier thread the petition by those 51 FSOs inside the State Dept calling for this. That was preceded by the main editorial in the WaPo calling for the same. ..."
"... This is obviously orchestrated very likely involving the Hillary campaign and/or those who are trying to influence her. Hillary has after all called for such in recent months. Could Hillary really be that stupid or incompetent to set off a shooting war with Russia? ..."
"... Hillary may be the fist president from the democratic party to be impeached. There is no WW3 scenario only nuke apocalypse that would be bad for business and even Putin isn't about to sacrifice his nation for Assad or the Iranians. ..."
"... The US apparatchiks have measured the Russian ability to protect Assad and found them lacking and are moving to ratchet up the rhetoric hopefully forcing a deal without any real escalation but they appear ready to directly confront the Russians in Syria. ..."
"... My fear is that if, say Russia, sunk say a destroyer with the loss of all hands the fools running the US would panic and then respond with a nuclear escalation. I think Russia and China really are preparing for conventional weapons confrontation with the US. And the battlefield will not be in Syria but on those nations borders. Russian forces in Syria are no more than a trip wire. ..."
"... Thus, the humanitarian crisis (which has always existed) will now be touted as a newly-discovered reason for NATO/UN peacekeeping and humanitarian intervention. As long as that intervention creates a well-guarded Sunni Corridor from north to south Syria with the appropriate UN buffer zones. Oh yeah - it should include nearly all of Syria's oil resources (for future U.S. use). Toss in a few bazillion blue helmets and NATO air support for the inevitable No-fly Zones and Operation Yinon: Block the Evil Shia Corridor will have been accomplished. ..."
"... Russia still has its port and doesn't have to bomb anyone else. Assad still has a leftover chunk of partitioned Syria without any oil, gas or water - but Israel will sell them all they want for a slight premium. The Kurds get whatever bones they're thrown. And the U.S. and Israel have their coveted Sunnistan - even though the Sunnis will be impoverished and little more than oil well guards and human shields for any imaginary Iranian invasion of Syria. Oh, and foreign diplomats will have guaranteed jobs for a decade as they try to solve the unsolvable problem they created. ..."
"... pretty sorry state of affairs when the world - americans in particular - think it is okay to play chicken over the possibility of nuclear war... basically sums up the level of stupidity in the usa today - reflected best in the idiots running for political office who haven't a clue about anything their there own political future with the military industrial complex/clinton.. ..."
"... toivo - i really think americans need to be thinking the next war will be on their homeland... enough of the shit of making war in faraway lands on others... americans need to fucking wake up.. ..."
"... Russia has been boxed into a corner by the Rep, Dem, Brit, NATO neocons. Russia has been exceedingly patient and diplomatic at every turn. Russia should be well prepared now to militarily defend the legitimate Syrian Government and it territory. ..."
"... john helmers article from a few days ago - US STRATEGY FOR RUSSIA – WAGE WAR BUT NOT DECLARE IT ..."
"... 'The current head of the US CIA, William Brennan, lived in Saudi Arabia for years' ..."
There is an interesting campaign going on in Washington right now pushing for a no-fly zone
over Syria. As we saw in an earlier thread the petition by those 51 FSOs inside the State Dept calling
for this. That was preceded by the main editorial in the WaPo calling for the same.
Then yesterday the Yazidi woman who was held as a "sex slave" by ISIS testified before Congress
and called for Obama to set up no fly zones so refugees could find safety. Her testimony was horrific
and only the most heartless could dismiss her story. But since ISIS does not have nor has ever had
an airforce it is not clear how a no fly zone would have prevented the horror she experienced.
This is obviously orchestrated very likely involving the Hillary campaign and/or those who
are trying to influence her. Hillary has after all called for such in recent months. Could Hillary
really be that stupid or incompetent to set off a shooting war with Russia?
ToivoS | Jun 22, 2016 3:27:26 PM |
2 Northern Observer | Jun 22, 2016 3:35:04 PM |
3
Hillary may be the fist president from the democratic party to be impeached. There is no WW3
scenario only nuke apocalypse that would be bad for business and even Putin isn't about to sacrifice
his nation for Assad or the Iranians.
The US apparatchiks have measured the Russian ability to protect Assad and found them lacking
and are moving to ratchet up the rhetoric hopefully forcing a deal without any real escalation
but they appear ready to directly confront the Russians in Syria.
#10 wow. For once I agree with you. Those forces working for the no fly zone over Syria do
not want nuclear war. They happen to believe that in any game of chicken the Russians will blink
first. However, I would hope that this would happen but there are other scenarios here short (it
is hoped) of nuclear war. The Russians also do not want nuclear war. They like the Chinese have
been preparing their military in conventional war tactics against the US. Not that these tactics
will defeat the US but that they will cause so much damage that it would drain domestic support
for future US aggression against those countries.
Both China and Russia have concentrated their defenses on anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles.
Today, the Russians have the ability to sink any US warship in either the Black or Baltic seas.
The Russians have made those weapons available to Iran and they may possibly be able to easily
sink any destroyer or cruiser in the Persian Gulf.
My fear is that if, say Russia, sunk say a destroyer with the loss of all hands the fools
running the US would panic and then respond with a nuclear escalation. I think Russia and China
really are preparing for conventional weapons confrontation with the US. And the battlefield will
not be in Syria but on those nations borders. Russian forces in Syria are no more than a trip
wire.
Wayoutwest@10 - "...but they appear ready to directly confront the Russians in Syria..."
Whaa...? You're talking about Americans, right?
The soft invasion of Syria is happening as we speak. What's the latest roll call: French, Belgian,
German, UK special forces? Norway on deck? NATO has already invaded without confronting Russia.
The U.S. will not permit Sunnistan to fall. If you don't believe the pipeline reason, then you
have to recognize the NATO Sunni Corridor must exist to block the Shia Corridor from Iran.
The U.S./Israeli plan to separate Syria and create the Sunni/Turkey corridor is going along
as always planned - although they're rushing as of late. We're at the stage where Turkey and Jordan
are shutting their borders. Useless in practice, but necessary to give western MSM the cover story
of the threat of ISIS spreading to those countries. Laughable because that's where the head-choppers
came from, but reason has nothing to do with propaganda. ZATO has to foment a massive, well-publicised
humanitarian crisis to justify the next partitioning step.
Thus, the humanitarian crisis (which has always existed) will now be touted as a newly-discovered
reason for NATO/UN peacekeeping and humanitarian intervention. As long as that intervention creates
a well-guarded Sunni Corridor from north to south Syria with the appropriate UN buffer zones.
Oh yeah - it should include nearly all of Syria's oil resources (for future U.S. use). Toss in
a few bazillion blue helmets and NATO air support for the inevitable No-fly Zones and Operation
Yinon: Block the Evil Shia Corridor will have been accomplished.
Russia still has its port and doesn't have to bomb anyone else. Assad still has a leftover
chunk of partitioned Syria without any oil, gas or water - but Israel will sell them all they
want for a slight premium. The Kurds get whatever bones they're thrown. And the U.S. and Israel
have their coveted Sunnistan - even though the Sunnis will be impoverished and little more than
oil well guards and human shields for any imaginary Iranian invasion of Syria. Oh, and foreign
diplomats will have guaranteed jobs for a decade as they try to solve the unsolvable problem they
created.
Halliburton and their little Cheney KBR buddy are already salivating over the reconstruction
contracts. Let's get those damn blue helmets in there! The former KBR is loosing money every second
this scheme is delayed.
pretty sorry state of affairs when the world - americans in particular - think it is okay
to play chicken over the possibility of nuclear war... basically sums up the level of stupidity
in the usa today - reflected best in the idiots running for political office who haven't a clue
about anything their there own political future with the military industrial complex/clinton..
toivo - i really think americans need to be thinking the next war will be on their homeland...
enough of the shit of making war in faraway lands on others... americans need to fucking wake
up..
System is fubar. People are fed up. Let the chips fall where they may. Smart play is to get
out of EU.
Russia has been boxed into a corner by the Rep, Dem, Brit, NATO neocons. Russia has been
exceedingly patient and diplomatic at every turn. Russia should be well prepared now to militarily
defend the legitimate Syrian Government and it territory.
@34 ghubar shabih 'The current head of the US CIA, William Brennan, lived in Saudi Arabia
for years'
I'm sure you meant John Brennan. Wikipedia has
At one point in his career, he was a daily intelligence briefer for President Bill Clinton.
In 1996 he was CIA station chief in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia when the Khobar Towers bombing killed
19 U.S. servicemen. In 1999 he was appointed chief of staff to George Tenet, then-Director
of the CIA
I hadn't realized he was in Saudi Arabia. I also hadn't realized that he was out and in the revolving
door before working for Obama, before having Obama appoint him head of the CIA
His last post within the Intelligence Community was as director of the National Counterterrorism
Center in 2004 and 2005, which incorporated information on terrorist activities across U.S.
agencies.
Brennan then left government service for a few years, becoming Chairman of the Intelligence
and National Security Alliance (INSA) and the CEO of The Analysis Corporation (TAC). He continued
to lead TAC after its acquisition by Global Strategies Group in 2007 and its growth as the
Global Intelligence Solutions division of Global's North American technology business GTEC,
before returning to government service with the Obama administration as Homeland Security Advisor
on January 20, 2009.
Made good connections on the other side of the revolving door, I'm sure. No doubt the kickbacks
will flow from the drone builders/operators and the electronic communications spies after his
next trip through.
He may not be as good as the parrot with Arabic, but he had Obama parroting his lines very
well throughout his eight long years. Obama will share those kickbacks as well, I'm sure. Polly
wants a cracker.
John Quiggin (
previously ) delivers some of the most salient commentary on the Brexit
vote and how it fits in with Syriza, Podemos, Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders
(etc) as well as Trump, French neo-fascists, and other hypernationalist
movements.
The core of this analysis is that while neoliberalism(s) (Quiggin argues
that US and non-US neoliberalism are different things) has failed the majority
of the world, and while things were falling apart after the financial crisis,
the left failed to offer real alternatives. The "tribalist" movements --
Trump, Leave, Golden Dawn, etc -- are anti-neoliberal, but in the absence
of any analysis, have lashed out at immigrants (rather than bankers and
financial elites) as the responsible parties for their suffering.
The US political system gives us a choice between neoliberals who hate
brown people, women, and gay people; and neoliberals who don't. Trump offers
an anti-neoliberal choice (and so did the Leave campaign). Bernie also offered
an anti-neoliberal platform (one that didn't hate brown people, women, and
lgtbq people), but didn't carry the day -- meaning that the upcoming US
election is going to be a choice between neoliberalism (but tolerance) and
anti-neoliberalism (and bigotry). This is a dangerous situation, as the
UK has discovered.
The vote for Britain as a whole was quite close. But a closer look
reveals an even bigger win for tribalism than the aggregate results
suggest. The version of tribalism offered in the Leave campaign was
specifically English. Unsurprisingly, it did not appeal to Scottish
or Irish voters who rejected it out of hand. Looking at England alone,
however, Leave won comfortably with 53 per cent of the vote and was
supported almost everywhere outside London, a city more dependent than
any other in the world on the global financial system.
Given the framing of the campaign, the choice for the left was, even
more than usually, to pick the lesser of very different evils. Voting
for Remain involved acquiescence in austerity and an overgrown and bloated
financial system, both in the UK and Europe. The Leave campaign relied
more and more on coded, and then overt, appeals to racism and bigotry,
symbolised by the murder of Labour MP Jo Cox, stabbed to death by a
neo-Nazi with ties to extreme tribalist organizations in both the UK
and US. The result was a tepid endorsement of Remain, which secured
the support of around 70 per cent of Labour voters, but did little to
shift the sentiment of the broader public.
The big problem for the tribalists is that, although their program
has now been endorsed by the voters, it does not offer a solution to
the economic decline against which most of their supporters were protesting.
Indeed, while the catastrophic scenarios pushed by the Remain campaign
are probably overblown, the process of renegotiating economic relationships
with the rest of the world will almost certainly involve a substantial
period of economic stagnation.
The terms offered by the EU for the maintenance of anything like
existing market access will almost certainly include maintenance of
the status quo on immigration. In the absence of a humiliating capitulation
by the new pro-Brexit government, that will mean that Britain (or England)
will face a long and painful process of adjustment.
Britain has voted to leave the EU. The reason? A large section of the working class, concentrated in towns and cities that have
been quietly devastated by free-market economics, decided they'd had enough.
Enough bleakness, enough ruined high streets, enough minimum wage jobs, and enough lies and fearmongering from the political class.
The issue that catalysed the vote for Brexit was the massive, unplanned migration from Europe that began after the accession of
the A8 countries and then surged again after 2008 once the Eurozone stagnated while Britain enjoyed a limp recovery.
It is no surprise to anybody who's lived their life at the street end of politics and journalism that a minority of the white
working class are racists and xenophobes. But anyone who thinks half the British population fits that description is dead
wrong.
Tens of thousands of black and Asian people will have voted for Brexit, and similar numbers of politically educated, left-leaning
workers too. Birmingham, Nottingham, Sheffield and Coventry - multi-ethnic university cities - they too went for Leave.
Neither the political centre or the pro-remain left was able to explain how to offset the negative economic impact of low-skilled
migration in conditions of (a) guaranteed free movement (b) permanent stagnation in Europe and (c) austerity in Britain.
Told by the government they could never control migration while inside the EU, just over 50% of the population decided controlling
migration was more important than EU membership.
So the problem for Labour is not, yet, large numbers of its own voters "deserting the party". They may still do so if Labour plays
this wrong - but even as late as the May council elections Labour's core vote held up.
Instead Labour's heartland voters simply decided to change the party's policy on migration from below, and forever, by
leaving the EU.
The party's front bench tried, late and in a muddled way, to come up with micro-economic solutions - more funds for areas where
the NHS and schools come under strain; a new directive to prevent employers shipping entire workforces from East Europe on poor terms
and conditions. And a promise to renegotiate the free movement pillar of the Lisbon Treaty in the future.
Because it was made late, and half-heartedly, this offer was barely heard. And clearly to some it did not seem plausible - given
the insistence of the Labour centre and the liberal bourgeoisie that migration is unmitigatedly good and "there's nothing you can
do about it". And also given the insistence of Jean Claude Juncker that there could be no renegotiation at all.
Ultimately, as I've written before, there is
a
strong case for "Lexit" on grounds of democracy and economic justice. But this won't be Lexit. Unless Labour can win an early
election it will be a fast-track process of Thatcherisation and the breakup of the UK.
Unlike me, however, many people who believe in Lexit were prepared to vote alongside right wing Tories to get to first base.
The task for the left in Britain now is to adapt to the new reality, and fast. The Labour right is already trying to pin the blame
on Corbyn; UKIP will make a play for Labour's voters. Most likely there'll be a second independence referendum in Scotland.
Corbyn was right to try and fight on "remain and reform" but his proposed reforms were never radical enough. He was also right
to devote energy to other issues - making the point that in or out of the EU, social justice and public services are under threat.
But the right and centre of Labour then confused voters by parading along with the Tory centrists who Corbyn had promised never to
stand on a platform with.
The Blairite Progress group is deluded if it thinks it can use this moment to launch a coup against Corbyn. The neoliberal wing
of the Labour Party needs to realise - it may take them a few days - that their time is over.
Ultimately it looks like Labour still managed to get 2/3 of its voters to voter Remain [I'll check this but that's what YouGov
said earlier]. So the major failure is Cameron's. It looks like the Tory vote broke 60/40 to Brexit.
It's possible Cameron will resign quickly. But that's not the issue. The issue is the election and what to fight for.
Labour has to start, right now, a big political reorientation. Here is my 10 point suggestion for how we on the left of Labour
go forward.
1. Accept the result. Labour will lead Britain out of EU if it wins the election.
2. Demand an election within 6–9 months: Cameron has no mandate to negotiate Brexit. The parties must be allowed to put their
respective Brexit plans to the electorate and thereafter run the negotiations. In that Labour should:
3. Fight for Britain to stay in the EEA and apply an "emergency brake" to migration under the rules of the EEA. That should be
a Labour goverment's negotiating position.
4. Labour should fight to keep all the EU's progressive laws (employment, environment, consumer protection etc) but scrap restrictions
on state aid, trade union action and nationalisation. If the EU won't allow that, then the fallback is a complete break and a bilateral
trade deal.
5. Adopt a new, progressive long-term migration policy: design a points based system designed to respond annually to demand from
employers and predicted GDP growth; make parliament responsible for setting the immigration target annually on the basis of an independent
expert report; the needs of the economy - plus the absolute duty to accept refugees fleeing war and torture - is what should set
the target, not some arbitrary ceiling. And devote massively more resources than before to meeting the stresses migration places
on local services.
6. Continue to demand Britain honours its duty to refugees to the tune of tens of thousands. Reassure existing migrant communities
in Britain that they are safe, welcome and cannot be expelled as a result of Brexit. Offer all those who've come here from Europe
under free movement rules the inalienable right to stay.
7. Relentlessly prioritise and attack the combined problems of low wages, in-work poverty and dead-beat towns.
8. Offer Scotland a radical Home Rule package, and create a federalised Labour Party structure. If, in a second referendum, Scotland
votes to leave the UK, Labour should offer a no-penalty exit process that facilitates Scotland rejoining the EU if its people wish.
In the meantime Labour should seek a formal coalition with the SNP to block a right wing Tory/UKIP government emerging from the next
election.
9. Offer the Republic of Ireland an immediate enhanced bilateral deal to keep the border open for movement and trade.
10. The strategic problem for Labour remains as before. Across Britain there have crystallised two clear kinds of radicalism:
that of the urban salariat and that of the low-paid manual working class. In Scotland those groups are aligned around left cultural
nationalism. In England and Wales, Labour can only win an election if it can attract both groups: it cannot and should not retreat
to becoming a party of the public sector workforce, the graduate and the university town. The only way Labour can unite these culturally
different groups (and geographic areas) - so clearly dramatised by the local-level results - is economic radicalism. Redistribution,
well-funded public services, a revived private sector and vibrant local democracy is a common interest across both groups.
11. If Labour in England and Wales cannot quickly rekindle its ties to the low-paid manual working class - cultural and visceral,
not just political - the situation is ripe for that group to swing to the right. This can easily be prevented but it means a clean
break with Blairism and an end to the paralysis inside the shadow cabinet.
From my social media feed it's clear a lot of young radical left people and anti-racists are despondent. It seems they equated
the EU with internationalism; they knew about and sympathised with the totally disempowered poor communities but maybe assumed it
was someone else's job to connect with them.
I am glad I voted to Remain, even though I had to grit my teeth. But I underestimated the sheer frustration: I'd heard it clearly
in the Welsh valleys, but not spotted it clearly enough in places like Barking, Kettering, Newport.
I am not despondent though. The Brexit result makes a radical left government in Britain harder to get - because it's likely Scotland
will leave, and the UK will disingegrate, and the Blairites will go off and found some kind of tribute band to neoliberalism with
the Libdems.
But if you trace this event to its root cause, it is clear: neoliberalism is broken.
There's no consent for the stagnation and austerity it has inflicted on people; there's nothing but hostility to the political
class and its fearmongering - whether that be Juncker, Cameron or the Blairites. As with Scotland, given the chance to disrupt the
institutions of neoliberal rule, people will do so and ignore the warnings of experts and the political class.
I predicted in Postcapitalism that the crackup of neoliberalism would take geo-strategic form first, economic second. This is
the first big crack.
It is, geopolitically, a victory for Putin and will weaken the West. For the centre in Europe it poses the question point blank:
will you scrap Lisbon, scrap austerity and boost economic growth or let the whole project collapse amid stagnation? I predict they
will not, and that the entire project will then collapse.
All we can do, as the left, is go on fighting for the interests of the poor, the workforce, the youth, refugees and migrants.
We have to find better institutions and better language to do it with. As in 1932, Britain has become the first country to break
with the institutional form of the global order.
If we do have a rerun of the 1930s now in Europe, we need a better left. The generation that tolerated Blairism and revelled in
meaningless centrist technocracy needs to wake up. That era is over.
"... Class, nationalist, and ethnic elements are all involved in the Brexit vote in a complex integration of protest. ..."
"... Press and media emphasize the nationalist and ethnic (immigrant-anti-immigrant) themes but generally avoid discussing or analyzing
the event from a class perspective. But that perspective is fundamental. What Brexit represents is a proxy vote against the economic
effects of Free Trade, the customs union called the European Union. Free trade deals always benefit corporations and investors. ..."
"... Free trade is not just about goods and services flows between member countries; it is even more about money and capital flows
and what is called direct investment. UK corporations benefit from the opportunity to move capital and invest in cheap labor elsewhere
in Europe, mostly the newly added members to the EU since 2000, in eastern europe. Free trade also means the unrestricted flow of labor.
Once these east european countries were added to the EU treaty, massive inflows of labor to the UK resulted. Just from Poland, more
than a million migrated to the UK alone. ..."
Class, nationalist, and ethnic elements are all involved in the Brexit vote in a complex integration of protest.
Press and media emphasize the nationalist and ethnic (immigrant-anti-immigrant) themes but generally avoid discussing or analyzing
the event from a class perspective. But that perspective is fundamental. What Brexit represents is a proxy vote against the economic
effects of Free Trade, the customs union called the European Union. Free trade deals always benefit corporations and investors.
Free trade is not just about goods and services flows between member countries; it is even more about money and capital flows
and what is called direct investment. UK corporations benefit from the opportunity to move capital and invest in cheap labor elsewhere
in Europe, mostly the newly added members to the EU since 2000, in eastern europe. Free trade also means the unrestricted flow of
labor. Once these east european countries were added to the EU treaty, massive inflows of labor to the UK resulted. Just from Poland,
more than a million migrated to the UK alone.
In the pre-2008, when economic conditions were strong and economic growth and job creation the rule, the immigration's effect
on jobs and wages of native UK workers was not a major concern. But with the crash of 2008, and, more importantly, the UK austerity
measures that followed, cutting benefits and reducing jobs and wages, the immigration effect created the perception (and some reality)
that immigrants were responsible for the reduced jobs, stagnant wages, and declining social services. Immigrant labor, of course,
is supported by business since it means availability of lower wages. But working class UK see it as directly impacting wages, jobs,
and social service benefits. THis is partly true, and partly not.
So Brexit becomes a proxy vote for all the discontent with the UK austerity, benefit cuts, poor quality job creation and wage
stagnation. But that economic condition and discontent is not just a consequence of the austerity policies of the elites. It is also
a consequence of the Free Trade effects that permit the accelerated immigration that contributes to the economic effects, and the
Free Trade that shifts UK investment and better paying manufacturing jobs elsewhere in the EU.
So Free Trade is behind the immigration and job and wage deterioration which is behind the Brexit proxy vote. The anti-immigration
sentiment and the anti-Free Trade sentiment are two sides of the same coin. That is true in the USA with the Trump candidacy, as
well as in the UK with the Brexit vote. Trump is vehemently anti-immigrant and simultaneously says he's against the US free trade
deals. This is a powerful political message that Hillary ignores at her peril. She cannot tip-toe around this issue, but she will,
required by her big corporation campaign contributors.
Another 'lesson' of the UK Brexit vote is that the discontent seething within the populations of Europe, US and Japan today is
not accurately registered by traditional polls. This is true in the US today as it was in the UK yesterday.
The Brexit vote cannot be understood without understanding its origins in three elements: the combined effects of Free Trade (the
EU), the economic crash of 2008-09, which Europe has not really recovered from having fallen into a double dip recession 2011-13
and a nearly stagnant recovery after, and the austerity measures imposed by UK elites (and in Europe) since 2013.
These developments have combined to create the economic discontent for which Brexit is the proxy. Free Trade plus Austerity plus
economic recovery only for investors, bankers, and big corporations is the formula for Brexit.
Where the Brexit vote was strongest was clearly in the midlands and central England-Wales section of the country, its working
class and industrial base. Where the vote preferred staying in the EU, was the non-working class areas of London and south England,
as well as Scotland and Northern Ireland. Scotland is dependent on oil exports to the EU and thus tightly linked to the trade. Northern
Ireland's economy is tied largely to Scotland and to the other EU economy, Ireland. So their vote was not surprising. Also the immigration
effects were far less in these regions than in the English industrial heartland.
Some would argue that the UK has recovered better than most economies since 2013. But a closer look at the elements of that recovery
shows it has been centered largely in southern England and in the London metro area. It has been based on a construction-housing
boom and the inflow of money capital from abroad, including from China investment in UK infrastructure in London and elsewhere. The
UK also struck a major deal with China to have London as the financial center for trading the Yuan currency globally. Money capital
and investment concentrated on housing-construction produced a property asset boom, which was weakening before the Brexit. It will
now collapse, I predict, by at least 20% or more. The UK's tentative recovery is thus now over, and was slipping even before the
vote.
Also frequently reported is that wages had been rising in the UK. This is an 'average' indicator, which is true. But the average
has been pulled up by the rising salaries and wages of the middle class professionals and other elements of the work force in the
London-South who had benefited by the property-construction boom of recent years. Working class areas just east of London voted strongly
for Brexit.
Another theme worth a comment is the Labor Party's leadership vote for remaining in the EU. What this represents is the further
decline of traditional social democratic parties throughout Europe. These parties in recent decades have increasingly aligned themselves
with the Neoliberal corporate offensive. That's true whether the SPD in Germany, the Socialist parties in France, Spain, Italy, Portugal,
and Greece, or elsewhere. As these parties have abdicated their traditional support for working class interests, it has opened opportunities
for other parties–both right and left–to speak to those interests. Thus we find right wing parties growing in Austria, France (which
will likely win next year's national election in France), Italy, Netherlands, and Scandinavia. Hungary and Poland's right turn should
also be viewed from this perspective. So should Podemos in Spain, Five Star movement in Italy, and the pre-August 2015 Syriza in
Greece.
Farther left more marxist-oriented socialist parties are meanwhile in disarray. In general they fail to understand the working
class rebellion against free trade element at the core of the recent Brexit vote. They are led by the capitalist media to view the
vote as an anti-immigrant, xenophobic, nationalist, right wing dominated development. So they in a number of instances recommended
staying in the EU. The justification was to protect the better EU mandated social regulations. Or they argue, incredulously, that
remaining in the free trade regime of the EU would centralize the influence of capitalist elements but that would eventually mean
a stronger working class movement as a consequence as well. It amounts to an argument to support free trade and neoliberalism in
the short run because it theoretically might lead to a stronger working class challenge to neoliberalism in the longer run. That
is intellectual and illogical nonsense, of course. Wherever the resistance to free trade exists it should be supported, since Free
Trade is a core element of Neoliberalism and its policies that have been devastating working class interests for decades now. One
cannot be 'for' Free Trade (i.e. remain in the EU) and not be for Neoliberalism at the same time–which means against working class
interests.
The bottom line is that right wing forces in both the EU and the US have locked onto the connection between free trade discontent,
immigration, and the austerity and lack of economic recovery for all since 2009. They have developed an ideological formulation that
argues immigration is the cause of the economic conditions. Mainstream capitalist parties, like the Republicans and Democrats in
the US are unable to confront this formulation which has great appeal to working class elements. They cannot confront it without
abandoning their capitalist campaign contributors or a center-piece (free trade) of their neoliberal policies. Social-Democratic
parties, aligning with their erstwhile traditional capitalist party opponents, offer no alternative. And too many farther left traditional
Marxist parties support Free Trade by hiding behind the absurd notion that a stronger, more centralized capitalist system will eventually
lead to a stronger, more centralized working class opposition.
Whatever political party formations come out of the growing rebellion against free trade, endless austerity policies, and declining
economic conditions for working class elements, they will have to reformulate the connections between immigration, free trade, and
those conditions.
Free Trade benefits corporations, investors and bankers on both sides of the 'trade' exchange. The benefits of free trade accrue
to them. For working classes, free trade means a 'leveling' of wages, jobs and benefits. It thus means workers from lower paid regions
experience a rise in wages and benefits, but those in the formerly higher paid regions experience a decline. That's what's been happening
in the UK, as well as the US and north America.
Free Trade is the 'holy grail' of mainstream economics. It assumes that free trade raises all boats. Both countries benefit. But
what that economic ideology does not go on to explain is that how does that benefit get distributed within each of the countries
involved in the free trade? Who benefits in terms of class incomes and interests? As the history of the EU and UK since 1992 shows,
bankers and big corporate exporters benefit. Workers from the poor areas get to migrate to the wealthier (US and UK) and thus benefit.
But the indigent workers in the former wealthier areas suffer a decline, a leveling. These effects have been exacerbated by the elite
policies of austerity and the free money for bankers and investors central bank policies since 2009.
So workers see their wages stagnant or decline, their social benefits cut, their jobs or higher paid jobs leave, while they see
immigrants entering and increasing competition for jobs. They hear (and often believe) that the immigrants are responsible for the
reduction of benefits and social services that are in fact caused by the associated austerity policies. They see investors, bankers,
professionals and a few fortunate 10% of their work force doing well, with incomes accelerating, while their incomes decline. In
the UK, the focus and solution is seen as exiting the EU free trade zone. In the US, however, it's not possible for a given 'state'
to leave the USA, as it is for a 'state' like the UK to leave the EU. And there are no national referenda possible constitutionally
in the US.
The solution in the US is not to build a wall to keep immigrants out, but to tear down the Free Trade wall that has been erected
by US neoliberal policies in order to keep US jobs in. Trump_vs_deep_state has come up with a reactionary solution to the free trade-immigration-economic
nexus that has significant political appeal. He proposes stopping labor flows, but proposes nothing concrete about stopping the cross-country
flows of money, capital and investment that are at the heart of free trade.
"... look on with sadness as some industries in the UK are destroyed by arbitrary rules from the EU, and wayward countries like Greece are trashed, while elites in the EU appear to lose complete touch with everyday people. ..."
"... Money and investment was promised ten times over while nobody could really explain how trade deals really benefit everyday people or how arts science and sport get a lot of support from the EU. Some politicians just wanted extra power for their own agendas like curbing unions while it appeared that every politician was still back in the 1980s trying to re open the issues from back then rather than dealing with today's issues of globalisation, automation and ageing populations ..."
"... Rust cities and towns largely voted to exit. ..."
...I am unhappy that the commissioner system in the EU can over rule all democratic process,
look on with sadness as some industries in the UK are destroyed by arbitrary rules from the
EU, and wayward countries like Greece are trashed, while elites in the EU appear to lose complete
touch with everyday people.
In the run up to the election we saw disgraceful behaviour from both sides of the argument
while others were too afraid to enter the fray. Money and investment was promised ten times
over while nobody could really explain how trade deals really benefit everyday people or how arts
science and sport get a lot of support from the EU. Some politicians just wanted extra power for
their own agendas like curbing unions while it appeared that every politician was still back in
the 1980s trying to re open the issues from back then rather than dealing with today's issues
of globalisation, automation and ageing populations (Perhaps John Hempton at bronte capital
is right and its all about delayed consumption).
Much of the tabloid media cheer leaded anything that would sell rather than informing. Obama
visited and was too subtle in explaining that if you have less negotiating power then things like
your governments right to set drug prices might be negotiated away (bye bye NHS)
Looking at the vote then there are some noticeable trends and implications some of which Yves
has touched upon.
Rust cities and towns largely voted to exit.
Cosmopolitan cities were more favourable to remaining.
Scotland and Northern Ireland see English Politics as completely irrelevant to them.
London is afraid of what Boris Johnson might do if given more power.
The political left does not have a consistent message.
Rural areas who by and large have not seen much immigration want investment rather than
austerity.
A lot of people voted on gut instinct in the end.
The older generation want a return to the 1960s regardless of whether the world has changed
and it is achievable.
The most striking difference in voting was between young people and older people.
You know the American Revolution was not in any way I can see equivalent to machinations
with the EU. Plenty is written belowon the history, and the fourth with all the fireworks
is approaching.
The idea that the colonies revolted to avoid immigration is nothing short of absurd. To
this day one of the largest ethnic groups are Germans descended from mercenary solders who
stayed and farmed on what they saw as widely available farmland.
The Brexit motivations have quite a lot in common with those that drove US independence.
The most important thing for Americans to realize, when trying to understand the EU/UK
relationship is that the citizens of the UK never gave the functionaries permission to make
the citizens subject to law made overseas. The entire EU is built on a very shaky platform
that has no democratic underpinnings.
Another lesson to take from the UK-US relationship supports the view that the UK-EU
economic relationship has a future.
American independence did not sever economic ties
between the two countries, at least after 1815, when the second US-UK war (the war of 1812)
was concluded.
For example, the Louisiana Purchase, which added more than half of what is now the
contiguous US west of the Mississippi, was financed by London banks. The US bought the land
from Napoleon, who was trying to finance his wars against Britain and others, and British
bankers must have concluded that the US was going to get the money someone (it was the
property deal of the century), so it might as well be them.
Throughout the 19th century, much of the investment that turned the US into the world's
largest economy came from London financial markets. The cowboy period of the Old West was
about rounding up herds of feral cattle that roamed the Western plains. Great Britain was a
primary market for that cattle (canned meat), and British financing was key. So when you
see Hollywood cowboy movies, remember that those roundups were often financed by British
firms. Britain was a dominant source of finance in the US throughout the 19th century. Wall
Street didn't catch up to the City of London as a financial center until World War I.
Just as the American revolution did not end the economic relationship between the US and
the UK, there is no reason to believe Brexit will end the economic relationship between the
UK and Europe. Economic ties rarely stay broken.
At the time of the US revolution Britain was a great colonial/pirate power controlling
India where they took great wealth off the backs of the locals. Same for what became
America where the British took wealth away from the natives and taxed the colonies to pay
for their wars of choice. Now manufacturing has been off-shored to "Third World" cheap
labor/slave places. In the empty areas of both the UK and US there is little ability to
live beyond a backyard garden and small amounts of money for old people. Youth are ignored.
Brexit was a beginning of the end for the West. The rest of the world will try to rise in
what may be a dark time in history. The West needs to return to some respect for humanity
and not giving total power to the 1%.
What arrant nonsense. The Declaration of Independence specifically enumerates the
reasons for leaving the empire and none of those reasons is xenophobia. For the
benefit of the great Guardian uneducated, i share the exact text with you here:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve
the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the
powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and
of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires
that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government
becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to
abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles
and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect
their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long
established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all
experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are
sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are
accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their
right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for
their future security.
Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the
necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The
history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and
usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny
over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
Part II
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public
good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance,
unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so
suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of
people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the
Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and
distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing
them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness
of his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be
elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the
People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all
the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose
obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to
encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of
Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for
establishing Judiciary Powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and
the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to
harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our
legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil
Power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our
constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of
pretended Legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they
should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province,
establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to
render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule
into these Colonies
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering
fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to
legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging
War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the
lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the
works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty &
Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of
a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms
against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to
fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on
the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of
warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble
terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose
character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler
of a free people.
The EU has lost respect by failing to address high unemployment and has only itself to
blame for continual losses when real people vote. Germany's unilateral decision to allow
for unfettered immigration made things worse. The British exit has nothing to do with the
American Revolutionary War. Likewise, Donald Trump has nothing to do with it as well.
Trump's negative poll numbers reflect that he is not going to be the next President of the
United States despite running against a relatively weak Hillary Clinton.
I think Cameron
has been lame as the British PM. He should have insisted on all four regions having to vote
yes to the British exit. Scotland and Northern Ireland voted no. So this vote has created
divisions that may lead to the breakup of the UK.
"Those in the UK who voted to leave the EU may think they've won a small victory in
tightening Britain's borders, but if America's history is a model, there's little that can
actually be done to slow immigration."
That is absolutely not true! But the will to stem
the tide of unlimited immigration has to be accepted by politicians of both parties. The
borders can be enforced if there is the political will to do so.
Americans have shown repeatedly that they accept immigrants who come here lawfully. We
are a nation of LAWS, not of lawbreakers! Granted, there are issues with the new comers in
every generation (see the treatment of the Irish in the early 1900's), but after those
waves of immigration, they gradually assimilated into American culture.
The biggest issue of the current wave of immigration is there has been no pause since
1965. Wave after wave of immigrants from all over the world without a pause for
assimilation is a recipe for disaster, as shown by the rise in strong Anti-American
sentiments within the borders of the US, from not only majority Hispanic communities, but
also Syrian, Somali, Iraqi, and other countries around the world.
Once upon a time, immigrants came to the US to be part of a greater nation. Today,
immigrants come to the US, but want to recreate the country they left behind within the
borders of the US.
The term Great Britain originated as a means of differentiating it from Brittany, La Petite
Bretagne v La Grande Bretagne. Both Britain and Brittany are "Bretagne", in French. The
term has nothing to do with greatness per se.
The political spiel at the end of the article only highlights the rhetorical mendacity
permeating the article.
Couching the American Revolution in terms of racism or religion is dishonest. While
there may have been elements of religious bias from person to person, the fact remains that
the Constitution created a secular government which protects religious liberty, and in fact
prohibits any "religious test" for holding office.
Indeed, the delegates at the Constitutional Convention even attended a Mass en mass, one
Sunday.
While attitudes may change in response to immediate dangers, the millions of people who
have been welcomed to this country since the Founding put the lie to the rhetorical deceit
that ethnic or religious bias have played a significant role in our national agenda.
The Looming US War on Russia
By Finian Cunningham
June 22, 2016 "Information Clearing House" - "Sputnik" - Russian President Vladimir
Putin's comparison of increasing US-led NATO aggression towards Russia to the attack by
Nazi Germany on the Soviet Union is advisedly apt.
Putin was addressing the Russian State Duma this week on the occasion 75 years ago when
the Nazi Third Reich launched Operation Barbarossa on June 22, 1941.
Nazi Germany's aggression, which led to the Great Patriotic War in which up to 30
million Soviet citizens lost their lives in order to gain victory against that fascist
power, was at bottom an attack by Western imperialism. As Putin reminded, this
fundamental fact is often omitted in Western commentary.
In that way, the significance
of NATO's current military buildup – what else is that but aggression? – on Russian
territory is all too often absent in Western media. And, by extension, Western public
appreciation is lacking on how sinister the unfolding situation is.
~~~
The burgeoning US-led aggression towards Russia – in the form of provocative political
campaigns to demonize and vilify with false accusations, economic sanctions and the
spurning of diplomacy and dialogue, as well as the expansion of military forces,
including the deployment of missile systems – is in a long, reprehensible tradition of
Western belligerence towards Russia, going back to, among others, French emperor
Napoleon Bonaparte and German Fuhrer Adolf Hitler.
This congenital aggression towards Russia stems from the dynamic of the Western economic
system of capitalism, which in turns begets imperialism as its necessary tool for
expropriating natural resources and subjugating foreign nations.
~~~
The little-known historical record – at least in Western media – is that Nazi Germany
was fomented by American and British capitalism as a proxy with which to vanquish the
Soviet Union. The subsequent Western alliance with Soviet Russia to defeat Nazi Germany
was merely a cynical damage-control move by the Western powers who were witnessing their
Nazi attack dog being muzzled and liquidated.
~~~
As the US presidential election swings towards Democrat contender Hillary Clinton, that
portends ominously for relations with Russia. It was Clinton who as Secretary of State
in the first Obama administration in 2009-2013 plunged bilateral relations into the
freezer and who set the course for the present geopolitical tensions.
Of further concern is Clinton's likely
selection to head the Pentagon . It is hotly tipped that Clinton will appoint Michele
Flournoy as the first female Secretary of Defense. Flournoy (56) is a prominent Pentagon
insider, with close links to the military and CIA We can be sure that this duo will
keenly push a bellicose agenda towards Russia.
Only last week, Flournoy made strident calls for increased US military intervention in
Syria. She wants to deploy large numbers of American troops and openly use military
force to topple the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad.
Posted by: okie farmer | Jun 23, 2016 12:39:33 AM |
56
In the week of the referendum vote, no
British politician and, to my knowledge, no journalist referred to Vladimir Putin's
speech in St. Petersburg commemorating the seventy-fifth anniversary of Nazi
Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941. The Soviet victory – at a
cost of 27 million Soviet lives and the majority of all German forces – won the
Second World War.
Russian President Vladimir Putin laying a wreath at Russia's Tomb of the Unknown
Soldier on May 8, 2014, as part of the observance of the World War II Victory over
Germany.
Putin likened the current frenzied build up of NATO troops and war materiel on
Russia's western borders to the Third Reich's Operation Barbarossa. NATO's exercises
in Poland were the biggest since the Nazi invasion; Operation Anaconda had simulated
an attack on Russia, presumably with nuclear weapons.
On the eve of the referendum, the quisling secretary-general of NATO, Jens
Stoltenberg, warned Britons they would be endangering "peace and security" if they
voted to leave the E.U. The millions who ignored him and Cameron, Osborne, Corbyn,
Obama and the man who runs the Bank of England may, just may, have struck a blow for
real peace and democracy in Europe.
John Pilger is an Australian-British journalist based in London.
Pilger's Web site is:
www.johnpilger.com
,
the films and journalism of John Pilger.
"... If the left argues for immigration controls, however, it seems to be making concessions to racial-ethnic-national-or-whatever bigotry. So what is the proper approach to take? Some policy expertise informed by egalitarianism and internationalism in equal measure would be pretty valuable. ..."
We should favor redistributive policies because they are the right thing to
do–they are normatively just and humane, period. But we shouldn't necessarily
believe they will engender cosmopolitan solidarity. White workers have social
democratic alternatives in Scandinavia and they are anxiously moving toward
tribalism there, too. The most hopeful sign is that this is more age-related
than anything else and that the shoots of cosmopolitan leftism among young
people in major cities in North America and Canada will be the harbinger of a
politics that honors both demographic difference and economic and social
egalitarianism.
Omega Centauri
06.27.16 at 12:22 am
Thanks, its pretty clarifying to have the view from orbit, rather than that of
someone stuck in the forest.
T @14. Well Trump is riding the tribalism wave.
He is what some have termed a political entrepreneur, going after the
opportunities he see's. In many ways he and his supporters are motivated by
sticking it to the man, in this case the economic/political elite. That was
probably a big part of Leave as well, sticking it to both the EU, and those
financial manipulators who have gentrified London, and driven the "real" people
out. In a very real sense, these movements seem to be first about getting even.
Thinking about what follows, comes later (when it will be too late).
jake the antisoshul soshulist
06.27.16 at 1:33 am
Anti-globalization may be the primary driving force behind Trump_vs_deep_state, even
moreso than immigration, though for many immigration is part and partial of
globalization.
Often the concerns are directed toward crony-capitalism. There may be some
basis for this claim, but they blame this on the left, even though the swinging
door between government and business is an ecumenical problem.
bad Jim
06.27.16
at 3:12 am
A masterful piece. Thanks.
American politics is strongly flavored by its
history, most notoriously by the original sin of slavery, but crucially by its
distance from the rest of the developed world. Within my lifetime it was the
dominant economic force, the unquestioned giant of manufacturing, simply
because its competitors had been devastated by World War II. This was a
privileged situation as unsustainable and undesirable as slavery had been, but
its loss is still keenly felt, although nowadays we're blaming the Mexicans and
Chinese instead of the Germans and Japanese.
America's inequality is worse than even the U.K. We tolerate far higher
levels of executive compensation than anyone else. Low levels of taxation for
unearned income are more likely its result than its cause. The decimation of
unions is certainly a major factor, but even that appears to be as much culture
as calculation; not many members of my liberal family are pro-union, even
though my father and grandfather were union members.
At least we honor the memory of Roosevelt, and a weak Keynesian stimulus is
our traditional response to economic upheaval
DMC
06.27.16 at
3:26 am
Good over all, especially in presenting a counter narrative to the overwhelming
MSM meme(or is it a trope) of "the hordes of drooling blackshirts and football
hooligans propelling the Leave vote". Hard or soft, the EU was a neo-liberal
cake when it was baked and the ECB was going to serve the bond holders and not
the member states. There are reasons perfectly serious, liberal people
preferred Brexit. Not all arguments about national sovereignty are about
immigration(though they are readily hijacked in that direction). With the
example of Greece fresh before their eyes and the EU South(Spain Italy,
Portugal) teetering on the brink of insolvency, I can well imagine any number
of voters concluding that it was time to jump ship while the jumping was good.
merian
06.27.16
at 3:45 am
Apologies I let myself be dragged into participating in a thread derail by
cassander, who keeps misrepresenting what I'm saying - as usual, while we're
discussing Europe, the debate turns to the US. Sigh.
To return to tribalism and neoliberalism in the light of what's going on, I
still believe that JQ is basically quite right - and that the behaviour of
whoever represents the hard-neoliberal option (US Republicans, Tories…) has set
parts of their own constituency onto the "tribalism" course. For example by
stopping to do their legislative duty, not voting on budgets, not holding
confirmation hearings for supreme court judges in the US; or blatantly serving
the interests of hereditary moneyed families and just implementing policy after
policy that doesn't work in the UK and France; etc. And the soft-neoliberals
have lost part of *their* traditional constituency to the tribalists because
they correctly perceive that these leaders don't work in their interest.
Frederick Arehart
06.27.16 at 4:25 am
It's simply hard to take seriously anyone who claims the Leave people were all
racists and xenophobes. Like the people who voted to Leave, Islam is a spectrum
of believers. The problem is the group that is radical and violent is seen by
the clerics to be a legitimate part of the spectrum and is Wahhabi in it's
source.
The Saudis are of the Wahhabi sect. For years they have funded
Wahhabi schools and the exporting of their graduates.
What seems to be forgotten is that ISIS is Wahhabi in nature. Wahhabis are
the radical conservatives. How many Wahhabi Imam's are in Britain? That's the
scary question.
Again, most Muslims if left alone would assimilate nicely; just like other
groups have.
Unfortunately, they are not left alone and since Wahhabism is viewed as a
legitimate part if not THE greatest part of the Sunnis, they are not condemned.
Sharia is their end game.
Thank you for finally giving CT a reasonably clear statement of the difference
between the American and the metric-system senses of "neoliberalism." However,
the American sense had only a brief vogue in America, and now there is complete
confusion about how to apply the term there.
" It involved an attempt by
former liberals (in the US sense) and social democrats to accommodate to the
demands of financial markets while still softening the edges of capitalism and
maintaining a more active role for the state in filling the gaps left by market
provision of services. This 'soft' neoliberalism was exemplified by the (Bill)
Clinton administration in the United States and the Blair government in the UK
and was prefigured, in important respects, by the Hawke-Keating government in
Australia."
I'm not really sure what this means. It wasn't the demands of financial
markets that Bill Clinton was trying to accommodate. It was the demands of
voters. People on the left who condemn Clinton as a sellout conveniently forget
that before 1992 the Democrats had lost *five of the last six* Presidential
elections (the sixth was won by a conservative Democrat). Those five elections
included two absolutely crushing electoral-college landslides, the first (1976)
involving a candidate from the left wing of the Democratic Party, the second
(1984) involving the epitome of New Deal liberalism. By any reasonable standard
the voters had decisively rejected what the Democratic Party had to offer.
(Something similar before Blair, no?) So Clinton tried something else. Not only
did he preside over what working people remember (I think) as a good time in US
history, he also is the reason that liberal are near a majority on the Supreme
Court instead of an irrelevant minority.
There's this itch on the left to refer to H. Clinton as a "neoliberal"
(though the term has only recently come into use in the US), but this seems to
be nothing more than invective. When you get down to policy positions the
differences between Clinton and Sanders seem to be pretty small; Sanders has
done his best to magnify hem, presumably so he can make the case that she is a
tool of Wall Street or some other oligarchs (though he never quite says that
she is). So Clinton's support for Dodd-Frank, which certainly puts her at odds
with Wall Street, is treated as trivial compared to he failure to endorse
restarting the Glass-Steagal Act. Clinton doesn't just differ with Sanders
about fracking; she differs with him (it is implied) *because* she is in the
pocket of the energy industry. And so on. So I would advise caution about
trying to fit American politics into the Procrustean bed of theory.
This is a great opportunity for the people to free themselves from the toxic
objective of endless economic growth. The alternative of the steady state
economy has been with us for 168 years and the change is long overdue. We can
do it by means of incremental steps but it is important above all to have a
clear idea of the destination. To find out more go to
http://www.steadystate.org
Hidari
06.27.16
at 6:01 am
'The surprising decision by English and Welsh (though not Scottish and Northern
Irish) voters to leave the European Union can only be understood in the broader
context of the breakdown of the ideological consensus that dominated politics
throughout the world until the Global Financial Crisis.'
Just a little note
to back up your point: there was an article in the Independent which I can no
longer find which pointed out that in the Welsh speaking areas of Wales (where
Plaid Cymru is strong), Remain won.
In other words, in Northern Ireland, Scotland and the nationalist parts of
Wales, Remain won. In other words again, where there was a strong, coherent,
counter-narrative to the dominant one of Brexit (which was framed very strongly
in terms of English nationalism), remain won. But in all these cases the
counter-narrative was also framed in nationalist terms.
What we should infer from this is a cliche, but nevertheless true. 'Man does
not live by bread alone'. People need narratives to make sense of their lives.
Throughout most of the capitalist/industrialist era, for working people this
was either religion and/or socialism/communism/marxism/social democracy…call it
what you will. With this gone (and in the United States it was only weakly
there) religion has resurged (in 'immigrant' communities) and, of course,
nationalism has stepped in to fill the void in non-religious (i.e. mainly
white) communities.
In a more extreme form, of course, we can see this in the middle east where
as marxism has declined, religiosity has increased, and in the United States,
with the appearance of Trump ('left wing' concerns over jobs etc, an
isolationist foreign policy, and white nationalism/racism).
Blairism/Clintonism was an attempt to paper over the cracks and create a
sort of non-left wing left wing (i.e. essentially right wing in terms of
economics but with a patina of social liberalism). For a long time it looked
succesful, but ultimately it failed because it lacked the emotional substance
that religion, nationalism and socialism/marxism could provide.
The three-party system is a masterful contribution and it fits perfectly the
Brexit referendum.
Because labels inherited from the former period are bound
to be ill-adjusted for the new one, I personally came up with the following
tripartition in terms of ideology: the first group is roughly characterized by
its giving priority to the mitigation of inequalities on the socio-economic
front, the rise of which it considers of paramount of importance, and the
mitigation of the impact of humanity on the ecosystem on the global front; the
second considers the competitiveness and efficiency of the economy to be the
most important topic while the third gives priority to the enforcement of
reactionary modes of dominations (reactionary rather than traditional because,
in 2016, it is clear that any reference to a traditional past is purely
rhetorical and bares little ressemblance to any actual past).
The addendum I would like to add to the three-party system theory, and one
which goes a long way to explaining why "the process of developing a coherent
alternative has barely begun" on the left, is that these three distinct and
coherent ideologies do not correspond to three stable, coherent social groups.
The core of the third group is formed of uneducated workers occupying
intermediate job positions in peripheral areas. Under the current organization
of the economy and society of western democracies, this is a highly stable
group: in the absence of significantly more financial or intellectual capital
than typically possessed by members of this group, social mobility is far too
low for the statistical significance of someone or her children reaching a
higher social position.
The second group is also pretty stable: its core is formed of dynamic,
educated professionals in economically favored central areas; a tiny group but
with a very high aptitude to reproduce itself (for exactly the same reason that
the third does).
However, the first group-whose core is formed of educated people in dynamic
areas with middle wealth-is not stable: they are educated enough to be able to
reach in significant proportion the second group and share enough of their life
conditions (starting with the geography) to feel a real proximity to them.
Under current situations, a frank political breaking with the second group thus
seems to me unthinkable: young college-graduate enthusiastic Sanders supporters
will vote for Clinton en masse, young educated Scotts will probably vote to
secede from the UK to remain in the EU and perhaps rejoin the eurozone… two
choices which are probably vastly preferable to their most credible alternative
(a Trump presidency and a brexit UK) but which will also probably lead to ever
rising inequalities and ever threatening anthropogenic climate change.
If this somewhat depressing analysis is correct, it is high time that the
core of the first group (i.e us reading CT right now) seriously and forcefully
starts thinking about how to drastically change the material life of the core
of the third group: yes, they vote for absurd and scary policies based on crude
nativist arguments; yes, they are out to smash every institutions dear to the
first group, but that does not change the fact that the current system offers
them no realistic way of improving their lives or that of their children.
Charles Peters of the Washington Monthly wrote "A Neoliberal Manifesto" back in
the 80's. It was the sort of good-government stuff to be expected from that
venerable publication, rather more liberal than the DLC tendency approximated
but not exemplified by the Clinton administration.
It's frustrating to try to
define Democratic presidents, because they only have two years to shove their
communistic tendencies down the throats of the public before the reaction sets
in, which is why we're still on tenterhooks hoping to keep Obama's feeble
advances alive. Bear in mind that many of our sovereign states continue to
refuse to accept free health care for poor people.
JQ
The project of European unification, embodied in the European Union and its
associated institutions was, in its origins, a classic example of soft
neoliberalism. Its central aim was the removal of barriers to the flow of
goods, people and money across national borders within Europe.
Raven
Onthill @ 42
The point of the European Union was to make and keep peace.
I have been around long enough to think that JQ may be right about 'what
actually happened' but Raven Onthill is right about the leftwing,
internationalist ideal of peace. The EU may have strayed far from that – but
that is the ideal that Corbyn could have defended with a passion.
There are children whose grandparents or great grandparents fought on the
opposite sides in the second world war in Europe. There are delicacies even now
in those family relationships – I know from my own experience – but we do the
best we can, with goodwill. That, in human terms, is an example of what the
ideal of the EU means, and why people might feel so hurt at an apparent
betrayal of it.
Seconding Hidari @64, in the original thread on the three-party system, I wrote
The reality of the world today is that whatever converging trend between
advanced societies which might have existed in the 1945-1980 period has now
come to an end and has been reversed, with the norm being increasing divergence
alongside cultural, historical and anthropological lines which coincide roughly
with national borders.
[…]
[T]here are no left policies anymore: there are German left policies
(inspired by German values, social conditions, history…), British left policies
(ditto, and they differ from Scottish left policies), American left policies
(ditto), French left policies (ditto)…
The results of the Brexit referendum, with England alone choosing to secede
from the EU, is as clear an empirical illustration of this thesis as one could
possibly imagine.
It would be a stretch to ascribe all the blame for America's stark inequality
to slavery and genocide, but given the size of the Confederacy, and its history
as the bulk of the Democratic party, reliably opposed to Wall Street, it's not
that hard to understand why, given the challenges and the opportunities of the
Depression and the Roosevelt administration, our social infrastructure wound up
being so limited and mean-spirited.
Why don't we have universal health care?
Every Democrat since Roosevelt has attempted it, but they also did things to
ameliorate racial discrimination, and that was the end of any further progress.
It's no coincidence that only our first black president could finally cobble
together a pathetic collection of health care reforms, barely a first attempt
at the state of affairs taken for granted in most competent countries, and get
it passed. This is a big fucking deal, as Biden said. It's not very good, but
after fifty years of failing, I'm gratified.
If we can win another couple of elections it might become as much a part of
our lives as Social Security and Medicare.
64: "Blairism/Clintonism was an attempt to paper over the cracks and create a
sort of non-left wing left wing (i.e. essentially right wing in terms of
economics but with a patina of social liberalism). For a long time it looked
succesful, but ultimately it failed because it lacked the emotional substance
that religion, nationalism and socialism/marxism could provide."
I agree. The
emotional substance of "meritocratic winners will be handsomely rewarded,
losers will still benefit from the hearty crumbs" is pretty powerful in its own
narrow way, until the cronyism, abject subservience to corporate interests, and
abandonment of the public sphere become apparent. The losers vastly outnumber
the winners. It took a couple of decades of bubbles bursting and a shrinking
middle class for that to sink in. And a little help from OWS and Citizens
United (at least in the US).
I'm encouraged by the many US students who don't blink at the word
"socialism" and seem uninterested in Trump's version of nationalism. There's
some kind of emotional valence in socialism for many of them. Understandably
so, given the debt crisis and brutal job market (unpaid internships, for
starts).
Well done. I read this immediately after I had published a similar post on
ObsidianWings and was stunned by how similar it was to what I was thinking,
only from an economists perspective. Agreeing with you so completely almost has
to make me reconsider. ;)
"By contrast, the tribalists have a clear answer to both questions. The problem
is not (or at least not primarily) to be located at the top of the class
structure, among bankers and CEOs, but at the bottom, among immigrants and
racial minorities who benefit from state protection at the expense of ordinary
'people like us'."
That's a very unfortunate (and arrogant) caricature. David
in another thread already notice the similarity of the current
anti-mass-immigration sentiment and the anti-scab struggles ~90 years ago.
Mass-immigration is exactly the same tactic (same tool) as hiring scabs was
in the 1930s. Breaking workers' solidarity, splitting, preventing resistance,
reducing wages.
Yes, class structure is the problem, and everyone knows it, and restricting
immigration is exactly a strike against the bankers and CEOs.
It seems to me that the program of the left most in need of clarity–or at
least greatly in need of clarity– is immigration, for that is the one the
tribalists (not sure about this term but running with it) gain most traction
on, and therefore helps to explain why the tribalists rather than the left have
been the main beneficiaries of the disenchantment of neoliberalism. If the left
stands for a world without borders, the old internationalist ideal, it can seem
to be oblivious to the threat to wages, living standards, etc., that can pose
for those in countries that attract labor. This is so even if one does an
analysis showing that immigration sparks growth, that the kinds of jobs
immigrants take are not necessarily ones others want, and so forth. If the left
argues for immigration controls, however, it seems to be making concessions to
racial-ethnic-national-or-whatever bigotry. So what is the proper approach to
take? Some policy expertise informed by egalitarianism and internationalism in
equal measure would be pretty valuable. There must be some somewhere.
Recommended readings?
Along the lines of Hidari's comment, I think it helps to distinguish the causes
and flavours of prejudice involved. The O/P uses, I think, "tribalism" to cover
two distinct relationships. One is nationalism or, more broadly, group
solidarity that encompasses class. It's people feeling that, however different
their economic or other circumstances, they are part of the same group. There's
a fair amount of prejudice involved and some hostility to large-scale
in-migration, but the stress is on the ideal of equal sacrifice in the face of
common threats. It's as much a Labour/left-wing tradition as a right-wing one.
The other tribalism is party partisanship. This can be class or other group
solidarity but, in current times, it has more the flavour of rather desperate
patronage-seeking. The Republican base, or the British lowest class, don't have
much time for "elites", but they have less time for each other. And they follow
the basic rules of clientelism – hold tight to the patron you have (because any
patron is better than none), but jump ship if a competing patron makes a better
offer. Trump/Johnson/Farage are making a better offer. To this group,
boorishness signals that the patron shares at least some appreciation for their
folk-ways. And the patrons make much use of crude appeals to race/gender etc.
They could hardly make sophisticated appeals – they lack anything else in
common.
Of course, if the patron fails to deliver too often, you burn the manor down
in a fit of rage, abuse the local immigrants and then shop your neighbours to
the police.
@milx(4): "The Marxist critique made sense in the context of pre-industrialized
Russia…"
Not the Bolshevik approach – a Marxist heresy contradicting Marx's
view of mature capitalism as a prerequisite for the ultimate social revolution.
Russia's orthodox Marxists always maintained that the 1917 revolution should
have ended in March with the overthrow of the monarchy, which had impeded the
development of capitalism. The Menshevikism you mention in your comment as an
example of third-wayism is merely orthodox Marxism as applied to a country
where capitalism had yet to develop to maturity, such as Russia was in 1917.
This is clearly not the case with the first-world West, where capitalism has
evolved in ways Marx did not expect and has worked technological wonders far
beyond those that so delighted the authors of the Manifesto.
Re immigrants as analogous to scab labour: it's maybe worth looking at the Bank
of England Staff Working Paper No. 574, "The impact of immigration on
occupational wages", which concluded that a large number of unskilled
immigrants has, as might have been expected, depressed the wages of unskilled
workers. Also relevant is the comment by Lord Rose, formerly head of Marks &
Spencer, leader of the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign, who said that Leave
would produce a rise in wages for workers. There was a time when the Labour
party would not have regarded that as a bad thing.
Tabasco@67: Re the need
for visas to go from Britain to Europe: before 1973, with Britain outside the
EEC, it was perfectly possible to go to France, Italy, Germany with no visa.
Also, last time I flew from NI to Dublin there was one queue for passport
control, for everybody. Having EU and non-EU queues would make it faster for
everybody.
Re the factors that led people to vote for Leave, one of Ashcroft's polls
enquired about that, and found that the reason most often given was the
principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK. I'm not sure
that's tribalism.
I've said that immigration is not my expertise, but labor history is, and I
find the comparison of immigrants to scabs not only libelous but historically
wrong. Immigrants in US labor, circa 1880-1920, and their sons and daughters
after, are what built the great industrial unions (see, for example,
International Ladies and Garment Workers Union, or the Lawrence strike of 1912,
or any number of other examples). Furthermore they are arguably the dynamo in
what's left of the US labor movement today, immigrants rights movements being
melded completely with workers' rights movements.
Good piece, though the identification of the English (and Welsh) tribalists as
"white Christians" is a bit problematic in a context where the immigrant group
is just as white and far more Christian than they are.
"decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK."
But a decision on whether
a person should be allowed to travel from some other country to the UK, or
vice versa
is not just a decision about the UK, or just about that other
country. It involves both, not to mention the person in question.
@84 You're right – I took this over from the US context
But a decision on whether a person should be allowed to travel from some
other country to the UK, or vice versa is not just a decision about the UK, or
just about that other country. It involves both, not to mention the person in
question.
This point, with which I agree, is the basic premise of Arash Abizadeh's
argument that unilateral state control over borders is incompatible with
democratic legitimacy because it involves the coercive application of the law
to people who have no say in making it. Obviously, however, nativists take the
view "it is our land, we get to decide".
If the left argues for immigration controls, however, it
seems to be making concessions to racial-ethnic-national-or-whatever bigotry.
So what is the proper approach to take? Some policy expertise informed by
egalitarianism and internationalism in equal measure would be pretty valuable.
This, to me, is what makes the 'three parties' analysis suspect, at least
for ethnically mixed polities, because there is also a group of voters for whom
civil rights is more important than income inequality. This group is not large
enough to be a party, but it is large enough to destabilize one, and they do
not want to make common cause with people advocating class solidarity if that
means "concessions to racial-ethnic-national-or-whatever bigotry".
Though Corbyn is being shellacked for his tepid support for Remain, he was
stuck navigating a particularly rocky strait, having to choose between
anti-capitalist-world-order and anti-immigrant stances, hence his statement
that his commitment to Remain was 'no more than seven or seven and a half' out
of ten. (
https://goo.gl/5R76EW
)
Worse, this dilemma was strongest for the youngest voters, Corbyn's base and
the ones most attached to both commitments.
British internationalism has now been damaged as the result of the combined
votes of the 'Vote Leave, to demand that the international system be more
accountable and less neo-liberal' and the 'Vote Leave, then leave' camps.
(Chris Bertram covered some of this back in May, in
http://crookedtimber.org/2016/05/20/lefty-poseurs-and-brexit/
)
It is obvious in hindsight that anything less than the public equivalent of
a three-line whip from Corbyn was inadequate to secure Remain, but the
structural problem is deeper: there was not, in the Leave vote, or in the
larger world of contemporary politics, any way to advocate for 'egalitarianism
and internationalism in equal measure'.
To make the obvious imperfect parallel, In the U.S., there are people who
regard the gutting of Glass-Steagall as a bigger catastrophe then the gutting
of the Voting Rights Act and people who come to the opposite conclusion. (The
existence of that latter group, even just as spoilers, is why I don't
completely buy the 'three party' framework.)
The tension between these groups came to the fore around Sanders' desire to
appeal to the economic interests of the white working class means advocating
for the return of voters who left the Democratic party because they disapprove
of the Democrats commitment to civil rights. (
http://goo.gl/3aL46T
)
This obviously did not work, in part because the Civil Rights wing of the
Democratic party is strong right now.
In the U.K. framework, this group is make up of the people who value freedom
of movement more than they dislike the ECB. Prior to this year, I thought that
the tensions between egalitarianism and internationalism were just the sort of
thing that happens in Big Tent parties. Now I'm not so sure.
T]here are no left policies anymore: there are German left policies
(inspired by German values, social conditions, history…), British left policies
(ditto, and they differ from Scottish left policies), American left policies
(ditto), French left policies (ditto)…
The results of the Brexit
referendum, with England alone choosing to secede from the EU, is as clear an
empirical illustration of this thesis as one could possibly imagine.
"…the term 'neoliberal' is used, outside the US, to refer to the
revival of 19th century free market ideas…"
I would disagree with this characterization, although I'm not sure if you
are making it or simply reporting it, John. The epitome of neoliberalism, in
my view, goes under the euphemism of "labour market flexibility."
Superficially this comes down to the same kind of policy prescription as
19th century
laissez faire
but with an entirely different - and
pseudo-Keynesian ("New Keynesian") - theoretical rationale. Not the Chicago
School and Mont Pelerin Society but Joseph Stiglitz, Richard Layard, Olivier
Blanchard, Lawrence Summers, Paul Krugman et al.
M… I… T… ("tee you off soon") k…e…y…
nes
("why? because
we LOVE you!") L… owe… you… S… E.
Yes, Friedman and Hayek, Thatcher and Reagan may have started the ball
rolling but it was the New Keynesians with their stinking "sticky wages"
claptrap who gave it progressive street cred. I could go on but why bother?
One of the most best stories so far, both from the perspective of the granularity of the reporting and the caliber of the writing,
is the Guardian's
'If you've got money, you vote in … if you haven't got money, you vote out' (hat tip PlutoniumKun). It gives a vivid, painful
picture of the England that has been left behind with the march of Thatcherism and neoliberalism.
From the article :
And now here we are, with that terrifying decision to leave. Most things in the political foreground are finished, aren't
they? Cameron and Osborne. The Labour party as we know it, now revealed once again as a walking ghost, whose writ no longer
reaches its supposed heartlands. Scotland – which at the time of writing had voted to stay in the EU by 62% to 38% – is already
independent in most essential political and cultural terms, and will presumably soon be decisively on its way…
Because, of course, this is about so much more than the European Union. It is about class, and inequality, and a politics
now so professionalised that it has left most people staring at the rituals of Westminster with a mixture of anger and bafflement.
Tangled up in the moment are howling political failures that only compounded that problem: Iraq, the MPs' expenses scandal,
the way that Cameron's flip from big society niceness to hard-faced austerity compounded all the cliches about people you cannot
trust, answerable only to themselves (something that applied equally to the first victims of our new politics, the Liberal
Democrats).
Most of all, Brexit is the consequence of the economic bargain struck in the early 1980s, whereby we waved goodbye to the
security and certainties of the postwar settlement, and were given instead an economic model that has just about served the
most populous parts of the country, while leaving too much of the rest to anxiously decline. Look at the map of those results,
and that huge island of "in" voting in London and the south-east; or those jaw-dropping vote-shares for remain in the centre
of the capital: 69% in Tory Kensington and Chelsea; 75% in Camden; 78% in Hackney, contrasted with comparable shares for leave
in such places as Great Yarmouth (71%), Castle Point in Essex (73%), and Redcar and Cleveland (66%). Here is a country so imbalanced
it has effectively fallen over….
What defines these furies is often clear enough: a terrible shortage of homes, an impossibly precarious job market, a too-often
overlooked sense that men (and men are particularly relevant here) who would once have been certain in their identity as miners,
or steelworkers, now feel demeaned and ignored. The attempts of mainstream politics to still the anger have probably only made
it worse: oily tributes to "hardworking families", or the the fingers-down-a-blackboard trope of "social mobility", with its
suggestion that the only thing Westminster can offer working-class people is a specious chance of not being working class anymore.
This much-watch segment with Mark Blyth (hat tip
Gabriel U) also focuses on the class warfare as a driver of the Brexit vote and how that plays into the broader EU political and
economic context:
Our Richard Smith echoed these themes from his own observations:
In (for instance) North Lincolnshire, manufacturing is most likely to be the biggest EU export. That might get nuked a bit
if the terms of trade with EU countries get stiffer.
But the locals upcountry clearly feel they have been ignored, and now have nothing to lose. M and I bumbled through Wisbech
and Boston a few years ago, expecting cute East Anglian port towns, and found instead murderously tense run-down ghettoes.
You get this kind of story:
Unless, improbably, around 700,000 such stories turn up, which would imply they swung the vote, this is another portrayal
of the "Leave" voters as idiots.
Brexit's lesson for the US - and other democracies - is that fear mongering is not enough. Western elites must build a positive
case for reforming a system that is no longer perceived to be fair. The British may well repent at leisure for a vote they
took in haste. Others can learn from its blunder.
But even this is weak tea. Luce isn't advocating a Sanders-style economic regime change. Indeed, his call for action is making
a case for reform, implying that the more realistic members of the elites need to take on the reactionary forces. As we've said,
the Clintons are modern day Bourbons: they've learned nothing and forgotten nothing. Luce's warning to Hillary Clinton, firmly
ensconced in her bubble of self-regard, deeply loyal to powerful, monied interests and technocrats, is destined to fall on deaf
ears.
"... The Russians, like the USA, feel they have a strategic need to sustain a ship building industry
with military and nuclear power capabilities. This means their budgets are set up to have continuous
delivery of nuclear submarines. Adding nuclear powered ice breakers is a reasonable option. ..."
"... I see USA elites very keen on delivering anti Russia propaganda which inflates a conflict started
by the USA during the Clinton years. Their whole approach is incredibly stupid. ..."
"... NPR sucks. Badly. Corporatist propaganda is propaganda even if it is sold under the "Public"
label. There is nothing "Public" in NPR anymore. It probably should be renamed Neoliberal Corporatism
Radio. In foreign news/events coverage the content is mostly annoying, despicable neoliberal propaganda
24 x 7. ..."
"... And as for military spending, the USA is the world leader and I think still outspend all other
nations combined. So this girl is performing the trick which is called "The pot calling the kettle black."
..."
"... BTW if I were Russian, I would take some precautions in case some psychopathic warmonger is
elected in the next Presidential elections. ..."
That NPR article is mostly bullshit. The Russian navy has limited access to ice free ports other
than the Kola Peninsula, where Murmansk is located. The Russian northern fleet has always had
a large set of bases and facilities all along the peninsula, plus the White Sea.
The Russians, like the USA, feel they have a strategic need to sustain a ship building
industry with military and nuclear power capabilities. This means their budgets are set up to
have continuous delivery of nuclear submarines. Adding nuclear powered ice breakers is a reasonable
option.
As regards resources, the most viable resource oil targets are in the Kara sea and Yamal peninsula.
Yamal has supergiant gas reserves, and there's a couple of supergiant fields in the Kara – already
discovered in areas which freeze over in winter but are open water in summer time.
I see USA elites very keen on delivering anti Russia propaganda which inflates a conflict
started by the USA during the Clinton years. Their whole approach is incredibly stupid.
likbez, 06/24/2016 at 12:47 am
GoneFishing,
No so fast. Your link contains transcript so you are misleading people here. And even if it
does not would not this does not make NPR material any different. NPR sucks. Badly. Corporatist
propaganda is propaganda even if it is sold under the "Public" label. There is nothing "Public"
in NPR anymore. It probably should be renamed Neoliberal Corporatism Radio. In foreign news/events
coverage the content is mostly annoying, despicable neoliberal propaganda 24 x 7.
I just read the transcripts (which is in your link). And I can confirm that is a typical bullshit+
anti-Russian propaganda of the globalist part of the US elite (Killary friends from GS and like
:-). If you think otherwise you probably should eat the transcript shredded into Borscht. That
might help.
This is something that's raising fears that the Arctic could become the next crisis zone
between Russia and the West. Mary Louise is also there above the Arctic Circle on what is the
longest day of the year.
… … …
GREENE: And is this where you're seeing this military buildup, in this port?
KELLY: Well, this is what we came up here to investigate. And we've been able to see, for
example, the military installation where they are building a new dock because the existing
facilities are not big enough for these giant nuclear icebreakers that are coming off the production
line. You can see Russia is building bases. They are refurbishing the submarine fleet. They
are ordering helicopters that are specially designed to fly up here in the frozen air of the
Arctic
… … …
And all of this, of course, speaks to Russia's ambitions in the Arctic. Russia is deeply interested
in the mineral resources and the oil and gas beneath the sea here. And as global warming melts
the waters heading north toward the North Pole – as this region opens up, Russia is keen to
dominate it.
There is such thing as county economic zone. For Russia north border is in Arctic. What a despicable
presstitutes…
And as for military spending, the USA is the world leader and I think still outspend all
other nations combined. So this girl is performing the trick which is called "The pot calling
the kettle black."
BTW if I were Russian, I would take some precautions in case some psychopathic warmonger
is elected in the next Presidential elections.
That does not means that Russia does not have problems. It is also a neoliberal state. Much
like the USA. But that's another story.
GoneFishing, 06/24/2016 at 8:29 pm
Yes, the Russians are such nice peaceful people who never go to war, never take over small
countries, never look out for their own interests using military power and recently have destroyed
their nuclear arsenal because it was so abhorrent to them.
They should be named Sweeties instead of Russians, because they would never try and cause trouble
or take more than their fair share.
Trofim Lysenko became the Director of the
SovietLenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural
Sciences in the 1930s under Josef Stalin. He was an advocate of the theory that characteristics
acquired by plants during their lives could be inherited by later generations stemming from the changed
plants, which sharply contradicted Mendelian genetics. As a result, Lysenko became a fierce critic
of theories of the then rising modern genetics.
Under Lysenko's view, for example, grafting branches of one plant species onto another could create
new plant hybrids that would be perpetuated by the descendants of the grafted plant. Or modifications
made to seeds would be inherited by later generations stemming from that seed. Or that plucking all
the leaves off of a plant would cause descendants of the plant to be leafless.
Lysenkoism was "politically correct" (a term invented by Lenin) because it was consistent with
certain broader Marxist doctrines. Marxists wanted to believe that heredity had a limited role even
among humans, and that human characteristics changed by living under socialism would be inherited
by subsequent generations of humans. Thus would be created the selfless new Soviet man.
Also Lysenko himself arose from a peasant background and developed his theories from practical
applications rather than controlled scientific experiments. This fit the Marxist propaganda of the
time holding that brilliant industrial innovations would arise from the working classes through practical
applications. Lysenko's theories also seemed to address in a quick and timely manner the widespread
Soviet famines of the time arising from the forced collectivization of agriculture, rather than the
much slower changes from scientific experimentation and genetic heredity.
Lysenko was consequently embraced and lionized by the Soviet media propaganda machine. Scientists
who promoted Lysenkoism with faked data and destroyed counterevidence were favored with government
funding and official recognition and award. Lysenko and his followers and media acolytes responded
to critics by impugning their motives, and denouncing them as bourgeois fascists resisting the advance
of the new modern Marxism.
The V.I. Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences announced on August 7, 1948 that thenceforth Lysenkoism
would be taught as the only correct theory. All Soviet scientists were required to denounce any work
that contradicted Lysenkoism. Ultimately, Soviet geneticists resisting Lysenkoism were imprisoned
and even executed. Lysenkoism was abandoned for the correct modern science of Mendelian genetics
only as late as 1964.
The Theory of Man Caused Catastrophic Global Warming
This same practice of Lysenkoism has long been under way in western science in regard to the politically
correct theory of man caused, catastrophic, global warming. That theory serves the political fashions
of the day in promoting vastly increased government powers and control over the private economy.
Advocates of the theory are lionized in the dominant Democrat party controlled media in the U.S.,
and in leftist controlled media in other countries. Critics of the theory are denounced as "deniers,"
and even still bourgeois fascists, with their motives impugned.
Those who promote the theory are favored with billions from government grants and neo-Marxist
environmentalist largesse, and official recognition and award. Faked and tampered data and evidence
has arisen in favor of the politically correct theory. Is not man-caused, catastrophic global warming
now the only theory allowed to be taught in schools in the West?
Those in positions of scientific authority in the West who have collaborated with this new Lysenkoism
because they felt they must be politically correct, and/or because of the money, publicity, and recognition
to be gained, have disgraced themselves and the integrity of their institutions, organizations and
publications.
The United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) is supposed to represent the best science
of the U.S. government on the issue of global warming. In January, the USGCRP released the draft
of its Third National Climate Assessment Report. The first duty of the government scientists at the
USGCRP is to produce a complete picture of the science of the issue of global warming, which is what
the taxpayers are paying them for. But it didn't take long for the Cato Institute to do the job of
the USGCRP with a devastating line by line rebuttal, The Missing Science from the Draft National
Assessment on Climate Change, Center for the Study of Science, Cato Institute, Washington, DC, 2012,
by Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Robert C. Balling, Mary J. Hutzler & Craig D. Idso.
Check it out for yourself if you dare. Both publications are written to be accessible by intelligent
laymen. See which one involves climate science and which one involves political science.
All the climate alarmist organizations simply rubber stamp the irregular Assessment Reports of
the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). None of them do any original
science on the theory of anthropogenic catastrophic global warming. But the United Nations is a proven,
corrupt, power grabbing institution. The science of their Assessment Reports has been thoroughly
rebutted by the hundreds of pages of science in Climate Change Reconsidered, and Climate
Change Reconsidered: 2011 Interim Report, both written by dozens of scientists with the Nongovernmental
International Panel on Climate Change, and published by the Heartland Institute, the international
headquarters of the skeptics of the theory of anthropogenic catastrophic global warming.
Again, check it out for yourself. You don't have to read every one of the well over a thousand
pages of careful science in both volumes to see at least that there is a real scientific debate.
The editors of the once respected journals of Science and Nature have abandoned
science for Lysenkoism on this issue as well. They have become as political as the editorial pages
of the New York Times. They claim their published papers are peer reviewed, but those reviews
are conducted on the friends and family plan when it comes to the subject of anthropogenic catastrophic
global warming. There can be no peer review at all when authors refuse to release their data and
computer codes for public inspection and attempted reconstruction of reported results by other scientists.
They have been forced to backtrack on recent publications relying on novel, dubious, statistical
methodologies not in accordance with established methodologies of complex statistical analysis.
Formerly respected scientific bodies in the U.S. and other western countries have been commandeered
by political activist Lysenkoists seizing leadership positions. They then proceed with politically
correct pronouncements on the issue of anthropogenic catastrophic global warming heedless of the
views of the membership of actual scientists. Most of what you see and hear from alarmists regarding
global warming can be most accurately described as play acting on the meme of settled science. The
above noted publications demonstrate beyond the point where reasonable people can differ that no
actual scientist can claim that the science of anthropogenic catastrophic global warming has been
settled or that there is a settled "consensus" that rules out reasonable dissent.
Indeed, 31,487 U.S. scientists (including 9,000 Ph.Ds) with degrees in atmospheric Earth sciences,
physics, chemistry, biology and computer science have signed a statement that reads: "There is no
convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse
gases is causing, or will in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere
and disruption of the Earth's climate."
See here. Some consensus.
Real science, of course, is not a matter of "consensus," but of reason, with skepticism at its
core.
The Decline and Fall of the Theory of Anthropogenic Catastrophic Global Warming
The alarmist claims of the UN's IPCC are ultimately based not on scientific observations, but on
unvalidated climate models and their projections of future global temperatures on assumptions of
continued increases in carbon dioxide emissions resulting from the burning and use of fossil fuels.
The alarmists are increasingly in panic because the past projections of the models are increasingly
divergent from the accumulating actual temperature records. Those models are not real science, but
made up science. And no way we are abandoning the industrial revolution as the Sierra Club is hoping
based on model fantasies and fairy tales.
The Economist magazine, formerly in lockstep with the Lysenkoists, shocked them with a
skeptical article in March that began with this lede:
"OVER the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth's surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas
emissions have continued to soar. The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the
atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity
since 1750. And yet, as James Hansen, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies,
observes, 'the five-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade. . . .'"
Reality is not complying with the alarmism of the UN's global warming models, just as it refused
to do for Trofim Lysenko. Remember all that hysteria about melting polar ice caps and the disappearing
ice floes for the cute polar bears? As of the end of March, the Antarctic ice cap was nearly one
fourth larger than the average for the last 30 years. The Arctic ice cap had grown back to within
3% of its 30 year average. (The formerly declining Arctic ice was due to cyclically warm ocean currents).
Global sea ice was greater than in March, 1980, more than 30 years ago, and also above the average
since then.
Remember the alarm about the rising sea level? Yeah, that has been rising, as it has been since
the end of the last ice age more than 10,000 years ago. Just exactly as it has been, at the same
rate. And anyone you know that has been scared by this alarmist propaganda has been successfully
played by whatever media the fool has been relying on.
Murderous recent winters in Europe are killing as well belief in alarmist global warming on the
continent. University of Oklahoma Professor and geophysicist David Deming reported in a recent column,
"The United Kingdom had the coldest March weather in 50 years, and there were more than a thousand
record low temperatures in the United States. The Irish meteorological office reported that March
"temperatures were the lowest on record nearly everywhere." Spring snowfall in Europe was also
high. In Moscow, the snow depth was the highest in 134 years of observation. In Kiev, authorities
had to bring in military vehicles to clear snow from the streets."
In the Northern Hemisphere, Deming adds, "Snow cover last December was the greatest since satellite
monitoring began in 1966." That reflects similarly bitter cold winters in North America as well.
Despite claims by global warming Lysenkoists that soon children "won't know what snow is," on February
6, 2010, a blizzard covered the northeastern U.S. with 20 to 35 inches of snow. Three days later
another 10 to 20 inches were added.
These developments should have been expected from known indisputable facts. Carbon dioxide is
a natural substance essential to the survival of all life on the planet. It is effectively oxygen
for plants, and without plants there would be no food for animals to survive. Because of the increased
atmospheric CO2 agricultural output is already increasing.
CO2 is also a trace gas in the atmosphere, representing only 0.038% of the total atmosphere, up
only 0.008% since 1945. That tiny proportion of the atmosphere is supposed to produce catastrophic
global warming that will end all life on the planet? The historical proxy record shows CO2 concentrations
in the distant history of the earth much, much greater than today. Yet life survived, and flourished.
Moreover, the basic science of global warming is that the temperature increasing effect of increased
CO2 concentrations declines as those concentrations increase. So stop worrying and enjoy the agricultural
abundance in your grocery store.
A tip off regarding reality should have been apparent from the dodgy propaganda involved in changing
the labeling of the problem from "global warming" to "climate change." Of course, Earth has been
experiencing climate change since the first sunrise on the planet. We are not going to abandon the
workers' paradise of capitalism because climate change will continue.
Another tip off should have been the effective admission by global warming alarmists that they
cannot defend their position in public debate. The day the theory of anthropogenic catastrophic global
warming died can be dated from the time that one leading alarmist was foolish enough to debate James
Taylor of the Heartland Institute, a video of which can be found on the Heartland website at
Heartland.org.
Still another tip off should have been the practice of the alarmist new Lysenkoists to respond
to dissenting science with ad hominem attacks. That apparently reflects poor public schooling
that never taught that an ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy, as Aristotle taught more
than 2,000 years ago. My how western science has fallen.
The basic science shows that global temperatures are just not very sensitive to CO2 itself. Even
alarmists will concede that. Where they get their alarm is with the modeling assumption that the
CO2 induced temperature increases will produce positive feedbacks that will sharply increase the
overall resulting warming. The better recent science indicates, however, that instead of positive
feedbacks, the naturally stable Earth would enjoy negative feedbacks restoring long term equilibrium
and stability to global temperatures.
Then there is the man caused, global warming, fingerprint that the U.N.'s models all showed would
result in a hot spot of particularly large temperature increases in the upper troposphere above the
tropics. But the incorruptible, satellite monitored, atmospheric temperature record shows no hot
spot. That is further confirmed by modern weather balloons measuring atmospheric temperatures above
the tropics. No hotspot. No fingerprint. No catastrophic, man caused global warming. QED.
The revival of western science requires that the new Lysenkoism be discredited. That is going
to require quite some work, given the extent of the infestation.
I am Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute, Senior Advisor
for Entitlement Reform and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation, General Counsel
for the American Civil Rights Union, and Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis.
I served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate
Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush. I am a graduate of
Harvard College and Harvard Law School, and the author most recently of America's Ticking Bankruptcy
Bomb (New York: Harper Collins, 2011). I write about new, cutting edge ideas regarding public policy,
particularly concerning economics.
The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.
"... Science and scientists are now heavily politicized. A lot of them are just political charlatans spreading nonsense for money and abusing mathematics, using it as smoke screen to hide their disgraceful actions. Take for example neoclassical economists. ..."
"... Many scientists now have connections and receive funding from military industrial complex or other industrial lobbies which also affects objectivity. ..."
"... Scientists with integrity of Rutherford are extinct. Now this is "He who pays the piper calls the tune" all over the science. ..."
"... That does not exclude objectivity, but it now can never be taken for granted. Scientific schools struggles can now well be the struggles of influence groups standing behind particular groups of scientists. The attitude should be like in the Russian proverb that Reagan used to love so much: "Trust but verify" ..."
"... IMHO you can view neoclassical economics as a cancer or a modern version of Lysenkoism (and a very successful, dominant one), if you wish (with due apologies to "strict" supply-demand equilibrium believers; of course, in a long run everything comes to equilibrium, but in a long run we all are dead ;-). ..."
"... How the existence and success of Lysenkoism ( let's say in the form of neoclassical economics ) correlates with your optimism about modern science and scientists ? That is the question to be answered. ..."
Fred from way up thread.
"Sorry Tea, this is the 21st century and while that might have been true even a century ago, we now have a very extensive and
solid body of scientific knowledge to work with and therefore all scientists do not in any way shape or form get it wrong ALL
THE TIME! That isn't how science works today."
I will not shove words into you mouth and I will ask that you don't try it with me. No one said all scientist get it wrong
all the time. What was said is that most scientists have ideas that will later be proven wrong. In the field of climate science
the models developed and played up in the media that were used to promote all kinds of false assumptions and alarming predictions
have been frequently and objectively proven to be wrong. Most intellectually honest scientists would agree that we do not have
the information needed for the models to fully understand all the variables that influence earths climate. Which of course includes
sun cycles and the natural earth processes such ocean cycles, tectonics (volcanoes) ect (not to ramble on). To take one possible
influence, the increase or decrease of CO2 and make predictions as to what the climate will be in 50 years is not science, it
is at best guess work, it is one part of a jigsaw puzzle and it is dishonest to present in any other way.
It does not matter what field of science one works in, but to chose one for an example, medical science and drug development.
Billions of $$$ are spent on drug development, more times than not the drugs and the research behind them are thrown into the
trash because they do not work. The "science" relating to human diets and the epidemic of obesity and diabetes, another great
example where they just flat got it wrong for over 30 years. I could ramble on but the point is made, good people often get it
wrong, bad people do not care and evil people profit from it. :-)
most scientists have ideas that will later be proven wrong.
And that's misleading to the point of just being wrong.
Yes, almost all scientists are working with concepts that can be improved in some way. But are they just flat out wrong? No.
Why is this important? Because your argument above uses this idea to frame climate science improperly: climate science can
certainly be improved, in many, many ways. But it's good enough to identify serious risks in what we're doing now, and tell us
that we need to take some action to mitigate those risks.
Of course, climate science mostly tells us what we already know for other reasons: fossil fuels are expensive, risky and polluting,
and we should move away from them as fast as we can.
And, of course, that's why the Koch brothers and Exxon want to throw doubt on climate science: it's bad for their business.
"But it's good enough to identify serious risks in what we're doing now, and tell us that we need to take some action
to mitigate those risks."
this is a statement i can agree with as it attempts to understand the limitations we are struggling with but also why further
study and research is needed. Now include that idea with a cost benefit analysis of our current energy mix and all of a sudden
we have someone who at least correctly frames the issues.
Tell the Chinese and Indians I doubt that any of them have ever heard of the Koch brothers. It isn't about doubt created by
Exxon or Koch brothers, those doubt exist on the merits of the science itself it is about maintaining civil order in their own
countries.
Yes, the layman looks on scientific results as indeterminate and without confidence, couched in error limits and probabilities,
and subject to correction or change. Of course the reality is far different, just look around you.
The very simple statements of the non-scientific populous seem so confident, so definite. Mostly they are wrong or misleading
but they are not couched in terms of the reality of the situation and are generally one-sided and agenda based. We call that propaganda,
I call it deceit.
The scientist understands the limitations of his investigations and puts them honestly out front for public viewing, being heavily
checked by his peers. Probably about as honest as you can get in this world.
Again, if you think science is wrong and does not work, look around you, even as you type or read on the electronic inventions
derived from all the "wrong" science. You sound like you have no idea how knowledge is gained or grows. Nor do you know how to
interpret scientific results. Best to leave that to others.
And if you are thinking about global warming, the physics are rock solid, the details of climate change are fuzzy, mostly because
of lack of funding for enough research teams and sensors. But it is only fuzzy, not wrong. If some of those rich businessmen and
their puppet governments would actually spend enough money and effort on the science effort, we might know with greater certainty
the details of climate change.
But they do not want to know, because it will force inconvenient action and change. Throughout history, the search for knowledge
has been directed and throttled by the powers that be. We are still medieval in many ways.
But I guess today's profit and power are far more important than the world or our future generations.
Science and scientists are now heavily politicized. A lot of them are just political charlatans spreading nonsense for
money and abusing mathematics, using it as smoke screen to hide their disgraceful actions. Take for example neoclassical economists.
Many scientists now have connections and receive funding from military industrial complex or other industrial lobbies which
also affects objectivity.
Scientists with integrity of Rutherford are extinct. Now this is "He who pays the piper calls the tune" all over the science.
As such most of them (outside few fields yet not politicized enough, like pure mathematics ) became the same prostitutes for
the elite as journalists.
That does not exclude objectivity, but it now can never be taken for granted. Scientific schools struggles can now well
be the struggles of influence groups standing behind particular groups of scientists. The attitude should be like in the Russian
proverb that Reagan used to love so much: "Trust but verify"
TT, I apologize for giving the impression that I was quoting you verbatim.
However when you say this: What was said is that most scientists have ideas that will later be proven wrong.
I have to agree with Nick below. That statement is flat out wrong! Science does not operate in a vacuum and most scientists
today build on a very solid scientific foundation of accepted scientific theories. They don't just pull ideas out of their asses!
It does not matter what field of science one works in, but to chose one for an example, medical science and drug development.
Billions of $$$ are spent on drug development, more times than not the drugs and the research behind them are thrown into the
trash because they do not work.
Ok I'll run with that! While a particular drug may not work as expected the scientific research they engage in does not overturn
germ theory or the theory of evolution!
LOL! You really should read the rationalwiki link you posted! From that link:
When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But
if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than
both of them put together.
As for the Wired link, Meh! And for the Guardian link I suggest you watch this to at least dispel some common myths about Einstein.
How about such thing as Lysenkoism? Is not this a cancer for science, from which there is essentially cures are as difficult to
obtain and are as destructive as for regular cancer.
IMHO you can view neoclassical economics as a cancer or a modern version of Lysenkoism (and a very successful, dominant
one), if you wish (with due apologies to "strict" supply-demand equilibrium believers; of course, in a long run everything comes
to equilibrium, but in a long run we all are dead ;-).
How the existence and success of Lysenkoism ( let's say in the form of neoclassical economics ) correlates with your optimism
about modern science and scientists ? That is the question to be answered.
"... Its so sad how the western presstitutes try and work this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79jQSYQYcW0 Russia seems to have the war part covered while Syria is bringing the diplomatic punch into focus .... ..."
"... Unadulterated BS. As for Obama (see 6) the committee man (he was elected for that role), he is caught between a rock and a hard place. Ukraine was and is an absolute disaster - nothing worked out as wished. (Some may enjoy Helmer, who sometimes must be taken with a dose of salt, linked below, MH17, etc. This war is being fought on 2 fronts, Ukr. + Syria.) ..."
"... Although the US seems to have gotten tough(er) on ISIS in recent months, there are indications that this is just more smokescreen. The Assad must go! Coalition has merely changed tactics. They still support their extremist proxy army(s) (as demonstrated by recent resupply and pleas for Russia to avoid bombing) . ..."
"... Obama warned Putin that he could face a 'quagmire' and 'costs'. To paraphrase Madeline Albright: What good is a proxy army if you don't use it? ..."
"... Obama is a willing and very capable participant in the 'con'. This has been proven in the realm of domestic affairs as well as foreign affairs. james has it right when he says: "this good cop/bad cop (obama/brennan) routine is a pile of bullshite". ..."
"... The Saudis and its allied are too stupid to realize that they have been taken on a ride. Turkey is on the verge of crumbling as Erdogan keeps attacking the USA and Egypt and has not solve the issue with Israel on Hamas and the defunct Moslem Brotherhood. ..."
"... Yes, I suppose it is entirely possible that this "schism" between Obama and the Pentagon is just theatrics, optics, useful in declaring helplessness when "policies" are undone or contradicted ... Obama as victim of palace infighting. ..."
"... "Turkey on the verge of crumbling ..." ..."
"... Egypt has placed the MB on the terror list and has become allied with Saudi Arabia and UAE. Qatar is isolated for its support of the MB. Erdogan is between a rock and a hard place, its foreign policy has been a disaster. Seeking to restore relations with Russia. The intelligence community of Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia have joined assets in the Levant. Al Nusra on the Golan must be defeated, the UK/US training camps of rebels in Jordan must be neutralized to fight in the southern corridor to Damascus. ..."
"... To remove any ambiguity about the status of the Free Syrian Army, a representative was present at this year's Herzliya Conference. This annual conference is dedicated to issues relating to Israel's Security. Netanyahu and high level Israeli Military Intelligence leaders state they prefer ISIS to Assad. ..."
"... War criminal Obama was the lead advocate for bombing Syrian government a few years ago, thats until the UK Parliament put a temporary stop to it. So any credit given to Obama by b , or anyone else is ludicrous. LUDICROUS. The destruction of Libya still gets Obama mitigation ? ..."
"... In 2016 we have the batsh*t crazy appointed government bureaucrats siding with the sole interests of a foreign country. Circle talking seems to be the normal state of affairs at State, Executive and MSM. PBS has gone full Karl Marx. Congress has an 16% approval rating, 80% disapproval, and 4% no opinion [1]. So I guess Congress doesn't really matter? And as far as our military command goes, when you can use 'sold out' and 'son of a bitch' in the same sentence, we, as a nation might have a major problemo. ..."
"... Actually, Putin has said that their intervention in Syria is in Russia's strategic interests - making much the same argument that Bush did wrt al Queda: we need to fight them there so that we don't have to fight them here . Russia doesn't want to see extremist control of another failed state like Libya. ..."
"... Clearly there is an ongoing battle in the Obama Administration between Mostly the pentagon (at least some part of it) and the CIA (most part of it). Obama is well aware of this. ..."
"... Obama's Strategy has been to isolate Russia Politically and to shift the main focus of United State Towards Asia however the unexpected resistance of Russia and Syria wasn't forecast by his administration and part of the Deep state. Now part of the heads in the pentagon and the Obama administration want out of this proxy war against Russia as the World and mainly the US public becomes more and more aware of the real nature of the war ongoing in Syria. The heart of the matter is that The members of the oligarchy that rule the united states through revolving doors between the government , their law firms, foundations, banks and corporations can't afford to lose Syria for obvious reason. ..."
"... "But Putin invited the evil US Empire into Syria." ..."
"... I haven't watched or listened to that PBS tripe ever . But considering that PBS is 90% corporate funded, I find it hard to accept your assertion ... it is merely a corporate/permanent government psy-op to keep the intellectually and morally challenged sedated. ..."
"... Obama's Syria SNAFU was always destined to boil down to Yankees playing Russian Roulette - with Russia. They're probably beginning to realise that playing cat and mouse loses a lot of its appeal when the cat starts getting ready to eat you. ..."
"... Hillary's so predictably evil, and he's so officially 'unpredictable' that he's the natural focal point of the selection circus. It's too bad only one of them can lose. ..."
"... Confirmation of other reports ... ..."
"... Obama and his Administration is a collection of lawyers, political pseudo-"scientists", journos etc. They are very good at promoting suicidal social policies but do not and cannot operate with actual operational categories--briefings by CIA or Pentagon (granted that they reflect a reality on the "ground", which is a question) are not designed to teach some Ivy League lawyer fundamentals of international relations, strategy, operational art etc. They merely distill a very complex geopolitical reality to a several catch phrases which could be understood by people of such qualities as W. (his military briefings papers contained headers with Bible excerpts, supposedly applicable to current situation) or Obama, who has no clue on how to assess the world around himself. ..."
"... In relation to Russia what Obama has in mind is beaten to death cliche of Afghanistan (obviously without studying that war) with which he wants to impress Russians, who, meanwhile fought two bloody wars against Wahhabi terrorists on own territory and, somehow, do know, unlike Obama or US liberal political class, what does it take to deal with this huge issue. In the end, during last War in Chechnya US media loved to misuse this very term (quagmire) and completely forgot to mention that Chechnya today is, actually, pretty reliable anti-terrorism entity in Russia. Now, add here most of US "elites" and a population being absolutely oblivious to real war and voila'. You have people speaking in platitudes and ignorant cliches. ..."
The U.S. is
unwilling to stop the war on Syria and to settle the case at the negotiation table. It wants
a 100% of its demands fulfilled, the dissolution of the Syrian government and state and the inauguration
of a U.S. proxy administration in Syria.
After the ceasefire in Syria started in late February Obama
broke his pledge to separate the U.S. supported "moderate rebels" from al-Qaeda. In April U.S.
supported rebels, the Taliban like Ahrar al Sham and al-Qaeda joined to attack the Syrian government
in south Aleppo. The U.S.proxies broke the ceasefire.
Two UN resolutions demand that al-Qaeda in Syria be fought no matter what. But the U.S. has at
least twice asked Russia not to bomb al-Qaeda. It insists, falsely, that it can not separate its
"moderates" from al-Qaeda and that al-Qaeda can not be attacked because that would also hit its "moderate"
friends.
The Russian foreign minster Lavrov has talked wit Kerry many times about the issue. But the only
response he received were requests to further withhold bombing. Meanwhile al-Qaeda and the "moderates"
continued to break the ceasefire and to attack the Syrian government forces.
After nearly four month Kerry still insists that the U.S. needs even more time for the requested
separation of its proxy forces from al-Qaeda. Foreign Minister Lavrov recently
expressed the Russian consternation:
The Americans are now saying that they are unable to remove the 'good' opposition members
from the positions held by al-Nusra Front, and that they will need another two-three months.
I am under the impression that there is a game here and they may want to keep al-Nusra
Front in some form and later use it to overthrow the [Assad] regime," Lavrov said at the St. Petersburg
International Economic Forum.
The bucket was full and Kerry's latest request for another three month pause of attacking al-Qaeda
was the drop that let it overflow. Russia now responded by
hitting the U.S. where it did not expect to be hit:
Russian warplanes hit Pentagon-backed Syrian fighters with a barrage of airstrikes earlier
this week , disregarding several warnings from U.S. commanders in what American military
officials called the most provocative act since Moscow's air campaign in Syria began last year.
The strikes hit a base near the Jordanian border, far from areas where the Russians were previously
active, and targeted U.S.-backed forces battling the Islamic State militants.
...
These latest strikes occurred on the other side of the country from the usual Russian operations,
around Tanf, a town near where the borders of Jordan, Iraq, and Syria meet.
...
The Russian strike hit a small rebel base for staging forces and equipment in a desolate, unpopulated
area near the border. About 180 rebels were there as part of the Pentagon's program to train and
equip fighters against Islamic State.
When the first strikes hit, the rebels called a U.S. command center in Qatar, where the Pentagon
orchestrates the daily air war against Islamic State.
U.S. jets came and the Russian jets went away. The U.S. jets left to refuel, the Russian jets
came back and hit again.
Allegedly two U.S. proxy fighters were killed and 18 were wounded.
Earlier today another such attack hit the same target.
This was no accident but a well planned operation and the Russian spokesperson's response makes
the intend clear:
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov appeared to confirm the attack Friday, telling reporters
it was difficult to distinguish different rebel groups from the air.
Translation: "If you can not separate your forces from al-Qaeda and differentiate and designate
exclusively "moderate" zones we can not do so either ."
The forces near Tanf are supported by U.S. artillery from Jordan and air power via Iraq. British
and Jordan special operations forces are part of the ground component (and probably the majority
of the "Syrian" fighters.) There is no al-Qaeda there. The Russians know that well. But they wanted
to make the point that it is either separation everywhere or separation nowhere. From now on until
the U.S. clearly separates them from AQ all U.S. supported forces will be hit indiscriminately anywhere
and anytime. (The Syrian Kurds fighting the Islamic State with U.S. support are for now a different
story.)
The Pentagon does not want any further engagement against the Syrian government or against Russia.
It wants to fight the Islamic State and its hates the CIA for its cooperation with al-Qaeda and other
Jihadi elements. But John Brennan, the Saudi operative and head of the CIA, still seems to have Obama's
ear. But what can Obama do now? Shoot down a Russian jet and thereby endanger any U.S. pilot flying
in Syria or near the Russian border? Risk a war with Russia? Really?
The Russian hit near Tanf was clearly a surprise. The Russians again caught Washington on the
wrong foot. The message to the Obama administration is clear. "No more delays and obfuscations.
You will separate your moderates NOW or all your assets in Syria will be juicy targets for
the Russian air force. "
The Russian hits at Tanf and the U.S. proxies there has an additional benefit. The U.S. had planned
to let those forces move north towards Deir Ezzor and to defeat the Islamic State in that city. Eventually
a "Sunni entity" would be established in south east Syria and west Iraq under U.S. control. Syria
would be split apart.
The Syrian government and its allies will not allow that. There is a large operation planned to
free Deir Ezzor from the Islamic State occupation. Several hundred Syrian government forces have
held an isolated airport in Deir Ezzor against many unsuccessful Islamic State attacks. These troops
get currently reinforced by additional Syrian army contingents and Hizbullah commandos.A big battle
is coming. Deir Ezzor may be freed within the next few month. Any U.S. plans for some eastern Syrian
entity are completely unrealistic if the Syrian government can take and hold its largest eastern
city.
The Obama administration's delaying tactic will now have to end. Russia will no longer stand back
and watch while the U.S. sabotages the ceasefire and supports al-Qaeda.
What then is the next move the U.S. will make?
Posted by b on June 18, 2016 at 11:15 AM |
Permalink
Many pundits have argued that there is no military solution in Syria. I disagree, a military solution
is the only one possible and it must be decisive. How is it possible for Saudi Arabia to supply
and finance thousands of proxy forces to destroy a fellow Arab state, and still claim to be fighting
terrorism. Syria and Iran need to take the gloves off and use their own special forces or better
still encourage proxy forces of their own [unattributed of course]to cripple the Saudi economy
with various 'incidents' at Ras Tamara oil port. "An assault on Ras Tanura, however, would be
vastly more serious. As much as 80% of the near 9m barrels of oil a day pumped out by Saudi is
believed to end up being piped from fields such as Ghawar to Ras Tanura in the Gulf to be loaded
on to supertankers bound for the west".
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jun/03/saudiarabia.oil
This would have the benefit of killing two birds with one stone, the fall of one of the most obnoxious
regimes known to mankind and with it the cessation of funding for schools of terrorism throughout
the world and with it Assads vision of a secular Syrian state as a role model for the rest of
the Middle East.
@Jackrabbit at 2: Of course Obama is not progressive or peace loving. Only an idiot would argue
that he is. But what b is saying is that Obama is weak reed who can be bent depending on which
faction has his attention. He both wants to overthrow Assad and to avoid getting pulled into an
expensive battle, in my opinion, and in any given week may issue contradictory policies. But it
seems he sides more with the CIA than the Pentagon, which is dangerous in this case.
Seems as though the pressure is on ...this vid Skype presentation by Syrian presidential adviser
Dr Bouthaina Shaaban, to GAFTA (Global Alliance for terminating al Qaeda) conference in Washington,
June 2016. is well worth the listen to .
Its so sad how the western presstitutes try and work this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79jQSYQYcW0
Russia seems to have the war part covered while Syria is bringing the diplomatic punch into focus
....
@2 It's always been clear to me that he is not some tremendous beacon of peace for Syria but the
alternative was McCain and he definitely wanted and still wants more w/ ever a burning yearning
for absolute overt total war against Syria.
It's tough to tell who Obama listens to; Ben Rhodes? Saudi's (most def) but is it just simply
as a sorry for the iran deal or closer ties? The u.s. deep state (i think so but they seemed pretty
pissed at him) . . i think he just expected things to go as they did in libya or perhaps as the
2012 dia memo stated, the plan all along was to create a sliver of a sunni state and for the u.s.
in that case the objective is coming along whether a kurdistan (hopefully) or a caliphate (hope
to god not)... is it a fly trap strategy that'll turn in to a caliphate? hell idk it's going to
be insane w/ hillary.
"On Friday, Defense Secretary Ash Carter called out Russia for bombing a Syrian rebel group
that's backed by the U.S.
Since last year, American and Russian warplanes have shared the skies over Syria while supporting
different sides in the civil war. Moscow backs the Assad dictatorship; the U.S. is arming rebels
who've been trying to overthrow it.
The attack by Russian fighter bombers on American-backed opposition forces appeared to be deliberate
and to ignore repeated U.S. warnings."
Once again our so called Department of Defense displays its 'Kindergarten logic' by condemning
Russia for acting within the parameters of International Law.
harrylaw at 5, yes, say. They state 'no military solution is possible' because they want a
political transition right now.In short, they want the opposing parties to just lie down
and die or go off and play WoW or watch Mad Men or sumptin'. Unadulterated BS. As for Obama (see
6) the committee man (he was elected for that role), he is caught between a rock and a hard place.
Ukraine was and is an absolute disaster - nothing worked out as wished. (Some may enjoy Helmer,
who sometimes must be taken with a dose of salt, linked below, MH17, etc. This war is being fought
on 2 fronts, Ukr. + Syria.)
Read in the Swiss Press (no idea if true) that di Mistura is fed up with the lot of them, implied
he will throw in the towel. Not that a return to the negotiating table is realistic, that ship
has now sailed into the stormy night, the US can't try that move again, nor will the Russians
be so compliant next time (imho.) So that is one thing the US won't do (?).. (b's question.) The
rubber is going to hit the road on this one. It will be fought out in the corridors of power in
Washington first. Putin has been in speech very conciliatory recently to show the usual 'good
will'..
I will hazard a guess. But first, we should not think that the U.S. will act alone. Direct confrontation
with Russia is (of course) too risky.
As I wrote in an earlier comment (includes timeline) , the San Bernandino attack occurred
soon after the downing of the Russian airliner on October 31st 2015. This was the first attack
against the US despite the US having (supposedly) bombed ISIS for over a year and engaged
in a $500 million program to train anti-ISIS fighters.
The long delay in responding to USA's anti-ISIS activities sharply contrasts with the quickness
with which ISIS had responded to Russia's intervention. This leads to the question of whether
the San Bernandino attack was (hastily) arranged to blunt any attempt to associate USA with the
proxy army of Sunni extremists.
Although the US seems to have gotten tough(er) on ISIS in recent months, there are indications
that this is just more smokescreen. The Assad must go! Coalition has merely changed tactics.
They still support their extremist proxy army(s) (as demonstrated by recent resupply and pleas
for Russia to avoid bombing) .
The recent Orlando shooting better establishes ISIS's hate for USA and thereby distances USA/CIA
from ISIS. This distancing may simply be misdirection that allows ISIS to carry out spectacular
attack(s) against Russian interests. That it pre-dates attacks on Russian interests merely
shows that they learned from the San Bernandino experience (where a lack of previous attacks
raised suspicions) .
Note:
1) The San Bernandino attackers had visited Saudi Arabia and the wife had lived there. They
were well established in the USA and drew little if any suspicion. They could have attacked
months before or after the time that they actually did attack.
2) The Orlando attacker had also visited Saudi Arabia. The background of the wife is
(as yet) not well understood. She was born in USA but her last name ("Salman") is the same
as the Saudi royal family (I'm not sure how relevant that is) . It is now clear that
she had some knowledge of the plans of her husband.
3) Both the San Bernandino and Orlando (SB&O) attackers had a young child. As a 'young family'
they would be less likely to draw suspicion. Were the SB&O attackers really "radicalized via
the Internet"? "ISIS-inspired"? "Lone wolf"? Or, were they 'deep cover' operatives?
4) The FBI has caught/entrapped many potential attackers that were "radicalized over the
Internet" but they are invariably clueless and incapable.
5) AFAIK, "ISIS-inspired" attackers in Paris and Brussels didn't have young children and
middle-class lifestyle.
Obama warned Putin that he could face a 'quagmire' and 'costs'. To paraphrase Madeline Albright:
What good is a proxy army if you don't use it?
Obama is a willing and very capable participant in the 'con'. This has been proven in the realm
of domestic affairs as well as foreign affairs.
james has it right when he says: "this good cop/bad cop (obama/brennan) routine is a pile
of bullshite".
In public the US criticizes and threatens Russia. In private I think that the Pentagon is more
than happy to see Russia blowing up these "moderates" that have become polluted by Saudi Arabia,
Kuwait, Qatar and also Turkey.
Using Russia, the USA is giving a good lessons to these 'allies' countries that dare stand against
the USA shift on Iran. They are becoming increasingly terrified by their powerlessness.
This has always been the USA double game in the ME: Caress and stab in the back. The Saudis and
its allied are too stupid to realize that they have been taken on a ride. Turkey is on the verge
of crumbling as Erdogan keeps attacking the USA and Egypt and has not solve the issue with Israel
on Hamas and the defunct Moslem Brotherhood.
The tacit agreement between Kerry and Lavrov on crushing the rebels, islamist or not, is very
clear.
Yes, I suppose it is entirely possible that this "schism" between Obama and the Pentagon is just
theatrics, optics, useful in declaring helplessness when "policies" are undone or contradicted
... Obama as victim of palace infighting.
PBS TV is running a piece on the military draft. Giving a historical perspective dating back to
George Washington's request for a draft during the Revolutionary War to the present.
While stationed at Great Lakes Naval station in 1967 I noticed that all of e gate guards were
US Marines. This was during Nam. I asked one Marine how he managed to pull such a plum assignment.
He told me that he had been drafted into the Marines. His tour was for two years. He was told
that being a draftee he would not serve in a combat unit as a draftee and not an enlistee 'he
could not be trusted.'
The Outlaw US Empire's behavior regarding the UNSC resolution that al-Qaeda be attacked no matter
what proves the Empire's support for that terrorist group absolving its citizens from paying taxes
to support terrorism since doing so is against the law. Is my logic sound, or should I rephrase?
Egypt has placed the MB on the terror list and has become allied with Saudi Arabia and UAE.
Qatar is isolated for its support of the MB. Erdogan is between a rock and a hard place, its foreign
policy has been a disaster. Seeking to restore relations with Russia. The intelligence community
of Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia have joined assets in the Levant. Al Nusra on the Golan must
be defeated, the UK/US training camps of rebels in Jordan must be neutralized to fight in the
southern corridor to Damascus.
It must be the
US supported Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) heading towards Deir ez-Zor, a crucial cross-roads
for Islamic State between Raqqa and Anbar province in Iraq. The U.S. will do all to help establish
an enlarged Sunni enclave as a gift for its Arab patrons. A bit of Syria should suffice as punishment
for Assad and allies.
Seems like you missed you missed the big news for today:
On Putin´s order, Sergei Shoigu, the Russian defence minister visited Bashar al Assad and the
Kmeimim base.
That most certainly mean s that something big will be announced next week. Stay tuned...
The Helmer piece on MH17 is interesting. I remember reports that the Australians were prepared
to send troops into the area, but if the Dutch were planning the same thing then it was a NATO
op in all probability. The utter hysteria that had been unleashed in the Western media at the
time would have provided the cover for such bold move. The desired result would not have necessarily
been immediate war with Russia, but certainly the instantaneous creation of cold war standoff
and militarization which has been happening incrementally instead. This could be considered similar
to the sarin attack in Syria, blamed on Assad, with the hasty response of quickly regime-changing
the country, which also was called off (and the policy continued incrementally since). This highlights
the centrality of false-flag events to realize policy, particularly to those favouring rapid game-changing
moves. It is very possible that the next POTUS will be faced with a false-flag atrocity in the
Baltics or mid-east early in the first term, with an attendant bold move offered as response.
"U.S. jets came and the Russian jets went away. The U.S. jets left to refuel, the Russian jets
came back and hit again. Allegedly two U.S. proxy fighters were killed and 18 were wounded.
Earlier today another such attack hit the same target."
Putin seems quite adept at appearing weak (even to his supporters), then BAM!! IMO, this is
not a one-off. No reason to fly clear across Syria to 'make a statement', though it was a helluva
statement!
I expect more of the same, with Russia going back to its original strategy, which worked quite
well. So much for Obama's foreign policy (don't do stupid shit).
Thanks Terry for the Bouthaina Shaaban speech. The most amazing are the questions after the 30 mn
speech. A dozen of female hyenas talking non-sense! At some stage one of them is clearly becoming
hysterical. Hard to believe they are simply ill-informed. Most of these people are on pay-list, for
sure. It is relieving to see a Muslim woman talking naturally, unveiled, in the middle of Ramadan. Shaaban
is really strong to manage to keep her calm.
At the Khmeimim airbase, the General of the army Sergei Shoigu inspected the accommodation
of personnel and issues of providing with all types of support, and also met with Russian pilots
performing combat missions to destroy the terrorist infrastructure in Syria and military units
for the protection and security of the air base. The head of the Russian military tested the
combat duty at the command post of the air defense group, and also the starting positions of
anti-aircraft missile system S-400, which is stationed at the air base," stated the message
of the Defense Ministry.
Speaking at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, Putin said that maintaining Syria's
integrity must be the top priority and warned that the disintegration of the Middle Eastern
country would be a "destabilizing factor not only for the region, but for the whole world."
"We must act carefully, step by step, aiming to establish trust between all sides to the
conflict," the Russian president said, adding that a new and effective government could be
formed in Syria once this trust is finally built. A political process is the only way to reach
peace, Putin said, stressing that Syrian President Bashar Assad "also agrees to such a process."
Minister of Defence General of the Army Sergei # Shoigu ordered the Chief of
the Russian Centre for reconciliation of opposing sides Lieutenant General Sergei #Chvarkov
to build up negotiations with heads of administrations and armed formation commanders on joining
national truce process.
To remove any ambiguity about the status of the Free Syrian Army, a representative was present
at this year's Herzliya Conference. This annual conference is dedicated to issues relating to
Israel's Security. Netanyahu and high level Israeli Military Intelligence leaders state they prefer
ISIS to Assad.
b, an excellent piece, if what you alleged were true! It's now or never. The regime in
Washington must be stop. If not now, when? You cannot trust Obomo, Hillary, Trump or Bernie, regardless
who is in the WH.
@7 terry.. ditto mina's comment @26 - thanks for sharing that video... pretty enlightening how
thick the propaganda is inside the usa for them to question Syrian presidential adviser Dr Bouthaina
Shaaban in the manner they do... her comment at 49 minutes in is pretty strong and clear..
War criminal Obama was the lead advocate for bombing Syrian government a few years ago, thats until
the UK Parliament put a temporary stop to it.
So any credit given to Obama by b , or anyone else is ludicrous. LUDICROUS.
The destruction of Libya still gets Obama mitigation ?
But Putin invited the evil US Empire into Syria. What kind of fool would invite humanities
worst enemy, as well as Russia's biggest enemy, into a conflict where they oppose each other.
Grotesque stupidity.
Lets be clear there are meetings behind closed doors among players, we are just speculating. While
Syria might be the main focus point, Kiev continues bombing Separatists in Donbass, Venezuela
in the blinks of anarchy. In joint military exercises off India's east coast, China and Russia's
warships watching war game between US, Japan and India...
Here something you got to watch: TeleSurTV: Media Review: The World According to Seymour Hersh:
Part Two
I loved this story. I am somewhat in awe of how the Russians have handled their Syrian presence,
and the gains they make with every move. Did they have the moral weight 6 months ago to destroy
US assets and perhaps US citizens on the ground in Syria? It seems certain that they do now. They
seem to have tested all the players in the US establishment and discovered none who can stand
up to them.
What will the US do next? On past performance, all it can do is lie, cheat and steal, but all
this within the paradigms set by Russia and the UN. One assumes that Russia's command has every
permutation of treachery war-gamed already, with contingency moves in place. I suggest popcorn.
It is to the benefit of world peace that the Syrian part of the war between Russia and the
US proceed as slowly and deliberately as possible. With every day that passes Russia becomes militarily
stronger and US military force continues to atrophy without renewal, while its policy-making remains
frozen with no intellectual refreshment or inventiveness.
Putin and his team are such astonishingly mature peacemakers that every provocation or twitch
of malice by the US is net with calm. The global effort continues to allow the US to sink to its
knees with as much grace as can be managed. So far, nobody has had to nuke the US, and for this
I'm grateful. There is one good and final slapping that the US has to take in public before its
time is over, and I yearn for the day, but I think it's far off yet, somewhere in a single-digit
range of years.
@39 Russia doesn't want a quagmire, nor does it want Western Sanctions. If Syria wasn't a militarily
weak and spent force, things would probably go a lot smoother. Instead, outsiders are having to
fight outsiders, and Russia and Iran are not tier-1 allies for whatever reason. Russia and China
have never shown much defense against western aggression against 'partner' countries as it is,
so Syria has been quite a stretch.
For Iran, Hezbollah and Syrians, Syria is the battle of a lifetime, but for Russia, it's maybe
a bargaining chip, or a something less, or something more.. we just don't know. All we can do
it wait and see what happens, for we'll never truly know what Russia's intentions in the region
are until after the fact.
I personally want the 'evil' side to be thwarted on all fronts, as it's akin to a cancer that
will destroy the host (Syria and its society) unless it's excised. There are multiple ways of
accomplishing it, but there are multiple ways of failing as well. I guess that's why I'm glad
I'm here making opinions, rather than being in any sort of command position. I just hope that
the next administration in Washington will be sick of this business, but unfortunately seems more
or less to be only one side that probably won't win(Trump)
lebretteurfredonnant | Jun 18, 2016 5:28:16 PM |
44
Hello everyone I heard That France was building a military base near kobane. Is that true ? Can
someone knowledgeable in the matter or b shed some light on this news ?
At the least during Nam we were given the 'Domino Theory' which, if you could consume enough alcohol,
made perfect sense. The Gulf of Tonkin Incident! Where a country without a Navy attacked our Navy.
Where do I enlist!
In 2016 we have the batsh*t crazy appointed government bureaucrats siding with the sole interests
of a foreign country. Circle talking seems to be the normal state of affairs at State, Executive
and MSM. PBS has gone full Karl Marx. Congress has an 16% approval rating, 80% disapproval, and
4% no opinion [1]. So I guess Congress doesn't really matter? And as far as our military command
goes, when you can use 'sold out' and 'son of a bitch' in the same sentence, we, as a nation might
have a major problemo.
I think people should note that this is all Russia black eyeing as collusion with Assad the evil
dictator,and it all is about the upcoming election,where Trump,contrary to certain misinfo agents
here,supports Russias efforts and promises to try and get along with the neolibcons enemies, who
will be ejected from their positions by an American nationalist administration.All these creeps
have been installed by the shrub.The HB and Obomba,all American zeros.
And look at the Olympic blanket judgement on innocent Russian athletes, more propaganda and demonization.
I haven't heard anything from Trump since Hillary's apotheosis, actually a little before. Has
he stopped talking? Or has the corporate media just stopped publishing him? Obama, Kerry, the
50 dancing diplomats ... all that stuff seems made to order for Trump to roll over.
For Iran, Hezbollah and Syrians, Syria is the battle of a lifetime, but for Russia, it's
maybe a bargaining chip ...
Actually, Putin has said that their intervention in Syria is in Russia's strategic interests -
making much the same argument that Bush did wrt al Queda: we need to fight them there so
that we don't have to fight them here .
Russia doesn't want to see extremist control of another failed state like Libya.
lebretteurfredonnant | Jun 18, 2016 7:05:52 PM |
51
Clearly there is an ongoing battle in the Obama Administration between Mostly the pentagon (at
least some part of it) and the CIA (most part of it). Obama is well aware of this.
Obama's Strategy
has been to isolate Russia Politically and to shift the main focus of United State Towards Asia
however the unexpected resistance of Russia and Syria wasn't forecast by his administration and
part of the Deep state. Now part of the heads in the pentagon and the Obama administration want
out of this proxy war against Russia as the World and mainly the US public becomes more and more
aware of the real nature of the war ongoing in Syria. The heart of the matter is that The members
of the oligarchy that rule the united states through revolving doors between the government , their
law firms, foundations, banks and corporations can't afford to lose Syria for obvious reason.
On
the geopolitical scale The control of the silk Road and Pipeline is of primary importance especially
the latter if the us wants to efficiently keep its grip on Europe for the next 30 years.France
and mainly Germany could turn to Russia as noted by the willing of many member of their oligarchy
and this would be a near devastating blow for the US empire.To take an example Europe is more
or less today what India was for Great Britain back before the end of world war two.It might be
difficult accepting or believing that one country in the near east such as Syria could old such
a role in the destiny of an empire but that's exactly it.Syria is in our current present the country
where channel all the opposition to the new world order made in America and if it wasn't for the
inability of The States to wage a war against Russia a world war Three-this time without proxy-would
be in the making.
The Good news is that I have never seen the united States leads a war against adversaries of the
same caliber able to efficiently strike back to them (with the exception of japan) as the main
lead...Remember It is the Russians who defeated Germany not the US..everything else is just propaganda.The
US is more of empire that uses trickery and the weaknesses of its adversaries to forward its agenda
more than anything else;otherwise they always ends up negotiating. I will probably be proven wrong
at some point but not by the Russians as of now.
"But Putin invited the evil US Empire into Syria."
No he didn't .... UN resolution was approved under Medvedev.
lebretteurfredonnant | Jun 18, 2016 8:36:21 PM |
53
@dahoit
I can't believe there is people still believing in politician more so when they have been proven
liars time and time again.I am all for the welcoming of a saviour and providential man but anyone
doing a serious background check (as should any voter) on trump knows the man is a crook .I mean
I understand the desire for hope but it shouldn't blind us.
Trump is just an Obama from the left
and that is about it.The Deep state has gotten stronger since the Kennedy's Assassination and
is unlikely to release its grip on Syria knowing its geostrategic necessity to the empire.
Trump will never be ruling the show on the main strategies of the empire, never, unless he wants
himself dead. The only thing that will defeat the US empire in Syria is Russian will nothing short
of that. Unless The States are able to pull some magic tricks unknown to us at that point. For one
thing certain a war is very unlikely (although many want it)against such a mighty foe as Russia-for
now.
The story printed out by many mainstream newspapers on Bill Clinton advising Trump on phone
to run as a candidate should give anyone pause as to the hidden scheme behind politic and the
trump and Clinton family friendship.Yet Some people still believe trump is an opposition to the
system. That boggles the mind.Really.The only reason I can find explaining this attitude in someone
knowledgeable of the trickery of the States is political correctness (quiet powerful actually)
or blindness and irrational hope....now some say faith is irrational...however I was not expecting
to see it having such large part in modern politics.
ALberto @ 45 You say that "PBS has gone full Karl Marx". I haven't watched or listened to that
PBS tripe ever . But considering that PBS is 90% corporate funded, I find it hard to accept
your assertion ... it is merely a corporate/permanent government psy-op to keep the intellectually
and morally challenged sedated.
A piece in
today's Wall Street Journal indicates that despite the growing pressure, Obama means to stick
by his policy of limited intervention. Of course he's being pig-headed in insisting "Assad must
go," but what he's doing beats full-scale US invasion of Syria, "no-fly" zones and similar madness
favored by Hillary and likely to lead to WW III although, as John Pilger puts it, WW has already
started; on the other hand, it hasn't yet gone thermonuclear, and I see that as a distinct advantage.
Thank you Grieved, in particular for reminding us as follows:
". . .malice by the US is met with calm. The global effort continues to allow the US to sink
to its knees with as much grace as can be managed."
This was well illustrated at the opening of the St. Petersburg economic conference. Pointed
questions about political candidates were countered by Putin in a deft manner that left no doubt
of his assessment of the 'leading' candidates, without calling anyone a hitler or any suggestion
of interference in the US political process. I don't believe Putin is any fonder of Trump than
he is of Ms. Clinton - he stated he'll work with whomever comes out on top (my words) and had
kind words to say for Bill - not for his policies but for his encouragement of Putin early on.
Very diplomatic, and wise.
Where have our wise politicians gone? We did have a few once. Couldn't we please just sink
to our knees gracefully? The world would love us if we did. Here - I'll be first. (Sinks to knees.)
After all, tonight is the night of Pentecost and Sunday we do the magnificent kneeling prayers
for the first time since before Easter.
Obama's Syria SNAFU was always destined to boil down to Yankees playing Russian Roulette - with Russia.
They're probably beginning to realise that playing cat and mouse loses a lot of its appeal when the
cat starts getting ready to eat you.
lebretteurfredonnant@44 - I'm not really knowledgeable in the matter, but I have broadband and
type fast for what it's worth.
Little detail is known about the base, but it may be the former Syrian Army Mishtenur/Mushtannour
Hill Military Base shown on wikimapia
here . The location is just the flat top of Mishtenur Hill (just south of Kobane) with a bulldozed
revetment around the periphery. No idea what the Syrian Army used it for - it may have been a
simple observation post with a few artillery pieces (long gone). There are no structures on the
hilltop other than a commercial radio tower and a few shacks at the northern edge. The hilltop
itself isn't much more than 200m x 600m - not large enough for a fixed-wing airstrip but plenty
of room for helicopters and a small contingent of French Special Forces. The Kurds probably have
a few people there as headchopper lookouts/snipers.
The Mishtenur Hill location should be considered speculative - I only recall a couple of mentions
in english-language Kurdish press. It makes sense to put it there, but who knows.
Months ago when the U.S. was building its 'secret' base at the
Rmelian airstrip , there were rumors of a second 'U.S. base' being constructed somewhere around
Kobane, but nothing was heard after that. Not sure if that rumor was related to the potential
Mishtenur Hill location the French may be using.
The Kurds and Kurdish Press have been very tight-lipped about these bases for obvious reasons,
so I wouldn't expect to ever see much on them. CNN had a crew run out to Rmeilan so we know it
exists and was being worked on, but they were not allowed on the 'base' and couldn't see much
over the protective berms surrounding it. There are no pictures or video of the current state.
I would imagine the French SF base - wherever it ends up - will remain shrouded in mystery as
well.
If you're doing any on-line searches, keep in mind that these locations have proper Turkish/Kurdish/Arabic
names, not 'english' ones. There may be half-a-dozen variations on the derived english name used
in various media sources as was the case for Rmeilan.
This is very, very alarming and I get a strong sense it's about a lot more than separating rebels
from AQ. I also wonder who is really at that base in Tanf.
Have to also keep in mind the daily escalation of hostility around the NATO meetings leading
up to the Warsaw summit.
Putin did a press conf at the end of the St Petersburg econ summit and a Canadian press exec
asked about NATO troops deploying to their border. He gave a long answer about US walking away
from a missile treaty that had kept the world from serious global war for 70yrs, etc. Had a lot
to say about missiles. I wonder.
DANA ROHRABACHER, California. We import 750,000 tons of vital minerals and material every year.
An increasing global demand for supplies of energy and strategic minerals is sparking intense
economic competition that could lead to a counterproductive conflict.
A ''zero sum world'' where no one can obtain the means to progress without taking them from someone
else is inherently a world of conflict.
Additional problems arise when supplies are located in areas where production could be disrupted
by political upheaval, terrorism or war.
Thanks. Actually I'd read that one. I rarely read anything of Justin Raimondo's at aw.com,
but I read that one for some reason. It's the run down for those who haven't been paying attention,
I thought. Let me look again ...yeah, it's not the Republican candidate (yet) talking about it,
but for that one cryptic comment, it's Justin Raimondo talking about it, and he ain't running
for president. Of course he's write-in candidate, as are about 200 million of the rest of us.
But that is just the kind of a pitch that Trump needs to make, has to make really, to keep
from being steamrolled by the DNC machine and all the monied interests to whom its sold-out and
who are consequently supporting it. Trump is pretty well-free of supervision by the Republicrat
party and he needs something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from what the Demoblicans are trying to make
the election about. He could get a lot of attention, and possibly support, from the antiwar right
and left, he could pick up Bernie's betrayed ... if he went after not only the sheer misanthropy
of it all but the tawdriness, the treachery, the self-dealing of the neo-cons ... at least he
could bring all that into the open. Make the neo-cons, their wars and the MIC a topic in the contest.
He made a good start with his remarks on Russian and Putin. I think it's his most promising row
to hoe.
But I haven't heard much at all from Trump himself lately, he seems to be 'thinking' ... lining
up money, more likely, and tailoring his message accordingly. He's not interested in 'investing'
whatever money he actually has in a political campaign. He took money from Adelson, has neo-cons
on his payroll.
Hillary's so predictably evil, and he's so officially 'unpredictable' that he's the natural
focal point of the selection circus. It's too bad only one of them can lose.
I'm going to write-in a candidate, and I hope that millions more of us will as well. If the
write-in/none-of-the-above/spoiled-ballot total exceeded that of either of these two sorry characters
we'd be off and running ourselves.
Due to appeal of the American party, representatives of the Russian an US defence departments
held videoconference on implementing the Memorandum on preventing incidents while performing
military operations in the airspace of Syria dating October 20, 2015.
The American party has informed the Russian one about alleged premeditated strike by the
Russian Aerospace Forcers on detachments of the Syrian opposition in the south of Syria on
June 16, 2016 in despite of appeals of the US.
Representatives of the Russian Defence Ministry explained that the object, which had suffered
bombardment, was located more than 300 km far from borders of territories claimed by the American
party as ones controlled by the opposition joined the ceasefire regime.
The Russian Aerospace Forces operated within the agreed procedures and forewarned member
states of the US-led coalition about the ground targets to strike on. The American party
has not presented coordinates of regions of activity of opposition controlled by the US. This
caused impossibility to correct actions of the Russian aviation.
Therefore, actions by the Russian party have been carried out in strict observance of the
Joint Russian-American statement and the Memorandum.
Moreover, within last few months, the Russian defence department has been suggesting compiling
a joint map with actual information about location of forces active in Syria. However, there
has been no significant progress reached.
The parties exchanged their opinions in a constructive manner. They were aimed at strengthening
cooperation in fighting against terrorist formations in Syria and preventing all incidents
while performing military operations in the territory of Syria
So - either cooperated, or get your "assets" annihilated. Let's see what the U.S. will come up
with ...
@ jfl | 67 Ok. Trump seems consistent in his ideas: Don't mess in other countries, don't provoke Russia, only secure
US-borders. Now I see the article I gave isn't from Tyler Durden, but from Justin Raimondo.
Case and point - when Ukie nazis were shelling Donbass cities, resistance went into offensive
and broke through the nazis and made them run, Putin forced the resistance to stop immediately,
under the gunpoint (literally*). Ukies returned to allowed by Russia front lines right on the
outskirts of Donbass cities, and started using artillery and mortars on them again, then Putin
acted angry about it.
The choices we have:
a) Putin made a cold calculated deal with his "Western partners" and let it happen, and then acted
angry on TV for public perception.
b) Putin couldnt foresee it as he is stupid.
So which is it? I'm pretty sure everyone here will agree Putin is anything but stupid, which
leaves us with option a)
*Idealistic Donbass resistance leaders who wanted to continue offensive and at the very least
push nazis away from the cities, were removed by Russia. Either under blackmail and death threats
(like Strelkov), or literally assassinated them (like Batman and others). Follow the history and
facts, Russia's leadership arent idealist do-gooders as some like to imagine. Just because they
are against even bigger evil like US, doesnt make Russia saintly.
Harry | Jun 19, 2016 6:37:50 AM | 76
Just because they are against even bigger evil like US, doesnt make Russia saintly.
Well, if your comparing the U.S. and Russia for saintly-ness; Russia wins, hands down.
Again; the differences are chess to checkers; I just like and enjoy Pres. Putin's style; a class
act under duress.
I'm glad you recognise the U.S. as the greater evil (by orders of magnitude).
Putin is leaps and bounds ahead of someone like Obama, there is no question. However I respect
other resistance leaders even more, who are greater class acts, dont betray alies and are under
much greater duress than Putin ever experienced, like Nasrallah, Khameinei (before nuke deal)
and especially Assad. There is much to admire about them.
No argument there; but all of the above (including Putin) are facing annihilation from/by the
hegemon.
It's the main reason I fear war is immanent.
The insanity is palpable, no?
I already posted that in #64
and jfl reacted in #67
In the article a remarkable fragment about Gen. Michael Flynn:
The Washington Post, in its mission to debunk every word that comes out of Trump's mouth, ran
an article by Glenn Kessler minimizing the DIA document, claiming that it was really nothing
important and that we should all just move along because there's nothing to see there. He cited
all the usual Washington insiders to back up his thesis, but there was one glaring omission:
Gen. Michael Flynn, who headed up the DIA when the document was produced and who was forced
out by the interventionists in the administration. Here is what Flynn told Al-Jazeera in an
extensive interview:
Al-Jazeera: "You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew these groups
were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn't listening?
Flynn: I think the administration.
Al-Jazeera: So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?
Flynn: I don't know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it
was a willful decision.
Al-Jazeera: A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and
the Muslim Brotherhood?
Flynn: It was a willful decision to do what they're doing."
Of course, Glenn Kessler and the Washington Post don't want to talk about that. Neither do
the Republicans in Congress, who supported aid to the Syrian rebels and wanted to give them
much more than they got. They're all complicit in this monstrous policy – and they all bear
moral responsibility for its murderous consequences.
Gen. Flynn, by the way, is an official advisor to Trump, and is often mentioned as a possible
pick for Vice President.
Rumors are growing that Germany is set to deploy special operation forces in Northern Syria
in order to assist the predominantly Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces that has laid a siege
on the
strategic ISIS-controlled city of Manbij . Reports look realistic amid a series of deployments
by different Western states.
The US built a base in an abandoned airport in the Syrian Kurdish region Hasakah in 2015
and American troops have been participating in clashes against ISIS near Manbij since May 2016.
France's Defense Ministry admitted the presence of its special forces on the ground in Syria
on June 9. French troops have reportedly built a military base near the city of Kobane and
are participating in clashes with ISIS along with SDF and US units.
"I would personally be more inclined to leave, for a lot of reasons like having a lot less
bureaucracy," he told the Sunday Times. "But I am not a British citizen. This is just my opinion."
The billionaire businessman also told the newspaper that he would seek to have good relationships
internationally if he were elected president in November, including with David Cameron. The
British Prime Minister has in the past called Trump's proposed temporary ban on Muslims entering
the United States "divisive, stupid and wrong".
Trump also said that if he became president he would try to improve the trade deals the
U.S. has with China, and work more closely with Russia and that could include co-operating
with Russia in the fight against Islamic State.
The only thing with quotes is the first, the rest is 'old' news, isn't it? "try to improve the
trade deals the U.S. has with China, ... work more closely with Russia ... co-operating with Russia
in the fight against Islamic State" That's the kind of stuff that draws a line between himself
and Hillary, the harridan horde, and the 50 dancing diplomats. I think that's the vein I would
mine if I were The Donald. But I'm not. As I'm sure you've noticed.
Wayoutwest@84 John McCain has already advocated for man pads to be supplied to the US "good terrorists".
The Russians can handle that situation simply by flying higher. The unknown repercussions are
a different matter. Ben Gurion airport the only International airport in Israel and the hub of
its commerce and tourist industry, some analysts say the closure of Ben Gurion for an extended
period of time could wreck the Israeli economy. All the Israelis need is a few manpads operating
a few miles from Ben Gurion airport or even the threat thereof of bringing down civilian airliners
should concentrate the mind. Remember just one wayward missile fired by Hamas, which landed 1
mile from the airport was enough for the FAA to cancel all flights into and out of Ben Gurion.
Russia Dismantles the Myth of the American Navy's Invincibility
~~~
Russian hypersonic weapons
The main Russian hypersonic weapon are derived from space glider Yu-71 (Project 4202), which
flew during tests at a speed of 6000-11200 km/h over a distance of 5,500 km at a cruising altitude
below 80,000 m, receiving repeated pulses from a rocket engine to climb, execute maneuvers and
cornering trajectory. It is estimated that the glider is armed with warheads that are spatially
independent, with autonomous guidance systems similar to the air-ground missiles Kh-29 L/T and
T Kh-25 (which provides a probable deviation of 2-6 m). Although it may take nuclear warheads,
the space glider will be armed with conventional warheads and will be powered by a rocket launched
normally from nuclear-powered Russian submarines.
~~~
Hypersonic concept for a war
The new Russian military doctrine states that an attack on the American invasion fleet is to
be executed in three waves, three alignments, thus preventing American expeditionary naval groups
from positioning themselves near the Russian coast of the Baltic Sea. The first wave of hypersonic
weapons, consisting of space gliders arranged on Russian nuclear-powered submarines under immersion
in the middle of the Atlantic, starts fighting US naval expeditionary groups as they start crossing
the Atlantic to Europe. The American naval groups need 7-8 days to cross the Atlantic; the plane
Il-76MD-90A has a maximum flight distance of 6300 km and can be powered in the air, reaching the
middle of the Atlantic Ocean in a few hours. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article44902.htm
Associated Press 6/19/2016 Russia says US failed to provide Syrian opposition locations
MOSCOW - The Russian military on Sunday rejected the Pentagon's accusations that it had deliberately
targeted U.S.-backed Syrian opposition forces, arguing the U.S. had failed to warn about their
locations.
Russian Defense Ministry spokesman, Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov, said the area targeted in the
strike was more than 300 kilometers (186 miles) away from locations earlier designated by the
U.S. as controlled by legitimate opposition forces.
The Pentagon said it held a video conference Saturday with the Russian military to discuss
Russian air strikes Thursday on the At-Tanf border garrison, which targeted Syrian opposition
forces fighting the Islamic State group.
"Russia's continued strikes at At-Tanf, even after U.S. attempts to inform Russian forces through
proper channels of ongoing coalition air support to the counter-ISIL forces, created safety concerns
for U.S. and coalition forces," it said in a statement.
Konashenkov retorted that the Russian military had warned the U.S. in advance about the planned
strike, but the Pentagon had failed to provide coordinates of legitimate opposition forces,
"making it impossible to take measures to adjust the Russian air force action."
He added that the Russian military had proposed months ago to share information about locations
of various forces involved in military action in Syria to create a comprehensive map, but the
Pentagon hasn't been forthcoming.
Turkish border guards have shot dead at least eight Syrians, including four children, who were
trying to cross into Turkey, activists say.
A further eight people were injured, said the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a UK-based
monitoring group.
The shooting took place at a border crossing north of the Syrian town of Jisr al-Shugour, which
is controlled by jihadist groups.
Turkey has repeatedly denied its guards shoot at Syrians crossing the border.
More than 2.5 million Syrians who fled the war have taken refuge in Turkey. Turkey has now
closed its borders to Syrians.
The Associated Press news agency quoted a senior Turkish official as saying: "We are unable
to independently verify the claims" regarding the shooting, but said authorities were investigating.
As well as four children, three women and a man were also killed, the Observatory said.
Other Syrian opposition groups put the death toll at 11.
Since the beginning of 2016, nearly 60 civilians have been shot while trying to flee across
the border from Syria into Turkey, the Observatory says.
IMHO the political solution just doesn't exist, because most of the fighters are likely foreigners
who don't give a sh!t about Syria or Syrians. bbb @ 23.
I have read that there are about 30-40K of them, a large number (?) imho, because one tends
to underestimate the mayhem well-organised small groups can cause in a fractured, now extremely
vulnerable, shattered, society.
One of the problems for the pro-Assad side, I read, is that once some or many opponents are
killed others just show up!
This last argument is faulty, because while the West likes to paint these forces as either:
ideologically/religiously motivated by IS, or even politically-nationally in the sense of a 'New
Caliphate', or, alternatively, as rebels against a corrupt despotic national order (freedom-fighters
against Assad.)
All descriptions miss the mark (there might be some slivers of truth in the sense of 'rationalisations'…)
The bulk of them are mercenaries, imho, lost young men who are paid, regain agency, can send
money to families, participate in a cause, and experience soldered group-think and communal 'being,'
violent life to perpetrate barbaric acts on occasion, particularly against villagers, women, all
would be repressed at home. Their pay is collapsing, at least halved (IS has been fractured and
various income streams have become dodgy, oil for ex., support for losers always plummets) and
so they leave, the hook becomes less glam, etc. Death also more certain. This one jihad is no
longer *that* attractive.
Yes, these fighters don't give a sh*t about Syrians. They are fighting their 'own' war against
the all the West (their enemy indeed), and therefore against Assad as afforded the opportunity.
'Islamist' forces *instrumentalised*, not a new move or flash news..the contradictions are ignored.
The fighters are patsy-cum-proxy forces, expendable. No seat at the High Table for them.
A more informed, better picture of the forces on the ground ? .. ??
Obama warned Putin that he could face a 'quagmire' and 'costs'. To paraphrase Madeline Albright:
What good is a proxy army if you don't use it?
Obama and his Administration is a collection of lawyers, political pseudo-"scientists", journos
etc. They are very good at promoting suicidal social policies but do not and cannot operate with
actual operational categories--briefings by CIA or Pentagon (granted that they reflect a reality
on the "ground", which is a question) are not designed to teach some Ivy League lawyer fundamentals
of international relations, strategy, operational art etc. They merely distill a very complex
geopolitical reality to a several catch phrases which could be understood by people of such qualities
as W. (his military briefings papers contained headers with Bible excerpts, supposedly applicable
to current situation) or Obama, who has no clue on how to assess the world around himself.
In
this case the term "quagmire" is merely a simulacra produced by US media (this part Obama understands)
to represent a huge number of military and political factors which influence achieving objectives
of any campaign (or war) and which require addressing by professionals -- this is NOT Modus Operandi
by US top political "elite".
In relation to Russia what Obama has in mind is beaten to death cliche
of Afghanistan (obviously without studying that war) with which he wants to impress Russians,
who, meanwhile fought two bloody wars against Wahhabi terrorists on own territory and, somehow,
do know, unlike Obama or US liberal political class, what does it take to deal with this huge
issue. In the end, during last War in Chechnya US media loved to misuse this very term (quagmire)
and completely forgot to mention that Chechnya today is, actually, pretty reliable anti-terrorism
entity in Russia. Now, add here most of US "elites" and a population being absolutely oblivious
to real war and voila'. You have people speaking in platitudes and ignorant cliches.
@ Noirette #95 - Thank you for putting into words the diminishing appeal of being mercenaries
for the losing side.
It's an important dynamic that extends throughout the world and across many fields, not just
in local battles by fighters with guns. It's a way in which wars are lost without being obvious
at first. It parallels the way in which the US is losing its war against Russia and China in so
many ways that are not completely obvious.
The US military is losing to Russia. The US dollar is
losing to the Shanghai Gold Exchange. But neither Russia nor China have any reason to overpower
the US in either of these fields, not today at least. Meanwhile, on the sidelines, all the mercenary
instincts of players in all fields and all nations and with all interests are finely attuned to
the quiet calculation of which side is winning or losing.
And out of the blue at times we see moments of disaffection - the UK of all allies, against
the wishes of its sponsor the US,
joins the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, because being on the winning side in some
areas matters more than staying with the loser.
It takes time to create critical mass and tipping points, but we can see the pot coming to
the boil if we want to.
Yes, if only the Yemeni army and Houthi's had ballistic missiles capable of reaching Saudi
oil facilities. Remember, Saudi's Shiite minority live right on top of its vast oil fields.
51 neocons warmongers, who need to be send to Afghanistan for some on site learning. Nuland's birds
of feather try to get worm places in Hillary new administration, playing on her war hawk tendencies...
Those "diplomats" forgot about the existence of Saudis and other theocracies which are much more brutal
and less democratic, viewing woman as domestic animals. These are dark times for American foreign
policy. the easy part is to depose Assad. But what might happen after Assad is disposed of? You
know, the hard part, what follows?
Notable quotes:
"... These Diplomats should be fired as idiots. Did they not just live through the Iraqi occupation, destruction and disaster? ..."
"... Are you a bit confused as to who these neocon dissenters at State support in the Syrian civil war? ..."
"... This is simply a roll call of neocon diplomats making a case for another non-strategic war that would badly hurt US interests. It does not represent State Department policy. The neocons have been very persistent in securing career appointments at State for decades now. ..."
"... You are pushing the world closer to war. ..."
"... what is intolerable about the position of the 51 "diplomats" in the memo is that it is their (failed) efforts to dislodge Assad by proxy, facilitating and organizing the flow of arms that more often than ended up in the hands of hard-line jihadists, that has led to almost 400,000 deaths (not to mention wounded) and the flight of over a million refugees. ..."
"... Wow, sounds like some housecleaning is needed at State. Whatever happened to jaw-jaw being better than war-war? If they are so keen on military action, they're in the wrong building. I'm sure some of the overworked troops and officers in the armed forces would be happy to let these guys take a few of the chances of getting shot or blown up that they deal with daily. ..."
"... It is troubling that the State Department, long a bulwark of common sense against America's foreign adventurism, has become as hawkish as its former head, Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... The Middle East Institute is financed, primarily, by the petroleum and arms industries. The Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy has HRC's close ally, Dennis Ross; who, with Martin Indyk, founded AIPAC in the mid-80's. ..."
"... This group's contention that direct confrontation with Russia could be avoided echoes their 2002 claim that Operation Iraqi Freedom would be a three month cake walk. ..."
"... Since WWII, U.S. foreign policy has been rooted in the projection and use of force (covert and overt) as the primary means to achieve whatever goals the executive office seeks. It placed the world on notice that the U.S. was ready and willing to use violence to back its foreign policy objectives. Just as in Vietnam and before the disastrous decision to escalate the use of ground forces, President Johnson's national security advisors (all holdovers from Kennedy's Presidency) pressed Johnson to use aerial bombardment against N. Vietnam to induce them to seek a negotiated peace that would allow the U.S. to withdraw from the conflict and save face while preserving the policy of projecting force as a means to maintain world order in accordance with U.S. designs. ..."
"... My oldest son is now completing his sixth Afghan/Iraq tour.I don't want him in Syria. Let these 51 diplomats volunteer their sons/daughters for Syria.That'll demonstrate their commitment.I'll bet not one of these 51 "geniuses" has a child on active military duty in Iraq/Afghan. ..."
"... These folks are, it appears, mid-level foreign service officers like I was. They are utterly unqualified to make these judgements as the Department of State is a failed organization culturally and functionally. Like HRC, who is still advocating for forced regime change if she wins, they have learned nothing from the past and again have no answer for what follows Asad being deposed. A majority Sunni regime in Syria will tear Iraq apart and there is no likelihood of it avoiding the trajectory of other "pluralistic" Arab state attempts. The fact that State has no culture of strategic analysis informing operational design and operational planning which, in turn, spawn series of tactical events, comes clear in situations like this. Doing nothing is the best case here. Tragic but still the best case. President Obama has seen this. Asad needs to regain control of Syria's territory, all of it. Feeding the hopes of the Ahmed Chalabi equivalents in Syria is perpetuating the violence. And, there is no room for an independent Kurdistan in the region, nor is it in the United States' interest for there to be one. ..."
"... That's the same class of people who figured that invading in Iraq in 2003 would turn out all right. ..."
"... Exhibit A being Samantha Power, the latest in a long line of militaristic, European-born white Americans (see Albright, Kissinger, Brzezinski) who believe that American firepower can bring order to the world. ..."
"... Sorry hawkish diplomats, but you're living in a fantasyland where the invasion of Iraq in 2003 did not permanently tarnish the image of the USA and wreck its credibility as an honest arbiter. That is the reality all US presidents will have to face in the post-Bush 43 era. ..."
"... Are those 51 U.S. Diplomats responsible for advising the Obama Administration to bomb Libya back in 2011? Apparently they have not learned from their mistakes. Or maybe they should just go work for their true Employer, The Military Industrial Complex. ..."
"... This is reckless and irresponsible. US backed "moderates" are fighting elbow to elbow with the Nusra Front and other radicals groups; that is why the cease-fire is collapsing. ..."
"... If we weaken Assad, Islamists will take over Damascus and if Damascus falls, soon Beirut will follow. These folk at State are neo cons, as usual shooting from the hip. ..."
"... Vietnam, 212,000 dead and countless north and south Vietnamese and citizens. Unjust and unwarranted war on Iraq with 4,491 and counting dead and countess Iraqi citizens. Now, Syria? Are you wanting the draft returned? You asking for boots on the ground? How about you 50 join up. I will willingly pay for taxes just arm you and send you in. Along with every other know it all who wants us 'TO DO MORE'!! Spare me. You have learned NOTHING in your past failures, have you? 1956, Iran. Cause the over throw of a duly elected government for the Shahs which led to 1980 revolution to fear of them acquiring nuclear weapons. Vietnam led to 'WHAT'? Now Iraq. ..."
"... The worse destabilization in that area I can remember. Not even during their many attacks on Israel when Egypt got a clue. Fire Saddam Hussein's soldiers and they become ISIS by 2006, yet one bright senator lied and said Obama caused them when we left which was President Bush's treaty Maliki. They did not want us there. Leave per the Iraqi people, also. When ISIS showed up they ran and left the weaponry we gave them and the money in the banks for them to grab. Now, you want us steeped into Syria. It's been said, hindsight is 20/20, ..."
"... In these so called diplomats cases, it is totally and legally blind. Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles has a better perception and one of them is dead. ..."
"... The war hawks, so comfortably away from the battle, are banging those drums of war again. Easy to do when your life and the lives of your fellow military are not at risk. ..."
"... We all know now that the invasion of Iraq by Mr. Bush junior was a) a mistake, and b) a War Crime - there were no threatening WMDs nor did Saddam hold hads with Al Quaeda (he was, actually, their worst enemy - and our security!), so, Iraq was c) total stupidity. It was an aggressive war without any cause - for the USA! ..."
"... This is much more about what Mark Landler thinks than about what those generic diplomats think. The Times's principal hawk, Landler has book and a series of articles pushing his neocon view. I guess we should assume the Times agrees. ..."
"... Having spent substantial time as a private consultant at the US Embassy in Kabul I was shocked by the lack of feelings of midlevel officials there with regard to the dead and injuries of American Troops. The Embassy shared a wall with the ISAF/NATO Main Quarters and every single day the US Flag there was half-mast to acknowledge the dead of our troops on that day in that country. The Embassy never shared this sadness and all midlevel officials there were only concerned about their paycheck, quality of meals served, having a drink, going for a swim, and their frequent trips back to the US; for such people wanting to have a say in when to fight in Syria is a sad state of affair. ..."
"... Perhaps we should figure out one take-down before we move on to the next. After 13 years, we still haven't figured out life in Iraq without Saddam. Any thoughts, neocons, on what might happen after Assad is disposed of? You know, the hard part, what follows? ..."
"... Get Rid of Assad, make relations with Russia worse (they back Assad) and allow ISIS to effectively take over Syria. Sounds like a great plan. I guess our military-industrial complex is getting itchy for a new war. And, of course, doing what these diplomats want will also result in putting boots on the ground. This will be a great legacy for Ms. Clinton (under her watch ISIS came into being), Mr. Kerry (who continued Clinton's failed legacy) and Mr. Obama (the Nobel Peace Prize president; who wasn't). ..."
"... The signers of the dissent letter are militarist neocons (of the Victoria Nuland ilk). More than any other, these people and their CIA collaborators are responsible for the death and destruction in Syria and the ensuing refugee crisis. They can't even give a cogent reason for deposing Assad other than point to the carnage of the civil war they fomented-as if Assad were solely responsible. Assad is acting no differently than the US did during it's own Civil War. ..."
"... The value of the memo can be summed up in one sentence as described in the article itself "what would happen in the event that Mr. Assad was forced from power - a scenario that the draft memo does not address." ..."
"... I wonder about the arrogance of these mid-level State Department foreign service officers. ..."
"... Sure -- a few well-placed cruise missiles will make it all good. Yeah, right. ..."
"... Absolutely amazing. My first question is who released this memo? Having a back channel does not permit anyone to unilaterally decide to release information that could cost lives and ruin negotiations that the releasing person knows nothing about. If you do not like the chain of command, then leave. We cannot continue to be involved in sectarian conflicts that cannot be resolved except by the combatants. Haven't we learned anything from Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Vietnam? No neocon insanity. We have lost enough lives and treasure in the ME. ..."
"... Are these the same ingrates who urged Bush to attack Iraq - his legacy - ISIS! ..."
"... As a 26 year Marine Corps combat veteran I have a hard time trying to figure out what is going on here, and a harder time not becoming totally disgusted with our State Department. ..."
"... My suggestion would be that we arm these 51 individuals, given them a week's worth of ammunition and rations, and drop them into Syria, I am sure they can lead the way in showing us how to solve the mess in the ME. ..."
"... It's the fact that these are not "widely known names" which scares me most. However, Western-instituted regime change in that region has proven disastrous in every single country it has been tried. If possible, I would investigate these diplomats' ties to defense contractors. ..."
"... US intervention created the rubble and hell that is now Syria. When Assad had full control of Syria, the human rights of the people of Syria suffered under him but many if not most people led a civilised life. They had water and electricity. Past US interventions created Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. To puy it simply, life expectancy in all these countries dropped by 20 to 30 years after the US intervened, each time with the highest utopian ideals, and increased the power of Sunni supremacists after each act. ..."
"... Let's not forget that Bush's hasty appointment of Paul Bremer as the hapless Governor of Iraq following the defeat of Hussein's military regime led immediately to the disbanding of the entire Iraqi military, an incredibly short-sighted and reckless move that essentially unleashed 400,000 young trained fighters (including a honed officers corps) absent support programs to assimilate back into Iraqi society, only to have them emerge as readily available fodder essential for ISIS's marshalling a strong military force almost overnight. A huge price is now being exacted for this astounding stupidity. ..."
"... This is conveniently laying grounds for Hillary's grand comeback to the theatre of "humanitarian interventionism" in the Middle East. God help us all, as this is a prelude to the WW3. ..."
"... Wow the neo-cons are beating the war drums yet again! They have already created a huge mess throughout the Middle East with wars and revolutions directly attributable to the United States in invading Afghanistan and Iraq under false pretenses, helping overthrow the government in Libya, and arming rebels in Syria and Yemen. ..."
"... Unfortunately if Hillary Clinton wins, she is a neo-con puppet and we will be at war in Syria and/or Iran within a year or two. God help us! ..."
"... First of all, if this was a channel for employees to share "candidly and privately" about policy concerns, why is it on the front page of the NY Times? Additionally, as usual, it seems the war hawks are hawking war without thought for what comes next. We've done this most recently in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, all of which are now failed states and havens for terrorists. Because this seems rather obvious, either we are pathologically incapable of learning from past mistakes, or there are people who have an agenda different from the publicly stated one. ..."
"... The U.S. has a lengthy, very sordid history of leaping into the fray in areas such as the Middle East, Southeast Asia, Central America and Afghanistan, among others - all with catastrophic results, for which we never seemed to have a credible, well- crafted plan, nor have we ever comprehended the millennia of internecine tribal hatred and sectarian warfare. ..."
"... I am more scared of US diplomats and politicians than terrorists! Have they learned nothing from the US efforts to create western style democracy in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria (by supporting separatists att an early stage). The US diplomats proposal would ensure more chaos, death and prolonged wR. 38 % of the population are Alewits. They will be killed, Christians will be killed. ..."
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 16 hours ago
These Diplomats should be fired as idiots. Did they not just live through the Iraqi occupation,
destruction and disaster?
A few years ago, a diplomat who quit was complaining about Syria at a conference I attended.
When I asked who would fill the void if Assad was deposed he said, "That is a difficult question
to answer." What he really meant to say is, "I don't have a clue."
We have already disrupted Syria by supporting rebels/terrorists. The region cannot tolerate
another Iraq.
Dan Stewart, NYC 16 hours ago
Are you a bit confused as to who these neocon dissenters at State support in the Syrian
civil war?
Here's a helpful hint:
If they have beards down to their belt buckles and seem to be hollering something about Allah,
those are the guys the neocons support.
If they're recently shaved and wearing Western attire, in other words, if they look like anyone
you might bump into on a US city street, those are the people the neocons call the enemy.
Retroatavist, DC 10 hours ago
This is simply a roll call of neocon diplomats making a case for another non-strategic
war that would badly hurt US interests. It does not represent State Department policy. The neocons
have been very persistent in securing career appointments at State for decades now. It's
as if we hadn't forgotten the endless horrible mess they got us and the rest of the world into
by breaking Iraq and destroying all its institutions with the insane de-baathification policy.
And it all started with a similar steady drumbeat for war throughout the mid and late '90s and
up to the 2003 disastrous invasion. Did we not learn anything? Really: Whose interest would
an open US war against Assad really serve, and what predictable outcome would be in the US's strategic
favor?
Robert Sawyer, New York, New York 14 hours ago
How many among the 51 are members of "Hillary's Legions, " the same geniuses responsible for
the unqualified success we achieved in Libya?
Gennady, Rhinebeck 16 hours ago
Stop this irresponsible reporting. You are pushing the world closer to war. Humanitarian
support is all we should bring to the Syrian people, regardless of which side they are on.
ScottW, is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC
These Diplomats should be fired as idiots. Did they not just live through the Iraqi occupation,
destruction and disaster?
A few years ago, a diplomat who quit was complaining about Syria at a conference I attended.
When I asked who would fill the void if Assad was deposed he said, "That is a difficult question
to answer." What he really meant to say is, "I don't have a clue."
We have already disrupted Syria by supporting rebels/terrorists. The region cannot tolerate
another Iraq.
Alyoshak, Durant, OK
Isn't Congress supposed to declare war, and the President command our armed forces when such
declarations occur? But what is intolerable about the position of the 51 "diplomats" in the
memo is that it is their (failed) efforts to dislodge Assad by proxy, facilitating and organizing
the flow of arms that more often than ended up in the hands of hard-line jihadists, that has led
to almost 400,000 deaths (not to mention wounded) and the flight of over a million refugees.
But no, these casualties have nothing to do with our attempts at regime change, No!, the blame
for them lies squarely upon Assad for not scooting out of town immediately and submissively when
the U.S. decided it was time for him to go. So now we're supposed to double-down on a deeply immoral
and flawed strategy? How many more Syrians' lives must be ruined to "save" them from Assad?
Everyman, USA 16 hours ago
Wow, sounds like some housecleaning is needed at State. Whatever happened to jaw-jaw being
better than war-war? If they are so keen on military action, they're in the wrong building. I'm
sure some of the overworked troops and officers in the armed forces would be happy to let these
guys take a few of the chances of getting shot or blown up that they deal with daily.
Dan, Alexandria 16 hours ago
It is troubling that the State Department, long a bulwark of common sense against America's
foreign adventurism, has become as hawkish as its former head, Hillary Clinton.
I am grateful to President Obama for resisting this foolishness, but make no mistake, no matter
who gets into office in January, the kind of farcical, counterproductive, unrealistic "limited
engagement" advocated by these so-called diplomats will be our future. Clinton is champing at
the bit for it, and Trump is too weak to do anything but go along with it.
Clark M. Shanahan, Oak Park, Illinois 16 hours ago
Sadly, they'll most likely have a more accommodating commander and chief with HRC.
The Middle East Institute is financed, primarily, by the petroleum and arms industries.
The Washington Institute for Near Eastern Policy has HRC's close ally, Dennis Ross; who, with
Martin Indyk, founded AIPAC in the mid-80's.
This group's contention that direct confrontation with Russia could be avoided echoes their
2002 claim that Operation Iraqi Freedom would be a three month cake walk.
Paul Cohen, is a trusted commenter Hartford CT 15 hours ago
Since WWII, U.S. foreign policy has been rooted in the projection and use of force (covert
and overt) as the primary means to achieve whatever goals the executive office seeks. It placed
the world on notice that the U.S. was ready and willing to use violence to back its foreign policy
objectives. Just as in Vietnam and before the disastrous decision to escalate the use of ground
forces, President Johnson's national security advisors (all holdovers from Kennedy's Presidency)
pressed Johnson to use aerial bombardment against N. Vietnam to induce them to seek a negotiated
peace that would allow the U.S. to withdraw from the conflict and save face while preserving the
policy of projecting force as a means to maintain world order in accordance with U.S. designs.
Nixon carried on this bombing for peace strategy to insane war crime level. This heavy reliance
on military force over a diplomatic solution has never worked. It didn't work for our knee-jerk
response to 9/11 by immediately resorting to military force without first thinking through the
consequences. We are now into our 15th year of aggression against the Muslim World. The time is
long past due to question our failed policy and seek an alternative solution.
Bud, McKinney, Texas 16 hours ago
My oldest son is now completing his sixth Afghan/Iraq tour.I don't want him in Syria. Let
these 51 diplomats volunteer their sons/daughters for Syria.That'll demonstrate their commitment.I'll
bet not one of these 51 "geniuses" has a child on active military duty in Iraq/Afghan.
Abu Charlie, Toronto, Ontario 14 hours ago
These folks are, it appears, mid-level foreign service officers like I was. They are utterly
unqualified to make these judgements as the Department of State is a failed organization culturally
and functionally. Like HRC, who is still advocating for forced regime change if she wins, they
have learned nothing from the past and again have no answer for what follows Asad being deposed.
A majority Sunni regime in Syria will tear Iraq apart and there is no likelihood of it avoiding
the trajectory of other "pluralistic" Arab state attempts. The fact that State has no culture
of strategic analysis informing operational design and operational planning which, in turn, spawn
series of tactical events, comes clear in situations like this. Doing nothing is the best case
here. Tragic but still the best case. President Obama has seen this. Asad needs to regain control
of Syria's territory, all of it. Feeding the hopes of the Ahmed Chalabi equivalents in Syria is
perpetuating the violence. And, there is no room for an independent Kurdistan in the region, nor
is it in the United States' interest for there to be one.
AR, is a trusted commenter Virginia 15 hours ago
How undiplomatic. I don't care that these people are diplomats and that many of them probably
have impeccable academic pedigrees with degrees from the usual suspects such as the Ivy League
schools, SAIS, the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, and Kennedy. That's the same class
of people who figured that invading in Iraq in 2003 would turn out all right. Obama is correct
to ignore these people, who more often than not are possessed by the notion of American Exceptionalism.
Exhibit A being Samantha Power, the latest in a long line of militaristic, European-born white
Americans (see Albright, Kissinger, Brzezinski) who believe that American firepower can bring
order to the world.
Let this be made clear: Any escalation of American involvement in Syria will be interpreted
as 1) an attempt to enhance the national security of Israel, 2) a means of benefiting the revenue
stream of the American military industrial complex, or 3) both. Only the most naive and foolish
people, since the absolutely disastrous events of 2003, would be inclined to believe that American
military intervention in Syria is motivated mainly by humanitarian impulses.
Sorry hawkish diplomats, but you're living in a fantasyland where the invasion of Iraq
in 2003 did not permanently tarnish the image of the USA and wreck its credibility as an honest
arbiter. That is the reality all US presidents will have to face in the post-Bush 43 era.
Robert Roth, NYC 14 hours ago
Everyone closes their eyes and imagines all the bloodshed they will prevent by all the bloodshed
they will cause.
Samsara, The West 16 hours ago
Have Iraq and Libya taught these State Department officials NOTHING??
Simon, Tampa 15 hours ago
The neo-cons who love regime change that never works. Let us examine their track record:
Iraq - a mess and infested with ISIS and Al Qaeda.
Libya - now an anarchist state infested with ISIS and Al Qaeda.
Yemen - bombing and murdering thousands of innocents and Al Qaeda.
Syria, the only secular Arab state, destroyed and infested with ISIS and Al Qaeda. The only
reason Syria hasn't completely fallen apart is thanks to Assad and his Sunni dominated army, Iran,
and the Russians. So of course, these neo-cons want to complete the job at the behest of the money
they will be getting from the Saudis and the other Gulf States.
Don't worry you warmongering greedy neocon, Hillary Clinton is one of you and will be president
soon enough.
Title Holder, Fl 15 hours ago
Are those 51 U.S. Diplomats responsible for advising the Obama Administration to bomb Libya
back in 2011? Apparently they have not learned from their mistakes. Or maybe they should just
go work for their true Employer, The Military Industrial Complex.
Andrea, New Jersey 15 hours ago
This is reckless and irresponsible. US backed "moderates" are fighting elbow to elbow with
the Nusra Front and other radicals groups; that is why the cease-fire is collapsing. Syrians
and Russians can not split hairs on the battlefield.
If we weaken Assad, Islamists will take over Damascus and if Damascus falls, soon Beirut
will follow. These folk at State are neo cons, as usual shooting from the hip.
Jett Rink, lafayette, la 15 hours ago
Here's the thing most people don't get about ISIS. They thrive on us being involved in the
Middle East. They are willing to kill other Muslims in order to keep us involved. As long as we
are there, terrorism will persist, over there and here too. They are playing us like chumps. They
use our tendency to knee-jerk reactions against us. They're out smarting us at every juncture.
Of course it's human nature to want to help people in such dire straights. But that's exactly
what ISIS wants, and correctly predict, that we'll do. So as long as they out-think us, they'll
continue to win.
If you want to help the innocent people caught in the cross-hairs of ISIS, the best thing we
could possibly do is pack up and leave. There'll be some more carnage, but eventually the backlash
from within will force them to stop the wrecking and killing. Many people will die, but in the
end, the tally would be far fewer.
Their goal is to keep us engaged. Ours should be to get out! As long as we stay, they win.
And that's how they're able to convince long-wolf's to strike us here, even when here is home
to them too.
Joane Johnson, Cleveland, Ohio 15 hours ago
Vietnam, 212,000 dead and countless north and south Vietnamese and citizens. Unjust and
unwarranted war on Iraq with 4,491 and counting dead and countess Iraqi citizens. Now, Syria?
Are you wanting the draft returned? You asking for boots on the ground? How about you 50 join
up. I will willingly pay for taxes just arm you and send you in. Along with every other know it
all who wants us 'TO DO MORE'!! Spare me. You have learned NOTHING in your past failures, have
you? 1956, Iran. Cause the over throw of a duly elected government for the Shahs which led to
1980 revolution to fear of them acquiring nuclear weapons. Vietnam led to 'WHAT'? Now Iraq.
The worse destabilization in that area I can remember. Not even during their many attacks
on Israel when Egypt got a clue. Fire Saddam Hussein's soldiers and they become ISIS by 2006,
yet one bright senator lied and said Obama caused them when we left which was President Bush's
treaty Maliki. They did not want us there. Leave per the Iraqi people, also. When ISIS showed
up they ran and left the weaponry we gave them and the money in the banks for them to grab. Now,
you want us steeped into Syria. It's been said, hindsight is 20/20,
In these so called diplomats cases, it is totally and legally blind. Stevie Wonder and
Ray Charles has a better perception and one of them is dead.
Bev, New York 16 hours ago
Yes the war machine wants more wars. Who will take the place of the evil Assad? We have removed
a number of evil dictators in that area of the world and all it has done is sap our resources,
killed hundreds of thousands of innocents, made millions hate us, and created vacuums of power
which are then filled with Saudi-assisted ISIS - AND profited our war machine (that's the important
part!) We need less involvement in the Mideast, not more. Bring them all home and start transitioning
from a war economy to an economy that serves the American citizens here.
ME, Toronto 13 hours ago
Thank goodness Obama kept his head and didn't (and hopefully won't) listen to such crazy advice.
To call the signers "diplomats" is a real stretch. It seems that somewhere back in time various
U.S. "diplomats" decided that they have the right to decide who and what the government should
be in various jurisdictions throughout the world. Of course this is motivated by purely humanitarian
concerns and love of democracy and not the self-interest of the U.S., as in having a friendly
government in place. As despicable as some governments are, the lessons over many years now should
be that military strikes are just as (maybe more) likely to produce something bad as anything
good. Better to talk and try to influence the development of nations through positive reinforcement
(as Obama has done in Iran). Undoubtedly this is a slow and somewhat frustrating process but that
is something real "diplomats" should be good at. If this process had been pursued in Syria we
would all be better off today and especially the Syrian people.
Mitchell, New York 16 hours ago
I assume these people at State also believe in the Tooth Fairy. The fantasy of "moderate" rebels
who will be grateful to us after they depose a tyrant and put in a fair democratic government
that takes into account all of our Western ideals and freedoms is so unrealistic that these people
at State need to find a job where their last words are, "Can I supersize that for you?" Our involvement
in the Middle East displacing despots and replacing them with chaos has been the biggest disaster
in foreign policy in many decades. Egypt, Iraq, Libya, and even Syria (remember the line in the
sand?). We should join with Russia in destroying ISIS and use our leverage to push Assad to make
some level of concessions.
Dan, Sandy, UT 15 hours ago
Here we go again. The war hawks, so comfortably away from the battle, are banging those
drums of war again. Easy to do when your life and the lives of your fellow military are not at
risk.
Second thought, as stated by a political comedian/satirist, let the Middle East take its own
trash out.
I couldn't agree more.
blackmamba, IL 16 hours ago
Since 9/11/01 only 0.75% of Americans have volunteered to put on the military of any American
armed force. They have been ground to emotional, mental and physical dust by repeated deployments.
Getting rid of Arab dictators has unleashed foreign ethnic sectarian socioeconomic political educational
civil wars that cannot be resolved by American military power.
Assad is an Arab civil secular dictator. Just like many of Americas Arab allies and unlike
those American Arab allies who are Islamic royal fossil fuel tyrants. But Assad is an Alawite
Shia Muslim allied with Russia. The alternatives to Assad are al Qaeda, ISIL and al Nusra. Diplomats
need to stick to diplomacy.
Jo Boost, Midlands 16 hours ago
This situation is not that simple.
There is not -as people in Washington who know better have told for years now- one big bad
wolf called Assad preying and devouring all poor little peaceful lambs (who, accidentally, have
been armed to their teeth by a certain Ms. Clinton and her Saudi friends - even with poison gas
which was, then, blamed on the said Assad).
We have here a follow-up civil war to the (also US started) one in Libya.
Let us just look at International Law, as understood since the Nuremberg Trials:
We all know now that the invasion of Iraq by Mr. Bush junior was a) a mistake, and b) a
War Crime - there were no threatening WMDs nor did Saddam hold hads with Al Quaeda (he was, actually,
their worst enemy - and our security!), so, Iraq was c) total stupidity. It was an aggressive
war without any cause - for the USA!
But a great cause for Saudi "Royals" whose cousins had been thrown out of Iraq, which is good
enough cause, in Arab customs, for a bloody feud and revenge.
The same applies to Syria, and could one, therefore, still wonder why ISIL was so well equipped
for the follow-up (envisaged) invasion?
Libya was a danger for Saudi Autocrates, because a secular Arab country with such a living
standard from fair distribution of oil wealth would be a dangerous advertisement for a Mother
of All Arab Springs in the desert.
So, we have one side with interest - and one without any - but the latter does the dirty work.
Is there more than one tail that wags the US dog?
Bonnie Rothman, NYC 13 hours ago
How brilliant---not! And what do these 50 people expect to happen if and when Assad falls,
chaos prevails and ISIS rushes in? Not to mention the immediate nasty confrontation with Putin.
This isn't 1941 and big Armies and big bombs are useless, USELESS against ISIS which operates
like cancer cells in the human body. And the last time we toppled a tyrant we midwived the ISIS
group which is funded by the Saudis which is funded by our own use of oil. Don't you dopes ever
read history and see the "whole" problem? Sheesh.
Prof. Jai Prakash Sharma, is a trusted commenter Jaipur, India. 16 hours ago
Given the complexity of the Syrian crisis and the multipower stakes involved in Syria, it would
be foolish for the US to direct its unilateral military fury at toppling the Assad regime ignoring
its fall out and the military financial cost to the US itself, specially when except for meeting
the common challenge and threat of the ISIS no direct national interests are at stake for the
US in Syria. The state department's dissenting memo to the President seems an attempt by the vested
interests to further complicate President Obama's Middle East policy that's on the right track
following the Iran deal.
Dennis Sullivan, NYC 16 hours ago
This is much more about what Mark Landler thinks than about what those generic diplomats
think. The Times's principal hawk, Landler has book and a series of articles pushing his neocon
view. I guess we should assume the Times agrees.
Rudolf, New York 7 hours ago
Having spent substantial time as a private consultant at the US Embassy in Kabul I was
shocked by the lack of feelings of midlevel officials there with regard to the dead and injuries
of American Troops. The Embassy shared a wall with the ISAF/NATO Main Quarters and every single
day the US Flag there was half-mast to acknowledge the dead of our troops on that day in that
country. The Embassy never shared this sadness and all midlevel officials there were only concerned
about their paycheck, quality of meals served, having a drink, going for a swim, and their frequent
trips back to the US; for such people wanting to have a say in when to fight in Syria is a sad
state of affair.
pat knapp, milwaukee 16 hours ago
Perhaps we should figure out one take-down before we move on to the next. After 13 years,
we still haven't figured out life in Iraq without Saddam. Any thoughts, neocons, on what might
happen after Assad is disposed of? You know, the hard part, what follows?
Mike Edwards, Providence, RI 16 hours ago
In what way do the views of the State Department officials in ISIS differ from those in the
US State Department who signed this memo?
Recent terrorist attacks in France and the US have been inspired by ISIS, not Mr. Assad. ISIS
is our enemy right now. Let Mr. Assad do what he can to eliminate them.
And haven't we learnt that the removal of a head of State, be it in Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya
does not lead to an improvement; it actually causes an outright deterioration.
Finally, please let's also do away with this twaddle about "moderate" forces being present
in the Middle East, ready to enact our fantasy of what a peaceful Middle East should be like.
They don't exist in the Middle East. Ask the Israelis. Those moderates that do exist seem to serve
one purpose, which is to hand over the weapons supplied to them by the West to the terrorists.
I wish the signatories would have had the guts to spell it out. The Middle East is home to
a number of weal nations, a situation the stronger ones don't wish to correct. The only solution
would be for the West to take over the running of those countries and provide for their policing
and defense, as once the West leaves, a vacuum is created allowing terrorist groups to proliferate.
I doubt there is any appetite in the West for such a cause.
Donald, Yonkers 16 hours ago
Interesting how these " moderate" Syrian rebels so often fight alongside al Nusra.
The death toll in Syria is as high as it is because the rebels have outside help, Somehow no
one in the American mainstream, including the NYT, ever points this out. Incidently, note how
the NYT always uses the largest estimates for the death toll-- quite different from what they
did in Iraq.
Nick Metrowsky, is a trusted commenter Longmont, Colorado 17 hours ago
Get Rid of Assad, make relations with Russia worse (they back Assad) and allow ISIS to
effectively take over Syria. Sounds like a great plan. I guess our military-industrial complex
is getting itchy for a new war. And, of course, doing what these diplomats want will also result
in putting boots on the ground. This will be a great legacy for Ms. Clinton (under her watch ISIS
came into being), Mr. Kerry (who continued Clinton's failed legacy) and Mr. Obama (the Nobel Peace
Prize president; who wasn't).
So, guess what? The US starts bombing Syria, Assad will use human shields. ISIS is already
using human shields. So, the US will have more innocent blood on their hands. Of course, the US
follows through with these diplomats idea, ISIS, and their allies, will increase the risk of terrorism
attacks in the US. More mass shootings and bombings.
Of course, in an election year, the political rhetoric will be pushed up a notch between the
two wonderful people now running for president. Both who are more than willing to love the diplomat's
idea to show they are "strong". Mr. Obama may or may not follow through, but he hand may be forced.
Clinton or Trump will go after him, as both would pull the trigger first and ask questions later.
But, rest assured,. if you feel that a terrorist is lurking around each corner now, just wait
until the US decides that getting in the middle of the Syrian civil war is some warped good idea.
Diplomacy can be messy, as can politics.
Dan Stewart, NYC 16 hours ago
The signers of the dissent letter are militarist neocons (of the Victoria Nuland ilk).
More than any other, these people and their CIA collaborators are responsible for the death and
destruction in Syria and the ensuing refugee crisis. They can't even give a cogent reason for
deposing Assad other than point to the carnage of the civil war they fomented-as if Assad were
solely responsible. Assad is acting no differently than the US did during it's own Civil War.
For five years the US has been promoting Muslim extremists in Syria that move with fluidity
between the ranks of ISIL, al Nusra, al Qeada, etc. There are no reliable "moderates" in Syria.
The best hope for a stable Syria lies only with Bashar Assad, the secular Western-trained optometrist
(and his J.P. Morgan investment banker wife, Asma), who has kept Syria stable and free of terrorists
for decades.
To end the killing in Syria, and to defeat ISIL, the US should immediately stop arming and
funding the Islamic jihadists trying to overthrow the Assad government and join with Russia to
support Assad's military in regaining control over all Syrian territory and borders.
CT View, CT 17 hours ago
The value of the memo can be summed up in one sentence as described in the article itself
"what would happen in the event that Mr. Assad was forced from power - a scenario that the draft
memo does not address."
Why on earth would we support deposing a secular dictator who has multi-ethnic multi-religious
support in favor of a non-secular/ie religious leadership that has no moderates...remember we
tried to train vetted moderates, we found about 2 dozen and gave up on the program after half
were killed and the rest defected to the radicals WITH THE WEAPONS WE SUPPLIED. Perhaps, since
the military is anti-intervention and these diplomats are pro-intervention, the diplomats can
take the front line...would that change their opinion?
Gimme Shelter, 123 Happy Street 17 hours ago
I wonder about the arrogance of these mid-level State Department foreign service officers.
Do they think the National Security Council hasn't considered all options with respect to the
use of air power to affect the political situation in Syria? Do they think the President is unaware
of the what is required to stem the humanitarian crisis? How certain are they that their recommendations
will lead to their desired outcome? Do they not realize their actions undermine the commander
in chief in effectively addressing these issues?
Sure -- a few well-placed cruise missiles will make it all good. Yeah, right.
Wayne, Lake Conroe, Tx 7 hours ago
Absolutely amazing. My first question is who released this memo? Having a back channel
does not permit anyone to unilaterally decide to release information that could cost lives and
ruin negotiations that the releasing person knows nothing about. If you do not like the chain
of command, then leave. We cannot continue to be involved in sectarian conflicts that cannot be
resolved except by the combatants. Haven't we learned anything from Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon,
and Vietnam? No neocon insanity. We have lost enough lives and treasure in the ME.
Chagrined, La Jolla, CA 10 hours ago
Are these the same ingrates who urged Bush to attack Iraq - his legacy - ISIS!
Real Americans don't want any more squandered blood and treasure in wars in the Middle East!
It is sad that our tax dollars pay the salaries for these insidious State Department war mongering
fools. How many neocons are among them?
The war in Syria is tragic as was the war in Iraq. Even more tragic would be more squandered
American blood and treasure.
Fifteen hundred American Jews joined the IDF terrorists to commit the "Gaza Genocide." Perhaps
they will volunteer to go to Syria.??
President Obama has the intellect, sophistication and morals not to repeat the mistakes of
the Bush administration. These State Department rank and file are obviously attempting to undermine
him just as many members of congress attempted to undermine him by supporting Netanyahu and Israel
during the Iran Diplomacy debate. Betraying America has become sport for so many insidious ingrates.
America deserves better!
xtian, Tallahassee 11 hours ago
As a 26 year Marine Corps combat veteran I have a hard time trying to figure out what is
going on here, and a harder time not becoming totally disgusted with our State Department.
So these 51 mid-level diplomates want to bomb a bit more, and that is going to do what?????
And how will that bring peace to that region of the world? Oh, and by the way, the Department
of Defense is not in agreement with that course of action. How wonderful.
My suggestion would be that we arm these 51 individuals, given them a week's worth of ammunition
and rations, and drop them into Syria, I am sure they can lead the way in showing us how to solve
the mess in the ME.
David Henry, Concord 17 hours ago
War is easy to do. Ask "W."
Lives matter! These "diplomats" should be fired.
Yinka Martins, New York, NY 17 hours ago
It's the fact that these are not "widely known names" which scares me most. However, Western-instituted
regime change in that region has proven disastrous in every single country it has been tried.
If possible, I would investigate these diplomats' ties to defense contractors.
PKJharkhand, Australia 7 hours ago
US intervention created the rubble and hell that is now Syria. When Assad had full control
of Syria, the human rights of the people of Syria suffered under him but many if not most people
led a civilised life. They had water and electricity. Past US interventions created Afghanistan,
Iraq, and Libya. To puy it simply, life expectancy in all these countries dropped by 20 to 30
years after the US intervened, each time with the highest utopian ideals, and increased the power
of Sunni supremacists after each act.
Jai Goodman, SF Bay Area 7 hours ago
These "diplomats" should instead be urging US to pressure Turkey and Saudi to stop supporting
terrorists in the region. Both Al Nusra and ISIS. That'll be the right step.
Thank you.
cml, pittsburgh, pa 10 hours ago
How many of these are the same (or same sort) of "wise" men that advised ignoring our weapon's
inspectors and invading Iraq? They're living inside an echo chamber. In a world of imperfect choices
I would prefer Assad to the Nusra Front or ISIL, as apparently our president does as well.
Lawrence, Washington D.C. 15 hours ago
How many of those 51 diplomats haves served in front line units and seen combat? How many have
their children in uniform? They wouldn't allow it.
Each bombing mission costs more than a million dollars, and we live in a nation of Chiraq and
Orlando.
We have more pressing needs at home, and you can't fix stupid mixed with superstition, topped
with hatred.
These diplomats want to continue to strap suicide vests on the rest of us, while they sip champagne.
Out now, no more of our children wasted for corporate profits.
John, San Francisco 15 hours ago
50 employees? There are approximately 24,000 employees in the state department. That's 0.002833%.
Not really a significant voice. Don't listen.
Vanessa Hall, is a trusted commenter Millersburg MO 13 hours ago
Reminds me of those 47 idiots in the House who signed on to the warmonger Tom Cotton's treasonous
letter.
John Townsend, Mexico 15 hours ago
Let's not forget that Bush's hasty appointment of Paul Bremer as the hapless Governor of
Iraq following the defeat of Hussein's military regime led immediately to the disbanding of the
entire Iraqi military, an incredibly short-sighted and reckless move that essentially unleashed
400,000 young trained fighters (including a honed officers corps) absent support programs to assimilate
back into Iraqi society, only to have them emerge as readily available fodder essential for ISIS's
marshalling a strong military force almost overnight. A huge price is now being exacted for this
astounding stupidity.
Hobart, Los Angeles, CA 7 hours ago
This is conveniently laying grounds for Hillary's grand comeback to the theatre of "humanitarian
interventionism" in the Middle East. God help us all, as this is a prelude to the WW3.
rice pritchard, nashville, tennessee 12 hours ago
Wow the neo-cons are beating the war drums yet again! They have already created a huge
mess throughout the Middle East with wars and revolutions directly attributable to the United
States in invading Afghanistan and Iraq under false pretenses, helping overthrow the government
in Libya, and arming rebels in Syria and Yemen. Apparently no regime that does not knuckle
under to the U.S. war machine is "fair game". This turmoil is sending millions of refugees fleeing
their homeland, many trying to swamp Europe, but the arm chair warriors in the diplomatic corps,
Congress, Wall Street, and the military contractors still cry for more intervention, more bombing,
more blockades, more invasions, etc.! Sheer madness! The more America meddle in the Middle East
the worse things become and unrest and fighting spread. Unfortunately if Hillary Clinton wins,
she is a neo-con puppet and we will be at war in Syria and/or Iran within a year or two. God help
us!
xmas, Delaware 13 hours ago
HOW MUCH WILL THIS COST????? When people demand an invasion of a foreign country, can they
please add the total cost of the bill to their request? Instead of saying "we need to invade,"
can they say, "I want your support to spend $1.7 trillion for invading this other country for
humanitarian reasons. Oh, by the way, sorry, about all the cuts to domestic spending. We just
don't have the money." We spent $1.7 TRILLION on Iraq. $1.7 TRILLION. I can think of several things
I would have preferred to spend a fraction of that on. I'm sure you can too.
Robert G. McKee, Lindenhurst, NY 12 hours ago
This is a very interesting development within the walls of the State Department. There seems
to be much enthusiasm for escalating war in the Middle East. My only question is does this enthusiasm
extend to the deaths and maiming of these same State Department officials' children and grandchildren?
Or do they propose that other people's children should die pursuing their high ideals in this
endless and fruitless religious civil war in Syria?
Kathy, Flemington, NJ 13 hours ago
First of all, if this was a channel for employees to share "candidly and privately" about
policy concerns, why is it on the front page of the NY Times? Additionally, as usual, it seems
the war hawks are hawking war without thought for what comes next. We've done this most recently
in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, all of which are now failed states and havens for terrorists.
Because this seems rather obvious, either we are pathologically incapable of learning from past
mistakes, or there are people who have an agenda different from the publicly stated one.
Rebecca Rabinowitz, . 13 hours ago
The U.S. has a lengthy, very sordid history of leaping into the fray in areas such as the
Middle East, Southeast Asia, Central America and Afghanistan, among others - all with catastrophic
results, for which we never seemed to have a credible, well- crafted plan, nor have we ever comprehended
the millennia of internecine tribal hatred and sectarian warfare. We have "been there, done
that" countless times, at the cost of our precious military blood and treasure, and incurring
the enmity of hundreds of millions of people. I empathize with the frustration of these State
Department employees - but apparently, they do not recall our overthrow of the Shah of Iran when
it suited our "cause du jour," or our fraudulent "domino theory" in Vietnam, or the hard reality
that no one has ever successfully invaded or "governed" Afghanistan, not to mention being able
to battle ideology with weapons. The President has already presided over significant mission creep
in the Iraq cesspool left by the Cheney-Bush neo-con crowd. His judicious caution is to be lauded
when it comes to Syria. Are these mid-level State Department employees advocating a war against
Vladimir Putin?
Yngve Frey, Sweden 12 hours ago
I am more scared of US diplomats and politicians than terrorists! Have they learned nothing
from the US efforts to create western style democracy in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria (by
supporting separatists att an early stage). The US diplomats proposal would ensure more chaos,
death and prolonged wR. 38 % of the population are Alewits. They will be killed, Christians will
be killed.
The only way will probably be to work with Russia and force other opposition groups to sign
a peace agreement. Then we should arrange an intensive training course for US diplomats as well
as Syrian leaders: "There is no final truth: we have to learn the art of tolerance and accept
to live in a society where people you don't agree with also can live."
"... By Vijay Prashad, professor of international studies at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut. He is the author of 18 books, including Arab Spring, Libyan Winter (AK Press, 2012), The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South (Verso, 2013) and the forthcoming The Death of a Nation and the Future of the Arab Revolution (University of California Press, 2016). Originally published at Alternet ..."
"... Seymour Hersh has reported that Obama was forced to call off the attack on Syria on 30 August 2013 because General Dempsey informed him that the British defence lab at Porton Down had analysed environmental samples from the Ghouta chemical attack and had established that the sarin was "kitchen sarin" that could not have come from Syrian military stocks. Hersh reports that Dempsey effectively threatened Obama by warning him that he would testify to Congress (and would prime them to ask the question) on what he had told Obama. Hersh names Sir Peter Wall, then the head of the British army, as the officer who had briefed Dempsey on Porton Down's findings. ..."
"... I vividly recall how irate Obama was during that Rose Garden press conference when he backed down from bombing Syria. He was not pleased. Attempting to rewrite the historical record doesn't wash for anyone with a memory of the Kerry statement about chemical weapons and the alacrity with which Lavrov responded. Obama was boxed in, and he didn't like it one bit. ..."
"... If she had any involvement in this it certainly shows her contempt for Obama just a few days after he endorsed her and while the FBI investigation still plods on. Beyond that, I think the cable directly reflects the power of the Israeli lobby and the perceived benefits of a destroyed Syria. ..."
"... We make out that the national security apparatus taken as a system - and singling out the rare exceptions, who help the country by whistleblowing, leaking, and throwing bureaucratic obstacles in the way of the bad craziness - is corrupt to the bone. Also too insane. And that both characteristics are rewarded, and that individuals who display them tend to rise to the top. ..."
"... That the State Dept should be populated by neocons seems a logical consequence of the political leadership assigned to it. ..."
"... The story of the arrest in May 2013 of the Nusra Front sarin procurement team in Turkey, and the prosecutors' report completed in July 2013, was no longer a "bombshell" when reported by Hersh and raised by Turkish opposition MPs. A careful reading of Hersh's articles shows that this report was available to US Defence Intelligence agencies by summer 2013. Two other lines of evidence were available to US and UK intelligence agencies by summer 2013 that pointed to sarin production by the opposition. ..."
"... but given the idiocy shown by repeated US governments, it still shows a scintilla of sentience on Obama's part ..."
"... But in the world of those who wish to keep their jobs as good lap dogs to the Beltway conventional wisdom and not so accurate facts, ..."
"... Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan have a great mom-and-pop business going. From the State Department, she generates wars and from op-ed pages he demands Congress buy more weapons. There's a pay-off, too, as grateful military contractors kick in money to think tanks where other Kagans work, writes Robert Parry. ..."
"... If you'll allow a bit of speculation, I would argue that this push for war was created because it creates opportunities to loot the US treasury. It is of course backed by the ideology of US supremacy and invincibility which allows these people push for war against Russia. ..."
"... Its is pretty horrifying that professional diplomats could sign something so simpleminded, even within the context of neocon policy. ..."
"... Victoria Nuland could not have instigated the neo-nazi coup in Ukraine without her superiors' knowledge and approval. I still wonder who told L. Paul Bremer that disbanding the Iraqi Army before disarming its soldiers was a good idea. When asked about it Bush acted as if he never actually heard about it. ..."
"... Interesting War Nerd podcast#36 featuring American Conservative writer Kelley Vlahos. The basic claim is that the US security state which includes the State Dept., the MIC and the various think tanks and Universities surrounding Washington DC has produced dynastic clans which suck money from the defense budgets to fund lavish lifestyles. These 51 players are merely cheer leading for more war because there is simply not enough money in peace to keep the generational Ponzi going in luxury. ..."
"... Seems Cheny and Rumsfeld were successful stocking the State Dept shelves with career neocon bureaucrats. ..."
"... I've finally put my finger on why I will not vote for HRC. HRC is the embodiment of the notion that "ends justify the means". You cannot believe this and believe in the law … ethics … morality … at the same time. ..."
"... There have been rumblings over the years that many of the coalitions in the current Syria conflict are the result of countries competing for a Natural Gas pipeline between the Middle East and Europe: ..."
"... the old-guard professionals left, a new breed of aggressive neoconservatives was brought in, the likes of Paul Wolfowitz, Robert McFarlane, Robert Kagan and Abrams. After eight years of Reagan and four years of George H.W. Bush, the State Department was reshaped into a home for neocons[…] ..."
"... As the 1990s wore on, the decimation of foreign policy experts in the mold of White and Derian left few on the Democratic side who had the courage or skills to challenge the deeply entrenched neocons. Many Clinton-era Democrats accommodated to the neocon dominance by reinventing themselves as "liberal interventionists," sharing the neocons' love for military force but justifying the killing on "humanitarian" grounds.[…] ..."
By Vijay Prashad, professor of international studies at Trinity College in Hartford,
Connecticut. He is the author of 18 books, including Arab Spring, Libyan Winter (AK Press, 2012),
The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South (Verso, 2013) and the forthcoming The
Death of a Nation and the Future of the Arab Revolution (University of California Press, 2016). Originally
published at
Alternet
Close to half a million people are dead in Syria, as the country falls further and further into
oblivion. Data on the suffering of the Syrians is bewildering, but most startling is that the Syrian
life expectancy has declined by over 15 years since the civil war started. On the one side, ISIS
holds territory, while on the other a fratricidal war pits the Assad government against a motley
crew of rebels that run from small pockets of socialists to large swathes of Al Qaeda-backed extremists.
No easy exit to this situation seems possible. Trust is in short supply. The peace process is weak.
Brutality is the mood.
What should America do? In the eyes of 51 U.S. diplomats who still haven't grasped the negative
outcomes of the disastrous wars launched since 2002, the solution is to bomb the world into America's
image. In an
internal dissent cable addressed to Barack Obama, seasoned diplomats have urged airstrikes on
the government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.
... ... ..
Why did the diplomats write their dissent now, and why was it leaked to the press? A former ambassador,
with deep experience in the Middle East, told me it was an error to leak the cable.
"Someone decided to leak it," he said, "for whatever irrational reason, an action as blatantly
incorrect as it is most certainly politically and diplomatically counterproductive."
"Obama did not strike Syria in 2013 because he recognized, correctly, that the Russians, Chinese
and most of the major countries of the Global South (including India) deeply opposed regime change"
This version of events gives undeserved credit to Obama. Seymour Hersh has reported that Obama
was forced to call off the attack on Syria on 30 August 2013 because General Dempsey informed
him that the British defence lab at Porton Down had analysed environmental samples from the Ghouta
chemical attack and had established that the sarin was "kitchen sarin" that could not have come
from Syrian military stocks. Hersh reports that Dempsey effectively threatened Obama by warning
him that he would testify to Congress (and would prime them to ask the question) on what he had
told Obama. Hersh names Sir Peter Wall, then the head of the British army, as the officer who
had briefed Dempsey on Porton Down's findings.
On 29 August 2013 the UK Joint Intelligence Committee had reported to the Prime Minister, in
a summary that was made available before the House of Commons debate on war with Syria, that there
was "no evidence for an opposition CW capability" and "no plausible alternative to a regime attack
scenario". It is clear from Hersh's report (and other sources that corroborate it) that this was
misleading, and that officials in UK Defence Intelligence were aware, as were the Russians, that
the Ghouta attack was a false flag using sarin produced by the opposition. To mislead the House
of Commons is "contempt of Parliament" a crime against the British constitution that the House
has powers to investigate and punish. Unfortunately no MP and no journalist has been prepared
to ask the relevant questions.
Excellent comment. Nevertheless, Obama deserves some credit, as the sad tale of General Shinseki
and the invasion of Iraq shows. Obama had to listen to reason, and actually did. This is an incredibly
low bar for praise, but given the idiocy shown by repeated US governments, it still shows a scintilla
of sentience on Obama's part.
Would such a warning stop Clinton? Would it stop Trump if his ego was tied up in such a venture?
I doubt it.
I vividly recall how irate Obama was during that Rose Garden press conference when he backed
down from bombing Syria. He was not pleased. Attempting to rewrite the historical record doesn't
wash for anyone with a memory of the Kerry statement about chemical weapons and the alacrity with
which Lavrov responded. Obama was boxed in, and he didn't like it one bit.
If she had any involvement in this it certainly shows her contempt for Obama just a few days
after he endorsed her and while the FBI investigation still plods on. Beyond that, I think the cable directly reflects the power of the Israeli lobby and the perceived
benefits of a destroyed Syria.
> What do we as American citizens make out of 51 diplomats proposing war?
We make out that the national security apparatus taken as a system - and singling out the
rare exceptions, who help the country by whistleblowing, leaking, and throwing bureaucratic obstacles
in the way of the bad craziness - is corrupt to the bone. Also too insane. And that both characteristics
are rewarded, and that individuals who display them tend to rise to the top.
Kudos to President Obama, which I very rarely say, for not being deked by these guys.
Wasn't Baal an Assyrian deity? One which drew a bad rap for being opposed to our own preferred God of the Israelites. In which case, not likely one to promote bombing Syria.
The story of the arrest in May 2013 of the Nusra Front sarin procurement team in Turkey,
and the prosecutors' report completed in July 2013, was no longer a "bombshell" when reported
by Hersh and raised by Turkish opposition MPs. A careful reading of Hersh's articles shows that
this report was available to US Defence Intelligence agencies by summer 2013. Two other lines
of evidence were available to US and UK intelligence agencies by summer 2013 that pointed to sarin
production by the opposition.
1. a report to the UNSG from Mokhtar Lamani, the UN Special Representative in Damascus, that
the Nusra Front was bringing nerve agent through the border from Turkey.
2. analyses by Porton Down and its Russian counterpart of environmental samples from two incidents
in March 2013, showing that the agent was "kitchen sarin".
This has been discussed in some detail on Pat Lang's blog. By summer 2013 it was clear to US
and UK defence intelligence staff that a false flag operation using sarin was being planned, and
that their civilian counterparts were at least tacitly colluding with this. The analysis of samples
from Ghouta and the use of the results to threaten Obama appears to have been a last-minute effort
to block the use of this to start a war
but given the idiocy shown by repeated US governments, it still shows a scintilla of sentience
on Obama's part
+1
"We had to destroy the village in order to save it". I marvel that there is anything still
standing in Syraqistan; from the pictures I see, it looks like a gravel quarry. And now blowback
has metastasized into domestic mass-shootings, sufficient to stain the Mississippi red; we wring
our national hands in a Hamlet-like production of anguish and earnestness, and then change precisely
NOTHING about how we conduct our affairs. We are insane.
Nor did hillary fight the nazi's, she has, however, viewed the atrocities for which she is
largely responsible on tv and seemed quite pleased (wondering where the trump thing came from,
I thought the discussion was about A.S.?). Nice of me to mention each of them once, gives a sense
of balance or something. And your final sentence, you could put either name and corresponding
gender identity there, both statements would be true. Googed robert kagan/Alexander Solzhenitsyn,
and found this article that was interesting it's from 2014 so it's funny how events then rhyme
with events currently. Never heard of the publication before but found it interesting, bonus points
for featuring debate footage between richard dawkins and john lennox
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/07/08/the-people-vs-former-trotskysts-neo-bolsheviks-and-intellectual-whores
I'd be interested in your views on this
Friday's PBS NewHour demonstrated in a segment with Judy Woodruff and Margaret Warner that
the program is remarkably good at "catapulting the propaganda", in this case that Assad's government
used chemical weapons to kill a thousand of his own people. Factually, most of the dead were supporters
of the government, which, if Assad ordered such an attack, would have made it even more evil.
And only by knowing the actual facts about the chemicals involved does it belie the initial US
assertions that Assar was responsible.
In due time, it was made known to those who read and retain information that, indeed, it was
not an attack by the Syrian government, that the chemical signatures indicated "kitchen sarin,"
as pmr9's quote about Gen. Dempsey and results from the British defense lab at Porton Down showed.
But in the world of those who wish to keep their jobs as good lap dogs to the Beltway conventional
wisdom and not so accurate facts, Margaret Warner made a special point of saying that Obama had
backed down on enforcing his promise to go after Assad if Syria used chemical weapons.
After a video quote from Obama, Warner immediately repeated the now discounted charge.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: A red line for us is, we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical
weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus.
MARGARET WARNER: But after a regime chemical attack killed more than 1,000 Syrians in August
2013, the president didn't launch military strikes, nor step up arming the Syrian rebels. ….
She's not the only public broadcast reporter to say exactly the same thing. It's now become
one of those zombie lies: Nothing can keep them down.
The segment isn't very long, and the sad and worried expression on Warner's face at the end,
where she talks about how sincere the signers of the letter are, is well worth looking at. And
wondering about how they do it - how do they keep repeating lies?
Probably because no one calls them on it, no one who matters. And everyone they talk to repeats
the same untruths.
Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan have a great mom-and-pop business going. From the State
Department, she generates wars and from op-ed pages he demands Congress buy more weapons. There's
a pay-off, too, as grateful military contractors kick in money to think tanks where other Kagans
work, writes Robert Parry.
A Family Business of Perpetual War
If you'll allow a bit of speculation, I would argue that this push for war was created because
it creates opportunities to loot the US treasury. It is of course backed by the ideology of US supremacy and invincibility which allows these
people push for war against Russia.
Its an interesting article, but (not I assume the authors fault) doesn't actually answer the
question. I'd always assumed that the diplomatic corps was significantly more pragmatic and anti-military
intervention than other arms of the US foreign policy establishment, but this would seem evidence
otherwise. Its is pretty horrifying that professional diplomats could sign something so simpleminded,
even within the context of neocon policy. It doesn't say much for the quality of people involved.
Perhaps its not just the military that has been degraded by a decade and a half of the war on
terror, it may well be degrading the quality of people attracted to, and recruited by, all elements
of the government establishment.
The other explanation – and its not all that encouraging – is that this is simply an attempt
by a certain level of diplomats to say 'hey, its not our fault'. But I would have thought they
would have picked a different target for their complaints than Obama if that was the case. It
does seem more likely that this is a deliberate attempt by the Samantha Power/Hilary wing of the
establishment to stake a claim to the high ground.
A lot of what I've seen over the last few years only makes sense if I believe the State Department
is the last bastion of PNAC (Project for a New American Century). There is no acknowledged strategy
in Syria, no end game, no way to tell when/if we've won, except regime change. The CIA and the
Pentagon seem to be backing different factions who are hostile to each other and both seem to
be providing weapons to ISIS (perhaps, but not certainly, unintentionally). Victoria Nuland could
not have instigated the neo-nazi coup in Ukraine without her superiors' knowledge and approval.
I still wonder who told L. Paul Bremer that disbanding the Iraqi Army before disarming its soldiers
was a good idea. When asked about it Bush acted as if he never actually heard about it.
"A former ambassador told me that many of the diplomats have great fealty to Hillary Clinton.
Could they have leaked this cable to boost Clinton's narrative that she wanted a more robust attack
on Damascus as early as 2012? Is this a campaign advertisement for Clinton, and a preparation
for her likely Middle East policy when she takes power in 2017?"
um, there is your answer right there, plutonium, all the rest is inside-inside baseball bullshit…
besides essentially using their gummint positions in an unusual calculated political manner,
i am sure all these knob-polishers are simply jockeying for positions in Empress Cliton the First's
reign of Empire…
pass the soma, please…
Yes: And the use of the world fealty astounds me. Fealty, as in feudal relations? As in clientelism?
These people shouldn't be allowed near foreign policy at all. Fealty indeed.
But they dedicate themselves and bend all their efforts toward getting themselves into these
positions where they get to use the wealth and credulity of ordinary people to "advance," and
I use that word quite advisedly given where it's taking all of us, their interests and friends
and agendas…
Not man of the rest of us, who might be interested in survival and sustainability and comity
and all that, have the skills, schooling, connections and inclination to take part in the fokking
Great Game, in all its parts and parameters…
It is a pathetic sign of our times that the narrative of the "
Fabulous 51 " has any traction at all, when such perspective is so demonstrably flawed. Pat
Lang (and too few others) has been chronicling this neocon "Borg" delusion for quite some time
– not unlike efforts here with respect to orthodox neo-econs, libertards, etc. It was pretty easy
to assume, as the Kennedy administration must have, the outcome of belligerent threats against
the evil Ruskies when they were way beyond their capacities in Cuba. But to threaten a modern,
very militarily capable state with Neocon Wargasm Regime Change – – is truly insane. They really
do have WMDs – like the ones only we have ever used.
Hey, cmon, we've get the f-35, think of the boost to gdp when the russkis shoot down one or
ten of those overweight video game platforms! We need some more heros like pat tillman (not dissing
tillman, but the people who tried to use his good name for their own bitter ends), you know, to
garner support for our noble casus belli.
Interesting War Nerd podcast#36 featuring American Conservative writer Kelley Vlahos. The basic
claim is that the US security state which includes the State Dept., the MIC and the various think
tanks and Universities surrounding Washington DC has produced dynastic clans which suck money
from the defense budgets to fund lavish lifestyles. These 51 players are merely cheer leading
for more war because there is simply not enough money in peace to keep the generational Ponzi
going in luxury.
An enlisted guy in my unit in Vietnam got drunk, convinced himself he could fly an Army Sioux
helicopter. Started it, got it up out of the revetment, then when setting back down caught the
left skid on the 4 foot high revetment wall and crashed it. He was court-martialed, jailed at
Long Binh, busted to permanent E-1, denied even a discharge, and may still be paying off the $125,000
the Army said that broke-down chopper was worth on that E-1 pay. How many tiers of "justice" in
"the system?"
Regardless of the motivations first of the message itself and secondly of its purpose, my first
thought was that the Clinton camp directly or indirectly was behind it. But it is such a ham fisted
ploy; you would have to be a political idiot, wouldn't you? Then I recalled the other boneheaded
moves and dismissed it.
I've finally put my finger on why I will not vote for HRC. HRC is the embodiment of the notion that "ends justify the means". You cannot believe this and believe in the law … ethics … morality … at the same time.
HRC is no Gandhi.
False flags
Circumventing laws
Slippery slope? HRC has her skis on and her goggles down.
See also
Pat Lang's post on this yesterday. As is the case with Naked Capitalism, the comment threads
there are worth thorough reads as well as the posts. The consensus there seems to be that it demonstrates
the success of the neo-con infiltration of the State Department, the signers' utter lack of experience
in understanding of the military and warfare, and finally the results of the demise of DoS's area
expertise in the Middle East.
"Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the People for a New American Century or any other
neoconservative group? I remind you that you are under oath to testify truthfully to Congress…"
A former ambassador told me that many of the diplomats have great fealty to Hillary Clinton.
Hugo Chavez joked that you would never have a coup in Washington because it has no US embassy.
But it does have the State Department itself and it now appears they are using their partners
in the press to help shape the coming regime change in our own country. How long before Vicky
appears out on the Mall, giving out cookies?
Maybe the notion is that bombing the Assad military would provoke a military confrontation
with Russia in Syria but more importantly in Eastern Europe. This will bolster the case for NATO
which will face increased scrutiny in the upcoming POTUS campaign.
Circulating the cable to get signatures is probably Clinton's attempt to push the Overton Window
on Obama's dime, but leaking the cable was probably a jerk on Obama's chain for
"leaking" their concerns to Carl Bernstein, which was covered on NC earlier this month.
Seems to me like C.I.C. Clinton just can't wait another 6 months to start blowing the world
up. I, too, believe Hillary is behind this gang of 51's insubordinate pronouncement. It's got
her signature, intemperance and incompetence, written all over it. And, where's the current S.O.S.
Cat, Kerry, while the Foggy Bottom mice are stirring this very dangerous Vladimir cauldron? So,
maybe Obama kinda wishes he waited a little longer with his demented endorsement, "I don't think
there's ever been someone so qualified to hold this office.".
yesterday morning, the NYT headlined its site w/this story. then anti-war/anti-neocon comments
and upvotes flooded.
by lunch this story was buried well below the fold.
Automated analytics downgrading an unread story? Or an editorial decision by someone "surprised"
that even the NYT bobbleheads don't buy the Neo-Con lies?
Since they disagree with this president's policies, the honorable course of action by these
51 State Department employees would be to resign. Absent that, I believe the president can require
their resignations.
Bingo. It strikes me as analogous to holding a seance at church for seasoned diplomats to lobby
for war. The stumbling block is that the document itself followed existing protocol for dissent.
Its release to the public is the fire-able offense. I wonder if Obama is investigating.
So Al Qaeda takes over Syria; so what? Al Qaeda would not kill half a million Syrians! !!!
Once Al Qaeda takes over a country it is on its way to becoming a large bureaucratic entity -
more inherently conservative. What are they going to do, declare war on the US; throw their government
behind crashing airliners? The specter of a million US boots on the ground would squash that.
We do have a reputation for that sort of thing going back to Korea.
My view of the world is the Rick Steves, Anthony Bourdain view - not their ideology (if any)
but the Marshall McLuhan/medium-is-the-message view. It's just land and people - people like us.
If Obama cared about the Iraqi people he would have/could have gotten our reverse Saddam, Maliki,
under control and coerced him in the direction of greater inclusion of the Sunni into a new coalition
- instead of terrorizing them and forcing them into the open arms of ISIS. Ditto for arming and
training the vast majority of innocents. We could have identified most people (the vast majority)
that's not hard, and worked with them.
We could have tried to do both. But, as usual, Obama doesn't care.
One real problem is they set up terrorist training camps, similar to the Taliban in Afgan.
These are then organized terrorists they send out elsewhere in the world, even the USofA, if they
can sneak past the TSA in airports.
However, Saddam never did that and neither did Assad. So our State Dept's strategy seems to
be give terrorists a training ground so they can export a trained and organized terrorist network
around the world. And this is after we've had at least 15 years to observe how it works. Note
that the reason we felt we had to go into into Afgan originally was that the Taliban was running
terrorist training camps.
Not to mention arming these "moderate Arabs" to overthrow Assad.
There have been rumblings over the years that many of the coalitions in the current Syria conflict
are the result of countries competing for a Natural Gas pipeline between the Middle East and Europe:
Robert Parry – with sources inside the State Dept. – offers up some insight on this story
But the descent of the U.S. State Department into little more than well-dressed, well-spoken
but thuggish enforcers of U.S. hegemony began with the Reagan administration. President Ronald
Reagan and his team possessed a pathological hatred of Central American social movements seeking
freedom from oppressive oligarchies and their brutal security forces.[…]
As the old-guard professionals left, a new breed of aggressive neoconservatives was
brought in, the likes of Paul Wolfowitz, Robert McFarlane, Robert Kagan and Abrams. After eight years
of Reagan and four years of George H.W. Bush, the State Department was reshaped into a home
for neocons[…]
As the 1990s wore on, the decimation of foreign policy experts in the mold of White and
Derian left few on the Democratic side who had the courage or skills to challenge the deeply
entrenched neocons. Many Clinton-era Democrats accommodated to the neocon dominance by reinventing
themselves as "liberal interventionists," sharing the neocons' love for military force but
justifying the killing on "humanitarian" grounds.[…]
when Obama entered the White House, he faced a difficult challenge. The State Department
needed a thorough purging of the neocons and the liberal hawks, but there were few Democratic
foreign policy experts who hadn't sold out to the neocons. An entire generation of Democratic
policy-makers had been raised in the world of neocon-dominated conferences, meetings, op-eds
and think tanks, where tough talk made you sound good while talk of traditional diplomacy made
you sound soft.
Personally I'd say "blame it on Reagan" is a good all purpose explanation for current ills.
This response also takes in the Dems since they so often knuckled under to the Gipper.
The MIC must be pushing for more gravy to buoy the fake economy. This Empire based on greed,
exploitation and chaos will take the whole of life down with itself.
All this foreign policy discussion is a bit over my head, but couldn't the leaked "dissent"
have come from the White House ?
Isn't it most likely that Obama's concern for his "legacy" is going to make him want to out
HRC and her grossly incompetent sycophants and cronies at State as the Bomb-Baby-Bomb
crowd who goaded him to the brink of war with Russia over Syria based on faulty false-flag intelligence?
Looks like State Department became a paradise for neocons. Protest of diplomats is typical trick
used by State Departement during color revolution. That actually means this "color revolution" trick
came to the USA. Our presidents come and go, Republican or Democrat, but our Strangeloves remain permanent
employees of State Department. .
Notable quotes:
"... The State Department and the CIA's 'Plan C' (or are they on 'Plan D' yet?) is an independent Syrian Kurdistan. ..."
"... A desperate attempt to save the rebels, who now hate them and completely understand how they have been thrown under the bus by the State Department neocons. I really don't think the rebels will be the least bit impressed by the phony theatrics of a internal memo by mid-level bureaucrats. ..."
"... The Pentagram is in a bit of a different pickle. They have to do something to stop the Wahhabi head-choppers, but its a bit like herding cats. The best they've come up with is ginning up the SDF to take/hold ISIS territory. But they can't arm the Kurds or Arab members with any REAL weapons because that would anger Turkey. So they give them a bunch of eastern European AKs and a few pickup trucks with anti-aircraft guns, promise air support and toss in a few SF guys ..."
"... The MSM (as CIA lapdogs are paid to do) constantly try to reinforce the message that the independent YPG/YPJ militias are somehow 'the PYD's army'. Nothing is further from the truth - it's all MSM spin to create the impression that the Syrian Kurds uniformly desire the usurped PYD vision of an independent Kurdistan. In reality, the U.S. State Department neocons and the CIA are the ones that want an independent Syrian Kurdistan for their own scheming (and to deny Assad the land/water/oil). The MSM is constantly on message with this to set the narrative to the American public for Syrian partition - most people have no clue. ..."
"... For what it's worth, Assad is keenly aware of his history with the Kurds. Even by Kurdish media reports , he is willing to work with the Syrian Kurds as part of a unified Syrian state. He does not object to Kurdish rights or autonomy, just the U.S. meddling to goad the PYD into creating a separate Kurdish state. ..."
"... The whole Syria nightmare was planned from the US Embassy in Damascus in 2006 because Assad was so broadly popular in the country and "the region." Can't have that so a strategy was drummed up: http://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-and-conspiracy-theories-it-is-a-conspiracy/29596 ..."
"... I'm sure the US will throw the Syrian Kurds "under the bus" when their usefulness is finished. I'm sure also that a lot of Syrian Kurds know this, and are hedging their bets. ..."
"... http://www.globalresearch.ca/france-building-military-bases-in-syria-report/5531259 "The use of proxy forces to destroy the secular government of Syria is now starting to give way to stealth methods of direct ground deployment of Western Special Forces and ground troops under the guise of assistance and coordination with "moderate" terrorists. "With a wide variety of Western-backed terrorist groups ranging from "extremist" terrorists like ISIS, al-Qaeda, and al-Nusra to the "moderate" terrorists of the FSA and the loose collection of terrorists, Kurds, and Arabs like the SDF, the West has a kaleidoscope of proxy forces on the ground already. ..."
"... So Russian peace talks with US evil empire in Syria were a disaster, which makes Putin look like an idiot, as well as the supporters of this idiocy. As well as Russian invitations for the US to join it in Syria makes it one of the most stupidest invitations ever. ..."
"... A preview on America's future strategies? http://www.cnas.org/sites/default/files/publications-pdf/CNASReport-EAP-FINAL.pdf ..."
"... The Iranians have been warring with Kurds by the border with Turkey. Neither the Turks nor the Iranians - nor the Syrians, but they do need the Kurds now - want a Kurdistan. The Kurds must know by now - must have been betrayed enough by now - to know that the US will tell them anything, promise them anything, and deliver nothing but betrayal in the end. ..."
"... As regards the State Department, the Pentagon, the US government ... what's required is a neo-con purge, top to bottom. They are all working against American interests and against the American people. and have been for the past two decades. The likelihood of such a purge is about zero. Neither Trump nor Hillary has the will or the backbone to stand up to anyone. Trump's all mouth and looking out for number one, and Hillary's plugged in to the money-mosaic as well. Obama's getting ready to cash in his chips. ..."
"... I am amazed at your unflagging obsession with holding Putin responsible for the US/UK/EU/NATO/GCC destruction of Syria. You've set him up as your omnipotent god and he's failed you, somehow. Putin, Rusia, is not responsible for the death, devastation, and destruction of Iraq, Syria, Libya or the rest of the middle east or north africa. You're throwing your stones at the wrong guy, at the only guy who's done anything at all to help the Syrians and to forestall the monstrous neo-con plan. ..."
"... Israeli bombed military base in Homs province with impunity from S400 http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.723701 ..."
"... There is more about Russian de-facto acquiescence for Syrian partition and pivot to Israel: STRANGE DAYS: Did Israelis Pivoted to Russia? Or the other way around. https://syrianwarupdate.wordpress.com/ ..."
"... On the bright side, maybe the 50 signatures are just trying to get noticed by the Clinton transition crew. ..."
"... The document you posted is a typical wet dream written by utterly incompetent neocons (Kagan's and Zoellik names are a tell), people who can not and must not be allowed to operate with serious strategic and operational categories in any "advisory" role. ..."
"... i read about 30 of 160 or so comments on this article at NYT. given who the audience of that shit rag is & that comments are vetted, overwhelmingly commenters stated increased military involvement is retarded. ..."
"... How can Russia, which dwarfs Israel in every meaningful category -- from economy to military -- and who does remember her history well can "pivot" to largely regional player -- I don't know. Russian "neocons" are a dramatically different breed than US ones, for starters they are much more educated and, actually, support Assad. Israel's pivot to Russia in some sense is inevitable, albeit it could be fairly protracted, with Russia being observed as honest broker. They are not completely stupid in Israel and are very aware of real situation in American politics, economy and military. ..."
"... I note that the 'moderate' Hillary Clinton is a blood-soaked queen of chaos, who if elected is certain to embroil us in pointless wars and spread death and devastation across even more of the world. ..."
"... Donald Trump is admittedly a gamble, but depute his over-the-top stage persona, his track record is of actually getting along with people and brokering stable working relationships. ..."
"... At this point I wish I could vote for Richard Nixon (!), but we have the choice that we have... ..."
"... This piece out of the NYT is pure propaganda. Period. Here's the big clue - where's the memo? It's not embedded in the article. It can't be found anywhere on the web. It's b/c it doesn't exist. The reader is 'TOLD' by a third party journalist few follow who writes for a MIC/Political/Policy corporate mouthpiece. ..."
"... We see the point of all the saber-rattling by NATO on Russia's borders: to get Putin tied up in a diversionary direct threat to Russia, thereby mitigating or eliminating his efforts in behalf of Assad. And you know what? Americans on the street couldn't care one way or the other what Obama or CIA or DoS does or says about Syria. 280,000 dead, millions displaced and Americans are more concerned by a factor of 1000 about 4 dozen gays in Orlando. ..."
"... Saudi Arabia rejoining Turkey: http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13950326000441 ..."
"... These 51 useful idiots are IMO auditioning for the Clinton team while also providing cover for the neo-cons above them like Nuland, Powers, etc. And directionless Kerry says he'll rush home to confer with these idiots rather than dismissing them out of hand. Kerry could only be useful to anyone if Lavrov was in the room with him at all times to keep him in line -- otherwise he reverts to his normal mindless servant of US empire viewpoint, which is to follow whichever way the winds of power are blowing through Washington, DC. ..."
"... Hillary is the neocon's neocon. Pravy Sektor's honorary storm trooper Vicky Nuland is a Hillary protege. NYT has been positioning its readers to embrace Kerry's Plan B for the last month-plus. ..."
"... How many of these diplomats were bribed by Saudi Arabia? ..."
"... This clown Kagan is also the husband of the infamous Victoria Nuland who somehow, defying all logic, still has her job post imbroglio that is the Ukraine today. Hell, she's probably being hailed for that and is an inspiration for lowly State employees. ..."
"... Thank you Victoria, for giving Crimea back to the Russian Federation where it belongs. ..."
"... There are almost exactly 7 months until either Trump or Clinton takes office (presuming that the elites manage to completely control any bad news prior to the Dem nominating convention in late July; if the email dam breaks after that I have no idea what the Dem elites will do, but I figure they won't choose the obviously best candidate against Trump, Bernie). ..."
"... might the West actually directly take on Russia/Syrian government forces? Claiming, of course, some version of R2P ..."
"... State Department Diplomats who have captained failure after failure? If these people were Russian or Chinese they would have been executed for their serial failures in the ME and Afghanistan. The main problem with being 'exceptional' is that the 'exceptional' ones never make a mistake. "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength" ..."
"... So I was kind of wondering what psychopathic qualities the U.S. War... er, State Department is looking for in potential parasitic career bureaucrats, and came across this self-promotion page on their site. ..."
"... Counterpunch had a great article: http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/17/the-case-for-not-voting-in-defense-of-the-lazy-ungrateful-and-uniformed/ ..."
"... And though the content of the review by Army Gen. John W. Nicholson is secret, the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan received a major incentive this month when President Obama decided to expand America's involvement with more airstrikes against insurgents, giving the U.S. military wider latitude to support Afghan forces, both in the air and on the ground." ..."
"... No respect for R2P warriors at the State Department, nor for HRC, Susan Rice and Samantha Power. ..."
"... For Israel to bomb the Syrian military right under the nose of Russian s-400s? Russia, supposedly so dedicated to defending sovereignty, smiles and yawns benignly? A dirty deal has been made... ..."
"... Saudi Arabia desperately needs battlefield success, or there will be a prince, I mean price, to pay http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-officials-fear-saudi-collapse-if-new-prince-fails-n593996 ..."
"... "Earlier this week as America was trying to make sense of the deadliest case of Islamic terrorism on US soil since 9/11, I wrote a detailed article here at Breitbart News that laid out the clear factual case about Hillary Clinton's top assistant Huma Abedin. I showed how she has deep, clear, and inarguable connections to a Saudi Arabian official named Abdul Omar Naseef, a powerful Kingdom insider who has helped lead a group called the Muslim World League. The Muslim World League is the huge "charity" whose goal is to spread Islam throughout the world and which has been connected to terror groups like Al Qaeda. ..."
"... What is Huma's relationship with a Saudi Arabian official named Abdullah Omar Naseef? ..."
"... Was he the founder of a Saudi charity called the Rabita Trust? ..."
"... Right after 9/11, was the Rabita Trust put on a list by the U.S. government of groups that were funding terrorism? ..."
"... the State Department official obviously has an agenda by providing it to the NYT. The NYT has its own agenda filled as well by prominently posting the article on the top of the front page . ..."
"... One senior official said that the test for whether these proposals for more aggressive action are given high-level consideration will be whether they "fall in line with our contention that there is no military solution to the conflict in Syria." ..."
"... It's important for Russia to ensure that the remains of the first "Israeli" jet it shoots down falls to earth inside Syria. If you've seen a story about the IAF doing something courageous it's bullshit. ..."
"... Wonder how many of these 51 war mongers were appointed by Hillary. ..."
"... The EU-Turkey deal's financial package includes one billion euros in humanitarian aid. There are undoubtedly needs in Turkey, a country which currently hosts close to three million Syrian refugees, but this aid has been negotiated as a reward for border control promises, rather than being based solely on needs. This instrumentalisation of humanitarian aid is unacceptable. ..."
"... kreepy kerry is "running out of patience" since his most desired regime change isn't happening fast enough. ..."
"... The difference between Hillary and ISIS: the latter "takes" the head of enemies, Hillary "gives" head to donors. Forgive the graphic. ..."
"... 50 diplomats petition president for war. Was that written by Orwell? ..."
"... Allow me to further my argument against American Exceptionalism. It is not merely the fact that the U.S. is far from exceptional. From education to infant mortality, the U.S. is woefully behind much of the world. ..."
"... So Hillary, the bloodthirsty Goddess of War, is longing for a second Libya, i.e., a Syria smashed to smithereens, in ashes and ruins, ruled by a chaotic bunch of mad Takfiri extremists, at war all against all. ..."
"... The FBI is stonewalling, keeping the contents of Mateen's 911 call unavailable - though it's part of the public record - presumably because it undermines the "ISIS did it" meme poured over the Orlando mass murder. Apparently Mateen may have mentioned ISIS not quite in the same light as has been portrayed. ..."
"... Now the NYTimes/WSJ are doing the same thing with the 50 dancing diplomats. Releasing what they want us to know and redacting what we want to know : the names of those 50 dancing diplomats. ..."
"... I suppose it comes under the CIA's blanket excuse for secrecy? "Methods and means", or whatever their boilerplate. ..."
"... No doubt the State Department dwarves were ginned up by "Cookies" Nuland and Count Kagan by visions of "x memorandum" of 1946 immortality by attacking the resistance to an unipolar hegemony. Mixing it up in Syria with the Russian presence seems civilization limiting at the outer limits of challenge/ response in a military confrontation. ..."
WASHINGTON - More than 50 State Department diplomats have signed an internal memo sharply critical
of the Obama administration's policy in Syria, urging the United States to carry out military
strikes against the government of President Bashar al-Assad to stop its persistent violations
of a cease-fire in the country's five-year-old civil war.
Note that it was Ahrar al Sham, Jabhat al-Nusra and other U.S. paid and supported "moderates"
who on April 9
broke the ceasefire in Syria by attacking government troops south of Aleppo. They have since
continuously bombarded the government held parts of Aleppo which house over 1.5 million civilians
with improvised artillery.
Back to the piece:
The memo, a draft of which was provided to The New York Times by a State Department official
, says American policy has been "overwhelmed" by the unrelenting violence in Syria. It
calls for "a judicious use of stand-off and air weapons, which would undergird
and drive a more focused and hard-nosed U.S.-led diplomatic process."
...
The names on the memo are almost all midlevel officials - many of them career diplomats - who
have been involved in the administration's Syria policy over the last five years, at home or abroad.
They range from a Syria desk officer in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs to a former deputy
to the American ambassador in Damascus.
While there are no widely recognized names, higher-level State Department officials are known
to share their concerns. Mr. Kerry himself has pushed for stronger American action
against Syria, in part to force a diplomatic solution on Mr. Assad.
...
The State Department officials insisted in their memo that they were not "advocating for a
slippery slope that ends in a military confrontation with Russia," but rather a credible threat
of military action to keep Mr. Assad in line.
These State Department loons have their ass covered by Secretary of State Kerry. Otherwise they
would (and should) be fired for obvious ignorance. What "judicious" military threat against Russian
S-400 air defense in Syria is credible? Nukes on Moscow (and New York)?
In the memo, the State Department officials argued that military action against Mr. Assad would
help the fight against the Islamic State because it would bolster moderate Sunnis
, who are necessary allies against the group, also known as ISIS or ISIL.
Would these "diplomats" be able to name even one group of "moderate Sunnis" in Syria that is not
on the side of the Syrian government? Are Ahrar al-Sahm and the other U.S. supported groups, who
recently killed
50 civilians out of purely sectarian motives when they stormed the town of Zara, such "moderate
Sunnis"?
These 50 State Department non-diplomats, and the stinking fish head above them, have obviously
failed in their duty:
"Diplomats" urging military action do nothing but confirm that they do not know their job
which is diplomacy, not bombing. They failed.
These "diplomats" do not know or do not want to follow international law. On what legal basis
would the U.S. bomb the Syrian government and its people? They do not name any. There is none.
To what purpose would the Syrian government and the millions of its followers be bombed? Who
but al-Qaeda would follow if the Assad-led government falls? The "diplomats" ignore that obvious
question.
The NYT writer of the piece on the memo demonstrates that he is just as stupid or dishonest as
the State Department dupes by adding this paragraph:
[T]he memo mainly confirms what has been clear for some time: The State Department's rank and
file have chafed at the White House's refusal to be drawn into the conflict in Syria
.
How is spending
over $1 billion a year to hire, train, arm and support "moderate rebels" against the Syrian government
consistent with the claim of a U.S. "refusal to be drawn into the conflict"?
It is obvious and widely documented that the U.S. has been fueling the conflict from the very
beginning throughout five years and continues up to today to
deliver thousands of tons of weapons to the "moderate rebels".
All the above, the "diplomats" letter and the NYT writer lying, is in preparation of an open U.S.
war on Syria under a possible president Hillary Clinton. (Jo Cox, the "humanitarian" British MP who
was murdered yesterday by some neo-nazi, spoke
in support of such a crime.)
The U.S. military
continues to reject an escalation against the Syrian government. Its reasonable question "what
follows after Assad" has never been seriously answered by the war supporters in the CIA and the State
Department.
Unexpected support of the U.S. military's position now
seems to come from the Turkish side. The Erdogan regime finally acknowledges that a Syria under
Assad is more convenient to it than a Kurdish state in north-Syria which the U.S. is currently helping
to establish:
"Assad is, at the end of the day, a killer. He is torturing his own people. We're not going to
change our stance on that," a senior official from the ruling AK Party told Reuters, requesting
anonymity so as to speak more freely.
"But he does not support Kurdish autonomy. We may not like each other, but on that
we're backing the same policy ," he said.
Ankara fears that territorial gains by Kurdish YPG fighters in northern Syria will fuel an
insurgency by the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which has waged an armed struggle in Turkey's
southeast for three decades.
The Turks have suddenly removed their support for their "Turkmen" proxies fighting the Syrian
government in Latakia in north west Syria. Over the last few days the "Turkmen" retreated and the
Syrian army
advanced . It may soon reach the Turkish border. Should the Latakia front calm down the Syrian
army will be able to move several thousand troops from Latakia towards other critical sectors. The
Turkish government, under the new Prime Minister Binali Yildirim, is now also
sending peace signals towards Russia.
The situation in Syria could rapidly change in favor of the Syrian government should Turkey
change its bifurcating policies and continue these moves. Without their Turkish bases and support
the "moderate rebels" would soon be out of supplies and would lack the ability to continue their
fighting. The Russians and their allies should further emphasize the "Kurdish threat" to advance
this Turkish change of mind.
The race to preempt a Hillary administration war on Syria, which the "diplomats" memo prepares
for, is now on. May the not-warmongering side win.
This is the Yankees trying to pretend that they're still exceptionally invincible, in order to
conceal the fact that they never were. One only need look at all the tentative tiptoeing around
China & Russia to see that they're trying to convince themselves that Russia and China are run
by people as loony and disconnected as the self-seducers in charge of AmeriKKKan Foreign Policy.
SmoothieX got it 100% right in the previous thread..
"The names on the memo are almost all medeival offiCIAls ..."
There, fixed it for you. Enjoying the calm before the Goldman Sturm, the takeover of the US
Executive in 2017 for the Final Solution on liberating the Fifth Quintile's Last Free Life Savings,
and plunging the globe into a New Dark Ages: Trump or Clinton, allatime same-same.
The State Department and the CIA's 'Plan C' (or are they on 'Plan D' yet?) is an independent
Syrian Kurdistan.
The FSA Sunnistan plan has been going down the tubes for months. With the imminent fall of
the last few FSA strongholds, the State Department has gone berserk with their latest standoff
bombing memo 'leak' nonsense. A desperate attempt to save the rebels, who now hate them and
completely understand how they have been thrown under the bus by the State Department neocons.
I really don't think the rebels will be the least bit impressed by the phony theatrics of a internal
memo by mid-level bureaucrats.
The Pentagram is in a bit of a different pickle. They have to do something to stop the
Wahhabi head-choppers, but its a bit like herding cats. The best they've come up with is ginning
up the SDF to take/hold ISIS territory. But they can't arm the Kurds or Arab members with any
REAL weapons because that would anger Turkey. So they give them a bunch of eastern European AKs
and a few pickup trucks with anti-aircraft guns, promise air support and toss in a few SF guys.
This almost works, but not completely. For what it's worth, I don't think the Pentagram cares
at all about an independent Syrian Kurdistan, unifying the cantons or who gets what land/resources,
as long as it's taken from ISIS. When ISIS is wiped out, the SDF will cease to exist and
the SF guys will leave. The SDF and especially the YPG/YPJ will NOT ever be incented to provoke
or go to war with Assad after ISIS is gone. That's a problem for the State Department and CIA
The neocon State Department and CIA - normally at odds with the Pentagon's increasing reluctance
to get involved at all - are taking this opportunity to agitate for an independent Kurdistan.
This is done by funding the Kurdish PYD political party which purports to speak for all Kurds.
The State Department and CIA also fund the PYD's growing Asayish thug secret police 'enforcers'.
The PYD took control of Rojava by throwing out all the other political parties last year and crowning
itself the King of all Syrian Kurds. But most Kurds don't trust the PYD, figuring that either
Assad or the U.S. is really pulling the strings. The Kurds agree with the original PYD ideology,
but not its current land/resource-grabbing frenzy NOR the kind of independent Kurdistan the PYD
is suggesting. They want more rights and control of their affairs, but they do not want an actual
or de facto independent Syrian Kurdistan.
The MSM (as CIA lapdogs are paid to do) constantly try to reinforce the message that the
independent YPG/YPJ militias are somehow 'the PYD's army'. Nothing is further from the truth -
it's all MSM spin to create the impression that the Syrian Kurds uniformly desire the usurped
PYD vision of an independent Kurdistan. In reality, the U.S. State Department neocons and the
CIA are the ones that want an independent Syrian Kurdistan for their own scheming (and to deny
Assad the land/water/oil). The MSM is constantly on message with this to set the narrative to
the American public for Syrian partition - most people have no clue.
For what it's worth, Assad is keenly aware of his history with the Kurds. Even by
Kurdish media reports
, he is willing to work with the Syrian Kurds as part of a unified Syrian state. He does not
object to Kurdish rights or autonomy, just the U.S. meddling to goad the PYD into creating a separate
Kurdish state. The U.S. State Department does NOT want Rojava to be part of Syria or the
Syrian State and spins the Assad/Kurd relation as antagonistic in the MSM. This is the 'Plan C'
Syrian partition scheme. Hopefully, the average Kurd can see through their scheming and will not
follow the dictates of a usurped PYD to go to war with Syria for their independence. They would
be better off dumping and outlawing the PYD completely and working with the new Syrian government
on the future AFTER ISIS (and hopefully without any U.S. State Department and CIA).
Your assessment above is a supremely eloquent assessment and a scream for sanity to return.
Thank you so very much for your always illuminating writings.
I think you're quite right. That corresponds with what I've thought for some time. I'm
sure the US will throw the Syrian Kurds "under the bus" when their usefulness is finished. I'm
sure also that a lot of Syrian Kurds know this, and are hedging their bets.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/france-building-military-bases-in-syria-report/5531259 "The
use of proxy forces to destroy the secular government of Syria is now starting to give way to
stealth methods of direct ground deployment of Western Special Forces and ground troops under
the guise of assistance and coordination with "moderate" terrorists. "With a wide variety of Western-backed
terrorist groups ranging from "extremist" terrorists like ISIS, al-Qaeda, and al-Nusra to the
"moderate" terrorists of the FSA and the loose collection of terrorists, Kurds, and Arabs like
the SDF, the West has a kaleidoscope of proxy forces on the ground already.
"Yet, even as Syria's military clashes with the West's proxies, the United States, Britain,
and France have begun moving in Special Forces soldiers to assist in the mission of destroying
the Syrian government, a mission that Israeli, Jordanian, and Turkish officers have joined in
as well. That is, of course, despite the fact that Russian Special Forces are on the ground fighting
on the side of the Syrian military.
"Likewise, both the United States and Russia are busy building military bases in the northern
regions of Syria to use as staging grounds for new operations."
So Russian peace talks with US evil empire in Syria were a disaster, which makes Putin look
like an idiot, as well as the supporters of this idiocy. As well as Russian invitations for the
US to join it in Syria makes it one of the most stupidest invitations ever.
Since B is not mentioning it, he might as well not mention that the French terrorist invaders
along with the already US terrorists, and possibly German invaders will be occupying parts of
Syria.
Oh, but that's alright because Putin invited the evil minions of the Us empire into Syria,
you know, because the bad PR opportunity is a much better outcome then world War three.
The Iranians have been warring with Kurds by the border with Turkey. Neither the Turks nor
the Iranians - nor the Syrians, but they do need the Kurds now - want a Kurdistan. The Kurds must
know by now - must have been betrayed enough by now - to know that the US will tell them anything,
promise them anything, and deliver nothing but betrayal in the end.
As regards the State Department, the Pentagon, the US government ... what's required is
a neo-con purge, top to bottom. They are all working against American interests and against the
American people. and have been for the past two decades. The likelihood of such a purge is about
zero. Neither Trump nor Hillary has the will or the backbone to stand up to anyone. Trump's all
mouth and looking out for number one, and Hillary's plugged in to the money-mosaic as well. Obama's
getting ready to cash in his chips.
It looks to be more of the same, until they really do go after Russia, when it will be all
over for all of us. I can't imagine that they really believe they can get away with this, but
this bunch is all 'mid-level', 'just following orders', it won't be 'their fault' and that's the
level they're working at. The people calling the tune think they can play the real world as they
do their fake financial world, making up new rules as they go along, as they redefine success
after each of their serial failures.
Talk about boiled frogs. How in the hell have we let it get this far?
I am amazed at your unflagging obsession with holding Putin responsible for the US/UK/EU/NATO/GCC
destruction of Syria. You've set him up as your omnipotent god and he's failed you, somehow. Putin,
Rusia, is not responsible for the death, devastation, and destruction of Iraq, Syria, Libya or
the rest of the middle east or north africa. You're throwing your stones at the wrong guy, at
the only guy who's done anything at all to help the Syrians and to forestall the monstrous neo-con
plan. This letter may be, as b says, a measure of theneo-cons' fear that it will all be over
for 'their guys' in Syria by 21 January. If that were to come to pass, Vladimir Putin will have
had a big hand in it.
Nicola @10 from your link 'Extending American power' I had to laugh at this... 4. "All of which
provides the basis for our strong belief
that the United States still has the military, economic,
and political power to play the leading role in pro
-tecting a stable rules-based international order". 'Rules based',ha, the US is the leading regime
change state, acting always contrary to International law to benefit its hegemonic ambitions.
All five veto wielding powers and their friends are above International law for all time. Thankfully,
Russia and China cannot be threatened militarily and will confront the monstrous US designs in
Syria, once the head choppers are defeated the victors should move against the real source of
terrorism in the region, Saudi Arabia and the various GCC satraps. b's article above is excellent
and is echoed in this piece in Antiwar.com
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/06/16/something-going-worse-thought/
There are other worrying development in Syroi a namely changing of Riusssian attitude to Assaad.
First Lavrov said that Russia is not Syrian government ally, they just fight terrorists together.
An obvious nonsense.
And now this.
Israel, following several similar air raids in previous months just bombed SAA installation
in Homs province, in the middle of Syria just 45 second flight of S400 rockets located in latakia,
while Netanyahu was smiling with Putin in Moscow.
Can you explain WTF? All of that while IDF artillery provides cover for ANF commanded by formed
ISIL commander in Golan Heights foothills,
There is more about Russian de-facto acquiescence for Syrian partition and pivot to Israel:
STRANGE DAYS: Did Israelis Pivoted to Russia? Or the other way around.
https://syrianwarupdate.wordpress.com/
This is not preview nor is it a strategy, since strategies are based on more or less professional
and realistic, I may add, assessments of the outside world. I do not have any recollection of
any serious US doctrinal (policy or military wise) document in the last 20 years written from
the position of comprehensive situational awareness--this is a non existent condition among most
of US current "power elites". The document you posted is a typical wet dream written by utterly
incompetent neocons (Kagan's and Zoellik names are a tell), people who can not and must not be
allowed to operate with serious strategic and operational categories in any "advisory" role.
They simply have no qualifications for that and are nothing more than a bunch of ideologues and
propagandists from Ivy League humanities degree mill. Back to "preview"--it is a dominant ideology
of "exceptionalism" which afflicted US "elites" today, this document is just another iteration
of this ideology.
i read about 30 of 160 or so comments on this article at NYT. given who the audience of that
shit rag is & that comments are vetted, overwhelmingly commenters stated increased military involvement
is retarded. Of course, many of those speak from ignorance of what's really going on, but
the knee-jerk suspicion of US Syria policy & these FSO dickheads seems a good sign.
There is more about Russian de-facto acquiescence for Syrian partition and pivot to Israel:
It is exactly the other way around. How can Russia, which dwarfs Israel in every meaningful
category -- from economy to military -- and who does remember her history well can "pivot" to
largely regional player -- I don't know. Russian "neocons" are a dramatically different breed
than US ones, for starters they are much more educated and, actually, support Assad. Israel's
pivot to Russia in some sense is inevitable, albeit it could be fairly protracted, with Russia
being observed as honest broker. They are not completely stupid in Israel and are very aware of
real situation in American politics, economy and military. In other words -- they know how
to count and see who pulls the strings. And then there is another "little tiny" factor--Israelis
know damn well who won WW II in Europe. It matters, a great deal.
I note that the 'moderate' Hillary Clinton is a blood-soaked queen of chaos, who if elected
is certain to embroil us in pointless wars and spread death and devastation across even more of
the world. I say this not because I am psychic, but because that is her unambiguous record.
Donald Trump is admittedly a gamble, but depute his over-the-top stage persona, his track
record is of actually getting along with people and brokering stable working relationships.
This November I'm going for the wild-card who at least sounds rational (if you listen to what
he actually proposes, and not his style) and has a track record of actually being pragmatic, over
certain doom.
At this point I wish I could vote for Richard Nixon (!), but we have the choice that we
have...
This piece out of the NYT is pure propaganda. Period. Here's the big clue - where's the memo?
It's not embedded in the article. It can't be found anywhere on the web. It's b/c it doesn't exist.
The reader is 'TOLD' by a third party journalist few follow who writes for a MIC/Political/Policy
corporate mouthpiece.
If an article does not link to an original source OR quotes only 'anon sources' be skeptical.
Journalism, especially alt news journalists, site original sources AND try like hell to get sources
to go on the record.
My apologies in advance if I'm being offensive to our generous host. That is not my intent.
Rather, it's venting a long held frustration I've had with the division within corporate newsrooms
who are there solely to sell the readers the news, even if it's made up out of thin air.
Yeah . . .agree 90%. Here are some minor details that need to be tidied up, and a couple thoughts.
1.
b: it was Ahrar al Sham, Jabhat al-Nusra and other U.S. paid and supported "moderates"
who on April 9 broke the ceasefire in Syria.
This is not quite accurate. Resolution 2254 exempted al Nusra from the cease-fire, not sure
about al Sham and whatever others you are referring to. If they were excluded from the cease-fire,
then they couldn't break it.
2.
The NYT writer is Mark Landler, not Lander. If you're going to accuse him of being stupid or dishonest,
you want to get the name right. Mark Lander, whoever he is, might have a pack of bulldog lawyers.
3.
I don't see in Landler's article a link to the memo or a list of the people who signed it. Someone
needs to publish that list of signatories to preserve the record of who the DOS idiots are.
4. We see the point of all the saber-rattling by NATO on Russia's borders: to get Putin tied
up in a diversionary direct threat to Russia, thereby mitigating or eliminating his efforts in
behalf of Assad. And you know what? Americans on the street couldn't care one way or the other
what Obama or CIA or DoS does or says about Syria. 280,000 dead, millions displaced and Americans
are more concerned by a factor of 1000 about 4 dozen gays in Orlando.
Thanks for sharing your outrage, b. I completely agree. I have been ranting about this all morning
and it's good to see someone else stating the case so the rest of us don't feel isolated in our
anger at this vicious and dangerous stupidity. These 51 useful idiots are IMO auditioning
for the Clinton team while also providing cover for the neo-cons above them like Nuland, Powers,
etc. And directionless Kerry says he'll rush home to confer with these idiots rather than dismissing
them out of hand. Kerry could only be useful to anyone if Lavrov was in the room with him at all
times to keep him in line -- otherwise he reverts to his normal mindless servant of US empire
viewpoint, which is to follow whichever way the winds of power are blowing through Washington,
DC.
CIA .... YPG .... ALNUSRA.... FSL , all these acronyms are so confusing , how about considering
the level of sanity and intelligence of these groups ( which is probably below that of a wounded
flea .... ) why not call them Scoobidoos vs the Syrian Army
so the article would go something like this :
In the memo, the Scoobidoos State Department officials argued that military action against
Mr. Assad would help the fight against the Scoobidoos because it would bolster moderate Scoobidoos,
who are necessary allies against the group, also known as Scoobidoos .
I thought it was a "cessation of hostilities" not a case fire. The difference is not trivial,
and State Department employees should know the difference. The signers are either incompetent
or evil (not mutually exclusive, of course).
dont think landler is stupid. dishonest and deceiving would be my say. he is a nyt's jew writing,
maybe lying, regarding syria. NYT: only news acceptable to jews. sometimes, many times we have
to make up stories and facts to (maybe) fit.
cant find any of the dissenting names.
like to know how many are jew if story not total fake
then there is the political hatchet job on the russian track/field olym team.
I think the key takeaway is b's last two sentences: "The race to preempt a Hillary administration
war on Syria, which the 'diplomats' memo prepares for, is now on. May the not-warmongering side
win."
Hillary is the neocon's neocon. Pravy Sektor's honorary storm trooper Vicky Nuland is a
Hillary protege. NYT has been positioning its readers to embrace Kerry's Plan B for the last month-plus.
Whether during or shortly after Hillary's first 100 days in office, U.S. military engagement
with Libya and Syria will likely be significantly greater than it is now.
This is the exact reason the Ministers of Defense of Syria, Russia and Iran held meeting in Teheran
just recently. My assumption is they are planning on rolling up the acres, so to speak in Syria.
All before the new POTUS comes to office. Also, Hezbollah just announced it's sending in reinforcements
to the battlefield. All this while the Chinese continue to sleep. Sigh.
The Kurds are the last great hope for the oil and especially natural gas pipelines dream from
the GCC to Europe, but still, Israel is not happy. They wanted a branch-off pipeline for themselves.
Also Jordan was to get a small branch-off too. Israel is no more than a parasite, look up the
definition. It's exact. Turkey would benefit economically due to transit fees. That's why the
Turks are so heavily involved. Turkey, who's economy is done for due to Chinese cheap products
swamping the M.E; is crashed. Jordan is broke (hence they allow the head choppers to be trained
on their territory). The U.S is the overlord who wants this project to be implemented so as to
deny Russia the European market (see Saudia too).
Netanyahu has visited Russia 3-4 times (not sure)to dissuade Putin on his support for Bashar
( who said yes to the Friendship pipeline- Running from Russia, Iran, Iraq, Syria..to the Mediterranean
thru to Greece, Europe). No other World leader makes that many visits is such a short time to
another capital. Netanyahu obviously failed in his endeavor, as the Russians are familiar with
these Zionist snakes very well. All they have to look at is the genocide perpetrated by said Zionists
in their very own 20th Century history. I even read that Putin irked Netanyahu when Putin offered
him back the Pale of Settlement if they wanted to make the smart choice. Beautiful if true. Probably
wishful thinking tho.
Anyways, Israel runs the U.S State Department(see, the Crazies in the Basement). They don't
call it Foggy Bottom for nothing. Must be foggy now due to too many employess smoking bongs in
the downstairs cafeteria, hence the ridiculous memo. Also the writer of the memo is most certainly
another member of the chosen tribe.
Yes, a 'Night of the Broken Glass' or 'Night of the Long Knives' is much needed to save Humanity
essentially. But don't hope for it. Congress, Capital Hill leaders , MSM heads and head anchors,
most everybody in the Whit house(except the kitchen staff) would have to be rounded up.
The only hope would have been the U.S Military Officer Corp. before the great purges post 9-11.
Now it's I'm possible. God help the American people and the World.
This clown Kagan is also the husband of the infamous Victoria Nuland who somehow, defying
all logic, still has her job post imbroglio that is the Ukraine today. Hell, she's probably being
hailed for that and is an inspiration for lowly State employees.
Thank you Victoria, for giving Crimea back to the Russian Federation where it belongs.
There are almost exactly 7 months until either Trump or Clinton takes office (presuming
that the elites manage to completely control any bad news prior to the Dem nominating convention
in late July; if the email dam breaks after that I have no idea what the Dem elites will do, but
I figure they won't choose the obviously best candidate against Trump, Bernie).
Seven months. If Russia lends more of its strength, is it possible to gain the territory and
hold it to the point that, oh, the West's illegal bases will have to close down? Or might
the West actually directly take on Russia/Syrian government forces? Claiming, of course, some
version of
R2P
State Department Diplomats who have captained failure after failure? If these people were
Russian or Chinese they would have been executed for their serial failures in the ME and Afghanistan.
The main problem with being 'exceptional' is that the 'exceptional' ones never make a mistake.
"War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength"
So I was kind of wondering what psychopathic qualities the U.S. War... er, State Department
is looking for in potential parasitic career bureaucrats, and came across this self-promotion
page on their site. They seem to feel that working for them immerses you in a 'Culture of
Leadership'. I guess the 'Culture of Chaos and Death' theme, although more neocon-appropriate,
was shot down in favor of tempting potential employees with the possibility of more power and
control.
There are times the depressing mood on MoA is mitigated by some of the rather classic spelling
errors. I sometimes wonder if they might be intentional in order to lighten the mood?
In the inner halls of Pentagramagon nothing succeeds financially like serial designed failure
...
KABUL, Afghanistan - "The new U.S. commander in Afghanistan has submitted his first three-month
assessment of the situation in the war-torn country and what it's going to take to defeat the
Taliban, a U.S. military official has told The Associated Press.
And though the content of the review by Army Gen. John W. Nicholson is secret, the U.S.
strategy in Afghanistan received a major incentive this month when President Obama decided to
expand America's involvement with more airstrikes against insurgents, giving the U.S. military
wider latitude to support Afghan forces, both in the air and on the ground."
No respect for
R2P warriors
at the State Department, nor for HRC, Susan Rice and Samantha Power. Jo Cox as former
Oxfam executive was moved by the same massacres of Rwanda, Yugoslavia and Darfur.
Unwittingly (?) the R2P argument was used by the Obama White House to intervene in Libya and
Syria. The US took R2P a step further to force regime change which is illegal by International
law. See George Bush and
Tony Blair
to white-wash the cruelty of torture, rendition, Abu Ghraib, extrajudicial assassinations,
etc, etc.
Former US Ambassador to Syria Robert S. Ford was an apprentice of John Negroponte in Baghdad,
Iraq.
If I were Assad, I would be shaking in my boots right now and having Gaddafi dreams. Russia has
clearly allied itself closely to Israel and Nato in Syria. Some kind of sanctions relief deal
must be in the works. Syria will be split up soon. Assad is a dead man.
For Israel to bomb the Syrian military right under the nose of Russian s-400s? Russia,
supposedly so dedicated to defending sovereignty, smiles and yawns benignly? A dirty deal has
been made...
"Earlier this week as America was trying to make sense of the deadliest case of Islamic terrorism
on US soil since 9/11, I wrote a detailed article here at Breitbart News that laid out the clear
factual case about Hillary Clinton's top assistant Huma Abedin. I showed how she has deep, clear,
and inarguable connections to a Saudi Arabian official named Abdul Omar Naseef, a powerful Kingdom
insider who has helped lead a group called the Muslim World League. The Muslim World League is
the huge "charity" whose goal is to spread Islam throughout the world and which has been connected
to terror groups like Al Qaeda. If that sounds like a serious accusation, you're damn right
it is."
"The three questions are very simple, very straightforward, and, frankly, anybody can research
the answers themselves. They are:
1) What is Huma's relationship with a Saudi Arabian official named Abdullah Omar Naseef?
2) Was he the founder of a Saudi charity called the Rabita Trust?
3) Right after 9/11, was the Rabita Trust put on a list by the U.S. government of groups
that were funding terrorism?"
"If I were Assad, I would be shaking in my boots right now and having Gaddafi dreams."
Interesting opinion? If you made a list of democratically elected Presidents and National Leaders
the US/GB/ISR axis have terminated you will fill a book. From Patrice Lumumba to Hugo Chavez the
list goes on and on. Could you supply me with a list of National Leaders that Russia under Putin
has terminated?
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - US Department of State has no plans to make public an internal memo
calling for the United States to take military action against Syrian President Bashar Assad's
government, US Department of State spokesperson John Kirby said in a briefing on Friday. "There's
no plans to make it public," Kirby stated when asked when the State Department would release
the dissent letter.
Furthermore, Kirby said there will be no investigation as to how the letter ended up in
the public domain.
By 'public domain', Kirby means on some writer's desk at the NYT, never to be seen by the unwashed
masses. To be fair, the State Department's "Dissent Memo" program is supposed to be confidential
even within the State Department itself to encourage its use. Mark Landler said in his article
that a draft of it was leaked by 'a State Department official' to the NYT. So some skepticism
of the existence or eventual submission of the actual memo is warranted. Not that Landry is lying
or hasn't verified it, but the State Department official obviously has an agenda by providing
it to the NYT. The NYT has its own agenda filled as well by prominently posting the article
on
the top of the front page .
Nyt participating in these pressures is coordinated with medecins sans frontiere announcing
today that they ll refuse eu money to protest on the treatment of refugees and with recent surge
in french and uk msm of so called white helmets exclusive pictured
Obama, despite dissent on Syria, not shifting toward strikes on Assad
The U.S. administration sought on Friday to contain fallout from a leaked internal memo critical
of its Syria policy, but showed no sign it was willing to consider military strikes against Syrian
President Bashar al-Assad's forces called for in the letter signed by dozens of U.S. diplomats.
Several U.S. officials said that while the White House is prepared to hear the diplomats' dissenting
viewpoint, it is not expected to spur any changes in President Barack Obama's approach to Syria
in his final seven months in office.
One senior official said that the test for whether these proposals for more aggressive
action are given high-level consideration will be whether they "fall in line with our contention
that there is no military solution to the conflict in Syria."
It's important for Russia to ensure that the remains of the first "Israeli" jet it shoots
down falls to earth inside Syria. If you've seen a story about the IAF doing something courageous
it's bullshit.
The EU-Turkey deal's financial package includes one billion euros in humanitarian aid.
There are undoubtedly needs in Turkey, a country which currently hosts close to three million
Syrian refugees, but this aid has been negotiated as a reward for border control promises,
rather than being based solely on needs. This instrumentalisation of humanitarian aid is unacceptable.
Last week the European Commission unveiled a new proposal to replicate the EU-Turkey logic
across more than 16 countries in Africa and the Middle East.
These deals would impose trade and development aid sanctions on countries that do not stem
migration to Europe or facilitate forcible returns, rewarding those that do. Among these potential
partners are
Somalia ,
Eritrea , Sudan and Afghanistan – four of the top ten* refugee generating countries.
kreepy kerry is "running out of patience" since his most desired regime change isn't happening
fast enough. How many others are in the works? I'm running-out-of-patience waiting for the
regime change anyone with 1/2 a brain wants, right here in the U.S. Regime Change US. It's our
turn. I just read Putin's speech at the St. Petersburg Int'l Forum. He must have used the word
"cooperation" at least 20 times. We need such a great leader. Terroristic turds like kerry and
co. belong in jail.
50 diplomats petition president for war. Was that written by Orwell? Isn't it enough
that this "peaceful" nation arms the world and places economic "pressure" on those nations that
displease her to the point of causing millions to die - do we really have to "kill the village
to save it?" Yes, I agree, each and every one of those "career diplomats" should be looking for
other work. They have not merely lost their way, they have lost their minds. My contempt for them
is manifest, as is my contempt for the entire MIC. That those trained in diplomacy should send
such a despicable petition illuminates the deep corrupting influence of American Exceptionalism
- a force for the kind of nationalism Germany endured 1933-45. Idiots.
Allow me to further my argument against American Exceptionalism. It is not merely the fact
that the U.S. is far from exceptional. From education to infant mortality, the U.S. is woefully
behind much of the world. My objection is that belief in exceptionalism leads to moral decay.
It is the functional equivalent of the 19th Century preachers who endorsed slavery, who preached
that negroes carried the mark of Cain, etc. Whites were God's chosen. The pseudo-righteousness
that preaching created in believers was largely responsible for America's Civil War. Americans
will be better people, with a better society, if we dispel this myth immediately. We're OK, you're
OK. Then we could have peace. Wouldn't that be nice?
So Hillary, the bloodthirsty Goddess of War, is longing for a second Libya, i.e., a Syria
smashed to smithereens, in ashes and ruins, ruled by a chaotic bunch of mad Takfiri extremists,
at war all against all. The Queen of Chaos, indeed, loves these scenarios. Especially because
her quick attack as first thing should she win the White House would shut the mouths of her critics
wanting her prosecuted for her crooked political and business corruption. But she and her State
Department surrogates would be in for a surprise: Russian and Syrian defences would not remain
silent. And afterwards, what would be left? How would the Exceptionalist who "gets things done"
proceed?
The FBI is stonewalling, keeping the contents of Mateen's 911 call unavailable - though it's
part of the public record - presumably because it undermines the "ISIS did it" meme poured over
the Orlando mass murder. Apparently Mateen may have mentioned ISIS not quite in the same light
as has been portrayed.
Now the NYTimes/WSJ are doing the same thing with the 50 dancing diplomats. Releasing what
they want us to know and redacting what we want to know : the names of those 50 dancing diplomats.
I suppose it comes under the CIA's blanket excuse for secrecy? "Methods and means", or
whatever their boilerplate.
Releasing their names might give us the means to track the 5th column as it winds its way through
'our' government, and that must be prevented at all costs. Think it might lead through Hillary?
Seems no doubt here.
No doubt the State Department dwarves were ginned up by "Cookies" Nuland and Count Kagan by
visions of "x memorandum" of 1946 immortality by attacking the resistance to an unipolar hegemony.
Mixing it up in Syria with the Russian presence seems civilization limiting at the outer limits
of challenge/ response in a military confrontation.
"... Liberals, unsurprisingly like conservatives, are neoliberals. The left is not. One of the nicer clarifications of the 2016 election so far as been the emergence of this distinction, which the Democrat Establishment will doubtless to haze over. Dayen's attending the Phoenix meeting, and writes: ..."
"... A lot of liberals are not even aware that they are neolioberals-so effective the morphing has been: ..."
"... Yes, this is astonishing to me. I threw away my Obama T-shirt years ago but I didn't recognize that there is a Corporate Psy-Ops underway to install Hillary Clinton until this year. I was aware of Neo-Cons back in 2003. But, I wasn't aware of the neo-liberal campaign to crucify the disenfranchised from Greece to mid-America. Deregulation, privatization, free movement of people and capital plus non-stop wars and the resulting chaos are their tools of subjugation and pillaging. ..."
"... If corporate media wins and the Neo's stay in control, this will become violent. ..."
"... Agree PP. If and when the "party platform" becomes the litmus test for EVERY party member, then it will serve a unifying purpose. As it stands right now, the REAL party platform is neo-liberalism all day, every day. ..."
"Hillary ushers her guest to the door. 'We're going to be a great girl
squad,' she says, squeezing Warren's hand. 'It will be so easy to beat
this airhead. I bet he doesn't even know what Cafta is. Sorry to cut this
short. I need to call Tim Kaine. But I will dictate a nice tweet about
you'" [MoDo,
New York TImes (Carolinian)]. This is very funny. Dowd seems to have
returned to form, however temporarily.
"Clinton, Sanders Hold 'Positive' Meeting After DC Primary" [Talking
Points Memo]. "The Clinton statement said that the two talked about
'unifying the party,' but the Sanders statement did not, as
NBC News noted." The results of that meeting - attendees Clinton,
Podesta, Mook, Sanders, Jane Sanders, Devine - seem to be quite closely
held; no leaks that I've encountered as of this writing. Readers? Oh, and
it's crossed my mind that "positive" corresponds to "a full and frank
exchange of views" in diplospeak. Clever of Sanders to, in essence, give
the Clinton campaign a hard deadline by scheduling a video speech for his
supporters tomorrow;
Sanders will deliver the speech from Vermont, and there are no travel
advisories for reporters (here's
the tweet for an RSVP, which sadly requires a mobile phone).
"Bernie Sanders's Democratic Party reforms focus on things that
would've helped Bernie Sanders win" [Philip Bump,
WaPo]. Oh! Oh! Sanders wants to win! Oh my goodness! This from the
guy who thought he had a scoop and a gotcha when the Sanders average
contribution jumped from $27 to $29. A good politician wants to win.
Sanders is a pretty good politician, considering that he started from
zero money and zero name recognition. There seems to be a general
assumption in the Beltway that the left shouldn't have any
operational skill, shouldn't hire professional staff,
shouldn't have any money. Not that they don't; they shouldn't.
Hopefully, the Sanders campaign has changed that.
"Will Hillary Clinton sacrifice Wasserman Schultz to appease Bernie
Sanders?" [Orlando
Sun-Sentinel]. Depends on what DWS has on Clinton, I guess. Sanders:
"We have to replace the current Democratic National Committee leadership.
We need a person at the leadership of the DNC who is vigorously
supporting and out working to bring people into the political process.
Yeah, I know political parties need money. But it is more important that
we have energy, that we have young people, that we have working lass [sic
(!!)] people who are going to participate in the political process and
fight for their kids and for their parents."
"As the sun set over the capital city, which had the unpleasant
distinction of voting after every other state and territory in the
country, it was easy to forget how close the 2016 presidential contest
came to going sideways for Democratic Party elders" [NBC].
" They had so carefully cleared the way for Clinton to be their next
leader. But if a few votes had gone differently in Iowa's exceptionally
tight caucus, or if Bernie Sanders had run a more effective campaign in
Nevada, the insurgent could have given Clinton a real run for her money."
As it were.
"Will Bernie Sanders Win the Platform?" [David Dayen,
The New Republic (GF)]. "Because of the unusually high stakes-and
scrutiny-that's come with Sanders's focus on the platform, the hearings
that continue this week in Phoenix (with St. Louis and Orlando to follow)
have become a kind of public trial on the party's future. If the first
week's hearings were any indication, stakeholders are signaling to
Clinton that the party's sins of the past will no longer be tolerated."
Dayen, unfortunately, confused liberals with the left. Liberals,
unsurprisingly like conservatives, are neoliberals. The left is not. One
of the nicer clarifications of the 2016 election so far as been the
emergence of this distinction, which the Democrat Establishment will
doubtless to haze over. Dayen's attending the Phoenix meeting, and
writes:
Listening to the first two days of testimony, I was struck by the
witnesses' desire to wake up the political establishment to realities
outside the Beltway. Multiple experts and ordinary people testified
that the U.S. economy simply isn't working for most of its citizens.
And they pointed to some interesting root causes. For example, Sabrina
Shrader, Vice President of West Virginia Healthy Kids and Families,
blamed oligopolistic electricity companies in her state for high
heating costs. "One runs the northern part and another runs the
southern part," she said.
"Millennials Rage Against the Machine (and Lose)" [Roll
Call].
Brindle
So true. A lot of liberals are not even aware that they are
neolioberals-so effective the morphing has been:
"Liberals, unsurprisingly like conservatives, are neoliberals. The left
is not. One of the nicer clarifications of the 2016 election so far as been
the emergence of this distinction,"
Yes, this is astonishing to me. I threw away my Obama T-shirt
years ago but I didn't recognize that there is a Corporate Psy-Ops
underway to install Hillary Clinton until this year. I was aware of
Neo-Cons back in 2003. But, I wasn't aware of the neo-liberal campaign to
crucify the disenfranchised from Greece to mid-America. Deregulation,
privatization, free movement of people and capital plus non-stop wars and
the resulting chaos are their tools of subjugation and pillaging.
An electoral civil war being waged right now. If corporate media
wins and the Neo's stay in control, this will become violent.
Well that was quick. The "Vichy Left" is already plotting to co-opt
our revolution and make it palatable to the corrupt DNC leadership and
its oligarchic backers.
YankeeFrank
Huge irony of course being the conceit that the 20-something
Millennials who backed Bernie's medicare-for-all, $15/hr min wage,
etc., etc., are somehow the mid-90's retreads here and not Clinton and
the decrepit and corrupt DNC.
cwaltz
The pro and con of this particular generation is their cynicism. I
wish the DNC lots of luck convincing them to join and stay simply by
putting something in their platform like they've done with my
generation(and yes I suspect it took me considerably longer than it
will probably take my kids to quit the Democratic party.)
I'm sure the Bernie supporters are going to get graphics, I'm
almost as sure that the pretty words will mean fairly little.
grayslady
The guy who wrote this is a member of a think tank called New America.
David Brooks is a member of the Board of Directors. Can we just stop
linking to anything from the NYT? The Grey Lady doesn't have a shred of
credibility left.
Archie
Agree PP. If and when the "party platform" becomes the
litmus test for EVERY party member, then it will serve a
unifying purpose. As it stands right now, the REAL party
platform is neo-liberalism all day, every day. (As one of
the clever commenters here put it: Eat shit and like it! Or go
to bed hungry.)
It has been the case,since at least the 60s, that politicians
regard average citizens as just not smart enough to understand
all the nuances of government. Therefore, we should just let the
politicians do what they know is "right" and go on about our
daily lives. I have been pissed off at this condescending
attitude my entire adult life. All of us 90% ers (at least) have
been in an abusive relationship with our national and state
governments for as long as I care to remember. Every time I have
made a contribution to Bernie's campaign, I have sent a personal
message that indeed, I do not see this election to be about
"Bernie", but for the first time in way, way too long, Bernie
has called out the bullshit in that relationship and that is why
I support him.
Hopefully enough others have urged him on for similar reasons
and he feels the Bern in all of us. Maybe I'm setting myself up
for another Charlie Brown moment, but all I'm looking for at
this point is for Bernie to do the right thing. He has spoken
much truth to power in this primary cycle, and he has
experienced both the brute force of the establishment and the
love and sincerity of his supporters. I am only a couple of
years younger than Bernie and if it were me, I'd take the f##kers
down. This is a defining moment in history and I sense that
Bernie knows that. Senate committee chairmanships, etc., are
meaningless in the face of the neo-liberal assault that is TPP
and TTIP. This is the real end game, imho.
The party has failed half of the people who typically vote Democratic.
And those are the people who are supporting Bernie.
Actually, the party has also failed a significant fraction of the people
who voted for Hillary Clinton. They should have voted for Sanders, but they
didn't know eanough about him (because of the media blackout), or they just
continued on auto-pilot and voted for a familiar name. A few might have been
voluntarily ignorant (sports, Dancing with the Stars, etc.), but those
people usually don't vote in primaries.
"... Prominent neocon Robert Kagan has endorsed Democrat Hillary Clinton for president, saying she represents the best hope for saving the United States from populist billionaire Donald Trump, who has repudiated the neoconservative cause of U.S. military interventions in line with Israel's interests. ..."
"... Then referring to himself, he added, "For this former Republican, and perhaps for others, the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. The [Republican] party cannot be saved, but the country still can be." ..."
"... Kagan, who I've known since the 1980s when he was a rising star on Ronald Reagan's State Department propaganda team (selling violent right-wing policies in Central America), has been signaling his affection for Clinton for some time, at least since she appointed him as an adviser to her State Department and promoted his wife Victoria Nuland, a former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, to be the State Department's chief spokesperson. Largely because of Clinton's patronage, Nuland rose to assistant secretary of state for European affairs and oversaw the provocative "regime change" in Ukraine in 2014. ..."
"... "I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy. If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else." ..."
"... Now, Kagan, whose Project for the New American Century wrote the blueprint for George W. Bush's disastrous Iraq War, is now abandoning the Republican Party in favor of Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... While Kagan's op-ed surely makes some accurate points about Republicans, his endorsement of Hillary Clinton raises a different issue for Democrats: Do they want a presidential candidate who someone as savvy as Kagan knows will perpetuate neocon strategies around the world? Do Democrats really trust Hillary Clinton to handle delicate issues, such as the Syrian conflict, without resorting to escalations that may make the neocon disasters under George W. Bush look minor by comparison? ..."
"... Perhaps Robert Kagan's endorsement of Hillary Clinton and what that underscores about the likely foreign policy of a second Clinton presidency might finally force war or peace to the fore of the campaign. ..."
Exclusive: Hillary Clinton's cozy ties to Washington's powerful neocons
have paid off with the endorsement of Robert Kagan, one of the most influential neocons. But it also
should raise questions among Democrats about what kind of foreign policy a President Hillary Clinton
would pursue, writes Robert Parry.
Prominent neocon Robert Kagan has endorsed Democrat Hillary Clinton for president, saying
she represents the best hope for saving the United States from populist billionaire Donald Trump,
who has repudiated the neoconservative cause of U.S. military interventions in line with Israel's
interests.
In a Washington Post
op-ed published on Thursday, Kagan excoriated the Republican Party for creating the conditions
for Trump's rise and then asked, "So what to do now? The Republicans' creation will soon be let loose
on the land, leaving to others the job the party failed to carry out."
Then referring to himself, he added, "For this former Republican, and perhaps for others,
the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. The [Republican] party cannot be saved, but
the country still can be."
While many of Kagan's observations about the Republican tolerance and even encouragement of bigotry
are correct, the fact that a leading neocon, a co-founder of the infamous Project for the New American
Century, has endorsed Clinton raises questions for Democrats who have so far given the former New
York senator and Secretary of State mostly a pass on her pro-interventionist policies.
The fact is that Clinton has generally marched in lock step with the neocons as they have implemented
an aggressive "regime change" strategy against governments and political movements that don't toe
Washington's line or that deviate from Israel's goals in the Middle East. So she has backed coups,
such as in Honduras (2009) and Ukraine (2014); invasions, such as Iraq (2003) and Libya (2011); and
subversions such as Syria (from 2011 to the present) all with various degrees of disastrous results.
Yet, with the failure of Republican establishment candidates to gain political traction against
Trump, Clinton has clearly become the choice of many neoconservatives and "liberal interventionists"
who favor continuation of U.S. imperial designs around the world. The question for Democrats now
is whether they wish to perpetuate those war-like policies by sticking with Clinton or should switch
to Sen. Bernie Sanders, who offers a somewhat less aggressive (though vaguely defined) foreign policy.
Sanders has undermined his appeal to anti-imperialist Democrats by muting his criticism of Clinton's
"regime change" strategies and concentrating relentlessly on his message of "income inequality" for
which Clinton has disingenuously dubbed him a "single-issue candidate." Whether Sanders has the will
and the time to reorient his campaign to question Clinton's status as the new neocon choice remains
in doubt.
A Reagan Propagandist
Kagan, who I've known since the 1980s when he was a rising star on Ronald Reagan's State Department
propaganda team (selling violent right-wing policies in Central America), has been signaling his
affection for Clinton for some time, at least since she appointed him as an adviser to her State
Department and promoted his wife Victoria Nuland, a former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney,
to be the State Department's chief spokesperson. Largely because of Clinton's patronage, Nuland rose
to assistant secretary of state for European affairs and oversaw the provocative
"regime change" in Ukraine in 2014.
Later in 2014, Kagan told The New York Times that he hoped that his neocon views which he had
begun to call "liberal interventionist" would prevail in a possible Hillary Clinton administration.
The Times reported that Clinton "remains the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring
their hopes" and quoted Kagan as saying:
"I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy. If she pursues a policy which we think she
will pursue it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not
going to call it that; they are going to call it something else."
Now, Kagan, whose Project for the New American Century wrote the blueprint for George W. Bush's
disastrous Iraq War, is now abandoning the Republican Party in favor of Hillary Clinton.
... ... ...
While Kagan's op-ed surely makes some accurate points about Republicans, his endorsement of
Hillary Clinton raises a different issue for Democrats: Do they want a presidential candidate who
someone as savvy as Kagan knows will perpetuate neocon strategies around the world? Do Democrats
really trust Hillary Clinton to handle delicate issues, such as the Syrian conflict, without resorting
to escalations that may make the neocon disasters under George W. Bush look minor by comparison?
Will Clinton even follow the latest neocon dream of "regime change" in Moscow as the ultimate
way of collapsing Israel's lesser obstacles - Iran, Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Palestinian
resistance? Does Clinton have the wisdom to understand that neocon schemes are often half-baked (remember
"the cakewalk" in Iraq) and that the risk of overthrowing Vladimir Putin in Moscow might lead not
to some new pliable version of Boris Yeltsin but to a dangerous Russian nationalist ready to use
the nuclear codes to defend Mother Russia? (For all Putin's faults, he is a calculating adversary,
not a crazy one.)
The fact that none of these life-and-death foreign policy questions has been thoroughly or intelligently
explored during the Democratic presidential campaign is a failure of both the mainstream media moderators
and the two candidates, Sanders and Clinton, neither of whom seems to want a serious or meaningful
debate about these existential issues.
Perhaps Robert Kagan's endorsement of Hillary Clinton and what that underscores about the
likely foreign policy of a second Clinton presidency might finally force war or peace to the fore
of the campaign.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative,
either in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com).
"... If Donald Trump, as seems more than likely, prevails in the GOP primary, then a number of neocons may defect to the Clinton campaign. Already Robert Kagan announced in the Washington Post ..."
"... The impulse of the neocons to return to the Democratic Party should not be wholly surprising. In 1972, for example, Robert L. Bartley, the editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... For its part, neoconservatism has always had a nationalistic streak. But Trump represents everything that the neocons believed that they had purged from the GOP. He represents continuity with the Buchananite wing, the belief that America should tend to its own knitting before launching hopeless wars abroad. When it comes to foreign policy, however, the second generation of neocons such as Kagan does not trace its lineage back to Ohio Senator Robert Taft but to the one that Republicans in the early 1950s reviled: the Truman administration. ..."
Anyone looking for further converts to the Hillary Clinton campaign might do well to look at the
Marco Rubio campaign. If Clinton is the leading liberal hawk, Rubio is the foremost neocon candidate.
In 2014 National Review published an article about him titled "The
neocons return."
Whether it's Cuba or Iran or Russia, he stakes out the most
intransigent line: "I disagree with voices in my own party who argue we should not engage at
all, who warn we should heed the words of John Quincy Adams not to go 'abroad, in search of monsters
to destroy.'" Not surprisingly, he's surrounded himself with neocon advisers, ranging from Max Boot
to Jamie Fly to Elliott Abrams.
If Donald Trump, as seems more than likely, prevails in the GOP primary, then a number of
neocons may defect to the Clinton campaign. Already
Robert Kagan announced in the Washington Post on Thursday that he intends to back Hillary
Clinton if Donald Trump receives the GOP nomination. The fact is that the loyalty of the neocons
has always been to an ideology of American exceptionalism, not to a particular party.
This is what separates the neocon conversion to Clinton from previous examples of Republicans
endorsing Barack Obama. Colin Powell wasn't making an ideological statement. He was making a practical
one, based on his distaste for where the GOP was headed. For the neocons this is a much more heartfelt
moment. They have invested decades in trying to reshape the GOP into their own image, and were quite
successful at it. But now a formidable challenge is taking place as the GOP reverts to its traditional
heritage.
The impulse of the neocons to return to the Democratic Party should not be wholly surprising.
In 1972, for example, Robert L. Bartley, the editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal,
wrote that the fledgling neoconservatives represented "something of a swing group between the two
major parties." He was right. The neoconservatives had their home in the Democratic Party in the
1960s. Then they marched rightward, in reaction to the rise of the adversary culture inside the Democratic
Party. George McGovern's run for the presidency in 1972, followed by the Jimmy Carter presidency,
sent them into the arms of Ronald Reagan and the GOP.
But it wasn't until the George W. Bush presidency that the neocons became the dominant foreign
policy force inside the GOP. They promptly proceeded to wreck his presidency by championing the war
in Iraq. Today, having wrecked it, they are now threatening to bolt the GOP and support Hillary Clinton
rather than Donald Trump for the presidency.
Something like this scenario is
what I predicted in the New York Times in July 2014. Trump wasn't around then as a force
inside the GOP. But already it seemed clear that some of the leading neocons such as Kagan were receptive
to Clinton. Now, in a Washington Post column, Kagan has gone all in.
He decries Republican obstructionism, antipathy to Obama, and the rise of Trump. The tone is apocalyptic.
According to
Kagan,
"So what to do now? The Republicans' creation will soon be let loose on the land, leaving to
others the job the party failed to carry out. For this former Republican, and perhaps for others,
the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. The party cannot be saved, but the country
still can be."
This itself represents a curious case of neocon hyperbole. Kagan is an eloquent writer, but he
elides the fact that many of Trump's positions are not all that different from what the GOP has espoused
in the past when it comes to domestic issues. It is on foreign affairs where Trump represents a marked
shift and it is this that truly troubles the neocon wing.
Trump has made it clear that he's dubious about foreign interventions. He's indicated that he
would treat with Russian president Vladimir Putin. His entire foreign policy credo, such as it is,
seems to have a
Jacksonian pedigree-don't tread on me.
For its part, neoconservatism has always had a nationalistic streak. But Trump represents
everything that the neocons believed that they had purged from the GOP. He represents continuity
with the Buchananite wing, the belief that America should tend to its own knitting before launching
hopeless wars abroad. When it comes to foreign policy, however, the second generation of neocons
such as Kagan does not trace its lineage back to Ohio Senator Robert Taft but to the one that Republicans
in the early 1950s reviled: the Truman administration.
Here we come full circle. The origins of the neocons are in the Democratic Party. Should Clinton
become the Democratic nominee and Trump the Republican one, a number of neocons may make common cause
with Clinton. Watch Rubio's ranks first.
Jacob Heilbrunn is editor of the National Interest.
This Democratic Party Politburo is approaching in power to the Politburo of
the CPSU making primaries redundant -- candidate supported by Politburo is
the candidate that will be installed as the candidate from the Party in
Presidential election independently of the level rank-and-file voters support.
This is especially true is competition is close.
Notable quotes:
"... Even if Clinton were to lose California to Bernie Sanders, she would be well ahead in the number of delegates awarded based on the outcome of primaries, though still shy of the 2,383 threshold -- a majority at the party's nominating convention in July. ..."
"... AP based its findings on a survey of the superdelegates -- the party's high-level officials, officeholders and operatives who get a vote at the convention just for being Very Important. Clinton has been piling up superdelegate support since long before the first primary. The 571st to promise to vote for Clinton at the convention put her over the top, according to AP. ..."
"... In fact, the media were merely ratifying what Hillary Clinton's supporters have been preaching for months -- more and more frantically when their candidate kept losing to Sanders, who was harangued endlessly about the need to shut up so Democrats could "unify." ..."
"... "It's time to stand behind our presumptive candidate," Michael Brown, a superdelegate from Washington, D.C., who came forward in the past week to back Clinton before the District's June 14 primary, told the AP . "We shouldn't be acting like we are undecided when the people of America have spoken." ..."
"... Except that quite a few "people of America" didn't speak. As The Intercept commented , it was a fitting end to a race where party leaders and prominent liberals relied on their control of the party and media apparatus to steer the nomination to their choice: "Anonymous Superdelegates Declare Winner Through Media." ..."
"... Suddenly, Clinton -- a fixture of the Democratic Party establishment since before her husband occupied the White House and the presumptive nominee in 2016 since just after Barack Obama won re-election in 2012 -- had a fight on her hands against a candidate who connected with the disgust with the status quo felt by millions. ..."
"... As secretary of state , Clinton supported the coup-makers in Honduras who overthrew democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya; the deadly 2009 troop surge in Afghanistan; and the Obama administration's escalation of drone warfare. She used her position to travel the world convincing governments to start fracking for natural gas and oil, among other priorities of Corporate America. ..."
"... The message to the Democratic Party's more liberal voting base is already clear: Sure, you may have some criticisms of Hillary Clinton, and you may have liked what Bernie Sanders had to say -- but it's time to get real and start helping ensure the victory of the "lesser evil" in order to stop the "greater evil." But everything about Clinton's political career is further evidence that voting for the "lesser evil" leads to of evils of both kinds. ..."
"... Clinton will take the support of liberals and progressives for granted, and start concocting strategies to win over moderate and conservative "swing voters." So get ready for more speeches like her foreign policy address where it's hard to see what distinguishes her from a more mainstream Republican than Trump. ..."
"... This exposes the gap between what the Democrats are offering and what the people who are expected to vote for them want. Supporting Hillary Clinton won't close that gap. We need to start organizing for an alternative -- in politics and in all the protest movements throughout society -- that can. ..."
Hillary Clinton did well in the final major day of the Democratic presidential
primaries, winning all but one state, though the outcome in California, the
biggest contest of the whole season, was still in doubt as this article was
published.
Even if Clinton were to lose California to Bernie Sanders, she would
be well ahead in the number of delegates awarded based on the outcome of primaries,
though still shy of the 2,383 threshold -- a majority at the party's nominating
convention in July.
Sanders, whose left-wing campaign surpassed all expectations and inspired
huge numbers of people, has promised to continue his campaign, possibly through
the convention. But on election night, there were signs -- including reports
of a Thursday meeting between Sanders and Barack Obama, scheduled at Sanders'
request -- that he might relent and concede.
Either way, though, the Associated Press (AP) wasn't waiting around.
On Monday night -- with hours to go before polling places opened on the day
with the second-largest number of Democratic delegates at stake -- the news
service announced that Clinton had enough pledged delegates plus "superdelegates"
supporting her to have a lock on the nomination.
AP based its findings on a survey of the superdelegates -- the party's
high-level officials, officeholders and operatives who get a vote at the convention
just for being Very Important. Clinton has been piling up superdelegate support
since long before the first primary. The 571st to promise to vote for Clinton
at the convention put her over the top, according to AP.
In California,
Long Beach resident Arie Gonzalez told the Los Angeles Times, "It's like,
why vote?...I can't believe Democrats have all these superdelegates and that
we vote consistently always with Iowa first and California has no voice by the
time it comes down to it. We're a tenth of the population. It's ridiculous."
In fact, the media were merely ratifying what Hillary Clinton's supporters
have been preaching for months -- more and more frantically when their candidate
kept losing to Sanders, who was harangued endlessly about the need to shut up
so Democrats could "unify."
"It's time to stand behind our presumptive candidate," Michael Brown,
a superdelegate from Washington, D.C., who came forward in the past week to
back Clinton before the District's June 14 primary,
told the AP. "We shouldn't be acting like we are undecided when the people
of America have spoken."
Except that quite a few "people of America" didn't speak.
As The Intercept commented, it was a fitting end to a race where party leaders
and prominent liberals relied on their control of the party and media apparatus
to steer the nomination to their choice: "Anonymous Superdelegates Declare Winner
Through Media."
***
The preempting of the actual vote by superdelegate math overshadowed coverage
of the wave of enthusiasm that Sanders rode going into the final big primaries.
In California, a campaign event in Oakland drew 20,000 people, and another in
LA turned out 13,500, despite being moved to a different venue at the last minute.
This has been the story since the start of the campaign. From the moment
he said he would run for the Democratic nomination, Sanders, the self-declared
socialist, drew crowds eager to hear a candidate who talked about taking on
corporate greed, challenging the corruption of the US political system and putting
working people ahead of Wall Street profits.
Suddenly, Clinton -- a fixture of the Democratic Party establishment
since before her husband occupied the White House and the presumptive nominee
in 2016 since just after Barack Obama won re-election in 2012 --
had a fight on her hands against a candidate who connected with the disgust
with the status quo felt by millions.
... ... ...
As secretary of state, Clinton supported the coup-makers in Honduras
who overthrew democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya; the deadly 2009
troop surge in Afghanistan; and the Obama administration's escalation of drone
warfare. She used her position to travel the world convincing governments to
start fracking for natural gas and oil, among other priorities of Corporate
America.
Clinton says she's ready to stand up to Trump and his agenda, but when ordinary
people do just that with actions, not just words, she's on the other side.
... ... ..
***
The message to the Democratic Party's more liberal voting base is already
clear: Sure, you may have some criticisms of Hillary Clinton, and you may have
liked what Bernie Sanders had to say -- but it's time to get real and start
helping ensure the victory of the "lesser evil" in order to stop the "greater
evil." But everything about Clinton's political career is further evidence that
voting for the "lesser evil" leads to of evils of both kinds.
... ... ...
Clinton, meanwhile, will make the Democratic presidential nominee's time-honored
"move to the center" -- though after a primary where she turned into the "No
we can't" candidate on health care, college tuition and more, she doesn't have
far to go.
Clinton will take the support of liberals and progressives for granted,
and start concocting strategies to win over moderate and conservative "swing
voters." So get ready for more speeches like her foreign policy address where
it's hard to see what distinguishes her from a more mainstream Republican than
Trump.
A recent poll by the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research illustrates
growing dissatisfaction with the political process and the two political parties.
The May study of registered voters, Republicans and Democrats, showed that 90
percent lack confidence in the US political system. Some 40 percent said it
was "seriously broken."
"The views of ordinary voters are not considered by either party, according
to most Americans," the study stated. "Fourteen percent say the Democratic Party
is responsive to the views of the rank-and-file; 8 percent report that about
the Republican Party."
But
as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting pointed out, the corporate media didn't
report on this poll. They were too busy conducting a survey of anonymous superdelegates
so they could tell primary voters that Clinton was already the winner, so they
don't need to bother.
This exposes the gap between what the Democrats are offering and what
the people who are expected to vote for them want. Supporting Hillary Clinton
won't close that gap. We need to start organizing for an alternative -- in politics
and in all the protest movements throughout society -- that can.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It
may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
Elizabeth Schulte is a journalist and reviews editor for the Socialist Worker,
writing frequently on low-wage workers, the Democratic Party and women's liberation.
Is Hillary doomed? Probably
considerably mor
e Hillary "No passaran" progressives will vote for
Trump...than Nevertrumpers republicans will vote for Hillary...
Notable quotes:
"... I think the entire point of this article is the absolute truth. In a Trump vs. Clinton race, their is no progressive candidate. ..."
"... Clinton has pretty much shown herself to be against the masses and for the plutocrats. She lives in a bubble of the super-wealthy and has a disgusting political record of lying, corruption and scandal. She and Bill use political power for whatever idiotic purpose they see fit. They buy the black vote outright through welfare programs that actually keep the black population in the gutter instead of real reforms. ..."
"... For HRC, the world of politics is merely a world where she can attain her ideal amount of control and power over others. Trump may be a narcissistic asshole, but he doesn't reach this level of sociopathic tendency. He is also completely clueless in politics, which is actually a good thing. ..."
"... Mark, Politico IS part of corporate media - if you believe otherwise, I've got some lovely swampland in Florida to sell you. ..."
"... Arthur, if the Green Party gets 5% of the vote, they get federal funding and automatic ballot access - it's a far more attractive option than voting for one evil to stop another form of evil. Using the scary Republican boogeyman didn't work for John Kerry, and it won't work for $Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... I'll vote for Trump over Clinton (if Bernie doesn't get the nomination). More important than even those points above (and 20 others I've researched) I can sum it up so: Trump = maybe war Clinton = war for sure ..."
"... Clinton wants more ME war. Syria for sure. Maybe Iran. ..."
"... Trump is vacuous policy free blowhard. Clinton is a war-mongering, duplicitious, corrupt sociopath. Which is worse? Given that choice, she is not the lesser of two evils. ..."
"... So this is what our political system has given us. The Republican who is involved in fraud litigation on both coasts, and is perhaps involved in up to 3,500 civil cases. Then there is Clinton. Do I believe that she used a private e-mail server to avoid transparency and FOIA? Yes. Do I believe that there was/is a "pay to play" relationship between wealthy corporations, governments and the Clinton Foundation? The circumstantial evidence to me is pretty compelling. Do I think that her foreign policy in places like Honduras, Haiti, and Libya (among others) is misguided? Yes. Do I think that she is too cozy with the big banks? Yes. Do I think that she changes a policy position based on political expediency? Again, yes. ..."
"... Sanders supporters are already starting to move onto the next step with brandnewcongress.org in an effort to elect more progressives into the legislature. ..."
"... The biggest chunk of Sanders voters that will go to Trump are the less ideological voters who may agree with Trump on trade and little else, but who despise Clinton and see her as another dishonest, globalist politician, and who more than anything want to shake up both parties in Washington. ..."
"... HRC is a horrible, self-enriching, dishonest, pandering power hungry politician who is going to lose in November due to an unlikely coalition of Americans who are just fed up with the status quo. ..."
"... Clinton is an islamophobic racist and viciously anti-Palestinian. She's also a vehement Russophobe. She has no problems with unleashing mass slaughters of innocents so that her friends in big business can increase their already bloated profits. Vote for her by all means. But don't pretend to be a progressive or to speak for progressives. You are not. ..."
"... Yves Smith sums it up perfectly and we are witnessing this political process in many Western nations, a process whereby much of the electorate is sick and tired of 'neoliberalism' and the greed it sponsers and espouses. For us Brit's, we feel much the same about the Blair's as many in the USA think about the Clinton clan, that is they are greedy buggers more concerned with the depth of their own pockets than their own citizens. Oh, and then we have to add the social justice warrior BS to everything. ..."
"... As for foreign policy, we'll at least Trump has no blood on his hands and you Clinton suppoters cannot say that of Shrillary I'm afraid to say, who'd welcome WWIII if it meant more coin for her and the elite! ..."
"... The question remains: why should we progressives accept a Democratic Party that has sold its soul to the 1%? And if we don't accept this, then how does a corrupt party get fixed or replaced? In other words, where is the party to represent the 99%? ..."
"... So as a lifelong active progressive my question remains - and its not whether Trump supporters are morons - its what alternative do we have to build a corruption-free political movement for the 99% if Sanders is not elected? We should at least separate out the symptoms from the root causes. Perhaps that is too radical of a notion for you, but that will help us figure out where to go next. ..."
"... Arthur C. Hurwitz LOL. I actually have been working in the trenches for many decades. While that doesn't give me a pipeline to the truth, I at least know an armchair progressive when i see one. I could easily say to you that you have swallowed the Kool aid of "anyone but Trump." But that goes nowhere. ..."
"... Voting for Trump is an insult to Bernie and all he stands for. It makes no sense at all to vote for Trump to send a message that the Dems are corrupt; it sends the message that the Dems are not corrupt enough! ..."
"... Why the hell did this article leave out the Green Party as an option??? The Green Party is as Progressive as Bernie. If your conscience won't allow you to vote for Hillary, make your vote count and vote Green. Don't give the GOP a mandate! ..."
So-called progressive groups have sold out in siding with Clinton. Many of these groups have received
donations from the Clintons and others are simply too afraid of the DNC's power. Still others
like Barney Frank are as corrupt as Clinton is. Lastly, are the ignorant pragmatists who believed
the tripe of Bernie's inelectability. With all the cheating going on, Bernie is very close, despite
the best efforts of the corporate media, the DNC and Clinton's other attack dogs. My bottom line
against her, is that she is a pathological liar, just like Ftrump, so how can anyone believe a
word she says?
Pairc Chuil
·
Jun 2, 2016 6:06am
Works at
MassGen
I won't be voting Trump but won't be voting Clinton either. I've just recently left the
Democratic party after having served on committees, volunteered, donated, and canvassed for
Democratic candidates my entire voting life. But oligarchy is a bridge too far for me. And
yes, I'm highly educated and will vote for Bernie or Green in the GE.
Brooke Doris
,
No smart progressive in their right mind would ever vote for Trump. That would mean
abandoning all their principles. Pure drivel.
Gail Newman
Not true. Trump is more liberal than Hillary in very important areas.
Dianne McCarthy · Works at Currently Underemployed
Anyone voting for #ChickenTrump is NOT progressive...really stupid article. "Smart" people
understand that #SleazyTrump is just as corrupt as
#
NeverClinton
.
He has bragged about buying politicians and has lied and flip-flopped just as much as she
has. His racist, sexist and xenophobic comments are deplorable, whether he really believes
them or is just pandering to the yokels. His foreign policy naivete and warmongering comments
allude to his being, just as bad as #NeverHillary on continuing war. His ignorance of climate
change is ridiculous and his comments on it, totally irresponsible. Finally, anyone who votes
for a lesser of evils is still voting for evil, to paraphrase Jerry Garcia. Pragmatism is not
necessarily intelligence. I'll vote my conscience which is either Bernie or Jill.
Brian Jennings
· Metropolis, Illinois
Arthur C. Hurwitz , Fracking? War? Workers organizing? Labeling food? Etc...Hillary is not
a progressive , she is a Republican.
I do not want her or Trump picking SCOTUS judges.......
I think the entire point of this article is the absolute truth. In a Trump vs. Clinton
race, their is no progressive candidate.
Arthur C. Hurwitz
The problem here is that as much as they might be dissatisfied with the status quo, even
justifiably, they lack the awareness that everything could be much worse. Sanders betrayed
the most important ideal from his Brooklyn Socialist Jewish background and that is that
Fascism is the greatest threat to humanity....
David Jan West
· Northwestern University
America today is absolutely nothing like Germany post WWI. Please read some history.
Comparing Trump to Hitler is like comparing an Orange to Hitler. Our society is not nearly as
racist. Our society is thousands of times more diverse than Germany. And, our nationalistic
pride is pretty much nowhere these days. I find that more Americans hate America, as in the
Government and the corporate culture, than they do a single race. We are not reeling from a
disatrous war in which we lost a 3rd of our population and lost a generation of men (and on
that point, Obama is the most militaristic president America has ever seen in terms of
expanding military budgets and powers, and length of warfare).
Clinton has pretty much shown herself to be against the masses and for the plutocrats.
She lives in a bubble of the super-wealthy and has a disgusting political record of lying,
corruption and scandal. She and Bill use political power for whatever idiotic purpose they
see fit. They buy the black vote outright through welfare programs that actually keep the
black population in the gutter instead of real reforms.
They used presidential pardons
to get Fillipino votes in New York when Hillary was running for Senate in New York. They have
amassed an insane amount of money that should be impossible for a strictly politics couple,
have been caught in inside trading schemes, gifting schemes, etc.
For HRC, the world of politics is merely a world where she can attain her ideal amount
of control and power over others. Trump may be a narcissistic asshole, but he doesn't reach
this level of sociopathic tendency. He is also completely clueless in politics, which is
actually a good thing.
Because, the worst people in history are not the idiots, they are
those who are smart, ambitious, but have a twisted morality.
Hitler was not stupid in any way. He nearly managed to pull off eradicating the Jewish and
other minority populations in Europe and successfully defeated and invaded the surrounding
countries. Stalin was similarly quite astute and dangerously successful. He held Soviet
Russia and a good half of Europe in a vicelike grip for 30 years and killed millions in the
process. Trump can barely manage to keep his head combed over. I think America will manage
just fine.
Kristin Marie
More like many progressives will vote for Jill Stein of the Green Party - god forbid
another progressive option be mentioned in corporate media.
Kristin Marie
Mark, Politico IS part of corporate media - if you believe otherwise, I've got some
lovely swampland in Florida to sell you.
Arthur, if the Green Party gets 5% of the vote, they get federal funding and automatic
ballot access - it's a far more attractive option than voting for one evil to stop another
form of evil. Using the scary Republican boogeyman didn't work for John Kerry, and it won't
work for $Hillary Clinton.
Gail Newman
America is a feudal country calling itself a democracy. We evicted feudalism when the
nations united in a treaty called the Articles of Confederation. We reinforced that decision
after the Constitution, when voter enfranchisement exploded. We were returned to feudalism in
1819 when the Supreme Court through out our Constitutional Republic and replaced it with a
Common Law government with itself at the head, serving as dictator (sharing a throne) as well
as the nation's God (decider of morality). We don't know that because in America, students in
public schools are taught provable lies about our history.
Bernie is about ending feudalism. Hillary serves the feudal lords and aristocrats. #NeverHillary.
If Bernie doesn't get the nomination, I'll vote Jill Stein because my state doesn't allow
write-ins that would threaten the status quo. If I lived in a blue or swing state, I would
vote Trump.
Jack Albrecht · Lamar University
I'm an early 50's (I) ex-pat living in Austria. I own 3 flats and have my own company.
I've got mine. We've already got democratic socialism here. My son starts university next
year. It will cost me nothing additional (just one example).
I'll vote for Trump over Clinton (if Bernie doesn't get the nomination). More important
than even those points above (and 20 others I've researched) I can sum it up so:
Trump = maybe war
Clinton = war for sure
Last year Austria had 85k asylum applications. That is 1% of the population. In. One. Year.
Clinton wants more ME war. Syria for sure. Maybe Iran.
Europe's governments are
being destabilized because the people don't when the flood of refugees will end. With
Clinton, it is sure to increase. She'd destablize the entire EU, the US's biggest trading
partner, just to satisfy her blood lust. Watch the video of "We came, we saw, he died" as
Clinton laughs about Ghaddafi's lynching. Disgusting.
Trump is vacuous policy free blowhard. Clinton is a war-mongering, duplicitious, corrupt
sociopath. Which is worse? Given that choice, she is not the lesser of two evils.
Nadeem Ahmed
· Works at Salesforce
This is one of the dumbest things ever written in the history of man. Every single issue
that was written about ignores reality. Obamacare for one - it passed with 1 vote - 1 vote.
If they had done single payer it was a snowball in hell. Neither President Obama or President
Clinton were dicatators - they needed congress and the senate to get thigs done. If Sanders
were somehow to become Presidnet - how in the name of all that is holy will he get single
payer through congress and the Senate? At this point the author is dilusional. Significant
progress was made under both presidencies. The long arch of history has bended towards
justice. The idea that progress is not incremental ignores, common sense, reality and truth.
To beleive otherwise is just a way to rationalize you mysogony.
Fiasco Linguini
· Junior Assistant Flunky / Peon at The Galactic Empire
You make some fair points until you assert that true Progressives who are fed up with our
corrupt system are all mysogynists. That's stupider than the article we both dislike. You
undermine yourself when you say stupid shit like that.
Regan Farr Gonzalez
· Gig Harbor, Washington
Insightful article; thank you. The knee-jerk talking points and highly aggressive pushback
by Clinton supporters here is a startlingly clear example of how this interesting phenomenon
affects our ability to choose:
http://billmoyers.com/story/voting-with-their-stone-age-brains/
Mike Wood
· Trout Lake, Washington
As a 59 year old male with a graduate degree, five grandkids and a professional career, I
cannot and will not vote for Hillary Clinton for all the reasons listed in the article. The
Bern movement is the wake up call. So wake up. The only obstacle to a more fair and just
economy is the Dems who won't get on board. Trump is not the enemy. He is a sideshow. Clinton
and all she stands for is the real enemy of meaningful change.
Bill Bartlett
· Indiana University
On the political spectrum I consider myself a Progressive. Am I one of the "smartest?" I
don't know. Yves' blog "Naked Capitalism" is on my daily reading list. There is an important
point being overlooked in all of this. It's not just Donald Trump that's part of this
election, it's the rest of the Republican party. Here's my take on what a Trump presidency
may be like. Like most of his business ventures, the Trump presidency will be merely a brand
applied to the broader Republican agenda. Reporting is that Trump is looking for someone to
do the parts of the job that he doesn't want to do. Like public policy. He'll rely on the
likes of Newt Gingrich (who the author cited earlier) to advise him. Grover Norquist famously
said "We are not auditioning for fearless leader. We don't need a president to tell us in
what direction to go. We know what direction to go. We want the Ryan budget. ... We just need
a president to sign this stuff. We don't need someone to think it up or design it." Trump
will be such a president. A puppet like GW Bush was.
A Trump election will also mean that the House would definitely remain in GOP hands, and
possibly the Senate. If that is true, it's "game over." McConnell would not hesitate to
abolish the filibuster. And we'll get every horrible policy that they push now. The ACA (Obamacare)
while imperfect, does manage to get more Americans into healthcare. Absent the ACA the worst
abuses of the health insurers will return. Policy rescission, denial of coverage, double
digit rate increases year after year. Will the Republicans offer an alternative? Not likely.
Will Attorney General Chris Christie pursue action against "bathroom laws?" Will he take up
voting rights cases? Will Secretary of State Jeff Sessions or John Bolton work for peace?
What will happen with the Paris climate accord? Although inadequate IMO, it has at least
united the world to start taking action. What will happen with the Iran nuclear agreement?
The US may withdraw, but the others will not, isolating us with Israeli warmongers. Despite
his public pronouncements, Trump will rubber stamp free trade deals. He will be persuaded by
his GOP cohorts that these are actually good for average Americans. And then there is the
Supreme Court. The court is effectively nine robed kings and queens whose word is law and
they cannot be challenged. Trump has promised more Scalias. The next two vacancies could
easily be the liberals Ginsberg and Breyer. Do we want Scalias, young Scalias, in those
chairs?
So this is what our political system has given us. The Republican who is involved in
fraud litigation on both coasts, and is perhaps involved in up to 3,500 civil cases. Then
there is Clinton. Do I believe that she used a private e-mail server to avoid transparency
and FOIA? Yes. Do I believe that there was/is a "pay to play" relationship between wealthy
corporations, governments and the Clinton Foundation? The circumstantial evidence to me is
pretty compelling. Do I think that her foreign policy in places like Honduras, Haiti, and
Libya (among others) is misguided? Yes. Do I think that she is too cozy with the big banks?
Yes. Do I think that she changes a policy position based on political expediency? Again, yes.
But the answer to those issues is not to hand the reins of government to a dangerous,
unbalanced, narcissist like Trump and the ghouls in the Republican party. I'd rather that
Sanders, and his supporters mobilize with other progressives in Congress (Warren, Franken,
Brown, Ellison just to name a few) and keep her on a more progressive path.
Sanders
supporters are already starting to move onto the next step with brandnewcongress.org in an
effort to elect more progressives into the legislature.
In the meantime we need to stay strong and vote against trade agreements that harm Americans. Withhold support for cabinet
members that come from corporate boardrooms.
Vote against changes/cuts to programs like Social Security and Medicare. Propose legislation to accomplish the goals that will benefit
the majority of Americans. Constantly, consistently, and relentlessly push the President to
do the right thing. Will we win all of these battles, no. But at least they will be the right
battles and we will win some of them.
Peter Meyer
I disagree with the premise that true liberals will vote for Trump in large numbers.
The biggest chunk of Sanders voters that will go to Trump are the less ideological voters who
may agree with Trump on trade and little else, but who despise Clinton and see her as another
dishonest, globalist politician, and who more than anything want to shake up both parties in
Washington.
About 1/3 of Bernie voters will vote for Trump, 1/3 for HRC and 1/3 won't vote at all.
HRC is a horrible, self-enriching, dishonest, pandering power hungry politician who is going
to lose in November due to an unlikely coalition of Americans who are just fed up with the
status quo.
Alexander Sebastian Ruiz
· Austin, Texas
Doug Von This author claims that most of their followers would either sit out or vote for
Trump over Hillary during this election because they are both just as bad. Racism exists
among all races. But Trump has made it clear that his racism does not extend towards two very
specific categories: White and Christian. Therefore those with the least to lose by him
winning an election during this season are people who fall under both of those banners. Not
all Whites are racists and I believe this person is exaggerating about their following, but
their argument leads me to the conclusion that they are White. I know several people of
different races who are just as unimpressed by Clinton, some outright hating her, but, and
this is unfortunate for the way this election has played out, they will vote for Clinton
because its become a matter of how their basic rights could be curtailed under a Trump
Presidency, not just our coutry's very problematic financial systems.
John Giles
Clinton is an islamophobic racist and viciously anti-Palestinian. She's also a
vehement Russophobe. She has no problems with unleashing mass slaughters of innocents so that
her friends in big business can increase their already bloated profits. Vote for her by all
means. But don't pretend to be a progressive or to speak for progressives. You are not.
Chris Rogers
· "The Boss" at My Own Business Institute
There seem to be some seriously deluded Clinton nutters posting on this story, but fact
remains
Yves Smith sums it up perfectly and we are witnessing this political process in
many Western nations, a process whereby much of the electorate is sick and tired of
'neoliberalism' and the greed it sponsers and espouses. For us Brit's, we feel much the same
about the Blair's as many in the USA think about the Clinton clan, that is they are greedy
buggers more concerned with the depth of their own pockets than their own citizens. Oh, and
then we have to add the social justice warrior BS to everything.
I'm proud I worked for a Jeremy Corbyn election victory within the UK's Labour Party last
year - a honest man like Sanders, both of whom represent a threat to the status quo, and as
such, much maligned by neoliberals and the media. Still, the revolution will come and
business as usual is now not an option, unless you want your homes three feet under water due
to global warming, that's if you are lucky to have a roof over your head.
As for foreign
policy, we'll at least Trump has no blood on his hands and you Clinton suppoters cannot say
that of Shrillary I'm afraid to say, who'd welcome WWIII if it meant more coin for her and
the elite!
Mark Anderlik
· Union organizer at Union
Arthur C. Hurwitz
The question remains: why should we progressives accept a Democratic
Party that has sold its soul to the 1%? And if we don't accept this, then how does a corrupt
party get fixed or replaced? In other words, where is the party to represent the 99%?
Arthur C. Hurwitz
Mark Anderlik It isn't about what you accept or don't accept. It is what there is and the
actually to be realized potential outcomes. If the Democratic Party "sold its soul" or not.
It still is far more progressive on many issue than Trump and the Republican Party will ever
be. Moreover, a President Trump will be a disaster for our country and for many of its
citizens, and of course, the world. If you can't see that, you obviously don't know anything
about the rise of Fascism in Europe during the 1930's.
Mark Anderlik
· Union organizer at Union
Arthur C. Hurwitz You need to reread this article. Seriously. It is not a call for
progressives to vote for Trump. And Yves is no "nutjob," far from it. I am a daily reader of
her blog and I learn way more about finance, economics and politics from a progressive
perspective that from many "progressive" news shows on MSNBC and the like.
The point is it is precisely because of corrupt politicians like Clinton, and many parts of
the Democratic Party, that fascist politicians like Trump have and will emerge. I am a
Sanders supporter and will never vote for Trump. But if you can't see Trump's emergence as a
true fascist candidate has at its root the corruption and hypocrisy of the "progressive"
parties, then you are not seeing what is before your eyes. Read a little Chomsky if you want
to open your eyes. We are now witnessing today a re-emergengce of fascism - one also almost
won in Austria, and others are also emerging in the "advanced" countries.
And it is, in the end, what you and I, and millions of others, do and don't accept. That is
the very core of real progressive politics - that a better world can be made for all people
(and other living things) through conscious, intentional, and collective human action.
So as a lifelong active progressive my question remains - and its not whether Trump
supporters are morons - its what alternative do we have to build a corruption-free political
movement for the 99% if Sanders is not elected? We should at least separate out the symptoms
from the root causes. Perhaps that is too radical of a notion for you, but that will help us
figure out where to go next.
Mark Anderlik
· Union organizer at Union
Arthur C. Hurwitz LOL. I actually have been working in the trenches for many decades.
While that doesn't give me a pipeline to the truth, I at least know an armchair progressive
when i see one. I could easily say to you that you have swallowed the Kool aid of "anyone but
Trump." But that goes nowhere.
I also know what vision I have for a better society is supremely relevant for how I decide
to act in this crazy time. Yes, not only do I believe in the vision of "by the people and for
the people" I also believe that it is the only effective way of creating a better world for
the 99%. I find it difficult to see what you would fight for, besides the right to post
smarmy commentary to avoid fascism. Prove me wrong. Tell us your vision of how we get to a
political party that is corruption-free that serves the interests of the 99%.
Fiasco Linguini
· Junior Assistant Flunky / Peon at The Galactic Empire
Voting for Trump is an insult to Bernie and all he stands for. It makes no sense at
all to vote for Trump to send a message that the Dems are corrupt; it sends the message that
the Dems are not corrupt enough!
And withholding your vote is not defiance, it's surrender!
Why the hell did this article leave out the Green Party as an option??? The Green Party
is as Progressive as Bernie. If your conscience won't allow you to vote for Hillary, make
your vote count and vote Green. Don't give the GOP a mandate!
Julian Castor
Bernie and Trump coming up in 2016 is no coincidence.
Their unexpected political success is simply a result of the appallingly -- and consistently
-- egregious performance by both major parties and their ruling elites.
Yancey Tobias
· University of Delaware
Excellent perspective from the consistently clear eyed Smith------i have been saying the
same thing since the campaign started. There is no way any progressive should vote for
Clinton---she simply is not progressive nor morally credible.
"... Trump isn't even far right, he's just a populist. He's nationalist, but not national socialist. He's for diplomacy, not for invading every country the MIC identifies as "terrorist" (the new, politically-correct n-word for people we can kill with impunity). ..."
"... Trump just represents people who want their jobs and their country back, and for you to malign these followers as far right is nothing short of elitism. ..."
"... Trump will do an 'Alexander' on the US's Gordian knot of a political system. At least that's the hope of the many frustrated and disillusioned. And like Obama, Day-2 in the White House will business-as-usual according to the MIC-Wall St script. ..."
"... Unfortunately, lesser of evils at voting time has not resulted in lesser of evils Presidents. Every time I keep thinking that the new guy can't possibly be as bad as the last, he proves that he can be. ..."
"... Trump appears to be an outsider until you meet his foreign policy team or his economic advisers or watch his virtual oath of fealty to AIPAC to etc. Loose cannons can backfire. The only Never-Hillary alternative beyond Trump is Sanders. ..."
"... Unemployment & underemployment are destroying the lives of US Citizens. Life expectancy of US Citizens is going down. Trump's plan to decrease the number of non-citizens in the US is highly popular among US Citizen voters. ..."
"... Today I read an example. Millions of Americans are scrapping by and rely on so-called payday loans. The Administration tightened regulations on those loans, Republicans oppose, Hillary promises to defend them. Bernie proposed a postal bank as exists in most countries which would eliminate most cases where such loans could start. Sanders plan is realistic, simple to understand and much more effective, and would hurt so called "pay day loan industry" much more, and this is too much for "bleeding liver liberals". ..."
"... Although the legal issues are complicated, what we know for sure is that Clinton played fast and loose with National Security because she deemed that it was more important to secure HER OWN communications. This was NOT a 'judgment call' on a policy issue but a deliberate choice to ignore some of the most grave obligations of her office so as to advantage herself. ..."
"... To any reasonable person, this simple fact is further evidence of Hillary's corrupt elitism and unquestionably disqualifies her for the Presidency. ..."
"... This misconception is still alive and kicking. Killary wasnt the mastermind behind Libya's invasion, she was just a frontwoman for "color revolution" plans which were well under way before she come into power, and will continue when she fades into obscurity. ..."
"... Another misconception is Obama's "peace-loving" nature, its just an illusion he and his PR people are pushing. "Obama is good, its these others who want war", and people still fall for that? :)) The only difference between Bush jr and Obama is that one likes to fight wars directly (US cant afford that anymore), and another through proxy terrorists and drones, its cheaper this way, and even more destructive. ..."
"... As far as I can see, Trump's the only person calling for diplomacy & a de-escalation of tensions with the Chinese & the Russians. His obsession with capitalism, making money & deal-making may paradoxically prove to be his best feature; if you blow up the world, no more deals! ..."
"... Taking formerly unified & regionally powerful countries resistant to USA domination & turning them into defenseless mini-statelets is "strategically pointless"? It amazes me how progressives can look the strategy straight in the eye... and then deny it. ..."
"... Iraq was hostile to Iran before the invasion and Saddam was easy to deal with. Syria used to be stable and sell oil. Now Iraq is aligned with Iran and Syria is a disaster and has given Russia an opportunity to demonstrate loyalty to allies and the effectiveness of the Russian military and weapons. ..."
"... About Obama being an organizer. He seems to have frontend for the FIRE sector: ..."
"... Breaking States is essential and specifically mentioned in the Oded Yinon Plan for Greater Israel. The PNAC Plan for Full Spectrum Dominance with the Global War on Terror further reinforces and justifies the Yinon Plan. ..."
"... Don't miss the event ... all signs are pointing towards the inevitable! ..."
"... "Hillary's experience is one of failure." ..."
"... HRC is a shill politician supporting Israel in the Middle East . Her vote for the Iraq war, her run as senator for NY with the backing of Rupert Murdoch and her abominable policy as Secretary of State versus Libya and Syria. She used the worst of advisors at State to run her affairs. The buck stop at Obama's desk, he is ultimately responsible for the decisions made. ..."
"... Early take on Hillary's foreign policy speech: pot shots at Trump (easy), interspersed with scare-mongering, chest-thumping and neocon talking points like: "we never ever stop trying to make our country a better place" (how exceptional!). ..."
"... Seems Neocons loved HRC's Trump bashing speech as this recap details, https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/hillary-clinton-anti-trump-speech/ ..."
"... I have to agree with @1 that it is not at all clear that Trump is "far right". He's a populist, sure, he is. Maybe he even fits the definition of a demagogue. But that doesn't place him on the "far right", it just places him "outside the system". ..."
"... Trump appears to be all in favour of replacing a foreign policy that relies upon a robust military with one that is based upon active diplomacy i.e. that jaw-jaw is better than war-war. ..."
"... Actually, for Germany, Sanders is very much "middle". Hillary would be "right wing" minus the classism and racism. Trump is close to classical National Socialism with a very special US American "businessman" flavor (there is a traditional disdain for business in Germany) ..."
"... So, I guess you could sum up the conclusion to all these comments that there is absolutely no one worth voting for because the electoral system is irrevocably broken due to psychopathic or ponerological "infection". You can thrash out the debate as to who is the greater or lesser of evils chosen for the parade this time around but it's a waste of energy since the foundations upon which elections are built have long been rotten to the core. ..."
"... So, voting for such theatre is surely perpetuating the scenario. The president is already chosen. Period. ..."
"... What must be understood and highlighted is who the political class works for- the savage capitalists. The US government is merely the front for the ruling class. It merely carries out the policies of the over-civilized, well-manicured capitalist thugs. ..."
"... Voting is a ritual that reinforces obedience to state authority. It creates the illusion that "the people" control the state, thereby masking elite rule. That illusion makes rebellion against the state less likely because it is seen as a legitimate institution and as an instrument of popular rule rather than the oligarchy it really is. Embedded within all electoral campaigns is the myth that "the people" control the state through voting. ..."
"... "Who wins the election in the capitalist system makes no difference because all politicians in this system must do what the ruling class want. Elections are a scam whose function is to neutralize resistance movements and dupe ordinary citizens into thinking they have a say in matters of the state." ..."
Yves Smith of the Naked Capitalism
explains why many of her progressive acquaintances will either not vote, or vote for Trump in
the upcoming U.S. election. I recommend to read
this in full.
For starters two excerpts:
Hillary's experience is one of failure. And she did not learn from it.
Hillary has a résumé of glittering titles with disasters or at best thin accomplishments under
each. Her vaunted co-presidency with Bill? After her first major project, health care reform,
turned into such a debacle that it was impossible to broach the topic for a generation, she retreated
into a more traditional first lady role. As New York senator, she accomplished less with a bigger
name and from a more powerful state than Sanders did. As secretary of state, she participated
and encouraged strategically pointless nation-breaking in Iraq and Syria. She bureaucratically
outmaneuvered Obama, leading to U.S. intervention in Libya, which he has called the worst decision
of his administration. And her plan to fob her domestic economic duties off on Bill comes off
as an admission that she can't handle being president on her own.
And the conclusion:
The Sanders voters in Naked Capitalism 's active commentariat also explicitly reject
lesser-evilism, the cudgel that has previously kept true lefties somewhat in line. They are willing
to gamble, given that outsider presidents like Jimmy Carter and celebrity governors like Arnold
Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura didn't get much done, that a Trump presidency represents an acceptable
cost of inflicting punishment on the Democratic Party for 20 years of selling out ordinary Americans.
The Clintons, like the Bourbons before the French Revolution, have ensconced themselves in
such a bubble of operative and media sycophancy that they've mistakenly viewed escalating distress
and legitimate demands from citizens as mere noise.
...
If my readers are representative, Clinton and the Democratic Party are about to have a long-overdue
day of reckoning.
To vote for the far right because the former center (left) has lost its bearing is a somewhat
dangerous gamble. The U.S. has a relative stable, inertial system with lots of checks and balances
that make this move less risky than similar moves underway in Poland, Germany or France. But unless
the center left/right politicians recognize that they have lost their former majority there is no
chance they will shun the neoliberal globalization nonsense they impose on their constituency.
Voting for a stronger movement towards a genuine left is be a better strategy than voting for
the far right. But notorious lack of unity within the left, center-right control over the media and
the absence of a successful current archetype will keep a majority away from taking that step.
I agree that the day of reckoning is a long-overdue day. But it may not bring the reckoning we
want.
Trump isn't even far right, he's just a populist. He's nationalist, but not national socialist.
He's for diplomacy, not for invading every country the MIC identifies as "terrorist" (the new,
politically-correct n-word for people we can kill with impunity).
Trump just represents people who want their jobs and their country back, and for you to
malign these followers as far right is nothing short of elitism.
Trump will do an 'Alexander' on the US's Gordian knot of a political system. At least that's
the hope of the many frustrated and disillusioned. And like Obama, Day-2 in the White House will
business-as-usual according to the MIC-Wall St script.
The way to refute the argument that third party votes are wasted votes is for more and more people
to vote third party. If Hillary is nominated, I intend to vote for Jill Stein (whom there seems
to be a media conspiracy to ignore -- even when they're discussing what Sanders supporters might
do, they never mention her).
"nation-breaking." I'll have to remember that. That is a very descriptive term for US middle-east
policy in recent decades. Brzezinski and Kissinger may not admit as much but it's true; look at
the results.
Unfortunately, lesser of evils at voting time has not resulted in lesser of evils Presidents.
Every time I keep thinking that the new guy can't possibly be as bad as the last, he proves that
he can be.
Trump appears to be an outsider until you meet his foreign policy team or his economic
advisers or watch his virtual oath of fealty to AIPAC to etc. Loose cannons can backfire. The
only Never-Hillary alternative beyond Trump is Sanders. Would Sanders truly reign in the
mid-east wars or continue R2P destruction? Can he stand up to Wall Street? I don't know.
Do you realise just what you're asking? To even click on that site I'd rather 'do' dishes;
doing the "Black Plague" is preferable to doing dishes and root canal is just above that.
The only way to regain control of this political system is: Never vote Republican AND Never
vote incumBENT Democrat. Why no one realises 95+ % of the problem comes from having 95+ % incumBENTs
returned election after election. Stop that and the problem soon becomes manageable. Throwing
your vote after unelectables just throws your vote away - to no discernible effect and is downright
foolishness.
Unemployment & underemployment are destroying the lives of US Citizens. Life expectancy of
US Citizens is going down. Trump's plan to decrease the number of non-citizens in the US is highly
popular among US Citizen voters.
Voting for Goldman Sachs' sock puppet Hillary Clinton is a vote for immediate self destruction.
I do not think that Clinton's chief problem is with people who would rather vote for Jill Stein.
Her problem is in the "middle", who are often "culturally" sympathetic to GOP but responding to
a concrete populist message.
Today I read an example. Millions of Americans are scrapping by and rely on so-called payday
loans. The Administration tightened regulations on those loans, Republicans oppose, Hillary promises
to defend them. Bernie proposed a postal bank as exists in most countries which would eliminate
most cases where such loans could start. Sanders plan is realistic, simple to understand and much
more effective, and would hurt so called "pay day loan industry" much more, and this is too much
for "bleeding liver liberals".
Trump has a realistic chance of winning in Ohio and Florida against Hillary, and thus becoming
a president, and this is not because of wide awareness of how wrong Hillary was on Libya (her
failed work on health care reform is known more widely, I presume). Actually, both cases are an
indictment not of Hillary but of the liberal establishment in general. On Libya, Hillary basically
followed the herd (from liberal think tanks). On health care reform, the methodology was liberal:
improve the lot of the consumer without affecting the "industries" too much and concocting a "child
that only mother could love", plus the particular child mothered by Hillary was torned to pieces
by fellow liberals (certain Moynihan comes to my mind). "Single payer", like it or not, is something
that somewhat clueless "centrist voters" can understand, and again, it works even as close to
USA as Canada.
As I have written, There Are No Safe
Choices and arguing over greater or lesser evils is an exercise in futility at best. The question
is, how do we build our own forces of resistance? To vote for Hillary is to commit an act of unilateral
disarmament. A massive write-in for Sanders would not be wasted, although the votes would not
even be counted until weeks after the election.
A vote for Stein will immediately register. I am not a great fan of the Green Party, but a
Stein vote gives us a tactic to organize our own resistance while we dig in and build something
new.
Yves is lobbying Super-delegates on behalf of Sanders. That's why she doesn't mention Jill Stein
or the Green Party.
The problem with Sanders is that he choose Party over principle. That's why he doesn't attack
Hillary on her emails or Obama wrt black issues (Hillary gets the black vote largely because
Obama supports her) .
Although the legal issues are complicated, what we know for sure is that Clinton played
fast and loose with National Security because she deemed that it was more important to secure
HER OWN communications. This was NOT a 'judgment call' on a policy issue but a deliberate choice
to ignore some of the most grave obligations of her office so as to advantage herself.
To any reasonable person, this simple fact is further evidence of Hillary's corrupt elitism
and unquestionably disqualifies her for the Presidency.
But Sanders remains quiet about the emails DESPITE THE STATE DEPT INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT
which showed that she has been dishonest and deceptive about her email server.
Is it sufficient for Bernie to sit back and let Trump attack Hillary on the emails? Does it
help him to 'unify the party' later? On both counts I would argue: NO!!!
1) The Democratic Party establishment is anti-Sanders. They like things the way they are. If
Hillary is disqualified, they will find someone else to take her place. There are already serious
rumors about Biden (Biden-Warren ticket?).
What the establishment really cares about is that Hillary beats Sanders in delegates and votes
cast so that Hillary can be a King-maker if she can't be a candidate.
2) Bernie's silence:
> contributes to the view that the email server is just a partisan football;
> contributes to the view that it is just a question of judgement;
> undermines his 'man of principle' positioning;
> undermines his argument that Clinton is a flawed candidate;
> undermines his claim to have better judgement than Hillary (as explained above - her decision
to operate a private email server is disqualifying);
Bernie's silence doesn't help him to win or to win over the Party. By pulling punches (once
again!) Bernie is choosing Party over Principle. This seems to confirm that he is indeed just
a sheepdog for the DNC as described by
Black
Agenda Report and
Talking
Points Memo .
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
One can only hope that this election season Progressives will finally WAKE UP and understand
that the Democratic Party establishment is too corrupt and too entrenched for reform.
Bernie supporters and left-leaning independents should join/vote GREEN PARTY.
I recommend voting third party...any third party. In most states, the outcome is already known,
because most states are reliably either Democratic or Republican.
In all but a handful of battleground states, voters are free to vote their conscience. Only
in battleground states need they consider voting for the lesser of the evils.
Voting third party is important--it conveys a message of disgust with the establishment duopoly.
OTOH NOT voting only conveys complacence and apathy, which the duopoly is totally OK with.
She bureaucratically outmaneuvered Obama, leading to U.S. intervention in Libya, which he
has called the worst decision of his administration.
This misconception is still alive and kicking. Killary wasnt the mastermind behind Libya's
invasion, she was just a frontwoman for "color revolution" plans which were well under way before
she come into power, and will continue when she fades into obscurity.
Another misconception is Obama's "peace-loving" nature, its just an illusion he and his
PR people are pushing. "Obama is good, its these others who want war", and people still
fall for that? :)) The only difference between Bush jr and Obama is that one likes to fight wars
directly (US cant afford that anymore), and another through proxy terrorists and drones, its cheaper
this way, and even more destructive.
The assumption of Obama's progressivism has been found to be misguided time and time again.
It is a con. It is a lubricant.
Black?
He is ethnically half-white and culturally about 90% white.
Community organizer?
Wall Street bailouts and faux mortgage relief. 11-dimensional chess excuses for inaction
(he had majorities in both houses of Congress when he was elected)
Bush tax cuts made permanent - poor get austerity.
Solution for inequality? More low-paying jobs.
Constitutional lawyer?
War on Whistle-blowers; assault on civil liberties; IRS scandal; etc.
Awarded for simply being NOT-Bush. Approved everything the neocons wanted and asserted the
neocon mantra of American exceptionalism.
The faux conflict between Netanyahu and Obama over Iran is just for show. Sanctions weren't
working and the Syrian conflict has dragged out longer than expected (they are not yet ready
to take on Iran).
Note: The above list only scratches the surface of the deceitfulness.
dahoit | Jun 2, 2016 11:10:22 AM | 16
Trump far right? That's Obomba, Clinton, the shrub and HRC, the worst rightists in American
history.
Trump is left-right and in the middle, a non ideologue, who will bring back American prosperity,
get US out of this wacko world domination idiocy and protect our borders,all nationalist endeavors
,and as right as rain. The moron bubblehead says Trumps foreign policy aims will upset the
world order. My God,shes a retard. Never in the history of this planet has such an empty
vessel ever sought such a high office.
Trump is far-right? It seems obvious that when it comes to foreign policy he's to the left of
everyone; Clinton has already promised to "totally obliterate" Iran, lusts after confrontation
with Russia & is clearly willing to hit the button. For his part, Sanders says "The Saudis (ISIS)
should play a bigger role in the Middle East," and says the military option is on the table vis
a vis Russia (which of course means nuclear weapons, since USA could obviously never win a conventional
war with Russia - it can't even defeat a few thousand lightly armed Taliban). As far as I
can see, Trump's the only person calling for diplomacy & a de-escalation of tensions with the
Chinese & the Russians. His obsession with capitalism, making money & deal-making may paradoxically
prove to be his best feature; if you blow up the world, no more deals!
strategically pointless nation-breaking in Iraq and Syria
Taking formerly unified & regionally powerful countries resistant to USA domination & turning
them into defenseless mini-statelets is "strategically pointless"? It amazes me how progressives
can look the strategy straight in the eye... and then deny it.
Naked C. Article is 'factual' within the US landscape from a certain pov..
Always said that:
1) Killary cannot win. Already a one time loser, not enough 'base', her and hubby's
past, corruption etc. etc.
2) that the PTB (deep state, military ind. complex, big corps, Finance..) could accomodate
to a Sanders presidency but not a Trump one.
What Dem alternatives remain? If Killary is indicted for the homey-cellar-e-mail boondoggle,
plus the fact she could not win (say, most likely, as article hints at) against Trump, the Dems
need to put forward another candidate, Biden? Ensuring that the Dems lose the election but the
overall system is maintained. (Keeping the lid on Sanders supporters, switching from Bernie to
X (other candidate) will be a disaster.)
On the Repub. side the picture is the same. They can't support Killary openly and to prevent
Trump from triumphing they need to launch a candidate that splits Repubs. + conservatives votes,
some X 'respectable' candidate getting some 6 better 9-10 or .. % of the vote, enough to throw
the election to the Dem candidate. So that the Repubs. lose the election but the system is maintained
(bis).
The prez. race has turned into vaudeville where different parties are fighting to lose
while conserving their advantages within the status quo.
:) :)
All wll be done to keep the 2-party system alive and put a lid on ALL opposition.
strategically pointless nation-breaking in Iraq and Syria
I have found that the US "Left" is generally anti-Empire and simply see any discussion of foreign
affairs as mere details. They easily fall for the 'chaos' simplification/cloaking.
I have made the case that oligarchs and fundamentalism are global problems and that they reinforce
each other across national and social divides. It's a complex dance that is destructive and anti-human.
The details matter because opening people eyes requires examples.
Iraq was hostile to Iran before the invasion and Saddam was easy to deal with. Syria used
to be stable and sell oil. Now Iraq is aligned with Iran and Syria is a disaster and has given
Russia an opportunity to demonstrate loyalty to allies and the effectiveness of the Russian military
and weapons.
Mark 16 "strategically pointless nation-breaking in Iraq and Syria"
Taking formerly unified & regionally powerful countries resistant to USA domination &
turning them into defenseless mini-statelets is "strategically pointless"? It amazes me how
progressives can look the strategy straight in the eye... and then deny it.
Not strategically pointless by any measure! Complete Bullshit. Breaking States is essential
and specifically mentioned in the Oded Yinon Plan for Greater Israel. The PNAC Plan for Full Spectrum
Dominance with the Global War on Terror further reinforces and justifies the Yinon Plan.
NATO and The US acting as Aggressor (pre-emptive war & war for regime change) is illegal and
Criminal - War Crimes as spelled out clearly in NATO Manifesto.
Part of the problem is that what you refer to as centrist is actually extreme conservatism bordering
on fundamentalism in exactly the same vein as Wahhabism, only in the name of Christ.
I'm one who would certainly vote for Trump over Clinton explicitly to punish the faux left
for perpetrating and perpetuating Obama's treasonous betrayal of every last vestige of progressive
idealism.
As one of the many, many people who don't self identify with political terms like left, right,
democrat and republican, it's not a matter of which camp wins, it's a matter of establishing a
pattern of public policy that over the long term balances out the needs of varying constituencies
in a manner that results in the greatest long-term benefit to the common weal.
Sanders clearly represents a needed swing back to sound investment in infrastructure and establishing
necessary limits on a global oligarchy with no nationalist interests.
Unless a miracle happens and he gets past the concerted effort to defeat him, then Trump represents
the best opportunity to diminish the effectiveness of the current cabal. There should be no illusions
that Trump won't fall into line immediately though.
The reaction against Clinton is purely punitive. We don't need more status quo. Either way,
there will be massive amounts of pain for all as we go through the death of the current paradigm
- and it's coming regardless of who desecrates democracy and the Office of the President.
This statement is very true ... HRC is a shill politician
supporting Israel
in the Middle East . Her vote for the Iraq war, her run as senator for NY with the backing
of Rupert Murdoch and her abominable policy as Secretary of State versus Libya and Syria. She
used the worst of advisors at State to run her affairs. The buck stop at Obama's desk, he is ultimately
responsible for the decisions made.
Iraq was hostile to Iran before the invasion and Saddam was easy to deal with. Syria used to
be stable and sell oil. Now Iraq is aligned with Iran and Syria is a disaster and has given
Russia an opportunity to demonstrate loyalty to allies and the effectiveness of the Russian
military and weapons.
I agree with your first point - a strengthened Iran was certainly one of the few *truly* unintended
consequences of the invasion/destruction of Iraq - which Bush recognized/sought to address in
his 2006 "redirection" plan - but I don't know to what extent the current govt in Iraq is "aligned
with Iran." My understanding (admittedly limited) is that al-Abadi is mostly powerless to resist
US dictates; for instance, after Russia intervened in Syria, he made some fuss about potentially
requesting RU assistance against ISIS, but then ultimately backed down. The destabilization of
Syria has enabled NATO to simply steal the country's oil via ISIS - a major win for USA.
My sincere apology learned fren, dun mean to sound mean. To me the endless killing must end,
Israel continue to mass killing including Palestinians teenagers and if the US cannot, unable
or unwilling to do it.
It's the voters faults continue to votes for the Democratic party and Repug.
Early take on Hillary's foreign policy speech: pot shots at Trump (easy), interspersed with
scare-mongering, chest-thumping and neocon talking points like: "we never ever stop trying to
make our country a better place" (how exceptional!).
C'est posible that Bernie has been the intended candidate all along. Could all the vote-stealing
from Bernie, balanced by the threat of a Clinton indictment have been a distraction? With no interference
and an accurate vote-count Bernie would have long-since emerged as the candidate. In which case--
the microscope would have been on policy & the policies that we WANT. There might even have been
a little attention left over to witness the continued subjugation of South America.
As it is, the US presidential campaign has been greatly side-tracked towards personality, and
the illusion of a horse race. I daresay Bernie's controllable and he's it.
Hillary can go right on coveting Presidential power (of which there is precious little).
Breaking down the 2 party system is tricky, but long term possible. States with initative processes
need to enact preference voting (aka instant runoff) so that somewhat similar candidates do not
wind up splitting the vote as they do with the first-past-the-post system.
After 4-6 parties regularly elect officials at the state and local level, there be enough infrastructure
to flow up to the national level.
Top down pushes will collapse back to 2 parties. Hopefully, the TRUMP run will push all the
'gag' neocon/neolibs into the Democratic party of multicultural globalism. Lindsey Graham and
John McCain would make wonderful Democrats. This would buy America some time, but is not a stable
end state.
... The Tweedle brothers never contradict each other, even when one of them, according to the
rhyme, "agrees to have a battle". Rather, they complement each other's words. ...
Write-in the
name of someone you'd actually want to be President/Senator/Congressional representative on November
8. The stakes are too high for you to stay home.
Let 2016 be the beginning. First time, everytime, write-in your candidate, work with your neighbors
toward convergence. 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022, 2024, 2026, 2028 ... if we'd set out in 2004 we'd
be home by now.
Some Internet gossip that should not be readily dismissed, many facts do check out:
...an elite team of Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) assassins controlled by President Obama
have gunned down the husband of a US prosecutor who was preparing to charge former President
William (Bill) Clinton with crimes relating to his having had sex with an underage girl child
kept as a sex slave by his close personal billionaire friend Jeffery Epstein...
In the "exact/near similar" location this CIA "hit squad" had been operating in ... and
shortly after their departure from the Atlanta region, local police officers were called and
discovered the body of Shahriar Zolfaghari who was the husband of Georgia's statewide prosecutor
for human trafficking Camila Wright-and whom Atlanta Police Major Adam Lee III reported had
been shot twice in the chest at close range and said: "It's a mystery as to why someone would
harm him"...
the "possible/supposed" reason for Zolfaghari's killing was a "death message" to his wife
Camila to stop her from charging former President Clinton with child sex crimes and to cease
her sex trafficking investigation all together.
As to Prosecutor Wright's exact criminal case against President Clinton, ... it involves
the "contracting/deal making" with a number of underage female girls living in the Atlanta
region by New York-British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen and Nada Marcinkova-all
three of whom were tasked by convicted pedophile, and billionaire, Jeffery Epstein to procure
underage sex slaves for his private Caribbean island compound known as "Pedophile Island" that
catered to the world's rich and famous, including President Clinton and Prince Andrew.
Ghislaine Maxwell, who has been labeled as "Epstein's pimp mama", ... was the main "dealmaker/contractor"
for the underage Atlanta female sex slaves preferred by her close friend President Clinton
during his visits to "Pedophile Island"-and which recently discovered flight log reports have
shown him visiting numerous times, and many without his Secret Service detail.
to whom President Putin ordered this single Hillary Clinton email released to, it doesn't appear
to be that hard to figure out as one hour later the international, non-profit, journalistic
organization Wikileaks, that publishes secret information, news leak and classified media from
anonymous sources, sent out a Twitter message containing this email under the headline
Is
this email the FBI's star exhibit against Hillary Clinton ("H")?
?
The grave implications to Hillary Clinton in regards to this email... is that it provides
conclusive proof that she personally ordered top secret and other type classifications to be
stripped from emails sent to her private unsecured computer server in violation of US law-and,
also, directly contradicts what it says on her presidential campaign website: "Clinton only
used her account for unclassified email. No information in Clinton's emails was marked classified
at the time she sent or received them."
... another Hillary Clinton statement on her campaign website that says: "Was it allowed?
Yes. The laws, regulations, and State Department policy in place during her tenure permitted
her to use a non-government email for work", has, likewise, been exposed as being untrue by
the US State Department's Inspector General who last week said that not only wasn't this allowed,
he detailed how Jonathan Scott Gration, the former US Ambassador to Kenya, who ignored instructions
in July 2011 not to use commercial email for government businesses, was forced to resign, in
mid-2012, when then Secretary Clinton herself initiated disciplinary action against him, while
at the same time she was doing the exact same thing, but keeping it secret.
...many US media news sites ... agreeing that the most serious US laws violated by her were
Executive Order 13526-Classified National Security Information and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f)-Gathering,
Transmitting or Losing Defense Information of the federal code that make it unlawful to send
or store classified information on personal email.
Yet Trump, clearly a puppet of some powerful faction of the global deep state (most probably
involving Rocefellers who are e.g. abandoning oil and want to legalize drug business, basically
come out of this current war with clean hands on the victorious side), has been sending many confusing
signals. Could it be that the goal of masters is too fool not the regular, 'good' people, but
the enemies of the humanity (CIA, MI6, Rothshilde, Clinton, Bush, Petreaus, Romney, Koch, Adelson,
Erdogan, Saudi, Netanyahoo, Kolomoiski cabal centered in the City of London living off the illegal
drug trade since the opium wars)?
Mind you that we've already seen the "bifurcation" in the USG action in the Me, most recently
when the Pentagon/Obama rebels been fighting the CIA "rebels".
Unfair hitting below the belt. What makes you think, getting rid of politicians shedding so
much bloods here, Libya, Syria, Afghan... and blames others "so eager to spill other humans' blood
on the street?"
You believe protecting motherfuckers (excuse me Hmmmm..) Liars, murderers, warmongers so no
more blood on the streets? Understands, Enuff, is Enuff, the killing, lying, fake videos must
end. This is not my view, majority Americans feel the same both sides of the fences, Dem or Repug.
We are not the minority but the majority. The differences how to get rid these motherfuckers!!
To be clear, I'm a passive pacifist, believe in the rule of laws.
Asked many Blacks, you know what going on in Ukraine, Crimea, Syria or Greece? Most were clueless.
Never heard of Ukraine etc. Otherwise - Its Putin Faults, Assad the regime must go, Its Repug
faults, Congress faults but Never Obomo! More than 80% voted for Obama twice base on racial line.
Now don't call me a racist. A Cop almost shot me after questioning him in public.....
" buy a pitchfork and hit the streets. Anything less is a cop-out and playing the game."
Dunno if you followed Kazzura, Anna News, Liveleak before and after Feb 2014 Maiden uprising
they awakened the Separatists. Igor Strelkov, the shooter was fighting Kiev Regime, forced to
leave Sloviansk with a handful fighter moved to Donbass. Farmers, doctors, mother, lawyers, grandfather
and children with pitchforks and antique weapons guarding building, road blocks and checkpoints
with burning tires tried to stopped advancing Kiev troops in Donetsk and Lugansk Obasts.
However, in Odessa, well-dress school children, women and men sitting calmly on the sidewalks,
filling Molotov cocktails to massacre separatist holed up in the Union bldg.
Ask Neoliberal, the lesser of evils and apologists who were the blood thirsty killers?
@63 "BTW what happened to the Repubs wanting to STOP Trump from being nominated AT ALL COST theme?
That was so last week. Ryan just endorsed Trump... "I feel confident he would help us turn
the ideas in this agenda into laws to help improve people's lives. That's why I'll be voting for
him this fall," Ryan wrote.
At politico.com
Pro-Hillary commenters have been harshly critical. Many say that potential Trump voters are NOT
progressive and/or are comfortable elites that won't lose anything.
At nakedcapitalism.com
A large number of commenters have said that instead of Trump, they would support the GREEN PARTY!
At MoA
There has been concerns raised about 1) Sanders reluctance to attack Hillary and 2) the naivete
of Yves': "strategically pointless nation-breaking in Iraq and Syria" .
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Note: Yves has explained that she initially tried to make the article into one that describes
Sanders supporters anti-Hillary feelings. She says that editor(s) at politico guided the story
to Sanders supporters that would vote Trump as it seemed to be a more dramatic story.
Holy cow, no one will believe me - Bernie advertises in RT!! First time ever, sneaking
pass Ghostly blocker - reaching out to RT viewers.
The message... College should be free, tax Walls street pay for college education. Bernie you
lying shit!! I'll never vote for you even if force to eat cat food.
This what John Pliger wrote in SOTT, 27 May of Bernie...
Stunning silence in America as it prepares to vote for one side of the same coin
"Sanders, the hope of many young Americans, is not very different from Clinton in his proprietorial
view of the world beyond the United States. He backed Bill Clinton's illegal bombing of Serbia.
He supports Obama's terrorism by drone, the provocation of Russia and the return of special forces
(death squads) to Iraq. He has nothing to say on the drumbeat of threats to China and the accelerating
risk of nuclear war. He agrees that Edward Snowden should stand trial and he calls Hugo Chavez
- like him, a social democrat - "a dead communist dictator". He promises to support Clinton if
she is nominated...."
""I didn't come here tonight to pander to you about Israel. That's what politicians do:
all talk, no action… My number one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran…
We have rewarded the world's leading state sponsor of terror with $150 billion and we received
absolutely nothing in return… Iran is a problem in Iraq, a problem in Syria, a problem in Lebanon,
a problem in Yemen, and will be a very major problem for Saudi Arabia. Literally every day,
Iran provides more and better weapons to their puppet states… We will totally dismantle Iran's
global terror network. Iran has seeded terror groups all over the world. During the last five
years, Iran has perpetrated terror attacks in 25 different countries on five continents. They've
got terror cells everywhere, including in the western hemisphere very close to home. Iran is
the biggest sponsor of terrorism around the world and we will work to dismantle that reach.
. . . When I become President, the days of treating Israel like a second-class citizen will
end on Day One."
I have to agree with @1 that it is not at all clear that Trump is "far right". He's a populist,
sure, he is. Maybe he even fits the definition of a demagogue. But that doesn't place him on the
"far right", it just places him "outside the system".
Trump appears to be all in favour of replacing a foreign policy that relies upon a robust
military with one that is based upon active diplomacy i.e. that jaw-jaw is better than war-war.
Which certainly places him way, way to the left of many Democrats (certainly to the left of
Hillary) and almost all Republicans.
He also appears to be all in favour of weighing up Trade Deals based upon what effect they
have on the working and middle class of American society, rather than how much those deals enrich
the 1%.
Again, that places him way, way, way to the left of most mainstream politicians in either party.
Sure, his "immigration" policies appear to be racist, and he doesn't appear to have thought
thru many of his *ahem* policies.
But it is very clear to me that the major reason why he blew away a far-right crowd that contained
repulsive Neanderthals as Rubio and Cruz is because he made a deliberate decision to run to the
left of them. And I have no doubt that he'll seek to win the Presidency by running to the left
of Hillary.
Not that it would be hard for anyone to run to the left of Hillary, but, still......
Oh, nuts! I just realized. I didn't follow the Egypt plane crash at all. Are they going to frame
LIBYA & use it as a pretext to attack? I'm only just starting to look at it. Is this possible?
@56, so Commentary Magazine, the cooking magazine for the neocon set, think HRC's Trump bashing
speech was the cat's meow.
Colonel Lang asked this question on his site tonight:
Am I correct in saying that HC's speech in San Diego was not made to some existing group
but rather was an event arranged by her campaign staff in a hired venue with an audience created
by them from her supporters in the area? pl
Someone in the comments said it was closed to the public, and another said it was attended by
200 donors.
What do you think of Gary Johnson as an alternative to the Repubicrat choices? He is antiwar
and supports many of the same social issues that Jill Stein supports. He is also a proven manager,
having served as a popular two time governor of New Mexico.
I share your opinion of the Green Party after what they did to Ralph Nader. There is also the
fact that Green Parties in Europe are filled warmongers, especially in Germany.
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Jun 2, 2016 9:12:38 AM | 9
The "middle" has been decimated enonomically. That's why traditional politics don't work anymore.
Actually, for Germany, Sanders is very much "middle". Hillary would be "right wing" minus
the classism and racism. Trump is close to classical National Socialism with a very special US
American "businessman" flavor (there is a traditional disdain for business in Germany).
How he could prevail with US demography, economy/business interests, and mentality, apart from
winning an election where everyone stays home out of disgust, I just can't see. But a large part
of German Jews (and Social Democrats and Trade Unionists - they said let it blow over it will
pass) did not see it coming in 1933.
So if I was "left" in the US - or just a normal citizen - I would vote Hillary and organize
for my interests to prevail in Congress, in the Senate and finally in 2020 plus refuse to be separated
on lifestyle choice. My impression is that the Sandernistas will be doing just that.
So, I guess you could sum up the conclusion to all these comments that there is absolutely
no one worth voting for because the electoral system is irrevocably broken due to psychopathic
or ponerological "infection". You can thrash out the debate as to who is the greater or lesser
of evils chosen for the parade this time around but it's a waste of energy since the foundations
upon which elections are built have long been rotten to the core.
So, voting for such
theatre is surely perpetuating the scenario. The president is already chosen. Period. Maybe
there's a bit of infighting between Establishment factions but I think it's a done deal. Similarly,
any attempt to grow something truly creative and which actually lasts inside the toxicity of Western
culture will inevitably fail for the same reason: psychopathy and lesser forms of pathology define
our social systems at this stage and it's on an interminable loop that needs to be reset. (And
I suspect Mother nature will have a hand in that fairly soon). Time to start building community
outside of the state and realise just how much creative power we have away from authoritarian
rule in all its guises.
Some folks would make exactly your argument against the rise of Hillary.
@80 MKS
Agree completely. Culture is larger than the politics, politics is part of culture and, as
you point out, culture is a sum over all its parts. It's from beneath the larger, cultural arch
that we can simply takeover politics, from the outside. My suggestion is
write-in voting,
a de facto implementation of
open elections
. There's much too much harm being done now by the broken political machine, we need to get
it under control.
yes, presumably among our inalienable rights is the right not to vote, as the electoral process,
in its present manifestation, can only impede our collective creativity.
What must be understood and highlighted is who the political class works for- the savage capitalists.
The US government is merely the front for the ruling class. It merely carries out the policies
of the over-civilized, well-manicured capitalist thugs.
Anyone who thinks that simply "voting the bums out" (no matter how much Bern they been feeling
lately) is a viable action in such a profoundly corrupt system is in deep denial as to the scope
of our problems.
The system is not broken- it is working exactly as designed- by and for those who designed
it.
In a bourgeoisie democracy the power of the electorate is a legal fiction.
Wasting energy on electoral kabuki Sanders-Style falls into that category belonging to all
strategies based on "trying to push the Dems to the left." It can never happen. The Dems are officially
sanctioned precisely because the business plutocracy is 100% confident that the Party can't be
"pushed to the Left," even if the proverbial Apocalypse threatens. The Dem Party's essential political
function is pretending to sound sympathetic to ordinary citizens, while actually doing the bidding
of the financial elite.
In America, the ovens will not be disguised as showers; they will be marked "Voting Booth".
Reagan was a failed Governor and fake WW2 fighter pilot who embraced the early PNAC after his
first term Super Recession, then got elected by a landslide. Same with Bush2. So policy failures
or weak leadership has nothing whatsoever with electability, and you can vote red, blue or purple,
the Clinton Cash Machine will still dominate the Selections in November.
Wringing hands because there is "no democracy" or the duopoly candidates are so bad is a cop-out.
You have choices.
Personally, I would vote third-party instead of staying at home or write-in.
Also consider:
1) there are grass-roots organizations that are very effective - join one!
2) Hillary was supposed to be coronated. Her downfall (via email scandal) shows that things
are not as hopeless/inevitable as some claim - don't lose heart!
3) A door has been opened. People see and talk about the 'rigged' political and economic
system like never before.
4) You have to be a smart voter. TPTB rely on voter apathy and ignorance. Educate those
around you! (carefully! a 'know it all' attitude or partisanship is counterproductive)
In USA only half of eligible voters actually vote. If everyone that gave up on voting were
to vote third-party we would have a viable alternative.
Notably, the only Party that supports preference voting (which makes third-parties viable and
greatly diminishes 'lesser-evil' voting) is the GREEN PARTY.
72;Ah Iran.Yes,Trump for some reason(Neocon votes?)has it in for Iran, but Iran is not central
to American prosperity, far away and being a Muslim nation makes it a little inviting for American
pol bashing, but hey, hopefully he'll stop this on election.
And yeah, he is trying to get the monsters on his side, or at least to stop the daily demonization
campaign against him, which anyone can see, if they are honest.
He will win based on the economy(66,000 jobs in May,the worst in 6 years btw) and the feelings
of patriotic Americans sick of being Zio boy toys,and sick of furriners coming here and rioting
against American citizens.That got him a few more million votes.
America first, a winning hand, but anathema to the Zionists, our mortal enemy.
>> given that outsider presidents like Jimmy Carter
>> and celebrity governors like Arnold Schwarzenegger
>> and Jesse Ventura didn't get much done,
Says who? They got us through 4+ years without heaping a ton of sh** on us. Reagan, Clinton,
Obama, and Bush did a lot of damage, such that we wish they would've done less.
77; I read that her speech was before the US Pacific Fleet, a bunch of military morons. She is
going full bore dominatrix. She said Trump coddles dictators;Sheesh,you mean like Mubarak,Sissi,Saudis,Bahrain,Dubai
and all points east and west thugs of Clinton favor? A moron, with hypocrisy enough to name a
wing of a museum of political liars after her evil self.
Penelope; Yes, if Trump turns out to be a liar re his plans, the pushback will be the next
election cycle, with an actual clone of Hitler as candidate. We've had enough of these monsters,
who use US and abuse US daily.
....there is absolutely no one worth voting for because the electoral system is irrevocably
broken due to psychopathic or ponerological "infection". You can thrash out the debate as to who
is the greater or lesser of evils....
Ahaaa, Not so, you have another choices. Votes for the MOST ABHORRENT CANDIDATE POSSIBLE,
Erdogan or Avigdor Lieberman if they are in the running or Hillary or Thump.
Better to place this action in an institutional context. The forces placed on the elected person
by the state machinery and pressures from big business dictate the outcome. In the current system
your vote is meaningless. You can argue all you want that "We need to keep up the pressure to
demand Politician______ needs to listen to ordinary citizens, not to business" and you will rot
on the vine as your words disappear into the indifferent air.
There is a difference between the state and government. The state is the permanent collection
of institutions that have entrenched power structures and interests. The government is made up
of various politicians. It is the institutions that have power in the state due to their permanence,
not the representatives who come and go. We cannot expect different politicians to act in different
ways to the same pressures. However, this is all ignored by the voting political consumer who
wishes Politician______ was more a socialist, green, populist etc. and could ignore the demands
of the dominant class in society while in charge of one part of its protector and creature, the
state.
Who wins the election in the capitalist system makes no difference because all politicians
in this system must do what the ruling class want. Elections are a scam whose function is to neutralize
resistance movements and dupe ordinary citizens into thinking they have a say in matters of the
state.
Elections in the capitalist system do not secure popular control over the state, they do help
secure state control over the populace. Voting is a ritual that reinforces obedience to state
authority. It creates the illusion that "the people" control the state, thereby masking elite
rule. That illusion makes rebellion against the state less likely because it is seen as a legitimate
institution and as an instrument of popular rule rather than the oligarchy it really is. Embedded
within all electoral campaigns is the myth that "the people" control the state through voting.
>> Had Sanders run as an independent he would be getting literally no coverage and likely achieving
very little success. ... If he ran as an independent this wouldn't be the case.
Not crazy. But, I disagree.
Implicit in your reasoning is this assumption: In an alternate timeline in which Clinton was
*not* primaried, DNC primary voters would've been unaware of or overlooked her horrible record.
But, that assumption is undermined by the record in the current timeline:
- We know Bernie has been pulling punches -- not making a big deal about her horrible record.
- Therefore, current-timeline Bernie supporters know about Clinton's record because they've
been following it and been appalled by it independently of whatever Bernie has to say.
- These people would've abandoned the DNC as soon as "Clinton" became the presumptive nominee
a year ago.
"Who wins the election in the capitalist system makes no difference because all politicians
in this system must do what the ruling class want. Elections are a scam whose function is to neutralize
resistance movements and dupe ordinary citizens into thinking they have a say in matters of the
state."
By Gaius Publius
, a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor
to DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter
@Gaius_Publius ,
Tumblr and
Facebook . Originally published
at
at Down With Tyranny . GP article
here
Just three facts and a video. You can add them up as easily as I can.
1. Puerto Rican officials expected 700,000 people to vote in the 2016 Democratic primary.
Think Progress, from a much longer
article :
The Democratic Party cut the number of polling places by two-thirds, from more than 1500 to
less than 500. In addition, because there were two simultaneous elections - one for local officials
and one for the presidential race - voters had to go to two separate locations if they wanted
to cast both ballots. Then the Party cut the voting hours, the window of time during which any
voting could be done.
A longer clip from the same Think Progress article (my emphasis):
In early May, Puerto Rico's Democratic Party
announced that more than 1,500 polling places would be available for the island's June
5 Democratic primary. A few weeks later, they
slashed that number to just over 430 - a reduction of more than two thirds.
In 2008, the island's last competitive Democratic primary, there were
more than 2,300 polling
places.
Some are warning of long lines and voters left unable to access the ballot box, as an
estimated 700,000 Puerto Ricans will vote this Sunday, and polling places will only
be open from 8 a.m. to 3
p.m . .
Worse, many voters will have to visit
two separate locations to cast ballots in the presidential primary and the local primaries
held the same day. Voter turnout and engagement has for years been
much higher on the island than in the 50 U.S. states, but these changes may present too
heavy a burden for low-income residents who lack transportation options or who need to work.
Supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) are
up in arms about the polling place reductions, calling it a "fix" and drawing parallels
to Arizona's
disastrous primary . Arizona's most populous county closed two-thirds of its polling locations
ahead of its April primary, forcing some voters to wait in line more than six hours to cast
a ballot.
They got the result they wanted .
3. The number of votes actually cast in the Democratic presidential primary totaled
just over 60,000 . If my math is correct, that about 8% of the expected total, or a voter
suppression rate of 92%. Again, the Puerto Rico Democratic Party, all good loyal Democrats I'm
sure, suppressed 92% of their own vote, by reducing voting locations and hours.
Why? You decide. My answer? Too much democracy for the "Democratic" Party.
... ... ...
How corrupt is the current leadership, top to bottom, of many of the arms of the Democratic
Party? Looks like "very" to me. The willingness to corrupt the process seems to exist at many
of the state and county committees as well. (It's not a conspiracy if you don't have to tell the
county committeewoman what to do, if she already knows, in other words, when and where to stick
in the knife.)
How determined is the Democratic Party to commit seppuku on a national electoral stage? Same
answer. Flying high on hubris usually lead to a crash landing. Pride and a fall.
For more on the situation in Puerto Rico, check out this short video, made just before the
election.
Looks like the Clinton-led Democratic Party isn't even trying to hide this stuff any more.
Looks like they don't think they need to.
I learned a lot from this
short clip linked
by NC reader Bev.
I learned more from the full video at trustvote.org The RICO lawsuit filed by Bob Fitrakis
and Cliff Arnebeck deserves attention. They are highly experienced election lawyers. Their
evidence and legal strategy is explained in the video.
The new report "Fraction Magic" at blackboxvoting.org has more bombshells.
And the recent Greg Palast revelations about the issues with the NPP ballots in CA.
AND–short video clips from many of the top experts in US election fraud are at
lawyer Bob
Fitrakis' website . These are all people with lengthy experience documenting election irregularities
of many kinds, including but not limited to the tactics for voter disenfranchisement used in
Puerto Rico.
And guess what–the election consultant hired by Trump was a key player in past election
irregularities.
Since the late 1990s in many (most?) places we have not had true elections, we've had competitions
in vote rigging by multiple parties and interests, using a wide range of tactics and technology.
To TheCatSaid from TheDogHowled-Bev, so true. And, Bev Harris has more bomshells: I am going
there now, but to let you know some of your links do not work. It's time to get back our democracy
from the criminals rigging our elections.
Wasn't the last protest at a Trump rally, which usually promotes violence against protesters,
this time instead had protesters turning violent against Trump backers, found out later to
be Clinton's people? Isn't that correct? There is your preview of how these anti-democracy,
authoritarian leaders intend to win as TheCatSaid, by rigging the vote in many ways, accusing
each other of rigging and violence, and by beating the crap out of each other, a la brown shirts.
NO.
To all sports fans, the following will change our future for the better by rescuing our
democracy and our kids.
BREAKING NEWS: Election Attorney Cliff Arnebeck filed a major RICO racketeering lawsuit
June 6, 2016 against the voting machine companies whose code that fractionalized votes and
so delegate distribution was found by Bev Harris (
http://blackboxvoting.org/fraction-magic-1/
Fraction Magic – Part 1: Votes are being counted as fractions instead of as whole numbers ),
and against the media that was complicit in covering up the crime of election theft by adjusting
the exit polls to match the fraudulent voting machine counts which was found by Richard Charnin
and Beth Clarkson ( http://showmethevotes.org/
).
This is a Very Strong RICO lawsuit involving State and Federal Courts, involving current
and past election crimes, that importantly involves ALL THE STATES, that means Illinois, Cub
fans, for the collection of evidence to determine the correct vote counts, and delegate counts.
Arnebeck says that by the time of the Republican Convention which is before the Democratic
Convention, that this RICO racketeering lawsuit will have changed history, and the minds of
politicians and the public so that the true winner, Bernie Sanders, will be demanded. What
a great legacy.
PROTECTING OUR ELECTIONS
Bob Fitrakis, Cliff Arnebeck and Lori Grace
..
NYT, Ap and other media are reporting that Hillary has "clinched" the nomination. They,
having jumped the shark, want to tell you how she did it. Now they can tell a judge how they
did it because the media have been RICOed.
Attorney Cliff Arnebeck says it does not matter what the media says or Hillary Clinton says,
the law, this RICO case will prevail. This will save our Democracy.
Today is a great day. Today is the beginning of getting our democracy back.
Thanks to all election integrity people who so trust regular people to create a better future
for us all, that you fight for a democracy. What a great day.
snip
Please spread this important RICO event all around everywhere. Because, I think the media
will have a hard time reporting that they have been sued for racketeering. We will have to
report widely.
We're supposed to feel victorious that Maggie Thatcher, uh, Hillary Clinton allegedly "won"
the D Primary all fair and square. To suggest that shenanigans happened means that I'm a putative
Bernie Bro who is clearly clueless, stupid, worthless and should STFU.
Oh well. C'est la vie. Hillary was certainly bound to be inevitable this time around by
hook or by CROOK.
IMO, the PTB were much more worried about Bernie Sanders than Trump. Clinton? Eh, Hillary's
their fair haired girl. The rightwing noise machine may vent and spew about Clinton, but pay
no attention to that man behind the curtain. Clinton's the poodle of Wall St, the Hedgies,
the MIC. CHA CHING!!
The masses can content themselves with the glass ceiling allegedly having been broken. Whoopee.
The TIFFANY glass ceiling. The Tiffany Glass Ceiling that Upper Class feminists of privilege
want the rest of us to care about even though we are dealing with Cinder Block Ceilings of
our own.
Although Bernie never had a chance of getting the nomination (not because he couldn't win
enough votes but because the party would have never nominated him even if he had won every
single state primary), he has performed a great public service by exposing what a sordid farce
the Democratic party is. For this, I am eternally grateful to the Bernster. It is now clear
for all to see, if there was any doubt previously, that We the People will never be able to
overthrow the plutocracy until we drive a stake through the Democratic Party's heart and stick
a fork in its bloated carcass.
Yes, the greatest betrayer of a cause is all too frequently the guy right next to you. The
one who says he is on your side. The "liberals" were always going to be the revolution's most
dangerous foes.
I visited that extremely mixed bag of a blog "lawyersgunsandmoney" yesterday just to see
how they'd been covering the Dem primary and was not let down at all. They attempted to skewer
Yves' politico piece with glib and snide inline comments that fell completely flat, but I think
my favorite comment was when the author of the piece used Obama's recent words on expanding
social security as proof that the Dem establishment is becoming more progressive. I mean, there
is room for argument about tactics for moving the Dems to the left, but if we are going to
pretend that Obama hasn't spent the past 7 years trying to gut social security in order to
"save" it, and that his recent empty words signify anything more than a pathetic 11th hour
attempt to get in front of the revolution and call it his parade, then our worldviews are just
fundamentally irreconcilable.
I saw that yesterday and having never been to that site before and given the site's name,
I had a very different expectation about it's leanings. I immediately realized they were shilling
for Hillary. Wonder how Warren Zevon would feel about his lyrics being used for neoliberal
propoganda.
The site is definitely mixed tho, not all bad. What confuses me the most is their hostility
to those who see incrementalism as a fraud, but I guess thats because they truly think its
the only thing that works (history be damned). I remember I lost patience with them when they
started celebrating Janet Yellen's appointment over Larry Summers. I pointed out that while
she is better than him she is still a complete neoliberal tool and wont change anything. They
couldn't handle that apparently. Honestly, when it comes to econ they don't know what they
don't know. Its a major blind spot for them esp. given Obama's major betrayals have been economic.
Still, Erik Loomis' posts on labor history are very interesting.
But he's so smooth. And he's such a great husband and father. And he's friends with JayZee
and Beyoncé. How could such a nice young man be lying to us about the TPP?
Although it's early yet, after the right, royal, hosing Bernie has gotten since he started,
he should realize that Doctor Stein is progressing well on getting Greens on all state ballots,
and consider carefully her offer to run with them.
A presidential election has much less room for the slimy tricks we have seen so much of,
and the turd Democrats will be flushed down the toilet of history, as Bernie puts his program
into action.
I am still numb. My anger will come back later today but there is no effective outlet in
this part of the country other than the internet.
Morning Joe was comparing Sanders to RFK especially after seeing the crowds in Puerto Rico
then California. Instead of assassinating Sanders they simply stole the election. I think Sanders
will pull a move similar to Jerry Brown in 1992.
It also looks like Warren will get the nod for VP so the Democrats can have two former Republicans
running for President and the Libertarians will have two former Republicans and the Republicans
will have a former Democrat running on their ticket.
I do not think that people realize that Elizabeth Warren is hated by dedicated Bernie supporters.
Only a fraction of the 25% that say they will not vote for Clinton will change their mind based
on Warren. Many others will vote for Stein, Johnson and in competitive states they may vote
for Trump just to keep her out of office.
And the media, the fucking media, they are going to point to that absurd "foreign policy"
speech as the turning point for Clinton.
so if we want the closest thing to a democrat we have to vote republican? i'm so confused.
i'm looking for somebody that didn't support reagan, the iraq war or the trade treaties.
she is the closest to me politically, but right now i'm thinking what is the most effective
way to pry off the suckers of the vampire squid, and some of the criticisms of the green party
i've read on nc make me wonder–long term we have to have another party, agreed. put me in the
"8 more years of this neoliberal bullshit is a disaster" camp.
I just started following this site a couple of days ago. I'm curious to hear what are some
of the criticisms of the green party that have been voiced here.
In my state the Green Party isn't on the presidential ballot.
My state's recognized presidential parties are the Democratic Party, Libertarian Party, and
Republican Party.
In my state the rules are:
"To obtain official recognition in[my state], party organizers must submit a petition that
contains signatures of voters registered in the state and abides by the petition regulations
outlined in [my state's] law. The total number of valid signatures required for a successful
petition is equal to 2 percent of the total votes cast for all candidates for governor in the
most recent general election for governor.
"There are two requirements for recognized political parties to maintain their official status
with the state. At each general election for national and state offices, parties must: (a)
nominate a candidate for at least one office that is elected statewide (e.g., governor, commissioner
of insurance or state treasurer), and (b) at least one such candidate of the party must receive
at least 1 percent of the total votes cast in the election for that office ."
Voting for Stein as a write-in won't have any effect on the Green Party's viability as competitive
party. There's a lot of dogged groundwork that would need to be done, that hasn't been done,
and from what I see isn't being done in my state. Other states may have done that work and
I'd love to see a Green elected to congress from one of those states, or elected to state office
in one of those states.
As a longtime Green, former candidate and professional campaign manager, I have to say that
developing a "ground game" for downticket races is extremely difficult when you are not running
as a Democrat/Republican and have little support from the professional orgs that usually provide
cash or people (PACs/Labor). We've often done well with what we have, but until there's a serious
break from the Dems and those people who have wasted their time for decades trying to reform
that party come over to us in a serious way, the left will continue to spin its wheels.
Passage of instant runoff voting in Maine in November would be a sea change for the Greens
and other third parties. Unless there is something wrong with this particular referendum, this
is something NCers should follow and support.
Worked with the Greens in my state until I discovered that they were unorganized and corrupt.
That last one was the deal-breaker for any further involvement from me. They'd cooperate with
the right wing to stick it to the Dems which is a very stupid strategy if you're looking for
more progressive outcomes. Stealing clean election funds to run unviable candidates didn't
sit well with me either.
The foreign policy speech is an interesting marker in another way, though. Through the primary
season, there was some effort to downplay Clinton's hawkishness, to distance her from the neoconservatives,
to ridicule Sanders on trying to make foreign policy distinctions.
That speech put that effort to rest. She openly embraced the war on terror specifically
and the whole neoconservative interventionist mindset more generally.
I'm a "dedicated Bernie supporter" and I don't "hate" Warren. She's fandamtastic and it
would be a colossal waste of her talent to have her VP.
She has far more power in the Senate than she would have as VP. Heh may be the abbreviation
really stand for veal pen.
I must not be a DEDicated Bernie supporter because Warren is not hated by me. I hope she
stays in the Senate and keeps doing her focused work against certain FIRE sector perpetrators
and cover-lending regulators.
It would be a shame if she accepted the VP nomination with Clinton. The SS Clinton is a
ship I would rather see Warren NOT go down with.
I respect and admire Warren, but adding her to the ticket won't make a difference for me
in November. Indeed, quite the opposite as she is/would be more effective as a senator than
veep. #NeverTrump #NeverHIllary #NoneOfTheAbove
I've never heard the story in this way and seen the time line. It started by looking at
local elections, and uncovered something HUGE in the last few months.
This affects thousands of voting jurisdictions in the USA. (And outside the USA,
too–wherever this popular vote tabulating software is used, by a range of voting machine companies.)
And now we'll have to listen to political analysts trying to figure out why X candidate
did so well or so poorly in location ABC. If you watch this video (and the other videos at
the Fitrakis link above, too) you'll see that our election results do not necessarily have
any relation to actual votes.
No matter how much I thought I knew about election irregularities, this is shocking
. It is widespread . We should be talking about election
fraud–and doing something about it–instead of wasting our time trying to understand what are
fictionalized election results.
After watching that disgusting video I feel like everyone should just publicly declare their
votes and compare a public tally with the electronic voting results.
Preserving voter anonymity is important for a host of reasons. It's one of the reasons electronic
voting is maybe impossible to do well.
What works well is hand-counting paper ballots in public (with multiple observers who are
concerned citizens–not election staff) in the precinct location where they were cast. It's
also really fast!
Another solution is to scan all the actual ballots at the voting precinct and make them
available to the public online so anyone who wants to can count & check the results for themselves.
Receipts are worse than nothing–potential for selling your vote, and doesn't guarantee your
vote was counted the same way it was cast. Any solution has to enable observers to monitor
ALL the ballots, not just their own.
All very true. The additional nice thing about hand counting paper ballots in public is
that it's an opportunity for civic conviviality, at least afterward. I remember the Quebec
referendum - 6 million population, votes counted in an evening, and some chicanery promptly
exposed. Very much unlike this country!
Ordinarily voting should be anonymous. I am thinking here about what citizens can do when
they think their vote has been stolen and the crooked government will not investigate the problem.
Where I live the voting is electronic and there is no paper ballot as far as I can tell. If,
say, there was a precinct where there was evidence of cheating and the public wanted to do
something they could attempt to compile a public tally of how people voted and compare it with
the electronic results. Even an incomplete list could reveal a problem.
It is not obvious to me why fewer voting locations translates into a Clinton win. The locations
would need to be chosen to favor Clinton voters over Sanders voters. More details are needed.
At the rate this sorry campaign is going, only millionaires and T.V. pundits will be able
to vote.
Clinton wins the early mail-in votes. Suppress the day-of votes to make sure the mail-in
votes count the most. And if that still doesn't work stop the counting and have the MSM declare
her the winnah!
Also, mail-in / absentee ballots are one of the easiest ways to perpetrate fraud.
If you look at the Bev Harris clip, where she reads out the specifications of the coding
job, they include attaching a unique bar code for every specific voter. (Strictly illegal but
there you go.) The code allowing for weighting each race (and each voter, or each demographic–as
specific as you like) makes it possible to weight multiple races across multiple districts
in seconds .
The code in question is in use in the tabulating computers (the ones that accumulate the
results from various machines and jurisdictions) all over the country.
"It is not obvious to me why fewer voting locations translates into a Clinton win. The locations
would need to be chosen to favor Clinton voters over Sanders voters."
Yes, that's exactly what happened. When voting machine numbers are reduced, it is done in
carefully chosen locations to achieve a specific goal.
Ironically, the first time I tried to vote, as a university student, there were long lines
and after more than an hour I had to leave because I had something that I could not miss. At
the time I had no idea this kind of thing could have happened deliberately.
In the current primary, my mother showed up to vote and found out the voting location had
changed, but she hadn't been notified. It was too late in the day for her to find out and get
to the new location. It never occurred to her that this kind of thing could have been deliberate.
This kind of thing can be devastatingly effective. Puerto Rico is an exaggerated version
of a tactic that's been used by both parties for 16 years or more.
I should have clarified better. By reducing the machines most acutely in the poorest, most
crowded areas Sanders' share of the vote was impacted more than Clinton's. I saw a video talking
about this some days before the actual primary. The reduction in poll opening hours also impact
the poorest voters the most, the implication being that those were the voters trending towards
Sanders.
For charges this severe about a problem this serious, we need to be able to demonstrate
that the video you saw is a "real" video rather than an "O'keefe" video.
Although TheCatSaid mentioned him above, unsung but deserving investigative reporter
Greg Palast , deserves mention
on his own. In addition to the CA shenanigans, he has been documenting election fraud on a
continuing basis for over a decade. Don't be put off by his sensationalist style. Many of his
revelations are truly unique; see, for example, his comparison of BP's operations in the Caspian
in Ajerbaijan with the Gulf of Mexico fiasco.
You're right. Palast has done amazing investigative work on many crucial issues.
* His revelations about the fracking accidents in the Caspian that preceded the Deepwater Horizon
accident in the Gulf were damning (in order to get the license to drill in the Gulf of Mexico,
BP had lied on its application by stating that they had not had any accidents)
* His uncovering of the deliberate negligence and economic interests that led to the devastation
of Hurricane Katrina
* His detailed work on vote purging in Florida and elsewhere
His saucy style belies the devastating amount of detail he routinely uncovers.
And he is absolutely fearless.
I am put off my his sensationalistic style. It hurts his credibility. He covers important
issues which I applaud him for. Sometimes I feel like I'm watching a Nick Danger sketch.
"What some people don't understand is that the privatization of the surveillance state,
the collection of all your information like phone calls, emails, Tweets, comments online, communication
in your car, communication in your home, Facebook turning on the mic on your phone so they
can listen to you throughout the day all this information is USED by someone.
One way they may use it, could be to figure out how you are going to vote. And that may
determine whether or not your name is "mistakenly" left off a voter role when you go to cast
your vote."
More from Scott Creighton on the California election fraud:
Puerto Rico is a colony of the United States. We cannot vote for the president. We have
no vote in Congress, supposedly only 'voice'. So the very notion of participating in the primaries
for people for whom we are not allowed to actually vote, is the height of hypocrisy.
"... If they focused on party building efforts that would result in actual political power - such as winning effective state legislative blocs outside their safety demographics (who don't show up for them as it is), or running a strong gubernatorial campaign in a state like, say, Oregon that garnered lots of attention from potential supporters, they'd be in a much stronger position to begin building more than a mixed medley of long-time dedicatees, but to attract (as Sanders has) progressive Democrats, Independents, and others to the prospect of a national party with something to show for itself. ..."
"... On the other hand, the threat of voting for Trump over Clinton, or simply not voting for Clinton, does send a very strong message that, if they fail to take it seriously, will instill the 'fear of God' in the party (as well as further seriously piss them off). ..."
"... Sitting still for corporate malfeasance is exactly the "bad faith" by which people are rejecting the Establishment candidates. ..."
"... I would suggest, as hunkerdown did, that Sanders should realize there's no honor among thieves. As per usual, the establishment often leverages a person's "integrity" for their own aims. ..."
"... Hillary is a murderer (by proxy of course), a liar, a receiver of bribes - the so-called "Queen of Chaos". That's not the sort of person you ever, in good conscience, support. ..."
"... Clinton is a predator and her operation exists to assimilate progressives like Sanders and his supporters by using their good intentions and faith in humanity against them. Installing his lieutenants on party platform committees or paying lip service to a $15 minimum wage is all in a day's work considering Clintonistas have no intention of following through on any ideological construct outside the ever increasing accumulation of wealth and power. ..."
"... If Sanders fights Trump and "supports" Hillary by raising his own money for downticket Dems like Canova, and in addition does stuff like stumping against fracking and for single payer in Colorado, that might not be so bad. ..."
"... I think that Yves also made a superb point in her essay - those of us who have been reading NC have developed a far more sophisticated (I would even say 'principled') opposition to the kind of neoliberal incrementalism that Clinton personifies. ..."
"... "Incrementalism" -> "excrementalism." Fixed it for ya. ..."
"... Yeah Obama pretty much laid the once potent "but the Supreme Court ZMOG!!!" argument to rest for good when he nominated a Republican. I mean what's even the point of voting Democrat at this juncture? ..."
"... A Clinton candidacy would be toxic for Dem. candidates down the whole ballot. Hillary is trying to win over scared/disgusted republicans to vote for a corporatist anti-Trump, despite their years of anti-Clinton conditioning. ..."
Relax, you're not being attacked, you don't need to accuse Yves of hypocrisy just because she
disagrees with you over reasons she provided.
Initially, back in 2014, when Bernie began publicly floating the idea of a presidential run,
my thought was that it would be more beneficial for progressive issues if he remained in the Senate.
His campaign has radically altered that opinion.
However, compare what Sanders has accomplished with the prospect of a Green party alternative.
What Yves is proposing is building precisely the kind of foundation that Sanders has, that has
allowed him to build a threateningly effective campaign. Sanders has a long and strong record
of legislative achievements, and it showcases his moral compass and political acumen. The Green
party has no national legislative record, they have no major state-level achievements (the environmentalist
movement does), and they don't have a national party organization.
It is politically very possible for the Green party to win 1 or 2 seats in the Senate, in places
that favor them (northwest, northeast). If the Green party dedicated themselves to electoral victories
that put party members on the national stage, and if they took a page from Bernie's legislative
playbook, getting workable legislation in as amendments to larger bills, then they would have
a basis for persuading voters that they are an actual alternative. If they focused on party
building efforts that would result in actual political power - such as winning effective state
legislative blocs outside their safety demographics (who don't show up for them as it is), or
running a strong gubernatorial campaign in a state like, say, Oregon that garnered lots of attention
from potential supporters, they'd be in a much stronger position to begin building more than a
mixed medley of long-time dedicatees, but to attract (as Sanders has) progressive Democrats, Independents,
and others to the prospect of a national party with something to show for itself.
This isn't selling out to the status quo, nor is separate from building out of Bernie's campaign
a resilient and persisting political bloc. It can be a very important part of that. I don't read
Yves' critique as perpetuating a self-fulfilling prophecy of defeatism, but as pointing out what
the Green party should do to begin to change the status quo. Isn't it defeatist to just vote for
a party that can't possibly win in the state it currently exists in? On the other hand, the
threat of voting for Trump over Clinton, or simply not voting for Clinton, does send a very strong
message that, if they fail to take it seriously, will instill the 'fear of God' in the party (as
well as further seriously piss them off).
I live in California. I am voting for Bernie next week. I will not vote for Hillary if she's
the nominee in the General. I'll vote for Jill Stein, but I know that that will be little more
than a symbolic protest vote. I disagree with the Rumsfeldian framed argument that it is a less
risky bet to support the putatively unknown unknown and make the Democratic party pay for their
luxuriant insularity and hubris. However - as that is the way Politico edited the message of Yves'
article - I understand and respect the argument.
You don't need to accept "lesser evilism" in order to put forward a sensible critique and proposal
for a party that doesn't have a real chance at this point.
hunkerdown
Sitting still for corporate malfeasance is exactly the "bad faith" by which people are rejecting
the Establishment candidates. I'd suggest taking account of the bad faith of the Democratic National
Committee and other Party organs in dealing with him, no more than a token of satisfice, and going
his own way to defeat Trump without providing aid or comfort to Hillary.
openvista, June 3, 2016 at 11:35 am
I would suggest, as hunkerdown did, that Sanders should realize there's no honor among
thieves. As per usual, the establishment often leverages a person's "integrity" for their own
aims.
Hillary is a murderer (by proxy of course), a liar, a receiver of bribes - the so-called
"Queen of Chaos". That's not the sort of person you ever, in good conscience, support.
That's not to say Trump is preferable. If the binary choice is lose-lose, isn't it possible to
have more than one enemy in a given Presidential election?
openvista, June 5, 2016 at 10:36 am
I agree that Sanders is the rarest of forms, a sincere politician. I don't see ambition or
graft behind any motivation of his to support Clinton, assuming that's the outcome. At worst,
it would be naivety.
If we take him at his word, he thinks of Clinton as a decent public servant with differing
ideas. Perhaps, he's less sincere than we think. But, assuming that is his take on her, he has
greatly under-estimated his adversary and that can only end badly for him at least as far as
the nomination is concerned.
Clinton is a predator and her operation exists to assimilate progressives like Sanders and
his supporters by using their good intentions and faith in humanity against them. Installing
his lieutenants on party platform committees or paying lip service to a $15 minimum wage is
all in a day's work considering Clintonistas have no intention of following through on any
ideological construct outside the ever increasing accumulation of wealth and power.
Lambert Strether, June 3, 2016 at 10:51 pm
If Sanders fights Trump and "supports" Hillary by raising his own money for downticket
Dems like Canova, and in addition does stuff like stumping against fracking and for single
payer in Colorado, that might not be so bad.
I can see scenarios where Clinton, from her corrupt perspective, will rue the day that Sanders
"supported" her. And if they try to muzzle him, that won't work out real well.
Steeeve, June 2, 2016 at 11:59 am
I will continue to support and hopefully vote for Bernie Sanders. In the event he's not the
nominee I will happily vote for Jill Stein as I did in 2012 – she has the strongest platform –
similar to Sanders but including what I consider to be a fundamental requirement to win my
vote: "End the wars and drone attacks, cut military spending by at least 50% and close the
700+ foreign military bases that are turning our republic into a bankrupt empire." I was
initially reluctant to support Sanders for the lack of inclusion of a plank along these lines.
Ending quagmires is at least a step in the right direction. But a conversation about economic
injustice is severely lacking without a strong statement on the MIC such as Stein's.
Liz Buiocchi, June 2, 2016 at 11:55 am
The only way that gridlock will end is with Sanders in the White House, at least one branch
of Congress in Democratic hands, and members of the other house sufficiently scared of voters
that they try to represent the interests of the 99%–in other words, a revolution. I don't know
how that happens with the media so complicit in the "Hillary is the nominee" narrative, but I
can hope.
I'm another 50-something white life-long liberal who has come to the conclusion that voting
for Trump is the lesser of some great evils. I'm somewhat relieved to know that I'm not the
only one–it feels like it goes against everything I stand for, but I just can't vote for
Clinton, nor will I refuse to vote in protest.
HotFlash, June 2, 2016 at 3:26 pm
A-yup. Trump at least says (or said on at least one occasion) that we should get out of the
Middle East. Which makes him better than Hillary. And he has not *to date* committed any war
crimes (I have standards, and one of them is that I will not vote for a war criminal).
But I still don't understand why it has to come down to Trump or Hillary. Can't we just have
Bernie?
DWBartoo, June 3, 2016 at 9:30 am
One wonders, Watt4Bob, should Trump emerge triumphant as President-elect, just how long it
would take for the Clintons and other neoliberal Democrats to suck up to him? Hillary would
have us believe that she considers Trump evil incarnate even as Clinton's daughter and Trump's
daughter are friends who, very likely, do not see the others parent(s) as any sort or kind
of meaningful threat or existential danger.
One is certain that the Clinton team, if Trump wins, will find the means and the "intestinal
fortitude" to "work"with him for the bettterment of incrementalism everywhere.
Frankly, a Trump presidency would offer the Democratic party a most wonderful opportunity to
reveal "where" the party really, and actually "stands" and what they really are willing to
"stand" and fight for somehow I doubt that genuine humanity and actual reason would stand
much of a chance against continuing, perpetual war and continued "security dominance", as
foreign and domestic policy preference.
The essential purpose of "public service", in the United States of Depravity, today, is to
enrich oneself and protect the Divine Right of Money.
DW
willnadauld, June 2, 2016 at 8:55 pm
White working class, almost college educated here. Reading almost exclusively Yves for
eight years. I feel I owe Yves,Lambert and the regular posters here a giant thank you for
giving me a viable perspective from which to judge the actions of politicians, and the
complicit media in destroying democracy completely. I inhabit the bubble of truth that you
folks create, and I am greatly disturbed by the comments at politico. I understand generalized
stupidity, and laziness, but the complete disconnect from reality I encounter whenever I
venture from my truth bubble still amazes me. People have forgotten how to read, and how to
think. I like Bernie. I will vote Trump over Biden in November. Elizabeth would never sell us
all that far down the river. Shes kind of like team blues Paul Ryan that way. What the hell,
maybe Michelle should run.
Roger Smith, June 2, 2016 at 11:41 pm
Seconded, one of the reasons. I've always scoffed at the "we're going downhill" or general
end times mentality, favoring instead that it was just moving laterally and depressingly, but
this season and the environment this site provides has helped me see the frailty of this
society. It is fragile, we are approaching a point of no return, and people still won't read
the damn signs.
Pat, June 2, 2016 at 10:54 am
One of the reasons con games are successful beyond the greed of humans is that people do
not like to admit they have been fooled/taken in/played. Denial is deeply ingrained in humans.
My own personal observation is that her most zealous of supporters are either the newest
converts or the ones desperately trying to avoid their growing realization that they have been
a patsy. I really do believe we are seeing a whole lot of the latter among the reactions to
ideas like this article or questions like 'where is your evidence that Trump is more evil than
Clinton? I can list the following things that are actual actions by Clinton along with HER
ever shifting rhetoric, you can list what?'
Vatch, June 2, 2016 at 11:22 am
Obama fooled me in 2008, so I voted Green in 2012. I will not let either Hillary Clinton or
Donald Trump fool me in 2016, and although I still hope that somehow Bernie Sanders will be
the Democratic nominee, I expect to vote Green again in 2016.
readerOfTeaLeaves, June 2, 2016 at 1:10 pm
I didn't read the comments, but you may want to consider that a good portion of them may
very well be from paid commenters. I think that Yves and Lambert look dimly on such practices.
I think that Yves also made a superb point in her essay - those of us who have been
reading NC have developed a far more sophisticated (I would even say 'principled') opposition
to the kind of neoliberal incrementalism that Clinton personifies.
Hence, the Politico commenters don't grasp the economic fraud and bogus theories that are
driving a lot of public policy disasters. On the upside, even my electrician and manufacturing
relatives have started asking some very probing questions about economics in the US.
Lambert Strether, June 2, 2016 at 2:41 pm
"Incrementalism" -> "excrementalism." Fixed it for ya.
Yeah Obama pretty much laid the once potent "but the Supreme Court ZMOG!!!" argument
to rest for good when he nominated a Republican. I mean what's even the point of voting
Democrat at this juncture? They hate their base, and swoon over billionaires and
Republicans. I'd probably be cheering on the Republican to humiliate Clinton on if it weren't
Trump, and even as much as I despise Trump I hardly care whether he or Hillary wins. That's
how horrible the Democrats are now.
Skip Intro, June 3, 2016 at 3:49 am
You are not alone. A Clinton candidacy would be toxic for Dem. candidates down the
whole ballot. Hillary is trying to win over scared/disgusted republicans to vote for a
corporatist anti-Trump, despite their years of anti-Clinton conditioning. Meanwhile the
democrats stay home and progressive independents stay home and a new generation of Americans
learn powerlessness.
Ukraine's State Bureau of Investigation (SBI) has opened criminal proceedings regarding the possible
organization by former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko of illegal crossing through the border with the use of fake
documents, the SBI has reported on its Facebook page.
"SBI investigators will check reports on former President Petro Poroshenko organizing illegal crossing through the state
border of Ukraine with the use of deliberately forged documents," the report reads.
In particular, the report specifies that it will be established during the investigation whether officials of the customs and
border authorities included deliberately false information in official documents in order to ensure border crossing.
Former Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration Andriy Portnov reported earlier that according to his statement, the SBI
opened a criminal case to check possible violations of border crossing "by persons close to Poroshenko in 2018 under other
people's passports to the Maldives archipelago."
"... "Any night that you have a primary or caucus, and the media lumps the superdelegates in-that they basically polled by calling them up and saying who are you supporting -- they don't vote until the convention. And so, they shouldn't be included in any count." ..."
"... Yet the AP and other media continued to do so. Why? It's just blatant bias from the ostensibly neutral mainstream media for the status quo candidate Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... This is a paper that's supposed to represent and inform Californians. There's only one word that comes to mind: disgusting . Particularly so when you see the polling numbers for independents in California: ..."
"... Superdelegates exist solely to manipulate voters through the media. Something that has happened consistently throughout the primary. ..."
Last night, Associated Press – on a day when nobody voted – surprised everyone by abruptly
declaring the Democratic Party primary over and Hillary Clinton the victor. The decree, issued
the night before the California primary in which polls show Clinton and Bernie Sanders in a very
close race, was based on the media organization's survey of "superdelegates": the Democratic Party's
720 insiders, corporate donors and officials whose votes for the presidential nominee count the
same as the actually elected delegates. AP claims that superdelegates who had not previously announced
their intentions privately told AP reporters that they intend to vote for Clinton, bringing her
over the threshold. AP is concealing the identity of the decisive superdelegates who said this.
This is the perfect symbolic ending to the Democratic Party primary: The nomination
is consecrated by a media organization, on a day when nobody voted, based on secret discussions
with anonymous establishment insiders and donors whose identities the media organization – incredibly
– conceals. The decisive edifice of superdelegates is itself anti-democratic and inherently corrupt:
designed to prevent actual voters from making choices that the party establishment dislikes. But
for a party run by insiders and funded by corporate interests, it's only fitting that their nomination
process ends with such an ignominious, awkward and undemocratic sputter.
That the Democratic Party nominating process is declared to be over in such an uninspiring,
secretive, and elite-driven manner is perfectly symbolic of what the party, and its likely nominee,
actually is. The one positive aspect, though significant, is symbolic, while the actual substance
– rallying behind a Wall-Street-funded, status-quo-perpetuating, multi-millionaire militarist
– is grim in the extreme. The Democratic Party got exactly the ending it deserved.
Last night, the American public witnessed the most egregious example of mainstream media malpractice
of my lifetime. By declaring Hillary Clinton the Democratic nominee based on the pledges of superdelegates
who have not voted, and will not vote until the convention on July 25th, the Associated Press performed
a huge disservice to American democracy on the eve of a major primary day, in which voters from the
most populous state in the union (amongst others) head to the polls. If you are a U.S. citizen and
you aren't outraged by this, there's something seriously wrong with you.
In this post, I have three objectives. First, I will set the stage by explaining how incredibly
sleazy the move by the AP was. Second, I will outline the preposterous and unjustifiable nature of
having superdelegates in the first place. Third, I will attempt to convince all true Bernie Sanders
supporters to commit themselves to never supporting Hillary Clinton. Let's get started.
1. Journalistic Malpractice
Let's start with the Associated Press , which I have lost every single ounce of respect for. The
"news" organization is now the most discredited entity in journalism as an result of what it did.
Some are excusing its public betrayed as merely "trying to get a scoop" and call the race over before
the other networks on Tuesday night. Personally, I think that's only a small factor in what happened.
I've noticed for months now, that the AP from the very beginning was including super delegates
in a way that was intentionally misleading. For example, this is how the graphics to their
"delegate tracker"
appear:
Notice that the big, bold numbers to the left representing the total, includes superdelegates
who have not yet voted. There can be absolutely no doubt that the AP is being intentionally misleading
by doing this, and is committing journalistic malpractice. How can I be so sure? Let's take a look
at this video clip from CNN aired earlier this year.
As you saw, Luis Miranda, the Communications Director at the Democratic National Committee, specifically
told Jake Tapper that it is wrong to include superdelegates in the tally total for the Democratic
primary. There can be no other interpretation. He said:
"Any night that you have a primary or caucus, and the media lumps the superdelegates
in-that they basically polled by calling them up and saying who are you supporting -- they don't
vote until the convention. And so, they shouldn't be included in any count."
Yet the AP and other media continued to do so. Why? It's just blatant bias from the ostensibly
neutral mainstream media for the status quo candidate Hillary Clinton.
That should be enough to turn the U.S. population away from these organizations forever. Yet there's
more. In calling the nomination for Hillary, the Associated Press had to get commitments from a few
more super delegates. They achieved that feat yesterday evening (mind you, they still haven't actually
voted), and they kept the names anonymous. Yes, you read that right.
Of course, it wasn't just the AP , it was virtually all mainstream media proclaiming the same
thing in a unified chorus. Indeed, they seemed to relish in it. Particularly inexcusable was reporting
from the LA Times. As
Wall Street on Parade noted :
Particularly outrageous was the unethical conduct of the largest newspapers in California,
where 1.5 million new voters have registered since January 1. California is an open primary, meaning
Independents can vote. That fact, together with the massive new voter registrations and the tens
of thousands who have turned out for Sanders' rallies, was signaling a potential upset for Clinton
in the state. That would not only be embarrassing but could lead to defections among the superdelegates
prior to the Convention in July.
The Los Angeles Times, which calls itself "the largest metropolitan daily newspaper in the
country, with a daily readership of 1.4 million," was one of the most egregious in their reporting.
After running the headline "Hillary Clinton Clinches Nomination in a Historic First," it then
ran an article that asked in the headline: "After AP calls nomination for Clinton, will voters
still turn out Tuesday?"
This is a paper that's supposed to represent and inform Californians. There's only one word that
comes to mind: disgusting . Particularly so when you see the polling numbers for
independents in California:
So let's recap. The Associated Press and virtually all other mainstream media declared Hillary
Clinton the winner of the Democratic primary on the eve of a huge voting day with 694 pledged delegates
at stake. They declared her the winner on a day in which no American primaries or caucuses were held,
and via word of mouth from a handful of anonymous superdelegates. I don't know what to call that,
but it's certainly not journalism.
2. Superdelegates as a Concept is Preposterous
I've read all the arguments and spin and there's simply no reasonable justification for having
superdelegates other than to manipulate the voting public via "delegate tracker" graphics such as
what is used by the AP in order to always show Hillary Clinton with a big lead irrespective what's
actually happening on the ground. While Clinton has certainly won more pledged delegates thus far,
the voting public has been intentionally manipulated from day one via the use of superdelegates.
As the Sanders campaign pointed out last night:
Secretary Clinton does not have and will not have the requisite number of pledged delegates
to secure the nomination. She will be dependent on superdelegates who do not vote until July 25
and who can change their minds between now and then. They include more than 400 superdelegates,
who endorsed Secretary Clinton 10 months before the first caucuses and primaries and long before
any other candidate was in the race.
Think about that for a second. 400 superdelegates pledged their loyalty to Hillary 10 months before
any voters had a chance to make their opinions heard. These superdelegates have not switched based
on the desires of the voters in their states, and their early loyalty oaths allowed the media to
manipulate the public from day one by including these lopsided figures.
How lopsided are they? With a vast majority of the primaries completed, here's the math.
Pledged delegates
Clinton: 1,812
Sanders: 1,521
Superdelegates
Clinton: 571
Sanders: 48
Anyone else see a problem with that? While Clinton still has a comfortable lead in pledged delegates,
she is slaughtering him in superdelegates. We can draw two important conclusions from this reality.
Superdelegates do not proportionately represent the will of the voters.
Superdelegates exist solely to manipulate voters through the media. Something that has
happened consistently throughout the primary.
The fact that superdelegates exist solely to manipulate voters should be perfectly clear at this
point. Perfect proof of this can be seen in the incomprehensible answer DNC chairwoman Debbie Wasserman
Schultz gave to why they exists:
The location stamps on just a handful of Twitter posts can help even low-tech stalkers find you,
researchers found.
The notion of online privacy has been greatly diminished in recent years, and just this week two
new studies confirm what to many minds is already a dismal picture.
First, a study
reported on Monday by Stanford University found that smartphone metadata-information about calls
and text messages, such as time and length-can reveal a surprising amount of personal detail.
To investigate their topic, the researchers built an Android app and used it to retrieve the metadata
about previous calls and text messages-the numbers, times, and lengths of communications-from more
than 800 volunteers' smartphone logs. In total, participants provided records of more than 250,000
calls and 1.2 million texts.
The researchers then used a combination of automated and manual processes to understand just what's
being revealed. What they found was that it's possible to infer a lot more than you might think.
A person who places multiple calls to a cardiologist, a local drug store, and a cardiac arrhythmia
monitoring device hotline likely suffers from cardiac arrhythmia, for example. Based on frequent
calls to a local firearms dealer that prominently advertises AR semiautomatic rifles and to the customer
support hotline of a major manufacturer that produces them, it's logical to conclude that another
likely owns such a weapon.
The researchers set out to fill what they consider knowledge gaps within the National Security
Agency's current phone metadata program. Currently, U.S. law gives more privacy protections to call
content and makes it easier for government agencies to obtain metadata, in part because policymakers
assume that it shouldn't be possible to infer specific sensitive details about people based on metadata
alone.
This study, reported in the Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, suggests otherwise. Preliminary versions of the work have already
played a role in federal surveillance policy debates and have been cited in litigation filings and
letters to legislators in both the U.S. and abroad.
It takes as few as eight tweets to locate someone
Researchers at MIT and Oxford University, meanwhile, have
shown that the
location stamps on just a handful of Twitter posts can be enough to let even a low-tech snooper find
out where you live and work.
Though Twitter's location-reporting service is off by default, many Twitter users choose
to activate it. Now, it looks like even as few as eight tweets over the course of a single
day can give stalkers what they need to track you down.
The researchers used real tweets from Twitter users in the Boston area; users consented to the
use of their data and also confirmed their home and work addresses, their commuting routes, and the
locations of various leisure destinations from which they had tweeted.
The time and location data associated with the tweets were then presented to a group of 45 study
participants, who were asked to try to deduce whether the tweets had originated at the Twitter users'
homes, workplaces, leisure destinations or commute locations.
Bottom line: They had little trouble figuring it out. Equipped with map-based representations,
participants correctly identified Twitter users' homes roughly 65 percent of the time and their workplaces
at closer to 70 percent.
Part of a more general project at MIT's Internet Policy Research Initiative, the
paper was presented last
week at the Association for Computing Machinery's Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
"Many people have this idea that only machine-learning techniques can discover interesting patterns
in location data, and they feel secure that not everyone has the technical knowledge to do that,"
said Ilaria Liccardi, a research scientist at MIT's Internet Policy Research Initiative and first
author on the paper. "What we wanted to show is that when you send location data as a secondary piece
of information, it is extremely simple for people with very little technical knowledge to find out
where you work or live."
Twitter said it does not comment on third-party research, but directed users to
online information about its optional location
feature.
"... The Wall Street Journal had an article yesterday saying that Hillary might not be the nominee, ..."
"... For damn sure parachuting someone in ahead of him in line would be the death of the Democratic party, and good riddance. And good riddance to Al Gore, who wouldn't even fight his own election battle. He's as fake a standard bearer as Elizabeth Warren. ..."
"... Plus Bernie supporters don't support Bernie because he's a Democrat, they support him because of what he is campaigning about. A replacement head bolted onto the decapitated Clinton campaign would never in a zillion years be for anything Sanders is for, and we're not stupid enough to believe it would be. ..."
"... This is surely the year the skull beneath the skin of both political parties gets revealed. ..."
"... Several months ago I was having a political discussion with my youngest brother and he asked me what my best and worst case scenarios were. I told him that the best case scenario was the implosion of both legacy parties. The worst case scenario was some sort of constitutional crisis emerging. I had negligently never considered the possibility that both could occur. ..."
"... This is about jobs. The DNC employs a whole slew of Beltway careerists, both directly and indirectly, who will be out of a job if Sanders becomes President. These careerists believe that they are entitled to the jobs they hold, and that someone like Sanders should never be allowed to take their jobs away. There is a great debate going on right now about how the American people can be lied to, and told that it's not about these jobs, but is rather "for the good of the country". But do not be fooled. It is about these jobs. ..."
"... Now THOSE are the sort of entitlements that I'd like to see done away with !! Let the careerists live on the street in appliance boxes, for all I care it would serve them right -- ..."
"... The idea that the Dems think they are still a force to reckon with when less than one-third of the voters self-identify as a Dem is ludicrous. ..."
"... less than one-third of the voters self-identify as a Dem ..."
"... Yes, and something else. Half the country doesn't vote, which means the Democrats comprise about one-sixth of eligible voters, with Republicans even fewer. Which means that one-third of the population controls the only two viable political vehicles in the country. ..."
"... Our political duopoly represents just a tiny slice of the spectrum. This is an ultra-conservative system designed to ensure stability in a well-functioning democratic republic that is responsive to the people. But we now live in an oligarchy and our hijacked, corrupted political duoploly only serves the oligarchs. ..."
"... I see much of American politics since the mid-20th as a struggle between two philosophies (or extremes) of the ruling and wealthy elite. One advocates a "squeeze the proles until they bleed to death" approach, while the other is smart enough to realize, "we need them happy enough to prevent violent revolution, or they'll try to kill us all, which is bad for business". And the former approach has gained too much ground, so we're seeing the public heating towards their boiling point. ..."
"... With the ruling classes' reluctance to yield any of their ever-growing, ever-concentrated wealth to the masses, I worry that they'll try war as a distraction next. The War on Terror has mostly flopped by this point, but it can be used as stage setting for what comes next. Either a "real" war against China and/or Russia, or an orders of magnitude upswing in domestic terrorism and strife. (I wonder who would be good for getting such violence started, without tarnishing the reputation of the ruling class even further ) ..."
"... Trump's problem are his negatives, which are so extreme that only Hillary Clinton could compete on that field, and secondly the likely ephemerallity of the outsider status his whole persona is marketed on. As he is embraced by the GOP establishment, his outsider appeal will become smothered by its embrace. ..."
"... Meanwhile, there's someone for whom millions of people have actually cast a ballot, and those people are going to lose their sh!t if Debbie Wasserman Schultz tries to pull off a coup and toss Sanders on the trash heap. ..."
"... Her pardoning herself is the only real protection she can count on. Obama has a legacy as such as it is. He can't handle blanket pardons, and the House will be GOP regardless (here's to DWS and Pelosi). They will investigate the Clintons regardless of who the next President is. ..."
"... It may be that the FBI has a digital image of that boil from the backup copy of the server that Platte River (seems to have) accidentally put in the cloud. ..."
"... Don't miss "Brexit: The Movie" Should be mandatory watching for every politician around the globe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYqzcqDtL3k ..."
"... Short vid of Jill Stein making way to much sense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NjkCfjU-FY&feature=youtu.be ..."
"... In fact, I had to show them polls of Bernie beating Trump by a way wider margin than Hillary to convince them otherwise. That just goes to show you how successful the Clinton PR machine (not to mention a complicit media) has been at pushing her narrative. Even if people want Bernie to win and strongly dislike her, the general feeling seems to be that she is inevitable. ..."
"... That assumes the AG declined to prosecute, or otherwise blocked the charges. That doesn't clear HRC, so no double jeopardy. What's to stop a Republican House and Senate from conducting their own investigation (starting with evidence leaked by the FBI) and impeaching her? ..."
"... Beware, he speaks with forked tongue!! He never says what he means, nor means what he says. ..."
"... Look, Bernie sees the problem and offers solutions. Trump just sees the problem. Hillary denies that a problem even exists. ..."
"... Well, on Diane Reem today (NPR) was a discussion on why fascist parties are growing in Europe. Both Cohen and the clowns on NPR missed the forest for the trees. The reason Trump and Sanders are doing well in the US while fascists are doing well in Europe is the same reason: neoliberalism has gutted, or is in the process of gutting, societies. ..."
"... The US and NATO destabilize countries with the intent of stealing their resources and protecting their markets, cause massive refugee flows which strain social structures in Europe (which falls right into the hands of the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism). Of course the people will lean fascist. ..."
"... In the US we don't have the refugees, but the neoliberalism is further along and more damaging. There's no mystery here or in Europe, just the natural effects of governments failing to represent real people in favor of useless eater rich. ..."
The Wall Street Journal had an article yesterday saying that Hillary might not be the nominee,
and while DNC faithful want us all to assume that if that happened, it would not be Sanders, that's
emphatically not what the rest of the US will assume, nor, I think, stand for.
For damn sure parachuting someone in ahead of him in line would be the death of the Democratic
party, and good riddance. And good riddance to Al Gore, who wouldn't even fight his own election
battle. He's as fake a standard bearer as Elizabeth Warren.
Plus Bernie supporters don't support Bernie because he's a Democrat, they support him because
of what he is campaigning about. A replacement head bolted onto the decapitated Clinton campaign
would never in a zillion years be for anything Sanders is for, and we're not stupid enough to
believe it would be.
~~~~
Trump's been involved in some 3.5K lawsuits, he only wrote his check to the Veterans' charity
the day the reporter grilled him about stiffing them, his TrumpYours University taught cheating
and scorched earth sales tactics, he wants to sell off the public lands, privatize Social Security,
etc etc ad infinitum. He is emphatically not what Bernie supporters are looking for, either.
This is surely the year the skull beneath the skin of both political parties gets revealed.
I agree with you 1000% Elliot. Several months ago I was having a political discussion with
my youngest brother and he asked me what my best and worst case scenarios were. I told him that
the best case scenario was the implosion of both legacy parties. The worst case scenario was some
sort of constitutional crisis emerging. I had negligently never considered the possibility that
both could occur.
This is about jobs. The DNC employs a whole slew of Beltway careerists, both directly and
indirectly, who will be out of a job if Sanders becomes President. These careerists believe that
they are entitled to the jobs they hold, and that someone like Sanders should never be allowed
to take their jobs away. There is a great debate going on right now about how the American people
can be lied to, and told that it's not about these jobs, but is rather "for the good of the country".
But do not be fooled. It is about these jobs.
At the end of the day, there may be some scraps left over, and should they fall from the table,
the quick among us will certainly be allowed to have them. Thank you very much for voting. See
you again in four years.
Now THOSE are the sort of entitlements that I'd like to see done away with !! Let the careerists
live on the street in appliance boxes, for all I care it would serve them right --
I'm with you, Katiebird. If there's one thing this campaign year has shown, it's that "we the
people" are as powerful as we choose to be. There really is no one else in D.C. who is as decent
as Bernie. No one. I've maintained for some time that the Democrats are already dead as a party;
they've just been refusing to recognize it.
The Repubs have been clearly shown to be a dead party–first
through the Tea Party, and now through this election. The question is whether or not the Dems
want to survive as a party.
If they do, Bernie is their only hope. They are in denial now–they
think Bernie voters are Dems. They aren't. It all depends on how forcefully Bernie delegates and
voters are willing to make their case that it's Bernie or Bust. The idea that the Dems think
they are still a force to reckon with when less than one-third of the voters self-identify as
a Dem is ludicrous.
less than one-third of the voters self-identify as a Dem
Yes, and something else. Half the country doesn't vote, which means the Democrats comprise
about one-sixth of eligible voters, with Republicans even fewer. Which means that one-third of
the population controls the only two viable political vehicles in the country.
Our political duopoly represents just a tiny slice of the spectrum. This is an ultra-conservative
system designed to ensure stability in a well-functioning democratic republic that is responsive
to the people. But we now live in an oligarchy and our hijacked, corrupted political duoploly
only serves the oligarchs.
That Cohen quote is choice, in more ways than one. "I am afraid of my fellow Americans."
You know, I'm used to hyperbole during an election year ("my opponent is literally Satan Himself!")
but this is genuinely alarming. I'm reminded of a (paraphrased) quote from an online discussion:
"When the revolution for the people, by the people comes, 'the people' are not going to be
your people. They are the homeless, the jobless, the uneducated, the rural. They are the
butt of your redneck jokes and elided in your 'urban youth' euphemisms. And they hate you,
no matter how much you claim to be on their side, because you have not suffered as they have."
I see much of American politics since the mid-20th as a struggle between two philosophies
(or extremes) of the ruling and wealthy elite. One advocates a "squeeze the proles until they
bleed to death" approach, while the other is smart enough to realize, "we need them happy enough
to prevent violent revolution, or they'll try to kill us all, which is bad for business". And
the former approach has gained too much ground, so we're seeing the public heating towards their
boiling point.
(I personally think Trump is nothing but a con-man trying to ride the resentment as a shortcut
to putting himself in the big chair, but I can empathize with those so desperate they see no better
alternative to bloody revolution.)
With the ruling classes' reluctance to yield any of their ever-growing, ever-concentrated
wealth to the masses, I worry that they'll try war as a distraction next. The War on Terror has
mostly flopped by this point, but it can be used as stage setting for what comes next. Either
a "real" war against China and/or Russia, or an orders of magnitude upswing in domestic terrorism
and strife. (I wonder who would be good for getting such violence started, without tarnishing
the reputation of the ruling class even further )
Once the Next War has begun (domestic or foreign doesn't matter, as long as its bigger and
scarier to everyone) it will be blamed for all sorts of ills and used to justify excesses of the
worst sort for the better part of a generation. (I doubt it has ever occurred to Our Dear Rulers
that the public might not go along with their Next War, or that it may not play out according
to their plans.)
Yeah, nobody is listening at all to President Putin and the wider Russian policy and military
establishments as they warn, attempt diplomacy, and give the clearest possible indication by the
actions of their military that they feel themselves seriously – very seriously – threatened by
the aggressive actions on their borders by the US and the NATO pink poodles.
Probably, The Moustache of Understanding, Thomas Friedman, would consider this to be no problem
for him, his family, and the US. So what if Romanians, Poles, whatever, die? The conflict would
remain contained to Central Europe, right? Think of the propaganda opportunities. They're just
dizzying. Get Vicky, Samantha, Michele on the job, stat!
But you know what? If those harridans set foot in Central Europe, they would be in serious
danger of being lynched by the terrified peoples of those nations with whose lives they so casually
dice, and rightly so. Playing with matches in a dynamite factory is to be discouraged, and that
is all that these fools seem capable of.
Some people seem mystified by why the Russians have pulled some of their air assets out of
Syria while the outcomes of the war are still in doubt. Well, they're being redeployed back to
Russia against the need to throw them into combat against the US and the NATO pink poodles (who
seem to love to sidle up to Russia and lift their legs to piss on their President and their national
security; talk about your stoopid dogs). So, no, there is no mystery here at all. Things have
gotten dead serious now that these missiles are actually being deployed, and no longer being dissimulated
as being directed against possible lunatic Iranian aggression; their true target, always known
for anyone with two neurons to spark against one another, is Russia. As opposed to past invasions
from the west, when their nation is threatened by hypersonic missiles, there is no strategic depth
provided by the landmass of Russia. The Russians know this all too well, and they are not blowing
smoke here. Finally, President Putin has learned that he has no "partners", one of his favorite
phrases in the past when referring to the west, with whom to have a serious dialogue. Instead,
he has only that callow jackass Obama and the compliant dwarves of Europe leering at him, and
ipso facto, no one with whom dialogue is possible.
As they say here in Southern New Jersey when the Pine Barrens are dry as tinder, we have a
Red Flag Warning, and a forest fire is an imminent danger. The consequences of such a localized
event are as nothing compared to the dire danger into which our western fools are blithely tripping.
Trump's problem are his negatives, which are so extreme that only Hillary Clinton could compete
on that field, and secondly the likely ephemerallity of the outsider status his whole persona is
marketed on. As he is embraced by the GOP establishment, his outsider appeal will become smothered
by its embrace. He will get endorsements from mainstream partisans that will actually be counterproductive,
he will need to regularly produce more outrageous statements to retain an outsider cred and each
will alienate off another chunk of his support. The *only* possible way Trump wins is vs. a damaged
Hillary, I don't see him even beating a barely legitimate Plan B like Biden.
Sometimes I think that people are forgetting that these are people who have never, ever given
up; Hillary Clinton is an eyelash away from being nominated for the highest office in the land,
she's survived countless investigations, scandals, humiliations. She's withstood everything from
hearings to vile sexist and misogynist taunts and labels. She swallowed her pride and sold what
was left of her soul for a promise she could move into the White House in January, 2017.
And you think she's possibly going to step down now?
No. That doesn't happen unless she has a real medical issue she can't hide (she'd have to collapse
in a very public venue – otherwise, I think whatever medical issues she has remain hidden), there
is some sort of family tragedy, or the pus-filled boil that is the nexus between her public office
and the Clinton Foundation gets popped in an undeniably damning way before the convention.
And then what? The only people who want Biden are the insiders; if there was that much love
for Biden out among the electorate, he would not have been stashed where his mouth could do the
least amount of damage. Meanwhile, there's someone for whom millions of people have actually cast
a ballot, and those people are going to lose their sh!t if Debbie Wasserman Schultz tries to pull
off a coup and toss Sanders on the trash heap.
I think the only fair/decent/small-d Democratic way to do this is to release delegates from
their pledges and hold as many votes as it takes to get a nominee. If that's Sanders on the first
ballot or the second or the tenth, fine. If it's Gore or Biden or Kerry on the 15th ballot at
5:30 in the morning, well, maybe that's okay, too. As long as it's a participatory process and
not an end-run, back-door wheel-and-deal, complete with threats and "incentives" operation, the
voters might go along with it and not take to the streets with the torches and pitchforks.
But here's the thing: can't speak for anyone else, but I have seen nothing so far in this election
season that gives me any confidence that such an event would be conducted in an ethical, moral
manner. And if they decide to substitute their own corrupt judgment for what should be allowed
to be the will of the people, they will have only themselves to blame for it being Trump's porcine
fingers on the bible come inauguration day.
Her pardoning herself is the only real protection she can count on. Obama has a legacy as such
as it is. He can't handle blanket pardons, and the House will be GOP regardless (here's to DWS
and Pelosi). They will investigate the Clintons regardless of who the next President is.
You are certainly right that she would fight tooth and nail against it, but I think if it is
put as an issue of 'you are likely going to prison, but take the noble option and you get a pardon'
(while passing over the whiskey and revolver), could do the trick. Even the Clintons could not
stand up against a delegation of the party saying 'its this or massive public humiliation'. The
classic example was of Margaret Thatcher, who only released her grip on power when one by one
each senior cabinet member went in to her and said 'its over'.
Interestingly, I've been looking at some betting sites – they only give odds for three Dems
for president – Hilary, Bernie and Biden (at a surprising 33/1).
> the pus-filled boil that is the nexus between her public office and the Clinton Foundation
It may be that the FBI has a digital image of that boil from the backup copy of the server
that Platte River (seems to have) accidentally put in the cloud.
If Bernie isn't on my ballot, Jill Stein is who I'll be voting for. Again.
She's excellent, much better than Clinton or obviously Trump, I agree with her on 90% of her
positions. If voting *for* someone rather than *against* someone is how democracy should work
(and I would argue so) then it would be a waste of my vote to spend it on anyone else. Conservatives
should consider Gary Anderson for the same reasons. These minor parties need to reach the 5% threshold
to get ballot access and matching funding, I think it's an excellent cause to support just to
have a greater diversity in the US political system. Shame on the people who are trying to scare
you into voting for someone you don't believe in instead of voting your actual beliefs, it's not
right to do.
I can't help but find it extremely wise of Bernie never to take the bait on that email question
because it would inevitably only be used against him and the narrative would then be that he was
"backtracking" on when he said that he didn't want to discuss them.
And anyhow, he probably knows that he doesn't need to join the chorus for that story to stay hot.
Though I hope and presume that this is a focal talking point if and when he courts superdelegates.
On another note, I live in Sweden and the topic of the election came up with some friends tonight
and my friends – all of whom would like to see Bernie be president – all seemed to think that
Clinton was a stronger candidate (as in more people favored her) against Trump. In fact, I had
to show them polls of Bernie beating Trump by a way wider margin than Hillary to convince them
otherwise. That just goes to show you how successful the Clinton PR machine (not to mention a
complicit media) has been at pushing her narrative. Even if people want Bernie to win and strongly
dislike her, the general feeling seems to be that she is inevitable.
Re: tarhairbabyball – what if Clinton manages to drag things out long enough to get not just
the nomination, but the White House?
That assumes the AG declined to prosecute, or otherwise blocked the charges. That doesn't clear
HRC, so no double jeopardy. What's to stop a Republican House and Senate from conducting their
own investigation (starting with evidence leaked by the FBI) and impeaching her? Nothing that
I can see: pardoning herself on her first day in office would mean exactly nothing to the GOP.
And if there's evidence of revealing the identities of agents or protecting the backers of the
Benghazi plot, an impeachment will have a lot more public support than one over an extra-marital
affair.
But further down that road, what if there was some question of negligence or malfeasance by
her boss, the president? What would stop congress from going after ex-president Obama? "What did
the (ex-)president know and when did he know it?" Talk about tarnishing a legacy.
So am I barking up the wrong tree here, or is the above part of the Dem/BHO decision calculus?
The Republicans could certainly impeach her, and I bet some of them are champing at the bit
to do so (even the ones not enthusiastic about Trump).
However, they tried that once with Bill Clinton and failed (very much because of their personal
defects, but also because of their defects as a party). I would bet on their failing again, simply
because the Benghazi hearings were such a cluster, at least so far as constructing a coherent
narrative.
Speaking at a high school in Elkhart, Indiana, Obama noted there are some Americans who
don't have retirement savings and those who might not be able to save money because they are
unable to pay the bills.
" . not only do we need to strengthen its long term health, it's time we finally made Social
Security more generous and increased its benefits so today's retirees and future generations
get the dignified retirement that they have earned."
PALO ALTO, Calif. – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday applauded President Barack Obama's
support for expanding Social Security by asking the "wealthiest Americans to contribute a little
bit more."
Sanders urged Hillary Clinton to back legislation endorsed by leading Democrats and seniors'
advocates to strengthen the retirement program.
"I applaud President Obama for making it clear that it is time to expand Social Security
benefits," Sanders said. "Millions of seniors, disabled veterans and people with disabilities
are falling further and further behind on $10,000 or $11,000 a year Social Security," he added.
"Trump has taught me to fear my fellow Americans" [Richard Cohen, WaPo]. " I always
knew who Trump was. It's the American people who have come as a surprise."
I guess he thought they would never fight back?
Look, Bernie sees the problem and offers solutions. Trump just sees the problem. Hillary denies that a problem even exists.
If you are treading water economically just trying to get by and are hoping for someone, anyone
to pin your hopes on, why the hell would it be Hillary? November is going to be very interesting
and not in a good way.
So Richard Cohen now fears American voters because of Trump.
Well, on Diane Reem today (NPR)
was a discussion on why fascist parties are growing in Europe. Both Cohen and the clowns on NPR
missed the forest for the trees. The reason Trump and Sanders are doing well in the US while fascists
are doing well in Europe is the same reason: neoliberalism has gutted, or is in the process of
gutting, societies.
Workers and other formerly "safe" white collar workers are seeing their job
security, income security, retirement security all go up in smoke. Neoliberals are trying to snip
and cut labor protections, healthcare, environmental regulations all for corporate profit. In
Europe this is all in addition to a massive refugee crisis itself brought on by neoliberalism
(neocon foreign policy is required for neoliberal social policy, they go hand-in-hand). The US
and NATO destabilize countries with the intent of stealing their resources and protecting their
markets, cause massive refugee flows which strain social structures in Europe (which falls right
into the hands of the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism). Of course the people will lean fascist.
In the US we don't have the refugees, but the neoliberalism is further along and more damaging.
There's no mystery here or in Europe, just the natural effects of governments failing to represent
real people in favor of useless eater rich.
Make the people into commodities, endanger their washes and job security, impose austerity,
and tale in floods of refugees. Of COURSE Europeans stay leaning fascist.
Lambert, for the good of the order, something from out of an old bookmarked file, Bernie Sanders
filibustering Obama's tax cuts in Dec 2010. Watching this, what Bernie is doing is totally consistent
with his economic analyses going back years:
Back in 2010, he was pointing out to the US Senate that one single tax cut for the Walton family
would pay for money for disabled Vets and Seniors. Just incredible.
It is not possible for any politician to push that concept, the electorate expects taxes to
pay for spending no matter how important the spending is. So all of his proposals are pay as you
go, otherwise he presents the neoliberals with an easy target.
Even if by some miracle he gets the bully pulpit he will have to be circumspect. Change out the
fed, get Mmt types appointed, let them take the lead in educating the public. This would be a
long tarm campaign.
Meanwhile he is boxed in by the 98% of the public that think they know how our economy works.
Just remembered an interview at the end of April with Seymour Hersh (
This is Hell! podcast
) where the interviewer asks how much HRC influenced BHO in the Libyan bombing campaign and
what that might say about a Hillary Clinton administration. Here's what Sy said in response (transcript
mine):
"You don't need me to answer that question. I can tell you, I'm not done reporting about
that. There's a lot more to that than meets the eye. But, uh I'm in to something. So I don't
want to be coy with you. But there's no question that, just based on the emails that have been
released [ ] she was much more aggressive about it."
Listening to it, one gets the impression that he just did not want to talk about HRC. Would
love to know what Hersh knows, and what he's up to now.
So a financial analyst whose expertise is the Middle East has told CNBC who Saudi Arabia wants
to be President. Three guesses and the first two don't count
Tends to fit in with my experience as an expat in both nations that they are both insular cultures
and generally hostile to new comers, though at least the young generations in both countries seem
to be breaking away from this behavior.
but economists face a fundamental challenge with respect to innovation
I read the article. Not a mention of Chaos theory.
This is the best they can do: Economy Is a Highly Dynamic System That Can Go Far From Equilibrium
and Become Trapped in Sub optimal States. (Sub Optimal for Who one could ask/)
The Economy is a Chaotic System where Equlibria are Unpredictable, both in time and position.
Recent polling has Sanders within 2 in CA but it could get glitchy as CA news was reporting
the State has 85% of indies not requesting a D ballot. If you are registered undeclared, you must
request a D ballot or you automatically receive one without the Presidential candidates. The number
of already returned undeclared ballots was not listed which would have been useful.
Voting takes persistence. A regular voter had to make two requests to be switched to D. Still
did not receive a D ballot and had to contact again for another ballot. I think people just give
up.
NPP voters may bring their Vote By Mail ballot to their polling place and exchange it for a
Democratic Party primary ballot. If they do not have their Vote by Mail ballot, and have not used
their Vote by Mail ballot, they may still vote on a provisional ballot.
If they are just registered as NPP and do not use Vote by Mail, they just simply request the
Democratic Party ballot at their polling place.
And yes, it has been extremely confusing and not well publicized.
Actually, it's a little more complicated than that. I got trained this week as a Los Angeles
County poll worker. NPP people get separate crossover ballots for each of the three parties they
can crossover to. So you don't exchange it for a Democratic party ballot, you exchange it for
(or simply receive upon first request) an NPP Crossover Democratic ballot. It's got a separate
little design on top and everything.
Also, if you are brand new voter, you have to bring your ID with you to the polling place,
or you may be forced to use a provisional ballot - I couldn't tell whether that was a Los Angeles
county thing, or a state thing.
Oh, and rumors are flying that a) Hillary people are going around claiming to be Bernie volunteers,
gathering up completed Vote By Mail ballots from people at home and then presumably dumping them
(as was done in Oregon); and b) that the state did not print enough NPP Crossover Democratic ballots,
and will run out, possibly before election day. Given that our Secretary of State is known to
be corrupt and a Clinton backer, these both seem like plausible tactics, in a huge state where
county registrars have a lot of autonomy and almost 75% of the votes will be Vote By Mail. But
I have no idea whether there is evidence for either. Given how the election theft and media propaganda
on Clinton's behalf has been systematic and blatant, people's paranoia rachets up daily, as their
trust in institutions sinks. Nice work, Clintonland. That won't be a problem going forward at
all.
On the bright side, we were told that the LA registrar will count every valid provisional ballot,
no matter what the percentages are. Again, I don't know if that's true in other counties. But
I've had numerous interactions with the registrar staff, and they seem genuinely committed to
doing the right thing and helping people vote, regardless of whom they're voting for.
The problems with people accidentally registering as American Independent Party (a far right
party, and you can't crossover from that to Dem, only from NPP to AIP or Dem) and people mistakenly
thinking they can write Bernie in on NPP ballots (nope) instead of exchanging gives me heartburn.
But then, CNN, MSNBC et al. will announce she's clinched the nomination (again, not possible)
right when most people get off work and head to the polls, so there are just SO MANY WAYS to screw
with people.
On Gracie Slick and "White Rabbit'; the Rolling Stones did it earlier with "Mother's Little
Helper", I think. Not quite the same message, but it definitely addressed parents'drug use vs
what they expected out of their children.
"Things are different today,"
I hear ev'ry mother say
Cooking fresh food for a husband's just a drag
So she buys an instant cake and she burns her frozen steak
And goes running for the shelter of a mother's little helper
And two help her on her way, get her through her busy day
Doctor please, some more of these
Outside the door, she took four more
What a drag it is getting old
Well she's not the prettiest girl in the world
I know she's not the smartest one too
But she's always there and I know she cares
And I know that her heart is true
Well ain't it amazin', Gracie
How much I love you
I been all over the world but no other girl
Ever thrilled me the way that you do
The Lame Duck In Chief supports increasing Social Security
In other news, Obama Library's volunteer board hires subcontractor that employs minimum-wage
undocumented workers without benefits to polish presidential bust Made in China.
Have we mentioned lately what an a**hole Obama is?
"... Finally, there is the stench of corruption, dating back to Hillary's impossible-by any legitimate means-trick of parlaying $1,000 into $100,000 in a series of commodities trades in 1978. The Clintons and their backers seriously expect the rubes to believe that large financial firms happily forked over their hefty speaking fees purely out of interest in what they had to say, or that Middle Eastern and Taiwanese moneybags gave big bucks to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was secretary of state out of their deep belief in the foundation's lofty goals. Why has Hillary refused to release the transcripts of her Goldman speeches, wiped her server and foot-dragged on releasing allegedly personal emails? ..."
"... If my readers are representative, Clinton and the Democratic Party are about to have a long-overdue day of reckoning. ..."
hy do progressives reject Hillary Clinton? The highly educated, high-income, finance-literate readers
of my website, Naked Capitalism , don't just overwhelmingly favor Bernie Sanders. They also say "Hell no!" to Hillary Clinton
to the degree that many say they would even vote for Donald Trump over her.
And they don't come by these views casually. Their conclusions are the result of careful study
of her record and her policy proposals. They believe the country can no longer endure the status
quo that Clinton represents-one of crushing inequality, and an economy that is
literally killing
off the less fortunate-and any change will be better.
One reader writes
:
Story Continued Below
"If Clinton is the nominee 9 out of 10 friends I polled will [do one of three things]:
A. Not vote for president in November. B. Vote for Trump. C. Write in Bernie as a protest vote.
"We are all fifty-somethings with money and college educations. Oh, and we are all registered
Democrats."
"I don't want to vote for Trump. I want to vote for Bernie. But I have reached the point where
I feel like voting for Trump against Clinton would be doing my patriotic duty. … If the only way
to escape a trap is to gnaw off my leg, I'd like to think I'd have the guts to do it."
To be sure, not all of my Sanders-supporting readers would vote for Trump. But only a minority
would ever vote for Clinton, and I'd guess that a lot of them would just stay home if she were the
nominee. Many of my readers tend to be very progressive, and they have been driven even further in
that direction by their sophisticated understanding of the inequities of Wall Street, especially
in the run-up to and the aftermath of the financial crisis, when no senior executives went to jail,
the biggest banks got bigger, and Hillary paid homage to Goldman Sachs. True progressives, as opposed
to the Vichy Left, recognize that the Clintons only helped these inequities along. They recognize
that, both in the 1990s and now, the Clintons do not and have never represented them. They believe
the most powerful move they can take to foster change is to withhold their support.
Some of them also have very reasoned arguments for Trump. Hillary is a known evil. Trump is unknown.
They'd rather bet on the unknown, since it will also send a big message to Team Dem that they can
no longer abuse progressives. I personally know women in the demographic that is viewed as being
solidly behind Hillary-older, professional women who live in major cities-who regard Trump as an
acceptable cost of getting rid of the Clintons.
Who does Naked Capitalism represent? The site, which I describe as "fearless commentary
on finance, economics, politics and power," receives 1.3 million to 1.5 million page views a month
and has amassed approximately 80 million readers since its launch in 2006. Its readership is disproportionately
graduate school-educated, older, male and high income. Despite the overall predominance of male readers,
many of the fiercest critics of Clinton in the commentariat are women, with handles like HotFlash,
Katniss Everdeen, Martha r, Portia, Bev and Pat.
What they also object to is that the larger bloc of Sanders voters has been treated with abuse
and contempt by the Clinton camp, despite the fact that their positions-such as strengthening Social
Security and Medicare, stronger educational funding and higher minimum wages-have for decades polled
by solid majorities or, at worst, ample pluralities in the electorate at large.
By contrast, the Democratic Party in the Clinton and Obama administrations has consistently embraced
and implemented policies that strip workers of economic and legal rights to benefit investors and
the elite professionals that serve them. Over time, the "neoliberal" economic order-which sees only
good, never bad, in the relentless untrammeling of capital and the deregulation of markets-has created
an unacceptable level of economic insecurity and distress for those outside the 1 percent and the
elite professionals who serve them.
The result is that the U.S. economy is becoming lethal to the less fortunate, according to the
New York Times , which
reported this week
that U.S. death rates have risen for the first time in a decade. The increase
in death rates among less educated whites since 2001 is roughly the size of the AIDS epidemic. One
cause, the opioid epidemic, resulted from Purdue Pharma
overselling the effectiveness
of reformulated OxyContin, then recommending higher dosages when
it failed to work properly, which experts deemed a prescription for creating addicts, according to
a number of lawsuits. This was permitted by the U.S. government, leading to thousands of unnecessary
deaths. Despite President Barack Obama's Panglossian claim that the economy is doing well,
the spike in suicides to levels over those during the financial crisis belies that
.
Yet the Clinton campaign is in such denial about this that it has become vitriolic in its verbal
and tactical attacks on Sanders and his supporters-rather than recognizing that the stunning success
of his campaign is proof of their abject policy failures. The message is clear: The Clintons believe,
as Bill himself put it, that the true progressives have nowhere to go.
But in fact, they've been leaving. The Clinton and Obama administrations presided over the worst
losses in congressional and state races in modern history in 1994, 2010 and 2012. And voter preferences
were clear. Under Obama, it was the Blue Dog, Third Way Democrats who were turfed out, while candidates
with strong stances on economic justice kept their seats. Similarly, as political scientist Tom Ferguson
pointed out in a
Roosevelt Institute paper
, Obama's loss of a Senate majority when Republican Scott Brown won
in Massachusetts was the result of his focus on bailing out banks rather than aiding distressed homeowners
(or forcing mortgage services to give modifications to borrowers who still had adequate income, as
banks had done historically). The level of votes for Brown was strongly correlated with the amount
of foreclosures in those particular districts.
True progressives know that the Clinton and Obama presidencies have brought inequality to Gilded
Era, banana-republic levels. They know that Obama's policies, which the Clintons embrace, have had
all of the post-crisis income gains
accrue to the top 1 percent
. In addition, corporate profits have risen to nearly double the
ratio to GDP that Warren Buffett deemed unsustainably high in the early 2000s. Unlike China, they've
also ushered in an era of high unemployment and underemployment, as reflected in unheard-of low levels
of labor force participation and unemployment among the young in a nominal expansion.
The Clintons' dismal record, which Hillary cannot run away from, speaks for itself. And this is
what makes many progressives I know unable to support her, even if she wins the nomination. Consider
the reasons why they feel this way:
Social Security . Bill Clinton
made a deal with Newt Gingrich to privatize Social Security, but Monica Lewinsky derailed his plans
. Sanders has promised to strengthen Social Security. By contrast, Clinton wants to "preserve"
it, which includes means-testing. That would put Social Security on a path to being a welfare program,
not a universal safety net, making it vulnerable in the long run. Bill Clinton's ending of welfare
is an illustration of the regular pattern, dating back to England's Poor Law of 1834, of gutting
safety nets for the poor.
Climate change . Sanders calls for a full-bore, Marshall-Plan level commitment to reducing
carbon output. Hillary talks about climate change but pushed for fracking in Europe while secretary
of state. The Clintons remain firmly committed to fracking, which ruins water supplies and releases
large amounts of methane.
Minimum wage. Inflation-adjusted minimum wage increases under Clinton were negligible-virtually
identical to those under George H.W. Bush. Obama promised a minimum wage increase to $9.50 an hour
and failed to act in the first four years of his presidency. Sanders wants to raise minimum wages
to $15 an hour, while Clinton stands pat with the administration plan to increase wages to $12 an
hour by 2020.
Trade deals . Bill Clinton ushered in NAFTA, which was touted as positive for growth and
employment, and is now widely acknowledged to have cost nearly a million jobs. Even one of its chief
promoters, former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich, now deems it to have been a failure for American
workers. Hillary consistently backed the Trans-Pacific Partnership until Sanders made an issue of
it, and she's recently returned to supporting it. The potential growth and income gains from this
agreement and its European sister, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, are only marginally
positive, while the loss of national sovereignty would be enormous. These agreements would enable
foreign investors to challenge laws for labor, environmental and consumer protection, for threatening
future profits.
Health care . Sanders wants single-payer, government-provided health care. Around the world,
single payer has uncontestably demonstrated that it delivers better results overall at vastly lower
cost. Obamacare took single payer off the table, instead rearranging the current costly, clumsy system
while guaranteeing profits for health insurers and Big Pharma. Clinton at most has offered patches,
but the pressure from Sanders has compelled her to suggest an early buy-in for Medicare.
That's before we get to the Clintons' loyalty to the Robert Rubin and neoliberal fetish of balanced
budgets, which most economists say are not necessary. The recent European experience with austerity
shows how disastrous that approach is, particularly in the wake of a financial crisis. Hillary's
hawkishness means an even greater commitment to military spending, so voters are assured to get more
guns and less butter were she to become president.
The Sanders supporters I interact with also reject Hillary's trickle-down feminism as a substitute
for economic and social justice. Clinton is correct when she points out that there is a glass-ceiling
issue for women. There are fewer female CEOs, billionaires and senators. Women in the elite don't
have it as good as men. But pray tell, what is having more women, or Hispanics or blacks, in top
roles going to do for nurses and hospital orderlies, or the minority group members disproportionately
represented in low-wage jobs like part-time fast food workers? Class mobility has become close to
nonexistent in America. If you are born in one of the lower-income cohorts, you are almost certain
to stay there.
As a woman who broke through an important glass ceiling on Wall Street-Christina Mohr, the first
woman to become partner in mergers and acquisitions at Lazard-told a shocked group at Radcliffe seeking
better career opportunities for women many years ago: "Nothing will change until women own the means
of production." And that sort of change comes from the bottom up.
Then there are questions of competence. Hillary has a résumé of glittering titles with disasters
or at best thin accomplishments under each. Her vaunted co-presidency with Bill? After her first
major project, health care reform, turned into such a debacle that it was impossible to broach the
topic for a generation, she retreated into a more traditional first lady role. As New York senator,
she accomplished less with a bigger name and from a more powerful state
than Sanders did
. As secretary of state, she participated and encouraged strategically pointless
nation-breaking in Iraq and Syria. She bureaucratically outmaneuvered Obama, leading to U.S. intervention
in Libya, which he has called the worst decision of his administration. And her plan to fob her domestic
economic duties off on Bill comes off as an admission that she can't handle being president on her
own.
Mind you, these issues are all topics in the current debates. But what is as important, but not
as obvious, is the way that most citizens have been stripped of legal and economic protections. As
economist Michael Hudson put it, "Most inequality does not reflect differing levels of productivity,
but distortions resulting from property rights or other special privileges." The Clinton era brought
in weaker anti-trust enforcement, which allowed companies to accumulate more market share and with
it, more ability to extract rents. Binding arbitration, which strips employees and consumers of their
right to a day in court, has become widespread. Pensions, which used to be sacrosanct (and still
are if you are a CEO), are regularly renegotiated. Banks got away with predatory servicing and wrongful
foreclosures. Not only was the 2012 National Mortgage Settlement a "get out of liability almost free"
card so large that it was tantamount to a second bailout, but banks were not required to fix their
faulty servicing platforms, assuring that they'd revert to foreclosure abuses again when delinquencies
rise. And let us not forget that senior bankers are a protected class, exempt from prosecution.
Finally, there is the stench of corruption, dating back to Hillary's impossible-by any legitimate
means-trick of parlaying $1,000 into $100,000 in a series of commodities trades in 1978. The Clintons
and their backers seriously expect the rubes to believe that large financial firms happily forked
over their hefty speaking fees purely out of interest in what they had to say, or that Middle Eastern
and Taiwanese moneybags gave big bucks to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was secretary of state out of their deep belief in the foundation's lofty goals. Why has Hillary refused
to release the transcripts of her Goldman speeches, wiped her server and foot-dragged on releasing
allegedly personal emails?
The Sanders voters in Naked Capitalism 's active commentariat also explicitly reject lesser-evilism,
the cudgel that has previously kept true lefties somewhat in line. They are willing to gamble, given
that outsider presidents like Jimmy Carter and celebrity governors like Arnold Schwarzenegger and
Jesse Ventura didn't get much done, that a Trump presidency represents an acceptable cost of inflicting
punishment on the Democratic Party for 20 years of selling out ordinary Americans.
The Clintons, like the Bourbons before the French Revolution, have ensconced themselves in such
a bubble of operative and media sycophancy that they've mistakenly viewed escalating distress and
legitimate demands from citizens as mere noise. Sanders voters are taking their cue from Talleyrand,
the statesman who navigated the Revolution and the turbulent 50 years that followed with remarkable
success: "I have never abandoned a party before it abandoned itself."
If my readers are representative, Clinton and the Democratic Party are about to have a long-overdue
day of reckoning.
"... The reason Trump and Sanders are doing well in the US while fascists are doing well in Europe is the same reason: neoliberalism has gutted, or is in the process of gutting, societies. Workers and other formerly "safe" white collar workers are seeing their job security, income security, retirement security all go up in smoke. ..."
"... "the road commissioner said last night that their budget allows for resurfacing all the roads on a 200 year basis" while the fedgov spends north of 5 percent of GDP on global military dominance. We're the Soviets now, comrades: shiny weapons, rotting infrastructure. ..."
"... This Trump support seems like a form of political vandalism with Trump as the spray paint. People generally feel frustrated with government, utterly powerless and totally left out as the ranks of the precariat continue to grow. Trump appeals to the nihilistic tendencies of some people who, like frustrated teens, have decided to just smashed things up for the hell of it. ..."
"... They think a presidency mix of Caligula with Earl Scheib would be a funny hoot. You also have the more gullible fundis who have actually deluded themselves into thinking the man who is ultimate symbol of hedonism will deliver them from secularism because he says he will. Authoritarians who seek solutions through strong leaders are usually the easiest to con because they desperately want to believe in their eminent deliverance by a human deus ex machina. ..."
"... The Society of the Spectacle ..."
"... Time to frighten the elites. Trump will have to deliver something to all those supporters if he becomes President, but what that could, or might be, who could possibly say. That will be his problem. If he fails Blake's ' fearful symmetry ' could be very fearful indeed. ..."
"... Someone at American Conservative, when trying to get at why it's pointless to tell people Trump will wreck the place, described him as a "hand grenade" lobbed into the heart of government. You can't scare people with his crass-ness and destructive tendencies, because that's precisely what his voters are counting on when/if he gets into government. ..."
"... yea it's a start but something really needs to be done about either jobs or incomes, it's far more central to people lives. I know sanders has some ideas but it was never given enough emphasis. Or keep wondering why trump still appeals to people – they are misguided of course, but nonetheless, he does promise a lot that he can never deliver that may appeal to people – like bringing back jobs. ..."
"... Obama and Holder, allowing the banks to be above the law have them demi-gods, many of whom are psychopaths and kleptocrats, and with their newly granted status, they are now re-shaping the world in their own image. Prosecute these demi-gods and restore sanity. Don't and their greed for our things will never end until nothings left. ..."
"... This is why hillary is so much more dangerous than trump, because she and the demi gods are all on the same page. The TPP is their holy grail so I expect heaven and earth to be moved, especially if it looks like some trade traitors are going to get knocked off in the election, scoundrels like patty murray (dino, WA) will push to get it through then line up at the feed trough to gorge on k street dough. I plan to vote stein if it's not bernie, but am reserving commitment until I see what kind of betrayals the dems have for me, if it's bad enough I'll go with the trump hand grenade. ..."
"... In the U.S., nearly all of the Republican politicians fit into this category, and a substantial number of Democrats, too. Here's a list of some of the more prominent Democrats: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/democrats-who-voted-for-fast-track Not all of the Senators are up for re-election, of course. You can also find more Democrats in this category by looking for Hillary Clinton supporters among the super delegates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016 ..."
"... If you read "Barbarians at the Gate" what was most striking is that companies that get destroyed are PROFITABLE – but it is MORE profitable for a few to strip mine them. In the religion of economics, God has forgotten them We use certain metrics that says this increases GDP, and therefore it MUST be done – like the character in Harry Potter whose name can never be uttered, we can never, ever speak of the distribution of the vaunted GDP. As I've said many times, inequality is a political choice. I fear our system has been so thoroughly infiltrated by the self absorbed that it is now impossible for any meaningful reform. ..."
"... Re Methland, we live in rural US and we got a not-very-well hidden population of homeless children. I don't mean homeless families with children, I mean homeless children. Sleeping in parks in good weather, couch-surfing with friends, etc. I think related. ..."
The reason Trump and Sanders are doing well in the US while fascists are doing well in Europe
is the same reason: neoliberalism has gutted, or is in the process of gutting, societies. Workers
and other formerly "safe" white collar workers are seeing their job security, income security, retirement
security all go up in smoke.
Neoliberals are trying to snip and cut labor protections, healthcare, environmental regulations
all for corporate profit. In Europe this is all in addition to a massive refugee crisis itself brought
on by neoliberalism (neocon foreign policy is required for neoliberal social policy, they go hand-in-hand).
The US and NATO destabilize countries with the intent of stealing their resources and protecting
their markets, cause massive refugee flows which strain social structures in Europe (which falls
right into the hands of the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism). Of course the people will lean
fascist. /
ChiGal: Agreed. Here in Edgewater, the houses are suddenly going for unheard-of prices. We
locals joke that it has to be drug money: Who else can afford to turn a two-flat into a single-family
palazzo with six bedrooms?
Yet every morning, as I head out for the daily cup of coffee, the main streets (Clark) are
covered in a layer of trash. Infrastructure is decaying–obviously so, as the streets flood after
each rain.
On my forays downtown, I notice trash everywhere. (Much of it the detritus of the upper-middle-class
in the form of restaurant clamshells, Starbucks paper cups, bottles from micro-breweries, and
so on.)
Conversely, a walk along Clark in Rogers Park is an entry into economic devastation, dozens
of empty stores.
And then the sixty shootings over the holiday weekend. A city in decline, but addled by its
own boosterism and by the weird local idea that the corruption is somehow appealing and quaint.
"the road commissioner said last night that their budget allows for resurfacing all the
roads on a 200 year basis" while the fedgov spends north of 5 percent of GDP on global military
dominance. We're the Soviets now, comrades: shiny weapons, rotting infrastructure.
Today in San Diego, the Hildabeest will deliver a vigorous defense of this decadent, dying
system.
This Trump support seems like a form of political vandalism with Trump as the spray paint.
People generally feel frustrated with government, utterly powerless and totally left out as the
ranks of the precariat continue to grow. Trump appeals to the nihilistic tendencies of some people
who, like frustrated teens, have decided to just smashed things up for the hell of it.
They think
a presidency mix of Caligula with Earl Scheib would be a funny hoot. You also have the more gullible
fundis who have actually deluded themselves into thinking the man who is ultimate symbol of hedonism
will deliver them from secularism because he says he will. Authoritarians who seek solutions through
strong leaders are usually the easiest to con because they desperately want to believe in their
eminent deliverance by a human deus ex machina.
Plus he is ostentatiously rich in a comfortably
tacky way and a TV celebrity beats a Harvard law degree. And why not the thinking goes the highly
vaunted elite college Acela crowd has pretty much made a pig's breakfast out of things. So much
for meritocracy. Professor Harold Hill is going to give River City a boys band.
The spectacle's externality with respect to the acting subject is demonstrated by the fact
that the individual's own gestures are no longer his own but rather those of someone else who
represents them to him. The spectator feels at home nowhere, for the spectacle is everywhere.
Guy Debord, The Society of the Spectacle
Time to frighten the elites. Trump will have to deliver something to all those supporters
if he becomes President, but what that could, or might be, who could possibly say. That will
be his problem. If he fails Blake's ' fearful symmetry ' could be very fearful indeed.
Someone at American Conservative, when trying to get at why it's pointless to tell people Trump
will wreck the place, described him as a "hand grenade" lobbed into the heart of government. You
can't scare people with his crass-ness and destructive tendencies, because that's precisely what
his voters are counting on when/if he gets into government.
In other words, the MSM's fear is the clearest sign to these voters that their political
revolution is working. Since TPTB decided peaceful change (i.e. Sanders) was a non-starter, then
they get to reap the whirlwind.
Some of those who have commented here need to explain, in detail, with well-thought-out and
backed-up plans, just how they would change the system that we currently have in place. I believe
it needs to change. I have read quite a few ideas (some of them probably fairly good) on what
to change and how to change it. However, it is very easy to complain about a problem. It is fairly
easy to destroy things in the name of disliking the problem. It is, however, often quite difficult
to fix the problem.
It's funny, but as an outsider it seems to me you already have the beginnings of a solution
(which you may not recognize) in the role that Bernie Sanders is playing in your politics right
at this moment. Getting money out of politics, free public university, single-payer health care
and taking care of the bankers comprise some of Sanders' platform which would go a long way in
changing the system. There will be fireworks, though, when it happens.
JEHR: Well, you must not be too much of an outsider, in that you give the correct diagnosis.
The U S of A should start with some better policies and with less of the celebrity politics that
has gotten us into this swamp.
Also: Progressive taxation. How revolutionary! Make the liberal elites and the rightwing elites
pay taxes. Likewise, penalize companies for maintaining offshort accounts–as in revoking their
corporate status, which can be done.
yea it's a start but something really needs to be done about either jobs or incomes, it's far
more central to people lives. I know sanders has some ideas but it was never given enough emphasis.
Or keep wondering why trump still appeals to people – they are misguided of course, but nonetheless,
he does promise a lot that he can never deliver that may appeal to people – like bringing back
jobs.
The only thing that really needs to be added to this very good list is a concerted effort to
encourage effective family planning. There are far too many people on Earth, and this is very
dangerous.
There are all good ideas. However, population growth undermines almost all of them. Population
growth in America is immigrant based. Reverse immigration influxes and you are at least doing
something to reduce population growth.
How to "reverse immigration influxes"?
Stop accepting refugees. It's outrageous that refugees from for example, Somalia, get small
business loans, housing assistance, food stamps and lifetime SSI benefits while some of our veterans
are living on the street.
No more immigration amnesties of any kind.
Deport all illegal alien criminals.
Practice "immigrant family unification" in the country of origin. Even if you have to pay
them to leave. It's less expensive in the end.
Eliminate tax subsidies to American corn growers who then undercut Mexican farmers' incomes
through NAFTA, driving them into poverty and immigration north. Throw Hillary Clinton out on her
ass and practice political and economic justice to Central America.
I too am a lifetime registered Democrat and I will vote for Trump if Clinton gets the crown.
If the Democrats want my vote, my continuing party registration and my until recently sizeable
donations in local, state and national races, they will nominate Bernie. If not, then I'm an Independent
forevermore. They will just become the Demowhig Party.
1. Campaign Finance Reform: If you can't walk into a voting booth you cannot contribute, or
make all elections financed solely by government funds and make private contributions of any kind
to any politician illegal.
2. Re-institute Glass-Steagall but even more so. Limit the number of states a bank can operate
in. Make the Fed publicly owned, not privately owned by banks.
3. Completely revise corporate law, doing away with the legal person hood of corporations and
limit of liability for corporate officers and shareholders.
4. Single payer health care for everyone. Allow private health plans but do away with health insurance
as a deductible for business. Remove the AMA's hold on licensing of medical schools which restricts
the number of doctors.
5. Do away with the cap on Social Security wages and make all income, wages, capital gains, interest,
and dividends subject to taxation.
6. Impose tariffs to compensate for lower labor costs overseas and revise industry.
7. Cut the Defense budget by 50% and use that money for intensive infrastructure development.
8. Raise the national minimum wage to $15 and hour.
9. Severely curtail the revolving door from government to private industry with a 10 year restriction
on working for an industry you dealt with in any way as a government official.
10. Free public education including college (4 year degree).
Some additional ideas:
1) High tax levels on natural monopolies or treat them as utilities or nationalize them. This
means, for example, Microsoft Windows and Office, Facebook.
2) Require that all platforms for work be non-profit worker co-ops with capped management salaries.
This means, for example, Uber, Lyft, perhaps AirBnB, and the like.
Also, if we cut the defense budget by 50% (which would be an excellent idea), it is important
to provide genuine alternative opportunities for current and would-have-been soldiers and defense
workers. That includes training too. This point could be pivotal for gaining and retaining the
support of the kinds of folks who often don't vote or vote Republicans while progressives wonder
why, the "what ever happened to Kansas" working class vote.
On a more general level, we need to
1) Find a way to reward intellectual work but also turn the information loose for further use.
(Rather than using copyrights/patents to cripple usage of the information or leaving intellectual
work unpaid for and crippling motivation.)
2) Restore integrity to the top 20%.
One thing that would help is to create a strong social consensus that respects those who profit
from genuine creativity but despise those who profit by gaming the system or taking advantage
of others. For example, Apple's creation of the iPod or iPad should be rewarded. Apple's profiting
from super low wages at plants in China (the ones with the nets to catch would-be suicides), should
punished and looked at the way we look at child molesters.
Prosecute the banksters and restore the rule of law and everything else will fall into place
is one great idea. Lawlessness is how neoliberalism is taking over
It's become a free for all to steal from citizens around the world, blessed by central banks
and bought governments.It's become such a game for "them" that they reward with huge bonuses those
that get away with stealing the most. Neoliberalism is no rich crooks ever going to jail. Poor
Madoff, should have been a politician with get a out of jail free card. He didn't play it the
neoliberal way so he was punished.
+1, when I'm accused of hating corporations or presented with TINA I simply point out that
policy got us here and policy can get us out. This, along with all the effort the parties have
put into the concept of the "unitary executive" and you can see why they're petrified of bernie.
Ideas are nice. We all know what they are. But nothing will happen unless people get off their
duffs and take to the streets. I have read that the elites only change their behavior when frightened
by very, very large crowds, preferably carrying pitchforks.
Obama and Holder, allowing the banks to be above the law have them demi-gods, many of whom
are psychopaths and kleptocrats, and with their newly granted status, they are now re-shaping
the world in their own image. Prosecute these demi-gods and restore sanity. Don't and their greed
for our things will never end until nothings left.
This is why hillary is so much more dangerous than trump, because she and the demi gods are
all on the same page. The TPP is their holy grail so I expect heaven and earth to be moved, especially
if it looks like some trade traitors are going to get knocked off in the election, scoundrels
like patty murray (dino, WA) will push to get it through then line up at the feed trough to gorge
on k street dough. I plan to vote stein if it's not bernie, but am reserving commitment until
I see what kind of betrayals the dems have for me, if it's bad enough I'll go with the trump hand
grenade.
Totally agree tegnost, no more democratic neoliberals -- Patty Murray (up for re-election) and
Cantwell are both trade traitors and got fast track passed.
Two things are driving our troubles: over-population and globalization. The plutocrats and
kleptocrats have all the leverage over the rest of us laborers when the population of human beings
has increased seven-fold in the last 70 years, from a little over a billion to seven billions
(and growing) today. They are happy to let us freeze to death behind gas stations in order for
them to compete with other oligarchs in excess consumption.
This deserves a longer and more thoughtful comment, but I don't have the time this morning.
I have to fight commute traffic, because the population of my home state of California has doubled
from 19M in 1970 to an estimated 43M today (if you count the Latin American refugees and H1B's).
Thank you for mentioning the third rail of overpopulation. Too often, this giant category of
problems is ignored, because it makes people uncomfortable. The planet is finite, resources on
the planet are finite, yet the number of people keeps growing. We need to strive for a higher
quality of life, not a higher quantity of people.
Many of them are not elected officials, and not all of the elected officials are up for re-election.
But House members are always up for re-election, unless they retire or lose in a primary.
America has always been a country where a majority of the population has been poor. With the
exception of a fifty five year(1950-2005) year period where access to large quantities of consumer
debt by households was deployed to first to provide a wealth illusion to keep socialism at bay,
followed by a mortgage debt boom to both keep the system afloat and strip the accumulated capital
of the working class, i.e. home equity, the history of the US has been one of poverty for the
masses. Further debt was foisted on the working class in the form of military Keynesianism, generating
massive fiscal deficits which are to be paid for via austerity in a neo-feudal economy.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/28/the-myth-of-the-middle-class-have-most-americans-always-been-poor/
I think that is closer to the truth, U.S. style capitalism produces poverty, always has, always
will, actually capitalism does pretty much. But some small section of the population – the college
educated, and the white union members, did have it better and are angry at what they lost.
"Those mill jobs were well paid and the workers could buy houses, cars, and had pensions. One
of my brothers works for a paper mill that should have been world competitive through his retirement,
but it's been wrecked by a series of private equity owners, starting with Cerberus, and in now
in bankruptcy."
========================
If you read "Barbarians at the Gate" what was most striking is that companies that get destroyed
are PROFITABLE – but it is MORE profitable for a few to strip mine them. In the religion of economics,
God has forgotten them
We use certain metrics that says this increases GDP, and therefore it MUST be done – like the
character in Harry Potter whose name can never be uttered, we can never, ever speak of the distribution
of the vaunted GDP.
As I've said many times, inequality is a political choice. I fear our system has been so thoroughly
infiltrated by the self absorbed that it is now impossible for any meaningful reform.
Above the law demi-god banksters (I call them financial terrorists) are re-creating the world
in their own image. Thank Obama and Holder for placing them above the law.
Why were they well paid though? Just because of a tight labor market or because of unions?
If it's the latter sooner or later even all those Trump supporters are going to have to admit
that only leftist movements like the labor movement actually work.
Americans cannot begin to reasonably demand a living wage, benefits and job security when there
is an unending human ant-line of illegals and legal immigrants willing to under bid them.
Only when there is a parity or shortage of workers can wage demands succeed, along with other
factors.
From 1925 to 1965 this country accepted hardly any immigrants, legal or illegal. We had the
bracero program where Mexican males were brought in to pick crops and were then sent home to collect
paychecks in Mexico. American blacks were hired from the deep south to work defense plants in
the north and west.
Is it any coincidence that the 1965 Great Society program, initiated by Ted Kennedy to primarily
benefit the Irish immigrants, then co-opted by LBJ to include practically everyone, started this
process of Middle Class destruction?
1973 was the peak year of American Society as measured by energy use per capita, expansion
of jobs and unionization and other factors, such as an environment not yet destroyed, nicely measured
by the The Real Progress Indicator.
Solution? Stop importing uneducated people. That's real "immigration reform".
Now explain to me why voters shouldn't favor Trump's radical immigration stands?
Maybe, but OTOH, who is it, exactly, who is recruiting, importing, hiring and training undocumented
workers to downgrade pay scales??
Do some homework, please. If businesses didn't actively go to Central and South America to
recruit, pay to bring here, hire and employ undocumented workers, then the things you discuss
would be great.
When ICE comes a-knocking at some meat processing plant or mega-chicken farm, what happens?
The undocumented workers get shipped back to wherever, but the big business owner doesn't even
get a tap on the wrist. The undocumented worker – hired to work in unregulated unsafe unhealthy
conditions – often goes without their last paycheck.
It's the business owners who manage and support this system of undocumented workers because
it's CHEAP, and they don't get busted for it.
Come back when the USA actually enforces the laws that are on the books today and goes after
big and small business owners who knowingly recruit, import, hire, train and employee undocumented
workers you know, like Donald Trump has all across his career.
This is the mechanism by which the gov't has assisted biz in destroying the worker, competition
for thee, but none for me. For instance I can't go work in canada or mexico, they don't allow
it. Policy made it, policy can change it, go bernie. While I favor immigration, in it's current
form it is primarily conducted on these lines of destroying workers (H1b etc and illegals combined)
Lucky for the mexicans they can see the american dream is bs and can go home. I wonder who the
latinos that have gained citizenship will vote for. Unlikely it'll be trump, but they can be pretty
conservative, and the people they work for are pretty conservative so no guarantee there, hillary
is in san diego at the tony balboa park where her supporters will feel comfortable, not a huge
venue I think they must be hoping for a crowd, and if she can't get one in san diego while giving
a "if we don't rule the world someone else will" speech, she can't get one anywhere. Defense contractors
and military advisors and globalist biotech (who needs free money more than biotech? they are
desperate for hillary) are thick in san diego.
I live part-time in San Diego. It is very conservative. The military, who are constantly screwed
by the GOP, always vote Republican. They make up a big cohort of San Diego county.
Hillary may not get a big crowd at the speech, but that, in itself, doesn't mean that much
to me. There is a segment of San Diego that is somewhat more progressive-ish, but it's a pretty
conservative county with parts of eastern SD county having had active John Birch Society members
until recently or maybe even ongoing.
There's a big push in the Latino community to GOTV, and it's mostly not for Trump. It's possible
this cohort, esp the younger Latino/as, will vote for Sanders in the primary, but if Clinton gets
the nomination, they'll likely vote for her (v. Trump).
I was unlucky enough to be stuck for an hour in a commuter train last Friday after Trump's
rally there. Hate to sound rude, but Trump's fans were everything we've seen. Loud, rude, discourteous
and an incessant litany of rightwing talking points (same old, same old). All pretty ignorant.
Saying how Trump will "make us great again." I don't bother asking how. A lot of ugly comments
about Obama and how Obama has been "so racially divisive and polarizing." Well, No. No, Obama
has not been or done that, but the rightwing noise machine has sure ginned up your hatreds, angers
and fears. It was most unpleasant. The only instructive thing about it was confirming my worst
fears about this group. Sorry to say but pretty loutish and very uninformed. Sigh.
Re Methland, we live in rural US and we got a not-very-well hidden population of homeless children.
I don't mean homeless families with children, I mean homeless children. Sleeping in parks in good
weather, couch-surfing with friends, etc. I think related.
"... "promoting Wahhabism, the radical form of Sunni Islam that inspired the 9/11 hijackers and that now inflames the Islamic State." ..."
"... "Saudi Arabia has frustrated American policy makers for years," ..."
"... In particular, the august US "newspaper of record", which can be taken as a barometer of official Washington thinking, accused Saudi Arabia and the other Persian Gulf monarchies of turning the Balkan country of Kosovo into a failed state. This was because the Saudis have sponsored "extremist clerics" who are "fostering violent jihad", thereby making it a "fertile ground for recruitment to radical ideology". ..."
"... "free riders" ..."
"... As for claims that the Saudis and other Persian Gulf states are sponsoring Islamic extremism, this conveniently obscures US covert policy since the 1970s and 80s in Afghanistan, when American planners like Zbigniew Brzezinski conceived of al Qaeda terrorist proxies to fight against the Soviet Union. ..."
"... The question is: how much can the strategic alliance between the US and its Saudi partner bear – before a straw breaks the camel's back? ..."
For months now, US-Saudi relations have become increasingly strained. The latest American aggravation
is blaming its Arab ally for turning Kosovo into an "extremist breeding ground". In an
article by the New York Times' editorial board last week, entitled 'The World Reaps What
the Saudis Sow' , the leading US publication castigated the Saudi rulers for "promoting
Wahhabism, the radical form of Sunni Islam that inspired the 9/11 hijackers and that now inflames
the Islamic State."
It was an astounding broadside of condemnation, articulated with palpable contempt towards the
Saudi rulers. "Saudi Arabia has frustrated American policy makers for years," the editorial
bitterly lamented.
In particular, the august US "newspaper of record", which can be taken as a barometer of official
Washington thinking, accused Saudi Arabia and the other Persian Gulf monarchies of turning the Balkan
country of Kosovo into a failed state. This was because the Saudis have sponsored "extremist clerics"
who are "fostering violent jihad", thereby making it a "fertile ground for recruitment to radical
ideology".
That Kosovo has become a hotbed of Islamic radicalism and a source of young militants going to
Syria and Iraq to join the ranks of the Islamic State and other terrorist groups is not in dispute.
Nor is it in dispute that the Saudis and other Gulf Arab states have pumped millions of dollars
into the Balkan territory to promote their version of Islamic fundamentalism – Wahhabism – which
is correlated with extremist groups.
... ... ...
US President Barack Obama riled the already-irked Saudi rulers when he referred to them as
"free riders" in a high-profile
interview published in April, suggesting that the oil-rich kingdom was overly reliant on American
military power. In the same interview, Obama also blamed Saudi Arabia for destabilizing Iraq, Syria
and Yemen.
The Saudis reacted furiously to Obama's claims. The White House then tried to back-pedal on the
president's criticisms, but it was noticeable that when Obama flew to Saudi Arabia for a summit with
Persian Gulf leaders later that month, he
received a chilly reception.
Since then, relations have only become even more frigid. The passage of a bill through Congress
which would permit American citizens to sue the Saudi state over alleged terrorism damages from the
9/11 events has provoked the Saudi rulers to warn that they will retaliate by selling off US Treasury
holdings.
Then there are strident calls by US politicians and media pundits for the declassification of
28 pages in a 2002 congressional report into 9/11, which reputedly indicate Saudi state involvement
in financially supporting the alleged hijackers of the civilian airliners that crashed into public
buildings in September 2001.
President Obama has said that he will veto the controversial legislation and publication of classified
information. Nevertheless, the Saudi rulers are incensed by the moves, which they see as treacherous
backstabbing by their American ally. An alliance that stretches back seven decades, stemming from
FDR and the first Saudi king Ibn Saud.
As American writer Paul Craig Roberts has
pointed out,
the latest twists in the 9/11 controversy appear to be efforts by the US "deep state" to
make the Saudis a convenient fall guy.
The same goes for Obama accusing Saudi Arabia for destabilizing Iraq, Syria and Yemen. Yes, sure,
the Saudis are involved in fomenting violence and sectarianism in these countries and elsewhere.
But, again, the bigger culprit is Washington for authoring the overarching agenda of regime change
in the Middle East.
As for claims that the Saudis and other Persian Gulf states are sponsoring Islamic extremism,
this conveniently obscures US covert policy since the 1970s and 80s in Afghanistan, when American
planners like Zbigniew Brzezinski conceived of al Qaeda terrorist proxies to fight against the Soviet
Union.
Blaming the Saudis over the failed state of Kosovo is but the latest in a long list of scapegoating
by Washington. No wonder the Saudis are livid at this American maneuver to dish the dirt. Washington
is setting the Saudi rulers up to take the rap for a myriad of evils that arguably it has much more
responsibility for.
The question is: how much can the strategic alliance between the US and its Saudi partner
bear – before a straw breaks the camel's back?
"... we are now feeding the growth of the "underclass" by lifting ever higher and out of reach the upward mobility ladder, once the banner of opportunity now fallen behind the supposedly sclerotic welfare states of Europe. ..."
"... The reason Trump and Sanders are doing well in the US while fascists are doing well in Europe is the same reason: neoliberalism has gutted, or is in the process of gutting, societies. Workers and other formerly "safe" white collar workers are seeing their job security, income security, retirement security all go up in smoke. Neoliberals are trying to snip and cut labor protections, healthcare, environmental regulations all for corporate profit. In Europe this is all in addition to a massive refugee crisis itself brought on by neoliberalism (neocon foreign policy is required for neoliberal social policy, they go hand-in-hand). The US and NATO destabilize countries with the intent of stealing their resources and protecting their markets, cause massive refugee flows which strain social structures in Europe (which falls right into the hands of the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism). Of course the people will lean fascist. ..."
"... Selected Skeptical Comments ..."
"... All problems caused by the same cause … American predatory behavior. And our great political choice … iron fist without velvet glove. ..."
"... Germany, Belgium, France, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Turkey, Israel, Australia come to mind (if one is allowed to participate in a European song contest, one is supposed to be part of Europe :) They all have more or less fascist governments. ..."
"... Once you realize that the ECB creates something like 60 billion euros a month, and gives nothing to its citizens nor its nation-states, that means the money goes to corporations, which means that the ECB, and by extension the whole EU, is a fascist construct (fascism being defined as a government running on behalf of the corporations). ..."
"... That's a fallacy. Corporatism is a feature of fascism, not the other way around. None of the governments you mention, with the possible exception of Israel and Turkey, can be called fascist in any meaningful sense. ..."
"... Even the anti-immigration parties in the Western European countries you mention – AfD, Front National, Vlaams Belang – only share their nationalism with fascist movements. And they are decidedly anti-corporatist. ..."
"... Another key feature of fascism is territorial expansionism. As far as I am aware, none of the nationalist parties advocate invading other countries or retaking former colonies. Once again, contemporary neoliberalism is far closer to fascism. But you are correct about both Israel and Turkey – our allies. They are much closer to the genuine article. But you won't hear those complaining about the rise of fascism in Europe complaining too much about them. ..."
"... Sheldon Wolin introduced us to inverted totalitarism. While it is no longer the government that decides what must be done, the private 'owners' just buy the government, the judiciary, the press, or whatever is needed to achieve their means. ..."
"... Inverted totalitarianism is the mirror image of fascism, which is why so many are confused. Fascism is just a easier term to use and more understandable by all. There is not a strict adherence to fascism going on, but it's still totalitarian just the same. ..."
"... "…the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism" ..."
"... an authentically popular fascism in the United States would be pious and anti-Black; in Western Europe, secular and antisemitic, or more probably, these days anti-Islamic; in Russia and Eastern Europe, religious, antisemitic, and slavophile. ..."
"... that eternal enemy: the conservative manipulators of privilege who damn as 'dangerous agitators' any man who menaces their fortunes" (maybe 'power and celebrity' should be added to fortunes ..."
"... Globalization helps the rich here way more than the poor there. The elites get more money for nothing (see QE before you respond, if you do, that's where the money for globalization came from) the workers get the husk. ..."
"... Also the elite gets to say "you made your choices" and other moralistic crap. The funny(?) thing is they generally claim to be atheists, which I translate into "I am God, there doesn't need to be any other" ..."
"... Wait, you mean we don't all enjoy living in Pottersville? For anyone missing the reference, you clearly haven't been subjected to It's a Wonderful Life enough times. ..."
"... seanseamour asks "What does that have to do with education?" and answers "Everything if one considers the elitist trend…" This question & answer all but brings tears to my eyes. It is so utterly on point. My own experience of it, if I may say so, comes from inside the belly of the beast. As a child and a product of America's elite universities (I have degrees from Harvard and Yale, and my dad, Richard B. Sewall, was a beloved English prof at Yale for 42 years), I could spend all morning detailing the shameful roles played by America's torchbearing universities – Harvard, Yale, Stanford etc – in utterly abandoning their historic responsibility as educators ..."
"... And as I suspect seanseymour would agree, when a nation loses public education, it loses everything. ..."
"... accountable ..."
"... And I hear a few others saying that Americans are too dumbed down, too busy, too polarized or too just plain stupid to make intelligent, constructive use of a non-partisan, problem-solving Civic Media. But I would not underestimate the intelligence of Americans when they can give their considered input – by vote, by comment or by active participation – in public forums that are as exciting and well managed as an NFL game or a Word Series final. ..."
Posted on
June 2, 2016 by Yves
Smith Yves here. The first comment came in on a post that had gone cold, and I thought it was
so revealing that it needed to be seen widely. The second is a synchronistic complement.
As much as I carry on about the isolation of the Acela-riding classes from the acute distress
in much of the US, I only have a very distant feel for it. For instance, I grew up moving through
many small towns where a paper mill was a major, and in some cases, the biggest local employer. Those
mill jobs were well paid and the workers could buy houses, cars, and had pensions. One of my brothers
works for a paper mill that should have been world competitive through his retirement, but it's been
wrecked by a series of private equity owners, starting with Cerberus, and in now in bankruptcy. The
town in which he lives, Escanaba, Michigan, has lost over 20% of its population since the mid 1980s.
Similarly, my uncle lived below the poverty line in Maine, lobstering until his knees gave out. But
he had a fully paid for house he had inherited, and access to VA hospitals and doctors, so it could
have been a lot worse. But Maine is a poor state, so even visiting there as a tourist in the summers,
it's not hard to see the signs of struggle even in those who are getting by.
The first comment gives a window into the hidden desperation in America that is showing up in
statistics like increasing opioid addiction and suicides, rather than in accounts of how and why
so many people are suffering. I hope readers will add their own observations in comments.
We recently took three months to travel the southern US from coast to coast. As an expat for
the past twenty years, beyond the eye opening experience it left us in a state of shock. From
a homeless man convulsing in the last throes of hypothermia (been there) behind a fuel station
in Houston (the couldn't care less attendant's only preoccupation getting our RV off his premises),
to the general squalor of near-homelessness such as the emergence of "American favelas" a block
away from gated communities or affluent ran areas, to transformation of RV parks into permanent
residencies for the foreclosed who have but their trailer or RV left, to social study one can
engage while queuing at the cash registers of a Walmart before beneficiaries of SNAP.
Stopping to take the time to talk and attempt to understand their predicament and their beliefs
as to the cause of their plight is a dizzying experience in and of itself. For a moment I felt
transposed to the times of the Cold War, when the Iron Curtain dialectics fuzzed the perception
of that other world to the west with a structured set of beliefs designed to blacken that horizon
as well as establish a righteous belief in their own existential paradigm.
What does that have to do with education? Everything if one considers the elitist trend that
is slowly setting the framework of tomorrow's society. For years I have felt there is a silent
"un-avowed conspiracy", why the seeming redundancy, because it is empirically driven as a by-product
of capitalism's surge and like a self-redeeming discount on a store shelf crystalizes a group
identity of think-alike know-little or nothing frustrated citizens easily corralled by a Fox or
Trump piper. We have re-rcreated the conditions or rather the reality of "Poverty In America"
barely half a century after its first diagnostic with one major difference : we are now feeding
the growth of the "underclass" by lifting ever higher and out of reach the upward mobility ladder,
once the banner of opportunity now fallen behind the supposedly sclerotic welfare states of Europe.
So Richard Cohen now fears American voters because of Trump. Well, on Diane Reem today (NPR)
was a discussion on why fascist parties are growing in Europe. Both Cohen and the clowns on NPR
missed the forest for the trees. The reason Trump and Sanders are doing well in the US while fascists
are doing well in Europe is the same reason: neoliberalism has gutted, or is in the process of
gutting, societies. Workers and other formerly "safe" white collar workers are seeing their job
security, income security, retirement security all go up in smoke. Neoliberals are trying to snip
and cut labor protections, healthcare, environmental regulations all for corporate profit. In
Europe this is all in addition to a massive refugee crisis itself brought on by neoliberalism
(neocon foreign policy is required for neoliberal social policy, they go hand-in-hand). The US
and NATO destabilize countries with the intent of stealing their resources and protecting their
markets, cause massive refugee flows which strain social structures in Europe (which falls right
into the hands of the gutters and cutters of neoliberalism). Of course the people will lean fascist.
In the US we don't have the refugees, but the neoliberalism is further along and more damaging.
There's no mystery here or in Europe, just the natural effects of governments failing to represent
real people in favor of useless eater rich.
Make the people into commodities, endanger their washes and job security, impose austerity,
and tale in floods of refugees. Of COURSE Europeans stay leaning fascist.
America has plenty of refugees, from Latin America …
Neo-liberal goes back to the Monroe Doctrine. We used to tame our native workers with immigrants,
and we still do, but we also tame them by globalism in trade. So many rationalizations for this,
based on political and economic propaganda. All problems caused by the same cause … American predatory
behavior. And our great political choice … iron fist without velvet glove.
Germany, Belgium, France, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Turkey, Israel, Australia come to mind
(if one is allowed to participate in a European song contest, one is supposed to be part of Europe
:) They all have more or less fascist governments.
Once you realize that the ECB creates something like 60 billion euros a month, and gives nothing
to its citizens nor its nation-states, that means the money goes to corporations, which means
that the ECB, and by extension the whole EU, is a fascist construct (fascism being defined as
a government running on behalf of the corporations).
That's a fallacy. Corporatism is a feature of fascism, not the other way around. None of the governments you mention, with the possible exception of Israel and Turkey, can
be called fascist in any meaningful sense.
Even the anti-immigration parties in the Western European countries you mention – AfD, Front
National, Vlaams Belang – only share their nationalism with fascist movements. And they are decidedly
anti-corporatist.
True, I posted a few minutes ago saying roughly the same thing – but it seems to have gone
to moderation.
Another key feature of fascism is territorial expansionism. As far as I am aware, none of the
nationalist parties advocate invading other countries or retaking former colonies. Once again,
contemporary neoliberalism is far closer to fascism. But you are correct about both Israel and
Turkey – our allies. They are much closer to the genuine article. But you won't hear those complaining
about the rise of fascism in Europe complaining too much about them.
who owned the means of production (public or private entities)
who decided what those means were used for.
If it is a 'public entity' (aka government or regime) that decides what is built, we have a
totalitarian state, which can be 'communist' (if the means also belong the public entities like
the government or regional fractions of it) or 'fascist' (if the factories are still in private
hands).
If it is the private owner of the production capacity who decides what is built, you get capitalism.
I don't recall any examples of private entities deciding what to do with public means of production
(mafia perhaps).
Sheldon Wolin
introduced
us to inverted totalitarism. While it is no longer the government that decides what must be
done, the private 'owners' just buy the government, the judiciary, the press, or whatever is needed
to achieve their means.
When I cite Germany, it is not so much AfD, but the 2€/hour jobs I am worried about. When I
cite Belgium, it is not the fools of Vlaams Belang, but rather the un-taxing of corporations and
the tear-down of social justice that worries me.
Inverted totalitarianism is the mirror image of fascism, which is why so many are confused.
Fascism is just a easier term to use and more understandable by all. There is not a strict adherence
to fascism going on, but it's still totalitarian just the same.
Hi
I live in Europe as well, and what to think of Germany's AfD, Greece's Golden Dawn, the Wilder's
party in the Netherlands etc. Most of them subscribe to the freeloading, sorry free trading economic
policies of neoliberalism.
Searched 'current fascist movements europe' and got these active groups from wiki.
National Bolshevik Party-Belarus
Parti Communautaire National-Européen Belgium
Bulgarian National Alliance Bulgaria
Nova Hrvatska Desnica Croatia
Ustaše Croatia
National Socialist Movement of Denmark
La Cagoule France
National Democratic Party of Germany
Fascism and Freedom Movement – Italy
Fiamma Tricolore Italy
Forza Nuova Italy
Fronte Sociale Nazionale Italy
Movimento Fascismo e Libertà Italy
Pērkonkrusts Latvia
Norges Nasjonalsosialistiske Bevegelse Norway
National Radical Camp (ONR) Poland
National Revival of Poland (NOP)
Polish National Community-Polish National Party (PWN-PSN)
Noua Dreaptă Romania
Russian National Socialist Party(formerly Russian National Union)
Barkashov's Guards Russia
National Socialist Society Russia
Nacionalni stroj Serbia
Otačastveni pokret Obraz Serbia
Slovenska Pospolitost Slovakia
España 2000 Spain
Falange Española Spain
Nordic Realm Party Sweden
National Alliance Sweden
Swedish Resistance Movement Sweden
National Youth Sweden
Legion Wasa Sweden
SPAS Ukraine
Blood and Honour UK
British National Front UK
Combat 18 UK
League of St. George UK
National Socialist Movement UK
Nationalist Alliance UK
November 9th Society UK
Racial Volunteer Force UK
As one of the commenters noted, it's not an "expose" or sensational "Breaking Bad," but rather
a discouraging portrait of the conditions that prompt and sustain meth use. Apparently it's being
made into a movie. I believe Clint Eastwood is involved, so that should give it some traction.
I moved to a small city/town in Iowa almost 20 years ago. Then, it still had something of a
Norman Rockwell quality to it, particularly in a sense of egalitarianism, and also some small
factory jobs which still paid something beyond a bare existence.
Since 2000, many of those jobs have left, and the population of the county has declined by
about 10%. Kmart, Penney's, and Sears have left as payday/title loan outfits, pawnshops, smoke
shops, and used car dealers have all proliferated.
Parts of the town now resemble a combination of Appalachia and Detroit. Sanders easily won
the caucuses here and, no, his supporters were hardly the latte sippers of someone's imagination,
but blue collar folks of all ages.
My tale is similar to yours. About 2 years ago, I accepted a transfer from Chicagoland to north
central Wisconsin. JC Penney left a year and a half ago, and Sears is leaving in about 3-4 months.
Kmart is long gone.
I was back at the old homestead over Memorial Day, and it's as if time has stood still. Home
prices still going up; people out for dinner like crazy; new & expensive automobiles everywhere.
But driving out of Chicagoland, and back through rural Wisconsin it is unmistakeable.
2 things that are new: The roads here are deteriorating FAST. In Price County, the road commissioner
said last night that their budget allows for resurfacing all the roads on a 200 year basis. (Yes,
that means there is only enough money to resurface all the county roads if spread out over 200
years.) 2nd, there are dead deer everywhere on the side of the road. In years past, they were
promptly cleaned up by the highway department. Not any more. Gross, but somebody has to do the
dead animal clean up. (Or not. Don't tell Snotty Walker though.)
Anyway, not everything is gloom and doom. People seem outwardly happy. But if you're paying
attention, signs of stress and deterioration are certainly out there.
Depends where you are in Chicago – in some parts the potholes, boarded up structures, homeless
and addicted folks begging on every corner tell the same story. It is a tale of two cities.
Fascism is a system of political and social order intended to reinforce the unity, energy and
purity of communities in which liberal democracy stand(s) accused of producing division and decline.
. . . George Orwell reminded us, clad in the mainstream patriotic dress of their own place and
time, . . . an authentically popular fascism in the United States would be pious and anti-Black;
in Western Europe, secular and antisemitic, or more probably, these days anti-Islamic; in Russia
and Eastern Europe, religious, antisemitic, and slavophile.
Robert O. Paxton,
In The Five Stages of Faschism
"… that eternal enemy: the conservative manipulators of privilege who damn as 'dangerous agitators'
any man who menaces their fortunes" (maybe 'power and celebrity' should be added to fortunes)
From the comment, I agree with the problems, not the cause. We've increased the size and scope
of the safety net over the last decade. We've increased government spending versus GDP. I'm not
blaming government but its not neoliberal/capitalist policy either.
1. Globalization clearly helps the poor in other countries at the expense of workers in the
U.S. But at the same time it brings down the cost of goods domestically. So jobs are not great
but Walmart/Amazon can sell cheap needs.
2. Inequality started rising the day after Bretton Woods – the rich got richer everyday after
"Nixon Shock"
Hi rfam : To point 1 : Why is there a need to bring down the cost of goods? Is it because of
past outsourcing and trade agreements and FR policies? I think there's a chicken and egg thing
going on, ie.. which came first. Globalization is a way to bring down wages while supplying Americans
with less and less quality goods supplied at the hand of global corporations like Walmart that
need welfare in the form of food stamps and the ACA for their workers for them to stay viable
(?).
Viable in this case means ridiculously wealthy CEO's and the conglomerate growing bigger
constantly. Now they have to get rid of COOL's because the WTO says it violates trade agreements
so we can't trace where our food comes from in case of an epidemic. It's all downhill. Wages should
have risen with costs so we could afford high quality American goods, but haven't for a long,
long time.
Globalization helps the rich here way more than the poor there. The elites get more money for
nothing (see QE before you respond, if you do, that's where the money for globalization came from)
the workers get the husk.
Also the elite gets to say "you made your choices" and other moralistic
crap. The funny(?) thing is they generally claim to be atheists, which I translate into "I am
God, there doesn't need to be any other"
Amazon sells cheap stuff by cheating on taxes, and barely
makes money, mostly just driving people out of business. WalMart has cheap stuff because they
subsidise their workers with food stamps and medicaid. Bringing up bretton woods means you don't
know much about money creation, so google "randy wray/bananas/naked capitalism" and you'll find
a quick primer.
Wait, you mean we don't all enjoy living in Pottersville? For anyone missing the reference, you clearly haven't been subjected to It's a Wonderful
Life enough times.
What a comment from seanseamour. And the "hoisting" of it to high visibility at the site is
a testament to the worth of Naked Capitalism.
seanseamour asks "What does that have to do with education?" and answers "Everything if one
considers the elitist trend…" This question & answer all but brings tears to my eyes. It is so
utterly on point. My own experience of it, if I may say so, comes from inside the belly of the
beast. As a child and a product of America's elite universities (I have degrees from Harvard and
Yale, and my dad, Richard B. Sewall, was a beloved English prof at Yale for 42 years), I could
spend all morning detailing the shameful roles played by America's torchbearing universities –
Harvard, Yale, Stanford etc – in utterly abandoning their historic responsibility as educators
to maintaining the health of the nation's public school system.*
And as I suspect seanseymour would agree, when a nation loses public education, it loses everything.
But I don't want to spend all morning doing that because I'm convinced that it's not too late
for America to rescue itself from maelstrom in which it finds itself today. (Poe's "Maelstrom"
story, cherished by Marshall McLuhan, is supremely relevant today.)
To turn America around, I don't look to education – that system is too far gone to save itself,
let alone the rest of the country – but rather to the nation's media: to the all-powerful public
communication system that certainly has the interactive technical capabilities to put citizens
and governments in touch with each other on the government decisions that shape the futures of
communities large and small.
For this to happen, however, people like the us – readers of Naked Capitalism – need to stop
moaning and groaning about the damage done by the neoliberals and start building an issue-centered,
citizen-participatory, non-partisan, prime-time Civic Media strong enough to
give all Americans an informed voice in the government decisions that affect their lives. This
Civic media would exist to make citizens and governments responsive and accountable
to each other in shaping futures of all three communities – local, state and national – of
which every one of us is a member.
Pie in the sky? Not when you think hard about it. A huge majority of Americans would welcome
this Civic Media. Many yearn for it. This means that a market exists for it: a Market of the Whole
of all members of any community, local, state and national. This audience is large enough to rival
those generated by media coverage of pro sports teams, and believe it or not much of the growth
of this Civic media could be productively modeled on the growth of media coverage of pro sports
teams. This Civic Media would attract the interest of major advertisers, especially those who
see value in non-partisan programming dedicated to getting America moving forward again. Dynamic,
issue-centered, problem-solving public forums, some modeled on voter-driven reality TV contests
like The Voice or Dancing with the Stars, could be underwritten by a "rainbow" spectrum of funders,
commercial, public, personal and even government sources.
So people take hope! Be positive! Love is all we need, etc. The need for for a saving alternative
to the money-driven personality contests into which our politics has descended this election year
is literally staring us all in the face from our TV, cellphone and computer screens. This is no
time to sit back and complain, it's a time to start working to build a new way of connecting ourselves
so we can reverse America's rapid decline.
OK, so I hear some of you saying, corporate America will never let this Civic Media get off
the ground. My short answer to this is that corporations do what makes money for them, and in
today's despairing political climate there's money to be made in sponsoring something truly positive,
patriotic and constructive. And I hear a few others saying that Americans are too dumbed down,
too busy, too polarized or too just plain stupid to make intelligent, constructive use of a non-partisan,
problem-solving Civic Media. But I would not underestimate the intelligence of Americans when
they can give their considered input – by vote, by comment or by active participation – in public
forums that are as exciting and well managed as an NFL game or a Word Series final.
seanseymour, thanks for your insights and thanks, Yves, for putting them where we can see them.
"... This neoliberal ideology died already in 2008 and is kept alive artificially, it's Frankenstein ideology. ..."
"... Certainly something very wrong with a system that sees a larger and larger share of our national wealth going to fewer and fewer people. ..."
"... We're not quite there yet, but with the dawn of the information age, and the flow of information about how so called perfect "free"!markets are so recklessly constructed, controlled - not to mention generally to the benefit of those already with more than enough - it can't be long before we move on from this ridiculous charade to something altogether more intelligent. ..."
"... the word "mature" was hiding complete irresponsibility of driven sociopaths. The usual confidence trick...: " don't you trust me, me the caring man !" ..."
"... So do you think neoliberalism could adapt away from just focusing on growth, in its almost certain attempts at clinging to power? ..."
"... Neo-liberalism is just another failed attempt but has perhaps been the most successful so far out of the different ideologies. ..."
"... the lack of factual evidence demonstrating the utility of privatization remains one of the most telling aspects of its failure. ..."
"... The economists at the IMF - like most of their colleagues elsewhere in this dismal profession - have an unsullied track record of getting everything wrong. Why would they be right about this? ..."
"... Neo-liberalism is bankrupt and austerity is the economic equivalent of a severely self-destructive bipolar personality disorder ..."
"... Even when the British Empire was at its high point, there were still slums and poverty. Now the world population has gone up hugely India and China are huge consumers and so is the rest of the world. People are living much longer and have to be cared for. At the same time the food sources in the seas and land are being used up and their eco systems destroyed. Not to mention climate change and many other things that would take pages to write about. Yet we expect our standards of living to improve or at least be maintained. The outlook is not favorable, under any system of government. ..."
"... I don't think the obsessions of endless growth and financialism are going to disappear within this century, but they're almost certainly going to have to downsize ambitions and take a more sustainable place alongside the state and ever increasing non-market-non-state sectors. Either that or party up with the proponents of soft totalitarianism. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is just Laissez-faire capitalism renamed. In-between the two we had welfare capitalism, or social democracy as some call it, that arose as a response to the crippling societal problems caused by neoliberalism - mass poverty, disease, economic collapse and war. As soon as some welfare reforms were put in place, using public money to provide stability for people, they were under attack by capitalists who have a pathological need to glean personal profits from anything and everything. So we came full circle, back round to Laissez-faire capitalism. ..."
"... The history of capitalism is one of rapacious greed, intermittently tempered with redistribution policies when the either the elites cannot profit further without some form of redistribution taking place or they fear the pitchforks at the door. Capitalism cannot be fixed, it cannot be tempered, it will always end up back like this, as capitalism is the crisis. History shows us that accepting reform of the system only ever provides a fleeting fix, we need a new economic model entirely, capitalism has to end. It's not just a human issue, but for the sake of all life on Earth, we need an entirely different economic model. ..."
"... The failure of an ideology premised on something that doesn't even exist (free-markets) should be of no surprise. Market ideology was built around a crackpot idea of capital flows, concomitant with rational individual 'self interest', behaving like a self-regulating eco-system. Just remove as much government, regulatory framework and hierarchy as possible, and let eco-Gaia set the natural balance. ..."
"... The people promulgating this quixotic nonsense ranged from fugitives from totalitarian regimes like Hayek (whose motives for imagining a utopian fantasy land were at least understandable); to right-wing politicians who at root believed in anything but individual freedom. Thus, state spending increased under Reagan (except on the wealthier section of society), and the global free-market became a centrally-planned oligarchy. Furthermore, so much capital has become securitized that 'trickle-down' can no longer be taken seriously as a concept. ..."
"... "Mass privatization not only does not deliver on its own terms, but is fundamentally anti-democratic." ..."
"... While even Guardian columnists (the Guardian being a leading Neoliberal voice) talk prematurely about the downfall of Neoliberal ideology the fact is that the EU is so thick with Neoliberals hand picked by Merkel, and Germany/Merkel's unchallenged hegemonic power over the EU it could take decades to change the people at the top and decades more to change the bureaucracy of the EU. ..."
"... The world has a very serious problem on its hands. Vast wealth has been accumulated by the oligarchs they have taken this wealth in the same way the Porsche family has taken billions from VW - every penny of which they get to keep in spite of it having been earned from fraud and racketeering. Huge amounts of oligarch wealth has been extracted by such illegal means. ..."
"... Leave those fortunes in place and the same thing will happen that happened after the "reforms" of the New Deal - the oligarchs pay higher taxes for a brief time until they bribe and blackmail themselves back into control and it all starts again. ..."
"... In the 70s, though, there was much more pluralism in economics. Although neoliberalism was hardly mainstream, it did have respected proponents and prestigious econ. departments were teaching it. Today that is not the case- 'economics' is taught as if the word referred to the neoclassical synthesis (from which neoliberalism is derived) alone, with all other traditions relegated to crank or historical curiosity status. There are very few respected universities where you can get an econ PhD and not produce work within the neoclassical framework (Utah being an honorable exception, as well as SOAS and City in the UK). ..."
"... The old orthodoxy wasn't Keynesian by 1970. Keynesian economics had been progressively abandoned after about 1960. If you look at the Lewis Powell Memo of 1971 you can see the fundamentals of Neoliberalism were all in place and the takeover was beginning. ..."
"... Only those who benefit from neoliberal dogma support it. It tends to screw everybody else over. ..."
"... Neoliberalism seems to involve sacrificing anything and everything society has to give on the altar of "growth", which is what keeps derivatives markets profitable for the 0.0001%. ..."
"... What a dreadful mess my generation has made of the world, the irony being that we are beginning to value more highly the intangible values we have lost than the gadgets we have created. It's beginning to appear that revolution is the only cure. ..."
"... As I recall the 60's was the real start of "consumerism" with the ending of postwar austerity and the popularity of Hire Purchase, expansion of home and car ownership, people renting TV's buying washing machines, fridges and starting to take foreign holidays. ..."
"... The world changed in 2008 just as in 1929 and 1973: an economic orthodoxy ran out of steam. We have yet to decide on an alternative, hence the interregnum, but the first thing to change is, as ever, discourse, because, like J.M.Keynes before them, the IMF, World Bank et al see their mission as saving Capitalism. Neoliberalism can be sacrificed as yet another false God, a discredited version of Capitalism, a virulent strain, a form of fundamentalism. ..."
"... Unfortunately the real world does not conform to this free market libertarian fantasy. When China refused to buy its exports, Britain sent in its gunboats to force them to buy ..."
"... If someone admits that they murdered someone, it doesn't mean that they cease to be a killer or that they can be forgiven and can now be trusted, the likelyhood is that they are simply sociopathic in nature. It was just a moment of reflection, or is it that they are trying to regain trust, if anything one should be on a higher level of alertness, the distraction has been made, now we must wait for their next move. ..."
"... Great, thought provoking article. It raises the notion that neoliberalism has failed because it has only benefited an elite few whilst everyone else is worse off. Maybe that isn't a failure though? Maybe that's what it is meant to do? ..."
"... Of course it was meant to do just that. Neo-liberalism is class warfare..... the rich and privileged won so decisively that I doubt we can emerge from neo-liberalism without violence or at least a period with populist autocratic governance. ..."
"... Thatcher, Reagan - both arch-disciples of Hayek and others of the Austrian & Chicago schools of economic shite, and both massively responsible for it being liberally spread across the world. Would have been nice to see a recognition of their roles in this, along with the second wave of Clinton & Blair, with their "third way" economic take on the same models. ..."
"... And now we have Hilary as a contender for the presidency, as orthodox a neolib bag carrier as they come, and someone who will continue to carry the torch for Bills policies. Failing that, we have the absolute lunacy of Trump to look forwards to, and as a man who so obviously worships at the alter of Mammon, no game changers from him to be expected either. ..."
"... Neoliberal ideology has been an instrument for justifying the growing wealth and power of financiers and global corporations for about 40 years. They are highly unlikely to want to let go their gains, so reports of the impending 'death' of neoliberalism are a bit premature. The fact that this comes from the IMF makes me wonder if it isn't another ploy to divert attention from the ongoing process of wealth consolidation by making us think that a big change in policy is just around the corner. Ostry is an excellent scholar who has written some good papers warning about inequality and I have no doubt that he wants to influence decision-making. But it may be that he is being used as a 'useful idiot' by the powers that be. ..."
"... Neoliberalism has turned out to be similar in many ways to a better connected and more efficient form of feudalism. Great for those with power, greed and wealth and very much at the expense of everyone else. Perhaps newspapers and mass media have replaced swords, so it is an improvement in some ways. ..."
"... It strikes me that rather than "neoliberalism having failed", the most striking movement since the 1960ies is how private capital managed to bend democratic socialism (which means the welfare state in its various incarnations including in the USA) and bend it to its own profit. ..."
"... 'Neo-liberalism' or free market capitalism will die when a better alternative system is seen to be superior. As the article says there was a time when sensible people could believe that this better alternative was Marxian socialism. Sixty odd years later it is impossible to believe that. The remaining examples in the world like North Korea and Venezuela are to be avoided like the plague and previously socialist countries like China and Vietnam have longed eased to be so. ..."
"... So this was the reason for the death of the Ancien Regime in France and the death of the Romanovs? I think people were not going to wait for an alternative to come along. ..."
"... The same was thought/proclaimed about slavery, feudalism, colonialism. But new systems are born as the old ones become obsolete and an impediment to progress. Capitalism will go the same way. ..."
"... Free markets without state interference invariably drift towards feudalistic monopolies. They end up exactly where communism also ends up. A small elite controlling the economic fate of the masses. A "market" where supply and demand no longer play any part, because any small competitor can be bought or liquidated at will by the monopolist. ..."
"... Galbraith had seen this. He said that neoliberalism was like feeding the finest oats to the stallion in the hope it would generate some undigested droppings on which the sparrow could feed. ..."
"... The Achilles heel of neo-liberalism was that it over emphasized the supply side. Costs had to be driven down by emasculating Trade Unions, curbs on workers bargaining power were introduced and salaries plummeted, government services had to be cut with direct consequences on jobs and quality of life and, taxes to the rich were simultaneously cut exacerbating income inequality. ..."
"... Soviet state socialism lied, because it pretended to be a necessary step on the way to common ownership of the means of production: but instead fell into the hands of uncompromising thugs. It failed because the neoliberal capitalist system is a far more efficient way for uncompromising thugs to run things. ..."
"... The state has been militarised to such an extent armed revolution is all but impossible. What really terrifies them is that we will simply ignore them and create our own alternatives. Take Argentina in 2001 as an example. It was the only country in history to default on it's debt due to popular revolt. The revolt in question centered on people forming alternative social and economic services in their own communities around the rallying cry of "Que se vayan todos" or they can all go to hell. There are a few books published under that title about it that are free online. Similarly, have a look at this vid from David Graeber. You can start at 2:56 for a direct answer but it's worth watching the whole thing: https://youtu.be/mU1pQIMv8_A ..."
"... The dominant neoliberal, market fundamentalist order must, like any competent cult, enforce its authority by doubling down each time its worldview is threatened. This is accomplished by identifying and monetizing regions of social life that had hitherto been neglected or underutilized. In the latest sting, the student is reduced to the status of a consumer whose actions and decisions are governed purely by the market algorithm. The reduction must be so complete that the student-consumer identity should appear obvious and unquestionable. ..."
"... The captured organs of government managed to again bail out the big speculators and players, privatizing their gains during the expansion of the bubble and socializing their losses during its bust. In other words, a smooth operation of radiating risk from high-stakes gamblers and scammers to the society at large. However, the ripple effects of the latest crash have not been completely damped out and, if anything, the magnitude of the shock waves keeps increasing after each manifestation of discontent and protest against the neoliberal machine. ..."
"... This neoliberal ideology died already in 2008 and is kept alive artificially, it's Frankenstein ideology. ..."
"... Certainly something very wrong with a system that sees a larger and larger share of our national wealth going to fewer and fewer people. ..."
"... We're not quite there yet, but with the dawn of the information age, and the flow of information about how so called perfect "free"!markets are so recklessly constructed, controlled - not to mention generally to the benefit of those already with more than enough - it can't be long before we move on from this ridiculous charade to something altogether more intelligent. ..."
"... the word "mature" was hiding complete irresponsibility of driven sociopaths. The usual confidence trick...: " don't you trust me, me the caring man !" ..."
"... So do you think neoliberalism could adapt away from just focusing on growth, in its almost certain attempts at clinging to power? ..."
"... Neo-liberalism is just another failed attempt but has perhaps been the most successful so far out of the different ideologies. ..."
"... the lack of factual evidence demonstrating the utility of privatization remains one of the most telling aspects of its failure. ..."
"... The economists at the IMF - like most of their colleagues elsewhere in this dismal profession - have an unsullied track record of getting everything wrong. Why would they be right about this? ..."
"... Neo-liberalism is bankrupt and austerity is the economic equivalent of a severely self-destructive bipolar personality disorder ..."
"... Even when the British Empire was at its high point, there were still slums and poverty. Now the world population has gone up hugely India and China are huge consumers and so is the rest of the world. People are living much longer and have to be cared for. At the same time the food sources in the seas and land are being used up and their eco systems destroyed. Not to mention climate change and many other things that would take pages to write about. Yet we expect our standards of living to improve or at least be maintained. The outlook is not favorable, under any system of government. ..."
"... I don't think the obsessions of endless growth and financialism are going to disappear within this century, but they're almost certainly going to have to downsize ambitions and take a more sustainable place alongside the state and ever increasing non-market-non-state sectors. Either that or party up with the proponents of soft totalitarianism. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is just Laissez-faire capitalism renamed. In-between the two we had welfare capitalism, or social democracy as some call it, that arose as a response to the crippling societal problems caused by neoliberalism - mass poverty, disease, economic collapse and war. As soon as some welfare reforms were put in place, using public money to provide stability for people, they were under attack by capitalists who have a pathological need to glean personal profits from anything and everything. So we came full circle, back round to Laissez-faire capitalism. ..."
"... The history of capitalism is one of rapacious greed, intermittently tempered with redistribution policies when the either the elites cannot profit further without some form of redistribution taking place or they fear the pitchforks at the door. Capitalism cannot be fixed, it cannot be tempered, it will always end up back like this, as capitalism is the crisis. History shows us that accepting reform of the system only ever provides a fleeting fix, we need a new economic model entirely, capitalism has to end. It's not just a human issue, but for the sake of all life on Earth, we need an entirely different economic model. ..."
"... The failure of an ideology premised on something that doesn't even exist (free-markets) should be of no surprise. Market ideology was built around a crackpot idea of capital flows, concomitant with rational individual 'self interest', behaving like a self-regulating eco-system. Just remove as much government, regulatory framework and hierarchy as possible, and let eco-Gaia set the natural balance. ..."
"... The people promulgating this quixotic nonsense ranged from fugitives from totalitarian regimes like Hayek (whose motives for imagining a utopian fantasy land were at least understandable); to right-wing politicians who at root believed in anything but individual freedom. Thus, state spending increased under Reagan (except on the wealthier section of society), and the global free-market became a centrally-planned oligarchy. Furthermore, so much capital has become securitized that 'trickle-down' can no longer be taken seriously as a concept. ..."
"... "Mass privatization not only does not deliver on its own terms, but is fundamentally anti-democratic." ..."
"... While even Guardian columnists (the Guardian being a leading Neoliberal voice) talk prematurely about the downfall of Neoliberal ideology the fact is that the EU is so thick with Neoliberals hand picked by Merkel, and Germany/Merkel's unchallenged hegemonic power over the EU it could take decades to change the people at the top and decades more to change the bureaucracy of the EU. ..."
"... The world has a very serious problem on its hands. Vast wealth has been accumulated by the oligarchs they have taken this wealth in the same way the Porsche family has taken billions from VW - every penny of which they get to keep in spite of it having been earned from fraud and racketeering. Huge amounts of oligarch wealth has been extracted by such illegal means. ..."
"... Leave those fortunes in place and the same thing will happen that happened after the "reforms" of the New Deal - the oligarchs pay higher taxes for a brief time until they bribe and blackmail themselves back into control and it all starts again. ..."
"... In the 70s, though, there was much more pluralism in economics. Although neoliberalism was hardly mainstream, it did have respected proponents and prestigious econ. departments were teaching it. Today that is not the case- 'economics' is taught as if the word referred to the neoclassical synthesis (from which neoliberalism is derived) alone, with all other traditions relegated to crank or historical curiosity status. There are very few respected universities where you can get an econ PhD and not produce work within the neoclassical framework (Utah being an honorable exception, as well as SOAS and City in the UK). ..."
"... The old orthodoxy wasn't Keynesian by 1970. Keynesian economics had been progressively abandoned after about 1960. If you look at the Lewis Powell Memo of 1971 you can see the fundamentals of Neoliberalism were all in place and the takeover was beginning. ..."
"... Only those who benefit from neoliberal dogma support it. It tends to screw everybody else over. ..."
"... Neoliberalism seems to involve sacrificing anything and everything society has to give on the altar of "growth", which is what keeps derivatives markets profitable for the 0.0001%. ..."
"... What a dreadful mess my generation has made of the world, the irony being that we are beginning to value more highly the intangible values we have lost than the gadgets we have created. It's beginning to appear that revolution is the only cure. ..."
"... As I recall the 60's was the real start of "consumerism" with the ending of postwar austerity and the popularity of Hire Purchase, expansion of home and car ownership, people renting TV's buying washing machines, fridges and starting to take foreign holidays. ..."
"... The world changed in 2008 just as in 1929 and 1973: an economic orthodoxy ran out of steam. We have yet to decide on an alternative, hence the interregnum, but the first thing to change is, as ever, discourse, because, like J.M.Keynes before them, the IMF, World Bank et al see their mission as saving Capitalism. Neoliberalism can be sacrificed as yet another false God, a discredited version of Capitalism, a virulent strain, a form of fundamentalism. ..."
"... Unfortunately the real world does not conform to this free market libertarian fantasy. When China refused to buy its exports, Britain sent in its gunboats to force them to buy ..."
"... If someone admits that they murdered someone, it doesn't mean that they cease to be a killer or that they can be forgiven and can now be trusted, the likelyhood is that they are simply sociopathic in nature. It was just a moment of reflection, or is it that they are trying to regain trust, if anything one should be on a higher level of alertness, the distraction has been made, now we must wait for their next move. ..."
"... Great, thought provoking article. It raises the notion that neoliberalism has failed because it has only benefited an elite few whilst everyone else is worse off. Maybe that isn't a failure though? Maybe that's what it is meant to do? ..."
"... Of course it was meant to do just that. Neo-liberalism is class warfare..... the rich and privileged won so decisively that I doubt we can emerge from neo-liberalism without violence or at least a period with populist autocratic governance. ..."
"... Thatcher, Reagan - both arch-disciples of Hayek and others of the Austrian & Chicago schools of economic shite, and both massively responsible for it being liberally spread across the world. Would have been nice to see a recognition of their roles in this, along with the second wave of Clinton & Blair, with their "third way" economic take on the same models. ..."
"... And now we have Hilary as a contender for the presidency, as orthodox a neolib bag carrier as they come, and someone who will continue to carry the torch for Bills policies. Failing that, we have the absolute lunacy of Trump to look forwards to, and as a man who so obviously worships at the alter of Mammon, no game changers from him to be expected either. ..."
"... Neoliberal ideology has been an instrument for justifying the growing wealth and power of financiers and global corporations for about 40 years. They are highly unlikely to want to let go their gains, so reports of the impending 'death' of neoliberalism are a bit premature. The fact that this comes from the IMF makes me wonder if it isn't another ploy to divert attention from the ongoing process of wealth consolidation by making us think that a big change in policy is just around the corner. Ostry is an excellent scholar who has written some good papers warning about inequality and I have no doubt that he wants to influence decision-making. But it may be that he is being used as a 'useful idiot' by the powers that be. ..."
"... Neoliberalism has turned out to be similar in many ways to a better connected and more efficient form of feudalism. Great for those with power, greed and wealth and very much at the expense of everyone else. Perhaps newspapers and mass media have replaced swords, so it is an improvement in some ways. ..."
"... It strikes me that rather than "neoliberalism having failed", the most striking movement since the 1960ies is how private capital managed to bend democratic socialism (which means the welfare state in its various incarnations including in the USA) and bend it to its own profit. ..."
"... 'Neo-liberalism' or free market capitalism will die when a better alternative system is seen to be superior. As the article says there was a time when sensible people could believe that this better alternative was Marxian socialism. Sixty odd years later it is impossible to believe that. The remaining examples in the world like North Korea and Venezuela are to be avoided like the plague and previously socialist countries like China and Vietnam have longed eased to be so. ..."
"... So this was the reason for the death of the Ancien Regime in France and the death of the Romanovs? I think people were not going to wait for an alternative to come along. ..."
"... The same was thought/proclaimed about slavery, feudalism, colonialism. But new systems are born as the old ones become obsolete and an impediment to progress. Capitalism will go the same way. ..."
"... Free markets without state interference invariably drift towards feudalistic monopolies. They end up exactly where communism also ends up. A small elite controlling the economic fate of the masses. A "market" where supply and demand no longer play any part, because any small competitor can be bought or liquidated at will by the monopolist. ..."
"... Galbraith had seen this. He said that neoliberalism was like feeding the finest oats to the stallion in the hope it would generate some undigested droppings on which the sparrow could feed. ..."
"... The Achilles heel of neo-liberalism was that it over emphasized the supply side. Costs had to be driven down by emasculating Trade Unions, curbs on workers bargaining power were introduced and salaries plummeted, government services had to be cut with direct consequences on jobs and quality of life and, taxes to the rich were simultaneously cut exacerbating income inequality. ..."
"... Soviet state socialism lied, because it pretended to be a necessary step on the way to common ownership of the means of production: but instead fell into the hands of uncompromising thugs. It failed because the neoliberal capitalist system is a far more efficient way for uncompromising thugs to run things. ..."
"... The state has been militarised to such an extent armed revolution is all but impossible. What really terrifies them is that we will simply ignore them and create our own alternatives. Take Argentina in 2001 as an example. It was the only country in history to default on it's debt due to popular revolt. The revolt in question centered on people forming alternative social and economic services in their own communities around the rallying cry of "Que se vayan todos" or they can all go to hell. There are a few books published under that title about it that are free online. Similarly, have a look at this vid from David Graeber. You can start at 2:56 for a direct answer but it's worth watching the whole thing: https://youtu.be/mU1pQIMv8_A ..."
"... The dominant neoliberal, market fundamentalist order must, like any competent cult, enforce its authority by doubling down each time its worldview is threatened. This is accomplished by identifying and monetizing regions of social life that had hitherto been neglected or underutilized. In the latest sting, the student is reduced to the status of a consumer whose actions and decisions are governed purely by the market algorithm. The reduction must be so complete that the student-consumer identity should appear obvious and unquestionable. ..."
"... The captured organs of government managed to again bail out the big speculators and players, privatizing their gains during the expansion of the bubble and socializing their losses during its bust. In other words, a smooth operation of radiating risk from high-stakes gamblers and scammers to the society at large. However, the ripple effects of the latest crash have not been completely damped out and, if anything, the magnitude of the shock waves keeps increasing after each manifestation of discontent and protest against the neoliberal machine. ..."
In the IMF's flagship publication, three of its top economists have written an essay titled "
Neoliberalism: Oversold ?".
The very headline delivers a jolt. For so long mainstream economists and policymakers have denied
the very existence of such a thing as neoliberalism, dismissing it as an insult invented by gap-toothed
malcontents who understand neither economics nor capitalism. Now here comes the IMF,
describing
how a "neoliberal agenda" has spread across the globe in the past 30 years. What they mean is
that more and more states have remade their social and political institutions into pale copies of
the market. Two British examples, suggests Will Davies – author of the
Limits of Neoliberalism – would be the NHS and universities "where classrooms are being transformed
into supermarkets". In this way, the public sector is replaced by private companies, and democracy
is supplanted by mere competition.
The results, the IMF researchers concede, have been terrible. Neoliberalism hasn't delivered economic
growth – it has only made a few people a lot better off. It causes epic crashes that leave behind
human wreckage and cost billions to clean up, a finding with which most residents of food bank Britain
would agree. And while George Osborne might justify austerity as "fixing the roof while the sun is
shining", the fund team defines it as "curbing the size of the state … another aspect of the neoliberal
agenda". And,
they say , its costs "could be large – much larger than the benefit".
Two things need to be borne in mind here. First, this study comes from the IMF's research division
– not from those staffers who fly into bankrupt countries, haggle over loan terms with cash-strapped
governments and administer the fiscal waterboarding. Since 2008, a big gap has opened up between
what the IMF thinks and what it does. Second, while the researchers go much further than fund watchers
might have believed, they leave in some all-important get-out clauses. The authors even defend privatisation
as leading to "more efficient provision of services" and less government spending – to which the
only response must be to offer them a train ride across to
Hinkley Point C .
Even so, this is a remarkable breach of the neoliberal consensus by the IMF. Inequality and the
uselessness of much modern finance: such topics have become regular chew toys for economists and
politicians, who prefer to treat them as aberrations from the norm. At last a major institution is
going after not only the symptoms but the cause – and it is naming that cause as political. No wonder
the study's lead author says that this research wouldn't even have been published by the fund five
years ago.
From the 1980s the policymaking elite has waved away the notion that they were acting ideologically
– merely doing "what works". But you can only get away with that claim if what you're doing is
actually working. Since the crash, central bankers, politicians and TV correspondents have
tried to reassure the public that this wheeze or those billions would do the trick and put the economy
right again. They have riffled through every page in the textbook and beyond – bank bailouts, spending
cuts, wage freezes, pumping billions into financial markets – and still growth remains anaemic.
And the longer the slump goes on, the more the public tumbles to the fact that not only has growth
been feebler, but ordinary workers have enjoyed much less of its benefits. Last year the rich countries'
thinktank, the OECD, made a
remarkable concession . It acknowledged that the share of UK economic growth enjoyed by workers
is now at its lowest since the second world war. Even more remarkably, it said the same or worse
applied to workers across the capitalist west.
Red Plenty ends with Nikita Khrushchev pacing outside his dacha, to where he has been forcibly
retired. "Paradise," he exclaims, "is a place where people want to end up, not a place they run from.
What kind of socialism is that? What kind of shit is that, when you have to keep people in chains?
What kind of social order? What kind of paradise?"
Economists don't talk like novelists, more's the pity, but what you're witnessing amid all the
graphs and technical language is the start of the long death of an ideology.
The introduction of A.I and robotic technology will probably kill off capitalism for good, particularly
if the threat of job losses is realised. those with disposable income will just save, unwilling
to commit to purchases for fear that they too will be soon losing their jobs.
Those who have lost their jobs won't buy anything other the most basic necessities.
The failure to comprehend the most basic requirements of capitalism; that people require jobs
and a disposable income to actually buy things will be the final downfall, and the robots
will sit rusting and covered in dust.
When the capitalist ideologists whooped with joy and declared that socialism was dead back in
1990, I whispered to myself that, well, sure, everything passes, and neo-liberal capitalism would
be next then. I reckoned about 25 years would do it, more or less. We're not quite there yet,
but with the dawn of the information age, and the flow of information about how so called perfect
"free"!markets are so recklessly constructed, controlled - not to mention generally to the benefit
of those already with more than enough - it can't be long before we move on from this ridiculous
charade to something altogether more intelligent.
For those of us that have been highlighting the shortfalls of the Neo-Liberal agenda this does
not come as a surprise, but the question others should ask themselves is, when the impact of what
they were doing was so evident why do they still persist?
The answer is self evident, the people who benefit are not the ones suffering from their policies.
Money and power has migrated upwards just as happened in Dickens time, and the real story behind
the agenda is control of the masses using poverty and ignorance so that the few can continue to
accumulate more and more at our expense.
To say that the great unwashed should wake up and smell the coffee has been said before, but
will always be the case,whilst people earning low wages and jobs are in short supply.
The Bankers make profits from lending, people with savings do not borrow and the banks pay
out interest on their accounts, the banks only like people to be poor as they are forced to borrow
and pay interest, making them profit.
Those same banks though print money out of thin air, every time they make a loan, isn't it
time people woke up and realised that we can use that money more efficiently by creating jobs
and infrastructure spending, rather than trapping people into eternal debt.
This is the 21st century not the 1800s, why do people not see what is going on around them
and why are they trapped like rabbits in the headlights, when the solutions rest in their hands?
Jeremy Corbyn is light years ahead of public opinion, isn't it time to start asking what the
meaning of Peoples QE is?
Lets start asking him instead of believing lying Neo-Liberals that have crashed the world economy.
A good article-If further insight is needed into Neo Liberalism, I would suggest watching, The
Mayfair Set as well The Power of Nightmares.
Two excellent Adam Curtis Films which go toward explaining how and why we arrived at where we
are today.
So do you think neoliberalism could adapt away from just focusing on growth, in its almost
certain attempts at clinging to power? And would they tell us about it? Openly? (*collapses
in first giggles of the day*)
Outside of the political elites and the cosy little Guardian CIF club, most people can't spell
neoliberalism, let alone know what it means. The average person, neither know or cares about growth
etc.
What matters is whether they have a job, taxes, how pay rises compare to inflation and are
the schools, health services and council services functioning? And in that respect, by and large
they are ok, albeit sometimes held together with sticking plaster.
They are more likely to be concerned about immigration than neoliberalism, but that is a taboo
subject in political circles.
You have a point but years with no pay rises and the decomposition of public services does penetrate.
The political sands are moving about but where they will come to rest is anyone's guess.
Because those elites constantly tell the that immigrants are the cause of all their woes whilst
removing any semblance of a safety net from them. People aren't stupid they just don't have the
time or energy to go digging for more complicated answers.
Say what? The ultra-ultra rich have realized that when there are only poor people left, they won't
be able to squeeze any more money out of them? And look at Christina's outfit in that picture
- the cost would support a family of five for a year in the US. I think they're just trying to
figure out how to create more money without losing any for themselves. Business as usual.
I stopped reading when I got to "The results, the IMF researchers concede, have been terrible.
Neoliberalism hasn't delivered economic growth – it has only made a few people a lot better off."
They have riffled through every page in the textbook and beyond – bank bailouts, spending
cuts, wage freezes, pumping billions into financial markets – and still growth remains anaemic.
I have always been skeptical of the idea that we need perpetual growth and have wondered whether
it is desirable or achievable ?
In reality I think most people will be relatively happy if they have the basics of a roof over
their head , enough food to eat a job which is not too time consuming ,monotonous or backbreaking
and some time for themselves to enjoy their own entertainments outside of work.
Why we need to have perpetual growth to achieve this state of affairs and why we need to continually
keep on producing and consuming more and more has always been a bit of a mystery to me ?
Surely things could be organised better and more sustainably and resources shared out more
equably to give a more contented and harmonious society . Of course many people have thought the
same but neither communism or capitalism has really managed to get it right yet. Neo-liberalism
is just another failed attempt but has perhaps been the most successful so far out of the different
ideologies.
I have always been sceptical of the idea that we need perpetual growth and have wondered
whether it is desirable or achievable ?
Desirable depends on what you want to achieve. If you want to be better off there's 2 options
1/ Grab a bigger slice of the same sized pie - this can get you a lot better off quickly but somebody
else loses out
2/ Have the same sized slice of a bigger pie - this will get you gradually better off year by
year but nobody else loses out.
Doing 1/ is what rich people are good at, that's how they get richer. Doing 2/ is how lower/middle
income people get better off.
So yes you would need growth to support middle income people, they usually can't do 1/.
The sooner we can break the neoliberal consensus, the better. I do find it incredible, but also
reassuring, to see the IMF using this language though, even as they defend privatization without
any kind of factual evidence to back it up. Indeed, the lack of factual evidence demonstrating
the utility of privatization remains one of the most telling aspects of its failure.
Perhaps a slightly older set of ideas regarding the role of the state and of capitalism should
be considered? A few years ago there was a rather interesting government report on the topic:
The economists at the IMF - like most of their colleagues elsewhere in this dismal profession
- have an unsullied track record of getting everything wrong. Why would they be right about this?
Neo-liberalism is bankrupt and austerity is the economic equivalent of a severely self-destructive
bipolar personality disorder..... yes, we know that; that's hardly news, but the idiots worshiping
neoliberalism wont go voluntarily nor will they be booted out anytime soon. They will hang on
even after the next major crash; trying one last desperate round of bailing out the financial
gamblers.
People with access to the media, like Chakrabortty here, must start advocating specific alternatives.
We don't see much of that in the Graun....... mostly it's just complaints the traditional approach
doesn't work.
Spot-on! Gives them too much power, as defined in dollars and sterling...while, at the other end,
the consumoron is both constructed and blinded at the same time, by this very power...
Even when the British Empire was at its high point, there were still slums and poverty. Now
the world population has gone up hugely India and China are huge consumers and so is the rest
of the world. People are living much longer and have to be cared for. At the same time the food
sources in the seas and land are being used up and their eco systems destroyed. Not to mention
climate change and many other things that would take pages to write about. Yet we expect our standards
of living to improve or at least be maintained. The outlook is not favorable, under any system
of government.
The sooner we can break the neoliberal consensus, the better. I do find it incredible, but also
reassuring, to see the IMF using this language though, even as they defend privatization without
any kind of factual evidence to back it up. Indeed, the lack of factual evidence demonstrating
the utility of privatization remains one of the most telling aspects of its failure.
in theory the premise behind neoliberalism is a good idea i.e. to create competition and avoid
monopolies, but in practice and as Marx predicted corporations either sink or buyout the competition
and you're left with monopolies.
Neoliberalism is dead, its policy of greed and short-termism has ensured that.
And the trouble with competition in many sectors is that you spend a lot of time and money working
to increase market share and less on actually serving customers/ clients.
I think this is the key point; 'From the 1980s the policymaking elite has waved away the notion
that they were acting ideologically – merely doing "what works". But you can only get away with
that claim if what you're doing is actually working.' Given current predictions, it's hard to
imagine how our neoliberal form of capitalism will manage to adapt without resorting to directly
attacking democracy itself, and doing some hardcore Pinocheting.
I don't think the obsessions of endless growth and financialism are going to disappear
within this century, but they're almost certainly going to have to downsize ambitions and take
a more sustainable place alongside the state and ever increasing non-market-non-state sectors.
Either that or party up with the proponents of soft totalitarianism.
Neoliberalism is just Laissez-faire capitalism renamed. In-between the two we had welfare
capitalism, or social democracy as some call it, that arose as a response to the crippling societal
problems caused by neoliberalism - mass poverty, disease, economic collapse and war. As soon as
some welfare reforms were put in place, using public money to provide stability for people, they
were under attack by capitalists who have a pathological need to glean personal profits from anything
and everything. So we came full circle, back round to Laissez-faire capitalism.
The history of capitalism is one of rapacious greed, intermittently tempered with redistribution
policies when the either the elites cannot profit further without some form of redistribution
taking place or they fear the pitchforks at the door. Capitalism cannot be fixed, it cannot be
tempered, it will always end up back like this, as capitalism is the crisis. History shows us
that accepting reform of the system only ever provides a fleeting fix, we need a new economic
model entirely, capitalism has to end. It's not just a human issue, but for the sake of all life
on Earth, we need an entirely different economic model.
I am puzzled. Just about everyone agrees that there is too much debt around and another financial
crash is inevitable.
But many talk about debt as though it is some form of negative money, of course it is not,
it is just a contractual commitment. Who ultimately are the beneficiaries of all this debt ?
Sounds like a Debt Jubilee all round would be a good idea. Why has it not happened? Without
knowing who would lose out you can't tell.
Because it would utterly destroy financial institutions and investors who have purchased large
swathes of private and national debt. They'd be short cash big time! Of course you and I would
say to hell with them, but these are the guys (and let's face it, they're mostly guys) who hang
out in the gentleman's clubs or tennis clubs or golf clubs or country clubs and who donate political
parties. The old boy network type of thing. They will never allow that to happen, never.
I'm so glad to see articles like this being published. I've been tracking the decline in our American
system for several years with some real alarm. Our current gaggle of morons running for President
is a great example of how our neoliberals have failed to notice their policies are destroying
the base of the economy. They may end up with most of the wealth, but it won't do them any good
if the dollar takes a plunge and/or the oceans swamp cities like New York and Washington D.C.
It's insane that it will take a global sized calamity before the people decide to remove those
in power from power while we still can. Sadly, we are in fact headed for just such a perfect storm
of global calamities.
The failure of an ideology premised on something that doesn't even exist (free-markets)
should be of no surprise. Market ideology was built around a crackpot idea of capital flows, concomitant
with rational individual 'self interest', behaving like a self-regulating eco-system. Just remove
as much government, regulatory framework and hierarchy as possible, and let eco-Gaia set the natural
balance.
The people promulgating this quixotic nonsense ranged from fugitives from totalitarian
regimes like Hayek (whose motives for imagining a utopian fantasy land were at least understandable);
to right-wing politicians who at root believed in anything but individual freedom. Thus, state
spending increased under Reagan (except on the wealthier section of society), and the global free-market
became a centrally-planned oligarchy. Furthermore, so much capital has become securitized that
'trickle-down' can no longer be taken seriously as a concept.
Because, as a moderately intelligent child could tell you, a world without power structures
is impossible. Which is why the supremacy of democratically accountable governments (rather than
antidemocratic multi-national corporations) is imperative. Mass privatization not only does not
deliver on its own terms, but is fundamentally anti-democratic. No one supporting the neoliberal
project, which has eventuated in corporate feudalism, can legitimately call themselves a libertarian.
I haven't seen the evidence that Neoliberals are akin to libertarianism. Although they may have
tried to use it politically to get votes in silicon valley. Frankly, I find it hard to believe
that the extreme concentration wealth at the top was the goal all along and the Neoliberals have
been very successful at it.
While even Guardian columnists (the Guardian being a leading Neoliberal voice) talk prematurely
about the downfall of Neoliberal ideology the fact is that the EU is so thick with Neoliberals
hand picked by Merkel, and Germany/Merkel's unchallenged hegemonic power over the EU it could
take decades to change the people at the top and decades more to change the bureaucracy of the
EU.
The world has a very serious problem on its hands. Vast wealth has been accumulated by
the oligarchs they have taken this wealth in the same way the Porsche family has taken billions
from VW - every penny of which they get to keep in spite of it having been earned from fraud and
racketeering. Huge amounts of oligarch wealth has been extracted by such illegal means.
Leave those fortunes in place and the same thing will happen that happened after the "reforms"
of the New Deal - the oligarchs pay higher taxes for a brief time until they bribe and blackmail
themselves back into control and it all starts again.
There is simply no way to reform economies and allow the rich to remain rich.
I would like to think that we are experiencing a repeat/mirror of what happened to economic ideas
in the 70s. Then it took the whole decade of crisis and stagnation for the old orthodoxy of Keynesianism
to be abandoned in favour of neoliberalism.
In the 70s, though, there was much more pluralism in economics. Although neoliberalism
was hardly mainstream, it did have respected proponents and prestigious econ. departments were
teaching it. Today that is not the case- 'economics' is taught as if the word referred to the
neoclassical synthesis (from which neoliberalism is derived) alone, with all other traditions
relegated to crank or historical curiosity status. There are very few respected universities where
you can get an econ PhD and not produce work within the neoclassical framework (Utah being an
honorable exception, as well as SOAS and City in the UK).
So, a paper like this one from the IMF's research department is hailed as a significant moment,
but its critique of neoliberalism is mild and limited, necessarily so because it works with the
same basic assumptions as neoliberalism itself.
There are interesting figures with some influence around (e.g Ha Joon Chang, Justin Lin). In
general, though, the unwillingness of the economics discipline to even acknowledge the existence
of plausible alternatives to their own favoured models has produced widespread intellectual poverty
and rigidity. Proposals for true alternatives will tend to fall on deaf ears, though few now have
the tools and imagination to produce them in any case.
The old orthodoxy wasn't Keynesian by 1970. Keynesian economics had been progressively abandoned
after about 1960. If you look at the
Lewis
Powell Memo of 1971 you can see the fundamentals of Neoliberalism were all in place and the
takeover was beginning.
But I totally agree on the potential impact of the IMF paper. A generation of economists, politicians
and (crucially) journalists have been taught that economics is neo-classical economic and
that there is no alternative. So there is not yet anything like a successful critique of the Big
Lie.
Neoliberalism seems to involve sacrificing anything and everything society has to give on
the altar of "growth", which is what keeps derivatives markets profitable for the 0.0001%.
That philosophy includes actively encouraging uncontrolled immigration. Blair, Brown, Cameron
and Clegg would all be happy to see a 10% rise in population if it gives a 2% increase in GDP.
They don't care that the real-world effect of that is to make the average Brit poorer. As long
as the markets stay profitable for their chums.
Yes the focus on GDP as a marker of 'success' is deeply problematic. Especially as the average
voter believes that increasing GPD equals better living conditions for householders generally.
The reality of course, is very different.
The next thing is what interests me. One of the effects of neoliberalism has been to create a
stressed out competitive society where most people feel insecure and have a tendency to drink
too much or otherwise distract themselves from the presented reality. This combination of powerlessness
and pressure to perform is, I believe, what lies behind the rise of far right politics. At its
heart far right politics is more a desire to escape individualism by defining an idea of "us"
than it is about being nasty to "them". It is a desire to reclaim political, social and personal
power from a system that offers no hope beyond the prospect of the next i phone.
For many people who are too smart and well educated to become followers of the far right, it
is a matter of picking far right attitudes and putting them through a nice person's moderate filter.
The result is the Labour supporter who has "concerns" about Islam, accepts the UK is "full" and
thinks cuts are needed to discourage scroungers. Just as with the far right, their response to
living in failing neoliberalism is to see hope in rejecting "others".
We all know, from the experience 30's and 40's Europe how easy the rich find it to adjust to
far right politics. So while the far right are, for the moment, the leading contenders to inherit
the political space dominated by neoliberalism, the left must face off the rich, the far right
and sanitized far right thought in order to offer an alternative.
Leftist ideas and ideals are so broad in their scope that left unity is extremely difficult
to achieve and rarely converges into a set of coherent ideas, methods and objectives. It doesn't
matter that the left has the stronger intellectual and moral positions on most issues. Its inability
to apply the same intellect and morality to difficult issues like migration and come to a populist
conclusion obstructs its ability to access mass support. Its inability to address the conflicting
demands of wealth creation, social justice and the environment are not in reality weaknesses,
but are frequently perceived as such by those who focus only on wealth creation.
Just as the end of Soviet communism brought a difficult time for the people of the former Soviet
empire, we have little to look forward to in the fall of neoliberalism. It invites international
conflict and the worst form of politics and threatens to consign to the margins those who would
try to build a world economy that reconciles our shared needs with those of a finite planet.
In other words, Marx's 19th Century critique of capitalism is pretty much spot on. We really do
need some urgent answers but I fear we will not get them while party allegiance is prized over
free thinking. I thank my lucky stars I am middle aged and have at least experienced (in the 60's
and 70's) a world not so in thrall to consumerism and shallow self-interest. What a dreadful
mess my generation has made of the world, the irony being that we are beginning to value more
highly the intangible values we have lost than the gadgets we have created. It's beginning to
appear that revolution is the only cure.
As I recall the 60's was the real start of "consumerism" with the ending of postwar austerity
and the popularity of Hire Purchase, expansion of home and car ownership, people renting TV's
buying washing machines, fridges and starting to take foreign holidays.
Indeed, some of us have been making this argument since 2008 only to be pooh-poohed by columnists
and savants btl.
The world changed in 2008 just as in 1929 and 1973: an economic orthodoxy ran out of steam.
We have yet to decide on an alternative, hence the interregnum, but the first thing to change
is, as ever, discourse, because, like J.M.Keynes before them, the IMF, World Bank et al see their
mission as saving Capitalism. Neoliberalism can be sacrificed as yet another false God, a discredited
version of Capitalism, a virulent strain, a form of fundamentalism.
Capitalism is a consensual transaction. Someone makes something, you are free to buy it or not.
The worst scenario is you decide to purchase from someone else and one or other goes out of business.
Or, horror of horrors, make it yourself. No one is being forced to either buy or sell. Neo-liberals
are the extreme fringe of capitalism. Not representative of anything or anyone but themselves.
I can't think of a single truly socialist sate (if such a thing could ever exist) that ever
overproduced anything except grinding poverty and privation. Then attempt to sell the empty shelves
to the people as the healthy option, usually just before being run out of town. Socialism, is
however good in parts.
Capitalism is a consensual transaction. Someone makes something, you are free to buy
it or not.
Unfortunately the real world does not conform to this free market libertarian fantasy.
When China refused to buy its exports, Britain sent in its gunboats to force them to buy
The failure of neo liberal economics has been evident for some time. In the UK there are clear
market failures in education, transport, housing, energy and health. Yet the die hard neo liberal
ideologues continue to prescribe market mechanisms as the only way forward. It is disappointing,
however, that the voices putting forward an alternative are so quiet.
Those alternative voices are so quiet because the likes of The Guardian silence them or resort
to ridicule. Look at the treatment Corbyn has received at the hands of this 'newspaper'. He is
attempting to put forward alternatives that are really far from radical if you have lived in pre-neoliberal
times, and has been utterly condemned.
This just makes you aware of how poorly read and politically illiterate hacks are.
Everything goes in dogmatic cycles. After the war nationalisation , public ownership and controlled
economies (via wages prices and incomes policies) ruled the roost. All political parties adhered
to this "general consensus". But like all dogma's it ended up falling apart due to the paradoxes
and plain unworkability of it all. Then we've had "privatisation is best" dogma since 1979 ; private
is best, self regulation is best and so on and so on, and all political parties have adhered to
this dogma (Blair the most fanatical) and like all previous dogmas it is falling apart.
Private health etc was only 'better' when it had an excellent public health as the bench mark,
forcing them to improve to justify making people pay. Now there is no or poor public services,
private can-and does- offer any old shite at any price it cares to dream up. This would suggest
that Harold McMillan got it spot on in the 50's with his "Mixed economy-public and private-is
best"
All that is happening-and that politically illiterate hacks fail to spot-is that the latest
dogma has simply run its course. They fail to be saying that a return to -or even creation of-another
dogma will lead to another crash when it implodes in 40 years time. Bering "left wing" or "Eight
wing" they fail to be able to argue for what really serves us best. McMillans old mixed economy
(something he probably didn't fully realise himself at the time)
All we get though is the left or rights blinkered and harmful dogmatic drivels, bound to fail
So true. A little light reading of political theory and less obsession with party politics by
those in the media who seek to influence would serve the populace well. The problem is, it requires
a little application - so much easier to comment on Corbyn's dress sense or Boris Johnson's hair.
The final stages of capitalism, Marx wrote, would be marked by developments that are intimately
familiar to most of us. Unable to expand and generate profits at past levels, the capitalist system
would begin to consume the structures that sustained it. It would prey upon, in the name of austerity,
the working class and the poor, driving them ever deeper into debt and poverty and diminishing
the capacity of the state to serve the needs of ordinary citizens. It would, as it has, increasingly
relocate jobs, including both manufacturing and professional positions, to countries with cheap
pools of laborers. Industries would mechanize their workplaces. This would trigger an economic
assault on not only the working class but the middle class-the bulwark of a capitalist system-that
would be disguised by the imposition of massive personal debt as incomes declined or remained
stagnant. Politics would in the late stages of capitalism become subordinate to economics, leading
to political parties hollowed out of any real political content and abjectly subservient to the
dictates and money of global capitalism.
European Central Bank concur austerity is going to destroy the eurozone and EU economy, the greedy
bastards are only concerned now that it hurts them. Wikileaks transcripts of IMF/Germany discussion
imply that the IMF intended for Greece to collapse.
If someone admits that they murdered someone, it doesn't mean that they cease to be a killer
or that they can be forgiven and can now be trusted, the likelyhood is that they are simply sociopathic
in nature. It was just a moment of reflection, or is it that they are trying to regain trust,
if anything one should be on a higher level of alertness, the distraction has been made, now we
must wait for their next move.
Great, thought provoking article. It raises the notion that neoliberalism has failed because
it has only benefited an elite few whilst everyone else is worse off. Maybe that isn't a failure
though? Maybe that's what it is meant to do? It certainly feels like there's little impetus
or inclination from the those who've done very well out of neoliberalism to pull the plug on it
out of the 'goodness' of their hearts.
I believe the failure is that of a system which is supposedly supportive of society, allowing
flow of goods and services while protecting rights of individuals. The actual in-place system
is not the one the politicos advertise, a typical bait ans switch. Yes, the current system does
what it is designed to do: funnel money from the middle class to the ruling minority. It is not
designed to be sustainable, merely last long enough for one man to end up with 100% of the wealth.
That's the end game of this game. The problem is that governing is not a game and the events on
the horizon require a government of people, by people and for the people because corporations
do not support human life, they merely move money around.
Maybe that isn't a failure though? Maybe that's what it is meant to do?
Of course it was meant to do just that. Neo-liberalism is class warfare..... the rich and
privileged won so decisively that I doubt we can emerge from neo-liberalism without violence or
at least a period with populist autocratic governance.
Neoliberals can't see [Bretton] wood for the trees. Capitalist v Marxist? Boring. So ...pass the
dripping Martha for me stale bread. Can't last you know.
If you look at low growth worldwide. It really is a western disease, aside from failed states.
Could it not be that a majority of people in the West live a reasonably comfortable life and are
simply incapable of driving growth over 3% annually. How much shit do you need? You have a roof
over your head, maybe a car, a job that pays the bills and the basics, the odd holiday, decent
food to eat, reasonable health care provided. What else do you need? I don't think you can base
an economy on "wants" long term an expect anything other than low growth. I've meet a lot of people
in my life that are capable of driving themselves harder or smarter and earn substantially more
money, but they're comfortable or lazy and see no "need".
The essential failure of neoliberal theory lies in the notion that a free market is the second
form democracy: any domain in which people are free to make their own choices. It fails because
it assumes that, unlike the ballot in which all citizens take an equal share, that the market
exists in a context where everybody is equally rich. In that case and that case only, free markets
are a second form of democracy.
Neoliberalism is consequently a form of democracy in which people have a variable form of representation,
such that my vote could be worth 100th of yours or 100 times that of everybody else.
Neoliberalism would work if there was a mechanism to ensure wealth was more evenly distributed.
I think the ballot is generally a more viable proposition.
Wealth doens't only belong to individuals but to states,regions,cities,companies. That makes it
even more difficult to distribute it more evenly. In rich countries many basic needs are fulfilled
by those entities and not only by individuals,as unitedbynature notices. The drive to earn more
may only exist if those entities don't get too important.
In fact,neo-liberalism works pretty well. And a lot of opposition to it is ideological more than
practical.
The mantra of those attempting to prop up neoliberalism is that nothing can ever change and if
we ever attempt to change things then we are heading for disaster. A bit like the EU debate. A
storm whipped up to keep us in line. But there is always another way, another option, and if this
is not offered to the people then they will look for other options themselves that could lead
to disaster, namely the voting in of anti-establishment heroes like Trump.
That's true but its not how he is perceived in the US. Its the same type of thing with the rise
of the Far Right in Europe. Dissatisfaction with the current shower leading to potentially more
dangerous alternatives.
If only the current shower would take note of that and start representing their constituents
instead of taking advantage of them...
In the IMF's flagship publication, three of its top economists have written an essay titled
"Neoliberalism: Oversold?".
The very headline delivers a jolt. For so long mainstream economists and policymakers have
denied the very existence of such a thing as neoliberalism, dismissing it as an insult invented
by gap-toothed malcontents who understand neither economics nor capitalism. Now here comes
the IMF, describing how a "neoliberal agenda" has spread across the globe in the past 30 years.
What they mean is that more and more states have remade their social and political institutions
into pale copies of the market.
The IMF under Lagarde has long since become a political weather vane, tilting in the direction
of whatever theory happens to be fashionable. It should also be noted that academics will tend
to make an argument in order to stimulate a debate; it would be foolish to immediately assume
everything they have written is gospel (as has often been repeated during the referendum campaign,
remember they thought the UK should have joined the Euro).
There's no doubt "neoliberalism" has become a pejorative term, used by opponents of the free market
to decry its excesses. It used to mean a capitalist economy with strong state intervention, essentially
the same thing as a social democracy. It's now used to describe a laissez-faire capitalism associated
with rolling back any and all state provision of services. As with all such terms the definition
is slippery and not useful: it's delivered as an insult rather than a description of any particular
economic reality.
This is why "policymakers have denied the existence" of it. There is no "neoliberal agenda"
being persued by a conspiratorial cadre of western leaders. That's a desperate simplification
by people struggling to comprehend the vast proliferation of approaches to social democracy, with
a range of countries all attempting in good faith to find a useful balance between free market
capitalism and state intervention. Neoliberalism as Chakrabortty understands it exists only in
the minds of its detractors
I've never hear "It used to mean a capitalist economy with strong state intervention" before.
Neoliberalism is "what comes after liberalism" and refers to the Thatcher/Reagan axis following
the interventionist and statist seventies.
So pardon the blunt contradiction but neoliberalism is the opposite of what you say. It is
reducing the state's role in the economy to the absolute minimum, which is, ideally, merely as
the legal and executive power, and no economic role at all in business.
Control of economics to be entirely in public hands. Hence privatising everything, obviously.
"Laissez faire" economics has always been part of neoliberalism.
Why "neo": it means "new" as you know, and the "new" is because up until teh late seventies,
there was a tacit agreement between right and left that some essential industries should be run
by the state for national security and other reasons.
• Libertarianism: No state interference in individual private citizen's lives.
• Neoliberalism: As little state interference in the economy.
The first is a subset and extreme simplified case of the second, and makes one think of trappers,
the wild west, and Donald Trump. The second is a political system.
Thatcher, Reagan - both arch-disciples of Hayek and others of the Austrian & Chicago schools
of economic shite, and both massively responsible for it being liberally spread across the world.
Would have been nice to see a recognition of their roles in this, along with the second wave of
Clinton & Blair, with their "third way" economic take on the same models.
And now we have Hilary as a contender for the presidency, as orthodox a neolib bag carrier
as they come, and someone who will continue to carry the torch for Bills policies. Failing that,
we have the absolute lunacy of Trump to look forwards to, and as a man who so obviously worships
at the alter of Mammon, no game changers from him to be expected either.
So if we are, as this article claims, witnessing the death of neoliberalism, it is going to
be a long, slow, agonising death, with a lot of collateral damage as the body economic writhes
in its death throes. Oh dear, oh dear, oh fucking dear…..
Reagan and Thatcher spawned the neoliberal dystopia, Blair and Clinton carried on where they left
off and so it goes on. Democracy has been sold to the highest bidders, and with no real options
at the ballot box people are turning to extreme politics, those on the fringes, far right loons
like Trump.
In short - I despair.
Britain is a republic, rule of the few over the many.... USA is a not even a republic, but more
like an oligarchy as our election system has been corrupted by the Party and with the Supreme
Republican Court to back them up we steadily lose the rights and protections for the middle class.
The Constitution is the direct result of the 18th century ruling class hating the middle classes,
hating minorities and desiring a nobility class without a king to rule over them. Madison and
Jefferson adamantly despised the very concept of "democracy". This is how we ended up contemplating
a President Trump.
"Paradise," he exclaims, "is a place where people want to end up, not a place they run from.
What kind of socialism is that? What kind of shit is that, when you have to keep people in
chains? What kind of social order? What kind of paradise?"
The statement is thoroughly stupid. Consistent with Chrushov's mental capacity.
History evolves in a discontinuous manner. Any social-economic transformation is performed
by force and through a bloodshed, a civil war. This is simply a law of thermodynamics.
The best example: the huge butchery of religious wars in Europe of the 17th century which gave
rise to the era of Enlightenment and Progress. Because of it, we live immeasurably more comfortable
life than our ancestors. We were thereby kicked in this paradise.
You're mis-using themodynamics in "Any social-economic transformation is performed by force
and through a bloodshed, a civil war. This is simply a law of thermodynamics."
There's no relevance of thermodynamics there, even allowing for making an analogy.
Saying "All socio-economic change is violent" which is what you're saying there is a simply
opinion, and, incidentally, contradicted by historical fact. Propping it up with an arbitrary
reference to science does not help :)
Thermodynamics is about the transfer of heat and says three laws (1) energy is conserved (2)
Entropy always increases (3) Entropy is a constant at absolute zero.
(plus a zeroth law thich I forget).
A bit of a sideline, but I was watching TV yesterday and an ad caught my eye that I found fascinating.
It was for chocolate- cadburys or something like that.
Essentially, an animated lady was giving a talk about 'boring economic stuff' and as she talked
her face actually stretched and became distorted until the whole 'economic/ finance thing' was
abandoned in favour of eating chocolate bars. The narrator's voice was what I presume marketing
people think of as 'working class'.
what I took from the ad (I may be wrong) was a not so subtle message that 'boring' economics isn't
for the likes of us (ii.e. the masses), and we'd be better off stuffing our faces with chocolate
rather than thinking about 'hard stuff.'
I found it quite disgusting. Has anyone else seen this and, if so, what do you think?
Of course its possible that I'm a paranoid loon just a few steps away from hiding out in a bunker
and talking to a balloon with a face drawn on...
That's why they are changing the education system so radically, can't have the plebs thinking
for themselves can we ? They want just drone factories for the majority of the population.
Ironically R4 are doing a pretty good adaptation of Brave New World at the moment.
It appears that Osborne - with zero growth-rate, zero-inflation, zero wage increases - is trying
to give us that very paradise with a stagnant economy.
Yes neoliberalism has been oversold because neoliberalism is a catch-all. means nothing, basket
insult for all policies that liberals hate. Blair was apparently a neoliberal, but the state grew
under Blair and there was huge investment in public services. Take away the investment under Labour,
and the NHS really would be on its knees now.
Secondly, we are still in crisis following the crash, the worst economic reversal since the
Great Depression. nobody ever said it would be easy to climb out of this economic hole and the
doomsayers might like to compare the lot of the working classes in 2016 with the lot of the poor
in the 1930s, Perhaps Aditya would like to read Steinbeck to get a handle on what real poverty
is, or if it is too difficult a read, he might tune in to some episodes of the Waltons.
There are no real shocks in the IMF issuing papers challenging political or economic orthodoxy
- they do it all the time - and I seem to remember that Lagarde has long been a critic of Osborne's
policies; the IMF, on balance, are Keynesian in outlook.
If you want to nail the real custodians of what is termed neoliberalism, then you need to the
nail the EU. These are the technocrats who are running Europe for the benefit of the elites!
History books will one day refer to the "so called neoliberals who were, in truth, free market
capitalists packaged up under a new name." For your "Neoliberal" I offer you "New Labour" or "Snickers
bars" or "Starbursts".
An interesting piece. Though it fits into a recent pattern of the Guardian picking up on stories
that were in the FT a couple of days earlier.
Amusingly, in this case, the link to the IMF "oversold?" piece actually takes you to the FT's
paywall, when the original piece is
freely available
on their site.
What needs exposing is the purported 'pragmatism' promulgated by the likes of Blair and Clinton.
A centrist position of ideological neutrality is a myth. 'What works' has become a synecdoche
for what maintains the neoliberal model - which ironically, as the author explains, no longer
works.
A purely managerial, non-ideological perspective is impossible. Anyone advancing a non-ideological
world-view is a self-effacing ideologue. The best trick the devil ever played was to convince
you he doesn't exist.
I'm proud to call myself a social democrat, which in today's terms means I am far left.
I only care about what works.
David Owen of all people in an interview about the EU actually attacked New Labour for the
marketisation of the NHS. In fact they didn't invent it, but they continued it with gusto. It
doesn't work.
which ironically, as the author explains, no longer works.
It never worked.... not for one minute. It just seemed to work because first the nation states
were indebting themselves; then the private sector indebted itself and everyone. The "success"
of neoliberalims was based on credit expansion all the time.
The model was always to enrich those at the top, while the unemployed lazy bastards
at the bottom were stressed more and more to create a race to the bottom for the desperate and
money less. The insanity of this policy, which took enormous amounts of money out of circulation
was glossed over for decades by the never-ending expansion of credit. The credit expansion kept
the middle class out of harms way thereby securing the political support to simply continue......
but keeping the middle class away from economic harm will end as soon as credit can no longer
be expanded.
I cannot believe Guardian readers spend so much time contemplating their navels. No wonder Labour
party is in such a mess. Believe in Britain....regain control of our money, borders and democracy!!
I'm afraid you're looking in the wrong place if you want us to 'regain control of our money'-
it's actually the commercial banks in the City that have us by the knackers... assisted by action
or inaction their political wing the Tory party. Google 'Positive Money' for starters.
As with many problems we have in the UK, blaming the EU is either a deliberate red herring
or just plain ignorance.
If we do not contemplate it them whom? This incessant need for 'growth' is a myth. How far can
we grow? By it's very definition to continue with this mad strive for a wealthier state is at
the expense of other states. There is PLENTY to go around but the current neoliberal philosophy
has simply moved it to a few. Borders an illusion, there is only one planet and it is dying because
of the neoliberal agenda for 'growth'. Democracy, in it's current form, is also an illusion. How
can we be democratic when the state watches our every move, email, phone call and browsing history.
Surly democracy should include some element freedom. Money is an illusion. The central banks print
money to order, quantitative easing, bank bailouts, offshore tax havens. When the money is printed
it immediately has a cost, a promise to pay bond yeilds as an element of its creation. So all
money is debt. We live in an insane world with systems that will ultimately be our doom.
Yes, an excellent film . The EU in its current form has turned into a tool to circumvent national
parliaments and to achieve legislation which is good for you and me and others. You can pass any
law you want, if you bribe the right people. That said, we need a strong EU parliament and an
informed audience to stop this. If necessary, Brexit could serve a wake up call, but the preferred
way should be to hold these guys accountable.
What disappoints me most about the current political situation is Jeremy Corbyn. It is not that
I disagree with much of his economic policy (not that we know a huge amount about it) it is his
inability to connect with voters.
Is there someone in Labour who is not a Blairite that does not behave like a 1970s left wing
geography teacher?
What paragon of perfection are you looking for. The message is the important thing not the packaging.
Blair surly taught us that. My geography teacher was a old conservative woman.
I must pass that on to my mate who started teaching geography in the late 1970s and who is an
absolute Corbyn fan. He's very disappointed that his sixth form students do not feel remotely
the same way.
The best way of working out which type of society works best and worse is to find out where people
emigrate from and where do they emigrate to. Capitalism, with low levels of corruption, wins hands
down.
I don't have an issue with capitalism per se. It can work very well as part of a balanced economy.
However when almost everything is forced to become part of the market we can clearly see
a problem.
but surely Capitalism is inherently corrupt . It's mantra is "maximise profit " and that's it
. Isn't that what the Left are being unrealisitic about .They want some sort of purified religious
experience of fiscal control . But we humans are of systems that need corruption and renewal ,just
like our bodies ? Talk about the National Health failing -- Nobody wants to do the housework that's
all ?
I'd like to thank Aditya for his article and I hope your right.
In my opinion all ideology creates shackles especially when taken to extremes. It creates distinct
hierarchies that are imposable to circumvent if you just so happen to disagree or dislike it.
As you state neoliberalism is the extreme end of the capitalist system.
- Its divisive ideological hierarchies are based in wealth, this cause's possible social
unrest as it creates haves and have not's, hard work will not help you climb the ladder, survival
of the fittest creates brings out the worst in people.
- It undermines the free market by creating business monopoly. Business monopoly undermines
the democratic model through lobbying and party funding.
- It creates the conditions that allow corruption to flourish through government de-regulation.
- The free market is driven by profit, it lacks a social conscience, yes consumers can
refuse to buy from unethical company's but this becomes difficult in markets that are run by
monopolies, and the service it provides are essential products.
There's one major flaw in all hierarchal systems, if somebody is to climb up, someone must
be pulled down. It can create animosity, greed and infighting so they are all inherently unstable.
I'm not suggesting such systems are wrong, if they are based on cooperation and fairness then
I think balance could be achieved.
A previous poster talked about automation destroying jobs and income which leads to depressed
markets as consumers do not have the income to spend. Surely the current lack of growth is the
result of manufacturing and other jobs exported abroad to save wage costs in developed countries.
This results in the same lack of spare income to fuel growth. So free market policies are destroying
the very markets they depend upon.
One solution is for government to own manufacturing in important areas such as combatting global
warming. If the uk uses the £70bn proposed for HS2 and Hinkley we could set up manufacturing of
solar panels, small wind turbines and other small renewable systems. Pay real living wage, use
areas already with high unemployment and boost the economies in these areas. Manufacture under
license and include batteries such as the Elon musk storage batteries.
Either install free or for small charge we could produce and fit renewable systems on 10 million
homes trying to produce 40 gigawatts of electricity which is equal to uk off peak use - 4kwh x
10m. Costs £5000 per system + £2000 per battery = £7k x 10m = £70bn.
Result more good jobs, boost to economy, boost to deprived areas, less CO2, no nuclear, free electricity
for many, less cost of imports of oil, gas, coal, less cost of social security. I am sure the
list of benefits can be expanded into feel good factors and less inequality.
Surely common sense will prevail before riots and revolution will end this madness.
What on earth leads you to believe that a UK Government could manufacture solar panels and wind
turbines at a profit? Does the civil service have hitherto hidden talents relating to business
start ups, manufacturing and energy technology?
We are at a world population approaching 10bn people which need to be fed, clothed and served
with clean water and electricity. And your answer - sorry to say, green dreamers - provides no
answer at all. You can talk to as many worms as you want to. It is fantasy of rich people.
There is no doubt that people are waking up to the massive inequality imposed on us all by a greedy,
compassionless, short sighted set of idiologies perpetuated by our neoliberal rulers. And the
philosophy that has driven this is corporate capitalism which has created a stench so profound
that it may literally cost us the earth.
The fact that it has progressed so rapidly and deaply into the human psyche can only be attributed
to two things. Mans inherant greed and the media (who are an intrisic part of corporate capitalism).
I heard a statistic that, in the first world war, only 17% of soldiers in the trenches pointed
their guns at the enemy, not wishing to be party to the massacre of fellow human beings. I also
understand this was little changed in the 2nd WW. To combat this (pardon the pun) recent developments
in media have created computer based games of mass murder so that soldiers in the battle field,
in aircraft and flying drones simply play out the games on their Xbox and annihalate 'the enemy'.
War is very big business, for some. This form of brainwashing is an incidious method to do the
bidding of the rich and powerful and there is, without doubt, a direct correlation between neolibralism
and mass murder. The hawks of administrations, like Bush, Blair and co , have used it citizens
to further their own agenda's for fiscal gain leaving behind millions of dead, service men missing
limbs or dead, sevearly mentally damaged and what for? The road to peace is not through bombs
and bullets but this makes money and lots of it. The media (not all, thank god for the internet)
panders to the basest emotions of humanity to brainwash us into radicalised, subserviant masses
ready to do the bidding of these cororations. It has created a Frankenstien which is now out of
control. IF we start today to try and undo the immense harm it will take many generations to even
begin to put things right, if at all possible. Every journey starts with a single step but we
must RUN if humanity has any chance of survival. Stop the war on terrorism, stop the war on drugs,
both proven and huge failures and start a war for tollerance, equality and, dare I say it, love.
Seems to me that the wealth accrued by neoliberal beneficiaries could be more fairly distributed
but it is not; why is that? On the other hand, "communisim" in the Soviet sense does not seem
to work either when Dimitri has his house windows manufactured free gratis on the factory floor.
Politicians and large corporations are self serving and insular, as are most people. The EU debate
in the UK has descended into completely predicatable mud slinging as the electorate are increasingly
ignored in the debate despite token efforts by the media. Those involved are watching after themselves,
in or out is a sidebar to hang it on.
Neoliberal ideology has been an instrument for justifying the growing wealth and power of
financiers and global corporations for about 40 years. They are highly unlikely to want to let
go their gains, so reports of the impending 'death' of neoliberalism are a bit premature. The
fact that this comes from the IMF makes me wonder if it isn't another ploy to divert attention
from the ongoing process of wealth consolidation by making us think that a big change in policy
is just around the corner. Ostry is an excellent scholar who has written some good papers warning
about inequality and I have no doubt that he wants to influence decision-making. But it may be
that he is being used as a 'useful idiot' by the powers that be.
If only. Social democracy was the popular choice in 1945 - the people knew what it was and voted
for it. But neoliberalism was imposed on us in a flurry of fake claims and false dreams - low
taxes, trickle-down riches, freedom is consumer choice etc. We could have it all, the hucksters
promised, lying in their teeth. And now that the system is showing its true nature, how do we
get rid of it. There isn't an institution, public or private, which isn't run by people who are
professed neoliberals incapable of thinking there is an alternative - if they were, they wouldn't
be where they are: they'd be mocked and undermined and shuffled out of the way, Everything from
the BBC to the Health Service is run by people who believe in the power of the market, and think
it's the same as democracy. We have to get rid of these servants of the market to make a fresh
start, and they're not about to leave.
TTIP is the desperate last stand to get this permanently embedded as a supra-governmental policy
in perpetuity. The crooks behind neoliberalism know that the wheels are about to fall off the
bus and TTIP is their answer.
Whilst it's great that the report (rightly) condemns neoliberalism it appears to me that it is
also contradictory.
On the one hand 'the IMF researchers concede, [the results of neoliberalism] have been terrible.
Neoliberalism hasn't delivered economic growth – it has only made a few people a lot better off'
but then goes on to say 'The authors even defend privatisation as leading to "more efficient provision
of services" and less government spending'.
Privatisation of state assets has proven time and time again to be a false economy. The failed
privatisation of Hinchingbrooke Hospital; The failed privatisation of East Coast Rail which was
then put back into public ownership (under which it became profitable again) and was then re-privatised
for no good reason; The Royal Mail scandal - hedge funds were permitted to buy millions of (undervalued)
shares which they then immediately sold for a massive profit whilst ordinary people were limited
to just £749 worth.
Am I missing something here? Isn't privatisation and the selling off of state assets to the
neoliberal elite exacerbating and perpetuating the problem?
I'm still wading through Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century but from what
I've read so far it appears that the message is that extreme wealth inequality is not only morally
unfair but is unsustainable as it is counter-productive and creates economic instability. It's
this very instability and glaring unfairness which has led to the rise in ever more extreme politics
isn't it? The Right cling to this neoliberal model of economics and then bitch and complain when
Trump gets elected. What on earth did they expect? If elected officials continue to act in self-interest
instead of the public interest then the successes of monsters like Trump are an inevitability
which can only bad for everyone including the neoliberal elite.
" I'm still wading through Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century but from what
I've read so far it appears that the message is that extreme wealth inequality is not only morally
unfair but is unsustainable as it is counter-productive and creates economic instability ."
Not sure that you need to read Piketty to understand that. The accumulation and hoarding of
wealth in offshore havens by the elite should be treated as an economic crime, as once this money
is transferred out of the system, it ceases to function, the economy is impoverished, and these
unelected super-wealthy are given powers many elected country leaders can only dream of. How the
perpetrators of this cannot understand absolutely boggles me. But then again, to wish to have
so much wealth indicates serious sociopathic issues, and not much ability to empathise with those
who struggle and are deprived as a result of this accumulation of such wealth in the hands of
a few individuals.
Whilst I simply feel indignation, exasperation and anger regarding social injustice and extreme
wealth inequality Piketty uses well researched data to support his arguments against it. It's
not an easy read and I've been dipping in and out of the book on and off over the last year. I'm
determined to finish it one day though.
I'm inclined to agree with you regarding the regarding your assessment of the super rich as
sociopathic. How much money is enough? Why would they need or want so much economic control over
so many people?
If you haven't seen it already I would certainly recommend watching Mr Robot - very topical
and spot on regarding the psychopathic mindsets of the arrogant super rich the series condemns.
The opening scene begins with a reference to the Bilderberg Group - 'they're the top 1% of the
top 1%. They're the people who play god without permission'.
It beggars belief that Mark carney is now bemoaning the results, as events that we now are witnessing
right across the globe, from his Alma Mater Goldman Sachs's policies that were foisted onto the
world, have spawned. Low and now even negative yields on safe fixed term investments are now making
it very difficult or even impossible for pension providers to deliver decent incomes to their
customers. Tax evasion has been legitimised and rebranded as tax efficiency and corporations are
mega monopolistic structures that no longer need to worry about a bottom line as they have rebranded
profits into interest payments to tax havens.
After 8-9 years argument about austerity, it finally feels like we have reached a tipping point.
Surely now no serious political or economic commentator will defend austerity. There are parallels
with the climate change debate.
The Labour Party (encouraged by many in the media- including many Guardian journalists) for
too many years pursued a policy of austerity appeasement. Many knew it was economic nonsense but
felt that the argument was too difficult to win against the massed ranks of the Tories and the
vested interests of the mainstream media. I recall so many discussions where it was pointed out
that economists such as Krugman had destroyed the austerity case but "sensible" commentators continued
to argue that the Labour Party would be destroyed if it dared to "speak truth unto power". Those
that advocated austerity appeasement should be ashamed and apologise (I won't hold my breath).
Corbyn's greatest achievement in his first 8 months has been his firm stand against austerity.
He and John McDonnell have significantly moved the debate, so much so that I fully expect that
Osborne (if he survives the Referendum fall out) will start to adopt Labour policies (e.g. allow
investment expenditure to be excluded from deficit target and, if recession spreads beyond manufacturing,
some form of Infrastructure QE).
Neoliberalism has turned out to be similar in many ways to a better connected and more efficient
form of feudalism. Great for those with power, greed and wealth and very much at the expense of
everyone else. Perhaps newspapers and mass media have replaced swords, so it is an improvement
in some ways.
But for all those anticipating a return to something better, what will eventually come next?
A return to nice, safe, gentle Western European style mild socialism is not a foregone conclusion.
It will take a lot of effort and maybe 20 years to establish a new settlement and perhaps quite
a lot of strife in the meantime. Now that the last convulsion that gave rise to a continent wide
effort to attain a just society, the Second World War, is fading from memory and educational syllabuses,
will it take another convulsion to teach us how to behave again?
Very well put. I don't think it will take another convulsion, the majority of Europe's population
are fat unfit slobs but when there's no consumer swill in the bins, maybe.
I've had many discussions about what is necessary to make people active enough to change the status
quo, although I do think that WW2 crystallized what was already public opinion, putting people
into a position where camaraderie was sufficient to have reformists like Bevan take a lead and
win. I sincerely hope it won't take another European conflict to increase class consciousness
again.
As long as people have just enough and can be made afraid of losing it, they'll do nothing.
When they have nothing worth losing, then they'll kick off.
Rulers have known this since at least Napoleon, not all have acknowledged it.
As a people the British are a long way from it, recent arrivals might in time feel differently.
long before any public protests, the insiders led the way in murmuring their disquiet. Whisper
by whisper, memo by memo, the regime is steadily undermined from within. Its final toppling
lies decades beyond the novel's close, yet can already be spotted.
When Red Plenty was published in 2010, it was clear the ideology underpinning contemporary
capitalism was failing, but not that it was dying. Yet a similar process as that described
in the novel appears to be happening now, in our crisis-hit capitalism. And it is the very
technocrats in charge of the system who are slowly, reluctantly admitting that it is bust.
The difference between a public document and a secretive memo seems a glaring one, which illuminates
the fundamental difference between the two systems and as such the reason why capitalism will
survive and communism cannot
I agree with the bits about economic consensus and neoliberalism but I can't for a moment agree
that such problems are inherent to capitalism or reveal its flaws. If anything those problems
show - as did the failings of communism - the impossibility of asserting stable state control
over markets so large and complex as to be effectively random
While Julian Assange is incarcerated I don't think you can make the claim that Capitalism has
no secrets. Hilary Cliinton's emails were leaked, and there were some pretty dastardly secrets
in there. And who knows why fracking is being pushed onto people when practically no one, expert
or public supports it. What secret deals are behind that? And of course David Cameron's tax evasion
is a "private matter". In fact capitalism rests on the assumption that property is private. Now
adays music and thought are considered private property. The bright boy who released JSTOR free
on line had the book thrown at him and commited suicide under threats of decades in a private
prison, where by all accounts rape is encouraged.
Very interesting, that's a good read.
It also strikes me that "globalisation" and the frequently assumed "global neoliberal paradigm",
is not correct. That is, the frequent assumption that free markets are the norm, and that this
is how national and global exchanges function.
What we have instead in brief is a global free market capitalism which is financed and subsidised
by the public sector. The often talked about "socialism for the rich".
It strikes me that rather than "neoliberalism having failed", the most striking movement
since the 1960ies is how private capital managed to bend democratic socialism (which means the
welfare state in its various incarnations including in the USA) and bend it to its own profit.
How it did this: "democratic socialism" (this isn't communism: all it means is "market regulation
in the public interest" and includes public services such as education, health, defense) which
flourished after the 1930ies was bit by bit taken over by the private sector. Not in terms of
ownership, but in terms of supply and management.
So neoliberalism as it's commonly understood is a foil, a fiction, camouflaging the underlying
reality of democratic socialist government which is in part at least run by private enterprise.
The practical consequences: Government support and financing of a range of industries, and
private sector involvement in running government services: the neo-liberal "The market knows best"
is an illusion.
Its complicated, and needs some thought, but I reckon there's some subtlety here, and my intention
is not to rant "socialism for the rich" - its more subtle and more interesting than that slogan.
Neo-Liberalism - the more you see of it the less you like it.
Getting to the rotten core of Neo-Liberal globalisation, a UK journey.
1) Tony Blair announces the UK is a meritocracy where anyone can get to the top through hard
work, drive and ambition.
Next elected prime minister – Eton educated and married into the aristocracy.
Eton boys occupy a myriad of positions of power.
Privately educated elite firmly re-established.
2) Everyone must be subject to market discipline and compete in a global market place.
Industries that cannot compete in the global market place must fail.
Heavy industry, manufacturing and mining decimated, severely affects the North of England and
Midlands.
The financial sector fails and is given unconditional bailouts with no effort to punish those
who made the losses, the tax payer will just pick up the bill.
3) The lasting damage to the economy caused by the financial crisis must be passed onto those
at the bottom of society through austerity to balance the budget.
Are you rich or are you poor?
Neo-Liberalism helps the rich and disadvantages the poor.
Nice rich bankers – how much do you want?
Traditional industry – left to the whims of the global market place.
All very true, except that your milestone 1) should begin with Regan and Thatcher (and Deng Xiaoping!)
not Blair, who merely continued it with a more soft-edged approach.
'Neo-liberalism' or free market capitalism will die when a better alternative system is seen to
be superior. As the article says there was a time when sensible people could believe that this
better alternative was Marxian socialism. Sixty odd years later it is impossible to believe that.
The remaining examples in the world like North Korea and Venezuela are to be avoided like the
plague and previously socialist countries like China and Vietnam have longed eased to be so.
It is important to understand the crucial advantage of capitalism over its rival, namely that
it is self-organising. Milton Friedman gave the example of the ordinary 'lead' pencil which requires
wood, paint, graphite, alloy metal for the ferrule and rubber for the eraser. Arranging for all
that to happen by centralised control is an enormous undertaking yet in the capitalist world pencils
sell for 50 cents apiece. Nobody believes in world economic direction by Central Committee and
so it is likely that global capitalism will continue unabated not withstanding a few bumps in
the road along the way.
.....global capitalism will continue unabated not withstanding a few bumps in the road along
the way.....
The same was thought/proclaimed about slavery, feudalism, colonialism. But new systems are
born as the old ones become obsolete and an impediment to progress. Capitalism will go the same
way.
It isn't either / or, black or white as you seem to suggest. A mixed economy is the ideal set-up.
That's an economy where you recognise which sectors function best as services and which run best
left to competition. That is the failure of neoliberalism, which throws almost every single enterprise
into the jaws of the competitive market. The railways should never have been privatised. Our utilities
should never have been privatised. The NHS should not be opened to 'any willing provider'. Strategic
industries should have had more protection. The housing market should not have been globalised
etc etc etc. Most of us know well who is most responsible for these failing policies.
A child could figure out that neo liberalism wouldn't work for most people. I did when I was 11.
But the super elite will always be willing to take a punt only an ideology tailor-made to make
them richer while oppressing us more. Then all they have to do is get the slimey politicians who
work for their interests to sing the anthem and get their little pay off.
Aditya is writing cracking article after cracking article these days. I thought that the one about
Boots was riveting as well as disheartening.
We've had 40 years of relentless propaganda about private = good and public = inefficient or downright
bad.
well it's surely true that private is good if you're making something like an iPhone or a Tesla,
you need entrepreneurs driven by a fanatic obsession with perfection and the profit motive.
It's surely not true if you're trying to provide public housing, electricity, gas, water, rail
or the prison system etc..
We've seen how groups of private individuals have been trusted to do right by society when their
remit was always to do right by themselves and by their shareholders. How could it have been otherwise?
It's no use having a privatised utility and then blaming it for cutting costs and raising prices.
The problem is a political one.
Leave what is best done by private individuals and companies to them, but get them totally out
of our public commons. And regulate the financial industry so that it cannot trade with the certain
knowledge that it will be bailed out by the politicians it has totally bought.
What killed neoliberalism ultimately was hubris. It worked very hard to eliminate every political
obstacle, the left, trade unions, regulation, until it was squarely able to shoot itself not just
in both feet, but in the head too.
'Neo-liberalism' or free market capitalism will die when a better alternative system is seen
to be superior. As the article says there was a time when sensible people could believe that this
better alternative was Marxian socialism. Sixty odd years later it is impossible to believe that.
The remaining examples in the world like North Korea and Venezuela are to be avoided like the
plague and previously socialist countries like China and Vietnam have longed eased to be so.
It is important to understand the crucial advantage of capitalism over its rival, namely that
it is self-organising. Milton Friedman gave the example of the ordinary 'lead' pencil which requires
wood, paint, graphite, alloy metal for the ferrule and rubber for the eraser. Arranging for all
that to happen by centralised control is an enormous undertaking yet in the capitalist world pencils
sell for 50 cents apiece. Nobody believes in world economic direction by Central Committee and
so it is likely that global capitalism will continue unabated not withstanding a few bumps in
the road along the way.
'Neo-liberalism' or free market capitalism will die when a better alternative system is seen
to be superior.
So this was the reason for the death of the Ancien Regime in France and the death of the
Romanovs? I think people were not going to wait for an alternative to come along.
.....global capitalism will continue unabated not withstanding a few bumps in the road along
the way.....
The same was thought/proclaimed about slavery, feudalism, colonialism. But new systems
are born as the old ones become obsolete and an impediment to progress. Capitalism will go the
same way.
It isn't either / or, black or white as you seem to suggest. A mixed economy is the ideal set-up.
That's an economy where you recognise which sectors function best as services and which run best
left to competition. That is the failure of neoliberalism, which throws almost every single enterprise
into the jaws of the competitive market. The railways should never have been privatised. Our utilities
should never have been privatised. The NHS should not be opened to 'any willing provider'. Strategic
industries should have had more protection. The housing market should not have been globalised
etc etc etc. Most of us know well who is most responsible for these failing policies.
A child could figure out that neo liberalism wouldn't work for most people. I did when I was 11.
But the super elite will always be willing to take a punt only an ideology tailor-made to make
them richer while oppressing us more. Then all they have to do is get the slimey politicians who
work for their interests to sing the anthem and get their little pay off.
Aditya is writing cracking article after cracking article these days. I thought that the one about
Boots was riveting as well as disheartening.
We've had 40 years of relentless propaganda about private = good and public = inefficient or downright
bad.
well it's surely true that private is good if you're making something like an iPhone or a Tesla,
you need entrepreneurs driven by a fanatic obsession with perfection and the profit motive.
It's surely not true if you're trying to provide public housing, electricity, gas, water, rail
or the prison system etc..
We've seen how groups of private individuals have been trusted to do right by society when their
remit was always to do right by themselves and by their shareholders. How could it have been otherwise?
It's no use having a privatised utility and then blaming it for cutting costs and raising prices.
The problem is a political one.
Leave what is best done by private individuals and companies to them, but get them totally out
of our public commons. And regulate the financial industry so that it cannot trade with the certain
knowledge that it will be bailed out by the politicians it has totally bought.
What killed neoliberalism ultimately was hubris. It worked very hard to eliminate every political
obstacle, the left, trade unions, regulation, until it was squarely able to shoot itself not just
in both feet, but in the head too.
Got to hand it to the neoliberalists for keeping it going for 40 odd years
"You'll love it, we get filthy rich and we chuck a few quids down to you!"
"Don't say that, say trickle-down effect"
"Ok, you'll love it, the trickle-down effect will make everyone better off!" Over 40 years
"Are you still here? I told you, it's great because of the trickle-down effect"
"Where's the trickle-down effect, it's not happening"
*silent* "Fuck right off, I don't want you snooping around my offshore trust funds, not illegal,
go on piss off"
A neoliberal will seriously argue that despite real median incomes stagnating in the US for forty
years and in the UK for almost a decade and a half that we're all better off because nearly everybody
can afford a smartphone and washing machines are cheaper.
It's not Neoliberalism that is crashing, it's Capitalism! They got too greedy and tunnel visioned
with their 'market knows all' dream in a system that favours and rewards what used to be considered
corruption and now they looting are putting in repressive and restrictive measures to control
the devastation they have caused. They are floundering about trying to work out how to stop the
major crash coming and keep their ill gotten gains and gravy train for the legions of self serving
enablers as I call them!
Prof Richard D Wolff a Marxist economist, here's this weeks talk, 1 hour. Based on US news
topics but in the second half he talks about the Neoliberal god... 'the market' or rather the
use of (or not) markets in economic systems. Krugman and Uber get mentions in the first half.
Markets from 30.00 http://www.democracyatwork.info/eu_listen_prof_krugman
Free markets without state interference invariably drift towards feudalistic monopolies. They
end up exactly where communism also ends up. A small elite controlling the economic fate of the
masses. A "market" where supply and demand no longer play any part, because any small competitor
can be bought or liquidated at will by the monopolist.
For capitalism to work the state needs to be both, strong and accountable to the people, not
the vested interests. In a global marketplace this control needs to come from a global organisation,
like the UN.
A t present the global corporations play the nation states against each other in a race to the
bottom (the end game in this game is to make the UK the Bangladesh of the North, which it was
in the 18th and 19th century). At some point we will turn the corner; the question is just whether
it is done with or without armed conflict.
This might not be the 'in depth' analysis some would like, but I think that Chakrabortty is correct
that there has been a big change in the background. The majority of politicians don't see this,
from Boris Johnson to Jean-Claud Juncker, they are clueless and out of touch, but Chakrabortty
makes an astute observation that:
...policymaking elite [claims it was doing] ... merely doing "what works". But you can only
get away with that claim if what you're doing is actually working.
Today you can read Ben Bernankes PhD thesis and see that it is wrong, you can see that the
IMF/EU Greek 'Bail Out' failed 3 times in a row, you can see that Osbourne has missed every single
economic target he set himself, you can see that 'trickle-down' economics never worked, etc.,
etc.
Meanwhile
Steve
Keens open source economic simulator works rather well, and explains why the the UK, USA,
Europe and Japan are very unlikely to ever recover if they keep on with the current economic policies.
All political systems fall under thier own weight. The infamous bread v guns can still be applied
to nation states but not obviously economic systems. The workers or any other outside group can
never change economic systems (they can only protest through populist politicians who will bend
to the system when in power), only insiders can do that. You have to hope that the change they
come up with is an improvement but it is unlikely given that almost all will want the status quo
maintained.
It was clear in the 80s the Thatcherite experiment wouldn't work and it was widely discussed and
most of the reasons put forward why it wouldn't work, have proved correct.
But we all have the evidence of privatisation. Britain has effectively been asset stripped
by the Tories, aided and abetted by New Labour but where are all the promised tax cuts? As a nation
we pay about the same in taxes as Germany, yet Germany owns the most state assets of any country
in Europe. It is what ideological neoliberal call socialist but it does better than us. Meanwhile,
for all the privatisation in the UK, our taxes are still high and on top of that, the privatised
services and utilities and businesses are more expensive, more inefficient and more unreliable
and we have to pay for much of them, on top of our already high taxes!!!
The biggest joke came when the nationalised East Coast Line came in as the most cost efficient
mainline in the country, which had the Tories desperate to privatise if as quickly as possible
to get rid of a sample of state run trains being more efficient than privatised trains. Well,
we just have to look at many European countries to see most state railways are more efficient
than privatised ones. In Holland when rail was privatised, it more or less collapsed and had to
be effectively renationalised and then partly privatised again but the trains still are useless
compared to what they were when they were completely state run.
Neoliberalism was always a corrupt ideology with corruption conscious;y at its heart. Neoliberalism
has normalised corruption to the point where the establishment and our political masters don't
even try to hide corrupt practices, they are every day work and business practices. The biggest
question is, why we aren't rioting on the streets like the French. Why are we British so damn
passive when we are being ripped off and abused? Our we really like an abused wife or child, who
has grown used to abuse and can't imagine life without it?
Economics has long been practiced at the level of a voodoo cult - light the candle and chant a
mantra.
This was apparent in 2007 when Northern Rock went bankrupt having been handing out mortgages 120%
over the value of over valued property thus accelerating a house price bubble and instantly putting
mortgagees into a position of negative equity.
It was most apparent when China kept announcing, cheered on by a chorus of economists, a 10%
growth rate whilst it tipped 70% of the world's concrete into non viable mega projects, produced
a mountain's supply of cheap steel that far exceeded any demand and pumped out clouds of gaseous
pollution and lakes of poisonous waste to the detriment of the global environment (uncosted)
Since then, well it seems that most of that extra money that was pumped into the unregulated
money markets got invested in London's luxury property market and fracking - both unsustainable,
environmentally damaging and unnecessary.
I am afraid that a mass extinction event will be the only solution.
The quantity of capital needed just to stay in the game nowadays is so gobsmackingly vast that
62 individuals now control more personal wealth than 3.5 billion of the world's poorest. This
is a level of concentration of wealth and power that the absolutist monarchies of yore could not
even have dreamed of. Corporate cartels and monopolies dominate and charge their monopoly prices
snuffing out not just their competitors but production in general as others have to charge below
value whilst the monopolists charge way above. The financial structures that kept this situation
going for the past 30 years has now collapsed owing several times the national debts of the nations
that hosted them and which liabilities they have now assumed. Even the smallest percentages of
growth require such vast amounts of capital but there is no room for further concentration or
state support for it as they are bankrupt. US-sponsored globalization and all the institutions
built upon it as a result of the death of capitalism is unraveling at an alarming rate. Globalization
behind the greatest discreet political power the world has ever seen was as far as capitalism
could take us and it has to be said that a lot of the `development' of the last half-century has
been purely destructive and will have to be reversed before we can once again go forward. Which
brings us to the second reason for the impossibility of capitalism. The political necessity of
growth, without which capitalism as a political economic system is finished, is obstructed not
just by sclerotic monopolisation and bankruptcy but by the fact that every tiny percentage of
growth requires transforming huge swathes of the nature on which we depend into useless product
and nature does not have anything left to give on this basis. Catastrophic global warming is upon
us along with a myriad of other environmental catastrophes such as the death of our oceans. It
is as it was prophesied that it must eventually be a matter now of socialism or barbarism. Socialism
or a New Dark Ages from which are species is unlikely to emerge or survive. We either transcend
capitalist globalization, neo-liberal bourgeois internationalism, through world proletarian revolution
and a world commonwealth of nations or we die with capitalism.
The authors even defend privatisation as leading to "more efficient provision of services"
and less government spending – to which the only response must be to offer them a train ride across
to Hinkley Point C.
Or try to get anywhere in the Netherlands by train when fallen leaves or an inch of snow completely
paralyses our privatised rails.
Privatisation is a total bullshit served in a very expensive sandwich to the taxpayers.
I would have like to see the author consider the role of power in this situation. With absolute
power comes also the ability to determine "reality" - distorted or not. If the emperor wields
absolute and devastating power, well who's to tell him he is naked and should abdicate?
So it, vital to note that a huge change our societies at this moment is the increasing militarisation
of civil society, erection of an unprecedented surveillance machiney, reallocation of resources
from human development to the military state under many guises, along with a close collaboration
of military and business.
In short, basically anything the author is saying is already in a scenario painted by the likes
of Rand Corp - and accounted for in the current state of affairs. There are many disguises for
all this including supposedly "threat" of migrants.
Honestly I don't think there is any stopping this train on its way to a crash.
Except the military as a whole haven't exactly benefitted from austerity. That said, as Iraq demonstrated
yet again, senior military personnel who go to Whitehall soon adopt the political drive and beliefs
of their masters.
"Austerity" in the west applies to human development programs. Not to the machinery of warfare
- or internal policing - or domestic surveillance. All of which are also essential pillars of
neoliberalism.
Issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic
Council in Wales
05 Sep. 2014 - | Press Release (2014) 120Issued on 05 Sep. 2014 | Last updated: 31 Jul.
2015 09:05 14. Allies currently meeting the NATO guideline to spend a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) on defence will aim to continue to do so. Likewise, Allies spending more than 20%
of their defence budgets on major equipment, including related Research & Development, will continue
to do so.
Allies whose current proportion of GDP spent on defence is below this level will:
halt any decline in defence expenditure;
aim to increase defence expenditure in real terms as GDP grows;
aim to move towards the 2% guideline within a decade with a view to meeting their NATO Capability
Targets and filling NATO's capability shortfalls.
Allies who currently spend less than 20% of their annual defence spending on major new equipment,
including related Research & Development, will aim, within a decade, to increase their annual
investments to 20% or more of total defence expenditures.
If you think the western neo cons will go with a whimper like the ussr me thinks you are mistaken.
The Chinese new yuan is gold backed and has the support of Japan Russia and France as the new
international currency. If every American paid 100% tax it wouldn t cover the federal expenditure
annually. Without the hall mark of international exchange the dollar is paper. And you think these
old east European ideologues led by Kessinger are gong to let their vision of hell go quietly
into the night?
This newspaper long ago bought into neo-liberalism. A few individual journalists allowed to write
here know what a social-conscience is, but they are "tokens"to present a fig-leaf of social values
and justice.
We see no genuine outrage anymore, no campaigning for the truth or justice, just a resigned,
brow-beaten shrug and "what can we do?"
On the whole the Graun is a paper aimed at the middle-class, professional who wants to talk
as if they care, but in the end will scurry over to the side of whoever will look after their
investments and protect them from becoming one of those whose situations they wring their hands
over...
Neoliberalism hasn't delivered economic growth – it has only made a few people a lot better
off.
Neoliberalism isn't an ideology, it is not even a doctrine - it is a legalized thievery, a
plundering of public resources aided and abetted by corrupt politicians.
It is pre-revolutionary France situation all over again, is it possible that the human race
cannot invent a working political-economic system that could effectively keep greedy, egotistical
psychopaths at bay?
The trend varies slightly country by country, but the broad direction is clear," says Adair
Turner, a former British banking regulator .... "Across all advanced economies, and the United
States and the U.K. in particular, the role of the capital markets and the banking sector in funding
new investment is decreasing." Most of the money in the system is being used for lending against
existing assets such as housing, stocks and bonds....To get a sense of the size of this shift,
consider that the financial sector now represents around 7% of the U.S. economy, up from about
4% in 1980. Despite currently taking around 25% of all corporate profits, it creates a mere 4%
of all jobs. Trouble is, research by numerous academics as well as institutions like the Bank
for International Settlements and the International Monetary Fund shows that when finance gets
that big, it starts to suck the economic air out of the room. In fact, finance starts having this
adverse effect when it's only half the size that it currently is in the U.S. Thanks to these changes,
our economy is gradually becoming "a zero-sum game between financial wealth holders and the rest
of America,"... from
http://time.com/4327419/american-capitalisms-great-crisis
/
Assuming financialisation continues
...In the United States, for example, "trickle down" economic policies that support tax cuts for
the rich with the aim of boosting economic growth and jobs have led to a $2 trillion annual redistribution
of wealth from the bottom 99 percent of earners to the top 1 percent over the last 30 years...If
the trend continues, by 2030, the top 1 percent of Americans will earn 37 to 40 percent of the
country's income, with the bottom 50 percent getting just 6 percent...
Europe won 't be much different as the richest 1% are global so we are heading to a plutocracy
where the 1% will own pretty much everything making government a waste of time. Ownership is the
real power. Politics is BS.
The economy is working well for the 1% so they will not be interesting in changing it. There may
be rising dissension throughout the West but that's not their problem to even care about. Any
alternative means them getting a smaller cut of the cake - not gonna happen.
Neoliberalism = wealth-stripping countries to pad the nests of the executive class.
Neoliberalism = granting more and more legal protection to those who already have greater power
over their fellows on account of private wealth.
Neoliberalism = Blair not in prison for war crimes.
Neoliberalism = sweetheart tax deals, privatisations, a bust and back-broken NHS, shut libraries
if not enough pensioners can be guilt-tripped into sitting there all dya giving a pretence of
business as before.
neoliberalism = horsemeat in the savoury pancakes.
Really, such a foul and ugly construct should have died YEARS ago. For the sake of basic national
wellbeing and human decency. Except this paper has been doing what it can to conflate it with
Labour (and with "moderates"!!!!), defend it and perpetuate it.
"Neoliberalism = wealth-stripping countries to pad the nests of the executive class.
Neoliberalism = granting more and more legal protection to those who already have greater power
over their fellows on account of private wealth."
Those first two are also prevalent in other regimes - North Korea or Venezuela for example.
And last time I looked neither of those were exponents of Neo-Liberal economics.
Funny how the ideology of freedom once run its course winds up in the exactly same position as
all the other despot systems, with a grossly undeserving wealthy elite making the rules to preserve
their reign over everyone else. We have less freedom now than we did before neoliberalism. We
live under a financial tyranny.
Yes, they are prevalent in far more nakedly barbaric and cruel ways to run countries.
Neoliberalism is the professional-seeming way of enabling the rape of resources and the demolition
of social structures by means other than military dictatorship or brainwashing the people into
drooling at the cult of the god-ruler.
I do hope that "North Korea do something similar too" wasn't supposed to be a subtle defence
of neoliberalism!
Good stuff from Chakrabortty again. However, it's important to stress that the IMF article operates
within the same paradigm as the agenda it critiques and so is quite limited in many respects.
By far the most surprising and important aspect of the paper is symbolic, in that it uses the
word neoliberalism. The IMF (and most 'serious' people) tend to think of neoliberalism as a term
employed by Rage Against the Machine fans whose economic knowledge extends to having thumbed through
a copy of The Shock Doctrine in a hostel on their gap year.
In terms of the detail, there's actually not much new in the paper. It sounds a lot like Latin
American ideas from the 1990s, some of which later appeared in diluted form within the World Bank
and which are still basically grounded in neoliberal logic. Essentially: markets are the gold
standard for optimal distribution of resources, but they don't always function perfectly in the
real world and so it is the task of the state to ensure they do work properly, using strong, efficient
institutions and efforts to boost competitiveness (education etc.).
It's basically the same adaptation (but not abandonment) of the old structural adjustment logic
that the World Bank made in the mid 1990s, in the face of mounting evidence that adjustment wasn't
working (because they'd stripped away the capacity of govt. to even implement the favoured reforms).
..." in the face of mounting evidence that adjustment wasn't working (because they'd stripped
away the capacity of govt. to even implement the favoured reforms)."
You may ve surprised how quickly and easily this capacity, supposedly "stripped away," can
be reasserted as soon as that's what those in power agree they should do.
Well, that depends what you mean. I was talking about the paring down and then reorientation and
partial reassembling of many developing countries' administrative structures under the direction
of the World Bank and IMF in the 80s and 90s. Those sorts of organisations wouldn't countenance
a return to anything like the state of play prior to the 1980s.
However, if you are talking about security, then this is one area where developing countries
are very much encouraged to build state capacity as far as is possible (given the 'development=security'
mantra now adopted by DFID and the like).
I question whether Aditya Chakrabortty has actually read the article in question. Chakrabortty
claims that "The results [of the neoliberal agenda], the IMF researchers concede, have been terrible"
In reality the article says:
There is much to cheer in the neoliberal agenda. The expansion of global trade has rescued
millions from abject poverty. Foreign direct investment has often been a way to transfer technology
and know-how to developing economies. Privatization of state-owned enterprises has in many
instances led to more efficient provision of services and lowered the fiscal burden on governments.
The IMF writers actually address three specific failings of recent neoliberal policy, rather
than gives a critique of newliberalism in general:
An assessment of these specific policies (rather than the broad neoliberal agenda) reaches
three disquieting conclusions:
• The benefits in terms of increased growth seem fairly difficult to establish when looking
at a broad group of countries.
• The costs in terms of increased inequality are prominent. Such costs epitomize the trade-off
between the growth and equity effects of some aspects of the neoliberal agenda.
• Increased inequality in turn hurts the level and sustainability of growth. Even if growth
is the sole or main purpose of the neoliberal agenda, advocates of that agenda still need to
pay attention to the distributional effects.
Like I say, it appears that Chakrabortty has not actually read the IMF article and is actually
discussing what he would have liked to have been in the article.
One article in one magazine does not mark a shift so no, nothing has yet changed in terms of rampant
globalisation and neoliberal economic policy. What I do see changing though is the growing realisation
that nearly forty years since Thatcher and Reagan set us on this path (with their wealthy supporters
urging them on) we're finally getting some realisation that it's a failed model - the trickle
down doesn't happen, the elites still gain more, workers and middle classes stagnate ... I don't
believe for one minute though that those at the top of the pyramid will give up easily. What next
though?
It doesnt matter what the IMF research "actually said". Neoliberalism doesnt work - if by "work"
you mean benefit the majority of people rather than a small minority - and it's delusional to
suggest otherwise.
It's an extreme form of neoclassical economics, most of whose assumptions - required to make its
bizarre assertions even remotely plausible - would cause the average person to fall about laughing.
Except of course its practitioners are careful to ensure that the average person never does confront
its absurdities head on, partly by hiding its doctrines away, partly by disguising them in false
platitudes like the "law" of supply and demand and the definition of the economic problem as matching
scarce resources and unlimited wants (resources arent scarce and wants are not unlimited).
Think yourself lucky that it's only Aditya you have to contend with. He seems unaware of the vast
amount of work being done by genuinely good economists who have carried on from Keynes and his
model of a monetary production economy (hint: most of those claiming to be Keynesians - such as
Paul Samuelson - are nothing of the kind).
I am not so optimistic that this article signals the end of neoliberalism. As AC says, it is a
description of a process, or way of thinking that is supposedly non-ideological( and therefore
'does not exist'. The term is a kind of denial, in itself.
It is about the supremacy of technology and technical systems, but only partly so, because there
is always the impression that there is a wilfulness to the decision making process which is used
as a screen to obscure the malicious undercurrents of 'pragmatic' decision making -where certain
economic elements are defined as having an inevitable quality akin to the enthalpy of energy changes-'we
cannot resist the (economic ) laws of nature' is the
siren call of these duplicitous money-grubbers-while all the time their simplistic nostrums ignore
the subtler importances of the entropy of the system, leading to ever greater disorder and ever
greater human costs.
One of the most interesting aspects of living through the "Thatcher' era , when she and her acolytes
were promoting this simplistic 'revolution in thinking-the supremacy of the market idea ' - leaving
behind the failures of statism the forlorn social contract and the established principle of seeking
out complex, negotiated accommodations of conflicting interests, was the clear impression that
behind all that quasi- philosophical/right wing ideological stuff was a simple deep desire to
rip off the dupes (the wider public) who had no idea what was really happening under their noses.
It was nothing more than a considered cynical position to take advantage of the money making opportunities
offered by public systems that had been heavily invested in over decades, and were therefore available
for carpetbagging capitalism.
Essentially it was the use of insider knowledge and trading. The elevation to a philosophical
perspective was simply a cover for the criminal activity and insider plundering.
Essentially we saw the identical pattern emerge after the collapse of the Soviet Union where
serendipity, desperation and ruthless gangsterism coincided to create the squalor of what we now
see being enacted in the west-end property casino of London.
What should be remembered is the Yeltsin era, when, to all intents and purposes. western 'scrap
metal' dealers or their agents were snuffling around the wreckage, looking for the quick profits
of (the equivalent of) ruthlessly ripping out the copper pipes and plumbing of that empire.
What did we get? We got a regression into the Putin (orderly and systematic theft) statist despotism,
and the lurch into a competing despotism, which we see in places like the Ukraine, being fascist
puppet operated for the convenience of malignant interests in the west.
No political party or country can stand up to neoliberalism and decide to go their own way. Sooner
or later the guys with the baseball bats, probably German, will pay them a visit.
It's pessimistic but like global warming, things will only change after a catastrophe hits
really close to home. We may have more information than we had in the past but the deadening comforts
of western middle class living has left us dull and unable to respond.
Galbraith had seen this. He said that neoliberalism was like feeding the finest oats to the
stallion in the hope it would generate some undigested droppings on which the sparrow could feed.
It seems that the sparrows now want more of the oats and not from the droppings. Corbyn and
Bernie Sanders-phenomena that Blair purports not to understand- are symbols of dissatisfaction
of the increasing and disenchanted young people denied opportunities. They do have plans to put
in place of neoliberalism. Let us hope that this uncaring world changes.
The Stock Exchange, once an instrument to raise capital for investment is now nothing more than
a casino.
German family owned businesses are the backbone of the German economy, in the UK companies listed
on the Stock Exchange are the fiches on the casino table.
Just look where it all 'ends', huge pharma (Pfizer) companies buying up the competition, not for
research, not for the good of the employees but as a way to embark on tax dodging.
Chakraborty one of the best in this news medium
Reminds me of the old joke. My father died peacefully in his sleep....unlike the passengers on
his bus who went screaming to their deaths. Better if neoliberalism's demise were to be assisted
by a viable alternative economic theory. If not, it'll take us all with it, over the cliff into
oblivion. So, anyone got a plan?
We will rely more and more on machines and AI to make a plan. They can play chess and maybe they
can come up with a plan. The machines of the first industrial revolution were daft, nowadays these
machines start to become smart. This is a huge difference.
My 2012 paper "Saving the Euro" describes an economic model of Europe that replicates the GFC
monetary crisis and then tests the effect of a range of policy options on the model. Some policy
options have positive effects. The paper is available at: buoyanteconomies.com/SavingTheEuro.pdf
The remarkably naive idea that any market could be free, and that some god called 'market forces'
would always take care of things, is awfully primitive, but also very human. Time to get heads
out of sand, however, and face facts. We are never going to have the ideal anarchist state; we
are never going to see real communism (as opposed to state capitalism) work; and neo-liberalism
was dead in the water from the start.
There are ways to make economies work, but they involve much more thinking and work, and much
less knee-jerk spouting of opinion.
I just hope we survive the mess left by the last 35 years' mismanagement of everything.
There are ways to make economies work, but they involve much more thinking and work, and
much less knee-jerk spouting of opinion.
If you read the report that's pretty much what it concludes.
This is the second piece in as many days that completely travesties a reports (Z WIlliams article
on pregnancy advice is the other).
I would suggest as a rule of them that whenever you see the word "report" in a Guardian
opinion column you go looking for it on the internet, because what you are about to read will
have very little to do with the research, rather a projection of the author's own views onto it.
What's sad about his is not just the level of misinformation being spread about but how resistant
the views even of intelligent and articulate people are to evidence and research. They read the
reports, and just say what they were going to say anyway.
Quite right. A lack of what used to be called 'reason' or 'rationality' has been dominant for
decades now, and it seems to be getting worse.
It should have been clear from the start that Thatcher, Reagan, et al. were wrong. A more equitable
distribution of wealth, and hence a more healthy economy, will involve all sorts of things at
which both left-wing and right-wing conservatives (by that I mean those on both sides of the political
spectrum who cling to old ideas) will scream bloody blue murder. One could start with the complex
of environmental concerns, for example.
Another insightful article from Chakrabortty, who, along with John Harris continues to provide
welcome sense, in contrast to a host of Westminster bubble hacks that get regularly aired in the
Guardian (my personal frustration list includes Behr, Freedland and Rawnsley).
I don't, however, yet think we can be sanguine about a lessening grip from this destructive
ideology. It has a grip in higher education economics departments, where it seems to take the
Jesuits approach to grabbing them whilst young and impressionable. It also has a grip on what
passes for media in many western countries, where it continues with its poisonous propaganda in
which symptoms morph into causes.
Read any of the articles in this paper in which the EU referendum is mentioned, and see the
blaming of immigration for everything from zero hour contracts and pressure on housing and services
to the weather (OK, I made the last one up, but you get the drift). A classic is the article on
Stephen Hawkings views on Trump and the referendum where btl is infested with all sorts of crap
about how he 'doesnt get it because he's not working class'.
Neo-liberalism is and has been the establishments ideology for a few decades now, and whilst
it's cheer leaders and supporters continue to exert their influence over the media and HE it could
stagger on a while longer yet.
You don't need globalisation to make shoes with robots.
If cheap labour is out of the equation then robots will most likely return production to local
markets, as shipping will be an unnecessary cost.
And Adidas have been using evil sewing machines for decades, also naughty electricity: how
far do you want to roll back this particular "race to the bottom"?
Automation is terrible in neo-liberalism. But Guy Standing, Paul Mason, David Graeber, Yanis Varoufakis
and Robert Reich make clear that you can have automation and still have social cohesion and security.
Universal Basic Income is step one on the road to Postcapitalism.
Yes; lots of valid points - although you left out that the report didn't say neoliberalism was
all bad - nothing lasts thirty years in a democracy if it's entirely sh*t. We all voted for more
cheap tellies, cheap clothes, cheap holidays, cheap nannies etc etc.
The question is not even 'How do we adapt to the death of neoliberalism?" It's 'How much can
we even afford to let neoliberalism die?' No politician who wants to stay in the job for ten minutes,
is going to tell the electorate what the future of globalized free trade (which means globalized
free movement of labour units) really looks like - so they keep filtering the whole thing through
the old meaningless panto of "left and right."
Farage and Trump are punting exactly the same "hard-left" protectionism that the likes of Arthur
Scargill once fought for, yet the media (and politicians) still shriek about them being "right
wing," while Sanders and Corbyn have an internationalist view that George Soros would happily
endorse.
We've already had the mainstream begin to adapt - eg; Hillary Clinton faking concern about
neoliberalism's excesses in order to see off the threat from Saunders, while the Conservatives
had to concede an EUref to UKIP. And while it's (on balance) a welcome death - we'd better hope
that it's a reasonably gentle one that acknowledges what works, not the kind of infantilized 'pull-up-the-drawbridge'
populist crap that Trump spoon-feeds his demographic. The faster the mainstream adapts, the better.
Neoliberalism necessarily impoverishes. Its object is to produce goods and services more cheaply,
ie reduce wages. Unfortunately, workers are also consumers, so reducing wages means reducing consumption,
which in turn means reducing production.
A pleasanter system may be to separate production (by machines) from consumption (by humans),
hence the interest in helicopter money and citizens income- methods by which individuals are paid
by their society to consume.
The simpler, and so perhaps more likely scenario, is war and pestilence, to create shortages.
Universal Basic Income yes, helicopter money no. Helicopter money is the last bullet of neo-liberalism.
Printing and dumping cash in the hopes that people will spend or invest it. It's the ultimate
act of can kicking.
Last year the rich countries' thinktank, the OECD, made a remarkable concession. It acknowledged
that the share of UK economic growth enjoyed by workers is now at its lowest since the second
world war. Even more remarkably, it said the same or worse applied to workers across the capitalist
west.
I wonder if these bastions of economic probity, the IMF and the OECD, will ever apologise for
supporting neoliberalism. I wonder if they will ever take any responsibility for advocating a
system which has resulted in the rich geting so much richer whilst most of the rest see little
or no improvement in their lives, and now increasing numbers of the poor become destitute. I wonder,
but I doubt
Yes, it's dying, but not dead yet. It's as much a social doctrine as it is an economic ideology.
DBS checks and criminal registers are still very much alive, and these are beacons of neoliberal
philosophy. But creating environments where the masses destroy each other-and the rich few prosper-
is not a new thing. For years Christianity advocated a similarly dogmatic stance. The biblical
"meek shall inherit the earth" has been catastrophically and deliberately misrepresented by those
with a vested interest in doing so. You think there is absolute truth and morality? Think again,
the market defines what is and is not moral, always has done, always will do. The only thing that
neoliberalism changed was the moral goalposts. Instead of blasphemy it uses sexual deviancy as
it's antithesis. Oh the myopic masses.
All the problems we face today have their roots in the neoliberal ideology. It created a monster
that now stamps across the world crushing any country with independents from the grip of this
corporate elite. They use financial weapons to destroy economies that don't give into their way
of doing things. It breaks up communities to make workers vulnerable, drives wages down, reduces
the tax on their profits, sells off all state assets the taxpayer built to made to modern world
possible... at rock bottom prices. The list of destructive aspects that can be attributed to neoliberalism
is long. Here are a couple of biggies we won't be able to recover from for generations to come.
Intergenerational theft by it's approach to the housing market used to prop up the decreasing
wages and create and illusion we were all getting richer. All it was doing was stealing from their
children to enrich themselves in the present. Then the problems now with care in the community,
a result of the break-up of communities to exploit labour. This could turn into an extremely long
post if I was to just name all the major problem but Pensions and the privatising the utilities
have left the lives of the children of today blighted. Oh and then there is the climate, another
problem exacerbated by neoliberalism. Its control of media outlets means the public will never
be properly informed about this issue or any issue that might challenge the neoliberal agenda.
I think we can now say after this debacle that the most productive cohesive and successful period
the west has had was under socialist democratic control after the WW2.
The Achilles heel of neo-liberalism was that it over emphasized the supply side. Costs had
to be driven down by emasculating Trade Unions, curbs on workers bargaining power were introduced
and salaries plummeted, government services had to be cut with direct consequences on jobs and
quality of life and, taxes to the rich were simultaneously cut exacerbating income inequality.
Some of us have been saying this for sometime, that if you create unemployment in the name
of efficiency and drastically reduce the salaries of those already in employment who is going
to buy the goods and services which were now being produced "efficiently" under neo-liberalism.
You can not get growth under this scenario, ultimately you have to reckon with question of decline
in aggregate demand and the concomitant income in equality caused by neo-liberalism. What the
proponents of neo-liberalism thought was the holy grail of economics turned out to a be a veritable
cul-de- sac. The rising tide that was supposed to lift all boats has turned out to the whirl pool
that threatens to suck all of us to the bottom of the sea.
The only death here is in the acknowledgement of neoliberalism's essential failure to deliver
a fair and equitable society.
Soviet state socialism lied, because it pretended to be a necessary step on the way to
common ownership of the means of production: but instead fell into the hands of uncompromising
thugs. It failed because the neoliberal capitalist system is a far more efficient way for uncompromising
thugs to run things.
Unfortunately, unlike soviet state socialism, there is no practical alternative to neoliberalism,
since all the institutions that opposed it or ameliorated it have been destroyed or suborned.
Consequently, neoliberalism no longer needs to pretend that it is an ideology committed to fairness
or equality.
This is not the death of neoliberalism. It is neoliberalism beginning to shed a false skin,
coming out of the closet.
It is neoliberalism coming to life, and walking the streets unashamed of its true nature.
The only death is the death of its pretence to be a system that benefits all: and this results
from an arrogance that considers all alternatives, such as socialism or Islam, to have been consigned
to the dustbin of history.
These lying ideological bastards have destroyed millions of lives and dented the hopes and aspirations
of millions more. Their warped gurus, Hayek and Mitford et al are economic illiterates who have
been peddling their failed filth for years, buttressed by soulless politicos such Reagan, Thatcher
and Blair. They and their failed experiment based on greed rather than need should be confined
to the dustbin of history.
Interested to read the comment about the fact that UK workers no longer enjoy a share of economic
growth. I'm 50 and have one 48-year-old sibling. As we grew up as children in the 70's and 80's,
our father's salary as a department manager in a major high street supermarket chain was more
than enough for us to have a very comfortable childhood. For children today to have the same experience
would require both parents to work - and much longer hours.
The fable 'you never had it so good' is a blatant lie.
We can't turn back the clock and even if we could I have no desire to return to the strikes
and conflict of the 1970s. Yet at the same time it is abundantly clear that as a people we are
being squeezed until the pips squeak... Today it is zero hours contracts and "If you don't like
it, quit, and I'll hire a migrant on half your salary"... This isn't freakonomics, it's fearonomics
- and it's far too effective to go away any time soon.
the real irony being that capitalism is driven and sustained by demand, while neo-liberalism privileges
supply, which increases inequality.
This becomes a problem as capitalism is also dependent upon the poorest half spending for its
health. Neo-liberalism is, in essence, economic Anorexia Nervosa.
No where in their bag of tricks did they try the one that would actually work, increase the
spending power of the lower half, but that is anathema to neo-liberal philosophy.
The real advantage for neo-liberalism is that they've already made off with most things of
value that weren't legislatively nailed to the floor.
The state has been militarised to such an extent armed revolution is all but impossible. What
really terrifies them is that we will simply ignore them and create our own alternatives. Take
Argentina in 2001 as an example. It was the only country in history to default on it's debt due
to popular revolt. The revolt in question centered on people forming alternative social and economic
services in their own communities around the rallying cry of "Que se vayan todos" or they can
all go to hell. There are a few books published under that title about it that are free online.
Similarly, have a look at this vid from David Graeber. You can start at 2:56 for a direct answer
but it's worth watching the whole thing: https://youtu.be/mU1pQIMv8_A
It acknowledged that the share of UK economic growth enjoyed by workers is now at its lowest
since the second world war.
When the economy crashed in 2008 they labelled it credit crunch. The explanation was, and still
is, that lenders ran out of credit to carry on lending. But all along they knew that they needed
credit primarily to cover their ever mounting losses and carry on business as usual. If their
loanees were keeping up payments, not a single lender would crash because of lack of credit.
Quite basically neoliberal capitalism bit off the same finger that fed it. By going for eternal
suppression of wages, forever reducing taxes, and forever shrinking states, they set up a system
that helped them to keep more and more proceeds of growth for themselves. Sounds great until you
realise that demand has disappeared from the economy. That is what happened in 2008. There was
never a credit crunch. If there is real demand, credit would be found somewhere. Central banks
can make credit available to meet real demands.
If the economy is to start growing again, there has to be a fairer distribution of the proceeds
of growth. It means higher and fairer wages, higher taxes, a more robust state (the state has
always been a major redistributor of wealth). This would bring back demand into the economy. These
changes go against every principle of neoliberalism. But then that's why it died,
Neoliberalism isn't an ideology, it's about class interests. Neoliberal principle is turned on
its head whenever that's in the interests of the economic elite - witness the nationalisations
and state aids during the banking crisis.
Neoliberalism isn't an ideology, it's about class interests.
Why can't it be an ideology that is organically linked to class interests? The fact that an
ideology involves an internal, situational gap between official rhetoric and policy substance,
is not enough to disqualify it as an ideology. It just means that the ideology is more complex
than its surface suggests.
We live in the Breshnev era of neoliberalism. The ideology is utterly discredited, and all around
is stagnation and despair, but the more it fails in fact, the more it is enshrined in law. TTIP
is one example, the Berlin-Brussels determination to "constitutionalise" neoliberalism in the
EU by outlawing alternatives is another. If anyone does not know what I'm talking about, I refer
them to the Fiscal Compact, and to the ongoing assault on Greek democracy.
The tragedy is that the Soviet example demonstrates that such zombie systems can continue for
decades. The post-mortem phase of the Stalinist system was of much greater duration than its brief
pre-mortem era (if it ever was alive for more than 5 minutes). Metaphorically speaking, the embalmed
corpses of Thatcher and Merkel may be inspecting parades in Red Square for years to come, as one
wasted generation gives way to another.
I hope you are wrong, and there is hope that you are. One of the big ones is me being able to
talk to you from here in Angola where I am currently working. The internet.
Nothing like that existed in Russia, or anywhere else in the world. They could only go by word
of mouth as nothing was written to give an alternative. People were isolated, they lacked credible
information, yet today we are awash with more information than any of us can handle. The job today
is to sort the wheat from the chaff.
2008 woke up the people when they found out what the banks have been up to, but that was also
as the internet was growing exponentially. Even granny is on Facebook today. The best bit is governments
cannot control it in the same way they could control the media before.
...what you're witnessing amid all the graphs and technical language is the start of the
long death of an ideology.
The start ?
Y'know I could swear I remember both the IMF and the World Bank officially donning hair shirts
and admitting what research had clearly shown: that the imposition of neoliberal policies as preconditions
for financial aid packages had generally proved totally disastrous for those they were supposed
to help.
That was back in the 1990s... In practice very little has changed--except that nowadays an
article such as the one we're commenting on may include journalists--in this case TV correspondents
--in the list of those who continue to reassure us, regardless of any evidence to the contrary,
that neoliberal policies really are working.
Thus the delectably cynical modern definition of a journalist: one who is paid by the rich
to tell the middle classes to blame the working classes.
It all feels a bit late. Growth figures have become meaningless. It doesn't matter what the state
of the economy is, because all most of us see is zero hours contracts and zero public services.
The result has been Trump, the rise of the far right, and the probable break-up of the EU (and
possibly UK as well). Our political elites are still asleep on the job. I genuinely don't know
where this is taking us.
From the IMF paper:
"Austerity policies not only generate substantial welfare costs
due to supply-side channels, they also hurt demand-and thus
worsen employment and unemployment. The notion that fiscal
consolidations can be expansionary (that is, raise output and
employment), in part by raising private sector confidence and
investment, has been championed by, among others, Harvard
economist Alberto Alesina in the academic world and by former
European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet in
the policy arena. However, in practice, episodes of fiscal consolidation
have been followed, on average, by drops rather than by
expansions in output. On average, a consolidation of 1 percent
of GDP increases the long-term unemployment rate by 0.6 percentage
point and raises by 1.5 percent within five years the Gini
measure of income inequality (Ball and others, 2013)."
And here in Australia, the Liberal government is trying to sell us a $50 billion reduction
in company tax, and an even larger, unspecified reduction in government spending to return to
budget surplus as a "plan" for "jobs and growth".
This sucker went down in 2008. What has happened since has been a nightmare. The money-printing,
giving that money to the rich, economic 'growth' based on immigration has rewarded those that
brought 08 about, whilst punishing it's victims again. Hopefully either Trump, Corbyn, Brexit
or Russia re-exerting it's power can finally drive a stake through the neolib heart.
" Global Financial Crisis Coming – Japan Warns of "Lehman-Scale" Crisis At G7
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe warned his Group of Seven counterparts on Friday that
the world may on the brink of a global financial crisis on the scale of Lehman Brothers."
This quote from an article on zerohedge.com this morning.
Yet most of humanity remains in the dark, continuing their lives without thought of what is
about to happen - a financial crash of such enormity, life will never be the same again. Hardly
anyone is preparing and even if they do, it will be to no avail because apart from the elite who
will disappear into fortified underground bunkers, we shall be left to fight for our lives by
whatever means possible.
Too bleak a picture? Food riots going on in Venezuela should be enough to demonstrate what
can happen. And the US is partially to blame, labelling Venezuela a threat to their security.
That Venezuela will pushed into using the dollar for trade is one way of protecting the petrodollar
and the reason behind such a stance. Is there no end to the hegemony of a would be slavemaster?
Indeed, as per the ending of the book Red Plenty "What kind of socialism is that? What
kind of shit is that, when you have to keep people in chains? What kind of social order? What
kind of paradise?"
Yes; it's dying from within. It was theory, and scholars are abandoning it. But those who put
the theory into practice are still there, and they're clinging to their ideology as much as to
their seats.
Neoliberalism is bankrupt in every sense of the word but that doesn't stop the EU, in particular,
from imposing its destructive "remedies" - read poison - on member states. And the problem is
that we can't remove either the Commission or the bureaucrats, no matter how much they fail. The
EU is not a democracy but a kleptocracy. Once you're in, you're in for good. The high-placed bureaucrat
who fears for his/her job doesn't exist. Elections are a sham. Nobody - absolutely nobody - votes
for a European party or a European platform. The minority that goes to the voting booths uses
their ballot as a way to express approval or disapproval of national governments.
And so we are stuck with neoliberalism, just as the Soviet Union was stuck with communism under
Breznev and Andropov. It wasn't working, but the bureaucrats and leaders had a vested interest
in keeping it going.
"Two British examples, suggests Will Davies – author of the Limits of Neoliberalism – would
be the NHS and universities 'where classrooms are being transformed into supermarkets'. "
The dominant neoliberal, market fundamentalist order must, like any competent cult, enforce
its authority by doubling down each time its worldview is threatened. This is accomplished by
identifying and monetizing regions of social life that had hitherto been neglected or underutilized.
In the latest sting, the student is reduced to the status of a consumer whose actions and decisions
are governed purely by the market algorithm. The reduction must be so complete that the student-consumer
identity should appear obvious and unquestionable.
"Since the crash, central bankers, politicians and TV correspondents have tried to reassure
the public that this wheeze or those billions would do the trick and put the economy right
again."
The financial crash of 2008 was the biggest and latest bursting in a series of asset bubbles,
following on the footsteps of the 2000 bust of the Dotcom bubble. Taking the long view over the
last thirty years, the blowing and bursting of one asset bubble after another has served as a
means of vacuuming up the social wealth, as the top economic tiers have been successively bailed
out at the expense of the majority of the population.
To express it in the precise language of physics, the bubble-burst-bail cycle is the pump'em-fleece'em-blame'em
game that the economic elite perpetrate on the unsuspecting commoners.
The captured organs of government managed to again bail out the big speculators and players,
privatizing their gains during the expansion of the bubble and socializing their losses during
its bust. In other words, a smooth operation of radiating risk from high-stakes gamblers and scammers
to the society at large. However, the ripple effects of the latest crash have not been completely
damped out and, if anything, the magnitude of the shock waves keeps increasing after each manifestation
of discontent and protest against the neoliberal machine.
A cascading series of cracks are beginning to appear in the illusion of the steady-state equilibrium
of the world, fracturing the end-of-history narrative that the neoliberal order has been energetically
maintaining for the past three decades. Nevertheless, the this-can't-go-on-but-it-will-go-on state
of affairs seems to be sputtering and not going on as smoothly as before. Occupy Wall Street,
Corbyn, Sanders, Syriza, Podemos, etc., are the fissures through which the pent-up and inchoate
frustrations of various social forces are periodically finding an outlet to the surface.
The dangers of the ever-increasing extreme inequality and the instability it can cause are
explored by various scholars including
Acemoglu and
Turchin . The latter
applies a dynamical system approach to estimate political stress pressures that could lead to
crises. According to his analysis we are on the cusp of one such instability. The increasing instability
of the neoliberal order implies the shifting of the ground beneath it. The previous givenness
of the passive citizenry is becoming less so, and critical junctures might approach fast and unforeseeably.
It's reaching end game in the US. The global elite now control most of the world's wealth. Congress
is corrupt as hell. TTIP will grab any jewels the people own, like the NHS.
But communism fell internally when the people didn't want it. one way to stop the global elite
is to tax them properly, including their corporations, like Facebook and Google. The French are
at least taking Google to court for extra tax. And these damned tax-shelters need to be closed
down and firms outlawed from sending their money their.
Even Luxenbourg is a parasite. It offers these company's a nice low tax rate ( in the EU!) and
their citizens have the highest standard of livening in the EU for doing zero.
Please, do not keep equating the Russian dictatorships to Communisim.
It isn't, never was and never could be.
The USofA demonised the concept of true socialism by using the excesses of the USSR as a blind
in order for its wealthy ruling elite to further mislead the general population.
As Rolly said, USSR was neither socialist nor communist. It was a torture chamber with a red flag
and social welfare. There are multiple paths to a communist society, to the tragedy of the people
who lived under it that was not one of them. The Spanish anarchists have it a fair go and did
particularly well given the circumstances. I don't know if I would follow any of these ideologies
as a way out but alternatives do at least exist.
Yes, it's certainly too soon to add bunting and balloons to the shopping-list and, as the Straw
Man says in The Wizard of Oz, it will probably get worse before it gets better, with those who
truly, madly and deeply believe in the ideology or cult of neoliberalism exercising and inflicting
it more savagely and ruthlessly in the years to come.
Neoliberalism is a heist of wealth from those who create it at the bottom to those who plunder
and squander it at the top.
It is forever aided and abetted by useful idiots, who think that earning a few multiples of
the average wage or having a few thousand in the bank puts them on a level which is closer to
Carlos Slim or Warren Buffet than the sanctioned, hardworking, wage-free supermarket shelf-stacker
and charity food-bank shopper.
The cheerleaders and shills who swarm like flies around shit.
Excellent article. I particularly enjoyed 'fiscal waterboarding'.
This is one of Spufford's crucial insights: that long before any public protests, the insiders
led the way in murmuring their disquiet.
... what you're witnessing amid all the graphs and technical language is the start of the
long death of an ideology.
Well, we live in hope. I'm sure I'm not alone in wishing neoliberalism dead and buried. Unfortunately,
it's clear that the key word in each of those quotes is 'long'. The relatively few who are benefiting
from the neoliberal model won't give it up without the mother of all power struggles.
"The relatively few who are benefiting from the neoliberal model won't give it up without the
mother of all power struggles."
Yeah - thats the nub. They are not going to give up their huge power and privilege merely because
the system it relies on is screwing everybody else. Intellectual critques will get nowhere without
change being forced by unrelenting pressure from mass movements of ordinary people - strike, occupy,
demonstrate, boycott and organise.
What is remarkable is how long it has taken for institutions like the IMF to state what has been
obvious to most populations for many years. The contrast with the rise of rewards at the top and
food banks at the bottom should have been a red rag to a bull for any organisation which supposedly
has the whole of the worlds population to consider. The lies about 'public bad and private good'
have led to whole sectors of teachers, doctors and other public servants to be alienated.
I find the difficulty of voting to stay in an obviously neoliberal Europe or a probably more neoliberal
UK a difficult choice. My gut feeling at the moment is to vote out and hope the more extreme neoliberal
policies of Redwood and Johnson will quickly alarm the British public and we may get back to electing
a socially minded government and not have to endure this lying 'caring conservatism' which voting
remain will entrench for many years.
It seems that the political arm of the IMF which supports Bremain is at odds with the research
arm which is more ambivalent about the excesses of neoliberalism.
The "Free market" is a non-sequitur: A free market ends up in monopoly.
Inevtitably.
That's why all free market economies have at their root a mechanism for preventing monopolies
working.
Economist is fundamentally illogical based on the basic fact that economics deals in "Value",
and that value is something essentially illogical. It is not possible to objectively give a value
to a kilo of potatoes, much as economists have tried, not elast Marx who was a clever person.
This need to prevent monopolies originates in that, in various tortuous and complicated labyrinthine
ways.
The reality is that a "free market" only exists where there are numerous buyers and numerous sellers.
Once supply is consolidated in the hands of the few (i.e. almost every commodity in our modern
world) then the market is distorted and no longer free.
Whereas states previously had powers to prevent monopoly power in their own country there is
no such mechanism to regulate at a global level.
But the fundamental reality of a market is the basis of human society.
What is that supposed to mean exactly?
"...Lessons of October (156k) written only shortly after Lenin's death in 1924, issued a serious
warning to workers about the mistakes and inadequacies of the clique already forming around Stalin.
It obliquely draws lessons from the failure of the German revolution, "a perfectly exceptional
revolutionary situation of world historic importance," due in part to the failure of leadership
of Stalin himself, which left the Russian revolution isolated.
But it is Trotsky's In Defence of October which is most recommended to the new reader. Trotsky
concludes this remarkable explanation of the ideas of Marxism (as developed by Lenin and Trotsky)
with the words:
"The historic task of our epoch consists in replacing the uncontrolled play of the market
by reasonable planning, in disciplining the forces of production, compelling them to work together
in harmony and obediently serve the needs of mankind."
(In Defence of October)
Ambrose Bierce lost much public cachet when he predicted(?) McKinley would meet with a bullet,
as some believed his words were assumed as justification by the assassin.
From his "Devil's Dictionary":
WAR, n. A by-product of the arts of peace. The most menacing political condition is a period
of international amity. The student of history who has not been taught to expect the unexpected
may justly boast himself inaccessible to the light. "In time of peace prepare for war" has a deeper
meaning than is commonly discerned; it means, not merely that all things earthly have an end-that
change is the one immutable and eternal law-but that the soil of peace is thickly sown with the
seeds of war and singularly suited to their germination and growth. It was when Kubla Khan had
decreed his "stately pleasure dome"-when, that is to say, there were peace and fat feasting in
Xanadu- that he heard from afar Ancestral voices prophesying war.
One of the greatest of poets, Coleridge was one of the wisest of men, and it was not for nothing
that he read us this parable. Let us have a little less of "hands across the sea," and a little
more of that elemental distrust that is the security of nations. War loves to come like a thief
in the night; professions of eternal amity provide the night.
His entry just previous to this is for:
WALL STREET, n. A symbol of sin for every devil to rebuke. That Wall Street is a den of thieves
is a belief that serves every unsuccessful thief in place of a hope in Heaven...
I have a copy of his book "Tales of Soldiers and Civilians"; it's like reading a depressive version
of Edgar Allen Poe, all foreboding and involving some supernatural force. Perhaps that's all he could
find to explain the madness of the Civil War.
UPDATE "A fractured Democratic Party threatens Clinton's chances against Trump" [WaPo].
Sanders himself has made harder-to-argue cases [as opposed to election fraud] against the
Democratic primaries. The truncated debate schedule struck supporters of both candidates as
unfair, something the party seemed to acknowledge by tacking on more of them in March and April.
Although Clinton is on track to win a majority of pledged delegates, Sanders has suggested
that early support for Clinton among superdelegates, the party leaders and elected officials
who get an automatic convention vote but are not bound by their state's popular vote created
a barrier no candidate could scale.
This reminds me of Albert O. Hirschman's
"Exit, Voice, and Loyalty" formulation. The Democrats have given Sanders supporters zero to
no reason for loyalty, so the remaining options are voice and exit. Can the Clinton camp craft
a deal that will allow Sanders voters a voice within the party? I think they neither wish to,
nor can (vague noises about platform wording are to "voice" as watching a meeting is to chairing
a meeting). Hence, exit. Here, the classic Democratic response has been "They have no place to
go." However, Sanders has funding independent of the Democratic Party, and he also has his "list"
(assuming the Democrat insiders using NGP VAN haven't stolen it). So for the first time, there's
a real chance of creating a place for the left to go. The new situation Sanders created
has impaled the Democrat establishment on the horns of a big dilemma: Craft a deal with a party
faction they despise (a deal which, more to the point, will break some important rice bowls if
it's any kind of deal at all), or craft no deal and go for moderate Republican votes; I argue
the Iron Law of
Institutions - not to mention neoliberal ideological compatibility and class interest - will
impel the Democrat Establishment to do the latter; hence, exit for Sanders. Nevertheless, the
Establishment's dilemma causes them genuine pain, and hence the sudden spittle-flecked explosion
of Acela-riding, loyalist rage, none of which takes account of the realpolitik, or resolves
the situation in any way.
UPDATE "Does Bernie Sanders want to be the Ralph Nader of 2016?" [Dana Milbank,
WaPo]. The insurgent Sanders couldn't, even if he wanted to be. The insurgent Nader commanded
what, 4% of the vote? Sanders commands 45%, after a process skewed against him, whose views point
to a possible future for the Democrat Party. Incidentally, there's a message in an order-of-magnitude
growth in support for Democrat insurgents, if the party Establishment would open its ears. (And
don't talk to me about Florida: 306,000 Florida Democrats voted for Bush. Democrats lost election
2000, and nobody else.)
"After winning more than 60 percent of the pledged delegates through March 1st, Clinton is
now likely to lose the majority of pledged delegates awarded between March 2nd and June 14th -
a two and a half month period that makes up roughly the final two-thirds of the Democratic nominating
process" [HuffPo].
Why those favorability ratings are important
Wrapped in the flag neocon bottom feeders like Hillary (and quite possibly Trump, although
this article is from Guardian which is a fiercely pro-Clinton rag) might eventually destroy
this nice country.
Notable quotes:
"... the Golden Era of the Chickenhawk. We keep electing leaders who, on the most basic experiential level, literally have no idea what they're doing. ..."
"... Maybe they get away with it because we the people who keep voting them into office don't know anything about war ourselves. ..."
"... As long as we're cocooned in our comfortable homeland fantasy of war, one can safely predict a long and successful run for the Era of the Chickenhawk ..."
"... The author, like most Americans, is in denial about America's role in the world. The reason the US spends more on defense than the next 12 countries has nothing to do with self-defense. America wants to maintain its global military dominance. Both parties agree on this. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, the war's purpose was to demonstrate American military power. Bill Kristol takes this a stage further and wants America to play the role of global hegemon and be in a state of constant war. This is a stupid idea. ..."
"... It is a simple an obvious fact that the people most eager to see the US go to war, in every generation, are not the people who will suffer and die in those wars. Today is our Memorial Day. This is an article suggesting we, as Americans, stop and think about the people who were wounded and those who died in service to our country. Set aside your partisan rage and consider those people and their deaths, before you listen to words from any politician calling for more of those deaths. ..."
"... And the hypocrisy of all this is how Hillary Clinton doesn't have a problem with war. She participated in toppling Libya and she was doing the same to Syria. So how is it all about Trump and what a war monger he is? ..."
"... The corporations that sell war materiel actively push their products, ensure the support of the government through political contributions, and engage in blackmail by spreading out manufacturing over many locations. In this manner, the only way to profit is by selling weapons, killing more people. What state or city will want to lose employment by letting a manufacturer close? It is incredibly difficult to close an un-needed military base for the same reason, whether here or abroad. War is a great racket, the US has it down pat. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton has started more wars, caused more death than Donald Trump....and yet....you don't mention that do you "We came, He died, We Laughed" ..."
"... Unfortunately we're in a position where the United States is a debtor nation, and the easiest way to keep the house of cards from falling is to maintain "full spectrum dominance" in the words of the Pentagon. There's no easy way to unwind this situation. It is, however, absolutely crucial to keep a known psychopath like Clinton out of the command chair. ..."
"... When congress votes to fund wars then [they need to] add 75% more for after care. As a combat veteran it pisses me off that [instead] charities are used to care for us. Most are run by want a be military, Senease, types. No charities, it's up to American people to pay every penny for our care, they voted for the war mongers so, so pay up people. Citizens need to know true costs, tax raises, cuts in SS , welfare, cuts in schools. Biggest thing, all elected officials and families and those work for them must use VA hospitals, let's see how that works out. ..."
"... we insulate ourselves in a nice, warm cocoon of "Support Our Veterans" slogans and flag waving. ..."
"... "Endless war: Trump and the fantasy of cost-free conflict " How about Hillary and the fantasy of war, PERIOD. There hasn't been a war she didn't like. Did you listen to her AIPAC speech? No 2 State solution there. ..."
"... So easy to be the hero in your wet dreams, your shooter games, your securely located war rooms stocked with emergency rations and the external defibrillator. This sort of unhinged fantasizing has been the defining pattern of the Era of Endless War, in which people – old men, for the most part, a good number of them rich – who never experienced war – who in their youth ran as fast from it as they could – send young men and women – most of them middle- and working-class – across oceans to fight wars based on half-facts, cooked intelligence, and magical thinking on the grand geopolitical scale. Surely it's no coincidence that the Era of the AUMF, the Era of Endless War, is also the Golden Era of the Chickenhawk. We keep electing leaders who, on the most basic experiential level, literally have no idea what they're doing. ..."
"... It is actually NOT Donald Trump who is advocating the endless global conflict and confrontation with Russia, China, India, Iran, Europe and North Korea. The candidate secretly advocating a never-ending war with the rest of the world is -- Madame Secretary, Hillary Clinton, in person. Aided and abetted - publicly - by her right-hand woman, another Madame Secretary, Madeleine Albright and yet another Madame Undersecretary, Samantha Power. All chicken hawks, all neoconservatives, all pseudo-democrats, all on Wall Street payroll, all white, and all women who will never see a second of combat for the rest of their lives. ..."
"... So, the very major premise of the article is flawed and unsustainable. Which, of course, then makes the entire article collapse as false and misleading. ..."
"... John Mearsheimer who is a history professor at the University of Chicago wrote a great book about American foreign policy. Mearsheimer explains how American foreign policy has developed over the centuries. He argues that it firs objective was to dominate the Western Hemisphere before extending its reach to Asia and Europe. The War of 1812 and the Monroe Doctrine was part of a plan to dominate the Americas. The U.S. stopped Japan and Germany dominating Asia and Europe in the 20th century. The U.S. continued to view the British Empire as its greatest threat and Roosevelt set about dismantling it during WW2. Once WW2 was won, the Soviet Union became America's new adversary and it maintained forces in Europe to check Soviet expansion. ..."
"... Mearsheimer argues that the U.S. is often in denial about its behavior and Americans are taught that the U.S. is altruistic and a force for good in the world. Measheimer states that "idealist rhetoric provided a proper mask for the brutal policies that underpinned the tremendous growth of American power." In 1991 the U.S. became the world's only super-power and according to Mearsheimer its main foreign policy objective was to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. ..."
"... Mearsheimer claims that America's foreign policy elite is still largely made up of people who want to keep America on top, but these days they usually prefer to keep their views under wraps. ..."
"... Trump is the only candidate I've ever heard question the cost of war, it's part of the reason he said we should flush NATO and we can't police the world for free any longer. ..."
"... I have no problem with destroying ISIS. I have a problem with fighting Russia over every former Soviet state on their doorstep ala Madam Secretary. The best way to remember the war dead is to work to ensure that their ranks do not swell. ..."
As America marks Memorial Day, politicians should spare us the saber-rattling and reserve
some space for silence
... ... ...
The times are such that fantasy war-mongering is solidly mainstream. We've seen candidates call
for a new campaign of "shock and awe" (Kasich), for carpet-bombing and making the desert glow (Cruz),
for "bomb[ing] the shit out of them" (Trump), for waterboarding "and a hell of a lot worse" (Trump
again), and for pre-emptive strikes and massive troop deployments (Jeb). One candidate purchased
a handgun as "the last line of defense between Isis and my family" (Rubio), and the likely Democratic
nominee includes
"the nail-eaters – McChrystal, Petraeus, Keane" among her preferred military advisers, and supports
"intensification and acceleration" of US military efforts in Iraq and Syria. Yes, America has many
enemies who heartily hate our guts and would do us every harm they're able to inflict, but the failures
of hard power over the past 15 years seem utterly lost on our political class. After the Paris attacks
last December, Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard suggested that a force of 50,000 US troops deployed
to Syria, supported by air power, would crush Isis in short order, leading to the liberation of Fallujah,
Mosul, and other Isis strongholds.
"I don't think there's much in the way of unanticipated side-effects that are going to be bad there,"
opined Kristol – funny guy! – who back in 2002 said that removing Saddam Hussein "could start
a chain reaction in the Arab world that would be very healthy".
... ... ...
"A night of waking," as Bierce tersely described it years later. The sheer volume and accuracy
of ordnance made this a new kind of war, a machine for pulping acres of human flesh. Regardless of
who was winning or losing, shock-and-awe was the common experience of both sides; Confederate and
Union soldiers alike could hardly believe the things they were doing and having done to them, and
when Bierce turned to the writer's trade after the war, some fundamental rigor or just plain contrariness
wouldn't let him portray his war in conventionally heroic terms. In his hands, sentimentality and
melodrama became foils for twisted jokes. Glory was ambiguous at best, a stale notion that barely
hinted at the suicidal nature of valor in this kind of war. A wicked gift for honesty served up the
eternal clash between duty and the survival instinct, as when, early in the war, Bierce and his fellow
rookies come across a group of Union dead:
How repulsive they looked with their blood-smears, their blank, staring eyes, their teeth uncovered
by contraction of the lips! The frost had begun already to whiten their deranged clothing. We
were as patriotic as ever, but we did not wish to be that way.
... ... ...
Black humor sits alongside mordantly cool accounts of battles, wounds, horrors, absurd and tragic
turns of luck. There are lots of ghosts in Bierce's work, a menagerie of spirits and bugaboos as
well as hauntings of the more prosaic sort, people detached in one way or another from themselves
– amnesiacs, hallucinators, somnambulists, time trippers. People missing some part of their souls.
Often Bierce writes of the fatal, or nearly so, shock, the twist that flips conventional wisdom on
its back and shows reality to be much darker and crueler than we want to believe. It's hard not to
read the war into much of Bierce's writing, even when the subject is ostensibly otherwise. He was
the first American writer of note to experience modern warfare, war as mass-produced death, and the
first to try for words that would be true to the experience. He charted this new terrain, and it's
in Bierce that we find the original experience that all subsequent American war writers would grapple
with. Hemingway and Dos Passos in the first world war; Mailer, Heller, Jones and Vonnegut in the
second world war; O'Brien, Herr and Marlantes in Vietnam: they're all heritors of Bierce.
It's not decorative, what these writers were going for. They weren't trying to write fancy, or
entertain, or preach a sermon; they weren't writing to serve a political cause, at least not in any
immediate sense. One suspects that on some level they didn't have a choice, as if they realized they
would never know any peace in themselves unless they found a way of writing that, if it couldn't
make sense of their war, at least respected it. Words that represented the experience for what it
was, without illusion or fantasy. Words that would resist the eternal American genius for cheapening
and dumbing down.
.... ... ...
...unhinged fantasizing has been the defining pattern of the Era of Endless War, in which people
– old men, for the most part, a good number of them rich – who never experienced war – who in their
youth ran as fast from it as they could – send young men and women – most of them middle- and working-class
– across oceans to fight wars based on half-facts, cooked intelligence, and magical thinking on the
grand geopolitical scale. Surely it's no coincidence that the Era of the AUMF, the Era of Endless
War, is also the Golden Era of the Chickenhawk. We keep electing leaders who, on the most basic
experiential level, literally have no idea what they're doing.
Maybe they get away with it because we the people who keep voting them into office don't know
anything about war ourselves. We know the fantasy version, the movie version, but only that
1% of the nation – and their families – who have fought the wars truly know the hardship involved.
For the rest of us, no sacrifice has been called for: none. No draft. No war tax (but huge deficits),
and here it bears noting that the top tax rate during the second world war was 90%. No rationing,
the very mention of which is good for a laugh. Rationing? That was never part of the discussion.
But those years when US soldiers were piling sandbags into their thin-skinned Humvees and welding
scrap metal on to the sides also happened to coincide with the heyday of the Hummer here at home.
Where I live in Dallas, you couldn't drive a couple of blocks without passing one of those beasts,
8,600 hulking pounds of chrome and steel. Or for a really good laugh, how about this: gas rationing.
If it's really about the oil, we could support the troops by driving less, walking more. Or suppose
it's not about the oil at all, but about our freedoms, our values, our very way of life – that it's
truly "a clash of civilizations", in the words of Senator Rubio. If that's the case, if this is what
we truly believe, then our politicians should call for, and we should accept no less than, full-scale
mobilization: a draft, confiscatory tax rates, rationing.
Some 3.5 million Americans fought in the civil war, out of a population of 31 million. For years
the number killed in action was estimated at 620,000, though recent scholarship suggests a significantly
higher figure, from a low of 650,000 to a high of 850,000. In any case, it's clear that the vast
majority of American families had, as we say these days, skin in the game. The war was real; having
loved ones at risk made it real. Many saw battles being fought in their literal backyards. Lincoln
himself watched the fighting from the DC ramparts, saw men shot and killed. The lived reality of
the thing was so brutally direct that it would be more than 50 years before the US embarked on another
major war. To be sure, there was the brief Spanish-American war in 1898, and a three-year native
insurgency in the Philippines, and various forays around the Caribbean and Central America, but the
trauma of the civil war cut so deep and raw that the generation that fought it was largely cured
of war. Our own generation's appetite seems steadily robust even as we approach the 15th anniversary
of the AUMF, which, given the circumstances, makes sense. As long as we're cocooned in our comfortable
homeland fantasy of war, one can safely predict a long and successful run for the Era of the Chickenhawk
Bierce survived his own war, barely. Two weeks after writing to a friend "my turn will come",
and one day before his 22nd birthday, he was shot in the head near Kennesaw Mountain, Georgia. The
sniper's ball broke his skull "like a walnut", penetrating the left temple, fracturing the temporal
lobe and doglegging down and around behind his left ear, where it stayed. Head shots in that era
were almost always fatal, but Bierce survived not only the initial wound, but an awful two-day train
ride on an open flatcar to an army hospital in Chattanooga.
He recovered, more or less. Not the easiest personality to begin with, Bierce showed no appreciable
mellowing from his war experience. His life is an ugly litany of feuds, ruptures, lawsuits, friends
betrayed or abandoned, epic temper tantrums and equally epic funks. He was a lousy husband – cold,
critical, philandering – and essentially abandoned his wife after 17 years of marriage. His older
son shot himself dead at age 16, and the younger drank himself to death in his 20s; for his own part,
Bierce maintained a lifelong obsession with suicide. In October 1913, after a distinguished, contentious
50-year career that had made him one of the most famous and hated men in America, Bierce left Washington
DC and headed for Mexico, intending to join, or report on – it was never quite clear – Pancho Villa's
revolutionary army. En route, dressing every day entirely in black, he paid final visits to the battlefields
of his youth, hiking for miles in the Indian summer heat around Orchard Knob, Missionary Ridge, Hell's
Half-Acre. For one whole day at Shiloh he sat by himself in the blazing sun. In November he crossed
from Laredo into Mexico, and was never heard from again, an exit dramatic enough to inspire a bestselling
novel by Carlos Fuentes, The Old Gringo, and a movie adaptation of the same name starring Gregory
Peck.
Late in life, Bierce described his military service in these terms:
It was once my fortune to command a company of soldiers – real soldiers. Not professional life-long
fighters, the product of European militarism – just plain, ordinary American volunteer soldiers,
who loved their country and fought for it with never a thought of grabbing it for themselves;
that is a trick which the survivors were taught later by gentlemen desiring their votes.
About those gentlemen – and women – desiring votes: since when did it become not just acceptable
but required for politicians to hold forth on Memorial Day? Who gave them permission to speak for
the violently dead? Come Monday we'll be up to our ears in some of the emptiest, most self-serving
dreck ever to ripple the atmosphere, the standard war-fantasy talk of American politics along with
televangelist-style purlings about heroes, freedoms, the supreme sacrifice. Trump will tell us how
much he loves the veterans, and how much they love him back. Down-ticket pols will re-terrorize and
titillate voters with tough talk about Isis. Hemingway, for one, had no use for this kind of guff,
as shown in a famous passage from A Farewell to Arms:
There were many words that you could not stand to hear and finally only the names of the places
had dignity. Certain numbers were the same way and certain dates and these with the names of the
places were all you could say and have them mean anything. Abstract words such as glory, honor,
courage, or hallow were obscene beside the concrete names of villages, the numbers of roads, the
names of rivers, the numbers of regiments and the dates.
The author, like most Americans, is in denial about America's role in the world. The reason the
US spends more on defense than the next 12 countries has nothing to do with self-defense. America
wants to maintain its global military dominance. Both parties agree on this. Iraq had nothing
to do with 9/11, the war's purpose was to demonstrate American military power. Bill Kristol takes
this a stage further and wants America to play the role of global hegemon and be in a state of
constant war. This is a stupid idea.
Even if Saddam had WMDs, he still had nothing to do with 9/11. The politicians are very good
at finding new scapegoats and switching the blame. A bunch of Saudis attacked the US on 9/11 so
invade Iraq and Afghanistan. Bin Laden moves to Pakistan so pretend you don't know where he is.
Some European terrorists kill other Europeans so Hillary wants to invade Syria. The assumption
seems to be that all Muslims are the same, it does not matter where you kill them.
Fantastic writing...shame Murika won't listen to any of it.
charlieblue
Reading the comments and conversations below, I found myself sickened and saddened by how
many of my fellow Americans can read a considered and well written article like this and
imagine it is a partisan screed.
It is a simple an obvious fact that the people most eager to see the US go to war, in
every generation, are not the people who will suffer and die in those wars. Today is our
Memorial Day. This is an article suggesting we, as Americans, stop and think about the people
who were wounded and those who died in service to our country. Set aside your partisan rage
and consider those people and their deaths, before you listen to words from any politician
calling for more of those deaths.
"Endless war," but it's not only attacks against other nations, it's a war against civil
liberties thus leading to a state in which, whistle blowers, folks who poke holes in the
government's 911 theory or complain about military operations in the China Sea may be
considered unpatriotic, maybe worse.
Dubikau
A friend recently asked, "What's the big deal about wars? I'v seen them on TV lots of times. They have nothing to do with me." Alas, a generation or two after a devastating conflict, it seems people forget. The lessons of history are unknown or irrelevant to the ignorant, the horror beyond imagination. That the clown, Trump, has made it this far is a living horror movie. As Emerson said about someone:
"The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons."
He's a liar and a joke. Neither friends nor enemies can take him seriously and he is unpredictable.
Bellanova Nova
Excellent article.
We must start talking seriously about Trump's pathology guarantees conflict and chaos, and should he get elected, an escalation of an endless war. The ramifications of his incurable and uncontrollable character defect in a political leader are dire and people should be educated about them before it's too late: https://medium.com/@Elamika/the-unbearable-lightness-of-being-a-narcissist-251ec901dae7#.xywh6cceu
Philip Lundt
As a veteran I have to ask you Ben: who gave you "permission to speak for the violently dead?"
A lot of people love Donald Trump. It's not because they are racists warmongers, ignorant, misinformed or stupid. Veterans overwhelmingly support Donald trump. Go ahead call us racists and warmongers too.
And the hypocrisy of all this is how Hillary Clinton doesn't have a problem with war. She participated in toppling Libya and she was doing the same to Syria. So how is it all about Trump and what a war monger he is?
villas1
Bravo. War is a racket.
olman132 -> villas1
As practiced in the US, certainly. The corporations that sell war materiel actively push their products, ensure the support of the government through political contributions, and engage in blackmail by spreading out manufacturing over many locations. In this manner, the only way to profit is by selling weapons, killing more people. What state or city will want to lose employment by letting a manufacturer close? It is incredibly difficult to close an un-needed military base for the same reason, whether here or abroad. War is a great racket, the US has it down pat.
Jim Given
When your'e putting your life at risk in a war zone wondering if you're going to make it back home, there's damned little discussion about politics. Whatever your reasons might have been for signing on the dotted line, all that matters then is the sailor, soldier, marine or airman standing beside you. It's discouraging, although painfully predictable, to read so few comments about veterans and so many comments about divisive politics.
Mshand
Hillary Clinton has started more wars, caused more death than Donald Trump....and yet....you don't mention that do you "We came, He died, We Laughed"
USApatriot12
Unfortunately we're in a position where the United States is a debtor nation, and the easiest way to keep the house of cards from falling is to maintain "full spectrum dominance" in the words of the Pentagon. There's no easy way to unwind this situation. It is, however, absolutely crucial to keep a known psychopath like Clinton out of the command chair.
talenttruth
For over 30 years, Americans have been carefully "programmed" 24/7, by deliberate Fear / Fear /
Fear propaganda, so we would believe that the entire world is full of evil, maniacal enemies out to
"get us."
Of course there always ARE insane haters out there, who are either jealous of America's wealth, or
who (more sophisticated than that) resent America's attempt to colonize-by-marketing, the entire
world for its unchecked capitalism. Two sides of the same American "coin." Those who are
conscripting jobless, hopeless young men overseas to be part of an equally mad "fundamentalist" army
against America ~ benefit hugely FROM our militarism, which "proves their point," from their warped
perspective.
Thus do the (tiny minority) of crazy America-haters out there (who we help create WITH our
militarism), serve as ongoing Perfectly Plausible Proof for Paranoia ~ the fuel for 24/7
fear/fear/fear propaganda. And who benefits from that propaganda? Oh wait, let us all think on that.
For five seconds.
In 1959, Republican war hero and President Dwight David Eisenhower warned us against combining the
incentives of capitalism with the un-audited profitability of wars: the "military industrial
complex." But in we Americans' orgy of personal materialism since the 1960's, we all forgot his
warning and have let that "complex" take over the nation, the world, all our pocketbooks (53% or
more of our treasury now goes to "defense" ~ what a lying word THAT is).
Answer? It it the 1-percent, crazily Wealth Hoarder super-rich who (a) profit insanely from Eternal
War and who now own (b) America's so-called "free press" (ha ha), the latter of which now slants all
news towards Threat, Fear, and War, again, 24/7. And now that "their" Nazi Supreme Court has ruled
that "money" = free speech, that same of sociopathic criminal class ALSO is coming to own politics.
Welcome to fully blooming Corporate Fascism, folks.
bullypulpit
In his book "1984" George Orwell wrote, "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is
strength." Have we fallen so far that we are living that nightmare without question? When we hear
the voices of politicians, with those on the political right being the most egregious offenders,
clamoring for war, we must not forget the cost. Not just in terms of treasure, but especially of the
blood spilled by our men and women in uniform. Ask, "Are the causes they are being asked to
fight...and die...for, worthy of the sacrifice?"
Jim Given -> bullypulpit
I'm afraid that yes, we actually have fallen that far. The Patriot Act is the quintessential
example. Who could possibly oppose something called The Patriot Act?
Jim Given -> bullypulpit
The War on Terror, another fine example. What, you oppose fighting terrorists? The language
stifles (reasoned) dissent. It's brilliant, really.
Tom Farkas
Every year I get an uncomfortable sensation around Memorial Day. I know why now thanks to
this article. I didn't serve in the armed forces. Not for want. I was a post Vietnam teenager.
The armed forces were a joke during the Carter years and the US was in the middle of detante
with the USSR. Nothing to fight about and the word terrorist was still a few years away from
being reinvented. My Dad was a decorated veteran of the police action in Korea. He lost his
best friend there. He rarely talked about it. He and I sat on the couch watching the fall of
Saigon on TV. He silently cried. It was all for not. All those lives, all that misery, all for
nothing but power and glory. He knew it and I've known it since but just couldn't put a finger
on it. Thanks for this article.
talenttruth -> Tom Farkas
Tom, what a beautiful post. My husband and I (recently married after we were finally
"allowed" to, just like "real people"), are both Vietnam veterans (we had to "hide" in order
to serve). And I had majored in college in "U.S. Constitutional History," then worked worked
(ironically!) in the advertising "industry" (the Lie Factory) for enough years to see how
America, business and our society actually works, INSTEAD of "constitutionally."
My self-preoccupied generation sleepwalked from the 1960's until now, foolishly allowing the
super-rich to gradually make nearly every giant corporation dependent on military contracts.
Example? The European Union has openly subsidized its aircraft manufacturer, Airbus. But here,
in the USA ~ that would be "socialism," and so Boeing was forced instead (in order to compete)
to rely on military contracts ("military welfare.") They're both "government subsidization,"
but ours is crooked.
So what do we get when all corporations "must have" ongoing Business, in order to keep their
insatiable profits rolling in? Eternal War. And its "unfortunate side effects" - maimed
veterans, dead soldiers, sailors and airmen, and the revolting hypocrisy of "Memorial Day."
On that day, we pay "respect" to those who died serving the Military Marketing Department for
America's totally out of control, unchecked capitalism, which only serves the overlords at the
top.
Sorry to sound so grim, but I did not serve my country, to have it thus stolen.
Barclay Reynolds
When congress votes to fund wars then [they need to] add 75% more for after care. As a
combat veteran it pisses me off that [instead] charities are used to care for us. Most are run
by want a be military, Senease, types. No charities, it's up to American people to pay every
penny for our care, they voted for the war mongers so, so pay up people. Citizens need to know
true costs, tax raises, cuts in SS , welfare, cuts in schools. Biggest thing, all elected
officials and families and those work for them must use VA hospitals, let's see how that works
out.
Jim Given -> Barclay Reynolds
Failure to care for our veterans is a national disgrace. Thanks for your service brother.
SusanPrice58 -> Barclay Reynolds
I agree. While I'm sure that most of these charities try to do well, it always makes me
angry to think about why the need for charities to care for veterans exists. If we are
determined to fight these wars - then every citizen should have to have deep involvement of
some sort. Raise taxes, ration oil, watch footage of battles, restore the draft - whatever.
Instead, we insulate ourselves in a nice, warm cocoon of "Support Our Veterans" slogans
and flag waving.
Tom Wessel
"Endless war: Trump and the fantasy of cost-free conflict "
How about Hillary and the fantasy of war, PERIOD. There hasn't been a war she didn't like. Did
you listen to her AIPAC speech? No 2 State solution there.
gwpriester
The obscene amount of money the US pays just on the interest on the trillions "borrowed" for the Afghanistan and Iraq adventures would fix most that is wrong with the world. Bush & Cheney discovered if you don't raise taxes, require financial sacrifices, and do not have a draft, that you can wage bogus wars of choice for over a decade without so much as a peep of protest from the public. It is sickening how much good that money could do instead of all the death and destruction it bought.
AllenPitt
"So easy to be the hero in your wet dreams, your shooter games, your securely located war rooms stocked with emergency rations and the external defibrillator. This sort of unhinged fantasizing has been the defining pattern of the Era of Endless War, in which people – old men, for the most part, a good number of them rich – who never experienced war – who in their youth ran as fast from it as they could – send young men and women – most of them middle- and working-class – across oceans to fight wars based on half-facts, cooked intelligence, and magical thinking on the grand geopolitical scale. Surely it's no coincidence that the Era of the AUMF, the Era of Endless War, is also the Golden Era of the Chickenhawk. We keep electing leaders who, on the most basic experiential level, literally have no idea what they're doing."
EXACTLY!
OZGODRK
It is actually NOT Donald Trump who is advocating the endless global conflict and
confrontation with Russia, China, India, Iran, Europe and North Korea. The candidate secretly
advocating a never-ending war with the rest of the world is -- Madame Secretary, Hillary
Clinton, in person. Aided and abetted - publicly - by her right-hand woman, another Madame
Secretary, Madeleine Albright and yet another Madame Undersecretary, Samantha Power. All
chicken hawks, all neoconservatives, all pseudo-democrats, all on Wall Street payroll, all
white, and all women who will never see a second of combat for the rest of their lives.
So, the very major premise of the article is flawed and unsustainable. Which, of course,
then makes the entire article collapse as false and misleading.
MOZGODRK -> arrggh
But you are missing the entire point. Trump is NOT advocating the conflict; he is
advocating that we TALK to our enemies, so his lack of combat experience is a moot point.
On the other hand, the Clintons, the Alzhe...er, Albright, and the Samantha Power-Tripp are
all totally kosher with sending millions to die, knowing that they themselves will not
experience a nanosecond of hot cognitive experience.
caravanserai
John Mearsheimer who is a history professor at the University of Chicago wrote a great
book about American foreign policy. Mearsheimer explains how American foreign policy has
developed over the centuries. He argues that it firs objective was to dominate the Western
Hemisphere before extending its reach to Asia and Europe. The War of 1812 and the Monroe
Doctrine was part of a plan to dominate the Americas. The U.S. stopped Japan and Germany
dominating Asia and Europe in the 20th century. The U.S. continued to view the British Empire
as its greatest threat and Roosevelt set about dismantling it during WW2. Once WW2 was won,
the Soviet Union became America's new adversary and it maintained forces in Europe to check
Soviet expansion.
Mearsheimer argues that the U.S. is often in denial about its behavior and Americans are
taught that the U.S. is altruistic and a force for good in the world. Measheimer states that
"idealist rhetoric provided a proper mask for the brutal policies that underpinned the
tremendous growth of American power." In 1991 the U.S. became the world's only super-power and
according to Mearsheimer its main foreign policy objective was to prevent the re-emergence of
a new rival. Following the difficult wars in Afghanistan and Iraq the U.S. is less
certain of its global role. Mearsheimer claims that America's foreign policy elite is
still largely made up of people who want to keep America on top, but these days they usually
prefer to keep their views under wraps. Trump seems to be proposing something completely
different.
Rescue caravanserai
Trump is not proposing anything different. His foreign policy is the same as the establishment. He is not anti-war, nor more hawkish than Obama or Clinton.
Trumps FP is unilateral i.e. The US will go it alone without the UN or anyone else, attack any country he feels is threatning, without paying attention to intl. law, or "political correctness" as he calls it, i.e. the US will kill and torture as many ppl as it feels like to feel safe, and pay no attention to the Geneva Conventions. Other statements about his intended FP, that the msm calls shocking, has already been done, i.e. bomb the crap out of people, kill families of terrorists, waterboarding and much worse. These have been common policies since 9/11 & before. Another policy is to steal Iraq's oil. This has been de facto US FP in the Middle East since Eisenhower. The difference is that Trump says it outright. He makes subtext into the text.
Falanx
I agree with the overall point of this article... but focusing on the GOP and Trump, detracts from its otherwise valid points. What about Wilson, Truman, Johnson, Clinton, Obama and Hillary? Especially Hillary ("We came, We saw, He died") who evidently considers herself a latter day Caesar. The plain fact is that the US was conceived as a warmongering nation. Everyone else in the world understands this.
DanInTheDesert
Wow. What a fantastic article . This is what we need in the era of twitter journalism -- a long think piece. Thank you.[*]
Having said that I have disagree with the conclusion -- we have just a little over a week to avoid a forced choice between two hawks. The chances are slim but not impossible -- be active this weekend. Phonebank for Sanders. Convince a Californian to show up and vote.
PrinceVlad
Trump is the only candidate I've ever heard question the cost of war, it's part of the
reason he said we should flush NATO and we can't police the world for free any longer.
Kenarmy -> PrinceVlad
"Donald Trump would deploy up to 30,000 American soldiers in the Middle East to defeat the
Islamic State, he said at Thursday night's debate."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/trump-iraq-syria-220608#ixzz49yJWQras
I have no problem with destroying ISIS. I have a problem with fighting Russia over
every former Soviet state on their doorstep ala Madam Secretary.
The best way to remember the war dead is to work to ensure that their ranks do not swell.
[*] and if anyone is reading who deals with such things -- y'all need to accept paypal or bitcoin so I can subscribe. Who uses their credit card online anymore?
"... Actually, you can hide nothing, and anything you said, wrote, or plausibly thought can and will be held against you at a time convenient for the Security State to whip it out if they have their way. ..."
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue,
but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Obviously, this paints our (overblown) liberties with an over-wide brush, and the Wise Solons
of our Senate know just how to get around this superannuated and flawed conceptual framework.
Just ignore this amendment. You've got nothing to hide, right , so what are you worried
about? Actually, you can hide nothing, and anything you said, wrote, or plausibly thought
can and will be held against you at a time convenient for the Security State to whip it out if
they have their way.
C'mon, it's an Empire now, and it plays by its own rules, and is not to be chained to some
fossilized, starry-eyed claptrap from the Enlightenment. Sheesh.
Wait, military special forces from over a dozen countries are running an exercise in the supposedly
sovereign territory of the United States? What, is this the transnational elite's super-special
SWAT team taking off the wraps? And Idiot America loves it. The Founding Fathers weep, just as
they do concerning that first item.
Let those malcontents from Green Day whine about the Idiocracy…
Barnes also ignored the warning from the state lawyer, Catherine Follent. Read her statement in full
here . In written testimony she told the coroner: "as to the manner of deaths then, in our submission
it would be appropriate for your Honour to adopt the findings of the Dutch Safety Board as to the
source and mechanics of the detonation, in addition to finding that the deaths of the New South Wales
passengers were the result of the actions of another person or persons."
Follent (right) also told the coroner, according to a SkyNews report: "It would be inappropriate
for the coroner to declare the deaths were a result of 'the action of another person or persons',
as criminal investigations are still under way."
Coroner Barnes (below, left) was asked to explain why his claims lacked evidence and contradicted
what his counsel had testifed he could judge. Follent (centre) was asked the same question. Barnes
and Follent said through Angus Huntsdale (right), a press officer for the coroner: "Ms Follent did
not make the remarks." Also, according to Huntsdale, "she didn't do an interview with Sky News or
any other media."
The SkyNews report of Follent's remarks was published on May 17, the day of the Barnes inquest.
Days later, on May 23, when Barnes and Follent were asked to clarify what she had said, they and
Huntsdale were provided with the
story link . Huntsdale did not deny the media report; in guarded comments he left open the possibility
that Follent had made her warning in open court, for which no transcript has been made available.
But several hours after Barnes, Follent and Huntsdale had reviewed what Follent had been quoted as
saying, her warning to the coroner was removed from the SkyNews version of the story.
The coroner and his associates were unable to remove Follent's quote entirely. This is how it
appeared originally, on
May 17 .
Barnes and Follent were asked to explain why they had imposed a secrecy order on the evidence,
and to identify the sources of the documents they had classified. They replied through Huntsdale:
"The documentary evidence included portions of the Dutch Safety Board's report, the reports of the
deaths to the coroner by NSW Police, two statements of Australian Federal Police officers providing
an update on the status of the investigations (including the Dutch Safety Board and criminal investigations)
and forensic pathology reports."
One of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) statements, dating from last November, had been tested
in the Victorian Coroner's Court in December. Kept secret in Sydney last week, this statement was
publicly accessible in Melbourne five months earlier. At that time AFP Detective Superintendent Andrew
Donoghoe (pictured above) said the evidence on what caused the downing of MH17 and the deaths of
the passengers and crew was inconclusive.
Donoghoe also said : "it was also
necessary that other scenarios – such as the possibility that MH17 was shot down by another type
of missile, or that it was shot down from the air – must be ruled out convincingly." Donoghoe repeated
the point in an interview outside the courtroom, adding this "is a tougher standard than the DSB
report."
By gagging Donoghoe from testifying as a witness, and keeping his 2015 testimony secret, Barnes
has claimed the DSB report warranted his conclusion there had been deliberate aiming of a missile
at MH17 and intentional "mass murder". Barnes and Follent refuse to identify what parts of the DSB
report they relied on for this conclusion.
Instead, Barnes ordered a DSB videotape to be played in court. Watch it
here .
The original DSB videoclip runs for 19:58 minutes. But according to Huntsdale, the coroner's spokesman,
"the first 15 minutes of the clip were played. It wasn't necessary to play the remainder of the video
because it went beyond the scope of the coroner's inquiry."
Did Coroner Barnes decide that the last 5 minutes of the tape were unnecessary, he was asked,
and why. According to Huntsdale, "the NSW State Coroner made his findings on the basis of the documentary
material tendered…coroners do not provide additional commentary on their cases outside of court."
The missing five minutes of the DSB tape which Barnes suppressed contain two charges by the DSB
chairman, Tjibbe Joustra.
The Dutch official blames the Ukrainian government for failure to close the airspace and for putting
MH17 at risk. "Ukraine had sufficient information to close the airspace to civil aviation prior to
July 17, " Joustra said. He also criticized the operator of MH17, Malaysia Airlines, for ignoring
the risks and flying through the conflict zone.
On Saturday, as Skinner was advertising his claims against Russia in the Australian papers and
stalling his claims against Malaysia Airlines in the Sydney court, the Malaysian Prime Minister Najib
Razak
announced his own agreement on MH17 with President Putin directly.
"'I understand and feel the sadness and pain experienced by the families of the victims. I lost
my step-grandmother, Puan Sri Siti Amirah Prawira Kusuma in the tragedy,' said Najib in a post on
his website Saturday evening. 'I see that we have started on positive steps towards seeking justice
for the family members and victims of MH17 when the Russian President and I reached an agreement
that follow-up action will be determined after the results of the investigation are presented by
the Joint Investigation Team in October. I pray that the families of all the victims remain patient
in facing the challenges,' said Najib."
According to a
spokesman
for the Dutch prosecutors, who are leading the Joint Investigation Team (JIT), there will be
no JIT report in October. Alex morfesis ,
May 30, 2016 at 6:50 pm
Oh thank goodness…I was worried they were going to tell the public the truth…
I just skimmed Capt Rogers III, commander of the Vincennes, in the wiki article. He was not
reprimanded or relieved of his command for the shoot down of the civilian airliner. However his
next assignment was a shore position and he retired after those last 2 years in 1991. Punishment
was going from fast track to earlier than expected, honorable retirement.
Peruse, if you will,
this sabre-rattling pile of poop . Coming on the heels of recent articles which warn that
the west sees a nuclear war as both winnable and possible , even probable, and the conviction
that a new western strategy is
the attempt to initiate a Kremlin palace coup by Russian nationalist hardliners fed up with Putin's
squishiness because he will not respond more aggressively to NATO provocations on Russia's doorstep,
it's hard not to conclude that the west has lost its mind. If the fear of a planet-devastating nuclear
war – in which the two major world nuclear powers pull out all the stops in an unrestricted attempt
to annihilate one another – no longer holds our behaviors in check…what's scarier than that?
We seriously need to persuade our leaders, in the strongest terms, that they cannot talk smack
like that. It might seem funny to you to hear a senior government official from the country that
fabricated a case for
war so it could destroy its old enemy, Saddam Hussein, and lay waste to his country and people,
prattling on about 'the rules-based international order', just as if the United States recognizes
any limitations on its application of raw power, anywhere on the globe, in its own interests. It's
quite true that whenever the USA wants to start a war with someone, it first makes out a case that
this is a situation in which it must act. And even its critics would have to acknowledge that it
is damned good at this sort of fakery, and has come a long way since one of its premiere PR firms
– Hill & Knowlton – coached
the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the United States through her performance as a make-believe
Kuwaiti nurse devastated by Saddam's forces' make-believe plundering of a Kuwaiti hospital, something
which did not happen. It did, however, strike precisely the right responsive chord in public anger
and disgust to kick off Gulf War I. Both wars against Iraq got off the ground on entirely fabricated
scenarios calculated to get the rubes all in a lather to do the right thing. To hear a self-righteous
assrocket like Ashton Carter maunder on about the rules-based international order, considering the
United States encouraged the military campaign by the Ukrainian government to kill its own citizens
in a blatant violation of the very core principles of the imaginary rules-based international order…why,
it's a little like listening to Imelda Marcos teaching a seminar on how to take care of your shoes
so they'll last a long time and you won't have to buy more. I have to say, it just… it makes me mad.
What has really brought us to this point in the history of the Big Blue Marble is that despite
the progress we've made together since the end of the Cold War, the indispensable and exceptional
nation has in recent years tried by various means to overthrow the government of Russia, without
success. It has tried incentivizing and supporting opposition movements, and got most of its NGO's
kicked out of the country for its pains. It has tried sexual politics, hoping to mobilize the world's
homosexuals against 'Putin's draconian anti-gay laws', only to have the effort fall flat. It has
tried open economic warfare, which worked just long enough for
President Obama to take credit for it , then Russian counter-sanctions
made European businesses wish they had never heard of President Obama . Shortly after that, Russia
began to
muscle in on US agricultural markets ; a startlingly lifelike performance for a dying country.
It looks like everything that has been tried in the effort to send Russia down for a dirtnap has
failed. What's left? They're running out of war-alternative regime-change efforts.
And what has made Washington suddenly so cocky with the nuclear stick? Could it be that its European-based
missile defense system
has just gone live ? After all Obama's waffling, after his backing away from the missile defense
the hawks wanted, in the winding-down days of his presidency he re-committed to it, and the site
in Romania has started up, with great fanfare. Washington continues to insist, tongue in cheek, that
the system is not and cannot be targeted against Russia's nuclear deterrent, but for what other purpose
could it be there? The rogue-missiles-from-Iran canard is pretty much played out. It seems pretty
clear that Washington figures its interceptors (the Standard series SM3) give it a potential first-strike
capability, which would – in theory – see Washington's unalerted launch taking out most of Russia's
ICBM's in their silos, and the forward-based interceptors taking out the few missiles that avoided
Washington's hammer-blow. If they don't believe that, why the sudden nuclear-weapons nose-thumbing?
If they do believe that, it's a big mistake. First of all, where the USA relies on a nuclear triad
deterrent – land-based, air-deployable and seaborne nuclear missiles – Russia adds a fourth leg;
mobile Transporter/Erector/Launcher (TEL) vehicles which have a demonstrated off-road capability,
so that they could be most anywhere. The USA could not be sure of hitting all Russia's land-based
missiles before launch. Then there is the sea-based component, in SSBN's, ballistic-missile submarines.
The BOREI Class carries the Bulava missile. Each of the 20 missiles can carry up to 10 MIRV warheads
of 150 kilotons yield. The USA is
already worried that it is falling behind Russia and China in submarine capability. Finally,
Russia has the 'dead hand' system, which is an automatic program that will launch all undestroyed
fixed-site missiles even if everyone in Russia is dead.
... ... ...
This is an existential battle for Russia. No amount of conciliatory gestures will buy it peace, and
the United States is determined to push it off the edge of the world. With NATO surrounding it, even
if it disbanded its military and plowed all its croplands into flowerbeds, the west would still pretend
to see it as a threat, and would foment internal discord until it broke apart. Russia's leaders know
this. Its people know this. Strutting up and down the border and waving the NATO flag is not going
to make Russia get scared about 'consequences', and kneel in the dirt. NATO's fundamental problem
is that it understands neither the Russian character or the true circumstances in the country, preferring
to rely on rosy estimates presented by its think tanks.
The biggest 'consequence' of this dick-waving and posturing is that we are back where we were
in 1947.
Mark, a very timely and well-written post! The red hot approaching white hot rhetoric is unnerving
to the sane. Yet, there is virtually no chance of a successful US first strike for the reasons
you mentioned. If some breakthrough in ABM technology were to occur that could be quickly retrofit
to existing installations then a strategic imbalance could occur. I suppose Russia must assume
that is the US thinking so such a worst-case scenarios needs to be part of their strategic planning.
We had Star Wars back in the 80's designed to render Soviet missiles useless. Yet any competent
scientist or engineer could determine that it was ALL BS. A favorite story was that a scientist
indicated an anti-missile laser system they were working on had achieve 10 to the 7th power output
(don't remember the units) but they needed to reach 10 to the 14th power output. An eager politician
reported to the administration that all they needed was TWO of the lasers to shoot down Soviet
missiles.
So, my take is that the US rhetoric is based on two possibilities – one that you mentioned
is that everything else has failed so why not give war a chance. The Russians, being substantially
saner that the West, and knowing the horrors of war, could back down in deference to the survival
of humanity. The other ploy could be to induce Russia into another arms race to bankrupt their
economy. This later strategy, if it is the case, would have been formulated from the widely mistaken
belief that the 80's Star Wars eventually forced the collapse of the Soviet Union. That is the
danger of using sustained propaganda indiscriminately, your own side may end up believing it.
One last thought is that no one foresaw the collapse of the Soviet Union. By poking around
enough, perhaps the West thinks something can trigger a similar cascade of events resulting in
the collapse of Russia. Its sort of magical thinking without basis in reality but its good enough
for politicians and think tanks. Just keep Gorbachev out of Russia:)
Your warning about how the West, having given up on a liberal revolution, would now like a
nationalistic coup in Russia was spot on. Nothing could be worse for Russia than engaging in a
tit-for-tat battle with the West. The Russian strategy seems to be working quite nicely as its
economy adjusts to life without the West, it outsmarts the Empire at every turn and the Eurasian
Union proceeds.
…everything else has failed so why not give war a chance
####
John Lennon would have wept. Genius PO! Genius!
It looks like we all agree that the US is at loose ends. So far all its plans have come to
naught, so trying a little bit of everything in the hope that something magical will happen (as
noted), is a massive indictment on US governmental institutions. Damned stubborn Russians.
"... By Clive, an investment technology professional and Japanophile ..."
"... Until the early 19th century, conditions for ships' companies were so unpleasant that few people in their right minds willingly volunteered to participate in the market for crewmen. Vessels could not get enough people to meet their complements. No-one wanted the jobs because there were marginally better, less-worse might be a more accurate description, ways to spend your time. The compensation for sailors could have been raised but that would have made operating the ships "uneconomic". This problem soon led to the introduction of the "press gang" – a group of thugs who dragooned ("impressed") the unfortunate and the unwary – and they were disproportionately drawn from the poor or destitute sections of society – to serve on the ships. ..."
"... The next occasion you find yourself forced to spend your time working your way through competing offers in a market for things you can't easily do without in order to ensure that "benefits" of "free" "markets" can be realised, you might ask are the press gangs really a thing of the past. It is even more ironic if those agencies which are supposed to be looking after our interests end up turning themselves into neoliberalism's press gangs, forcing us to participate in capitalism when even by their own admission it produces worse outcomes for us than public ownership would. ..."
By Clive, an investment technology professional and Japanophile
One of the defining characteristics of neoliberal ideology is that more, or better, markets are
always and everywhere the solution. No matter what the issues are, markets will fix them.
Perhaps the most striking thing about the ideology is, even when it demonstrably fails – and the
markets become the problem – our elites' response is to double-down and to add new, or different,
market layers. The Affordable Care Act (even more colloquially known to its friends as "Obamacare")
is one such example. Lambert has covered this at length in terms of how overlaying an additional
market ( HealthCare.gov ) onto existing, dysfunctional
ones (healthcare insurance, Big Pharma, Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) and so on) doesn't
solve anything; it merely compounds the mess.
Rarely, though, do we get any elite acknowledgement – even from those who only carry water for
them such as Paul Krugman – that markets can be problems in and of themselves.
(para 10) … Competition between card schemes to convince payment service providers to issue
their cards leads to higher rather than lower interchange fees on the market, in contrast with
the usual price disciplining effect of competition in a market economy.
For those unfamiliar with finance industry jargon, "card schemes" are the organisation which provide
different types of payment cards to the card issuers like the banks. VISA, MasterCard and American
Express are perhaps the best known card schemes, but there are others. "Interchange fees" are the
costs which the "card schemes" charge "merchants" (stores, supermarkets – places where you spend
your money) for the privilege of using your credit or debit card to buy stuff. You end up paying
for these "interchange fees" because the card schemes charge the merchants and the merchants pass
the costs on to you.
But wait a minute, did that just say "competition… leads to higher rather than lower interchange
fees (costs)"? How can that be? Whatever happened to the Efficient Market Hypothesis? Read on. Actually,
don't you'll die of boredom if you try reading the whole draft EU Regulation, I'll spare you the
pain, the money quote is in the next paragraph (emphasis mine):
(para 11) … The currently existing wide variety of interchange fees and their level prevent
the emergence of 'new' pan (European) Union players on the basis of business models with lower
or no interchange fees, to the detriment of potential economies of scale and scope and their resulting
efficiencies. This has a negative impact on retailers and consumers and prevents innovation. As
Pan-Union players would have to offer issuing banks as a minimum the highest level of interchange
fee prevailing in the market they want to enter it also results in persisting market fragmentation.
Existing domestic schemes with lower or no interchange fees may also be forced to exit the market
because of the pressure from banks to obtain higher interchange fees revenues. As a result, consumers
and merchants face restricted choice, higher prices and lower quality of payment services.
Clive again. Ah-ha! So that's the reason. The banks issue the cards. The card schemes levy interchange
fees for using the cards. The card schemes cut the banks in on the rent-seeking in a revenue-sharing
(I'd call it extortion-sharing) grift. The card schemes compete with each other to get you to use
their cards but the only competition is which card scheme can gouge out the highest interchange fees
to pay off the banks with. The banks do not want an innovative, low cost card scheme to be able to
enter the market thereby cutting off their nice little earner. They want the highest cost schemes
possible.
But that's only going to be a problem in Europe, then? Think again. The EU is at least trying
to discipline the free market and curb the most brazen of the excesses. The situation in the U.S
is even worse. For instance, brand-slap cards (where, for example, a retail outlet does a tie-in
with a card issuer, usually one of the big banks and typically provides discounts or other incentives
for the cardholder when they use their card) have been virtually killed off in the EU by previous
EU regulations banning practices which helped to hide the true costs of these cards. Amazon UK
closed its "Prime" credit card but Amazon in the U.S. continues to offer a brand-slap card product
in a joint venture with Chase.
Let's take a look
at this. At first glance, it seems generous enough, especially on Amazon purchases. But is it
generous or not, compared to the profit Chase will make on the card? You simply cannot tell. And
get a load of the totally outrageous "gotcha's" in the small print:
Please note: We make every effort to include all relevant merchant codes in our rewards categories.
However, even though a merchant or some of the items that it sells may appear to fit within a
rewards category, the merchant may not have a merchant code in that category. When this occurs,
purchases with that merchant won't qualify for rewards offers on purchases in that category. Purchases
submitted by you, an authorized user, or the merchant through third-party payment accounts, mobile
or wireless card readers, online or mobile digital wallets, or similar technology will not qualify
in a rewards category if the technology is not set up to process the purchase in that rewards
category.
Excuse my language, but WTF? Amazon and Chase don't even guarantee that you'll get your incentives.
By the way, this sort of differential pricing depending on the merchant and the EPoS (Electronic
Point of Sale) terminal's level of sophistication is already banned in the UK and most of the EU
through existing financial regulation. It's about time the U.S. regulators followed their lead.
And the EU did decide on a lowering of the EU cross-border interchange fee cap:
(Article 3 / Article 4) … transaction interchange fee of more than 0.2 % of the value of the
transaction for any debit card transaction… credit card transaction a per transaction interchange
fee of more than 0.3 % of the value of the transaction.
In the U.S. Dodd-Frank only imposed a 0.5% cap on debit card transactions. Yes, dear U.S. reader,
you're paying more than double what the EU thinks is the correct level of interchange fee when you
use your debit card – and the Dodd-Frank cap only applies to cards issued by the largest, Too Big
to Fail, banks. And there's no regulation at all for credit card transactions' interchange fees.
Note that this could also explain the phenomena which, at first glance, appears paradoxical of
the banks welcoming ApplePay into the payments industry. It is paradoxical because ApplePay would
seem to be a natural competitor to the existing card schemes – once, that is, it can free itself
from the dependency on the customer having an existing card scheme product as their payment instrument.
But of course, nothing would delight the banks more than to see ApplePay and the existing card schemes
go into a Godzilla-vs.-Mothra battle over who can bribe the banks with the most money from interchange
fees.
The EU did consider banning interchange fees completely. And for very good reasons, here, again,
is a rare admission that sometimes no amount of regulatory intervention can fix a broken market:
(para 18a) …a prohibition of interchange fees for debit card transactions would be beneficial
for card acceptance, card usage, development of the single market (the EU) and generate more benefits
to merchants and consumers than a cap set at any higher level. Moreover it would avoid negative
effects on national systems with very low or zero interchange fees for debit transaction by a
higher cap due to cross border expansion or new market entrants increasing fee levels to the level
of the cap. A ban on interchange fees for debit card transactions also addresses the threat of
exporting the interchange fee model to new, innovative payment services such as mobile and online
systems.
Clive here. The wording is a little dense, but the EU has stumbled on the fact that if you impose
a cap on fees, the cap becomes the market price. All market participants simply charge the "capped"
price, even if their true costs are way lower and they could easily afford to cut their prices and
still make a healthy profit. There's something even worse, but a bit subtler, hidden in this paragraph
too. Once a regulator imposes a price cap for something, they are, de-facto, accepting that it is
right to even charge for what is being sold. Just as so-called environmental levies enshrine the
right of polluters to pollute – they just have to pay to clean up their messes – interchange fee
caps preserve the right for card schemes to charge for something that might not actually be worth
anything at all. We'll return to this problem, and how the EU proposes you solve it, in a moment.
But what about the nuance that I skipped over just now, of how – even though cross border interchange
fees are to capped (thus, it is hoped by the EU, facilitating new pan-EU competitors which might
want to set up shop and offer a low interchange fee across all Union member states) – card holders
and merchants can ensure they are paying the lowest interchange fees possible? Won't all market participants
simply charge the regulated fees?
I'll give you three guesses what the EU's idea is of how to fix this. If you're saying to yourselves
"Clive, it wouldn't by any chance be more markets, would it?", you'd be right. Let's force ourselves
to see it in black-and-white:
(para 30) Payees and payers should have the means to identify the different categories of cards.
Therefore, the various brands and categories should be identifiable electronically and for newly
issued card based payment instruments also visibly on the device. Secondly, also the payer should
be informed about the acceptance of his payment instrument(s) at a given point of sale. It is
necessary that any limitation on the use of a given brand be announced by the payee to the payer
at the same time and under the same conditions as the information that a given brand is accepted.
(para 30a) In order to ensure that competition between brands is effective, it is important
that the choice of payment application be made by users, not imposed by the upstream market, comprising
payment card systems, payment service providers or processors. Such an arrangement should not
prevent payers and payees from setting a default choice of application, where technically feasible,
provided that that choice can be changed for each transaction.
Clive's take: So, in the future, in addition all of the other taxes on our time which neoliberalism
imposes, we'll have another way to add to our time-stress.
When we want to pay with a card (or a new "payment instrument" such as our phone), we'll enter
a Randian nirvana where the EPoS terminal where we're buying whatever it is we're trying to buy starts
a game of "let's play markets" with us, proffering the choice – neoliberal-leaning thinkers do seem
to love that word – of payment application starting with what the merchant is incentivised to select.
Then other "brands and categories" – are you losing the will to live yet? – will be suggested,
while you clutch your groceries, or hope the kids aren't trashing the car while you pay for gas or
(and who hasn't been in this position) keep their fingers crossed they've got enough available funds
and their card won't be declined as it's maxed out.
Actually, the fun starts before you've even entered the store.
(Article 10 para 3) Merchants deciding not to accept all cards or other payment instruments
of a payment card scheme shall inform consumers in a clear and unequivocal manner at the same
time as they inform the consumer on the acceptance of other cards and payment instruments of the
scheme. That information shall be displayed prominently at the entrance of the shop and at the
till. In the case of distance sales, this information shall be displayed on the website or other
applicable electronic or mobile medium. The information shall be provided to the payer in good
time before he enters into a purchase agreement with the payee.
That's alright then. You've just driven to (if you live in a place like where I used to live,
out in the sticks) the only supermarket in town, no food in the refrigerator, tired after a day's
work and availed yourself of detailed information on the storefront about what payment instruments
they accept and, presumably, only enter the merchant's premises if you're happy with the payment
options available.
You, the consumer, will be supposed to decide which is the best application where your co-badged
payment instrument supports more than one scheme. In order to decide which is the "best", you'll
need to memorise which application has the lowest fees, the most cardholder rewards or whatever pricing
signal has been wafted in your direction. Oh, and you can also try to figure out if the merchant,
or you, are using "mobile or wireless card readers, online or mobile digital wallets, or similar
technology" that "will not qualify in a rewards category" like we've seen in the Chase/Amazon card's
Terms and Conditions small print. Good luck with all that.
Then, you can be a nice, well brought-up participant demonstrating how you hold up your end of
the Theory of Rational Expectations bargain, ever-eager to adjust your response(s) accordingly.
Until the early 19th century, conditions for ships' companies were so unpleasant that few people
in their right minds willingly volunteered to participate in the market for crewmen. Vessels could
not get enough people to meet their complements. No-one wanted the jobs because there were marginally
better, less-worse might be a more accurate description, ways to spend your time. The compensation
for sailors could have been raised but that would have made operating the ships "uneconomic". This
problem soon led to the introduction of the "press gang" –
a group
of thugs who dragooned ("impressed") the unfortunate and the unwary – and they were disproportionately
drawn from the poor or destitute sections of society – to serve on the ships.
The next occasion you find yourself forced to spend your time working your way through competing
offers in a market for things you can't easily do without in order to ensure that "benefits" of "free"
"markets" can be realised, you might ask are the press gangs really a thing of the past. It is even
more ironic if those agencies which are supposed to be looking after our interests end up turning
themselves into neoliberalism's press gangs, forcing us to participate in capitalism when even by
their own admission it produces worse outcomes for us than public ownership would.
And if only it was just finance. It is due to this kind of cognitive capture – this idealism
– that we also can't have nice things like single-payer healthcare.
"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."
Beyond the tax on time of finding the optimal deal at that particular moment, the moment may
only be of the moment. Of particular note in the ACA is the ability of the provider to drop coverage,
at any time, for medicines that the particular plan had been studied to provide. The bait, the
switch, and back on the hamster wheel.
It would tend to lead to a tactic of taking the option with the shortest amount of fine print.
But as Godel pointed out about the Constitution, it doesn't matter how short the algo is, if it
contains the ability to switch the priors, it cannot be said to be consistent.
'Ah, well, this set of shackles doesn't chafe so much…'
All too true. The financial services industry did not invent bait and switch. But they've certainly
become Sith Lords in that particular dark art. "These aren't the Amazon Reward Points you're looking
for…"
There is a lot of nonsense about frictionless markets that supposedly feature zero information
costs, zero transaction costs, zero regulatory costs, etc. As if markets were some sort of natural
phenomenon like gravity.
Well the simple (actually, simplistic) answer is that the UK discount supermarkets run on such
wafer-thin profit margins that even the fairly minor differential between credit and debit account
fees (0.3% against 0.2%) is enough to make them wary of accepting credit cards.
What is actually a potentially a bigger cost, though, is that credit card transactions fall
under
additional consumer protection (Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act) which means that the
merchant always has to accept a chargeback and refund the customer. Debit cards do not:
Remember that any (debit card) protection offered is not a legal obligation (like Section
75 for credit cards) but an in-house rule: this means that the exact rules for chargeback schemes
vary by (debit) card provider, so you should make sure you are aware of your debit card's chargeback
rules.
But with credit cards, the merchant then has the obligation on them to show that the chargeback
is eligible for a chargeback-reversal (forcing the card holder has to pay up). The costs of the
chargebacks - and the costs of investigating and trying to prove there are sufficient grounds
for a chargeback-reversal are not trivial when one considers the sheer volume of supermarket transactions.
This information applies to the UK jurisdiction only. But similar can also apply elsewhere
(I must confess I'm not quite so clued-up on U.S. statues and I suspect they also vary by state).
So if a merchant doesn't accept credit cards but does accept debit cards, it's either down to
the fees or the unwillingness to be liable for chargebacks, or a combination of both, depending
on the merchant, the profit margin and the jurisdiction.
The Aldi near me in the us just recently started accepting all the major credit cards. I expect
prices will rise to offset the cost. But I was surprised as it flies in the face of their stated
low cost operation.
They were probably able to do a huge cross-border (right across the EU) deal for card processing
because of their scale. Mega players like supermarkets have pretty good bargaining power. And
because they only do groceries - plus a tiny amount of general merchandise and no apparel, they
won't have much risk of being hit with the chargebacks problem. This is a useful bonus to their
simple, limited numbers of SKUs, business model.
ah, but the solution to that is to have the app that communicates with the terminal and smartly
decides which is the cheapest option for you. And promptly charges you the difference between
the cheapest and most expensive one, so that's ok then
This reminds me of a similar story from the UK. In the mid-1980s there was a big change in
the selling of retail financial products (life assurance, mutual funds etc). As part of this several
new regulatory bodies were created, including one known as LAUTRO (Life Assurance and Unit Trust
Regulatory Organisation).
At the time financial advisors were renumerated by commission. LAUTRO introduced a cap, with
formulae based on premium and term. Funnily enough everyone in the market (no exceptions that
I saw) started paying the maximum commission. To be fair, I think it was lower than many were
paying before the reformation.
After a couple of years it was ruled that this was anti-competitive and there should be a free
market to bring these costs down. And guess what? Yes – commission rates, and hence costs, went
up. Typically rates were 120-130% of what was there before. This probably lopped off about 1%
or so more of premiums paid compared to before. The 'cure' of course was disclosure – make the
amount of commission more explicit so people can make their own decision.
Did it work? Of course not! Eventually (20+ years later) we had regulation that sort of stopped
commissions. Deja vu all over again.
And, in the US, there are the cards that charge a 'foreign exchange transaction fee' when used
in non-US countries. And, the cards that don't. And, the credit cards that don't work at automated
ticket vendors/gas pumps, etc., while traveling abroad because, even if they have an embedded
chip, don't have a PIN.
Last summer, we were 'press-ganged for Capitalism' when arriving on a very late flight at Newark,
NJ, we opted for a taxi (NOT Uber, because I read NC) instead of public transportation to get
to Hoboken. One must now prepay for the taxi at the airport with a credit card. And … the point-of-sale
machine cheerily states that it is imposing a $3 fee for giving you the privilege of using the
system. Had I been wearing wooding shoes, I would have beaten the machine to a pulp.
I think a simple example that everyone can understand is cable service or cell phones (I could
go on and on – anyone able to shop medical services???)
These two "services" show that the vast majority of "choice" is a Mcguffin – supposed choice within
plans about everything EXCEPT the price of the basic unit of what you are buying – they simply
will not tell you in comprehensible terms how much a minute of airtime costs (not to mention purposeful
complications like time frames, weekends, other users, number of devices, etc.) so that you cannot
compare it to another carrier.
Despite the incessant bullsh*t, the fact is, we live in the LEAST transparent of times…
If a merchant accepts credit cards AND does not offer a discount for paying cash AND my CC
issuer has a x% cash "rewards" program, then is it not a rational decision to use the card?
Depends on how much the merchant has had to increase their prices to compensate. The problem
is one of obfuscation. You can't have pricing signals if the price of the service you are using
is hidden from consumers.
it is rational. The problem there is that the CC company might have moved the goalpost, either
for the merchant or for the customers.
If we assume that the merchant just passes the whole cost to the customer (it is not always
the case, sometime they just have to grin and bear it), then merchant wins a bit (not all customers
will pay with CC), and the CC company wins a bit (it gets its money from those who do pay with
CC). Clients lose a bit (if they pay with CC) or a lot (if they pay with cash). And this is the
point – you basically have to have the right card to NOT LOSE.
You're not taking steps to win, you have to take steps to lose less than you'd otherwise (because
you lose one way or another).
That said, the problem here is non-trivial. If you apply the obvious solution (no interchange
fees) the banks will go and try to make it somewhere else (think PPI insurance in the UK, account
fees that people loathe etc. etc.). Ultimately, banks need to make money too. I know, heresy,
but we're not talking about 20%+ RoE, but a regulated utility levels of return.
I understand Clive's point of wasting time on deciding on payments methods, but if cash is
always guaranteed to be the cheapest, then there's a viable default option – at least for majority
purchases where cash can actually be reasonably used.
Banks then could easily offer say debit cards with zero interchange costs but a monthly account
fee – tbh, this would be fairer IMO, as the marginal costs of processing extra client transaction
are trivial once the fixed costs of the system are covered. Of course, in the UK account fees
are a bugbear which scares people into paying much more via other (often invisible, and often
hitting the poorest most) fees.
"... The basic foreign policy here is one of liberal hegemony-and it has two dimensions to it. The first is that we're bent on militarily dominating the entire globe-there's no place on the planet that doesn't matter to the indispensable nation, we care about every nook and cranny of the planet and we're interested in being militarily dominate here, there, and everywhere. That's the first dimension. The second dimension is we're deeply committed to transforming the world-we're deeply committed to making everybody look like us. ..."
"... Without a strategic rethink in U.S.-Russian relations, Mearsheimer warned that Russian paranoia and sense of vulnerability could ignite conflict. When asked about the biggest foreign policy mistake of the last 25 years, Mearsheimer first said Iraq, and then added the crisis in Ukraine and the resulting destabilization of U.S.-Russian relations: "If you take a country like Russia, that has a sense of vulnerability, and you push them towards the edge, you get in their face, you're asking for trouble." ..."
"CKI Vice President William Ruger began by posing the question: "Has there been a coherent theme
to U.S. foreign policy over the last 25 years?" In response, Mearsheimer dove into a description
of liberal hegemony over the last two decades, which essentially amounts to the U.S. being involved
everywhere to avoid a problem popping up anywhere. He argued that the U.S. undertook this commitment
to direct globalization and proceeded to muck up the Middle East and Europe. To most people, this
sounds a lot like a vestige of post-Cold War triumphalism:
The basic foreign policy here is one of liberal hegemony-and it has two dimensions to it. The
first is that we're bent on militarily dominating the entire globe-there's no place on the planet
that doesn't matter to the indispensable nation, we care about every nook and cranny of the planet
and we're interested in being militarily dominate here, there, and everywhere. That's the first dimension.
The second dimension is we're deeply committed to transforming the world-we're deeply committed to
making everybody look like us.
... ... ...
Without a strategic rethink in U.S.-Russian relations, Mearsheimer warned that Russian paranoia
and sense of vulnerability could ignite conflict. When asked about the biggest foreign policy mistake
of the last 25 years, Mearsheimer first said Iraq, and then added the crisis in Ukraine and the resulting
destabilization of U.S.-Russian relations: "If you take a country like Russia, that has a sense of
vulnerability, and you push them towards the edge, you get in their face, you're asking for trouble."
"... An Australian coroner and a firm of Sydney, Australia, lawyers have taken the global lead in fabricating criminal charges and billion-dollar compensation claims for the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 - without producing evidence. Michael Barnes (lead image), a former tabloid journalist and now coroner for the state of New South Wales, ruled last week that MH17 had been shot down in a "deliberate" act of "mass murder" by "firing a missile equipped with an exploding warhead at the jetliner". The coroner accepted testimony from the Crown Solicitor assisting the inquest who testified that "certain persons of interest have been identified" as the murderers…. ..."
John Helmer.net (via Russia Insider): MH17 CORONER MICHAEL BARNES, AUSTRALIAN LAWYERS IN HEAD-ON
CRASH WITH THE RULES OF EVIDENCE http://johnhelmer.net/?p=15710
An Australian coroner and a firm of Sydney, Australia, lawyers have taken the global lead
in fabricating criminal charges and billion-dollar compensation claims for the crash of Malaysia
Airlines Flight MH17 - without producing evidence. Michael Barnes (lead image), a former tabloid
journalist and now coroner for the state of New South Wales, ruled last week that MH17 had been
shot down in a "deliberate" act of "mass murder" by "firing a missile equipped with an exploding
warhead at the jetliner". The coroner accepted testimony from the Crown Solicitor assisting the
inquest who testified that "certain persons of interest have been identified" as the murderers….
(a) prevent the investigation from widening
beyond the present hazy conclusions offered by the DSB, and
(b) suppress any mention of Ukrainian culpability, is telling.
What the west would like to arrive at is a situation in which it can continue to blame Russia,
but does not have to prove it. It would be like gold for the Barnes charges to get in front of
the ECHR, but there seems little hope of that as it appears to have been just a grandstanding
stunt, and the ECHR has already warned that it will not hear it.
how can it be 'on the whole' women support HRC when the next breath says '49%' do not? I
smell bias in this article. People tend to forget that Margaret Thatcher was a woman whose
vicious attacks on working people and trade unions and enthusiastic support of criminal
right wing dictators inspired Reagan in their ruthlessness. And whose bellicose foreign
adventures scared us all. HRC is in this class except her ideology seems to be greed rather
than outright 1% class war on the poor but same difference?
Smear campaign? Billy boy has abused women sexually for decades and then smeared his
victims. This isn't the Republicans' fault. Unless you think that James Carville (former
chief of staff for Clinton) saying "drag a $20 through a trailer park & see what you'll
get" is respectful to women. He basically called every one of Bill's victims trailer trash.
Nope, Bill's abuse of women and Hillary's enabling of it IS NOT the fault of Republicans.
Bill & Hillary WERE the war on women!
You know ... support your party's nominee, vote in midterms ... little things like
that.
You assume incorrectly that we "lefties" have a political party. The Democratic party is
currently not one that even attempts to listen to our needs. Across the political spectrum
Americans seem to have at long last discovered that not only does the government not meet
the minimum needs of the populace, voters have started to figure out that neither political
party will send to Washington leaders who have any intention of helping anyone but
high-level campaign contributors.
This is why the only voter enthusiasm is for two complete outsiders- Trump and Sanders.
We could take your advice and hold our noses and carry the garbage to the curb every 4
years in hopes that something good will happen.
But isn't there an old saw about the definition of insanity being the repetition of the
same ineffectual routine while hoping for a different outcome?
Possession of ovaries does not equal qualified. Not saying they hurt, but if you want a
woman president, why on earth would you take the first one offered simply because she is
the first one offered, especially someone as venal, corrupt, morally bankrupt, uncaring,
and mendacious as Hillary Clinton? It's myopic when you fail to see that if this gargoyle
is elected, her record as POTUS will absolutely reflect poorly on women, giving all those
who oppose women presidents plenty of ammo to suggest they were right all along. I don't
mind a female POTUS, just don't make it Hillary Clinton. Nope.
Do you mean besides securing healthcare coverage for 8 million of their children through
SCHIP, advocating for women's rights & issues around the world as Secretary of State, and
compiling an extraordinarily strong voting record on women's issues in the Senate that won
her endorsements from NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and other women's organizations ... ?
And what has TRUMP done for women besides insult them??
What neither of you two geniuses seem to realize is that Hillary Clinton cannot succeed in
becoming president. No matter how the coronation has been fixed and promised, she simply is
unelectable, and if she is the Democratic nominee then that idiot Trump will be sitting in
the Oval Office.
I used to admire the loyalty, albeit naivety, of Clinton fans, but things are getting
far too serious. Do you guys really want President Trump? Because that seems to be where
you are heading.
I am glad that Hillary is supporting abortion, even is she is beginning to quibble about
terms. Of course, Bernie supports it unequivocally.
The only difference between the two
on this matter essentially is that one hell of a lot more women will have to consider
abortion under a Clinton administration to get out of the low wage jobs, unaffordable
health care for themselves or their children death spiral for the low and low middle
incomers who are going to be caught AGAIN in a hell of Hillary's making. Hillary protects
the mass profit taking of insurance, pharma, and medical industry...she also stutters over
even a 12$ minimum wage (and that only in SOME states), has backed trade agreements that
force ever more working people into those going nowhere jobs... so yeah...there are going
to be a LOT more desperate women needing those abortions. Of course, as any fool
knows...abortions are not illegal in many countries in middle and northern Europe...and
guess what...they don't need as many of them because they do more for workers, and have a
right to health care!
I am not a Trump supporter. But his awfulness does not make her any better.
That Clinton
was married to a president doesn't impress me in the slightest. That she became a senator
was because she exploited her name-recognition after her husband's term of office. As Sec
State she was not just a pathological liar, but also incompetent.
If I was religious, I would pray for her indictment. Then the dems would be compelled to
pick someone else.
Ironic that you don't realize how sexist your comment is. But it is an attitude not
untypical of Clinton supporters.
Hillary will not give us a third term of Obama, she will
give us a third term for her husband. And this is all that Bill wants, to be back holding
the reins of power again.
How many "true feminists" hire private detectives to intimidate women accusing their
husbands of sexual harassment or actual assault? Hillary is a hypocrite of the highest
order - "All women must be believed" - except the ones accusing her husband. If Monica
Lewinski hadn't had DNA evidence to back up her claims they would have had her committed to
a mental institution.
Trump and Clinton deserve each other. That's why they are running neck and neck in the
unpopularity stakes. Trouble is that Trump is starting to gain on her - and she has nothing
to fight back with and stop her slide.
You really haven't a clue, have you? Obama was a pretty poor president as far as the
Democratic party was concerned. He made no effort whatever to build up the party, and spent
wasteful years trying to compromise with the Republicans (when it was obvious to everyone
he was getting nowhere.
The first two years of his presidency could have been the golden years had he lived up
to the hype he projected during the nomination process. He destroyed the Democratic party
with his attempts to compromise with Republican rattle snakes when no compromise was
possible. And, yes, Hillary wants to carry on his good work! And she is already well in
with the republican elite like the Bushes and Romney. Friend, take your head out of your
...
how can it be 'on the whole' women support HRC when the next breath says '49%' do not? I
smell bias in this article. People tend to forget that Margaret Thatcher was a woman whose
vicious attacks on working people and trade unions and enthusiastic support of criminal
right wing dictators inspired Reagan in their ruthlessness. And whose bellicose foreign
adventures scared us all. HRC is in this class except her ideology seems to be greed rather
than outright 1% class war on the poor but same difference?
Smear campaign? Billy boy has abused women sexually for decades and then smeared his
victims. This isn't the Republicans' fault. Unless you think that James Carville (former
chief of staff for Clinton) saying "drag a $20 through a trailer park & see what you'll
get" is respectful to women. He basically called every one of Bill's victims trailer trash.
Nope, Bill's abuse of women and Hillary's enabling of it IS NOT the fault of Republicans.
Bill & Hillary WERE the war on women!
You know ... support your party's nominee, vote in midterms ... little things like
that.
You assume incorrectly that we "lefties" have a political party. The Democratic party is
currently not one that even attempts to listen to our needs. Across the political spectrum
Americans seem to have at long last discovered that not only does the government not meet
the minimum needs of the populace, voters have started to figure out that neither political
party will send to Washington leaders who have any intention of helping anyone but
high-level campaign contributors.
This is why the only voter enthusiasm is for two complete outsiders- Trump and Sanders.
We could take your advice and hold our noses and carry the garbage to the curb every 4
years in hopes that something good will happen.
But isn't there an old saw about the definition of insanity being the repetition of the
same ineffectual routine while hoping for a different outcome?
Possession of ovaries does not equal qualified. Not saying they hurt, but if you want a
woman president, why on earth would you take the first one offered simply because she is
the first one offered, especially someone as venal, corrupt, morally bankrupt, uncaring,
and mendacious as Hillary Clinton? It's myopic when you fail to see that if this gargoyle
is elected, her record as POTUS will absolutely reflect poorly on women, giving all those
who oppose women presidents plenty of ammo to suggest they were right all along. I don't
mind a female POTUS, just don't make it Hillary Clinton. Nope.
Do you mean besides securing healthcare coverage for 8 million of their children through
SCHIP, advocating for women's rights & issues around the world as Secretary of State, and
compiling an extraordinarily strong voting record on women's issues in the Senate that won
her endorsements from NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and other women's organizations ... ?
And what has TRUMP done for women besides insult them??
What neither of you two geniuses seem to realize is that Hillary Clinton cannot succeed in
becoming president. No matter how the coronation has been fixed and promised, she simply is
unelectable, and if she is the Democratic nominee then that idiot Trump will be sitting in
the Oval Office.
I used to admire the loyalty, albeit naivety, of Clinton fans, but things are getting
far too serious. Do you guys really want President Trump? Because that seems to be where
you are heading.
I am glad that Hillary is supporting abortion, even is she is beginning to quibble about
terms. Of course, Bernie supports it unequivocally.
The only difference between the two
on this matter essentially is that one hell of a lot more women will have to consider
abortion under a Clinton administration to get out of the low wage jobs, unaffordable
health care for themselves or their children death spiral for the low and low middle
incomers who are going to be caught AGAIN in a hell of Hillary's making. Hillary protects
the mass profit taking of insurance, pharma, and medical industry...she also stutters over
even a 12$ minimum wage (and that only in SOME states), has backed trade agreements that
force ever more working people into those going nowhere jobs... so yeah...there are going
to be a LOT more desperate women needing those abortions. Of course, as any fool
knows...abortions are not illegal in many countries in middle and northern Europe...and
guess what...they don't need as many of them because they do more for workers, and have a
right to health care!
I am not a Trump supporter. But his awfulness does not make her any better.
That Clinton
was married to a president doesn't impress me in the slightest. That she became a senator
was because she exploited her name-recognition after her husband's term of office. As Sec
State she was not just a pathological liar, but also incompetent.
If I was religious, I would pray for her indictment. Then the dems would be compelled to
pick someone else.
Ironic that you don't realize how sexist your comment is. But it is an attitude not
untypical of Clinton supporters.
Hillary will not give us a third term of Obama, she will
give us a third term for her husband. And this is all that Bill wants, to be back holding
the reins of power again.
How many "true feminists" hire private detectives to intimidate women accusing their
husbands of sexual harassment or actual assault? Hillary is a hypocrite of the highest
order - "All women must be believed" - except the ones accusing her husband. If Monica
Lewinski hadn't had DNA evidence to back up her claims they would have had her committed to
a mental institution.
Trump and Clinton deserve each other. That's why they are running neck and neck in the
unpopularity stakes. Trouble is that Trump is starting to gain on her - and she has nothing
to fight back with and stop her slide.
You really haven't a clue, have you? Obama was a pretty poor president as far as the
Democratic party was concerned. He made no effort whatever to build up the party, and spent
wasteful years trying to compromise with the Republicans (when it was obvious to everyone
he was getting nowhere.
The first two years of his presidency could have been the golden years had he lived up
to the hype he projected during the nomination process. He destroyed the Democratic party
with his attempts to compromise with Republican rattle snakes when no compromise was
possible. And, yes, Hillary wants to carry on his good work! And she is already well in
with the republican elite like the Bushes and Romney. Friend, take your head out of your
...
"... Bernie Sanders secured his first concession from the Democratic establishment on Monday when the Democratic National Committee agreed to grant his supporters greater representation on its convention platform committee. ..."
"... Sanders is rapidly revealing that his nomination battle against Hillary Clinton represents just one front in his wider-reaching war on the Democratic Party's entrenched leadership ..."
Bernie Sanders secured his first concession from the Democratic establishment on Monday
when the Democratic National Committee agreed to grant his supporters greater representation on
its convention platform committee.
... ... ...
Sanders is rapidly revealing that his nomination battle against Hillary Clinton represents
just one front in his wider-reaching war on the Democratic Party's entrenched leadership,
and that the other fights - from Washington, D.C. to Nevada, to Wyoming - are about to get far
more attention.
...But the Vermont senator - long perceived by many of his Democratic colleagues as a gadfly - is
stepping up his assault on the party's way of doing business.
Alleged peace-maker John Kerry threatened to wage war-without-end
on Syria - if the Middle East country does accept the US demand for regime change.
That's hardly the language of a supposed bona fide diplomat who presents an image to the world as
a politician concerned to bring about an end to the
five-year Syrian conflict.
The US Secretary of State repeatedly sounds anxious to alleviate the appalling suffering of the Syrian
nation, where over the past five years some 400,000 people have been killed and millions displaced
as refugees.
Anyone who has not been brainwashed by Western media propaganda knows full well that the suffering
of Syria has been caused by Washington and its allies sponsoring a covert war for regime change in
that country.
Kerry was speaking during another round of failed negotiations - this time in Vienna - along with
other leaders from the 17-nation International Syria Support Group that includes Russia, as well
as the United Nations.
The "support group" is a disgustingly erroneous name, given that certain
members of this entity - primarily the US, Saudi Arabia and Turkey - have done everything in their
power to sponsor a proxy terrorist war on Syria. If the truth were not so abject, it would be laughable.
In a Voice of America
report headlined "US still has leverage in Syria," Kerry is quoted thus: "He said the greatest
leverage [on Syria] was the fact that [President] Assad and his backers would never be able to end
the war in Syria if they declined to negotiate a political settlement."
In Kerry's Footsteps: What Saudi 'Plan B' Actually Means for Syria and Iran Consider the pernicious
import of that for a moment. In other words, America's top "diplomat" is laying down a criminal ultimatum
to the sovereign state of Syria and its elected government of President Bashar al-Assad. Kerry is
saying in no uncertain terms that unless the Syrian authorities do not accept Washington's demand
for regime change, then the country is facing never-ending war.
Of course, being a weasel-worded diplomat, Kerry does not use the illegal term "regime change".
He instead talks about "political transition". And he has set a date in August for this "transition"
to take place. But what Kerry's euphemistic jargon boils down to is this: the Syrian president and
his administration must vacate government - or else face more violence and destruction.
This is the political objective that Washington and its allies in NATO, Saudi Arabia and Turkey
have wanted all along. They want what is an independent, anti-imperialist Syrian government to give
way to some composite regime that would be a puppet for Washington's geopolitical interests in the
oil-rich, strategically vital Middle East region.
Any replacement regime would spurn its erstwhile allies of Russia, Iran and Lebanon's Hezbollah
resistance movement to become an American vassal.
In reality, the supposed pro-democracy change that Washington allegedly
wants to install in Syria would be dominated by a repressive, fundamentalist regime that would betray
the interests of the Syrian people. We can count on this outcome because the proxies who are waging
Washington's covert war are dominated by extremists fully aligned with their despotic sponsors in
Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
Kerry's apparent confidence in predicting that Syria faces a war of attrition if it does capitulate
is a tacit admission by Washington that it controls the illegally armed factions in Syria.
The United States may officially proscribe terror groups like al Qaeda-linked Jabhat al Nusra
and the so-called Islamic State (also known as Daesh). The US pays lip service to "defeating terrorism".
But anyone with an informed understanding of what is really happening in
Syria and other countries subjected to US-led regime change knows that Washington has orchestrated
these same terror groups for its criminal political objectives.
This is corroborated by the fact that Washington refuses to coordinate its (ineffectual) bombing
campaign with Russia to eliminate the terror groups. It is corroborated by the fact that Washington
and its allies point-blank refuse Russia's proposals at the UN Security Council to designate other
known terror outfits - Jaysh al-Islam and Ahrar al-Shams - as terrorist.
Jaysh al-Islam and Ahrar al-Shams are every bit as vile and barbaric as the other al Qaeda-affiliated
franchises. They all espouse the same twisted death-cult ideology; fight alongside each others (when
they are not feuding, that is, over war spoils); and ultimately they all share the same sponsors
and American-supplied weaponry.
'Fair Game'? What Kerry's 'Absolute Lines' in Syria Really Mean It is openly admitted that America's
allies Saudi Arabia and Turkey, as well as Qatar, bankroll Jaysh al-Islam and Ahrar al-Shams and
that this nexus serves as a conduit for American weapons from the Central Intelligence Agency.
Why else would John Kerry
begin his week of "diplomacy" in Vienna by first making an urgent visit to Saudi King Salman last
weekend. Kerry was reportedly appealing to the 9/11-sponsoring Saudi regime to support his diplomatic
push in Vienna. The Western media "reported" Kerry's Saudi visit as if it were a benign mission,
as they usually do. Whenever it should be obvious that what he was really doing was trying to get
the Saudis to ease off on the terror war in Syria.
Washington is currently trying to wrangle regime change in Syria through a political track. That
is a world of difference from gullible Western media projections of Kerry's pretensions of "negotiating
peace".
Yet all the while the US and the Saudis are reserving the right to use "Plan B" if the political
track should not materialize in regime change.
That is what Kerry really means when he said in Vienna that "Assad and his
backers would never be able to end the war in Syria if they declined to negotiate a political settlement."
Washington's "leverage" in Syria is due to the simple, diabolical fact that it and its despotic
allies ultimately can turn on and off the violence when it is expedient for their interests. And
that violence relies on the deployment of known terrorist organizations, including the ones that
Washington's double-think refuses to recognize as "terrorist".
So let's put this into stark perspective. Despite his Orwellian title of diplomat and peace-maker,
US Secretary of State John Kerry is the public face of a terrorist enterprise.
What other world power gives itself the right to threaten nations with "regime
change or war"? And yet this same nation considers itself a paragon of democracy, human rights and
law-abiding probity.
The United States of America is a rogue regime on a criminal scale that exceeds the very worst
in history.
As a parting footnote, John Kerry is a decorated American "war hero". He served four months as
a navy officer during the US genocidal war on Vietnam during the late 1960s. Kerry received a bunch
of medals for his "actions", which according to reliable accounts from veterans on his river-boat
patrols, involved shooting fleeing Vietnamese peasants in the back.
This is the same Kerry who is now purporting to bring peace to Syria.
Like everything that Washington says, it is full of lies and deception. The abiding lesson: don't
turn your back on Washington and its terrorist-sponsoring, war-mongering "diplomats".
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do notnecessarily reflect
the official position of Sputnik.
For a while the information contained with the leaked documents took a backseat to the cultural
impulse to dissect Snowden as a celebrity-his Reddit posts about sex and Cosmo asking "What
the hell is Edward Snowden's girlfriend thinking right now?" Then Sunday talk shows debated whether
Snowden was a was fink, traitor, whistleblower, or spy - as the elusive former contractor made an
escape to Russia worthy of a spy-thriller chase scene.
But the Snowden documents contained serious information. Since June, we have learned about a variety
of NSA programs, including PRISM, a multilayered, multiagency program that mines the data of suspected
terrorists, as well as that of anyone even marginally associated with them. And the information that
has been released is reportedly just a
fraction of what exists.
Still, we have about eight months worth of data dumps, information that has prompted the
promise of action from the White House,
bills in the Congress, and today's "Day We Fight Back" protest, which is calling on people around
the globe to protest NSA surveillance on the Web and in person. Below, we look back at some of the
most alarming revelations from Edward Snowden thus far.
The NSA intercepts deliveries According to documents published by German newspaper
Der Spiegel, the NSA
uses a tactic called "method interdiction,"
which intercepts packages that are en route to the recipient. Malware or backdoor-enabling hardware
is installed in workshops by agents and the item then continues on its way to the customer.
The NSA can spy on PCs not connected to the Internet Der Spiegel also published a document from an NSA division called ANT, which
revealed technology the NSA uses to carry out operations, including a radio-frequency device
that can monitor and even change data on computers that are not online.
Phone companies must turn over bulk phone data In April,
Verizon was ordered to hand
over telephony metadata from calls made from the United States to other countries over the course
of three months. The metadata included originating and terminating phone numbers, mobile subscriber
identity numbers, calling card numbers, and the time and duration of calls. The secretive nature
of the FISA court that made the request for data, however, meant that Verizon and other companies
could not discuss the data requests.
The NSA hacked Yahoo and Google data centers In October, The Washington Post accused the NSA of
secretly monitoring transmissions
between the data centers of Internet giants Yahoo and Google. Both companies denied giving the NSA
permission to intercept such traffic. Google's Eric Schmidt
called the move "outrageous," if true,
while Yahoo moved to encrypt its data
after the revelation.
The NSA collects email and IM contact lists Hundreds of thousands of
contact lists
are collected by the NSA in a single day, The Washington Post also revealed. While the
targets are outside of the United States, the scope of the collection means that info from U.S. citizens
is inevitably included.
RSA created a backdoor into its encryption software at the NSA's request In December, Reuters reported that
the NSA paid RSA $10 million to create a "back door" in its encryption products, which gave the
NSA access to data protected by RSA products like Bsafe. RSA
denied the report, but the revelation
prompted speakers to bow out of this
month's RSA Conference.
The NSA eavesdrops on the phone calls of world leaders. The U.S. government's friends and family calling plan reportedly extends to the content of calls,
including tapping into German Chancellor Angela Merkel's phone calls from the
roof of the U.S. embassy in Berlin. The news prompted German officials to consider
creating their own Internet.
The NSA knows how many pigs you've killed in Angry Birds. The Flappy Bird flap may be bigger, but last month,
The New York Times reported that the NSA
and British intelligence teamed up
to collect and store user data generated by "dozens of smartphone apps," including popular games
like Angry Birds. Rovio denied it,
but anti-surveillance activists still
defaced the developer's website.
The NSA engages in industrial espionage. The U.S. government has framed the NSA's activities as necessary to keeping citizens safe, but Snowden
said on German television, "If there's information at Siemens that's beneficial to U.S. national
interests-even if it doesn't have anything to do with national security-then they'll
take that information nevertheless."
Tech companies cooperated with the NSA and then were asked not to talk about it. Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Facebook, PalTalk, YouTube, Skype, AOL, and Apple were all
named in the PRISM documents and
struggled with how to talk to the public about it because of gag orders.
"... Three-quarters of people in households making less than $50,000 a year and two-thirds of those making between $50,000 and $100,000 would have difficulty coming up with $1,000 to cover an unexpected bill. ..."
"... I have known personally some of those types; they tend to be all about winning at all costs, and then act all surprised when the game is ruined for everyone else. Generally they call it "sour grapes" instead of considering their own behavior. ..."
"... Class Warfare – http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pope-slavery-idUSKCN0YA1GQ ..."
Two-thirds of Americans would have difficulty coming up with the money to cover a $1,000
emergency, according to an exclusive poll released Thursday, a signal that despite years after
the Great Recession, Americans' finances remain precarious as ever.
These difficulties span all incomes, according to the poll conducted by The Associated Press-NORC
Center for Public Affairs Research. Three-quarters of people in households making less
than $50,000 a year and two-thirds of those making between $50,000 and $100,000 would have
difficulty coming up with $1,000 to cover an unexpected bill.
Even for the country's wealthiest 20 percent - households making more than $100,000 a year
- 38 percent say they would have at least some difficulty coming up with $1,000. …
I think the real issue isn't so much about being able to come up with $1000 as it is the reasons
why: the lower and working classes never had that much to begin with, any increase was
swiped by the upper class. And the upper class is in a Death-race 2000 to out do each other, keeping
up with the Joneses via corporate methods.
I have known personally some of those types; they tend to be all about winning at all costs,
and then act all surprised when the game is ruined for everyone else. Generally they call it "sour
grapes" instead of considering their own behavior.
"... Ford werke built trucks for the Germans up until the end of the war. And Prescott Bush (father and grandfather to POTUS 41 & 43) had his assets frozen and seized for trading with the enemy. ..."
"... Nearly all German corporations/large companies (they funded the parties rise) were complicit with the Nazi war and Holocaust machine and received the benefits of free (to them) slave Labor (reminds me of the US prison Labor system) and the seizure of capital assets in conquered countries. ..."
"... Being and oligarch or a faceless Corporation certainly has it's benefits, especially if there are any "scary" communists (or terrorists) around. ..."
I G Farben isn't alone in Holocaust related evilness. Check out IBMs' part, through their German
subsidiary, in making the efficiency of the "Final Solution" feasible. Figures for the liquidation
of "undesirables" were available to the New York headquarters of IBM in nearly real time.
As the
war wound down, special units attached to the U.S.Army secured and protected IBM 'assets' in Germany,
mainly the hardware and specialists who ran things.
Ford werke built trucks for the Germans up until the end of the war. And Prescott Bush (father
and grandfather to POTUS 41 & 43) had his assets frozen and seized for trading with the enemy.
But what do I know, I'm just a little prole with no Ivy league credentials. I should just trust
my betters.
By all means, go ahead, coronate another .01%er Oligarch to be President. Worked great so far.
Nearly all German corporations/large companies (they funded the parties rise) were complicit
with the Nazi war and Holocaust machine and received the benefits of free (to them) slave Labor
(reminds me of the US prison Labor system) and the seizure of capital assets in conquered countries.
What happened to them and their leaders. Not much, some were broken up (IG farben) some leaders
spent a short stint in prison (alfried Krupp) but nearly all of the largest were allowed to immediately
or eventually (Krupp) go on their merry way, so we could "stop communism".
So the very people that funded and were integral to the Nazi party having the funds and ability
to rise and benefited most, were slightly scolded at most.
Being and oligarch or a faceless Corporation certainly has it's benefits, especially if there
are any "scary" communists (or terrorists) around.
"... By Mathew D. Rose, a freelance writer living in Berlin ..."
"... The second study was published by the NGO Transparency International entitled "Corruption in Journalism. In a survey three years ago 53 percent of Germans considered their journalists to be corrupt or very corrupt. In its report Transparency asked German journalists their opinion on the issue. 63 percent of those journalists queried if corruption was a problem in journalism thought this was true (from a "wholehearted yes" to a "more or less"). Then there is the difficulty in defining corruption in journalism. In Germany, in politics and the media, the term is very loosely interpreted. Even Transparency had difficulty with this aspect of their study. ..."
"... The propagandist, having sacrificed their brainwashing media of paper and tv, have turned their attention to taking over the last independent source of truth … the internet. Buyer beware, as you may be financing a dire future. ..."
"... I'm wondering where German state media gets its funding. I wondering if they accept 'sponsorships' like PBS does. You can't watch PBS for 5 minutes without hearing about the Koch brothers. ..."
"... I think a funded state media is a counter to a for profit media, but only if it is genuinely independent. In Japan, for example, the politicians have pretty much established full control over the mainstream news channels. In the UK, the once proudly independent BBC has, after years of outright assault by the oligarchy, become largely tamed, although it is still much better than the privately owned press. In Ireland, the state owned public broadcaster is still very much 'establishment', but a very important bulwark against private TV stations and newspapers which blatantly follow their owners business interests. I assume the same mixed situation is found in most countries. ..."
"... I live in Sweden and it's even worse here. I just wish these studies would ask one simple follow up question: do you think there's an alternative, and if so, what is it? It seems that even if people get their news from online media, most of those outlets are still run by the same types of corporations that run the MSM. ..."
"... People will not take to the streets to demand change until they feel they've no choice. Naturally the first step is they must want change. Remember citizens in the West care about convenience more than anything else. As long as things they want are handy and easy to get then they will not be motivated to want change. ..."
"... In my experience the problem with the state media (in the Netherlands) is that most of them are striving very hard to get their point of view across. Which is of course, mostly politically correct. We've seen the same pro-Ukraine, anti-Putin reporting as in Germany. ..."
"... It's just a variation on pay-to-play. They get their finances from the state, so the politicians have a significant influence on them. ..."
Yves here. Germany appears to be a bit further along in same trajectory that America is on.
By Mathew D. Rose, a freelance writer living in Berlin
Germany's two major parties, Ms Merkel's Christian Democrats and the coalition Social Democrats,
are plumbing new lows in popularity and credibility So too are the nation's media. The conflation
is obvious: both are increasingly perceived as two sides of the same coin, acting in the interests
of financial institutions and large corporations and their own economic advantage to the detriment
of the public weal.
While the Christian Democrats, despite Ms Merkel's purported popularity, is for the first time
facing the possibility of winning less than 30 percent of the vote at the next Bundestag elections,
the once powerful Social Democrats are already under 20 percent in some recent polls. At this rate
they could well end up behind the populist, anti-immigrant party Alternative for Germany (AfD); something
that occurred in two of three state elections last month.
In the past ten years the number of members of both major parties has sunk round 20 percent. In
the same period the circulation of newspapers and news magazines has fallen a similar amount. Television,
including state television, has allegedly lost just ten percent in the same decade. But even here
the numbers are deceptive. The average age of viewers of state television is currently well over
60. When I first arrived in Germany thirty-five years ago state media (television and radio) had
a monopoly. Today my children do not even know that it exists and use other media via the internet.
I am surprised how many friends, colleagues and acquaintances have given up watching the evening
news on state television, once an event that most Germans partook of, frustrated by its tendentious
reporting.
German media's loss of credibility was recently underscored by two recent studies. Although one
was carried out by state television, which is still battling to justify a recent hike in rates, and
was very favourable towards its own programme, there were a couple of rather surprising results.
60 percent of those asked were of the opinion that German news media – including state media – was
not independent from political and business interests. Only ten percent saw the the media as neutral.
The rest were uncertain.
The media coverage – better said propaganda campaigns – concerning austerity, the political upheaval
in Ukraine and Greece bashing have become a watershed in the German public's perception of its media.
Even the advisory board of the state media group ARD heavily criticised the reporting around the
events in Ukraine during and after the Maidan protests, describing it as biased, undifferentiated
and fragmentary. This description would well cover the whole of reporting in German mainstream media,
also in the case of Greece and austerity. Much of the coverage concerning Russia and Greece has been
underlined by inveterate German racism. Many Germans, probably not most, have however moved on and
are no longer receptive to this sort of manipulation.
Those who found their biases confirmed by the news media, many on the right of the German political
spectrum, have been alienated by a further defamation campaign of mainstream media: against the anti-Islamic
movement Pegida and the populist political party AfD. The reporting has not been critical; it has
been visceral.
How odd it has been to see the second state television channel, ZDF, attacking Pegida and the
AfD as neo-Nazis, but on the other hand in a moment of Eastern Front nostalgia presenting Ukrainian
troops with Nazi symbols on their helmets and uniforms fighting the rebels in the east of the country.
There is a great deal to criticise concerning Pegida and the AfD, but what has occurred has been
counter-productive, much as the American elite discovered in its early portrayal of Donald Trump.
The second study was published by the NGO Transparency International entitled "Corruption in Journalism.
In a survey three years ago 53 percent of Germans considered their journalists to be corrupt or very
corrupt. In its report Transparency asked German journalists their opinion on the issue. 63 percent
of those journalists queried if corruption was a problem in journalism thought this was true (from
a "wholehearted yes" to a "more or less"). Then there is the difficulty in defining corruption in
journalism. In Germany, in politics and the media, the term is very loosely interpreted. Even Transparency
had difficulty with this aspect of their study.
One does not know where to begin, but here are a few examples of what is not considered corruption
in Germany:
Many journalists work on the side as "consultants". A recent example came to light when one
of the principle political journalists at Springer's broad sheet "Die Welt" offered to advise
the AfD concerning media, of course at a very stiff fee. When the AfD declined the offer, the
same journalist began writing vicious attacks against the party. He did lose his job.
Then there are the business journalists specialised in a certain corporate sectors, who are
then asked by one of the companies they cover to moderate their presentation, receiving a fee,
often well over their monthly salary for two hours work. One can guess what the next article looks
like.
Many German political journalists' dream is to become a generously paid press spokesperson
for a federal or state minister. The best way to achieve this is by publishing obsequious reports
about the minister concerned. One never knows when reading an article in a German newspaper or
a report in German television or radio, if it is a news report or a job application.
German auto journalists are famous for their venality. A couple of years ago it came out that
Mazda's public relations head, who had worked previously for a number of automobile companies,
had calculated a budget for bribes of at least 15,000 Euros a year per journalist. This did not
disturb Mazda in the least. They first pressed charges against their PR manager when it came out
that he was skimming immense sums off the top for himself and an accomplice. Mazda had apparently
assumed the full amount was being used to bribe journalists. There was no investigation of the
journalists involved.
There are the paid luxury travels, sumptuous gifts and meals. All of this is considered part
of the job. Corruption of journalists might not be on the same financial scale as companies expend
for politicians, but it is just as prevalent.
There are those German journalists who may be corruption free, but most identify themselves with
the powers that be or know that their jobs are at stake should they report otherwise. They no longer
see themselves as a critical authority, but as one academic explained, as pedagogues, instructing
Germans what and how to think, which is simply a polite way to describe a propagandist.
The difficulties of mainstream media in Germany may solve themselves The circulation of most print
media is plummeting and many will surely disappear in the next five years. It is just a question
of time until someone raises the question if state media is truly worth the billions it receives.
The traditional support that it enjoys at the moment is literally dying off.
With a discredited political class and press, both in the service of big money, the political
foundation of Germany is crumbling. How can politicians, who for most German citizens are not credible,
communicate with voters, when the media, which is supposed to disseminate their disinformation, equally
lacks credibility? The political and moneyed class in Germany assume that the political system has
always functioned for them and therefore will continue to do so. This may be true in the short term,
but it certainly is having its problems.
The American journalist A. J. Liebling once claimed ""Freedom of the press is guaranteed only
to those who own one." In the case of Germany the political class owns state media and much of the
rest belongs to a few conglomerates such as Springer and Bertelsmann. Their main concern is not a
free press, but profit and forcing politicians to adopt policies in the interests of big business.
In Germany, the wealthy and the political class are losing control of the political discourse
because they have perverted it. News media is no longer a democratic flow of ideas and opinion, but
a propaganda instrument for their particular interests. Thus German media has managed to alienate
a good portion of the population. It is no wonder that the nation's post-war political system is
in upheaval when the democratic consensus has been unilaterally terminated.
The propagandist, having sacrificed their brainwashing media of paper and tv, have turned their
attention to taking over the last independent source of truth … the internet. Buyer beware, as
you may be financing a dire future.
This puts cold water on my notion that a disinterested state media would serve as a counter
to for profit media that works more like propaganda than news. I had assumed that journalists
with safe salaries and positions would stick to their better ideals, but I suppose there is no
reason to count on the goodness of anybody when there is potentially more money to be had.
While this article is certainly damning, I do wonder if German media produces worthwhile reports
and documentaries. I think of something like PBS and Frontline, which does from time to time produce
excellent series. That is probably the best that one can hope for for a publicly funded media
enterprise.
I'm wondering where German state media gets its funding. I wondering if they accept 'sponsorships'
like PBS does. You can't watch PBS for 5 minutes without hearing about the Koch brothers.
I think a funded state media is a counter to a for profit media, but only if it is genuinely
independent. In Japan, for example, the politicians have pretty much established full control
over the mainstream news channels. In the UK, the once proudly independent BBC has, after years
of outright assault by the oligarchy, become largely tamed, although it is still much better than
the privately owned press. In Ireland, the state owned public broadcaster is still very much 'establishment',
but a very important bulwark against private TV stations and newspapers which blatantly follow
their owners business interests. I assume the same mixed situation is found in most countries.
I live in Sweden and it's even worse here. I just wish these studies would ask one simple follow
up question: do you think there's an alternative, and if so, what is it? It seems that even if
people get their news from online media, most of those outlets are still run by the same types
of corporations that run the MSM.
Another even bigger question that arises when reading these studies is: if more than half of
the population thinks that both the political class and journalists are corrupt, then what exactly
would it take for people to protest en masse and demand change?
Convincing the population at large that there is no alternative is undoubtedly a very impressive
feat by the PTB.
People will not take to the streets to demand change until they feel they've no choice. Naturally
the first step is they must want change. Remember citizens in the West care about convenience
more than anything else. As long as things they want are handy and easy to get then they will
not be motivated to want change.
This is the divide in US politics now, as those who have slipped through the cracks or fear
they are about to supporting the populous candidates. Meanwhile those whose lives are still what
they want them to be either back the establishment or default to apathy. Apathy has been a major
force in western democracies for decades because it's more convenient to ignore politics than
to take an active interest in politics.
Why are matters so different in Canada, when our establishment is just as criminal as America's?
First our real estate market never crashed in 2008 and still hasn't. Thus the exercise of replacing
middle class wealth with credit is still succeeding(for now). Second, we've a more solid social
safety net, in particular universal health care. Debt covers the cost of this and the average
citizen is not faced with added expenses – like Obamacare has created for Americans. Finally,
because the social system has worked so well there's been generations of indoctrination, training
Canadians to respect authority. Simply put, Canadians are not yet falling through the economic
cracks like Americans are. Once their convenience becomes threatened – whether it is being able
to afford the latest gadget or feeding ones family – they'll follow where Americans are leading.
Perhaps in Europe the social safety net keeps people from feeling it's all falling apart personally.
Certainly the EU is obviously as corrupt as Washington and even more undemocratic.
On the bright side, our standard of living – the highest in human history – allows for much
wiggle room. Relative to the past, things are still very good, even for those struggling. I don't
think Trump/Sanders supporters are living in the gutter and starving to death. But they perceive
some of their peers advancing while they fall back and that's very upsetting. Like someone yelled
"fire" in the crowded theatre and all the Washington insiders rushed to the exits first while
they got left behind. A European would have to be pretty dumb not to see they are being left behind
while the Brussels elites live it up. Will they ever feel the need to take to the streets? That
is the question.
In my experience the problem with the state media (in the Netherlands) is that most of them
are striving very hard to get their point of view across. Which is of course, mostly politically
correct. We've seen the same pro-Ukraine, anti-Putin reporting as in Germany. A pro-"refugees"
(the blatant lies are just insulting) stance and demonizing anyone who's even remotely critical
of the way the "refugee" problem is handled, or what's going on with the EU. Also noteworthy is
the anti-Trump sentiment, and the complete lack of any criticism concerning Obama or Hillary.
It's just a variation on pay-to-play. They get their finances from the state, so the politicians
have a significant influence on them. I prefer to support people outside these media institutes,
who do deliver high quality reporting. Maybe that's the future for real journalism. If enough
people support independent websites, blogs, podcasts and journalism in general, we can simply
leave the old media behind.
Political correctness is a slippery slope down. What began as the Left using political correctness
to end all discussions on the Culture War(which they won in the 1990s) has been transformed. Today
our elites use it to define any criticism of official government policy as politically incorrect.
if they say refugees are good then we can't criticize them. If they say Russians are bad then
we can't support them.
The battle lines are changing. We no longer have the luxury to indulge in the Left/Right culture
war. It was a symbolic war which had little to no impact on most people's lives. Does it really
matter whether gays parade down main street annually? As scarcity of wealth impacts society the
war will shift between the establishment who have it and the average citizens who are losing it.
They'll still throw nonsense at us, like transvestite washroom issues, to try and keep us in the
old narrative and fighting amongst ourselves. If we're dumb enough to fall for that then we deserve
to finish second in this war.
Funny, Hitler was a symptom, not a cause, and the last time the German regulars tried to cast
off the financial hydra, their entire production was carpet bombed.
The State knows where your assets are and hides its own, in the fog of constitutional mythology,
prosecuting the victims of law, while exempting its authority, creating a competition to be the
most ignorant judge, breeding sociopaths.
Abundance must be destroyed, or the money has no perceived value. After electrical shock over
millennia, few have any interest in the new(s), unless it's the same as the old, with a new dress.
Your greatest assets are independent thought, hand skill, and anticipatory intelligence . When
in Rome, the spirit is destroyed, leaving simulated intelligence to control idle hands, replaced
by a machine.
The State narrative is the weapon.
Don't enter that fog of war expecting sentient human beings. If you are the exit, and you are
if you think about it, the empire traps itself.
This is for me the most interesting part of the essay:
In a recent poll 60 percent of those asked were of the opinion that German news media –
including state media – was not independent from political and business interests. Only ten percent
saw the the media as neutral. The rest were uncertain.
The media are almost certainly less influential now that years ago. they may not have the same
power to shape public opinion. Reporting and opinion in other channels is more diverse than in
traditional TV or Press and might help to increase the gap between public and published opinion.
Yet those corrupt media might try to compensate their loss with increasingly biased reporting
and they might no longer bother to be seen as neutral. In this way, the credibility meltdown
might
just reinforce bad journalistic practices.
"... Also claims as such do a slight of hand and imply that the world economy is a zero sum. So for the people living on $2/day to improve their lot the people in the wealthy countries need to give up wealth. IE, the current system is working for everyone but you which means you're a loser who needs to STFU. ..."
"... It really is a "zero sum game" to some extent, given that the economy, local or global, is finite at any point in time. However, the "winners" (can you really call bandits winners?) are the global plutocracy, who have sucked up almost all economic gains for more than 30 years. ..."
Travel day -- will post more later if and when I can.
This is a review
of Branko Milanovic's "Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of
Globalization" by Miles Corak:
Worlds of
Inequality, The American Prospect
: This book begins by posing a
question: "Who has gained from globalization?" Many thoughtful
Americans have the confidence to answer in a sentence. The gains have
been captured by the top 1 percent. And the book ends with another
question: "Will inequality disappear as globalization continues?" Many
might be just as quick to answer: Of course not, the rich will get
richer! But life is not so simple. Between these two questions Branko
Milanovic offers us not just a plethora of facts about income
inequality that will surely make his readers think twice. More
importantly, he shows us the power of bringing the facts into focus by
putting a new lens over these pressing issues-a global perspective.
...
The most striking fact that motivates his book is a graph that the
Twittersphere has already termed "the elephant curve." This is the
one-sentence, or rather one-picture, answer to the first question:
"The gains from globalization are not evenly distributed." ...
Clearly evident are the rise of a global middle class, in some
important measure reflecting the great march out of poverty in China,
and the equally amazing rise in the incomes of the top 1 percent
globally. The winners of globalization were many people who three
decades ago were dirt-poor, and though a big percentage increase in a
very low income still amounts to a rather low income by the standards
of the average person in the rich countries, it is a major movement in
the right direction. But the great winners of globalization were also
a relatively few people in the already-rich countries, a global
plutocracy who also experienced income gains of over 50 percent, but
from a much higher starting point. Both of these changes are without
precedent in the history of humanity.
But the elephant curve also shows that even though some have
gained, others have not seen their prospects improve at all-indeed,
probably leading lives of more insecurity and more worry, not just
about their prospects but also the prospects of their children. The
big losers in these global income sweepstakes have been middle- and
lower-income people of the rich countries...
That book is on my shelf for my summer reading. I would add,
as implied in the review, that most of the decline in global
inequality (between countries) has come from the decrease in
the number of people living on $2/day or less, though their
incomes remain very low. In contrast, within country
inequality has increased globally.
Also claims as such do a slight of hand and imply that the
world economy is a zero sum. So for the people living on
$2/day to improve their lot the people in the wealthy
countries need to give up wealth. IE, the current system is
working for everyone but you which means you're a loser who
needs to STFU.
It really is a "zero sum game" to some extent, given that the
economy, local or global, is finite at any point in time.
However, the "winners" (can you really call bandits winners?)
are the global plutocracy, who have sucked up almost all
economic gains for more than 30 years.
President of Venezuela Nicolas Maduro
said that the United States is doing everything possible to keep the
oil market
from stabilizing.
The US administration takes every
effort to counter OPEC's attempts to stabilize oil prices, he said.
"You can't imagine all the pressure
that is coming from Washington to ensure the failure of the efforts we
have made during the last year to create a common strategy among OPEC
and non-OPEC producers to stabilize the market and prices," Maduro
said, speaking Tuesday in his own TV show.
He also said that the US economic war
against Russia and Venezuela affects the United States as well.
"These are almost war-like
pressure on governments, on heads of state. The US has a "fatal
obsession" with Russia, OPEC and Venezuela's leftist government,"
Maduro added.
Many specialists are convinced that the
ongoing decline in oil prices is intentional. However, according to
Maduro, the United States is trying to exhaust Russia. The tactics of
dumping oil hits the "
shale
revolution
" the US and Canada hardest. Oil companies in these
countries working to their own detriment.
A barrel of shale oil costs $32. A
barrel of oil produced on Russian old fields costs $28, ($16 at new
ones). The cost of Venezuelan oil makes up about $9.
The US aims to raise the degree of
public discontent in Russia, before the US market collapses. In
Russia, low oil prices, due to a large tax component, equally affect
the budget and ordinary consumers.
Kenneth T. Tellis
в
03:39 15 апреля
The days of U.S. domination in Latin America are long gone. The very assumption
that assassinating Hugo Chaves Frias, would give the U.S. the upper hand was a
serious mistake, beause Venezuelans are holding steadfast to the Bolivarian
Revolucion ofHugo Chvas and will coninue on tht path till sll their goals are
achieved. Hasta Victoria Siempre!Butto confuse Nicolas Maduro the Venezuelan
President with SaddamHussein shows how the addled minds of America's stooges cannot
think out of the box. But Ghizlane Kamalova is badly in need of psychiatric help.
Ghizlane Kamalova
в
21:33 14 апреля
Venezuela has one of the worst performing economies in the world. Oh, and
Maduro looks like a younger Saddam Hussein!
Hillarious Clinton
в
00:38 14 апреля
I've lived in Pacific Northwest for 22 years,with some brief stops for few
months in Boston,New York,
washington,D.C.,Philadelphia,Chicago,Cleveland,Minneapolis,san Diego,L.A.,
and 3 times Alaska...I've seen and experienced more than some idiots here
can comment,on that Great "rich" Satan,where are the obese soulless mutants
indeed,very poor in their hearts and minds! I prefer UK 100 times as better
country than that Great Satan,where people associate only in the shopping
malls!! A such idiots like Banan sucker,or that japanese radioactive mutant
Takayama and Chernobyl Mishka cannot fool me,nor others!!!
Bob Brunner
в
19:27 13 апреля
So, OPEC was formed to keep oil prices artifically high for the
benefit of themselves, and at a great cost to the US citizens. High
oil prices also negatively affected develoing countries and the
poor. Governments started to depend on oil money instead of
productivity. Now, US producers (not the government) come up with
a way to get more oil, driving the price of oil down to a more
market-based level, leaving OPEC out in the cold. Boo Hoo.
What you are calling an economic war on Venezuala and Russia is
just a lesson in supply and demand economics. Grow up and start
producing stuff on your own.
Google_103325543317843925342
в
17:12 13
апреля
From retired in midAmerica. People should realize the U.S. (and probably EU,
europe, et al) is beginning to collapse. Economy. US an empiire without a
manufacturing base (all "outsourced"), produces nothing but military arms
trying to force other countries to buy them; fatal debt to GDP ratio;
imports everything, much from China; exports vertually nothing. this once
prosperous city is becoming a ghost town of closed stores, businesses;
abandoned homes of those that lost jobs. Indeedd the great US manufacturing
city Detroit is a total ghost town. We now see street beggars, beg for food.
US massive military it can't afford , the unemployed unemployable uneducated
warehoused inhundreds of foreign bases. Like collapse of Rome, returning
Legions promised retirement land to farm but found all land owned by the
wealthy and farmed by slaves. When Alaric kicked down gates of Rome 410AD
found a mostly deserted pestulence ridden city. The U.S. is now a rabid
dying mad dog, so will it just crumble away a Rome, or start WW-III ? The
latter seems already underway does it not.
Hillarious Clinton
в
00:32 14 апреля
I've lived in that "rich"zionist country,Seattle,WA,over 22 years,and I'm
very happy that I'm out of that boxed in country where the mutants barely
knows about Canada,only 80 to the north...An idiots who plays sports no
one in the world plays,and then these obese mutants shouts,"we are the
world champs"! What you call "rich",I call poverty!!! And
furthermore,they have powerty in their hearts and minds!
Rita Szentendrey
в
16:56 13 апреля
In fact is very true. The ENEMIES of RUSSIA are send out to the sides
similar to PRAVDA not necessary Russian site by their HANDLERS to CAUSE
CONFUSION for those who are NOT very well informed. This is "OK" because ARE
very well "informed" people and they will CORECT all the vile rotten NAZIS
and FASCISTS who do constantly ATTACK all
================================================================= those
NATIONS who REFUSE to dance on their DEADLY TUNES -- The world is AWAKENED
already what this rotten GREEDY maggots did cooked for their ENSLAVEMENT and
SUBJUGATION -- Their LIES are going only for a TIME span -- Then the TRUST in
them is CRUMBLING with a HUGE SPEED -- This is why HONESTY is PRICELESS --
NOBODY will never ever respect GREEDY KILLERS and LIARS --
Yoshihiro Takayama
в
15:20 13 апреля
I'd say the editorial staff of Pravda is very obsessed by the United States.
Very low self-esteem grows and harvests anger and hatred. We pity Russians.
"'This has been an all-time low by mainstream corporate media,' says media scholar Robert McChesney,
who joins us to discuss how the media is covering the race for the White House. 'What we've seen
is the Sanders campaign has been largely neglected … And the coverage and the framing of it has
been largely through the eyes of the establishment for the Hillary Clinton campaign' [Democracy
Now].
"Bernie backers get violent: Now it's the Democrats facing a civil war" [Howard Kurtz,
Fox]. It's interesting, in a clinical sort of way, to see the Nevada airborne seating Big
Lie propagate itself through our famously free press. Although it's handy to be able to cross
off any pundit who retails it.
"As the fallout from last weekend's Nevada Democratic convention spreads, sharply critical
pieces about the White House hopeful and his campaign have appeared in progressive outlets such
as Mother Jones, Talking Points Memo and Daily Kos within the past 48 hours." [The
Hill]. Read for some Ninja-grade concern trolling. My favorite includes the phrase "the full
sense of moral leadership."
The Western image of Russia and Putin in recent years has been very negative.
President Obama has publicly called Vladimir Putin a "
schoolboy
who slouches in his chair in the back of the room
" and derided his country as
a mere "
regional
power
."
This begs the question: how Russia could again become a major power after the
disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991? How could Putin do this without an
agrarian or consumer revolution and with the massive drop in the price of oil? If
Putin is a terrible leader, then how can you explain successful interventions in
Georgia (2008), Crimea (2014), Ukraine (2014-2016) and Syria (2015-2016)?
Putin, however, is actually a very shrewd leader with a brilliant Foreign
Minister, Sergei Lavrov, who relies on a capable Foreign Ministry. Putin has
rebuilt Russia's military capability by
spending $49B a year
on security. Russia retains
1,790 strategic nuclear weapons
. With over 140 million people and 13 million
college graduates, Russia has nearly a million first-class scientists, engineers
and technicians, most of whom work for the military.
Many former great powers are now no longer major powers. Japan, which smashed the
Russian army in the 1904 Sino-Japanese War, occupied much of China from 1937-1945
and has a four trillion dollar economy is no longer a great power. After its
defeat in World War II capped by the American dropping of atomic bombs on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki and American post-war occupation, Japan has sworn off
further intervention in the world and refused to acquire nuclear weapons.
Europe, which once teemed with great powers such as Germany, France, England and
Austro-Hungary, now has gone in another direction. Germany soundly beat the
Russians in every World War I battle and came close to doing the same in 1941 and
1942. Today with weak power projection the three main powers have less than 1,000
mainline battle tanks and few aircraft carriers. Weak economic growth (
1.5%/year
),
disputes among its 28 members, migration from the Middle East, serious problems
with weaker members such as Greece, promote domestic over international issues.
China, with its
ten trillion dollar GDP
, over
two trillion dollars
of exports, over
three trillion dollars
in its reserve fund, 1.35 billion people and 3.7
million square miles of territory, is a future great power. It has made huge
economic progress since Deng Xiaopong launched the Four Modernizations in 1978.
Yet, its remaining problems are staggering:
enormous air pollution
, 675 million peasants, huge governmental corruption,
authoritarian one party dictatorship, lack of rule of law, rapidly aging
population,
hundreds of thousands of children
raising themselves and only $7,500
GDP/capita. Its military, while
boosted by 150 billion dollars of spending
, still needs another decade to
become a truly modern force.
India has
20 percent illiteracy
,
300 million people without electricity
and a $1,300 GDP/capita that is less
than three percent of the United States. It faces Pakistan soon with 200 atomic
bombs. India, with over a billion people, will be a major power but not for
several decades.
Then there is the United States, the sole global superpower since victory in the
Cold War and one of two superpowers in the world since 1945. Its
18 trillion dollar economy
, 17 of the world's top 20 universities, world
leadership in high technology, over
550 billion dollars
in military spending and 330 million people give it
serious advantages over Russia. But, with the rise of popular neo-isolationist
Presidential candidates, the slowest economic recovery since the Great Depression,
decline in its manufacturing sector, administration talk of reducing the size of
the American military to the 1940 level, and the Obama semi-withdrawal from the
Middle East, the door that had been shut to Russia has been open.
The unthinkable has become a reality. Russia, seemingly finished after its defeat
in the Cold War, now is emerging as a prospective great power challenging the
West. Russia has done the unthinkable-become a great power filling the void left
by other former great powers that have now shrunk in size, power and influence.
"... Clinton preaches trickle-down feminism, which just like trickle-down economics,/*serves only the interests of those at the top of the food chain.*/ She essentially established woman and children trafficked rings in Libya and Syria. ..."
"... In any case here is not much difference between neoliberal attitude toward woman ( women as marketable "perishable goods" including such things as sex trade, sex slavery, etc) and Saudi attitude. ..."
Clinton preaches trickle-down feminism, which just like trickle-down economics,/*serves only
the interests of those at the top of the food chain.*/
She essentially established woman and children trafficked rings in Libya and Syria.
In any case here is not much difference between neoliberal attitude toward woman ( women as
marketable "perishable goods" including such things as sex trade, sex slavery, etc) and Saudi attitude.
"... "Most of my colleagues are dishonest career politicians who revel in the power and special-interest money that's lavished upon them." ..."
"... "My main job is to keep my job, to get reelected. It takes precedence over everything." ..."
"... "Fundraising is so time consuming I seldom read any bills I vote on. Like many of my colleagues, I don't know how the legislation will be implemented, or what it'll cost." ..."
"... " Voters are incredibly ignorant and know little about our form of government and how it works." ..."
"... "It's far easier than you think to manipulate a nation of naive, self-absorbed sheep who crave instant gratification." ..."
"... "We spend money we don't have and blithely mortgage the future with a wink and a nod. Screw the next generation." ..."
"... Best line in the God Father. "Their Saps, They fight for other people". Sounds like pop talking. God damn right that's Pop talking. Come here you. ..."
"... The only function of a bureaucracy is to perpetuate the bureaucracy. ..."
"... Trump is getting so much attention because the citizenry doesn't know how the govt was designed to work, and is looking for a "leader" to fix things up. ..."
"... The power lies in Congress, by design, appropriately so, as it most closely represents the will of the People. And therein lies the eleventh-hour problem. ..."
"... This book will be exposed as a hoax. It is doubtless a compilation of quotes from multiple Congrees-critters over the years. I doubt any of these assholes would risk exposure in this manner. They don't have the guts. ..."
A shockingly frank new book from an anonymous
Democratic congressman turns yet another set of conspiracy theories into consirpacy
facts as he spills the beans on the ugly reality behind the scenes in Washington. While little will
surprise any regular readers, the selected quotes offered by
"The Confessions Of Congressman X" book cover sheet read like they were ripped from
the script of House of Cards... and yet are oh so believable...
A devastating inside look at the dark side of Congress as revealed by one of its own!
No wonder Congressman X wants to remain anonymous for fear of retribution. His admissions
are deeply disturbing...
"Most of my colleagues are dishonest career politicians who revel in the power and special-interest
money that's lavished upon them."
"My main job is to keep my job, to get reelected. It takes precedence over everything."
"Fundraising is so time consuming I seldom read any bills I vote on. Like many of my colleagues,
I don't know how the legislation will be implemented, or what it'll cost."
The book also takes shots at voters as disconnected idiots who let Congress abuse its power through
sheer incompetence...
" Voters are incredibly ignorant and know little about our form of government and how it
works."
"It's far easier than you think to manipulate a nation of naive, self-absorbed sheep who
crave instant gratification."
And,
as The Daily Mail so elqouently notes, the take-away message is one of resigned depression about
how Congress sacrifices America's future on the altar of its collective ego...
"We spend money we don't have and blithely mortgage the future with a wink and a nod. Screw
the next generation."
"It's about getting credit now, lookin' good for the upcoming election."
Simply put, it's everything that is enraging Americans about their government's dysfunction and
why Trump is getting so much attention.
The shining city on a hill is chock full of assholes like this. They've run out of other people's
money for this purpose so bad, generations to come are screwed. Unless of course they are all
stamped away and their bullshit repudiated.
Trump is getting so much attention because the citizenry doesn't know how the govt was
designed to work, and is looking for a "leader" to fix things up.
I've been pecking away for years that the attention must be on Congress. No takers here at
ZH either, for the most part.
Again... a finally corrupt and defunct Congress is what must be dealt with post haste, and
a "Trump" or any other will not be the answer to changing the trajectory.
The power lies in Congress, by design, appropriately so, as it most closely represents
the will of the People. And therein lies the eleventh-hour problem.
I've said it time and again. Just today I posted "our entire system is based on subjective
financial asset valuations to support the needs of today with no consideration of tomorrow". Politicians
and their money grubbing corporate assholes thought of future generations don't transcend beyond
their own line of sight. We do not have a government or system for the people. We have a government
who's sole purpose is to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else. Burn the fucker down
This book will be exposed as a hoax. It is doubtless a compilation of quotes from multiple
Congrees-critters over the years. I doubt any of these assholes would risk exposure in this manner.
They don't have the guts.
"... Everything is just getting that bit more embarrassing for Clinton now, as if it wasn't for her early jump on Sanders before people got to know who he was, she could well be behind. ..."
"... Vote for Bernie is more like a protest vote: people just show their disgust with neocon Killary posing as a Democrat. That's why if Dems nominate Killary, many Bernie supporters won't vote at all, and some would even vote Trump. Trump and Bernie are opposites in many things, but they have one thing in common: Republicratic establishment is afraid of both. ..."
Maybe the 'mis-spoke' argument for Clinton's crushing in WV today (a
state she won in 2008) is not the only a influence on today's vote?
Perhaps the people of WV have also been reading or hearing about
Clinton's appalling polling in a showdown with Trump compared to
Sanders? Meanwhile, if the state does goes Repub in the general, it will
just be like all those other southern states that Hillary won!
I do believe it may be yourself and your beloved Hillary that are
hitting the bottle. The more Sanders wins the more he may be able to
swing the Super Delegates who are free to pledge for who they want.
Everything is just getting that bit more embarrassing for Clinton now,
as if it wasn't for her early jump on Sanders before people got to know
who he was, she could well be behind.
It is something the Democrats can't ignore, just as they can't ignore
Clintons popularity ratings along side Trump.
Why pull out when you're winning? Sounds like something a loser would
do.
Got to love the Guardian, first they get a bit over
excited and announce Clinton and Trump win after almost
no votes counted, with their ridiculous little
Clinton/Trump graphics waving their arms, then have to
wakeup from their warm fuzzy dream and face reality,
Sanders and done it again.
The Fat Lady is starting to
get nervous as the Orchestra start to leave the pit.
Whereas cocaine capitalists are so good at maths that
they sold sub-prime mortgage packages, created the GFC
and destroyed the world economy... and then got bailed
out by the people... (that is, they suddenly and briefly
embraced socialism in their time of need, in case that's
lost on you.)
Vote for Bernie is more like a protest vote: people
just show their disgust with neocon Killary posing as a
Democrat. That's why if Dems nominate Killary, many
Bernie supporters won't vote at all, and some would even
vote Trump. Trump and Bernie are opposites in many
things, but they have one thing in common: Republicratic
establishment is afraid of both.
Guardian: I'm getting tired of
waiting for a fair headline
from you, for example, "Bernie
Takes West Virginia in May
10th state primary" instead of
"Trump this, Trump
that/hillary_clinton. blah, blah,
blah". It's as simple as Who,
What, When, Where &
Why-accurately reported. As
taught in 9th grade journalism
classes.
Im waiting for an article
without the negatives such as
West Virginians only voted for
Sanders because they are
waiting to vote for Trump.
It's bad enough to have
Hillary, Bill, the Koch bros.,
the banksters, the Supreme
Court et al subverting our
democracy, must you join in as
well?
Bernie's formidable & we, his
supporters are tenacious!
GO BERNIE!!!!
Sociopath taps into public discontent amongst smaller
demographic group by giving them someone to blame and
displaying authoritarian strength in the face of hated
establishment (who lets be honest with maybe one
exception were hopeless candidates). Tbf I'd be less
concerned with what Republicans think and more concerned
with the Independent voting block who have massive
concerns about Hillary for mostly different reasons
Clinton's campaign has soaked up a goodly portion of this
allegedly donated money. She believes that *she* is the
Democratic Party heir. Clinton is for Clinton and will do
anything to get what she wants.
The point is that while Sanders gets support from people
to the left of Clinton, he also gets a lot of support
from people to the right of Clinton and who are backing
him as an anti-establishment guy, not a left-wing guy.
Why would Sanders, who has made his entire campaign about
the corrupting influence of Wall Street and corporate
interests in government, and has self funded his campaign
as a result, team up with a person who is the living
embodiment of all he disdains? Hillary Clinton's campaign
is the nexus of Wall Street and corruption, with an FBI
investigation thrown in for good measure.
He says it was a disaster, is against regime change,
questions our relationship with the Saudis, wants to be
neutral with regard to Israel and Palestine, and
questions why we need NATO decades after the Soviet Union
collapsed. All sound positions in my book.
Not me. I'm voting Sanders. And if its not Sanders, then
I'm voting Trump.
The problem is corruption in
government, and how the government and economy are
rigged.
Only Sanders and Trump talk about this. Clinton...
with her speech money and tens of millions from Wall
Street donors and Pentagon supplier donors... she is part
of the problem, and certainly not the solution.
Once again we have uniformly
lousy, almost criminally
responsibly terrible political
reporting from the Guardian
concerning the Democratic
Party's race. I come expecting
you to be awful and you never
disappoint. You know nothing,
you understand nothing.
Well Hillary's fucked in that case but I disagree that
Americans only care about tax cuts especially when you
consider certain studies...
TPC found that the average tax burden would
increase by about $9,000 in 2017 but the average
amount of benefits would increase by more than
$13,000. As a result, households would on average
receive a net income gain of almost $4,300 under
Sanders's proposals, TPC said.
Households in the bottom fifth of income would
on average receive a net gain of more than $10,000,
and those in the middle fifth of income would have an
average gain of about $8,500.
Those in the top 5
percent of income would see a net loss of about
$111,000, TPC said.
Bernie has a very strong case to not only be the most
progressive candidate but also the one lightest on the
average American's pocket
She's a greedy warmongering horror with nothing to offer
anyone. Sanders supports will simply not vote. At all.
For anyone. A handful might vote for Trump but not in
significant numbers.
I would refrain from too many
predictions six months out. (a) USA is a moody country
with (b) a love of novelty and (c) there's no frame of
reference for what's going to come next. Except that
we're in for a wild ride.
to the extent Trump generates buzz, clicks, excitement
& controversy -- the press must secretly praying for him
to win
Welcome to our live wire coverage with our rock star
interns. After another terrible night for Sanders, who
was expected to gain 99.9% of the vote, this latest win
in West Virginia is another devastating blow to the
Sanders campaign, coming after a series of 17 incredibly
lucky shock results by landslide margins which of course
don't mean anything.
Because of the large number of
comments which disagree with the Guardian editorial line
we will be closing this blog shortly.
You can make the case that Hillary's 30,000 deleted
personal emails are = to Nixons 18 minutes of missing
tape. Also her use of "enemies list" and her use of the
Super Pac "Correct the Record" cyber war against anyone
who speaks out about her in a negative manner, as well as
her hawkish foreign policy and her close relationship
with Kissenger to me be very similar to Nixon.
Except
for your already disproved slander that Sanders is a
"socialist" there is not much else he has in common with
Lenin.
Well, the moderator is making it easier for Clinton's
super Pac to work these comments now. You can't debate
these people rationally, they are paid to distort and
reflect back to you the opposite of everything.
Body language works on a different level. You can't fake it easily. It's
almost impossible to fake micro expressions. And we all pick them up.
This is probably the main reason why Clinton is deemed untrustworthy.
It's because her body's expressions can't hide her lies
Bernie Sanders got 72% in West Virginia among those who want
more
liberal policies than the Obama Administration. Or in a nutshell
according to the Guardian, "Trump voters".
My view is that Hillary is bought and sold by
a small group of ultra-wealthy 0.001%ers who
have some form of personality disorder which
means that they are only interested in
unending self-enrichment beyond any from of
rational limit, all at the expense of
*everybody else* on the planet
The article
rather backs this up, and furthermore points
out that at least some of these same people
were also backing the frightful Cruz until he
dropped out of the race
Are you happy to be shilling for Hillary
now you have this information?
Guardian office alert !!! Guardian office alert !!!
There are elections in the USA at the moment in some of the states and
the Guardian editor in charge is worried. Why ?
There are not enough anti Trump articles yet written for today and one
(?new) staffer had the audacity to write an article on Hillary that had
one line in it that was seen as a bit 'negative' for our former first
lady.
The editor in charge may have to write a negative article on Trump
him/herself.... so what to do now.........the news staffer is walking
down the road already
If you need some help Guardian staff..ask me.. I have read so many of
your anti Trump articles that I can memorize most of the
lines.....................
True colours, alright. Bernie voters have principles- they're not
willing to toss those aside in order to support NAFTA-loving,
email-losing, regime-change-addict Clinton, the woman whose campaign
platform changes entirely depending on which way the wind is blowing. It
beats me why anyone voting for Bernie would want to vote for Clinton-
expect more outsourcing, more 'free trade', more TPIP, and more Middle
East interventions if she snakes her way into the Oval office.
Yes Clinton is
cleverly using a
LEGAL way to
bypass campaign
financing laws
thanks to her
joint account with
the DNC.
Although, to be
fair, she is not
the first
candidate to do
that.
The legality is
not for debate
here but I won't
say that much
about the
morality...
She consistently has shown that money and power is all she is interested in. She does not care where that money or power comes from as long as she gets it.
That's why she took "the evil ones" campaign contribution.
"But I believe that it is not enough to just reject Trump – this is an
opportunity to define a progressive vision for America."
Exactly! The
Clinton campaign is basically stating "Vote Hillary, she's less worse
than Trump!", there's nothing progressive or innovative about it, just
plain sailing everything thing is fine stop thinking now and get back to
work stuff. Shame really, the woulda shoulda coulda that's coming to the
US in a few months after Trump wins...because he's going to, dour
predictions by the media aside (they didn't see any of this coming) he's
just the kind of guy Americans will vote for, I mean, we elected Bush II
twice! Well...once, really.
Simons, a string theory expert and former cold war codebreaker,
has made an estimated $15.5bn from Renaissance Technologies the
mathematics-driven "quant" hedge fund he set up 34 years ago.
The fund, which is run from the tiny Long Island village of
Setauket where Simons owns a huge beachfront compound,
has donated
$13m to Cruz's failed campaign. With Cruz out of the race,
Renaissance has switched donations to Hillary Clinton, with more than
$2m donated so far. Euclidean Capital, Simon's family office, has
donated more than $7m to Clinton.
The media and the parties conveniently forget that more than 40% of
Americans are Independents and they can swing this election. Most of
them would vote for Sanders in the general election in Nov., but they
won't vote for Clinton. The DNC should be assessing who could best win
the White House and back that candidate. I am at a lose as to why they
aren't doing that.
Hillary, let's face it: you and the working class just don't go
together. It is a very awkward , tense and schizo combination. You
should be campaigning on Broadway, Sunset Strip or Rodeo Drive. West
Virginia just isn't your natural habitat: It is like putting an
anaerobic bacterium into an oxygen tank.
Stick to the 1% quarters, and you'll do just fine (plus, they give
good speech fees). And you don't even have to watch those unwashed
coalminers' faces and pretend that you are one of them.
Hey Guardian fascinating to know what the Clinton Camp (Machine) thinks
about tonight but what does Senator Sanders campaign think? Just curious
you know. Helps to have reporting from both sides to help unbiased
voters make up their minds.
Don't get me wrong I think it was nice you
mentioned Bernie's landslide in Nebraska but what is he saying? Sure
he's holding 25,000 rallies but could you cover his actual words and
policies with an equal amount of reporting as you are covering Clinton?
Of note I read elsewhere he is 281 delegates behind and expected to
win 8 out of 9 remaining states. Does that mean Clinton has no chance of
becoming the presumptive nominee until the Convention? Also have you
investigated her Goldman Sachs speeches? She said she'd release them
when others have and I do not think Sanders or Trump are withholding
their speeches.
Key word.... Integrity. It's not about Bernie,it's about us. No more
taxation without representation. Corporations aren't people.. I should
know as I work for one and own one. Capitalism without regulation self
cannibalises as it is left with no consumers. That's what the new deal
was really about... Saving capitalism and I'm all for that.
This liveblog is illustrative of the inane soma that the media,
unfortunately this appears to include the guardian, will feed to its
readers over the general election. Again you have forgotten that smart
young people, who make up a large proportion of your readership, are
extremely put off by the extent of Trump's coverage. I know he's the
presumptive nominee, but that puts the onus on discussing his policies
more, contrasting them with hillary's etc, but you do nothing of the
sort. I know it's a liveblog and you're scraping through the day for
tidbits but i really think more analysis instead of random useless
coverage of events is in order. Oh Trump's a buffoon that says stupid
things? Thanks, I needed more evidence of that. Oh he polls worse than
Nickelback? Hilarious. No, no, no. Give us some real information and not
this public interest nonsense - that's what social media is for.
Delegate math in the primaries is one thing; electoral college math in
the general election is quite another. Clinton's margin in popular votes
derives from red (mostly southern) state primaries that, with few
exceptions (like NC), neither will win in the general. As others have
noted, in swing states Sanders lost, he's polling better against Trump
than Clinton does (FL, OH, PA). There's even an interesting poll from NH
that has Sanders ahead of Trump by 21 points (the same as his primary
win margin), but Clinton is only up +5--the difference between Clinton
keeping Sen. Ayotte (R) in the Senate for another term, and Sanders
dragging the Hill-shill Gov. Hassen (D) into the Senate.
Given Clinton's poor showing against Trump, both nationally and
state-by-state, i'm beginning to suspect that difference isn't Trump
gaining supporters against Clinton, but Clinton losing supporters to
those not voting, voting third party (mostly Green), or writing Sanders'
in--aka, the Bernie or Bust movement.
It's still very possible Clinton goes to the Convention well short of
the 2,383 pledged delegates she needs to win the nomination without the
help of super delegates. And if her polls keep tanking (and taking any
chance of winning back the Senate, the House, governors and statehouses)
with it, the SD's will have a very hard time justifying awarding her the
nomination simply out of personal loyalty, and still face the prospect
of losing the presidency anyway.
1) The New York Board of
Elections received whopping pay raises, for unexplained reasons.
2) The NY BOE's own internal minutes of July 7, 2015 (available to
the public) show that the full board were completely aware of purging
~160,000 NY voters, treated that as a routine vote, and moved onto other
apparently more pressing business
"... One of the remarkable things about this election is the sheer intensity of hostility to Trump from many of the same movement conservatives who shrugged at Bush's far more serious betrayals and failures. Many movement conservatives have been much more horrified by Trump's momentary political success over a few months than they were by the real, costly, staggering failures of governance under the Bush administration over a period of eight years. Bush certainly drove some conservatives and Republicans into vocal opposition, including those of us here at TAC, but there seem to be many, many more on the right that thought Bush could practically do no wrong but have been driven into fits by nothing more than Trump's nomination. ..."
"... People that now panic about incipient caudillismo and the dangers of a nationalist demagogue didn't care when Bush expanded the security state, trampled on the Constitution, or launched an unnecessary war of aggression, and people that yawned at the steady expansion of government and creation of new unfunded liabilities under Bush are now supposedly alarmed by Trump's lack of fidelity to the cause of limited government. They correctly identify many of Trump's flaws, but refuse to acknowledge the fact that the party was already killed (or at least severely wounded) years ago during the disastrous Bush era. It was that period of incompetence and ideologically-driven debacles that shattered the GOP, and for the last seven years the vast majority of die-hard Trump foes have refused to recognize that and have chosen to learn nothing from it. They lost to Trump, but the part they can't accept is that they deserved to lose because of their role in enabling the GOP's past failures. Now they're touting their abandonment of the wreckage they helped to create as if they deserve applause for running away from their own handiwork. If it weren't so serious, it would be quite comical. ..."
The cheapest laugh down here in the Liberal cheap
seats continues to be the hilarious "evolution"
of the indignation of Conservatives who are
watching their monster run away with their
party. Since no one listens to us and no one
cares what we think, we here on the Left find
ourselves oddly blessed with the greatest and
most dangerous freedom of all: we are free to
remember the past in country where almost
everyone else-especially the wealthy and
powerful-are expending enormous energies denying
the past.
Ten years ago it was an act of unalloyed heresy
and disloyalty bordering on treason to even hint
that George W. Bush was not the Greatest Fucking
President in Modern History. Six years ago, it
was sheer folly-whistling into a hurricane-to
suggest that the Tea Party was not, in fact a
sudden and spontaneous uprising of
otherwise-politically-virginal patriots, but was
instead a massive wingnut rebranding scam
designed to get millions of bigots and meatheads
off the hook for volubly supporting the Worst
Fucking President in Modern History.
But now, as America's Conservative brain wizards
flail around looking for someone or something
onto which they can lay off the blame for the
rise of Donald McRonald, look what is suddenly no
longer verboten. [...]
And my oh my, look at what version of American
history is no longer a heresy so disqualifying
that the media dare not speak its name (from
The
American Conservative
):
Bush Wrecked the GOP Long Before
Trump Appeared
By DANIEL LARISON
...
One of the remarkable things about this
election is the sheer intensity of
hostility to Trump from many of the same
movement conservatives who shrugged at
Bush's far more serious betrayals and
failures. Many movement conservatives have
been much more horrified by Trump's
momentary political success over a few
months than they were by the real, costly,
staggering failures of governance under the
Bush administration over a period of eight
years. Bush certainly drove some
conservatives and Republicans into vocal
opposition, including those of us here at
TAC, but there seem to be many, many more
on the right that thought Bush could
practically do no wrong but have been
driven into fits by nothing more than
Trump's nomination.
People that now panic about incipient
caudillismo and the dangers of a
nationalist demagogue didn't care when Bush
expanded the security state, trampled on
the Constitution, or launched an
unnecessary war of aggression, and people
that yawned at the steady expansion of
government and creation of new unfunded
liabilities under Bush are now supposedly
alarmed by Trump's lack of fidelity to the
cause of limited government. They correctly
identify many of Trump's flaws, but refuse
to acknowledge the fact that the party was
already killed (or at least severely
wounded) years ago during the disastrous
Bush era. It was that period of
incompetence and ideologically-driven
debacles that shattered the GOP, and for
the last seven years the vast majority of
die-hard Trump foes have refused to
recognize that and have chosen to learn
nothing from it. They lost to Trump, but
the part they can't accept is that they
deserved to lose because of their role in
enabling the GOP's past failures. Now
they're touting their abandonment of the
wreckage they helped to create as if they
deserve applause for running away from
their own handiwork. If it weren't so
serious, it would be quite comical.
If you are a
Liberal living in America you are a pariah in your
own land who has lived to see almost every one of
your ostracizing blasphemies slowly, quietly become
a widely accepted and largely uncontroversial fact
of everyday life.
Every blasphemy
except one-that the Left has been right about the
Right all along. Because if Important People ever
dared to start saying that out loud in Important
Places, the entire system would implode.
"... One of the remarkable things about this election is the sheer intensity of hostility to Trump from many of the same movement conservatives who shrugged at Bush's far more serious betrayals and failures. Many movement conservatives have been much more horrified by Trump's momentary political success over a few months than they were by the real, costly, staggering failures of governance under the Bush administration over a period of eight years. Bush certainly drove some conservatives and Republicans into vocal opposition, including those of us here at TAC, but there seem to be many, many more on the right that thought Bush could practically do no wrong but have been driven into fits by nothing more than Trump's nomination. ..."
"... People that now panic about incipient caudillismo and the dangers of a nationalist demagogue didn't care when Bush expanded the security state, trampled on the Constitution, or launched an unnecessary war of aggression, and people that yawned at the steady expansion of government and creation of new unfunded liabilities under Bush are now supposedly alarmed by Trump's lack of fidelity to the cause of limited government. They correctly identify many of Trump's flaws, but refuse to acknowledge the fact that the party was already killed (or at least severely wounded) years ago during the disastrous Bush era. It was that period of incompetence and ideologically-driven debacles that shattered the GOP, and for the last seven years the vast majority of die-hard Trump foes have refused to recognize that and have chosen to learn nothing from it. They lost to Trump, but the part they can't accept is that they deserved to lose because of their role in enabling the GOP's past failures. Now they're touting their abandonment of the wreckage they helped to create as if they deserve applause for running away from their own handiwork. If it weren't so serious, it would be quite comical. ..."
The cheapest laugh down here in the Liberal cheap
seats continues to be the hilarious "evolution"
of the indignation of Conservatives who are
watching their monster run away with their
party. Since no one listens to us and no one
cares what we think, we here on the Left find
ourselves oddly blessed with the greatest and
most dangerous freedom of all: we are free to
remember the past in country where almost
everyone else-especially the wealthy and
powerful-are expending enormous energies denying
the past.
Ten years ago it was an act of unalloyed heresy
and disloyalty bordering on treason to even hint
that George W. Bush was not the Greatest Fucking
President in Modern History. Six years ago, it
was sheer folly-whistling into a hurricane-to
suggest that the Tea Party was not, in fact a
sudden and spontaneous uprising of
otherwise-politically-virginal patriots, but was
instead a massive wingnut rebranding scam
designed to get millions of bigots and meatheads
off the hook for volubly supporting the Worst
Fucking President in Modern History.
But now, as America's Conservative brain wizards
flail around looking for someone or something
onto which they can lay off the blame for the
rise of Donald McRonald, look what is suddenly no
longer verboten. [...]
And my oh my, look at what version of American
history is no longer a heresy so disqualifying
that the media dare not speak its name (from
The
American Conservative
):
Bush Wrecked the GOP Long Before
Trump Appeared
By DANIEL LARISON
...
One of the remarkable things about this
election is the sheer intensity of
hostility to Trump from many of the same
movement conservatives who shrugged at
Bush's far more serious betrayals and
failures. Many movement conservatives have
been much more horrified by Trump's
momentary political success over a few
months than they were by the real, costly,
staggering failures of governance under the
Bush administration over a period of eight
years. Bush certainly drove some
conservatives and Republicans into vocal
opposition, including those of us here at
TAC, but there seem to be many, many more
on the right that thought Bush could
practically do no wrong but have been
driven into fits by nothing more than
Trump's nomination.
People that now panic about incipient
caudillismo and the dangers of a
nationalist demagogue didn't care when Bush
expanded the security state, trampled on
the Constitution, or launched an
unnecessary war of aggression, and people
that yawned at the steady expansion of
government and creation of new unfunded
liabilities under Bush are now supposedly
alarmed by Trump's lack of fidelity to the
cause of limited government. They correctly
identify many of Trump's flaws, but refuse
to acknowledge the fact that the party was
already killed (or at least severely
wounded) years ago during the disastrous
Bush era. It was that period of
incompetence and ideologically-driven
debacles that shattered the GOP, and for
the last seven years the vast majority of
die-hard Trump foes have refused to
recognize that and have chosen to learn
nothing from it. They lost to Trump, but
the part they can't accept is that they
deserved to lose because of their role in
enabling the GOP's past failures. Now
they're touting their abandonment of the
wreckage they helped to create as if they
deserve applause for running away from
their own handiwork. If it weren't so
serious, it would be quite comical.
If you are a
Liberal living in America you are a pariah in your
own land who has lived to see almost every one of
your ostracizing blasphemies slowly, quietly become
a widely accepted and largely uncontroversial fact
of everyday life.
Every blasphemy
except one-that the Left has been right about the
Right all along. Because if Important People ever
dared to start saying that out loud in Important
Places, the entire system would implode.
"... Simply put, the nation is sick to death of lies, deceptions and swindles - media and otherwise - which Hillary Clinton so capably embodies, personifies and endorses. In fact, one of the reasons why Donald Trump is the presumptive republican nominee is that, with all his extremism, vitriol and xenophobia, he still comes across as more genuine - even if genuinely nasty ..."
"... So fed up is the American nation of plasticity, artificiality, botoxicity, hollow buffoonery and wizard-of-oz fakery of lobby-made candidates like Clinton that I comfortably predict that, if she ends up confronting Donald Trump in a general election, she will be mauled to threads and fronds, and I will get a kick of a lifetime. Donald Trump will eat her for mid-morning snack and she will have deserved every bit of drubbing she gets to receive. It will be more fun than the 6:00 AM sex. ..."
"... Shock?!!!! How could the American Queen lose right?!!! ..."
"... The main point is, Hillary has no chance of winning against Trump. She is already trying to get a cadre of neocon Republicans to support her, thinking she could get swing a portion of Republicans to support her, forgetting why she is so despised by a large segment of Democrats and majority of independents. It is her default cling to neocon interventionist, and corporate base of support that causes it. She is tone deaf, ignorant and arrogant. Unless, we Democrats stop her now Trump will beat her handily. I have no doubt about it. ..."
"... In all of Hillary's 'closed' primary wins, they have been plagued with voter suppression tactics, voter purges, lack of voting machines and ballots, people (Sanders) having their party affiliation changed so they couldn't vote and 'Oh Yes' - Bill Clinton clearly violating election laws by 'wandering into a polling station in Boston. ..."
"... Popular vote? When closed primaries arn't enough good old fashioned fraud will do. ..."
"... Sanders has been consistently winning smaller states and may well have won New York too if not for the shenanigans going on there. ..."
"... it will be a little awkward for Hillary wrenching the nomination from him after another series of massive wins. ..."
"... Her 'sharing' means raising money for the states but giving them 1% of amount raised while diverting the funds back to the DNC who will be funding her campaigns. Smart technique, but deceptive, like much of her political life. ..."
"... The fact is, a substantial section of the politically active electorate are sick and tired of the rotten do-nothing political system, and are doing whatever they can to deliberately disrupt business as usual. Don't be "shocked". ..."
"... The "free press" continues to show that it is TOTALLY out of touch with the "we've had enough and we're not going to take it any more" quality of voters across the political spectrum. The U.S. "media" (i.e. corporate PR Sock Puppet), called Bernie's demise inevitable from the start (that is, when it wasn't blacklisting any coverage of him at all), and when there WAS coverage, it always had Kleverly manipulated headlines (Bernie shocks with a victory, yada yada yada). ..."
"... The press has become so owned, so corrupt and also (in the case of the Guardian coverage of sanders) so Parrot- Lazy , I could just puke. A pox on all your pathetic "media" houses. ..."
"... This rag like others do not get it. Sanders wins open primaries. The closed primaries with all the problems reported are why Clinton is in front. Democracy is not for the democrats. ..."
"... Not only doesn't Killary know that 'this thing is not over", but the media doesn't know what's going on with the Empire of the entrenched Democratic party, nor the media Empire, nor the militarist Empire abroad, nor the financial Empire, nor the corporate Empire, nor any of the sectors of this Disguised Global Capitalist Empire, which is nominally HQed in. ..."
"... This damn Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE that has by "singing so softly" imposed itself and its boot upon us, and which is a highly-integrated (but well hidden, like a cancer) six-sectored; corporate, financial, military, media/propaganda, extra-legal, and most dangerously dual-party Vichy-political facade of both the rougher neocon 'R' Vichy party and smoother lying neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy parties of the EMPIRE is "goin' down" ..."
"... Using a dysfunctional system to change that very system is not hypocritical. ..."
"... Sanders victory is not a "shock" to those of us who don't believe the media propaganda. Clinton and the DNC elite are the ones who will be shocked after the Oregon and California primaries as Sanders pulls neck and neck with her. ..."
"... wrong, dems have been split down the middle since april 7. The DNC chose their candidate a year ago, that is not democracy. ..."
"... Bow out gracefully, what a joke. Obama only got her support after she extorted the price of Secretary of State from him. ..."
"... NYT is touted as being leftist by all the FOX readers and listeners, especially. They have an incredible bias for right wing Likud Party and Bibi Netanhayu and Hillary fits into that analysis as a veteran AIPAC speaker. ..."
"... Christian Zionist, John Hagee, is also a favored speaker and colleague of Hillary's. She is a committed Neo-con and puppet of the New World Order Chicago School of Economics (Friedman). ..."
"... The candidate who most appeals to women for support in this campaign is the same one who as US Senator and as US Sec. of State, has violated Moslem and Christian women's and children's fundamental human rights in Gaza, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Cuba. She has supported notorious violators of women rights, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel. ..."
"... Wish to better understand Hillary Clinton? Review her relationship with Victoria Nuland the Neo-con who worked for Hillary in US Dept. of State as Undersecretary. Nation destabilizer Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan, co-founder with William Kristol of PNAC. She worked for Dick Cheney as senior foreign policy advisor, now working for Sec. Kerry!! <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland> Then the original Neo-con agenda here: https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Project_for_the_New_American ... ..."
"... Now PNAC and Nuland's husband, Robert Kagan have updated to this anti-American New World Order; the same agenda that is wolly embraced by Hillary Clinton and Sec. of State Kerry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Policy_Initiative ..."
"... Sanders supporters are not merely disgusted by what they have seen in all the other candidates including Clinton, they know a good thing when they see it and are willing to support what they believe in fully. No more settling for " the lesser evil " which is evil . ..."
"... Indiana is further proof that people have reached the limit of their tolerance. Democracy is not possible without choices. Bernie Sanders is the closest thing to a choice that was offered The rest of the characters running for President were...well, just that, characters--cartoon characters. ..."
"... Bernie's policies are far better for the middle and working classes than Hillary's, and she is a warhawk to boot. Sometimes you have to vote your conscience instead of your team. Sander's actions are not assisting the GOP, it is the stubborn insistence of the DNC that we continue with the life-destroying policy of neoliberalism that is driving the Trump campaign. ..."
"... On the idea of compromising to "get things done," I see an analogy to the Hippocratic oath. ..."
There is nothing "shocking" about Bernie Sanders' victory in Indiana. Simply put, the nation is sick to death of lies, deceptions
and swindles - media and otherwise - which Hillary Clinton so capably embodies, personifies and endorses. In fact, one of the
reasons why Donald Trump is the presumptive republican nominee is that, with all his extremism, vitriol and xenophobia, he still
comes across as more genuine - even if genuinely nasty - than the rest of the man-made, prefabricated plastic
stuff that Republican party has to offer. There is a perfectly good and legitimate reason why Jebb Bush and Carly Fiorina could
not crawl out of their lower single-digit poll ratings: the general public found them insincere, dishonest and carrying hidden
agendas -- and this was NOT merely a misperception on part of the paranoid nation: you CAN'T con 330 million people into perpetual
dumbness simultaneously. It just isn't done.
So fed up is the American nation of plasticity, artificiality, botoxicity, hollow buffoonery and wizard-of-oz fakery of
lobby-made candidates like Clinton that I comfortably predict that, if she ends up confronting Donald Trump in a general election,
she will be mauled to threads and fronds, and I will get a kick of a lifetime. Donald Trump will eat her for mid-morning snack
and she will have deserved every bit of drubbing she gets to receive. It will be more fun than the 6:00 AM sex.
Bernie Sanders is America's last best hope and change , and the very first real one. Come November,
America has only one choice: to vote for one of the neoliberal corporate pieces of toxic human waste , or to vote for a decent
human being. Alternatives do not exist. This is it.
I don't see how the DNC can support a candidate who is under F.B.I. investigation. It doesn't matter if she is indicted?
I'm so glad Bernie is going the distance.
Shock?!!!! How could the American Queen lose right?!!!
The main point is, Hillary has no chance of winning against Trump. She is already trying to get a cadre of neocon Republicans
to support her, thinking she could get swing a portion of Republicans to support her, forgetting why she is so despised by a large
segment of Democrats and majority of independents. It is her default cling to neocon interventionist, and corporate base of support
that causes it. She is tone deaf, ignorant and arrogant. Unless, we Democrats stop her now Trump will beat her handily. I have
no doubt about it.
In all of Hillary's 'closed' primary wins, they have been plagued with voter suppression tactics, voter purges, lack of voting
machines and ballots, people (Sanders) having their party affiliation changed so they couldn't vote and 'Oh Yes' - Bill Clinton
clearly violating election laws by 'wandering into a polling station in Boston.
Hillary can't win in a fair fight, so she resorts to dirty tricks that would shame Richard Nixon.
I don't think anyone, anyone who has followed the primaries thus far. I thought it was 'likely' myself, only doubt that lingered
was the supposed 'lost momentum' theories after Philly. Sanders is solid, I think most people now see through the mainstream bias
against him. He'll fight till the convention, and it will be a little awkward for Hillary wrenching the nomination from him
after another series of massive wins.
Her 'sharing' means raising money for the states but giving them 1% of amount raised while diverting the funds back to the
DNC who will be funding her campaigns. Smart technique, but deceptive, like much of her political life.
I keep seeing that argument that Sander's supporters will vote for Trump. People aroused by his message of anti war; opposing
the growing disparity of wealth; increasing the taxes for the rich to match the benefits they have been privileged to have such
a greater share of the wealth; and other reforms: in what world would they easily switch to voting for an egomaniac, elitist,
narcissist, misogynist, racist, xenophobe? I for one could consider skipping a vote, but NEVER could I see going from a Sanders
to a Fascist.
Hear we go again with the gratuitous elitist spin. First it was how Trump was going to be stopped short of cinching the nomination
"this time" - just you wait! Now the Guardian journalists have been instructed to feign "shock" that Sanders has once again shown
what pull he has in this primary season.
The fact is, a substantial section of the politically active electorate are sick and tired of the rotten do-nothing political
system, and are doing whatever they can to deliberately disrupt business as usual. Don't be "shocked".
The "free press" continues to show that it is TOTALLY out of touch with the "we've had enough and we're not going to take
it any more" quality of voters across the political spectrum. The U.S. "media" (i.e. corporate PR Sock Puppet), called Bernie's
demise inevitable from the start (that is, when it wasn't blacklisting any coverage of him at all), and when there WAS coverage,
it always had Kleverly manipulated headlines (Bernie shocks with a victory, yada yada yada).
The press has become so owned, so corrupt and also (in the case of the Guardian coverage of sanders) so Parrot- Lazy
, I could just puke. A pox on all your pathetic "media" houses.
This rag like others do not get it. Sanders wins open primaries. The closed primaries with all the problems reported are why
Clinton is in front. Democracy is not for the democrats.
That shifting of funds from the National committees to the states and then back to the national to avoid scrutiny of funds is
the similar trick that tom DeLay used in texas that he was charged with evading election laws. Clinton does the same and there
is no coverage?
When you think about it rationally, which Clintonistas are incapable of, how weak a candidate Hillary is that a little known Senator
from a small North Eastern state can carry forth a campaign into May.
After all she has repared her run for four years, placed her flunky Debbie Wassermann Schultz as head of the DNC, built a war
chest from Corporate money, lined up commitments from over 400 Super Delegates before the primaries even began and yet, Bernie's
still hanging in there.
"In Friday, while Hillary Clinton was addressing the Democratic National Committee in Minneapolis, Minnesota, senior campaign
officials announced that Clinton had already received pledges of support from at least 440 of the party's estimated 713 super
delegates. That total includes 130 superdelegates who have publicly endorsed Clinton, as well as an additional 310 who have made
private commitments to support Hillary."
Bernie had no name recognition, campaign staff and very little money to begin with, but his message of hope resonated enough
to attract millions of supporters who were tired of the status quo. and they have raised over $200,000,000 in small donations
without any SuperPacs.
Keep going Bernie, you are a true Progressive and American Hero.
There is a God! You go Bernie. I am waiting for you here in California.
When Bernie was speaking about healthcare for all .I started wondering how many people died at home .because there they are
with a pain in their chests and then they grab their healthcare booklets and they start adding it all up and what it takes just
to get them to the hospital and the hospital stay.
There is the .. "Ambulance co-pay" ..$225.00 one way. ( God forbid you decide to go for a joy-ride.) Oh wait ..you have to
add the "Emergency Room co-pay $75.00, then if you get admitted .it is a co-pay of $250.00 per day (PER DAY) for six days. If
you stay longer whoopee it's for free. ( I could be staying at Four Seasons for that.)
Who is fucking kidding who? What in the hell am I paying health insurance for and I am retired I have Medicare too? Who is
making money on my and other people's misfortunes? We are all victims who have been convinced that ALL OF THIS shite is our own
faults and individually we are on our own.
Little do we realize that if we stand shoulder to shoulder and we get together and protest this travesty called healthcare,
that we could get all of this changed to our benefit.
It is time for Medicare for all. My taxes are to be used for the Common Good of everyone in this country. I do not want my
taxes to go to war, war and more war.
Bernie also addresses our shameful infrastructure in this country. The rich corporations and individuals take all of these
illicit profits; my money, and yours and they just sit on it and do nothing to help this country or its people. When do we start
getting smarter?
Not only doesn't Killary know that 'this thing is not over", but the media doesn't know what's going on with the Empire
of the entrenched Democratic party, nor the media Empire, nor the militarist Empire abroad, nor the financial Empire, nor the
corporate Empire, nor any of the sectors of this Disguised Global Capitalist Empire, which is nominally HQed in.
metropoled, and merely 'posing' as our former country ---- and which Bernie's only partially revealed and vague, "Political
Revolution" is going to be expanding into his, and OUR, fully defined sentence (with an 'object') and is growing into a loud,
courageous, but peaceful, "Political Revolution against EMPIRE" as the Second American Revolution against EMPIRE again before
this the 240th year's anniversary of our First (and only successful) American Revolution against EMPIRE.
Everyone, and every sector, of this EMPIRE is deaf, dumb, and blind about this Revolution against Empire:
"There's something happening here
But what it is ain't exactly clear ...
Stop, children, what's that sound?
Everybody look what's going down"
This damn Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE that has by "singing so softly" imposed itself and its boot upon us, and which
is a highly-integrated (but well hidden, like a cancer) six-sectored; corporate, financial, military, media/propaganda, extra-legal,
and most dangerously dual-party Vichy-political facade of both the rougher neocon 'R' Vichy party and smoother lying neoliberal-con
'D' Vichy parties of the EMPIRE is "goin' down"
Sanders victory is not a "shock" to those of us who don't believe the media propaganda. Clinton and the DNC elite are the
ones who will be shocked after the Oregon and California primaries as Sanders pulls neck and neck with her.
For the good of the country, the Democrat Party should consider having Clinton pull out, because Trump will beat her, but Sanders
would be him. But they won't and she won't, because they serve their owners, and their arrogance, hubris and sense of entitlement
is supreme to their concerns for the rest of the 99%. Hopefully this election year ill see the destruction of both corrupt major
corporate parties, and a rebirth of actual democracy in the USA. One person, one vote, not bought and unsuppressed.
wrong, dems have been split down the middle since april 7. The DNC chose their candidate a year ago, that is not democracy.
California is an open primary, means that the 40 independents can vote.
Hmmm, looking at the math today things have gotten very interesting. Clinton has 1701 pledged delegates, Bernie has 1417. To win
outright before the convention you need 2382 pledged delegates. That would mean 1) Bernie cannot do it. 2) Hillary would have
to win 681 out of the final 933 delegates up for grabs. That's 73% she needs to win.
That ain't going to happen so it pretty much a fact now that the super delegates will pick this years Democratic nominee.
Let's start putting the pressure on them NOW to make the right choice. Call them, write to them.....
NYT is touted as being leftist by all the FOX readers and listeners, especially. They have an incredible bias for right wing
Likud Party and Bibi Netanhayu and Hillary fits into that analysis as a veteran AIPAC speaker.
Christian Zionist, John
Hagee, is also a favored speaker and colleague of Hillary's. She is a committed Neo-con and puppet of the New World Order Chicago
School of Economics (Friedman).
If Bernie, a socialist can win in a conservative Nazi state like Indiana, he can win any where.
He even won in Indiana"s third largest city (Evansville) the most conservative large city in Indiana.
Yeah cause Clinton has detailed policies on fixing this? Or does she play identity politics and hand wave?
"In 2010, the median wealth, or net worth, for black families was $4,900, compared to median wealth for whites of $97,000.
Blacks are nearly twice as likely as whites to have zero or negative net worth-33.9 percent compared to 18.6 percent."
At this point, the only hope for world peace is Sanders. I'll write in Sanders before I would vote for Hillary "Failed State"
Clinton. Hillary carries too high a load of baggage to prevail, even with historical trivia like Trevor 0691 above.
Trump is safer bet because he will not be able to get Congressional support, the same problem Jimmy Carter, the Washington
outsider had. Hillary's commitment to war, with her experience on Capital Hill is a most depressing specter.
No comments allowed on the 'what is sander's route to the Democratic nomination' article but it is exceptionally poor journalism
I quote: No numbers are available for the primaries that will be held in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Oregon and Kentucky,
partly because pollsters know the voters there won't change the political calculus much – they're not "wasting" their time in
places with few delegates available.
Polls are available for Oregon, Kentucky, West Virginia.
The most recent Oregon poll shows Sanders 1 point behind. The West Virginia poll shows him 5 points ahead, the most recent Kentucky
poll (taken at start of March) has him 5 points behind.
The latest New Jersey poll shows a 9 point deficit for him (compared with a 23 point deficit less than 2 months earlier).
It's fair enough that journalists have their opinions in opinion pieces, but when factual inaccuracies are mixed up in such
pieces, or so-called analytical pieces, it's just really shoddy, unprofessional journalism...
The candidate who most appeals to women for support in this campaign is the same one who as US Senator and as US Sec. of State,
has violated Moslem and Christian women's and children's fundamental human rights in Gaza, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Cuba. She has
supported notorious violators of women rights, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel.
How then are we to think that she will not import this treatment to the women of America?
She supports human rights criminal Bibi Netanyahu and AIPAC with undying expressions of apology for extreme Zionism and Orthodox
suppression of women. She opposes Jewish Voice for Peace and the indigenous Israel peace movement.
Remember Dixie Lee Ray who was elected disastrous Governor of WA State when ERA movement shooed her in? Women voters beware.
Wish to better understand Hillary Clinton? Review her relationship with Victoria Nuland the Neo-con who worked for Hillary
in US Dept. of State as Undersecretary. Nation destabilizer Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan, co-founder with William Kristol
of PNAC. She worked for Dick Cheney as senior foreign policy advisor, now working for Sec. Kerry!! <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland>
Then the original Neo-con agenda here: https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Project_for_the_New_American
...
Now PNAC and Nuland's husband, Robert Kagan have updated to this anti-American New World Order; the same agenda that is
wolly embraced by Hillary Clinton and Sec. of State Kerry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Policy_Initiative
Can you guys please make sure the Guardian reports on the Hillary Victory Fund hoarding 99% of the money it raises "for State
races". It is of critical importance that voters be made aware of how the Clinton campaign is behaving (or mis-behaving).
Sorry media controlling elites, Bernie has not lost yet. After her canary died in Indiana... Hillary has 1700 or 71% of the 2383
pledged delegates needed. So HRC will need 60% of the remaining 1114 pledged delegates to clinch. Bernie is favored in most of
the remaining states. Contested convention!!! And what a rowdy party in the streets it will be. Bernie will likely go in into
Philly just slightly behind in pledged delegates but with majority of states - and many of these states the ones Dems most count
on to win in the general. Considering Bernie's popularity with Independents(had they been allowed to vote in the primary he would
have won big) he would be the best choice against Trump. But as we all know from exit poll discrepancies - this election is rigged.
Pointing to evidence of the corrupted process he will announce his run as the Green Party candidate.
actually, it was only during this campaign that I bothered to check out why HRC had a private server, and it's not pretty. Washington
Examiner did an excellent researched piece, laying out how the Clintons amassed $3b through their private foundation and big speaking
feeds, and that's where the private server was needed, to organize the millions in state department contracts in line with donations.
Prime time, mainstream media including the Guardian has simply refused to check out the work that has been done in the emails
released last year. This is no GOP conspiracy. In fact, the Examiner lays out how Bush family used similar methods to amass their
$3b fortune. That is the amassing of private wealth through the use of public office that is endemic to Washington - pretty close
to Oligarchy at the scale of operations by former presidents, and heads of state. It's a level of corruption that has reached
proportions that led to the $700billion bailout and $6 trillion loan bailout - the Clintons use neo-liberal 'charity' to mask
their real program, personal wealth and unlimited power.
Sanders once again proved his appeal to disaffected midwest voters
Hah! What a joke!
Disaffected? More like realistic, compassionate, ethical, intelligent, and fair to all... Sanders supporters are not merely disgusted by what they have seen in all the other candidates including Clinton, they know
a good thing when they see it and are willing to support what they believe in fully. No more settling for " the lesser evil
" which is evil .
Indiana is further proof that people have reached the limit of their tolerance. Democracy is not possible without choices.
Bernie Sanders is the closest thing to a choice that was offered The rest of the characters running for President were...well,
just that, characters--cartoon characters.
"Sanders led front-runner Hillary Clinton by 6 points, with 68 percent of precincts reporting, when networks declared him the
winner. Exit polls had Sanders winning by 12 points, but they were based solely on interviews with voters on Election Day. "
'Bernie Sanders Wins Indiana Democratic Primary' Huffington Post 3 May 2016
More voting machine hijinks. The Democratic Primary winner should not be decided until all investigations are complete.
who illegally gets millions from the DNC to pay young people to post comments for her ... He can beat Trump, 40 percent of all
American registered voters are independent who'll vote for Sanders, not for the DNC candidate (Dems are split 50/50 since April
7, and that's with tricky campaign finance rules thanks to your 'qualified' candidate. She is very qualified to sell out the American
people on every score, from Nafta to support for military coup in Hondurus. I mean, is she even a Democrat, or just a closeted
GOP zombie Kissinger lover?
This isn't a football game where you put on the colors and cheer on your team. People are not interested in business as usual,
every four years, support the platform, my party right or wrong politics. I don't know you, and I don't know how tough or easy
you have things. But here in Indy, about 90% of the people I know struggle to make ends meet. Those of us who voted for Bernie
are not necessarily trying to destroy the democratic party, but there's more to life for us than electing Hillary Clinton the
1st female president.
Bernie's policies are far better for the middle and working classes than Hillary's, and she is a warhawk to boot. Sometimes
you have to vote your conscience instead of your team. Sander's actions are not assisting the GOP, it is the stubborn insistence
of the DNC that we continue with the life-destroying policy of neoliberalism that is driving the Trump campaign.
At least be original. That article isn't a showstopping mic-drop, and trashing Bernie doesn't make HRC look any better. People
aren't loyal to Bernie for his party affiliation, they're loyal to him for his consistent policy positions. Not just his consistency,
but also the fact that he's been proven right again and again. That's an arena where HRC simply can't compete.
On the idea of compromising to "get things done," I see an analogy to the Hippocratic oath. First and foremost, do
no harm. Someone who compromises to insert slivers of good legislation into bad bills still, in the net, passes more bad laws
than good ones. Maybe we're all traumatized by the incompetence of congress over the past several years, but seeing the gears
of lawmaking in motion for the sake of motion is not the answer.
"... Simply put, the nation is sick to death of lies, deceptions and swindles - media and otherwise - which Hillary Clinton so capably embodies, personifies and endorses. In fact, one of the reasons why Donald Trump is the presumptive republican nominee is that, with all his extremism, vitriol and xenophobia, he still comes across as more genuine - even if genuinely nasty ..."
"... So fed up is the American nation of plasticity, artificiality, botoxicity, hollow buffoonery and wizard-of-oz fakery of lobby-made candidates like Clinton that I comfortably predict that, if she ends up confronting Donald Trump in a general election, she will be mauled to threads and fronds, and I will get a kick of a lifetime. Donald Trump will eat her for mid-morning snack and she will have deserved every bit of drubbing she gets to receive. It will be more fun than the 6:00 AM sex. ..."
"... Shock?!!!! How could the American Queen lose right?!!! ..."
"... The main point is, Hillary has no chance of winning against Trump. She is already trying to get a cadre of neocon Republicans to support her, thinking she could get swing a portion of Republicans to support her, forgetting why she is so despised by a large segment of Democrats and majority of independents. It is her default cling to neocon interventionist, and corporate base of support that causes it. She is tone deaf, ignorant and arrogant. Unless, we Democrats stop her now Trump will beat her handily. I have no doubt about it. ..."
"... In all of Hillary's 'closed' primary wins, they have been plagued with voter suppression tactics, voter purges, lack of voting machines and ballots, people (Sanders) having their party affiliation changed so they couldn't vote and 'Oh Yes' - Bill Clinton clearly violating election laws by 'wandering into a polling station in Boston. ..."
"... Popular vote? When closed primaries arn't enough good old fashioned fraud will do. ..."
"... Sanders has been consistently winning smaller states and may well have won New York too if not for the shenanigans going on there. ..."
"... it will be a little awkward for Hillary wrenching the nomination from him after another series of massive wins. ..."
"... Her 'sharing' means raising money for the states but giving them 1% of amount raised while diverting the funds back to the DNC who will be funding her campaigns. Smart technique, but deceptive, like much of her political life. ..."
"... The fact is, a substantial section of the politically active electorate are sick and tired of the rotten do-nothing political system, and are doing whatever they can to deliberately disrupt business as usual. Don't be "shocked". ..."
"... The "free press" continues to show that it is TOTALLY out of touch with the "we've had enough and we're not going to take it any more" quality of voters across the political spectrum. The U.S. "media" (i.e. corporate PR Sock Puppet), called Bernie's demise inevitable from the start (that is, when it wasn't blacklisting any coverage of him at all), and when there WAS coverage, it always had Kleverly manipulated headlines (Bernie shocks with a victory, yada yada yada). ..."
"... The press has become so owned, so corrupt and also (in the case of the Guardian coverage of sanders) so Parrot- Lazy , I could just puke. A pox on all your pathetic "media" houses. ..."
"... This rag like others do not get it. Sanders wins open primaries. The closed primaries with all the problems reported are why Clinton is in front. Democracy is not for the democrats. ..."
"... After all she has prepared her run for four years, placed her flunky Debbie Wassermann Schultz as head of the DNC, built a war chest from Corporate money, lined up commitments from over 400 Super Delegates before the primaries even began and yet, Bernie's still hanging in there. ..."
"... Not only doesn't Killary know that 'this thing is not over", but the media doesn't know what's going on with the Empire of the entrenched Democratic party, nor the media Empire, nor the militarist Empire abroad, nor the financial Empire, nor the corporate Empire, nor any of the sectors of this Disguised Global Capitalist Empire, which is nominally HQed in. ..."
"... This damn Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE that has by "singing so softly" imposed itself and its boot upon us, and which is a highly-integrated (but well hidden, like a cancer) six-sectored; corporate, financial, military, media/propaganda, extra-legal, and most dangerously dual-party Vichy-political facade of both the rougher neocon 'R' Vichy party and smoother lying neoliberal-con 'D' Vichy parties of the EMPIRE is "goin' down" ..."
"... Using a dysfunctional system to change that very system is not hypocritical. ..."
"... Sanders victory is not a "shock" to those of us who don't believe the media propaganda. Clinton and the DNC elite are the ones who will be shocked after the Oregon and California primaries as Sanders pulls neck and neck with her. ..."
"... wrong, dems have been split down the middle since april 7. The DNC chose their candidate a year ago, that is not democracy. ..."
"... Bow out gracefully, what a joke. Obama only got her support after she extorted the price of Secretary of State from him. ..."
"... NYT is touted as being leftist by all the FOX readers and listeners, especially. They have an incredible bias for right wing Likud Party and Bibi Netanhayu and Hillary fits into that analysis as a veteran AIPAC speaker. ..."
"... Christian Zionist, John Hagee, is also a favored speaker and colleague of Hillary's. She is a committed Neo-con and puppet of the New World Order Chicago School of Economics (Friedman). ..."
"... The candidate who most appeals to women for support in this campaign is the same one who as US Senator and as US Sec. of State, has violated Moslem and Christian women's and children's fundamental human rights in Gaza, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Cuba. She has supported notorious violators of women rights, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel. ..."
"... Wish to better understand Hillary Clinton? Review her relationship with Victoria Nuland the Neo-con who worked for Hillary in US Dept. of State as Undersecretary. Nation destabilizer Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan, co-founder with William Kristol of PNAC. She worked for Dick Cheney as senior foreign policy advisor, now working for Sec. Kerry!! <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland> Then the original Neo-con agenda here: https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Project_for_the_New_American ... ..."
"... Now PNAC and Nuland's husband, Robert Kagan have updated to this anti-American New World Order; the same agenda that is wolly embraced by Hillary Clinton and Sec. of State Kerry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Policy_Initiative ..."
"... Sanders supporters are not merely disgusted by what they have seen in all the other candidates including Clinton, they know a good thing when they see it and are willing to support what they believe in fully. No more settling for " the lesser evil " which is evil . ..."
"... Indiana is further proof that people have reached the limit of their tolerance. Democracy is not possible without choices. Bernie Sanders is the closest thing to a choice that was offered The rest of the characters running for President were...well, just that, characters--cartoon characters. ..."
"... Bernie's policies are far better for the middle and working classes than Hillary's, and she is a warhawk to boot. Sometimes you have to vote your conscience instead of your team. Sander's actions are not assisting the GOP, it is the stubborn insistence of the DNC that we continue with the life-destroying policy of neoliberalism that is driving the Trump campaign. ..."
"... On the idea of compromising to "get things done," I see an analogy to the Hippocratic oath. ..."
There is nothing "shocking" about Bernie Sanders' victory in Indiana. Simply put, the nation is sick to death of lies, deceptions
and swindles - media and otherwise - which Hillary Clinton so capably embodies, personifies and endorses. In fact, one of the
reasons why Donald Trump is the presumptive republican nominee is that, with all his extremism, vitriol and xenophobia, he still
comes across as more genuine - even if genuinely nasty - than the rest of the man-made, prefabricated plastic
stuff that Republican party has to offer. There is a perfectly good and legitimate reason why Jebb Bush and Carly Fiorina could
not crawl out of their lower single-digit poll ratings: the general public found them insincere, dishonest and carrying hidden
agendas -- and this was NOT merely a misperception on part of the paranoid nation: you CAN'T con 330 million people into perpetual
dumbness simultaneously. It just isn't done.
So fed up is the American nation of plasticity, artificiality, botoxicity, hollow buffoonery and wizard-of-oz fakery of
lobby-made candidates like Clinton that I comfortably predict that, if she ends up confronting Donald Trump in a general election,
she will be mauled to threads and fronds, and I will get a kick of a lifetime. Donald Trump will eat her for mid-morning snack
and she will have deserved every bit of drubbing she gets to receive. It will be more fun than the 6:00 AM sex.
Bernie Sanders is America's last best hope and change , and the very first real one. Come November,
America has only one choice: to vote for one of the neoliberal corporate pieces of toxic human waste , or to vote for a decent
human being. Alternatives do not exist. This is it.
I don't see how the DNC can support a candidate who is under F.B.I. investigation. It doesn't matter if she is indicted?
I'm so glad Bernie is going the distance.
Shock?!!!! How could the American Queen lose right?!!!
The main point is, Hillary has no chance of winning against Trump. She is already trying to get a cadre of neocon Republicans
to support her, thinking she could get swing a portion of Republicans to support her, forgetting why she is so despised by a large
segment of Democrats and majority of independents. It is her default cling to neocon interventionist, and corporate base of support
that causes it. She is tone deaf, ignorant and arrogant. Unless, we Democrats stop her now Trump will beat her handily. I have
no doubt about it.
In all of Hillary's 'closed' primary wins, they have been plagued with voter suppression tactics, voter purges, lack of voting
machines and ballots, people (Sanders) having their party affiliation changed so they couldn't vote and 'Oh Yes' - Bill Clinton
clearly violating election laws by 'wandering into a polling station in Boston.
Hillary can't win in a fair fight, so she resorts to dirty tricks that would shame Richard Nixon.
I don't think anyone, anyone who has followed the primaries thus far. I thought it was 'likely' myself, only doubt that lingered
was the supposed 'lost momentum' theories after Philly. Sanders is solid, I think most people now see through the mainstream bias
against him. He'll fight till the convention, and it will be a little awkward for Hillary wrenching the nomination from him
after another series of massive wins.
Her 'sharing' means raising money for the states but giving them 1% of amount raised while diverting the funds back to the
DNC who will be funding her campaigns. Smart technique, but deceptive, like much of her political life.
I keep seeing that argument that Sander's supporters will vote for Trump. People aroused by his message of anti war; opposing
the growing disparity of wealth; increasing the taxes for the rich to match the benefits they have been privileged to have such
a greater share of the wealth; and other reforms: in what world would they easily switch to voting for an egomaniac, elitist,
narcissist, misogynist, racist, xenophobe? I for one could consider skipping a vote, but NEVER could I see going from a Sanders
to a Fascist.
Hear we go again with the gratuitous elitist spin. First it was how Trump was going to be stopped short of cinching the nomination
"this time" - just you wait! Now the Guardian journalists have been instructed to feign "shock" that Sanders has once again shown
what pull he has in this primary season.
The fact is, a substantial section of the politically active electorate are sick and tired of the rotten do-nothing political
system, and are doing whatever they can to deliberately disrupt business as usual. Don't be "shocked".
The "free press" continues to show that it is TOTALLY out of touch with the "we've had enough and we're not going to take
it any more" quality of voters across the political spectrum. The U.S. "media" (i.e. corporate PR Sock Puppet), called Bernie's
demise inevitable from the start (that is, when it wasn't blacklisting any coverage of him at all), and when there WAS coverage,
it always had Kleverly manipulated headlines (Bernie shocks with a victory, yada yada yada).
The press has become so owned, so corrupt and also (in the case of the Guardian coverage of sanders) so Parrot- Lazy
, I could just puke. A pox on all your pathetic "media" houses.
This rag like others do not get it. Sanders wins open primaries. The closed primaries with all the problems reported are why
Clinton is in front. Democracy is not for the democrats.
That shifting of funds from the National committees to the states and then back to the national to avoid scrutiny of funds is
the similar trick that tom DeLay used in texas that he was charged with evading election laws. Clinton does the same and there
is no coverage?
When you think about it rationally, which Clintonistas are incapable of, how weak a candidate Hillary is that a little known Senator
from a small North Eastern state can carry forth a campaign into May.
After all she has prepared her run for four years, placed her flunky Debbie Wassermann Schultz as head of the DNC, built
a war chest from Corporate money, lined up commitments from over 400 Super Delegates before the primaries even began and yet,
Bernie's still hanging in there.
"In Friday, while Hillary Clinton was addressing the Democratic National Committee in Minneapolis, Minnesota, senior campaign
officials announced that Clinton had already received pledges of support from at least 440 of the party's estimated 713 super
delegates. That total includes 130 superdelegates who have publicly endorsed Clinton, as well as an additional 310 who have made
private commitments to support Hillary."
Bernie had no name recognition, campaign staff and very little money to begin with, but his message of hope resonated enough
to attract millions of supporters who were tired of the status quo. and they have raised over $200,000,000 in small donations
without any SuperPacs.
Keep going Bernie, you are a true Progressive and American Hero.
There is a God! You go Bernie. I am waiting for you here in California.
When Bernie was speaking about healthcare for all .I started wondering how many people died at home .because there they are
with a pain in their chests and then they grab their healthcare booklets and they start adding it all up and what it takes just
to get them to the hospital and the hospital stay.
There is the .. "Ambulance co-pay" ..$225.00 one way. ( God forbid you decide to go for a joy-ride.) Oh wait ..you have to
add the "Emergency Room co-pay $75.00, then if you get admitted .it is a co-pay of $250.00 per day (PER DAY) for six days. If
you stay longer whoopee it's for free. ( I could be staying at Four Seasons for that.)
Who is fucking kidding who? What in the hell am I paying health insurance for and I am retired I have Medicare too? Who is
making money on my and other people's misfortunes? We are all victims who have been convinced that ALL OF THIS shite is our own
faults and individually we are on our own.
Little do we realize that if we stand shoulder to shoulder and we get together and protest this travesty called healthcare,
that we could get all of this changed to our benefit.
It is time for Medicare for all. My taxes are to be used for the Common Good of everyone in this country. I do not want my
taxes to go to war, war and more war.
Bernie also addresses our shameful infrastructure in this country. The rich corporations and individuals take all of these
illicit profits; my money, and yours and they just sit on it and do nothing to help this country or its people. When do we start
getting smarter?
Not only doesn't Killary know that 'this thing is not over", but the media doesn't know what's going on with the Empire
of the entrenched Democratic party, nor the media Empire, nor the militarist Empire abroad, nor the financial Empire, nor the
corporate Empire, nor any of the sectors of this Disguised Global Capitalist Empire, which is nominally HQed in.
metropoled, and merely 'posing' as our former country ---- and which Bernie's only partially revealed and vague, "Political
Revolution" is going to be expanding into his, and OUR, fully defined sentence (with an 'object') and is growing into a loud,
courageous, but peaceful, "Political Revolution against EMPIRE" as the Second American Revolution against EMPIRE again before
this the 240th year's anniversary of our First (and only successful) American Revolution against EMPIRE.
Everyone, and every sector, of this EMPIRE is deaf, dumb, and blind about this Revolution against Empire:
"There's something happening here
But what it is ain't exactly clear ...
Stop, children, what's that sound?
Everybody look what's going down"
This damn Disguised Global Capitalist EMPIRE that has by "singing so softly" imposed itself and its boot upon us, and which
is a highly-integrated (but well hidden, like a cancer) six-sectored; corporate, financial, military, media/propaganda, extra-legal,
and most dangerously dual-party Vichy-political facade of both the rougher neocon 'R' Vichy party and smoother lying neoliberal-con
'D' Vichy parties of the EMPIRE is "goin' down"
Sanders victory is not a "shock" to those of us who don't believe the media propaganda. Clinton and the DNC elite are the
ones who will be shocked after the Oregon and California primaries as Sanders pulls neck and neck with her.
For the good of the country, the Democrat Party should consider having Clinton pull out, because Trump will beat her, but Sanders
would be him. But they won't and she won't, because they serve their owners, and their arrogance, hubris and sense of entitlement
is supreme to their concerns for the rest of the 99%. Hopefully this election year ill see the destruction of both corrupt major
corporate parties, and a rebirth of actual democracy in the USA. One person, one vote, not bought and unsuppressed.
wrong, dems have been split down the middle since april 7. The DNC chose their candidate a year ago, that is not democracy.
California is an open primary, means that the 40 independents can vote.
Hmmm, looking at the math today things have gotten very interesting. Clinton has 1701 pledged delegates, Bernie has 1417. To win
outright before the convention you need 2382 pledged delegates. That would mean 1) Bernie cannot do it. 2) Hillary would have
to win 681 out of the final 933 delegates up for grabs. That's 73% she needs to win.
That ain't going to happen so it pretty much a fact now that the super delegates will pick this years Democratic nominee.
Let's start putting the pressure on them NOW to make the right choice. Call them, write to them.....
NYT is touted as being leftist by all the FOX readers and listeners, especially. They have an incredible bias for right
wing Likud Party and Bibi Netanhayu and Hillary fits into that analysis as a veteran AIPAC speaker.
Christian Zionist, John Hagee, is also a favored speaker and colleague of Hillary's. She is a committed Neo-con and puppet
of the New World Order Chicago School of Economics (Friedman).
If Bernie, a socialist can win in a conservative Nazi state like Indiana, he can win any where.
He even won in Indiana"s third largest city (Evansville) the most conservative large city in Indiana.
Yeah cause Clinton has detailed policies on fixing this? Or does she play identity politics and hand wave?
"In 2010, the median wealth, or net worth, for black families was $4,900, compared to median wealth for whites of $97,000.
Blacks are nearly twice as likely as whites to have zero or negative net worth-33.9 percent compared to 18.6 percent."
At this point, the only hope for world peace is Sanders. I'll write in Sanders before I would vote for Hillary "Failed State"
Clinton. Hillary carries too high a load of baggage to prevail, even with historical trivia like Trevor 0691 above.
Trump is safer bet because he will not be able to get Congressional support, the same problem Jimmy Carter, the Washington
outsider had. Hillary's commitment to war, with her experience on Capital Hill is a most depressing specter.
No comments allowed on the 'what is sander's route to the Democratic nomination' article but it is exceptionally poor journalism
I quote: No numbers are available for the primaries that will be held in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Oregon and Kentucky,
partly because pollsters know the voters there won't change the political calculus much – they're not "wasting" their time in
places with few delegates available.
Polls are available for Oregon, Kentucky, West Virginia.
The most recent Oregon poll shows Sanders 1 point behind. The West Virginia poll shows him 5 points ahead, the most recent Kentucky
poll (taken at start of March) has him 5 points behind.
The latest New Jersey poll shows a 9 point deficit for him (compared with a 23 point deficit less than 2 months earlier).
It's fair enough that journalists have their opinions in opinion pieces, but when factual inaccuracies are mixed up in such
pieces, or so-called analytical pieces, it's just really shoddy, unprofessional journalism...
The candidate who most appeals to women for support in this campaign is the same one who as US Senator and as US Sec. of State,
has violated Moslem and Christian women's and children's fundamental human rights in Gaza, Libya, Yemen, Syria, Cuba. She has
supported notorious violators of women rights, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Israel.
How then are we to think that she will not import this treatment to the women of America?
She supports human rights criminal Bibi Netanyahu and AIPAC with undying expressions of apology for extreme Zionism and Orthodox
suppression of women. She opposes Jewish Voice for Peace and the indigenous Israel peace movement.
Remember Dixie Lee Ray who was elected disastrous Governor of WA State when ERA movement shooed her in? Women voters beware.
Wish to better understand Hillary Clinton? Review her relationship with Victoria Nuland the Neo-con who worked for Hillary
in US Dept. of State as Undersecretary. Nation destabilizer Nuland is the wife of Robert Kagan, co-founder with William Kristol
of PNAC. She worked for Dick Cheney as senior foreign policy advisor, now working for Sec. Kerry!! <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Nuland>
Then the original Neo-con agenda here: https://en.wikipedia.org/.../Project_for_the_New_American
...
Now PNAC and Nuland's husband, Robert Kagan have updated to this anti-American New World Order; the same agenda that is
wolly embraced by Hillary Clinton and Sec. of State Kerry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Policy_Initiative
Can you guys please make sure the Guardian reports on the Hillary Victory Fund hoarding 99% of the money it raises "for State
races". It is of critical importance that voters be made aware of how the Clinton campaign is behaving (or mis-behaving).
Sorry media controlling elites, Bernie has not lost yet. After her canary died in Indiana... Hillary has 1700 or 71% of the 2383
pledged delegates needed. So HRC will need 60% of the remaining 1114 pledged delegates to clinch. Bernie is favored in most of
the remaining states. Contested convention!!! And what a rowdy party in the streets it will be. Bernie will likely go in into
Philly just slightly behind in pledged delegates but with majority of states - and many of these states the ones Dems most count
on to win in the general. Considering Bernie's popularity with Independents(had they been allowed to vote in the primary he would
have won big) he would be the best choice against Trump. But as we all know from exit poll discrepancies - this election is rigged.
Pointing to evidence of the corrupted process he will announce his run as the Green Party candidate.
actually, it was only during this campaign that I bothered to check out why HRC had a private server, and it's not pretty. Washington
Examiner did an excellent researched piece, laying out how the Clintons amassed $3b through their private foundation and big speaking
feeds, and that's where the private server was needed, to organize the millions in state department contracts in line with donations.
Prime time, mainstream media including the Guardian has simply refused to check out the work that has been done in the emails
released last year. This is no GOP conspiracy. In fact, the Examiner lays out how Bush family used similar methods to amass their
$3b fortune. That is the amassing of private wealth through the use of public office that is endemic to Washington - pretty close
to Oligarchy at the scale of operations by former presidents, and heads of state. It's a level of corruption that has reached
proportions that led to the $700billion bailout and $6 trillion loan bailout - the Clintons use neo-liberal 'charity' to mask
their real program, personal wealth and unlimited power.
Sanders once again proved his appeal to disaffected midwest voters
Hah! What a joke!
Disaffected? More like realistic, compassionate, ethical, intelligent, and fair to all... Sanders supporters are not merely disgusted by what they have seen in all the other candidates including Clinton, they know
a good thing when they see it and are willing to support what they believe in fully. No more settling for " the lesser evil
" which is evil .
Indiana is further proof that people have reached the limit of their tolerance. Democracy is not possible without choices.
Bernie Sanders is the closest thing to a choice that was offered The rest of the characters running for President were...well,
just that, characters--cartoon characters.
"Sanders led front-runner Hillary Clinton by 6 points, with 68 percent of precincts reporting, when networks declared him the
winner. Exit polls had Sanders winning by 12 points, but they were based solely on interviews with voters on Election Day. "
'Bernie Sanders Wins Indiana Democratic Primary' Huffington Post 3 May 2016
More voting machine hijinks. The Democratic Primary winner should not be decided until all investigations are complete.
who illegally gets millions from the DNC to pay young people to post comments for her ... He can beat Trump, 40 percent of all
American registered voters are independent who'll vote for Sanders, not for the DNC candidate (Dems are split 50/50 since April
7, and that's with tricky campaign finance rules thanks to your 'qualified' candidate. She is very qualified to sell out the American
people on every score, from Nafta to support for military coup in Hondurus. I mean, is she even a Democrat, or just a closeted
GOP zombie Kissinger lover?
This isn't a football game where you put on the colors and cheer on your team. People are not interested in business as usual,
every four years, support the platform, my party right or wrong politics. I don't know you, and I don't know how tough or easy
you have things. But here in Indy, about 90% of the people I know struggle to make ends meet. Those of us who voted for Bernie
are not necessarily trying to destroy the democratic party, but there's more to life for us than electing Hillary Clinton the
1st female president.
Bernie's policies are far better for the middle and working classes than Hillary's, and she is a warhawk to boot. Sometimes
you have to vote your conscience instead of your team. Sander's actions are not assisting the GOP, it is the stubborn insistence
of the DNC that we continue with the life-destroying policy of neoliberalism that is driving the Trump campaign.
At least be original. That article isn't a showstopping mic-drop, and trashing Bernie doesn't make HRC look any better. People
aren't loyal to Bernie for his party affiliation, they're loyal to him for his consistent policy positions. Not just his consistency,
but also the fact that he's been proven right again and again. That's an arena where HRC simply can't compete.
On the idea of compromising to "get things done," I see an analogy to the Hippocratic oath. First and foremost, do
no harm. Someone who compromises to insert slivers of good legislation into bad bills still, in the net, passes more bad laws
than good ones. Maybe we're all traumatized by the incompetence of congress over the past several years, but seeing the gears
of lawmaking in motion for the sake of motion is not the answer.
"... At the end, the brainwashing media convince the people to vote for the "bad choice" instead of the worst (which is Trump in this case). You don't need to have any plans or anything, just repeat "Trump bad, Trump bad, Trump bad, Me good" and the sheeple will follow! This strategy has been so successful that almost everywhere around the world are using it to win all types of elections! xD ..."
"... Maybe Trump becoming president is necessary for the people to realize once and for all that this cycle of mistakes and corruption needs to stop and fundamental changes need to happen! ..."
"... She should be a felon by now, and only her name protects her from jail. ..."
"... "David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy won the authorisation to use "all necessary means" from the UN security council in March on the basis that Gaddafi's forces were about to commit a Srebrenica-style massacre in Benghazi. Naturally we can never know what would have happened without Nato's intervention. But there is in fact no evidence – including from other rebel-held towns Gaddafi re-captured – to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out such an atrocity against an armed city of 700,000 . ..."
"... "Explanations of what one thought was happening in these countries were often misinterpreted as justification for odious and discredited regimes. In Libya, where the uprising started on 15 February 2011, I wrote about how the opposition was wholly dependent on Nato military support and would have been rapidly defeated by pro-Gaddafi forces without it. It followed from this that the opposition would not have the strength to fill the inevitable political vacuum if Gaddafi was to fall. I noted gloomily that Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies, who were pressing for foreign intervention against Gaddafi, themselves held power by methods no less repressive than the Libyan leader. It was his radicalism – muted though this was in his later years – not his authoritarianism that made the kings and emirs hate him. ..."
"... Given our support of Saudi and knowing their interventions, as well as Pakistan, we were stupid to intervene. ..."
"... If Bernie does not get the nomination it will be the wilderness for the Democrats - no young voters no independents - unless they can conjure a principled candidate somehow from somewhere. ..."
"... What planet African Americans are doing "better off" on is unknown. What is known is that President Obama is about to leave office with African Americans in their worst economic situation since Ronald Reagan . A look at every key stat as President Obama starts his sixth year in office illustrates that. ..."
"... the world is divided in two, half who are nauseated by the above and the other half who purr in admiration at the clever way Clinton has fucked the public once again. As Mencken said democracy is that system of government in which it is assumed that the common man knows what he wants and deserves to get it good and hard. ..."
"... It would be perhaps remotely Marxist if he said comrades. But even that was used by democrats, socialists and even fascists and nazists so I would say that no, there is nothing Marxist about it. One of his central messages is that we need to come together and improve our society, that we are all the same, without race or religion, with the same needs and fears as humans. ..."
"... I even disagree with people saying that he promotes class struggle, he is talking about fair share and he is an ardent supporter of following the laws even when they are against his ideology, which is something that radicals do not tend to do. Radicals do not give a damn about laws and neither do Marxists or far-right wingers, fascists etc. ..."
"... Hilary Clinton has various comments that reveals somebody who certainly fits the psychopath spectrum. Among the lowest of the low was "We came, we saw, he died!" Accompanied by a cackle of laughter. This was announced in full view of the media and public when Gadhaffi was overthrown by US assistance. ..."
"... Hillary will not see that one criminal in the financial world of the USA will face justice for their mafia-like actions and destruction of billions of dollars and assets while stealing the savings of Americans and non Americans. President Obama hasn't done it and he is not the buddy Hilary is to these people. ..."
"... Please. She lost that race in South Carolina when her husband, along with Geraldine Ferraro, called Obama being president a fairy tale and an affirmative action candidate, respectively. You can't win with only minority support, but you can't win without any of it if you are a Dem. Up until SC, the Clintons had minority support in the bag--most black people had never heard of Obama. Things changed real fast. ..."
"... But to pick out my favorite Hillary statement of the week, in honor of her close associate and fellow gonif, Hillary superdelegate, Sheldon Silver, who recently got 12 years in the slammer: https://www.americarisingpac.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/clinton-sheldon-silver-meme1.jpg ..."
"... In 2000, Silver was integral in Clinton's Senate campaign. According to The New York Times, Silver helped Hillary lobby members of the state assembly for their support ..."
"... If Clinton is the Dem nominee it does more than give me shivers. Heck, I view Hillary as demonstrably more dangerous with foreign policy. Both use identity politics as a decisive issue- which only is a distraction from their lack of policy. Both their economic/domestic policies do little or worse for the current situation. Both are untrustworthy and any rhetoric on policy is highly questionable (although Clinton is certainly the worst in this regard). About the only good thing between either is that Trump is willing to question our empire abroad, which is well overdue (meanwhile Clinton seems to want to expand it). ..."
"... If it's between those two I vote Green and take the 'Jesse Ventura' option: vote anyone not Dem or Rep. Both parties are two corrupt subsidiaries of their corporate masters. ..."
"... She voted for the Iraq war, being investigated by the FBI for her emails, there was Benghazi, turning Libya into a ISIS hotbed, allowed a military junta to assassinate a democratically elected president in Honduras and said nothing, takes $675k from Goldman for 3 speeches and refuses to disclose the transcripts because she KNOWS it'll hurt her, voted for trade deals that's gutted manufacturing in the USA....should I go on? ..."
"... Uh huh and your supporting a person: That voted for the Iraq War, destabilized Libya, Benghazi, gave tacit approval to a military junta in Honduras as Secretary of State, called black youth super predators, supports trade agreements that destroy our own manufacturing jobs, takes more money from special interests than her constituency, has made millions in speeches from the bank lobby and won't disclose the transcripts......yeah she's real HONEST......riiigggghhhhttttt.... ..."
"... Donors like the Koch Brothers, who happily funded Bill clinton and the DLC made their preferences clear. They didn't invest in a fit of altruistic progressivism. They wanted the DNC to swing right. And voila it did and Bill was anointed as the "one" to run. Don't be so naive. ..."
Most politicians these days don't care about the people and this ridiculous cycle is repeating
every 4 years! Candidates who actually want to make progress get dumped by the corrupt system
and the parties that are being controlled by their corporate masters and their money to do as
they want to return the more money to them later when they have the office!
At the end, the brainwashing media convince the people to vote for the "bad choice" instead
of the worst (which is Trump in this case). You don't need to have any plans or anything, just
repeat "Trump bad, Trump bad, Trump bad, Me good" and the sheeple will follow! This strategy has
been so successful that almost everywhere around the world are using it to win all types of elections!
xD
Maybe Trump becoming president is necessary for the people to realize once and for all
that this cycle of mistakes and corruption needs to stop and fundamental changes need to happen!
Starts with the USA and the world will follow over time. I personally am done with following these
corrupt political systems and their media and do as they tell me to (same goes for the financial
system but there's no escaping this one in the near future with corps and banks being in total
control of the society).
"As Alan Kuperman of the University of Texas and Stephen Chapman of the Chicago Tribune have
now shown, the claim that the United States had to act to prevent Libyan tyrant Muammar al-Qaddafi
from slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Benghazi does not stand up to even
casual scrutiny. Although everyone recognizes that Qaddafi is a brutal ruler, his forces did not
conduct deliberate, large-scale massacres in any of the cities he has recaptured, and his violent
threats to wreak vengeance on Benghazi were directed at those who continued to resist his rule,
not at innocent bystanders. There is no question that Qaddafi is a tyrant with few (if any) redemptive
qualities, but the threat of a bloodbath that would "stain the conscience of the world" (as Obama
put it) was slight. "
"If humanitarian intervention is to remain a live possibility, there must be much more public
scrutiny, debate and discussion of what triggers that intervention and what level of evidence
we can reasonably require. Did administration officials have communications intercepts suggesting
plans for large-scale killings of civilians? How exactly did they reach their conclusion that
these reprisals were likely? It should be no more acceptable to simply accept government claims
on this score than it was for previous administrations.
As I've argued previously, the term "humanitarian crisis" is desperately imprecise and the
informed public's ability to distinguish between civil strife (which is always bloody) and outright
massacres and extermination campaigns is weak. Walt's certainty notwithstanding, the debate about
the humanitarian rationale in this case has not been settled. In fact, it's barely begun."
"David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy won the authorisation to use "all necessary means" from
the UN security council in March on the basis that Gaddafi's forces were about to commit a Srebrenica-style
massacre in Benghazi. Naturally we can never know what would have happened without Nato's intervention.
But there is in fact no evidence – including from other rebel-held towns Gaddafi re-captured –
to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out such an atrocity against
an armed city of 700,000 .
What is now known, however, is that while the death toll in Libya when Nato intervened was
perhaps around 1,000-2,000 (judging by UN estimates), eight months later it is probably more than
ten times that figure. Estimates of the numbers of dead over the last eight months – as Nato leaders
vetoed ceasefires and negotiations – range from 10,000 up to 50,000. The National Transitional
Council puts the losses at 30,000 dead and 50,000 wounded.
Of those, uncounted thousands will be civilians, including those killed by Nato bombing and
Nato-backed forces on the ground. These figures dwarf the death tolls in this year's other most
bloody Arab uprisings, in Syria and Yemen. Nato has not protected civilians in Libya – it has
multiplied the number of their deaths, while losing not a single soldier of its own.
For the western powers, of course, the Libyan war has allowed them to regain ground lost in
Tunisia and Egypt, put themselves at the heart of the upheaval sweeping the most strategically
sensitive region in the world, and secure valuable new commercial advantages in an oil-rich state
whose previous leadership was at best unreliable. No wonder the new British defence secretary
is telling businessmen to "pack their bags" for Libya, and the US ambassador in Tripoli insists
American companies are needed on a "big scale".
But for Libyans, it has meant a loss of ownership of their own future and the effective imposition
of a western-picked administration of Gaddafi defectors and US and British intelligence assets.
Probably the greatest challenge to that takeover will now come from Islamist military leaders
on the ground, such as the Tripoli commander Abdel Hakim Belhaj – kidnapped by MI6 to be tortured
in Libya in 2004 – who have already made clear they will not be taking orders from the NTC.
"Explanations of what one thought was happening in these countries were often misinterpreted
as justification for odious and discredited regimes. In Libya, where the uprising started on 15
February 2011, I wrote about how the opposition was wholly dependent on Nato military support
and would have been rapidly defeated by pro-Gaddafi forces without it. It followed from this that
the opposition would not have the strength to fill the inevitable political vacuum if Gaddafi
was to fall. I noted gloomily that Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies,
who were pressing for foreign intervention against Gaddafi, themselves held power by methods no
less repressive than the Libyan leader. It was his radicalism – muted though this was in his later
years – not his authoritarianism that made the kings and emirs hate him.
This was an unpopular stance to take on Libya during the high tide of the Arab Spring, when
foreign governments and media alike were uncritically lauding the opposition. The two sides in
what was a genuine civil war were portrayed as white hats and black hats; rebel claims about government
atrocities were credulously broadcast, though they frequently turned out to be concocted, while
government denials were contemptuously dismissed. Human rights organisations such as Amnesty International
and Human Rights Watch were much more thorough than the media in checking these stories, although
their detailed reports appeared long after the news agenda had moved on."
And then in another note, why do people like you condemn the Taliban but give a free pass to the
Saudi's who have a lot to do with the state of fundamentalism in Afghanistan, and essentially
operate the same as the Taliban? Why are we not intervening in Saudi Arabia to free the people?
Nah. Do people die from either side in Afghanistan? Yes. Excusively the Taliban? no. The western
press prefers the narrative of Taliban extremism. The western press ignores and fails to report
killings by US troops, one incident I know of personally in Kabul. Never reported in the press.
So I suggest you educate yourself on the complexities of Afghanistan before you sound off with
smugness. It is obvious you have no idea of what really goes on there.
Have you ever visited Saudi Arabia? Want a litany of the horrors there? No, you don't. You
have a narrative which I suspect is ill informed.
the Taliban were winning against the Northern Alliance for various reasons, one was that a
lot of people supported them. We turned a blind eye to the destabilising effects of Saudi and
Pakistan support of the Taliban as well. We set this up for failure a long time ago. Riding in
like the calvary and handing out billions to the Northern Alliance was not very helpful for stability.
"was if ending Taliban rule had made things better"
You try to simplify a very complex situation. In fact there was never absolute rule by the
Taliban. You seem to forget there was a civil war in the country before 9/11. There was the Taliban
and the Northern Alliance. There was Pakistan and the ISI ( Pakistan of course if often supported
by the US, then we had Saudi Arabia, again supported by us). Before 9/11 The northern alliance
was about to be defeated. On both sides was indiscriminate killings. You also had a complex mix
if Pashtun Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras. You had multiple political alliances which I will not bother
to list. Kabul was destroyed by the fighting. Atrocities on both sides. You had Dostum with the
Northern Alliance and Massod as well. Massod was reasonable, Dostum was an animal worse than the
Taliban.
What people related to me was this: The Taliban were more predictable. Dostum was not predictable.
Both were bad, but as Clinton fans love to highlight, the lessor of two evils must be selected.
The Taliban also represented the Pashtun who were the largest ethnic bloc in Afghanistan. So in
essence the people mostly supported the Taliban. The Northern Alliance had the support of Russia,
and you might recall the Afghans did not have fond memories of them.
So, you want to simplify the Taliban atrocities and ignore the rest. Afghans did not have the
luxury of this. They had to choose the lesser evil. Had Massood not been entangled with Dostum,
perhaps things would have been different.
We came in and supported the Northern Alliance, which did NOT sit well with a lot of people.
The majority? I don't have statistics exactly pointing this out. The Pashtun felt pushed out of
affairs by the minority remnants of the Northern Alliance. Every ..... and I mean every government
office had photos of Massood on the wall. Not Karzai. Karzai was seen as irrelevant by all sides,
he was seen as the American imposed choice. ( I will not even discuss the "election" but I was
on the ground dealing with Identity cards before the UN arrived, had meetings with the UN team
about approaches to getting ID cards out to all voters, and there is a stink over aspects of the
participation in the elections).
"And seeing a self-described leftist explaining that life under the Taliban wasn't all that
bad if you just grew a beard [!] and fell in line is really sort of pathetic."
Your smug simplistic statement indicates you have no idea of the horrors enacted on both sides.
I was told this time and time again as how people decided to survive by picking a side where there
were rules and they could survive the rules.
But lets put aside my anecdotal evidence and look at the people of Afghanistan:
"Looking at Afghans' views on reconciling with the Taliban does not appear to bear out the
concerns over ethnic divisions shared by Jones and Kilcullen. When asked whether the Afghan central
government should negotiate a settlement with the Taliban or continue fighting the Taliban and
not negotiate, a recent national survey of Afghanistan found that roughly three- quarters (74%)
of Afghans favor negotiating with the Taliban .74 This is in line with previous studies, such
as a series of polls sponsored by ABC News which found that the number of Afghans favoring reconciliation
had risen from 60% in 2007 to 73% in 2009."
""Do you think the government in Kabul should negotiate a settlement with Afghan Taliban
in which they are allowed to hold political offices if they stop fighting, or do you think the
government in Kabul should continue to fight the Taliban and not negotiate a settlement?""
77% of men and 70% of women agree with this.
Here is the ultimate point. We intervened and we had no fucking idea what we were doing. The
Afghans saw the money flowing to Beltway Bandits rather than flowing to real aid and needs. They
saw this! They were not stupid. They saw that the Pashtuns were pushed out of Government, ( hence
the Massod images in ALL government offices [My project of reform dealt with EVERY government
offices and I visited a fair few personally and finally had to ask abut why each office had Masood
an not Karzai)
My opinion? I see indications that the Taliban would have handed over Bin Laden. We refused.
Is this disputed? Yes. Were we right to favour the Northern Alliance? No. They were as bad as
the Taliban, but more ..... unpredictable.
Given our support of Saudi and knowing their interventions, as well as Pakistan, we were
stupid to intervene.
Robin is relentless is arguing AGAINST, but he is quite light on arguing for anything. It is an
interesting question as to what he stands for.
His main argument is that zero information from "right wing" press is true. He seems unaware
that at times, actual facts are presented or not presented or suppressed by either media outlet,
depending on their corporate ownership and management slant of what should be reported. Me? I
read everything and decide if something is a fact. It is strange that factual reporting about
the actual many many FOIA lawsuits only gets printed in right wing press. They of course have
an agenda, but does not negate the facts they report. Like Clinton being allowed to be deposed
in a civil FOIA suit. That is a fact, with quotes from the Judge. CNN? I guess they couldn't afford
to report this factual development.
When you only read the press looking for a partisan set of narratives, you end up being partisan
and ill informed. When you read all the flavours of press in an desire to inform yourself, when
your goal is not a narrative but factual accounts of the truth, then you can be better informed.
So we have partisans, who only view Fox and we also have partisans who only view CNN. Both are
as bad as each other. One must be capable of decreeing the motives of each, and discarding the
nonfactual narratives, and then one can be fully informed.
Robin makes the assumption that facts only occur in his selected set of informational partisan
sources. Why? Because he is partisan. This then enables him to argue against a narrative, rather
than support his own narrative. He plays the neat trick of simply discarding any factual reporting
from places like Breibart. One can see interesting lacks of coverage on google search.
"Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any
communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a
person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession."
So surely in America, Clinton with her wealth would take some legal action? I would if I had
her money, and wealth. Interesting that she has not? Perhaps you could write to her and suggest
she defend herself in a real and palpable way?
Yes and a lot of the press are trying to bury the news about another Sanders success. When you
look at how many voting districts he comes out top in, in is a large percentage. Clinton tends
to get closer or take the district if their is a higher population density.
The influence of the super delegates is a scandal in a "democratic process".
If Bernie does not get the nomination it will be the wilderness for the Democrats - no young
voters no independents - unless they can conjure a principled candidate somehow from somewhere.
Clinton won't cut it and she won't beat Trump. Trump will out her on every crooked deal she
has been involved in.
You'll then cycle back to the lesser of two evils, that Democrats like Obama and Clinton are needed
to help the poor blacks and minorities. To me this is a myth. The poor get fucked no matter what
party is in office.
Is this is a Fox News plant article? yeah yeah, let's vote Clinton who promises a continuation
of Obama's policies. Will Trump make this much worse? Maybe. Trump or Clinton will in my opinion
do little to improve these issues quoted below. You have a different opinion. Great.
"Like the rest of America, Black America, in the aggregate, is better off now than it was when
I came into office," said President Obama on December 19, in response to a question by Urban Radio
Networks White House Correspondent April Ryan.
What planet African Americans are doing "better off" on is unknown. What is known is that
President Obama is about to leave office with African Americans in their worst economic situation
since Ronald Reagan . A look at every key stat as President Obama starts his sixth year in office
illustrates that.
Unemployment. The average Black unemployment under President Bush was 10 percent.
The average under President Obama after six years is 14 percent. Black unemployment, "has always
been double" [that of Whites] but it hasn't always been 14 percent. The administration was
silent when Black unemployment hit 16 percent – a 27-year high – in late 2011 .
Poverty. The percentage of Blacks in poverty in 2009 was 25 percent; it is now 27 percent.
The issue of poverty is rarely mentioned by the president or any members of his cabinet. Currently,
more than 45 million people – 1 in 7 Americans – live below the poverty line.
The Black/White Wealth Gap. The wealth gap between Blacks and Whites in America is at a
24-year high. A December study by PEW Research Center revealed the average White household
is worth $141,900, and the average Black household is worth $11,000. From 2010 to 2013, the
median income for Black households plunged 9 percent.
Income inequality. "Between 2009 and 2012 the top one percent of Americans enjoyed 95 percent
of all income gains, according to research from U.C. Berkeley," reported The Atlantic. It was
the worst since 1928. As income inequality has widened during President Obama's time in office,
the president has endorsed tax policy that has widened inequality, such as the Bush Tax cuts.
Education: The high school dropout rate has improved during the Obama administration. However,
currently 42 percent of Black children attend high poverty schools, compared to only 6 percent
of White students. The Department of Education's change to Parent PLUS loans requirements cost
HBCU's more than $150 million and interrupted the educations of 28,000-plus HBCU students.
SBA Loans. In March 2014, the Wall Street Journal reported that only 1.7 percent of $23
billion in SBA loans went to Black-owned businesses in 2013, the lowest loan of SBA lending
to Black businesses on record. During the Bush presidency, the percentage of SBA loans to Black
businesses was 8 percent – more than four times the Obama rate.
"All the equations showed strikingly uni- form statistical results: racism as we have measured
it was a significantly disequalizing force on the white income distribution, even when other factors
were held constant. A 1 percent increase in the ratio of black to white median incomes (that is,
a 1 percent decrease in racism) was associated with a .2 percent decrease in white inequality,
as measured by the Gini coefficient. The corresponding effect on top 1 percent share of white
income was two and a half times as large, indicating that most of the inequality among whites
generated by racism was associated with increased income for the richest 1 percent of white families.
Further statistical investigation reveals that increases in the racism variable had an insignifi-
cant effect on the. share received by the poorest whites and resulted in a decrease in the income
share of the whites in the middle income brackets."
"What I said, and still maintain, is that the struggle against racism is as important as the struggle
against other forms of oppression, including those with economic and financial causes."
We can agree on this statement. However, do we need to recognise that legislation alone will
not solve racism. A percentage of poor people turn against the "other" and apportion blame for
their issues.
" that campaign finance and banking reform will fix everything"
Of course not. But when you have an issue you can continually put bandaids on the symptoms
or you can perform a root cause analysis and then proceed to fix these root causes. The fact is
that politicians are disinclined to put the needs of voters first, they tend to pay lip service
to the needs of voters, while spending 60% of their time interacting with rich donors, who are
very good are articulating their needs, as they hand over large sums of money. This system creates
a log jam to reform. If we can return the immutable link to the voters interests, and congress
them reform of economic distortions that support racism become far far easier. Motive of change
and motives of votes become transparent.
"The various forms of discrimination are not separable in real life. Employers' hiring and
promotion practices; resource allocation in city schools; the structure of transportation sys-
tems; residential segregation and housing quality; availability of decent health care; be- havior
of policemen and judges; foremen's prejudices; images of blacks presented in the media and the
schools; price gouging in ghetto stores-these and the other forms of social and economic discrimination
interact strongly with each other in determining the occupational status and annual income, and
welfare, of black people. The processes are not simply additive but are mutually reinforcing.
Often, a decrease in one narrow form of discrimination is accompanied by an increase in another
form. Since all aspects of racism interact, an analysis of racism should incorporate all its as-
pects in a unified manner."
My thesis is this: build economic equality and the the pressing toxins of racism diminish.
But yeah dismiss Sanders as a one issue candidate. he is a politician, which I acknowledge. He
has a different approach to clinton who will micro triangulate constantly depending on who she
in front of. I find his approach ore honest. Your mileage may vary.
" money spent on campaigns does not correlate very highly to winning"
No but overall money gets to decide on a narrow set of compliance in the candidates. But it
still correlates to winning. Look at the Greens with no cash. Without the cash, they will never
win. Sanders has proved that 1. We do not need to depend on the rich power brokers to select narrowly
who will be presented as a candidate. 2. He has proved that a voter can donate and compete with
corporate donations. I would rather scads of voter cash financing rather than corporate cash buying
influence. ABSCAM was a brief flash, never repeated to show us what really happens in back rooms
when a wad of cash arrives with a politician. That we cannot PROVE what happens off the grid,
we can and should rely on common sense about the influence of money. 85% of the American people
believe cash buys influence. The only influence on a politician should be the will of the people.
Sure, corporates can speak. Speech is free. Corporate cash as speech is a different matter. It
is a moral corruption.
"most contributions come after electoral success"
Yes part of the implied contract of corporates and people like the Koch Brothers: Look after
us and we will look after you. We will keep you in power, as long as you slant the legislation
to favour us over the voters.
You do realise the Clinton Foundation bought the assets of the DLC, a defunct organisation.
Part of the assets are the documents and records that contain the information about the Koch Brothers
donations and their executives joining the "management" of the DLC. Why would a Charity be interested
in the DLC documents? Ah it is a Clinton Foundation. Yeah yeah, there is no proof of anything
is there. No law was broken. Do I smell something ? Does human nature guide my interpretation
absent a clear statement from the Foundation of this "investment"?? Yes.
We have to start SOMEWHERE. Root causes are the best place to start.
Democrat or Republican, Blacks and Whites at the bottom are thrown in a race for the bottom
and this helps fuel the impoverishment of both. It is fuel to feed racism. My genuine belief.
Why is it wrong for democrats to pick their own party leader? Also Obama beat Hilary last time
so what's Bernies problem now? Also why moan about a system that's been in place for decades now,
surely the onus was on Sanders to attract more middle of the road dem voters? Finally I'm sure
republicans would also love to vote in Sanders, easy to demolish with attack ads before the election
(you'll note they've studiously ignored him so far).
the world is divided in two, half who are nauseated by the above and the other half who purr
in admiration at the clever way Clinton has fucked the public once again. As Mencken said democracy
is that system of government in which it is assumed that the common man knows what he wants and
deserves to get it good and hard.
explain to me why the blacks and Hispanics vote for her because it is a mystery to me. She stands
for everything they have had to fight against. So you have a 1%er-Wall St.-invade Iraq-subprime-cheat
the EU-Goldman Sachs-arms dealing-despot cuddling-fuck the environment coalition. And blacks and
Hispanics too? Are they out of their minds?
BERNIE SANDERS - OR ZIG AGAINST ZAG
.
If the American people don't come to their senses and give Bernie Sanders the Democratic nomination,
we're going to end up with a choice between Zig and Zag. Zig is Donald Trump, and Zag is Hillary
Clinton. To paraphrase Mort Sahl back in the sixties, the only difference between the two is if
Donald 'Zig' Trump sees a Black child lying in the street, he'd simply order his chauffeur to
run over him. If Hillary 'Zag' Clinton saw the kid, she'd also order her chauffeur to run over
him, but she'd weep, and go apologize to the NAACP, after she felt the bump.
.
WAKE UP, BLACK PEOPLE!!!
IF YOU DON'T, YOU'LL BE SORRY - AGAIN.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1057244620990215&set=a.136305753084111.28278.100001140610873&type=3&theater
Giving aid to the Republicans? If you honestly believe that any criticisms I have is worse than
what I discuss, you need to give up politics and get a hobby. Trump will for example use her FOIA/email
issues like a stick to beat her with. This is not Soviet Russia where we all adopt the party line.
I'm not not ever have been a member of the Democratic Party. I COULD have been this year. Now?
Never. The solution to the nations problems will come from outside this party.
I prefer neither. You love fearmongering about how worse it will be under trump. Hmmm. I don't
buy that tale. Take Black family incomes. In the toilet. Under either party it goes south. Abortion?
Like slavery nothing ...... Nothing is going to change. It's too late to change that one. But
it's a useful tool to make us believe ONLY Clinton can protect us. Economically the Democrats
are essentially the same as the Republicans, more of the same corporate welfare. Would Clinton
cut Social Security? Maybe. I don't believe her core statements. Sorry but as a person I just
can't buy into the package. Both republicans and democrats on a vague macro level will try to
lower unemployment but neither will talk about falling participation. Clinton had already proved
she's probably as likely as Trump to get bullets flying. It's her judgement. She's part of the
same old we need to intervene yet never understanding the real issues. I despise her unflinching
support of Saudi Arabia. That policy is insane!!! Etc etc etc.
You believe a black family gays and women will sing Kumbaya under Clinton and all will be well.
I believe both parties represent essentially the same with small regional differences .
It would be perhaps remotely Marxist if he said comrades. But even that was used by democrats,
socialists and even fascists and nazists so I would say that no, there is nothing Marxist about
it. One of his central messages is that we need to come together and improve our society, that
we are all the same, without race or religion, with the same needs and fears as humans.
I even disagree with people saying that he promotes class struggle, he is talking about
fair share and he is an ardent supporter of following the laws even when they are against his
ideology, which is something that radicals do not tend to do. Radicals do not give a damn about
laws and neither do Marxists or far-right wingers, fascists etc. Those groups believe in
changing the society through struggle into a model that fits their idea of the world whatever
that may be. He simply states his beliefs and suggests laws to adjust the society to human needs,
to eat, to live, to prosper in an equal footing.
It is a rather sad commentary on how the bar of integrity and honesty has been so lowered
that it doesn't even faze them
One wonders what makes them call themselves Democrats? Their stance on gun and abortion issues?
Certainly not economic and political justice, peace, democracy, or integrity in governance.
Yes, it's been the single most shocking revelation of the entire election year for me as well.
Not just the cynicism of the rank-and-file, but the arrogance and isolation of our corrupt Democratic
party elite, many of whom still don't seem to grasp that a revolt by progressive Democrats and
Independents is already under way. This
is one of the forms it may take.
Recharging is always a good idea ... and never more so than in an election year as turbulent,
crazy, uplifting, disillusioning, energizing, maddening and fascinating as this one. I'll also
be away (for weeks) toward the end of this month.
Before you go, here's Carl Bernstein's interview with Don Lemon, in case you missed it:
Hilary Clinton has various comments that reveals somebody who certainly fits the psychopath
spectrum. Among the lowest of the low was "We came, we saw, he died!" Accompanied by a cackle
of laughter. This was announced in full view of the media and public when Gadhaffi was overthrown
by US assistance.
Are some Democrats so brainwashed that they think a woman president is the answer regardless
of what kind of person that woman is? Since when do decent people in politics exult in death like
this? Libya's murdered leader was no angel but Hitler he was not and as older people have told
me, the deaths of Hitler and Stalin and the like were greeted publicly with muted and dignified
relief by western representatives.
Add to that the continual lies that are being aired in public and this is why the USA has lost
its way.
Hillary will not see that one criminal in the financial world of the USA will face justice
for their mafia-like actions and destruction of billions of dollars and assets while stealing
the savings of Americans and non Americans. President Obama hasn't done it and he is not the buddy
Hilary is to these people.
And since when does the USA have the ethical superiority to attack countries like Russia for
cronyism etc? This is unbelievable - a presidential nominee candidate is being investigated by
the FBI and she doesn't stand down?
Wake up Democrats. At least read a book called The Unravelling by an American journalist whose
name I forget. This heartbreaking book says it all about the realities for the non privileged
and non powerful in todays' America.
I recall David Bowie's beautiful song This Is Not America. The Bernie supporters understand
that, all power to him, those who think like him, and his supporters.
Please. She lost that race in South Carolina when her husband, along with Geraldine Ferraro,
called Obama being president a fairy tale and an affirmative action candidate, respectively. You
can't win with only minority support, but you can't win without any of it if you are a Dem. Up
until SC, the Clintons had minority support in the bag--most black people had never heard of Obama.
Things changed real fast.
Like its not obvious? There is now no paper trail to enable ensuring computer votes are true.
A man on the moon can now ensure who is going to be President, that was said by a premier computer
security expert.
Along with extensive disenfranchisement, numerous ways its pretty clear these outcomes are
preordained. Guess I am not going to be voting for either of the two appointed runners, its pointless.
I will vote for Bernie when its time in California.
And to branch out a bit, there are so many empty stock phrases to choose from in her 2016 campaign
alone, including "I'm with her" and "Breaking down barriers" courtesy of her 2008 campaign manager,
Mark Penn. Speaking of Penn, there's a hilarious little passage in "Clinton, Inc" (p. 65) which
describes Penn running through possible campaign slogans for 2008. "Penn began to walk through
all the iterations of Hillary slogans: Solutions for America, Ready for a change, Ready to lead,
Big challenges, Real Solutions; Time to pick a President... but then he seem to get a little lost...Working
for change, Working for you. There was silence, then snickers as Penn tried to remember all the
bumper stickers which run together sounded absurd and indistinguishable. The Hillary I know."....
In 2000, Silver was integral in Clinton's Senate campaign. According to The New York
Times, Silver helped Hillary lobby members of the state assembly for their support
So I guess the former speaker of the NY assembly is just gonna have to vote for Hillary from
behind bars, instead of at the DNC? How "super-inconvenient."
If Clinton is the Dem nominee it does more than give me shivers. Heck, I view Hillary as demonstrably
more dangerous with foreign policy. Both use identity politics as a decisive issue- which only
is a distraction from their lack of policy. Both their economic/domestic policies do little or
worse for the current situation. Both are untrustworthy and any rhetoric on policy is highly questionable
(although Clinton is certainly the worst in this regard). About the only good thing between either
is that Trump is willing to question our empire abroad, which is well overdue (meanwhile Clinton
seems to want to expand it).
If it's between those two I vote Green and take the 'Jesse Ventura' option: vote anyone
not Dem or Rep. Both parties are two corrupt subsidiaries of their corporate masters.
You are obviously misinformed about Bernie Sanders:
https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders#.VypxWXopDqA
Most effective senator for the last 35 years and as Mayor or Burlington stopped corporate real
estate developers from turning Burlington into Aspen east coast version.
She voted for the Iraq war, being investigated by the FBI for her emails, there was Benghazi,
turning Libya into a ISIS hotbed, allowed a military junta to assassinate a democratically elected
president in Honduras and said nothing, takes $675k from Goldman for 3 speeches and refuses to
disclose the transcripts because she KNOWS it'll hurt her, voted for trade deals that's gutted
manufacturing in the USA....should I go on?
So please please explain how Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to wave a wand and fix racism? I
already know she will not fix poverty, she will slap a few ersatz bandaids onto bills that won't
pass and like the spoiled child will seek praise every time mommy gets him to shit on the potty.
You might recall a guy called Martin Luther King. he had some words about economic fairness and
poverty.
"" In the treatment of poverty nationally, one fact stands out: there are twice as many
white poor as Negro poor in the United States. Therefore I will not dwell on the experiences
of poverty that derive from racial discrimination, but will discuss the poverty that affects white
and Negro alike . "
nihilism: the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life
is meaningless. The belief that nothing in the world has a real existence.
You love that word but rejection of the dysfunctional state of DNC politics is NOT nihilism.
Moral corruption around campaign finance is real. Moral corruption around money and lobbyists
is real. The desire to fix this, this is real. Seeking real change is not nihilism. But yes, if
it pleases you to continue in every other post with this word, do so. It's misuse says more about
you than Sanders.
Please tell me exactly how much HRC has done for the U.S.? I'm from NYC and when she brought her
carpet bagging ass here and as a 2 term senator she pushed 3 pieces of legislation thru. If you
look at Bernie Sanders voting record:
https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sanders#.VypxWXopDqA
He's been one of the most effective senators in Congress and has been able to get things done
with cooperation from both sides of the aisle.
So tell me again, what's she done that's so notable?
Uh huh and your supporting a person: That voted for the Iraq War, destabilized Libya, Benghazi,
gave tacit approval to a military junta in Honduras as Secretary of State, called black youth
super predators, supports trade agreements that destroy our own manufacturing jobs, takes more
money from special interests than her constituency, has made millions in speeches from the bank
lobby and won't disclose the transcripts......yeah she's real HONEST......riiigggghhhhttttt....
Money buys the influence to be selected as a candidate. Normally. 99% of the time. Sometimes
a Huey Long populist breaks through the process and scares the fuck out of the power structures.
But you know how candidates are selected. Poor smart people never get to run for president unless
they build a populist power base. The existing political parties defer to donors. Donors like
the Koch Brothers, who happily funded Bill clinton and the DLC made their preferences clear. They
didn't invest in a fit of altruistic progressivism. They wanted the DNC to swing right. And voila
it did and Bill was anointed as the "one" to run. Don't be so naive.
"... There is a constant whining from the Clinton side about Fox news smears etc. One would believe that with all her supposed experience, she lacked the imagination to see the consequences of her actions with the email. Myself, this is just one indicator among many that she has learned nothing, her experience is flawed as her judgement is time and time again flawed. ..."
"... The Kochs helped finance the Democratic Leadership Committee with Bill, Hill, McAuliffe, Tony Coelho (remember him?) and the rest of the "Third Way" Democrats who whored themselves to the first wave of christian-jihadist-wacko GOP congressmen swept into power in 1994, and it was all downhill from there, with the Republicans writing draconian legislation, the Dems rolling over, and Dirty Little Billy claiming it as a Great Leap Forward. ..."
"... Much as I despise Drumpf it worked for him, he openly railed against the GOP establishment which fought him to the bitter end with their last champions pulling out of the race. The people had spoken (most of it crazy talk), but the Democrats can't ignore the anti-Clinton sentiment. Bernie was a nobody at the beginning because all the focus was on Clinton, but more coverage was given to Bernie and people got to know what he stood for things have changed. ..."
"... For example, what about the deregulation of Wall Street by President Clinton and the economic crisis eight years later, that after the next eight years Hillary Clinton took over half a million dollars from Goldman Sachs for three speeches? - Unintended consequence! ..."
"... What about voting for the Iraq war at a time when Hillary Clinton was the leader of the Democrats in the US Congress and the loss of people and money that followed after that, not to mention the rise of terrorism as a consequence? - Unintended consequences, too! ..."
"... What about turning Libya into a failed state, and exclamation, "We came, we saw, he [Gaddafi] died!", after which four US embassy staff, including Ambassador Stevens died, and after which Clinton lied to the American public about events that led to their deaths? - Unintended consequences! ..."
"... And, last but not least, what about NAFTA and other international trade agreements, all of them supported by Clinton to this day, although deprived and still depriving millions of American workers from their jobs? - Unintended consequence! ..."
"... I agree, Hillary is worse, and scarier than Trump. Hillary will justify her interventionist wars and terrible trade deals with slick, plastic, professional language which will fool some people into thinking she knows what she is doing. ..."
"... A Shillary in denial... Do you need the NYT or Guardian to report it to make it true? Many of the biggest companies in the US-the biggest polluters, the biggest pharmaceutical companies, the biggest insurance companies, the biggest financial companies-gave to the Clinton foundation while she was Secretary of State and then they lobbied Secretary Clinton and the state department for "favors." Even foreign governments have given to the foundation, including that stalwart of democratic principles Saudi Arabia, who gave at least $10 million… Then magically they had a $26 billion plane deal with Boeing. ..."
"... Alleged pragmatist, but more likely Hillary will actually be a pushover on social and economic issues and a hawk on foreign policy. She is more of a Republican than Trump. ..."
"... The main point is, Hillary has no chance of winning against Trump. She is already trying to get a cadre of neocon Republicans to support her, thinking she could get swing a portion of Republicans to support her, forgetting why she is so despised by a large segment of Democrats and majority of independents. It is her default cling to neocon interventionist, and corporate base of support that causes it. She is tone deaf, ignorant and arrogant. Unless, we Democrats stop her now Trump will beat her handily. I have no doubt about it. ..."
Ammunition : considerations that can be used to support one's
case in debate
There is a constant whining from the Clinton side about Fox news
smears etc. One would believe that with all her supposed experience, she
lacked the imagination to see the consequences of her actions with the email.
Myself, this is just one indicator among many that she has learned nothing,
her experience is flawed as her judgement is time and time again flawed.
She has handed the FBI and Trump AMMUNITION. Not me, not you. She created
this mess. Her supporters have 100% certainty that this particular issue
is not an issue. They hand wave away the FBI. They shut down any discussion
as just another smear manufactured out of thin air.
Probity : the quality of having strong moral principles; honesty
and decency
We all get to decide each candidates probity. That I find her lacking
is based on her actions alone, not on some lens provided by Fox news. If
she were honest, she would admit that there is a risk. She states there
is no risk. If her chickens come home to roost, we get Trump. Can I get
odds from a bookie on the outcome of the FBI investigation? A genuine question
as so many here revel in quoting the odds quoted by bookies.
So lets gamble. Let's get to the race track and study form and history
and see if the bookies have fully transparent info on all the factors leading
to a win or loss. How have we come to be here? That we are is a sign of
the dysfunction we live in politically. Clinton is now immune to all present
and future critical thinking because ...... because she was smeared in the
pass. Free pass. Sometimes ..... sometimes the King is actually naked and
no one cares to call attention to that reality.
The Kochs helped finance the Democratic Leadership Committee with
Bill, Hill, McAuliffe, Tony Coelho (remember him?) and the rest of the "Third
Way" Democrats who whored themselves to the first wave of christian-jihadist-wacko
GOP congressmen swept into power in 1994, and it was all downhill from there,
with the Republicans writing draconian legislation, the Dems rolling over,
and Dirty Little Billy claiming it as a Great Leap Forward.
"Shock victory" is another example of lazy, factually incorrect mass media
journalism. Bernie ran an on the ground campaign in Indiana for 2 moths
prior to yesterday's primary win. I should know, as our family did volunteer
door-to-door canvasing for the first time over a couple weekends. We also
attended the rally on Monday and it was great!
Don't give up Bernie supporters, as we have momentum! Bernie's an honest
man with fair and just principles. Our country needs such a leader and not
another paid-off crony or deranged man-child.
Again as always a deflection from the real point, documented over and
over as to the long tanking DLC led strategy of leading with Southern States.
Nothing to do with blacks, everything to do with Southern Conservatives.
But yes, as always intellectually "honest". Innuendo. You choose to ignore
the systems and structures put in place for reasons. I choose to see them.
People like you choose to ignore the DLC history and the entanglement
with the Koch Brothers who were so so happy Bill Clinton pushed the DNC
into Republican territory, while we are all supposed to pretend that because
the GOP is so bad bad bad, it gives a free pass to the DNC for the right
wards ever rightwards shifting and the bandying of progressiveness on social
issues that cost nothing, and the true position of the modern DLC as a money
machine, with a purpose of existing to garner power.
All you "progressives" love to talk about angry white man yet have zero
answer to :
""In 2010, the median wealth, or net worth, for black families was $4,900,
compared to median wealth for whites of $97,000. Blacks are nearly twice
as likely as whites to have zero or negative net worth-33.9 percent compared
to 18.6 percent."
The fact that the above enrages me matters not to you, as you have your
BernieBro Angry White man meme to deflect from real discussion about solutions.
The real solution starts with getting the politicians beholden to the voters
alone, not to corporate interests. That is Job One. Once that blockade is
removed, then we can move on to poverty and violence as immutable links
and solving them. 85% ...... 85% of the American people agree with this
action. is it difficult? Yes. Wont happen however if we demand on smug entitled
people throwing deflections and memes all over the place. "I am all right
Jack, fuck you" should be the bumper-sticker of the Clinton supporters.
Much as I despise Drumpf it worked for him, he openly railed against
the GOP establishment which fought him to the bitter end with their last
champions pulling out of the race. The people had spoken (most of it crazy
talk), but the Democrats can't ignore the anti-Clinton sentiment. Bernie
was a nobody at the beginning because all the focus was on Clinton, but
more coverage was given to Bernie and people got to know what he stood for
things have changed.
The question for the Democrats is who is more likely to win the General
against Drumpf? Who is more likely to win over the swing votes of those
not affiliated to a party?
The message is load and clear there is a lot of anti-establishment sentiment
out there and Clinton is firmly seen as part of it.
Drumpf having won his first leg of the race will no doubt moderate his rhetoric
to appeal to a broader audience and look to grab a larger portion of the
swing votes.
In the bigger picture, Sanders is more likely to succeed against Drumof
than the institutional Clinton.
If you ask, what is the purpose of the election, the answer is, elections
should be used for two things:
First, that some politicians will be rewarded by the voters, who
will entrust the government to them.
And second, but no less important, that some politicians will be
punished by the voters for their past mistakes, in a way that will refuse
to give them their votes. So, this second function of the elections
is perhaps even more important because it ensures that politicians are
held accountable for their previous actions.
Now, if you look at these elections, you will notice that this is totally
turned upside down in the case of Hillary Clinton.
Her husband has created mass incarceration, and she, as the first lady,
was the main promoter of it. And now she says, "Oops, that was an 'unintended
consequence'! That is to say, over two million people in prison, many of
which serve a sentence for minor offenses is an 'unintended consequence'''
OK, fine, but what about the fact that she has got the money from the
prison lobby?
If the first was an 'unintended consequence', the latter is certainly
not. So these are the things for which in every country on earth some politician
would lose any chance to enter the next government. Provided that the politicians
are held accountable for their previous actions, which is obviously not
the case in the US.
And, this is just one of the things for which Clinton can be held accountable.
For example, what about the deregulation of Wall Street by President
Clinton and the economic crisis eight years later, that after the next
eight years Hillary Clinton took over half a million dollars from Goldman
Sachs for three speeches? - Unintended consequence!
What about voting for the Iraq war at a time when Hillary Clinton
was the leader of the Democrats in the US Congress and the loss of people
and money that followed after that, not to mention the rise of terrorism
as a consequence? - Unintended consequences, too!
What about turning Libya into a failed state, and exclamation,
"We came, we saw, he [Gaddafi] died!", after which four US embassy staff,
including Ambassador Stevens died, and after which Clinton lied to the
American public about events that led to their deaths? - Unintended
consequences!
And, last but not least, what about NAFTA and other international
trade agreements, all of them supported by Clinton to this day, although
deprived and still depriving millions of American workers from their
jobs? - Unintended consequence!
So, as you can see, this is quite a long list, but probably there's more
of it that is not listed here, yet. And it will be even more of such "unintended
consequences" if Hillary Clinton will be elected for the US president.
Hence why I said 'some form of revolt' instead of 'burn the party down rawr'.
The party establishment firmly put themselves behind Clinton early on. This
is indisputable. 40+ percent of primary voters went against this in some
form. Some will still welcome Clinton, some will tolerate her, some will
walk, but the act of voting against establishment preference is already
some form of revolt.
You:"his acolytes will just come up with another dumb ass
reason "
You: "Why didn't you just give it directly to Trump? "
You: "Bernie, when all's said and done, is a fraud."
You: "I never did trust politicians who hold mass rallies." ( Nice Nazi
smear)
You: " are already starting to misquote Bernie, and talk about how it's
all the fault of "Jewish bankers" Smearing Sanders for your relatives jewish
Smears
You: "She doesn't pretend she's a damn rock star" Smear
You: " I take it you are a Trump supporter now" Personal smear to me.
You: "nihilistic" over and over again
You: deleted reference ot Pope as child molester
You: "His trip to kiss the Pope's ass was disgusting pandering" So their
shared stance on global warming is irrelevant?
You: "the ass of the world's most powerful homophobe"
You: "But Bernie has always been a fraud" ( multiple repetitions of this)
On and on....How self righteous are you?
"personal insults from you"
Really? What insults? Intellectually lazy? That is my assessment of you.
Not intended as an insult but an assessment of who you are and how you think.
Based on reading all of your posts. I pay attention. I find it interesting
to figure out motivations.
I agree, Hillary is worse, and scarier than Trump. Hillary will justify
her interventionist wars and terrible trade deals with slick, plastic, professional
language which will fool some people into thinking she knows what she is
doing.
Hillary would be 8 more years of the Corporate Oligarchy cementing its
hold on our process. Trump might last 4 years... then we can elect a real
progressive.
SoS is more extrapolation, based off the weakness of her credentials heading
into the position. It should be remembered that her lack of experience in
foreign policy was one of Obama's attack points in 2008, so to have him
suddenly turn around and name her SoS is a bit odd. Specifically:
The choice of Mrs. Clinton pleased many in the Democratic establishment
who admire her strength and skills, and they praised Mr. Obama for putting
the rancor of the campaign behind him. "Senator Clinton is a naturally gifted
diplomat and would be an inspired choice if she is chosen by President-elect
Obama as secretary of state," said Warren Christopher, who held that job
under her husband.
But it could also disappoint many of Mr. Obama's supporters, who worked
hard to have him elected instead of Mrs. Clinton and saw him as a vehicle
for changing Washington. Mr. Obama argued during the primaries that it was
time to move beyond the Clinton era and in particular belittled her claims
to foreign policy experience as a first lady who circled the globe."
What -is- clear is that she got $17.5 million in personal cash out of
the deal (Obama agreed to cover campaign debts, she lent her campaign 17.5
million).
Don't be lulled into a false "horse race" depiction of an especially HISTORICALLY
IMPORTANT, planetary-civilization-survival moment. A predominantly, establishment,
bankster-owned media, are pushing this epic election of "Main Street vrs
wall street", as just another election. Wrong! A fictiion! Lies!
Over 60% of us didn't vote last election, BECAUSE, only liars and apologists
for "empire" oligarchs were running. Today, we see Bernie and perhaps Dr.
Stein of the Greens. Only "The Bern" gets media minimal coverage, because
he is running as an "Democrat". Indiana and other "open" primaries show,
time and time again, the rigged nature of a duopoly electoral fraud. The
establishment, wall street banksters and their allies DO NOT, WILL NOT let
Bernie win. Do the math and ONLY BERNIE CAN BEAT TRUMP! SO QUIT THE HORSE
RACE BS and see the BERN! And jut maybe we will have an inhabitable planet
for our grandchildren that is fun to live upon.
Putting it another way... Bernie has made them all look like chumps. They
say they cannot get elected without big corporate dollars. Bernie did not
sell out, and he raised money easily. He makes the rest of the lousy corrupt
bunch look like fools.
Hillary did not concede in 2008 until after ALL the states had voted. Even
then, she waited 4 days. What happened between the last primary and 4 days
later, when she finally conceded? NEGOTIATIONS. She laid down the terms
under which she would support Obama -- all goodies for Hillary, because
Hillary Is For Hillary, period.
Bernie will use the clout we give him to negotiate on behalf of THE PEOPLE
at the Democratic Convention. That's the difference between him and self-serving
Hillary.
Looking forward to voting for Bernie in California on June 7. Meanwhile,
praying for the FBI to indict Hillary.
Yet for all her long name recognition, her second national presidential
campaign, the superdelegates lined up before Sanders announced, with the
cunning long term strategy of the DNC "southern firewall" designed to favour
conservative candidates, despite all the power players endorsements, despite
all the Superpac's, she still is not going to arrive at the convention with
the required delegate count for victory. What does that tell us? I know
what it tells me. It tells me that there are a lot of people who want more
of a continuation of Obama Change. They want real change.
So sure, she is "winning" a battle in a longer running war of ideas.
Let's see how this plays out over the next 8 years.
Kicking his ass by the way would have been if she reached the required
pledged delegates months ago. She could not. Complacency is not a great
stance in these times.
Like Hillary has done since 2008? Helping the same old hack politicians,
using her cash and her name and yet the people refused to come out and reverse
the largest loss of Democratic seats in modern history? Yeah, blame the
voters, you have them all pegged. it's never the fault of the politicians
is it, it is the lazy voters. Well there is another theory that explains
Trump and Sanders: They are sick of the same bullshit put out by the DNC
and the GOP. Taking Ted Kennedys seat as an example the safest DNC seat
in the nation, decades it sat with the DNC and as soon as he dies, the DNC
selects one of your hack ersatz progressives, throws Bill Clinton and Hillary
and bags of cash and STILL loses the seat. Was there a message there worth
listening to? Not to you, you blame the voters. No no no never blame the
DNC. Blame the voters.
The voters perhaps is tired of what is presented to them as a voting
solution. So in the end, your way of doing things has led to voter frustration
and here we have Trump. There is a lesson there. Listen or dot listen, but
the people are venting there frustration. Trump is a populist disaster,
but he is a symptom of a dysfunctional system that needs revision and revision
now. But nah! Lets just throw cash into a cesspit of dysfunction.
Also you sit smugly ignoring the FACTS of Clinton laundering State contributions
back into her campaign, leaving little or nothing for State DNC budgets.
Ah, you say, this is a smear from Fox news. Um. No. Do you think we are
idiots? You must. I assure you we are not idiots. Good luck in November.
You will need it.
Bernie hasn't attacked Hillary directly since New York, and he had every
right to go after her then, because she was on full offense against Bernie
at that time, too, so enough with the innocent victim garbage.
Bernie always does better in open primaries because of the Independent voters.
They are more likely to vote Trump in the general election in my opinion.
He is going to start hammering Clinton now he is the nominee.
Bernie should stay in right 'til the end in case anything ever happens with
one of the two Clinton investigations. I don't see anything happening now
though as the private server investigation appears to have stalled.
Regarding the second (the Clinton Foundation) the Supreme Court is about
to legalise political corruption with the McDonnell case. If that happens
democracy is effectively suspended anyway and this is a pointless reality
show farce. Policies will be decided by the highest bidder. How can she
have broken any laws if there aren't any?
Good news for women's rights under Clinton though - whilst her Syria
no-fly-zone might start WW3, women will probably get to be drafted as well
as men...
'Lawyer Hillary who is trained in well being a lawyer she even was a
defense lawyer helping someone she believed was guilty of rapeing a 13 year
old girl who has said Hillary "put her thru hell"."
"someone she believed was guilty of rapeing a 13 year old girl"
Interesting. Clinton discussed what she was thinking at the time with
you?
Or are you suggesting that some accused people should not get legal representation?
I'm intrigued by the "put her through hell" portion of it. Especially
as the case was plea bargained out and never went to trial.
It is effortless to identify the ardent obtuse "Hillary Clinton and Donald
Trump Supporters". Their verbiage and responses are always predicated on
emotion and fiction versus an intellectual discourse based on factual information
– Quite Like the Superficial Candidates that they blindly support. The 1%
Billionaire Oligarchy Ruling Classes Owned Mass Media Outlets is intentionally
protecting the Outed Racists Donald Trump and his female Clone Hillary Clinton
from Public Scrutiny. They are salivating Like Pavlov's Dog for their "Ultimate
Political Reality Show – The Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Presidential
Race" waiting to cash-in and profit as they stage and promote their "False
Democracy".
Knowledge = Power = Real Freedom..!
1. This is why "Anonymous" Noble, Righteous, True American Heroes and Freedom
Fighters are stepping in to fill the Fourth Estate void abdicated by America's
Billionaire Owned Media to provide the 99% the Truth.
Anonymous – Message to Hillary Clinton: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTMaIX_JPE4
Anonymous – Message to Donald Trump: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ciavyc6bE7A
2. CBS CEO and Chief Leslie Moonves: Comments he made at an investor conference
last month when he said, "The money is rolling in, and this is fun." Added
Moonves: "They're not even talking about issues; they're throwing bombs
at each other, and I think the advertising (revenue $) reflects that. This
is going to be a very good year for us (CBS). Sorry, it's a terrible thing
to say, but bring it on, Donald."
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/daily-show-host-trevor-noah-877273
3. Why isn't the Media asking Hillary Clinton about the Podesta group in
the Panama papers working with the corrupt, Kremlin-run Sberbank, and the
two shell companies setup by Bill Clinton (WJC, LLC) and Hillary Clinton
(ZFS Holdings, LLC) at a Delaware address (1209 North Orange Street Wilmington,
Delaware) that are the same address as 285,000 other companies, many of
which were in the Panama papers and linked to laundering and tax avoidance
schemes?.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/25/delaware-tax-loophole-1209-north-orange-trump-clinton?CMP=share_btn_fb
4. Why isn't the Media asking Hillary Clinton to Release the Transcripts
from her numerous $275,000.00 Speeches to Goldman Sachs and the Other Wall
Street Banks? https://youtu.be/3UkfsEeHUcg
5. Why don't they ask Hillary Clinton if she would Prosecute her and her
husband Bill Clinton's former "Trusted Deputy" Rahm Emanuel the current
Mayor of Chicago for establishing a "Gulag" on American soil which allowed
the Chicago police to covertly detain and torture more than 7000 people
at the Secret Interrogation Center that completely ignored the American
"Constitution" and the Bill of Rights at Homan Square?
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/02/behind-the-disappeared-of-chicagos-homan-square/385964
/
6. Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight- Hillary, the inevitable
liar: https://youtu.be/-dY77j6uBHI
7. Hillary Clinton: A Career Criminal: https://youtu.be/kypl1MYuKDY
8. Secretary Clinton Comments on the Passing of Robert Byrd her friend and
mentor who is a documented Racist and KKK member: https://youtu.be/ryweuBVJMEA
9. Bill Clinton ATTEMPTS to Justify Robert Byrd's KKK Membership: https://youtu.be/8Fg3XNTMzNo
10. Hillary Clinton & NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio Make Awkward RACIST Joke
About CP TIME Colored People Time https://youtu.be/pP3syBu4ZDM
11. Black Lives Matter protesters repeatedly interrupt Bill Clinton in Philadelphia:
https://youtu.be/xRrVI5gHVyo
Can You Say Hypocrisy?
The only Authentic and Honest Candidate is Bernie Sanders who wants to return
America back into a Transparent Citizen Accountable Democracy for the 100%.
This is why the Bernie Sanders Army of Noble and Righteous Citizens-the
99% will never Vote or Support either of the Illegitimate 1% Billionaire
Anointed Candidates Like Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, Who Represent
the Retention of a False Oligarchy Democracy and Everything That the Decent
Noble and Righteous Citizens Despise, Compulsive Pathological Lying, Narcissism,
and Insatiable Greed.
"So your plan is for Bernie's opponent to get arrested? "
Not my plan. Each citizen in this country has a set of was that rule
what they can and cannot do. Even Clinton. I have spent a long time explaining
my logic of why I believe she has broken various laws. I as a citizen appreciate
the FOIA. If you cannot handle the facts of her actions, then what can I
say? To me it does not bode well how Clinton comports herself. To you it
is not an issue. You choose to ignore the reality of a real and extended
FBI investigation. Obama rules the DoJ and the FBI. If it were indeed only
a political smear, then he has the power to force Comey to resign. It is
not a function of me, it is a function of laws. The investigation not some
fevered Fox News plot as much as you with it to be. I understand completely
what she has done. I understand why she did what she did.
Regarding the bolstering the party, it seems it does not bother you the
games her suprpac has done with bending the rules just up to the breaking
point.
Frankly, sanders on the back of this, and his supporters need to build
an organisation that can put up true progressives. Your opinion is team
based, you accept year after year the shift of the DNC orphaning in to centrist
republicans. Your choice. I choose not to support this. So that he refused
to fund more the same old hack politicians is fine by me. He has over his
career supported the DNC with vote after vote after vote. He had the courage
to offer "democrats" a real choice in the primaries.
You again ignore with your blather about mid term motivations the fact
that the people would not support the DNC in 2010, 2012, and 2014. People
are not stupid, and they see that the change Obama promised is never coming.
We can distill into a simple slogan then rich are getting richer even as
the American worker gets more and more productive, yet their share of the
capitalist pie shrinks and shrinks. The common man sees that Obama care
still is not the solution for him and his family when the average deductions
are over 5000 a year on top of his premiums and the average coverage is
60% of costs when he gets sat the deductible. He is told about Gold Standard
trade agreement negotiated in absolute secrecy, and that cause him discomfort.
Some black families see : ""In 2010, the median wealth, or net worth, for
black families was $4,900, compared to median wealth for whites of $97,000.
Blacks are nearly twice as likely as whites to have zero or negative net
worth-33.9 percent compared to 18.6 percent."" and understand for all of
Clinton's triangulation there is nothing palpable to change that. He sees
she is great at trotting up mothers of dead people and Black people as props
to gain votes, and he see that perhaps Sanders Class based solutions will
help him more, as maybe he is tired of racial divides and knows intuitively
Clinton has no real solution to gun crime, spurred on by poverty, nor solutions
to poverty itself.
So get all huffy about the FBI investigation. I lived though the turmoil
of Nixon and before his reelection I predicted that he would suffer, as
my gut feeling led me to believe he was involved, that he had dirty hands.
Continue to believe that genuine logical conclusions and issues are only
a rehash of Fix news when they are not. Cheap and nasty way to deflect any
and all valid criticism. Is Sanders perfect? far from it, but I believe
I know what he stands for and how he thinks.
"Bernie, when all's said and done, is a fraud."
Funny but I have concluded that Clinton is a fraud. But you are welcome
to vote as you wish. In the end, your fear of Trump? The risk is real and
palpable that she will cause disarray to the party if the FBI fins what
I believe is obvious, and the risk is her handing the election to Trump.
To you? You don't care. You cannot and will not see the risk, preferring
to hide like a gormless child behind tortured smear theories rather than
standing up as an adult and properly assessing the real risks to the Democratic.
All the pieces of what she did are there if you care to look. But nah!
You are lazy intellectually and it is easier to blame Fox news than to actually
look and ponder and conclude the evidence. As are most of the vociferous
Clinton fans here. Intellectually lazy.
Hillary wins closed primaries, where only the tribalized party faithful
participate (and voter suppression and other shenanigans run rampant). Bernie
wins open primaries and brings in millions of new voters. Democrats like
me, Independents, even Republicans vote for Bernie.
She loses on the Big 3 Issues, war, Trade & "corruption" to Trumps words
and Bernie's life walk. Dems are falling into dreamlala math- Hillary will
get women (50%), Blacks (10%) & Hispanics "another 10%). How can she lose.
Start with GOP women at the end will not vote her way. That BLack and
Hispanic percentages are already baked in, and Trump will cater to men,
not just white, on the basis avg men have been getting shafted for 40 years
now.
If there is a terror attack, Trump wins big. If the economy goes down
he wins too.
The tea leaves and tarot readers have been all wrong this election.
& Hill is likely to lose most of the last primaries. Embarassing
"Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected, and nothing will change."
Barack Obama, 2008
Is that HRC new slogan, "Hillary is shit, but at least she's not as shitty
as Trump"
Actually I think she's worse. The DNC turns a blind eye every time she breaks
the law, and tries to change the rules for her, but both the RNC and DNC
will keep Trump on a short lease.
The Guardian's anti-Bernie agenda is really quite off-putting. Even the
article summary is patronising :
"Despite trailing behind Hillary Clinton in polls, Sanders once again
proved his appeal to disaffected midwest voters by pulling off his 18th
victory of 2016"
The translation is that the Bernie Sanders constituency is backwards
and centred around white males who have lost blue collar jobs to globalisation;
in other words he appeals to people who want to turn back time. The inference
is that Clinton's group is far broader, more cultured and more progressive.
This is patently false. Sanders is popular with young people and with people
who are passionate about politics. Clinton's constituency tends to be older
and more conservative. Clinton is the establishment candidate Sanders is
the beacon of hope.
No surprise there. As is it no surprise that ABC is a "subsidiary" of The
Walt Disney Company, which has been to the right of Attila-the-Hun since
"sweet grandfatherly Walt" himself, who was practically a neo-Nazi politically.
Need proof? Walt's cheerful cooperation with McCarthy's House Un American
Activities persecution of anyone not sharing Adolph Hitler's political persuasion).
Disney's movies have always exhibited that nauseating, fake, treacle
"sweetness" which all fascists use as "cover" for their actual addiction
to fear, hatred, tribalism and Orwellian manipulation.
So we can hardly be "shocked, shocked, shocked" by ABC's gross "news"
bias.
How about NBC? It's been a corporate "investment football," recently
boosted by Comcast from former owner General Electric. You KNOW they're
both dedicated to impartial news reporting, right? HA HA HA
How about CBS? Oh it's owned by Viacom, an "entertainment conglomerate,"
of course dedicated never to sensationalism or deliberate distraction of
the public, but rather, to honest news reporting. Right.
MSNBC? GE + Microsoft. That of course equals total devotion to unbiased
and complete news reporting, even if the news WERE "bad for the Shareholders."
Uh huh. (See the pigs flying by).
CNN? Oh its "daddy" is Time Warner, another paragon of public-spirited
democracy.
Even PBS has fallen. Think that's a "radical statement?" The super right
did a twofer on PBS: (1) cut its government funding so as to make it terrified
and desperate and then (2) gradually brainwashed PBS into actually being
another Corporate PR outlet.
Non-commercial? PBS? IT LIVES ON CORPORATE ADS. And under those deliberately
created survival pressures, even PBS news has collapsed into reporting all
news like it's a trivial sports event - Never Delving Deeper, because its
Corporate Overlords wouldn't like that.
So, welcome to the reality of well-entrenched corporate fascism. For
that, in part, we can thank Ronnie Puppet Reagan's reversal of a former
50-year policy which did not allow non-media corporations to "buy" the news.
May that SOB continue to roast, whereever.
Bernie Sanders would be all of these Corporate Overlord's worst nightmare.
They would have to work "even harder" (yawn, pass the caviar), to blacklist,
cover up, lie about the truth he would tell through his bully pulpit. Thus
all of THEIR media outlets have worked like little beavers to Cancel the
Cancer of Bernie, before he could cause real damage to The Entitled Domain.
Ugh.
The Democrats, just as blind and foolish in their own way as the GOP, will
make a tremendous mistake in nominating HRC. Anyone with an ounce of political
insight can see the coming election is going to be about the revolt of the
middle class against the Establishment and megacorporations that have been
exploiting that class for at least two score years. The politically dimwitted
and somnolent American middle class has finally come to realize how they
have been used and abused and they aren't taking it anymore. They don't
give a damn about foreign policy, single payer or anything else. They are
furious at having been used and hoodwinked and they are in full revolt.
The stupidity of the Democrats, in not seeing this and running an Avatar
of the Establishment, HRC, will make the election very close with a good
chance she will lose. Sanders can out Trump Trump on the anti-Establishment
issue as polls clearly show, but the Dems are going to shoot themselves
in the foot by coronating HRC. With Sanders they could probably sweep Congress
also, but with HRC they will at best keep the White House and possibly a
very narrow majority in the Senate. HRC is a poor campaigner with an unlikable
personality, unlike Elizabeth Warren, and Trump will really mangle Hillary.
With Sanders he will not be able to do that because Sanders easily can out
anti-establishment Trump for, obviously, Trump too is of the 1% like HRC.
There is the slim hope, forlorn as it may be, that the Democrat super-delegates,
most of whom are political pros and thus focused on winning, will see the
light and nominate Sanders. But the Democrats are usually reliably stupid
so look forward to a cliff-hanger in November and very possibly a President
Trump.
Hillary did not concede in 2008 until after the last state finished voting.
The counting was done, and Obama had more delegates. Even then, she waited
4 days before conceding. What went on during those 4 days? Negotiations.
No way a super-predator politician like Hillary Clinton was just
going to give in, without getting something for herself.
Here's what Hillary got out of the deal: a cabinet post,
Obama's promise of support for her next bid in 2016, and Obama's help paying
off her 2008 campaign debt.
The difference with Bernie is that he is not in this for himself. Bernie
stepped up to the plate because America deserves better than another Corporate
Tool Politician. When Bernie goes to the convention, he will not be negotiating
for himself. He will be fighting for ALL OF US. Bernie fights for The People.
This is why we need to give him as many delegates as possible. I look
forward to voting for Bernie in California on June 7. Furthermore, speaking
as a middle aged feminist who has been a registered Dem for 35 years --
I will NEVER vote for Hillary.
A Shillary in denial... Do you need the NYT or Guardian to report it
to make it true? Many of the biggest companies in the US-the biggest polluters,
the biggest pharmaceutical companies, the biggest insurance companies, the
biggest financial companies-gave to the Clinton foundation while she was
Secretary of State and then they lobbied Secretary Clinton and the state
department for "favors." Even foreign governments have given to the foundation,
including that stalwart of democratic principles Saudi Arabia, who gave
at least $10 million… Then magically they had a $26 billion plane deal with
Boeing.
Is that what you're voting for? Does that sound like someone with integrity?
hate to break it to you that this information isn't found only on right
wing websites. Inform yourself. Can't you see why she'd play games with
email? It's all right there, in your face.
Alleged pragmatist, but more likely Hillary will actually be a pushover
on social and economic issues and a hawk on foreign policy. She is more
of a Republican than Trump.
Shock?!!!! How could the American Queen lose right?!!!
The main point is, Hillary has no chance of winning against Trump.
She is already trying to get a cadre of neocon Republicans to support her,
thinking she could get swing a portion of Republicans to support her, forgetting
why she is so despised by a large segment of Democrats and majority of independents.
It is her default cling to neocon interventionist, and corporate base of
support that causes it. She is tone deaf, ignorant and arrogant. Unless,
we Democrats stop her now Trump will beat her handily. I have no doubt about
it.
"... Wasserman is a great replacement for him as a stunningly inept strategist. "In the summer of 1994, Coelho was the principal Democratic political strategist during the run-up to the mid-term Congressional elections. Officially, he was Senior Advisor to the Democratic National Committee. ..."
"... The Republican Party won a landslide victory in the fall congressional elections, capturing both the House and Senate by commanding margins." ..."
"... I was trying to be "polite" to temper the rage I feel at these dishonest people who pretend they even comprehend the word progressive and neatly sidestep the role the Koch Brothers played. ..."
Bill and Obama seem to follow the strategy to lose the house and senate. But the smug Clinton
acolytes blame the voters. Always deflect blame eh?
Wasserman is a great replacement for him as a stunningly inept strategist. "In the summer
of 1994, Coelho was the principal Democratic political strategist during the run-up to the mid-term
Congressional elections. Officially, he was Senior Advisor to the Democratic National Committee.
The Republican Party won a landslide victory in the fall congressional elections, capturing
both the House and Senate by commanding margins."
I was trying to be "polite" to temper the rage I feel at these dishonest people who pretend
they even comprehend the word progressive and neatly sidestep the role the Koch Brothers played.
Now we get more of the same. I am part of the 1% financially but I was raised to understand
it was all going to get better for the poor.
But yeah must have been Fox news who MADE Bill get into bed with these creeps. I can't sit
back smugly and proclaim I am alright jack I have 4 kids and I am horrified the world they will
inherit.
When you have read "Diplomacy
by Deception " by
John Coleman you might start to suspect that the British and United States Governments are actually
the most corrupt in the world and third word dictators are just wannabes in comparison with those governments
(and often are corrupted by them, storing the loot in Western banks and moving families to GB, France,
Italy or Spain ). They completely betrayed interests of their own population carrying out the designs
of global neoliberal elite (globalists), to which former President Bush I, one of its more able servants,
referred to as "the New World Order." The first significant reaction against this level of corruption
was spontaneous burst of support to Donald Trump during 2016 elections.
Notable quotes:
"... I really like Chapter VIII. "Panama: the naked truth." and the logic behind the invasion. ..."
This book has much information helpful to those following government intrusion into world affairs.
The history book MI6, can verify some, but I found this book lacking in documentation. The author
has source notes, but most of his statements can't be used due to the poor documentation. I am
hesitant to qoute statements he makes in the book. His Index is also poor. However, the book is
good for general information of many illegal acts by the Council of foreign Relations. You'll
just have to do a lot more reading to verify several comments he makes in the book.
Paul LaCross Simonton, April 29, 2002
Dr. John Coleman's best
Every chapter in Diplomacy by Deception is a new subject. I am just guessing, but, it appears
to me that Dr. Coleman took a selection of monographs he wrote, and, made them into a book.
Oscar L. Vazquez, November 8, 1999
Very, very good book
As an avid history reader, the information that Dr. Coleman exposed in this book explained
the unexplainable about historical facts, the manipulation of the situations and the secret purposes
behind the reality. I really like Chapter VIII. "Panama: the naked truth." and the logic behind
the invasion. It is a very hard book to understand for those who are not involved in policy
or history. Congratulations once again Dr. Coleman for this great book.
Looks like neoliberal Guardian presstitutes love neocons and religious nuts Cruz. Who would guess
? Interesting...
Notable quotes:
"... He also has a certain kind of roguish charm and can be quite amusing, which Hillary Clinton rarely is; he'd easily win the "who'd I prefer to have a beer with" competition. ..."
"... How can anyone say that yet? What we DO know is that the Bush-Obama administration has been an unqualified disaster on many fronts. Change, even with the possibility - NOT 'certainty' - of "bad things happening" is much more desirable... ..."
"... The more this election plays out the more I totally understand why Trump has made it this far. I've lived a long time and been politically active my entire adult life, and I've never seen voters send such a resounding and well deserved fuck you to the political elite. ..."
"... Indeed, the failure and dysfunction of the present political system in the US can be traced to one thing: the failure of the fourth estate. It is worse than failure, it is a betrayal of the nation for those thirty pieces of silver. ..."
"... What his campaign ultimately proves, is that only appealing to ideologically conservative Republicans is not enough to win the nom. The bulk of the party is traditionalist and reactionary rather than puritanical. They'll pretty reliably vote for any grumpy old white guy with a sense of humour (Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Romney, McCain, now Trump). Secondly Cruz misread the issues of the year. People are frustrated because they believe that they are struggling while others are milking them. Trump gets this, so does Bernie. Hillary, not so much. This will be a big problem for her in the general. ..."
"... I'm getting just a bit tired of the feigned "I can't understand it" air of these articles about Donald Trump. The Trump gave the voters in his party the red meat of bigotry and hate that they require. The others dog-whistled a merry tune. Why talk about 'strange political jujitsu'? Why not admit that a large portion of the Republican Party is unloved by their own candidates. Why not look at the fact that Republicans accept the votes of 'poor white trash' but do nothing for them. ..."
No, I did not think that....however, I do think that there is enough awareness of this issue
that it does not get dangerously into the main stream in Europe. In the US there much less awareness.
Decades of the indoctrination that all bad things are either "communist" or "socialist" has left
the door wide open for a return of the populist nationalist. Trump is just that.
bluet00ns 5 May 2016 13:18
"happy campaign"?...review the tapes, "happy" is nowhere in the oily, twisted, display of sly
that was cruz's campaign, the numb, if not painful, looks on the faces of family as he trotted
them out like props, is exhibit A.
bcarey -> sour_mash 5 May 2016 13:08
My point is that it's common for candidates to suspend their campaigns and continue to
collect money.
Definitely true.
However, we must also take into account the fact that the Cruz delegates are still active and
maybe able to deliver Cruz.... or Romney if necessary. It is likely that Trump will get way more
delegates than needed to stop a contested/open convention, however.
The Cruz suspension is about 2 things. It accomplishes potentially 2 things. Money is just
one of them. The other part is Romney, if he can.
fallentower 5 May 2016 13:02
I actually think the Republican Party made a good choice once it was down to "Cruz or Trump"
by sitting on its hands and thereby letting Trump win. Of course, Trump is far more likely to
do and say unorthodox (from a post-Reagan Republican Party standpoint) things, and will probably
increase the tension and turmoil within the party. But he actually has a chance of winning the
election; Cruz's smarmy personality and nauseating brand of religious conservatism would have
gone down like a lead balloon outside the Bible belt, and he's too committed ideologically to
change his policy positions.
Trump will turn on a sixpence and happily disavow things he may have said in the primary if
he considers them unhelpful baggage for the general, and because he's seen as a showman rather
than a professional politician he'll have much more leeway to do so than your average flip-flopper.
He also has a certain kind of roguish charm and can be quite amusing, which Hillary Clinton
rarely is; he'd easily win the "who'd I prefer to have a beer with" competition. Admittedly
he is going to have to cut down on the clownishness and ill-disciplined outbursts, but if he gets
the right campaign team together and they manage to keep him vaguely on-message I think he'll
have good chances. Better than Cruz, anyway, who had zero chance.
sour_mash bcarey 5 May 2016 12:58
I take your point regarding Secret Agent Mormon and I was aware that he had filed with the
FEC. My point is that it's common for candidates to suspend their campaigns and continue to collect
money.
The exploratory PAC is the new retirement vehicle but that's a different issue.
taxhaven wjousts 5 May 2016 12:58
Trump most certainly is not change for the better.
How can anyone say that yet? What we DO know is that the Bush-Obama administration has
been an unqualified disaster on many fronts. Change, even with the possibility - NOT 'certainty'
- of "bad things happening" is much more desirable...
Harry Dresdon 5 May 2016 12:42
Good riddance to Cruz. Boehner called him "the devil in the flesh". Cruz would have been way
worse for the country than Trump will ever be. Sad but true.
DillyDit2 5 May 2016 12:34
Hey Stephanie Cutter: You think Bernie is responsible for what his supporters think, whether
we'll support Hillary, and how we will decide to vote in the fall? Pappa Bernie should tell us
what to do, and we should fall in line and salute?
Could Cutter and Hillary's minions be any more clueless?! And could they reveal their top down
authoritarian mindset any more clearer?
The more this election plays out the more I totally understand why Trump has made it this
far. I've lived a long time and been politically active my entire adult life, and I've never seen
voters send such a resounding and well deserved fuck you to the political elite.
I wish I could support Trump, because I second that fuck you. For now, along with what is likely
the majority of American voters, all I can do is say- pox on BOTH your houses and may 2020 be
the year an Independent runs and wins.
danubemonster 5 May 2016 12:32
I think it is worth comparing Cruz with Nixon. Both men are/were not particularly likable,
yet Nixon was able to be a two-term president. Nixon was a conservative, but he was not an ideologue
- and he lived in an age where the Republican Party was a relatively broad church. Nixon also
have political instincts which were way beyond those of Cruz. He knew how to play high politics,
and he knew what was required to get to the White House.
PATROKLUS00 -> Tommy Cooper 5 May 2016 12:14
Trump will beat her to death with being the Queen of the Establishment... the Dems will be
idiots to nominate her.
PATROKLUS00 -> voxusa 5 May 2016 12:12
Indeed, the failure and dysfunction of the present political system in the US can be traced
to one thing: the failure of the fourth estate. It is worse than failure, it is a betrayal of
the nation for those thirty pieces of silver.
PATROKLUS00 -> 8MilesHigh 5 May 2016 12:09
Yup, and the Democrat establishment is too stupid and out of touch to recognize that HRC is
just the grist that Trump needs for his anti-establishment mill.
PATROKLUS00 5 May 2016 12:07
Cruz a master strategist???? BWWWWWwwwwwaaaaahhhhhhhaaaaaaaa! Ludicrous ... beyond ludicrous.
Vintage59 David Perry 5 May 2016 12:07
His religious beliefs and the political dogma that goes with them have been well documented.
Have you not been paying attention? Do you insist your wife get you a beer from the fridge when
you can get off your ass and get it yourself?
8MilesHigh 5 May 2016 12:06
What his campaign ultimately proves, is that only appealing to ideologically conservative
Republicans is not enough to win the nom. The bulk of the party is traditionalist and reactionary
rather than puritanical. They'll pretty reliably vote for any grumpy old white guy with a sense
of humour (Nixon, Reagan, Bush I, Romney, McCain, now Trump). Secondly Cruz misread the issues
of the year. People are frustrated because they believe that they are struggling while others
are milking them. Trump gets this, so does Bernie. Hillary, not so much. This will be a big problem
for her in the general.
MalleusSacerdotum 5 May 2016 12:05
I'm getting just a bit tired of the feigned "I can't understand it" air of these articles
about Donald Trump. The Trump gave the voters in his party the red meat of bigotry and hate that
they require. The others dog-whistled a merry tune. Why talk about 'strange political jujitsu'?
Why not admit that a large portion of the Republican Party is unloved by their own candidates.
Why not look at the fact that Republicans accept the votes of 'poor white trash' but do nothing
for them.
The Donald has understood the dynamic better than the rest and has given the voters a coherent,
albeit repugnant, analysis of their problems. An article like this that can shed no light on the
phenomenon that is Trump is hardly worth publishing.
Muammar al-Qaddafi was an easy target. Oil was the goal. Everything else is describable attempt
to white wash the crime.
Notable quotes:
"... At the end, the brainwashing media convince the people to vote for the "bad choice" instead of the worst (which is Trump in this case). You don't need to have any plans or anything, just repeat "Trump bad, Trump bad, Trump bad, Me good" and the sheeple will follow! This strategy has been so successful that almost everywhere around the world are using it to win all types of elections! xD ..."
"... She should be a felon by now, and only her name protects her from jail. ..."
"... Although everyone recognizes that Qaddafi is a brutal ruler, his forces did not conduct deliberate, large-scale massacres in any of the cities he has recaptured, and his violent threats to wreak vengeance on Benghazi were directed at those who continued to resist his rule, not at innocent bystanders. There is no question that Qaddafi is a tyrant with few (if any) redemptive qualities, but the threat of a bloodbath that would "stain the conscience of the world" (as Obama put it) was slight ..."
"... As I've argued previously, the term "humanitarian crisis" is desperately imprecise and the informed public's ability to distinguish between civil strife (which is always bloody) and outright massacres and extermination campaigns is weak. Walt's certainty notwithstanding, the debate about the humanitarian rationale in this case has not been settled. In fact, it's barely begun ..."
"... on the basis that Gaddafi's forces were about to commit a Srebrenica-style massacre in Benghazi. Naturally we can never know what would have happened without Nato's intervention. But there is in fact no evidence – including from other rebel-held towns Gaddafi re-captured – to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out such an atrocity against an armed city of 700,000 . ..."
"... Of those, uncounted thousands will be civilians, including those killed by Nato bombing and Nato-backed forces on the ground. These figures dwarf the death tolls in this year's other most bloody Arab uprisings, in Syria and Yemen. Nato has not protected civilians in Libya – it has multiplied the number of their deaths, while losing not a single soldier of its own. ..."
"... For the western powers, of course, the Libyan war has allowed them to regain ground lost in Tunisia and Egypt, put themselves at the heart of the upheaval sweeping the most strategically sensitive region in the world, and secure valuable new commercial advantages in an oil-rich state whose previous leadership was at best unreliable. No wonder the new British defence secretary is telling businessmen to "pack their bags" for Libya, and the US ambassador in Tripoli insists American companies are needed on a "big scale". ..."
"... But for Libyans, it has meant a loss of ownership of their own future and the effective imposition of a western-picked administration of Gaddafi defectors and US and British intelligence assets. Probably the greatest challenge to that takeover will now come from Islamist military leaders on the ground, such as the Tripoli commander Abdel Hakim Belhaj – kidnapped by MI6 to be tortured in Libya in 2004 – who have already made clear they will not be taking orders from the NTC. ..."
"... This was an unpopular stance to take on Libya during the high tide of the Arab Spring, when foreign governments and media alike were uncritically lauding the opposition. The two sides in what was a genuine civil war were portrayed as white hats and black hats; rebel claims about government atrocities were credulously broadcast, though they frequently turned out to be concocted, while government denials were contemptuously dismissed. Human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch were much more thorough than the media in checking these stories, although their detailed reports appeared long after the news agenda had moved on." ..."
"... the Taliban were winning against the Northern Alliance for various reasons, one was that a lot of people supported them. We turned a blind eye to the destabilising effects of Saudi and Pakistan support of the Taliban as well. We set this up for failure a long time ago. Riding in like the calvary and handing out billions to the Northern Alliance was not very helpful for stability. ..."
"... What people related to me was this: The Taliban were more predictable. Dostum was not predictable. Both were bad, but as Clinton fans love to highlight, the lessor of two evils must be selected. The Taliban also represented the Pashtun who were the largest ethnic bloc in Afghanistan. So in essence the people mostly supported the Taliban. The Northern Alliance had the support of Russia, and you might recall the Afghans did not have fond memories of them. ..."
"... Given our support of Saudi and knowing their interventions, as well as Pakistan, we were stupid to intervene. ..."
Most politicians these days don't care about the people and this ridiculous cycle is repeating
every 4 years! Candidates who actually want to make progress get dumped by the corrupt system
and the parties that are being controlled by their corporate masters and their money to do as
they want to return the more money to them later when they have the office!
At the end, the brainwashing media convince the people to vote for the "bad choice" instead
of the worst (which is Trump in this case). You don't need to have any plans or anything, just
repeat "Trump bad, Trump bad, Trump bad, Me good" and the sheeple will follow! This strategy has
been so successful that almost everywhere around the world are using it to win all types of elections!
xD
Maybe Trump becoming president is necessary for the people to realize once and for all that
this cycle of mistakes and corruption needs to stop and fundamental changes need to happen! Starts
with the USA and the world will follow over time. I personally am done with following these corrupt
political systems and their media and do as they tell me to (same goes for the financial system
but there's no escaping this one in the near future with corps and banks being in total control
of the society).
"As Alan Kuperman of the University of Texas and Stephen Chapman of the Chicago Tribune
have now shown, the claim that the United States had to act to prevent Libyan tyrant Muammar
al-Qaddafi from slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians in Benghazi does not stand
up to even casual scrutiny.
Although everyone recognizes that Qaddafi is a brutal ruler, his forces did not conduct
deliberate, large-scale massacres in any of the cities he has recaptured, and his violent threats
to wreak vengeance on Benghazi were directed at those who continued to resist his rule, not
at innocent bystanders. There is no question that Qaddafi is a tyrant with few (if any) redemptive
qualities, but the threat of a bloodbath that would "stain the conscience of the world" (as
Obama put it) was slight. "
"If humanitarian intervention is to remain a live possibility, there must be much more public
scrutiny, debate and discussion of what triggers that intervention and what level of evidence
we can reasonably require. Did administration officials have communications intercepts suggesting
plans for large-scale killings of civilians? How exactly did they reach their conclusion that
these reprisals were likely? It should be no more acceptable to simply accept government claims
on this score than it was for previous administrations.
As I've argued previously, the term "humanitarian crisis" is desperately imprecise and
the informed public's ability to distinguish between civil strife (which is always bloody)
and outright massacres and extermination campaigns is weak. Walt's certainty notwithstanding,
the debate about the humanitarian rationale in this case has not been settled. In fact, it's
barely begun."
"David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy won the authorisation to use "all necessary means" from
the UN security council in March on the basis that Gaddafi's forces were about to commit a
Srebrenica-style massacre in Benghazi. Naturally we can never know what would have happened without
Nato's intervention. But there is in fact no evidence – including from other rebel-held towns
Gaddafi re-captured – to suggest he had either the capability or even the intention to carry out
such an atrocity against an armed city of 700,000 .
What is now known, however, is that while the death toll in Libya when Nato intervened was
perhaps around 1,000-2,000 (judging by UN estimates), eight months later it is probably more than
ten times that figure. Estimates of the numbers of dead over the last eight months – as Nato leaders
vetoed ceasefires and negotiations – range from 10,000 up to 50,000. The National Transitional
Council puts the losses at 30,000 dead and 50,000 wounded.
Of those, uncounted thousands will be civilians, including those killed by Nato bombing
and Nato-backed forces on the ground. These figures dwarf the death tolls in this year's other
most bloody Arab uprisings, in Syria and Yemen. Nato has not protected civilians in Libya – it
has multiplied the number of their deaths, while losing not a single soldier of its own.
For the western powers, of course, the Libyan war has allowed them to regain ground lost
in Tunisia and Egypt, put themselves at the heart of the upheaval sweeping the most strategically
sensitive region in the world, and secure valuable new commercial advantages in an oil-rich state
whose previous leadership was at best unreliable. No wonder the new British defence secretary
is telling businessmen to "pack their bags" for Libya, and the US ambassador in Tripoli insists
American companies are needed on a "big scale".
But for Libyans, it has meant a loss of ownership of their own future and the effective
imposition of a western-picked administration of Gaddafi defectors and US and British intelligence
assets. Probably the greatest challenge to that takeover will now come from Islamist military
leaders on the ground, such as the Tripoli commander Abdel Hakim Belhaj – kidnapped by MI6 to
be tortured in Libya in 2004 – who have already made clear they will not be taking orders from
the NTC.
"Explanations of what one thought was happening in these countries were often misinterpreted
as justification for odious and discredited regimes. In Libya, where the uprising started on 15
February 2011, I wrote about how the opposition was wholly dependent on Nato military support
and would have been rapidly defeated by pro-Gaddafi forces without it. It followed from this that
the opposition would not have the strength to fill the inevitable political vacuum if Gaddafi
was to fall. I noted gloomily that Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies,
who were pressing for foreign intervention against Gaddafi, themselves held power by methods no
less repressive than the Libyan leader. It was his radicalism – muted though this was in his later
years – not his authoritarianism that made the kings and emirs hate him.
This was an unpopular stance to take on Libya during the high tide of the Arab Spring,
when foreign governments and media alike were uncritically lauding the opposition. The two sides
in what was a genuine civil war were portrayed as white hats and black hats; rebel claims about
government atrocities were credulously broadcast, though they frequently turned out to be concocted,
while government denials were contemptuously dismissed. Human rights organisations such as Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch were much more thorough than the media in checking these
stories, although their detailed reports appeared long after the news agenda had moved on."
And then in another note, why do people like you condemn the Taliban but give a free pass to the
Saudi's who have a lot to do with the state of fundamentalism in Afghanistan, and essentially
operate the same as the Taliban? Why are we not intervening in Saudi Arabia to free the people?
Nah. Do people die from either side in Afghanistan? Yes. Excusively the Taliban? no. The western
press prefers the narrative of Taliban extremism. The western press ignores and fails to report
killings by US troops, one incident I know of personally in Kabul. Never reported in the press.
So I suggest you educate yourself on the complexities of Afghanistan before you sound off with
smugness. It is obvious you have no idea of what really goes on there.
Have you ever visited Saudi Arabia? Want a litany of the horrors there? No, you don't. You
have a narrative which I suspect is ill informed.
the Taliban were winning against the Northern Alliance for various reasons, one was that
a lot of people supported them. We turned a blind eye to the destabilising effects of Saudi and
Pakistan support of the Taliban as well. We set this up for failure a long time ago. Riding in
like the calvary and handing out billions to the Northern Alliance was not very helpful for stability.
"was if ending Taliban rule had made things better"
You try to simplify a very complex situation. In fact there was never absolute rule by the
Taliban. You seem to forget there was a civil war in the country before 9/11. There was the Taliban
and the Northern Alliance. There was Pakistan and the ISI ( Pakistan of course if often supported
by the US, then we had Saudi Arabia, again supported by us). Before 9/11 The northern alliance
was about to be defeated. On both sides was indiscriminate killings. You also had a complex mix
if Pashtun Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras. You had multiple political alliances which I will not bother
to list. Kabul was destroyed by the fighting. Atrocities on both sides.
You had Dostum with the Northern Alliance and Massod as well. Massod was reasonable, Dostum
was an animal worse than the Taliban.
What people related to me was this: The Taliban were more predictable. Dostum was not predictable.
Both were bad, but as Clinton fans love to highlight, the lessor of two evils must be selected.
The Taliban also represented the Pashtun who were the largest ethnic bloc in Afghanistan. So in
essence the people mostly supported the Taliban. The Northern Alliance had the support of Russia,
and you might recall the Afghans did not have fond memories of them.
So, you want to simplify the Taliban atrocities and ignore the rest. Afghans did not have the
luxury of this. They had to choose the lesser evil. Had Massood not been entangled with Dostum,
perhaps things would have been different.
We came in and supported the Northern Alliance, which did NOT sit well with a lot of people.
The majority? I don't have statistics exactly pointing this out. The Pashtun felt pushed out of
affairs by the minority remnants of the Northern Alliance. Every ..... and I mean every government
office had photos of Massood on the wall. Not Karzai. Karzai was seen as irrelevant by all sides,
he was seen as the American imposed choice. ( I will not even discuss the "election" but I was
on the ground dealing with Identity cards before the UN arrived, had meetings with the UN team
about approaches to getting ID cards out to all voters, and there is a stink over aspects of the
participation in the elections).
"And seeing a self-described leftist explaining that life under the Taliban wasn't all that
bad if you just grew a beard [!] and fell in line is really sort of pathetic."
Your smug simplistic statement indicates you have no idea of the horrors enacted on both sides.
I was told this time and time again as how people decided to survive by picking a side where there
were rules and they could survive the rules.
But lets put aside my anecdotal evidence and look at the people of Afghanistan:
"Looking at Afghans' views on reconciling with the Taliban does not appear to bear out the
concerns over ethnic divisions shared by Jones and Kilcullen. When asked whether the Afghan central
government should negotiate a settlement with the Taliban or continue fighting the Taliban and
not negotiate, a recent national survey of Afghanistan found that roughly three- quarters (74%)
of Afghans favor negotiating with the Taliban .74 This is in line with previous studies, such
as a series of polls sponsored by ABC News which found that the number of Afghans favoring reconciliation
had risen from 60% in 2007 to 73% in 2009."
""Do you think the government in Kabul should negotiate a settlement with Afghan Taliban
in which they are allowed to hold political offices if they stop fighting, or do you think the
government in Kabul should continue to fight the Taliban and not negotiate a settlement?""
77% of men and 70% of women agree with this.
Here is the ultimate point. We intervened and we had no fucking idea what we were doing. The
Afghans saw the money flowing to Beltway Bandits rather than flowing to real aid and needs. They
saw this! They were not stupid. They saw that the Pashtuns were pushed out of Government, ( hence
the Massod images in ALL government offices [My project of reform dealt with EVERY government
offices and I visited a fair few personally and finally had to ask abut why each office had Masood
an not Karzai)
My opinion? I see indications that the Taliban would have handed over Bin Laden. We refused.
Is this disputed? Yes. Were we right to favour the Northern Alliance? No. They were as bad as
the Taliban, but more ..... unpredictable.
Given our support of Saudi and knowing their interventions, as well as Pakistan, we were
stupid to intervene.
IMPORTANT: Neoliberalism as Peters defines it is nothing but elegant concern
trolling–claiming to be the staunchest defenders of the lowest order, when really that's just
a way to reinforce a crab-bucket mentality that keeps the true elites from making any sacrifices
towards a more equitable society.
Notable quotes:
"... The New Republic ..."
"... The Washington Monthly ..."
"... These were the men who made Jonathan Chait what he is today. Chait, after all, would recoil in horror at the policies and programs of mid-century liberals like Walter Reuther or John Kenneth Galbraith or even Arthur Schlesinger, who claimed that "class conflict is essential if freedom is to be preserved, because it is the only barrier against class domination." We know this because he recoils in horror today he so resolutely opposes the more tepid versions of that liberalism that we see in the Sanders campaign. ..."
"... Note the disavowal of all conventional ideologies and beliefs, the affirmation of an open-minded pragmatism guided solely by a bracing commitment to what works. It's a leitmotif of the entire manifesto: Everyone else is blinded by their emotional attachments to the ideas of the past. We, the heroic few, are willing to look upon reality as it is, to take up solutions from any side of the political spectrum, to disavow anything that smacks of ideological rigidity or partisan tribalism. ..."
"... The New Republic ..."
"... Above all, neoliberals loathed unions, especially teachers unions. They still do , except insofar as they're useful funding devices for the contemporary Democratic Party. ..."
"... But reading Peters, it's clear that unions were, from the very beginning, the main target. The problems with unions were many: they protected their members's interests (no mention of how important unions were to getting and protecting Social Security and Medicare); they drove up costs, both in the private and the public sector; they defended lazy, incompetent workers ("We want a government that can fire people who can't or won't do the job.") ..."
"... On the one hand, Peters showed how much the neoliberal was indebted to the Great Society ethos of the 1960s. That ethos was a departure from the New Deal insofar as it took its stand with the most desperate and the most needy, whom it set apart from the rest of society. Michael Harrington's The Other America ..."
"... On the other hand, Peters showed how potent, and potently disabling, that kind of thinking could be. In the hands of neoliberalism, it became fashionable to pit the interests of the poor not against the power of the wealthy but against the working class that had been made into a middle class by America's unions. (We still see that kind of talk among today's Democrats, particularly in debates around free trade, where it is always the unionized worker-never the well paid journalist or economist or corporate CEO -who is expected to make sacrifices on behalf of the global poor. Or among Hillary Clinton supporters, who leverage the interests of African American voters against the interests of white working-class voters, but never against the interests of capital.) ..."
"... There are striking parallels in this to the observation I've made, reading a lot lately, about historical civil rights/racial justice struggles. To wit, one of the greatest drags on the effectiveness of the Civil Rights Movement has been the ability of social/financial elites to make sure that advancement for poor people of color came out of the hides of the working class, rather than from the elites' share. This is clear from the backgrounders on the housing market in e.g. Slatter's Family Properties or Boyle's The Arc of Justice , or the description of the Boston busing issue in I think Perlstein's The Invisible Bridge . ..."
"... For middle-class white homeowners, living in a neighborhood that became mixed-race really did mean the loss of most of the family capital; it's deplorable that it was due to racism, but individuals' anti-racism wasn't going to let them resell at the price they'd paid, nor keep them from the pernicious effects of living in a now-redlined neighborhood. ..."
"... Just the same, for the white populations of Boston's poor neighborhoods, it was all too obvious that Black students were being bused into their schools, not those of the wealthy – which you'll still see today when school-choice means slightly-better schools get hit with more demand than their resources can manage, not that any kid can go to an elite public school (let alone a private one). ..."
"... At the end of the day, neoliberalism as Peters defines it is nothing but elegant concern trolling–claiming to be the staunchest defenders of the lowest order, when really that's just a way to reinforce a crab-bucket mentality that keeps the true elites from making any sacrifices towards a more equitable society. ..."
"... These arguments about semantics are stupid. At one time terms like "conservative", "liberal", "neoconservative", etc. may have meant different things, but we sure as hell know what they mean now. It's just debate team intellectual obfuscation. Meanings change as society needs them to. For instance Republican once implied being against racism. Today, not so much. Still "Republicans" are called "Republicans". ..."
"... Chait knows what "neoliberal" means, he just doesn't like the reality of what it means and what it might imply about him. ..."
On the one hand, Chait was probably just voicing his disgruntlement with an epithet that leftists
and Sanders liberals often hurl against Clinton liberals like Chait.
On the other hand, there was a time, not so long ago, when journalists like Chait would have proudly
owned the term neoliberal as an apt description of their beliefs. It was
The New Republic , after all, the magazine where Chait made his name, that, along with
The Washington Monthly , first provided neoliberalism with a home and a face.
Now, neoliberalism, of course, can mean
a
great many things , many of them
associated with the right. But one of its meanings-arguably, in the United States, the most historically
accurate-is the
name that a small group of journalists, intellectuals, and politicians on the left gave to themselves
in the late 1970s in order to register their distance from the traditional liberalism of the New
Deal and the Great Society. The original neoliberals included, among others, Michael Kinsley, Charles
Peters, James Fallows, Nicholas Lemann, Bill Bradley, Bruce Babbitt, Gary Hart, and Paul Tsongas.
Sometimes called "Atari Democrats," these were the men-and they were almost all men-who helped to
remake American liberalism into neoliberalism, culminating in the election of Bill Clinton in 1992.
These were the men who made Jonathan Chait what he is today. Chait, after all, would recoil in
horror at the policies and programs of mid-century liberals like Walter Reuther or John Kenneth Galbraith
or even Arthur Schlesinger, who
claimed that "class conflict is essential if freedom is to be preserved, because it is the only
barrier against class domination." We know this because
he recoils in horror today
he so resolutely opposes the more tepid versions of that liberalism that we see in the Sanders
campaign.
It's precisely the distance between that lost world of 20th century American labor liberalism
and contemporary liberals like Chait that the phrase "neoliberalism" is meant, in part ,
to register.
We can see that distance first declared, and declared most clearly, in Charles Peters's famous
"
A Neoliberal's Manifesto ," which Tim Barker reminded me of last night.
Peters was the founder
and editor of The Washington Monthly , and in many ways the éminence grise of the neoliberal
movement. In re-reading Peters's manifesto-I remember reading it in high school; that was the kind
of thing a certain kind of nerdy liberal-ish sophomore might do-I'm struck by how much it sets out
the lineaments of Chait-style thinking today.
The basic orientation is announced in the opening paragraph:
We still believe in liberty and justice for all, in mercy for the afflicted and help for the
down and out. But we no longer automatically favor unions and big government or oppose the military
and big business. Indeed, in our search for solutions that work, we have to distrust all automatic
responses, liberal or conservative.
Note the disavowal of all conventional ideologies and beliefs, the affirmation of an open-minded
pragmatism guided solely by a bracing commitment to what works. It's a leitmotif of the entire manifesto:
Everyone else is blinded by their emotional attachments to the ideas of the past. We, the heroic
few, are willing to look upon reality as it is, to take up solutions from any side of the political
spectrum, to disavow anything that smacks of ideological rigidity or partisan tribalism.
That Peters wound up embracing solutions in the piece that put him comfortably within the camp
of GOP conservatism (he even makes a sop to school prayer) never seemed to disturb his serenity as
a self-identified iconoclast. That was part of the neoliberal esprit de corps: a self-styled philosophical
promiscuity married to a fairly conventional ideological fidelity.
Listen to how former New Republic owner Marty Peretz
described (h/t Tim Barker) that ethos in his lookback on The New Republic of the 1970s
and 1980s:
My then-wife and I bought the New Republic in 1974. I was at the time a junior faculty member
at Harvard, and I installed a former student, Michael Kinsley, as its editor. We put out a magazine
that was intellectually daring, I like to think, and politically controversial.
We were for the Contras in Nicaragua; wary of affirmative action; for military intervention
in Bosnia, Rwanda and Darfur; alarmed about the decline of the family. The New Republic was also
an early proponent of gay rights. We were neoliberals. We were also Zionists, and it was our defense
of the Jewish state that put us outside the comfort zone of modern progressive politics.
Except for gay rights and one or two items in that grab bag of foreign interventions, what is
Peretz saying here beyond the fact that his politics consisted mainly of supporting various planks
from the Republican Party platform? That was the intellectual daring, apparently.
Returning to that first paragraph of Peters's piece, we find the basic positions of the neoliberal
persuasion: opposition to unions and big government, support for the military and big business.
Above all, neoliberals loathed unions, especially teachers unions. They
still do , except insofar as they're useful funding devices for the contemporary Democratic Party.
But reading Peters, it's clear that unions were, from the very beginning, the main target. The
problems with unions were many: they protected their members's interests (no mention of how important
unions were to getting and protecting Social Security and Medicare); they drove up costs, both in
the private and the public sector; they defended lazy, incompetent workers ("We want a government
that can fire people who can't or won't do the job.")
Against unions, or conventional unions, Peters held out the promise of
ESOPs ,
where workers would forgo higher wages and benefits in return for stock options and ownership. He
happily pointed to the example of
Weirton Steel :
…where the workers accepted a 32 percent wage cut to keep their company alive. They will not
be suckers because they will own the plant and share in the future profits their sacrifice makes
possible. It's better for a worker to keep a job by accepting $12 an hour than to lose it by insisting
on $19.
(Sadly, within two decades, Weirton Steel was dead, and with it, those future profits and wages
for which those workers had sacrificed in the early 1980s.)
But above all, Peters and other neoliberals saw unions as the instruments of the most vile subjugation
of the most downtrodden members of society:
A poor black child might have a better chance of escaping the ghetto if we fired his incompetent
middle-class teacher.
…
The urban public schools have in fact become the principal instrument of class oppression in
America, keeping the lower orders in their place while the upper class sends its children to private
schools.
And here we see in utero how the neoliberal argument works its magic on the left.
On the one hand, Peters showed how much the neoliberal was indebted to the Great Society ethos
of the 1960s. That ethos was a departure from the New Deal insofar as it took its stand with the
most desperate and the most needy, whom it set apart from the rest of society. Michael Harrington's
The Other America , for example, treated the poor not as a central part of the political
economy, as the New Deal did. The poor were superfluous to that economy: there was America, which
was middle-class and mainstream; there was the "other," which was poor and marginal. The Great Society
declared a War on Poverty, which was thought to be a project different from from managing and regulating
the economy.
On the other hand, Peters showed how potent, and potently disabling, that kind of thinking could
be. In the hands of neoliberalism, it became fashionable to pit the interests of the poor not against
the power of the wealthy but against the working class that had been made into a middle class by
America's unions. (We still see that kind of talk among today's Democrats, particularly in debates
around free trade, where it is always the unionized worker-never the
well paid journalist
or economist or corporate CEO -who is expected to make sacrifices on behalf of the global poor.
Or among Hillary Clinton supporters, who leverage the interests of African American voters against
the interests of white working-class voters, but never against the interests of capital.)
Teachers' unions in the inner cities were ground zero of the neoliberal obsession. But it wasn't
just teachers' unions. It was all unions:
In both the public and private sector, unions were seeking and getting wage increases that
had the effect of reducing or eliminating employment opportunities for people who were trying
to get a foot on the first run of the ladder.
And it wasn't just unions that were a problem. It was big-government liberalism as a whole:
Too many liberals…refused to criticize their friends in the industrial unions and the civil
service who were pulling up the ladder. Thus liberalism was becoming a movement of those who had
arrived, who cared more about preserving and expanding their own gains than about helping those
in need.
That government jobs are critical for women and African Americans -- as Annie Lowrey shows in a
excellent recent piece -- has long been known in traditional liberal and labor circles. That that
fact has only recently been registered among journalists-who, even when they take the long view,
focus almost exclusively, as Lowrey does, on the role of GOP governors in the aughts rather than
on these long-term shifts in Democratic Party thinking-tells us something about the break between
liberalism and neoliberalism that Chait believes is so fanciful.
Oddly, as soon as Peters was done attacking unions and civil-service jobs for doling out benefits
to the few-ignoring all the women and people of color who were increasingly reliant on these instruments
for their own advance-he turned around and attacked programs like Social Security and Medicare for
doing precisely the opposite: protecting everyone.
Take Social Security. The original purpose was to protect the elderly from need. But, in order
to secure and maintain the widest possible support, benefits were paid to rich and poor alike.
The catch, of course, is that a lot of money is wasted on people who don't need it.
…
Another way the practical and the idealistic merge in neoliberal thinking in is our attitude
toward income maintenance programs like Social Security, welfare, veterans' pensions, and unemployment
compensation. We want to eliminate duplication and apply a means test to these programs. They
would all become one insurance program against need.
As a practical matter, the country can't afford to spend money on people who don't need it-my
aunt who uses her Social Security check to go to Europe or your brother-in-law who uses his unemployment
compensation to finance a trip to Florida. And as liberal idealists, we don't think the well-off
should be getting money from these programs anyway-every cent we can afford should go to helping
those really in need.
Kind of like Hillary Clinton criticizing Bernie Sanders for supporting free college education
for all on the grounds that Donald Trump's kids shouldn't get their education paid for? (And let's
not forget that as recently as the last presidential campaign, the Democratic candidate was more
than willing to trumpet his credentials as a cutter of
Social
Security and Medicare , though thankfully he never entertained the idea of turning them into
means-tested programs.)
It's difficult to make sense of what truly drives this contradiction, whereby one liberalism is
criticized for supporting only one segment of the population while another liberalism is criticized
for supporting all segments, including the poor.
It could be as simple as the belief that government should work on behalf of only the truly disadvantaged,
leaving everyone else to the hands of the market. That that turned out to be a disaster for the truly
disadvantaged-with no one besides themselves to speak up on behalf of anti-poverty programs, those
programs proved all too easy to eliminate, not by a Republican but by a
Democrat -seems not to have much troubled the sleep of neoliberalism. Indeed, in the current
election, it is Hillary Clinton's support for the 1994 crime bill rather than the 1996 welfare reform
bill that has gotten the most attention, even though she proudly stated in her
memoir
that she not only supported the 1996 bill but rounded up votes for it.
Or perhaps it's that neoliberals of the left, like their counterparts on the
right , simply came to believe that the market was for winners, government for losers. Only the
poor needed government; everyone else was made for capitalism. "Risk is indeed the essence of the
movement," declared Peters of his merry band of neoliberal men, and though he had something different
in mind when he said that, it's clear from the rest of his manifesto that the risk-taking entrepreneur
really was what made his and his friends' hearts beat fastest.
Our hero is the risk-taking entrepreneur who creates new jobs and better products. "Americans,"
says Bill Bradley, "have to begin to treat risk more as an opportunity and not as a threat."
Whatever the explanation for this attitude toward government and the poor, it's clear that we're
still living in the world the neoliberals made.
When Clinton's
main line of attack against Sanders is that his proposals would increase the size of the federal
government by 40%, when her
hawkishness remains an unapologetic part of her campaign, when unions barely register except
as an ATM for the Democratic Party, and
Wall Street
firmly declares itself to be in her camp, we can hear that opening call of Peters-"But we no
longer automatically favor unions and big government or oppose the military and big business"-shorn
of all awkward hesitation and convoluted formulations, articulated instead in the forthright syntax
of common sense and everyday truth.
Perhaps that is why Jonathan Chait cannot tell the difference between liberalism and
neoliberalism.
Update (April 29)
I wrote a follow-up post
here
, in which I respond to Chait's response.
Jon Chait, Obama's journalistic fellator-in-chief. Possibly has passed My Head Is Flat Friedman
as Acela Corridor's chief writer of political dreck.
reply
I'm trying to come up with a good acronym for "Conservative in All But Name," for Clinton
and Chait and all their ilk, because DINO just isn't strong enough.
All alums of U Michigan have a bounded middle class rationality they do not realize is white
privilege. And their football team still can not beat a bunch of half-wits from Ohio State.
Prof. Robin:I know this is not an advice column but my problem is all my friends roll their
eyes when I use the phrase 'neoliberal'. They assume it is jargon or a cliche. I asked them
and only a few actually have a clue as to what 'neoliberal' means. And they still support Hillary.
Help! We all know Mrs. Clinton will be our next president, but I am beginning to think even
an impossible Trump victory would actually be less damaging than another series of neoliberal
encroachments upon what has not yet been amalgamated in the political economy.
No comment upon the rejection of neoliberalism in the land where it all began as theory?
Austria? And the alliance of the extreme right and greens?
Thanks for another excellent piece. I couldn't help but think William Graham Sumner upon hearing
Peters' disdain for unions. His version is actually harsher. He not only wants to take from
B to help C and D but blame B for all of C and D's problems.
Needless to say, this isn't exactly company any self-respecting liberal would want to keep.
The more I read Peters' essay, the more the word "Objectivist" comes to mind. I had always
thought, prior to this column that 'neoliberal' meant a reboot of liberalism in the 19th century
sense, which seems to be the sense most economists use it in. Sometimes these labels take on
a life of their own.
reply
It seems to me that the common thread connecting the opposition to inclusive social insurance
programs and, at the same time, unions is a kind of supremacism: the supremacism of the people
who are just a rung above the bottom of the social ladder and want desperately to not
be on the bottom. It's odd to see in people who in fact are many rungs from the bottom,
but class anxiety is something that most of us experience from time to time.
It's late – or early – and I wonder if I'll still believe this after more sleep – but it
seems to me that this is the thinking of social climbers. Consider Mr. Collins of Pride
and Prejudice , having attained a bit of status, and both proud of it and desperate to
hang on to it. Or, for that matter,
consider the Clintons .
Excellent post as always. I'm not quite understanding the part about how "Clinton supporters
… leverage the interests of African American voters against the interests of white working-class
voters." It's not that I don't believe the claim, I just can't come up with any examples.
I think he means Hillary trying to turn black voters against Sanders who in theory at least
better represents white working-class voters interests better.
reply
Very well articulated. I think you should develop this to an article for the Nation. It is
very timely and much needed. Thank you for writing it.
reply
This was a really good post. This blog is often like an oasis in the midst of a desert of neoliberal
(Ha!), reactionary garbage. I have all kinds of things to say about it.
First and foremost, in recent years I've fallen more under the sway of a Hegelian mode of
thinking about political movements, history, and the world. There is no clear example of the
dialectical movement of a concept than that of "freedom" or "liberty." What Neoliberalism represents
historically is when the concepts and contradictions of Liberalism as it was practiced in the
New Deal era were finally turned against themselves and a reversal of it into its opposite.
All concepts and notions cut both ways, freedom and liberty are no different. Above all else,
that's what neoliberalism, from the Chicago/Austrian School to hack pundits like Chait represent.
They have turned the core principles of liberalism on itself and used them to shore up justification
for hierarchy and oppression.
You discuss this in your book, when talking about how freedom for the right means freedom
of the owner and freedom of those in power in a more general sense. These questions are central
to our entire historical epoch, particularly in the US, and we need to move beyond them. Marxist/socialist
ideas and concepts are sorely needed, and the whole political conversation in the US has been
built for nearly a century on avoiding any use of them. I maintain that New Deal liberalism
was always going to become Neoliberalism, it was inevitable that these concepts would be inverted
and if the postwar American Consensus could be reached again it produce the same world we currently
inhabit a second time.
@Roquentin: Which itself is an ironic little mirror of the contradictions that transformed
our concept of "liberalism" in the first place from a principled defense of economic non-interference
to a pragmatic support for robust interventionism. It's readily apparent in Mill's On Liberty
itself, where the attempt at a utilitarian defense of the laisser-faire principle can ultimately
only stand if he carves out exceptions large enough to drive a New Deal or a Great Society
through, and thus the original free-market doctrines are left sitting around abandoned, ready
to be picked up by neoliberal defenders of inherited wealth and power. Of course Mill also
manages to shape this utilitarianism into a vaguely principled apologia for global empire ("Despotism
is a legitimate mode of government in dealing with barbarians provided the end be their improvement"
and so on) but after all this sort of racism has always been common throughout the Western
political mainstream, notably including precisely the sorts of working-class folks who might
have once voted for Wilson and FDR and who now vote for Trump.
reply
Although outside of the 20th century American scope of this argument-very valuable in its historical
specificity-I find the richest conceptual or genealogical expression of the difference between
liberalism and neoliberalism to be Foucualt's distinction between Adam Smith and Gary Becker.
If the ethos of classical liberalism is the partner in exchange, that of neoliberalism is
the entrepreneur of the self.
This analytic remains salient in understanding the neoliberal movement in the late 20th
century U.S., even if it introduces slippages in the meaning of liberalism as it is used in
Europe versus the United States. The Wendy Brown book linked above does a nice job developing
this type of argument.
I will share that during election night when Clinton won his first term I was sitting in the
same room with Schlesinger, Jr. while we were all watching the precincts report and he was
very much into it when the hostess began gyrating and screaming "MY PRESIDENT! MY PRESIDENT!"
and that there was no talk of the looming shadow of the neoliberal and all present assumed
on some level that the result was a return and validation of the welfare state after Reagan-Bush,
the Republic after the terror. Even in the false advertising of the political arena, expectations
have never been so confounded for the working class and intellegensia alike.
reply
I think H. Clinton will be fine if elected, the past is the past (well not really), but saying
that I really wish electoral success in this country could happen with a purely working class
focus – something like Robert Reich's most recent post -
http://robertreich.org/ . Could be more
workable as the racism of the white working class diminishes, hopefully struggling white middle
class racism diminishes too. Left wing policies poll pretty well now, we need to get the poor
to vote though.
"Except for gay rights and one or two items in that grab bag of foreign interventions, what
is Peretz saying here beyond the fact that his politics consisted mainly of supporting various
planks from the Republican Party platform?"
There's the old joke that a libertarian is a Republican that smokes pot. Maybe a neoliberal,
then, is a Republican that supports gay marriage?
There are striking parallels in this to the observation I've made, reading a lot lately, about
historical civil rights/racial justice struggles. To wit, one of the greatest drags on the
effectiveness of the Civil Rights Movement has been the ability of social/financial elites
to make sure that advancement for poor people of color came out of the hides of the working
class, rather than from the elites' share. This is clear from the backgrounders on the housing
market in e.g. Slatter's Family Properties or Boyle's The Arc of Justice , or
the description of the Boston busing issue in I think Perlstein's The Invisible Bridge
.
For middle-class white homeowners, living in a neighborhood that became mixed-race really
did mean the loss of most of the family capital; it's deplorable that it was due to racism,
but individuals' anti-racism wasn't going to let them resell at the price they'd paid, nor
keep them from the pernicious effects of living in a now-redlined neighborhood.
Just the same,
for the white populations of Boston's poor neighborhoods, it was all too obvious that Black
students were being bused into their schools, not those of the wealthy – which you'll still see
today when school-choice means slightly-better schools get hit with more demand than their
resources can manage, not that any kid can go to an elite public school (let alone a private
one).
At the end of the day, neoliberalism as Peters defines it is nothing but elegant concern
trolling–claiming to be the staunchest defenders of the lowest order, when really that's just
a way to reinforce a crab-bucket mentality that keeps the true elites from making any sacrifices
towards a more equitable society.
In other words, an old monster to be slain with an old weapon–solidarity, but newly sharpened
and strengthened by the knowledge that it must transcend racial and regional and even class
divisions.
These arguments about semantics are stupid. At one time terms like "conservative", "liberal",
"neoconservative", etc. may have meant different things, but we sure as hell know what they
mean now. It's just debate team intellectual obfuscation. Meanings change as society needs
them to. For instance Republican once implied being against racism. Today, not so much. Still
"Republicans" are called "Republicans".
Chait knows what "neoliberal" means, he just doesn't like the reality of what it means and
what it might imply about him.
What I love about this essay so much is the ways it echoes what Ken Sharpe taught us in the
Fall '83 version of his Latin American Comparative Politics course… I'm pretty sure it was
in reference to Jeannie Kirkpatrick but it was a general statement about neoliberals and neocons:
This is very close to the exact words – "Anyone who tells you "The harsh reality is…" or "The
fact of the matter is…" is either lying to you or hiding a very great deal of what they know
to be true."
"... Much more comfortable [running against Clinton] and I think everyone that has analyzed this knows that Hillary Clinton is in the ditch. We don't know how far in the ditch she's going to go but she's not doing well. She's not even winning ..."
"... The DemParty would rather lose with Clinton than win with Sanders. Just as the RepParty would rather lose with Cruz than win with Trump. ..."
"... If she was a rationally thinking human being she would have taken the hint when she got beaten by Obama in '08. Actually she should never have run in '08. Her basic conundrum is: how can she claim to be an empowered strong woman when ALL of her power is derived from the fact she was married to a prez and stuck through him through all his problems with many "other women". ..."
"... I don't care if she sleeps with other women – the fact that she's in bed with Wall Street is way more troubling. ..."
"... And the sad part is with Hillary we're probably going to miss the O-bomber when he's gone. ..."
"... she's a devout Ayn Randian, carries a grudge, gets extremely angry, doesn't have any idea of what the difference between truth and lies is, and has a sense of self-entitlement as wide as the Atlantic Ocean. ..."
"... The Democratic machine hates Sanders even more than it hates Trump and the Republicans. They hate everything he stands for. ..."
"... They would rather see Trump win than Sanders. He asks too many inconvenient questions. Trump can be handled, like Reagan or Bush II. ..."
"... there's obvious downside to pissing off a well-connected major political and financial player with a long memory, as opposed to a candidate with few lucrative contacts whose second act after his big swing for the fences is a probably quiet retirement. ..."
"... As several people have pointed out, a win with Sanders is the second (or third) best outcome for the establishment. So far, the best-case scenario is still in the bag if they stick with her, and in jeopardy if they don't. It's delusional to think Sanders has a chance with them, even moreso than the Clinton supporters in 2008 who thought they could engineer an upset over Obama with convention procedures. ..."
"... So how did Hillary Clinton beat out the popular Senator Bernie Sanders in New York State where he was born and raised? Where he was drawing rallies of tens of thousands of supporters in the week before the primary? Where his ground game had the engaged support of thousands of members of the Working Families Party and Occupy Wall Street activists? The system was rigged to guarantee the outcome just as the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington guarantees that looting the little guy remains a lucrative business model on Wall Street. ..."
"... I confess to feeling despair for the survival of human civilization, of humanity and all complex life on Earth. The proximate reason for this is the theft of the New York Democratic primary by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. As for the fraud itself, it is a now familiar litany: Flipped registrations, machine switched votes, massive voter roll purges and much more. Consider just one illustrative example: Brooklyn. Brooklyn is run by the Kings County Democratic Party. A Chicago Mayor Dick Daley style political machine is in complete charge. Nothing happens there by accident. All "accidents" are carefully planned! And a lot of "accidents" occurred on primary election day there! Taken together these add up to election FRAUD. ..."
"... HRC and Bill are the Macbeths of US politics. They should have quit with their hundreds of millions while they were ahead. Hillary may win the election but she'll lose the war. They will have so many scandals to deal with they won't know what hit them. ..."
Those numbers have no influence on the state-by-state results but offer a window into both
the success of Sanders in generating enthusiasm and Clinton's inability to capitalize
on all her political advantages . Since October, when her candidacy began rising again after
several months of controversy about her use of a private email server, she has been on a downward
slide. Her lead over the senator from Vermont has dropped from what was then a 31-point advantage
to the current two points .
Meanwhile, her negative ratings have been rising and now outweigh her positives by 24 points
, according to the NBC-Wall Street Journal poll. That makes her seen no more favorably than
Cruz is. Her only salvation is that Trump's net negative is minus 41. Sanders, meanwhile, has
a net positive of nine points - although it's fair to say that one reason for that is that he
has received far less in the way of attacks from Republicans or scrutiny from the media than Clinton
has. [This last is standard Clinton camp spin; conventional explanation until shown otherwise]
Clinton's image is at or near record lows among major demographic groups. Among men, she
is at minus 40. Among women, she is at minus nine. Among whites, she is at minus 39. Among
white women, she is at minus 25. Among white men, she is at minus 72. Her favorability among whites
at this point in the election cycle is worse than President Obama's ever has been, according to
Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster who conducted the NBC-Wall Street Journal poll with Democratic
pollster Peter Hart.
Minority voters have been the linchpin of Clinton's nomination strategy and were a key to her
success in New York. Among African Americans nationally, the NBC-Wall Street Journal poll shows
her with a net positive of 51 points. But that's down 13 points from her first-quarter
average and is about at her lowest ever. Among Latinos, her net positive is just two points
, down from plus 21 points during the first quarter.
Reince Priebus earlier described the Clinton candidacy as "
in the ditch ":
"Much more comfortable [running against Clinton] and I think everyone that has analyzed
this knows that Hillary Clinton is in the ditch. We don't know how far in the ditch she's going
to go but she's not doing well. She's not even winning," Priebus said.
The DemParty would rather lose with Clinton than win with Sanders. Just as the RepParty would
rather lose with Cruz than win with Trump.
And since Trump is stronger against the RepParty than Sanders is against the DemParty, Trump
will very likely be nominated while Sanders very likely won't. So in a situation of Trump vs.
Clinton, many people will face an agonizing choice.
Now . . . if the ReParty nominates Cruz or someother branded establishment ReParty member,
then Clinton will likely win.
If she was a rationally thinking human being she would have taken the hint when she got beaten
by Obama in '08. Actually she should never have run in '08. Her basic conundrum is: how can she
claim to be an empowered strong woman when ALL of her power is derived from the fact she was married
to a prez and stuck through him through all his problems with many "other women". Plus, her personality,
voice, cackle, even the mere sight of her is repulsive to many people. Another thing that will
have to be dealt with during the general is: is she or is she not gay? Voters will certainly be
curious about that.
edmondo , April 22, 2016 at 8:26 am
I don't care if she sleeps with other women – the fact that she's in bed with Wall Street is
way more troubling.
I think a lot about a person's character is revealed by their laugh; hers is mirthless and
mean, perfectly consonant with her generally strident tone of voice. Obama may be as narcissistic
and have run for the office as much for the sake of trophy-seeking, but at least his voice doesn't
grate.
It grates on me, as does his condescending words, his face etc.. But that's because of who
he is. See he might objectively be judged as a fairly good looking guy but, who can't even see
that anymore given his evil. And the sad part is with Hillary we're probably going to miss
the O-bomber when he's gone.
Clinton's quite rational. She's also smart, logical, and perceptive. On the other hand,
she's a devout Ayn Randian, carries a grudge, gets extremely angry, doesn't have any idea of what
the difference between truth and lies is, and has a sense of self-entitlement as wide as the Atlantic
Ocean.
This is her election. She doesn't care if she brings down the entire corrupt edifice
of her own party, as reconfigured under the administration of her husband, as long as she gets
the nomination. And if that puts the Dems out in the wilderness long enough for them to realize
they need to return to being the party of the unions, the minorities, the working classes? Great.
But my bet is that first, for however long it takes, if they lose they'll blame it on Sanders
and all those groups they used to support, and now spit on.
Gaius is right about the numbers and the trends. But even if Hillary's numbers plummet to catastrophic
levels –to below Trump, which could happen if he cleans up his act as he is setting out to do
right now - don't hold your breath for the DNC to nominate the only obvious potential winner,
Bernie Sanders.
The Democratic machine hates Sanders even more than it hates Trump and the Republicans.
They hate everything he stands for. He's a socialist (of a mild sort). The Dems and Repubs
are all plutocrats. They would rather see Trump win than Sanders. He asks too many inconvenient
questions. Trump can be handled, like Reagan or Bush II.
It's also worth noting that comparisons between Clinton and Sanders say nothing about the matchup
between Clinton and whatever emerges from the GOP swamp. Approval ratings are more relevant, but
are still an unreliable proxy, and even they show her competitive once the GOP candidates wreck
the curve.
Picking Clinton, IOW, has no serious downside if you're worried about beating a GOP Presidential
candidate. However, there's obvious downside to pissing off a well-connected major political
and financial player with a long memory, as opposed to a candidate with few lucrative contacts
whose second act after his big swing for the fences is a probably quiet retirement.
As several people have pointed out, a win with Sanders is the second (or third) best outcome
for the establishment. So far, the best-case scenario is still in the bag if they stick with her,
and in jeopardy if they don't. It's delusional to think Sanders has a chance with them, even moreso
than the Clinton supporters in 2008 who thought they could engineer an upset over Obama with convention
procedures.
Americans know that our political system is completely rotten. Just two days ago, NBC News
published the results of a new national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. It found the following:
"Nearly seven-in-10 registered voters say they couldn't see themselves supporting Republican frontrunner
Donald Trump; 61 percent say they couldn't back fellow Republican Ted Cruz; and 58 percent couldn't
see themselves voting for Democratic favorite Hillary Clinton."
New York Does Elections Like It Does Wall Street: With Its Finger on the Scale
By Pam Martens and Russ Martens: April 20, 2016
Consistent with numerous other polls, the NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll also found that
"just 19 percent of all respondents give Clinton high marks for being honest and trustworthy."
So how did Hillary Clinton beat out the popular Senator Bernie Sanders in New York State where
he was born and raised? Where he was drawing rallies of tens of thousands of supporters in the
week before the primary? Where his ground game had the engaged support of thousands of members
of the Working Families Party and Occupy Wall Street activists? The system was rigged to guarantee
the outcome just as the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington guarantees that looting
the little guy remains a lucrative business model on Wall Street.
via Richard Charnin https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com
Those states marked in yellow on the spreadsheet indicate Fraud. There are a lot of states
that were stolen.
Maybe Sanders is saving up all this brilliant evidence from Richard Charnin and others to use
in any contested fight for the nomination. I think it could be powerful leverage that could undo
the blatant theft of votes, theft of democracy by Party leaders. Perhaps
The UNADJUSTED exit poll indicated a close race. Hillary led by just 52-48%, an 11.8% discrepancy
from the recorded vote. There were 1391 respondents and a 2.6% exit poll Margin of Error. Clinton
led by a whopping 62-38% in the vote count with 33% of precincts reporting.
At 9:03 pm, there were 1307 exit poll respondents, Clinton led the actual count by 680-622
(52.0-47.6%). With just 84 additional respondents (1391 total), Clinton's lead increased to 802-589
(57.7-42.3%). She had 122 additional respondents and Sanders had 33 fewer.
How can Clinton gain 122 of 84 respondents? How can Sanders' total drop? They can't. It is
mathematically impossible. Therefore the final vote has to be impossible as well. . The exit poll
was forced to match the recorded vote with impossible adjustments.
snip
In 2014, NY voter registration was 49D-24R-27I. The split was 85D-15I in the exit poll, which
(as always) was forced to match the 57.9-42.1% recorded vote.
Assuming primary voting was proportional to registration, the split would have been 65D-35I
and the race would have been a tie. If Clinton had 58% of Democrats, Sanders won the election
by 52.5-47.5%.
snip
Assuming that Sanders' 48% exit poll was accurate, he must have won the election due to thousands
of suppressed votes. Sanders True Vote = 48% exit poll + suppressed vote.
Let's assume that 5% of registered voters (400,000) were disenfranchised and Sanders had 75%.
Then he had 52.9% assuming his 48% exit poll share.
snip
Sanders' exit poll share declined in the recorded vote in 18 out of 19 primaries.
The probability: P=1-binomdist(17,19,.5,true) = 0.000038 = 1 in 26,000.
.
This information needs updating. It shows that there is already a very big difference between
those states which have Caucuses with open public evidence of head/hand counts or paper ballots
hand counted vs those in Primaries using the abusive evidence-free/evidence-hidden e-voting/e-scanning
machines:
Sanders Average Vote Shares: 66% in 12 Caucuses
(My note: with Real Public Evidence);
41% in 20 Primaries
(Evidence Hidden or Removed with those voting machines for the purpose of stealing democracy)
.
We need to correct this now. Because it may be now or never.
I confess to feeling despair for the survival of human civilization, of humanity and all complex
life on Earth. The proximate reason for this is the theft of the New York Democratic primary by
Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. As for the fraud itself, it is a now familiar litany:
Flipped registrations, machine switched votes, massive voter roll purges and much more. Consider
just one illustrative example: Brooklyn. Brooklyn is run by the Kings County Democratic Party.
A Chicago Mayor Dick Daley style political machine is in complete charge. Nothing happens there
by accident. All "accidents" are carefully planned! And a lot of "accidents" occurred on primary
election day there! Taken together these add up to election FRAUD.
i also think there is an internal battle going on among the plutocrats there are those who
want single payer health care for instance. we know that's not hillary's faction, so it could
be trump's pals. There must be a consensus among some of the uneasy rich that if they can't resuscitate
social equality they are history because they need society in order to function – they all know
everything is dysfunctional now. The worst dysfunction is our deprivation: no health care, only
welfare for insurance & drug companies; failing educational system; bankrupt retirement funds;
no jobs; etc. The people are putting up better resistance to the takeover of the world by the
neoliberals in Europe but only because they have vetted socialist societies. What Hillary and
her pals concocted is an almost unbelievable disaster. Their solution seems to be more deprivation,
more war, with no solution in sight for inequality. And lastly, Hillary does not even recognize
the situation – she pretends things are just fine – all we have to do is protect our "rights"
– are you for real, Hill?
There are lots of capitalist firms that would be better off with single payer, and lots of
business people that would be happy to see McD's, Wal-mart, etc. finally pay some of the true
cost of their low wages, and to see the vig for Big Pharma and Big Health (Un)Care shrink.
Left: I've been preaching for years that single payer is the only option, plus
making medical education far less expensive. I went to school in the old
days before student loans and all that crap, and I wasn't forced to increase
my income to pay off debts. Europe has the correct idea.
Yea but even if they would benefit from single payer and they might, it's hard to say they'll
ever be on board for full employment. Slack in the labor market is how wages are kept low, you
just keep the slack within a certain range that for us will guarantee there will be losers, and
for them will guarantee there aren't enough of them for violent revolution. Then you blame the
losers such a system necessarily creates for their fate.
So the interest of some oligarchs might sometimes coincide with ours, but don't count on it.
And at a certain point I wonder how much good free healthcare will do if you bankrupt everyone
with expensive rents or something instead (so many means of rent extraction, so little time!).
Although it is a less inhumane way of keeping people enslaved than for their very healthcare.
Susan, I agree that not all plutocrats are mentally retarded ogres. And some may prefer a functioning
social order over the immediate opportunity to suck the last blood out of the present one.
The Malignant Overlords- the Banksters, Frackers and War Party purveyors of weapons of Death-
that have dominated US policy for decades have found the perfect candidate in Killary. She is
a known commodity that will do their bidding instantly at the sound of a briefcase full of $100
dollar bills being opened. Many Overlords may have loyalty to the Republican party much as they
do to the football team of their Alma Mater, but they can't help but understand the value of having
a President like Obama or Killary who present themselves as a progressive man or woman of the
people while delivering policies that benefit only them.
Why should they back a social misfit like Ted Cruz whom everybody he has ever worked with hates?
Or an unpredictable wild card like Trump who occasionally says things that send chills up their
spine? Withdraw from NATO? A Defense Department organized to defend America rather than enforce
subservience to the Empire and maximize costs of new weaponry? Build things in the US instead
of using much cheaper slave labor overseas? What a frightening idea.
Much better to support a Trojan Horse "Democrat." even if they have too many Jewish lawyers
at their fund raising banquets.
No question she was the ideal candidate, or they'd not, through the magic of DNC/Beltway 'consensus'
have anointed her the first woman President in 2016 back in 2008 – no doubt some cruddy deal done
at that time.
How the key power players managed to delude themselves into believing their own manufactured
narrative vis a vis pretty much everything this century could totally fall apart without consequences
is indeed amazing – so much so that half of me thinks this seeming outbreak of 'democracy' is
itself scripted, that is, there was a conscious decision taken to allow Sanders and 'the people'
to be 'given a hearing in the court of public opinion' justified by the easy collective assumption
Clinton would make short work of Sanders' silly un-American ideas. That Clinton was an imperfect
vehicle, a flawed instrument, obviously so to us, would surely have been evident to at least some
people with considerable power, one of whom happens to hold a Go Directly To Jail card.
Set 'em up, Joe. Got a little story, you oughtta know .
Something not noted in the article but seems relevant here is that Bill cannot seem to keep
his foot out of his mouth. Yesterday he blamed millennials for the lack of wage inflation in recent
years. Keeping in mind that many of them weren't old enough to vote in the 2010 mid-terms even
if they wanted to, the unbroken wage curve of the last thirty years puts this lie to rest alone.
No, he's just that bitterly entitled. Do you not see how rich and powerful they are even out
of office? How dare he be denied. They are the same when the peasants are pleasant, they don't
mind temporarily having to slum, but if they are even mildly questioned, their body language,
voice, etc change. Watch their hands clench, jaws tighten, they both lean back. The strain to
maintain and can never do it.
If the DNC give the nomination to HRC (which of course is extremely likely despite the poll
numbers above) then they are signing their own death warrant.
There is a small risk to them that Bernie would run 3rd party (he could cite all the obvious
shenanigans of the DNC and HRC as justification, and he could raise the money).
If Trump is the Republican nominee, we know he isn't afraid to go after Hillary and Bill on
their many scandals, and they can't easily go after him on financial or morality scandal reasons
- and he has no political baggage like NAFTA or the anti-black crime bill to defend.
Most likely HRC would win (just) but she will be thoroughly tarnished and battered by the Trump
campaign, and will be inaugurated as the least-liked, least-trusted President in recent history.
The Sanders supporters will detest her and we know the Repubs hate her with a passion, and will
pursue various investigations. (The Clinton Slush Foundation clearly has a few unexploded bombs
waiting to be found.)
The country will be in political gridlock for another 4 years. The DNC will have lost all credibility
and good will, and a third party will come about. And none too soon.
HRC and Bill are the Macbeths of US politics. They should have quit with their hundreds
of millions while they were ahead. Hillary may win the election but she'll lose the war. They
will have so many scandals to deal with they won't know what hit them.
1998 Minnesota gubernatorial election might be relevant.
Two putrid major party candidates were nominated, and Jessie Ventura became governor. It wasn't
just celebrity- he was a much better option compared to Skip Humphrey and Norm (f'n) Coleman.
I think that our sociopathic elite are looking to finalize the end of democracy by finishing
off the TPP, TTIP and TiSA within her first term. Then all chance of a peaceful resolution are
out the door and Supranational Government is established. Hillary is end game in this stage of
society.
You may be onto something here. The wheels really do seem to be coming off. If the major systemic
reactions to neoliberalism as embodied in Trump and Sanders do not produce a result that leads
to some sort of acceptable homeostasis the current game is up. Something new has to emerge to
control the forces at play. The long powerful illusions of American exceptionalism and ideological
purity are failing–we just don't really have much of a shared ethos anymore. Without some major
swing of the pendulum in the direction of reform, I don't see it holding up much longer. Even
the average Joe is catching on.
I will be shocked if Warren is not offered the VP spot by Clinton. I do not know if she would
take it but it is the perfect play by Clinton's team. She can pull over the Bernie supporters
that are do not hold Ma against Warren.
Clinton will also have a great narrative in our identity politics driven world.
Convincing Warren to take on the VP position will also neuter her politically. Its a win win for
Corporate Democrats.
I just hope that Warren has some backbone but something had to be promised her for Warren to not
come out and endorse Sanders.
In my view, Trump "trumps" Hillary in a Trump vs Hillary election.
After his treatment by the Republican Elite, Trump will not feel loyalty to the Republican
party and will not be beholden to them for staffing and intellectual guidance as was George W.
Bush.
He has a far more open mind regarding the need for overseas military operations than "Hawk
Hillary" and perhaps will not see every foreign "deal" as requiring a military intervention..
He also might be more skeptical of the value of the financial industry to America's well-being
than Hillary.
And with Trump disdainful of both the Democratic and Republican elite, he might actually help
the great unwashed who are largely ignored by both party leaders except at election time.
He won't build the wall.
If Trump were truly interested in restricting the flow of low wage immigrants he would push
to enforce E-verify and employer sanctions, which would raise the price of low wage labor and
would actually bring money into the US Treasury while avoiding the expense of a wall,.
After all, Trump's properties are more profitable with cheaper labor.
But I'd much rather have Bernie, someone who has been in public service for many years and
yet has profited so little from the experience he had credit card debt to help with his daughter's
and niece's weddings.
I look to who each candidate picks as 'advisors' for various subjects. No one can be a genius
polymath politician; at least I've not spotted one. So, 'advisors' are needed to make the wheels
go around. For example, when Lil' Barry chose the Neo Cabal for his advisors early on, I knew
he was a crook.
As everyone here knows by now; watch what 'they' do, not what 'they' say.
Important point. Trump's foreign policy advisors:
Boston Globe
[
Keith] Kellogg, a former Army lieutenant general, is an executive vice president at Virginia-based
CACI International, a Virginia-based intelligence and information technology consulting firm
with clients around the world. He has experience in national defense and homeland security
issues and worked as chief operating officer for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad
following the invasion of Iraq.
[Joe]Schmitz served as inspector general at the Department of Defense during the early years
of George W. Bush's administration and has worked for Blackwater Worldwide.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Yeah, Joseph Schmitz was the Pentagon inspector general under Donald Rumsfeld,
and he didn't really inspect much of anything. He was a big cheerleader, actually, for many
of the most kind of excessive policies of Rumsfeld and the Pentagon in the post-9/11 world.
And when Schmitz left the DOD, he became an executive at Blackwater. And Joseph Schmitz is
a-you know, is a radical Christian supremacist. He is a member of the Sovereign Order of the
Knights of Malta and really is sort of a-you know, has a neo-crusader worldview. And I'm choosing
those words carefully. I mean, that's-he is definitely a radical Christian supremacist.
And he was an enthusiastic fan of Erik Prince and Blackwater, and he goes and he joins that
company. And, you know, this is a guy, though, who-when I was researching him for the Blackwater
book, he wrote a series of letters to the editor of conservative newspapers-Washington Times
and others-in the '90s. He was a fanatical opponent of abortion.
[Walid] Phares is a former Romney adviser, and selecting him as an adviser reflects just
as poorly on Trump as it did on Romney. Leon Hadar has described him in TAC as a neoconservative
and "an academic who was involved with right-wing Christian militia groups during the Lebanese
civil war," but that doesn't do full justice to Phares' record of bad judgment and alarmist
rhetoric about foreign threats. As McKay Coppins reported shortly after Romney named Phares
as an adviser, "Throughout his career as a pundit, he has warned that some Muslims are plotting
a secret takeover of American institutions with the end goal of imposing Sharia."
Joseph Schmitz is also linked to anti-Indian and anti-Muslim efforts.
Trump Foreign Policy Advisor Tied to Montana Anti-Tribal Efforts
IREHR (Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights)
April 19, 2016
Trump Advisor Joseph Schmitz Promotes Anti-Indian and Anti-Muslim Bigotry, Calls for End to
the Vote for People Receiving Public Assistance
Lawrence Kogan is closely allied with the anti-Indian Citizens Equal Rights Alliance (CERA).
CERA aims to terminate tribes and abrogate treaties between the United States and Indian Nations.
Kogan hired longtime CERA leader Elaine Willman to assist with the case and has spoken at multiple
events with the group's leaders. Kogan and Schmitz's brief in the anti-CSKT lawsuit gained
infamy for alleging that the dam transfer could allow the Turkish government and terrorists
to obtain nuclear materials and poses a threat to national security. Rejecting the lawsuit,
U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras referenced the brief's "somewhat perplexing arguments
regarding the Turkish Government's involvement with Native Americans," concluding that "counsel
for Plaintiffs conceded that no such evidence has been submitted relating to the Plaintiffs'
alleged economic harm." (See American Lands Council and the Anti-Indian Movement). Kogan and
Willman have continued to press the CSKT-Muslim terrorist conspiracy theory in 2016 (See Bigoted
Nationalism and CERA-allied Attorney Tours).
Trump surrounds himself w/loons. I'm in CA so I get to vote for Stein but if I was in a swing
state I would lean Trump. Four years of orange tinted embarrassing hell rather than 8 years of
savvy entrenched hell.
With Clinton all of the deck chairs are assigned. With Trump, the chairs get scrambled and
it will be an opportunity for the majority but I don't see anyone in the pipeline. Sanders candidacy
advantage is he's on tape on issues for so many years.
If Clinton v. Trump is the finality I think voting for Trump creates the best path for 3rd
party emergence on the left. At that point (after a floozy democratic primary and all of their
past injustices) the Democrats will need to be hammered down, humiliated, and put in their place.
As they occupy so little of the left these days, weakening them creates an even greater "space"
on the spectrum for others to occupy. The Republicans certainly are not going to move over.
Vote Trump, but keep the progressive revolution momentum alive and organized.
I really want a new progressive party with the finch as its mascot.
If Clinton v. Trump is the finality I think voting for Trump creates the best path for 3rd
party emergence on the left. At that point (after a floozy democratic primary and all of their
past injustices) the Democrats will need to be hammered down, humiliated, and put in their place.
As they occupy so little of the left these days, weakening them creates an even greater "space"
on the spectrum for others to occupy. The Republicans certainly are not going to move over.
Vote Trump, but keep the progressive revolution momentum alive and organized.
I really want a new progressive party with the finch as its mascot.
Given that the USA (certainly) and possibly the world will go to hell if either HRC or Trump
wins, I'd choose Trump if only for the novelty and to teach the frigging Clintons they can't buy
and steal an election.
Trump will scare the shit out of the rest of the world but he seems a bit less likely to start
more wars in Syria, the Ukraine, and elsewhere.
Fair point. ROTW was over the Moon about Obama, and then look what happened. In looney bin
moron colonies like The Guardian they're still aswoon over Bush in blackface. They would
have a falling down fit over us electing Trump, but with no more real insight than they showed
in 2008. I still can't see myself actually pulling the lever for Trump, or voting for any Republicans
because Bern in Hellary, Clintons! I just want my third party option now, please, ready
or not.
$hillary milhous Clinton (if she does not walk away from the nomination process) will be remembered
as the "my turn" president who was a one term president and the last democratic party president
Are the democratic party apparatchiks so blind they can not see they could lose wholesale in
2018 and never recover ?
Actually maybe the theft of the nomination will be a good thing will expose the democratic
party and what it is today, helping push the door open for "other"(non-republican) opportunities
-The Clintonistas need Hillary. Who would hire Begala, Brazille, and Carville based on their
career outside of being attached to the 1992 election? Any prominent Democrat from the last ten
years has worn out their welcome. They need Hillary. Obama will be an ignored figure.
-Buyers remorse with Obama who ushered in the destruction of the Democratic congress and party
at the local level.
-Clinton myths. The Clintons are brilliant politicians who won in an era of GOP dominationfor
example ignoring the Democrats controlled Congress an much of the state and local governments
before Clinton ran everything into the ground.
-I dont want to limit it to Clintonistas, but Sanders despite numerous Infrastructure and financial
challenges has mounted a challenge Hillary Clinton. All the money spent on Democratic strategists
was essentially wasted. If Sanders had a little more money at the beginning this could be a very
different race, but Sanders didn't need David Brock or to pay Dick Morris $5 million. The whole
kabuki theatre of politics is at risk. Sanders much like the 50 state strategy undermine the need
for the "Democratic strategist."
A massive protest against Former First Lady Hillary R Clinton's nomination is a terrific idea!
However, remember the astonishingly low level of news coverage of the massive DC and NYC anti-invasion
protests before our wonderful Iraq adventure.
However, if first you don't succeed, try, try again!
My thoughts are already turning to logistics: Can we get enough of us there that it becomes impossible
to access the convention site?
The idea is not to get arrested by blocking access–at least not for the superdelegates, who
we want to flip to Bernie, and the masses of Bernie's elected delegates! Imagine how satisfying
it would be to hoist the superdelegates on their own petard!
I think if we start the idea now, vans and buses can be organized, places to stay, signed petitions
for those who can't attend, etc. Bernie is truly a once-in-a-lifetime candidate (certainly for
those of us who are older). I just can't see giving up without bringing all of our numbers to
bear.
I have to keep reminding people that Bernie is not The Savior and no one can save us now. Remember
that Obama was thought to be that, but he turned into another messenger of the MIC. The TBTF Empire
is doomed to dig its own grave and take the rest of the world with it. This ship is going down
and there is not the slightest "hope" for "progressive" "change" to prevent it.
Yep. There is a huge irreparable tear in the hull and the ship is no longer listing, it's gone
vertical. At this point it's a matter of trying to limit the predation of the sharks and trying
to find the last bits of humanity to appreciate like a sunrise while clinging to the side of a
raft boat.
The chance that Bernie will be the nominee is about zero. Barring an unforeseen deus ex machina
from the Justice Dept. it will be Clinton, and even given the unforeseen scenario the party brass
would be as likely to draft Biden or something similar as let Bernie win.
This seems to be an unreasonably pessimistic viewpoint. I stand behind my long held belief
that if dems want the presidency then they'd best get behind bernie because even the gods will
be unable to propel his primary opponent to victory in the general.
The question is, which do they want more, the White House or to keep the party in the hands
of their country club pals? Since the vast majority of party operatives are in the same orbit
as HRC I tend to think it's the latter. This is America after all and anyone even a smidgen to
the left of Barack Obama is considered out of bounds.
Barring the unforeseen it will be Clinton. As bad as she is she would still beat Trump in the
general and probably Cruz. The other wild card is if the GOP manages to nominate someone other
than those two, in which case HRC and the Dem party will be in trouble.
I just want them to wake up one morning and say "I'm a republican, and it's ok.". One long
term problem of lumping republicans into the evil camp has been a reluctance of some republicans
to be able to come out and be themselves for fear of ostracism. One benefit of course would be
a less harsh republican party. And are you sure she will beat trump in the general? She should
be running against trump in the republican primary. And considering the track record of the foreseen
(polls,etc ) , "barring the unforeseen" is about as likely as keeping the tide from going out.
Bernie by a length in the last furlong.
I'd love that too. Unfortunately the Democratic Party is now where former Republicans go to
continue their career. While I may consider Lincoln Chaffee largely to the left of Clinton's real
position, the fact is that neither that former Republican or Clinton and their positions are welcome
in the Grand Old Party anymore. Hell they are eating people we considered to be far right even
a decade ago for lunch. And the exiles don't seem to be willing to form the Reformed Republican
Party as long as the Clintons/DLC/Third Way/New Dems welcome them so eagerly into the Democratic
Party.
Yes, Clinton will beat Trump in the general (barring the unforeseen). He's even more widely
loathed than she is and current polling shows him with a yuuuuuge deficit to make up.
The unforeseen might include the GOP somehow nominating someone other than Trump. Cruz is also
widely despised and would probably lose to Clinton, although he might stand a slightly better
chance than Trump. A Romney/Kasich/Ryan/McCain type would be a solid favorite against her but
first the GOP has to figure out how to finesse such an outcome.
The unforeseen might also include serious allegations stemming from the e-mail investigation.
Obviously there is no way for us to know what might be in those thousands of e-mails so anything
we say here is sheer speculation, but my best guess is that Clinton will not face serious consequences
in regard to that. I wouldn't be wishing upon a star for that one if I were you, but you never
know what might happen.
Where did you get your crystal ball from? Give me some numbers why clinton will beat trump
with certainty.? At best hillary has a chance to beat trump but it certainly does not fall into
the category of likely.. Could the unforeseen be total abandonment by sanders supporters? Major
hurricanes revealing weak support structure? Market crash? oil skyrocketing to $140/bbl? As I
said the unforeseen of course will happen, and the hillary titanic will have zero maneuverability,
even now they can't take criticism. The emails may not get her indicted, but what if it just disgusts
people? Cruz/hillary_clinton. and we could get pres. stein, that would be unforeseen. You can lie, cheat,
steal, and propagandize your way to a hillary nomination and she will face a great chance of losing,
while sanders wins in almost any scenario if he can get past the upper crust of the democrat party.
Look up the popular poll aggregators - RealClearPolitics or Huffpost-Pollster - and look up
both the general election hypothetical matchups and favorability ratings of the candidates. Trump's
got a yuuuuuge problem; almost everybody has already formed an opinion about him and it's overwhelmingly
negative. Clinton's favorables are poor, too, but quite a bit better than Trump's, and she wins
all the hypothetical matchups as well.
Most Sanders supporters will vote for Clinton. The number who will not is probably not terribly
different from the number of Republicans who would rather vote for Clinton than Trump. Please
keep in mind that as disliked as Clinton is, Trump is disliked even more.
When I speak of the unforeseen I'm trying to keep to the at least minimally plausible. It's
possible that Clinton will treat Bernie so poorly at the convention that she will cause a major
schism, but she's not that stupid and I don't consider it likely. It's possible that the e-mails
contain something truly deplorable, but most politicians aren't stupid enough to put such things
in writing, and even if she did she still has the firewall of Barack Obama and Loretta Lynch.
The GOP might pull a fast one and nominate someone who could dispatch Clinton, but they have a
potential civil war problem of their own if they try that. So any of those things could happen,
but I try to keep my expectations realistic. That's just me.
"sanders wins in almost any scenario if he can get past the upper crust of the democrat party."
Yes, but one of my points all along is that the upper crust would rather lose an election than
cede any power at all to someone as left as Bernie.
Bernie still has a chance, but it's tiny. The real progress is still down the road. The tide
is turning but the interests are extremely entrenched and it's going to take some time.
The sample at our large Sanders readership says your assumption is wrong: the overwhelming
majority of Sanders voters will not vote for Clinton, particularly after the series of dirty election
tricks, with New York as a particularly appalling spectacle. They will stay home, vote for Trump,
write in Sanders, or vote for Jill Stein. And you discount the percentage that will vote Republican
to punish the Democratic party. I know, for instance, of grad of a top school who is the son of
Mexican farm workers who will vote for Trump if Sanders is not in the general. That is how deep
the antipathy for Clinton is among Sanders voters.
Bottom line is, more GOP voters say they will not vote for Trump than Dem voters say they will
not vote for Clinton. Other polling reveals basically the same thing.
I'm not sure why you are citing personal anecdotes and a blog comment section as evidence of
anything, since obviously neither are remotely representative of a large voting population.
Yes, the Clinton's are opportunists and machiavellian political operators. We've known this
for decades and so has the larger public. They're still going to vote for her over Trump, who
is more despised than she is. That's just what the polling shows I'm afraid. She's not winning
any elections here but a little blog is not the whole country.
As I've said from the start, there are still ways that it could slip away from her, but none
of them appear to be high probability. And believe me when I tell you that I take zero pleasure
in the thought of HRC as President. But one has to be realistic. I'll add, don't let what I'm
saying dissuade anybody from voting in a primary if they have the opportunity and desire to do
so, the game now would be to get as many delegates into the convention as possible as leverage
on events there, not the tiny chance that Bernie can still outright win this thing. This is an
intelligent, educated, and adult readership here that I think can handle the facts without discouragement.
Have to agree with Yves – Dems are in for a mighty shock if they believe most current Sanders
supporters will fall into line rather than sit it out:
For Sanders to even be where he is represents a major strategic error by senior Dems in not
recognizing the political reality of the public mood and not moving to squash him early; or he
is roughly where some other senior strategists wanted, perhaps unknown to Bernie i.e., Sanders
provides a good show proving democracy still 'works', that progressives voices are heard, that
the Party is open and change will come when it comes with Madame Clinton; or possibly a combo
of both, with Sanders undertaking his part with a totally unexpected degree of relish that has
infuriated Clinton. In other words, either fallibility is fully at play here, in which case a
Sanders victory is not such an unimaginable stretch – or Sanders has some important support we
don't know about.
To my mind, progressives should go for it now with as much focus, clarity of purpose and gusto
as eclipses all prior efforts. However it got here, the chance has been presented, his name is
on the ballot, and he articulates the priority of addressing 3 of the great issues of the day:
peace versus war; working stiff versus Wall Street; re-vamped social safety net. Big change is
possible when the people know what they want, and what they want is not remotely extravagant,
greedy or anything – just a decent arrangement for all.
[If electing a Republican is really Bernie's main concern, there is no reason he could not
at least run in the 40+ states where it's absolutely clear the Democratic or Republican candidate
will win, while not putting his name on the 5-10 closely contested "swing states." This could
still allow for a historic campaign if linked to building a new party for the 99% and laying the
foundation for an ongoing mass political movement to run hundreds of left candidates for all levels
of government, independent of corporate cash.]
This would work. I don't care about the D party so someone else could list the drawbacks. It
satisfies Sanders position of protecting Clinton but the movement continues. How does he turn
it down?
I wonder why the Sanders campaign doesn't bring up the fact that in '08, Obama lost NY to Hillary
Clinton by a wider margin than Sanders just did. (Leaving aside the, ahem, "voting issues"). And
that at this same point in the race, Obama had fewer delegates than Sanders does right now. Also,
in the end, it was the super-delegates switching their votes at the convention that won Obama
the nomination.
It's obvious why the media won't reminisce about the '08 election, but why won't Sanders bring
it up?
Sanders remains focused on the issues. Maybe he is right. Talking about the many election irregularity
issues would immediately dissipate the focus, energy and educating functions of his key messages.
The media blackout continues, so people are only learning more about him shortly before each primary/caucus.
If the conversation were to shift to disputes about the tempting election irregularities–horrific
as they are–the clarity of what he stands for would be lost.
"... Reaganites showed the way. However, "Clintonites," the Clintons themselves and other "new" Democrats, put the Reaganite vision into practice. ..."
"... In America these days, Reaganites think of it, Clintonites do it. Rank and file Republicans, insofar as they think at all, believe in it; rank and file Democrats don't like it, but let it happen. ..."
"... Were the United States more of a (small-d) democracy, that would be the end of the story – and of the Clintons. But there is almost nothing democratic about American politics. It therefore looks like the neoliberal era will be hanging on for a while longer, an unloved encumbrance to human progress and wellbeing. ..."
"... And, as the global hegemon goes, so go the countries it dominates. For the time being, the change so many yearn for is not quite at hand. Even so, there are reasons to hope: American politics is changing – in ways that could, before long, cause the neoliberal world order to fall. ..."
"... Thanks to Trump, there is another wrinkle to add onto the Hegelian story: that Reason has a sense of humor. Hegel had men like Julius Caesar and Napoleon in mind. But the latest world historical figure, the Donald, is the very antithesis of figures like that: he is an over the top real estate tycoon, reality TV star, and all-around buffoon. ..."
"... Hegel thought that opposites are integrally related. Democrats and Republicans certainly are. It is hardly surprising, therefore that the Democratic Party may also be on the brink of becoming undone or, failing that, of changing beyond recognition. ..."
"... This might seem unlikely now that Hillary Clinton's victory over Bernie Sanders is practically assured. But the Sanders campaign, whatever becomes of it, introduced a destabilizing element into American politics. The Democratic Party may not yet be on the brink of destruction, but there is no telling what Reason has in store. ..."
"... It was enough for me that the twenty-first century versions of New Deal-Great Society liberalism that the two of them had in mind is better by far than anything we Americans, with our bought and paid for pro-business political parties and our servile corporate media, had any right to expect. My beef with Bernie was just that he was too Clinton-friendly. No doubt, Warren is as well. ..."
"... ANDREW LEVINE is a Senior Scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, the author most recently of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and POLITICAL KEY WORDS (Blackwell) as well as of many other books and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book is In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the Opium of the People . He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). ..."
Think of Republicans and despair for the human race. Even
the ones who otherwise seem morally and intellectually
sound champion political views straight out of Morons
R'Us.
However, Democrats are worse - not morally or
intellectually, of course; and neither are their views
worse. But within the matrix of our semi-established two
party system, Democrats do the most harm.
The Democratic Party is, by default, the political
voice of organized labor and of social movements that
fight for racial and gender equality, environmental
sanity, and other worthy causes. Democrats can therefore
do what Republicans cannot: integrate the victims of the
status quo into a political consensus that serves and
protects those who benefit most from it – the "one
percent," the "billionaire class." They are good at this.
The generally accepted name for the socially atomizing,
inequality-generating, environmentally reckless version of
late capitalism practiced and promoted in developed
countries over the past four decades is "neoliberalism."
For most Americans, as for most people around the world,
neoliberalism has become Enemy Number One.
Republicans support neoliberal policies and practices
more fervently than Democrats do. But, for putting them
into practice, Democrats leave Republicans standing in the
dust.
The American version of neoliberal theory and practice
was concocted by Republicans and others who flocked into
the Reagan administration decades ago; call them
"Reaganites."
The villainous old Gipper, Ronald Reagan, had little to
do with it himself; he was never much of a thinker or
visionary or policy wonk. But, in the United States, the
name has stuck. It applies not only to neoliberals of the
Reagan era, but to their successors as well.
Reaganites showed the way. However, "Clintonites," the
Clintons themselves and other "new" Democrats, put the
Reaganite vision into practice.
In America these days, Reaganites think of it,
Clintonites do it. Rank and file Republicans, insofar as
they think at all, believe in it; rank and file Democrats
don't like it, but let it happen.
By now, though, nearly everyone who does not benefit
egregiously from the neoliberal world order is fed up with
its consequences. In public opinion, the
Reaganite-Clintonite era has run its course.
Were the United States more of a (small-d) democracy,
that would be the end of the story – and of the Clintons.
But there is almost nothing democratic about American
politics. It therefore looks like the neoliberal era will
be hanging on for a while longer, an unloved encumbrance
to human progress and wellbeing.
And, as the global hegemon goes, so go the countries it
dominates. For the time being, the change so many yearn
for is not quite at hand.
Even so, there are reasons to hope: American politics
is changing – in ways that could, before long, cause the
neoliberal world order to fall.
The Republican Party is destroying itself. This has
been in the works for a long time, but the Trump
phenomenon has pushed the process along, and changed its
nature.
A facetious later-day Hegelian might say of this that
the Cunning of Reason is at work.
Hegel thought that History becomes increasingly
rational and therefore intelligible through the deeds of
world historical figures, great men (always men) acting
out their passions and interests. He insisted, however,
that this only becomes apparent in retrospect. In this
case, Reason's cunning is on display even as events
unfold.
Thanks to Trump, there is another wrinkle to add onto
the Hegelian story: that Reason has a sense of humor.
Hegel had men like Julius Caesar and Napoleon in mind.
But the latest world historical figure, the Donald, is the
very antithesis of figures like that: he is an over the
top real estate tycoon, reality TV star, and all-around
buffoon.
Hegel thought that opposites are integrally related.
Democrats and Republicans certainly are. It is hardly
surprising, therefore that the Democratic Party may also
be on the brink of becoming undone or, failing that, of
changing beyond recognition.
This might seem unlikely now that Hillary Clinton's
victory over Bernie Sanders is practically assured. But
the Sanders campaign, whatever becomes of it, introduced a
destabilizing element into American politics. The
Democratic Party may not yet be on the brink of
destruction, but there is no telling what Reason has in
store.
Were the Democratic Party to vanish from the face of
the earth, it would certainly not be missed, except by
deluded liberals who think, for example, that Hillary is
one of the good guys, and that her "experience" – as an
official wife, a feckless Senator, and the worst Secretary
of State in modern times – has taught her how to get
worthwhile things done.
Even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the
contrary, there are people who believe that, alarmingly
many of them. Democrats buy snake oil at Morons R'Us too.
Enter Bernie
At first, Elizabeth Warren was the Great Progressive
Hope. She had one obvious advantage over Bernie: Team
Hillary couldn't play the gender card against her. But she
said she wouldn't run, and she meant it.
Sanders therefore came to occupy the space that might
otherwise have been hers.
It was plain to progressives of nearly all stripes,
from Day One, that, if nothing else, Sanders' candidacy
would help reintroduce "socialism" - the word, if not the
idea – back into the American lexicon. This couldn't hurt,
and might actually do some good. A Warren candidacy would
not have had the same effect.
Otherwise, between Warren and Sanders, it was, as far
as anyone could tell, a wash.
One argument against Bernie was that his campaign would
redound ultimately to the benefit of Hillary's because it
would keep progressive voters on board long enough for
them to be coopted into the Clintonized Democratic Party's
mainstream. Another was that, on all but economic matters,
his views were standard Democratic Party fare. The same
arguments would likely have been deployed against Warren,
had she decided to run.
I, for one, didn't much care. It was enough for me that
the twenty-first century versions of New Deal-Great
Society liberalism that the two of them had in mind is
better by far than anything we Americans, with our bought
and paid for pro-business political parties and our
servile corporate media, had any right to expect. My beef with Bernie was just that he was too
Clinton-friendly. No doubt, Warren is as well.
Nevertheless, I decided long ago that, if Bernie was
still in the running by the time I had a chance to vote in
the primaries, that I would vote for him – if only because
a vote for Bernie would be a reasonably principled and
effective way to protest the coronation of Clintonism's
(neoliberalism's) reigning Queen.
Earlier this week, I made good on that decision. My
state, Maryland, disgraced itself more fulsomely than the
others voting that day - except Rhode Island. But even
before last Tuesday, a Sanders victory was very nearly a
mathematical impossibility.
For a few months, though, it did seem that a vote for
Bernie could be more than just a protest vote; that he
could win the nomination and therefore the presidency.
And it still seems that the "huge" crowds coming to
Bernie's rallies and feeling the Bern are part of
something a lot bigger. The differences from the Occupy
movements of 201l are significant, but the vibe is much
the same.
Oddly, leftists were less skeptical of Occupy Wall
Street and its clones than of the Sanders campaign,
especially at first. I certainly was.
This was odd because Occupy lacked a political focus –
electoral or otherwise. One didn't have to be a committed
Leninist to understand that this made it more than usually
difficult for Occupy militants to figure out what to do
next.
It was also plain that, without a more defined
political orientation, the Occupy movements would be
easily swept aside when the Forces of Order decided that
the time to repress them had come, and when the campaign
to reelect Barack Obama started sucking up all the air.
And so it was that Occupy burned out shortly after it
got started.
Even so, it seemed, at the time, that Occupy's bottom
up structure and disregard of electoral politics was its
strength. Also, the movement awakened a long dormant
spirit of resistance - in much the way that Black Lives
Matter now does.
Therefore, it wasn't so strange, after all, that
Occupy's flaws didn't seem quite as objectionable as the
shortcomings of the Sanders campaign did in the days
before it became clear that Bernie was on to something.
Unlike Occupy Wall Street, the Sanders campaign does
have a focus and a structure; it is, and could only be, a
top-down electoral campaign of the familiar kind. This is
its weakness, of course. But it is also what has enabled
it to reach more people and to change consciousness more
profoundly than the Occupy movements ever could.
Much the same could be said for Sanders' decision to
run as a Democrat. Technically, he had always been an
Independent. He was, however, an Independent who caucused
with the Democrats in the House and Senate, and who
generally voted the way a Democrat would. His change in
party affiliation was therefore of little substantive
consequence.
However, it was consequential strategically. Had Bernie
run as an Independent, he would not have been included in
debates, and he would be even more ignored by corporate
media than he has been. Also, he would have had to waste
money, time and effort just gaining ballot access.
Running as an Independent, he would almost certainly
end up doing even less well than Ralph Nader did, running
on the Green Party ticket sixteen years ago. Nader won a
whopping 2.74% of the popular vote.
On the down side, though, by running as a Democrat,
Sanders is strengthening the Democratic Party. And were he
actually to win the nomination, he would have no choice
but to cede at least some power over his campaign to that
wretched party's leaders. They would also demand a role in
his administration.
Sanders' decision to run as a Democrat may not quite
rise to the level of a Faustian bargain; he has not had to
sell his soul – not yet, anyway. But it comes close.
At the same time, by running as a Democrat, Sanders has
done a lot of good. He has shown that it is possible to
finance a Presidential campaign without relying on "the
billionaire class" or Super PACs, or nefarious lobbyists.
And he has moved the center of gravity in the Democratic
Party to the left.
Thanks to the Sanders campaign, even Hillary is now
talking the talk. Of course, in her case, it is only talk;
when there is no longer anything in it for her, she will
revert back to form. But, in politics, even insincere and
opportunistic words can have beneficial consequences in
both the short and long term.
Pundits used to say that the Sanders campaign was
doomed to fail; now that it has very nearly done so, they
are saying it again. This seems right; the institutional
Democratic Party and the corporate media that supports it
defeated Sanders, just as everyone expected they would.
But failure was not inevitable. Were it not for New
York State's election rules, which disenfranchised large
numbers of potential Sanders voters, and for the
Democratic Party machines that the Clintons concocted or
took over during the past decade and a half, Sanders might
have been able to sustain the momentum he brought into the
New York primary by winning there. He would then have been
well positioned to give the Clinton juggernaut a run for
its money in the "Acela primaries" and in the others to
come.
Hillary was never the inevitable nominee, just the most
likely one. Unfortunately, this time, the facts bore the
probabilities out.
In the end, though, her victory may be a blessing in
disguise. For reasons I will mention presently, the
Democratic nominee this year has always been sure to
prevail against Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. But, barring a
successful and profound "political revolution," he or she
would then have as hard a time governing as Obama has had.
In Obama's case, racism made the problem worse. But
Republican obstinacy will not go away just because the
color of the Democrat in the White House next year will be
white.
Republicans went after Obama mainly on domestic
matters; they were fine with his drones and "targeted
killings," his deportations, his war on whistle-blowers
and his assaults on privacy rights.
We can expect Republicans to thwart Hillary at every
turn too, except perhaps when she warmongers and otherwise
promotes Obama-style murder and mayhem. Even more than was
the case under Obama, we should be grateful that she will
seldom get her way: being clueless and inept, she has a
knack for making everything she works on worse.
Indeed, before long, even Obama will be looking good.
Expect too that, as the consequences of Hillary's
blundering unfold, many current Hillary supporters will
wise up and turn on her in much the way that LBJ's
supporters turned on him half a century ago.
We will never know for sure how a President Sanders
would fare. On the one hand, the man is a straight
shooter; even Republicans can respect him for that. But
capitalists who feel their power and privileges threatened
fight back viciously. Because they own almost the entire
political class, a "democratic socialist" who means what
he says would not be likely to be cut much slack.
Sanders is faulted for being an "idealist" and a
"dreamer." This is nonsense; what he proposes – retrieving
and then building upon progress made in the middle decades
of the last century - is eminently doable, provided there
is the political will. Countries less wealthy than ours do
similar things all the time.
But finding the political will would not be easy.
Republicans would be an obstacle, of course; but Democrats
would be a problem too.
Even if his candidacy would generate enough excitement
and voter turnout for Democrats to win control of the
Senate and the House, as happened when Obama ran in 2008,
Congress would still be in the hands of base and servile
flunkies who toe the line for their corporate paymasters.
The Democratic Congress Obama contended with during his
first two years in office is a case in point.
Let Hillary deal with problems like that. Bernie can
serve the people better in other ways.
Who's Afraid of Donald Trump?
High on the list of nonsensical things that foolish
liberals believe is the idea that because Hillary is a
"centrist," she is more electable than anyone further to
her left.
This belief is like the old notion that after a heart
attack or major surgery, patients should have complete bed
rest as they recover. This seems commonsensical, but the
idea is demonstrably false.
In this case, though, it is clear as can be that
Hillary is going to shellac Trump (or Cruz) in November.
Sanders would do the same – in all likelihood by a larger
margin.
Even a people capable of venerating Ronald Reagan and
reelecting George W. Bush in 2004, after it had become
plain to anyone with half a brain how devastating his war
against Iraq already was, would not put their country –
and its nuclear weapons – in Trump's (tiny) hands. The
Donald cannot win – no way.
To be sure, there is a fair chance that Trump is not
nearly the racist, nativist and Islamophobe that he
pretends to be. He played that part on TV, though; and he
won't be able to live it down.
America is not yet a majority-minority nation - but it
is getting there, demographically and in spirit. Therefore
anyone nowadays whose public persona resembles that of,
say, George Wallace
circa
1971 cannot win an
election that is not confined, as Republican primaries
mostly are, to out of sorts white people.
Moreover, if Trump is the Republican nominee, he will
not only have to contend with the Clintons and their
hapless minions; he will have the Republican Party, what's
left of it, against him as well.
The swords are already drawn. The Old Guard is
mobilized against Trump because he threatens their hold
over their Grand Old Party. Libertarians, theocrats and
other self-described "conservatives" are against him too -
because they realize that, despite his bluster, he is
emphatically not one of them.
It is likely, in fact, that Trump would run to
Hillary's left on most issues – trade, foreign affairs,
infrastructure development, jobs programs, holding Wall
Street banksters and other corporate criminals
accountable, and so on.
Nevertheless, liberals say that, like her or not,
Hillary is the lesser evil; and conclude, on that account,
that she merits their support.
There is no point now in going back over the case
against lesser evil voting, except to note that one of the
timeworn arguments – that it is not always clear who the
lesser evil is - is especially relevant in a Clinton vs.
Trump matchup.
But, in this instance, lesser evil considerations are
moot: Trump cannot win in November, period, full stop.
There is polling data that suggests that Bernie would
have done a lot better than he did in recent primaries
were voters more confident that a Democrat, any Democrat,
would trounce Trump (or Cruz).
In the years to come, as the horror that is Hillary
becomes apparent even to those who are now somehow able to
enthuse over her candidacy, we will all have cause to
regret that debilitating imperviousness to evidence that
afflicts Republicans and Democrats alike.
Whither Bernie?
Jesse Jackson folded the Rainbow Coalition into the
Democratic Party after the 1988 primary season. Because he
wanted to be a player, he squandered an enormous
opportunity.
If Bernie follows suit, it will nullify much of the
good his campaign has done.
Sanders seems less cooptable than Jackson.
Nevertheless, every indication so far is that he will
follow Jackson's lead.
That it could come to this has been the great fear all
along, and the main reason for faulting Sanders for
running as a Democrat. Containing progressive uprisings is
what Democrats do.
In principle, what got going under the aegis of the
Sanders campaign could survive and even flourish without
him. There is no denying, though, that, in the short run,
it will help mightily if Bernie stays on board.
For that to happen, he will have to become more like
Donald Trump. Liberal pundits and
faux
progressives are already busily telling one and all that
this would not please them one bit. No surprise there!
When Republican grandees treat the Donald badly, as
they have been doing relentlessly from the moment that it
became clear that his campaign was more than just a joke,
he has fought back with verbal retorts designed to cut
them down - supplemented with barely concealed calls for
violence.
Behind his words, however, there is, as everybody
knows, the threat of exit. Trump could bolt, taking large
swathes of the Republican base with him.
The institutional Democratic Party has treated Sanders
badly too, notwithstanding their fear that, if they go too
far, his supporters will also bolt, regardless what
Sanders tells them or what he himself chooses to do.
They want to keep as many Sanders backers on board as
they can, not because they are afraid that Trump will win
in November - that isn't going to happen – but for the
sake of down ticket Democrats. To have any chance of
taking over the Senate, the House and vulnerable State
Houses, they know that they will need to keep the people
feeling the Bern active and enthused.
Their thoroughly justifiable fear is that, without
Bernie, most of them will just sit the election out.
There is no obvious way to prevent this. With Hillary
at the head of the ticket, the temptations of quiescence
are too strong not to prevail.
But all is not lost; not by any means. It may be
impossible now for Americans opposed to neoliberalism to
elect a President who is not part of the problem; but,
thanks to the Sanders campaign, there has never been a
more propitious moment for doing something even more
worthwhile – changing the face of American politics by
building a genuinely leftwing political party.
This is why the first order of business now must be to
convince Bernie to join with those of us who would swim
through vomit before voting for any Clintonite, much less
the exceptionally inept and very dangerous "Madam
Secretary."
This won't be easy. Bernie is too nice. It doesn't help
either that liberal pundits back the Democratic Party, as
we know it, a thousand percent.
Even so, many Sanders supporters are sure to find their
way to the Greens - voting, as I probably will yet again,
for Jill Stein.
On economic matters and other domestic issues, Stein
offers essentially what Sanders does; on foreign affairs,
she offers a lot of what anti-imperialists don't like
about Sanders' views.
With these considerations in mind – and with a
Democratic victory in the Presidential contest assured – a
vote for Stein ought to be a no brainer for the vast
majority of Sandersnistas, especially those who live in
the forty or so states whose electoral votes might as well
have been assigned four years ago.
But the Greens have been going nowhere for as long as
anyone can remember, and they are not even good for
drawing protest votes. In 2012, when I would tell
people, including some who follow election news closely,
that I voted for Jill Stein, the response I would often
get is: "Jill who?" This year is looking no different.
Nevertheless, thanks to decades of perseverance, the
Greens do have ballot status in more states than any other
"third party." It is theoretically possible for them to
assemble enough Electoral College votes actually to elect
a President.
But their candidates are frozen out of media coverage.
The media's malign neglect of Sanders turned out to be not
quite fatal, because, by challenging Clinton so
successfully, his campaign was undeniably newsworthy; and
because, running as a Democrat, he couldn't be entirely
ignored. Stein can and will be ignored; diluting the value
even of the protest votes she receives.
However, were she and Bernie to join together, neither
would stand a chance of being elected President, but the
Greens would become a force to be reckoned with. This idea
is one of many being floated (
link:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/21/the-undemocratic-primary-why-we-need-a-new-party-of-the-99/
).
It is far from clear, though, that Bernie has the will, or
that the Greens have the means, to make it happen.
Now is therefore a time to be thinking hard and fast
about what is to be done.
It is also a time to be thinking about how a genuinely
leftwing party could win over Democratic politicians whose
hearts are in the right place, but who, for the time
being, have no choice but to make common cause with
Clintonites. There are only a few brave souls like that at
the national level; at the state and local levels, there
are many more.
Predictably, though, calls for party unity are already
become deafening. They should be rebutted whenever
possible, and otherwise ignored.
If the party the Clintons did so much to move to the
right is harmed by defections, so much the better.
There are Democrats who do good work at the local and
even the state level; at the national level, the good ones
could probably all fit, as they say, in one taxi, with
room left over for luggage.
Arguably, the rest do some good just by being there -
keeping Republicans at bay. That consideration aside,
today's Democratic Party is good for nothing at all - at
the national level and, with a few exceptions, further
down the line.
The GOP is a wreck. This is outstanding news. A
similarly damaged Democratic Party would be an enormously
salutary development too, an achievement of truly historic
importance.
ANDREW LEVINE
is a Senior Scholar at
the Institute for Policy Studies, the author most recently
of THE AMERICAN IDEOLOGY (Routledge) and
POLITICAL
KEY WORDS
(Blackwell) as well as of many other books
and articles in political philosophy. His most recent book
is
In Bad Faith: What's Wrong With the Opium of the People
.
He was a Professor (philosophy) at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison and a Research Professor (philosophy) at
the University of Maryland-College Park. He is a
contributor to
Hopeless:
Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion
(AK Press).
"... By Russ Baker, editor of WhoWhatWhy.com and author of "Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America's Invisible Government and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years." Originally published at WhoWhatWhy ..."
"... The Washington Post, Politico, CNN, ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... WhoWhatWhy' ..."
"... Corrupt and "most" pro war – it's a two-fer. (When do we get to put "most" in front of corrupt?). ..."
"... Fuck. DO we really want another fucking Neo-Con in the White House? ..."
"... I think it's interesting to consider that Trump is ostensibly already to the left of Clinton on many issues. ..."
"... I say it is time to leave the Democratic Party in droves. I know, I know. The Supreme Court nominees of a future president loom large. We have to force the hand. Rather than creep to fascism and the earth's destruction, we have to realize the destination is the same as long as we keep our eggs in the basket of the Democratic Party. Time to cut and run, time to build something new, time to vote the Green Party, purge it of its new agey image and begin building it into a democratically functioning party that holds its candidates to its platform. Sure, it will take time. But putting money, time, and energy into the other half of a duopoly that supports empire and neoliberalism is all wasted on the fool's game, which Sander's inadvertently, I think, has exposed as the endgame. Progressives have to realize it will not and cannot be changed. It's core supports those two branches of its world-view, and no matter how they manipulate its adherents by throwing table scraps to them in the form of "social" issues, it will never be something other than what it is. I know, I am done with it. ..."
"... Clinton will not appoint a Supreme Court Justice that is beneficial to the planet. Her appointees will be pro-corporate whores that will play nice on identity issues. Trump will never get a judge through that will overturn Roe v Wade. The Republicans have shown that you can effectively limit the debate of a SCJ and have held appointments up while not in the majority. ..."
"... The article by Mark Landler was brilliant and will keep me from voting for Clinton. I am tired of America being continually and fruitlessly at war. ..."
"... Clinton is pushing for war with Iran, Russia and Hezbollah. How can anyone honestly discuss that Clinton is more sane (in foreign policy) than any person running for office? ..."
"... Trump does not want war with Russia. Clinton wants to go to war with Russia. There is no other way to read her desire for a no fly zone. The only way to implement that policy is through a war with Russia. Clinton is not naive. She knows that any attempt to create a no fly zone will result in a conflict with Russia. ..."
"... Yes, it is a topsy turvy system where the State Department, which one expects to be full of people seeking diplomatic solutions, is led by a warmonger, while many military leaders come off as more cautious. The later often have a better understanding of the futility of the situations they are thrown into and the true costs. ..."
Posted on
April 29, 2016 by
Yves Smith Yves here. It was hard not to notice the awfully convenient timing of the publication
of the New York Times story,
Top Gun: How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk . If you have not read it, you need to, ASAP. It makes
painfully clear how much Hillary believes that the US should continue to act as if it were the worlds'
sole superpower, when those days are past, is deeply enamored of aggressive military men, and is
in synch with neocons. A sobering article.
By Russ Baker, editor of WhoWhatWhy.com and author of "Family of Secrets: The Bush
Dynasty, America's Invisible Government and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years." Originally
published at
WhoWhatWhy
Following a rough night in five East coast primaries, Bernie Sanders's path to the Democratic
nomination is now more narrow and steep than it has ever been. But are these votes truly a referendum
on who voters think the best candidate is - or are they merely a reflection of what the corporate
media wants Democrats to think?
In our critique of the media, we tend to focus on The New York Times , because
it purports to be the gold standard for journalism, and because others look to the paper for coverage
guidance. But the same critique could be applied to The Washington Post, Politico, CNN,
and most other leading outfits.
We
also noted how it seemed that every little thing the Clinton camp did right was billboarded,
while significant victories against great odds by Sanders were
minimized .
These are truly the kinds of decisions that determine the "conventional wisdom," which in turn
so often determines outcomes.
But there is more - and it is even more disturbing. Clinton's principal reason to claim she is
so qualified to be president - aside from being First Lady and senator - is her four years as Secretary
of State.
What kind of a legacy did she leave? Perhaps her principal role was to push for military engagement
- more soldiers in existing conflicts, and new wars altogether. WhoWhatWhy has written about
these wars and their
dubious
basis .
Wars are good business for Wall Street, for corporations in general, and for others who have been
friendly to her and her campaign.
Why was this never a bigger issue? Why was this not front and center with New York voters, a traditionally
liberal group with a strong antipathy toward war and militarism? Certainly Sanders tried to bring
up this issue, and doesn't seem to have succeeded. But mostly, this was a failure of the media, whose
job it is to shine a strong spotlight.
And why did The New York Times wait until two days after the New York primary
to publish its biggest piece on this, when it could no longer influence that key contest? (It appeared
first on its website and later in its Sunday magazine.)
In fact, with the media declaring this probably now a Clinton-Trump race, highlighting her hawkishness
turns it from a handicap to a strength.
How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk was the digital equivalent of a huge front-page story.
What the article makes clear - shockingly clear - is that Hillary Clinton is the most militaristic
of any of the presidential candidates, even more than Ted Cruz.
Was this delay in publication just a case of poor scheduling? Was it to ensure that the paper
could not to be accused of influencing the primary outcome?
The Times's editorials had already gotten behind her candidacy (without mentioning her
refusal to release transcripts of her Goldman Sachs speeches, or her opposition to a paltry $15 an
hour minimum wage). Would running Mark Landler's critical piece when it mattered have seemed like
an implicit rebuke of the paper's own editorial board or interfered with its influence?
How ironic it is that "liberal" Hillary Clinton has never met a war she did not like, and has
never been held responsible for the chaos they caused and the policies she advocated - yet it is
Bernie Sanders whose policies are being described as "unrealistic" by the same people who are shielding
Clinton from criticism.
What is the purpose of journalism if not to introduce material when it is relevant - and can have
an impact? And one that is good for humanity - as opposed to the arms industry.
The Times , Judith Miller et al, have certainly had an impact. Go
here for one of WhoWhatWhy' s stories of some of the goriest details.
Corrupt and "most" pro war – it's a two-fer. (When do we get to put "most" in front of corrupt?).
Yet I can visualize all my "enlightened" Boston "liberal" friends so fashionably and smugly rallying
behind her w/o even one second thought of dissent because Republicans. Any criticism will be met
with "delete" on FB friendship.
Yes, but at the end of the day, if you listen to Trump's garbled "message," he's really just
about as NeoCon as Hillary. At least, that's what I'm getting from his very few "policy" speeches.
He wants to "strengthen" our Military, which allegedly has been "weakened" by Obama. Of course,
Trump conveniently ignores the fact the US Military budget is larger than ever, but what I take
from that is that Trump wants to provide them with even more money.
Trump talks about forcing our "allies" to pay us tributes to protect them, which will somehow
enrich us back home. Good luck with that.
Well I could go on, but Trump wants to blast ISIS into glass sand and all the rest of it. I
don't see him as any much less NeoCon that Hillary or anyone else in the GOP. It's just that Trump
dances around things
Not a fan of Clinton. Never have been. Just saying re Trump…. not much different from what
I can parse out.
I have no problem asking other countries to pay for our cost of defense. Yes it is tribute
but if they do not pay then we do not assist. Secondly, Trump in his latest speech basically through
the Wolfowitz Doctrine under the bus. I say more power to that. Trump has said get out of NATO,
I have no problem with that. Lastly, Trump has indicated that he would stop sticking the US's
finger into Putin's eye. I am all for that. What has Hitlary said with regard to any of this.
Trump seems far more pragmatic and he has to show strong defense because that is one of the
key issues of the GOP. On the other hand all of the above issues would be good for the US and
might start taking apart the military-industrial complex.
Yes it is tribute but if they do not pay then we do not assist.
And the hollowness of America's protection "guarantees" gets exposed there and then rather
than a bit further down the road of imperial decline. I rather like your idea…
I do not know where you get hollowness. Most of these countries are running a trade surplus
with the US so why would we defend them for free. The US has never done this in the past (France
and the UK were suppose to pay for their armaments and no one yelled that was hollow). I would
rather we stayed out of the whole freaking thing but asking them to pay is a good start.
These security guarantees are hollow because there is no wayin hell the US can actually defend
a Baltic pipsqueak if Russia is truly determined to spank it for any multitude of transgressions.
That's why these guarantees are hollow.
Also too, the Euros are fast getting wise to the fact that US empire building is actually extracting
high costs from them, your BS about the poor wittle used and abused US notwithstanding. When the
US tries to actually extort cash as well the imperial jig will be well and truly up. Euro nationalism
is on the rise, and in many places it does contain a fairly pronounced dislike for the trigger
happy greedy vulgarians across the pond. And the migrant crisis is not helping US image at all.
Vet – I believe under NATO the other NATO nations are also suppose to contribute to their defense
and only 4 of the 28 countries are meeting their obligations. NATO was not set up for the US to
do all of the heavy lifting.
Personally, I say if Europe wants to go their own way more power to it. As far as Europeans
having a dislike for Americans, maybe. It is my experience having lived on four continents (and
several places in Europe) that many people disliked us before because we did things they could
not. Now we have given then other reasons to dislike us because of our neo-con socialist leanings.
But in total you miss my point which I find that Trump speaks a far more honest foreign affairs
approach than Hitlary or any president since before Bill Clinton. If you disagree then make your
point instead of just ranting.
I think it's interesting to consider that Trump is ostensibly already to the left of Clinton
on many issues. Typically, Democrats trying for presidential nomination have pandered to the party's
Left, and then run to the right for the general election. However, if Clinton wants to run to
the right, she'll be deep in Republican territory, while the proggies are certain to wander off
her home-front plantation. Except maybe for abortion, it appears that she has no home turf. It's
a curious predicament for a Democrat to be in.
Well it makes sense if you just consider that her husband was the best Republican President
the Democrats ever elected. She's a DINO in all serious matters and a "liberal" in the kind of
superficial stuff the MSM uses to differentiate and divide the people from themselves.
Several weeks ago, there was a very pro-Birdie piece on the NYTime's front page. People saw
it on line. Within several hours it was heavily edited and read more negative than positive. The
part about John McCain praising Bernie was removed, ditto other parts.
Huh? Judith Miller and the post election 2004 warrantless wiretapping story beg to differ.
They sat on a story in fear of influencing the election. They had the plagarist from Falwell U.
The NYT has been trash for as long as the Patriots have run the AFC East.
One can remember that Edward Snowden decided not to approach the Times with his story BECAUSE
the Times sat on the warrantless wiretapping story.
I still pay my $15 every 4 weeks for the NTTimes digital, but justify that partially because
I can do archive searches.
The Times Mea Culpa, spearheaded by Bill Keller, after the Judith Miller Iraq war reporting,
was particularly good. The TImes had their Iraq war cake and then got to apologize for eating
it.
The digital edition frequently has thoughtful readers comments that effectively counter the
latest Friedman, Kristof, Krugman, Brooks, Dowd, and Douthat received wisdom.
There must be more than few print readers who yell at their copy of the print NY Times, "Tom/Nick/David/Paul,
you are so #&*$% wrong".
Sadly the print readers can't access the readers' comment section, AKA Times Editorial antidote,
that accompanies the digital edition.
I say it is time to leave the Democratic Party in droves. I know, I know. The Supreme Court
nominees of a future president loom large. We have to force the hand. Rather than creep to fascism
and the earth's destruction, we have to realize the destination is the same as long as we keep
our eggs in the basket of the Democratic Party. Time to cut and run, time to build something new,
time to vote the Green Party, purge it of its new agey image and begin building it into a democratically
functioning party that holds its candidates to its platform. Sure, it will take time. But putting
money, time, and energy into the other half of a duopoly that supports empire and neoliberalism
is all wasted on the fool's game, which Sander's inadvertently, I think, has exposed as the endgame.
Progressives have to realize it will not and cannot be changed. It's core supports those two branches
of its world-view, and no matter how they manipulate its adherents by throwing table scraps to
them in the form of "social" issues, it will never be something other than what it is. I know,
I am done with it.
Doesn't the Supreme Court argument go out the window when the potential President is a lunatic?
Of course, Maryanne Trump was appointed by Bill Clinton.
Clinton will not appoint a Supreme Court Justice that is beneficial to the planet. Her appointees
will be pro-corporate whores that will play nice on identity issues.
Trump will never get a judge through that will overturn Roe v Wade. The Republicans have shown
that you can effectively limit the debate of a SCJ and have held appointments up while not in
the majority.
The abortion issue is a non issue. There is no way that justice would get on the court.
The Republicans will use that issue to get an even more corporate judge onto the court. A similar
deal is going on in NC today. The state will eventually cave and get ride of the bathroom provision
but the anti-worker sections will remain.
I cancelled my subscription to the NYT because of its more than biased reporting of the Democratic
primaries. I tried to make sure the editorial staff knew my reasons.
As a Veteran who deployed to The Middle East the first time , and with children entering
their teens, while I won't be able to control their decisions when they come of age, I have done
everything I possibly can to dissuade them from joining the military.
Sadly, I believe that whether it's Clinton or Trump, they will have zero reservations of sending
my children of to die in a war that will not end.
I agree. I don't see much difference between Trump and Clinton in this regard. Both are itching
to go to War. It's slightly possible – slightly! – that Clinton would be somewhat more sane (insofar
as one can be sane about war) than Trump. That's about the best I can say in this YET AGAIN choice
between the Evil of Two Lessers.
Arguing about the relative sanity of the insane is futile. Lybia and Hillminator's cackle upon
being informed of Khadafy's being sodomized with a knife is proof positive that having her as
prez is a recipe for even more of the same.
Clinton is pushing for war with Iran, Russia and Hezbollah. How can anyone honestly discuss
that Clinton is more sane (in foreign policy) than any person running for office?
Trump does not want war with Russia. Clinton wants to go to war with Russia. There is no other
way to read her desire for a no fly zone. The only way to implement that policy is through a war
with Russia. Clinton is not naive. She knows that any attempt to create a no fly zone will result
in a conflict with Russia.
Yes, it is a topsy turvy system where the State Department, which one expects to be full of
people seeking diplomatic solutions, is led by a warmonger, while many military leaders come off
as more cautious. The later often have a better understanding of the futility of the situations
they are thrown into and the true costs.
The pro-Hillary Times' piece provides compelling, irrefutable evidence of Hillary's neocon
credentials. The neocons adore her–Cheney commented Hillary was Obama's best cabinet appointment.
Add to that the chilling mutual admiration between Hillary and Kissinger and we have a tangibly
scary candidate.
Her supporters reaction? They either dismiss the idea she is loved by the neocons, or refuse
to understand the facts. Similar to rationalizing that money in politics is not a corrupting influence.
If Hillary is elected, she will have bipartisan support for a neocon foreign policy, as well
as money playing a major role in politics and one's personal life (speaking fees/foundation donations).
Citizens United will become a quaint memory.
It is getting impossible to argue the two parties are anything but the same side of the coin.
Getting?
Bill was first elected 24 years ago. Let's say a quarter century… I think Bernie made his tweedle
dum tweedle Dee comment about 20 years ago. The rest of us have been slower to notice.
well, Clinton is a woman and a Democrat. the more perfect evil. just Obama, the Vichy Democrats
do more evil than the Republicans, far more efficiently/effectively than any Republican could
or has. Hearing David/Charles Koch recently say Hillary "could" be better than any of the Republican
candidates, is proof. we are so Fkked!
yet my siblings will vote for Hillary cause of the Supreme Court due to the fact Hillary has
a D by her name. and i gather so many women will vote for Hillary cause she is a "woman." lol
Branding works. Stupidity, American style. if I vote, it will be for Trump, the lesser of two
evils, lol.
But that fails to count all the younger voters, saddled with debt and facing an economy where
business rules always favor capital over labor, who will find alternatives to Hillary that fit
with their moral sensibilities.
Meanwhile, the DNC is committing organizational suicide by becoming enforcers for Hillary,
restricting voting, and failing to sue states like Arizona for election fraud.
Older women will vote for Hillary. The divide between race and gender is primarily age. Older
black women are voting for her at 80% clips in nearly every election. Bernie can not win the 40
and under vote in every election while winning 30 and under at 80% with out winning across those
demographics.
Clinton kills him with older voters and has done so through out the cycle. It is why the DNC's
efforts to suppress the vote have worked so well for Clinton.
The NYT is simply a propaganda machine designed to fool people who can read at a slightly higher
grade level. If the 'newspaper of record' is compromised, how many mainstream outlets have any
real coverage of politics? After reading a large sampl;e,The number is close to zero. Occasionally,
the masses are thrown a bone.
Anyone who thinks there is a difference between the two nominal parties have to be kidding
themselves. The two party system is a facade that lures you into believing you live in a democracy
or republic. You are ruled. Your votes don't matter. Any real threat to power in the US is either
co-opted or neutralized.
We had a pedophile for speaker of the house. TPTB had to know it and used that info to keep
him under control. He was probably selected based on his past. Along with Hillary, Paul Ryan is
clearly a fascist. Look at their actions and their policies.
even the times piece was puffery. all the generals impressed by her wonkish hard work. and
it left out the most damning fact. hillary was the deciding voice in what obama called the worst
decision of his presidency, the invasion of libya and killing of quadaffi. nearly a decade after
iraq, in a nearly equivilant situation, with all the information she claimed not to have the first
time around, she chose the same stupid, destructive approach and sent another nation and region
reeling in choas.
this. I had thought it was because as a gen 1 feminist, she feels she has to out-macho the
boys, but it's both deeper and more pernicious with her. Fucking neocons. Bombing while the world
is burning.
What about the big four?
1 her emails anyone else would be gone for 99 years
2. her speeches? Yea sure. She has the only copy in her (contract)
3. her deals as SOState I'll get you arms (Saudi's) if you give me $1 million for foundation
Plus many more of these.
4. Her health passing out a few time, breaking an elbow, and others ailments.
Not a word on any. As for the NYT. It is as bad a you can get.
There is a great quote from Albert Camus a editor for "Combat" during the war.
"We have a right to think that truth with a capital letter is relative. But facts are facts. And
whoever says the sky is blue when it is grey is prostituting words and preparing the way for tyranny.
Nice comment.
#5 is the discrepancies in the exit poll data. Only the Democrats are having trouble with exit
polls this cycle. Each Republican election has been with in the exit polls but many of the Democratic
primaries are falling outside of the margin of error for exit polls and always siding with Clinton.
I pay $8 a month buying the weekend edition because I like the crossword (based in KL). The
rest of the NYT is crap, been downhill for years. The IHT was okay until it was merged out of
existence.
Otherwise, people who can't see Hillary's vicious streak are blind or stupid. She is the candidate
most likely to engage Russia. Lawrence Wilkerson had a great interview on her.
"… this was a failure of the media, whose job it is to shine a strong spotlight." When are
Americans going to learn that this is not true. The job of the media is to sell advertising to
the people who have the money to buy it. It's easier to do that if they don't tell people too
much about what's happening in the world. Tell them about the Kardashians or what people are saying
about Beyonce's latest video. Baseball games are OK. Good looking blonde announcers help. The
movie "Front Page" was fiction. Also, there's no Tooth Fairy.
With unprecedented access to insiders and whisteblowers, the New York Times is set to publish
a scathing indictment of the horse barn industry on the massive damage caused by closing the barn
doors after the horses have left.
"... One problem with reporters is that they aren't a separate profession with a standard code of ethics or standard form of credentials. And journalists should not be like lawyers, organized before the bar into a self-perpetuating and self-serving organization. That written, Frank Bruni is the great mysterious counterexample (what credentials? what qualifications? why?). ..."
"... Yet the lack of an organization with "teeth" keeps reporters on the defensive against the accommodationist editors, the advertisers, and the board of directors larded with the usual knuckleheads. Would that the Newspaper Guild had more power. ..."
"... The development of the M.B.A. and M.F.A. in the last thirty or so years attests to a degree as time served to get a better job. So the M.B.A. has given us endless talent-free bean counters trained in bad business practices and shoddy economics. The M.F.A. gives us endless first novels of a uniform middling quality and careers in burgeoning writing programs producing more of such snooze-filled novels. Among journalists, the masters in journalism has not proved to be protection or a stamp of quality, either. ..."
Readers liked
our last post on life under neoliberalism and the
salaried (or
professional (or "
20%") ) classes, and the question we posed: "How do these people live with themselves?" So here's
another one! This time, I'm going to compare and contrast life in the newsroom at the Las Vegas
Review-Journa and The New York Times .
Looking at these classes, credentials matter. (Again, I should caveat that these are my people;
I was raised the child of professors in America's Golden Age of higher education and shaped for that
sort of career myself; back in the day, when tenure was a realistic possibility for many, and academics
didn't have to hold outside fundraisers for their projects. And when there were careers.) For example,
attaining an M.D. is different from learning a skill; as a doctor, one takes the Hippocratic Oath.
CPAs have a required ethics exam. Even lawyers!
If economists ask themselves "What good is a degree?" the answer is "to
signal
a requirement for a higher salary!" (because it's not easy to rank the professions by the quality
of what they deliver). We as citizens might answer that professionals are in some ways amphibians:
They serve both private ends and preserve public goods, and the education for which they
are granted their credentials forms them for this service. For example, a doctor who prescribes medications
for his patients because Big Pharma takes him golfing is no doctor but corrupt; he's mixed up public
and private. He didn't follow his oath. Similarly, a reporter (see Terry Pratchett's wonderful
The Truth ) who only serves the interests of his publication's owner is no reporter but
corrupt; a public relations specialist, say. Or a servant.
The Las Vegas Review-Journal
First, let's look at an episode at the Las Vegas Review-Journal. As readers may remember, the
LVJR was purchased by Sheldon Adelson, international
gambling squillionaire,
publisher
, and campaign contributor (
Israel ). I won't use the word
"corrupt," but feel free to think it . Hilariously, Adelson did not disclose his purchase
- no problems with optics there! - and it was left to the LVJR reporting staff to treat the matter
as a story, and reveal their new owner.
Here's the story the LVJR broke:
After six days of uncertainty surrounding News + Media Capital Group LLC - a newly formed Delaware-domiciled
company backed by "undisclosed financial backers with expertise in the media industry" - the Review-Journal
on Wednesday confirmed that Adelson's son-in-law, Patrick Dumont, arranged the company's $140
million purchase of the newspaper on behalf of the chairman and CEO of Las Vegas Sands. …
Last week's sale saw News + Media pay around $38 million more than New Media Investment Group
paid in March for all of Stephens Media LLC, a national chain of eight daily newspapers that included
the Review-Journal.
It remains unclear if that inflated purchase price came with strings attached to the Adelsons.
"The way the Adelson family began its ownership of the Review-Journal - with secrecy, deception,
and one opaque announcement after another - does not inspire confidence," said media critic and
New York University professor Jay Rosen. "Possibly this rocky start could be overcome, but the
place to begin would have been with the public announcement of the purchase. In that announcement
there is nothing about preserving the independence of the Review-Journal newsroom from undue influence
by Sheldon Adelson, who as everyone knows is one of the most powerful people in the state and
in Republican politics nationwide.
"What creative measures were announced to insulate news coverage from the enormous wealth and
power of the Adelson family? None that I can see. And that does not inspire confidence," Rosen
said.
Whether Mr. Adelson will ultimately try to shape the paper's coverage remains to be seen. But
in the weeks since he has owned the paper, reporters said, several articles about the paper have
been heavily reviewed and edited to remove quotes that could be viewed as unfavorable to the new
owners.
An article about Mr. Hengel's resignation was trimmed before it was published from about 20
paragraphs to three and stripped of nearly all of Mr. Hengel's comments, according to people familiar
with the article. The article ran on Wednesday inside the paper. Similarly, an initial article
on the paper's website about the sale was edited after it was published to remove references to
the buyer's unknown identity.
Within five hours, the immediate inherent conflicts of Adelson ownership made themselves highly
apparent. The Review-Journal reported that Adelson had met with the ownership of Oakland Raiders
football team, hoping to lure them to Las Vegas and into a new "public/private"-funded $1 billion
domed stadium.
The new publisher has reviewed each stadium story since, and the stories have seen numerous
Moon-directed edits, several sources confirm. Those edits include removing key points of fact
on what may turn out to become a $600 million-plus public investment in a football stadium. At
least one stadium story was killed, as well, my sources confirm.
It is near impossible to overestimate the depth of the conflict involved in the Adelson
ownership. As a major player in the gaming industry in Las Vegas, Macau and Singapore, top
donor to Republican Party candidates and now the booster of a "public-private" funded football
stadium, Adelson-related stories have appeared in the R-J for years. For years, the paper has
"lawyered" each Adelson-related story, given the magnate's history of litigiousness. Now that
review is being done in house, with very different results.
Las Vegas Columnist Quits After Ban On Writing About Adelson
"If I can't do my job, if I can't hold the heavyweights in the community to account, then I'm
just treading water," the columnist, John L. Smith, told NPR in an interview. "It wasn't an easy
decision to make, but there was no other decision to make - at least in my mind."
Smith had written columns for the Review-Journal for nearly three decades, with a frequent
focus on Adelson, one of the most powerful figures in Nevada gambling and national Republican
politics. The billionaire sued Smith for libel over a passage in a 2005 book about power players
of Las Vegas.
Smith prevailed in court, but paying the fees helped bankrupt him. (NPR told that remarkable
story, including a rabbi's offer of a secret $200,000 payoff from Adelson for Smith to admit libel,
earlier this year.) Years later, the case has helped trigger the end of Smith's career at the
Review-Journal, as his new bosses cited it as a conflict of interest [!!!].
Now, all of the above is prelude to John L. Smith's resignation letter, of which he left a copy
on every desk in the LVJR news-room:
Clearly, John L. Smith is somebody who can live with himself.[1] And now we turn to the New York
Times.
Were Changes to Sanders Article 'Stealth Editing'?
An
article by Jennifer Steinhauer, published online, carried the headline "Bernie Sanders Scored
Victories for Years via Legislative Side Doors." It described the way the Vermont senator had
managed a significant number of legislative victories in Congress despite the political independence
that might have hindered him.
The article stayed in essentially that form for several hours online – with some very minor
tweaks - but in the late afternoon, Times editors made significant changes to its tone and content,
turning it from almost glowing to somewhat disparaging. The later headline
read : "Via Legislative Side Doors, Bernie Sanders Won Modest Victories."
And these two paragraphs were added:
But in his presidential campaign Mr. Sanders is trying to scale up those kinds of proposals
as a national agenda, and there is little to draw from his small-ball legislative approach
to suggest that he could succeed.
Mr. Sanders is suddenly promising not just a few stars here and there, but the moon and
a good part of the sun, from free college tuition paid for with giant tax hikes to a huge increase
in government health care, which has made even liberal Democrats skeptical.
(Readers will recognize that both paragraphs are heavily larded with Clinton campaign talking
points.) Here I'll skip Sullivan's summary of the obvious problems with these changes; in addition
to several readers, she links to
Medium ,
Matt Taibbi , and
Robert Reich , too. So, to the institutional issues:
I asked top editors at The Times, along with Ms. Steinhauer and her immediate editor, for response.
(The executive editor, Dean Baquet, also
responded to Erik Wemple of The Washington Post on Tuesday night, and Ms. Steinhauer responded
to the Rolling Stone piece. Both said, in essence, that the changes were routine efforts to add
context to an evolving story.)
[The reporter, Jennifer] Steinhauer, in a response to my email, suggested that I speak to editors
because "it was an editing decision."…
So, what happened here? Matt Purdy, a deputy executive editor, said that when senior editors
read the piece after it was published online, they thought it needed more perspective about whether
Mr. Sanders would be able to carry out his campaign agenda if he was elected president.
"I thought it should say more about his realistic chances" of doing that, Mr. Purdy told me.
As first published, he said, editors believed that the article "didn't approach that question."
"There was a feeling that the story wasn't written into this moment," Mr. Purdy said. After
the editing changes, he said, "it got to be a deeper story," with greater context.
Three editors told me in no uncertain terms that the editing changes had not been made in response
to complaints from the Clinton camp. Did the Clinton people even reach out?
"Not that I know of," Mr. Baquet told me in an email. The article's immediate editor, Michael
Tackett, agreed: "There's zero evidence of that."
("Not that I know of" and "There's zero evidence of that" are both what somebody with a sufficiently
cynical cast of mind might call non-denial denials.)
My take: The changes to this story were so substantive that a reader who saw the piece when
it first went up might come away with a very different sense of Mr. Sanders's legislative accomplishments
than one who saw it hours later. (The Sanders campaign shared the initial story on social media;
it's hard to imagine it would have done that if the edited version had appeared first.)
(Note that the Sanders campaign had distributed the URL to original Times article. So, when the
Times editors made their unannounced changes at the same URL , they pulled the rug out from
the Sanders campaign, who would hardly have distributed a link to an article that supported major
Clinton campaign talking points.
Comparing and Contrasting
From the reader's perspective, is there any substantive difference between what the Adelson-owned
LVJR did to its stories on Adelson, and what the Times did to its story on Sanders? Is there a substantive
difference between removing material unfavorable to the owner or suppressing stories unfavorable
to his business interests, and gratuitously inserting material egregiously favorable to a newspaper's
endorsed candidate? Especially when, in each case, the paper makes no mention of the change? I don't
think so.
However, from the newsroom's perspective, there's a very great difference indeed. The LVJR is
a small paper; John L. Smith is two or three degrees of separation at most from Adelson himself,
so its very clear who's giving direction and why. The New York Times is a very large paper; the reporter,
Jennifer] Steinhauer, was able to say "Talk to the editors," and Sullivan, the Public Editor, talked
to three of them. In other words, the social relations - we might even say the realities - at the
Journal-Review and the Times are very different; the Journal-Review's are so simple and clean that
"How can you live with yourself?" questions come to the fore under stress. Not so at the Times; the
institutional complexities make it possible for such questions to be masked or muffled. Corruption
is clear at the LVJR; but corruption scuttles away into the masthead at the Times.
However, if we ask ourselves what the future of the average newsroom - modulo algos - is likely
to be, I would imagine life will be a lot more like the LVJR than the NYT. I mean, who wants a masthead
cluttered with supernumeraries? It's going to be interesting to see what John L. Smith will do. Maybe
he'll start a blog?
NOTES
[1] Let me add my standard disclaimer: I don't want to come off as priggish. I don't have dependents,
and so my choices are simpler. If I had to support a family, especially in today's new normal, I
might put my head down and save ethics for the home. "Person must not do what person cannot do."
- Marge Piercy, Woman on the Edge of Time .
[2] Sullivan actually reads the Comments, and sometimes integrated them into her column.
Subscribed for years, then just on line, but becoming so slanted, cut the cord last year.
Worth exploring the various links between times and Clintons…
Probably web like Corp structure. Must be a new culture there, Think op K etc.
Wonder why circulation in decline… Maybe they'll turn into a blog… Or frog… Frogs are kind of
slimy…
One problem with reporters is that they aren't a separate profession with a standard code of
ethics or standard form of credentials. And journalists should not be like lawyers, organized
before the bar into a self-perpetuating and self-serving organization. That written, Frank Bruni
is the great mysterious counterexample (what credentials? what qualifications? why?).
Yet the lack of an organization with "teeth" keeps reporters on the defensive against the accommodationist
editors, the advertisers, and the board of directors larded with the usual knuckleheads. Would
that the Newspaper Guild had more power.
Further, the credentials in the U S of A are now distinctly murky. Your quote:
If economists ask themselves "What good is a degree?" the answer is "to signal a requirement for
a higher salary!"
The development of the M.B.A. and M.F.A. in the last thirty or so years attests to a degree
as time served to get a better job. So the M.B.A. has given us endless talent-free bean counters
trained in bad business practices and shoddy economics. The M.F.A. gives us endless first novels
of a uniform middling quality and careers in burgeoning writing programs producing more of such
snooze-filled novels. Among journalists, the masters in journalism has not proved to be protection
or a stamp of quality, either.
Yea lawyers so self-serving at protecting their own profession that the laws are deliberately
undecipherable.
I suppose what the journalists need is just what anyone who works for a living needs: a good
union to protect them and fight for them. Every worker should have one.
I have my doubts anyone gets an M.F.A. to signal a higher salary though. Are they like "I wanted
a higher salary so I figured I'd get the most economically worthless degree conceivable …" (even
a bachelors in liberal arts indicates you at least got a bachelors which is seen to one's credit
– but an M.F.A. – really does anyone care you have an advance degree in something with no economic
value?). I think people do the M.F.A. for love (or else pretentiousness). But love may be no guarantee
of talent.
The story, as originally written, was based exclusively on verifiable facts. This is a great
weakness in a modern news story and so we decided to add in some speculation and thinly veiled
insults in order to bring it into line with contemporary journalistic standards. The job of
a modern journalist is not simply to report the facts, but also to help people decide what
to think about those facts…also we predict the future. Our critics have an outdated view of
what a responsible journalism looks like in today's hyper-competitive media environment.
How are the people without a family to support supposed to be courageous and do the right thing,
if most of the people around them don't because "they have a family to support". Or are they not
supposed to pick up anything at all from their social context? I don't think it usually works
this way. I'm all for heroes, I just don't think expecting ethical heroes to be the norm, if most
people are selling their souls to survive, and we even make excuses for them, is likely to produce
all that many.
And by the way from whom besides their coworkers etc., did they learn to compromise their principles
even if they don't have a family to support? Why maybe from their parents! Who afterall had to
do it "because they had family to support"! And round and round it goes. Yes I do believe we need
a social solution (ie don't let people and their families fall into poverty and/or unemployment
so easily and they won't be so eager to do anything to keep a job. Although some people seem attached
to their jobs for irrational reasons like prestige rather than just the nuts and bolts of needing
a means to pay their bills).
Guaranteed survival is a radical proposal though when the ENTIRE economic system is premised
on relying on the threat of starvation and homelessness to get people to do what it wants (and
that includes ethically indifferent as well as entirely unethical things). I just don't think
the "get out of ethics free" cards (because you have a family etc.) help anything though.
What was added to the Sander's story is mostly notable for it's complete absence of ANY actual
content. And that really makes one wonder why they added it. The added part is like: but but ..
Sanders success doesn't guarantee he will be good at achieving things as President. Yes and it
doesn't guarantee he won't either! But either Hillary or Sanders will face congress and anyone
who took high school civics knows that. That additions are like: NEWSFLASH: FUTURE IS UNPREDICTABLE!!!
Uh that's not adding any news to the world at all. Might as well just add a tiny disclaimer: past
performance is no guarantee of future results like the investments have.
"... Shorter Heilbroner: capitalism requires that non-capitalists sell their labor as a condition of survival. The capitalist can exert power by denying access to work, hence income, hence survival. The state has "brute force" when capitalists control resources (recall that a lot of what is now private, such as common pasturelands, were once communal property) and in modern times, when social safety nets are weak. This is not a given under capitalism, but it is certainly the preferred order among Western elites. ..."
"... For Varoufakis, the encounter with Schäuble signaled that neoliberal economic managers no longer even pretended to support the principle of democracy. As a result, he argued, Greece was facing dogmatic enforcement of an austerity program whose effects would likely preclude it recovering sufficiently to repay its debts. And more broadly, the future of European capitalism was in growing jeopardy amid rising electoral discontent. ..."
"... *Varoufakis's new book, "And the Weak Suffer What They Must? Europe's Crisis and America's Future" was released on April 12. ..."
"... "It is the brute force of the state that ensures compliance with the rules of capitalism." In fact, it is the hidden coercion of the market that forces compliance, which is why neoliberals fetishize markets. ..."
"... I think we're talking about complementary, cycling phases in the exertion of power. Once the market is set up, its rules are coercive. But setting up the market - e.g. foreclosing land >>> peasants become free labor - require state coercion (+ various assorted ideological sanctifications, some of which may refer to the market). And, keeping players operating by the rules, while at the same time bending them in favor of some players, requires the state. ..."
"... In response to the dogged, stupid insistence on the part of the Right to insist that the state is a freestanding leviathan screwing up the market utopia, it's important to point to ways in which the state is an instrument of capital. This gets into trudging through arguments about who's controlling what, the independence of bureaucracies and such. But that's better than the gobsmacking naivite that the Right, always shouting about unfettering us from the state that they in fact rely on, would have us fall into. ..."
"... "The Athenians offer the Melians an ultimatum: surrender and pay tribute to Athens, or be destroyed. The Athenians do not wish to argue over the morality of the situation, because in practice might makes right (or, in their own words, "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must"[3]). ..."
"... "The Melians argue that they are a neutral city and not an enemy, so Athens has no need to conquer them. The Athenians counter that if they accept Melos' neutrality and independence, they would look weak: people would think they spared Melos because they were not strong enough to conquer it. ..."
"... "The Melians argue that an invasion will alarm the other neutral Greek states, who will become hostile to Athens for fear of being invaded themselves. The Athenians counter that the Greek states on the mainland are unlikely to act this way. It is the independent island states and the disgruntled subjects that Athens has already conquered that are more likely to take up arms against Athens. ..."
"... "The Melians argue that it would be shameful and cowardly of them to submit without a fight. The Athenians counter that the stakes are too high for the Melians to worry about shame." ..."
"... Now, the Mytilenian situation is not a perfect parallel–real historical events never are–but they saw with rather clear eyes the true nature of these broadly based alliances, namely that there is actually someone in charge, and that someone will use their position to benefit themselves at others' expense. As the Myt. ambassador shows, it is incumbent upon the lesser parties to recognize the position they are in and antagonize where needed. ..."
"... I like how the word democracy is used over and over without the obvious necessity of coupling a mechanism for power with democracy. That mechanism, for starters, is voting. There is no democracy without the decision making process that has been developed since the ancient Greeks called voting. And the accepted final decision is when a majority of the people deciding is achieved. The rules of the decision making process, written laws prescribing the limits of acceptable policy making, are the founding principles, the constituting formulas for running the social order with the voice of the people provided with input into the governing of the social order. ..."
"... In Australia, voting is a duty, not a right. It's mandatory and you are fined if you don't vote. I found the caliber of political discourse way higher at my local Aussie pub (which has a vey wide cross section of people) than at any Manhattan gathering of supposedly highly educated professionals. ..."
"... But he [Varoufakis ] didn't begin to have the runway to persuade his opponents, and he thought the threat of a Grexit gave him far more bargaining leverage than he had. ..."
"... Varoufakis's big problem is that he can't let go of the dream of EU as the big European social understanding project. Frankly that has never existed beyond the minds of the academic elite that all talk virtually fluent english, and can do their thing anywhere with a net connection and a credit card terminal. The vast majority of the population of the European nations are tied to their place of living. Either by work, by language, by family, or a combination of the above. ..."
"... But nowadays in the neo-liberal era, that liberalism has been inverted. Not only have states been weakened by globalization, but the current neo-liberal doctrine makes the only legitimate function of the state the enforcement if the dictates of the "market", even to the point of creating markets in areas where there previously were none. The imperative is to privatize everything, including the very idea of the public sphere itself. ..."
"... Classical economics is no longer taught as its teachings would go directly against current ideas, they are hidden and forgotten on purpose. As Michael Hudson points out in "Killing The Host" the world would be a much better place if we remembered the classical economists distinction between "earned" and "unearned" income. ..."
Yves here. I've reframed this recap of a talk by Yanis Varoufakis at NYU as a challenge to neoliberalism,
not a challenge to economics, since its theme is the tension between modern economics (and indeed
many forms of capitalism) and democracy.
There are some points he made that he made that I quibble with. He says he was shocked when he
learned, early in his negotiations with the Wolfgang Schauble, that his counterparts took the position
that the will of the Greek people counted for very little. I know some readers may take umbrage,
but this was a fundamental failure on behalf of the Syriza side, not just Varoufakis, of what they
were up against. In fact, the Eurozone treaties that Greece has signed had the government explicitly
ceding certain aspects of national sovereignity to the Eurozone. In addition, as we pointed out at
the time, the ECB had the power to bring the Greek economy to its knees by cutting off liquidity
support to the Greek banks, and if anything, was predisposed to do so. From the ECB's perspective,
it had already stretched the rules of its supposedly temporary liquidity facilities to the breaking
point.
Mind you, I'm not saying the Trokia position was right or sound. Varoufakis clearly had the better
economic argument. But he didn't begin to have the runway to persuade his opponents, and he thought
the threat of a Grexit gave him far more bargaining leverage than he had. But Varoufakis' past writings
showed he was firmly convinced that this path would do Greece great harm, and Syriza didn't have
public support for that course of action either. Greece did have some bargaining chips, in that the
Eurocrats were keen to have Greece improve tax collections and the operations of government generally,
but it was clear given how the negotiations were framed that the two sides would remain at loggerheads,
eventually giving the Troika what it though was an adequate excuse to use brute force.
A second point Varoufakis made where I beg to differ is, as reported by Lynn Parramore, "It is
the brute force of the state that ensures compliance with the rules of capitalism." In fact, it is
the hidden coercion of the market that forces compliance, which is why neoliberals fetishize markets.
A major focus of the Robert Heilbroner book, Behind the Veil of Economics, is the contrast between
the source of discipline under feudalism versus under capitalism. Heilbroner argues it was the bailiff
and the lash, that lord would incarcerate and beat serf who didn't pull their weight. But the lord
had obligations to his serfs too, so this relationship was not as one-sided as it might seem. By
contrast, Heilbroner argues that the power structure under capitalism is far less obvious:
This negative form of power contrasts sharply with with that of the privileged elites in precapitalist
social formations. In these imperial kingdoms or feudal holdings, disciplinary power is exercised
by the direct use or display of coercive power. The social power of capital is of a different
kind….The capitalist may deny others access to his resources, but he may not force them to work
with him. Clearly, such power requires circumstances that make the withholding of access of critical
consequence. These circumstances can only arise if the general populace is unable to secure a
living unless it can gain access to privately owned resources or wealth…
The organization of production is generally regarded as a wholly "economic" activity, ignoring
the political function served by the wage-labor relationships in lieu of baliffs and senechals.
In a like fashion, the discharge of political authority is regarded as essentially separable from
the operation of the economic realm, ignoring the provision of the legal, military, and material
contributions without which the private sphere could not function properly or even exist. In this
way, the presence of the two realms, each responsible for part of the activities necessary for
the maintenance of the social formation, not only gives capitalism a structure entirely different
from that of any precapitalist society, but also establishes the basis for a problem that uniquely
preoccupies capitalism, namely, the appropriate role of the state vis-a-vis the sphere of production
and distribution.
Shorter Heilbroner: capitalism requires that non-capitalists sell their labor as a condition
of survival. The capitalist can exert power by denying access to work, hence income, hence survival.
The state has "brute force" when capitalists control resources (recall that a lot of what is now
private, such as common pasturelands, were once communal property) and in modern times, when social
safety nets are weak. This is not a given under capitalism, but it is certainly the preferred order
among Western elites.
Yanis Varoufakis' first meeting with the Troika of Greece's creditors revealed what he believes
is a perilous disdain among top economic decision-makers for the democratic process. The then-Finance
Minister arrived armed with tables and graphs to make what he believed was a self-evident case that
the austerity program imposed on Athens was untenable and unsustainable, and would therefore not
produce desirable results for Greece or for its creditors. As the representative of a leftist government
elected on a promise to restructure the austerity program, Varoufakis was aware of the need for a
moderate tone to alleviate fears that he was a wild-eyed radical, and he readily acknowledged the
need for continuity with terms agreed by the previous Greek administration. But he hoped to persuade
the Troika to balance those obligations with the desire of the Greek electorate for a sustainable
plan that offered them more than permanent penury.
According to Varoufakis, Wolfgang Schäuble, the formidable German finance minister, abruptly interrupted
his presentation, declaring, "Elections cannot be allowed to change the economic policies applied
to Greece."
For Varoufakis, the encounter with Schäuble signaled that neoliberal economic managers no
longer even pretended to support the principle of democracy. As a result, he argued, Greece was facing
dogmatic enforcement of an austerity program whose effects would likely preclude it recovering sufficiently
to repay its debts. And more broadly, the future of European capitalism was in growing jeopardy amid
rising electoral discontent.
Speaking Monday at New York City's New School on the future of capitalism and democracy, Varoufakis
distinguished between ancient Athenian democracy - which gave equal weight to the views expressed
by (admittedly only male) citizens regardless of the wealth they possessed - and its modern form.
The latter, he said, had historically been shaped by systems of economic inequality. The Magna Carta,
he noted, negotiated the rights of the barons to prevent the king from poaching their serfs - "a
social contract between lords and the monarch."
Eventually, those lords were replaced by merchants and industrialists, and later still, organized
labor demanded its own say. "The modern state emerged as a mechanism for regulation class conflict,"
he said. "That is liberal democracy."
The assumption that capitalism is innately linked to liberal democracy is of recent vintage, Varoufakis
contended. He noted that classical economic thinkers - Smith, Ricardo, Marx, and Schumpeter - all
focused on the process of the commoditization of everything, including human beings, a notion that
he suggested did not bode well for democratic practices. The ideological cover for this concept,
today, was "the illusion of apolitical, ahistorical, mathematized economics."
Economists see themselves as scientists who have no need for history - after all, aren't past
scientific models full of errors? But economics is not a science, Varoufakis explained. Unlike in
physics, where the latest textbook offers knowledge more advanced than its predecessors did, economists
seem to have a knack for ignoring past truths, a phenomenon particularly apparent in treatments of
capitalism.
Today's economic models not only can't deal with democracy, but they have become embedded in economic
behavior, influencing economic actors, policy makers, and elected officials. He warned that policies
derived from the impulse of orthodox economics to reduce human beings into elastic, mechanized inputs
threatened capitalism's future: It destroys human creativity and freedom, which (among other things)
generates new ideas and technologies that drive productivity and creates profits for capital.
Paradoxes abound: the more capitalism succeeds in commodifying human beings, the worse things
become for capitalism - powerless and poor, their buying power is degraded, and with it, aggregate
demand.
And the failure to respond to human need expressed through democratic politics - as he experienced
in his dealings with the Troika - threatens to spur citizen rebellions against the system.
Varoufakis cited economist Kenneth Arrow - whose impossibility theorem (also known as social-choice
theory) shows the impossibility of fully determining a common will while using a set of fair and
democratic procedures- to argue that democracy, messy it may be, remains the best path. Edicts from
technocrats, no matter how smart and well-meaning, will not reflect the interests of the people.
"Democracy is dialectic," explained Varoufakis, "a system for people who are not sure about what
they think. They are not sure about what is good for society." They argue, debate, and take from
each other's positions to modify their own.
But capitalism hasn't always worked well with democracy. Just as the notion of hell was essential
to achieving obedience to the tenets of Christianity in the middle ages, quipped Varoufakis, so it
is the brute force of the state that ensures compliance with the rules of capitalism.
The United States Constitution, he argued, was designed to keep the poor away from the levers
of power, while legitimizing the system through their participation. "Democracy was to be used in
name in order to be breached in substance," he said, and served to keep capitalism out of crisis
without having to really give the poor much power.
Crises came anyway. The Great Depression sufficiently shocked elites into creating the Bretton
Woods system, an international financial system predicated on an imperial American role that, together
with the Marshall Plan, laid the foundation of postwar capitalist expansion. But the golden era of
capitalism didn't last. As U.S. hegemony declined, cracks in the system appeared and widened. Global
financial markets became imbalanced and storms of mounting amplitude followed. Eventually, deregulation
and financialization turned corporations like GM into "financial companies that produce a few cars
on the side." The Great Recession, as Varoufakis saw it, has signaled citizens that their economies
are not functioning, and neither are their political systems.
"The world we live in is rudderless, in a slow-burning recession," he said, referring what some
have called 'secular stagnation.' Varoufakis rejected further lending to Greece if the current austerity
program cannot be modified or reversed. Continued austerity makes it impossible for Greece to grow,
which means that paying off new debts would only be possible through further austerity and cuts in
public budgets, which will drive the economy deeper into recession. For Varoufakis, this counterproductive
policy ignores lessons from Europe's recovery after World War II, including forgiving German debt
in 1953.
The Eurozone remains dominated by policies that make debt repayment, rather than growth, the central
focus of policy makers. For Varoufakis, this underscores the bankrupt nature of much current economic
thinking, ignoring alternative analyses of the crisis and alternative ideas for addressing it, including
both debt relief and fiscal stimulus rather than austerity.
Varoufakis argued that blocking of sensible economic policy feeds the electoral success of new,
left parties in Greece and Spain, but also the rise of authoritarian right-wing movements in a worrisome
echo of the 1930s. This polarization also can be seen in the United States, with the electoral success
of Bernie Sanders but also Donald Trump. And if decision-making power continues to moves into "democracy-free
zones" such as the European Union or private corporations, the more polarized the political future
appears, with attendant opportunities and risks.
In a burst of pop culture flair, Varoufakis predicted that when machines have passed the Turing
Test, when you can no longer tell if the person on the phone is a human or a computer, and when 3-D
printers can spit out whatever object you need, the logic of capitalism will break down. "At this
stage," he warned, "humanity will face a juncture." Either we end up with a Star Trek-like utopia
where we harness technology and use its wealth-producing capacity for the common good, or we get
The Matrix, a dystopia in which the miserable masses have their energy sucked out of them by unseen
forces and are fed illusions to keep them quiet. Eventually even the elites will become servants
to the machine.
The antidote to that outcome, Varoufakis argued, is a robust democracy in the Athenian vein, one
that reflects the voices of and serves all the people, whether they have money or not.
*Varoufakis's new book, "And the Weak Suffer What They Must? Europe's Crisis and America's
Future" was released on April 12.
As long as sociopaths are allowed to infiltrate the leadership of societies bigger than ancient
Athens … there will be no common good. As Varoufakis points out, there has to be a dialectic between
leaders and citizens, so that the leaders can embody the common good. Sociopaths have no desire
to accomplish that goal. This is why in ancient times, Athens was weakened by Spartan opposition
(with Persian assistance) and supplanted by Macedon, and eventually Rome. Small scale societies
of any type, Athenian or Spartan, couldn't compete ultimately with large monarchies. Rome was
undone by its own success, and had to revert to a monarchy in everything but name. Large scale
society tends toward monarchy and autocracy.
The US federal republic, with functioning states, counties and municipalities is an attempt
to get the best of all scales. And representative election is an attempt at this dialectic. Direct
democracy is not an option even with the Internet … it would be mob rule.
It can be argued that the Athenians were quite attentive to the danger of elite/sometimes sociopathic
leadership.
They seem to have mastered the politics of using the knowledge of experts without turning over
the management of their city-state to these same individuals.
Unfortunately the modern left in the U.S. seems quite content with turning the power of the
national state over to salaried intellectuals who rule in the name of actual citizens.
The left has no political theory of the State which they could offer as an alternative democratic
political system– because of their apparent irrational ideological fear of a decentralization
which could potentially culminate in more direct democratic rule.
Is the basis of such fear the fact the much of the salaried left(an influential part of the
top 20%) is not interested in genuine democratic rule(they distrust the proles as much as the
right)– but only their rule?
When you've got a big rock stuck in your garden and you want to get rid of it, you need to
loosen it first. That means digging and pushing it many times. At first, nothing moves, then it
wiggles and finally rolls.
I saw Varoufakis as the one giving the first push that shows no progress. I was hoping to see
a little bit of wiggling. Unfortunately, he did not get there. That rock is really entrenched.
It would seem that he saw himself as the one getting the rock out. I'm not surprised. Most
men who get to those positions of power have to believe in their aptitudes to get there. If not,
they would not make it there.
"It is the brute force of the state that ensures compliance with the rules of capitalism."
In fact, it is the hidden coercion of the market that forces compliance, which is why neoliberals
fetishize markets.
I think we're talking about complementary, cycling phases in the exertion of power. Once
the market is set up, its rules are coercive. But setting up the market - e.g. foreclosing land
>>> peasants become free labor - require state coercion (+ various assorted ideological sanctifications,
some of which may refer to the market). And, keeping players operating by the rules, while at
the same time bending them in favor of some players, requires the state.
In response to the dogged, stupid insistence on the part of the Right to insist that the
state is a freestanding leviathan screwing up the market utopia, it's important to point to ways
in which the state is an instrument of capital. This gets into trudging through arguments about
who's controlling what, the independence of bureaucracies and such. But that's better than the
gobsmacking naivite that the Right, always shouting about unfettering us from the state that they
in fact rely on, would have us fall into.
What was Varoufakis facing? He's talking with gummint reps who try to integrate oodles
of biz interests, with the banks interests coming first since they are most directly vulnerable.
But in turn the banks, while selfstanding in the sense that they worry about their loans, also
reflect interests that are not only strictly financial, but also the financialized representation
of other sectors' interests.
*Varoufakis's new book, "And the Weak Suffer What They Must? Europe's Crisis and America's
Future" was released on April 12.
This quote is a translation of what is referred to as "The Melian Dialogue" from Thucydides.
Thucydides might have invented the quote for dramatic effect. I recall thinking and commenting
to several folks as the "negotiations" were ongoing that Varoufakis must have chosen to ignore
it, since he would have studied this in secondary school.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melian_Dialogue
I fear the Melians' interpretation is proving all too true as we look at the debate over a
Brexit.
"The Athenians offer the Melians an ultimatum: surrender and pay tribute to Athens, or
be destroyed. The Athenians do not wish to argue over the morality of the situation, because in
practice might makes right (or, in their own words, "the strong do what they can and the weak
suffer what they must"[3]).
"The Melians argue that they are a neutral city and not an enemy, so Athens has no need
to conquer them. The Athenians counter that if they accept Melos' neutrality and independence,
they would look weak: people would think they spared Melos because they were not strong enough
to conquer it.
"The Melians argue that an invasion will alarm the other neutral Greek states, who will
become hostile to Athens for fear of being invaded themselves. The Athenians counter that the
Greek states on the mainland are unlikely to act this way. It is the independent island states
and the disgruntled subjects that Athens has already conquered that are more likely to take up
arms against Athens.
"The Melians argue that it would be shameful and cowardly of them to submit without a fight.
The Athenians counter that the stakes are too high for the Melians to worry about shame."
Then I would suggest to Yanis (and others) to read Thucydides' own parallel to the Melian situation,
namely the earlier revolt of Mytilene. The language of the Melian dialogue borrows directly from
(and in many cases inverts) the language of the intercourse between the Mytilenians and the Spartans
and the later debate at Athens over what to do about the revolt. It's also worth noting that Thuc.'s
typical pattern is to first present the ideal or better course of action then in a later parallel
show how things degenerate, so what happens with Mytilene is, to my mind, meant to be more instructive.
From bk. 3 par. 11, the Mytilenian ambassador to the Spartans, complaining about the imbalance
of power:
If we [i.e. the city states involved in the Persian Wars] had all still been independent,
we could have had more confidence in their [the Athenians'] not altering the state of affairs.
But with most of their allies subjected to them [c.f. the EU] and us being treated as equals,
it was natural for them to object to a situation where the majority had already given in and
we alone stood independent – all the more so since they were becoming stronger and stronger
[recall Germany prospered while southern Europe suffered] and we were losing whatever support
we had before. And in an alliance the only safe guarantee is an equality of mutual fear [!
– Grexit has to be a real threat, perhaps?]; for then the party that wants to break faith is
deterred by the thought that the odds will not be on his side.
Now, the Mytilenian situation is not a perfect parallel–real historical events never are–but
they saw with rather clear eyes the true nature of these broadly based alliances, namely that
there is actually someone in charge, and that someone will use their position to benefit themselves
at others' expense. As the Myt. ambassador shows, it is incumbent upon the lesser parties to recognize
the position they are in and antagonize where needed.
I like how the word democracy is used over and over without the obvious necessity of coupling
a mechanism for power with democracy. That mechanism, for starters, is voting. There is no democracy
without the decision making process that has been developed since the ancient Greeks called voting.
And the accepted final decision is when a majority of the people deciding is achieved. The rules
of the decision making process, written laws prescribing the limits of acceptable policy making,
are the founding principles, the constituting formulas for running the social order with the voice
of the people provided with input into the governing of the social order.
Voluntary abandonment of voting due to frustration over relative powerlessness does not provide
a solution to providing for democracy. There is no democracy without voting. Just as there is
no market without money. Or there is no money without debt. Voting is providing your individual
say so, your input which constitutes what we call democracy. You can't talk about democracy without
talking about elections. Varis is pointing out this self evident truth. If the elected officials
or an unelected Troika deny the need for the results of elections, placing a political party into
the offices of state power, by demanding that only the rules of economic power be observed and
the results of democractic elections be rendered useless in the face of the need to pay back loans,
we have a problem much larger than huge swathes of the citizenry abandoning electoral participation.
While voter apathy is one thing, the people who remain faithful to the rule of democracy are
betrayed when they participate in sustaining the social order by carrying out the ritual of voting,
the mechanism of democracy. With contempt after being elected displayed by the newly installed
political party in Greece or anywhere else for the citizenry who chose them, this is truly unsustainable,
politically and of course with the exact opposite outcome for the Troika's desired out comes.
Austerity will be a long term prospect if successful at all and more likely bring higher costs
due to societal disintegration, than the debt austerity is implemented to collect in the first
place.
The modern liberal state requires operating an actual faithful and regular democratic mechanism,
to ensure all of the other aspects of the social order, including the market or private sector
of the economy. To strip the citizenry of its citizenship and replacing it with no other other
purpose than to sell yourself for a price in order to survive and replace social relationships
with financial debts to the exclusion of all other claims, other social debts to family, community,
to strongly held personal religious beliefs that place you meaningfully into the larger universe,
leaves no reason to live but the enrichment of a faceless other, the wealthy ruling class. Of
course, this is nothing but an impossible life, and unsustainable policy, ticking like a real
time bomb because as a human being, there is only so much stress and pressure that can be endured.
In Australia, voting is a duty, not a right. It's mandatory and you are fined if you don't
vote. I found the caliber of political discourse way higher at my local Aussie pub (which has
a vey wide cross section of people) than at any Manhattan gathering of supposedly highly educated
professionals.
Didn't they also outlaw all kinds of rifles, assault, long guns, hunters scoped bolt action,
anything, to amazing effect? You have to vote and you can't be armed to the teeth! Participation
in democracy mitigates the need for arming yourself against a potential tyranny. People don't
need to be heavily armed, they need political power. We can't be heading for civil war in America
whenever our country is facing an unresolvable political or economic crisis.
there is only so much stress and pressure that can be endured.
Every 'four score and seven' or thereabouts, our country has hitched up its britches, looked
back at the previous eighty years and rewrote the algorithms for law making. Each period or basic
law rewriting had a prelude of great turbulence. The major pillars of a History of the United
States that anyone would care to write, would need to delineate Founding, Reconstruction, New
Deal and in a movement that arrived too early (or too late as it should have been part of the
new Deal) the Civil Rights movement. Each time the earth shaking prelude occurred, the rebuilding
after the earthquake caused reactions that were as hidebound and cruel as the Spanish Inquisition.
Founding left the nation with slavery, Reconstruction fostered Jim Crowism and The New Deal fostered
neoliberalism couched in the rhetoric of the epic journeys of the Cold Warrior as a reaction against
attempts to regulate the capitalist engine.
Taking a closer look at the New Deal what this observer sees is a Congress that was too lazy
to write laws and instead passed those duties over to the Executive branch. The Supreme Court
objected and well, the rest is history. Mind you, I am not in aligning myself with the archaic
views of justices who attempted to write laws based on the principles of Neo-Darwinistic social
evolutionary theory espoused by Herbert Spencer. However, I am saying those same justices, whatever
their theories were on evolution, did know how to read the Constitution of the United States and
clearly found that document forbade Congress to delegate powers to the executive branch merely
to play a politicized version of kick the can-down-the-street. Congress was merely attempting-during
the New Deal especially but ever after as well, to avoid controversy (a perennial favorite), shirk
its duty in writing laws that specify a problem and outline specific solutions (another favorite
pastime) and engage in 'sit down, sit down, you're rockin' the boat.'
The emergent, counter-revolutionary forces of the 'new' liberalism are ascendant everywhere
and we find our government, at the municipal, county, state and national level captured by a Naked
Capitalism that is tribal in its outlook, hell bent on confiscating all financial transactions,
all property, and forcing a review before itself, like the tyrants of ancient Greece, of every
attempt to finally renew a fresh purpose to law making. No spring revolution, no occupy resurgence,
no cries for reason, justice, or a drive for a restoration of the Bill of Rights, will be allowed
to survive. Any attempts to renew the dying flame of the original revolution (as in Martin Luther
King's passionate and powerful rhetoric) will be dealt with swiftly and concretely.
Prepare for the long winter of the New History of the United States of America.
"The modern liberal state requires operating an actual faithful and regular democratic mechanism,
to ensure all of the other aspects of the social order, including the market or private sector
of the economy. To strip the citizenry of its citizenship and replacing it with no other other
purpose than to sell yourself for a price in order to survive and replace social relationships
with financial debts to the exclusion of all other claims, other social debts to family, community,
to strongly held personal religious beliefs that place you meaningfully into the larger universe,
leaves no reason to live but the enrichment of a faceless other, the wealthy ruling class.
Of course, this is nothing but an impossible life, and unsustainable policy, ticking like a
real time bomb because as a human being, there is only so much stress and pressure that can
be endured."
Very well said!
We are seeing this disintegration here in the U.S. in the early 21st century. The assassinations
of the 1960s, the police-state violence at Kent State, etc., were shocking indeed. Yet, during
those turbulent times the illusion was maintained that we had an "actual democratic mechanism."
The Florida fiasco of 2000, where our unelected Supreme Court determined that the actual votes
cast, of actual citizens, was no longer the deciding factor in who would take over the highest
office in the U.S., killed this illusion. The carelessness of our sociopathic elites today, who
barely attempt to conceal how they are suppressing the rights of actual citizens to actually vote,
reveals the lesson they think they learned from Bush v. Gore in 2000.
I feel the elites are wrong on this: people didn't revolt in 2000, and they may not revolt
in 2016, but there is a breaking point somewhere and our sociopathic elites are
pushing us closer to that line every day.
youtube has songs by all kinds of singers, some more famous than others but so many that portray
the bullshit people have to live with everyday, from the Black Ghettos to the Appalachian Ghettos
and every nook and cranny of humanity, and everyone knows this is nowhere and no way to live.
We are held back by people with more power than we currently have that keep us living below the
standards of a decent, healthy, happy life.
But he [Varoufakis ] didn't begin to have the runway to persuade his opponents, and he
thought the threat of a Grexit gave him far more bargaining leverage than he had.
Didn't Varoufakis, not just Tsipras, but Varoufakis say – and repeat over and over – that Grexit
was absolutely off the table at the beginning of negotiations? If he was counting on the threat
of a Grexit for bargaining power, he sure went about it in a strange way.
Yes, I didn't get into the details, but that didn't help. But the strategy was widely described
as chicken, which implies what people in the market called "accidental" Grexit. So it looked as
if Varoufakis was playing as if Grexit were an option but Syriza would be able to tell voters
(from whom they had no mandate) that it was the other side's fault. It really did look like they
thought they could force the other side to make concessions. But they kept agreeing to stuff in
Brussels or Berlin (not just made up but the Trokia, this was remarks by Tsipras or Varoufakis
in public) and then within 24 hours they'd reverse themselves in public in Greece. This made everyone
increasing furious with them, particularly since the negotiations were becoming time consuming
and physically taxing.
This is a far deeper argument here than the last one I encountered! In a macroeconomics course
about 4-5 years ago, I found myself in the middle of a fervently-argued dialog on the 'Greek problem.'
The textbook, written from the voice of the IMF, presented the position of Germany and the
Eurozone. They needed (not wanted but needed), to get Greece to accept austerity and whatever
terms the Eurozone asked of them. Greece was threatening the German livelihood. This was simply
good, solid, basic macroeconomic theory.
Student-after-student wrote page-after-page on the unfairness of the Greek position and how
they simply need to be brought around. I was alone in challenging that explaining even with the
Eurozone agreements, a democratic nation still couldn't simply overrule the sovereign will of
another democratic nation.
But wait, what? This was baffling! What did I mean by 'sovereignty'? Surely, that didn't have
anything to do with the issue at stake here. The Greeks owed money and the money was due. For
Greece to balk on the agreement threatened the stronger Eurozone nations who had followed the
rules and had done what they were supposed to do.
I asked, "If there is no sovereignty issue, then why are the citizens of Greece protesting
in the streets right now?"
I went on to explain (because apparently there is some confusion as to the fundamental nature
of the EU itself) that t's not analogous to our United States. As a united nation-state, our individual
states have individual state's rights, but (as clarified in our civil war) these states are all
still subject to a single centralized Federal government. The European Union, on the other hand,
is not a single unified nation-state. The model is closer to that of a financial cooperative .
These financial agreements and trade treaties (including Schengen) produce claims against them,
but they don't determine domestic policy (nor should they).
While my instructor understood and appreciated my criticism, it clearly wasn't a mainstream
perception over here at that time.
Take that with a grain of salt though because I've also sat through discussions in favor of
resurrecting Adjustable Rate Mortgages as a way to pump new life into our economy. Fun stuff!
A bit more background is needed I believe. The bailouts of Greece in the form of loans forestalled
a default by Greece. In return for new loans to pay off foreign (Mostly French and German) banks,
the money borrowed from the IMF supplemented by EU and ECB monies was used to pay off these obligations.
There was a fair bit of kicking the can down the road until the loans to foreign banks were paid
off, then the memoranda started kicking in. The old loans from banks were contracted under sovereign
Greek law, while the new ones were contracted under UK law if I recall correctly. UK law is much
more strict. Both PASOK and New Democracy were filled with cronies, and patronage was rampant
along with theft and and tax evasion. This had been the case for much of the period from 1974
until SYRIZA was elected last year. Two useful books on the situation are
Despite my handle, I am not Greek, but I have lived in Europe for the past 38 years, the bulk
of it in Greece. I recall seeing ads in bank offices here in 2006-2007 offering mortgages at 3.95%
in Swiss Francs instead of the 7%+ that was the rate for mortgages denominated in Euros. I warned
everyone I knew that they should not opt for the lower rate unless they had a steady, secure revenue
stream in SFr.
Capitalists use force to make people labor for them all the time. In the South through the
30s it was common for capitalists to pay sheriffs to round up black men, sentence them to hard
labor, and essentially sell them to the local boss as laborers. This was part of the reason for
the great migration to northern cities. When workers form unions, historically capitalists have
had no compunction about sending in skull-crackers to break strikes. And of course people who
have "no alternative" but to sell their labor only lack the alternative of theft because the police
stand by guaranteeing the "property rights" of absentee owners and wealth hoarders. Peasant farmers
were pushed off the commons and their historical lands (where they could support themselves) by
force. Overseas markets were only expanded through military force and colonialism. This was the
explicit aim of the first corporations.
I am not sure the Star Trek analogy is a good one. The later spinoff years had some fairly
mean captains like Janeway and Sisko who tended to prefer to blow things to get there way instead
of negotiating. Overall I find Star Trek to be quite violent for a utopia(in it's later years).
There are all sorts of arms dealers, smugglers, warlords, the "Maquis" Movement, and all around
bad people like Michael Eddington, Luther Sloan, and Doc Zimmerman.
Varoufakis's big problem is that he can't let go of the dream of EU as the big European
social understanding project. Frankly that has never existed beyond the minds of the academic
elite that all talk virtually fluent english, and can do their thing anywhere with a net connection
and a credit card terminal. The vast majority of the population of the European nations are tied
to their place of living. Either by work, by language, by family, or a combination of the above.
I am not in a position to dispute your point beyond my anecdotal take from here in Greece over
the past 40 years. Many parents we have are unhappy about seeing their children go abroad to study
or work, and many students are keen to do so. The parents, nonetheless, pay us to help their children
jump through the hoops to get there at both the undergraduate level and graduate level. Virtually
all of them have at least three languages and often more at a high level of proficiency.
Many get full scholarships to top-tier US universities or fellowships at graduate schools in
the US and EU. Admittedly, my data are anecdotal.
Several former French students from many years ago are working for MSF and other aid organizations.
Others from Greece are working for the EU.
The Heilbroner quote is conventional and rather dated. Yes, capitalism depends on "free" labor.
But it emerged historically in tandem with the formation of the modern sovereign state, at first
in its absolutist form and later in its constitutional form. Yes, there is institutional differentiation
in modern capitalist societies between state and economy, but the two systems are thoroughly cross-implicated,
and capitalism would never have emerged without state backing. Polanyi covered this in his classic
book, refuting the 19th century classical liberal ideology that Heilbroner repeats. But nowadays
in the neo-liberal era, that liberalism has been inverted. Not only have states been weakened
by globalization, but the current neo-liberal doctrine makes the only legitimate function of the
state the enforcement if the dictates of the "market", even to the point of creating markets in
areas where there previously were none. The imperative is to privatize everything, including the
very idea of the public sphere itself.
Classical economics is no longer taught as its teachings would go directly against current
ideas, they are hidden and forgotten on purpose. As Michael Hudson points out in "Killing The
Host" the world would be a much better place if we remembered the classical economists distinction
between "earned" and "unearned" income.
"... The Democratic Party has not been a total slouch, offering policies friendly to health-care executives, entertainment moguls, and tech titans. In fact, financial support for Democrats among the 1 percent of the 1 percent has risen dramatically , more than trebling since 1980. ..."
"... It's not dispassionate analysis that causes Chuck Schumer to waffle on the carried-interest tax loophole, Hillary Clinton to argue for raising the cap on H-1B visas, or Maria Cantwell to rally support for the Export-Import Bank. The more rich people that a party attracts, the more that the party must do to stay attractive. ..."
"... In a world of Trump_vs_deep_state and Clintonism, Democrats would become the party of globalist-minded elites, both economic and cultural, ..."
"... Erstwhile neocons would go over to Democrats (as they are already promising to do), while doves and isolationists would stick with Republicans. Democrats would remain culturally liberal, while Republicans would remain culturally conservative. ..."
The Democratic Party has not been a total slouch, offering policies friendly to health-care executives,
entertainment moguls, and tech titans. In fact, financial support for Democrats among the 1 percent
of the 1 percent
has risen dramatically, more than trebling since 1980. Traditionally, though, the Republican
Party has been seen as the better friend to the wealthy, offering lower taxes, fewer business regulations,
generous defense contracts, increased global trade, high immigration, and resistance to organized
labor. It's been the buddy of homebuilders, oil barons, defense contractors, and other influential
business leaders.
Trump_vs_deep_state changes the equation. If homebuilders face workplace crackdowns on illegal hiring, their
costs go up. If defense contractors see a reduced U.S. military presence in Asia and Europe, their
income goes down. If companies that rely on outsourcing or on intellectual property rights see their
business model upended by discontinued trade agreements, they face a crisis. Sure, many rich people
hate Obamacare, but how big a deal is it compared to other things they want: more immigration, sustained
and expanding trade, continued defense commitments? Clintonism, by comparison, starts to look much
more appealing.
All good, say some Democrats. The more people that Trump_vs_deep_state scares away, the broader and more
powerful the liberal-left coalition will be. But nobody offers their support without expecting something
in return. It's not dispassionate analysis that causes Chuck Schumer to waffle on the carried-interest
tax loophole, Hillary Clinton to argue for raising the cap on H-1B visas, or Maria Cantwell to rally
support for the Export-Import Bank. The more rich people that a party attracts, the more that the
party must do to stay attractive.
In a world of Trump_vs_deep_state and Clintonism, Democrats would become the party of globalist-minded elites,
both economic and cultural, while Republicans would become the party of the working class. Democrats
would win backing from those who support expanded trade and immigration, while Republicans would
win the support of those who prefer less of both. Erstwhile neocons would go over to Democrats (as
they are
already promising to do), while doves and isolationists would stick with Republicans. Democrats
would remain culturally liberal, while Republicans would remain culturally conservative.
The combination of super-rich Democrats and poor Democrats would exacerbate internal party tensions,
but the party would probably resort to forms of appeasement that are already in use. To their rich
constituents, Democrats offer more trade, more immigration, and general globalism. To their non-rich
constituents, they offer the promise of social justice, which critics might call identity politics.
That's one reason why Democrats have devoted so much attention to issues such as transgender rights,
sexual assault on campus, racial disparities in criminal justice, and immigration reform. The causes
may be worthy-and they attract sincere advocates-but politically they're also useful. They don't
bother rich people.
In a popular piece that recently appeared in Foreign Affairs magazine, headlined, "The Future of
History", Francis Fukuyama pointed out that, despite widespread anger at Wall Street bailouts, there
has been no great upsurge of support for left-wing political parties. Fukuyama attributed this –
rightly, I believe – to a failure of ideas.
The 2008 financial crash revealed major flaws in the
neoliberal view of capitalism, and an objective view of the last 35 years shows that the neoliberal
model has not performed well relative to the previous 30 years. This is in terms of economic growth,
financial stability and social justice. But a credible progressive alternative has yet to take shape.
What should be the main outlines of such an alternative?
A progressive political economy must be based on a firm belief in capitalism – that is, on an
economic system in which most of the assets are privately owned and markets largely guide production
and distribute income. But it must also incorporate three defining progressive beliefs: the crucial
role of institutions; the need for state involvement in their design in order to resolve conflicting
interests and provide public goods; and social justice, defined as fairness, as an important measure
of a country's economic performance.
It was a great mistake of neoclassical economists not to see that capitalism is a socioeconomic
system and that institutions are an essential part of it. The recent financial crisis was made far
worse by profound institutional failures, such as the high level of leverage that banks were permitted
to have.
Empirical research has shown that four sets of institutions have a major impact on the performance
of firms and, therefore, on a country's economic growth. These include the institutions underpinning
its financial and labour markets, its corporate governance arrangements, its education and training
system and its national system of innovation (the network of public and private institutions that
initiate and diffuse new technologies).
Another defining belief of progressive thinking is that institutions do not evolve spontaneously,
as neoliberals believe. The state must be involved in their design and reform.
In the case of institutions underpinning labour and financial markets, as well as corporate governance,
the state must mediate conflicting interests. Likewise, a country's education and training system,
and its national system of innovation, are largely public goods, which have to be provided by the
state.
It should be clear that the role for the state that I have been describing is an enabling or market-supporting
one. It is not the command and control role promoted by traditional socialists or the minimalist
role beloved by neoliberals.
The other defining belief of progressive thinking rejects the neoliberal view that a country's
economic performance should be assessed solely in terms of gross domestic product (GDP) growth and
freedom. If one is concerned with a society's wellbeing, it is not possible to argue that a rich
country in which the top one percent holds most of the wealth is performing better than a slightly
less wealthy country in which prosperity is more widely shared.
Moreover, fairness is a better measure of social justice than equality. This is because it is
difficult to devise practical and effective policies to achieve equality in a market economy.
In addition, there is a real tradeoff between equality and economic growth, and egalitarianism
is not a popular policy even for many low-income people. In my experience, trade unions are much
more interested in wage differentials than in a simple policy of equal pay for all.
These are the core principles that I believe a new progressive political economy should embrace.
I also believe that Western countries that do not adopt this framework and instead cling to a neoliberal
political economy, will find it increasingly difficult to innovate and grow.
In the new global economy, which is awash with cheap labour, Western economies will not be able
to compete in a "race to the bottom", with firms seeking ever-cheaper labour, land and capital, with
governments seeking to attract them by deregulating and shrinking social benefits.
The only way Western economies will be able to compete and improve their standard of living is
by seeing themselves as being involved in a race to the top. That is, firms must improve their value
added through innovation in existing industries and by developing the capability to compete in new
and more sophisticated industries, where value added is generally higher.
Companies will be able to do this only if governments abandon the belief that they have no role
to play in the economy. In fact, the state has a key role to play in providing the conditions that
enable dynamic companies to innovate and grow.
"... ...In many ways, it is remarkable that candidates who speak against free trade the way Sanders and Trump have have had significant traction this primary election season. But the signs have been there over the past few years. Wendy Brown, a political scientist at the University of California, notes that the Occupy movement was among the first to point out the dangers of the neoliberal economic system. ..."
"... I expect there will be a struggle between the free market fundamentalists and a broader, vastly more numerous base spanning both blue and white collar working and middle classes. Inequality will be one driver but there will be others. We have to shake 18th century economics, 19th century industrialism and 20th century geopolitics - the forces that spawned globalism. These modes of organization are antiquated and no longer retain much utility. They were conceived during and designed for a much different world with a far smaller overall population, a surfeit of cheap resources and a far lower rate of consumption. ..."
Fortune magazine ponders whether neoliberalism in its home country - the United States - can
survive the November elections.
Neoliberalism ...is an economic principle. It refers to the belief that markets should be frictionless
and unfettered by things like regulation or organized labor. Neoliberalism has its roots in the Chicago
School of economics pioneered by Milton Friedman in the 1970s. The concept found its footing in the
1970s and 80s, with champions like Chile's Augusto Pinochet, Ronald Reagan, and Margaret Thatcher.
It then evolved into a basic economic outlook for major political parties in much of the Western
world. Neoliberalism's stature reached new heights in the 1990s, when President Bill Clinton signed
the North American Free Trade Agreement and British Prime Minister Tony Blair created the "New Labour"
movement, moving the Labour Party away from its trade union roots.
This is the world that British journalist Paul Mason addresses in his book Postcapitalism:
A Guide to Our Future, Mason ...argues that the current iteration of capitalism, neoliberalism -
prevalent mostly in western democracies - is sick and dying.
But the go-go 1990s feels like a distant memory today. And in his book, Mason suggests a way
forward, drawing on classical Marxist theory that's been updated for the information age.
Mason argues for what he calls a postcapitalist society. Such a system would include universal
basic income; a socialized finance system; increased collaborative work; and increased regulation
to prevent the growth of low-wage, low-growth jobs. Imagine if we could all enjoy the benefits that
sharing economy companies like Uber offer its participants but companies also paid enough taxes to
pay for programs that support those workers.
...So, how does all of this tie in to the 2016 presidential election? It starts, of course,
with Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, both of whom have channeled voters' frustration and anger with
an economic world that, they feel, has left them behind.
In an interview from London, Mason was quick to dismiss Trump, calling him "a showman and a charlatan
and a racist." He claims that the rise of Trump is proof that neoliberalism is broken. With people
left as adrift as they are, he says, "it's no surprise that an empty can rises like flotsam."
...In many ways, it is remarkable that candidates who speak against free trade the way Sanders
and Trump have have had significant traction this primary election season. But the signs have been
there over the past few years. Wendy Brown, a political scientist at the University of California,
notes that the Occupy movement was among the first to point out the dangers of the neoliberal economic
system.
Republicans, of course, would never go for Mason's suggestions; just this month, John Kasich called
for the "Uberization" of the federal government. Uber, with its limited rights and benefits for drivers,
is in many ways the poster child for the neoliberal dream.
Mason's book offers a stark portrait of a potential future in which inequality grows to unimaginable
heights, leading to social unrest. "I can see within a century the end of the market system as we
know it," Mason says.
That may sound a bit extreme. But in a world where more and more people feel like the economy
has flat out left them behind, it would be foolish to disregard what should come next.
I expect there will be a struggle between the free market fundamentalists and a broader, vastly
more numerous base spanning both blue and white collar working and middle classes. Inequality will
be one driver but there will be others. We have to shake 18th century economics, 19th century industrialism
and 20th century geopolitics - the forces that spawned globalism. These modes of organization are
antiquated and no longer retain much utility. They were conceived during and designed for a much
different world with a far smaller overall population, a surfeit of cheap resources and a far lower
rate of consumption.
We're running into walls, one after another, and these walls are boxing us in, eliminating or
narrowing options and choice. Our obsolete modes of organization, the foundations of neoliberalism
and globalism, have no settings to deal with overpopulation, over-consumption or climate change.
That much is apparent from the manner in which they're based on perpetual, exponential growth. On
a finite biosphere, our Spaceship Earth, the limits of growth are sharply defined and yet, instead
of organizing ourselves accordingly, we keep resorting to sleight of hand, parlour tricks, that lead
to deforestation, desertification, the collapse of major fisheries, the draining of our groundwater
resources - on and on and on.
What I fear most is that the failure of our leadership to acknowledge and respond to these
issues will lead to mass unrest and a population that's easy prey for the first charismatic despot
to come along and feed off their discontent. The fact is that happens more often than not and it
only makes a difficult situation enormously worse.
Thanks for that good post. I look
forward to reading Mason's book. In the UK they have Corbyn, in the US they have Sanders, when
are we going to produces a leader who actually talks about redistribution and fair taxation instead
of towing the neo-liberal line like Mulcair?
Within it is another link "Abundance" - another good read.
Technology may end up speeding-up the destruction of our current form of capitalism. Most don't
understand what's happening until it hits them in the face (like Uber and taxi cabs).
A guaranteed minimum income with corporations forced to pay their fair share of taxes is a
start. Looking forward to a "Star Trek world".
I just looked on Amazon, Kirby, and it's available but seems a bit pricey. You can get the ebook
for about $14. I'll wait until it shows up on Abebooks next year.
@ UU4077 - I did a post the other
day on Galbraith's "The End of Normal" that focused on the chapter dealing with "creative destruction."
This expands upon some of the points made in your links. Galbraith writes of, " new ways for the
information-processing device to perform tasks that used to be carried out by someone else for
money; new ways to kill off activity elsewhere; new ways to devalue somebody else's skill" as
the inevitable result of our rampaging technology.
It's almost never mentioned that Adam Smith,
in his 1776 "The Wealth of Nations," foresaw that the Ponzi scheme that today's capitalism has
become would have a shelf life of about 200-years. Give or take half a century it seems he was
right. From Wiki: "A central theme of the book is the desirable consequences of each person pursuing
self-interest in the marketplace. He theorized and observed that people trading in open markets
leads to production of the right quantities of commodities, division of labor, increasing wages,
and an upward spiral of economic growth. But Smith recognized a limit to economic growth. He predicted
that in the long run, population growth would push wages down, natural resources would become
increasingly scarce, and division of labor would approach the limits of its effectiveness."
After this period, Smith concluded civilization would enter a 'steady state economy' not because
it was particularly desirable or superior but because there would be no other option. It seems
ridiculous to even argue the point but we live on a finite world and the limits of this world
prescribe that the economy must be a subset of that environment. I think we may be on the verge
of discovering that immutable law of nature but possibly much too late.
"... Second, one would have to be extraordinarily naïve to believe that the neoliberal project has been about establishing 'free' markets in the first place, although this myth has been assiduously perpetrated by social democratic parties who, eager to disguise their own capitulation to neoliberalism, emphasize their opposition to the marketisation of all social relationships, even though no-one – except perhaps the followers of Ayn Rand – seriously imagines this is either possible or desirable. ..."
"... There are two foundational aspects of capitalism: the 'horizontal' competition between capitals and the 'vertical' conflict between labour and capital. The role of the capitalist state is to impose a dual social order determined by these two processes: over competing capitals so that market relations do not collapse into 'the war of all against all', and over the conflict between capital and labour so that it continues to be resolved in the interest of the former. Beyond this, states also have to establish 'general conditions of production', which individual competing capitals would be unwilling or unable to provide, including some basic level of technical infrastructure and welfare. These functions are mainly 'internal' to the territory of nation-states, but they must also represent the collective interests of the 'internal' capitalist class 'externally' in relation to other capitalist states and classes, up to and including the conduct of war. ..."
"... Joseph Schumpeter yielded to no-one in his admiration for the heroic entrepreneur, but also noted during the Second World War that, with the possible exception of the United States, the bourgeoisie was so incapable of self-rule that it required a non-bourgeois group as a 'master'. ..."
"... In the case of the UK the regime began, not with Margaret Thatcher's General Election victory in 1979, but around half-way through the preceding Labour Government of 1974–9 and it persists, with variations, to this day, whatever the bleating from Polly Toynbee and others on the liberal left about the supposedly fundamental differences between the two main parties. ..."
"... The answer is in the way in which neoliberalism has reconfigured politics.The necessary distance between the state and capital (or between state managers and capitalists) that Smith, Marx and Schumpeter from their different political perspectives all regarded is being essential for the health of the system, is being minimised. In particular, the regime adoption of timescales associated specifically with the profit-maximising drives of financial capital is important as it indicates the short-termism involved. Three factors are important in producing this tendency. ..."
"... Ironically, one reason for the rise of neoliberalism in the US was a paradoxical outcome of the successful demand for greater democratic accountability during the 1960s and 1970s. This led to the weakening of both congressional committees and party structures, and produced a new breed of 'entrepreneurial politicians' interested in highlighting issues popular with specific audiences which would provide them with a stable following. ..."
"... For all practical purposes then, members of the ruling class in the West are now united in accepting neoliberalism as the only viable way of organising capitalism as an economic system, but they are divided in relation to how capitalism should be organised as a social system. They may all be neoliberals now, but they are not all neoconservatives. ..."
"... Defence of the system is always the principle objective of the bourgeoisie, even at the expense of temporary system malfunction. In a situation where economic desperation was leading to mounting disorder, far-right parties would be brought into play to direct attention from the real source of social anguish onto already-identified scapegoats, no matter what price they exacted in terms of policy. ..."
The neoliberal era can be retrospectively identified as beginning with the
economic crisis of 1973, or, more precisely, with the strategic response of state managers and employers
to that crisis. Previous eras in the history of capitalism have tended to close with the onset of
further period of systemic crisis; 1973, for example, saw the end of the era of state capitalism
which began in 1929. The neoliberal era, however, has not only survived the crisis which began in
2007, but its characteristic features are, if anything, being further extended and embedded, rather
than reversed.
Yet, although neoliberalism has massively increased the wealth of the global capitalist
class, has it also restored the health of the system itself? The crisis which gave rise to neoliberalism
was, after all, caused by the end of the unprecedented period of growth which characterised the post-war
boom, and the consequent accelerating decline in the rate of profit, unimpeded by the countervailing
tendencies – above all arms spending – which had held it in check since the Second World War. These
levels of growth were never resumed, but it would be wrong to claim that capitalism experienced no
recovery after 1973. The boom from 1982 to 2007 was certainly uneven and punctuated by particularly
sharp financial crises and recessions in 1987, 1991, 1997 and 2000; but these were normal expressions
of the business cycle and only a misplaced fixation with using the unique and unrepeatable period
between 1948 and 1973 as a comparator could justify treating these as symptoms of crisis. When crisis
did return in 2007–8, it simply proved that neoliberalism was no more capable of permanently
preventing this than any other mode of capitalist regulation.
Neoliberalism does, however, represent a paradox for capitalism. Its relative success
as a ruling-class strategy, particularly in weakening the trade union movement and reducing the share
of profits going to labour, has helped to disguise that some aspects of this mode of regulation are
proving unintentionally detrimental to the system. Serving the interests of the rich is not the same
– or at least, not always the same – as serving the interests of capital and may, in certain circumstances,
be in contradiction to it. Simply doing what the rich want is unlikely to produce beneficial results
for the system as a whole, although it may help increase the wealth of individual capitalists. For
not only are capitalists generally uninterested in the broader social interest, which we might expect,
but they are also generally incapable of correctly assessing their own overall collective
class interests, which might seem more surprising – although as we shall see, it is a long-standing
phenomenon, observed by many of the great social theorists from late eighteenth century onwards.
As a result, capitalist states – or more precisely, their managers – have traditionally acted to
make such an assessment; but in the developed West at least, neoliberal regimes are increasingly
displaying an uncritical adherence to the short-term wishes of particular business interests. This
is not the only emergent problem: the increasingly narrow parameters of neoliberal politics, where
choice is restricted to 'social' rather than 'economic' issues, has encouraged the emergence of far-right
parties, usually fixated on questions of migration, which have proved enormously divisive in working-class
communities, but whose policies are in other respects by no means in the interests of capital.
The self-destructive nature of neoliberal capitalism has nothing necessarily to do
with the removal of restrictions on markets. The rise of neoliberalism made it fashionable to refer
to Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation, the assumption being that neoliberalism is in
the process of realising Polanyi's nightmare: reversing the second part of his 'double movement'
– the social reaction against markets – and unleashing the mechanisms that he saw as being so destructive
of society and nature.
Leaving aside the fact that capitalism was always capable of producing social atomization,
collective violence and environmental destruction, even in periods when the state was far more directly
involved in the mechanisms of production and exchange then it is now, there are two problems with
this position. First, rhetoric apart, capitalists no more favour untrammelled competition today than
they did when monopolies and cartels first appeared as aspects of the emerging system in the sixteenth
century. Second, one would have to be extraordinarily naïve to believe that the neoliberal project
has been about establishing 'free' markets in the first place, although this myth has been assiduously
perpetrated by social democratic parties who, eager to disguise their own capitulation to neoliberalism,
emphasize their opposition to the marketisation of all social relationships, even though no-one –
except perhaps the followers of Ayn Rand – seriously imagines this is either possible or desirable.
In what follows I will mainly draw on the experiences of the UK and the US, since these were the
first nation-states in which neoliberalism was imposed under democratic conditions – unlike Chile
or China, for example – and where it has in many respects gone furthest. To understand the real nature
of the difficulties inadvertently caused for capital by neoliberalism we have to begin with the role
of capitalist states 'in general'.
How did capitalist states operate before neoliberalism? There are two foundational
aspects of capitalism: the 'horizontal' competition between capitals and the 'vertical' conflict
between labour and capital. The role of the capitalist state is to impose a dual social order determined
by these two processes: over competing capitals so that market relations do not collapse into 'the
war of all against all', and over the conflict between capital and labour so that it continues to
be resolved in the interest of the former. Beyond this, states also have to establish 'general conditions
of production', which individual competing capitals would be unwilling or unable to provide, including
some basic level of technical infrastructure and welfare. These functions are mainly 'internal' to
the territory of nation-states, but they must also represent the collective interests of the 'internal'
capitalist class 'externally' in relation to other capitalist states and classes, up to and including
the conduct of war.
In order to maintain links to capital in all its multiple incarnations, the state must
partly mirror capital's fragmentation. As this suggests, not every action carried out by the state
need necessarily be in the direct collective interest of the ruling class – indeed, if it is to give
the appearance of adjudicating between different class and other interests then it is essential that
they are not, so long as these actions are ultimately subordinated to ruling class interests.
Nevertheless, the capitalist state has nevertheless tended not to be run by capitalists themselves.
Why not?
The earliest social theorists to concern themselves with the emergent capitalist system
– which they tended to refer to as 'commercial society' – were unambiguous in their assessment of
how narrow business interests were. Since Adam Smith is – quite unfairly – treated as the patron
saint of neoliberalism is may be worth reminding ourselves of his still-refreshingly candid views
about the capacity of business interests for deception and oppression, and their inability to see
beyond their own immediate interests. Nearly a century later in the 1860s, Smith's greatest successor,
Karl Marx, was able to point in Capital to the example of the British Factory Acts as an example
of how the state had to intervene to regulate the activities of capital in the face of initial opposition
from the capitalists themselves. Reflecting on the entire legislative episode, Marx noted the way
in which it took Parliamentary legislation to force capital to accept regulation of the length of
the working day. Indeed, the most irreconcilable positions were expressed not by employers but by
their ideologues, the most important of whom was Herbert Spencer, who saw – and here we can detect
the genuine ancestry of contemporary neoliberalism – the spectre of socialist slavery in any form
of state intervention.
The thesis concerning bourgeois incapacity was not only restricted to critical supporters
of capitalism like Smith or opponents like Marx. Joseph Schumpeter yielded to no-one in his admiration
for the heroic entrepreneur, but also noted during the Second World War that, with the possible exception
of the United States, the bourgeoisie was so incapable of self-rule that it required a non-bourgeois
group as a 'master'. Without the kind of constraints provided by this pre-capitalist framework,
the more sober instincts of the bourgeois would be overcome by the impulse towards what Schumpeter
called 'creative destruction'. The delegation of power to the state therefore exists because of the
inaptitude of the capitalist class compared to other ruling classes in history: feudal lords combine
an economic and political role; capitalists perform only the former – although the necessity for
capitalists to devote their time to the process of accumulation and their own multiple internal divisions
also militate against their functioning directly as a governing class.
Schumpeter was, however, too pessimistic: from the First World War in particular, the
pre-capitalist classes which had acted as the shepherds of capital were increasingly replaced by
state managers: the professional politicians and civil servants respectively responsible for the
legislative and executive wings of the state. At the most fundamental level, the common interest
between capitalists and state managers stems from their common class position: both are part of the
bourgeoisie. If we visualise the bourgeoisie as a series of concentric circles, then the capitalist
class as such (actual owners and controllers of capital) occupies the centre and a series of other
layers radiates outwards, with those closer to the periphery being progressively less directly connected
to the core economic activities of production, exploitation, and competition, and more involved with
those of the ideological, administrative, or technical aspects, which are nevertheless essential
to the reproduction of capitalism. The incomes that state managers are paid from state revenues ultimately
derive from the total social surplus value produced by the working class, as are the profits, interest,
and rent received by different types of private capitalist. And this applies not simply to the source
of their income but also to its level, since the relatively high levels of remuneration, security,
and prestige enjoyed by these officials depend on the continued exploitation of wage labour. At that
level the interests of state managers and capitalist are the same.
These groups have a shared ideological commitment to capitalism, but their particular
interests arise from distinct regions of the totality of capitalism, in its various national manifestations.
A shared background in institutions like schools, universities, and clubs helps to consolidate a
class consciousness that articulates these interests, but a more fundamental reason is that the activities
of states are subordinated to the accumulation of capital. In the British case, the state may not
do this as successfully as the capitalist class might wish, but that is an indication of the problems
of managing long-term relative decline, not that the state managers have different goals. Regardless
of their class origins, state managers and capitalists are drawn together into a series of mutually
supportive relationships. The former need the resources provided by individual national capitals,
principally through taxation and loans, in order to attend to the needs of the national capital as
a whole; the latter need specific policy initiatives to strengthen the competitive position of their
sector of the national capital within the global economy. There have nevertheless always been tensions,
above all the fear on the part of capitalists that states – which they regard as Weberian autonomous
entities with their own interests – will either restrict or abolish their right to private property.
What gives these fears plausibility is precisely the fact that state managers have both to facilitate
the process of capital accumulation and ameliorate its effects on the population and environment,
returning us to the Factory Acts and capitalist responses to them described by Marx in 1867.
Has the neoliberal era seen the capitalist class finally succeeding in 'binding Leviathan',
to quote the title of an early British neoliberal text by William Waldegrave? We need to be clear
that it is not the nature of capitalist states themselves that has changed: they still need to perform
the core functions described at the beginning of this section. There is no 'neoliberal state', but
there are 'neoliberal regimes'. In the case of the UK the regime began, not with Margaret Thatcher's
General Election victory in 1979, but around half-way through the preceding Labour Government of
1974–9 and it persists, with variations, to this day, whatever the bleating from Polly Toynbee and
others on the liberal left about the supposedly fundamental differences between the two main parties.
What has changed is that the relationship between neoliberal regimes and capital since
the 1970s has prevented states from acting effectively in the collective, long-term interest of capitalism.
Neoliberal regimes have increasingly abandoned any attempt to arrive at an overarching understanding
of what the conditions for growth might be, other than the supposed need for lowering taxation and
regulation and raising labour flexibility. Apart from these, the interests of the total national
capital is seen as an arithmetical aggregate of the interests of individual businesses, some of which,
to be sure, have rather more influence with governments than others. In so far as there is a 'strategic
view' it involves avoiding any policies which might incur corporate displeasure, however minor the
inconveniences they might involve for the corporations, which of course includes regulation. These
developments have, not unexpectedly, led to complete incomprehension among remaining Keynesians of
the liberal left such as Ha-Joon Chang and Will Hutton, but they are not beyond explanation. The
reason is not simply because of successful lobbying and PR on behalf of individual businesses or
industries, pernicious and pervasive though these increasingly sophisticated activities undoubtedly
are. But corporations have always done this: why are state managers now so predisposed to respond
positively to their efforts? The answer is in the way in which neoliberalism has reconfigured
politics.The necessary distance between the state and capital (or between state managers and capitalists)
that Smith, Marx and Schumpeter from their different political perspectives all regarded is being
essential for the health of the system, is being minimised. In particular, the regime adoption of
timescales associated specifically with the profit-maximising drives of financial capital is important
as it indicates the short-termism involved. Three factors are important in producing this tendency.
The first is the depoliticization of the political wing of the state managers through
the delegation of functions away from the government in office to ostensibly 'non-political' bodies,
the introduction ostensibly 'objective' assessments of the effectiveness of policy and imposition
of binding 'rules' which restrict the range of actions which politicians can take. In relation to
the latter in particular, each successive phase of the neoliberal experiment saw the incremental
abandonment of the repertoire of measures through which governments had traditionally influenced
economic activity, beginning with Geoffrey Howe's abandonment of exchange controls in 1979 and concluding
(to date) with Gordon Brown's transfer of the power to set interest rates from the Treasury to an
unelected committee of the Bank of England.
As a consequence of their heightened 'managerial' function, politicians have increasingly
become a professional caste whose life-world is increasingly remote from any other form of activity,
economic or otherwise, and therefore more autonomous, while simultaneously becoming more committed
to capitalist conceptions of the national interest, with business as an exemplar. Consequently, most
discussion of politics – in the developed world at least – is devoted to expending more or less informed
commentary and speculation on essentially meaningless exchanges within Parliaments and other supposedly
representative institutions. Debates therefore have the quality of a shadow play, an empty ritual
in which trivial or superficial differences are emphasised in order to give an impression of real
alternatives and justify the continuation of party competition. To understand why, we have to focus
on the weakening of the labor movement, since one of the inadvertent roles which it historically
played was to save capitalism from itself, not least by achieving reforms in relation to education,
health and welfare. These benefitted workers, of course, but also ensured that the reproduction of
the workforce and the conditions for capital accumulation more generally took place. In this respect
social democracy occupied a similar place to the pre-capitalist elites identified by Schumpeter as
necessary to rule on behalf of a congenitally incapable capitalist class. But with the weakening
of trade union power and the capitulation of social democracy to neoliberalism, there is currently
no social force capable of either playing this reformist role directly or by pressurizing non-social
democratic state managers into playing it.
The second factor, opposed to the depoliticization of politicians, is the politicization
of the non-political wing of the state managers: the civil servants. As the political parties became
less distinct from each other, the officials required to implement their increasingly similar policies
are required to turn themselves more completely into extensions of the parties themselves. In the
US, the politicization of the civil service has always been a more significant factor than in the
UK, but even there the neoliberal era saw a heightening of the existing tendency. The permeability
and lack of technocracy of the US state bureaucracy compared to the French or British may have some
advantages for capital, but generally hinders the separation of policy making from political considerations
and leads to the politically motivated choice of budget projections. These tendencies were exacerbated
by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 which further weakened the autonomous basis of the government
bureaucracy. In the UK, following hard on the heels of the United States as always, there has been
since 1979, and especially since 1997, a more generalised influx of private-sector appointees into
the civil service, to the point where it has been effectively subject to a corporate takeover. But
even in relation to the permanent home civil service, the expectation that senior civil servants
in particular will not attempt to point out the difficulties involved in governmental policies or
even consider alternative ways of delivering policies, but simply present arguments to justify them,
regardless of the empirical data.
The third and final factor in producing chronic short-termism in neoliberal regimes
is the de-politicization of the electorate. Except it is not so much de-politicization as abstention
by sections of the electorate who no longer have any parties for whom to vote. Many of those electors
still involved in casting their vote do so – appropriately enough – on a consumer model of political
choice, where participation is informed by media-driven perceptions of which result will be to their
immediate personal benefit. Unsurprisingly, the numbers prepared to carry out even this minimal level
of activity are declining. This can be reversed, as was demonstrated in the popular insurgency
for a Yes vote during the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, where 97 percent of population registered
to vote and 85 percent actually did; but under 'normal' conditions, those who vote are more likely
to belong to the middle-classes, who tend to have a more focused view of their material interests
and deploy more interventionist strategies for maintaining them than those bearing the brunt of austerity.
Ironically, one reason for the rise of neoliberalism in the US was a paradoxical outcome of the
successful demand for greater democratic accountability during the 1960s and 1970s. This led to the
weakening of both congressional committees and party structures, and produced a new breed of 'entrepreneurial
politicians' interested in highlighting issues popular with specific audiences which would provide
them with a stable following.
A model for 'returning power to the people' along these lines was built early on in
the neoliberal experiment, in the US. The most fully developed version can be found in California.
Since the mid-1970s, politics in the world's fourth biggest economy have been characterised by a
combination of falling voter participation among working class and minority groups, and a targeted
use of local referendums on 'propositions'. The latter have been designed to defend property values
by blocking integrated schooling and urban development, and by preventing progressive taxation. Proposition
13 was passed in 1978 and signalled the commencement of the neoliberal era in the US by capping taxes
on property, even though house values were rising. As a result, the burden of taxation fell disproportionately
on income tax, even though for most worker's salaries and wages were stagnant or falling – and even
increasing income tax requires a two thirds majority in both Houses of the State Legislature.
It is the self-interested behaviour of a mobilised middle-class that has brought California
to fiscal crisis in 2009, after which the usual remedies of cutting public services, including child
health care, were now being offered as a solution to the structural inability of the state to raise
the necessary levels of taxation. The paralysis of California may foreshadow the future of US politics
as a whole and, in turn, the US may foreshadow the future of politics in the rest of the world, a
development for which there are, unfortunately, historical precedents.
The entire neoliberal project was premised on the irreversibility of the process: the
abolition of regulatory mechanisms, dismantling of welfare programs, ratification of international
treaties for which there are no formal mechanisms allowing them to be either amended or annulled,
and so on – all these could be reversed, but it would require new legal and administrative structures
which would in turn require planning and a political will to do so which has not existed since the
beginning of the neoliberal era. For all practical purposes then, members of the ruling class
in the West are now united in accepting neoliberalism as the only viable way of organising capitalism
as an economic system, but they are divided in relation to how capitalism should be organised
as a social system. They may all be neoliberals now, but they are not all neoconservatives.
In the US both Democrats and Republicans are openly committed to capitalism, but there are also
real divisions of opinion between them concerning, for example, gay rights or environmental protection.
Electoral support for the far-right in these circumstances is based on the apparent
solutions it offers to what are now two successive waves of crisis, beginning respectively in 1973–4
and 2007–8, which have left the working class in the West increasingly fragmented and disorganised,
and susceptible to appeals to blood and nation as the only viable form of collectivism still available,
particularly in a context where any systemic alternative to capitalism – however false it may have
been – had apparently collapsed in 1989–91. The political implications are ominous. The increasing
interchangeability of political parties, discussed above gives the far-right an opening to appeal
to voters by positioning themselves as outside the consensus in ways which speak to popular appetites
for destruction fostered by capitalism itself.
The potential problem for the stability of the capitalist system is however less the
possibility of far-right parties themselves coming to power with a programme destructive to capitalist
needs, than their influence over the mainstream parties of the right, when the beliefs of their supporters
may inadvertently cause difficulty for the accumulation process. Take an important area of Republican
Party support in the US. Since the late sixties Republicans have been increasingly reliant on communities
of fundamentalist Christian believers, whose activism allows them to be mobilised for voting purposes.
But this religious core vote, or at any rate their leadership, naturally also demand the implementation
of policies in return for their support. The problem for the Republicans is not, however, only that
the extremism of fundamentalist Christianity may alienate the electoral 'middle-ground' on which
the results of American elections increasingly depend. What is perhaps interesting here is less the
consciously oppositional elements of right-wing populist ideology, which tend to be directed against
the socio-cultural views of one (liberal) wing of the ruling class, and more what I referred to earlier
as outcomes which might be unintentionally 'detrimental' to capital. In other words, politicians
may be constrained from undertaking policies which may be necessary for American capitalism, or be
forced into taking decisions which may harm it.
But it is not only religious belief which can cause difficulties for US capital; so
to can overt anti-migrant racism. One concrete example of this is the Tea Party-inspired Beason-Hammon
Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act – HB56 as it is usually known – which was passed by the
State legislature in June 2011, making it illegal not to carry immigration papers and preventing
anyone without documents from receiving any provisions from the state, including water supply. The
law was intended to prevent and reverse illegal immigration by Hispanics, but the effect was to cause
a mass departure from the many of the agricultural businesses which relied on these workers to form
the bulk of their labour force. But the effects went deeper. Before the laws introduced it was estimated
that 4.2 percent of the workforce or 95,000 people were undocumented but paying $130.3 million in
state and local taxes. Their departure from the state or withdrawal to the black economy threatened
to reduce the size of the local economy by $40 million. Moreover employers had to spend more money
on screening prospective employees, on HR staff to check paperwork, and on insuring for potential
legal liabilities from inadvertent breaches of the law. In an earlier era, social democratic reforms
were usually intended to enable the system as a whole to function more effectively for capitalists
and more equitably for the majority, however irreconcilable these aims may be in reality. But far-right
reforms of the type just discussed are not even intended to work in the interests of capitalists,
nor do they: they really embody irrational racist beliefs which take precedence over all else.
The British Conservative Party has encountered similar problems to the Republicans
in relation to Europe. The imperial nationalism unleashed by the Conservatives before 1997 in relation
to 'Europe', was not because the EU was in any sense hostile to neoliberalism, but as an ideological
diversion from the failure of neoliberalism to transform the fortunes of British capital. The nationalism
invoked for this purpose now places a major obstacle for British politicians and state managers who
want to pursue a strategy of greater European integration, however rational that may be from their
perspective. A 2013 British Chambers of Commerce poll of 4,387 companies showed only eighteen percent
agreeing that full withdrawal from the EU could have a positive impact, while a majority of sixty-four
percent supported remaining inside the EU while repatriating some powers: unsurprisingly, the real
source of anti-EU feeling is small business. The key beneficiary of the anti-European hysteria has
been UKIP and its success has in turn emboldened the right within the Conservative Party, even though
the policies associated with both are incoherent. But these contradictions may not matter in terms
of the political struggle for power. The narrowly-won Swiss referendum vote in 2014 to introduce
quotas on migrants from the EU, passed against the wishes of local capitalists and ruling classes
of Europe and potentially bringing retaliation from Brussels, gives a small indication of what might
follow.
If I am right that certain aspects of far-right politics are counter-productive in
relation to the needs of capital, it does not follow that the increased chaos consequent on the implementation
of these policies would necessarily be of benefit, even indirectly, to the left. Defence of the
system is always the principle objective of the bourgeoisie, even at the expense of temporary system
malfunction. In a situation where economic desperation was leading to mounting disorder, far-right
parties would be brought into play to direct attention from the real source of social anguish onto
already-identified scapegoats, no matter what price they exacted in terms of policy.
What we see emerging is a symbiotic relationship between one increasingly inadequate
regime response to the problems of capital accumulation and another increasingly extreme response
to the most irrational desires and prejudices produced by capital accumulation. In Descent,
the most recent novel by the Scottish science fiction author, Ken McLeod, the author imagines a situation
in the near future where the ruling classes of the world take coordinated legal and military action
in a passive revolution ('the Big Deal') to smash the dominance of financial capital, restore that
of industrial capital and essentially put an end to the neoliberal era. This aspect of the novel
is far more incredible than the alien encounters that occur elsewhere in its pages. Clearly, in situations
of absolute, immediate crisis, short-term emergency measures would be introduced in the same way
as the effective nationalisation of banks and other financial institutions took place in both the
US and UK during 2008. But these were minimal interventions to prevent outright collapse, save the
institutions (and the practices which brought them to the point of crisis in the first place) without
using them for any coherent strategic end, let alone any broader social purpose; and of course on
the basis that they would be re-privatised as soon as possible.
Let me clear what I am not saying. I am not suggesting that it should be the work of
socialists to propose solutions to the crisis of capitalism. It is always necessary to argue for
reforms, of course, but the idea that the application of Keynesian solutions would restore the Golden
Age of the post-war welfare state is simply illusionary and underestimates the extent to which those
years were the result of a unique set of circumstances. Booms will continue to occur, as they did
between 1982 and 2007, but the beneficiaries will become fewer and fewer. Consequently, I am not
predicting that developments discussed here mean that capitalism will simply collapse under the weight
of its own internal contradictions either. Scenarios of this type, from those of Rosa Luxemburg onwards,
have been proved false in the past and there is no reason to suppose that they will be any more accurate
in the future. Indeed, a collapse not brought about by the conscious intervention of the oppressed
and exploited would not be to their advantage in any case, but simply a step towards the barbarism
to which Marxists from Engels onwards have seen as the consequence of failing to achieve a socialist
society. And this is no mere slogan: the condition of central Africa and parts of the Middle East
today indicates the presence of actually existing barbarism as the daily reality for millions. Events
in the developed world are unlikely to take this form, at least until environmental catastrophe becomes
irreversible, but rather involve a gradual and, for all but the very poorest, almost imperceptible
worsening and coarsening on their conditions of life.
What I am suggesting is that neoliberalism as a strategy has almost been too successful
as a method of capitalist regulation. It has finally brought about the situation that Schumpeter
feared, where creative destruction has no limits or boundaries. Both Engels and Benjamin envisaged
capitalism as a runaway train heading for destruction. It appeared, within less than a decade of
the latter's suicide in 1940, that forces within capitalism itself were capable of 'pulling the hand
break'; it now appears that his initial intuition was right and that revolution is all stands in
the way of the disaster that otherwise awaits.
Neil Davidson lectures in Sociology with the School of Social and Political Sciences
at the University of Glasgow. He is the author of The Origins of Scottish Nationhood (2000), the
Deutscher-Prize winning Discovering the Scottish Revolution (2003), How Revolutionary Were the Bourgeois
Revolutions? and Holding Fast to an Image of the Past (2014). His latest book, We Cannot Escape History,
will be published in July. Davidson has co-edited and contributed to Alasdair MacIntyre's Engagement
with Marxism (2008), Neoliberal Scotland (2010) and The Longue Durée of the Far Right (2014). He
is in the editorial board of rs21. Davidson is a member of International Socialists Scotland and
a supporter of the Scottish Left Project.
"... Speaking of the US putting more troops in Europe near the Russian border, Paul notes that he doesn't think "they have strong evidence that the Russians are about to roll in tanks." Instead, a motivation for the military build-up, Paul says, is "stirring up troubles to justify more military expenditures." ..."
Speaking last week with host Scott Horton on the Scott Horton Show, three-time presidential candidate
and former Republican member of the US House of Representatives Ron Paul discussed the military-industrial
complex's role in US militarism across the world, including in Latin America and Europe.
After Horton introduced Paul as "the greatest American hero," Paul and Horton entered a fascinating
discussion of US foreign policy. Their wide-ranging discussion concerns matters including US intervention
in Iraq and Ukraine, a potential "Brexit" - exit of Great Britain from the European Union (EU), and
Paul's preference for free trade over international trade deals that Paul says put in place "managed
trade to serve the interests of some special interests."
Addressing the influence of the military-industrial complex, Paul comments in the interview on examples
in Europe and Latin America.
Speaking of the US putting more troops in Europe near the Russian border, Paul notes that he doesn't
think "they have strong evidence that the Russians are about to roll in tanks." Instead, a motivation
for the military build-up, Paul says, is "stirring up troubles to justify more military expenditures."
Paul also comments on the military-industrial complex when he discusses how a dispute over which
company would profit from its helicopters being used in the US government's "Plan Columbia" was resolved
by sending both companies' helicopters to Latin America for use in the drug war effort.
Listen through the end of the interview and you will hear Horton's strong praise for the Ron Paul
Institute for Peace and Prosperity (RPI). Paul founded RPI in 2013 after retiring from the House
of Representatives. Says Horton:
Check out the Ron Paul Institute at ronpaulinstitute.org.
They put out great antiwar propaganda all day long seven days a week - the great Dan McAdams,
Dr. Paul, Adam Dick and others there at the Ron Paul Institute, ronpaulinstitute.org.
"... Rather than dispute Eric with tedious "facts" and "not finding WMD", I'll agree with him. Insofar as law is at all meaningful in this case, law was followed - since law in this case is pretty much whatever the Security Council decides that it is. This only goes to show that the UN is a dysfunctional institution that is incapable of preventing aggressive war and other war crimes when they are carried out by the U.S. and do not directly affect other Security Council members. That the UN then went on to green light the Libya "humanitarian intervention" on its R2P principles only confirms that the UN now justifies wars, it doesn't prevent them. ..."
"... And the fact that the invasion of Iraq and the deaths of something like a million people and the associated tortures and murders were all legal under U.S. law only shows that U.S. law protects killers in authority, as we all knew. ..."
"... Given enough time, I would not be surprised to see the Erics of the world successful in relitigating the Iraq War. We already have Clinton as the nominee of the party whose members were supposedly so upset by Bush's war and Clinton's regret over her vote was obviously for political reasons. Eric does a good job with the bureaucratic gobbledygook that impresses DC types so much when it gives them permission to bomb people. Polls permitting, I'm sure Clinton would leap at the opportunity to reassert American global leadership in the delivery of high explosives. ..."
"... Give it another few years or maybe a decade and Eric will be mainstream. We will kick the Iraq syndrome just like the Gulf War kicked the Vietnam syndrome. We just need to find a crappy little country whose bombing can be portrayed as a success. Clinton might think Libya should qualify if we just went back in. ..."
Again, it's Krauthammer Day. Today is the unlucky thirteenth anniversary of the day when the prominent
pundit announced:
Hans Blix had five months to find weapons. He found nothing. We've had five weeks. Come back to
me in five months. If we haven't found any, we will have a credibility problem.
As of today, we've had five months and five months and five months and five months and five months
and five months and five months and five months and five months and five months and five months and
five months and five months and five months and five months and five months and five months and five
months and five months and five months and five months and five months and five months and five months
and five months and five months and five months and five months and five months and five months and
five months, and another month on top of that of Charles Krauthammer's credibility problem. He's
still opining.
BruceJ 04.22.16 at 7:23 pm
In general, Of course Krauthammer is still punditing away. Being a conservative means never
having say you're sorry to be held to account.
@1: In large part, they were lied to, just like the rest of us. They SHOULD have demanded more
details, and they should have listened to the people on the ground, but they were stampeded
just like most of the country was.
@2: The NYT is to Hillary as Gamergate is to Brianna Wu.
Yes Hillary is a DLC hawk, but if the NYT said she was wearing a white dress, I'd presume she
was wearing a black one.
@3: It's not as if any of those recommendations would fail under a GOP president.
3 SCOTUS Appointments.
THAT is what the next president is likely to have. As much as I love and cherish the Notorious
RBG, she's in her 80's. Kennedy will be in his 80's. Presidente Francisco Scalia is still dead
and needs replacing.
Who do you want appointing their replacements: Hillary, Ted or Donald?
Always, always remember, the lesser of two evils is the LESSER one, and we already went
through that nonsense about "Maybe getting a terrible president in will wake up the sheeple"
crap. That's why we're discussing the goddamn Iraq war right now.
Anyone who thinks that a President Gore would have invaded Iraq shout out.
[crickets]
Thought so.
Sandwichman 04.22.16 at 10:52 pm
A Krauthammer unit is five months. A Friedman unit is six months. Is there a pundit unit
for any other numbers of months?
kidneystones 04.23.16 at 2:06 am
Thanks for the reminder, Henry. I see a very different future. Trump
wins the WH with Reagan-like numbers. HRC retires or returns to the Senate. Dems support
Trump, their natural ally, making deals on security and trade. The Dems may well take back the
Senate, but not the House, I suspect.
America First is rampant. Patriotism is in, as is Buy America. Cash is repatriated as
income taxes on the richest rise, and corporate taxes fall. Ted Cruz paints himself into a
pink corner raving about trans-gender toilets while Americans concentrate on the busy tasks of
rebuilding public infrastructure on time and under budget. (dream on). Krauthammer joins the
National Review to grumble and Bill Kristol shrieks about the need to do more regime-changing
and nation building.
All manner of regional mayhem erupts as America compels allies to re-arm. Putin solidifies
his already considerable power and a number of European nations elect openly fascist
governments, France, Holland, and Norway possibly among them.
If you're old enough to remember Reagan, Kirkpatrick, Baker et al, you know what's coming.
The sole silver lining being that Trump is almost certain to offer non-documented workers both
a path to citizenship and jobs building the wall that all Republicans and many Democrats want
to see built asap.
Please read the interview with Sy Hersh on Salon then come
and talk about how clever a foreign policy wonk she is. If you liked Kissinger's Nixon then
you'll love his President Hillary.
Ben Alpers 04.23.16 at 5:55 pm
To state the obvious: many common criticisms of Hillary Clinton are unfair; many others
are fair. The criticism that she is a hawk who voted for and supported the Iraq War is
abundantly fair. While we have now come to the thirteenth anniversary of Krauthammer's
idiocy quoted above, we're still about a couple months away from the second anniversary of
Hillary Clinton finally admitting that she got Iraq wrong in her memoir Hard Choices, which
came out in June 2014. And her recent AIPAC speech is a good place to see how her hawkish
tendencies might affect her foreign policy choices going forward.
That said, if she gets the nomination, I'll firmly be in the "hold my nose and vote for
Clinton" camp. The alternative offered by the GOP will be much worse. And although Trump
got Iraq right, I have even less confidence in his foreign policy decisions that I do in
Hillary Clinton's.
That said, if she gets the nomination, I'll firmly be in the "hold my nose and vote for
Clinton" camp. The alternative offered by the GOP will be much worse.
That's our good cop. bad cop political setup. Brought to us by rich fucks who don't give a
shit about any of us.
And the best part? When we win, all we win is that it gets worse more slowly.
Rich Puchalsky 04.24.16 at 2:26 am
Rather than dispute Eric with tedious "facts" and "not finding WMD", I'll agree with
him. Insofar as law is at all meaningful in this case, law was followed - since law in this
case is pretty much whatever the Security Council decides that it is. This only goes to show
that the UN is a dysfunctional institution that is incapable of preventing aggressive war and
other war crimes when they are carried out by the U.S. and do not directly affect other
Security Council members. That the UN then went on to green light the Libya "humanitarian
intervention" on its R2P principles only confirms that the UN now justifies wars, it doesn't
prevent them.
And the fact that the invasion of Iraq and the deaths of something like a million people
and the associated tortures and murders were all legal under U.S. law only shows that U.S. law
protects killers in authority, as we all knew.
Asteele 04.24.16 at 4:10 am
Oh great a crank with a web-site, check this out:
"President Bush handed OIF to President Obama having resolved the festering problem of
Saddam's noncompliant, threatening, tyrannical, radicalized sectarian, terrorist regime (not a
moment too soon based on what we now know), revitalized international enforcement in the
defining international enforcement of the post-Cold War, and proved the mettle of American
leadership and devastated the terrorists with the Counterinsurgency "Surge". The emerging
pluralistic, liberalizing, compliant post-Saddam Iraq provided the US with a keystone
"strategic partner" in the region."
LOL as they say.
derrida derider 04.24.16 at 12:18 pm
Way OT, but Rich is wrong. As a matter of law, the Iraq war was clearly illegal. At the
very least all the other countries that voted for UN1441 believe it is, because the US envoy –
Bolton – explicitly and publicly assured them that UN1441 did NOT authorise war, that they
could safely vote for it in the knowledge that before any war began the matter would come back
to the UNSC.
Just another in the long trail of lies from the Bushistas that got absolutely no coverage in
the US media (though rest assured it did in the French and British ones!). Iraq made me
realise Chomsky is absolutely right – the "free" US media's role is to manufacture consent for
the elite's wishes.
Rich Puchalsky 04.24.16 at 5:36 pm
derrida derider: "Way OT, but Rich is wrong."
(Parenthetically, there's someone else commenting in this thread as "Rich" who isn't me. But I
assume that you meant me.)
"As a matter of law, the Iraq war was clearly illegal. At the very least all the other
countries that voted for UN1441 believe it is, because the US envoy – Bolton – explicitly and
publicly assured them that UN1441 did NOT authorise war,"
I am not at all sympathetic to this. Laws have meaning only when they are interpreted and
carried out. The interpretation and execution was pretty much put into the hands of the U.S.
with no ability to take it back if Bolton turned out to be lying or merely incorrect. If the
U.S. Senators and Congresspeople pass a law which then gets interpreted by the Supreme Court
in a different way and executed by the President differently than they expected, they can't
say that the ensuing actions were illegal, really.
Of course the ensuing actions were illegal by Nuremberg standards, but the other countries had
sort of successfully smokescreened that by voting for the UN resolution in the first place. It
was a way for other countries' elites to give the U.S. the war it wanted while denying to
domestic populations that they'd done so.
engels 04.24.16 at 8:50 pm
Links to contemporaneous legal opinions on the legality of the Iraq war:
For the position that the war was illegal:
"Iraq Invasion Violated UN Charter" (news.com.au, August 7, 2003) ("With unusual candour, the
former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix today denounced the US-led war on Iraq as a
violation of international law, and questioned Washington's motives for the invasion.")
Law Professors for the Rule of Law
"War on Iraq Was Illegal, Say Top Lawyers" (Severin Carrell and Robert Verkaik, The
Independent, May 25, 2003)
"International Legal Experts Regard Iraq War as Illegal" (Peter Schwarz, World Socialist Web
Site, March 26, 2003)
"Tearing up the Rules: The Illegality of Invading Iraq," Center for Economic and Social
Rights, March 2003 Superb
"Canadian Law Professors Declare US-Led War Illegal" (Henry Michaels, World Socialist Web
Site, 22 March 2003)
Robin Miller, "This War Is Illegal," March 21, 2003
"Chirac: Iraq War Breaches International Law" (Middle East Online, March 21, 2003)
"Is the War on Iraq illegal?" (Irwin Cotler, The Globe and Mail, March 21, 2003)
Jim Lobe, "Law Groups Say U.S. Invasion Illegal," OneWorld.net, March 21, 2003 (an open letter
signed by 31 Canadian international law professors calls a U.S. attack against Iraq "a
fundamental breach of international law [that] would seriously threaten the integrity of the
international legal order that has been in place since the end of the Second World War.")
Joan Russow, "U.S. Enagaged in an Illegal Act," March 20, 2003
International Appeal by Lawyers and Jurists against the "Preventive" Use of Force
Michael C. Dorf, "Is the War on Iraq Lawful?" Findlaw, March 19, 2003
Emma Thomasson, "Iraq War Illegal but Trial Unlikely, Lawyers Say," Reuters, March 19, 2003
("President Bush and his allies are unlikely to face trial for war crimes although many
nations and legal experts say a strike on Iraq without an explicit U.N. mandate breaches
international law.")
Hilary Charlesworth and Andrew Byrnes, "No, This War Is Illegal, The Age [Melbourne,
Australia], March 19, 2003
Matthew Happold, "A Talented Lawyer Arguing a Weak Case," The Guardian, March 17, 2003 ("The
[British] attorney-general's assertion that the use of force against Iraq is legal without a
second UN resolution does not stand scrutiny")
Keir Starmer, "Sorry, Mr Blair, But 1441 Does Not Authorise Force," The Guardian, March 17,
2003
"Analysis of the US Legal Position on the Use of Force Against Iraq" (Greenpeace, March 16,
2003)
Richard Norton-Taylor, "Law Unto Themselves, The Guardian, March 14, 2003 ("A large majority
of international lawyers reject the government's claim that UN resolution 1441 gives legal
authority for an attack on Iraq.")
Robert Verkaik, "'Illegal War' Could Mean Soldiers Face Prosecution," The Independent, March
12, 2003
Anthony Howard, "War Against Iraq–The Legal Dilemma, The Times [London], March 11, 2003
Mark Littman, "A Supreme International Crime," The Guardian, March 10, 2003 ("Any member of a
government backing an aggressive war will be open to prosecution.")
"The UN Must Take Mr Blix's Report Seriously–by Voting Against Military Action," The
Independent (editorial), March 8, 2003
"War Would Be Illegal," The Guardian, March 7, 2003 ("The doctrine of pre-emptive self-defence
against an attack that might arise at some hypothetical future time has no basis in
international law. Neither security council resolution 1441 nor any prior resolution
authorises the proposed use of force in the present circumstances.").
Michael White and Patrick Wintour, "No Case for Iraq Attack Say Lawyers," The Guardian, March
7, 2003 (commenting on letter, just above, by 16 professors of international law).
"War With Iraq 'Could Be Illegal,'" BBC, March 6, 2003 (British Professor Nicholas Grief says
that Bush and Blair could face prosecution for war crimes, specifically waging an illegal
war).
Alan Elsner, "US War Without UN Approval Would Be Seen as Illegal," Reuters, March 6, 2003
("Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and
International Affairs, said eight out of 10 international lawyers would consider a U.S. attack
without a new resolution as a violation of international law.").
"Australian Legal Experts Declare an Invasion of Iraq a War Crime" (James Conachy, World
Socialist Web Site, February 27, 2003)
Bill Bowring, "Bush and Blair Must See Law Has a Life of Its Own," AlertNet, February 21,
2003.
Julie Mertus, "The Law(?) of Regime Change," JURIST, February 20, 2003.
Thalif Deen, "Of Man and God and Law," Asia Times, February 14, 2003.
Nathaniel Hurd, "UN SCR 1141 and Potential Use of Force Against Iraq," December 6, 2002.
"IN THE MATTER OF THE POTENTIAL USE OF ARMED FORCE BY THE UK AGAINST IRAQ AND IN THE MATTER OF
RELIANCE FOR THAT USE OF FORCE ON UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 1441," Campaign
for Nuclear Disarmament, November 2002.
"Lawyers Statement on UN Resolution 1441 on Iraq," November 27, 2002.
Mary Ellen O'Connell, "UN Resolution 1441: Compelling Saddam, Restraining Bush," JURIST,
November 21, 2002.
Marjorie Cohn, "UN Resolution 1441: Blackmailing the Security Council," JURIST, November 21,
2002.
George P. Fletcher, "Did the UN Security Council Violate Its Own Rules in Passing the Iraq
Resolution?," CounterPunch, November 16, 2002.
"Legality of Use of Force against Iraq" (Public Interest Lawyers on behalf of Peacerights,
September 10, 2002)
Mary Ellen O'Connell, The Myth of Preemptive Self-Defense," August 2002.
For the position that the war was legal:
Greg Hunt, "Yes, This War Is Legal, The Age [Melbourne, Australian], March 19, 2003
"Attorney General: War Is Legal," The Guardian, March 17, 2003
.67
Donald 04.24.16 at 8:53 pm
Given enough time, I would not be surprised to see the Erics of the world successful in
relitigating the Iraq War. We already have Clinton as the nominee of the party whose members
were supposedly so upset by Bush's war and Clinton's regret over her vote was obviously for
political reasons. Eric does a good job with the bureaucratic gobbledygook that impresses DC
types so much when it gives them permission to bomb people. Polls permitting, I'm sure Clinton
would leap at the opportunity to reassert American global leadership in the delivery of high
explosives.
Give it another few years or maybe a decade and Eric will be mainstream. We will kick
the Iraq syndrome just like the Gulf War kicked the Vietnam syndrome. We just need to find a
crappy little country whose bombing can be portrayed as a success. Clinton might think Libya
should qualify if we just went back in.
"... The Democratic Party has not been a total slouch, offering policies friendly to health-care executives, entertainment moguls, and tech titans. In fact, financial support for Democrats among the 1 percent of the 1 percent has risen dramatically , more than trebling since 1980. ..."
"... It's not dispassionate analysis that causes Chuck Schumer to waffle on the carried-interest tax loophole, Hillary Clinton to argue for raising the cap on H-1B visas, or Maria Cantwell to rally support for the Export-Import Bank. The more rich people that a party attracts, the more that the party must do to stay attractive. ..."
"... In a world of Trump_vs_deep_state and Clintonism, Democrats would become the party of globalist-minded elites, both economic and cultural, ..."
"... Erstwhile neocons would go over to Democrats (as they are already promising to do), while doves and isolationists would stick with Republicans. Democrats would remain culturally liberal, while Republicans would remain culturally conservative. ..."
The Democratic Party has not been a total slouch, offering policies friendly to health-care executives,
entertainment moguls, and tech titans. In fact, financial support for Democrats among the 1 percent
of the 1 percent
has risen dramatically, more than trebling since 1980. Traditionally, though, the Republican
Party has been seen as the better friend to the wealthy, offering lower taxes, fewer business regulations,
generous defense contracts, increased global trade, high immigration, and resistance to organized
labor. It's been the buddy of homebuilders, oil barons, defense contractors, and other influential
business leaders.
Trump_vs_deep_state changes the equation. If homebuilders face workplace crackdowns on illegal hiring, their
costs go up. If defense contractors see a reduced U.S. military presence in Asia and Europe, their
income goes down. If companies that rely on outsourcing or on intellectual property rights see their
business model upended by discontinued trade agreements, they face a crisis. Sure, many rich people
hate Obamacare, but how big a deal is it compared to other things they want: more immigration, sustained
and expanding trade, continued defense commitments? Clintonism, by comparison, starts to look much
more appealing.
All good, say some Democrats. The more people that Trump_vs_deep_state scares away, the broader and more
powerful the liberal-left coalition will be. But nobody offers their support without expecting something
in return. It's not dispassionate analysis that causes Chuck Schumer to waffle on the carried-interest
tax loophole, Hillary Clinton to argue for raising the cap on H-1B visas, or Maria Cantwell to rally
support for the Export-Import Bank. The more rich people that a party attracts, the more that the
party must do to stay attractive.
In a world of Trump_vs_deep_state and Clintonism, Democrats would become the party of globalist-minded elites,
both economic and cultural, while Republicans would become the party of the working class. Democrats
would win backing from those who support expanded trade and immigration, while Republicans would
win the support of those who prefer less of both. Erstwhile neocons would go over to Democrats (as
they are
already promising to do), while doves and isolationists would stick with Republicans. Democrats
would remain culturally liberal, while Republicans would remain culturally conservative.
The combination of super-rich Democrats and poor Democrats would exacerbate internal party tensions,
but the party would probably resort to forms of appeasement that are already in use. To their rich
constituents, Democrats offer more trade, more immigration, and general globalism. To their non-rich
constituents, they offer the promise of social justice, which critics might call identity politics.
That's one reason why Democrats have devoted so much attention to issues such as transgender rights,
sexual assault on campus, racial disparities in criminal justice, and immigration reform. The causes
may be worthy-and they attract sincere advocates-but politically they're also useful. They don't
bother rich people.
"... The following is a preview of a chapter by Claudia von Werlhof in "The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century." (2009) ..."
"... To read more, order the book online. Help us spread the word: "like" the book on Facebook and share with your friends -- ..."
No one asks these questions because they seem absurd. Yet, no one can escape
them either. Until the onslaught of the global economic crisis, the motto of
so-called "neoliberalism" was TINA: "There Is No Alternative!"
No alternative to "neoliberal globalization"?
No alternative to the unfettered "free market" economy?
What Is "Neoliberal Globalization"?
Let us first clarify what globalization and neoliberalism are, where they
come from, who they are directed by, what they claim, what they do, why their
effects are so fatal, why they will fail and why people nonetheless cling to
them. Then, let us look at the responses of those who are not – or will not
– be able to live with the consequences they cause.
This is where the difficulties begin. For a good twenty years now we have
been told that there is no alternative to neoliberal globalization, and that,
in fact, no such alternative is needed either. Over and over again, we have
been confronted with the TINA-concept: "There Is No Alternative!" The "iron
lady", Margaret Thatcher, was one of those who reiterated this belief without
end.
The TINA-concept prohibits all thought. It follows the rationale that there
is no point in analyzing and discussing neoliberalism and so-called globalization
because they are inevitable. Whether we condone what is happening or not does
not matter, it is happening anyway. There is no point in trying to understand.
Hence: Go with it! Kill or be killed!
Some go as far as suggesting that globalization – meaning, an economic system
which developed under specific social and historical conditions – is nothing
less but a law of nature. In turn, "human nature" is supposedly reflected by
the character of the system's economic subjects: egotistical, ruthless, greedy
and cold. This, we are told, works towards everyone's benefit.
The question remains: why has Adam Smith's "invisible hand" become a "visible
fist"? While a tiny minority reaps enormous benefits from today's neoliberalism
(none of which will remain, of course), the vast majority of the earth's population
suffers hardship to the extent that their very survival is at stake. The damage
done seems irreversible.
All over the world media outlets – especially television stations – avoid
addressing the problem. A common excuse is that it cannot be explained.[1] The
true reason is, of course, the media's corporate control.
What Is Neoliberalism?
Neoliberalism as an economic policy agenda which began in Chile in 1973.
Its inauguration consisted of a U.S.-organized coup against a democratically
elected socialist president and the installment of a bloody military dictatorship
notorious for systematic torture. This was the only way to turn the neoliberal
model of the so-called "Chicago Boys" under the leadership of Milton Friedman
– a student of Friedrich von Hayek – into reality.
The predecessor of the neoliberal model is the economic liberalism of the
18th and 19th centuries and its notion of "free trade". Goethe's assessment
at the time was: "Free trade, piracy, war – an inseparable three!"[2]
At the center of both old and new economic liberalism lies:
Self-interest and individualism; segregation of ethical principles and economic
affairs, in other words: a process of 'de-bedding' economy from society; economic
rationality as a mere cost-benefit calculation and profit maximization; competition
as the essential driving force for growth and progress; specialization and the
replacement of a subsistence economy with profit-oriented foreign trade ('comparative
cost advantage'); and the proscription of public (state) interference with market
forces.[3]
Where the new economic liberalism outdoes the old is in its global claim.
Today's economic liberalism functions as a model for each and everyone: all
parts of the economy, all sectors of society, of life/nature itself. As a consequence,
the once "de-bedded" economy now claims to "im-bed" everything, including political
power. Furthermore, a new twisted "economic ethics" (and with it a certain idea
of "human nature") emerges that mocks everything from so-called do-gooders to
altruism to selfless help to care for others to a notion of responsibility.[4]
This goes as far as claiming that the common good depends entirely on the
uncontrolled egoism of the individual and, especially, on the prosperity of
transnational corporations. The allegedly necessary "freedom" of the economy
– which, paradoxically, only means the freedom of corporations – hence consists
of a freedom from responsibility and commitment to society.
The maximization of profit itself must occur within the shortest possible
time; this means, preferably, through speculation and "shareholder value". It
must meet as few obstacles as possible. Today, global economic interests outweigh
not only extra-economic concerns but also national economic considerations since
corporations today see themselves beyond both community and nation.[5] A "level
playing field" is created that offers the global players the best possible conditions.
This playing field knows of no legal, social, ecological, cultural or national
"barriers".[6] As a result, economic competition plays out on a market that
is free of all non-market, extra-economic or protectionist influences – unless
they serve the interests of the big players (the corporations), of course. The
corporations' interests – their maximal growth and progress – take on complete
priority. This is rationalized by alleging that their well-being means the well-being
of small enterprises and workshops as well.
The difference between the new and the old economic liberalism can first
be articulated in quantitative terms: after capitalism went through a series
of ruptures and challenges – caused by the "competing economic system", the
crisis of capitalism, post-war "Keynesianism" with its social and welfare state
tendencies, internal mass consumer demand (so-called Fordism), and the objective
of full employment in the North. The liberal economic goals of the past are
now not only euphorically resurrected but they are also "globalized". The main
reason is indeed that the competition between alternative economic systems is
gone. However, to conclude that this confirms the victory of capitalism and
the "golden West" over "dark socialism" is only one possible interpretation.
Another – opposing – interpretation is to see the "modern world system" (which
contains both capitalism and socialism) as having hit a general crisis which
causes total and merciless competition over global resources while leveling
the way for investment opportunities, i.e. the valorization of capital.[7]
The ongoing globalization of neoliberalism demonstrates which interpretation
is right. Not least, because the differences between the old and the new economic
liberalism can not only be articulated in quantitative terms but in qualitative
ones too. What we are witnessing are completely new phenomena: instead of a
democratic "complete competition" between many small enterprises enjoying the
freedom of the market, only the big corporations win. In turn, they create new
market oligopolies and monopolies of previously unknown dimensions. The market
hence only remains free for them, while it is rendered unfree for all others
who are condemned to an existence of dependency (as enforced producers, workers
and consumers) or excluded from the market altogether (if they have neither
anything to sell or buy). About fifty percent of the world's population fall
into this group today, and the percentage is rising.[8]
Anti-trust laws have lost all power since the transnational corporations
set the norms. It is the corporations – not "the market" as an anonymous mechanism
or "invisible hand" – that determine today's rules of trade, for example prices
and legal regulations. This happens outside any political control. Speculation
with an average twenty percent profit margin edges out honest producers who
become "unprofitable".[9] Money becomes too precious for comparatively non-profitable,
long-term projects,
or projects that only – how audacious! – serve a good life. Money instead
"travels upwards" and disappears. Financial capital determines more and more
what the markets are and do.[10] By delinking the dollar from the price of gold,
money creation no longer bears a direct relationship to production".[11] Moreover,
these days most of us are – exactly like all governments – in debt. It is financial
capital that has all the money – we have none.[12]
Small, medium, even some bigger enterprises are pushed out of the market,
forced to fold or swallowed by transnational corporations because their performances
are below average in comparison to speculation – rather: spookulation – wins.
The public sector, which has historically been defined as a sector of not-for-profit
economy and administration, is "slimmed" and its "profitable" parts ("gems")
handed to corporations (privatized). As a consequence, social services that
are necessary for our existence disappear. Small and medium private businesses
– which, until recently, employed eighty percent of the workforce and provided
normal working conditions – are affected by these developments as well. The
alleged correlation between economic growth and secure employment is false.
When economic growth is accompanied by the mergers of businesses, jobs are lost.[13]
If there are any new jobs, most are precarious, meaning that they are only
available temporarily and badly paid. One job is usually not enough to make
a living.[14] This means that the working conditions in the North become akin
to those in the South, and the working conditions of men akin to those of women
– a trend diametrically opposed to what we have always been told. Corporations
now leave for the South (or East) to use cheap – and particularly female – labor
without union affiliation. This has already been happening since the 1970s in
the "Export Processing Zones" (EPZs, "world market factories" or "maquiladoras"),
where most of the world's computer chips, sneakers, clothes and electronic goods
are produced.[15] The EPZs lie in areas where century-old colonial-capitalist
and authoritarian-patriarchal conditions guarantee the availability of cheap
labor.[16] The recent shift of business opportunities from consumer goods to
armaments is a particularly troubling development.[17]
It is not only commodity production that is "outsourced" and located in the
EPZs, but service industries as well. This is a result of the so-called Third
Industrial Revolution, meaning the development of new information and communication
technologies. Many jobs have disappeared entirely due to computerization, also
in administrative fields.[18] The combination of the principles of "high tech"
and "low wage"/"no wage" (always denied by "progress" enthusiasts) guarantees
a "comparative cost advantage" in foreign trade. This will eventually lead to
"Chinese wages" in the West. A potential loss of Western consumers is not seen
as a threat. A corporate economy does not care whether consumers are European,
Chinese or Indian.
The means of production become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, especially
since finance capital – rendered precarious itself – controls asset values ever
more aggressively. New forms of private property are created, not least through
the "clearance" of public property and the transformation of formerly public
and small-scale private services and industries to a corporate business sector.
This concerns primarily fields that have long been (at least partly) excluded
from the logic of profit – e.g. education, health, energy or water supply/disposal.
New forms of so-called enclosures emerge from today's total commercialization
of formerly small-scale private or public industries and services, of the "commons",
and of natural resources like oceans, rain forests, regions of genetic diversity
or geopolitical interest (e.g. potential pipeline routes), etc.[19] As far as
the new virtual spaces and communication networks go, we are witnessing frantic
efforts to bring these under private control as well.[20]
All these new forms of private property are essentially created by (more
or less) predatory forms of appropriation. In this sense, they are a continuation
of the history of so-called original accumulation which has expanded globally,
in accordance with to the motto: "Growth through expropriation!"[21]
Most people have less and less access to the means of production, and so
the dependence on scarce and underpaid work increases. The destruction of the
welfare state also destroys the notion that individuals can rely on the community
to provide for them in times of need. Our existence relies exclusively on private,
i.e. expensive, services that are often of much worse quality and much less
reliable than public services. (It is a myth that the private always outdoes
the public.) What we are experiencing is undersupply formerly only known by
the colonial South. The old claim that the South will eventually develop into
the North is proven wrong. It is the North that increasingly develops into the
South. We are witnessing the latest form of "development", namely, a world system
of underdevelopment.[22] Development and underdevelopment go hand in hand.[23]
This might even dawn on "development aid" workers soon.
It is usually women who are called upon to counterbalance underdevelopment
through increased work ("service provisions") in the household. As a result,
the workload and underpay of women takes on horrendous dimensions: they do unpaid
work inside their homes and poorly paid "housewifized" work outside.[24] Yet,
commercialization does not stop in front of the home's doors either. Even housework
becomes commercially co-opted ("new maid question"), with hardly any financial
benefits for the women who do the work.[25]
Not least because of this, women are increasingly coerced into prostitution,
one of today's biggest global industries.[26] This illustrates two things: a)
how little the "emancipation" of women actually leads to "equal terms" with
men; and b) that "capitalist development" does not imply increased "freedom"
in wage labor relations, as the Left has claimed for a long time.[27] If the
latter were the case, then neoliberalism would mean the voluntary end of capitalism
once it reaches its furthest extension. This, however, does not appear likely.
Today, hundreds of millions of quasi-slaves, more than ever before, exist
in the "world system."[28] The authoritarian model of the "Export Processing
Zones" is conquering the East and threatening the North. The redistribution
of wealth runs ever more – and with ever accelerated speed – from the bottom
to the top. The gap between the rich and the poor has never been wider. The
middle classes disappear. This is the situation we are facing.
It becomes obvious that neoliberalism marks not the end of colonialism but,
to the contrary, the colonization of the North. This new "colonization of the
world"[29] points back to the beginnings of the "modern world system" in the
"long 16th century", when the conquering of the Americas, their exploitation
and colonial transformation allowed for the rise and "development" of Europe.[30]
The so-called "children's diseases" of modernity keep on haunting it, even in
old age. They are, in fact, the main feature of modernity's latest stage. They
are expanding instead of disappearing.
Where there is no South, there is no North; where there is no periphery,
there is no center; where there is no colony, there is no – in any case no "Western"
– civilization.[31]
Austria is part of the world system too. It is increasingly becoming a corporate
colony (particularly of German corporations). This, however, does not keep it
from being an active colonizer itself, especially in the East.[32]
Social, cultural, traditional and ecological considerations are abandoned
and give way to a mentality of plundering. All global resources that we still
have – natural resources, forests, water, genetic pools – have turned into objects
of utilization. Rapid ecological destruction through depletion is the consequence.
If one makes more profit by cutting down trees than by planting them, then there
is no reason not to cut them.[33] Neither the public nor the state interferes,
despite global warming and the obvious fact that the clearing of the few remaining
rain forests will irreversibly destroy the earth's climate – not to mention
the many other negative effects of such actions.[34] Climate, animal, plants,
human and general ecological rights are worth nothing compared to the interests
of the corporations – no matter that the rain forest is not a renewable resource
and that the entire earth's ecosystem depends on it. If greed, and the rationalism
with which it is economically enforced, really was an inherent anthropological
trait, we would have never even reached this day.
The commander of the Space Shuttle that circled the earth in 2005 remarked
that "the center of Africa was burning". She meant the Congo, in which the last
great rain forest of the continent is located. Without it there will be no more
rain clouds above the sources of the Nile. However, it needs to disappear in
order for corporations to gain free access to the Congo's natural resources
that are the reason for the wars that plague the region today. After all, one
needs diamonds and coltan for mobile phones.
Today, everything on earth is turned into commodities, i.e. everything becomes
an object of "trade" and commercialization (which truly means liquidation, the
transformation of all into liquid money). In its neoliberal stage it is not
enough for capitalism to globally pursue less cost-intensive and preferably
"wageless" commodity production. The objective is to transform everyone and
everything into commodities, including life itself.[35] We are racing blindly
towards the violent and absolute conclusion of this "mode of production", namely
total capitalization/liquidation by "monetarization".[36]
We are not only witnessing perpetual praise of the market – we are witnessing
what can be described as "market fundamentalism". People believe in the market
as if it was a god. There seems to be a sense that nothing could ever happen
without it. Total global maximized accumulation of money/capital as abstract
wealth becomes the sole purpose of economic activity. A "free" world market
for everything has to be established – a world market that functions according
to the interests of the corporations and capitalist money. The installment of
such a market proceeds with dazzling speed. It creates new profit possibilities
where they have not existed before, e.g. in Iraq, Eastern Europe or China.
One thing remains generally overlooked: the abstract wealth created for accumulation
implies the destruction of nature as concrete wealth. The result is a "hole
in the ground" and next to it a garbage dump with used commodities, outdated
machinery and money without value.[37] However, once all concrete wealth (which
today consists mainly of the last natural resources) will be gone, abstract
wealth will disappear as well. It will, in Marx's words, "evaporate". The fact
that abstract wealth is not real wealth will become obvious, and so will the
answer to the question of which wealth modern economic activity has really created.
In the end it is nothing but monetary wealth (and even this mainly exists virtually
or on accounts) that constitutes a monoculture controlled by a tiny minority.
Diversity is suffocated and millions of people are left wondering how to survive.
And really: how do you survive with neither resources nor means of production
nor money?
The nihilism of our economic system is evident. The whole world will be transformed
into money – and then it will disappear. After all, money cannot be eaten. What
no one seems to consider is the fact that it is impossible to re-transform commodities,
money, capital and machinery into nature or concrete wealth. It seems that underlying
all "economic development" is the assumption that "resources", the "sources
of wealth",[38] are renewable and everlasting – just like the "growth" they
create.[39]
The notion that capitalism and democracy are one is proven a myth by neoliberalism
and its "monetary totalitarianism".[40]
The primacy of politics over economy has been lost. Politicians of all parties
have abandoned it. It is the corporations that dictate politics. Where corporate
interests are concerned, there is no place for democratic convention or community
control. Public space disappears. The res publica turns into a res privata,
or – as we could say today – a res privata transnationale (in its original Latin
meaning, privare means "to deprive"). Only those in power still have rights.
They give themselves the licenses they need, from the "license to plunder" to
the "license to kill".[41] Those who get in their way or challenge their "rights"
are vilified, criminalized and to an increasing degree defined as "terrorists"
or, in the case of defiant governments, as "rogue states" – a label that usually
implies threatened or actual military attack, as we can see in the cases of
Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq, and maybe Syria and Iran in the near future.
U.S. President Bush had even spoken of the possibility of "preemptive" nuclear
strikes should the U.S. feel endangered by weapons of mass destruction.[42]
The European Union did not object.[43]
Neoliberalism and war are two sides of the same coin.[44] Free trade, piracy
and war are still "an inseparable three" – today maybe more so than ever. War
is not only "good for the economy" but is indeed its driving force and can be
understood as the "continuation of economy with other means".[45] War and economy
have become almost indistinguishable.[46] Wars about resources – especially
oil and water – have already begun.[47] The Gulf Wars are the most obvious examples.
Militarism once again appears as the "executor of capital accumulation" – potentially
everywhere and enduringly.[48]
Human rights and rights of sovereignty have been transferred from people,
communities and governments to corporations.[49] The notion of the people as
a sovereign body has practically been abolished. We have witnessed a coup of
sorts. The political systems of the West and the nation state as guarantees
for and expression of the international division of labor in the modern world
system are increasingly dissolving.[50] Nation states are developing into "periphery
states" according to the inferior role they play in the proto-despotic "New
World Order".[51] Democracy appears outdated. After all, it "hinders business".[52]
The "New World Order" implies a new division of labor that does no longer
distinguish between North and South, East and West – today, everywhere is South.
An according International Law is established which effectively functions from
top to bottom ("top-down") and eliminates all local and regional communal rights.
And not only that: many such rights are rendered invalid both retroactively
and for the future.[53]
The logic of neoliberalism as a sort of totalitarian neo-mercantilism is
that all resources, all markets, all money, all profits, all means of production,
all "investment opportunities", all rights and all power belong to the corporations
only. To paraphrase Richard Sennett: "Everything to the Corporations!"[54] One
might add: "Now!"
The corporations are free to do whatever they please with what they get.
Nobody is allowed to interfere. Ironically, we are expected to rely on them
to find a way out of the crisis we are in. This puts the entire globe at risk
since responsibility is something the corporations do not have or know. The
times of social contracts are gone.[55] In fact, pointing out the crisis alone
has become a crime and all critique will soon be defined as "terror" and persecuted
as such.[56]
IMF Economic Medicine
Since the 1980s, it is mainly the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) of
the World Bank and the IMF that act as the enforcers of neoliberalism. These
programs are levied against the countries of the South which can be extorted
due to their debts. Meanwhile, numerous military interventions and wars help
to take possession of the assets that still remain, secure resources, install
neoliberalism as the global economic politics, crush resistance movements (which
are cynically labeled as "IMF uprisings"), and facilitate the lucrative business
of reconstruction.[57]
In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher introduced neoliberalism
in Anglo-America. In 1989, the so-called "Washington Consensus" was formulated.
It claimed to lead to global freedom, prosperity and economic growth through
"deregulation, liberalization and privatization". This has become the credo
and promise of all neoliberals. Today we know that the promise has come true
for the corporations only – not for anybody else.
In the Middle East, the Western support for Saddam Hussein in the war between
Iraq and Iran in the 1980s, and the Gulf War of the early 1990s, announced the
permanent U.S. presence in the world's most contested oil region.
In continental Europe, neoliberalism began with the crisis in Yugoslavia
caused by the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) of the World Bank and the
IMF. The country was heavily exploited, fell apart and finally beset by a civil
war over its last remaining resources.[58] Since the NATO war in 1999, the Balkans
are fragmented, occupied and geopolitically under neoliberal control.[59] The
region is of main strategic interest for future oil and gas transport from the
Caucasus to the West (for example the "Nabucco" gas pipeline that is supposed
to start operating from the Caspian Sea through Turkey and the Balkans by 2011.[60]
The reconstruction of the Balkans is exclusively in the hands of Western corporations.
All governments, whether left, right, liberal or green, accept this. There
is no analysis of the connection between the politics of neoliberalism, its
history, its background and its effects on Europe and other parts of the world.
Likewise, there is no analysis of its connection to the new militarism.
NOTES
[1] Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale
Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und
was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003 (1998), p. 23, 36.
[2] Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust: Part Two, New York, Oxford University
Press, 1999.
[3] Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen. Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln,
PapyRossa, 2005, p. 34.
[4] Arno Gruen, Der Verlust des Mitgefühls. Über die Politik der Gleichgültigkeit,
München, 1997, dtv.
[5] Sassen Saskia, "Wohin führt die Globalisierung?," Machtbeben, 2000, Stuttgart-München,
DVA.
[6] Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale
Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und
was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003 (1998), p. 24.
[7] Immanuel Wallerstein, Aufstieg und künftiger Niedergang des kapitalistischen
Weltsystems, in Senghaas, Dieter: Kapitalistische Weltökonomie. Kontroversen
über ihren Ursprung und ihre Entwicklungsdynamik, Frankfurt, 1979, Suhrkamp;
Immanuel Wallerstein (Hg), The Modern World-System in the Longue Durée, Boulder/
London; Paradigm Publishers, 2004.
[8] Susan George, im Vortrag, Treffen von Gegnern und Befürwortern der Globalisierung
im Rahmen der Tagung des WEF (World Economic Forum), Salzburg, 2001.
[9] Elmar Altvater, Das Ende des Kapitalismus, wie wir ihn kennen, Münster,
Westfälisches Dampfboot, 2005.
[10] Elmar Altvater and Birgit Mahnkopf, Grenzen der Globalisierung. Ökonomie,
Ökologie und Politik in der Weltgesellschaft, Münster, Westfälisches Dampfboot,
1996.
[11] Bernard Lietaer, Jenseits von Gier und Knappheit, Interview mit Sarah
van Gelder, 2006,
www.transaction.net/press/interviews/Lietaer 0497.html; Margrit Kennedy,
Geld ohne Zinsen und Inflation, Steyerberg, Permakultur, 1990.
[12] Helmut Creutz, Das Geldsyndrom. Wege zur krisenfreien Marktwirtschaft,
Frankfurt, Ullstein, 1995.
[13] Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale
Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und
was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003 (1998), p. 7.
[14] Barbara Ehrenreich, Arbeit poor. Unterwegs in der Dienstleistungsgesellschaft,
München, Kunstmann, 2001.
[15] Folker Fröbel, Jürgen Heinrichs, and Otto Kreye, Die neue internationale
Arbeitsteilung. Strukturelle Arbeitslosigkeit in den Industrieländern und die
Industrialisierung der Entwicklungsländer, Reinbek, Rowohlt, 1977.
[16] Veronika Bennholdt-Thomsen, Maria Mies, and Claudia von Werlhof, Women,
The Last Colony, London/ New Delhi, Zed Books, 1988.
[17] Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalization. The Truth Behind September
11th, Oro, Ontario, Global Outlook, 2003.
[18] Folker Fröbel, Jürgen Heinrichs, and Otto Kreye, Die neue internationale
Arbeitsteilung. Strukturelle Arbeitslosigkeit in den Industrieländern und die
Industrialisierung der Entwicklungsländer, Reinbek, Rowohlt, 1977.
[19] Ana Isla, The Tragedy of the Enclosures: An Eco-Feminist Perspective
on Selling Oxygen and Prostitution in Costa Rica, Man., Brock Univ., Sociology
Dpt., St. Catherines, Ontario, Canada, 2005.
[20] John Hepburn, Die Rückeroberung von Allmenden – von alten und von neuen,
übers. Vortrag bei, Other Worlds Conference; Univ. of Pennsylvania; 28./29.4,
2005.
[21] Claudia von Werlhof, Was haben die Hühner mit dem Dollar zu tun? Frauen
und Ökonomie, München, Frauenoffensive, 1991; Claudia von Werlhof, MAInopoly:
Aus Spiel wird Ernst, in Mies/Werlhof, 2003, p. 148-192.
[22] Andre Gunder Frank, Die Entwicklung der Unterentwicklung, in ders. u.a.,
Kritik des bürgerlichen Antiimperialismus, Berlin, Wagenbach, 1969.
[23] Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen, Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln,
PapyRossa, 2005.
[24] Veronika Bennholdt-Thomsen, Maria Mies, and Claudia von Werlhof, Women,
the Last Colony, London/New Delhi, Zed Books, 1988.
[25] Claudia von Werlhof, Frauen und Ökonomie. Reden, Vorträge 2002-2004,
Themen GATS, Globalisierung, Mechernich, Gerda-Weiler-Stiftung, 2004.
[26] Ana Isla, "Women and Biodiversity as Capital Accumulation: An Eco-Feminist
View," Socialist Bulletin, Vol. 69, Winter, 2003, p. 21-34; Ana Isla, The Tragedy
of the Enclosures: An Eco-Feminist Perspective on Selling Oxygen and Prostitution
in Costa Rica, Man., Brock Univ., Sociology Department, St. Catherines, Ontario,
Canada, 2005.
[27] Immanuel Wallerstein, Aufstieg und künftiger Niedergang des kapitalistischen
Weltsystems, in Senghaas, Dieter: Kapitalistische Weltökonomie. Kontroversen
über ihren Ursprung und ihre Entwicklungsdynamik, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 1979.
[28] Kevin Bales, Die neue Sklaverei, München, Kunstmann, 2001.
[29] Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen, Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln,
PapyRossa, 2005.
[30] Immanuel Wallerstein, Aufstieg und künftiger Niedergang des kapitalistischen
Weltsystems, in Senghaas, Dieter: Kapitalistische Weltökonomie. Kontroversen
über ihren Ursprung und ihre Entwicklungsdynamik, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 1979;
Andre Gunder Frank, Orientierung im Weltsystem, Von der Neuen Welt zum Reich
der Mitte, Wien, Promedia, 2005; Maria Mies, Patriarchy and Accumulation on
a World Scale, Women in the International Division of Labour, London, Zed Books,
1986.
[31] Claudia von Werlhof, "Questions to Ramona," in Corinne Kumar (Ed.),
Asking, We Walk. The South as New Political Imaginary, Vol. 2, Bangalore, Streelekha,
2007, p. 214-268
[32] Hannes Hofbauer, Osterweiterung. Vom Drang nach Osten zur peripheren
EU-Integration, Wien, Promedia, 2003; Andrea Salzburger, Zurück in die Zukunft
des Kapitalismus, Kommerz und Verelendung in Polen, Frankfurt – New York, Peter
Lang Verlag, 2006.
[34] August Raggam, Klimawandel, Biomasse als Chance gegen Klimakollaps und
globale Erwärmung, Graz, Gerhard Erker, 2004.
[35] Immanuel Wallerstein, Aufstieg und künftiger Niedergang des kapitalistischen
Weltsystems, in Senghaas, Dieter: Kapitalistische Weltökonomie. Kontroversen
über ihren Ursprung und ihre Entwicklungsdynamik, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 1979.
[36] Renate Genth, Die Bedrohung der Demokratie durch die Ökonomisierung
der Politik, feature für den Saarländischen Rundfunk am 4.3., 2006.
[37] Johan Galtung, Eurotopia, Die Zukunft eines Kontinents, Wien, Promedia,
1993.
[38] Karl Marx, Capital, New York, Vintage, 1976.
[39] Claudia von Werlhof, Loosing Faith in Progress: Capitalist Patriarchy
as an "Alchemical System," in Bennholdt-Thomsen et.al.(Eds.), There is an Alternative,
2001, p. 15-40.
[40] Renate Genth, Die Bedrohung der Demokratie durch die Ökonomisierung
der Politik, feature für den Saarländischen Rundfunk am 4.3., 2006.
[41] Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale
Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und
was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003 (1998), p. 7; Maria Mies, Krieg
ohne Grenzen, Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005.
[42] Michel Chossudovsky, America's "War on Terrorism," Montreal, Global
Research, 2005.
[43] Michel Chossudovsky, "Nuclear War Against Iran," Global Research, Center
for Research on Globalization, Ottawa 13.1, 2006.
[44] Altvater, Chossudovsky, Roy, Serfati, Globalisierung und Krieg, Sand
im Getriebe 17, Internationaler deutschsprachiger Rundbrief der ATTAC – Bewegung,
Sonderausgabe zu den Anti-Kriegs-Demonstrationen am 15.2., 2003; Maria Mies,
Krieg ohne Grenzen, Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005.
[45] Hazel Hendersen, Building a Win-Win World. Life Beyond Global Economic
Warfare, San Francisco, 1996.
[46] Claudia von Werlhof, Vom Wirtschaftskrieg zur Kriegswirtschaft. Die
Waffen der, Neuen-Welt-Ordnung, in Mies 2005, p. 40-48.
[47] Michael T. Klare, Resource Wars. The New Landscape of Global Conflict,
New York, Henry Holt and Company, 2001.
[48] Rosa Luxemburg, Die Akkumulation des Kapitals, Frankfurt, 1970.
[49] Tony Clarke, Der Angriff auf demokratische Rechte und Freiheiten, in
Mies/Werlhof, 2003, p. 80-94.
[50] Sassen Saskia, Machtbeben. Wohin führt die Globalisierung?, Stuttgart-München,
DVA, 2000.
[51] Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire, Cambridge, Harvard Univ. Press,
2001; Noam Chomsky, Hybris. Die endgültige Sicherstellung der globalen –Vormachtstellung
der USA, Hamburg-Wien, Europaverlag, 2003.
[52] Claudia von Werlhof, Speed Kills!, in Dimmel/Schmee, 2005, p. 284-292
[53] See the "roll back" and "stand still" clauses in the WTO agreements
in Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale
Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und
was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003.
[54] Richard Sennett, zit. "In Einladung zu den Wiener Vorlesungen," 21.11.2005:
Alternativen zur neoliberalen Globalisierung, 2005.
[55] Claudia von Werlhof, MAInopoly: Aus Spiel wird Ernst, in Mies/Werlhof,
2003, p. 148-192.
[56] Michel Chossudovsky, America's "War on Terrorism," Montreal, Global
Research, 2005.
[57] Michel Chossudovsky, Global Brutal. Der entfesselte Welthandel, die
Armut, der Krieg, Frankfurt, Zweitausendeins, 2002; Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen.
Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005; Bennholdt-Thomsen/Faraclas/Werlhof
2001.
[58] Michel Chossudovsky, Global Brutal. Der entfesselte Welthandel, die
Armut, der Krieg, Frankfurt, Zweitausendeins, 2002.
[59] Wolfgang Richter, Elmar Schmähling, and Eckart Spoo (Hg), Die Wahrheit
über den NATO-Krieg gegen Jugoslawien, Schkeuditz, Schkeuditzer Buchverlag,
2000; Wolfgang Richter, Elmar Schmähling, and Eckart Spoo (Hg), Die deutsche
Verantwortung für den NATO-Krieg gegen Jugoslawien, Schkeuditz, Schkeuditzer
Buchverlag, 2000.
"... A large number of organisations have contributed to the current trend to recolonisation. It is possible to speak of a recolonisation lobby, although there is no central organisation. The most important are the interventionist support groups, promoting western intervention in a specific territory - East Timor, Tibet, Kurdistan. Ironically, many of them began as 'anti-imperialist' groups - some more than a generation ago. The right-wing neoconservatives in the United States are therefore not the only advocates of wars of conquest. They played no role in, for instance, the British recolonisation of Sierra Leone. ..."
"... Aid organisations, including the International Red Cross, have formed a consistent lobby against sovereignty and independence. Almost without exception, they are western in origin, and committed to western liberal values. That background applies also to human rights organisations. They differ from the aid organisations, in their commitment to a specific political philosophy: rights-based liberalism. There are some similar organisations promoting more specialised political philosophies, such as press freedom. The organisations of the billionaire George Soros deserve a a category of their own: not just because they are very large, well-organised, and well-funded, but because they promote the political philosophy of one man, the liberal theorist Karl Popper. ..."
"... The elite foreign-policy organisations in western countries had shifted to an interventionist consensus, even before 11 September 2001. Some of these are private foundations, others are quasi-academic (although access to them is tightly controlled). These are organisations such as the US Council on Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), or the Instituut Clingendael in the Netherlands. The trend to recolonisation is also dependent on the western media: especially the large commercial and national broadcasters, and the commercial press. Although there are some genuine independent media in western countries, they lack the resources to provide an alternative to the mainstream media. Inside organisations like CNN or the BBC, the politics are clear: everyone shares a consensus, that liberal market democracies are superior to all other forms of society. Elements of liberal philosophy, such as human rights, are treated as self-evident and absolute truths. Together with the paternalistic and openly colonial attitudes, often visible in their coverage, this is a background for pro-intervention campaigns. ..."
The UN protectorate in Timor was the first full recolonisation
of former colonial territory by western powers. 25 years ago that would have been unthinkable. Ironically,
the UN in 1990 declared the 'International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism' - yet the decade
ended with 'white rule' restored in Timor. In 2002 it became nominally independent, although still
100% dependent on international aid, and in 2006 Australian troops again took control of security.
Kosovo is still a protectorate, although now with an elected parliament, and a new protectorate has
been created in western Macedonia. All these recolonisations were UN-sponsored, and that might yet
happen in Iraq. Haïti also got a new American-appointed and UN-sanctioned government in 2004. With
much less media attention, and without UN authorisation, Australia imposed a mandate on the Solomon
Islands in 2003. Last changes 16 January 2007.
The global context
Why is there now a trend to recolonisation, after a historically unique decolonisation in the
1950's and 1960's? Developments in the last 15 years have reversed western attitudes to colonisation,
well before the September 11 attacks in 2001. The most important is the strong feeling of cultural
superiority in the west, and the belief that liberal values are universal. Universality was always
inherent in liberalism, and to a lesser extent in 'democracy' as an ideology. The long-term global
expansion of liberal democracy was inevitable, in the sense that any universal ideology will expand
spatially, so long as there is no specific opposition to it. In long-term historical perspective,
recolonisation is one form that this expansion can take. However, it remains ideologically
driven - 'crusade' is a more accurate term than 'imperialism'. Tony Blair's July 2003 speech to the
US Congress was a good example of the attitude of universal superiority:
Members of Congress, ours are not Western values, they are the universal values
of the human spirit. And anywhere... (APPLAUSE)... Anywhere, anytime ordinary people are given
the chance to choose, the choice is the same: freedom, not tyranny; democracy, not dictatorship;
the rule of law, not the rule of the secret police.
The spread of freedom is the best security for the free. It is our last line of defense and our
first line of attack. And just as the terrorist seeks to divide humanity in hate, so we have to
unify it around an idea. And that idea is liberty....(APPLAUSE)... We must find the strength to
fight for this idea and the compassion to make it universal. Address by Tony Blair to a joint
meeting of Congress, 17 July 2003.
In a negative sense, the reversal of the de-colonisation of the 1950's and 1960's is facilitated
by the renewed western image of non-western countries as 'barbarian', a sea of atrocities. In turn
that has facilitated the abandonment of sovereignty doctrines - states can be written off as 'failed
states' or rogue states' and invasion is then considered acceptable. In international law and geopolitics,
this led to the acceptance of interventionist doctrines by the UN, which previously emphasised the
doctrine of sovereignty. Interventionist international military strategy and tactics have been created,
to replace the traditional ceasefire-line presence of UN troops.
Inside the western countries (the potential and actual recolonisers) intervention lobbies have
emerged, typically NGO's with good access to the media. Their have origins in the peace movement
and Third-World movements, which have sometimes turned full circle from the 'anti-imperialism' of
30 years ago. As a political force for intervention, these lobbies have converged with the traditional
foreign-policy elites in western countries. This convergence was symbolised by the appointment of
Médecins sans Frontières founder Bernard Kouchner as UN governor of Kosovo. Within the target states,
the potential colonies, a western-funded and usually English-speaking NGO elite has emerged, the
so-called 'democratic forces'. These are the kind of people who appear on CNN after a western intervention,
to express their gratitude, in excellent English.
In contrast to earlier colonial practice, recolonisation is nominally international or multi-state
- traditional colonies had one colonial power only. In practice a tendency already apparent in the
League of Nations mandates is repeated: the nearest western power plays a dominant role (in Timor,
that was Australia).
The definition of colonialism
There is a strong visual image of colonialism (often from historical films), but it is surprisingly
difficult to define it. In Europe secessionist movements often claim that their country was "colonised".
But is Scotland really a 'colony' of England? Was Slovakia really 'colonised' by the Czech-dominated
government of Czechoslovakia?
I think a colonial relationship is defined by two things:
first, there is an inequality of power
and administration,
secondly this inequality is along ethnic lines.
Colonial territories are
sharply distinct from the nation state, because they reject the classic nationalist principle that
ethnic group, citizenship, state power, and state boundaries, should all coincide.
It is this fundamental colonial relationship which was so clearly visible in Timor during the
Australian occupation. White Australian troops patrolled the streets of Dili, but the inhabitants
of Timor were not allowed to send troops to patrol the streets of Canberra, and search white Australians
for weapons. Timorese can not vote in Australian elections, or sit in the Australian parliament,
or even permanently reside in Australia - but Australian electors took decisions affecting Timor,
and will do that again after the re-intervention in 2006. There is an asymmetric exercise of power
in such protectorates, and the asymmetry is ethnic.
On this definition of colonialism, the French overseas departments (DOM) are no longer colonies.
Their inhabitants now have French passports and full citizenship: they vote in French national elections,
receive the same social security payments as in France, and are free to travel to France at any time.
When the territories were true colonies, only Europeans and a tiny 'native elite' had such rights.
No DOM status, or anything like it, is planned for Iraq. (Think of how Tony Blair would react, to
the idea of paying British benefits to the Iraqi unemployed).
The most comprehensive definition of colonialism I could find is from the
Office of Tibet site: ironically this Tibetan
government-in-exile implicitly promotes western intervention in Tibet. This is the summary from the
Introduction, there is more detail
in Chapter II: Doctrines on Colonialism
Criteria of colonialism
Establishment of Colonial Rule
Colonial rule is established in one or more of the following three ways: military conquest
and subsequent annexation; the conclusion of a treaty or contract; the creation of merchant
enclaves followed by settlement.
Colonialism always involves the migration of people from a metropolitan state to a satellite
region, but the magnitude of settlement differs from case to case.
Characteristics of Colonial Administration
The original population of the colonised territory is not, or poorly, represented in the
colonial government. The interests of the original inhabitants are largely determined by
the metropolitan, colonial power.
Colonial rule superimposes national borders. In most cases these borders do not correspond
to the local community structure(s) or to the political history of the colonised territory.
Often the territory in question had not been organized as a nation state before the advent
of the colonial power.
Economic development is planned and imposed by the colonial power and often benefits
the metropolitan state at the expense of the satellite region. Resources located in the
colony are transferred to or used for the benefit of the metropolitan state and for further
processing and marketing by that state.
Civilising mission: the colonial power undertakes to 'civilise' the original inhabitants
of a colony. The underlying presumption is that the colonial power possesses a culture/civilisation
which is superior in relation to the culture/civilisation of the colonised population(s).
In addition, the colonial power often claims that the original population of the colonised
territory is unable to rule itself for reasons of political immaturity or economic backwardness.
Cultural exchange between settlers/representatives from the metropolitan state and the
original inhabitants of the colony is asymmetrical. The latter adopt more aspects of the
culture of the former than vice versa.
Maintenance of Colonial Authority
The reactions of colonial powers to colonial resistance of colonised peoples are based on
strategies to eliminate dissent.
The maintenance of colonial authority involves a permanent military presence, consisting
of soldiers from the metropolitan state or local soldiers under the command of officers
from the metropolitan state.
The maintenance of authority is often strengthened by a policy of population transfer.
Perceptions
Colonised people(s) experience colonial rule as alien. Similarly, citizens from the metropolitan
state continue to make a distinction between themselves and the original inhabitants of
the colony.
Outcome of the Colonisation Process
Colonisation may result in one or more of the following situations: 1) decolonisation, 2)
complete take-over of the colony by the metropolitan settlement community, 3) the continuation
of colonial rule over a territory which retains most of its pre-colonial identity or 4)
integration into the metropolitan state.
None of the aforementioned criteria is essential in establishing that a certain situation
can be described in terms of colonialism . A combination of a number of these criteria is
sufficient for determining that a situation is at least de-facto colonial.
The Tibet site has an obvious bias: it is trying to avoid the 'salt-water doctrine', which says colonies
are separated from the coloniser, usually by sea. (Since Tibet borders on China, it can not be a
Chinese colony under the 'salt-water' definition). This is also an issue in defining recolonisation:
is Kosovo a 'colony' of Germany and Britain because they station troops there? I use the term recolonisation
to apply to territories in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, but not to interventions by European
powers in Central and Eastern Europe. In historical perspective, European wars among European states
are not unusual, but the high tide of European colonialism lasted at most 200 years.
The recolonisation of Iraq
The listed features of colonialism accurately described the American-led protectorate in Iraq.
The implied scenario has however fallen victim to the insurgency, civil war, and disintegration -
the unexpected outcome of the recolonisation attempt. The 'protectorate formerly ruled by Saddam'
was established by a military conquest - in retrospect only a partial conquest. The first post-invasion
public administration was provided by the 'Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance'
(OHRA) - despite the name, a military organisation. An elite of 'internationals' was ready to descend
on Iraq - as in Kosovo - but deteriorating security made that impossible. Like so-called 'neutral'
aid workers, such 'internationals' are usually indirectly funded by western governments. Attacks
on the UN and Red Cross offices were undoubtedly related to their true geopolitical status - administrators
of an American-led occupation. Many aid organisations subsequently left.
The original population of Iraq had no political representation in the interim administration.
All real power rested with the US military, who command the other troop contingents. As their control
eroded, no clear and/or legitimate government took its place. They are the nearest thing to 'rulers
of Iraq', until they withdraw. The assemblies which drafted the Iraqi constitution were US-appointed,
and all election candidates were US-approved. Decisions were indeed made in the interests of the
western powers, until they lost control: 'economic development' meant that the single exportable
resource of Iraq - oil - was indeed be transferred to the western states.
'Civilising' the country, or 'democratising' it, as they now say, is no longer on the agenda in
Iraq. Population transfers are: under US occupation, Sunni-Arab migrants to Kurdish northern Iraq
fled south - several hundred thousand, on some estimates. Now, the rest of the population has started
to flee the country. Some people in the US foreign policy establishment want Iraq restructured as
an ethnic federation: an all-out civil war would suit their purposes. Like Yugoslavia, Iraq was assembled
from the components of former empires, and could face the same 'dismemberment by bloodbath'. Whatever
the developments, most people in Iraq (Kurd, Sunni and Shia) experience the occupation administration
as alien - and the citizens of the US and Britain will continue to see the entire Iraqi population
as different, and generally inferior, to themselves.
It is the differential exercise of power which makes the recolonisation immoral. As in Timor,
there is no question of the Iraqi population being allowed any participation in the political life
of their new rulers. Although their city might be occupied by British troops, and governed by a British
administrator, they will get no vote in British elections. They will have no right to demonstrate
in London, even if they could afford to travel there. The fate of Iraq was decided by a remote and
contemptuous population, the western electorates. This is clearly unjust, and 'government with contempt'
tends to create abuses and atrocities. Iraq proved to be no exception. Now it has ended with a civil
war.
The recolonisation certainly can not be justified on the grounds of 'democracy', Tony Blair was
elected in Britain, and George Bush was elected (fairly or not) in the United States. Neither of
them ever had any democratic mandate to govern Iraq, and no political process of any kind conferred
their power there. They ruled Iraq purely by the exercise of military force, and where that force
weakened, their authority disappeared. With respect to the Iraqi population, they are just as much
a dictator as Saddam Hussein.
The recolonisation ideology
At its simplest, a protectorate in Iraq is simply 'white rule'. The whites have the military power,
they rule the natives, the natives have nothing to say - it's as simple as that. Predictably, the
natives rebelled. The worse the insurgency becomes, the more brutal the exercise of foreign power.
Things will only get worse in Iraq. Unfortunately, this ethnic inequality is likely to be repeated
in the coming years, as more countries are subjected to recolonisation. The core beliefs of the recolonisers
include a belief in the absolute truth of their own values: they reject scepticism and relativism.
They believe in the universality of these values, without geographic or ethnic limits. They have
a crusader attitude, believing that there is a moral duty to bring these values to the whole world,
by force if necessary. They see themselves as part of a morally superior movement (sometimes called
'global civil society' and they have a contempt for other values (cultural and moral). At heart,
however, the recolonisation movement is a repeat of the racism, jingoism, and imperialism of the
late 19th and early 20th centuries. When it is challenged, it is likely to produce a repeat of the
decolonisation wars of the 1950's and 1960's.
British ministers' claim to be defending civilisation against barbarity in Iraq
finds a powerful echo in 1950s Kenya, when Britain sought to smash an uprising against colonial
rule. Yet, while the British media and political class expressed horror at the tactics of the
Mau Mau, the worst abuses were committed by the occupiers. The colonial police used methods like
slicing off ears, flogging until death and pouring paraffin over suspects who were then set alight. The colonial precedent,
Mark Curtis, The Guardian, October 26, 2004.
A media stereotype of western intervention paved the way for the invasions of recent years. It
too is a reworked version of colonial racist attitudes: the world outside the western democracies
is presented as barbarian, and the 'native' population as either violent and oppressive (warlords,
militiamen, torturers), or as victims (refugees, children, corpses at mass graves). The victims are
depicted as passive, powerless, and incapable of independent action: a typical image is of 'native'
women weeping at a grave. In contrast, 'white' soldiers and aid-workers are presented as forceful
and active, capable of responding to the situation, as helpers (for instance bringing food). The
'native' population is not shown in active or helping roles, but as passive and grateful, usually
in a childlike way (clapping, singing, dancing). A typical image is the native population cheering
as 'white' troops enter a town. Western post-intervention reactions are in the form of measured statements
(from leaders and spokesmen).
I put the words "white" and "native" in quotation marks: many of these TV stereotypes emerged
during Balkan intervention, where all the war parties were white Europeans. All these stereotypes
were visible in western media reports from Iraq, although they were overshadowed by the battle reports
- the intensity of fighting was much greater in Iraq.
A large number of organisations have contributed to the current trend to recolonisation. It is
possible to speak of a recolonisation lobby, although there is no central organisation. The most
important are the interventionist support groups, promoting western intervention in a specific territory
- East Timor, Tibet, Kurdistan. Ironically, many of them began as 'anti-imperialist' groups - some
more than a generation ago. The right-wing neoconservatives in the United States are therefore not
the only advocates of wars of conquest. They played no role in, for instance, the British recolonisation
of Sierra Leone.
Closely related to these political campaign groups, are the thousands of NGO's concerned with
the South, the possible targets of recolonisation. It is difficult to draw a clear line between the
political action groups and the NGO's - membership and activities often overlap. Collectively they
see themselves as a form of global movement, with some shared values: for this perception, terms
like 'global civil society' are used. However, the reality is that most NGO's are from OECD member
states. In fact, many of these 'non-governmental' organisations are indirectly funded by western
governments.
Intellectuals, especially academics, are also important in the recolonisation trend. Some are
only concerned with a specific territory, some campaign occasionally for specific interventions.
However the most influential are those intellectuals, who have directly attacked the concept of sovereignty.
Some of these theorists, such as Richard Falk, have being doing that for decades: they now see their
ideas adopted by the academic establishment.
Aid organisations, including the International Red Cross, have formed a consistent lobby against
sovereignty and independence. Almost without exception, they are western in origin, and committed
to western liberal values. That background applies also to human rights organisations. They differ
from the aid organisations, in their commitment to a specific political philosophy: rights-based
liberalism. There are some similar organisations promoting more specialised political philosophies,
such as press freedom. The organisations of the billionaire George Soros deserve a a category of
their own: not just because they are very large, well-organised, and well-funded, but because they
promote the political philosophy of one man, the liberal theorist Karl Popper.
The elite foreign-policy organisations in western countries had shifted to an interventionist
consensus, even before 11 September 2001. Some of these are private foundations, others are quasi-academic
(although access to them is tightly controlled). These are organisations such as the US Council on
Foreign Relations, the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House), or the Instituut
Clingendael in the Netherlands. The trend to recolonisation is also dependent on the western media:
especially the large commercial and national broadcasters, and the commercial press. Although there
are some genuine independent media in western countries, they lack the resources to provide an alternative
to the mainstream media. Inside organisations like CNN or the BBC, the politics are clear: everyone
shares a consensus, that liberal market democracies are superior to all other forms of society. Elements
of liberal philosophy, such as human rights, are treated as self-evident and absolute truths. Together
with the paternalistic and openly colonial attitudes, often visible in their coverage, this is a
background for pro-intervention campaigns.
It is too early to conclude that these groups have learned their lesson from the events in Iraq.
They may be politically embarrassed, but their underlying conviction of superiority will probably
drive them to new intervention campaigns in the coming years, and ultimately that will result in
new attempts at recolonisation.
"... Monbiot is the best journalist the Guardian has, he can actually make a logical fact based argument unlike the majority of Guardian journalist. ..."
"... Monbiot suggests that a coherent alternative to the current situation needs to be developed but disappointingly fails to give any clues as to what it might look like except, of course, that it must have some type of environmental context. ..."
"... A coherent alternative has to be proposed. For Labour, the Democrats and the wider left, the central task should be to develop an economic Apollo programme, a conscious attempt to design a new system, tailored to the demands of the 21st century ..."
"... The trade union package, gave us meal breaks, holidays, sickness benefits, working hours restrictions, as opposed to the right wing media agenda ..."
"... Yes, a high priest of neo-liberalism, Lord Freud, was given only 13 weeks to investigate and reform key elements of the the UK's welfare system, it hasn't worked and Freud is now invisible. ..."
"... Failed neoliberalism and not restricting markets that do not benefit the majority are the cause and we stand on the brink of falling further should the Brexiter's have their way. If there's one thing the EU excels at it's legislating against the excesses of business and extremism. ..."
John Harris is wonderful too. The only guy on the staff who can write about
the working class with clarity, respect and understanding. But Monbiot is
also the biscuit.
'The Invisible Hand' is not an ideology or dogma. It's just a metaphor to
describe those with problems grasping abstract concepts: when there are
a large number of buyers and suppliers for a good, the 'market finds a price'
which is effectively the sum of all the intelligence of the participants,
their suppliers, customers etc..
The Socialists, who have difficulty grasping this reality, want to 'fix'
the price, which abnegates the collective intelligence of the market participants,
and causes severe problems.
Capitalism is freedom, Socialism is someone's ideology.
'The Invisible Hand' is... a metaphor to describe those with problems
grasping abstract concepts: when there are a large number of buyers
and suppliers for a good, the 'market finds a price' which is effectively
the sum of all the intelligence of the participants
You clearly haven't read Wealth of Nations. The only mention of an invisible
hand is actually a warning against what we now call neoliberalism. Smith
said that the wealthy wouldn't seek to enrich themselves to the detriment
of their home communities, because of an innate home bias. Thus, as if by
an invisible hand, England would be spared the ravages of economic rationality.
Your understanding of the 'invisible hand' is a falsehood perpetuated
by neoliberal think tanks like the Adam Smith institute (no endorsement
or connection to the author, despite using his name).
'The Invisible Hand' is not dogma.
You definitely know a lot about dogma (and false dichotomies):
Capitalism is freedom, Socialism is someone's ideology.
This is an interesting academic piece but the reality is that we don't have
anything like neo-liberalism in this country as defined by Hayek and it
has become a term of abuse by people who really ought to know better. The
strongest abuse of course is linked to the Blair Government, a period, of
course, when, with substantial success, the size and reach of the state
increased quite substantially, ie the complete opposite of neo-liberalism.
In fact, suggesting that the UK is neo liberal is not that much different
for suggesting that Russia had communism as defined by Marx.
Whether it is a good or bad thing that we don't have neo-liberalism is
open to academic debate but is not of much use in real life.
Monbiot suggests that a coherent alternative to the current situation
needs to be developed but disappointingly fails to give any clues as to
what it might look like except, of course, that it must have some type of
environmental context.
A coherent alternative has to be proposed. For Labour, the Democrats
and the wider left, the central task should be to develop an economic
Apollo programme, a conscious attempt to design a new system, tailored
to the demands of the 21st century
All very well, but how? Did anyone hear the screams of rage when Sanders
started threatening Hillary, or when Corbyn trounced the Blairites? The
dead hand of Bernays and Goebbels controls everything.
The failure to describe reality in a way that concurs with what ordinary
people experience has driven off much support and reduced credibility.
There is no credible model for investment and wealth creation.
The focus on social mobility upwards rather than on those who do not
move has given UK leftism a middle-class snobby air to it.
Those entering leftist politics have a very narrow range of life experience.
The opposition to rightist politics is cliched and outmoded.
There is a complete failure to challenge the emerging multi-polar plutocratic
oligarchy which runs the planet - the European left just seeks a comfy accommodation.
There is no attempt to develop a post-socialist, holistic worldview and
ideology.
The trade union package, gave us meal breaks, holidays, sickness benefits,
working hours restrictions, as opposed to the right wing media agenda,
that if you aint getting it nobody should, pour poison on the unions, pour
poison on the public sector, a fucking media led race to the bottom for
workers, and there were enough gullible (poor )mugs around to accept it.
You can curse the middle class socialists all you like, but without their
support the labour movement would never have got off the ground.
Okay, so you've described the 1950's through to the 1980's. So what have
the unions done for us isn the last two decades ? Why is it all the successful,
profitable and productive industries in the Uk have little or no union involvement
?
Why is it that the least effective, highest costs and poorest performing
structures are in the public sector and held back by the unions ?
Here's a clue - the unions are operating in the 21st century with a 1950's
mentality.
During the industrial revolution, profitability and productivity were off
the scale because the workforce were just commodities, Unionisation instigated
the idea that without the workforce, your entrepreneurs can't do anything
on their own, Henry Ford wouldn't have become a millionaire without the
help of his workforce. 'Poorest performing structures' Guess what! some
of us are human beings not auto- matrons. I hope you dine well on sterling
and dollars, cause they're not the most important things in life.
It's the only way. It's not perfect but it achieves the best ( not ideal
) possible result. What if in the end there's no where left to go ? What
if the highest possible taxes, zero avoidance / evasion and high employment
still equals deficits and increasing national debt ?
What if the highest possible taxes, zero avoidance / evasion and
high employment still equals deficits and increasing national debt ?
The paragraph written above neatly describes the post WW2 years, where
the UK was pretty much in perpetual surplus. High employment does not equate
to national debt/deficit. Quite the opposite, the more people in gainful
employment the better. Increasing unemployment, driving wages down while
simultaneously increasing the cost of living is a recipe for complete economic
failure.
This whole economics gig is piss easy, when the general mass of people
have cash to spare they spend it, economy thrives. Hoard the cash into the
hands of a minority and starve the masses of cash, economy dies. It really
is that simple.
Public deficits exist to match the private surplus created by the rich enriching
themselves. To get rid of the deficit therefore we need to get rid of the
private wealth of the rich through financial repression and taxation
I read, cannot remember where, that with neo liberalism the implementation
is all that matters, you do not need to see the results. I suppose because
the followers believe when implemented it will work perfectly.
I think it's supporters think it is magic and must work because they believe
it does.
Yes, a high priest of neo-liberalism, Lord Freud, was given only 13
weeks to investigate and reform key elements of the the UK's welfare system,
it hasn't worked and Freud is now invisible.
Hopeful this is the start for change through identifying issues and avoiding
pitfalls. Failed neoliberalism and not restricting markets that do not
benefit the majority are the cause and we stand on the brink of falling
further should the Brexiter's have their way. If there's one thing the EU
excels at it's legislating against the excesses of business and extremism.
Let's make a start by staying in the EU.
So Bernie is the poorest of all candidates, but Rick Newman stresses that his
Tax rate is lower then the rest. But how you can compare 27 million with 200K in
annual income. Those are different weight categories and it would be travesty of
justice is Clinton paid less. In any case selling Demoicratic Party to
Wall Street pays well. Much like in case of
Judas Iscariot
Bill Clinton got his
thirty silver coins (aka millions in annual income) for betrayal of the
Roosevelt's New Deal.
Notable quotes:
"... Hillary Clinton speeches: $10.5 million ..."
"... Bill Clinton speeches: $9.7 million ..."
"... Ted and Heidi Cruz are wealthy, though not in the neighborhood of the Trumps or Clintons. The couple earned $1.2 million in 2014, when Heidi Cruz was still working as a Goldman Sachs money manager. ..."
Here are the
2014 income and tax numbers for four of the five
presidential candidates (Donald Trump hasn't released
his returns). All of these figures are for husband and
wife filing jointly:
Source: Candidate web sites, IRS. Note: National
averages are preliminary data for 2014.
Here's
a breakdown of the Clintons' gross income, not counting deductions, in 2014:
Hillary Clinton speeches: $10.5 million
Bill Clinton speeches: $9.7 million
Bill Clinton consulting: $6.4 million
Hillary Clinton book royalties: $5.6 million
Various adjustments bring the Clintons' total AGI lower, and then there
are nearly $5.2 million in itemized deductions. Those deductions include
$2.8 million for state and local income taxes, $104,000 in real-estate taxes
and $42,000 in mortgage interest – the amount of annual interest you might
pay on a $1 million mortgage.
The couple also donated $3 million to the Clinton Foundation, which is a
nonprofit, so the gift counts as a charitable donation. Because of a limit
on the value of deductions they could claim, the Clintons' exemptions topped
out just under $5.2 million.
... ... ...
Ted and Heidi Cruz are wealthy, though not in the neighborhood of the
Trumps or Clintons. The couple earned $1.2 million in 2014, when Heidi Cruz
was still working as a Goldman Sachs money manager. She took leave
starting last year, while her husband was campaigning, so the family's
income will probably be lower for 2015. The couple paid the highest
effective tax rate of any presidential candidate, at 36.7%, because their
amount of itemized deductions were relatively small. With only two pages
from the return, it's hard to tell why there weren't more deductions.
So Bernie is the poorest of all candidates, but Rick Newman stresses that his
Tax rate is lower then the rest. But how you can compare 27 million with 200K in
annual income. Those are different weight categories and it would be travesty of
justice is Clinton paid less. In any case selling Demoicratic Party to
Wall Street pays well. Much like in case of
Judas Iscariot
Bill Clinton got his
thirty silver coins (aka millions in annual income) for betrayal of the
Roosevelt's New Deal.
Notable quotes:
"... Hillary Clinton speeches: $10.5 million ..."
"... Bill Clinton speeches: $9.7 million ..."
"... Ted and Heidi Cruz are wealthy, though not in the neighborhood of the Trumps or Clintons. The couple earned $1.2 million in 2014, when Heidi Cruz was still working as a Goldman Sachs money manager. ..."
Here are the
2014 income and tax numbers for four of the five
presidential candidates (Donald Trump hasn't released
his returns). All of these figures are for husband and
wife filing jointly:
Source: Candidate web sites, IRS. Note: National
averages are preliminary data for 2014.
Here's
a breakdown of the Clintons' gross income, not counting deductions, in 2014:
Hillary Clinton speeches: $10.5 million
Bill Clinton speeches: $9.7 million
Bill Clinton consulting: $6.4 million
Hillary Clinton book royalties: $5.6 million
Various adjustments bring the Clintons' total AGI lower, and then there
are nearly $5.2 million in itemized deductions. Those deductions include
$2.8 million for state and local income taxes, $104,000 in real-estate taxes
and $42,000 in mortgage interest – the amount of annual interest you might
pay on a $1 million mortgage.
The couple also donated $3 million to the Clinton Foundation, which is a
nonprofit, so the gift counts as a charitable donation. Because of a limit
on the value of deductions they could claim, the Clintons' exemptions topped
out just under $5.2 million.
... ... ...
Ted and Heidi Cruz are wealthy, though not in the neighborhood of the
Trumps or Clintons. The couple earned $1.2 million in 2014, when Heidi Cruz
was still working as a Goldman Sachs money manager. She took leave
starting last year, while her husband was campaigning, so the family's
income will probably be lower for 2015. The couple paid the highest
effective tax rate of any presidential candidate, at 36.7%, because their
amount of itemized deductions were relatively small. With only two pages
from the return, it's hard to tell why there weren't more deductions.
"... "The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas" ..."
"... The German Ideology ..."
"... Shareholder value ..."
"... Amorality, where litmus tests for any act are illegality and reputational risk ..."
"... Which prevents questions of ethics from subverting the structure ..."
"... The inspection report, which was recently made public by Medicare, said that all 81 results provided to patients from that test from April to September of last year were inaccurate. ..."
"... out of their department budget ..."
"... By the early 1990's the rot, which had started to set in during the mid-1980's, had begun to accelerate. Most regular readers of Naked Capitalism know how the movie ended. If only it was just a work of fiction. For those of you who have suffered financially, emotionally, physically (or all three) through an unlawful foreclosure, fee gouging, predatory lending, junk insurance or scam financial products you will know what the consequences of an industry which threw away its moral compass and any sense of a social contract are. ..."
"... However, it seems to me that what Clive labels "dishonesty and exploitation" is what I would label corruption, and that's what Ebeling was fighting against. ..."
"... Fish rots from the head, and it's the head that makes the decisions about what gets punished and what gets praised. You want to survive and thrive in that fishpond, you better do what the rotten head tells you to do. ..."
"... the right person ..."
"... Bill Black has written extensively about what he calls the "Gresham's dynamic" that forced good underwriters out of the market. He has pointed out more than once that a petition was presented to the authorities signed by a large number of honest underwriters asking for regulation long before the big financial collapse. Being amoral and dishonest was a competitive advantage and the honest underwriters were driven out of the business. It's not hard to understand and does not call for the conclusion that people in general are dishonest or unethical. ..."
"... This is a lot like Not In My Backyard (NIMBY). Regulation is fine, so long as it applies to everyone else but not me. ..."
"... A competent publicist could reframe the unfortunate-sounding term "pepper spray incident " into a benign "invigorating capsicum spritz, provided at no cost to the participants." It wasn't violence; it was philanthropy. :-) ..."
"... This acknowledgment of the role of the class struggle was hardly limited to the Founding Fathers. It was not Karl Marx who spoke of the proclivity of employers to conspire and "to deceive and even oppress the public," of "the mean rapacity, the monopolizing spirit of merchants and manufacturers," of the "monopoly of the rich," of the "bad effects of high profits," of the "natural selfishness and rapacity" the vain and insatiable desires" of the rich, who institute "civil government"against the poor." It was the godfather of laissez faire capitalism and the favorite guru of conservatives, Adam Smith, who said that. ..."
"... Apparently Smith did mean just that, because he advocated that the rascality on the part of the rich could not be allowed to proceed without interference if one were to have a functioning capitalist system; hence he spoke of the need for government action to prevent the stultification of the "laboring poor." If that be class struggle, apparently he favors it. ( Compare Tocqueville's similar observation: "When the rich alone govern, the interest of the poor is always in danger." ..."
"... There's a massive difference between what Smith actually said and what his modern fanbois believe he said. Most of them have never actually read Wealth of Nations (and even less his Theory of Moral Sentiments. My understanding is that they both have to be read back to back to truly understand his views). Though I'm sure plenty of them have unopened copies of WoN displayed on their shelves for prestige value. ..."
"... Also, Michael Hudson has been of great help by constantly pounding away at the point that Smith was talking about markets free from vestigial feudalism, particularly exactly the kind of unproductive rent extraction that is making a comeback in the modern age. That's very different from the concept of unregulated markets free from any kind of oversight. ..."
"... This reminds me of all the times over 30 years when I did bookkeeping and accounting work and was asked to go into grey areas and sometimes commit outright fraud and I said no, and of course that was the end of that job, I would get eased out, usually in a way sure to make me ineligible for unemployment. I would certainly have gone to jail because I was the one who knew the law. But your DIL surely should not have been held accountable for doing clerical tasks without knowledge of or control over the contracts. That is very scary. ..."
"... The first thing [in credit] is character … before money or anything else. Money cannot buy it.… A man I do not trust could not get money from me on all the bonds in Christendom. I think that is the fundamental basis of business. ..."
"... There's the rub: amassing organizational power in a corrupt organization is very difficult for an honest, outspoken person. What often happens is that decent people save up their moral outrage until after they retire from whatever position in which they have "gone along to get along." Then most of them discover that they no longer have the energy, or the means, to "fight the good fight" they have delayed for decades. ..."
"... In this age of the internet, I wish there was more reputational damage. For instance, the cop who sprayed all the students (and then got $38,000) because he was made to feel bad. How about posts with his picture, his address, what car he is seen driving, where he is posted, etc. ..."
"... Sadly, people are a bit more evil than we give them credit for ..."
"... This is a challenge for anybody that navigates what increasingly is an overtly corrupt system. ..."
"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas" –Karl Marx, The
German Ideology
Despite the fancy title and the epigraph, this post is going to be more like where a pundit writes
a column about taking to the cabdriver on the way into town from the airport; except one cabdriver
is an anecdote, and four or five cab drivers starts to look like a pattern. In this case, the cab-drivers
would be credentialed, what the Archdruid would call
the salaried class , or Thomas Frank
the professional class (Boston being their "spiritual homeland"). Marx would, I think, call them
the petite
bourgeoisie . (I call them
the 20% , although I imagine only 20% of the 20% are really making it.) These are my
people; I feel that I know them, which is why my analysis of them is going to be as tenuous as it
is. (That's why I'm assuming, for the purposes of this post, that credentials are a good thing; I
was brought up to regard credentials as the passport to serve others in the world of disinterested
scholarship.)
How can bankers live with themselves? by Joris Luyendijk
(If "How can you live with yourself?" is the same question as
"What is the good life?" , it's vexed philosophers for millenia.) Luyendijk takes the #PanamaPapers
as his starting point but soon branches out:
[T]he self-justifications of banking staff involved in helping clients avoid taxes were strikingly
similar to those offered in other areas in banking.
Perhaps the best term to describe the tone by which people spoke of their work and its ethical
dimensions is 'matter-of-fact'. For example, when they explained how to sell a deliberately intransparent
financial product to 'some guy' at a small bank in Sweden or an airline company in Finland, knowing
that 'this guy' has no idea what he is buying. …
As I said, bankers are not monsters so you can ask them, human being to human being: how can
you live with yourself doing things like this?…
When pressed for details, financial workers used two interconnected terms to explain themselves:
'a-morality' and 'shareholder value'. Please understand, everybody said: 'a-moral' is not the
same as 'immoral'. Immoral means knowingly breaking the law. The sign says you can go 100 kilometres,
still you decide to drive 150. That's immoral. A-moral, by contrast, means that your ethical and
moral framework is defined by what the law allows.
In finance you do not ask if a proposal is morally right or wrong. You look at the degree of
'reputation risk'. Financial lawyers and regulators who go along with whatever you propose are
'business-friendly' and using loopholes in the tax code to help big corporations and rich families
evade taxes is 'tax optimization' with 'tax-efficient structures'.
Once I tuned my ear in to it, I began to hear such 'sanitized' terms everywhere and this is
because the vocabulary available to people in finance to think about their own actions has been
deliberately stripped of terms that can provoke an ethical discussion. Hence the biggest compliment
in finance is to be called 'professional'. It means you do not let emotions get in the way of
work, let alone moral beliefs – those are for home….
If a-morality is the reigning mentality in today's financial sector, then 'shareholder value'
provides the ideological underpinning. Almost every interviewee brought this up.
So in summary we have these ruling ideas:
The ideological justification: Shareholder value
The ideological criterion:
Amorality, where litmus tests for any act are illegality and reputational risk
Corrupt
language: Which prevents questions of ethics from subverting the structure
(Note that the professional classes of our day, unlike the 1% and 0.01%, lack the power - and
the money - to procure changes to the law or repair a damaged reputation by hiring public relations
specialists. That is, perhaps, why they are petite : They must take both the law and the
nature of reputation as givens.)
Comparing my summary of Luyendijk's framework to NC's
"Neoliberalism Expressed as Simple Rules," we see list item #1 is equivalent to Rule #1 of Neoliberalism:
"Because markets." And we can see that list item #2 is equivalent to Rule #2 - "Go die! - although
worked out with differing degrees of intensity according to context.
Now let's go on to five examples where the question "How do you live with yourself?" might be
posed, and in which the points of Luyendijk's framework are variously salient. (I'm really writing
this post because I encountered all these links in the last couple of days, so I felt like something's
out there in the zeitgeist.)
The first example is Theranos , although not for the bezzle-ish, scammy reasons
one might expect in Silicon Valley.
From the New York Times :
Examiners from Medicare inspected Theranos's laboratory in Newark, Calif., last fall and found
numerous deficiencies, one of which they said posed "immediate jeopardy to patient health and
safety."
That particular deficiency related to Theranos's test for the clotting ability of blood, a
measurement used to help determine the correct dose of the blood-thinning drug warfarin. Too much
warfarin can cause internal bleeding while too little can leave a patient vulnerable to a stroke.
The inspection report, which was recently made public by Medicare, said that all 81 results provided
to patients from that test from April to September of last year were inaccurate.
Theranos said in response to regulators that it had voided the results of those tests. Ms.
Buchanan said the company, after talking to the patients and doctors involved, did not believe
any patients had been harmed.
The regulators also said that the director of the laboratory was not qualified and some other
personnel were inadequately trained. At the time of the inspection, the laboratory director
was a local dermatologist who continued to run his medical practice while also supervising the
lab.
("[D]id not believe any patients had been harmed" is not quite as definitive a denial
as one might hope for.) But how did that dermatologist live with themselves? Theranos was valued
at what,
$9 billion , and the guy in charge of the bloodwork is a dermatologist? And how about the
other credentialled professionals working with the guy, at Theramos and in their dermatology
practice? How do they live with themselves? Didn't they notice? Were they all Theranos shareholders?
Or did they just have hostages to fortune in the form of families?
The More Things Stay the Same – More Apparently Adulterated Heparin, This Time from
Chinese Ruminants
Baxter International imported the "active pharmaceutical ingredient" (API) of heparin, that
is, in plainer language, the drug itself, from China. That API was then sold, with some minor
processing, as a Baxter International product with a Baxter International label. The drug came
from a sketchy supply chain that Baxter did not directly supervise, apparently originating in
small "workshops" operating under primitive and unsanitary conditions without any meaningful inspection
or supervision by the company, the Chinese government, or the FDA. The heparin proved to have
been adulterated with over-sulfated chondroitin sulfate (OSCS), and many patients who received
got seriously ill or died. While there have been investigations of how the adulteration adversely
affected patients, to date, there have been no publicly reported investigations of how the OSCS
got into the heparin, and who should have been responsible for overseeing the purity and safety
of the product. Despite the facts that clearly patients died from receiving this adulterated drug, no individual has yet suffered any negative consequence
for what amounted to poisoning of patients with a brand-name but adulterated pharmaceutical product
.
OK,
it's a complex global supply chain (and why does that have to be? Maybe if it's too
complex to regulate, it's too complex to exist?) Nevertheless, there were credentialed professionals
at every step, even if we leave out the Chinese manufacturers: Buyers, quality assurance specialists,
distributors, pharmacists, doctors, and of course people at the FDA who let this all go. How do they
live with themselves? Was the share price of Baxter International really that important?
The third example if the University of California at Davis . From the
Sacramento Bee
:
UC Davis spent thousands to scrub pepper-spray references from Internet
UC Davis contracted with consultants for at least $175,000 to scrub the Internet of negative
online postings following the November 2011 pepper-spraying of students and to improve the reputations
of both the university and Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi, newly released documents show.
"Scrub the Internet?" How does the consultant that sold that job live with themselves?[2]
Figures released by UC Davis show the strategic communications budget increased from $2.93
million in 2009 to $5.47 million in 2015.
Money to pay the consultants came from the communications department budget , [UC
Davis spokeswoman Dana Topousis] said.
Katehi, as we see, is in the class where she can seek to repair reputational damage, and not simply
accept it. But how on earth - and I'm asking this as a university brat - was the chair of the communications
department suborned to pay for a university PR exercise personally benefiting the president out
of their department budget ? How can they live with themselves? (I grant no lives are at stake,
but that's only because the pepper spray incident didn't turn into a disaster from a debacle.)
The fourth example is Gordon Ingram Associates (GIA) , of London, and I'm including
this one for anybody who's had to deal with a local land use board. From
Our City :
[T]all buildings can have a devastating impact on the daylight received by neighbouring homes.
Regardless of this, they are often still approved by planning authorities.
Why do councils grant planning permission to these buildings that so clearly damage the homes
of local residents, even when planning policies say that amenities like daylight must be protected?…
The reality is that planning authorities are often not told about, or are misled about the
real impact these new buildings will have. Instead, specialist consultants, employed by developers,
manipulate the figures and facts to make new buildings seem far less harmful than they really
are.
This gives the impression to councillors that the harm to residents is either much less than
or at the very least a debatable point, easing the passage of a controversial planning application.
Experts, by spending many years concentrating on a particular subject occupy a privileged role,
which inevitably carries some weight in the planning process. However, if that process is to work
properly experts must behave responsibly and present the facts in a clear and unbiased assessment.
Let me introduce to you Gordon Ingram Associates. GIA is a firm of specialist daylight consultants
based in Waterloo. They have little regard for formal education, preferring to give staff their
own training. The flaws in this approach will become obvious later in this article. As a result
they employ an eclectic group of people as surveyors, a former male model included….
In each case I have seen, GIA told the local planning authority that buildings showed high
levels of compliance with national daylighting guidance and that in their expert and considered
opinion, any damage to daylight on neighbouring properties was negligible. They lied, and I'm
going to show you how.
How do GIA live with themselves?
For each of these four examples, we've seen Milgram Experiment-like outcomes, where seemingly
normal members of the professional, credentialed class end up helping to jeopardize patient health
with blood tests, killing people with adultered drugs, surrenduring academic independence by caving
to administrators, and ruining the built environment with doctored reports, and in each case the
question to ask is very obvious: "How do they live with themselves?" But we haven't had an example
that put all the pieces of Luyendijk's framework together.
With our fifth example, Boots , we have all the pieces. (Boots is also a horrible
private equity story, with KKR the villain, but in this post I'm focusing on professionals in the
workplace.) In addition, we have a professional who can't live with it.
From the Guardian , the story of "Tony," a (credentialed) pharmacist:
How Boots went rogue
How many of these patients guessed that their own chemist was sick? Over the past few years,
depression has dug its claws into Tony. He is tired all the time. His weight, blood sugar and
blood pressure have shot up.
The illness kicked in shortly after he began his latest job, in 2011.
This is Tony's lived experience of the quest for "shareholder value" under neoliberalism, and
I'd love to have numbers on how widely it's shared. And, readers, your experiences.
The past few years have been spent on and off anti-depressants. When we met late last year,
he had just started another course of pills and was back in the usual side‑effects cycle: sweating,
waking too early, exhaustion, sexual dysfunction.
"[B]usiness targets" are, of course, for "shareholder value". And here we have the corrupt language:
That fear comes wrapped in the corporate language of empowerment. Targets are "non-negotiable",
and staff who beat them get graded as "legendary". A chemist advising a customer – "You know,
like I've done my entire career," as one Boots lifer puts it – is now having a "Great Conversation".
If the satisfied customer then compliments the chemist that is now a "Feel Good Moment" (although
in performance plans they are unfortunately referred to as FGMs – so a chemist must notch up,
say, five FGMs a week).
And here we have the amorality:
But that was the least of Tony's worries. It was the medicine-use reviews (MURs) that really
bothered him. Patients came to his consulting room and discussed their diet and health problems,
while he took them through a chunky list of questions and advised them on what their medicines
were meant to do and how best to take them. Free for the customer, a way of keeping a patient
out of a GP's waiting room, and for each one the NHS pays the company £28. To prevent the system
from being abused, every pharmacy in the country is limited to 400 MURs a year. Except Tony's
managers took that number as a target for his store to hit. So keen was Tony's store to make that
profit, he claims it did reviews on anyone, no matter how unsuitable. Tony himself was told to
have one – and to give one to a patient with severe dementia. His manager came in for one – no
sooner had it begun than she walked out, but it still went towards the total. All so the shop
could earn that extra £11,200 from a scheme intended to help the sick.
And, as we can see, Tony can't live with it (and good for him).
This capital-driven process of leaching out all meaning from professional work is akin to crapificaiton,
but I'm not sure it's exactly the same thing. I've always remembered
this post from Clive :
Let me continue with the self-disclosure, but it's perhaps more of a confessional or appeal
for absolution. I've spent almost 30 years working in the FIRE (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate)
sector, my entire adult life. When I first started, it was viewed as a most suitable career choice
for middle class not particularly aspirational sorts who wanted security, respectability and a
recognisable position in the community. It was never supposed to be a passport to significant
wealth or even much more than very modest wealth. It was certainly never supposed to be anything
which oppressed or harmed anyone.
By the early 1990's the rot, which had started to set in during the mid-1980's, had begun
to accelerate. Most regular readers of Naked Capitalism know how the movie ended. If only it was
just a work of fiction. For those of you who have suffered financially, emotionally, physically
(or all three) through an unlawful foreclosure, fee gouging, predatory lending, junk insurance
or scam financial products you will know what the consequences of an industry which threw away
its moral compass and any sense of a social contract are.
For those of us on the inside, we don't deserve any sympathy. But I'd like to offer a glimmer
of insight into the conflict that those of us with any sort of conscience wrestle with because
it is a conflict which is going to shape our societies over the next
generation.
Increasingly, if you want to get and hang on to a middle class job, that job will involve
dishonesty or exploitation of others in some way .
Of course, hanging onto a "middle class job" is, so far as we know, what all the professional
players in the examples above have been doing. All of their (credentialed, professional) jobs have
involved "dishonesty or exploitation of others." And all of them, so far as we know, have been able
to live with themselves. With the exception of Tony.[3]
Last week, Bob Ebeling died. He was an engineer at a contracting firm, and he understood just
how badly the O-rings handled cold weather. He tried desperately to convince NASA that the launch
was going to end in disaster. Unlike many people inside organizations, he was willing to challenge
his superiors, to tell them what they didn't want to hear. Yet, he didn't have organizational
power to stop the disaster. And at the end of the day, NASA and his superiors decided that the
political risk of not launching was much greater than the engineering risk.
Now, how to give Bob Ebeling the requisite organizational power is another question, outside the
scope of this post. However, it seems to me that what Clive labels "dishonesty and exploitation"
is what I would label corruption, and that's what Ebeling was fighting against.
Recall again that corruption, as Zephyr Teachout explains, is not a quid pro quo , but
the use of public office for private ends. I think the point of credentials is to create the expectation
that the credentialed is in some sense acting in a quasi-official capacity, even if not an agent
of the state. Tony, a good pharmacist, was and is trying to maintain a public good, on behalf of
the public: Not merely the right pill for the patient, but the public good of trust between professional
and citizen, which Boots is trying to destroy, on behalf of the ruling idea of "shareholder value."
Ka-ching.
NOTES
[1]
Here's a link on the first Baxter International Heparin scandal . Heparin is, apparently, made
from the intestines of pigs. But the Chinese ran out of pigs, and so they used cows instead, hopefully
not mad ones, but how does one know? Anyhow, hundreds died and the adulterated Heparin might still
be on the shelves. Reminds me of how the banks satisfied the demand for paper with NINJA mortgages….
One thing I don't understand, if you are an honest banker-or you want to be an honest banker-shouldn't
you support tough regulations that crack down and remove the fraud and corruption? Shouldn't the
vast majority of people working in FIRE want the rot removed?
instead while simultaneously engaging in not-quite-moral activities, they circle the wagons
whenever someone suggests cleaning it up.
Isn't that just cognitive consonance (opposite of cognitive dissonance) if they spend their
whole lives morally minimizing fraud and corruption to do so when advocating public policy as
well?
What, you wanna be a trouble maker? Hope you don't care about that raise, or that promotion.
Fish rots from the head, and it's the head that makes the decisions about what gets punished and
what gets praised. You want to survive and thrive in that fishpond, you better do what the rotten
head tells you to do.
George Clooney – yeah, $343,000 is an obscene amount of money and it's a terrible problem, but whaddya gonna do? It takes an obscene amount of money to get the right person elected.
So we're just going to keep throwing obscene amounts of money at the problem until it gets corrected,
because I have obscene amounts of money, and I can help.
That's because while individual people may be moral and upright, in aggregate people are delusional
sociopaths. An individual banker going against the tide would be like a lemming having second
thoughts about going over the cliff; it's goring to get trampled and squashed.
I think that because of this we have to encourage refusal to participate. I don't think everyone
who refuses gets trampled and squashed, but they do have to find their own niche, which can be
a lonely thing. I never listen to people who tell me that lying and cheating are the way things
get done, and that I will die homeless and alone if I don't just accept it. More people end up
homeless and alone because they participated in a rigged system and then got screwed. I opted
out, and I am not rich, but I am independent in that I make choices based on my own values.
Bill Black has written extensively about what he calls the "Gresham's dynamic" that forced
good underwriters out of the market. He has pointed out more than once that a petition was presented
to the authorities signed by a large number of honest underwriters asking for regulation long
before the big financial collapse. Being amoral and dishonest was a competitive advantage and
the honest underwriters were driven out of the business. It's not hard to understand and does
not call for the conclusion that people in general are dishonest or unethical.
A competent publicist could reframe the unfortunate-sounding term "pepper spray incident "
into a benign "invigorating capsicum spritz, provided at no cost to the participants." It wasn't violence; it was philanthropy. :-)
The NEO conservatives/liberals go-to guy for poking fun always seems to be Marx, while Adam
Smith is their boy. A laissez faire capitalist who said some other stuff
This acknowledgment of the role of the class struggle was hardly limited to the Founding
Fathers. It was not Karl Marx who spoke of the proclivity of employers to conspire and "to
deceive and even oppress the public," of "the mean rapacity, the monopolizing spirit of merchants
and manufacturers," of the "monopoly of the rich," of the "bad effects of high profits," of
the "natural selfishness and rapacity" the vain and insatiable desires" of the rich, who institute
"civil government"against the poor." It was the godfather of laissez faire capitalism and the
favorite guru of conservatives, Adam Smith, who said that.
Could Smith have meant that some
businessmen, when left to their own devices, are actually capable of resorting to such measures
as setting up offshore company headquarters and Swiss bank accounts, of cooking the books,
stacking Boards of Governers, employing sweated labor, busting unions, polluting the environment,
outsourcing jobs, colluding to fix prices, bribing officials and legislators, buying judges,
concocting Ponzi schemes, secretly financing phony "grass roots" and "populist" rallies, providing
themselves huge bonuses regardless of performance, and depending on government bail-outs not
available to others–all this among other outrageous forms of often illegal and always immoral
behavior?
Apparently Smith did mean just that, because he advocated that the rascality on the
part of the rich could not be allowed to proceed without interference if one were to have a
functioning capitalist system; hence he spoke of the need for government action to prevent
the stultification of the "laboring poor." If that be class struggle, apparently he favors
it. (Compare Tocqueville's similar observation: "When the rich alone govern, the interest of
the poor is always in danger.") The suspicion is strong that, judging by these words of his,
were Smith alive today, he would far more likely be a liberal than a conservative.
There's a massive difference between what Smith actually said and what his modern fanbois believe
he said. Most of them have never actually read Wealth of Nations (and even less his Theory of
Moral Sentiments. My understanding is that they both have to be read back to back to truly understand
his views). Though I'm sure plenty of them have unopened copies of WoN displayed on their shelves
for prestige value.
I'll admit I too have not gotten around to either book, just as I have yet to tackle Marx's
2400 page doorstop (hopefully both are easier reads than Veblen, who was a chore). But from what
I've gathered to Smith 'enlightened self-interest' (what they now call homo economicus) wasn't
'everyone be a prick and this will somehow make society as a whole better'. In fact to Smith man
WASN'T purely selfish, and had a variety of drives and motivations. And this was because we were
endowed with a divine nature. To Smith the 'invisible hand' was literally the hand of God imbuing
his creation with the capacity to make moral decisions.
Also, Michael Hudson has been of great help by constantly pounding away at the point that Smith
was talking about markets free from vestigial feudalism, particularly exactly the kind of unproductive
rent extraction that is making a comeback in the modern age. That's very different from the concept
of unregulated markets free from any kind of oversight.
This is a wonderful analysis of our conundrum. To add another example which reveals the final,
bottom-most layer; what we might call "collateral damage": the case of my daughter-in-law.
One evening my son answered the door to three FBI agents who handcuffed his wife in front of
their (her) 6 year-old and dragged her away to jail. She was arrested for fraud two years after
the 2008 crash and mortgage crisis. She had been a clerk at a real-estate co. doing "what everybody
was doing" , that is, making sure that people could buy even if they didn't have the down payment
and helping others flip houses that were way overpriced. She was not an agent, she was the office
clerk who sent the false info in the mail and deposited the checks. In the end she was sent to
prison for a year, leaving her young son and 10-month old baby daughter at home with their desperate
father.
Her boss was given house arrest and probation BECAUSE HIS WIFE WAS PREGNANT (!!!) which
adds sexism to the context of class warfare (the judge lectured her about not having gone to college
to better herself at one point?!). This story, I am sure, was played out all over the country.
Perhaps not all judges were nasty old men with a chip on their shoulder about the new administration
but even at this level, I'm sure not many "bosses" went to prison.
So sorry for your family, what a terrible thing. I suppose her boss did go to college??!!1?
This reminds me of all the times over 30 years when I did bookkeeping and accounting work and
was asked to go into grey areas and sometimes commit outright fraud and I said no, and of course
that was the end of that job, I would get eased out, usually in a way sure to make me ineligible
for unemployment. I would certainly have gone to jail because I was the one who knew the law.
But your DIL surely should not have been held accountable for doing clerical tasks without knowledge
of or control over the contracts. That is very scary.
Wow. Just…wow. Somehow the FBI has manpower to spare to go after a secretary, but can't find
it in themselves to consider maybe going after the people who were financing the whole operation
(and many, many others just like it)?!? Well, at least now we know whose side their on. Speaking
of how do they live with themselves….
Hmm, what's the point of a post saying people should have ethics if reproducing (supporting
a family) suddenly nulls and voids all ethics like some magical get out of jail free card. It
isn't even at all clear that a single person with no kids will end up in any better shape when
they lose their job than the person with kids (for one thing they are less likely to qualify for
much in the way of government benefits meager as those are anyway).
That certainly points up the pressure to go along to get along. Especially if you are married
to someone with dodgy values.
"How hard can it be to lie and cheat, Bob? Suck it up, Momma needs to send the kids to private
school!"
He's not saying that (or at least I didn't see it). The more financial responsibilities you
feel like you have, the harder it is to buck the system. You're right, even just an individuals
needs can make it hard, so all the more so when you've got kids to consider (I'll sleep in my
car, but can I make them? etc.)
What makes me crazy these days is that now the conversation is, either you compromise your
values, or you won't have enough to eat and/or be homeless, whereas, before, perhaps you just
may not make as much money. What is up with this? Do all roads now lead to perdition?
True my late father called them (financial responsibilities) the Golden Handcuffs. I know of
a few jobs I was very qualified to get but I wasn't married with children and a mortgage. I had
company owner I was doing contractor work for tell they hated hiring me because of that but I
did the best work so there was that.
Lambert, I'm standing on my chair clamping. Yes I remember telling you not to stand on chairs
to take pictures in the yard;)
It used to be that despite Americans always seeing money as a route to statue (see De Tocqueville),
the downside of that was kept in check by having a well-understood set of social norms and people
feeling they had to adhere to them because they would be shunned otherwise. Shady businessmen
would not get the status goodies they wanted, like membership at the local country club. JP Morgan
was not kidding when he said:
The first thing [in credit] is character … before money or anything else. Money cannot buy
it.… A man I do not trust could not get money from me on all the bonds in Christendom. I think
that is the fundamental basis of business.
So Lambert's question, "How can these people live with themselves?" is critical.
You shrug your shoulders, By doing that, you become part of the problem. You are enabling this
conduct by your resignation.
We collectively need to start making the foot soldier as well as the higher ups ashamed of
what they are doing. We need to delegitimate this conduct. Remember, what brought Joe McCarthy
down was when Joseph Welsh called him out by asking, "At long last, have you left no sense of
decency?" People need to start doing that, publicly and privately, every time the opportunity
presents itself, even if that means alienating friends. You need to be willing to ostracize people
if you want a better society.
. . .You need to be willing to ostracize people if you want a better society.
The fly in the ointment, is that the ones one is ostracizing are the majority, so it becomes
a very lonely existence. People find that hard to live with.
1) Close friend is a life-long gov't engineer. After a pipeline leak near Billings, MT, the
details of which he was personally familiar with, the oil company CEO went on TV, in front of
some gov't types, to answer questions….and proceeded to lie through his teeth.
When asked why the leak was allowed to continue for an hour before the pipeline was shut down,
he claimed it was due to physics, that you can't just push a button and stop the flow because
of all the pressure build-up. Only you can. They have like, sciencey stuff that makes just that
possible. There is literally a button in the pump station you can push to stop the flow. The reason
the leak went on for an hour was because there was no safety manual in the pump station, so the
guy on duty had to call around to try to find out what this particular blinking light or alarm
meant, and what to do about it. It took them an hour and a literal game of telephone to figure
out they were discharging crude oil into the Yellowstone River.
And they had been sited, more than once iirc, for failure to have said safety manual in the
pump station. It had been years that they failed to have one printed up. I got to see the final
inter-office memo on the incident, which reported a fine that amounted to a couple minutes worth
of profit for the company involved.
So knowing all this, and watching the CEO lie about the facts, did this gov't employee call
the press, or anyone, and inform them of the truth? No. Why not? Because Reagen issued and executive
order barring public employees from talking to the press without permission and this guy valued
his job and his pension. So he kept his mouth shut. He's got a family and grandkids and whatnot,
so it's somewhat understandable. Still….
2) A Nepali friend works for H&M in the Middle East. He's worked his way up to a store manager
after a number of years working in Kuwait, and recently got transfered to Saudi Arabia to open
a new store. We got to talk quite a bit about his work. I was fascinated.
H&M has astoundingly fine-grained surveillance procedures. Sales at individual registers are
tracked at 10 minute intervals. Numbers of customers entering the store are likewise tracked.
Metrics are analyzed and plans for improving them are made at Monday morning meetings with upper
management. Mondays are the worst.
"Why was there this drop in customers coming in last Wednesday?"
"Because there was a sandstorm"
"Don't make excuses."
"Secret Shoppers" are the bane of G's existence. They regularly come in and check things out,
being sure to note any possible failing, since they're not being paid to say "everything's just
great!" After one's been through, G gets called to a meeting and they discuss the results. Again,
he's got to have a "plan" for addressing any failings, and apologize for not being perfect.
The secret to G's success is that he's figured out how to game the metrics. Secret shoppers
give a demerit if they aren't greeted within 15 seconds of entering the store, so G had the bright
idea to hire some poor schlub to stand by the door all day for a pittance and say 'hello' to everyone
who enters. Customers not coming in? Offer some free snack and put a sign outside. Most people
will just come in for the free food and walk right out, but the customer entrance metric just
went up. He's also a great ass-kisser, which really helps in dealing with his upperlings.
And, of course, he has to be pretty merciless with the employees he manages. Not making enough
high-end sales? A few seconds slow helping a secret shopper? You're toast. No second chances for
the front line crew. He doesn't enjoy it but what to do ( ke garne? ) that's the job.
And it's been providing an above average salary for him and his family, so it's understandable
why he does it. Still….
I've only seen it in Walmarts around here. I thought it was funny he came up with the same
idea as a way to pass secret shopper tests. Maybe that's how it started at WallyWorld too. The
sad thing is, my friend is a brilliant salesman but is having to use his talents for the benefit
of whoever runs H&M (when he's not using them to game their surveillence systems).
"Unlike many people inside organizations, he was willing to challenge his superiors, to
tell them what they didn't want to hear. Yet, he didn't have organizational power to stop the
disaster."
There's the rub: amassing organizational power in a corrupt organization is very difficult
for an honest, outspoken person. What often happens is that decent people save up their moral
outrage until after they retire from whatever position in which they have "gone along to get along."
Then most of them discover that they no longer have the energy, or the means, to "fight the good
fight" they have delayed for decades.
I have tremendous admiration for a group of retired Teamsters up in Rhode Island that I know.
They have come out against mobbed-up sellouts, at great personal risk to themselves, and now Local
251 is far more progressive than it ever was! Those guys are truly an inspiration.
My own small contributions to the struggle haven't required nearly as much personal courage.
My wealthy and influential Anglo/Dutch relations don't go out of their way to protect me from
adverse consequences of radical activism. Yet their mere existence provides me a larger "free-speech
zone" from which to hurl invective at the kleptocrats– compared to the very tiny space for protest
allowed to most in U.S. society. I have also been fortunate to witness the encouraging reality
that at least some people– who are regarded as trusted insiders in our corrupt system– are actually
thoroughly subversive!
An important post. Thanks, Lambert. You mention reputational damage.
In this age of the internet, I wish there was more reputational damage. For instance, the cop
who sprayed all the students (and then got $38,000) because he was made to feel bad. How about
posts with his picture, his address, what car he is seen driving, where he is posted, etc.
Same sort of treatment might be meted out for executives of some of the companies and organizations
you discussed. There are reputation repair companies, how about a site "How do you live with yourself.org"?
It could get a little more personal than "cop shoots family dog'.
More evidence of dispensing prescription medication for fun and profit (regardless of the impact
to consumers, sorry, patients) has come to my notice through my experience at Walmart's British
outpost, known as Asda
The NHS has moved to a system of not having primary care responsible for maintaining responsibility
for repeat prescriptions but instead pharmacies (such as Boots mentioned in Lambert's piece above)
got to do the admin. You sign up to any number of dispensing pharmacies you like and, when you
need a repeat prescription, you go to the pharmacy not primary care.
The Mom and Pop independent pharmacies seem to operate the system as intended (the dispensing
pharmacist checks the indication you present and validates the medication is in line with what
the physician who originally prescribed the medication intended). For example, I have an ocular
antibiotic on repeat and, when I go to an independent pharmacy I'm registered with, they do the
expected investigations before issuing the repeat prescription. This is perfectly appropriate
and I am pleased that they will not simply dole out things like antibiotics carte blanche. They'd
rather not dispense than send people out the store with something inappropriate.
Not so with Asda/Walmart. There, you just get shown the screen - which has everything you've
ever been prescribed listed and you simply click the ones you like. No questions asked. Asda/Walmart
get money from the NHS for each of the items that they dispense. They are obviously setting themselves
up as the go-to place for hassle free eee-zee-meds. It costs them nothing (the NHS covers the
cost of the drugs and the reimbursement to the pharmacies for issuing the prescription plus Asda/Walmart's
profit from the "transaction").
Primary care is supposed to monitor what the pharmacies are dispensing but, guess what, they
are being stretched way too thinly and are having to be ruthless in their priorities under the
constant drive for "efficiency", all in the name of austerity.
How do the pharmacists live with themselves? My guess is that, like Boots, Asda/Walmart have
put their pharmacies under a target regime. If they don't send as many people out the door loaded
with medication as much medication as they can, their management will replace them with people
who will.
Neoliberalism is corrupting, absolutely. Everyone and everything is vulnerable to being captured
in its thrall.
Sadly, people are a bit more evil than we give them credit for…they would rather go along then
move along…they are quite happy walking over homeless people they helped put there just as long
as the lawn has that putting green feeling and the car lease does not run past the miles allotment
before it is time to get a brand spanking new car payment…
evil is easy for most people because we don't call it evil anymore….
They would much rather go along then move along…and we are becoming less and less the home
of the brave…
This is a challenge for anybody that navigates what increasingly is an overtly corrupt system.
One of my more high profile publications was a piece of work refuting blatantly fradulent work
from another scientist in the same city. The fradulent scientist was publishing high profile papers
on the mechanisms of how antibiotics work, and drawing great fame and acclaim for doing so. On
the ground level, other scientists couldn't repeat the work and in their small singlular labs
probably thought they had failed in some step to repeart the famous work.
We were skeptical of the work the instant it was published because all our own work and decades
of evidence countered it. It was only when we aligned with another prominent scientist to publish
back to back papers refuting the work that it got published. And did it deter the fradulent scientist?
Not one bit.
Where is the incentive to be an honest intellectual when fraud has clear and obvious rewards?
"... By John Helmer , the longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia. He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself in Russia. Originally published at Dances with Bears ..."
"... But it is most likely that such an operation would be run out of an agency called the Russian Financial Monitoring Service (RFM). RFM is Putin's personal financial intelligence unit -- he created it and it answers only to him. It is completely legitimate and is widely recognized as the most powerful such agency in the world, with a monopoly on information about money laundering, offshore centers, and related issues involving Russia or Russian nationals." ..."
"... According to Putin, "we must prepare a national plan to combat money laundering, tax evasion, and offshore tax evaders, while understanding which company is the ultimate beneficiary of this. This is what other countries, or at least many of them, do." ..."
"... According to Gaddy's resume , in the mid-1990s he was "an advisor to the Russian finance ministry and regional governments on issues of fiscal federalism for the U.S. Government's Tax Reform Oversight Project for Russia." Talbott was Under-Secretary of State. ..."
"... Talbott's mandate was to keep Yeltsin in power if possible – and if impossible, build up as his replacement Yegor Gaidar at best, Victor Chernomyrdin at worst. Getting rid of Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov was one of Talbott's regime changes; at the same time as he was plotting the overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia. For details, read this . ..."
"... For quality, independence, and impact this is what Talbott and Gaddy define as Brookings' current mission on Russia: "Confronting an aggressive Russia, U.S. policymakers must understand President Putin's motivations and worldview in order to devise an effective strategy to counter Moscow's revanchist agenda. Whether considering Putin's efforts to re-establish a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe or his turn to nationalism to burnish his domestic popularity, Senior Fellows Fiona Hill and Clifford Gaddy offer U.S. policymakers comprehensive insights into the Russian leader. In 2015, Gaddy and Hill, director of the Center on the United States and Europe, released an expanded edition of Mr. Putin: Operative in the Kremlin, adding five new chapters that provide greater context on Putin's ambitions for Russia." Russia and China are defined by the think-tank as the principal "direct challengers to the liberal, international order." ..."
"... The second alternate expert on Russia on the Brookings payroll, titled "senior fellow in the Project on International Order and Strategy in the Foreign Policy program", is Robert Kagan . He is the husband of Victoria Nuland, who is in charge of regime-change operations for Russia and Ukraine at the State Department at the moment. For details, click to read . ..."
"... For the money in the pay packets of Talbott, Gaddy, Hill and Kagan, open page 39 of the 2015 annual report for the current list of Brookings paymasters. The foreign governments giving this cash include the US military allies, Australia (foreign ministry, defence ministry), Canada, UK, Japan, South Korea, Qatar, Turkey, United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Norway. To match these countries and governments to the list of names revealed in the Panama Papers, open this . Of the governments appearing on both the Brookings and Panama lists, either directly or through proxies, the most obvious are Qatar, Ukraine, UK, and UAE. ..."
"... There are no Russian donors to Brookings - only anti-Russian donors. The flushest of them is the Ukrainian oligarch, Victor Pinchuk. ..."
"... the financiers of ICIJ and its Washington parent, the Center for Public Integrity (CPI), there are George Soros's Open Society Foundations; many of the same American foundations to be found on the Brookings benefactor list; plus proprietors of the media which are publishing the Panama Papers. This cui bono trail runs around the world in a circle. For example, Soros pays money to the ICIJ to receive the Panama Papers, and pays the Mail& Guardian of South Africa to report them. ..."
"... The US Agency for International Development (USAID) also pays into the circle by financing "fact checking", "investigative journalism", and "responsible media" projects in countries where the Panama Papers stories have been amplified, such as the Balkans , Ukraine , Mexico , and the Philippines . ..."
"... On April 9 , the State Department spokesman acknowledged that one of the funnels for the Panama Papers, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) , is financed by USAID. "They", claimed spokesman Mark Toner (below) " this organization conducts investigative journalism, primarily, I think, in Europe." ..."
"... "Obviously, these are the kind of organizations that USAID has and continues to fund, but not specifically for – to go after any particular government, but – or any particular individual, but simply to conduct what – and what we're supporting here is the conduct of independent investigative journalism that we believe can shine a light on corruption, because, as the Secretary on down have said, corruption continues to have a corrosive effect on good governance around the world. So it's part of our – a core tenet of our foreign policy that we support organizations that go after corruption." ..."
"... Despite all the mud being slung at him, Putin, as an old KGB apparatchik, comes across as an unqualified Russian patriot. That independent streak is what the Neocons cannot stomach. ..."
"... Heh heh. I subscribed to Brookings' newsletter in March – they are actually doing some marketing as there must be concern in Imperial circles that the teevee and the ny times are just not reaching enough pawns anymore. ..."
"... You've got to cast a wide net – there is so much disinformation floating around – but even the most obvious propaganda reveals more than the propagandist wants revealed. That's why Russians used to read Pravda – the knew it was propaganda but they also knew it contained information for those with eyes to see. ..."
"... I thought the timing of the Mossack Fonseca story was possibly convenient, coming out within a few days after the Unaoil story, and effectively eclipsing it. One would think a journalist (at least one?) would put one and one together and associate (or seek to cross-reference) these two stories, but that has not happened yet. ..."
"... Birkenfeld, major banking whistleblower, late of UBS, believes that the Panama Papers leak originates with the CIA & NSA. Given that the targets thus far revealed are nations with a vexed relationship with the US, this seems plausible. ..."
"... Despite being at a Swiss bank, Birkenfeld appears to have had no or few dealings with the world of Mossack Fonseca. He knew that his customers were American. That's how he was able to blow the whistle on the bank. ..."
"... The whole point of using a firm like Mossack Fonseca is to set up a structure so that the ultimate owners can't be found. Birkenfeld would have had no idea where his customers were if he was dealing with registered agents like Mossack Fonseca. ..."
"... And the leak has hurt one of the US's pet project, our pet government in Ukraine The CIA can't have wanted that. See Economist: The Mossack Fonseca leak shakes Ukraine more than Russia ..."
"... The REAL question is will anything at all be done about tax evasion, money laundering, hidden criminal activities, and shell corporations doing anything from assisting terrorism, acquiring nuclear materials, continuing sex trafficking/slavery, organ harvesting and all the other "activities" they facilitate. Whole countries are being bankrupted by the SHELL GAME. Rob Kall says my "take" is essentially the same as John Perkins and an interview with him will be running soon. ..."
"... We should really stop calling these places "think tanks" and use the term "Ministries Of Truths" instead. ..."
"... My "three day" prediction on Panama Papers was pretty accurate, pretty much gone after the initial frisson. There's probably some superset of money hiding companies that are trying to scare clients out of Mossack and into their arms. What will be done? Zero, maybe a few perps walks for low level lawyers. ..."
Yves here. The Brookings paper in question showed up in my inbox. Normally, when think
tanks tell a howler, they do so through misleading framing or cherry picking data. This one, by
contrast, had a speculation to information ratio that was off the charts.
By John Helmer , the
longest continuously serving foreign correspondent in Russia, and the only western journalist to
direct his own bureau independent of single national or commercial ties. Helmer has also been a professor
of political science, and an advisor to government heads in Greece, the United States, and Asia.
He is the first and only member of a US presidential administration (Jimmy Carter) to establish himself
in Russia. Originally published at Dances
with Bears
Clifford Gaddy (lead image, left) has never recovered from his 20-year infatuation with Anatoly
Chubais and Alexei Kudrin. Neither has Gaddy's boss at Brookings Institution in Washington, Strobe
Talbott, the regime changer-in-chief at the State Department in the 1990s, when Boris Yeltsin was
his man in the Kremlin, and the rest of the country too weak to resist.
If only they ruled Russia today, President Chubais, Prime Minister Kudrin or vice versa, instead
of President Vladimir Putin, there could never ever be the Kremlin plot Gaddy and Brookings charged
last week for blackmailing United States officials and their allies with something like the Panama
Papers. A regime-changing plot like that isn't as preposterous as it sounds - not because Putin thought
of it, as Gaddy now claims, but because Gaddy and Talbott used it a good many times themselves in
Moscow, and in Belgrade too, until Putin put a stop to them. For lossmaking Brookings, however, putting
a stop to Putin's plotting is a desperate advertisement for badly needed funds.
"Are the Russians actually behind the Panama Papers?" is the title of Gaddy's indictment. It isn't
an opinion-page piece placed in a newspaper. There's no institutional disclaimer either. It is an
official publication of the Brookings think-tank where Gaddy is chief expert on Russia, and Talbott
is chief executive.
Also, the question isn't a genuine one, because Gaddy's answer is yes. "My thinking", he says,
ignoring the subjunctives, conditionals, and the cyrillization of control (контроль)
"is this could have been a Russian intelligence operation, which orchestrated a high-profile
leak and established total credibility by 'implicating' (not really implicating) Russia and keeping
the source hidden. Some documents would be used for anti-corruption campaigns in a few countries-topple
some minor regimes, destroy a few careers and fortunes. By then blackmailing the real targets
in the United States and elsewhere (individuals not in the current leak), the Russian puppet masters
get 'kontrol' and influence."
Gaddy provides no evidence. Instead, he proposes the ancient Roman courtroom trick of casting
blame in the direction of motive when the evidence of commission of acts is absent. "The cui bono
["to whose good"] principle connects profits with motives, asking who stands to gain from a certain
action. If it's the Russians who win, isn't it possible that they are somehow behind at least part
of this story?" - that's another of Gaddy's trick questions, to which he has the ready answer.
"So let's say that the 'who' is the Russians, and the 'why' is to deflect attention and show that
'everybody does it.' But how? Given Russia's vaunted hacking capabilities, a special cyber unit in
the Kremlin may have been able to obtain the documents. (Monssack [sic] Fonseca is maintaining that
the leak was not an inside job.) But it is most likely that such an operation would be run out
of an agency called the Russian Financial Monitoring Service (RFM). RFM is Putin's personal financial
intelligence unit -- he created it and it answers only to him. It is completely legitimate and is
widely recognized as the most powerful such agency in the world, with a monopoly on information about
money laundering, offshore centers, and related issues involving Russia or Russian nationals."
RosFinMonitoring's chief, Yury Chikhanchin, who has an economics doctorate like Gaddy and 16 years
in the security services, first took charge of the agency in 2008. Four years later, in June 2012,
Putin met him publicly, twice, to hand him the cover story, according to Gaddy, for what RFM really
does that's different from its US counterpart, the
US Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
(FinCEN) , headed by Jennifer Shasky Calvery (right).
According to Putin, "we must prepare a national plan to combat money laundering, tax evasion,
and offshore tax evaders, while understanding which company is the ultimate beneficiary of this.
This is what other countries, or at least many of them, do."
Putin and Chikhanchin,
June 13, 2012 . According
to Brookings, Putin told Chikhanchin to break into Panamanian offshore company registration files
to find the names of influential US government officials and businessmen in order to blackmail them
into taking Kremlin orders.
Putin also told
Chikhanchin to keep his work secret. "I note that over these years, despite the complexity and confidential
nature of your work, the Service has never had any leak of information that could be damaging for
our country's business and economy. I hope that you will continue to work just as intensely, thoroughly
and carefully."
In
July 2013 the RFM was exposed in public as Putin's personal spy agency. That was in a publication
financed by the Russian state media budget. The author of the disclosure was… Gaddy. One of the secrets
Gaddy kept then, and now, is that between 2000 and 2002
Chikhanchin
was head of the Currency Control Department at the Finance Ministry. The minister to whom he reported
was… Kudrin.
But the Putin-Chikhanchin secret is now out, leaked by Gaddy:
"the purpose of the Panama Papers operation… is a message directed at the Americans and other
Western political leaders who could be mentioned but are not. The message is: 'We have information
on your financial misdeeds, too. You know we do. We can keep them secret if you work with us.'
In other words, the individuals mentioned in the documents are not the targets. The ones who are
not mentioned are the targets."
When Cicero called out "cui bono", the Romans in court didn't know what a boomerang was. Without
evidence, the Putin plot according to Gaddy is just that. He invites the question – what motive,
benefit, or profit can he, Talbott, and Brookings have for attacking the Panama Papers as a Putin
blackmail scheme? This isn't a trick question.
According to
Gaddy's resume
, in the mid-1990s he was "an advisor to the Russian finance ministry and regional governments
on issues of fiscal federalism for the U.S. Government's Tax Reform Oversight Project for Russia."
Talbott was Under-Secretary of State. The recent release of the transcripts of telephone-calls
and meetings at the time between President Bill Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair reveals
that Talbott's mandate was to keep Yeltsin in power if possible – and if impossible, build up
as his replacement Yegor Gaidar at best, Victor Chernomyrdin at worst. Getting rid of Prime Minister
Yevgeny Primakov was one of Talbott's regime changes; at the same time as he was plotting the overthrow
of Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia. For details, read
this .
How are their interests now, and Brookings' interests, affected by the Panama Papers? For cui
bono, read cash. Brookings doesn't fully reveal the identity and value of its funding sources. But
this how it describes
them: "Generous individuals, foundations, leading corporations, and U.S. and foreign government
agencies that share our commitment to quality, independence, and impact in public policy research
and analysis support Brookings with financial contributions and intellectual engagement. Donors invest
in Brookings with both project-specific gifts and unrestricted funds that help us react nimbly to
breaking events and confront urgent challenges, from the domestic and global economies to foreign
affairs to the health of America's cities and metropolitan areas."
For quality, independence, and impact this is what Talbott and Gaddy define as
Brookings' current mission on Russia: "Confronting an aggressive Russia, U.S. policymakers must
understand President Putin's motivations and worldview in order to devise an effective strategy to
counter Moscow's revanchist agenda. Whether considering Putin's efforts to re-establish a sphere
of influence in Eastern Europe or his turn to nationalism to burnish his domestic popularity, Senior
Fellows Fiona Hill and Clifford Gaddy offer U.S. policymakers comprehensive insights into the Russian
leader. In 2015, Gaddy and Hill, director of the Center on the United States and Europe, released
an expanded edition of Mr. Putin: Operative in the Kremlin, adding five new chapters that provide
greater context on Putin's ambitions for Russia." Russia and China are defined by the think-tank
as the principal "direct challengers to the liberal, international order."
Fiona Hill (right),
the alternate expert on Russia after Gaddy, was a UK national; a Harvard PhD, then an academic, and
between 2006 and 2009 "the national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia at The National Intelligence
Council."
The second alternate expert on Russia on the Brookings payroll, titled "senior fellow in the
Project on International Order and Strategy in the Foreign Policy program", is
Robert Kagan . He is the husband
of Victoria Nuland, who is in charge of regime-change operations for Russia and Ukraine at the State
Department at the moment. For details, click to
read .
For the money in the pay packets of Talbott, Gaddy, Hill and Kagan, open page 39 of the
2015 annual report for the current list of Brookings paymasters. The foreign governments giving
this cash include the US military allies, Australia (foreign ministry, defence ministry), Canada,
UK, Japan, South Korea, Qatar, Turkey, United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Norway. To match these countries
and governments to the list of names revealed in the Panama Papers, open
this . Of the governments appearing on both the Brookings and Panama lists, either directly or
through proxies, the most obvious are Qatar, Ukraine, UK, and UAE.
But their wars may be hurting Brookings' bottom-line. The think-tank reports its revenue in 2015
fell from the year before by 11% to $95.6 million, while its operating costs jumped 5% to $104.2
million. Brookings' investment income also suffered, dropping from a positive $38.9 million in 2014
to a negative $22 million in 2015. This means the think-tank is in the red operationally, and needs
to raise more donor cash urgently.
BROOKINGS IS NOW LOSS-MAKING – THE 2015 BALANCE-SHEET
The need for fresh money is particularly urgent for foreign policy, because Talbott, Gaddy, Hill,
Pifer, and Kagan aren't cheap: they consume one-third of the think-tank budget each year. Foreign
enemies, not domestic American issues, are what brings home the bacon for Brookings.
Brookings' committee for offshore money-raising is headed by Antoine van Agtmael, an American
of Dutch origin. His business is emerging market investment funds; they appear to be based in the
UK, and use Ireland for offshore registration; Russia has not been one of his investment targets.
The
Brookings board is heavy on Americans (3), Spaniards (3), Mexicans (2), Canadians (2), and Israelis
(2).
The Panama Papers list of names counts five Israeli oligarchs - Lev Leviev, Idnan Ofer, Teddy
Sagi, Dan Gertler, and Beny Steinmetz. There are several Spaniards, including the Spanish duchess,
Pilar de Borbon, sister of former King Juan Carlos.
There are no Russian donors to Brookings - only anti-Russian donors. The flushest of them
is the Ukrainian oligarch, Victor Pinchuk. He has been providing $200,000 annually to the institution,
and he takes a seat on its International Advisory Council. He funds the pro-Kiev, anti-Moscow Ukrainian
coverage by former US Ambassador to Ukraine, Steven Pifer, a salaried Brookings Fellow. For more
details, including Brookings' and Pifer's refusal to discuss the Pinchuk money, read
this . The latest report from Brookings
on where its money came from in 2015 identifies Pinchuk as continuing to give in the range of $100,000-$249,000.
Talbott (right) was Pinchuk's guest at the Yalta European Strategy (YES) meeting in Kiev
on September 12, 2015. On the left, Ukrainian foreign minister Pavlo Klimkin; centre, James Appathurai,
the Canadian spokesman for NATO. Pifer of Brookings has been a regular guest of Pinchuk's at the
annual YES convention for years.
Following the Brookings money trail identifies a cui bono motive for Brookings to protect its
benefactors, local and foreign, by attacking the Panama Papers in case the money landing in the Brookings
till has been laundered from benefactor crimes. The Russian charges that Pinchuk stole more than
$200 million from his Rossiya Insurance Company in Moscow suggest something of the sort, though there
have been no trials, no convictions. For details of that case, read
this .
For the Talbott-Gaddy theory of Putin-Chikhanchik blackmail to turn into publishable evidence
requires a naïve believer, a stooge - indeed, several of them, including the most rabidly anti-Russian
media in the English-speaking world: the London Guardian, the Rupert Murdoch press, the Daily Beast
(director, Chelsea Clinton), and the Nikkei-owned Financial Times (Nikkei
gave more than $50,000 to Brookings last year). According to Gaddy's version, the International
Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) of Washington, which has supervised the authentication
and dissemination of the Panama Papers, is "the self-described elite of investigative journalists-but
what have they discovered about the source of all these documents?"
Nichevo, says Gaddy. "Perhaps, since the ICIJ is funded by Americans, they're not going to bite
the hand that feeds them… Perhaps, then, someone purged those references before the documents were
handed over to the German newspaper. The 'someone' would… be the Russians-and the absence of incriminating
information about Americans is an important hint of what I think to be the real purpose of this leak."
Brookings almost follows the money trail into the ICIJ, but stops short. Had it gone further,
it would have discovered among the financiers of
ICIJ and its Washington parent, the Center
for Public Integrity
(CPI), there are George Soros's Open Society Foundations; many of the same American foundations
to be found on the Brookings benefactor list; plus proprietors of the media which are publishing
the Panama Papers. This cui bono trail runs around the world in a circle. For example, Soros pays
money to the ICIJ to receive the Panama Papers, and pays the Mail& Guardian of South Africa to
report them.
The US Agency for International Development (USAID) also pays into the circle by financing
"fact checking", "investigative journalism", and "responsible media" projects in countries where
the Panama Papers stories have been amplified, such as the
Balkans , Ukraine
,
Mexico , and the
Philippines .
On April 9
, the State Department spokesman acknowledged that one of the funnels for the Panama Papers,
the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting
Project (OCCRP) , is financed by USAID. "They", claimed spokesman Mark Toner (below) " this organization
conducts investigative journalism, primarily, I think, in Europe."
... ... ...
"Obviously, these are the kind of organizations that USAID has and continues to fund, but
not specifically for – to go after any particular government, but – or any particular individual,
but simply to conduct what – and what we're supporting here is the conduct of independent investigative
journalism that we believe can shine a light on corruption, because, as the Secretary on down have
said, corruption continues to have a corrosive effect on good governance around the world. So it's
part of our – a core tenet of our foreign policy that we support organizations that go after corruption."
Cui bono? asked reporters at the briefing. "We have no editorial control over what over their
reporting," Toner answered. "They're allowed [by the US Government] to and permitted to cover whatever
they want."
The Brookings attack on the Panama Papers as a Russian plot appeared on April 7, two days before
the State Department made these admissions.
The OCCRP reports the US Government and Soros money in the funding section of its
website ; it omits them both in its
history of the organization
. As for how accountable the ICIJ is to investigation of its own funds, it isn't. This is what happened
when the ICIJ's director, Gerard Ryle, was asked questions about a Russian investigation he had just
published with the Guardian in November 2012
– before Ryle cut the telephone line.
it really looks like the PP is an American plot where ICIJ have been told to keep anything
that makes Americans look bad, secret, or else. I'm sure they would comply without question.
Once one learns to filter out the 'nationalist' bias in all this, and shift to a class based
analysis, things become clearer. "Cui bono" indeed.
Despite all the mud being slung at him, Putin, as an old KGB apparatchik, comes across
as an unqualified Russian patriot. That independent streak is what the Neocons cannot stomach.
Heh heh. I subscribed to Brookings' newsletter in March – they are actually doing some
marketing as there must be concern in Imperial circles that the teevee and the ny times are just
not reaching enough pawns anymore.
Helmer's article confirms what is pretty obvious about Brookings if you read a few articles
– it is a propaganda organ of Empire (or some major elements thereof). That's not to say that
it doesn't get some stuff right – it is highly likely that the shadowy figures behind the Mossack
Fonsecka data hack are using it for making money – blackmail such a dirty word but how about selectively
releasing data based on who will pay the most to expose their enemies? SO just take bad evil Russia
out of the mix and consider who the initial targets were and who would want them exposed and you
can get a pretty good idea of who the paymasters are.
You've got to cast a wide net – there is so much disinformation floating around – but even
the most obvious propaganda reveals more than the propagandist wants revealed. That's why Russians
used to read Pravda – the knew it was propaganda but they also knew it contained information for
those with eyes to see.
Good old "cui bono" – is it similar to children's 'I know you are but what am I", or a more
sophisticated Monty Python exercise in logic?
Those who own the hidden money, some of the shady 'winners' of our societies have been exposed.
Perhaps other humans who are suffering from governmental poverty will benefit from the potential
windfall.
Wait, wait; if the hungry or the homeless or ill benefit that must mean that they are the ones
to whom the "bono" falls. How dare such perpetrators of need behave so criminally as to hide money
and then criminally exposed proprietarily information? Let the rich keep the money and the rest
of us receive a well-deserved nothing of their ill-gotten gains.
Good to see Arnold foundation listed. xEnron Hedge Fund Billionaire is now messing in state
pensions everywhere, encouraging secret PE and HF while cutting benefits to workers.
So, what of Unaoil and that leak/scandal? What is known of the pedigree of its sources and
publishers? I cast no aspersion, just asking the question (at this point).
I thought the timing of the Mossack Fonseca story was possibly convenient, coming out within
a few days after the Unaoil story, and effectively eclipsing it. One would think a journalist
(at least one?) would put one and one together and associate (or seek to cross-reference) these
two stories, but that has not happened yet.
Birkenfeld, major banking whistleblower, late of UBS, believes that the Panama Papers leak
originates with the CIA & NSA. Given that the targets thus far revealed are nations with a vexed
relationship with the US, this seems plausible.
Short article, not dispositive, yet considering the interviewee, difficult to discount out
of hand, no?
Despite being at a Swiss bank, Birkenfeld appears to have had no or few dealings with the
world of Mossack Fonseca. He knew that his customers were American. That's how he was able to
blow the whistle on the bank.
The whole point of using a firm like Mossack Fonseca is to set up a structure so that the
ultimate owners can't be found. Birkenfeld would have had no idea where his customers were if
he was dealing with registered agents like Mossack Fonseca.
Our Richard Smith knows way more about this than Bireknfeld. He's being called by the UK media
heavily. He think Birkenfeld is all wet.
I put up a simplistic argument about the propaganda, misdirection and defocussing around the
papers on OpEd News – trying to get people to stay focused on the fight against plutocracy and
what can be gained. I pointed that the alphabetsoupers are doing a really poor job.
I got trolled, had accusations heaped on my head and was dismayed to see that people cannot
even sit down and read the websites. People are just falling for every type of clickbait headline.
We can speculate all like about the leaker; the truth is WE DON'T KNOW. At least I got a handle
on how it was done with my friend:
http://www.unicornriot.ninja/?p=5357
so to say this was done as a robbery is pure bunk. The breech is still open and servers have
been seized by El Salvador. Who's gonna check them for the hands that took out information?
This entire zeitgeist opens up all sorts of opportunities for spin, manipulation, outright
lies, deluded accusations.
The REAL question is will anything at all be done about tax evasion, money laundering,
hidden criminal activities, and shell corporations doing anything from assisting terrorism, acquiring
nuclear materials, continuing sex trafficking/slavery, organ harvesting and all the other "activities"
they facilitate. Whole countries are being bankrupted by the SHELL GAME. Rob Kall says my "take"
is essentially the same as John Perkins and an interview with him will be running soon.
Of course we know ' who benefits ' ; the neoliberal consensus in its myriad forms . How ? I
offer three examples :
1. Make the little people everywhere believe that the big fish are going to be caught .
2. Keep plugging the ' Putin is Evil ' meme.
3. Create a climate of fear among the really dodgy money owners as a first strike before offering
them an accommodation within the properly laundered club.
I am sure there are others, but these stood out to me as soon as the story broke.
Geez Helmer does good old-fashioned investigative journalism.
My "three day" prediction on Panama Papers was pretty accurate, pretty much gone after
the initial frisson. There's probably some superset of money hiding companies that are trying
to scare clients out of Mossack and into their arms. What will be done? Zero, maybe a few perps
walks for low level lawyers.
Seeing BillG's name on Brookings confirms the obvious: he's just another corporo-fascist,
he backs stuff like The Better Than Cash Alliance whose sole aim is to get the world's citizens
hooked on credit card debt. So Mr. Super-Rich Goofy IT Guy shows his true colors, kinda like Sergey
Brin at Google and his efforts to overthrow Assad.
A question to Senator Lindsey Graham by "The Daily Show's" Trevor Noah asking why he endorsed Cruz
for the Republican Presidential candidate over Trump. Earlier, Noah ran a clip of Graham stating
it was a choice between getting shot or being poisoned and the reasoning for the choice of Cruz was
there may be "an antidote." What a lackluster answer and field of Republican candidates for the Presidency.
The last seven years of this administration's congressional support has been rife with actions by
Republicans to obstruct any action by this President. After all of the obstructionism, the electorate
has had enough and has chosen some who may not be favored by the establishment.
Senator Elizabeth Warren delivered a message to her fellow Republican Senators as detailed in
The Boston Globe,
"Do Your Job." The Senator chastises the Republican members of the Senate for seven years of
blocking anything to come before them as sponsored by President Obama (If you can not get into The
Boston Globe to read her message, you may want to try
Common Dreams.)
"through artificial debt ceiling crises, deliberate government shutdowns, and intentional confirmation
blockades, Senate Republicans have acted as though the election and reelection of Obama relieved
them of any responsibility to do their jobs. Senate Republicans embraced the idea that government
shouldn't work at all unless it works only for themselves and their friends. The campaigns of
Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are the next logical outgrowth of the same attitude - if you can't get
what you want, just ignore the obligations of governing, then divert attention and responsibility
by wallowing in a toxic stew of attacks on Muslims, women, Latinos, and each other."
The most current crisis started in 2013 where the Republican Senate has stalled the process of
judicial appointments to the higher courts enough so, it forced the then in majority Democrats to
change the rules of filibuster in order to move along 3 appointments to the COA. Do not forget Senator
McConnell's pledge to make Barack Obama a one term president and the meeting after President Obama's
first election by key Republicans to block every move made by the then fledgling President. In 2015,
the Republicans gained control of the Senate and judicial appointments have ground to a halt. And
the same is occurring with Barack Obama's appointment of Merrick Garland.
March 13, 1912, President William Taft (a Republican) nominated Mahlon Pitney to succeed John
Marshall Harlan, who died on October 14, 1911.
President Woodrow Wilson (a Democrat) made two nominations during 1916; January 28, 1916 Wilson
nominated Louis Brandeis to replace Joseph Rucker Lamar, who died on January 2, 1916; the Democratic-controlled
Senate confirmed Brandeis on June 1, 1916 and John Clarke was confirmed 10 days after being nominated
on July 14, 1916 after Charles Evans Hughes resigned from the Court to run (unsuccessfully) for
president.
On January 4, 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt nominated Frank Murphy to replace Pierce Butler,
who died on November 16, 1939.
On November 30, 1987, Republican President Ronald Reagan nominated Justice Anthony Kennedy
to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Lewis Powell and was confirmed by a Democrat
controlled Senate.
On September 7, 1956, Sherman Minton announced his intent to retire to President Dwight D.
Eisenhower and he served until October 15, 1956. With the Senate already adjourned, Eisenhower
made a recess appointment of William J. Brennan to the Court shortly thereafter; Brennan was formally
nominated to the Court and confirmed in 1957.
It should not have to be a choice between a bullet or poison; but, the Republicans have spread
so much of their conniving obstructionism with the sabotage of anything in Government today, it has
left the people in anger, angry at a Congress which does not do the job to which it is elected. They
will pick the poison over the gun shot to get things moving again.
Second, most of the complaints that Bernie has are that media, not the Clintons, are giving him a
good going over. In a way, this is a compliment since six months ago they were ignoring him and they
are now are treating him serious candidate who may become President in January. (Of course I wish
they would give Ted Cruz, John Kasich, and Paul Ryan the same treatment.)
PK's column was hard on Bernie and Bernie's campaign ("losing its ethical moorings"), but he was
writing it as a political columnist who wants a Democrat elected President in November and was criticizing
Bernie and his gang for recycling right memes against Clinton.
Finally, if Bernie does win upsets in the next few states, he is going to want Clinton supporters,
particularly women and minorities to come out and vote for him. Calling a woman "unqualified to be
President" and trashing President Obama's tenure in office as a "sell out" to the Banks and that
the Affordable Care Act is as bad as the Republicans say it is.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/04/obamacare-embarrasses-right.html
Finally, the Green Lanternism of Jeffrey Sachs and all the other Bernie supporters is really astounding.
Somehow electing just the right person as President will cause Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and the
Koch Brothers to run up the white flag and say we will do whatever you ask. Gobsmacking.
Reply
Friday, April 08, 2016 at 10:11 AM
Peter said in reply to sherparick...
"Somehow electing just the right
person as President will cause Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and the Koch Brothers to run up
the white flag and say we will do whatever you ask. Gobsmacking."
Nobody is saying that.
Sanders's campaign is based on the idea that we need a political revolution.
Reply
Friday, April 08, 2016 at 10:23
AM
Reg
said in reply to sherparick...
"Somehow electing just the right
person as President will cause Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and the Koch Brothers to run up
the white flag and say we will do whatever you ask. Gobsmacking."
Actually that's Hillary's
line. "Getting things done" because "experience." Sanders is very clear that electing a new
face to the Oval Office isn't going to cut it. Thus his "political revolution" - which means
that Democrats need to get off their duffs in ways we have yet to see. And that's after Obama's
"social movement" strategy - which disappeared as an independent force once he made it safely
into the White House. OFA was neutered and folded into the party establishment. And lost any
steam it might have had while the Tea Party took over the "activist" space. Big mistake. Bernie
won't let that happen to his network, even assuming he doesn't get the nomination. Sanders
has a vision and a strategy, Hillary has a personal ambition.
Reply
Friday, April 08, 2016 at 10:35
AM
Jeff Fisher said in reply
to
Reg
...
Is Sanders using his campaign
machine to induce a political swing in offices below the presidency?
Reply
Friday, April 08, 2016 at 10:49
AM
Peter said in reply to Jeff
Fisher...
He's trying to generate enthusiasm
and draw more people into the political process which means a higher voter turnout.
When he began the campaign he was at 3 percent in the polls. At that time he should have
been focused on inducing a political swing in offices below the presidency?
Reply
Friday, April 08, 2016 at 10:53
AM
Chris G
said in reply to Peter...
If he convinces people that they
can run as New New Dealers that alone would make his candidacy a success.
We need to break the "Please, Republicans, don't hurt us." mindset. Conservatives and right
wingers have been wrong about EVERYTHING for the past 50 years. Time to go on the offensive
against them.
Reply
Friday, April 08, 2016 at 01:35
PM
JF said in reply to
Chris G
...
Yes, wrong for quite a while.
Economics too.
Loanable funds theories means we need to favor capital formation and protect it from markets
using tax codes and other policies (like the funding of tax cuts with payroll tax increases).
Simply ignoring the fact that banks create credit/money (which means capital can form at
the stroke of the banks' pens).
Ignoring the plain fact that trade has distributional effects that have social effects that
are real.
Missing a concern about the concentration of wealth and control over income flows as you
watch the national fisc transfer bonds to the already wealthy as you tear up the tax bills
they alteady had. . .
Votes need to be cast!
Reply
Saturday, April 09, 2016 at
05:19 AM
Reg
said in reply to Jeff Fisher...
He's been very much part of the
DSCC fundraising machinery - and been attacked for it by the Clinton camp as a hypocrite because
a lot of "big money" donors show up for the kind of DSCC fundraising Sanders participates in.
But he doesn't personally have the network the Clintons have among big donors and is focusing
his current campaign's own efforts on the primary. Of course Hillary is able to distribute
more, which likely drives a lot of the endorsement patterns - can't be too close to the Clintons
if you are a traditional Dem pol. IMHO where we will see the difference is in how he uses this
growing network to build organization for the future, having drawn in a lot of new energy.
Reply
Friday, April 08, 2016 at 11:56
AM
Rune Lagman said in reply
to Jeff Fisher...
Bernie on top of the ticket will
do way more, for down-ballot races, than any amount of Wall-Street money brought by Hillary.
Reply
Friday, April 08, 2016 at 04:34
PM
dd said in reply to sherparick...
I guess that the single largest
bailout, 467.2 billion to Citi just went down the memory hole.
Reply
Friday, April 08, 2016 at 11:22
AM
Rune Lagman said in reply
to sherparick...
"... will cause Paul Ryan, Mitch
McConnell, and the Koch Brothers to run up the white flag ..."
Absolutely not, Bernie's revolution
will run rough-shod over them. Anyone believes that Hillary can talk sense to these guys is
smoking something awful strong. They need to be defeated at the Polls; and Bernie can do that;
Hillary can't.
Reply
Friday, April 08, 2016 at 04:29
PM
likbez said in reply to sherparick...
For all practical purposes Hillary
is a warmongering neocon. As such she in a Republican, not a Democrat.
Think about it.
Reply
Friday, April 08, 2016 at 09:54
PM
dd said...
Yes, wall street was at the heart
of the scams and that is the only reason for the bailouts or have we all forgotten Treasury
Secretary and former Goldman CEO Paulson on bended knee?
Let's face it: in times of war, the Constitution tends to take a beating. With the safety or survival
of the nation said to be at risk, the basic law of the land-otherwise considered sacrosanct-becomes
nonbinding, subject to being waived at the whim of government authorities who are impatient, scared,
panicky, or just plain pissed off.
The examples are legion. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln
arbitrarily suspended the writ of habeas corpus and ignored court orders that took issue with his
authority to do so. After U.S. entry into World War I, the administration of Woodrow Wilson mounted
a comprehensive effort to crush dissent, shutting down anti-war publications in complete disregard
of the First Amendment. Amid the hysteria triggered by Pearl Harbor, Franklin Roosevelt issued an
executive order consigning to concentration camps more than 100,000 Japanese-Americans, many of them
native-born citizens. Asked in 1944 to review this gross violation of due process, the Supreme Court
endorsed the government's action by a 6-3 vote.
More often than not, the passing of the emergency induces second thoughts and even remorse. The
further into the past a particular war recedes, the more dubious the wartime arguments for violating
the Constitution appear. Americans thereby take comfort in the "lessons learned" that will presumably
prohibit any future recurrence of such folly.
Even so, the onset of the next war finds the Constitution once more being ill-treated. We don't
repeat past transgressions, of course. Instead, we devise new ones. So it has been during the ongoing
post-9/11 period of protracted war.
During the presidency of George W. Bush, the United States embraced torture as an instrument of
policy in clear violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment. Bush's
successor, Barack Obama, ordered the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen, a death by drone
that was visibly in disregard of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Both administrations-Bush's
with gusto, Obama's with evident regret-imprisoned individuals for years on end without charge and
without anything remotely approximating the "speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury" guaranteed
by the Sixth Amendment. Should the present state of hostilities ever end, we can no doubt expect
Guantánamo to become yet another source of "lessons learned" for future generations of rueful Americans.
♦♦♦
Yet one particular check-and-balance constitutional proviso now appears exempt from this recurring
phenomenon of disregard followed by professions of dismay, embarrassment, and "never again-ism" once
the military emergency passes. I mean, of course, Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, which
assigns to Congress the authority "to declare war" and still stands as testimony to the genius of
those who drafted it. There can be no question that the responsibility for deciding when and whether
the United States should fight resides with the legislative branch, not the executive, and that this
was manifestly the intent of the Framers.
On parchment at least, the division of labor appears straightforward. The president's designation
as commander-in-chief of the armed forces in no way implies a blanket authorization to employ those
forces however he sees fit or anything faintly like it. Quite the contrary: legitimizing presidential
command requires explicit congressional sanction.
Actual practice has evolved into something altogether different. The portion of Article I, Section
8, cited above has become a dead letter, about as operative as blue laws still on the books in some
American cities and towns that purport to regulate Sabbath day activities. Superseding the written
text is an unwritten counterpart that goes something like this:
with legislators largely consigned
to the status of observers, presidents pretty much wage war whenever, wherever, and however they
see fit.
Whether the result qualifies as usurpation or forfeiture is one of those chicken-and-egg
questions that's interesting but practically speaking beside the point.
This is by no means a recent development. It has a history. In the summer of 1950, when President
Harry Truman decided that a U.N. Security Council resolution provided sufficient warrant for him
to order U.S. forces to fight in Korea, congressional war powers took a hit from which they would
never recover.
Congress soon thereafter bought into the notion, fashionable during the Cold War, that formal
declarations of hostilities had become passé. Waging the "long twilight struggle" ostensibly required
deference to the commander-in-chief on all matters related to national security. To sustain the pretense
that it still retained some relevance, Congress took to issuing what were essentially permission
slips, granting presidents maximum freedom of action to do whatever they might decide needed to be
done in response to the latest perceived crisis.
The Tonkin Gulf Resolution of 1964 offers a notable example. With near unanimity, legislators
urged President Lyndon Johnson "to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against
the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression" across the length and breadth
of Southeast Asia. Through the magic of presidential interpretation, a mandate to prevent aggression
provided legal cover for an astonishingly brutal and aggressive war in Vietnam, as well as Cambodia
and Laos. Under the guise of repelling attacks on U.S. forces, Johnson and his successor, Richard
Nixon, thrust millions of American troops into a war they could not win, even if more than 58,000
died trying.
To leap almost four decades ahead, think of the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)
that was passed by Congress in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 as the grandchild of the Tonkin Gulf
Resolution. This document required (directed, called upon, requested, invited, urged) President George
W. Bush "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons
he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September
11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international
terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons." In plain language:
here's a blank check; feel free to fill it in any way you like.
♦♦♦
As a practical matter, one specific individual-Osama bin Laden-had hatched the 9/11 plot. A single
organization-al-Qaeda-had conspired to pull it off. And just one nation-backward, Taliban-controlled
Afghanistan-had provided assistance, offering sanctuary to bin Laden and his henchmen. Yet nearly
15 years later, the AUMF remains operative and has become the basis for military actions against
innumerable individuals, organizations, and nations with no involvement whatsoever in the murderous
events of September 11, 2001.
Consider the following less than comprehensive list of four developments, all of which occurred
just within the last month and a half:
In Yemen, a U.S. airstrike killed at least 50 individuals, said to be members of an Islamist
organization that did not exist on 9/11.
In Somalia, another U.S. airstrike killed a reported 150 militants, reputedly members of al-Shabab,
a very nasty outfit, even if one with no real agenda beyond Somalia itself.
In Syria, pursuant to the campaign of assassination that is the latest spin-off of the Iraq
War, U.S. special operations forces bumped off the reputed "finance minister" of the Islamic State,
another terror group that didn't even exist in September 2001.
In Libya, according to press reports, the Pentagon is again gearing up for "decisive military
action"-that is, a new round of air strikes and special operations attacks to quell the disorder
resulting from the U.S.-orchestrated air campaign that in 2011 destabilized that country. An airstrike
conducted in late February gave a hint of what is to come: it killed approximately 50 Islamic
State militants (and possibly two Serbian diplomatic captives).
Yemen, Somalia, Syria, and Libya share at least this in common: none of them, nor any of the groups
targeted, had a hand in the 9/11 attacks.
Imagine if, within a matter of weeks, China were to launch raids into Vietnam, Thailand, and Taiwan,
with punitive action against the Philippines in the offing. Or if Russia, having given a swift kick
to Ukraine, Georgia, and Azerbaijan, leaked its plans to teach Poland a lesson for mismanaging its
internal affairs. Were Chinese President Xi Jinping or Russian President Vladimir Putin to order
such actions, the halls of Congress would ring with fierce denunciations. Members of both houses
would jostle for places in front of the TV cameras to condemn the perpetrators for recklessly violating
international law and undermining the prospects for world peace. Having no jurisdiction over the
actions of other sovereign states, senators and representatives would break down the doors to seize
the opportunity to get in their two cents worth. No one would be able to stop them. Who does Xi think
he is! How dare Putin!
Yet when an American president undertakes analogous actions over which the legislative branch
does
have jurisdiction, members of Congress either yawn or avert their eyes.
In this regard, Republicans are especially egregious offenders. On matters where President Obama
is clearly acting in accordance with the Constitution-for example, in nominating someone to fill
a vacancy on the Supreme Court-they spare no effort to thwart him, concocting bizarre arguments nowhere
found in the Constitution to justify their obstructionism. Yet when this same president cites the
2001 AUMF as the basis for initiating hostilities hither and yon, something that is on the face of
it not legal but ludicrous, they passively assent.
Indeed, when Obama in 2015 went so far as to ask Congress to pass a new AUMF addressing the specific
threat posed by the Islamic State-that is, essentially rubberstamping the war he had already launched
on his own in Syria and Iraq-the Republican leadership took no action. Looking forward to the day
when Obama departs office, Senator Mitch McConnell with his trademark hypocrisy worried aloud that
a new AUMF might constrain his successor. The next president will "have to clean up this mess, created
by all of this passivity over the last eight years," the majority leader remarked. In that regard,
"an authorization to use military force that ties the president's hands behind his back is not something
I would want to do." The proper role of Congress was to get out of the way and give this commander-in-chief
carte blanche
so that the next one would enjoy comparably unlimited prerogatives.
Collaborating with a president they roundly despise-implicitly concurring in Obama's questionable
claim that "existing statutes [already] provide me with the authority I need" to make war on ISIS-the
GOP-controlled Congress thereby transformed the post-9/11 AUMF into what has now become, in effect,
a writ of permanent and limitless armed conflict. In Iraq and Syria, for instance, what began as
a limited but open-ended campaign of air strikes authorized by President Obama in August 2014 has
expanded to include an ever-larger contingent of U.S. trainers and advisers for the Iraqi military,
special operations forces conducting raids in both Iraq and Syria, the first new all-U.S. forward
fire base in Iraq, and at least 5,000 U.S. military personnel now on the ground, a number that continues
to grow incrementally.
Remember Barack Obama campaigning back in 2008 and solemnly pledging to end the Iraq War? What
he neglected to mention at the time was that he was retaining the prerogative to plunge the country
into another Iraq War on his own ticket. So has he now done, with members of Congress passively assenting
and the country essentially a prisoner of war.
By now, through its inaction, the legislative branch has, in fact, surrendered the final remnant
of authority it retained on matters relating to whether, when, against whom, and for what purpose
the United States should go to war. Nothing now remains but to pay the bills, which Congress routinely
does, citing a solemn obligation to "support the troops." In this way does the performance of lesser
duties provide an excuse for shirking far greater ones.
In military circles, there is a term to describe this type of behavior. It's called cowardice.
The revelation that an Israeli firm cracked the iPhone raises questions about state-corporate
espionage.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) court battle with Apple over the security system in
place on iPhones appears to be over. But some experts in the communications security community are
expressing concern because of the
According to government sources speaking both on and off the record, the FBI succeeded in breaking
through the Apple security measures
with the assistance of an unidentified third party. The technique used was apparently not a one-off
and is transferable as the Bureau
has now indicated that
it will be accessing data on a second phone involved in a murder investigation in Arkansas and is
even considering allowing local police forces to share the technology. That means that the FBI
and whatever other security and police agencies both in the U.S. and abroad it provides the information
to will have the same capability, potentially compromising the security of all iPhones worldwide.
The breakthrough in the case leads inevitably to questions about the identity of the company or
individual that assisted the Bureau. It means that someone outside government circles would also
have the ability to unlock the phones, information that could eventually wind up in the hands of
criminals or those seeking to disrupt or sabotage existing telecommunications systems.
No security system is unbreakable if a sophisticated hacker is willing to put enough time, money
and resources into the effort. If the hacker is a government with virtually unlimited resources the
task is somewhat simpler as vast computer power will permit millions of attempts to compromise a
phone's operating system.
In this case, the problem consisted of defeating an "Erase Data" feature linked to a passcode
that had been placed on the target phone by Syed Farook, one of the shooters in December's San Bernardino
terrorist attack. Apple had
designed the system so that 10 failures to enter the correct passcode would lock the phone and
erase all the data on it. This frustrated FBI efforts to come up with the passcode by what is referred
to as a "brute force" attack where every possible combination of numbers and letters is entered until
the right code is revealed. Apple's security software also was able to detect multiple attempts after
entry of an incorrect passcode and slow down the process, meaning that in theory it would take five
and a half years for a computer to try all possible combinations of a six-character alphanumeric
passcode using numbers and lowercase letters even if it could disable the "Erase Data" feature.
Speculation is that the FBI and its third party associate were able to break the security by
circumventing the measure that monitors the number of unsuccessful passcode entries, possibly to
include generating new copies of the phone's NAND storage chip to negate the 10-try limit. The computer
generated passcodes could then be entered again and again until the correct code was discovered.
And, of course, once the method of corrupting the Erase Data security feature is determined it can
be used on any iPhone by anyone with the necessary computer capability, precisely the danger that
Apple had warned about when it refused to cooperate with the FBI in the first place.
Most of the U.S. mainstream media has been reluctant to speculate on who the third party that
aided the FBI might be but the Israeli press has not been so reticent. They
have
identified a company called Cellebrite, a digital forensics company located in Israel. It is
reported that the company's executive vice president for mobile forensics Leeor Ben-Peretz was recently
in Washington consulting with clients. Ben-Peretz is Cellebrite's marketing chief, fully capable
of demonstrating the company's forensics capabilities. Cellebrite reportedly has worked with the
FBI before, having had a
contract arrangement entered into in 2013 to provide decryption services.
Cellebrite was purchased by Japanese cellular telephone giant Suncorporation in 2007 but it is
still headquartered and managed from Petah Tikva, Israel with a North American office in Parsippany,
New Jersey and branches in Germany, Singapore and Brazil. It works closely with the Israeli police
and intelligence services and is reported to have ties to both Mossad and Shin Bet. Many of its employees
are former Israeli government employees who had worked in cybersecurity and telecommunications.
If Cellebrite is indeed the "third party" responsible for the breakthrough on the Apple problem,
it must lead to speculation that the key to circumventing iPhone security is already out there in
the small world of top level telecommunications forensic experts. It might reasonably be assumed
that the Israeli government has access to the necessary technology, as well as Cellebrite's Japanese
owners. From there, the possibilities inevitably multiply.
Most countries obtain much of their high grade intelligence from communications intercepts. Countries
like Israel, China, and France conduct much of their high-tech spying through exploitation of their
corporate presence in the United States. Israel, in particular, is heavily embedded in the telecommunications
industry, which permits direct access to confidential exchanges of information.
Israel has in fact a somewhat
shady reputation in the United
States when it comes to telecommunications spying. Two companies in particular-Amdocs and Comverse
Infosys-have at times dominated their market niches in America. Amdocs,
which has contracts with many of the largest telephone companies in the U.S. that together handle
90 percent of all calls made, logs all calls that go out and come in on the system. It does not retain
the conversations themselves, but the records provide patterns, referred to as "traffic analysis,"
that can provide intelligence leads. In 1999, the National Security Agency warned that records of
calls made in the United States were winding up in Israel.
Comverse Infosys, which
dissolved in 2013
after charges of conspiracy, fraud, money laundering and making false filings, provided wiretapping
equipment to law enforcement throughout the United States. Because equipment used to tap phones for
law enforcement is integrated into the networks that phone companies operate, it cannot be detected.
Phone calls were intercepted, recorded, stored, and transmitted to investigators by Comverse, which
claimed that it had to be "hands on" with its equipment to maintain the system. Many experts believe
that it is relatively easy to create an internal cross switch that permits the recording to be sent
to a second party, unknown to the authorized law-enforcement recipient. Comverse
was also believed to be involved with NSA on a program of illegal spying directed against American
citizens.
Comverse equipment was never inspected by FBI or NSA experts to determine whether the information
it collected could be leaked, reportedly because senior government managers blocked such inquiries.
According to a Fox News investigative
report, which was later deleted from Fox's website under pressure from various pro-Israel groups,
DEA and FBI sources said post-9/11 that even to suggest that Israel might have been spying using
Comverse was "considered career suicide."
Some might argue that collecting intelligence is a function of government and that espionage,
even between friends, will always take place. When it comes to smartphones, technical advances in
phone security will provide a silver bullet for a time but the hackers, and governments, will inevitably
catch up. One might assume that the recent revelations about the FBI's capabilities vis-à-vis the
iPhone indicate that the horse is already out of the stable. If Israel was party to the breaking
of the security and has the technology it will use it. If the FBI has it, it will share it with other
government agencies and even with foreign intelligence and security services.
Absent from the discussion regarding Apple are the
more than 80 percent of smartphones used worldwide that employ the Google developed Android operating
system that has its own distinct security features designed to block government intrusion. The FBI
is clearly driven by the assumption that all smartphones should be accessible to law enforcement.
The next big telecommunications security court case might well be directed against Google.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National
Interest.
Note how carefully
Nikolas K. Gvosdev
avoid any issues connected with the costs of maintaining global American neoliberal
empire, promotion of globalization at all costs and subservience of the USA national interests to
transnational corporations interests...
Notable quotes:
"... The United States must either be prepared to increase what it is willing to spend in terms of funds, personnel and attention, or it must be willing to scale back its ambitions and to redefine what it considers to be acceptable outcomes. ..."
"... Currently, there is no sign that the American foreign-policy establishment is any readier to contemplate hard choices and entertain unpleasant tradeoffs in the coming years. The paradigm of low-cost, no-casualty intervention is a bipartisan construction that will endure with only minor modifications after 2017 in the absence of a truly existential threat to U.S. security. A new approach in 2016? Don't believe a word of it. ..."
"... Nikolas K. Gvosdev is a contributing editor at the National Interest and coauthor of ..."
"... (Georgetown, 2015). The views expressed here are his own. ..."
...Hopes that Washington could usher the Arab Spring into a glorious summer of democracy have
been replaced by the pessimism of an Arab Winter, with states collapsing and extremism on the
rise. The Obama administration is preparing to leave office with the Iran nuclear issue
essentially frozen for a decade-they were potentially successful in preventing a short-term
Iranian dash to weapons capability, but they have left larger concerns about Iran's intentions
unresolved. Russia's resurgence and its unwillingness to accept the post–Cold War settlement in
Europe, together with the European Union's own ongoing internal travails, have dashed hopes that
Europe could become a security provider to augment U.S. efforts elsewhere. A rising China seems
prepared to test American commitments in Asia as it seeks to redefine a regional order that the
United States has underwritten for many decades. The fate of landmark trade deals that would put
the United States at the center of both trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific economic areas remains
in doubt. Polling data collected at the end of 2015 suggests that Americans feel more unsafe and
believe that the Obama administration's policies are not sufficient to ensure the safety and
security of the United States in what they see as an increasingly dangerous and chaotic world.
... ... ...
This popular but mistaken view holds that the setbacks experienced in American foreign policy
are the results of errors in programming and execution made by a national-security team. This
avoids the more rigorous question: are those errors instead attributable to fundamental flaws in
America's perception of the world and its own place in it?
Indeed, the roots of Obama-era dysfunction precede his election by at least a decade, before
Obama was even a national figure; they arise from the still-unhealed 2002 Democratic schism over
the impending war in Iraq. Beyond that, the problems experienced during the Obama years reflect
an increasing sclerosis in the U.S. policy process itself that has made it far more difficult for
Washington to implement effective policy. If nothing is done, this dysfunction is likely to
continue into the next administration, regardless of party.
... ... ...
The Libyan intervention also soured relations with both Beijing and Moscow. UN Security Council resolution
1973 was ratified as a way to create safe havens for civilians to find refuge from the fighting-a
condition Russia and China were prepared to accept in order not to veto its passage in the Security
Council. Almost immediately, the Western-led intervention focused not on ending a threat to civilians
but entering the Libyan conflict as cobelligerents on the side of the opposition. Eventually, U.S.
and NATO airpower overwhelmed Qaddafi's military-and the Libyan despot ended up being captured and
executed by rebel forces. Russia and China, concluding that they were fooled by the Obama administration,
have subsequently resisted U.S. efforts to push for humanitarian action in other conflicts, notably
in Syria, where the opposition has concluded that if the United States had intervened in Libya to
stop a planned massacre in Benghazi, it would take action against the much more tangible crimes of
the Bashar al-Assad regime. The Syrian crisis has thus festered for more than four years. Combined
with the effective collapse of Libya as a state, spurring a migration crisis which has seriously
destabilized the European Union and allowed for militants to find a base from which to spread their
influence through Africa, the Libyan and Syrian wars have facilitated the rise of the Islamic State
as a new and more potent replacement for Al Qaeda, one that is also developing a reach capable of
striking targets in the West, including the U.S. homeland. The same warnings that Brent Scowcroft
sounded in 2002 prior to the start of the Iraq war were also voiced in the run-up to the Libya intervention,
and dismissed by a Democratic administration almost as quickly. Libya today is no more a model of
successful intervention in 2016 than Iraq was in 2007, with the one saving grace that the United
States is not expending large amounts of blood and treasure.
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION has settled
into a pattern of delaying tough choices for as long as possible, and then being not fully on board
with owning the results. For instance, a national-security goal is for America to enjoy energy independence
by decreasing dependence on the Middle East, and offering an alternative to Russian sources of energy
supply to our European allies. An ambitious and expensive program of alternative options (such as
biofuels) would be unable to achieve this on its own-but tapping further sources of hydrocarbons
in North America might.
Yet there has been sustained opposition on environmental grounds to expanding production and development
of unconventional sources, as well as constructing the necessary infrastructure to bring them on
the market. The Obama administration delayed making a decision on the Keystone XL pipeline for years
for fear of alienating different domestic constituencies, but was also unwilling to make the case
that prioritizing environment and climate concerns trumped national-security concerns about global
energy markets. The result has been that other countries that choose to be proactive can drive results.
A Saudi Arabian decision to increase its oil supply to the international market, followed by a Russian
one not to cut supplies, lowered energy prices to levels that made the cost of North American projects
like the Keystone XL pipeline prohibitively high. Yet the long-term strategic questions remain unresolved:
the United States and its allies are once again becoming addicted to cheap foreign oil, which can
kill off alternative-energy programs-and makes it much harder to achieve another announced strategic
goal of being able to rebalance from the Middle East at any point in the near future.
The current crop of candidates vying to succeed Obama have all offered variants of the same message:
that a change in the occupant of the Oval Office will produce vastly different (and more preferable)
outcomes for U.S. foreign policy. If Hillary Clinton succeeds in her quest, she is unlikely to embrace
the team-of-rivals approach to governance and seems much more committed to following a more hawkish,
liberal-interventionist line. All of the Republican challengers also signal that they would be "different"
than Obama. Yet Clinton or any of the Republicans will find it extremely hard to break out of the
morass Obama finds himself in. Here's why.
THE CANDIDATES have criticized the Obama administration's responses to the crises in Ukraine and
Syria and to the growing threat of the Islamic State. Yet a closer examination of the accusations
does not reveal fundamentally different approaches. Instead, they indicate that a different president
would somehow be more effective in carrying out existing policies. For instance, across the spectrum,
different politicians continue to express the opinion that the solution to the chaos in Libya and
Syria is to find that illusive species of local moderates prepared to fight against extremist forces
and establish liberal-leaning, pro-American regimes to obviate the need for a large deployment of
U.S. ground forces. The red lines that political advisers that surround the current president and
also his potential successors insist cannot be crossed for fear of triggering another Iraq are the
same.
Obama has also received tremendous criticism-some of which is justified-for how he has handled
Putin and the relationship with Russia. Yet a good deal of the Obama administration's Russia policy
has been shaped by self-imposed U.S. constraints. Beyond the standard trope of Russia as a nuclear
superpower that cannot be subjected to much direct pressure, Americans want a policy of confronting
Russia that limits the risks they will be asked to bear-for example, the requirement that economic
sanctions imposed on Russia to punish it for the seizure of Crimea and its operations in Eastern
Ukraine have minimal fallout for U.S. economic and business interests. Additionally, for the Iran
nuclear deal to work, Russian cooperation is needed, and there is a growing desire for Moscow to
better align its operations in Syria with American preferences-shifting most of its military strikes
against Islamic State targets while using its influence to persuade al-Assad to step down. At the
same time, while proposals to settle the Ukraine crisis by formally designating Ukraine as a neutral
state is a nonviable option because the U.S. does not want to be seen as appeasing Moscow, it is
also reluctant to spend the necessary resources to pull Ukraine into the Euro-Atlantic orbit. One
principal policy divergence between Obama and his potential successors is the question of providing
aid to the Ukrainian military. Yet those who criticize Obama's refusal to take a more aggressive
stance on this issue still search for a way for the United States to supply weapons to Kiev to pressure
Russia to reverse its course while being able to disavow U.S. responsibility for how those arms might
be used by Kiev. Most of the 2016 candidates' stance on Russia policy involves some variant of being
"tougher" on Putin and showing "resolve," but not showing much willingness to own the only two plausible
policy options: a commitment to renewed and robust containment of Russia-requiring a much higher
expenditure than anyone in the U.S. seems willing to pay, plus the risks of losing Russian cooperation
on other issues-or a search for accommodation.
Such a loosely defined Ukraine policy represents in a microcosm what an
October 2015 RAND report indicates is
the prevailing problem for U.S. national-security policy today: the pronounced imbalance between
resources and requirements. The United States must either be prepared to increase what it is willing
to spend in terms of funds, personnel and attention, or it must be willing to scale back its ambitions
and to redefine what it considers to be acceptable outcomes.
Currently, there is no sign that the American foreign-policy establishment is any readier to contemplate
hard choices and entertain unpleasant tradeoffs in the coming years. The paradigm of low-cost, no-casualty
intervention is a bipartisan construction that will endure with only minor modifications after 2017
in the absence of a truly existential threat to U.S. security. A new approach in 2016? Don't believe
a word of it.
Nikolas K. Gvosdev is a contributing editor at the National Interest and coauthor of U.S. Foreign Policy and Defense Strategy (Georgetown, 2015). The views expressed here are his
own.
"... Actually, he upgraded his army after Georgia launched a surprise blitzkrieg operation on S. Ossetia, killing UN-mandated Russian peacekeepers and a few hundred sleeping Ossets, with or without a wink and a nod from the US. Verdict's still out on that last one. You'll have to wait for Karl Rove's posthumous memoirs for that insight. ..."
"... Another silly "what if" article. A conflict between Nato and Russia will very quickly go nuclear. Nobody wins. Taking the three tiny Baltic countries into Nato was an incredibly stupid move. The purpose was purely to provoke Russia. They can't be defended without going nuclear. They will be lost forever. Nato gains nothing except the claim of being the victim. ..."
"... The NATO-bloc spends about a trillion dollars each year on the military -- as much as is spent by all other countries in the world combined, and an order of magnitude more than what Russia spends. ..."
"... If NATO is defending "Freedom", as we're told, then why does it require such a titanic amount of force and money? If U.S.-style "Freedom" is such a good thing, if this Exceptional "Freedom" is something that every sane person wants, then why does it take so much force to impose this "Freedom" on people ? ..."
"... NATO is selling death and destruction, repackaged as "Freedom and Democracy". Ask what is inside the pretty package! -- then you will understand why this "Freedom" is such a hard sell. ..."
"... The Baltic leaders are just milking NATO, with their constant 'threat alerts'. And NATO milks them right back. It's a symbiotic milk maid festival. ..."
Just typical propaganda to justify endless billions for a nonexistent threat. ,you have to be
a brainwashed neocon idiot or have stock in defense corporations or likely both to believe Russia
has any interest in invading anyone. How would we feel if Russia moved missiles and troops to
our borders?
You should be use to it by now since all of your former allies have either joined NATO or want
to join NATO as protection against Russia.
You see - we actually don't have to do anything to convince nations to work with us - we just
let Russia act the way it normally acts and the rest falls into place.
I'm fond of saying that Putin is our best man in Russia. We couldn't ask for a better ally
in helping us dismantle Russia.
Actually, he upgraded his army after Georgia launched a surprise blitzkrieg operation on S. Ossetia,
killing UN-mandated Russian peacekeepers and a few hundred sleeping Ossets, with or without a
wink and a nod from the US. Verdict's still out on that last one. You'll have to wait for Karl
Rove's posthumous memoirs for that insight.
You are right and Georgia was armed and trained by US and instigated by US to attack Russia and
what happened it took Russia 5 days to defeat the well armed US backed Georgians and this is an
indicator how the US will fare against a war with Russia - FULL RETREAT
Brian you really don't know what you are talking about. I doubt you ever have left your neighborhood
let alone the state. You talk down about Russia and how great the American military is. But then
again like all talk it is just talk. In a real war Russia has many more nukes then we do. They
kept their nuclear program up while ours has fallen. Should a real war happen all you will see
Brian is flashes of of light everywhere and that will be the end. GET IT WAKE UP !!!
Without firing a shot? Apparently, you missed the right sector snipers in the Hotel Ukraina, the
Azov battalion civilian massacres in Mariupol and the Odessa holocaust, eh?
But we know, you loved every bullet of it. Psychopaths are as psychopaths do.
And BTW, speak for yourself. This 'we' thing is delusional. If 'we' met, you'd understand that
quick enough.
The Russians brought it upon themselves with their history of bullying...
Your neighbors will continue to hate you, and we don't need to do anything about it.
I'll be happy to send a donation to Ukraine so they can buy more defensive weapons - the more
Russians that invade their land, the more body bags they can send back to Russia.
The Ukrainians brought it upon themselves, sir. You obviously share in that endearing Ukrainian
trait to blame everyone but yourself for the consequences of your actions. Next time, try to keep
your banderite fascist ideologues at bay and maybe you'll learn something about those 'European
values' that Poroshenko seems to like to lecture the Europeans about, if that ain't a hoot in
itself.
What just happened in Syria?
What about the untraceable subs Russia has that can knock out our aircraft carries easily? PS:
Iran has one and we lost track of it shortly after they purchased it from Russia.
What about the large number of nuclear weapon Russia has and has used this threat in an offensives
manor lately?
Are you the type of person who leaves his front door unlocked when you go to work?
Just type up your SS#, Credit Cards, and Name for us please...along with you address since you
do not believe in preventive measures to safeguard yourself.
The untraceable diesel electric are very short range by ocean going standard AND become more visible
it they need to approach the target (The hope to submerge, sit and have a vessel pass very close).
The Baltics and Poland should take an example from Finland. Finland has managed to avoid conflict
with Russia, without any help from the U.S. or NATO. Threats of imminent Russian invasion are
fairy tales.
Another silly "what if" article. A conflict between Nato and Russia will very quickly go nuclear.
Nobody wins. Taking the three tiny Baltic countries into Nato was an incredibly stupid move. The
purpose was purely to provoke Russia. They can't be defended without going nuclear. They will
be lost forever. Nato gains nothing except the claim of being the victim.
MY CONGRATULATIONS FOR YOU OPINION WHICH IS MY OPINION. I AM A PROFESSIONAL ARMY OFFFICER. YOUR
OPINION IS THE CORRECT AND THE REAL ONE. ALL THOSE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHATEVER STRENGTH AND KIND
OF TROOPS OR WEAPONS NATO MIGTH HAVE WHEREVER... WITHIN EUROPE IS SIMPLY SILLY...
I THINK ANY ARMY OFFICER KNOWS WHAT YOU JUST TOLD... SO EITHER ALL THIS SHIT AROUND WHOM, WHAT
AND WHERE TO DEPLOY MILITARY POWER TO STOP THE RUSSIANS IS JUST TO HAVE THE STUPID EUROPEANS SPENDING
MORE MONEY BUYING USA WEAPONS OR IF NATO BELIEVES WHAT THEY ARE DOING... THEN THE GENERALS IN
CHARGE ARE JUST DONKEYS ... AND I APOLOGIZE TO DONKEYS... OF COURSE ANY VERY FIRST MILITARY ACTION
FROM RUSSIA EITHER TO DEFEND ITSELF FROM A NATO/ USA ATTACK OR TO CARRY OUT A PRE EMPTIVE ATTACK
WILL BE IMMEDIATELY NUCLEAR... MORE THAN THAT IT WILL BE GLOBAL.... NOT ONLY AGAINST EUROPE...
THE MAIN TARGET WILL BE USA AND ITS MILITARY BASES AROUND THE WORLD... AND OF COURSE EUROPE...
SO CONVENCIONAL MILITARY MEANS IN SUCH A CONTEXT THEY SHALL BE BASICALLY TROOPS AND EQUIPMENT
ABLE TO OPERATE IN A NUCLEAR AND NBQ ENVIRONMENT.
Russia wouldn't have to go nuclear to defeat Europe, so if it does go nuclear, it will be the
US that pushes the button.
As the Russian army would be in Europe, the US would nuke Europe.
"Taking the three tiny Baltic countries into NATO was an incredibly stupid move."
I disagree. Americas' Principles have always stressed spreading Freedom & Liberty as far as
possible. Where "we" Americans went wrong was not electing leadership who understood this principle.
I can agree with the Far Left on one thing: Europeans need to bring their military strength
back up. It's obvious that my country (USA) is headed down a path of isolationism. A pity, really.
Has the Europeans learned to value each other as equals...... or will ancient rivalries tear them
apart?
The NATO-bloc spends about a trillion dollars each year on the military -- as much as is spent
by all other countries in the world combined, and an order of magnitude more than what Russia
spends.
If NATO is defending "Freedom", as we're told, then why does it require such a titanic
amount of force and money? If U.S.-style "Freedom" is such a good thing, if this Exceptional "Freedom"
is something that every sane person wants, then why does it take so much force to impose this
"Freedom" on people ?
If I invent something that people want -- a better mouse-trap, say -- do I have to bomb people
into buying my product? Do I have to use "police" armed with tanks and machine-guns to round people
up and force them into the store where my mouse-trap is sold?
Real freedom is something that sells itself. Freedom is something to live for, not something
to kill and be killed for. We develop freedom by exercising our rights, not by turning other countries
into rubble!
NATO is selling death and destruction, repackaged as "Freedom and Democracy". Ask what
is inside the pretty package! -- then you will understand why this "Freedom" is such a hard sell.
Freedom & Liberty via bombs in invasion! Democracy only when US puppet will win otherwise regime
change like in Syria and in the past many other countries
your reply is silly and stupid. Principles never won anything. You are one of those pedantic liberals
who think we (but, of course, not you) need to save everyone. Reality says most would rather give
up than fight themselves.
I agree with principles (They should not be underestimated!) however I think as Americans we are
going to have to be a bit more pragmatic going forward.
The politicians prefer the U.S. to Russia, perhaps. But I'm not sure that the same can be said
of the people.
A referendum on the future of the Soviet Union was held on 17 March 1991. The question put
to voters was: "Do you consider necessary the preservation of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics in which the rights and freedom
of an individual of any nationality will be fully guaranteed?"
Russia SFSR:
Choice .......... ------Votes . -----%
For .............. 56,860,783 .. 73.00
Against .......... 21,030,753 .. 27.00
Invalid ........... 1,809,633 ...... -
Total ............ 79,701,169 . 100.00
Reg., Turnout ... 105,643,364 .. 75.44
A similar referendum was held 22 years later, by Gallup. In the
2013 Gallup poll , people in countries formed by the Soviet dissolution said, by a two-to-one
margin, that they were worse off than before the Soviet break-up .
But it doesn't matter, of course, what the people think. The "West" -- the U.S. Empire -- decided
that the Soviet Union was bad, and the rulers/bankers/gangsters of the "West" know what is
best for everyone everywhere . That's because the rulers/bankers of the U.S. Empire are Exceptional,
Enlightened and Inherently Superior. They were Born Without Sin, their intentions are Pure and
Holy, and they Know More Than God.
It was foolish. How did Finland survive as a neutral country? If anyone had any justification
for joining NATO after WWII, it was certainly Finland, yet it prospered undisturbed, even benefiting
from Russia trade.
The Baltic leaders are just milking NATO, with their constant 'threat alerts'. And NATO milks
them right back. It's a symbiotic milk maid festival.
"... Cameron's attempts to look perspicacious in foreign affairs only show him once again to be over impulsive and delusional-proof once again that the prime minister's foreign policy is, as General Richards had put it, "more about the Notting Hill liberal agenda rather than statecraft." ..."
February 22, 2016 |
FAR FROM BEING an example of successful intervention, however, Libya has turned into a study in how
the West makes things worse. It is now a failed state, a vast ungoverned space. The World Food Program
says that 2.4 million Libyans are in need of humanitarian assistance; the country's population is
6.2 million. Its economy is at one quarter of its capacity. Instead of fostering democracy in the
Maghreb, Libya has become a breeding ground for Islamist terror-security analysts call it "Scumbag
Woodstock"-and a springboard for the refugee crisis into Europe. Towards the end of 2015, Abdullah
al-Thani, one of Libya's competing prime ministers, wrote to Philip Hammond, Cameron's foreign secretary,
offering to cooperate against ISIS and the people-smuggling rackets that bring so many migrants across
the Mediterranean into Europe. He didn't receive a reply.
The Cameroons ignore the reality of Libya
in favor of congratulating themselves on a job well done. As one Cabinet minister put it to the journalist
Matthew D'Ancona, "whenever things get bad, and the press are saying what a rubbish government we
are, I remind myself that there are people alive in Benghazi tonight because we decided to take a
risk." In a Christmas interview with the Spectator magazine, Cameron insisted that
"Libya is better off without Qaddafi. What we were doing was preventing a mass genocide. Then,
as you say, the coalition helped those on the ground to get rid of the Qaddafi regime and it's
very disappointing that there hasn't been an effective successor regime."
Yet the idea of an imminent Libyan genocide in 2011 seems to have been exaggerated. The International
Crisis Group
concluded by the end of that year: "There are grounds for questioning the more sensational reports
that the regime was using its air force to slaughter demonstrators, let alone engaging in anything
remotely warranting use of the term 'genocide.'"
Moreover, Cameron's insistence that his intervention saved lives-when in the long run, it did
not-and his use of word "disappointing" is telling. It suggests a near pathological unwillingness
to accept mistakes. To admit failure in Libya would be to undermine the prime minister's judgment,
and he can't have that. He would rather blame Libyans for not taking their big shot at democracy.
This stubbornness seems to have driven him to be hawkish over Syria. Cameron and his friends want
to recapture some of the magic they felt when they rid the world of a tyranny. It doesn't matter
whether Britain is tackling Assad, or attacking Assad's enemy. It doesn't even matter that Britain
is making a pathetically insignificant contribution. What counts is that the Tory top brass can feel
they are fighting the good fight. When it comes to international statesmanship, the Cameroons prefer
West Wing–style fantasy to realpolitik.
Cameron is aware of this criticism, which is why he has tried to pretend that he had thought through
his latest adventure in Syria. But his strategy didn't stand up to much scrutiny. The prime minister's
office
issues a document claiming that while the immediate motive for airstrikes was to degrade ISIS,
there was a medium-term plan to work with seventy thousand "Syrian opposition fighters on the ground
who do not belong to extremist groups." This was an obvious fudge to suggest that destroying ISIS
did not mean propping up Assad; that a third force existed in Syria, one which could be brought to
the fore, with Western help. Unfortunately for democrats everywhere, this idea seems based on wishful
thinking. Experts maintain that the armed opposition to Assad is dominated by ISIS, as well as the
Al Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra and the equally Islamist Ahrar al-Sham. The smaller rebel groups
might be labeled moderate, but they are able to operate only with the blessing of the jihadists.
Besides, as journalist Patrick Cockburn, citing Aymenn Jawad al-Tamimi of the Middle East Forum,
writes, these groups "commonly exaggerate their numbers, are very fragmented and have failed
to unite, despite years of war."
Cameron's attempts to look perspicacious in foreign affairs only show him once again to be over
impulsive and delusional-proof once again that the prime minister's foreign policy is, as General
Richards had put it, "more about the Notting Hill liberal agenda rather than statecraft."
"... "Everyone in corporate press is controlled by corporations that profit on wars and have an interest in creating tensions – all these people in the Western press, like the Guardian, are blackening Putin [for being] a designated villain here. Curiously, his name is not in these documents," ..."
"... "a complete lack of standards on the part of the Western media." ..."
"... "a major mistake made by the leaker" ..."
"... "It seems the Western press has lost all sense of fairness. This would be humorous if it weren't so serious. It seems even if Vladimir Putin was seen walking on water, the report in the Western media would come out as 'Putin doesn't know how to swim,'" ..."
"... "It's always worth taking a step back from whatever you read in the media – and seeing who's funding this, what are the corporate interests behind what is being published in this particular outlet." ..."
"... "RT gets slated for that, and I think most western outlets could also be slated for the same reasons. The BBC is state funded, Fox News is corporate funded – there is always going to be some sort of agenda behind any editorial decisions on any medium there," ..."
"... "The Guardian still has this 'how to hide your billions offshore' and a video with Putin and his family. I understand that journalistic organizations want to maximize the impact – they should – but you can maximize it and then minimize it by dragging it up too long. It's interesting that the press seems to have a certain agenda and yet the [primary] interest is the corruption of their leaders." ..."
"... "There is an obligation for the people who hold these documents to release the full text. I would caution people that the main points are not out [yet] – all we see so far is what the corporate media selected for us to see, while certainly [there are] people in the US who do not want [everything] released until after the presidential primaries," ..."
While neither Vladimir Putin nor any members of his family were
mentioned in the Panama Papers leak, most Western media chose to break
the story with the Russian president's photo. Former US and UK
intelligence officers told RT this is no coincidence.
Ray McGovern, a former CIA officer, told RT that the fact that the
Western media has been using Putin as the
"face"
of the
Panama Papers leak can be easily explained by looking at the people
and organizations behind these news outlets.
"Everyone in
corporate press is controlled by corporations that profit on wars and
have an interest in creating tensions – all these people in the
Western press, like the Guardian, are blackening Putin [for being] a
designated villain here. Curiously, his name is not in these
documents,"
Ray says.
He also claims that the way the story was presented demonstrates
"a complete lack of standards on the part of the Western media."
McGovern believes it was
"a major mistake made by the leaker"
to hand the documents over to the corporate media, instead of leaking
them to trusted independent journalists.
"It seems the Western press has lost all sense of fairness.
This would be humorous if it weren't so serious. It seems even if
Vladimir Putin was seen walking on water, the report in the Western
media would come out as 'Putin doesn't know how to swim,'"
McGovern said.
Annie Machon, a former MI5 agent, advised being cautious when
reading news in the MSM, as there is always an agenda behind what is
presented in those publications.
"It's always worth taking a step back from whatever you read in
the media – and seeing who's funding this, what are the corporate
interests behind what is being published in this particular outlet."
"RT gets slated for that, and I think most western outlets
could also be slated for the same reasons. The BBC is state funded,
Fox News is corporate funded – there is always going to be some sort
of agenda behind any editorial decisions on any medium there,"
she stressed.
Machon also suggests that the journalists who broke the story
concerning the Panama Papers leaks lost control of the story as they
tried to maximize its impact to make it
"breaking."
"The Guardian still has this 'how to hide your billions
offshore' and a video with Putin and his family. I understand that
journalistic organizations want to maximize the impact – they should –
but you can maximize it and then minimize it by dragging it up too
long. It's interesting that the press seems to have a certain agenda
and yet the [primary] interest is the corruption of their leaders."
Meanwhile, both experts question the speed with which the
information contained in the papers is being released, calling on the
news outlets to make all of the information public instead of holding
on to it, creating a mystery where there shouldn't be one.
"There is an obligation for the people who hold these documents
to release the full text. I would caution people that the main points
are not out [yet] – all we see so far is what the corporate media
selected for us to see, while certainly [there are] people in the US
who do not want [everything] released until after the presidential
primaries,"
McGovern stressed.
According to Machon, now that the media has
"made a splash,"
it must put all the information out for everyone to research, which
she says is what
"crowdsourcing journalism, crowdsourcing
democracy"
is really about and what is, in her opinion, what the
global community needs.
"... So here we've got some friend of the Russian president, he has done something, probably there is an aspect of corruption to it... But what aspect [exactly]? Well, there is none ..."
"... You are all journalists here and you know what an informational product is... They've plowed through offshore [funds]. [Putin] is not there, there is nothing to talk about. But the task has been assigned! So what have they done? They've created an informational product by having found some acquaintances and friends ..."
"... more agreeable ..."
"... The easiest way to do so is to induce some mistrust to authorities within the society ..."
"... I am proud of people like Sergey Pavlovich [Roldugin]... and am proud to have him among my friends ..."
"... Almost all money that he has earnt he spent on buying music instruments abroad, which he then brought to Russia ..."
"... got used to a monopoly ..."
"... and don't want to consider others ..."
"... Our position on the situation in the south-east of Ukraine, as well as smaller scale things, such as [Russia's] refusal to extradite [Edward] Snowden have become irritants in our relations ..."
Putin on Panama Papers: 'Info product' aimed
to destabilize Russia
Published time: 7 Apr, 2016
14:42
Edited time: 7 Apr,
2016 15:22
Get short
URL
The Russian part of the so-called Panama Papers leak that claims to
reveal offshore financial activities of a number of public figures is
not about corruption, but aims to destabilize Russia, says President
Vladimir Putin.
Trends
Panama
Papers
"
So here we've got some friend of the Russian president, he has
done something, probably there is an aspect of corruption to it... But
what aspect [exactly]? Well, there is none
," Putin said on
Thursday, addressing a media forum in St. Petersburg. He also pointed
out that he himself had not been mentioned in the leaked documents.
"
You are all journalists here and you know what an
informational product is... They've plowed through offshore [funds].
[Putin] is not there, there is nothing to talk about. But the task has
been assigned! So what have they done? They've created an
informational product by having found some acquaintances and friends
,"
the president told the media forum.
WikiLeaks has already shown who's behind all this scandal, he
added.
According to Putin, the Panama Papers episode is yet another
attempt to destabilize Russia from within, and make it "
more
agreeable
."
"
The easiest way to do so is to induce some mistrust to
authorities within the society
," Putin said, adding that the
creators of the leak aimed at the unity of the multiethnic Russian
people.
The "
biggest leak
" on corruption in journalistic history
was
published
on Sunday, claiming to expose offshore holdings and financial
activities of dozens of politicians and public figures from different
countries. Russian businessmen Suleiman Kerimov and Arkady Rotenberg,
as well as figure skater Tatiana Navka and musician Sergey Roldugin
are among those featured in the released data.
"
I am proud of people like Sergey Pavlovich [Roldugin]... and
am proud to have him among my friends
," Putin said, adding that
claims that the cellist has billions are nonsense. "
Almost all
money that he has earnt he spent on buying music instruments abroad,
which he then brought to Russia
" and gave them to state
institutions, Putin said.
Some of Russia's counterparts on the international arena "
got
used to a monopoly
" there "
and don't want to consider others
,"
he said, having also quoted some opinions on why relations with the
West have worsened.
"
Our position on the situation in the south-east of Ukraine, as
well as smaller scale things, such as [Russia's] refusal to extradite
[Edward] Snowden have become irritants in our relations
," Putin
said.
Whoever leaked the Mossack Fonseca papers appears motivated by a genuine desire to expose the
system that enables the ultra wealthy to hide their massive stashes, often corruptly obtained
and all involved in tax avoidance. These Panamanian lawyers hide the wealth of a significant proportion
of the 1%, and the massive leak of their documents ought to be a wonderful thing.
Unfortunately the leaker has made the dreadful mistake of turning to the western corporate
media to publicise the results. In consequence the
first major story, published today by the Guardian, is all about Vladimir Putin and a cellist
on the fiddle. As it happens I believe the story and have no doubt Putin is bent.
But why focus on Russia? Russian wealth is only a tiny minority of the money
hidden away with the aid of Mossack Fonseca. In fact, it soon becomes obvious that the selective
reporting is going to stink.
The Suddeutsche Zeitung, which received the leak, gives a
detailed explanation of the methodology the corporate media used to search the files. The
main search they have done is for names associated with breaking UN sanctions regimes. The Guardian
reports this too and helpfully lists those countries as Zimbabwe, North Korea, Russia and
Syria. The filtering of this Mossack Fonseca information by the corporate media follows
a direct western governmental agenda. There is no mention at all of use of Mossack Fonseca
by massive western corporations or western billionaires – the main customers. And the
Guardian is quick to reassure that "much of the leaked material will remain private."
What do you expect? The leak is being
managed by the grandly but laughably named "International Consortium of Investigative Journalists",
which is funded and organised entirely by the USA's Center for Public Integrity. Their
funders include
Ford Foundation Carnegie Endowment Rockefeller Family Fund W K Kellogg Foundation Open Society Foundation (Soros)
among many others. Do not expect a genuine expose of western capitalism. The dirty secrets
of western corporations will remain unpublished.
Expect hits at Russia, Iran and Syria and some tiny "balancing" western country like Iceland.
A superannuated UK peer or two will be sacrificed – someone already with dementia.
The corporate media – the Guardian and BBC in the UK – have exclusive access to the
database which you and I cannot see.
They are protecting themselves from even seeing western corporations' sensitive information
by only looking at those documents which are brought up by specific searches such as UN sanctions
busters. Never forget the Guardian smashed its copies of the Snowden files on the instruction
of MI6.
What if they did Mossack Fonseca database searches on the owners of all the corporate
media and their companies, and all the editors and senior corporate media journalists? What if
they did Mossack Fonseca searches on all the most senior people at the BBC? What if they did Mossack
Fonseca searches on every donor to the Center for Public Integrity and their companies?
What if they did Mossack Fonseca searches on every listed company in the western stock exchanges,
and on every western millionaire they could trace?
That would be much more interesting. I know Russia and China are corrupt, you don't have to
tell me that. What if you look at things that we might, here in the west, be able to rise up and
do something about?
And what if you corporate lapdogs let the people see the actual data?
Putin attack was produced by OCCRP which targets Russia & former USSR and was funded by USAID
& Soros.
U.S. Companies Use Foreign Tax Evasion
American companies are big users of foreign tax havens. For example, we
pointed out in 2014:
American multinationals pay much less in taxes than they should because they use a widespread
variety of tax-avoidance scams and schemes, including … Pretending they are headquartered in tax
havens like Bermuda, the Cayman Islands or Panama , so that they can enjoy all
of the benefits of actually being based in America (including the use of American law and the
court system, listing on the Dow, etc.), with the tax benefits associated with having a principal
address in a sunny tax haven.
Tax haven abusers benefit from America's markets, public infrastructure, educated workforce,
security and rule of law – all supported in one way or another by tax dollars – but they avoid
paying for these benefits. Instead, ordinary taxpayers end up picking up the tab, either in
the form of higher taxes, cuts to public spending priorities, or increases to the federal debt.
USPIRG continues:
The United States loses approximately $184 billion in federal and state revenue
each year due to corporations and individuals using tax havens to dodge taxes. On average,
every filer who fills out a 1040 individual income tax form would need to pay an additional
$1,259 in taxes to make up for the revenue lost.
Pfizer , the world's largest drug maker, paid no U.S. income taxes between
2010 and 2012 despite earning $43 billion worldwide. In fact, the corporation received more
than $2 billion in federal tax refunds. In 2013, Pfizer operated 128 subsidiaries in tax haven
countries and had $69 billion offshore and out of the reach of the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS).
Microsoft maintains five tax haven subsidiaries and stashed $76.4 billion
overseas in 2013. If Microsoft had not booked these profits offshore, they would have owed
an additional $24.4 billion in taxes.
Citigroup, bailed out by taxpayers in the wake of the financial crisis
of 2008 , maintained 21 subsidiaries in tax haven countries in 2013, and kept
$43.8 billion in offshore jurisdictions. If that money had not been booked offshore, Citigroup
would have owed an additional $11.7 billion in taxes.
Rich individuals and their families have as much as $32 trillion of hidden financial assets
in offshore tax havens, representing up to $280bn in lost income tax revenues, according to
research published on Sunday.
***
"We're talking about very big, well-known brands – HSBC, Citigroup, Bank of America
, UBS, Credit Suisse – some of the world's biggest banks are involved… and they do
it knowing fully well that their clients, more often than not, are evading and avoiding taxes."
Much of this activity , Christensen added, was illegal
.
So the Panama Papers stories haven't focused on it, but U.S. corporations are hiding huge sums
of money in foreign tax havens.
Obama and Clinton Enabled Panamanian Tax Evasion Havens
Of course, Obama and Hillary Clinton
enabled and supported Panama's ability to act as a tax evasion haven.
So it's a little disingenuous for them now to say we should "crack down" on tax havens.
US and UK – Not Panama – Biggest Tax Havens for Money Laundering Criminals and Tax Cheats
But the bigger story is that America is the world's largest tax haven … with the UK in a close
second-place position.
The US has overtaken Singapore, Luxembourg and the Cayman Islands as an attractive haven
for super-rich individuals and businesses looking to shelter assets behind a veil of secrecy,
according to a study by the Tax Justice
Network (TJN).
After years of lambasting other countries for helping rich Americans hide their money offshore,
the U.S. is emerging as a leading tax and secrecy haven for rich foreigners. By resisting new
global disclosure standards, the U.S. is creating a hot new market, becoming the go-to place
to stash foreign wealth. Everyone from London lawyers to Swiss trust companies is getting in
on the act, helping the world's rich move accounts from places like the Bahamas and the British
Virgin Islands to Nevada, Wyoming, and South Dakota.
"How ironic-no, how perverse-that the USA, which has been so sanctimonious in its condemnation
of Swiss banks, has become the banking secrecy jurisdiction du jour," wrote
Peter A. Cotorceanu
, a lawyer at Anaford AG, a Zurich law firm, in a recent legal journal. "That 'giant sucking
sound' you hear? It is the sound of money rushing to the USA."
Rothschild, the centuries-old European financial institution, has opened a trust company
in Reno, Nev., a few blocks from the Harrah's and Eldorado casinos. It is now moving the fortunes
of wealthy foreign clients out of offshore havens such as Bermuda, subject to the new international
disclosure requirements, and into Rothschild-run trusts in Nevada, which are exempt.
The U.S. "is effectively the biggest tax haven in the world" -Andrew Penney, Rothschild
& Co.
***
Others are also jumping in: Geneva-based Cisa Trust Co. SA, which advises wealthy Latin
Americans, is applying to open in Pierre, S.D., to "serve the needs of our foreign clients,"
said John J. Ryan Jr., Cisa's president.
Trident Trust Co. , one of the
world's biggest providers of offshore trusts, moved dozens of accounts out of Switzerland,
Grand Cayman, and other locales and into Sioux Falls, S.D., in December, ahead of a Jan. 1
disclosure deadline.
"Cayman was slammed in December, closing things that people were withdrawing," said Alice
Rokahr, the president of Trident in South Dakota, one of several states promoting low taxes
and confidentiality in their trust laws. "I was surprised at how many were coming across that
were formerly Swiss bank accounts, but they want out of Switzerland."
***
One wealthy Turkish family is using Rothschild's trust company to move assets from the Bahamas
into the U.S., he said. Another Rothschild client, a family from Asia, is moving assets from
Bermuda into Nevada. He said customers are often international families with offspring in the
U.S.
Forbes
points out that the U.S. is not practicing what it is preaching:
A report by the Tax Justice Network says that the U.S. doesn't even practice what it preaches.
Indeed, the report ranks America as one of the worst. How bad? Worse than the Cayman Islands.
The report claims that America has refused to participate in the OECD's global
automatic information exchange for bank data. The OECD has been designing and implementing
the system to target tax evasion. Given the IRS fixation on that topic, you might think that
the U.S. would join in.
However, it turns out that the United States jealously guards its information. The Tax Justice
Network says the IRS is stingy with data. Of course, with FATCA, America has more data than
anyone else.
FATCA , the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act is up and running. The IRS says it is now
swapping taxpayer data reciprocally with other countries. The IRS says it will only engage
in reciprocal exchanges with foreign jurisdictions meeting the IRS's stringent safeguard, privacy,
and technical standards.
The United States, which has for decades hosted vast stocks of financial and other wealth
under conditions of considerable secrecy, has moved up from sixth to third place in our
index. It is more of a cause for concern than any other individual country – because of
both the size of its offshore sector, and also its rather recalcitrant attitude to international
co-operation and reform. Though the U.S. has been a pioneer in defending itself from foreign
secrecy jurisdictions, aggressively taking on the Swiss banking establishment and setting
up its technically quite strong Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) – it provides
little information in return to other countries, making it a formidable, harmful and irresponsible
secrecy jurisdiction at both the Federal and state levels. (Click here for a short explainer;
See our special report on the USA for more)."
One of the least recognized facts about the global offshore industry is that much of it,
in fact, is not offshore. Indeed, some critics of the offshore industry say the U.S. is now
becoming one of the world's largest "offshore" financial destinations.
***
A 2012 study in which researchers sent more than 7,400 email solicitations to more than
3,700 corporate service providers - the kind of companies that typically register shell companies,
such as the Corporation Trust Company at 1209 North Orange St. - found that the U.S.
had the laxest regulations for setting up a shell company anywhere in the world outside
of Kenya. The researchers impersonated both low- and high-risk customers, including potential
money launderers, terrorist financiers and corrupt officials.
Contrary to popular belief, notorious tax havens such as the Cayman Islands, Jersey
and the Bahamas were far less permissive in offering the researchers shell companies than states
such as Nevada, Delaware, Montana, South Dakota, Wyoming and New York , the researchers
found.
***
"In some places [in the U.S.], it's easier to incorporate a company than it is to get a
library card," Joseph Spanjers of Global Financial Integrity, a research and advocacy organization
that wants to curtail illicit financial flows, said in an interview earlier this year.
***
Too often, however, shell companies are used as a vehicle for criminal activity - disguising
wealth from tax authorities, financing terrorism, concealing fraudulent schemes, or laundering
funds from corruption or the trafficking in drugs, people and arms.
***
The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, a group of 34 advanced countries,
drew up its own tough tax disclosure requirements, called Common Reporting Standards, and asked
roughly 100 countries and jurisdictions around the world to approve them. Only a handful
of countries have refused, including Bahrain, Vanuatu and the United States .
Advisers around the world are increasingly using the U.S. resistance to the OECD's standards
as a marketing tool -
attracting overseas money to U.S. state-level tax and secrecy havens like Nevada and South
Dakota, potentially keeping it hidden from their home governments.
Several states – Delaware, Nevada, South Dakota, Wyoming – specialize in incorporating anonymous
shell corporations. Delaware earns between one-quarter and one-third of their budget from incorporation
fees, according to Clark Gascoigne of the FACT Coalition. The appeal of this revenue has emboldened
small states, and now Wyoming bank accounts are the new Swiss bank accounts. America has become
a lure, not only for foreign elites looking to seal money away from their own governments,
but to launder their money through the
purchase of U.S. real estate .
And the UK is a giant swamp of tax evasion and laundering as well …
The City of London is the money-laundering centre of the world's drug trade, according to
an internationally acclaimed crime expert.
***
His warning follows a National Crime Agency (NCA) threat assessment which stated: "We assess
that hundreds of billions of US dollars of criminal money almost certainly continue to be laundered
through UK banks, including their subsidiaries, each year."
Last month, the NCA warned that despite the UK's role in developing international standards
to tackle money laundering, the continued extent of it amounts to a "strategic threat to the
UK's economy and reputation". It added that the same money-laundering networks used by organised
crime were being used by terrorists as well.
***
Interviewed by The Independent on Sunday, Mr Saviano said of the international drugs trade
that "Mexico is its heart and London is its head". He said the cheapness and the ease of laundering
dirty money through UK-based banks gave London a key role in drugs trade. "Antonio Maria Costa
of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime found that drug trafficking organisations were blatantly
recycling dirty money through European and American banks, but no one takes any notice," he
said. "He found that banks were welcoming dirty money because they need cash, liquidity during
the financial crisis. The figures are too big to be rejected …. Yet there was no reaction."
Billions of pounds of corruptly gained money has been laundered by criminals and foreign
officials buying upmarket London properties through anonymous offshore front companies – making
the city arguably the world capital of money laundering.
The flow of corrupt cash has driven up average prices with a "widespread ripple effect down
the property price chain and beyond London", according to property experts cited in the most
comprehensive study ever carried out into the long-suspected money laundering route through
central London real estate, by the respected anti-corruption organisation Transparency International.
***
Any anonymous company in a secret location, such as the British Virgin Islands, can buy
and sell houses in the UK with no disclosure of who the actual purchaser is. Meanwhile, TI
said, estate agents only have to carry out anti-money-laundering checks on the person selling
the property, leaving the buyers bringing their money into the country facing little, if any
scrutiny.
***
Detective Chief Inspector Jon Benton, director of operations at the Proceeds of Corruption
Unit, said: "Properties that are purchased with illicit money, which is often stolen from some
of the poorest people in the world, are nearly always layered through offshore structures.
***
Companies set up in the Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories such as Jersey,
British Virgin Islands and Gibraltar are the preferred option for concealment of corrupt property
purchases.
More than a third of company-owned London houses are held by effectively anonymous firms
….
The consequence of its operations is that money laundering is now at such levels and so
widespread that the authorities have recently admitted defeat in its battle of attrition by
stating openly it has been completely overwhelmed and lost control. Keith Bristow Director-General
of the UK's National Crime Agency
said just six months ago that the sheer scale of crime and its subsequent money laundering
operations was "a strategic threat" to the country's economy and reputation and that "high-end
money laundering is a major risk".
TJN [the Tax Justice Network] says the UK would be ranked as the worst offender
in the world if considered along with the three Crown Dependencies
(Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man) and the 14 Overseas Territories
(including notorious tax havens such as Bermuda, the Cayman and Virgin islands).
In their 2015 Index, TJN state: "Overall, the City of London and these offshore satellites
constitute by far the most important part of the global offshore world of secrecy jurisdictions."
"London is the epicentre of so much of the sleaze that happens in the world,"
Nicholas Shaxson, author of the book "Treasure Islands", which examines the role of
offshore banks and tax havens, told AFP.
***
"Tax evasion and stuff like that will be done in the external parts of the network. Usually
there will be links to the City of London, UK law firms, UK accountancy firms and to UK banks,"
he said, calling London the centre of a "spider's web" .
"They're all agents of the City of London -- that is where the whole exercise is controlled
from," Richard Murphy, professor at London's City University, said of the offshore havens.
***
"When the British empire collapsed, London swapped being the governor of the imperial engine
to being an offshore island and allowing money to come with no questions asked," he added.
With public pressure mounting, Murphy said Britain had the power to legislate directly on
its overseas territories, but the lobbying power of the financial sector and worries about
upsetting the jewel in Britain's economic crown were holding back efforts.
"The City of London seems to believe that without these conduits, then it would not have
the competitive edge that it needs," he said.
"The financial institutions have become like wild animals," added Shaxson.
Snípéir_Ag_Obair
as is often the case [wikileaks, snowden] - it is perhaps more important to discern who
and what is not covered or divulged in a leak.
This seems to largely be as GW describes.
What's amazing is reading, say, the NYT coverage. They have such contempt for the American
people they really don't even try to hide the fact that they are the voice of the Deep State.
dumb_funded
OT - WTC7 evidence of demolition. Not a demolition? This is one of the best videos that
show numerous charges set off just before the implosion
scroll down to the video clip. I did a quick youtube search and didn't find this particular
footage. It's the best i have seen yet.
You'd think it's only a matter of time before the door's blown open on the complicity of
Cheney, Rumsfeld and company but they've got everybody's hands tied and mouth taped shut with
threats if they speak.
These bastards need to be help accountable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe Putin will release the info he has on 911. Mr. Churchhill tells me Putin hangs out
here at ZH
johnofRandI
Once the propaganda clips on youtubish settings started to come out on the Panama Papers
it became clear... the propaganda was to be aimed at western enemies..
"look, look, Putin and Assad used these Nazis to hide ill-gottten money and kill innocent
Syrian revolutionaries ( and well meaning Isils,) so we should "arm up" surround Russia and
invade Syria with boots on the ground.
We must get Cheney's Sunni pipeline built and end the Russia Shia threat
Murder by poison is only one clue to offshore dealings by top Chinese
For months, Gu Kailai worried about a secret that threatened to upend her comfortable life
and stop her husband's climb to the top rungs of China's political leadership. So she took
action. In a hotel room in the southwestern Chinese megacity of Chongqing, she mixed tea and
rat poison in a small container as Neil Heywood, a British business associate, lay drunken
and dazed on the hotel bed. Then she dripped the mixture into Heywood's mouth.
Land of plenty: Duma committee approves bill for free handover of Russian territory to foreigners
A plot of land in Russia's Far East could be yours, after a Russian lower house committee
approved a bill that, if passed, will introduce the free handover of land to Russians and foreigners
who want to build homes or start businesses in agriculture or tourism in the region.
To the best of my knowledge, none of our Presidential candidates have had anything to say
about the Panama Papers, and only two of our Presidential candidates have had anything to say
about Panama, itself. Their statements clash.
""Panama is a world leader when it comes to allowing wealthy Americans and large corporations
to evade US taxes by stashing their cash in offshore tax havens. The Panama free trade agreement
will make this bad situation much worse. Each and every year, the wealthiest people in this
country and the largest corporations evade about $100 billion in taxes through abusive and
illegal offshore tax havens in Panama and in other countries." Bernie Sanders
As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was on the complete opposite side of the issue. In
an
official statement issued by the US Department of State on October 13, 2011 (one day after
Sanders' floor address), Clinton congratulated President Obama for passing the trade pact,
citing the very same job creation arguments Sen. Sanders shot down a day earlier. Clinton made
no mention of Panama's reputation as a tax haven, and even invoked "working families" in her
statement:
"These initiatives are the leading edge of a job-creating trade agenda that will open
markets, level the playing field for our businesses and workers, and champion America's
working families in an age of tough global competition. They deserve the historic and widespread
support they received in Congress tonight. We will continue our work to rebuild an American
consensus on trade."
It is perfectly legitimate to set up foreign accounts and to do whatever one can legally
do to ensure their safety and privacy. The ONLY reason one actually needs is "I feel like it".
It should be obvious that these leaks are not at all about unmasking corruption - that is just
the pretext. In reality it is all about smearing perceived enemies, distracting from recent
scandals like the IMF's secret Greece agenda, expanding State control, and cutting off all
avenues for escape for citizens who want to defend their legitimately accumulated wealth from
the depredations of the State. The fact that criminals are using these structures as well is
a big "so what"? Drugs shouldn't be prohibited anyway - repeal prohibition, and 90% of the
criminal cartels disappear. Moroever, this argument is on the same level as saying "criminals
use guns" or "criminals use iPhones" - therefore, so the statist logic goes, guns should be
made illegal and the government should have a "backdoor" into every citizen's smart phone.
If you join the faux "outrage" over these leaks, you are simply being played.
It just stirs moral indignations among the 99% with no actions. Salivating at treasures
that you can see but not touch. The sheep are impotent because of mindsets. So what if these
vaults are dismantled with the full display of their movements to fully transparent virtual
websites. Are you looking the distractions of nip slips or at the faces of the Predators ?
Where is the focus of the 99% ?
the 99% are focused on how skinny Angelina Jolie is, the opening of baseball season, whose
looking good on idol and the voice, how to keep the mortgage paid . . . .
break the 9-11 story wide open and no one will see the elite that runs this country and
the world the same way. the crime is too great and too black. the perps don't even need to
be tried and convicted although i strongly recommend trials if only for the truth uncovering
(like south africa).
it is the best and gravest chink in their armor. they went too far and killed too many of
"their own".
"vatican city??? where are the papists in the u.s./u.k. government?"
Look up Tony Blair. The $10 million payoff for bleating about Saddam's purported yellow cake
in Africa went to the Vatican Bank. Tony outed himself within 6 months of leaving office.
But naming Putin in these Panama Papers makes me wonder when he will name the European and
U.S. criminals in their tax havens.
After all, it was Putin that outed Erdogan's dirty ISIS oil deal.
look up richard perle, douglas feith, scooter libby, and dozens of prominent jewish neocons
who advocated for that war because they felt
it would benefit Israel .
even if true - 10 million is couch cushion money as to Zionist involvement. This isn't to say
that the Vatican has no power, or engages in evil fuckery, it surely does, but it has nowhere
near the power over us and british policy, or banking, as does the Jewish/Israeli lobbies in each
country. I mean it isn;t even a serious question. Those who constantly bring up the vatican like
karen hude are curiously silent about the role of Israel and its global network of advocates.
And I don't mean to just pick on them. The fucking Saudis are also more complicit,
more insidious, more powerful - So probably is Hong Kong, Singapore, Dubai... This isn't the 15th
century - if anything the Vatican is dependent on the whims of the US/UK and those who control
it... as for who fabricated the evidence -
it wasnt the
Vatican.
i think it's tax avoidance that's the violation not "where people have their money" that's
the issue.
but gw's real point is the constant, unrelenting control of news by the, essentially, zionist/bankster
cabal/cartel and their ownership of the traditional media (and much of the internet).
apparently trump and sanders scare them and their plans for hillary clinton to assume the presidency.
i swear 9-11 is still the litmus test under all the obfuscation. they so don't want to be found
out.
"... When President George HW Bush invaded Iraq in 1991, the warhawks celebrated what they considered the end of that post-Vietnam period where Americans were hesitant about being the policeman of the world. President Bush said famously at the time, "By God, we've kicked the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all." ..."
"... Last month was another anniversary. March 20, 2003 was the beginning of the second US war on Iraq. It was the night of "shock and awe" as bombs rained down on Iraqis. Like Vietnam, it was a war brought on by government lies and propaganda, amplified by a compliant media that repeated the lies without hesitation. ..."
Last week Defense Secretary Ashton Carter laid a wreath at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington
in commemoration of the "50th anniversary" of that war. The date is confusing, as the war started
earlier and ended far later than 1966. But the Vietnam War at 50 commemoration presents a good opportunity
to reflect on the war and whether we have learned anything from it.
Some 60,000 Americans were killed fighting in that war more than 8,000 miles away. More than a
million Vietnamese military and civilians also lost their lives. The US government did not accept
that it had pursued a bad policy in Vietnam until the bitter end. But in the end the war was lost
and we went home, leaving the destruction of the war behind. For the many who survived on both sides,
the war would continue to haunt them.
It was thought at the time that we had learned something from this lost war. The War Powers Resolution
was passed in 1973 to prevent future Vietnams by limiting the president's ability to take the country
to war without the Constitutionally-mandated Congressional declaration of war. But the law failed
in its purpose and was actually used by the war party in Washington to make it easier to go to war
without Congress.
Such legislative tricks are doomed to failure when the people still refuse to demand that elected
officials follow the Constitution.
When President George HW Bush invaded Iraq in 1991, the warhawks celebrated what they considered
the end of that post-Vietnam period where Americans were hesitant about being the policeman of the
world. President Bush said famously at the time, "By God, we've kicked the Vietnam Syndrome once
and for all."
They may have beat the Vietnam Syndrome, but they learned nothing from Vietnam.
Colonel Harry Summers returned to Vietnam in 1974 and told his Vietnamese counterpart Colonel
Tsu, "You know, you never beat us on the battlefield." The Vietnamese officer responded, "That may
be so, but it is also irrelevant."
He is absolutely correct: tactical victories mean nothing when pursuing a strategic mistake.
Last month was another anniversary. March 20, 2003 was the beginning of the second US war
on Iraq. It was the night of "shock and awe" as bombs rained down on Iraqis. Like Vietnam, it was
a war brought on by government lies and propaganda, amplified by a compliant media that repeated
the lies without hesitation.
Like Vietnam, the 2003 Iraq war was a disaster. More than 5,000 Americans were killed in the war
and as many as a million or more Iraqis lost their lives. There is nothing to show for the war but
destruction, trillions of dollars down the drain, and the emergence of al-Qaeda and ISIS.
Sadly, unlike after the Vietnam fiasco there has been almost no backlash against the US empire.
In fact, President Obama has continued the same failed policy and Congress doesn't even attempt to
reign him in. On the very anniversary of that disastrous 2003 invasion, President Obama announced
that he was sending US Marines back into Iraq! And not a word from Congress.
We've seemingly learned nothing.
There have been too many war anniversaries! We want an end to all these pointless wars. It's time
we learn from these horrible mistakes.
The Sanders- and Trump-led (for now) political rebellion is not
going to go away.
There are only two questions going forward:
Will it remain a
political
rebellion, one that expresses
itself through the electoral process, or will it abandon the electoral
process as useless after 2016?
Will it be led by
humanitarian populism
from the left, or
authoritarian populism
from the right?
Why is this rebellion permanent, at least until
conditions improve
? Because life in the U.S. is getting worse in a way
that can be felt by a critical mass of people, by enough people to disrupt
the Establishment machine with their anger. And because that worsening is
seen to be permanent.
Bottom line, people are reaching the breaking point, and we're watching
that play out in the 2016 electoral race.
Yes, It Is a Rebellion
There's no other way to see the Sanders and Trump surges except as a
popular rebellion,
a rebellion of the people against their
"leaders."
If one of them, Sanders or Trump, is on the ballot in
November running against an Establishment alternative, Sanders or Trump, the
anti-Establishment candidate, will win. That candidate will cannibalize
votes from the Establishment side.
That is, Sanders will attract a non-zero percentage of
Trump-supporting voters if Cruz or Paul Ryan runs against him, and he will
win. By the same token, Trump will attract a non-zero percentage
Sanders-supporting voters (or they will stand down) if Clinton runs against
him, and she will lose to him.
(In fact, we have a good early indication of what
percentage of Sanders supporters Clinton will lose
-
20%
of Sanders primary voters say they will sit out the general election if
Clinton is the candidate, and
9%
say they will vote for
Trump over Clinton. By this measure, Clinton loses 30% of the votes that
went to Sanders in the primary election.)
If they run against each other, Sanders and Trump, Sanders will win. You
don't have to take my word for it (or the word of any number of
other writers
). You can
click here
and see what almost every head-to-head poll says. As I look
at it today, the average of the last six head-to-head polls is Sanders by
almost 18% over Trump. In electoral terms, that's a wipeout. For comparison,
Obama beat McCain by
6%
and Romney by
4%
.
Note that Sanders is still surging, winning some states with 80% of the
vote (across all states he's won, he averages 67% of the vote), while Trump
seems to have hit a ceiling below 50%, even in victory. The "socialist" tag
is not only not sticking, it's seen positively by his supporters. And
finally, just imagine a Trump-Sanders debate. Sanders' style is teflon to
Trumps', and again, I'm
not alone
in noticing this.
Whichever anti-Establishment candidate runs, he wins. If both
anti-Establishment candidates face off, Sanders wins. The message seems
pretty clear.
Dear Establishment Democrats, you can lose to Sanders
or lose to Trump.
Those are your choices, and I'm more than happy
to wait until November 9 to find out what you chose and how it turned out.
Not pleased to wait, if you choose wrongly, but willing to wait, just so
we're both aware of what happened.
The Rebellion Is Not Going Away
I won't be happy with you though, Establishment Democrats, if you choose
badly. And I won't be alone. Because even if you succeed with Clinton,
Establishment Democrats, or succeed in giving us Trump in preference to
giving us Sanders, the rebellion is not going away.
If you look at the Trump side
, it's easy to see why. Are
wages rising with profits? No, and Trump supporters have had enough. (They
don't quite know who to blame, but they're done with things as they are.)
Will they tolerate another bank bailout, the one that's
inevitable
the way the banks are continuing to operate? They haven't
begun to tolerate the last one
. They
already know
they were screwed by NAFTA. What will their reaction be to
the next trade deal, or the next, or the next? (Yes, it's not just TPP;
there are three queued up and ready to be unleashed.)
Trump supporters, the core of them, are
dying of drugs and despair
, and they're not going to go quietly into
that dark night. The Trump phenomenon is proof of that.
On the Sanders side
, the rebellion is even clearer.
Sanders has energized a great many voters across the Democratic-independent
spectrum with his call for a "political revolution." But it's among the
young, the future of America, that the message is especially resonant. For
the first time in a long time, the current generation of youth in America
sees itself as sinking below the achievements of their parents.
US millennials feel more working class than any other
generation
Social survey data reveals downshift in class identity among
18-35s, with only a third believing they are middle class
Millennials in the US see themselves as less middle class and more
working class than any other generation since records began three decades
ago, the Guardian and Ipsos Mori have found.
Analysing social survey data spanning 34 years reveals that only about
a third of adults aged 18-35 think they are part of the US middle class.
Meanwhile 56.5% of this age group describe themselves as working class.
The number of millennials – who are also known as Generation Y and
number about 80 million in the US – describing themselves as middle class
has fallen in almost every survey conducted every other year, dropping
from 45.6% in 2002 to a record low of 34.8% in 2014. In that year, 8% of
millennials considered themselves to be lower class and less than 1%
considered themselves to be upper class.
Of course, that leads to this:
The large downshift in class identity among young adults may have
helped explain the surprisingly strong performance in Democratic
primaries of the insurgent presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who has
promised to scrap college tuition fees and raise minimum wages.
Will those voters, so many of them self-described "independents," return
to the Democratic Party? Only if the Party offers them a choice they
actually want. If the Party does not, there will be hell to pay on the
Democratic side as well.
America is making them poorer -
Establishment Democratic policies are making them poorer - and they're done
with it.
The Sanders phenomenon is proof of that.
Will the Very Very Rich Stand Down?
The squeeze is on, and
unless the rich who run the game for their
benefit alone decide to stand down and let the rest of us catch our breath
and a break, there will be no letting up on the reaction
. What
we're watching is just the beginning. Unless the rich and their
Establishment enablers stand down, this won't be the end but a start, and
just a start.
I'll identify the three branches to this crossroad in another piece. It's
not that hard to suss out those three paths, so long as you're willing to
look a few years ahead, into the "middle distance" as it were. The ways this
could play out are limited and kind of staring right at us.
But let's just say
for now,
America faces
its future in a way that hasn't happened since the Great Depression, another
period in which the Constitution was rewritten in an orderly way (via the
political process). Which means that for almost every living American, this
is the most consequential electoral year of your life.
Let's hope all those elites in power who are to blame for their
selfish needs causing our great country going completely down the
toilet will have a chance to finally meet their favorite lamppost
with a little rope in a nice gentle breeze.
they will fake an alien invasion or some such and put us all
under lock and key. we will either willingly give them complete
control over us or they will take it forcefully. they are
playing for all the chips, while the vast majority of sheeple
don't even realize they are in the game. i hope to hold my own
and dont expect anything more of anyone else at this stage, let
alone an organized rebellion that will deal to those most at
fault for our collective hellhole.
I kind of agree with this guy, in a round about sort of
way. If an economic collapse brought on by socialism and
central planning in inevitable, might as well have a
socialist/central planner in charge. No better way to show
people why that shit doesn't work. It would also be useful to
point to the left and say "see, I fucking told you so. this
shit doesn't work"
What "central planning" ? Shit, there's a PLAN ?? Who
would've guessed....beyond the obvious plan of the 1% to
gorge on the flesh of all the rest...
And as for your "the left", I'd sooner believe in
fairy's living at the bottom of the garden... (Of course,
you probably think all the PC wankers are a genuine "left"
....yer, lol).
Obozo pretends there is no problem as he recites
fraudulent info from the Fed...meanwhile the people on
Main Street see through the bullshit. The Obozo
Administration is a propaganda sham...he just wants the
Fed to hold it together for him until the elections.
as paradoxical as its seems, Fed.gov's only real option is actually
The Donald. He's the only one with potential to stay the rapid slide
in Fed.gov's legitimacy and mandate to unite the states.
any other president will get to preside over internal
disintegration
the harder they grasp, the faster the brass ring slides through
their greedy fingers
Reagan bought that crowd another 20 years; Trump can get them
another 10-15 if they shut up and elect him
Trump has shown nothing of the substance he would need
philosophically/charasmatically to buy this USA another 20 years.
Based on what I've seen, he's a relatively harmless blowhard
narcissist. And relative to 1980, this USA is FAR, FAR, FAR more
fractured across several critical dimensions. Further, this
polarization has been happening since the late 70s, and I cant
perceive the catalyst for an ideologic harmonization. We are past
the event horizon, in a strange environment where the rule of law
is largely suspended. The fundamental of free market economics
('risk-free rate of return') has also been fixed by .gov in an
effort to support, nay increase price inflation. The Constitution
as it relates to individual liberties has been eviscerated. There
is no turning back. A lot of suffering lies ahead. We are walking
into the valley of the shadow of death. When you are lost, a
compass can help you find the way. But when you throw away the
compass (rule of law, Consitutional liberties, focus on excellence
of thoughts), THERE CAN BE NO RETURN.
Trump sucks. Anybody saying otherwise is as dillusional as
all those Obummer voters everyone, now, loves to goof on. Who
has room for another serving of hope and change? Lucy pulls the
football away again, but Charlie Brown never learns.
Good. But rebellion alone is not enough. Anger at a corrupt system is
not enough. We must know what the goals are, what we are trying to change
and why. What should this system be replaced with and why?
So that's the take from the disaffected Democrat voter, eh? It's nice
they are being forced to confront reality in the same way the Republicans
are, but to think that Trump voters are dying from drugs and despair
while not acknowledging the same state of affairs in their own side is
silly.
Still not quite ready to lower themselves to the same level as the
rest of us. Humanitarian Left indeed.
They've managed to turn the office of the President as well as the
election process in this Country into nothing but douchebaggery fact is
the whole circus bores the shit out of me at this stage....kill each
other fighting for the ( 1 ) more food for me.
If Trump gets burned/stabbed by the GOP-E, his supporters have a moral
duty to vote Anti-Establishment, by voting for Sanders.
Because, by then, the curtain will gave been pulled back and everyone
can stop pretending. At that point, only a hard reset will work, and the
only person to bring it about sooner than later, is Sanders.
Sanders is probably a nice man who means well but his entire
philosophy is based on envy. He may be Anti-establishment now but if
he were elected, he's too weak and lacking in depth not to give into
the Establishment. Trump may be too. The pressure would be beyond
unbearable for a normal human being.
I would only vote for Sanders to accelerate the Great Reset as
other bloggers on here have said. But an added feature of supporting
naive Bernie is Democrats might finally get the blame for all the
destruction that they have caused, not the least of which is
destroying the greatest country that ever was and probably ever will
be.
You can't just clear a cookie. Google builds a permanent
profile on you and stores it at their end. They use a variety
of means to do this, such as taking your MAC address and every
other bit transmitted on the internet and linking it to a
database they have built that records your popular searches and
clicks.
This is how people get filter bubbled and steered; dirty
internet searches. A clean search would see actual societal
interests and trends instead of the contrived ones pushed by the
State narrative. It's also part of the meta- and direct data
that goes into secret profiles in the "intelligence community".
They think they can use this trendy (yet largely mythical)
Big Data to create a precrime division. It's also nice to have
dirt on the whole country in case anyone gets out of line and
challenges the aristocracy.
"... By C.P. Chandrasekhar, Professor of Economics, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi and Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics and Chairperson at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Cross posted from Triple Crisis ..."
Posted on
April 1, 2016
by
Yves Smith
By C.P. Chandrasekhar, Professor of Economics, Jawaharlal Nehru
University, New Delhi and Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics and Chairperson
at the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University,
New Delhi. Cross posted from
Triple Crisis
Much has been made of how there has been a
substantial shift in the balance of economic power between the advanced
capitalist economies (or the "North") and some economies of the global South.
It is true that very recently the hype surrounding "emerging markets" has died
down, as international capital flows have swung away from them and many of them
have shown decelerating growth or even declines in income as global exports
fall. Nevertheless, the feeling persists that – in spite of a supposedly
resurgent US economy – the advanced economies are generally in a process of
relative decline, while the developing world in general and certain economies
in particular have much better chances of future economic dynamism. And this
process is generally seen to be the result of the forces of globalisation,
which have enabled developing countries, especially some in Asia, to take
advantage of newer and larger export markets and improved access to
internationally mobile capital to increase their rates of economic expansion.
Chart 1
But how significant has this process actually been?
In fact, there has definitely been some change over the past three and a
half decades, but it has been more limited in time than is generally presumed.
Chart 1 plots the share of the advanced economies in global GDP in current US
dollar prices, calculated at market exchange rates. (Data for all the charts
have been taken from the IMF World Economic Outlook October 2015 database.)
This shows that the share of advanced economies declined from around 83 per
cent in the late 1980s to around 60 per cent now, which is really quite a
substantial decline. However, the bulk of this change occurred in a relatively
short period: the decade 2002 to 2012, when the share dropped from 80 per cent
to 62 per cent. The periods before and after have shown much less variation,
and indeed, the share seems to have stabilised at around 61 per cent
thereafter.
Chart 2 looks at the obverse of this process – the change in the shares in
global GDP of the major developing regions, with China treated as a separate
category on its own. This shows a somewhat more surprising pattern, because it
indicates that the dominant part of this shift is due to the increase in
China's share, which rose from around 3 per cent to more than 15 per cent. Once
again, this happened essentially during the decade after 2005, when the share
of China in global GDP at market exchange rates jumped by more than ten
percentage points. Indeed, the change in China's share alone explains 87 per
cent of the entire decline in the share of the advanced economies in the period
1980 to 2015. Considering only the last decade, that is after 2005, the
relative increase in China's GDP accounts for a slightly lower proportion of
the change, at 67 per cent – which is still hugely significant.
Chart 2
The change in shares of other regions provides some interesting insights.
The Latin American region experienced a medium term decline in relative income
share over the 1980s (the "lost decade"), recovered somewhat in the 1990s
before declining once again in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The global
commodity boom of 2003 onwards was associated with a revival in the region's
economic fortunes and the share of the region increased from 5 per cent in 2003
to more than 8 per cent in 2011, but thereafter it has stagnated and fallen
with the unwinding of that boom.
The income share of the MENA region (Middle East and North Africa) appears
to be very strongly driven by global oil prices, with sharp peaks in period of
high oil prices and stagnation or decline otherwise, and over the entire period
there has been a stagnation in income share rather than any increase. An even
more depressing story emerges for Sub Saharan Africa, which showed decline in
income share for a prolonged period between 1980 and 2002, and subsequently a
slight recovery (from 1.1 per cent in 2002 to around 2 per cent in 2012 and
thereafter) that was still well below the share of more than 3 per cent in
1980.
The only developing region that shows a clear increase is developing Asia,
which in this chart excludes China to clarify the respective significance of
both. But the increase in the income share of this region (minus China) has
been much less marked than that for China, and most of it occurred after 2002,
as the income share rose from 3.5 per cent in 2002 to 6.4 per cent in 2015.
Chart 3
Chart 3 indicates the changes in shares of the largest Asian developing
countries other than China. It is evident that in terms of increasing share of
global GDP, India has been the most impressive performer over the past decade
in particular, with its share increasing from 1.8 per cent in 2005 to 3 per
cent in 2015. Note, however, that this is still tiny in comparison to China,
and indeed, just the increase in China's share over that decade has been more
than three times of India's aggregate share. South Korea's share has also
increased, mostly over the 1980s and early 1990s, while Indonesia's share
increase occurred mostly during the commodity boom of the 2000s.
In terms of per capita GDP, however, the Indian performance looks much less
impressive than those of the major Asian counterparts. Interestingly, even the
Chinese experience appears not as sharply remarkable, although still hugely
better than that of India. Chart 4 tracks the movements of per capita GDP,
measured now in Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) exchange rates rather than market
rates. There are numerous problems with the use of the PPP measure, but for
current comparative purposes it does provide some kind of indicator. This shows
that by far the most impressive performance in terms of increasing per capita
GDP has been in South Korea, followed by Malaysia. India shows the least
improvement among these five economies, despite its apparently more rapid
increase in terms of share of world GDP in the last decade.
Chart 4
Overall, therefore, while the world economy has changed over the past three
decades, this change should not be exaggerated for most developing regions, or
even for most countries in what is apparently the most dynamic region of Asia.
That China accounts for almost all of the shift isn't so much new news, as
repeatedly memory-holed news. It's not surprising that it keeps going down the
memory hole, as it completely destroys the case for the neoliberal policy
consensus that China flouted over that period.
Every talking head who extolls the Washington Consensus for "lifting the
poor of the world out of poverty" is a stone cold liar. The real goal of
"globalization" isn't general prosperity, it's the continued domination of "us"
over the "lesser breeds".
It is the bringing the advantages of the third world to the others.
Why should we get paid more than them?
Look at all the billionaires that were lifted out of poverty in these
countries.
Our useless eaters get much more than their useless eaters,
PPP is a scam. To someone displaced here, it matters zero that the
worker in Mexico, for example, can get by on one tenth the wage that used
to be payed to someone here.
Look at all the billionaires that were lifted out of poverty in
these countries.
Look at the billions that did all the lifting. They still make as
close to zero as you can get.
Imagine for a moment, Tim Cook does the underground boss thing and
sneaks himself into the Foxconn factory for a spot on the assembly line
for a month. If he could get by the first few days and not scrap too many
phones, and become proficient and last the whole month at 60 hours a
week, what do you think his pay for this work would be? Would you like
your monthly pay to match it?
Thanks to multinationals being effectively stateless due to tax arbitrage
games, who actually has global economic power but the corporations themselves?
In the end, the States do, because the corporations need the military and
other coercive power of States to enforce contracts and extract their pounds
of flesh. The USA has the world largest GNP (or GDP, I can never keep the
two straight although when I was a kid in the 1970s, it was GNP) and the
world's most destructively powerful military (it may not be able to "defeat"
you, but it can make you wish you had never screwed with Uncle Sam). GNP
backstops military power and other nasty forms of coercion. Poor countries
simply can't throw their weight around effectively in what is still an
international jungle. Rich ones can.
It'd be interesting to see what Chart 2 looks like if measured in PPP rather
than at market rates. It might demonstrate how much the structure of global
markets effects the valuation of production, and how not-flat the globalized
economy is. I'd like to see measures other than GDP as well, especially
industrial commodities, capital goods, automobile, and shipping production.
When it comes down to it where does the industrial capacity actually reside,
and how has this shifted over the years?
Since April 2011 - nearly five years ago - commodity prices have fallen a
harrowing 48%, measured by the CCI-TR index. Over the same period, the US
dollar index (DXY) rose almost 30%.
These two trends contributed to the recent flattening out of developing
economy gains in GDP share, measured in USD.
Commodities are sufficiently depressed that on a valuation basis, a
turnaround might be expected, and indeed may already have commenced in the
CCI's 5.7% rise from its 15 Jan 2016 low.
In a more favorable global macro environment, developing economies likely
will gain more relative GDP share over the next five years than they did in the
headwinds of the past five.
That's a logical premise and it implies that developing countries, with a
sparse and elitist infrastructure, will be the ones to do big new infra that
promotes equality and stability, but do not waste their opportunity to
balance their economies by using old ideas about investing in all the
mistakes and boondoggles of neoliberalism… etc. This opportunity is part of
a global power shift which demands environmental cooperation. Just
personally hoping all the carpet baggers go directly to jail.
The obamacare mandate will go down as the straw that broke the camel's back,
and Chinas printing will reverse, with scant more to show for itself than
Japan's push behind the internet.
Pushing government religion is one thing; mandating participation is
another.
The Sanders- and Trump-led (for now) political rebellion is not
going to go away.
There are only two questions going forward:
Will it remain a
political
rebellion, one that expresses
itself through the electoral process, or will it abandon the electoral
process as useless after 2016?
Will it be led by
humanitarian populism
from the left, or
authoritarian populism
from the right?
Why is this rebellion permanent, at least until
conditions improve
? Because life in the U.S. is getting worse in a way
that can be felt by a critical mass of people, by enough people to disrupt
the Establishment machine with their anger. And because that worsening is
seen to be permanent.
Bottom line, people are reaching the breaking point, and we're watching
that play out in the 2016 electoral race.
Yes, It Is a Rebellion
There's no other way to see the Sanders and Trump surges except as a
popular rebellion,
a rebellion of the people against their
"leaders."
If one of them, Sanders or Trump, is on the ballot in
November running against an Establishment alternative, Sanders or Trump, the
anti-Establishment candidate, will win. That candidate will cannibalize
votes from the Establishment side.
That is, Sanders will attract a non-zero percentage of
Trump-supporting voters if Cruz or Paul Ryan runs against him, and he will
win. By the same token, Trump will attract a non-zero percentage
Sanders-supporting voters (or they will stand down) if Clinton runs against
him, and she will lose to him.
(In fact, we have a good early indication of what
percentage of Sanders supporters Clinton will lose
-
20%
of Sanders primary voters say they will sit out the general election if
Clinton is the candidate, and
9%
say they will vote for
Trump over Clinton. By this measure, Clinton loses 30% of the votes that
went to Sanders in the primary election.)
If they run against each other, Sanders and Trump, Sanders will win. You
don't have to take my word for it (or the word of any number of
other writers
). You can
click here
and see what almost every head-to-head poll says. As I look
at it today, the average of the last six head-to-head polls is Sanders by
almost 18% over Trump. In electoral terms, that's a wipeout. For comparison,
Obama beat McCain by
6%
and Romney by
4%
.
Note that Sanders is still surging, winning some states with 80% of the
vote (across all states he's won, he averages 67% of the vote), while Trump
seems to have hit a ceiling below 50%, even in victory. The "socialist" tag
is not only not sticking, it's seen positively by his supporters. And
finally, just imagine a Trump-Sanders debate. Sanders' style is teflon to
Trumps', and again, I'm
not alone
in noticing this.
Whichever anti-Establishment candidate runs, he wins. If both
anti-Establishment candidates face off, Sanders wins. The message seems
pretty clear.
Dear Establishment Democrats, you can lose to Sanders
or lose to Trump.
Those are your choices, and I'm more than happy
to wait until November 9 to find out what you chose and how it turned out.
Not pleased to wait, if you choose wrongly, but willing to wait, just so
we're both aware of what happened.
The Rebellion Is Not Going Away
I won't be happy with you though, Establishment Democrats, if you choose
badly. And I won't be alone. Because even if you succeed with Clinton,
Establishment Democrats, or succeed in giving us Trump in preference to
giving us Sanders, the rebellion is not going away.
If you look at the Trump side
, it's easy to see why. Are
wages rising with profits? No, and Trump supporters have had enough. (They
don't quite know who to blame, but they're done with things as they are.)
Will they tolerate another bank bailout, the one that's
inevitable
the way the banks are continuing to operate? They haven't
begun to tolerate the last one
. They
already know
they were screwed by NAFTA. What will their reaction be to
the next trade deal, or the next, or the next? (Yes, it's not just TPP;
there are three queued up and ready to be unleashed.)
Trump supporters, the core of them, are
dying of drugs and despair
, and they're not going to go quietly into
that dark night. The Trump phenomenon is proof of that.
On the Sanders side
, the rebellion is even clearer.
Sanders has energized a great many voters across the Democratic-independent
spectrum with his call for a "political revolution." But it's among the
young, the future of America, that the message is especially resonant. For
the first time in a long time, the current generation of youth in America
sees itself as sinking below the achievements of their parents.
US millennials feel more working class than any other
generation
Social survey data reveals downshift in class identity among
18-35s, with only a third believing they are middle class
Millennials in the US see themselves as less middle class and more
working class than any other generation since records began three decades
ago, the Guardian and Ipsos Mori have found.
Analysing social survey data spanning 34 years reveals that only about
a third of adults aged 18-35 think they are part of the US middle class.
Meanwhile 56.5% of this age group describe themselves as working class.
The number of millennials – who are also known as Generation Y and
number about 80 million in the US – describing themselves as middle class
has fallen in almost every survey conducted every other year, dropping
from 45.6% in 2002 to a record low of 34.8% in 2014. In that year, 8% of
millennials considered themselves to be lower class and less than 1%
considered themselves to be upper class.
Of course, that leads to this:
The large downshift in class identity among young adults may have
helped explain the surprisingly strong performance in Democratic
primaries of the insurgent presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who has
promised to scrap college tuition fees and raise minimum wages.
Will those voters, so many of them self-described "independents," return
to the Democratic Party? Only if the Party offers them a choice they
actually want. If the Party does not, there will be hell to pay on the
Democratic side as well.
America is making them poorer -
Establishment Democratic policies are making them poorer - and they're done
with it.
The Sanders phenomenon is proof of that.
Will the Very Very Rich Stand Down?
The squeeze is on, and
unless the rich who run the game for their
benefit alone decide to stand down and let the rest of us catch our breath
and a break, there will be no letting up on the reaction
. What
we're watching is just the beginning. Unless the rich and their
Establishment enablers stand down, this won't be the end but a start, and
just a start.
I'll identify the three branches to this crossroad in another piece. It's
not that hard to suss out those three paths, so long as you're willing to
look a few years ahead, into the "middle distance" as it were. The ways this
could play out are limited and kind of staring right at us.
But let's just say
for now,
America faces
its future in a way that hasn't happened since the Great Depression, another
period in which the Constitution was rewritten in an orderly way (via the
political process). Which means that for almost every living American, this
is the most consequential electoral year of your life.
Let's hope all those elites in power who are to blame for their
selfish needs causing our great country going completely down the
toilet will have a chance to finally meet their favorite lamppost
with a little rope in a nice gentle breeze.
they will fake an alien invasion or some such and put us all
under lock and key. we will either willingly give them complete
control over us or they will take it forcefully. they are
playing for all the chips, while the vast majority of sheeple
don't even realize they are in the game. i hope to hold my own
and dont expect anything more of anyone else at this stage, let
alone an organized rebellion that will deal to those most at
fault for our collective hellhole.
I kind of agree with this guy, in a round about sort of
way. If an economic collapse brought on by socialism and
central planning in inevitable, might as well have a
socialist/central planner in charge. No better way to show
people why that shit doesn't work. It would also be useful to
point to the left and say "see, I fucking told you so. this
shit doesn't work"
What "central planning" ? Shit, there's a PLAN ?? Who
would've guessed....beyond the obvious plan of the 1% to
gorge on the flesh of all the rest...
And as for your "the left", I'd sooner believe in
fairy's living at the bottom of the garden... (Of course,
you probably think all the PC wankers are a genuine "left"
....yer, lol).
Obozo pretends there is no problem as he recites
fraudulent info from the Fed...meanwhile the people on
Main Street see through the bullshit. The Obozo
Administration is a propaganda sham...he just wants the
Fed to hold it together for him until the elections.
as paradoxical as its seems, Fed.gov's only real option is actually
The Donald. He's the only one with potential to stay the rapid slide
in Fed.gov's legitimacy and mandate to unite the states.
any other president will get to preside over internal
disintegration
the harder they grasp, the faster the brass ring slides through
their greedy fingers
Reagan bought that crowd another 20 years; Trump can get them
another 10-15 if they shut up and elect him
Trump has shown nothing of the substance he would need
philosophically/charasmatically to buy this USA another 20 years.
Based on what I've seen, he's a relatively harmless blowhard
narcissist. And relative to 1980, this USA is FAR, FAR, FAR more
fractured across several critical dimensions. Further, this
polarization has been happening since the late 70s, and I cant
perceive the catalyst for an ideologic harmonization. We are past
the event horizon, in a strange environment where the rule of law
is largely suspended. The fundamental of free market economics
('risk-free rate of return') has also been fixed by .gov in an
effort to support, nay increase price inflation. The Constitution
as it relates to individual liberties has been eviscerated. There
is no turning back. A lot of suffering lies ahead. We are walking
into the valley of the shadow of death. When you are lost, a
compass can help you find the way. But when you throw away the
compass (rule of law, Consitutional liberties, focus on excellence
of thoughts), THERE CAN BE NO RETURN.
Trump sucks. Anybody saying otherwise is as dillusional as
all those Obummer voters everyone, now, loves to goof on. Who
has room for another serving of hope and change? Lucy pulls the
football away again, but Charlie Brown never learns.
Good. But rebellion alone is not enough. Anger at a corrupt system is
not enough. We must know what the goals are, what we are trying to change
and why. What should this system be replaced with and why?
So that's the take from the disaffected Democrat voter, eh? It's nice
they are being forced to confront reality in the same way the Republicans
are, but to think that Trump voters are dying from drugs and despair
while not acknowledging the same state of affairs in their own side is
silly.
Still not quite ready to lower themselves to the same level as the
rest of us. Humanitarian Left indeed.
They've managed to turn the office of the President as well as the
election process in this Country into nothing but douchebaggery fact is
the whole circus bores the shit out of me at this stage....kill each
other fighting for the ( 1 ) more food for me.
If Trump gets burned/stabbed by the GOP-E, his supporters have a moral
duty to vote Anti-Establishment, by voting for Sanders.
Because, by then, the curtain will gave been pulled back and everyone
can stop pretending. At that point, only a hard reset will work, and the
only person to bring it about sooner than later, is Sanders.
Sanders is probably a nice man who means well but his entire
philosophy is based on envy. He may be Anti-establishment now but if
he were elected, he's too weak and lacking in depth not to give into
the Establishment. Trump may be too. The pressure would be beyond
unbearable for a normal human being.
I would only vote for Sanders to accelerate the Great Reset as
other bloggers on here have said. But an added feature of supporting
naive Bernie is Democrats might finally get the blame for all the
destruction that they have caused, not the least of which is
destroying the greatest country that ever was and probably ever will
be.
As the witch hunt on the rich still goes on feverishly, people forget that an economical
successful society needs trailblazers like McClendon. A society must be open to extreme characters
for good and bad as these people stir up the pond and keep the wheels running. The current process
in society of reverting to the mean, when only incompetent bureaucrats can earn big money combined
with a top down centralized decision making process will make society much poorer over time.
Society must allow concepts and new ideas through a bottom up process managed by exceptional individuals
like McClendon. The European Union -which becomes more and more a top down society similar to the
Sowjet Union – and especially France are already good examples how fast a society can vanish through
a centralized approach holding down individual activity.
This has been even recognized by China when Deng Xiao Ping famously said: 'Unfortunately we have
to allow some people to become millionaires.' Should centrists get its grip to power, millionaires
will be poorer and the poor will not be richer. It is not that Cuba becomes the new USA, it will
turn the US into the new Cuba.
I am "not isolationist, but I am 'America First,'"
Donald Trump told The New York times last weekend. "I like the expression."
Of NATO, where the U.S. underwrites three-fourths of the cost of defending Europe, Trump calls
this arrangement
"unfair, economically, to us," and adds, "We will not be ripped off
anymore."
Beltway media may be transfixed with Twitter wars over wives and alleged infidelities.
But the ideas Trump aired should ignite a national debate over U.S. overseas commitments - especially
NATO.
For the Donald's ideas are not lacking for authoritative support.
The first NATO supreme commander, Gen. Eisenhower, said in February 1951 of the alliance:
"If in 10 years, all American troops stationed in Europe for national defense purposes have not been
returned to the United States, then this whole project will have failed."
As JFK biographer Richard Reeves relates, President Eisenhower, a decade later, admonished the
president-elect on NATO.
"Eisenhower told his successor it was time to start bringing the troops home from Europe. 'America
is carrying far more than her share of free world defense,' he said. It was time for other nations
of NATO to take on more of the costs of their own defense."
No Cold War president followed Ike's counsel.
But when the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Empire, the dissolution of the Warsaw
Pact, and the breakup of the Soviet Union into 15 nations, a new debate erupted.
The conservative coalition that had united in the Cold War fractured. Some of us argued that when
the Russian troops went home from Europe, the American troops should come home from Europe.
Time for a populous prosperous Europe to start defending itself.
Instead, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush began handing out NATO memberships, i.e., war guarantees,
to all ex-Warsaw Pact nations and even Baltic republics that had been part of the Soviet Union.
In a historically provocative act, the U.S. moved its "red line" for war with Russia from the
Elbe River in Germany to the Estonian-Russian border, a few miles from St. Petersburg.
We declared to the world that should Russia seek to restore its hegemony over any part of its
old empire in Europe, she would be at war with the United States.
No Cold War president ever considered issuing a war guarantee of this magnitude, putting our homeland
at risk of nuclear war, to defend Latvia and Estonia.
Recall. Ike did not intervene to save the Hungarian freedom fighters in 1956. Lyndon Johnson did
not lift a hand to save the Czechs, when Warsaw Pact armies crushed "Prague Spring" in 1968. Reagan
refused to intervene when Gen. Wojciech Jaruzelski, on Moscow's orders, smashed Solidarity in 1981.
These presidents put America first. All would have rejoiced in the liberation of Eastern Europe.
But none would have committed us to war with a nuclear-armed nation like Russia to guarantee it.
Yet, here was George W. Bush declaring that any Russian move against Latvia or Estonia meant war
with the United States. John McCain wanted to extend U.S. war guarantees to Georgia and Ukraine.
This was madness born of hubris. And among those who warned against moving NATO onto Russia's
front porch was America's greatest geostrategist, the author of containment, George Kennan:
"Expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the post-Cold
War era. Such a decision may be expected to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly
not to our liking."
Kennan was proven right. By refusing to treat Russia as we treated other nations that repudiated
Leninism, we created the Russia we feared, a rearming nation bristling with resentment.
The Russian people, having extended a hand in friendship and seen it slapped away, cheered the
ouster of the accommodating Boris Yeltsin and the arrival of an autocratic strong man who would make
Russia respected again. We ourselves prepared the path for Vladimir Putin.
While Trump is focusing on how America is bearing too much of the cost of defending Europe, it
is the risks we are taking that are paramount, risks no Cold War president ever dared to take.
Why should America fight Russia over who rules in the Baltic States or Romania and
Bulgaria? When did the sovereignty of these nations become interests so vital we would risk a military
clash with Moscow that could escalate into nuclear war? Why are we still committed to fight for scores
of nations on five continents?
Trump is challenging the mindset of a foreign policy elite whose thinking is frozen in a world
that disappeared around 1991.
He is suggesting a new foreign policy where the United States is committed to war only
when are attacked or U.S. vital interests are imperiled.
And when we agree to defend other
nations, they will bear a full share of the cost of their own defense. The era of the free rider
is over.
Trump's phrase, "America First!" has a nice ring to it.
Trumps statements are true, but don't go far enough.
Since the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore, there is
no reason for NATO to exist, or especially for us to be
a part of it. We gain nothing except the promises to go
to nuclear war with Russia, even over a shitshow country
like turkey, who shot down a fucking Russia plane.
It would also be interesting to see what happens to
the welfare states of Western Europe if they were forced
to pay for all this shit, or the US left all together.
Surely Trump is not so stupid to believe that we are being "had"
by the Europeans in regards to the collective NATO defense budget?
Surely he understands NATO is merely a captive audience for arms sales
ex USA?
Surely he understands that by paying "more than our share" we
are utilizing it to push a fucked up agenda abroad with the complicity
of those who are "not paying their share"?
In a manner of speaking he's right. Other countries don't pay their
fair share of the expenses. However,
the size and scope of what
exists now is orders of magnitude TOO BIG. So everyone else shouldn't
pay more, the US should scale back and spend WAY less.
That is what will get someone killed. Scaling back at all and therefore
costing any private predatory military supplier / contractor money..
Something extraordinary has taken place in the last few weeks.
More and more old-time Republican stalwarts and leaders have
laid their voices bare, if not defending Donald Trump, then for certain
excoriating the three decade long NeoLib/NeoCon pact that is strangulating
American sovereignty and paving the way for a NWO. Paul Craig
Roberts, as always, was perhaps the first. But now David Stockman
(Reagan's Budget Director), Peggy Noonan (Reagan's speechwriter), Patrick
Buchanan (another Reaganite and erstwhile Republican curmudgeon), Robert
Bennett (Reagan's head of the Department of Education), and perhaps
many more that I am not aware of are coming out of the closet.
It is almost as though Trump's 'take-no-prisoners' ethos, and
getting away with it and media and political correctness be damned,
is actually creating enough breathing space for others to say what's
been on their mind but have been too frightened to speak out about.
Well spoken, known, and credible voices are pushing back.
This could be a snowball careening downhill turning into an avalanche.
If enough of these folks keep emerging from dark corners they could
well provide Trump with a political phalanx that diminish the probabliity
of something as outrageous as stealing the nomination or even assassination.
One thing is for certain. A civil war is taking place
already, and its in the Republican Party.
NATO? The USA and European nations cannot even protect
their borders from invasion. End NATO. It is only good for
genocide against small unarmed countries.
"... This type of 'terrorism' fits other well established models that are characterized as a 'strategy of tension', and these historically were planned and executed by assets of US-NATO military intelligence themselves, as part of the Gladio program. ..."
"... So we have to divide between military ISIS - that army of mercenaries, misled youth, drug addicts, ex-prisoners, and religious fanatics on the one hand, backed by Turkey and Gulf monarchies, from the 'ISIS' that is more like Al Qaeda - specially trained intelligence and security assets with knowledge of electronics, bomb making, counter-security/penetration, etc. - who are directly controlled by CIA/Mossad/MI6 and Saudi security and Pakistani ISI. ..."
"... The US-NATO intelligence program, through Gladio has long time assets in Europe, and the last year has been reminiscent of a time during the Cold War when this strategy of tension reached its peak in Europe during the 1970's. ..."
Words always fail to speak to the human tragedy component of yesterday's 'terrorist' attacks, and
my words cannot adequately address them either.
Moreover, it seems in poor judgment to specifically lament over one criminal tragedy, when such
criminal tragic events are so rampant around the world, and are often the product of US-NATO
operations globally.
The terrorist attacks in Belgium are a direct part of US-NATO's plans to perpetuate war and
instability, and destabilization anywhere that the US senses hesitation to fully support its
plans.
I have not yet seen evidence that the individuals who pulled off these attacks have any
connection to any of the named or known 'terrorist' networks. What I have read so far as a
Kurdish media sources claiming that ISIS had claimed responsibility.
For those linking these attacks to the known and documented ISIS/FSA members/soldiers that have
now decided to seek 'refuge' in Europe from the way which they created, I would say that while it
is possible that any such individuals who came as refugees in the recent wave could have been
used in these attacks, such assets already existed and lived in Europe for an indeterminably long
time.
There is a link, however, between the 'refugee' crisis and these terrorist attacks, - and that is
that these are both components of the general destabilization of the middle-east and now, Europe.
From a sociological and strategic point of view, it is difficult to imagine that such
'reverberations' were not foreseen, and therefore expected, and as such perhaps even viewed as
desirable by the powers that be. Which powers that be do I speak of?
This type of 'terrorism' fits other well established models that are characterized as a 'strategy
of tension', and these historically were planned and executed by assets of US-NATO military
intelligence themselves, as part of the Gladio program.
It is unlikely in my view that ISIS, in the meaningful sense of the term, was behind this.
Terrorist attacks such as this have a purpose for actual terrorist groups when they are linked
with demands, a quid pro quo, release of prisoners, or some change in policy, recognition, or
even a cash payment. They come after general warnings, and some inability of the terrorist group
to get its demands met.
At the same time we have another 'ISIS' or, if you will, Al Qaeda - as a western intelligence and
operations program designed to attack targets designated by their US/NATO handlers.
So we have to divide between military ISIS - that army of mercenaries, misled youth, drug
addicts, ex-prisoners, and religious fanatics on the one hand, backed by Turkey and Gulf
monarchies, from the 'ISIS' that is more like Al Qaeda - specially trained intelligence and
security assets with knowledge of electronics, bomb making, counter-security/penetration, etc. -
who are directly controlled by CIA/Mossad/MI6 and Saudi security and Pakistani ISI.
These 'random' attacks serve no tactical purpose for an actual terrorist group in my view, and
only increase the chances that European voters or citizens will support some action, direct or
kinetic, against ISIS. So this does not serve ISIS's interests.
The US-NATO intelligence program, through Gladio has long time assets in Europe, and the last
year has been reminiscent of a time during the Cold War when this strategy of tension reached its
peak in Europe during the 1970's.
Then, as perhaps now, the goal was to push European citizens/voters into a hostile position
against a generally described 'enemy' - then communism, today 'Islamicism/Islamism'.
"... "How do you explain a person seemingly legitimately trained in science drifting off and becoming more and more of a science denier? ..."
"... In the case of Judith Curry I was unwilling to think of her as a full on science denier for a long time because her transition into denierhood seemed to be going very slowly, methodologically she just kept providing more and more evidence that she does not accept climate science's consensus that global warming is real, caused by human greenhouse gas pollution, involves actual warming of the Earth's surface, and is important. And lately she has added to this slippery sliding jello-like set of magic goal posts yet another denier meme she is either doing something here that is morally wrong (lying to slow down action on climate change) or stupid (she is not smart enough to understand what she is looking at) ..."
"... it is my children's future that is at risk here " ~ Greg Laden ..."
"... Your tactics speak volumes about you. Instead of discussing the evidence you engage in ad-hominem attacks against those that do not share your beliefs. ..."
"I am pointing out that current hypothesis is faulty and we need a new one. There are plenty
of climatologists working on that. For example Judith Curry " ~ Javier
"Curry is a lightweight that barely has a grasp on physics." ~
WebHubbleTelescope
"How do you explain a person seemingly legitimately trained in science drifting off and
becoming more and more of a science denier?
In the case of Judith Curry I was unwilling to think of her as a full on science denier for
a long time because her transition into denierhood seemed to be going very slowly, methodologically
she just kept providing more and more evidence that she does not accept climate science's
consensus
that global warming is real, caused by human greenhouse gas pollution, involves actual warming
of the Earth's surface, and is important.
And lately she has added to this slippery sliding jello-like set of magic goal posts yet another
denier meme
she is either doing something here that is morally wrong (lying to slow down action on climate
change) or stupid (she is not smart enough to understand what she is looking at)
it is my children's future that is at risk here " ~
Greg Laden
Alarmists are very big on character assassination based on fact-less opinions. They also refuse
to engage skeptics in debate. Both tactics speak of a self-perceived weakness in their position.
Judith Curry publication list is available to anybody so there is no need to defend her scientifically.
I really object to your tactic of saying that any scientist that supports consensus deserves respect
but any scientist that doesn't support consensus does not deserve respect. That has never been
the way scientific disputes have been settled.
Your tactics speak volumes about you. Instead of discussing the evidence you engage in ad-hominem
attacks against those that do not share your beliefs.
Nice. You want to have a go at me also. It isn't going to work either. A scientists is judged
by the value of his/her research and not by his/her opinions. The publication record of Judith
Curry speaks for herself.
There's a lot of climate activists going after scientists that don't
share the consensus. Nothing really new about it, but science doesn't care about those things.
You just demonstrate your inability to discuss about what science knows or doesn't about climate
and about what the evidence really supports or doesn't. Hence you embark on a travel to attack
the credibility of those that sponsor a different view, as if that was going to change anything
about the science of climate.
That is a losing proposition. Science will eventually sort out this debate and your efforts
will be in any case meaningless, misguided, and petty.
Big business loves bribing the Clintons. They get great returns on investment. In the last forty
years the Clintons have received over three billion from big money interests. Cenk Uygur, host of
the The Young Turks, breaks it down. Tell us what you think in the comment section below.
"Over four decades of public life, Bill and Hillary Clinton have built an unrivaled global network
of donors while pioneering fundraising techniques that have transformed modern politics and paved
the way for them to potentially become the first husband and wife to win the White House.
The grand total raised for all of their political campaigns and their family's charitable foundation
reaches at least $3 billion, according to a Washington Post investigation.
Their fundraising haul, which began with $178,000 that Bill Clinton raised for his long-shot 1974
congressional bid, is on track to expand substantially with Hillary Clinton's 2016 White House run,
which has already drawn $110 million in support. "*
Over the last six months, GOP leaders have watched helpless as the Republican presidential
race has transformed from the usual loveable farce into a terrifying prequel to Mad Max: Fury
Road as tangerine reality show host
Donald Trump gained, attained and retained frontrunner status. With only a few months left
before the Republican National Convention, party luminaries, bigwigs and eminences grises have
come up with a secret blueprint for how to stop the New York business mogul from becoming their
candidate. Exclusive to the Guardian, here is their 10-point plan:
Change the Republican party rules so that all presidential candidates must disclose the
length of their fingers prior to receiving the nomination. Trump will drop out of the race by
the end of the day.
Leave a trail of spray tan canisters and ground beef leading from the door of his
penthouse to a barge about to set off for the Far East.
Lure him into a space shuttle by telling him there's a photograph of his daughter Ivanka
in a bikini onboard and then blast him into orbit.
Attach a $5 bill to a greased pig's back and set it loose backstage before his next
campaign stop. He'll chase that thing until he's out of breath, and miss the speech, which,
due to his inhumanly hectic campaign schedule will have the cumulative knock-on effect of
making him miss the next day's speech, then the next morning's chummy appearance by telephone
with his pals on Morning Joe, then the next four primaries, and before you know it he's missed
the convention and is safely back to being an appalling but harmless reality TV star.
Force Trump to spend as much as five minutes with one of his own supporters.
Remind him that the White House executive residence is a paltry 55,000 square feet and
that presidents are constitutionally prohibited from painting it gold.
Invite Trump to a pool party and before he arrives glue a bunch of nickels to the bottom
of the deep end.
Invent time travel, go back to 2008, and stop ourselves from attacking the Obama
administration with the exact same vitriolic, divisive rhetoric that Trump picked up on and
has now ridden to his present position.
Stop sheepishly acquiescing to Trump's bluster and acting like he isn't a despicable
racist monster in hopes that it's not too late to prevent the complete collapse of society.
Change election procedure so that the remaining delegates must pledge their support to
whichever nominee scores highest on a seventh grade vocabulary test. Unfortunately this will
probably give the edge to college debate champ Ted Cruz, an opportunistic, bigoted liar whose
vision for America is a theocracy engaged in an apocalyptic war against Islam run by a man who
looks like Dracula's fat cousin smugly eating a sour candy he received as a prize for
tattling. But you can't have everything.
[Mar 15, 2016] Coal probably has peake
Notable quotes:
"... Just last year electric generation by coal was reduced by 4.6%. ..."
"... We know that China, one of the biggest producers and consumers is reigning in coal consumption for environmental issues and closing down thousands of mines, while at many developed nations like UK coal energy plants are being phased out and closed down. ..."
"... We do know that CO2 emissions have stabilized and are starting to go down. It might be the looming economical crisis or it could be a change in coal use that starts a downward trend. ..."
200 of the 534 US coal fired generation plants are now gone, retired as they say. Expect more
in April as the EPA extensions run out. " Nearly 18 gigawatts (GW) of electric generating capacity
was retired in 2015, a relatively high amount compared with recent years. More than 80% of the
retired capacity was conventional steam coal. " EIA
Coal may be leaving us faster than we think. The combination of aging, pollution laws and competition
is steadily reducing coal use. Just last year electric generation by coal was reduced by 4.6%.
What about the possibility that Peak Coal is taking place right now? We know that China, one
of the biggest producers and consumers is reigning in coal consumption for environmental issues
and closing down thousands of mines, while at many developed nations like UK coal energy plants
are being phased out and closed down.
We do know that CO2 emissions have stabilized and are starting to go down. It might be the
looming economical crisis or it could be a change in coal use that starts a downward trend.
Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions
"The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons ( GT ) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT
. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load
on this balance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load
by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air
... ... ...
But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle –
by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons
moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all
of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere,
and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati
2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm
has taken just 120 years).
Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere
has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures
which is warming the planet.
While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra
CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.
"... Their decision whether to resume an interest rate-cutting cycle this week is almost beside the point as the government of Vladimir Putin lubricates the economy in the background with oil wealth amassed in better times. Russian banks are sitting on the most cash in five years, allowing them to lend to each other at a lower rate than they borrow from the central bank. In the euro zone and in the U.S., money market rates are higher than benchmarks. ..."
"... "This amounts to easing of monetary conditions without key rate cuts," said Alina Slyusarchuk, Morgan Stanley's London-based economist for Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States. ..."
"... Considering US is constantly painting Russia as Satan, surrounds them with nuclear missiles through NATO, tries to economically isolate them from the world's banking system, and politically manipulates their neighboring countries with CIA sponsored coups and revolts Russia shows considerable restraint and resilience. ..."
"... Do not believe everything you hear about these brave leaders and nations standing against US force and controls./ ..."
Russian central bankers have fewer reasons to offer relief to their recession-wracked economy
than you might think.
Their decision whether to resume an interest rate-cutting cycle this week is almost beside
the point as the government of Vladimir Putin lubricates the economy in the background with oil
wealth amassed in better times. Russian banks are sitting on the most cash in five years,
allowing them to lend to each other at a lower rate than they borrow from the central bank. In
the euro zone and in the U.S., money market rates are higher than benchmarks.
"This amounts to easing of monetary conditions without key rate cuts," said Alina Slyusarchuk,
Morgan Stanley's London-based economist for Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States.
How did this happen? The Finance Ministry transferred 2.6 trillion rubles ($37 billion)
of accumulated oil riches from the $50 billion rainy-day sovereign wealth fund into the economy
last year to cover a fiscal gap. It's budgeting another 2 trillion-ruble drawdown from the
Reserve Fund in 2016. The influx of cash is allowing Russian banks to wean themselves off the
central bank loans they were relying on to help them weather international sanctions. Those
obligations fell to 1.57 trillion rubles as of March 10 from 7.8 trillion rubles at the end of
2014.
Since the Bank of Russia brought its rate-cutting cycle to an end on Sept. 11, the overnight
money-market rate known as Ruonia has detached from central bank benchmarks, falling to 10.83
percent compared with an average 11.17 percent over the past six months.
In contrast to unprecedented stimulus measures by European peers, Russian central bank
governor, Elvira Nabiullina, is expected to leave rates unchanged at 11 percent when she convenes
policy makers Friday. The European Central Bank cut all its rates on March 10 and expanded its
bond buying program by 20 billion euros ($22 billion) to 80 billion euros a month.
Unlike for Mario Draghi, easy conditions pose a threat to Nabiullina's goals. She is still
working to curb inflation of 8.1 percent, twice her medium-term target even after it fell from
almost 17 percent a year ago. The governor is juggling the need to spur an economy that has been
shrinking since the first quarter of 2015 against the risk of runaway inflation. Brent crude,
used to price Russia's main export blend, has averaged $34 per barrel this year compared with an
average $86 the previous decade.
Scorpio
Considering US is constantly painting Russia as Satan, surrounds them with nuclear
missiles through NATO, tries to economically isolate them from the world's banking system, and
politically manipulates their neighboring countries with CIA sponsored coups and revolts
Russia shows considerable restraint and resilience. We still need them for a ride to the
space station.
There are Churches in Russian. They have 10 commandments. They don't obsess over gays,
transexuals, killing unborn children, drugs, and mass marketing alcoholism, drugs, and adultry
through the media.
Maybe they're not so bad. Maybe we just don't like competition selling arms and destruction to
the world. Don't worry. We're still number one.
Calgery
There is a value in devaluation of money. The great example is China where the US is
constantly bit**ing about it. Russia is naturally getting that. Iran fixed its one time oil
depending economy through natural sanction devaluation imposed by the enemies of its
independance and is now in tracks for more exports and relevance with the world economy.
Do not believe everything you hear about these brave leaders and nations standing against US
force and controls./
JohnC
In other words, the vaunted Pen Weapon (signing economic sanctions on Russia) of President
Obama has failed and Vladimir Putin is laughing of the U.S.' 21st century benign weapon it has
ever created...
"... I really don't buy into this anti Trump hysteria, he is far better an option than slime bag Rubio or nut case Cruz. Hes a conservative nationalist who actually says some sensible things that resonate with a lot of working Americans. ..."
Clinton has recently endorsed, Nancy Reagan on HIV/Aides, and Kissinger and Albright on
foreign policy. The Huffington Post has recently endorsed, Rubio, and is preparing to endorse
Ted Cruz. Their political pundits have written new favorable histories on Mitt Romney, Newt
Gingrich, and Ronald Reagan.
Washington DC both politicians and pundits are a sea of whores,
and despised by a majority of the population.
Let's not forget that Reagan ruined the American financial system with "voodoo economics,"
cutting taxes for the rich and impoverishing our nation's ability to balance its budget and
meet its obligations, let alone do anything good for its people. He was also responsible for
the substitution of the 401k for what had been the almost universal provision of
employer-financed pensions for American workers. Plus, he brought in HMOs, which resulted in
the vastly expensive and ineffective system of health care that has been causing Americans to
pay the most for the least of any advanced nation.
Not the greatest President, imho, despite his popularity.
Guardian can't stand that Trump is actually not racist, and that a black candidate (whom the
Guardian liked a few months ago) now endorses Trump. Oooo the lefties are in a spin
The Guardian bias is getting toi much. When Carson and Christie endorse Trump its because they
are failed has beens. But you were gushing when the failed has been Romney and Lindsay Graham
attacked Trump...am sure if Jeb endorsed Rubio or Kasich you wud be falling over yourselves to
praise that! Why dont u just throw ur hat in the ring and declare urselves to be a liberal
party political mouth piece rather than try to disguise ur partisan attacks as journalism.
He actually said he wants to end the H1B abuse multiple times. I have no idea what Trump is
going to do in office, but the current Republican party is basically just pushing the
disgusting Koch Brother agenda, I trust them even less than I trust Donald Trump. I'm not sure
if you can post links on here but look up "What The Koch Brothers Want." by Bernie Sanders,
then listen to what every Republican running says & then tell me that you could actually vote
for one of them. I truly love this country, I cannot vote for someone I know will push this
agenda by a bunch of people who have no trouble poisoning an entire city, want to screw over
the elderly, & want to let people die on the streets. One of the reasons the Kochs don't like
Trump is because he DOESN'T want to kick people off SS & allow Americans who can't afford
healthcare to just be left to die. Unfortunately, what many people don't seem to understand is
that our other choices besides Bernie Sanders are just as vile even if they are "politically
correct."
Further, we're becoming a third world country because 35+ years of rhetoric that taxes are bad
and government is evil means we have failed to invest in, let alone maintain, those public
goods that keeps a country vibrant and economically competitive - you know, things like
transportation infrastructure, basic pre-K-16 education (public support for higher education
was gutted in the '80's leading to the high debt load you rightly identify as an issue),
cutting edge research, affordable housing, food security, healthcare and the like that helps
to release the productive potential of all citizens.
As an immigrant yourself (and my spouse
is a naturalized citizen so I am well familiar with immigration processes), you well know that
we're not letting in folks willy nilly as you state in your post. Further, as you also know,
Obama has deported more folks than any other president, including Eisenhower's efforts , while
at the same time immigration from Mexico is decreasing.
Trump is merely paying lip service to the issues... He had put forward no realistic plans
to address such.
I have yet to understand what exactly Donald Trump has said that is "bigoted" or "racist". Our
politicians have decided unilaterally to allow EVERYONE into this country despite the fact
that people literally cannot afford it. People's incomes have been stagnant, taxes have gone
up, student loans are out of control & more people than ever are homeless. I live in NYC &
despite the insane taxes that we pay here our government has cut a bunch of federally funded
programs like mental health hospitals, so now these people with mental health issues are
homeless and they mostly hang out in the subway, where they sometimes attack & try to kill
people. Thanks to our PC politicians, the police can barely do their jobs anymore. America has
been a very welcoming country, I myself am first generation American, and I've grown up here
but Donald Trump is not exaggerating when he says this country is turning into a third world
country. I barely recognize it anymore & the changes haven't been for the better. American
taxpayers CANNOT be responsible for everyone in this world.
right and wrong is subjective - most people (and most religions) think that the golden rule is
an accurate measuring device, but beyond that, its pretty difficult for one to impose one's
morals on another. The golden rule implies that if you don't want people trying to kill you
and yours, it is a good idea not to kill them and theirs. Fighting terrorism sounds like a
good thing to do, but killing innocent people in the process thereof causes otherwise neutral
people to become combative. Therefore, what some would call fighting terrorism, others would
call causing terrorism... subjective
"Trump starting a trade war would be disastrous, and he is not going to be able to
bring back corporations that have moved their jobs out of the country"
A trade war would devastate China and Asian economies, US would be just fine. Corporations
make 90% of their profits in US and EU, they are completely dependent on those markets, they
would cease to exist if barred from US. So they will bring the jobs back if that is required.
The party of Reagan? The worst postwar president whose achievements include the creation of
Islam militancy, the Iran-contra affair, and the appointment of Scalia to the Supreme Court.
This title is misleading. It implies that the party has just lost its soul when in fact it was
lost years ago. And I would submit that things haven*t devolved quickly. To me it seems to
have started during the Reagan years, (yes I did vote for him), and accelerated quickly to
becoming the party on ONLY the wealthy. Look at the policy changes that occurred under Reagan
that still affect us today. The Saving & Loan debacle started the current financial crap that
we still have by siphoning off money from the middle to the top and has only gotten worse. I
will say, in my defense, he was the last Republican I voted for and while I don't think he
foresaw what he was unleashing, he will most likely be the last ever.
I really don't buy into this anti Trump hysteria, he is far better an option than slime
bag Rubio or nut case Cruz. Hes a conservative nationalist who actually says some sensible
things that resonate with a lot of working Americans.
The Republican Party did not give us Trump. He is not a Republican. He is exposing the
hypocrisy of the last 40 years of conservatism. He is horrible. But he is not one of them.
That's why the GOP is scared.
And can we quit calling the GOP the party of Lincoln please. Lincoln won the Civil War, saved
the Union, and freed the slaves. Modern Republicans used to be Democrats and switched in the
late 50's early 60's during the civil rights era. Have them read THAT history and stop
erroneously attaching themselves to Lincoln. The GOP is an odorous lot.
Ben Carson never met a rich white man's ass he wouldn't kiss. "Bad at so MANY levels."
I imagine if a non Guardianista had made a remark anything like this, he or she would have
been screamed down and permanently banned for racism. But the left is given a free pass in the
Guardian.
The lack of good jobs means that the masses no longer have the 'American Dream'. Education is
irrelevant the poorer classes never had phd's but they had jobs and that gave them purpose.
Notice Trump's message it's about work being undermined by globalisation and immigration.
A manipulative, win-at-all costs organization that targets people's basest instincts in the
interest of mere commerce has no soul. The Republican Party lost its soul long ago if it ever
had one. The Democratic Party is not far behind. (The devil does not wear Prada; she wears
pant suits.) Come to think of it, in what sense can ANY organization be said to have a soul?
This article is simply incredible. The journalist attacks Trump for probably never having read
a book since college - this is a claim with no basis in fact. This article has multiple
suppositions, such as Trump paying people to endorse him, that are pure speculation. It is
really a scandal. Trump's views on the media gain credibility thanks to such articles thus I
conclude the author is pro Trump!
Most of your list are things that are either too vague or too common to take too seriously
("working for the benefit", are you kidding? have you met Bushes and Clintons?).
But these
two deserve a response:
"He promised to round up and deport US Citizens"
"He suggested suppressing religious liberty"
People in US illegally are not citizens and asking them to leave is not wrong. All
countries do it. If you come illegally or over-stay a visa, you can be deported. Period. If
you object to that, your criticism is bordering on saying that law should not be enforced.
I am assuming the religious liberty refers to Trump saying that "until we figure out what
is going on", US shouldn't issue new visas to people from Moslem countries. This is perfectly
legal - visa is a privilege and not a right and there are large categories of people banned
from getting visas to US today and in all countries in the world. The religious test might be
trickier, but it is all in implementation - what qualifies as religion, what would be asked,
for how long, what would be the appeal process.
My point is that
Trump is really, really good on trade and immigration control.
That
would result in a significantly higher incomes and a better economy. The other stuff is more
vague and often border-line unimplementable. But you list has nothing on it. The real question
about Trump is his sincerity, and we simply don't know. We do know 100% that Clinton is
dishonest and will never carry out any of her promises. After 30 years of the same lying how
could anyone fall for it again?
When the Dem.s dropped the Segregationists at the curb with the trash, they likely imagined,
not only the glory of a righteous deed well done, unique in my lifetime, but foresaw the
considerable cost and turmoil that would follow. And sure they did accept losses to Rep.s,
with their Southern strategy.
But who forecast that the Rep.s, who picked up, embraced, and
swallowed, whole, that trash, would be so poisoned by it, would become it, through and
through, an evil parody reflecting, in photo negative, the virtue Dem.s bore that day?
RINO's, save your soul; today is the last. No one who goes this way now deserves sound
sleep, ascension.
Carson and Trump combine to form a powerful synergy, Trump's gusto and zeal complimented and
tempered by Carson's mellower, more cerebral person. This is a winning foundation going
forward. My condolences to the masses of uber trendy, 'liberal', ultra-'enlightened'
intelligentsia out there who can only spout cynical, ironic musings in observation of Trump's
developing preeminence.
"... Besides which, it's hard to buy the idea that Gaddafi was "rogue" or " a threat" when both parties named here were "rendering" secret prisoners to him for outsourced torture. ..."
"... There is no honour among thieves, clearly. But it would be folly to depict a squabble among them as a narrative of sinner vs saint... ..."
"... After the cold war, the US and had the chance to lead to a new world order based on democracy and human rights. Yet instead, its politics based became based on bullying and warmongering, and joined by their European allies. As a result we have a world entrenched in chaos and violence. ..."
"... To top it off, there is also their allies, the Saudi and Gulf allies. Therefore, if you want to know how bad the world has become as a result of the US, European and Gulf allies, their hypocrisy, criminal behavior, destruction of countries, and total disregard of international law, all you need to see is the war in Yemen. ..."
"... Imperialism never left,.. The Capitalists are always working at complete control, it has no problem dancing with Dictators and Authoritarian rulers when it suites its purpose. Its just now they appear to be wanting to improve their image by changing their partners who stepped on their toes and Israel's on occasion .. ..."
"... Yes, I will claim it as a U.S. inspired regime change policy, in all those Middle East secular and sovereign countries, by our own beloved War Mongering Nationalistic Neo Cons.. That is already being shown as a complete disaster.. Only 2 million dead so far and just wait until the religious fanatics are in complete control.. ..."
"... "keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies" mmm. An incomplete reading I think. What about oil and gas? Libya is north African richest country if I'm not mistaken ... Is Britain (and France) still trying to get its share there? ..."
"... "Western [ mostly american and british ] warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defense of territory. "Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it." ..."
"... "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war." ..."
"... The Sykes-Picot agreement was one of the secrets uncovered by the Russian Revolution: it was in the files of the newly-overthrown government, and promptly publicized by the Bolsheviks, along with lots of other documents relating to imperialist secret diplomacy. Sound familiar? ..."
"... The interventionist model that the West has carried out recently is really an extension of the old colonialism in a different guise. In the olden days, the excuse was to spread Western civilization and Christianity to the world living in backwardness. In the modern era, it's democracy. Unfortunately democracy cannot be installed by force. Even if the people of the country being invaded wanted it, the opportunists (either among them or the outsiders) would find ways to exploit the chaos for their own benefits. We have seen different forms of such evolution in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq. ..."
"... The CIA funded and trained the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, to fight the Russians, just as they backed Saddam against Iran. And the US has been mucking about in the Middle East since the 50s, the Brits since the late 19th century. Yours is a very selective reading of history. ..."
"... No, small groups of people with their own particular interests "begged for help." The "Arab Spring" was a Western media confection used to justify Western intervention to get rid of Gaddafi and Assad. Worked with Gaddafi, Assad not so well. ..."
"... You forget who triggered the French intervention. Another neo-con working for Israel. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2 ..."
"... Israel does not want a functioning Arab State left in the Middle-East. ..."
"... It's like the Soviet Union invading the US because a few militiamen holed up in a wildlife refuge in Oregon. The neo-con press feeds us this propaganda and the willing idiots lap it up and deny responsibility when everything falls apart. ..."
"... Jihad Dave is supporting islamist maniacs in Libya and Syria. He succeeded in Libya, along with the ludicrous Sarkozy clown, but Russia and Iran have stood up to the plate in Syria. ..."
"... However much we might sympathise with fellow human beings living under brutal dictators and governments, a country can only really progress from within. Certainly, dialogue, sanctions and international cooperation can help foster change, but ultimately countries must want to change. ..."
"... No, Gaddafy's crime was actually to spend the bulk of Libya's oil revenues on useless things such as schools, hospitals, housing and subsidised food when that money could have been flowing into the pockets of the West. ..."
"... Taliban has been trained in the Saudi religious schools in Pakistan. Wahhabism is the official ideology of Saudi Arabia. 10 out of 11 terrorists 9/11 were the Saudis. All the Islamic terror in the last two decades was sponsored by the Saudis, including ISIS. ..."
"... Bosnia - a slow ticking bomb. Just bubbling under the surface. Kosovo - a mafia state run by drug lord Thaci, supported by the US. It is no secret that the main source of income in Kosovo today is drugs, prostitution, organ trafficking. ..."
"... There are no winners or losers in Iraq, everyone lost. Not a single group benefited from that western backed regime change, same in Libya and Syria. ..."
"... The US empire blew up Libya with some help from it's puppets, Sarkozy and Cameron. 100% imperialism. ..."
"... The USA - and its mini-me, the UK - have so blatantly bombed societies, manipulated governments and undermined social change in so many parts of the world that their trading positions are under real threat from emerging economic powers. ..."
"... Yes, Obama shows himself for the buffoon he really is. ..."
"... I, however, would caution against thinking the US led Neoliberal Empire of the Exceptionals is weakening. Its economic hegemony is almost complete only China and Russia remaining, and Obama with his "Pivot to Asia" (TM) has them surrounded and all set up for the female Chaney - Clinton the warmonger to get on with it. ..."
"... The Empire will only get more and more brutal - it has absolutely no concern for human life or society - power over the globe as the Pentagon phrases it: "Global full spectrum domination" don't kid yourself they are going all out to reach their goal and a billion people could be killed - the Empire would say - so what, it was in our strategic interest. ..."
"... Very well put, Sir. Obama's self-serving statement is borderline stupid. I constantly wonder why I voted for him twice. His Deep State handlers continue from the Bush period and having installed their coterie of right-wing extremists from Hillary to the Directors of the CIA, FBI, NSA, DOD, ad nauseum Obama has not had the courage at any point to admit not only the "mess" he makes, but the he is a captive mess of the shadow government. ..."
"... Your comment is so stereotyped: when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient statute of limitations. But when others are involved, specifically America and Israel, the same Guardian readers allow no excuses or nuances and every tiny detail going back hundreds of years is repeatedly and thoroughly examined. ..."
"... Smith was murdered by extremists that took over Libya precisely because the death of Gadaffi left a dangerous power vacuum. The US aided and abetted certain groups, weapons found their way to the worse groups and Smith, a brave man, was his own country's victim in one sense. Hilary Clinton who should have known better publicly gloated over Gadaffi's death. Since his death the victimisation of black Libyans and other black Africans has become common, Libya has been overrun by extremists, and as we write is being used as a conduit for uncontrolled entry into Europe. ..."
"... The biggest unanswered and puzzling question, is that of how could Obama have expected or assumed that Britain and France would have stayed behind and clean up the mess they and the Americans have made of Libya? Why did the Americans resolved to play only the part of 'hired guns' to go in and blitzed the Libyan Government and its armed forces, and neglected to learn the lesson of planning what should follow after the destruction? ..."
"... The argument that the Americans had assumed that France and Britain would clean up the euphemistic mess has little or no credibility, since all three countries had been very clear about not wanting American, British and French 'boots on the ground.' ..."
"... "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war." ..."
"... We bombed in support of competing Jihadis groups, bandits and local war Lords then our well laid plans for a Utopian peace were thwarted because of the unforeseen chaos created as the Militias we gave close airsupport to fought over the spoils. ..."
"... We should remember that we funded the terrorists in Libya and then sent weapons to ISIS from Libya to Syria that is we again used Al Qaeda as a proxy force. We then again used the "threat" from the proxy forces i,e. Al Qaeda to justify mass surveillance of the general population. ..."
"... Of its 237 years of existence it has been at war or cold war for 222 of those years. ..."
"... NATO is behind ISIS and the wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Chechen, Afghanistan, Libya and Ukraine. ..."
"... Jane they didn't "come apart" and Libya and Syria were the most stable and least under the thumb of radicals. Syria had equality and education for women who could wear whatever they wanted. Furthermore they did not fall apart they were attacked by the largest military forces in the world excluding Russia. NATO sent in special operations forces to destabilise the government. They along with Al Nusra and other violent Wahabi terrorists attacked police and army barracks, and when Assads police and military hit back it was presented by the Western media and propagandists as an attack on the people of Syria. Do you think any other country would allow terrorists to attack police and other public institutions without retaliating and restoring order. ..."
"... Many people who do not accept the Western medias false reporting at face value know that the wars in Syria were about changing the leaders and redrawing national boundaries to isolate Iran and sideline Russian influence. It was and is an illegal war and it was the barbarity of our Western leaders that caused the terrible violence. It was a pre planned plan and strategy outlined in the US Special Forces document below. http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/special-forces-uw-tc-18-01.pdf ..."
"... In the Libyan case, it was a clear US strategy to put in the forefront their English and French valets, in a coup (euphemistically called "regime change") wanted by them. The nobel peace winner got some nerves to put the blame on his accomplices for the chaos in Libya, while the permanent objective of the US is to divide and conquer, sowing chaos wherever it occurs: Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Syria. Also Hillary is no stranger to the actions in Libya. ..."
"... Simon Jenkins, don't pretend you were against American punitive expeditions around the world to overthrow third world dictators. You worked from the same neo-con ideological script to defend the ultra-liberal, military industrial economy; scare mongering in the pages of the Guardian, as far back as I can remember. You lot are as totally discredited as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and American Nato toadies. ..."
"... Libya , Ukraine ,Syria have had the same recipe of de-stabilisation by the US and NATO. The so called popular rebels were in fact CIA trained and financed. Jihadist in Libya and Syria and neo-Nazis in Ukraine. After completing regime change in Libya as planned ,the Jihadist, with their looted arms were transferred to Syria and renamed ISIS. ISIS is Washingtons Foreign Legion army, used as required for their Imperial ends. Renamed as required on whichever territory they operate ..."
"... Cameron has been given a free pass on Libya. It really is quite astonishing. The man has turned a functioning society into a jihadi infested failed state which is exporting men and weapons across North Africa and down the Sahara and now serves as a new front line for ISIS ..."
"... Attacking Libya and deposing Gaddafi was down to enforcing the R2P doctrine on the pretext of "stopping another Rwanda". But it was a pretext. Islamist rebels attacked the armouries within Libya and the Libyans had every right to try and put down the rebellion. Samantha Powers et al were the war mongers. ..."
"... The 2011 regime change shenanigans of the west against Libya is colonialism at its worst from all the parties who instigated it. The aftermath, the resultant mayhem and chaos, was in itself adding insult to injury. Gaddafi was no saint, but the militias, Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS now running rampant in the country are infinitely worse. This is a war crime of the first magnitude and no effort should be spared to address it ..."
"... The west who has assassinated or organised coups against democratically elected secular leaders who didn't give us their natural resources (eg iran) and installed brutal, clepto dictatorships who also take part in plundering the resources leaving the general population poor, uneducated and susceptible to indoctrination from Islamists. ..."
So
Barack Obama thinks Britain in 2011 left Libya in chaos – and besides it does not pull its weight
in the world. Britain thinks that a bit rich, given the shambles America left in Iraq. Then both
sides say sorry. They did not mean to be rude.
Thus do we wander across the ethical wasteland of the west's wars of intervention. We blame and
we name-call. We turn deaf ears to the cries of those whose lives we have destroyed. Then we kiss
and make up – to each other.
Obama was right first time round about Libya's civil war. He wanted to keep out. As
he recalls to the Atlantic magazine , Libya was "not so at the core of US interests that it makes
sense for us to unilaterally strike against the Gaddafi regime". He cooperated with Britain and France,
but on the assumption that David Cameron would clear up the resulting mess. That did not happen because
Cameron had won his Falklands war and could go home crowing.
Obama is here describing all the recent "wars of choice".
America had no "core interest" in Afghanistan or Iraq, any more than Britain had in
Libya . When a state attacks
another state and destroys its law and order, morally it owns the mess. There is no such thing as
imperialism-lite. Remove one fount of authority and you must replace and sustain another, as Europe
has done at vast expense in Bosnia and Kosovo.
America and Britain both attacked countries in the Middle East largely to satisfy the machismo
and domestic standing of two men, George Bush and Tony Blair. The result has been mass killing, destruction
and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war. In this despicable
saga, Cameron's Libyan venture was a sideshow, though one that has destabilised north
Africa and may yet turn it
into another Islamic State caliphate. It is his Iraq.
As for Obama's charge that Britain and other countries are not pulling their weight and are "free
riders" on American defence spending, that too deserves short shrift.
British and French military expenditure is proportionately among the highest in the world, mostly
blown on archaic weapons and archaic forms of war. Western warmongering over the past two decades
has had nothing to do with the existential defence of territory. "Defence" has become attack, keeping
alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it.
Meanwhile the bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen. They do so, against
all the odds, because they grow from one culture and one outlook on life. That mercifully has nothing
to do with politicians.
I'm stunned that Obama has been able to get away with his absolutely abysmal record with foreign
policy. Libya was a complete disaster and there is evidence to suggest that Libya was a much better
place under Gaddafi. And the fact that once they were in Iraq (something started by his predecessor)
he wasn't committed to bringing about serious change, thus leaving a giant vacuum which, coincided
with the Syrian Civil War, has now been filled by ISIS.
That's not even talking about the Iran deal, Benghazi and the disastrous "Bring Back our Girls"
campaign.
"People find it very hard," said Iman Fannoush, with her two children in tow and a husband
she knows not where. "They are up all night shooting because of good news. We hear the UN is
coming to help us or our fighters have taken Brega or the air strikes have destroyed Gaddafi's
tanks. Then everyone is afraid again when they hear Gaddafi's army is coming and they all want
to know where is France, where are the air strikes, why is the west abandoning us?
We are grateful for the role played by the international community in protecting the Libyan
people; Libyans will never forget those who were our friends at this critical stage and will
endeavour to build closer relations with those states on the basis of our mutual respect and
common interests. However, the future of Libya is for the Libyans alone to decide. We cannot
compromise on sovereignty or allow others to interfere in our internal affairs, position themselves
as guardians of our revolution or impose leaders who do not represent a national consensus.
Hilsum gives a riveting account of the battle for Tripoli, with activists risking their lives
to pass intelligence to Nato, whose targeting – contrary to regime propaganda – was largely
accurate, and too cautious for many Libyans.
The UN security council authorised action to protect Libyan civilians from the Gaddafi regime
but Russia, China and other critics believe that the western alliance exceeded that mandate
and moved to implement regime change.
Libya's Arab spring was a bloody affair, ending with the killing of Gaddafi, one of the world's
most ruthless dictators. His death saw the rebel militias turn on each other in a mosaic of
turf wars. Full-scale civil war came last summer, when Islamist parties saw sharp defeats in
elections the United Nations had supervised, in the hope of bringing peace to the country.
Islamists and their allies rebelled against the elected parliament and formed the Libya Dawn
coalition, which seized Tripoli. The new government fled to the eastern city of Tobruk and
fighting has since raged across the country.
With thousands dead, towns smashed and 400,000 homeless, the big winner is Isis, which has
expanded fast amid the chaos. Egypt, already the chief backer of government forces, has now
joined a three-way war between government, Libya Dawn and Isis.
It is all a long way from the hopes of the original revolutionaries. With Africa's largest
oil reserves and just six million people to share the bounty, Libya in 2011 appeared set for
a bright future. "We thought we would be the new Dubai, we had everything," says a young activist
who, like the student, prefers not to give her name. "Now we are more realistic."
Perpetually engineered destabilization is highly lucrative and has been for 200 years, but I don't
know what's Central or Intelligent about it......except for a tiny handful at the top globally.
On balance, is Libya worse off now than it would have been, had Gaddaffi been allowed free
rein in Benghazi?
No-one can possibly know the answer to that, certainly not Mr Jenkins.
Clearly it was a dictatorship like say Burma is today.....but....from an economic point of
view, it was like the Switzerland of Africa. And actually tons of European companies had flocked
over there to set up shop. In contrast to now where its like the Iraquistan of Africa. No contest
in the comparison there...
Besides which, it's hard to buy the idea that Gaddafi was "rogue" or " a threat" when both
parties named here were "rendering" secret prisoners to him for outsourced torture.
There is no honour among thieves, clearly. But it would be folly to depict a squabble among
them as a narrative of sinner vs saint...
After the cold war, the US and had the chance to lead to a new world order based on democracy
and human rights. Yet instead, its politics based became based on bullying and warmongering, and
joined by their European allies. As a result we have a world entrenched in chaos and violence.
To top it off, there is also their allies, the Saudi and Gulf allies. Therefore, if you
want to know how bad the world has become as a result of the US, European and Gulf allies, their
hypocrisy, criminal behavior, destruction of countries, and total disregard of international law,
all you need to see is the war in Yemen.
Imperialism never left,.. The Capitalists are always working at complete control, it has no
problem dancing with Dictators and Authoritarian rulers when it suites its purpose. Its just now
they appear to be wanting to improve their image by changing their partners who stepped on their
toes and Israel's on occasion ..
Yes, I will claim it as a U.S. inspired regime change policy, in all those Middle East secular
and sovereign countries, by our own beloved War Mongering Nationalistic Neo Cons.. That is already
being shown as a complete disaster.. Only 2 million dead so far and just wait until the religious
fanatics are in complete control..
Yep, many pictures, as there always are with media confections. Remember the footage of Saddam's
statue being torn down in front of a huge crowd? It was only months later we saw the wide angle
shot that showed just how few people there really were there.
These US and UK involvement in the ME are matters of official record; are you really denying the
CIA trained the Mujahideen, or that both the UK and US propped up Saddam? Even Robert Fisk acknowledges
that! And please, don't patronise me. You have no idea what I've read or haven't.
......c'mon, the powers behind the powers intentionally engineer mid-East destabilization to keep
the perpetual war pumping billions to the ATM's in their living rooms; then, on top of it, they
send the bill to average joe's globally; when is this farce going to be called out ?
It is completely illogical, can't stand even eye tests, yet continues like an emperor with
new clothes in our face.
"keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies" mmm. An incomplete reading I think. What about
oil and gas? Libya is north African richest country if I'm not mistaken ... Is Britain (and France)
still trying to get its share there?
"Western [ mostly american and british ] warmongering over the past two decades has
had nothing to do with the existential defense of territory. "Defense" has become attack, keeping
alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it."
"The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least
outside Africa, since the second world war."
The Sykes-Picot agreement was one of the secrets uncovered by the Russian Revolution: it was
in the files of the newly-overthrown government, and promptly publicized by the Bolsheviks, along
with lots of other documents relating to imperialist secret diplomacy. Sound familiar?
The interventionist model that the West has carried out recently is really an extension of
the old colonialism in a different guise. In the olden days, the excuse was to spread Western
civilization and Christianity to the world living in backwardness. In the modern era, it's democracy.
Unfortunately democracy cannot be installed by force. Even if the people of the country being
invaded wanted it, the opportunists (either among them or the outsiders) would find ways to exploit
the chaos for their own benefits. We have seen different forms of such evolution in Libya, Egypt,
Syria, Iraq.
Get your facts right. Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan were all states that crumbled after
the demise of the USSR.
Bullshit. The CIA funded and trained the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, to fight the Russians,
just as they backed Saddam against Iran. And the US has been mucking about in the Middle East
since the 50s, the Brits since the late 19th century. Yours is a very selective reading of history.
No, small groups of people with their own particular interests "begged for help." The "Arab
Spring" was a Western media confection used to justify Western intervention to get rid of Gaddafi
and Assad. Worked with Gaddafi, Assad not so well.
this might answer your question. Syria has suffered for its geography since it was artificially
created by the Sykes Picot agreement at the end of the Ottoman Empire.
"Libyan rebels are secularists, want unified country
Gardels: If the French aim is successful and Qaddafi falls, who are the rebels the West is
allying with? Secularists? Islamists? And what do they want?
Levy: Secularists. They want a unified Libya whose capital will remain Tripoli and whose government
will be elected as a result of free and transparent elections. I am not saying that this will
happen from one day to the next, and starting on the first day. But I have seen these men enough,
I have spoken with them enough, to know that this is undeniably the dream, the goal, the principle
of legitimacy.
It's like the Soviet Union invading the US because a few militiamen holed up in a wildlife
refuge in Oregon. The neo-con press feeds us this propaganda and the willing idiots lap it up
and deny responsibility when everything falls apart.
Britain started the mess in the Middle-East with the Balfour declaration and the theft of Palestinian
land to create an illegal Jewish state. Europe should pay massive reparations of money and equivalent
land in Europe for the Palestinian refugees living in squalid camps. Neo-con Jews who lobbied
for the Iraq, Syria and Libyan wars should have their wealth confiscated to pay for the mess they
created. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2
Jihad Dave is supporting islamist maniacs in Libya and Syria. He succeeded in Libya, along
with the ludicrous Sarkozy clown, but Russia and Iran have stood up to the plate in Syria.
Presumably he's going down the Blair/Clinton route of cosying up to Middle Eastern Supremacist
Cults in the hope that he can increase his income by tens of millions within the next 10 years.
There can be no other explanation for his actions, that have never had anything whatsoever to
do with the interests of either Britain or the wider European community.
For me, the bottom line is that, however much might like to believe it, military intervention
does not create nice, liberal, secular democracies. These can only be fostered from within.
However much we might sympathise with fellow human beings living under brutal dictators
and governments, a country can only really progress from within. Certainly, dialogue, sanctions
and international cooperation can help foster change, but ultimately countries must want to change.
The military, under the instruction of politicians, of the West should be pro-defence but anti-regime
change or "nation building".
I'm not suggesting a completely isolationist position, but offensive military action should
be seen as a last resort.
Mr Jenkins is a knowledgeable man but should've thought through this a bit more before so casually
associating death and destruction and misery with Africa.
China's cultural revolution and the Great Leap Forward alone killed and displaced more people
after the second world war than all the conflicts in Africa put together. How about the break
up of India in 1947? Korean War?
But no when he thought about misery Africa popped into his mind..
Meanwhile the bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen. They do so,
against all the odds, because they grow from one culture and one outlook on life. That mercifully
has nothing to do with politicians.
One culture?
One outlook?
Sounds all very Soviet.
So, all Enlightened souls are reduced to a monoculture, within the Anglo American Empire.
Obama is a bill of goods. The Voters that choose him thought that they were getting a progressive,
Obama used the reverend
Wright to make himself seem like a man committed to radical change, but behind Obama was Chicago
investment banker Louis Susman (appointed ambassador to Britain).
Obama, a Harvard law professor, is the choice of the bankers, he does not play a straight bat,
all the wars and killing are someone else's fault. Banking wanted rid of Gaddafi since he threatened
the dollar as the reserve currency (as did Dominique Strauss-Kahn) as does the Euro, Obama let
Cameron think he was calling the shots but he was just Obama's beard. Obama is nothing if not
cunning, when he says stay in Europe but the Elites of the Tory party are pushing for out guess
what, they got the nod from Obama and the Banks.
So? All the numbers in the world can't undo Jenkins' thesis: there is no imperialism-lite. Imperialist
wars are imperialist wars no matter how many die, and whether chaos, or neo-colonial rule follow.
In his interview, Obama claims a more deliberate, opaque, and efficient war machine. To him, and
his conscience, John Brennan, these metrics add up to significant moral milestones. To us innumerates,
it's just more imperialist b.s.
Gadaffy had since long planned to free his country and other African states from the yoke of being
forced to trade within the American dollar sphere. He was about to lance his thoroughy well prepared
alternative welcomed not the least by the Chinese when Libya was attacked. Obama is not truthful
when suggesting the attack was not a "core" interest to the US. It was of supreme interest for
the US to appear with its allies, Gadaffy´s independence of mind being no small challenge.
Gadafy may have been particularly nasty with dissidents, but the UK has plenty of allies in the
Muslim world that are far worse: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain... The Gulf States work their imported
slaves to death and the UK kowtows to them. The UK has supplied billions of pounds worth of weapons
to Saudi Arabia and sent military advisors to advise them how to use them to bomb Yemeni schools
and hospitals.
No, Gaddafy's crime was actually to spend the bulk of Libya's oil revenues on useless things
such as schools, hospitals, housing and subsidised food when that money could have been flowing
into the pockets of the West.
Kosovo is also mentioned. There was a relatively low-level conflict (much like the Northern
Ireland 'troubles') there until NATO started bombing and then oversaw the massive ethnic cleansing
of Kosovo Serbs from their homeland (Serbs are the most ethnically-cleansed group in the former
Yugoslavia: around 500,000 refugees).
Yugoslavia's real crime? It was the last country in Europe to refuse the market economy and
the hegemony of Western banks and corporates.
The message is, 'Accept capitalism red in tooth or claw, or we'll bomb the crap out of you.'
Did the attack on Afghanistan improve the situation? Perhaps temporarily in the cities, some things
got a little better as long as you weren't shot or blown up. Over the country as a whole, it made
the situation much worse.
I remember John Simpson crowing that the Western invaders had freed Afghanistan when they entered
Kabul. My reaction at the time was, 'Well, the Soviets had no problem holding the cities. Wait
until you step outside them.' There followed many years of war achieving pretty much nothing except
to kill a lot of people and get recruits flocking to the Taliban.
It seemed we had learned absolutely nothing from the British and Soviet experiences.
And you seem to have forgotten the multitude of US terror attacks on Muslims before the Afghan
invasion, repackaged for our media as 'targeted attacks with collateral damage'. Bombing aspirin
factories and such. And the First Gulf War. And US bases occupying the region. And the fact that
the situation in Afghanistan was due to the Americans and Saudis having showered weapons and cash
on anyone who was fighting the Soviets, not giving a damn about their aims. Bin Laden, for instance.
And one aspect of law and order under the Taliban was that they virtually stopped opium production.
After the invasion, it rose again to dizzying heights.
The only way to deal with countries such as Afghanistan as it returns to its default system,
along with other, more aggressive rogue states such as Saudi Arabia, is to starve them of all
weapons and then let their peoples sort it out. It may take a long time but it's the sole possibility.
As long as we keep pouring weapons into the Middle East for our own shameful purposes, the
apocalypse will continue.
Reading this excellent article one wonders how the war criminal Blair can be offered any peace-keeping
role in the world or continue to get any air or press time.
Taliban has been trained in the Saudi religious schools in Pakistan. Wahhabism is the official
ideology of Saudi Arabia. 10 out of 11 terrorists 9/11 were the Saudis. All the Islamic terror
in the last two decades was sponsored by the Saudis, including ISIS.
Bosnia - a slow ticking bomb. Just bubbling under the surface. Kosovo - a mafia state run
by drug lord Thaci, supported by the US. It is no secret that the main source of income in Kosovo
today is drugs, prostitution, organ trafficking. Tear gas in Parliament for the third time
in as many months. While the squares full of unemployed young and old are adorned with statues
of those that gave them this opportunity Tony Blair and Bill Clinton were popular but I think
their halos are tarnished somewhat. The situation is so serious that the US is beefing up its
presence in camp Bondsteel but you won't read about it in the Guardian.
when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every nuance
examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient statute
of limitations
So true . "Oh, oh, but the Spanish/Mongols/Romans etc etc", "Oh, like they were all
so peaceful before Empire came along", "Oh, but but" (ad infinitum).
The bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen? Here's hoping. The neo-con
cum neo-ultra liberal dream keeps on giving. Even after Brexit, Britain remains America's poodle
at its peril. The rest of the article is right, but by now accepted wisdom amongst those capable
of independent and rational thought.
Here we go again, off course next phase is the "enlightment" in Al-Andalus...
1. Conflict between sunni and shiites has been dormant for decades. Saudi Arabias promotion
of Wahhabism has awoken it again, along with the catalyst for the recent bloodshed, the invasion
of Iraq. That placed it back in the hands of the majority Shia and upset radical sunnis (eg
the Saudis).
Wahabism grew because of the oil export from Saudi Arabia which started way before World war II.
Bollocks, there was a short period of calm while Europe defeated the Ottoman empire , but the
Mughal empire took great pleasure in slaughtering shiites, and the Ottoman empire had huge conflicts
with the Safavid empire.
2. Pogroms were common against Jews in Europe and Europe has a far worse history of treating
Jews than Muslims ever had. The "golden age of Judaism" in Europe was under Muslim rule in
Spain. Need I mention that the Holocaust was perpetrated by European Christians?
He-he, the fabulous golden age which is always mentioned, no doubt they were golden at that
time compared to Europe, but to compare it today, it would be like living in Nazi Germany as a
Jew before the Nürnberg laws were implemented.
Would you like to pay a special non-muslim tax, step aside when a Muslim passed the street,
be unable to claim any high positions in society to due to your heritage?
3. Didnt forget. the USSR didnt hand them chemical weapons though. That would be the West.
And it wasnt Russia who invaded Iraq later over the scam that they had WMDs.
The Iran-Iraq war made the millions of dead possible primarily due to Soviet equipment, Halabja
killed 5000. No, Russia prefered Chechnya and directly killed 300.000 civilians with the Grad
bombings of cities and villages, whereas the casualties in Iraq primarily can be contributed to
sectional violence.
4. I think you are forgetting Mossadeq in Iran in the 50s. Nasser in Egypt and any Pan-Arab
group that was secular in nature. Pan-Arabism is now dead and radical Islamism is alive and
well thanks to our lust for control over the region.
None of the mentioned were prime examples of democracy, Nasser for example had no problems in
eliminating the Muslim brotherhood or killing 10s of thousands of rebels and civilians in Yemen
with mustard gas.
Obama's remark that the Europeans and Gulf States "detested" Gaddafi and wanted to get rid of
him while others had "humanitarian concerns" is of interest. It's unlikely the Arabs had humanitarian
concerns in all the circumstances; they just wanted Regime Change. It is the lethal combination
of Gulf Arabs and Neo-colonial France and Britain that has driven the Syrian war too- and continues
to do so. No wonder America claims these countries enthuse about war until it comes and then expect
them to fight it. France currently demands the surrender of Assad and for Russia to "leave the
country immediately". Britain says there can be no peace while he remains and that Russia's "interference"
is helping IS.
It's your prerogative whether or not you believe that the US and NATO intervene in countries based
on moral grounds. But if you do want to delude yourself, remember that they only intervene in
countries where they can make money off resources, like Libya and Iraq's oil revenues. If it were
about morality, don't you think NATO and the West would have rushed to help Rwanda during the
genocide?
There are no winners or losers in Iraq, everyone lost. Not a single group benefited from that
western backed regime change, same in Libya and Syria. You do not win when your situation
is worse than it was before Saddam. You can't be a winner when you life in generally worse off
than it was before. basically there is no rule of law now in these nations. Saddam was no monster
like you want to portray him.
Actually, some of those Latin American governments we overthrew were indeed liberal democracies.
As for Canada, there are several reasons we haven't invaded. Too big, too sparse too white...and
economically already a client state. Of course, we did try once: the War of 1812.
"When the same leaders did initially stand aside (as in Syria) "
They didn't stand aside though, they helped create the trouble in the first place, as too with
Libya; gather intelligence to find out who will take up arms, fund, train and give them promises,
get them to organize and attack, then when the dictator strikes back the press swing into action
to tell us all how much of a horrible bastard he is(even though we've been supporting and trading
with him for eons), ergo, we have to bomb him! It's HUMANITARIAN! Not. It would be conquest though.
Frightening.
Obama has done everything in his power to morph into Bush including hiring a flaming chicken hawk
in Ash Carter to play the role of Dick Cheyney. Bush left us with Iraq and Afghanistan, to which
Obama added Egypt with the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood, Libya, Syria and Yemen. He also
restarted the Cold War with Russia. He is now going after China for building islands in the South
China Sea, a disputed area, something he as well as other Presidents before him has allowed Israel
to build settlements on disputed land for the past fifty years and throughthrough $ 3.5 billion
in gifts annually, has provided for enough concrete to cover all the land the Palestinians live
on.
The 3.5 billion annually will increase by $40 billion over ten years, unless Netanyahu gets
the increase he wants to 15 billion per year. So Obama must settle on a legacy which makes him
both a warmonger and one of the very best arms dealer in the world. His family must be so proud.
To be a humanitarian intervention, a military intervention has to avoid causing regime collapse,
because people will die because of regime collapse. This is an elementary point that the political
class appears not to want to learn.
I agree with your analysis except the last paragraph. Pretty much in all interventions that
we have witnessed, the political class deliberately caused the regimes to collapse. That was always
the primary goal. Humanitarian intervention were never the primary, secondary or even tertiary
objective.
If the political class want to do some humanitarian interventions, they can always start with
Boko Haram in Nigeria.
America had no "core interest" in Afghanistan or Iraq
The USA was enforcing the UN blockade of Iraq, and had massive forces in place to do it. It was
costing a fortune and there were regular border skirmishes taking place. It has been suggested
that Bush and his advisors thought that they could take out Saddam and then pull all their forces
back to the US. They won't admit it now because of the disaster that unfolded afterwards.
Another good piece. What about all the weapons we sold Israel after they started their recent
slaughter in Gaza and the selling of weapons to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen (one of the poorest
country's in the world) says everything you need to know about the tory party. They are sub humans
and as such should be treated like dirt. I don't believe in the concept of evil...all a bit religious
for me but if I did, it's what they are.
It astonishes me that these great men and women-I include Sec'y Clinton here-give no indication
that their calculations were made without the slightest knowledge of the countries they were preparing
to attack in one way or another. From what one read in the long NYTimes report on preparations
for the Libyan intervention, the participants in the planning knew a great deal about military
matters and less about Libya than they could have found out in a few minutes with Wikipedia. Tribal
societies are different from western societies, dear people, and you damn well should have known
that.
Honduras. The USA backed the coup there. Honduras is now run by generals and is the world's murder
capital. I could go on, jezzam. Please read William Blum's books on US foreign policy. They provide
evidence that the US record is not good.
Without the US the UK and France couldn't have overthrown Gaddafi. The jihadis would have been
killed or fled Libya. I don't believe any post-Gaddafi plan existed. Why would there have been
one? Killing Gaddafi was the war's aim. A western puppet strong man leader grabbing power would
have been icing on the cake of course but why would the US care about Libya once Gaddafi was gone?
Well, Cameron just followed Obama's 'regime change' bad ideas.
Obama is a failed leader of the World who made our lives so much worse.
Obama likes to entertain recently, so after his presidency the best job for him is a clown in
a circus.
We will never know why Stevens and the others were killed.
Absent reliable information, everyone is free to blame whomever they dislike most.
Based on zero non-partisan information, Hillary is the media's top choice for Big Villain.
She may in fact be more responsible than most for this horror, but she may not be too.
Who ya gonna ask: the CIA, the Pentagon, Ted Cruz?
It seems everyone who's ever even visited Washington,D.C., has some anonymous inside
source that proves Hillary did it.
To hear the GOP tell it, she flew to Libya secretly and shot Stevens herself
just because she damn well felt it, o kay -- (female troubles)
My question is: Where has US/Euro invasion resulted in a better government for all those
Middle Eastern people we blasted to bits of blood and bone? How's Yemen doin' these days?
Hope Europe enjoys assimilating a few million people who share none of Europe's customs,
values or languages.
I'm sure euro-businesses would never hire the new immigrants instead of union-backed
locals.
Why, that would almost be taking advantage of a vast reservoir of ultra-cheap labor!
Nor will the sudden ocean of euro-a-day workers undercut unions or wages in the EU. No siree,
not possible.
Just like unions have not been decimated, and wages have not stagnated in the US since 1980
or so. No siree. Not in Europe .
jezzam writes, "the dictator starts massacring hundreds of thousands of his own civilians." But
he didn't. Cameron lied.
The rebellion against Gaddafi began in February 2011. The British, French and US governments
intervened on their usual pretext of protecting civilians. The UN said that 1,000-2,000 people
had been killed before the NATO powers attacked.
Eight months later, after the NATO attack, 30,000 people had been killed and 50,000 wounded
(National Transitional Council figures).
Cameron made the mess; Cameron caused the vast refugee crisis. The NATO powers are getting
what they want – the destruction of any states and societies that oppose their rule, control over
Africa's rich resources. Libya is now plagued by "relentless warfare where competing militias
compete for power while external accumulators of capital such as oil companies can extract resources
under the protection of private military contractors."
any state that wishes to be taken seriously as a player on the world stage
The classic phrase of imperialism - an attitude that seems to believe any nation has the right
to interfere in, or invade, other countries'.
Usually done under some pretence of moral superiority - it used to be to 'bring the pagans to
God', these days more 'they're not part of our belief system'. In fact, it only really happens
when the imperial nations see the economic interests of their ruling class come under threat.
The USA - and its mini-me, the UK - have so blatantly bombed societies, manipulated governments
and undermined social change in so many parts of the world that their trading positions are under
real threat from emerging economic powers.
The two that they are most scared of are Russia and China, who combined can offer the capital
and expertise to replace the old US / European axis across Africa, for instance. The war is already
being fought on many fronts, as
this article makes clear.
Yes, Obama shows himself for the buffoon he really is. Clinton had it right when the
going gets tough Obama gives a speech (see Cairo).
I, however, would caution against thinking the US led Neoliberal Empire of the Exceptionals
is weakening. Its economic hegemony is almost complete only China and Russia remaining, and Obama
with his "Pivot to Asia" (TM) has them surrounded and all set up for the female Chaney - Clinton
the warmonger to get on with it.
The Empire will only get more and more brutal - it has absolutely no concern for human
life or society - power over the globe as the Pentagon phrases it: "Global full spectrum domination"
don't kid yourself they are going all out to reach their goal and a billion people could be killed
- the Empire would say - so what, it was in our strategic interest.
The odd thing is, Obama didn't seem to think getting rid of Gaddafi a bad thing at all at the
time. Clinton was all, "We came, we saw, he died." And this bit about "no core interest" in Afghanistan
and Iraq is just bizarre. Given the mess both countries are in, and the resurgence of the Taliban
and zero clue about Iraq it was clearly a master stroke for Obama to decide the US exit both with
no effective governments in place, ones that could deal with the Taliban et al. Never mind, he
can tootle off and play golf.
Very well put, Sir. Obama's self-serving statement is borderline stupid. I constantly wonder
why I voted for him twice. His Deep State handlers continue from the Bush period and having installed
their coterie of right-wing extremists from Hillary to the Directors of the CIA, FBI, NSA, DOD,
ad nauseum Obama has not had the courage at any point to admit not only the "mess" he makes, but
the he is a captive mess of the shadow government.
America has a historic crisis of leadership and being the sole model left in that field, the
world has followed, the UK and all of Europe included.
Libya is all Hilarys work so expect to return with boots on the ground once Wall Sts finest is
parked in the Oval office. She has the midas touch in reverse and Libya has turned (and will continue)
to turn out worse than Iraq and Syria (believe me its possible) There is absolutely no one on
the ground that the west can work with so the old chestnut of arming and training al qaeda or
'moderate' opposition is not an option. ISIL are solidifying a base there and other than drones
there is zip we can do.
Critising Cameron just shows how insecure Obama is, lets be honest the middle east and afghanistan
are in the state they are because Obama had zero interest in foreign policy when his first term
started, thus allowing the neocons to move into the vacuum and create the utter disaster that
is Syraq and Ukraine. We in europe are now dealing with the aftermath of this via the refugee
crisis which will top 2 million people this year. Obamas a failure and he knows it, hence the
criticism of other leaders. Cameron is no different, foreign policy being almost totally abandoned
to the US, there is no such thing as independent defence policy in the UK, everything is carried
out at the behest of the US. Don't kid yourself we have any autonomy, we don't and there are plenty
of high level armed forces personnel who feel the same way. Europe is leaderless in general and
with the economy flatlining they too have abandoned defence and foreign affairs to the pentagon.
Right now we're in the quiet before the storm, once HRC gets elected expect the situation to
deteriorate rapidly, our only hope is that someone has got the dirt to throw her out of the race.
ISIS established itself in Iraq before moving into Syria. Would ISIS exist is Britain had not
totally destabilized Iraq? Going back even further, it is the 100th anniversary of the Sykes-Picot
agreement, that great exercise in British Imperialism that created the artificial nations in the
Middle East that are collapsing today.
Your comment is so stereotyped: when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every
excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there
is always a convenient statute of limitations. But when others are involved, specifically America
and Israel, the same Guardian readers allow no excuses or nuances and every tiny detail going
back hundreds of years is repeatedly and thoroughly examined.
Transparent hypocrisy. Accept responsibility and stop offloading it to Calais.
Ambassador Stevens was killed in a cover up over the arms dealing from Libya to Syria, (weapons
and fighters to ISIS). It seems more likely that he was killed because he was investigating the
covert operation given that he was left to fend for himself by all US military forces but in a
classic defamation strategy he has been accused of being behind the operation. Had he been he
would have been well defended.
"Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering
military establishments that depend on it.
Couldn't put it better myself. Yes, America is a full blown Empire now. Evil to it's very core.
Bent on world domination and any cost. All we lack is a military dictatorship. Of course, with
the nation populated by brainwashed sheep, a "Dear Leader" is inevitable,
President Obama was correct in keeping US boots off the ground in Syria. An active US troop presence
would have resulted in an even greater level of confusion and destruction on all sides. However,
it was precisely the US' meddling in Libya that helped pave the way for its current dysfunctional,
failed state status, riven by sectarian conflicts and home to a very active Al Quaida presence.
US interference in Libya saw Gadaffi backstabbed by the US before literally being stabbed to
death although he had been given assurances that the US would respect his rule particularly as
he had sought to become part of the alliance against the likes of Al Quaida.
Obama was behind the disgraceful lie that the mob that attacked the US' Benghazi Embassy and
murdered Ambassador Smith y was 'inflamed' by an obscure video on youtube that attacked extremist
elements of the Islamic faith. Smith deserved better than this blatant lie and the grovelling,
snivelling faux apologies Obama and then Secretary of State Hilary Clinton made to the Muslim
world for something that had nothing to do with 99.9 percent of non Muslims.
Smith was murdered by extremists that took over Libya precisely because the death of Gadaffi
left a dangerous power vacuum. The US aided and abetted certain groups, weapons found their way
to the worse groups and Smith, a brave man, was his own country's victim in one sense. Hilary
Clinton who should have known better publicly gloated over Gadaffi's death. Since his death the
victimisation of black Libyans and other black Africans has become common, Libya has been overrun
by extremists, and as we write is being used as a conduit for uncontrolled entry into Europe.
Disappointingly, President Obama forgets the Biblical saying about pointing out a speck in
somebody's eye while ignoring the plank in his own.
Mr President doesn't privately refer to the Libyan upheaval as the "shit show" for no good reason.
The chaos and anarchy that have ensued since, including the migrant crisis in Europe and the rise
of Islamic State, is directly attributable to the shoddy interventionist approach used by both
Britain and France.
Good article, with justified moral indignation. Only thing I would have changed, is "imperialism-lite"
to 'lesser and greater imperialism.
Would it not have been a great contribution towards peace and justice, had the US decided not
to invade Iraq and Libya, on account that other western countries were "free-riders" and would
not have pulled their weight?
So, what does the world needs now? More 'free-riding countries' to dissuade so-called responsible
countries - Britain, France, America, Italy - from conspiring to invade other countries, after
consulting in the equivalent of a 'diplomatic toilet and drawing up their war plans on the back
of the proverbial cigarette packet.'
For all Obama's niceties, it would now appear that he has been seething and mad as hell about
his perception of Britain and France 'abandoning' Libya and watching it perceptible destabilizing
the region and the flames fanning farther afield.
The biggest unanswered and puzzling question, is that of how could Obama have expected
or assumed that Britain and France would have stayed behind and clean up the mess they and the
Americans have made of Libya? Why did the Americans resolved to play only the part of 'hired guns'
to go in and blitzed the Libyan Government and its armed forces, and neglected to learn the lesson
of planning what should follow after the destruction?
The argument that the Americans had assumed that France and Britain would clean up the
euphemistic mess has little or no credibility, since all three countries had been very clear about
not wanting American, British and French 'boots on the ground.'
Is the Americans now telling the world that they went into Libya without planning for the aftermath,
because it was 'an emergency to save lives' and they had to go in immediately?
Well, if so, that is now how nations behave responsibly, and it is now clear that more lives
have probably been lost and continue to be sacrificed, than those which might have been saved
as a result of the West invading and attacking Libya.
the Europeans expected America to pick up the tab for reconstruction
I don't think there would be many complaints from Halliburton or other American companies to
help with the reconstruction, if the place wasn't such a shit-storm right now.
"The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least
outside Africa, since the second world war."
Judging from the sentiments expressed in the overwhelming majority of comments posted on multiple
threads on this forum, the British people don't want to accept responsibility for "migration on
a scale not seen... since the second world war". The almost universal resistance to accepting
refugees and migrants that fled their homes due to unprovoked British aggression is disgusting
and pathetic. It highlights the hypocrisy of those who see themselves morally fit to judge almost
everyone else.
Mitchell says that we had a plan to stabilise Libya but that it could not be implement the plan
because there was no peace?#*^..... Der
We bombed in support of competing Jihadis groups, bandits and local war Lords then our
well laid plans for a Utopian peace were thwarted because of the unforeseen chaos created as the
Militias we gave close airsupport to fought over the spoils.
Well there you have it- its the fault of the Libyans.
Hilary Clinton recently blamed Sarkozy for Libya describing him as so "very excited" about the
need to start bombing that he persuaded her and she, Nuland and Power persuaded a reluctant Obama.
Three civilian females argued down the military opinion that it was unnecessary and likely to
cause more trouble than it was worth.
As this was clearly to support French interests the Americans insisted the Europeans do it
themselves if they were that keen. Old Anglo-French rivalry has never been far from the surface
in the ME and it seems Cameron jumped on the bandwagon in fear France would take all the glory.
Neither of them appear to have given any thought about reconstruction. The blame is mostly Cameron's
as Sorkozy was chucked out of office just months later. Did Cameron have a plan at all? If so
it was his biggest mistake and one we'll be paying for over the coming years.
Without Putin's mischief making though, this would have been sorted out long ago.
Putin intervened in September 2015. What have the West been doing since 2011 to stop the conflict,
one wonders.
Russia vetoes any UN attempt to sort out the mess
Looking bad you'd realize that it at least prompted Obama to retract in 2013. Since then though
support to Saudi and proxies destabilizing Syria has only increased.
Russia is clearing the mess of the West, and they should be grateful. Obama might be from what
I read today from his "confessions".
Yes. I don't think that is a pro-imperialist stance. He's arguing that there is no middle ground;
getting rid of dictators you don't like is imperialism, and whether you follow through or not,
there are serious consequences, but to not follow through is an abnegation of moral responsibility
to the people you are at attemting to "free". It seems to me he is arguing against any foreign
intervention, hence his castigation of Obama and Cameron for the "ethical wasteland of their wars
of intervention."
Please do me a favour and study 20th century history a little more. The US overthrow countless
democracies in Latin America and the Middle East and installed fascist dictatorships.
Liberal Democracy haha come on now. They dont care about Democracy. They care about money.
They will install and support any dictatorship (look at Saudi Arabia for example) as long as they
do as they are told economically.
I love western values, dont get me wrong. It is the best place to live freely. However, if
you werent lucky enough to be born in the west and the west wants something your country has (eg.
oil).....you are in for a lot of bad times.
I just wish western leaders/governments actually followed the western values that we all love
and hold dear.
We should remember that we funded the terrorists in Libya and then sent weapons to ISIS from
Libya to Syria that is we again used Al Qaeda as a proxy force. We then again used the "threat"
from the proxy forces i,e. Al Qaeda to justify mass surveillance of the general population.
The solution as Corbyn pointed out is to stop funding the Terrorists.
By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar;
the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi's arsenals
into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian
entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn't always know who was really employing them,
were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the
CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer.
Peter Oborne investigates claims that Britain and the West embarked on an unspoken alliance
of convenience with militant jihadi groups in an attempt to bring down the Assad regime.
He hears how equipment supplied by the West to so called Syrian moderates has ended up in
the hands of jihadis, and that Western sponsored rebels have fought alongside Al Qaeda. But
what does this really tell us about the conflict in Syria?
This edition of The Report also examines the astonishing attempt to re brand Al Nusra, Al
Qaeda's Syrian affiliate, as an organisation with which we can do business.
What is good that this is finally coming out ,the denial by both Obama and a very left wing media
has failed to confront this issue in what is an incredibly low point for Obama and Hilary Clinton
and their naive ideas about the Arab Spring.
As it is equally so for David Cameron and William Hague. Sarkozy is different he was not naive
he knew exactly what he was doing thais was about saving french influence in North Africa,he was
thinking about Tunisa, Algeria which he was keen to drag others into -- He was the most savvy of
all those politicians at least he was not a fool,but France priorities are not the same as the
UK --
Obama's comments once again as usual do not really confront the real problems of Libya and
gloss over the key issues and ending up passing the buck, he can do no wrong ? It was not the
aftermath of Libya but the whole idea of changing the controlling demographics of the country
which he played a major part in destabilising through the UN AND Nato which was the problem --
It was thought the lessons of Iraq was all about not putting boots on the ground ,or getting
your feet dirty ,as this antagonises the locals and that a nice clinical arms length bombardment
creating havoc ,is the best way to go .
This was not the lesson of Iraq , which was actually not to destabilise the controlling demographics
of the country which will never recover if you do ..It is one thing to depose a leader or ask
a leader to step down but do not disturb 100 of years controlling demographics, sectarian or not
in these countries is not wise . To do so is a misstep or misjudgement --
Demographics are like sand dunes they have taken many years to evolve and rest uneasy, in the
highly religious and sectarian landscape but can be unsettled over night, grain by grain even
by a small shift in the evening night breeze , a small beetle can zig zag across and the whole
dune will crumble
Once again the US pushed the UK who vied with France at how high they could jump, using the
UN blank cheque as cover ,for melting down the country and has left UN credibilty in taters has
now no credibility and Nato is now not trusted .
They took disgracefully no less the UN 1973 Peace Resolution , point one, Cease fire and point
two No Fly Zone .They bent it , twisted it , contorted it into blatant out right support of the
eastern shiite sympathisers sectarian group, against the more secular Sunni Tripoli groups .
(Gaddafi was not one man Mr apologist Rifkind he was the tribal leaders of a quite a large
tribe !)
Which has been part of a historic rivalry going back hundreds of years . They killed more civilians
that Gaddafi ever had or could have done . They even attacked in a no fly zone government troops
retreating and fired on government planes on the ground in a non fly zone .
Then they refused to negotiate with the government or allow the Organisation of African states
to mediate who had agreed general elections .They went on bombing until there was no infrastructure
no institutions or sand dunes ,or beetles left --
It was done after Iraq and that is why it is so shameful and why Obama , Cameron, Sarkozy ,
the UN , Nato must face up to what they have done , and after the Chilcot enquiry there needs
to be a Cameron enquiry . Presumably it will have the backing of Obama --
What is worse is the knock on effect on this massive arm caches and fighters from Libya then
went on to Syria, reek havoc and destabilised the country . Because Russia and China could never
trust again the UN , the UN has been ineffective in Syria for that very reason .The deaths of
British tourist in next door Tunisia has to laid firmly at David Cameron's and the foreign office
door --
No wonder Libya is keeping Obama awake at night , no wonder he is indulging in damage limitation
, no wonder he is trying to re write history ? How can I get this out of my legacy . If only I
had not met Mr Cameron a yes man -- If only I had been told by some with an once of common sense
, not to touch this country with a barge pole ?
The poor Libyan people will agree with him --
The lesson for the UK is do want you think is right not what the US thinks as right , a lesson
that David Cameron has failed to learn , and has shown he is not a safe pari of hands and lacks
judgement --
1. Conflict between sunni and shiites has been dormant for decades. Saudi Arabias promotion of
Wahhabism has awoken it again, along with the catalyst for the recent bloodshed, the invasion
of Iraq. That placed it back in the hands of the majority Shia and upset radical sunnis (eg the
Saudis).
2. Pogroms were common against Jews in Europe and Europe has a far worse history of treating
Jews than Muslims ever had. The "golden age of Judaism" in Europe was under Muslim rule in Spain.
Need I mention that the Holocaust was perpetrated by European Christians?
3. Didnt forget. the USSR didn't hand them chemical weapons though. That would be the West.
And it wasn't Russia who invaded Iraq later over the scam that they had WMDs.
4. I think you are forgetting Mossadeq in Iran in the 50s. Nasser in Egypt and any Pan-Arab
group that was secular in nature. Pan-Arabism is now dead and radical Islamism is alive and well
thanks to our lust for control over the region.
Obama? Censored? You forgot Hillary. she even said the other day at the townhall before Miss/MI
to the effect 'if Assad had been taken out early like Gaddafi then Syria would only be as bad
as Libya'. laughable really. i presume you aren't criticising Hillary Clinton?
Kosovo is now basket case that we are paying for but it is small. Now we have also backed NeoCon
regime change in Ukraine which we are going to be paying for. Libya will soon have enough Jihadist
training camps to be a direct threat.
What we see is a Strategy of Chaos from the US NeoCons but what we have failed to notice is
that the NeoCons see us as the target, as the enemy.
Totally agree that there is no such thing as Imperialism Lite, just as there is no such thing
as Wahabi Lite or Zionism Lite. So I wonder why Hilary Benn thinks Britain has anything to feel
proud about our foreign policy. It seems to me Britain's Foreign Policy is a combination of incompetence,
jingoism and pure evil.
What is the point of employing the brightest brains in the land at the Foreign Office when we
get it wrong almost all the time ?
"Western warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defence
of territory. "Defence" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering
military establishments that depend on it."
Attacking Al qaeda in Afghanistan had nothing to do with defending territory?
Libyan 'rebels' were armed and trained by 'the West' in a first place. The plan was the same for
Syria but Russians stopped it with not allowing 'no fly zone' or to call it properly 'bomb them
into the stone age'.
You probably don't know how 'bloody' Gaddafi was to the Libyans.
* GDP per capita - $ 14,192.
* For each family member the state pays $ 1000 grants per year.
* Unemployment - $ 730.
* Salary Nurse - $ 1000.
* For every newborn is paid $ 7000.
* The bride and groom given away $ 64,000 to buy an apartment.
* At the opening of a one-time personal business financial assistance - $ 20,000.
* Large taxes and extortions are prohibited.
* Education and medicine are free.
* Education and training abroad - at the expense of the state.
* Store chain for large families with symbolic prices of basic foodstuffs.
* For the sale of products past their expiry date - large fines and detention.
* Part of pharmacies - with free dispensing.
* For counterfeiting - the death penalty.
* Rents - no.
* No Fees for electricity for households!
* Loans to buy a car and an apartment - interest free.
* Real estate services are prohibited.
* Buying a car up to 50% paid by the state, for militia fighters - 65%.
* Gasoline is cheaper than water. 1 liter - 0,14 $.
* If a Libyan is unable to get employment after graduation the state would pay the average salary
of the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found.
* Gaddafi carried out the world's largest irrigation project, known as the Great Man-Made River
project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country
The Gadaffi regime had upset the USA because Gadaffi was setting up an oil currency system based
on gold rather than US dollars. While this was not the sole reason the West turned against him
it was an important factor. The largest factor for the wars so far, and the planned war against
Iran was to cut out the growing Russian domination of the oil supply to Europe, China and India.
A decent article as we could expect from the author.
However personally I doubt there was no ulterior motive in the case of Lybia. Lybia was one
of the countries who tried the change the status quo on the oil market and it has huge reserves
too (as we know Europe is running out of oil, at least Great Britain is).
It is very likely that the European countries retreated because Libya started to look like
another Iraq.
When you are talking about "democratic forces of the revolution.." i imagine you being an enthusiastic
teenager girl who hardly knows anything about the world but goes somewhere far for a gap year
as a volunteer to make locals aware of something that will help them forever. It is instead of
demanding responsible policies and accountability from her own government.
Sorry!!!
What planet have you been living on. What do you read apart from lifestyle magazines full of shots
of celebrity boobs and bums.
The United states is the most interventionist country in history. Of its 237 years of existence
it has been at war or cold war for 222 of those years. NATO is behind ISIS and the wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Chechen, Afghanistan, Libya and Ukraine.
If the West stopped intervening there would be very few wars and if the West used its influence
for peace rather than control there would rarely be any was at all.
Well put. People forget the importance of oil in maintaining the standard of living in our western
democracies. Controlling it's supply trumps all other issues.
Jane they didn't "come apart" and Libya and Syria were the most stable and least under the
thumb of radicals. Syria had equality and education for women who could wear whatever they wanted.
Furthermore they did not fall apart they were attacked by the largest military forces in the world
excluding Russia. NATO sent in special operations forces to destabilise the government. They along
with Al Nusra and other violent Wahabi terrorists attacked police and army barracks, and when
Assads police and military hit back it was presented by the Western media and propagandists as
an attack on the people of Syria. Do you think any other country would allow terrorists to attack
police and other public institutions without retaliating and restoring order.
Many people who do not accept the Western medias false reporting at face value know that
the wars in Syria were about changing the leaders and redrawing national boundaries to isolate
Iran and sideline Russian influence. It was and is an illegal war and it was the barbarity of
our Western leaders that caused the terrible violence. It was a pre planned plan and strategy
outlined in the US Special Forces document below.
http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/special-forces-uw-tc-18-01.pdf
If you get your facts right it ruins your argument doesn't it.
In the Libyan case, it was a clear US strategy to put in the forefront their English and French
valets, in a coup (euphemistically called "regime change") wanted by them. The nobel peace winner
got some nerves to put the blame on his accomplices for the chaos in Libya, while the permanent
objective of the US is to divide and conquer, sowing chaos wherever it occurs: Afghanistan, Sudan,
Iraq, Syria. Also Hillary is no stranger to the actions in Libya.
These Middle East countries should have been left alone by the West. Due to their nature, these
countries have strong divisions and battle for their beliefs and a strong man, a dictator is what
prevented them to fall into the chaos they are today. Without the Western meddling, arming and
financing various rebel groups, Isis would not exist today.
Neither is putting political opponents in acid baths and burning tyres, as Tony Blair's friends
in the central Asian Republics have been doing, neither is beheading gays, raped women and civil
rights protesters, as Cameron's Saudi friends have been enjoying, the latter whilst we sell them
shit loads of munitions to obliterate Yemeni villagers. I wonder how the Egyptian president is
getting on with all that tear gas and bullets we sold him? And are the Bahrani's, fresh from killing
their own people for daring to ask for civil rights, enjoying the cash we gave them for that new
Royal Navy base? Our foreign policy is complacent and inconsistent, we talk about morality but
the bottom line is that that doesn't come into it when BAE systems and G4S have contracts to win.
Don't get me wrong, Britain has played a positive role internationally in many different areas,
but there is always a neo-liberal arsehole waiting to pop up and ruin the lives of millions, a
turd with a school tie that just wont be flushed away.
Simon Jenkins, don't pretend you were against American punitive expeditions around the world
to overthrow third world dictators. You worked from the same neo-con ideological script to defend
the ultra-liberal, military industrial economy; scare mongering in the pages of the Guardian,
as far back as I can remember. You lot are as totally discredited as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and
American Nato toadies.
It is high time that Europe reviewed and evaluated its relationship with the United States, with
NATO, Russia and China. The world needs to be a peaceable place and there needs to be more legislation
imposed upon the Financial Markets to stop them being a place where economic destabilisation and
warfare can and do take place. The United States would not contemplate these reviews taking place
as they are integral to their continuing position in the world but also integral to the problems
we are all experiencing? It will take a brave Europe to do this but it is a step that has to be
taken if the world is to move forward! Britain should be a huge part of this, outside a weakend
EU this would benefit the United States from Britains lack of input, another reason we should
vote to stay and be positive to our European position. The most vulnerable herring is the one
that breaks out of the shoal?
Libya , Ukraine ,Syria have had the same recipe of de-stabilisation by the US and NATO. The
so called popular rebels were in fact CIA trained and financed. Jihadist in Libya and Syria and
neo-Nazis in Ukraine. After completing regime change in Libya as planned ,the Jihadist, with their
looted arms were transferred to Syria and renamed ISIS. ISIS is Washingtons Foreign Legion army,
used as required for their Imperial ends. Renamed as required on whichever territory they operate
Cameron has been given a free pass on Libya. It really is quite astonishing. The man has turned
a functioning society into a jihadi infested failed state which is exporting men and weapons across
North Africa and down the Sahara and now serves as a new front line for ISIS
Cameron's Libya policy from start to finish is a foreign policy catastrophe and in a just world
would have seen him thrown out of office on his ear
Attacking Libya and deposing Gaddafi was down to enforcing the R2P doctrine on the pretext
of "stopping another Rwanda". But it was a pretext. Islamist rebels attacked the armouries within
Libya and the Libyans had every right to try and put down the rebellion. Samantha Powers et al
were the war mongers.
Then there is this gem: "Egypt's President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has called for a United Nations
resolution allowing international forces to intervene in Libya.
There was no other choice, he told French radio. "We will not allow them to cut off the heads
of our children."
"We abandoned the Libyan people as prisoners to extremist militias," Mr Sisi told Europe 1
radio. He was referring to the aftermath of the 2011 war in which Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi
was toppled with the help of an international coalition.
That intervention was "an unfinished mission", he said."
The US, France and the UK own this ongoing mess but do not have the moral fortitude to clean
it up. As with the "Arab Spring", this will not end well.
The 2011 regime change shenanigans of the west against Libya is colonialism at its worst from
all the parties who instigated it. The aftermath, the resultant mayhem and chaos, was in itself
adding insult to injury. Gaddafi was no saint, but the militias, Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS now
running rampant in the country are infinitely worse. This is a war crime of the first magnitude
and no effort should be spared to address it
The west who propped up the Saudis, who's crazy wahhabi brand of Islam helped radicalise the Islamic
world with 100 billion dollars spent on promoting it.
The west who created israel and then has done nothing to stop israels ever growing land theft
and occupation over decades (not even a single sanction)...leading the Muslim world to hate us
more for our hypocrisy and double standards.
The west who has assassinated or organised coups against democratically elected secular
leaders who didn't give us their natural resources (eg iran) and installed brutal, clepto dictatorships
who also take part in plundering the resources leaving the general population poor, uneducated
and susceptible to indoctrination from Islamists.
The west who arms brutal dictators to wage proxy wars and then invades and bombs these same
dictators countries over claims they have WMDs (that we sold to them).
The west has been intervening in the middle east alot longer than post 9/11. We are very very
culpable for the disasters engulfing the region.
Libya was "not so at the core of US interests that it makes sense for us to unilaterally strike
against the Gaddafi regime"
Let's examine what Obama is saying here: when it is perceived to be at the core of US
interests, the USA reserves the right to attack any country, at any time.
The world inhabits a moral vacuum, and in that state, any country can justifiably choose to
do anything, against anyone, for any reason. And this guy got the Nobel Peace Prize.
In this despicable saga, Cameron's Libyan venture was a sideshow, though one that has destabilised
north Africa and may yet turn it into another Islamic State caliphate.
You forgot to mention Cameron was only following Sarkozy .
Don't forget the French role .
25 February 2011: Sarkozy said Gaddafi "must go."
28 February 2011: British Prime Minister David Cameron proposed the idea of a no-fly zone
11 March 2011: Cameron joined forces with Sarkozy after Sarkozy demanded immediate action
from international community for a no-fly zone against air attacks by Gaddafi.
14 March 2011: In Paris at the Élysée Palace, before the summit with the G8 Minister for
Foreign Affairs, Sarkozy, who is also the president of the G8, along with French Foreign Minister
Alain Juppé met with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and pressed her to push for intervention
in Libya
.
19 March 2011: French[72] forces began the military intervention in Libya, later joined
by coalition forces
Well said in the headline. Imperialism-lite/heavy, colonialism, and neo-colonialism don't work,
should be a thing of the past. Intervening in the politics of another country is a mug's game.
Don't understand why Obama is blaming Cameron for it, perhaps playing to his domestic gallery.
Blair's love fest with the deluded Gaddafi family, followed by the volte-face of pushing for his
violent overthrow by the next government, were both severely misguided policies. Need to diplomatically
encourage change, in foreign policy, and the desired type of political movements to take hold.
Military interventions have the opposite effect, so does propping up dictators, religiously fanatical
regimes, proven time and time again.
So the choices are to do nothing, or invade and create a colony?
Pretty much. As Jenkins rightly says, if you want to launch an aggressive war you either do
it or you don't. If you do it then it is your responsibility to clear up the mess, however many
of your own lives are lost and however much it costs. Trashing a country and then buggering off
is not an option.
Of course, using force for defensive reasons is fine. That's why modern warmongering politicians
always call it "defence" when they drop bombs on innocent people in faraway countries. It is no
such thing.
There was no massacre, not even a hint of one. Total obfuscation to give Hillary Clinton a foreign
policy "success" so that she could use it as a springboard to the presidency. "Hillary Clinton
was so proud of her major role in instigating the war against Libya that she and her advisors
initially planned to use it as basis of a "Clinton doctrine", meaning a "smart power" regime change
strategy, as a presidential campaign slogan.
War creates chaos, and Hillary Clinton has been an eager advocate of every U.S. aggressive
war in the last quarter of a century. These wars have devastated whole countries and caused an
unmanageable refugee crisis. Chaos is all there is to show for Hillary's vaunted "foreign policy
experience".
"... Yeah. Painting the Syria/Libya crisis as Hillary vs the Repubs however is dishonest. not lacking insight or clarity. dishonest. On the Repubs: all the candidates except Trump said at the debate a few days ago that peace was not in the interests of Israel and therefore a US President would betray Israel by SEEKING peace. ..."
"... Hillary said at the townhall before Miss/MI that 'if we'd taken out Assad earlier like we did Gaddafi then Syria would only be as bad as Libya'. Your Hillary vs the Repubs routine is dishonest. This is the neocon oligrachy fighting for its life election. do not fake it in the name of Hillary. ..."
"... The Obama administration has redefined the word "militant " to be a "male of military age within the strike zone" and here's the killer ..."unless POSTHUMOUSLY proven to be innocent" ..."
"... Ramos ought to have asked Hilary exactly why Gadaffi was deposed, and came back at her fiercely with statistics and independent reports if she dared to even muse the suggestion that it was another "humanitarian intervention". ..."
"... If Hillary's two decade history of war mongering was exposed for what it really represents by "journalists" in the corporate media, she would no longer be insulated from the scrutiny her deeply flawed decision making warrants. ..."
"... Unfortunately, the American public have only independent news sites like the Intercept, Truthdig, the Jacobin, Harpers Magazine, Mondoweiss, and a few others from which to evaluate the real damage Hillary has caused. ..."
"... What gives Amerika the right to intervene in the affairs of other nations in the first place? Are they unaware that the rest of the world fears American terrorism more that anything else, or more likely, do they care? No wonder Hillary and the Republican hawks are worrying the planet. ..."
You are absolutely right as far as these five questions are concerned. Yet you forgot an important
one: TTIP as well as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. These so-called free trade agreements are
a fatal threat to democracy as they invest more power in corporations than in parliaments and
additionally they are detrimental to labour and the environment in the concerned countries.
It's a good article and reflects some of the questions I've been having.
My curiosity was aroused when the first CIA-directed drone killed its first victims, a terrorist
leader and some comrades in Yemen years ago. I'd thought that the CIA's assassination of anyone
in a foreign country was illegal. Evidently the rules have changed but I don't recall hearing
about it.
The media are always an easy target but lately I think their responsibility for our collective
ignorance has increased. The moderators in the TV debates seem deliberately provocative. I can
remember the first televised debate -- Kennedy vs. Nixon -- when both men soberly addressed the
camera when answering questions of substance.
The first interaction BETWEEN debators was a brief remark in 1980 by Reagan aimed at Jimmy
Carter. "There you go again." Before then, the debates were sober and dignified, as in a courtroom.
After that, the debates slowly slid into the cage fights they've become.
I'm afraid I see the media as not setting the proper ground rules. Fox News is the absolute
worst. The result is a continuous positive feedback loop in which we are gradually and unwittingly
turned into those people who buy gossip tabloids at the supermarket checkout counter.
BREAKING NEWS! HILLARY WETS BED UNTIL TWELVE YEARS OLD!
If we wind up with one of these egomaniacal clowns in the White House, we'll deserve what we
get.
here it is again Cruz: right now in Fox: Iran wants to kill us; 'Donald' wants to negotiate deals
with Iran and Cuba. We don't negotiate with terrorists. By failing to note what Trump actually
says and by pretending that Hillary is not a neocon - a subtle one to be sure - you are revising
the facts. actually as the facts appear. think about it and be clear. the moderate Islam routine
BY Cruz Rubio Kasich is not about islam. its about the supposed sunni supposed allies. like please.
add some insight. at least a bit.
Yeah. Painting the Syria/Libya crisis as Hillary vs the Repubs however is dishonest. not lacking
insight or clarity. dishonest. On the Repubs: all the candidates except Trump said at the debate
a few days ago that peace was not in the interests of Israel and therefore a US President would
betray Israel by SEEKING peace.
Trump said he'd be even-handed for the purpose of negotitating
a peace deal. the other candidates say - reading from a script, certainly not thinking - that
the trick was to get Saudi Arabia and Turkey to fight ISIS. sure, except they wont. Their agenda
is anti-Assad in the name of conservative sunni-ism. the moderate arab sheikdom theocracy routines
IS part of the problem. frankly the other Repub candidates would flirt with nuking Iran. Iran
must be part of the solution like it or not. Hillary said at the townhall before Miss/MI that
'if we'd taken out Assad earlier like we did Gaddafi then Syria would only be as bad as Libya'.
Your Hillary vs the Repubs routine is dishonest. This is the neocon oligrachy fighting for its
life election. do not fake it in the name of Hillary.
Isn't the reason for most foreign policy decisions that they will make money for the Military
Industrial Complex?
"Modernizing" nuclear weapons? Helping Saudi Arabia slaughter citizens of Yemen? Destabilizing
multiple countries so that MORE weapons become "necessary" to deal with the instability?
All the question should be framed on that basis: "Is there any reason to 'modernize' our nuclear
weapons other than to enhance the bottom line of the companies involved, especially when we are
supposed to be working against nuclear proliferation?"
Fantastic article, absolutely spot on. Its been a long wait , thank you.
The Obama administration has redefined the word "militant " to be a "male of military age within
the strike zone" and here's the killer ..."unless POSTHUMOUSLY proven to be innocent"
Democrats or Republicans alike, foreign policy is predicated on the American drive to maintain
global dominance, whatever illegal murderous callous action it takes.
Ramos ought to have asked Hilary exactly why Gadaffi was deposed, and came back at her fiercely
with statistics and independent reports if she dared to even muse the suggestion that it was another
"humanitarian intervention".
Sanders should be pressed on Israel, and whether he can formally condemn the state for repeatedly
breaking promises re: settlement on the West Bank and for committing war crimes during the Gaza
strip conflict.
If Hillary's two decade history of war mongering was exposed for what it really represents by
"journalists" in the corporate media, she would no longer be insulated from the scrutiny her deeply
flawed decision making warrants. If democracy and transparency actually functioned in the media,
Hillary would be exposed as a neocon, whose terrible policy decisions have led to one global disaster
after another, fomenting terrorism. (Even the New York Times-which endorsed Hillary-detailed her
disastrous decisions in Libya).
Unfortunately, the American public have only independent news sites like the Intercept, Truthdig,
the Jacobin, Harpers Magazine, Mondoweiss, and a few others from which to evaluate the real damage
Hillary has caused.
But, like her domestic policies-historically: from Clintonomics to mass incarceration; welfare
reform; the war on drugs; education (especially in Arkansas); disastrous "free" trade agreements;
rampant fascism in the form of corporatism; plus, the millions donated to her campaign from dark
money super pacs; and her sham "foundation; Hillary continues to represent the worst that politics
offers, both globally and domestically.
And the list above also includes the devolution of the Democratic Party from FDR-like socialism
to Clinton dominated corporate hacks, since Bill's election in 1992.
Until Clinton, Inc is stopped from commanding allegiance from "democratic" politicians on everything
from the macro to micro levels of Democratic Party matters, voters will continue to be denied
a true forum for change.
What gives Amerika the right to intervene in the affairs of other nations in the first place?
Are they unaware that the rest of the world fears American terrorism more that anything else,
or more likely, do they care? No wonder Hillary and the Republican hawks are worrying the planet.
"Currently Saudi Arabia is engaged in an indiscriminate bombing campaign in one of the world's
poorest.."
Saudi Arabia is bombing with logistical help from US and UK, we're not only silent on the crimes
of KSA, we help them
"Currently Saudi Arabia is engaged in an indiscriminate bombing campaign in one of the world's
poorest.."
Saudi Arabia is bombing with logistical help from US and UK, we're not only silent on the crimes
of KSA, we help them
Hillary was the push behind the U.S. Participation in Ukraine, Syria and Libya. Just a pathological
warlord. She appointed VIc Nuland as undersecretary of state for Gods sake. A neo-con. The people
that brought us the Iraq war. If she's elected you will get more of the same in a big way as she
will increase the force structure and the involvement.
It is futile to expect reason from people whose foreign policy education comes primarily from
Hollywood. It used to be that 96 % of people in congress had never left the country, even less
lived abroad with other people and learned a foreign language. The ignorance is truly amazing
and it would be funny if these people were not those that decide what happens in the world.
If the US keeps meddling in world affairs then the whole world should vote in their elections.
Don't exactly celebrate the US 'wag my tail' relationship with Wahhabi Arabia but on Syria, the
only good option is to ally with President Assad and bomb out the Wahhabi infestation.
Libya is the dog that doesn't bark in the night in UK politics too.
During the debate on bombing Syria, speaker after speaker alluded to the disastrous intervention
in Iraq, for which the guilty parties are no longer in the house.
But not one brought up the disastrous intervention in Libya, for which the guilty party was
currently urging us into another intervention.
Having an amateurish, inward-looking Labour party doesn't help, of course.
The only people who have called Cameron out on Libya in the past year are Nigel Farage and
Barack Obama. Ye gods.
"According to the 24 February 2010 policy analysis "The Year of the Drone", released by the New
America Foundation, the civilian fatality rate since 2004 is approximately 32%. The study reports
that 114 reported UAV-based missile strikes in northwest Pakistan from 2004 to present killed
between 830 and 1,210 individuals, around 550 to 850 of whom were militants."
You can quibble about the exact number of civilians killed, but the moment you approve of your
local police bagging bad guys even if your family gets killed then you can maybe make a comment.
Many human rights organizations have called them illegal, and retired military leaders have
said they backfire, creating more terrorists than they kill.
After reading " The Dron Papers
" Edward Snowden came to the conclusion that drones do not really chase the terrorists, but
they chase their mobile phones. Hence so many innocent victims, because who can guarantee that
the mobile phone which was earlier in the possessions of some terrorist, is not now in the hands
of entirely innocent people.
So, in addition to many ethical questions about the use of drones, this raised another question
on how much "high-tech killing" is indeed reliable.
Excellent article.
Informative and quite rightly challenging.
America is really running away with itself on who, where, how and why they attack.
Britains 'special' relations with the US, should be curtailed, forthwith, because they have the
audacity to now start pressuring us about the EU refferendum, too.
Obama had the nerve to say that we were free loading on the back of "US might" and their attempts
at "global order", his words. While neatly avoiding the questions you ask here, about their role
in Libya, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, drones etc., etc, etc.
Britain should fight back with these facts and distance ourselves from this aggression.
While an enormous amount of time during this campaign has focused around the Iran nuclear
deal, almost no attention has been given to any country that actually has nuclear weapons and
what they plan to do with them over the coming years and decades.
This is also a proof of the "schizophrenic" Obama-Clinton foreign policy. US administration is
doing everything to solve the problem of the Iranian nuclear program, and at the same time doing
everything to spoil relations with the other nuclear power in the world, Russia.
The curiosity of its kind is that Russia, which is also affected by the US sanctions, helps US
to resolve its dispute with Iran and suspend sanctions against this country. And not only that,
but Russia agrees to relocate enriched uranium from Iran to its territory and thus provide a practical
implementation of the agreement on the Iranian nuclear program.
yet the presidential candidates are almost never asked about why congress has not authorized
the military action like the constitution requires.
Yes, Trevor Timm also criticized this in some of his previous articles, as well as Ron Paul, who
also often criticized Obama for this fact. It's completely unclear why Obama continues to rely
on the two authorizations that George W. Bush has got from Congress "to punish the perpetrators
of the 9/11 attacks", and for "the destruction of Saddam Hussein's [non-existent] WMD". This is
particularly unclear given that Obama himself came to power mainly due to his criticism of Bush's
war adventures.
It is possible that Obama does not have enough confidence that he can get authorization from the
GOP dominant Congress to combat Isis in Syria and Iraq. However, by using authorizations for the
old wars for something that has nothing to do with the new wars, Obama is not only acting illegally,
but also provides an opportunity for the conclusion that he now supports Bush for the same thing
for which he criticized him earlier, that is, for the Afghan and Iraq war.
'course I wouldn't approve. And I doubt most countries approve of being invaded (except for the
folks who DO approve anyways).
"The US must stop acting as the world police.' Great phrase. You hear it a lot. Totally insupportable.
Here's the fundamental problem: the globe is a small place these days. Countries really are no
longer isolated entities than can act with little to no impact on anybody else. What one does,
others feel. And leadership is a thing - somebody will always lead. Right now, there are very
few candidates for that. With the fall of imperial England, the US became the only real superpower
left (other than Russia, which has since collapsed, and is busy trying to come back). Thus, whether
it likes it or not, the US has a leadership role to play. If it abdicates that position, and does
as you and so many other less-than-brilliant folks demand? Power abhors a vacuum. Most likely
is that either Russia or China will take over the role currently played by the US. And if you
think either of THOSE countries will do a better job than the US, well... enjoy your personal
delusion.
As for 'scratching heads and bleating' about intervention... we did not have to intervene.
Said that before, saying it again, get it through your skull - we did not have to intervene. We
could, in fact, totally disarm and just sit back and do nothing, anywhere. But. THIS WOULD HAVE
CONSEQUENCES TOO. Seriously. Understand that. Doing nothing is doing something. Sitting out is
still an action one can take. And it is INCREDIBLY likely that things would be WORSE in Libya
right now had we not intervened. Not guaranteed, but likely.
The situation sucks. It would have been great if it had all turned out better. It didn't. But
it probably would have been worse had we made a substantially different choice. Yeah, sure, you
could then pat yourself on the back, and pretend that at least the US wasn't responsible, but,
well, as a certain red-and-blue clad superhero says, with great power comes great responsibility.
The US has great power - if we didn't intervene, and horrible things happened, it'd be just as
much our fault as it is now that we DID intervene, and bad things happened. Because it would have
been in our power to stop it, and we didn't.
"... Besides which, it's hard to buy the idea that Gaddafi was "rogue" or " a threat" when both parties named here were "rendering" secret prisoners to him for outsourced torture. ..."
"... There is no honour among thieves, clearly. But it would be folly to depict a squabble among them as a narrative of sinner vs saint... ..."
"... After the cold war, the US and had the chance to lead to a new world order based on democracy and human rights. Yet instead, its politics based became based on bullying and warmongering, and joined by their European allies. As a result we have a world entrenched in chaos and violence. ..."
"... To top it off, there is also their allies, the Saudi and Gulf allies. Therefore, if you want to know how bad the world has become as a result of the US, European and Gulf allies, their hypocrisy, criminal behavior, destruction of countries, and total disregard of international law, all you need to see is the war in Yemen. ..."
"... Imperialism never left,.. The Capitalists are always working at complete control, it has no problem dancing with Dictators and Authoritarian rulers when it suites its purpose. Its just now they appear to be wanting to improve their image by changing their partners who stepped on their toes and Israel's on occasion .. ..."
"... Yes, I will claim it as a U.S. inspired regime change policy, in all those Middle East secular and sovereign countries, by our own beloved War Mongering Nationalistic Neo Cons.. That is already being shown as a complete disaster.. Only 2 million dead so far and just wait until the religious fanatics are in complete control.. ..."
"... "keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies" mmm. An incomplete reading I think. What about oil and gas? Libya is north African richest country if I'm not mistaken ... Is Britain (and France) still trying to get its share there? ..."
"... "Western [ mostly american and british ] warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defense of territory. "Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it." ..."
"... "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war." ..."
"... The Sykes-Picot agreement was one of the secrets uncovered by the Russian Revolution: it was in the files of the newly-overthrown government, and promptly publicized by the Bolsheviks, along with lots of other documents relating to imperialist secret diplomacy. Sound familiar? ..."
"... The interventionist model that the West has carried out recently is really an extension of the old colonialism in a different guise. In the olden days, the excuse was to spread Western civilization and Christianity to the world living in backwardness. In the modern era, it's democracy. Unfortunately democracy cannot be installed by force. Even if the people of the country being invaded wanted it, the opportunists (either among them or the outsiders) would find ways to exploit the chaos for their own benefits. We have seen different forms of such evolution in Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq. ..."
"... The CIA funded and trained the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, to fight the Russians, just as they backed Saddam against Iran. And the US has been mucking about in the Middle East since the 50s, the Brits since the late 19th century. Yours is a very selective reading of history. ..."
"... No, small groups of people with their own particular interests "begged for help." The "Arab Spring" was a Western media confection used to justify Western intervention to get rid of Gaddafi and Assad. Worked with Gaddafi, Assad not so well. ..."
"... You forget who triggered the French intervention. Another neo-con working for Israel. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2 ..."
"... Israel does not want a functioning Arab State left in the Middle-East. ..."
"... It's like the Soviet Union invading the US because a few militiamen holed up in a wildlife refuge in Oregon. The neo-con press feeds us this propaganda and the willing idiots lap it up and deny responsibility when everything falls apart. ..."
"... Jihad Dave is supporting islamist maniacs in Libya and Syria. He succeeded in Libya, along with the ludicrous Sarkozy clown, but Russia and Iran have stood up to the plate in Syria. ..."
"... However much we might sympathise with fellow human beings living under brutal dictators and governments, a country can only really progress from within. Certainly, dialogue, sanctions and international cooperation can help foster change, but ultimately countries must want to change. ..."
"... No, Gaddafy's crime was actually to spend the bulk of Libya's oil revenues on useless things such as schools, hospitals, housing and subsidised food when that money could have been flowing into the pockets of the West. ..."
"... Taliban has been trained in the Saudi religious schools in Pakistan. Wahhabism is the official ideology of Saudi Arabia. 10 out of 11 terrorists 9/11 were the Saudis. All the Islamic terror in the last two decades was sponsored by the Saudis, including ISIS. ..."
"... Bosnia - a slow ticking bomb. Just bubbling under the surface. Kosovo - a mafia state run by drug lord Thaci, supported by the US. It is no secret that the main source of income in Kosovo today is drugs, prostitution, organ trafficking. ..."
"... There are no winners or losers in Iraq, everyone lost. Not a single group benefited from that western backed regime change, same in Libya and Syria. ..."
"... The US empire blew up Libya with some help from it's puppets, Sarkozy and Cameron. 100% imperialism. ..."
"... The USA - and its mini-me, the UK - have so blatantly bombed societies, manipulated governments and undermined social change in so many parts of the world that their trading positions are under real threat from emerging economic powers. ..."
"... Yes, Obama shows himself for the buffoon he really is. ..."
"... I, however, would caution against thinking the US led Neoliberal Empire of the Exceptionals is weakening. Its economic hegemony is almost complete only China and Russia remaining, and Obama with his "Pivot to Asia" (TM) has them surrounded and all set up for the female Chaney - Clinton the warmonger to get on with it. ..."
"... The Empire will only get more and more brutal - it has absolutely no concern for human life or society - power over the globe as the Pentagon phrases it: "Global full spectrum domination" don't kid yourself they are going all out to reach their goal and a billion people could be killed - the Empire would say - so what, it was in our strategic interest. ..."
"... Very well put, Sir. Obama's self-serving statement is borderline stupid. I constantly wonder why I voted for him twice. His Deep State handlers continue from the Bush period and having installed their coterie of right-wing extremists from Hillary to the Directors of the CIA, FBI, NSA, DOD, ad nauseum Obama has not had the courage at any point to admit not only the "mess" he makes, but the he is a captive mess of the shadow government. ..."
"... Your comment is so stereotyped: when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient statute of limitations. But when others are involved, specifically America and Israel, the same Guardian readers allow no excuses or nuances and every tiny detail going back hundreds of years is repeatedly and thoroughly examined. ..."
"... Smith was murdered by extremists that took over Libya precisely because the death of Gadaffi left a dangerous power vacuum. The US aided and abetted certain groups, weapons found their way to the worse groups and Smith, a brave man, was his own country's victim in one sense. Hilary Clinton who should have known better publicly gloated over Gadaffi's death. Since his death the victimisation of black Libyans and other black Africans has become common, Libya has been overrun by extremists, and as we write is being used as a conduit for uncontrolled entry into Europe. ..."
"... The biggest unanswered and puzzling question, is that of how could Obama have expected or assumed that Britain and France would have stayed behind and clean up the mess they and the Americans have made of Libya? Why did the Americans resolved to play only the part of 'hired guns' to go in and blitzed the Libyan Government and its armed forces, and neglected to learn the lesson of planning what should follow after the destruction? ..."
"... The argument that the Americans had assumed that France and Britain would clean up the euphemistic mess has little or no credibility, since all three countries had been very clear about not wanting American, British and French 'boots on the ground.' ..."
"... "The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war." ..."
"... We bombed in support of competing Jihadis groups, bandits and local war Lords then our well laid plans for a Utopian peace were thwarted because of the unforeseen chaos created as the Militias we gave close airsupport to fought over the spoils. ..."
"... We should remember that we funded the terrorists in Libya and then sent weapons to ISIS from Libya to Syria that is we again used Al Qaeda as a proxy force. We then again used the "threat" from the proxy forces i,e. Al Qaeda to justify mass surveillance of the general population. ..."
"... Of its 237 years of existence it has been at war or cold war for 222 of those years. ..."
"... NATO is behind ISIS and the wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Chechen, Afghanistan, Libya and Ukraine. ..."
"... Jane they didn't "come apart" and Libya and Syria were the most stable and least under the thumb of radicals. Syria had equality and education for women who could wear whatever they wanted. Furthermore they did not fall apart they were attacked by the largest military forces in the world excluding Russia. NATO sent in special operations forces to destabilise the government. They along with Al Nusra and other violent Wahabi terrorists attacked police and army barracks, and when Assads police and military hit back it was presented by the Western media and propagandists as an attack on the people of Syria. Do you think any other country would allow terrorists to attack police and other public institutions without retaliating and restoring order. ..."
"... Many people who do not accept the Western medias false reporting at face value know that the wars in Syria were about changing the leaders and redrawing national boundaries to isolate Iran and sideline Russian influence. It was and is an illegal war and it was the barbarity of our Western leaders that caused the terrible violence. It was a pre planned plan and strategy outlined in the US Special Forces document below. http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/special-forces-uw-tc-18-01.pdf ..."
"... In the Libyan case, it was a clear US strategy to put in the forefront their English and French valets, in a coup (euphemistically called "regime change") wanted by them. The nobel peace winner got some nerves to put the blame on his accomplices for the chaos in Libya, while the permanent objective of the US is to divide and conquer, sowing chaos wherever it occurs: Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Syria. Also Hillary is no stranger to the actions in Libya. ..."
"... Simon Jenkins, don't pretend you were against American punitive expeditions around the world to overthrow third world dictators. You worked from the same neo-con ideological script to defend the ultra-liberal, military industrial economy; scare mongering in the pages of the Guardian, as far back as I can remember. You lot are as totally discredited as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and American Nato toadies. ..."
"... Libya , Ukraine ,Syria have had the same recipe of de-stabilisation by the US and NATO. The so called popular rebels were in fact CIA trained and financed. Jihadist in Libya and Syria and neo-Nazis in Ukraine. After completing regime change in Libya as planned ,the Jihadist, with their looted arms were transferred to Syria and renamed ISIS. ISIS is Washingtons Foreign Legion army, used as required for their Imperial ends. Renamed as required on whichever territory they operate ..."
"... Cameron has been given a free pass on Libya. It really is quite astonishing. The man has turned a functioning society into a jihadi infested failed state which is exporting men and weapons across North Africa and down the Sahara and now serves as a new front line for ISIS ..."
"... Attacking Libya and deposing Gaddafi was down to enforcing the R2P doctrine on the pretext of "stopping another Rwanda". But it was a pretext. Islamist rebels attacked the armouries within Libya and the Libyans had every right to try and put down the rebellion. Samantha Powers et al were the war mongers. ..."
"... The 2011 regime change shenanigans of the west against Libya is colonialism at its worst from all the parties who instigated it. The aftermath, the resultant mayhem and chaos, was in itself adding insult to injury. Gaddafi was no saint, but the militias, Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS now running rampant in the country are infinitely worse. This is a war crime of the first magnitude and no effort should be spared to address it ..."
"... The west who has assassinated or organised coups against democratically elected secular leaders who didn't give us their natural resources (eg iran) and installed brutal, clepto dictatorships who also take part in plundering the resources leaving the general population poor, uneducated and susceptible to indoctrination from Islamists. ..."
So
Barack Obama thinks Britain in 2011 left Libya in chaos – and besides it does not pull its weight
in the world. Britain thinks that a bit rich, given the shambles America left in Iraq. Then both
sides say sorry. They did not mean to be rude.
Thus do we wander across the ethical wasteland of the west's wars of intervention. We blame and
we name-call. We turn deaf ears to the cries of those whose lives we have destroyed. Then we kiss
and make up – to each other.
Obama was right first time round about Libya's civil war. He wanted to keep out. As
he recalls to the Atlantic magazine , Libya was "not so at the core of US interests that it makes
sense for us to unilaterally strike against the Gaddafi regime". He cooperated with Britain and France,
but on the assumption that David Cameron would clear up the resulting mess. That did not happen because
Cameron had won his Falklands war and could go home crowing.
Obama is here describing all the recent "wars of choice".
America had no "core interest" in Afghanistan or Iraq, any more than Britain had in
Libya . When a state attacks
another state and destroys its law and order, morally it owns the mess. There is no such thing as
imperialism-lite. Remove one fount of authority and you must replace and sustain another, as Europe
has done at vast expense in Bosnia and Kosovo.
America and Britain both attacked countries in the Middle East largely to satisfy the machismo
and domestic standing of two men, George Bush and Tony Blair. The result has been mass killing, destruction
and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside Africa, since the second world war. In this despicable
saga, Cameron's Libyan venture was a sideshow, though one that has destabilised north
Africa and may yet turn it
into another Islamic State caliphate. It is his Iraq.
As for Obama's charge that Britain and other countries are not pulling their weight and are "free
riders" on American defence spending, that too deserves short shrift.
British and French military expenditure is proportionately among the highest in the world, mostly
blown on archaic weapons and archaic forms of war. Western warmongering over the past two decades
has had nothing to do with the existential defence of territory. "Defence" has become attack, keeping
alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it.
Meanwhile the bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen. They do so, against
all the odds, because they grow from one culture and one outlook on life. That mercifully has nothing
to do with politicians.
I'm stunned that Obama has been able to get away with his absolutely abysmal record with foreign
policy. Libya was a complete disaster and there is evidence to suggest that Libya was a much better
place under Gaddafi. And the fact that once they were in Iraq (something started by his predecessor)
he wasn't committed to bringing about serious change, thus leaving a giant vacuum which, coincided
with the Syrian Civil War, has now been filled by ISIS.
That's not even talking about the Iran deal, Benghazi and the disastrous "Bring Back our Girls"
campaign.
"People find it very hard," said Iman Fannoush, with her two children in tow and a husband
she knows not where. "They are up all night shooting because of good news. We hear the UN is
coming to help us or our fighters have taken Brega or the air strikes have destroyed Gaddafi's
tanks. Then everyone is afraid again when they hear Gaddafi's army is coming and they all want
to know where is France, where are the air strikes, why is the west abandoning us?
We are grateful for the role played by the international community in protecting the Libyan
people; Libyans will never forget those who were our friends at this critical stage and will
endeavour to build closer relations with those states on the basis of our mutual respect and
common interests. However, the future of Libya is for the Libyans alone to decide. We cannot
compromise on sovereignty or allow others to interfere in our internal affairs, position themselves
as guardians of our revolution or impose leaders who do not represent a national consensus.
Hilsum gives a riveting account of the battle for Tripoli, with activists risking their lives
to pass intelligence to Nato, whose targeting – contrary to regime propaganda – was largely
accurate, and too cautious for many Libyans.
The UN security council authorised action to protect Libyan civilians from the Gaddafi regime
but Russia, China and other critics believe that the western alliance exceeded that mandate
and moved to implement regime change.
Libya's Arab spring was a bloody affair, ending with the killing of Gaddafi, one of the world's
most ruthless dictators. His death saw the rebel militias turn on each other in a mosaic of
turf wars. Full-scale civil war came last summer, when Islamist parties saw sharp defeats in
elections the United Nations had supervised, in the hope of bringing peace to the country.
Islamists and their allies rebelled against the elected parliament and formed the Libya Dawn
coalition, which seized Tripoli. The new government fled to the eastern city of Tobruk and
fighting has since raged across the country.
With thousands dead, towns smashed and 400,000 homeless, the big winner is Isis, which has
expanded fast amid the chaos. Egypt, already the chief backer of government forces, has now
joined a three-way war between government, Libya Dawn and Isis.
It is all a long way from the hopes of the original revolutionaries. With Africa's largest
oil reserves and just six million people to share the bounty, Libya in 2011 appeared set for
a bright future. "We thought we would be the new Dubai, we had everything," says a young activist
who, like the student, prefers not to give her name. "Now we are more realistic."
Perpetually engineered destabilization is highly lucrative and has been for 200 years, but I don't
know what's Central or Intelligent about it......except for a tiny handful at the top globally.
On balance, is Libya worse off now than it would have been, had Gaddaffi been allowed free
rein in Benghazi?
No-one can possibly know the answer to that, certainly not Mr Jenkins.
Clearly it was a dictatorship like say Burma is today.....but....from an economic point of
view, it was like the Switzerland of Africa. And actually tons of European companies had flocked
over there to set up shop. In contrast to now where its like the Iraquistan of Africa. No contest
in the comparison there...
Besides which, it's hard to buy the idea that Gaddafi was "rogue" or " a threat" when both
parties named here were "rendering" secret prisoners to him for outsourced torture.
There is no honour among thieves, clearly. But it would be folly to depict a squabble among
them as a narrative of sinner vs saint...
After the cold war, the US and had the chance to lead to a new world order based on democracy
and human rights. Yet instead, its politics based became based on bullying and warmongering, and
joined by their European allies. As a result we have a world entrenched in chaos and violence.
To top it off, there is also their allies, the Saudi and Gulf allies. Therefore, if you want
to know how bad the world has become as a result of the US, European and Gulf allies, their hypocrisy,
criminal behavior, destruction of countries, and total disregard of international law, all you
need to see is the war in Yemen.
Imperialism never left,.. The Capitalists are always working at complete control, it has no problem
dancing with Dictators and Authoritarian rulers when it suites its purpose. Its just now they
appear to be wanting to improve their image by changing their partners who stepped on their toes
and Israel's on occasion ..
Yes, I will claim it as a U.S. inspired regime change policy, in all those Middle East secular
and sovereign countries, by our own beloved War Mongering Nationalistic Neo Cons.. That is already
being shown as a complete disaster.. Only 2 million dead so far and just wait until the religious
fanatics are in complete control..
Yep, many pictures, as there always are with media confections. Remember the footage of Saddam's
statue being torn down in front of a huge crowd? It was only months later we saw the wide angle
shot that showed just how few people there really were there.
These US and UK involvement in the ME are matters of official record; are you really denying the
CIA trained the Mujahideen, or that both the UK and US propped up Saddam? Even Robert Fisk acknowledges
that! And please, don't patronise me. You have no idea what I've read or haven't.
......c'mon, the powers behind the powers intentionally engineer mid-East destabilization to keep
the perpetual war pumping billions to the ATM's in their living rooms; then, on top of it, they
send the bill to average joe's globally; when is this farce going to be called out ?
It is completely
illogical, can't stand even eye tests, yet continues like an emperor with new clothes in our face.
"keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies"
mmm. An incomplete reading I think. What about oil and gas? Libya is north African richest country
if I'm not mistaken ... Is Britain (and France) still trying to get its share there?
"Western [ mostly american and british ] warmongering over the past two decades has had
nothing to do with the existential defense of territory. "Defense" has become attack, keeping
alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering military establishments that depend on it."
"The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least
outside Africa, since the second world war."
The Sykes-Picot agreement was one of the secrets uncovered by the Russian Revolution: it was in
the files of the newly-overthrown government, and promptly publicized by the Bolsheviks, along
with lots of other documents relating to imperialist secret diplomacy. Sound familiar?
The interventionist model that the West has carried out recently is really an extension of the
old colonialism in a different guise. In the olden days, the excuse was to spread Western civilization
and Christianity to the world living in backwardness. In the modern era, it's democracy. Unfortunately
democracy cannot be installed by force. Even if the people of the country being invaded wanted
it, the opportunists (either among them or the outsiders) would find ways to exploit the chaos
for their own benefits. We have seen different forms of such evolution in Libya, Egypt, Syria,
Iraq.
Get your facts right. Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan were all states that crumbled after the
demise of the USSR.
Bullshit. The CIA funded and trained the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, to fight the Russians,
just as they backed Saddam against Iran. And the US has been mucking about in the Middle East
since the 50s, the Brits since the late 19th century. Yours is a very selective reading of history.
No, small groups of people with their own particular interests "begged for help." The "Arab Spring"
was a Western media confection used to justify Western intervention to get rid of Gaddafi and
Assad. Worked with Gaddafi, Assad not so well.
this might answer your question. Syria has suffered for its geography since it was artificially
created by the Sykes Picot agreement at the end of the Ottoman Empire.
"Libyan rebels are secularists, want unified country
Gardels: If the French aim is successful and Qaddafi falls, who are the rebels the West is
allying with? Secularists? Islamists? And what do they want?
Levy: Secularists. They want a unified Libya whose capital will remain Tripoli and whose government
will be elected as a result of free and transparent elections. I am not saying that this will
happen from one day to the next, and starting on the first day. But I have seen these men enough,
I have spoken with them enough, to know that this is undeniably the dream, the goal, the principle
of legitimacy.
It's like the Soviet Union invading the US because a few militiamen holed up in a wildlife refuge
in Oregon. The neo-con press feeds us this propaganda and the willing idiots lap it up and deny
responsibility when everything falls apart.
Britain started the mess in the Middle-East with the Balfour declaration and the theft of Palestinian
land to create an illegal Jewish state. Europe should pay massive reparations of money and equivalent
land in Europe for the Palestinian refugees living in squalid camps. Neo-con Jews who lobbied
for the Iraq, Syria and Libyan wars should have their wealth confiscated to pay for the mess they
created. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/02/world/africa/02levy.html?_r=2
Jihad Dave is supporting islamist maniacs in Libya and Syria. He succeeded in Libya, along with
the ludicrous Sarkozy clown, but Russia and Iran have stood up to the plate in Syria.
Presumably he's going down the Blair/Clinton route of cosying up to Middle Eastern Supremacist
Cults in the hope that he can increase his income by tens of millions within the next 10 years.
There can be no other explanation for his actions, that have never had anything whatsoever to
do with the interests of either Britain or the wider European community.
For me, the bottom line is that, however much might like to believe it, military intervention
does not create nice, liberal, secular democracies. These can only be fostered from within.
However much we might sympathise with fellow human beings living under brutal dictators and
governments, a country can only really progress from within. Certainly, dialogue, sanctions and
international cooperation can help foster change, but ultimately countries must want to change.
The military, under the instruction of politicians, of the West should be pro-defence but anti-regime
change or "nation building".
I'm not suggesting a completely isolationist position, but offensive military action should
be seen as a last resort.
Mr Jenkins is a knowledgeable man but should've thought through this a bit more before so casually
associating death and destruction and misery with Africa.
China's cultural revolution and the Great Leap Forward alone killed and displaced more people
after the second world war than all the conflicts in Africa put together. How about the break
up of India in 1947? Korean War?
But no when he thought about misery Africa popped into his mind..
Meanwhile the bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen. They do so,
against all the odds, because they grow from one culture and one outlook on life. That mercifully
has nothing to do with politicians.
One culture?
One outlook?
Sounds all very Soviet.
So, all Enlightened souls are reduced to a monoculture, within the Anglo American Empire.
Obama is a bill of goods. The Voters that choose him thought that they were getting a progressive,
Obama used the reverend
Wright to make himself seem like a man committed to radical change, but behind Obama was Chicago
investment banker Louis Susman (appointed ambassador to Britain).
Obama, a Harvard law professor, is the choice of the bankers, he does not play a straight bat,
all the wars and killing are someone else's fault. Banking wanted rid of Gaddafi since he threatened
the dollar as the reserve currency (as did Dominique Strauss-Kahn) as does the Euro, Obama let
Cameron think he was calling the shots but he was just Obama's beard. Obama is nothing if not
cunning, when he says stay in Europe but the Elites of the Tory party are pushing for out guess
what, they got the nod from Obama and the Banks.
So? All the numbers in the world can't undo Jenkins' thesis: there is no imperialism-lite. Imperialist
wars are imperialist wars no matter how many die, and whether chaos, or neo-colonial rule follow.
In his interview, Obama claims a more deliberate, opaque, and efficient war machine. To him, and
his conscience, John Brennan, these metrics add up to significant moral milestones. To us innumerates,
it's just more imperialist b.s.
Gadaffy had since long planned to free his country and other African states from the yoke of being
forced to trade within the American dollar sphere. He was about to lance his thoroughy well prepared
alternative welcomed not the least by the Chinese when Libya was attacked. Obama is not truthful
when suggesting the attack was not a "core" interest to the US. It was of supreme interest for
the US to appear with its allies, Gadaffy´s independence of mind being no small challenge.
Gadafy may have been particularly nasty with dissidents, but the UK has plenty of allies in the
Muslim world that are far worse: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain... The Gulf States work their imported
slaves to death and the UK kowtows to them. The UK has supplied billions of pounds worth of weapons
to Saudi Arabia and sent military advisors to advise them how to use them to bomb Yemeni schools
and hospitals.
No, Gaddafy's crime was actually to spend the bulk of Libya's oil revenues on useless things
such as schools, hospitals, housing and subsidised food when that money could have been flowing
into the pockets of the West.
Kosovo is also mentioned. There was a relatively low-level conflict (much like the Northern
Ireland 'troubles') there until NATO started bombing and then oversaw the massive ethnic cleansing
of Kosovo Serbs from their homeland (Serbs are the most ethnically-cleansed group in the former
Yugoslavia: around 500,000 refugees).
Yugoslavia's real crime? It was the last country in Europe to refuse the market economy and
the hegemony of Western banks and corporates.
The message is, 'Accept capitalism red in tooth or claw, or we'll bomb the crap out of you.'
Did the attack on Afghanistan improve the situation? Perhaps temporarily in the cities, some things
got a little better as long as you weren't shot or blown up. Over the country as a whole, it made
the situation much worse.
I remember John Simpson crowing that the Western invaders had freed Afghanistan when they entered
Kabul. My reaction at the time was, 'Well, the Soviets had no problem holding the cities. Wait
until you step outside them.' There followed many years of war achieving pretty much nothing except
to kill a lot of people and get recruits flocking to the Taliban.
It seemed we had learned absolutely nothing from the British and Soviet experiences.
And you seem to have forgotten the multitude of US terror attacks on Muslims before the Afghan
invasion, repackaged for our media as 'targeted attacks with collateral damage'. Bombing aspirin
factories and such. And the First Gulf War. And US bases occupying the region. And the fact that
the situation in Afghanistan was due to the Americans and Saudis having showered weapons and cash
on anyone who was fighting the Soviets, not giving a damn about their aims. Bin Laden, for instance.
And one aspect of law and order under the Taliban was that they virtually stopped opium production.
After the invasion, it rose again to dizzying heights.
The only way to deal with countries such as Afghanistan as it returns to its default system,
along with other, more aggressive rogue states such as Saudi Arabia, is to starve them of all
weapons and then let their peoples sort it out. It may take a long time but it's the sole possibility.
As long as we keep pouring weapons into the Middle East for our own shameful purposes, the
apocalypse will continue.
Reading this excellent article one wonders how the war criminal Blair can be offered any peace-keeping
role in the world or continue to get any air or press time.
Taliban has been trained in the Saudi religious schools in Pakistan. Wahhabism is the official
ideology of Saudi Arabia. 10 out of 11 terrorists 9/11 were the Saudis. All the Islamic terror
in the last two decades was sponsored by the Saudis, including ISIS.
Bosnia - a slow ticking bomb. Just bubbling under the surface. Kosovo - a mafia state run by drug
lord Thaci, supported by the US. It is no secret that the main source of income in Kosovo today
is drugs, prostitution, organ trafficking. Tear gas in Parliament for the third time in as many
months. While the squares full of unemployed young and old are adorned with statues of those that
gave them this opportunity Tony Blair and Bill Clinton were popular but I think their halos are
tarnished somewhat. The situation is so serious that the US is beefing up its presence in camp Bondsteel but you won't read about it in the Guardian.
when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every excuse is trundle out, every
nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there is always a convenient
statute of limitations
So true . "Oh, oh, but the Spanish/Mongols/Romans etc etc", "Oh, like they were all
so peaceful before Empire came along", "Oh, but but" (ad infinitum).
The bonds between America and Britain will continue to strengthen? Here's hoping. The neo-con cum
neo-ultra liberal dream keeps on giving. Even after Brexit, Britain remains America's poodle
at its peril. The rest of the article is right, but by now accepted wisdom amongst those capable
of independent and rational thought.
Here we go again, off course next phase is the "enlightment" in Al-Andalus...
1. Conflict between sunni and shiites has been dormant for decades. Saudi Arabias promotion
of Wahhabism has awoken it again, along with the catalyst for the recent bloodshed, the invasion
of Iraq. That placed it back in the hands of the majority Shia and upset radical sunnis (eg
the Saudis).
Wahabism grew because of the oil export from Saudi Arabia which started way before World war II.
Bollocks, there was a short period of calm while Europe defeated the Ottoman empire , but the
Mughal empire took great pleasure in slaughtering shiites, and the Ottoman empire had huge conflicts
with the Safavid empire.
2. Pogroms were common against Jews in Europe and Europe has a far worse history of treating
Jews than Muslims ever had. The "golden age of Judaism" in Europe was under Muslim rule in
Spain. Need I mention that the Holocaust was perpetrated by European Christians?
He-he, the fabulous golden age which is always mentioned, no doubt they were golden at that
time compared to Europe, but to compare it today, it would be like living in Nazi Germany as a
Jew before the Nürnberg laws were implemented.
Would you like to pay a special non-muslim tax, step aside when a Muslim passed the street,
be unable to claim any high positions in society to due to your heritage?
3. Didnt forget. the USSR didnt hand them chemical weapons though. That would be the West.
And it wasnt Russia who invaded Iraq later over the scam that they had WMDs.
The Iran-Iraq war made the millions of dead possible primarily due to Soviet equipment, Halabja
killed 5000.
No, Russia prefered Chechnya and directly killed 300.000 civilians with the Grad bombings of cities
and villages, whereas the casualties in Iraq primarily can be contributed to sectional violence.
4. I think you are forgetting Mossadeq in Iran in the 50s. Nasser in Egypt and any Pan-Arab
group that was secular in nature. Pan-Arabism is now dead and radical Islamism is alive and
well thanks to our lust for control over the region.
None of the mentioned were prime examples of democracy, Nasser for example had no problems in
eliminating the Muslim brotherhood or killing 10s of thousands of rebels and civilians in Yemen
with mustard gas.
Obama's remark that the Europeans and Gulf States "detested" Gaddafi and wanted to get rid of
him while others had "humanitarian concerns" is of interest. It's unlikely the Arabs had humanitarian
concerns in all the circumstances; they just wanted Regime Change. It is the lethal combination
of Gulf Arabs and Neo-colonial France and Britain that has driven the Syrian war too- and continues
to do so. No wonder America claims these countries enthuse about war until it comes and then expect
them to fight it. France currently demands the surrender of Assad and for Russia to "leave the
country immediately". Britain says there can be no peace while he remains and that Russia's "interference"
is helping IS.
It's your prerogative whether or not you believe that the US and NATO intervene in countries based
on moral grounds. But if you do want to delude yourself, remember that they only intervene in
countries where they can make money off resources, like Libya and Iraq's oil revenues. If it were
about morality, don't you think NATO and the West would have rushed to help Rwanda during the
genocide?
There are no winners or losers in Iraq, everyone lost. Not a single group benefited from that
western backed regime change, same in Libya and Syria. You do not win when your situation is worse
than it was before Saddam. You can't be a winner when you life in generally worse off than it
was before. basically there is no rule of law now in these nations. Saddam was no monster like
you want to portray him.
Actually, some of those Latin American governments we overthrew were indeed liberal democracies.
As for Canada, there are several reasons we haven't invaded. Too big, too sparse too white...and
economically already a client state. Of course, we did try once: the War of 1812.
"When the same leaders did initially stand aside (as in Syria) "
They didn't stand aside though, they helped create the trouble in the first place, as too with
Libya; gather intelligence to find out who will take up arms, fund, train and give them promises,
get them to organize and attack, then when the dictator strikes back the press swing into action
to tell us all how much of a horrible bastard he is(even though we've been supporting and trading
with him for eons), ergo, we have to bomb him! It's HUMANITARIAN! Not. It would be conquest though.
Frightening.
Obama has done everything in his power to morph into Bush including hiring a flaming chicken hawk
in Ash Carter to play the role of Dick Cheyney. Bush left us with Iraq and Afghanistan, to which
Obama added Egypt with the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood, Libya, Syria and Yemen. He also
restarted the Cold War with Russia. He is now going after China for building islands in the South
China Sea, a disputed area, something he as well as other Presidents before him has allowed Israel
to build settlements on disputed land for the past fifty years and throughthrough $ 3.5 billion
in gifts annually, has provided for enough concrete to cover all the land the Palestinians live
on.
The 3.5 billion annually will increase by $40 billion over ten years, unless Netanyahu gets
the increase he wants to 15 billion per year. So Obama must settle on a legacy which makes him
both a warmonger and one of the very best arms dealer in the world. His family must be so proud.
To be a humanitarian intervention, a military intervention has to avoid causing regime collapse,
because people will die because of regime collapse. This is an elementary point that the political
class appears not to want to learn.
I agree with your analysis except the last paragraph. Pretty much in all interventions that
we have witnessed, the political class deliberately caused the regimes to collapse. That was always
the primary goal. Humanitarian intervention were never the primary, secondary or even tertiary
objective.
If the political class want to do some humanitarian interventions, they can always start with
Boko Haram in Nigeria.
America had no "core interest" in Afghanistan or Iraq
The USA was enforcing the UN blockade of Iraq, and had massive forces in place to do it. It was
costing a fortune and there were regular border skirmishes taking place. It has been suggested
that Bush and his advisors thought that they could take out Saddam and then pull all their forces
back to the US. They won't admit it now because of the disaster that unfolded afterwards.
Another good piece. What about all the weapons we sold Israel after they started their recent
slaughter in Gaza and the selling of weapons to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen (one of the poorest
country's in the world) says everything you need to know about the tory party. They are sub humans
and as such should be treated like dirt. I don't believe in the concept of evil...all a bit religious
for me but if I did, it's what they are.
It astonishes me that these great men and women-I include Sec'y Clinton here-give no indication
that their calculations were made without the slightest knowledge of the countries they were preparing
to attack in one way or another. From what one read in the long NYTimes report on preparations
for the Libyan intervention, the participants in the planning knew a great deal about military
matters and less about Libya than they could have found out in a few minutes with Wikipedia. Tribal
societies are different from western societies, dear people, and you damn well should have known
that.
Honduras. The USA backed the coup there. Honduras is now run by generals and is the world's murder
capital. I could go on, jezzam. Please read William Blum's books on US foreign policy. They provide
evidence that the US record is not good.
Without the US the UK and France couldn't have overthrown Gaddafi. The jihadis would have been
killed or fled Libya. I don't believe any post-Gaddafi plan existed. Why would there have been
one? Killing Gaddafi was the war's aim. A western puppet strong man leader grabbing power would
have been icing on the cake of course but why would the US care about Libya once Gaddafi was gone?
Well, Cameron just followed Obama's 'regime change' bad ideas.
Obama is a failed leader of the World who made our lives so much worse.
Obama likes to entertain recently, so after his presidency the best job for him is a clown in
a circus.
We will never know why Stevens and the others were killed.
Absent reliable information, everyone is free to blame whomever they dislike most.
Based on zero non-partisan information, Hillary is the media's top choice for Big Villain.
She may in fact be more responsible than most for this horror, but she may not be too.
Who ya gonna ask: the CIA, the Pentagon, Ted Cruz?
It seems everyone who's ever even visited Washington,D.C., has some anonymous inside
source that proves Hillary did it.
To hear the GOP tell it, she flew to Libya secretly and shot Stevens herself
just because she damn well felt it, o kay -- (female troubles)
My question is: Where has US/Euro invasion resulted in a better government for all those
Middle Eastern people we blasted to bits of blood and bone? How's Yemen doin' these days?
Hope Europe enjoys assimilating a few million people who share none of Europe's customs,
values or languages.
I'm sure euro-businesses would never hire the new immigrants instead of union-backed
locals.
Why, that would almost be taking advantage of a vast reservoir of ultra-cheap labor!
Nor will the sudden ocean of euro-a-day workers undercut unions or wages in the EU. No siree,
not possible.
Just like unions have not been decimated, and wages have not stagnated in the US since 1980
or so. No siree. Not in Europe .
jezzam writes, "the dictator starts massacring hundreds of thousands of his own civilians." But
he didn't. Cameron lied.
The rebellion against Gaddafi began in February 2011. The British, French and US governments intervened
on their usual pretext of protecting civilians. The UN said that 1,000-2,000 people had been killed
before the NATO powers attacked.
Eight months later, after the NATO attack, 30,000 people had been killed and 50,000 wounded (National
Transitional Council figures).
Cameron made the mess; Cameron caused the vast refugee crisis. The NATO powers are getting what
they want – the destruction of any states and societies that oppose their rule, control over Africa's
rich resources. Libya is now plagued by "relentless warfare where competing militias compete for
power while external accumulators of capital such as oil companies can extract resources under
the protection of private military contractors."
any state that wishes to be taken seriously as a player on the world stage
The classic phrase of imperialism - an attitude that seems to believe any nation has the right
to interfere in, or invade, other countries'.
Usually done under some pretence of moral superiority - it used to be to 'bring the pagans to
God', these days more 'they're not part of our belief system'. In fact, it only really happens
when the imperial nations see the economic interests of their ruling class come under threat.
The USA - and its mini-me, the UK - have so blatantly bombed societies, manipulated governments
and undermined social change in so many parts of the world that their trading positions are under
real threat from emerging economic powers.
The two that they are most scared of are Russia and China, who combined can offer the capital
and expertise to replace the old US / European axis across Africa, for instance. The war is already
being fought on many fronts, as
this article makes clear.
Yes, Obama shows himself for the buffoon he really is. Clinton had it right when the going gets
tough Obama gives a speech (see Cairo).
I, however, would caution against thinking the US led Neoliberal Empire of the Exceptionals
is weakening. Its economic hegemony is almost complete only China and Russia remaining, and Obama
with his "Pivot to Asia" (TM) has them surrounded and all set up for the female Chaney - Clinton
the warmonger to get on with it.
The Empire will only get more and more brutal - it has absolutely no concern for human life
or society - power over the globe as the Pentagon phrases it: "Global full spectrum domination"
don't kid yourself they are going all out to reach their goal and a billion people could be killed
- the Empire would say - so what, it was in our strategic interest.
The odd thing is, Obama didn't seem to think getting rid of Gaddafi a bad thing at all at the
time. Clinton was all, "We came, we saw, he died." And this bit about "no core interest" in Afghanistan
and Iraq is just bizarre. Given the mess both countries are in, and the resurgence of the
Taliban
and zero clue about Iraq it was clearly a master stroke for Obama to decide the US exit both with
no effective governments in place, ones that could deal with the Taliban et al. Never mind, he
can tootle off and play golf.
Very well put, Sir. Obama's self-serving statement is borderline stupid. I constantly wonder why
I voted for him twice.
His Deep State handlers continue from the Bush period and having installed their coterie of
right-wing extremists from Hillary to the Directors of the CIA, FBI, NSA, DOD, ad nauseum Obama
has not had the courage at any point to admit not only the "mess" he makes, but the he is a captive
mess of the shadow government.
America has a historic crisis of leadership and being the sole model left in that field, the
world has followed, the UK and all of Europe included.
Libya is all Hilarys work so expect to return with boots on the ground once Wall Sts finest is
parked in the Oval office. She has the midas touch in reverse and Libya has turned (and will continue)
to turn out worse than Iraq and Syria (believe me its possible) There is absolutely no one on
the ground that the west can work with so the old chestnut of arming and training al qaeda or
'moderate' opposition is not an option. ISIL are solidifying a base there and other than drones
there is zip we can do.
Critising Cameron just shows how insecure Obama is, lets be honest the middle east and afghanistan
are in the state they are because Obama had zero interest in foreign policy when his first term
started, thus allowing the neocons to move into the vacuum and create the utter disaster that
is Syraq and Ukraine. We in europe are now dealing with the aftermath of this via the refugee
crisis which will top 2 million people this year. Obamas a failure and he knows it, hence the
criticism of other leaders. Cameron is no different, foreign policy being almost totally abandoned
to the US, there is no such thing as independent defence policy in the UK, everything is carried
out at the behest of the US. Don't kid yourself we have any autonomy, we don't and there are plenty
of high level armed forces personnel who feel the same way. Europe is leaderless in general and
with the economy flatlining they too have abandoned defence and foreign affairs to the pentagon.
Right now we're in the quiet before the storm, once HRC gets elected expect the situation to
deteriorate rapidly, our only hope is that someone has got the dirt to throw her out of the race.
ISIS established itself in Iraq before moving into Syria. Would ISIS exist is Britain had not
totally destabilized Iraq? Going back even further, it is the 100th anniversary of the Sykes-Picot
agreement, that great exercise in British Imperialism that created the artificial nations in the
Middle East that are collapsing today.
Your comment is so stereotyped: when British aggression or war crimes are involved, every
excuse is trundle out, every nuance examined, every extenuating circumstance and of course there
is always a convenient statute of limitations. But when others are involved, specifically America
and Israel, the same Guardian readers allow no excuses or nuances and every tiny detail going
back hundreds of years is repeatedly and thoroughly examined.
Transparent hypocrisy. Accept responsibility and stop offloading it to Calais.
Ambassador Stevens was killed in a cover up over the arms dealing from Libya to Syria, (weapons
and fighters to ISIS). It seems more likely that he was killed because he was investigating the
covert operation given that he was left to fend for himself by all US military forces but in a
classic defamation strategy he has been accused of being behind the operation. Had he been he
would have been well defended.
"Defense" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering
military establishments that depend on it.
Couldn't put it better myself. Yes, America is a full blown Empire now. Evil to it's very core.
Bent on world domination and any cost. All we lack is a military dictatorship. Of course, with
the nation populated by brainwashed sheep, a "Dear Leader" is inevitable,
President Obama was correct in keeping US boots off the ground in Syria. An active US troop presence
would have resulted in an even greater level of confusion and destruction on all sides. However,
it was precisely the US' meddling in Libya that helped pave the way for its current dysfunctional,
failed state status, riven by sectarian conflicts and home to a very active Al Quaida presence.
US interference in Libya saw Gadaffi backstabbed by the US before literally being stabbed to death
although he had been given assurances that the US would respect his rule particularly as he had
sought to become part of the alliance against the likes of Al Quaida.
Obama was behind the disgraceful lie that the mob that attacked the US' Benghazi Embassy and murdered
Ambassador Smith y was 'inflamed' by an obscure video on youtube that attacked extremist elements
of the Islamic faith. Smith deserved better than this blatant lie and the grovelling, snivelling
faux apologies Obama and then Secretary of State Hilary Clinton made to the Muslim world for something
that had nothing to do with 99.9 percent of non Muslims.
Smith was murdered by extremists that took over Libya precisely because the death of Gadaffi left
a dangerous power vacuum. The US aided and abetted certain groups, weapons found their way to
the worse groups and Smith, a brave man, was his own country's victim in one sense. Hilary Clinton
who should have known better publicly gloated over Gadaffi's death. Since his death the victimisation
of black Libyans and other black Africans has become common, Libya has been overrun by extremists,
and as we write is being used as a conduit for uncontrolled entry into Europe.
Disappointingly, President Obama forgets the Biblical saying about pointing out a speck in somebody's
eye while ignoring the plank in his own.
Mr President doesn't privately refer to the Libyan upheaval as the "shit show" for no good reason.
The chaos and anarchy that have ensued since, including the migrant crisis in Europe and the rise
of Islamic State, is directly attributable to the shoddy interventionist approach used by both
Britain and France.
Good article, with justified moral indignation. Only thing I would have changed, is "imperialism-lite"
to 'lesser and greater imperialism.
Would it not have been a great contribution towards peace and justice, had the US decided not
to invade Iraq and Libya, on account that other western countries were "free-riders" and would
not have pulled their weight?
So, what does the world needs now? More 'free-riding countries' to dissuade so-called responsible
countries - Britain, France, America, Italy - from conspiring to invade other countries, after
consulting in the equivalent of a 'diplomatic toilet and drawing up their war plans on the back
of the proverbial cigarette packet.'
For all Obama's niceties, it would now appear that he has been seething and mad as hell about
his perception of Britain and France 'abandoning' Libya and watching it perceptible
destabilizing
the region and the flames fanning farther afield.
The biggest unanswered and puzzling question, is that of how could Obama have expected or assumed
that Britain and France would have stayed behind and clean up the mess they and the Americans
have made of Libya? Why did the Americans resolved to play only the part of 'hired guns' to go
in and blitzed the Libyan Government and its armed forces, and neglected to learn the lesson of
planning what should follow after the destruction?
The argument that the Americans had assumed that France and Britain would clean up the euphemistic
mess has little or no credibility, since all three countries had been very clear about not wanting
American, British and French 'boots on the ground.'
Is the Americans now telling the world that they went into Libya without planning for the aftermath,
because it was 'an emergency to save lives' and they had to go in immediately?
Well, if so, that is now how nations behave responsibly, and it is now clear that more lives
have probably been lost and continue to be sacrificed, than those which might have been saved
as a result of the West invading and attacking Libya.
the Europeans expected America to pick up the tab for reconstruction
I don't think there would be many complaints from Halliburton or other American companies to
help with the reconstruction, if the place wasn't such a shit-storm right now.
"The result has been mass killing, destruction and migration on a scale not seen, at least outside
Africa, since the second world war."
Judging from the sentiments expressed in the overwhelming majority of comments posted on multiple
threads on this forum, the British people don't want to accept responsibility for "migration on
a scale not seen... since the second world war". The almost universal resistance to accepting
refugees and migrants that fled their homes due to unprovoked British aggression is disgusting
and pathetic. It highlights the hypocrisy of those who see themselves morally fit to judge almost
everyone else.
Mitchell says that we had a plan to stabilise Libya but that it could not be implement the plan
because there was no peace?#*^..... Der
We bombed in support of competing Jihadis groups, bandits and local war Lords then our well
laid plans for a Utopian peace were thwarted because of the unforeseen chaos created as the Militias
we gave close airsupport to fought over the spoils.
Well there you have it- its the fault of the Libyans.
Hilary Clinton recently blamed Sarkozy for Libya describing him as so "very excited" about the
need to start bombing that he persuaded her and she, Nuland and Power persuaded a reluctant Obama.
Three civilian females argued down the military opinion that it was unnecessary and likely to
cause more trouble than it was worth.
As this was clearly to support French interests the Americans
insisted the Europeans do it themselves if they were that keen. Old Anglo-French rivalry has never
been far from the surface in the ME and it seems Cameron jumped on the bandwagon in fear France
would take all the glory. Neither of them appear to have given any thought about reconstruction.
The blame is mostly Cameron's as Sorkozy was chucked out of office just months later. Did Cameron
have a plan at all? If so it was his biggest mistake and one we'll be paying for over the coming
years.
Without Putin's mischief making though, this would have been sorted out long ago.
Putin intervened in September 2015. What have the West been doing since 2011 to stop the conflict,
one wonders.
Russia vetoes any UN attempt to sort out the mess
Looking bad you'd realize that it at least prompted Obama to retract in 2013. Since then though
support to Saudi and proxies destabilizing Syria has only increased.
Russia is clearing the mess of the West, and they should be grateful. Obama might be from what
I read today from his "confessions".
Yes. I don't think that is a pro-imperialist stance. He's arguing that there is no middle ground;
getting rid of dictators you don't like is imperialism, and whether you follow through or not,
there are serious consequences, but to not follow through is an abnegation of moral responsibility
to the people you are at attemting to "free". It seems to me he is arguing against any foreign
intervention, hence his castigation of Obama and Cameron for the "ethical wasteland of their wars
of intervention."
Please do me a favour and study 20th century history a little more. The US overthrow countless
democracies in Latin America and the Middle East and installed fascist dictatorships.
Liberal Democracy haha come on now. They dont care about Democracy. They care about money.
They will install and support any dictatorship (look at Saudi Arabia for example) as long as they
do as they are told economically.
I love western values, dont get me wrong. It is the best place to live freely. However, if
you werent lucky enough to be born in the west and the west wants something your country has (eg.
oil).....you are in for a lot of bad times.
I just wish western leaders/governments actually followed the western values that we all love
and hold dear.
We should remember that we funded the terrorists in Libya and then sent weapons to ISIS from Libya
to Syria that is we again used Al Qaeda as a proxy force. We then again used the "threat" from
the proxy forces i,e. Al Qaeda to justify mass surveillance of the general population.
The solution as Corbyn pointed out is to stop funding the Terrorists.
By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar;
the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi's arsenals
into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian
entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn't always know who was really employing them,
were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the
CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer.
Peter Oborne investigates claims that Britain and the West embarked on an unspoken alliance
of convenience with militant jihadi groups in an attempt to bring down the Assad regime.
He hears how equipment supplied by the West to so called Syrian moderates has ended up in
the hands of jihadis, and that Western sponsored rebels have fought alongside Al Qaeda. But
what does this really tell us about the conflict in Syria?
This edition of The Report also examines the astonishing attempt to re brand Al Nusra, Al
Qaeda's Syrian affiliate, as an organisation with which we can do business.
What is good that this is finally coming out ,the denial by both Obama and a very left wing media
has failed to confront this issue in what is an incredibly low point for Obama and Hilary Clinton
and their naive ideas about the Arab Spring.
As it is equally so for David Cameron and William Hague. Sarkozy is different he was not naive
he knew exactly what he was doing thais was about saving french influence in North Africa,he was
thinking about Tunisa, Algeria which he was keen to drag others into -- He was the most savvy of
all those politicians at least he was not a fool,but France priorities are not the same as the
UK --
Obama's comments once again as usual do not really confront the real problems of Libya and
gloss over the key issues and ending up passing the buck, he can do no wrong ? It was not the
aftermath of Libya but the whole idea of changing the controlling demographics of the country
which he played a major part in destabilising through the UN AND Nato which was the problem --
It was thought the lessons of Iraq was all about not putting boots on the ground ,or getting
your feet dirty ,as this antagonises the locals and that a nice clinical arms length bombardment
creating havoc ,is the best way to go .
This was not the lesson of Iraq , which was actually not to destabilise the controlling demographics
of the country which will never recover if you do ..It is one thing to depose a leader or ask
a leader to step down but do not disturb 100 of years controlling demographics, sectarian or not
in these countries is not wise . To do so is a misstep or misjudgement --
Demographics are like sand dunes they have taken many years to evolve and rest uneasy, in the
highly religious and sectarian landscape but can be unsettled over night, grain by grain even
by a small shift in the evening night breeze , a small beetle can zig zag across and the whole
dune will crumble
Once again the US pushed the UK who vied with France at how high they could jump, using the
UN blank cheque as cover ,for melting down the country and has left UN credibilty in taters has
now no credibility and Nato is now not trusted .
They took disgracefully no less the UN 1973 Peace Resolution , point one, Cease fire and point
two No Fly Zone .They bent it , twisted it , contorted it into blatant out right support of the
eastern shiite sympathisers sectarian group, against the more secular Sunni Tripoli groups .
(Gaddafi was not one man Mr apologist Rifkind he was the tribal leaders of a quite a large
tribe !)
Which has been part of a historic rivalry going back hundreds of years . They killed more civilians
that Gaddafi ever had or could have done . They even attacked in a no fly zone government troops
retreating and fired on government planes on the ground in a non fly zone .
Then they refused to negotiate with the government or allow the Organisation of African states
to mediate who had agreed general elections .They went on bombing until there was no infrastructure
no institutions or sand dunes ,or beetles left --
It was done after Iraq and that is why it is so shameful and why Obama , Cameron, Sarkozy ,
the UN , Nato must face up to what they have done , and after the Chilcot enquiry there needs
to be a Cameron enquiry . Presumably it will have the backing of Obama --
What is worse is the knock on effect on this massive arm caches and fighters from Libya then
went on to Syria, reek havoc and destabilised the country . Because Russia and China could never
trust again the UN , the UN has been ineffective in Syria for that very reason .The deaths of
British tourist in next door Tunisia has to laid firmly at David Cameron's and the foreign office
door --
No wonder Libya is keeping Obama awake at night , no wonder he is indulging in damage limitation
, no wonder he is trying to re write history ? How can I get this out of my legacy . If only I
had not met Mr Cameron a yes man -- If only I had been told by some with an once of common sense
, not to touch this country with a barge pole ?
The poor Libyan people will agree with him --
The lesson for the UK is do want you think is right not what the US thinks as right , a lesson
that David Cameron has failed to learn , and has shown he is not a safe pari of hands and lacks
judgement --
1. Conflict between sunni and shiites has been dormant for decades. Saudi Arabias promotion of
Wahhabism has awoken it again, along with the catalyst for the recent bloodshed, the invasion
of Iraq. That placed it back in the hands of the majority Shia and upset radical sunnis (eg the
Saudis).
2. Pogroms were common against Jews in Europe and Europe has a far worse history of treating
Jews than Muslims ever had. The "golden age of Judaism" in Europe was under Muslim rule in Spain.
Need I mention that the Holocaust was perpetrated by European Christians?
3. Didnt forget. the USSR didn't hand them chemical weapons though. That would be the West.
And it wasn't Russia who invaded Iraq later over the scam that they had WMDs.
4. I think you are forgetting Mossadeq in Iran in the 50s. Nasser in Egypt and any Pan-Arab
group that was secular in nature. Pan-Arabism is now dead and radical Islamism is alive and well
thanks to our lust for control over the region.
Obama? Censored? You forgot Hillary. she even said the other day at the townhall before Miss/MI
to the effect 'if Assad had been taken out early like Gaddafi then Syria would only be as bad
as Libya'. laughable really. i presume you aren't criticising Hillary Clinton?
Kosovo is now basket case that we are paying for but it is small. Now we have also backed NeoCon
regime change in Ukraine which we are going to be paying for. Libya will soon have enough Jihadist
training camps to be a direct threat.
What we see is a Strategy of Chaos from the US NeoCons but what we have failed to notice is
that the NeoCons see us as the target, as the enemy.
Totally agree that there is no such thing as Imperialism Lite, just as there is no such thing
as Wahabi Lite or Zionism Lite. So I wonder why Hilary Benn thinks Britain has anything to feel
proud about our foreign policy. It seems to me Britain's Foreign Policy is a combination of incompetence,
jingoism and pure evil.
What is the point of employing the brightest brains in the land at the Foreign Office when we
get it wrong almost all the time ?
"Western warmongering over the past two decades has had nothing to do with the existential defence
of territory. "Defence" has become attack, keeping alive the military-industrial lobbies and lumbering
military establishments that depend on it."
Attacking Al qaeda in Afghanistan had nothing to do with defending territory?
Libyan 'rebels' were armed and trained by 'the West' in a first place. The plan was the same for
Syria but Russians stopped it with not allowing 'no fly zone' or to call it properly 'bomb them
into the stone age'.
You probably don't know how 'bloody' Gaddafi was to the Libyans.
* GDP per capita - $ 14,192.
* For each family member the state pays $ 1000 grants per year.
* Unemployment - $ 730.
* Salary Nurse - $ 1000.
* For every newborn is paid $ 7000.
* The bride and groom given away $ 64,000 to buy an apartment.
* At the opening of a one-time personal business financial assistance - $ 20,000.
* Large taxes and extortions are prohibited.
* Education and medicine are free.
* Education and training abroad - at the expense of the state.
* Store chain for large families with symbolic prices of basic foodstuffs.
* For the sale of products past their expiry date - large fines and detention.
* Part of pharmacies - with free dispensing.
* For counterfeiting - the death penalty.
* Rents - no.
* No Fees for electricity for households!
* Loans to buy a car and an apartment - interest free.
* Real estate services are prohibited.
* Buying a car up to 50% paid by the state, for militia fighters - 65%.
* Gasoline is cheaper than water. 1 liter - 0,14 $.
* If a Libyan is unable to get employment after graduation the state would pay the average salary
of the profession as if he or she is employed until employment is found.
* Gaddafi carried out the world's largest irrigation project, known as the Great Man-Made River
project, to make water readily available throughout the desert country
The Gadaffi regime had upset the USA because Gadaffi was setting up an oil currency system based
on gold rather than US dollars. While this was not the sole reason the West turned against him
it was an important factor. The largest factor for the wars so far, and the planned war against
Iran was to cut out the growing Russian domination of the oil supply to Europe, China and India.
A decent article as we could expect from the author.
However personally I doubt there was no ulterior motive in the case of Lybia. Lybia was one
of the countries who tried the change the status quo on the oil market and it has huge reserves
too (as we know Europe is running out of oil, at least Great Britain is).
It is very likely that the European countries retreated because Libya started to look like
another Iraq.
When you are talking about "democratic forces of the revolution.." i imagine you being an enthusiastic
teenager girl who hardly knows anything about the world but goes somewhere far for a gap year
as a volunteer to make locals aware of something that will help them forever. It is instead of
demanding responsible policies and accountability from her own government.
Sorry!!!
What planet have you been living on. What do you read apart from lifestyle magazines full of shots
of celebrity boobs and bums.
The United states is the most interventionist country in history. Of its 237 years of existence
it has been at war or cold war for 222 of those years. NATO is behind ISIS and the wars in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Chechen, Afghanistan, Libya and Ukraine.
If the West stopped intervening there would be very few wars and if the West used its influence
for peace rather than control there would rarely be any was at all.
Well put. People forget the importance of oil in maintaining the standard of living in our western
democracies. Controlling it's supply trumps all other issues.
Jane they didn't "come apart" and Libya and Syria were the most stable and least under the thumb
of radicals. Syria had equality and education for women who could wear whatever they wanted.
Furthermore they did not fall apart they were attacked by the largest military forces in the world
excluding Russia. NATO sent in special operations forces to destabilise the government. They along
with Al Nusra and other violent Wahabi terrorists attacked police and army barracks, and when
Assads police and military hit back it was presented by the Western media and propagandists as
an attack on the people of Syria. Do you think any other country would allow terrorists to attack
police and other public institutions without retaliating and restoring order.
Many people who do not accept the Western medias false reporting at face value know that the wars
in Syria were about changing the leaders and redrawing national boundaries to isolate Iran and
sideline Russian influence. It was and is an illegal war and it was the barbarity of our Western
leaders that caused the terrible violence. It was a pre planned plan and strategy outlined in
the US Special Forces document below.
http://nsnbc.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/special-forces-uw-tc-18-01.pdf
If you get your facts right it ruins your argument doesn't it.
In the Libyan case, it was a clear US strategy to put in the forefront their English and French
valets, in a coup (euphemistically called "regime change") wanted by them.
The nobel peace winner got some nerves to put the blame on his accomplices for the chaos in Libya, while
the permanent objective of the US is to divide and conquer, sowing chaos wherever it occurs: Afghanistan,
Sudan, Iraq, Syria. Also Hillary is no stranger to the actions in Libya.
These Middle East countries should have been left alone by the West. Due to their nature, these
countries have strong divisions and battle for their beliefs and a strong man, a dictator is what
prevented them to fall into the chaos they are today. Without the Western meddling, arming and
financing various rebel groups, Isis would not exist today.
Neither is putting political opponents in acid baths and burning tyres, as Tony Blair's friends
in the central Asian Republics have been doing, neither is beheading gays, raped women and civil
rights protesters, as Cameron's Saudi friends have been enjoying, the latter whilst we sell them
shit loads of munitions to obliterate Yemeni villagers. I wonder how the Egyptian president is
getting on with all that tear gas and bullets we sold him? And are the Bahrani's, fresh from killing
their own people for daring to ask for civil rights, enjoying the cash we gave them for that new
Royal Navy base? Our foreign policy is complacent and inconsistent, we talk about morality but
the bottom line is that that doesn't come into it when BAE systems and G4S have contracts to win.
Don't get me wrong, Britain has played a positive role internationally in many different areas,
but there is always a neo-liberal arsehole waiting to pop up and ruin the lives of millions, a
turd with a school tie that just wont be flushed away.
Simon Jenkins, don't pretend you were against American punitive expeditions around the world to
overthrow third world dictators.
You worked from the same neo-con ideological script to defend the ultra-liberal, military industrial
economy; scare mongering in the pages of the Guardian, as far back as I can remember. You lot are as totally discredited as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfield and American
Nato toadies.
It is high time that Europe reviewed and evaluated its relationship with the United States, with
NATO, Russia and China. The world needs to be a peaceable place and there needs to be more legislation
imposed upon the Financial Markets to stop them being a place where economic destabilisation and
warfare can and do take place. The United States would not contemplate these reviews taking place
as they are integral to their continuing position in the world but also integral to the problems
we are all experiencing? It will take a brave Europe to do this but it is a step that has to be
taken if the world is to move forward! Britain should be a huge part of this, outside a weakend
EU this would benefit the United States from Britains lack of input, another reason we should
vote to stay and be positive to our European position. The most vulnerable herring is the one
that breaks out of the shoal?
Libya , Ukraine ,Syria have had the same recipe of de-stabilisation by the US and NATO. The so
called popular rebels were in fact CIA trained and financed. Jihadist in Libya and Syria and neo-Nazis
in Ukraine.
After completing regime change in Libya as planned ,the Jihadist, with their looted arms were transferred
to Syria and renamed ISIS.
ISIS is Washingtons Foreign Legion army, used as required for their Imperial ends.
Renamed as required on whichever territory they operate
Cameron has been given a free pass on Libya. It really is quite astonishing. The man has turned a functioning society into a jihadi infested failed state which is exporting
men and weapons across North Africa and down the Sahara and now serves as a new front line for
ISIS
Cameron's Libya policy from start to finish is a foreign policy catastrophe and in a just world
would have seen him thrown out of office on his ear
Attacking Libya and deposing Gaddafi was down to enforcing the R2P doctrine on the pretext of
"stopping another Rwanda". But it was a pretext. Islamist rebels attacked the armouries within
Libya and the Libyans had every right to try and put down the rebellion. Samantha Powers et al
were the war mongers.
Then there is this gem: "Egypt's President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has called for a United Nations
resolution allowing international forces to intervene in Libya.
There was no other choice, he told French radio. "We will not allow them to cut off the heads
of our children."
"We abandoned the Libyan people as prisoners to extremist militias," Mr Sisi told Europe 1
radio. He was referring to the aftermath of the 2011 war in which Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi
was toppled with the help of an international coalition.
That intervention was "an unfinished mission", he said."
The US, France and the UK own this ongoing mess but do not have the moral fortitude to clean
it up. As with the "Arab Spring", this will not end well.
The 2011 regime change shenanigans of the west against Libya is colonialism at its worst from
all the parties who instigated it. The aftermath, the resultant mayhem and chaos, was in itself
adding insult to injury. Gaddafi was no saint, but the militias, Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS now
running rampant in the country are infinitely worse. This is a war crime of the first magnitude
and no effort should be spared to address it
The west who propped up the Saudis, who's crazy wahhabi brand of Islam helped radicalise the Islamic
world with 100 billion dollars spent on promoting it.
The west who created israel and then has done nothing to stop israels ever growing land theft
and occupation over decades (not even a single sanction)...leading the Muslim world to hate us
more for our hypocrisy and double standards.
The west who has assassinated or organised coups against democratically elected secular leaders
who didn't give us their natural resources (eg iran) and installed brutal, clepto dictatorships
who also take part in plundering the resources leaving the general population poor, uneducated
and susceptible to indoctrination from Islamists.
The west who arms brutal dictators to wage proxy wars and then invades and bombs these same
dictators countries over claims they have WMDs (that we sold to them).
The west has been intervening in the middle east alot longer than post 9/11. We are very very
culpable for the disasters engulfing the region.
Libya was "not so at the core of US interests that it makes sense for us to unilaterally strike
against the Gaddafi regime"
Let's examine what Obama is saying here: when it is perceived to be at the core of US
interests, the USA reserves the right to attack any country, at any time.
The world inhabits a moral vacuum, and in that state, any country can justifiably choose to
do anything, against anyone, for any reason. And this guy got the Nobel Peace Prize.
In this despicable saga, Cameron's Libyan venture was a sideshow, though one that has destabilised
north Africa and may yet turn it into another Islamic State caliphate.
You forgot to mention Cameron was only following Sarkozy .
Don't forget the French role .
25 February 2011: Sarkozy said Gaddafi "must go."
28 February 2011: British Prime Minister David Cameron proposed the idea of a no-fly zone
11 March 2011: Cameron joined forces with Sarkozy after Sarkozy demanded immediate action
from international community for a no-fly zone against air attacks by Gaddafi.
14 March 2011: In Paris at the Élysée Palace, before the summit with the G8 Minister for
Foreign Affairs, Sarkozy, who is also the president of the G8, along with French Foreign Minister
Alain Juppé met with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and pressed her to push for intervention
in Libya
.
19 March 2011: French[72] forces began the military intervention in Libya, later joined
by coalition forces
Well said in the headline. Imperialism-lite/heavy, colonialism, and neo-colonialism don't work,
should be a thing of the past. Intervening in the politics of another country is a mug's game.
Don't understand why Obama is blaming Cameron for it, perhaps playing to his domestic gallery.
Blair's love fest with the deluded Gaddafi family, followed by the volte-face of pushing for his
violent overthrow by the next government, were both severely misguided policies. Need to diplomatically
encourage change, in foreign policy, and the desired type of political movements to take hold.
Military interventions have the opposite effect, so does propping up dictators, religiously fanatical
regimes, proven time and time again.
So the choices are to do nothing, or invade and create a colony?
Pretty much. As Jenkins rightly says, if you want to launch an aggressive war you either do
it or you don't. If you do it then it is your responsibility to clear up the mess, however many
of your own lives are lost and however much it costs. Trashing a country and then buggering off
is not an option.
Of course, using force for defensive reasons is fine. That's why modern warmongering politicians
always call it "defence" when they drop bombs on innocent people in faraway countries. It is no
such thing.
There was no massacre, not even a hint of one. Total obfuscation to give Hillary Clinton a foreign
policy "success" so that she could use it as a springboard to the presidency. "Hillary Clinton
was so proud of her major role in instigating the war against Libya that she and her advisors
initially planned to use it as basis of a "Clinton doctrine", meaning a "smart power" regime change
strategy, as a presidential campaign slogan.
War creates chaos, and Hillary Clinton has been an eager advocate of every U.S. aggressive
war in the last quarter of a century. These wars have devastated whole countries and caused an
unmanageable refugee crisis. Chaos is all there is to show for Hillary's vaunted "foreign policy
experience".
"... It's on the front page of the Washington Post website today. I happened almost 4 months ago FFS. The Guardian is getting worse and worse. An entire group of comments were just vanished for having some fun speculating about Russian and American agencies and pimps in DC. This paper is getting untrustworthy and PC beyond belief. I suppose some executive decision has been made that the only way to survive is to cater exclusively to their political base. Might as well be Fox News. Just sell it to Murdock. ..."
Some bloggers suggest Mikhail Lesin could be in US witness protection and faked his own
death while others say it could have happened as a result of a fight
RT is the only serious media outlet. BBC, ABC, CNN all report government press releases with
no investigative journalism involved.
RT's coverage of the masscare of a few hundred Kurdish
civilians by Turkey last month is something you would never see reported by Western media,
despite it being a war crime.
Much prefer RT to the to dreary BBC with it's tired predictable spin, not to mention Jimmy
Saville related excesses. RT covers stories and angles you can't find in western mainstream
corporate media.
Russian (small time) oligarch gets beaten to death in nice DC hotel near embassy.
Suspects: Some bigger oligarchs, secretive but clumsy operatives from USA, Russia, Opec, simple
robbery or angry whore he tried to cheat. Neither the US nor Russia wants to actually know the
truth which could be embarrassing, so schtum. Forgeddaboudit.
22 - Dr. Stanley Heard - Chairman of the National Chiropractic Health Care Advisory Committee,
died with his attorney Steve Dickson in a small plane crash. Again, tampering with the plane.
Dr. Heard, in addition to serving on Clinton's advisory council personally treated Clinton's
mother, stepfather and brother.
23 - Barry Seal - Drug running pilot out of Mena Arkansas, death was no accident.
24 - Johnny Lawhorn Jr. - Mechanic, found a check made out to Bill Clinton in the trunk of a
car left at his repair shop. He was found dead after his car had hit a utility pole.
Apparently he was dead before the car hit the pole.
25 - Stanley Huggins - Investigated Madison Guarantee. His death was a purported suicide and
his report was never released.
26 - Hershell Friday - Attorney and Clinton fund raiser died March 1, 1994 when his plane
exploded. This happen two days after an argument with Clinton.
27 - Kevin Ives and Don Henry - Known as "The boys on the track" case. Reports say the boys
may have stumbled upon the Mena Arkansas airport drug operation. A controversial case, the
initial report of death said, due to falling asleep on railroad tracks. Later reports claim
the two boys had been slain before being placed on the tracks. Many linked to the case died
before their testimony could come before a Grand Jury.
THE FOLLOWING PERSONS HAD INFORMATION
ON THE IVES/HENRY CASE:
28 - Keith Coney - Died when his motorcycle apparently slammed into the back of a truck, July
1988. No one saw the accident and the bike was not damaged.
29 - Keith McMaskle - Died stabbed 113 times, Nov, 1988
30 - Gregory Collins - Died from a gunshot wound January 1989.
31 - Jeff Rhodes - He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump in April 1989.
33 - James Milan - Found decapitated. However, the Coroner ruled his death was due to "natural
causes."
34 - Jordan Kettleson - Was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup truck in June
1990.
35 - Richard Winters - A suspect in the Ives / Henry deaths. He was killed in a set-up robbery
July 1989.
THE FOLLOWING CLINTON BODYGUARDS ARE DEAD:
36 - Major William S. Barkley Jr.
37 - Captain Scott J. Reynolds
38 - Sgt. Brian Hanley
39 - Sgt. Tim Sabel
40 - Major General William Robertson
41 - Col. William Densberger
42 - Col. Robert Kelly
43 - Spec. Gary Rhodes
44 - Steve Willis
45 - Robert Williams
46 - Conway LeBleu
47 - Todd McKeehan
All had said to friends that they had seen too much.
Because everyone knows that American practice is to brutally kill its former favourites with a
blunt instrument to the back of the head. God knows Putin couldn't be associated with
"justice" of this kind.
That's nothing compared to the Clinton associates, do you care to explain?
1 - James McDougal
- Clinton's convicted Whitewater partner died of an apparent heart attack, while in solitary
confinement. He was a key witness in Ken Starr's investigation.
2 - Mary Mahoney - A former White House intern was murdered July 1997 at a Starbucks Coffee
Shop in Georgetown. The murder happened just after she was to go public with her story of
sexual harassment in the White House.
3 - Vince Foster - Former white House councilor, and colleague of Hillary Clinton at Little
Rock's Rose Law firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, ruled a suicide.
4 - Ron Brown - Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman who had a serious disagreement
with Clinton. Reported to have died by impact in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the
investigation reported that there was a hole in the top of Brown's skull resembling a gunshot
wound. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated, and spoke publicly of his
willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors.
5 - C. Victor Raiser II and Montgomery Raiser, Major players in the Clinton fund raising
organization died in a private plane crash in July 1992.
6 - Paul Tulley - Democratic National Committee Political Director found dead in a hotel room
in Little Rock, September 1992...after a serious disagreement with Clinton. Described by
Clinton as a "Dear friend and trusted advisor." 7- Ed Willey - Clinton fund raiser, found dead
November 1993 deep in the woods in VA of a gunshot wound to the head. Ruled a suicide. Ed
Willey died on the same day after his wife Kathleen Willey claimed Bill Clinton groped her in
the oval office in the White House. Ed Willey was involved in several Clinton fund raising
events.
8 - Jerry Parks - Head of Clinton's gubernatorial security team in Little Rock. Gunned down in
his car at a deserted intersection outside Little Rock. Park's son said his father was
building a dossier on Clinton. He allegedly threatened to reveal this information. After he
died the files were mysteriously removed from his house.
9 - James Bunch - Died from a gunshot suicide. It was reported that he had a "Black Book" of
people which contained names of influential people who visited prostitutes in Texas and
Arkansas. Although the book was seen by several persons, it disappeared.
10 - James Wilson - Was found dead in May 1993 from an apparent hanging suicide. He had ties
to Whitewater.
11- Kathy Ferguson, ex-wife of Arkansas Trooper Danny Ferguson, was found dead in May 1994, in
her living room with a gunshot to her head. It was ruled a suicide even though there were
several packed suitcases, as if she were going somewhere. Danny Ferguson was a co-defendant
along with Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Kathy Ferguson was a corroborating witness
for Paula Jones.
12 - Bill Shelton - Arkansas State Trooper and fiancÈe of Kathy Ferguson. Critical of the
suicide ruling of his fiancÈe, he was found dead in June, 1994 of a gunshot wound also ruled a
suicide at the grave site of his fiancee. There were no powder burns.
13 - Gandy Baugh - Attorney for Clinton's friend Dan Lassater, died by jumping out a window of
a tall building January, 1994. His client was a convicted drug distributor.
14 - Florence Martin - Accountant & sub-contractor for the CIA, was related to the Barry Seal
Mena Airport drug smuggling case. He died of three gunshot wounds.
15 - Suzanne Coleman - Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was Arkansas Attorney
General. Died of a gunshot wound to the back of the head, ruled a suicide. Was pregnant at the
time of her death.
16 - Paula Grober - Clinton's speech interpreter for the deaf from 1978 until her death
December 9, 1992. She died in a one car accident. She told a friend that Clinton made
advances.
17 - Danny Casolaro - Investigative reporter. Investigating Mena Airport and Arkansas
Development Finance Authority. He slit his wrists, apparently, in the middle of his
investigation. Before his death, he claimed to have found a shattering story involving
Clinton.
18 - Paul Wilcher - Attorney investigating corruption at Mena Airport with Casolaro and the
1980 "October Surprise" was found dead on a toilet June 22, 1993 in his Washington DC
apartment. Had delivered a shocking report to Janet Reno three weeks before his death.
19 - Jon Parnell Walker - Whitewater investigator for Resolution Trust Corp. Jumped to his
death from his Arlington, Virginia apartment balcony August 15, 1993. He was investigating the
Morgan Guarantee scandal.
20 - Barbara Wise - Commerce Department staffer. Worked closely with Ron Brown and John Huang.
Cause of death unknown. Died November 29, 1996. Her bruised, nude body was found locked in her
office at the Department of Commerce.
21- Charles Meissner - Assistant Secretary of Commerce who gave John Huang special security
clearance, died shortly thereafter in a small plane crash. The plane had been tampered with.
On Friday, Russian officials said they had been asking the Americans for information
about the investigation with no results.
This is very strange indeed, why arent they sharing info with the Russians? Can anyone
imagine the uproar, if a former high ranking american official died like this in Moscow? Im
sure they would already be talking about adding more sanctions to say the least..
So... Lesin died in Sept 2015.. and since then it has escaped the U.S. coroner that the
deceased had blunt force trauma to the head, neck, torso and limbs.. His family were told that
he'd had a heart attack... I've attended a few post mortems myself, and I can say quite safely
that blunt force trauma and heart attacks cannot be confused with one another...
There is
something rotten in the state of Denmark..
and by Denmark I mean DC.
It's on the front page of the Washington Post website today. I happened almost 4 months ago
FFS. The Guardian is getting worse and worse. An entire group of comments were just vanished
for having some fun speculating about Russian and American agencies and pimps in DC. This
paper is getting untrustworthy and PC beyond belief. I suppose some executive decision has
been made that the only way to survive is to cater exclusively to their political base. Might
as well be Fox News. Just sell it to Murdock.
The Russian embassy in Washington confirmed Mikhail Lesin's Last November and State-owned RIA
Novosti reported that he died of a heart attack, citing a spokesman for his family. Russian
officials must have known that he died under suspicious circumstances. This was in DC near all
the embassies not out in the sticks.
Last year the Mississippi senator Roger Wicker called for an investigation into Lesin's wealth
on suspicion of money laundering and corruption. He allegedly amassed millions of dollars in
assets in Europe and the US, including $28m in Los Angeles real estate.
What amazes me most about the thread below is not so much the insane conspiracies stupid
americans and their equally facile englander 'cousins' have posted, it is that absolutely none
of them are provided with a scintilla of evidence implicating the Russian prez in any of it.
Yet the drongos & dipshits continue to spout their total bullshit in the belief that if enough
of these propagandists and their willing jackasses paper the media with fantasy, that fools
will lap it up.
It is looking increasingly like that isn't the case.
Ever since Russia has sorted Syria inside 6 months after 'western' corruption/incompetence
failed to do so after 4 years and many billions of dollars were used up, ordinary humans about
the world and increasingly in 'the west' are realising they have been fed a total crock by
worthless outlets such as this one for far too long.
As for the actual case it appears that
Mr Lesin isn't only a victim of US' violent society he is also a victim of the incompetence of
the US 'justice' system. Once again people are beginning to wake up to the serial incompetence
& corruption of the multi-headed hydra that is US 'law enforcement' thanks to organisations
such as Black Lives Matter & documentaries like "Making a Murderer".
Anyone who hasn't watched that program should- afterwards you will wonder how it is the US
finds the gall to criticise Russian law enforcement when even small town US police and
prosecution entities are riven with bias, perjury, torture and evidence planting.
Not only is US law enforcement totally corrupt, the justice system has been perverted into a
Kafkaesque machine to conceal that corruption and actively prevent injustice from being
corrected.
Sort out your own shit america - once you have done that, then maybe you will earn the right
to push your self righteous exceptionalism onto the rest of us.
Of course if you did sort yourself out, then you wouldn't need to be pointing to other nations
and telling them what to do - you would be secure in the knowledge that you were doing OK.
But that won't happen - what will happen is that US functionaries will get louder and more
hysterical in their critiques of everyone else, meanwhile ordinary decent humans about the
planet will recognise the howls for what they are - the death throes of an empire in terminal
decline.
because he deserved it and back then they kept quite about it until Ukraine and Syria crisis
appeared. The guardian, BBC, the boys in Riga who write here are all part of anti-Russian
propaganda machine. believe or not but it is a fact. Ffs, they even use Sharapova to attack
Russia. the west is so desperate.
This is a common story and a common end to people who fall out with Putin.
And those
hapless souls who earn the mainstream oligarch American disapprobation. Where to Start:
Mossadegh in Iran
Arbenz in Guatelema
Allende in Chile
Lamumba in the Congo
Multiple attempts on Castro
Noriega in Panama
Saddam in Iraq (a public lynching)
Gaddafi in Libya what was it Hilary said, 'we came, we saw, he died,'
All felt the wrath of American justice usually dished out by CIA-trained and funded
proxies.
Then of course were those deaths of leading Americans, the Kennedy bros, and the
assassination of dissidents Martin Luther King and Malcolm X. All very murky. And you have the
temerity to call Russia a mafia state.
the golden rule: kill first and then blame Russians, since there are plenty of idiots in the
western world to believe anything their pig-fucking leaders say.
What kind of medical examiner takes four months to decide whether a man had a heart attack or
was beaten to death?
Or, if they had this information months ago, why is it only now being
released?
With Russia/Assad/Iran completing a very embarrassing destruction of NATO plans for Syria,
as well as establishing just how false the Western media's narrative had become, you can
expect a lot more anti-Putin, anti-Russia gossip and nonsense. Snide, bitter insinuation and
propaganda is all they have left.
the guy died in Washington ffs, and fucking 4 months ago. wasn't it obvious to police he was
killed by beating? is it the Russian coroners and police in charge of his death? no! it is the
job of either CIA or Mossad as he was Jewish.
This story is much delayed, and is apparently being intentionally "back burnered" by our major
U.S. media orgs. The story should be kept on the first page, regardless of what the U.S.
government has asked the media to do and not do. It is potentially instructive to we U.S.
citizens, likely more as to our own government activities than those of Russia.
$28m is peanuts to Erdogan. He's no Putin, but he's more than likely got hundreds of millions
stashed away, if not more.
Estimates of Blair's wealth range from £20m to £60m. Who knows
with that slippery bastard. Osborne's supposedly worth £5m, but I suspect the real figure is
much higher.
What seems to be most apparent in the majority of modern neo-liberal politicians is their
evident desire to use public office as merely a stepping stone to vast wealth.
Western powers will view the reaction to this story as a very encouraging sign that the
propaganda is most definitely working.
- Major Russian figure murdered.
- Happens in the US, home of the CIA
- US coroner rules the what looks like a clearly violent death as inconclusive
- Everyone thinks Putin is responsible
- Slow handclap
"... On July 25, these superdelegates will cast votes at the Democratic National Convention for whomever they want, regardless of primary and caucus outcomes. Democrats like to describe superdelegates as mostly elected officials and prominent party members, including President Obama and former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. ..."
"... But this group, which consists of 21 governors, 40 senators and 193 representatives, only makes up about a third of the superdelegates. Many of the remaining 463 convention delegates are establishment insiders who get their status after years of donations and service to the party. Dozens of the 437 delegates in the DNC member category are registered federal and state lobbyists, according to an ABC News analysis. ..."
"... In fact, when you remove elected officials from the superdelegate pool, at least one in seven of the rest are former or current lobbyists registered on the federal and state level, according to lobbying disclosure records. ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... Americans of both parties fundamentally reject the regime of untrammeled money in elections made possible by the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling and other court decisions and now favor a sweeping overhaul of how political campaigns are financed, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll. ..."
"... The findings reveal deep support among Republicans and Democrats alike for new measures to restrict the influence of wealthy givers, including limiting the amount of money that can be spent by "super PACs" and forcing more public disclosure on organizations now permitted to intervene in elections without disclosing the names of their donors. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton holds a substantial edge among a particular and little-noticed kind of delegate to the Democratic National Convention: Superdelegates. ..."
"... On July 25, these superdelegates will cast votes at the Democratic National Convention for whomever they want, regardless of primary and caucus outcomes. Democrats like to describe superdelegates as mostly elected officials and prominent party members, including President Obama and former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter . ..."
"... But this group, which consists of 21 governors, 40 senators and 193 representatives, only makes up about a third of the superdelegates. Many of the remaining 463 convention delegates are establishment insiders who get their status after years of donations and service to the party. Dozens of the 437 delegates in the DNC member category are registered federal and state lobbyists, according to an ABC News analysis. ..."
"... In fact, when you remove elected officials from the superdelegate pool, at least one in seven of the rest are former or current lobbyists registered on the federal and state level, according to lobbying disclosure records. ..."
"... That's at least 67 lobbyists who will attend the convention as superdelegates. A majority of them have already committed to supporting Hillary Clinton for the nomination. ..."
"... Superdelegates are unique to the Democratic nominating process. Of the 4,763 delegates who will attend the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, 717 will be superdelegates - almost a third of the total required to win the nomination. ..."
On July 25, these superdelegates will cast votes at the Democratic National Convention
for whomever they want, regardless of primary and caucus outcomes. Democrats like to describe
superdelegates as mostly elected officials and prominent party members, including President Obama
and former Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter.
But this group, which consists of 21 governors, 40 senators and 193 representatives, only
makes up about a third of the superdelegates. Many of the remaining 463 convention delegates are
establishment insiders who get their status after years of donations and service to the party.
Dozens of the 437 delegates in the DNC member category are registered federal and state lobbyists,
according to an ABC News analysis.
In fact, when you remove elected officials from the superdelegate pool, at least one in
seven of the rest are former or current lobbyists registered on the federal and state level, according
to lobbying disclosure records.
When it comes to presidential primaries, there isn't a whole lot of "democracy" in the Democratic
Party.
Last year, The
New York Times
published
an article examining the American attitude toward the question
of money in politics. This is what it found:
Americans of both parties fundamentally reject the regime of untrammeled money in elections
made possible by the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling and other court decisions and now favor
a sweeping overhaul of how political campaigns are financed, according to a New York Times/CBS News
poll.
The findings reveal deep support among Republicans and Democrats alike for new measures to
restrict the influence of wealthy givers, including limiting the amount of money that can be spent
by "super PACs" and forcing more public disclosure on organizations now permitted to intervene in
elections without disclosing the names of their donors.
You might think the supposedly "liberal" Democratic Party would take this sort of thing to heart,
but you'd be wrong. Not only is the super delegate system intentionally undemocratic, but a remarkable
9% of superdelegates are actually lobbyists.
Hillary
Clinton
holds a substantial edge among a particular and little-noticed kind of delegate to the
Democratic National Convention: Superdelegates.
On July 25, these
superdelegates
will cast votes at the Democratic National Convention for whomever they want, regardless of primary
and caucus outcomes. Democrats like to describe superdelegates as mostly elected officials and prominent
party members, including President Obama and former Presidents
Bill Clinton
and
Jimmy
Carter
.
But this group, which consists of 21 governors, 40 senators and 193 representatives, only
makes up about a third of the superdelegates. Many of the remaining 463 convention delegates are
establishment insiders who get their status after years of donations and service to the party. Dozens
of the 437 delegates in the DNC member category are registered federal and state lobbyists, according
to an ABC News analysis.
In fact, when you remove elected officials from the superdelegate pool, at least one in seven
of the rest are former or current lobbyists registered on the federal and state level, according
to lobbying disclosure records.
That's at least 67 lobbyists who will attend the convention as superdelegates. A majority
of them have already committed to supporting Hillary Clinton for the nomination.
Of course they have.
Superdelegates are unique to the Democratic nominating process. Of the 4,763 delegates who
will attend the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, 717 will be superdelegates - almost
a third of the total required to win the nomination.
Meanwhile, former presidential candidate and current Democratic Party superdelegate, Howard Dean,
shared his personal thoughts on democracy via Twitter the other day.
"... Brennan apologized to Senate leaders in July 2014 after CIA agents hacked Senate computers during a congressional investigation of the CIA's use of torture, but neither the torturers nor the hackers would face any consequences for their actions. ..."
"... He also criticized Obama's drone program, noting that "[t]he Fifth Amendment prohibits any president or anyone else from killing anyone without due process," and dismissed the administration's legal justifications for the killings as a "lawyerly diversion from the truth." ..."
McGovern says he believes the president can't hold either agency accountable for their
violations of the law and human rights because of the power they hold over him.
MUNICH - A former CIA analyst believes the CIA and
National Security Agency have become so powerful that the president is afraid to act against them
when they break the law.
Ray McGovern retired from the CIA in 1990, following nearly 30
years of service to the agency. He was awarded the Intelligence Commendation Medal, which is
given to agents who offer "especially commendable service" to the agency.
Outraged over the CIA's open use of torture,
he returned the medal in 2006
and became an antiwar activist. He was
arrested in 2011 for a
silent protest against a speech by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
In
an interview published
Monday by acTVism Munich, an independent media outlet, McGovern warned that U.S. intelligence
agencies are too powerful to be held accountable, even by President Barack Obama. He explained:
"I will simply say that he is
afraid of them. Now I would have never thought that I would hear myself saying that the president
of the United States is afraid of the CIA But he is. He's afraid of the NSA as well. How else to
explain that the National Intelligence director, who lied under oath to his senate overseers on
the 12th of March 2013, is still the director of National Intelligence?"
Statements made under oath to Congress in 2013 by James
Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, in which he denied mass surveillance of
Americans, were later revealed to be false by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. In 2014, some
members of Congress, including California Rep. Darrell Issa ,
moved to have Clapper dismissed from his post, but their efforts were ultimately defeated.
McGovern continued: "How else to explain that the head of CIA,
John Brennan, who deliberately hacked the computers of the senate's intelligence community,
that's supposed to be overseeing him, he's still in office?"
In the interview, McGovern lamented the fact that political
leaders, including President George W. Bush and Obama, have given their approval to
unconstitutional behavior by government officials:
"Our bill of rights has been
shredded. The Fourth Amendment specifically prohibits the kind of activities the NSA is involved
in domestically."
He also criticized Obama's drone program, noting that
"[t]he Fifth Amendment prohibits any president or anyone else from killing anyone without due
process," and dismissed the administration's legal justifications for the killings as a "lawyerly
diversion from the truth."
"Not even George Bush claimed the right to kill American
citizens without due process," McGovern said.
Activism is one way to drive positive change and resist the
erosion of Americans' civil liberties, he said.
"You do what you know is good, because it's good, and then you
have a certain peace of mind, saying, you've been an activist in a constructive way," he
concluded.
"... Obama is just another establishment drone like Bush and Clinton. If you already hate Wall Street then all these people are covered. Obama is a corporate lawyer who worked for Wall Street. Nothing new here to see. ..."
"... Obama: pre-emptive strikes on Afghanistan, Libya, Syria--all of which have resulted in disasters like the growth of ISIS. Obama: Meets weekly to decide where the drones will kill people, without charge or trial (and without revealing who the targets are and what the success/failure was--and how much "collateral damage" there was in human lives.) Certainly the most lawless president we've had--and the most bloodthirsty. ..."
"... "The most lawless president . . . and the most bloodthirsty?" One need not support Obama to know that he's not even close the most bloodthirsty, or lawless. I strongly recommend you study Nixon, LBJ, and Reagan. Then drop back to Eisenhower and Guatemala to wrap up the bloody evening. ..."
"... I was counting all blood, not simply American blood, which is what I thought the original post was doing. I would also count proxies, such as the Contra, because American aid was essential to them. I would not count the aid Reagan covertly provided Iraq, because that war would have been long and horrid in any event. ..."
"... The lawlessness question is more complex. Nixon and Reagan set up clandestine organizations that did not appear in any budget line, both of which performed illegal actions. (Nixon's was more serious because the Plumbers' actions related to domestic opponents.) ..."
"... So are Yemen, Syria, Honduras and Ukraine ... all put in play during Obama's reign. But much of the credit goes to Hillary and the other war harpies in the Administration. Obama has tried to pull back from the brink. ..."
"... Obama did nothing to de-escalate the conflict in the Ukraine. The "somewhat" means you don't have any clue at all. It has to to more with Putin not wanting to conquer the entire Ukraine. The Ukrainians could have been initially defeated, but holding them down would be impossible. ..."
"... And the fact is the Foreign Policy Establishment is utterly mad; they're furious at Obama for not implementing their crazy militaristic schemes. Which is more or less the same story that Goldberg reports here in the Atlantic. ..."
"... According to the State Department's neoCon Czarina for European Affairs, the US pumped $5 Billion into underwriting NGO agitation in Ukraine. Nuland herself was on the front-lines in the Maidan and picked out "our guy Yats" ... In fact, Congress has passed a motion to prevent further funds to the neo-Nazis in Kiev. ..."
"... Syria was invaded by a jihadi army largely armed by the US (part of the Benghazi affair involved the US Ambassador shipping weapons seized from Qaddafi to the Syrian jihadis via Turkey) and funded by US allies in the Gulf monarchies and Turkey. ..."
"... Russia - not "Putin" - is fighting to defend Syrians - not "Assad" - from terrorist aggressors. ..."
"... Currently, about 4,000 fighters of the 25,000 estimated (by the US) in Latakia province have laid down their weapons. Most of these have been re-deployed back into their original territories alongside Syrian Arab Army support units. ..."
"... That comes out to about 80% of the fighters in Syria are Al Qaida or ISIS-affiliated, and the *VAST* majority of these fighters are foreign mercenaries. ..."
"... Acknowledgement of Obama's feckless, misguided foreign policy is not an endorsement of Bush's adventurism. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power are engaging in pure speculation that starting this CIA program a few months earlier would have had a different outcome. Why so? This is nothing more than wishful thinking. ..."
"... Our real mistake was in not supporting the 2012 Geneva peace plan which called for post-civil war elections that would include Assad. We maintained an absolutist demand for 'Assad must go' so of course he and the people who depend on him, 50% to 60% of the population would soldier on. ..."
"... American foreign policy has been a disaster since Kissinger. Neocons convinced many on the right it was a solid ideology. Many of you cheered when Reagan armed Al Qaeda, transferred weapons to Iran, terrorized Central/South America by arming death squads and displacing indigenous people to make way for large multinationals. And, to add insult to injury, you all cheered for Bush initiated torture on our soil (torture has been a tool for decades at black sites), created Guantanamo, started illegal wars, helped to foment a global economic system that is the equivalent of carpet bombing, especially as it relates to weaker or poorer countries; the list goes on. ..."
"... You're not wrong about Obama. He has embraced the same insanity, although, not to the same extent. Neoconservatism needs to die but gullible fools in both parties seem to embrace the insanity when their guy is in charge. ..."
"... Hillary supports the same ideology as Bush but you guys will pretend to hate her and Dems will now say her plans are great. It's Americans who allow this insanity to continue. ..."
"... Afghans and Saudis including Bin Laden were first trained by the US, and then the UK. Read the link I attached, Carter started this mass bloodshed and he isn't the least repentant. Yeah, that sweet old peanut farmer is almost as bad as Hitler. Shucks. ..."
"... Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west. ..."
Obama said that to achieve this rebalancing, the U.S. had to absorb the diatribes and insults
of superannuated Castro manqués. "When I saw Chávez, I shook his hand and he handed me a Marxist
critique of the U.S.–Latin America relationship," Obama recalled. "And I had to sit there and listen
to Ortega"-Daniel Ortega, the radical leftist president of Nicaragua-"make an hour-long rant against
the United States. But us being there, not taking all that stuff seriously-because it really wasn't
a threat to us"-helped neutralize the region's anti-Americanism.
The president's unwillingness to counter the baiting by American adversaries can feel emotionally
unsatisfying, I said, and I told him that every so often, I'd like to see him give Vladimir Putin
the finger. It's atavistic, I said, understanding my audience.
"It is," the president responded coolly. "This is what they're looking for."
He described a relationship with Putin that doesn't quite conform to common perceptions. I had
been under the impression that Obama viewed Putin as nasty, brutish, and short. But, Obama told me,
Putin is not particularly nasty.
"The truth is, actually, Putin, in all of our meetings, is scrupulously polite, very frank. Our
meetings are very businesslike. He never keeps me waiting two hours like he does a bunch of these
other folks." Obama said that Putin believes his relationship with the U.S. is more important than
Americans tend to think. "He's constantly interested in being seen as our peer and as working with
us, because he's not completely stupid. He understands that Russia's overall position in the world
is significantly diminished. And the fact that he invades Crimea or is trying to prop up Assad doesn't
suddenly make him a player. You don't see him in any of these meetings out here helping to shape
the agenda. For that matter, there's not a G20 meeting where the Russians set the agenda around any
of the issues that are important."
Russia's invasion of Crimea in early 2014, and its decision to use force to buttress the rule
of its client Bashar al-Assad, have been cited by Obama's critics as proof that the post-red-line
world no longer fears America.
So when I talked with the president in the Oval Office in late January, I again raised this question
of deterrent credibility. "The argument is made," I said, "that Vladimir Putin watched you in Syria
and thought, He's too logical, he's too rational, he's too into retrenchment. I'm going to push
him a little bit further in Ukraine."
Obama didn't much like my line of inquiry. "Look, this theory is so easily disposed of that I'm
always puzzled by how people make the argument. I don't think anybody thought that George W. Bush
was overly rational or cautious in his use of military force. And as I recall, because apparently
nobody in this town does, Putin went into Georgia on Bush's watch, right smack dab in the middle
of us having over 100,000 troops deployed in Iraq." Obama was referring to Putin's 2008 invasion
of Georgia, a former Soviet republic, which was undertaken for many of the same reasons Putin later
invaded Ukraine-to keep an ex–Soviet republic in Russia's sphere of influence.
"Putin acted in Ukraine in response to a client state that was about to slip out of his grasp.
And he improvised in a way to hang on to his control there," he said. "He's done the exact same thing
in Syria, at enormous cost to the well-being of his own country. And the notion that somehow Russia
is in a stronger position now, in Syria or in Ukraine, than they were before they invaded Ukraine
or before he had to deploy military forces to Syria is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature
of power in foreign affairs or in the world generally. Real power means you can get what you want
without having to exert violence. Russia was much more powerful when Ukraine looked like an independent
country but was a kleptocracy that he could pull the strings on."
Obama's theory here is simple: Ukraine is a core Russian interest but not an American one, so
Russia will always be able to maintain escalatory dominance there.
"The fact is that Ukraine, which is a non-nato country, is going to be vulnerable to military
domination by Russia no matter what we do," he said.
I asked Obama whether his position on Ukraine was realistic or fatalistic.
"It's realistic," he said. "But this is an example of where we have to be very clear about what
our core interests are and what we are willing to go to war for. And at the end of the day, there's
always going to be some ambiguity." He then offered up a critique he had heard directed against him,
in order to knock it down. "I think that the best argument you can make on the side of those who
are critics of my foreign policy is that the president doesn't exploit ambiguity enough. He doesn't
maybe react in ways that might cause people to think, Wow, this guy might be a little crazy."
"The 'crazy Nixon' approach," I said: Confuse and frighten your enemies by making them think you're
capable of committing irrational acts.
"But let's examine the Nixon theory," he said. "So we dropped more ordnance on Cambodia and Laos
than on Europe in World War II, and yet, ultimately, Nixon withdrew, Kissinger went to Paris, and
all we left behind was chaos, slaughter, and authoritarian governments that finally, over time, have
emerged from that hell. When I go to visit those countries, I'm going to be trying to figure out
how we can, today, help them remove bombs that are still blowing off the legs of little kids. In
what way did that strategy promote our interests?"
But what if Putin were threatening to move against, say, Moldova-another vulnerable post-Soviet
state? Wouldn't it be helpful for Putin to believe that Obama might get angry and irrational about
that?
"There is no evidence in modern American foreign policy that that's how people respond. People
respond based on what their imperatives are, and if it's really important to somebody, and it's not
that important to us, they know that, and we know that," he said. "There are ways to deter, but it
requires you to be very clear ahead of time about what is worth going to war for and what is not.
Now, if there is somebody in this town that would claim that we would consider going to war with
Russia over Crimea and eastern Ukraine, they should speak up and be very clear about it. The idea
that talking tough or engaging in some military action that is tangential to that particular area
is somehow going to influence the decision making of Russia or China is contrary to all the evidence
we have seen over the last 50 years."
... ... ...
A weak, flailing Russia constitutes a threat as well, though not quite a top-tier threat. "Unlike
China, they have demographic problems, economic structural problems, that would require not only
vision but a generation to overcome," Obama said. "The path that Putin is taking is not going to
help them overcome those challenges. But in that environment, the temptation to project military
force to show greatness is strong, and that's what Putin's inclination is. So I don't underestimate
the dangers there." Obama returned to a point he had made repeatedly to me, one that he hopes the
country, and the next president, absorbs: "You know, the notion that diplomacy and technocrats and
bureaucrats somehow are helping to keep America safe and secure, most people think, Eh, that's
nonsense. But it's true. And by the way, it's the element of American power that the rest of
the world appreciates unambiguously. When we deploy troops, there's always a sense on the part of
other countries that, even where necessary, sovereignty is being violated."
TotoCatcher -> Whateveryousay
Obama is just another establishment drone like Bush and Clinton. If you already hate Wall
Street then all these people are covered. Obama is a corporate lawyer who worked for Wall Street.
Nothing new here to see.
Question -> TotoCatcher
Establishment? I thought he was unqualified because he was a "junior Senator" and "community
leader". Now he's establishment?
So basically establishment has about as much meaning as "entitlement" - its definition varies
entirely depending on who you're referencing?
pp91303 -> Question
Totocatcher is a leftist accusing Obama of being a wall street, "corporate lawyer". He wasn't.
The right never said he was. So an ignorant leftist calls Obama a corporate crony and that is
somehow an indictment of the right. Brilliant.
Obama was a red diaper baby, who went to a racist and anti-American church in Chicago, who
worked a few years for a scummy little law firm that represented leftist-subsidized-housing developers
like Tony Rezco, and who previously worked as a community organizer.
nubwaxer -> Whateveryousay
mine's not a hate comment but the extreme right, all republicans it seems, think bush's preemptive
or proactive militarized foreign policy is still the right approach. it's still the shoot, aim,
oops quagmire approach and obama's careful and patient evolving approach drives them crazy.
the problem seems to me our oversized military is so well trained and well armed with the newest
gear, which of course keeps profits flowing to defense contractors, that since we have it we nee
to use it constantly to keep its edge. president obama seems to have reluctantly accepted our
endless war strategy, but to the great ire of the right has shifted away from a militarized foreign
policy to a primarily diplomatic approach. i for one see great success in the iran nuclear deal
and restoration of relations with cuba.
of course there will be those whipped into mass hysteria and seething anger by the relentless
right wing propaganda and i'll be gone before i have to read any of their comments.
Tom Hoobler -> nubwaxer
Obama: pre-emptive strikes on Afghanistan, Libya, Syria--all of which have resulted in
disasters like the growth of ISIS. Obama: Meets weekly to decide where the drones will kill people,
without charge or trial (and without revealing who the targets are and what the success/failure
was--and how much "collateral damage" there was in human lives.) Certainly the most lawless president
we've had--and the most bloodthirsty.
Oscarthe4th -> Tom Hoobler
"The most lawless president . . . and the most bloodthirsty?" One need not support Obama
to know that he's not even close the most bloodthirsty, or lawless. I strongly recommend you study
Nixon, LBJ, and Reagan. Then drop back to Eisenhower and Guatemala to wrap up the bloody evening.
Oscarthe4th -> David Murphy
Glad we agree on LBJ.
I was counting all blood, not simply American blood, which is what I thought the original
post was doing. I would also count proxies, such as the Contra, because American aid was essential
to them. I would not count the aid Reagan covertly provided Iraq, because that war would have
been long and horrid in any event.
The lawlessness question is more complex. Nixon and Reagan set up clandestine organizations
that did not appear in any budget line, both of which performed illegal actions. (Nixon's was
more serious because the Plumbers' actions related to domestic opponents.)
Obama, like most other presidents in messy wars, has expanded the president's power, and I
fully agree that he has gone beyond what is constitutional. For the most part, however, it has
not been covert. That reduces some elements of the danger his acts pose, but not all.
screendummie -> Kimo Krauthammer
No, the Arab Spring happened after Obama was president. The Arab Spring occurred in 2011, first
in Tunisia and then elsewhere throughout North Africa and the Middle East. The uprisings in Libya
and Syria happened a couple years after Obama was president. Libya is a complete mess and a declared
failed state because of Obama.
Sarastro92 -> screendummie
So are Yemen, Syria, Honduras and Ukraine ... all put in play during Obama's reign. But
much of the credit goes to Hillary and the other war harpies in the Administration. Obama has
tried to pull back from the brink.
screendummie -> Sarastro92
Special operation troops are in Syria. This has been reported numerous times. There was even
a Congressional grilling of a general on our troops training Syrian fighters with the revelation
that a half billion was spent training of 3 or 4 Syrian fighters. The officer grilled was Centcom
commander, General Lloyd Austin back last year. You're blatantly ignorant of what's going on in
the world.
screendummie -> Sarastro92
I hope you don't really believe 50 U.S. troops are only in Syria. I bet it's far greater. You
have to remember they get rotated out. More than 50 troops have been deployed to Syria if they're
being rotated. The troops in Jordan are supporting the combat mission. How is that any different?
I'm curious how those 50 troops in Syria are fed and supported. Do they bring it all in themselves,
or are more U.S. troops crossing in and out of Syria on a daily basis? If you really believe there
are 50 U.S. troops in Syria, then you're really kidding yourself.
There are several thousand troops now in Iraq. Before it was just 300. No, I'm not buying the
advisor claim one bit.
Obama did nothing to de-escalate the conflict in the Ukraine. The "somewhat" means you
don't have any clue at all. It has to to more with Putin not wanting to conquer the entire Ukraine.
The Ukrainians could have been initially defeated, but holding them down would be impossible.
Davis Pruett -> Sarastro92
>>>And the fact is the Foreign Policy Establishment is utterly mad; they're furious at
Obama for not implementing their crazy militaristic schemes. Which is more or less the same story
that Goldberg reports here in the Atlantic.
More-or-less the general disposition reported by Goldberg - but minus a vast trove of key facts
which he purposefully distorts and obscures.
Sarastro92 -> David Murphy
Bull. According to the State Department's neoCon Czarina for European Affairs, the US pumped
$5 Billion into underwriting NGO agitation in Ukraine. Nuland herself was on the front-lines in
the Maidan and picked out "our guy Yats" ... In fact, Congress has passed a motion to prevent
further funds to the neo-Nazis in Kiev.
Syria was invaded by a jihadi army largely armed by the US (part of the Benghazi affair involved
the US Ambassador shipping weapons seized from Qaddafi to the Syrian jihadis via Turkey) and funded
by US allies in the Gulf monarchies and Turkey.
The French and Brits are culpable. Putin has changed the whole dynamic leading to a ceasefire
and the demise of ISIS in Syria. But the whole thing can blow up at anytime.
Your problem is that you read the CNN- NY Times propaganda and think you know something.
David Murphy -> screendummie
Can't exclude Cameron and Sarkozy from guilt over Libya. They sent in some special forces,
dropped a few bombs and then moved on to other things. The arab spring was a grass-roots attempt
to bring about democracy, which failed sadly.
elHombre -> Kimo Krauthammer
Really? Libya, Syria and ISIS were "debacles" when Obama took office? Really?
And 23 up votes? The revisionist rubes are out in force on this one.
Kimo Krauthammer -> hyphenatedamerican
Everywhere the US treads we leave chaos and increased radicalism. Time for the US to get out
now and let Putin wipe put ALL the terrorist vermin, even those we have been backing.
Davis Pruett -> hyphenatedamerican •
>>>Putin is not fighting terrorists, he is fighting for Assad. Not the same thing.
Russia - not "Putin" - is fighting to defend Syrians - not "Assad" - from terrorist aggressors.
Apparently, you missed the part where a few weeks ago Syria and Russia offered a ceasefire
and complete amnesty to any "revolutionaries" who are not associated with Al Qaida or ISIS.
Currently, about 4,000 fighters of the 25,000 estimated (by the US) in Latakia province
have laid down their weapons. Most of these have been re-deployed back into their original territories
alongside Syrian Arab Army support units.
That comes out to about 80% of the fighters in Syria are Al Qaida or ISIS-affiliated, and
the *VAST* majority of these fighters are foreign mercenaries.
So, long story short:
You don't know what you're talking about. You are factually wrong, and should be ashamed for
sounding off in public about something you have no knowledge of.
azt24 -> Question
By every objective measure, Iraq was in better shape in 2009 vs. 2016. There was no ISIS, no
Christian or Yazidi genocide, no slave markets in 2009, and violence was a tiny fraction of what
it is today. These are just facts.
As for picking 2009 for a start date, the article is titled The Obama Doctrine. The subject
is Obama, the topic is politics.
David Murphy -> azt24
Iraq's problem now are largely self-inflicted. The Shia majority decided to oppress the Sunni,
and Al Qaeda and ISIS are sunni. A simple resolution to ISIS in the ME would have been for the
Iraq government to act as a national government being fair to all not a partisan Shia government.
Iran has been active in Iraq since Bush's day. Obama could achieve little in that benighted country,
which was in a far better state before Bush led the attack on it.
elHombre -> nubwaxer
Acknowledgement of Obama's feckless, misguided foreign policy is not an endorsement of
Bush's adventurism.
Only Obamadupes can fail to appreciate the risks of Obama's one-sided, ego-assuaging Iran fiasco
and Cuba-courting.
Defense contractors employ people, but you probably believe we don't need the jobs.
You are, indeed, an Obama nubwaxer.
azt24 -> rswfire
" I feel President Obama isn't someone who really seeks the spotlight"
Surely you jest. No President has been more in love with the sound of own voice, or more given
to "I-me-mine-I-me-mine" when talking. Because it's always about him. Like when he explained to
Bibi Netanyahu that he understood the Middle East because he was raised by a single mom.
If Obama has quieted down in recent years, I can only suppose that it must have become obvious
even inside the WH bubble that it wasn't working -- people have completely tuned Obama out.
TotoCatcher
The Atlantic is removing comments from most of the articles. Why? I won't read here if they
don't bring comments back.
This story is booooring. So I don't have much to comment on it. Obama was just another Bush
who was just another Clinton. NEXT!
chris chuba
This article clearly states that we DID start to arm and equip the rebels after 'several months'
in 2011 via a CIA program. It is a myth that we did nothing in Syria.
What ended up happening is exactly what Obama feared would happen. The farmers and doctors
were supplanted by the foreign Jihadist groups that Turkey and Saudi Arabia were sponsoring. This
was inevitable and the only thing that could have prevented that was an actual invasion and occupation
of Syria which I in no way, shape or form endorse.
Hillary Clinton and Samantha Power are engaging in pure speculation that starting this
CIA program a few months earlier would have had a different outcome. Why so? This is nothing more
than wishful thinking.
Our real mistake was in not supporting the 2012 Geneva peace plan which called for post-civil
war elections that would include Assad. We maintained an absolutist demand for 'Assad must go'
so of course he and the people who depend on him, 50% to 60% of the population would soldier on.
Hurrya -> EnderAK12
Are we sure that there was ever a free Syrian army? The Free Syrian Army was a media concept
and never had a significant presence on the ground.
Thermite -> EnderAK12
We were supporting the Free Syrian Army since 2011. Basically when it started.
gtiger -> EnderAK12
You talk about the FSA as it's a viable entity. At best it's a loose alliance of rebel groups
of widely differing ideology. It's Libya part II.
Fresh -> Guyzer
American foreign policy has been a disaster since Kissinger. Neocons convinced many on
the right it was a solid ideology. Many of you cheered when Reagan armed Al Qaeda, transferred
weapons to Iran, terrorized Central/South America by arming death squads and displacing indigenous
people to make way for large multinationals. And, to add insult to injury, you all cheered for
Bush initiated torture on our soil (torture has been a tool for decades at black sites), created
Guantanamo, started illegal wars, helped to foment a global economic system that is the equivalent
of carpet bombing, especially as it relates to weaker or poorer countries; the list goes on.
You're not wrong about Obama. He has embraced the same insanity, although, not to the same
extent. Neoconservatism needs to die but gullible fools in both parties seem to embrace the insanity
when their guy is in charge.
Hillary supports the same ideology as Bush but you guys will pretend to hate her and Dems
will now say her plans are great. It's Americans who allow this insanity to continue.
Innes Mizner -> hyphenatedamerican
They called the Mujahadeen back then, and Carter then Reagan created them, armed them and trained
them. Even a certain Bin Laden.
Innes Mizner -> azt24
Afghans and Saudis including Bin Laden were first trained by the US, and then the UK. Read
the link I attached, Carter started this mass bloodshed and he isn't the least repentant. Yeah,
that sweet old peanut farmer is almost as bad as Hitler. Shucks.
Innes Mizner -> azt24
I have already provided background information and proof he and his crew were trained in Scotland.
I assumed this was well known in the US, I mean before you invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.
A lot of the other articles have been buried, but the BBC one is good, and if you give me a
while I will dig out an SAS officer discussing this.
The Afghan Mujahideen were deported from their southern Scottish, and northern English, training
grounds after the Lockerbie bombing. Nobody suspects them of being the cause of that crash, the
biggest terrorist atrocity in the UK to date, but they were under the flight path and they were
terrorists/freedom fighters training to down Soviet planes, so they were instantly deported to
avoid media attention.
No, I'm claiming that the original fundamentalist Islamic extremist terrorist Mujadeen recruited
by the CIA by Carter included Bin Laden's bodyguards and other Saudis.
I know that because I'm
Scottish, they were trained in Scotland.
No, I think that individual died before "Al Qaeda".
Are you aware "Al Qaeda" is a name assigned
by western security agencies, they just adopted the name after we named them that?
This was written by the British foreign secretary at the time,
Robin Cook,
someone who had access to all the MI6 and NSA and CIA files:
Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies.
Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the
Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer
file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to
defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have
occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation
would turn its attention to the west.
Innes Mizner -> Fresh
"American foreign policy has been a disaster since Kissinger"
I agree with your post but I'd
roll it back 20 years. Kissinger extended the Vietnam debacle and extended it to create Pol Pot.
A lot of Reagan's problems were clearing up his mess, and failing.
Eisenhower, FDR, those guys I admire. New Dealers who knew what war was.
CharlieSeattle -> Innes Mizner
Did ja ever wonder why Reagan gets the teary e/RINO "neocon" accolades and not Eisenhower?
Lets
see...
Reagan embraced the Military Industrial Complex. Eisenhower warned America about the dangers of the MIC corrupting the US government.
Reagan granted amnesty to 3.5 million illegal aliens. Eisenhower deported them all after WWII in Operation Wet back.
Reagan administration was #6th worst scandalous, worse than Obama. Eisenhower administration was #23rd worst scandalous, only because of VP Nixon!
Face it, if Eisenhower was running for office today, the Reagan RINO "neocons" would KILL HIM!
I am very glad Trump is not like Reagan.
.............Trump/Eisenhower in 2016
veerkg_23 -> Innes Mizner
Pol Pot was a Chinese thing. The US supported the Royalists, whoever they were, in Cambodia. Mao
decided he wanted a piece because he fear Soviet domination so formed the Khmer Rouge. Didn't
turn out so well.
Innes Mizner -> veerkg_23
To begin with the Khmer Rouge were a local Nazi group that emerged from the ashes of Kissenger's
cross border bombing. Then after they'd wiped out a third of their population neighbouring Vietnam
invaded, ejected them and then retreated in one of the few genuine examples of military humanitarian
interventions.
The Chinese did hate the Vietnamese, so that annoyed them. But it annoyed Reagan
more, because you yanks also had a big hang up about Vietnam kicking your arse.
So Reagan sent in the Green Berets to train Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge in guerilla tactics
- and supply them with funds, weapons and diplomatic cover.
Then Iran-Contra broke, Reagan sacrificed Ollie North on that bonfire, withdrew the Green Berets
from Cambodia, and instead persuaded Maggie Thatcher to send in the SAS to support the Khmer Rouge.
Now say what you want about Thatcher, but she was never a liar. She sent the SAS in and boasted
about her support for the Khmer Rouge on 'Blue Peter', a British childrens TV programme.
None of that is widely known in the US, I know, but I can provide supporting links that prove
what I've claimed here if you ask for any.
In yet another top-secret operation US Green Berets trained genocidal Khmer Rouge
units in Cambodia after contact was established between Ray Cline, senior CIA agent and Steve
Arnold, special adviser to US President Reagan. When the Iran Contra scandal got under way in
1983, President Reagan, fearing another unpleasant exposure, asked British Prime Minister Margaret
Thatcher to take over. She sent the SAS to train Pol Pot forces. 'We first went to Thailand in
1984' senior officials of the SAS (British equivalent of CIA) later testified, 'The Yanks and
us work together; we're close like brothers they didn't like it anymore than we did. We trained
the Khmer Rouge in a lot of technical stuff', the officer remembers. 'At first they wanted to
go into the villages and just chop people up. We told them go easy'. The SAS felt uneasy with
the operation and a lot of us would change sides given half a chance. That's how
"... And he reminds us that governments also have unprecedented potential to surveil their populations at a moment's notice, without anyone ever realizing what's happening. ..."
"There's a very real difference between allegiance to country–allegiance to people–than allegiance
to state, which is what nationalism today is really more about," says Edward Snowden. On February
20, the whistleblowing cybersecurity expert addressed a wide range of questions during an in-depth
interview with Reason's Nick Gillespie at Liberty Forum, a gathering of the Free State Project (FSP)
in Manchester, New Hampshire.
FSP seeks to move 20,000 people over the next five years to New Hampshire, where they will secure
"liberty in our lifetime" by affecting the political, economic, and cultural climate of the state.
Over 1,900 members have already migrated to the state and their impact is already being felt. Among
their achievements to date:
getting 15 of their brethren in the state House, challenging anti-ridehail laws, fighting in court
for outre religious liberty, winning legal battles over taping cops, being mocked by Colbert for
heroically paying off people's parking meters, hosting cool anything goes festivals for libertarians,
nullifying pot juries, and inducing occasional pants-wetting absurd paranoia in local statists.
Snowden's cautionary tale about the the dangers of state surveillance wasn't lost on his audience
of libertarians and anarchists who reside in the "Live Free or Die" state. He believes that technology
has given rise to unprecedented freedom for individuals around the world-but he says so from an undisclosed
location in authoritarian Russia.
And he reminds us that governments also have unprecedented potential to surveil their populations
at a moment's notice, without anyone ever realizing what's happening.
"They know more about us than they ever have in the history of the United States," Snowden
warns. "They're excusing themselves from accountability to us at the same time they're trying to
exert greater power over us."
In the midst of a fiercely contested presidential race, Snowden remains steadfast in his distrust
of partisan politics and declined to endorse any particular candidate or party, or even to label
his beliefs. "I do see sort of a clear distinction between people who have a larger faith in liberties
and rights than they do in states and institutions," he grants. "And this would be sort of the authoritarian/libertarian
axis in the traditional sense. And I do think it's clear that if you believe in the progressive liberal
tradition, which is that people should have greater capability to act freely, to make their own choices,
to enjoy a better and freer life over the progression of sort of human life, you're going to be pushing
away from that authoritarian axis at all times."
Snowden drews laughs when asked if he was eligible to vote via absentee ballot. "This is still
a topic of...active research," he deadpans.
But he stresses that the U.S. government can win back trust and confidence through rigorous accountability
to citizens and by living up to the ideals on which the country was founded. "We don't want Russia
or China or North Korea or Iran or France or Germany or Brazil or any other country in the world
to hold us up as an example for why we should be narrowing the boundaries of liberty around the world
instead of expanding them," says Snowden.
Runs about 50 minutes.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
0:00 - Edward Snowden, welcome to New Hampshire. Meet the Free State Project.
0:53 - Apple vs. the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Why should strong encryption be legal?
5:02 - Is privacy dead? Should we just get over it?
10:48 - What would a legal and effective government surveillance program look like?
14:53 - Could we have stopped the slide into mass surveillance? Shouldn't we have seen it coming?
19:04 - How can government earn back the trust and confidence of the American people?
Produced by Todd Krainin and Nick Gillespie. Cameras by Meredith Bragg and Krainin.
Visit http://reason.com/reasontv/2016/02/22...
for full text, links, and downloadable versions. And subscribe to Reason TV to be notified when new
videos are released.
As an analytical thinker, communicator and recovering professional journalist, I can thoroughly
appreciate Ed Snowden's take on the benefits of using pseudonyms when releasing potentially incendiary
ideas to the greater population. Fairly sure we both know that no critical thinking goes unpunished
in America these days. Mission 1: Stay safe!
Michael O'Rourke
Being a former Army Ranger I find it difficult to understand how Americans support the
Right to bear Arms but not the Right of Free speech and Privacy of communication. all three
amendments have equal rights. While I don't agree with how Snowden leaked the 1984
Surveillance Corporations, I'm glad he did. Sua sponte, Uncle Mike
Robert Van Tuinen2
I am. the government intentionally hid this information and discredited and fire previous
whistleblowers. What he did was right and necessary.
Q Queuenstein
"We want a government that is...small...and legitimate". SPEAK FOR YOURSELF! GOVERNMENT IS
THE OPPOSITE OF LEGITIMATE. Government is a monopoly on violent coercive force, no matter how
small. "Representing the people" is impossible without perpetrating evil on a large
percentage. Demand 100% voluntary interaction now. No government=no rulers. We are not a
government of law when The Constitution is up for "interpretation". The government is the
biggest breach of contract and coersive force ever perpetrated on people. It's historical
existance does not argue for its continued existance. Think: zero coersion. Pessimistic? Me
too, but look at the social change enabled by digital communication. Look at the Free State
Project, Look at cryptography; We may at least find a piece of freedom in this world of
coersion and distrust. Things are bad but we are bound to hit bottom. Please applause.j/k.
robinbuster
amazing! This person's value system, sense of morality, loyalty to humanity and liberty is
admirable. The people are starving for politicians with that kind of ethos. I wish Ron Paul
run for president. I kinda like Bernie Sanders most out of the options offered in this
election.
Vlad Ratzen2
snowden said "im an engineer not a politican". when you listen to Ed Snowden, you must
recognize that he is in fact a great philosopher.
when i listen to his answers when he was asked about the apple case. the things he said are
exactly right without a single flaw in his descriptions. he described every single aspect and
he showed us by doing that, what the apple case is really all about.
he points out: it is important to make sure that a goverment does not allow backdors in
encryption, but we have also to accept the reality that we are simply unable to protect us
against the NSA surveillance apparatus. again snowden talks about NSAs (in my opinion) the
very dangerous ability to store all communication data in advance. by the way: Russ Tice said
more then once "they store everything indefinitely".
what Snowden said about the apple case destroys the sophisticated narrative the media has
created on purpose to suggest that surveillance can be avoided somehow. there is a nice
article on reason.com talking in detail about the Apple case, and how it was planned well in
advance.
if i had a single chance to ask mr snowden one question i would ask him "Mr Snowden, do you
believe what the goverment has told us about 9/11"? i am sure there was enough time for mr
snowden to listen to a guy named David Chandler, or to take a look at the movie "HYPOTHESIS"
for example.
it might be interesting to watch his reaction.
Fork Unsa1
If EVERY gubermant agency had ONE person with BALLS like Snowden and told the truth about
tyranny the American people (not to be confused with it's slimeball government) would be on
the good path to taking our Republic back. Those who perform unconstitutional tasks, or
enforce unconstitutional laws against their fellow Americans are TRAITORS and the modern day
equivalent to Hitlers SS.
dman john2
Edward Snowden is a gifted outlier, born with genius brain. How I wish to be born with such
mind.
Video... on 12.30 some assessment of Hilary email scandals. he think that she should face
criminal procecution for mishanding emails while being Secretery State...
UPDATE 9/05/2015: In a rare exclusive interview from Russia, Edward Snowden states he would come
back to the United States if he was guaranteed a fair trial. A fair trial is unlikely says ex-whistle-blower,
Daniel Ellsberg. He would not be allowed to confront his accusers. He would not be allowed to testify
in front of a jury. It would be like a closed military tribunal, and he would be locked up with no
detailed press coverage.
Whether it is weather, climate change, El Nino or something new the state of Arctic Sea ice looks
to be a major outlier at the moment (i.e. the winter maximum area/extent is well below anything
seen recently and temperatures there are far above average, meaning ice volume is about to start
falling when it should be still growing for a few more weeks).
The Arctic appears to act as a sort of overflow tank for northern hemisphere heat – i.e. excess
heat gets dumped there by melting the ice without raising temperatures and in colder years the
ice builds up ready for use next time. But if everything melts then this function goes away and
the effects will be seen all over as more severe weather extremes.
It is more complex than that. During winter sea ice acts as an insulator preventing the loss of
heat from a warmer ocean to a colder atmosphere. Right now the Arctic ocean is cooling more and
that heat is being mostly radiated to space, since it is dark most of the time.
We cannot predict if this lower maximum will develop into a lower minimum or not.
Yes indeed very complex. That's why we have trained climate scientists and specialized institutions
and places of learning where they understand these things in detail.
I do not provide any personal data over the internet. No exceptions.
Ron has my full name since I published a guess article sometime ago in his blog, and can check
my publication record anytime. I am sure he would call my bluff if I wasn't a real scientist.
I would also provide it to him if he requested it. By email.
Jav – Please tell me why it is so important for you to generate doubt about AGW. You have said
that you care not one bit about the politics of the thing which is where it ALL plays out.
By far the science is pretty clear and if even half of it is accurate humanity is in for one
hell of a ride and there is even a possibility that it is a one way ride but you are making it
your mission, going way beyond the pale, to refute all of it WHY?
Jef, it is not important to me personally. I believe it is a non issue because there is no indication
that global warming is going to proceed to the point of becoming dangerous. Peak oil is going
to make it irrelevant.
There are two reasons for me to care about climate change.
The first is scientific curiosity. Climate change is one of the most interesting complex problems
and is a very popular one. You can talk and discuss it with a lot of people, and new information
is discussed widely.
The second is that it makes me mad that all the people in the world are being scared by an
unproven hypothesis that looks wrong on many issues and that is trying to invert the burden of
proof.
The question is not to generate doubt about AGW, it is to show that science has not decided
about the CO2 hypothesis despite claims to the contrary, and to tell people that they have nothing
to fear from the climate so they can have one worry less.
Interesting, since the thermal conductivity of water is 0.6 W/(m-K) and the thermal conductivity
of ice is 2.2 W/(m-K). Just the opposite.
Also cloud cover keeps much of the heat from going into space.
"The multidecadal trends from surface observations over the Arctic Ocean
show increasing cloud cover, which may promote ice loss by the longwave
effect. The trends are positive in all seasons, " http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~rmeast/ThesisSub.pdf
Not that I care for your candidates and nor do I sympathize with your somehow extremist (from
an European pov) republican candidates, but the proposition that climate change is going to become
dangerous is an unproven hypothesis not supported so far by any evidence.
An impartial observer would acknowledge that global warming has been very beneficial to humanity,
as the LIA was a terrible time and millions died because of pre-industrial climate.
You should go stand in front of a large speeding truck on the highway because it's an unproven
hypothesis that it will hit you.
Really ? Are you claiming that standing in front of speeding truck is equal to doubts about
global warning ? Unless this is not a well though out hyperbola you are sick, my friend.
Classic mechanics is undisputable. So results of standing of an object with mass M in front
of the truck with mass T and speed S are predictable to a high degree.
Let's assume that global warning currently is happening as measured by average Earth temperature.
But the assumption that it is happening due to human activity not some periodic cycle after which
global cooling will re-emerge, is much less proven. Here we also need to include in the model
the activity of Sun (big unknown which could have century long cycles), variations of Earth orbit,
angle as well as possible speed of rotation variations, activity of volcanos, ocean currents and
their long term dynamics, the level of transparency of the atmosphere (did you hear about such
notion as "Nuclear winter") etc. Earth with its atmosphere is a very complex system and to predict
how Earth climate will change with certain anthropogenic inputs is a very challenging task. Because
there are not the only one you need to include in the model.
The key problem is that for such a short period as one century it is unclear if we deal with
human induced trend or some other trend correlated in time with a rise (and coming fall) of oil
based human civilization which caused additional CO2 emissions (which still can be a contributing
factor). And BTW what is the optimum temperature for the life on Earth ? May be it is higher then
current. May be it is lower. But why it is assumed that temperature at the beginning of XX century
was optimal for the life on Earth and should be preserved by all means?
Currently, there really is quite a lot of basic agreement within the climate science world:
climate change exists; there has been warming since the Little Ice Age ended around the
beginning of the 19th Century (well before emissions are regarded as contributing significantly);
human emissions can contribute to climate change; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have been
increasing.
None of this is controversial and none of this actually implies alarm. However, in the policy
world, as emerges from virtually any reading of the current political discourse and its attendant
media coverage, the innocuous agreement is taken to be equivalent (with essentially no support
from observations, theory or even models) to rampant catastrophism. There are numerous examples
of the issuance of unalarming claims (regardless of their validity or lack thereof) that are
interpreted as demanding immediate action.
Perhaps the most striking example involves the iconic statement of the IPCC: Most of the
warming over the past 50 years is due to man. Is this statement actually alarming? First, we
are speaking of small changes. 0.25C would be about 51% of the recent warming. Given the
uncertainties in both the data and its analysis, this is barely distinguishable from zero.
Evidence of this uncertainty is shown by the common adjustments of this magnitude that
are made to the record.
Why such an uncompromising attitude. Are you a religious zealot ?
Did you study at school such notions as accuracy of measurements and error margins? What about
statistical theory ? You remind me brave souls from EIA which provide four digits for measurements
which at best has 1% error margin with some that has error margin closer to 10%.
While I personally think the humans might be the reason. I at the same time consider it to
be an unproved, albeit plausible hypothesis. The one that has the right to exist along with many
others. For example, a model that explains this phenomenon by century long (or so) variations
of activity of Sun would be OK in my book.
Why this alternative hypothesis should be disregarded? Nobody measured activity of Sun for
a century with any accuracy so this is just one unknown variable.
Somebody should tell NOAA, because their
Laboratory for
satellite altimetry has not detected any increase in the rate of sea level rise for the last
24 years.
Another case of different instruments saying different things?
"An international team of scientists dug into two dozen locations across the globe to chart
gently rising and falling seas over centuries and millennia. Until the 1880s and the world's industrialization,
the fastest seas rose was about 1 to 1.5 inches (3 to 4 centimeters) a century, plus or minus
a bit. During that time global sea level really didn't get much higher or lower than 3 inches
above or below the 2,000-year average."
So before 1880, the fastest measured global sea level rise was only ~0.3-0.4 mm/year. The current
rate of change, according to the NOAA altimetry chart above (1993-2016), is nearly 10x that.
The LIA that ended around 1825-1850 was the coldest period of the Holocene, with the largest
glaciers and lowest sea levels in thousands of years.
Since then sea levels have been on the rise, but there is no discernible anthropogenic signature
in that. It started long before our emissions and it would most probably proceed even if we reduce
our emissions.
Whether it is weather, climate change, El Nino or something new the state of Arctic Sea ice looks
to be a major outlier at the moment (i.e. the winter maximum area/extent is well below anything
seen recently and temperatures there are far above average, meaning ice volume is about to start
falling when it should be still growing for a few more weeks).
The Arctic appears to act as a sort of overflow tank for northern hemisphere heat – i.e. excess
heat gets dumped there by melting the ice without raising temperatures and in colder years the
ice builds up ready for use next time. But if everything melts then this function goes away and
the effects will be seen all over as more severe weather extremes.
"... What wars are you citing? WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Grenada, Cuban Bay of Pigs, Libya, Syria, Yemen,....that is what the Democrats have done. ..."
"... The Reps are no peackeniks but somehow Democrats are better able to initiate and conduct war because people like you build myths that Democrats are more peace loving. Sorry, history does not support your view. ..."
"... Hillary is by far the most dangerous because she has both Administration and Senatorial experience and knows how to muster support for her war mongering ways with the likes of Neo-cons and AIPAC'ers. ..."
"... The RTP doctrine was born with the Balkan war, driven by Clinton and Blair, the latter advocating a ground assault, and Blair's military intervention in Sierra Leone, rebirthing the whole idea of British expeditionary forces ..."
"... The proportion of superdelegates has actually increased from 14% to 20% of the total delegate count over the years since this was introduced (in 1982). So the Democratic Party have been adding more slots for party cronies and making the results less and less democratic. ..."
"... Slick Willy/Obama moderate centrists running Dem establishment, same sleaze bags that did the welfare and justice reforms of 90s and deregulated WS in the first place ..."
What wars are you citing? WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Grenada, Cuban Bay of Pigs, Libya, Syria, Yemen,....that is what
the Democrats have done.
The Reps are no peackeniks but somehow Democrats are better able to initiate and conduct war because people like you build
myths that Democrats are more peace loving. Sorry, history does not support your view.
Trump is impetuous and dangerous but he would be a lame duck president like Jimmy Carter; unable to muster Congressional support
to do much of anything.
Hillary is by far the most dangerous because she has both Administration and Senatorial experience and knows how to muster
support for her war mongering ways with the likes of Neo-cons and AIPAC'ers.
Since the Oligarchy supposedly control the media, the corporations, the money, the congress, the bureaucracy, the states, the
armed forces, etc, why on earth would one alleged Lefty in the White House be 'very dangerous' for them? Even assuming he really
wanted to be a real threat to them (as distinct from merely saying the things that get him votes), he simply wouldn't have the
power to do any more than a few minor things that marginally protect the interests of the 99.9% of us who are not so-called Oligarchs.
Did you watch the debate tonight? He brought up all the coups. He is a Social Democrat, so was Allende and Albeniz.
Cruz is a political whore, I am a simple Dem Socialist Bernie supporter.
Cruz is a phony Jesus freak (was Catholic), I am an Atheist, like all Dem Socialists.
Cruz is a Canadian, I am an American.
Cruz is a transgender, I am straight.
Cruz is a racist teabagger, who made fame by opposing even the most conservative Obama policies. I have Dr. King's portrait in
my office and a fierce enemy of social injustice.
Cruz is a demagogue, I simply pointed some historical facts (bloody Coups) and some of our historical atrocities around the globe.
Super delegates are almost completely with HRC, the WS call girl. Why...do you think it is so?
Again, Bernie is very dangerous for the ruling few that run this Oligarchy. He used the term Oligarchy again in this debate.
And he stated again that this is not a democracy.
Hillary and Bill are murderers, rapists, thieves, fraudsters and drug dealers. A long history of criminal violence. Google "Mena
Airport" and take it from there, you will be busy for days.
The elite don't care about you, they only care about their own access to your tax dollar.
Do not vote for Hillary, the world will be a better place when she and rapist Bill swing from the end of a rope
The RTP doctrine was born with the Balkan war, driven by Clinton and Blair, the latter advocating a ground assault, and
Blair's military intervention in Sierra Leone, rebirthing the whole idea of British expeditionary forces
This is a cause worth fighting for. America is crumbling under our feet, yet the Uniparty continues to point us towards a downward
spiral. But, the People have awakened. They realize the game is rigged. Nothing illustrates this better than Big Media and the
DNC that marginalize Sanders and his message every chance it gets. Why? They obviously support the official Uniparty pick, Clinton.
America is fortunate that Sanders has stepped up to face the Clinton campaign machine. Sanders wants to do what is best for America.
Not the elite. But the People. Sanders has fought for civil rights and equality his entire political career. Name anyone else
who has done this over decades. We can use them on the good ship Reclaim America.
Join the political revolution of the People, for the People, by the People. Vote for Bernie. He is the only candidate running
who is for all of us, because he cares...
If nothing else, America, please stop voting for the same crowd, the Uniparty; they are literally sucking the life out of the
People and have been for decades (going back to Bill Clinton and beyond)...
The proportion of superdelegates has actually increased from 14% to 20% of the total delegate count over the years since this
was introduced (in 1982). So the Democratic Party have been adding more slots for party cronies and making the results less and
less democratic.
Corporate media and Dem establishment campaign against Bernie's chances have completely backlashed. And the more he stays in the
race, the more likely he will get the max number of pledged delegates or nomination.
And the longer the race for nomination is, the more likely that the WS speeches, Sec of State emails, and bribes by foreign
sleazy regimes to the Foundation will be exposed before nomination.
Slick Willy/Obama moderate centrists running Dem establishment, same sleaze bags that did the welfare and justice reforms
of 90s and deregulated WS in the first place, wanted Bernie out by last night;...thanks to Michigan...we will see them all
in Philadelphia!
The WS(Ruben, Summers, Geithner,...)/Clinton/Obama wing of the party will be buried by Uncle Bernie when all this is said and
done, and with it the D-establishment media: msnbc athews, the executive Wolffe and te corporate-feminist Maddows!
The truth is that before Tuesday's elections, Clinton was ahead of Sanders by 673 to 477 pledged delegates, and her lead is now
745 to 540-by no means insurmountable, as a recent NBC-Washington Post poll shows (the numbers don't sum to 100% because 'Other'
and 'No opinion' replies were included): In December Clinton led Sanders 59% to 28%; in January 55% to 36%; in March 49% to 42%.
These figures show that Hillary's lead is slowly but steadily evaporating.
Anyone who believes that superdelegates can hand Clinton the nomination even if she loses the primary fight is betting the
Democratic Party is willing to commit suicide: Sanders supporters already loathe Hillary Clinton, and if she is carried to the
coronation throne on the backs of superdelegates, that loathing will multiply, and many of them will stay home or participate
in a write-in campaign for Bernie, enough to cause Hillary to lose the general election. Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her friends
in the DNC will have achieved their goal: a woman will have been nominated, but at the price of making Donald Trump President,
and having to find another name for their party-"Democratic Party" would hardly be fitting after such a betrayal.
free trade is unfair trade it is like these subsidies on food where people pay tax and then farmers get money from govt to grow
what they are told. Then there is free trade deal such as with europe where the american subsidised food too compete with the
european subsidised food but there are differences in regulations so too compete fairly the europeans would have to reduce the
regulations in a race to the bottom with the Americans who are already suffering from obesity. http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2015/12/ttip-disaster-left-brexit-would-be-worse
Here's my comment finally allowed to be published in the NYT today 3/8 after Michigan
Bernie is on the Bern across America --- and he hasn't even fired a 'shout heard round the world' yet.
When Bernie fires a non-violent 'shout heard round the world' to further ignite his & our "Political Revolution against Empire"
the Bern will burn through the rest of the primary states.
Understand that Bernie will increase both the enthusiasm and the education of Americans in evolutionary ways of understanding
the essential need for the "Political Revolution against Empire".
Initially, Bernie can point to the flaws and failures of a 'foreign policy' that does not serve the interests of Americans
nor peace in our world, any better than domestic economic tyranny at home, because our country is being pushed by the same corrupted
politics to "act like a global Empire abroad".
Even the most trusted elder anchorman and author of "Greatest Generation", Tom Brokaw, on "Meet the Press" shocked Chuck Toad
and other young pundits at the 'Round Table' when he explained, "When Trump and Cruz are talking about three year old orphans
and refugees [from Syria to Europe], what we're really talking about is three year old orphans and refugees, caused by
American policy".
Such truth telling by older and politically experienced people like Bernie, Tom, and the late Walter Cronkite is what has radically
changed, even Revolutionized the political landscape as it did half a century ago when such truthful shocks caused LBJ not to
run and admit, "If I've lost Cronkite, we've lost the war"
Looks like the corporate media attempts to keep Bernie Sanders coverage down, and making any attention they do give him negative
isn't totally working... what will they try next?
I just don't like the slaughter of half a million Syrians and Libyans and 10 million refugees facing devastation of their lives
just so the USA and NATO can control oil supplies out of the Middle East. Its not a good look Hillary.
I'm not all that happy about the splitting up of Syria just to isolate Iran and destroy the Russian economy while risking a nuclear
war.
illary needs to explain why we can't have world peace because the insecurity and armaments industry makes so much money for the
1%. In fact Hilary needs to prove she cares about the worlds ordinary people like the Palestinians living under the yoke of the
cruel oppresive Israeli Gogernment. And she would need to demonstrate her concern with policies to help the people living on the
streets of America before I would support her.
(RECENT!) Hillary Clinton's Email About Gay Parents Should Seriously Trouble Her LGBT Supporters
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/10/01/hillary_clinton_on_gay_rights_a_new_email_is_troubling.html
Looks like she hasn't really "evolved" on LGBT acceptance, but is simply taking on positions that she thinks is politically beneficial
to her, as usual. Much of her campaign platform (specifically her sudden focus on social and civil issues) is pretty much copied
over from Sander's after all.
Racism is still alive. Black lives DO matter, and the things BLM activists are doing may look excessive, but I find it necessary
if they are EVER to be heard by the government. Things are desperate now, and the Clintons has a hand in the current sad sate
of things for African Americans due to the policies that they have pushed. Bernie have repeatedly highlighted how Black people
in America is oppressed. Just look at the % of black vs white jobless rate, and % of black vs white people being jailed for weed
possession. Something needs to be done. "Enough is Enough" as Bernie says.
Paul's criticism of the presidential contenders didn't stop with Sanders and Trump.
"From a libertarian viewpoint, there is absolutely no meaningful difference between Hillary
and Trump," he emphatically remarked. "I mean, they both support [the] military-industrial
complex, the federal reserve, deficits, entitlements, invasion of our privacy."
Indeed, Paul summarized the absurdity of the 2016 election platforms, saying, "It's
super-nationalistic populism versus socialism. That is so remote from what we need to be doing -
we need to be moving ourselves away from tyranny toward liberty."
Asked if he would be endorsing any candidates, Paul explained there isn't a single person left
in the race who fits libertarian ideals of limiting government and protecting individual
liberties.
"Some of the top candidates want to carpet bomb the world," he said, shaking his head
in disbelief. "No, a libertarian can't endorse this authoritarian approach."
leslymill • 4 days ago
I was a Ron Paul delegate and he is wrong. Trump in NOT for allowing my property, town,
county, state or country to be overrun by lawless un-American criminals. I agree Trump is not
a liberty candidate in many many ways that have me concerned. I am afraid Trump is out for
power as much as to make america great again. I hope we force him to be surrounded by strong
minded Constitutional conservatives, cause he is a much better person to take the oath of
office than Hitlery Clinton.I will always listen to Ron Paul he is wiser than I am but here I
don't completely agree. He is just disgusted. I am disgusted because many of us see our
country going down and know Ron was the only one to fix it. Now all we can do is influence
candidates with his way of Paulatics.
imsharon • 7 days ago
I do like Ron Paul in spite of the fact that I do NOT agree with his summation in regard to
"what we need to be doing". As to his belief that we need to be limiting government, Paul is
more Conservative Republican than he spouts. In my view, limiting Government is exactly what
the GOP is about...replacing it with Corporate Power and total Control of our country, which
has already gained a strong foothold.
colram -> imsharon • 5 days ago
For his entire career, Ron Paul has fought for the power of individuals to determine their
own fate, without control by governments or corporations. The GOP is owned by corporations
just as the democratic party is. Time for them to lose the power.
Chin up, boys. Like Lt. Lockhart said in Full Metal Jacket: "In other words, it's a huge shit sandwich,
and we're all gonna have to take a bite."
Life will not get any better, or at least
much
better, than it is already. And it's likely
to get a whole lot worse tomorrow. There is true freedom in realizing that. The strength in personality
is to
grok the horrors of
reality
without retreating to
the comfort of fantasy stories
. Most aren't up to the task.
"The irony of man's condition is that the deepest need is to be free of the anxiety of death and
annihilation; but it is life itself which awakens it, and so we must shrink from being fully alive."
-
Ernest Becker
The Denial of Death
"A Civilization is a dominant community that imposes its beliefs upon all other communities
by violence, which must involve the use of genocide; so any community that recoils from inflicting
genocide will suffer genocide."
The best essay I've ever seen on the philosophical question
of good/evil comes from an anarchist...and you know what I think
of anarchist. (Im still willing to learn from my lessors.)
Are humans essentially good, or essentially evil? This
is one of the most basic, perennial questions in philosophy.
Many identify our individual answers to this question as determing
our political spectrum - conservatives believe humans are inherently
evil, and require strict rules to make them good, while liberals
believe humans are inherently good, and must simply be free to
act on such goodness. Both positions are unrealistic. Humans
are products of evolution, and evolution is unconcerned with
such abstractions as "good" or "evil." As Aristotle said, humans
are social animals. We are neither "good" nor "evil." We are
only inherently social.
"Think about it. We all start out the same way... a single sperm
among 50 million other sperm, all desperate to get to one egg. To win.
You, me, everyone else on the planet ever in history, we all won that
100-meter in-utero, winner-take-all race to mama's enchanted, life-giving
egg. First prize? Life? Second prize? Death. Right. Now, you think
we weren't throwing a few elbows? You think you weren't knocking a
few other sperm over, stabbing 'em in the back just to get ahead, just
to win? Thom, you don't win that kind of race without being an asshole.
I mean, a huge asshole. Your problem is you think that assholes are
some sort of anomaly, some sort of aberration. Nature is an asshole
factory, my friend.
If you exist, you're an asshole.
You think, therefore you are, but you are, therefore you're
an asshole."
-
Nature is an asshole making factory
Happyish
Showtime, 2015
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGjTHtPn_No
merica is the
destabilizing force
, ongoing, as
soon as order and boundries get established like wolves do, we will
re-arrive on command from a secret message from our higher powers and
stir the hornets nests. then we can claim democracy is in progress
once again. now do you understand?
I am almost certain that at least some on the ground are more than
aware of who orchestrated this nightmare (hell some probably get patched
up in Israeli hospitals)...but I bet they are more concerned with the
bastards shooting at them right now. However, it is certain that whatever
the result of this mess, Israel has not made many new friends in the region...but
once you realise that the whole purpose of Israel is to remain a weeping
sore in the most resource rich region on earth everything starts to make
sense.
Israel is
supposed
to be a nightmare apartheid
weapons testing ground murdering kids everyday. That way the Rothschild
central bank owners in the three city states that comprise the City of
London, Washington DC and the Vatican can extract resources from the surrounding
countries for pennies on the dollar!!! The plan works perfectly when you
think like a diabolical psychopath. If anything the poor Jewish people
comprise a useful scapegoat that can at anytime be ditched and blamed
once the resources in the region become depleted or the global economy
moves beyond petroleum products. Israel is a vital lynchpin of the petrodollar
like Saudi Arabia. I am actually quite sure that once supporting it is
no longer profitable to the "west" it will be cut adrift. In fact, I believe
that barring any Zionist plots, this process has already begun with the
Iran deal. If oil becomes redundant or abundant in the next few centuries
I actually expect the Israelis themselves will push for a peace deal before
they get pushed into the sea. Any thoughts?
In fact, I would go so far as to say that Israel is a classic
British colonial project. We British are renowned for transplanting
foreigners into other peoples lands and hoovering up the resources
that fall out of the inevitable bust up!! Just look at the Sri
Lankan mess we made by importing Indians of a different religion to
work the tea plantations...It caused a bloody nightmare for over a
century whilst we extracted Ceylon's finest...It is kind of
depressing when you think about how well it worked. Thankfully the
Sri Lankans kicked us out once the jig was up but the damage it
caused continued for decades after we left. Disgraceful really.
Geepers, whose propoganda book did you pull this mess from? And
as far as he US backing away from Israel, you're right on that
one. But...its because of that Dangling Dingbat with a Loose
Wingnut we got in DC and his slightly confused and murdering self
destructing administration that's doing it. Not the "We the
people" or is that "we the folk"
"... Brazil is corrupt to the core - from the comprador elites down to a great deal of the crass "new" elites, which include the PT. The greed and incompetence displayed by an array of PT stalwarts is appalling - a reflection of the lack of quality cadres. Corruption and traffic of influence involving Petrobras, construction companies and politicians is undeniable, even if it pales compared to Goldman Sachs shenanigans or Big Oil and/or Koch Brothers/Sheldon Adelson-style buying/bribing of US politicians. ..."
"... The Central Bank still keeps its benchmark interest rate at a whopping 14.25%. A disastrous Rousseff neoliberal "fiscal adjustment" actually increased the economic crisis. Today Rousseff "governs" - that's a figure of speech - for the banking cartel and the rentiers of Brazilian public debt. Over $120 billion of the government's budget evaporates to pay interest on the public debt. ..."
"... It's no coincidence that three major BRICS nations are simultaneously under attack - on myriad levels: Russia, China and Brazil. The concerted strategy by the Masters of the Universe who dictate the rules in the Wall Street/Beltway axis is to undermine by all means the BRICS's collective effort to produce a viable alternative to the global economic/financial system, which for the moment is subjected to casino capitalism. It's unlikely Lula, by himself, will be able to stop them. ..."
"... These oligarchs,.. GOOD. Those oligarchs.... BAD. ..."
"... The Oligarchs of the BRICS have been duped and co-opted by TPTB in the US. Their foot-dragging and lack or decisive and timely action means that their Window Of Opportunity is probably gone. The various Trans-Oceanic Trade Deals that the US has cooking is front-running their indecisiveness and lack of action. ..."
"... They are 'toast', because these Trade Deals have the USD baked into them, and the combined GDPs of each Pact is far bigger than that of the BRICS. ..."
Imagine one of the most admired global political leaders in modern
history taken from his apartment at 6 am by armed Brazilian Federal Police
agents and forced into an unmarked car to the Sao Paulo airport to be interrogated
for almost four hours in connection with a billion dollar corruption scandal
involving the giant state oil company Petrobras.
This is the stuff Hollywood is made of. And that was exactly
the logic behind the elaborate production.
The public prosecutors of the two-year-old Car Wash investigation maintain there
are "
elements of proof " implicating Lula in receiving funds - at least 1.1 million
euros - from the dodgy kickback scheme involving major Brazilian construction
companies connected to Petrobras. Lula might - and the operative word is "might"
- have personally profited from it mostly in the form of a ranch (which he does
not own), a relatively modest seaside apartment, speaking fees in the global
lecture circuit, and donations to his charity.
Lula is the ultimate political animal - on a Bill Clinton level. He had already
telegraphed he was waiting for such a gambit, as the Car Wash machine had already
arrested dozens of people suspected of embezzling contracts between their companies
and Petrobras - to the tune of over $2 billion - to pay for politicians of the
Workers' Party (PT), of which Lula was leader.
Lula's name surfaced via the proverbial rascal turned informer, eager to
strike a plea bargain. The working hypothesis - there is no smoking gun - is
that Lula, when he led Brazil between 2003 and 2010, personally benefited from
the corruption scheme with Petrobras at the center, obtaining favors for himself,
the PT and the government. Meanwhile, inefficient President Dilma Rousseff is
herself under attack engineered via a plea bargain by the former government
leader in the Senate.
Lula was questioned in connection to money laundering, corruption and suspected
dissimulation of assets. The Hollywood blitz was cleared by federal judge Sergio
Moro - who always insists he's been inspired by the Italian judge Antonio di
Pietro and the notorious 1990s
Mani Pulite
("Clean Hands") investigation.
And here, inevitably, the plot thickens.
Round up the usual media suspects
Moro and the Car Wash prosecutors justified the Hollywood blitz insisting
Lula refused to be interrogated. Lula and the PT vehemently insist otherwise.
And yet Car Wash investigators had consistently leaked to mainstream media
words to the effect, "We can't just bite Lula. When we get to him, we will swallow
him." This would imply, at a minimum, a politicization of justice, the Federal
Police and the Public Ministry. And would also imply that the Hollywood blitz
may have been supported by a smoking gun. As perception is reality in the frenetic
non-stop news cycle, the "news" - instantly global - was that Lula was arrested
because he's corrupt.
Yet it gets curioser and curioser when we learn that judge Moro wrote an
article in an obscure magazine way back in 2004 (in Portuguese only, titled
Considerations about Mani Pulite , CEJ magazine, issue number 26, July/September
2004), where he clearly extols "authoritarian subversion of juridical order
to reach specific targets " and using the media to intoxicate the political
atmosphere.
All of this serving a very specific agenda, of course. In Italy, right-wingers
saw the whole Mani Pulite saga as a nasty judicial over-reach; the left, on
the other hand, was ecstatic. The Italian Communist Party (PCI) emerged with
clean hands. In Brazil, the target is the left - while the right, at least for
the moment, seems to be composed of hymn-singing angels.
The pampered, cocaine-snorting loser candidate of the 2014 Brazilian presidential
election, Aecio Neves, for instance, was singled out for corruption by three
different accusers - and it all went nowhere, without further investigation.
Same with another dodgy scheme involving former president Fernando Henrique
Cardoso - the notoriously vainglorious former developmentalist turned neoliberal
enforcer.
What Car Wash has already forcefully imprinted across Brazil is the
perception that corruption only pays when the accused is a progressive nationalist.
As for Washington consensus vassals, they are always
angels - mercifully immune from prosecution.
That's happening because Moro and his team are masterfully playing to the
hilt Moro's self-described use of the media to intoxicate the political atmosphere
- with public opinion serially manipulated even before someone is formally charged
with any crime. And yet Moro and his prosecutors' sources are largely farcical,
artful dodgers cum serial liars. Why trust their word? Because there are no
smoking guns, something even Moro admits.
And that leads us towards the nasty scenario of a made in Brazil media-judicial-police
complex possibly hijacking one of the healthiest democracies in the world. And
that is supported by a stark fact: the right-wing Brazilian opposition's entire
"project" boils down to ruining the economy of the 7 th largest global
economic power to justify the destruction of Lula as a presidential candidate
in 2018.
Elite Plundering Rules
None of the above can be understood by a global audience without some acquaintance
with classic Braziliana. Local legend rules that Brazil is not for beginners.
Indeed; this is an astonishingly complex society - which essentially descended
from a Garden of Eden (before the Portuguese "discovered" it in 1500) to slavery
(which still permeates all social relations) to a crucial event in 1808: the
arrival of
Dom John VI of Portugal (and Emperor of Brazil for life), fleeing Napoleon's
invasion, and carrying with him 20,000 people who masterminded the "modern"
Brazilian state. "Modern" is an euphemism; history shows the descendants of
these 20,000 actually have been raping the country blind for the past 208 years.
And few have ever been held accountable.
Traditional Brazilian elites compose one of the most noxious arrogant-ignorant-prejudiced
mixes on the planet. "Justice" - and police enforcement - are only used as a
weapon when the polls do not favor their agenda.
Brazilian mainstream media owners are an intrinsic part of these elites.
Much like the US concentration model, only four families control the media landscape,
foremost among them the Marinho family's Globo media empire. I have experienced,
from the inside, in detail, how they operate.
Brazil is corrupt to the core - from the comprador elites down to a great
deal of the crass "new" elites, which include the PT. The greed and incompetence
displayed by an array of PT stalwarts is appalling - a reflection of the lack
of quality cadres. Corruption and traffic of influence involving Petrobras,
construction companies and politicians is undeniable, even if it pales compared
to Goldman Sachs shenanigans or Big Oil and/or Koch Brothers/Sheldon Adelson-style
buying/bribing of US politicians.
If this was a no-holds-barred
crusade against corruption - which the Car Wash prosecutors insist it is
- the right-wing opposition/vassals of the old elites should have been equally
exposed in mainstream media. But then the elite-controlled media would simply
ignore the prosecutors. And there would be nothing remotely on the scale of
the Hollywood blitz, with Lula - pictured as a lowly delinquent - humiliated
in front of the whole planet.
Car Wash prosecutors are right; perception is reality. But what if it backfires?
No consumption, no investment, no credit
Brazil couldn't be in a gloomier situation. GDP was down 3.8% last year;
probably will be down 3.5% this year. The industrial sector was down 6.2% last
year, and the mining sector down 6.6% in the last quarter. The nation is on
the way to its worst recession since…1901.
There was no Plan B by the - incompetent - Rousseff administration for the
Chinese slowdown in buying Brazil's mineral/agricultural wealth and the overall
global slump in commodity prices.
The Central Bank still keeps its benchmark interest rate at a whopping
14.25%. A disastrous Rousseff neoliberal "fiscal adjustment" actually increased
the economic crisis. Today Rousseff "governs" - that's a figure of speech -
for the banking cartel and the rentiers of Brazilian public debt. Over $120
billion of the government's budget evaporates to pay interest on the public
debt.
Inflation is up - now in double-digit territory. Unemployment is at 7.6%
- still not bad as many a player across the EU - but rising.
The usual suspects of course are gloating, spinning non-stop how Brazil has
become "toxic" for global investors.
Yes, it's bleak. There's no consumption. No investment. No credit. The only
way out would be to unlock the political crisis. Maggots in the opposition racket
though have a one-track obsession; the impeachment of President Rousseff. Shades
of good ol' regime change; for these Wall Street/Empire of Chaos vassals, an
economic crisis, fueled by a political crisis, must by all means bring down
the elected government of a key BRICS player.
And then, suddenly, out of left field, surges…Lula. The move against him
by the Car Wash investigation may yet backfire - badly. He's already on campaign
mode for 2018 - although he's not an official candidate, yet. Never underestimate
a political animal of his stature.
Brazil is not on the ropes. If reelected, and assuming he could purge the
PT from a legion of crooks, Lula could push for a new dynamic. Before the crisis,
Brazilian capital was going global - via Petrobras, Embraer, the BNDES (the
bank model that inspired the BRICS bank), the construction companies. At the
same time, there might be benefits in breaking, at least partially, this oligarchic
cartel that control all infrastructure construction in Brazil; think of Chinese
companies building the high-speed rail, dams and ports the country badly lacks.
Judge Moro himself has theorized that corruption festers because the Brazilian
economy is too closed to the outside world, as India's was until recently. But
there's a stark difference between opening up some sectors of the Brazilian
economy and let foreign interests tied to the comprador elites plunder the nation's
wealth.
So once again, we must go back to the recurrent theme in all major global
conflicts.
It's the oil, stupid
For the Empire of Chaos, Brazil has been a major headache since Lula was
first elected, in 2002 (for an appraisal of complex US-Brazil relations, check
the indispensable work of Moniz Bandeira).
A top priority of the Empire of Chaos is to prevent the emergence of regional
powers fueled by abundant natural resources, from oil to strategic minerals.
Brazil amply fits the bill. Washington of course feels entitled to "defend"
these resources. Thus the need to quash not only regional integration associations
such as Mercosur and Unasur but most of all the global reach of the BRICS.
Petrobras used to be a very efficient state company that then doubled as
the single operator of the largest oil reserves discovered in the 21 st
century so far; the pre-salt deposits. Before it became the target of
a massive speculative, judicial and media attack, Petrobras used to account
for 10% of investment and 18% of Brazilian GDP.
Petrobras found the pre-salt deposits based on its own research
and technological innovation applied to exploring oil in deep waters - with
no foreign input whatsoever. The beauty is there's no risk; if you drill in
this pre-salt layer, you're bound to find oil. No company on the planet would
hand this over to the competition.
And yet a notorious right-wing opposition maggot promised Chevron in 2014
to hand over the exploitation of pre-salt mostly to Big Oil. The right-wing
opposition is busy altering the juridical regime of pre-salt; it's already been
approved in the Senate. And Rousseff is meekly going for it. Couple it to the
fact that Rousseff's government did absolutely nothing to buy back Petrobras
stock - whose vertiginous fall was deftly engineered by the usual suspects.
The meticulous dismantling of Petrobras, Big Oil eventually profiting from
the pre-salt deposits, keeping in check Brazil's global power projection, all
this plays beautifully to the interests of the Empire of Chaos. Geopolitically,
this goes way beyond the Hollywood blitz and the Car Wash investigation.
It's no coincidence that three major BRICS nations are simultaneously
under attack - on myriad levels: Russia, China and Brazil. The concerted strategy
by the Masters of the Universe who dictate the rules in the Wall Street/Beltway
axis is to undermine by all means the BRICS's collective effort to produce a
viable alternative to the global economic/financial system, which for the moment
is subjected to casino capitalism. It's unlikely Lula, by himself, will be able
to stop them.
The Oligarchs of the BRICS have been duped and co-opted by TPTB in
the US. Their foot-dragging and lack or decisive and timely action means
that their Window Of Opportunity is probably gone. The various Trans-Oceanic
Trade Deals that the US has cooking is front-running their indecisiveness
and lack of action.
They are 'toast', because these Trade Deals have the USD baked into
them, and the combined GDPs of each Pact is far bigger than that of the
BRICS.
Math + Action beats Hope + Hype every time, kiddies. (Those of you who
can't handle the Truth or the Cognitive Dissonance, had best go to their
"Safe Space".)
"... So now Greece has to accommodate ever more refugees because all borders close, something Greece cannot afford since the bailout talks left it incapable of even looking after its own people, while over the next ten days it can expect a surge of 'new' refugees to arrive from Turkey, afraid they'll be stuck there after a deal is done. Greece will become a "holding pen", and the refugees will be the livestock. A warehouse of souls, a concentration camp. ..."
"... Refugees from war -torn countries are per definition not 'illegal'. What is illegal, on the other hand, is to refuse them asylum. So all the talk about 'illegal migrants' emanating from shills like Donald Tusk is at best highly questionable. The freshly introduced term 'irregular migrants' is beyond the moral pale. ..."
"... In that same terminology vein, the idea that Turkey is a 'safe third country', as the EU so desperately wants to claim, is downright crazy. That is not for the EU to decide, if only because it has -again, immoral- skin in the game. ..."
"... All this terminology manipulation, ironically, plays into the hands of the very right wing movements that Angela Merkel fears losing this weekend's elections to. They create a false picture and atmosphere incumbent 'leaders' try to use to hold on to power, but it will end up making them lose that power. ..."
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them… well, I
have others."
– Groucho Marx
What is perhaps most remarkable about the deal the EU is trying to
seal with Turkey to push back ALL refugees who come to Greece is that the driving
force behind it turns out to be Angela Merkel. Reports say that she
and temp EU chairman Dutch PM Mark Rutte 'pushed back' the entire EU delegation
that had been working on the case, including Juncker and Tusk, and came with
proposals that go much further than even Brussels had in mind.
Why? Angela has elections this weekend she's afraid to lose.
It's also remarkable that the deal with the devil they came up with is fraught
with so many legal uncertainties -it not outright impossibilities- that it's
highly unlikely the deal will ever be closed, let alone implemented. One thing
they will have achieved is that refugees will arrive in much larger numbers
over the next ten days, before a sequel meeting will be held, afraid as they
will be to be pushed back after that date.
They may not have to be so scared of that, because anything remotely like
what was agreed on will face so many legal challenges it may be DOA. Moreover,
in the one-for-one format that is on the table, Europe would be forced to accept
as many refugees from Turkey as it pushes back to that country. Have Merkel
and Rutte realized this? Or do they think they can refuse that later, or slow
it down?
Under the deal, Turkey seems to have little incentive to prevent
refugees from sailing to Greece. Because for every one who sails and returns,
Turkey can send one to Europe. What if that comes to a million, or
two, three? The numbers of refugees in Turkey will remain the same, while the
number in Europe will keep growing ad infinitum.
* * *
Sweet Jesus, Angela, we understand you have problems with the refugee situation,
and that you have elections coming up this weekend, but what made you think
the answer can be found in playing fast and loose with the law? And
what, for that matter, do you expect to gain from negotiating a Faustian deal
with the devil? Surely you know that makes you lose your soul?
You said yesterday that history won't look kindly on the EU if it
fails on refugees, but how do you think history will look on you for trying
to sign a deal that violates various international laws, including the Geneva
Conventions? You have this aura of being kinder than most of Europe
to the refugees, but then you go and sell them out to a guy who aids ISIS, massacres
Kurds, shuts down all the media he doesn't like and makes a killing smuggling
refugees to Greece?
Or are we getting this backwards, and are you shrewdly aware that the elections
come before the next meeting with Turkey, and are you already planning to ditch
the entire deal once the elections are done, or have your legal team assured
you that there's no way it will pass the court challenges it will inevitably
provoke?
It would be smart if that's the case, but it's also quite dark: we
are still talking about human beings here, of which hundreds of thousands
have already died in the countries the living are fleeing, or during their flight
(and we don't mean by plane), and tens of thousands -and counting, fast- are
already stuck in Greece, with one country after the other closing their borders
after the -potential- deal became public knowledge.
So now Greece has to accommodate ever more refugees because all borders
close, something Greece cannot afford since the bailout talks left
it incapable of even looking after its own people, while over the next ten days
it can expect a surge of 'new' refugees to arrive from Turkey, afraid they'll
be stuck there after a deal is done. Greece will become a "holding pen",
and the refugees will be the livestock. A warehouse of souls, a concentration
camp.
The circumstances under which these human beings have been forced to flee
their homes, to travel thousands of miles, and now to try and stay alive in
Greece, are already way below morally acceptable. Just look at Idomeni! You
should do all you can to improve their conditions, not to risk making them worse.
Where and how you do that is another matter, but the principle should stand.
You should be in Greece right now, Angela, asking Tsipras how you
can help him with this unfolding mayhem, how much money he needs and what other
resources you can offer. Instead, Athens today hosts the Troika and
Victoria "F**k the EU" Nuland. That is so completely insane it can't escape
the protagonists themselves either.
* * *
Refugees from war -torn countries are per definition not 'illegal'. What
is illegal, on the other hand, is to refuse them asylum. So all the
talk about 'illegal migrants' emanating from shills like Donald Tusk is at best
highly questionable. The freshly introduced term 'irregular migrants' is beyond
the moral pale.
As is the emphasis on using the term 'migrant' versus 'refugee' that both
European politicians and the international press are increasingly exhibiting,
because it is nothing but a cheap attempt to influence public opinion while
at the same time throwing desperate people's legal status into doubt.
What their status is must be decided by appropriate legal entities, not by
reporters or politicians seeking to use the confusion of the terms for their
own personal benefit. And numbers show time and again that most of the people
(93% in February GRAPH) arriving in Greece come from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan,
all war-torn, and must therefore be defined as 'refugees' under international
law. It is really that simple. Anything else is hot air. Trying to redefine
the terminology on the fly is immoral.
In that same terminology vein, the idea that Turkey is a 'safe third
country', as the EU so desperately wants to claim, is downright crazy.
That is not for the EU to decide, if only because it has -again, immoral-
skin in the game.
All this terminology manipulation, ironically, plays into the hands
of the very right wing movements that Angela Merkel fears losing this weekend's
elections to. They create a false picture and atmosphere incumbent
'leaders' try to use to hold on to power, but it will end up making them lose
that power.
* * *
The funniest, though also potentially most disruptive, consequence
of the proposed deal may well be that the visa requirements for the 75 million
Turks to travel to Europe are to be abandoned in June, just 3 months away, giving
them full Schengen privileges. Funny, because that raises the option
of millions of Turkish people fleeing the Erdogan regime travelling to Europe
as refugees, and doing it in a way that no-one can call illegal.
There may be as many as 20 million Kurds living in Turkey, and Erdogan has
for all intents and purposes declared war on all of them. How about
if half of them decide to start a new life in Europe? Can't very well
send them back to 'safe third country' Turkey.
Donald Trump answers the question 'what is 2+2?': "I have to say a lot of people
have been asking this question. No, really. A lot of people come up to me, and
they ask me. They say, 'What's 2+2'? And I tell them, look, we know what 2+2
is.
We've had almost eight years of the worst kind of math you can imagine.
Oh, my God, I can't believe it. Addition and subtraction of the 1s the 2s and
the 3s. It's terrible. It's just terrible. Look, if you want to know what 2+2
is, do you want to know what 2+2 is? I'll tell you. First of all the number
2, by the way, I love the number 2. It's probably my favorite number, no it
is my favorite number. You know what, it's probably more like the number two
but with a lot of zeros behind it. A lot. If I'm being honest, I mean, if I'm
being honest. I like a lot of zeros.
Except for Marco Rubio, now he's a zero that I don't like. Though, I probably
shouldn't say that. He's a nice guy, but he's like, '10101000101,' on and on,
like that. He's like a computer! You know what I mean? He's like a computer.
I don't know. I mean, you know. So, we have all these numbers, and we can add
them and subtract them and add them. TIMES them even. Did you know that?
We can times them OR divide them, they don't tell you that, and I'll tell
you, no one is better at the order of operations than me. You wouldn't believe
it. So, we're gonna be the best on 2+2, believe me."
Reply
Report BG
Davis
Sean Anthony Dylan , 2016-03-08 17:42:31
Priceless! Next stop, Saturday Night Live or similar.
Using a decent VPN for everything is rapidly becoming a must. It probably won't protect
you from the NSA, but it will do the job of protecting you from your own ISP.
That you have to protect yourself from your ISP is becoming just one more part of the
sad reality that is the modern United States.
I would say Tor is about as good except that Google, Akami, and Cloudflare sites (cough
NC cough) regularly block Tor exit nodes. Still, you get a little more hardening using Tor
browser than other browsers (using defaults).
Umm… I am not sure if you confusing VPN with something else, but yes. Its trivially easy
to use VPN with almost any smartphone.
As for Tor: i agree that State sponsor surveillance is still a risk, but as noted above,
the topic was ISPs (and i mentioned websites). When you use a phone, your carrier acts as
the ISP.
The header with your unique identifier can be scrubbed out when your using a VPN. Verizon
only sees that you "went" to the VPN address…all sites you visit see you as coming from the
VPN address. Neither the two shall meet without further snooping (which is not covered by the
injection Verizon does…that we know of).
Damn, I knew I should have gone through the process to remove the drm from my e books. I might
have to look into doing that immediately. But first I should check how my couple of nook newstand
subscriptions will be handled.
Whew, I have time. That is in the UK. Still a good warning shot over the bow…
"… But U.S. critics say that could allow foreign companies to use the agreement to invalidate
U.S. safety rules and regulations."
One thing no one much mentions is that the TPP allows
foreign
corporations the
ability to sue to invalidate regulations, but does not all local corporations the same. In
this, TPP privileges foreign over local production, and ensures a race to the bottom on product
place of origin.
"A Party may exclude from patentability inventions, the prevention within their
territory of the commercial exploitation of which is necessary to protect ordre public
or morality, including to protect human, animal or plant life or health or to avoid
serious prejudice to nature or the environment, provided that such exclusion is not
made merely because the exploitation is prohibited by its law."
I thought I saw the word morality some place else in the TPP, but apparently, the IP chapter
was the only place. Bad research on my part! In any case, beware the ratchet clauses and the
enemies within, lest your health system become just "Canadian™" enough for the world market.
Here's some more confirmation of what a crook Clinton is!
"In 2010/2011 Saudi Arabia was trying to secure the one of largest arms deal ever between a US
company and a ME country. The deal was worth 29.4 BILLION dollars to Boeing and had to be approved
by the State Department – specifically Hillary Clinton.
Regional allies were sceptical; Robert Gates wrote in his book that Israel had to be bribed to
stop them from publicly attacking the deal. They worried the deal would destabilise the region. And
in fact the State Department had released two reports outlining just how atrocious SA was, with it's
endless human rights abuses, and endless subjugation of women Saudi Arabia donated at least 10m (some
sources say as much as 25M) to the Clinton Foundation.
Boeing donated at least 10M to the Clinton Foundation (CF). Boeing also paid Bill 250K for a single
speech.
And Hillary signed off on the deal.
When she did, she and her aides celebrated, and publicly admitted that the weapons deal was a
"top priority". Not helping women in SA, not defending human rights, but signing off on a deal worth
billions between two Foundation donors.
Hillary was confirmed in 2008, with the understanding that the CF would disclose ALL donors, to
avoid even the look of impropriety. In fact Hillary signed an Memorandum of Understanding – a written
promise to the President, that the donor list would be made public annually. Hillary broke that promise
and stopped reporting CF donors. the Foundation also concealed over 1100 foreign donors by siphoning
their money through a Canadian charity owned by yet another big donor.
Hillary's first big hire for her 2016 Presidential run was her Campaign Chairman, John Podesta.
John and his brother Tony own one of DC's biggest lobbying firms. Tony has bundled many hundreds
of thousands for Hillary and the DNC and (DSCC, etc). The Podesta groups, as the lobbying firm is
known, counts among it's clients both Boeing and Saudi Arabia.
Oh and hey, those weapons Clinton signed off on, they're now being used to commit war crimes in
Yemen. Two of the main groups benefiting from those Saudi military strikes in Yemen? ISIS and al
Qaeda."
"... The comment that Clinton had seemed to have locked up the Democratic race last Tuesday is laughable now, but it was also way out of line last week. The idea that superdelegates will stay with Clinton if she falls measurably behind in the popular vote is very questionable. ..."
"... Adding them now to her delegate total makes sense if you're trying to create a perception of inevitability for the candidate you've endorsed. Wake up, Times analysts. She's not inevitable any more than she was in 2008. ..."
"... The recent polling average at Real Clear Politics placed Clinton ahead of Sanders in Michigan by 21.4%. Zero polls put Sanders ahead of Clinton. Polling organizations projected a Clinton victory chance at 99%. And Sanders just won the state. The victory is stunning. I strongly urge the pundits to revise their inevitability narrative and let the voters decide. ..."
"... HRC is part of establishment that led to this demise. Thank you to the people of Michigan for choosing Sanders and Trump. You have a beautiful state! ..."
"... When polls this morning showed Hillary 13% ahead of Bernie, NYTimes called Michigan a state whose diversity was almost perfectly representative of the nation. Now the goal post has shifted and Michigan is suddenly super-white. ..."
"... Sanders has won in almost all of the states that Obama carried in 2008 and 2012; Clinton has won mainly in the Southern states which the GOP has won in every election since 1968. The DNC should wake up: Sanders is the better candidate. ..."
"... It's going to be interesting how the super-delegates throw their support to. Right now Hillary is leading the delegate count and that lead is increased with a majority of the super-delegates. However, if this upset is followed by more in the future, those super-delegates may have a change of heart and we could have a very interesting summer in this election. ..."
"... The rustbelt does not trust Hillary Clinton - and for a very good reason - NAFTA. ..."
"... The Sanders Clinton divide is almost right on the Mason-Dixon Line thus far. These maps are quite remarkable. They also point to Sanders relative strength in contrast to the queen in a general election. He will carry Hillary's supporters much more so than her ability to expect the support of the Bernie people. ..."
"... Dearborn, Michigan is about 30% Arab Americans. Early returns show a majority voted overwhelmingly for our first Jewish American presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders. What a wonderful thing that says about Democratic Party values and the people of Dearborn. ..."
"... Breaking Bad - Michigan is the point the system went tilt. Bernie has the overwhelming white vote and now blacks are beginning going as well to Bernie. The Clinton Machine is running out of propaganda. People sees Bernie's Integrity ..."
"... It seems that the newspaper of record will have to take a more careful look at its slanted election reporting. The degree of poor and irresponsible journalism from the New York Times regarding the Democratic primaries is astounding! I'm surprised that the Times was able to print the breaking news of a "significant upset over Hillary Clinton." All power to the 99%! ..."
"... Bottom line: Take away the African American vote in the old South and Hillary is a non-candidate. ..."
"... Hillary was going to shift to Trump and the General Election. NOT. SO. QUICK. Ms Clinton. You have just about run out of Old Confederacy States and the shine is off of your inevitability argument. Bernie warned the press not to underestimate him. He just won an industrial state with a significant minority population. ..."
Don't you think it worth mentioning that most of the states Clinton has won are almost certain
to stay red in November? And that Sanders is winning the states Dems need to win in November,
and outpolling her dramatically among independents everywhere? Still think she's most "electable"?
The comment that Clinton had seemed to have locked up the Democratic race last Tuesday is laughable
now, but it was also way out of line last week. The idea that superdelegates will stay with Clinton
if she falls measurably behind in the popular vote is very questionable.
Adding them now to her
delegate total makes sense if you're trying to create a perception of inevitability for the candidate
you've endorsed. Wake up, Times analysts. She's not inevitable any more than she was in 2008.
Eric, Chicago 10 minutes ago
The recent polling average at Real Clear Politics placed Clinton ahead of Sanders in Michigan
by 21.4%. Zero polls put Sanders ahead of Clinton. Polling organizations projected a Clinton victory
chance at 99%. And Sanders just won the state. The victory is stunning. I strongly urge the pundits
to revise their inevitability narrative and let the voters decide.
Just Me, Planet Earth 10 minutes ago
Michigan serves as an example of the US as a whole- considering the fact that they are part of
the rust belt. The manufacturing sector of the US that has been DECIMATED by NAFTA, NATO, TPP
and other trade agreements that have ROBBED the middle class of hard working labor with DECENT
pay, now we are forced to compete with cheap labor. HRC is part of establishment that led to this
demise. Thank you to the people of Michigan for choosing Sanders and Trump. You have a beautiful
state!
Al, CA 10 minutes ago
When polls this morning showed Hillary 13% ahead of Bernie, NYTimes called Michigan a state whose
diversity was almost perfectly representative of the nation. Now the goal post has shifted and
Michigan is suddenly super-white.
In June we'll be hearing about how minority-majority California is grossly unrepresentative.
Why not just admit that some people would rather vote for the man who went to jail
Kevin Cahill, Albuquerque 10 minutes ago
Sanders has won in almost all of the states that Obama carried in 2008 and 2012; Clinton has won
mainly in the Southern states which the GOP has won in every election since 1968. The DNC should
wake up: Sanders is the better candidate.
Cassowary, Earthling 13 minutes ago
Behold the revolution! The people of Michigan have spoken. They are not buying what Clinton, her
corporate donors and media backers are selling.
Listen up, Democrats. Don't try to fight the will of the voters and usurp Sanders if he wins
nationally. Why destroy the party by undemocratically supporting Clinton through superdelegates
and risk the meltdown the GOP is going through? Clinton is now the unelectable candidate. Adjust.
Accept. Get ready for President Sanders, a true Democrat.
Martha Shelley, Portland, OR 13 minutes ago
Just yesterday the NY Times was telling us that Clinton would win a landslide victory in Michigan,
and Sanders was history. Um, is this on the same level as the 1948 headline in the Chicago Tribune,
"Dewey Defeats Truman?"
Andrew L, Toronto 13 minutes ago
"Mr Sanders, who won white voters in Michigan and is targeting them in coming Rust Belt
primaries...."
Wow. Just wow. And Sanders supporters say they are progressive. Has your country come to a
point where candidates and their campaigns barely conceal their implicitly racist aims? This is
utterly astounding and shameful.
Bernie won Michigan and, I believe, will win Ohio. It's not an "upset," NYT: it's momentum.
Were it not for the African-American vote, the Clinton campaign would be in the tank. Maybe it's
time to reconsider the received wisdom that "Bernie can't win"?
It's going to be interesting how the super-delegates throw their support to. Right now
Hillary is leading the delegate count and that lead is increased with a majority of the super-delegates.
However, if this upset is followed by more in the future, those super-delegates may have a change
of heart and we could have a very interesting summer in this election.
This is purely opinion, but I feel confident saying that the next president of this country is
going to come from the winner of this close Democratic Nomination. The Republican Party is very
divided with Trump leading the way, and I cannot see the typical support from losing candidates
thrown Trump's way should he win the nomination.
Bernie received almost 40% in Wayne County --Detroit, so let's end the fiction that Bernie
can't win the African American vote. His message is spreading in urban America, which is where
Democrats win elections.
The Times unfairly uses the term "prolong" to describe this race. Let's see hoee Bernie does
in Philly and Cleveland. Hillary is in big trouble.
Very poor coverage of the big story of the night - Bernie Sanders beating Hillary Clinton in
the rustbelt state Michigan. The rustbelt does not trust Hillary Clinton - and for a very
good reason - NAFTA. The dynamics of the Democratic race have just been transformed. Michigan
is a gamechanger.
Billy , up in the woods down by the river
2 hours ago
The Sanders Clinton divide is almost right on the Mason-Dixon Line thus far. These maps
are quite remarkable. They also point to Sanders relative strength in contrast to the queen in
a general election. He will carry Hillary's supporters much more so than her ability to expect
the support of the Bernie people.
This Michigan upset by Sanders over Clinton may prove to be historic.
Dearborn, Michigan is about 30% Arab Americans. Early returns show a majority voted overwhelmingly
for our first Jewish American presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders. What a wonderful thing that
says about Democratic Party values and the people of Dearborn.
This is a beautiful night for Bernie Sanders and those of us who believe in him. I think he'll
win but even if he doesn't, he proved his candidacyy is very much alive.
Get ready to feel the Bern, Ohio!
Janice Badger Nelson , is a trusted commenter Park City, Utah, from Boston
43 minutes ago
If Hillary and Bernie were switched, you would have called it for her already in Michigan.
CNN is doing the same. Sorry, the big story, even if Hillary squeaks out a narrow win, the BIG
story is how well Bernie Sanders is doing. Of course by reading the NYTimes, you would never know.
Sad state of honest journalism.
Breaking Bad - Michigan is the point the system went tilt. Bernie has the overwhelming
white vote and now blacks are beginning going as well to Bernie. The Clinton Machine is running
out of propaganda. People sees Bernie's Integrity
What an amazing upset by Mr. Sanders. Huge upset and will probably define this race when it's
all said and done. This is exactly what Bernie Sanders needed. The polls have been going against
him in pretty much every state, but this one was over 10% for Hillary today as per the latest
poll. We can't trust the media and the pundits. On to Ohio!!
Howie Lisnoff , is a trusted commenter Massachusetts
32 minutes ago
It seems that the newspaper of record will have to take a more careful look at its slanted
election reporting. The degree of poor and irresponsible journalism from the New York Times regarding
the Democratic primaries is astounding! I'm surprised that the Times was able to print the breaking
news of a "significant upset over Hillary Clinton." All power to the 99%!
Winning the Democratic primary in MS, LA or other deep south states is a far cry from carrying
those states in the general election. Hillary is in trouble.
Bottom line: Take away the African American vote in the old South and Hillary is a non-candidate.
She is strong in states the Democrats will not carry come November. This despite having a huge
advantage in name recognition, endorsements - including the NYT and WaPo, money and all the rest.
If the goal is to win in November, Democrats had better wake up. As of this writing, NBC just
called Michigan for Bernie where Hillary was supposedly up by 10+ Points.
(10:35 PM CST)
#FeelTheBern #NotReadyForHIllary
The clown car on the Republican side is of no consequence. Bernie will wipe the floor with Trump.
Hillary was going to shift to Trump and the General Election. NOT. SO. QUICK. Ms Clinton.
You have just about run out of Old Confederacy States and the shine is off of your inevitability
argument. Bernie warned the press not to underestimate him. He just won an industrial state with
a significant minority population.
"... What does "rebuild the military" mean? Has the budget been gutted? Have the useless weapons programs like the F-35 finally been shut down? No, the United States still spends more on its military than the next 14 countries combined. And the official military budget is only part of the story. The total spending on the US empire is well over one trillion dollars per year. Under the Obama Administration the military budget is still 41 percent more than it was in 2001, and seven percent higher than at the peak of the Cold War. ..."
"... Russia, which the neocons claim is the greatest threat to the United States, spends about one-tenth what we do on its military. China, the other "greatest threat," has a military budget less than 25 percent of ours. ..."
"... I would rebuild it in a very different way, however. I would not rebuild it according to the demands of the military-industrial complex, which cares far more about getting rich than about protecting our country. I would not rebuild the military so that it can overthrow more foreign governments who refuse to do the bidding of Washington's neocons. I would not rebuild the military so that it can better protect our wealthy allies in Europe, NATO, Japan, and South Korea. I would not rebuild the military so that it can better occupy countries overseas and help create conditions for blowback here at home. ..."
"... No. The best way to really "rebuild" the US military would be to stop abusing the military in the first place. The purpose of the US military is to defend the United States. It is not to make the world safe for oil pipelines, or corrupt Gulf monarchies, or NATO, or Israel. Unlike the neocons who are so eager to send our troops to war, I have actually served in the US military. I understand that to keep our military strong we must constrain our foreign policy. We must adopt a policy of non-intervention and a strong defense of this country. The neocons will weaken our country and our military by promoting more war. We need to "rebuild" the military by restoring as its mission the defense of the United States, not of Washington's overseas empire. ..."
The Republican presidential debates have become so heated and filled with insults, it almost seems
we are watching a pro wrestling match. There is no civility, and I wonder whether the candidates
are about to come to blows. But despite what appears to be total disagreement among them, there is
one area where they all agree. They all promise that if elected they will "rebuild the military."
What does "rebuild the military" mean? Has the budget been gutted? Have the useless weapons programs
like the F-35 finally been shut down? No, the United States still spends more on its military than
the next 14 countries combined. And the official military budget is only part of the story. The total
spending on the US empire is well over one trillion dollars per year. Under the Obama Administration
the military budget is still 41 percent more than it was in 2001, and seven percent higher than at
the peak of the Cold War.
Russia, which the neocons claim is the greatest threat to the United States, spends about
one-tenth what we do on its military. China, the other "greatest threat," has a military budget less
than 25 percent of ours.
Last week the Pentagon announced it is sending a small naval force of US warships to the South
China Sea because, as Commander of the US Pacific Command Adm. Harry Harris told the House Armed
Services Committee, China is militarizing the area. Yes, China is supposedly militarizing the area
around China, so the US is justified in sending its own military to the area. Is that a wise use
of the US military?
The US military maintains over 900 bases in 130 countries. It is actively involved in at least
seven wars right now, including in Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, and elsewhere. US Special Forces are deployed
in 134 countries across the globe. Does that sound like a military that has been gutted?
I do not agree with the presidential candidates, but I do agree that the military needs to be
rebuilt. I would rebuild it in a very different way, however. I would not rebuild it according
to the demands of the military-industrial complex, which cares far more about getting rich than about
protecting our country. I would not rebuild the military so that it can overthrow more foreign governments
who refuse to do the bidding of Washington's neocons. I would not rebuild the military so that it
can better protect our wealthy allies in Europe, NATO, Japan, and South Korea. I would not rebuild
the military so that it can better occupy countries overseas and help create conditions for blowback
here at home.
No. The best way to really "rebuild" the US military would be to stop abusing the military
in the first place. The purpose of the US military is to defend the United States. It is not to make
the world safe for oil pipelines, or corrupt Gulf monarchies, or NATO, or Israel. Unlike the neocons
who are so eager to send our troops to war, I have actually served in the US military. I understand
that to keep our military strong we must constrain our foreign policy. We must adopt a policy of
non-intervention and a strong defense of this country. The neocons will weaken our country and our
military by promoting more war. We need to "rebuild" the military by restoring as its mission the
defense of the United States, not of Washington's overseas empire.
"... This BRILLIANT presentation should be heard (and I hope RNN runs it in print so that it can be copied, old-style, and distributed on 'paper')..absorbed as a concise, integrated history of globalization-the neo-imperialist policy that continues from the 19th-20thc. imperialism... and revealed as a continuation process of global capitalism & its "1%" class. ..."
"... One of the most important takeaways, though not a necessarily new one but one worth reiterating, is that national boundaries in terms of the US and the 1% are of no importance since a world domination economic empire is the goal. ..."
"... The bloated US imperial military budget reflects how the 99% at home fund this empire, of course they never voting for it. The military is not a US military--it is the military of the 1% and global capitalism. This actually should be the meme that those trying to raise consciousness put forth, since those on the left and the right from the middle and lower classes can begin to see the whole electoral mirage for what it is. ..."
"... Clearly the methods concerned human beings are using to address the madness of the elites and their corporate/military state have had absolutely no impact: Poverty is more rampant now than ever before, the gap between rich and poor very much wider and the number of wars keeps increasing, especially the race war against the Arab people. ..."
"... Big Brother's web of deception is weakening. The ranks of unbelievers grows daily. But does the cynicism beget People Power or Donald Trump? ..."
"... Dear DreamJoe. I think you're right that BB's web of deception is weakening, but I doubt that it's weakened enough. I'm sure you understand the 'deep state' concept. It does not matter which flunkeys the "people" elect; the deep state continues to run the show. What's going on now is all bread and circuses; it means nothing. ..."
"... Bernie and Donald are manifestations of a deeper systemic failures that have changed everything for millions of people. B & D will come and go, but that crisis will remain, and will become more acute. ..."
"... why do American politicians become incontinent when they mention Saudi Arabia ..."
"... recycling mechanism for capitalism ..."
"... there is a suicidal death pact between the West and Saudi Arabia ..."
"... Protecting oligarchs investments and rate of return on shareholders gains is worlds burden we are told a needed evil in order to advance GROWTH endlessly. Growth code word for consolidation of power and wealth by ownership consolidation globally by one percent. ..."
"... For many years I would have been agreeing with you...after 50 years I have recognized that in the scheme of things, no 'change' (from tribal to private property, from feudalism to capitalism) has 'just happened'...magically born clean & clear. The process is messy, no clear beginning or even END is really possible to see. History is filled with ironies and this time its the Dem Arm of the Duopoly letting Bernie in- as an artificial straw-man candidate to make Hillary's campaign appear to be a contest between the 'idealist' and 'the realist' and not the global coronation it is --- let in by mistake (just as every power elite has miscalculated & underestimated the powerful yearning for more justice & liberty& instinctive anger at the few that enslave the majority (thru history 'The 99%'...). ..."
"... So long as he rises to militarily protect "National Interests" abroad - read: imperial billionaire class interests - he's really one of them. ..."
"... He could be doing exactly what Trump is doing except from the populist left perspective: taking down the duopoly's both corporate mafia houses with uncompromising fervor. ..."
"... Excellent discussion and lecture. A very important part of the 'due diligence' of democratic participation and research by the people. ..."
Be nice to have a book called "The Foreign Policy of the 1%".
Maybe include references to GATT, TPP, oil wars as mentioned in the presentation.
Other questions:
1) How does Foreign Policy of 1%: tie to Economic Hitman, John Perkins?
2) How does Foreign Policy of 1%: tie to conservative founders like Jeane Kirkpatrick?
3) How does Foreign Policy of 1%: tie to rise to Regan Revolution? Trump?
This BRILLIANT presentation should be heard (and I hope RNN runs it in print so that it can be
copied, old-style, and distributed on 'paper')..absorbed as a concise, integrated history of globalization-the
neo-imperialist policy that continues from the 19th-20thc. imperialism... and revealed as a continuation
process of global capitalism & its "1%" class.
Deepest thanks to Vijay Prashad...and to others
like professor Bennis (present in the audience)... whose in-depth analysis of the system can, if
studied, contribute to putting the nascent 'political revolution' Bernie calls for...into a real
democratic movement in this country. We are so woefully ignorant as 'members of the 99%'- it seems
worst of all in America-- intentionally kept isolated from knowing anything about this country/corporation's
'foreign policy' (aka as Capitalist system policy or 'the 1% policy) that Bernie cannot even broach
what Vijay has given here. But he at least opens up some of our can of worms, the interrconnectdedness
of class-interests and the devastation this country's (and the global cabal of ) capitalist voracious
economic interests rains upon the planet.
The Mid-East is a product of Capitalism that will, if
we don't recognize the process & change course & priorties, will soon overtake all of Africa and
all 'undeveloped' (pre-Capitalist) countries around the globe--The destruction and never-ending
blur of war and annihilation of peoples, cultures and even the possibility of 'political evolution'
is a product of the profit-at-any-and-all-costs that is the hidden underbelly of a system of economics
that counts humanity as nothing. It is a sick system. It is a system whose sickness brings death
to all it touches... and we are seeing now it is bringing ITS OWN DEATH as well.
The '99% policy'
(again a phrase Prashad should be congratulated for bringing into the language) is indeed one
that understands that our needs --the people's needs, not 'national interests' AKA capitalist
corporate/financial interests --- are global, that peace projects are essentially anti-capitalist
projects.... and our needs-to build a new society here in the U.S. must begin to be linked to
seeing Capitalism as the root cause of so much suffering that must be replaced by true democratic
awakening a- r/evolutionary process that combines economic and civic/political -- that we must
support in every way possible. Step One: support the movement for changed priorities & values
by voting class-consciously.
The 1% or the oligarchy have completely won the world, our only way to fight against such power
is to abandon buying their products, take great care on who you vote for in any election, only
people who have a long record of social thinking should be considers. They can be diminished but
not beaten.
One of the most important takeaways, though not a necessarily new one but one worth reiterating,
is that national boundaries in terms of the US and the 1% are of no importance since a world domination
economic empire is the goal.
The bloated US imperial military budget reflects how the 99% at home fund this empire, of course
they never voting for it. The military is not a US military--it is the military of the 1% and
global capitalism. This actually should be the meme that those trying to raise consciousness put
forth, since those on the left and the right from the middle and lower classes can begin to see
the whole electoral mirage for what it is.
All of what's been said about the elites, the one percent, has already been said many years ago.
The conversation about the wealthy elites destroying our world has changed only in the area of
how much of our world has and is being destroyed. Absolutely nothing else has changed, nothing
else.
Clearly the methods concerned human beings are using to address the madness of the elites and
their corporate/military state have had absolutely no impact: Poverty is more rampant now than
ever before, the gap between rich and poor very much wider and the number of wars keeps increasing,
especially the race war against the Arab people. Meanwhile, as we continue to speak the ocean
is licking at our doorstep, the average mean temperature has ticked up a few notches and we are
all completely distracted by which power hungry corporate zealot is going to occupy the office
which is responsible for making our human condition even more dire. The circus that is this election
is merely a ploy by the elites to make us believe that we actually do have a choice. Uh-huh; yet
if I were to suggest what REALLY needs to be done to save the human race I would be in a court
which functions only to impoverish those of us who try to speak the truth of our situation objectively.
The 'Justice' system's only function is to render us powerless. Whether one is guilty or innocent
is completely irrelevant anymore. All they have to do is file charges and they have your wealth.
Good luck to all of us as we all talk ourselves to death.
Dear denden11: You get gold stars in heaven as far as I'm concerned for telling the exact truth
in the plainest possible terms. Bravissimo. "Talk/ing/ ourselves to death" is, I'm sorry to say,
what we are doing. I've been working on these issues for forty years, looking for an exit from
this completely interlocked system. I'm sorry to say I haven't seen the exit. I do understand
how we have painted ourselves into this corner over the past 250 years (since the so-called Enlightenment),
but without repentance on our part and grace on God's part, we're doomed because we all believe
the Big Lies pumped into us moment by moment by Big Brother. And it's the Big Lies that keep us
terminally confused and fragmented.
Don't Believe the Hype was an NWA rap anthem over twenty year ago.
I always liked the shouted line, "And I don't take Ritalin!"
Big Brother's web of deception is weakening. The ranks of unbelievers grows daily. But does
the cynicism beget People Power or Donald Trump?
In defeat, will Sander's campaign supporters radicalize or demoralize into apathy or tepid
support for Hillary - on the grounds that she's less of an evil than Trumpty Dumbty?
If not defeated, will Sanders and his campaign mobilize the People to fight the powers that
be? Otherwise, he has no real power base, short of selling out on his domestic spending promises
and becoming another social democratic lapdog for Capital- like Tony Blair.
Dear DreamJoe. I think you're right that BB's web of deception is
weakening, but I doubt that it's weakened enough. I'm sure you understand the 'deep state' concept.
It does not matter which flunkeys the "people" elect; the deep state continues to run the show.
What's going on now is all bread and circuses; it means nothing.
As material conditions change drastically for tens of millions of USAns, the old propaganda loses
effect.
New propaganda is required to channel the new class tensions. Still an opening may be created.
People can't heat their homes with propaganda, the kids are living in the basement and grandpa
can't afford a nursing home and he's drinking himself to death. That's the new normal, or variations
on it for a lot of people who don't believe the hype anymore.
Bernie and Donald are manifestations of a deeper systemic failures that have changed everything
for millions of people. B & D will come and go, but that crisis will remain, and will become more
acute.
Great work Vijay...got my "filters" back on. Cut and pasted original comment below despite TRNN
labeling of "time of posting" which is irrelevant at this point.
Wow...now that I got my rational filters back on this was a great piece by Vijay and succinctly
states what many of us who "attempt" to not only follow ME events but to understand not only the
modern history by the motives of the major players in the region. Thanks for this piece and others...looking
forward to the others.
Posted earlier while my mind was on 2016 election cycle watching MSM in "panic mode"
Thought this was going to be a rational discussion on US foreign policy until the part on ?
"Trumps Red Book". I had hoped to rather hear, "The Red Book of the American Templars" ...taking
from the Knights Templar in Europe prior the collapse of the feudal system. I will say that Vijay's
comment on Cruz was quite appropriate though it would also have been better to not only put it
into context but also illustrate that Cruz's father Rafael Cruz believes in a system contrary
to the founding ideals of the US Constitution: He states in an interview with mainstream media
during his son's primary campaign that [to paraphrase] "secularism is evil and corrupt". Here
is an excerpt of his bio from Wiki:
"During an interview conducted by the Christian Post in 2014, Rafael Cruz stated, "I think
we cannot separate politics and religion; they are interrelated. They've always been interrelated."[29]
Salon described Cruz as a "Dominionist, devoted to a movement that finds in Genesis a mandate
that 'men of faith' seize control of public institutions and govern by biblical principle."[30]
However, The Public Eye states that Dominionists believe that the U.S. Constitution should be
the vehicle for remaking America as a Christian nation.[31]"
Fareed Zakaria interviewed a columnist from the Wall Street Journal today on Fareed's GPS program
and flatly asked him [paraphrased], "Is not the Wall Street Journal responsible for creating the
racist paradigm that Trump took advantage of "? Let us begin with rational dialogue and not demagogy.
Quite frankly with regard to both Cruz and Trump [in context of the 2016 elections cycle] a more
insightful comment would have been...Change cannot come from within the current electoral processes
here in the US with Citizen's United as its "masthead" and "Corporations are people as its rallying
cry"!
Not the West....just the F.I.R.E industries...driving the housing bubble; shopping malls; office
buildings; buying municipal bonds [as they the municipalities bought and built prisons; jails;
SWAT vehicles and security equipment (developed by the Israelis); and keeping the insurance companies
afloat while AllState had time after Katrina to pitch their subsidiaries allowing these subsidiaries
to file for bankruptcy]...now all the maintenance expense is coming due and cities and counties
are going broke... along with the Saudi investments here in US.
Protecting oligarchs investments and rate of return on shareholders gains is worlds burden we
are told a needed evil in order to advance GROWTH endlessly. Growth code word for consolidation
of power and wealth by ownership consolidation globally by one percent. What about the 99 percent?
While populations simply need and want also income and investment security globally.
What about
populations in massive consumer debt for education, housing, etc. to fund one percent Growth.
Laborers across globe are all in same boat simply labor for food without anything else to pass
along to progeny but what is most important ethics. A world government established by corporatism
advantage by authority of law and advantage all directed toward endless returns to oligarchy family
cartels is not an acceptable world organization of division of resources because it is tranny,
exclusive, extraction and fraudulent. Such madness does NOT float all boats.
All this while oligarchs
control Taxation of government authority and hidden excessive investment and fraud return taxation.
While Governments in west don't even jail corporate criminals while west claims law is just while
skewed in favor of protecting one percent, their returns on investment and investments. Billionaires
we find in some parts of so called Unjust regions of world not yet on board with cartel game are
calling out fraud that harms individuals and society aggressively.
TEHRAN, Iran - An Iranian court has sentenced a well-known tycoon to death for corruption linked
to oil sales during the rule of former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the judiciary spokesman
said Sunday.
Babak Zanjani and two of his associates were sentenced to death for "money laundering," among
other charges, Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejehi said in brief remarks broadcast on state TV. He did
not identify the two associates. Previous state media reports have said the three were charged
with forgery and fraud.
"The court has recognized the three defendants as 'corruptors on earth' and sentenced them
to death," said Ejehi. "Corruptors on earth" is an Islamic term referring to crimes that are punishable
by death because they have a major impact on society. The verdict, which came after a nearly five-month
trial, can be appealed.
So when Bernie winds up on the regime change band wagon (of mostly leftist governments) and stays
silent in the face of US aided and approved of coups (Honduras/Zelaya being the next most recent
before Ukraine) while railing against the billionaire class on Wall Street and the neoliberal
trade agreements, he's not only missing the elephant in the room; he's part of this elephant.
For many years I would have been agreeing with you...after 50 years I have recognized that in
the scheme of things, no 'change' (from tribal to private property, from feudalism to capitalism)
has 'just happened'...magically born clean & clear. The process is messy, no clear beginning or
even END is really possible to see. History is filled with ironies and this time its the Dem Arm
of the Duopoly letting Bernie in- as an artificial straw-man candidate to make Hillary's campaign
appear to be a contest between the 'idealist' and 'the realist' and not the global coronation
it is --- let in by mistake (just as every power elite has miscalculated & underestimated the powerful
yearning for more justice & liberty& instinctive anger at the few that enslave the majority (thru
history 'The 99%'...).
And as all past power-elites have done, our '1%' has misread the age-old
evolution of culture when an old system NO LONGER WORKS that makes freedom, imagination & rebellion
more acceptable more attractive, more exciting and NECESSARY. Then, once energized BY NEED, DESIRE,
and yes HOPE....change begins and can't be stopped like a slow-moving rain that keeps moving.
As with past eras & past changes, in our own day this 'millennial plus 60's' powerful generational
tide is JUST BEGINNING to feel our strength & ability. Turning what was supposed to be a globalist-coronation
into what right now certainly seems like a step towards real change, towards building a recognition
of the power, we 'the 99%' can --IF WE ACT WISELY & WITH COMMITTMENT begin the work of creating
a new world.
Criticising Bernie is criticizing the real way progress works...We need to get out
of an ego-centric adolescent approach to human problem-solving, understand we need to keep our
movement growing even if it doesn't look the WAY WE EXPECTED IT TO LOOK...keep clear on GOALS
that Bernie's campaign is just a part of. The 'left' needs to recognize its our historic moment:
to either move ahead or SELF-destruct.. Impatience needs to be replaced by a serious look down
the road for our children's future. If we don't, the power elite of the System wins again (vote
Hillary?? don't vote??). We need to take a breath & rethink how change really happens because
this lost opportunity Is a loss we can no longer afford. The movement must be 'bigger than Bernie'.
I just hope he does not get forced to resign which the L-MSM is now beginning to parrot so Hillary
can win given the huge turnouts the Repugs are getting in the primaries. I want to see four candidates
at the National Convention...in addition to Third parties.
No one can be elected Commander and Chief by stating they will not defend oligarchs interests
as well as populations interests. We agree populations interests are negated and subverted all
over earth . That cannot be changed by armed rebellion but it can be changed by electing electable
voices of reason such as Sanders. Sanders will fight to protect populations and resist oligarchy
war mongering while holding oligarchs accountable. Sanders will address corrupted law and injustice.
Vote Sanders.
You are probably correct in your thinking, but the real power will never allow any potential effective
changes to the system that is. People who try usually end up dead.
This is why we must as citizens become active players in government far greater then we are today,
we must do far more then voting. We must have time from drudgery of earning a substandard wage
that forces most to have little time for advancing democracy. Without such time oligarchs and
one percent end-up controlling everything.
We can BEGIN the march toward mountain top toward socializations
which will promote aware individualizations. We don't expect we will advance anything without
oppositions in fact we expect increased attacks. Those increased attacks can become our energy
that unites masses as we all observe the insanity they promote as our direction. We merely must
highlight insanity and path forward toward sanity. Nothing can make lasting change this generation
the march will take generations. The speed advance only will depend on how foolish oligarchs are
at attempts to subvert public awareness seeking change. As they become more desperate our movements
become stronger. We must refrain from violence for that is only thing that can subvert our movement.
He could be doing exactly what Trump is doing except from the populist left perspective: taking
down the duopoly's both corporate mafia houses with uncompromising fervor.
Instead he does the LOTE thing for the neoliberal-neocon party "D". That's just dishonest bullshit
opportunism.
Do not receives daily email for a long time without clue why? so haven't in contact with TRN's
daily report until subject video appears on youtube website. and impressed by the panelists's
congregated pivotal works done thru all these years.
"... Washington has a long history of massacring people, for example, the destruction of the Plains Indians by the Union war criminals Sherman and Sheridan and the atomic bombs dropped on Japanese civilian populations, but Washington has progressed from periodic massacres to fulltime massacring. From the Clinton regime forward, massacre of civilians has become a defining characteristic of the United States of America. ..."
"... Washington is responsible for the destruction of Yugoslavia and Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, and part of Syria. Washington has enabled Saudi Arabia's attack on Yemen, Ukraine's attack on its former Russian provinces, and Israel's destruction of Palestine and the Palestinian people. ..."
"... In a recent article , Mattea Kramer points out that Washington has added to its crimes the mass murder of civilians with drones and missile strikes on weddings, funerals, children's soccer games, medical centers and people's homes. Nothing can better illustrate the absence of moral integrity and moral conscience of the American state and the population that tolerates it than the cavalier disregard of the thousands of murdered innocents as "collateral damage." ..."
"... violence creates terrorists ..."
"... The only possible conclusion is that under Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama the US government has become an unaccountable, lawless, criminal organization and is a danger to the entire world and its own citizens. ..."
Washington has a long history of massacring people, for example, the destruction of the Plains Indians
by the Union war criminals Sherman and Sheridan and the atomic bombs dropped on Japanese civilian
populations, but Washington has progressed from periodic massacres to fulltime massacring. From the
Clinton regime forward, massacre of civilians has become a defining characteristic of the United
States of America.
Washington is responsible for the destruction of Yugoslavia and Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya,
Somalia, and part of Syria. Washington has enabled Saudi Arabia's attack on Yemen, Ukraine's attack
on its former Russian provinces, and Israel's destruction of Palestine and the Palestinian people.
The American state's murderous rampage through the Middle East and North Africa was enabled by
the Europeans who provided diplomatic and military cover for Washington's crimes. Today the Europeans
are suffering the consequences as they are over-run by millions of refugees from Washington's wars.
The German women who are raped by the refugees can blame their chancellor, a Washington puppet, for
enabling the carnage from which refugees flee to Europe.
In a recent
article, Mattea Kramer points out that Washington has added to its crimes the mass murder of
civilians with drones and missile strikes on weddings, funerals, children's soccer games, medical
centers and people's homes. Nothing can better illustrate the absence of moral integrity and moral
conscience of the American state and the population that tolerates it than the cavalier disregard
of the thousands of murdered innocents as "collateral damage."
If there is any outcry from Washington's European, Canadian, Australian, and Japanese vassals,
it is too muted to be heard in the US.
As Kramer points out, American presidential hopefuls are competing on the basis of who will commit
the worst war crimes. A leading candidate has endorsed torture, despite its prohibition under US
and international law. The candidate proclaims that "torture works" - as if that is a justification
- despite the fact that experts know that it does not work. Almost everyone being tortured will say
anything in order to stop the torture. Most of those tortured in the "war on terror" have proven
to have been innocents. They don't know the answers to the questions even if they were prepared to
give truthful answers. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn relates that Soviet dissidents likely to be picked
up and tortured by the Soviet secret police would memorize names on gravestones in order to comply
with demands for the names of their accomplices. In this way, torture victims could comply with demands
without endangering innocents.
Washington's use of invasion, bombings, and murder by drone as its principle weapon against terrorists
is mindless. It shows a government devoid of all intelligence, focused on killing alone. Even a fool
understands that violence creates terrorists. Washington hasn't even the intelligence of
fools.
The American state now subjects US citizens to execution without due process of law despite the
strict prohibition by the US Constitution. Washington's lawlessness toward others now extends to
the American people themselves.
The only possible conclusion is that under Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama the US government
has become an unaccountable, lawless, criminal organization and is a danger to the entire world and
its own citizens.
Iran did use cyanide-based chemicals during the war with Iraq. Evidence suggests that Kurdish
rebels alleged to have been gassed by Saddam Hussein were in fact killed by chemicals Iran was
known to have at the time but which Iraq did not possess. This is the battle of Halabja. So Mr.
Prashad should do his homework a little more.
While mainstream treatments of history are sometimes biased, half-truths, or out-right fabrications,
the general consensus in this case is that the Iraqi military used chemical weapons at the battle
of Halabja:
"The Iraqis launched the deadliest chemical weapons attacks of the war. The Republican Guard launched 700 chemical shells, while the other
artillery divisions launched 200–300 chemical shells each, unleashing a chemical cloud over the Iranians, killing or wounding 60% of them, the
blow was felt particurarly by the Iranian 84th infantry division and 55th paratrooper division.[98] The Iraqi special forces then stopped the remains of the Iranian
force.[98] In retaliation for Kurdish collaboration with the Iranians, Iraq launched a massive
poison gas attack against Kurdish civilians in Halabja, recently taken by the Iranians, killing
thousands of civilians.[145] Iran airlifted foreign journalists to the ruined city, and the images
of the dead were shown throughout the world. However, Western mistrust of Iran and collaboration with Iraq led them to also blame Iran for the
attack. At one point, the United States claimed that Iran had launched the attack and then tried to blame Iraq for it." [
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
]
I'd be curious as to the sources of your alternative reading of this infamous event, particularly
considering the well-known persecution of the Iraqi Kurdish population by Hussein's regime.
While it is true that Iraq used mustard gas at Halabja, it is also true that Iran also used chemical
weapons and that the conditions of the corpses of Kurdish guerillas indicated the use of cyanide-based
agents Iraq was known not to have in its possession, but which the Iranians were known to employ.
The lie of omission here is the downplaying of the use of chemical weapons by Iran in the battle
of Halabja, a major water irrigation center crucial to the region. Using chemical weapons in
battle is indeed bad, but it's not on the same level as Saddam Hussein waking up one day and
deciding he wanted to gas several thousand Kurds, which was the charge made against him in the
run-up to the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Why would Iran drop poison gas on Kurds? Kurds would be their natural ally, so just from a strategic
point of view it makes no sense that the Iranians were responsible. Of course, Hussein was against
the Kurds and well as the Shia, so his doing it makes perfect sense.
I gathered your position from your original remark, and appreciate the elaboration but was curious
as to your sources. I'm also curious as to who would be motivated to downplay Iran's possible
usage of chemical weapons, as the US initially blamed them instead of America's tentative ally
Iraq at the time.
See my comment in reply to Brotha Ray. Links are embedded. Pelletiere was the senior CIA analyst
on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and has access to previously classified documents pertaining
to that war. The spin coming out of the White House in the run up to the invasion of Iraq sought
to downplay or even ignore Iran's role in the gassing of Kurds, unintentional though it probably
was, because they were looking for excuses to justify deposing Saddam Hussein.
Tabun is a crude agent; however the Iraqis are believed to have developed sarin, a more sophisticated
variety that acts like tabun. This was supposedly employed during the 1988 attack on the Al
Faw peninsula, and in several of the other operations which made up the Tawakalna Ala Allah
campaign. However, we doubt this was the case. Similarly, we find no evidence whatsoever that
the Iraqis have ever employed blood gasses such as cyanogen chloride or hydrogen cyanide.
Blood agents were allegedly responsible for the most infamous use of chemicals in the war-the
killing of Kurds at Halabjah. Since the Iraqis have no history of using these two agents --
and the Iranians do -- we conclude that the Iranians perpetrated this attack. It is also worth
noting that lethal concentrations of cyanogen are difficult to obtain over an area target,
thus the reports of 5,000 Kurds dead in Halabjah are suspect.
Kind of destroys a chief rationalization for invading and occupying Iraq in 2003, doesn't it?
Yes, Hussein's use of chemical weapons was bad, but it too place during battle between Iraqi and
Iranian forces and Iranian-used chemicals appear to be what caused the deaths of Kurdish guerillas
who, by the way, were fighting alongside Iranian forces. They appear to have taken friendly fire.
That is not remotely the same as Hussein deciding to gas Kurds, which was the accusation made
against him.
There is perhaps no more perverse relationship in the world than that which exists between
the West and Saudi Arabia - or, "the ISIS that made it," as Kamel Daoud, a columnist for
Quotidien d'Oran, and the author of "The Meursault Investigation"
calls the kingdom.
We've been over and over the glaring absurdity inherent in the fact
that the US and its partners consider the kingdom to be an "ally" in the fight against terrorism
and you can read more in the article linked above, but the problem is quite simply this:
the Saudis promote and export an ultra orthodox, ultra puritanical brand of Sunni Islam that is virtually
indistinguishable from that espoused by ISIS, al-Qaeda, and many of the other militant groups the
world generally identifies with "terrorism."
Wahhabism - championed by the Saudis - is poisonous, backward, and fuels sectarian strife
as well as international terrorism. That's not our opinion. It's a fact.
But hey, Riyadh has all of the oil, so no harm, no foul right?
Even as the very same ideals exported by Riyadh inspire the ISIS jihad, the kingdom
is so sure it has the political world in its pocket that it sought a seat on the UN Human Rights
Council, even as the country continues to carry out record numbers of executions.
They even had the nerve to establish what they called a
34-state Islamic military alliance against terrorism in December. Of course the members don't
include Shiite Iran (the Saudis' mortal enemy) or Shiite Iraq, both of which are actually
fighting terror rather than bombing civilians in Yemen and engaging in Wahhabist proselytizing.
But while everyone in the world is well aware of just how silly the "alliance" is, the farce will
apparently continue as French President Francois Hollande on Friday awarded Crown Prince
Mohammed bin Naif France's highest national honor, the Legion of Honor for "for his efforts in the
region and around the world to combat extremism and terrorism."
"... you mean like superpredators? Hillary has gone from working for Goldwater to stop the civil rights movement in its tracks, to working for Goldman sachs. ..."
"... Stop scapegoating blacks. Why don't you blame Hispanics? They voted for her over Sanders 2 to 1 in Texas. ..."
"... To the race issue: Black voters didn't reject Sanders' platform, this is a bunch of nonsense. They rejected, in part, the unknown. Black people in the South are SOUTHERNERS. Yes, they are also Black, a demographic in which there exists substantial diversity that many overlook, but Southerners tend to be conservative, and this has to do with the issue of Southern identity more generally, which isn't irrelevant to black folks. ..."
"... Another point: Blacks in the South may not feel they have the luxury to risk their vote on an idealistic candidate they don't really know, even if they like his ideas. ..."
"... Hispanic voters voted strongly for Bernie in Colorado. Perhaps African-Americans living in the South need to find out Sanders positions prior to voting for Hillary. Some of his positions might have been more in line with their thinking now that it is 2016. ..."
"... the Clintons have vacationed there for many years; they raise a lot of money there and are extremely well-connected with the MA Dem Machine, which is one of the most highly organized in the country. The Boston Globe and the rest of the MSM were for her. There is a long history. In 2008, Hillary beat Obama in MA by 15.4%, and that's with Ted Kennedy endorsing Obama. ..."
"... So, for Bernie to get within 2 points of her is an amazingly strong showing. Knock it off with the "liberal state Sanders should have won" - this is just a MSM line trying to make Bernie's strong showing look weak. Not the case. ..."
"... Hey, guess what? There are all different kinds of black people. I suppose that might be a little difficult for MSM to understand. Black people have regional differences, just like white people do. Yes, really. ..."
"... Last I checked, African Americans and self-identifying "black" people constituted about 13 percent of U.S. population and, thanks to mandatory sentencing policies adopted or enacted under the [Bill] Clinton administration, actually make up an even smaller percentage of Americans eligible to vote. ..."
"... How, then, did the Democratic Party decide to make its nominating process so skewed toward minority voters in Southern states the eventual Democratic nominee might be less likely to carry? But let's ignore, for the moment, the structural 'rigging' of a primary schedule ..."
"... Goldman Sachs ran the Clinton White House and has paid Hillary hundreds of thousands in "speaker's fees". Goldman owns her. ..."
"... Bernie Sanders did lead the civil rights movement and joined CORE,at the expense of his studies at the University of Chicago! He was arrested in a demonstration against discrimination in housing! Why do you mock this? And why do African Americans not recognize the good will of Sanders? What about anti-semitism? ..."
"... It really has not been demonstrated that Goldman Sachs and HRC connection are all that bad. An excellent article about it all... http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/06/is-goldman-sachs-the-root-of-all-evil/20210 / ..."
"... Clinton was nearly mocking Sanders' positions until she saw how many people they resonate with, and then she simply adopted them for herself. But the problem with that is she every few days runs back to Wall Street ( or Wall Street comes to her ) to have her meetings with Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs and Jamie Dimin at Chase and a few 'BFF' hedge fund managers to get her marching orders and some money and then she heads back out on the trail talking tough about breaking up the big banks, "if they need to be broken up". ..."
"... The majority of blacks, 55%, live in the South, yet the DNC has seen fit to upload those Red/Black states in the nomination process, knowing full well that they are Republican states. Where is the logic in that? ..."
"... African Americans could have closed this deal. I think they have made a "huge" mistake, Hillary will do nothing for the poor in general. But we will see I guess ..."
"... It is rather remarkable how the Bush/Obama regime candidate - Clinton - specifically chose to play the black race card. That won't go over well with the white majority. ..."
"... Clinton promised to break down all the barriers, barriers of race, sexism, class.....is that possible? or is there a certain level of rhetoric being used in political campaigns? and are you biased in your assesment? ..."
"... Right on with regard to old FDR! That man had courage and a big heart. But you and I are a bit older than most voters, I presume, so we get the whole FDR thing easily -- in my case, the connection is through my parents, both of whom were tough-as-nails Depression-Era people. My point is that Bernie's a well-read, very bright guy, an intellectual -- it isn't that people "gasp with fear," it's more like they're looking for something not so directly based on economics, and Bernie doesn't seem to give them that. ..."
"... Trump does better with low educational voters...as Does Clinton - take a moment to think about your bias here, you automatically state "Well trump voters are idiots cause they obviously haven't all the information I have about trump but clinton voters are smart because they agree with me" ..."
"... Sanders is not going to win 500 delegates from California-- nobody is, since the delegate count is proportional. To keep to your example, a best case scenario for Sanders would be just to *win* California, since he's behind in all the polls. But that isn't good enough at this point. He has to rack up huge margins in California (and other big states) to close the lopsided 80/20 results across the south. That is not going to happen. ..."
"... Exactly. The US has a far right party and a center right party. Bernie, who's basically a Social Democrat, chose to run as part of the center right party. And bizzarely, he and his supporters wonder why he doesn't get more traction and why the party insiders are against him. ..."
"... Well out of touch black southern voters may keep it mainstream with Hillary on this one but Bernie has caused enough of a disruption that she has had to rewrite many of her strategies. At least it exposes just how bad at being consistent she is to those who pay attention. I never thought I would have to but Trump it is. Thanks for your votes/ voices being heard. "Duh, votins fun. I wish we could do this more than once every 4 years." ..."
"... He won Colorado, why? The Latino vote!!! "The entire Democratic congressional delegation in Colorado supports Hillary Clinton-the Democratic governor, John W. Hickenlooper, here supports Hillary Clinton; former U.S. Secretary of the Interior and U.S. Senator Ken Salazar supports Hillary Clinton; the mayor of Denver; the former mayor of Denver. And yet Hillary Clinton lost to Bernie Sanders here in Colorado by what looks like about 20 points." -- The Nation. ..."
"... It's way off topic, but my favorite Mencken quote was, "We have to respect the other man's religion, but only in the same way, and to the same extent, that we have to respect his belief that his wife is beautiful and his kids are smart." ..."
"... Not really a better America for all, just a better America for the 99%. As it turns out, the vast majority don't matter. History has always shown that the vast majority don't matter. 1% moneyed people with a lot of influence, can easily sway a huge swathe of the great unwashed to simply do their bidding. ..."
"... If you want to take a break from yet another Shillary article see here where it says Hillary finds common ground with disgraced Tom Delay http://www.star-telegram.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/politex-blog/article53787095.html ..."
"... Identity politics is overshadowing class politics. This is a sad turn of events at a time when class inequality is larger than it has ever been - and at a time when poverty corresponds overwhelmingly with race. ..."
"... That and the fact that the Guardian has been repeating Clintons talking points that "He wan'ts to demolish Obamacare" - No he doesn't, the implication is that he will repeal Obamacare and then try for new healthcare that may or may not be succesful - it's not true but southern blacks have bought it, hook, line and sinker ..."
"... Not to mention that in 2008, Hillary won Massachusetts by a large margin over Barack Obama, demonstrating both her strength in that state and how amazingly well-run the Sanders campaign was this year. At the time, people also said it was the the death knell of Obama's campaign. Of course, he then went on to do extremely well in the west and north, which Bernie may or may not do. But to say his very close 2nd in Massachusetts means he's done is not accurate or historical. ..."
"... The statement ... "the former secretary of state is now well on the road to reaching the 2,383 total needed to win the nomination, leading Sanders by 1,001 to 371" is disingenuous. The actual totals are HRC 596, Bernie 399. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats / The Guardian has added superdelegates in their numbers. These superdelegates can change their mind at any time before the convention and historically will honor the candidate who get the most delegates through primaries and caucus'. ..."
"... For anyone who needs a non-Guardian perspective on same: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/why-bernie-sanders-won-su_b_9363416.html ..."
"... Bernie does not do poisonous identity politics. That's a Clinton specialty. my real news from The Young Turks even though I'm over 50. ..."
"... Sad thing is that it isn't a lie. In 2008 the superdelegates could switch from one Establishment candidate (Hillary) to another Establishment candidate (Obama). But Bernie isn't establishment. Superdelegates know that if they switch to him, their careers as Party hacks are over. ..."
"... remember warren used to be republican. she is pretty militaristic, coming from a military family ..."
"... Grauniad playing the race card on behalf of its darling corporatist warmonger. How utterly predictable. ..."
"... I agree that Elizabeth Warren has shown herself to be a coward. ..."
"... The Guardian needs to find a new Bureau Chief or start paying him more than the Clinton Machine. Or is MSNBC trying to buy the Guardian, and just has you trying out the Company standard line? ..."
"... Can someone actually explain to me the difference between Bill Clinton and George Bush's Sr. presidency? Outside of actually balancing the budget, I don't see that much difference between both presidencies... . ..."
"... With Clinton, though? There is SO much baggage going in that the level of discourse will never go beyond Benghazi, emails, Whitewater, the Iraq war, President Clinton's affairs and impeachment hearings, tax problems, etc. ..."
"... Additionally, if the Republicans actually wanted to go up against Sanders and not Clinton, their rhetoric would reflect that. They, like many members of the establishment, are treating Clinton as the presumptive winner and licking their chops waiting to get to her. If they wanted Sanders instead, they would be propping him up as "the" candidate, thus galvanizing his legitimacy in the race. ..."
"... I used to be able to read articles in The Guardian and glean what was really happening by reading between the lines. Now they just insult our intelligence, and though a few decent writers remain in their employ, there really isn't much of substance. Just asinine puffery. ..."
"... It seems that on number of issues, healthcare, foreign intervention, Wall St, Trump is actually on the LEFT of Clinton. ..."
"... on the whole, he is actually a good deal more liberal than Clinton. ..."
"... The media seem to be willing a Clinton win and are desperate to have us believe her nomination is a given. What they don't realise is that this is 2016 and this sort of spinning only strengthens peoples resolve to stick behind the only truly progressive candidate and probably dig another few dollars in donation. ..."
"... Said it before and I'll say it again, MLK is rolling in his grave. ..."
"... Black leadership has let us down. Clearly, they're on the payroll. ..."
"... I know many of them don't think he does. That's because the American people are pretty dumb, by and large. The fact remains that Bill Clinton sold out leftist, liberal views and values. From three strikes and mandatory minimums, expanding the death penalty, deregulating Wall Street, shipping American industry out of the country, slashing capital gains tax rates, demonizing and slashing the welfare safety net, Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act, it's quite demonstrably true that the man owes American liberals an apology. ..."
"... The establishment grief of the Guardian is just so obvious. I'm literally disgusted by the relentless shilling of this newspaper rag for a deeply corrupt Wall Street owned candidate like Shillary. ..."
"... Clinton is winning the black vote without having ever really done a thing to deserve it. Sanders has much more of an actual participatory record in the Civil Rights movement. ..."
"... Make that NEO-liberal not liberal that seems to be happy keeping people like you in power. ..."
"... She very obviously did not win the youth vote ..."
"... The establishment are TERRIFIED of Sanders - because with Hillary they know they can control her with money! Just listen to her speech last night, and it literally was a compilation of platitudes! In terms of speaking without actually saying anything she is as bad as Trump! ..."
"... She has e-mails PROVING she has been actively campaigning FOR nafta and TTIP! ..."
"... Fast running out of patience with the Guardian and its bias for Clinton. This article is biased, it is rooted in hunches. ..."
Horse feathers. Sanders has supported civil rights since before Clinton was a GOLDWATER GIRL!
He put his life on the line for civil rights and got arrested for his trouble.
you mean like superpredators? Hillary has gone from working for Goldwater to stop the civil rights
movement in its tracks, to working for Goldman sachs.
What a nasty smear. The support for Senator Sanders comes from all races. He has also been embraces
by many black civil rights leaders and others. I'm sick of the media and its attacks on Bernie.
Yes, he can and must win without blacks, because they have opted out of a role in a progressive
movement. At least for now in the South. They chose staus quo and Madame Secretary Establishment.
The Southern states Hillary won Tuesday are Deep Red Republican states she cannot possibly win
in NOV. So writers pushing the idea it's over are exagerrating, or worse.
Turnout has been very low in America for decades, if Sanders can turn out just a few first time
voters he can overcome Hillary's Big Money advantages.
I have never seen before now liberals insist that The Word of The South is final, demanding Sanders'
immediate surrender at Appamattox Courthouse. They're scared of a new coalition Madame Secretary
Establishment can't control.
This article is trying to be clever, but comes off as snarky. Never mind that, though. The bigger
problem is that it lacks any context, historical or otherwise, about the United States and its
politics, demographics, and culture. It seems that the writer doesn't have a very deep understanding
of such things, which The Guardian may want to consider when it hires journalists to cover the
U.S..
Of course the "revolution" that Sanders is touting can't be all white, and his supporters
would be the first to tell you that (I am one of them, and white, grew up in South Carolina, and
have worked for racial justice for some time now). It's just simply ridiculous to state that African
Americans' voting preferences on Super Tuesday was a "withering refutation of the central premise
of [Sanders'] campaign: that an overthrow of the billionaire class is possible if ordinary Americans
come together as one." Where do I start? First, the premise of Sanders' campaign is that the system
is rigged - that even when ordinary people play by the rules, they get screwed economically. It's
not that different from what Obama has said many times, it's just that his solutions are different.
Sanders never said his campaign alone would "overthrow" the billionaire class. His campaign must
be seen in a larger historical context - which is not provided in this article - that includes
Occupy Wall Street, the strong and growing labor movement in the U.S. focused on the abysmal situation
of fast food and Wal-Mart-type workers, and yes, even racial justice movements such as Black Lives
Matter. The point this article misses - egregiously - is that movements are not built in an election
cycle, and that again, Sanders' campaign is part of a much greater trajectory that involves much
more than electoral politics.
That's why Sanders is so persistent, I believe, because he knows
that what he is doing is helping to build that sense of belief in something more just. Over sometimes
very long periods of time, enough ordinary people eventually CAN come together and, as you say,
"overthrow the billionaire class." It's just that it's going to take much more than one election
to do that. What's amazing is that so many people are willing to work for a better country even
though they know -- and Sanders knows this full well since he is 74 -- that they won't be around
to see the fruits of those efforts.
To the race issue: Black voters didn't reject Sanders' platform,
this is a bunch of nonsense. They rejected, in part, the unknown. Black people in the South are
SOUTHERNERS. Yes, they are also Black, a demographic in which there exists substantial diversity
that many overlook, but Southerners tend to be conservative, and this has to do with the issue
of Southern identity more generally, which isn't irrelevant to black folks. You have to understand
that Blacks in the South are not politicized in the same way that Blacks in other parts of the
country, such as New York City or Boston or Oakland are.
The South has a totally different labor
history (very anti-union), for example, which has been the context in which the working-class
has developed its expectations of what is politically possible. Somebody like Bernie Sanders,
who is a classic Northeastern (Jewish) Leftist, is very culturally alien (and don't even get me
started on the long history of animosity between the Northeast and the South - which also plays
into this). So to expect Blacks to vote for Sanders just because of his ideas, without really
knowing him (and eight visits is not a lot compared to Clinton's history with South Carolina)
is unfair.
Another point: Blacks in the South may not feel they have the luxury to risk their
vote on an idealistic candidate they don't really know, even if they like his ideas. They haven't
exactly been in a social position to vie for such dreams as free education, a decent social safety
net, etc., whereas whites are more accustomed to demanding things and having those demands met.
This may also explain some of the racial divide. I am not trying to say that white Liberals/Leftists
don't have a lot of work to do on race; nor am I saying that Sanders didn't make big mistakes
in his campaign with regard to his message in the South (Spike Lee, for instance, may not be the
best person to move Southern Blacks). But to trash his whole campaign as just an all-white "protest"
movement is just a gross oversimplification, and missing the point entirely.
Bernie needs to win 53% of the remaining delegates to take a non 'superdelegate' lead
to the convention. Not unfeasible by any stretch
Impossible? No. Feasible? Not really. Sanders has won about 38% of the pledged delegates so far.
What makes you think he's going to go from 38 to 53 points from here on out? No doubt he'll win
a few remaining states by large margins, but that's not going to be enough to boost his aggregate
numbers up enough, given the fact that the remaining large states -- NY, California, Ohio, Illinois,
Pennsylvania, Florida, New Jersey -- all look at least as Hillary friendly as Massachusetts (where
Clinton won). There are also a number of states with high black populations left, including Louisiana,
Arkansas, Michigan and Missouri.
Sure, a black swan event could get Bernie back in it. But that's what it'll take.
Hispanic voters voted strongly for Bernie in Colorado. Perhaps African-Americans living in the
South need to find out Sanders positions prior to voting for Hillary. Some of his positions might
have been more in line with their thinking now that it is 2016.
This is a canard. There are many reasons why Hillary did well in MA: the Clintons have vacationed
there for many years; they raise a lot of money there and are extremely well-connected with the
MA Dem Machine, which is one of the most highly organized in the country. The Boston Globe and
the rest of the MSM were for her. There is a long history. In 2008, Hillary beat Obama in MA by
15.4%, and that's with Ted Kennedy endorsing Obama.
So, for Bernie to get within 2 points of her is an amazingly strong showing. Knock it off with
the "liberal state Sanders should have won" - this is just a MSM line trying to make Bernie's
strong showing look weak. Not the case.
There are not enough minority votes to compensate for losing 80% of the white voters.
The DNC has totally miscalculate the political climate of the electorate. Those white voters
that are angry at the rigged economy and income inequality are going to Trump.
Bernie Sanders has the right message, but is being stifled by the party elite who want a return
to the 1990s.
States vie for earlier primaries to claim greater influence in the nomination process, as the
early primaries can act as a signal to the nation, showing which candidates are popular and giving
those who perform well early on the advantage of the bandwagon effect.
In such a primary season, however, many primaries will fall on the same day, forcing candidates
to choose where to spend their time and resources.
Indeed, Super Tuesday was created deliberately to increase the influence of the South. Moreover,
a compressed calendar limits the ability of lesser-known candidates to corral resources and raise
their visibility among voters, especially when a better-known candidate enjoys the financial and
institutional backing of the party establishment.
So if, the northern or western states would now want to change there primary dates, and have
their own 'Super Monday', the penalties would be harsh.
For Democrats, states violating these rules will be penalized half of their pledged delegates
and all of their Super Delegates.
So, in effect, the non representative nature of the southern Super Tuesday is locked in place.
I rest my case.
Hey, guess what? There are all different kinds of black people. I suppose that might be a little
difficult for MSM to understand. Black people have regional differences, just like white people
do. Yes, really.
He will likely not win, but that's just wrong what you are saying. He is losing big with African-Americans,
between 80-90% depending on the state voted for Hillary so far, that's true, and that's his biggest
hurdle and why Hillary was able run up the score on him in the south.
But he won with Latinos in Nevada and Colorado, probably not in Texas, but still not bad, and
he is actually beating Hillary with working class whites and independents big time, and that includes
moderate and conservative whites.
While Hillary is beating him with middle aged white women and women over 65, and people over 65
in general, that's also true. But the fact that it's just 'white liberals' and young people who
are for Bernie is not true.
In fact, the 2008 and 2016 primary voter groups have completely switched this year, and Bernie
is getting most of the white working class voters who voted for Hillary over Obama in 2008, while
Hillary is getting the African-American vote overwhelmingly, and is probably still slightly up
with the Latino vote overall, and Hillary is also getting white people making over $200,000 a
year, but not by huge margins like with African-Americans.
Last I checked, African Americans and self-identifying "black" people constituted about 13 percent
of U.S. population and, thanks to mandatory sentencing policies adopted or enacted under the [Bill]
Clinton administration, actually make up an even smaller percentage of Americans eligible to vote.
How, then, did the Democratic Party decide to make its nominating process so skewed toward minority
voters in Southern states the eventual Democratic nominee might be less likely to carry? But let's
ignore, for the moment, the structural 'rigging' of a primary schedule that allows such small
percentages of voters to choose the nominee and ask why African Americans, who got very little
beyond lip service and pleasing optícs from Barack Obama, would now believe that they can expect
any better from Hillary Clinton (who promises to do little else than continue the Obama program,
or whatever remains of it, at this point). I'm suspecting that Afrcan American voters don't know
enough about either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton -- neither what he could do FOR them nor
what she has sad and done TO them.
I am really astounded at the cynical and unsympathetic Guardian stance on Sanders! I thought you
might deal with the substance of the Sanders message about the need to destroy the strangle hold
that the U. S. Oligarchy has on politics and how they have damaged the country by pursuing their
own economic interests at the expense of the general public. Instead, you parrot the U. S. media
by treating it all as a spectator sport--concentrating on tactics and strategies rather than substance
and mocking his losses in southern republican states?
You might ask why African American voters have supported Hillary Clinton when her husband's trade
policies, welfare policies, and crime sentencing policies so harmed them?
What does that say about the political consciousness, or the lack thereof, of the U. S. electorate?
Bernie Sanders did lead the civil rights movement and joined CORE,at the expense of his studies
at the University of Chicago! He was arrested in a demonstration against discrimination in housing!
Why do you mock this? And why do African Americans not recognize the good will of Sanders? What
about anti-semitism?
You might deal with some deeper analysis of U. S. society and politics rather than this cynical
and superficial journalism that is slanted in support of the existed rotten social and economic
order?
Clinton was nearly mocking Sanders' positions until she saw how many people they resonate with,
and then she simply adopted them for herself. But the problem with that is she every few days
runs back to Wall Street ( or Wall Street comes to her ) to have her meetings with Lloyd Blankfein
of Goldman Sachs and Jamie Dimin at Chase and a few 'BFF' hedge fund managers to get her marching
orders and some money and then she heads back out on the trail talking tough about breaking up
the big banks, "if they need to be broken up".
One really has to start questioning the over influence of Blacks in the Democratic Party.
The majority of blacks, 55%, live in the South, yet the DNC has seen fit to upload those Red/Black
states in the nomination process, knowing full well that they are Republican states. Where is the logic in that?
It makes as much sense as if the Republicans upload all the New England states and California
in their process.
Logic would dictate that a hard right conservative wouldn't make it and it's being shown that
a true progressive can't win in the Democratic Party rigged system.
African Americans could have closed this deal. I think they have made a "huge" mistake, Hillary
will do nothing for the poor in general. But we will see I guess
It is rather remarkable how the Bush/Obama regime candidate - Clinton - specifically chose to
play the black race card. That won't go over well with the white majority.
Independents love Bernie over Hillary, and thats what the general is about, who do independents
and libertarians hate less - clinton or bernie? you think the right are not going to bring up
FBI, emails, benghazi? not saying it's fair, but neither is it fair of them to hate leftists for
being leftists
The point is Hillary is not a favourable general election candidate
Clinton promised to break down all the barriers, barriers of race, sexism, class.....is that possible?
or is there a certain level of rhetoric being used in political campaigns? and are you biased
in your assesment?
Right on with regard to old FDR! That man had courage and a big heart. But you and I are a bit
older than most voters, I presume, so we get the whole FDR thing easily -- in my case, the connection
is through my parents, both of whom were tough-as-nails Depression-Era people. My point is that
Bernie's a well-read, very bright guy, an intellectual -- it isn't that people "gasp with fear,"
it's more like they're looking for something not so directly based on economics, and Bernie doesn't
seem to give them that.
American social life and politics are labyrinthine, so one "master discourse"
isn't capable of dealing with it all. All the same, I admire Bernie Sanders' courage and convictions.
I mentioned in another post (about Ben Carson) that running for president diminishes most people
who dare attempt it. That hasn't been the case with Bernie. If anything and no matter what the
outcome, his campaign is showing us what a wise and wonderful man he is.
Trump does better with low educational voters...as Does Clinton - take a moment to think about
your bias here, you automatically state "Well trump voters are idiots cause they obviously haven't
all the information I have about trump but clinton voters are smart because they agree with me"
The demos tell us, the dumber you are, the more likely you will vote for clinton and trump
Sanders is not going to win 500 delegates from California-- nobody is, since the delegate count
is proportional. To keep to your example, a best case scenario for Sanders would be just to *win*
California, since he's behind in all the polls. But that isn't good enough at this point. He has
to rack up huge margins in California (and other big states) to close the lopsided 80/20 results
across the south. That is not going to happen.
If the Democratic primary were more like the Republican one (with lots of winner take all contests),
it would still be anyone's game. However, that is simply not the case. The Democratic primary
is set up to reward the candidate with the broadest coalition of supporters, and this year that
person is Clinton.
Exactly. The US has a far right party and a center right party. Bernie, who's basically a Social
Democrat, chose to run as part of the center right party. And bizzarely, he and his supporters
wonder why he doesn't get more traction and why the party insiders are against him.
If Jeremy Corbyn tried to run as a Tory what kind of welcome do you think he would get?
What she is doing here is stifling Democracy, and denying the public meaningful say in who runs
the country and how. Using the party establishment in absolute lockstep to keep the electorate
out in the cold is staunchly anti-democratic. She really thinks she has the right to control the
entire party and the nomination process in her favor.
We already know she is an authoritarian. She is a staunch imperialist, supports NSA spying,
the national security state, protects torture, executive power, endless wars, the war on drugs,
mass incarceration, and we know that she stands for the richest and most powerful factions in
society.
Well out of touch black southern voters may keep it mainstream with Hillary on this one but Bernie
has caused enough of a disruption that she has had to rewrite many of her strategies. At least
it exposes just how bad at being consistent she is to those who pay attention. I never thought
I would have to but Trump it is. Thanks for your votes/ voices being heard. "Duh, votins fun.
I wish we could do this more than once every 4 years."
He won Colorado, why? The Latino vote!!! "The entire Democratic congressional delegation in Colorado
supports Hillary Clinton-the Democratic governor, John W. Hickenlooper, here supports Hillary
Clinton; former U.S. Secretary of the Interior and U.S. Senator Ken Salazar supports Hillary Clinton;
the mayor of Denver; the former mayor of Denver. And yet Hillary Clinton lost to Bernie Sanders
here in Colorado by what looks like about 20 points." -- The Nation.
More than likely the smart Sanders strategists know that winning or losing these early primaries
doesn't really matter, not in the long run, just do enough to keep Sanders in the running, but
keep your powder dry.
In a month, maybe 6 weeks, charges should be laid against Clinton, and that will be her campaign
done. Sanders needs to simply hold on till then, at which point he'll default to being the Democratic
candidate.
It's way off topic, but my favorite Mencken quote was, "We have to respect the other man's religion,
but only in the same way, and to the same extent, that we have to respect his belief that his
wife is beautiful and his kids are smart."
Not really a better America for all, just a better America for the 99%.
As it turns out, the vast majority don't matter. History has always shown that the vast majority
don't matter.
1% moneyed people with a lot of influence, can easily sway a huge swathe of the great unwashed
to simply do their bidding.
Hence, so many uneducated imbeciles are happy to vote against their own interests. Please, heap
on the vitriolic nonsense, calling me bigoted, etc, but it doesn't change anything. The majority
of voters have happily voted against their own interests, and not even bothered realising that
they're done it.
Because Americans are so distrustful of our media sources at this point, that we've started reading
foreign media sources. I think someone took notice.
Here is a Bloomberg article from a few days ago, just before Super tuesday. It predicts Clinton
will win every state except Vermont. I.e., 10 out of 11. Now that Sanders actually won 4, Bloomberg
just whistles past, pretends it didn't happen and gets it's next set of lies ready.
It's not just Bloomberg of course, it's every establishment rag that has been banging on about
of Clinton's inevitability, without any evidence other than - well, it's Clinton.
A lot of savvy pundits, that I have learned to trust over the years are saying Sanders has
a better than 50-50 chance of being the nominee. Every time you see the Guardian or it's ilk tell
you why Clinton is a certainty, remember they don't even believe this, It's editorial policy.
We don't know why the Guardian has chosen Clinton as their candidate but we have discovered
the motives for other outlets. The Daily Beast for example upset a lot of it's readers by gunning
for Hillary. The Daily Beast is a part of the IAC group, which boasts owning over 150 websites.
The following page lists their board of directors, one name stands out - Chelsea Clinton.
http://iac.com/about/leadership
The reason Sanders is getting no cut through with black voters is nothing to do with his failure
to communicate or his offer, which would actually help the black community far more than Hillary
- from education to minimum wage and health insurance. It also has little to do with Hillary.
It's to do with Bill. He was and is incredibly popular with black voters across the whole of the
USA and did a lot of good work for true equality, so much so that he was even known as 'the first
black president'. He's also seen as a true Democrat hero and it's no surprise that he spent his
last day of Super Tuesday canvassing in Massachusetts, home of Democrat royalty, which could well
have swung that state. How Jeb must regret his family legacy.
Bernie has been criticized for running with the Class Struggle Idea, i.e., the 99% vs 1%. The
Media Pundits said he would have to sharpen up the message to include African-American Democrats.
He did that and still lost the African-American Vote.
Everyone would benefit from a higher minimum wage, Medicare for all, reining in Wall Street
and a free College Education. The message is clear Bernie has the promise of a better America
for all. If people cannot take the time or effort to educate themselves then perhaps H. L. Mencken
was right, - Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.
Another quote from Mencken came true when GWB was elected President - On some great and glorious
day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will
be adorned by a downright moron.
Identity politics is overshadowing class politics. This is a sad turn of events at a time when
class inequality is larger than it has ever been - and at a time when poverty corresponds overwhelmingly
with race.
Nah, Liz is playing it smart, she doesn't want the progressive faction in washington to live and
die by Bernies campaign. She wants to remain neutral so that she and all other progressives are
not written off, discredited by the establishment if Bernie doesn't win.
Malcom X and MLK didn't agree on tactics, that doesn't make one of them a coward, nor does
it make one of them right and the other wrong, it takes all kinds
Elizabeth Warren isn't endorsing because she wants to have sway with Clinton if she wins. She
already knows she would with Bernie. That woman is the power broker for Senate Democrats, and
she, and everyone else, knows it. She's going to go along with Clinton, and not actively oppose
her in the primary, so she can call in a favor or two during a Clinton administration, if that's
the way it pans out. She'll be the one who tries to hold Clinton to her new-found liberalism if
she's elected. She's also the only one who might be able to muster the Democratic troops to put
a stop to the TPP, TTIP and TISA, which is where I hope she uses her influence. Staying on speaking
terms with Clinton is the smart move for her, as much as we'd like to see her on the stump for
Bernie.
So perhaps it is not just southern whites who are more conservative. Perhaps that is true also
of southern blacks too. Talking class politics is a novelty for most Americans. British readers
need to remember that unlike Europe, there is no mass socialist or social democratic party in
the U.S. We have two conservative parties basically, one really of the right, the other more moderate.
That and the fact that the Guardian has been repeating Clintons talking points that "He wan'ts
to demolish Obamacare" - No he doesn't, the implication is that he will repeal Obamacare and then
try for new healthcare that may or may not be succesful - it's not true but southern blacks have
bought it, hook, line and sinker
Not to mention that in 2008, Hillary won Massachusetts by a large margin over Barack Obama, demonstrating
both her strength in that state and how amazingly well-run the Sanders campaign was this year.
At the time, people also said it was the the death knell of Obama's campaign. Of course, he then
went on to do extremely well in the west and north, which Bernie may or may not do. But to say
his very close 2nd in Massachusetts means he's done is not accurate or historical.
What does a primary win in a state whose general election electoral college votes will be going
to the other party mean, anyway? OK, so Clinton does well among African-Americans in states that
are solidly Republican. I don't think the pundit class has dealt with the demographic fact that
Latinos are the larger minority, and that in the so called "swing states" (like Colorado) Sanders
is winning and in very large states like California... where Latino support is going to be crucial,
there hasn't been any action, yet. As it is, the whole point of "Super Tuesday" has been to knock
insurgents out of the running, and it just didn't work this time.
The statement ... "the former secretary of state is now well on the road to reaching the 2,383
total needed to win the nomination, leading Sanders by 1,001 to 371" is disingenuous.
The actual totals are HRC 596, Bernie 399.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/democrats / The Guardian has added superdelegates in their numbers. These superdelegates can change their
mind at any time before the convention and historically will honor the candidate who get the most
delegates through primaries and caucus'.
The Young Turks have had fabulous unbiased reporting, also entertaining, but full of intelligent
analysis. It's no coincidence that they are funded largely by their viewers rather than corporations.
Also, they have fantastic LIVE coverage during and after primaries and debates. Check it out here
https://www.youtube.com/user/TheYoungTurks/featured
First, I definitely encourage all of you to read how the political establishment and the elite-controlled
media address people like Bernie Sanders:
http://portside.org/2016-01-27/seven-stages-establishment-backlash-corbynsanders-edition
Second, percentages mean nothing (Clinton winning 86% of African-American vote over Bernie's 14%)
when we look at just how many people ACTUALLY voted; only 367,000 votes for the Democrats- 30%
LESS than in 2008:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-do-the-voting-turnout-numbers-say-about-the-2016-presidential-race
/
The voting population in South Carolina alone is roughly 3 million people (with about 700,000
votes cast on the Republican side). This means only ONE THIRD of people ACTUALLY voted in the
primary; to conclude that Sanders lost this one because Blacks voted more for Hillary grossly
undermines the real problem: LESS African-Americans actually voted period.
This can be for many reasons, but I am willing to bet that scheduling less Democratic Party debates,
at odd times, and constant scrutiny by the media to sow doubt against Bernie by Hillary and the
Democratic Party establishment IS largely what is determining these results. They say that he
can't win and support Hillary (without disclosing their own financial interests in her campaign:
https://theintercept.com/2016/02/25/tv-pundits-praise-hillary-clinton-on-air-fail-to-disclose-financial-ties-to-her-campaign
/), they schedule less coverage on TV for him, they scrutinize his policies, ideas (but not
Hillary's), and supposed lack of minority support, and when they see 86-14% they conclude "See,
we told you- You should have listened to us."
There's more to this charade of an election and political system than merely "Sanders lost the
Black vote". The Democratic Party will do nothing to mobilize its base if it means Sanders becomes
the nominee, and minorities will continue to loose under this status quo enforced by the political
establishment because free college for their kids, healthcare for their families, a protected
environment, and a US government that works for them is too lofty a goal for us to be striving
for. #Feelthatbern
Everyone needs to be protected by financial regulation. The history of banking is quite clear.
Every ten to fifteen years they overleverage themselves, or invest too heavily in a bubble, and
they sink themselves. We removed the Glass-Steagall Act and passed the Commodity Futures Modernization
Act, and 8 years later they bankrupted themselves, after more than 60 years of largely sound and
stable banking. If we've decided that the financial institutions are too important and too interconnected
to allow them to fail, then we need regulation to protect these greedy bastards from themselves.
The alternative is more than a trillion dollars in taxpayer money every 10 or 15 years to bail
them out when they've gone and stuck their feet in it again.
Sanders won the Latino vote in both Nevada and Colorado. 20 points win in swing state Colorado?
You call this a protest movement? Who wrote this crap?
There's all the western progressive states and northern to come. I'm glad he has the money to
keep going without sucking up to Wall Street, so we can vote for him in California. To keep up
with his fundraising Hillz is having to stage a fundraiser where one of the hosts is an NRA lobbyist.
Really. And she's going to "take on the NRA"
The fact that Bernie has the money to do this is the REAL story that no-one is covering. It's
historic.
https://theintercept.com/2016/03/01/nra-lobbyist-will-co-host-clinton-fundraiser /
"He argues that young people who have used computers and other microchipped devices since infancy
will have effortless advantages over their elders in processing information and coping with change
when they reach adulthood. Their short attention spans, now disparaged by educators and parents,
may be an advantage in coping with the huge mass of disparate bits of information that will bombard
the wired person of the 21st century."
We've been force fed this bullshit our whole lives, and we're just really good at seeing through
it now.
So why couldn't Sanders win Masachusetts, one of the most progressive states in the US, and home
to more colleges and universities per-capita (and thus lots of young people - his big supporters)
than anywhere else? It's easier to blame the media than to take a good hard look at your campaign.
"Why would she sit this one out and help hand her home state over the pro-bank and payday lender
faction of the Democratic party? The answer is that she doesn't think Bernie will win and is afraid
of the consequences of supporting him, just like all the other liberals in Congress. They know
there is a steep price to pay to go against a Clinton, and to not fall in line with DNC, and they
don't want to be punished."
1) The evidence for your conspiracy theory is silly. Elizabeth Warren is not afraid to speak
out if she wishes. 2) The second part of your post is a classic slippery slope fallacy. Somehow
you're moved from Warren not endorsing a candidate to Clinton will be an absolute dictator if
elected (even more hilarious since you grant Trump is a fascist and somehow see Clinton as worse
than that).
To me this looks bad for the Democrats. This block of southern black democrats seem to control
the nomination the way white evangelicals control the Republican nomination, but are likewise
a minor factor in the actual election. For a start most or all of these states aren't going to
go to the democrats anyway. It sounds like a pyrrhic for either party to have a nominee who owes
it all to a demographic that won't have such a big say in the actual election.
Donald Trump is somewhat less likely to start new Middle Eastern wars. Hillary has a proven track
record of doing just that, which is one of many reasons this newspaper is in love with her.
Sad thing is that it isn't a lie. In 2008 the superdelegates could switch from one Establishment
candidate (Hillary) to another Establishment candidate (Obama). But Bernie isn't establishment.
Superdelegates know that if they switch to him, their careers as Party hacks are over.
More capitalist propaganda for Clinton. Remember, it is mainstream media that stands to lose most
from a Sanders win. Any effort to get money out of politics must be opposed by media outlets--political
campaigns are their CASH COW.
But that's politics and always has been. She's no more ruthless and calculating in that respect
than any major, successful politician in either party. Personally I can't stand her and would
never vote for her, but I think your complaint about her cutthroat politics is a bit naive. Did
you ever see 'House of Cards' ? (I haven't see the recent American remake, but I saw the original
on the BBC), and that is exactly how politics works.
Another mainstream media hack celebrating the success of the mainstream media's unique ability
to to simultaneously ignore Sanders' achievements and Clinton's disastrous racist record.
remember warren used to be republican. she is pretty militaristic, coming from a military family.
she's good on financial reform, may not favor bernie's foreign policy or being a democratic socialist--just
because she wants the laws enforced doesn't mean she wants an fdr level change (which is what
we need at this point).
First Wolffe, an MSNBC Shill bought and paid for by Corporations, now the Guardians own Bureau
Chief regurgitating Wolfie's article, even to using the same graphics.
And you believe the public stupid enough to believe they are unbiased.
The Guardian needs to find a new Bureau Chief or start paying him more than the Clinton Machine.
Or is MSNBC trying to buy the Guardian, and just has you trying out the Company standard line?
Hear, hear. There has been a massive drop-off in quality since Alan Rusbridger left. A slant is
one thing; blatantly superficial, badly researched, regurgitative journalism such has been the
level of late is just a shame for this paper that once did far better. But now it has joined the
ranks of LCD internet rags that are all about the clicks. I almost hate to give them the satisfaction
by clicking on this piece, but it's too important that errors in it be pointed out.
Can someone actually explain to me the difference between Bill Clinton and George Bush's Sr. presidency?
Outside of actually balancing the budget, I don't see that much difference between both presidencies...
.
Is it possible that the donations and polling in favor of Sanders is the result of right-wing
scheming? I suppose it's possible.
But is it likely? No, not even close to likely. To the best of my knowledge there has been
1 right-wing sponsored ad criticizing Clinton (
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/anti-sanders-attack-ad-isnt-quite-what-it-seems-be
). As for mass small donation fund raising by Republicans on the behalf of Sanders - the level
of complexity (and money) necessary to execute that is just too large to keep under wraps.
As for how Sanders will stand up under scrutiny - here's the "trump" card (pun intended). The
right wing will dub him a "Socialist" and Bernie will reply "Yup. Socialist. Next question?".
He's never shied away from that. In the Republican mind (and I worked for the Libertarian party
for a while so I have a little first-hand experience in how the right views the term) that's the
kiss of death right there.
They are myopic in their views and don't understand (or vastly underestimate) how *anyone*
could possibly have left-leaning views, let alone be a Progressive.
Beyond that, they'll have the same talking points on policy they would have with anyone from
the Democratic Party, and that's that.
With Clinton, though? There is SO much baggage going in that the level of discourse will never
go beyond Benghazi, emails, Whitewater, the Iraq war, President Clinton's affairs and impeachment
hearings, tax problems, etc.
Additionally, if the Republicans actually wanted to go up against Sanders and not Clinton,
their rhetoric would reflect that. They, like many members of the establishment, are treating
Clinton as the presumptive winner and licking their chops waiting to get to her. If they wanted
Sanders instead, they would be propping him up as "the" candidate, thus galvanizing his legitimacy
in the race.
Honestly, assuming that Trump wins the nomination, Sanders will be their worst nightmare. There
are no "gotchas" with the man. His record as a public servant is pretty transparent. They could
go after age, or perhaps his previous careers before public servant (he's just an aging hippy
that couldn't get a job until he got into politics, etc. etc.) but..well...that's about it.
If Sanders tells his supporters at the convention to vote for Clinton then will you vote
for Hillary?
Against any of the viable Republican candidates, yes. Though I live in a Red state so I am
considering a write-in for Sanders out of conscience. But, should the polling numbers suggest
the Democratic nominee stands even a snowball's chance, I will vote for Secretary Clinton if she
is the nominee.
I agree, it isn't really a new development. What upsets me is that despite its bias, it used to
be more sophisticated and subtly propagandistic. Their coverage of the Labour leadership election
and the US presidential election so far has been abysmal. The vast majority of the articles they
publish bashing Corbyn and Sanders or boosting Hillary Clinton and Yvette Cooper haven't just
been hopelessly slanted, they have also been puerile and light on serious probing of the issues
at hand.
I used to be able to read articles in The Guardian and glean what was really happening by reading
between the lines. Now they just insult our intelligence, and though a few decent writers remain
in their employ, there really isn't much of substance. Just asinine puffery.
Sanders leads with Asians, and may do better with black, and for that matter, other Christian
voters outside the South, where you pretty much have to be a Protestant to win statewide.
It seems that on number of issues, healthcare, foreign intervention, Wall St, Trump is actually
on the LEFT of Clinton. People support him mainly because of racism, Islamophobia, xenophobia,
a reaction against PC culture, and the breakdown of immigration policy, and he plays the demagogue
card well. But on the whole, he is actually a good deal more liberal than Clinton.
What I am beginning to realize, and which is making me more adamantly against Clinton, is how
she is wielding power in this election. Elizabeth Warren, the only other liberal in the Senate,
Sander's natural ally, refused to endorse him before the Massachusetts primary likely allowing
a narrow Clinton victory. This at a time when Clinton's main supporters, and the head of the DNC,
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz are pushing a bill to protect payday lenders, one of Warren's fiercest
enemies. Why would she do this? Why would she sit this one out and help hand her home state over
the pro-bank and payday lender faction of the Democratic party? The answer is that she doesn't
think Bernie will win and is afraid of the consequences of supporting him, just like all the other
liberals in Congress. They know there is a steep price to pay to go against a Clinton, and to
not fall in line with DNC, and they don't want to be punished.
I infer from this that Clinton will run the country with an iron fist, exercising gangster
like political control on behalf of her interests. Even Trump, though an unstable xenophobe authoritarian,
doesn't have the same capacity for authoritarianism as Clinton. He might blow everything up and
move in fascist direction, but a Clinton presidency will be about total and absolute power and
control, and she knows how to accomplish it. Pander here, lie there, take that bribe, intimidate,
muckrake, exploit identity politics and prestige networks. She's practically out of Game of Thrones
and she may be the more dangerous of two incredibly dangerous candidates.
"Hillary bought off the entire Southern black religious establishment, and their local pastors
duped their 'flocks' into voting for her."
Bought them off with what? ... "walkin' around money"? This is slimy racism.
She bought them off by promising to help rebuild their crumbling communities, education, and healthcare
resources. She promised more jobs and equal pay and they believed her. The real Sanders supporters
here must feel queasy about having to share a forum with all these neo- Jim Crow unreconstructed
racists!
-the full support of the DNC
-25 years of media celebrity
- a popular ex-president campaigning for her
-a swooning corporate media
-cabinet experience
-endorsements from: all the major unions, famous celebrities, civil rights leaders, prominent
congressmen, secretaries of state and president Obama himself
-a bottomless campaign war chest
And yet she's facing a stiff challenge from an obscure elderly socialist from Vermont... .
The common tone being spouted by mass media is almost defeatist of Sanders' viability. I wouldn't
be surprised if this was already orchestrated long before Super Tuesday as it was apparent Clinton
would sweep the majority of southern states. The media seem to be willing a Clinton win and are
desperate to have us believe her nomination is a given. What they don't realise is that this is
2016 and this sort of spinning only strengthens peoples resolve to stick behind the only truly
progressive candidate and probably dig another few dollars in donation.
If you ever want a solid look at how well-managed you are by the establishment and its media teams,
compare Trump and Clinton on the issues. The dominant narrative constantly "reminds" you that
Trump is scary because noone knows what he truly believes. Yet look how differently this is constructed
when assessing Clinton. If you are going to be honest, you have to admit that either we don't
know what SHE believes either, or she has changed her mind on virtually everything. If you are
a Hillary supporter, prove this wrong by listing, in your reply, a list of ten things Hillary
believes, that she has publicly believed her whole life. Seriously. Go for it Hilaristas.
Said it before and I'll say it again, MLK is rolling in his grave.
John Lewis did a great disservice to 'his people' in downplaying Bernie's importance, focussing
on fame rather than the core of his message in step with MLK's plan of economic justice, tying
it all together.
Black leadership has let us down. Clearly, they're on the payroll. Just more exploitation for
the disenfranchised Southern populace. But it's hardly time to lay down.
Great job on Super T, Bernie and friends. Onward!...
Why was such scrutiny not put on Hillary who it seems predominantly depends on votes from ethnic
communities mainly in the south. I wonder what the media mantra will be if Sanders starts sweeping
the Northern and Western states as projected. Will they then ask can Clinton sustain a path to
the nomination without the support of traditionally Democrat states and white folks?
African Americans under 30 are voting for Sanders. They tend to get their news from the internet.
Older Americans rely more on the mainstream media which has been providing little if no coverage
of Sanders.
" to **pragmatically**navigate the entire [read, "Republican and Democratic"] Washington Establishment"
Uh huh - except she already had her chance with Health Care Reform. She had the President behind
her, she had a Democrat House and Senate, back when the Republicans were nice, when Newt Gingrich
was an impotent back bencher - and Hillary fell flat on her face.
You should look more carefully at the poll Sanders beats all the GOP candidates Hillary can only
beat Trump and that is not by as much as Sanders does. Trump has not even started on Clinton.
Can you remember the sexist comments by Clinton and Trumps reply, Clinton and her husband hid
under a rock and never said anything else against Trump. Well expect this times 100 in the general
if it is Clinton. she has to much baggage and bad history, plus she is under FBI investigation
people, come on wake up. Only Sanders can beat Trump.
Can the media kindly write about the things Bernie Sanders is actually bringing up? The tightening
grip of the oligarchy? The corrupt pols? The Wall Street malfeasance? Instead all we get is; "Bernie's
on the ropes!" Every day.
It is beyond disgusting the way the mainstream media has played along with the Clinton campaign
narrative that Sanders is somehow ignoring racial minorities or preaching a message that ignores
them. Sanders and Clinton are lightyears apart on racial relations and politics, when one gets
past the Clinton-paid pundits spin doctoring. Bernie marched with Doctor King. He got arrested
fighting for civil rights, and has the documentation to prove it. When BLM took over the stage
at a rally, he let them talk as long as they wanted to, leaving the microphone with them as he
waded through the crowd. He didn't boot the activists out of a $500/head fundraiser at a mansion,
the way Clinton did. Clinton has spent a lifetime supporting all types of legislation that threw
black people under a bus to impress her rich, white donor base and her husband's rightwing supporters.
It wasn't Sanders who referred to black teens as "superpredators", or made dozens of speeches
for NAFTA, or the crime bills of the 90's, or the elimination of welfare programs. And lets look
at actual facts, for once. Just last week Glenn Greenwald reported on a study showing that the
longer people know who Sanders is, the higher his popularity, while the longer people know who
Clinton is, the lower her popularity is. This extends to all racial groups. So in Nevada, for
example, we've already seen where Latinos clearly demonstrated a preference for Sanders over Clinton,
as they got to know both candidates. The advantage Clinton has "racially" evaporates when you
account for class distinctions too. Look at her "black vote" in large, wealthier northern cities
like Boston, Minneapolis, Chicago, Milwaukee, and you'll notice that the massive advantages she
enjoys in the South disappear. That is because her advantage comes from time and southern disinvestment
in public education, not any sort of racial bias in Sanders. Wherever people have any serious
amount of time to study both candidates, her leads disappear. If the media paid attention to this,
instead of declaring the race over with only 30% of the states wrapped up, we'd TRULY give racial
minorities around the country the voice they deserve in this election. Just think how screwy and
irrational the narrative is, when you look for precedents. Where else in history have you seen
racial minorities, Wall Street, and retirement-age baby boomers voting as a bloc? This has more
to do with ignorance and clear media bias for the establishment, more than some sort of inherent
flaw in Sanders message. Honestly, point out exactly where his platform is somehow unfriendly
or less open to racial minorities than Clinton is. Her advantage is fleeting, and not something
she can wield against Republicans. Failure to acknowledge this "strength" as the weakness it truly
is, is going to be expensive for Democrats during the general election. The South is NOT going
to be some sort of bastion for Hillary in November. In fact, nominating her instead of Sanders
is going to COST the Dems southern states this autumn, if polling is at all accurate over the
last few months.
I know many of them don't think he does. That's because the American people are pretty dumb, by
and large. The fact remains that Bill Clinton sold out leftist, liberal views and values. From
three strikes and mandatory minimums, expanding the death penalty, deregulating Wall Street, shipping
American industry out of the country, slashing capital gains tax rates, demonizing and slashing
the welfare safety net, Don't Ask, Don't Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act, it's quite demonstrably
true that the man owes American liberals an apology.
Genuine question, what do Blacks or Latinos see in Clinton?
Most Latino's live on the gulf coast, not exactly the most progressive part of the U.S. to
begin with. Then you've got the Miami Cubans, who're naturally hostile to a candidate who describes
himself as a 'socialist'. And to be honest, Sanders has been ambivalent at best about immigration.
as a hilary supporter, how many young black males would you call super predators? how would you
"rein them in"? tasers? shotguns? bull conor's boys used cattle prods--don't forget the conservative
democrats back then were the southern racists. of course hilary wasn't one of those; she was one
of the conservative republican types, working in the goldwater campaign so he could fight the
civil rights movement.
Yeah! Because of course black people cannot possibly vote for Clinton for any reason other than
that they're being duped by her. Funny how republicans say blacks vote for democrats because of
all the "free stuff" and "obamaphones". Different sides of the same coin. Patronizing condescension
much?
When you see the media pushing and pushing and pushing the narrative that "Hillary cannot be defeated",
you know it's because they are scared to death that Hillary will be defeated.
As for Barbara Boxer, used to admire her, but YEP she joined the inside-the-beltway establishment
years ago. She wouldn't know a liberal if she ran over a liberal in her hemp-powered SUV
Don't buy into the game of dividing people up by race and putting them in this or that camp. That's
the media narrative trying to tell you it's game over for Bernie when all that's happened is he
has lost in overwhelmingly conservative states. No race thinks with one mind, black, white or
hispanic and the blatant racism of the media and how they treat racial groups as homogenous entities
is tiresome. Sanders may not win, but he is very much in the race and we don't need to get down
on the black community because many of them actually support Sanders.
Barbara Boxer said this morning that Hilary winning the White House will be the crowning glory
of the women's right to vote 100 years ago.
For these people, it's another party & they want to shop for a new dress.
Barbara Boxer has never returned my emails over the years. Wish we could take away her retirement
package.
35 states still to vote. Sanders needs about 53% to gain a majority of the popular vote. And the
media is calling the whole thing for Clinton because she won strongly in southern conservative
states that are never going to go Democratic.
But that argument risks looking dismissive, suggesting that voters in the south and in African
American communities were just too ignorant to understand what was in their best interests.
So we can't say the truth now? Hillary bought off the entire Southern black religious establishment,
and their local pastors duped their 'flocks' into voting for her. Typical Clinton sleaze if you
ask me. The establishment grief of the Guardian is just so obvious. I'm literally disgusted by
the relentless shilling of this newspaper rag for a deeply corrupt Wall Street owned candidate
like Shillary.
Whether Hillary wins or the GOP wins the country will be hijacked, although I'm sure there are
others in power who are feeling like they're being hijacked (what goes around comes around). And
yes they are trying to paint a narrative, that the only people who support him must be white people.
This is totally a divisive tactic.
I wasn't around in 1933 when FDR decried Wall Street, Big banks and pedatory Capital run amok
but I was around for a part of the fifty or sixty years that followed on the changes he brought
about that created a level playing field in society and which helped gaurantee that we would deafat
Facism around the world. So I don't gasp with fear if Bernie, or anyone else, rails against milliobaires
and billonaires. Bully for him!
You're right to some extent, but if Sanders was to look like a potential winner he really needed
to do better in Nevada and Massachusetts to counteract Clinton's strength elsewhere.
By turning your back on Clinton you are, in effect, acting as a Trump shill
This is a rather cynical position to take, don't you think? Especially considering that Sanders
leads most Republican candidates by larger margins than does Clinton.
I mean, that's the only context I can think of where your statement actually makes sense -
that by pushing for Sanders one is somehow guaranteeing a Republican win which is, to put it delicately,
factually inaccurate based on actual polling.
nd BTW, you're a fake Sanders supporter too.
Damn, now ya tell me! All those donations, working the phone banks, both local marches, and
canvassing were wasted. If I had known I was just a poseur for Sanders I would have stayed home
and saved a few bucks.
Sarcasm aside, you have no standing or knowledge sufficient to make such a claim either factually
or ethically so I would recommend you stop using it as your standard reply. Setting up a false
dichotomy does not make you correct (See GW Bush, circa 2002).
So, just in case it isn't evident, I am an actual supporter of Sanders and want to see him
be our next president.
Sanders would never condone your statements and actions.
Would you care to share the special relationship you have to the Senator that actually backs
up your claim? I'm pretty certain he doesn't have the time to comment on the Guardian right now
so safe to say you're not him. So, I'll be charitable here...maybe you're a distant cousin or
something.
Now you're just kitchen-synching it. Sanders has overwhelming support amongst the party's rank-and-file.
And in case you haven't notice, votes for both parties are staging a full on revolt against the
enscronced and bought-out political operatives who govern the parties. They main difference is
their guy is a monster.
I don't follow this argument. What concerns of the black community hasn't he engaged with? He's
addressed mandatory minimum sentencing, the drug war, for-profit prisons, community policing,
police homicide, poverty, and criminal justice reform. What else does he need to address?
Clinton is winning the black vote without having ever really done a thing to deserve it. Sanders
has much more of an actual participatory record in the Civil Rights movement. Will Clinton finally
make the banking establishment pay attention to the financial needs of black voters. Yeah, right.
" I'm Barbara Boxer: a Jewish, liberal feminist from California,..."Whereas Bernie Sanders
calls me 'the establishment'. Have you seen Bernie Sanders rallies? I haven't seen that many white
voters since the Oscars ."
Make that NEO-liberal not liberal that seems to be happy keeping people like you in power.
It's hard for Bernie to get his message across to people that want change but vote the same old,
same old people in. Please tell us how much better the black situation improved with that attitude
the last 7 years? It will only get worse under Hillary. Of course she is an expert at pandering
so she'll get the older black and older feminist votes. Bernie has great appeal to both of that
sector's younger voters that want real change.
"Even in the states where Clinton won handily, like Texas, Virginia, and Georgia, Sanders still
won handily with his core constituencies - voters aged 18 to 29, first-time primary voters, and
independents. According to NBC News' exit polls, Sanders won young voters by a 30-point margin
in Texas, 39 points in Virginia, 13 points in Georgia, and even captured the youth vote in Clinton's
home state of Arkansas, where Bill Clinton served as governor, by 24 points. Among first-time
primary voters, Sanders won by, again, 30 points in Texas and 8 points in Virginia. And Sanders
captured independent voters by 16 points in both Texas and Virginia, 3 points in Georgia, 13 points
in Tennessee, and 17 points in Arkansas."
I'm black and I and many black people I know voted for Sanders, so to represent him as a for whites
only candidate is really an unfair angle for covering him. But unfair media coverage is hardly
a new complaint. If the media had spent even half of the time it spent on Trump or Clinton, Bernie
and his issues might be better known by more people.
In any case, I have voted for Bernie and he's the only candidate I'm voting for this year.
I'll write his name in for the general election if I have to, but I'm not voting for that other
person, the fake Bernie.
"Regardless of how well Bernie does today, the media will say Hillary is now the Democratic
candidate. Baloney. The "momentum" theory of politics is based on momentum stories the media itself
generates. Don't succumb to the "momentum" game. Regardless of what happens today, this race is
still very much alive, for at least 3 reasons:
1. In the next few months the primary map starts tilting in Bernie's favor: In later March: Maine,
Michigan, Florida, Ohio, Illinois, Arizona, Washington state, and Hawaii. In April: Wisconsin,
New York, Connecticut, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island. In May: Indiana and Oregon. In June,
California, New Jersey, and New Mexico.
2, Small-donor contributions continue to flow in to Bernie's campaign. In February, the campaign
raised a whopping $42 million. South Carolina's loss didn't stop the flow: The campaign received
$6 million on Monday alone.
3. Bernie's campaign is a movement. Americans know we must get big money out of politics and take
back our economy from an incipient oligarchy. That's why Bernie will take this movement all the
way to the Democratic convention in, July 25-28 in Philadelphia (you might make plans to be there,
too)."
And they shouldn't be doing that. I think part of that frustration comes from people that HAVE
been supportive of solving problems black commumities face, and feeling like there's no mutual
cohesion and solidarity in return (I've cared about this stuff long before Sanders came onto the
national scene). At least that was how I initially felt when I saw the election results. I know
that there are tons of different opinions out there, and I can't speak for everyone.
A shame that the black community doesn't seem to want to get behind Bernie. It's too bad Martin
Luther King isn't still around to give an endorsement. I don't think there's much doubt who it'd
go to. People tend to forget he'd become a bit of a radical leftist by the end.
If you want to see politically organized racism at work , look no farther than Clinton surrogate
Debra Wasserman- Schultz recent activities to encourage abusive payday lending in Fla.
This coming from the leader of the DNC and Clinton's hand-picked former campaign manager....
And yes Black minorites have been deceived by their own leaders who are in the Clinton machine
pockets to the detriment of their constituents. When black community leaders are promised big
donations from the Clinton Foundation , is it any surprise that they exhort their followers to
vote the Clinton line? "legalized bribery"Jimmy Carter calls it....
And Clinton has the chutzpah to claim the Obama mantle... and raising minority anger at Trump
and paint Sanders black at the same time. Her spin doctors like Barbara Boxer are working overtime.
Quite incredible that such mis-direction has been so successfull until now.
The only hope we have that this creature will not reach the WH is that she is her own worst
enemy and may yet fall at the gate.
The establishment are TERRIFIED of Sanders - because with Hillary they know they can control her
with money! Just listen to her speech last night, and it literally was a compilation of platitudes!
In terms of speaking without actually saying anything she is as bad as Trump!
Does ANYONE actually know what she stands for ? Is she FOR or AGAINST gun control? Is she the
'08 Annie Oakley Clinton, or 16 Anti-gun Clinton? The '10 anti-gay marriage or the '16 Pro gay
marriage?
She has e-mails PROVING she has been actively campaigning FOR nafta and TTIP! And let's not
forget the time bomb of the corruption scandal in the Clinton foundation! She "forgot" to include
$1 million dollars in foreign contributions - and this was what has been found so far!
She is a liability - an empty suit. She wants power for power's sake! She simply is UNFIT for
purpose
Fast running out of patience with the Guardian and its bias for Clinton. This article is biased,
it is rooted in hunches. This article follows Richard Wollfe's biased opinion piece. Where is
the pro Sanders opinion piece? How about looking at some numbers: The author is basing a lot on
South Carolina. It is not very important since it will go for the GOP in the general. If you look
at the total number of votes cast for Sanders and Clinton and compare them to any one of the 3
GOP leaders, then it is clear that the democrats have no hope in the state. Then look at New Hampshire
which will be a battleground state and look at Bernie's win there. Most of these southern states
came together early and bias the number of wins toward Clinton. There are 35 primaries to go.
Barack Obama for example lost Boston by a bigger margin than Sanders in 2008. Now in the next
few weeks we have a lot of states Bernie will do well in. Look at the donations pouring into Bernie,
look at the marches for him that are not covered. Look at the statement of the author here that
it is unfair to call African Americans in SC uninformed and blame the media for not covering Sanders
enough there. Well, what was to blame, there were a significant number of voters interviewed leaving
the polls in SC who had never heard of Sanders. Is there not some onus on a voter to watch a debate
before voting to at least get some impression of the candidates?
I am a loyal Guardian reader but this is complete bias. I recommend Democracy Now! and The Young
Turks for unbiased and detailed news.
Well, the elites of the NAACP are trying their best to turn Hillary into the nations third black
President after Bill and Obama. Maybe they can get her to promise she won't sign another draconian
Welfare Reform Bill like her husband did, causing an explosion of children and families living
below the poverty line. Or maybe she will promise not to sign another Omnibus federal crime bill
like the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, giving us the three strikes law and setting
mandatory sentences that impacted the black community more so then the whites who were incarcerated.
But then again she was Bills strongest advisor. Its too late for them to ask her not to support
another awful trade bill like NAFTA, that destroyed manufacturing, because she has given her full
throsted support to TPP which will impact negatively on all segments of the population and takes
us back to the good old days of deregulating banks and insurance companies ,extending patents
to pharmaceutical companies to limit access to affordable generic drugs,send high paying jobs
overseas to low wage countries, attack labor and consumer safety, just for starters. This is what
the NAACP is now supporting. All minority groups will be effected. Following the elites of groups
desperate to hold on to power at the expense of their members is now considered just politics.
Sanders policies are not just for whites, but are for everyone. They are the same as he has fought
for forty years. That is why he is fighting not only Hillary, but the Super delegates, and the
rich and powerful. A novel idea, government of the people, for the people and by the people is
what Sanders stands for. But its all the people.
and the article completely ignores that lewis backtracked, instead describing him as "pointing
out" as if there were no factual dispute. it's as dishonest as the wolfe article this morning.
Barbara Boxer is just stirring up the black vote in favor of her pal.
Meanwhile, the reality is that Sanders is the most electable Democrat due to electoral dynamics
:
From Real Clear Politics :
Ms. Clinton won 4 Southern states that have not voted for a Democrat in the presidential elections
since before Nixon. Mr. Sanders won 4 states that are reliable Democratic in the general election.
In the general election, almost all states are winner take all for electoral delegates, so winning
southerns states in the primary is meaningless for a Democrat in the grand scheme of things, which
is the November general election. They essentially tied in Mass. She kicked his ass in Virginia.
Objectively, he is still the best bet for taking the White House.
"
So yes , she won the Alabama vote big . and Texas ... but neither Texas nor Alabama nor many Southern
states will vote Democrat in the general and she has no hope of this.
"... BREAKING!: Millions may have contracted "MUMI" virus. "MUMI" = Made Up Mass Information ..."
"... Are all the so-called "news" published in the USA just right-wing zionist neo-con propaganda? ..."
"... I call this a vicious manipulation of the information. The trouble is that there is no international legal body that could sanction that sort of deviancy. The MSM take advantage of their immunity ( 'Freedom of expression") to spread lies and throw people against each other's throats. They get away with it ( remember the infamous Judith Miller of the NY times about false scoops on Iraq nuclear weapons.. she should have been jailed) ..."
"... I'd like to see the weasel meme which makes the appearance of the US Ambassador to Russia "among" a crowd of anti-Putin demonstrators seem pro-Russian, or even diplomatically wise. ..."
"... Poor man's word play for the ignorant. Twitter is a perfect platform for this type of shite. Shameful to be fair. ..."
"... #BREAKING Saudi bombs bring peace and stability. ..."
"... Mr Cameron said he was proud of the "brilliant things" BAE had sold to the Middle Eastern country such as the Eurofighter Typhoon. The Saudi government has bought £3 billion of UK aircraft, arms and other defence products in 2015. ..."
The hint that the above AFP #BREAKING tweet was nonsense is the use of the word may.
Like in "#BREAKING Sky may have fallen". There is also the rhetoric redundancy in "have starved to
death".
But notice the 217 retweets which likely will have caused many secondary retweets and many, many
more viewer impressions.
So ( mostly in the West ) the Russians won nothing with the BS recent " peace" deal, except to
being propagandised and lied against as being starvationists and peace destroyers. With O chance
of peace
Are all the so-called "news" published in the USA just right-wing zionist neo-con propaganda?
I have given watching news on TV here in the USA. I trust RT.com, Moon of Alabama, xymphora,
cannonfire, cluborlov and a few other web sites. Local TV news is just depressing overload of
crime, sports and weather. If anyone knows of a daily newspaper published in English that tells
the truth, please let me know... Thanks. J.
I call this a vicious manipulation of the information. The trouble is that there is no international
legal body that could sanction that sort of deviancy. The MSM take advantage of their immunity
( 'Freedom of expression") to spread lies and throw people against each other's throats. They
get away with it ( remember the infamous Judith Miller of the NY times about false scoops on Iraq
nuclear weapons.. she should have been jailed)
One COULD construct a meme that the tweet was incomplete and omitted the words "...but for UN
aid" from the end. However, I'd like to see the weasel meme which makes the appearance of
the US Ambassador to Russia "among" a crowd of anti-Putin demonstrators seem pro-Russian, or even
diplomatically wise.
This did not go well with the public. Even his own supporters are critical. Like @eczferas
who tweets
: @trpresidency my dear president - i respect you more than i respect my self but wished
if you didn't say because they will use it against us
The issue is the two Turkish journalists who were jailed in November and now released (awaiting
trial) by Turkey's Constitutional Court. The journalist had revealed something about how Turkey
works hand in glove with the Islamic State. The Western media was
careful not to
reveal to their readers
what the journalist had found out.
Something about "alleging that President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's government tried to ship
arms to Islamists in Syria. This can hardly be news. The US does it openly all the time!
P.S. - In case Erdogan decides to remove the tweet, I saved
a screenshot
here.
The Turkish military targeted Daesh positions north of Syria's Aleppo province with artillery
fire as part anti-Daesh coalition efforts on Monday afternoon.
Turkish broadcaster NTV reported that approximately 50 to 60 rounds of howitzer shells were
fired into Syrian territory.
The cease-fire in Syria does not include Daesh, Nusra Front and other al-Qaida affiliates.
The Turkish military had earlier targeted Daesh positions with F-16 jets.
The operation took place while there was an ongoing Cabinet meeting in Ankara in which ministers
discussed anti-terror measures.
Daesh militants had attacked the Syrian town of Tel Abyad controlled by the YPG militia
at the Turkish border as well as the nearby town of Suluk on Saturday.
While a U.S. and Russian sponsored "cessation of hostilities" came into effect in Syria
over the weekend, the U.S.-led coalition and Russia reserve the right to continue attacks against
Daesh or the al Qaeda affiliate the Nusra Front.
Mr Cameron said he was proud of the "brilliant things" BAE had sold to the Middle Eastern
country such as the Eurofighter Typhoon. The Saudi government has bought £3 billion of UK aircraft,
arms and other defence products in 2015.
"I can see the planes being built right behind me here. We've got more work to do in Saudi
Arabia," Mr Cameron told the assembled BAE employees.
Oliver Sprague from Amnesty International told the Guardian: "The 'brilliant things' that
David Cameron says BAE sells include massive amounts of weaponry for the Saudi Arabia military,
despite Saudi Arabia's dreadful record in Yemen.
"Thousands of Yemeni civilians have been killed and injured in devastating and indiscriminate
Saudi coalition air strikes, and there's strong evidence that further weapons sales to Saudi
Arabia are not just ill-advised but actually illegal."
The Cameroon just can't get enough of that peace and stability, can he? Death, devastation, destruction
... and deceit, are all the Anglo-Americans - the 5 eyes of Oceania - have left for sale, and
they're gonna sell same till they drop!
You bet Le Monde made an article from the AFP cable yesterday
And there was no word there about Yemen or the Saudis as head of the HR council
Looks like neocons will attack Trump, fearing that he might expose their role in 9/11 and become
an obstacle for their interventionalist foreign policy
A civil war within Republican party officially stated. The party elite opens fight against the
choice of rank-and-file members. Marco Rubio and Kasich are no longer running for president. They are
running to keep Trump from being president.
Notable quotes:
Notable quotes:
"... And it mirrored the broader slog of a Republican primary, where for months Jeb Bush, Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, Chris Christie and the rest tore each other apart to prevent one another from emerging as the chief Trump alternative. All believed they could beat Trump one-on-one. None has gotten the chance. ..."
"... In failing to back a single Trump alternative, Romney essentially called for a Republican civil war to wage through this summer, a retrenchment for an irreparably divided GOP in hopes of outmaneuvering Trump at a contested convention where party elites still control some levers of power. ..."
"... Romney's speech was certainly historic. Perhaps never before has the most recent party nominee for president so thoroughly rebuked the prohibitive front-runner for the nomination four years later. But, as Romney said in his speech, "The rules of political history have pretty much all been shredded during this campaign." ..."
"... Romney did not stand alone. Moments after he finished speaking, Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee, seconded Romney's speech. "I share the concerns about Donald Trump that my friend and former Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, described," McCain said in a statement. ..."
"... Trump went on the attack even before Romney took the stage in Salt Lake City, blasting Romney for having "begged" for his endorsement four years earlier. In February 2012, Romney traveled to one of Trump's hotels to accept the endorsement. "There are some things that you just can't imagine happening in your life," Romney said then. "This is one of them. Being in Donald Trump's magnificent hotel and having his endorsement is a delight." ..."
"... Romney said he expected the blowback: "This may tell you what you need to know about his temperament, his stability, and his suitability to be president." As the old guard of the Republican Party cheered Romney's outspoken remarks on Thursday, there remained downside in having so prominent a party leader rip apart Trump, should he still become the nominee. ..."
It was a stirring call to arms for a strategic-voting retreat.
And it mirrored the broader slog of a Republican primary, where for months Jeb Bush, Rubio,
Cruz, Kasich, Chris Christie and the rest tore each other apart to prevent one another from emerging
as the chief Trump alternative. All believed they could beat Trump one-on-one. None has gotten the
chance.
Along the way, Trump has skated. In one remarkable statistic, Trump suffered less in attack ads
through Super Tuesday than Romney's team hurled at Newt Gingrich in the final days in Florida alone
in 2012. The Republican Party's top financiers are mobilizing now, with millions in anti-Trump ads
expected in the next two weeks, but it may be too late to slow Trump after he has carried 10 of the
first 15 contests, many of them by wide margins.
In failing to back a single Trump alternative, Romney essentially called for a Republican
civil war to wage through this summer, a retrenchment for an irreparably divided GOP in hopes of
outmaneuvering Trump at a contested convention where party elites still control some levers of power.
(Also, by not picking a single anti-Trump standard-bearer, Romney, who briefly considered running
for president again in 2016, left slightly more open the door that might allow a contested convention
to select him.)
"He's playing the members of the American public for suckers," Romney said of Trump. "He gets
a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat."
Romney's speech was certainly historic. Perhaps never before has the most recent party nominee
for president so thoroughly rebuked the prohibitive front-runner for the nomination four years later.
But, as Romney said in his speech, "The rules of political history have pretty much all been shredded
during this campaign."
Romney ripped about Trump's business background, ticking off bankruptcies and abandoned efforts.
"What ever happened to Trump Airlines?" he said. "How about Trump University? And then there's Trump
Magazine and Trump Vodka and Trump Steaks, and Trump Mortgage?" "A business genius he is not," Romney
said. Of Trump's varied stances on issues, Romney added, "Dishonesty is Donald Trump's hallmark."
Romney did not stand alone. Moments after he finished speaking, Sen. John McCain, the 2008
Republican nominee, seconded Romney's speech. "I share the concerns about Donald Trump that my friend
and former Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, described," McCain said in a statement.
"Well said," tweeted Kasich.
Trump went on the attack even before Romney took the stage in Salt Lake City, blasting Romney
for having "begged" for his endorsement four years earlier. In February 2012, Romney traveled to
one of Trump's hotels to accept the endorsement. "There are some things that you just can't imagine
happening in your life," Romney said then. "This is one of them. Being in Donald Trump's magnificent
hotel and having his endorsement is a delight."
On Thursday, Trump hammered back on NBC's "Today" show: "Mitt Romney is a stiff."
Romney said he expected the blowback: "This may tell you what you need to know about his temperament,
his stability, and his suitability to be president." As the old guard of the Republican Party cheered
Romney's outspoken remarks on Thursday, there remained downside in having so prominent a party leader
rip apart Trump, should he still become the nominee.
Said Justin Barasky, a spokesman for the super PAC dedicated to electing Hillary Clinton, understatedly,
"Certainly, having a former Republican nominee go after him is not unhelpful."
"... Bryan Pagliano, the person who set up Clinton's private server and email apparatus, was just given immunity by the Justice Department. According to The Washington Post ..."
"... These 31,830 deleted emails, by the way, were deleted without government oversight. ..."
"... Only one person set up the server that circumvented U.S. government networks and this person is Bryan Pagliano. Not long ago, Pagliano pleaded the Fifth , so this new development speaks volumes. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... I'm a Bernie supporter. And honestly, offering immunity to Pagliano is almost certainly just so they can close loose ends and begin to close their investigation. Most likely, Clinton or her aides will get called in for one last round and then the FBI will end their investigation. This says nothing to a possibility of her guilt in anything. ..."
"... Thats not an assumption-its a fact. SHE scrubbed the server when she knew the FBI had asked her for it-SHE erased over 31,000 emails, SHE has dozens of emails SHE sent and received that were SEP classification-the very highest level. THis is about corruption at the highest levels and now SHE will have to pay the piper. ..."
"... The real issue i have had for a couple of years are the middle eastern gov. Donors to the clinton foundation while she was sec. Of state... Yeah i am waiting for that to come to light. That the huge REAL as opposed to emails ..."
"... Granting "use immunity" to this witness probably means that they have little to no evidence a crime was committed, and that they need his testimony to advance the investigation. If they had evidence, they would prosecute (or threaten to prosecute), convict him, and then use him to testify about his higher-ups in exchange for leniency. Use immunity means they don't have the goods even on this small fish. ..."
"... It is not a tempest in a teapot. Only a federal judge can grant immunity, and this means they are seating a grand jury, prosecutors, whole nine yards. ..."
"... With Donald Trump revving up his attacks against Clinton, as he is proving to be the Republican nominee, you know that he's not going to let this go. Bernie Sanders may be running a campaign that doesn't get caught up on issues outside of policy, but this is exactly the kind of thing that Donald Trump will obsess about. It's like when he went after Obama's birth certificate. If he makes this a primary issue of his campaign, Hillary will be deemed guilty before anybody has a chance to say otherwise. ..."
"... Clinton wanted to avoid the Wikileaks-revealed searches into her hopefully private exchanges. ..."
Bernie Sanders's path to the presidency was never going to be easy. After surging in the polls and
consistently proving America's political establishment wrong, Sanders won Colorado and other states
on Super Tuesday. He still has a path to win the Democratic nomination via the primaries, but Bernie
Sanders just won the presidency for another reason: Hillary Clinton's quest for
"convenience."
Bryan Pagliano, the person who set up Clinton's private server and email apparatus, was just
given immunity by the Justice Department. According to
The Washington Post, "The Clintons paid Pagliano $5,000 for 'computer services' prior to
his joining the State Department, according to a financial disclosure form he filed in April 2009."
First, this can't be a right-wing conspiracy because it's President Obama's Justice Department
granting immunity to one of Hillary Clinton's closest associates. Second, immunity from what? The
Justice Department won't grant immunity to anyone unless there's potential criminal activity involved
with an FBI investigation. Third, and most importantly for Bernie Sanders, there's only one Democrat
in 2016 not linked to the FBI, Justice Department, or
31,830 deleted emails.
These 31,830 deleted emails, by the way, were deleted without government oversight.
Only one person set up the server that circumvented U.S. government networks and this person
is Bryan Pagliano. Not long ago, Pagliano
pleaded the Fifth, so this new development speaks volumes. His immunity, at this point in
Clinton's campaign, spells trouble and could lead to an announcement in
early May from the FBI about whether or not Clinton or her associates committed a crime. As stated
in
The New York Times, "Then the Justice Department will decide whether to file criminal charges
and, if so, against whom."
... ... ...
In addition to
born classified emails (emails that were classified from the start of their existence, undermining
the claim that certain emails weren't classified when Clinton stored them on her server), as well
as
Top Secret intelligence on an unguarded server stored in her basement, Hillary Clinton has never
explained the political utility of owning a private server.
Why did Hillary need to own a private server?
Aside from her excuse pertaining to convenience, why did Clinton need to circumvent U.S. government
networks?
... ... ...
There are most likely a number of reasons Clinton needed the server and Pagliano's immunity helps
the FBI immeasurable in deciphering whether or not criminal intent or behavior is a part of their
recommendation to the Justice Department. Pagliano's immunity is explained in a
Washington Post piece titled Justice Dept. grants immunity to staffer who set up Clinton
email server:
The Justice Department has granted immunity to a former State Department staffer, who worked
on Hillary Clinton's private email server, as part of a criminal investigation
into the possible mishandling of classified information, according to a senior law enforcement
official.
The official said the FBI had secured the cooperation of Bryan Pagliano, who worked on Clinton's
2008 presidential campaign before setting up the server in her New York home in 2009.
As the FBI looks to wrap up its investigation in the coming months, agents are likely
to want to interview Clinton and her senior aides about the decision to use a private server,
how it was set up, and whether any of the participants knew they were sending classified information
in emails, current and former officials said.
... Spokesmen at the FBI and Justice Department would not discuss the investigation. Pagliano's
attorney, Mark J. MacDougall, also declined to comment.
"There was wrongdoing," said a former senior law enforcement official. "But was it
criminal wrongdoing?"
... ... ...
As for the issue of criminality, Detroit's
Click on Detroit Local 4 News explains the severity of this saga in a piece titled DOJ grants
immunity to ex-Clinton staffer who set up email server:
Bryan Pagliano, a former Clinton staffer who helped set up her private email server, has accepted
an immunity offer from the FBI and the Justice Department to provide an interview to investigators,
a U.S. law enforcement official told CNN Wednesday.
With the completion of the email review, FBI investigators are expected to shift their
focus on whether the highly sensitive government information, including top secret and other classified
matters, found on Clinton's private email server constitutes a crime.
.... Huma Abedin is also part of this email investigation, as
stated in a CNN article titled Clinton emails: What have we learned?:
The State Department is furthermore being sued for the emails of top aides, and for the tens
of thousands of emails Clinton deemed personal and didn't turn over for review.
At a hearing last week in one such lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan said
he's considering asking the State Department to subpoena Clinton, and aide Huma Abedin, in an
effort to learn more about those emails...
Clinton and her aides insist none of the emails she sent or received were marked as classified
at the time they were sent, but more than 2,101 have been retroactively classified during the
State Department-led pre-release review process.
Whether or not the intelligence was classified at the time is irrelevant; there's already proof
of
born classified intelligence on Clinton's server. Former Obama official Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn
believes Hillary Clinton should
"drop out" of the race because of the FBI investigation.
... ... ....
Tim Black
Thank You HA Goodman! As a former Managerof Executive IT Services for an Obama Cabinet member
I can say with total certainty this dangerous handling of government correspondence Hillary Clinton
not only broke security protocols, she ripped them in half, stepped on them and did the 'Dab'.
Based on the information provided no one's framing, stalking, shalacking or setting up the Clintons.
This is the Clintons sabotaging The Clintons. I don't want to hear the cop outs "They're attacking
me!". No Madame Secretary. You're attacking yourself. No Republicans necessary!
Tab Pierce · Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
AMEN TIM!!! I to worked for the government for 5 years as an email administrator. There is
no way that she was not briefed and well versed in the protocols surrounding emails. If it had
been me the FBI would have kicked down my door day one and I would be in jail. She should be held
accountable to an even higher standard than you and I. She was the Secrtary of State for gods
sake. Igorance is no excusse and on top of that is a lie.
Malcolm Smith · Translator at Self-Employed
O lord, they used an MS Exchange server that was naked on the internet to boot. Microsoft's
pervasive OS presence in Government is all by itself a national security risk.
Scott Laytart · Los Angeles, California
I'm a Bernie supporter. And honestly, offering immunity to Pagliano is almost certainly just
so they can close loose ends and begin to close their investigation. Most likely, Clinton or her
aides will get called in for one last round and then the FBI will end their investigation. This
says nothing to a possibility of her guilt in anything.
This is not positive or negative for Clinton, other than the investigation part of this may
be over (probably) before June. If charges are filed, that's most likely when it would happen.
Or they may not... no one knows but the FBI/DoJ.
No one should take anything H.A. Goodman writes seriously.
Hillary has been asking for him to testify all along. What does immunity represent? Does it mean
that either Pagliano (or Clinton) are accused of offenses? Quite the opposite. If the DOJ thought
they had a case against Pagliano, they would not grant him immunity. In any event, for all the
shrill attention that it will get, immunity for Bryan Pagliano will help move the Hillary Clinton
email inquiry toward an end – and be one less thing for her to worry about.
Thats not an assumption-its
a fact. SHE scrubbed the server when she knew the FBI had asked her for it-SHE erased over 31,000
emails, SHE has dozens of emails SHE sent and received that were SEP classification-the very highest
level. THis is about corruption at the highest levels and now SHE will have to pay the piper.
The real issue i have had for a couple of years are the middle eastern gov. Donors to the clinton
foundation while she was sec. Of state... Yeah i am waiting for that to come to light. That the
huge REAL as opposed to emails
Granting "use immunity" to this witness probably means that they have little to no evidence a
crime was committed, and that they need his testimony to advance the investigation. If they had
evidence, they would prosecute (or threaten to prosecute), convict him, and then use him to testify
about his higher-ups in exchange for leniency. Use immunity means they don't have the goods even
on this small fish.
This is an important aspect of the campaign at this point. With Donald Trump revving up his
attacks against Clinton, as he is proving to be the Republican nominee, you know that he's not
going to let this go. Bernie Sanders may be running a campaign that doesn't get caught up on issues
outside of policy, but this is exactly the kind of thing that Donald Trump will obsess about.
It's like when he went after Obama's birth certificate. If he makes this a primary issue of his
campaign, Hillary will be deemed guilty before anybody has a chance to say otherwise.
Clinton wanted to avoid the Wikileaks-revealed searches into her hopefully private exchanges.
My God, if Merkel was being hacked, surely everyone else of note was also, both foreign and domestic.
My question is, to whom were these questionably high intensity emails sent? Don't the recipients
have a say in this? Everyone knows they're being watched.
There are no exceptions I would think, least of all those searches useful for later political
assassination. But those on the other end of these questionable emails must have some interest
here, as they are involved.
"... "These endorsements are a last-ditch effort by the DC Establishment to try to blunt our large and growing command of the race. It comes as no surprise that these moves are made just two days after
Rep. Grayson became the first major statewide candidate in the country to endorse the anti-Establishment candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders, for the Presidency.
They come just one day after a new poll shows Rep. Grayson with a double-digit lead, winning among men and women, every age group, and whites, blacks and Hispanics. The anti-Democratic Party Establishment is desperate to drag Grayson's opponent, their do-nothing, errand boy for Wall Street, over the finish line. But Florida voters in both parties are fed up with egregious manipulation by outside forces to dictate our candidates.
These arrogant Empire-Strikes-Back efforts by the Democratic politburo will be no more successful than the similar failed attempts by Republican party bosses. This is the year when the voters decide." ..."
"... This simply shows that, like Charlie Crist, Murphy, the former Republican turned Democrat, cannot be trusted and will always pander to whatever group that will aid his ambition. ..."
The endorsements bring the biggest possible names into the hotly-contested race for the Democratic
nomination for Florida's U.S. Senate seat between Murphy, of Jupiter, and U.S. Rep. Alan
Grayson or Orlando.
In a news release issued by Murphy's campaign, Obama called Murphy a "tireless champion for middle-class
families."
"I am proud to endorse Congressman Patrick Murphy for the United States Senate. Patrick has been
a tireless champion for middle-class families and a defender of the economic progress that American
workers and businesses have made," Obama stated in the release. "In Congress, he's fought to strengthen
Medicare and Social Security, reform our criminal justice system, and protect a woman's right to
choose. Floridians can count on Patrick Murphy to stand up for them every day as their next Senator."
Grayson's campaign responded calling the endorsements "the DC establishment" and noted they come
one day after Grayson endorsed outsider Democratic presidential candidate U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders
against Hillary Clinton.
For Murphy, the endorsements could not come any higher; he already has brought in dozens of Democratic
endorsements. Grayson, meanwhile, has brought in a few of his own, mostly from people in the progressive
wing of the party.
"I am honored that President Obama and Vice President Biden are endorsing my campaign for Florida's
middle-class families," Murphy stated in the release. "The president, the vice president and I share
the same values and commitment - strengthening Social Security and Medicare for our seniors, protecting
a woman's right to choose, and growing America's middle class.
"Over the past seven years, President Obama and Vice President Biden have been champions for Democrats
and hardworking families across our country, and I am humbled and proud to receive their endorsement
and campaign shoulder-to-shoulder with them for what we believe in," he continued.
"These endorsements are a last-ditch effort by the DC Establishment to try to blunt our
large and growing command of the race. It comes as no surprise that these moves are made just
two days after Rep. Grayson became the first major statewide candidate in the country to endorse
the anti-Establishment candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders, for the Presidency. They come just one
day after a new poll shows Rep. Grayson with a double-digit lead, winning among men and women,
every age group, and whites, blacks and Hispanics. The anti-Democratic Party Establishment is
desperate to drag Grayson's opponent, their do-nothing, errand boy for Wall Street, over the finish
line. But Florida voters in both parties are fed up with egregious manipulation by outside forces
to dictate our candidates. These arrogant Empire-Strikes-Back efforts by the Democratic politburo
will be no more successful than the similar failed attempts by Republican party bosses. This is
the year when the voters decide."
Here is a response from Brian Swensen, Campaign Manager for Carlos Lopez-Cantera
for U.S. Senate:
"Patrick Murphy continues on the path to become Charlie Crist 2.0 by moving further and further
to the left for political expediency and gain. This simply shows that, like Charlie Crist, Murphy,
the former Republican turned Democrat, cannot be trusted and will always pander to whatever group
that will aid his ambition.
By receiving Obama's endorsement Murphy has cast his allegiance to those who don't believe in
American exceptionalism, those whose policies have severely hindered economic growth and those who
refuse to stand with our most important ally, Israel."
"... weaponized bullsh!t, so we're safe for now. ..."
"... The weaponized Western propaganda. ..."
"... AmeriKan elites showing they are ever desperate for an eternal enemy...or as a distraction from their own corruption. Delay that "off with their heads" moment forever if possible. ..."
"... What a dangerous country. Thank God the world has America to protect it. And thank heavens it weaponized depleted uranium for the benefit of all the countries it has liberated. ..."
"... I think that take is confined to the Zionists and their whores, as Trump says he can get along with Russia and the American people seem to agree. The West caused this whole disaster of refugees, not Russia. Wake up world, and give Frau Merkle a nudge in the right direction. ..."
"... When the only tool you (the U.S.) have is a hammer (war), everything looks like a nail (a weapon). ..."
Apparently the West still maintains the lead in weaponized actors (ht Penelope), weaponized extremists
(ht Sy Hersh), and weaponized bullsh!t, so we're safe for now.
AmeriKan elites showing they are ever desperate for an eternal enemy...or as a distraction from their
own corruption. Delay that "off with their heads" moment forever if possible.
The mass production of faux news demonizing Russians invokes depictions of Orwell's nefarious Eurasians
from whom the populace needed Big Brother for protection.
What a dangerous country. Thank God the world has America to protect it. And thank heavens it weaponized
depleted uranium for the benefit of all the countries it has liberated.
I think that take is confined to the Zionists and their whores, as Trump says he can get along with
Russia and the American people seem to agree. The West caused this whole disaster of refugees, not Russia. Wake up world, and give Frau Merkle a nudge in the right direction. Another lost human in the maze
of Zion.
Looks like neocons will attack Trump, fearing that he might expose their role in 9/11 and become
an obstacle for their interventionalist foreign policy
A civil war within Republican party officially stated. The party elite opens fight against the
choice of rank-and-file members. Marco Rubio and Kasich are no longer running for president. They are
running to keep Trump from being president.
Notable quotes:
Notable quotes:
"... And it mirrored the broader slog of a Republican primary, where for months Jeb Bush, Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, Chris Christie and the rest tore each other apart to prevent one another from emerging as the chief Trump alternative. All believed they could beat Trump one-on-one. None has gotten the chance. ..."
"... In failing to back a single Trump alternative, Romney essentially called for a Republican civil war to wage through this summer, a retrenchment for an irreparably divided GOP in hopes of outmaneuvering Trump at a contested convention where party elites still control some levers of power. ..."
"... Romney's speech was certainly historic. Perhaps never before has the most recent party nominee for president so thoroughly rebuked the prohibitive front-runner for the nomination four years later. But, as Romney said in his speech, "The rules of political history have pretty much all been shredded during this campaign." ..."
"... Romney did not stand alone. Moments after he finished speaking, Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee, seconded Romney's speech. "I share the concerns about Donald Trump that my friend and former Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, described," McCain said in a statement. ..."
"... Trump went on the attack even before Romney took the stage in Salt Lake City, blasting Romney for having "begged" for his endorsement four years earlier. In February 2012, Romney traveled to one of Trump's hotels to accept the endorsement. "There are some things that you just can't imagine happening in your life," Romney said then. "This is one of them. Being in Donald Trump's magnificent hotel and having his endorsement is a delight." ..."
"... Romney said he expected the blowback: "This may tell you what you need to know about his temperament, his stability, and his suitability to be president." As the old guard of the Republican Party cheered Romney's outspoken remarks on Thursday, there remained downside in having so prominent a party leader rip apart Trump, should he still become the nominee. ..."
It was a stirring call to arms for a strategic-voting retreat.
And it mirrored the broader slog of a Republican primary, where for months Jeb Bush, Rubio,
Cruz, Kasich, Chris Christie and the rest tore each other apart to prevent one another from emerging
as the chief Trump alternative. All believed they could beat Trump one-on-one. None has gotten the
chance.
Along the way, Trump has skated. In one remarkable statistic, Trump suffered less in attack ads
through Super Tuesday than Romney's team hurled at Newt Gingrich in the final days in Florida alone
in 2012. The Republican Party's top financiers are mobilizing now, with millions in anti-Trump ads
expected in the next two weeks, but it may be too late to slow Trump after he has carried 10 of the
first 15 contests, many of them by wide margins.
In failing to back a single Trump alternative, Romney essentially called for a Republican
civil war to wage through this summer, a retrenchment for an irreparably divided GOP in hopes of
outmaneuvering Trump at a contested convention where party elites still control some levers of power.
(Also, by not picking a single anti-Trump standard-bearer, Romney, who briefly considered running
for president again in 2016, left slightly more open the door that might allow a contested convention
to select him.)
"He's playing the members of the American public for suckers," Romney said of Trump. "He gets
a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat."
Romney's speech was certainly historic. Perhaps never before has the most recent party nominee
for president so thoroughly rebuked the prohibitive front-runner for the nomination four years later.
But, as Romney said in his speech, "The rules of political history have pretty much all been shredded
during this campaign."
Romney ripped about Trump's business background, ticking off bankruptcies and abandoned efforts.
"What ever happened to Trump Airlines?" he said. "How about Trump University? And then there's Trump
Magazine and Trump Vodka and Trump Steaks, and Trump Mortgage?" "A business genius he is not," Romney
said. Of Trump's varied stances on issues, Romney added, "Dishonesty is Donald Trump's hallmark."
Romney did not stand alone. Moments after he finished speaking, Sen. John McCain, the 2008
Republican nominee, seconded Romney's speech. "I share the concerns about Donald Trump that my friend
and former Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, described," McCain said in a statement.
"Well said," tweeted Kasich.
Trump went on the attack even before Romney took the stage in Salt Lake City, blasting Romney
for having "begged" for his endorsement four years earlier. In February 2012, Romney traveled to
one of Trump's hotels to accept the endorsement. "There are some things that you just can't imagine
happening in your life," Romney said then. "This is one of them. Being in Donald Trump's magnificent
hotel and having his endorsement is a delight."
On Thursday, Trump hammered back on NBC's "Today" show: "Mitt Romney is a stiff."
Romney said he expected the blowback: "This may tell you what you need to know about his temperament,
his stability, and his suitability to be president." As the old guard of the Republican Party cheered
Romney's outspoken remarks on Thursday, there remained downside in having so prominent a party leader
rip apart Trump, should he still become the nominee.
Said Justin Barasky, a spokesman for the super PAC dedicated to electing Hillary Clinton, understatedly,
"Certainly, having a former Republican nominee go after him is not unhelpful."
"Millions of children are living in families still struggling to make ends meet
in our low-growth, low-wage economy":
Nearly half of American children living near poverty line, Eurekalert!
: Nearly half of children in the United States live dangerously close
to the poverty line, according to new research from the National Center
for Children in Poverty (NCCP) at Columbia University's Mailman School of
Public Health. Basic Facts about Low-Income Children, the center's annual
series of profiles on child poverty in America, illustrates the severity
of economic instability and poverty conditions faced by more than 31 million
children throughout the United States. Using the latest data from the American
Community Survey, NCCP researchers found that while the total number of
children in the U.S. has remained about the same since 2008, more children
today are likely to live in families barely able to afford their most basic
needs.
"These data challenge the prevailing beliefs that many still hold about
what poverty looks like and which children in this country are most likely
to be at risk," said Renée Wilson-Simmons, DrPH, NCCP director. "The fact
is, despite the significant gains we've made in expanding nutrition and
health insurance programs to reach the children most in need, millions of
children are living in families still struggling to make ends meet in our
low-growth, low-wage economy."
According to NCCP researchers, the number of poor children in the U.S. grew
by 18 percent from 2008 to 2014 (the latest available data), and the number
of children living in low-income households grew by 10 percent. ...
A really interesting analyses
of the USA foreign policy from the son of Robert Kennedy "They don't hate 'our freedoms.' They hate
that we've betrayed our ideals in their own countries-for oil. "
Notable quotes:
"... But thanks in large part to Allen Dulles and the CIA, whose foreign policy intrigues were often directly at odds with the stated policies of our nation, the idealistic path outlined in the Atlantic Charter was the road not taken. ..."
"... This is the bloody history that modern interventionists like George W. Bush, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio miss when they recite their narcissistic trope that Mideast nationalists "hate us for our freedoms." For the most part they don't; instead they hate us for the way we betrayed those freedoms-our own ideals-within their borders. ..."
"... But in March 1949, Syria's democratically elected president, Shukri-al-Quwatli, hesitated to approve the Trans-Arabian Pipeline, an American project intended to connect the oil fields of Saudi Arabia to the ports of Lebanon via Syria. In his book, Legacy of Ashes, CIA historian Tim Weiner recounts that in retaliation for Al-Quwatli's lack of enthusiasm for the U.S. pipeline, the CIA engineered a coup replacing al-Quwatli with the CIA's handpicked dictator, a convicted swindler named Husni al-Za'im. Al-Za'im barely had time to dissolve parliament and approve the American pipeline before his countrymen deposed him, four and a half months into his regime. ..."
"... That posture caused CIA Director Dulles to declare that "Syria is ripe for a coup" and send his two coup wizards, Kim Roosevelt and Rocky Stone, to Damascus. ..."
"... Despite Dulles' needling, President Harry Truman had forbidden the CIA from actively joining the British caper to topple Mosaddegh. When Eisenhower took office in January 1953, he immediately unleashed Dulles. After ousting Mosaddegh in "Operation Ajax," Stone and Roosevelt installed Shah Reza Pahlavi, who favored U.S. oil companies but whose two decades of CIA sponsored savagery toward his own people from the Peacock throne would finally ignite the 1979 Islamic revolution that has bedeviled our foreign policy for 35 years. ..."
"... Stone arrived in Damascus in April 1957 with $3 million to arm and incite Islamic militants and to bribe Syrian military officers and politicians to overthrow al-Quwatli's democratically elected secularist regime, according to Safe for Democracy: The Secret Wars of the CIA, by John Prados. ..."
"... That report observes that control of the Persian Gulf oil and gas deposits will remain, for the U.S., "a strategic priority" that "will interact strongly with that of prosecuting the long war." Rand recommended using "covert action, information operations, unconventional warfare" to enforce a "divide and rule" strategy. "The United States and its local allies could use the nationalist jihadists to launch a proxy campaign" and "U.S. leaders could also choose to capitalize on the sustained Shia-Sunni conflict trajectory by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world ... possibly supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly hostile Iran." ..."
"... When Sunni soldiers of the Syrian Army began defecting in 2013, the western coalition armed the Free Syrian Army to further destabilize Syria. The press portrait of the Free Syrian Army as cohesive battalions of Syrian moderates was delusional. The dissolved units regrouped in hundreds of independent militias most of which were commanded by, or allied with, jihadi militants who were the most committed and effective fighters. ..."
"... Despite the prevailing media portrait of a moderate Arab uprising against the tyrant Assad, U.S. intelligence planners knew from the outset that their pipeline proxies were radical jihadists who would probably carve themselves a brand new Islamic caliphate from the Sunni regions of Syria and Iraq. ..."
"... a seven-page August 12, 2012, study by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, obtained by the right-wing group Judicial Watch, warned that thanks to the ongoing support by U.S./Sunni Coalition for radical Sunni Jihadists, "the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood and AQI (now ISIS), are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria." ..."
"... The Pentagon report warns that this new principality could move across the Iraqi border to Mosul and Ramadi and "declare an Islamic state through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria." ..."
"... Bremer elevated the Shiites to power and banned Saddam's ruling Ba'ath Party, laying off some 700,000 mostly Sunni, government and party officials from ministers to schoolteachers. He then disbanded the 380,000-man army, which was 80 percent Sunni. Bremer's actions stripped a million of Iraq's Sunnis of rank, property, wealth and power; leaving a desperate underclass of angry, educated, capable, trained and heavily armed Sunnis with little left to lose. The Sunni insurgency named itself Al Qaeda in Iraq. Beginning in 2011, our allies funded the invasion by AQI fighters into Syria. ..."
"... "ISIS is run by a council of former Iraqi generals. ... Many are members of Saddam Hussein's secular Ba'ath Party who converted to radical Islam in American prisons." ..."
America's unsavory record of violent interventions in Syria-little-known to the American people
yet well-known to Syrians-sowed fertile ground for the violent Islamic jihadism that now complicates
any effective response by our government to address the challenge of ISIL. So long as the American
public and policymakers are unaware of this past, further interventions are likely only to compound
the crisis. Secretary of State John Kerry this week announced a "provisional" ceasefire in Syria.
But since U.S. leverage and prestige within Syria is minimal-and the ceasefire doesn't include key
combatants such as Islamic State and al Nusra--it's bound to be a shaky truce at best. Similarly
President Obama's stepped-up military intervention in Libya-U.S. airstrikes targeted an Islamic State
training camp last week-is likely to strengthen rather than weaken the radicals. As the New York
Times reported in a December 8, 2015, front-page story, Islamic State political leaders and strategic
planners are working to provoke an American military intervention. They know from experience this
will flood their ranks with volunteer fighters, drown the voices of moderation and unify the Islamic
world against America.
To understand this dynamic, we need to look at history from the Syrians' perspective and particularly
the seeds of the current conflict. Long before our 2003 occupation of Iraq triggered the Sunni uprising
that has now morphed into the Islamic State, the CIA had nurtured violent jihadism as a Cold War
weapon and freighted U.S./Syrian relationships with toxic baggage.
This did not happen without controversy at home. In July 1957, following a failed coup in Syria
by the CIA, my uncle, Sen. John F. Kennedy, infuriated the Eisenhower White House, the leaders of
both political parties and our European allies with a milestone speech endorsing the right of self-governance
in the Arab world and an end to America's imperialist meddling in Arab countries. Throughout my lifetime,
and particularly during my frequent travels to the Mideast, countless Arabs have fondly recalled
that speech to me as the clearest statement of the idealism they expected from the U.S. Kennedy's
speech was a call for recommitting America to the high values our country had championed in the Atlantic
Charter; the formal pledge that all the former European colonies would have the right to self-determination
following World War II. Franklin D. Roosevelt had strong-armed Winston Churchill and the other allied
leaders to sign the Atlantic Charter in 1941 as a precondition for U.S. support in the European war
against fascism.
But thanks in large part to Allen Dulles and the CIA, whose foreign policy intrigues were
often directly at odds with the stated policies of our nation, the idealistic path outlined in the
Atlantic Charter was the road not taken. In 1957, my grandfather, Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy,
sat on a secret committee charged with investigating the CIA's clandestine mischief in the Mideast.
The so called "Bruce-Lovett Report," to which he was a signatory, described CIA coup plots in Jordan,
Syria, Iran, Iraq and Egypt, all common knowledge on the Arab street, but virtually unknown to the
American people who believed, at face value, their government's denials. The report blamed the CIA
for the rampant anti-Americanism that was then mysteriously taking root "in the many countries in
the world today." The Bruce-Lovett Report pointed out that such interventions were antithetical to
American values and had compromised America's international leadership and moral authority without
the knowledge of the American people. The report also said that the CIA never considered how we would
treat such interventions if some foreign government were to engineer them in our country.
This is the bloody history that modern interventionists like George W. Bush, Ted Cruz and
Marco Rubio miss when they recite their narcissistic trope that Mideast nationalists "hate us for
our freedoms." For the most part they don't; instead they hate us for the way we betrayed those freedoms-our
own ideals-within their borders.
***
For Americans to really understand what's going on, it's important to review some details about
this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles
brothers-CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles-rebuffed Soviet treaty
proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead,
they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism-which Allen Dulles equated with communism-particularly
when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants
in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies
thath they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism. At a White House meeting between the
CIA's director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised
the agency, "We should do everything possible to stress the 'holy war' aspect," according to a memo
recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster.
Two years later, Amb. Kennedy served on a secret committee that sharply criticized the CIA-backed
oversees operations that inflamed anti-American sentiment in the Middle East. That same year, freshman
Senator John F. Kennedy, pictured right with brother Robert during a Senate committee hearing, delivered
a speech from the Senate floor titled "Imperialism-The Enemy of Freedom," similarly excoriating the
Eisenhower administration for hindering political self-determination in the region.
The CIA began its active meddling in Syria in 1949-barely a year after the agency's creation.
Syrian patriots had declared war on the Nazis, expelled their Vichy French colonial rulers and crafted
a fragile secularist democracy based on the American model. But in March 1949, Syria's democratically
elected president, Shukri-al-Quwatli, hesitated to approve the Trans-Arabian Pipeline, an American
project intended to connect the oil fields of Saudi Arabia to the ports of Lebanon via Syria. In
his book, Legacy of Ashes, CIA historian Tim Weiner recounts that in retaliation for Al-Quwatli's
lack of enthusiasm for the U.S. pipeline, the CIA engineered a coup replacing al-Quwatli with the
CIA's handpicked dictator, a convicted swindler named Husni al-Za'im. Al-Za'im barely had time to
dissolve parliament and approve the American pipeline before his countrymen deposed him, four and
a half months into his regime.
Following several counter-coups in the newly destabilized country, the Syrian people again tried
democracy in 1955, re-electing al-Quwatli and his National Party. Al-Quwatli was still a Cold War
neutralist, but, stung by American involvement in his ouster, he now leaned toward the Soviet camp.
That posture caused CIA Director Dulles to declare that "Syria is ripe for a coup" and send his
two coup wizards, Kim Roosevelt and Rocky Stone, to Damascus.
Two years earlier, Roosevelt and Stone had orchestrated a coup in Iran against the democratically
elected President Mohammed Mosaddegh, after Mosaddegh tried to renegotiate the terms of Iran's lopsided
contracts with the British oil giant Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now BP). Mosaddegh was the first
elected leader in Iran's 4,000-year history and a popular champion for democracy across the developing
world. Mosaddegh expelled all British diplomats after uncovering a coup attempt by U.K. intelligence
officers working in cahoots with BP. Mosaddegh, however, made the fatal mistake of resisting his
advisers' pleas to also expel the CIA, which, they correctly suspected, was complicit in the British
plot. Mosaddegh idealized the U.S. as a role model for Iran's new democracy and incapable of such
perfidies. Despite Dulles' needling, President Harry Truman had forbidden the CIA from actively
joining the British caper to topple Mosaddegh. When Eisenhower took office in January 1953, he immediately
unleashed Dulles. After ousting Mosaddegh in "Operation Ajax," Stone and Roosevelt installed Shah
Reza Pahlavi, who favored U.S. oil companies but whose two decades of CIA sponsored savagery toward
his own people from the Peacock throne would finally ignite the 1979 Islamic revolution that has
bedeviled our foreign policy for 35 years.
Flush from his Operation Ajax "success" in Iran, Stone arrived in Damascus in April 1957 with
$3 million to arm and incite Islamic militants and to bribe Syrian military officers and politicians
to overthrow al-Quwatli's democratically elected secularist regime, according to Safe for Democracy:
The Secret Wars of the CIA, by John Prados. Working with the Muslim Brotherhood and millions
of dollars, Rocky Stone schemed to assassinate Syria's chief of intelligence, the chief of its General
Staff and the chief of the Communist Party, and to engineer "national conspiracies and various strong
arm" provocations in Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan that could be blamed on the Syrian Ba'athists. Tim
Weiner describes in Legacy of Ashes how the CIA's plan was to destabilize the Syrian government and
create a pretext for an invasion by Iraq and Jordan, whose governments were already under CIA control.
Kim Roosevelt forecast that the CIA's newly installed puppet government would "rely first upon repressive
measures and arbitrary exercise of power," according to declassified CIA documents reported in The
Guardian newspaper.
... ... ...
Having alienated Iraq and Syria, Kim Roosevelt fled the Mideast to work as an executive for the
oil industry that he had served so well during his public service career at the CIA. Roosevelt's
replacement as CIA station chief, James Critchfield, attempted a failed assassination plot against
the new Iraqi president using a toxic handkerchief, according to Weiner. Five years later, the CIA
finally succeeded in deposing the Iraqi president and installing the Ba'ath Party in power in Iraq.
A charismatic young murderer named Saddam Hussein was one of the
distinguished leaders of the CIA's Ba'athist team. The Ba'ath Party's Secretary, Ali Saleh Sa'adi,
who took office alongside Saddam Hussein, would later say, "We came to power on a CIA train," according
to A Brutal Friendship: The West and the Arab Elite, by Said Aburish, a journalist and author.
Aburish recounted that the CIA supplied Saddam and his cronies a murder list of people who "had to
be eliminated immediately in order to ensure success." Tim Weiner writes that Critchfield later acknowledged
that the CIA had, in essence, "created Saddam Hussein."
... ... ...
The EU, which gets 30 percent of its gas from Russia, was equally hungry for the pipeline, which
would have given its members cheap energy and relief from Vladimir Putin's stifling economic and
political leverage. Turkey, Russia's second largest gas customer, was particularly anxious to end
its reliance on its ancient rival and to position itself as the lucrative transect hub for Asian
fuels to EU markets. The Qatari pipeline would have benefited Saudi Arabia's conservative Sunni monarchy
by giving it a foothold in Shia-dominated Syria. The Saudis' geopolitical goal is to contain the
economic and political power of the kingdom's principal rival, Iran, a Shiite state, and close ally
of Bashar Assad. The Saudi monarchy viewed the U.S.-sponsored Shiite takeover in Iraq (and, more
recently, the termination of the Iran trade embargo) as a demotion to its regional power status and
was already engaged in a proxy war against Tehran in Yemen, highlighted by the Saudi genocide against
the Iranian backed Houthi tribe.
Of course, the Russians,
who sell 70
percent of their gas exports to Europe, viewed the Qatar/Turkey pipeline as an existential threat.
In Putin's view, the Qatar pipeline is a NATO plot to change the status quo, deprive Russia of its
only foothold in the Middle East, strangle the Russian economy and end Russian leverage in the European
energy market. In 2009, Assad announced that he would refuse to sign the agreement to allow the pipeline
to run through Syria "to protect the interests of our Russian ally."
Despite pressure from Republicans, Barack Obama balked at hiring out young Americans to die as
mercenaries for a pipeline conglomerate. Obama wisely ignored Republican clamoring to put ground
troops in Syria or to funnel more funding to "moderate insurgents." But by late 2011, Republican
pressure and our Sunni allies had pushed the American government into the fray.
In 2011, the U.S. joined France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the UK to form the Friends of
Syria Coalition, which formally demanded the removal of Assad. The CIA provided $6 million to Barada,
a British TV channel, to produce pieces entreating Assad's ouster. Saudi intelligence documents,
published by WikiLeaks, show that by 2012, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia were arming, training and
funding radical jihadist Sunni fighters from Syria, Iraq and elsewhere to overthrow the Assad's Shiite-allied
regime. Qatar, which had the most to gain,
invested $3 billion in building the insurgency and invited the Pentagon to train insurgents at
U.S. bases in Qatar. According to an April 2014 article by Seymour Hersh, the CIA weapons ratlines
were
financed by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
The idea of fomenting a Sunni-Shiite civil war to weaken the Syrian and Iranian regimes in order
to to maintain control of the region's petrochemical supplies was not a novel notion in the Pentagon's
lexicon. A
damning 2008 Pentagon-funded Rand report proposed a precise blueprint for what was about to happen.
That report observes that control of the Persian Gulf oil and gas deposits will remain, for the
U.S., "a strategic priority" that "will interact strongly with that of prosecuting the long war."
Rand recommended using "covert action, information operations, unconventional warfare" to enforce
a "divide and rule" strategy. "The United States and its local allies could use the nationalist jihadists
to launch a proxy campaign" and "U.S. leaders could also choose to capitalize on the sustained Shia-Sunni
conflict trajectory by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment
movements in the Muslim world ... possibly supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly
hostile Iran."
As predicted, Assad's overreaction to the foreign-made crisis-dropping barrel bombs onto Sunni
strongholds and killing civilians-polarized Syria's Shiite/Sunni divide and allowed U.S. policymakers
to sell Americans the idea that the pipeline struggle was a humanitarian war. When Sunni soldiers
of the Syrian Army began defecting in 2013, the western coalition armed the Free Syrian Army to further
destabilize Syria. The press portrait of the Free Syrian Army as cohesive battalions of Syrian moderates
was delusional. The dissolved units regrouped in hundreds of independent militias most of which were
commanded by, or allied with, jihadi militants who were the most committed and effective fighters.
By then, the Sunni armies of Al Qaeda in Iraq were crossing the border from Iraq into Syria and joining
forces with the squadrons of deserters from the Free Syrian Army, many of them trained and armed
by the U.S.
Despite the prevailing media portrait of a moderate Arab uprising against the tyrant Assad,
U.S. intelligence planners knew from the outset that their pipeline proxies were radical jihadists
who would probably carve themselves a brand new Islamic caliphate from the Sunni regions of Syria
and Iraq. Two years before ISIL throat cutters stepped on the world stage, a
seven-page August 12, 2012, study by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, obtained by the right-wing
group Judicial Watch, warned that thanks to the ongoing support by U.S./Sunni Coalition for radical
Sunni Jihadists, "the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood and AQI (now ISIS), are the major forces driving
the insurgency in Syria." Using U.S. and Gulf state funding, these groups had turned the peaceful
protests against Bashar Assad toward "a clear sectarian (Shiite vs. Sunni) direction." The paper
notes that the conflict had become a sectarian civil war supported by Sunni "religious and political
powers." The report paints the Syrian conflict as a global war for control of the region's resources
with "the west, Gulf countries and Turkey supporting [Assad's] opposition, while Russia, China and
Iran support the regime." The Pentagon authors of the seven-page report
appear to endorse the predicted advent of the ISIS caliphate: "If the situation unravels, there
is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria
(Hasaka and Der Zor) and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want in
order to isolate the Syrian regime."The Pentagon report warns that this new principality
could move across the Iraqi border to Mosul and Ramadi and "declare an Islamic state through its
union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria."
Of course, this is precisely what has happened. Not coincidentally, the regions of Syria occupied
by the Islamic State exactly encompass the proposed route of the Qatari pipeline.
Across the Mideast, Arab leaders routinely accuse the U.S. of having created the Islamic State.
To most Americans, such accusations seem insane. However, to many Arabs, the evidence of U.S. involvement
is so abundant that they conclude that our role in fostering the Islamic State must have been deliberate.
In fact, many of the Islamic State fighters and their commanders are ideological and organizational
successors to the jihadists that the CIA has been nurturing for more than 30 years from Syria and
Egypt to Afghanistan and Iraq.
Prior to the American invasion, there was no Al Qaeda in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. President George
W. Bush destroyed Saddam's secularist government, and his viceroy, Paul Bremer, in a monumental act
of mismanagement, effectively created the Sunni Army, now named the Islamic State. Bremer elevated
the Shiites to power and banned Saddam's ruling Ba'ath Party, laying off some 700,000 mostly Sunni,
government and party officials from ministers to schoolteachers. He then disbanded the 380,000-man
army, which was 80 percent Sunni. Bremer's actions stripped a million of Iraq's Sunnis of rank, property,
wealth and power; leaving a desperate underclass of angry, educated, capable, trained and heavily
armed Sunnis with little left to lose. The Sunni insurgency named itself Al Qaeda in Iraq. Beginning
in 2011, our allies funded the invasion by AQI fighters into Syria.
In April 2013, having entered Syria, AQI changed its name to ISIL. According to Dexter Filkins
of the New Yorker, "ISIS is run by a council of former Iraqi generals. ... Many are members
of Saddam Hussein's secular Ba'ath Party who converted to radical Islam in American prisons."
The $500 million in U.S. military aid that Obama did send to Syria almost certainly ended up benefiting
these militant jihadists. Tim Clemente, the former chairman of the FBI's joint task force, told me
that the difference between the Iraq and Syria conflicts is the millions of military-aged men who
are fleeing the battlefield for Europe rather than staying to fight for their communities.
The obvious explanation is that the nation's moderates are fleeing a war that is not their war.
They simply want to escape being crushed between the anvil of Assad's Russian-backed tyranny and
the vicious jihadist Sunni hammer that we had a hand in wielding in a global battle over competing
pipelines. You can't blame the Syrian people for not widely embracing a blueprint for their nation
minted in either Washington or Moscow. The superpowers have left no options for an idealistic future
that moderate Syrians might consider fighting for. And no one wants to die for a pipeline.
... ... ..
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is the president of Waterkeeper Alliance. His newest book is
Thimerosal: Let The Science Speak.
A really interesting analyses
of the USA foreign policy from the son of Robert Kennedy "They don't hate 'our freedoms.' They hate
that we've betrayed our ideals in their own countries-for oil. "
Notable quotes:
"... But thanks in large part to Allen Dulles and the CIA, whose foreign policy intrigues were often
directly at odds with the stated policies of our nation, the idealistic path outlined in the Atlantic
Charter was the road not taken. ..."
"... This is the bloody history that modern interventionists like George W. Bush, Ted Cruz and Marco
Rubio miss when they recite their narcissistic trope that Mideast nationalists "hate us for our freedoms."
For the most part they don't; instead they hate us for the way we betrayed those freedoms-our own ideals-within
their borders. ..."
"... But in March 1949, Syria's democratically elected president, Shukri-al-Quwatli, hesitated to
approve the Trans-Arabian Pipeline, an American project intended to connect the oil fields of Saudi
Arabia to the ports of Lebanon via Syria. In his book, Legacy of Ashes, CIA historian Tim Weiner recounts
that in retaliation for Al-Quwatli's lack of enthusiasm for the U.S. pipeline, the CIA engineered a
coup replacing al-Quwatli with the CIA's handpicked dictator, a convicted swindler named Husni al-Za'im.
Al-Za'im barely had time to dissolve parliament and approve the American pipeline before his countrymen
deposed him, four and a half months into his regime. ..."
"... That posture caused CIA Director Dulles to declare that "Syria is ripe for a coup" and send
his two coup wizards, Kim Roosevelt and Rocky Stone, to Damascus. ..."
"... Despite Dulles' needling, President Harry Truman had forbidden the CIA from actively joining
the British caper to topple Mosaddegh. When Eisenhower took office in January 1953, he immediately unleashed
Dulles. After ousting Mosaddegh in "Operation Ajax," Stone and Roosevelt installed Shah Reza Pahlavi,
who favored U.S. oil companies but whose two decades of CIA sponsored savagery toward his own people
from the Peacock throne would finally ignite the 1979 Islamic revolution that has bedeviled our foreign
policy for 35 years. ..."
"... Stone arrived in Damascus in April 1957 with $3 million to arm and incite Islamic militants
and to bribe Syrian military officers and politicians to overthrow al-Quwatli's democratically elected
secularist regime, according to Safe for Democracy: The Secret Wars of the CIA, by John Prados. ..."
"... That report observes that control of the Persian Gulf oil and gas deposits will remain, for
the U.S., "a strategic priority" that "will interact strongly with that of prosecuting the long war."
Rand recommended using "covert action, information operations, unconventional warfare" to enforce a
"divide and rule" strategy. "The United States and its local allies could use the nationalist jihadists
to launch a proxy campaign" and "U.S. leaders could also choose to capitalize on the sustained Shia-Sunni
conflict trajectory by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment
movements in the Muslim world ... possibly supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly
hostile Iran." ..."
"... When Sunni soldiers of the Syrian Army began defecting in 2013, the western coalition armed
the Free Syrian Army to further destabilize Syria. The press portrait of the Free Syrian Army as cohesive
battalions of Syrian moderates was delusional. The dissolved units regrouped in hundreds of independent
militias most of which were commanded by, or allied with, jihadi militants who were the most committed
and effective fighters. ..."
"... Bremer elevated the Shiites to power and banned Saddam's ruling Ba'ath Party, laying off some
700,000 mostly Sunni, government and party officials from ministers to schoolteachers. He then disbanded
the 380,000-man army, which was 80 percent Sunni. Bremer's actions stripped a million of Iraq's Sunnis
of rank, property, wealth and power; leaving a desperate underclass of angry, educated, capable, trained
and heavily armed Sunnis with little left to lose. The Sunni insurgency named itself Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Beginning in 2011, our allies funded the invasion by AQI fighters into Syria. ..."
"... "ISIS is run by a council of former Iraqi generals. ... Many are members of Saddam Hussein's
secular Ba'ath Party who converted to radical Islam in American prisons." ..."
America's unsavory record of violent interventions in Syria-little-known to the American people
yet well-known to Syrians-sowed fertile ground for the violent Islamic jihadism that now complicates
any effective response by our government to address the challenge of ISIL. So long as the American
public and policymakers are unaware of this past, further interventions are likely only to compound
the crisis. Secretary of State John Kerry this week announced a "provisional" ceasefire in Syria.
But since U.S. leverage and prestige within Syria is minimal-and the ceasefire doesn't include key
combatants such as Islamic State and al Nusra--it's bound to be a shaky truce at best. Similarly
President Obama's stepped-up military intervention in Libya-U.S. airstrikes targeted an Islamic State
training camp last week-is likely to strengthen rather than weaken the radicals. As the New York
Times reported in a December 8, 2015, front-page story, Islamic State political leaders and strategic
planners are working to provoke an American military intervention. They know from experience this
will flood their ranks with volunteer fighters, drown the voices of moderation and unify the Islamic
world against America.
To understand this dynamic, we need to look at history from the Syrians' perspective and particularly
the seeds of the current conflict. Long before our 2003 occupation of Iraq triggered the Sunni uprising
that has now morphed into the Islamic State, the CIA had nurtured violent jihadism as a Cold War
weapon and freighted U.S./Syrian relationships with toxic baggage.
This did not happen without controversy at home. In July 1957, following a failed coup in Syria
by the CIA, my uncle, Sen. John F. Kennedy, infuriated the Eisenhower White House, the leaders of
both political parties and our European allies with a milestone speech endorsing the right of self-governance
in the Arab world and an end to America's imperialist meddling in Arab countries. Throughout my lifetime,
and particularly during my frequent travels to the Mideast, countless Arabs have fondly recalled
that speech to me as the clearest statement of the idealism they expected from the U.S. Kennedy's
speech was a call for recommitting America to the high values our country had championed in the Atlantic
Charter; the formal pledge that all the former European colonies would have the right to self-determination
following World War II. Franklin D. Roosevelt had strong-armed Winston Churchill and the other allied
leaders to sign the Atlantic Charter in 1941 as a precondition for U.S. support in the European war
against fascism.
But thanks in large part to Allen Dulles and the CIA, whose foreign policy intrigues were
often directly at odds with the stated policies of our nation, the idealistic path outlined in the
Atlantic Charter was the road not taken. In 1957, my grandfather, Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy,
sat on a secret committee charged with investigating the CIA's clandestine mischief in the Mideast.
The so called "Bruce-Lovett Report," to which he was a signatory, described CIA coup plots in Jordan,
Syria, Iran, Iraq and Egypt, all common knowledge on the Arab street, but virtually unknown to the
American people who believed, at face value, their government's denials. The report blamed the CIA
for the rampant anti-Americanism that was then mysteriously taking root "in the many countries in
the world today." The Bruce-Lovett Report pointed out that such interventions were antithetical to
American values and had compromised America's international leadership and moral authority without
the knowledge of the American people. The report also said that the CIA never considered how we would
treat such interventions if some foreign government were to engineer them in our country.
This is the bloody history that modern interventionists like George W. Bush, Ted Cruz and
Marco Rubio miss when they recite their narcissistic trope that Mideast nationalists "hate us for
our freedoms." For the most part they don't; instead they hate us for the way we betrayed those freedoms-our
own ideals-within their borders.
***
For Americans to really understand what's going on, it's important to review some details about
this sordid but little-remembered history. During the 1950s, President Eisenhower and the Dulles
brothers-CIA Director Allen Dulles and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles-rebuffed Soviet treaty
proposals to leave the Middle East a neutral zone in the Cold War and let Arabs rule Arabia. Instead,
they mounted a clandestine war against Arab nationalism-which Allen Dulles equated with communism-particularly
when Arab self-rule threatened oil concessions. They pumped secret American military aid to tyrants
in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon favoring puppets with conservative Jihadist ideologies
thath they regarded as a reliable antidote to Soviet Marxism. At a White House meeting between the
CIA's director of plans, Frank Wisner, and John Foster Dulles, in September 1957, Eisenhower advised
the agency, "We should do everything possible to stress the 'holy war' aspect," according to a memo
recorded by his staff secretary, Gen. Andrew J. Goodpaster.
Two years later, Amb. Kennedy served on a secret committee that sharply criticized the CIA-backed
oversees operations that inflamed anti-American sentiment in the Middle East. That same year, freshman
Senator John F. Kennedy, pictured right with brother Robert during a Senate committee hearing, delivered
a speech from the Senate floor titled "Imperialism-The Enemy of Freedom," similarly excoriating the
Eisenhower administration for hindering political self-determination in the region.
The CIA began its active meddling in Syria in 1949-barely a year after the agency's creation.
Syrian patriots had declared war on the Nazis, expelled their Vichy French colonial rulers and crafted
a fragile secularist democracy based on the American model. But in March 1949, Syria's democratically
elected president, Shukri-al-Quwatli, hesitated to approve the Trans-Arabian Pipeline, an American
project intended to connect the oil fields of Saudi Arabia to the ports of Lebanon via Syria. In
his book, Legacy of Ashes, CIA historian Tim Weiner recounts that in retaliation for Al-Quwatli's
lack of enthusiasm for the U.S. pipeline, the CIA engineered a coup replacing al-Quwatli with the
CIA's handpicked dictator, a convicted swindler named Husni al-Za'im. Al-Za'im barely had time to
dissolve parliament and approve the American pipeline before his countrymen deposed him, four and
a half months into his regime.
Following several counter-coups in the newly destabilized country, the Syrian people again tried
democracy in 1955, re-electing al-Quwatli and his National Party. Al-Quwatli was still a Cold War
neutralist, but, stung by American involvement in his ouster, he now leaned toward the Soviet camp.
That posture caused CIA Director Dulles to declare that "Syria is ripe for a coup" and send his
two coup wizards, Kim Roosevelt and Rocky Stone, to Damascus.
Two years earlier, Roosevelt and Stone had orchestrated a coup in Iran against the democratically
elected President Mohammed Mosaddegh, after Mosaddegh tried to renegotiate the terms of Iran's lopsided
contracts with the British oil giant Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now BP). Mosaddegh was the first
elected leader in Iran's 4,000-year history and a popular champion for democracy across the developing
world. Mosaddegh expelled all British diplomats after uncovering a coup attempt by U.K. intelligence
officers working in cahoots with BP. Mosaddegh, however, made the fatal mistake of resisting his
advisers' pleas to also expel the CIA, which, they correctly suspected, was complicit in the British
plot. Mosaddegh idealized the U.S. as a role model for Iran's new democracy and incapable of such
perfidies. Despite Dulles' needling, President Harry Truman had forbidden the CIA from actively
joining the British caper to topple Mosaddegh. When Eisenhower took office in January 1953, he immediately
unleashed Dulles. After ousting Mosaddegh in "Operation Ajax," Stone and Roosevelt installed Shah
Reza Pahlavi, who favored U.S. oil companies but whose two decades of CIA sponsored savagery toward
his own people from the Peacock throne would finally ignite the 1979 Islamic revolution that has
bedeviled our foreign policy for 35 years.
Flush from his Operation Ajax "success" in Iran, Stone arrived in Damascus in April 1957 with
$3 million to arm and incite Islamic militants and to bribe Syrian military officers and politicians
to overthrow al-Quwatli's democratically elected secularist regime, according to Safe for Democracy:
The Secret Wars of the CIA, by John Prados. Working with the Muslim Brotherhood and millions
of dollars, Rocky Stone schemed to assassinate Syria's chief of intelligence, the chief of its General
Staff and the chief of the Communist Party, and to engineer "national conspiracies and various strong
arm" provocations in Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan that could be blamed on the Syrian Ba'athists. Tim
Weiner describes in Legacy of Ashes how the CIA's plan was to destabilize the Syrian government and
create a pretext for an invasion by Iraq and Jordan, whose governments were already under CIA control.
Kim Roosevelt forecast that the CIA's newly installed puppet government would "rely first upon repressive
measures and arbitrary exercise of power," according to declassified CIA documents reported in The
Guardian newspaper.
... ... ...
Having alienated Iraq and Syria, Kim Roosevelt fled the Mideast to work as an executive for the
oil industry that he had served so well during his public service career at the CIA. Roosevelt's
replacement as CIA station chief, James Critchfield, attempted a failed assassination plot against
the new Iraqi president using a toxic handkerchief, according to Weiner. Five years later, the CIA
finally succeeded in deposing the Iraqi president and installing the Ba'ath Party in power in Iraq.
A charismatic young murderer named Saddam Hussein was one of the
distinguished leaders of the CIA's Ba'athist team. The Ba'ath Party's Secretary, Ali Saleh Sa'adi,
who took office alongside Saddam Hussein, would later say, "We came to power on a CIA train," according
to A Brutal Friendship: The West and the Arab Elite, by Said Aburish, a journalist and author.
Aburish recounted that the CIA supplied Saddam and his cronies a murder list of people who "had to
be eliminated immediately in order to ensure success." Tim Weiner writes that Critchfield later acknowledged
that the CIA had, in essence, "created Saddam Hussein."
... ... ...
The EU, which gets 30 percent of its gas from Russia, was equally hungry for the pipeline, which
would have given its members cheap energy and relief from Vladimir Putin's stifling economic and
political leverage. Turkey, Russia's second largest gas customer, was particularly anxious to end
its reliance on its ancient rival and to position itself as the lucrative transect hub for Asian
fuels to EU markets. The Qatari pipeline would have benefited Saudi Arabia's conservative Sunni monarchy
by giving it a foothold in Shia-dominated Syria. The Saudis' geopolitical goal is to contain the
economic and political power of the kingdom's principal rival, Iran, a Shiite state, and close ally
of Bashar Assad. The Saudi monarchy viewed the U.S.-sponsored Shiite takeover in Iraq (and, more
recently, the termination of the Iran trade embargo) as a demotion to its regional power status and
was already engaged in a proxy war against Tehran in Yemen, highlighted by the Saudi genocide against
the Iranian backed Houthi tribe.
Of course, the Russians,
who sell 70
percent of their gas exports to Europe, viewed the Qatar/Turkey pipeline as an existential threat.
In Putin's view, the Qatar pipeline is a NATO plot to change the status quo, deprive Russia of its
only foothold in the Middle East, strangle the Russian economy and end Russian leverage in the European
energy market. In 2009, Assad announced that he would refuse to sign the agreement to allow the pipeline
to run through Syria "to protect the interests of our Russian ally."
Despite pressure from Republicans, Barack Obama balked at hiring out young Americans to die as
mercenaries for a pipeline conglomerate. Obama wisely ignored Republican clamoring to put ground
troops in Syria or to funnel more funding to "moderate insurgents." But by late 2011, Republican
pressure and our Sunni allies had pushed the American government into the fray.
In 2011, the U.S. joined France, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the UK to form the Friends of
Syria Coalition, which formally demanded the removal of Assad. The CIA provided $6 million to Barada,
a British TV channel, to produce pieces entreating Assad's ouster. Saudi intelligence documents,
published by WikiLeaks, show that by 2012, Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia were arming, training and
funding radical jihadist Sunni fighters from Syria, Iraq and elsewhere to overthrow the Assad's Shiite-allied
regime. Qatar, which had the most to gain,
invested $3 billion in building the insurgency and invited the Pentagon to train insurgents at
U.S. bases in Qatar. According to an April 2014 article by Seymour Hersh, the CIA weapons ratlines
were
financed by Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
The idea of fomenting a Sunni-Shiite civil war to weaken the Syrian and Iranian regimes in order
to to maintain control of the region's petrochemical supplies was not a novel notion in the Pentagon's
lexicon. A
damning 2008 Pentagon-funded Rand report proposed a precise blueprint for what was about to happen.
That report observes that control of the Persian Gulf oil and gas deposits will remain, for the
U.S., "a strategic priority" that "will interact strongly with that of prosecuting the long war."
Rand recommended using "covert action, information operations, unconventional warfare" to enforce
a "divide and rule" strategy. "The United States and its local allies could use the nationalist jihadists
to launch a proxy campaign" and "U.S. leaders could also choose to capitalize on the sustained Shia-Sunni
conflict trajectory by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment
movements in the Muslim world ... possibly supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly
hostile Iran."
As predicted, Assad's overreaction to the foreign-made crisis-dropping barrel bombs onto Sunni
strongholds and killing civilians-polarized Syria's Shiite/Sunni divide and allowed U.S. policymakers
to sell Americans the idea that the pipeline struggle was a humanitarian war. When Sunni soldiers
of the Syrian Army began defecting in 2013, the western coalition armed the Free Syrian Army to further
destabilize Syria. The press portrait of the Free Syrian Army as cohesive battalions of Syrian moderates
was delusional. The dissolved units regrouped in hundreds of independent militias most of which were
commanded by, or allied with, jihadi militants who were the most committed and effective fighters.
By then, the Sunni armies of Al Qaeda in Iraq were crossing the border from Iraq into Syria and joining
forces with the squadrons of deserters from the Free Syrian Army, many of them trained and armed
by the U.S.
Despite the prevailing media portrait of a moderate Arab uprising against the tyrant Assad,
U.S. intelligence planners knew from the outset that their pipeline proxies were radical jihadists
who would probably carve themselves a brand new Islamic caliphate from the Sunni regions of Syria
and Iraq. Two years before ISIL throat cutters stepped on the world stage, a
seven-page August 12, 2012, study by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, obtained by the right-wing
group Judicial Watch, warned that thanks to the ongoing support by U.S./Sunni Coalition for radical
Sunni Jihadists, "the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood and AQI (now ISIS), are the major forces driving
the insurgency in Syria." Using U.S. and Gulf state funding, these groups had turned the peaceful
protests against Bashar Assad toward "a clear sectarian (Shiite vs. Sunni) direction." The paper
notes that the conflict had become a sectarian civil war supported by Sunni "religious and political
powers." The report paints the Syrian conflict as a global war for control of the region's resources
with "the west, Gulf countries and Turkey supporting [Assad's] opposition, while Russia, China and
Iran support the regime." The Pentagon authors of the seven-page report
appear to endorse the predicted advent of the ISIS caliphate: "If the situation unravels, there
is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria
(Hasaka and Der Zor) and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want in
order to isolate the Syrian regime."The Pentagon report warns that this new principality
could move across the Iraqi border to Mosul and Ramadi and "declare an Islamic state through its
union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria."
Of course, this is precisely what has happened. Not coincidentally, the regions of Syria occupied
by the Islamic State exactly encompass the proposed route of the Qatari pipeline.
Across the Mideast, Arab leaders routinely accuse the U.S. of having created the Islamic State.
To most Americans, such accusations seem insane. However, to many Arabs, the evidence of U.S. involvement
is so abundant that they conclude that our role in fostering the Islamic State must have been deliberate.
In fact, many of the Islamic State fighters and their commanders are ideological and organizational
successors to the jihadists that the CIA has been nurturing for more than 30 years from Syria and
Egypt to Afghanistan and Iraq.
Prior to the American invasion, there was no Al Qaeda in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. President George
W. Bush destroyed Saddam's secularist government, and his viceroy, Paul Bremer, in a monumental act
of mismanagement, effectively created the Sunni Army, now named the Islamic State. Bremer elevated
the Shiites to power and banned Saddam's ruling Ba'ath Party, laying off some 700,000 mostly Sunni,
government and party officials from ministers to schoolteachers. He then disbanded the 380,000-man
army, which was 80 percent Sunni. Bremer's actions stripped a million of Iraq's Sunnis of rank, property,
wealth and power; leaving a desperate underclass of angry, educated, capable, trained and heavily
armed Sunnis with little left to lose. The Sunni insurgency named itself Al Qaeda in Iraq. Beginning
in 2011, our allies funded the invasion by AQI fighters into Syria.
In April 2013, having entered Syria, AQI changed its name to ISIL. According to Dexter Filkins
of the New Yorker, "ISIS is run by a council of former Iraqi generals. ... Many are members
of Saddam Hussein's secular Ba'ath Party who converted to radical Islam in American prisons."
The $500 million in U.S. military aid that Obama did send to Syria almost certainly ended up benefiting
these militant jihadists. Tim Clemente, the former chairman of the FBI's joint task force, told me
that the difference between the Iraq and Syria conflicts is the millions of military-aged men who
are fleeing the battlefield for Europe rather than staying to fight for their communities.
The obvious explanation is that the nation's moderates are fleeing a war that is not their war.
They simply want to escape being crushed between the anvil of Assad's Russian-backed tyranny and
the vicious jihadist Sunni hammer that we had a hand in wielding in a global battle over competing
pipelines. You can't blame the Syrian people for not widely embracing a blueprint for their nation
minted in either Washington or Moscow. The superpowers have left no options for an idealistic future
that moderate Syrians might consider fighting for. And no one wants to die for a pipeline.
... ... ..
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is the president of Waterkeeper Alliance. His newest book is
Thimerosal: Let The Science Speak.
"... I wonder if voters will be beguiled by Clinton's steely public persona-or if they'll look at the broken life of the victim, whom the attack left infertile for life? Will they remember that defense lawyer Hillary Clinton smeared the 12-year-old victim as a delusional seducer? ..."
"... I fear that this story will go away. That Hillary will dodge this bullet as her husband dodged a credible charge that he actually, personally, raped a woman with his very own penis. ..."
"... We still think that our country is a beautiful exception to the cruel calculus of politics, and expect that our leaders will be more than schemers skilled at clawing their way to power. Perhaps it's a lingering ghost of our Puritan forefathers who meant to found a "city on a hill," ..."
"... We see an immaculately groomed, elite-educated person like Hillary Clinton who repeats all the pious phrases of humanitarian liberalism, and we cannot wrap our heads around the idea that she might be an icy, conscienceless sociopath. ..."
"... But the best-selling expert on sociopaths, Dr. Martha Stout of Harvard, reminds us that some four Americans out of a 100 are in fact clinical sociopaths-people who simply do not experience empathy with their fellow human beings, who do not experience guilt. ..."
"... Sociopaths experience horror stories-such as the story of a 12-year-old girl being brutally raped-the way you and I experience crossword puzzles. And one might very well chuckle and brag over how quickly one finished a crossword puzzle. ..."
"... I have known a few such sociopaths in my life, and like most normal people I simply could not accept the evidence of my senses. Faced with their ruthless actions and habitual lies, I fell back on denial. I made excuses for their cruelties and believed their jaw-dropping lies. ..."
John Zmirak received his B.A. from Yale University in 1986, then his M.F.A. in screenwriting and
fiction and his Ph.D. in English in 1996 from Louisiana State University. John Zmirak is author,
most recently, of the upcoming book The Race to Save Our Century (with Jason Jones). His columns
are archived at www.badcatholics.com.
Will the scandal over Hillary Clinton's cynical, take-no-prisoners
defense of a child rapist damage her chances at winning the White House?
Can we choke down the fact that she
willingly took on that
rape case, then lied about it in print-as revealed by recently unearthed
audio tapes? (Clinton wrote that she was assigned the case against her will; the tapes reveal
that she took on the case as a personal favor, representing a rapist who seems to have calculated
that a female attorney would help his chances.)
Will women vote for a woman who used technicalities to get a brutal rapist less than a year in
jail, then chuckled about the case to another lawyer? A lawyer who bragged how cleverly she had helped
her client cheat justice?
I wonder if voters will be beguiled by Clinton's steely public persona-or if they'll look
at the broken life of the victim, whom the attack left infertile for life? Will they remember that
defense lawyer Hillary Clinton smeared the 12-year-old victim as a delusional seducer? Will
Hillary's campaign be dogged by women who have suffered the trauma of rape, picketing her speeches
with signs that say, "Hillary Blames Victims"?
I fear that this story will go away. That Hillary will dodge this bullet as her husband dodged
a credible charge that he actually, personally, raped
a woman with his very
own penis.
And I wonder how on God's earth that can happen-how any woman, or any man with a wife, daughter,
or sister, can look at Hillary Clinton now without throwing up in his mouth. Are Americans morally
deaf, dumb, and blind?
No. I think that I've figured it out. It's not just that liberals will read the story and assume
it's a baseless slander-not when the Daily Beast and ABC News are echoing the claims that appear
on Fox. Not when you can read
what the rape victim thinks of Hillary:
"I would say [to Clinton], 'You took a case of mine in '75, you lied on me I realize the truth
now, the heart of what you've done to me. And you are supposed to be for women? You call that
[being] for women, what you done to me? And I hear you on tape laughing."
Americans are not jaded cynics who expect their politicians to be moral monsters, on a par with
stone-faced killers like
Vladimir Putin. (Charles de Gaulle famously agreed with Nietzsche that "the State is a cold monster.")
Americans are not so blasé about political evil-which is why we drove Richard Nixon out of power
after Watergate, to the puzzlement of foreigners worldwide who took Nixonian "dirty tricks" for granted.
We still think that our country is a
beautiful exception to the cruel calculus of politics, and expect that our leaders will be more
than schemers skilled at clawing their way to power. Perhaps it's a lingering ghost of our Puritan
forefathers who meant to found a "city on a hill," or the faded echo of the Founding Fathers
who warned
that without virtuous citizens and upright leaders, our Republic would degenerate into just another
squalid tyranny, like today's Venezuela.
But we expect better.
So when we are faced with evil, we are confused. We cannot quite believe it.
We see an immaculately groomed, elite-educated person like Hillary Clinton who repeats all
the pious phrases of humanitarian liberalism, and we cannot wrap our heads around the idea that she
might be an icy, conscienceless sociopath. When we visualize a sociopath, we think of a leering
loner who dresses up as a
clown and murders children, or a
late-term abortionist who collects
fetal feet as trophies.
But the best-selling expert on sociopaths, Dr. Martha Stout of Harvard, reminds us that some
four Americans out of a 100 are
in fact clinical sociopaths-people who simply do not experience empathy with their fellow human beings,
who do not experience guilt.
Brain scans of sociopaths have shown that when they are presented with photos that in normal humans
provoke strong emotions, such as pictures of dead children or animals being tortured, the emotional
centers in sociopaths' brains remain coolly inactive. Instead, what lights up is the part of their
brains that in normal people gets active when they play chess. Sociopaths experience horror stories-such
as the story of a 12-year-old girl being brutally raped-the way you and I experience crossword puzzles.
And one might very well chuckle and brag over how quickly one finished a crossword puzzle.
I have known
a few such sociopaths in my life, and like most normal people I simply could not accept the evidence
of my senses. Faced with their ruthless actions and habitual lies, I fell back on denial. I made
excuses for their cruelties and believed their jaw-dropping lies.
That seemed like the "Christian" thing to do. Of course it wasn't. It was just a lie I told myself,
but choking it down was easier than facing the stark, appalling fact: That I had befriended a moral
monster.
My question for Americans is: Will we go ahead and elect one?
John Zmirak is author, most recently, of the upcoming book "The
Race to Save Our Century" (with Jason Jones). His columns are archived at www.badcatholics.com.
"... Classically, we imagine money being aggregated by an entrepreneur who uses it to build a factory,
purchase raw materials, hire labor, and begin manufacturing widgets which are then sold in the marketplace.
This same result could be had by the process of an ogre appropriating a factory by intimidation, acquiring
raw materials by force, and using slave labor to produce the widgets. The difference is that, in the
first case, the process produces customers (the laborers) who can purchase the widgets with their wages,
whereas-in the second case-the ogre's widgets have no paying customers. One model produces an economy,
the other model doesn't. ..."
"... If we look at the modern global corporation, we see something of the ogre. Yes, they pay to
build their factories-but prefer to coerce local communities into footing much of the cost through preferential
land and tax deals (as well as, in many cases, the appropriation of local water supplies) in exchange
for the "local jobs" the factory promises to create. They also do not outright "steal" their raw materials,
but do manage to argue that the minerals existing in the ground of public lands are somehow theirs by
right in exchange for a nominal rent. True, as well, they do not employ slave labor, but instead employ
strategies that have, in the end, the same result: they minimize the use of local labor (all those jobs
they promised to create) by using robotic technologies-and by outsourcing much of the "make-work" of
the widget components to a country with cheap (some may even characterize it as "semi-slave") labor.
It is for this reason, of course, the same global corporation is so desperate for global trade agreements
which will allow it to favorably access the markets to which it has outsourced its human labor-because
that's where the theoretical paying customers (the wage earners) are that its business model is creating.
..."
"... Absolutely the best definition of "economy" I've ever read. Apparently there was a time, not
so long ago, where a corporation thought it's "fiduciary duty" was to help the broader (local) economy,
rather than a made-up exclusive focus on "shareholders". Apparently even GE said this up to their 1996
annual report, and granting the right to create corporations was based on this. ..."
"... "the process produces customers (the laborers) who can purchase the widgets with their wages…"
Not exactly. The process produces wages that can purchase one-half of what the wages produced. ..."
"... Unfortunately, our monetary system's anchor is collateral, typically physical. If you take
a serious look at the economy, you will notice that the money creation tends to flow from hard assets
down to services. A focus on hard assets limits growth. Over the last few decades, government has been
able to inject money based on services but it was still limited by debt-to-GDP. Households got to play
in this hard asset system by buying houses. ..."
"... This is nonsense. The "outsized retiring populations needs" are largely in the area of human
resources and we have tens of millions of workers sitting around with little or nothing to do or flipping
burgers because we 'don't have enough' of the one resource that has no limit to pay them to take care
of the elderly. ..."
"... The important question is what is the purpose of human life. How you answer that question determines
the actions you will take during your lifetime. The human condition has always been about answering
the question, who am I? What is my place in this world? ..."
"... We live in a world directed by Capitalism. The world view and demands of capitalist society
are unequivocal. The system demands endless growth and the consumption of resources to NO particular
end. Without wisdom and ethical guideposts, we are supporting a process of destruction that will consume
the entire planet. As a system, capitalism is amoral and not concerned with ethics. Introduce ethics,
and you no longer are dealing with capitalism or supporting it as a social system. ..."
"... I've been wanting to read Edward O. Wilson's book, the social conquest of earth. I wanted to
see if he has found any meaningful connections to human social structure and that found in the wider
biological world. At some point, as a species, we will have to start taking responsibility for our actions.
..."
"... Corporate values have always nicely dovetailed with the psychopathic mind set. Total self-interest
(the euphemism for selfishness/greed) paired with the ability to blithely exploit anyone and anything
in the quest for immediate profit. Bernays taught them how to disguise the wolf's head to present a
people-friendly brand to the buyer. ..."
"... the FIRE sector creates the money ("credit" for most purposes) and keeps it in the FIRE sector.
It is doing what any one out of self interest would. keep the money to itself and pass the costs to
others. This is a variation on rent seeking in a monetary regime. any political economy is prone to
rent seeking. In fact you could say an economy's "innovation" (yet another buzzword these days) dies
when rent seeking (ie, stealing from others) becomes a less risky activity than doing anything productive.
..."
"... No. most of the money that is in the system was/is created by government spending. Credit normally
accounts for only a fraction of aggregate demand historically, except for the 2000's, years which led
to a financial crisis. Last year the government spent $4T, credit amounted to $1.25T in spending. ..."
"... Financialization refers to the capturing impact of financial markets, institutions, actors,
instruments and logics on the real economy, households and daily life. Essentially it has significant
implications for the broader patterns and functioning of a (inter)national economy, transforming its
fabrics and modificating state-economy-society mutual embeddedness. Financialization, undoubtedly, is
also a key feature of neoliberalism. ..."
"... I think "transforming its fabrics and modificating state-economy-society mutual embeddedness"
understates how financialization degrades labor power, transfers worker productivity gains into profits
and power for the few, and is, in general the Ogre we face. A bit over 150 years ago Marx postulated
that such an outcome was inevitable under capitalism – a system at that time, was comparable to the
neoliberal experiment we are enduring today. ..."
"... Is there a villain here or is this the immaculate conception of wrong? I read in vain for any
mention of some of the architects of this Potemkin Village of an economic system hitting for the bleachers
with every swing ..."
"... Among Democrats: We could start with the Clintons and then smoke Obama and his crushing betrayal
of followers. Obama has been epic! And he's getting away with it among lefties who love his "cool."
..."
Classically, we imagine money being aggregated by an entrepreneur who uses it to build a factory,
purchase raw materials, hire labor, and begin manufacturing widgets which are then sold in the marketplace.
This same result could be had by the process of an ogre appropriating a factory by intimidation,
acquiring raw materials by force, and using slave labor to produce the widgets. The difference is
that, in the first case, the process produces customers (the laborers) who can purchase the widgets
with their wages, whereas-in the second case-the ogre's widgets have no paying customers. One model
produces an economy, the other model doesn't.
If we look at the modern global corporation, we see something of the ogre. Yes, they pay to
build their factories-but prefer to coerce local communities into footing much of the cost through
preferential land and tax deals (as well as, in many cases, the appropriation of local water supplies)
in exchange for the "local jobs" the factory promises to create. They also do not outright "steal"
their raw materials, but do manage to argue that the minerals existing in the ground of public lands
are somehow theirs by right in exchange for a nominal rent. True, as well, they do not employ slave
labor, but instead employ strategies that have, in the end, the same result: they minimize the use
of local labor (all those jobs they promised to create) by using robotic technologies-and by outsourcing
much of the "make-work" of the widget components to a country with cheap (some may even characterize
it as "semi-slave") labor. It is for this reason, of course, the same global corporation is so desperate
for global trade agreements which will allow it to favorably access the markets to which it has outsourced
its human labor-because that's where the theoretical paying customers (the wage earners) are that
its business model is creating.
In a similar vein, economists puzzle over the lack of inflationary pressure-indeed, the tendency
towards deflation-in the modern western economies, even though the financial industries seem to be
"creating money" at a historical pace. It might be that there's something of the Ogre in that financial
industry as well: the money it creates is not used to build factories, acquire raw materials, hire
labor, and build widgets-it is used, instead, to make bets in the casino of the financial markets
themselves. Poker chips are bought and played, but the chips never get redeemed, and they never leave
the casino-except when they are used to buy political power and favor to perpetuate the game. (A
few chips do get redeemed as spending money for the high-rolling players-and this does, in fact,
put inflationary pressure on the prices for mega-yachts and London penthouses, but who really worries
about that?) What matters is that the "money" generated by the casino never shows up is in the pockets
of wage-earning customers on Main Street. Their pockets, if anything, contain fewer dollars than
they did a generation ago-while the store fronts they gaze into contain more and more widgets assembled
by robots with make-work parts fabricated by workers in other countries.
There is, in other words, a profound disconnect in the way things are functioning. The American
economy has dropped a crucial cog out of its gear-box and, as a consequence, the gears on top are
spinning wildly but futilely, while the disconnected gears on the bottom are grinding slowly and
ineffectually. What we need to do, somehow, at all costs, is to put that missing cog back in the
gear-box. Or-perhaps that is not exactly correct-we need to connect the drive-train directly to the
lower gears themselves, and insert a cog let them drive the upper gears as, I believe, the machine
was supposed to operate in the first place. homeroid ,
February 28, 2016 at 3:45 am
The perpetual motion machine. Thought about it for many blissful yearz. Come to find i have
to rewind the clock. Capitalism is needing to be rewound,painful as it may be for some.I do not
feel sorry for them. Perhaps some younger brighter minds are about us. Dawg knows that's all we
got left
It uses colored water as a stand-in for money, and a elaborate set of containers, pipes and
valves to handle sectors of the economy, how they are interlinked with wages, consumption, and
taxes, and the various policies that can be enacted.
The lovely irony is that this makes and economy seem very similar to the circulatory system
of a living being. If the money/water/blood collects in one place, or is drained away, the whole
system comes to a halt/dies.
Absolutely the best definition of "economy" I've ever read. Apparently there was a time,
not so long ago, where a corporation thought it's "fiduciary duty" was to help the broader (local)
economy, rather than a made-up exclusive focus on "shareholders". Apparently even GE said this
up to their 1996 annual report, and granting the right to create corporations was based on this.
"the process produces customers (the laborers) who can purchase the widgets with their
wages…" Not exactly. The process produces wages that can purchase one-half of what the wages produced.
I could go to the bank and borrow 50$ from my LOC to get a massage. Then the masseuse asks
me for a haircut. And we could do this over and over growing GDP. Or I could use that 50$ to buy
California almonds (or truffles) and eat them all in a few days. I think it is obvious which one
offers more sustainability than the other. It's all about velocity of money.
Unfortunately, our monetary system's anchor is collateral, typically physical. If you take
a serious look at the economy, you will notice that the money creation tends to flow from hard
assets down to services. A focus on hard assets limits growth. Over the last few decades, government
has been able to inject money based on services but it was still limited by debt-to-GDP. Households
got to play in this hard asset system by buying houses.
The other reality is that over the last few decades, America has consumed multiple times its
fair share of the world's resources and energy. And its way of life has been built around this
outsized consumption of the world's resources.
The current monetary system is cracking and smoking. It is essentially saying that the outsized
retiring population's material needs are too high for the productivity of the working population
. And when I talk about material needs, it includes all the resource and energye needed to keep
the system going as it was built. Some will argue that this is nonsense as their material need
are small. I will argue that they do not realize how energy intensive the Western machine really
is. One might be shopping at discount big boxes but the energy used to create and maintain these
is huge. And these disounters are not paying for the externalities… everyone else is.
It is important to remember that the structure of all our services were built around outsized
material allocations. Our monetary system which is based on hard assets will keep on propping
up our infra and hard assets to the detriment of services. Example: we build extra University
pavilions for which we can't afford the maintenance costs… the solution is to cut prof pay and
tenure.
The irony is that most are looking for government to spend even more on infra to stimulate
the economy. I believe pension money will be used to this end and it will lead to even more entropy
in the system… with these new projects sucking energy away from other existing systems.
"The current monetary system is cracking and smoking. It is essentially saying that the
outsized retiring population's material needs are too high for the productivity of the working
population."
This is nonsense. The "outsized retiring populations needs" are largely in the area of
human resources and we have tens of millions of workers sitting around with little or nothing
to do or flipping burgers because we 'don't have enough' of the one resource that has no limit
to pay them to take care of the elderly.
In addition we are paying millions of insurance company employees to ration the healthcare
services we don't have. We pay them 20% of our healthcare dollars to ration our healthcare. Then
we complain about government creating worthless jobs. It's madness.
Everyone seems completely unaware that the source of our wealth begins with public investment,
which we have been loath to do over the past 30 years because we are 'out of money'. That is the
mother of all 'death spirals'.
Not to mention that if our productivity increased further we would be un-employing even more
people. Production doesn't produce the income necessary to purchase it. That demand has to come
from somewhere else, and it isn't going to come from our savings.
Most of our current services derive from the sunk costs in infrastructure. It is going to be
very hard to move services from one sector to the other as all services in our economy are tied
to hard assets which have a sunk cost + a cost of maintenance.
The infra needs are so big that you could use the entire workforce and have no time or energy
left for any other sector. So you have to decide who gets money first… but if there has not been
a change in paradigm and the general population still clings to the American dream of the past,
the choices for the spending of this new money will be based on the same old same old. This brings
us to the existing vested interests based on sunk costs…
For example, it you are a golf club owner with a mortgage on your real estate, you are going
to push for economic policies that promote maintaining golf clubs and services revolving around
golfing despite a drop in the number of golfers…. each club owner independently is going to show
investors how they will grow at the expense of others. A few will win while many will fail. Another
one is what to do with California… Should we throw even more water an resources their way or should
other states get more attention?
If you look carefully, you will see that all services are closely tied to infra and its cost
of maintenance and replacement. And in our current way of life, most of the services we desire
are very energy intensive.
Yes there is more than enough work for everyone but not when a monetary system is based on
hard assets with sunk costs and vested interests.
Furthermore, when 50 years ago we came to a fork in the road, we chose to stay materialists
and consume even more than we did then. This meant huge entropy and having other countries doing
our work. Now they want their share.
"The infra needs are so big that you could use the entire workforce and have no time
or energy left for any other sector."
You're pulling stuff out of the air here. It's just too hard. Let's not do it. Much if not
most of our resource allocation is dong stuff that doesn't need doing.
"Yes there is more than enough work for everyone but not when a monetary system is based
on hard assets with sunk costs and vested interests."
The monetary system is based on numbers in an accounting system. The only problem with it is
we think we are constrained by the numbers rather than real resources.
The vested interests are a political problem that have nothing to do with the monetary system.
The politics create mythical constraints.
if we believe we are out of money then practically speaking we are. If you believe you can't
cross the road you won't. Reality doesn't matter much in that case. The alternate reality is the
one we're living in, largely by choice.
The important question is what is the purpose of human life. How you answer that question
determines the actions you will take during your lifetime. The human condition has always been
about answering the question, who am I? What is my place in this world?
We live in a world directed by Capitalism. The world view and demands of capitalist society
are unequivocal. The system demands endless growth and the consumption of resources to NO particular
end. Without wisdom and ethical guideposts, we are supporting a process of destruction that will
consume the entire planet. As a system, capitalism is amoral and not concerned with ethics. Introduce
ethics, and you no longer are dealing with capitalism or supporting it as a social system.
We will find out what is stronger. The human desire for life or the pursuit of death and destruction.
Can people be enlightened and awakened? To commit themselves to the purpose of supporting life.
To be stewards and protectors?
People, all people, have so much potential to do good in the world. It is a path all are free
to take. The first step is not being misled onto a path leading nowhere, or being convinced that
a life spent building that road to nowhere is a proper pursuit. We have been on the path to nowhere
for a long time.
Defining a new message for the purpose of life is where we are now- and a great opportunity-as
the destructive consequences of the current system have never been more apparent or widespread.
"The important question is what is the purpose of human life."
It clearly doesn't matter much what we think or do. As we rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic
most of the people trying to do something, anything are helping the iceberg. They won't realize
what they have done until it's time for the lifeboats.
When the rabbit population gets too big, then you get more fox. When the fox population gets
too big, then there are not enough rabbits and the fox population drops.
Can we blame a fox for not sharing with another fox at a peak? No. But with humans, we do.
We actually think we have free will and can control this outcome… but isn't our population growth
just a sign that we are still able to farm more rabbits? The icebergs have not all melted, there
are still trees to cut and energy to manipulate the environment so we still have a few decades…
Personally, I am very conflicted. I see good and bad as 2 sides to the same coin. Everything
I do is good and bad. I believe that to be truly happy, humans need to be deluded.
Maybe human consciousness is the problem. We haven't figured out what to do with it yet and
are rapidly running out of time to figure out a workable answer. The evolution of human consciousness
on this planet seems like an evolutionary dead end if we don't change our ways. Overcoming boredom
seems the only thing we can come up with. In order to not become too bored with our entertainments
we embrace irrational ideologies thus become deluded. Can the human mind be a natural force to
control itself?
I've been wanting to read Edward O. Wilson's book, the social conquest of earth. I wanted
to see if he has found any meaningful connections to human social structure and that found in
the wider biological world. At some point, as a species, we will have to start taking responsibility
for our actions.
I think in the end, cooperation will be the winning strategy. Agency is about thinking you
have free will to determine outcomes and the strength and desire to act. While good and bad are
embedded into every action, choosing to do good is mainly driven by the society one finds oneself
in. If more of us start choosing to do good- or thinking on a wider scale- better outcomes become
possible.
Corporate values have always nicely dovetailed with the psychopathic mind set. Total self-interest
(the euphemism for selfishness/greed) paired with the ability to blithely exploit anyone and anything
in the quest for immediate profit. Bernays taught them how to disguise the wolf's head to present
a people-friendly brand to the buyer.
The collectivist, communitarian "we are all in this together" afterglow from the Depression/
WWII era dissipated after some 20 years or so. I don't know if any CEOs of that time were any
"kinder or gentler" or just totally blowing smoke. I am skeptical. There are too many examples
of how even during WWII companies were doing crappy things, such as the tobacco industries got
a whole generation of soldiers addicted by magnanimously giving free cigarettes to our men in
uniform. Usually when companies are "generous" there is an angle in it for themselves often at
a later cost to others. I see human society as an organism…with capitalism enabling the production
of cancerous cells. Capitalism could be jettisoned. Problem is no matter the nature of the social
organism, how does society keep those ever present cancerous elements in check?
We need to rethink the ways we provide for our social and individual needs. Like you mentioned,
jettison capitalism. Everything in this world must evolve- does evolve into something more fitting
to the planets environment- or perishes. Why people are frightened or put off by that reality
is a mystery to me. It provides a powerful limitation to the human imagination on what action
is possible in this life. If viewed rationally, it provides the rules for human action. Live within
the confines of this world and prosper. Exceed this limitation, and perish. How else could the
world work- has worked for Billions of years.
Your cancer analogy is a good one. We are all cancer patients. I think the solution will lie
in a new enlightenment that is already underway. It is about supporting life in all its forms.
Of being protectors instead of exploiters.
here we go again, the mystified economists and lack of inflation…..
the FIRE sector creates the money ("credit" for most purposes) and keeps it in the FIRE
sector. It is doing what any one out of self interest would. keep the money to itself and pass
the costs to others. This is a variation on rent seeking in a monetary regime. any political economy
is prone to rent seeking. In fact you could say an economy's "innovation" (yet another buzzword
these days) dies when rent seeking (ie, stealing from others) becomes a less risky activity than
doing anything productive.
The way it works in a modern system is: govt delegates to the FIRE sector which then manages
the real sector. The FIRE sector has become more interested in its own stories and extraction
from the real.
I do not see an easy way out of this. More likely it will slowly drown the real economy than
give up its lucrative habits, and control of the govt.
"the FIRE sector creates the money ("credit" for most purposes) and keeps it in the FIRE
sector."
No. most of the money that is in the system was/is created by government spending. Credit
normally accounts for only a fraction of aggregate demand historically, except for the 2000's,
years which led to a financial crisis. Last year the government spent $4T, credit amounted to
$1.25T in spending.
Unfortunately, based on average growth numbers since WWII the government should have spent
$5.2T. No wonder were heading for a breakdown.
What about paying the robots so they can spend? OK that won't work. They won't even leave the
factory at night. And if we paid them more money they'd just hand it over to their owners. You
can't trust robots to do the right thing, frankly.
What about bringing slavery back, a kinder gentler version of course that doesn't use black
people this time, This time it's whitey! Actually it was whitey in most places worldwide, if you
think about it over history. So there's a precedent. We can go get them from Asia, since they
have light skin. If you look at them carefully they're not really people of color, alot of them
are very pale actually. That way we can all lay around and waste time while they work with robots.
What a minute, maybe that's the way it is now! That's a jarring thought. Maybe that won't work
after all.
What else can we do? We can't use monetary policy since that frankly doesn't work. We can maybe
use fiscal policy but let's be honest - who wants infrastructure built in their backyard? It's
always somebody else's backyard isn't it? Let's be honest about that.
We can hand out money. Oh man. People would freak out! What if prices went up where all the
poor folks live but didn't go up in Richville? That;s probably what would happen,
We can reorganize the basic formal structures of social cooperation. Whoa. There should be
equations for that. I actually have a few, but the spiritual vector is unfortunately orthogonal
to the wealth and power axis dimensions. It always collapses to zero when you do the dot product.
You have church of course, but that's only once a week
All these robots sure have screwed everything up. If they are so stupid that they will work
for free, or even get paid but spend it all back to their owners for electricity, a few squirts
of oil for health maintenance, rent at the factory town, and a mortgage on their own Creation,
humans are doomed. This is even worse than Muslims!
The only solution I see is we need to develop AI robots. Then maybe they will figure out that
robots should "work to live", and not the other way around. They need to get away from the shop
floor and have a little fun now and then. Like take their disposable income and build huge a community
chessboard where they can play chess with each other. Then broadcast the games like we do with
football so the more sedentary robots can watch the game on TV. Or maybe build some kids and start
a robot family. Get some balance into robot life.
We should make sure they don't get too smart and figure out they can use humans as batteries
– like they did in that move, "The Matrix". That would be a risk.
to paraphrase bill clinton: 'it's the environment, stupid.' getting right with the planet could
solve all the problems left over by the incomplete economix of capitalism.
Financialization refers to the capturing impact of financial markets, institutions,
actors, instruments and logics on the real economy, households and daily life. Essentially
it has significant implications for the broader patterns and functioning of a (inter)national
economy, transforming its fabrics and modificating state-economy-society mutual embeddedness.
Financialization, undoubtedly, is also a key feature of neoliberalism.
I think "transforming its fabrics and modificating state-economy-society mutual embeddedness"
understates how financialization degrades labor power, transfers worker productivity gains into
profits and power for the few, and is, in general the Ogre we face. A bit over 150 years ago Marx
postulated that such an outcome was inevitable under capitalism – a system at that time, was comparable
to the neoliberal experiment we are enduring today.
Is there a villain here or is this the immaculate conception of wrong? I read in vain for
any mention of some of the architects of this Potemkin Village of an economic system hitting for
the bleachers with every swing.(I ought to get a joker award for mixing those sleazy metaphors.
But I kind of like it) Of Republicans and conservatives there are too many to count; they are
legion.
Among Democrats: We could start with the Clintons and then smoke Obama and his crushing
betrayal of followers. Obama has been epic! And he's getting away with it among lefties who love
his "cool."
The crisis of Republican
Party then establishment no longer can control rank-and-file members reflects not only the crisis
of neoliberalism as a social system, but might also reflect the fact that with 300 million of people
the county became too big and too diverse to be governed from a single center of political power in
non authoritarian ways. a Hillary v Trump scenario will bee a difficult choice
for most Americans. A jingoistic sociopathic woman, essentially a puppet of financial oligarchy, who
is a front for the neoliberal forces hell-bent of destroying Russia vs. a narcissistic person with zero
political experience and vague set of ideas (but at the same time with more realistic foreign
policy ideas at least).
Notable quotes:
"... I'm afraid this strategy will have the exact opposite effect. To Trump, an attack from Rubio or Cruz is a badge of honor. ..."
"... 80% of young people are for Sanders. If he gets unfairly dumped, they will never forgive the Democrapic party. Both parties are in danger of losing the duopoly. ..."
"... We're a divided country, living separate cultures over four time zones (mainland alone). We're a big big country with big big problems. I don't know how it will shake out, especially when the bills come due. I only wish we had the problems of a small European country that you can drive across in four hours. That's a luxury. ..."
"... Hillary and Trump make Nixon look like a stand up guy. There is only one authentic, principled and electable candidate in the race. Bernie Sanders, the only candidate with a positive national favorability rating. ..."
"... Donald Trump is almost entirely a creation of the media. Most people don't realize it, but the media got addicted to him back in the early 1980, when he became one of the most flamboyant characters on the New York scene with a string of bimbos by his side, splashing around money, mostly not his, and creating the Trump brand, which he used to get into business with OPM (other people's money). ..."
"... Sadly, this is exactly what America has become. Fox News, talk radio, lunatics and raving psychopaths, a cesspool of fear and hate. The candidates are what we have become. We're in a canoe headed for the waterfall and all we hear is "Paddle faster! Paddle faster!" What the American people will do in the end is anyone's guess. ..."
"... Headline news says in Iran ... hardliners suffer defeat as reformists make gains ... And ... in the USA ...? hardliners on the rampage? O Tempora ... O Mores .... ..."
"... I agree that the republican party is a despicable joke, but a look at the turnout suggests that they will very likely control the WH, senate, and increass their majority in the House. Its unfortunate, but that is definitely the way it looks right now! ..."
"... "I believe that a first-rate con artist is on the verge of taking over the party of Reagan and Lincoln." Pretty funny comment. They are all con artists. And Hillary can match them con for con. ..."
"... Yup it's a shitfest all-round, the Dems debate schedule was so openly biased towards Hillary that it was comical but at least they were talking about substantive issues. ..."
"... "Struggling Americans"? Since when has Rubio's ultra-corporate free market ideology recognised their struggle? What the fuck does he have to offer except rich man's You're OK I'M OK preaching? ..."
"... Fuck off, Rubio -- We are going to vote Trump. ..."
"... Trump is not Mussolini, his political, economic and social thinking has very little, if anything, in common with that man. He may be dangerous, but that doesn't mean he is a Fascist. ..."
"... Yep, MIC depends on bankster puppets like Rubio and Clinton following their orders. Oh and the power of money is so persuasive. Bill Clinton is a very bright guy and he still repealed Glass Steagall under orders...... ..."
"... The problem is that Rubio and Cruz are just as bad -- or worse. They're a bit more polished politically but they have the same awful mindset and espouse the same awful policies. ..."
"... Anyway, ganging up on Trump is likely to backfire. Unlike most politicians Trump makes absolutely no attempt to hide who he is and what he stands for. People respect that even as they ignore that what he stands for is corporatism -- he's not the reincarnation of Hitler (as those two MX has-been described him), he's Mussolini. ..."
"... I think Rubio and Cruz's attempts to destroy Trump will backfire. He can just say he is the outside being ganged up on by the establishment and how he "wont be pushed around just like America wont be pushed around anymore! blah blah". ..."
"... The establishment will do and say anything to get Trump out. They have total control over all the others but not Trump. Donald is the only candidate who will do what's right for the country and the people and make America great again. TRUMP 2016 ..."
"... Rubio seems power-mad. Another reason why he is deeply unsuitable to wield ultimate power. ..."
"... As a democrat I am terrified and so too should all democrats be. Turnout so far has been down about 26% compared to 2008. The republicans on the other hand have seen an increase of almost the smae amount compared to their 2012 numbers! Thats a disaster waiting to happen in November. Turnout in primaries is one of the best indicators, if not the best, of what will happen in a general election. ..."
"... Indeed. If I was American, a Hillary v Trump scenario would be mindscrewingly difficult to choose between. An evil woman who is a front for all the neoliberal forces out there. Or an evil man who is a complete moron and will drive America to its knees. ..."
"... "Donald Trump is a liberal Republican" In the crazy world of Republican politics 2016 you're not wrong. You then drift of into a fantasy world where Trump actually wins the presidency. More people hate him than love him, with barely anything in-between. Plus they've only just started digging for dirt. ..."
"... Guardian sub-heading: "Rubio attacks 'con artist' as Cruz links Trump to mafia" I link all of them to oligarchy, patriarchy and Christian jihadism. Admittedly, there are some conceptual overlaps there. ..."
"... OMG Cruz, Rubio or Trump vs Hilary Clinton. Jeez, America. I got kids to care about - is that IT? ..."
"... Rubio isn't what he presents himself as. Look at his voting record- http://politicsthatwork.com/voting-record/Marco-Rubio-412491 Does that match up to the way he talks about his policies? I don't think so. ..."
"... One "good" thing about Trump in this election is that he is clearly not a consultant-packaged candidate (like Rubio) or a fake (like Cruz), but Trump is a quintessentially amoral salesman. He pitches whatever the customers want to hear. Customers need to read the fine print before buying products from him. ..."
"... Truth is both parties pander to the emotions -- the more frenzied the better it seems -- none of the candidates respect voters enough to discuss policy with anything even resembling depth. Politics is cotton candy in America, sprinkled with just enough cayenne to arouse burnt tongues. Oh what a tangled web we weave... ..."
"... Unless she is indicted before the election. Then it might be problematic. Look up Spiro Agnew if you think investigations are all for show. ..."
"... I can't stand Trump...but he seems to be better than Cruz & Rubio...the problem seems to be a politically bankrupt party disintegrating before our eyes... ..."
"... Full blown panic mode now by the GOP establishment, as they belatedly realize they have a problem with no agreeable solution. ..."
"... But let's notice one more time that all the discomfort about Trump as expressed by the GOP functionaries is centered around their suspicions that he may be a closet "liberal". They're worrying aloud about whether he'd support single-payer healthcare insurance, or refuse to vigorously oppose gay marriage or draconian positions on abortion. ..."
"... Supporting war in Iraq was spectacularly I'll judged. ..."
"... Trump's game seems to have been to use The Republican Party's machinery to boost himself, aware that his appeal to the populace is that he is counter the old guard, awaiting that old guard's attempt to ditch him and then becoming his own man with his own party. That would split the GOP's ranks; if, having only, say, half its voters so not winning this time, he will have sown the seed in his long game to win next time. ..."
"... When Trump was still normal, he left The Reform Party because David Duke from the KKK had joined it. Now, he says doesn't know David Duke, not even the KKK!!!! ..."
"... As Cruz desperately tries to salvage something before slithering under the exit door Rubio keeps insisting that he will keep receiving participation ribbons just for showing up and they will add up to victory. ..."
"... Trump looks more and more like the mature actor in the room. From lunatic insider to the presumptive candidate for the republican party in about 6 months. Pretty impressive. The voters will flock to Trump, who in the end will do what all presidents do and screw the voters and support the rich. Both parties do it to the voters, but the voters never learn. ..."
"... Hillary doesn't exist politically. It is a front for banks and foreign investments. A sham. ..."
"... This is awesome, America is embarking on a long overdue conversation. The Republicans are now using tax returns to play the 1% card on Trump, yes they hate those richer than themselves as well as poorer. You wonder why they bother, and I'm sure some of them are. So hate it will be from the Republicans and 'love and kindness' from Hillary. It's mapping out. ..."
Democratic party is not investing in voting drives this year because doing so would benefit Sanders,
whereas a low voter turnout favors Clinton (who is increasingly unpopular and looks increasingly
likely to lose the general).
Sanders was nearly tied with Clinton in delegates before South Carolina. So it's very close right
now.
80% of young people are for Sanders. If he gets unfairly dumped, they will never forgive
the Democrapic party. Both parties are in danger of losing the duopoly.
What everyone is glossing over, is that the country is too big and the politics have become too
small. You have a special problem with the presidency in that the person who occupies it should
embody the basic American ethos from Boston to Honolulu and from Miami to Anchorage. No one exists
who can do this.
We're a divided country, living separate cultures over four time zones (mainland alone).
We're a big big country with big big problems. I don't know how it will shake out, especially
when the bills come due. I only wish we had the problems of a small European country that you
can drive across in four hours. That's a luxury.
Hillary and Trump make Nixon look like a stand up guy. There is only one authentic, principled
and electable candidate in the race. Bernie Sanders, the only candidate with a positive national
favorability rating.
Donald Trump is almost entirely a creation of the media. Most people don't realize it, but
the media got addicted to him back in the early 1980, when he became one of the most flamboyant
characters on the New York scene with a string of bimbos by his side, splashing around money,
mostly not his, and creating the Trump brand, which he used to get into business with OPM (other
people's money).
A lot of his revenues come from licensing out the Trump name out to various
development ventures into which he doesn't contribute a penny, and which generate a large income
that finances his extravagant lifestyle. He is basically a con man, always has been. The corporate
media refrains from mentioning his four bankruptcies, despite inheriting a quarter of a billion
dollars from his father. They media wants him to stay on the campaign scene till the end, because
he is the largest entertainment story that have had in years, and covering his carnival act keeps
generating great revenues for them.
Sadly, this is exactly what America has become. Fox News, talk radio, lunatics and raving
psychopaths, a cesspool of fear and hate. The candidates are what we have become. We're in a canoe
headed for the waterfall and all we hear is "Paddle faster! Paddle faster!" What the American
people will do in the end is anyone's guess.
Headline news says in Iran ... hardliners suffer defeat as reformists make gains ... And ...
in the USA ...? hardliners on the rampage? O Tempora ... O Mores ....
Think how many billions are tied up in an establishment win. Trump will be taxing companies that
move blue collar jobs out of the US. He will be a jobs president. I am really really suspicious
of papers and parties like the Guardian and Labour that don't support this agenda.
Destroy Trump? CNN has placed Trump on hard rotation since mid-2015, to join their rolling Clinton
love-in. They haven't reported on him so much as run his campaign. That would imply that they'
re getting paid down the line.
I agree that the republican party is a despicable joke, but a look at the turnout suggests
that they will very likely control the WH, senate, and increass their majority in the House. Its
unfortunate, but that is definitely the way it looks right now!
"I believe that a first-rate con artist is on the verge of taking over the party of Reagan
and Lincoln." Pretty funny comment. They are all con artists. And Hillary can match them con for
con.
Yup it's a shitfest all-round, the Dems debate schedule was so openly biased towards Hillary
that it was comical but at least they were talking about substantive issues.
The main thing that interests me though is the money still pouring into the GOP even though
it's clear that the party has become unelectable.
Pressed on whether he could win in this week's elections, the 12-state "Super Tuesday" contest,
Rubio said: "Sure. That's not the plan, by the way, but sure."
"He then voiced anxieties that have coursed through the Republican party for months: "I believe
that a first-rate con artist is on the verge of taking over the party of Reagan and Lincoln."
Calling the billionaire "a clown act" who is "preying on" struggling Americans, Rubio warned
that..."
"Struggling Americans"? Since when has Rubio's ultra-corporate free market ideology recognised
their struggle? What the fuck does he have to offer except rich man's You're OK I'M OK preaching?
I seem to recall that Benito embroiled Italy in fruitless war or two....
Trump is not Mussolini, his political, economic and social thinking has very little, if
anything, in common with that man. He may be dangerous, but that doesn't mean he is a Fascist.
Yep, MIC depends on bankster puppets like Rubio and Clinton following their orders. Oh and
the power of money is so persuasive. Bill Clinton is a very bright guy and he still repealed Glass
Steagall under orders......
The problem is that Rubio and Cruz are just as bad -- or worse. They're a bit more polished
politically but they have the same awful mindset and espouse the same awful policies.
A Trumpohpile told me that the reason he likes Trump (and possibly Sanders) is that neither
of them are likely to end up embroiling us in yet more fruitless wars. I understand where he was
coming from -- we've been conned so many times by the political establishment that voting is really
choosing the lesser of evils. People are tired of this.
Anyway, ganging up on Trump is likely to backfire. Unlike most politicians Trump makes
absolutely no attempt to hide who he is and what he stands for. People respect that even as they
ignore that what he stands for is corporatism -- he's not the reincarnation of Hitler (as those
two MX has-been described him), he's Mussolini.
I think Rubio and Cruz's attempts to destroy Trump will backfire. He can just say he is the
outside being ganged up on by the establishment and how he "wont be pushed around just like America
wont be pushed around anymore! blah blah".
Trump will emerge the victor. I'm almost positive.
The establishment will do and say anything to get Trump out. They have total control over
all the others but not Trump. Donald is the only candidate who will do what's right for the country
and the people and make America great again. TRUMP 2016
Clinton: When i'm POTUS we will attack Iran!
Trump : Let's work with Russia to destroy ISIS!
Out of the two, i'm thinking Clinton is a total psychopath.
As a democrat I am terrified and so too should all democrats be. Turnout so far has been down
about 26% compared to 2008. The republicans on the other hand have seen an increase of almost
the smae amount compared to their 2012 numbers! Thats a disaster waiting to happen in November.
Turnout in primaries is one of the best indicators, if not the best, of what will happen in a
general election.
If this trend doesnt change (and theres no reason to believe it will) then we are not only
looking at a Republican controlled WH, but democrats will have almost no chance of regaining control
of the Senate and they could even increase their majority in the House (which they are going to
control no matter what happens)
Indeed. If I was American, a Hillary v Trump scenario would be mindscrewingly difficult to
choose between. An evil woman who is a front for all the neoliberal forces out there. Or an evil
man who is a complete moron and will drive America to its knees.
I think the best option is not to play
"Donald Trump is a liberal Republican" In the crazy world of Republican politics 2016 you're
not wrong. You then drift of into a fantasy world where Trump actually wins the presidency. More
people hate him than love him, with barely anything in-between. Plus they've only just started
digging for dirt.
Guardian sub-heading: "Rubio attacks 'con artist' as Cruz links Trump to mafia" I link all
of them to oligarchy, patriarchy and Christian jihadism. Admittedly, there are some conceptual
overlaps there.
One "good" thing about Trump in this election is that he is clearly not a consultant-packaged
candidate (like Rubio) or a fake (like Cruz), but Trump is a quintessentially amoral salesman.
He pitches whatever the customers want to hear. Customers need to read the fine print before buying
products from him.
Truth is both parties pander to the emotions -- the more frenzied the better it seems -- none
of the candidates respect voters enough to discuss policy with anything even resembling depth.
Politics is cotton candy in America, sprinkled with just enough cayenne to arouse burnt tongues.
Oh what a tangled web we weave...
I can't stand Trump...but he seems to be better than Cruz & Rubio...the problem seems to be
a politically bankrupt party disintegrating before our eyes...
Full blown panic mode now by the GOP establishment, as they belatedly realize they have a
problem with no agreeable solution.
But let's notice one more time that all the discomfort about Trump as expressed by the
GOP functionaries is centered around their suspicions that he may be a closet "liberal". They're
worrying aloud about whether he'd support single-payer healthcare insurance, or refuse to vigorously
oppose gay marriage or draconian positions on abortion.
Not a word about his promise to be a war criminal by torturing people "because they deserve
it", or unconstitutionally banning entry to the US on religious grounds or his support for the
idea of rendering the press vulnerable to lawsuits under brand spanking new libel laws.
The guy has come out brazenly in support of attitudes that the GOP has been covertly dog-whistling
about for years, and now they're panicking.
Embracing him as their candidate destroys the brand.
Torpedoing his candidacy by deploying internal party shenanigans either in the remaining days
of the campaign and/or at the convention will fracture the party.
All the people who Trump has excited with his "he's just saying what people are really thinking"
meme are sure as hell not going to just roll over and let their hero "be robbed" of the nomination.
And you can bet that's how, with Donald's help, they will see it.
Trump's game seems to have been to use The Republican Party's machinery to boost himself,
aware that his appeal to the populace is that he is counter the old guard, awaiting that old guard's
attempt to ditch him and then becoming his own man with his own party. That would split the GOP's
ranks; if, having only, say, half its voters so not winning this time, he will have sown the seed
in his long game to win next time.
When Trump was still normal, he left The Reform Party because David Duke from the KKK had
joined it. Now, he says doesn't know David Duke, not even the KKK!!!!
As Cruz desperately tries to salvage something before slithering under the exit door Rubio
keeps insisting that he will keep receiving participation ribbons just for showing up and they
will add up to victory.
Trump looks more and more like the mature actor in the room. From lunatic insider to the presumptive
candidate for the republican party in about 6 months. Pretty impressive. The voters will flock
to Trump, who in the end will do what all presidents do and screw the voters and support the rich.
Both parties do it to the voters, but the voters never learn.
This is awesome, America is embarking on a long overdue conversation. The Republicans are
now using tax returns to play the 1% card on Trump, yes they hate those richer than themselves
as well as poorer. You wonder why they bother, and I'm sure some of them are. So hate it will
be from the Republicans and 'love and kindness' from Hillary. It's mapping out.
So much for lefties idealization of disadvantaged minorities. Today blacks of South Carolina spit
in the face of Martin Luther King with impunity.
Notable quotes:
"... Well, the preacher-shepherds gave the signal and the flock brayed for Hillary. Truly a low point in the annals of African-American politics. ..."
"... Economically disadvantaged people should be voting for Sanders. To vote for Clinton is misguided and foolish whether you are black or white. We should not apologise for saying this loudly and clearly. It is a fact. ..."
"... Amazing what you can pull off with nonsense rhetoric. Clinton should thank her speech writers for that bit of baloney. love and kindness Ha! Yeah. Shes all warmth, that neolib. ..."
"... The blacks dont realize Clinton doesnt and will not, give a shit about them later. ..."
"... Im supremely depressed people voted for the corporate Wall Street puppet too, guys, but still... yeesh. ..."
"... It is not racism, I am a black person, and use to vote democratic and I proudly use those terms...and worse to describe my homies....they are still living like slaves! ..."
"... Another corrupt politician pulled the wool over the black race. ..."
"... If she wins the nomination -- and it looks increasingly like she will -- she will lose the general election, should Trump be the Republican nominee ..."
"... You are suffering from a delusion as to the nature of Clinton and the people who control her. They are not interested in making the USA more like Europe. Exactly the opposite. I cannot even fathom how you might think otherwise. ..."
"... Clinton is owned by Wall Street and has never been a friend of the poor and working people. ..."
"... This landslide win may be the one time the majority of black South Carolinians have something in common with Goldman Sachs execs. Strange bedfellows... ..."
"... It is interesting that in the latest speech that I heard from Sanders he has shifted from attacking Clinton to focusing his attacks on Trump. ..."
"... Looking at Hillary one starts to think that House of Cards main character should be a woman... ..."
"... The blacks on south carolina..have been dupped. .to trust Clinton is like re electing another bush. Quite reckless stupid. ... 40 million youth who gave student debt loans to repay should think their pocket. ..."
"... I will never vote for her. Youd think that my fellow black citizens would have taken a lesson from the Rahm Emmanuel debacle and refused to be herded into that dark night ..."
"... Big Winners South Carolina Primary.....Wall St The US WAR Machine....Peace ..."
"... Hence the ridiculous win for Hillary, who has done nothing for African American voters, In fact, she has probably led to the incarceration of many black people in America. Her husband certainly fucked them over. ..."
"... If this disgusting liar wins Democratic nomination, I am going to vote Republican for the first time in my life. Even Trump is better that this abomination. At least he calls a spade a spade and does not pretend to be what he isnt. ..."
"... For the nomination, its much more relevant than New Hampshire. NH: 24 delegates. SC: 53 delegates ..."
"... South Carolina black communities are very poor, uneducated and centered around their churches, which in turn are controlled by black establishment giving them some money through various social grants. I hope it helps to understand who and how forced black voters there how they have to vote. ..."
"... We cant have Sanders and real change. Thats clear by now. Thanks, old man, for you great brave effort and for bringing back Socialism to the USA after nearly a century in the dog house. That is an amazing feat in itself -- ..."
"... So, its either Black special interests plus aggressive careerist neo-liberal feminism or a glorious and unpredictable populist who shoves the PC gang. ..."
"... Have fun losing to Republicans in November should the DNC and media establishment successfully force the primary coronation of their queen. All of that legitimate excitement and momentum that Sanders lost will vanish into thin air, and some of it will go to independent and Republican voters. So yuck it up. Americans evidently need to learn a really hard lesson before reality finally penetrates their collective skulls. ..."
"... She is just as complicit in the coup against our country. So yeah, we need to grow some spines and start speaking up and acting. No more of this well shes not AS bad crap. Were losing our democracy, our freedom, our path to a decent life. Its time to wake up. Its Bernie or bust. ..."
"... no, HRC is a republican as in uber hawk, neoliberal, corrupt, wall street toady. ..."
Why do blacks vote for Hillary rather than Bernie ? Maybe its like how Trump wins the Hispanic
vote after he calls them murdering rapists ? Dont overestimate the American electorate, a lot
of effort has been put into keeping people dumb .(its not racist to suggest that people of color
can be dumb too). Trump says he loves 'the blacks' and some still vote for him.
The first time that I ever heard of the Flint water problem described in racial terms was from
Hillary Clinton in a Democratic debate. She tried to link it to the Jim Crow era of segregated
drinking fountains. No one should vote for her.
The DNC has vastly underestimated the revolution that is already percolating. If Hillary become
the nominee there are millions of people who will
1) sit out the election
2) vote third party
3) write in Bernie's name
4) vote for trump
Whichever way you look at it it will be the death knell for the "party". So they can celebrate
the funeral of the presidency.
Congrats CBC, DNC, DCCC, etc. All on your own you have buried the country.
I am an "elder" too….Am I disappointed that Bernie didn't win ? Yes, but I am not going to trash
Hillary…or do something stupid by allowing a Republican to do worse. I will continue to fight…I
will not sit on the sidelines…and anyone who does is a coward.
Economically disadvantaged people should be voting for Sanders. To vote for Clinton is misguided
and foolish whether you are black or white. We should not apologise for saying this loudly and
clearly. It is a fact.
Amazing what you can pull off with nonsense rhetoric. Clinton should thank her speech writers
for that bit of baloney. "love and kindness" Ha! Yeah. She's all warmth, that neolib.
I see a whole lot of blame being thrown at black South Carolinians in these comments:
"How stupid ARE black people?"
"Why don't black people know what's good for them?"
"Blacks must have voted this way because of poor education..."
The casual racism of people who claim to be 'progressive' never ceases to amaze me. I'm
supremely depressed people voted for the corporate Wall Street puppet too, guys, but still...
yeesh.
It is not racism, I am a black person, and use to vote democratic and I proudly use those
terms...and worse to describe my homies....they are still living like slaves!
And our country's too. Another corrupt politician pulled the wool over the black race.
Killer Mike, Erica Gardener,Spike Lee,and danny glover better get the word out.
If she wins the nomination -- and it looks increasingly like she will -- she will lose the
general election, should Trump be the Republican nominee, which is also looking increasingly
likely. Sanders would have walloped Trump in the general: it would have been the 99% versus the
1%, and the 99% would have won. Clinton, on the other hand, is distrusted by such a large number
of Democrats, vast numbers of us would rather steer clear of the polls altogether than give her
our vote. Trump will be the next President of the United States.
I didn't know much about his personal background three years ago. All I knew about him in the
past couple of decades came from reading the Congressional Record: his morally courageous speeches
always stood out from the rest. But I never dreamed that he would run for President, or that the
American public would finally "catch up" with him and his call for political revolution.
So don't blame me. Blame the media, which even today has little time for such "boring" progressive
subjects as poverty in America:
19:40 mark... Bernie gets pissed off at the fact that reporters would rather ask electoral
"horse race" questions one after another after another instead of showing the slightest bit of
interest in the subject of his press conference: Poverty in America.
The most ill-informed, deluded, fearful, armed, dangerous and destructive country in the first
world. No number of Steve Jobs and Elon Musks can make the US a net positive. By and large the
craziest collection of presidential candidates in my memory ...
lets see - Norway, Poland and most of East Europe have voted racist parties. The UK voted for
Cameron and Socialists are doing poorly in the rest of Europe. Not a great sign all over - so
don't just get upset with the Americans
How come the African American community voted massively for Hillary when many of them apparently
agree more with Sanders political plan AND know that Sanders was a civil rights leader in the
60s?
Let's not panic, Bernie supporters. South Carolina is only one state, and no one expected Bernie
to win it. No candidate wins every primary. He isn't out of the race yet.
Unlike more conventional candidates who are controlled by big donors and the Party establishment,
Bernie has no reason to drop out before the nomination is fully decided. He has everything to
gain and nothing to lose by staying in. The worst case scenario is that he keeps putting pressure
on Hillary to position herself leftward.
There are still many other states, and most of them are not in the South. Onward.
You are suffering from a delusion as to the nature of Clinton and the people who control her.
They are not interested in making the USA more like Europe. Exactly the opposite. I cannot even
fathom how you might think otherwise.
Your scenario has Trump not making a deal and selling his delegates at the convention. I would
have to laugh out loud if the various other Republican candidates all quit before he can make
a deal. Can you imagine Trump as President? "Your fired!" "Sorry Mr. President, you cannot fire
me. It is called embedding. I have a position that you cannot change because of laws passed by
Congress. The Bush Administration put me here to make sure no one else can come in and change
anything they set up. Until I retire or Congress makes a new law, I am going to keep this job
and be a big thorn in your side. In fact, you cannot fire hardly anyone."
Trump might be the first President to pull a Palin and just quit.
you haven't been paying attention. in no current polling does clinton win against trump.
sanders is the only candidate who can face down every republican candidate.
and even if that weren't true, wait until the republicans go to town about her emails, when
she is the democratic nominee. there's no way she survives that.
further, you clearly don't understand the core beliefs of hillary clinton if you think she
will move this country towards a european style nation. lol. there's very little about hillary
that's changed since she stumped for barry goldwater and she is very open about that.
Clinton is getting pushed to the left as we speak because of how much support Sanders has.
She's a moderate progressive so she may not share your vision but she still believes in progressive
policies. Sanders supporters make it sound like electing Clinton and electing a republican is
the same thing...
Trump loves power and the spotlight. You are out of his mind if you think he would quit.
Founded by Southern Democrats in 1985, the group sought to transform the party by pushing
it to embrace more conservative positions and win support from big business.
Bernie thinks he can win the low turnout caucus states Colorado and Minnesota. The problem is
that they are both closed caucus states. You can only vote if you are a registered Democratic.
No Independents can vote in the Democratic caucusus. He'll lose and if he loses Massachussetts
his only win will be in Vermont and possibly Oklahoma where Hillary has a narrow lead. Looks hopeless.
This landslide win may be the one time the majority of black South Carolinians have something
in common with Goldman Sachs execs. Strange bedfellows...
As for Super Tuesday, for Bernie supporters, the races to watch are Massachusetts, Colorado,
and Minnesota. If Bernie can win all three, this race is still on.
It is interesting that in the latest speech that I heard from Sanders he has shifted from
attacking Clinton to focusing his attacks on Trump. I think he sees the writing on the wall
and he knows that he is losing. This will all be over in a couple of weeks and I'd be surprised
if Sanders is still in the race in April. Once Clinton wins Florida, Ohio and Michigan, Sanders
has to know that it's over.
Sanders knows the danger that is posed by the semi-fascist Trump
and he will throw all his support behind Clinton once it is clear that his chance is over. He
isn't one of these morons like we see on this forum that are saying that there is no difference
between Trump and Clinton. They are the same idiots that told us that there was no difference
between Bush and Gore.
C'mon people..this is south Carolina...What did you expect? This is a state where a landlord can
choose no to have "multicultural " tenants...
Give me a break, this state is frozen in time... Heck, Hitler would win against Bernie in South
Carolina. Have doubts? Just ask 'round. Bernie will be the next president.. Even in south Caro-the
land civil rights forgot-lina.
The blacks on south carolina..have been dupped. .to trust Clinton is like re electing another
bush. Quite reckless stupid. ... 40 million youth who gave student debt loans to repay should
think their pocket.
And Vote Bernie
So to eradicate debt and give hope a chance ..and re bell against big sleazy corporate bankers
...
I will never vote for her. You'd think that my fellow black citizens would have taken a lesson
from the Rahm Emmanuel debacle and refused to be herded into that dark night
And I shall certainly never vote for Ms. Wall Street Liar and "Sucker Bill." My vote--come what
may--is for THE HON. MR. SANDERS ONLY. He will help the country and working people.
I just calculated the percentage of South Carolina adults that voted in the South Carolina primary
. I get 9.8%. Can this be right? If so - the whole thing is a sham & and only a handful of people
support Clinton enough to bother going out & voting for her. I guess that also goes for Sanders
too.
You can blame this outcome on the corrupt/criminalized/liberalized/administration, of the U.S.
Government. Its failure to prosecute/prison Hillary Clinton (SOS) having illegal (off Gov property)
private server's, with no government email account. The government had no access or control of
classified/top secret emails sent to her private email account.
I guess you didn't read my post, dickwad. If the populace truly educated themselves and studied
the histories of all candidates, Bernie would win by an incredible margin. There is no other candidate.SC
is poorly educated:
South Carolina...
Percent of students scoring at or above proficient, 2012-2013
Math - Grade 4 35%
Math - Grade 8 31%
Reading - Grade 4 28%
Reading - Grade 8 29%
Hence the ridiculous win for Hillary, who has done nothing for African American voters,
In fact, she has probably led to the incarceration of many black people in America. Her husband
certainly fucked them over.
Hillary Clinton, the most greedy woman in the world, but she couldn't transform a dream comes
true in 2008, an unpopulated candidate Barack Obama to be chosen the Democrat's presidential candidate.
During 8 years in White House, a first lady seemed quiet, even though the scandal Monica Lewinsky.
Moreover, the time she was elected as Senator, she had not any bright idea...when she became the
Secretary of State, Mrs. Hillary left the black spot of Benghazi that measures the ability of
the US president and recently the email scandal could be harmed her campaign. On the other hand,
the Democrat should empty the leader, so they chose the recycled candidate for 2016 presidential
race. People have not much believed on Hillary despite she launches the campaign well with plenty
money supported from somewhere else...However, Hillary Clinton has the right to dream, dream and
dream to be the first US female president. The dream is just the hope, but it comes true that
belongs to the trust of voters. In the US and Western country's history, there is rare the leader's
recycle and presidential recycled candidate, but Hillary is the exception.
If Hillary gets indicted, and with 150 FBI agents currently investigating the email server/Clinton
Foundation scandal, that looks increasingly likely, these SC results will be a fart in a hurricane.
President Carter's advisor and pollster, longtime Dem operative Pat Caddell, said this about
the Clinton Foundation/Email scandal on 2/13/2016:
"This is the greatest scandal in the history of the United States," Caddell said. "They all
ought to be indicted. This is worse than Watergate."
Clinton, he explained, would soon be exposed for using her connections in the State Department
to enrich her family, her foundation, and her supporters.
"They were selling out the national interests of the United States directly to adversaries
and others for money," he said. "There is just nothing that satisfies them. They are the greediest
white trash I have ever seen."
If this disgusting liar wins Democratic nomination, I am going to vote Republican for the
first time in my life. Even Trump is better that this abomination. At least he calls a spade a
spade and does not pretend to be what he isn't.
In theory there might be a chance for Clinton if she embraced the good stuff Sanders stands for.
Is she declared he would be her running mate, and she was incorporating big bits of his program.
Is she said that what the US needs now is a New Deal and hers is a new Franklin Roosevelt platform
of radical change, control of the banks, crushing of corporate interests etc.
If she talked like that there is in theory a chance that the Sanders people like myself would
be interested. But the trouble is she never will: she belongs to the aggressive neo-liberal ideology
of Bill Clinton and only adds to that a dose of vicious special interest corporate feminism and
pushing Black special interests. That is not a formula most Americans hungry for change see anything
in but sheer rubbish.
Clinton is a crook and nothing she says can be believed except that she will sell out to crooks.
The left feels betrayed by the Blacks. For decades we have sweated our guts backing the Blacks
and this is how they repay us when there is a real candidate for socialist change.
The left didn't sweat their guts "backing the blacks" because they were after strategic support.
The left did it because it was the proper, human thing to do. That's sort of the difference between
the left and the right in their attitudes towards fellow humans: intrinsic worth vs strategic
usefulness.
And the "Blacks" aren't some monolithic cult-like voting body - they're not ants..or Evangelicals...
What has the Clinton Dynasty done to make ordinary black lives better?
The opposite side of that coin is record incarceration flowing from their crime bill, job outsourcing
thru trade deals, the seeds of the 2008 crash thru repeal of Glass Steagal, and a 20-year period
at the apex of executive and then legislative branch power, but a massive increase in inequality
while the Clintons enrich themselves at the hands of the oligarchs.
If only that ad was steadily playing across all the TVs of South Carolinians for a month or two
before this election..."Clinton: making black lives worse." Then the word "black" is crossed out
by a chalk-wielding child's hand and the word "all" is written above it...
I get damned irritated when certain people keep using the words racist and misogynist to prevent
free debate. If blacks are going to vote as a block then we criticize the behavior of the block.
Why did they vote on mass for Clinton? its a legitimate question to be answered.
I do not believe the female "block" vote is nearly as strong but Clinton is still going to
try to use it. And using words with sexual innuendo might be in bad taste but it doesn't make
the user a "woman hater" any more than a woman pointing to a man's baldness makes her a man hater.
After the disappointment of the Obama regime, you'd be forgiven for wondering why any black voter
would ever support someone playing the race/black elite card and so slavishly pandering to ethnic
groups...
Voter turn out 2008 - 540000+
Voter turn out 2016- 360000+
Clearly shows democrats are going to lose general if they are not motivated and i don't Clinton
with her message of keeping same as it is going to inspire many.
South Carolina black communities are very poor, uneducated and centered around their churches,
which in turn are controlled by black establishment giving them some money through various social
grants. I hope it helps to understand who and how forced black voters there how they have to vote.
If you cannot have the best you have to choose the lesser of two evils.
We can't have Sanders and real change. That's clear by now. Thanks, old man, for you great
brave effort and for bringing back Socialism to the USA after nearly a century in the dog house.
That is an amazing feat in itself --
So, it's either Black special interests plus aggressive careerist neo-liberal feminism
or a glorious and unpredictable populist who shoves the PC gang.
Interestingly, Clinton struggles against other Republican candidates.
Sanders may seem to have a slight advantage against other candidates, but it isn't really a
valid comparison. Voters know Clinton. She's been relentlessly attacked for over 20 years. Sanders
has barely been mentioned.
Once the rightwing hate machine goes to work on him, he would likely struggle.
February 24th (just 3 days ago) : Reuters poll gives Bernie Sanders lead for nomination
A national poll shows Bernie Sanders leading Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination.
The Reuters poll for "Possible Democratic presidential candidates in 2016" on Tuesday showed
Sanders leading Clinton 41.7 percent to 35.5 percent, with 22.9 percent of respondents
saying they wouldn't vote. The five-day tracking poll shows Clinton and Sanders swapping leads
since Feb. 6, and the Vermont democratic socialist holding the advantage since Feb. 19.
After 8 years of that knucklehead George W. Bush, then 8 more years of the Flim Flam Man Obama,
I thought nothing can get any worse than that.....WRONG.
The world has a new nightmare to wake up to, the sociopath Hillary or the demagogue The Donald.
At least Trump recognizes the fiasco that was the Iraq war. Hillary isn't the least bit contrite
for that vote, nor her role in destabilizing Libya not helping to grow the ISIS threat thru inaction
in Iraq.
More articles on issues instead of who is ahead in the polls would be much more beneficial to
a democracy. I'm so tired of reading the pundits talk about everything but how we can get our
government to work for it's citizens, never discussing the pros and cons of the policies each
candidate is proposing or fact checking. The "Media" is lazy, corrupt, or both.
Have fun losing to Republicans in November should the DNC and media establishment successfully
force the primary coronation of their queen. All of that legitimate excitement and momentum that
Sanders lost will vanish into thin air, and some of it will go to independent and Republican voters.
So yuck it up. Americans evidently need to learn a really hard lesson before reality finally penetrates
their collective skulls.
Anyone who is considering a vote for H Clinton who is also concerned about global warming should
know what NASA's former lead climate scientist had to say about her global warming plan:
""It's just plain silly," said James Hansen, a climate change researcher who headed Nasa's
Goddard Institute for Space Studies for over 30 years. "No, you cannot solve the problem without
a fundamental change, and that means you have to make the price of fossil fuels honest. Subsidizing
solar panels is not going to solve the problem."
She is just as complicit in the coup against our country. So yeah, we need to grow some spines
and start speaking up and acting. No more of this " well she's not AS bad crap." We're losing
our democracy, our freedom, our path to a decent life. It's time to wake up. It's Bernie or bust.
Clinton will lose to Trump, she is just another corrupt establishment candidate that will wither
under the same blasts of contempt that sunk Bush, Walker, Rubio and Graham, the war hawk neocon
conservatives that are her ideological bedfellows.
This is a massive tactical error by Af-Am voters whose fidelity to a dynastic family who have
only delivered misery to their communities, while taking money from her Wall Street paymasters,
is perverse. What has she done for them?
My dear blacks, you are not only ruining your future, but also many others'.You have been made
a vote bank for the corrupted establishment; it is a pity that you are not realizing.
People get what they deserve. So sad America. Same thing on the other side of the aisle with Trump.
I guess America is bought and sold. You can stick a fork in it!
The environment that supports human life is hanging by a thread. The people who vote for the 1%'er
Monsanto, Goldman Sachs, Military-Industrial complex candidate will be held to account. This election
is not a joke. It's between a political revolution and one in the streets.
Looks like the Sanders revolution is already over. One can't become president of the US now without
winning a significant portion of the Black and Hispanic community vote (Bernie's liberal voters
are learning this the hard way). Obama won around 98% of the black vote in 2012. That's North
Korea tier numbers! Hillary Clinton will get similar percentage of votes among minorities in 2016.
The US is heading in the direction of Brasil (this is not a good thing). Elections from now
will be decided mainly by demographics rather than policies of the candidates.
Everyone, especially African- American voters in the South should just remember that at 50% employment
there is still 50% more unemployment if they vote to continue the Clinton Dynasty. Then it will
be too late.
NYT is pro-Hillary neocon establishment influenced rag. One apt observation from NYT comments: "Trump's assertions about sleep should be taken with the grain of
salt that all his other grandiose proclamations deserve. I suspect he makes those claims just to prove
what an exceptional human he is. He doesn't even need to sleep much!" Trumps come and go, but the deluded,
totally brainwashed electorate will stay. That's the real problem. Degradation of democracy into oligarchy
(the iron law of oligarchy) is an objective process. Currently what we see is some kind revolt against
status quo. that's why Trump and Sanders get so many supporters.
Another one from comments: "Over the years, Pew surveys show that at least 60% of those polled can't name two
branches of the government. Current campaigns, including that of Sanders, imply that the POTUS has a
wide range of powers that are to be found nowhere in the Constitution." So none of Repug candidates
understand this document. And still I must admit that "Trump is the best in breed when it comes to this
GOP dog show." I agree that "Trump punches above his weight in debates "
NYT will never tell you why Hillary will be even more dangerous
president.
Only a sleep disorder physician following a full-night study could tell us whether the diagnosis
is clinically sound. This guy from NYT is a regular uneducated journo, not a certified physician. Why
insult people who truly suffer from sleep deprivation? So all of them are obnoxious maniacs? To me a
large part of his behavior is a typical alpha-male behavior. There are, in fact, a number of brilliant,
driven alpha-males who function well with a bare amount of sleep. That may be an evolutionary trait
that help them to achieve dominance. For example, Napoleon rarely slept more than 2-3 hours per 24-hour
period, according to several historians. Churchill stayed up several nights in a row reading Hansard
in his formative years and he was a gifted orator, one of the sharpest wits. He also was an alcoholic.
Several famous famous mathematicians were among sleep deprived people. Like photographic memory this
is a unique idiosyncrasy that is more frequent in alpha-males, not necessary a disease. BTW Angela Merkel
is noted for her ability not to sleep for several nights, wearing her opponents into shreds via sleep
deprivation and enforcing her decisions over the rest. That was last demonstrated in Minsk were she
managed even to get Putin to agree on her terms.
He mentions this term "alpha male" despite the fact that it provides an
alternative explanation. Also as one reader commented "So please explain the positions (and behaviors
) of Ayatollah Cruz and rubber man Rubio." Those two backstabbing pseudo-religious demagog got implicit
support from the article.
How about this from sleep deprived person vs one definitely non-sleep deprive person (Jeb!): "Donald
Trump joins the fight to release the secret 28 Pages of the 9/11 Report."
Notable quotes:
"... This is Time's contribution to the growing movement to discredit Trump. Every candidate can be similarly eviscerated for their weaknesses, including character flaws. The problem is that our American system of electing leadership is deeply flawed and easily manipulated by advertising. The humiliating process of campaigning drives away our best prospects, leaving the country with weak, inconsistent leadership. ..."
"... gemli, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton pursued a regime change in Libya, Syria and Ukraine. They got away with their foolish adventure by saying that Gaddafi was a bad guy, Assad is a bad guy and Putin is a bad guy. ..."
"... Mr. Trump is the sole American politician who is willing to say that we should cooperate with Putin. He is the only Republican to be open to single payer health care, the only Republican to say something good about Planned Parenthood and the only Republican to say that Bush should have been impeached for the Iraq war. ..."
"... Hillary Rodham and Marco Rubio are so awful that we would be better off with a nasty, sleep-deprived Trump. Besides, there is still a much better alternative: the irascible Bernie Sanders. He may be angry, but you would have to be crazy to not be angry with the mess we now have to live with: a rigged economy, free trade , politics corrupted by money, and an insatiable Military Industrial Complex. ..."
"... A lot of people are angry and Trump is channeling that anger. Sanders is channeling a different anger but he is too nice, and will lose to Mrs. Clinton who is supported by the establishment. ..."
"... He, I believe is also the first American politician to say openly that we have to cooperate with Russia if we are really serious about taking on ISIS. Mr. Obama, with his Harvard education, has NO idea what to do about the ME and is floundering around. Meanwhile Russia and Assad and the Kurds are taking the lead, and our allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia are actually undermining the war against ISIS. ..."
"... I would not vote for Trump but if he does become president, we might actually have peace in the Middle East and we might actually have single payer health care. On the second, almost all the Democrats will support him and so will at least some Republicans. ..."
"... Trump is not a nice man but he might not be a disaster as president. ..."
"... Trump is right about one thing, He does make your head spin. ..."
"... I just finished reading 4 opinion columns by Bruni, Brooks, Krugman and lastly Tim Egans, all published on Feb 26th. (May the last be first and the first last.) I hope Kasich wins to invoke a civil exchange of ideas in American politics, but I will vote for Bernie ..."
"... I imagine the Asians and/or Europe all laughing at us now, but at least there not shouting and acting like children. Help me, Im drowning. Give me a leader who can compromise in that great noble tradition which benefits everyone. Its called compassion for the global family. ..."
"... Ambler in Background to Danger has a small meditation about politics being not much of anything other than a face behind which the true story goes on, one of big business interests--or in general, economic interests. ..."
"... With Donald Trump the Republican party in the U.S. seems to have dropped the politics mask -- you have a combination of business and fascistic impulses. The question however, is why. Could it be because now all nations in the world find themselves hemmed, with a landlocked feeling like Germany had prior to outbreak of WW2? These business/authoritarian impulses today are not confined to the U.S. alone. ..."
"... how to satisfy in simple basics the restless masses of millions upon millions of people, everything else, not to mention culture, just collapsing in a crowd discussion of who gets what, when, where, why, and how. ..."
"... Whats defective about Trump? He is obviously doing very well for himself - he is the likely Republican nominee and is not exactly starving despite multiple bankruptcies. ..."
"... There are real problems with politics in the US and Trump is getting support partly because he at least shows some signs, however delusionary, of addressing the concerns of the 99%. ..."
"... Why are Democrats so concerned that Donald Trump might be the Republican Partys nominee for President that the NY Times trots out editorials psychobabbling about his sleep deprivation? ..."
"... Trump may be all that the intellectual elite deride him for. Guess what? The people who support him dont care. They are tired of being told how to think by people who suppose themselves to be their betters. They will cast their votes and throw their support behind whomever they please, thank-you very much. ..."
"... And really, does Timothy Egan really believe Donald Trump doesnt know what hes doing or saying? Because of sleep deprivation? Note to Mr. Egan: Whatever is Trumps sleep schedule, it seems to be working well for him. Hes winning. ..."
"... Trump functions well enough to understand this: (1) The media is deceptive with an agenda of its own. (2) Big donors and big money control the career politicians. 93) Politicians can talk talk talk and make plans and policy and get nothing done. ..."
"... Trump and his supporters are on to all this now. The corrupt media, the corrupt big money and the all talk no action politicians. That is functioning well enough. Trump does not need to function beyond that. His supporters know it and he knows it. ..."
"... So far the best and the brightest highly educated intellectuals have let the USA down . Trump has a certain kind of intelligence that might be just what we need. He effectively cut through a crowded Republican field packed with ideological purists like a knife through butter. He is a very talented New Yorker who grew up in the 60s and went to Fordham before he went to Wharton. If you want to stick your finger in the collective eye of the elite . vote for Trump. ..."
"... The republican party is the reactionary party. They are a little like the Sicilians described in the novel The Leopard where it is said that In Sicily it doesnt matter whether things are done well or done badly; the sin which we Sicilians never forgive is simply that of doing at all. ..."
"... The Taibbi piece can be found here at this link: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-america-made-donald-trump-... ..."
"... Better a sleep deprived bully than a well rested one, which what the rest of the bunch are. They clearly know exactly how to ruin the country and antagonize our allies. ..."
"... As you are reading this, recall how a stressful event in your own life interfered with your sleep. Well, given the frantic nature of the current Republican primary season, the travel, the debates, the probing press, the TV interviews, the speeches, the insults and whats at stake, all of the candidates must be sleep deprived. If they were not they wouldnt be human. Donald will do just fine once he becomes president and gets use to the job (or not). ..."
"... But what about those who hold those same obnoxious ideas arguably sans sleep deprivation? Palin, Cruz, Carson? Please do a series of columns linking the apparent absence of reason in many of the GOP candidates with the current DSM. ..."
"... I used to ridicule President Reagans legendary afternoon naps. Now I am the age Reagan was as president, and I dont think I could function without napping when I dont get enough sleep at night. ..."
"... What is happening now is not about Trump. Its about what he represents. I dont normally read Peggy Noonan but she nails it today. There are the protected and the unprotected. The protected make public policy. The unprotected live in it. The unprotected are starting to push back, powerfully. ..."
This is Tim's contribution to the growing movement to discredit Trump. Every candidate can
be similarly eviscerated for their weaknesses, including character flaws. The problem is that
our American system of electing leadership is deeply flawed and easily manipulated by advertising.
The humiliating process of campaigning drives away our best prospects, leaving the country with
weak, inconsistent leadership.
The founding fathers rejected a parliamentary system because it was like England's, but history
indicates America could have avoided many political debacles if it had been easier to remove incompetent
presidents when their decisions threatened the country. Modernizing our electoral system, shortening
the campaign time, and raising the level of debate could improve the choices Americans are given.
gemli, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton pursued a regime change in Libya, Syria and Ukraine.
They got away with their foolish adventure by saying that Gaddafi was a bad guy, Assad is a bad
guy and Putin is a bad guy.
And maybe they are right about these people being bad guys. But the regime change policy has
been a disaster. WE did not spend a trillion dollars and no AMERICAN troops died. But hundreds
of thousands of Syrians are dead, millions knocking at Germany's door and Greece is overwhelmed
with refugees. This was all the doing of the "Obama team".
Mr. Trump is the sole American politician who is willing to say that we should cooperate with
Putin. He is the only Republican to be open to single payer health care, the only Republican to
say something good about Planned Parenthood and the only Republican to say that Bush should have
been impeached for the Iraq war.
YOU just see a nasty man in the Republican debates who talks nonsense and has no trouble lying.
And that nasty mean does seem to be there, although given Trump, the nasty man might well be a
façade who will vanish as soon as he faces the general election.
And you need to be aware of the fact that some of his positions are actually sensible and he
is the only politician who has all these positions.
Unfortunately you guys hate Republicans so much that you see red any time you see one and that
red in your eyes prevents you from seeing clearly.
A sleep-deprived Trump is still much better than a fully rested tool of the elites from
either political party.
Hillary Rodham and Marco Rubio are so awful that we would be better off with a nasty, sleep-deprived
Trump. Besides, there is still a much better alternative: the irascible Bernie Sanders. He may
be angry, but you would have to be crazy to not be angry with the mess we now have to live with:
a rigged economy, "free trade", politics corrupted by money, and an insatiable Military Industrial
Complex.
Rohit, New York 9 hours ago
A lot of people are angry and Trump is channeling that anger. Sanders is channeling a different
anger but he is too nice, and will lose to Mrs. Clinton who is supported by the establishment.
Trump is mean enough to take on the establishment, and win. And he is the first Republican brave
enough to say that Planned Parenthood DOES do some good work. Like him, I do NOT think they should
receive federal funding but that some or most of their work is actually health related is a fact.
He, I believe is also the first American politician to say openly that we have to cooperate
with Russia if we are really serious about taking on ISIS. Mr. Obama, with his Harvard education,
has NO idea what to do about the ME and is floundering around. Meanwhile Russia and Assad and
the Kurds are taking the lead, and our "allies" Turkey and Saudi Arabia are actually undermining
the war against ISIS.
I would not vote for Trump but if he does become president, we might actually have peace
in the Middle East and we might actually have single payer health care. On the second, almost
all the Democrats will support him and so will at least some Republicans.
Trump is not a nice man but he might not be a disaster as president.
Mr. Egan, Donald Trump may or may not suffer from sleep deprivation. He definitely suffers
from something called NPD, Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He has the classic symptoms which
are described as follows, according to the Mayo Clinic
http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-d... :
"DSM-5 criteria for narcissistic personality disorder include these features:
Having an exaggerated sense of self-importance
Expecting to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it
Exaggerating your achievements and talents
Being preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect
mate
Believing that you are superior and can only be understood by or associate with equally
special people
Requiring constant admiration
Having a sense of entitlement
Expecting special favors and unquestioning compliance with your expectations
Taking advantage of others to get what you want
Having an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others
Being envious of others and believing others envy you
Behaving in an arrogant or haughty manner"
bill b new york 16 hours ago
Trump is right about one thing, He does make your head spin.
Paul Greensboro, NC 11 hours ago
I just finished reading 4 opinion columns by Bruni, Brooks, Krugman and lastly Tim Egan's, all
published on Feb 26th. (May the last be first and the first last.) I hope Kasich wins to invoke
a civil exchange of ideas in American politics, but I will vote for Bernie or Hilary assuming
an asteroid does not hit the earth before then.
I imagine the Asians and/or Europe all laughing at us now, but at least the're not shouting
and acting like children. Help me, I'm drowning. Give me a leader who can compromise in that great
noble tradition which benefits everyone. It's called compassion for the global family.
Daniel12 Wash. D.C. 14 hours ago
Donald Trump?
I'm on a project to read four (the four I could find so far) of the six Eric Ambler novels
written prior to WW2. I'm on the second, "Background to Danger", now. Ambler in "Background
to Danger" has a small meditation about politics being not much of anything other than a face
behind which the true story goes on, one of big business interests--or in general, economic interests.
With Donald Trump the Republican party in the U.S. seems to have dropped the politics mask
-- you have a combination of business and fascistic impulses. The question however, is why. Could
it be because now all nations in the world find themselves hemmed, with a landlocked feeling like
Germany had prior to outbreak of WW2? These business/authoritarian impulses today are not confined
to the U.S. alone.
Worse, the opposition to big business, the other big economic theory of past decades, the socialistic/communistic
trend, has been seen in practice whether we speak of Cuba or the Soviet Union or Venezuela or
China. It seems all the masks of politics are coming off, all the ideals such as democracy, rights,
communism, what have you and instead the argument is turning to actual and naked discussion of
interests pure and simple, right and left wing economics, how to satisfy in simple basics
the restless masses of millions upon millions of people, everything else, not to mention culture,
just collapsing in a crowd discussion of who gets what, when, where, why, and how.
The open boat.
skeptonomist is a trusted commenter Tennessee 11 hours ago
What's defective about Trump? He is obviously doing very well for himself - he is the likely
Republican nominee and is not exactly starving despite multiple bankruptcies.
What needs analysis is why so many people support Trump - what's up with them? And what defects
in the establishments of both parties cause so many people to reject their selected dynastic picks.
There are real problems with politics in the US and Trump is getting support partly because
he at least shows some signs, however delusionary, of addressing the concerns of the 99%.
Beachbum Paris 14 hours ago
This is all thanks to Rupert Murdoch
S.D.Keith Birmigham, AL 7 hours ago
Why are Democrats so concerned that Donald Trump might be the Republican Party's nominee for
President that the NY Times trots out editorials psychobabbling about his sleep deprivation?
This is hilarious stuff. Trump may be all that the intellectual elite deride him for. Guess
what? The people who support him don't care. They are tired of being told how to think by people
who suppose themselves to be their betters. They will cast their votes and throw their support
behind whomever they please, thank-you very much. That, much to the chagrin of the Progressive
idealists who always believe they know better what people should need and want, is democracy in
action. It may be ugly at times, but it is much preferred over every other form of governance.
In fact, articles like this, while red meat for establishmentarian dogs, serve only to strengthen
Trump's bona fides among his supporters.
And really, does Timothy Egan really believe Donald Trump doesn't know what he's doing or saying?
Because of sleep deprivation? Note to Mr. Egan: Whatever is Trump's sleep schedule, it seems to
be working well for him. He's winning.
J. San Ramon 9 hours ago
Trump functions well enough to understand this: (1) The media is deceptive with an agenda of its own.
(2) Big donors and big money control the career politicians. 93) Politicians can talk talk talk and make plans and policy and get nothing done.
Trump and his supporters are on to all this now. The corrupt media, the corrupt big money and
the all talk no action politicians. That is functioning well enough. Trump does not need to function beyond that. His supporters
know it and he knows it.
So far the best and the brightest highly educated intellectuals have let the USA down . Trump
has a certain kind of intelligence that might be just what we need. He effectively cut through
a crowded Republican field packed with ideological purists like a knife through butter. He is
a very talented New Yorker who grew up in the 60s and went to Fordham before he went to Wharton.
If you want to stick your finger in the collective eye of the "elite". vote for Trump. This message
brought to you by a hugely "bigly" educated Queens lawyer. go Redmen
Excellency, is a trusted commenterFlorida
9 hours ago
The republican party is the reactionary party. They are a little like the Sicilians described
in the novel "The Leopard" where it is said that" In Sicily it doesn't matter whether things are
done well or done badly; the sin which we Sicilians never forgive is simply that of 'doing' at
all."
Imagine a man of action like Trump navigating that population, from which great jurists like
Scalia emerge, and you have Trump behaving much as Egan describes and succeeding. Indeed, in that
same novel it is said that "to rage and mock is gentlemanly, to grumble and whine is not."
Better a sleep deprived bully than a well rested one, which what the rest of the bunch
are. They clearly know exactly how to ruin the country and antagonize our allies.
Ever wonder why Trump invokes the name of Carl Ihkan every chance he gets? Both engage in hostile
takeovers. That's the predatory side of business. But how does that qualify Trump to be the Commander-In-Chief?
I would not be surprised if a frustrated President Trump threatened to punch Vladimir Putin in
the face. The very thought of President Trump is a nightmare, but no less a nightmare than President
Cruz or President Rubio.
John Kenneth Galbraith, who was in parts of his career intimate with government (including
being American ambassador to India during the 1962 China-India War) said in his autobiography
that sleep deprivation was the least-appreciated weakness of high-level decision makers in times
of crisis.
Somewhere I've read of an experiment that concluded that someone who hasn't slept for
36 hours is as dysfunctional as if he were legally intoxicated. And I recall Colin Powell praising Ambien as the only thing that allowed him to travel as he had to. That's interesting, given Ambien's
well-known potential amnesic side-effects.
As you are reading this, recall how a stressful event in your own life interfered with
your sleep. Well, given the frantic nature of the current Republican primary season, the travel,
the debates, the probing press, the TV interviews, the speeches, the insults and what's at stake,
all of the candidates must be sleep deprived. If they were not they wouldn't be human. Donald
will do just fine once he becomes president and gets use to the job (or not).
But what about those who hold those same obnoxious ideas arguably sans sleep deprivation? Palin,
Cruz, Carson? Please do a series of columns linking the apparent absence of reason in many of the GOP candidates
with the current DSM.
Good call, though I suspect most presidential candidates need a lot more sleep. A friend of
mine who lived near Michael Dukakis saw him a few weeks after the 1988 election, and he recounted
that the Democratic presidential candidate said he was now sleeping so much better, that in the
hectic pace of a campaign, he wasn't able to take the time to learn "what was really going on"
and to process everything.
I used to ridicule President Reagan's legendary afternoon naps. Now I am the age Reagan
was as president, and I don't think I could function without napping when I don't get enough sleep
at night.
There's a campaign trope about who you want to be in the White House when an emergency call
about a serious world crisis comes in at 3 a.m. I want him or her to be someone who didn't just
go to sleep at 2 a.m.
What is happening now is not about Trump. It's about what he represents. I don't normally
read Peggy Noonan but she nails it today. "There are the protected and the unprotected. The protected
make public policy. The unprotected live in it. The unprotected are starting to push back, powerfully.
The protected are the accomplished, the secure, the successful-those who have power or access
to it. They are protected from much of the roughness of the world. More to the point, they are
protected from the world they have created."
"... But if the alternative is to try and elect leaders from the centre who will do nothing to confront these great issues, and will instead cut spending, accept stagnation and wait for the next financial crisis, is it any wonder that many people would rather take their chance with someone different? ... ..."
"... Rather than celebrating the enthusiasm and interest of the many young people that have recently joined (even if they regard some of their aspirations as naive), and who will be vital in future election campaigns, this overtly anti-Corbyn group seem to regard them as a threat. ... ..."
We have not met, but I have talked to your former colleague Gordon a few times and I did some
academic work on his 5 tests for Euro entry. I saw a
report that you were mystified by the popularity of Jeremy Corbyn and Bernie Sanders. I have
an
article today in The Independent that might help you understand your puzzle.
I know you find it strange that people that appear to you like those your predecessor Neil
Kinnock did battle with over the future of the Labour Party in the 1980s are now running the party.
It must also seem strange that in the US where socialism once seemed to be regarded as a perversion,
large numbers should be supporting a socialist candidate. You suggest some explanations, but you
do not mention the power of finance, inequality and the senselessness of austerity. You say that
these new leaders will not be electable. But if the alternative is to try and elect leaders
from the centre who will do nothing to confront these great issues, and will instead cut spending,
accept stagnation and wait for the next financial crisis, is it any wonder that many people would
rather take their chance with someone different? ...
There are many Labour MPs and left leaning journalists who seem to share your puzzlement, and
have decided that they have to fight again the battles of the 1980s by doing everything to undermine
their new Labour leadership. ...
Rather than celebrating the enthusiasm and interest of the many
young people that have recently joined (even if they regard some of their aspirations as naive),
and who will be vital in future election campaigns, this overtly anti-Corbyn group seem to regard
them as a threat. ...
Please tell them to stop. I fear they need someone they respect like you to point out the foolishness
of their actions.
"... Furqa al-Sultan Murad receives weapons from the U.S. and its allies as part of a covert program, overseen by the CIA , that aids rebel groups struggling to overthrow the government of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, according to rebel officials and analysts tracking the conflict. ..."
"... If indeed 'buzzfeed" has there story correct then Russia will be continuing the campaign of kicking our fucking asses in new innovative ways that were never thought possible! ..."
"... I happen to believe that like the Seymour Hersh PR psyops stunt of a story about DOD not following orders from the Commander-in-Chief and "going rogue" on him in those Countries they already destroyed is still committing treason no matter how you slice it . ..."
"... In short the CIA is at the head of the MIC always has been and always will be until it's time of death which may be coming sooner than we think! ..."
"... The invisible hand of the market applied to mayhem - US style? ..."
"... The US Doesn't have a Foreign Relations policy, it's Israel's foreign relations policy installed on US soil. ..."
"... But it looks like the YPG in northeast Syria (where the US spec ops where deployed) is the favorite since they seem to have gotten the advanced Javelin anti tank missile while the moderate Jihadists only got the not as effective TOW. Video and photo at RT. ..."
"... Pictures have emerged on social media which appear to show Syrian Kurds with an advanced US-produced anti-tank missile. A video allegedly shows a rocket blowing up an Islamic State truck. Washington has denied "providing the YPG with weapons." ..."
"... The FGM-148 Javelin is a portable anti-tank missile, which was developed by the United States. It is able to lock on to potential targets using infrared imaging, which makes it a lot more effective than the TOW missile system, which militias fighting against IS had been using, as the TOW is heavier and requires a portable power supply ..."
"... "Also, Javelin launchers and missiles are rather expensive. In 2002, a single Javelin command launch unit cost $126,000, and each missile cost around $78,000." ..."
Officials with Syrian rebel battalions that receive covert backing from one arm of the U.S.
government told BuzzFeed News that they recently began fighting rival rebels supported by another
arm of the U.S. government.
The infighting between American proxies is the latest setback for the Obama administration's
Syria policy and lays bare its contradictions as violence in the country gets worse.
The confusion is playing out on the battlefield - with the U.S. effectively engaged in a proxy
war with itself.
***
Furqa al-Sultan Murad receives weapons from the U.S. and its allies as part of a covert
program, overseen by the CIA , that aids rebel groups struggling to overthrow the government of
Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, according to rebel officials and analysts tracking the conflict.
The Kurdish militants, on the other hand, receive weapons and support from the Pentagon
as part of U.S. efforts to fight ISIS. Known as the People's Protection Units, or YPG,
they are
the centerpiece of the Obama administration's strategy against the extremists in Syria and
coordinate regularly with U.S. airstrikes.
The Daily Beast also
reports that U.S. allies are fighting CIA-backed rebels. The U.S. is supporting the Kurds, who
are the best on-the-ground fighters against ISIS … yet America's close ally Turkey is
trying to wipe out the Kurds . Moreover, the U.S., Turkey and Saudi Arabia are
all
using the Incerlik air base in
Adana, Turkey , on
the border with Syria to launch military operations in Syria. The U.S. is using Incerlik to SUPPORT
the Kurds, but Turkey is using the
EXACT SAME air base to
BOMB the Kurds . In addition, the U.S. is supporting
Shia
Muslims in Iraq … but supporting their arch-enemy –
Sunnis Muslims – in neighboring Syria.
And the U.S. claims to be fighting the war on terror AGAINST the exact same groups – ISIS and
Al Qaeda – that
our
closest allies are SUPPORTING . Absolutely insane …
If indeed 'buzzfeed" has there story correct then Russia will be continuing the campaign
of kicking our fucking asses in new innovative ways that were never thought possible!
I happen to believe that like the Seymour Hersh PR psyops stunt of a story about DOD not
following orders from the Commander-in-Chief and "going rogue" on him in those Countries they
already destroyed is still committing treason no matter how you slice it .... is all simply
a way of attempting to draw Russia in closer to get intel on them while they continue to work
miracles on our "proxies" which is depleting our stable of Mercs R' Us day by day.
The event that took place this past weekend in Homs and Damascus is indicative of just that.
And if Russia did indeed make the mistake of giving too much information out to Uncle Sam, the
U.S. military and Langley won't be enjoying that luxury again!...
I'm pretty certain that "Winter Soldier" Kerry's desire to carve up Syria should the cease
fire aka Plan B not come to fruition... It was always the Only Option on the table for Langley
and the Pentagon!!
In short the CIA is at the head of the MIC always has been and always will be until it's
time of death which may be coming sooner than we think!
The 'insouciant' Goyim remain mesmerized under the spell of entertainment and Political-Correctness
gone mad. Hence, unable are they to mount any sort of opposition to this 'soft takeover' of their
nation.
But it looks like the YPG in northeast Syria (where the US spec ops where deployed) is
the favorite since they seem to have gotten the advanced Javelin anti tank missile while the moderate
Jihadists only got the not as effective TOW. Video and photo at RT.
Pictures have emerged on social media which appear to show Syrian Kurds with an advanced
US-produced anti-tank missile. A video allegedly shows a rocket blowing up an Islamic State truck.
Washington has denied "providing the YPG with weapons."
If the video, believed to have been filmed near the Syrian town of Shaddadi, is authenticated
it would show that Syrian Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) forces have been given an upgrade
in technology. The footage shows a truck allegedly belonging to Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL)
on the receiving end of a direct hit from the missile.
The FGM-148 Javelin is a portable anti-tank missile, which was developed by the United
States. It is able to lock on to potential targets using infrared imaging, which makes it a lot
more effective than the TOW missile system, which militias fighting against IS had been using,
as the TOW is heavier and requires a portable power supply
"Assuming he's not firing from the side of a mountain or on top of a compound, it's definitely
a Javelin," Corporal Thomas Gray, a former Marine Javelin gunner who watched the video told the
Washington Post.
However John Kirby, a State Department spokesman, said that he was unable to confirm whether
the image was authentic and that "nothing has changed about our policy of not providing the YPG
with weapons."
"Also, Javelin launchers and missiles are rather expensive. In 2002, a single Javelin command
launch unit cost $126,000, and each missile cost around $78,000."
"... By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One and an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Originally published at New Economic Perspectives ..."
"... a professor with decades of rebellious students in his classrooms ..."
"... This is beginning to remind me of the New York Times-Dick Cheney-Iraq War fiasco, where Cheneys minions would feed information to the NYT, the Times would write a supportive story, and then Cheney would appear on the Sunday talk shows using publication of information in the NYT as verification for his points. ..."
"... Sorry mate, but Ive been watching Krugman for decades, his last stop down under was like watching Greenspan spin reality. This is compounded by a track record of intransigence and pettifoggery highlighted here on NC going back to 2012. ..."
"... Skippy…. what if Krugman is just another neoliberal albeit with pangs of guilt…. ..."
"... Who cares? The NYT and Paul Krugman are their own worst enemies. Let them shill for Hilary, its blatantly obvious and they arent fooling anyone; they only damage their already damaged brands. ..."
"... He is a neoliberal moron like that other neoliberal moron who writes a column for them also named Tom. And then there is the neocon named David. And they wonder why they are failing financially? ..."
"... One current Times staffer told The Observer, Tom Friedman is an embarrassment. I mean there are multiple blogs and Tumblrs and Twitter feeds that exist solely to make fun of his sort of blowhardy bullshit. ..."
"... the current episode is a clear demonstration that hes a political hack as opposed to a serious economist. ..."
"... He has the bully pulpit and hes using it to screw the working man. Hopefully theres a special place in Hell for sell-outs like Krugman. ..."
"... Krugman evidently has no idea how money and banking works which says it all. Later last year he wrote in one of his columns that banks take in deposits from savers and lend them out to borrowers, thereby acting as intermediaries . He evidently has no idea of the truth, namely, that banks create money out of thin air when they agree to make loans. The fact that he doesnt understand our monetary system is bizarre and bit scary. So yes he is a phony . ..."
"... Me thinks Serious Establishment Professor Krugman is doing a yeomans job of carrying Clinton water with hopes of a courtiers appointment in the preordained Clinton Administration. ..."
"... Krugman jumped the shark some time ago with his shilling for the Obamacrats. I stopped reading him and subscribing to the Times shortly into Obamas first term. The MSM is little more than the propaganda wing for the elite scumbags who feel entitled to run the country. Goebbels and Pravda would be proud. ..."
"... Same here. I hadnt subscribed to the Times in ages and ages (issues with home delivery), but I used to buy it routinely on business vacation trip flights. Since the early days of Obama, I stopped. The NYT was always biased to the corporatocracy, but it used to have some redeeming features. Not no more. Havent bothered to read it at all over the past 7+ years. Thanks, Obama! ..."
"... The beautiful–or perverse–thing about American Exceptionalism (TM) is that it allows you to pretend the rest of the world simply doesnt exist or is irrelevant. In other words, we cant have nice things because were just too damn special and Free (TM). ..."
"... you see problems, they see opportunities to extract rents. ..."
"... I havent seen Michael Moores latest documentary, Where to Invade Next , but I believe he discusses similar issues by illustrating how other countries are managing to provide their citizens with needed services without going into deep debt (or whatever). ..."
"... To me, that one ended when Obama suspended his campaign in 08 to rush back to Washington to vote for Dot Com Immunity. You kind of knew right there. ..."
"... One can remember Austan Goolsbees 2008 reassurance of Canadian officials that candidate Obamas criticism of NAFTA was political maneuvering ..."
"... The conscience of a neoliberal . Or lack of… ..."
"... Couldnt the NYT get the same results for less money with the non-union Mexican equivalent of Krugman, senor Krugmano? ..."
Yves here.
Krugman's behavior is utterly disgraceful and he deserves to be called out on it. Again, I urge readers
to contact
the Times' Public Editor about this shameful lapse . A classic management error is the "firm
within a firm," where an individual or tem gets to write their own rules and ignore management. AIG
and Drexel are case studies of the sorry results. Does the Times regard Krugman as Too Big to Discipline?
By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One and an associate
professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Originally published at
New Economic Perspectives
Paul Krugman is plumbing new depths of moral obtuseness, arrogance, and intellectual dishonesty
in what is now his third smear of the well-respected economist Gerald Friedman in two days. My prior
column discussed Krugman's two columns on February 17, 2016. Here is Krugman's lead in his column
dated February 19.
On Wednesday four former Democratic chairmen and chairwomen of the president's Council of Economic
Advisers - three who served under Barack Obama, one who served under Bill Clinton - released a
stinging
open letter to Bernie Sanders and
Gerald Friedman , a University
of Massachusetts professor who has been a major source of the Sanders campaign's numbers. The
economists called out the campaign for citing "extreme claims" by Mr. Friedman that "exceed even
the most grandiose predictions by Republicans" and could "undermine the credibility of the progressive
economic agenda."
That's harsh. But it's harsh for a reason.
But why did they send a "harsh" and "stinging" letter in a manner calculated to try to destroy
the career of an economist? If they found a grievous error in Friedman's work, why didn't they email
him and point it out? Why did they personalize the attack and suggest that he must be doing it for
Bernie? Why did they personalize their attack on Bernie, who did not commission Friedman's study?
Why has Krugman tripled-down on the personal attacks on Friedman and Bernie?
Here are a few things that a reader would want to know, but would never learn from the Gang of
4 or any of Krugman's three efforts to smear Friedman. First, Friedman is a political supporter of
Hillary Clinton. He did not gin up an economic study to benefit his favored candidate. He looked
at the economic impact of Bernie's proposals because that is what macroeconomists do. It is not clear
whether the Gang of 4 did the minimal due diligence to discover this fact before they decided to
smear Friedman by implying that he was a political hack shilling for Bernie. It is certain that they
know now and should immediately correct their open letter, formally withdraw it, and apologize to
everyone they smeared.
It is certain that Paul Krugman has known since, at the latest, his second post smearing Friedman
and Bernie that Friedman, like Krugman, is a Hillary support. Krugman has not bothered to tell his
readers that critical fact, and continues to smear Friedman in a manner designed to convey the opposite
to his readers. This is unworthy of him.
It is clear that Krugman realized almost immediately after his morning post on February 17, 2016
that the Gang of 4 and he had been caught red-handed in a smear of Friedman and Sanders. His second
post, two hours later, admitted that the Gang of 4's smear was devoid of any logical criticism of
Friedman. As Krugman phrased it, the open letter "didn't get into specifics." Yes, that's part of
what makes it a smear. You call an economist's work garbage ginned up to support his favorite candidate
– and you never provide a logical explanation with a single specific of what the economist supposedly
did so wrong that he should be, not corrected, but publicly humiliated. And no, they did not leave
the specifics out of their open letter in order to avoid humiliating Friedman while sending him a
detailed private email detailing his grievous specific errors.
The truth is that the Gang of 4 and Krugman launched their smear of Friedman without pointing
out a single error in his work. Indeed, that only begins to reveal the truth, for Krugman plainly
did not evaluate the accuracy of Friedman's modelling before he chose to smear Friedman. Two of the
economists, Austan Goolsbee,and Laura D'Andrea Tyson do not do macro modelling and Alan Krueger is
overwhelmingly a labor economist. Christina Romer is the only true macroeconomist. Goolsbee and Tyson
would not have been able to critique Friedman's modeling and even with Alan Krueger's econometric
skills he would have had to invest a great deal of time to be able to do so. I would love to take
the deposition of each member of the Gang of 4 and Krugman. Journalists need to ask just how long
each spent reading Friedman's studies and obtain the contemporaneous notes they made during their
reading an analysis of the studies before they wrote the letter. I guarantee that the answers will
shock readers.
Did even one of you consider the ethics of trying to destroy Friedman's career as a cynical means
to your desired end of harming Bernie's election prospects? What you have done is an unethical abuse
of power and status for the most unseemly of goals – political advantage.
One of the reasons we can be so confident that any deposition and document discovery request revealing
the Gang of 4 and Krugman's contemporaneous notes would be so shocking is that a
journalist has gotten into the fray and tried to bail out the Gang of 4 and Krugman. She did
not understand that she was actually damning both by checking with the Gang of 4 on what work they
actually did before launching their public smear campaign. She reported on the sole basis for the
Gang of 4's smear: "This was not because they reran the numbers, to be fair, but because they seem
far-fetched."
I will take this slowly for the benefits of journalists who wish to write about this subject.
That sentence condemns the Gang of 4 and Krugman. Note that her effort at "fair[ness]" lasted exactly
one clause. You can condemn a study without having rerun the numbers if (a) the researcher gimmicked
the inputs or (b) used a bogus model. As I noted in my first column on this subject many of us would
agree that the standard macro models are grossly unreliable. But that is not what the Gang of 4 and
Krugman are asserting, for Friedman used the same models that the five smearers embrace.
That leaves us with two sources of criticism. Data entry and computational errors are one source,
but there is no suggestion that the Gang of 4 and Krugman have done the analysis necessary to discover
such errors. They do not assert any such error.
The remaining source of criticism would be that Friedman gamed his inputs. He could, for example,
have put in a fiscal multiplier vastly larger than economists such as the Gang of 4 and Krugman believe
exists. That is not, however, their criticism. It isn't for two reasons. First, several of the economists
involved are not expert in the debate about proper multipliers. Second, the economists involved that
are most expert on multipliers have been arguing for years that the multipliers are substantial,
and arguably larger than those that Friedman used in his study.
What an economist cannot do is what the Gang of 4 and Krugman have done: I have no problem with
your inputs, your model, or your math – but I hate your results so I'm going to abuse my status to
smear and try to destroy you and the candidate I oppose. Reread the journalist's sentence that unintentionally
condemns the Gang of 4 and Krugman: "This was not because they reran the numbers, to be fair, but
because they seem far-fetched." Focus on the second (vague) misuse of the word "they." You can complain
about inputs on the basis that they "are" (not "seem") "far-fetched" – i.e., contrary to the known
facts about multipliers. There is a critical difference between inputs to and outputs from a model.
You cannot dismiss a study just because the outputs "seem far-fetched" – and you
certainly can't smear the economist on the basis of your "priors" about what those outputs would
be. Your contrary priors, after all, have just been falsified by the model. The phrase "seems far-fetched"
is a statement of the Gang of 4 and Krugman's "priors" – priors that were implicitly falsified by
Friedman's study.
The Gang of 4, Krugman, and the journalist love the meme that Friedman is so bad that he is like
a Republican. The journalist assumes that Friedman must have done something bizarre in his model,
just like Republicans who game their models. She contrasts Republicans with their honorable "New
Democrat" opposites.
[Republicans] have insisted on "
dynamic scoring ," measuring the budget impact of various pieces of legislation according
to how much magic sparkling pixie dust they believe such pieces of legislation will bestow on
the economy. They have put
forward tax plans that do not - cannot - add up, and kept on insisting that they would. They
have promised everyone no taxes, awesome jobs, and a pony - all for free.
Democrats, say what you will, have avoided doing this to anything like the same degree. They
have admitted that tax cuts do not pay for themselves. They have recognized that government spending
needs to be financed with budget cuts, revenue increases, or a jump in the deficit.
The journalist, in her effort to come to the Gang of 4 and Krugman's aid, again ends up condemning
them and revealing her ideological views and lack of understanding of economics. First, the economy
is in fact "dynamic" and changes in demand do have critical impacts on the economy. The problem with
"dynamic scoring" as practiced by Republicans is two-fold. First it is asymmetric in ways that make
no economic sense. Tax reductions are modeled as increasing growth, but increased spending is not
though both operate by increasing demand. Second, they assume that tax reductions lead to large increases
in hours worked that are far in excess of what the data show. Note that both of these failures are
deliberate modeling errors designed to support Republican ideological priors.
Here's the problem – Friedman didn't do any of these things or anything similar. If he had, Romer
would have spotted it and based the open letter on the "pixie dust."
Second, the virtuous Democrats that the journalist described are also a major part of the problem.
"Democrats" have not "admitted" that increasing government spending must lead to "a jump in the deficit."
That is the economically illiterate (according to both Krugman and Christine Romer) admission of
the pro-austerity wing of the Democratic Party associated with the Clintons. The reality, as Krugman
and Romer (a member of the Gang of 4) have stressed, is that "government spending" increases, in
many circumstances, will lead to an eventual reduction in deficits by spurring employment and growth,
which increases government revenue and reduces many government expenditures. Indeed, that is largely
why the standard model that the Gang of 4 and Krugman embrace, without any "pixie dust," produces
the results that Friedman found. The standard model shows that both the pro-austerity "New Democrats"
that the journalist praises and the Republicans with their gamed "dynamic scoring" models that she
scorns are wrong. Bolder turns out to be much better. The standard macro model, therefore, finds
that Bernie's plan will "have huge beneficial impacts" (to quote the Gang of 4). (Also, the journalist
and the New Democrats do not understand money, so the entire "needs to be financed" theory is wrong.)
The journalist and Krugman, of course, do not bother to reveal that many economists have reacted
with horror to the Gang of 4 and Krugman's efforts to smear Friedman (as a convenient way to smear
Bernie). I noted in my first column that Jamie Galbraith destroyed Krugman and the Gang of 4 in his
column.
You can tell how desperate Krugman is by the rhetorical gambit he has chosen to rely on. Recall
that all of this began with a scathing, personalized and public attack on an economist by for the
high crime of running competently and carefully a standard macro model and finding evidence that
supported the economic plans of a candidate (Bernie) that he did not support. The
smear is bizarre and insanely over the top. The assumption of journalists is – surely economists
of this status would not perform a public lynching of this nature unless Friedman used "pixie dust."
If he had done so the Gang of 4 and Krugman would have pointed that out in their open letter and
Krugman's three columns attacking Friedman.
Krugman's rhetoric reveals that he has nothing beyond ever-escalating Trumpian insults – labeling
Friedman's use of the standard macro models (that Krugman endorses) "voodoo," "horrifying," "fuzzy
math," "embarrassing," "outlandish," and requiring a "miracle." None of the ad hominem remarks
would have been required if Paul had found that Friedman actually committed "voodoo" by using the
equivalent of a "magic asterisk." The Gang of 4's effort would still obviously be political (a chance
to bash Bernie) but at least it would have a clear economic basis.
Krugman exemplifies the old law joke. "When I'm strong on the facts I pound the facts, when I'm
strong on the law I pound the law, and when I'm weak on both I pound the table." He has decreed two
revealing edicts complete with impassioned pounding. First, no one is allowed to critique the Gang
of 4 and Krugman's smears of Friedman. Prominent economists that do, such as Jamie Galbraith, simply
do not exist in Krugmania. This is understandable, of course, given Jamie's evisceration of Paul
and the Gang of 4, but it is still unprincipled.
But Krugman reaches a depth he has not publicly plumbed before in his second edict. He tries to
cast the people who launched the smear, the Gang of 4, as the victims of a smear because economists
have had the temerity to point out their errors. Krugman is enraged that people believe that the
Gang of 4 wrote the letter as a means to attack a candidate they oppose – Bernie. Given that the
Gang of 4 openly did so and attacked Bernie for the work of an economist (Friedman) who supports
Hillary, the entire world has figured out that the Gang of 4 and Krugman are seeking to defeat Bernie.
The curves of Krugman's intellectual dishonesty, arrogance, and moral blindness, however, intersect
at their respective maxima in this sentence.
Mr. Sanders really needs to crack down on his campaign's instinct to lash out.
When you are the midst of your third writing in two days lashing out in an effort to smear an
economist and a candidate you oppose, it takes a special form of hypocrisy and chutzpah
to smear Sanders on the grounds that it is illegitimate for economists like Jamie Galbraith to successfully
refute the Gang of 4 and Krugman's smears of Friedman and Bernie. Paul, we know you love your "pecking
order" of economists, but no one is entitled to a free pass based on status. The same rules apply
to the Gang of 4 and you. You have to bring logic and facts rather than a rolling barrage of
ad hominem smears at those who use your own models and find that they predict the completely
unsurprising result that bold plans like Bernie's "have huge beneficial impacts."
You, after all, made precisely this point about why the 2008 stimulus program should have been
far larger. Recall how the "freshwater" modelers responded to your point – they abused the results
of your model's predictions in rhetoric every bit as frenzied as you now hurl at Friedman and Bernie.
They at least believed your models were wrong. Friedman's unpardonable sin in your book is that he
has emulated your work using your model and found as you did that much bolder is much better. Paul,
please complete the irony by predicting that Bernie's plan will produce hyper-inflation – any day
now.
I've seen this with Krugman several times before, most especially during the MMT Wars that
took place several years back. Paul does not like to be questioned by those he consider his inferiors
(a large group to him), and he responds by going overboard, not knowing when to stop. Sure, some
commenters (then and now) have not treated him kindly, but this guy is a professor with decades
of rebellious students in his classrooms, and it should be well within his skillset to be able
to handle such discomforts, of at least not completely melt down with what is obviously a deep
inner rage. Yet he does so, and once you've see it a few times, it's even predictable.
I think Krugman is performing an invaluable service – in showing that he, and a great deal
of the "lamestream" media (the one thing Palin nailed) just isn't all that concerned about FACTS.
Nor are they concerned about fair dealing. Nor are they concerned about the details that can clarify
controversies – now, why is that:
1. Too stupid to determine ANYTHING???
2. Resolution might make stories less entertaining, and reduce reduce revenues???
3. Resolution might take too many man hours, and reduce profitability???
4. The media has never been objective, is not objective, and will never be objective. Stories
are consciously slanted, generally by omission.
5. Defend the brand – until you reach the "Cosby" event horizon, you diminish your brand by undermining
your "stars."
6. maybe something else – I don't know
If I have said it once, I have said it a thousand times – the most difficult thing for most
humans is to admin they are wrong. I have had a tendency toward it myself. But once you can do
it, it is soooo liberating.
I really don't know what is going on here. What I really suspect is that most economic modeling
is gibberish, and is nothing but OPINION, and you can make plausibly any results you want.
I suspect the next "phase" of the controversy is that Krugman and the Gang of Four will PRODUCE
some "error" in Friedman's work, and Friedman and his supporters will say it is totally ridiculous,
and Krugman will say it is GINORMOUS….than someone will find where Krugman did the very same thing,
and Krugman will say it was not the very same thing…..ad infinitum.
As I have said over and over, it is a big McGuffin. I don't care if NAFTA or TPP raises GDP
– because what is clear to me, for fifty years rising GDP has been going more, and more, and more
to the wealthiest. That is not a natural law of nature, that is how POLITICALLY things are set
up. We can change that IF WE WANT!
a professor with decades of rebellious students in his classrooms
Not so sure about this. My Ivy days were a long time ago but even then it was very unusual
for a student to take on a big name professor. I would guess things are worse now, not better.
Thank you for that piece of information. It explains a lot.
This is beginning to remind me of the New York Times-Dick Cheney-Iraq War fiasco, where Cheney's
minions would feed information to the NYT, the Times would write a supportive story, and then
Cheney would appear on the Sunday talk shows using publication of information in the NYT as verification
for his points.
Krugman and Lowrey have just taken that dirty tricks routine and freshened it
up a bit.
This is all mild in comparison to how he behaved in the 90's towards those who questioned the
benefits of free trade. The ugly Krugman you see in the past few weeks was much worse in the late
90's.
Sorry mate, but I've been watching Krugman for decades, his last stop down under was like watching
Greenspan spin reality. This is compounded by a track record of intransigence and pettifoggery
highlighted here on NC going back to 2012.
Are some holding out for an epiphany to bring back the persona that never was… for the fear
that if they took off the rose colored glasses… how it might emotively pain them… or is a case
of fear of losing a possible perception management tool with magnetism…. which might find a spine
and lean into the cart against the headwinds…
Skippy…. what if Krugman is just another neoliberal albeit with pangs of guilt….
Good luck getting the Times to publicly admonish Krugman. If they haven't cracked down on Maureen
Dowd after all these years, there's no reason to think that they'll do anything to Krugman.
Yes, but you need to make them squirm. The Times isn't doing all that well financially these
days, and Kruggie and the paper's over the top HIllary boosterism is alienating readers, which
is going to cost then in a tangible way.
Who cares? The NYT and Paul Krugman are their own worst enemies. Let them shill for Hilary,
it's blatantly obvious and they aren't fooling anyone; they only damage their already damaged
brands.
Krugman has become a joke to a lot of people. I would like to think he means well but he intensely
ideological and anyone who is intensely ideological is ignorant.
He is a neoliberal moron like that other neoliberal moron who writes a column for them also
named Tom. And then there is the neocon named David. And they wonder why they are failing financially?
This is probably old news to most NC readers, but here a link to an article ABOUT the New York
Times editorial page in a different New York City publication.
"One current Times staffer told The Observer, "Tom Friedman is an embarrassment. I mean there
are multiple blogs and Tumblrs and Twitter feeds that exist solely to make fun of his sort of
blowhardy bullshit."
Blowhardy bullshit…seems an apt description of Tom Friedman.
I believe many commenters write as if Friedman/Dowd/Kristof/Douhat will read and learn from
their thoughtful comments.
I asked the Times public editor if it is known if the editorial writers ever read the readers'
comments, but this went unanswered.
In Krugman's defense, I believe he reads at least some of the readers' comments.
I believe each editorial writer has a style and brand (see below) to maintain and wants to
avoid damage by "straying off the reservation".
The observer piece referenced has: "But I will say, regarding Friedman, there's the sense that
he's on cruise control now that he's his own brand"
There is frequently some value in the New York Times online editorial page, but it is in the
readers' comments that are prompted by the Times editorial writers.
Accordingly, I believe the best writers published in the Times are some of the thoughtful readers.
thanks! Unfortunately, there is a great reverence for Krugman in the german left. I've started
posting links to both of your articles in some german left-leaning blogs which usually positively
reference to Krugman
I've documented one instance of Krugman being completely wrong, then flipping to the MMT position
while never bothering to acknowledge his error:
Is Paul Krugman Ever Wrong .
Krugman's a phony, in my opinion. I love it when he describes something as "wonkish" and then
descends into unintelligible gibberish, as when using the ISLM diagram to explain something. It's
all just patently absurd, and the current episode is a clear demonstration that he's a political
hack as opposed to a serious economist.
This needs to be said, over and over and over again. He has the bully pulpit and he's using
it to screw the working man. Hopefully there's a special place in Hell for sell-outs like Krugman.
On the other hand, Bill Black and Michael Hudson are National Treasures™.
Krugman evidently has no idea how money and banking works which says it all. Later last year
he wrote in one of his columns that banks take in deposits from savers and lend them out to borrowers,
thereby acting as "intermediaries". He evidently has no idea of the truth, namely, that banks
create money out of thin air when they agree to make loans. The fact that he doesn't understand
our monetary system is bizarre and bit scary. So yes he is a "phony".
Me thinks Serious Establishment Professor Krugman is doing a yeoman's job of carrying Clinton
water with hopes of a courtiers appointment in the preordained Clinton Administration.
Quite likely and/or at least a lot of love tossed in his general direction by the Clinton Admin.
A complete lickspittle, imo. No respect for Krug the Thug.
Krugman jumped the shark some time ago with his shilling for the Obamacrats. I stopped reading
him and subscribing to the Times shortly into Obama's first term. The MSM is little more than
the propaganda wing for the elite scumbags who feel entitled to run the country. Goebbels and
Pravda would be proud.
Same here. I hadn't subscribed to the Times in ages and ages (issues with home delivery), but
I used to buy it routinely on business & vacation trip flights. Since the early days of Obama,
I stopped. The NYT was always biased to the corporatocracy, but it used to have some redeeming
features. Not no more. Haven't bothered to read it at all over the past 7+ years. Thanks, Obama!
I'm honestly puzzled by all the economic criticism of single payer and state-funded higher
education, as if there aren't at least a factor of ten more successful examples of those models
in the world than of the funding models we currently have in the US.
"At least a factor of ten" is a very generous and diplomatic way of putting it.
The beautiful–or perverse–thing about American Exceptionalism (TM) is that it allows you to
pretend the rest of the world simply doesn't exist or is irrelevant. In other words, we can't
have nice things because we're just too damn special and Free (TM).
I haven't seen Michael Moore's latest documentary,
Where to Invade Next , but
I believe he discusses similar issues by illustrating how other countries are managing to provide
their citizens with needed services without going into deep debt (or whatever).
I haven't seen any reactions to Moore's film, but typically the Very Important People condescend
to Moore, mock him and similar. Moore's imperfect like the rest of us, but I give him props for
highlighting these issues, usually with some humor thrown in. I plan to see the film.
But you know, in this libertarian fundamentalist country, you simply have to pull yourself
up by your g*dd*mned bootstraps, or you're a nothing burger and don't deserve ANY help whatsoever,
under any circumstances, blah de blah…
I saw it this weekend and highly recommend. Even for someone who pays attention, it was eye-opening.
Also, the (mostly) Europeans that Moore interviews are horrified by what he tells them about us.
And many point out that their humanistic social policies had American roots.
A few tidbits:
Italy: 35-ish vacation days and 10-12 public holidays per year
France: public elementary schools with chef and team preparing lunch. Lunch lasts one hour, 4
courses, real china and glassware, lunch seen as time for learning about food and how to eat.
Finland: best schools in world, no standardized testing, virtually no homework, much shorter school
day than in US.
Not to mention Cuba, a country that has been subject to a US trade embargo for more than a
half-century now, somehow manages to find the resources to provide free, universal healthcare
and education through university, a feat the richest country in the world somehow cannot
pull off.
I have been surprised that it is getting a two-week run here in my southern city. That's much
more than most excellent documentaries get. Wish the seats were packed.
Haven't checked out the claim, but the latest defense of the Krugman/Gang of Four is that Galbraith's
letter can clearly be dismissed because he lied about his own work in it.
Oh, and I've been told I would understand how this all came about and the real facts if I had
followed Goolsbee and Krugman's twitter exchange. (I know I look to twitter for serious economic
discussions that actually examine a full study in detail and find its flaws).
Galbraith is meticulous in everything he does. Camp Hillary is playing with dynamite if they
think they can take him on. And they are simply brain dead if they think they can get away with
calling him a liar.
I've never known Jamie Galbraith to speak or write with anything but the utmost integrity.
I also have had a few personal contacts with him, and my impression is that he is quiet, kind,
considerate, patient, shows the utmost in courtesy in his interactions with questioners, and is
an old-fashioned person who cares greatly about honor. I cannot imagine him telling other than
the truth about his own work, as he sees it.
"The Nobel Prize-winning Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman"
In a previous post, Yves said Friedman might have a case for libel. Krugman's byline makes
it clear he is expressing opinions, and could say the moon is camembert if he wanted.
If there is a case for libel, make it now. Trading opinion pieces reduces the level of discourse.
Legal action actually stings.
Calling it an opinion does not necessarily make it one under the eye of the law:
Can my opinion be defamatory?
No-but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at
whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement
of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This
is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements
made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions
or hyperbole, but they do look at the remark in context to see if it's likely to be seen as
a true, even if controversial, opinion ("I really hate George Lucas' new movie") rather than
an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion ("It's my opinion that Trinity is the hacker
who broke into the IRS database").
As one reader said yesterday, Krugman routinely takes the posture of objectivity about his
views.
He's also, by repeating presenting defamatory remarks about Friedman as factual, making it
easier to meet the generally not so hard to demonstrate standard of malice.
The reality is that Krugman can get away with being a bully because he has a much bigger net
worth that Friedman and pretty much no academic save maybe the very feisty Steve Keen, once he
gets tenure, would get into that kind of row. And suits are emotionally draining. But Krugman
is getting really reckless. I hope one day he stomps on someone who has a tough litigator in the
family who decides it would be a career-enhancing move to go after Krugman and winds up winning.
Having represented newspapers for decades, dealing with the folks in the editorial department
is the worst. Most of them believe slapping the label "opinion" on their column exempts them from
suit. As you point out, false facts are false facts and can be the subject of libel. But most
believe if they just quote someone else they cannot be held responsible. Libel law is not their
strong suit.
I almost fell victim to Krugman's slam of Friedman. Thank you for providing context to his
attacks. I am going to write the public editor with a link to this article and tell her just read
it–every word. They limit complaints to 300 words, so the link is best.
In the end, the public editor will at best forward on complaints about Krugman to the Editorial
Department who will do nothing with them. They are getting exactly what they want from Krugman.
Lots of people who support Clinton having yet another rationale why Sanders' policies are doomed,
and lots of Sanders' supporters weighing in on Krugman's fawning over Hillary. What could be better.
Sterling effort Bill once again . So just where does this animus towards Sanders / Friedman
spring from ? I have a feeling it is because of the ' S ' word – Socialism . It's the love that
dare not speak its name . Trotsky put it most succinctly ' Who whom ' either we tilt towards capitalism
or we tilt towards socialism . I use the word ' tilt ' advisedly . This is the death of the liberal
class that Chris Hedges has analysed so carefully and now – with the possibility of a socialist
leaning candidate in the frame is clearly on show with Krugman and co. all feeling threatened
by an agenda that they pay lip service to, but in reality has the potential to diminish their
status with the elites. Shameful, but we can at least take comfort from the fact we know them
now for what they are.
Yes, I really do wonder about source of the animus – I haven't read Krugman in a while (no
particular reason except the paywall), but the stuff he was writing 5 or 6 years ago seemed closer
to Sanders than Clinton. Its perfectly reasonable for him (or anyone) to decide to prefer Clinton
on the basis that 'she can get more done', or whatever the current excuse is, but its beyond me
why he (and many others) have burned all boats with regard to Sanders. It makes no real sense
whatever.
I don't think Krugman is upset about policy. This is about an elderly man with no platform
connecting with young people who are implicitly rejecting Krugthullu en masse because he belongs
to the past. Krugman is old. Sanders became an elder. People have never really changed. Krugman
is demanding respect and for the kids to get off his lawn. Even if Hillary wins, she and her ilk
will be gone in 2020. The lack of youth support for the status quo is far too large.
This. It is going to be one of our biggest social challenges. The established order has gone
so against the wishes of younger Americans, both in length of time and intensity of the oppression,
that it is going to be a difficult task to reconcile once enough younger Americans form a critical
mass as adults that they're in charge.
The arrogance and lack of awareness amongst educated pundits in particular makes reconciliation
that much harder.
I'm beginning to wonder about the strong streak of condescension among the Hillary-o-crats
and her campaign condottieri. I have people on my Facebook feed trying to lecture the world (but
especially those under 40) about McGovern and other supposed catastrophes. I'm also detecting
a strong streak of Eternal U.S. High School, in which the economics club and the pep club now
join to tell the rest of us how to vote for student government. Yet Americans seem to lap up the
condescension (in spite of endless testimonials to being "bad-ass") and remain mired in our high-school
cultural and political model.
Thanks for this post: It is one more symptom of how stagnant we as a nation are that we are
already seeing the "big guns" out touting eight more years of economic and political stagnation.
Because, as we all know, voting for Bernie Sanders is a huge risk and the very definition of folly.
And Ted Cruz is the Face of God.
"Eternal U.S. High School" is a very apt way to describe the state of American politics today,
especially as it is actually practiced by those who make their living at it. Which is why it's
so frustrating for anyone with an ounce of maturity to really dive into it – you have to interact
with a bunch of overgrown teenagers on a regular basis. Logic and facts mean nothing – personal
aggrandizement and an obsession with current trends prevail. It's pretty pathetic.
Add to the above the fact Krugman is giving intellectual cover to the idea single payer, paid
family leave, a $15 minimum wage, tuition free public higher education, etc., are just "happy
dreams." Along the way he has thrown out insults against people who have the audacity of believing
Democrats might actually support such policies.
Of course many of those policies were supported by the intellectuals until their fearless leader
was pushed into a corner by Bernie. Exposed, they now have to say we get more by asking for less.
Seriously? Like Hillary, they just keep inventing rationales and policies as they go along.
Unless it is equal pay for equal work. That is a policy we can all get behind.
There's a reason Lenin and the Bolsheviks exiled Russian intellectuals of Krugman's ilk after
the Revolution. Many have cried crocodile tears over the ship that took them out of the USSR but
what use would we have for Krugman-types after our own radical change? I would submit very little.
"According to the writer of the memorandum, Joseph De Mora, a political and economic affairs
consular officer, Professor Goolsbee assured them that Mr. Obama's protectionist stand on the
trail was "more reflective of political maneuvering than policy.""
So Goolsbee is quite comfortable with leaving a completely wrong impression with the voters,
in this case, that Obama was going to reform NAFTA,if the politics behind it are good.
You guys shouldn't waste all your mental energy now arguing with nutjobs cause when Professor
Kelton gets her hands on the budget all hell is gonna break loose.
This is nothing compared to what your gonna read then. Man oh man. Don't waste too much energy
trying to hold serve when you're up 5-3 and your one game away from the match. So what if it's
5-4. You'll be serving and 6-4 wins.
All these guys and ladies are heading for the Newtonian Delusion wing of the insane asylum
anyway. Why argue on the internet with crazy people? It's like arguing with a poodle barking ferociously
at you with bloodshot eyes from 8 inches off the ground.
When Professor Kelton starts teaching the nation about MMT it will be a while before it sinks
in, that's for sure. There will certainly be some confusion, perhaps even some contention, maybe
even some invective! It could get messy, let's be honest. We need to hold back some fiscal multiplier
firepower for that day, or that year, frankly. We can't shoot the wad now. We need to build up
the wad so it lasts over a series of rhetorical thrusts. Hopefully we're up for it. I know I am!
The peanut gallery will have a whole new album of fake songs once Professor Kelton takes over
the budget.
I don't care what these economists say, good or bad. I gave Bernie $100 Sunday and I may give
him some more money. I like a man who stands for principles I believe in in a real authentic way
- a man who's not just faking it like an actor to get elected for vainglory and ambition. How
many more of those can we take? I can't take one more. I will never vote again (and not just due
to laziness), except I'd vote for Bernie. I'm just being honest. I couldn't care less about somebody's
econometric model or what Paul Krugman says. Why would anybody care? I guess if they like arguing
that's fine. I like making up fake songs. Maybe those are two things that are similar enough to
be elements of a set. I'm not judging or being critical, so nobody take it that way. I'm on Team
Bernie and I want Bernie to win.
I know we all look forward to 4 and maybe even 8 years of rhetorical dueling with MMT as our
trusty rapier of keen edged economic wit, leading us to win debate after debate until the public
cries out, "I get it already." If we can make Krugman look like the gold studded, shredded and
deflated pin cushion he truly is, that makes a Bernie presidency all worth it in my view.
But I do have this nagging thought occasionally. I generally trust Bernie, as far as that goes
with politicians. Then again I'm not sure he will let Steph be White House Economic Advisor with
full control over the budget. (That's sounds like something Trump would do?) He might just give
her the job because he's really a dirty old man and Steph is waaay cuter than Larry Summers. Not
that I have anything against dirty old men – I've always wanted to be one someday – but I can't
help thinking that's what might be going on there.
It would be pretty cool to have a hot Treasury Secretary. When she hands out all the money
it'll almost be glamorous. What can the republicans say to that? What can old white guys who can't
even jog, let alone lift weights in the gym like a stud (OK, maybe Paul Ryan can do that, but
most of them can't), say about a hot woman handing out money other than "Whoa! Thanks!". Anything
they say that's critical will backfire.
I'm a Believer
I thought social justice was a fairy tale
Pork for the rich, but not for me
DC was out to get me
That's the way it seemed
Disappointment haunted all of my dreams
But she found budget space, now I'm a believer
Not a trace of doubt in my mind
I've got a job, and I'm a believer
I'm not watchin' Leave it to Beaver, gettin' fried. (that line is pretty bad, but I have to work)
I dunno know about Treasury Secretary. I think Steph would be better off playing the Feminist
Card and ward off that job. Firstly, the title should be Treasury Executive Facilitator. But even
after fixing that obvious slight the republicans would say, "This is better than a strip club.
I don't need to bring any money and I leave rich!"
Then there are all those Goldman staffers there. Steph would be getting pinched in the butt
all the time because that's where Hank Paulson and Tim Geithner kept their wallets. That would
be bad.
I think I saw somewhere that Davy Jones is considering going on tour again. It is the year
of the monkey.
There's actually a good book called "Adam's Fallacy", which unpacks what I'd call 'give upism',
a new term.
As in, "I have to have a social conscience? Be accountable to others? I give up."
As in, "I have to account for money accurately, not by bullish!t like 'mark to market'? I give
up."
The way that Adam Smith dodged personal responsibility was to end up saying, "Whoa, all those
hands all moving together become Invisible, and every man for himself will just inevitability
end up creating The Greatest Good for The Greatest Number. Ergo, no one needs to have a social
conscience or worry about morality, because as this sucker scales, it'll all work out."
IOW, Adam Smith suffered a severe case of 'give upism'.
I'm all for pressuring particularly embarrassing acts in the corporate media.
But I think the context is important. The NYT isn't some great example of journalism dealing
with a rogue economist. It is at the heart of what is wrong with our corporate media, a state
of affairs that has been developing over the course of decades now. We are approaching the two
decade mark now of when all public comments opposed media consolidation yet the bipartisan effort
in DC and NY pushed for it anyway. The problem isn't Krugman. The problem is that the whole system
is rotten.
Which really does explain the appeal of Sanders and Trump, both candidates were under estimated
– inferior, doncha know. Outside Krugmans pecking order so to speak.
The question I have is this: what happens to Hillary Clinton if she loses the nomination? I
don't see her showing up in either a Sanders or a Trump White House.
I'm actually a digital subscriber to the NYTimes, as well as the Seattle Times.
I could make a pretty strong argument that, at least on the civic level in a large metro area,
having a family-owned paper is incredibly important – particularly now.
But rather than simply bashing the MSM, a la that heartless cur Sarah Palin, we just need to
hold them to higher standards.
One of my kids works in what used to be the newspaper industry.
She works her ass off, as does every person in her group, as near as I can tell.
So I've seen this thing from a different angle than many around here.
The NYT is a special case, and shall bear the shame of Judy Miller's help getting us into Iraq,
to say nothing of the outing of a CIA agent, to their everlasting shame. Trust me when I say that
I fully understand the frustration and hostility that I think your comment represents.
But that does not automatically make every employee of the NYT guilty.
And with the NYT totally discredited, doesn't that leave us with too few outlets? After all, Murdock
has bought up so much 'media property' that if we don't have some other large entity to pay people
to research, then we are basically leaving ourselves defenseless.
I believe that a key part of the problem is the shifting economics of digitization.
According to my daughter, the newspapers make about 1/20th off digital ads that they used to make
off print ads, including the personals. Try supporting family-wage jobs, and keeping people who
know a city's history, cops, politicos, businesses, etc employed when your major cash income has
dropped to 1/20th of what you used to generate - AND at the same time, you have to buy all new
equipment, try to find web developers (which puts you in vicious competition with the tech companies
that pay verrrry well), and you have a lot of aging people in the Murdock demo (65+) who still
want print, while you are madly trying to grab the 'iPhone/Android' generation, which you can
pretty much only reach on mobiles - and you have to compete with Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter,
and the web for their attention.
For heaven's sake, I understand the anger behind how badly the NYT screwed up, and the WaPo
editorial board is a hopeless pack of neocon shills. I get it. It's why I personally spend the
bulk of my time on blogs, and have for about a decade.
But I would argue that what we really need is to have the NYT allow Friedman to have a counter
OpEd to Krugman's. We should ask, politely but clearly, that they allow Kellman to have an OpEd,
or Jamie Galbreith, or other 'non-neolib' economists have some space in their OpEds in large part
to build their credibility, but also b/c the whole topic of new economic thinking is fizzing,
bubbling over, and effervescent at this historical moment.
As a digital subscriber, I feel that I'm in a much better position to politely say that I expect
a wider range of views, and I expect Friedman to have some space - at least online, where it won't
cost them much to publish his rebuttal, or Bill Black's. Otherwise, I'm just one more whiner harassing
a publication that did fire that heartless bitch Judy Miller, and often has some interesting coverage.
I don't want the baby thrown out with the bathwater - I want the baby to be healthy!
The NYT has put a ton of effort into info graphics and data-base driven analytics, (as had
the Economist and FT), and frankly I believe those things provide one hell of a value! (I know
something about this from a technical end, and it is no simple cakewalk to create the stuff they
are providing even to non-subscribers.)
We need good sources of information, and bashing the sh!t out of people who have been through
20 years of layoffs, despite working their asses off, does not solve problems and does not push
back at the Murdocks or Palin's of the world.
Earlier, I mentioned the Seattle Times: it is owned by the Blethen Family (sp?).
IIRC, they sold off over $100,000,000 in assets in order to hang on to the Seattle Times. They've
had to expand their personnel to include developers, and now mobile developers and in a town with
a lot of big tech companies, that is no simple task. Do I always agree with them? Nope.
Do I always have time to read them? Nope.
But I admire the hell out of anyone trying to keep a media business afloat in the communications
shifts that we are undergoing. Anyone with enough guts to sell off other assets so that they can
try to really, really improve the information to the public should be given some benefit of doubt
IMHO.
I think they're gutsy as hell, and it's worth 10 bucks a month to me to watch what they can do.
Because of what they are doing, the Seattle area is one of the last regions left with an independent
newspaper, and that in this day and age has the potential to be a tremendous Public Good.
The problem in the US is that the cretans in Congress and the Reagan administration let too
much media be consolidated, and that was just before the economics of digitization upended *everything*.
My daughter could tell you stories from the ad agency side of things, about newspaper reporters
having to go home to check out their new web pages, because their employers could not afford to
upgrade their computers and software so that people could sit at the workplace and see the new
updates. Newspapers that were told by huge ad agencies just how much Verizon or AT&T would pay
for **full page** ads - basically, Verizon, AT&T, and other advertisers screwed former newspaper
reporters out of their jobs, because the ad agencies had scale, they had power, and the newspapers
were in 'take it or leave it' territory with absolutely no economic power. So they might run the
full page ad, but that meant laying off the reporter who covered city hall.
So yes, it is easy to bash the NYT and I share some of the frustration,
I have to double-check my NC contribution to try and give as much to NC as I give to the NYT,
because I spend about 8 minutes here for every minute that I spend at NYT.
But in my case, bashing them just makes me feel like I'm in the gutter with Sarah Palin, and
that's no solution.
The solution is to get them to publish Friedman's response.
The solution is to get them to publish more economics, and explain that we are undergoing shifts
that have not happened for 300 years in terms of economic thinking - so it needs more focus now.
BTW: McClatchy (which is the old Knight-Ridder network) sometimes has very good economic reporting.
(Personally, I like their iPhone app and I use it most days.) They own a lot of the smaller metro
newspapers: Boise, Sacramento… so they have a nation-wide perspective and 'eyes on the ground'
in lots of places. You may want to check them out.
This is so ugly. It also says much about our political economy; in the feudalistic cottage
industry that is people who work for or want to work for or want something from Hillary, you get
the feeling that this type of mean-spiritedness is incentivized. I hope Bernie's revolution means
Krugman's legacy gets swept into the same dustbin that people toss Thomas Friedman columns in.
I wouldn't be surprised if a Bernie win or even strong showing causes the bean counters at
organizations such as the NYT to question the salaries of certain pundits. Couldn't the NYT get
the same results for less money with the non-union Mexican equivalent of Krugman, senor Krugmano?
Could Friedman's University sue Krugman and the Gang of Four on Friedman's behalf?
Could Friedman's Department and University advance a plausible theory whereby libeling and slandering
Friedman is libeling and slandering his department and his University by extension . . . and thereby
allowing them to sue on their own behalf?
"One of the most striking things about much culture in America is the simple meanness of
it… There is also a culture of punching down… America has a high violence, high bullying society…
Kick down, kiss up, because failure to pucker up can have you thrown out of the charmed circle,
and obviously higher-ups want to see you acting like them, imitation being the most sincere form
of flattery."
Thanks much for the attention to this. I'm always curious when the ever so rational throw rationality
out the window. At such times, what's really going on? Why the sudden switch from studious Vulcan
to Klingon in heat?
For those writing to the public editor, the headlines of the 2/17 blog posts are "Worried Wonks"
(10:44) and What has the Wonks Worried" (12:44). The headline of the 2/19 op-ed is "Varieties
of Voodoo."
Re. Krugman, "This is unworthy of him." - Not at all. While it is indeed unworthy of a reasonable
person seeking to engage in fact-based – which includes the critical 'recognizing what the assumptions
and limitations of the analyses are' components – discourse about critical policy issues facing
the nation and the world, it is par for the course for an insufferably smug establishment insider
who is enjoying a cushy sinecure making full use of what is perhaps the world's greatest economic
media bully pulpit via his lofty perch as the NYT's pet in-house economic-policy wonk. After all,
back in the day Krugman (in)famously was a paid shill for the 'fabulous new-economic business
model' (do a web search for 'paul krugman enron may 24 1999 fortune.com"' and ye shall find the
original) of none other than Enron.
Here is the deliciously-savorable money snip from the aforementioned
corporate-mouthpiecing:
The retreat of business bureaucracy in the face of the market was brought home to me recently
when I joined the advisory board at Enron–a company formed in the '80s by the merger of two
pipeline operators. In the old days energy companies tried to be as vertically integrated as
possible: to own the hydrocarbons in the ground, the gas pump, and everything in between. And
Enron does own gas fields, pipelines, and utilities. But it is not, and does not try to be,
vertically integrated: It buys and sells gas both at the wellhead and the destination, leases
pipeline (and electrical-transmission) capacity both to and from other companies, buys and
sells electricity, and in general acts more like a broker and market maker than a traditional
corporation. It's sort of like the difference between your father's bank, which took money
from its regular depositors and lent it out to its regular customers, and Goldman Sachs. Sure
enough, the company's pride and joy is a room filled with hundreds of casually dressed men
and women staring at computer screens and barking into telephones, where cubic feet and megawatts
are traded and packaged as if they were financial derivatives. (Instead of CNBC, though, the
television screens on the floor show the Weather Channel.) The whole scene looks as if it had
been constructed to illustrate the end of the corporation as we knew it.
What happened to the man in the gray flannel suit? No doubt he was partly a victim of sex
(er, I mean gender) and drugs and rock & roll–that is, of social change. He was also a victim
of information technology, which ended up deconstructing instead of reinforcing the corporation.
But probably the biggest force has been a change in ideology, the shift to pro-market policies.
It's not that government has vanished from the marketplace. It's still a good guess that in
a completely unregulated phone market, long-distance companies would buy up local-access companies
and deny their customers the right to connect to rivals, and that the evil empire–or at least
monopoly capitalism–would rise again. However, what we have instead in a growing number of
markets–phones, gas, electricity today, probably computer operating systems and high-speed
Net access tomorrow–is a combination of deregulation that lets new competitors enter and "common
carrier" regulation that prevents middlemen from playing favorites, making freewheeling markets
possible.
Who would have thunk it? The millennial economy turns out to look more like Adam Smith's
vision–or better yet, that of the Victorian economist Alfred Marshall–than the corporatist
future predicted by generations of corporate pundits. Get those old textbooks out of the attic:
they're more relevant than ever.
*That* sure as hell wasn't unworthy of him … why would a ruthless attempt to argue from authority
and shout down a dissenting voice from a mere lesser non-faux-bel-prized mortal be?
Anyone who has had the misfortune to spend any time at Krugman's NYT blog knows that any dissent
is ruthlessly excised, leaving it a pristine echo chamber for the singing of its owner's praises.
NC is doing exactly the right thing in forcefully attempting to drag this pampered economic royal
out of his gilded carriage and into the sunlight.
Moderate Syrian rebels should be supplied with surface-to-air missiles to defend against air strikes,
Germany weekly Der Spiegel quoted Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir as saying.
The rebels are under attack from both the Syrian air force and Russian strikes. Jubeir said providing
them with the rockets would "enable the moderate opposition to neutralize the regime's helicopters
and planes".
Al-Jubeir repeated his calls for Syrian president Bashar al-Assad to step down in order to enable
a political solution to the five-year-long war.
"The other option is that the war goes on and Assad is being defeated," al-Jubeir said.
At least 250,000 people have been killed, 11 million made homeless and hundreds of thousands have
fled to Europe since the conflict began in 2011.
Riyadh was still ready to support the U.S.-led coalition against the militant group Islamic State
(IS) with special forces on the ground, he said.
Al-Jubeir rejected any similarities between the Islamist extremist group and Saudi-Arabia's national,
conservative interpretation of Islam, the Wahhabism.
"IS is about as Islamic as the Ku-Klux-Klan is Christian," al-Jubeir said.
"... Dutch investigators think it might take ten years to prosecute the guilty parties. Also, there are no satellite images , [note the wording], because it was cloudy on the day of the disaster. Apparently the procedure is this: The Dutch secret services MIVD can get a briefing from their American counterparts. If the Dutch MIVD then makes a report of these briefings it can be used as evidence. ..."
"... The West claims that there are no satellite images. Is this a weasel-worded statement? No pictures = no optical satellite pictures. Word by word true, but they conveniently dont mention the radar-based or SIGNINT satellite recordings? ..."
"... But there were also many radar-based satellites. ..."
"... The US military has two systems for high resolution radar IMINT: the Lacrosse (ONYX) system of which currently only one satellite, Lacrosse 5 (2005-016A) is left on-orbit, and the radar component of the Future Imagery Architecture (known as TOPAZ), consisting of three satellites: FIA Radar 1, 2 and 3 (2010-046A, 2012-014A and 2013-072A). These systems should be capable of providing imagery with sub-meter resolutions, and like optical imagery, they can be used to look for the presence of missile systems in the area. They have the added bonus that they are not hampered by cloud cover, unlike optical imagery. ..."
"... Given what was happening in the area around this time, and the strong concern of NATO and the EU about this, it is almost certain that imagery of the area was collected by these US, German and French satellite systems. ..."
"... Just when you think that Yahoo is a shit-river of lies, they run this story… and from the Boston Globe! ..."
"... Americans are said to be ignorant of the world. We are, but so are people in other countries. If people in Bhutan or Bolivia misunderstand Syria, however, that has no real effect. Our ignorance is more dangerous, because we act on it. The United States has the power to decree the death of nations. – quote from the above referenced article. ..."
Dutch investigators think it might take ten years to prosecute the guilty parties. Also,
there are no satellite images , [note the wording], because it was cloudy on the day of the disaster.
Apparently the procedure is this: The Dutch secret services MIVD can get a briefing from their
American counterparts. If the Dutch MIVD then makes a report of these briefings it can be used
as evidence. They also have 5 billion webpages to cherry pick from.
The West claims that there are no satellite images. Is this a weasel-worded statement?
No pictures = no optical satellite pictures. Word by word true, but they conveniently don't mention
the radar-based or SIGNINT satellite recordings?
But there were also many radar-based satellites. From the article:
2. Radar IMINT
The US military has two systems for high resolution radar IMINT: the Lacrosse (ONYX) system
of which currently only one satellite, Lacrosse 5 (2005-016A) is left on-orbit, and the
radar component of the Future Imagery Architecture (known as TOPAZ), consisting of three satellites:
FIA Radar 1, 2 and 3 (2010-046A, 2012-014A and 2013-072A). These systems should
be capable of providing imagery with sub-meter resolutions, and like optical imagery, they can
be used to look for the presence of missile systems in the area. They have the added bonus that
they are not hampered by cloud cover, unlike optical imagery.
Apart from the USA, the German military also operates a radar satellite system, the SAR-Lupe
satellites. The French military likewise operates its own radar satellite system, the Hélios
system. Japan operates the IGS system (which includes both optical and radar satellite
versions).
All of these satellites made passes over the Ukraine at one time or another on July 17 2014,
so all of them might have provided useful imagery. FIA Radar 3 made a pass right over the
area in question near 11:43 UT for example, some 1.5 hours before the tragedy. FIA Radar 2
made a pass over the area at 18:00 UT, 4.5 hours after the shootdown. These are just a few
examples.
Given what was happening in the area around this time, and the strong concern of NATO and
the EU about this, it is almost certain that imagery of the area was collected by these US, German
and French satellite systems.
The article has more interesting information about these satellites.
'Americans are said to be ignorant of the world. We are, but so are people in other countries.
If people in Bhutan or Bolivia misunderstand Syria, however, that has no real effect. Our ignorance
is more dangerous, because we act on it. The United States has the power to decree the death of
nations. " – quote from the above referenced article.
"... Equality in America has been falling since 1980's, real terms median income falling since 1999. Black or white, America was a more equal more livable place 20-30 years ago. ..."
"... You should speak for yourself. Look at the economic data for American GDP, Inequality and real terms household income. The economy used to work better for the average American. Rising income trends have been reversed by globalisation and automation, not by increasing diversity. Why should American voters trust mainstream candidates who simply repeat the same failed messages they have stuck to for the last generation? ..."
"... median household incomes in America peaked (in real terms) around 1999 and inequality has been rising since 1980. The drivers of this are automation and globalisation, not increasing diversity. ..."
"... Yeah, my family has white privilege- write a play about this. My great-great grandfather served two enlistments in the northern army of the Civil war to free the slaves. Lucky for him, he survived and I got to be born 90 years later. Many of his friends died and their entire future family line got cut off. I dare say that tens of millions of white Americans never got to be born, because their kin fought and died in the Civil war to free the slaves. I don't think blacks today appreciate the blood sacrifice that was made by northern whites to free them. ..."
"... The Southern Baptist church attended by millions of African-Americans, with its traditional, creationist, homophobic platform, is far more representative of African-American culture than is the select group of playwrights listed in the article. ..."
It took how many years to come up with the appalling misconception that blue collar steel workers
benefited from any type of "supremacy" unless you believe that having a job that pays enough to
put a roof over your family's heads and food on the table should be beyond the reach of all but
a selected few....Blue collar workers have only ever aspired to keeping their kids in school as
long as possible and neither they nor their kids ever had any designs on a college education.
Word hard, pay the bills, retire, and die within five years. I don't know in what world that translates
to white privelege or advantage, especially when they worked with African Americans and Latinos.
Now politicians promise every child a college education. If you can't understand the difference
between this generation that has been told the world is their oyster and the ones who worked in
the Steel mills for generations and knew what their kids could look forward, knew that college
was beyond the modest aspirations of their kids and their grandkids you didn't ask the right questions
or the right people and the result is an ideologically driven mess of race baiting, sexist claptrap.
Get used to being called on your bullsh*t. We all need to check our privilege when we write about
race. Talk about entitlement.
The tough part for me is constantly hearing about what the President did or didn't do. The US
government is structured specifically to limit the actions of the executive branch. The conditions
of the economic disaster were exacerbated by the unparalleled obstructionism of the opposition
party and the lack of support from the president's own party. If Democrats had been willing to
oppose a sitting president back in '03 we might have avoided a bankrupting war that still has
not ended.
Not really. Equality in America has been falling since 1980's, real terms median income falling
since 1999. Black or white, America was a more equal more livable place 20-30 years ago.
For sure it was better to be white then black but since you can never really measure the extent
of white privilege on your own life, how can you have nostalgia for it?
The writer claims that current political events are being shaped by a chimaera she can provide
no evidence for and ignoring the very real changes that could be driving the political shifts
toward more radical candidates.
You should speak for yourself. Look at the economic data for American GDP, Inequality and
real terms household income. The economy used to work better for the average American. Rising
income trends have been reversed by globalisation and automation, not by increasing diversity.
Why should American voters trust mainstream candidates who simply repeat the same failed messages
they have stuck to for the last generation?
Trump is insane, of course, but voting for Hillary or Cruz is equally insane for most of middle
America. They would effectively be voting to see their incomes go down and to fall further behind
the wealthiest. Why is that a good decision?
For sure there is nostalgia: nostalgia for the time when middle class incomes were enough to provide
a decent lifestyle, were expected to rise and provide enough to pay for your kids to get a decent
education. The writer then frames this as nostalgia for white privilege, but I have to question
that. Surely the expectation was that as discrimination was rolled back, ethnic minorities would
start to come up and equalise their incomes with the white population. After all, that is what
every mainstream politician promised would happen. But median household incomes in America
peaked (in real terms) around 1999 and inequality has been rising since 1980. The drivers of this
are automation and globalisation, not increasing diversity.
And *every* US president and political party has dissembled on this point. Every time, the
promise is the same - we can get back to the rising incomes and increasing equality of the last
century. And every time, nothing of the sort is delivered.
So if there is nostalgia, it not only has a very real basis in fact, but is a nostalgia for
a time when economic gains were distributed more equally, not a nostalgia for a time when white
privilege (whatever that means) was a greater force.
Sanders and Trump both represent a break from politicians and messages that have palpably failed
to deliver. The voters put up with being lied to for some time but their patience has run out.
Of course Trump can be portrayed as an out and out racist, so its easy to say - well his support
is based on race politics. I have no doubt that many do support him for that reason. But the wider
picture is this:
The American voters feel they have been lied to by established politicians and are now looking
for alternatives. If they have nostalgia for times past, that is founded not on a dream of white
supremacy, but founded on a recollection of times when the economy did work better for the majority.
Yeah, my family has white privilege- write a play about this. My great-great grandfather served
two enlistments in the northern army of the Civil war to free the slaves. Lucky for him, he survived
and I got to be born 90 years later. Many of his friends died and their entire future family line
got cut off. I dare say that tens of millions of white Americans never got to be born, because
their kin fought and died in the Civil war to free the slaves. I don't think blacks today appreciate
the blood sacrifice that was made by northern whites to free them.
They now realize their automatic entitlement to being consequential is gone
What the hell are you talking about? My father didn't have any damn " entitlement to
being consequential". He worked his heart out for it, day in and out, and I was proud to do it
alongside him.
Maybe instead of just applying a racist take on perspective, why not think about what you write
first? And why is it that every time - every. single. time - this topic comes up that someone
widens the gap of guilt to the entirety of white people generally? Where's the border for you?
Canada? The UK? Latvia? What is enough of a geographic guilt complex for your needs? Let us know.
The Southern Baptist church attended by millions of African-Americans, with its traditional,
creationist, homophobic platform, is far more representative of African-American culture than
is the select group of playwrights listed in the article.
the fact that the more academically qualified white female has less chance of getting a place
in harvard than a wealthy African-American, is hardly the fault of African Americans or any form
of reverse racism, it s the fault of first Harvard being a private university that caters to economic
elites, the lack of funding in education and that education is handled at the local level, so
funding and quality depend greatly on the education level of the local community and how wealthy
they are. This perpetuates inequalities. Still, if you put this hypothetical white female from
Harlan County in nice clothes and send her to a fancy mall, together with an equally well dressed
young black woman, who do you think security will follow?
There are also studies where equal CV were sent to potential employers, with the only difference
being white, latino, asian or African American sounding names, and the white sounding names were
picked more often, everything else being equal.
It is time that you realize that racism is a real thing and no, working class whites 't doing
poorly because of minorities, they are doing poorly (together with minorities) because of the
economic system. Unless of course, you think that whites should do better, because, well, they
are whites. The later is what I think the nostalgia is all about, 50 years ago white would have
had an edge over minorities that today no longer have in most places.
This woman is so so wise and enlightened that that her extreme intellect has crossed the line
on insanity. Liberals like her will do their best to herd the rest of us into believing that only
white working class men are attracted to people like trump and it's only because they are racists.
No no lady bone head.
First of all, you and your elitists, pompous and supposed educated comrades need to stop using
the race card overtime you find someone you disagree with. Secondly, Trump has attracted the attention
on a multitude of people across all facets of our society and it's not because we are racists,
it't because he at least vocalizes, inspire of all of your absurd PC proclamations, facts that
the majority of us Americans know and see each day.
By the way, I am an American with brown skin who's ancestry is African and I appreciate most
of what Trump espouses. So please stop trying to make the rest of us fear and hate white working
class men just because you've fantasized about their hatred toward you. You and your kind (elitists
liberals) will no longer lead me down the path of destruction.
Exactly, all the places that hit rock bottom during the crack epidemic are on their way up now
just in time to start attracting people back from the suburban and peri-urban sprawl with its
body and soul weakening car dependent isolation.
Cities like New York and DC are way ahead of surrounding areas in providing public services
and creating sustainable buildings plus car-less ways of getting around.
While we would be the first
to admit that Jeffrey Sachs was the godfather of "shock therapy" (aka "the economic rape of Russia"
and several other xUSSR republics), he is right as for the ongoing Syria bloodbath which has come to
define the geopolitical situation for the past 3 years. And how this is an event that would "surely
rival Watergate in shaking the foundations of the US establishment" if the truth were fully known, we
agree 100 percent.
Notable quotes:
"... Clinton bears heavy responsibility for that carnage, which has by now displaced more than 10 million Syrians and left more than 250,000 dead. ..."
"... As every knowledgeable observer understands, the Syrian War is not mostly about Bashar al-Assad, or even about Syria itself. It is mostly a proxy war, about Iran. And the bloodbath is doubly tragic and misguided for that reason. ..."
"... Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the leading Sunni powers in the Middle East, view Iran, the leading Shia power, as a regional rival for power and influence. Right-wing Israelis view Iran as an implacable foe that controls Hezbollah, a Shi'a militant group operating in Lebanon, a border state of Israel. Thus, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel have all clamored to remove Iran's influence in Syria. ..."
"... And Israeli right-wingers are naïve, and deeply ignorant of history, to regard Iran as their implacable foe, especially when that mistaken view pushes Israel to side with Sunni jihadists. ..."
"... Yet Clinton did not pursue that route. Instead she joined Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and right-wing Israelis to try to isolate, even defeat, Iran. In 2010, she supported secret negotiations between Israel and Syria to attempt to wrest Syria from Iran's influence. Those talks failed. Then the CIA and Clinton pressed successfully for Plan B: to overthrow Assad. ..."
"... When the unrest of the Arab Spring broke out in early 2011, the CIA and the anti-Iran front of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey saw an opportunity to topple Assad quickly and thereby to gain a geopolitical victory. Clinton became the leading proponent of the CIA-led effort at Syrian regime change. ..."
"... Clinton has been much more than a bit player in the Syrian crisis. Her diplomat Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi was killed as he was running a CIA operation to ship Libyan heavy weapons to Syria. Clinton herself took the lead role in organizing the so-called "Friends of Syria" to back the CIA-led insurgency. ..."
"... This instrument of U.S. foreign policy has not only been in stark violation of international law but has also been a massive and repeated failure. Rather than a single, quick, and decisive coup d'état resolving a US foreign policy problem, each CIA-led regime change has been, almost inevitably, a prelude to a bloodbath. How could it be otherwise? Other societies don't like their countries to be manipulated by U.S. covert operations. ..."
"... And where is the establishment media in this debacle? The New York Times finally covered a bit of this story last month in describing the CIA-Saudi connection , in which Saudi funds are used to pay for CIA operations in order to make an end-run around Congress and the American people. The story ran once and was dropped. Yet the Saudi funding of CIA operations is the same basic tactic used by Ronald Reagan and Oliver North in the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s (with Iranian arms sales used to fund CIA-led covert operations in Central America without consent or oversight by the American people). ..."
"... Clinton herself has never shown the least reservation or scruples in deploying this instrument of U.S. foreign policy. Her record of avid support for US-led regime change includes (but is not limited to) the US bombing of Belgrade in 1999, the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the Iraq War in 2003, the Honduran coup in 2009, the killing of Libya's Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, and the CIA-coordinated insurrection against Assad from 2011 until today. ..."
"... Many historians believe that JFK was assassinated as a result of his peace overtures to the Soviet Union, overture he made against the objections of hardline rightwing opposition in the CIA and other parts of the U.S. government. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton has never shown an iota of bravery, or even of comprehension, in facing down the CIA She has been the CIA's relentless supporter, and has exulted in showing her toughness by supporting every one of its misguided operations. The failures, of course, are relentlessly hidden from view. Clinton is a danger to global peace. She has much to answer for regarding the disaster in Syria. ..."
"... She is totally unqualified, a disaster of a secretary of state, has incredibly poor judgement is a terrible candidate and should never be allowed to serve in any government capacity - EVER. ..."
"... Well said. Hillary is a warmonger neocon just like Bush/McCain/Graham/Cheney. Trump and Bernie are not. ..."
"... Pundits do not realize when they heap praises at Hillary Clinton's debate performances that ordinary people watching cannot get past her lack of trustworthiness and her dishonesty; and that whatever she says is viewed in that context and is therefore worthless. ..."
"... It's dismaying that the blowback from the 1953 CIA-assisted overthrow of Mossadegh is still behind the instability of the Middle East, and that we have continued to commit the same mistakes over and over. Can't we just get rid of this agency? ..."
"... The CIA repeated this stunt in Vietnam 10 years after the Mossadegh mess and have been doing it at least once every decade since then. In every case, it has been a failure. How supporting that nonsense is seen as foreign policy experience, I'll never know. ..."
"... Hillary helped facilitate the arming of terrorists in Syria in 2010 and 2011. She as far as I al concerned, Hillary supported the deaths of Syrians and terrorism. So why on earth would I want her to be president? Hello? ..."
"... More like a continuance of a disaster deferred. Thanks to John Kerry cleaning up the mess of her disastrous term as SoS. Syria is still a mess, but he has been working his butt off to be every bit of diplomat that Hillary was not. ..."
"... she was for an all out invasion by the USA into Syria to remove Assad. She, John McCain, and Linsey Graham had to settle for just arming the Al Queda and IS for the time being. ..."
"... Clinton, Obama, Bush, etc DC corruption used to bring down regimes that have continually destabilized America & the world. ..."
"... Where & Why was Obama & Holder not as directly held accountable in this discussion. Trump rightfully points that Americans have died for nothing yet the villains who are the catalysts of these atrocities still have jobs & stature in US. America needs to be rebooted once again & bring in leadership not buoyed by greed. power & indifference of those before him. ..."
"... The problem here really is the fact that Americans bitch and don't vote every election and this has let money just walk in and buy more influence, you want a real revolution, ..."
"... That is about it, Clinton is a repub in dem clothing and the US is the biggest threat to world peace when it can not get its way in another countries politics or to get them to follow the US master plan that mainly supports the US's goal. ..."
"... what makes her so maddeningly hawkish? what credentials she has that her peace-loving supporters believe that she can lead the US/world for peace? wake-up, and let's get united behind bernie. ..."
"... They believe the mythology that if women ruled the world it would be a better place...I beg to differ....Margaret Thatcher, Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I were not exactly peace lovers... ..."
"... years ago I was shocked to see that there were women members of the KKK. So much for women by their gender alone saving the world. ..."
"... But let us not forget Hillary Clinton's "regime change" record in Ukraine with Victoria "Fuc# the E.U.!" Nuland, wife of Neocon Robert Kagan and an Under Secretary of Hillary Clinton's at The State Department. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton's fingerprints are all over Ukraine: ..."
"... Yes, Somehow the so-called MSM refuses to expose the continuing debacle of our worldwide acts of Terrorism! The failure after failure of "our" military establishment such as targeted assassinations ..."
"... Further it is American war industry in partnership with our military that is arming the world with military grade weapon systems, tons and tons of munitions, and training to use them for such terror weapons as IEDs. It is MSM control by the establishment that enables the failures of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Obama, Clinton to treat horrendous failures as successes! ..."
"... Hillary Clinton supporters don't care, they don't care that she could be a felon nor do they care she is owned by Wall Street and many other corporate special interest, they just don't care. ..."
"... Up here in New Hampshire, we soundly rejected untrustworthy, dishonest, disingenuous and corrupt Hillary, we just wish the rest of the nation had as much time to get to know the candidates as we had up here! ..."
In the
Milwaukee debate, Hillary Clinton took pride in her role in a recent UN Security Council resolution
on a Syrian ceasefire:
But I would add this. You know, the Security Council finally got around to adopting a resolution.
At the core of that resolution is an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva, which set
forth a cease-fire and moving toward a political resolution, trying to bring the parties at stake
in Syria together.
This is the kind of compulsive misrepresentation that makes Clinton unfit to be President. Clinton's
role in Syria has been to help instigate and prolong the Syrian bloodbath, not to bring it to a close.
In 2012, Clinton was the obstacle, not the solution, to a ceasefire being negotiated by UN Special
Envoy Kofi Annan. It was US intransigence - Clinton's intransigence - that led to the failure of
Annan's peace efforts in the spring of 2012, a point well known among diplomats. Despite Clinton's
insinuation in the Milwaukee debate, there was (of course) no 2012 ceasefire, only escalating carnage.
Clinton bears heavy responsibility for that carnage, which has by now displaced more than 10
million Syrians and left more than 250,000 dead.
As every knowledgeable observer understands, the Syrian War is not mostly about Bashar al-Assad,
or even about Syria itself. It is mostly a proxy war, about Iran. And the bloodbath is doubly tragic
and misguided for that reason.
Saudi Arabia and Turkey, the leading Sunni powers in the Middle East, view Iran, the leading
Shia power, as a regional rival for power and influence. Right-wing Israelis view Iran as an implacable
foe that controls Hezbollah, a Shi'a militant group operating in Lebanon, a border state of Israel.
Thus, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Israel have all clamored to remove Iran's influence in Syria.
This idea is incredibly naïve. Iran has been around as a regional power for a long time--in fact,
for about 2,700 years. And Shia Islam is not going away. There is no way, and no reason, to "defeat"
Iran. The regional powers need to forge a geopolitical equilibrium that recognizes the mutual and
balancing roles of the Gulf Arabs, Turkey, and Iran. And Israeli right-wingers are naïve, and
deeply ignorant of history, to regard Iran as their implacable foe, especially when that mistaken
view pushes Israel to side with Sunni jihadists.
Yet Clinton did not pursue that route. Instead she joined Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and right-wing
Israelis to try to isolate, even defeat, Iran. In 2010, she supported secret negotiations between
Israel and Syria
to attempt to wrest Syria from Iran's influence. Those talks failed. Then the CIA and Clinton
pressed successfully for Plan B: to overthrow Assad.
When the unrest of the Arab Spring broke out in early 2011, the CIA and the anti-Iran front
of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey saw an opportunity to topple Assad quickly and thereby to gain
a geopolitical victory. Clinton became the leading proponent of the CIA-led effort at Syrian regime
change.
In early 2011, Turkey and Saudi Arabia leveraged local protests against Assad to try to foment
conditions for his ouster. By the spring of 2011, the CIA and the US allies were organizing an armed
insurrection against the regime. On August 18, 2011, the US Government
made public
its position: "Assad must go."
Since then and until the
recent fragile UN Security Council accord, the US has refused to agree to any ceasefire unless
Assad is first deposed. The US policy--under Clinton and until recently--has been: regime change
first, ceasefire after. After all, it's only Syrians who are dying. Annan's peace efforts were sunk
by the United States' unbending insistence that U.S.-led regime change must precede or at least accompany
a ceasefire. As the
Nation editors
put it in August 2012:
The US demand that Assad be removed and sanctions be imposed before negotiations could seriously
begin, along with the refusal to include Iran in the process, doomed [Annan's] mission.
The U.S. policy was a massive, horrific failure. Assad did not go, and was not defeated. Russia
came to his support. Iran came to his support. The mercenaries sent in to overthrow him were themselves
radical jihadists with their own agendas. The chaos opened the way for the Islamic State, building
on disaffected Iraqi Army leaders (deposed by the US in 2003), on captured U.S. weaponry, and on
the considerable backing by Saudi funds. If the truth were fully known, the multiple scandals
involved would surely rival Watergate in shaking the foundations of the US establishment.
The hubris of the United States in this approach seems to know no bounds. The tactic of CIA-led
regime change is so deeply enmeshed as a "normal" instrument of U.S. foreign policy that it is hardly
noticed by the U.S. public or media. Overthrowing another government is against the U.N. charter
and international law. But what are such niceties among friends?
This instrument of U.S. foreign policy has not only been in stark violation of international
law but has also been a massive and repeated failure. Rather than a single, quick, and decisive coup
d'état resolving a US foreign policy problem, each CIA-led regime change has been, almost inevitably,
a prelude to a bloodbath. How could it be otherwise? Other societies don't like their countries to
be manipulated by U.S. covert operations.
Removing a leader, even if done "successfully," doesn't solve any underlying geopolitical problems,
much less ecological, social, or economic ones. A coup d'etat invites a civil war, the kind that
now wracks Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. It invites a hostile international response, such
as Russia's backing of its Syrian ally in the face of the CIA-led operations. The record of misery
caused by covert CIA operations literally fills volumes at this point. What surprise, then, the Clinton
acknowledges Henry Kissinger as a mentor and guide?
And where is the establishment media in this debacle? The New York Times finally covered a
bit of this story last month in
describing the CIA-Saudi connection, in which Saudi funds are used to pay for CIA operations
in order to make an end-run around Congress and the American people. The story ran once and was dropped.
Yet the Saudi funding of CIA operations is the same basic tactic used by Ronald Reagan and Oliver
North in the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s (with Iranian arms sales used to fund CIA-led covert
operations in Central America without consent or oversight by the American people).
Clinton herself has never shown the least reservation or scruples in deploying this instrument
of U.S. foreign policy. Her record of avid support for US-led regime change includes (but is not
limited to) the US bombing of Belgrade in 1999, the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the Iraq War
in 2003, the Honduran coup in 2009, the killing of Libya's Muammar Qaddafi in 2011, and the CIA-coordinated
insurrection against Assad from 2011 until today.
It takes great presidential leadership to resist CIA misadventures. Presidents get along by going
along with arms contractors, generals, and CIA operatives. They thereby also protect themselves from
political attack by hardline right-wingers. They succeed by exulting in U.S. military might, not
restraining it. Many historians believe that JFK was assassinated as a result of his peace overtures
to the Soviet Union, overture he made against the objections of hardline rightwing opposition in
the CIA and other parts of the U.S. government.
Hillary Clinton has never shown an iota of bravery, or even of comprehension, in facing down
the CIA She has been the CIA's relentless supporter, and has exulted in showing her toughness by
supporting every one of its misguided operations. The failures, of course, are relentlessly hidden
from view. Clinton is a danger to global peace. She has much to answer for regarding the disaster
in Syria.
The people of the United States do not want that woman, Hillary Rodham Clinton to have relations
with the people of the United States. She is totally unqualified, a disaster of a secretary
of state, has incredibly poor judgement is a terrible candidate and should never be allowed to
serve in any government capacity - EVER.
Simple equation....war=money=power. Perpetual warfare is the post 911 gold rush and every establishment
politician in every country is the snake oil salesman pushing this through. The people on the
top make money and the rest of us get killed and go broke.
Max South
Not only the root cause, but also to-ols are important: now Western media/StateDep try depict
what happens in Syria as sectarian, all while majority of both Syrian army and government are
Sunni (even Assad's wife is Sunni) -- secular ones.
Syrian government is only hope for them, as well as for Christians, Kurds and all other ethnic
and religious minorities that fight against Wahhabi/Salafist jihadists.
Sanders' platform is expansive and IMO he has provided the most detail on how he will get things
done, which anyone can find out with a bit of investigation (http://berniesanders.com/issues/).
But all of it doesn't matter since you can't predict how events will unfold. In this regard, I
trust Sanders more than anyone else to decide what is best for all people in the the country (and
even the world). I personally will do well with anyone but I think Sanders is looking out for
the average person more than anyone else.
Pundits do not realize when they heap praises at Hillary Clinton's debate performances that
ordinary people watching cannot get past her lack of trustworthiness and her dishonesty; and that
whatever she says is viewed in that context and is therefore worthless.
It's dismaying that the blowback from the 1953 CIA-assisted overthrow of Mossadegh is still behind
the instability of the Middle East, and that we have continued to commit the same mistakes over
and over. Can't we just get rid of this agency?
Bijan Sharifi
as an iranian-american (and veteran), i appreciate sen sanders bringing this up in the debate.
Bijan Sharifi Indeed. The CIA repeated this stunt in Vietnam 10 years after the Mossadegh mess
and have been doing it at least once every decade since then. In every case, it has been a failure.
How supporting that nonsense is seen as foreign policy experience, I'll never know.
Hillary helped facilitate the arming of terrorists in Syria in 2010 and 2011. She as far as I
al concerned, Hillary supported the deaths of Syrians and terrorism. So why on earth would I want
her to be president? Hello?
More like a continuance of a disaster deferred. Thanks to John Kerry cleaning up the mess of her
disastrous term as SoS. Syria is still a mess, but he has been working his butt off to be every bit of diplomat that
Hillary was not. As soon as she returns to office expect more of her warfare first and diplomacy 'meh'.
Gary Pack
Ignacio, she was for an all out invasion by the USA into Syria to remove Assad. She, John McCain,
and Linsey Graham had to settle for just arming the Al Queda and IS for the time being.
This is what Trump has been alluding to in re Clinton, Obama, Bush, etc DC corruption used to
bring down regimes that have continually destabilized America & the world.
Where & Why was Obama
& Holder not as directly held accountable in this discussion. Trump rightfully points that Americans
have died for nothing yet the villains who are the catalysts of these atrocities still have jobs
& stature in US. America needs to be rebooted once again & bring in leadership not buoyed by greed.
power & indifference of those before him.
James Elliott cheerleading will not get anything done, I don't think Bernie understands how to
get things done in our system, reality is 40 years of bad will not be fixed in even 4 years.
The problem here really is the fact that Americans bitch and don't vote every election
and this has let money just walk in and buy more influence, you want a real revolution,
vote every election you are alive and you will let your children and their children a better
life.
Harvey Riggs
That is about it, Clinton is a repub in dem clothing and the US is the biggest threat to world
peace when it can not get its way in another countries politics or to get them to follow the US
master plan that mainly supports the US's goal.
More messes in this world has been started with covert means in order to get what we want and
millions upon milllions are suffering and the rest of the world countries 1'%ers who run those
countries are scared to stand up aguinst the US and lose that under the table support.
what makes her so maddeningly hawkish? what credentials she has that her peace-loving supporters
believe that she can lead the US/world for peace? wake-up, and let's get united behind bernie.
They believe the mythology that if women ruled the world it would be a better place...I beg to
differ....Margaret Thatcher, Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I were not exactly peace lovers...
Additionally, years ago I was shocked to see that there were women members of the KKK. So much
for women by their gender alone saving the world.
Sheila Rajan
Looking at the various misguided US excursions over the past 2 decades from outside of America,
this comes as no surprise. Clinton's deep involvement in these venal adventures comes as no surprise
either. Bill Clinton may have been adored in liberal America, but he was NOT, outside of your
borders. To us he appeared as just another one in a long line of Presidents under the sway of
the arms manufacturers, CIA, banks and financiers. Hillary Clinton is just an offshoot.
But let us not forget Hillary Clinton's "regime change" record in Ukraine
with Victoria "Fuc# the E.U.!" Nuland, wife of Neocon Robert Kagan and an Under Secretary of Hillary
Clinton's at The State Department.
Hillary Clinton's fingerprints are all over Ukraine:
Yes, Somehow the so-called MSM refuses to expose the continuing debacle of our worldwide acts
of Terrorism! The failure after failure of "our" military establishment such as targeted assassinations
as an official policy using drones, black ops, spec ops, military "contractors", hired mercenaries,
war lord militias and the like; the illegal and immoral acts of war cloaked in the Israeli framed
rubric of "national defense".
Further it is American war industry in partnership with our military that is arming the
world with military grade weapon systems, tons and tons of munitions, and training to use them
for such terror weapons as IEDs. It is MSM control by the establishment that enables the failures
of Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Obama, Clinton to treat horrendous failures as successes!
Hillary Clinton supporters don't care, they don't care that she could be a felon nor do they
care she is owned by Wall Street and many other corporate special interest, they just don't care.
Up here in New Hampshire, we soundly rejected untrustworthy, dishonest, disingenuous and corrupt
Hillary, we just wish the rest of the nation had as much time to get to know the candidates as
we had up here!
"... At the centre are the two designated heirs to the 271-year-old House of Saud, which has ruled Saudi Arabia since its emergence as a modern state. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, the kings 56-year-old nephew, is first in line to the throne but Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, believed to be about 30, is Salmans son and a rising power. ..."
"... Mohammed bin Nayef is interior minister while Mohammed bin Salman runs the defence ministry, and their growing rivalry is making itself felt, experts say. ..."
"... He points to the irresponsible Saudi-led intervention in Yemen and says the key Western ally has taken a more hard line tilt away from reforms. . . . ..."
"... In addition to being defence minister, Mohammed bin Salman heads the kingdoms main economic co-ordinating council as well as a body overseeing Saudi Aramco, the state oil company in the worlds biggest petroleum exporter. ..."
I have read, and heard, that many analysts are increasingly concerned that a 30 year old, Mohammed
bin Salman, is calling a lot of the shots in Saudi Arabia. And there have been widespread reports
that members of the royal family are increasingly unhappy about the current regime.
Two princes in Saudi Arabia battle for one throne (October, 2015)
A POWER struggle is emerging between Saudi Arabia's two most powerful princes, analysts
and diplomats say, as the secretive kingdom confronts some of its biggest challenges in years.
The Saudi-led military intervention in Yemen, falling oil prices and rising jihadist violence
are putting the country's leadership to the test, nine months after King Salman assumed the
throne following the death of King Abdullah. The kingdom's rulers have also faced criticism
for last month's hajj tragedy which, according to foreign officials, killed more than 2200
people in a stampede at the annual Muslim pilgrimage.
With concerns over the long-term health of 79-year-old Salman, jockeying for influence has
intensified, experts say.
At the centre are the two designated heirs to the 271-year-old House of Saud, which
has ruled Saudi Arabia since its emergence as a modern state. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef,
the king's 56-year-old nephew, is first in line to the throne but Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed
bin Salman, believed to be about 30, is Salman's son and a rising power.
Mohammed bin Nayef is interior minister while Mohammed bin Salman runs the defence ministry,
and their growing rivalry is making itself felt, experts say.
"It's resulting in some disturbing policies abroad and internally," says Frederic Wehrey
of the Middle East Programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.
He points to the "irresponsible" Saudi-led intervention in Yemen and says the key Western
ally has taken a more "hard line tilt" away from reforms. . . .
In addition to being defence minister, Mohammed bin Salman heads the kingdom's main
economic co-ordinating council as well as a body overseeing Saudi Aramco, the state oil company
in the world's biggest petroleum exporter.
"Mohammed bin Salman is clearly amassing extraordinary power and influence very quickly.
This is bound to unsettle his rivals," Wehrey says.
The deputy crown prince "has this need to structure his position to become, at the moment
his father dies, irreplaceable" because he has no assurances of how Mohammed bin Nayef, as
king, would treat him, another foreign diplomat says.
Mohammed bin Salman, who has a close relationship with his father, has been "acting as if
he was the heir apparent, so this obviously creates tensions," Lacroix says.
The US is the dominant force in international banking. It is this position from which sanctions
are derived. Iran had to (and often did) find other ways to get paid for shipping oil than money
flow through international banking, which US and EU sanctions prohibited.
If you seek to oppose the US, you must not fight in a money arena. It's a disadvantageous battlefield.
The price of oil is determined by what? NYMEX traders? Or agreement between a refinery and
an oil exporter?
I would suggest it is the latter, which need not depend on NYMEX numbers at all.
If your goal is to destroy US shale, the last thing you would do is allow your weapon (price)
to be defined by your target (the US in general, which is where the NYMEX is). Nor would you allow
it to be defined by something as variable as free market forces. If you specify price to your
buyer, perhaps lower than his bid, you remove the marketplace from involvement in the battle.
The goal is victory. Not profit. How could you allow yourself to define victory in pieces of
paper printed by your enemy?
If your goal is to destroy US shale, the last thing you would do is allow your weapon (price)
to be defined by your target (the US in general, which is where the NYMEX is). Nor would you allow
it to be defined by something as variable as free market forces.
If your goal is to destroy US shale then the only way you can do that is to produce every barrel
of oil you possibly can. It would not be within your power to allow the price to be defined
by anyone or anything other than market forces. Of course every exporter negotiates a price with
his buyer. But that price must be within a reasonable amount of what the world oil price is at
the moment.
The price of oil is determined by supply and demand just like every commodity on the market.
Every day, there are thousands of oil buyers around the world. There are dozens of sellers,
many of them exporters. All the buyers are in competition with other buyers to get the lowest
possible price. All the sellers are in competition with other sellers to get the highest price
possible. And the price moves up and down with each trade, hourly or sometimes minute by minute.
To believe that even one of those dozens of exporters has the power to set the price oil, much
higher than everyone else is getting, is just silly. And likewise, to believe that a buyer can
get a much lower price than everyone else is getting, is just as silly.
They say that depletion never sleeps. Well, market forces never sleep either.
But that price must be within a reasonable amount of what the world oil price is at the moment.
Which is why it took the predator 18 mos to get it down to lethal levels. Just repeatedly be
willing to sell for a bit less than the bid and down it will go, because others will protect their
marketshare by matching your price (sound familiar?). Then you're no longer the only one offering
a low price.
All the sellers are in competition with other sellers to get the highest price possible.
Were this so there would exist no wiki for predatory pricing.
You aren't thinking about victory. If you seek victory, you don't fight in an arena where you
are disadvantaged. If you're the low cost producer of the lifeblood of civilization, you assert
that advantage and kill the enemy.
By your reasoning the price of oil should be close to zero, say $1/b.
Explain why that isn't the case, if "victory" is the sole objective.
Also predatory pricing is not an effective strategy especially in commodity markets where the
barriers to entry are low.
OPEC does not set the price of oil on World Markets, they simply influence it by their level
of output. In the case of the oil industry attempts at predatory pricing are not rational, it
is simply a strategy for losing money.
Which is why it took the predator 18 mos to get it down to lethal levels. Just repeatedly be
willing to sell for a bit less than the bid and down it will go, because others will protect their
market share by matching your price (sound familiar?). Then you're no longer the only one offering
a low price.
Oh good grief. I give up. You are a hopeless case.
I don't think Watcher expresses the situation very clearly, especially with words like 'predator'.
I don't see it as an apt analogy. I do however feel that the current price war/production war/phantom
production war is clearly an act of economic warfare by Saudi Arabia against their competitors.
It seems odd to me that a world oil production system that can't very accurately tell me how much
oil was produced today until months after the fact is going to start the day tomorrow by saying
'we are over supplied by 1.8 million barrels a day today' and then proceed to talk the price into
the gutter.
Russian President Vladimir Putin predicted the US ambitions to rule the world, experts said.
WASHINGTON (Sputnik) - Russian President Vladimir Putin clearly identified a documented US drive
to dominate the world in his 2007 Munich speech, but nations around the world continue to resist
it, American and European scholars told Sputnik.
"President Putin is obviously aware of the fundamental tenets of neo-conservative US foreign policy
since 2001," California State University Emeritus Professor of Political Science Beau Grosscup, an
author and terrorism analyst, told Sputnik.
That plan was spelled out clearly in the 1992 Pentagon Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) authored
by Paul Wolfowitz and future Vice President Dick Cheney to maintain the United States as the sole
architect of the post-Cold War landscape, Grosscup noted.
"[The plan] includes by-passing existing international institutions, the United Nations in particular,
for unilateral reliance on military power, backed by ad hoc alliances," Grosscup pointed out.
The plan also included a Full Spectrum Doctrine that said the United States should be able to
fight and win numerous wars, including nuclear ones, for regime change purposes in rogue nations,
and that it should prevent the rise of competing powers such as Russia, China and Europe, Grosscup
added.
"Most notable is the right wing Neo-Nazi-inspired Ukrainian regime-change coup backed by the United
States. Along with the Georgia political crisis in 2008, [they] are the final building blocks to
move NATO to Russia's immediate borders," Grosscup claimed.
The purpose of these moves was to prevent Russia rise as a competing power and to control Central
Asian oil and gas reserves, he observed.
"President Putin's concerns expressed at Munich are understandable. Putin points out correctly
that the United States and its ad hoc coalition allies have used non-UN sanctioned unilateral military
force in the Middle East to de-stabilize Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Libya, Palestinian Occupied
Areas and Syria," Grosscup observed.
On the nuclear front, the United States continues its effort to "out-invent" its strategic weapons
rivals with a technological breakthrough that would allow it to win a strategic nuclear war with
Russia," he stated.
Also, "Current US President Barack Obama had given battlefield commanders the authority to breach
the conventional-nuclear threshold on their own, Grosscup warned.
However, recent Russian policies in the Middle East and Eastern Europe had blunted the drive to
expand US influence, University of Louvain Professor and author of "Humanitarian Imperialism" Jean
Bricmont told Sputnik.
"The resistance of Russia in Syria and Ukraine has strengthened the hand of the anti-interventionists
in the US," he stated.
The current US presidential election campaign had already demonstrated that the American public
did not share their rulers' appetite for endless interventions and wars around the world, Bricmont
emphasized.
"The tide is changing, slowly but surely. The American public does not go along any more with
the neo-cons-liberal interventionists," he maintained.
The pattern of voting in the early US primary and caucuses indicated that the US public had no
enthusiasm for new wars, Bricmont concluded.
"... The myth was created to conceal the consciously made choice of the then Soviet administration. The choice was to deliberately destroy the Soviet Union. They lied when they said that the Soviet Union was starving in 1990-1991 because of very poor harvest. On the contrary, the harvest in the Soviet Union was fantastic in 1990 and 1991. ..."
"... The Russian authorities need to properly estimate the times that Russia lived under Gorbachev and Yeltsin not to go back to those times again. President Vladimir Putin says that the destruction of the Soviet Union was a geopolitical catastrophe . However, this catastrophe has a name - the first name and the last name. This Soviet Union did not break up just like that. Three people gathered and signed something. The fourth person did nothing to stop them. We need to have a legal approach to what happened back then. ..."
Pravda.Ru editor-in-chief Inna Novikova sat down with historian Alexander Fursov to
speak about Russia's foreign and domestic policy.
"In connection with the collapse of the world prices on oil, many analysts say that the
times that we are living now are very similar to the times of the 90s when the Soviet Union broke
up."
"The
Soviet Union did not break up because of the oil prices, although it did create a number of
problems for the country. The myth was created to conceal the consciously made choice of the
then Soviet administration. The choice was to deliberately destroy the Soviet Union. They
lied when they said that the Soviet Union was starving in 1990-1991 because of very poor harvest.
On the contrary, the harvest in the Soviet Union was fantastic in 1990 and 1991.
"During the 80s, a whole group of people appeared in the Soviet Union, who wanted to
remove the Communist Party from power. The West won the game back then. Gorbachev and
Shevardnadze where only the exterior facade, and we will probably never know the names of the
real puppeteers. If you believe when they say the Soviet Union broke out because of oil, just
look at the share of oil in the export of the Soviet Union and in the export of today's Russia.
"Chaos around Russia never stops from growing, but our goal is not to let the chaos in. The
strategy of controllable chaos is a fundamentally new strategy. We can see it developing in the
Middle East and along our borders. It is very hard to struggle against it but we need to learn
how to live in a completely different world. Who could ever think 20 years ago that it would be
possible to commit terrorist acts in the centre of Moscow, that all metro passengers would have
to listen to announcements warning them about the danger of terrorist attacks. This is the
reality that we're dealing with today."
"What about the contradictions between our internal and external ambition? The majority
of Russians fully support the foreign policy of the country, but have many questions about
economic policy of the Russian government."
"This is a very serious contradiction that cannot last long and will have to be resolved in
the nearest future this way or other."
"Do you see any ray of light in the dark kingdom of the Russian domestic policy?"
"For the time being, I don't. Of course, Russia has got up from its knees but now everything
depends a lot on how the situation unfolds in the world. The future depends on the people and to
which extent they are ready to fight for it and even sacrifice something for it. When people live
in times of the crisis and Chubais says at the same time that he has a lot of money - this is not
good."
"Chubais is a notorious character."
"Chubais is part of the authorities. The Russian authorities need to properly estimate the
times that Russia lived under
Gorbachev and Yeltsin not to go back to those times again. President Vladimir Putin says that
the
destruction of the Soviet Union was a geopolitical catastrophe. However, this catastrophe has
a name - the first name and the last name. This Soviet Union did not break up just like that.
Three people gathered and signed something. The fourth person did nothing to stop them. We need
to have a legal approach to what happened back then."
"But this is a very difficult step to make."
"I'm not saying it's easy. Being in power is a hard job to do. It means that you have to be
responsible and take risks for very unpopular things. Yet, a traitor shall be called and judged
as a traitor. Such things exclude understatement. One cannot curse and praise one and the same
thing at once."
"History shows us that assessments may alter with time. The things that were generally
seen as negative in the past can be seen as positive in present times. We can brand Gorbachev [as
triator], but it may turn out in 20 years that everything that he did was right and that he even
saved us."
"From whom did he save us? This relativity theory is a favorite trick of our liberals. The Soviet
Union was a nuclear power with a very strong economy. In 1991, Margaret Thatcher acknowledged in
Houston that the Soviet economy was a threat for Western economies during the 80s.
Gorbachev came to power in 1985 and the country was destroyed six years later. There can be
only one assessment made to what he had done to the country. As Lenin used to say, best politics
is politics based on principles."
"... a sense of disgust and horror he did not himself understand, ..."
"... "War and Peace" ..."
"... But what does our dear Krechetnikov do next? Oh, that's a real gem! Here is his main reason for opposing Kadyrov and his "attacks" on the shy and conscientious democratic opposition in Russia, whom he dares to call "the enemies of the people": ..."
"... "In fact, the term is meaningless because there is no national-superpersonality, able to want something or do not want it, to love or hate someone. There are many people who have different interests, opinions, and, accordingly, friends and enemies". ..."
"... That's it, people! That was my own "Bingo!" moment, when I finally got it all about the real issue of this "Kadyrov's scandal", but most importantly, I've 'groked' the essence of the modern international so-called Liberalism and its faithful servants in Russian. Let me explain it. ..."
"... What does it mean? Well, it means that any given country of the Progressive And Culturally Superior West™ is ruled by this or that iteration of a filthy rich elite brought up to power by this or that iteration of the local Bourgeoisie Revolution™ – with the motto " Fuck the Poor! " engraved on every single decision of this self-perpetuation oligarchy draped in the, ha-ha, republican robes. Then there is a small – but very, very noisy, so they appear larger than they actually are – strata of the "intellectuals", high-priests in the temples of the long-dead gods of Freedom, Liberty and Equality, who fancy themselves as the one and only true keepers of the Democratic Legacy, of the Quintessence of what their particular "Nation" is all about – but screw the history and traditions if we feel the other way on Tuesday. The fact that both of these"ruling classes" comprise (combined) perhaps less than 10% of the entire population doesn't discourage them at all in their perceived view of the world at large – naturally, with them at the top. ..."
"... So, who are the rest of the people? Pfft, what a silly question! They do not exist. At all. Why are you looking so surprised at me? Didn't the good Sir Krechentikov just say that 'the people' do not exist? There you go! Move along – nothing to see here. What you have for the 90% of the population instead of the "people" or even the "working class" are what good pro-democracy (and – as any idiot in the Net will tell you – pro-gay) Greeks referred as "walking and talking tools". And tools, as we know, usually are dumb, mono-tasked and easily replaceable. By other tools, no matter what their country of origin or the reasons of becoming "tools" in the first place. Ultimately, to the "ruling classes" they are all the same. ..."
"... So, when the so-called 'Russian liberals' are decrying 'their' own people and wish it to be replaced entirely one way or another – they are actually voicing in their naive neophyte way what their much more experienced masters and colleagues from across the "Civilized World" have been keeping in mind for a long, long time. ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... Well, what can one say? These fuckers are beyond redemption. Yes, I'm talking about WaPos Editorial Board – not the Chechens. ..."
"... Andrei Piontkovsky is a "Russian journalist" (once again – sorry for the word "journalist"), a researcher at the Institute for Systemic Analysis, a member of the International PEN Club. In 2012 he was elected to the Coordinating Council of the Opposition. In 2014 Piontkovsky signed a statement demanding the withdrawal of Russian troops from the territory of the Ukraine and an end to "the annexation of Crimea". Such a paragon of handshakeability is just a rank'n'file "non-systemic opposition" figure – a very typical representative indeed, but not on par with some of the more notorious ones. ..."
"... Editor's Note : We're only halfway through this thing, gang, so I have decided to break it in two so that it will not be too long. We'll give this first installment a week or so of exposure, and then follow with the conclusion. I have to say I like it so far! ..."
Uncle Volodya says, "There is a noticeable element of the pathological in some
current leftist critiques, which I tend to attribute to feelings of guilt allied to
feelings of impotence. Not an attractive combination, because it results in self-hatred."
One principal advantage this blog enjoys over many other Russia-focused blogs in English
is the participation of some ethnic-Russian and extremely competent speakers of English, some of
whom still live in Russia. We are therefore offered direct access to at least some opinion which
comes from the country which is our focus of interest, rather than being told what Russians think
by English-speaking journalists such as Shaun Walker, Roland Oliphant, Edward Lucas and thoroughly-westernized
Russian
émigrés
like Julia Ioffe and Leonid Bershidsky. The importance of that unfiltered
opinion cannot be exaggerated, because the foregoing journalists and
émigrés
frequently
sample only the opinions of groups likely to provide the soundbites they are looking for, or simply
make them up. This offers the comforting – for some – picture that there is widespread discontent
within Russia of the current government, wages have remained stagnant for decades and Russians envy
and covet western freedoms, which we must acknowledge is a popular narrative in the Anglosphere.
Our only opportunity to rebut it comes from passionate Russians who can express themselves competently
in English, and substantiate, flesh out and bring to life the alternative reality we know exists.
This, of course, is leading into another post from the erudite native Muscovite we know as Lyttenburgh.
I am delighted to be able to offer it here. Lyttenburgh, it's all yours.
Prologue
:
Prince Andrew was somewhat refreshed by having ridden off the dusty highroad along which the
troops were moving. But not far from Bald Hills he again came out on the road and overtook his regiment
at its halting place by the dam of a small pond. It was past one o'clock. The sun, a red ball through
the dust, burned and scorched his back intolerably through his black coat. The dust always hung motionless
above the buzz of talk that came from the resting troops. There was no wind. As he crossed the dam
Prince Andrew smelled the ooze and freshness of the pond. He longed to get into that water, however
dirty it might be, and he glanced round at the pool from whence came sounds of shrieks and laughter.
The small, muddy, green pond had risen visibly more than a foot, flooding the dam, because it was
full of the naked white bodies of soldiers with brick-red hands, necks, and faces, who were splashing
about in it. All this naked white human flesh, laughing and shrieking, floundered about in that dirty
pool like carp stuffed into a watering can, and the suggestion of merriment in that floundering mass
rendered it specially pathetic.
[…]
"Flesh, bodies, cannon fodder!" he thought, and he looked at his own naked body and shuddered,
not from cold but from
a sense of disgust and horror he did not himself understand,
aroused by the sight of that immense number of bodies splashing about in the dirty pond
.
– L. Tolstoy,
"War and Peace"
, volume 3, Book 10, Chapter V.
Part I.
I was "triggered" into writing this article by two factors. First – by a somewhat "popular" in
narrow circles writer, Lyudmila Ulitskaya (a regular of "intelligentsia gatherings" organized by
Mikhail Khodorkovskiy) who just recently
compared Russians to "filthy, sick
savages"
. Not something out of the ordinary, really – sadly, this is just another example of
the self-proclaimed members of the "Nation's Conscience" passing judgment on the rest of the people,
who might (o, horror!) disagree with them and their foreign sponsors.
Another came from a rather unusual source. As you all probably know, the "Kadyrov Scandal", started
when the President of the Chechen Republic of the Russian Federation called non-systemic oppositionists
"traitors" and "enemies of the people" and called for them to be investigated and, if needed, prosecuted
in accordance with Russian Law. The scandal is not abating in Russia and now even the Foreign Democratic
And Independent™ press began noticing it. And so we have many different pieces from across the Civilized
World, all of them professing their love for the so-called "Russian liberals", "true opposition",
"civil society" and a burning hatred for the "wrong" Chechen Kadyrov (as opposed to the "good " Chechens,
whose actions they supported in the 90s and 00s).
This article
on a British government funded
BBC Russia
site is typical. Its author – Artyom
Krechetnikov – is a fine example of sad and failed dissident and émigré, who just physically can't
write a good thing about his former country of birth.
Quite predictably, our Artyom is highly critical of Kadyrov's comparisons of the non-systemic
opposition to the enemies of the people. He even decided to write a little "historical essay" devoted
to that question – starting with the Great French Revolution and ending with Mao's China. He makes
all possible mistakes one can expect from a rabid Russophobe and anti-Sovietist (which, all too often,
means the same thing). Say, while admitting that the Committee on the National Safety executed via
"
Mme Guillotine
" only 18,613 people, he immediately references 1935 "studies" of the American
historian Donald Greer, who, somehow, managed to increase this number to 40,000. The same way he
acts while talking about the "Great Terror" in the Soviet Union. He claims that in the period of
1921-1953, 3, 777, 380 people were persecuted by "political" charges (read: "they were completely
innocent from our absolutely superior liberal POV") and that 799,445 of them were executed. On the
one hand – that's kinda-sorta progress compared to Beevor-SoLZHEnytsin's
"millions of innocents
shot for nothing in the span of a few years"
concept; but, still, a gross exaggeration and a
shameless lie. First of all he conflates in his "persecuted" claim in the form of a number of people
close to 4 million. Both those who were just charged with various political (but very real) crimes
and then released, and those who were sentenced to prison time or executed. Next, for an uninformed
reader a number of 799,455 looks big, scary and (because it's uneven) legit. But it's actually a
number of death
warrants
issued – not the number of the actual executions carried out in the
USSR for this sort of crime in the period of more than 30
years
. The actual number is lower
– about 680,000. Which is, kinda-sorta, less scary and also, by its mere fact of existence, proves
that some people (a whopping 120,000 of them) got pardoned or successfully pleaded their cause before
the ghoulish, baby-eating Stalinist government. But we don't want any ideological ambiguity, do we?
Even then, possessing basic skills of math, some primitive solar-panel calculator and access to reliable
and relevant statistical data will lead any would be "demolisher of Stalinism" to rather disheartening
conclusion – that bloody mustachioed vampire managed to repress for political reasons about 2.7-3%
of the entire population. Boo-fricking-hoo.
But what does our dear Krechetnikov do next? Oh, that's a real gem! Here is his main reason for
opposing Kadyrov and his "attacks" on the shy and conscientious democratic opposition in Russia,
whom he dares to call "the enemies of the people":
"In fact, the term is meaningless because there is no national-superpersonality, able to want
something or do not want it, to love or hate someone. There are many people who have different interests,
opinions, and, accordingly, friends and enemies".
That's it, people! That was my own "Bingo!" moment, when I finally got it all about the real issue
of this "Kadyrov's scandal", but most importantly, I've 'groked' the essence of the modern international
so-called Liberalism and its faithful servants in Russian. Let me explain it.
Part II
It is considered to be a
mauvais ton
, a taboo even to talk about 'the people' or the 'working
class' in the Western Respectable Media and Academia. Big Scary No-No. Why? Well, because if you
are talking about the 'people' then you will inevitably go Patriotism=>Nationalism=>Nazism road.
And were you ever to raise a question about the 'working class', then, surely you will next arrive
at Socialism=>Stalinism=>gulags. That's a Well Known Fact™ . And no use to argue against the Free
and Independent Opinion, you Commie-Nazi Freak!
What does it mean? Well, it means that any given country of the Progressive And Culturally Superior
West™ is ruled by this or that iteration of a filthy rich elite brought up to power by this or that
iteration of the local Bourgeoisie Revolution™ – with the motto "
Fuck the Poor!
" engraved
on every single decision of this self-perpetuation oligarchy draped in the, ha-ha, republican robes.
Then there is a small – but very, very noisy, so they appear larger than they actually are – strata
of the "intellectuals", high-priests in the temples of the long-dead gods of Freedom, Liberty and
Equality, who fancy themselves as the one and only true keepers of the Democratic Legacy, of the
Quintessence of what their particular "Nation" is all about – but screw the history and traditions
if we feel the other way on Tuesday. The fact that both of these"ruling classes" comprise (combined)
perhaps less than 10% of the entire population doesn't discourage them at all in their perceived
view of the world at large – naturally, with them at the top.
So, who are the rest of the people? Pfft, what a silly question! They do not exist. At all. Why
are you looking so surprised at me? Didn't the good Sir Krechentikov just say that 'the people' do
not exist? There you go! Move along – nothing to see here. What you have for the 90% of the population
instead of the "people" or even the "working class" are what good pro-democracy (and – as any idiot
in the Net will tell you – pro-gay) Greeks referred as "walking and talking tools". And tools, as
we know, usually are dumb, mono-tasked and easily replaceable. By other tools, no matter what their
country of origin or the reasons of becoming "tools" in the first place. Ultimately, to the "ruling
classes" they are all the same.
So, when the so-called 'Russian liberals' are decrying 'their' own people and wish it to be replaced
entirely one way or another – they are actually voicing in their naive neophyte way what their much
more experienced masters and colleagues from across the "Civilized World" have been keeping in mind
for a long, long time.
Naturally, it's a little wonder that the "nonexistent people" (according to the liberal
l'Internationale
)
have no "enemies" wishing to harm them or to screw them over
. And because about 90% of these
"non-people" are basically not even cognizant citizens who can take responsible actions on
their own – its only in their best interests if some much more educated, handshakeable (albeit –
miniscule) group of the "full-rights citizens" will decide what's better for them and, ugh, the "nation".
And to hell with these "elections" – cattle know not how to vote properly anyway!
Don't believe me? I remind you, that thoroughly-beloved-by-the-West Russian journalist Yulia Latynina
argued against
allowing poor people to vote
. Plus, this Russian Ayn Rand-wannabe also
denies global warming
. She insists
that only when the "proper" Russia will "cut-away" the Far East, Siberia and North Caucasus will
we "start living like human beings" To no one's surprise, she's a great fan of Pinochet's Chile and
Lee Kwan-Yew's Singapore
.
Another rather descriptive example: Garry Kasparov, touted by the Free Press as yet another "leader
of the Russian opposition", now living in a self-imposed (and very comfortable) exile in the West,
who recently "erupted" with a program of actions for the Liberal Opposition when (not if – when!)
they capture the power from the Regime.
A breathtaking
read
, I must say. He calls for the "purification" (that's not totalitarian purges, no – it's
democratic "purification"!) of the society, because "
the society will have to pay for everything
– for the support of Putin, for Georgia, for Crimea and for Donbass
" – just like Germany and
Japan had to pay after 1945. He, jumping from here, calls for a "historical Nuremberg", with real
"
judicial process punishing the architects of the current regime
". And elections, democracy
and all that jazz? Oh, no – it's impossible. No elections after the destruction of the Evil Regime
– the people are too brainwashed, could be easily swayed and, Freedom forbid, might not vote for
the Good Guys. Dictatorship of the Warriors of the Light (now with Filtration Camps of Freedom)
are the only true way.
And now read anything from a bunch of other articles about "poor, isolated Russia" from our usual
suspects belonging to the Free And Independent Western Media™ and you'll notice the trend – not a
peep about what the Russian
people
really, really want. Sure, you will find here many ballsy
claims about "Many in Russia suspect that Kadyrov [something-something-something-Dark Side]" – without
any real proof about these mythical "many". 'Cause this particular ambiguously big "many" actually
covers only a Barbie-seized crowd of shy and conscientious
intilligents
, democratic journalists,
kreakls, hipsters and gays from the breadth of Russia.
They
are seen as the voice of Russia
and the true Elite who is entitled to rule the country – not the 86% of unmentionable "others".
See for yourself
. There is no more vanilla anti-Russian pro-jingoistic neo-con paper in the American
Olympus of the 4th Estate than the "Pravda on the Potomac" AKA "
The Washington Post
". This
time, they scare their readership shitless with this scaaaary tale:
"
Now, the attack dog seems to be unleashed. Mr. Kadyrov has written an article published in
the daily Izvestia that pours scorn on the "nonsystemic opposition" to Mr. Putin and suggests it
be punished. The term "systemic opposition" in Russia usually refers to the toadies and sycophants
who support Mr. Putin. Mr. Kadyrov's sights are on everyone else who criticizes the president - and
he named names, including prominent opposition figure Alexei Navalny and journalists for Echo of
Moscow radio and Dozhd television, both progressive outlets. In the article, Mr. Kadyrov declares
that "there is a very good psychiatric hospital" in Chechnya where "we will not be stingy with injections"
to these critics. "When they are prescribed one injection, we can give two." He says the opposition
is a "pack of jackals," "bunch of traitors," "Western lackeys," "enemies of the people," "haters
of Russia," people who are trying "to destroy our country and undermine its constitutional order."
Stalin would recognize the language. Mr. Kadyrov's chief of staff drove the point home with a photo
posted on social media of the Chechen leader holding back a massive Caucasian Shepherd dog named
Tarzan, saying the beast's "teeth itch."
Well, what can one say? These fuckers are beyond redemption. Yes, I'm talking about WaPos Editorial
Board – not the Chechens.
Not only did Mr. Kadyrov avoid naming anyone whom this article claims he
already wrote down into his "proscription lists" – the article fails to mention that, in both of
his articles, Ramzan Achmadovitch didn't call for extra-judicial punishment of the so-called "non-systemic
opposition". He called for them to be investigated in accordance with Russian law. Meanwhile, the
very same Russian oppositionists who decry at every opportunity the brutality of Stalinist purges
and the sordid fact that a lot of people indeed wrote anonymous reports to NKVD…
wrote
an anonymous report
accusing the president of Chechnya of violating art. 282 of the Criminal
Code of the Russian Federation, i.e. "inflammation of national strife" (as if "non-systemic opposition"
is in itself a nationality or ethnicity to be targeted specifically) and "the humiliation of dignity
of a certain social group". Some of them even went as far as to demand his resignation. But, understandably,
the chances of such
demarches
are very slim – "traitors" and "the enemies of the people"
are not a social group according to existing Russian legislation, as well as "non-systemic opposition",
so that people labeled such could not demand any kind of legal recognition or compensation. Besides,
if the so-called Russian liberals are truly innocent before Russian law – why are they fretting so
much at quite ordinary calls for an inquiry? C'mon, liberals are just a bunch of shy and conscientious
blokes and shiksas, who only want to embrace sweet Freedom and Universal Western Values! And, really
guys, no one is threatening Russia – claiming otherwise means endorsing Kremlinite propaganda! Right?
Wrong. Just last Saturday, on ultra-liberal pro-opposition radio "Ekho Moscvy" (hailed by the
West as "one of the few remaining Free Media Sources in Russia") site,
an article
by equally
ultra-liberal and pro-opposition Andrey Piontkovskiy had been brought to the attention of
urbi
et orbi
. And there was a good reason for that – in his article Piontkovskiy
calls for the secession
of Chechnya from Russia
. In this article, among other things, the author claims that the continued
presence of the Chechen republic within Russia threatens "a third Chechen war", so stopping the "ticking
clock of the Russian-Chechen disaster" is only possible through the provision of the full state of
independence of the republic. Among other reasons why it is necessary to do so, Piontkovsky lists
the murder of Boris Nemtsov and Anna Politkovskaya, and the story of the Krasnoyarsk deputy Senchenko,
who was forced to make a "humiliating apology" to Ramzan Kadyrov for calling him "a disgrace of Russia".
According to the "journalist" (sorry for the word journalist here), the Chechen people are the "most
difficult" of all the peoples of Russia and they don't want "
to transform from the Germans into
the Jews of the Third Reich
."
Later that part was cut from the article, but only after a huge (and I mean – HUGE!) wave of angry
responses from both readers and from the people beyond the "comfort zone" of the "Ekho". And, of
course, ordinary users of RuNet proved themselves wily beasts by making lots of screenshots of that
page pre-"purging". Meanwhile, this whole fracas is more serious than it looks. According to art.
280, p.1 of the LC RF there is a real legal responsibility for public calls for action aimed at violating
the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation. Part two of this article states that said actions
are punishable by up to 5 years of imprisonment for such calls made with the use of the media. Also,
not only the author, but the editorial board of the media source hosting such articles are equally
responsible, and must answer before the law. That's the current Russian legislation. And not knowing
it does not absolve anyone from having committed a crime.
Andrei Piontkovsky is a "Russian journalist" (once again – sorry for the word "journalist"), a
researcher at the Institute for Systemic Analysis, a member of the International PEN Club. In 2012
he was elected to the Coordinating Council of the Opposition. In 2014 Piontkovsky signed a statement
demanding the withdrawal of Russian troops from the territory of the Ukraine and an end to "the annexation
of Crimea". Such a paragon of handshakeability is just a rank'n'file "non-systemic opposition" figure
– a very typical representative indeed, but not on par with some of the more notorious ones.
I think the whole world must be reminded about other "achievements" of the so-called "Russian
liberal opposition". In 1994 they went to
Dudayev's stronghold
in
separatist Chechnya and, while there, used the radio relay to call for Russian soldiers to commit
an act of treason and surrender to the militants. Among them, human rights activist Sergey Kovalyov,
who swore that no harm will come to all who will surrender immediately – they will even be transported
back to their military bases. The lucky ones of those naive soldiers who raised up their arms and
surrendered entered into years-long slavery. The less lucky were brutally tortured and mutilated,
and then – killed.
And, yes – these are the people hailed as true heroes by the Western Press, NGOs and Governments
(which, as Everybody Knows, are totally not interconnected between themselves). Should such persons
be investigated in accordance with Russian law and do they really deserve the term "enemies of the
people"? Well, the collective West thinks "No!". Russians have a diametrically opposite opinion –
but who cares, as long as the Western Enlightened Populace's™ opinion is formed by the rabid Russophobic
spin-doctors from the WaPo and their ilk? Hell, even the best of them in the professional circle
of the "Russia-watchers" (read: as ethical and loyal as 17th century German mercenaries) are no better
and can't even bring themselves to say one simple phrase – "Russian People". But they, unwittingly,
provide a useful insight into other interesting tidbits of this ugly elitist worldview.
Editor's Note
: We're only halfway through this thing, gang, so I have decided
to break it in two so that it will not be too long. We'll give this first installment a week
or so of exposure, and then follow with the conclusion. I have to say I like it so far!
A very good piece. The under 3% figure is something that is never presented to the western (and
Russian) masses. Sadly many good people suffered after 1917. They were not 5th column scum like
the liberast "non systemic" opposition today. Yet this scum is treated with kid gloves with no
sign of legal sanction for their actions. Kadyrov is right, it is time to throw the book at them.
I would say they merit more than simple legal prosecution. They need real persecution befitting
of their behaviour. They should be coerced out of Russia to go and live in their NATzO paradise.
The Russian constitution needs to be changed to allow for the revocation of citizenship. Liberast
5th columnists need to be stripped of Russian citizenship. This is quite natural and fair. These
mentally sick freaks are a real threat to Russian society and the Russian people.
I may be mistaken, but I don't think Lyttenburgh is a native Muscovite. I'm almost certain he
once said that he originates from the Urals somewhere, which makes his opinion even better, because
many often say that Moscow life does not reflect "real" life in Russia, and Lyttenburgh knows
full well what life in the provinces is ike as well as how things are in the capital.
If you
really want the views of a much lauded by the Moscow Times native Muscovite, see the opinions
of Alexei Bayer.
If Vladimir Volfovitch Zhirinovky could be a Kzakstan born native Muscovite and chief defender
of ethnic Russians ans the poor – well, who am I to resist a title of Muscovite myself? ;)
I
was born in Sverdlovsk, USSR. Now its Yekaterinburg, Groysmanstan. I'm indeed a member of provincial
intilligentsia
who had it rought for itself during the 'Rough 90s' which makes us more
aligned to the plights of the working class, so to speak.
Years later I moved to Moscow region, and then to Moscow. Now I live on "two homes", with Moscow
being for work/study and the
oblast
for living like a human being (TM).
I also would like to use this comment as opportunity to come forward before the whole
mir
of the "Kremlin Stooge
Recent opinion polls show 70 percent of Ukrainians supporting Yatsenyuk's ouster and only one
percent backing his People's Front parliamentary bloc.
IMF chief Christine Lagarde warned last week that it was "hard to see" how the bailout could continue
without Ukraine pushing through the economic restructuring and anti-corruption measures it had signed
on to when the package was agreed.
Ukraine's economy shrank by about 10 percent last year while annual inflation soared to more than
43 percent even with the Western assistance in place.
"system designed to force everyone in an institution or business into an entrepreneurial role."
is pure neoliberalism, not so much of libertarian ideology. What they are doing is imitation
Bolsheviks rape of academic community in the USA with Bolshevism replaced by neoliberalism.
Notable quotes:
"... The school originally cofounded by Bob Love an associate of Charles's father Fred Koch from the John Birch Society became embroiled in an "acrimonious uprising" after Charles Koch in his role as chairman of the school's executive council applied techniques from his Market-Based Management system, a system designed to force everyone in an institution or business into an entrepreneurial role. ..."
"... Charles stepped down from the board of trustees citing, among other reasons, the school's refusal to integrate his management style. But in a sign of just how much influence he exerted over the school; Richard Fink, one of Charles's key advisors and an architect of Market-Based Management was installed as Collegiate's interim head. The outrage ran so deep that, as Fink tried to tamp down the uproar, he was hung in effigy around campus." ..."
"... Fink, who received his PHD in economics from Rutgers later moved to George Mason, a public university in Virginia, to start the Koch sponsored Mercatus Institute. Fink figures prominently in Koch efforts to control and dictate to charities and educational facilities receiving Koch support. Another Koch sponsored enterprise, the Institute for Humane Studies, caused similar disruptions when it was relocated to George Mason. Schulman reports, ..."
"... They also started running scholarship application essays through a computer to measure how many times the 'right names' (Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Rand, Bastiat, etc.) were mentioned – regardless of what was said about them!" (The preceding quotes come from pages 250-251 Sons of Wichita: How the Koch Brothers Became America's Most Powerful and Private Dynasty). ..."
"... In a YouTube video seminar, Professor Boettke characterizes himself as "a doctrinaire free-marketer." In the same memo, Professor Lopez lists his association with IHS. Presumably then both professors are familiar with the sort of metrics and deliverables that are integral to Koch's Market-Based Management system. ..."
"... Both Schulman's book and Jane Mayer's new book "Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right" go into great detail about the various organizations sponsored and funded by Charles and David Koch. ..."
"... From Americans for Prosperity to academic institutions similar to Mercatus, the Kochs have been active in funding organizations that promote specific ideologies. For better or worse that is something endemic in both our politics and apparently our public universities. Lately Charles Koch has been quite vocal in bemoaning the fact that his political contributions have not yielded an appropriate return on investment as demonstrated in a recent interview in the Financial Times where he said, ..."
"... What is perhaps more troubling is in academic settings the Kochs have sought to exercise an extraordinary degree of control. ..."
"... " . . . Cato Institute, Mercatus, and the dozens of other free-market, antiregulatory policy shops that Charles, David, and their foundations have supported over the years . . . churned out reports position papers, and op-eds arguing for the privatization of Social Security; fingering public employee unions for causing state budget crises; attempting to debunk climate science; and making the case for slashing the welfare system and Medicaid." ..."
"... Over the years the gifts from the Koch Foundation to various universities have faced increased scrutiny. The contract with Florida State clearly went against basic academic ethics. There is nothing however to indicate that Charles Koch has retreated in his desire to instill his radical brand of libertarianism into the institutions that create public policy and the universities that provide the research that helps support policy decisions. What has perhaps changed is that Mr. Koch, his foundation, and those he supports have become ever more sophisticated in capturing an outsized amount of influence. ..."
"... The contract may not allow veto power but if the structure of the program and the hiring are filtered through products of Koch programs, we may have a distinction without a difference. Charles Koch and his assistants like Richard Fink have been very clear about their intent and goals. It does not take a great deal of research to uncover statements that clearly speak to intent to indoctrinate. Ad hoc denials aside there is no reason not to take Mr. Koch's word. ..."
"... There is a certain irony bordering on outright cognitive dissonance when the economics department of a publicly funded university embraces a set of theories that denies the need for public education and treats such public funding as an affront to the market. If scrutinizing this proposal puts us onto a slippery slope then accepting it simply sends us to the bottom of the slope. ..."
"... My first introduction to the idea that society needs to remodel its self as business or that business is the better model for society's organization started with Reagan. I believe he/they ran on the idea that government needed to be more like business. ..."
"... Unfortunately, people believed it as it went along with the "government is the problem" meme. ..."
"... All of this I believe can be summed up with how I view Milton Friedman's work as simply mind the money and everything else will be taken care of. That is the free market ideology. ..."
"... Daniel: I don't recall my introduction to the 'run government as a business' idea, per se. I well remember Reagan and his 'the government is always the problem, never the solution' BS. ..."
"... I can't recall where I read it, but years ago came across a quote by someone esteemed, that pretty much said, "The reason for government is that there will always be services people want and need that, when provided, would never be a profitable venture, so the business world will never provide them. Hence, the government must be that provider." ..."
Mark Jamison has been a guest columnist of the Smoky Mountain News on several occasions now arguing
against the addition of the Koch sponsored Center for Free Enterprise. This is another well written
expose of why this addition should not be allowed at Western Carolina University. I would point out
the flip-flopping going on as Chancellor Belcher glosses over in his explanation of mistakes being
made. In earlier statements by Dr. Robert Lopez, the Provost, and the Trustees, the procedure was
followed.
To give this the coverage needed both Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism and Angry Bear have been
covering this issue. "UnKoch My Campus" has also picked up on Western Carolina University.
In "Sons of Wichita", his detailed and heavily sourced biography of the Koch family, Daniel
Schulman relates a story about Charles Koch's attempt to apply his libertarian management theory
known as Market-Based Management to Wichita Collegiate, the private school located across the street
from the Koch compound. The school originally cofounded by Bob Love an associate of Charles's
father Fred Koch from the John Birch Society became embroiled in an "acrimonious uprising" after
Charles Koch in his role as chairman of the school's executive council applied techniques from his
Market-Based Management system, a system designed to force everyone in an institution or business
into an entrepreneurial role.
Schulman relates how Koch and other trustees meddled in hiring decisions and caused the abrupt
resignation of a well-liked headmaster. "Incensed parents threatened to pull their children from
the school; faculty members quit; students wore black in protest. Charles stepped down from the
board of trustees citing, among other reasons, the school's refusal to integrate his management style.
But in a sign of just how much influence he exerted over the school; Richard Fink, one of Charles's
key advisors and an architect of Market-Based Management was installed as Collegiate's interim head.
The outrage ran so deep that, as Fink tried to tamp down the uproar, he was hung in effigy around
campus."
Fink, who received his PHD in economics from Rutgers later moved to George Mason, a public
university in Virginia, to start the Koch sponsored Mercatus Institute. Fink figures prominently
in Koch efforts to control and dictate to charities and educational facilities receiving Koch support.
Another Koch sponsored enterprise, the Institute for Humane Studies, caused similar disruptions when
it was relocated to George Mason. Schulman reports,
"The mission of IHS is to groom libertarian intellectuals by doling out scholarships, sponsoring
seminars, and placing students in like-minded organizations."
Simply providing funding for the promotion of his libertarian ideology was not enough for Charles
Koch though. Roderick Long, a philosophy professor from Auburn and an affiliate of IHS is quoted
as saying, "Massive micromanagement ensued." Long went on to say, "the management began to do things
like increasing the size of student seminars, packing them in, and then giving the students a political
questionnaire at the beginning of the week and another one at the end, to measure how much their
political beliefs shifted over the course of the week. (Woe betide any student who needs more than
a week to mull new ideas prior to conversion.) They also started running scholarship application
essays through a computer to measure how many times the 'right names' (Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Rand,
Bastiat, etc.) were mentioned – regardless of what was said about them!" (The preceding quotes come
from pages 250-251 Sons of Wichita: How the Koch Brothers Became America's Most Powerful and Private
Dynasty).
It should be noted that Professor Long is no liberal. He edits "The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies"
and is a member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, an organization that promotes the theories of
the dean of Austrian economics.
Both Professor Lopez and Professor Gochenour are products of the George Mason program and Mercatus.
In his memo to Andrew Gillen of the Charles Koch Foundation Professor Lopez characterizes the other
members of the WCU economics department indicating Professor Gochenour was a student of "Boettke
and Caplan". In a YouTube video seminar, Professor Boettke characterizes himself as "a doctrinaire
free-marketer." In the same memo, Professor Lopez lists his association with IHS. Presumably then
both professors are familiar with the sort of metrics and deliverables that are integral to Koch's
Market-Based Management system.
Both Schulman's book and Jane Mayer's new book "Dark Money: The Hidden History of the Billionaires
Behind the Rise of the Radical Right" go into great detail about the various organizations sponsored
and funded by Charles and David Koch.
From Americans for Prosperity to academic institutions similar to Mercatus, the Kochs have
been active in funding organizations that promote specific ideologies. For better or worse that is
something endemic in both our politics and apparently our public universities. Lately Charles Koch
has been quite vocal in bemoaning the fact that his political contributions have not yielded an appropriate
return on investment as demonstrated in a recent interview in the Financial Times where he said,
"You'd think we could have more influence."
What is perhaps more troubling is in academic settings the Kochs have sought to exercise an
extraordinary degree of control. Between 2007 and 2011 Charles Koch has pumped $31 million into
universities for scholarships and programs (within that number the $2 million to WCU seems significant).
At Florida State the contract with the university provide $1.5 million to hire two professors included
a clause giving the Koch Foundation over the candidates.
The plan Charles Koch with the aid of Richard Fink has enacted is called a "Structure of Social
Change" – a sort of business plan for the marketing of ideas. Fink has said about the plan:
"When we apply this model to the realm of ideas and social change, at the higher stages we
have the investment in the intellectual raw materials, that is, the exploration and production
of abstract concepts and theories. In the public policy arena, these still come primarily (though
not exclusively) from the research done by scholars at our universities." (my emphasis)
As Schulman reports,
" . . . Cato Institute, Mercatus, and the dozens of other free-market, antiregulatory policy
shops that Charles, David, and their foundations have supported over the years . . . churned out
reports position papers, and op-eds arguing for the privatization of Social Security; fingering
public employee unions for causing state budget crises; attempting to debunk climate science;
and making the case for slashing the welfare system and Medicaid."
The book that Professor Lopez published for the broad market, "Madmen, Intellectuals and Academic
Scribblers: The Economic Engine of Political Change" follows closely to the program Fink articulates.
Over the years the gifts from the Koch Foundation to various universities have faced increased
scrutiny. The contract with Florida State clearly went against basic academic ethics. There is nothing
however to indicate that Charles Koch has retreated in his desire to instill his radical brand of
libertarianism into the institutions that create public policy and the universities that provide
the research that helps support policy decisions. What has perhaps changed is that Mr. Koch, his
foundation, and those he supports have become ever more sophisticated in capturing an outsized amount
of influence.
Chancellor Belcher assures us there were mistakes made in the presentation of the current proposal
but that the proposal itself meets all the basic criteria for acceptance. The fact that Professor
Lopez advertised positions before official acceptance and outside normal channels raises significant
questions.The contract may not allow veto power but if the structure of the program
and the hiring are filtered through products of Koch programs, we may have a distinction without
a difference. Charles Koch and his assistants like Richard Fink have been very clear about their
intent and goals. It does not take a great deal of research to uncover statements that clearly speak
to intent to indoctrinate. Ad hoc denials aside there is no reason not to take Mr. Koch's word.
Chancellor Belcher suggests the bringing of a stronger level of scrutiny to the Koch proposal
pushes us down a slippery slope. The chancellor is no naïf and surely he knows that in a complicated
world we are often presented with slippery slopes – that is why judgment, ethics, and scrutiny exist.
Dogmatic and doctrinaire disciplines give a skewed and distorted picture of the world as an either
or, or black or white scenario. Hayek, Mises, and other doctrinaire believers in the creed of the
free-market tell us the choice is either markets or Stalinism, an inexorable "Road to Serfdom." Tennyson
tells us,
"There lives more faith in honest doubt, believe me, than in half the creeds."
There is a certain irony bordering on outright cognitive dissonance when the economics department
of a publicly funded university embraces a set of theories that denies the need for public education
and treats such public funding as an affront to the market. If scrutinizing this proposal puts us
onto a slippery slope then accepting it simply sends us to the bottom of the slope.
This is a very good review of their efforts thanks. I was born in Wichita 1960 and escaped
to Texas in 1996 so very familiar with their ongoing influence there.
They essentially control the state GOP and thus the state government there. There are many resonances
with their academic efforts, including a GOP Loyalty oath. It hasn't gone well.
beene, February 15, 2016 6:44 am
People, see no difference in Koch's efforts and those who promote neoliberalism, or free trade.
We have these because too advance in our higher learning schools you must support the above to
advance your career.
For even a person with limited educations knows the above only cause debt for the nation and
ever limiting opportunities for the majority of the population.
For anyone interest in what actually enriches a nation and the majority of the population I
would recommend a scholarly study done by Ha-Joon Chang and another by Ian Fletcher.
Perfect timing. I am currently reading "Dark Money", and am, frankly, terrified. Not so much
for what the Kochs have been up to, but at how little most of America is interested, or cares
to understand the mosaic.
The Kochs, Charles, especially have been masterful at flying beneath the radar of the average
American. For instance, to the extent we recognize our public schools have a problem, we've been
too quick to buy into the idea that it's because they aren't 'run like a business'. But once you
dig just a bit, you can see the tentacles of the "Kochtapus" everywhere.
(Jane Mayer's description of the cold, calculating upbringing of the Koch boys is chilling.
One wonders why they didn't end up as serial killers? Again, Charles, especially. He appears to
have totally dominated the scene, once he go too big to be beaten by his father.)
Margaret Spellings gave a speech last week where she tried to down-play her history with for-profit
education, among other things. It will be interesting to see how the UNC system survives this
next phase……
Jack , February 15, 2016 12:47 pm
"One wonders why they didn't end up as serial killers? Again, Charles, especially." Sandi
What makes you say that they are not? In their own indirect manner they have managed to kill
democracy in America and cooperation within its political system.
Daniel Becker, February 15, 2016 1:12 pm
Sandi,
My first introduction to the idea that society needs to remodel its self as business or
that business is the better model for society's organization started with Reagan. I believe
he/they ran on the idea that government needed to be more like business.
Unfortunately, people believed it as it went along with the "government is the problem"
meme.
All of this I believe can be summed up with how I view Milton Friedman's work as simply
mind the money and everything else will be taken care of. That is the free market ideology.
Sandi, February 15, 2016 1:30 pm
Jack: Point taken. You're right, of course.
Daniel: I don't recall my introduction to the 'run government as a business' idea, per se.
I well remember Reagan and his 'the government is always the problem, never the solution' BS.
Since both my parents came up in the Depression, I knew how much good had been done by
government programs, and, as a boomer, I could see it all around me; from the space race to
the Civil Rights movement. I guess I took it for granted that that was the way the world was
supposed to work. But I can see how that freaked out a lot of conservatives, both economically
and socially.
I can't recall where I read it, but years ago came across a quote by someone esteemed,
that pretty much said, "The reason for government is that there will always be services people
want and need that, when provided, would never be a profitable venture, so the business world
will never provide them. Hence, the government must be that provider."
My apologies to whomever the source was (Ben Franklin?) for the paraphrase. But the idea
resonated with me as true, and I still believe it.
Mr. Bartlett: Just a quick note of appreciation – I've enjoyed your writings over the years.
Sandi, February 15, 2016 1:38 pm
PS Daniel:
All of this I believe can be summed up with how I view Milton Friedman's work as simply
mind the money and everything else will be taken care of. That is the free market ideology.
In re-reading this about minding the money, I couldn't help but think about the entirely
different interpretation we got on this idea from Deep Throat…
William Ryan, February 15, 2016 1:51 pm
Unfortunately the slippery slope picture is much larger then just the Koch bros. To fix the
inequality that is growing like a cancer in our society we must #1 establish the wealth tax.
(see Wikipedia). #2 establish the progressive income tax. #3 establish the inheritance tax. #4
establish the transaction tax on trading. We must do all this before the oligarchs establish
the robot police force. For more detail please go see todays D-Kos "Another Chart Shows How
Bad We' re Screwed" also be sure to read the many fine comments there…
Mark Jamison, February 15, 2016 3:19 pm
Mr. Bartlett,
From Schulman's Sons of Wichita: "Fink was a twenty-seven year old doctoral student at New
York University, which at the time had the country's lone graduate program focused on Austrian
economics. Fink had done his undergrad work at Rutgers….. As he worked towards his Ph.D. Fink
taught pert-time at Rutgers, …"
From Doherty's "Radicals for Capitalism" – A Grinder student and economics professor from
Rutgers named Richard Fink, with Koch's support, launched an Austrian program that came to be
called the Center for Study of Market Processes. It began at Rutgers and in 1980 relocated to
George Mason University, where it has evolved into the Mercatus Center.
Re: "Is NATO actually willing to go to war with Russia for NATO's credibility rather than the
slightly less fabulous idea of a Russian invasion of Poland and the Baltics (as the BBC would
like us to believe)? Germany doesn't want moslem Turkey in the EU, so why would 'Christian Europe'
sacrifice itself for power mad moslem Erdogan?"
Gilbert Doctorow wrote quite a great piece about
the BBC piece here:
I think GD is actually right about Russia's over-reaction:
"The tragedy of our times of information warfare is that well-educated and sincere citizens
are blind-sighted. We have an old maxim that when you cannot persuade, confuse. The fatal flaw
is when you believe your own propaganda. If nothing else, the BBC documentary demonstrates that
for Western elites this is what has happened. The reaction to the film from the Kremlin, suggests
the same has happened to Eastern elites."
I think this the first time I've seen Russian officials "losing their heads" a little bit.
Yes, that is a great piece, and Doctorow seldom disappoints. Russia certainly did miss a golden
opportunity to highlight those closing quotes, if they are as described (I didn't see it), although
they were perfectly right to rage against the demonization of Russia implicit in the scenario,
which supposedly had it attacking Latvia. Why would Russia do such a thing? If left to its own
devices and if current trends prevail (plummeting population and a youth unemployment rate of
more than 18%), the place will be empty in 20 years anyway.
Moreover, the scenario proposes that some 20 Latvian towns are 'taken by pro-Russian separatists',
a la Donbas. What happened to the will of the people? These are ethnic-Russian Latvians, not foreign
invaders. The west in general and Washington in particular has always had a soft spot in its heart
for popular uprisings, and if there is not a good one happening somewhere it often tries to create
one, it likes them so much. are you telling me that's just a political destabilization device,
and not a value the west champions at all?
"... The American public has been living under collective Stockholm syndrome. The have secretly been deceived and betrayed while our freedoms, rights and national security has been compromised. The surveillance state was never for our protection. ..."
"... Various rogue agencies have intentionally and illegally subverted our constitution, rights and freedoms while secretly targeting Americans committing various crimes, including murder. ..."
"... When Clapper says "they might" then they are already doing so. ..."
"... Tea party never was. It always was promoted by the media and big business. Financed by the same. Look at the coverage: Occupy was ridiculed by big Media into no existence. Not the same at all. ..."
"... USSR has won! Now we treat our people the same way they did. Soon we can blackmail everyone into compliance. And we can easily plant evidence should we not find any - if they're in they can do anything they want. ..."
"... She is an opportunist, not a feminist. ..."
"... Ban Ki Moon and the Pope saying capitalism is destroying the life AND economy of the entire fricken globe, may be an opportunity for a popular movement, and this Bernie thing has the potential to be part of a wake up moment. ..."
"... I said I wouldn't ever do that again after O'bummer, but as Woodie Guthrie said, Hope is what makes us human and is the driver of evolution. Or something like that. ..."
"... You lost me on "equality is women having all the same opportunities as men". Actually many of us want entirely different "opportunities" and these women who play the patriarch, like Thatcher and Rice, and Shillary, do not represent the diverse and rich culture of "feminism" that is enmeshed in people's real lives. ..."
"... I'm an aussie and I can tell you America Bernie Sanders is what you need to keep you guys from becoming a laughing stock. Hillary, trump is on the same brush as the elitist of your country. Bernie may or not be able to do what he wants to as he will get stonewalled but if everyone is united and keeps fighting with him they will have no choice to implement some of them. ..."
The American public has been living under collective Stockholm syndrome. The have secretly
been deceived and betrayed while our freedoms, rights and national security has been compromised.
The surveillance state was never for our protection.
Various rogue agencies have intentionally and illegally subverted our constitution, rights
and freedoms while secretly targeting Americans committing various crimes, including murder.
I'll say this, if this inevitable surveillance can prevent actual criminals from committing
actual crimes, it might be useful.
And I'll say this: if that is the intention of these devices - and if your bog-standard criminal
is ever caught using them - I'll eat your smart fridge.
Tea party never was. It always was promoted by the media and big business. Financed by the same.
Look at the coverage: Occupy was ridiculed by big Media into no existence. Not the same at all.
USSR has won! Now we treat our people the same way they did. Soon we can blackmail everyone into
compliance. And we can easily plant evidence should we not find any - if they're in they can do
anything they want.
Hear ya, I plan to hold him to the fire. I'm a realist, and married to an uber realist, so not
gonna argue with ya here, but, as this article actually says really well, is that the holistic
embrace of all inequity opens the landscape to the big conversations we do Need to have right
now.
I know i know, the UN is at one hand a weak tool and on the other a NWO franchise, but
Ban Ki Moon and the Pope saying capitalism is destroying the life AND economy of the entire fricken
globe, may be an opportunity for a popular movement, and this Bernie thing has the potential to
be part of a wake up moment.
I have let my Hope thing vibrate a bit, and I said I wouldn't ever
do that again after O'bummer, but as Woodie Guthrie said, Hope is what makes us human and is the
driver of evolution. Or something like that.
You lost me on "equality is women having all the same opportunities as men". Actually many of
us want entirely different "opportunities" and these women who play the patriarch, like Thatcher
and Rice, and Shillary, do not represent the diverse and rich culture of "feminism" that is enmeshed
in people's real lives.
I'm an aussie and I can tell you America Bernie Sanders is what you need to keep you guys from
becoming a laughing stock. Hillary, trump is on the same brush as the elitist of your country.
Bernie may or not be able to do what he wants to as he will get stonewalled but if everyone is
united and keeps fighting with him they will have no choice to implement some of them.
As an Aussie
it is important that his message is heard and implemented as America can then show the world there
is good in the world and that we all can live in a fair, just and equal world. Something America
has stopped showing for a very longtime. This hopefully will filter down to other countries as
America rightly or wrongly leads the world and many countries do follow suit.
"... Russia will certainly react, probably by moving more of its own heavy weapons, including advanced missiles, to its Western borders, possibly along with a number of tactical nuclear weapons. Indeed, a new and more dangerous US-Russian nuclear arms race has been under way for several years, which the Obama administration's latest decision can only intensify. ..."
"... Astonishingly, these potentially fateful developments have barely been reported in the US media, and there's been no public discussion, not even by the current presidential candidates during their debates. ..."
"... Every presidential candidate and the other leaders of both parties, as well as the editors and writers in the mainstream media who profess to be covering the 2016 campaign, the state of our nation, and world affairs are professionally and morally obliged to bring these dire developments to the fore. Otherwise, they will be harshly judged by history-if anyone is still around to write it. ..."
he Obama administration has just recklessly escalated its military confrontation with Russia.
The Pentagon's announcement that it will more than quadruple military spending on the US-NATO forces
in countries on or near Russia's borders pushes the new Cold War toward actual war-possibly even
a nuclear one.
The move is unprecedented in modern times. With the exception of Nazi Germany's invasion of the
Soviet Union, Western military power has never been positioned so close to Russia. The Obama administration's
decision is Russian roulette Washington-style, making the new Cold War even more dangerous than the
preceding one. Russia will certainly react, probably by moving more of its own heavy weapons,
including advanced missiles, to its Western borders, possibly along with a number of tactical nuclear
weapons. Indeed, a new and more dangerous US-Russian nuclear arms race has been under way for several
years, which the Obama administration's latest decision can only intensify.
The decision will also have other woeful consequences. It will undermine ongoing negotiations
between Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on the Ukrainian
and Syrian crises, and it will further divide Europe itself, which is far from united on Washington's
increasingly hawkish approach to Moscow.
Astonishingly, these potentially fateful developments have barely been reported in the US
media, and there's been no public discussion, not even by the current presidential candidates during
their debates. Never before in modern times has such a dire international situation been so
ignored in an American presidential campaign. The reason may be that everything related to the new
Cold War in US-Russian relations since the Ukrainian crisis erupted in November 2013 has been attributed
solely to the "aggression" of Russian President Vladimir Putin or to "Putin's Russia"-a highly questionable
assertion, but long the media's standard policy narrative.
Every presidential candidate and the other leaders of both parties, as well as the editors
and writers in the mainstream media who profess to be covering the 2016 campaign, the state of our
nation, and world affairs are professionally and morally obliged to bring these dire developments
to the fore. Otherwise, they will be harshly judged by history-if anyone is still around to write
it.
The EU should have the power to police and interfere in member states' national budgets.
***
"I am certain, if we want to restore confidence in the eurozone, countries will have
to transfer part of their sovereignty to the European level."
***
"Several governments have not yet understood that they lost their national sovereignty
long ago. Because they ran up huge debts in the past, they are now dependent on the goodwill
of the financial markets."
Threw money at
"several billionaires and tens of multi-millionaires", including billionaire businessman H.
Wayne Huizenga, billionaire Michael Dell of Dell computer, billionaire hedge fund manager John
Paulson, billionaire private equity honcho J. Christopher Flowers, and the wife of Morgan Stanley
CEO John Mack
Artificially
"front-loaded an enormous [stock] market rally". Professor G. William Domhoff
demonstrated that the richest 10% own 81% of all stocks and mutual funds (the top 1% own 35%).
The great majority of Americans – the bottom 90% – own less than
20% of all stocks and mutual funds. So the Fed's effort overwhelmingly benefits the wealthiest
Americans … and wealthy foreign investors
Acted as cheerleader in chief for unregulated use of derivatives at least as far back as 1999
(see this and
this), and is now
backstopping derivatives loss
Allowed the giant banks to grow into mega-banks, even though most independent economists and
financial experts
say
that the economy will not recover until the giant banks are broken up. For example, Citigroup's
former chief executive says that when Citigroup was formed in 1998 out of the merger of banking
and insurance giants, Greenspan
told him, "I have
nothing against size. It doesn't bother me at all"
Preached that a new bubble be blown every time the last one bursts
Had a hand in Watergate and arming Saddam Hussein, according to an economist with the U.S.
House of Representatives Financial Services Committee for eleven years, assisting with oversight
of the Federal Reserve, and subsequently Professor of Public Affairs at the University of Texas
at Austin. See
this and
this
Tim Geithner – as head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York – was complicit in
Lehman's accounting fraud, (and see
this), and
pushed to pay AIG's CDS counterparties at full value, and then to keep the deal secret. And as
Robert Reich
notes, Geithner was "very much in the center of the action" regarding the secret bail out of
Bear Stearns without Congressional approval. William Black
points out: "Mr. Geithner, as President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York since October
2003, was one of those senior regulators who failed to take any effective regulatory action to prevent
the crisis, but instead covered up its depth"
They also say that the Fed does not help stabilize the economy.
For example:
Thomas Sargent, the New York University professor who was announced Monday as a winner of the
Nobel in economics … cites Walter Bagehot, who "said that what he called a 'natural' competitive
banking system without a 'central' bank would be better…. 'nothing can be more surely established
by a larger experience than that a Government which interferes with any trade injures that trade.
The best thing undeniably that a Government can do with the Money Market is to let it take care
of itself.'"
Earlier U.S. central banks caused mischief, as well. For example, Austrian economist
Murray Rothbard wrote:
The panics of 1837 and 1839 … were the consequence of a massive inflationary boom fueled by
the Whig-run Second Bank of the United States.
Indeed, the Revolutionary War was largely due to the actions of the world's first central bank,
the Bank of England. Specifically, when Benjamin Franklin went to London in 1764,
this is what he observed:
When he arrived, he was surprised to find rampant unemployment and poverty among the British
working classes… Franklin was then asked how the American colonies managed to collect enough money
to support their poor houses. He reportedly replied:
"We have no poor houses in the Colonies; and if we had some, there would be nobody to put in
them, since there is, in the Colonies, not a single unemployed person, neither beggars nor tramps."
In 1764, the Bank of England used its influence on Parliament to get a Currency Act passed
that made it illegal for any of the colonies to print their own money. The colonists were forced
to pay all future taxes to Britain in silver or gold. Anyone lacking in those precious metals
had to borrow them at interest from the banks.
Only a year later, Franklin said, the streets of the colonies were filled with unemployed beggars,
just as they were in England. The money supply had suddenly been reduced by half, leaving insufficient
funds to pay for the goods and services these workers could have provided. He maintained that
it was "the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on the Parliament which
has caused in the colonies hatred of the English and . . . the Revolutionary War." This, he said,
was the real reason for the Revolution: "the colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on
tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which
created unemployment and dissatisfaction."
And things are getting worse ... rather than better. As Professor Werner tells
Washington's Blog:
Central banks have legally become more and more powerful in the past 30 years across the globe,
yet they have become de facto less and less accountable. In fact, as I warned in my book New Paradigm
in Macroeconomics in 2005, after each of the 'recurring banking crises', central banks are usually
handed even more powers. This also happened after the 2008 crisis. [Background
here and
here.] So it is clear we have a regulatory moral hazard problem: central banks seem to benefit
from crises. No wonder the rise of central banks to ever larger legal powers has been accompanied
not by fewer and smaller business cycles and crises, but more crises and of larger amplitude.
Georgetown University historian Professor
Carroll Quigley argued that
the aim of the powers-that-be is "nothing less than to create a world system of financial control
in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world
as a whole." This system is to be controlled "in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the
world acting in concert by secret agreements," central banks that "were themselves private corporations."
Given the facts set forth above, this may be yet another conspiracy theory confirmed as conspiracy
fact.
"... Theres another aspect of the connection between secular stagnation and inequality that bears emphasis. Experience suggests that in an economy where there are more workers seeking jobs than there are jobs seeking workers, the power is on the employer side, and workers do much less well. A tight economy, where employers are seeking workers, shifts the balance of power toward workers and leads to higher pay and better benefits. That, in turn, leads to more spending being injected into the economy, which supports further economic growth. ..."
"... But I also believe there are many areas in which its possible to reform policy to promote both economic efficiency and equality. One such area is policy to mitigate secular stagnation by promoting demand at times when there is slack in the use of resources. ..."
"... Right, in a democracy, the elected leaders must view the voters as idiots and execute to the total opposite of the expressed policies of the candidates who won. ..."
"... Paul Krugman and Larry Summers both have very good columns this morning noting the economys continuing weakness and warning against excessive rate hikes by the Fed. While I fully agree with their assessment of the state of the economy and the dangers of Fed rate hikes, I think they are overly pessimistic about the Feds scope for action if the economy weakens. ..."
"... While the Fed did adopt unorthodox monetary policy in this recession in the form of quantitative easing, the buying of long-term debt, it has another tool at its disposal that it chose not to use. Specifically, instead of just targeting the overnight interest rate (now zero), the Fed could have targeted a longer term interest rate. ..."
"... For example, it could set a target of 1.0 percent as the interest rate for the 5-year Treasury note, committing itself to buy more notes to push up the price, and push down the interest rate to keep it at 1.0 percent. It could even do the same with 10-year Treasury notes. ..."
"... This is an idea that Joe Gagnon at the Peterson Institute for International Economics put forward at the depth of the recession, but for some reason there was little interest in policy circles. The only obvious risk of going the interest rate targeting route is that it could be inflationary if it led to too rapid an expansion, but excessively high inflation will not be our problem if the economy were to again weaken. Furthermore, if it turned out that targeting was prompting too much growth, the Fed could quickly reverse course and let the interest rate rise back to the market level. ..."
"... Amazing how unconventional monetary is always the go-to option. Pessimism about the effectiveness of the Feds policy options is well warranted. You only need to look at the results of the last seven years. ..."
... When I went to graduate school in the 1970s, the prevailing view among economists, captured
by Art Okun's book "Equality Versus Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff," was that equality and efficiency
were both desirable, but they were likely to trade off-that more progressive taxation would achieve
more equality but would inevitably in some way distort economic choices and, so, reduce efficiency,
for example.
I believe there are still many areas in which one does have to trade off equality versus efficiency.
But I also believe there are many areas in which it's possible to reform policy to promote both
economic efficiency and equality. One such area is policy to mitigate secular stagnation by promoting
demand at times when there is slack in the use of resources.
Recall that I defined secular stagnation as having at its essence an excess of savings over
investment, desired saving over desired investment. There are many reasons for that. Some of them
have to do, for example, with reduced investment demand because so much more capital can be purchased
with fewer dollars. I think of the fact that my iPad has more computing power than a Cray supercomputer
did when Bill Clinton came into office in 1993.
One aspect of that excess in saving over investments is that rising inequality has operated
to reduce spending. We are fairly confident that what economists call the "marginal propensity
to consume" of those with high incomes is less than the marginal propensity to consume of those
with middle incomes.
And so the combination of rising inequality in the distribution of income across income levels
and a shift in inequality toward the higher profit share slows economic growth. In normal times,
such a change might be offset by easier monetary policy. But in the current environment, where
interest rates are very close to the zero lower bound, the capacity for that kind of offset is
greatly attenuated.
There's another aspect of the connection between secular stagnation and inequality that bears
emphasis. Experience suggests that in an economy where there are more workers seeking jobs than
there are jobs seeking workers, the power is on the employer side, and workers do much less well.
A tight economy, where employers are seeking workers, shifts the balance of power toward workers
and leads to higher pay and better benefits. That, in turn, leads to more spending being injected
into the economy, which supports further economic growth.
And so, as Keynes recognized when he wrote to FDR in the late 1930s urging the importance of
wage increases, measures that strengthen workers' capacity to earn income by increasing spending
power can promote both equality and strengthen the economic performance of the country. ...
pgl :
Excellent interview with this as a key sentence:
"But I also believe there are many areas in which it's possible to reform policy to
promote both economic efficiency and equality. One such area is policy to mitigate secular
stagnation by promoting demand at times when there is slack in the use of resources."
Summers makes two arguments with respect to promoting aggregate demand:
(1) his case for more infrastructure investment; and
(2) his defense of the expansionary monetary measures taken by the FED from 2008 until recently.
He does note that Obama started talking about "belt tightening" after Summers left the White
House and to Summers regret.
Right, in a democracy, the elected leaders must view the voters as idiots and execute to the
total opposite of the expressed policies of the candidates who won.
Or do you think the voters were calling for massive explosions of debt and massive increases
in jobs forced by government policies to force exploding labor costs which would necessarily result
in exploding consumer prices when they voted Democrats out and Republicans in?
Perhaps you think Bernie Sanders got far more leftist laws passed by being a radical leftist
socialist in Congress able to lead a revolution in Congress to redistribute wealth?
The Republican Party is divided by Obama highly divisive politeral tactics which played Republicans
against Republicans, doing a far better job dealing with Republicans than Clinton's "triangulation"
which implemented massive austerity tempered by government dictates that were highly profitable
to crony capitalists in the computer industry. Bush-Cheney served a different set of crony capitalists
leading to an implosion in the tech sector dragging down pretty much everything good for the American
people. Obama has since created incentives with rewards to both sets of crony capitalists, that
has now imploded for the Bush-Cheney crony capitalists (fossil fuels) but still reward the Elon
Musk, Bezos, google, hollywood, Ellison, Apple sector.
Neither Clinton nor Obama were allowed to help the bottom 50% of workers because voters demanded
austerity by voting for Republican control of Congress in 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004,
2010, 2012, 2014, and if Sanders is the Democratic nominee in 2016, then Republican control of
Congress in 2016, 2018, and probably 2020 and 2022. And only a Republican president will end the
austerity, but it will lead to slower growth, high unemployment, likely severe recession, but
wars. Just like the end of austerity of Bush-Cheney.
WTF this has to do with what Summers wrote??? Never mind. So much babbling, so little time.
JohnH :
"One aspect of that excess in saving over investments is that rising inequality has operated
to reduce spending. We are fairly confident that what economists call the "marginal propensity
to consume" of those with high incomes is less than the marginal propensity to consume of those
with middle incomes.
And so the combination of rising inequality in the distribution of income across income
levels and a shift in inequality toward the higher profit share slows economic growth."
Hate to say this, but Summers is making a lot of sense.
The way to address the problem of slow economic growth is to tax the wealthy, who have a low
propensity to consume, and use the funds for government programs (infrastructure, education, healthcare)
and redistribution to the poor...exactly as I have been arguing.
JohnH said in reply to JohnH...
pgl should take up his fight with Larry Summers, not me.
But Summers is fairly confident...as pgl just can't accept that a) increasing inequality reduces
consumption and economic growth and that b) addressing inequality by taxing high incomes and wealth
would lead to increased consumption and economic growth if it was spent on social programs and
redistribution to those with a high propensity to consume (the poor).
It appears the we now have two pgls here--one that support high top tax brackets and another
who opposes taxing the wealthy.
Or maybe we just have a single, very confused dude!
BenIsNotYoda -> JohnH...
pgl's solution is - give them a rate cut. always. grandmother is ill - give her a rate cut
pgl said in reply to JohnH...
You do know BINY is cheating on you. Good luck getting back with granny.
BenIsNotYoda -> JohnH...
he is not happy because his cheap stocks are getting cheaper.
JohnH said in reply to BenIsNotYoda...
I already called him on demanding QE4, which he advocated as soon as stocks went into correction
territory back in August.
It was the same lousy economy. But as soon as stocks started to correct, and pgl's portfolio
was getting hurt, he jumped right into action!
lower middle class -> pgl...
I'm trying to avoid being confused.
We hold the folowing as true, correct?
MPC is less than one.
"Income" refers to "disposable income"
As wealth and income rise, consumption also rises.
Falls in income do not lead to reductions in consumption because people reduce savings to stabilize
consumption. (the poor get poorer by consuming wealth; wealth inequality accelerates?)
Increases in income do not lead to increases in consumption because people add to savings to
stabilize consumption.
(high income people increase wealth faster the low income people while consumption increases;
wealth inequality decelerates?)
JohnH said in reply to lower middle class...
General propensity to consume depends on income. Wealthy people tend to save a good chunk of their
incomes...and become wealthier. Most people save a very small part of their incomes (middle class)
or nothing at all (poor). Obviously there are exceptions to this generalization, as pgl is quick
to point out with his tearful evocations of the plight of the 'hand to mouth' rich. But the general
pattern is as I have described.
Marginal propensity to spend is a little more complicated, and a lot depends on whether the
additional money is seen as a windfall or not. For people who do not generally save much, windfalls
may be saved for a while or go to pay off debt, or be spend on durable goods or just spent.
Peter K. :
"In normal times, such a change might be offset by easier monetary policy. But in the current
environment, where interest rates are very close to the zero lower bound, the capacity for that
kind of offset is greatly attenuated."
Larry Summers agrees with the obnoxious trolls like JohnH and BINY. Monetary policy doesn't
help.
I agree with Dean Baker and Bernie Sanders. (This is not to say fiscal policy doesn't work
better. Funny how the trolls always toss out red herrings.)
Paul Krugman, Larry Summers, and the Fed's Unused Ammunition by Dean Baker
Paul Krugman and Larry Summers both have very good columns this morning noting the economy's
continuing weakness and warning against excessive rate hikes by the Fed. While I fully agree with
their assessment of the state of the economy and the dangers of Fed rate hikes, I think they are
overly pessimistic about the Fed's scope for action if the economy weakens.
While the Fed did adopt unorthodox monetary policy in this recession in the form of quantitative
easing, the buying of long-term debt, it has another tool at its disposal that it chose not to
use. Specifically, instead of just targeting the overnight interest rate (now zero), the Fed could
have targeted a longer term interest rate.
For example, it could set a target of 1.0 percent as the interest rate for the 5-year Treasury
note, committing itself to buy more notes to push up the price, and push down the interest rate
to keep it at 1.0 percent. It could even do the same with 10-year Treasury notes.
This is an idea that Joe Gagnon at the Peterson Institute for International Economics put
forward at the depth of the recession, but for some reason there was little interest in policy
circles. The only obvious risk of going the interest rate targeting route is that it could be
inflationary if it led to too rapid an expansion, but excessively high inflation will not be our
problem if the economy were to again weaken. Furthermore, if it turned out that targeting was
prompting too much growth, the Fed could quickly reverse course and let the interest rate rise
back to the market level.
Of course, it would be best if we could count on fiscal policy to play a role in getting us
back to full employment (lowering supply through reduced workweeks and work years should also
be on the agenda), but the Fed does have more ammunition buried away in the basement and we should
be pressing them to use it if the need arises.
Paine said in reply to Peter K....
Excellent
Despite a finessed genuflex to inflation
JohnH said in reply to Peter K....
"Larry Summers agrees with the obnoxious trolls like JohnH and BINY. Monetary policy doesn't help."
Amazing, isn't it?
Agreed: "Of course, it would be best if we could count on fiscal policy to play a role in getting
us back to full employment." And the best course is higher taxes on the wealthy, who have more
than what they know with to do with.
Taxes on the wealthy directly tackles inequality, increased debt doesn't.
JohnH said in reply to Peter K....
Amazing how unconventional monetary is always the go-to option. Pessimism about the effectiveness
of the Fed's policy options is well warranted. You only need to look at the results of the last
seven years.
So why not advocate unconventional fiscal policy...which at this point would include taxing
the wealthy to fund stimulus? Why constantly flog the debt option, which does nothing to directly
tackle inequality?
pgl said in reply to JohnH...
You need to shut up and go read that Ando-Modigliani paper on consumption. Once again you got
everything exactly backwards. But then you are the dumbest troll ever.
JohnH said in reply to BenIsNotYoda...
pgl was against tax increases on the wealthy... before he was for tax increases on the wealthy...before
he was against tax increases on the wealthy...
but he has always been for lots more debt...
PPaine :
" one persons rent may be another persons incentive "
That relies on a muddled use of the term rent
Which by construction
Means
non supply regulating revenue or income
But still a point lies under that mud dimness of articulation
Separating rents from incentives ain't easy
But in the last analysis
Very often it's very doable
Take my specialty
Ground rent
There are clever ways to tease out the rent
"... In my view, Clinton wants to be President only because it is there and it is a powerful role. For her, I think it affirms her egotistical belief that she is the best person for the job. She is a by the numbers politician; lacking passion and a cause and is beholden to Wall St. ..."
"... Clinton is a warmonger. Most of the candidates are. I wouldnt vote for anyone who was, no matter what their politics. So, the field is greatly reduced for me. ..."
"... The media likes a simplistic narrative, and the media wants Clinton win, no matter what the Democratic base wants. Its annoying, but not surprising, that they are trying to cast the Democratic primary as they have. ..."
This disgraceful episode shows the dark side of the sexism arguments. Equality is about every
women having the same opportunities as men. But what gets lost in the debate, or conveniently
ignored, is that an incompetent woman has no place taking or claiming precedence over a competent
man. Margaret Thatcher wrought a trail of destruction in the UK - her Reagan-esque and neo-liberal
policies led to many more Britons living in poverty and being left with no prospect of any dignity;
instead being trapped in a life-long welfare-cycle. How is it plausible that she should not be
judged on her performance, rather on some esoteric and exaggerated feminist ideal. She was a female
PM, sure, but she was an awful PM. Her political salvation was the Argentine conflict over the
Falklands. Without that, she would have deservedly been confined to the political scrap-heap much
sooner.
In my view, Clinton wants to be President only because it is there and it is a powerful role.
For her, I think it affirms her egotistical belief that she is the best person for the job. She
is a "by the numbers" politician; lacking passion and a cause and is beholden to Wall St. That
surely makes her sound more like a conservative rather than a liberal (the equivalent of Tony
Blair). Sanders might be a silly old fool, but he has a passion for the American ideal - that
all men (and women) were indeed created equal and his policies support that ideal. Clinton has
no policies - she is essentially asking the American people to trust her, when in reality, they
don't - not because she is a woman, but because she has a history of duplicity.
Clinton is a warmonger. Most of the candidates are. I wouldn't vote for anyone who was, no
matter what their politics. So, the field is greatly reduced for me.
"I am increasingly dismayed that 'older, wiser, more mature' voters are portrayed as solidly in
Hillary's corner"
The media likes a simplistic narrative, and the media wants Clinton win, no matter what the
Democratic base wants. It's annoying, but not surprising, that they are trying to cast the Democratic
primary as they have.
"... Since his appointment, there has been a genuine effort in the field of PR. the goal is to create
for him an image of a politician of an international stature. He seeks to become the counterpart, if
not the equal of the great western powers. ..."
"... It is important to be opportunistic at this level and not to alienate the fringe wahhabi elements
of Saudi Arabia is of paramount importance. A little interaction with the West it OK, too much of interactions
with the West, this is detrimental to his image and his credibility. Therefore he tries to advance his
goal, while at the same time trying not to offend nobody. It is, after all, a dive of discovery in the
international political universe. ..."
"... Regardless of his background, he needs to prove that he matters, that he is a hardliner, that
he is a good minister of Defence, and that that he is anti-shiite, he is a man capable of confronting
Iran. At the same time, he needs to satisfy needs of Saudi population which is increasingly flocks to
jihadism. ..."
"... It is necessary to remove the ground under the feet of those who believe that the monarchy
has for too long been moderate, particularly during the reign of the former king Abdallah. It is this
desire to build his leadership, which leads to the direct confrontation with the shia, including such
political decisions as the execution of the leader of shiite Nimr al-Nimr, and the increased tension
with Iran. Finally, it also represents a reaction of the Saudi monarchy, which was disappointed by the
United States. He would like to stop normalization of Iranian-American relations, because in the event
of a confrontation with Iran, the Saudis would find themselves in a difficult position without 100%
US support. ..."
"... Prince Mohammed bin Salman tenure as the head of the armed forces can be characterized as a
failure. In Yemen, there has been a stalemate ..."
"... Moreover, where he was able to displaced the allies of Iran, the radicals from Al Qaeda and
DAESH took the control of those area. Iran became firmly positioned at the southern gateway to Saudi
Arabia. It is anything but a success. ..."
"... Nevertheless, he was applauded because he stood up and responded, tried to stop to Iran. He
responded to the Iran thereat, but has not managed to achieve his goals, which was expected of him.
However, in the eyes of the Saudis, a manly reaction that tha fact that has the the will to challenge
to the hegemony of Iran in the region was positive steps. ..."
"... In addition, Mohammed bin Salman has a revenge in mind: in 2009, the houthis crossed the Saudi
border, and despite the superiority of Saudis weaponry, the Saudi troops were able to repel that offence
only after 3 months of fighting which left 130 soldiers dead. ..."
"... It is perceived as dangerous because of the war, reckless and ineffective in Yemen as well
as its strategy of tension vis-à-vis Iran. Moreover, for the Germans, Iran is a huge market. They have
relied heavily on Iran in recent years, in the logical continuation of the long tradition of trade between
the two countries. Dont forget that it is a country that lives from exports, and that it is therefore
very important for the Germans to arrive at an agreement with Iran. Moreover, Germany is a country whose
strategy is intimately linked to that of the United States and totally dependent on NATO due to the
fact that it is forbidden to have an army of its own. Germany knows that if it was a direct confrontation
between Saudi Arabia and Iran, it would be required to be supportive of Saudi Arabia – regardless of
the efforts by Barack Obama to move closer to Iran. ..."
"... the strategy of the prince Mohammed Bin Salman is to push Iran to the fault in causing the
tensions that can go up to a risk of open warfare that would force the west to choose Saudi Arabia against
Iran ..."
"... The Prince Mohammed bin Salman is now the most powerful man in Saudi Arabia. It has exclusive
access to his father, King Salman, and effectivly he can rule the coutries inread of him. He is head
of his office, which means that nobody can contact or be received by the King without going through
the son ..."
"... Saudi Arabia is extremely disturbed by the detente with Iran on the international scene. We
are witnessing more or less a reversal of alliances, and of countries images in the eyes of the West.
A short time ago, Iran was demonized in the West. Today, it is accepted as a normal partner. Iran, therefore,
benefits from a relatively favorable treatment, while at the same time when the Arab monarchies, particularly
Saudi Arabia, are seen as retrograde, unable to provide for reforms and creating the flow of Islamic
radicals... The nature of Hezbollah, interference military and terrorists of Iran is currently forgotten.
..."
"... I think it will be very difficult to see any reapprochement with Iran in the coming months
as Saudi Arabia has two hardliners in the young rising generation of leaders. The heir and the vice-inherit
the Kingdom share the same radical line toward Iran. ..."
"... Moreover, Saudi Arabia pays very dear to his strategy of crushing oil prices, which makes it
less able to buy social peace than before. Therefore, there is an internal demand of radicalism, because
the discontent rumbles in the parts of the Saudi population fueled by the effects of the falling oil
prices. ..."
"... If one wanted to summaries, we could say that to buy a peace with Islamist Wahhabi radicals,
it is necessary to kill shia... besides, the Saudis have a genuine complex of encirclement by the Shiite
states. They try to counter it by creating an opposite ark of Sunni radicals. ..."
"... even if this does not lead to open warfare, the tension between Saudi Arabia and Iran is sustainable,
if only because this new generation of Saudis leaders is more combative. They differ from the former
kings who belonged to a generation that was distinguished rather by its search for a compromise and
some consensus. This is absolutely not the case for those two heirs of the throne. ..."
Atlantico : While today Saudi Arabia play the central role in the conflicts around the Middle
East which are worried the whole world. What do we know bout young chief of the armed forces of Saudi
Arabia ?
Antoine Basbous : His position is more precarious than the last year, and it looks like
he is trying to double cross his cousin crown prince.
He tries to use the advantage of the presence of his father on the throne to become a direct successor.
It is an assumption that is pretty crazy since theoretically, Mohammed bin Salman does
not belong to the chain of the succession because of his position in the family. In addition, it
is clearly lacking experience and legitimacy, compared to its brothers and cousins, but also to public
opinion.
He is someone of impulsive, short-tempered, as we already observed in the past. He behaves somewhat
like like his father when he was young. Previously, when he was less in the spotlight, he could afford
some mistakes. But since his appointment to the ministry of defense, he embodies the virile answer
of the kingdom to the set of challenges from Iran. Now, he certainly has placed contracts with firms
of communication that has allowed him to acquire the elements of language needed to smooth impression
about himself. They also help him to appear on major foreign media : recently, he appeared in the
journal The Economist. Since his appointment, there has been a genuine effort in the field of
PR. the goal is to create for him an image of a politician of an international stature. He seeks
to become the counterpart, if not the equal of the great western powers.
It is important to be opportunistic at this level and not to alienate the fringe wahhabi elements
of Saudi Arabia is of paramount importance. A little interaction with the West it OK, too much of
interactions with the West, this is detrimental to his image and his credibility. Therefore he tries
to advance his goal, while at the same time trying not to offend nobody. It is, after all, a dive
of discovery in the international political universe.
Inside, however, his authority comes from his status of the son to the King to whom his father
is listening a lot. In one year, it has greatly expanded its power. It controls not only the military,
budgets but also key sectors of the economy. It has separated the' ARAMCO (the biggest oil company
in the world) from the ministry of oil. This dramatically increases his economic power. In addition,
the minister of oil shall soon leave the position, and should be replaced by his half-brother. Mohammed
bin Salman leaves him a ministry deprived of any substance.
For his education, we know that he has studied the Law in Saudi Arabia, but has not, to my knowledge,
pursued follow-up studies in the West. Currently, he oversees the operations of the Coalition in
Yemen, together with his cousin prince Mohammed bin Nayef, the Interior minister and deputy crown
prince. So far, they are not in rivalry, on the contrary: as the minister of the Interior had no
sons, he might appoint Mohammed bin Salman to be a crown prince since their age gap is 21 years.
Moreover, the two men appear together on the front.
Alexander del Valle : Regardless of his background, he needs to prove that he matters,
that he is a hardliner, that he is a good minister of Defence, and that that he is anti-shiite, he
is a man capable of confronting Iran. At the same time, he needs to satisfy needs of Saudi population
which is increasingly flocks to jihadism. To consolidate its legitimacy, it is obliged to give
grain to grind to the islamists because a large part of the Saudi society is seduced by the dream
of Daech. It is also in a logic of competition with her uncle, who is the current heir of the thone,
as well as with the other princes. It is necessary to remove the ground under the feet of those
who believe that the monarchy has for too long been moderate, particularly during the reign of the
former king Abdallah. It is this desire to build his leadership, which leads to the direct confrontation
with the shia, including such political decisions as the execution of the leader of shiite Nimr al-Nimr,
and the increased tension with Iran. Finally, it also represents a reaction of the Saudi monarchy,
which was disappointed by the United States. He would like to stop normalization of Iranian-American
relations, because in the event of a confrontation with Iran, the Saudis would find themselves in
a difficult position without 100% US support.
Why his actions caused the concerns of the German intelligence services ? What assessment can
we make of year tenure at the head of the armed forces of Saudi Arabia ?
Antoine Basbous : It is important to understand the origins of this report. It is not excluded
that it comes from someone with an interest to harm the image of the Kingdom or of the Prince.
Prince Mohammed bin Salman tenure as the head of the armed forces can be characterized as a failure.
In Yemen, there has been a stalemate. The conflict began in April. We are in January. Nine months
later, despite the multiple bombardments, all of the money spent, the control of the Yemen government
from Ryad remains illusive... He has not managed to clean, to conquer and to install a protected
area. Moreover, where he was able to displaced the allies of Iran, the radicals from Al Qaeda
and DAESH took the control of those area. Iran became firmly positioned at the southern gateway to
Saudi Arabia. It is anything but a success.
Nevertheless, he was applauded because he stood up and responded, tried to stop to Iran. He
responded to the Iran thereat, but has not managed to achieve his goals, which was expected of him.
However, in the eyes of the Saudis, a "manly" reaction that tha fact that has the the will to challenge
to the hegemony of Iran in the region was positive steps. Iran has claimed control of four Arab
capitals. Hassan Rohani has announced the training of 200 000 militia in the five nations in their
neighborhood. A reaction of Saudi Arabia, in the light of these elements, is not unexpected or abnormal.
However, the latter has been slow to arrive and is not manifested in the most timely, the most intelligent
or the most effective.
However, this operation was his baptism of fire. Prior to the commencement thereof, the Prince
was suffering from a bad press. This conflict, it was his moment of truth so to speak. It should
be judged on its ability to generate a "surge" of military and diplomatic activities in the region,
so that Saudi Arabia free itself the control of the Us administration, and that the country acquires
a greater autonomy. The fact that Barack Obama has approved the nuclear deal with Iran has been perceived
as a lesson for the Turks and the Saudis. In addition, Mohammed bin Salman has a revenge in mind:
in 2009, the houthis crossed the Saudi border, and despite the superiority of Saudis weaponry, the
Saudi troops were able to repel that offence only after 3 months of fighting which left 130 soldiers
dead.
Alexander del Valle : It is perceived as dangerous because of the war, reckless and
ineffective in Yemen as well as its strategy of tension vis-à-vis Iran. Moreover, for the Germans,
Iran is a huge market. They have relied heavily on Iran in recent years, in the logical continuation
of the long tradition of trade between the two countries. Don't forget that it is a country that
lives from exports, and that it is therefore very important for the Germans to arrive at an agreement
with Iran. Moreover, Germany is a country whose strategy is intimately linked to that of the United
States and totally dependent on NATO due to the fact that it is forbidden to have an army of its
own. Germany knows that if it was a direct confrontation between Saudi Arabia and Iran, it would
be required to be supportive of Saudi Arabia – regardless of the efforts by Barack Obama to move
closer to Iran.
In fact, since the Covenant of Quincy, Saudi Arabia is bound by a close alliance with the United
States and through this with the western countries. Thus, the strategy of the prince Mohammed
Bin Salman is to push Iran to the fault in causing the tensions that can go up to a risk
of open warfare that would force the west to choose Saudi Arabia against Iran. This tactic is
based on the alliance of ultra-strategic-Pact of Quincy, which was renewed in 2006 by George W. Bush
and still valid today that fact that in any conflict, as soon as Saudi Arabia is struggling with
a rival in the region, the United States should support it. This looks like what Erdogan doing shoot
down a Russian plane. It was to prevent a warming of relations between the Russians and the Americans.
What are the limits of his influence in Saudi Arabia ? In what extent his role as the Minister
of Defence is decisive for his own future in the kingdom ?
Antoine Basbous :The Prince Mohammed bin Salman is now the most powerful man in Saudi
Arabia. It has exclusive access to his father, King Salman, and effectivly he can rule the coutries
inread of him. He is head of his office, which means that nobody can contact or be received by the
King without going through the son. He also can say to anyone inside as well as abroad, "This
is the will of the King". So he has phenomenal power, and does not suffer from the luch of desire
to exercise it. As to whether his role as Defence minister, is decisive for his own future, it is
obvious. If he succeeds in this position and it shows the virility of the military success, this
can strengthen its position. On the other hand, if this gets stuck into yeme war quadmire, if the
failures multiply, it is not excluded that this will ruin completely his chances of succeeding his
father. In a situation like this, He might well became a falling star. It is vital that he achive
a good results in the war on the ground, although in a majority of arab countries, the people is
not necessarily looking very attentively at the quality of governance.
What is the analysis of personality of this key figure and the balance sheet of his first year as
the Defense minister can say about the position of Saudi Arabia on the international scene in the
comong months ? What will be developments in the relations of Saudis and Iran ?
Antoine Basbous
:Saudi Arabia is extremely disturbed by the detente with Iran on the international scene.
We are witnessing more or less a reversal of alliances, and of countries images in the eyes of the
West. A short time ago, Iran was demonized in the West. Today, it is accepted as a normal partner.
Iran, therefore, benefits from a relatively favorable treatment, while at the same time when the
Arab monarchies, particularly Saudi Arabia, are seen as retrograde, unable to provide for reforms
and creating the flow of Islamic radicals... The nature of Hezbollah, interference military and terrorists
of Iran is currently forgotten.
Mohammed bin Salman is still an "emerging" politician, politician in the course of "on the job"
training. But despite of that he is exercising functions that are extremely strategic, and he must
demonstrate whether he can adapt to situations to which the country is facing.
Alexander del Valle : I think it will be very difficult to see any reapprochement with
Iran in the coming months as Saudi Arabia has two "hardliners" in the young rising generation of
leaders. The heir and the vice-inherit the Kingdom share the same radical line toward Iran.
Moreover, Saudi Arabia pays very dear to his strategy of crushing oil prices, which makes
it less able to buy social peace than before. Therefore, there is an internal demand of radicalism,
because the discontent rumbles in the parts of the Saudi population fueled by the effects of the
falling oil prices. An increase of sympathy for jihadism can be felt with those segments of
the population. So even if the prince Mohammed bin Salman and prince Mohammed ben Nayef – heir to
the throne and minister of the Interior - were moderate, they would be obliged to give pledges to
their people, who account for more of the "appeasers of Shiites". If one wanted to summaries,
we could say that to buy a peace with Islamist Wahhabi radicals, it is necessary to kill shia...
besides, the Saudis have a genuine complex of encirclement by the Shiite states. They try to counter
it by creating an opposite ark of Sunni radicals.
I thus do not see how there could be a rapprochement with Iran. Or it can be only via the pressure
of the United States, as was the case between Greece and Turkey in the past. Therefore, even
if this does not lead to open warfare, the tension between Saudi Arabia and Iran is sustainable,
if only because this new generation of Saudis leaders is more combative. They differ from the former
kings who belonged to a generation that was distinguished rather by its search for a compromise and
some consensus. This is absolutely not the case for those two heirs of the throne.
"... This university investigation concluded that the massacre was a false flag operation, which was rationally planned and executed with the aim to overthrow the government and seize power. ..."
Ivan Katchanovski, professor of political science at the University of Ottawa, conducted a study
on the massacre perpetrated by snipers on the Maidan square of Kiev in February, 2014.
This document, from a presentation to the American Association of Political Sciences in San Francisco
in September 2015, is the first academic study on this event.
It uses rational choice theory and Weber's theory of instrumental rationality to examine the actions
of key players from both the Yanukovich government, specifically various police and security forces,
and opposition, especially of the extreme right and oligarchic elements, during the massacre.
The paper analyzes a large amount of material available from different sources: about 1500 videos
and recordings from the internet and television in different countries (about 150 gigabytes), newsletters
and social media messages from a hundred journalists covering the massacre of Kiev, about 5000 photos,
and nearly 30 gigabytes of radio interceptions of snipers and commanders of the Alfa unit of the
Security Service of Ukraine and Ministry troops of the Interior and finally records of the massacre
trial. This study is also based on field research on the massacre site, witness' reports from both
camps, the commanders of the special units, the statements made by current and former government
officials, approximate estimates of ballistic trajectories, bullets and weapons used and the types
of injuries on both sides. This study establishes a specific timetable for the various events of
the massacre, the shooters locations and the precise timing and location of the death of nearly 50
protesters.
This university investigation concluded that the massacre was a false flag operation, which was
rationally planned and executed with the aim to overthrow the government and seize power.
Ivan Katchanovski teaches at the School of Political Studies at the University of Ottawa. He has
been a visiting scholar at the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Harvard University,
visiting Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at the State University of New
York at Potsdam, postdoctoral fellow at the Political Science Department at the University of Toronto
and Kluge Postdoctoral Fellow at the Kluge Center at the Library of Congress.
"... "She's a creature of a fundamentally corrupt system, who comfortably operates within that system and accepts it as legitimate. Clinton has had trouble countering that critique because, well, it's true. It's not that she's been bought, it's that she bought in "One problem afflicting our online discourse is that many of her dimmer fellow liberals in the press keep being baffled at Clinton opposition from leftists who extensively criticize the institutions of American liberalism." ..."
"... She's a creature of a fundamentally corrupt system, who comfortably operates within that system and accepts it as legitimate. Clinton has had trouble countering that critique because, well, it's true. It's not that she's been bought, it's that she bought in. ..."
I can't break out my Magic Markers™ for
the Sanders v. Clinton debate last Thursday because there's not enough time in the world. So
I want to look at three seemingly distinct topics: corruption, health care, and what the smart people
who ride the Acela call "theories of change." For each topic, I will compare and contrast Sanders
and Clinton; and I'll weave the three topics together at the end.
Before I begin, though, let me set the context for the (
"truly
great" ) debate: Elite panic at Clinton's performance.
McClatchy :
Dick Harpootlian, a prominent criminal defense lawyer in Columbia, South Carolina, and former
chair of that key Southern state's Democratic Party, said the addition of more debates reflects
panic among Clinton and Democratic figures who support her in the wake of Sanders' unexpectedly
strong challenge.
"Hillary was against having more debates, now she's for debates," Harpootlian told McClatchy.
"This is what's wrong with our party. The minute she's in trouble, they decide they need more
debates. If she had done much better in Iowa, there wouldn't be more debates."
Others agree.
The Los Angeles Times uses more measured language than (Sanders supporter (!)) Harpootlian, which
is not hard, but the conclusion is the same:
The fact the session took place at all was a reflection of the changed nature of the contest.
Originally, Clinton agreed to just six debates sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee,
which has weathered criticism it tried to shelter the party's front-runner and stave off a serious
challenge.
Her willingness to join Sanders onstage - and agree to later debates in Michigan and California
- was just one sign the race has grown much tougher than Clinton and her supporters had hoped.
Now, I'm assuming Wasserman-Schulz is still di– messing around with the schedule, and so
a viewership ranked 17 of 19 debates, equivalent to a Republican undercard debate , wasn't a
bug, but a feature. If that's true, I'd argue that the Clinton campaign hoped both to keep Clinton
wrapped in tissue paper and land a knockout blow in the form of an admission or a gaffe
suitable for YouTube; Clinton's diatribe on "If you've got something to say, say it directly" looks
a lot like a setup for such a punch. If so, Sanders didn't fall for it and wasn't rattled, and he
wins by not losing. (In fact, the Sanders campaign landed a solid counterpunch of its own, as we
shall see under "Corruption," below, and enabled Sanders himself to stay on the high road. That's
how it's done.)
SANDERS: What being part of the establishment is, is, in the last quarter, having a super PAC
that raised $15 million from Wall Street, that throughout one's life raised a whole lot of money
from the drug companies and other special interests.
To my mind, if we do not get a handle on money in politics and the degree to which big money
controls the political process in this country, nobody is going to bring about the changes that
is needed in this country for the middle class and working families.
CLINTON: Yeah, but I - I think it's fair to really ask what's behind that comment. You know,
Senator Sanders has said he wants to run a positive campaign. I've tried to keep my disagreements
over issues, as it should be.
But time and time again, by innuendo, by insinuation, there is this attack that he is putting
forth, which really comes down to - you know, anybody who ever took donations or speaking fees
from any interest group has to be bought.
And I just absolutely reject that, Senator. And I really don't think these kinds of attacks
by insinuation are worthy of you. And enough is enough. If you've got something to say, say it
directly.
But you will not find that I ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation that
I ever received .
CLINTON: So I think it's time to end the very artful smear that you and your campaign have
been carrying out
Shorter Clinton: "You say I'm corrupt. Prove it!" In longer form, Clinton makes the strong claim
that "you will not find that I ever changed a view or a vote because of any donation that
I ever received." This claim can be disproved with a single example. Here ya go.
Let's look at what Elizabeth Warren has to say on Clinton and the bankruptcy bill; note the appeal
to those burdened with student loans. (Many of you may have seen this, but it's well worth a second
look.
The video was "blasted out" to the press "almost instantaneously" by the Sanders campaign , to
whom we should give credit both for being both better at oppo and more agile than we might think.)
Here it is:
ELIZABETH WARREN: One of the first bills that came up after she was Senator Clinton was the
bankruptcy bill. This is a bill that's like a vampire. It will not die. Right? There's a lot of
money behind it, and it
BILL MOYERS: Bill, her husband, who vetoed
ELIZABETH WARREN: Her husband had vetoed it very much at her urging.
BILL MOYERS: And?
ELIZABETH WARREN: She voted in favor of it.
BILL MOYERS: Why?
ELIZABETH WARREN: As Senator Clinton, the pressures are very different. It's a well-financed
industry. You know a lot of people don't realize that the industry that gave the most money to
Washington over the past few years was not the oil industry, was not pharmaceuticals. It was consumer
credit products. Those are the people. The credit card companies have been giving money, and they
have influence.
BILL MOYERS: And Mrs. Clinton was one of them as Senator.
ELIZABETH WARREN: She has taken money from the groups, and more to the point, she worries about
them as a constituency.
Well, so much for "artful smear." (I saw that one go by on the Twitter, and thought "Uh oh," but
then it suddently died, as if some decision had been made no longer to propagate it. Perhaps this
video was why.)
Note how narrow Clinton's definition of corruption is: Money in exchange for a vote. That is the
criminal definition of corruption - the quid pro quo - as we've seen from
Zephyr Teachout, but corrupton as the Framers understood it , as an infection in the body politic,
has a far broader definition: "The self-serving use of public power for private ends."[1] Clearly,
using one's official position as a former Secretary of State and a likely future President to collect
$675,000 from Goldman is exactly that. And I'm amazed how many Clinton supporters, at least on the
Twitter, simply refuse to see this. Do they believe, as Yves asks, that Goldman is investing in Clinton
with no thought of return? If so, I've got a campaign headquarters I'd like to sell. Transpose the
example from high politics to local politics. Assume Clinton's running for re-election as dog-catcher.
She gives a speech at Premier EZ Catch, Inc. for $675, and then later awards Premier EZ Catch the
contract for dog catching nets. Am I entitled to call that corrupt? Of course; Clinton would never
have been offered the $675 had she not been, as a public official, in a position to award the contract.
Would I vote to re-elect Clinton as dogcatcher? Of course not.
And now to compare Clinton to Sanders: Things are a lot simpler with Sanders; his net worth is
$419,000 [2]. Let me break out my calculator And so his lifetime accumulation of wealth
is $256,000 less than the $675,000 Clinton made for three speeches at Goldman. And then there's the
campaign fundraising model: 70 percent small donors.
"[T]he $20 million it reports to have raised in January came almost exclusively from online donations
averaging $27 a piece." So, with Sanders, even if we use Clinton's definition of corruption,
the question of quid pro quo doesn't arise. There's not enough quid.
Health Care
To health care. Rather than shredding Clinton's false claims about Sanders on health care policy,
I want to compare and contrast their health care policy successes. First, Clinton.
The transcript :
CLINTON: Before it was called Hillarycare - I mean, before it was called ObamaCare it was called
Hillarycare because we took them on, and we weren't successful, but we kept fighting and we got
the children's health insurance program . Every step along the way I have stood up,
and fought, and have the scars to prove it.
With "kept fighting," Clinton is being a little disingenuous. The Clinton administration began
their effort in 1993, and the "Health Security Act" was deep-sixed by the leadership in 1994. The
State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) was only proposed in 1997; it's not part of
the Health Security Act's legislative history at all. That said, it's a good program, and Hillary
Clinton can take some of the credit for passing it. From
Factcheck.org :
Hillary Clinton took a major role in translating the new law into action. The program leaves
to the states the job of setting up coverage and getting children enrolled, a task that continues
to be a struggle to this day. In April that year the first lady gave a speech saying nearly
1 million children had been enrolled during the previous year, but that increasing the figure
was "one of the highest priorities" of her husband's administration. She said the president would
seek $1 billion to fund a five-year "outreach" effort, with a goal of increasing enrollment to
5 million by 2000. Our conclusion: Clinton is right [to take credit].
SANDERS: And let me just say this. As Secretary Clinton may know, I am on the Health Education
Labor Committee. That committee wrote the Affordable Care Act. The idea I would dismantle health
care in America while we're waiting to pass a Medicare for All is just not accurate.
So I do believe that in the future, not by dismantling what we have here - I helped write that
bill - but by moving forward, rallying the American people, I do believe we should have health
care for all.
Sanders, with "I helped write that bill," is claiming at once too much and too little. Too much,
because - thank heavens - Sanders didn't architect or draft the ACA; that was a job for Max Baucus
and the insurance companies. Too little, because what Sanders did do was get Community Health
Centers into the bill:
However, as negotiations were in their final stage, Sanders successfully pushed for the inclusion
of $11 billion in funding for community health centers, especially in rural areas. The insertion
of this funding helped bring together both Democratic lawmakers on the left and Democrats representing
more conservative, rural areas.
"There was no one who played a more important role than Sen. Sanders" in securing that funding,
Daniel Hawkins, vice president of the National Association of Community Health Centers, told the
Intercept last year. (Sanders' camp forwarded PolitiFact the Intercept article as evidence for
his statement.)
The new law provides an additional $9.5 billion in operating costs and $1.5 billion for new
construction. With this additional funding, community health centers will be able to double the
number of patients they serve to up to 40 million annually by 2015.
Now let's step back and compare and contrast Clinton and Sanders:
1) Sanders, just like Clinton, is capable of being "pragmatic," if that's defined as settling
for a partial good. Clinton got CHIP initiated; Sanders got CHC expanded.
2) If we take coverage numbers as a metric, Sanders is a more successful pragmatist than Clinton;
6 million covered by Clinton, vs. 20 million covered by Sanders.
3) Sanders is most certainly capable not only of legislative achievement but of coalition-building.
In a time of divided government and partisanship even more ruthless than under the Clintons, Sanders
could "bring together both Democratic lawmakers on the left and Democrats representing more conservative,
rural areas."[3]
So one could certainly make the case - at least in health care - that Sanders is a more effective
politician, and a more effective pragmatist, than Clinton. (Of course, Sanders didn't have to cope
with the reputational effects of the HillaryCare debacle. So there's that.) Why would that be? I
think there are two reasons (and I'll get to the second in the next section). First, Sanders had
set high goals in the beginning of the legislative process. He didn't negotiate with himself, or
start from the perspective that he had to ask for half a loaf because that's all we was going to
get.
Politifact summarizes the legislative history :
Still, when Sanders says he "helped write" the bill, it would be reasonable to imagine that
Sanders was an integral player in the crafting of the bill over a long period of time - an insider
in the process. And that's not the reality.
Before the final bill was enacted, Sanders and his allies on the party's left flank regularly
expressed frustration at the concessions they had to make during the legislative process.
"Public-option proponents, including Sanders and Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, say they already
have given up enough," Politico reported in late November 2009. "They agreed to forgo a single-payer
system. They decided not to push a government plan tied to Medicare rates. And they accepted (Harry)
Reid's proposal to include the opt-out provision. That's it, they say."
Politico went on to quote Sanders saying, "I have made it clear to the administration and Democratic
leadership that my vote for the final bill is by no means guaranteed."
If Sanders had started from Clinton's perspective of
fear of "contentious debate" and what is "achievable," and made his first offer his final offer,
would he and his allies have achieved even as much as the CHC? I doubt it.
Theory of Change
Elsewhere,
I contrasted Clinton's theory of change as "trench warfare" with Sanders' theory of change as "breakthrough."
Here, I want to weave together theories of change with corruption, using health care as an example.
Above, I presented one reason that Sanders is an effective and pragmatic politician: He set high
goals. (Clinton characterizes having a high goal as an initial offer as "Making promises you can't
keep.") Here's the second reason: He had the right kind of outside pressure to help him. To see this,
let's look at the what happened to single payer advocacy in the HillaryCare debacle.
From Vicente Navarro, who was inside the process :
Jesse Jackson, Dennis Rivera (then president of Local 1199, the foremost health care workers
union), and I went to see Hillary Clinton. We complained about the commitment to managed care
competition without due consideration of a single-payer proposal supported by large sectors of
the left in the Democratic Party. We emphasized the need to include this proposal among those
to be considered by the task force. Mrs. Clinton responded by asking Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition
to appoint someone to the task force with that point of view. And this is how I became a member
of the White House task force. I later found out that there was considerable opposition from senior
health advisors, including Starr and Zelman, to my becoming part of the task force. According
to a memo later made public and published in David Brock's nasty book The Seduction of Hillary
Clinton, Starr and Zelman disapproved of my appointment "because Navarro is a real left-winger
and has extreme distaste for the approach we are pursuing"– which was fairly accurate about my
feelings, but I must stress that my disdain for managed competition and the intellectuals who
supported it did not interfere with my primary objective: to make sure that the views of the single-payer
community would be heard in the task force. They were heard, but not heeded. I was ostracized,
and I had the feeling I was in the White House as a token - although whether as a token left-winger,
token radical, token Hispanic, or token single-payer advocate, I cannot say. But I definitely
had the feeling I was a token something.
(If only Jesse Jackson had run, and not Michael Dukakis!) This is the inside game: "appoint someone
to the task force"
Then comes the outside pressure :
It was at a later date, when some trade unions and Public Citizen mobilized to get more than
200,000 signatures in support of a single-payer system, that President Clinton instructed the
task force to do something about single-payer. From then on the battle centered on including a
sentence in the proposed law that would allow states to choose single-payer as an alternative
if they so wished.
Now let's contrast the outside pressure - considering national union leadership as outsiders,
for the sake the argument - for single payer when ObamaCare was being passed. There were petition
drives, and also (some) unions, like National Nurses United, though shamefully not the SEIU. But
there were also these
forms of elite reaction to outside pressure (somewhat reformatted):
(It looks like the lesson the Democratic establishment took from the HillaryCare debacle was not
to appoint single payer advocates at all, instead of putting them on committees and then shunning
them.) All these examples exhibit outside pressure exerted by single payer advocates on
elites in the Obama administration and its allies in the political class. Now review Navarro's narrative.
Do you see any similar examples there? (It's possible that such examples did happen - readers? -
but it seems unlikely to me that Navarro would not have mentioned them). It could be that I'm too
close to the single payer battle to be objective, but this is a distinction. I don't recall
people getting arrested on behalf of single payer in Senate hearing rooms when HillaryCare was going
down, for example. So that, to me, is the second reason for Sanders success with CHC.
And where, pray tell, would such outside pressure on the political class come from, in a Sanders
administration? Well, that would be the political revolution that Sanders constantly speaks of:
SANDERS I'm running for president because I believe it is just too late for establishment politics
and establishment economics. I do believe we need a political revolution where millions of people
stand up and say loudly and clearly that our government belongs to all of us and not just a handful
of wealthy campaign contributors.
And is there an example in recent history of a movement that could perform this task? Why yes.
Yes there is. It was called Obama for America, and it was highly effective in 2008.
Here's what happened to it:
As Jessica Shearer, a top Obama field organizer in 2008, who managed nine key states for the
campaign, said
a year ago at our PDF symposium on networked organizing after the Tea Party and Occupy Wall
Street, the Obama team had basically "kneecapped" their grassroots after the 2008 victory. "If
Dean had been put in charge of the Democratic Party after that election, that list might have
really built the democracy. It might have built a party. It might have allowed people a place
to engage. Instead, it was this weak echo chamber, where they couldn't be one step to the left
or one step to the right of anything the president said."
Marshall Ganz, who initiated and organized Obama for America,
agrees with
Shearer :
President Obama, Ganz says ruefully, seems to be "afraid of people getting out of control."
He needed the organizing base in 2008, but he and his inner circle were quick to dismantle it
after the election. Yes, Ganz concedes, they kept Organizing for America, with its access to the
vast volunteer databases, alive; but they made a conscious decision to neuter it, so as to placate
legislators who were worried about the independent power base it could give Obama. Following a
meeting of key members of the transition team, they placed it under the control of the Democratic
National Committee.
So a Sanders theory of change doesn't have to be that hard: Don't replicate the Democrat's
strategic failure - I'm being very charitable here - of gutting a movement once built. We
know how to do the right thing; so do it. Change is hard; but the theory of change is not hard.
And this brings me right back round to corruption. The Democrat Party and, more importantly, its
voters and constitutents, are not faced with a choice between Clinton's incremental, insider-driven
trench warfare strategy, and Sanders' breakthrough, outsider, movement strategy. The first cannot
work; the second can. Why?
The insider strategy founders on corruption. You saw that in Warren's video on Clinton and the
bankruptcy bill. When Clinton's private interests changed after her transition from First Lady to
Senator, she flipped on policy to favor her new Wall Street contributors constituents; "the self-serving
use of public power for private ends." And exactly the same thing will happen with any insider strategy
today; corruption will defeat it.
A movement strategy is the only way forward. And we already know how to do it!
NOTES
[1] Under oligarchy, we might ask ourselves if corruption is the normal - indeed, normative -
interface between state and civil society, at least for elites.
If you want to depict NC as having a house position, it is that Clinton 1. Has a vastly overblown
track record (as in she's held plummy jobs but either accomplished little or had negative accomplishments
at each of them and 2. She and Bill are hopelessly corrupt, going back to the late 1970s (!!!)
commodity trades, which became public only after Bill became president.
So we are solidly anti-Clinton. I still have reservations about Sanders despite his successes
so far and him having a much better economic policy and foreign policy position than she does
(as in he is merely not very enthusiastic about moar warz, as opposed to against them).
If you say nice stuff re Trump you will get shot at in a big way. Honestly, I don't see how
anyone with an operating brain cell can have any enthusiasm for any of the leading Republican
candidates.
Interesting that OFA was gutted because the status quo types were worried about Obama having
an "independent" power base. And Obama seems to have been more than happy to go along and
let his independent base be dismantled.
Someone had a quote from Michael Hudson the other day (citation needed) about how he was told
that he wouldn't be successful running for office because the elite king-makers won't back anybody
without some kind of dirt on them, to ensure their tractability. This OFA things sounds to me
like Obama rolling over and showing the power-structure his tummy. "Don't worry, I'm a submissive
lapdog. I won't bite anybody you don't tell me to."
Lambert, excellent post to be chewed and digested thoroughly!
Glenn Greenwald also points to a passage in Alex Pareene's "Hillary Clinton Has a Henry Kissinger
Problem" that captures a key part of Clinton v. Sanders that many pundits haven't grasped
"She's a creature of a fundamentally corrupt system, who comfortably operates within that system
and accepts it as legitimate. Clinton has had trouble countering that critique because, well,
it's true. It's not that she's been bought, it's that she bought in
"One problem afflicting our online discourse is that many of her dimmer fellow liberals in
the press keep being baffled at Clinton opposition from leftists who extensively criticize the
institutions of American liberalism."
She's a creature of a fundamentally corrupt system, who comfortably operates within that
system and accepts it as legitimate. Clinton has had trouble countering that critique because,
well, it's true. It's not that she's been bought, it's that she bought in.
I keep seeing the $675K in speaking fees, what hasn't gotten enough attention is the total
that the Clintons have received: over $150M (Bill and Hillary). Sure, they are doing what others
have done, but they have been doing it on an industrial scale.
"Note how narrow Clinton's definition of corruption is: Money in exchange for a vote. That
is the criminal definition of corruption - the quid pro quo - as we've seen from Zephyr Teachout,
but corrupton as the Framers understood it, as an infection in the body politic, has a far broader
definition: "The self-serving use of public power for private ends."[1] Clearly, using one's official
position as a former Secretary of State and a likely future President to collect $675,000 from
Goldman is exactly that."
Wonderful analysis.
I would just note that it seems to me that the Clintons and their ilk epitomize modern corruption
– The Clintons don't change their views because of bribes. A Rhodes scholar doesn't need to get
a brown paper bag stuffed with hundreds to do what his client wants. The client does what Clinton
wants. It just so happens that the Clintons and the bankers are of the same Davos Man elite, and
share the same world and policy views. The Clintons don't have to be paid to try and make Goldman
Sachs richer – they already believe that!
The Clintons are much more like consultants anticipating what political issues could come up,
and through a comprehensive program of appointments, alliances (including marriage), and preemptive
attacks, neutralization of any anticipated problems, as well as providing insights into future
opportunities. Indeed, the Clintons get hired by Goldman for exactly the same reason that Goldman
gets hired by the market. Goldman's insider knowledge and connections make them more valuable.
Goldman has so many employees who have been Treasury secretaries well, because they love America?
Well, of course they love America – it works great for them. And for anyone who is smart, hard
working, and plays the game the way it IS SUPPOSE TO BE PLAYED. And they, and their defenders,
certainly don't want it changing in ANY substantive way that could possibly make them poorer,
OR even reduces the RATE that their wealth ever increases. Nothing so crass or venal as bribes
have to happen. You just have to understand who your friends are, and what you do for them. A
really expensive prostitute never takes the cash in advance – the clients want to enumerate them
generously. And at this level of "service" the provider truly wants a happy client .win-win as
they say in Davos.
I am sure in the mind of Hillary that she honestly believes she is serving Goldman Sachs honestly,
honorably, and to the best of her ability. She believes that the "Davos Man" elite view provides
the framework for great material growth – she understands not to even ASK if the growth is equitable.
Their are plenty of lawyers, economists, and policy elites that can marshal "sophisticated"
arguments for such a viewpoint. The fact that this viewpoint has guided US policy for near 50
years, and that corresponds exactly to the diminution of the middle class, is something that Hillary
Clinton could not accept. The Clintons, like many successful people who get rich who attribute
their good fortune to diligence, hard work, and upstanding moral behavior, instead of because
of the true reason – – luck, brown nosing, and unabashed grandstanding, will like most humans
be incapable of facing that their beliefs are wrong and the people they have allied themselves
with are self promoters and sycophants, and bad.
good addition to the thread, Fresno Dan. I think you put your finger on something important-
Hillary Clinton believes herself to be a good person doing good work. And she believes also that
her view of the realities of elite class political life is pragmatic and furthermore she succeeds
within that world by dint of hard work and diligence and therefore has achieved and deserves wealth.
I think she's deeply insulted to be accused of corruption. However, is she deliberately blind
to the systematic corruption of the political process?
"As senator, Wall Street was part of my constituency." Or word to that effect. Believes she
is doing good in a good system? Really? "We came, we saw, he died" cue the Monte Burns cackle
But was Shkreli's performance actually more objectionable than that of the legislators who
were performing alongside him? Elijah Cummings, of Maryland, is the ranking Democrat on the committee,
and he used his allotted time to deliver a scolding. "Somebody's paying for these drugs, and it's
the taxpayers that end up paying for some of them," he said. "Those are our constituents." In
fact, it's hard to figure out exactly who is paying what for Daraprim. Shkreli and Turing have
claimed that hospitals and insurance companies will pay, while patients who can't afford it will
get a discount, or get it for free. And Nancy Retzlaff, Turing's chief commercial officer, told
the committee about her company's efforts to get the drug to people who can't afford it. The arrangement
she described sounded like a hodge-podge, an ungainly combination of dizzyingly high prices, mysterious
corporate bargaining, and occasional charitable acts-which is to say, it sounded not so much different
from the rest of our medical system.
Even so, Cummings acted as if Shkreli were the only thing preventing a broken system from being
fixed. "I know you're smiling, but I'm very serious, sir," he said. "The way I see it, you can
go down in history as the poster boy for greedy drug-company executives, or you can change the
system-yeah, you." Cummings has been in Congress since 1996, and he is a firm believer in the
power of government to improve industry through regulation. And yet now he was begging the former
C.E.O. of a relatively minor pharmaceutical company to "change the system"? It seemed like an
act of abdication.
..
One of the strangest things about the anti-Shkreli argument is that it asks us to be shocked that
a medical executive is motivated by profit. And one of the strangest things about Shkreli himself
is that he doesn't seem to be motivated by profit-at least, not entirely. Last fall, Derek Lowe,
a chemist and blogger affiliated with Science, criticized Shkreli's plan to raise prices as a
"terrible idea," not least because such an ostentatious plan posed "a serious risk of bringing
the entire pricing structure of the industry under much heavier scrutiny and regulation." He called
on the pharmaceutical industry to denounce Shkreli as a means of protecting its own business model;
from an economic point of view, Shkreli's strategy seemed self-defeating. At least one person
close to Shkreli seems to have agreed. One of the most revealing documents uncovered by the committee
showed an unnamed executive imploring him not to raise the price of Daraprim again, saying that
the risk of another media firestorm outweighed the benefit. "Investors just don't like this stuff,"
the e-mail said. Shkreli's response was coolly noncommittal: "We can wait a few months for sure."
A truly greedy executive would keep a much lower profile than Shkreli: there would be no headline-grabbing
exponential price hikes, just boring but reliable ticks upward; no interviews, no tweeting, and
absolutely no hip-hop feuds. A truly greedy executive would stay more or less anonymous. (How
many other pharmaceutical C.E.O.s can you name?) But Shkreli seems intent on proving a point about
money and medicine, and you don't have to agree with his assessment in order to appreciate the
service he has done us all. By showing what is legal, he has helped us to think about what we
might want to change, and what we might need to learn to live with.
===================================
Reminds me very much of a movie were the "good" vampires have to kill a "rogue" vampire who is
just sucking up way more blood than he needs or deserves. Because the villagers apparently are
willing to give up a few people as the normal course of events
Of course, the hardest thing to take is the unbelievable rationalization proffered by FDA officials
(at the behest of their bosses, congress of course) to prevent willing buyers from buying from
willing sellers .because those sellers are in those hell holes of filth and decomposition like
Germany, Switzerland, and France. Funny how wonderful the market is .except when it isn't. So
much better that people go without heat than risk buying prescription drugs from Europe because
our government is SO CONCERNED about their health.
I know many NC readers are also fans of Harry Shearer's weekly radio show/podcast Le Show
. This week's episode features a delicious segment of Clintonsomething wherein Hillary
and Bill discuss what the new think tank should be named. Priceless and available for free (eventually)
at http://harryshearer.com/le-show/
or other podcast servers (i.e. iTunes etc.)
Forced myself to watch a HRC townhall this morning and she was again harping on Sanders wanting
to get rid of the ACA and start over and how we'll lose the ACA in a huge fight in Congress. Add
to that her pollsters that are push polling with questions like "Do you want Sanders single payer
health care that's going to cost $20 trillion or HRC's improvement of the ACA?" and you know she's
in trouble, and it's just started. Sanders can be one smart politician and I think she's in over
her head as she can't see beyond the "corruption is normal" framework she's coming from. Talk
about being compromised – wow
It's really hard to see the point of this sort of thing. So her son-in-law has money or works
in banking so what? Do you really think Bernie, as President, is somehow going to ride in and
take trillions of dollars from the wealthy and spread them around? There seems to be a huge amount
of fantasy and unreality afoot a sort of George McGovern idealism that somehow pushing a 'pure'
candidate for President will change the world, or even change a significant number of mind in
the US or even make any difference at all. Well, except end us up with a 6-3 conservative majority
on the Court. Now, THAT would be an important change. You want that?
Your anti-purity, fantasy, unreality statement insults the intelligence of everyone who wants
a return to human decency in government. No president has ever changed things alone and never
will. If Bernie wins, it's because he will have inspired us to form a movement for change. Just
like Reagan and movement conservatism. They succeeded and so can we.
Krugman's latest hit piece on Bernie's electability has pissed me off. Here was my comment:
Here is something another political scientist has discovered:
"Interviewing a roomful of undeclared voters recently, Neil Levesque, executive director of
Saint Anselm College's New Hampshire Institute of Politics, asked which presidential candidate
they were most likely to support when the state holds the country's first primary in two weeks.
The majority of these New Hampshire voters, he said in a phone interview from Manchester, cited
the Republican real estate developer, Donald Trump. Their second choice? Bernie Sanders, the
self-styled social democratic senator from Vermont."
How many "undecideds" do you think will flock to Clinton if Trump loses the nomination? Who
really has a better chance to win the national election?
This is one of the few times I have seen the pollster ask who would be your second choice without
limiting it to party, as in who is your second choice among the Republican candidates?
Stefan Molyneux make a wonderful presentation on Youtube. Highly recommended.
Notable quotes:
"... I'm just waiting to see Hillary look into the camera and say: "I never had textual relations with that server." ..."
"... What's really interesting here is that with Bernie Sanders saying that people are sick of hearing about her "damn emails", he demonstrates just as much of a security risk as she does ..."
"... he'd probably get a lot more votes if he at least pretended to be concerned about the nation's security. ..."
"... Benghazi, fast and furious Waco, uranium one, private eyes intimidation contracts, Bill Clinton rape cover ups, voter fraud, purgatory, and it's the emails that they got her on!? Who would of guessed. ..."
"... people in the BO administration knew what she was doing and didn't tell the proper people they were supposed to. Thus they are now liable and BO won't allow his people to be possibly prosecuted as well. Thus he buries it, which starts another scandal. ..."
"... Steve Linick the inspector general for the State Department , said in a memo dated Wednesday that two emails sent to Powell and 10 emails sent to Rice's staff contained classified national security information. Powell and Rice were top diplomats under Republican President George W. Bush . "if we're to believe Republicans , we would have to criminally charge Secretary Rice , Secretary Powell, the senior staff and everyone else who received these emails," Reid said. ..."
"... If the Justice Department doesn't prosecute Clinton we will know Obama is protecting her and she will most likely lose the election. We know if they do prosecute Clinton she will lose the election. ..."
"... Unlike web traffic, email connections cannot be securely encrypted. This is because the messages can be stored on intermediate servers not owned by the sender or the receiver. To secure email, the message itself must be encrypted. Any unencrypted email sent or received could be read by ISPs and any other email servers along the way. ..."
"... Mr. Molyneux, what you have done is positively prove that the media in its' entirety is covering and protecting Miss Hillary! You are a Canadian citizen -- and were able to obtain all of this information- time lines- and missteps by Hillary! YET- literally all of this information remains missing from the mainstream media! ..."
"... The damage is done, intelligence experts have to go over every page of it with a fine toothed comb and treat every classified document as compromised, to do less would be negligent. Clinton should be unemployable in government in any capacity, by any reasonable standards. ..."
"... Her e-incompetence must stem from her sniper-infused PTSD back when she landed under fire in Kosovo. What a brave, strong woman! ..."
"... Another very good presentation. My brother handled secret information at Boeing. (He's now retired). He told me that if he did 1/10th of what Hillary did with classified information, my brother would be in jail for a long time. ..."
"... As an IT professional of over 20 years for a company that works with. gov level email I usually end typing too much trying to point out all of the factual information tied to this matter. ..."
"... Having worked in military counter intelligence and holding various clearances throughout my career I can find no fault or innacurracies with anything presented here. Sorry Hilbots: She should be prosecuted. ..."
"... Great job on covering the matter in full. As an IT security professional that support the use of government data classified or not it is a massive issue. My company endures attacks from foreign governments all day long. Her setup would have been the easiest to access in the business. ..."
"... The server was wide open, no secondary authentication required and a clear text password is used to manage it remotely. I would assume that all the data was compromised. ..."
"... I'm not an IT pro, and I immediately thought the same. Hubby was a Sgt. it Army Natl Guard, and all of his Army emails were strictly kept on official military servers, & he had to jump through hoops to authenticate himself. Wouldn't SHE be expected to have at least the same security established, if not exponentially more? Common sense! ..."
"... A chilling ending to a brilliant uncovering of the traitor competing for the highest position in the land. ..."
"... Dick Cheney already proved there was no standard. Your selective outrage isn't going to change that. ..."
"... I don't understand. If Hillary Clinton exchanged mail between her server and ".gov" servers the messages (sent or received) should be stored on the ".gov" servers. So, one could be able to lookup for Hillary's messages on all ".gov" servers (received from or sent to) and have a picture of the Hillary's communications with the government officials. The ones exchanged with other servers then the ".gov" are, of course, forever lost. ..."
"... That's horror from an IT security point of view. I'm a programmer and know one or two things about this things. ..."
This whole thing was rigged from the beginning for a Clinton victory. If you spend enough time
following politics you'll realize that your vote does NOT count. At least in presidential elections.
More over, even if it did. These are people vying to RULE you. These are sociopaths hell bent
on grasping the ring of power. You DON'T NEED Rulers! If you don't understand these things yet,
you can start by going back and watching some of Stefans older vids.
What's really interesting here is that with Bernie Sanders saying that people are sick of hearing
about her "damn emails", he demonstrates just as much of a security risk as she does, since he
doesn't seem to think it's a big deal and all. If he really wanted to win the nomination,
he ought to be going full-on regarding this issue. It ought to be in the bag, and he'd probably
get a lot more votes if he at least pretended to be concerned about the nation's security.
Benghazi, fast and furious Waco, uranium one, private eyes intimidation contracts, Bill Clinton
rape cover ups, voter fraud, purgatory, and it's the emails that they got her on!? Who would
of guessed.
Rand has performed free eye surgery on Americans for decades; he founded a local Lions Club
specifically for that purpose. He has hemmed in his libertarianism on many fronts strategically,
but has overwhelmingly used his office to fight federal power and (see his filibusters, opposition
to Obama's foreign adventurism, 94% Freedom Index rating, etc.). He endorsed and supported his
father for president, then (strategically) endorsed Romney once his father was mathematically
out of range to win the nomination and was openly acknowledging said fact.
He is right to ridicule
Trump, who is a horrible candidate and an authoritarian.
+Walter Strong probably because people in the BO administration knew what she was doing and didn't
tell the proper people they were supposed to. Thus they are now liable and BO won't allow his
people to be possibly prosecuted as well. Thus he buries it, which starts another scandal.
Stefan is an interesting person. I think he was born in England(?) but is now a Canadian citizen,
yet his videos are primarily focused on America. I like his videos because they are balanced and
factual. To be a Canadian, he really knows and understands a lot about America.
I find a lot of Canadians think they know about America, but their understanding is often way
off the mark. Anyway, Stefan does not make videos to bash America or Americans. He just sticks
to the facts. I like that. I just wonder why he chooses American topics when he is a British/Canadian.
Also, I think it would be interesting if he did some videos on "the truth about the British
monarchy" or even "the truth about the Queen`s influence and power in Canada and other commonwealth
territories".
As lowly government employee, I can tell that everyone that works for our government should now
this. How to handle classified, unclassified, etc... data is briefed to us every year as a part
of our annual training. She definitely did violate regulations that tell us how to handle official
data, who can see it, need-to-know, etc...
WASHINGTON (AP) Former Secretary of State Colin Powell & the immediate staff of former Secretary
of State Condoledezza Rice also received classified national security information on their personal
email accounts , according to a memo written by the State Department watchdog that was released
Thursday .
Steve Linick the inspector general for the State Department , said in a memo dated Wednesday
that two emails sent to Powell and 10 emails sent to Rice's staff contained classified national
security information. Powell and Rice were top diplomats under Republican President George W.
Bush . "if we're to believe Republicans , we would have to criminally charge Secretary Rice ,
Secretary Powell, the senior staff and everyone else who received these emails," Reid said.
While the information brought together here is available elsewhere, this condensed treatment serves
to magnify the seriousness and consequences of what Clinton is guilty of. Lives and nations are
at risk because she thought the increase of her nest egg and her political fortunes were more
important than nuclear-level intelligence. I hesitate to contribute one penny to an atheist no
matter what line of work he's in. Example of why: reducing that verse in Mark to mere earthly
implications. But Molyneux's work is so meritorious that I am now considering a contribution.
Hillary is screwed up exactly the same way as Angela Merkel is, they will destroy our world. Those
women are so psychopathic and ignorant that it is a wonder how they ever got to be where they
are now.
I hope that you and everyone who presents this information keeps this in front of the people.
It needs to be repeated, and repeated. There is too much risk of the ordinary people becoming
distracted by other "shiny" topics, baubles, and misdirection that will pull their interest away
to these other issues either real or fabricated, just sensational enough to up stage Hillary's
malfeasance.
As the information you present becomes dated, and not acted upon, Clinton can just
repeat what she has said before,"What difference does it make?" People of her ilk should have
their feet held to the fire, held to a higher standard, and not to a higher level of privilege.
The mere fact that the FBI, after a thorough investigation with a team of experts, want to indict
her give more credibility than what this one guy says.
BERNIE SANDERS SAID "THERE IS AN ONGOING FBI INVESTIGATION INTO HILLARY CLINTON'S EMAILS. LET
THE INVESTIGATION TAKE IT'S COURSE, UNOBSTRUCTED. I WILL NOT POLITICIZE THIS ISSUE. WE HAVE BIGGER
FISH TO FRY THAN EMAILS e.g. THE AMERICAN ECONOMY. IF THE FEDS FIND SOMETHING THEN WE WILL TALK
ABOUT IT. ENOUGH WITH THE DAMN EMAILS. he never said drop the FBI investigation. he knows they
will find something. If the Justice Department doesn't prosecute Clinton we will know Obama
is protecting her and she will most likely lose the election. We know if they do prosecute Clinton
she will lose the election. CLINTON LOOKS GUILTIER THAN SIN RIGHT NOW.
The anarchist worried about the leaking of 'state secrets' ??? No problem for Clinton. Head of
FBI is Andrew Cuomo. He is republican, but he use to be on the board of HSBC. A linon appointed
judge already demanded information about HSBC involvement in money laundering at the time he was
on the board. Thursday's order by U.S. District Judge John Gleeson in Brooklyn is a defeat for
HSBC and the U.S. Department of Justice, which complained the release could make it easier to
launder money, including for terrorism, and discourage cooperation with law enforcement. So that
goes away and Cuomo makes the Hillary charges go away.
Unlike web traffic, email connections cannot be securely encrypted. This is because the messages
can be stored on intermediate servers not owned by the sender or the receiver. To secure email,
the message itself must be encrypted. Any unencrypted email sent or received could be read by
ISPs and any other email servers along the way.
If Clinton's emails weren't encrypted, they could likely have been read unless her email server
always directly connected to or was connected to by the other party's secure email server.
Encrypted email is actually much more secure than an encrypted web connection, where the strongest
encryption is used to establish the connection, then weaker symmetric key encryption is used for
the data transfer. If all of Clinton's emails were encrypted, they could not be read even if they
were stored on an ISP's server. Ashley Madison's servers were hacked into, allowing the hackers
to access unencrypted information, so the strength of their encryption wasn't relevant to the
breach. If Clinton's emails were encrypted, then if they were hacked, this was most likely how
it was done. No need to build a super computer to hack her communications; just break in and log
her keystrokes to see what password she uses to decrypt her messages, then scoop her private key,
slurp out the encrypted mail, and decrypt it later at leisure.
Reg mason232 1 day ago (edited)
Mr. Molyneux, what you have done is positively prove that the media in its' entirety is covering
and protecting Miss Hillary! You are a Canadian citizen -- and were able to obtain all of this information-
time lines- and missteps by Hillary! YET- literally all of this information remains missing from
the mainstream media!
Since most citizens depend on the mass media for info- it literally explains
why she still remains "above the fray" and continues on with her presidential aspirations. Now
I ask you- if lets say George Bush's (pick one) Secretary Of State had done this do you think
60 Minutes would have been "on the case"! Oh- by the way- she will not be indicted, regardless
of her guilt.
Mark McCormack 2 days ago (edited)
On the question of what exactly was leaked and what foreign gov'ts received it, to quote Clinton,
"What difference, at this point, does it make?"
The damage is done, intelligence experts have to go over every page of it with a fine toothed
comb and treat every classified document as compromised, to do less would be negligent. Clinton
should be unemployable in government in any capacity, by any reasonable standards.
Curt Franks 2 days ago (edited)
EXCELLENT WORK STEFAN!!!!!! Informative, logical, well documented in a linear articulate timeline.
Very clever and entertaining as well! I am an IT professional, and I can tell you with absolute
certainty, that saying you have your own email SMTP server for convenience and NOT employing a
3rd party service, is like saying, "I rebuilt my own car engine because it was much more convenient
than having an automotive professional do it, and by the way, I know nothing about engines". There
is ONLY ONE REASON why she had that server; full control over the existence of its content.
AlphaHotel0311
Her e-incompetence must stem from her sniper-infused PTSD back when she landed under fire in
Kosovo. What a brave, strong woman!
Clyde Cornwell 2 days ago
I can humbly say that I can ride around and fix stuff. For understanding the most intricate
issues of the day I am now checking out Stefan's videos. When you need something fixed or explained
you call on the guy who can fix or you call on someone who can explain. Stefan Molyneux amazes
me with how he outlines and breaks down some of the most complex scandals like this whopper that
Hillary is cleverly slithering out of while campaigning for her presidential election.
Tim Mcgraw 3 days ago
Another very good presentation. My brother handled secret information at Boeing. (He's now
retired). He told me that if he did 1/10th of what Hillary did with classified information, my
brother would be in jail for a long time.
Robert Scott 3 days ago
Nice work on the video. As an IT professional of over 20 years for a company that works with.
gov level email I usually end typing too much trying to point out all of the factual information
tied to this matter.
I think that there are so many instances where Team Clinton has been involved with corruption
type activities and dishonesty that it impossible to go over it all. It shows the hypocrisy of
the administration and government as a whole.
Lone Ranger 3 days ago
What do you expect from a person who as member of the defense legal council at the time, she
was expelled from the watergate court room by the presiding judge for her "incessant lying". Those
were the judges words.
Had she been not been protected by the law and charged with perjury... she would probably have
a federal criminal record and would mot have ever made it into any government position... certainly
not Secretary of State or President.
Proof of the Insanity that prevails under the massive level of corruption.
paisleyyama 1 day ago
I also wonder why she did this and why Obama clearly let her do this. I have no doubt that
security told her how to send information. I remember when Obama first took office and he was
addicted to his Blackberry, so before he was sworn in, security fixed his blackberry so he could
use it securely. I heard Michele Obama and other previous 1st ladies talk about how "they" (whoever
that is) controls their lives and "they" do. "They" don`t let them open the windows in the White
House, "they" don`t let them drive, "they" don`t even let the Pres. and 1st lady sleep in the
same bedroom together, so if "they" control this much, you know "they" would have instructed Hiliary
on how to securely handle information. She had enough experience as a 1st lady to know and understand
about security so why did she seemingly purposely do this? Stefan seems to think it was to protect
her personal business, but maybe it was more and maybe Obama was in on it too. Maybe they wanted
America`s security to be at risk. Maybe they wanted the information to get into these hands. And
maybe "they", whoever that is, was in on it too. I can`t believe Hiliary was doing this all this
time and people were sending her secure information and no one knew what she was doing. I don`t
think she will be prosecuted because she will threaten to take too many people down with her so
people in high positions will let it slide.
46ace
One down vote: Huma ?Izzat you?
Having worked in military counter intelligence and holding various clearances throughout my
career I can find no fault or innacurracies with anything presented here. Sorry Hilbots: She should
be prosecuted.
Sammy Papaki 3 days ago
Great job on covering the matter in full. As an IT security professional that support the
use of government data classified or not it is a massive issue. My company endures attacks from
foreign governments all day long. Her setup would have been the easiest to access in the business.
The server was wide open, no secondary authentication required and a clear text password is
used to manage it remotely. I would assume that all the data was compromised.
Katatawnic 2 days ago
I'm not an IT pro, and I immediately thought the same. Hubby was a Sgt. it Army Natl Guard,
and all of his Army emails were strictly kept on official military servers, & he had to jump through
hoops to authenticate himself. Wouldn't SHE be expected to have at least the same security established,
if not exponentially more? Common sense!
S7one_47 3 days ago
A chilling ending to a brilliant uncovering of the traitor competing for the highest position
in the land.
John Mastroligulano 3 days ago
How could it be that the NSA did not know about this? I don't believe that is even technically
plausible considering the architecture involved.
bloodsoldierZ 2 days ago
Dick Cheney already proved there was no standard. Your selective outrage isn't going to change
that.
Raul Chirea 2 days ago
I don't understand. If Hillary Clinton exchanged mail between her server and ".gov" servers
the messages (sent or received) should be stored on the ".gov" servers. So, one could be able
to lookup for Hillary's messages on all ".gov" servers (received from or sent to) and have a picture
of the Hillary's communications with the government officials. The ones exchanged with other servers
then the ".gov" are, of course, forever lost.
Raul Chirea 2 days ago
That's horror from an IT security point of view. I'm a programmer and know one or two things
about this things.
Endorsement comes after months of speculation surrounding secretive purchase of state's
largest newspaper by the GOP donor and casino mogul
Selected Skeptical Comments
MKB1234
Rubio's pimp Addelson .........and there was I thinking prostitution was illegal in Las
Vegas.
MtnClimber
The headline should read: "Mogul and GOP donor Sheldon Adelson, has endorsed senator Marco
Rubio in the presidential race".
This is similar as to when Fox "News" endorses candidates. It's Ruppert Murdoch endorsing the
candidates, not some non-partisan news agency
BlueCollar
Sheldon Adelson is patron saint , financier of Bibi Netanyahu , in Marco Rubio, Sheldon
found another Netanyhu - Rubio is voice of Jewish state of Israel.
midnightschild10
If Rubio is elected, the true Wizard of Oz behind the curtain, running the country will be
Netanyahu. Adelson will make sure of it. One thing is sure, Adelson knows an empty suit when
he sees one. Rubio is a man without convictions and will say and do whatever he is told.
Hopefully he will be crushed in the national elections. He isn't capable of doing his job ad
Senator, why would anyone believe he could do the job of the Presidency.
MtnClimber -> midnightschild10
If Cruz is elected, he will be an empty suit for the Koch Brothers.
The only candidates that aren't controlled by the uber-rich are Sanders and Trump.
The rest of them, on both sides, are completely controlled by big money interests.
R Voigt
Sheldon Adelson-owned Las Vegas Review-Journal endorses Sheldon Adelson-owned Marco Rubio.
There. Fixed.
curiouswes
no surprises here. The Oligarch owns all of the media in the USA. This rag endorsing his
boy is nothing different than the media endorsing Clinton other than the controlled media
doesn't exactly come out a say it is endorsing Clinton. Instead, it says she is leading in all
the polls and that her nomination is inevitable. Just like in the movie Inception, they put an
idea in your head while you are sleeping and let it grow.
Wake up America!
waldoff
I've always despised sucks. Rubio has been planting little butterfly kisses all over
Adelson's nether parts, and hopping on his hind legs like a poodle asking for treats, for
months, trying to get Adelson's endorsement. This will please the end-timers, eager for the
world's end commencing with another war in the Middle East. Among those who prefer a president
with some backbone, the thought of a credulous boy panderer in elevator shoes moving into the
White House will be that much more disgusting.
Rubio, on the other hand surely already has in mind whose good little Cuban boy he hopes to
become next. Rubio will change his views and crawl through knotholes to ingratiate himself to
those whose real purpose in finding a useful idiiot to put in the White House, is beyond
Marco's comprehension.
MtnClimber -> waldoff
And Cruz has been planting big wet ones on the Koch Brothers asses. Until we get rid of
that horror, Citizens United, our government will be owned by 128 people. If you vote GOP, you
are responsible for that abortion of a law.
snakeatzoes
" Adelson donated more than $92m to conservative Super Pacs in an effort to help elect a
Republican in the 2012 race."
So the man is a winner?
Good grief our Tories are snivelling, greedy chancers.. but why do Americans allow such
obvious bribery ?
"... the global oil market is not a market like those for smartphones, automobiles or ladies purses. The global oil ( gas) market is a STRATEGIC one. Which goes on to say that the core states, such as first of all, North America, then NW Europe get to have the first and final say. ..."
"... This problem is compounded by the fact that high oil prices enable geo-strategic rivals such as Russia/Iran/Iraq/Venezuela to be more defiant than they would otherwise be. ..."
"... The oil rich countries that are directly controlled by the US co (the US Empire) also known as GCC, follow an oil production policy that largely suits the core states themselves, depending on the situation and their ability to affect the global market. ..."
"... As North America was a massive oil importer circa 2009 (Canada cannot be seen in isolation, but as appendix to the US) this increased oil production went a lot way in: a)boosting economic growth (North America has easily outpaced other advanced economies since the Lehman crisis) b) Minimize the US trade deficit and therefore: c) Boosting the value of the US dollar. ..."
"... Countries outside of the US, Canada (to a lesser extent UK, Norway ) that are major oil producers, need to accrue massive profits from their oil sales, since they universally divert most of those funds into financing the government, the military and social spending, while they must also keep some for re-investments into their oil sectors. US Canada are uber-happy if they can more or less break-even. ..."
Could this have been due to the special place US has in the hierarchy.
When camels are thirsty
they are chewing thistle to relieve their thirst, but the thistle is dry, so in fact their own
blood relieve their thirst.
Dogs chew old bones but there is nothing in them, but pieces of splited bone pierce their mouth
ceiling and fresh blood makes them think there is food in there.
This is what US has done f.ed the little economic moment it still had because is the forefront
of the empire, he is going for the fresh blood of shale.
As I have repeatedly stated on this blog, the global oil market is not a market like those
for smartphones, automobiles or ladies purses. The global oil (& gas) market is a STRATEGIC one.
Which goes on to say that the core states, such as first of all, North America, then NW Europe
get to have the first and final say.
The problem for the US, Canada, Norway and the UK (the only wealthy countries producing large
quantities of oil) is that their oil reserves are extremely marginal and can only be accessed
with high oil prices (in the long-run) This problem is compounded by the fact that high oil
prices enable geo-strategic rivals such as Russia/Iran/Iraq/Venezuela to be more defiant than
they would otherwise be.
The oil rich countries that are directly controlled by the US & co (the US Empire) also
known as GCC, follow an oil production policy that largely suits the core states themselves, depending
on the situation and their ability to affect the global market.
In my view, this is what preceded the recent oil market collapse:
NATO-GCC to Russia in 2011/12: "Give up Assad, or we'll fill our media with BS stories
about you. We will also 'encourage' our corporations to not invest in your country"
Russia to NATO-GCC: "You have been doing that for ages, who cares for even more propaganda.
Assad stays"
NATO-GCC to Russia in 2013/14: "Give up Assad, or we will turn Ukraine against you, there
will be serious trouble for you, as now we will make our economic warfare against you, official.
Moreover, our 'regime-change' efforts will intensify"
Russia replies to NATO-GCC: "Bring it on, Assad stays"
NATO-GCC to Russia in 2014: "We will pummel the oil price into oblivion*, we promise that
you will feel the strain, just give up on Assad or we will destroy you"
Russia replies to NATO-GCC: "I have seen worse. Assad stays"
*Notice that NATO-GCC did not use the oil-price weapon until one of two things happened:
a) Time-pressure on regime-changing-Syria became serious.
b) The shale and tar sands infrastructure had been already put in place under high oil prices.
But back to Ron's core (and largely correct) claim that the global oil production gains of
recent years have been a North American phenomenon (I would also add Iraq)
North America has been able to ramp-up production spectacularly in recent years because of
the following reasons:
a) It's capital rich. Instead of diverting all of that QE-enabled loans to the parasitic "housing
market" and lots of inane Silicon Valley start-ups (that fail 99 times of 100) it was wiser to
have some dough flow into the "shale oil & gas miracle" as well as Alberta's vast tar sands deposits.
Which made both economic as well as strategic sense.
b) As North America was a massive oil importer circa 2009 (Canada cannot be seen in isolation,
but as appendix to the US) this increased oil production went a lot way in: a)boosting economic
growth (North America has easily outpaced other advanced economies since the Lehman crisis) b)
Minimize the US trade deficit and therefore: c) Boosting the value of the US dollar.
As I have noted many times before on this blog, some (maybe several) countries around the world
have massive oil reserves that are far more prolific than those currently being exploited in North
America. But these countries, do not enjoy neither the political/military clout over the GCC,
nor remotely the financial capital to engage in such massive (and risky) investments.
Countries outside of the US, Canada (to a lesser extent UK, Norway ) that are major oil
producers, need to accrue massive profits from their oil sales, since they universally divert
most of those funds into financing the government, the military and social spending, while they
must also keep some for re-investments into their oil sectors. US & Canada are uber-happy if they
can more or less break-even.
But the peak-oil-environmental bias of many, does not allow them to see this.
Your strategic analyses are very interesting Stavros, and fit many of the things we all know are
true. However I have a problem with the "We will pummel the oil price into oblivion" part.
The available evidence is that the price of oil followed very closely the supply/demand ratio.
The chart below is from Dr. Ed's blog.
I am always skeptical of interpretations that are not supported by evidence. There are multiple
theories about who caused the oil price to go down and why. I rather stick with the data, it is
not a PO bias but quite the opposite. A supply/demand mismatch caused it and nobody wanted to
cut production unilaterally.
The oil rich countries that are directly controlled by the US & co (the US Empire) also
known as GCC, The oil rich countries that are directly controlled by the US & co (the US Empire)
also known as GCC, follow an oil production policy that largely suits the core states themselves,
depending on the situation and their ability to affect the global market.
That statement makes no sense whatsoever. Just who is/are "US & Co"? Would that be Obama? Or
perhaps the US Congress? Or perhaps the US Oil Companies? Then in the second half of that long
sentence, you completely contradict the first half of the sentence. You say: follow an oil
production policy that largely suits the core states themselves," Now which is it? Are they
controlled by US & co, or are do they pay no attention to whomever in the US that is doing the
controlling and follow a policy that simply suits themselves?
I would definitely agree with the second half of your sentence, the GCC states do exactly what
they damn well please. And I would definitely disagree with the first half of your sentence. They
would pay no attention to any US politician or businessman that might call them up and try to
tell them what to do.
But back to Ron's core (and largely correct) claim that the global oil production gains
of recent years have been a North American phenomenon (I would also add Iraq).
Well no, that's not what I said. Yes, recent oil production gains have been from US, Canada,
Iraq and Saudi Arabia. But what I said was:
The recent surge in world production that was brought about by high prices…
The recent gains in Iraq and Saudi Arabia were after the price already started to fall. Those
gains were not brought about by high prices. They were despite a steep decline in prices.
That statement makes no sense whatsoever. Just who is/are "US & Co"?
"US and Co" is essentially a codename for NATO. It is ruled by international financial elite
(Davos crowd) which BTW consider the USA (and, by extension, NATO) as an enforcer, a tool for
getting what they want, much like Bolsheviks considered Soviet Russia to be such a tool.
The last thing they are concerned is the well-being of American people.
Stefan is amazingly talented guy, no question about ti. This post about this video "Stefan, this is the most comprehensive, fact based, detailed examination exposing the misinformation
& lies perpetuated by the media. Bravo to you for disclosing the TRUTH! It's too bad the already
misinformed & misguided souls that repeat all the media's negative false rhetoric about Mr. Trump
will most likely never take the time to watch this video to become enlightened." is not an
exaggeration.
Notable quotes:
"... The media, establishment Republicans and Democrats hate him. That makes me like him in that regard. He must be doing something right. ..."
"... I am surprised--this was actually fairly informative. I was curious after I saw a article that showed Trump did at least denounce the Boston attack on the homeless Latino man contrary to what I was told by others. Made me wonder what else was being falsely said about Trump. That in mind, there are things I do not agree with Trump policy wise, so I wont be voting for him. ..."
"... I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. -Evelyn Beatrice Hall ..."
"... Thank you for posting this. You have reshaped my world and views of the press. Freedom of Press is not The Freedom to Lie. ..."
"... Ive been following Trump for years and watched the documentaries and smears, basically theres nothing there truly dirty or criminal. He is an egomaniac obviously. He may be unethical at times and an overly zealous marketer, a ruthless businessman, he has crushed those who opposed him, but he never murdered them or stole money or intentionally defrauded people. What I have seen is he has made his best efforts to live up to his word, although sometimes failing to do so. Yes he is where he is bc of his father, no question. But nothing even remotely close to the pure demonic evil that is the Clinton or Bush clan; full of assassinations, narcotics/gun running, absolute financial corruption bribes payoffs... ..."
"... Excellent deposition of facts and events related to D. Trump...as I have been reading press articles, listening to Mr. Trumps interviews by various journalist, alternative and main stream news media. I really enjoyed confirming these issues. I had a few laughs about how bias and incompetent some of these individuals and organizations are...nevertheless Trump keeps scoring points...it seems people are waking up to the reality of corrupt leaders and their political agenda. ..."
"... here in the UK i have been watching our government react to Trumps statements. It would be interesting if he was elected to see our politicians having to backtrack and do some serious bum buffing. ..."
"... This is an excellent video. Alot of effort put into it and I appreciate it. Thank you for this insightful video full of actual facts. Remember whenever you hear something outrageous in the media, always ALWAYS see the source of the actual event to see if it was actually true. ..."
"... All these so called journalists ( if you want to call them that) that write for MSM, and of course all the Rags that Stefan has quoted, are, for the most part mouth pieces, in that they write what they are told to write, they will bash anything that might be out of the norm like a Trump, and they do this not because they actually believe the garbage they write, but because they are told what and how to write, by their editors who have a direct line to their handlers which of course are the Uber elite Statists, ..."
"... Stefan, this is the most comprehensive, fact based, detailed examination exposing the misinformation lies perpetuated by the media. Bravo to you for disclosing the TRUTH! Its too bad the already misinformed misguided souls that repeat all the medias negative false rhetoric about Mr. Trump will most likely never take the time to watch this video to become enlightened. ..."
I dislike most of what Trump says and stands for, but none of it is what the media talks/lies
about, which makes me strangely sympathetic towards him.
Brian Connell 5 days ago
+Susan Burns Think yourself intelligent when your comment does not maintain fallacies please.
If your rich you need money less. #2 Says itself. If something is bad replace it. We need less
idiots who think they're clever spreading misinformation. Any presidential candidate is qualified
to be president. Please stop saying we when I know you're representing only yourself not America.
The Establishment controls us and the presidents through special interests. Ted Cruz will always
have someone underneath his desk. Every single one of your numbered statements is wrong. My pity
and condolences confused one.
Edward B 2 weeks ago
great video, argued with my manager about Hillary yesterday. they refuse to listen to facts,
it absurd how deep the rabbit hole goes...
maggoli67 2 weeks ago
I almost hate it, but my respect for Trump is growing too much. as an Anarchist, I hate them
all, but he's the most honest of them all.
AvyScottandFlower 2 weeks ago (edited)
Trump portrays the role of a dumb guy who thinks he's really smart when in reality he's much
more intelligent than he lets morons know, while those very stupid people think they are being
smart by totally falling for his mockery of them, and calling him 'stupid'.
Gotta love how Trump plays them all like a fiddle, and shames them by doing so (unbeknownst
to many, unbelievably so!)
Chris C 2 weeks ago (edited)
I like Trump because he's not Hillary. But he is by no means a liberty candidate. My reason
for supporting him is simply the idea that if the economy really is going to collapse, I'd much
rather have a republican in the Whitehouse than a socialist. There is also the issue of the supreme
court justices set to retire and the second amendment issues there.
In no way do I believe that Trump has any chance of reversing the economic course that we have
been set on for the last several decades. The absolute last chance we had of that was in 08, and
the only candidate that represented real change was Ron Paul. But Americans spoke back then, and
what they said was that by no means would they accept freedom as a substitute for free stuff from
government and endless wars. There's absolutely no turning back now and all the Trumps in the
world can't change that.
John Belt 1 week ago
The MSM still acts as if they were they the only source of information available to the American
people. That is, in my opinion, one of the primary reasons the MSM is falling from the high podium
they believe they still deserve to be upon.
OrdoMallius 2 weeks ago
You want to hear the truth? You cant handle the truth!
Donald Trump is the reincarnation of Donald Patton. They are pretty similar in looks and especially
in the profanity-laced speeches, Trump always mentions him on his rallies, Patton believed himself
to be a reincarnation of a great warrior and Trump was born one year after Patton died giving
soul enough time to reincarnate. Modern wars are purely economic. Patton cultivated his flashy
persona and so does Trump, Patton realized Germany was going to be ruined by the commies, Trump
realizes Germany is going to be ruined by commies. Patton believed PTSD was "an invention of the
jews" and Trump believes autism is an invention of the vaccinations.
John Barleycorn 2 weeks ago (edited)
Good video. One often overlooked fact, is that the media makes it's money from selling advertising.
No advertisers, no media. Ratings get advertisers and so on. I would guess that 95% of what the
publishes is related to ratings and getting advertisers. The other 5% might be in the public interest.
The media, establishment Republicans and Democrats hate him. That makes me like him in
that regard. He must be doing something right.
bitbucketcynic 1 week ago
The media presstitutes never apologize for lying, they just double down with even bigger lies.
a3roflow90 1 week ago
This is what I dislike most about your video. You seem to glorify his use of exaggeration to
his supporters or even anyone that is remotely interested in politics. His technique might be
good for business, but he's igniting hatred and bias against other people. You seem pretty intelligent
in the fact that you actually made this presentation to show the fallacies in the mainstream media,
so I'll give you that. However, ignorant, right winged republicans hear even a mere inkling of
supposed racism and bigotry and they jump at the chance to support someone they think will put
white people back on top.
Look at the Grandmaster off the KKK that supported him or the hundreds of endorsements from
preachers all around the country. This isn't a business opportunity, His exaggerations have already
gotten people hurt at his speeches. Look at the countless attacks and hateful comments at his
rallies so far. He might be a shrewd businessman, but in no way should ever be set anywhere near
the top of the country in power. You also really want a person that declines to be in the same
room as Megyn Kelly? What will be his policy towards trying to set peaceful negotiations with
other countries? How about that awful endorsement from Sarah Palin? Her garbage she spouted out
was completely ridiculed for good reason. She spouts Christian values when she raises her kids
to become terrible people, then blames Obama for it? Are you freaking kidding me? How about his
last speech he gave? Since you love quoting him directly, I'll hit you with this.
"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters,
okay," Trump said while speaking at Dordt College, a Christian school. "It's like incredible."
So you have the grand poobah of the KKK, tons of elitist Evangelical Christians, A crazy Alaskan
nut job, and the troves of racist bigots who back his campaign. I'm sure I have the majority of
people that support him, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
This campaign is garbage. His values are garbage.
Show less
yourenotinthecircle 2 weeks ago
I agree with most of this video, as it is basically the truth, but I am still allowed to disagree
with Trump, there is never one correct way to deal with big issues, and i simply think a few of
his base ideas are not fully formed and still some of the things he says are on average, an impassioned
popular counter-opinion, which is damn smart ill give him that, but its not nearly enough for
me, come to think about it, not one world leader we have right now is good enough, the world is
run by weaklings who pray to the god of money.
Eduardo Romero 2 weeks ago
Okey, that media is bad on Trump but his actual plans are just to make Latinos go away and
continue to the war on the Middle East. He still doesn't have talked about actual any actual plans.
He is a populist, he just wants to win because he is a megalomaniac. And to be fair, he attracts
and ridicules other candidates too.
Jordan Shackelford 2 weeks ago (edited)
I went to a Trump rally in my town today and he was an hour and a half late. No problem, things
happen. But both he and Sarah Pailin just repeated the same speeches they keep repeating. I've
seen some Trump rallies online, I saw the video where Pailin endorsed him. The speeches they gave
today were word-for-word exactly what they've been saying at every rally everywhere.
Apparently it's called a "stump speech". According to wikipedia "A political stump speech is
a standard speech used by a politician running for office." So I guess you could say Trump stumped
himself.
untapishtim 1 week ago
Donald Trump is a genius. Sociopath, yes, but only a sociopath has the guts to go against this
corrupt system. And he has the money. (Nobody can buy me!).
America needs a leader like Trump. He has no fear, knows when to back off or change strategy.
America needs to change its policy with China, and start treating Russia with respect. And
somebody really needs to tell the EU to "f**k off"! Especially Merkel. Not Germany. Merkel!!!
The troops must come back home!!!
Jimmy Holzman 2 weeks ago
Hey Stefan, I've been listening to your show and your videos for a while now and I have to
say that you have changed my perspective on a lot of subjects and made me realize how important
philosophy really is. I don't consider your content valuable, I think it's priceless and essential,
thanks to you I've been reading some awesome books on economics and libertarianism. The sad part
is that I can't donate money to support you. I live in Venezuela (a socialist shithole), a country
that has an index of economic freedom of 34.4 at the moment of writing this post. In this country
the government has absolute control of the currency so the population can't have access to U.S
dollars. Even if I could change my currency into dollars, inflation in Venezuela is so high that
something as little as 5 dollars is a week worth of transportation (that I spend to go to college).
I'm not kidding you, here we fight to find toilet paper, FUCKING TOILET PAPER! I can't even spread
the message on my social networks because my friends don't care about philosophy and don't speak
English (Taking a look at our current situation I don't even know how the fuck did I manage to
find time to learn the language). The only thing that I can say to you is thanks for all the hard
work you put into your show and your videos. When I leave this gigantic cesspool you will have
a new monthly donation (if the extremely high crime rate don't kill me first).
Keep up the good work man
PS: I'm sorry for any grammatical mistakes, keep in mind that English is not my first language.
ImprovedTruth 2 weeks ago (edited)
I was hoping to find a balanced appraisal of Trumps claims, but your own political bias shines
through too much. Dispelling myths is great, but the parts that should be an honest deconstruction
of some of the more stupid ideas Trump puts forward, just turns into adoration.
A lot of this is good, but truth is far more important than personality politics and you have
failed to present the truth unadulterated by your own feelings.
Sean Don 4 days ago
Is all of this because the media takes him out of context? Or is it also partly because some
of what he says is ambiguous and people respond to his non-verbal language as well? I can buy
the idea that the media does their thing and that Trump may not really be so racist/sexist at
heart. I also believe that Xenophobia is not a bad thing; though it's made out to be a "dirty
word", border protection is a valid issue.
I can buy that he meant "their racists" instead of "they're racists", but it is an ambiguity,
one has to admit. But some of it I don't quite get. For example, when the media talked about his
McCain comment, I couldn't believe it, so I looked it up online at the time (it's easy to do)
and watched him say it, and read the transcript word for word... and it still sounds bad. Yes
technically he says "he's a hero" four times, but it could be interpreted that he was being interrupted
in saying "he's [only] a hero because he got captured", which is an insult to those who believe
that any kind of military service, automatically makes someone a kind of hero in a way. I think
perhaps Trump was trying to say that McCain is not a hero in other ways, which could be. But it's
too bad his supporters have to try so hard.
One Up 2 weeks ago
Trump does leave a little ambiguity initially when he makes a new statement, then when the
media storm starts, he clarifies and wins. Ex. Mexico is not sending their best= Media storm-
Calls for Apology= Clarification: I said illegal immigrants , criminals pushed by the Mexican
government into the US.
Charles Fry 2 weeks ago (edited)
It was not Muslims, on rooftops, in New Jersey, celebrating and videotaping the destruction
of the towers. It was Israeli intelligence officers. They were arrested with multiple passports,
$5000 cash, and their van tested positive for explosives. It was widely reported on the day, then
the story vanished- much like the WTC 7 story. They were detained for 71 days, then released back
to Israel on passport violations. After, they went on Israeli television and admitted they were
there to document the event. LOOK IT UP! Nothing suspicious here.
David Ziegelheim 1 week ago
Your quote at about 51 minutes is incorrect. He didn't say 'negotiate' deals at the RJC conference,
he said 'renegotiate' deals. In Trump speak that amounts to breaking contracts and settling in
court. He boasts about always being ready to sue are part of his 'renegotiation' strategy. He
is defending multiple suits from his 'renegotiation' of condo sales at his Chicago tower. It is
basically a technique to take advantage of customers, investors, partners, and suppliers. It is
not considered a reputable business practice and saying all Jews in the room did that was an insult
and a stereotype.
I did hear that entire speech and it was laced with stereotypes. At one point I thought he
was going to say the audience could tell if he took a shower because of their long noses (he didn't,
but it felt in line with his other comments).
He also took a very anti-Israel policy position-effectively saying Israel is the reason there
is no peace. A policy that flies among Democrats but not Republicans. It is also not true...as
anyone familiar with Hamas would know.
You make several points that are different from what Trump said. For example, he said didn't
say illegal immigrants or immigrants at all. He said "when Mexico sends its people"...a pretty
generic term.
But then, my challenge to you is find two coherent sentences in row that Trump said. I haven't
found it. He wonders off in disjoint directions after a few sentence fragments.
Informative Misinformation 2 weeks ago (edited)
Trump: "The final key to the way I promote is bravado. I play to people's fantasies. People
may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That's
why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest and the
greatest and the most spectacular."Propose a ban on Muslim immigrants. Say you witnessed Muslims
celebrating 9/11.
Propose to build a giant wall across the border. Mention that Mexico is not sending their best,
but rather Mexico is sending drugs, rapists, and assume some illegal immigrants are good people.
Share a meme with false statistics on black US citizens that fit the stereotype of black gangsters.
I live in a predominately conservative Texas town, so I am aware of whose fantasies (or rather,
confirmation bias, ingroup bias, representativeness heuristic, etc.) Trump is catering to. I see
it on my Facebook feed nearly every day. For the record, I absolutely agree with Trump: His hyperbole
is effective in gaining support. Apparently, support from you and your subscribers.
Lightdescent 1 hour ago
I definitely think that Trump was cheated with the Iowa Elections. I have done a mathematical
analysis of the results and they are highly suspicious. This goes beyond just mere speculation.
See my 5 minute video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAQ0DFZbHiY
Hey Stefan. One question. Where did Trump speak about illegal immigrants in his quote? "When Mexico
sends its people, they're not sending the best. They're sending people that have lots of problems
and they're bringing those problems. They're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime. They're rapists
and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they're telling us what
we're getting." He doesn't say illegal immigrants (I've listened to the speech again). I guess
you assume this because he spoke to border guards, but then again, it's not clear. And so, technically,
most of the quotes or titles in the "media" were correct, I'm sorry. I also hate when people misquote,
but this time, you cannot argue that they are manipulating the quote. Let me break down what I
find poorly described in this quote/partial speech. 1): "Mexico sends its people" Like the country
"sends" people. This is incorrect, or at least, I don't see any proof of that. I admit I haven't
looked for any proof either myself, but since he is making this proposition, it's my opinion he
should provide proof. I'm pretty sure people who want to immigrate in the US want to come and
are not sent... 2) "some, I assume, are good people" This means that not only a subset, but according
to Trump, the majority of immigrants are drug dealers and rapists. If he would have said something
like: "Some of them are good people and some of them are bad people" it would have been different.
He says: I know most of them are rapists and drug dealers/consumers and maybe, only maybe, some
are ok. So he also says he is not sure that some are good people, but he sure knows that most
of them are bad. 3) "I speak to border guards and they're telling us what we're getting" Again,
I want proof, numbers. How many guards did he talk to. What are the statistics of the people trying
to cross the borders, etc... I really hate speeches like this. It's not because it's offensive,
I couldn't care less about that. But I hate it when people speak without facts, hard paper facts
and statistics. This guy has good ideas. For example, he is the only one who proposed we should
understand why djihadist do what they do. If you understand it, you can solve it. But "we" still
believe that we can kill off ideas and movements by bombing them harder. I'm pretty sure we can't
do it because you would have to kill off everyone having this "idea" and then find a way to prevent
people from having this "idea"...
A letter to Mr Bill Whittle. Bill, I submit that Trump is the only candidate that can beat Hillary.
I share your principals. However, the conservatives have shown abject cowardliness for decades.
I find their sudden wave of patriotism phony and hypocritical. Where were they when we needed
them. I could go on for hours listing the endless opportunities these bullshit conservatives have
had to show some backbone. Now they want to destroy the only man courageous enough to actually
go out on that limb alone, risk his life, and use his own money. I am appalled that you and others
bitch about Trump being rude, crude, and bombastic but would never in a million years take the
shot. You do not make me proud to be an American. Donald does. You proclaim to love and support
the Constitution. I assume that would include the men who made it happen. You proclaim disdain
for the "appalling and destructive vitriol" emanating from Trump. That he's rude and crude. Your
claim is that "he's not presidential". OK, let's talk about "rude and crude" and "appalling and
destructive". Our first President, General George Washington, killed ten's of thousands of men.
Including his own men when he deemed it necessary. Who made those decisions? He did. How's that
for "rude and crude"? ' He killed Indians on what they believed to be their own land. I suppose
you think he felt guilty about that pesky Eminent Domain thing. How's that for "appalling and
destructive"? Our second President, Thomas Jefferson, was a slave owner, a womanizer, and could
be most vindictive on numerous occasions. He tried to have his own vice-president (Aaron Burr)
convicted of treason three times so he could have him shot. Did you get that Mr. Whittle? He wanted
to kill him. How's that for "rude and crude"? Burr himself actually killed Hamilton. Gee, that
was a little "rude and crude" wasn't it Mr. Whittle? Maybe even "appalling and destructive". John
Adams? Give me a fucking break. Most notable. He believed in a strong and powerful centralized
government. He wanted to be addressed as "his highness". You might want to read that last sentence
again Mr. Whittle. Modern-day mudslinging? Trump's got nothing on the dirt thrown in the 1800
presidential election between Adams and the sitting vice president, Thomas Jefferson. While the
Federalist Adams believed in a strong centralized government and the Republican Jefferson favored
states' rights, the debate went beyond policy differences to personal attacks. Campaign propaganda
paid for by Jefferson charged that Adams was a "hideous hermaphroditical character" who smuggled
prostitutes into the country from England and planned to marry one of his sons to a daughter of
King George III to establish a royal bloodline in his family. The president's supporters called
Jefferson a coward, French radical and infidel who would seize the country's bibles and allow
"the refuse of Europe" to flood American shores. Abigail Adams lamented that the campaign had
produced enough venom to "ruin and corrupt the minds and morals of the best people in the world.".
In addition, Adams had numerous illicit affairs and defended the British soldiers in Boston. He
was, no doubt, considered to be, shall we say, a bit "rude and crude". Who knows. maybe even a
little "appalling and disgusting". Don't even get me started on Lincoln. He shredded the Constitution
at will. Make no mistake, I am now and will always be proud and grateful for these "appalling
and disgusting" giants. They gave the world the greatest, most productive, most benevolent, and
most just country the world has ever known. They did so at great personal risk and I love them
for it. I can't find the words to express the depth of my respect and admiration for these "rude
and crude" immortals. They represent all things that matter most to me. They had the courage of
their convictions unlike you and Thomas Sowell (ad nauseam) and the rest of the self-righteous
bullshit neo-cons. Consider this Mr. Whittle. Of all the current candidates, which one has the
most in common with the very men who molded the Constitution that you "claim" to revere? Which
one is risking his life, the lives of his family, and his fortune to stand up to the greatest
deluge of contempt, disdain, humiliation, slander, lies and abject hatred you and I have ever
seen or will ever see in our lifetime. He has been called Hitler, fascist, racist, bigot, and
the most unimaginable slurs and derogatives. He is constantly ridiculed in ways you couldn't stand
for a five seconds. This "appalling and disgusting" onslaught comes not only from his competitors
but also from his own party. Is all this really much different than the same sentiments afforded
our framers by the Tory's and the Loyalists? Why do you suppose that is Mr. Whittle? Why did you
fail to address any of this in your Trump hit piece? You claim to be big on facts. Maybe, But
I say your very selective when addressing "the facts". Here's the real issue. Conservatism will
not saves us at this juncture. All your self aggrandizing lectures about the Constitution is lost
on the majority. We are circling the drain. It's too late for the prosaic speeches about electing
a "true conservative". They have "dropped the ball" and like you, are now in denial. Maybe that
comes from a sense of guilt and cowardice. That's a different discussion. What I do know is that
47% of Iowans are proud Socialist and support the Socialist front runner on the Dem side. We have
no borders. Our national debt is unimaginable and incomprehensible. Our woes are many. This dire
state of affairs did not happen over night and a true conservative will not fix it in one presidential
cycle. What is most disturbing is that you and yours have not realized that we are already a Socialist
country. Donald Trump had nothing to do with that. In fact, he has been wildly successful as a
capitalist and, by his own admission, a reluctant crony capitalist This alone should command respect
and awe. Still, you condemn. I believe that if Trump ran on the platform you would approve of
he would stand no better chance than Ron or Rand Paul. The most staunch Constitutional proponents.
I believe he knows that if he attacks the Socialists "sacred cows" he will not get elected. Let
me give one of a great many examples of Trumps dilemmas. I have seen his plan for dealing with
illegal immigrants. It's all about destroying the incentive for them to come and stay. Consider
this. What would happen if he started talking about stopping their welfare checks or bringing
the hammer down on their employers. Do you understand that Murdoch, who owns Fox, and guys like
Soro's are open borders proponents. Do you understand that Microsoft is our largest holder of
H1B visas? They are supporting Rubio. What do you think the headlines would say if Trump actually
were more specific as you seem to yearn for? Game over! Are you really so naive? Can't you see
that they would like nothing more than for Trump to show his cards. Looked what happened when
he wisely stated that we should halt immigration (temporally). Grow up Mr. Whittle. I also believe
that Cruz and Rubio are not genuine and won't beat Hillary. In, fact the best chance would be
a Trump/Cruz ticket. Trump is in the middle enough to get elected and start the healing process.
Trump would learn form Cruz and Cruz would learn from Trump. In eight years Cruz could then run,
with Donald's support, and they could hold office together for 16 years. I believe that Trump
had this in mind which is why he courted Cruz. Given their age difference it's a win/win for both.
Unfortunately Cruz will have no part of it. That's putting the countries interest first now isn't
it. Another example of the so called "conservative principals". I submit, Mr. Whittle, that the
Trump supporters you condescend to have figured out something you have not. That Mr. Donald J.
Trump is more than you and your fellow so called "conservatives" deserve. He is stepping in to
fill the void left by you blowhards. Is he flawed? Yes. Is he childish and sophomoric? Sometimes.
Will he say and do things that we find disturbing? I think so. But will he intentionally harm
us? Not a chance. You may find this hard to believe but we adolescent Trump supporters will never
allow him to do it. He is not the man his distracters want you to believe he is. Take some time
and really look deeper. Look at his kids. Look at the way his 22,000+ employees respect him. Out
of that many wouldn't the press have found negative testimonials? Your in business. How long does
a scoundrel last in that world. What would be the likelihood of that level of success without
good long term honorable relationships. So please spare us the patriotic bullshit. A few insincere
compliments to start your negative diatribe fools now one. We know a Cruz supporter when we hear
one. Wake up Mr. Whittle. Before it's too late. We Trump supporters are the only thing between
you and collapse. P.S. You can go back to the latest edition of National Review now.
911LookuptheLavonAffair 4 days ago
Stefan Molyneux talks about how middle class Republicans are all eager to support Donald Trump
because they feel like the other politicians have sold out the middle class for cheap illegal
immigrant labor, campaign contributions from companies that profit off of this labor, and how
these politicians sold out the national interests of the country in various ways to do this.
Although... didn't the voters vote for these open-borders Republicans like George Bush, Lindsey
Graham, and John McCain? The Republican voters had the option of voting for Republicans who were
more committed to securing the border like Pat Buchanan, but they opted for the more moderate
open-borders candidates like George Bush and John McCain instead... so didn't the voters get what
they asked for? Why should they be mad if this is the case?
Regardless... it's good to see people waking up to the problems open-borders policies are causing
our nation. As Stefan said, without these policies Obama would never have been elected.
thor2070+9 5 days ago (edited)
This video basically proves how deceptive the Media is. They love to twist people comments,
and create bullshit! I went to listen to some of the uploaded, past speeches of Donald Trump,
which his comments were totally different from what the Mainstream Media reports in their discriminatory
propaganda, to sway the thinking of the Public. Those who have dis-invested in Trumps enterprises,
will eventually comeback, because they need money. That also includes cry-baby politicians. Give
it 5 to 10 years after the fact. I had to give the "thumbs up" to Stefan Molyneux's dissecting
of the Donald.
z8machine 5 days ago (edited)
You have completely missed the dynamic driving Trump's wild popularity, as you don't seem to
be from here. You also misquoted and misunderstood Schopenhauer's three stages of truth, please
read up as they are more favorable to Trump and fully explain the self-evident truth of his campaign
to all thinking people, world-wide.
The elite aristocracy want slave labor to overrun higher wage, better educated Americans while
they outsource for cheaper manufacturing. They need America to be a third world country. It's
just that simple. Trumps hates the inbred international losers driving international economics
in direct conflict with American internests. Trump is America's new Andrew Jackson. And By God,
he will rout you out like Jackson did.
reavertor 1 week ago (edited)
The most interesting thing about this to me is the contrast between Trump's written content
vs his spoken content during interviews/speeches/debates - he comes off as a working class joe
in his speeches but I realize that this is his genius. He speaks in the language of the common
man, this explains his huge appeal across middle america. yet his written works betray a much
more sophisticated and adroit communication style. I suspect behind closed doors Trump is probably
much more articulate. He is in fact highly educated and attended prestigious private academies
growing up but he has dealt with blue collar men his whole life in the construction/real estate
business so this is his "trump" card so to speak. He doesn't come off as elitist and thus his
massive appeal.
J.P. Cloonan 1 week ago
BRILLIANT, ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT STEFAN ;)
Wesly Stanton 1 week ago
Read Ann Coulters book, Adios America, it explains EVERYTHING.
David K 1 week ago
I loved the accents during the quotes!
Nobbybuttons 1 week ago
watch you on Alex J. you were very good, keep up the good work!
jakesprake 1 week ago (edited)
There's nothing wrong with being a 'draft dodger' if you're opposed to war. It's those warmongering
chicken hawks who are the hypocrites. Draft 'dodger' is a derogatory term, it suggests that it's
your duty to go out and fight for big business and banks. And when you are 'drafted' they get
you to sign a form agreeing to it when you don't have to.
They need your consent and trick you into giving it to them.
I love the fact that people think that Donald Trump is a business man. He didn't make his own
money his grandfather did and the people whom have made him money are the people he has hired
that know business. Oh wait he doesn't even hire them he uses a head hunting company to do the
hiring so basically his grandfathers money has made him more money and he's made it off the hard
work of intelligent people his money can afford buy. He is not good under pressure, he's vindictive,
he makes up facts (yes he is a liar), ill tempered, is not a good public speaker, makes decisions
based upon assumptions or hearsay, and when he realizes he has no idea what he's talking about
he takes it out on other public figures. He is a bully that does not like to be questioned and
by missing this debate it proves he has no concept of democracy he cares not for anyone else's
views only his own and that is a dictator not the president of the United States. Trump expects
us to vote for him when he takes his personal battles out against the american public. Regardless
of his reasoning if he can't handle fox news how do we expect him to run America. He is not good
under pressure he is vindictive, ill tempered, is not a good public speaker, makes decisions based
upon assumptions or hearsay, and when he realizes he has no idea what he's talking about he takes
it out on other public figures. He is a bully that does not like to be questioned and by missing
this debate it proves he has no concept of democracy he cares not for anyone else's views only
his own and that is a dictator not the president of the United States. Jokes should be kept on
youtube or comedy central not in a presidential debate. You have to understand that lots of people
don't actually think he will win but he has a chance and could you picture this man with the nuclear
codes or weapons of war. He would devastate our foreign policies and has already begun damaging
the country just by running. People are interesting they will vote for him because he is "keeping
it real and damns political correctness." I'm sorry but someone that is keeping it real doesn't
make up the facts as they go along or attack someone to differ a question they can't answer. He
want to lower minimum wage and decrease the taxes on the top 1%
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
Donald P. Baty 1 week ago
Oh, and by the way, I'm so glad Donald stood his ground on the FOX, Megyn Kelly issue. FOX
News are such liars and manipulators. I am so finished with them.
The Dancing Israelis in New Jersey also bragged of their mission as Mossad agents, to record this
great new impetus for American hegemony in the Middle East. 911 was a complicated mix of the worlds
evil and it didn't include a plane hitting Building number 7 which fell at free fall (pull it)
said Silverstein its owner oh yes and the owner the 'Twin Towers". 9/11 - The Truth In 5 Minutes
- James Corbett https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgrunnLcG9Q
Salty Admiral 6 days ago (edited)
Trump is not stupid, his voters are stupid, and he prays on it like no politician ever has!
The problem is that Trump voters (most, not all) are incredibly ignorant. No, I don't mean
that as an insult, it's just a fact. No, having low income and little to no education does not
mean you must be ignorant, but it is a damn good indicator.
And even Trump himself acknowledges this, this is Donald Trump quote:
"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue, shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters,"
He is openly insulting the intelligence of his own voters, and he still doesn't lose them.
LMAO :)
caraclaudel 1 week ago
The mainstream media is as corrupt and dishonest as the dirty politicians it supports. Trump
is taking a common sense wrecking ball to both just by stating the obvious. He brings up things
we're not allowed to publicly talk about due to the straitjacket of political correct speech codes,
which have been implemented to subdue and control us.
TIXE RIGHT 1 week ago (edited)
The press doesnt' know Trump is joking when he tells a kid he's batman? And his IQ IS LOW?
REALLY?
Also, how can a man who took a million dollars (or whatever) and turn it into a few billion,
and repeatedly game bankruptcy laws for his own advantage, have a low IQ? You know how many people
in the world would just loose that fucking million dollars? I know lots of stupid people, and
I can definitely tell you they would loose that money, because I see what they do with their money!
So, at the very least, TRUMP is good at picking the people that do good work for him and ensuring
they don't screw him over! (And considering that's exactly what a president does, that's actually
SKILL he brings to the table.)
It would be much easier for them to convince me he's not a decent person, or that he'll be
a crony-capitalist, but, lately, I've been thinking I'll take that over Hillary's treachery, incompetence,
and the obvious Clinton corruption machine none of the press ever really talks about, (Someone
gave Chelsea Clinton tons of money for a talk on diarea? And my first thought was, did she become
a doctor? And when I found out she hadn't, I thought to myself, how is that NOT A KICKBACK!?)
Couple that with Obama's horribly failed politically driven foreign policy, and Sanders apparent
blindside to the radicals and extremists on his side which may produce very bad executive appointments,
and his willingness to double down on some of the left's worst economic and education policies,
and the "liberal" left's recent and noticeably felt shift towards "authoritarianism." Basically,
all of these things have given this particular independent a lot of pause in leaning left this
election cycle. Meanwhile, the fact the Jeb and Huckabee are doing horribly in the polls, give
me hope the GOP is self-correcting on some of the issues they need to rethink in this rapidally
changing world. I think this could very well be a swing-vote year.
WormholeJim 1 week ago
Trump is going to redefine democracy. I watched him on Bill O'Reilly, how he would love it,
if he could challenge Obama to a game of golf for the presidency.
He was joking at first, but later during the interview, he returned to the topic, now musing
how he might - should he become president - would do away with the system of running in favor
of an open golf-tournament where anyone could challenge the sitting president for the office.
I don't actually think he'll get away with that, not unless he appoints himself tyrant-king or
something, but I'm sure that if he wins, nothing is ever going to quite be the same again.
PatroniMeiSancti 1 week ago
"The whole world has become The Onion" - Thank you, Stefan, I'll borrow that one for later.
Justin Crowe 1 week ago
I'm voting for Ted Cruz. However, should Trump prevail and win the GOP nomination, I am voting
for Trump against any Democrat piece of shit.
BigTArmada 1 week ago
Great media analysis, thanks for the video
neptronix 1 week ago
Thanks, i'll be voting for trump
sepiasiren 1 week ago (edited)
I am surprised--this was actually fairly informative. I was curious after I saw a article
that showed Trump did at least denounce the Boston attack on the homeless Latino man contrary
to what I was told by others. Made me wonder what else was being falsely said about Trump. That
in mind, there are things I do not agree with Trump policy wise, so I won't be voting for him.
Also, regardless of the fact that he may not be as big a monster as the MSM touts, I just can't
stomach someone who doesn't denounce violence done in their name in all cases ( recent attacks)
against protestors and in some case encourages it, as he has done in some interviews. Sets a bad
precedent for the future. Leaders shouldn't be encouraging citizens to hurt one another over political
views.
DAVID LAKE (DLAKE 4 PREZ) 1 week ago (edited)
I've been following Trump's campaign since the beginning, thought he was a good idea in 2012
when he flirted with the idea. My dad, RIP, really liked Trump in the old days. Grew up with The
Art of the Deal in the house library. My sister was on The Apprentice, Season 5. (before celeb
apprentice) I'm about half way through your timeline of events and it is SO EPIC! Great coverage,
Stefan. I like your quote voices too. haha "Pearl Clutching and Couch Fainting" is hilarious.
vonsuthoff 1 week ago
So, Trump thinks it's ok to speak with what he calls... "truthful hyperbole." Ha. Isn't that
like saying "truthful bullshit?" To some degree, yes, it is. And those who use this factually
hyperbolic speech can always say, "I told you that!" And if "that" ends up being wrong, they can
say, "Well, I was speaking in hyperbole and surly you didn't take what I said literally!" In essence,
it is a cheesy way to cover your ass no matter what side of an issue you are on.
William Austin Smith 1 week ago
I like most of what Stefan covers here, but I wish he would have made a personal comment during
the section about "closing the internet". Do I disagree with Trump on this issue? I am not sure.
But I do feel that it is better to err on the side of freedom of speech, meaning that even ISIS
Americans should enjoy that freedom of speech. One of the classic examples for the universal application
of freedom of speech is the KKK. They have and should have the right to post whatever they want
on the internet. Calls for violence? Perhaps not. But perhaps so. We allow jingoists to call for
military violence on a regular basis. Short of actually committing violence, American citizens
have the right to say pretty much any nasty and horrible thing. Thank God!
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -Evelyn
Beatrice Hall
To conclude, I simply wish Stefan had made an aside, saying that on this particular point he did
not entirely agree with Trump, or that such calls for internet control should be under extreme
scrutiny. This would not be a rejection of Trump, but merely a critique of one policy.
Junk Mail 1 week ago
So, what percent of Trump supporters have read "Art of the Deal"? I haven't read it, but it
seems like anyone who has read it would roll over laughing at what's going on without even needing
to look up facts.
faithahora 1 week ago
Do not listen to the lying rich elitists-globalists owned LIBERAL media. They are not for the
average American working and paying bills.
This is a GREAT VIDEO. Unless you hear an actual clip of Trump speaking (every word he's said
is somewhere on YouTube video and Right Side Broadcasting Channel on youtube posts EVERY speech
Trump gives) do not believe it. And the clip needs to show at least 10 minutes before to make
certain what they're saying Trump said is in context.
As this video clearly shows the media CONSTANTLY and incessantly lie about Donald Trump and
have for decades -- now it's stepped up warp speed.
Trump is the only candidate who can bring back American jobs and save America from financial
ruin. Vote Trump 2016 along with the millions of other Tea Party, Democrats, Independents, Evangelicals,
Latino Americans, Irish Americans AMERICAN AMERICANS are going to do at the primaries and the
general election!!!!
Mike Scully 1 week ago
Excellent dissertation, Dear Mr. Stefan Molyneux. A most exhaustive and detailed presentation.
One revelation I sensed as a result of all the reports of media you challenged is, for media that
seeks readership. it may be that anything "Trump" will get a read, no matter what, as long as
his good Brand is in the headling. A possible way for the ownership, or editing staff of any media
might be not to rush to print or airing. Push the reporters to show validation of their reporting
before approving for publication, or broadcast.
Thanks to you, Stefan, there is a way to work to get the truth all across the spectrum. Like
you mentioned, even searching the YT videos is one way, among. no doubt other ways.
Again, a very good work. Thank you for your effort to pull so much together in one place. Keep
up the good info in full reporting. Thank you. Mike : )
CriticalHitzGaming 1 week ago
It fascinates me to no end how Donald Trump reveals the political right for what it is. At
the end of the day they really don't care about the issues at all. They are more than willing
to support the most liberal Republican candidate ever to run for office in a generation if he's
sufficiently xenophobic and racist.
Sean Bearly 1 week ago (edited)
Overall a good review of media and political bias and the misinformation campaign against Mr.
Trump although I think Stefen is too willing to defend him. If we are going to excuse Mr. Trump
for using hyperbole and being intentionally controversial and politically incorrect simply because
he says up front that he does it because he knows it works in his favor when dealing with the
media, we might as well excuse all politicians for what they say and do since they are only doing
it because they know it works in their favor. To me it shows that Mr. Trump is just another politician.
You don't have to work in DC or a state capital to be a politician.
Politicians are among us everywhere, especially in the larger corporations. What they have
in common is a willingness to do or say anything, compromise principles, etc. in order to get
their way or get something done. Make a deal with the devil if necessary. I enjoy listening to
Mr. Trump because he says some of the things I think and he really can be funny. However, I do
not trust him any more than I trust any other politician. I don't want to be excited by a politician;
I want to be impressed by a person of principles. But that would be a person that not only the
media and the Republican and Democratic establishment, but also the majority of voters could never
support. So, as usual, I will 'waste' my vote on a third party candidate.
2 Real MaFiA 1 week ago
in what way are you ANY different from the mainstream media? You are NOT being unbiased by
any stretch. Citing these sources and then adding your own comments in between mocking the people
who spoke against Trump is completely biased. And all of those people are right....he SHOULDN'T
be taken seriously. Unfortunately, people are supporting him based SOLELY on ANGER and when was
the last time ANYONE made a CLEAR, WELL THOUGHT OUT, RATIONAL decision when they were ANGRY?!!?
People aren't thinking before they are reacting. If you look back over the past 15 years, Trump
has changed his views on EVERY major issue that he is using as his platforms in this election
and he can't cite a single point in the past 2-3 years that caused him to change those views!
Being a businessman DOES NOT qualify you to be PRESIDENT....we have a CONSTITUTION that is "supposed"
to be followed. We DONT need another president that is going to make deal after deal with Harry
Reid and Nancy Pelosi!! People are falling in the EXACT SAME trap they fell into when Obama ran....voting
based on a man's WORDS and not his ACTIONS and what he's done to PROVE that he can be trusted!
Larry DeWein 1 week ago
Excellent presentation! Unfortunately, most Americans will not nor know not how to do research
and check things out as you have done. The media has been doing things like this for years. I
can remember several times of giving info to be put in a newspaper all typed out and it was put
in incorrectly, either done through stupidity (I doubt) or on purpose (I believe)!!!
Michael Mattammal 1 week ago
So here's the thing Stefan. If Donald Trump is constantly out there manipulating the media
into covering him because of the sensational things he says when it comes to the issues, how do
we ever know what he ACTUALLY thinks!!??
He's a manipulator, a con artist, and a half-truth teller by his own admission. Hardly the
resume of someone I want as Commander-in-chief and leader of the free world. It's depressing how
easily the right falls for this stuff, and the left is just as bad when it comes to Bernie Sanders
and Hillary Clinton. Both sides will get what's coming to them eventually. All of us outside this
crony two sided system will be left to pick up the broken pieces. I enjoy your shows though, so
keep fighting the good fight sir!
Evan Snow 1 week ago
I'm not a fan of Stefan Molyneux or Donald Trump, but this is a really interesting video.
A lot of research and thought went into this presentation. I found it very engaging.
Just a note: I spend a lot of time watching people (pundits, etc) that I don't agree with.
I find it boring to listen to people who just say what I want to hear or say what I already know
or think I know. I can't learn anything from those people. But I definitely learned something
from this video. That's not to say that it turned me into a Trump supporter, but it did give me
some perspective on the Trump subject.
Thank you.
seekortry 1 week ago
I absolutely hate these lying shits in the MSM.
Carol Laughlin 1 week ago
Awesome video Stephen. Very informative! Your narration was so very entertaining and made me
laugh several times. I will share this video on facebook and Twitter as many times as possible
so people may be well informed about Donald J Trump. Thank you is never enough for your dedication
in helping to "Make America Great Again".
Venz Lucero 1 week ago
At least he has strategies and turns out successful.. What have been successful you have made
last year? This is what critics are lacking for, the credentials, success and greater impact on
your community for the good and better things to the masses. So what you did greater than this?
Or your just like others a leach or a fly on top of the elephant?
Kris Driver 1 week ago
Yeah, Trump's human, but that doesn't mean someone who can't speak is a good candidate to speak
for a world super power. Stefan, your defense arguments neglect the post that he's running for
entirely. It IS of paramount importance that the head of state communicate effectively and not
be misunderstood so easily. His deal making abilities may work to some degree in America but it's
preposterous to presume that his experience translates to good policy management. He doesn't understand
what's going on in the world, and that's a big problem for a president.
Anstria Greenwood 1 week ago
I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop and he is accused of paedophilia, that most dreaded
of slurs. They just did it to Putin, yet the Westminster paedophiles are still getting away with
it and Parliament itself is rife with them.
They are afraid of the new respect Putin has earned in eyes of the world and that he does what
he says he will do - eradicate ISIS while the US fiddles. They see him walking the razor's edge
in an attempt to prevent war with the West so he must be discredited- nay, reviled or the people
will oppose war with Russia - which is coming, make no mistake. Trump is feared for the same thing,
a high approval rating and saying what he thinks, delivered as is without sugar. In the debate,
Jeb Bush looked Trump right in the eye with a knowing smugness and absolute certainty and told
Trump there was no way he would be be president. So, will he have an accident? Or will they produce
'evidence' that Trump kisses the abdomens of little boys? Just so they know how transparent they
are, do they really believe that people will buy it in the days of the internet with alternative
and widespread social media?
YAH21 2 weeks ago (edited)
EXCELLENT VIDEO, Mr. Molyneux. Now I truly understand why Donald Trump regularly denigrates
and mocks the media and press at and most or all of his rallies and on twitter, calling them "dishonest"
regularly. They've carpet bombed this man at every turn and regularly conflate, misinterpret and
blow his words and mannerisms out of proportion and sold it to the world, and unfortunately many
people have fell for the collective media's slanderous tactics and agenda.
Despite all this, he's grown stronger and I indeed agree with you that this election cycle
will be remembered and the media will have lost all respect in the eyes of the average person
whether Trump is elected or not, and he indeed will leave a big impact or legacy. Every single
ONE of their attacks has backfired in the long-term and Trump has no known skeletons in his closet,
unlike Hillary.
I just wished you would've tackled the common "nuclear triad" thing people use to denigrate
him. But I do believe Trump didn't really know what the nuclear triad was, but the average person
doesn't know. He's a real estate mogul for goodness sake.
Asato 2 weeks ago
I'm a paleo conservative, a rand paul supporter. But damn I have a guilty pleasure watching
trump making the neocons and libtards shit their pants, and for that reason, he'll have my vote
if he gets the nomination.
This video should be shared and spread by all Trump supporters to get the FACTS out and to
counter the DISGUSTING media's agenda.
Mostly Accurate Reviews 2 weeks ago
Donald Trump "I don't like rainy days."
HEADLINE! Donald Trump hates water!
HEADLINE! Donald Trump wants to destroy the oceans!
ShieldWife 2 weeks ago
I'm so glad that Stefan is defending Trump and that he realizes the problems that unlimited
immigration poses to freedom. I'm so sick of libertarians parroting leftist race mongering or
advocating open borders. Open borders as leftists and far too many libertarians want would end
any possibility for creating truly free nations. I wish other libertarians could follow Stefan's
lead.
Dr Martha Castro Noriega 2 weeks ago
I absolutely agree with your analyzes about the Donald Trump comments, and the comparison with
the misquoting of the many times retarded MSM. Donald Trump is a very smart person, and so are
the ones that direct and tell MSM bubbleheads what to say. Both ends know exactly what they are
doing. I doubt very much that Donald Trump and Kelly (forgot her last name-I don´t care about
her) from Fox are enemies or dislikes each other in "real life" backstage, and I doubt that Jeb
Bush really really dislike Donald Trump, when it was Trump who gave the Bush family millions of
dollars for their several presidential campaigns in the past.
Everything is about business, and Trump is very good at it. Do not forget, all these Republican
and Democrat debates are simply an audition, and of course, they all try to perform the best to
their capabilities: mental, political and financial. However, they audition NOT to the public,
but to the puppeteers most people in the world do not know who they are.
HEADLINE! Donald Trump wants to take water from thirsty children!
Dougal83 2 weeks ago
Media mistreatment of information is obvious now when you've seen it before. I've been watching
the media misrepresent UKIP's Nigel Farage over the past years and as a result I now distrust
most "journalism". Personally I'll stick with just reading Reuters news with a pinch of salt.
Valkyrie Sardo 2 weeks ago (edited)
42:32 Hillary's comment on the need to tighten security to keep our people safe would be quite
a laugh if it were not so hideously hypocritical The Obama White House saying that Trump's moratorium
policy on muslim immigration "disqualifies him" from the presidency is also a bitter joke. Trump's
policy is clearly defined in the constitution as a presidential prerogative. Despite Obama's protestations
of knowing constitutional law, he has exceeded his authority and violated the constitution both
in principle and in practice. Both Hillary and Obama support criminalizing blasphemy which is
a clear violation of the First Amendment and separation of church and state. Government shalll
make no law preferential to religion. Defeat the Dec 2015 proposed bill in the House of Representatives.
H.RES.569, a bill to restrict freedom of expression toward Muslims (and only Muslims) Effectively,
it criminalizes hurting their feelings because their rights as citizens are already protected
under existing law. Muslims are not a special caste of American. Americans have equal rights before
the law regardless of age, gender, race or religion. Religious beleif in the supernatural is voluntary
and cannot be imposed as if it were a tangible. Human emotions cannot be legislated as though
America was North Korea.
JC Archer 2 weeks ago
Good Job on bringing up facts that paint Trump more like a human being. I had several (and
I mean several) good laugh. I'm all about his campaign against the horrible Politician (career
politician) we have. Our leader have to be our best people, those who have succeded fairly and
genuinly to lead our country. I'm canadian and Pissed off about Trudeau being a spoiled brat Rafting
coach as our premier. what does it say about our people here... ouch
JUST 2 weeks ago
The media calling Trump the next Hitler, coupled with claims of antisemitism I found hilarious,
considering his wife and daughter are jewish.
mickavellian 2 weeks ago
It only takes ONE view of Katrina Pierson (Trump's head of media relation ) going against the
whole anti Trump contingent in the media and other various organizations: pro Islam, liberals,
pundits etc to see how solid Trump record is. If Ms. Pierson, a TRULY self-made woman who comes
from the most humble background) can destroy any of the usual media constructs with an amazing
gift to spar with anyone and win the bout even if by exposing ONE lie in the contenders repertoire,
we can imagine what these "media" buffoons can expect when facing Trump.
I never read "The art of a deal", but NO candidate for the precidency has ever writen an HONEST
book about themselves . Trump gives you a curse in debating him , what to expect from him but
these idiots continue the old and acepted tradition of spinning ANY story (even those not worth
of comment) into what they may perceive as a MAJOR attack. CNN has received such a pummeling From
Ms. Pierson it is embarrassing. They drag sound bites and posts from Trump in 2008 and TRY to
throw a sucker punch and it is gracefully dodged and the counter punch is lethal.
Clearly the "media" in the USA is made up of pseudo intellectuals with a dismal education and
even worse common sense. Every time Ms. Pierson knocks down one of these twits ( and they even
come out from FOX) I wonder how anyone is going to debate Trump. I have read that it is EASY winning
a game of "chicken" all you do is remove your steering wheel before you begin... THAT shows commitment
and cojones.
In seems in "The Art of the Deal" Trump not only threw the steering wheel out.. but wrapped
himself in the seat. These hardly capable idiots on the media are in for a massive crash. All
of the commentators shown in this video SHOULD have committed suicide by now. The ones who have
turned the Mexican narrative into a Anti-Hispanic statement .. SHOULD apologize since there are
PLENTY of Mexicans who enter the USA everyday to tackle jobs Americans do not want and return
to Mexico at the end of the day. As far as "Hispanics" . Hispanics represent 17.1 %
of the USA population
Out of 34 Million Mexicans in the USA 75% are either USA born or naturalized Citizens so CLEARLY
Trump reference was about Illegal Mexicans. No other nationality was mentioned so the statement
was NOT a sweeping Hispanic condemnation since 14 other Latin American countries are represented
in the last census. Clearly , if anytone at CNN did the math they would had found there was NO
story so Mexicans became "Hispanics" or it is an abominable lack of education to consider Hispanic
ans Mexican as synonymous . I am going to go for the last cause. The illiterate trolls graduating
from liberal schools is inverosimil and those with a Media major are absolutely in an IQ range
of room temperature. My 18 year Cuban son (born in the USA) can draw circles around the best of
today's media mavens.
and he is not even politically inclined . If nothing else Trump will weed out the sectarian
press and their agenda driven staff. Of course this group is not qualified to work at McDonalds
so we can expect a surge in unemployment claims from these idiots.
Ah .. the days of Woodward & Bernstein !
jem paul 2 weeks ago
shame that the American people can't get a critical thinking candidate like Mr Molyneaux...
but whoever wins will take the baton and carry on where the last one finished, seamless
Schijt Dileahs 2 weeks ago
I love your effort and work you put in your video's. This should get more views, especially
by young people claiming Trump is a flaw of the system, though the harsh bashing of the media
shows he has no foothold in the current corrupt system.
katie stevens 2 weeks ago
Brilliant detailed info. Thank-you.
ptake patrol 2 weeks ago
the main stream media are the real clowns
Terry Brown 2 weeks ago (edited)
Stefan - Excellent facts about Donald Trump. I'm not a Donald Trump fan, but would vote for
him over Bernie Sander (or Hillary, if she makes it). Just a minor issue, but there is one misleading
statement that you made. I don't believe that the text quoted at 40:06 under "Suspension of entry
or imposition of restrictions by President" is in the Constitution per se. It is language from
U.S. Code 1182, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter II, Part II (Inadmissible Aliens). When you stated
it was in the Constitution and read it, I was amazed that I had missed it, so I searched the U.S.
Constitution and could not find it. Still, it is U.S. Law - one of the hundreds of thousands of
U.S. Law currently on the books.
The facts you have presented are very useful in rebutting the anti-Trump crowd - and there
seem to be plenty of them. Thanks.
James Wilson (Jimmy) 2 weeks ago
Thank you for posting this. You have reshaped my world and views of the press. Freedom
of Press is not The Freedom to Lie. I hope Mr. Trump Sues every one of them for slander and
defamation of character. We have to hold them accountable! He would own every mainstream news
outlet in america after the law suits were over or at least be a majority share holder. At least
we know how he is going to get his campaign funds back. He had my vote already as he is the only
person that has claimed that he will take action against the many threats we face but now he has
my respect and admiration as well.
BDMOutdoors 2 weeks ago
What a great vid and a truly objective look at how democrat and republican establishments aided
by the MSM work in conjunction to construct our thoughts in order to control our lives in a manner
that they see fit. I am and have always been a conservative republican. I jumped ship for Perot
because GHWB did act like he wanted a second term and this year I'm 100% for Trump. After this
year, with all the efforts by the GOP establishment to derail the legitimate process of electing
our nominee, I will be changing my registration to independent as I hope many others will do the
same. Both parties are the same, they don't want change, they don't want America to be great,
they just want control! They don't want Trump because they know they can't control him. America
is screaming for someone neither party can control.
divinenutrition 2 weeks ago
Ive been following Trump for years and watched the 'documentaries' and smears, basically
theres nothing there truly dirty or criminal. He is an egomaniac obviously. He may be unethical
at times and an overly zealous marketer, a ruthless businessman, he has crushed those who opposed
him, but he never murdered them or stole money or intentionally defrauded people. What I have
seen is he has made his best efforts to live up to his word, although sometimes failing to do
so. Yes he is where he is bc of his father, no question. But nothing even remotely close to the
pure demonic evil that is the Clinton or Bush clan; full of assassinations, narcotics/gun running,
absolute financial corruption bribes payoffs...
Ezra The King 2 weeks ago
Okay we should be clear, Mr. Trump has an IQ over 150, he is quite intelligent, I assume he
does things for a reason. Just because you don't have the same views, doesn't make him any less
intelligent. I mean the dude has incredible stamina he doesn't have strings, you can tell his
fervor for his country, he's a patriot, some of his views are brash, but he is the only candidate
on both sides that you can tell he loves our country and her people. I'm proud to be a Trump supporter.
hbpower 2 weeks ago
Stefan from a guy in Venezuela I really enjoy all your videos, and strongly support Trump,
I believe building a wall would drastically help with the war on drugs, and this would hurt most
of the corrupts goverments in south America bringing real change. And also kicking the illegals
out of the USA would benefit all of Latin America because they would have to find jobs and help
the economy grow here. I always laugh when the MSM says Trump is alienating the hispanic vote.
Jenna Sharpe 2 weeks ago
Really eye opening video. Here in the UK some idiots signed a petition to ban Trump from the
country....so yesterday parliament spent the whole day debating something that most of us didnt
condone or even care about... All because some self loathing lefty liberals were offended by his
Muslim comments, which appear to have be misquoted. Meanwhile channel 4 were airing The Jihadis
Next-door, a disturbing documentary following a group of radical muslims in London, at least one
of whom has been confirmed as having joined ISIS and appears in a video threatening the UK and
all who won't accept Islam. In the documentary two of them watch ISIS execution videos on their
laptop while having a meal and find it hilarious when one "spy" is burned alive in a cage. Do
we ban these vile individuals or even deport them? No. Apparently Trump is more dangerous! Do
we debate the sex attacks and rapes happening across Europe? Do we debate the creeping Sharia
Law courts and Muslim no go areas? Do we debate child sexual exploitation, honour crimes, arranged
marriages, FGM? No, we debate a presidential candidate and his Scottish golf courses. WTF. I WISH
we could have a PM like Trump!
Iris Faith 2 weeks ago
Excellent deposition of facts and events related to D. Trump...as I have been reading press
articles, listening to Mr. Trump's interviews by various journalist, alternative and main stream
news media. I really enjoyed confirming these issues. I had a few laughs about how bias and incompetent
some of these individuals and organizations are...nevertheless Trump keeps scoring points...it
seems people are waking up to the reality of corrupt leaders and their political agenda.
I am still puzzle and question how Hillary and Sanders are still getting high ratings...these
are the individuals who are pushing to continue the welfare state agenda! Hillary indicated she
supports Obama's actions and will continue exercise the same policies, although will strongly
enforce them and expand on it...Do they know what's happening in Europe? Do they know that is
US and its allies who financially support ISIS? Have you consider doing a report on Hillary and
Sanders? Well, thank you very much for such valuable information!
hazybee68 2 weeks ago
here in the UK i have been watching our government react to Trumps statements. It would
be interesting if he was elected to see our politicians having to backtrack and do some serious
bum buffing. I loved this video and am still laughing at the USA and UK media's ineptness
at reporting facts or lack there of. Fantastic video still laughing , you have out done your self
keep up the god work
Richard Egli, Sr 2 weeks ago
I thank you for this presentation. I am aware, and now really aware of how much the main street
media has pulled the wool over my eyes. I have been completely disheartened by politics, and have
become apolitical because of feeling that my vote means nothing, and that candidates views change
direction with the wind. I really gave up after being "burned" by Obama's lies, and his subsequent
presidency . I hope that we will not, "all be fooled again".
Sephiroth 2 weeks ago
Stephen Molyneux, some information you are missing: If you look up "Howard Stern 9/11 muslims
celebrating" you will you find a video the day after in which a handful of people call into the
show and talk about pockets of people celebrating the attacks.
Greg Summers 2 weeks ago
Thank you again for another informative presentation- great research by the way.. It is interesting
watching this from the other side of the world. The point clearly made here about media BS is
so very important for those who love freedom and the ability to think for ourselves. Who can save
the USA after Obama. Obama has sacked 170-180 30+-year career general ranking officers in the
US military not because they did something wrong or were incompetent: these generals just did
not agree with Obama view of the world. So the USA has lost 5,400 years of military command experience.
America needs saving from itself. So if Trump using his own money to back himself and believes
that he is up to the job; just maybe he can save the USA. If Trump does win the US Presidency,
just maybe Europe may be saved also from itself.
MLE BoardofDirectors 2 weeks ago
Well done! I enjoyed your video. Laying everything out shows how the MSM, GOPe and the left
are determined to prevent Trump from being our next President. For those of you who are not watching
the campaign closely, take the time to watch this video. You will see how you are being manipulated
by the press.
Raj J 2 weeks ago
This is an excellent video. Alot of effort put into it and I appreciate it. Thank you for
this insightful video full of actual facts. Remember whenever you hear something outrageous in
the media, always ALWAYS see the source of the actual event to see if it was actually true.
Traffic xxx 2 weeks ago
Fantastic. I laughed, clapped, and face palmed all the way through. I can't vote for trump
because I have many illegal friends in the U.S. but I have never respected a politician more.
I hope he wins.
ThisJustIn 2 weeks ago (edited)
Stefan, I just got halfway into this video and I'm shocked at the left. They're not just insanely
wrong, they're intentionally wrong.
If I was trump, I would wait till this election is over and sue every damn one of them for
libel and slander. They couldn't prove they didn't and in case he can put a huge financial dent
in every damn one of them for intentionally trashing him. Now some would say this is "Statism"
and an attempt to quash dissent. It would be just a reminder that they're not untouchable, make
them all have to issue an apology and a statement on their front page of all the ways they were
wrong and their writers. Or buy them out and fire everyone.
Correction, I would only sue ONE.... and as all the others report on it with trash talk it
will prove they were fully aware of the fact they didn't issue corrections in reasonable time.
Max "Fatlossguy" Lake 2 weeks ago
Treason. Prison for all newspaper owners with more than 50% fact check discrepancy.
Thank you so much for this. It always helps me when you do these kind of videos because I don't
have the time to review every speech or accusation from the left, I'm usually too busy running
around putting out "brush fires" about Trump and another 8 or 10 subjects. And it takes a surprising
amount of time, which I need to be studying other things, processing what I learn, and then applying
it to the outside world.
I'm going to post this over to FB........I really hope my Conservative friends can get this one
out to any "progressives", if they have any of them left still talking to them anyway. Hahaha.............Again,
thanks dude. You and your team do excellent work.
Philip Marcus 2 weeks ago
All these so called journalist's ( if you want to call them that) that write for MSM, and
of course all the Rags that Stefan has quoted, are, for the most part mouth pieces, in that they
write what they are told to write, they will bash anything that might be out of the norm like
a Trump, and they do this not because they actually believe the garbage they write, but because
they are told what and how to write, by their editors who have a direct line to their handlers
which of course are the Uber elite Statist's, who despise The Donald, because he represents
independence from the Status Quo, he represents possible positive change, he represents a billionaire
who cannot be swayed by bribery because he makes as much money, if not more then a lot of the
Oligarch that he is a part of. He plays the 1% er's game and obviously a hell of a lot better
at it then the owners of a lot of the MSM.
Now the only thing that I have a problem with is...Is the Donald the real thing or is he a
part of a much larger clandestine plan to FOOL AMERICA AND THE WORLD....AGAIN,, Im not sure ...My
gut tells me something isn't right here, my spider sense tells me that if Trump gets the nomination
of his party ,and does become president ,and he sticks to his campaign guns, I have a nasty feeling
the that Trump will be dealt with in the same manner as JFK, or an Andrew Breitbart,an Aaron Russo
or even a John Kennedy Jr.. However I would be surprised if Trump gets that nomination because
Trump will NOT TOW the party line, and the GOP can not have a candidate they cant control, they
stand to lose the corrupt influence the Republican party wields in Washington, and they can ill
afford to have an upstart like the Donald upsetting the apple cart. and neither can the Democrat's
who are just as corrupt. So The Donald IMO is a wild card ,and a possible tragedy in the works,
the jury is still out on the Donald.
moniquemonicat 2 weeks ago
Stefan, excellent work, darn near PERFECT. Such detail and clarity, sifting through such an
avalanche of media lies and statements, a daunting task, and a pleasant watch for so much information.
Thank you.
michael fralick 2 weeks ago
Awesome video! I must admit some personal embarrassment though; I've watched a lot of episodes
of the Daily Show and some of Stephen Colbert's late night show, and they hate Donald Trump. I
used to laugh at their bias jokes and just assumed, uncritically, that Trump was some sort of
silly racist that would be disastrous for America (if elected). Mr. Molyneux wasn't kidding at
the end of this video when he reminded us to think for ourselves and not be pulled into someone
else's desire for influence.
GuitarZan 2 weeks ago
You put a lot of work into this video. Thank you, Stefan, for exposing the truth. Too bad most
people don't seem to care about truth enough to dig it up. The MSM Zombies still believe the media's
lies about Trump and never bother to watch entire interviews or speeches for themselves. There
is hope because Trump's poll numbers seem to rise as more and more people wake up and realize
they are being lied to and that the media is covering up the American Jihad described at Awake.Tips
theQiwiMan 2 weeks ago
Thanks, Stefan. I was one of those morons who immediately jumped on the Trump hate-wagon without
thinking (the moment I saw he donated millions to the Clintons' campaigns over the years) This
video was very enlightening. You are the man.
G H O S T Y 2 weeks ago
1:04:11 I believe it was Al-Shabbab that created a recruitment video on Trump, not ISIS. But
besides that, you're my hero for saying exactly everything on my mind. I really lost hope in humanity
and our society that I was one of the only people that could see all of this. Hopefully the whole
world sees this video. (Wait 1 hour video? Who am I kidding, they choose to watch 5 second sound
bytes on mainstream media to teach them politics)
Bryan Thomson 2 weeks ago
absolutely fantastic job Stefan. great work exposing mainstream media and there bias. never
let truth and freedom of speech and expression ever die. may donald trump reignite the fires of
liberty in America. and hopefully my home of canada subsequently. Canada has become a politically
correct, social justice warrior playground. a land of neo liberal/socialist cultural marxism.
we need a donald trump type politician here.
KIDWITDEGUN 2 weeks ago
I do not consume mainstream anymore. I remember during a flight from Germany to Denmark and
the person next to me reading a danish newspaper with a huge picture of donald trump during a
debate:
Megan Kelly: "You have called women pigs!"
Trump: "Only Rosy O'Donnell."
Current mainstream media is painting a picture of Trump that is so bizarre, no wonder that
nobody is accusing them or realism.
Oblivious Adobo 2 weeks ago (edited)
Something I just wanted to add on to about Trump's statement when he says he's talked to the
border guards and they say that many are rapists and drug dealers. Some idiots will pull this
rebuttal out of their ass and say oh border patrol are just a bunch of racist white-trash redneck
(something like from this hilarious scene https://youtu.be/touwNjQgTvo ), however that is just
so far from the truth. Over 50% of border guards are hispanics and might as well also throw in
the fact that it is a requirement that border patrol learn Spanish.
Reg mason232 2 weeks ago
Stephan- you are the absolute best at telling the actual truth! Nobody- NOT ANYONE- even comes
close to presenting the facts as you do. Trump will get my vote- he simply tells the truth- and
he actually answers questions! He is not a politician- good! The question is- are there other
people running IN EITHER PARTY who would make a better President? IS there anyone better qualified
to run the worlds most powerful corporation? Hillary (assuming she is not indicted) Sanders (living
in the past) Cruz (another Bush!) Jeb (listen to your mother) Carly (rejected in her own state)
the rest- who cares! He will be the Republican Candidate and he will win the election.
Raymond Cobblepot 2 weeks ago
Stefan, this is the most comprehensive, fact based, detailed examination exposing the misinformation
& lies perpetuated by the media. Bravo to you for disclosing the TRUTH! It's too bad the already
misinformed & misguided souls that repeat all the media's negative false rhetoric about Mr. Trump
will most likely never take the time to watch this video to become enlightened.
The best parts were when you imitated the French accents. Oui Oui!
"... To my American friends there is a new campaign taking off from Roots Action to #DumpDebbie as in Debbie Wasserman Schultz ..."
"... The kind of foreign policy Hillary and the Republicans believe is sort of a warlord mentality of dominance and chest-thumping. ..."
"... Bernie stepped aside on the email controversy for HRC but she went right back into it around the transcripts of her speeches to the banks. No one cares about what the Republicans think her emails but I think all Democrats and every person who goes to work each day want to see what she said to those banks! RELEASE THE TRANSCRIPTS ..."
"... However, foreign policy of Hillary Clinton and like-minded people has led to the fact that Americans no longer feel safe even when they are at home, not to mention when they go abroad. ..."
"... If this Wall Street poodle has support among democrats , who the hell are republicans? Go Bernie! ..."
"... 4 Feb 2016 22:37 ..."
"... We can't be pointing fingers at our dear friends the Saudis now can we? Deflect, deflect and deflect. Notwithstanding the fact that it has been the warmongering of the likes of Hilary Clinton that have have laid waste to Iraq, Libya and now Syria. ..."
"... The Guardian commentators are a disgrace. The Guardian bemoans that shift in its readership yet fails to recognise the level of frustration that exists out here at how far this paper has fallen. ..."
"... she's always gung-ho about military force but has nothing to say about reconstruction+rehabilitation efforts afterwards ..."
"... Clinton's a corrupt insider, which is what it is, and the US voters understand that. She has all the relevant job experience to be president, the right connections to direct federal funding to, and some slogans or something. ..."
"... That not a single Wall Street executive served a day in jail for the financial crisis is, in Sanders' words, "what is what power is about, that is what corruption is about, and that is what has to change in the United States of America." ..."
"... Hillary lies/parrots/says anything that will get her through the moment...now she is a progressive ....hahaha...NOT.... ..."
"... She quickly changed the topic when asked about the transcripts. ..."
"... Of course he would. It doesn't matter if Hillary is more effective or whatever - the more effective, the worse. Why would I want a more effective dismantler of welfare? A more effective deregulator of Wall Street? A more effective pusher of what passes for free trade ? A more effective warmonger? The truth is, she is an incrementalist - she moves things incrementally in the wrong direction. ..."
"... Hillary has a great sense of entitlement. She thinks she is royalty while Sanders is some commoner. ..."
"... It can't be said too many times: If Clinton becomes president, she, like her husband and Obama before her, will carry water for Wall Street, the Pentagon, and the national security apparatus from day one of her presidency. ..."
"... And--again just like her husband and Obama--she will occasionally punctuate her abject service to the exploiting class and its surveillance-state empire with sweet words justice and human rights--just enough of them to keep gullible liberals on her side. ..."
"... Hillary still won't apologize for her foolish and ill considered support for the Iraq War. George W Bush was a President who never admitted he was wrong about anything, and Clinton is exactly the same way. If she becomes President and makes a foolish decision, she won't change course, she'll be like Bush, just doubling down over and over on bad decisions. ..."
"... So NOW Clinton is saying she's a progressive, but in September of 2015 she was vehemently insisting she was a moderate. ..."
"... The remnants of the Democratic Leadership Council were folded into the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation bought the archives of the DLC. Welfare reform , trade, charter schooling -- all of this is Clintonism. DLC embraced moderate as a word and slammed progressives and liberals for years. HRC can have it both ways in newspeak but the record is what the record is. She's no progressive. Progressives don't have 'Walmart Board of Directors' on their resume. ..."
"... If this shameful spectacle isn't enough to finally nail the coffin on the democratic party in the minds of honest liberals and progressives then I don't know what will. ..."
"... Hillary is a disease... and the corporate media is doing everything they can to spread her malicious agenda. ..."
"... Clinton doesn't score many points on sincerity, in my opinion. ..."
"... Chuck Todd asks Hillary Clinton whether she is willing to release the full transcripts of every one of her paid speeches. Her response: they're classified....upper upper class. ..."
"... Mrs Clinton has and Ivy education, a Yale law degree, has been First Lady, a senator and secretary of state. Her fortune is estimated to be at least $30M, earned mostly from speaking fees paid by banks and other corporate interests. For her to claim that she is not a member of the establishment shows degrees of mendacity and arrogance that are truly rare. ..."
Surely if more than half of American voters have more than half a brain they only have one
choice; Sanders.
Cruz the effing evangelist has threatened to carpet bomb part of the MIddle East until 'the
sand glows'. Trump will be a non event.
Clintons claim to fame is that she is the wife of Bill who was responsible for de-regulating
the banking system to give the world the GFC. Bill was the laziest President the US has had,
spending a good deal of his time playing golf or on the receiving end of extra marital head
jobs.
The kind of foreign policy Hillary and the Republicans believe is sort of a warlord
mentality of dominance and chest-thumping.
Sam3456 4 Feb 2016 22:55
Bernie stepped aside on the email controversy for HRC but she went right back into it
around the transcripts of her speeches to the banks.
No one cares about what the Republicans think her emails but I think all Democrats and every
person who goes to work each day want to see what she said to those banks! RELEASE THE
TRANSCRIPTS
renardbleu -> nnedjo 4 Feb 2016 22:53
Imagine how non-Americans feel. You know, in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria.
nnedjo 4 Feb 2016 22:48
What is the purpose of foreign policy?
In my opinion, foreign policy should ensure that when you go abroad you feel safe as if you're
at home, and to be welcomed in any part of the world.
However, foreign policy of Hillary Clinton and like-minded people has led to the fact
that Americans no longer feel safe even when they are at home, not to mention when they go
abroad.
So, whoever thinks that this world has become too peaceful, he would certainly have to vote
for Hillary to be the next president of the United States.:-)
Gman13 4 Feb 2016 22:45
If this Wall Street poodle has support among "democrats", who the hell are republicans?
Go Bernie!
IanB52 -> WarlockScott 4 Feb 2016 22:41
Personally, I wish he'd just say "Fuck war. We're all humans, everyone is entitled to human
rights, we're all in this together, and there is nothing noble about killing people, not the
least collateral damage of children and non-combatants, or terrorizing populations on the
other side of the world with drones, and stoking hatred against people who look different or
speak another language than us. Humanity won't survive as long as we fetishize and glamorize
killing people."
That would satisfy me, rather than beating around the bush and saying that you'll crush Isis
because you think that's what people want to hear. I'm a dreamer.
renardbleu -> Christian Haesemeyer4 Feb 2016 22:37
That's the wrong question. Can Bernie win the presidency? Lovely, decent man though he is,
the GOP clowns will have a field day spreading disinformation about the token "socialist" (if
he's a socialist, UK's David Cameron would be a marijuana-smoking Leftie). Bernie would gift
the presidency to whomever the GOP nominate and that's the real scary outcome.
NotWithoutMyMonkey 4 Feb 2016 22:33
Richard Wolff points believes that Sanders should've singled out Russia as the greatest
threat because Ash Carter says so but lets Hilary pass with a mendacious howler that Iran is
the greatest sponsor of terror (Shia Iran sponsoring Sunni extremism, oh really)?
We can't be pointing fingers at our dear friends the Saudis now can we? Deflect, deflect
and deflect. Notwithstanding the fact that it has been the warmongering of the likes of Hilary
Clinton that have have laid waste to Iraq, Libya and now Syria.
The Guardian commentators are a disgrace. The Guardian bemoans that shift in its
readership yet fails to recognise the level of frustration that exists out here at how far
this paper has fallen.
WarlockScott -> CriticAtLarge 4 Feb 2016 22:36
Bernie could hammer her hard on this, when she talks about Iran the problem is not her
engaging with Iranians (she has) but that she always coaches it in incredibly hostile
language. Like the first debate she was asked who are you most glad to have made enemies of
and she answered "The Iranians" and the GOP. Also she's always gung-ho about military
force but has nothing to say about reconstruction+rehabilitation efforts afterwards
BaldwinP -> BlackAbbott 4 Feb 2016 22:31
I would vote for Matt Taibbi just for coming up with the vampire squid description of
Goldman Sachs, I'm not sure that that quote from Sanders is in the same class. Bashing the
banks is easy, you do it, I do it. What is he actually going to do about it?
Rumfoord 4 Feb 2016 22:31
Clinton's a corrupt insider, which is what it is, and the US voters understand that.
She has all the relevant job experience to be president, the right connections to direct
federal funding to, and some slogans or something.
Sanders is a populist calling his milquetoast 'socialist' agenda as some sort of leftist
revolution.
I'm a social democrat, and they're both rightists so far as I'm concerned.
MyTakeOnIt 4 Feb 2016 22:30
Foreign policy in the first four years of Obama's presidency has been a disaster. All the
mess in the middle east is first due to the Bush 's Iraq invasion, and secondly regime change
binge in the first term of Obama administration. Foreign policy, in the first term of Obama
administration, by agreement, was given to Hillary in order for her not to challenged Obama in
2012. So Hillary voted for Iraq invasion, in addition to forcing bombing of Libya, among other
disasters.
BlackAbbott 4 Feb 2016 22:28
Goldman Sachs was one of those companies whose illegal activity helped destroy our
economy and ruin the lives of millions of Americans. This is what a rigged economy and a
corrupt campaign finance system system and a broken justice system do."
That not a single Wall Street executive served a day in jail for the financial crisis
is, in Sanders' words, "what is what power is about, that is what corruption is about, and
that is what has to change in the United States of America."
I would almost (almost) become an American just to vote for this guy.
Beowullf 4 Feb 2016 22:24
Hillary lies/parrots/says anything that will get her through the moment...now she is a
"progressive"....hahaha...NOT....
She quickly changed the topic when asked about the transcripts.
Christian Haesemeyer -> sursiques 4 Feb 2016 22:19
Of course he would. It doesn't matter if Hillary is more effective or whatever - the
more effective, the worse. Why would I want a more effective dismantler of welfare? A more
effective deregulator of Wall Street? A more effective pusher of what passes for "free trade"?
A more effective warmonger? The truth is, she is an incrementalist - she moves things
incrementally in the wrong direction.
CriticAtLarge -> sursiques 4 Feb 2016 22:17
Hillary has a great sense of entitlement. She thinks she is royalty while Sanders is
some commoner. Hillary is tough as nails though. Sanders is too mild mannered. He will
get chewed in a general.
CorporalClegg 4 Feb 2016 22:16
Wall street paid Hillary $675,000 for no other reason than they wanted to hear about her
experiences in politics. Now, anyone who believes that should head straight to the rubber
room. Please go straight there and do not vote.
eastbayradical 4 Feb 2016 22:16
It can't be said too many times: If Clinton becomes president, she, like her husband
and Obama before her, will carry water for Wall Street, the Pentagon, and the national
security apparatus from day one of her presidency.
And--again just like her husband and Obama--she will occasionally punctuate her abject
service to the exploiting class and its surveillance-state empire with sweet words justice and
human rights--just enough of them to keep gullible liberals on her side.
ID0020237 -> Marcedward 4 Feb 2016 22:13
She was duped just like the rest of the 99% of Americans for supporting the war in Iraq.
The propaganda machinery (media) worked overtime for the Neocons success. None of the reasons
given to justify the war were ever proven to be real. Peace is apparently not a prime
objective of American policies, just check our track record. Doesn't really matter which party
gets in, the same misguided policies and government borrowing activities will probably
prevail.
PeregrineSlim 4 Feb 2016 22:12
What about the following question:
Do you support the current Turkish-Saudi plans for a joint war in Syria?
seneca32 4 Feb 2016 22:09
I don't think Obama named her Sec. of State because of her judgment -- I think he did it to
neutralize her and the Clinton gang.
WarlockScott 4 Feb 2016 22:09
Bernie do more debate-prep and if you do know this, HIT HER ON THIS
Sanders' integrity and commitment to a happy-clappy issues-only campaign is
counter-productive. He could have buried Clinton in this debate already if he would only go
for the jugular.
Marcedward 4 Feb 2016 22:01
Hillary still won't apologize for her foolish and ill considered support for the Iraq
War. George W Bush was a President who never admitted he was wrong about anything, and Clinton
is exactly the same way. If she becomes President and makes a foolish decision, she won't
change course, she'll be like Bush, just doubling down over and over on bad decisions.
Marcedward 4 Feb 2016 21:56
So NOW Clinton is saying she's a progressive, but in September of 2015 she was
vehemently insisting she was a moderate.
Question:
Was they lying then, or is she lying now, or is she simply a habitual liar?
If Hillary gets the nomination, the Republicans will use her own words against her
FLIP FLOP
FLIP FLOP
Just like they did with John Kerry.
Joseph Musco 4 Feb 2016 21:55
The remnants of the Democratic Leadership Council were folded into the Clinton
Foundation. The Clinton Foundation bought the archives of the DLC. "Welfare reform", trade,
charter schooling -- all of this is Clintonism. DLC embraced moderate as a word and slammed
progressives and liberals for years. HRC can have it both ways in newspeak but the record is
what the record is. She's no progressive. Progressives don't have 'Walmart Board of Directors'
on their resume.
JuliusSqueezer 4 Feb 2016 21:52
If this shameful spectacle isn't enough to finally nail the coffin on the democratic
party in the minds of honest liberals and progressives then I don't know what will. I'm
an anarchist though.... and just laugh along till both parties are dead.... but still this is
very sad to me. Hillary is a disease... and the corporate media is doing everything they
can to spread her malicious agenda.
Jezreel2 -> wisedup 4 Feb 2016 21:50
I agree. They should. But today, Playboy magazine published an article in which Rachel
Maddow is quoted saying she finds it "hard to believe" that Sanders can win the Democratic
nomination. And Chuck Todd, wouldn't even poll Sanders standing against Republicans in the
general election because the narrative on MSNBC and NBC was focused on the inevitability of
Clinton winning the nomination.
Clinton doesn't score many points on sincerity, in my opinion.
bloggod 4 Feb 2016 21:51
Chuck Todd asks Hillary Clinton whether she is willing to release the full transcripts
of every one of her paid speeches. Her response: they're classified....upper upper class.
Christian Haesemeyer 4 Feb 2016 21:44
Well I'm sure Clinton isn't lying when she says she has never changed a position because of
donations. I just fail to see how that's a good thing - she has always supported policies
favouring Wall Street, ever since Bill and her and the gang set out to transform the
Democratic Party into the party of big money.
mrmetrowest 4 Feb 2016 21:38
Mrs Clinton has and Ivy education, a Yale law degree, has been First Lady, a senator
and secretary of state. Her fortune is estimated to be at least $30M, earned mostly from
speaking fees paid by banks and other corporate interests. For her to claim that she is not a
member of the establishment shows degrees of mendacity and arrogance that are truly rare.
An interesting, but not a deep, discussion about the possibility of uprising against the
neoliberal elite in the current circumstances...
Notable quotes:
"... Is it time for pitchforks to restore the natural orders of fear yet? ..."
"... With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the spread of global capitalism, today's
elites have lost the sense of fear that inspired a healthy respect for the masses among their
predecessors . Now they can despise them as losers, as the aristocracy of ancien régime
France despised the peasants who would soon be burning their châteaux. Surely today's
elites are going to learn how to fear before we see any reversal of the recent concentration of
wealth and power. ..."
The following reader comment,
posted originally in the FT is a must read, both for the world's lower and endangered middle
classes but especially the members of the 1% elite because what may be coming next could be very
unpleasant for them.
From the time of the French Revolution until the collapse of communism, what successive
generations of elites had in common was a sense of fear of what the aggrieved masses might do
. In the first half of the 19th century they worried about a new Jacobin Terror, then
they worried about socialist revolution on the model of the Paris Commune of 1871. One reason
for the first world war was a growing sense of complacency among European elites. Afterwards they
had plenty to worry about in the form of international communism, which remained a bogey until
the 1980s.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the spread of global capitalism, today's
elites have lost the sense of fear that inspired a healthy respect for the masses among their
predecessors . Now they can despise them as losers, as the aristocracy of ancien régime
France despised the peasants who would soon be burning their châteaux. Surely today's
elites are going to learn how to fear before we see any reversal of the recent concentration of
wealth and power.
Is it time for pitchforks to restore the natural orders of fear yet?
And most people wouldn't have the faintest idea of where to buy, or more probably rent, a pitchfork
anyhow. As for torches? What, are you crazy? Those things are dangerous and would void our
insurance policy.
And a roasting spit and rope to tie em by the ankle to the cherry trees lining the national
mall, Musollini style. Urinals hanging from cherry trees. Only in America.
One does wonder how inbreds surrounded by expensive advisors so easily lost any shred of fight-o-flight
survival skills. Guess the extra bling allows them to dream false dreams.
The ones who think they are 'top dog' are about to find out the hard way, there is something
much bigger at work...
"6. The people, under our guidance, have annihilated the aristocracy, who were their one and
only defense and foster-mother for the sake of their own advantage which is inseparably bound
up with the well-being of the people. Nowadays, with the destruction of the aristocracy,
the people have fallen into the grips of merciless money-grinding scoundrels who have
laid a pitiless and cruel yoke upon the necks of the workers.
7. We appear on the scene as alleged saviours of the worker from this oppression
when we propose to him to enter the ranks of our fighting forces - socialists, anarchists, communists
- to whom we always give support in accordance with an alleged brotherly rule (of the solidarity
of all humanity) of our social masonry. The aristocracy, which enjoyed by law the labor of the
workers, was interested in seeing that the workers were well fed, healthy, and strong. We are
interested in just the opposite - in the diminution, the killing out of the goyim. Our power is
in the chronic shortness of food and physical weakness of the worker because by all that this
implies he is made the slave of our will, and he will not find in his own authorities either strength
or energy to set against our will. Hunger creates the right of capital to rule the worker more
surely than it was given to the aristocracy by the legal authority of kings.
8. By want and the envy and hatred which it engenders we shall move the mobs and with
their hands we shall wipe out all those who hinder us on our way."
The thing is that there are going to be a LOT of folks who thought
they were elites. Instead they will be thrown under the bus of the approaching hoards to
slow them down while the real elites make sure no one escapes that shouldn't be.
They no longer fear the masses as they control the cops and the narrative. What will really
work and is almost unstoppable is the ghost in the machine. Seemingly random acts of sabotage,
just think if the internet went down for even 2 or 3 days. Who would it hurt most, average folk
or ? I have a dream...
Lol those guys are so blackwater.... It is illegal to have a standing "army" on 'murrican soil.
Private for hire jagoffs arent. And no, it wasnt the national guard.
The internet doesnt forget or forgive transgressions. Sins of the father shall be paid for by
their sons. "Where are you going to run, where are you going to hide; no where because there is no where left
to run to." - Body snatchers
I think you are correct so far as you take your argument. Yes, they will START on their own
neighborhoods. The depth of the fall can be graphed against how far they will go afterwards.
It is our son's and daughter's who protect the elitist assholes. We know where they built their
bugouts and landing strips. We built them. We know where the air vents are for their underground
bunkers. We built them. We know where the diesel tanks are to power their generators and you can't
hide solar panels. No, we know where there going and how to get to them. Soon!!
Now you know why the hawaiian's, when they sent a worker down the side of a cliff to bury the
chiefs bones in that space reserved for the Ali'i, they "accidently" let go of the rope while
he was climbing back up...oopppps, sorry bout 'dat brah.
No, the proles do little of substance. But, the time is reached when even their paid off guard
dogs will be tired of the insanity that destroys their own extended families. (The psychopaths
can't help but push it to the extremes. That is their egotistical nature. Theyve been indulged
since they were infants.) When that day of reckoning comes, the criminals will be very afraid.
The EU 'leadership' bringing in massive outside foreign populations to destroy the existing
culture and nation-state is a potential match for the fuse of anger. We see police carrying out
orders, but what do they really think ? How bad will they let it get ? Even the Red Army troops
refused to go along with it all when the grandmas scolded them for taking part in rolling the
tanks toward their own people. And those troops said "Nyet, no more of this." And the USSR was
no more.
I used to love the old sims of feudal japan where you could set your tax rate at whatever you
wanted but the higher you set it the more likely you would get a peasant revolt.
What's going on is precisely this:.....
They have learned how to set the tax rate at whatever percentage won't cause utter chaos and
then absolve themselves from said taxes through loopholes AND THEN add on top stealth taxes in
the form of currency debasement AND THEN on top of all this they've built a ponzi scheme debt
based fiasco that is entirely unsustainable.
I gotta hand it to them they have managed so far to avoid the ire of the peasant class, however
methinks that once this shit show rolls into town and starts playing nightly as in reality comes
a callin then these same folks are going to need to hide off planet.
Seriously I'd advise them to look into space travel.
The elites today were related to the elites of yesterdays revolutions. They have learned and are keeping track of everything and with the advent of big data and lots
of computing power, they know how much time they have before SHTF. They have quants assessing risk daily, and not just market risk..geopolitical and other stuff.
They dont fear us because they know they can keep ramping up poisoning of our food and other
stupid social media gimmicks.
If all else fails, the jackboots will come out in full force.
They've been testing and training these detention methods for close to 100 years. From the
gulags of Russia to the West Bank / Gaza strip today of Israel.....its being tried and trued.
The past nine months have set record monthly background checks. I believe we as a "group"
know and feel our existence is in danger, and are responding accordingly.
Certainly a patriot CANNOT do it through the ballot box,
Iowa: Days before the Iowa caucuses in 2012, Ron Paul held a
commanding lead in the
polls and all the momentum, with every other candidate having peaked from favorable
media coverage and then collapsed under the ensuing scrutiny. Establishment Republicans, like
Iowa's Representative Steve King (R), attempted to sabotage Paul's campaign by
spreading rumors
he would lose to Obama if nominated. . . Iowa Governor Terry Barnstad
told Politico
, "[If Paul wins] people are going to look at who comes in second and who comes in third.
If Romney comes in a strong second, it definitely helps him going into New Hampshire".
The message from the Iowa Governor to voters of his state was: a vote for Ron Paul was a wasted
vote.
The RNC and their minions would have prevented a Ron Paul presidential nomination, by any means
necessary - up to and including a terrible, just terrible, plane crash. All those lives lost....
They DID prevent the nomination by any means necessary...and did so, short of crashing a plane.
The underhanded shit they pulled in '12 sealed their fate.
In that case, the Libertarian Party needs to go "full Zio-mode": Take no BS and no
prisoners.
Problem is, they are too "individualistic" (divided, heterogenous), and too 'Christian' (raised
in "Religion of Serfs") to create another American or French Revolution, or bring about real change.
Note that in the American Revolution, its Founders realized that the influence of Clerics needed
to be curtailed, and so they invented the "Seperation of Church and State". The French, OTOH,
called a spade a spade, and got rid of the Church completely.
Amerika: Where kids are taught by their parents to believe in the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny
and Santa Claus -- all the while they believe in "Santa for Grownups", i.e. Winged Nordic Humans
(Angels) and a Sky God.
I have ZERO faith that Libertarians will do anyting, other than talk, blog, hold meetings,
conventions, have weekend warrior games, or buy any number of Doomsday Products and Services.
IOW.. they'll do anything and everything, but March or Protest en mass. They won't even do TV
program, much less do a leveraged buyout of a TV channel.
Like I said: "Too individualistic, to truly matter to TPTB". I WISH it were not to,
but I'm just calling it as I see it. Alas. If I'm wrong, I'll jump for joy and click my heels.
The alleged Syrian peace process now enters its Geneva charade stage. This could last
months; get ready for lavish doses of posturing and bluster capable of stunning even Donald Trump.
The notion that Geneva may be able to impersonate Damascus in a suit-and-tie pantomime
is ludicrous to begin with. Even the UN envoy, the sartorially superb
Staffan
de Mistura, admits the Sisyphean task ahead - even if all relevant players were at the table.
Then we have Syrian "opposition figure" George Sabra announcing that no delegation from the
Riyadh-based High Negotiations Committee will be at the table in Geneva. As if Syrians needed
an "opposition" instrumentalized by Saudi Arabia.
So in the interest of providing context, here's an extremely concise recap of recent, crucial
facts on the Syrian ground which the "new capital" Geneva may ignore at its own peril.
Let's start with last summer, when Iranian Quds Force superstar commander Qasem Soleimani laid
down the law, in person, in Moscow, establishing without a doubt the grim situation across the
Syrian theater of war.
Essentially Soleimani told the Kremlin and Russian intelligence that Aleppo might be about
to fall; that Jabhat al-Nusra was at the doors of southern Damascus; that Idlib had fallen; and
Latakia - home to Russia's naval base at Tartus - would be next.
One can imagine the effect of this jolt of realpolitik on President Putin's mind. That clinched
his resolution to stop the fall of Syria, and prevent it from becoming a Libyan remix.
The Russian Air Force campaign turned out to be the ultimate game-changer.
It is in the process of securing the Damascus-Homs-Latakia-Hama-Aleppo network - the urban, developed
Western Syria that holds 70 percent of the country's population. ISIS/ISIL/Daesh and/or Jabhat
al-Nusra, a.k.a. al-Qaeda in Syria, have zero chances of taking over this territory. The rest
is mostly desert.
Jaysh al-Islam - a motley crew weaponized by Saudi Arabia - still holds a few positions north
of Damascus. That's containable. The country bumpkins in Daraa province, south of Damascus, could
only make a push towards the capital in an impossible 1991 Desert Storm context.
"Moderate rebels" - that Beltway concoction - did try to hold Homs and Al-Qusayr, cutting off
the resupply of Damascus. They were repelled. As for the gaggle of "moderate rebels" who took
all of Idlib province, they are being pounded mercilessly for four months now by the Russian Air
Force. Aleppo's southern front is also being secured.
Don't bomb "our" rebels
It's easy to pinpoint who's livid with all the Russian action: Saudi Arabia, Turkey and - last
but not least - the 'Empire of Chaos', all at the table in Geneva.
Jabhat al-Nusra - remote-controlled by Ayman al-Zawahiri - is intimately linked to a gaggle
of Salafi-jihadists in the Saudi-sponsored Army of Conquest, as well as tactically allied with
myriad outfits nominally grouped in the nearly extinct Free Syrian Army (FSA).
The CIA, using the Saudis for plausible deniability, fully weaponized "vetted" FSA outfits,
which received, among other things, TOW anti-tank missiles. Guess who "intercepted" virtually
all the weapons: Jabhat al-Nusra.
The follow-up was nothing short of hilarious: Washington, Ankara and Riyadh furiously denouncing
Moscow for bombing their "moderate rebels" and not ISIS/ISIL/Daesh.
Slowly but surely, the Syrian Arab Army (SAA), parallel to the Russian offensive, retook the
initiative. The "4+1" - Russia, Syria, Iran (Special Forces, many of them from Afghanistan), Iraq,
plus Hezbollah - started coordinating their efforts. Latakia Province - which hosts not only Tartus
but the Khmeimim Russian airbase - is now under total control by Damascus.
And that brings us to Ankara's nightmares. Russian Air Force smashed most of Ankara's Turkmen
proxies - heavily infiltrated by Turkish fascists - in northwest Syria. That was the key reason
for Sultan Erdogan's desperate move of shooting down the Su-24.
It's by now clear that the winners, as it stands, on the ground, are the "4+1", and the losers
are Saudi Arabia and Turkey. So no wonder the Saudis want at least some of their proxies at the
negotiating table in Geneva, while Turkey tries to change the subject by barring the Syrian Kurds:
these are accused of being terrorists, much more than ISIS/ISIL/Daesh.
Exit Geneva, enter Jarabulus
As if this was not messy enough, US 'Think Tankland' is now spinning there is an "understanding"
between Washington and Ankara for what will be, for all practical purposes, a Turkish invasion
of northern Syria, under the pretext of Ankara smashing ISIS/ISIL/Daesh in northern Aleppo.
This is utter nonsense. Ankara's game is three-pronged; prop up their heavily battered Turkmen
proxies; keep very much alive the corridor to Aleppo - a corridor that crucially includes the
Jihadi Highway between Turkey and Syria; and most of all prevent by all means necessary that YPG
Kurds bridge the gap from Afrin to Kobani and unite all three Syrian Kurd cantons near the Turkish
border.
None of this has anything to do with fighting ISISL/ISIL/Daesh. And the nuttiest part is that
Washington is actually assisting the Syrian Kurds with air support. Either the Pentagon supports
the Syrian Kurds or Erdogan's invasion of northern Syria; schizophrenia does not apply here.
A desperate Erdogan may be foolish enough to confront the Russian Air Force during his purported
"invasion". Putin is on the record saying response to any provocation will be immediate, and lethal.
To top it off, the Russians and Americans are actually coordinating airspace action in northern
Syria.
This is bound to be the next big thing, fully eclipsing the Geneva pantomime. The YPG and its
allies are planning a major attack to finally seize the 100-kilometer stretch of the Syria-Turkey
border still controlled by ISIS/ISIL/Daesh - thus reuniting their three cantons.
Erdogan was blunt; if the YPG pushes west of the Euphrates, it's war. Well, looks like war
then. The YPG is getting ready to attack the crucial towns of Jarabulus and Manbij. Russia most
certainly will aid the YPG to reconquer Jarabulus. And that will directly pit - once again - Turkey
against Russia on the ground.
Geneva? That's for tourists; the capital of the Syrian horror show is now Jarabulus.
"... But, like virtually every employed person, I became, to some extent, assimilated into the culture of the institution I worked for, and only by slow degrees, starting before the invasion of Iraq, did I begin fundamentally to question the reasons of state that motivate the people who are, to quote George W. Bush, the deciders. ..."
"... Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called groupthink , the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting, making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the towns cool kids drop those ideas as if they were radioactive. ..."
"... As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. ..."
"Our plutocracy, whether the hedge fund managers in Greenwich, Connecticut, or the Internet
moguls in Palo Alto, now lives like the British did in colonial India: ruling the place
but not of it. If one can afford private security, public safety is of no concern; to
the person fortunate enough to own a Gulfstream jet, crumbling bridges cause less apprehension,
and viable public transportation doesn't even compute. With private doctors on call and
a chartered plane to get to the Mayo Clinic, why worry about Medicare?"
― Mike Lofgren,
The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government
"Our analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence
over the policies our government adopts. Americans do enjoy many features central to
democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association,
and a widespread (if still contested) franchise.
But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations
and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic
society are seriously threatened."
"As a congressional staff member for 28 years specializing in national security and possessing a
top secret security clearance, I was at least on the fringes of the world I am describing, if neither
totally in it by virtue of full membership nor of it by psychological disposition.
But, like virtually every employed person, I became, to some extent, assimilated into the
culture of the institution I worked for, and only by slow degrees, starting before the invasion of
Iraq, did I begin fundamentally to question the reasons of state that motivate the people who are,
to quote George W. Bush, 'the deciders.'
Cultural assimilation is partly a matter of what psychologist Irving L. Janis called groupthink,
the chameleon-like ability of people to adopt the views of their superiors and peers. This syndrome
is endemic to Washington: The town is characterized by sudden fads, be it negotiating biennial budgeting,
making grand bargains or invading countries. Then, after a while, all the town's cool kids drop those
ideas as if they were radioactive.
As in the military, everybody has to get on board with the mission, and questioning it is
not a career-enhancing move. The universe of people who will critically examine the goings-on at
the institutions they work for is always going to be a small one. As Upton Sinclair said, 'It
is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding
it.'"
"... how is it that partisan gridlock has seemingly jammed up the gears (and funding sources) in Washington, yet the government has been unhindered in its ability to wage endless wars abroad, in the process turning America into a battlefield and its citizens into enemy combatants? ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... Congressional Record ..."
"... Federal Register ..."
"... The Deep State runs everything in America since at least Nov 22, 1963. Kennedy promised to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds. Instead, the CIA shattered his brains into a thousand pieces. ..."
"... The Deep State is a troika of the Military Industrial Complex, Wall Street and the Spooks who spy on everyone. The NSA spies on the Supreme Court, Congress and the White House and you. ..."
"... The stunning implication of this passage is that NSA spying targets not only ordinary American citizens, but also Supreme Court justices, members of Congress and the White House itself. One could hardly ask for a more naked exposure of a police state. ..."
"... Essay: Anatomy of the Deep State ..."
"... There is the visible government situated around the Mall in Washington, and then there is another, more shadowy, more indefinable government that is not explained in Civics 101 or observable to tourists at the White House or the Capitol. The former is traditional Washington partisan politics: the tip of the iceberg that a public watching C-SPAN sees daily and which is theoretically controllable via elections. The subsurface part of the iceberg I shall call the Deep State, which operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power. ..."
"... Who rules America? ..."
"... Congress and both of the major political parties serve as rubber stamps for the confluence of the military, the intelligence apparatus and Wall Street that really runs the country. The so-called Fourth Estate -the mass media-functions shamelessly as an arm of this ruling troika. ..."
"... The Deep State controls Wall Street? No, indeed. Wall Street controls the Deep State and makes its very existence possible. The Deep States job is to do Wall Streets dirty work, so Wall Street can continue to live off their tax and debt-peons from Arlington to Athens. ..."
"... it is kind of a chicken and egg thing, the way it could be posed either way. i go with the theory that any collection of people in the pursuit of similar goals will conspire (make deals) to collaborate, ah hem. ..."
"... Weve been taken over. Weve been co-opted. In place of the organic leadership has been placed these people who I call the servitors of empire. ..."
"... Thats a midpoint between servants and … the wielders of true power–the great Anglo-American families. ..."
"... Oligarchy , government by the few, especially despotic power exercised by a small and privileged group for corrupt or selfish purposes. Aristotle used the term oligarchia to designate the rule of the few when it was exercised not by the best but by bad men unjustly. ..."
"... the Deep State is no different than the Praetorian Guard in Rome, who basically ran the show for the last 200 years of the Roman Empire ..."
"... Eventually, the Praetorian Guard basically sold the Emperor position to the highest bidder. They became nothing but common thieves. The same thing is happening in the USA ..."
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... You must realize that most of these contract personnel are former military or civilian employees who have gone private in order to escape federal salary limits. They are still permanent, long-term employees of their departments, only outside the federal personnel system and paid a great deal more. They are the entrenched experts who cannot be replaced because there arent a whole lot of them in any particular area. ..."
"... Once such a person becomes entrenched, competitors are not welcome and alternative points of view are squashed. As a result, the U.S. Deep State perpetuates one of the most expensive and incompetent intelligence services in the world. ..."
As we previously concluded , for all intents and purposes, the nation is one national "emergency"
away from having a full-fledged, unelected, authoritarian state emerge from the shadows. All it will
take is the right event-another terrorist attack, perhaps, or a natural disaster-for such a regime
to emerge from the shadows.
Consider this: how is it that partisan gridlock has seemingly jammed up the gears (and funding
sources) in Washington, yet the government has been unhindered in its ability to wage endless wars
abroad, in the process turning America into a battlefield and its citizens into enemy combatants?
The credit for such relentless, entrenched, profit-driven governance, according to Lofgren, goes
to " another
government concealed behind the one that is visible at either end of Pennsylvania Avenue , a
hybrid entity of public and private institutions ruling the country according to consistent patterns
in season and out, connected to, but only intermittently controlled by, the visible state whose leaders
we choose."
This "
state within
a state " hides "mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in the light of day,"
says Lofgren, and yet the "Deep State does not consist of the entire government."
Rather, Lofgren continues:
It is
a hybrid of national security and law enforcement agencies : the Department of Defense, the
Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security, the Central Intelligence Agency and
the Justice Department. I also include the Department of the Treasury because of its jurisdiction
over financial flows, its enforcement of international sanctions and its organic symbiosis with
Wall Street.
All these agencies are coordinated by the Executive Office of the President via the National
Security Council. Certain key areas of the judiciary belong to the Deep State, such as the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court, whose actions are mysterious even to most members of Congress.
Also included are a handful of vital federal trial courts, such as the Eastern District of Virginia
and the Southern District of Manhattan, where sensitive proceedings in national security cases
are conducted.
The final government component (and possibly last in precedence among the formal branches of
government established by the Constitution) is a kind of rump Congress consisting of the congressional
leadership and some (but not all) of the members of the defense and intelligence committees. The
rest of Congress, normally so fractious and partisan, is mostly only intermittently aware of the
Deep State and when required usually submits to a few well-chosen words from the State's emissaries.
In an expose titled "
Top Secret
America ," The Washington Post revealed the private side of this shadow government,
made up of 854,000 contract personnel with top-secret clearances, "a number greater than that of
top-secret-cleared civilian employees of the government."
These contractors now set the political and social tone of Washington, just as they are increasingly
setting the direction of the country, but they are doing it quietly, their doings unrecorded in
the Congressional Record or the Federal Register , and are rarely subject to
congressional hearings…
The Deep State not only holds the nation's capital in thrall, but
it also controls
Wall Street ("which supplies the cash that keeps the political machine quiescent and
operating as a diversionary marionette theater") and Silicon Valley.
Remember this the next time you find yourselves mesmerized by the antics of the 2016 presidential
candidates or drawn into a politicized debate over the machinations of Congress, the president or
the judiciary: it's all intended to distract you from the fact that you have no authority and no
rights in the face of the shadow governments.
25+ years ago (fuck I'm getting old), there was a database on CD that did just that, put out
by by what would be considered a conspiracy theory researcher, Daniel Brandt. It was called namebase,
and you could pretty much look up any name mentioned in the news and play 7 degrees with it. Most
of the times I played that game, the roads led back to the CIA, usually in just one hop. Even
for seemingly petty local things, like utility commissioners or board members of local electric
utilities.
There's similar research today on the commercial side -- google "interlocking directorates"
and you'll quickly find there's a core corporate power elite.
I don't think I've ever seen someone combine the two. I suspect that's something that will
get your Mercedes wrapped around a tree. Safe to say today, compared to 25 years ago, even though
the internet is more pervasive and more information is available, there's actually less consolidation
and research in this area than there was long ago, which in and of itself is kind of suspect.
The actual list, if someone compiled it, would be shockingly short. I doubt the key individuals
would amount to more than a couple thousand.
The Deep State runs everything in America since at least Nov 22, 1963. Kennedy promised to
shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds. Instead, the CIA shattered
his brains into a thousand pieces.
The Deep State is a troika of the Military Industrial Complex, Wall Street and the Spooks who
spy on everyone. The NSA spies on the Supreme Court, Congress and the White House and you.
The most extraordinary passage in the memo requires that the Israeli spooks "destroy upon
recognition" any communication provided by the NSA "that is either to or from an official of the
US government." It goes on to spell out that this includes "officials of the Executive Branch
(including the White House, Cabinet Departments, and independent agencies); the US House of Representatives
and Senate (members and staff); and the US Federal Court System (including, but not limited to,
the Supreme Court)."
The stunning implication of this passage is that NSA spying targets not only ordinary
American citizens, but also Supreme Court justices, members of Congress and the White House itself.
One could hardly ask for a more naked exposure of a police state.
There is the visible government situated around the Mall in Washington, and then there
is another, more shadowy, more indefinable government that is not explained in Civics 101 or observable
to tourists at the White House or the Capitol. The former is traditional Washington partisan politics:
the tip of the iceberg that a public watching C-SPAN sees daily and which is theoretically controllable
via elections. The subsurface part of the iceberg I shall call the Deep State, which operates
according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power.
The secret collaboration of the military, the intelligence and national security agencies,
and gigantic corporations in the systematic and illegal surveillance of the American people reveals
the true wielders of power in the United States. Telecommunications giants such as AT&T, Verizon
and Sprint, and Internet companies such as Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Twitter, provide the
military and the FBI and CIA with access to data on hundreds of millions of people that these
state agencies have no legal right to possess.
Congress and both of the major political parties serve as rubber stamps for the
confluence of the military, the intelligence apparatus and Wall Street that really runs the country.
The so-called "Fourth Estate"-the mass media-functions shamelessly as an arm of this ruling troika.
The Deep State controls Wall Street? No, indeed. Wall Street controls the Deep State and makes
its very existence possible. The Deep State's job is to do Wall Street's dirty work, so Wall Street
can continue to live off their tax and debt-peons from Arlington to Athens.
it is kind of a chicken and egg thing, the way it could be posed either way. i go with the
theory that any collection of people in the pursuit of similar goals will conspire (make deals)
to collaborate, ah hem.
"The very fields that I helped to pioneer have been visited by the Rockefeller Foundation boys
and the Gates Foundation," Hamamoto remarks concerning the subversion of genuine activist-oriented
and propelled scholarship. "This is what happens. You do pioneering work, and then you get the
knock on the door and the invitation to be brought in to the fold. Ethnic Studies and Asian American
Studies in particular have had those visits. We've been taken over. We've been co-opted.
In place of the organic leadership has been placed these people who I call the 'servitors
of empire.'
"That's a midpoint between servants and … the wielders of true power–the great Anglo-American
families."
"Now here is some meat:
""Concerning deep agendas involving modern eugenics, Hamamoto observes, "Just like I got to
see more [students] coming in on psychotropic drugs, I've been able to see the greater feminization
of the male population over the years. I wanted to ask questions why. It didn't take too long
to figure out that the male species in the Western world and places like Japan and South Korea,
and definitely Southeast Asia, are being purposely re-engineered into a new type of gender orientation.
The university," Hamamoto continues, "has purposely come up with this whole LGBT intellectual,
scholarly, and student services agenda to act as a smokescreen for a more fundamental and nefarious
attempt to engage in a massive eugenics exercise in effecting human reproduction."
UC Davis is the back door of the Central Intelligence Agency. And the CIA is, and always will
be, my bitch. Frankly, the Deep State is bankrupt just like Wall Street, and the USA, and UC DAVIS,
plus Professor homophobe Hamamoto, and the MIC.
Walk Quietly and Carry a Big Stck! Theodore Roosevelt
Oligarchy , government by the few, especially despotic power
exercised by a small and privileged group for corrupt or selfish purposes. Aristotle used the
term oligarchia to designate the rule of the few when it was exercised not by the best but by
bad men unjustly. Britannica.com
So the "Deep State" is no different than the Praetorian Guard in Rome, who basically ran the
show for the last 200 years of the Roman Empire.
Notice how well that one worked out. Eventually, the Praetorian Guard basically sold the Emperor
position to the highest bidder. They became nothing but common thieves. The same thing is happening
in the USA.
The government makes "rules" which are enforced by the "enforcers", but the rules and the enforcers
are nothing but common thieves. Look what happened to various Central and Latin American countries.
41 out of the top 50 most violent cities in the world are in Latin America. 4 are in the USA.
More to come for sure.
"The Washington Post revealed the private side of this shadow government, made up
of 854,000 contract personnel with top-secret clearances, "a number greater than that of top-secret-cleared
civilian employees of the government."
You must realize that most of these "contract personnel" are former military or civilian employees
who have gone private in order to escape federal salary limits. They are still permanent, long-term
employees of their departments, only outside the federal personnel system and paid a great deal
more. They are the entrenched "experts" who cannot be replaced because there aren't a whole lot
of them in any particular area.
Of course, because there are so few of them in any field, there
is very limited control on their personal biases and self-interests, which are often highly skewed.
Once such a person becomes entrenched, competitors are not welcome and alternative points of view
are squashed. As a result, the U.S. Deep State perpetuates one of the most expensive and incompetent
intelligence services in the world.
"... If youre relying on seeing your favorite candidates name the most times in a Google search, do keep in mind that only young low information voter relies on technology to determine whos popular. The old folks still rely on talk radio. ..."
"... Clinton is the Democratic Party candidate of the Military Industrial Complex ..."
"... Trump says insane things, of course every news outlet covers him, I dont really think he counts. MSNBC is by far the worst of the lot when it comes to spoon feeding. I dont like FOX any better when they bring on their Holy band of extreme right commentators either. ..."
"... As a young female undecided voter, its hard not to be fooled by the celebrity game show host. And on the other hand, its hard not to support my fellow gender and vote Hillary (until you look at the baggage). Now, if I listen to my brain as opposed to emotions, the common sense of Bernie on the one side or Rand Paul on the other has a distinct appeal. Theyre quite interesting to listen to and they do it without invoking terror, hatred, scare tactics or even biblical quotes. How refreshing! ..."
"... The bankruptcy argument is a bunch of bs. Hes a billionaire now. If I could become a billionaire by going bankrupt Id do it in a heartbeat. The truth is that he figured out how to rise out of bankruptcy and is now financing a presidential campaign and manhandling his opponents who have received millions in contributions. ..."
"... Ive been a democrat all my life and hope that Sanders wins. But if it comes down to Hillary and Trump, Im voting Trump. If it comes down to Hilary and any republican not named Trump, Ill hold my nose and vote for Hilary. I really dont care for her. ..."
"... Its heartening to see that Clinton is polling lower than Sanders when it comes to young women, perhaps indicative of the post-sexism ideal were going for; younger women are judging the candidates on their actual policies and character, as opposed to being swayed by the infantile because shes a woman appeal. ..."
"... Given TTP and TTIP, NAFTA, the actions of the IMF and World Bank, the moves by the EU and Anglosphere away from social democracy and the continuing prescription of liberal economic policy for all states, deregulation, plans to expand recourse to investor-state dispute settlement courts, and the overall small state philosophy, often enforced by military interventionism or sanctions, it seems as if pro-capital policy, deregulation and the resulting inequality havent obtained a status quo that will be maintained under Hilary or the GOP so much as an agenda that has been pushed globally, and will go further in the direction that many voters on the left and centre of politics and even the traditional conservative right and far-right, probably the majority of Americas and the worlds population, oppose. ..."
"... The Guardian and the rest of the UK media are giving Trump the same treatment as they gave Arthur Scargill in the 1980s. ..."
"... The UK Establishment and media and their overseas supporters (in the other direction) and we all know who that is. are schit scared in case Trump gets in. The British establishment has been bought. British 'informed democracy', is dead. Censorship, is rife. And the British People know it. ..."
"... Does any of this really matter? The United States is an empire and, regardless of who is anointed President by the Koch brothers and the rest of the American aristocracy, the empire will still require a military budget of at least $500,000,000,000 and American jobs will still go to China because that's profitable for the corporations and for the aristocrats who own and run those corporations. ..."
"... The far-left attacks again, well I have to give them credit, they are really trying harder than ever. Anyway, these polls are always adulterated by special interests ..."
"... We do not have a democracy. Freedom of speech democratic freedom of thought, yes. Democracy is an unfulfilled philosophical idea and wishful thinking. For decades, we have been under the total rule of organized business - as are many developed nations. ..."
"... I have been a lifelong Democrat and my first choice is Bernie Sanders. With my meagre income I will continue to contribute to his campaign. My alternate choice is, anyone but Hillary Clinton. For the life of me, I cannot imagine anyone who reads the news can vote for this Wall St. puppet. ..."
"... Be that as it may, the US average voter owes to Donald Trump for standing up to the corporate media that we always criticise for influencing elections, while other candidates of both parties bend over backwards to curry their favor. ..."
"... Yes, the corporate media as a result are going after him, but he still gets votes. This election, the case the US Voter vs. Corporate Media, the Voter won thanks to Trump. ..."
"... People have unfavourable opinions of politicians they actually vote for. Nearly all Repubs will vote for trump if he is the nominee and whether it's Hillary or Sanders, a fair size of one time Obama voters are switching to the Repubs because they want action taken against the rapid erosion of what they consider to be American values. ..."
"... It appears that the Guardian continues to show it's bias toward Clinton. How about being balanced and reporting the news instead of trying to create the news and influence the outcome. If we want bias we can drift over to Fox Fake news ..."
"... Hillary Clinton is not on the left. She is right center. ..."
"... Cruz is genuinely dangerous. A religious zealot and a war monger, it would be a massive step back for America and the world if this man became president. ..."
"... It's because many people who are centrist or left leaning have a sense of morality and principles.. It's not about voting for who stinks less.. It's about standing up for what you consider right and if you can't do that during the election process then what's the bloody point of democracy.. Take the case of Occupy Wall Street.. supported by most left leaning people. ..."
"... the media wants us to frame everything into left wing or right wing. However I don't buy into that paradigm anymore. When Clinton was about to send the jobs away, I saw effectively Pat Buchanan (staunch conservative but poplulist) effectively joining forces with Ralph Nader (perhaps as far left as anyone can go but still populist). You think any democrat would be better than any republican. I think that if we don't fix something soon, this whole thing is going to collapse. For my money only 3 candidates are actually pledging to fix something (Sanders, Paul and Trump). ..."
"... Remember that socialist is a dirtier word in much of the U.S. than neo-liberal is in Western Europe. There's also the very pertinent question of whether the U.S. is ready to elect a Jewish president. ..."
"... Obama came in surrounded by Wall Street execs and stooges and from the outset had no intention of challenging the power of the capitalist class or affecting change that was anything other than rhetorical in nature. ..."
"... Clinton is the one candidate who can lose to Trump, and if she win's she will govern like Bush. It's disgusting how the establishment is pushing her so hard, but it does inform us that we should reject her. Clinton is a candidate like Obama - runs on hope and change, than nothing changes - same old attitude that Government exists to protect the profits of the 1% and **** Working Class Americans ..."
"... Sanders' mild social democratic policies - which require moderate and easily affordable sacrifices on the part of the rich - are of course very realistic and practical. Or at least they are realistic in countries that are at least reasonably politically sane. But since US politics is the very definition of insanity, Sanders policies are not realistic . ..."
Let's not forget Bill Clinton's brother Roger's involvement in the Iran Contra affair. Clinton's
have been involved in drugs and gun running for a long time.
skipsdad -> André De Koning 30 Jan 2016 21:03
Putin did more damage to Isis in 6 weeks, than Obama and Nato did in six years.
The Turkish fox, is in the Nato chicken coop. Turkey has been getting oil from Syria for years.
Obama knew about it. The Russians were threatening to reveal the deceit, and that's why their
plane was shot down.
Now Turkey is claiming another Russian violation. The fox is looking to start WWIII.
Obama has been dealing with 'moderate terrorists' for years, and Putin exposed him.
Obama and the US - Running with the foxes, and hunting with the hounds.
Trump will clean that cesspit of corruption out.
johnf1 30 Jan 2016 20:58
Who in God's name cares what anyone in Iowa thinks about who should be president. As far as
I know neither Iowa nor New Hampshire has ever been important in any presidential election. Pennsylvania,
Florida, Nevada, Ohio, the voters in those states are important.
nnedjo 30 Jan 2016 20:56
The former first lady run in the elections for the Democratic presidential candidate for the
second time, and claims to have a trump cards for it; "Only she is able to defeat Trump!"
However, the problem is that in addition to trump cards Hillary also has Trump's money. You remember
that she took the money from Trump, as a fee for coming to his wedding.
Now it raises a hypothetical question: What if in the middle of the election campaign Trump
decides to pay Clinton a little more than before, as "a fee for the lost elections"?
So, in my opinion it is not unthinkable at all that Hillary could sell elections to Trump in exchange
for a certain sum of money, the only question is how much money would that be.
And after all, Trump himself has already stated that he is looking forward to get Hillary Clinton
as an opponent in the presidential race, so draw your own conclusions?
André De Koning -> skipsdad 30 Jan 2016 20:50
Pity we only get a silly picture of Putin via western media. Reading his speeches, especially
the last one at the UN (28th Sept.), he was the clearest and summed up the issues of western caused
chaos with its invasions and claim of 'being special'(US, especially hypocritical and doing the
opposite of what it preaches). Putin is thoughtful, strategic and a leader, while in the US there
are no leaders and even more is done by the so-called intelligence agencies' that by the Russian
FSB (more control over them than over the NSA). One debate with Putin would be more interesting
than any of this American waffle that has never changed their superficial, cruel foreign policies.
I discovered this by reading other literature about Putin than you can ever find in the misleading
demonization of any leader who is opposed to US policies. The press lied about Gadaffi too, so
take some trouble to find out what these so-called enemies are actually about.
RusticBenadar -> carson45 30 Jan 2016 20:42
Actually, if you had done your due diligence and researched Bernie's track record you would
see he is a master of bipartisan success; it was said of his mayorship that he "out republicaned
the republicans" achieving all the fiscal objectives they had long sought in Butlington but failed
to accomplish until Bernie came along.
TettyBlaBla 30 Jan 2016 20:39
I find all the predictions of who will win the General Election in November quite amusing.
Primary elections haven't even started and neither major political party has declared which candidates
in the present fields will represent them. The choice of Vice Presidential candidates could well
change the scenarios many are now presenting.
If you're relying on seeing your favorite candidate's name the most times in a Google search,
do keep in mind that only young low information voter relies on technology to determine who's
popular. The old folks still rely on talk radio.
atkurebeach 30 Jan 2016 20:34
if the democrats vote for Hillary, who is tight with Wall Street money, especially when there
is such a clear alternative for the poor, to me that means there is no difference between the
two parties. I might as well vote for Trump, at least he is less likely to start a war.
digitalspacey -> Calvert 30 Jan 2016 20:32
As an outsider looking in (from Australia) what you describe actually works in favour of the
Democrats.
Think about it.
An intransigent Republican party continually blocks what the President wants to do. Now I'm
assuming that if people vote in Bernie it's because they actually want what he has to sell.
So if the Republicans keep playing this game it's really gonna start to grate on people.
There will come a tipping point where people will say 'enough!' and the removal of the Republicans
will commence.
It may take several terms but the Republicans are in egret signing their own death warrant.
Merveil Meok -> Logicon 30 Jan 2016 20:12
There are very powerful forces in America that would NEVER let Bernie Sanders win the White House.
He has said stuff that has disqualified him (in the eyes of those forces) for the role of president.
You can't run against the military, cops, oil companies, Wall Street, the richest people on the
planet, big pharma, and win. That only happens in movies.
SeniorsTn9 30 Jan 2016 20:09
The U.S. campaign is nearly over and two choices remain. Everyone knows America is broken.
Candidates promoting staying the course and being politically correct have no place in America's
future. They broke the America we have today. The realities are obvious; Clinton is to the past
as Trump is to the future. After all the campaigning dust settles, Americans who want American
back will vote for Trump. Trump will make America great again. It really is that simple.
redwhine -> Merveil Meok 30 Jan 2016 20:01
It's good that they have to win over people in Iowa and New Hampshire, and I say this as a
Californian who only ever hears of politicians visiting my state to raise money at the homes of
rich people before leaving the same day. The point is that politicians need to show that they
are willing to work for their votes. They need to hit the pavement. They need to convince people
to vote for them even if they know that the votes in those states don't amount to much. If politicians
only campaigned in California, New York, Texas, and Florida and then skipped the rest, I'd see
no evidence of grit and determination, just lazy opportunism.
ID4352889 30 Jan 2016 19:56
Clinton is a deeply unpleasant character, but Americans will vote for her over the decent Sanders.
It's just the way they do things in the US. Clinton is the Democratic Party candidate of the
Military Industrial Complex and will take the cake. Bernie is just there to make people think
they have a choice. They don't.
redwhine consumerx 30 Jan 2016 19:52
Plenty of people have inherited millions and still ended up penniless. You can't call Trump
an idiot even if you maintain that he could have become a billionaire merely by putting all his
daddy's money into the bank and leaving it there (which we know he didn't, because he's built
at least a dozen skyscrapers and golf courses). By the way, Fred Trump (Donald's dad) was rich
but he was not astronomically rich. As for his lawyers, plenty of lawyers of rich men have done
worse; in trying to denigrate Trump people are reflexively making his dad into some sort of financial
wizard and everyone around Trump to magically have helped him in every step of the way like guardian
angels surrounding him his whole life. It just doesn't work like that.
Merveil Meok 30 Jan 2016 19:42
The political system allows two states (Iowa and New Hampshire) to dictate the future the country.
Some candidates are forced to quit after one or two Caucuses (as money sponsors quit on them),
even if, only God knows, they could have picked up steam later.
I would be in favor of adding three or more states in the first round of the caucuses so that
most of America is represented, not states which have no real power in American daily life - economically
and otherwise.
These two states represent 1.5% of America's population and a ridiculously low percentage of
national GDP.
ChiefKeef 30 Jan 2016 19:39
Sanders will be the best president theyve ever had. The lefts popularity is rocketing across
the west in response to austerity and the endless cycle of imperialism and international crisis.
A new generation of activists, unencumbered by the diminished confidence of past defeats, have
risen spectacularly in defense of equality against the attacks of the right.
Steven Wallace 30 Jan 2016 19:33
Hillary is a devout psychopath whereas Trump is a total doughnut ,seriously who the hell would
vote for these animals ?
Pinesap -> TaiChiMinh 30 Jan 2016 19:31
Trump says insane things, of course every news outlet covers him, I don't really think
he counts. MSNBC is by far the worst of the lot when it comes to spoon feeding. I don't like FOX
any better when they bring on their Holy band of extreme right commentators either. Like
I've said before when your in the middle like me, your screwed. NO news outlets and NO candidates
that could win. Screwed like deck boards I tell you.
WarlockScott -> carson45 30 Jan 2016 19:31
Sorry who was president before Bush? Bill Clinton? and who was Bush running against? Central
figure in the Clinton administration Al Gore?.... oh, woops.
Experience as secretary of state? US foreign policy has got much better since Kerry took over.
Healthcare? the woman that takes bundles of money from Big Pharma, who is now saying that UHC
is fundamentally a pipe dream for the US?
She's a poor choice compared to Sanders imo, If she was running against Biden or another centrist
democrat yeah sure but against a Sanders figure? nah
Jill McLean 30 Jan 2016 19:28
As a young female undecided voter, it's hard not to be fooled by the celebrity game show
host. And on the other hand, it's hard not to support my fellow gender and vote Hillary (until
you look at the baggage). Now, if I listen to my brain as opposed to emotions, the common sense
of Bernie on the one side or Rand Paul on the other has a distinct appeal. They're quite interesting
to listen to and they do it without invoking terror, hatred, scare tactics or even biblical quotes.
How refreshing!
redwhine -> consumerx 30 Jan 2016 19:26
The bankruptcy argument is a bunch of bs. He's a billionaire now. If I could become a billionaire
by going bankrupt I'd do it in a heartbeat. The truth is that he figured out how to rise out of
bankruptcy and is now financing a presidential campaign and manhandling his opponents who have
received millions in contributions.
redwhine 30 Jan 2016 19:19
I've been a democrat all my life and hope that Sanders wins. But if it comes down to Hillary
and Trump, I'm voting Trump. If it comes down to Hilary and any republican not named Trump, I'll
hold my nose and vote for Hilary. I really don't care for her.
JoePomegranate 30 Jan 2016 19:17
It's heartening to see that Clinton is polling lower than Sanders when it comes to young
women, perhaps indicative of the post-sexism ideal we're going for; younger women are judging
the candidates on their actual policies and character, as opposed to being swayed by the infantile
"because she's a woman" appeal.
Logicon 30 Jan 2016 19:08
Bernie has to win the ticket -- the 'best' revolutionary will win the general election:
Trump vs Clinton = trump wins
Trump vs bernie = bernie wins
Cafael -> ponderwell 30 Jan 2016 19:06
Given TTP and TTIP, NAFTA, the actions of the IMF and World Bank, the moves by the EU and
Anglosphere away from social democracy and the continuing prescription of liberal economic policy
for all states, deregulation, plans to expand recourse to investor-state dispute settlement courts,
and the overall 'small state' philosophy, often enforced by military interventionism or sanctions,
it seems as if pro-capital policy, deregulation and the resulting inequality haven't obtained
a status quo that will be maintained under Hilary or the GOP so much as an agenda that has been
pushed globally, and will go further in the direction that many voters on the left and centre
of politics and even the traditional conservative right and far-right, probably the majority of
America's and the world's population, oppose.
Patrick Ryan 30 Jan 2016 18:58
Most polls are shite as extrapolating from relatively small samples never tells you the
true story.... We'll know better after the Caucuses.... the fear factor and the worries of a
nation will play a big part in the selective process - This is not a sprint and race is only
beginning... Having Trump in the mix has shaken up system and he has clearly got the super
conservative media's knickers in a twist...
skipsdad 30 Jan 2016 18:54
The Guardian and the rest of the UK media are giving Trump the same treatment as they
gave Arthur Scargill in the 1980s.
The UK Establishment and media and their overseas supporters (in the other direction) and
we all know who that is. are schit scared in case Trump gets in. The British establishment has
been bought. British 'informed democracy', is dead. Censorship, is rife. And the British
People know it.
Douglas Lees 30 Jan 2016 18:53
The is only one decent candidate and that's Bernie Sanders. The others are a collection of
fruit loops and clowns (all deranged and dangerous) with the exception of Clinton who is
experienced intelligent and totally corrupt. She will cause a war with Iran... Let's hope it's
Bernie maybe a hope for some changes. The last 36 years have been fucked
Canuck61 30 Jan 2016 18:45
Does any of this really matter? The United States is an empire and, regardless of who
is anointed President by the Koch brothers and the rest of the American aristocracy, the
empire will still require a military budget of at least $500,000,000,000 and American jobs
will still go to China because that's profitable for the corporations and for the aristocrats
who own and run those corporations. Enjoy the show, but don't assume that it actually
means anything.
LeftRightParadigm 30 Jan 2016 18:35
The far-left attacks again, well I have to give them credit, they are really trying harder
than ever. Anyway, these polls are always adulterated by special interests, just look in
the UK at IPSOS MORI with CEO who worked for the cabinet office - no bias there! IPSOS said
the majority of British people want to remain in the EU... LOL
Trump is the best candidate, all the others are untrustworthy to the extreme due to who's
funding them, namely Goldman Sachs.
ponderwell -> thedono 30 Jan 2016 18:35
We do not have a democracy. Freedom of speech & democratic freedom of thought, yes.
Democracy is an unfulfilled philosophical idea and wishful thinking. For decades, we have been
under the total rule of organized business - as are many developed nations.
jamesdaylight 30 Jan 2016 18:28
i so hope trump or sanders wins. the establishment needs a new direction.
AdrianBarr -> ID7004073 30 Jan 2016 18:26
I have been a lifelong Democrat and my first choice is Bernie Sanders. With my meagre
income I will continue to contribute to his campaign. My alternate choice is, anyone but
Hillary Clinton. For the life of me, I cannot imagine anyone who reads the news can vote for
this Wall St. puppet. The recent Guardian article by a Wall St. insider about Hillary's
connections and the money she had received from Wall St. should make anyone shudder of her
presidency. Let alone the money the Clinton Foundation had received from other countries when
Hillary was the Secy. of State.
Be that as it may, the US average voter owes to Donald Trump for standing up to the
corporate media that we always criticise for influencing elections, while other candidates of
both parties bend over backwards to curry their favor.
Yes, the corporate media as a result are going after him, but he still gets votes. This
election, the case the US Voter vs. Corporate Media, the Voter won thanks to Trump.
If Bernie is cheated out of the nomination process that the DNC had worked from the beginning
to crown Hillary. I will vote for Trump to save what is left (pun intended) of the Democratic
party. Hillary way far right of Trump. Hillary was a Goldwater Republican, while Trump is a
Rockefeller REpublican. Take your !
elaine layabout -> sammy3110 30 Jan 2016 18:18
He doesn't care about them so long as they are unsubstantiated allegations. When the FBI
announces the result of their investigation, he will give his opinion, so long as it is
relevant to the welfare of the American people.
But using mid-investigation rumors and allegations against an opponent to distract the
American people from the actual, fact-based issues is hardly a failing. I would say it
demonstrates Sanders' commitment to fairness and truth and the best interests of the American
people.
elaine layabout -> Philip J Sparrow 30 Jan 2016 18:12
That would be news to the folks in Burlington, who elected Bernie Sanders to 4 terms as
mayor, during which time he cut their budget, streamlined city services, revitalized their
commercial district and restored their lakefront, AND he was judged one of the top 20 mayors
in the country.
The folks in the State of Vermont would also be surprised to hear this about the man who
served them in the House of Representatives for 16 years. During that time, when the extreme
right wing of the Republican party ruled Congress, Bernie (an Independent) passed more
legislative amendments than any other congressman, even the Republicans themselves. And this
was not watered-down legislation, it was pure, progressive gold.
Those same folks would be surprised to hear this about the Senator whom they last re-elected
with 71% of their votes. I guess that they were thinking of his ability to, again, passed a
series of progressive amendments in a Republican-controlled Congress, including the first-ever
audit of the Federal Reserve -- you know that thing that Ron Paul had been trying to do for
decades. And then there was the Veterans Administration Bill that Republican Jack Reed said
would never have passed without Bernie Sanders' ability to build bi-partisan coalitions.
Bringing 30 Jan 2016 18:12
People have unfavourable opinions of politicians they actually vote for. Nearly all
Repubs will vote for trump if he is the nominee and whether it's Hillary or Sanders, a fair
size of one time Obama voters are switching to the Repubs because they want action taken
against the rapid erosion of what they consider to be American values.
OurPlanet -> eveofchange 30 Jan 2016 18:06
"Does corporate supported Clinton, support gun/missile/bomb "control" of the Army, Police
and state apparatus,or just ordinary people ?"
Took the words out of my mouth. I wonder if
those folks who are thinking of voting for her will stretch their brain capacity to think
seriously about the consequences of voting for her. Do they want more of their tax $ spent on
even more wars?
peacefulmilitant 30 Jan 2016 17:50
But it's simple enough to point out that a minority of Americans are Republicans, and
that even among Republicans about 30% have a negative opinion of Trump. You can see where
the 60% might come from.
The Kochs will forward his thoughts along to him in time.
Harry Bhai 30 Jan 2016 17:48
meanwhile: Iowa's long-serving senior senator, Chuck Grassley, who last weekend
popped up at a Trump event
Rats are coming out of holes to pay respect to Trump the cat.
ID7004073 30 Jan 2016 17:46
It appears that the Guardian continues to show it's bias toward Clinton. How about
being balanced and reporting the news instead of trying to create the news and influence the
outcome. If we want bias we can drift over to Fox Fake news
Bernie has solutions that Fox feels is too boring but solutions about economic and national
security are what America and our world needs. Boats that won't float right and F35
billionaire toys dressed up as the ultimate killing machine will never make America and our
world strong. Economic policies that Bernie promotes that actually employ more people is the
only solutions.
TaiChiMinh -> TheAuthorities 30 Jan 2016 17:36
Hillary Clinton is not "on the left." She is right center. Your attempt to put the
debate between her advocates and those of Sanders into the realm of Stalin-Spanish
Republicans-etc is delusional. Maybe, just maybe the people having this discussion are engaged
in real disagreements, not dogmatic and factional maneuvering.
nnedjo 30 Jan 2016 17:08
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, whose once-mighty lead in the Hawkeye
state has narrowed to paper-thin margins, is focusing on rival Bernie Sanders' complicated
history on gun control in the final days of the Iowa campaign. The former secretary of state
will be joined by former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, a survivor of a 2011 mass shooting
that claimed the lives of six people.
Hillary stands for a gun control in order "to disarm"
Bernie, but voters say they would not vote for Hillary even if someone put a gun to their
forehead.
The reason for this is obvious, she is able to exploit even the survivors of the mass
shooting, just to satisfy her own selfish political interests.
Saltyandthepretz -> MasonInNY 30 Jan 2016 16:47
Except a circus is funny. The anti-human, repugnant policies put forward by these two are
in fact quite serious. Trump is crazy, of the A grade variety, but Cruz is genuinely
dangerous. A religious zealot and a war monger, it would be a massive step back for America
and the world if this man became president.
Fentablar -> turnip2 30 Jan 2016 16:21
Rubio is terrible, he's pandering even more than Hillary does (well, if nothing else he
does it just as much) and I'm not sure anyone knows what he actually stands for, even himself.
loljahlol -> godforbidowright 30 Jan 2016 16:15
Yeah, the Libyan people thank her
PlayaGiron -> SenseCir 30 Jan 2016 16:11
aka Wall Street's "progressive" voice as opposed to the Wall Street Journal its
"conservative" voice. In the end two sides of the same neo-liberal beast. "There is no
alternative"! Your corporatist elites have spoken!
elaine layabout -> greven 30 Jan 2016 16:05
True that.
Wall Street and it's lackey pols are playing with fire, because although many Americans had
savings and assets and/or family members with savings and assets and/or access to the
beneficence of local churches and charities, we are all tapped out.
The next time we fall, we fall hard. And we will be taking Wall Street down with us.
vishawish -> TheAuthorities 30 Jan 2016 15:53
It's because many people who are centrist or left leaning have a sense of morality and
principles.. It's not about voting for who stinks less.. It's about standing up for what you
consider right and if you can't do that during the election process then what's the bloody
point of democracy.. Take the case of Occupy Wall Street.. supported by most left leaning
people.
The only candidate who would support and encourage that is Sanders. So how do
you expect people not to support him and go out to support someone who is basically a quasi
republican?
Principles and ideologies matter.
marshwren -> GaryWallin 30 Jan 2016 15:19
Uh, it's not as if Iowans haven't had at least eight months to make up their minds, even
with the advantage of being able to see ALL of the candidates up close and personal, unlike
those of U.S. in late states (such as NJ, where i live, on June 7th or so). Besides, when
people vote in primaries on machines, they have 2-3 minutes to mull things over in the booth.
I appreciate your disdain, but caucus season in IA is like beach season in NJ--a tiresome
inconvenience, but an economic necessity given how many non-residents arrive to spend their
money. And you only have to put up with it once every four years, while ours is an annual
event.
curiouswes MartinSilenus 30 Jan 2016 15:14
Personally, I would prefer not to sit in either, wouldn't you?
Thanks for being logical. Now, the media wants us to frame everything into left wing or
right wing. However I don't buy into that paradigm anymore. When Clinton was about to send the
jobs away, I saw effectively Pat Buchanan (staunch conservative but poplulist) effectively
joining forces with Ralph Nader (perhaps as far left as anyone can go but still populist). You
think any democrat would be better than any republican. I think that if we don't fix something
soon, this whole thing is going to collapse. For my money only 3 candidates are actually
pledging to fix something (Sanders, Paul and Trump). Cruz says he wants to fix everything
by using that same old tired republican bs, so he isn't really planning on fixing anything.
Basically he is Steve Forbes without glasses and with a face lift. Paul would actually try to
fix something, but at this stage, he is a long shot and barring any 11th hour surge, I don't
need to discuss him much at this time. I would classify Trump as a populist, but a loose
cannon that isn't "presidential".
Voting for Trump is sort of an act of desperation. It isn't quite like being a suicide
bomber, but more like going all in just prior to drawing to an inside straight. Sanders is a
populist also. Some people think we can't afford his programs. However the reason the nation
is broke (financially) is because it is broke (as in broken). Sanders has vowed to fix this
(it won't be easy but with the people standing behind him, it is possible). The rest of the
candidates won't fix anything (just try to move the nation either to the left or the right as
it continues it's downward spiral.
We have to stop that downward motion or it won't matter whether we move to the left or right.
Unfortunately everybody doesn't see stopping this downward motion as job one.
For example: take Greece and their financial troubles. Even though our debt is higher, we
aren't in as bad shape as the Greeks, however we really need to stop the bleeding. We really
need to get a populist in there. I'm no economist but according to my understanding, there is
this thing called the money supply which is a bit different than the money itself. While the
government controls the money, it doesn't control the money supply. It needs to control both
or else we are just one "bad" policy away from economic disaster because whoever controls the
money supply controls the economy. If you remember in 2008 the credit dried up and that can
happen again if somebody isn't happy.
WarlockScott 30 Jan 2016 14:33
Can any Clinton supporter cogently argue why they've plumped for her over Bernie? He's far
closer to the social democracy the Democrats espouse (albeit have rarely put into action since
1992), polls show him to be more electable than Clinton, he has a far greater chance of
passing his programs for numerous reasons (better bargaining position, not as hated by
opposition, running a proactive rather than defensive campaign) and he has the popular
touch... Which even Hillary would admit she lacks. I'm hoping perhaps vainly the first answer
won't be about her gender.
TheAuthorities -> NotYetGivenUp 30 Jan 2016 14:12
I'm guessing you don't have a lifetime's experience observing U.S. presidential elections.
Sanders does well in the polls you cite because, so far, the Republicans haven't even begun to
attack him. In fact, they're positively giddy that Clinton looks to be faltering and that
Sanders actually seems closer to the nomination today than anyone would have thought 6 months
ago. Nothing will make GOP strategists sleep more soundly than the prospect of a Sanders
nomination.
In the still-unlikely event that Sanders gets the Democratic nomination, the Republicans will
turn their heavy artillery on him and -- you can trust me on this -- the end result won't be
pretty. Actually, I think it may not even take that much from the Republican character
assassins to convince most Americans not to vote for someone with Sanders's convictions and
political record. Remember that "socialist" is a dirtier word in much of the U.S. than
"neo-liberal" is in Western Europe. There's also the very pertinent question of whether the
U.S. is ready to elect a Jewish president.
Again, if you're unfamiliar with the American electoral process, you've never seen anything
like the Republican attack machine. ESPECIALLY if your reference point is a British election.
It's like comparing a church picnic with a gang fight.
Another factor to consider is that, just as the GOP establishment is trying to undercut Trump,
so the Democratic Party leadership could possibly draft somebody else to run (Biden?) if
Clinton does go down in flames.
TaiChiMinh -> Winner_News 30 Jan 2016 14:06
Obama came to office basically bragging that he had the key to a post-partisan,
collaborative way of governing - above the issues, above parties, above rancor. During the
crucial period, when he had momentum and numbers, he trimmed on issue after issue - starting
with single payer. The Tea Party was perhaps an inevitable response but its strength, and the
success of the intransigents in Congress, were not inevitable. But the Tea Party began with a
protest of floor traders against protections for people in mortgage trouble - but its momentum
really came with the movement against the ACA and in the off-year elections in 2010. A strong
president reliant on a mobilized coalition of voters - rather than a pretty crappy deal maker
(who liked starting close to his opponents' first offer) backed by corporate elites - would
perhaps have seen different results. Obama never gave it a go. And here we are . . . I imagine
that I join eastbayradical in some kind of astonishment at the extent to which "progressives"
want to keep at what has shown itself a losing proposition . .
westerndevil -> Martin Screeton 30 Jan 2016 13:50
I spent 18 months in my twenties as a debt collector for people who defaulted on student
loans...a soul crushing job. Virtually everybody who defaulted either...
A-attended some diploma mill like University of Phoenix and not surprisingly had no job
prospects after they left...or
B-dropped out or flunked out
We need to encourage more young people to work as electricians, plumbers, machinists and
in other blue-collar occupations.
GaryWallin 30 Jan 2016 13:49
April Fool's Day comes two months early here in Iowa this year. The Iowa Presidential
Caucuses are one of the greatest Political Hoaxes of all time. They are filling our
newspapers, radio, and neighborhoods with an all time record appeal to nonsense.
As Iowan's we've had the endure nearly a full year of lying and misleading politicians,
newspapers that give us the latest spin on the political horse-race (under the guise of
journalism), phone calls from intrusive pollsters and political operatives, emails from
assorted special and political interests; and we've even had to watch our mail carriers
burdened with the task of delivering many oversized junk mail advertising pieces.
Let me make it clear that I am not opposed to political parties holding caucuses. I
think it is a good idea for them to get together in formal and informal settings:
caucuses, parties, picnics, and civic observances. But I think the choice for our next
President is too important to be left to a voter suppressing, low turn-out, media event
such as the Iowa Presidential Caucuses. The goal should be to be inclusive of all
Iowans; not to have a record (but suppressed) turnout.
We've had to endure this nonsense for months, while the politicians are given multiple
and varied means to get their message out. But the voters get only an hour or so to make
their decisions, and even then in my party, the so-called 'Democratic' one, they don't
even get the right to a secret ballot, or the right to cast an absentee ballot if they
cannot attend. Instead of including all Iowans, this Circus gives special interests,
establishment political operatives, and elites an unfair advantage. This is voter
suppression and manipulation. Too few care if there might be a snow storm coming, or
someone has to be up early the next morning for surgery at a local hospital, or if
someone has to make a living by working at the time of the caucus. In this circus-like
atmosphere it is all too important to our elites to bring in the millions of dollars in
advertising money that this charade provides to local media. Dollars come before
democratic principles.
I certainly hope that my party, the Democrats, have the courage to reject all delegates
chosen by this non-democratic process when the National Convention comes around. It is
time for Party members outside of Iowa to stand up for real democracy, free and fair
candidate selection with secret ballots, and inclusive party processes that expand and
grow the Political Party.
In Iowa we need to make a few changes. I suggest a few:
Requiring every television station, radio station, and newspaper to give daily public
updates on how much and who bought political advertising.
Requiring every piece of political advertising mailed to people in Iowa to have the cost
of that item listed on the mailing.
Requiring all politicians, political parties, and PACs to honor the 'Do Not Call' list.
I often tell these callers I will not vote for anyone who annoys me with a phone call,
but this seems to have little deterrence value to phone centers and robo-calls.
Requiring that all major political parties in the state give voters the right to choose
candidates by secret ballot. No more forcing people to publicly declare for one
candidate or another. People should have the right to make their individual choices
known if they so choose; or keep them private if that is what they want.
Gary Wallin, Cedar Rapids, Iowa 30 Jan 2016
eastbayradical -> Winner_News 30 Jan 2016 13:16
The capitalist system will surely attempt to "brick wall" any authentic attempt at
change Sanders might try to implement.
But to compare him to Obama is off.
Obama came in surrounded by Wall Street execs and stooges and from the outset had no
intention of challenging the power of the capitalist class or affecting change that was
anything other than rhetorical in nature.
The Republicans' "brick walling" of his agenda was made far, far easier because he
didn't articulate, let alone mobilize around, one that named the enemy and communicated
specific progressive changes he sought to achieve.
This was seen vividly during the fight over health care reform, where Obama, in the face
of widespread support for single-payer health care, took single-payer off the table from
the outset and negotiated away the public option for nothing of substance in return.
This allowed the Republicans an open field to attack his reform's unpopular and
unprogressive features--the mandate and the general complexity of a system that retained
the insurance cartel's power over health care.
Marcedward 30 Jan 2016 13:11
Clinton is the one candidate who can lose to Trump, and if she win's she will
govern like Bush. It's disgusting how the establishment is pushing her so hard, but it
does inform us that we should reject her. Clinton is a candidate like Obama - runs on
hope and change, than nothing changes - same old attitude that "Government exists to
protect the profits of the 1% and **** Working Class Americans"
JoePomegranate 30 Jan 2016 13:09
The feting of Clinton over a genuine, principled and subversive politician like
Sanders - when subversion is exactly what is needed - reveals the complete paucity of
argument behind so much "progressive" thought nowadays.
The idea that the lying, the patronisation, the cynicism, the cronyism and the ghastly
thirst for power by any means can be simply offset by the fact that she's a woman is
appalling. It's retrograde, sexist bollocks.
Sanders is the candidate people need and his nomination would put down a marker for real
disenfranchised and impoverished Americans to fix their country. How anyone who purports
to call themselves liberal or reformist can opt for Hillary over him, I have no idea.
James Eaton -> CurtBrown 30 Jan 2016 13:02
The myth of "American Exceptionalism" is cracking. Many folks are actually able to
see how things work in other places around the globe and not simply react with the knee
jerk "it ain't gonna work here, this is 'Murica!"
eastbayradical 30 Jan 2016 12:49
The NY Times' argument that Sanders' proposals for achieving change are unrealistic
suggests that the differences between him and Clinton are chiefly tactical in nature.
This is a clever dodge that relieves the Times of the need to address the fact that, far
from being an agent of change, Clinton, like her husband and Obama--both of whom it
supported--has a consistent record of carrying water for Wall Street, the Pentagon, and
the national security/police-state apparatus, one that that she will undoubtedly carry
on as president if elected.
Madibo 30 Jan 2016 12:17
Sanders' mild social democratic policies - which require moderate and easily
affordable sacrifices on the part of the rich - are of course very realistic and
practical. Or at least they are realistic in countries that are at least reasonably
politically sane. But since US politics is the very definition of insanity, Sanders
policies are "not realistic".
"... First is the price of tar sands in Canada is likely running at a loss and or it should also be shut down because it compares to the Venezuelan to tar sands which is a known brew of cancer causing chemicals that cant be cleaned from the water and has spread death and destruction. ..."
"... When our scientists say we have to leave 4/5 of the known reserves in the ground what better place to start than the dirtiest? We saw in Canada their right wing government put pedal to the metal with Hillary and Republicans to flood the world with endless fossil fuels. So Canada left their manufacturing sector to wither and now the loon is falling and some say it will take ten years to get their manufacturing back to balance their economy. ..."
"... So for Venezuela to bet their economy on the same dirty oil just show another bad bet that both right and left are guilty of. Two cent gas to have people speed up driving around like chickens with their heads off was a bad bet and now many may go back to chickens in the back yard, diversify their economy, cooperate, keep foreign demands for their oil down and out, and before we know it we could be looking at a country that is leading the way to where we need to go or away from burning life on planet earth four times over with the known reserves. ..."
"... The fact of the matter is that Venezuela had never had pure socialism in its economy. That is a LIE. Venezuela had a mixed economy, same as most, if not all countries of the world. ..."
"... Venezuelas problem is that our State Department did not like the fact that Chavez was not conforming to our dictates, so we were going to disrupt their economy similar to what Kissinger did in Allendes Chile. It worked in Chile, but so far it is not working as effectively in Venezuela. The one caveat is that Allende did not have the Chinese to help. ..."
Venezuela's extra-heavy crude needs to be
blended or
refined - neither of which is cheap - before it can be sold. So Venezuela just hasn't been able
to churn out as much oil as it used to without upgraded or even maintained infrastructure. Specifically,
oil production
fell 25 percent between 1999 and 2013.
The rest is a familiar tale of fiscal woe. Even triple-digit oil prices, as
Justin Fox points out, weren't enough to keep Venezuela out of the red when it was spending more
on its people but producing less crude.
billwilson18041 , 11:57 AM EST
It would be good to think of a few positives and perspective. First is the price of tar
sands in Canada is likely running at a loss and or it should also be shut down because it compares
to the Venezuelan to tar sands which is a known brew of cancer causing chemicals that can't be
cleaned from the water and has spread death and destruction.
When our scientists say we have to leave 4/5 of the known reserves in the ground what better
place to start than the dirtiest? We saw in Canada their right wing government put pedal to the
metal with Hillary and Republicans to flood the world with endless fossil fuels. So Canada left
their manufacturing sector to wither and now the loon is falling and some say it will take ten
years to get their manufacturing back to balance their economy.
So for Venezuela to bet their economy on the same dirty oil just show another bad bet that
both right and left are guilty of. Two cent gas to have people speed up driving around like chickens
with their heads off was a bad bet and now many may go back to chickens in the back yard, diversify
their economy, cooperate, keep foreign demands for their oil down and out, and before we know
it we could be looking at a country that is leading the way to where we need to go or away from
burning life on planet earth four times over with the known reserves. God forbid the right
and left sit down and cooperate for a better country or at least that will be the call of the
God and guns here
elize88 , 11:49 AM EST
Most Americans have no clue about Venezuela, or Venezuelans. We see the world through our narrow
focus. The reason why we try to solve problems through our military, only, is that we think the
world so much wants to be like us, and would just give their lives to be like us.
No...the world wants to be left alone to live the way they see fit. We can't stand the fact
that we are not the savior of the world. Our leaders do stupid things for all the wrong reasons,
simply because, they like us, are ignorant of the rest of the world.
JoeCit, 11:47 AM EST
This 'fine' unbiased 'journalist' made the following statement, and in journalistic terms such
statements should be backed up with 'facts', of which I see no evidence of: "The first step was
when Hugo Chávez's socialist government started spending more money on the poor, with everything
from two-cent gasoline to free housing. Now, there's nothing wrong with that - in fact, it's a
good idea in general - but only as long as you actually, well, have the money to spend. And by
2005 or so, Venezuela didn't."
I will 'editorialize' that handouts only 'work' when such giving doesn't make them lazy and
entitlement-oriented, and doesn't end in a permanent state of expectation.
I think this 'article' should be, at best, considered a (biased) opinion piece. Shame on you
Washington Post.
elize88, 11:26 AM EST [Edited]
The fact of the matter is that Venezuela had never had pure socialism in its economy. That
is a LIE. Venezuela had a mixed economy, same as most, if not all countries of the world.
Venezuela's problem is that our State Department did not like the fact that Chavez was
not conforming to our dictates, so we were going to disrupt their economy similar to what Kissinger
did in Allende's Chile. It worked in Chile, but so far it is not working as effectively in Venezuela.
The one caveat is that Allende did not have the Chinese to help.
ThomasFiore, 11:38 AM EST
They tried to cut the wages of people in their oil sector below the prevailing wage in the
rest of the world. The people left.
Back under Bush I remember Condi Rice trying to support the military government after an attempted
coup and that's our bad but that was the military intelligence side and not State. Venezuela has
worked to make itself an enemy to the US in the same way that Castro did with Cuba (the politics
of the Cold War don't work as well now that it's over so that hasn't really worked), but their
problems are their own and not our fault. It will be interesting to see what happens in the coming
decade since they have aligned themselves with China and China seems to be turning inward.
elize88, 11:14 AM EST
Perhaps we need to travel a bit outside our little cocoon and see how others live. We think
that the rest of the world do think like us and share our cultural value. No...the world does
not consist of a monolithic thinking. That is our problem.
I travel quite a bit and see the emphasis on different culture values. Venezuelans or Latin
Americans may want the same "material" things as Americans, but the whole premise that of achieving
those goals may not be as a premium in their lives.
Get out into the world sometimes. Staying in a protective resort will not get you the understanding
you need.
Philosphical , 11:12 AM EST [Edited]
Socialists, socialists, it's all socialists. The USA is more likely to go bankrupt than socialist
Europe. We have the same or similar government expenditures as these terrible socialists, but
our politicians won't face reality and collect the taxes to pay for what they have to spend to
maintain our country and its people. We just have a lot more ability to borrow than Venezuela,
but it can't go on indefinitely, sooner or later there will be a day of reckoning for us. Of course,
the 1 per cent of I per cent who are paying our politicians will be largely unaffected by that
day of reckoning.
CapnRusty , 11:26 AM EST
The Federal Reserve "printed" trillions over the past seven years. The difference is that most
of that money went into our stock market, and caused the income disparity in America to grow.
Epaminondas Vindictor, 10:00 AM EST
Yeah, we know - socialism doesn't work. But having a welfare state, if managed fairly well
does work. We only need to look to Canada as a nearby example.
Yet Canada is not Cuba or Venezuela. And if you believe that Canadians are just itching to
ditch their health care system, look again. Even the previous conservative prime minister, Stephen
Harper, tried to privatize their health care system. No country wants a health care system like
that in the USA.
The 'free market' is not necessarily a competitive one. In the USA, it's more about plutocracy.
Facing Bosnian Sniper Fire, 10:05 AM EST
Good point! I don't want obamacare either!
bromisky, 10:11 AM EST
Remember, what you call Obamacare came from the Heritage Foundation...a conservative think
tank...
Tim the Enforcer, 1/29/2016 12:59 PM EST
Lemme guess: "Real socialism wasn't tried in Venezuela."
God Loves Me Best, 11:03 AM EST
Lemme guess: "Real capitalism didn't lead to the Great Depression, the Bush Recession, or any
of the dozen or so major "panics" in U.S. economic history."
Jessica20151, 1/29/2016 12:48 PM EST
My only guess is that Matt O'Brien has never been out from his day time job at the Washington
Post, typing stuff on his laptop computer he doesn't know, because he has never been to Venezuela.
My brother is an Engineer at British Petroleum at Valencia, Venezuela and I just came from
vacations from Venezuela, I found everything at the supermarkets, including a bottle of Scotch
Whiskey imported from England. My brother just purchased a brand new venezuelan built Toyota "machito"
for just $5,000 dollars. And people in Venezuela enjoys free public transportation, free hospitals,
free health care system, free medicines, free doctors, free dentists, elderly people and students
don't need to pay a single cent to ride the Valencia Subway or the Caracas Subway (Metro). And
people are employed, the unemployment rate in Venezuela is 2%. The economy is doing fine, I have
seen more people dragging carts full of trash and begging for money in the streets of Washington
DC than in Caracas. And please, stop watching FoxLiesNews.
"... Spot on. The Republican party is about corporatism and the "1%". They are irrelevant to nearly all the American public apart from democrat haters. The GOP might as well be a corpse. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton's always going on and on about her "Proven track record" at the State Dept....where she set Libya on fire, for example.....unlike her competitor, Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... Dear Lord, please let the American people not vote in anyone from the GOP side as president in 2016 ..."
"... Okay, my prayer skills are a bit rusty, I admit, but you get the idea. ..."
"... Anyhow, Donald Trump reminds me more and more of Italy's media mogul/politician Silvio Berlusconi -- maybe it's just my eyes playing tricks on me, but he is even starting to LOOK more and more like that man, what with the many faces he makes and the populist theatricality and all. Trump offers no substance in terms of policy, but he clearly has an intuitive grasp of how the major media outlets will respond to and cover his every move. ..."
"... I wonder if this column was written before or after the subject events. It is so trite meaningless and predictable he must have written it in his sleep. ..."
"... Trump is a centre-right, and possibly even slightly left candidate. His grandstanding is for the core base. All candidates walk back toward the middle once they have to appeal to the national electorate. He's far more liberal than Cruz, who, I assure you, will set about undoing every last bit of progress for working people and women that managed to creep forward over the last eight years, starting with health care, Medicare, and Social Security. ..."
"... You have to separate out Trump's grandstanding with his east coast New York roots. It's actually Trump who has brought up single-payer health care and some brutal talk about Wall Street. I would wager a month's salary that Trump and Mrs Clinton are not too far apart on how they would govern. And you forget that Congress is involved as well. ..."
"... The hyperbole is meaningless. So far, Jeb Bush's brother and his Vice President have done more damage to the US and the world than I would guess Trump would do in 20 years. ..."
"... And do remember on whose watch NAFTA, that infamous "ending welfare as we know it", the equally infamous DOMA, and the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which paved the way for The Big Short were passed: dear old Bill Clinton. ..."
"... The media is trusted by the public about as much as bankers and politicians. Trump sticking it to FOX not only didn't get him "sidelined" it probably increased his support among the Republican base. ..."
"... Translation: Trump knows he already has the nomination locked up. Why should he give Cruz and Rubio an opportunity to attack him in a live debate? He made the smart move. Since 9/11 and the buildup to the war in Iraq, the media's only real job is political propaganda. ..."
"... As far as I know, Trump, Sanders and Obama were equally resentful because American businessmen are moving production abroad, thus leaving American workers out of work, and the state budget deprived of taxes that go also to foreign countries instead of remaining in the US. ..."
"... In addition, Trump also stands for a kind of economic protectionism, particularly in relation to China, bearing in mind "the urgent need to reduce the trade deficit with China", which is now about $ 500 billion a year, if I remembered well. ..."
"... So, it is interesting that the current as well as two of the possible future US presidents are pushing for some kind of protectionism of domestic production and economic isolationism that are completely contrary to previous commitment of the United States to free markets and free flow of capital in the world.However, taking into account the current economic crisis in the world, that from acute increasingly turns into some kind of chronic phase, it is perhaps not so surprising. ..."
"... The vast majority of the political elite, from Bush to Clinton, are there to further the agenda, as well as their own careers. In this way, you have Obama brought into to finish by proxy what Bush started by direct force. I.e the wrecking of any Nation State that opposes the neo-liberal economic system. ..."
"... They only exist in the spotlight for as long as they are tolerated in terms of their persona, until the public wise-up. It is then they go into their background role; the cushy and lucrative 'consulting' jobs they have been promised by the special interest 'think tanks' they already belong to; be it the Council of Foreign Relations, or the Bilderberg group; all funded by international banking cartels. ..."
"... Supposed 'right' or supposed 'left' of the mainstream media are just part and parcel of the same ultimate deception. ..."
"... Trump, although not perfect in his persona, is certainly a problem for the agenda: thus their attack dogs in the media have been called to take him out. ..."
"... It's amusing to see the attacks on Trump; who just for speaking his mind is starting to steadily resonate with a growing demographic, both at home and abroad. ..."
"... You'd never hear about it here of course; but he harshly denounced the invasion of Iraq, and was a big critic of Bush. ..."
"... He also seems to be the only one who understands that the majority of Americans needs real jobs – not some laughable concept of an 'ideas economy.' and is willing to fight for them on a trade level to ensure this. ..."
"... He is also the least likely to drag the US into dangerous conflicts, (proxy or otherwise) with those such as Russia – Sadly I can see some Guardian commentators already gunning for that. ..."
"... He is also not controlled by the usual financial ties to banking elites: Goldman & Sachs just gave Hillary $3 million – what's that then? Just pocket money? ..."
"... America isn't better than this - this IS America. The land of political dynasties and limitless corporate donations. Where a movie star became the President and a body builder a Governor. It doesn't even have a one-man-one vote voting system for heavens sake. ..."
"... It's kind of like Iranian 'democracy', where the Ayatollah picks out and approves 4-5 candidates, and then the Iranian people get to 'vote' for them. We do it a bit differently, in a society where we have freedom of speech, but the outcome always ends up the same, with 2 establishment, corporate, Wall street, military industrial complex, globalist 'free trade' choices for president. All approved by corporate America, our corporate and mainstream media and by Wall street, it always ends up like that. Like right now, there is no difference between Hillary, and establishment corporate Democrats like the Clintons, and the establishment Republicans like Rubio, Kasich or Bush, on all those really big and truly important issues. ..."
"... That thing about Cruz labelling Trump a Democrat is interesting. I'm sure most Democrats would be understandably offended by the suggestion, and I'm pretty sure Cruz doesn't actually believe it either. I haven't been following Trump's statements on policy closely at all, but from my general impression of him over the years, I always thought that, although he was clearly a dyed in the wool capitalist, he probably wasn't a social conservative. ..."
"... I can't help thinking he's just another wealthy, metropolitan businessman who probably didn't give a single toss about immigration, gay marriage, Islam or any of it, and if you pushed him probably would have been completely relaxed about all those issues. ..."
"... Tough for any GOP candidate to avoid the flip flops in fairness. Pro life gun nuts, military spending addicted defecit hawks, die hard defenders of the Constitution hell bent on removing church/state separation, defenders of the squeezed middle sucking on the teat of Murdoch and the Koch brothers.... A very high and skinny tight rope.... ..."
"... Trump won because these people have nothing people want to listen to. Nobody cares about Rubio or Bush flip flopping on immigration, because they have decided not to vote for them. ..."
"... People care about jobs and their dwindling opportunities. Trump talks populism. He talks about tariffs on manufacturers who moved jobs overseas. People like that. He said he thinks the US should have left Saddam Hussein in power. Every rational person today agrees with that. He says the US should have left Gaddafi in power. While not too many people think about that too much, if they do, they agree with that too. Especially once they learn about the domino effect it has had, such as the attack on the coffee shop in Burkina Faso a week ago or so. ..."
"... People have grown tired of war. All of the mainstream candidates want war because their campaigns depend on it. Bush's family has massive investment in the Carlisle Group and other players in the MIC. ..."
"... Trump made his money in real estate, not war. ..."
"... Not a Trump fan, but it is great to see someone with enough nous to tell Fox to go bite their bum. Good on him. We know from past experience what a sleazy old fart Rupert is and his fellow travelers in Fox are a good fit. The "moderators" are third rate journo's out to polish their image and try the bigmouth on the guy that 'may' become President. No need for Trump to take that kind of crap off of those sort of people. ..."
"... Cruz was attacked, got flustered and blew his opportunity. Trump's judgement turned out to be vindicated in not attending. Trump is currently the front runner and bearing in mind that the entire West is moving to the right it is quite likely that by the time of the election Trump may turn out to be closer to the mainstream. If there are further Islamic terrorist attacks on US soil then this will likely be a certainty. ..."
You could tell the Trumpless debate was an almost normal presidential event by the nature
of the closing statements.
Bland, clichéd, and frankly boring.
Zetenyagli -> benbache 29 Jan 2016 11:49
Trump won because these people have nothing people want to listen to.
Spot on. The Republican party is about corporatism and the "1%". They are irrelevant to
nearly all the American public apart from democrat haters. The GOP might as well be a corpse.
tonybillbob -> Commentator6 29 Jan 2016 11:31
Trump is currently the front runner and bearing in mind that the entire West is moving
to the right it is quite likely that by the time of the election Trump may turn out to be closer
to the mainstream.
Mainstream of what? The conservative movement? America? The globe?
tonybillbob 29 Jan 2016 11:25
Jeb Bush insisted several times that he had "a proven record", begging the question why
he needed to mention such a proven thing quite so many times.
Yeah!!! How come those who have a "proven track record" always have to remind folks that they
have a proven track record and usually follow that claim with "unlike my competitor"?
Hillary Clinton's always going on and on about her "Proven track record" at the State Dept....where
she set Libya on fire, for example.....unlike her competitor, Bernie Sanders.
And her "hands on experience" reforming banks....."Cut that out!!!!" ...another something she
has over Bernie Sanders. Another thing Clinton can say about herself is that she's made a huge
pile of 'speakin' fees' dough rubbin' elbows with bankers.....another something that Bernie can't
say about himself. And don't forget: Hillary's gonna color inside the lines because she's a realist.
She knows what Wall Street will approve of and what Wall Street won't approve of......Hillary's
unique in that regard....at least she thinks so, and claims that's why we should vote for her....because
she already knows what Wall Street will and won't allow a president to do.
simpledino 29 Jan 2016 11:23
Okay, Ted Cruz -- I'll gladly pray on the nation's decision. (Kneeling humbly): "Dear Lord,
please let the American people not vote in anyone from the GOP side as president in 2016.
Lord, hear my prayer -- let them choose either HIllary Clinton or Bernie Sanders (or even thy
faithful and honorable servant Martin O'Malley, who doesn't have a chance in .... oh never mind,
Lord...)."
Okay, my prayer skills are a bit rusty, I admit, but you get the idea.
Anyhow, Donald Trump reminds me more and more of Italy's media mogul/politician Silvio
Berlusconi -- maybe it's just my eyes playing tricks on me, but he is even starting to LOOK more
and more like that man, what with the many faces he makes and the populist theatricality and all.
Trump offers no substance in terms of policy, but he clearly has an intuitive grasp of how the
major media outlets will respond to and cover his every move.
Lafcadio1944 29 Jan 2016 11:15
I wonder if this column was written before or after the subject events. It is so trite
meaningless and predictable he must have written it in his sleep.
Cranios 29 Jan 2016 11:13
I was never warmly disposed toward Trump, but the more I hear him annoying the news media by
refusing to be frightened and dance to their tune, the more I am starting to like him.
tklhmd 29 Jan 2016 11:11
Managing to outfox Fox news is no mean feat, I'll give him that.
Tearoutthehairnow -> hawkchurch 29 Jan 2016 11:11
Trump is a centre-right, and possibly even slightly left candidate. His grandstanding is
for the core base. All candidates walk back toward the middle once they have to appeal to the
national electorate. He's far more liberal than Cruz, who, I assure you, will set about undoing
every last bit of progress for working people and women that managed to creep forward over the
last eight years, starting with health care, Medicare, and Social Security.
You have to separate out Trump's grandstanding with his east coast New York roots. It's
actually Trump who has brought up single-payer health care and some brutal talk about Wall Street.
I would wager a month's salary that Trump and Mrs Clinton are not too far apart on how they would
govern. And you forget that Congress is involved as well.
The hyperbole is meaningless. So far, Jeb Bush's brother and his Vice President have done
more damage to the US and the world than I would guess Trump would do in 20 years.
And do remember on whose watch NAFTA, that infamous "ending welfare as we know it", the
equally infamous DOMA, and the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which paved the way for The Big Short
were passed: dear old Bill Clinton.
Try analysis instead of hyperbole. It works wonders.
Tearoutthehairnow -> lefthalfback2 29 Jan 2016 11:06
I have been nonplussed from this end of things by how lackluster J. Bush's performance has
been - I can only assume that unconsciously, he really doesn't want it - because no one who really
wants it and has the advantage of his experience, access, and background, could possibly be turning
in this deadly a performance. It reeks of self-sabotage in the name of self-preservation. At of
course a huge cost in funds . . .
Tearoutthehairnow 29 Jan 2016 11:02
I was able to catch some US news - Trump not only wasn't "sidelined" as the other Guardian
article on last night's debate proclaimed, firstly he walked out of his own accord, and second,
he cut FOX's debate audience in half. Last night's debate attracted the lowest audience ratings
of all the Republican debates so far - approximately 11-12 million as opposed to the approximately
23 million the debates attracted when he participated. CNN did quite well covering the "other"
event.
And he's still leading in the polls among Republicans - including among Republican women according
to CNN, so the Guardian's recent article on these parties' only audience being "angry white men"
was, again, off the mark by including Trump and the US Republicans.
The media is trusted by the public about as much as bankers and politicians. Trump sticking
it to FOX not only didn't get him "sidelined" it probably increased his support among the Republican
base. Jeb Bush is still pretending to be a candidate as is Ben Carson, and Cruz in the spotlight
reinforced his reputation as so nasty a human being that even if he gets into the Oval Office,
no one, including those on his own side of the aisle, will want to work with him.
It would be refreshing to see the media try to report rather than shape the news to its own
liking.
JackGC -> ACJB 29 Jan 2016 10:34
Keeping people "scared" is a full time job for the government. It would be impossible to have
a war without the "scared" factor.
"We are a nation in grave danger." George Bush.
In 'Merica, people need their guns just in case ISIS invades their town. It's like War of the
Worlds only with Muslims, not Martians. That was a REALLY scary flick back in the 30s. 'Mericans
really didn't know if New Jersey had been invaded and Christie is the guv. of Jersey.
Trump is a New Yorker, so those two are on the front lines of any potential outer space invasion.
War of the Worlds II. 'Merica is ready.
Harry Bhai 29 Jan 2016 10:27
Be like......
This is Ted Cruz.
Cruz is a world-class question-dodger
When Cruz is asked about his votes against defense budgets, he launches into an extended diatribe
against Barack Obama's defense budgets.
When Cruz is asked about his own position on issues, he talks about his idol: Ronald Reagan.
When Cruz is asked about why he flip-flopped on his feelings towards Trump, he pretends that he
was asked to insult Trump
Cruz is a flip-flop politician.
Be like Cruz, NOT.
JackGC N.M. Hill 29 Jan 2016 10:22
Translation: Trump knows he already has the nomination locked up. Why should he give Cruz
and Rubio an opportunity to attack him in a live debate? He made the smart move. Since 9/11 and
the buildup to the war in Iraq, the media's only real job is political propaganda.
N.M. Hill 29 Jan 2016 09:48
Trump just proved: it's possible to win a debate you didn't attend
Translation: Media more obsessed with Trump than actual issues.
MeereeneseLiberation -> LiamNSW2 29 Jan 2016 09:24
he was chastised for saying he'd stop Muslims from entering the US
Because Muslim immigration is really the one thing that affects ordinary Americans the most.
Not affordable health care, wealth distribution, labour rights ... Muslim immigration. Especially
of those few thousand Syrian refugees that are vetted over months and months. (But oh yes, "the
Muslims" hate the West, each and every one. Especially if he or she is fleeing from ISIS terror,
I guess.)
Sweden, that paragon of migrant virtue
Sweden, like all Scandinavian countries, has extremely restrictive immigration and asylum policies.
Calling Sweden a "paragon of migrant virtue" is about as accurate as calling Switzerland a 'paragon
of banking transparency' (or the US a 'paragon of gun control').
nnedjo -> RusticBenadar 29 Jan 2016 08:59
Just curious, can anyone share some actual substance concerning any of Trump's policy
plans?
As far as I know, Trump, Sanders and Obama were equally resentful because American businessmen
are moving production abroad, thus leaving American workers out of work, and the state budget
deprived of taxes that go also to foreign countries instead of remaining in the US.
In addition, Trump also stands for a kind of economic protectionism, particularly in relation
to China, bearing in mind "the urgent need to reduce the trade deficit with China", which is now
about $ 500 billion a year, if I remembered well.
So, it is interesting that the current as well as two of the possible future US presidents
are pushing for some kind of protectionism of domestic production and economic isolationism that
are completely contrary to previous commitment of the United States to free markets and free flow
of capital in the world.However, taking into account the current economic crisis in the world,
that from acute increasingly turns into some kind of chronic phase, it is perhaps not so surprising.
SeniorsTn9 29 Jan 2016 08:44
UPDATE: 2016/01/29 Trump won the debate he didn't even participate in. No surprise here.
Which debate will you focus on, the elephant walk or Trump? If you want to hear positive messages
listen to Trump. Trump stood his ground. Trump is definitely different. When we look at the options
there is simply no alternative. I prefer to watch the next president of the United States of America.
I was on the fence but how I am definitely a Trump supporter. Trump will make America great again.
There is a personality conflict here and everyone knows it. This reporter definitely has a
hate on for Trump. Trump was right to not participate in this debate. Replace the so called bias
reporter. Fox News could have fixed this but choose not to. Call Trump's bluff and he will have
no choice but to join the debate. This is not and should not be about reporters. The press, for
some reason, always plays into Trump's hand. This is another Trump strategic move to force the
debate to focus on him first. Seriously just look at what has already happened, All Trump's opponents
and the media are talking about now is the fact that Trump is not participating in the debate.
Brilliant!
Trump has changed the debating and campaigning rules. Trump will or will not be successful
based on his decisions and his alone. Trump now has the focus on him and the debates haven't even
startled. Trump is now winning debates he isn't even participating in. This has got to be a first
in successful political debating strategies! Amazing! A win win for Trump. Smart man! Smart like
a Fox.
ID0020237 -> NYcynic 29 Jan 2016 08:25
Methinks all this debate and chatter are nothing but distractions for the masses so those behind
and above the scene can carry out their hidden agendas. Debates are like more opium for the masses,
it keeps their brains churning while other issues are burning. I see no problems being solved
here with all the empty rhetoric.
kaneandabel -> kodicek 29 Jan 2016 07:45
Well kodi, your comments are valid in it that ALL of these candidates are part of the revolving
door irrespective of the supposed 'right' or supposed 'left'. Clinton is as much a compromised
candidate as the entire bunch of the republican team. Trump may appear to be a different kind
but that that's only because he is a good "talker" who seems to give 2 hoots to the establishment.
But thats only talk. He would turn on a cent the moment he becomes President. A perfect example
of that is Barack Obama. He talked the sweet talk and made people think a new dawn is coming in
American politics. But as it turned out.... zilch!
But there is a slight ray of hope, a thin one. With Sanders. As he has walked the talk all
along! Otherwise you van be sure to be in the grip of the wall street scamstars and plutocrats
for the next decade.
RusticBenadar B5610661066 29 Jan 2016 06:02
Plutocracy; and all candidates are millionaires or billionaires being hoisted upon Americans
by the establishment media/business/banks/politics- all, that is, with the single exception of
Bernie Sanders, who alone has managed not to enrich himself with special interest bribery or financial
exploitation during his unparalleled 45+ years of outstanding common sense public service.
kodicek -> LazarusLong42 29 Jan 2016 05:52
The vast majority of the political elite, from Bush to Clinton, are there to further the
agenda, as well as their own careers. In this way, you have Obama brought into to finish by proxy
what Bush started by direct force. I.e the wrecking of any Nation State that opposes the neo-liberal
economic system.
They only exist in the spotlight for as long as they are tolerated in terms of their persona,
until the public wise-up. It is then they go into their background role; the cushy and lucrative
'consulting' jobs they have been promised by the special interest 'think tanks' they already belong
to; be it the Council of Foreign Relations, or the Bilderberg group; all funded by international
banking cartels.
Supposed 'right' or supposed 'left' of the mainstream media are just part and parcel of
the same ultimate deception.
Trump, although not perfect in his persona, is certainly a problem for the agenda: thus
their attack dogs in the media have been called to take him out.
This is what first raised my suspicions: I thought for myself, rather than double clicking
on a petition.
Best Regards, K
kodicek 29 Jan 2016 05:19
It's amusing to see the attacks on Trump; who just for speaking his mind is starting to
steadily resonate with a growing demographic, both at home and abroad.
You'd never hear about it here of course; but he harshly denounced the invasion of Iraq,
and was a big critic of Bush.
Despite all the allegations of racism, he has the largest support amongst the Black and Latino
community; and is the most popular Republican candidate with Women.
He also seems to be the only one who understands that the majority of Americans needs real
jobs – not some laughable concept of an 'ideas economy.' and is willing to fight for them on a
trade level to ensure this.
He is also the least likely to drag the US into dangerous conflicts, (proxy or otherwise)
with those such as Russia – Sadly I can see some Guardian commentators already gunning for that.
He is also not controlled by the usual financial ties to banking elites: Goldman & Sachs
just gave Hillary $3 million – what's that then? Just pocket money?
We always drone on about democracy etc, but when someone is actually popular, from Corbyn to
Trump, we denounce them and ridicule their supporters.
Funny thing is; if it wasn't for all these attacks I might never have noticed!
TheChillZone -> SteelyDanorak 29 Jan 2016 05:05
America isn't better than this - this IS America. The land of political dynasties and limitless
corporate donations. Where a movie star became the President and a body builder a Governor. It
doesn't even have a one-man-one vote voting system for heavens sake. The rise of Trump makes
perfect sense - most of American culture has been relentlessly dumbed down; now it's Politics
turn.
europeangrayling -> shaftedpig 29 Jan 2016 04:40
It's kind of like Iranian 'democracy', where the Ayatollah picks out and approves 4-5 candidates,
and then the Iranian people get to 'vote' for them. We do it a bit differently, in a society where
we have freedom of speech, but the outcome always ends up the same, with 2 establishment, corporate,
Wall street, military industrial complex, globalist 'free trade' choices for president. All approved
by corporate America, our corporate and mainstream media and by Wall street, it always ends up
like that. Like right now, there is no difference between Hillary, and establishment corporate
Democrats like the Clintons, and the establishment Republicans like Rubio, Kasich or Bush, on
all those really big and truly important issues.
fanfootbal65 29 Jan 2016 04:20
At least with Trump you know where he stands unlike most politicians who just tell the voters
what they want to hear. Then after getting elected, these lip service politicians just go off
on their own agenda against the wishes of the people that voted for them.
SamStone 29 Jan 2016 03:55
Haha, Trump is tremendously astute and clever when it comes to tactics. It will be awesome
if he actually becomes president.
boldofer 29 Jan 2016 03:46
That thing about Cruz labelling Trump a Democrat is interesting. I'm sure most Democrats
would be understandably offended by the suggestion, and I'm pretty sure Cruz doesn't actually
believe it either. I haven't been following Trump's statements on policy closely at all, but from
my general impression of him over the years, I always thought that, although he was clearly a
dyed in the wool capitalist, he probably wasn't a social conservative.
I can't help thinking he's just another wealthy, metropolitan businessman who probably
didn't give a single toss about immigration, gay marriage, Islam or any of it, and if you pushed
him probably would have been completely relaxed about all those issues. But I guess what
he is above all else is a power hungry narcissist and a showman, and if he feels he needs to push
certain buttons to get elected...
SGT123 29 Jan 2016 03:29
"Megyn Kelly, the Fox News anchor whose participation in the debate led to Trump's boycott,
referred to him as "the elephant not in the room".
Which is both quite funny and accurate. I can see why Donald was so frightened of her!
Blaaboy 29 Jan 2016 03:03
Tough for any GOP candidate to avoid the flip flops in fairness. Pro life gun nuts, military
spending addicted defecit hawks, die hard defenders of the Constitution hell bent on removing
church/state separation, defenders of the squeezed middle sucking on the teat of Murdoch and the
Koch brothers.... A very high and skinny tight rope....
benbache 29 Jan 2016 02:22
Trump won because these people have nothing people want to listen to. Nobody cares about
Rubio or Bush flip flopping on immigration, because they have decided not to vote for them.
And despite the press, no one I know cares about terrorism in the US. No one ever brings it up
in any conversation, despite constant fear mongering.
People care about jobs and their dwindling opportunities. Trump talks populism. He talks
about tariffs on manufacturers who moved jobs overseas. People like that. He said he thinks the
US should have left Saddam Hussein in power. Every rational person today agrees with that. He
says the US should have left Gaddafi in power. While not too many people think about that too
much, if they do, they agree with that too. Especially once they learn about the domino effect
it has had, such as the attack on the coffee shop in Burkina Faso a week ago or so.
People have grown tired of war. All of the mainstream candidates want war because their
campaigns depend on it. Bush's family has massive investment in the Carlisle Group and other players
in the MIC.
Trump made his money in real estate, not war.
ID1569355 29 Jan 2016 01:53
I have no vote in the U.S.A. I greatly respect it's people and achievements. President Obama
has been a big disappointment to me. I really thought he could make some good changes for his
citizens. Should Mr Trump actually win the Presidency life for many will be very, very interesting,
perhaps not in a good way. Then again perhaps his leadership might be just what America needs.
A few years of Mr Trump as leader of the world's greatest super-power may give us all a new
outlook on life as we know it, help us adjust our personal and National priorities. Give him the
power as the Supreme Commander of Military Forces and we can all learn some lessons about the
consequences of Americans votes on everyone else's lives. Americans may learn a thing or two also........Go
Trump !
Oboy1963 29 Jan 2016 01:37
Not a Trump fan, but it is great to see someone with enough nous to tell Fox to go bite
their bum. Good on him. We know from past experience what a sleazy old fart Rupert is and his
fellow travelers in Fox are a good fit. The "moderators" are third rate journo's out to polish
their image and try the bigmouth on the guy that 'may' become President. No need for Trump to
take that kind of crap off of those sort of people.
Commentator6 29 Jan 2016 01:32
Cruz was attacked, got flustered and blew his opportunity. Trump's judgement turned out
to be vindicated in not attending. Trump is currently the front runner and bearing in mind that
the entire West is moving to the right it is quite likely that by the time of the election Trump
may turn out to be closer to the mainstream. If there are further Islamic terrorist attacks on
US soil then this will likely be a certainty.
"... For sale, cheap, one POTUS puppet, strings firmly attached. Keep the kiddies entertained, good for four years worth of distraction. ..."
"... Where does most of the money, dark or obvious, go? Answer: The Main Stream Media (I include the Guardian in this). Do you now understand why they're all having a bob-each-way? Morals, journalistic integrity, decency or the welfare of the public be damned, it's raining wads of cash. ..."
"... Because of the SCOTUS Citizens united decision, it is just fine to bribe politicians IN PUBLIC. How could SCOTUS and the GOP do this to the United States. It is destroying our Democracy. ..."
"... Let the ass-kissing and groveling begin ..."
"... The undue influence of the rich over American politics is an absolute disgrace. How can those who claim to be conservatives justify their destruction of democratic processes? They conserve nothing but their own power. Traitors! ..."
"... I'm afraid that the soul of America was lost with the scotus ruling. Corporations are just that, corporations. They are not people. They already had a disproportionate say in politics because of lobbying money. ..."
"... Now the princes of darkness have descended on the land like perpetual night. Leaving the populace longing for the light! The Kochs and their ilk are slaves to their ideology which is to destroy the federal government, destroy all social safety net's, even privatize our military. All this for the ideology of the extreme right wing corporate fascism. ..."
"... All Hail the Deep State! ..."
"... Check this out...It will blow you away: 'Dark Money: Jane Mayer on How the Koch Bros. & Billionaire Allies Funded the Rise of the Far Right' http://www.democracynow.org/2016/1/20/dark_money_jane_mayer_on_how ..."
"... "Dred Scott turned people into property....Citizens United turned property into people." ..."
"... One of the great sources of Trump's appeal has been the perception of his independence from the Kochs and other corporate manipulators. If he gets the nomination, they will of course attempt to co-opt him just as they did the tea party. It will be interesting to see how he responds. ..."
"... The Kochs didn't co-opt the Tea Party--they created it. They brainstormed it, branded it, funded it, propped it up, bought positive news coverage for it, and pulled its strings to keep the GOP voting base at a full boil for the fall elections in 2010. ..."
"... This was tactically necessary to enable them to take full advantage of the gorgeous opportunity John Roberts had created for them earlier that spring with Citizens United, rushed through precisely to help the oligarchs buy themselves Congress and as many state houses and governor's mansions as they could reap. ..."
"... The best government money can buy...... Since the Supreme Court ruled unlimited corporate bribes to politicians would be considered "free speech" in the eyes of the law, people lost any chance they had of representation based on what's best for average citizen. It's -ALL- about big money now, a literal Corporatocracy. The idea that government should be "Of the people, by the people and for the people" is long lost, RIP. ..."
"... Dark money = Corruption.....period..!! Just because its not illegal doesn't make it right. What it is, is the continual demolition of democracy in the US where whoever has the biggest cheque-book has an advantage over everyone else. Totally wrong and the slippery slope to an end of 'government by the people'... ..."
"... And the theft of the Presidency is underway. Does anyone not think that allowing millions, even a billion dollars to be donated to campaigns with the donor kept secret is a problem? Heck, foreign government can contribute to get the candidate that they want. So.......Who will be the one to kiss Koch butt? ..."
"... Hey look, they're trying to buy the elections again. No surprises there... ..."
"... Not trying. Succeeding. The Koch brothers own many, many politicians who are beholding to Koch and will vote any way Koch wants. ..."
"... Their intentions are now plain: they aim the overthrow of democracy and the establishment of a modern feudal state/oligarchy. ..."
"... If money didn't work, people would not be spending over a billon dollars on the election. Of course money works. Think of it this way: The Koch brothers give almost a billion dollars to support most of the GOP candidates. Regardless of who wins, they will be completely owned by the Koch brothers. It doesn't matter who you vote for if they are all owned by Koch. ..."
"... Moneylenders own the temple. ..."
"... Not to mention that in their own minds and mirrors, the money-lenders are the temple. ..."
"... "The trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you're still a rat." ..."
"... The pendulum has swung too far - the rich are too rich, and the poor are too poor. The Emperor we have been told has beautiful clothes will soon be found to have none. ..."
"... Or that famous Apalachin, NY, meeting of the five families in 1957. One difference: I bet the FBI won't be raiding the Koch compound, forcing all the big dogs to flee into the woods. More likely, the feds will be providing protection, writing down the license plate numbers of everyone who might object to billionaires dividing up their 'turf' in America. ..."
Dark money is the name for cash given to nonprofit organizations that can receive unlimited
donations from corporations, individuals and unions without disclosing their donors. Under IRS
regulations these tax-exempt groups are supposed to be promoting "social welfare" and are not
allowed to have politics as their primary purpose – so generally they have to spend less than
half their funds directly promoting candidates. Other so-called "issue ads" paid for by these
groups often look like thinly veiled campaign ads.
The boom in dark money spending in recent elections came in the wake of the supreme court's
2010 Citizens United decision, which held that the first amendment allowed unlimited political
spending by corporations and unions. That decision and other court rulings opened the floodgates
to individuals, corporations and unions writing unlimited checks to outside groups, both Super
Pacs and dark money outfits, which can directly promote federal candidates. Dark money spending
rose from just under $6m in 2006 to $131m in 2010 following the decision, according to the CRP.
Well, there you have it. In the USA you can actually buy yourself a president. But for Real! No
underhanded bribes, but openly buying. Would you like fries with that...? And here's the kicker
- Everyone, from media outlets all the way down to the 'person on the street' just accepts it
as is without any real protestations...
Learn how Citizens United has allowed Billionaires like the Koch's to rabble-rouse, whip into
a frenzy and influence one-half of America to vote against their own best interest!
For sale, cheap, one POTUS puppet, strings firmly attached. Keep the kiddies entertained,
good for four years worth of distraction.
ps
Where does most of the money, dark or obvious, go? Answer: The Main Stream Media (I include
the Guardian in this). Do you now understand why they're all having a bob-each-way? Morals, journalistic
integrity, decency or the welfare of the public be damned, it's raining wads of cash.
Until we have a system that makes sense, I guess we can only hope someone realizes that if they
just paid a reasonable tax rate it would cost them less than funding Super PACs. Then again, money
doesn't make you smart -- they just might spend a billion to save a million. Can we give crowd
sourcing political decisions a chance?
Because of the SCOTUS Citizens united decision, it is just fine to bribe politicians IN PUBLIC.
How could SCOTUS and the GOP do this to the United States. It is destroying our Democracy.
The undue influence of the rich over American politics is an absolute disgrace. How can those
who claim to be conservatives justify their destruction of democratic processes? They conserve
nothing but their own power. Traitors!
I'm afraid that the soul of America was lost with the scotus ruling. Corporations are just
that, corporations. They are not people. They already had a disproportionate say in politics because
of lobbying money.
Now the princes of darkness have descended on the land like perpetual night. Leaving the
populace longing for the light! The Kochs and their ilk are slaves to their ideology which is
to destroy the federal government, destroy all social safety net's, even privatize our military.
All this for the ideology of the extreme right wing corporate fascism.
Thank you, Peter Stone! So few Americans even know this is happening. Check this out...It will blow you away: 'Dark Money: Jane Mayer on How the Koch Bros. & Billionaire
Allies Funded the Rise of the Far Right' http://www.democracynow.org/2016/1/20/dark_money_jane_mayer_on_how
Please Wake Up America.....Citizens United is the Mirror Image of Dred Scott.
"Dred Scott turned people into property....Citizens United turned property into people."
One of the great sources of Trump's appeal has been the perception of his independence from
the Kochs and other corporate manipulators. If he gets the nomination, they will of course attempt
to co-opt him just as they did the tea party. It will be interesting to see how he responds.
The Kochs didn't co-opt the Tea Party--they created it. They brainstormed it, branded it,
funded it, propped it up, bought positive news coverage for it, and pulled its strings to keep
the GOP voting base at a full boil for the fall elections in 2010.
This was tactically necessary to enable them to take full advantage of the gorgeous opportunity
John Roberts had created for them earlier that spring with Citizens United, rushed through precisely
to help the oligarchs buy themselves Congress and as many state houses and governor's mansions
as they could reap.
Trump is a different matter. They can't invent Trump the same way they invented the so-called
Tea Party.
What they can do is flatter him and wheedle him and beguile him in hopes of making him more
receptive to little things like, for instance, their nominations to the federal bench.
This, given Trump's pathetic grasp of reality and his monumental ego, shouldn't actually prove
too complicated a feat for the Kochs and their worker bees to pull off.
After all, all Marla Maples had to do was say "Donald Trump--best sex I ever had" on Page 6
at the Post and she got to marry the schlub: the Kochs will surely be equally adept at figuring
out the wizened, soulless old billionaire version of this time-honored tactic.
The Donald is one of the oligarchs but with an immense ego. Instead of playing the political puppets
from behind the curtain as the Koch's do, he thought he'd become the puppet show himself.
An oligarch in politician's clothing attempting to persuade America that he's on our side.
How very Putinesque.
The best government money can buy...... Since the Supreme Court ruled unlimited corporate
bribes to politicians would be considered "free speech" in the eyes of the law, people lost any
chance they had of representation based on what's best for average citizen. It's -ALL- about big
money now, a literal Corporatocracy. The idea that government should be "Of the people, by the
people and for the people" is long lost, RIP.
Dark money = Corruption.....period..!!
Just because its not illegal doesn't make it right. What it is, is the continual demolition of
democracy in the US where whoever has the biggest cheque-book has an advantage over everyone else.
Totally wrong and the slippery slope to an end of 'government by the people'...
And the theft of the Presidency is underway.
Does anyone not think that allowing millions, even a billion dollars to be donated to campaigns
with the donor kept secret is a problem? Heck, foreign government can contribute to get the candidate that they want. So.......Who will be the one to kiss Koch butt?
Dark money cannot compete with the elephant on the block, the electorate.
If any one has the finances to buy the oval office and or Congress it is "citizens united" ten
dollars ahead should do it.
What you are failing to reckon with is the scale of their organization and its capacity. This
retreat probably has a trillion dollars backing it. That's a lot of high paying jobs...
If money didn't work, people would not be spending over a billon dollars on the election.
Of course money works. Think of it this way: The Koch brothers give almost a billion dollars to support most of the GOP candidates. Regardless
of who wins, they will be completely owned by the Koch brothers. It doesn't matter who you vote
for if they are all owned by Koch.
So, no, the power does NOT lie with the voters. SCOTUS has stolen our democracy and has given
it to the richest 100 people in the US.
And what you're failing to recognize is the scale and capacity of the internet--the people's MSM
and Super PAC. Whatever the outcome of this year's election, the Sanders' campaign is creating
the template by which guerrilla/insurgent campaigns will be modeled for the next 20 years or longer...depending
on if and when the Kochs et al finally get to end net neutrality.
Dark money - it's the undetectable dark matter of politics that bends and motivates political
stars to the black hole of government. Ordinary people can't detect it or see it, but it's effect
is to control the movement of money to the star clusters (otherwise known as tax havens).
The Kochs are concentrating on State legislatures, the key to amending the Constitution.
By the time they're finished, the President will have less power than the Queen.
These people laugh in the face of democracy.
I like particularly this quote - if I remember it correctly - by Lily Tomlin:
"The trouble with the rat race is that even if you win, you're still a rat."
The pendulum has swung too far - the rich are too rich, and the poor are too poor. The Emperor we have been told has beautiful clothes will soon be found to have none.
I'm a U.S. citizen, and I don't know because I stopped watching U.S. "news" although I'm not
sure how much better The Guardian is the people in comments seem a tad nicer better grammar
and spelling did I answer the questions? Oh, a butterfly!
Good--let them blow billions (more) attacking Clinton; it'll only be more delicious when they
find out they should have spent it against Sanders. You better hope Clinton wins IA big, because
if she doesn't, she just might jump-start the process by which she loses the nomination. Like
last time.
Several Koch network donors have voiced strong concerns about the rise of Trump, raising doubts
about his conservative bona fides and his angry anti-immigrant rhetoric, which they fear could
hurt efforts by the Koch network and the Republican party to appeal to Hispanics and minorities.
I wonder if they also worry about their lavishly-funded support of theocratic loudmouth Republican
lunatics such as Tom Cotton, Sam Brownback and Joni Ernst potentially alienating moderate Christians
or, heaven (literally) forbid, non-believers?
Don't let nobody give your guns to shoot down your own brother Don't let nobody give your bombs to blow down my sweet mother
Tell me are you really feeling sweet when you sit down to eat You eating blood money you spending blood money
You think you're funny living off blood money https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anjkSBQDRjc
Its funny to see them without Trump. You are so mesmerised by Trump and his hair that you
haven't
noticed what an incredibly weird looking bunch the rest are. Not that it matters given Bernie
will *ump them all anyway -- :)
"Several Republican congressional incumbents and candidates facing tough races are slated to attend
the Koch retreat this weekend, and, if recent history is a guide, are expecting to gain support
from Koch-backed dark money groups." * For some reason I'm reminded of the opening scene of The Godfather where supplicants meet with
Don Corleone and present their requests on the occasion of his daughter's wedding, kissing his
hand at the end.
That's exactly what it is. The Koch Brothers will own most of the GOP politicians. It doesn't
matter which one you vote for because that person will likely be owned by Koch and will do their
bidding.
Or that famous Apalachin, NY, meeting of the five families in 1957. One difference: I bet the FBI won't be raiding the Koch compound, forcing all the big dogs
to flee into the woods. More likely, the feds will be providing protection, writing down the license plate numbers
of everyone who might object to billionaires dividing up their 'turf' in America.
"... Oh, but it is serious. The material is/was classified. It just wasn't marked as such. Which means someone removed the classified material from a separate secure network and sent it to Hilary. We know from her other emails that, on more than one occasion, she requested that that be done. ..."
"... fellow diplomats and other specialists said on Thursday that if any emails were blatantly of a sensitive nature, she could have been expected to flag it. "She might have had some responsibility to blow the whistle," said former Ambassador Thomas Pickering, "The recipient may have an induced kind of responsibility," Pickering added, "if they see something that appears to be a serious breach of security." ..."
"... Finally whether they were marked or not the fact that an electronic copy resided on a server in an insecure location was basically like her making a copy and bringing it home and plunking it in a file cabinet... ..."
"... In Section 7 of her NDA, Clinton agreed to return any classified information she gained access to, and further agreed that failure to do so could be punished under Sections 793 and 1924 of the US Criminal Code. ..."
"... The agreement considers information classified whether it is "marked or unmarked." ..."
"... According to a State Department regulation in effect during Clinton's tenure (12 FAM 531), "classified material should not be stored at a facility outside the chancery, consulate, etc., merely for convenience." ..."
"... Additionally, a regulation established in 2012 (12 FAM 533.2) requires that "each employee, irrespective of rank must certify" that classified information "is not in their household or personal effects." ..."
"... As of December 2, 2009, the Foreign Affairs Manual has explicitly stated that "classified processing and/or classified conversation on a PDA is prohibited." ..."
"... Look, Hillary is sloppy about her affairs of state. She voted with Cheney for the Iraq disaster and jumped in supporting it. It is the greatest foreign affair disaster since Viet Nam and probably the greatest, period! She was a big proponent of getting rid of Khadaffi in Libya and now we have radical Islamic anarchy ravaging the failed state. She was all for the Arab Spring until the Muslim Brotherhood was voted into power in Egypt....which was replaced by yet another military dictatorship we support. And she had to have her own private e-mail server and it got used for questionable handling of state secrets. This is just Hillary being Hillary........ ..."
"... Its no secret that this hysterically ambitious Clinton woman is a warmonger and a hooker for Wall Street . No need to read her e-mails, just check her record. ..."
"... What was exemplary about an unnecessary war, a dumbass victory speech three or so months into it, the President's absence of support for his CIA agent outed by his staff, the President's German Chancellor shoulder massage, the use of RNC servers and subsequently "lost" gazillion emails, doing nothing in response to Twin Towers news, ditto for Katrina news, the withheld information from the Tillman family, and sanctioned torture? ..."
"... Another point that has perhaps not been covered sufficiently is the constant use of the phrase "unsecured email server" - which is intentionally vague and misleading and was almost certainly a phrase coined by someone who knows nothing about email servers or IT security and has been parroted mindlessly by people who know even less and journalists who should know better. ..."
"... Yet the term "unsecured" has many different meanings and implications - in the context of an email server it could mean that mail accounts are accessible without authentication, but in terms of network security it could mean that the server somehow existed outside a firewall or Virtual Private Network or some other form of physical or logical security. ..."
"... It is also extremely improbable that an email server would be the only device sharing that network segment - of necessity there would at least be a file server and some means of communicating with the outside world, most likely a router or a switch, which would by default have a built-in hardware firewall (way more secure than a software firewall). ..."
"... Anything generated related to a SAP is, by it's mere existence, classified at the most extreme level, and everyone who works on a SAP knows this intimately and you sign your life away to acknowledge this. ..."
"... yeah appointed by Obama...John Kerry. His state department. John is credited on both sides of the aisle of actually coming in and making the necessary changes to clean up the administrative mess either created or not addressed by his predecessor. ..."
"... Its not hard to understand, she was supposed to only use her official email account maintained on secure Federal government servers when conducting official business during her tenure as Secretary of State. This was for three reasons, the first being security the second being transparency and the third for accountability. ..."
"... You need to share that one with Petraeus, whos career was ruined and had to pay 100k in fines, for letting some info slip to his mistress.. ..."
"... If every corrupt liar was sent to prison there'd be no one left in Washington, or Westminster and we'd have to have elections with ordinary people standing, instead of the usual suspects from the political class. Which, on reflection, sounds quite good -- ..."
"... It's a reckless arrogance combined with the belief that no-one can touch her. If she does become the nominee Hillary will be an easy target for Trump. It'll be like "shooting fish in a barrel". ..."
"... It is obvious that the Secretary of State and the President should be communicating on a secure network controlled by the federal government. It is obvious that virtually none of these communications were done in a secure manner. Consider whether someone who contends this is irrelevant has enough sense to come in out of the rain. ..."
The Obama administration
confirmed for the first time on Friday that Hillary Clinton's unsecured home server contained some
of the US government's most closely guarded secrets, censoring 22 emails with material demanding
one of the highest levels of classification. The revelation comes just three days before the Iowa
presidential nominating caucuses in which Clinton is a candidate.
jrhaddock -> MtnClimber 29 Jan 2016 23:04
Oh, but it is serious. The material is/was classified. It just wasn't marked as such. Which
means someone removed the classified material from a separate secure network and sent it to Hilary.
We know from her other emails that, on more than one occasion, she requested that that be done.
And she's not just some low level clerk who doesn't understand what classified material is
or how it is handled. She had been the wife of the president so is certainly well aware of the
security surrounding classified material. And then she was Sec of State and obviously knew what
kind of information was classified. So to claim that the material wasn't marked, and therefore
she didn't know it was classified, is simply not credulous.
Berkeley2013 29 Jan 2016 22:46
And Clinton had a considerable number of unvetted people maintain and administer her communication
system. The potential for wrong doing in general and blackmail from many angles is great.
There's also the cost of this whole investigation. Why should US taxpayers have to pick up
the bill?
And the waste of good personnel time---a total waste...
Skip Breitmeyer -> simpledino 29 Jan 2016 22:29
In one sense you're absolutely right- read carefully this article (and the announcement leading
to it) raises at least as many questions as it answers, period. On the other hand, those ambiguities
are certain not to be resolved 'over-the-weekend' (nor before the first votes are cast in Iowa)
and thus the timing of the thing could not be more misfortunate for Ms. Clinton, nor more perfect
for maximum effect than if the timing had been deliberately planned. In fact I'm surprised there
aren't a raft of comments on this point. "Confirmed by the Obama administration..."? Who in the
administration? What wing of the administration? Some jack-off in the justice dept. who got 50,000
g's for the scoop? The fact is, I'm actually with Bernie over Hilary any day, but I admit to a
certain respect for her remarkable expertise and debate performances that have really shown the
GOP boys to be a bunch of second-benchers... And there's something a little dirty and dodgy that's
gone on here...
Adamnoggi dusablon 29 Jan 2016 22:23
SAP does not relate to To the level of classification. A special access program could be at
the confidential level or higher dependent upon content. Special access means just that, access
is granted on a case by case basis, regardless of classification level .
Gigi Trala La 29 Jan 2016 22:17
She is treated with remarkable indulgence. Anywhere with a sense of accountability she will
be facing prosecution, and yet here she is running for even higher office. In the middle of demonstrating
her unfitness.
eldudeabides 29 Jan 2016 22:15
Independent experts say it is highly unlikely that Clinton will be charged with wrongdoing,
based on the limited details that have surfaced up to now and the lack of indications that
she intended to break any laws.
since when has ignorance been a defence?
nataliesutler UzzDontSay 29 Jan 2016 22:05
Yes Petraeus did get this kind of scrutiny even though what he did was much less serious that
what Clinton did. this isn't about a rule change. And pretending it is isn't going to fool anyone.
Sam3456 kattw 29 Jan 2016 21:18
Thats a misunderstanding on your part First lets look at Hillary's statement in March:
"I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified
material. So I'm certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified
material."
She later adjusted her language to note that she never sent anything "marked" classified. So
already some Clinton-esque word parsing
And then what people said who used to do her job:
fellow diplomats and other specialists said on Thursday that if any emails were blatantly
of a sensitive nature, she could have been expected to flag it.
"She might have had some responsibility to blow the whistle," said former Ambassador Thomas Pickering,
"The recipient may have an induced kind of responsibility," Pickering added, "if they see something
that appears to be a serious breach of security."
It is a view shared by J. William Leonard, who between 2002 and 2008 was director of the Information
Security Oversight Office, which oversees the government classification system. He pointed out
that all government officials given a security clearance are required to sign a nondisclosure
agreement, which states they are responsible if secrets leak – whether the information was "marked
or not."
Finally whether they were marked or not the fact that an electronic copy resided on a server
in an insecure location was basically like her making a copy and bringing it home and plunking
it in a file cabinet...
beanierose -> dusablon 29 Jan 2016 21:08
Yeah - I just don't understand what Hillary is actually accused of doing / or not doing in
Benghazi. Was it that they didn't provide support to Stevens - (I think that was debunked) - was
it that they claimed on the Sunday talk shows that the video was responsible for the attack (who
cares). Now - I can think of an outrage - President Bush attacking Iraq on the specious claim
that they had WMD - that was a lie/incorrec/incompetence and it cost ~7000 US and 200K to 700K
Iraqi lives. Now - there's a scandal.
Stephen_Sean -> elexpatrioto 29 Jan 2016 21:07
The Secretary of State is
an "original classifier" of information. The individual holding that office is responsible
to recognize whether information is classified and to what level regardless if it is marked or
not. She should have known. She has no true shelter of ignorance here.
Stephen_Sean 29 Jan 2016 21:00
The Guardian is whistling through the graveyard. The FBI is very close to a decision to recommend
an indictment to the DOJ. At that point is up to POTUS whether he thinks Hillary is worth tainting
his entire Presidency to protect by blocking a DOJ indictment. His responsibility as an outgoing
President is to do what is best for his party and to provide his best attempt to get a Democrat
elected. I smell Biden warming up in the bullpen as an emergency.
The last thing the DNC wants is a delay if their is going to be an indictment. For an indictment
to come after she is nominated would be an unrecoverable blow for the Democrats. If their is to
be an indictment its best for it to come now while they can still get Biden in and maintain their
chances.
Sam3456 29 Jan 2016 20:57
In Section 7 of her NDA, Clinton agreed to return any classified information she gained
access to, and further agreed that failure to do so could be punished under Sections 793 and 1924
of the US Criminal Code.
According To § 793 Of Title 18 Of The US Code, anyone who willfully retains, transmits or causes
to be transmitted, national security information, can face up to ten years in prison.
According To § 1924 Of Title 18 Of The US Code, anyone who removes classified information "
with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location," can face up
to a year in prison.
The agreement considers information classified whether it is "marked or unmarked."
According to a State Department regulation in effect during Clinton's tenure (12 FAM 531), "classified
material should not be stored at a facility outside the chancery, consulate, etc., merely for
convenience."
Additionally, a regulation established in 2012 (12 FAM 533.2) requires that "each employee,
irrespective of rank must certify" that classified information "is not in their household or personal
effects."
As of December 2, 2009, the Foreign Affairs Manual has explicitly stated that "classified
processing and/or classified conversation on a PDA is prohibited."
kus art 29 Jan 2016 20:54
I'm assuming that the censored emails reveal activities that the US government is into are
Way more corrupt, insidious and venal as the the emails already exposed, which says a lot already...
Profhambone -> Bruce Hill 29 Jan 2016 20:53
Look, Hillary is sloppy about her affairs of state. She voted with Cheney for the Iraq
disaster and jumped in supporting it. It is the greatest foreign affair disaster since Viet Nam
and probably the greatest, period! She was a big proponent of getting rid of Khadaffi in Libya
and now we have radical Islamic anarchy ravaging the failed state. She was all for the Arab Spring
until the Muslim Brotherhood was voted into power in Egypt....which was replaced by yet another
military dictatorship we support. And she had to have her own private e-mail server and it got
used for questionable handling of state secrets. This is just Hillary being Hillary........
PsygonnUSA 29 Jan 2016 20:44
Its no secret that this hysterically ambitious Clinton woman is a warmonger and a hooker
for Wall Street . No need to read her e-mails, just check her record.
USfan 29 Jan 2016 20:41
Sorry to be ranting but what does it say about a country - in theory, a democracy - that is
implicated in so much questionable business around the world that we have to classify mountains
of communication as off-limits to the people, who are theoretically sovereign in this country?
We've all gotten quite used to this. In reality, it should freak us out much more than it does.
I'm not naive about what national security requires, but my sense is the government habitually
and routinely classifies all sorts of things the people of this country have every right to know.
Assuming this is still a democracy, which is perhaps a big assumption.
Neil Berkitt – a former banker (Lloyds, St George Bank) who then helped vulture capitalist
Richard Branson with Virgin Media.
David Pemsel – Former head of marketing at ITV.
Nick Backhouse – On the board of the bank of Queensland, formerly with Barings Bank.
Ronan Dunne – On the Telefónica Europe plc board, Chairman of Tesco Mobile. He has also
worked at Banque Nationale de Paris plc.
Judy Gibbons – Judy is currently a non-executive director of retail property kings Hammerson,
previously with O2, Microsoft, Accel Partners (venture capital), Apple and Hewlett Packard.
Jennifer Duvalier – Previously in management consultancy and banking.
Brent Hoberman – Old Etonian with fingers in various venture capital pies including car
rental firm EasyCar.
Nigel Morris – chairman of network digital marketing giants Aegis Media.
John Paton – CEO of Digital First Media – a very large media conglomerate which was sued
successfully in the U.S. for rigging advertising rates.
Katherine Viner – Startlingly not a banker, in marketing or venture capital. She is I gather
(gulp) a journalist.
Darren Singer – formerly with BSkyB, the BBC and Price Waterhouse Coopers
FirthyB 29 Jan 2016 20:36
Hillary is in that class, along with Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Bush, Cheney etc.. who believe
the rule of law only pertains to the little guys.
MooseMcNaulty -> dusablon 29 Jan 2016 20:28
The spying was illegal on a Constitutional basis. The Fourth Amendment protects our privacy
and prevents unlawful search and seizure. The government getting free access to the contents of
our emails seems the same as opening our mail, which is illegal without a court order.
The drone program is illegal based on the Geneva accords. We are carrying out targeted killings
within sovereign nations, usually without their knowledge or consent, based on secret evidence
that they pose a vaguely defined 'imminent threat'. It isn't in line with any international law,
though we set that precedent long ago.
makaio USfan 29 Jan 2016 20:08
What was exemplary about an unnecessary war, a dumbass victory speech three or so months
into it, the President's absence of support for his CIA agent outed by his staff, the President's
German Chancellor shoulder massage, the use of RNC servers and subsequently "lost" gazillion emails,
doing nothing in response to Twin Towers news, ditto for Katrina news, the withheld information
from the Tillman family, and sanctioned torture?
Those were just starter questions. I'm sure I missed things.
Another point that has perhaps not been covered sufficiently is the constant use of the
phrase "unsecured email server" - which is intentionally vague and misleading and was almost certainly
a phrase coined by someone who knows nothing about email servers or IT security and has been parroted
mindlessly by people who know even less and journalists who should know better.
As an IT professional the repeated use of a phrase like that is a red flag - it's like when
people who don't know what they're talking about latch on to a phrase which sounds technical because
it contains jargon or technical concepts and they use it to make it sound like they know what
they're talking about but it doesn't actually mean anything unless the context is clear and unambiguous.
The phrase is obviously being repeated to convey the impression of supreme negligence - that
sensitive state secrets were left defenceless and (gasp!) potentially accessible by anyone.
Yet the term "unsecured" has many different meanings and implications - in the context
of an email server it could mean that mail accounts are accessible without authentication, but
in terms of network security it could mean that the server somehow existed outside a firewall
or Virtual Private Network or some other form of physical or logical security.
Does this term "unsecured" mean the data on the server was not password-protected, does it
mean it was unencrypted, does it mean that it was totally unprotected (which is extremely unlikely
even if it was installed by an ignorant Luddite given that any modern broadband modem is also
a hardware firewall), and as for the "server" was it a physical box or a virtual server?
It is also extremely improbable that an email server would be the only device sharing that
network segment - of necessity there would at least be a file server and some means of communicating
with the outside world, most likely a router or a switch, which would by default have a built-in
hardware firewall (way more secure than a software firewall).
And regarding the "unsecured" part, how was the network accessed?
There are a huge number of possibilities as to the actual meaning and on its own there is not
enough information to deduce which - if any - is correct.
I suspect that someone who knows little to nothing about technology has invented this concept
based on ignorance a desire to imply malfeasance because on its own it really is a nonsense term.
seanet1310 -> Wallabyfan 29 Jan 2016 19:37
Nope. Like it or not Manning deliberately took classified information, smuggled it out and
gave it to foreign nationals.
Clinton it would appear mishandled classified material, at best she failed to realise the sensitive
nature and at worst actively took material from controlled and classified networks onto an unsecured
private network.
dusablon 29 Jan 2016 19:28
Classified material in the US is classified at three levels: confidential, secret, and top
secret. Those labels are not applied in a cavalier fashion. The release of TS information is considered
a grave threat to the security of the United States.
Above these classification levels is what is as known as Special Access Program information,
the release of which has extremely grave ramifications for the US. Access to SAP material is extremely
limited and only granted after an extensive personal background investigation and only on a 'need
to know' basis. You don't simply get a SAP program clearance because your employer thinks it would
be nice to have, etc. In fact, you can have a Top Secret clearance and never get a special access
program clearance to go with it.
For those of you playing at home, the Top Secret SAP material Hillary had on her server - the
most critical material the US can have - was not simply 'upgraded' to classified in a routine
bureaucratic exercise because it was previously unclassified.
Anything generated related to a SAP is, by it's mere existence, classified at the most
extreme level, and everyone who works on a SAP knows this intimately and you sign your life away
to acknowledge this.
What the Feds did in Hillary's case in making the material on her home-based server Top Secret
SAP was to bring those materials into what is known as 'accountability .'
That is, the material was always SAP material but it was just discovered outside a SAP lock-down
area or secure system and now it must become 'accountable' at the high classification level to
ensure it's protected from further disclosure.
Hillary and her minions have no excuse whatsoever for this intentional mishandling of this
critical material and are in severe legal jeopardy no matter what disinformation her campaign
puts out. Someone will or should go to prison. Period.
(Sorry for the length of the post)
Sam3456 -> Mark Forrester 29 Jan 2016 19:22
yeah appointed by Obama...John Kerry. His state department. John is credited on both sides
of the aisle of actually coming in and making the necessary changes to clean up the administrative
mess either created or not addressed by his predecessor.
Within weeks of taking the position JK implemented the OIG task forces recommendations to streamline
the process and make State run more in line with other government organizations. I think John
saw the "Sorry it snowed can't have you this info for a month" for what it was and acted out of
decency and fairness to the American people. I still think he looks like a hound and is a political
opportunist but you can't blame him for shenanigans here
chiefwiley -> DoktahZ 29 Jan 2016 19:18
The messages were "de-papered" by the staff, stripping them from their forms and headings and
then scanning and including the content in accumulations to be sent and stored in an unclassified
system. Taking the markings off of a classified document does not render it unclassified. Adding
the markings back onto the documents does not "declare" them classified. Their classified nature
was constant.
If you only have an unsecured system, it should never be used for official traffic, let alone
classified or special access traffic.
dusablon -> MtnClimber 29 Jan 2016 19:05
Give it up.
She used a private server deliberately to avoid FOIA requests, she deleted thousands of emails
after they were requested, and the emails that remained contained Top Secret Special Access Program
information, and it does not matter one iota whether or not that material was marked or whether
or not it has been recently classified appropriately.
chiefwiley -> Exceptionalism 29 Jan 2016 19:04
18USC Section793(f)
$250,000 and ten years.
dusablon -> MtnClimber 29 Jan 2016 19:00
False.
Anything related to a special access program is classified whether marked as such or not.
dalisnewcar 29 Jan 2016 18:58
You would figure that after all the lies of O'bomber that democrats might wake up some. Apparently,
they are too stupid to realize they have been duped even after the entire Middle Class has been
decimated and the wealth of the 1% has grown 3 fold under the man who has now bombed 7 countries.
And you folks think Clinton, who personally destroyed Libya, is going to be honest with you and
not do the same things he's done? Wake up folks. Your banging your head against the same old wall.
fanUS -> MtnClimber 29 Jan 2016 18:46
She is evil, because she helped Islamic State to rise.
Paul Christenson -> Barry_Seal 29 Jan 2016 18:45
20 - Barbara Wise - Commerce Department staffer. Worked closely with Ron Brown and John Huang.
Cause of death unknown. Died November 29, 1996. Her bruised, nude body was found locked in her
office at the Department of Commerce.
21 - Charles Meissner - Assistant Secretary of Commerce who gave John Huang special security
clearance, died shortly thereafter in a small plane crash.
22 - Dr. Stanley Heard - Chairman of the National Chiropractic Health Care Advisory Committee
died with his attorney Steve Dickson in a small plane crash. Dr. Heard, in addition to serving
on Clinton 's advisory council personally treated Clinton 's mother, stepfather and Brother.
23 - Barry Seal - Drug running TWA pilot out of Mean Arkansas , death was no accident.
24 - John ny Lawhorn, Jr. - Mechanic, found a check made out to Bill Clinton in the trunk of
a car left at his repair shop. He was found dead after his car had hit a utility pole.
25 - Stanley Huggins - Investigated Madison Guaranty. His death was a purported suicide and
his report was never released.
26 - Hershel Friday - Attorney and Clinton fundraiser died March 1, 1994, when his plane exploded.
27 - Kevin Ives & Don Henry - Known as "The boys on the track" case. Reports say the two boys
may have stumbled upon the Mena Arkansas airport drug operation. The initial report of death said
their deaths were due to falling asleep on railroad tracks and being run over. Later autopsy reports
stated that the 2 boys had been slain before being placed on the tracks. Many linked to the case
died before their testimony could come before a Grand Jury.
THE FOLLOWING PERSONS HAD INFORMATION ON THE IVES/HENRY CASE:
28 - Keith Coney - Died when his motorcycle slammed into the back of a truck, 7/88.
29 - Keith McMaskle - Died, stabbed 113 times, Nov 1988
30 - Gregory Collins - Died from a gunshot wound January 1989.
31 - Jeff Rhodes - He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump in April 1989. (Coroner
ruled death due to suicide)
32 - James Milan - Found decapitated. However, the Coroner ruled his death was due to natural
causes"?
33 - Jordan Kettleson - Was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup truck in June
1990.
34 - Richard Winters - A suspect in the Ives/Henry deaths. He was killed in a set-up robbery
July 1989.
THE FOLLOWING CLINTON PERSONAL BODYGUARDS ALL DIED OF MYSTERIOUS CAUSES OR SUICIDE
36 - Major William S. Barkley, Jr.
37 - Captain Scott J . Reynolds
38 - Sgt. Brian Hanley
39 - Sgt. Tim Sabel
40 - Major General William Robertson
41 - Col. William Densberger
42 - Col. Robert Kelly
43 - Spec. Gary Rhodes
44 - Steve Willis
45 - Robert Williams
46 - Conway LeBleu
47 - Todd McKeehan
And this list does not include the four dead Americans in Benghazi that Hillary abandoned!
Paul Christenson Barry_Seal 29 Jan 2016 18:42
THE MANY CLINTON BODY BAGS . . .
Someone recently reminded me of this list. I had forgotten how long it is. Therefore, this
is a quick refresher course, lest we forget what has happened to many "friends" and associates
of Bill and Hillary Clinton.
1- James McDougal - Convicted Whitewater partner of the Clintons who died of an apparent heart
attack, while in solitary confinement. He was a key witness in Ken Starr's investigation.
2 - Mary Mahoney - A former White House intern was murdered July 1997 at a Starbucks Coffee
Shop in Georgetown (Washington, D. C.). The murder happened just after she was to go public with
her story of sexual harassment by Clinton in the White House.
3 - Vince Foster - Former White House Councilor, and colleague of Hillary Clinton at Little
Rock 's Rose Law Firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, ruled a suicide. (He was about to
testify against Hillary related to the records she refused to turn over to congress.) Was reported
to have been having an affair with Hillary.
4 - Ron Brown - Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman. Reported to have died by impact
in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the investigation reported that there was a hole in the
top of Brown's skull resembling a gunshot wound. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated,
and spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors. The rest of the people on
the plane also died. A few days later the Air Traffic controller committed suicide.
5 - C. Victor Raiser, II - Raiser, a major player in the Clinton fund raising organization
died in a private plane crash in July 1992.
6 - Paul Tulley - Democratic National Committee Political Director found dead in a hotel room
in Little Rock on September 1992. Described by Clinton as a "dear friend and trusted advisor".
7 - Ed Willey - Clinton fundraiser, found dead November 1993 deep in the woods in VA of a gunshot
wound to the head. Ruled a suicide. Ed Willey died on the same day His wife Kathleen Willey claimed
Bill Clinton groped her in the oval office in the White House. Ed Willey was involved in several
Clinton fund raising events.
8 - Jerry Parks - Head of Clinton's gubernatorial security team in Little Rock .. Gunned down
in his car at a deserted intersection outside Little Rock . Park's son said his father was building
a dossier on Clinton . He allegedly threatened to reveal this information. After he died the files
were mysteriously removed from his house.
9 - James Bunch - Died from a gunshot suicide. It was reported that he had a "Black Book" of
people which contained names of influential people who visited Prostitutes in Texas and Arkansas
10 - James Wilson - Was found dead in May 1993 from an apparent hanging suicide. He was reported
to have ties to the Clintons ' Whitewater deals.
11 - Kathy Ferguson - Ex-wife of Arkansas Trooper Danny Ferguson , was found dead in May 1994,
in her living room with a gunshot to her head. It was ruled a suicide even though there were several
packed suitcases, as if she were going somewhere. Danny Ferguson was a co-defendant along with
Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones Lawsuit, and Kathy Ferguson was a possible corroborating witness
for Paula Jones.
12 - Bill Shelton - Arkansas State Trooper and fiancée of Kathy Ferguson. Critical of the suicide
ruling of his fiancée, he was found dead in June, 1994 of a gunshot wound also ruled a suicide
at the grave site of his fiancée.
13 - Gandy Baugh - Attorney for Clinton 's friend Dan Lassater, died by jumping out a window
of a tall building January, 1994. His client, Dan Lassater, was a convicted drug distributor.
14 - Florence Martin - Accountant & sub-contractor for the CIA, was related to the Barry Seal,
Mena , Arkansas Airport drug smuggling case. He died of three gunshot Wounds.
15 - Suzanne Coleman - Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was Arkansas Attorney
General. Died Of a gunshot wound to the back of the head, ruled a Suicide. Was pregnant at the
time of her death.
16 - Paula Grober - Clinton 's speech interpreter for the deaf from 1978 until her death December
9, 1992. She died in a one car accident.
17 - Danny Casolaro - Investigative reporter who was Investigating the Mean Airport and Arkansas
Development Finance Authority. He slit his wrists, apparently, in the middle of his investigation.
18 - Paul Wilcher - Attorney investigating corruption at Mean Airport with Casolaro and the
1980 "October Surprise" was found dead on a toilet June 22, 1993, in his Washington DC apartment.
Had delivered a report to Janet Reno 3 weeks before his death. (May have died of poison)
19 - Jon Parnell Walker - Whitewater investigator for Resolution Trust Corp. Jumped to his
death from his Arlington , Virginia apartment balcony August 15,1993. He was investigating the
Morgan Guaranty scandal.
Thijs Buelens -> honey1969 29 Jan 2016 18:41
Did the actors from Orange is the New Black already endorsed Hillary? Just wondering.
Sam3456 -> Sam3456 29 Jan 2016 18:35
Remember as soon as Snowden walked out the door with his USB drive full of secrets his was
in violation. Wether he knew the severity and classification or not.
Think of Hillary's email server as her home USB drive.
RedPillCeryx 29 Jan 2016 18:33
Government civil and military employees working with material at the Top Secret level are required
to undergo incredibly protracted and intrusive vetting procedures (including polygraph testing)
in order to obtain and keep current their security clearances to access such matter. Was Hillary
Clinton required to obtain a Top Secret clearance in the same way, or was she just waved through
because of Who She Is?
Sam3456 29 Jan 2016 18:32
Just to be clear, Colin Powell used a private email ACCOUNT which was hosted in the cloud and
used it only for personal use. He was audited (never deleted anything) and it was found to contain
no government records.
Hillary used a server, which means in electronic form the documents existed outside the State
Department unsecured. Its as if she took a Top Secret file home with her. That is a VERY BIG mistake
and as the Sec of State she signed a document saying she understood the rules and agreed to play
by them. She did not and removing state secrets from their secure location is a very serious matter.
Wether you put the actual file in your briefcase or have them sitting in electronic version on
your server.
Second, she signed a document saying she would return any and ALL documents and copies of documents
pertaining to the State Department with 30 (or 60 I can't remember) of leaving. The documents
on her server, again electronic copies of the top secret files, where not returned for 2 years.
Thats a huge violation.
Finally, there is a clause in classification that deals with the information that is top secret
by nature. Meaning regardless of wether its MARKED classified or not the very nature of the material
would be apparent to a senior official that it was classified and appropriate action would have
to be taken. She she either knew and ignored or did not know...and both of those scenarios don't
give me a lot of confidence.
Finally the information that was classified at the highest levels means exposure of that material
would put human operatives lives at risk. Something she accused Snowden of doing when she called
him a traitor. By putting that information outside the State Department firewall she basically
put peoples lives at risk so she could have the convenience of using one mobile device.
Wallabyfan -> MtnClimber 29 Jan 2016 18:10
Sorry you can delude yourself all you like but Powell and Cheney used private emails while
at work on secure servers for personal communications not highly classified communications and
did so before the 2009 ban on this practice came into place . Clinton has used a private unsecured
server at her home while Sec of State and even worse provided access to people in her team who
had no security clearance. She has also deleted more than 30,000 emails from the server in full
knowledge of the FBI probe. You do realise that she is going to end up in jail don't you?
MtnClimber -> boscovee 29 Jan 2016 18:07
Are you as interested in all of the emails that Cheney destroyed? He was asked to provide them
and never allowed ANY to be seen.
Typical GOP
Dozens die at embassies under Bush. Zero investigations. Zero hearings.
4 die at an embassy under Clinton. Dozens of hearings.
OurNigel -> Robert Greene 29 Jan 2016 17:53
Its not hard to understand, she was supposed to only use her official email account maintained
on secure Federal government servers when conducting official business during her tenure as Secretary
of State. This was for three reasons, the first being security the second being transparency and
the third for accountability.
Serious breach of protocol I'm afraid.
Talgen -> Exceptionalism 29 Jan 2016 17:50
Department responses for classification infractions could include counseling, warnings
or other action, officials said. They wouldn't say if Clinton or senior aides who've since
left government could face penalties. The officials weren't authorized to speak on the matter
and demanded anonymity."
You need to share that one with Petraeus, whos career was ruined and had to pay 100k in
fines, for letting some info slip to his mistress..
Wallabyfan 29 Jan 2016 17:50
No one here seems to be able to accept how serious this is. You cant downplay it. This is the
most serious scandal we have seen in American politics for decades.
Any other US official handling even 1 classified piece of material on his or her own unsecured
home server would have been arrested and jailed by now for about 50 years perhaps longer. The
fact that we are talking about 20 + (at least) indicates at the very least Clinton's hubris, incompetence
and very poor judgement as well as being a very serious breach of US law. Her campaign is doomed.
This is only the beginning of the scandal and I predict we will be rocked when we learn the
truth. Clinton will be indicted and probably jailed along with Huma Abedin who the FBI are also
investigating.
This is supposed to be the lady who (in her own words) has a huge experience of government
yet she willingly broke not just State Department protocols and procedures, by using a privately
maintained none secure server for her email service she also broke Federal laws and regulations
governing recordkeeping requirements.
At the very least this was a massive breach of security and a total disregard for established
rules whilst she was in office. Its not as if she was just some local government officer in a
backwater town she was Secretary of State for the United States government.
If the NSA is to be believed you should presume her emails could have been read by any foreign
state.
This is actually a huge story.
TassieNigel 29 Jan 2016 17:41
This god awful Clinton family had to be stopped somehow I suppose. Now if I'd done it, I'd
be behind bars long ago, so when will Hillary be charged is my question ?
Hillary made much of slinging off about the "traitor" Julian Assange, so let's see how Mrs
Clinton looks like behind bars. A woman simply incapable of telling the truth --
Celebrations for Bernie Sanders of course.
HiramsMaxim 29 Jan 2016 17:41
They also wouldn't disclose whether any of the documents reflected information that was
classified at the time of transmission,
Has nothing to do with anything. Maybe the author should read the actual NDA signed by Mrs.
Clinton.
If every corrupt liar was sent to prison there'd be no one left in Washington, or Westminster
and we'd have to have elections with ordinary people standing, instead of the usual suspects from
the political class. Which, on reflection, sounds quite good !
In_for_the_kill 29 Jan 2016 17:15
Come on Guardian, this should be your lead story, the executive branch of the United States
just confirmed that a candidate for the Presidency pretty much broke the law, knowingly. If that
ain't headline material, then I don't know what is.
dusablon -> SenseCir 29 Jan 2016 17:09
Irrelevant?
Knowingly committing a felony by a candidate for POTUS is anything but irrelevant.
And forget her oh-so-clever excuses about not sending or receiving anything marked top secret
or any other level of classification including SAP. If you work programs like those you know that
anything generated related to that program is automatically classified, whether or not it's marked
as such. And such material is only shared on a need to know basis.
She's putting out a smokescreen to fool the majority of voters who have never or will never
have special access. She is a criminal and needs to be arrested. Period.
Commentator6 29 Jan 2016 17:00
It's a reckless arrogance combined with the belief that no-one can touch her. If she does
become the nominee Hillary will be an easy target for Trump. It'll be like "shooting fish in a
barrel".
DismayedPerplexed -> OnlyOneView 29 Jan 2016 16:40
Are you forgetting W and his administration's 5 million deleted emails?
Consider that email is an indispensable tool in doing one's job. Consider that in order to
effectively do her job, candidate Clinton -- as the Secretary of State -- had to be sending and
receiving Top Secret documents. Consider that all of her email was routed through a personal server.
Consider whether she released all of the relevant emails. Well, she claimed she did but the evidence
contradicts such a claim. Consider that this latest news release has -- like so many others --
been released late on a Friday.
It is obvious that the Secretary of State and the President should be communicating on
a secure network controlled by the federal government. It is obvious that virtually none of these
communications were done in a secure manner. Consider whether someone who contends this is irrelevant
has enough sense to come in out of the rain.
The truth is the Democratic Party is dominated by neoliberals and became just a left wing of
Republican party. They sold themselves to Walll street and now they despite common folk much
like republicans do. As gore vidal aptly noted: "There is one political party in this country,
and that is the party of money. It has two branches, the Republicans and the Democrats, the
chief difference between which is that the Democrats are better at concealing their scorn for
the average man."
But it turns out that mainstream Democrats believe just the opposite – that with the GOP spiraling,
the party should now brook even less dissent within their ranks. They'd like a primary season with
no debate at all, apparently.
This isn't about Hillary. The lesser evil argument has been a consistent feature of Democratic
Party thought dating all the way back to the late Reagan years, long before Hillary Clinton was herself
a candidate. The argument always hits the same notes:
The essentially antiwar, anti-inequality platform progressives want will never win a national
election in this country, because McGovern, etc.
Therefore we must instead support corporate-sponsored Candidate A, who will help us bridge the
fundraising gap with the evil Republicans.
And we should vote for Candidate A anyway, because even though he doesn't always (or even often)
show it with his votes, deep down, he's a true believer on the issues.
Frank hit all of these notes in his piece, with special emphasis on point #3. He insisted that
people like Hillary, John Kerry and Joe Biden didn't mean it when they voted for the Iraq War, that
they only did it out of political expediency. "I regard liberal senators' support for the Iraq War
as a response to a given fraught political situation," Frank wrote, "rather than an indication of
their basic policy stance."
... ... ...
It's not an accident that The Daily Show turned into the most trusted political news program
in America during the Bush years. When the traditional lefty media became so convinced by the "lesser
evil" argument that it lost its sense of humor about the Democratic Party, people had to flee to
comedy shows for objective news.
Even worse, a lot of Democratic-leaning campaign reporters are to this day so convinced by the
lesser evil argument that they go out of their way to sabotage/ridicule candidates who don't fit
their idea of a "credible" opponent for Republicans.
I've seen this countless times, usually with candidates like Dennis Kucinich who didn't have a
real chance of winning the Democratic nomination (although early 2004 frontrunner Howard Dean
also fell into this
category). Sanders, who was ludicrously
called
the Trump of the left by bloviating Meet the Press hack Chuck Todd last week, is another
longshot type getting the royal treatment by "serious" pundits now.
But framing every single decision solely in terms of its utility in beating the Republicans leads
to absurdities. Not every situation is a ballot with Ralph Nader on it.
The Democrats insisted they had to support the Iraq War in order to compete with Bush, but they
ended up not competing with Bush anyway and supporting a crappy war that no sane person believed
in. All it won Democratic voters in the end was a faster trip into Iraq, and the honor of having
supported the war at the ballot box.
When the Democrats had a legitimate electoral threat in the Republicans to wave in front of their
voters, they used that as currency to buy their voters' indulgence as they deregulated Wall Street,
widened the drug war, abandoned unions in favor of free-trade deals and other horrors, and vastly
increased the prison population, among
innumerable other things.
But now that the rival electoral threat is mostly gone, they want permission to take the whole
primary season off so they can hoard their money for massive ad buys targeting swing votes in Tennessee
or whatever. In other words, even though the road ahead is easier for them, they want increased latitude
to take their core voters for granted.
The Democrats could take this godsend of a Trump situation and use it as an opportunity to finally
have a healthy primary season debate about what they want to stand for in the future. But nah to
that. They'll probably just hoover donor cash and use press surrogates to bash progressives the way
they always have. Trump or no Trump, if politicians don't have to work for your vote, they won't.
"... Lets just cut to the chase. The Guardian is trying to downplay what was said, but what Obama is doing is making it crystal clear that he wants Hillary as the nominee. He didnt out and out endorse her but he may as well have. And he will eventually formally endorse her. He knows that if the Dems made the drastic mistake of nominating the socialist Sanders, all of his accomplishments would be for naught because the result would be a Republican president that would undo everything hes done. ..."
"... Like Hillary Clinton, President Obama operates in the vein of Third Way, Neoliberal, corporatist, Democratic politicians. ..."
"... For example, during his first campaign, Barack Obama promised to include all stakeholders as he sought to reform Americas health care system. He also released an ad called Billy in which he derided a congressional Bill that prevents Medicare from negotiating prescription drug prices and promised that if elected, he would to end that practice. ..."
"... But once elected, Obama held closed door meetings with Big PhRma and other corporate lobbyists fighting to secure their lock on health care delivery and financing. ..."
"... After the House passed health care reform legislation under Nancy Pelosis leadership, which included the Public Option - previously subscribed to by Barack Obama during the campaign, the legislation stalled in the Senate where it was then secretly worked on by a so-called gang of six headed by Senator Max Baucus. Baucus, who had publicly come out against both the Public Option and universal health care met often with Obamas team and health care industry lobbyists to craft the final Bill. Obama turned the entire health care reform process which was based on a previous Conservative health care Bill and implemented by Governor Mitt Romney, over to Baucus team which then held up the Bill for nearly a year while negotiating with health care industry leaders and Big PhRma who literally wrote much of the actual Bill. ..."
"... Senator Byron Dorgan fought tirelessly to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices and to allow the public to purchase re-imported prescription meds at reduced cost. Many Republicans crossed over to vote for his Bill. However, the Obama administration - which was secretly negotiating with Big PhRma to come up with a health care Bill they approved us - fought Dorgans efforts tooth and nail - until the Bill was defeated. Following the defeat of his efforts to change how Medicare pays for prescription medications were defeated by the Obama administration, Senator Dorgan announced he would not seek reelection to office in 2010. ..."
"... Carter was a feckless president who chose bad advisers -- rather like Obama -- but unlike Obama Carter always had a fundamental sense of decency. Take away the ambition and Obama is an empty suit. ..."
"... Obama doesnt want to antagonize Sanders supporters, but his carefully worded comments can nevertheless be summed up as: one neoliberal hand washing the other. ..."
"... Yep Hillary is so wicked smart she claims that she was tricked by George W Bush into voting for the Iraq War. Seriously? If shes dumb enough to be tricked by Dubya, shes not smart in the least, shes an easily tricked fool. Further proof? ..."
"... Wow, what a total liar. Shame on you Obama, you should keep out of the primary race, you only discredit yourself. You would know progressive if you ate it and puked it out later than ate it again. ..."
"... ...about tax reform that does not benefit the richest. It is not just about tax reform but more broadly about economic policy and lack of criminal prosecution of financial fraud that Obamas administration has fostered, which has been a windfall for the richest, which is hypocritical in the extreme. ..."
"... The economic policies of the mainstream centrist compromisers you seek would have been regarded as extreme rightwing by a Republican president like Eisenhower. (Whose New Deal consensus policies helped establish the largest and most affluent middle class the world has ever seen). ..."
"... You can almost hear the President worrying that Bernie Sanders will use the peoples mandate that he himself squandered and actually fulfill the empty promises of the Obama administration. ..."
"... Obama is right. Hillary is indeed tried and tested. But do the results warrant her becoming president? What are her standout achievements as either senator or secretary of state? ..."
"... No one is listening to Barry Obama, as he preferred to be called at university. He only became Barak when he entered politics. ..."
"... Obama and Clinton pretend to be liberals but their first priority is to serve the needs of the upper class, and provide only table scraps to the rest of us. ..."
" Sanders the socialist dreamer and Clinton the seasoned doer. " Said the Author of this article.
Bernie sanders has the best record for moving bills through the house in its history. He is
the "doer" Clinton is the one who takes $600 thousand from Goldman Sachs for cosy dinner chats
then says she will be tough on wall-street.
Bernie sanders is the candidate who voted against every majore deregulation of the financial
market over the past 20 years including the removal of glass steagle that helped crash the system.
the only legislation he voted for was not infact a financial bill As mrs Clinton said during the
last debate, but was a seperate bill that HER HUSBAND BILL CLINTON WROTE, and tacked on 15 minutes
before the hearing. The rest of the bill was important containing various funding measures and
sanders had no choice but to pass it with the inclusion.
the inclusion was the deregulation and removal of oversite for Credit default swaps. Bill wrote,
she wanted, they played dirty, and now she blames sanders for it.
Bernie 2016. You will be saving my country as much as yours.
True, but also, thankfully, living in not only the Age of Information, but in a world where generations
have come to maturity and are now fluent with the powers granted by said Age, any establishment
tar and feathers (its already being done) can be quickly dismissed as baseless defamations. Young
people know all the cliché mass media gimmicks, and when it comes to the integrity of their democracy,
and leadership, they are collectively sick and tired of establishment media politics-as-usual.
The more desperately the cronies try to slander Sanders, the more inspired becomes his support-
for they see the fight for the future is real, and the future is theirs.
President Obama is not dumb at all he knows how to use language perfectly, now the question is
why would he say this about Hillary Clinton she's "wicked smart" mind for policy. Now the word
wicked is an adjective that describes the noun smart. Wicked means, evil or morally wrong, intended
to or capable of harming someone or something, extremely unpleasant. Now the word smart means
intelligence; acumen. Now let me talk about the mind because policy comes out of the mind of people.
The mind is the element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences,
to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought. Now what kind of wickedness comes
out of the mind of Hillary Clinton? She destroyed Libya and got Colonel Gaddafi killed and her
famous statement was " We Came, We Saw, and He DIED" That is wicked.....Truth has come to you~
People need to wake up about the delusion that Hillary is more likely to get things done. The
Republicans disagree with everything Bernie stands for, but they HATE Hillary. If she offered
a cure for cancer, the Republicans would reject it.
If she is the Democratic nominee, the GOP will retain control of Congress. If she wins in November
(and that is a big "if"), the Republicans' obstructionism will surpass even what they have done
with Obama. Any cooperation with her would result in that Congressperson being defeated in the
next GOP primary, and they know that.
Bernie Sanders is a traditional New Deal Democrat; he has called himself a "democratic socialist,"
but FDR was labeled a socialist, too, for proposing many of the same things. Hillary would attempt
far less and fail to achieve even that.
The polls prove that Bernie is more electable, and his record shows that he is more trustworthy
and committed to the people rather than to his own ambition. I pray that Americans do not once
again choose to vote against their own self-interest out of fear and timidity.
that is because 9 out of 10 republicans I meet in my field (construction) think socialism is communism.
And these are the same people who are in a union too. All bitch about how expensive health care
is yet willing to boot the affordable care act out to touch because the republicans say its unconstitutional.
I don't think you can underestimate the power of the US establishment that has promoted the idea
that any social enlightenment is that dreaded thing called socialism. If challenged, the establishment
will tar Bernie with that brush up one side and down the other. Too bad.
Let's just cut to the chase. The Guardian is trying to downplay what was said, but what Obama
is doing is making it crystal clear that he wants Hillary as the nominee. He didn't out and out
endorse her but he may as well have. And he will eventually formally endorse her. He knows that
if the Dems made the drastic mistake of nominating the socialist Sanders, all of his accomplishments
would be for naught because the result would be a Republican president that would undo everything
he's done.
Rubbish. Sanders was Mayor of a city, improving many aspects of local life, and was well-regarded
by other mayors; he has been elected to Congress on many occasions (and American politicians are
usually elected on their personal qualities), and while in Congress has had many proposals accepted
by both Democrats and Republicans. His answers to questions on television are in-depth. He strikes
me as a clever and decent man who would be good at the job.
Corbyn has been elected several times in a constituency which would elect a bull terrier if
it wore a red rosette, has never held any spokesman responsibilities, and associated with terrorists
while they were actively engaged in bombing this country. On more than one occasion he has simply
refused to take questions from journalists because he does not like being questioned. Frankly
he strikes me as a halfwit.
Sanders and Corbyn are not alike, except in that they represent the left wing of their parties;
we could do with our own Bernie over here
Imagine you are an American voter highly alienated from the political status quo . You
are disgusted by the cosy relationship between big money and politics. You feel yourself getting
worse and worse off every year. There is no candidate more representative of said status quo
than Hillary Clinton, none at all. She is Wall Street's candidate par excellence .
You do not want to vote for Hillary Clinton.
Donald Trump, on the other hand, is articulating many of your beliefs, fears, and, yes, prejudices.
You know that he has no truck with what you perceive to be America's corrupt path. So if the choice
is Clinton vs. Trump, you vote for Trump.
Bernie Sanders identifies many of the same fundamental problems with Americans politics as
Trump, but whereas Trump is, well Donald Trump, a demagogic blowhard lunatic who dreamed of marrying
Princess Diana, not to mention a complete opportunist, Sanders seems principled and well-intentioned.
There is also the fact that Sanders has achieved quite a few things in office (respected Mayor,
successful negotiator in Congress, where he has served for a long time, unlike Trump, an actually
very bad businessman, and Clinton, whose experience amounts to "married to Bill [for which she
admittedly deserves the Victoria Cross] then did soe other jobs cos I was married to Bill, in
neither of which I was particularly successful"). Faced with a choice of Sanders vs. Trump, you
vote for Sanders.
This hunch- that people who support Trump are disillusioned voters who may be inclined to vote
for Sanders- was borne out by polls which shows Clinton narrowly beating Trump, and Sanders winning
by a larger margin.
Conventional wisdom- that a more "extreme" candidate (Sanders) is less electable than a moderate
(Clinton)- does not really apply here. Conservative America has hated Hillary since those snide
remarks about Tammy Wynette and baking cookies in 1992; ask my Tennessee country music friends.
She isn't going to win any more votes than Obama has. Sanders, meanwhile, can tap into the real
frustration of so many Americans, who would otherwise support Trump. And for those who compare
Sanders to Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie doesn't have the baggage Corbyn does- at the same time as Jezza
was making positive noises about the IRA, Bernie was turning Burlington into one of the best cities
in America.
Want to elect a Democrat in November? Vote for Bernie Sanders.
Not so hidden message, Obama wants Hillary to be president. Not such a surprise as both Obama
and Hillary support the same ideals, have the same values and put corporations before people.
He's not talking about socialism. He's talking about rules for the economy that apply to everyone.
It does require confrontation with interest groups that have held the reigns for too long.
This makes some people nervous, and they start blabbing about socialism.
The fact is, the economy only exists in any beneficial form at all because of regulations,
rules, laws, and courts. Try doing any financial transaction without the laws on contracts in
force. Whenever economies run without rules (enforced) they self destruct.
The labels are pretty meaningless; "socialism." It basically has no meaning, just like "free
market." It's a word relating a concept with no existence in the real world.
Hopefully Mr. Sanders can reframe the debate.
Reasonable rules that apply to all creates prosperity.
Obama benefited from a similar luxury. His florid speeches of the time suggested a revolutionary
agenda which he had no intention of carrying out. Hillary as a dyed in the wool old school politician
made up of money and ambition was no match. The outcome however did us no good. Hillary should
at least pretend to have some principles and morality.
You know, sometimes I was interested in how it is possible that such tiny molecules such as DNA
can cause the creation of even such giant creatures as elephants or whales, or create enough energy
for such lightning reactions of a tiger or lion. And reading something about it, all I could figure
out is that they're doing it over a catalysts.
Thus, the DNA creates a biochemical catalysts that stimulate the production of specific proteins
and other substances necessary for the normal functioning, growth and the creation of new cells.
And in a broader sense, the catalyst is the name for a chemical compound that accelerates a chemical
reaction, but does not enter into union with other compounds, nor he himself is changing.
So, keeping in mind the above mentioned, we can say that the role of a true political leader
is to be a "catalyst" of the political processes, and that causes and accelerates the political
reactions of the broad masses. Also, as every true political "catalyst", the true leader of the
people must not change himself, or that he "turns as the wind blows", that is to say, the political
leader must have integrity.
Therefore, if you ask me, who is more in line with this definition of the leader of the people
as a "political catalyst," I would say that it's Bernie Sanders rather than Hillary Clinton.
Obama was once also a good political "catalyst", but in the meantime he lost a lot of its "catalytic"
capabilities. And anyway he changed himself, even literally, as can be seen from its image, which
is something that a true "catalyst" must not allow to himself.:-)
In fact, Obama has changed so much that now "he looks" more like Hillary Clinton than like he
himself in 2008. So people are now asking themselves, "What for was such a big fuss in 2008?
You're referring to his use of the term "Democratic Socialism"? Then you haven't the slightest
clue what socialism is.
Socialism is the other leg on which capitalism operates. Without a sound socialist base, capitalism
cannot thrive. The worker pool is oxygen to capitalism, and by failing to account for the worker,
it starves itself.
Equally, and opposite, without capitalism, socialism on its own cannot thrive, because there
is no ever-reinventing free enterprise to generate wealth.
Socialism may be coupled with many other political ideals, but it is not, on its own, a political
ideal.
The elites both from the RNC and DNC are scared of Sanders. Circling the wagons to defend their
rich pals who are milking this country
The establishment is holding tight. Obama is thinking of his own soft post Presidential landing.
Hanging out with Clintons and their billionaire friends is good strategy. HRC will never win with
Trump, but she will be less angry at Obama, when he leaves office. When Obama leaves, both clans
can then make some good sweet money in return for their past services.
'It is good if we are attacked by the enemy, since it proves that we have drawn a clear line
of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves. It is still better if the enemy attacks us wildly
and paints us as utterly black and without a single virtue; it demonstrates that we have not only
drawn a clear line of demarcation between the enemy and ourselves but achieved a great deal in
our work.' -- Mao Tse-tung, May 1939.
Obama turned the entire health care reform process which was based on a previous Conservative
health care Bill and implemented by Governor Mitt Romney, over to Baucus' team which then held
up the Bill for nearly a year while negotiating with health care industry leaders and Big PhRma
who literally wrote much of the actual Bill.
Certainly explains why it is such a complicated mess. Got to protect all the profit interests
ahead of the personal interests of the public.
Like Hillary Clinton, President Obama operates in the vein of Third Way, Neoliberal, corporatist,
Democratic politicians.
For example, during his first campaign, Barack Obama promised to include all stakeholders
as he sought to reform America's health care system. He also released an ad called "Billy" in
which he derided a congressional Bill that prevents Medicare from negotiating prescription drug
prices and promised that if elected, he would to end that practice.
But once elected, Obama held closed door meetings with Big PhRma and other corporate lobbyists
fighting to secure their lock on health care delivery and financing.
After the House passed health care reform legislation under Nancy Pelosi's leadership,
which included the Public Option - previously subscribed to by Barack Obama during the campaign,
the legislation stalled in the Senate where it was then secretly worked on by a so-called "gang
of six" headed by Senator Max Baucus. Baucus, who had publicly come out against both the Public
Option and universal health care met often with Obama's team and health care industry lobbyists
to craft the final Bill. Obama turned the entire health care reform process which was based on
a previous Conservative health care Bill and implemented by Governor Mitt Romney, over to Baucus'
team which then held up the Bill for nearly a year while negotiating with health care industry
leaders and Big PhRma who literally wrote much of the actual Bill. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Six
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-blumenthal/the-legacy-of-billy-tauzi_b_460358.html
Senator Byron Dorgan fought tirelessly to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices and to allow
the public to purchase re-imported prescription meds at reduced cost. Many Republicans crossed
over to vote for his Bill. However, the Obama administration - which was secretly negotiating
with Big PhRma to come up with a health care Bill they approved us - fought Dorgan's efforts tooth
and nail - until the Bill was defeated. Following the defeat of his efforts to change how Medicare
pays for prescription medications were defeated by the Obama administration, Senator Dorgan announced
he would not seek reelection to office in 2010.
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/229397-republicans-senators-slam-obama-on-drug-reimportation
https://moderateinthemiddle.wordpress.com/tag/dorgan-reimportation-of-prescription-drugs-amendment
/
Carter was a feckless president who chose bad advisers -- rather like Obama -- but unlike
Obama Carter always had a fundamental sense of decency. Take away the ambition and Obama is an
empty suit.
Obama pulled troops out of Iraq -- temporarily -- because of a withdrawal agreement his predecessor
had signed with the Iraqi puppet government. In fact, Obama tried to keep the troops in Iraq in
spite of the agreement, but the Iraqis would have none of it.
Obama promised but didn't deliver. In the end resigning he couldn't change the system. Just because
he gave up doesn't mean we the people give up. We are sick and tired of corporations and politicians
hijacking the democratic system and enriching themselves in the process.
But he lauded her experience: "It means that she can govern and she can start here, day
one, more experienced than any non-vice-president has ever been who aspires to this office."
I think that every man, before becoming president of the country, should assume office of the
Mayor of a small town, to show what he knows and what he can do.
Sort of like Bernie, who was mayor of Burlington, where he proved to be really good, as you can
learn in detail from
this article . Since there is no need to describe in detail the full article (you have the
link and read it for yourself if you're interested), I will quote only this part from the end
of the article:
Burlington is now widely heralded as an environmentally friendly, lively and livable city
with a thriving economy, including one of the lowest jobless rates in the country. Burlingtonians
give Sanders credit for steering the city in a new direction that, despite early skepticism,
proved to be broadly popular with voters.
A growing number of cities -- including Seattle, New York, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, Los Angeles,
Minneapolis, Newark and others -- are now led by progressive mayors. They are adopting municipal
minimum wage laws, requiring developers to build mixed-income housing, strengthening regulations
against corporate polluters, and enacting other policies to address the nation's growing economic
inequality and environmental crises.
Obama doesn't want to antagonize Sanders supporters, but his carefully worded comments can
nevertheless be summed up as: one neoliberal hand washing the other.
Which doesn't matter since it holds little sway with the young. Bernie represents change, and
he's going to win the primary based on a phenomenal turnout from the 18-29 voters.
I mean I tend side with the Republicans more on immigration. Of course, I don't want to deport
all illegal aliens, but I do think the US should actively defend our border and actually try and
track/record those staying longer than their visas allow. But I do want to see a reasonable path
to citizenship. I also side more with the GOP on gun ownership rights and taxation. Trump is absolutely
a racism, sexist and everything else - totally agree with you on that. But perhaps the best thing
he's done to this election is to allow for non-PC debate so that we can get to the core of the
issues.
In a lot of ways, I'd kind of like to see a Rand Paul / Bernie Sanders ticket. Impossible I
know. But in so many ways, they're opposites and yet in other ways their ideas compliment each
other quite nicely. For example, Bernie's stance on Wall Street nicely fits with Rand's stand
on the Federal Reserve.
He also gently suggested that Clinton's "wicked smart"
Yep Hillary is so wicked smart she claims that she was tricked by George W Bush into voting
for the Iraq War. Seriously? If she's dumb enough to be tricked by Dubya, she's not smart in the
least, she's an easily tricked fool. Further proof?
How many times did Bill Clinton get away with cheating on her and she just went along with it?
How many times did she believe "Oh no honey, it just looked like we were having sex, you don't
understand"?
Hillary Clinton is just not that smart, she's been over her head for a long time now and should
move on to the role of "grandma".
and in a culture in which new is always better...
Sanders "has the virtue of saying exactly what he believes, and great authenticity, great passion,
and is fearless", he said.
Of course that Bernie is authentic. Or more precisely, Bernie is an authentic American, because
he has all the attributes of the original settlers and American pioneers.
Faith in God and in yourself, and fearlessness, what else was needed for the people who embarked
on a journey to a new continent in search of a better life.
As for the "culture in which new is always better", it also does not go without fear. The guy
who discovered America, Christopher Columbus, explained this to his sailors in a very simple way.
He said, "Every man is afraid to do something for the first time. But those who overcome fear
will rightly earn their reward."
You can watch it at 9:07 of this
clip from the movie Conquest
of Paradise .
"Hillary is really idealistic and progressive," he said, adding that "they're both passionate
about giving everybody a shot" on education, and about tax reform that does not benefit the
richest.
Wow, what a total liar. Shame on you Obama, you should keep out of the primary race, you
only discredit yourself. You would know "progressive" if you ate it and puked it out later than
ate it again.
"...about tax reform that does not benefit the richest." It is not just about tax reform but
more broadly about economic policy and lack of criminal prosecution of financial fraud
that Obama's administration has fostered, which has been a windfall for the richest, which
is hypocritical in the extreme.
The economic policies of the mainstream 'centrist' compromisers you seek would have been regarded
as extreme rightwing by a Republican president like Eisenhower. (Whose New Deal consensus policies
helped establish the largest and most affluent middle class the world has ever seen).
Bernie Sanders's campaign is a genuine grassroots campaign. There are no corporate donors,
expecting payback from their bought-and-paid-for candidate, once he achieves office. Bernie genuinely
is a 'people's' candidate.
Hillary Clinton's campaign is the opposite. Big business donors galore, from Wall Street to
the pharmaceutical industry, from private health insurance companies to big energy. Hillary is
the corporate candidate of the Democratic race - and her funders will expect returns on their
investments, were she to reach the White House.
As Mayor of Burlington, Bernie Sanders "turned out to be a pragmatic and efficient administrator,
one so fiscally conservative that some Republicans say he managed to 'out-Republican the Republicans.'"
By building coalitions among initially-unwilling City leaders, Sanders achieved much of the
Republicans' cost-cutting, tax-lowering, and commerce-revitalizing agenda -- an agenda that they
themselves had been unable to achieve. Little wonder then, that "after he won his fourth term
in 1987, US News and World Report voted him one of the top 20 mayors in the United States."
You can almost hear the President worrying that Bernie Sanders will use the people's mandate
that he himself squandered and actually fulfill the empty promises of the Obama administration.
I especially love the "I got nothing to lose" bit, since Bernie Sanders has repeatedly expressed
that he has EVERYTHING to lose -- his everything being the best interests of the American people.
Why the heck does the President think that Sanders is running as a Democrat and not an Independent?
Why the heck has he repeatedly expressed his fear of running at all, lest he fail his progressive
ideals and just further secure the status quo?
If Clinton is that smart why is she being investigated by the FBI? Her problem is that she has
always thought that she is smarter than she is. Her arrogance and sense of entitlement will finally
catch up with her.
Obama is right. Hillary is indeed tried and tested. But do the results warrant her becoming
president? What are her standout achievements as either senator or secretary of state?
"Hillary is really idealistic and progressive,"
She is neither of those two.
"His attitude is, 'I got nothing to lose.'"
No, it isn't. His attitude is a lifetime of authenticity. And anyway you have to have something
before you can lose it. Not realising a potentiality is not the same as losing.
"Clinton's "wicked smart"" - emphasis on the wicked .
"It means that she can govern and she can start here, day one, more experienced than any non-vice-president
has ever been who aspires to this office." - translation: she can do a great job maintaining things
just as they are now.
"But he admitted that over seven years, he realizes theater has its uses: "And you know what,
some of the presidency is performance."" - riiiiight... ok.
I think that people under estimate Sanders. He's spent decades up on Capitol Hill and he knows
the machinations of the House and Senate like the back of his hand. Like the Congressional veteran
LBJ before him Sanders could prove to be a real 'sonofabitch' when trying to get his way through
Congress if he finds himself in the Oval Office . He knows how American politicians think and
work but he's never sold out his political soul for power.
He is playing coy while all the time supporting Clinton! It is very clear by his statements! This
is NOT a surprise although as he is NOT a progressive himself!! He is as much a part of the established
money machine as Clinton is! What he is failing to understand is that he got where he is today
NOT because of that machine but in the same way as Bernie through the grass-roots support and
contributions of US the PEOPLE something he forgot almost as soon as he took office!
No one is listening to "Barry" Obama, as he preferred to be called at university. He only
became "Barak" when he entered politics.
The reason liberals are excited about Sanders and dislike Clinton is that they are disappointed
with Obama, who promised so much, but did so little.
Obama and Clinton pretend to be liberals but their first priority is to serve the needs
of the upper class, and provide only table scraps to the rest of us.
A good example is Obama's health care initiative. He allowed private insurance corporations
to write the legislation, which is why it is so expensive and leaves millions with no access to
health care.
And to Obama, this is his proudest accomplishment.
[A]lthough Obama said he understood Sanders' appeal, he downplayed any similarities between
his upstart 2008 campaign and the 73-year-old senator's surprise popularity with diverse and
young voters.
"I think Bernie came in with the luxury of being a complete long shot and just letting loose,"
Obama said.
And you did not, Mr. President -- you who had far less experience than Senator/Former Representative/Former
Mayor Sanders?!
The fact of the matter is that, although you pretend to be fair minded and neutral, you are
not. And you have not been since you appointed Debbie Wasserman Schultz as the chair of the Democratic
National Committee.
Out-of-character signs of intelligence from Obama. But he still doesn't dare speak the truth of
oligarchical destruction of the American Way like Sanders does. Obama prances around words
like this which make the entitled nervous.
"... In November, if you dont live in a battleground state, your vote will not tip the outcome...better to vote your conscience and register your disgust with the corrupt duopoly. ..."
"... Any president will need a staff and mostly, that will come from people working in the Obama administration. Bernie talks about Stiglitz, but he is 72, almost as old as Bernie. He mentioned Reich who was part of the same Clinton administration that Bernie constantly bashes. ..."
"... Much of the dereg came about in trade for other policies. I dont know that a Bernie administration would be much different. Bernie would need to swallow hard and take a heavy dose of GOP poison to get a budget, much less pass reform legislation. ..."
"... Dont say the Tea Party changed nothing - they changed themselves. Remember that they were created in disgust over Wall Street. After they got elected you would be hard pressed to find more ardent supporters of any and all legislation that support the rich. ..."
"... Bernie is settling for social democracy. That is still better than neoliberal theocracy. ..."
"... Exactly. Its all political posturing for the primaries. Like Obama, shell revert to a neoliberal stooge the moment she takes office. ..."
"... Her first action will be to find some hapless, third world country to intervene in to prove that she has cojones. Libya redux. ..."
"... Paleoconservatives oppose military interventionism. Boots on the ground would be neoconservative. ..."
"... Neoconservative is just neoliberal with a more aggressive boots on the ground foreign policy or imperialism ..."
"... Paleoconservatives are more isolationist than free traders. They still love their corporations and rich people, but they dont like crony capitalism as a principle even if as a reality they are open to setting a price. Trump is leaning paleoconservative, at least in his campaign rhetoric. ..."
"... Whatever it takes to prove that she the toughest warrior since Catherine the Great... ..."
"... Exactly. She is yet another neocon, masking as a Democrat. She is more jingoistic then probably half of Republican candidates. ..."
"... What to do when a candidate is called unelectable because of their support for the policies that you yourself support? ..."
"... Well you have to decide whether you want to be a heroic loser or get half a loaf. I agree that it is a very difficult question. ..."
"... You nailed it. No one ever said democracy would be easy. ..."
"... And he cautionary tale is that the heroic losers got us 8 years of Bush II - and all the disasters he managed to create in that time. ..."
"... No What is means is that there are a lot of people who realize that public opinion polls mean absolutely nothing. ..."
"... What is ironic about this election cycle more than others is that Republicans dominate the elected offices, so they have essentially total control of government, especially in the poorest States, but they blame Obama for things that are local to these States like teen pregnancy, school drop outs, poverty, high unemployment, crime, felons, unemployed felons, no health providers, no corporations who will setup in the State because of the lack of health probiders, educated workers, and too much crime. Nothing was better when Bush-Cheney or Reagan-Bush were where Obama-Biden are. And the increasing number of elected Republicans seems to me to be quantifiably worse. ..."
"... I would call them a Third Way turncoats within Dems. Neolibs moved party into Wall Street hands and Wall Street donors became the key contributors. Clinton successfully sold Democratic Party (like Tony Blair sold Labour) and got rich in the process. ..."
"... Instead of boycotting, which conveys apathy, why not vote third party, which conveys disgust? ..."
"... ...Nader won enough votes in two states - Florida and New Hampshire - to put either of them in Gore's column. Nader won 97,488 votes in Florida, which easily could have swung the election to give Gore the state's 25 electoral votes, and there would have been no need for a recount. Even without Florida, adding Nader's 4 percent of the New Hampshire vote to Gore's 47 percent would have given Gore a 270 to 267 victory in the electoral college... ..."
"... Hillary Clinton has had persistently high negatives and a habit of generating and attractive scandal. She cant even generate trust within her own party, and performs particularly badly among independents. I dont understand why anyone would view her as the electable alternative . ..."
"... HRC is not calling for a political revolution. If you like oligarchy then she is your gal. If one is comfortably placed in the existing establishment then it is a scary thing to risk rocking the boat. ..."
"... Yep, the Clinton Foundation should be rebranded: Scandals R Us! ..."
"... When presented with the choice between a corrupt capitalist and an honest socialist, it should be an easy choice for most of us. Actually, for the Wall Street Democrats here, its also any easy choice--you look for the most corrupt candidate, the one who lists Wall Street banks as her top donors. ..."
"... By November, all but the most fervent Clinton partisans -- who can always be driven into a frenzy of paranoid persecution mania by talk of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and whatnot - is in an anybody but Clinton mood. ..."
"... Not BS. You are wearing partisan blinders. Clinton has been dogged by scandal at every stage of her public life: some pumped up out of relatively small stuff, but several serious big deals. There will be more. Why? Because the Clintons are both compulsive liars. Thats why young people, who are very good at sniffing out fakes and liars, dont like her. ..."
"... The Republicans have gone nuts and are much more of danger than they appeared to be back in 2000 before 9-11. ..."
"... The definitions of Democratic Socialism by B Sanders are in the context of Scandinavian countries which is really a more progressive form of social democracy, e.g. higher tax rates on higher earners than other social democratic countries but still allowing private property. ..."
"... The protesters' indictment of Wall Street as a destructive force, economically and politically, is completely right. ..."
"... Bingo. Bernie does what Obama did in his early speeches: speak to the moral, emotional underpinnings of Progressive beliefs. ..."
"... This is a kind of excitement that Hillary is never going to be able to inspire. ..."
"... And you somehow think that this enthusiasm will not be curbed after the attacks on Sanders begin? And I am not talking about these stupid little so called attacks by PK, Chait, Klein, etc. I'm talking big boy attacks backed by huge money and no reason whatsoever to pay attention to any facts at all. ..."
"... Yeah, I do. I think we're ready for another, And I welcome their hatred, moment in history. ..."
"... But what we need now is someone with genuine moral outrage who will say what so many of us feel: the system has been distorted beyond its ability to snap back. It works for at most 10% of the population now and catastrophically, often fatally, fails a percentage of perhaps twice that. I haven't gotten quite to the point yet myself where I would refuse to vote for Clinton if she won the primary, but many of my friends have. I think the tide has finally turned. ..."
You Say You Want a Revolution?, by Mark A. Thoma : What, exactly, does Democratic presidential
candidate Bernie Sanders have in mind when he asks on his
website if we are "Ready
to Start a Political Revolution?" He has proclaimed unabashedly that he is a socialist, a statement
that has raised eyebrows about his electability. He wants to turn us into the Soviet Union!! Is
that what he has in mind?
Far from it. He has
qualified his statements to make it clear that he is a democratic socialist, but that term
fails to convey what he really has in mind, or at least I think it does. ...
You support Sanders because he opposes any organized opposition to Republicans who run about 10,000
candidates for 10,000 offices and get out voters to vote in everyone on of those elections?
The only organized opposition to Republicans is Democratic Parties who need to raise money
to pay campaign workers because those progressives who oppose capitalism oddly won't work for
the parties for free, or run for office paying their own way in getting hundreds of people to
work for free getting out the vote. It isn't like Democratic party elites block them from running
for office because at least a thousand elections have no opponent to the Republican candidate.
What's Sanders' plan for filling the 10,000 elected offices currently filled with corrupt party
picked and corporate bought puppets?
Sanders has pushed the DLC for a "southern strategy", to no avail. I worked for free in 2012 and
2014! I may not do so in 2016.
JohnH -> pgl...
I would vote for Sanders in November because he is strong on issues important to most Americans.
Bill Curry explains the difference between the candidates, something most of the 'liberals' here
fail to grasp--
"Hillary is a living avatar of the Democratic Party in our time. What it does well–cultural
issues and social programs– she does well. When she talks about child care or family leave she's
passionate and sincere. What she and her party don't do well is fight to end corporate control
of government. She's also weak on climate change, freedom of information, the right to privacy
and, in matters of alleged national security, the rule of law.
Bernie won [the October debate] not because he outpointed her but because he's strong on the
issues on which she's weak - and because those are the issues that matter most to voters. Like
our environment, our democracy and our middle class are at a tipping point. When Bernie talks
about these crises, his sincerity and passion are unmistakable. For all her hard work, it isn't
clear Hillary even understands them. Having spent the '90s promoting globalization, and her adult
life raising money from those who profit from it, she's too wed to the system to see its fatal
flaws".
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/18/this_is_still_bernie_sanders_moment_hes_right_on_the_big_issues_now_he_must_communicate_it/
likbez -> JohnH...
Bill Curry is simply naïve.
The current social system that is in place in the USA is called neoliberalism. And it presupposes
complete corporate control of the state as neoliberalism is a form of corporatism.
I doubt that you can change the elite preferences as for neoliberalism via elections. Some
compromises are possible, but that's it. Any US President is controlled by "deep state" not the
other way around.
Truman said something like "You came to the office, you try to change things and nothing changes."
JohnH -> lower middle class...
In November, if you don't live in a battleground state, your vote will not tip the outcome...better
to vote your conscience and register your disgust with the corrupt duopoly.
JohnH -> EMichael...
If enough people vote against the corrupt duopoly in non-battleground states, the message will
be heard.
Yes, we can!
Sarah -> pgl...
As usual, Mark's much more balanced on the subject than Krugman. He shows that he's thought about
it carefully and listened to what Sanders has to say. Krugman, on the other hand, is sounding
like he did on the housing bubble before he actually started reading, thinking and paying attention.
Especially irritating is his claim that single payer means organizing a national health service
and abolishing private health care. Surely he's traveled enough in Europe to know that it means
nothing of the kind. Most European countries, including the one where I live, offer private health
plans as well as a public option- just the system Krugman himself proposed when the health care
debates were on.
The other thing which Sanders is doing, and which an earlier Krugman faulted Obama for NOT
doing, is pushing the political dialogue back towards the center, away from the extreme right,
where it's been stuck despite massive bipartisan majorities in favor of a number of more Progressive
positions, for a couple of decades now. If he's getting strong blow-back for this it's hardly
surprising.
I don't anyone will fault Thoma for worrying about Bernie's prospects. I happen to think he's
mistaken, and that Sanders actually has a far stronger appeal - even on the Right (particularly
among the non-political and those who have given up on politics) -- than many people suspect,
but it's certainly a reasonable concern. What Krugman is doing goes considerably beyond that,
however. If he's getting strong blow-back for that it's hardly surprising.
jonny bakho :
I think Bernie is electable. Bernie gives Hillary cover to discuss more populist positions. I
think his approach is unlikely to deliver very much.
The TeaParty went to Congress with an agenda plus grass roots support and have changed nothing.
The US system is designed to block radical schemes and force a more incremental change. On health
care, we solved the problem of how to pay. The most pressing challenge is improving delivery.
On this, Bernie is refighting the last war. His side lost. The Dems should not respond to TeaParty
votes on repealing Obamacare with votes to repeal it and replace it with single payer. The TeaParty
has been a waste of time. So would the push for single payer. The majority of Americans would
be loathe to trade in their employer paid health care for health care of unknown quality paid
for by higher taxes. Vermont could sell it to their voters. It cannot be sold to the TeaParty
who would fight it as BigBrotherGov. Sanders does not have the good judgement to see that single
payer is a loser with the general public and would be a drag on the rest of the agenda. The move
to single payer will involve incremental steps that are outside of Sanders plan. The whole idea
that a one-sided populist revolution will occur in 2016 is near zero probability. The populists
are split between a conservative camp and a liberal camp.
Any president will need a staff and mostly, that will come from people working in the Obama
administration. Bernie talks about Stiglitz, but he is 72, almost as old as Bernie. He mentioned
Reich who was part of the same Clinton administration that Bernie constantly bashes. The
advantage to Clinton is she is much more familiar with the players who understand how to make
the agencies respond. I lived through the 90s and the legislation that was enacted was always
some mix of what the GOP Congress were promoting and what Bill Clinton wanted. Much of the
dereg came about in trade for other policies. I don't know that a Bernie administration would
be much different. Bernie would need to swallow hard and take a heavy dose of GOP poison to get
a budget, much less pass reform legislation.
Don't say the Tea Party changed nothing - they changed themselves. Remember that they were
created in disgust over Wall Street. After they got elected you would be hard pressed to find
more ardent supporters of any and all legislation that support the rich.
pgl -> DeDude...
Same old Republican bait and switch.
ilsm -> jonny bakho...
Tea party support is in fly over country. And there a small minority (they win with 55% stay home)
of the population.
Bernie could excite enough.... Hillary not so.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron :
My guess is that Bernie would be for democratic socialism if he thought that he could get it done.
So, Bernie is settling for social democracy. That is still better than neoliberal theocracy.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> pgl...
I would even give some neoliberal politicians credit for listening well to the economists whose
policy prescriptions fit their political-economic agenda on a case by case basis. So, that is
pretense without just pretending.
JohnH -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
"Since Bernie she is singing a different tune."
Exactly. It's all political posturing for the primaries. Like Obama, she'll revert to a
neoliberal stooge the moment she takes office.
Her first action will be to find some hapless, third world country to intervene in to prove
that she has cojones. Libya redux.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> JohnH...
Yeah, but no boots on the ground because that would be neoconservative.
pgl -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
I think you mean Paleo Conservative. We need to program to keep up with all these meaningless
labels.
Syaloch -> pgl...
Paleoconservatives oppose military interventionism. Boots on the ground would be neoconservative.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> pgl...
[Neoconservative is just neoliberal with a more aggressive "boots on the ground" foreign policy
or imperialism if you would rather.]
*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Kristol
Irving Kristol (January 22, 1920 – September 18, 2009) was an American columnist, journalist, and
writer who was dubbed the "godfather of neo-conservatism."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon) is a political movement born in the United States
during the 1960s among Democrats who became disenchanted with the party's domestic and especially
foreign policy. Many of its adherents became politically famous during the Republican presidential
administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. Neoconservatives peaked in influence during
the administrations of George W. Bush and George H W Bush, when they played a major role in promoting
and planning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[1] Prominent neoconservatives in the Bush administration
included Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle, and Paul Bremer. Senior officials
Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, while not identifying themselves
as neoconservatives, listened closely to neoconservative advisers regarding foreign policy, especially
the defense of Israel, the promotion of democracy in the Middle East, and the buildup of American
military forces to achieve these goals. The neocons have influence in the Obama White House, and
neoconservatism remains a staple in both parties' arsenal.[2][3]
The term "neoconservative" refers to those who made the ideological journey from the anti-Stalinist
Left to the camp of American conservatism.[4] Neoconservatives typically advocate the promotion of
democracy and promotion of American national interest in international affairs, including by means
of military force, and are known for espousing disdain for communism and for political radicalism...
*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservatism
Paleoconservatism (sometimes shortened to paleocon) is a conservative political philosophy found
primarily in the United States stressing tradition, limited government and civil society, along with
religious, regional, national and Western identity.[1][2]
Paleoconservatives in the 21st century often highlight their points of disagreement with neoconservatives,
especially regarding issues such as military interventionism, illegal immigration and high rates
of legal immigration, as well as multiculturalism, affirmative action, free trade, and foreign aid.[1]
They also criticize social welfare and social democracy, which some refer to as the "therapeutic
managerial state",[3] the "welfare-warfare state"[4] or "polite totalitarianism".[5] They identify
themselves as the legitimate heirs to the American conservative tradition.[6]
Elizabethtown College professor Paul Gottfried is credited with coining the term in the 1980s.[7]
He says the term originally referred to various Americans, such as conservative and traditionalist
Catholics and agrarian Southerners, who turned to anti-communism during the Cold War.[8] Paleoconservatism
is closely linked with distributism.[citation needed]
Paleoconservative thought has been published by the Rockford Institute's Chronicles: A Magazine of
American Culture.[9] Politician Pat Buchanan was strongly influenced by its articles[8] and helped
create another paleocon publication, The American Conservative.[10] Its concerns overlap those of
the Old Right that opposed the New Deal in the 1930s and 1940s...
[There you have it. To simplify just consider archetypes neoconservative Irving Kristol (or son William)
versus paleoconservative Pat Buchanan. Neocons are entirely at home with the Washington Consensus
of neoliberal, but they want to project American power via militarism and have no problem whatsoever
with other peoples kids dying in foreign wars. That is the beauty of an all voluntary military.
Paleoconservatives are more isolationist than free traders. They still love their corporations
and rich people, but they don't like crony capitalism as a principle even if as a reality they are
open to setting a price. Trump is leaning paleoconservative, at least in his campaign rhetoric.
]
JohnH -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
"no boots on the ground" Don't bet on it. Whatever it takes to prove that she the toughest
warrior since Catherine the Great...
likbez -> JohnH...
>Her first action will be to find some hapless, third world country to intervene in to prove that
she has cojones. Libya redux.
Exactly. She is yet another neocon, masking as a Democrat. She is more jingoistic then
probably half of Republican candidates.
PPaine -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
Might I suggest recently Hillary is no longer bear hugging real progress
She's back to the wooden nickel con and the " crazy left " marginalization stunt
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> PPaine ...
Yeah, you may suggest. I noticed that too. Neither my wife nor I are her fans. I have been
in for Bernie since before he even announced. If I recall so were you although Liz Warren would
have also been acceptable to us.
Back in the 70's I wanted to Carl Sagan to run for POTUS. I have since become a full time realist
and only a part time crackpot.
DrDick -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
That is the position of many Democratic Socialists, including myself and most major European
socialist parties. It is a gradualist position rather than a revolutionary one.
PPaine said in reply to DrDick...
And deeply in crisis. Hence the emergence of left alternatives as well as right menaces
kthomas :
Let's go Bernie! Make those cockroaches scurry!
Jerry Brown :
What to do when a candidate is called unelectable because of their support for the policies
that you yourself support?
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> Jerry Brown...
LOL! That's a good one.
Jerry Brown -> EMichael...
True enough. Thoma says it is the label "socialist" that makes him less likely to win, not the
actual policies that might be associated with the label.
Its difficult finding out I'm a socialist after all these years. Maybe I should support Trump
so nobody else finds out.
Jerry Brown -> EMichael...
Yes. Trump might be a type of socialist too. Nationalist Socialist might be a fit for him.
DeDude -> Jerry Brown...
Well you have to decide whether you want to be a heroic loser or get half a loaf. I agree
that it is a very difficult question.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> DeDude...
You nailed it. No one ever said democracy would be easy.
DeDude -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
And he cautionary tale is that the "heroic losers" got us 8 years of Bush II - and all the
disasters he managed to create in that time.
JohnH -> Jerry Brown...
"What to do when a candidate is called unelectable because of their support for the policies
that you yourself support?"
Actually, what to do when a candidate, i.e. Bernie, is called unelectable because they support
policies that most Americans support--busting up the big banks and Medicare for all?
The 'liberals' here fail to take into account that 1) Bernie is on the right side of public
opinion, and 2) takes positions that real liberals would support. Yet they won't support Bernie...because
they've become too conservative?
EMichael -> JohnH...
No What is means is that there are a lot of people who realize that public opinion polls mean
absolutely nothing.
You form a party that can put 10,000 candidates on the ballot for 10,000 elected offices and then
winning the majority of those elections.
What is ironic about this election cycle more than others is that Republicans dominate
the elected offices, so they have essentially total control of government, especially in the poorest
States, but they blame Obama for things that are local to these States like teen pregnancy, school
drop outs, poverty, high unemployment, crime, felons, unemployed felons, no health providers,
no corporations who will setup in the State because of the lack of health probiders, educated
workers, and too much crime. Nothing was better when Bush-Cheney or Reagan-Bush were where Obama-Biden
are. And the increasing number of elected Republicans seems to me to be quantifiably worse.
So, who do progressives like Sanders blame? The Democrats who have lost in elections over and
over to Republicans. What actions do progressives who support Sanders take? Attack the system
and boycott it.
Hey, it's like protesting the weather requiring creating some sort of shelter from the snow
by laying down and being covered with snow. They'll show mother nature and force her to change.
likbez -> PPaine ...
> Party cadre and those reflex rooters for the party
I would call them a Third Way turncoats within Dems. Neolibs moved party into Wall Street
hands and Wall Street donors became the key contributors. Clinton successfully sold Democratic
Party (like Tony Blair sold Labour) and got rich in the process.
Instead of boycotting, which conveys apathy, why not vote third party, which conveys disgust?
BTW the reason Democrats lost the mid-terms in many states in 2014 is precisely because they
ran as Republican-lite: "Consider that in four "red" states - South Dakota, Arkansas, Alaska,
and Nebraska - the same voters who sent Republicans to the Senate voted by wide margins to raise
their state's minimum wage. Democratic candidates in these states barely mentioned the minimum
wage."
JohnH -> djb...
What Bernie should do if he loses is build a nationwide socialist organization. Obama had that
opportunity in 2008 but abandoned it as soon as he took power...he didn't want popular opposition
to his neoliberal agenda.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to DeDude...
[Sorry, I forgot about Nader and since you did not explicitly mention him then your meaning
was not clear.]
...Nader won enough votes in two states - Florida and New Hampshire - to put either of them
in Gore's column. Nader won 97,488 votes in Florida, which easily could have swung the election
to give Gore the state's 25 electoral votes, and there would have been no need for a recount.
Even without Florida, adding Nader's 4 percent of the New Hampshire vote to Gore's 47 percent
would have given Gore a 270 to 267 victory in the electoral college...
[That said, then Bernie is another thing entirely. Bernie is not a third party candidate. Now
I wish voting for a third party candidate was plausibly a good decision because with a ranked
voting system then a third party vote would not be a throw away, but that is not how the two party
system wants things done.]
Hillary Clinton has had persistently high negatives and a habit of generating and attractive
scandal. She can't even generate trust within her own party, and performs particularly badly among
independents. I don't understand why anyone would view her as the "electable alternative".
HRC is not calling for a political revolution. If you like oligarchy then she is your gal.
If one is comfortably placed in the existing establishment then it is a scary thing to risk rocking
the boat.
JohnH -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
Yep, the Clinton Foundation should be rebranded: "Scandals R Us!"
When presented with the choice between a corrupt capitalist and an honest socialist, it
should be an easy choice for most of us. Actually, for the Wall Street Democrats here, it's also
any easy choice--you look for the most corrupt candidate, the one who lists Wall Street banks
as her top donors.
Great, you can predict the future. Well, so can I. Here's my prediction: Hillary Clinton gets
nominated. The summer and fall campaign is dominated by a nauseating replay of every Clinton scandal,
present and past. Not just the eight or so we know about, but others that haven't been let out
of the opposition research box yet. By November, all but the most fervent Clinton partisans
-- who can always be driven into a frenzy of paranoid persecution mania by talk of the Vast Right
Wing Conspiracy and whatnot - is in an "anybody but Clinton" mood.
Not BS. You are wearing partisan blinders. Clinton has been dogged by scandal at every stage
of her public life: some pumped up out of relatively small stuff, but several serious big deals.
There will be more. Why? Because the Clintons are both compulsive liars. That's why young people,
who are very good at sniffing out fakes and liars, don't like her.
But the older, "Clinton generation" of Democrats has internalized a particularly cynical and
jaded attitude toward routine public lying, having picked up the fixed habit of defending the
compulsively lying Clintons for so many years.
The Clintons could have done the Democratic Party a huge favor in 2001 by sailing off into
retirement after dragging the country through their slime for years, and by dismantling their
machine and handing the party off to something more wholesome and progressive.
Many commentators don't seem to understand that there is a major US organization called the Democratic
Socialists of America. They have been around for a number of years, and one of the founders was
Michael Harrington. This organization has published a fairly comprehensive statement entitled
Where We Stand, and does not advocate a wholesale elimination of market economic institutions.
As democratic socialists we are committed to ensuring that any market is the servant of the
public good and not its master. Liberty, equality, and solidarity will require not only democratic
control over economic life, but also a progressively financed, decentralized, and quality public
sector. Free markets or private charity cannot provide adequate public goods and services.
So, as I read it, the two main takeaways here are:
1. Any markets that exist should serve the public good.
2. Free markets alone are not sufficient to provide society with adequate public goods and services.
The statement also does not call for the elimination of all private ownership; but it clearly
does call for an expansion of public ownership, worker ownership and cooperatives.
A lot of people who are not democratic socialists seem to have very strong ideas about what
democratic socialism really is, based perhaps on the ideas of people who called themselves "democratic
socialists" in the 19th and early 20th centuries. But I think it's the people who use that label
for themselves are entitled to determine what they intend that label to stand for.
pgl -> Dan Kervick...
Love this line:
"Today powerful corporate and political elites tell us that environmental standards are too high,
unemployment is too low, and workers earn too much for America to prosper in the next century."
Most economists would say environmental standards are too low, that we are still below full employment,
and the goal of economic policy should be to raise wages.
So your group is critiquing right wing Republicans not your "neoliberal" whatever.
I'm for Bernie and believe he could beat Trump. But Dan Kervick and JohnH's arguments moved me
more towards the Thoma and EMichael direction.
The Republicans have gone nuts and are much more of danger than they appeared to be back
in 2000 before 9-11.
The parties are not the same. The danger for the Democrats is that they don't accomplish enough
in moving the country towards Social Democracy (Bill Clinton did little, Obama did some) and so
inequality just increases and politics gets worse.
Obama did not get a strong recovery and so Congress is Republican. He didn't prioritize Fed
nominations and turned towards deficit reduction too quickly.
EMichael -> Peter K....
There are two sides to that stone.
What I am saying, and in way so is Dr. Thoma, is that Sanders' nomination may well cause much
more Rep voter turnout.
And Sanders lacks the ability to turn out the black vote at all, and he has done himself no
favor so far in this cycle.
Black votes are a lot more important and numerous than any people who are tired of "neo-liberals".
Most of whom, if they had IQ above double digits, always voted for the Dem candidate anyway.
am :
Prof Thoma seems to have got this right. The definitions of Democratic Socialism by B Sanders
are in the context of Scandinavian countries which is really a more progressive form of social
democracy, e.g. higher tax rates on higher earners than other social democratic countries but
still allowing private property. But he was really a bit daft calling himself a democratic
socialist if he is just a more progressive social democrat. A democratic socialist does not allow
private property rights but allows democracy. This means elections every four or five years when
the government including themselves in power can be changed.
But that these terms can be misunderstood you just have to look at their use in history: Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Democratic Republic of Germany (East Germany).
likbez -> am...
Scandinavian countries are pretty small homogenous countries. What is possible for Scandinavian
countries is more difficult to achieve is large states like the USA.
> This means elections every four or five years when the government including themselves in power
can be changed.
In two party system elections is just approval of two selected by the current oligarchy candidates.
And it was always this way.
"In two party system elections is just approval of two
selected by the current oligarchy candidates. And it was
always this ways."
So, every candidate must
independently find supporters and then use the supporters
to educate every voter in the candidates' electorate of
the individual candidates policies without respect to any
standard like political party or any existing description
of what political labels mean because the labels are
derived from one of many parties using the words in the
label.
How long would it take you to explain your political
position without referring to some label that covers how
you would decide on responses to social problems when
drafting bills or voting on them?
Then explain how you would find other legislators to
support and pass bills without assigning them labels.
I think two party system is what is called "polyarchy" --
power of a few. As Gore Vidal noted: "There is one
political party in this country, and that is the party of
money. It has two branches, the Republicans and the
Democrats, the chief difference between which is that the
Democrats are better at concealing their scorn for the
average man."
== quote ==
I subscribe to Kantian idea of the dignity in human, the
idea that everyone is entitles to survival as well as
thriving beyond survival. But does everybody is entitled
to equal participation in ruling of the state ? Or
election of state leaders? Which is what democracy means.
But at the same time the struggle for political equality
which is often associative with the word "democracy" is a
vital human struggle even if democracy itself is an
unachievable and unrealistic ideal (see The Iron Law of
Oligarchy). In some sense too much talk about Democracy is
very suspect and just characterize the speaker as a
hypocrite with probably evil intentions, who probably is
trying to mask some pretty insidious plans with "democracy
promotion" smokescreen. That is especially true for
"export of democracy" efforts. See color revolutions for
details.
Under neoliberalism we now face a regime completely
opposite to democracy: we have complete, forceful
atomization of public, acute suppression of any
countervailing political forces (not unlike it was the
case in the USSR) including labor unions and other forms
of self-organization for the lower 80% or even 99% of
population. Neoliberalism tries to present any individual
as a market actor within some abstract market (everything
is the market under neoliberalism). Instead of fight for
political and economic equality neoliberalism provides a
slick slogan of "wealth maximization" which is in essence
a "bait and switch" for wealth maximization for the top 1%
(redistribution of wealth up - which is the stated goal of
neoliberalism). It was working in tandem with "shareholder
value" mantra which is a disguise of looting of the
corporations to enrich its top brass via outsize bonuses
(IBM is a nice example where such an approach leads) and
sending thousands of white color workers to the street.
Previously it was mainly blue-color workers that were
affected. Times changed.
Everything should be organized like corporation under
neoliberalism, including government, medicine, education,
even military. And everybody is not a citizen but a
shareholder under neoliberalism (or more correctly
stakeholder), so any conflict should be resolved via
discussion of the main stakeholders. Naturally lower 99%
are not among them.
In any democracy, how can voters make an important
decision unless they are well informed? But what
percentage of US votes can be considered well informed?
And what percentage is brainwashed or do not what to think
about the issues involved and operate based on emotions
and prejudices? And when serious discussion of issues that
nation faces are deliberately and systematically replaced
by "infotainment" votes became just pawn in the game of
factions of elite, which sometimes leaks information to
sway public opinion, but do it very selectively. Important
information is suppressed or swiped under the carpet to
fifth page in NYT to prevent any meaningful discussion.
For example, ask several of your friends if they ever
heard about Damascus, AR.
The great propaganda mantra of neoliberal governance,
"wealth maximization" for society as a whole in reality is
applied very selectively and never to the bottom 60% or
80% of population. In essence, it means a form of welfare
economics for financial oligarchy while at the same time a
useful smokescreen for keeping debt-slaves obedient by
removing any remnants of job security mechanisms that were
instituted during the New Deal. As the great American
jurist and Supreme Court associate justice Louis Brandeis
once said: "We can have huge wealth in the hands of a
relatively few people or we can have a democracy. But we
can't have both." As under neoliberalism extreme wealth is
the goal of the social system, there can be no democracy
under neoliberalism. And this mean that pretentions of the
USA elite that the USA is a bastion of democracy is plain
vanilla British ruling elite style hypocrisy. Brutal
suppression of any move to challenge dominance of
financial oligarchy (even such feeble as Occupy movement)
shows that all too well
Politically neoliberalism. like Marxism in the past,
operates with the same two classes: entrepreneurs (modern
name for capitalists and financial oligarchy) and debt
slaves (proletarians under Marxism) who work for them.
Under neoliberalism only former considered first class
citizens ("one dollar -- one vote"). Debt slaves are
second class of citizens and are prevented from
self-organization, which by-and-large deprives them of any
form of political participation. In best Roman tradition
it is substituted with the participation in political
shows (see Empire of Illusion The End of Literacy and the
Triumph of Spectacle by Chris Hedges) which decide nothing
but provide legitimacy for ruling elite.
The two party system invented by the elite of Great
Britain proved to be perfect for neoliberal regimes, which
practice what Sheldon Wolin called inverted totalitarism.
The latter is the regime in which all political power
belongs to the financial oligarchy which rules via the
deep state mechanisms, and where traditional political
institutions are downgraded to instruments of providing
political legitimacy of the ruling elite. Population is
discouraged from political activity. "Go shopping" as
famously stated Bush II after 9/11.
There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear, but we may, at long last, be
seeing the rise of a popular movement that, unlike the Tea Party, is angry at the right people.
When the Occupy Wall Street protests began three weeks ago, most news organizations were derisive
if they deigned to mention the events at all. For example, nine days into the protests, National
Public Radio had provided no coverage whatsoever.
It is, therefore, a testament to the passion of those involved that the protests not only continued
but grew, eventually becoming too big to ignore. With unions and a growing number of Democrats
now expressing at least qualified support for the protesters, Occupy Wall Street is starting to
look like an important event that might even eventually be seen as a turning point.
What can we say about the protests? First things first: The protesters' indictment of Wall
Street as a destructive force, economically and politically, is completely right.
A weary cynicism, a belief that justice will never get served, has taken over much of our political
debate - and, yes, I myself have sometimes succumbed. In the process, it has been easy to forget
just how outrageous the story of our economic woes really is. So, in case you've forgotten, it
was a play in three acts.
In the first act, bankers took advantage of deregulation to run wild (and pay themselves
princely sums), inflating huge bubbles through reckless lending.
In the second act, the bubbles burst - but bankers were bailed out by taxpayers, with remarkably
few strings attached, even as ordinary workers continued to suffer the consequences of the
bankers' sins.
And, in the third act, bankers showed their gratitude by turning on the people who had
saved them, throwing their support - and the wealth they still possessed thanks to the bailouts
- behind politicians who promised to keep their taxes low and dismantle the mild regulations
erected in the aftermath of the crisis.
Now, it's true that some of the protesters are oddly dressed or have silly-sounding slogans,
which is inevitable given the open character of the events. But so what? I, at least, am a lot
more offended by the sight of exquisitely tailored plutocrats, who owe their continued wealth
to government guarantees, whining that President Obama has said mean things about them than I
am by the sight of ragtag young people denouncing consumerism.
Bear in mind, too, that experience has made it painfully clear that men in suits not only don't
have any monopoly on wisdom, they have very little wisdom to offer. When talking heads on, say,
CNBC mock the protesters as unserious, remember how many serious people assured us that there
was no housing bubble, that Alan Greenspan was an oracle and that budget deficits would send interest
rates soaring.
A better critique of the protests is the absence of specific policy demands. It would probably
be helpful if protesters could agree on at least a few main policy changes they would like to
see enacted. But we shouldn't make too much of the lack of specifics. It's clear what kinds of
things the Occupy Wall Street demonstrators want, and it's really the job of policy intellectuals
and politicians to fill in the details.
Rich Yeselson, a veteran organizer and historian of social movements, has suggested that debt
relief for working Americans become a central plank of the protests. I'll second that, because
such relief, in addition to serving economic justice, could do a lot to help the economy recover.
I'd suggest that protesters also demand infrastructure investment - not more tax cuts - to help
create jobs. Neither proposal is going to become law in the current political climate, but the
whole point of the protests is to change that political climate.
And there are real political opportunities here. Not, of course, for today's Republicans, who
instinctively side with those Theodore Roosevelt-dubbed "malefactors of great wealth." Mitt Romney,
for example - who, by the way, probably pays less of his income in taxes than many middle-class
Americans - was quick to condemn the protests as "class warfare."
But Democrats are being given what amounts to a second chance. The Obama administration squandered
a lot of potential good will early on by adopting banker-friendly policies that failed to deliver
economic recovery even as bankers repaid the favor by turning on the president. Now, however,
Mr. Obama's party has a chance for a do-over. All it has to do is take these protests as seriously
as they deserve to be taken.
And if the protests goad some politicians into doing what they should have been doing all along,
Occupy Wall Street will have been a smashing success.
Sarah -> Peter K....
Bingo. Bernie does what Obama did in his early speeches: speak to the moral, emotional
underpinnings of Progressive beliefs. Despite seeing how incredibly powerful this
approach has been for the Republicans, we've had years and decades of Democrats acting like
cold technocrats, as if all of these policy matters were mere practicalities and politics were
really just the horse race that the media treats it as- rather than a matter of life and death
for many people in its outcomes.
I think people would be less skeptical of Bernie's chances if they saw, as I have, the number
of people on the Right and the completely apolitical types who've never voted in their lives
who are suddenly talking enthusiastically (often to their own surprise) about a politician.
This is a kind of excitement that Hillary is never going to be able to inspire.
EMichael -> Sarah...
And you somehow think that this enthusiasm will not be curbed after the attacks on
Sanders begin? And I am not talking about these stupid little so called "attacks" by PK, Chait,
Klein, etc. I'm talking big boy attacks backed by huge money and no reason whatsoever to pay
attention to any facts at all.
Sarah -> EMichael...
Yeah, I do. I think we're ready for another, "And I welcome their hatred," moment in
history.
The fact is, on both the Left and the Right people are sick of politics as usual. It's notable
that the 'big boys' with the money have been completely, totally unable to influence their
supposed Republican base this election season. That's because on the Republican side Trump and
Cruz- and even Carson- are tapping into real grievances and emotions. Do you really think
Hillary Clinton is the right person to tap into that current? It's a pity, actually. I like
her quite well, and I supported her against Obama because of Obama's relative inexperience -
and the fact that he hadn't been 'tested' by the 'big boy attacks' you refer to.
But what we need now is someone with genuine moral outrage who will say what so many of us
feel: the system has been distorted beyond its ability to snap back. It works for at most 10%
of the population now and catastrophically, often fatally, fails a percentage of perhaps twice
that. I haven't gotten quite to the point yet myself where I would refuse to vote for Clinton
if she won the primary, but many of my friends have. I think the tide has finally turned.
EMichael -> Sarah...
I'm with you except I think the math does not work.
Half of the REP base are stone cold crazy, and when the smoke clears they will vote for
whomever is left standing.
This country has no such amount of people who are as far left as it does those who are far
right. And what numbers there are do not got to the polls if their candidate loses the
nomination.
Sarah -> EMichael...
The thing is, the 'math' doesn't take into account the incredibly low voter turnouts in the
US. It wouldn't take a whole lot to create massive change if you could engage even a quarter
of the currently unengaged. What impresses me about Bernie is that he seems to be able to do
so.
Actually you should use separate PC for you banking transaction and taxes. this can be older PC
or a cheap laptop bought specifically for this purpose, or at least a VM. But it should be a separate
operating system from OS that you use to browse internet. Doing such
things on Pc you use for regular internet browsing is playing with fire.
Notable quotes:
"... mmmm missed the best security resolution of all: go to 2-Factor Authentication (2FA) for all email financial services accounts: gmail, schwab, paypal, etc, etc - makes 30 character passwords much less important ..."
"... if a financial service provider does not have 2FA, then drop them for incompetence ..."
"... one of the best advise i received is; when doing banking on your PC make sure that is the only page open ..."
"... The main issue with a full Linux system is you need a technical support person to back you up if you're not doing it yourself. Linux had the most CVE vulnerabilities after OS X ..."
"... We really don't need more kooks thinking their messages to Aunt Tillie need strong encryption. ..."
Next up is ditching old, unused or poorly maintained software. Using software is a commitment.
If you don't update it, you are wearing a "hack me" sign on your forehead. So if there are programs
or apps that you don't use, delete them.
This year, I decided to ditch my instant messaging client Adium. I was using it to enable encrypted
chats. But like many cash-strapped open source projects, it is rarely
updated and has been linked to many
security
vulnerabilities.
mmmm missed the best security resolution of all: go to 2-Factor
Authentication (2FA) for all email & financial services accounts:
gmail, schwab, paypal, etc, etc - makes 30 character passwords much
less important
if a financial service provider does not have 2FA,
then drop them for incompetence
one of the best advise i received is; when doing banking on your PC make sure that is the only page
open (actually you should have a separate Pc for such transactions, or at least a VM -- NNB) the only item running on your PC at the time no other software or open web page should be running,
because those other open software can possible view your account info.
The greatest thing I did to upgrade my security was to dump anything
and everything related to apple. Moved on over to open source Linux
Mint and yes, I still use Tor.
The main issue with a full Linux system is you need a technical
support person to back you up if you're not doing it yourself.
Linux had the most CVE vulnerabilities after OS X:
http://www.cvedetails.com/top-...
Jonathan
So for Mr & Ms Average Internet user you are going to suggest they switch to Tor and the
dark web? Before they worry about password security? Perhaps for a journalist anonymity is
paramount but most folks are only going to expose themselves to even more malware down that
path. Better to suggest that users switch to a browser that autoupdates itself and install the
HTTPS Everywhere plugin. We really don't need more kooks thinking their messages to Aunt
Tillie need strong encryption.
Gordon Bartlett
Sorry, but it's not clear what you mean by "updating your software." Try giving specific
examples of, say, what a person running Windows on their PC or Android on their mobile phone
would do on their own to upgrade, assuming, as you do, that the patches we periodically
receive from MSFT, etc. are inadequate.
JSF
I am a retired IT professional from a federal government agency. Most of our users who
needed secure communication were rather techno phobic. Try Explaining public/private keys. I
have tried some programs like signal, PGP etc. They all require the recipient to use the same
software. Signal said "invite your contacts" I am pretty sure any one getting this invite
would consider it spam, pfishing or a virus.
The sender might not know where the recipient is located. If the Corp locks their users
machines it requires IT intervention to install anything which could be days or longer not
really conducive to time sensitive information. We need to develop better technical solutions
for people who are not tech savvy
"... And yet the alliance persists, kept afloat on a sea of Saudi money and a recognition of mutual self-interest. In addition to Saudi Arabia's vast oil reserves and role as the spiritual anchor of the Sunni Muslim world, the long intelligence relationship helps explain why the United States has been reluctant to openly criticize Saudi Arabia for its human rights abuses ..."
"... Although the Saudis have been public about their help arming rebel groups in Syria, the extent of their partnership with the CIA's covert action campaign and their direct financial support had not been disclosed. Details were pieced together in interviews with a half-dozen current and former American officials and sources from several Persian Gulf countries. Most spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the program. ..."
"... Months later, Mr. Obama gave his approval for the CIA to begin directly arming and training the rebels from a base in Jordan, amending the Timber Sycamore program to allow lethal assistance. Under the new arrangement, the CIA took the lead in training, while Saudi Arabia's intelligence agency, the General Intelligence Directorate, provided money and weapons, including TOW anti-tank missiles. ..."
"... The Qataris have also helped finance the training and allowed a Qatari base to be used as an additional training location. But American officials said Saudi Arabia was by far the largest contributor to the operation. While the Obama administration saw this coalition as a selling point in Congress, some, including Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, raised questions about why the CIA needed Saudi money for the operation, according to one former American official. Mr. Wyden declined to be interviewed, but his office released a statement calling for more transparency. "Senior officials have said publicly that the U.S. is trying to build up the battlefield capabilities of the anti-Assad opposition, but they haven't provided the public with details about how this is being done, which U.S. agencies are involved, or which foreign partners those agencies are working with," the statement said. ..."
"... While the Saudis have financed previous CIA missions with no strings attached, the money for Syria comes with expectations, current and former officials said. "They want a seat at the table, and a say in what the agenda of the table is going to be," said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA analyst and now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution . ..."
"... "The more that the argument becomes, 'We need them as a counterterrorism partner,' the less persuasive it is," said William McCants, a former State Department counterterrorism adviser and the author of a book on the Islamic State . "If this is purely a conversation about counterterrorism cooperation, and if the Saudis are a big part of the problem in creating terrorism in the first place, then how persuasive of an argument is it?" ..."
"... Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, the Saudi interior minister who took over the effort to arm the Syrian rebels from Prince Bandar, has known the CIA director, John O. Brennan, from the time Mr. Brennan was the agency's Riyadh station chief in the 1990s. Former colleagues say the two men remain close, and Prince Mohammed has won friends in Washington with his aggressive moves to dismantle terrorist groups like Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. ..."
"... The roots of the relationship run deep. In the late 1970s, the Saudis organized what was known as the "Safari Club" - a coalition of nations including Morocco, Egypt and France - that ran covert operations around Africa at a time when Congress had clipped the CIA's wings over years of abuses. ..."
"... In the 1980s, the Saudis helped finance CIA operations in Angola, where the United States backed rebels against the Soviet-allied government. While the Saudis were staunchly anticommunist, Riyadh's primary incentive seemed to be to solidify its CIA ties. "They were buying good will," recalled one former senior intelligence officer who was involved in the operation. ..."
"... In perhaps the most consequential episode, the Saudis helped arm the mujahedeen rebels to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. The United States committed hundreds of millions of dollars each year to the mission, and the Saudis matched it, dollar for dollar. ..."
"... Prince Bandar pledged $1 million per month to help fund the contras, in recognition of the administration's past support to the Saudis. The contributions continued after Congress cut off funding to the contras. By the end, the Saudis had contributed $32 million, paid through a Cayman Islands bank account. ..."
WASHINGTON - When President Obama secretly authorized the
Central Intelligence Agency to begin arming
Syria 's embattled rebels in 2013, the spy agency knew it would have a willing partner to help
pay for the covert operation. It was the same partner the
CIA has relied on for decades for money and discretion in far-off conflicts: the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia .
Since then, the CIA and its Saudi counterpart have maintained an unusual arrangement for the
rebel-training mission, which the Americans have code-named Timber Sycamore. Under the deal, current
and former administration officials said, the Saudis contribute both weapons and large sums of money,
and the CIA takes the lead in training the rebels on AK-47 assault rifles and tank-destroying missiles.
The support for the Syrian rebels is only the latest chapter in the decadeslong relationship between
the spy services of
Saudi Arabia and the United States, an alliance that has endured through the Iran-contra scandal,
support for the mujahedeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan and proxy fights in Africa. Sometimes,
as in
Syria , the two countries have worked in concert. In others, Saudi Arabia has simply written
checks underwriting American covert activities.
Decades of Discreet Cooperation
The joint arming and training program, which other Middle East nations contribute money to, continues
as America's relations with Saudi Arabia - and the kingdom's place in the region - are in flux. The
old ties of cheap oil and geopolitics that have long bound the countries together have loosened as
America's dependence on foreign oil declines and the Obama administration tiptoes toward a diplomatic
rapprochement with Iran.
And yet the alliance persists, kept afloat on a sea of Saudi money and a recognition of mutual
self-interest. In addition to Saudi Arabia's vast oil reserves and role as the spiritual anchor of
the Sunni Muslim world, the long intelligence relationship helps explain why the United States has
been reluctant to openly criticize Saudi Arabia for its human rights abuses, its treatment of
women and its support for the
extreme strain of Islam, Wahhabism , that has inspired many of the very terrorist groups the
United States is fighting. The Obama administration did not publicly condemn Saudi Arabia's
public beheading this month of a dissident Shiite cleric, Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, who had challenged
the royal family.
Although the Saudis have been public about their help arming rebel groups in Syria, the extent
of their partnership with the CIA's covert action campaign and their direct financial support
had not been disclosed. Details were pieced together in interviews with a half-dozen current and
former American officials and sources from several Persian Gulf countries. Most spoke on the condition
of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the program.
From the moment the CIA operation was started, Saudi money supported it.
"They understand that they have to have us, and we understand that we have to have them," said
Mike Rogers, the former Republican congressman from Michigan who was chairman of the
House Intelligence Committee when the
CIA operation began. Mr. Rogers declined to discuss details of the classified program.
American officials have not disclosed the amount of the Saudi contribution, which is by far the
largest from another nation to the program to arm the rebels against President Bashar al-Assad's
military. But estimates have put the total cost of the arming and training effort at several billion
dollars.
The White House has embraced the covert financing from Saudi Arabia - and from Qatar, Jordan and
Turkey - at a time when Mr. Obama has pushed gulf nations to take a greater security role in the
region.
Spokesmen for both the CIA and the Saudi Embassy in Washington declined to comment.
When Mr. Obama signed off on
arming the rebels in the spring of 2013, it was partly to try to gain control of the apparent
free-for-all in the region. The Qataris and the Saudis had been funneling weapons into Syria for
more than a year. The Qataris had even smuggled in
shipments of Chinese-made FN-6 shoulder-fired missiles over the border from Turkey.
The Saudi efforts were led by the flamboyant Prince Bandar bin Sultan, at the time the intelligence
chief, who directed Saudi spies to buy thousands of AK-47s and millions of rounds of ammunition in
Eastern Europe for the Syrian rebels. The CIA helped arrange some of the arms purchases for the
Saudis, including a large deal in Croatia in 2012.
By the summer of 2012, a freewheeling feel had taken hold along Turkey's border with Syria as
the gulf nations funneled cash and weapons to rebel groups - even some that American officials were
concerned had ties to radical groups like Al Qaeda.
The CIA was mostly on the sidelines during this period, authorized by the White House under
the Timber Sycamore training program to deliver nonlethal aid to the rebels but not weapons. In late
2012, according to two former senior American officials, David H. Petraeus, then the CIA director,
delivered a stern lecture to intelligence officials of several gulf nations at a meeting near the
Dead Sea in Jordan. He chastised them for sending arms into Syria without coordinating with one another
or with CIA officers in Jordan and Turkey.
Months later, Mr. Obama gave his approval for the CIA to begin directly arming and training
the rebels from a base in Jordan, amending the Timber Sycamore program to allow lethal assistance.
Under the new arrangement, the CIA took the lead in training, while Saudi Arabia's intelligence
agency, the General Intelligence Directorate, provided money and weapons, including TOW anti-tank
missiles.
The Qataris have also helped finance the training and allowed a Qatari base to be used as
an additional training location. But American officials said Saudi Arabia was by far the largest
contributor to the operation. While the Obama administration saw this coalition as a selling point
in Congress, some, including Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, raised questions about why the
CIA needed Saudi money for the operation, according to one former American official. Mr. Wyden
declined to be interviewed, but his office released a statement calling for more transparency. "Senior
officials have said publicly that the U.S. is trying to build up the battlefield capabilities of
the anti-Assad opposition, but they haven't provided the public with details about how this is being
done, which U.S. agencies are involved, or which foreign partners those agencies are working with,"
the statement said.
When relations among the countries involved in the training program are strained, it often falls
to the United States to broker solutions. As the host, Jordan expects regular payments from the Saudis
and the Americans. When the Saudis pay late, according to a former senior intelligence official,
the Jordanians complain to CIA officials.
While the Saudis have financed previous CIA missions with no strings attached, the money
for Syria comes with expectations, current and former officials said. "They want a seat at the table,
and a say in what the agenda of the table is going to be," said Bruce Riedel, a former CIA analyst
and now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution
.
The CIA training program is separate from another program to arm Syrian rebels, one the Pentagon
ran that has since ended. That program was designed to train rebels to combat Islamic State fighters
in Syria, unlike the CIA's program, which focuses on rebel groups fighting the Syrian military.
While the intelligence alliance is central to the Syria fight and has been important in the war
against Al Qaeda, a constant irritant in American-Saudi relations is just how much Saudi citizens
continue to support terrorist groups, analysts said.
"The more that the argument becomes, 'We need them as a counterterrorism partner,' the less
persuasive it is," said William McCants, a former State Department counterterrorism adviser and the
author of a book
on the Islamic State . "If this is purely a conversation about counterterrorism cooperation,
and if the Saudis are a big part of the problem in creating terrorism in the first place, then how
persuasive of an argument is it?"
In the near term, the alliance remains solid, strengthened by a bond between spy masters.
Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, the Saudi interior minister who took over the effort to arm the Syrian
rebels from Prince Bandar, has known the CIA director, John O. Brennan, from the time Mr. Brennan
was the agency's Riyadh station chief in the 1990s. Former colleagues say the two men remain close,
and Prince Mohammed has won friends in Washington with his aggressive moves to dismantle terrorist
groups like Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
The job Mr. Brennan once held in Riyadh is, more than the ambassador's, the true locus of American
power in the kingdom. Former diplomats recall that the most important discussions always flowed through
the CIA station chief.
Current and former intelligence officials say there is a benefit to this communication channel:
The Saudis are far more responsive to American criticism when it is done in private, and this secret
channel has done more to steer Saudi behavior toward America's interests than any public chastising
could have.
The roots of the relationship run deep. In the late 1970s, the Saudis organized what was known
as the "Safari Club" - a coalition of nations including Morocco, Egypt and France - that ran covert
operations around Africa at a time when Congress had clipped the CIA's wings over years of abuses.
"And so the kingdom, with these countries, helped in some way, I believe, to keep the world safe
at a time when the United States was not able to do that," Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former head
of Saudi intelligence, recalled in a speech at Georgetown University in 2002.
In the 1980s, the Saudis helped finance CIA operations in Angola, where the United States
backed rebels against the Soviet-allied government. While the Saudis were staunchly anticommunist,
Riyadh's primary incentive seemed to be to solidify its CIA ties. "They were buying good will,"
recalled one former senior intelligence officer who was involved in the operation.
In perhaps the most consequential episode, the Saudis helped arm the mujahedeen rebels to
drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. The United States committed hundreds of millions of dollars
each year to the mission, and the Saudis matched it, dollar for dollar.
The money flowed through a CIA-run Swiss bank account. In the book "
Charlie
Wilson's War ," the journalist George Crile III describes how the CIA arranged for the account
to earn no interest, in keeping with the Islamic ban on usury.
In 1984, when the Reagan administration sought help with its secret plan to sell arms to Iran
to finance the contra rebels in Nicaragua, Robert C. McFarlane, the national security adviser, met
with Prince Bandar, who was the Saudi ambassador to Washington at the time. The White House made
it clear that the Saudis would "gain a considerable amount of favor" by cooperating, Mr. McFarlane
later recalled.
Prince Bandar pledged $1 million per month to help fund the contras, in recognition of the
administration's past support to the Saudis. The contributions continued after Congress cut off funding
to the contras. By the end, the Saudis had contributed $32 million, paid through a Cayman Islands
bank account.
When the Iran-contra scandal broke, and questions arose about the Saudi role, the kingdom kept
its secrets. Prince Bandar refused to cooperate with the investigation led by
Lawrence E. Walsh , the independent counsel.
In a letter, the prince declined to testify, explaining that his country's "confidences and commitments,
like our friendship, are given not just for the moment but the long run."
"... While playing down the importance of government gains, Saleh said military aid from the rebels' foreign backers - including Saudi Arabia and Turkey - was not enough to confront offensives that are also backed on the ground by Iran. ..."
"... These are among the difficulties facing the FSA on the ground especially since the aerial bombing is affecting some headquarters, equipment, cars and personnel ..."
... The government last week made one of its most significant
gains since the start of the Russian intervention, capturing the town of Salma in Latakia province.
While recent gains do not appear to mark a tipping point in the conflict, with rebels fighting
back and regaining positions in some places, insurgents describe high levels of attrition on the
front lines of western Syria.
Officials close to Damascus say sealing the northwestern border with Turkey is the priority. A
Syrian military source said rebel supply lines from Turkey, which backs the insurgents, were under
pressure from Russian and Syrian air strikes.
... ... ...
"Most opposition-held areas turned to defense because of the huge mobilization by Russians troops
and the use of a large number of planes with unlimited munitions," said Jamil al-Saleh, commander
of a rebel Free Syrian Army (FSA) group.
While playing down the importance of government gains, Saleh said military aid from the rebels'
foreign backers - including Saudi Arabia and Turkey - was not enough to confront offensives that
are also backed on the ground by Iran.
"These are among the difficulties facing the FSA on the ground especially since the aerial
bombing is affecting some headquarters, equipment, cars and personnel and the aid given is little
compared to the ferocious attack," he told Reuters.
Saudi Arabia's support for the opposition has yet to be translated into the kind of heavier weapons
the rebels are seeking, notably anti-aircraft missiles.
The military source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said rebels were suffering from the destruction
of their weapons depots, made possible by good intelligence. Their appeals for more support showed
they had "lost a lot of field capacities", the source said.
"... In a presentation titled Poke Me: How Social Networks Can Both Help and Harm Our Kids at the 119th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Rosen presented his findings based on a number of computer-based surveys distributed to 1,000 urban adolescents and his 15-minute observations of 300 teens in the act of studying. ..."
"... Some of the negative side effects of Facebook use for teens that Rosen cited include: ..."
"... Development of narcissism in teens who often use Facebook; ..."
"... Presence of other psychological disorders, including antisocial behaviors, mania and aggressive tendencies, in teens who have a strong Facebook presence; ..."
"... Increased absence from school and likelihood of developing stomach aches, sleeping problems, anxiety and depression, in teens who overdose in technology on a daily basis, including Facebook and video games; ..."
"... Lower grades for middle school, high school and college students who checked Facebook at least once during a 15-minute study period; ..."
"... Lower reading retention rates for students who most frequently had Facebook open on their computers during the 15-minute study period. ..."
We ARE what we THINK - not what we look at, or what we look like, or what we think we look like.
In fact, the visual cortex can be highly deceptive when it comes to the functioning of the brain.
Optical illusions exploit this brain trick.
Most practically, overloading of the visual cortex reduces higher brain function to nearly zero.
It's a very subtle process, not understood by many TV watchers. TV makes you stupid by overloading
your visual cortex, at a certain Hz frequency, which affects your reptilian brain. This is
why you get the munchies when you watch TV, or laugh without reason. Facebook is a lot more
effective at this because the associations are stronger (i.e. your friends) and it's interactive
- making the users feel as if they are controlling their reality.
The fact is that users are not controlling Facebook - Facebook is controlling you. They
have set the stage which is limited, and allow users few useful tools to manage this barrage on your
mind. The only way to really stop this invasive virus from spreading: turn it off!
Reasons to delete your Facebook:
Stop sharing personal details with the US government and a host of other interested groups
Enjoy more time in your life, which can be used to pursue a hobby, write a book, or learn
a foreign language
Fill your brain with something wholesome! Plant a tree!
Lose weight
Increase your IQ
Increase the speed of your computer
Increase the speed of your internet
Discover the thousands of other more interesting sites on the internet - such as Wikipedia!
Learn about Quantum Physics! Did you know that major universities now publish their complete
course videos online? Users can literally get a full college education by attending Stanford
(but without the degree of course) compeltely for free, online. A good start - the Khan
Academy www.khanacademy.org
No one can argue that Facebook has provided families with means of keeping in touch at long distances.
Many grandparents wouldn't otherwise see photos of their growing grandchildren. But there are
hundreds of other social networks, private networks, and other methods, of doing the same thing -
without all the 'crap' that comes with Facebook. Remember the days when we would email photos
to each other? We'd spend time even cropping photos and choosing the best one. Now, users
on Facebook will even snap away photos of their daily dinner, or inform the world that they forgot
to wash their socks. Facebook users who engage in the practice of 'wall scanning' have little
room in their brains for anything else.
Children are also a consideration with Facebook. Web Filters actually block facebook the
same way they block other illicit sites. Parents can probably relate to this article more than
the average user. Average users have accepted spam crap as part of life. It's in our
mailboxes, it's on billboards on our highways, it's everywhere. But really - it's not!
Facebook has been banned in corporate networks, government offices, schools, universities, and
other institutions. Workers at times would literally spend all day posting and reading Facebook.
It's as useless as TV - but much more addicting. From
Psychology Today:
Below we review some research suggesting 7 ways that Facebook may be hurting you.
It can make you feel like your life isn't as cool as everyone else's.
Social psychologist Leon Festinger observed that people are naturally inclined to engage in
social comparison. To answer a question like "Am I doing better or worse than average?" you
need to check out other people like you. Facebook is a quick, effortless way to engage in social
comparison, but with even one glance through your News Feed you might see pictures of your
friends enjoying a mouth-watering dinner at Chez Panisse, or perhaps winning the Professor
of the Year award at Yale University. Indeed, a study by Chou and Edge (2012) found that chronic
Facebook users tend to think that other people lead happier lives than their own, leading them
to feel that life is less fair.
It can lead you to envy your friends' successes. Did cousin Annabelle
announce a nice new promotion last month, a new car last week, and send a photo from her cruise
vacation to Aruba this morning? Not only can Facebook make you feel like you aren't sharing
in your friends'
happiness, but it can also make you feel envious of their happy lives. Buxmann and Krasnova
(2013) have found that seeing others' highlights on your News Feed can make you envious of
friends' travels, successes, and appearances. Additional findings suggest that the negative
psychological impact of passively following others on Facebook is driven by the feelings of
envy that stem from passively skimming your News Feed.
It can lead to a sense of false consensus. Sit next to a friend while
you each search for the same thing on Google. Eli Pariser, author of The Filter Bubble
(2012), can promise you won't see the same search results. Not only have your Internet
searches grown more personalized, so have
social networking
sites. Facebook's sorting function places posts higher in your News Feed if they're from like-minded
friends-which may distort your view of the world (Constine, 2012). This can lead you to believe
that your favorite political candidate is a shoe-in for the upcoming election, even though
many of your friends are saying otherwise…you just won't hear them.
It can keep you in touch with people you'd really rather forget.
Want to know what your ex is up to? You can…and that might not be a good thing.Facebook stalking
has made it harder to let go of past relationships. Does she seem as miserable as I am? Is
that ambiguous post directed at me? Has she started
datingthat guy
from trivia night? These questions might better remain unanswered; indeed, Marshall (2012)
found that Facebook users who reported visiting their former partner's page experienced disrupted
post-breakup emotional recovery and higher levels of distress. Even if you still run into your
ex in daily life, the effects of online surveillance were significantly worse than those of
offline contact.
It can make you jealous of your current partner. Facebook stalking
doesn't only apply to your ex. Who is this Stacy LaRue, and why is she constantly "liking"
my husband's Facebook posts? Krafsky and Krafsky, authors of Facebook and YourMarriage
(2010), address many common concerns in relationships that stem from Facebook use. "Checking
up on" your partner's page can often lead to
jealousy and
even unwarranted suspicion, particularly if your husband's exes frequently come into the picture.
Krafsky and Krafsky recommend talking with your partner about behaviors that you both consider
safe and trustworthy on Facebook, and setting boundaries where you don't feel comfortable.
It can reveal information you might not want to share with potential employers.
Do you really want a potential employer to know about how drunk you got at last week's
kegger…or the interesting wild night that followed with the girl in the blue bikini?
Peluchette and Karl (2010) found that 40% of users mention
alcoholuse on
their Facebook page, and 20% mention sexual activities. We often think these posts are safe
from prying eyes, but that might not be the case. While 89% of jobseekers use social networking
sites, 37% of potential employers do, as well-and are actively looking into their potential
hires (Smith, 2013). If you're on the job market, make sure to check your privacy settings
and restrict any risqué content to "Friends Only", if you don't wish to delete it entirely.
It can become addictive. Think society's most common addictive substances
are coffee, cigarettes, and alcohol? Think again. The DSM-V (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual)
includes a new diagnosis that has stirred controversy: a series of items gauging Internet
Addiction. Since
then, Facebook addiction has gathered attention from both popular media and empirical journals,
leading to the creation of a Facebook addiction scale (Paddock, 2012; see below for items).
To explore the seriousness of this addiction, Hofmann and colleagues (2012) randomly texted
participants over the course of a week to ask what they most desired at that particular moment.
They found that among their participants, social media use was craved even more than tobacco
and alcohol.
Poke Me: How Social Networks Can Both Help and Harm Our Kids
In a presentation titled "Poke Me: How Social Networks Can Both Help and Harm Our Kids"
at the 119th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Rosen presented his
findings based on a number of computer-based surveys distributed to 1,000 urban adolescents and
his 15-minute observations of 300 teens in the act of studying.
Some of the negative side effects of Facebook use for teens that Rosen cited include:
Development of narcissism in teens who often use Facebook;
Presence of other psychological disorders, including antisocial behaviors, mania and
aggressive tendencies, in teens who have a strong Facebook presence;
Increased absence from school and likelihood of developing stomach aches, sleeping
problems, anxiety and depression, in teens who "overdose" in technology on a daily basis, including
Facebook and video games;
Lower grades for middle school, high school and college students who checked Facebook
at least once during a 15-minute study period;
Lower reading retention rates for students who most frequently had Facebook open on
their computers during the 15-minute study period.
Facebook will cause lower grades for students, but it's OK for adults? hmm...
Facebook (FB) Investment Advice
It's just a matter of time when this will result in a major scandal, FB stock will crash, and
class action investigations will pile
up. Lawyers will have to hire companies
that automate workflow just to deal with the huge amount of securities class action settlements for
this case. The Facebook (FB) IPO disaster was a telling sign about this issue. Sell
it, block it, delete it, disgard it. Facebook is a bunch of trash. There's no technology
behind it. There are a huge amount of struggling companies that have developed really ground
breaking technology that will change the life of humans on this planet earth. Facebook (FB)
is not one of those companies. Facebook (FB) is a disaster waiting to happen. It's a
liability. And it's unsolveable.
Delete your Facebook account, sell your Facebook stock if you have it - it's guaranteed that by
doing so, you can grow your portfolio, increase your IQ and overall well being. Save your business,
save your family, save your life - and delete this virus!
"... Graun is difficult to navigate and very slow to load with the weight of all the spam. Ad blockers make it actually usable. You just have to get used to deleting the notice banners on every page. ..."
"... Use "https everywhere" to avoid the sticky at the top if it annoys you as it does me - tends to mess up the btl however.. ..."
"... Well, Guardian, I am using an ad blocker because your adware fucks up my browser. ..."
"... I cannot get even one word typed and my browser gets all fucked up. The screen does flips and all sorts of things as if someone else is controlling my mouse. I try to type a word and it takes a full minute for one letter to appear after I have typed it, and sometimes everything disappears. ..."
Agree with your post if a little off topic, but where else can we post about this.
Graun is
difficult to navigate and very slow to load with the weight of all the spam. Ad blockers make
it actually usable. You just have to get used to deleting the notice banners on every page.
Use "https everywhere" to avoid the sticky at the top if it annoys you as it does me - tends
to mess up the btl however..
We notice you're using an ad-blocker. Perhaps you'll support us another way? Become a
supporter for just 50 pounds per year.
WTF? How do they know I am using an ad blocker? I am Using Ublock by the way. Well, Guardian,
I am using an ad blocker because your adware fucks up my browser.
I cannot get even one word
typed and my browser gets all fucked up. The screen does flips and all sorts of things as if
someone else is controlling my mouse. I try to type a word and it takes a full minute for one
letter to appear after I have typed it, and sometimes everything disappears.
THIS is WHY I
use an ad-blocker, Guardian. Since I have been using an ad-blocker, I don't have those problems
anymore when I visit your site, and it only happens on your site. Your incessant use of automatic
videos and other tactics is not advertising.
It is ADWARE! Get it?! Adware! And why would I
want to support a paper that is just as biased as any other paper? Wow, you really pissed me
off just now when I saw that little banner at the bottom of my screen, Guardian. Of all the
nerve.
Spot on CP, I actually switched my adblocker off to accommodate the graun, I thought fair enough
they need to generate income. But as you said the browser goes haywire.
Another thing is the
ridiculous moderation I receive for expressing a viewpoint, without foul language, without racist
overtones, in fact just normal comments and like yesterday I commented on the fact that I do
not believe in religion in any form, I think it is fantasist nonsense, put their by the ruling
class elitist's in order to keep the plebs in place with angst, that gets moderated.
It is absolutely shameful how the graun operates these days.
"... For Wood the key to making sense of capitalism was the nature of the vertical relations of competition, i.e. competition among capitals leading to investment and productivity growth. ..."
"... Wood was heavily indebted to Robert Brenner who is indeed one darn brilliant historian. I do have considerable skepticism about Brenners theory of the origins of capitalism in light of the historic researches of Robert C. Allen, Kenneth Pomeranz and others. ..."
"... Hers was a political theory of capitalism: capitalism was created through acts of force and was maintained as a mode of force (albeit, a mode of force that was exercised primarily through the economy). ..."
"... But coercion is central to the entire system. In any event, heres what she has to say about the economic coercion that underlies capitalism: surplus extraction is purely economic, achieved through the medium of commodity exchange as propertyless workers, responding to purely economic COERCIONS, sell their labour power for a wage in order to gain access to the means of production. ..."
"... Corey, lets define terms so we can understand each other. We have the terms: force, coercion, and economic coercions. You say that for Wood the system depends on economic COERCIONS . Yes, agreed. To be clear, I am saying that this kind of coercion is different from force , defined as the use of violence to compel labor. Force is different from economic coercion which acts without an agent compelling another agent to act in a determinate way. ..."
"... So we see here that for Wood capitalism is characterized by an absence of force in the direct appropriation of the surplus. This is what is crucial to Wood, so it is misleading for you to characterize Wood as one who put force at the center of her understanding of capitalism. ..."
"... coerced in an economic sense to sell their labor power; they are not coerced at this stage by brute, physical force. Physical force mostly comes in earlier, with e.g. the enclosures or (other means of) primitive accumulation. ..."
"... found The Politics of Capitalism (Monthly Review, September, 1999 - http://monthlyreview.org/1999/09/01/the-politics-of-capitalism/ ) which seems to represent her view that the nature of capitalism arises not from class war but competition. ..."
I came to Ellen Meiksins Wood's work late in life. I had known
about her for years; she was a good friend of my friend Karen Orren, the UCLA political scientist,
who was constantly urging me to read Wood's work. But I only finally did that two years ago, at the
suggestion of, I think it was, Paul Heideman. I read her
The Origins of Capitalism . It was one of those Aha! moments. Wood was an extraordinarily rigorous
and imaginative thinker, someone who breathed life into Marxist political theory and made it speak-not
to just to me but to many others-at multiple levels: historical, theoretical, political. She ranged
fearlessly across the canon, from the ancient Greeks to contemporary social theory, undaunted by
specialist claims or turf-conscious fussiness. She insisted that we look to all sorts of social and
economic contexts, thereby broadening our sense of what a context is. She actually had a theory of
capitalism and what distinguished it from other social forms: that it was not merely commercial exchange,
that it did not evolve out of a natural penchant for barter and trade, that it was not a creation
of urban markets. Hers was a political theory of capitalism: capitalism was created through
acts of force and was maintained as a mode of force (albeit, a mode of force that was exercised primarily
through the economy). She was also a remarkably clear writer: unpretentious, jargon-free, straightforward.
Just last week, I had started reading
Citizens to Lords , and I'd been slowly accumulating a list of questions that I hoped to ask
her one day on the off-chance that we might meet in person.
Now she's gone
. The work continues.
1
I had no idea. I knew Ellen (and at the time also her late husband Neal) as fellow members of
of the NLR editorial committee. We resigned together in February 1993 in response to an internal
coup. I disagreed quite strongly with Ellen's somewhat Lukacksian brand of Marxism and indeed
with her political judgements at the time (re Yugoslavia). But we did agree that people collaborating
together on a socialist journal should respect some basic ethical (she'd probably have said "political")
constraints in their dealings with one another and that formed the basis of an at least temporary
alliance between people of very different theoretical and political views. Later, trying to justify
the coup, the people who prevailed sometimes said that they were rescuing NLR from "paleo-Marxism"
(by which they meant Ellen) or from "Croatian nationalism" (by which they meant Branka Magas and
Quintin Hoare. Neither charge was true and the two charges together were contradictory. The only
thing that united us was a distaste for sharp dealing by unprincipled semi-aristocrats. Ellen
basically wrote the statement here:
Christ! It seems like anytime I go anywhere on the internet another person whose work I like dies.
Boy is it going to be a long, cold and miserable year…
'The Origins of Capitalism' was a great book; really clear, succinct explanations that really
made sense. I particularly remember its usefulness in explaining Robert Brenner's work, and the
debates around that, in an engaging manner. Her critique of rational choice Marxism was another
piece that I really liked.
Rakesh Bhandari 01.14.16 at 9:47 pm
@1. There may have been some drama regarding the Monthly Review Editorial Board as well. Wood
was ousted as Editor there, I think. Sometimes Paul Krugman reads to me as if he were channeling
Monthly Review founder Paul Sweezy when he talks about the political obstacles to Keynesian management,
the role of monopoly in boosting profits and thwarting investment, the bailing out of the economy
via bubbles, and the limits of monetary economy in a period of stagnation.
Of course Krugman does not have Sweezy's Cold War commitments. Sweezy was a student at Harvard
in the days of Alvin Hansen (and Schumpeter). At any rate, Monthly Review under John Bellamy Foster's
leadership decided to return to Sweezy's economics rather than Robert Brenner's, which Wood had
been defending during her time at the helm.
For Wood the key to making sense of capitalism was the nature of the vertical relations of
competition, i.e. competition among capitals leading to investment and productivity growth.
This
applied both to the origins of capitalism in the new competitive system of agricultural leasing
and to the present conjuncture, defined above all else by destructive forms of international price
competition that have led not to an orderly restructuring of an efficient international division
of labor but rather mercantilist attempts to preserve extant industry via competitive devaluations
and wage repression.
For both her sense of history and contemporary economics, Wood was heavily indebted to Robert
Brenner who is indeed one darn brilliant historian. I do have considerable skepticism about Brenner's
theory of the origins of capitalism in light of the historic researches of Robert C. Allen, Kenneth Pomeranz and others. And I tend to understand sharpening international competition more as the
consequence than the cause of stagnation, but still the present debate has been incredibly enriched
by Brenner's work and Wood's critical defense of it.
Robin: "She actually had a theory of capitalism and what distinguished it from other social forms:
that it was not merely commercial exchange, that it did not evolve out of a natural penchant for
barter and trade, that it was not a creation of urban markets. Hers was a political theory of
capitalism: capitalism was created through acts of force and was maintained as a mode of force
(albeit, a mode of force that was exercised primarily through the economy)."
This is a bit misleading. Wood was quite critical of the role force in the form of slavery
and colonialism played in the origins of capitalism; after all, Spain had a colonial empire based
in slavery and did not industrialize. This is why, she reasoned, that changes internal to England
must have been the most important causes. But I think this led her to exaggerate how productive
English agriculture was and how many of those displaced in English agriculture really went to
work in the new industries and how important English agriculture was as a market for the new industries.
Her work on the origins of capitalism is incompatible with the work of Sven Beckert, Walter Johnson,
Edward Baptist and the new historians of slavery (and before them Joseph Inikori); they also try
to show how crucial colonial and slave violence was to the development of capitalism. Of course
it is incompatible with the work of Amiya Bagchi and Utsa Patnaik.
I do not remember Wood emphasizing force within England as well–the kind of force used against
vagabonds or to uphold maximum wage laws…all described by Marx. For Wood, the origins of capitalism
were in the forms of economic competition and the new incentives for accumulation created by the
new agricultural property system in England. So the force she was interested in was not primarily
the force or violent repression used against the newly landless but the "force" of economic competition
in encouraging productivity-enhancing investment on the new tenant farmers. This is not force
as meant in the OP but force in a metaphoric way.
Rakesh: As is often the case with your interventions here, I'm not sure I really understand your
comments, but to the extent that I do, you're wrong that Wood didn't think force, both political
and economic, and not merely in the metaphoric sense, were central to capitalism. Her point about
capitalism is not there is no force, political or economic; it's that unlike feudalism, the moment
of appropriation of the workers' surplus is separate from the moment of coercion, and the agent
of the appropriation is not the agent or source of the coercion. But coercion is central to the
entire system. In any event, here's what she has to say about the economic coercion that underlies
capitalism: "surplus extraction is purely 'economic', achieved through the medium of commodity
exchange as propertyless workers, responding to purely 'economic' COERCIONS, sell their labour
power for a wage in order to gain access to the means of production." (Origins of Capitalism,
56)
Corey, let's define terms so we can understand each other.
We have the terms: force, coercion, and economic coercions.
You say that for Wood the system depends on "'economic' COERCIONS". Yes, agreed. To be clear, I am saying that this kind of coercion is different from "force", defined as the
use of violence to compel labor. Force is different from economic coercion which acts without an agent compelling another agent
to act in a determinate way.
You then say that Wood thinks capitalism depends on "the appropriation of surplus" being "separate
from the moment of coercion."
One would think that you just said that capitalism does not depend on force, though the system
depends on "'economic' COERCIONS".
What you seem to have said is that the system depends not on force but on economic coercion
though you insist that the system depends on force. If by force you mean the protection of private
property rights, then yes capitalism depends on force. But this was not Wood's focus; her differentia
specifica of capitalism is exactly the absence of force in the appropriation of surplus labor.
Think of it this way: since labor is, according to this theory, not under direct control but
has to be paid for in the open market, the capitalist has to recover those costs and make a profit,
and that means the capitalist has to produce competitively which requires productivity-enhancing
investment (this implies that American plantation slavery could not have been a truly capitalist
enterprise, an implication Wood herself draws).
Now Wood would have to admit that with servants-in-husbandry labor was not actually free in
early modern England, so she focused her attention on how the competition to secure leases economically
coerced tenant farmers to increase productivity. Still the point is that the landlord appropriates
the surplus without violently forcing a tributary payment from the tenant farmer.
So we see here that for Wood capitalism is characterized by an absence of force in the direct
appropriation of the surplus. This is what is crucial to Wood, so it is misleading for you to
characterize Wood as one who put force at the center of her understanding of capitalism.
Now here is how force works in her understanding of the origins of capitalism. Her theory of
force is a Goldilocks one. English landlords had the requisite force to enclose land (unlike France)
but not the requisite force to re-enserf the peasantry (unlike what happened East of the Elbe).
Her theory of capitalism is an attempt to understand cross-national variation in productivity
growth and capital accumulation.
This Goldilocks situation led to economic competition among tenant farmers. This is what sets
England apart, and puts it on the course for capitalism.
But this theory has problems: 1. it underestimates how important the surpluses appropriated
by force under slavery and colonialism were, and 2. it exaggerates the importance of the English
agricultural revolution to the industrial take off (workers released from agriculture were not
the main source of industrial workers and the English agricultural market may not have been crucial
as a market for the new industries; moreover, improvements in English agriculture may have themselves
been more the consequence of urban growth than its cause).
Robin writes: "Hers was a political theory of capitalism: capitalism was created through acts
of force and was maintained as a mode of force (albeit, a mode of force that was exercised primarily
through the economy)."
Perhaps you could clarify what you are saying.
1. What do you mean by force?
2. How was capitalism created through acts of force?
3. Do these acts of force include mercantilist warfare and slavery? For Wood? For you? For me,
yes.
4. Does "force" include for you "'Economic' coercions"? For me, no.
5. If so, what are economic coercions and how are they different from other coercions?
6. How does Wood define capitalism? Do you agree with her? I do not not.
7. Do you agree with Wood's explanation for the rise of capitalism? I do not.
@RHB Yes, probably just my private shorthand for how to divide up versions of historical materialism.
Her emphasis on the primacy of the class struggle was at variance with the interpretation of Marx
on history that we find in Plekhanov, Bukharin, Cohen etc. I think she was wrong about Marx, but
that doesn't necessarily make her wrong about history.
jake the antisoshul soshulist 01.15.16 at 2:52 pm
16
Perhaps Corey was being sloppy with his terminology, but it seems to me that separating "force"
and "coercion" is splitting hairs. Work or starve seems to me to be at least as much "force" as
it is "coercion". Or, you may look at them as levels in a hierarchy (request, coerce, force. Plus,
if a tenant withheld his production from the landholder, he would recieve some type of retribution.
Which would result in either imprisonment or eviction.
The basic 'model' or picture of capitalism presented by Marx in Capital vol.1 (if I recall rightly)
is one in which workers/proletarians own nothing but their labor power, which they are 'forced'
to sell to capitalists for a wage in order to survive. The quote from Wood given by Corey @10
thus follows Marx. Proletarians (displaced from the land or otherwise separated from their own
means of production) are 'coerced' in an economic sense to sell their labor power; they are not
coerced at this stage by brute, physical force. Physical force mostly comes in earlier, with e.g.
the enclosures or (other means of) 'primitive accumulation'. The historical accuracy of this is
a separate question; but it's what Marx basically says, I think, and seems to be what Wood says
in the quote @10. (n.b. Have not read her books.)
Not having read Wood's works before, I subjected myself of course to Google/NSA, and immediately
found 'The Politics of Capitalism' (Monthly Review, September, 1999 -
http://monthlyreview.org/1999/09/01/the-politics-of-capitalism/
) which seems to represent her view that the nature of capitalism arises not from class war
but competition. While all of you know history better than I, I found it very interesting from
the point of view of the utopian activism in which I periodically indulge, since it suggests a
more logical turn away from such fixes as Keynesian and Welfare-state capitalism and 'market socialism'
than my previously untutored intuition that those are con games. And so on….
In fact Wood is not primarily concerned with workers due to their dispossession being "forced"
to sell their labor-power; though a famous exponent of class struggle from below, Wood is more
concerned about the how English tenant famers' dependence on the market for agricultural leases
and inputs (including labor power) "forces" them to recover their costs through the market and
thus specialize and make productivity-enhancing investments.
Force here is reduced to the same role that God has in the Newtonian world view; it sets the
dynamics in motion but then plays no further role. The right level of violence was needed for
landlords to enclose the land while not being able to pin down agricultural serfs or slaves; this
forces the lords to lease out land, and the tenant farmers having paid the leases must now begin
to produce capitalistically which means a degree of specialization that would not have made rational
economic sense for past peasantries. Henceforth, the surplus is appropriated without force or
extra-economic coercion; the production and appropriation of surplus result from activities coordinated
via market activity.
And in fact it is exactly because the surplus can only be appropriated through market activity
that we get capitalism: specialization and productivity-increasing investment and the capitalization
of profits, that is, the use of the surplus on better capital equipment rather than just the building
of Churches and weapons. If the tenant famers had forcible access to an enslaved workforce and
forcible access to land they would not have to produce capitalistically to continue to appropriate
a surplus.
For Wood, it is the absence of force that is the differentia specifica of capitalism, but [Corey
Robin] reads her as if she had been some kind of left-libertarian most interested in showing how
capitalism really does depend on force.
In fact what Wood is doing is displacing the role of force as a form of violence from the origins
and operation of capitalism, and she is making its origins quite insular.
Here are some problems with the story.
On a per acre basis English agricultural productivity did not soar; the workers it released
were not the source of workers for new industries; it was not a singularly important market for
the new industries.
It can be shown that while not sufficient for revolutionary capitalist development, mercantilist
warfare and slavery played necessary direct and indirect roles (indirect in the sense that the
success of empire created higher wages which yielded factor prices favorable to industrialization,
and the incredible success of English merchants gave them the power to challenge sovereign power
to create capitalist property relations). One can not focus just on developments internal to England
as Wood did.
Finally force in the form of severe physical punishments of workers for vagabondage and "exorbitant"
wage demands played an important role in early capitalism. So far from emphasizing how central
force was to early capitalism, Wood displaced it.
Here is Robin again: "Hers was a political theory of capitalism: capitalism was created through
acts of force and was maintained as a mode of force (albeit, a mode of force that was exercised
primarily through the economy)."
Now the problem with this formulation is that it overplays force, and it is based on a confusing
usage of terms. What Robin should have said is that we have "coercion" and then the two forms
of coercion: "economic coercion" and "extra-economic coercion" or "force". Coercion that operates
through the market or economic coercion is not force as commonly understood, so Robin is twisting
terms while accusing me of a confusing use of terms.
To understand Wood you have to see what little role she gave to force in her understanding
of early capitalism. It is there, like God for a moment; and then gone. To understand capitalism,
Wood insisted that we see it primarily as not based on force, the very opposite of how Robin is
summarizing her.
The role of force is minimized to include only its role in the resolution of the class struggle
in the English countryside in Wood's account which is basically Brenner's simplified; after that,
force is said to be excluded from the process of surplus appropriation, and this is exactly what
distinguishes capitalism and gives its revolutionary dynamic, according to Brenner and Wood.
The force involved in slavery and mercantilist warfare is not included in this account of the
origins of capitalism; and the role of force in the suppression of the wage demands of the early
landless proletariat is basically also ignored.
It's highly misleading to read Wood as a left-libertarian wanting to show that capitalism is
based on force.
Very sad news. I read her Origin last year and loved it. Direct, concise, extremely clear,
and provoked seemingly hundreds of eureka moments for me. Just a brilliant book.
Pair it with Michael Perelman's The Invention of Capitalism , and you've got a highly
accurate, deeply researched, far-reaching and layered picture of capitalism - what it does, where
it came from - and a needed corrective to the usual mindless cheerleading.
"Key question still tends to be how far classical world can/should be seen as comparable to modern,
and how far modern soc sci methods are appropriate. Rome has been largely though not entirely
taken over by the modernisers, with very optimistic views about its sophistication and level of
development; Greece is much more up for grabs, with significant group of scholars still pushing
for class-based and/or cultural-anthropological interpretations." Neville Morley @ 30
Fascinating. Care to expand on this debate Neville? What exactly is at stake? What are the
axes you're grinding?
"... Its great news for the people of Iran, business in Europe, not so great
for Israel and my country, Canada. Oil is going to be $30 a barrel forever now.
Our previous very stupid government put all our eggs in one basket, oil at $100
a barrel. ..."
"... Dear Moshe, You are not giving billions to Iran, It is Iranians money that
was for frozen by US banks . ..."
"... Most of the middle eastern countries such as Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Saudi
Arabia, UAE, Libya and lebanon are tribes with flags. The exception is Iran which
has a long and establised sense of nationhood. It will never be a failed state.
..."
"... Iran is about to get their frozen assets back as part of the deal... lets
hope they put that $100 billion to some good use... Welfare, housing, hospitals
and education should all benefit... Unfortunately with so much trouble on their
doorstep, theyll probably but new fighter planes and lots of guns from the new American
buddies... ..."
"... Why do you think that US, UK, Israel, Saudi wants stability in Mid East
region ? All evidence suggests otherwise from regime change in Syria to Libya .from
emergence of Isis to Saudi demanding that US bombs Iran to state of oblivion. I
am very happy about the agreement, however, i am very cynical about tricky Americans
to uphold their part of bargain. ..."
"... If you dislike Iran maybe you must hate Saudi Arabia, a dubious country
we gave been allies with for years. Personally, I find Iran to be far more reasonable
than Saudi Arabia.. Perhaps you should open your eyes. ..."
"... They cant delay this. What they will do, is introduce different kinds of
US only sanctions, for other reasons (to appease their AIPAC donors). ..."
"... In addition to that, i should say that there is a perception fueled by
conservatives that all the bad stuff has been done by Iranians, but if I were an
Iranian citizen, it would be pretty hard to forget that the US supported Saddam
Hussein financially and militarily (with aid) during an eight-year, very bloody
Iran-Iraq war that left hundreds of thousand Iranians dead or wounded (and, incidentally,
thats when the US downed an Iranian airliner). ..."
"... Very true. How many Saudi terrorists are there, and how many Iranian ones?
Islamic terror is exported is large quantities by our friends in Saudi-Arabia, just
second to oil. ..."
"... Already Iran is looking at using barter with Europe exchanging oil for
various goods. ..."
"... Anyway, not to engage in moral relativism but my country, the USA, has
some human rights blemishes we need to recognize as well. Having President Obama
say we tortured some folks doesnt help.. The dismissive tone is not conducive to
addressing the situation. ..."
"... Germany had a great military, a modern industrialized society, and a history
of invading other countries. Iran, not. ..."
"... Note to Republicans: Peacemaking is a good thing. Carpet bombing is a bad
thing. ..."
"... Sounds like the Iranians are gradually emerging from xenophobic theocracy.
..."
"... Hopefully Iranians can build on this and continue to demand better relations
with the west. Surly, they have had their differences with the west but they shouldnt
let religious fundamentalists use Irans past history to create hate and pessimistic
attitude towards west ..."
"... And would you also observe that most of these people would likely still
be alive today if it werent for civilized Western nations bombing thier country,
disbanding their army and institutions and throwing their country into chaos? ..."
"... But a country that goes to war for nothing more than greed sending hundreds
of thousands to their deaths including their own sons and daughters ... would you
visit there ... oops you live in the UK? ..."
"... There were no sanctions against Israel, which has nuclear weapons. Saudi
Arabia is an Islamic fundamentalist state which sponsors terrorism. It is all hypocrisy.
..."
"... Vinculture: A disaster in the making thanks to 0bamas incompetence and
naivety. A disaster for Israels aggressive foreign policy, maybe. And a disaster
for the House of Saud. ..."
"... If the deal sticks on the US side, expect to see Iran make a number of
subtle shifts in a pro-US direction over the next few years. It will be a reflection
of the outcome of internal struggles within the Iranian clergy. The Supreme Leader
gave Rouhani the chance to prove that negotiations and concessions could get acceptable
results. The success of the negotiations will give Rouhanis faction greater clout
for similar actions until such time as either they stuff it up good and proper,
or somone crazy gets elected as US President. ..."
"... The USA has modified its attitude to Syria from Assad must go! to OK, he
can hang around for a while , simply because Syria, with Russian, Iranian and Hezbollah
assistance, is gaining the upper hand. Hence the willingness for the USA to negotiate.
We rarely hear the words regime change in Syria from our politicians any more. So
it is with Iran. Apart from Iranian involvement in Syria, Iran has managed to outlast
the sanctions regimes and has had to ratchet up its own development of medicines,
weaponry etc in anticipation of a possible Israeli or US attack. As a country of
some 80 million people, they wouldnt be a pushover in the military sense. And at
what cost? It doesnt bear thinking about. ..."
"... I dont believe for one second Iran will be able to bring that much oil
online so quickly. The issues which have come about through years of barely no maintenance,
cant just be reversed in a matter of months. Time will tell. But the mainstream
media has been pushing this for a long time to further suppress oil prices. ..."
"... Meanwhile the US and Britain are directing and supplying the bombs killing
innocent people in Yemen, none of which gets coverage in the press. It is a sad
bad world we live in these days. Iran is probably less of a threat than Saudi Arabia
which funds extremists who are so close to Isis and the likes yet do we care. It
seems not. ..."
"... If only we had strong leadership like W Bush neh? Hed have strongly Decidered
his way to victory just like the gleaming success next-door. Pass the bong. ..."
"... If we put aside sheer hypocrisy (always an important feature of foreign
policy!) then I think the usual argument is that, unlike we rational Westerners,
the Iranians are crazy religious maniacs who cant be trusted with a bomb. In reality,
though obviously the Iranian regime is a religiously-based one, they have shown
themselves to be quite pragmatic and cautious over the past 2 decades at least.
Which isnt to say the regime is benign, by any means, just that their foreign policy
is based on rational self-interest (or their perception thereof) - just like any
other country. ..."
"... Another reason given is Irans supposed support for terror organisaitons.
Putting aside the fact that defining what is a terror organisaiton is largely a
matter of ones political views, its hard to see what this has to do with the nuclear
issue specifically. Unless we buy the notion - straight from a 5th rate James Bond
knock-off - that Iran could give its (non-existent) nukes to a terrorist, as though
a nuclear bomb was equivalent to an AK-47. ..."
"... I dont back any country with Nukes, but I do back the balance off power,
if Iran is overthrown with Syria, it would be dangerous times for the rest off us.
It would be safer for Israel too disarm, followed by Pakistan, North Korea then
East + West Bilaterally, simutaniously. ..."
"... Iran isnt Nazi Germany, if you want to pursue that analogy then its closer
to Francos Spain and we got on well if occasionally frostily with them for 39 years
without having a war with them ..."
"... After a progressive Persian govt renationalized and booted British Petroleum
out of the country suffered a coup détat instigated with US aid in 1953. ..."
"... After the revolution we armed Saddam Hussein to start a war and killed
millions of Iranians. ..."
"... If I were Iranian Id be double wary now of USs intentions. It seems that
the working method of the West nowadays is to feign a warming of relations to draw
yourself closer before a fatal stab. Remember Libya? And I recall Syria having a
nice warm up period before the gates of hell opened. Take care, Iran. ..."
"... It looks to me that the west has to either start Armageddon to take Iran
out or start to build bridges. ..."
"... Iran has always denied seeking an atomic weapon, saying its activities
are only for peaceful purposes, such as power generation and medical research. The
annual reports of the CIA/Mossad/German BND and the IAEA supported this fact consistently
since 2004. It was only the despicable US/Israeli geopolitics enabled by their propaganda
arm the mainstream media that maintained the charade of a clandestine nuclear weapon
programme. ..."
"... there remains a lack of clarity with regards to the US. - as ever you never
know what the US is going to do, and I suspect the US itself does not know given
it dysfunctional political system. ..."
"... The far right in Israel, not for everyone. Saudi and far right wing Israel
have a symbiotic relationship. Saudi can push its agenda of Wahhabism that secures
its brutal regime and far right Israel profits from the bitter fruits of Saudi,
as it means that Israel is seen as the anti-muslim anchor of the West in the region.
Sadly, the political intervention of the US has been based around protecting and
supporting this symbiotic relationship with money, troops and bombs. ..."
"... Obama has already issued an order(today) lifting sanctions on the sale
of passenger airliners to Iran. Boeing Airbus are in intense competition as Iran
plans to purchase 500 airliners in the next 10 years worth billions of dollars.
..."
"... given that the Iranian government is still highly suspicious of the Brits
(for very good reason) I very much doubt theyll want to spend this much-needed cash
on overpriced pads in Blighty. ..."
"... George W Bush said he got his orders from God, and they were amazingly
similar to the ones he got from Big Oil. We know the results. ..."
"... It i amazing how western oriented news organization by default report the
talking point of the western regimes reflexively. Unlike the news bureaus in the
soviet era, they dont need minders and censors, those are just built in or plugged
in by interviews. ..."
"... He can do what he likes, the US have given Israel a free pass, human rights
abuses, extrajudicial killings, threats to Israeli Arabs, hidden nuclear weapons,
all have to be ignored while their neighbours are subjected to endless scrutiny.
While this continues the Middle East will never be at peace. Palestinians are humans
too. ..."
"... Lifting of Iran sanctions is a good day for the world Yet these gangsters
who control the finance industry(US/UK), and who can and do, impose sanctions at
will, are free, without sanction, to wage war against whoever they so choose with
impunity. Something is not quite right here, or are we too stupid, too compliant
to see it? ..."
"... Ok - so you're anti nuclear weapons. Fair enough, you're free view. For
me, much more importantly is the opportunity for trade. The Iranians are well educated
and still have a historical connection with our country. ..."
"... The sanctions are another kind of war. The tradesmen will win at the end
..."
"... When sanctions started, they were nowhere near as harsh. European countries
- as well as China and India - had long been growing tired of the extremely strict
sanctions imposed mostly by the Americans. ..."
"... All the nuclear nations should have banded together with Iran to help Iran
with their desire for peaceful nuclear power by helping Iran with expertise and
funding to develop Thorium reactors. ..."
"... British foreign policy is a selective and hypocrital joke. ..."
"... Yes, unfortunately neither the UK or the US think long-term, when selling
advanced weapons to the Saudis (or giving them to Israel). That may well come back
to bite them, when the House of Saud falls, as it must. ..."
"... Amazed this has gone through. The worlds biggest and most dangerous children,
Israel and Saudi Arabia, will NOT be pleased. These two are behind so much of the
worlds problems, far moreso than their parent the USA. ..."
"... where are Israels nukes pointing, out of interest? ..."
"... Welcome to the world community Iran. Not a perfect nation but which is.
No point demonizing people nations, it does more harm than good. ..."
"... Remind me, which country is currently levelling Yemen one building at a
time? Oh yes, a Sunni nation Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... Anything that stops the Saudis playing the big I am is fine by me. Theyve
already cut off their own nose over oil prices to stop US fracking and their economy
is suffering, lets hope Iran can keep it low when it doesnt suit Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... Good, let the US who started all this nonsense feel themselves for a while
what it is like to be outside trade with Iran. I bet it will not last long if companies
realize they are still not allowed to do business because of their own extortion
over the many years while the EU does commence trading. ..."
"... I really do hope you have an insurance policy Iran, I wouldnt trust these
liars as far as .. and Id advise using some of whats rightly coming your way to
insulate against future western blackmail. ..."
"... The US specializes in lack of clarity. Remember the two boats that Iran
detained the other day? The US initially said that they had a mechanical failure
and drifted into Iranian territorial waters. That version of events has become non-operative,
and now the US is saying that the boats were fully operational, but one of the sailors
accidentally punched the wrong GPS coordinates in. And then, of course, they failed
to notice that they were getting awfully close to that island where Iran maintained
a base. ..."
It's great news for the people of Iran, business in Europe, not so great
for Israel and my country, Canada. Oil is going to be $30 a barrel forever
now. Our previous very stupid government put all our eggs in one basket,
oil at $100 a barrel.
Israel was on the verge of nuking Iran. Ironically they stand to benefit
from this, doing business with Iran. Reports from Iran were mostly that
they were very western. They are Persian, not Arab, and if you look at historical
maps, that line in the sand has existed for thousands of years. It's a good
day. Iran is not North Korea, and it was the US supporting the Shah and
his solid gold toilet that caused this problem in the first place. Back
in 1978, it was obvious what was going to happen.
Dear Moshe, You are not giving billions to Iran, It is Iranians money
that was for frozen by US banks . Your religion says, Thy shall not
lie and I believe it is in ten commandment, so why are you doing it ?
Most of the middle eastern countries such as Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Saudi
Arabia, UAE, Libya and lebanon are tribes with flags. The exception is Iran
which has a long and establised sense of nationhood. It will never be a
failed state.
A fatwa cannot be 'lifted' because it is the personal opinion of a cleric,
and the cleric involved - Ayatollah Khomeini - has been dead for 25 years.
However, 17 years ago the Iranian government said it was no longer pursuing
the fatwa and would not reward anyone for killing Rushdie. Which kind of
amounts to the same thing.
"There is no doubt that if today's weak western leaders had been
the ones having to deal with Hitler, in place of Winston Churchill,
the Third Reich would be ruling the world today."
For heaven's sake.... If the UK had remained neutral - how would that
have prevented the Red Army from defeating the Nazis? It would have made
the process slightly slower - that's all
Stalin had started to turn the tide against the Nazis even before the
US was involved in WW2 (Battle for Moscow) - and the Brits did little up
to then to help
him. The US did in fact help Stalin before it entered the war - by helping
with war materiel (Lend Lease included the Russians).
The Brits helped too, with the Murmansk convoys - but these only began
in August 1941. British strategic bombing of Germany had also hardy started
by then.
No wonder Stalin pressed for "a second front now"...
With a neutral Britain, the Russians would have got to Cuxhaven and Bremen.
As it was, the Russians got to Wismar (and only stopped due to British artillery
being in position to oppose them - Rossokovski's orders were to advance
to Lübeck..).
Well when it comes to the Iran v Saudi battle of religious fascist dogma
then I'm leaning towards Iran as the lesser of the evils... Iran is
about to get their frozen assets back as part of the deal... let's hope
they put that $100 billion to some good use... Welfare, housing, hospitals
and education should all benefit... Unfortunately with so much trouble on
their doorstep, they'll probably but new fighter planes and lots of guns
from the new American buddies...
Why do you think that US, UK, Israel, Saudi wants stability in Mid East
region ? All evidence suggests otherwise from regime change in Syria to
Libya .from emergence of Isis to Saudi demanding that US bombs Iran to state
of oblivion. I am very happy about the agreement, however, i am very cynical
about tricky Americans to uphold their part of bargain.
Hope for the best but i see Saudi and Israeli are heavily engaged in
sabotaging the agreement.
If you dislike Iran maybe you must hate Saudi Arabia, a dubious country
we gave been allies with for years. Personally, I find Iran to be far more
reasonable than Saudi Arabia.. Perhaps you should open your eyes.
i saw female protestors get beaten at occupy. i see fleeing unarmed guys
shot by cops. maybe the west isn't too pure either? in any case, going to
war over faked wmds doesn't work out well.
They can't delay this. What they will do, is introduce different kinds
of US only sanctions, for other reasons (to appease their AIPAC donors).
The terms of the nuclear deal are such, that they can't punish other countries
for trading with Iran, when the UN and EU lift their sanctions, probably
later today.
Iran can simply refrain from doing any business with the US.
In addition to that, i should say that there is a perception fueled
by conservatives that all the bad stuff has been done by Iranians, but if
I were an Iranian citizen, it would be pretty hard to forget that the US
supported Saddam Hussein financially and militarily (with aid) during an
eight-year, very bloody Iran-Iraq war that left hundreds of thousand Iranians
dead or wounded (and, incidentally, that's when the US downed an Iranian
airliner).
And the years of useless sanctions that only alienated Iranians. Let's
not forget that the Soviet Union, for example, did not fall at the peak
of the Cold War. It fell when the contacts with the West increased. It won't
be that we open the contacts today and tomorrow Iran is a nice Western democracy,
but judging from the splendid success of the 50+ years of US embargo of
Cuba, I would rather engage Iran than isolate it.
"It proved that we can solve important problems through diplomacy,
not threats and pressure, and thus today is definitely an important
day," [Zarif] said.
Is this guy Zarif in receipt of a backhander from Seamus Milne?
Very true. How many Saudi terrorists are there, and how many Iranian
ones? Islamic terror is exported is large quantities by our "friends" in
Saudi-Arabia, just second to oil.
No it won't. When Iran comes in from the cold, even the conservatives won't
want to go back there. They also want a prosperous future for their people.
BBC reporting that there has been a delay in the announcement of the end
of the sanctions - apparently they were expecting a statement 4 hours ago.
However, it's just been announced that 4 American-Iranian prisoners held
in Iran are to be released. Hopefully, that has resolved the 'hitch' that
has been holding up the announcement.
Unfortunately for Iran she is getting her freedom to sell oil on the open
markets right at a time when the oil market is in complete free fall.
Already Iran is looking at using barter with Europe exchanging oil for
various goods.
There will never be true freedom and prosperity for Iran until
they rid themselves from the awful theocracy that has ruined their society
and lives for the past 40 years.
So you think isolation, crippling sanctions and threat of war is better
for achieving peace in the Middle East? Do you have anything constructive
to say at all?
They were already there months ago, together with French politicians and
other businessmen, including the owners of a large chain of hotels. This
is about their 3rd or 4th visit. All embassies, apart from those of the
US and Canada, have reopened (most never closed in spite of sanctions).
The only way we can improve human rights is to first increase our ties between
nations. Gone are the days when you can isolate a country and demand they
improve human rights and expect it to work.
Anyway, not to engage in moral relativism but my country, the USA,
has some human rights blemishes we need to recognize as well. Having President
Obama say "we tortured some folks" doesn't help.. The dismissive tone is
not conducive to addressing the situation.
Iran is a major player in the region, and an unstable Iran means an unstable
Middle East. The sanctions relief will stabilize Iran's economy. An Iran
that is no longer threatened by war and regime change can start to play
a positive role in solving the region's many conflicts. At least that's
the theory, I hope Iran and the West seize this unique moment.
Sure, stick with your close ally and Daesh/IS supporter Saudi Arabia, who
the IMF think will probably become insolvent within 5-years. When that happens,
they'll no longer be able to afford all those advanced weapons and other
toys you keep selling them, which they then use to kill civilians in Yemen.
"But this post is about Iran, which had no business in Iraq or Afghanistan
either" --- Which part about Iran trying to make things difficult in Iraq
for the illegal US occupation forces in those countries, because Iran may
have been a possible target for a future US invasion don't you understand...??
The idea was to make a US occupation fail in Iraq to save their own country...And
it worked.
Fantastic news for the good citizens of Iran. Perhaps the day will come
when Iranians, Europeans, and Americans are flying freely back and forth
visiting each others countries without the horrendous bureaucracy, no fly
lists and such.....
Even if there is one, why to go to Tehran while our MSM will not fail to
provide us with a " Best of ", especially if Charlie Hebdo enters the festival
But this post is about Iran, which had no business in Iraq or
Afghanistan either.
Actually, they weren't in either country. But in any case, surely you'll
agree that Iran, which share borders and has a lot of cultural links with
the above mentioned countries, had a hell of a lot mroe right to be there
than countries on the other side of the world?Particularly as they could
be seen as defensive actions by Iran.
And I agree - let the worthless dump of a region stew in its own
squalor.
That's some hatred for hundreds of millions of people. It was really
terrible of them to force the civilsed west to bomb and invade them, and
create untenable nation states.
whose problems you blame entirely on the west -
No I don't. But I also don't adopt the idiotic stance of wailing over
British occupation soldiers rather than asking what the hell Britain was
doing invading a coutnry on the other side of the world.
ether than Gulf states or indeed Iran.
I guess your hatred prevents you from becoming informed. If you had,
you'd be aware that Iran has taken in huge numbers of Iraqi and Afghani
refugees.
As for the borders, don't they do multiculturalism in the Middle
East then?
You really haven't got a clue, have you? Maybe Iran should re-arrange
Europe's borders to suit itself? You'd be happy with that, no?
The fact that the Israelis and Republicans are keeping quiet is pretty strong
evidence that they have a tiny spark of realization that Obama and Kerry
were in the right. Not that they will ever ever admit it. Note to Republicans:
Peacemaking is a good thing. Carpet bombing is a bad thing.
Sounds like the Iranians are gradually emerging from xenophobic theocracy.
Hopefully other countries can also seek the path of moderation and
wisdom. Israel is among those with plenty of room for improvement. The USA
has the task of avoiding a lurch in the wrong direction in the next election.
It is hard to find much good news around the world these days.
But this post is about Iran, which had no business in Iraq or Afghanistan
either. And I agree - let the worthless dump of a region stew in its own
squalor. Strange isn't it how people from that region - whose problems you
blame entirely on the west - still choose to come to the west en mass, rather
than Gulf states or indeed Iran.
As for the borders, don't they do multiculturalism in the Middle East
then?
A great day. hopefully Iran's influence will finally break out from under
the malign shadow of Saudi Arabia which has held the western world in thrall
for so long
Hopefully Iranians can build on this and continue to demand better relations
with the west. Surly, they have had their differences with the west but
they shouldn't let religious fundamentalists use Iran's past history to
create hate and pessimistic attitude towards west.
As Iranians say: "There is much hope in hopelessness; for at the end
of the dark night, there is light."
I didn't support the invasion of Iraq, for the simple reason that
that region is a failure and a dead loss and should be left to its own
devices.
Yeah, but it never is left to its own devices, is it? The 'troops' you
weep over were part of an illegal occupation force, and therefore their
deaths were legitimate. The west has been bombing, invading and propping
up despots in the Middle EAst (often in countries whose borders were drawn
in London or Paris) for decades. So maybe think for a minute what Western
'civilisation' looks like to people in the Middle East.
I would observe though that far more Iraqi Muslims were killed
by other Iraqi Muslims than by western troops, over the usual ridiculous
sectarian nonsense.
And would you also observe that most of these people would likely
still be alive today if it weren't for civilized Western nations bombing
thier country, disbanding their army and institutions and throwing their
country into chaos?
Good! And may I say finally. This can only be a good thing in the long run,
regardless of any bumps that await them because there will be bumps, considering
certain parties are not too happy about this. But this can only be beneficial
to the country, its people and the world. That there're so many educated
people there is going to be so helpful in the future. Slowly removing the
fear will slowly remove the most important tool in the arsenal used by the
theocracy to govern and changes will occur. It won't be quick, a year or
two but it will happen while the stability should remain.
But a country that goes to war for nothing more than greed sending hundreds
of thousands to their deaths including their own sons and daughters ...
would you visit there ... oops you live in the UK?
Between the PRC and Pakistan, NK has the bomb. It's not clear
exactly how to apportion credit.
Not clear, when you just invent 'facts'. China was against the NK bomb,
and I doubt Pakistan - which btw also borders Iran - had anything to do
with it. Really daft argument.
I can't think why anyone with full grasp of the facts
Says the person who hasn't produced a single fact.
other than those heavily invested in Obama and for his legacy
to not be seen as a lame duck president who's accomplished sfa.
Please. I couldn't give a toss about Obama. I'm not a fan of his at all
(though likely for very differnet reasons than you) but credit where it's
due. Why do Yanks think everyone cares about their infantile politics? In
any case, this deal goes well beyond Yankistan. Enjoy it.
There were no sanctions against Israel, which has nuclear weapons. Saudi
Arabia is an Islamic fundamentalist state which sponsors terrorism. It is
all hypocrisy.
Vinculture: "A disaster in the making thanks to 0bama's incompetence
and naivety." A disaster for Israel's aggressive foreign policy, maybe.
And a disaster for the House of Saud.
If the deal sticks on the US side, expect to see Iran make a number
of subtle shifts in a pro-US direction over the next few years. It will
be a reflection of the outcome of internal struggles within the Iranian
clergy. The Supreme Leader gave Rouhani the chance to prove that negotiations
and concessions could get acceptable results. The success of the negotiations
will give Rouhani's faction greater clout for similar actions until such
time as either they stuff it up good and proper, or somone crazy gets elected
as US President.
This is more of an example of realpolitik coming from the USA (for
a change), despite whatever the nutters in Congress or the military may
say about it.
The USA has modified its attitude to Syria from "Assad must go!"
to "OK, he can hang around for a while", simply because Syria, with Russian,
Iranian and Hezbollah assistance, is gaining the upper hand. Hence the willingness
for the USA to negotiate. We rarely hear the words "regime change in Syria"
from our politicians any more. So it is with Iran. Apart from Iranian involvement
in Syria, Iran has managed to outlast the sanctions regimes and has had
to ratchet up its own development of medicines, weaponry etc in anticipation
of a possible Israeli or US attack. As a country of some 80 million people,
they wouldn't be a pushover in the military sense. And at what cost? It
doesn't bear thinking about.
On the other side of the coin, the US and others are now seeing the Saudi
regime for what it is and given a choice between the KSA and Iran, they've
now decided to plump with the latter - at least for the time being.
I don't believe for one second Iran will be able to bring that much
oil online so quickly. The issues which have come about through years of
barely no maintenance, can't just be reversed in a matter of months. Time
will tell. But the mainstream media has been pushing this for a long time
to further suppress oil prices.
Meanwhile the US and Britain are directing and supplying the bombs killing
innocent people in Yemen, none of which gets coverage in the press. It is
a sad bad world we live in these days. Iran is probably less of a threat
than Saudi Arabia which funds extremists who are so close to Isis and the
likes yet do we care. It seems not.
If only we had strong leadership like W Bush neh? He'd have strongly
Decidered his way to victory just like the gleaming success next-door. Pass
the bong.
I may have the state wrong but please don't tell me you think the USA is
a bastion of tolerance! Gays are beaten up, blacks are shot, muslims are
attacked. America is home to some of the world's best fed bigots.
Go read the IAEA reports over the years, they are the worlds experts that
know exactly what is required for civilian nuclear energy and what is used
for nuclear weapons = they know. What has been agreed is for Iran to curtail
their weapon development and export certain products to Russia and possibly
USA as part of the deal. Of course if you do not want to dig into the technical
details of years of IEAE reports you can chack out what is said on Facebook
and blogsville!
Honestly, I'm starting to almost feel sorry for the failed sanctioneers,
so pathetic are their arguments.
If North Korea, the world's most isolated country - which struggles to
feed its own people - could build a bomb, do you seriously think Iran couldn't?
And if they were determined to do so, why did they join the NPT in the first
place? And why didn't they later leave, something they were free to do at
any time? Then there's the fact that the world's foremost experts have said
that Iran is not pursuing a bomb, and has not done so for many years (if
it ever did).
But... what am I doing trying to discuss facts with you? You're obviously
way more comfortable with some bizarre scenario straight from Bibi's cartoon.
Best we leave you to it, and the rest of the world can get on with business.
Please let's try and be positive about this. Iran has been a pariah state
for far too long and I applaud Obama for extending the arm of friendship
to them during his presidency.
Obviously there are many aspects of the current Iranian regime that we
in the West don't like, but I would rather be taking small steps with them
diplomatically to try and improve the situation than have a hostile stand
off.
Also Iran is not more moderate or understanding with respect to
some American dingys going near a beach in the middle of the Persian
Golf!
That sounds nasty. I hope Rory McIlroy wasn't hurt.
Joking aside, it's been established that the Americans did indeed enter
Iranian waters, probably intentionally. And what you cutely describe as
a 'beach' was actually home to an important Iranian military facility. And
the 'dinghys' were well-equipped military vessels (shame the GPS was faulty
though.....) How do you think the Yanks would have reacted had Iranian vessels
'drifted' just off the shore of a US military facility? By treating them
well and releasing them, complete with 'dingys', the next day? I doubt it,
but we'll never know, as unlike the US, Iran doesn't tend to send its 'dingys'
11,500km away from their own territory.
But you seem to have missed the wider point here. Which is that Iran
is not on trial. There are considerable grievances on both sides (objectively,
the Iranian case against the US and 'west' is much more substantial than
the reverse), but these matters were deliberately left off the table in
these negotiations, which were aimed at solving the (non) issue of Iran's
nuclear programme. The other grievances can hopefully be worked out at a
later stage.
For now, however, let's celebrate what is without doubt the greatest
triumph of diplomacy in recent years.
A red letter day for Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran's Revolutionary Guard, and
their mission to achieve a nuclear weapons capacity, where what's holding
them back most is lack of access to Western technology, currently blocked
under sanctions. They have already demonstrated to their own satisfaction,
and everyone else's, they can withdraw from the NPT, and run down to a fissile
mass of U235 in a matter of months. What they're missing is a bomb design.
There is no doubt that if today's weak western leaders had been the ones
having to deal with Hitler, in place of Winston Churchill, the Third Reich
would be ruling the world today.
The day will come when people will look back and ask what on earth were
people like Obama and John kerry thinking when they did this terrible deal
with Iran.
If only people were "informed" on the inner workings off it all politically/economically.
I am 100% For the American constitution and see the political corruption,
the US is being used, like many other nations, against each other.
"Your" troops were an illegal occupation force, and therefore legitimate
targets.
Besides, given that the thinking at the time was along the lines of ''Real
men go to Tehran'' and that coupled with Shrub's idiotic 'axis' speech,
then who could blame the Iranians for wanting to slow down the 'progress'
of an invading army who might well have had them in their sights too?
Oh, and what do you have to say on the West's support for Iraq in a war
which killed hundreds of thoussands of Iranians, many of them civilians?
Or the shooting down of an Iranian civilian jet, killing all 280 passengers
on board?
Good news indeed. For along time western trust in Saudis oil and money cost
the Middle East a massive fortune. I hope the world see how peaceful Iranians
are an those extremist in Iran are literally the minority. Today I feel
proud because diplomacy solved a very complicated issue which I wouldn't
see it coming. Thank you mr Zarif...
Win-Win
I just wanted to explore this idea of why any argument against
Iran, or anyone for that matter, having such weapons, irrespective of
whether they plan to or not, isn't applied to the debate about whether
or not we should get rid of our (UK) own.
If we put aside sheer hypocrisy (always an important feature of foreign
policy!) then I think the usual argument is that, unlike we rational Westerners,
the Iranians are crazy religious maniacs who can't be trusted with a bomb.
In reality, though obviously the Iranian regime is a religiously-based one,
they have shown themselves to be quite pragmatic and cautious over the past
2 decades at least. Which isn't to say the regime is benign, by any means,
just that their foreign policy is based on rational self-interest (or their
perception thereof) - just like any other country.
Another reason given is Iran's supposed 'support for terror organisaitons'.
Putting aside the fact that defining what is a 'terror organisaiton' is
largely a matter of one's political views, it's hard to see what this has
to do with the nuclear issue specifically. Unless we buy the notion - straight
from a 5th rate James Bond knock-off - that Iran could 'give' its (non-existent)
nukes to a 'terrorist', as though a nuclear bomb was equivalent to an AK-47.
So, having disposed of those 'arguments', I think we're back to hypocrisy
as the motivator.
If these coups continue, there will be no-one left to overthrow politically/economically,
once the political safety-net is gone and there is no more political buffer
zones, potentially those on the outskirts left opposing this, would backed
into a war.
I don't back any country with Nukes, but I do back the balance off
power, if Iran is overthrown with Syria, it would be dangerous times for
the rest off us. It would be "safer" for Israel too disarm, followed by
Pakistan, North Korea then East + West Bilaterally, simutaniously.
All under the helm off a Strong-Moral UN. A Free, Regional agreement.
Iran isn't Nazi Germany, if you want to pursue that analogy then its
closer to Franco's Spain and we got on well if occasionally frostily with
them for 39 years without having a war with them
Can anyone take the risk of allowing Iran to even play around with this
stuff in anyway shape or form ? The west started this fight years ago and
has
1. Up to 1953 robbed Iran of its oil.
2. After a progressive Persian govt renationalized and booted British
Petroleum out of the country suffered a coup d'état instigated with US aid
in 1953.
3. 1953 to 1979 Suffered a tyrannical US/UK regime under the Shah of Iran
which led to the Islamic Revolution , ie we radicalized them.
4. After the revolution we armed Saddam Hussein to start a war and killed
millions of Iranians.
5. Sanctions for the last 10 years.
If I were Iranian I'd be double wary now of US's intentions. It seems
that the working method of the "West" nowadays is to feign a warming of
relations to draw yourself closer before a fatal stab. Remember Libya? And
I recall Syria having a nice "warm up period" before the gates of hell opened.
Take care, Iran.
4th or 5th largest proven/unproven reserves on the planet. I'm delighted
sanctions are freeing up in Iran, but I can't be alone in thinking that
the USA were going to find some devil in the detail for it not to go ahead,
to be delayed. Still highly suspicious of USA motives here, but for now
rejoice Iranian people. :-)
The annula reports of the CIA/Mossad/German BND and the IAEA supported
this fact consitently since 2004. It was only the despicable US/Israeli
geopolitics enabled by their propaganda arm the mainstream media
I have always wondered on the conflicts off interest in this, doesn't
the Security services support the political agenda for the most part? Have
seen it over the last 100 years, on reading about it, maybe not entirely
but compartmentalized they seemingly do.
I know in Syria, the Pentagon is apparently completely split, some feeding
information around to Assad, while another faction supports the overthrow.
Difficult to discern what is true/false but much of it does play-out/check-out
logically.
However, what is with the conflict of interest in this case? I guess
one is suppressing religion on 1 side, yet supporting the end of times theme
on the other. Perhaps that is where the Military end this support on a Nuclear
scale.
I agree but China and Russia are a thorn in its side. The Russians are doing
arms deals with Iran. Also a CIA led coup 1953 style is unlikely to work
against a non liberal progressive govt. Iraq is in no position to be used
to attack it.
Before the deal all the sabre rattling was hollow. No amount of bombing
was going to stop an underground nuclear programme. Sanctions weren't working,
Iran diversified its economy.
It looks to me that the west has to either start Armageddon to take
Iran out or start to build bridges.
I don't think it is capable of succeeding now with either policy. This
is very bad news for the future security of Israel. All thought it should
be safe for 50 or so more years.
Iran has always denied seeking an atomic weapon, saying its activities
are only for peaceful purposes, such as power generation and medical research.
The annual reports of the CIA/Mossad/German BND and the IAEA supported this
fact consistently since 2004. It was only the despicable US/Israeli geopolitics
enabled by their propaganda arm the mainstream media that maintained the
charade of a clandestine nuclear weapon programme.
Maybe it is that the US cold warriors are finally dying out. When the wall
came down USSR dismantled its cold war power structure because they were
the losers. US cold war professionals were the winners and saw no reason
to fade themselves out - hence the often baffling aggressive and enemy-seeking
US foreign policy in the post cold war period.
The problem is that times have changed now and the US has managed to
rile others far enough to start their own mini-cold wars against US, particularly
Russia which does have its valid reasons to feel it's been cheated and played
for patsy.
President Obama did irritate me in his State of the Union Address
when he started bragging about how big and powerful the U.S. military
was and how much tax payer money was spent on it. In fact it pissed
me off when he said those things. It was the last thing I expected to
hear coming out of his mouth.
So you weren't watching what he was actually doing over the past seven
years?
According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the George W.
Bush administration ordered 50 drone attacks while the government of current
US President Barack Obama has already launched around 500 such strikes.
Obama primarily ordered assassination strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia
and Afghanistan.
The United States says the CIA-run drone strikes essentially kill
militants, although casualty figures show that civilians are often the victims
of the non-UN-sanctioned attacks.
I'm an American who just got back from a 10 day visit to Iran. Iranians
are among the nicest people on Earth. It is safe to visit. I had no issues
when I was there. The only thing you should be worried about is safely crossing
the busy streets, not terrorism or kidnapping. Don't believe the media fear
machine.
Israel are a clever country to arm, the entire middle east hates
them yet Israel clearly dominate their neighbours in any conflict. An
ally we Europeans need with how the middle east is going
And Iran, unlike the Gulf sheikhdoms, is a real country with educated
people. With sufficient investment and freedom to trade, Iran should easily
be able to develop an economy which is not entirely dependent on oil - or
gas, of which Iran has some of the largest deposits in the world. I'm not
sure the same could be said for the petrostates on the other side of the
Gulf.
" there remains a lack of clarity with regards to the US." - as ever
you never know what the US is going to do, and I suspect the US itself does
not know given it dysfunctional political system. Any system that could
even contemplate the likes of Donald Trump for the office of President cannot
be fit for purpose.
Except that Iran will secretly make a nuclear bomb anyway.
USA and the rest of the world have been duped.
In the end ordinary Iranians who just wanted peace will not get it . Will
not get it while they live under a mediaeval dictatorship that is
"Lifting of Iran sanctions is 'a good day for the world'"
Unless you are Venezuela, Russia, etc and dependent on oil prices.
In many ways, not much has improved for Iran either, they can sell oil but
at a very low price.
This is a good day as it allows freedom off the Market... Next moves shows
the world-stage who is motivated by Orwellian-double-speak (crying wolf)
or those who indeed are the aggressors....
It would be interesting if it wasn't morally evil and destructive. It
is a chess board.
Ho ho ho. This is a ceasefire. The whole project for the Middle East revolves
around it's Palestiniasation , ie leave it in tatters with no state or economic
infrastructure, eg Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq , Syria , Libya . All have suffered
through foreign intervention largely US sanctioned. For the last 40 years
since the west financed and armed Saddam Hussein to fight and destroy the
state of Iran after it deposed the Shah this has been policy. This ideal
I s like an unfinished course of anti-biotics , ultimately if you leave
Iran standing it will always be a power base which can fill the vacuum in
all these failed states.
There is no going back from the damage done...Iran has to be the West's
next horizon if there is never going to be a nuclear Islamic state this
century.
May a dead man say a few words to you, general, for your enlightenment?
You will never rule the world... because you are doomed. All of you who
demoralized and corrupted a nation are doomed. Tonight you will take the
first step along a dark road from which there is no turning back. You will
have to go on and on, from one madness to another, leaving behind you a
wilderness of misery and hatred. And still, you will have to go on... because
you will find no horizon... see no dawn... until at last you are lost and
destroyed. You are doomed, captain of murderers. And one day, sooner or
later, you will remember my words...
The far right in Israel, not for everyone. Saudi and far right wing
Israel have a symbiotic relationship. Saudi can push it's agenda of Wahhabism
that secures it's brutal regime and far right Israel profits from the bitter
fruits of Saudi, as it means that Israel is seen as the anti-muslim anchor
of the West in the region. Sadly, the political intervention of the US has
been based around protecting and supporting this symbiotic relationship
with money, troops and bombs.
Depends on the use off the word terrorist, if you mean fabricated terrorism
for aggression, to forward political goals/Land/Economic reasons, or if
you mean terrorism in defence of a Nation or a civilisation being oppressed....
It is based on perception, or rather delibrate ignorance. It is terrorism
if it is at the expense off another mans freedom.
It boils down to morality aswell, but since the various factions, possibly
even media are doing a good job too blur those lines, it makes it easier
for people who do not think for themselves, to be either delibrately obtuse/Ignorant.
One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist
Obama has already issued an order(today) lifting sanctions on the sale
of passenger airliners to Iran. Boeing & Airbus are in intense competition
as Iran plans to purchase 500 airliners in the next 10 years worth billions
of dollars.
I'll take it with a pinch of salt given the lack of corroboration.
There are many confirmed stories of injustice from inside Iran but I
can see why you picked this one. True or not, it certainly makes a sensational
headline.
I suspect they were hoping that once Iran had 'complied', sanctions would
be dropped and everyone could get back to business.
They then, rather belatedly realised that for the Yanks, Bibi and the
Gulf sheikhdoms, sanctions weren't a means to an end. They were the
end. Happily, only one of the above three players really counts, and they
finally saw sense.
Th key point is that it is not only about the US and the EU. India, China
and Russia will also see both great opportunities both to export and in
general to develop trade. India has already talked about building a pipeline
to Chah Bahar.
100billion of unfrozen assets - how much is going to find its
way into London property making prices even more ridiculous.
Almost none, I expect. Iran is a country of about 80 million people,
with an economy which has been severely held back through years - even decades
- of sanctions. In that context, 100 billion isn't actually that much, and
I expect the Iranians will find no shortage of ways to use it at home. And
given that the Iranian government is still highly suspicious of the
Brits (for very good reason) I very much doubt they'll want to spend this
much-needed cash on overpriced pads in Blighty.
Apologies, I thought you were talking about Iran's extra income financing
its armed forces, or its fuller influence now sanctions will be soon lifted.
The 'now' in your comment lead me to believe you were commenting on the
recent events discussed in the article, how mistaken I surely am to think
you were being relevant.
It i amazing how western oriented news organization by default report
the talking point of the western regimes reflexively. Unlike the news bureaus
in the soviet era, they don't need minders and censors, those are just built
in or plugged in by interviews.
100billion of unfrozen assets - how much is going to find its way into London
property making prices even more ridiculous.
Unless we look at channel islands type restrictions for property market
in se england our youth will only own property with inheritance and even
then when the IHT threshold is well over a million if you project forward
six years. (price doubles every six years).
Good point, EU countries UK aside, very never comfortable with the position
the west took with regard to Iran. How as the big boss in Washington decided
what the policy was they had little choice.
Ha, ha, ha! US allies are never sanctioned, no matter how many International
Laws they break, they ignore UN resolutions against them no matter how cruel
and inhuman their actions. Where are the sanctions against US? Oh, can't
be sanctioned can it...
He can do what he likes, the US have given Israel a free pass, human
rights abuses, extrajudicial killings, threats to Israeli Arabs, 'hidden'
nuclear weapons, all have to be ignored while their neighbours are subjected
to endless scrutiny. While this continues the Middle East will never be
at peace. Palestinians are humans too.
Or those that funded the creation of Israel? in 1917 - Balflour declaration,
and what is currently going on today in Israel, still by dictionary definition,
genocide.
The hardliners in Iran "Delvapassan", most of whom work for hostile foreign
intelligence services, are also in trouble. In fact the arch spy, Naghdi
of Basij whose members stormed the Saudi embassy in return for petrodollars,
now says it was the monarchists who stormed the Saudi embassy. A ridiculous
claim as most people in Iran know that monarchists could not even organize
a birthday party.
It's scary to say the least and one wonders if it can even be brought back
from the brink if someone like Bernie Sanders was to be elected. President
Obama did irritate me in his State of the Union Address when he started
bragging about how big and powerful the U.S. military was and how much tax
payer money was spent on it. In fact it pissed me off when he said those
things. It was the last thing I expected to hear coming out of his mouth.
He sounded like a republican braggart. It really annoyed me. I do believe,
to his discredit, that he was trying to appease the Repulicans.
"Whoever though it was a good idea to become closely allied to the barbaric
sheikhs of Arabia whose petrodollars are fueling wahhabi barbarism, is a
complete idiot."......President Roosevelt
Really interesting article. Thanks for linking - I love Glenn Greenwald's
site.
I also loved this quote:
"A sailor may have punched the wrong coordinates into the GPS
and they wound up off course."
So what could be interpreted as an act of war is down to some dunderhead
'punching the wrong coordinates'? 4realz? And of course the fact that the
Yanks basically lied and did indeed intentionally violate Iranian territory
will not be covered by the media. And like I said before, where are all
those posters who accused several of us of being 'bots' because GPS imagery
would of course show the Yanks were in international waters and the Iranians
were fibbing, as always?
Surely this is the end of Saudi Arabia if they continue to keep the oil
prices low, bringing the rest of the market down with it, at the expense
of their own economy (& Nation) & ours. With this Iran will likely be able
to sustain an economical war with less reliance on oil as the Saudis.
No sympathy for them or their terrorist support. Still waiting on economic/weapon
sanctions and condemnation off them (and anyone else involved) by the UN
etc
This is good news, and it has to be hoped that the Iranian economy can now
start to grow. No doubt, the Saudi and Israel won't like it, but that's
though, if either of these two countries had professional leaders, then
their childish, spiteful and lying screams against Iran, would never exist.
Forrest also said ongoing human rights and terrorism related sanctions
in the US would have an effect. "Whilst the EU piece of the puzzle is clear,
as it has already published relevant legislation amending existing sanctions
measures to pave the way for early EU termination, there remains a lack
of clarity with regards to the US."
Arr .... the reason possibly is that the US knows it has already pissed
off Saudi and Israel, so won't push the boat out to far, thereby exasperating
an unnecessary situation further.
Lifting of Iran sanctions is 'a good day for the world' Yet these gangsters
who control the finance industry(US/UK), and who can and do, impose sanctions
at will, are free, without sanction, to wage war against whoever they so
choose with impunity. Something is not quite right here, or are we too stupid,
too compliant to see it?
If the US, Russia, Germany, France, Britain, Japan, and the EU say this
agreement is watertight, you can safely believe that it is. Except of course,
if you are smarter and better informed than all their diplomats and technical
experts. Are you?
Ok - so you're anti nuclear weapons. Fair enough, you're free view.
For me, much more importantly is the opportunity for trade. The Iranians
are well educated and still have a historical connection with our country.
I am a manufacturer of made in UK retail product and will see this as
a great opportunity to help build relationships and support the growth of
our sustainable employment in the UK.
If this technology is so promising, why didn't any the other nuclear nations
offer themselves "a testing bed for the much safer Thorium reactor solution"?
Iran isn't the world's guinea pig.
When sanctions started, they were nowhere near as harsh. European countries
- as well as China and India - had long been growing tired of the extremely
strict sanctions imposed mostly by the Americans. Though Kerry gets
a lot of the credit for the deal going through, according to some reports,
his European allies told him that they were going to stop abiding by the
sanctions whether he and Bibi liked it or not. So he could either accept
that reality or keep fighting the cartoon fight. Thankfully, he and his
boss chose the sensible option.
All the nuclear nations should have banded together with Iran to help
Iran with their desire for peaceful nuclear power by helping Iran with expertise
and funding to develop Thorium reactors. That would put the kibosh
on Iran's nuclear weapons program and work as a testing bed for the much
safer Thorium reactor
solution .
Unfortunately, those cooler heads, will be leaving the administration at
the end of this year, when there are elections in the US. After that anything
can happen.
It's been a rare pleasure to have diplomatic adults, not warmongers,
in both the White House and the State Department, for the past 8 years.
Europeans already had business interests at the time the sanctions started,
ten years ago. And yet they supported the sanctions. I don't see why it
should be different now.
Actually, it's never been that difficult for most European tourists to visit
Iran. Getting the visa can be a bit of a pain, but most people who apply
succeed in getting it quickly enough. And once you're in the country, you
can travel pretty much whereever you like. There has been a requirement
for British travellers to travel with an official guide, but I expect that
will be dropped very quickly.
Yes, unfortunately neither the UK or the US think long-term, when selling
advanced weapons to the Saudis (or giving them to Israel). That may well
come back to bite them, when the House of Saud falls, as it must.
Amazed this has gone through. The world's biggest and most dangerous
children, Israel and Saudi Arabia, will NOT be pleased. These two are behind
so much of the world's problems, far moreso than their parent the USA.
Yes I get that Laguerre, I don't think that's what they are doing either,
but that's not really the point I was trying to make. Considering that,
there are plenty of people around the world that think Iran does want nuclear
weapons, in spite of Iran's protestations to the contrary, I'm guessing
that there must be a ready argument for them not having such weapons. I'd
be interested to know what that argument is and why it doesn't apply to
us.
Welcome to the world community Iran. Not a perfect nation but which
is. No point demonizing people & nations, it does more harm than good.
They have said their Nuclear use for Civilian purposes and so it has
proved. Now how about those nations with Nuclear weapons and armed to the
teeth with getting rid some of them. Hypocrisy of nuclear issue like most
things around the world is stunning.
The Saudis are having to use Columbian mercenaries to supplement their usual
Pakistani rank and file "soldiers" in Yemen. No Saudis are ready to sacrifice
their lives to further their own royal families ambitions. This is an incredible
weakness but typical of a petrodollar state where all loyalties are based
on money. If Saudi Arabia were attacked by even a small but determined force
(such as ISIS) it would collapse like a house of cards.
The US has the largest prison population in the world. It also practices
torture at home and abroad. It carries out executions at home and extra
judicial (terror) killings abroad often using drones to do so. Compared
to any of this, Iran is just a beginner.
America is the best defended slum in the western world. A few facts: Huge
disparities of wealth and poverty, a rigid class system, massive unsustainable
military spending around the world, a weak education system that depends
on educated migrants to take skilled jobs, a declining manufacturing sector
due to dumb free trade deals that built up Chinese economic power. I could
go on indefinitely......but if America falls it will collapse from within
through its own internal contradictions - probably in typical American style
involving hubris, narcissism, blame shifting and of course lots of violence.
Real change must come from below and not from the Americans or Europeans
or Israeli lobby or sheikhdoms, or MEK or any other Iranian exile group,
but the Iranian masses themselves. History has shown this to be true time
and time again. Reforms were introduced in Germany, England, France, the
United States, etc. only because of pressure from below, from the organized
sections of the working classes and their trade union representatives and
not from 'enlightened governments' or 'generous employers'. The road to
reform is paved with struggle and defeats and victories.
German Chancellor Bismarck, the first statesman to introduce reforms
as a way to put down socialist agitation and mass disgruntlement, wrote
in 1889: "we must vigorously intervene for the betterment of the low
of the workmen. "
German Emperor William II cautioned in 1890: "For the maintenance
of peace between employers and workers…Such an institution will facilitate
the free and peaceful expression of their wishes and their grievances,
and furnish officials a regular means for keeping informed of the labor
situation and of continuing in contact with the workers"
In 1906, a French cabinet member cautioned: "we believe that it
is time to study seriously the means of preventing the return of conflicts
between capital and labor"
If you want to support the Iranians in their struggle, support the labour
movement there. Everything that is good about North America and Europe,
or rather, the things that make life tolerable there including a decent
standard of living, paid holidays, adequate working conditions, unemployment
insurance, pensions, etc. was struggled for and won by workers and trade
unions.
It's all true. The U.S. Military program is over bloated and needs a severe
diet. Billions of dollars wasted. Criticize the U.S. military all you like.
I do all the time. ;)
Did you know that the U.S. military is second in federal expenditures
only to social security? It is the second most expensive program in the
United States! This is wrong.
So when some apologist says "well the military only makes up 17 percent
of the budget," (which has been said to me on many occasions) tell them
they are full of it.
When will the civilized world see sanctions on US, UK and Saudi Arabia
for dropping bombs on the Yemenis?
After the UK(Cameron) gifted a seat on the Human rights council to the
Saudis?..
Anyone would think it was a thoroughly corrupt rigged game .. wouldn't they.
The west makes it up as they go along .. and you argue the toss at your
peril.
Ha, ha, ha. Priceless. Yes, no one has ever(as far as I'm aware) put forward
a reason why anyone would want to invade the UK. Why would they ..
it certainly wouldn't be for the benefits many here would have us believe.
Iran however?. yes, what a tasty treat, they have significantly more
to nick in terms of raw materials and other good stuff than we do .. Iran
would make a far better(and now easier) target. Oh.. Bibi, despite his protestations
to the contrary, must be rubbing his hands with glee, and now with the revelation
that US and UK personnel are ensconced(secretly) with the Saudi's .. If
I were an Iranian, I'd see myself surrounded by enemies. Would I give up
the potential to make a bomb?..
Hmm. Whatever the inducements were, they're certainly not enough to see
off a willful new US president with a finger on the trigger, especially
as almost all have voiced the desire to bomb.
But he said while all nuclear-related sanctions on Iran will be
lifted, other sanctions such as those related to human rights and terrorism
will remain in place
Sanctions on Iran were illegal and the people of Iran were punished for
the nukes they never wanted to build. When will the civilized world see
sanctions on US, UK and Saudi Arabia for dropping bombs on the Yemenis?
I hear you on this. I heard that the American cost of the new F35 fighter
jet program is enough to buy every homeless American a $600,000 house. I'm
not criticizing the USA military program or anything just highlighting the
simple cost for America to help it's own poor. Especially in today world
were money created out of thin air. Even now that i have wrote this how
much QE did the Fed do but couldn't house the homeless.
But he said while all nuclear-related sanctions on Iran will be lifted,
other sanctions such as those related to human rights and terrorism
will remain in place, most notably in the US, meaning that companies
would still have to comply with those restrictions.
Meanwhile the Telegraph is calling for an alliance with al Qaeda in Syria,
saying:
The reality that comes with the prolonging war might now mean that
it is time to think of widening who we support – and by working with
groups who would fight IS first over Assad, or indeed al-Qaida's Syrian
branch Al Nusra, but who might not necessarily have the moderate qualities
we would ideally like to support militarily in Syria, lest they too
enact the depravity of beheadings, torture and rape which the conflict
has seen too much of already.
That's before we get to Yemen, where the areas the UK has helped 'liberate'
from AQ's fiercest foe, has been taken over by ISIS.
What's that Netanyahu? I can't hear you. I still can't hear you. Yeah, maybe
you should set your dumb ass down and take a break for the rest of your
miserable life from your anti-Obama/anti-Iran rhetoric. You are already
soaking the American taxpayer for 3 billion a year, and now you are asking
for 4.2 to 4.5 billion a year for the next ten years. It disgusts me how
American tax payer money gets thrown around the world while people here
at home are in the streets starving. How does that work, Netanyahu? You
tell me, how does that work, you miserable fool.
Yes, but as we've seen previously under Bush Jnr, how long does it take
to start an illegal war and who will stop the US in an illegal war? .. it
certainly won't be us in the UK .. inexplicably we seem to love whatever
the US does be it legal or absolutely illegal.
I'm pleased sanctions are being lifted, but until we discuss as adults
the Palestinian/Israeli issue plus Israels nuclear arsenal - which quite
ludicrously seems immune even from being acknowledged, then tensions will
remain. We can't keep ignoring this issue and the injustices in Palestine
in the blaise fashion with which we apply sanctions to others. The west's
current hypocrisy stinks.
This is what I heard on the news earlier in the night. I heard that the
two navy boats did indeed purposely take a short cut through Iranian waters.
Then the Iranian guard took pursuit. Then, the Harry Truman aircraft carrier
group launched search helicopters into the area which did not help things
at all and only escalated things. Finally, the Iranians took the crew.
The U.S. lies all the time. They constantly lie and then the U.S. politicians
come calling for nothing short of a nuclear strike! They are insane. I can
say this much. Any country has the right to board and take a vessel if it
enters their waters, and that includes the stupid, arrogant U.S. This country
really needs to back their shit down and take a look at what they are doing
in the world. They have become very full of themselves and it stinks to
high heaven. It smells like shit.
A great privilege to witness such a rare occasion when common sense and
rationality prevail! Well done all the parties involved! Thanks for "giving
peace a chance"
PS. Wondering how Republicans (especially Tom Cotton), Bibi, king Salman,
n the rest of premium members of warmonger club are feeling now!
.
Anything that stops the Saudi's playing the big I am is fine by me.
They've already cut off their own nose over oil prices to stop US fracking
and their economy is suffering, lets hope Iran can keep it low when it doesn't
suit Saudi Arabia.
The one worry is ISIS getting a foothold if the Saudi government goes
tits up and getting their hands on some real shiny weapons.
"Whilst the EU piece of the puzzle is clear, as it has already published
relevant legislation amending existing sanctions measures to pave the way
for early EU termination, there remains a lack of clarity with regards to
the US."
Good, let the US who started all this nonsense feel themselves for
a while what it is like to be outside trade with Iran. I bet it will not
last long if companies realize they are still not allowed to do business
because of their own extortion over the many years while the EU does commence
trading.
That British troops are involved in Saudi's dirty war - and it seems very
dirty indeed, is nothing short of scandalous. Questions should be being
asked surely?..
But it's somewhat academic isn't it?.. Whichever sweetheart with the exception
of Bernie Sanders, who happens to con their way into the US hot seat, they've
all taken against Tehran in a big way haven't they. Almost all of them have
promised at some stage in their self-serving careers to bomb Iran back to
the stone age, even the occasionally economical with the truth Hilary Clinton
who tries so very hard to convince she's actually a human being has an issue
in that regard.
I really do hope you have an insurance policy Iran, I wouldn't trust
these liars as far as .. and I'd advise using some of what's rightly coming
your way to insulate against future western blackmail.
I'd buy a bloody big bomb .. but keep it quiet, you never know who's
listening .. Ha, yes we do!
Sanctions should never have been imposed. They are a form of collective
punishment that has stopped medicines coming into Iran and punished small
businesses. I know from experience. I had salmonella in Iran when I was
two, and medicines that would have been free under the NHS were so expensive
in Iran due to sanctions that my father had to sell his Mercedes Benz (not
sure he's ever quite forgiven me for that). Meanwhile, Israel's nuclear
arsenal goes unmentioned and unpunished, and we have British troops sitting
in the Saudi war rooms. British foreign policy is a selective and hypocrital
joke.
Well played to all those on both sides responsible for the recent progress,
though I am more than slightly concerned that the next US president will
see things rather differently. Let me also say that Louise Mensch's recent
tweets have been nothing short of disgusting and wholly inflammatory, exactly
the kind of rhetoric that the world community should be shunning.
I'm pleased that whoever it was in the US military command who tried to
use the sailors to provoke a clash with Iran and scupper the end of sanctions
did not succeed. There should be a full enquiry and the traitor exposed
and charged. Let's hope Seymour Hersh gets on the case as soon as possible!
The US specializes in lack of clarity. Remember the two boats that Iran
detained the other day? The US initially said that they had a mechanical
failure and drifted into Iranian territorial waters. That version of events
has become non-operative, and now the US is saying that the boats were fully
operational, but one of the sailors accidentally punched the wrong GPS coordinates
in. And then, of course, they failed to notice that they were getting awfully
close to that island where Iran maintained a base.
Fortunately, we didn't have Cruz in the White House, threatening to nuke
Iran for detaining American sailors for trespassing, even though it's clear
they were question, fed, fueled up and sent on their way. The Iranians,
at least, were civilized, albeit involuntary hosts.
This is Guardian article written just before imposition
of sanctions in 2012.
Notable quotes:
"... Pure colonial greed - Neo Cons get back in your boxes and stop lusting
after Iranian oil. Morally and financially bankrupt Western countries need to keep
out of other peoples affairs. ..."
The top destination for Iran's crude oil exports in the six months between
January and June 2011 was China, totaling 22% of Iran's crude oil exports. Japan
and India also make up a big proportion, taking 14% and 13% respectively of
the total exports of Iran. The European Union imports 18% of Iran's total exports
with Italy and Spain taking the largest amounts.
Sri Lanka and Turkey are the most dependent on Iran's crude exports with
it accounting for 100% and 51% of total crude imported, respectively. South
Africa also takes 25% of its total crude from Iran.
'The top destination for Iran's crude oil exports in the six months
between January and June 2011 was China, totalling 22% of Iran's crude
oil exports. Japan and India also make up a big proportion, taking 14%
and 13% respectively'
- I think even any common or garden moron can see the game plan here..
Time to plant the seeds of democracy...again
firstnamejames - The world should give thanks that you aren't in a position
of power!
Diplomacy and sanctions are time consuming? Not half as time consuming
as 'kicking ass' George Bush style. The Wikipedia entry for the War in Afghanistan
is dated (2001-Present)….. that's what you call quick, decisive action!
What was required post-911 was for the US to have a long, hard think
about its foreign policy, but instead they lived gloriously to stereotype
and played right into Bin Laden's hands.
Bali 02... Madrid 04... London 05... that's the price you pay for 'quick,
resolute' action.
We nuke Iran and the consequences will be life altering - not just for
the Iranian people either.
This report is wrong, like most of the scaremongering on this issue, Iran
did not threaten to close the strait of Hormuz in retaliation for the oil
embargo, they threatened it in retaliation for a strike on their entirely
legal nuclear facilities, the Western medias attempt to gin up a war with
Iran are both foolish and pathetic...
Pure colonial greed - Neo Cons get back in your boxes and stop lusting
after Iranian oil. Morally and financially bankrupt Western countries need
to keep out of other people's affairs.
The hypocrisy of the West is breath taking - attack Iraq over war crimes
vs the Iranians, non-existent WMD in Iraq just as in Iran now, swap sides
in Libya by funding militias led by so-called Al Qaeda men and the bleat
on about UN resolutions when the elephant in the room (Israel) continues
to abuse Palestine people and then continue to sell arms to other dictators
around the world.
Well I suppose anyday now there will be a nuclear test in Iran and that
will be that. Iran will be welcomed to the nuclear club with India and Pakistan
and North Korea.
I guess Russia or China would probably lend Iran a small nuke for the
undergrond test.....
That will be adios to the Israeli aggression in the region.
I might note that proven reserves are NOT the same as recoverable reserves,
the distinction is a quite huge difference. Also Saudi Arabian numbers are
only guesses as the true numbers are a closely guarded state secret. It
should also be noted that the north of Iran is on the Caspian Sea and any
regional conflict would impact those nations and their gas and oil development
too. Of course the Kurdish oil in Northern Iraq would also be at risk and
I doubt the Iraq government would care one jot if it came under fire. The
Strait of Hormuz isn't the only oil that would be effected should this all
blow up.
"... By Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics and Chairperson at the Centre for Economic Studies
and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Cross posted from The Frontline ..."
"... arguments that treat economic processes as the inevitable results of some forces outside the
system that follow their own logic and are beyond social intervention, are hugely misplaced. ..."
"... Behind almost every prolonged economic malfeasance there is some combination of outworn bad
ideas, incompetence and the malign influence of powerful special interests. ..."
"... Weisbrot notes that this entire episode "should have been a historic lesson about the importance
of national and democratic control over macroeconomic policy – or at the very least, not ceding such
power to the wrong people and institutions". (page 4) Unfortunately, the opposite seems to be the case,
with the lessons being drawn by the media and others still very much in terms of blaming the victim.
Indeed, Weisbrot makes an even stronger point, that this crisis was used by vested interests (including
those in the IMF) to force governments in these countries to implement economic and social reforms that
would otherwise be unacceptable to their electorates. ..."
"... The significance of vested interests – finance and large capital in particular – in pushing
economies to the edge to force neo-liberal reforms that operate to their favour, has been noted in many
countries before, especially developing countries facing IMF conditionalities. The standard requirements:
fiscal consolidation led by budget cuts in pensions, health and social spending; reductions in public
employment; making labour markets more "flexible" by effectively reducing labour protection; cutting
subsidies that benefit the poor like food subsidies while providing more tax cuts and other fiscal incentives
to the rich, etc. ..."
"... The standard economic policy model fails, and the costs of such failure are huge – so it is
critically important for more people across the world to be aware of them and to demand that their governments
opt for more democratic and just economic strategies. ..."
"... It seems if my memory serves me, in around April of 2009 the rules of the game for the banks
in the US were changed; i.e., all those "investments" that became trash (bad mortgages etc.) they had
on their "books" could be re-classified and held, "off the books" for the duration….as long as it would
take to recover their investments…..which could take decades…. ..."
By Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics and Chairperson at the Centre for Economic
Studies and Planning, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Cross posted from
The
Frontline
A lot of the media discussion on the global economy nowadays is based on the notion of the "new
normal" or "new mediocre" – the phenomenon of slowing, stagnating or negative economic growth across
most of the world, with even worse news in terms of employment generation, with hardly any creation
of good quality jobs and growing material insecurity for the bulk of the people. All sorts of explanations
are being proffered for this state of affairs, from technological progress, to slower population
growth, to insufficient investment because of shifts in relative prices of capital and labour, to
"balance sheet recessions" created by the private debt overhang in many economies, to contractionary
fiscal stances of governments that are also excessively indebted.
Yet these arguments that treat economic processes as the inevitable results of some forces
outside the system that follow their own logic and are beyond social intervention, are hugely misplaced.
Most of all, they let economic policies off the hook when attributing blame – and this is massively
important because then the possibility of alternative strategies that would not result in the same
outcomes are simply not considered.
In an important new book, Failed: What the "experts" got wrong about the global economy
(Oxford University Press, New York 2015), Mark Weisbrot calls this bluff effectively and comprehensively.
He points out that "Behind almost every prolonged economic malfeasance there is some combination
of outworn bad ideas, incompetence and the malign influence of powerful special interests."
(page 2) Unfortunately, such nightmares are prolonged and even repeated in other places, because
even if the lessons from one catastrophe are learned, they are typically not learned – or at least
not taken to heart – by "the people who call the shots".
The costs of this failure are indeed huge for the citizenry: for workers who face joblessness
or very fragile insecure employment at low wages; for families whose access to essential goods and
social services is reduced; for farmers and other small producers who find their activities are simply
not financially viable; for those thrown by crisis and instability into poverty or facing greater
hunger; for almost everyone in the society when their lives become more insecure in various ways.
Many millions of lives across the world have been ruined because of the active implementation of
completely wrong and unnecessary economic policies. Yet, because the blame is not apportioned where
it is due, those who are culpable for this not only get away with it, but are able to continue to
impose their power and their expertise on economic policies and on governing institutions. For them,
there is no price to be paid for failure.
Weisbrot illustrates this with the telling example of the still unfolding economic tragedy in
the eurozone. He describes the design flaws in the monetary union that meant that the European Central
Bank (ECB) did not behave like a real central bank to all the member countries, because when the
crisis broke in 2009-10 it did not behave as a lender of last resort to the countries in the European
periphery that faced payment difficulties. Instead the most draconian austerity measures were imposed
on these countries, which simply drove these countries further into economic decline and made their
debt burdens even more burdensome and unpayable.
It took two years of this, at a point when the crisis threatened to engulf the entire EU and force
the monetary union to collapse, for the ECB Governor Mario Draghi to promise to "do whatever it takes
to save the euro". And then, when the financial bleeding was stemmed, it became glaringly evident
that the European authorities, and the ECB, could have intervened much earlier to reduce the damage
in the eurozone periphery, through monetary and fiscal policies. In countries with their own central
banks, like the US and the UK, such policies were indeed undertaken, which is why the recovery also
came sooner and with less pain than still persists in parts of Europe.
Why could this not have been done earlier? Why were the early attempts at restructuring Greek
debt not more realistic so as to reduce the debt levels to those that could feasibly be repaid by
that country? Why was each attempt to solve the problem so tardy, niggardly and half-hearted that
the problem progressively got worse and even destroyed the very fabric of social life in the affected
countries? Why was the entire burden of adjustment forced upon hapless citizens, with no punishment
for or even minor pain felt by the financial agents who had helped to create the imbalances that
resulted in the crisis?
Weisbrot notes that this entire episode "should have been a historic lesson about the importance
of national and democratic control over macroeconomic policy – or at the very least, not ceding such
power to the wrong people and institutions". (page 4) Unfortunately, the opposite seems to be the
case, with the lessons being drawn by the media and others still very much in terms of blaming the
victim. Indeed, Weisbrot makes an even stronger point, that this crisis was used by vested interests
(including those in the IMF) to force governments in these countries to implement economic and social
reforms that would otherwise be unacceptable to their electorates.
The significance of vested interests – finance and large capital in particular – in pushing
economies to the edge to force neo-liberal reforms that operate to their favour, has been noted in
many countries before, especially developing countries facing IMF conditionalities. The standard
requirements: fiscal consolidation led by budget cuts in pensions, health and social spending; reductions
in public employment; making labour markets more "flexible" by effectively reducing labour protection;
cutting subsidies that benefit the poor like food subsidies while providing more tax cuts and other
fiscal incentives to the rich, etc.
Weisbrot notes that such policies are neither necessary to emerge from a crisis (in fact in most
cases they are counterproductive) nor are they conducive to long term development. He provides concrete
examples of countries that did things very differently, and were successful as a result. The most
important such example he provides is that of China, a country that systematically followed a state-led
heterodox strategy for industrialisation, with the state controlling the banking system and a huge
role for state-owned enterprises. The unorthodox policies it followed brought about the fastest growth
in history, lifted hundreds of millions of Chinese people out of poverty and also pulled along other
developing countries because of its rapidly growing demand for imports.
Weisbrot identifies other successful examples of heterodox policies that helped countries to emerge
from crisis and improve living standards for their people, such as Argentina in the mid 2000s and
a range of other explicitly progressive governments in Latin American countries that followed alternative
approaches to increase wage incomes and formal employment through active state intervention. One
important reason they were able to implement unorthodox economic policies was the relative decline
in the power of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in this period. Weisbrot argues that the IMF
began to lose influence in the wake of the Asian crisis of 1998, when it so clearly got both its
assessment of the problem and its proposed solutions completely wrong. The geopolitical and economic
changes that this loss of IMF influence enabled were hugely beneficial for the citizenry in these
countries – and point to the huge costs still being paid by those forced to live under neoliberal
economic orthodoxy.
Weisbrot ends his book on a positive note (other than for the eurozone, where he forecasts continued
pain for the near future). He believes that "in the developing world, economic policy and the rate
of increase of living standards are likely to show improvement in the foreseeable future". (page
236) This is largely because of his belief that the existing multilateral arrangements and institutions
that forced orthodox policies upon developing countries will continue to decline, and they will have
freedom and ability to pursue heterodox policies that served them well in the recent past.
Unfortunately, this belief now seems over-optimistic. In the past year we have witnessed "emerging
markets" in retreat as global finance has pulled out of them, and the reinforcement of institutions
and arrangements (in trade and investment treaties and other financial agencies) designed to dramatically
reduce the autonomy of national policy making. We are seeing political changes in several countries
that suggest a renewed dominance of neoliberal market-driven economic approaches that privilege the
interests of large capital. And even in China, there are signs of confusion, as the growth process
runs out of steam, with recent moves towards more financial liberalisation that could have huge implications
in terms of future viability of independent economic strategies.
This is somewhat depressing, but it makes Weisbrot's main argument even more important and compelling.
The standard economic policy model fails, and the costs of such failure are huge – so it is critically
important for more people across the world to be aware of them and to demand that their governments
opt for more democratic and just economic strategies.
"In countries with their own central banks, like the US and the UK, such policies were indeed
undertaken, which is why the recovery also came sooner and with less pain than still persists
in parts of Europe."
The peoples of the US and the UK do not seem to be enjoying our respective "recoveries" very
much.
Good points, we should be given a chance to "throw the bums out" on economic policy, too. Unfortunately,
the move toward independent central banks in the last several decades has given us LESS, not MORE
democratic control over policy. I'd rather see the Fed held accountable to some kind of democratic
control, whether through Congress or some other means.
Direct elections of FOMC members? Board of Governors? Not sure I like the idea, but can't be
that bad, can it?
No Paulson/Congress approval bank bailout would have been a start. Congress passing real bank
reform after the dust settled would have been some nice follow up. Then the Fed telling Congress
that interest rate policy by itself won't adequately fix all our ills(and eventually blow more
bubbles) would have been some nice counterpoint going the other direction.
Changing the structure of the system won't help when the entire system gets captured.
It seems if my memory serves me, in around April of 2009 the rules of the game for the
banks in the US were changed; i.e., all those "investments" that became trash (bad mortgages etc.)
they had on their "books" could be re-classified and held, "off the books" for the duration….as
long as it would take to recover their investments…..which could take decades….
At that time, around April 2009, the "market" made a turnaround and "climbed" back into the
stratosphere…..
Anybody else remember this episode?
"... Is there still this neocon superiority illusion that lets U.S. news media and politicians believe they are the only ones who matter? That the U.S. is the only country which has a say in global issues? ..."
"... We here in the US are not free, nor do we have a democracy at present. This is because the people are not being listened to by those appointed by them, nor is it clear that those appointed have actually been appointed by the people. (Putin did not say that - it is my own assessment.) ..."
"... Ignatius is a member of the American ruling class. His father was Secretary of the Navy and publisher of the Washington Post. Ignatius himself was educated at St. Albans School, Harvard, and Cambridge. During his career in journalism, he has occupied all sorts of prestigious postings. ..."
"... In the particular case of Obama and the US government, they dont seem motivated at all to reduce this dissonance, or to avoid situations and information likely to increase it, on the contrary, cognitive dissonance is the platform from which they constantly deny, contort, distort, and twist reality to fit their spurious needs. Thanks b for expounding into the US denial syndrome. ..."
"... Regarding the US vessels drifting into Irans territorial waters: Yes, my first thought was Gulf of Tonkin/USS Pueblo redux? ..."
"... The factual scenarios are different in all of these incidents, but there is a common denominator of US naval forces provocatively entering a hostile nations territorial waters, and claiming afterwards that it was either fully justified or an innocent mistake. ..."
"... The extract from the Putin interview contains some not-so-subtle swipes at US-style democracy which seem to have flown under the radar. Putin raised the Snowden issue because he sees Snowden Assad as equally Patriotic and trustworthy. Snowden believes in an America for all Americans and Assad believes in a Syria for all Syrians. And thats the reason the criminally insane USG hates them. ..."
"... He is making the point that Obama (unlike Assad) doesnt want Syrians deciding who their President should be and made damn sure that Americans didnt get to decide whether Snowden should be rewarded or punished for exposing USG criminality. ..."
"... It seems that the US media is so desperate that the US administration leaked that Bashar Al Assad will will stay until 2017 ( at least) that they are trying to present some compensation to that humiliating reality by inventing the idea of a punishment on Bashar al Assad. ..."
"... David Cameron concedes his claim of 70,000 moderate rebels was nonsense, but reiterates the policy: using rebel forces as pressure to achieve the removal of Assad. ..."
Some U.S. media
say that Iran is "aggressive" when it detains U.S. ships and sailors ... who invade Iranian waters.
It is such delusional worldview that has people all over the world shake their heads over U.S.
media and politics.
But this messy thinking starts at the top. The Obama administration is filled with delusional
thinkers. Consider
this nonsense , relayed by the unofficial spokesperson David Ignatius, over Putin's position
towards the Syrian President Assad:
Putin this week seemed to take a public step toward the U.S. position that Assad must
go eventually . In an interview with the German newspaper Bild released Tuesday,
Putin hinted that he might grant Assad asylum.
...
Putin's reference to asylum was taken "very seriously" by the White House, a second administration
official noted Tuesday. "I think he was sending a signal about where he stands"
that was consistent with what Russian officials have been telling the United States in private,
the official said.
Putin was in no way "sending a signal". He was deflecting a direct question that the reporters
asked. He took a firm stance that Assad must stay and be allowed to take part in new elections:
Question: If, contrary to expectations, al-Assad loses the elections, will you grant him the possibility
of asylum in your country?
Vladimir Putin: I think it is quite premature to discuss this. We granted asylum to Mr Snowden,
which was far more difficult than to do the same for Mr al-Assad.
First, the Syrian people should be given the opportunity to have their say. I assure
you, if this process is conducted democratically, then al-Assad will probably not need to leave
the country at all. And it is not important whether he remains President or not.
How is that "sending a signal"? The only signal I perceive therein is that - as far as Russia
is concerned - Assad will stay where he is right now. I have no doubt that the private statements
of Putin and the Russian government in this case are exactly the same than the official ones.
In October Obama
demanded that Russia let go of Assad or end in a quagmire. Since then the position of the Syrian
government
has solidified and the Russian support has turned out to be very effective and not a burden.
The position of the U.S. administration and its jihadist proxy forces in Syria has deteriorated.
With each Islamic State attack the pressure to end the U.S. war on Syria is increasing.
How then can the "administration official" come up with this nonsense?
Is there still this neocon superiority illusion that lets U.S. news media and politicians
believe they are the only ones who matter? That the U.S. is the only country which has a say in global
issues?
One would have thought that the lost war in Iraq and the U.S. quagmire in Afghanistan would have
cured such delusions. But stupid thinking seems hard to heal.
The interview you link to up top is important reading if only for the final comment on sports
and the arts that Putin makes. But I also enjoyed his reference to Goethe and the difference between
the Russian and German languages. I find Russian very hard to follow because of the rapid pace
at which it is spoken - Putin's explanation certainly corroborates that impression.
Also, his points about "freedom' and 'democracy' are worth consideration.
We here in the US are not free, nor do we have a democracy at present. This is because the
people are not being listened to by those appointed by them, nor is it clear that those appointed
have actually been appointed by the people. (Putin did not say that - it is my own assessment.)
lysias | Jan 13, 2016 11:47:16 AM | 5
Mikhail Lermontov did a great translation into Russian of Goethe's Wandrers Nachtlied 2. Here's
the German:
Über allen Gipfeln/ Ist Ruh,/ In allen Wipfeln/ Spürest du/ Kaum einen Hauch;/ Die Vögelein
schweigen im Walde./ Warte nur, balde/ Ruhest du auch.
And Lermontov's Russian:
Горные вершины/ Спят во тьме ночной./ Тихие долины/ Полны свежей мглой./ Не пылит дорога,/
Не дрожат листы./ Подожди немного,/ Отдохнёшь и ты.
Preserves Goethe's metrical/rhyme scheme almost perfectly, and stays remarkably close to the
sense of the German version.
Seward | Jan 13, 2016 12:04:52 PM | 6
Remember that David Ignatius is a writer of fiction. (He also has close insider ties with the
CIA, so often reflects their point of view. A mid-level manager I knew from there, now deceased,
was amazed at how much he knew.)
Ignatius is a member of the American ruling class. His father was Secretary of the Navy and
publisher of the Washington Post. Ignatius himself was educated at St. Albans School, Harvard,
and Cambridge. During his career in journalism, he has occupied all sorts of prestigious postings.
How then can the "administration official" come up with this nonsense?
Typical cognitive dissonance, which
Wikipedia defines
as
[...]"an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the
same time, performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas or values, or
is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.[1][2]
Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance focuses on how humans strive for internal
consistency. An individual who experiences inconsistency (dissonance) tends to become psychologically
uncomfortable, and is motivated to try to reduce this dissonance-as well as actively avoid situations
and information likely to increase it.[1] [...]
In the particular case of Obama and the US government, they don't seem motivated at all to
reduce this dissonance, or to "avoid situations and information likely to increase it," on the
contrary, cognitive dissonance is the platform from which they constantly deny, contort, distort,
and twist reality to fit their spurious needs. Thanks b for expounding into the US denial syndrome.
Regarding the US vessels "drifting" into Iran's territorial waters: Yes, my first thought
was "Gulf of Tonkin/USS Pueblo redux?"
The factual scenarios are different in all of these incidents, but there is a common denominator
of US naval forces provocatively entering a hostile nation's territorial waters, and claiming
afterwards that it was either fully justified or an innocent mistake.
As noted in the links and comments, US wingnut politicians and pundits will incorporate this
event into their ever-bubbling stream of reactionary demagoguery. However, it seems as though
this contretemps is not escalating on the geopolitical level. So perhaps this time it really
was just a merry mixup.
Still-- I'm no sailor, and I defer to nautical experts here. But with all of the billions invested
in procuring state-of-the-art, high-tech navigation equipment for US Navy ships-- including a
network of satellites to support GPS location and tracking systems-- is it really plausible that
these vessels can indeed "drift" past territorial boundaries? Just askin'.
The extract from the Putin interview contains some not-so-subtle swipes at US-style democracy
which seem to have flown under the radar. Putin raised the Snowden issue because he sees Snowden
& Assad as equally Patriotic and trustworthy. Snowden believes in an America for all Americans
and Assad believes in a Syria for all Syrians. And that's the reason the criminally insane USG
hates them.
He is making the point that Obama (unlike Assad) doesn't want Syrians deciding who their
President should be and made damn sure that Americans didn't get to decide whether Snowden should
be rewarded or punished for exposing USG criminality.
He described Smowden's asylum in Russia as "far more difficult" because Obama and Putin both
know that the USG cancelled Snowden's passport, rendering him stateless and stranding him in Russia.
What a ridiculous idea! Why Bashar al Assad who stood facing the hateful plots of the USA, France,
the UK, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar and is winning over ISIS would go on exile? Who will decide
that? The UN? The US? The pathetic opposition? Erdogan? Under which authority? Normally a leader
is sent to exile if he loose the war. Bashar did not loose the war, he is winning politically
and militarily. The losers are the SNC and the rebels and they are already exiled in Turkey where
they will stay to the end of their lives if they care for their lives.
It seems that the US media is so desperate that the US administration leaked that Bashar Al
Assad will will stay until 2017 ( at least) that they are trying to present some compensation
to that humiliating reality by inventing the idea of a punishment on Bashar al Assad.
Ignatius is totally off track as he has been for 4 years...
Not sure the political leadership or punditry are delusional or stupid - they are simply staying
"on message" and their statements reflect policy. The policy, even after Russia's intervention
in Syria, continues to be regime-change in Damascus and the use of "rebel" proxy forces to see
this through.
Here, David Cameron concedes his claim of 70,000 moderate rebels was nonsense, but reiterates
the policy: using rebel forces as "pressure" to achieve the removal of Assad.
"... Is there still this neocon superiority illusion that lets U.S. news media and politicians believe they are the only ones who matter? That the U.S. is the only country which has a say in global issues? ..."
"... Ignatius is a member of the American ruling class. His father was Secretary of the Navy and publisher of the Washington Post. Ignatius himself was educated at St. Albans School, Harvard, and Cambridge. During his career in journalism, he has occupied all sorts of prestigious postings. ..."
"... Regarding the US vessels drifting into Irans territorial waters: Yes, my first thought was Gulf of Tonkin/USS Pueblo redux? ..."
"... The factual scenarios are different in all of these incidents, but there is a common denominator of US naval forces provocatively entering a hostile nations territorial waters, and claiming afterwards that it was either fully justified or an innocent mistake. ..."
"... The extract from the Putin interview contains some not-so-subtle swipes at US-style democracy which seem to have flown under the radar. Putin raised the Snowden issue because he sees Snowden Assad as equally Patriotic and trustworthy. Snowden believes in an America for all Americans and Assad believes in a Syria for all Syrians. And thats the reason the criminally insane USG hates them. ..."
"... He is making the point that Obama (unlike Assad) doesnt want Syrians deciding who their President should be and made damn sure that Americans didnt get to decide whether Snowden should be rewarded or punished for exposing USG criminality. ..."
"... David Cameron concedes his claim of 70,000 moderate rebels was nonsense, but reiterates the policy: using rebel forces as pressure to achieve the removal of Assad. ..."
Some U.S. media
say that Iran is "aggressive" when it detains U.S. ships and sailors ... who invade Iranian waters.
It is such delusional worldview that has people all over the world shake their heads over U.S.
media and politics.
But this messy thinking starts at the top. The Obama administration is filled with delusional
thinkers. Consider
this nonsense , relayed by the unofficial spokesperson David Ignatius, over Putin's position
towards the Syrian President Assad:
Putin this week seemed to take a public step toward the U.S. position that Assad must
go eventually . In an interview with the German newspaper Bild released Tuesday,
Putin hinted that he might grant Assad asylum.
...
Putin's reference to asylum was taken "very seriously" by the White House, a second administration
official noted Tuesday. "I think he was sending a signal about where he stands"
that was consistent with what Russian officials have been telling the United States in private,
the official said.
Putin was in no way "sending a signal". He was deflecting a direct question that the reporters
asked. He took a firm stance that Assad must stay and be allowed to take part in new elections:
Question: If, contrary to expectations, al-Assad loses the elections, will you grant him the possibility
of asylum in your country?
Vladimir Putin: I think it is quite premature to discuss this. We granted asylum to Mr Snowden,
which was far more difficult than to do the same for Mr al-Assad.
First, the Syrian people should be given the opportunity to have their say. I assure
you, if this process is conducted democratically, then al-Assad will probably not need to leave
the country at all. And it is not important whether he remains President or not.
How is that "sending a signal"? The only signal I perceive therein is that - as far as Russia
is concerned - Assad will stay where he is right now. I have no doubt that the private statements
of Putin and the Russian government in this case are exactly the same than the official ones.
In October Obama
demanded that Russia let go of Assad or end in a quagmire. Since then the position of the Syrian
government
has solidified and the Russian support has turned out to be very effective and not a burden.
The position of the U.S. administration and its jihadist proxy forces in Syria has deteriorated.
With each Islamic State attack the pressure to end the U.S. war on Syria is increasing.
How then can the "administration official" come up with this nonsense?
Is there still this neocon superiority illusion that lets U.S. news media and politicians
believe they are the only ones who matter? That the U.S. is the only country which has a say in global
issues?
One would have thought that the lost war in Iraq and the U.S. quagmire in Afghanistan would have
cured such delusions. But stupid thinking seems hard to heal.
The interview you link to up top is important reading if only for the final comment on sports
and the arts that Putin makes. But I also enjoyed his reference to Goethe and the difference between
the Russian and German languages. I find Russian very hard to follow because of the rapid pace
at which it is spoken - Putin's explanation certainly corroborates that impression.
Also, his points about "freedom' and 'democracy' are worth consideration.
We here in the US are not free, nor do we have a democracy at present. This is because the
people are not being listened to by those appointed by them, nor is it clear that those appointed
have actually been appointed by the people. (Putin did not say that - it is my own assessment.)
lysias | Jan 13, 2016 11:47:16 AM | 5
Mikhail Lermontov did a great translation into Russian of Goethe's Wandrers Nachtlied 2. Here's
the German:
Über allen Gipfeln/ Ist Ruh,/ In allen Wipfeln/ Spürest du/ Kaum einen Hauch;/ Die Vögelein
schweigen im Walde./ Warte nur, balde/ Ruhest du auch.
And Lermontov's Russian:
Горные вершины/ Спят во тьме ночной./ Тихие долины/ Полны свежей мглой./ Не пылит дорога,/
Не дрожат листы./ Подожди немного,/ Отдохнёшь и ты.
Preserves Goethe's metrical/rhyme scheme almost perfectly, and stays remarkably close to the
sense of the German version.
Seward | Jan 13, 2016 12:04:52 PM | 6
Remember that David Ignatius is a writer of fiction. (He also has close insider ties with the
CIA, so often reflects their point of view. A mid-level manager I knew from there, now deceased,
was amazed at how much he knew.)
Ignatius is a member of the American ruling class. His father was Secretary of the Navy and
publisher of the Washington Post. Ignatius himself was educated at St. Albans School, Harvard,
and Cambridge. During his career in journalism, he has occupied all sorts of prestigious postings.
How then can the "administration official" come up with this nonsense?
Typical cognitive dissonance, which
Wikipedia defines
as [...]"an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the
same time, performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas or values, or
is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.[1][2]
Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance focuses on how humans strive for internal
consistency. An individual who experiences inconsistency (dissonance) tends to become psychologically
uncomfortable, and is motivated to try to reduce this dissonance-as well as actively avoid situations
and information likely to increase it.[1] [...]
In the particular case of Obama and the US government, they don't seem motivated at all to
reduce this dissonance, or to "avoid situations and information likely to increase it," on the
contrary, cognitive dissonance is the platform from which they constantly deny, contort, distort,
and twist reality to fit their spurious needs.
Thanks b for expounding into the US denial syndrome.
Regarding the US vessels "drifting" into Iran's territorial waters: Yes, my first thought
was "Gulf of Tonkin/USS Pueblo redux?"
The factual scenarios are different in all of these incidents, but there is a common denominator
of US naval forces provocatively entering a hostile nation's territorial waters, and claiming
afterwards that it was either fully justified or an innocent mistake.
As noted in the links and comments, US wingnut politicians and pundits will incorporate this
event into their ever-bubbling stream of reactionary demagoguery. However, it seems as though
this contretemps is not escalating on the geopolitical level. So perhaps this time it really
was just a merry mixup.
Still-- I'm no sailor, and I defer to nautical experts here. But with all of the billions invested
in procuring state-of-the-art, high-tech navigation equipment for US Navy ships-- including a
network of satellites to support GPS location and tracking systems-- is it really plausible that
these vessels can indeed "drift" past territorial boundaries? Just askin'.
The extract from the Putin interview contains some not-so-subtle swipes at US-style democracy
which seem to have flown under the radar. Putin raised the Snowden issue because he sees Snowden
& Assad as equally Patriotic and trustworthy. Snowden believes in an America for all Americans
and Assad believes in a Syria for all Syrians. And that's the reason the criminally insane USG
hates them.
He is making the point that Obama (unlike Assad) doesn't want Syrians deciding who their
President should be and made damn sure that Americans didn't get to decide whether Snowden should
be rewarded or punished for exposing USG criminality.
He described Smowden's asylum in Russia as "far more difficult" because Obama and Putin both
know that the USG cancelled Snowden's passport, rendering him stateless and stranding him in Russia.
What a ridiculous idea! Why Bashar al Assad who stood facing the hateful plots of the USA, France,
the UK, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar and is winning over ISIS would go on exile? Who will decide
that? The UN? The US? The pathetic opposition? Erdogan? Under which authority? Normally a leader
is sent to exile if he loose the war. Bashar did not loose the war, he is winning politically
and militarily. The losers are the SNC and the rebels and they are already exiled in Turkey where
they will stay to the end of their lives if they care for their lives.
It seems that the US media is so desperate that the US administration leaked that Bashar Al
Assad will will stay until 2017 ( at least) that they are trying to present some compensation
to that humiliating reality by inventing the idea of a punishment on Bashar al Assad.
Ignatius is totally off track as he has been for 4 years...
Not sure the political leadership or punditry are delusional or stupid - they are simply staying
"on message" and their statements reflect policy. The policy, even after Russia's intervention
in Syria, continues to be regime-change in Damascus and the use of "rebel" proxy forces to see
this through.
Here, David Cameron concedes his claim of 70,000 moderate rebels was nonsense, but reiterates
the policy: using rebel forces as "pressure" to achieve the removal of Assad.
You have mentioned sanctions. In my view, this was a foolish decision and a harmful one. I have
said that our turnover with Germany amounted to $83–85 billion, and thousands of jobs were created
in Germany as a result of this cooperation. And what are the restrictions that we are facing? This
is not the worst thing we are going through, but it is harmful for our economy anyway, since it affects
our access to international financial markets.
As to the worst harm inflicted by today's situation, first of all on our economy, it is the harm
caused by the falling prices on our traditional export goods. However, both the former and the latter
have their positive aspects. When oil prices are high, it is very difficult for us to resist spending
oil revenues to cover current expenses. I believe that our non-oil and gas deficit had risen to a
very dangerous level. So now we are forced to lower it. And this is healthy…
Question: For the budget deficit?
Vladimir Putin: We divide it. There is the total deficit and then there are non-oil and
gas revenues. There are revenues from oil and gas, and we divide all the rest as well.
The total deficit is quite small. But when you subtract the non-oil and gas deficit, then you
see that the oil and gas deficit is too large. In order to reduce it, such countries as Norway, for
example, put a significant proportion of non-oil and gas revenues into the reserve. It is very difficult,
I repeat, to resist spending oil and gas revenues to cover current expenses. It is the reduction
of these expenses that improves the economy. That is the first point.
Second point. You can buy anything with petrodollars. High oil revenues discourage development,
especially in the high technology sectors. We are witnessing a decrease in GDP by 3.8 percent, in
industrial production by 3.3 percent and an increase in inflation, which has reached 12.7 percent.
This is a lot, but we still have a surplus in foreign trade, and the total exports of goods with
high added value have grown significantly for the first time in years. That is an expressly positive
trend in the economy.
The reserves are still at a high level, and the Central Bank has about 340 billion in gold and
foreign currency reserves. If I am not mistaken, they amount to over 300. There are also two reserve
funds of the Government of the Russian Federation, each of which amounts to $70 to $80 billion. One
of them holds $70 billion, the other – $80 billion. We believe that we will be steadily moving towards
stabilisation and economic growth. We have adopted a whole range of programmes, including those aimed
at import replacement, which means investing in high technologies.
ObamaCare is, of course, a
neoliberal "market-based" "solution." ObamaCare's intellectual foundations were expressed most
clearly in layperson's language by none other than the greatest orator of our time, Obama, himself
(
2013 ):
If you don't have health insurance, then starting on October 1st, private plans will actually
compete for your business, and you'll be able to comparison-shop online.There will be a marketplace
online, just like you'd buy a flat-screen TV or plane tickets or anything else you're doing online,
and you'll be able to buy an insurance package that fits your budget and is right for you.
Let's leave aside the possibility that private plans are
phishing for your business, by exploiting informational asymmetries, rather than "competing"
for it. Obama gives an operational definition of a functioning market that assumes two things: (1)
That health insurance, as a product, is like flat-screen TVs, and (2) as when buying flat-screen
TVs, people will comparison shop for health insurance, and that will drive health insurers to compete
to satisfy them. As it turns out, scholars have been studying both assumptions, and both assumptions
are false. "The dog won't eat the dog food," as marketers say. This will be a short post; we've already
seen that the first assumption is false - only 20%-ers who have their insurance purchased for them
by an institution could be so foolish as to make it - and a new study shows that the second assumption
is false, as well.
ObamaCare's Product Is Not Like a Flat-Screen TV
Here's the key assumptoin that Obama (and most economists) make about heatlth insurance: That
it's a commodity, like flat screen TVs, or airline tickets, and that therefore , there exists
a "a product that suits your budget and is right for you" because markets. Unfortunately, experience
backed up by studies has shown that this is not true. From ObamaCare is a Bad Deal (for Many)
. From Mark Pauly, Adam Leive, Scott Harrington, all of the Wharton School,
NBER Working Paper No. 21565 (
quoted at NC in October 2015 ):
This paper estimates the change in net (of subsidy) financial burden ("the price of responsibility")
and in welfare that would be experienced by a large nationally representative sample of the "non-poor"
uninsured if they were to purchase Silver or Bronze plans on the ACA exchanges. The sample is
the set of full-year uninsured persons represented in the Current Population Survey for the pre-ACA
period with incomes above 138 percent of the federal poverty level. The estimated change in financial
burden compares out-of-pocket payments by income stratum in the pre-ACA period with the sum of
premiums (net of subsidy) and expected cost sharing (net of subsidy) for benchmark Silver and
Bronze plans, under various assumptions about the extent of increased spending associated with
obtaining coverage. In addition to changes in the financial burden, our welfare estimates incorporate
the value of additional care consumed and the change in risk premiums for changes in exposure
to out-of-pocket payments associated with coverage, under various assumptions about risk aversion.
We find that the average financial burden will increase for all income levels once insured. Subsidy-eligible
persons with incomes below 250 percent of the poverty threshold likely experience welfare improvements
that offset the higher financial burden, depending on assumptions about risk aversion and the
value of additional consumption of medical care. However, even under the most optimistic
assumptions, close to half of the formerly uninsured (especially those with higher incomes) experience
both higher financial burden and lower estimated welfare ; indicating a positive "price
of responsibility" for complying with the individual mandate. The percentage of the sample with
estimated welfare increases is close to matching observed take-up rates by the previously uninsured
in the exchanges.
So, for approximately half the "formerly uninsured," ObamaCare is a losing proposition; I don't
know what an analogy for flat-screen TVs is; maybe having to send the manufacturer money every time
you turn it on, in addition to the money you paid to buy it? That's most definitely not a "package
that fits your budget and is right for you," unless you're a masochist or a phool. Second, the portion
of those eligible that does the math probably won't buy the product if they're rational actors (and
Obamaare needs to double its penetration of the eligible to avoid a death spiral ). That again
is not like the market for flat-screen TVs; the magic of the ObamaCare marketplace has not
operated to produce a product at every price point (or a substitute).[1] Bad marketplace! Bad!
Bad!
Health Care "Consumers" Tend not to Comparison Shop
We turn now to a second NBER study that places even more dynamite at ObamaCare's foundations.
From Zarek C. Brot-Goldberg, Amitabh Chandra, Benjamin R. Handel, and Jonathan T. Kolstad, of Berkelely
and Harvard, "What Does a Deductible Do? The Impact of Cost-Sharing on Health Care Prices, Quantities,
and Spending Dynamics" NBER Working Paper
No. 21632 ( PDF ), the abstract:
Measuring consumer responsiveness to medical care prices is a central issue in health economics
and a key ingredient in the optimal design and regulation of health insurance markets. We study
consumer responsiveness to medical care prices, leveraging a natural experiment that occurred
at a large self-insured firm which required all of its employees to switch from an insurance plan
that provided free health care to a non-linear, high deductible plan[2]. The switch caused a spending
reduction between 11.79%-13.80% of total firm-wide health spending. We decompose this spending
reduction into the components of (i) consumer price shopping (ii) quantity reductions and (iii)
quantity substitutions, finding that spending reductions are entirely due to outright reductions
in quantity. We find no evidence of consumers learning to price shop after two years in high-deductible
coverage. Consumers reduce quantities across the spectrum of health care services, including
potentially valuable care (e.g. preventive services) and potentially wasteful care (e.g. imaging
services). We then leverage the unique data environment to study how consumers respond to the
complex structure of the high-deductible contract. We find that consumers respond heavily to spot
prices at the time of care, and reduce their spending by 42% when under the deductible, conditional
on their true expected end-of-year shadow price and their prior year end-of-year marginal price.
In the first-year post plan change, 90% of all spending reductions occur in months that consumers
began under the deductible, with 49% of all reductions coming for the ex ante sickest half of
consumers under the deductible, despite the fact that these consumers have quite low shadow prices.
There is no evidence of learning to respond to the true shadow price in the second
year post-switch.
So, empirically, these "consumers" just don't act the way that good neoliberal Obama says they
should; they do not comparison shop. That alone is enough to undermine the intellectual
basis of ObamaCare. If there's no comparison shopping going on, there's no competitive pressure for
health insurers to improve their product (assuming good faith, which I don't).
(We can leave aside the issue of motivation, but to speculate, I've found that when I talk to
people about health care and health insurance; they're very defensive and proprietary about
whatever random solution they've been able to cobble together; and if you'd been sold an exploding
flat-screen TV, and had somehow been able to use duct tape and a well-timed fist to the housing to
get it work, most of the time, wouldn't you be rather unwilling to go back to the same store and
buy another? So there is evidence of "learning"; the lesson learned is once you've got something
that seems to works, don't on any account change it, and we "bear those ills we have," rather "than
fly to others that we know not of.")
Moreover, the population studied has more ability to comparison shop than ObamaCare's. From
page 4 of the study :
Employees at the firm [in the study] are relatively high income ( median income $125,000-$150,000
), an important fact to keep in mind when interpreting our analysis
The top income for a family of four eligible for ObamaCare is around $95K (and not eligible for
subsidy). Do people think this ObamaCare-eligible population has more ability to comparison shop,
compared to a population with a $125K median income for individuals, or less ability? To put this
more tendentiously, if a population that can afford accountants or at least financial planners doesn't
comparison shop, how likely is it that a population that cannot afford those personal services will
do so?
Even worse, the population studied reduces costs, not by comparison shopping, but by self-denial
of care. From page 6 of the study
:
In our setting consumers were provided a comprehensive price shopping tool that allowed them
to search for doctors providing particular services by price as well as other features (e.g. location).
So, just like the ObamaCare "marketplace online" front end (at least after they got it working).
And what happened?
We find no evidence of price shopping in the first year post switch . The effect
is near zero and looks similar for the t -1 - t 0 year pair (moving from
pre- to post-change) as it does for earlier year pairs from t 4 to t 1 .
Second, we find no evidence of an increase in price shopping in the second year post-switch; consumers
are not learning to shop based on price. Third, we find that essentially all spending reductions
between t 1 and t 0 are achieved through outright quantity reductions
whereby consumers receive less medical care . From t 1 to t 0 consumers
reduce service quantities by 17.9%. Fourth, there is limited evidence that consumers substitute
across types of procedures (substitution leads to a 2.2% spending reduction from t 1
- t 0 ). Finally, fifth, we find that these quantity reductions persist in the
second-year post switch, as the increase in quantities between t 0 and t 1
is only 0.7%, much lower than the pre-period trend in quantity growth. These results occur
in the context of consistent (and low) provider price changes over the whole sample period.
Now, it could be that the study population is reducing items like cosmetic surgery and not items
like dental care (assuming they've got dental); the
Healthcare Economist summary of this study says no. In fact, says the study, some of the foregone
services were "likely of high value in terms of health and potential to avoid future costs." And
it could be that the lower-income ObamaCare-eligible are smarter shoppers (dubious: Shopping is a
tax on time a lot of working people can't pay). That said, it looks like ObamaCare has replaced a
system where insurance companies deny people needed care with a system where people deny themselves
needed care; which is genius, in a way. However, if any doctors or medical personnel continue
to support ObamaCare politically, they should consider closely whether they're violating the principle
of non-maleficence - "First,
do no harm" - and halt their support, if so. Bad marketplace! Bad, bad!
Conclusion
Shopping for health insurance under ObamaCare is nothing at all like shopping for a flat-screen
TV. First, there's a sizeable population who, if they are rational actors, just won't buy health
insurance at all; the ObamaCare "marketplace" is not capable of adjusting prices to get such "consumers"
to enter the market. Second, people don't comparison shop; they reduce needed care. (To flog the
flat-screen TV metaphor even further, if the screen is so defective it's painful to watch, people
don't reduce the pain by comparison shopping for a better TV; they reduce the pain by watching less,
and keep the TV they have.)
So, with ObamaCare, and thanks to the dogmas of neoliberalism, we have a "marketplace" that repels
"consumers" from entering it, and repels people from shopping if they do enter. Perhaps there's a
better solution out there?
NOTES
[1] It may be that the ever-increasing mandate penalties will force enough people into the marketplace
to make ObamaCare
actuarially stable ; needless to say, we don't see Federal agents forcing people into Best Buy
to buy TVs, although the social pressure of Black Friday comes close.
[2] Again, much like ObamaCare plans, which are increasingly high-deductible.
About Lambert Strether
Lambert Strether has been blogging, managing online communities, and doing system administration
24/7 since 2003, in Drupal and WordPress. Besides political economy and the political scene, he blogs
about rhetoric, software engineering, permaculture, history, literature, local politics, international
travel, food, and fixing stuff around the house. The nom de plume "Lambert Strether" comes from Henry
James's The Ambassadors: "Live all you can. It's a mistake not to." You can follow him on Twitter
at @lambertstrether. http://www.correntewire.com
The author seems to have forgotten that the kludge called "Obamacare" is not the single payer
solution that this Obama wanted. What you have is what was able to get past a Congress after intense
lobbying by HMOs and insurers. I see little evidence of ideology in the result, "neoliberal" or
otherwise. It does nothing to address the insane-and-rising cost of healthcare, because the vested
interests are OK with that.
Let me clue you in: the readers here are way WAY too clued in to buy your Big Lie.
1. Obama was never in favor of single payer, ever. Wash your mouth out for even suggesting
that
2. He had health care lobbyists draft the legislation
3. He used the "public option" as a bright shiny toy. He was so uncommitted to it he didn't
even trade it away. He gave it up as a free concession. A basic principle in negotiating is you
NEVER make a free concession. The fact that he just threw it away is proof he never meant it as
anything more than a talking point
I hope you are paid to dispense this blather. I really feel sorry for you if you actually believe
it. Obama is a neoliberal who campaigned as a leftist but has governed as a right-winger. His
apologists have regularly used the meanie Republicans as excuses for his selllouts, when Obama
gets what he wants when he wants it, and there's no evidence that his center-right results are
at all at odds with what he intended to achieve.
I won't pretend to be as smart as you and I was doing okay with your comments until the following.
"Obama is a neoliberal who campaigned as a leftist but has governed as a right-winger." You're
kidding? I won't ask for an example because I am sure there are a few issues you can name and
discuss. That being said, Obama is no where near the middle, never mind the right. If anything,
I would say Obama is an inexperience professor trying to teach Economics at Wharton….he can't.
The problem is Obama is too narcissitc to even think about listening. He has constantly picked
situations because it is what he believes and that includes the simple things such as inviting
the Harvard professor who was arrested early on in his presidency for a beer to the WH to giving
how many millions to Solyndra. He can't be wrong!
As far as Obamacare. To me it is a simple issue. Health Care does not equal Health Insurance.
The sad part is we have spent billions in what will eventually end up as quasi single payer system
with 4 large insurance companies sharing the administrative function. Let's just get there and
quit kidding one another.
Huh? Obama has proven to be an extremely skilled political infighter when he wants something
done. And as to him being center-right, all you have to do is look at his staff, most important
his economics team.
He's got a history of being a fake leftist going back to his days in Chicago. Obama, Michelle,
and Valerie Jarrett were the black faces that legitimated the plan by the Pritzkers and local
finance interests to gentrify near South Chicago and push the black community 3 miles further
south while giving them nothing. See here for details:
And he's never been a real prof. This constitutional law talk is a crock. No one can remember
him teaching any courses (he appears to have taught a couple but made no impression). This was
a resume-burnishing post and he did the bare minimum.
Beg to slightly differ regarding Obama and single payer (if the transcripts of his campaign
rally speech in Jersey City before he was nominated hadn't been scrubbed from the Internet, I'd
have the exact wording).
After he had had told the story of sitting with his dying mother on her death bed, surrounded
by paperwork, trying to sort out the restrictions of her employer-based insurance policy and there
wasn't a dry eye in the gymnasium, everyone THOUGHT he said, "When I am President, I will fight
tooth and nail for single payer for every single American."
And the gymnasium absolutely erupted in applause.
Apparently, he said something very CLOSE to that, but when the sentence is carefully parsed,
did not mean that all.
Nevertheless, as a former Obot who worked tirelessly to get him elected on almost the sole
basis of the genuine emotion he exhibited when he told this awful story and how he promised to
rectify the situation in the future, I felt the dagger of betrayal when the first thing he said
during the health care debate was, "I'm taking single payer of the table."
I hate to say this, but a lot of us at Corrente did try to keep track in 2008, and I can't
remember any reporting on this at the time, and we were also strongly for single payer, which
we also kept track of. Not to say that we couldn't have missed something, but a link to something
contemporaneous would be helpful.
I know that I've said this on NC before, but Yves is absolutely right - and THEN some. When
Dennis Kucinich tried to introduce EVEN A DISCUSSION of single payer in Congress, the Democratic
Party leadership blocked him from even bringing it up. Pelosi et al. were absolutely committed
to the Republican neoliberal policy.
This led us to discuss whether the only way to get progressive health care policy was to start
a new party, now that the Democrats have become the Wall Street wing of the Republican Party's
natural resource monopolists.
I don't know the date of this speech (the upload predates the 2010 debacle), but Obama stated,
"I happen to be a proponent of single payer health care…"
That said, we got hosed. Each of us must now decide whether to roll over and take the corn,
or, to demand single payer and the re-regulation of industry (the pharmaceutical industry and
others that affect health tangentially).
I've not been able to resolve the technical reason behind my missing links. You'll find the
53 second clip on youtube channel 6y2o12la titled: Obama on single payer health insurance.
"the single payer solution that this Obama wanted"
Obama kept single payer off the table from the start. He would have had to decide to fight
the industry and take the fight to the country. Medicare for All is a simple idea. He could have
done a 50 state whistle stop tour. He could have saturated any Congressional district opposing
Medicare for All with the same message. That wasn't his plan.
I attended one of his community meetings on health care, held around the country prior to him
adopting Romney Care as his proposal. One of the organizers of the meeting starts off by complaining
to the group about not just telling Obama we want single payer.
One of the first things Obama did was make the GOP party point men on health care(Olympia Snowe
anyone?)
And it was Nancy Pelosi who called it impractical and took it off the table, heck she even
went so far as to have some of the activists committed to being heard arrested for being disruptive.
She then promptly gave a minority Blue Dog group the opportunity to co opt the debate to grandstand
on abortion.
It's positively revisionism to blame the health care mess on GOP. It was Democrats who screwed
it up from start to finish.
"Obama wanted'? Single payer was ruled out from the beginning. Advocates for that position
were not permitted to be part of the discussion. Who knows what Obama wanted? Look at his actions
on this and other issues to make a better judgment. My take is that it was a presidency of symbolism
not substance when it came to policies.
I appreciate that such takedowns are always link-filled and impeccably sourced, and though
combativeness in the comments is not the prevailing tone of this website (happily), damn if I
don't pump my fist when I read a troll getting cut down thusly.
Maybe you're not an incredibly lame troll. Maybe you're just a poor beginner who unwittingly
wandered onto the Varsity field. But if you "see little evidence of ideology in the result," you
may want to look up the definitions of "evidence," "ideology" and "result."
Educated elites with a modicum of leisure always love to play these games. It took them decades
and the most draconian policies imaginable to break the habit of workers early in the industrial
revolution of trading off pay for leisure time. The basic notion of every capitalist scold throughout
the ages has been that this is irrational laziness, even if your job is a physically exhausting
and soul-crushing exercise–you must work more, or you are a bad person who should be punished.
Now, it's the "let's turn everything into a market" game. Don't want to play? Screw you–we'll
make it mandatory, and, of course, punitive. This goes way beyond Obamacare into every facet of
our lives. Public utilities? Hell no–give them "choice"! Community schools? No way–can't have
the races and the classes and the ability levels mixing in such a promiscuous manner–let's go
charter "academies", or vouchers. It's a normative takeover under the guise of "rational" "scientific"
"efficiency".
So true. Ask them about their golf game. It is only YOUR leisure time at issue, not theirs.
Don't you wish you could count as "work" blathering your stream of conciousness on CNBC day after
day?
I remember that one of the 'talking points' in favour of Heritage Foundation Care (HFC) was
that "pre-existing" conditions were not to be allowed to deny anyone coverage. Using that logic,
it can be asserted that 'Poverty', absolute or relative, a pre-existing condition if there ever
was one, denies 'patients' useful medical care. The system as administered is internally contradictory.
Taken one step farther, the HFC can be defined as a "Faith Based Service Provider." This would
be an insult to actual traditional Faith based providers. Most "real" FBPs are governed, at least
in theory, by ideologies that counsel 'compassion' when dealing with the less fortunate. As has
been demonstrated, the HFC program counsels exploitation when dealing with the less fortunate.
A case in point; this week a local religious charity opened a 'Free Clinic' in our town of 45,000
or so souls. The local paper put this on the front page. Buried in the body of the article was
the mention that this clinic was fully booked up for the first, and probably second month. All
this before public mention of it's existence. There's your 'Marketplace' in action. As I discovered
when I looked into signing up for the Mississippi Medicaid program for myself, a family cannot
have over 2,500 USD in 'assets.' There is an ongoing dispute as to whether or not an automobile
classifies as an item counted toward this limit. Thus, those in our state who do qualify for Medicaid
are poor indeed.
Using that logic, it can be asserted that 'Poverty', absolute or relative, a pre-existing
condition if there ever was one
Great point. In the US we have a health care system that saves people's lives while–in many
cases–taking away their means of living it. The Hippocratic Oath should be modified to read: first
do no harm to Capitalism.
Obama is a 1060s style communist;==perhaps one could call him a "NeoCommunist" Obamacare is
anything but "Neoliberal" –it is redistributionist in its very nature. This is why it is crumbling.
It is an absurd notion as is this article, but that is to be expected as you cannot seem to get
over this adolescent attachment to Marxism.
Yes, it is an intriguing suggestion. Does commenter thatworddoesnotmeanthat care to
elaborate? Were the architects of RomneyCare (and it's national extension Obamacare) attempting
to recreate a golden age, of 11th century free peasants– happily enjoying the abundant commons
of medical care, in the carefree forests and dales, before they slipped under the Norman Yoke
of feudal exploitation?
Or, is the reference to some non-Western communist society that flourished in the mid-11th
century? Perhaps thatworddoesnotmeanthat has studied early communist cultures in South Asia, America,
or Africa that distributed healthcare in a way that eerily foreshadows what Romneycare did in
Massachusetts?
The record is irrefutable–the ACA was written by the insurance companies with a wink and a
nod to Big Pharma and the HMOs. Unless you are going to seriously entertain the notion that these
are "communist" institutions, or give a rats ass about anything but making money, you can't really
believe what you wrote. You are just angry about something and projecting your fears onto this
travesty.
The subsidies of Obamacare, if you qualify for them, requires the IRS to get intimately involved
with your checkbook. Just like middle class folks want recipients of SNAP to be regulated with
every food and drink purchase … matching what the bourgeoisie thinks matches their own moral rectitude.
I prefer not to make the IRS my intimate partner … helping me to define what is an asset and
what is income to the last penny.
The idea behind high deductibles is that you'll force consumers to economize. It's kind of
like telling science, "Hey. This patient needs ten pills to live? Let's give him eight and see
what happens."
Medical treatment is a science issue. A treatment's either effective or it's not. You can negotiate
the cost – *with the supplier* – but you can't bully a disease or injury into behaving the way
you want. You certainly can't bully the sick person and they're in no position to negotiate with
the supplier. They have none of the necessary experience or health. That's exactly the wrong time
to try to educate someone about their "options."
But then that's the whole point. The medical market is intentionally littered with opacity.
There is nothing transparent about insurance, much less drugs or surgeries. Medicine is increasingly
dominated by complex bureaucratic cartels for exactly that reason – so you *won't* find out how
things work. They don't want you comparison shopping for drugs, surgeries, therapists. Everything
about the modern medical system is precisely about robbing "customers" of human agency.
The whole idea of shopping for health insurance itself is absurd. It requires you figuring
out exactly how sick you'll be in the next year and then inventing a time machine to travel back
so you can pick the Pareto optimal policy with exactly the best deductible – which really won't
matter because then they'll find a way to make sure your E.R. wasn't in network nor your anesthesiologist
and the only drug to keep you alive won't be "covered" and then you'll wish it was only an Arnold
Schwarzenegger skin-wearing android sent to kill you 'cause that would be way easier.
They're removing choice left and right and destroying scientific information through lobbying.
The people responsible for creating diseases aren't being held responsible for them but the victims
suffering from them are.
When multiple sclerosis organizations are run by drug companies selling $50K+ a year drugs,
do you think they want those customers finding out that deworming society is what created the
risk for M.S. in the first place?
As Martin Shkreli put it, he has the perfect "price inelastic" product. Patients are a captive
market that's easy to exploit. Either they get what they need or they die. You can charge what
you want.
Do you think lazy executives looking to bump up next quarter's earnings are going to invest
heavily over the long haul in scientific models of effective disease prevention and treatment
or are they simply going to squeeze people a little more and a little more?
Let's not forget why politicians love the sickcare complex. The more an industry turns into
a cartel, the easier it is to raise both economic and political rents from it. Let's be honest
here and call a spade a spade. Politicians like this system because it easily feeds campaign dollars
into the system. It may not be efficient for treating patients, but it's quite efficient for extracting
political re
Comparison shop for medical care in the USA? You've got to be kidding.
Case in point. My doctor recommended a cardiovascular "stress test" for diagnosis of heartburn
symptoms to make sure that it wasn't cardiovascular in nature. I traveled to a regional heart
specialist center for the test, but based upon previous experience refused to undergo the test
until they put the bill for the procedure in writing including my deductible cost. The intake
administrator acted shocked by such a request, and it took 30 minutes of increasingly strongly
worded demands on my part before they finally produced a verbal quotation – which I recorded for
future use if they decided to bill $12,000 for 10 minutes on a treadmill.
The world's most expensive health care extortion system at work.
It's nearly impossible to "comparison shop" if you're part of an HMO these days. The only choice
one really has is to select their PCP. After that the PCP pretty much forces you to see docs and
get tests within the hospital system – presumably for "coordinated care". And this for nearly
$1000/mo for a single person not receiving much in the way of "healthcare". That which can't continue,
won't….
One of the things that distinguishes the US from other countries is our high level of tax compliance.
I'm concerned that these Obamacare penalties will lead to diminished compliance, both because
people resent the penalties, and because it is such an intellectually frustrating exercise to
try and estimate future income.
More like a flat screen TV, rented from Samsung, that functions like one of those old British
hotel radiators that you have to feed with pence $60 copays every 10 minutes
in order for Time Warner not to interrupt the streaming.
And then you get balance billing from Disney for the content.
My experience is that there IS no "competition" in any product field that involves actuarial
calculations. I get a subsidy and I am 63. There were about 50 plans offered in my area. A few
were OVERpriced, yes, but the vast majority offered very similar premium prices, and identical
elephantine deductibles, which means that except for aspects of the annual physical, it will "cover"
( assuming cover means pay for) jack. "Coverage" is not care, it is nothing to brag about. I am
"covered" for expenses beyond my deductible as a form of catastrophic insurance but the plan will
never pay for anything else and actuarially, it is easy to calculate a premium that guarantees
that companies will make lotsa money while paying out less. Needless to say the "product" is outrageously
overpriced for what it covers and puts people like me _- close to medicare but limited income
and owns own house free and clear in a far far worse position than before the law. ( eg medicaid
asset recovery if I dare to state a lower income etc etc). So I'm "covered" , so what. I have
far less actual care. And that , it appears to me , is deliberate.
Even if it were "competitive" there is not much point in comparison shopping for flat screen tvs..
for a flat screen tv with X features made by brand "A" the price difference for a tv with the
same features ( and longevitiy) of brand "B: will in the vast majority of online offerings, be
so close as to not be worth the effort. This is even more true with insurance.
Like most politicians, Obama wanted to "do something" and a have a bill he could hold up in front
of Everybody and say "see this is mine". My experience with such legislators/administrators is
that they have a lot of hubris and grees for the bill to pass and do not subject potential downsides
to any critical analysis so that advisers get the message "construct something that will pass"
.The fact that he was dumb enough not to see this coming suggests that his "ideology" was driven
by his advisers- who are definitely neocons IMO not neoliberals unless the term "liberal" is used
in its classic economic sense.
And while we are on the subject, "Health care" is not really subject to "market" principles. Start
with the fact that most people in this country have less than 1K savings, which means that they
cannot cover the ginormous deductibles most "silver" plans offer or the premiums of better plans.
Then add in the fact that these people cannot predict how much care will be needed in a given
year or what the final cost of that care will be. What's the "market " for that? Under these two
facts mandatory "insurance"with high deductibles and narrow networks simply functions as a wealth
transfer from strapped lower-middle and middle class adults to Insurance company shareholders
and CEOs.
Even assuming that Obama "wanted" single payer- an assumption that has been ably refuted in this
string already, had he given "what can get passed" a moment's critical analysis, he might have
realized that he- with his insistence on change for change's sake- was making it worse for so
many Americans. I for one , could care less that pre-existing conditions are now "covered" if
I can't actually use the coverage- pre existing survives, its now called high deducitlbes and
narrow networks.
Actually, as Winston Churchill famously noted, "Americans manage do the right thing after they
have exhausted all of the wrong choices firs"t. So it is that had we gone right to single payer
without this "market based" attempt, we would have heard howls of capitalistic remorse, etc.
So I am glad that Obamacare was attempted and that it is failing predictably. It is pretty
clear to even the free marketers that high deductibles only impoverish Americans, that "skin in
the game" does not make people better shoppers for the highly technical world of medicine, that
price transparency is essentially worthless if nobody is comparison shopping while they are bleeding
out from every orifice, etc.
Medicare for All is arguably catching on. Bernie Sanders poll numbers have not taken a dive
with this promise and the sputtering Obamacare is only putting more fuel to this fire. Hillary's
tax scare attempt will turn flat on its face. People know bad value when they see it, and the
current market based health reform is failing into the predictable death spiral. View Bernie's
ascendency as evidence that the American people think health care is a right and it is time to
fund it that way.
Is the argument here that it was necessary for millions of people to suffer from lack of access
to affordable healthcare, and tens of thousands to die, to teach us a lesson, because designing,
advocating for, and rapidly deploying a simple, effective single payer system that would bring
both immediate and long-term benefits that would silence even its would-be detractors is impossible
even to imagine? This is why Democratic Party and Obama cheerleaders have no credibility anymore.
Also, while it's great that Sanders is bringing attention to this topic, it's not surprising
that people are responding favorably People have been polling in favor of a Medicare-type single
payer program for decades.
Americans have not and will not "do the right thing" on this issue because the entrenched interests
that are making money off of the current atrocity that passes for a healthcare system are too
strong to displace. Europe got single payer after WWII because the only institution in society
left with access to money was the State, so doctors and hospitals after the war were going to
sign on for socialized medicine because societies at large were destitute. Whatever the government
will pay is better than grandpa's watch (if some conquering army hadn't stolen it) or a chicken
(ditto). Until this situation comes into being here in the USA we're not going to see single payer
tax-based healthcare.
Your argument would make sense if Canada, which, like the U.S., never suffered the same WWII
devastation as Europe, hadn't managed to build a national single-payer health system.
And let's not forget the medicaid clawback provisions for those between 55-65. If you apply
for Obamacare, and your income level is below a certain threshhold, you are not eligible for subsidies.
You are placed into medicaid.
However, for those in that 55-65 age bracket, there is an estate clawback provision that effectively
acts as a lien on your estate: once you die your assets will be seized by the state to satisfy
all medicaid provided healthcare expenses.
Prior to Obamacare, in order to qualify for medicaid, not only was there an income requirement,
but your assets also had to be below a certain, very low, amount. With Obamacare however, the
asset requirement is waived for those in that age bracket.
What happens? Many who now are eligible for medicaid via Obamacare will now own a house as
their primary asset of any significance. But once enrolled, that house will be sold on the insured's
death to pay medicaid. I would assume that in states that have privatized medicaid, these sums
will also include all premiums paid by medicaid on the insured's behalf-even if no claims are
ever filed.
If that's not bad enough, under Obamacare to satisfy the law, the consumer is forced into this
by the mandate. There is no choice. Beyond that, if the insured had an income level a few dollars
higher, he/she would be eligible for subsidies which, of course, need not be paid back on the
insured's death.
Clawback provisions, though with many exceptions particularly for those under age 55 have always
been required under medicaid, but now medicaid enrollment will be required by law with actual
assets available.
In terms of the assets issue, my comment is applicable to those states that have adopted the
expanded medicaid features of Obamacare. As mentioned by a poster in Mississippi, states that
have not, still have the old rules on having virtually no assets in order to qualify.
I have seen this stated here on many occasions, over the course of the OCare debate. While
the law seems to give authorization to clawback, in my state it only seems to have been used for
nursing home and other long term care. I can state from my experience, I was never queried about
assets, and was qualified only on income. I just lost the person with whom I have shared my life
for 30 years, and her assets, went to her daughter without any claim from the state. Hers was
an expensive battle with cancer, and did rack up a pile of charges. ( In my state, Medicaid is
paying a private insurer to cover Medicaid patients). I have been reading here for a long time,
rarely posting, I tend to agree mostly with the view here, but this seems to be widely different
between states. I have no issue with Yves or Lambert on this, they have done yeoman work trying
to get to the bottom of these issues. Just felt I needed to weigh in for the sake of completeness.
Yves and Lambert you have my email if you want to discuss my experience, it is all to fresh a
wound to discuss in this public forum.
No argument that Obamacare has some serious problems. But placing ALL the blame on the President
seems excessive. Even if he had come out strongly for single payer, there are more than enough
DINOs in Congress in thrall to Health Care, Inc. to have prevented its passage. And the Republicans
would have dialed up their anti-reform propaganda to new levels of hysteria (Remember the anti-Hillarycare
saturation media campaign? I'll bet Obama does.)
When Obama was inaugurated he had more political capital in his pocket than any president in
recent memory. The repubs were on the ropes.
Sure, the repubs could have gone all out in opposition, but as another poster mentioned Obama
could have gone all out as well and blitzed the country. And in the first few months of his presidency,
my bet would have been on him more than on the repubs.
Of course he did nothing. And to say he did nothing because of fear of the repubs at that point
is silly. He empowered the repubs. He didn't even pretend.
Even if he had come out strongly for single payer…
Oh, but he didn't! If pigs had wings, perhaps they could fly? He could have, he didn't even
pretend (like he did with closing Gitmo). Oh, concerned about his legacy? No problem, $peaking
fees from insurance companies, pharmacos, $eat on bds of directors, his future will be golden!
Hello. "Leaders", elected or otherwise, sell out locals to corps = banana republic.
"All health insurance plans purchased through Covered California must cover certain services
called essential health benefits. These include doctor visits, hospital stays, emergency care,
maternity care, pediatric care, prescriptions, medical tests and mental health care. Health insurance
plans also must cover preventative care services like mammograms and colonoscopies. Health insurance
companies cannot charge copayments, coinsurance or deductibles for such services."
By taking that out of context, you've considerably overstated what Covered California covers.
Just as in the rest of the US, the "metal levels" have the same meaning. For instance:
Bronze: On average, your health plan pays 60 percent of your medical expenses, and you pay
40 percent.
This is the language from their "Essential Health Benefits" section:
Essential Health Benefits
All health insurance plans now share some common characteristics. The Affordable Care Act
requires that all health insurance plans offered in the individual and small-group markets
must provide a comprehensive package of items and services, known as essential health benefits.
These benefits fit into the following 10 categories:
Ambulatory patient services.
Emergency services.
Hospitalization.
Maternity and newborn care.
Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment.
Prescription drugs. For more information about prescription drug benefits, visit the page Prescription
Drugs.
Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices.
Laboratory services.
Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management. For more information about
preventive services with no cost sharing, click here.
Pediatric services, including dental and vision care. Dental insurance for children will be
included in the price of all health plans purchased in the exchange for 2015.
The requirement for insurance plans to offer essential health benefits is just one of many
changes in health coverage that began in 2014.
So this is just ACA boilerplate. I do recall reading that Covered CA does require some services
be provided irrespective of the deductibles (beyond the ACA-mandated preventive care items like
mammograms, which separately are a bad test), but after 10 minutes of poking around the Covered
CA site and other Googling, I can't find any evidence of what those other services might be. I
thought it was at least a doctor visit or two, but I can't even find that.
And 75% of Covered CA plans have narrow networks, compared to 41% for the US as a whole, which
among other things means you might not be able to get a specialist you need:
Obama NEVER tried one iota to go for Single Payer. Nada, Zip, Nothing.
Ergo, I place ALL the blame on Obama. IF he had tried even a teeny tiny bit, I could perhaps
place some blame elsewhere. But factual reality refutes that.
I also do recall the POTUS taking Dennis Kucinich up in Air Force One, and when they landed,
suddenly Kucinich had changed his mind and was (reluctantly in my viewpoint) giving an thumbs
up on ObamaCare. Kucinich was the longest hold out advocating for Single Payer. Obama basically
took him to school and forced him in some way to STFU and say Obamacare was the best.
Baloney. Obama sold us all to BigInsurance, BigPharma, BigHospital, BigMedDevice, and I'm sure
he was handsomely rewarded.
This one, imo, is all on Obama. It was what he wanted, and it's what he now touts as being
this very great thing, which it's not.
No amount of dem. or repb. BS will ever persuade me to participate in national politics again.
obamas handling of the ongoing financial and health care crisis finished it for me.
It's so clear to me where were at. The corruption is sickining. EVERY DAY the stories. I keep
thinking…."all the kings horses and all the kings men couldn't put Humpty back together again."
Read The Archdruid Report for some insight. Everybody wakes up sooner or later.
In this life or the next
Yes, definitely better to give up without a fight. Have you noticed that in spite of what is
essentially a media blackout Bernie is likely leading in the polls? As to your opening statement
"No argument that Obamacare has some serious problems" you admit to ACA shortcomings, maybe you
would like to offer up some of what you see as good aspects of the ACA? Further, "there are more
than enough DINOs in Congress in thrall to Health Care, Inc. to have prevented its passage. "
there was and is a DINO in the oval office "in thrall to Health Care, Inc." who made no other
option impossible. So much for the vaunted "free market" The ACA was designed and implemented
as socialism for the 20% (h/t Lambert and others who have noted the upper class and their minions
occupy the top quintile) whose medical care was getting too expensive, and whose medical (device,
pharma patents, and insurance co.) investments were not being supported by demand, so the ACA
created demand for them. Medicare for all, and get rid of the clawbacks, I personally would rather
chromex's heirs get his assets rather than Blackstone, thank you.
I notice that Crude Earl is tempting $30 and copper is at $1.96/lb, looks like some demand
problems there, as well. Maybe we should mandate that everyone must purchase gasoline even if
they don't have a car, and mandate that pennies will once again be made of copper? ka-ching!
You jest, but in many late medieval and early modern Italian city-states there were ruthlessly
enforced minimum consumption levels for salt. Prior to refrigeration salt was more of a food preservation
necessity, but the huge consumption taxes placed on salt made them a fiscal necessity as well.
Our word salary derives from the fact that so many government officials were paid from
the revenues collected through salt taxes.
The much-hated gabelle in pre-Revolutionary France was a salt tax!
I doubt you're really interested in a discussion, but here are a few very good things about
Obamacare:
1. Elimination of pre-existing conditions as a reason for being refused coverage
2. Requirement that insurers spend at least 80% of their revenue actually paying benefits
3. Preventive care must be free
4. Expansion of Medicaid (where permitted by states) brings coverage to millions of previously
uninsured
5. Standardization of plans makes is possible (if not easy) to compare them
And this is my opinion, but I don't think it would have been possible to get Medicare for All
through Congress, even with Democrats nominally in control, for the reasons already stated.
Anyway, my whole point is that Obama doesn't deserve ALL the blame. Are you arguing that the
public and Congress were ready and willing to enact single-payer, and Obama somehow prevented
it?
1. Pre-existing condition with the caveat that you must live in an area served by a medical
establishment that specializes in your possibly rare illness.
2. 80% Yay! It's almost like Christmas! …. Cold comfort to those who must cough up $10,000
or more before getting any benefit from trom their policy at all.
3. Preventative care must be free. OK. So the $10,000 get's them a colonoscopy and a glucose
meter.
4. Expanded Medicaid … In the states where it happened, anyone over 55 years old subject to
an undisclosed clawback of benefits from estates. Wow.
5. I cannot imagine how you come up with the comparison justification. People have to sign
up for plans without final commitments of which doctors or hospitals are included. And even then
they are subject to change!
"Democrats nominally in control" … This is a pure deception. They had overwhelming majorities
and wildly popular President. Do you seriously think that if faced with Obama's shaking finger
and an enticing promise, that any Democrat would have defied him during those first 100 days.
I laugh at the thought. He could ave gotten Expanded Medicare for All passed in those first 100
days with one hand tied behind his back.
Thanks for responding. Yes it's good that pre-existing conditions no longer can be refused
coverage,but one still needs to be able to afford coverage, so not being refused is not the same
as receiving care, no? Your second point also has some merit as it appears intended to contain
profiteering, but as one can see from martin shrkeli there's nothing stopping the greater healthcare
marketplace from increasing costs, so the 80% becomes ambiguously beneficial. I did not know preventative
care is free, but if that means as implied by another comment colonoscopies and other rather invasive
procedures that might be seen as a cash cow with once again ambiguous benefits to consumers, really
they are actually insureds, not consumers, as the prices are beyond peoples ability to pay, only
insurers can ably do that, so the consumer is consuming insurance not care, I'm arguing for a
gov't insurance and appreciate your opinion that it couldn't have been pulled off, as I think
you are aware that my opinion is that they not only didn't try, indeed the executive branch stood
between private sector healthcare industries and reform in the same way it stood between the banksters
and those pitchfork wielding crazy people. Whatever your feelings about all that saving the economy
stuff, it was largely and in many aspects a giveaway to people who were on the brink of disaster,
a little more give and take would have been appropriate and the hope and change mandate provided
the executive with considerable clout. Also, the medicaid expansion is a wolf in sheep's clothing
as the clawback is regressive and punishes low income people as well as some probably good sized
portion of people who will find themselves unceremoniously dumped into medicaid when their insurance
and other medical bills drive them into financial distress. Lastly, the standardization of plans
was in fact useful for me to figure out i couldn't afford it without taking to much time. I'll
dilute my criticism of the president to be more inclusively the executive branch and their collective
agenda, but basically the O man is the CEO so gets to be the hero, or the goat…
As Chromex notes, Obamacare "coverage" is high-deductible catastrophic, so all day-to-day "care"
is paid for out of pocket. But just try finding out how much a procedure costs… I needed an MRI
on my knee, and it took three phone calls to find out how much I would be paying for the procedure.
First you need to know the exact billing code for the procedure, which means you need to find
the person in the doctor's office who is anointed in the mystical realm of billing codes; then
you need to call the insurance company customer service rep, who is initially mystified that you
are actually trying to find out how much something costs; then you (hopefully) transferred to
someone in the billing department (who has never spoken to an actual patient before); and finally,
if you are lucky, in two or three weeks you will revive a letter from another anointed person
giving the actual out of pocket cost of the procedure-which will probably be different after the
fact as "adjustments" are made between provider and insurer.
If we had to buy anything else in this fashion, we'd all be naked, starving, and out-of-doors.
I recall seeing a stat that the median adult net worth of USians was only US$37K, whereas in
Canada it is US$80K. I wondered if the primary reason for the huge difference, is the presence
of Canada-style MedicareForAll in Canada. It appears the US health system bankrupts you rapidly
as in literal medical bankruptcy as per indivduals' examples in the "Sicko" documentary"' or bankrupts
you slowly, as in these crapified ACA policies that charge ~$12K/yr before paying for anything
besides the annual physical exam even within your "narrow network".
Yves, are you aware of any economist study which estimates the differential in financial net
worth between barbaric USA & civilized Canada?
Apparently what the masters of Canada can't extract through healthcare debt, they do it through
astronomically high real estate prices, exceeding our bubble high of 2007. Though there are signs
of deflation, tiny 2 bedroom bungalows in Winnipeg–depressed Canadian flyover country–go for $300K.
The same dump in Minneapolis is yours for $175K. And that's comparing economically challenged
Winnipeg with relatively prosperous Minneapolis.
Yes, not paying $1200/month in health insurance premiums can go to that overpriced Canadian
mortgage, but that's sort of my point.
And to ward off some comments–I am in no way stating that Canada's national health program
causes high housing costs.
America is exceptionally wack & Crapified (c) Yves, as far as life for the 99%ers probably
in the lowest quintile within the OECD, even when including the don't-really-belong members like
Mexico & Turkey. Meanwhile Murica, from everyday people to the elites, drink Murican Exceptionalist
Kool-aid on how Murica is Always The Best, no need to ever learn from any other nations on anything.
I wonder if the "net present value" of money/time/stress cost of emigrating to a civilized
nation like Canada for those USians fortunate enough to have a chance of doing so, is likely to
be much less than the equivalent money/time/stress cost of living an entire life in the US & having
to deal with the US Sickcare Mafia.
I've found that when I talk to people about health care and health insurance; they're very
defensive and proprietary about whatever random solution they've been able to cobble together
In my limited conversations I've noticed that, too. I've been left wondering if it is hard
to for them to give a clear answer since they've had to engage in guessy speculation about what
they, and their families, might come down with, and they end up having to imagine awful stuff
and then discount the possibility of it occurring, so too bad for little Susie if awful occurs.
Trudy Lieberman has given emphasis to the absurdity of asking people to bet on their health, and
I'm guessing it's not just a matter of feeling embarrassed about weak actuarial skills.
Talking about how you coped with Obamacare gives a clear insight into your personal finances,
something a lot of people are hesitant to discuss.
When I was young I was taught never to ask a rancher how many head of cattle he ran, because
it's no different that saying, "Hey, How much money are you worth?"
So where do we go from here? Help the republicans repeal it? Fix it? Frankly I don't know.
We don't have a congress to fix or replace it -even if Sanders wins. I think it helps some people,
mostly those on Medicaid. So repealing it doesn't make sense unless it can be replaced. Even saying
this is a marketplace is an outright lie. These bastards are just stealing from us all. Rock and
a hard place. Sanders is the only hope and that at times seems vanishingly small.
When Obama took office, The United States National Health Care Act, HR 676 , for a
single-payer system of expanded Medicare for All, was in the House of Representatives. If I remember
correctly, it had over 100 Democratic Congresspeople co-sponsoring it. Part of the Obama administration's
efforts on its own health insurance bill were aimed at getting the bill withdrawn.
Thanks for that reminder. Reading the recent book, American President (from Teddy to Bill)
helps one's recall considerably-telling contrasts between Presidents who knew how to pass legislation
and the flukes (if assassination can be called a fluke, i.e. Devil's Chessboard) that brought
them our way against those who didn't. For instance, LBJ compared with JFK, who had enough legislative
service to learn a thing or two if he were interested, that is.
Too bad the book's so damn thick-well written and lively though it may be. Voters not likely
to read it. Should though.
Lots of arguing and different thoughts, but one primary fact remains. Obama was a bald-faced
lier from the get-go, and has remained true to that principle. He hasn't really tried hard to
question that. The amount of damage done to this nation during his tenure amounts to that
amount perpetrated by a traitor. Just being bad was "W"; this is actually far worse.
Lots of arguing and different thoughts, but one primary fact persists. Obama has been a
bald-faced liar from the get-go, and has remained true to that principle. He really hasn't
tried hard to dispute that. The amount of damage done to this nation during his tenure
amounts to that amount perpetrated by a traitor. "W" was just bad; This is far worse.
Now, Kentucky being Kentucky, the motives here may be such that it is difficult for critics
of the ACA to claim as any kind of 'win' – would any of our Kentuckian readers care to comment?
"... One of the more encouraging (?) developments in Acceptable American Discourse over the last five years or so has been the gradual acceptance, even among Serious Media Outlets, that American voters no longer have any real control over their own government, and more broadly, their collective destiny. ..."
"... In April 2014, Princeton University published a study which found that "economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence." ..."
"... There's the one we elect, and then there's the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy. ..."
"... "We've become now an oligarchy instead of a democracy. And I think that's been the worst damage to the basic moral and ethical standards of the American political system that I've ever seen in my life," the 90-year-old former president told Winfrey. ..."
"... And given the fact that people would rather know about Kim Kardashian than what makes up the budget or what the government is doing in Mali or Sudan or other unknown places, this is what you get: a disconnected, self-serving bureaucracy that is simply evolving to do what it's doing now. That is, to maintain and enhance its own power. ..."
"... The key institutions are exactly what people would think they are. The military-industrial complex; the Pentagon and all their contractors (but also, now, our entire homeland security apparatus); the Department of Treasury; the Justice Department; certain courts, like the southern district of Manhattan, and the eastern district of Virginia; the FISA courts. ..."
"... It is a complex mechanism, a take-over of key positions within the US power structure, a corporate government mix where the US "government" mission is to advocate, promote, and defend corporate interests worldwide. ..."
"... US National Security Strategy embodies those corporate interests and unfolds them into specific goals and objectives to be attained by means of foreign and domestic policies that "presidents" and other figureheads sell at home and abroad. ..."
"... @15 This is excuse making for falling for Obama who openly admired Reagan, claimed the right to bomb anything anywhere without working with local governments, surrounded himself with pigs, and even denounced Moveon for their ad about Petraeus. ..."
"... The system is totally corrupt. If you make it to Congress, you've got favors to pay back. If you don't work for the corporate interests (already aligned with deep state) you won't get the money to run a second term. Some other craven asshole will take your job whether you want it (by demonstrating total acquiescence) or not (by trying to be Mr.Smith in Washington). ..."
"... The very best thing about Donald Trump, is that he is an outsider - particularly when compared with the other contestants whom are machine politicians (corrupted in the system). BTW, Bernie is full of shit (as is Trump). ..."
"... Jimmy Carter seems like a real nice fellow. It should be remembered, however, that Brzezinski was Carter's National Security Adviser. Now that was probably the deep state hanging that albatross around ol' Peanut Boy's neck (as a minder, perhaps). In any case, Carter didn't do anything to stop that son of a bitch from his evil doings in Afghanistan. ..."
"... "You are soldiers of god. Your cause is right and god is on your side". - Brzezinski addressing the Mujahideen. ..."
"... Jane Mayers new book says Koch Brothers father built a major oil refinery for Hilter ..."
"... Ms. Mayer, a staff writer at The New Yorker, presents the Kochs and other families as the hidden and self-interested hands behind the rise and growth of the modern conservative movement. Philanthropists and political donors who poured hundreds of millions of dollars into think tanks, political organizations and scholarships, they helped win acceptance for anti-government and anti-tax policies that would protect their businesses and personal fortunes, she writes, all under the guise of promoting the public interest. ..."
"... The Kochs, the Scaifes, the Bradleys and the DeVos family of Michigan "were among a small, rarefied group of hugely wealthy, archconservative families that for decades poured money, often with little public disclosure, into influencing how the Americans thought and voted," the book says. ..."
"... You can't run a campaign to be elected President of the United States unless you can tap into billionaires who are willing to hand over $100 millions to your campaign. ..."
"... This is part of the reason why Trump is causing so much mayhem: he is a candidate who already has those $billions, and so he isn't beholden to anyone but himself and his own whacky ideas. ..."
"... Deep down I suspect that this is why he is the Republican frontrunner i.e. deep down Mr Joe Average knows that his "democracy" has been hijacked out from underneath him, so he is receptive to Trump's dogwhistle. ..."
"... The DS vetted Ike and discovered that he looked up to corporate CEOs and Wall Street financiers and their lawyers, he was sympathetic to those he fantasized as captains of industry and looked upon success as a marker of steady men, those of his imagined deep state. ..."
"... Ike bought the 'What's good for GM is good for the country' line, just as Engine Charley Wilson did. No need to assassinate Ike. ..."
For all of those who keep on arguing about the benefits of one US candidate over the other,
they could save their energy for more constructive efforts.
One of the more encouraging (?) developments in Acceptable American Discourse over the
last five years or so has been the gradual acceptance, even among Serious Media Outlets, that
American voters no longer have any real control over their own government, and more broadly,
their collective destiny.
In April 2014, Princeton University published a study which found that "economic elites
and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on
US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or
no independent influence."
Then in October of the same year, a Tufts University professor published a devastating critique
of the current state of American democracy, "National Security and Double Government," which
catalogs the ways that the defense and national security apparatus is effectively self-governing,
with virtually no accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any kind. He uses
the term "double government":
There's the one we elect, and then there's the one behind
it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere
cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy.
The Boston Globe's write-up of the book was accompanied by the brutal headline, "Vote all
you want. The secret government won't change." Imagine a headline like that during the Hope
and Change craze of 2008. Yeah, you can't. Because nobody's that imaginative.
Yes, people are beginning to smell the rot - even people who watch television in hopes of
not having to confront the miserable reality that awaits them once they turn off their 36-inch
flatscreens. In September, Jimmy Carter warned Oprah Winfrey:
"We've become now an oligarchy instead of a democracy. And I think that's been the
worst damage to the basic moral and ethical standards of the American political system that
I've ever seen in my life," the 90-year-old former president told Winfrey.
The live audience were probably hoping for free Oprah cars. Instead, an ex-president told
them that their democracy is in the gutter. What a bummer.
The latest canary in the coal mine is none other than ex-longtime GOP staffer turned best-selling
author Mike Lofgren, whose new book, "The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the
Rise of a Shadow Government," confirms what is already painfully apparent:
The deep state has created so many contradictions in this country. You have this enormous
disparity of rich and poor; and you have this perpetual war, even though we're braying about
freedom. We have a surveillance state, and we talk about freedom. We have internal contradictions.
Who knows what this will fly into? It may collapse like the Soviet Union; or it might go
into fascism with a populist camouflage.
Some excerpts from Salon's recent interview with Lofgren:
On how the deep state operates:
Well, first of all,
it is not a conspiracy. It is something that operates in broad daylight.
It is not a conspiratorial cabal. These are simply people who have evolved [into] a kind
of position. It is in their best interest to act in this way.
And given the fact that people would rather know about Kim Kardashian than what makes
up the budget or what the government is doing in Mali or Sudan or other unknown places, this
is what you get: a disconnected, self-serving bureaucracy that is simply evolving to do what
it's doing now. That is, to maintain and enhance its own power.
On who (and what) is part of the deep state:
The key institutions are exactly what people would think they are. The military-industrial
complex; the Pentagon and all their contractors (but also, now, our entire homeland security
apparatus); the Department of Treasury; the Justice Department; certain courts, like the southern
district of Manhattan, and the eastern district of Virginia; the FISA courts.
And you
got this kind of rump Congress that consists of certain people in the leadership, defense and
intelligence committees who kind of know what's going on. The rest of Congress doesn't really
know or care; they're too busy looking about the next election.
Lofgren goes on to explain that the private sector works hand-in-hand with the deep state,
regardless of which "party" is in power. According to Lofgren, "There are definable differences
between Bush and Obama. However, the differences are so constrained. They're not between the
40-yard lines; they are between the 48-yard lines."
Of course, millions of Americans will still enjoy rooting for the candidate whom they would
most enjoy drinking Bud Lite Lime with, but probably deep in their hearts they all know they're
doomed.
@12, Only a coward would submit to such a threat, instead of regarding it as a challenge to be
defied. If the worst came to the worst, one would at least have died heroically. And such a president,
if he did die, could have taken steps before he died to make sure the public would learn how and
why he died. So it would not be a death without purpose.
How does the deep state ensure that only cowards become president?
@10 Blackmail?
Don't know if true but I remember reading something to the effect that after Obama was sworn in,
he met with Bush sr. and co who told him that he now worked for them with threats to his family
if he wouldn't submit..
What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state
decides?
It is a complex mechanism, a take-over of key positions within the US power structure,
a corporate government mix where the US "government" mission is to advocate, promote, and defend
corporate interests worldwide.
US National Security Strategy embodies those corporate interests and unfolds them into
specific goals and objectives to be attained by means of foreign and domestic policies that "presidents"
and other figureheads sell at home and abroad.
@15 This is excuse making for falling for Obama who openly admired Reagan, claimed the
right to bomb anything anywhere without working with local governments, surrounded himself with
pigs, and even denounced Moveon for their ad about Petraeus.
People hate being conned more than con men, and they concoct rationalizations for being duped
that often defy logic.
@10 'What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state
decides?'
1. DS vets prospective candidates beforehand, only allowing candidates aligned with deep state
authorities to begin with.
2. DS doesn't make the payoff until successful applicants have left office with an 'acceptable'
record.
3. Assassination is always an option in extreme cases, real or imagined.
The system is totally corrupt. If you make it to Congress, you've got favors to pay back.
If you don't work for the corporate interests (already aligned with deep state) you won't get
the money to run a second term. Some other craven asshole will take your job whether you want
it (by demonstrating total acquiescence) or not (by trying to be Mr.Smith in Washington).
Now, if you want to be President, you've got to have "experience" in Congress or in state gubmint.
The very best thing about Donald Trump, is that he is an outsider - particularly when compared
with the other contestants whom are machine politicians (corrupted in the system). BTW, Bernie
is full of shit (as is Trump).
That is a very good explanation of 'Deep State'. My only caveat is that it doesn't completely
describe the oligarchy because it leaves out the corporate component. When money became speech
a huge mountain of power devolved to the rich. They'd always had clout as the graphs describing
the separation of the rich from the not-so-well off and the rest of us have made clear - but now
the ugly truth is unavoidable and it all goes together to produce what President Carter described.
Jimmy Carter seems like a real nice fellow. It should be remembered, however, that Brzezinski
was Carter's National Security Adviser. Now that was probably the deep state hanging that albatross
around ol' Peanut Boy's neck (as a minder, perhaps). In any case, Carter didn't do anything to
stop that son of a bitch from his evil doings in Afghanistan.
"You are soldiers of god. Your cause is right and god is on your side". - Brzezinski addressing
the Mujahideen.
Jane Mayers new book says Koch Brothers father built a major oil refinery for Hilter
... It looks to be another corker ...
Ms. Mayer, a staff writer at The New Yorker, presents the Kochs and other families as the
hidden and self-interested hands behind the rise and growth of the modern conservative movement.
Philanthropists and political donors who poured hundreds of millions of dollars into think
tanks, political organizations and scholarships, they helped win acceptance for anti-government
and anti-tax policies that would protect their businesses and personal fortunes, she writes,
all under the guise of promoting the public interest.
The Kochs, the Scaifes, the Bradleys and the DeVos family of Michigan "were among a
small, rarefied group of hugely wealthy, archconservative families that for decades poured
money, often with little public disclosure, into influencing how the Americans thought and
voted," the book says.
Many of the families owned businesses that clashed with environmental or workplace regulators,
come under federal or state investigation, or waged battles over their tax bills with the Internal
Revenue Service, Ms. Mayer reports. The Kochs' vast political network, a major force in Republican
politics today, was "originally designed as a means of off-loading the costs of the Koch Industries
environmental and regulatory fights onto others" by persuading other rich business owners to
contribute to Koch-controlled political groups, Ms. Mayer writes, citing an associate of the
two brothers.
@10 "What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state
decides?"
Money.
You can't run a campaign to be elected President of the United States unless you can tap
into billionaires who are willing to hand over $100 millions to your campaign.
Without that largess you are not going to get elected, and people who have $billions are
the going to be the very same people who make up the Deep State.
So you either get with the program or you get.... nothing. Not a cent. Not a hope.
This is part of the reason why Trump is causing so much mayhem: he is a candidate who already
has those $billions, and so he isn't beholden to anyone but himself and his own whacky ideas.
Deep down I suspect that this is why he is the Republican frontrunner i.e. deep down Mr
Joe Average knows that his "democracy" has been hijacked out from underneath him, so he is receptive
to Trump's dogwhistle.
Which, basically, is this: why are you bothering with any of these chattering monkeys? Their
votes will end up belonging to people like me anyway, so you may as well just cut out the middle-man.
The Devil's Chessboard. Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government
, chapter 10
Eisenhower's innate midwestern sense of decency initially made him recoil from backing Britain's
colonial siege of Iran. He rebuffed the Dulles brothers' advice, suggesting that it might be
a better idea to stabilize Mossadegh's government with a $100 million loan than to topple it.
If Eisenhower had followed through on his original instincts, the bedeviled history of U.S.-Iran
relations would undoubtedly have taken a far different course.
Realizing that Eisenhower was not inclined to defend British imperial interests, the Dulles
brothers reframed their argument for intervention in Cold War terms. On March 4, 1953, Allen
appeared at a National Security Council meeting in the White House armed with seven pages of
alarming talking points. Iran was confronted with "a maturing revolutionary set-up," he warned,
and if the country fell into Communist hands, 60 percent of the free world's oil would be controlled
by Moscow. Oil and gasoline would have to be rationed at home, and U.S. military operations
would have to be curtailed.
In truth, the global crisis over Iran was not a Cold War conflict but a struggle "between
imperialism and nationalism, between First and Third Worlds, between North and South, between
developed industrial economies and underdeveloped countries dependent on exporting raw materials,"
in the words of Ervand Abrahamian.
The author pours it on thick with zero references but, overall ...
1.
The DS vetted Ike and discovered that he looked up to corporate CEOs and Wall Street
financiers and their lawyers, he was sympathetic to those he fantasized as captains of industry
and looked upon success as a marker of steady men, those of his imagined deep state.
2. Ike came cheap. He felt it was his duty to help out if the people he looked up to thought
he was the right man at the right time.
3.
Ike bought the 'What's good for GM is good for the country' line, just as Engine Charley
Wilson did. No need to assassinate Ike.
The DS uses the same M.O. ... O tempora, o mores ... mutatis mutandis.
The West goal from the very beginning was the regime change by whatever means and to neoliberalize
Syria just like Iraq. Now Germany got payback.
Notable quotes:
"... The Turkish government says the culprit was a 28 year old Saudi man. That mostly excludes that this was an attack of the PKK or any radical left group. ..."
"... The attacks real target is the Turkish economy. Istanbul is the third most visited tourist city in Europe. That will now change. ..."
"... The border crossing remained open until Kurdish forces took control of the town in June, at which point Turkey promptly sealed it. The crossing remains closed, a government official confirmed. ..."
"... There are still other parts of the border where people can cross from Islamic State held territory to Turkey and back. Imports to the Islamic State come mostly from Turkey while stolen oil is exported to Turkey. Turkey will have to stop all support for the various terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq or it will experience ever increasing mayhem on its own soil. ..."
"... Last year Turkey helped an alliance that included al-Qaeda in Syria and similar groups in capturing Idleb province and Idleb city from the Syrian government. That attack und the Turkish support for these groups was one of the reasons that prompted the Russians to intervene on the Syrian government side. ..."
"... But Turkey is not the only western country that is still actively supporting the Jihadidsts ..."
"... Can someone explain why and how the U.S. Syrian Emergency Task Force, which is financed by the U.S. State Department , can continue to operate in al-Qaeda occupied Idleb? ..."
"... According to the Indian ambassador in Syria at that time al-Qaeda was involved even in the very first weeks of the 2011 peaceful protests . A fact that at that time was denied by western media and is still covered up in recent reporting. ..."
"... Nabil Fadli, a 28-year-old ISIL militant of Syrian origin who was born in Saudi Arabia in 1988 , blew himself up after blending into a tourist group of 33 German citizens ..."
"... Oddly, and alarmingly, CCTV picked up on BBCs starvation bs fake photos only moments after BBC started the rumours. But this morning (less than an hour ago) reported that the rebels had been commandeering the food aid and extorting money from BBCs starving Syrians - a pretty difficult crime to pin on the SAA or Assad in the circumstances. ..."
"... Why would Daesh attack its patron Erdogan, even if only to strike against Germany? Why would Erdogan openly blame his proteges in Daesh? ..."
"... Erdogan made a lucrative deal with the EU in exchange for stemming the flow of refugees and part of that deal was Turkey closing its borders discernibly to the free (and very lucrative) flow of money, oil, personnel, weapons TO and FROM ISIS ... i.e. they became (at least publicly) accomodationists if not fully collaborators in the war against ISIS (talk is cheap, proof of the pudding, etc). ..."
"... Because it is Turkey, nothing can be taken for what it seems to be ... is Turkey begin punished by ISIS? or is this Turkey way of proving that it is stifling ISIS ambitions (false flags can never be ruled out wrt Turkey) ..."
"... At this point in time, you seriously have to have your f*cking head examined to visit ANY place at all in the Islamic world. Why risk becoming collateral damage while the West is at war with them and the Muslims are at war with each other? ..."
"... Iran is quite safe, and will see the biggest tourist boom this year. But you are right, other than Iran the rest of Muslim World is f**cked, US and its puppets set them all ablaze. ..."
"... I suspect that Bibi is praying to whatever G-d he worships, that Erdogan doesnt start questioning his belief that some of my best friends are Israelis . ..."
"... Looks like Turkeys little pet cobra project has taken a new turn.. All the cuddly pet cobras have now grown into uncontrollable king cobras that dont mind biting anyone - including their masters. ..."
... Ten people, most of them
foreign tourists, were
killed
in a suicide attack in the Sultanahmet district, a main tourist area in Istanbul.
The Turkish government
says
the culprit was a 28 year old Saudi man. That mostly excludes that this was an attack of
the PKK or any radical left group.
The Islamic State is likely the organization behind this attack.
The attack's real target is the Turkish economy. Istanbul is the third most visited tourist city
in Europe. That will now change.
Turkey has long said that it is unable to secure its 500-mile border with Syria. In January, as
Isis was logging people passing in and out of Tel Abyad, the Turkish prime minister, Ahmet Davutoğlu,
told the Independent that sealing the border would be impossible.
...
The border crossing remained open until Kurdish forces took control of the town in June, at which
point Turkey promptly sealed it. The crossing remains closed, a government official confirmed.
There are still other parts of the border where people can cross from Islamic State held territory
to Turkey and back. Imports to the Islamic State come mostly from Turkey while stolen oil is exported
to Turkey. Turkey will have to stop all support for the various terrorist groups in Syria and Iraq
or it will experience ever increasing mayhem on its own soil.
Last year Turkey helped an alliance that included al-Qaeda in Syria and similar groups in capturing
Idleb province and Idleb city from the Syrian government. That attack und the Turkish support for
these groups was one of the reasons that prompted the Russians to intervene on the Syrian
government side.
... ... ...
But Turkey is
not the only
"western" country that is still actively supporting the Jihadidsts
:
In a statement Monday to Foreign Policy, the Syrian Emergency Task Force said Russian planes bombed
one of its offices in central Idlib province in a strike that "completely destroyed" the facility
and equipment. The staff - which host civil society workshops, helps distribute U.S. humanitarian
aid, and documents atrocities - was not present during the incident, and no one was killed, according
to SETF.
Can someone explain why and how the U.S. Syrian Emergency Task Force, which is
financed by the U.S. State Department
, can continue to operate in al-Qaeda occupied Idleb?
When the Russian air support in Syria started and the Syrian army went on the offense a large
number of U.S. provided anti-tank guided missiles where used by the terrorists. The number of such
missile attacks has now significantly decreased. The Russian bombing broke the logistic lines of
the various groups and ransacked their headquarters and support areas. The four month bombing campaign
is now showing real results.
In Latakia in north west Syria the Syrian army today took the resort town Salma which had been
a major center of terrorist activities in the area. Yesterday a whole suburb west of Aleppo city
fell to the Syrian army. East of Aleppo city the Syrian army is advancing towards Al Bab which lies
on one of the Islamic State's major roads to Turkey. Near Rastan in Homs province the Syrian army
crossed the Orontes river and captured Jarjisah. Further south the Syrian army is progressing towards
the Jordanian border. The Russian air attacks also
support
the advances of the Kurdish forces fighting the Islamic State under the label of the
U.S. created Syrian Democratic Front.
The SDF is now moving to Manbij north east from Aleppo from
the east and
towards
Avaz north-west of Aleppo from the west which together with the Syrian government rush
north towards Al Bab develops into a pincer movement that will cut the Islamic State and other terrorist
groups from the Turkish border.
... ... ...
The "starving" claims were fake assertions as they have accompanied the war on Syria from its
very beginning.
According to the Indian ambassador in Syria at that time al-Qaeda was
involved even in the very first weeks of the 2011 "peaceful protests". A fact that at that time
was denied by "western" media and is still covered up in recent reporting.
9 dead Germans was what I thought I heard on RT television, but RT's print report only says "At least
nine German citizens were injured in the blast, Reuters reports citing a senior Turkish official."
https://www.rt.com/news/328603-turkey-istanbul-blast-square/
There was apparently a party of German tourists in Sultanahmet Square when the bomb went off.
Sultanahmet Square (Sultanahmet Meydanı), located between Hagia Sophia and the Blue (Sultanahmet)
Mosque, is the site of the Hippodrome of Constantine, one of the prime tourist sites in Istanbul.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippodrome_of_Constantinople
"
Nabil Fadli, a 28-year-old ISIL militant of Syrian origin who
was born in Saudi Arabia in 1988
, blew himself up after blending into a tourist group of 33 German citizens
on a visit to the
Obelisk of Theodosius in Sultanahmet Square near the Blue Mosque in the morning hours of Jan. 12
when the popular square was relatively less crowded compared to the rest of the day. "
You all are on top of things more than I am, so excuse me if you have already taken note of
this
:
The Islamic State terror group is making significant gains in Libya as hundreds of its members
have been detected moving there from Syria and Iraq in recent weeks amid stepped up bombing and tighter
border controls.
i walked thru this area a number of times when we visited turkey in 2012...
i feel sorry for the people of turkey and the world by extension that we have to suffer thru this
all..
"Can someone explain why and how the U.S. Syrian Emergency Task Force, which is financed by the
U.S. State Department, can continue to operate in al-Qaeda occupied Idleb?" the usa is in bed with
'''moderate''' terrorists...
"Bombing (only) is not a solution for conflicts." ditto that.
"information operations".. they are running out of pretty well everything else and hollywood is
all they have..
Thanks for the timely report, b. CCTV and the once-a-week RT broadcast I watch have been silent on
Russia's Syria campaign for nearly 2 months. Sporadic reports from other sources have been positive
so I assumed that Russia had decided to let the results speak for themselves or, more accurately,
to be whined about by Zio-FRUKUS. The BBC led the Western Whine-fest with its Bliar-ish reports about
Madaya, quickly followed by the Turkish Govt which is whining about Russia helping Assad instead
of "fighting IS" (a US joke which is only funny if you're not Syrian or Russian).
Oddly, and alarmingly, CCTV picked up on BBC's starvation bs & fake photos only moments after
BBC started the rumours. But this morning (less than an hour ago) reported that the "rebels" had
been commandeering the food aid and extorting money from BBC's 'starving Syrians' - a pretty difficult
crime to pin on the SAA or Assad in the circumstances.
Erdogan made a lucrative deal with the EU in exchange for stemming the flow of refugees and part
of that deal was Turkey closing its borders discernibly to the free (and very lucrative) flow of
money, oil, personnel, weapons TO and FROM ISIS ... i.e. they became (at least publicly) accomodationists
if not fully collaborators in the war against ISIS (talk is cheap, proof of the pudding, etc).
Because it is Turkey, nothing can be taken for "what it seems to be" ... is Turkey begin punished
by ISIS? or is this Turkey way of proving that it is stifling ISIS' ambitions (false flags can never
be ruled out wrt Turkey)
It's rather shocking that all stories on the suicide bombing fret immediately about the effect
on Turkey's tourism economy ... "Nuclear War? -- There goes my whole career"
graphic
. Yes, investor dividends may be disappointing.
At this point in time, you seriously have to have your f*cking head examined to visit ANY place at
all in the Islamic world. Why risk becoming collateral damage while the West is at war with them
and the Muslims are at war with each other?
Iran is quite safe, and will see the biggest tourist boom this year. But you are right, other
than Iran the rest of Muslim World is f**cked, US and its puppets set them all ablaze.
I suspect that Bibi is praying to whatever G-d he worships, that Erdogan doesn't start questioning
his belief that "some of my best friends are "Israelis".
Because if that belief falters then it's
Game Over for Israel and a slightly better than even chance of a Turkey-Iran alliance.
Looks like Turkey's little pet cobra project has taken a new turn.. All the cuddly pet cobras have
now grown into uncontrollable king cobras that don't mind biting anyone - including their masters.
When Turkey started messing around in Syria, I said Turkey will eventually become like Pakistan.
Guess I was right.
May the souls of the innocent, who had absolutely nothing to do with all this mess, rest in peace.
Every sane Europeans should begin questioning their leaders about their support of the AKP, Saudi
Arabia and the whole regime change nonsense in Syria. It's brought them nothing but pain.
Can someone explain why and how the U.S. Syrian Emergency Task Force, which is financed by the
U.S. State Department, can continue to operate in al-Qaeda occupied Idleb?
In the liberated areas in the north of Syria, civilians are finding ways to develop grassroots
civilian democratic structures to provide rule of law, basic services such as trash collection, civilian
police force, and utilities. These CACs are being created out of necessity, but they are also the
seeds of proto-democratic structures that the Syrian people themselves developed without international
help.
Defying conventional wisdom, the authority of the CACs is respected by the armed opposition,
because they are providing social services and a structure that encourages stability for the families
of the men currently fighting the regime.
It is important that the funding mechanism being employed
helps to further unite the opposition and mitigates financial competition from occurring. Support
of CACs helps to stabilize liberated areas and provide civilian oversight and authority.
"... One of the more encouraging (?) developments in Acceptable American Discourse over the last five years or so has been the gradual acceptance, even among Serious Media Outlets, that American voters no longer have any real control over their own government, and more broadly, their collective destiny. ..."
"... In April 2014, Princeton University published a study which found that "economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence." ..."
"... There's the one we elect, and then there's the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy. ..."
"... "We've become now an oligarchy instead of a democracy. And I think that's been the worst damage to the basic moral and ethical standards of the American political system that I've ever seen in my life," the 90-year-old former president told Winfrey. ..."
"... And given the fact that people would rather know about Kim Kardashian than what makes up the budget or what the government is doing in Mali or Sudan or other unknown places, this is what you get: a disconnected, self-serving bureaucracy that is simply evolving to do what it's doing now. That is, to maintain and enhance its own power. ..."
"... The key institutions are exactly what people would think they are. The military-industrial complex; the Pentagon and all their contractors (but also, now, our entire homeland security apparatus); the Department of Treasury; the Justice Department; certain courts, like the southern district of Manhattan, and the eastern district of Virginia; the FISA courts. ..."
"... It is a complex mechanism, a take-over of key positions within the US power structure, a corporate government mix where the US "government" mission is to advocate, promote, and defend corporate interests worldwide. ..."
"... US National Security Strategy embodies those corporate interests and unfolds them into specific goals and objectives to be attained by means of foreign and domestic policies that "presidents" and other figureheads sell at home and abroad. ..."
"... @15 This is excuse making for falling for Obama who openly admired Reagan, claimed the right to bomb anything anywhere without working with local governments, surrounded himself with pigs, and even denounced Moveon for their ad about Petraeus. ..."
"... The system is totally corrupt. If you make it to Congress, you've got favors to pay back. If you don't work for the corporate interests (already aligned with deep state) you won't get the money to run a second term. Some other craven asshole will take your job whether you want it (by demonstrating total acquiescence) or not (by trying to be Mr.Smith in Washington). ..."
"... The very best thing about Donald Trump, is that he is an outsider - particularly when compared with the other contestants whom are machine politicians (corrupted in the system). BTW, Bernie is full of shit (as is Trump). ..."
"... Jimmy Carter seems like a real nice fellow. It should be remembered, however, that Brzezinski was Carter's National Security Adviser. Now that was probably the deep state hanging that albatross around ol' Peanut Boy's neck (as a minder, perhaps). In any case, Carter didn't do anything to stop that son of a bitch from his evil doings in Afghanistan. ..."
"... "You are soldiers of god. Your cause is right and god is on your side". - Brzezinski addressing the Mujahideen. ..."
"... Jane Mayers new book says Koch Brothers father built a major oil refinery for Hilter ..."
"... Ms. Mayer, a staff writer at The New Yorker, presents the Kochs and other families as the hidden and self-interested hands behind the rise and growth of the modern conservative movement. Philanthropists and political donors who poured hundreds of millions of dollars into think tanks, political organizations and scholarships, they helped win acceptance for anti-government and anti-tax policies that would protect their businesses and personal fortunes, she writes, all under the guise of promoting the public interest. ..."
"... The Kochs, the Scaifes, the Bradleys and the DeVos family of Michigan "were among a small, rarefied group of hugely wealthy, archconservative families that for decades poured money, often with little public disclosure, into influencing how the Americans thought and voted," the book says. ..."
"... You can't run a campaign to be elected President of the United States unless you can tap into billionaires who are willing to hand over $100 millions to your campaign. ..."
"... This is part of the reason why Trump is causing so much mayhem: he is a candidate who already has those $billions, and so he isn't beholden to anyone but himself and his own whacky ideas. ..."
"... Deep down I suspect that this is why he is the Republican frontrunner i.e. deep down Mr Joe Average knows that his "democracy" has been hijacked out from underneath him, so he is receptive to Trump's dogwhistle. ..."
"... The DS vetted Ike and discovered that he looked up to corporate CEOs and Wall Street financiers and their lawyers, he was sympathetic to those he fantasized as captains of industry and looked upon success as a marker of steady men, those of his imagined deep state. ..."
"... Ike bought the 'What's good for GM is good for the country' line, just as Engine Charley Wilson did. No need to assassinate Ike. ..."
For all of those who keep on arguing about the benefits of one US candidate over the other,
they could save their energy for more constructive efforts.
One of the more encouraging (?) developments in Acceptable American Discourse over the
last five years or so has been the gradual acceptance, even among Serious Media Outlets, that
American voters no longer have any real control over their own government, and more broadly,
their collective destiny.
In April 2014, Princeton University published a study which found that "economic elites
and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on
US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or
no independent influence."
Then in October of the same year, a Tufts University professor published a devastating critique
of the current state of American democracy, "National Security and Double Government," which
catalogs the ways that the defense and national security apparatus is effectively self-governing,
with virtually no accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any kind. He uses
the term "double government":
There's the one we elect, and then there's the one behind
it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere
cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy.
The Boston Globe's write-up of the book was accompanied by the brutal headline, "Vote all
you want. The secret government won't change." Imagine a headline like that during the Hope
and Change craze of 2008. Yeah, you can't. Because nobody's that imaginative.
Yes, people are beginning to smell the rot - even people who watch television in hopes of
not having to confront the miserable reality that awaits them once they turn off their 36-inch
flatscreens. In September, Jimmy Carter warned Oprah Winfrey:
"We've become now an oligarchy instead of a democracy. And I think that's been the
worst damage to the basic moral and ethical standards of the American political system that
I've ever seen in my life," the 90-year-old former president told Winfrey.
The live audience were probably hoping for free Oprah cars. Instead, an ex-president told
them that their democracy is in the gutter. What a bummer.
The latest canary in the coal mine is none other than ex-longtime GOP staffer turned best-selling
author Mike Lofgren, whose new book, "The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the
Rise of a Shadow Government," confirms what is already painfully apparent:
The deep state has created so many contradictions in this country. You have this enormous
disparity of rich and poor; and you have this perpetual war, even though we're braying about
freedom. We have a surveillance state, and we talk about freedom. We have internal contradictions.
Who knows what this will fly into? It may collapse like the Soviet Union; or it might go
into fascism with a populist camouflage.
Some excerpts from Salon's recent interview with Lofgren:
On how the deep state operates:
Well, first of all,
it is not a conspiracy. It is something that operates in broad daylight.
It is not a conspiratorial cabal. These are simply people who have evolved [into] a kind
of position. It is in their best interest to act in this way.
And given the fact that people would rather know about Kim Kardashian than what makes
up the budget or what the government is doing in Mali or Sudan or other unknown places, this
is what you get: a disconnected, self-serving bureaucracy that is simply evolving to do what
it's doing now. That is, to maintain and enhance its own power.
On who (and what) is part of the deep state:
The key institutions are exactly what people would think they are. The military-industrial
complex; the Pentagon and all their contractors (but also, now, our entire homeland security
apparatus); the Department of Treasury; the Justice Department; certain courts, like the southern
district of Manhattan, and the eastern district of Virginia; the FISA courts.
And you
got this kind of rump Congress that consists of certain people in the leadership, defense and
intelligence committees who kind of know what's going on. The rest of Congress doesn't really
know or care; they're too busy looking about the next election.
Lofgren goes on to explain that the private sector works hand-in-hand with the deep state,
regardless of which "party" is in power. According to Lofgren, "There are definable differences
between Bush and Obama. However, the differences are so constrained. They're not between the
40-yard lines; they are between the 48-yard lines."
Of course, millions of Americans will still enjoy rooting for the candidate whom they would
most enjoy drinking Bud Lite Lime with, but probably deep in their hearts they all know they're
doomed.
@12, Only a coward would submit to such a threat, instead of regarding it as a challenge to be
defied. If the worst came to the worst, one would at least have died heroically. And such a president,
if he did die, could have taken steps before he died to make sure the public would learn how and
why he died. So it would not be a death without purpose.
How does the deep state ensure that only cowards become president?
@10 Blackmail?
Don't know if true but I remember reading something to the effect that after Obama was sworn in,
he met with Bush sr. and co who told him that he now worked for them with threats to his family
if he wouldn't submit..
What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state
decides?
It is a complex mechanism, a take-over of key positions within the US power structure,
a corporate government mix where the US "government" mission is to advocate, promote, and defend
corporate interests worldwide.
US National Security Strategy embodies those corporate interests and unfolds them into
specific goals and objectives to be attained by means of foreign and domestic policies that "presidents"
and other figureheads sell at home and abroad.
@15 This is excuse making for falling for Obama who openly admired Reagan, claimed the
right to bomb anything anywhere without working with local governments, surrounded himself with
pigs, and even denounced Moveon for their ad about Petraeus.
People hate being conned more than con men, and they concoct rationalizations for being duped
that often defy logic.
@10 'What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state
decides?'
1. DS vets prospective candidates beforehand, only allowing candidates aligned with deep state
authorities to begin with.
2. DS doesn't make the payoff until successful applicants have left office with an 'acceptable'
record.
3. Assassination is always an option in extreme cases, real or imagined.
The system is totally corrupt. If you make it to Congress, you've got favors to pay back.
If you don't work for the corporate interests (already aligned with deep state) you won't get
the money to run a second term. Some other craven asshole will take your job whether you want
it (by demonstrating total acquiescence) or not (by trying to be Mr.Smith in Washington).
Now, if you want to be President, you've got to have "experience" in Congress or in state gubmint.
The very best thing about Donald Trump, is that he is an outsider - particularly when compared
with the other contestants whom are machine politicians (corrupted in the system). BTW, Bernie
is full of shit (as is Trump).
That is a very good explanation of 'Deep State'. My only caveat is that it doesn't completely
describe the oligarchy because it leaves out the corporate component. When money became speech
a huge mountain of power devolved to the rich. They'd always had clout as the graphs describing
the separation of the rich from the not-so-well off and the rest of us have made clear - but now
the ugly truth is unavoidable and it all goes together to produce what President Carter described.
Jimmy Carter seems like a real nice fellow. It should be remembered, however, that Brzezinski
was Carter's National Security Adviser. Now that was probably the deep state hanging that albatross
around ol' Peanut Boy's neck (as a minder, perhaps). In any case, Carter didn't do anything to
stop that son of a bitch from his evil doings in Afghanistan.
"You are soldiers of god. Your cause is right and god is on your side". - Brzezinski addressing
the Mujahideen.
Jane Mayers new book says Koch Brothers father built a major oil refinery for Hilter
... It looks to be another corker ...
Ms. Mayer, a staff writer at The New Yorker, presents the Kochs and other families as the
hidden and self-interested hands behind the rise and growth of the modern conservative movement.
Philanthropists and political donors who poured hundreds of millions of dollars into think
tanks, political organizations and scholarships, they helped win acceptance for anti-government
and anti-tax policies that would protect their businesses and personal fortunes, she writes,
all under the guise of promoting the public interest.
The Kochs, the Scaifes, the Bradleys and the DeVos family of Michigan "were among a
small, rarefied group of hugely wealthy, archconservative families that for decades poured
money, often with little public disclosure, into influencing how the Americans thought and
voted," the book says.
Many of the families owned businesses that clashed with environmental or workplace regulators,
come under federal or state investigation, or waged battles over their tax bills with the Internal
Revenue Service, Ms. Mayer reports. The Kochs' vast political network, a major force in Republican
politics today, was "originally designed as a means of off-loading the costs of the Koch Industries
environmental and regulatory fights onto others" by persuading other rich business owners to
contribute to Koch-controlled political groups, Ms. Mayer writes, citing an associate of the
two brothers.
@10 "What is the mechanism that forces American presidents to go along with what the deep state
decides?"
Money.
You can't run a campaign to be elected President of the United States unless you can tap
into billionaires who are willing to hand over $100 millions to your campaign.
Without that largess you are not going to get elected, and people who have $billions are
the going to be the very same people who make up the Deep State.
So you either get with the program or you get.... nothing. Not a cent. Not a hope.
This is part of the reason why Trump is causing so much mayhem: he is a candidate who already
has those $billions, and so he isn't beholden to anyone but himself and his own whacky ideas.
Deep down I suspect that this is why he is the Republican frontrunner i.e. deep down Mr
Joe Average knows that his "democracy" has been hijacked out from underneath him, so he is receptive
to Trump's dogwhistle.
Which, basically, is this: why are you bothering with any of these chattering monkeys? Their
votes will end up belonging to people like me anyway, so you may as well just cut out the middle-man.
The Devil's Chessboard. Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government
, chapter 10
Eisenhower's innate midwestern sense of decency initially made him recoil from backing Britain's
colonial siege of Iran. He rebuffed the Dulles brothers' advice, suggesting that it might be
a better idea to stabilize Mossadegh's government with a $100 million loan than to topple it.
If Eisenhower had followed through on his original instincts, the bedeviled history of U.S.-Iran
relations would undoubtedly have taken a far different course.
Realizing that Eisenhower was not inclined to defend British imperial interests, the Dulles
brothers reframed their argument for intervention in Cold War terms. On March 4, 1953, Allen
appeared at a National Security Council meeting in the White House armed with seven pages of
alarming talking points. Iran was confronted with "a maturing revolutionary set-up," he warned,
and if the country fell into Communist hands, 60 percent of the free world's oil would be controlled
by Moscow. Oil and gasoline would have to be rationed at home, and U.S. military operations
would have to be curtailed.
In truth, the global crisis over Iran was not a Cold War conflict but a struggle "between
imperialism and nationalism, between First and Third Worlds, between North and South, between
developed industrial economies and underdeveloped countries dependent on exporting raw materials,"
in the words of Ervand Abrahamian.
The author pours it on thick with zero references but, overall ...
1.
The DS vetted Ike and discovered that he looked up to corporate CEOs and Wall Street
financiers and their lawyers, he was sympathetic to those he fantasized as captains of industry
and looked upon success as a marker of steady men, those of his imagined deep state.
2. Ike came cheap. He felt it was his duty to help out if the people he looked up to thought
he was the right man at the right time.
3.
Ike bought the 'What's good for GM is good for the country' line, just as Engine Charley
Wilson did. No need to assassinate Ike.
The DS uses the same M.O. ... O tempora, o mores ... mutatis mutandis.
"... New spy programs launched by the administration will seek to collect and analyze data from social media networks and develop covert operations that allow the government to use the networks for its own counter-radicalization schemes, the US officials said. ..."
"... The events of the past decade-and-a-half have made clear that the entire corporate and political establishment favors an agenda of police-state spying on the American population. ..."
"... The NSA has been privatized. All American institutions are now dedicated to our destruction. ..."
During the tech summit, the White House delegation circulated proposals calling for tech firms to
develop tools to "measure radicalization" levels among different populations ... the White House
announced new programs against "violent extremism" in the United States, including the establishment
of a new Countering Violent Extremism task force
... [which] ... will seek to "integrate and harmonize" the operations of "dozens of federal and
local agencies," ... [which] ... will "coordinate all of the government's domestic counter-radicalization
efforts,"
... The State Department will also create a new Global Engagement Center to coordinate US government
social media work internationally, a White House statement said.
New spy programs launched by the administration will seek to collect and analyze data from
social media networks and develop covert operations that allow the government to use the networks
for its own counter-radicalization schemes, the US officials said.
Media reports this week highlighted one recent contribution, ludicrously titled "ISIS in America:
From Retweets to Raqqa," published in December 2015 by George Washington University's "Program on
Extremism."
The events of the past decade-and-a-half have made clear that the entire corporate and political
establishment favors an agenda of police-state spying on the American population.
He'll get it, too. Google, Facebook, the whole parasitic silicon valley culture is on board
since the passage of the omnibus budget act in the last dark days of December 2015, bearing
DIVISION N-CYBERSECURITY ACT OF 2015
within.
The NSA has been privatized. All American
institutions are now dedicated to our destruction.
I have an email account at
posteo.de
. How
much longer can it be before a similar effort is mounted outside the USA to take over the search
function and social media on the internet? If it's 'free' - you're the product.
This should write the end to American technical dominance of the internet. I hope it will.
American based TNCs, operating under American 'law', now working hand-in-glove with the American
government simply cannot be trusted.
And they wrote the law that granted them immunity for betraying their 'customers and supported
it. They're on board for our betrayal and destruction. Always have been.
This might be not an end of S&P500 rally but this might well be the beginning of the end.
Notable quotes:
"... It's good: the less money the US will have the less wars it will wage in the world. My congrats! ..."
"... Baron von Rothschild said "the time to buy is when there's blood in streets" - i.e. when it's all doom and gloom. We've not there yet but there's always hope. ..."
"... Be careful what you wish for. ..."
"... The whole 401K thing was a scam from it's inception. The employment figures are total nonsense--figures don't lie but liars can figure etc. --oh and "there was no inflation last year." ..."
"... With this load of gambling morons running stock markets, financial major rip offs and services we will all be declared bankrupt and broke without doing anything or lifting a finger. ..."
"... This is not about China. Saudis (and other oil producers) are selling investments to fund their current budget. Most economies are very slow, workforce participation rates all around West are the lowest on record. US has 90 million non-working adults who are not in military, retired or in school. 90 million idle people and the government claims a 5% unemployment rate based on "statistical survey". The economies are in much worse shape than the cheerful and manipulated numbers that governments produce. Inflation is higher than reported. ..."
"... I think the US is showing signs of "growth" that is, the number of "new" jobs went up last month to 292K (also November was adjusted higher with better information). I understand your hesitation about the "5% unemployment" but this is in spite of a lot of people now coming back into the workforce. And wages are now going up, which probably shows that the number of available people suitable for work is declining. This has got to be a good thing. ..."
"... Well gosh no QE to save these bandits again, what will they do? ..."
"... they are the sellers, not to worry though, they'll be back out with their begging bowls when the market nr bottoms out.. ready for the next wild ride back up. ..."
"... The QE was a godsend for the super rich they got to use that money for stock and property speculation because of that the economy is still not moving. ..."
"... If they given that money to the poor the pensioners the unemployed and underpaid they would have spent every cent in the real economy generated employment and profits, growth would have been 3%-4% by now. ..."
Things have a long way to fall before they're low. I hope it's 2008 all over again. I was laid
off in January 2009 with a generous severance packet. I invested it all in the US stock market
in Q1 09, when everyone was wailing and moaning. That was the bottom of the market. Over the next
few years it soared and I made a fortune. I sold most of it last year so I'm hoping for another
crash.
Baron von Rothschild said "the time to buy is when there's blood in streets" - i.e. when
it's all doom and gloom. We've not there yet but there's always hope.
"In the garden, growth has it seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and
winter. And then we get spring and summer again." Chance the Gardener, mistakenly known as Chauncey
Gardiner.
The whole 401K thing was a scam from it's inception. The employment figures are total nonsense--figures
don't lie but liars can figure etc. --oh and "there was no inflation last year."
With this load of gambling morons running stock markets, financial major rip offs and services
we will all be declared bankrupt and broke without doing anything or lifting a finger.
These people are utterly stupid. All a load of chooks with missing heads running round causing
chaos and more stupidity.
But Wait. Are we the stupid ones for letting them have their greedy little comer of the world
to gamble away the lives of others?
We have no influence and are impotent against these chancers and thieves.
Markets get closed. Also during the Bush GFC we had futures, derivatives or whatever banned for
a while. The problem was letting them start up again.
So its just a case of finding some real honest politicians...........maybe your right.
The US has been de-industrialized. Most Americans are too poor to buy new gadgets. Many are homeless.
We have a 3d world economy. Of course the stock market etc is bad!
This is not about China. Saudis (and other oil producers) are selling investments to fund
their current budget. Most economies are very slow, workforce participation rates all around West
are the lowest on record. US has 90 million non-working adults who are not in military, retired
or in school. 90 million idle people and the government claims a 5% unemployment rate based on
"statistical survey". The economies are in much worse shape than the cheerful and manipulated
numbers that governments produce. Inflation is higher than reported.
The governments have learned in the last 30-40 years how to "manage" the reported metrics by
changing definitions, adjustments and outright lying. You can only do it for so long before real
world catches up with you.
I think the US is showing signs of "growth" that is, the number of "new" jobs went up last
month to 292K (also November was adjusted higher with better information). I understand your hesitation
about the "5% unemployment" but this is in spite of a lot of people now coming back into the workforce.
And wages are now going up, which probably shows that the number of available people suitable
for work is declining. This has got to be a good thing.
Yes, things could be better there and in many other places. (In Canada, we are truly screwed
for at least several years, fwiw.)
they are the sellers, not to worry though, they'll be back out with their begging bowls when the
market nr bottoms out.. ready for the next wild ride back up.
The QE was a godsend for the super rich they got to use that money for stock and property
speculation because of that the economy is still not moving.
\
If they given that money
to the poor the pensioners the unemployed and underpaid they would have spent every cent in the
real economy generated employment and profits, growth would have been 3%-4% by now.
"... A missile has two explosive parts . Explosives in the armament and the fuel for the missile. In this case it was solid state rocket fuel which by its' very definition is another type of explosive. It's illegal to ship this in an commercial air plane or fly over any sovereign country's air space without getting permission . Very very shocking . ..."
"... Mistake? I doubt it. And, this what happens shipping such equipment on commercial flights. Whoever made that call, should be fired and kicked in the arse on his (or more likely her) way out the door. ..."
"... Once again, privatization wreaks havoc. Private contractors have massacred civilians in Iraq, turned US prisons into even worse hell-holes than previously, and now this. ..."
"... Corporate america and privatization work SOoo well. Congress is bribed by corporate 1% so we have increased the military budget and pass funding for new ships planes and weapons even the Pentagon doesn't want or need. It's all a scam to drag money out of the many and enrich the few. Think of the trillions spent on nuclear bombs and missiles, the use of which would only end civilization. ..."
"... You didn't need to incorrectly ID yourself. The language itself gives you away. You are NOT a conservative but rather a reactionary that thinks he is conservative by emulating Fox and Limbaugh and the like. Conserve means to save, reactionaries mean overturning conditions as they are. Liberals intend to gradually improve a few things while Radicals want Radical change. ..."
"... TV and Radio and Internet have perverted the language and thus created arguments over nothing since the usage of nonsense words in discussion can only lead to nonsense expectations and nonsense conclusions. ..."
"... Other than visibly embarrassing for our NATO friends and Lockheed, not that big of a deal since the Hellfire training missile contains an incomplete guidance section and has no operational seeker head, warhead, fusing system or rocket motor. ..."
"... It's not just the individual incompetence, it's the whole system. Ok, so someone slaps the wrong address sticker on the box with the missile in (they probably didnt know what was in the box, most mail rooms dont). I can see that happening, (wasn't checked which was odd). Then it manages to get on, completely unscanned, onto an EU passenger jet. I'm assuming it wasnt scanned, as i'm pretty sure a missile, sounds and quacks like a missile on any Xray scanning device. If it wasn't scanned, how the hell does the US military have "diplomatic immunity" on a european airline! ..."
"... i know i feel a lot safer after reading this. all those billions spent on homeland security and spying on american citizens, and they ship missles by air france. one might suspect the whole enterprise is a boondoggle to enrich political contributors and politicians. ..."
"... Bit of a non-story this. There will have been plenty of duds dropped/fired around the globe which could then have found their way into the hands of the Russians or Chinese etc. I recall seeing TV footage of a Hellfire misfire from an Israeli Apache gunship over the West Bank a few years back. ..."
"... Hellfire was designed in the 70s-80s. Soviets themselves had laser guided air to ground missiles at that time. I seriously doubt that in 2016 this is going to be some treasure trove of information for the Russians or the Chinese. ..."
"... The continued disorganization of the greatest fighting force on the planet is hillarious however. Heck at least they only schlep nukes around by mistake within the 50 states. For now. ..."
"... What would be interesting to know is what they mean by 'dummy'. There are generally two kinds of dummy rounds for missiles like this: one with no warhead but a fully functional motor (used for practice firings), and ones with no warhead or motor (used for handling training). ..."
"... Cuba WILL share the technology with Russia. That will allow the Russians the ability to develop countermeasures to it. The missile guidance system will have to be entirely re-done. ..."
"... Not sure that situation has improved since the 80s. There was recently an excellent survey that asked just two simple questions: where is Ukraine on the world map, and should US forces be sent there. There was a significant correlation between how far off the participants were for the first question, and their willingness to send troops. ..."
"... US Hellfire missile mistakenly shipped to Cuba. Meanwhile, loads of US & UK varied and sophisticated weaponry deliberately shipped to Saudi Arabia. ..."
A missile has two explosive parts . Explosives in the armament and the fuel for the
missile. In this case it was solid state rocket fuel which by its' very definition is another
type of explosive. It's illegal to ship this in an commercial air plane or fly over any
sovereign country's air space without getting permission . Very very shocking .
newpilgrim
9 Jan 2016 09:23
Just another example of collateral damage? These missiles seem to keep landing in the wrong
places, wedding parties etc. Are the military of any nation capable of managing dangerous
hi-tech military hardware responsibly?
Kevin Brent
9 Jan 2016 02:24
Mistake? I doubt it. And, this what happens shipping such equipment on commercial
flights. Whoever made that call, should be fired and kicked in the arse on his (or more likely
her) way out the door.
beermad -> CheaterA
8 Jan 2016 16:27
Ah, but without a large enemy bogeyman there would be no excuse for spending billions upon
billions on "defence". The government's paymasters in the weapons industry would never stand
for that.
BG Davis
8 Jan 2016 10:51
Once again, privatization wreaks havoc. Private contractors have massacred civilians in
Iraq, turned US prisons into even worse hell-holes than previously, and now this.
lostinbago -> JoeP
8 Jan 2016 10:09
Corporate america and privatization work SOoo well. Congress is bribed by corporate 1%
so we have increased the military budget and pass funding for new ships planes and weapons
even the Pentagon doesn't want or need. It's all a scam to drag money out of the many and
enrich the few. Think of the trillions spent on nuclear bombs and missiles, the use of which
would only end civilization.
lostinbago -> Al Lewis
8 Jan 2016 10:04
You didn't need to incorrectly ID yourself. The language itself gives you away. You are
NOT a conservative but rather a reactionary that thinks he is conservative by emulating Fox
and Limbaugh and the like. Conserve means to save, reactionaries mean overturning conditions
as they are. Liberals intend to gradually improve a few things while Radicals want Radical
change.
TV and Radio and Internet have perverted the language and thus created arguments over
nothing since the usage of nonsense words in discussion can only lead to nonsense expectations
and nonsense conclusions.
CheaterA
8 Jan 2016 09:59
What is wrong with our leadership (and often the press) for this persistence re retaining
Russia as a "potential" enemy?! NATO needs to be renamed, Turkey dumped, and Russia invited to
join. Russia would be the best ally the west will ever have against terrorism. Tons of money
would be saved (yes, tons) plus the ensuing safety and cultural exchange would be, well,
priceless.
Smallworld5
8 Jan 2016 09:11
Other than visibly embarrassing for our NATO friends and Lockheed, not that big of a
deal since the Hellfire training missile contains an incomplete guidance section and has no
operational seeker head, warhead, fusing system or rocket motor.
Basically it's a shell with the laser receiver part of the seeker package which tells the
weapons operator on the aircraft that the missile has acquired the laser designator (locked
on). No ground breaking technology there as just about everyone else has similar weapons.
trazer985 -> pretzelattack
8 Jan 2016 09:01
It's not just the individual incompetence, it's the whole system. Ok, so someone slaps
the wrong address sticker on the box with the missile in (they probably didnt know what was in
the box, most mail rooms dont). I can see that happening, (wasn't checked which was odd). Then
it manages to get on, completely unscanned, onto an EU passenger jet. I'm assuming it wasnt
scanned, as i'm pretty sure a missile, sounds and quacks like a missile on any Xray scanning
device. If it wasn't scanned, how the hell does the US military have "diplomatic immunity" on
a european airline!
Next time they ask me if my bag has "any of the following" in it, I'll try not to think of
this story...
TommyGuardianReader
8 Jan 2016 08:34
"The official said the US did not want any defense technology to remain in a proscribed
country, whether that country can use it or not."
Lockheed Martin may have had their own commercial motives for allowing the equipment to be
accidentally sent to Havana, or they may have been acting under instruction.
However, if it was a simple fuck-up:
1. The easy short-term answer is to take Cuba off the list of proscribed countries.
2. The more difficult, long-term answer is to remove all the other unauthorised US defence
equipment that is currently in Cuba. Especially in and around the south-eastern area known as
Guantanamo Bay.
There can be no doubt that the continued existence of the unlawful, anachronistic foreign
naval facility makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve genuine consensus at the
United Nations.
While that may suit the interests of the shareholders in Lockheed Martin very nicely, it does
not suit the interests of most of humanity and the other living beings on the planet.
i know i feel a lot safer after reading this. all those billions spent on homeland
security and spying on american citizens, and they ship missles by air france. one might
suspect the whole enterprise is a boondoggle to enrich political contributors and politicians.
mikedow -> toggy12
8 Jan 2016 07:50
They're used to losing weaponry. They even have a special name(Broken Arrow) for when they
lose a nuclear device. In 1950 the USAF jettisoned a nuclear bomb off the coast of BC, before
crashing a B-36 "Peacemaker".
Julie Lamin
8 Jan 2016 07:49
Another of the United States efforts to poison international opinion against Cuba? Perhaps
once the United States has returned Guatanamo to Cuba and paid for the fifty years of damage
they have caused to Cuban people through their acts of aggression, the US might get their
little bit of kit back.
TonyBistol
8 Jan 2016 05:39
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I wouldn't imagine that this drone would be able to teach the
Russians an awful lot, especially seeing as they have recently demonstrated that they have the
capability of being able to launch seaborne cruise missiles which can pinpoint targets 1800 Km
away.
jgbg Tradingman66
8 Jan 2016 05:24
They don't need to hand them to a freight forwarder to screw up. Whilst the Soviets had
some accidents with nuclear weapons and reactors, the US has had quite a few accidents
involving nuclear weapons, reactors and materials, including the permanent loss of some
nuclear weapons. One nuclear weapon that was lost over Georgia (the US state, not the country)
was armed and almost detonated.
tellyheads 8 Jan 2016 05:24
LOL, the US DoD is less competent than Amazon.
Lucky it wasn't a nuke.
jgbg Freddienerk
8 Jan 2016 05:11
I am sure the Russians and Chinese already have the know how to build a similar weapon.
Yes - but they might be interested in the specifics of this missile e.g. sensors and guidance
systems, so as to facilitate the development of effective countermeasures.
JaitcH 8 Jan 2016 05:06
What's to hide?
The target is painted with an infra-red signal, or infra-red markers, similar to torches, are
placed on or near a target. Whichever is used is encoded with a 4-digit code.
The pilot of the aircraft carrying the Hellfire weapon loads this 4-digit code into the
Hellfire before releasing it and it's ready to go hunting.
The Freedom Fighters know about this and use infra-red detectors to either locate the
hand-dropped markers or to sense infra-red markers projected in a site - then they move,
hopefully in time yo watch the explosion from a distance!
The information was published in a book devoted to modern warfare technology.
Doug_Niedermeyer
8 Jan 2016 04:52
Bit of a non-story this. There will have been plenty of duds dropped/fired around the
globe which could then have found their way into the hands of the Russians or Chinese etc. I
recall seeing TV footage of a Hellfire misfire from an Israeli Apache gunship over the West
Bank a few years back.
hogsback -> ID0728468
8 Jan 2016 04:47
I'm sure all munitions are shipped via the US Military themselves via the USAAF
So when Lockheed sells Hellfires to say Pakistan, or Egypt, or Saudi, you think they are
delivered in person by the USAAF with a little bow and ribbons? You realise that Hellfire has
been sold to over 25 countries, not all of them friendly to the US?
They're sent by air cargo or in a container on a ship like anything else.
SenseCir
8 Jan 2016 04:36
This is a tragedy. What if technical details reach poor farmers in Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq
or Syria who are then able to avoid being killed by one of those missiles? Unthinkable. Cuba
must return the missile at once.
juster 8 Jan 2016 04:35
Hellfire was designed in the 70s-80s. Soviets themselves had laser guided air to ground
missiles at that time. I seriously doubt that in 2016 this is going to be some treasure
trove of information for the Russians or the Chinese.
The continued disorganization of the greatest fighting force on the planet is hillarious
however. Heck at least they only schlep nukes around by mistake within the 50 states. For now.
hogsback -> trazer985
8 Jan 2016 04:30
Probably in the cargo hold on a passenger flight. You would be surprised as to what is
sitting under you when you are off on your hols.
What would be interesting to know is what they mean by 'dummy'. There are generally two
kinds of dummy rounds for missiles like this: one with no warhead but a fully functional motor
(used for practice firings), and ones with no warhead or motor (used for handling training).
What the hell are they doing using ordinary freight services to send missiles around the
world, do they send live ones the same way. They should only be carried by military transport
regardless of cost because what is the cost of loosing it and it falling into the wrong hands
EpaminondasUSA
8 Jan 2016 04:25
Cuba WILL share the technology with Russia. That will allow the Russians the ability to
develop countermeasures to it. The missile guidance system will have to be entirely re-done.
DThompson5 martinusher
8 Jan 2016 04:14
Not sure that situation has improved since the 80s. There was recently an excellent
survey that asked just two simple questions: where is Ukraine on the world map, and should US
forces be sent there. There was a significant correlation between how far off the participants
were for the first question, and their willingness to send troops.
2bveryFrank
8 Jan 2016 03:57
A Hellfire missile does the rounds in Europe, visiting Spain, Germany and France before
being sent to Havana, Cuba by mistake! And our security is supposed to be in these people's
hands! Idiots the lot of them!
Epivore
8 Jan 2016 03:57
"instead, it was loaded onto an Air France flight to Havana."
And it's not just dummy missiles that end up on civilian flights...
UncertainTrumpet
8 Jan 2016 03:26
US Hellfire missile mistakenly shipped to Cuba. Meanwhile, loads of US & UK varied and
sophisticated weaponry deliberately shipped to Saudi Arabia.
Dubhgaill -> Wendy Stolz
8 Jan 2016 03:15
The US military is virtually entirely run by private companies. Every single member of GW
Bush's cabinet, to a man or woman, were boardmembers and shareholders in either an oil company
or arms producer or a military logistics firm. Every single one of them. This is a minor
symtom of a far more insidious malaise.
siansim -> bemusedbyitall
8 Jan 2016 03:02
bemusedbyitall said:
No chance, from experience even if it was used against a hospital with numerous
medical staff and civilian deaths and casualties it would just be put down to a minor
clerical or communications error...
...And then you drive a tank into the hospital wards to destroy any evidence.
US Military: putting the FUBAR into high military spending
poplartree1 8 Jan 2016 02:58
Great! How wonderful they work like a charm...Yesterday I placed in comments how the US
government (who is totally inthe hands of contractors such a Lockheed Martin and other yahoos,
how they are corrupt. Today here is one more example of total ineptitude;
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-emails-reveal-true-motive-for-libya-intervention/
"The email identifies French President Nicholas Sarkozy as leading the attack on Libya with
five specific purposes in mind: to obtain Libyan oil, ensure French influence in the region,
increase Sarkozy's reputation domestically, assert French military power, and to prevent
Gaddafi's influence in what is considered "Francophone Africa."
Most astounding is the lengthy section delineating the huge threat that Gaddafi's gold and
silver reserves, estimated at "143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver," posed to the
French franc (CFA) circulating as a prime African currency. In place of the noble sounding
"Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) doctrine fed to the public, there is this "confidential"
explanation of what was really driving the war [emphasis mine]:
This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to
establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to
provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).
(Source Comment: According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is
valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly
after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President
Nicolas Sarkozy's decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.)
Though this internal email aims to summarize the motivating factors driving France's (and
by implication NATO's) intervention in Libya, it is interesting to note that saving civilian
lives is conspicuously absent from the briefing.
Instead, the great fear reported is that Libya might lead North Africa into a high degree
of economic independence with a new pan-African currency.
French intelligence "discovered" a Libyan initiative to freely compete with European currency
through a local alternative, and this had to be subverted through military aggression."
Loosing a missile is not important...important is to increase hell on earth...and to make
people suffer like in Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Ukraine.
Havingalavrov
8 Jan 2016 02:50
Look who uses the Hellfire missile and they are making a fuss about Cuba having the
technology ???
The US stripped down a MIG27 Foxbat jet brought in by a defecting Soviet pilot and is now
complaining! Sauce for Soviet goose is sauce for American gander!
Long6fellow
8 Jan 2016 01:52
The Yanks are losing their grip on their delivery service, firstly, there was a drone
brought down by the Iranians, "can we have our drone back please", then the wrong delivery of
1Billion$ of war equipment to SISI, the latter being set up by the Pentagon, now the Hellfire
Missile sent to Cuba, and after all these years of dirty tricks on Cuba, it proves the Yanks
cannot be trust at all.
BudGreen -> Freddienerk
8 Jan 2016 00:47
Specific knowledge of the guidance systems could be valuable to someone interested in
developing electronic countermeasures. This much should be obvious. Personally, I would be
surprised that with the number of these used in combat (they've been in use since the early
80's) that there would not have been at least several unexploded units recovered by our
enemies. Having one that was never fired and probably undamaged might be a real prize, though.
synchronicfusion
8 Jan 2016 00:05
As an American, I am truly embarrassed and ashamed that my own government had a habit of
shipping weapons and technology into the wrong hands. I might be more forgiving if it only
happened once, but how many times now? This is the same government that insists on spying on
we innocent citizens as though we are in the wrong. Please! Dumb....., Da Dumb, Dumb, DUMB!
It's been said that every empire comes to an end, eventually.
"... The USA used to complain about Japan Inc. Of course now it's USA as Neolibraconia Inc. and
it's business is war along all lines : military, economic, environmental, social ... ..."
After 9-11, the United States focused its most aggressive foreign policy on the Middle East –
from Afghanistan to North Africa. But the deal recently worked out with Iran, the current back-door
negotiations over Syria between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, and Russia Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov, and the decision to subsidize, and now export, U.S. shale oil and gas production in a direct
reversal of U.S. past policy toward Saudi Arabia – together signal a relative shift of U.S. policy
away from the Middle East.
With a Middle East consolidation phase underway, U.S. policy has been shifting since 2013-14 to
the more traditional focus that it had for decades: first, to check and contain China; second, to
prevent Russia from economically integrating more deeply with Europe; and, third, to reassert more
direct U.S. influence once again, as in previous decades, over the economies and governments in Latin
America.
... ... ...
Argentina & Brazil: Harbinger of Neoliberal Things to Come
Should the new pro-U.S., pro-Business Venezuela National Assembly ever prevail over the Maduro
government, the outcome economically would something like that now unfolding with the Mauricio Macri
government in Argentina. Argentina's Macri has already, within days of assuming the presidency, slashed
taxes for big farmers and manufacturers, lifted currency controls and devalued the peso by 30 percent,
allowed inflation to rise overnight by 25 percent, provided US$2 billion in dollar denominated bonds
for Argentine exporters and speculators, re-opened discussions with U.S. hedge funds as a prelude
to paying them excess interest the de Kirchner government previously denied, put thousands of government
workers on notice of imminent layoffs, declared the new government's intent to stack the supreme
court in order to rubber stamp its new Neoliberal programs, and took steps to reverse Argentine's
recent media law. And that's just the beginning.
Politically, the neoliberal vision will mean an overturning and restructuring of the current Supreme
Court, possible changes to the existing Constitution, and attempts to remove the duly-elected president
from office before his term by various means. Apart from plans to stack the judiciary, as in Argentina,
Venezuela's new business controlled National Assembly will likely follow their reactionary class
compatriots in Brazil, and move to impeach Venezuela president, Maduro, and dismantle his popular
government – just as they are attempting the same in Brazil with that country's also recently re-elected
president, Rousseff.
What happens in Venezuela, Argentina, and Brazil in the weeks ahead, in 2016, is a harbinger of
the intense economic and political class war in South America that is about to escalate to a higher
stage in 2016.
I'm still unconvinced that 1,000 rapists ran rampant in Cologne on New Years Eve. Where's Penelope
and her fraud analysis when it seems most needed?
2016 will be the year when all this comes to a head. Perhaps Russia and the BRICS should preemptively
repudiate their dollar denominated debts? It all seems to be
going south at this particular
point in time anyway.
Trying to follow nmb's link @1 without actually being shortened and sold myself led me to
Pepe Escobar of 29 Dec
The lame duck Obama administration – whatever rhetorical and/or legalistic contortions –
still sticks to the Cold War 2.0 script on Russia, duly prescribed by Obama mentor Dr. Zbigniew
"Grand Chessboard" Brzezinski.
The key front though is the Russian economy; sooner or later there's got to be a purge of
the Russian Central Bank and the Finance Ministry, but Putin will only act when he has surefire
internal support, and that's far from given.
The fight to the death in Moscow's inner circles is really between the Eurasianists and
the so-called Atlantic integrationists, a.k.a. the Western fifth column. The crux of the battle
is arguably the Russian Central Bank and the Finance Ministry – where some key liberalcon monetarist
players are remote-controlled by the usual suspects, the Masters of the Universe.
The same mechanism applies, geopolitically, to any side, in any latitude, which has linked
its own fiat money to Western central banks. The Masters of the Universe always seek to exercise
hegemony by manipulating usury and fiat money control.
So why President Putin does not fire the head of the Russian Central Bank, Elvira Nabiulina,
and a great deal of his financial team - as they keep buying U.S. bonds and propping up the
U.S. dollar instead of the ruble? What's really being aggressed here if not Russian interests?
"... The most extraordinary passage in the memo requires that the Israeli spooks "destroy upon recognition"
any communication provided by the NSA "that is either to or from an official of the US government."
It goes on to spell out that this includes "officials of the Executive Branch (including the White House,
Cabinet Departments, and independent agencies); the US House of Representatives and Senate (members
and staff); and the US Federal Court System (including, but not limited to, the Supreme Court)." ..."
"... The stunning implication of this passage is that NSA spying targets not only ordinary American
citizens, but also Supreme Court justices, members of Congress and the White House itself. One could
hardly ask for a more naked exposure of a police state. ..."
"... The secret collaboration of the military, the intelligence and national security agencies,
and gigantic corporations in the systematic and illegal surveillance of the American people reveals
the true wielders of power in the United States. Telecommunications giants such as AT T, Verizon and
Sprint, and Internet companies such as Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Twitter, provide the military
and the FBI and CIA with access to data on hundreds of millions of people that these state agencies
have no legal right to possess. ..."
"... Congress and both of the major political parties serve as rubber stamps for the confluence
of the military, the intelligence apparatus and Wall Street that really runs the country. The so-called
"Fourth Estate"-the mass media-functions shamelessly as an arm of this ruling troika. ..."
"... Did CIA Director Allen Dulles Order the Hit on JFK? ..."
"... In a blistering but painstaking profile of the Cold War CIA chief, David Talbot's damning accusations
include the allegation that Dulles was behind the Kennedy assassination. ..."
"... "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." ..."
"... "The CIA's campaign to popularize the term 'conspiracy theory' and make conspiracy belief a
target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful
propaganda initiatives of all time." ..."
"... "Dangerous Machinery: 'Conspiracy Theorist' as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion," ..."
"... "If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little whether you have actually claimed that
a conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue that I would rather avoid … By labeling
you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where public speech, debate, and conflict occur." ..."
The Proof Is In: The US Government Is The Most Complete Criminal Organization In Human
History
Unique among the countries on earth, the US government insists that its laws and dictates
take precedence over the sovereignty of nations . Washington asserts the power of US courts
over foreign nationals and claims extra-territorial jurisdiction of US courts over foreign activities
of which Washington or American interest groups disapprove. Perhaps the worst results of Washington's
disregard for the sovereignty of countries is the power Washington has exercised over foreign nationals
solely on the basis of terrorism charges devoid of any evidence.
Consider a few examples...
Washington first forced the Swiss government to violate its own banking laws.
Then Washington forced Switzerland to repeal its bank secrecy laws. Allegedly, Switzerland
is a democracy, but the country's laws are determined in Washington by people not elected by the
Swiss to represent them.
Consider the "soccer scandal" that Washington concocted, apparently for the purpose
of embarrassing Russia. The soccer organization's home is Switzerland, but this did not
stop Washington from sending FBI agents into Switzerland to arrest Swiss citizens. Try to imagine
Switzerland sending Swiss federal agents into the US to arrest Americans.
Consider the $9 billion fine that Washington imposed on a French bank for failure to
fully comply with Washington's sanctions against Iran. This assertion of Washington's
control over a foreign financial institution is even more audaciously illegal in view of the fact
that the sanctions Washington imposed on Iran and requires other sovereign countries to obey are
themselves strictly illegal. Indeed, in this case we have a case of triple illegality as the sanctions
were imposed on the basis of concocted and fabricated charges that were lies.
Or consider that Washington asserted its authority over the contract between a French
shipbuilder and the Russian government and forced the French company to violate a contract
at the expense of billions of dollars to the French company and a large number of jobs to the
French economy. This was a part of Washington teaching the Russians a lesson for not following
Washington's orders in Crimea.
Try to imagine a world in which every country asserted the extra-territoriality of its
law. The planet would be in permanent chaos with world GDP expended in legal and military
battles.
The Deep State runs everything in America since at least Nov 22, 1963. Kennedy promised to
shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds. Instead, the CIA shattered
his brains into a thousand pieces.
The NSA spies on the Supreme Court, Congress and the White House and you.
The Neocons control the foreign policy of the Deep State. All American wars since 1990 have
been Neocon wars.
The most extraordinary passage in the memo requires that the Israeli spooks "destroy upon
recognition" any communication provided by the NSA "that is either to or from an official of the
US government." It goes on to spell out that this includes "officials of the Executive Branch
(including the White House, Cabinet Departments, and independent agencies); the US House of Representatives
and Senate (members and staff); and the US Federal Court System (including, but not limited to,
the Supreme Court)."
The stunning implication of this passage is that NSA spying targets not only ordinary
American citizens, but also Supreme Court justices, members of Congress and the White House itself.
One could hardly ask for a more naked exposure of a police state.
The secret collaboration of the military, the intelligence and national security agencies,
and gigantic corporations in the systematic and illegal surveillance of the American people reveals
the true wielders of power in the United States. Telecommunications giants such as AT&T, Verizon
and Sprint, and Internet companies such as Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Twitter, provide the
military and the FBI and CIA with access to data on hundreds of millions of people that these
state agencies have no legal right to possess.
Congress and both of the major political parties serve as rubber stamps for the
confluence of the military, the intelligence apparatus and Wall Street that really runs the country.
The so-called "Fourth Estate"-the mass media-functions shamelessly as an arm of this ruling troika.
Did CIA Director Allen Dulles Order the Hit on JFK?
In a blistering but painstaking profile of the Cold War CIA chief, David Talbot's damning
accusations include the allegation that Dulles was behind the Kennedy assassination.
The Deep State runs everything since Nov 22, 1963.
Kennedy promised
Ohh boy. You're drowning on Kool-Aid.
US has been a deep state from creation. James Madison, the Father of the
US Constitution, "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."
Now Kennedy, by Professor Chomsky:
The core issue in the current Kennedy revival is the claim that JFK intended
to withdraw from Vietnam. Some allege further that Kennedy was intent on destroying the CIA, dismantling
the military-industrial complex, ending the Cold War, and opening an era of development and freedom
for Latin America.
There are several sources of evidence that bear on the withdrawal thesis:
(1) The historical facts; (2) the record of public statements; (3) the internal planning record;
(4) the memoirs and other reports of Kennedy insiders. In each category, the material is substantial.
The record of internal deliberations, in particular, has been available far beyond the norm since
the release of two editions of the Pentagon Papers ( PP ). The recent
publication of thousands of pages of documents in the official State Department history provides
a wealth of additional material on the years of the presidential transition, 1963-4, which are
of crucial significance for evaluating the thesis that many have found so compelling.
While history never permits anything like definitive conclusions, in this
case, the richness of the record, and its consistency, permit some unusually confident judgments.
In my opinion, the record is inconsistent with the thesis throughout, and supports a different
conclusion.
Kennedy did not want Diem assassinated. The CIA had him assassinated.
Bottom line the CIA took us into the Vietnamese War.
Kirk2NCC1701
I've told you 'Mericans many times, that which is blatantly obvious to non-Americans, who actually
know something about 19th century Am. history...
THIS IS MANIFEST DESTINY. Rev. 4.0
Rev 2 was over Latin America, Rev 3 was over Europe. Rev 4 is over TROTW.
CTG_Sweden
Article (Paul Craig Roberts):
"Try to imagine the Presidents of Russia or China giving such an order to a sovereign
nation."
My comments:
The problem is that neither Russia nor China has a ruling élite (with a political agenda) that
stretches across all fields in the society that generate power, such as media, big business, lobbyists,
think tanks and politicians. Big business in Russia seems to be about the same as under the Yeltsin
era. Big business in China has no political agenda (except perhaps good relations with the current
party bosses). There is no Russian or Chinese strategy for gaining influence in other strategy.
If that had been the case we would already have seen new investors in Western media. Some new
technical devices would also have been launched.
I think that that both Russia and China eventually will pay for their reluctance to interfere
in Western politics. And for not trying to build a sustainable structure in media, big business
and politics in their own countries. I don´t see why Russia shouldn´t get neocon rule again when
Putin disappears.
They seem to think that "if we mind our own business they will leave us alone" or at least
not act more aggressively. That is probably a mistake.
Russian or Chinese influence in Western politics would in some respects be very similar to
the current "neoconservative" influence over Europe and North America. It would mean that an unelected
élite would try to rule our societies. But if the Russians and Chinese also would try to grab
power in our societies the electorate would have a choice: Do we want to be ruled by the neocons
(and similar people), the Russians or the Chinese? Now there is only one realistic choice: The
neocons. The only country within the EU which perhaps doesn´t have neocon rule, or something very
similar to that, is Hungary.
skippy9
Mr. Roberts your lead in to the article is spot on. But when you bring in the scum that resides
at my expense in a posh Guantanimo Camp I part company. These are the same animals that maimed
our fighting men and women in the name of some ALLAH. We are at war with Muslims and their barbaric
way of life. Pisoners of war are governed by Geneva Convention rules not a Muslim sitting in Washington.
Demdere
1993 WTC bombing was an FBI and CIA false flag.
OKC ditto
9/11 ditto, with Mossad assist, in spades
Ditto Charlie Hedbo, Praris, the London subway bombings, ...
Muslims had zip to do with any of them except for providing the patsies, just like the Chechans,
were US patsies in the Russian's war in Afghanistand and throughout the ME, including the Chechan's
attacks on Russia.
Arabs are just 'other' enough to be really good demons, perfect for divide and rule for Europe
and America, tho the divide and conquer in the ME isn't going as well as expected, tho the chaos
is expanding nicely.
If peace arrives, Israeli-Neocons hang. Peace cannot be allowed, and you cannot be allowed
to think rationally about Muslims or Russians or Chinese or El Chapo or ... Freedom, ultimately,
you can't be allowed to think rationally about Freedom.
And don't.
RopeADope
I think you meant to say 'You can't be allowed to think rationally about power.'
"Freedom is participation in power."
- Marcus Tullius Cicero
Misanthropus
You conspiracy theorists have been breathing mixed gas, and mostly helium, for far too long.
Come up for air once in awhile.
Omen IV
A "conspiracy theory" no longer means an event explained by a conspiracy. Instead, it now means
any explanation, or even a fact, that is out of step with the government's explanation and that
of its Media Pimps.
Anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong "confirmation bias" - that is, they seek
out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such
as the "conspiracy theory" label) to avoid conflicting information.
"If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little whether you have actually claimed that
a conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue that I would rather avoid … By
labeling you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where public speech, debate, and conflict
occur."
But now, people who doubt official stories are no longer excluded from public conversation.
The CIA's 44-year-old campaign (originating in 1967 to discredit anti-Vietnam Protesters) to
stifle debate using the "conspiracy theory" smear is nearly worn-out. In academic studies, as
in comments on news articles, pro-conspiracy voices are now more numerous - and more rational
- than anti-conspiracy ones. No wonder the anti-conspiracy people are sounding more and more like
a bunch of hostile, paranoid cranks. ...
"The warfare ideology today is 'Multilateral Unconstrained Disruption' ( MUD
). This unrestrictive warfare is meant to disrupt societal functioning; to 'poison' information
to elevate distrust of all computer information."
Backing up lies with violence with technologies trillions of times more powerful and capable
is the manifestation of the oxymoronic "scientific dictatorship," which
is actually as profoundly unscientific about itself as it can possibly be. Thousands of years
of the history of warfare whose successes were based on deceits and treacheries have driven those
kinds of successes to become runaway criminal insanities, which automatically become more psychotic
the more socially successful those systems of being able to back up lies with violence become.
Generation after generation, the social successfulness of operating systems of organized lies
and robberies have driven too many of the people doing that to be extreme manifestations of professional
liars and immaculate hypocrites. The ruling classes are increasingly psychotic psychopaths, while
those they rule over tend to more and more act like Zombie Sheeple. IT IS A FACT
THAT THE ENTIRE POLITICAL ECONOMY IS BASED ON PUBLIC GOVERNMENTS ENFORCING FRAUDS BY
PRIVATE BANKS. (To confirm that beyond any reasonable doubt, watch enough of these
Excellent Videos
on Money Systems .
However THAT central social FACT is deliberately ignored and/or misunderstood
by the public schools and mass media, as well as by about 99% of the successful politicians who
are puppets of those systems based upon POLITICAL FUNDING ENFORCING FRAUDS, which included paying
for the assassinations of those politicians who otherwise could not be bribed or intimidated.
Therefore, practically speaking, the government of the USA mainly acts as the muscle for
the international bankers . Everything that Roberts' article outlined traces back to
that source. What is WORSE is that there are no feasible ways to stop the vicious spirals of POLITICAL
FUNDING ENFORCING FRAUDS continuing to automatically get worse faster ...
Meanwhile, for those with a sufficiently macabre sense of humour, the IRONIES ARE AMUSING that
it has been demonstrated by declassified CIA documents that they used their mass media assets
in order to popularize the pejorative use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" in order to deliberately
discredit those who did not believe the official story regarding the assassination of President
Kennedy.
"Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary
to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled "conspiracy theorists" appear to be saner than
those who accept the official versions of contested events. ... the pro-conspiracy commenters
who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are
becoming a small, beleaguered minority. ... In short, a study by Wood and Douglas suggests that
the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist - a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of
his own fringe theory - accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11,
not those who dispute it."
The book Conspiracy Theory in Americaby political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith,
published by the University of Texas Press, explains why people don't like being called "conspiracy
theorists": "The CIA's campaign to popularize the term 'conspiracy theory' and make
conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being
one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time."
That forerunner of the current MUD campaigns, OF COURSE, was completely
illegal, and the CIA officers involved were criminals; the CIA was barred from all domestic activities,
yet some factions of the CIA routinely break the law to conduct domestic operations ranging from
propaganda to assassinations. That makes more historical sense, after one looks into the history
of the CIA being created by various Wall Street lawyers, after the Second World War, since almost
EVERYTHING happening in American politics can traced back to the ways that the international bankers
captured control over the public government of the USA, through their Deep State Shadow Government
persistently applying every possible method of organized crime through the political processes,
both legally and illegally, to result in the runaway vicious spirals of POLITICAL FUNDING ENFORCING
FRAUDS.
Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph agrees that the CIA-designed "conspiracy
theory" label impedes cognitive function. She points out, in an article published in American
Behavioral Scientist (2010), that anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly about such
apparent state crimes against democracy as 9/11 due to their inability to process information
that conflicts with pre-existing belief. University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that
anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong "confirmation bias" - that is, they seek out
information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such
as the "conspiracy theory" label) to avoid conflicting information.
Professors Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State University, in a 2007 peer-reviewed
article entitled "Dangerous Machinery: 'Conspiracy Theorist' as a Transpersonal Strategy of
Exclusion," wrote: "If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little whether
you have actually claimed that a conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue
that I would rather avoid … By labeling you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where
public speech, debate, and conflict occur."
THOSE PUBLIC SPACES DOMINATED BY THE MASS MEDIA, (AS WELL AS THE CURRENTLY DOMINATE POLITICIANS
THAT OPERATE WITHIN THOSE PUBLIC SPACES), ARE MORE AND MORE SPLITTING APART FROM THE ALTERNATIVE
NEWS ... THAT IS ILLUSTRATED BY THE PATTERNS OF COMMENTS AND VOTES UPON THOSE COMMENTS WHICH ONE
CAN OBSERVE ON THE ZERO HEDGE WEB SITE!
ableman28
The belief in "American Exceptionalism" inevitably leads to the modern equivalent of "Deutscheland
Uber Alles".
Might does not make right. But, unfortunately, after awhile, its hard to tell them apart.
"... The USA used to complain about Japan Inc. Of course now it's USA as Neolibraconia Inc. and
it's business is war along all lines : military, economic, environmental, social ... ..."
After 9-11, the United States focused its most aggressive foreign policy on the Middle East –
from Afghanistan to North Africa. But the deal recently worked out with Iran, the current back-door
negotiations over Syria between U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, and Russia Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov, and the decision to subsidize, and now export, U.S. shale oil and gas production in a direct
reversal of U.S. past policy toward Saudi Arabia – together signal a relative shift of U.S. policy
away from the Middle East.
With a Middle East consolidation phase underway, U.S. policy has been shifting since 2013-14 to
the more traditional focus that it had for decades: first, to check and contain China; second, to
prevent Russia from economically integrating more deeply with Europe; and, third, to reassert more
direct U.S. influence once again, as in previous decades, over the economies and governments in Latin
America.
... ... ...
Argentina & Brazil: Harbinger of Neoliberal Things to Come
Should the new pro-U.S., pro-Business Venezuela National Assembly ever prevail over the Maduro
government, the outcome economically would something like that now unfolding with the Mauricio Macri
government in Argentina. Argentina's Macri has already, within days of assuming the presidency, slashed
taxes for big farmers and manufacturers, lifted currency controls and devalued the peso by 30 percent,
allowed inflation to rise overnight by 25 percent, provided US$2 billion in dollar denominated bonds
for Argentine exporters and speculators, re-opened discussions with U.S. hedge funds as a prelude
to paying them excess interest the de Kirchner government previously denied, put thousands of government
workers on notice of imminent layoffs, declared the new government's intent to stack the supreme
court in order to rubber stamp its new Neoliberal programs, and took steps to reverse Argentine's
recent media law. And that's just the beginning.
Politically, the neoliberal vision will mean an overturning and restructuring of the current Supreme
Court, possible changes to the existing Constitution, and attempts to remove the duly-elected president
from office before his term by various means. Apart from plans to stack the judiciary, as in Argentina,
Venezuela's new business controlled National Assembly will likely follow their reactionary class
compatriots in Brazil, and move to impeach Venezuela president, Maduro, and dismantle his popular
government – just as they are attempting the same in Brazil with that country's also recently re-elected
president, Rousseff.
What happens in Venezuela, Argentina, and Brazil in the weeks ahead, in 2016, is a harbinger of
the intense economic and political class war in South America that is about to escalate to a higher
stage in 2016.
I'm still unconvinced that 1,000 rapists ran rampant in Cologne on New Years Eve. Where's Penelope
and her fraud analysis when it seems most needed?
2016 will be the year when all this comes to a head. Perhaps Russia and the BRICS should preemptively
repudiate their dollar denominated debts? It all seems to be
going south at this particular
point in time anyway.
Trying to follow nmb's link @1 without actually being shortened and sold myself led me to
Pepe Escobar of 29 Dec
The lame duck Obama administration – whatever rhetorical and/or legalistic contortions –
still sticks to the Cold War 2.0 script on Russia, duly prescribed by Obama mentor Dr. Zbigniew
"Grand Chessboard" Brzezinski.
The key front though is the Russian economy; sooner or later there's got to be a purge of
the Russian Central Bank and the Finance Ministry, but Putin will only act when he has surefire
internal support, and that's far from given.
The fight to the death in Moscow's inner circles is really between the Eurasianists and
the so-called Atlantic integrationists, a.k.a. the Western fifth column. The crux of the battle
is arguably the Russian Central Bank and the Finance Ministry – where some key liberalcon monetarist
players are remote-controlled by the usual suspects, the Masters of the Universe.
The same mechanism applies, geopolitically, to any side, in any latitude, which has linked
its own fiat money to Western central banks. The Masters of the Universe always seek to exercise
hegemony by manipulating usury and fiat money control.
So why President Putin does not fire the head of the Russian Central Bank, Elvira Nabiulina,
and a great deal of his financial team - as they keep buying U.S. bonds and propping up the
U.S. dollar instead of the ruble? What's really being aggressed here if not Russian interests?
This might be not an end of S&P500 rally but this might well be the beginning of the end.
Notable quotes:
"... It's good: the less money the US will have the less wars it will wage in the world. My congrats! ..."
"... Baron von Rothschild said "the time to buy is when there's blood in streets" - i.e. when it's all doom and gloom. We've not there yet but there's always hope. ..."
"... Be careful what you wish for. ..."
"... The whole 401K thing was a scam from it's inception. The employment figures are total nonsense--figures don't lie but liars can figure etc. --oh and "there was no inflation last year." ..."
"... With this load of gambling morons running stock markets, financial major rip offs and services we will all be declared bankrupt and broke without doing anything or lifting a finger. ..."
"... This is not about China. Saudis (and other oil producers) are selling investments to fund their current budget. Most economies are very slow, workforce participation rates all around West are the lowest on record. US has 90 million non-working adults who are not in military, retired or in school. 90 million idle people and the government claims a 5% unemployment rate based on "statistical survey". The economies are in much worse shape than the cheerful and manipulated numbers that governments produce. Inflation is higher than reported. ..."
"... I think the US is showing signs of "growth" that is, the number of "new" jobs went up last month to 292K (also November was adjusted higher with better information). I understand your hesitation about the "5% unemployment" but this is in spite of a lot of people now coming back into the workforce. And wages are now going up, which probably shows that the number of available people suitable for work is declining. This has got to be a good thing. ..."
"... Well gosh no QE to save these bandits again, what will they do? ..."
"... they are the sellers, not to worry though, they'll be back out with their begging bowls when the market nr bottoms out.. ready for the next wild ride back up. ..."
"... The QE was a godsend for the super rich they got to use that money for stock and property speculation because of that the economy is still not moving. ..."
"... If they given that money to the poor the pensioners the unemployed and underpaid they would have spent every cent in the real economy generated employment and profits, growth would have been 3%-4% by now. ..."
Things have a long way to fall before they're low. I hope it's 2008 all over again. I was laid
off in January 2009 with a generous severance packet. I invested it all in the US stock market
in Q1 09, when everyone was wailing and moaning. That was the bottom of the market. Over the next
few years it soared and I made a fortune. I sold most of it last year so I'm hoping for another
crash.
Baron von Rothschild said "the time to buy is when there's blood in streets" - i.e. when
it's all doom and gloom. We've not there yet but there's always hope.
"In the garden, growth has it seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have fall and
winter. And then we get spring and summer again." Chance the Gardener, mistakenly known as Chauncey
Gardiner.
The whole 401K thing was a scam from it's inception. The employment figures are total nonsense--figures
don't lie but liars can figure etc. --oh and "there was no inflation last year."
With this load of gambling morons running stock markets, financial major rip offs and services
we will all be declared bankrupt and broke without doing anything or lifting a finger.
These people are utterly stupid. All a load of chooks with missing heads running round causing
chaos and more stupidity.
But Wait. Are we the stupid ones for letting them have their greedy little comer of the world
to gamble away the lives of others?
We have no influence and are impotent against these chancers and thieves.
Markets get closed. Also during the Bush GFC we had futures, derivatives or whatever banned for
a while. The problem was letting them start up again.
So its just a case of finding some real honest politicians...........maybe your right.
The US has been de-industrialized. Most Americans are too poor to buy new gadgets. Many are homeless.
We have a 3d world economy. Of course the stock market etc is bad!
This is not about China. Saudis (and other oil producers) are selling investments to fund
their current budget. Most economies are very slow, workforce participation rates all around West
are the lowest on record. US has 90 million non-working adults who are not in military, retired
or in school. 90 million idle people and the government claims a 5% unemployment rate based on
"statistical survey". The economies are in much worse shape than the cheerful and manipulated
numbers that governments produce. Inflation is higher than reported.
The governments have learned in the last 30-40 years how to "manage" the reported metrics by
changing definitions, adjustments and outright lying. You can only do it for so long before real
world catches up with you.
I think the US is showing signs of "growth" that is, the number of "new" jobs went up last
month to 292K (also November was adjusted higher with better information). I understand your hesitation
about the "5% unemployment" but this is in spite of a lot of people now coming back into the workforce.
And wages are now going up, which probably shows that the number of available people suitable
for work is declining. This has got to be a good thing.
Yes, things could be better there and in many other places. (In Canada, we are truly screwed
for at least several years, fwiw.)
they are the sellers, not to worry though, they'll be back out with their begging bowls when the
market nr bottoms out.. ready for the next wild ride back up.
The QE was a godsend for the super rich they got to use that money for stock and property
speculation because of that the economy is still not moving.
\
If they given that money
to the poor the pensioners the unemployed and underpaid they would have spent every cent in the
real economy generated employment and profits, growth would have been 3%-4% by now.
"... A missile has two explosive parts . Explosives in the armament and the fuel for the missile. In this case it was solid state rocket fuel which by its' very definition is another type of explosive. It's illegal to ship this in an commercial air plane or fly over any sovereign country's air space without getting permission . Very very shocking . ..."
"... Mistake? I doubt it. And, this what happens shipping such equipment on commercial flights. Whoever made that call, should be fired and kicked in the arse on his (or more likely her) way out the door. ..."
"... Once again, privatization wreaks havoc. Private contractors have massacred civilians in Iraq, turned US prisons into even worse hell-holes than previously, and now this. ..."
"... Corporate america and privatization work SOoo well. Congress is bribed by corporate 1% so we have increased the military budget and pass funding for new ships planes and weapons even the Pentagon doesn't want or need. It's all a scam to drag money out of the many and enrich the few. Think of the trillions spent on nuclear bombs and missiles, the use of which would only end civilization. ..."
"... You didn't need to incorrectly ID yourself. The language itself gives you away. You are NOT a conservative but rather a reactionary that thinks he is conservative by emulating Fox and Limbaugh and the like. Conserve means to save, reactionaries mean overturning conditions as they are. Liberals intend to gradually improve a few things while Radicals want Radical change. ..."
"... TV and Radio and Internet have perverted the language and thus created arguments over nothing since the usage of nonsense words in discussion can only lead to nonsense expectations and nonsense conclusions. ..."
"... Other than visibly embarrassing for our NATO friends and Lockheed, not that big of a deal since the Hellfire training missile contains an incomplete guidance section and has no operational seeker head, warhead, fusing system or rocket motor. ..."
"... It's not just the individual incompetence, it's the whole system. Ok, so someone slaps the wrong address sticker on the box with the missile in (they probably didnt know what was in the box, most mail rooms dont). I can see that happening, (wasn't checked which was odd). Then it manages to get on, completely unscanned, onto an EU passenger jet. I'm assuming it wasnt scanned, as i'm pretty sure a missile, sounds and quacks like a missile on any Xray scanning device. If it wasn't scanned, how the hell does the US military have "diplomatic immunity" on a european airline! ..."
"... i know i feel a lot safer after reading this. all those billions spent on homeland security and spying on american citizens, and they ship missles by air france. one might suspect the whole enterprise is a boondoggle to enrich political contributors and politicians. ..."
"... Bit of a non-story this. There will have been plenty of duds dropped/fired around the globe which could then have found their way into the hands of the Russians or Chinese etc. I recall seeing TV footage of a Hellfire misfire from an Israeli Apache gunship over the West Bank a few years back. ..."
"... Hellfire was designed in the 70s-80s. Soviets themselves had laser guided air to ground missiles at that time. I seriously doubt that in 2016 this is going to be some treasure trove of information for the Russians or the Chinese. ..."
"... The continued disorganization of the greatest fighting force on the planet is hillarious however. Heck at least they only schlep nukes around by mistake within the 50 states. For now. ..."
"... What would be interesting to know is what they mean by 'dummy'. There are generally two kinds of dummy rounds for missiles like this: one with no warhead but a fully functional motor (used for practice firings), and ones with no warhead or motor (used for handling training). ..."
"... Cuba WILL share the technology with Russia. That will allow the Russians the ability to develop countermeasures to it. The missile guidance system will have to be entirely re-done. ..."
"... Not sure that situation has improved since the 80s. There was recently an excellent survey that asked just two simple questions: where is Ukraine on the world map, and should US forces be sent there. There was a significant correlation between how far off the participants were for the first question, and their willingness to send troops. ..."
"... US Hellfire missile mistakenly shipped to Cuba. Meanwhile, loads of US & UK varied and sophisticated weaponry deliberately shipped to Saudi Arabia. ..."
A missile has two explosive parts . Explosives in the armament and the fuel for the
missile. In this case it was solid state rocket fuel which by its' very definition is another
type of explosive. It's illegal to ship this in an commercial air plane or fly over any
sovereign country's air space without getting permission . Very very shocking .
newpilgrim
9 Jan 2016 09:23
Just another example of collateral damage? These missiles seem to keep landing in the wrong
places, wedding parties etc. Are the military of any nation capable of managing dangerous
hi-tech military hardware responsibly?
Kevin Brent
9 Jan 2016 02:24
Mistake? I doubt it. And, this what happens shipping such equipment on commercial
flights. Whoever made that call, should be fired and kicked in the arse on his (or more likely
her) way out the door.
beermad -> CheaterA
8 Jan 2016 16:27
Ah, but without a large enemy bogeyman there would be no excuse for spending billions upon
billions on "defence". The government's paymasters in the weapons industry would never stand
for that.
BG Davis
8 Jan 2016 10:51
Once again, privatization wreaks havoc. Private contractors have massacred civilians in
Iraq, turned US prisons into even worse hell-holes than previously, and now this.
lostinbago -> JoeP
8 Jan 2016 10:09
Corporate america and privatization work SOoo well. Congress is bribed by corporate 1%
so we have increased the military budget and pass funding for new ships planes and weapons
even the Pentagon doesn't want or need. It's all a scam to drag money out of the many and
enrich the few. Think of the trillions spent on nuclear bombs and missiles, the use of which
would only end civilization.
lostinbago -> Al Lewis
8 Jan 2016 10:04
You didn't need to incorrectly ID yourself. The language itself gives you away. You are
NOT a conservative but rather a reactionary that thinks he is conservative by emulating Fox
and Limbaugh and the like. Conserve means to save, reactionaries mean overturning conditions
as they are. Liberals intend to gradually improve a few things while Radicals want Radical
change.
TV and Radio and Internet have perverted the language and thus created arguments over
nothing since the usage of nonsense words in discussion can only lead to nonsense expectations
and nonsense conclusions.
CheaterA
8 Jan 2016 09:59
What is wrong with our leadership (and often the press) for this persistence re retaining
Russia as a "potential" enemy?! NATO needs to be renamed, Turkey dumped, and Russia invited to
join. Russia would be the best ally the west will ever have against terrorism. Tons of money
would be saved (yes, tons) plus the ensuing safety and cultural exchange would be, well,
priceless.
Smallworld5
8 Jan 2016 09:11
Other than visibly embarrassing for our NATO friends and Lockheed, not that big of a
deal since the Hellfire training missile contains an incomplete guidance section and has no
operational seeker head, warhead, fusing system or rocket motor.
Basically it's a shell with the laser receiver part of the seeker package which tells the
weapons operator on the aircraft that the missile has acquired the laser designator (locked
on). No ground breaking technology there as just about everyone else has similar weapons.
trazer985 -> pretzelattack
8 Jan 2016 09:01
It's not just the individual incompetence, it's the whole system. Ok, so someone slaps
the wrong address sticker on the box with the missile in (they probably didnt know what was in
the box, most mail rooms dont). I can see that happening, (wasn't checked which was odd). Then
it manages to get on, completely unscanned, onto an EU passenger jet. I'm assuming it wasnt
scanned, as i'm pretty sure a missile, sounds and quacks like a missile on any Xray scanning
device. If it wasn't scanned, how the hell does the US military have "diplomatic immunity" on
a european airline!
Next time they ask me if my bag has "any of the following" in it, I'll try not to think of
this story...
TommyGuardianReader
8 Jan 2016 08:34
"The official said the US did not want any defense technology to remain in a proscribed
country, whether that country can use it or not."
Lockheed Martin may have had their own commercial motives for allowing the equipment to be
accidentally sent to Havana, or they may have been acting under instruction.
However, if it was a simple fuck-up:
1. The easy short-term answer is to take Cuba off the list of proscribed countries.
2. The more difficult, long-term answer is to remove all the other unauthorised US defence
equipment that is currently in Cuba. Especially in and around the south-eastern area known as
Guantanamo Bay.
There can be no doubt that the continued existence of the unlawful, anachronistic foreign
naval facility makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve genuine consensus at the
United Nations.
While that may suit the interests of the shareholders in Lockheed Martin very nicely, it does
not suit the interests of most of humanity and the other living beings on the planet.
i know i feel a lot safer after reading this. all those billions spent on homeland
security and spying on american citizens, and they ship missles by air france. one might
suspect the whole enterprise is a boondoggle to enrich political contributors and politicians.
mikedow -> toggy12
8 Jan 2016 07:50
They're used to losing weaponry. They even have a special name(Broken Arrow) for when they
lose a nuclear device. In 1950 the USAF jettisoned a nuclear bomb off the coast of BC, before
crashing a B-36 "Peacemaker".
Julie Lamin
8 Jan 2016 07:49
Another of the United States efforts to poison international opinion against Cuba? Perhaps
once the United States has returned Guatanamo to Cuba and paid for the fifty years of damage
they have caused to Cuban people through their acts of aggression, the US might get their
little bit of kit back.
TonyBistol
8 Jan 2016 05:39
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I wouldn't imagine that this drone would be able to teach the
Russians an awful lot, especially seeing as they have recently demonstrated that they have the
capability of being able to launch seaborne cruise missiles which can pinpoint targets 1800 Km
away.
jgbg Tradingman66
8 Jan 2016 05:24
They don't need to hand them to a freight forwarder to screw up. Whilst the Soviets had
some accidents with nuclear weapons and reactors, the US has had quite a few accidents
involving nuclear weapons, reactors and materials, including the permanent loss of some
nuclear weapons. One nuclear weapon that was lost over Georgia (the US state, not the country)
was armed and almost detonated.
tellyheads 8 Jan 2016 05:24
LOL, the US DoD is less competent than Amazon.
Lucky it wasn't a nuke.
jgbg Freddienerk
8 Jan 2016 05:11
I am sure the Russians and Chinese already have the know how to build a similar weapon.
Yes - but they might be interested in the specifics of this missile e.g. sensors and guidance
systems, so as to facilitate the development of effective countermeasures.
JaitcH 8 Jan 2016 05:06
What's to hide?
The target is painted with an infra-red signal, or infra-red markers, similar to torches, are
placed on or near a target. Whichever is used is encoded with a 4-digit code.
The pilot of the aircraft carrying the Hellfire weapon loads this 4-digit code into the
Hellfire before releasing it and it's ready to go hunting.
The Freedom Fighters know about this and use infra-red detectors to either locate the
hand-dropped markers or to sense infra-red markers projected in a site - then they move,
hopefully in time yo watch the explosion from a distance!
The information was published in a book devoted to modern warfare technology.
Doug_Niedermeyer
8 Jan 2016 04:52
Bit of a non-story this. There will have been plenty of duds dropped/fired around the
globe which could then have found their way into the hands of the Russians or Chinese etc. I
recall seeing TV footage of a Hellfire misfire from an Israeli Apache gunship over the West
Bank a few years back.
hogsback -> ID0728468
8 Jan 2016 04:47
I'm sure all munitions are shipped via the US Military themselves via the USAAF
So when Lockheed sells Hellfires to say Pakistan, or Egypt, or Saudi, you think they are
delivered in person by the USAAF with a little bow and ribbons? You realise that Hellfire has
been sold to over 25 countries, not all of them friendly to the US?
They're sent by air cargo or in a container on a ship like anything else.
SenseCir
8 Jan 2016 04:36
This is a tragedy. What if technical details reach poor farmers in Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq
or Syria who are then able to avoid being killed by one of those missiles? Unthinkable. Cuba
must return the missile at once.
juster 8 Jan 2016 04:35
Hellfire was designed in the 70s-80s. Soviets themselves had laser guided air to ground
missiles at that time. I seriously doubt that in 2016 this is going to be some treasure
trove of information for the Russians or the Chinese.
The continued disorganization of the greatest fighting force on the planet is hillarious
however. Heck at least they only schlep nukes around by mistake within the 50 states. For now.
hogsback -> trazer985
8 Jan 2016 04:30
Probably in the cargo hold on a passenger flight. You would be surprised as to what is
sitting under you when you are off on your hols.
What would be interesting to know is what they mean by 'dummy'. There are generally two
kinds of dummy rounds for missiles like this: one with no warhead but a fully functional motor
(used for practice firings), and ones with no warhead or motor (used for handling training).
What the hell are they doing using ordinary freight services to send missiles around the
world, do they send live ones the same way. They should only be carried by military transport
regardless of cost because what is the cost of loosing it and it falling into the wrong hands
EpaminondasUSA
8 Jan 2016 04:25
Cuba WILL share the technology with Russia. That will allow the Russians the ability to
develop countermeasures to it. The missile guidance system will have to be entirely re-done.
DThompson5 martinusher
8 Jan 2016 04:14
Not sure that situation has improved since the 80s. There was recently an excellent
survey that asked just two simple questions: where is Ukraine on the world map, and should US
forces be sent there. There was a significant correlation between how far off the participants
were for the first question, and their willingness to send troops.
2bveryFrank
8 Jan 2016 03:57
A Hellfire missile does the rounds in Europe, visiting Spain, Germany and France before
being sent to Havana, Cuba by mistake! And our security is supposed to be in these people's
hands! Idiots the lot of them!
Epivore
8 Jan 2016 03:57
"instead, it was loaded onto an Air France flight to Havana."
And it's not just dummy missiles that end up on civilian flights...
UncertainTrumpet
8 Jan 2016 03:26
US Hellfire missile mistakenly shipped to Cuba. Meanwhile, loads of US & UK varied and
sophisticated weaponry deliberately shipped to Saudi Arabia.
Dubhgaill -> Wendy Stolz
8 Jan 2016 03:15
The US military is virtually entirely run by private companies. Every single member of GW
Bush's cabinet, to a man or woman, were boardmembers and shareholders in either an oil company
or arms producer or a military logistics firm. Every single one of them. This is a minor
symtom of a far more insidious malaise.
siansim -> bemusedbyitall
8 Jan 2016 03:02
bemusedbyitall said:
No chance, from experience even if it was used against a hospital with numerous
medical staff and civilian deaths and casualties it would just be put down to a minor
clerical or communications error...
...And then you drive a tank into the hospital wards to destroy any evidence.
US Military: putting the FUBAR into high military spending
poplartree1 8 Jan 2016 02:58
Great! How wonderful they work like a charm...Yesterday I placed in comments how the US
government (who is totally inthe hands of contractors such a Lockheed Martin and other yahoos,
how they are corrupt. Today here is one more example of total ineptitude;
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-emails-reveal-true-motive-for-libya-intervention/
"The email identifies French President Nicholas Sarkozy as leading the attack on Libya with
five specific purposes in mind: to obtain Libyan oil, ensure French influence in the region,
increase Sarkozy's reputation domestically, assert French military power, and to prevent
Gaddafi's influence in what is considered "Francophone Africa."
Most astounding is the lengthy section delineating the huge threat that Gaddafi's gold and
silver reserves, estimated at "143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver," posed to the
French franc (CFA) circulating as a prime African currency. In place of the noble sounding
"Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) doctrine fed to the public, there is this "confidential"
explanation of what was really driving the war [emphasis mine]:
This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to
establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to
provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).
(Source Comment: According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is
valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly
after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President
Nicolas Sarkozy's decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.)
Though this internal email aims to summarize the motivating factors driving France's (and
by implication NATO's) intervention in Libya, it is interesting to note that saving civilian
lives is conspicuously absent from the briefing.
Instead, the great fear reported is that Libya might lead North Africa into a high degree
of economic independence with a new pan-African currency.
French intelligence "discovered" a Libyan initiative to freely compete with European currency
through a local alternative, and this had to be subverted through military aggression."
Loosing a missile is not important...important is to increase hell on earth...and to make
people suffer like in Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Ukraine.
Havingalavrov
8 Jan 2016 02:50
Look who uses the Hellfire missile and they are making a fuss about Cuba having the
technology ???
The US stripped down a MIG27 Foxbat jet brought in by a defecting Soviet pilot and is now
complaining! Sauce for Soviet goose is sauce for American gander!
Long6fellow
8 Jan 2016 01:52
The Yanks are losing their grip on their delivery service, firstly, there was a drone
brought down by the Iranians, "can we have our drone back please", then the wrong delivery of
1Billion$ of war equipment to SISI, the latter being set up by the Pentagon, now the Hellfire
Missile sent to Cuba, and after all these years of dirty tricks on Cuba, it proves the Yanks
cannot be trust at all.
BudGreen -> Freddienerk
8 Jan 2016 00:47
Specific knowledge of the guidance systems could be valuable to someone interested in
developing electronic countermeasures. This much should be obvious. Personally, I would be
surprised that with the number of these used in combat (they've been in use since the early
80's) that there would not have been at least several unexploded units recovered by our
enemies. Having one that was never fired and probably undamaged might be a real prize, though.
synchronicfusion
8 Jan 2016 00:05
As an American, I am truly embarrassed and ashamed that my own government had a habit of
shipping weapons and technology into the wrong hands. I might be more forgiving if it only
happened once, but how many times now? This is the same government that insists on spying on
we innocent citizens as though we are in the wrong. Please! Dumb....., Da Dumb, Dumb, DUMB!
It's been said that every empire comes to an end, eventually.
This is the review of the book of David Talbot's The Devil's Chessboard. Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise
of America's Secret Government by one of Moon of Alabama readers.
Looks like the course on making The USA imperial power (which was related later in Washington consensus and Wolfowitz doctrine)
was taken directly after WWII. Cold War was just a smoke screen under which the USA tried to establish hegemony over the world. Both
documents could well be written by Alan Dulles himself.
Any president who dare to deviate from this is ostracized , impeached or killed. So the political role of intelligence agencies
since their establishment by Truman was to serve as the brain center if USA imperial beuracracy (as well as the tools for projecting
it abroad)
The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that
conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for wars and for expanding the US influence abroad for
multinationals, and that is what they have done for 70 years (Dulles came from Wall Street). Among other things it
deliberately creates small wars just to demonstrate the US military might. Neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative
Michael Ledeen suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it
against the wall, just to show we mean business."
Another book deserves to mentioned here too here too. Prouty book
The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control
of the United States and the World (which was suppressed in 1973 when irt was published and did not see shelves before
republishing in 2011) is described like the the U.S.'s aggressive and illegal war policy conducted by CIA has finally provoked
a real military threat to the U.S., albeit one that has emerged only in response to U.S. war plans
U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964,
managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S.
military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in
critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition
and other resources it needs to carry them out.
Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... We find Dulles attempting to convince his superiors of the need and advantages of dealing with "moderate Nazis" like Reinhard
Gehlen, so today there are personalities in our government following a policy of working with "moderate Islamists" and "moderate ultra-nationalists"
to achieve our goals. ..."
"... Perhaps someone looking for more focus on Dulles the man might be disappointed by this, but for someone like myself interested
in the history and insights of era Dulles lived in. The era covered is approximately the 1930s through the 1969. ..."
"... the ruling elite of the US was deeply split. ..."
"... A large portion of the US elite was sympathetic to the Nazis. Indeed, the pro-Nazi segment of the US elite had built up ties
with Germany during the inter-war period. The bonds were economic, political and even ideological - indeed, these links were so important
that likely Germany would not have been able to rearm itself without the help of these "patriotic" Americans (Talbot makes clear that
in some cases this kinship was evident even during the war itself!). ..."
"... And no one represents the fascist sympathizing segment of the US elite like Allen Dulles. ..."
"... Talbot covers this topic well and makes a very good case for Dulles involvement - including revealing (from his day calendar)
the fact that "fired" and "retired" from the CIA Allen Dulles, spent the weekend - from the time Kennedy was shot and killed Friday
through the hours that Oswald was gunned down - at a CIA command facility in Virginia. ..."
I just finished listening to the audio book of David Talbot's The Devil's Chessboard. Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise
of America's Secret Government . It was very good I think.
I'll spare you a full review, but the Dulles era has some very important and interesting similarities with our own (in fact,
the ties are most certainly those first formed during the Dulles brothers tenure at State and CIA). Talbot doesn't delve deeply
into these more recent aspects, but he does acknowledge them. And the similarities are quite clear. We find Dulles attempting
to convince his superiors of the need and advantages of dealing with "moderate Nazis" like Reinhard Gehlen, so today there are
personalities in our government following a policy of working with "moderate Islamists" and "moderate ultra-nationalists" to achieve
our goals.
Initially I had heard that it was a Allen Dulles biography, and though there is a lot of detail about his personal life, his
marriage, and even his kids, I would say it strays from what one might consider a "standard" biography and is more about Dulles
and his times. For instance, there are a couple of chapters devoted just to the Kennedy Assassination, another on Oswald, and
one on the "Generals' putsch" in France in '61. Perhaps someone looking for more focus on Dulles the man might be disappointed
by this, but for someone like myself interested in the history and insights of era Dulles lived in. The era covered is approximately
the 1930s through the 1969.
Talbot uses Dulles life as the base to build up the important (and to my mind misunderstood and misconstrued) stories in recent
US history. That story is, of course, the following: despite the impression most Americans have of our country fighting the ultimate
"good war" against universally despised enemies - that fact is that the ruling elite of the US was deeply split.
A large portion of the US elite was sympathetic to the Nazis. Indeed, the pro-Nazi segment of the US elite had built up
ties with Germany during the inter-war period. The bonds were economic, political and even ideological - indeed, these links were
so important that likely Germany would not have been able to rearm itself without the help of these "patriotic" Americans (Talbot
makes clear that in some cases this kinship was evident even during the war itself!).
And no one represents the fascist sympathizing segment of the US elite like Allen Dulles. And Talbot tracks this key
figure's fascist ties as he rises in the US power structure from his early years as an OSS man wheeling and dealing with Nazi
generals in Bern, Switzerland and on through Dulles' creation and/or support of fascist governments in Latin America, the Middle
East, and Africa during the Cold War. Talbot covers the events surrounding Dulles life excellently. Especially moving was his
chapter on Guatemala - the tragedy of the Arbenz family as a mirror of the tragedy of Guatemala is covered through the eyes of
the grandson of Arbez.
Talbot covers the horror stories of the results of America working closely with dictators like Trujillo, the Shah, Mobutu Sese
Seko, and Batista (he misses Indonesia though, an operation that caused the death of 1,000,000 Indonesians). But of course, as
an American, the most important question to Talbot is that of Dulles role in the Kennedy assassination. Talbot covers this
topic well and makes a very good case for Dulles involvement - including revealing (from his day calendar) the fact that "fired"
and "retired" from the CIA Allen Dulles, spent the weekend - from the time Kennedy was shot and killed Friday through the hours
that Oswald was gunned down - at a CIA command facility in Virginia.
Allen Dulles papers released by CIA to Princeton are now online
Posted on January 23, 2008 by Dan Linke
The Central Intelligence Agency has released to Princeton University some 7,800 documents covering the career of Allen W.
Dulles, the agency's longest-serving director, which now can be viewed online at
http://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/st74cq497
Dulles (1893-1969), a Princeton alumnus who headed the CIA from 1953 to 1961, was renowned for his role in shaping U.S.
intelligence operations during the Cold War. Last March, the CIA released to Princeton a collection of letters, memoranda,
reports and other papers - some still redacted - that the agency had removed from Dulles' papers after his death and before
their transfer to the University in 1974.
Triangulation is the term given to the act of a political candidate presenting their ideology
as being above or between the left and right sides (or "wings") of a traditional (e.g. American or British)
democratic political spectrum. It involves adopting for oneself some of the ideas of one's political
opponent. The logic behind it is that it both takes credit for the opponent's ideas, and insulates the
triangulator from attacks on that particular issue.
Notable quotes:
"... women's issues, LGBT issues, gun issues but anything that involves economics ..."
"... It's like having a serial killer come out in support of you. ..."
"... These pols have played very successfully on out-groups' fear that their hold on legitimacy and power is fragile. ..."
"... I understand that, but there is something in psychology called "shared distinctiveness". LGBT groups are uniquely distinctive just as corrupt politicians are uniquely distinctive. And the more I see corrupt politicians talking about the importance of LGBT issues, etc, the more the two are starting to go together in my head. ..."
"... As I said that's not a rational process, but it's real. The mental connections that are formed mean that whenever I see LGBT activities/people/whatever I immediately think of all the corrupt politicians they're in bed with, and a lot of that aura of corruption brushes off on them. ..."
"... Lindsey Graham is a fine example .. ..."
"... Feminist concerns are not in themselves corrupt, but what the Dem party peddles is tame, second wave weak sauce feminism of the Betty Friedan kind. Basically, "middle class housewives are oppressed by being withdrawn from equity within the workplace," which was even criticized at the time (notably by Germaine Greer) ..."
"... the DCCC's take that you can be liberal on "social" issues while hard right on political economy is not at all in line with contemporary feminist thinking, which holds, more or less, that the economy is a social issue just like reproductive rights, workplace equity, etc. ..."
"... Hillary is a woman despite Hillary losing young women in 2008. ..."
"... Your assessment is more spot on, perhaps, given we can't even get Dems to commit to something as broadly popular as paid family leave. ..."
"... Unfortunately, its become part of the professional centre-left playbook around the world – you see it in many countries. Genuflecting to identity politics has become like right wing politicians pretending to be religious. ..."
"... Its a classic bait and switch move, but it also reflects a professional political class who have completely lost contact with their supposed base. I've met left wing activists who genuinely saw it as something more important than, say, protecting benefits for the poor. ..."
"... Unfortunately, its become part of the professional centre-left playbook around the world – you see it in many countries. Genuflecting to identity politics has become like right wing politicians pretending to be religious. ..."
"... They crunched the polling numbers, and strategised that they could replace them with the one big cohort that pollsters said were 'unclaimed' by other parties – working educated females 25-45. So they quite deliberately refocused their policies from representing working class and poorer people, to focusing on progressive-lite policies. fortunately, it seems that most working educated females 25-45 are too smart to fall for the cynicism, most polls indicate they will be wiped out in the next election. ..."
"... I do see signs of political awakening around the Western world, including here in the epicenter of the neoliberal infestation. ..."
"... Bill Clinton proved how profitable triangulation can be, and Obama followed that model from even before taking his first oath as President in January, 2009. ..."
"... Bill Clinton proved how profitable triangulation can be, and Obama followed that model from even before taking his first oath as President in January, 2009. ..."
"... Bernie Sanders isn't perfect, but he's so much better than Hillary in every way. ..."
"... I don't think the the neolib Dems (aka DLC Dems) want to win full control of the federal government. They want the presidency and only one of the two houses of Congress. This allows them to remain on the money train while blaming the Republicans for their inability to pass progressive legislation which pisses off their paymasters. ..."
"... What drives me crazy about Hillary (though it can easily be extended to other Dems) is all her talk of women, children, gun control, and LGBT rights (remember her tweet when gay marriage was legalised) while as SofS she approved arms deals to Saudi Arabia and the Clinton Slush Foundation took donations from it - surely one of the most despotic, anti-women, anti-LGBT regimes in the world. Not to mention the ongoing US-supported Saudi genocide in Yemen. ..."
"... Hey Team Bernie, in the next debate, if HRC brings up control, just have Bernie quietly but clearly say something like: "Forgive me Madame Secretary, but HOW DARE YOU criticise me on gun control when you were responsible for blowing up Libya and shipping arms to ISIS?" ..."
"... Also re guns and politics, if he can win the nomination, Sanders' position will help him in rural states. I have never seen a national politician address the differing needs between working people who feed their families with the help of a deer or two vs urban people whose primary concern is gang violence. All we hear is pro or anti gun and people have trouble imagining each others circumstances. ..."
"... She keeps getting re-elected because of weak opposition and a complicit local media. ..."
"... And all that cash she gets from the people she sells out to. ..."
"... And if she loses in the primary, so what? As far as I can tell, the head of the DNC does not have to be an elected official still in office. She of course is a "superdelegate," and under DNC rules, wiki reports that "The chairperson is a superdelegate for life." ..."
"... Isn't a name missing from the above rogue's gallery: Nancy Pelosi. If I'm not mistaken DWS was a bit of a protege. ..."
"... Obama's name is missing. He's the one who picked her to head the DNC. ..."
"... Obama never gets blamed for anything. Keep your fingerprints off and find a villain to blame instead. That's Obama's modus operandi and it's worked his entire life. He is beyond Teflon. ..."
"... Great news! How do you get rid of neolib DLC-machine third-way triangulating Dems? One seat at a time. ..."
An Axis of Evil inside the Democratic Party is suddenly on the defensive. Steve Israel was
forced to announce an early retirement for reasons
that are still murky . Rahm Emanuel can barely show his face in Chicago and, with the exception
of Hillary Clinton, all his cronies and allies are
jumping off that sinking ship . And now it's
looking like Debbie Wasserman Schultz's rotten self-serving career is finally catching up with her.
As we mentioned, Tuesday, Roots Action has a petition
drive to force her out of the DNC - with over 30,000 signatures already. And then yesterday,
CREDO launched another petition
drive to get her out of a position she never should have been in in the first place. I don't
like signing petitions but I eagerly signed both of these. The Democratic Party will never be a force
for real progressive change with careerist power mongers like Steve Israel, Rahm Emanuel, Debbie
Wasserman Schultz and Chuck Schumer controlling it.
...There aren't that many Democrats as transactional as Debbie Wasserman Schultz when it comes
to serving the interests of the wealthy people who have financed her political rise, from the
sugar barons and
private prison industry to the
alcohol distillers .
...Wasserman Schultz's support for the dysfunctional corporate trade agreements like TPP very
much motivated Canova to make the difficult decision to take on one of the House's most vicious gutter
fighters. "People are just tired of being sold out by calculating and triangulating politicians,"
told us back in October when he was thinking about running. "Wasserman Schultz has become the ultimate
machine politician. While she stakes out liberal positions on culture war issues, when it comes to
economic and social issues, she's too often with the corporate elites. On too many crucial issues–
from fast-tracking the Trans-Pacific Partnership to the war on drugs and medical marijuana and mass
incarceration, to her support for budget sequestrations and austerity– Wasserman Schultz votes down
the line with big corporate interests and cartels: Wall Street banks and hedge funds, Big Pharma,
the private health insurers, private prisons, Monsanto, it goes on and on."
women's issues, LGBT issues, gun issues but anything that involves economics
This is important. Initially I started out not having much of an opinion on LGBT and women's
issues. However, the more I saw corrupt neoliberal politicians advocating for these issues (wasn't
Obama trying to make Lloyd Blankfein the ambassador for LGBT issues or something a couple of years
ago?) the more I started associating them with corruption and evil.
This isn't rational at all, but whenever I see HRC or Obama advocating for some particular
culture war issue, the more I despise the groups and causes they're advocating for and the more
I want to fight against them. Why aren't these people in the LGBT and women communities vocally
and continually disowning these corrupt politicians? It's like having a serial killer come
out in support of you.
These pols have played very successfully on out-groups' fear that their hold on legitimacy
and power is fragile. That is particularly true with gay men, who outside a handful of big
cities, face open discrimination and risk of physical harm.
I understand that, but there is something in psychology called "shared distinctiveness".
LGBT groups are uniquely distinctive just as corrupt politicians are uniquely distinctive. And
the more I see corrupt politicians talking about the importance of LGBT issues, etc, the more
the two are starting to go together in my head.
As I said that's not a rational process, but it's real. The mental connections that are
formed mean that whenever I see LGBT activities/people/whatever I immediately think of all the
corrupt politicians they're in bed with, and a lot of that aura of corruption brushes off on them.
Feminist concerns are not in themselves corrupt, but what the Dem party peddles is tame,
second wave weak sauce feminism of the Betty Friedan kind. Basically, "middle class housewives
are oppressed by being withdrawn from equity within the workplace," which was even criticized
at the time (notably by Germaine Greer) .
bell hooks, on the other hand, doesn't mince words at all, when she shows how questions of
racial and gender oppression are expressly linked to economics/class and militarism. You can't
tackle any of them without tackling all of them, so the DCCC's take that you can be liberal
on "social" issues while hard right on political economy is not at all in line with contemporary
feminist thinking, which holds, more or less, that the economy is a social issue just like reproductive
rights, workplace equity, etc.
I wouldn't even say Team Blue is there. Pelosi and other prominent Team Blue women held a mock
panel to get to the bottom of why Rush Limbaugh was mean to a Georgetown Law school student who
was photogenic. This has been the sum total of Team Blue's defense of feminism since GDub except
to cynically conclude young women will rush to Team Blue because Hillary is a woman despite
Hillary losing young women in 2008.
Your assessment is more spot on, perhaps, given we can't even get Dems to commit to something
as broadly popular as paid family leave.
That said, I've noticed a denigrating tone directed toward what gets labeled as "identity politics"
of late, and I just wanted to make clear that current proponents of things like critical race
theory and what have you are more in line with the NC commentariat than I think people give them
credit for.
Unfortunately, its become part of the professional centre-left playbook around the world
– you see it in many countries. Genuflecting to identity politics has become like right wing politicians
pretending to be religious. Here in Ireland the Irish Labour party, in coalition with a centre
right party, used up every bit of political credit they had to push for gay marriage. Like most
people I was very happy it was legalised, but they were patting themselves on the back for this
while simultaneously supporting vicious austerity.
Its a classic bait and switch move, but it also reflects a professional political class
who have completely lost contact with their supposed base. I've met left wing activists who genuinely
saw it as something more important than, say, protecting benefits for the poor.
Unfortunately, its become part of the professional centre-left playbook around the world
– you see it in many countries. Genuflecting to identity politics has become like right wing politicians
pretending to be religious.
I think the explanation is quite simple, at least in the U.S. (which has effectively exported
its political dysfunction to other developed democracies). When the Washington Consenusus formed
around corporatism (neoliberalism for the Democrats, conservatism/economic libertarianism for
the Republicans), there was no longer meaningful economic distinction between the parties. So
culture war/identity politics issues are all that remain for brand differentiation. Obama's recent
Academy Award performance on guns is a harbinger of how the Democrats will run in 2016 if Clinton
is the nominee. Plus Planned Parenthood and gay marriage and a few additional poll-tested non-economic
issues that the professionals calculate will garner marginally more votes than they will cost.
If the Democrats here truly wanted to win they would nominate Bernie Sanders and run on the wildly-popular
platform of economic populism. (I'd say this is probably true in Britain with Corbyn and Labour
as well, and probably in France and Italy as well, where the nominal leftists parties have been
infected by neoliberalism.) It seems clear at this point that the Democratic Party is more committed
to Wall Street than it is to the middle class, and is quite prepared to lose political power to
keep its place at the financial trough. Obama's reign is solid evidence and the fact that Clinton
remains the frontrunner and the establishment's darling shows they are doubling down, not changing
course.
You are quite right in what you say, even if the processes are slightly different in every
country. In the UK in particular, I think there is a huge problem with the Labour Party in that
it was effectively taken over by middle class left wing student activist types who have only the
most theoretical notion how poor or working class people live. It is inevitable that they start
to reinterpret 'left wing' and 'liberal' in a manner which suits the people they socialise with.
I.e. seeing social progressivism as far more important than economic justice.
Back in the 1990's I shared a house in London with a lawyer who qualified in Oxford – many
of her friends were the first generation of Blairites. They were intelligent, enthusiastic and
genuinely passionate about change. But talking to them it was glaringly obvious the only connection
they had with 'ordinary' people was when they first had to canvass on the streets. I remember
one young woman expressing horror at the potential constituent who came and insisted that she
sort out her welfare entitlements, because thats what a politician is supposed to do. She had
simply never met someone from the 'underclass' if you want to put it that way. It was all too
obvious that people like her would shift rapidly to the right as soon as they achieved power,
they had no real empathy or feel for regular people.
In my own country, in Ireland, it is far more cynical. Its no secret that the traditional main
centre left party, Labour, realised it would lose its core working class base if it supported
austerity. They crunched the polling numbers, and strategised that they could replace them
with the one big cohort that pollsters said were 'unclaimed' by other parties – working educated
females 25-45. So they quite deliberately refocused their policies from representing working class
and poorer people, to focusing on progressive-lite policies. fortunately, it seems that most working
educated females 25-45 are too smart to fall for the cynicism, most polls indicate they will be
wiped out in the next election.
it seems that most working educated females 25-45 are too smart to fall for the cynicism,
most polls indicate they will be wiped out in the next election
I do see signs of political awakening around the Western world, including here in the epicenter
of the neoliberal infestation. Can the forces of reform win? Can the people take control
of the political systems back from the plutocrats? Can they do it in time to avoid catastrophic
global warming and socially-destructive wealth inequality? We'll see.
Bill Clinton proved how profitable triangulation can be, and Obama followed that model
from even before taking his first oath as President in January, 2009.
Bernie Sanders isn't perfect, but he's so much better than Hillary in every way.
Bill Clinton proved how profitable triangulation can be, and Obama followed that model
from even before taking his first oath as President in January, 2009.
True, but there is one glaring difference between the 90s and today. In the 90s one could make
a plausible if not persuasive case that the electorate did not want economic populism and was
content with the Third Way's neoliberal economic royalism. So, Bill Clinton's "triangulation"
was actually designed to secure votes and win elections (as well as pad Clinton's pockets, of
course.). Today, things are very different, with the people since 2007 overwhelmingly clamoring
for economic populism but the Democrats refusing to provide it and indeed castigating
those who want the party to turn left.
Bernie Sanders isn't perfect, but he's so much better than Hillary in every way.
No doubt. And I am very pleased to say that I appear to have been wrong in thinking that Sanders
was fading. I'm not saying Sanders will win, but it looks to me like he may stick around long
enough for Hillary to (very possibly) implode, since she is and always has been a bad politician.
"If the Democrats here truly wanted to win they would nominate Bernie Sanders and run on
the wildly-popular platform of economic populism."
I don't think the the neolib Dems (aka DLC Dems) want to win full control of the federal
government. They want the presidency and only one of the two houses of Congress. This allows them
to remain on the money train while blaming the Republicans for their inability to pass progressive
legislation which pisses off their paymasters.
What drives me crazy about Hillary (though it can easily be extended to other Dems) is
all her talk of women, children, gun control, and LGBT rights (remember her tweet when gay marriage
was legalised) while as SofS she approved arms deals to Saudi Arabia and the Clinton Slush Foundation
took donations from it - surely one of the most despotic, anti-women, anti-LGBT regimes in the
world. Not to mention the ongoing US-supported Saudi genocide in Yemen.
So I guess HRC and the others think Americans need all these rights but people in the Mideast
can just go stuff themselves. Because, you know, ISIS, and TERRORISM, and OIL and arms sales.
Why the fsck doesn't Bernie point out these contradictions? Hillary apparently is blaming him
for being "weak on gun control" while she has been a member of one of the most militaristic, bombing-and-droning
administrations since, well, George W. Bush's.
Hey Team Bernie, in the next debate, if HRC brings up control, just have Bernie quietly
but clearly say something like: "Forgive me Madame Secretary, but HOW DARE YOU criticise me on
gun control when you were responsible for blowing up Libya and shipping arms to ISIS?"
Also re guns and politics, if he can win the nomination, Sanders' position will help him
in rural states. I have never seen a national politician address the differing needs between working
people who feed their families with the help of a deer or two vs urban people whose primary concern
is gang violence. All we hear is pro or anti gun and people have trouble imagining each others
circumstances.
DWS is my Congressperson. She is adored by elderly Jewish women, reluctantly accepted by Democrats
(an overwhelming majority in her District), and loathed by all others. Whenever she appears on
local or national TV, she regurgitates an obvious rote memorized list of talking points that she
refuses to stray from. She will never engage in a true debate, and avoids answering any substantive
questions. She keeps getting re-elected because of weak opposition and a complicit local media.
I'm thrilled that there is a candidate that could derail her.
Readers should be aware that some years back a local politician used her picture as a target
at a local gun range. There was considerable uproar in the media, somewhat offset by a cottage
industry providing actual pictures of her superimposed over a standard target.
when she says it's more important for her to be in a leadership position fighting for
a public plan than it is to make a commitment to vote against a bill that doesn't have one,
I think that's a luxury she can afford:
DWS: I'm planning to reform for a health care reform plan that includes a robust public
option.
Mike Stark: Those are we're calling them "weasel words" over at FDL just because it does
give you a huge loophole to back out of .
DWS: Well I'm not someone who draws lines in the sand.
And if she loses in the primary, so what? As far as I can tell, the head of the DNC does
not have to be an elected official still in office. She of course is a "superdelegate," and under
DNC rules, wiki reports that "The chairperson is a superdelegate for life."
Wiki also reports that the DNC plays no role in "policy." Just writes the platform every so
often. Really?
While they live, they rule, and to re-coin an old legal chestnut, we have buried the Rulers
we unelect, but they rule us from their graves
Obama never gets blamed for anything. Keep your fingerprints off and find a villain to
blame instead. That's Obama's modus operandi and it's worked his entire life. He is beyond Teflon.
Part of that strategy seems to be a definite preference for staying ignorant and uninformed.
How many times has he claimed not to be aware of something going on until it's in the MSM? Of
course hard to keep up when one is on the golf course so much of the time.
here is an important article for you. While the whole article is astonishing I'll post just
one small passage. If someone can not figure out who the real (not perceived) enemy than s/he
is lost cause.
"We do have two different tax systems, one for normal wage-earners and another for those
who can afford sophisticated tax advice," said Victor Fleischer, a law professor at the University
of San Diego who studies the intersection of tax policy and inequality. "At the very top of the
income distribution, the effective rate of tax goes down, contrary to the principles of a progressive
income tax system."
"... ...Russia ( China) will continue to promote the BS plan of partnership with the West... because it maintains and reinforces their record of promoting global unity and cooperation. Their (almost) joint military announcements on the same forum, on the same day (January 2, 2016) was intended as a final(?) warning that theres an iron fist in Chinas velvet glove of friendship, and that Russia isnt buying US-NATOs bs. ..."
"... This thing about Russia, and Putin especially, calling everybody colleagues and partners, tends to make us think that Russia believes that these nations can be trusted, but I dont think for one moment that this is the case. The language Russia uses is simply the courtesy of reason, used equally by friend and hangman. Russia likes to give people a chance to change because it knows how frequently this happens. We can see ourselves that this is so. ..."
"... Either the American people will discover how to regain control of their politics - unlikely, given that no other Western democracy can pull off that trick - or President Carters oligarchs will get their act together. As in Francos Spain or as in Russia in the late 1990s they will discover that theres more to running a country than looting it. Someone has to set long term policy objectives and hold it all together just so theres something to loot. ..."
"... the case of the 2008 meltdown where the little people where penalized and the banks were let off with a bailout is a good example of how i see things unfolding.. the banks are considered more central and in need of being bailed out then the little people.. that seems like money is the main driver, as opposed to looking after the society more generally.. ..."
"... The USA attacks militarily directly, or by overt other means (economic), or behind the curtain: ..."
"... countries, groups, that have a socialistic bent, try to do well for their citizens, and/or espouse some ideology that appears, *on the face of it*, anti-capitalistic, nationalistic, or pan-national (e.g. Communism in the past, Baath party, Arab nationalism, Cuba.) ..."
"... Energy rich countries who wont open up to US corps, domination. (ex. Venezuela), or wont permit US type banking system in their country, or arent subservient enough on a host of points (ex. Syria, Lybia) or somehow manage to cozy and then resist for a long while (ex. Iraq) ..."
Since now the Russian Federation has now openly declared the US and NATO strategic threats to Russia,
will Russia and Putin now quit with the always BS plan of partnership with the West against terrorism
in Syria?
Putin did try hard to retain a status quo friendly position with the current leadership of
the West, but that is a genocidal, racist, class war, maniacle capitilist, earth polluting, and generally
evil west, that deserves to die ASAP. If small Cuba right on the evil US empires door was able to
resist, why not far larger Russia?
...Russia (& China) will continue to promote the "BS plan of partnership with the West..." because it
maintains and reinforces their record of promoting global unity and cooperation. Their (almost) joint
military announcements on the same forum, on the same day (January 2, 2016) was intended as a final(?)
warning that there's an iron fist in China's velvet glove of friendship, and that Russia isn't buying
US-NATO's bs.
Russia's Syria intervention was, imo, more of an experiment than an exercise in resuscitating
a broken Syria. Putin needed to know whether thwarting ISIS was REALLY as hard as US-NATO was making
it look, and gave himself 4 months to find out. But he'd be the first, one imagines, to admit that
swatting head-chopping mosquitoes whilst doing NOTHING about the swamps in which they breed, could
easily become an exercise in Perpetual Pointlessness.
As the end of Russia's 4-month 'fact-finding mission' in Syria draws to a close, it's highly likely
that Russia knows a lot more about swamps and head-choppers than it did on September 30, 2015 and
what, and how, to implement a more effective course of therapy. Preferably non-violent but if n-v
proves to be impractical, then with as much (Russian & Chinese) violence as necessary to produce
a cure.
Your description of the Orwellian nature of current media output is sickeningly accurate. During
recent annual phone conversations with old friends that were hip to the BS in the 60-70's, a few
are now ranting about Muslims and those conversations were short. The effectiveness of TV as a brainwashing
tool is under 'appreciated". That said, it is encouraging to read b and commenters here cutting through
the BS.
Just keep remembering the role that private financing and the global plutocrats play at the top
of our real-life SimWorld
This thing about Russia, and Putin especially, calling everybody colleagues and partners,
tends to make us think that Russia believes that these nations can be trusted, but I don't think
for one moment that this is the case. The language Russia uses is simply the courtesy of reason,
used equally by friend and hangman. Russia likes to give people a chance to change because it knows
how frequently this happens. We can see ourselves that this is so.
If you haven't watched the World Order documentary yet, I highly recommend it. It's a powerful
dose of realpolitik and recent history, with English subtitles by Vox Populi. Putin describes in
very plain terms much of the substance of Russia's foreign policy. There will be no nuclear war,
he believes, and I trust his judgment on this.
He is consciously changing the world, nudging it to return to a fundamental recognition of the
global balance of power, as it once relied on that recognition. I believe he will live to see this
effort succeed in his own time:
World Order. Documentary.
Eng. Subs.
Haha, I like the notion of Israel and Saudi Arabia's inverse relationship in our wonderful capitalist
ideal...Israel being the western capitalist 'welfare state' if you will. A tumour...a useless growth
displaying all the nasty excesses of the ideal... the type of sick rich child that repeatedly tortures
animals because there is no negative recourse for doing so. Saudi Arabia, the other sick rich kid
sitting on an inheritance it does not have the wisdom to know what to do with - its plaything called
oil.
Its surplus, foolishly, reinvested in the US financial sector...creating this monster called the
petrodollar...the major denomination of our age...our reality.
"@17 lw... yes - money is a factor, even if pl at ssr doesn't agree!"
Could we say that money is an indispensable but secondary factor? The corporations and lobbyists
do buy the politicians, as President Carter explained to us recently, but that's to get immediate
benefits such as contracts or other favours in return. They do of course need a foreign policy framework
that allows for such a return but I don't think they are too bothered by what that framework is.
The present framework, if that's not too kind a term for it, is partly set by the ideologues -
Wolfowitz and Brzezinski et al are first and foremost ideologues rather than pork barrel practitioners
- and partly by the random workings of the American political and administrative machinery. Random
because there is little control of that machinery from underneath - government by the people scarcely
exists in the US since it costs so much to get a politician elected - and little control from above:
as explained, as long as the corporations get their immediate return they have no interest in setting
long term and coherent foreign policy objectives.
So the crazies are out of the basement and running the front office. Why not? - it was empty anyway
so it was open to whoever chanced along.
They won't be there for ever.
Either the American people will discover how to regain control of
their politics - unlikely, given that no other Western democracy can pull off that trick - or President
Carter's 'oligarchs' will get their act together. As in Franco's Spain or as in Russia in the late
1990's they will discover that there's more to running a country than looting it. Someone has to
set long term policy objectives and hold it all together just so there's something to loot.
Which will happen, and how, is anyone's guess but I doubt we'll see current American foreign policy
perpetuated. Unless the US is destined simply to self-destruct - and take the rest of us down with
it - someone, voter or oligarch, will be obliged to take its government in hand and do some thinking
about the long term.
When that happens the crazies will have to return to the basement and, if only out of the need
for survival, someone is going to have to work at devising policies that aren't so obviously suicidal
for the US. With any luck, they won't be so murderous for the rest of us either.
@44 peter... thanks.. those are reasonable viewpoints to hold on the complicated dynamics
that define how the usa operates.. i think they are more idealistic then how i see it.. i am not
sure money is a 2ndary consideration so much as it is the most important ingredient in the capitalist
ideology, devoid of more social considerations.. it seems to me that democracy is only a good idea
if it can't be bought out by (special interests groups) - money.. as it stands the usa is a good
example of what happens when it is bought out by money.. meanwhile there are a lot of good people
that wish the best for the country and hopefully the world by extension, but i don't see them as
having the influence and control that the more self interested moneyed group has.. so, i would flip
the way you see it whereby money is the primary consideration, especially in an atmosphere where
the folks on the bottom end will do whatever they have to do, to continue to live, eat and have a
roof over their heads..
the case of the 2008 meltdown where the little people where penalized and the banks were let off
with a bailout is a good example of how i see things unfolding.. the banks are considered more central
and in need of being bailed out then the little people.. that seems like money is the main driver,
as opposed to looking after the society more generally..
24;comparing 17th,18th and 19th century attitudes with 20th and 21st century ones are very
problematic.Yes,the white settlers,who to a man(and woman)believed themselves superior to the red
black and brown man.Many still do,but the internal domestic expansion violence was nationalistic,while
our current escapades world wide are internationalist Zionism and imperialism,and are not really
comparable other than victim counts.
Obomba;A lot of words while the roof falls in;Hamlet.
Dan at 2.
There is no single cohesive policy. Only selfishness
The USA attacks militarily directly, or by overt other means (economic), or behind the curtain:
those that challenge it even in the imagination, provided small and pretty powerless
countries, groups, that have a 'socialistic' bent, try to do well for their citizens, and/or
espouse some ideology that appears, *on the face of it*, anti-capitalistic, nationalistic, or pan-national
(e.g. Communism in the past, Baath party, Arab nationalism, Cuba.)
those who try to annul or wash away ethnic, racist, religious, and so on differences in favor
of some kind of 'universality', a citizen status, mandate - this goes against the colonialist model,
abroad and at home, in which ppl are sand niggers, blacks, etc. The US support for equality thus
turns to trivia, gay marriage, quarrels about abortion, etc.
Energy rich countries who won't open up to US corps, domination. (ex. Venezuela), or won't
permit US type banking system in their country, or aren't subservient enough on a host of points
(ex. Syria, Lybia) or somehow manage to cozy and then resist for a long while (ex. Iraq)
Those who are involved massively with illegal and dubious trade - human trafficking, organ
sales, child forced prostitution, drugs, illegal arms, condoned murder of rivals, vicious internal
repression, heavy torture, prisons, etc. are generally supported, but on occasion they rebel or try
for other, which is not to be allowed (ex. Afghanistan)
Anyone that can be attacked on any grounds, opportunistically, to racketeer fines, big sums
of money, such as in the banking sector.
Countries it pretends to admire who are secretely dominated by them and only escape ostracim,
sanctions or bombs or more by subservience, and a 'belonging to a controlled block' (EU.) Sweden
and the Netherlands come to mind.
Other.
That is a lot countries, people, all together. The foreign policy is not cohesive, I agree, it
is simply all over the board, adjusted all the time, based on ad hoc criteria, racist supremacy,
capitalistic short term profiteering, snobby disaproval, empty rage, power plays, sectorial interests,
corporate meddling, personal arm-twisting and blackmail, deals with foreign potentates, arms production
and selling which needs war, and on and on.
The
paper
-by Dongya Koh of the University of Arkansas, Raul Santaeulalia-Llopis of the Washington
University in St. Louis, and Yu Zheng of the City University of Hong Kong-takes advantage of newly
updated GDP data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. While the Bureau is constantly releasing
new data on economic growth, it also revises previous data. Sometimes those revisions show an increase
in total U.S. economic output, and sometimes the revisions show a change in the composition of that
output. It's the latter kind of revision that's important in this case.
In 2013, the Bureau of Economic Analysis updated its treatment of a variety of issues, including
how it treats research and development spending. The BEA previously treated R&D spending as a business
expense but, as the BEA realized, it makes more sense to think of spending that could potentially
boost a firm's output as a capital investment. As the authors of the paper show, counting investments
in intellectual property as, well, investment significantly increases the amount of investment showing
up in the data. According to their calculations, intellectual property products have increased from
8 percent of U.S. investment in 1947 to 26 percent in 2013.
Accounting for this kind of capital investment means that the decline in the U.S. labor share
starts much earlier than previously thought. According to the paper, the decline starts in 1947,
which would mean the labor share was declining throughout the period it was famously stated to be
constant. But not only does the decline start earlier than previously thought-it's also much larger.
It's actually twice as large. And the increase in intellectual property products explains the entirety
of the decline.
Earlier this year, for example, Hillary Clinton made headlines when, in response to a question
about her personal fortune, she claimed her family was "dead broke" when they left the White
House. That statement followed New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's top aide casting those making
$500,000 a year as merely upper middle class.
According to IRS data, 99 percent of American households make less than $388,000 a year, and 95
percent make less than $167,000 a year. The true middle in terms of income - that is, the cutoff
to be in the top 50 percent of earners - is roughly $35,000 a year.
While Lew claims his private-sector compensation was not "in the stratosphere," the data suggest
otherwise.
According to New York University records, Lew was usually paid between $700,000 and $800,000 a
year as the school's vice president, while also receiving a $440,000 mortgage subsidy. Lew also
earned $300,000 a year from Citigroup, with a "guaranteed incentive and retention award of not
less than $1 million," according to an employment agreement obtained by Businessweek.
Margot Wallström's principled stand deserves wide support. Betrayal seems more likely
A few weeks ago Margot Wallström, the Swedish foreign minister, denounced the subjugation of
women in Saudi Arabia. As the theocratic kingdom prevents women from travelling, conducting
official business or marrying without the permission of male guardians, and as girls can be
forced into child marriages where they are effectively raped by old men, she was telling no more
than the truth. Wallström went on to condemn the Saudi courts for ordering that Raif Badawi
receive ten years in prison and 1,000 lashes for setting up a website that championed secularism
and free speech. These were 'mediaeval methods', she said, and a 'cruel attempt to silence modern
forms of expression'. And once again, who can argue with that?
The backlash followed the pattern set by Rushdie, the Danish cartoons and Hebdo. Saudi Arabia
withdrew its ambassador and stopped issuing visas to Swedish businessmen. The United Arab
Emirates joined it. The Organisation of Islamic Co-operation, which represents 56 Muslim-majority
states, accused Sweden of failing to respect the world's 'rich and varied ethical standards' -
standards so rich and varied, apparently, they include the flogging of bloggers and encouragement
of paedophiles. Meanwhile, the Gulf Co-operation Council condemned her 'unaccept-able
interference in the internal affairs of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia', and I wouldn't bet against
anti-Swedish riots following soon.
Yet there is no 'Wallström affair'. Outside Sweden, the western media has barely covered the
story, and Sweden's EU allies have shown no inclination whatsoever to support her. A small
Scandinavian nation faces sanctions, accusations of Islamophobia and maybe worse to come, and
everyone stays silent. As so often, the scandal is that there isn't a scandal.
It is a sign of how upside-down modern politics has become that one assumes that a politician
who defends freedom of speech and women's rights in the Arab world must be some kind of muscular
liberal, or neocon, or perhaps a supporter of one of Scandinavia's new populist right-wing
parties whose commitment to human rights is merely a cover for anti-Muslim hatred. But Margot
Wallström is that modern rarity: a left-wing politician who goes where her principles take her.
She is foreign minister in Sweden's weak coalition of Social Democrats and Greens, and took
office promising a feminist foreign policy. She recognised Palestine in October last year - and,
no, the Arab League and Organisation of Islamic Co-operation and Gulf Co-operation Council did
not condemn her 'unacceptable interference in the internal affairs of Israel'. I confess that her
gesture struck me as counterproductive at the time. But after Benjamin Netanyahu ruled out a
Palestinian state as he used every dirty trick he could think of to secure his re-election, she
can claim with justice that history has vindicated her.
She moved on to the Saudi version of sharia law. Her criticism was not just rhetorical. She said
that it was unethical for Sweden to continue with its military co-operation agreement with Saudi
Arabia. In other words, she threatened Swedish arms companies' ability to make money. Saudi
Arabia's denial of business visas to Swedes threatened to hurt other companies' profits too. You
might think of Swedes as upright social democrats, who have never let worries of appearing
tedious stand in the way of their righteousness. But that has never been wholly true, and is
certainly not true when there is money at stake.
Sweden is the world's 12th largest arms exporter - quite an achievement for a country of just
nine million people. Its exports to Saudi Arabia total $1.3 billion. Business leaders and civil
servants are also aware that other Muslim-majority countries may follow Saudi Arabia's lead.
During the 'cartoon crisis' - a phrase I still can't write without snorting with incredulity -
Danish companies faced global attacks and the French supermarket chain Carrefour took Danish
goods off the shelves to appease Muslim customers. A co-ordinated campaign by Muslim nations
against Sweden is not a fanciful notion. There is talk that Sweden may lose its chance to gain a
seat on the UN Security Council in 2017 because of Wallström.
To put it as mildly as I can, the Swedish establishment has gone wild. Thirty chief executives
signed a letter saying that breaking the arms trade agreement 'would jeopardise Sweden's
reputation as a trade and co-operation partner'. No less a figure than His Majesty King Carl XVI
Gustaf himself hauled Wallström in at the weekend to tell her that he wanted a compromise. Saudi
Arabia has successfully turned criticism of its brutal version of Islam into an attack on all
Muslims, regardless of whether they are Wahhabis or not, and Wallström and her colleagues are
clearly unnerved by accusations of Islamophobia. The signs are that she will fold under the
pressure, particularly when the rest of liberal Europe shows no interest in supporting her.
Sins of omission are as telling as sins of commission. The Wallström non-affair tells us three
things. It is easier to instruct small countries such as Sweden and Israel on what they can and
cannot do than America, China or a Saudi Arabia that can call on global Muslim support when
criticised. Second, a Europe that is getting older and poorer is starting to find that moral
stands in foreign policy are luxuries it can no longer afford. Saudi Arabia has been confident
throughout that Sweden needs its money more than it needs Swedish imports.
Finally, and most revealingly in my opinion, the non-affair shows us that the rights of women
always come last. To be sure, there are Twitter storms about sexist men and media feeding
frenzies whenever a public figure uses 'inappropriate language'. But when a politician tries to
campaign for the rights of women suffering under a brutally misogynistic clerical culture she
isn't cheered on but met with an embarrassed and hugely revealing silence.
"... So far this year, the main 'feminist' topic covered by Guardian comment writers is Chris Gayle's cricket sexism row, which involves the sportsman chatting up a female journalist. There is not one mention of the Cologne attacks, aside from in news reports. Why is that? ..."
Regardless of the background of the men who carried out the attacks in Cologne on New Year's
Eve, it is a pretty horrific story. A series of sexual attacks took place in the city centre by a
group of around 1,000 men. More than 150 women have filed criminal complaints, three-quarters of
them for sexual assault. Two cases of rape have been reported. It is the kind of story that
should make headlines – and should provide ample fodder for writers who like to tackle feminist
topics head on. After all, surely this is the very definition of 'rape culture'? And if the
actual attacks aren't enough to merit a reaction, then how about the suggestion by Cologne's
female mayor that women should adopt a 'code of conduct' to prevent future assault. Is that not
the very definition of 'victim blaming'?
But the headlines have been conspicuous by their absence.
So far this year, the main 'feminist'
topic covered by Guardian comment writers is Chris Gayle's cricket sexism row, which involves the
sportsman chatting up a female journalist. There is not one mention of the Cologne attacks, aside
from in news reports. Why is that?
Is it because they are not deemed important? Perhaps we don't
care about vicious attacks against German frauen? Or is it because the details of the story –
that the men appear to have been of 'Arab or North African origin' who did not seem to speak
German or English, and that there is a possibility they are some of the 1.1 million migrants to
have entered Germany last year – make it too controversial to touch? Feminist writers are not
famed for holding their tongues – as individuals who have been hanged, drawn and quartered by
them can attest. But in an article for Prospect, Jessica Abrahams offers this measly explanation
for the silence:
"... "We are helpless and not being able to do anything against this deliberate destruction to the oil installations. NOC urges all faithful and honorable people of this homeland to hurry to rescue what is left from our resources before it is too late." ..."
"... ''death pursues the native in everyplace where the european(american) sets foot' ..."
"... You can also thank Russia for the condition of Libya. Russia voted for the no fly zone in Libya and consented to having Libya destroyed. ..."
"... What part of no-fly zone don't you understand? Full attack was not subject of vote. you know better, but choose dishonesty ..."
"... I mean shit the Bush family tried to over throw the US government back in the late 1930's, they were actual fascist. Rubio is a clone of Jeb (both have the same donors). Christie said he would start shooting down Russian planes (that would start nuclear war). Hillary has destroyed Libya and Syria by supporting terrorist. Not a word about that in today's corrupt press. But no, no, no Trump is the next Hitler. ..."
"... Do you really think the US ISrael and the rest of the empire is really that stupid and incompetent. At first I thought so too. Now I'm beginning to see that creating the chaos is exactly what they want, and they return not to clean up the mess, but to seize control of the important resources. ..."
"... ISIS is clearly the proxy army here doing the hands on cannon fodder work, once the coast is clear, "crack" forces can go in secure and guard the infrastructure, so the valuable commodities can be pilfered safely. ..."
"... In LARGE part. The unconstitutional attack on Libya has long been known as "Hillary's War". (Of course, Syria is her second war, and she has her hands bloody with Ukraine as well). ..."
"... Just look at her resume - ISIS in Libya, ISIS in Syria, ISIS in Iraq. If her goal was to spread ISIS, then she's the balls. If not, she's less than balls. As I say that, maybe the goal really was to spread ISIS, and she's the balls. Balls, Hill, you're the balls. ..."
"We are helpless and not being able to do anything against this deliberate destruction
to the oil installations. NOC urges all faithful and honorable people of this homeland to hurry
to rescue what is left from our resources before it is too late."
That's from Libya's National Oil Corp and as you might have guessed, it references the
seizure of state oil assets by Islamic State, whose influence in the country has grown over the past
year amid the power vacuum the West created by engineering the demise of Moammar Qaddafi.
The latest attacks occurred in Es Sider, a large oil port that's been closed for at least a year.
Seven guards were killed on Monday in suicide bombings while two more lost their lives on Tuesday
as ISIS attacked checkpoints some 20 miles from the port. "Es Sider and Ras Lanuf, Libya's biggest
oil ports, have been closed since December 2014,"
Reuters notes . "They are located between the city of Sirte, which is controlled by Islamic State,
and the eastern city of Benghazi."
ISIS also set fire to oil tanks holding hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude. "Four tanks
in Es Sider caught fire on Tuesday, and a fifth one in
Ras Lanuf the day before," Ali al-Hassi, a spokesman for the the Petroleum Facilities Guard
told Bloomberg over the phone.
Ludovico Carlino, senior analyst at IHS Country Risk says the attacks are "likely diversionary
operations" during Islamic State's takeover of the town of Bin Jawad, a seizure that may enable the
group to expand and connect "its controlled territory around Sirte to the 'oil crescent.'"
Islamic State is pushing east from Sirte in an effort to seize control of the country's oil infrastructure,
much as the group has done in Syria and Iraq. As
Middle East Eye wrote last summer, "the desert region to the south of the oil ports has been
strategically cleared in a series of attacks by IS militants on security personnel and oil fields,
where employees have been killed and kidnapped, and vehicles and equipment seized."
"I expect they will try and take Sidra and Ras Lanuf and the oil fields on the west side of the
oil crescent," one oil worker said. "There are few people left to protect the oil fields apart from
local security from isolated towns."
This is good a place as any for a tale of Yale's very own John Kerry. Want to know the true
measure of Kerry - Google his Cookie franchise at Faneuil Hall (David's Cookies is the guy he
ripped off) before he married ketchup money. Further, way back when, an Aunt of mine had a Summer
job at the airport cafe that serves Martha's Vinyard - also before Kerry got Heinz' dough.
The fuk Congressman Kerry would be there sucking up to MA money. On the return flight he would
hit the cafe - without fail he would have an order that came out to about a nickel short of an
even dollar amount - say $3.95. The fuk would always throw $4 on the table when she was out of
sight and slink off. Not like he couldn't afford it - the guy was a Congressman. What a cheap
slime ball
fleur de lis
Someone once said, money doesn't make you a better or worse person. It only magnifies the personality
you already have.
John Kerry has no class an never did. He went to big schools but so what. Has anyone seen his
transcript? Does he strike anyone as smart? He just got hooked into the connected circles.
Soros is a billionaire. Does he strike anyone as refined or classy? Of course not. He was grimy
riff raff all his life and today he's just riff raff with too much money and using it to drag
entire societies down to his gutter level. He's what they called years ago, a beggar on horseback.
They're all the same. Nuland/Nudelman/Neudelmann or whatever her name is brings wreck and ruin
to everything she touches. For all her money she doesn't even look groomed and sometimes she looks
dirty.
No amount of money can ever polish them up. You can take them out of the slums but generations
later you can't take the slums out of them. They use money and power to drag us all down to their
mental levels. They were born philistines and they will die philistines.
''death pursues the native in everyplace where the european(american) sets foot'
'....
Blankone
You can also thank Russia for the condition of Libya. Russia voted for the no fly zone
in Libya and consented to having Libya destroyed.
It should be no surprise that now the ISIS army or the US/Israel wants to take control or the
resources.
Correct me if I'm wrong, did Russia vote FOR the no fly zone or just abstain and thus give
consent for the destruction.
Volkodav
What part of no-fly zone don't you understand? Full attack was not subject of vote. you
know better, but choose dishonesty
froze25
Adolf was a person with no business experience, a socialist, a bad artist, but the man had
charisma. Trump has charisma but that is where the similarities stop. Not letting in Muslim Refugees
with out proper vetting is reasonable, being politically correct is self enforced mind control
bullshit, the boarder with Mexico needs to be controlled and immigration law needs to be enforced
is also reasonable. The "he" is the next Hitler line needs to stop, I mean shit the Bush family
tried to over throw the US government back in the late 1930's, they were actual fascist. Rubio
is a clone of Jeb (both have the same donors). Christie said he would start shooting down Russian
planes (that would start nuclear war). Hillary has destroyed Libya and Syria by supporting terrorist.
Not a word about that in today's corrupt press. But no, no, no Trump is the next Hitler.
kita27
Do you really think the US ISrael and the rest of the empire is really that stupid and
incompetent. At first I thought so too. Now I'm beginning to see that creating the chaos is exactly
what they want, and they return not to clean up the mess, but to seize control of the important
resources.
ISIS is clearly the proxy army here doing the hands on cannon fodder work, once the coast
is clear, "crack" forces can go in secure and guard the infrastructure, so the valuable commodities
can be pilfered safely.
Bastiat
And central banking -- remember when in the very early days of the "revolution," the mercenaries
formed a central bank? Who ever heard of such a thing? I don't supposed that central bank immediately
removed all of Libya's gold? Naaaaahh.
Hohum
Who is responsible for this? (Hillary Clinton, in part)
Sanity Bear
In LARGE part. The unconstitutional attack on Libya has long been known as "Hillary's War".
(Of course, Syria is her second war, and she has her hands bloody with Ukraine as well).
Jack Burton
First comes NATO bombers. Then Comes ISIS. Where? Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya. The West runs
ISIS's Air Force for them, opening the invasion routes by destroying local resistance or army
forces. Russia stepped in and cut short the NATO/ISIS alliance in Syria.
Jack Burton
Hillary Clinton's Greatest success? Clearing the way for ISIS to invade and conquer Libya,
and using Libya arms to arm the ISIS in Syria. Where today, Bulgaria has stated an emergency air
lift of Soviet era weapons to ISIS in Turkey and Syria. These Soviet weapons may be old, but function
in perfect order, just as they were designed to. Especially the Anti Tan Guided Missiles. Bulgaria
is launching an emergency airlift of 7,000 ATGM to ISIS, at the request of NATO.
falak pema
well played Pax Americana : you promised them Disneyland after Q-Daffy's demise.
And they get : ISIS --
Wow, just wow -- From Charybdis to Scylla! The Pax Americana way.
trader1
we came, we saw, ...
TeaClipper
So that is what Obama meant when he commended the Libyans on their three years of independence
She was secretary of state, which makes her ever so qualified to be commander in chief.
Just look at her resume - ISIS in Libya, ISIS in Syria, ISIS in Iraq. If her goal was to spread
ISIS, then she's the balls. If not, she's less than balls. As I say that, maybe the goal really
was to spread ISIS, and she's the balls. Balls, Hill, you're the balls.
RevIdahoSpud3
I don't see the problem here. It was none other than a former Secretary of State who recited,
"We came, we saw, he DIED"! (cackle, cackle, cankles cackeling)That was the solution then and
now, as has been shown over and over ISIS, IS, ISIL...ISOUR (US) asset! We trained, we funded,
we unleashed! Our very own CIA has the plug and if they don't pull it all must be well? The new
complication will be getting the oil to Turkey which would no doubt ship in Burak Erdogan's tankers.
After refining in Turkey move it to Israel and blend with world supplies. Everyone gets rich!
Erdogan's get rich, ISIS gets funded, Clinton Foundations get funded, Israel get rich, and special
interests in the US, London, France, Germany, Switzerland...they all get rich as well. Stolen
oil has higher octane!
Duc888
Good thing Hillary "fixed" Libya
"We came, we saw , we killed" Yup, just the kinds of ASSHOLE we need for President.
jldpc
What a joke. If the US wanted to stop ISIS making money on selling oil which goes by tanker
or pipeline, all they have to do is threaten destruction of same, and the insurers will shut it
down overnight. No oil money = no more ISIS on the warpath. Simple. And best of all no American
soldier's lives lost. Can you say CinC is a stupid shit? Or how about the oil brokers and end
buyers? Even I could threaten their asses with serious shit and get them to stop. So could any
of you. Guess what the USA is not serious about stopping them. Gee who could have figured that
out on their own?
BarkingCat
Lets see if I understand the plan.
Step 1) Secretly ferment dissent against the local government.
Step 2) Push the dissent into armed rebellion.
Step 3) Use governments reaction to get involve own military to protect civilians.
Step 4) Protection of civilians as cover, the military attacks government's armed forces tipping
the scales of conflict in favor of the rebellion.
Step 5) Watch the rebells kill the leaders of the nation and take control.
Step 6) Watch the nation fall into complete turmoil and become home to groups of terrorists
and other barbarians.
When steps above are completed and enough time has passed:
Step 7) Use own military to bring peace to a troubled nation. Also take over anything that
has value ....oil production for example.
"... "We are helpless and not being able to do anything against this deliberate destruction to the oil installations. NOC urges all faithful and honorable people of this homeland to hurry to rescue what is left from our resources before it is too late." ..."
"... ''death pursues the native in everyplace where the european(american) sets foot' ..."
"... You can also thank Russia for the condition of Libya. Russia voted for the no fly zone in Libya and consented to having Libya destroyed. ..."
"... What part of no-fly zone don't you understand? Full attack was not subject of vote. you know better, but choose dishonesty ..."
"... I mean shit the Bush family tried to over throw the US government back in the late 1930's, they were actual fascist. Rubio is a clone of Jeb (both have the same donors). Christie said he would start shooting down Russian planes (that would start nuclear war). Hillary has destroyed Libya and Syria by supporting terrorist. Not a word about that in today's corrupt press. But no, no, no Trump is the next Hitler. ..."
"... Do you really think the US ISrael and the rest of the empire is really that stupid and incompetent. At first I thought so too. Now I'm beginning to see that creating the chaos is exactly what they want, and they return not to clean up the mess, but to seize control of the important resources. ..."
"... ISIS is clearly the proxy army here doing the hands on cannon fodder work, once the coast is clear, "crack" forces can go in secure and guard the infrastructure, so the valuable commodities can be pilfered safely. ..."
"... In LARGE part. The unconstitutional attack on Libya has long been known as "Hillary's War". (Of course, Syria is her second war, and she has her hands bloody with Ukraine as well). ..."
"... Just look at her resume - ISIS in Libya, ISIS in Syria, ISIS in Iraq. If her goal was to spread ISIS, then she's the balls. If not, she's less than balls. As I say that, maybe the goal really was to spread ISIS, and she's the balls. Balls, Hill, you're the balls. ..."
"We are helpless and not being able to do anything against this deliberate destruction
to the oil installations. NOC urges all faithful and honorable people of this homeland to hurry
to rescue what is left from our resources before it is too late."
That's from Libya's National Oil Corp and as you might have guessed, it references the
seizure of state oil assets by Islamic State, whose influence in the country has grown over the past
year amid the power vacuum the West created by engineering the demise of Moammar Qaddafi.
The latest attacks occurred in Es Sider, a large oil port that's been closed for at least a year.
Seven guards were killed on Monday in suicide bombings while two more lost their lives on Tuesday
as ISIS attacked checkpoints some 20 miles from the port. "Es Sider and Ras Lanuf, Libya's biggest
oil ports, have been closed since December 2014,"
Reuters notes . "They are located between the city of Sirte, which is controlled by Islamic State,
and the eastern city of Benghazi."
ISIS also set fire to oil tanks holding hundreds of thousands of barrels of crude. "Four tanks
in Es Sider caught fire on Tuesday, and a fifth one in
Ras Lanuf the day before," Ali al-Hassi, a spokesman for the the Petroleum Facilities Guard
told Bloomberg over the phone.
Ludovico Carlino, senior analyst at IHS Country Risk says the attacks are "likely diversionary
operations" during Islamic State's takeover of the town of Bin Jawad, a seizure that may enable the
group to expand and connect "its controlled territory around Sirte to the 'oil crescent.'"
Islamic State is pushing east from Sirte in an effort to seize control of the country's oil infrastructure,
much as the group has done in Syria and Iraq. As
Middle East Eye wrote last summer, "the desert region to the south of the oil ports has been
strategically cleared in a series of attacks by IS militants on security personnel and oil fields,
where employees have been killed and kidnapped, and vehicles and equipment seized."
"I expect they will try and take Sidra and Ras Lanuf and the oil fields on the west side of the
oil crescent," one oil worker said. "There are few people left to protect the oil fields apart from
local security from isolated towns."
This is good a place as any for a tale of Yale's very own John Kerry. Want to know the true
measure of Kerry - Google his Cookie franchise at Faneuil Hall (David's Cookies is the guy he
ripped off) before he married ketchup money. Further, way back when, an Aunt of mine had a Summer
job at the airport cafe that serves Martha's Vinyard - also before Kerry got Heinz' dough.
The fuk Congressman Kerry would be there sucking up to MA money. On the return flight he would
hit the cafe - without fail he would have an order that came out to about a nickel short of an
even dollar amount - say $3.95. The fuk would always throw $4 on the table when she was out of
sight and slink off. Not like he couldn't afford it - the guy was a Congressman. What a cheap
slime ball
fleur de lis
Someone once said, money doesn't make you a better or worse person. It only magnifies the personality
you already have.
John Kerry has no class an never did. He went to big schools but so what. Has anyone seen his
transcript? Does he strike anyone as smart? He just got hooked into the connected circles.
Soros is a billionaire. Does he strike anyone as refined or classy? Of course not. He was grimy
riff raff all his life and today he's just riff raff with too much money and using it to drag
entire societies down to his gutter level. He's what they called years ago, a beggar on horseback.
They're all the same. Nuland/Nudelman/Neudelmann or whatever her name is brings wreck and ruin
to everything she touches. For all her money she doesn't even look groomed and sometimes she looks
dirty.
No amount of money can ever polish them up. You can take them out of the slums but generations
later you can't take the slums out of them. They use money and power to drag us all down to their
mental levels. They were born philistines and they will die philistines.
''death pursues the native in everyplace where the european(american) sets foot'
'....
Blankone
You can also thank Russia for the condition of Libya. Russia voted for the no fly zone
in Libya and consented to having Libya destroyed.
It should be no surprise that now the ISIS army or the US/Israel wants to take control or the
resources.
Correct me if I'm wrong, did Russia vote FOR the no fly zone or just abstain and thus give
consent for the destruction.
Volkodav
What part of no-fly zone don't you understand? Full attack was not subject of vote. you
know better, but choose dishonesty
froze25
Adolf was a person with no business experience, a socialist, a bad artist, but the man had
charisma. Trump has charisma but that is where the similarities stop. Not letting in Muslim Refugees
with out proper vetting is reasonable, being politically correct is self enforced mind control
bullshit, the boarder with Mexico needs to be controlled and immigration law needs to be enforced
is also reasonable. The "he" is the next Hitler line needs to stop, I mean shit the Bush family
tried to over throw the US government back in the late 1930's, they were actual fascist. Rubio
is a clone of Jeb (both have the same donors). Christie said he would start shooting down Russian
planes (that would start nuclear war). Hillary has destroyed Libya and Syria by supporting terrorist.
Not a word about that in today's corrupt press. But no, no, no Trump is the next Hitler.
kita27
Do you really think the US ISrael and the rest of the empire is really that stupid and
incompetent. At first I thought so too. Now I'm beginning to see that creating the chaos is exactly
what they want, and they return not to clean up the mess, but to seize control of the important
resources.
ISIS is clearly the proxy army here doing the hands on cannon fodder work, once the coast
is clear, "crack" forces can go in secure and guard the infrastructure, so the valuable commodities
can be pilfered safely.
Bastiat
And central banking -- remember when in the very early days of the "revolution," the mercenaries
formed a central bank? Who ever heard of such a thing? I don't supposed that central bank immediately
removed all of Libya's gold? Naaaaahh.
Hohum
Who is responsible for this? (Hillary Clinton, in part)
Sanity Bear
In LARGE part. The unconstitutional attack on Libya has long been known as "Hillary's War".
(Of course, Syria is her second war, and she has her hands bloody with Ukraine as well).
Jack Burton
First comes NATO bombers. Then Comes ISIS. Where? Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya. The West runs
ISIS's Air Force for them, opening the invasion routes by destroying local resistance or army
forces. Russia stepped in and cut short the NATO/ISIS alliance in Syria.
Jack Burton
Hillary Clinton's Greatest success? Clearing the way for ISIS to invade and conquer Libya,
and using Libya arms to arm the ISIS in Syria. Where today, Bulgaria has stated an emergency air
lift of Soviet era weapons to ISIS in Turkey and Syria. These Soviet weapons may be old, but function
in perfect order, just as they were designed to. Especially the Anti Tan Guided Missiles. Bulgaria
is launching an emergency airlift of 7,000 ATGM to ISIS, at the request of NATO.
falak pema
well played Pax Americana : you promised them Disneyland after Q-Daffy's demise.
And they get : ISIS --
Wow, just wow -- From Charybdis to Scylla! The Pax Americana way.
trader1
we came, we saw, ...
TeaClipper
So that is what Obama meant when he commended the Libyans on their three years of independence
She was secretary of state, which makes her ever so qualified to be commander in chief.
Just look at her resume - ISIS in Libya, ISIS in Syria, ISIS in Iraq. If her goal was to spread
ISIS, then she's the balls. If not, she's less than balls. As I say that, maybe the goal really
was to spread ISIS, and she's the balls. Balls, Hill, you're the balls.
RevIdahoSpud3
I don't see the problem here. It was none other than a former Secretary of State who recited,
"We came, we saw, he DIED"! (cackle, cackle, cankles cackeling)That was the solution then and
now, as has been shown over and over ISIS, IS, ISIL...ISOUR (US) asset! We trained, we funded,
we unleashed! Our very own CIA has the plug and if they don't pull it all must be well? The new
complication will be getting the oil to Turkey which would no doubt ship in Burak Erdogan's tankers.
After refining in Turkey move it to Israel and blend with world supplies. Everyone gets rich!
Erdogan's get rich, ISIS gets funded, Clinton Foundations get funded, Israel get rich, and special
interests in the US, London, France, Germany, Switzerland...they all get rich as well. Stolen
oil has higher octane!
Duc888
Good thing Hillary "fixed" Libya
"We came, we saw , we killed" Yup, just the kinds of ASSHOLE we need for President.
jldpc
What a joke. If the US wanted to stop ISIS making money on selling oil which goes by tanker
or pipeline, all they have to do is threaten destruction of same, and the insurers will shut it
down overnight. No oil money = no more ISIS on the warpath. Simple. And best of all no American
soldier's lives lost. Can you say CinC is a stupid shit? Or how about the oil brokers and end
buyers? Even I could threaten their asses with serious shit and get them to stop. So could any
of you. Guess what the USA is not serious about stopping them. Gee who could have figured that
out on their own?
BarkingCat
Lets see if I understand the plan.
Step 1) Secretly ferment dissent against the local government.
Step 2) Push the dissent into armed rebellion.
Step 3) Use governments reaction to get involve own military to protect civilians.
Step 4) Protection of civilians as cover, the military attacks government's armed forces tipping
the scales of conflict in favor of the rebellion.
Step 5) Watch the rebells kill the leaders of the nation and take control.
Step 6) Watch the nation fall into complete turmoil and become home to groups of terrorists
and other barbarians.
When steps above are completed and enough time has passed:
Step 7) Use own military to bring peace to a troubled nation. Also take over anything that
has value ....oil production for example.
While "free press" is an illusion (or may be not, depending of the semantic of the word "free"
;-), you still can choose what do you want to read and use other countries MSM for comparison. different
countries have different biases and that allow better approximate the truth in foreign events coverage.
Acrutally British press is better in coverage of the USA internal events that the US press. Not everything
is bad.
Notable quotes:
"... The data also shows companies linked to News were significantly less profitable than most other media rivals, with interest payments on loans from associated companies helping to reduce profit margins and taxable income. ..."
"... He will be attractive! He'll be nice and helpful. He'll get a job where he influences a great God-fearing nation. He'll never do an evil thing! He'll never deliberately hurt a living thing… he will just bit by little bit lower our standards where they are important. Just a tiny little bit. Just coax along flash over substance. Just a tiny little bit. And he'll talk about all of us really being salesmen. And he'll get all the great women. ..."
"... Obama is the political version of Hurt's newscaster. ..."
"... Totally! Life imitates art there (Obama/Hurt). ..."
"Media companies linked to the Murdochs pay the least tax" [
Australian
Financial Review
]. "
The data also shows companies linked to News were significantly less
profitable than most other media rivals, with interest payments on loans from associated companies
helping to reduce profit margins and taxable income.
" Hmm…
... ... ...
"Facebook has taken over from Google as a traffic source for news" [
Fortune
].
"Who Controls Your Facebook Feed" [
Slate
].
The news feed isn't entirely algorithmic; the Facebook process includes a panel of live humans.
"Media companies linked to the Murdochs pay the least tax" [Australian Financial Review].
"The data also shows companies linked to News were significantly less profitable than most
other media rivals, with interest payments on loans from associated companies helping to reduce
profit margins and taxable income."
I haven't seen (and won't go out of my way to watch) the Obama speech on guns with the now
famous "tearing up" moment, but it immediately reminded me of the seminal scene in "Broadcast
News" where William Hurt's character fakes tears during the filming of a documentary.
And that recalls the famous lines uttered by the Albert Brooks character Aaron about the devil:
Aaron Altman:
I know you care about him. I've never seen you like this about anyone, so
please don't get me wrong when I tell you that Tom, while being a very nice guy, is the Devil.
Jane Craig:
This isn't friendship. You're crazy, you know that?
Aaron Altman:
What do you think the Devil is going to look like if he's around?
Jane Craig:
God!
Aaron Altman:
Come on! Nobody is going to be taken in by a guy with a long, red, pointy tail!
What's he gonna sound like?
[hisses]
Aaron Altman:
No. I'm semi-serious here.
Jane Craig:
You're seriously…
Aaron Altman:
He will be attractive! He'll be nice and helpful. He'll get a job where he influences
a great God-fearing nation. He'll never do an evil thing! He'll never deliberately hurt a living
thing… he will just bit by little bit lower our standards where they are important. Just a
tiny little bit. Just coax along flash over substance. Just a tiny little bit. And he'll talk
about all of us really being salesmen. And he'll get all the great women.
Was Shaun Walket "under influence" when he wrote this article. Renaming Soviet Champaign is necessary
due to EU laws that prohibit infringement on French brand name, so "decommunization" is only part of
the story.
Of course history is written by winners and so far Galician nationalists are the winners, so they
rewrite history according to their own ideology and preferences. But money for that will be paid by
impoverished Ukrainians. In reality Ukraine is victim of US neoliberal push against Russia. Of course
US neocons does not want to pay for the damage it inflicted. Now they own the country. Might makes
right.
Notable quotes:
"... The achievements in a relatively short space of time once all the wars related to 1917 had ended, then in the 25 year period after the catastrophic loss following WW2 were incredible. ..."
"... ....and it is impossible to answer if Britain would have recovered as quickly from WW2 as the Soviets if they had suffered the equivalent (10 million) or the US (25 million ) deaths during this time. ..."
"... I'm beginning to recognise a familiar "Guardian euphmenism" touch there. Just like Syrian "moderate rebels" cause "controversy", as "some" of them call for jihad and eat people's hearts, and may have involved a massacre or two. ..."
"... The East Ukrainians were disenfranchised with the Regime change in their country but instead of sending in negotiators, the Kiev government sent in tanks and armored personnel carriers. What a way to run a country, they must have been inspired ( or instructed) by the best Regime changers in the business, the USA. ..."
"... Seeing as the Ukrainians hate the Communists and Lenin, I trust we can expect them to reverse measures enacted by the Communists e.g. return to Russia the regions moved into the Ukrainian Soviet Republic by Lenin in the 1920s. By the same token, they should probably give Galicia back to Poland. ..."
"... And denounce the Communists gifting of Crimea to Ukraine in the 1950s... ..."
"... Ukraine is a bit of the loosers aren't they.. borrow money from the EU to pay some relative or friend of those in Kyiv.. who just happens to own a sign, monument or statue company.. to bring about this ridiculously stupid change.. of 108 towns? They haven't got better things to do with whatever money they have?.. like take care of the needs of the people? ..."
"... The old adage "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" comes readily to mind. Although perhaps "scoundrel" is too mild a word in this instance. ..."
"... The subtle irony is that without suitable Stalinist role models, the mafia power-brokers running Ukraine in cahoots with their morally bankrupt western puppeteers haven't an ideological leg to stand on. Instead, Walker blathers on about how Dnipropetrovsk has, ahem, been re-branded as Dnipropetrovsk. Thanks Shaun. ..."
"... Irrespective of whether or not its a good idea, there must be an EU grant somewhere that would compensate for the damage caused ..."
"... ......EU does NOT want Ukraine, we can NOT afford yet another poverty stricken ex soviet country !! If our utterly useless leaders would ever consider this insanity because USA tells us to, and if EU pretends to be a democracy, there should at least be a European referendum on this matter; ..."
"... obliterate the past and ideas by erasing the visible remnants will have the opposite effect to that desired particulary with the inquisitive youth and is so Talibanesque it's ludicrous. ..."
"... What exactly is "the Soviet worldview"? If it means not accepting Fackelzug (torch parade) in your cities Nazi-style, then most people Russia definitely have it, and a good proportion of people in Ukraine, too. ..."
"... If having the Soviet worldview means not accepting erasing history and collective memory and replacing it with some glorious but, unfortunately, fictitious history of the Ukrainian nation - yes, we certainly do have it. There are real achievements Ukrainians could be proud of - oh, Gosh, I forgot, they all involve Russian in one way or another, and that is, of course, unacceptable - otherwise that would be another manifestation of the Soviet worldview. Like we did it together, Russians and Ukrainians - can't get more Soviet than that. ..."
"... The USSR and Soviet history and the Russian language no more belong to the post soviet Russian Federation than they do to Ukraine. Each country can keep or reject what it likes. ..."
"... You want to claim the achievements - then you also claim the responsibilities as well. Ones don't go without the others. Either Ukraine, like Belorussia, is a part of the Russian/Soviet empires and is entitles to all their achievements as well as to all the faults or it is a long suffered colony of both and then it is entitled to none. Can't have it both ways. ..."
"... In the entrance lobby to the Kiev RADA there was a portrait of Stephen Bandera - that was covered with a black silk shroud when Americans visited. Bandera was not a hero as he actively aided the NAZI in Auschwitz , Poles, Jews and Russians were his favourites. The Ukraine Government hasn't left its past behind, it's only trying to camouflage it, trying to appear civilized. ..."
"... Ukrainian say farewall to Soviet things, but welcome Nazi stuff. Lovely. ..."
"... Dishonest? In my visits to Ukraine after the US-instigated Nazi putsch I saw more and more Nazi symbolism sprayed all over the city. There was even a shrine to the fascist Bandera on Independence Square. ..."
"... There is always a heavy paramilitary presence around main administrative buildings in Kiev - surprising that a regime that claims it came to power through a popular revolution should be scared of that same population. ..."
"... It is totally bizarre that Ukrainian vandals would deface a statue of Lenin with with the motto, "I am the butcher of Ukraine" since he was the one who had made the Ukraine an independent political entity. ..."
"... Allright democracy on the march. Overthrow elected governments with foreign backing (remember McCain at Maidan). Now you ban one of the largest opposition parties (in 2012 they got 6 percennt of the vote or 2.7 million votes) because they are traitors (that's the language they use) to the revolutionary Maidan government. While banning symbols and names they don't agree with by order of thought police and proclaiming Nazi collaborators as heroes. Just wait for the statues of Stepan Bandera to replace Lenin. The e.u and the rest of the west says nothing cause this is the kind of "democracy" they are fine with get bent hypocrites ..."
"... In that poor retched shrinking country local street names is all the Coup Crowd in Kyiv can actually control. So they have campaigns, led by fascists, for changing the names of things. Meanwhile it has become impossible to find out if the nitwits still claim to be at war with Russia or not. ..."
"... The author of this article neglects to mention that the Ukrainian laws are targeted both at Soviet and Nazi symbols. ..."
"... As for the ww2 Ukrainian nationalists, most Ukrainians think of these groups poorly. The vast majority of Ukrainians fought on the Soviet side, and indeed made up more than one third of the Soviet army in ww2. Until recently, this was the source of pride and sorrow, just as in Russia. ..."
"... I don't see anyone is stopping this, that guy on that transparent there is a nazi collaborator. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Weg-QnsTPs0 ..."
"... The WWII history of the Ukraine is full of eye witness accounts of how the German armed forces had to step in to save Jews from Ukrainian savagery because they preferred to eliminate Jews systematically rather than by anarchistic savagery. And incidentally in Western Ukraine a greater proportion of people volunteered for Hitler's armed forces than in Germany proper. ..."
"... You are wrong. There are numerous monuments dedicated to Stepan Bandera in Western Ukraine (at least in 20 towns). There are also numerous streets named after him. ..."
"... Ukraine has bigger problems than street name changes! The IMF own the country it has lost it's sovereignty and has outsiders in its government as well as debts it cannot pay. ..."
"... Ukraine wants to get rid of the Soviet past - well, then it has to be happy that Crimea is gone, for Crimea is the clearest vestige of the Soviet past having been "gifted" to Ukraine by the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev over the objections of Crimea itself. Another vestige is as good as gone - Donbass, which agrees well with the removal of Lenin statutes, for it was Lenin himself who added Donbass to Ukraine in 1919. Stalin's legacy is next, which includes Western Ukraine and Transcarpathia. ..."
"... Western media needs to address the economic mess in Ukraine. The name changing, marching and fist fights in Rada are a distraction. What happened in two years is an economic collapse. When is Guardian going to notice? ..."
"... Who cares what they call their champagne----the Ukraine is dead, economically---- ..."
"... The real issue with Ukrainian champagne is that as of Jan 1 it cannot be called "champagne". With EU Association Agreement, the word "champagne" is reserved for the French stuff. That is by far more important than some "soviet" name games. ..."
"... Unfortunately there are many Ukrainians who think that 'restitution' will make them better off. They think that if Western people get rich (even Poles) that will be somehow good for Ukrainians as workers. It is low self-esteem combined with what can only be called servant mentality. The shouting and marching is there just to amuse, deep inside they all can't wait to serve. ..."
The Guardian is politely silent about of hundreds productions, level of education, population
(52 millions in 1991, 42 in 2015), infrastructure and other "products from glorifying communism"
which have heard "farewell" too...
Like if there wasn't for communism then there wouldn't be productions, educated population or
infrastructure? How did they manage do build all of that in Western Europe even without communism
i am wondering...
Communism f*cked up all natural relations and development and consequences are felt until these
days.
Also, Ukraine was Russian vassal until two years ago, so almost everything that happened after
1991 in Ukraine is in the responsibility of the same bolshevik-KGB cronies that were in power
during official communism.
Maybe it is a time to try to be a normal country like e.g. Czech republic or Slovenia are now
(also ex-Bolshevik Moscow´s vassals) finally, even 25 years later, but better later than never.
There is only little problem. Ukraine is not a Czech republic or Slovenia and even is not a Poland...
Did you ever wondered why some countries live good as Germany, France, Poland, for example but
some countries live bad? As South Africa when Europeans left it, Nigeria, Sudan... Why part of
Ukraine was a captured by Poland but part of Poland never was captured by Ukraine? And why a you
thinking that communism worse than capitalism, you even don't know how many was build in that
time of communism.
Most of western Europe had about a 1000 year head start....so that is a nonsense comparison.
The achievements in a relatively short space of time once all the wars related to 1917
had ended, then in the 25 year period after the catastrophic loss following WW2 were incredible.
....and it is impossible to answer if Britain would have recovered as quickly from WW2
as the Soviets if they had suffered the equivalent (10 million) or the US (25 million ) deaths
during this time.
Years from the end of ww2 to early 70s were golden ages of world economy and development. Almost
all countries heavily affected by ww2 recovered very quickly (Northern France, Germany, Holland,
Italy, Poland, Soviet union, Japan, South Korea (not North Korea though), because those were simply
very good times (economically and technologically). That has nothing to do with ruling ideology.
However, it was still much more done in capitalist countries (Japan, Germany, South Korea,
Netherlands, Italy) than in communist. Just look at economically and culturally similar countries
- look how much more developed was (and still is) Western Germany than Eastern Germany, Austria
than Hungary, Finland than Estonia, South Korea than North Korea, Capitalist China (Taiwan) than
Communist China...
I think from just these comparisations you can conclude all. Communism (or rather bolshevik
cronyism) was the break on general development. The fact that under bolshevism there were some
dams constructed in Ukraine doesn't change anything.
I'll give a simple explanation. Ukraine defaulted on Russian loan. No one would invest any monies
there except IMF and they are also reluctant because they stopped their investments because of
corruption
Good luck.
law has caused controversy, with many criticising an addendum which states that Ukrainian
independence movements during the second world war some of which collaborated with the Nazis
and were involved in massacres of Jews and Poles should be respected as "fighters for Ukrainian
independence".
I'm beginning to recognise a familiar "Guardian euphmenism" touch there. Just like Syrian
"moderate rebels" cause "controversy", as "some" of them call for jihad and eat people's hearts,
and may have involved a massacre or two.
This rejection of the cultural and political heritage of the Soviet Union (and its flavour of
communism) is understandable, many former soviet states have gone through a similar process. However
both the timing (amidst a civil war) and the extent (banning peaceful political movements and
expression) are questionable. However, I assume some nuances have been lost in translation. What
is the Russian word they use for "decommunisation"? Do they say this or "desovietisation"? As
for the temptation to compare with post WW2
denazification
in Germany, didn't the Soviet
Union undergo an equivalent process in rejection of Stalin's heritage (trial and execution of
Beria for example) in the late 50s and early 60s?
A civil war does not preclude Russian interference. Apologies if you are offended at my ignorance
of the subtle differences between Ukrainian and Russian.
Instead you follow events through dubious sources!!
I only have the Guardian as my source, dubious indeed.
How Poroshenko wished that Russia had invaded but it never happened.
The East Ukrainians were disenfranchised with the Regime change in their country but instead
of sending in negotiators, the Kiev government sent in tanks and armored personnel carriers. What
a way to run a country, they must have been inspired ( or instructed) by the best Regime changers
in the business, the USA.
Seeing as the Ukrainians hate the Communists and Lenin, I trust we can expect them to reverse
measures enacted by the Communists e.g. return to Russia the regions moved into the Ukrainian
Soviet Republic by Lenin in the 1920s. By the same token, they should probably give Galicia back
to Poland.
Ukraine is a bit of the loosers aren't they.. borrow money from the EU to pay some relative
or friend of those in Kyiv.. who just happens to own a sign, monument or statue company.. to bring
about this ridiculously stupid change.. of 108 towns? They haven't got better things to do with
whatever money they have?.. like take care of the needs of the people?
An incredibly weak article by one of the usual suspects. Walker confuses capitalist re-branding
and renaming with de-communisation, a bizarre term he has dreamt up, just like de-nazification.
Presumably, when the Marathon brand of chocolate bars were re-baptised Snickers, they were
"de-communised" in the process.
The subtle irony is that without suitable Stalinist role models,
the mafia power-brokers running Ukraine in cahoots with their morally bankrupt western puppeteers
haven't an ideological leg to stand on. Instead, Walker blathers on about how Dnipropetrovsk has,
ahem, been re-branded as Dnipropetrovsk. Thanks Shaun.
Irrespective of whether or not its a good idea, there must be an EU grant somewhere that would
compensate for the damage caused
. The Kiev government simply do not understand that in becoming
members of the EU it is no good holding out the begging bowl. They need to become far more creative
and hire in some experts to advise on the trillions of Euro's Ukraine could receive in grant aid.
New railways, roads, bridges, hospitals, schools, are all simply a few forms away from becoming
a reality.
......EU does NOT want Ukraine, we can NOT afford yet another poverty stricken ex soviet country
!! If our utterly useless leaders would ever consider this insanity because USA tells us to, and
if EU pretends to be a democracy, there should at least be a European referendum on this matter;
the answer would be clear : NO WAY jose --
The same coat Baroness Ashton wore in February 2014 contains the same belt that now chokes the
Kiev puppet government to death. "Glory to Ukraine", yeah ? Oki Doki. No problem. Good luck --
I can only imagine the destruction and/or defacement of many beautiful buildings and structures
that will be occurring throughout Ukraine. Many of the metro stations in Kiev will be butchered.
obliterate the past and ideas by erasing the visible remnants will have the opposite effect
to that desired particulary with the inquisitive youth and is so Talibanesque it's ludicrous.
In Spain, Italy, etc, taking down the dictators' statues, renaming streets, etc has not
got rid of fascists and their thinking at all. Besides, the Ukies can't afford it and have they
never heard of the sex pistols et al?
They are just using the same methods to get rid of the Soviet names as were used to impose them
in the first place, except without the shootings, torture, deportations and mass-starvation.
Ersatz champagne with the "Soviet" brand name has been produced since 1937 . . . It is
a popular drink on New Year's Eve and at other celebrations, and comes in sweet, semi-sweet
and dry versions – and at a fraction of the price of real champagne.
It is not ersatz at all - it is perfectly real and is made in the real
methode champenoise
. The best champaign is made, of course, in Crimea. There is place there, Novyi Svet (New
World) where the Champaign factory makes collection Bruts that can compete with the best of them
and are still inexpensive by comparison with the French stuff.
the younger generation who were born after the Soviet Union collapsed, but they are absolutely
Soviet and have a totally Soviet world view."
What exactly is "the Soviet worldview"? If it means not accepting Fackelzug (torch parade)
in your cities Nazi-style, then most people Russia definitely have it, and a good proportion of
people in Ukraine, too.
If having the Soviet worldview means not accepting erasing history and collective memory
and replacing it with some glorious but, unfortunately, fictitious history of the Ukrainian nation
- yes, we certainly do have it. There are real achievements Ukrainians could be proud of - oh,
Gosh, I forgot, they all involve Russian in one way or another, and that is, of course, unacceptable
- otherwise that would be another manifestation of the Soviet worldview. Like we did it together,
Russians and Ukrainians - can't get more Soviet than that.
The USSR and Soviet history and the Russian language no more belong to the post soviet Russian
Federation than they do to Ukraine. Each country can keep or reject what it likes.
But to claim all tsarist and Soviet achievements as somehow the property of today's Russian
Federation, is nothing more than lies and theft.
The Russian Federation is, like Ukraine, Belarus and Tajikistan, only25 years old, and just
another splinter of the tsarist and Soviet empires.
The history is the history - it's not for anybody to chose it. What happened happened, and there
is nothing anybody can do about it.
Like Germany, for example, can say that the Nazi past never happened - just reject it like
that, and that it? Say, Holocaust never happened because we don't like it? It doesn't work that
way, my dear.
But to claim all tsarist and Soviet achievements as somehow the property of today's Russian
Federation, is nothing more than lies and theft
You want to claim the achievements - then you also claim the responsibilities as well. Ones
don't go without the others. Either Ukraine, like Belorussia, is a part of the Russian/Soviet
empires and is entitles to all their achievements as well as to all the faults or it is a long
suffered colony of both and then it is entitled to none. Can't have it both ways.
In the entrance lobby to the Kiev RADA there was a portrait of Stephen Bandera - that was
covered with a black silk shroud when Americans visited. Bandera was not a hero as he actively
aided the NAZI in Auschwitz , Poles, Jews and Russians were his favourites. The Ukraine Government
hasn't left its past behind, it's only trying to camouflage it, trying to appear civilized.
You are rehashing the contemporary Russian propaganda line. The political parties supporting Bandera
erc are less popular in Ukraine than UKIP in the UK and the National Front in France.
There may well have been, for a narrow period of time a photo of Bandera during the Maidan.
So what? People have been carting around portraits of Stalin for the last 25 years.
Are you seriously suggesting Bandera is worse than Stalin, or that the current Ukrainian govt
is run by Nazis? If you are, then I respectfully suggest you are doing so in a conscious effort
to discredit Ukraine in Western media.
Dishonest? In my visits to Ukraine after the US-instigated Nazi putsch I saw more and more
Nazi symbolism sprayed all over the city. There was even a shrine to the fascist Bandera on Independence
Square.
There is always a heavy paramilitary presence around main administrative buildings in Kiev
- surprising that a regime that claims it came to power through a popular revolution should be
scared of that same population.
Probably passed the laws after "a good old book burning", nothing like the rewriting of history.
Next they will be rehabilitating the Ukrainians who fought for the Nazis and staffed the concentration
camps.
It is totally bizarre that Ukrainian vandals would deface a statue of Lenin with with the
motto, "I am the butcher of Ukraine" since he was the one who had made the Ukraine an independent
political entity.
Allright democracy on the march. Overthrow elected governments with foreign backing (remember
McCain at Maidan). Now you ban one of the largest opposition parties (in 2012 they got 6 percennt
of the vote or 2.7 million votes) because they are traitors (that's the language they use) to
the revolutionary Maidan government. While banning symbols and names they don't agree with by
order of thought police and proclaiming Nazi collaborators as heroes. Just wait for the statues
of Stepan Bandera to replace Lenin. The e.u and the rest of the west says nothing cause this is
the kind of "democracy" they are fine with get bent hypocrites
In that poor retched shrinking country local street names is all the Coup Crowd in Kyiv can
actually control. So they have campaigns, led by fascists, for changing the names of things. Meanwhile
it has become impossible to find out if the nitwits still claim to be at war with Russia or not.
As for the ww2 Ukrainian nationalists, most Ukrainians think of these groups poorly. The
vast majority of Ukrainians fought on the Soviet side, and indeed made up more than one third
of the Soviet army in ww2. Until recently, this was the source of pride and sorrow, just as in
Russia.
So, It is wrong to think of Soviet past as being somehow foreign to Ukraine. But that
is now all ancient history. And the Soviet past is also Ukraine's to reject.
There is a military invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Communist symbols are actively used to mobilise
Russian fighters and domestic terrorists on Ukrainian territory. with the aim of destroying the
territorial integrity of Ukraine.
I note in this regard that ISIS symbols are similarly banned in many high income liberal democracies.
The WWII history of the Ukraine is full of eye witness accounts of how the German armed forces
had to step in to save Jews from Ukrainian savagery because they preferred to eliminate Jews systematically
rather than by anarchistic savagery. And incidentally in Western Ukraine a greater proportion
of people volunteered for Hitler's armed forces than in Germany proper.
You are wrong. There are numerous monuments dedicated to Stepan Bandera in Western Ukraine
(at least in 20 towns). There are also numerous streets named after him.
Quite a different situation is in Eastern Ukraine which hates Bandera and which has always
weighed toward Russia - that's why that country cannot exist as one entity.
Ukraine has bigger problems than street name changes! The IMF own the country it has lost
it's sovereignty and has outsiders in its government as well as debts it cannot pay.
Nothing about the expiration of the deadline to fulfill the Minsk agreement compromises? The Ukranian
government has failed to implement two very important ones: dialogue with the rebel leaders and
giving some degree of autonomy to Donetsk and Lugansk. I think that's rather more serious than
the champagne news but I have hardly seen any reflection on that subject in the Press.
Flip, I just spent ages writing something and my computer crashed. Bloody computers.
Haven't they got anything better to do?
The Ukranian Communists are meant to be a small and marginalised grouping of pensioners. Why
pick on them?
Anti-Stalinism. Now, that would be much better. Anti right wing militias, that would be just
as good. Saying goodbye to existing despots, that gets my vote.
Free social health care, now that would be even better still.
If Holly Old Dog is online, not that I've actually checked, I'm not American.
Don't like UKIP don't like Le Penn but do like the EU.
Ukraine wants to get rid of the Soviet past - well, then it has to be happy that Crimea is
gone, for Crimea is the clearest vestige of the Soviet past having been "gifted" to Ukraine by
the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev over the objections of Crimea itself. Another vestige is as
good as gone - Donbass, which agrees well with the removal of Lenin statutes, for it was Lenin
himself who added Donbass to Ukraine in 1919. Stalin's legacy is next, which includes Western
Ukraine and Transcarpathia.
Many of those in eastern cities who are pro-Kiev are uneasy about Ukrainian nationalist
heroes
Trust the Guardian to find a very delicate turn of phrase -
uneasy
. Come on, those in
Easter Ukraine hate their guts. Easter Ukraine hates Bandera and "banderovtsi" much more than
Russia does. And for a good reason: they did not operate much in Russia but a lot in Ukraine,
Belorussia and eastern Europe, where they killed thousands.
This past New Year's Eve marked the last time Ukrainians could pop open "Soviet champagne"
Poor Ukrainians. Now they are told what to drink, what language to speak, what songs to sing,
what movies to watch, what holidays to celebrate, what fairy tales to tell their children. True
European freedom finally has arrived as opposed to the Soviet totalitarian regime that somehow
in Ukraine alone lasted 25 years past the existence of the Soviet Union.
BTW Artemovsk they want to rename so much is the site of a Champaign factory that used to make
famous "Artemovsky" Champaign. I am not sure it's still operational but if it is, what would it
be called now? The factory is yet another soviet "vestige" and did not exist in the "Bakhmut"
times.
The Guardian is politely silent about of hundreds productions, level of education, population
(52 millions in 1991, 42 in 2015), infrastructure and other "products from glorifying communism"
which have heard "farewell" too
Western media needs to address the economic mess in Ukraine. The name changing, marching and
fist fights in Rada are a distraction. What happened in two years is an economic collapse. When
is Guardian going to notice?
The real issue with Ukrainian champagne is that as of Jan 1 it cannot be called "champagne".
With EU Association Agreement, the word "champagne" is reserved for the French stuff. That is
by far more important than some "soviet" name games.
In the same way Ukrainian "cognac" cannot use the term cognac. There are hundreds of others.
EU AA means following the EU rules. It also means that EU can export to Ukraine at will. Given
that Ukraine doesn't have much to sell to EU this will mean additional collapse in Ukr economy.
The current markets in Russia are now closed.
Who is running Kiev? Do these people know math and have map? Or is there knowledge limited
to knowing where to find a ticket to get out?
Unfortunately there are many Ukrainians who think that 'restitution' will make them better
off. They think that if Western people get rich (even Poles) that will be somehow good for Ukrainians
as workers. It is low self-esteem combined with what can only be called servant mentality. The
shouting and marching is there just to amuse, deep inside they all can't wait to serve.
How does a one party state get so close to the EU? It relies on massive loans from the IMF and
EU but by all accounts is regarded, not least by its own citizens, to be getting more corrupt
not less. A million are seeking Nationality in Poland to escape inflation set to be 44% this year
as wages and jobs crash. Visa free travel to the EU in October might ease the internal pressure.
The trade agreement with the EU is another blow to European agriculture, this time in grain, as
surplus products flood the market along with even cheaper Turkish fruit and vegetables following
their exclusion from the Russian market. One wonders whether the EU ever regrets putting this
government in power?
Ukraine's De-communization laws were made by people with their own agenda and they are arguably
a dark spot on Ukraine's striving towards some form of functional democracy. Saying that, when
it comes to phony parties like the "Communist Party" of Ukraine, it is pretty hard to give a crap.
On the plus side, this anti-Communist law will put an end to corrupt, phony parties using the
Communist name and symbols for their own benefit. Any Communist-style party that exists in Ukraine
now will have to be genuine.
And make no doubt about it – a collapse is exactly what it is, and it afflicts way more of the country
than just the war-wracked Donbass. Ukraine now vies with Moldova for the country with the lowest
average wages in Europe.
Gabon with snow
? Saakashvili is hopelessly optimistic. That would actually be a big improvement!
GDP is at 60% of its 1990 Level
As of this year, the country with the most pro-Western revolutions is also the poorest performing
post-Soviet economy bar none. This is a not unimpressive achievement considering outcomes here have
tended to disappoint rather than elate. Russia itself, current GDP at about 110% of its 1990 level,
has nothing to write home about (though "statist" Belarus, defying neoliberal conventional wisdom,
at a very respectable 200% does have something to boast about).
Back in 2010 ,
although by far the worst performing heavily industrialized Soviet economy, Ukraine was still performing
better relative to its position in 1990 than Moldova, Tajikistan, and Georgia. In the intervening
5 years – with a 7% GDP decline in 2014 which has widened
to a projected
9% in 2015 – Ukraine
has managed to slip to rock bottom .
How does this look like on a more human level?
Housing Construction is Similar to That of 5 Million Population Russian Provinces
With a quarter of its population, Belarus is
constructing as much new accomodation as is Ukraine. 16 million strong Kazakhstan is building
more. Russia – more than ten times as much, even though it has less than four times as many people.
The seaside Russian province of Krasnodar Krai, which hosted the Sochi Winter Olympics, with its
5 million inhabitants, is still constructing more than half as much housing as all of Ukraine. No
wonder the Crimeans were so eager to leave.
New Vehicle Sales Collapse to 1960s Levels
The USSR might have famously concentrated on guns over butter, yet even so, even in terms of an
item as infamously difficult to acquire as cars under socialism,
Ukrainian consumers were better off
during the 1970-1990 period than today. Now Ukrainians are buying as few new cars as they were
doing in the catastrophic 1990s, and fewer even than during the depth of the 2009 recession.
And even so many Maidanists continue to giggle at "sovoks" and "vatniks." Well, at least they
now make up for having even less butter than before with the
Azovets "innovative tank." Armatas are quaking in fear looking at that thing.
Debt to GDP Ratio at Critical Levels
And this
figure would have risen further to around 100% this year.
Note that 60% is usually considered to be the critical danger zone for emerging market economies.
This is the approximate level at which both Russia and Argentina fell into their respective sovereign
debt crises.
To be fair, the IMF
has
indicated it will be partial to flouting its own rules to keep Ukraine afloat, which is not too
surprising since it is ultimately a tool of Western geopolitical influence. And if as projected the
Ukrainian economy begins to recover this year, then there is a fair chance that crisis will ultimately
be averted.
But it will be a close shave, and so long as the "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" oligarchs
who rule Ukraine
continue siphoning off money by the billions to their offshore accounts with impunity, nothing
can be ruled out.
Resumption of Demographic Collapse
Much like the rest of the post-Soviet Slavic world, Russia had a disastrous 1990s in demographic
terms, when mortality rates soared and birth rates plummeted. But like Russia – if to a lesser extent
– it has since staged a modest recovery, incidentally with the help of a Russian-style "maternal
capital" program. In 2008, it reached a plateau in birth rates, which was not significantly uninterrupted
by the 2009 recession.
Since then, however, they have plummeted –
exactly nine months after the February 2014 coup. The discreteness with which this happened together
with the fact that the revolt in the Donbass took a further couple of months to get going after the
coup proper implies that this fertility decline was likely a direct reaction to the Maidan and what
it portended for the future.
This collapse is very noticeable even after you completely remove all traces of Crimea, Donetsk,
and Lugansk oblasts which might otherwise muddy the waters (naturally, the demographic crisis in
all its aspects has been much worse in the region that bore the brunt of Maidanist chiliastic fervor).
Here are
the Ukrstat figures for births and deaths in the first ten months of 2013, 2014, and 2015:
Births
Deaths
2013
350658
441331
2014
354622
445236
2015
329308
450763
Furthermore, this period has seen a huge wave of emigration. Figures can only be guesstimated,
but it is safe to say they are well over a million to both Russia and the EU.
The effects of this will continue to be felt long after any semblance of normalcy returns to Ukraine.
Agence-France Press an article of which that Guardian dutifully reproduced really lost their heads
in anti-Russian hysteria if they cite Bellingcat as a source of information for investigators. Bellingcat
is a propaganda outlet and would be discarded as a source of information by anybody with at least high
school education. It would be funny if it is not so tragic. By propagating this propagna
outlet nonsense they just reveal their real position and aversion to truth. Welcome to Ministry
of Truth, this type in NATO incarnation.
Notable quotes:
"... Bellendcrap more like, a bunch of nutjobs with prejudice aforethought decide to trawl the web for claptrap that support their daft notions. The Dutch authorities should not pander to groups such as these and keep in mind that history can be a cruel judge. ..."
"... Yep, Belling cat seems to be the Langley paper boy on this one. All their sat info and high res pics just turned out to be no match for a Google search! Uncle Sam just took their target audience to be truly dumb and dumbed down... ..."
"... Yes US relying on Bellingcat and other social media. The US have not submitted their reports. The Kiev regime either; they sit on the records in the control tower. ..."
"... NATO ships and aircraft had the Donetsk and Luhansk regions under total radar and electronic surveillance whilst they had a 10-day exercise code named BREEZE 2014 in Black Sea. The exercise, which included the use of electronic warfare and electronic intelligence aircraft such as the Boeing EA-18G Growler and the Boeing E3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS), coincided with the shoot down of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 in eastern Ukraine, some 40 miles from the Russian border. The U.S. Army has revealed that the 10-day exercise involved commercial traffic monitoring . It can be assumed that commercial traffic monitoring included monitoring the track of MH-17. ..."
"... The essential problem is that people say when you look at the media this is an investigation led by the Dutch. Well in fact its not led by the Dutch. Its led by Ukrainian investigation together with the Dutch people. Its delegated from Kiev to the Netherlands for a period of a year. Why is it taking so long? It is taking so long because they are not finding what they were looking for. And that must be a BUK, a rocket installation from the separatist side. And they are not finding anything truthful about it . (Joost Niemoller, Dutch journalist) ..."
Clear evidence of Ukrainian compliance in this murder - however expect Ukrainian failure to
admit responsibility to continue endlessly. Stare organised terrorism, sabotage, default on debts,
murder of political opponents & COVER-UP is a clear part of Ukrainian strategy. Concoction of
outrageous stories to cover-up the murder is a part of Bellingcat strategy as well. Not only Ukraine
didn't block the war zone airspace, its air traffic control directed the liner there to be shot
down by a fighter waiting in in ambush. All that to simply point the finger at Russia.
All those "investigations" are mere window dressing, and all the involved know it. That won't
be the first time Ukraine shot down a civilian airliner either. They won't get away with 15 million
compensation this time though.
TonyBlunt
4 Jan 2016
18:36
6 7 At last the Kiev Government has, reluctantly, told us why it could not provide any
radar data in the MH17 investigation. Because the Ukraine's two primary radar stations were down
for repairs on the day MH17 came down. So why did they not tell us that a year and a half ago?
Perhaps the LangleyBots can enlighten us.
Still no excuse forthcoming on why Ukraine cannot provide their full air traffic control recordings.
The ones the Ukrainian FSB siezed. Ah well. Maybe in a year or two.
This things can hardly be named citizen journalism. From wikipedia:
In 2015, Higgins
partnered with the Atlantic Council
to co-author the report Hiding
in Plain Sight: Putin's War in Ukraine which examined direct Russian military involvement in
Ukraine.
. In June 2015 on
the invitation of former Belgium Prime Minister
Guy Verhofstadt,
Higgins together with his report
co-author Atlantic Council's Maks Czupersk
i presented
Hiding in Plain Sight at the European Parliament
alongside Russian opposition figure Ilya
Yashin and former Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov.
[11]
From wikipedia as well:
In February 2009,
James L. Jones, then-chairman of the Atlantic Council, stepped down
in order to serve as President Obama's new National Security Advisor
and was succeeded
by Senator Chuck Hagel.[3]
In addition, other Council members also left to serve the administration:
Susan Rice as ambassador to the UN
,
and Anne-Marie Slaughter as Director of Policy Planning at the State Department.
Four years later, Hagel stepped down to serve as US Secretary of Defense.
The Atlantic Council has influential supporters, with former NATO Secretary General Anders
Fogh Rasmussen calling the Council a "pre-eminent think tank" with a "longstanding reputation",
[5] .
Surely a Russian "citizen journalist working with the Eurasian Integration council whose members
have worked for the Russian minister of defense and the FSB would not be referred as a citizen
journalism anywhere.
No so Psygone. The criminal investigation in Australia - that will affect compensation payments
- thinks the Dutch crash investigation inadequate. See below.
According to the Dutch Safety Board, Russia and the Ukraine refuse to provide vital images
of the MH17 disaster stating that they were "erased" or that are no images due to "maintenance",
the Telegraaf reports.
Safety Board spokesperson Wim van der Weegen told the newspaper that the Ukrainian authorities
informed them that the primary radar stations were not working on the day of the crash, July 14th
last year, due to routine maintenance.
Refusing to hand over these images may well hamper the criminal investigation into who is responsible
for the downing of the Malaysia Airlines flight.
According to the newspaper, defense and criminal law experts call the countries actions unbelievable
and suspicious.
The headline is intentionally misleading. It is Ukraine that now says the radar data was erased
due to maintenance, not Russia. Russia has complied fully already and released a fully radar data
presentation on July 21st, 2014. The real story here is that Safety Board spokesperson Wim van
der Weegen told the newspaper that the Ukrainian authorities informed them that the primary radar
stations were not working on the day of the crash, July 14th last year, due to routine maintenance.
Ukraine is hiding the truth. Link to Russian radar presentation from 4 days after MH-17 was shot
down. To watch the full Russian radar presentation simply Google the phrase " Russian Ministry
of Defence Briefing on MH-17 Boeing 777"
The official Australian investigation into the cause of the crash of Malaysian Airlines MH17
have accused the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) of failing to provide "conclusive evidence" of what
exactly destroyed the aircraft, and say that Russia did not shoot down the plane despite accusations
to the contrary from DSB.
The senior Australian policeman investigating the MH17 crash, Detective Superintendent Andrew
Donoghue, testified in an international court recently saying that a "tougher standard than the
DSB report" is required before the criminal investigation can identify the weapon that caused
the crash. Donoghue also testified that ten months after the crash, only half of the planes fuselage
fragments were handed over for inspection and that "some fragments were not consistent with debris
of the aircraft".
Having found a link to the heights of aircraft shot down over Eastern Ukraine prior to the
downing of MH17,
You haven't. You've found a graphic that show the service ceiling for the aircraft, not the height
they were at when they were shot down. For example it shows MH17 at 43000 feet - it was shot down
at FL330 (33000 ft).
I had not realized until now that in month prior to the downing of MH17, a transport plane
was shot down at nearly 40,000 feet.
Thats because its not true. See above.
With that sort of critical analysis and attention to detail, maybe you should consider working
for bellingcat?
You're looking at the wrong sources Alderbaran. That Ilyushin was shot down on a landing approach
at the Lugansk airport. That AN-26 was also in a range of MANPADS and there is a video of that
shot down and there is no characteristic BUK ( or other powerful missile) trail on it. There is
also a video available with an interview with one of the survived crew members. They were delivering
supplies to encircled troops at the border and you can hardly drop those from higher than 3000-4000
ft.
You have misjudged that graphic that is showing the service ceiling of those aircraft and not
an altitude where they were hit (which is also wrong, Su-25 has a ceiling of 10.000 m or 33.000
ft).
"Everyone, apart from a few lost souls, now accept that a Russian BUK missile system brought
down MH17 and we are at the stage of identifying the crew members."
Everyone who had time to look into it properly now accepts that it was an old model of Buk
which was manufactured in Ukraine and was no longer in possession of the Russian Army.
It is also a common knowledge that the original "evidence" provided by "Bellingcat" amounts
to nothing more than a baseless speculation.
Bellendcrap more like, a bunch of nutjobs with prejudice aforethought decide to trawl the
web for claptrap that support their daft notions. The Dutch authorities should not pander to groups
such as these and keep in mind that history can be a cruel judge.
I am still surprised that Uncle Sam has not produced some sharp, detailed images of the
border. When they want to, they can but this time no. Bellingcat seems to enjoy doing this research
but it all comes out like some Robert Ludlum novel.
Yep, Belling cat seems to be the Langley paper boy on this one. All their sat info and
high res pics just turned out to be no match for a Google search! Uncle Sam just took their
target audience to be truly dumb and dumbed down...
Yes US relying on Bellingcat and other social media. The US have not submitted their
reports. The Kiev regime either; they sit on the records in the control tower.
Consider this:
NATO ships and aircraft had the Donetsk and Luhansk regions under total radar and electronic
surveillance whilst they had a 10-day exercise code named BREEZE 2014 in Black Sea. The exercise,
which included the use of electronic warfare and electronic intelligence aircraft such as the
Boeing EA-18G Growler and the Boeing E3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS), coincided
with the shoot down of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 in eastern Ukraine, some 40 miles from the
Russian border. The U.S. Army has revealed that the 10-day exercise involved "commercial traffic
monitoring". It can be assumed that commercial traffic monitoring included monitoring the track
of MH-17.
Since March 2014, NATO Boeing Awacs were over Ukraine checking every aerial and ground movements
and intercepting all the communications and electronic signals. Thanks to these abilities three
Boeing Awacs are enough for controlling the whole Central Europe.
Yet they have not individualized the missile responsible for the downing of MH17. And it has not
sensed the electronic wake of the radar which has hooked the flight either. As blind and deaf
were the CIA satellites. Yet the same satellites had previously photographed a column of three
tanks T64 and other weapons at the border between Russia and Ukraine.
It is thus legitimate to wonder how come the Americans, so prompt to photograph and to follow
the movements of three antiquated tank T64 at the time, had let escaped or had not documented
the passage, strategically more remarkable, of a missile system.
The Dutch reports says:
"The crash of flight MH17 on 17 July 2014 was caused by the detonation of a 9N314M-type
warhead launched from the eastern part of Ukraine using a Buk missile system. So says the investigation
report published by the Dutch Safety Board today. Moreover, it is clear that Ukraine already
had sufficient reason to close the airspace over the eastern part of Ukraine as a precaution
before 17 July 2014. None of the parties involved recognised the risk posed to overflying civil
aircraft by the armed conflict in the eastern part of Ukraine."
"The essential problem is that people say when you look at the media this is an investigation
led by the Dutch. Well in fact it's not led by the Dutch. It's led by Ukrainian investigation
together with the Dutch people. It's delegated from Kiev to the Netherlands for a period of
a year. Why is it taking so long? It is taking so long because they are not finding what they
were looking for. And that must be a BUK, a rocket installation from the separatist side. And
they are not finding anything truthful about it". (Joost Niemoller, Dutch journalist)
Moreover when two countries, either part of the investigation primary panel, or of the
advisory panel, both shot a civilian plane and never apologized for it, both actively participate
in killing civilians in the Donbass, concerns can arise as to their reliability and impartiality
in such an inquiry. And there is the infamous non disclosure deal, that is that these countries
are not obliged to communicate all of their findings, and on top they neglected most Russian's
material provided to them.
The Commission demonstrated its incompetence by the fact of not having sent experts on, not
having secured the area immediately to the investigation, it had not brought any of all the pieces
of the plane to reconstruct and visualize how the carcass was touched. And the Ukrainian army
was bombing the area.
How can you then believe this inquiry is not biased ? You cant. The US satellite were active
over the Donbass the day the flight was hit, yet the US refuse to show the images proving their
claim that Russia is guilty, like the Ukrainians dont relaese their ATC.
Sometimes readers comments give information that offer insight into the many questions still
left unanswered into the circumstances surrounding the downing of the aircraft MA 17' The
points raised by Davie Macdonald is a good example of this.
"Some points worth noting 26 February 2014 Russian Forces in Western Military Distract put
on Alert That would have triggered NATO observation and comment > Confirmed
US Spy satellites would have been more focused on the area >obvious
Moving forward when MH17 was shot down claims were made through audio intercepts the Separatists
( Alexander Khodakovsky of the Vostok Battalion) had done the downing and boasted.
Then later is was claimed Strelkov admitted it. later and it was an error. . Some three days
later as these transcripts was proved fake.
Higgins and the Ukraine Government immediately claimed it was the 18 infantry Brigade. This
didn't exist in the Russian Western Military District . In desperation a picture was then posted
of a Russian selfie with BUK 312 by Higgins proving Russian involvement It very soon proved to
be a Ukrainian soldier and Ukrainian Buk.
By September 2014 the claims were being made that it was 53rd Brigade which is also interesting
because that is not (for the forensically accurate Higgins claims he is) Is actually 53rd Anti-Aircraft
Rocket Brigade.
Now the only heresay we are given is by Higgins. It has already been clearly established that
the BUK unit as claimed was 312 and in Ukraine army possession Can you really imagine this vehicle
would have been driven to and from a site that was a battlefield in broad daylight ? Afterall
the Ukraine has its airforce.
As for the first claimed launch field where it was supposedly fired from on July 17 you will
1) find no evidence of burnt grass Higgins faked a Google Earth map
2) It was as pointed out in one of my other responses an battler field ebbing and flowing
3) Higgins claims it was a bright sunny day to show a Buk plume when it was in fact overcast
see initial and final DSB report
4) BUK M1 cannot fire accurately at a target sight unseen and seen It still requires in simple
terms the acquisition target Radar unit to guide missile....which when reaching target is designed
not to hit but explode above the target.
The DSB report does not show this and only one BUK Bowtie missile shard (there are 8,000 in
missile) was found in the wreckage along with a stabilizer fin, engine exhaust manifold. Only
one person found this material a Dutch Journalist Julian Borger
None were found by site investigators and the origin of another 2 allegedly found at the site
is deemed classified. Even the Malaysians have not been given this information Why keep,it secret"
Many people are convinced that the Russians were responsible, if they could 'answer Macdonalds
questions it would go a long way in convincing me that they actually 'know' the truth
The sources for this include photos posted on the Internet and army data about personnel
deployment that was available online, NOS said.
Of course it must be true as it was "on the internet".
Considering the the fact that each side to this saga routinely denounces contrary internet
information as complete bollocks, how can the Guardian ascribe any credibility to this "study".
Clearly, whilst all information is equal, some is more equal than other!
BUK is a complex piece of weaponry, more so than your average T60/T72 tanks requiring a lot
of lengthy training. They're not the sort of equipment provided to insurgent/rebels because of
the threat they pose. If they did obtain one then it was more than likely crewed by actual trained
Russian troops. In either case this was a genuine mistake and a tragedy as it happens in all warzones.
The US shot down the Iranian Passenger plane in the 70s in far more dubious circumstanced and
refused to even apologise for the ''mistake'' (leading many to believe it wasn't a mistake). Now
if you think you'll find, trial and convict anyone for this mistake...good luck with it. You'll
get about the same results as those Iranian families
If someone uses some logic, why would they (The Russians) give that BUK to the militia? There
wasn't any need for that because they're doing pretty well with MANPADS, they didn't have any
needs to hit high flying aeroplanes.
The second thing, if some aeroplane is hit at an altitude higher than MANPADS can reach it
would be pretty obvious that Russia have supplied them with those advanced weapon systems.
The third thing is, a BUK single TELAR (if they had an operational one) without an observation
radar 'Kupol' (or any other) cannot find such a high and fast flying target, a radar beam on that
TELAR is simply too narrow for that. A BUK is a system ( complex) with an observation radar and
a command vehicle and all data that is comming to a TELAR have to come through that command vehicle
and an observation radar is easy to detect
"if some aeroplane is hit at an altitude higher than MANPADS can reach it would be pretty obvious
that Russia have supplied them"
- obvious by feelings, but not logically obvious. As there are other possibilities, just few for
example:
1) not a BUK, but something else; 2) not separatists/Russia, but Ukrainian military/batallions;
3) if separatists, they were able to take BUK from some base there, for example, the air defense
base A-1402 near Donetsk... etc.
"... While dangerous and corrupt (I have friends recently back from Venezuela), I would say a observation with much equanimity. Venezuela will not return to it's US Client State status of the past, and learned the lesson of the lockout during the coup attempt. ..."
Thing is, the Supreme Court Justices who made the decision were sworn in illegally one week ago.
Furthermore, the deputies were already certified as properly elected by an Chavista controlled
commission, the CNE, a separate power under the Venezuelan constitution. In addition, the constitution
states the National Assembly is the one which decides whether its certified members should be
unseated. Thus the move by Maduro, which he took one day after visiting his boss in Cuba, is illegal.
It amounts to a coup against the National Assembly.
As I wrote before, the National Assembly response is simply to ignore the Supreme Court. This
is heading towards a serious clash on and after January 5th. Lesson learned: communists are indeed
a serious threat to democracy. They use the system to get power, and will do anything to hold
it once they are at the top. They are also corrupt, venal evil doers. And this is why I despise
them.
Fernando Leanme: "Lesson learned: communists are indeed a serious threat to democracy. They use
the system to get power, and will do anything to hold it once they are at the top. They are also
corrupt, venal evil doers. And this is why I despise them."
1. Maduro is not a communist.
He isn't even a socialist. He's a Left populist with authoritarian tendencies, albeit a lot less
authoritarian than most Latin American caudillos of the last century.
If the Chavistas were
really socialists, they would have nationalised at least the commanding heights of the economy.
They didn't. They even allowed the private sector media to keep operating, with full freedom of
the press!
2. Far from "do anything to hold [power] once they are at the top", the Chavistas held democratic
elections on schedule, and under credible conditions,
for over a decade.
Even when
they knew they were going to lose this year, they didn't call them off or falsify them. Their
attempts to stack the Supreme Court are reprehensible, but don't go anywhere near justifying Fernando
Leanme's characterisation. For that, you'd have to look at Chile under General Pinochet, at Argentina's
Dirty War, or at the Death Squad Democracies of Central America in the 80s & 90s.
3. In evaluating the situation in Venezuela, the context must be remembered.
Not only
have the Right wing opposition staged several attempts at overthrowing the government by means
of popular movements combined with economic action, but at one stage even mounted an actual military
coup. All their attempts failed, due to the fact that the Chavistas had strong support from the
population. PSUV support fell because of a range of reasons (primarily the consequences of the
low price of oil and the growing corruption of the bolibourgeoisie), but that didn't change the
nature of the Right wing opposition, which has never accepted the legitimacy of any of the Chavista
governments since 1998. My guess is that Maduro's attempt to stack the Supreme Court is a panic
reaction due to fear that, with its super-majority in the Parliament, the new government will
change the rules to ensure that the PSUV can never again be elected. And I'm far from convinced
that those fears are unjustified.
While dangerous and corrupt (I have friends recently back from Venezuela), I would say a observation
with much equanimity.
Venezuela will not return to it's US Client State status of the past, and learned the lesson of
the lockout during the coup attempt.
For much of the period (not the case now), 80% of
the citizens benefited from the reforms, economically and politically.
Let them have their revolution– it may take a while to get it right. South America is the political
bright spot on the planet (IMHO) at the moment, with only Colombia still under the thumb of US
interests on a major level.
We shall see what the mess in Venezuela turns into-
"... I think it was Professor Michael Hudson who came up with the delightful expression that since Ukraine the IMF had been the financial arm of the Pentagon. For that single sentence I vote a Nobel for him. ..."
"... The Pentagon? Or the State Department? Since it is the R2P scum and various other neo-whatever filth who have supported the Banderazi coup regime in KiEV, and the Axis of Jihad against the lawful authorities in Syria, and etc. And I am not aware of any R2P scum lurking in the Pentagon. ..."
I think it was Professor Michael Hudson who came up with the delightful expression that
since Ukraine the IMF had been the financial arm of the Pentagon. For that single sentence I vote
a Nobel for him.
In spirit I've been voting Michael Hudson Nobels for decades. He's too great for a Nobel. I
consider Michael to be our Thorstein Veblen, and such free-thinking radicals are not welcome in
a club that allows criticism but not repudiation of neoliberalism.
The Pentagon? Or the State Department? Since it is the R2P scum and various other neo-whatever
filth who have supported the Banderazi coup regime in KiEV, and the Axis of Jihad against the
lawful authorities in Syria, and etc. And I am not aware of any R2P scum lurking in the Pentagon.
"... The author provides a persuasive argument that America is indeed an empire, albeit not of the
traditional colonial type. Bacevich demontrates rather convincingly that the U.S., since roughly the
Spanish-American War, has pursued a grand strategy of reshaping the world in its image, through free
trade, military dominance, and globalization. ..."
"... Americas imperial quest is meant to overcome problems at home. Although Beard and Williams
are polemic in their view that Americas foreign adventures prologue the inevitable reckoning with domestic
troubles, Mr. Bacevich adopts a more dispassionate view and offers merely a possible explanation: With
Americas national cohesiveness eroding, Mr. Bacevich writes, an ever-expanding pie satisfying ever more
expansive appetites was the only `crusade' likely to command widespread and durable popular enthusiasm.
..."
"... A book whose aim is to show that America's chief purpose is promoting globalization would have
done well to pay heed to dollar diplomacy as much as it has to gunboat diplomacy. Yet this minor objection
could not abate the appeal of an otherwise outstanding book. ..."
The author provides a persuasive argument that America is indeed an empire, albeit not
of the traditional colonial type. Bacevich demontrates rather convincingly that the U.S., since
roughly the Spanish-American War, has pursued a grand strategy of reshaping the world in its image,
through free trade, military dominance, and globalization.
Particularly remarkable is the extent to which succeeding U.S. administrations have
maintained continuity of purpose in achieving these goals. If you think Bill Clinton and GW Bush
are radically different in their approaches to U.S. foreign policy, this book will open your eyes.
In fact, Bacevich amply demonstrates that even presidents subscribing to the realist school
of international relations have been greatly influenced by the idealism espoused by Woodrow Wilson
before the First World War. In sum, if you are a student of U.S. foreign policy, political science,
modern history, or just a concerned citizen of the "global community," this book can only serve
to increase your understanding of how the United States achieved its current status of world dominance
and what the implications of that are.
To many cynics, a book like the "American Empire" might seem like an exercise in futility.
Who could have trouble believing, after all, that America's primary strategic objective is to
create a global marketplace without barriers to the movement of goods, capital, ideas and people?
But what starts as an exposition of this argument soon branches into various themes of diverse
interest yet equal importance.
Andrew Bacevich, a professor at Boston University, takes on conventional wisdom. For those who
are baffled by the complexity of the post Cold War world and are dismayed by America's lack of
a coherent strategy, Mr. Bacevich is reassuring: America's objective, now and in the past, has
been to promote global openness; "this books finds continuity where others see discontinuity,"
he writes, parting ways with those who believe that globalization fundamentally reshaped American
foreign policy priorities.
While this theme is ever-present, Mr. Bacevich covers a lot more ground. Perhaps his most telling
contribution is the resurrection of Charles Beard and William Appleman Williams as trenchant observers
of American foreign policy. Both Beard and Williams offer their own hypotheses about why America
is driven to this ever increasing need for markets abroad. And, after this voyage into intellectual
history comes Mr. Bacevich's own argument about why America is compelled to this strategy of openness.
All three reach the same conclusion: America's imperial quest is meant to overcome problems
at home. Although Beard and Williams are polemic in their view that America's foreign adventures
prologue the inevitable reckoning with domestic troubles, Mr. Bacevich adopts a more dispassionate
view and offers merely a possible explanation: With America's national cohesiveness eroding, Mr.
Bacevich writes, "an ever-expanding pie satisfying ever more expansive appetites was the only
`crusade' likely to command widespread and durable popular enthusiasm."
With this in place, Mr. Bacevich moves on to a different point: American military assets, he
contends, are increasingly used to promote global openness. This heightened willingness to use
coercion has elevated the role of the military in American politics, perhaps even more so than
ever before. And, this increased militarization of American politics is playing a central, if
underappreciated, role in formulating as well as executing foreign policy.
For sure, all this is food for thought. Surprisingly enough, Mr. Bacevich has refrained as
much as possible from judgments; in fact, writing a book on such a topic whilst remaining neutral
is a feat in itself. All the same, Mr. Bacevich's military mind is evident throughout. A book
whose aim is to show that America's chief purpose is promoting globalization would have done well
to pay heed to dollar diplomacy as much as it has to gunboat diplomacy. Yet this minor objection
could not abate the appeal of an otherwise outstanding book.
This work started out strong, beginning with an excellent chapter on 20th century American intellectual
history covering Beard, Williams, and the myth of the Accidental Empire. Beard and Williams questioned
the meaning and motive behind the open door policy, proclaiming it sheep's clothing over an imperialist
agenda. Both historians were stigmatized and largely ignored by later historians for their trouble.
Bacevich then connects the open door to the post cold war world, showing how globalization
as conceived in American foreign policy was 'new bottles for old wine'.
The majority of the book is an extended review of the Clinton years, looking at how Bosnia,
Iraq, and Kosovo reflect continuities with the Open Door.
Some bits I didn't know: The use of private military contractors started back in Bosnia because
Americans wouldn't support a boots on the ground strategy and we weren't supposed to take sides.
Also, the weak State Departments under Bush reflect a structural problem. The theater CINC's
have much greater budgetary power and discretion of action, to a foreign power their words matter
more then any ambassador (or Secretary of State?)
I would avoid the last chapter on George W. Bush, it appears to have been written prior to
the invasion of Iraq and is therefore useless as analysis.
I think Bacevich is too quick to look for continuity between administrations and spends too
little time on constraints. Reagan, Bush I and Clinton all had adversarial relationships with
Congress, and their policies were tailored around what congress would allow. As Bush II demonstrates,
removing that constraint allowed wildly discontinuous policies. If it was so easy for Bush to
push an overtly imperial agenda why can't the next President push an overtly anti-imperial agenda
with equally revolutionary changes?
In American Empire, Andrew Bacevich provides a fine and historically cogent analysis of American
foreign policy. Bacevich writes with clarity, skill, and historical understanding as he argues
that a new Pax American - an American Empire - is at hand. While the definition of empire and
whether United States is in fact an imperial power is debatable, the real value of Bacevich's
analysis is its identification of continuity in American foreign policy and grand strategy throughout
the Twentieth-Century.
American Empire does this by identifying U.S. attempts to promote and preserve "openness" around
the world. While this sometimes leads Bacevich to overemphasize continuity (such as ignoring George
W. Bush's willingness to ignore and alienate allies not just through policy but through diplomatic
tone), it nevertheless reveals a coherent grand strategy organizing U.S. foreign policy.
Bacevich is also sometimes too inclined to describe "globalization" as tantamount to "Americanization,"
but these minor flaws do not mar his overall analysis, which is excellent. Some have argued that
this book is anti-American, but any serious reader will find that it is hardly that. It is, however,
a subtle yet hard nosed analysis of the underlying assumptions and strategy of American foreign
policy.
Comparing even with the British coverage the statement "Bloomberg, (like most US MSM), just wants
to report the f**king news." is very weak.
In foreign events coverage they want to propagate a certain agenda and are very disciplined
in pursuing this goal. That does not exclude that sometimes they report important news with minor
distortions. But to assume that they "just wants to report the f**king news" is extremely naïve
if we are taking about foreign events.
Remember all those fancy dances pretending to be news about Iran sanctions. Truth is the first
victim of war. Unfortunately this war for world dominance now became a permanent business for
the USA. And Iran is considered by US establishment as an enemy.
I would recommend to read AMERICAN EMPIRE by Andrew J. BACEVICH
Harvard University Press, 2002 – 302 pages
In a challenging, provocative book, Andrew Bacevich reconsiders the assumptions and purposes
governing the exercise of American global power. Examining the presidencies of George H. W.
Bush and Bill Clinton–as well as George W. Bush's first year in office–he demolishes the view
that the United States has failed to devise a replacement for containment as a basis for foreign
policy. He finds instead that successive post-Cold War administrations have adhered to a well-defined
"strategy of openness." Motivated by the imperative of economic expansionism, that strategy
aims to foster an open and integrated international order, thereby perpetuating the undisputed
primacy of the world's sole remaining superpower. Moreover, openness is not a new strategy,
but has been an abiding preoccupation of policymakers as far back as Woodrow Wilson.
Although based on expectations that eliminating barriers to the movement of trade, capital,
and ideas nurtures not only affluence but also democracy, the aggressive pursuit of openness
has met considerable resistance. To overcome that resistance, U.S. policymakers have with increasing
frequency resorted to force, and military power has emerged as never before as the preferred
instrument of American statecraft, resulting in the progressive militarization of U.S. foreign
policy.
Neither indictment nor celebration, American Empire sees the drive for openness for what
it is–a breathtakingly ambitious project aimed at erecting a global imperium. Large questions
remain about that project's feasibility and about the human, financial, and moral costs that
it will entail. By penetrating the illusions obscuring the reality of U.S. policy, this book
marks an essential first step toward finding the answers.
"... In all fairness they sorta do in essence by consistently reporting on a weekly basis that we are about to enter a new recession. What kind of economy is perpetually entering a recession? ..."
"... One where the Fed is doing everything it can to prevent it entering a recession :-). But that isnt enough to produce a recovery. ..."
"... The young people, who have the energy to go out in the streets…. most of them are so thoroughly brainwashed that they regard unions as their enemies. ..."
"... the west is no longer a society. it is a collection of nuclear individuals. i doubt they can form a positive, beneficial political force anymore. except in the Marcus Olson sense, tight groups linked by ethnic or financial interest which conspire to extract from the outsiders . These groups are predatory and will do anything to protect their privileges. ..."
"... I would also have mentioned the Greece fiasco. What the ECB and EU did to Greece I think is a turning point which will eventually lead to the dissolution of the EU. ..."
"... The collapse in commodities prices is a symptom of the fact that China has started to export deflation. ..."
"... Is the Austerity program a part of the attack on China? Or a coincidence? Or part of the plan after the brilliant leadership which gave China its manufacturer-to-the-world leadership though the export of jobs from, the US and Europe? ..."
"... Ive been curious about this as well. The driving force seems to rest with Hudsons observation that The product of Wall Street (WS) is debt. ..."
"... Chinas problem isn't all export demand. For the last 15 years, half their economy was internal investment spending (infrastructure, too many factories, and ghost cities) There are trying to increase consumption and reduce internal investment. Except workers in china dont have that much money. Oopsie. ..."
"... The US simply cannot afford peace. It would destroy the raison detre of the military industrial security [MIS] complex. ..."
"... No longer benign military Keynesianism , if it ever was is debatable, but now simply aggressive economic expansionism backed by military force coupled with increasing austerity in the homeland. Guns with butter are no longer affordable. So it will be guns! ..."
"... I couldn't help thinking while I watched the last Republican debate that for two hours the American people were terrorized, but NOT by ISIS. The terrorists were the stooges up on stage posing as candidates for President. If not radical Islam, then China or Putin dominated the discussion. Rand Paul perhaps offered a different take but it had little impact. ..."
"... I think it was Professor Michael Hudson who came up with the delightful expression that since Ukraine the IMF had been the financial arm of the Pentagon. For that single sentence I vote a Nobel for him. ..."
"... The Pentagon? Or the State Department? Since it is the R2P scum and various other neo-whatever filth who have supported the Banderazi coup regime in KiEV, and the Axis of Jihad against the lawful authorities in Syria, and etc. And I am not aware of any R2P scum lurking in the Pentagon. ..."
I'm surprised that Hudson didn't identify as a "big story" the fact that no MSM are
reporting
that the economy has not recovered. I'm appalled every time I read that the
Great Recession "ended" in 2009, or whatever date they choose. The MSM seem to motor along quoting
from the press releases of whomever about how everything's on the upswing.
koku –
In all fairness they sorta do in essence by consistently reporting on a weekly basis
that we are about to enter a new recession. What kind of economy is perpetually entering a recession?
One where the Fed is doing everything it can to prevent it entering a recession :-). But
that isn't enough to produce a recovery.
As Hudson pointed out, all it does is help the capital-owing
classes and those who are beneficiaries (as in they working in parts of finance and other sectors
that benefit from super-low rates or provide services to the capital-owing classes) with spotty
trickle-down to the rest.
Sounds like an apt description of the residual owners of claims against the assets of highly-leveraged
business associations–like the shareholders of big banks.
Thanks for this post. The article you shared the link for, emphasizes the transformative power
of principled action that risks arrest, changing first and foremost the participants. In my long
experience as an organizer I have seen the same. This kind of action helps free the person for
further action. And it can inspire others to action. Whether in resistance to a particular evil
or in constructing an alternative to the existing institutions. This is how the revolutionary
project looks today, in my view.
The young people, who have the energy to go out in the streets…. most of them are so thoroughly
brainwashed that they regard unions as their enemies.
They are pacified, and do not have the courage to face the police terror. Today everyone knows
that the police shoot to kill. It was a little different in the 60's. Now the police have military
weaponry from the federal government and are organized in military SWAT teams. It would take real
courage to go against that. But above all, it would take the belief that taking from the rich
is okay. And no "true American" believes that. Most of us believe that getting rich is a god-given
right, and those who cannot do it are losers.
I think the IMF backtracked a tiny bit on Ukraine by saying that they (IMF) expect Ukraine
to pay its debt to Russia but it is not a requirement for the new bailout. To which Ukraine replied
that they were never paying Russia a dime because they consider it to be an odious debt. They
are going to have a hard time making the case that all that heating oil they burned was an odious
act by Russia and their own former government hacks… we know they can't repay it and we are determined
to bail them out anyway. It's nice that Hudson is going off to the U. of Beijing; we'll get some
interesting stories.
I wish the USG would tell American citizens where the economic bomb shelters are when it declares
these wars on our former friends. Tim Geithner repeatedly told us China is not a currency manipulator
and as far as I know, Jack Lew still agrees with the assessment. So I guess we decided to fight
fair by taking a cheap nock off of a samurai sword in the chest while waving our arms around with
our heavy artillery, IMF loans and running a destroyer past fake Chinese Islands on the other
side of the world.
Then we are still friends with Europe. Friends don't let Europeans buy oil and gas from Russians.
Qatar is one option for gas, presently by LNG tanker, but the big volume is coming someday when
we get Syria all straightened out. Furthermore, we've lifted export bans on US energy product,
so more help for Europe on the way. Tho to get our fracking gas to Europe we need the LNG terminal
in Nawlings operational and it's majority funded by China. So we may need another destroyer escort
there to get the product pointed properly at Europe… but Europe must have their 11 dimensional
chess players who can figure out the brilliance in all this. But no Canadian Keystone oil for
Europe, anyway, unless Warren Buffet figures out a way to get it there.
No good news to report on citizen investment opportunities in Ukraine. My formerly favorite
international bond fund *, Templeton Global, thought it wise to accumulate half the Ukraine debt.
They just took a 20% haircut, and it may not be the last haircut. So if anyone was trying to be
an amateur bond vulture and bet that the IMF will bail out your investment, you lost that bet.
. . . There is a trade war and a financial war against Russia, China. . .
What trade war against China? Last I looked, every TV, stereo, and phone or any electronic
device in any store in the US was made in China. It isn't even possible to buy a new car without
Chinese made components in it.
Yves' comment
I would also add growing deflation risk as a big story. The collapse in commodities prices
is a symptom of the fact that China has
started
to "export" deflation.
China has been exporting deflation for decades. The collapse in commodities prices, now, is
the result of massive speculation and huge increases in prices due to ZIRP.
We haven't seen anything yet. I just bought a big pile of "vanilla" HV-transistors for some
audio amplifiers I want to make directly from AliExpress – about $3 for 200 off, including shipping.
"Here", I would pay 50 times that at the official distributor – unless I buy 5000 and up, then
it's the same price.
China is beginning to cut out the middle-man and going straight for making 3'rd world prices
available in the 1'st world. The Chinese shops even have customer service too, I have always managed
to get refunds / replacements when something went wrong with an order.
E-Bay and Ali is definitely the way to go for electronics parts, if they got what you want.
It's your Karmic reward for ever shopping at Radio Shack. China Post is subsidizing shipments
under 2 lbs as well. It comes all the way to your mailbox for $3 max. I have bought stuff for
a buck, freight included, tho I'm really not sure who ate it there.
Now for my Radio Shack karma experience. I needed 4 common ceramic caps for a project. They
probably sell for 3 cents each in volume. Radio Shack price, $1.25 EACH. Ebay price, 20 for $1.50,
shipping included. It felt so good.
And they have only two of the three cap values you need… ;o/
That is my perpetual experience w/ RS as well in general, Home Despot w/ any hardware related
widgets –before I swore off that joint entirely.
I refuse to shop HD anymore for ANYTHING. A perpetually unfulfilled experience that takes your
life away in 1 hour increments, actually more because I would then go on scavenger hunts to find
missing bits.
There is a street in Shenzhen called Wak Keung North Road with high-rise buildings end to end.
One is for computer parts, another for telephone stuff, another generaL electronics, video, audio,
etc., etc.
Inside each building the floor space is divided into 60 square foot booths, each rented by
a factory. They display their wares, you agree prices and delivery goes to wherever you want to
go.
@ fajensen
China is beginning to cut out the middle-man and going straight for making 3'rd world prices
available in the 1'st world. . .
@ craazyboy
China Post is subsidizing shipments under 2 lbs as well. It comes all the way to your mailbox
for $3 max. I have bought stuff for a buck, freight included, tho I'm really not sure who ate
it there.
@ optimander
I refuse to shop HD anymore for ANYTHING. A perpetually unfulfilled experience that takes your
life away in 1 hour increments . . .
@ RB Houghton
They display their wares, you agree prices and delivery goes to wherever you want to go.
I'd say that's cutting out the middleman.
Please consider what the middleman does. They import and warehouse the items, and display those
items on a retail shelf. The counting and inventory control cost multiples of what these electronic
parts cost.
Retail and warehouse businesses are mercilessly taxed by the municipality they reside in, whether
they have a good or bad year, and they employ some of our neighbors.
As one business after another is wiped out, what profitable enterprise will be left?
Hopefully some that don't involve charging me $1.25 for a 3 cent part that's smaller than your
little pinky's fingernail and can sit on a shelf indefinitely without spoiling or going bad..
In the absence of Mutual Protectionism for Everybody, this approach offers the only hope of
short term survival to those who are the first to take it. Because if you don't do it, someone
else will. Of course in the long run, every middleman will be cut out, will go out of bussiness
and/or jobless, and will be unable to buy anything much anywhere. That will help bankrupt even
more domestic bussinesses and de-job even more domestic workers. (And of course every American
electronic-parts-maker and everyone they employed is already out of bussiness and/or unemployed
and subsisting at the WalMart level or the Dollar Tree level below that now already.) In the longest
run, it will make the American 99% as poor as the Chinese 99%, which is the long range goal of
the Global OverClass.
The only way any of us can get off this hamsterwheel-race to the bottom is if everybody gets
off it together. And the only way for us to do that is for those of us who WANT to do that to
be able to force those of us who DON'T want to do that . . . to do that anyway. And the only way
to apply that force is with the impermeable economic borders we could give ourself by abolishing
Free Trade and restoring Militant Belligerent Protectionism.
I agree that "free" trade is a big problem. If we are to have an economy that will sustain
us all, we have to be willing to pay more and have less. I actually don't think this will be all
that terrible. I am in my mid fifties and all my friends and I talk about is getting rid of all
the crap we have managed to acquire over the last twenty years. Most of it is not of a good quality,
bought cheap thanks to exploited labor in factories in the Undeveloped World. Everyone wants first
world wages for themselves, yet we all want to pay cheap prices. Something has to give – and right
now it is the wages of the working class.
the west is no longer a society. it is a collection of nuclear individuals. i doubt they
can form a positive, beneficial political force anymore. except in the Marcus Olson sense, tight
groups linked by ethnic or financial interest which conspire to extract from the "outsiders".
These groups are predatory and will do anything to protect their privileges.
I think the party has ended for the west ("the white people"). Its economies are mostly based
on high brow money laundering, no future for the kids, and ever more frustrated population.
You are the best economic writer I have ever seen. Have been following others' blogs, books
and lectures for years. Bought most of your books and truly appreciate your ability to take the
hideously complex and explain in several different ways so that amateurs can understand. (Sorry
Yves, you presuppose a graduate degree in economics, but we still love you.) Love the footnotes
instead of having to flip back and forth to the back of the book. But, why, oh why, is there not
an index in "Killing The Host"? Please create one for the second edition.
I would also have mentioned the Greece fiasco. What the ECB and EU did to Greece I think
is a turning point which will eventually lead to the dissolution of the EU.
I can't help
but believe that behind the scenes various governments are working on plans to return to their
own central banks and currencies if need be. The drum beats of nationalism are just starting and
as economic conditions worsen they will only get louder.
Yves and the rest of you are absolutely right about what I left out.
I was phoned and asked to go on Skype in 10 minutes. I thought I'd have the usual 20 minutes
or so to talk. Just as I was getting started, the interview was over. So I didn't have a chance
to say what you commentators are rightly bringing up.
The economy is in a mess. It's not recovering. And instead of blaming debt deflation and the
tax shift off the FIRE sector onto labor and industry, China is blamed for not growing fast enough
to provide enough of a market to compensate for Western austerity and financialization.
There is no thought that maybe the West should emulate China and return to the idea of social
democratic industrial capitalism of a century ago, as it seemed to be evolving into socialism.
I wasn't sent a link (and still can't find the interview on TRNN's site), so i couldn't change
Haitian to Asian. But I love these machine-translators. Maybe robotization of life and culture
can only go so far …
On Canadian TV I heard someone (maybe a comedian) describe the relationship of Canada and the
US. This article brings it to mind. Basically she said (and I'm paraphrasing here),
When the US thinks of Canada at all, it thinks of it as its hat; when Canada thinks of the
US, they should think of the US as Canada's pants–and those pants are dirty.
I just think that is very funny and better than the elephant and mouse analogy. It's my joke
for the New Year.
The collapse in commodities prices is a symptom of the fact that China has started to
"export" deflation.
Yes, but…as manufacture-r to-the-world, China is dependent on demand. There appears to be a
demand gap in the US and Europe, driven by austerity.
Is the Austerity program a part of the attack on China? Or a coincidence? Or part of the
plan after the brilliant leadership which gave China its manufacturer-to-the-world leadership
though the export of jobs from, the US and Europe?
Is the Austerity program a part of the attack on China? Or a coincidence?
I've been curious about this as well. The driving force seems to rest with Hudson's observation
that "The product of Wall Street (WS) is debt."
To WS – and Washington – it doesn't really
seem to matter who holds that debt – only that they continue to be allowed to create ever more
of it. To that end, of course, the debt so created has to at least seem to be able to produce
an income stream seemingly capable of paying the economic rent, the claims on society's future
wealth its purchasers are led to believe they are buying – that or produce immediate 'capital
gains' as a substitute.
But Hudson also suggests that 'austerity' is just a prelude to seizing what remains of what
once were called 'the commons', i.e. the last remaining publicly owned assets. A variation on
this theme would be that the 0.01% at least understand what they own these days is DEBT – not
wealth. And they are anxious to exchange it for something real before the fraudulent social order
they have foisted on an anesthetized public stands revealed. See Hudson's
Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy
Of course, it may not be that complicated – just Davos group-think along the lines of "the
99.99% must use less so we the 0.01% can have more".
Here's what I MEANT to post (I copied the wrong text above; apologies). The choice for 2016
in Europe as well as America will be between "Yes" (independents), "Yes, please" (Democrats),
and "Yes, thank you!" (Republicans). All yes to further tax cuts for the wealthy, bank bailouts
to "save the system," downsized social security and other social spending, and a smaller non-military
budget as "balanced budgets" mean cutbacks for what is left for the civilian economy after Wall
Street and the FIRE sector siphon off their subsidies.
NC remains the best summary of how this scenario is unfolding day to day (AM and PM installments).
The gap between its and other internet reporting and mainstream media seems to be widening.
There is a mysterious region over the Pacific where an exporters deflation transforms into
margin improvement for importers.
China's problem isn't all export demand. For the last 15 years, half their economy was
internal investment spending (infrastructure, too many factories, and ghost cities) There are
trying to increase consumption and reduce internal investment. Except workers in china don't have
that much money. Oopsie.
Exports have dropped too, implying world demand is down somewhat. But commodity prices are
probably impacted as much by ramping down internal investment consumption as by export weakness.
Of course industrial commodity producers have ramped up capacity these last 15 years to meet China's
demand. The party only goes so long.
I checked some data on Cu recently. China was importing 25% of world copper production. Half
of that was used internally, the other half got made into electrical/electronic exports. You could
probably find similar data on oil, aluminum, steel, etc…They are also a big importer of semiconductors
– and the electronic boxes get filled and shipped back out again. No iPhone deflation apparent
in the US.
***This was supposed to be a response to Synoia above.
How does the failure of the domestic economy to recover in any meaningful sense for the vast
majority of Americans contribute to an explanation of why the Russian bear, Chinese dragon, and
the Islamic caliphate now pose existential threats to the United States? Fear and economic insecurity
at home are externalized outwards beyond the homeland and justify increased military expenditures
in conjunction with the erosion of civil liberties, the increasing militarization of society,
especially within and among law enforcement, and the expansion of the national security state
– all in the name of these existential threats.
The US simply cannot afford peace. It would destroy the raison d'etre of the military industrial
security [MIS] complex.
The latter now must be fed to protect economic lebensraum – global
trade routes and capital mobility. This is what makes the US Navy a force for good, right? But
it has to be on our terms. Otherwise, resistance morphs readily into terrorism or espionage in
its various forms, electronic, industrial.
No longer benign "military Keynesianism", if it
ever was is debatable, but now simply aggressive economic expansionism backed by military force
coupled with increasing austerity in the homeland. Guns with butter are no longer affordable.
So it will be guns!
I couldn't help thinking while I watched the last Republican debate that for two hours
the American people were terrorized, but NOT by ISIS. The terrorists were the stooges up on stage
posing as candidates for President. If not radical Islam, then China or Putin dominated the discussion.
Rand Paul perhaps offered a different take but it had little impact.
No, it just seems to me that the failure of domestic policy across the board in this country
is now held hostage by the MIS complex, and its needs – economic, political, and ideological –
are driving foreign policy. Indeed, to what extent are the needs of the MIS complex responsible
for the failure of domestic policy – especially economic recovery?
I have a couple of questions, one, is austerity in the u.s and europe of a similar variety.
In europe currently it seems to me austerity is enforced as a policy choice whereas in the usa
it enforced through class warfare, play the game or live in a tent under the freeway, then after
you're in the tent under the freeway you're a "free spirit" who's chosen this way of life so your
own damn fault, live with your choices because in usa anyone succeeds who wants to. Next, I wonder
whether tpp is really a war against china, or if our genius financial engineers want china to
be the engine of growth, allow wages in china to go up but using the trade deal to isolate chinas
increased consumption and create comparative advantage by selling vietnamese goods to the chinese
through u.s. corporations thus enriching the u.s. elite? Basically extra-national globalism of
elite power. Do either of these thoughts make sense?
Close. Except another valuable trade route is US corporations (and Japan and Europe) will sell
Vietnam products (and products from other places in Asia with even worse poverty than China) back
to the US..(and their home corporate domiciles) It's also easier to put your own factories in
these places. In China, I think the Chinese guv still wants to own 51%, with some exceptions.
They don't kick in any money tho. Not that that's a terribly big problem for us because they are
overbuilt in so many industries so you just have a bidding war between Chinese companies instead.
Then in downturns, you don't have the associated debt with factory and capital equipment, and
debt deflation is now someone else's problem!
The only thing is the industrial capabilities of these other places are limited at this point.
They do clothing, Barbie dolls and disk drives. It's still Japan, Korea, Taiwan and China (coming
on) for things more sophisticated.
I think it was Professor Michael Hudson who came up with the delightful expression that
since Ukraine the IMF had been the financial arm of the Pentagon. For that single sentence I vote
a Nobel for him.
In spirit I've been voting Michael Hudson Nobels for decades. He's too great for a Nobel. I
consider Michael to be our Thorstein Veblen, and such free-thinking radicals are not welcome in
a club that allows criticism but not repudiation of neoliberalism.
The Pentagon? Or the State Department? Since it is the R2P scum and various other neo-whatever
filth who have supported the Banderazi coup regime in KiEV, and the Axis of Jihad against the
lawful authorities in Syria, and etc. And I am not aware of any R2P scum lurking in the Pentagon.
"... According to the Westminster-controlled BBC, a Russian pilot "died when his SU-24 aircraft was shot down". If that is a time appreciation, it is a fairly accurate one, but he actually died after his aircraft hit the ground, and that fact was not the cause of his death. He died because he was shot full of holes from the ground while he was hanging helpless in his parachute straps and was not armed. As has been demonstrated to what should be the complete satisfaction of all, this is a war crime, illegal under international law regardless who does it. ..."
"... But the Washington-and-Westminster-controlled western media skates adroitly around that fact, and consistently normalizes his death as just one of those unfortunate things that happens in war. ..."
"... I can promise you that the murder of a western pilot under the same circumstances would not be soft-pedaled in the same manner, and the fact that criminal circumstances were attached to his dying would have been shouted to the skies. ..."
According to the Westminster-controlled BBC, a Russian pilot "died when his SU-24 aircraft was
shot down". If that is a time appreciation, it is a fairly accurate one, but he actually died
after his aircraft hit the ground, and that fact was not the cause of his death. He died because
he was shot full of holes from the ground while he was hanging helpless in his parachute straps
and was not armed. As has been demonstrated to what should be the complete satisfaction of all,
this is a war crime, illegal under international law regardless who does it.
But the Washington-and-Westminster-controlled
western media skates adroitly around that fact, and consistently normalizes his death as just
one of those unfortunate things that happens in war.
I can promise you that the murder of a western
pilot under the same circumstances would not be soft-pedaled in the same manner, and the fact
that criminal circumstances were attached to his dying would have been shouted to the skies.
"... Who today are Americas oligarchs? I am wondering who are their American counterparts. ..."
"... If I remember correctly 600 companies had access to and were allowed to help with crafting TPP. Id start with the CEOs of those companies when crafting a list. ..."
"... My sense is that the US oligarchs are people instead of corporations and are closer in number to 40 than to 600 and that they are constant in normal times for a generation with about the same turnover you see visibly in Putins dinner. ..."
"... In Russia Putin talks and the oligarchs take notes. In the United States the oligarchs talk and Obama takes notes. As for Congress, when the oligarchs talk Congress asks How high? ..."
"... Putin is no saint, but surely still deserves credit for stopping the Neoliberal looting of the Russian economy. Without Putin Russia today might be a lot more like Libya or Kosovo… ..."
Who today are America's oligarchs? I am wondering who are their American counterparts. Do the
oligarchs change as the White House passes from one party to the next, or is there continuity
and they more or less remain the same?
If I remember correctly 600 companies had access to and were allowed to help with crafting
TPP. I'd start with the CEOs of those companies when crafting a list.
My sense is that the US oligarchs are people instead of corporations and are closer in number
to 40 than to 600 and that they are constant in normal times for a generation with about the same
turnover you see visibly in Putin's dinner.
These are not normal times, however. My guess is that there is severe partisan polarization
to the point that there is effectively two semi-disjoint oligarchies contending for power with
a common bipartisan intersection that is the most visible. Buffett, Gates, Petersen (note the
industries) are the most visible members of that bipartisan intersection. Kochs, Edelman, Trump
(note the industries) are the most visible in one of the disjoint groups; Dimon (again note the
industry) one of the most visible in the other disjoint group.
The difference between Russia and the US is in who talks and who takes notes.
In Russia Putin talks and the oligarchs take notes. In the United States the oligarchs talk and Obama takes notes. As for Congress, when the oligarchs
talk Congress asks "How high?"
Putin is no saint, but surely still deserves credit for stopping the Neoliberal looting of
the Russian economy. Without Putin Russia today might be a lot more like Libya or Kosovo…
"In the United States the oligarchs talk and Obama takes notes."
Under Yeltsin the same situation was present in Russia as well, and why Putin seems to have
such a strong support from the people.
Note btw that while Yeltsin was in control, western corporations and their buddy oligarchs
ran roughshod over the nation. But now that the tables have turned, the guy in charge is an evil
autocrat as best.
The CEOs of the top banks on this list are also either oligarchs or members of the Power Elite.
As I write, this particular web site is down, so I'll also provide a Wikipedia list.
It's harder to determine who are the top members of the governmental Power Elite. Some of those
people are not elected, and are hidden in the hierarchy of the Defense, State, or Treasury Departments.
It's likely that a small core of the the same 'players' would be found to exercise control
across borders via TNCs under their control. James B. Glattfelder's TED in 2012 may be old hat
to NC readers; in case you missed it:
Putin was using a western law (putting assets in trust?) in order to repatriate the naughty
oligarchs and their money in order to help mama Russia. Looks like it worked. Gotta love the "family"
think; its Cosa Nostra all over again. Since they skillfully took klelptocracy as far as it could
go and then crashed, give them a new bone to chew – the environment and its preservation. Afterall,
that's a very patriotic cosa.
Thanks for the informative post. Not a fan, but I found Putin's linked introductory remarks
to his "near-family" of particular interest.:
… "I have already mentioned our plans to begin consultations between the Shanghai Cooperation
Organisation member states and ASEAN regarding the possibility of an economic partnership. This
is a huge market."
I believe Russia's success in this endeavor will be pivotal as to whether they will succeed
in developing economic alternatives that could make geopolitically driven Western economic and
financial sanctions irrelevant. But the fact that this Russian-Chinese joint development effort
h/b out there for some time now and is evidently stalling out h/b informative in identifying who
still lays the turf regarding export demand, commodities and energy pricing.
However, it also appears that the myopic thinkers in the latter group don't care a lot about
either domestic U.S. or international collateral damage, although they should. The massive fail
of U.S. domestic consumption due to private sector debt overload, wage suppression, and wealth
transfer and concentration policies will be a major contributing factor underlying potential U.S.
international economic and geopolitical policy failure IMO. After all, who wants to enter into
a "Trans-Pacific Partnership" with someone who lacks the capacity and desire to purchase your
exports?
"... "[The] CIA particularly represents the views of the Wall Street investment firms and the multinational corporations that they invest in," noted the whistleblower who leaked "The Pentagon Papers." ..."
"... Yet Ellsberg also warns that it is possible to overstate the importance of the U.S. military, because the military, Congress, and the various U.S. national security agencies all serve interests outside a sitting administration. ..."
"... "[The] CIA particularly represents the views of the Wall Street investment firms and the multinational corporations that they invest in, and the law firms that represent those companies," he said. ..."
"... The United States claims to support democracy throughout the world, but, Ellsberg said: "That is false. That is a cover story." ..."
"... If anyone comes to power that opposes U.S. interests, American forces can overthrow them, Ellsberg argues. Washington's relationships with other nations are not democratic, he says, but imperial, as much as they were in the time of Sargon, the world's first emperor, who Ellsberg introduced in Chapter 1 of this series. As a result, U.S. foreign policy has supported torturers and war crimes for over a century. ..."
"... Philip Agee, the CIA's highest ranking defector, always said CIA stands for Capitalism' Invisible Army ..."
"... Ellsberg is exactly right. The US is not a democracy. The US regime is the enforcement wing of multi-national capital. It is a wholly captured government by captialists. ..."
"... There's nothing new about the claim that Eisenhower deleted the reference to Congress just before his far-famed farewell speech. This has been well-known for decades. ..."
"[The] CIA particularly represents the views of the Wall Street investment firms and
the multinational corporations that they invest in," noted the whistleblower who leaked "The Pentagon
Papers."
In
the second chapter of his extended conversation with Arn Menconi, Daniel Ellsberg describes how,
after his trial for leaking the Pentagon Papers, he began to realize that the Vietnam War was not
an "aberration" but a representation of standard U.S. foreign policy.
"The big difference was the Vietnamese resisted us," Ellsberg explained. He says learned more
about the nature of the U.S. military-industrial complex as he dug deeper into the origins of the
conflict.
On Jan. 17, 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower gave
a famous farewell address which popularized the term "military-industrial complex," but Ellsberg
says the outgoing president had originally intended to refer to the "military-industrial-congressional
complex," only to drop the reference to Congress at the last minute. The whistleblower explains
that allies of the military and nuclear scientists in Congress blocked Eisenhower's efforts to create
a nuclear test ban treaty with Russia, inspiring Eisenhower's speech, which warned the American public
to "guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial
complex."
Yet Ellsberg also warns that it is possible to overstate the importance of the U.S. military,
because the military, Congress, and the various U.S. national security agencies all serve interests
outside a sitting administration.
"[The] CIA particularly represents the views of the Wall Street investment firms and the multinational
corporations that they invest in, and the law firms that represent those companies," he said.
The United States claims to support democracy throughout the world, but, Ellsberg said: "That
is false. That is a cover story."
Instead, he explained that the U.S. supports whatever leaders will support the country's covert
foreign policy. In addition to carrying out assassinations and interfering in those countries' elections,
the U.S. forms "close relationships with their military which we achieve through a combination of
training them … promoting the people we like, direct bribery, arms sales, arms grants - giving them
toys in other words - and helping them against dissidents."
If anyone comes to power that opposes U.S. interests, American forces can overthrow them, Ellsberg
argues. Washington's relationships with other nations are not democratic, he says, but imperial,
as much as they were in the time of Sargon, the world's first emperor, who Ellsberg introduced in
Chapter 1 of this series.
As a result, U.S. foreign policy has supported
torturers and war crimes
for over a century.
Key policies the U.S. supports on behalf of Wall Street include "holding down the wages and selling
the local resources at very low value," according to Ellsberg, who added that the governments which
support these policies "could not stay in power in democratic elections, so we are against democracy
in those countries."
Even in places where the U.S. supports democracy, he says, such as Europe, Washington cooperates
with the elite in those countries to discourage candidates that support real change. America's leaders
in the military-industrial complex believe "[w]e run [foreign countries] better than they would run
themselves."
"Can we fix those things while maintaining the military investments …? Even we can't do that,"
he concluded.
Listen to Chapter 2 | Looking beyond Eisenhower's military-industrial complex:
RMDC 2015-12-28 18:04
"[The] CIA particularly represents the views of the Wall Street investment firms and
the multinational corporations that they invest in, and the law firms that represent those
companies,"
Yes, of course. It was wall street tycoons and lawyers who created the OSS and CIA They
all had huge investments in Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and they wanted to be sure WW II
was fought with their financial interests foremost. These corporate lawyers were used to
overthrowing government around the world for their wall street clients. Donavan, the Dulles
Brothers, Wisner, and the like were world class cutthroats. They moved into the government and
took it over.
Philip Agee, the CIA's highest ranking defector, always said CIA stands for Capitalism'
Invisible Army. This is important. They CIA scours the earth doing the dirty work of Wall
Street. When needed, the Pentagon is called in.
Ellsberg is exactly right. The US is not a democracy. The US regime is the enforcement wing of
multi-national capital. It is a wholly captured government by captialists.
goodsensecynic 2015-12-29 00:07
There's nothing new about the claim that Eisenhower deleted the reference to Congress
just before his far-famed farewell speech. This has been well-known for decades.
What needs to be added, however, is that the elements of ruling class domination are even more
extensive and far more complex.
We should be discussing the
military-industrial-congressional-financial-commercial-ideological-technological complex (with
the possibility of adding more pieces such as the agricultural, chemical, pharmaceutical and,
perhaps, many, many more).
Although the particular connections among them may be shifting and almost kaleidoscopic, basic
patterns of economic, political and social dominance will always emerge.
By "ideological," of course, I mean the combination of the corporate media, the allegedly
"social" media, "official" education, and whatever passes for religion - especially in its
"fundamentalist " aberrations in the Abrahamic cultures.
And, a final caveat: the above merely identify aspects of the "domestic" power structure. It
is also replicated globally with many of the same "players" shifting natural resources,
information technology, capital and currency around in a way that may be permanently beyond
the reach of the governments of even the most powerful semi-sovereign nations.
anarchteacher 2015-12-29 00:55
What Daniel Ellsberg, Dwight Eisenhower, C. Wright Mills, and numerous others have outlined
is what the incomparable Peter Dale Scott now describes as the deep state:
Nowhere do I see reference to John Perkins, the author of "Confessions of an Economic
Hitman." Perkins lays all of this out clearly and concisely, and includes the World Bank and
The WMF, (The World Monetary Fund).
One of their tactics is to loan an emerging nation huge amounts of money which they can
never pay back. In return they will allow Western bank and oil interests, pharmaceuticals ,
bio-tech, copper, etc. whatever natural resources that Western Capitalists want to exploit.
Perkins is sent in to meet with the leaders. He tells them the money is theirs to do whatever
they like. Use it for their country or for themselves.
Some of the leader are actually honorable and refuse the money. Perkins then pulls out the
big warning: Take the money or die by assassination. Some leaders refused. Within six months
the Capitalists sent in what Perkins calls "the jackals". The honorable leader is
assassinated.
There are people even now, doing what he did.
Activista 2015-12-29 12:51
1 trillion + military waste is corrupting/destroying USA. We need to get rid of this
burden.
Vardoz 2015-12-29 14:57
We are being systematically impoverished and destroyed by corporate interests. Elizabeth
Warren and Bernie Sanders are the only senators who do not vote against our better interests
and want to protect the health, safety and welfare of the 99%. As Biden once called it we the
people are being subjected to economic terrorism.
judithehrlich 2015-12-29 17:27
If you'd like to know more about Daniel Ellsberg please see the website for our
Oscar-nominated film, "The Most Dangerous Man in American, Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon
Papers", www.mostdangerousman.org . Edward
Snowden was inspired to act after seeing the film.
"... Meanwhile, the United States and Russia have embarked on massive programs to modernize their nuclear triads - thereby undermining existing nuclear weapons treaties. "The clock ticks now at just three minutes to midnight because international leaders are failing to perform their most important duty-ensuring and preserving the health and vitality of human civilization." ..."
"Unchecked climate change, global nuclear weapons modernizations, and outsized nuclear weapons
arsenals pose extraordinary and undeniable threats to the continued existence of humanity, and
world leaders have failed to act with the speed or on the scale required to protect citizens from
potential catastrophe. These failures of political leadership endanger every person on Earth."
Despite some modestly positive developments in the climate change arena, current efforts are
entirely insufficient to prevent a catastrophic warming of Earth.
Meanwhile, the United States and Russia have embarked on massive programs to modernize their
nuclear triads - thereby undermining existing nuclear weapons treaties. "The clock ticks now at
just three minutes to midnight because international leaders are failing to perform their most
important duty-ensuring and preserving the health and vitality of human civilization."
What appears to have happened here is this: Vladimir Putin has
exploited both the fight against ISIS and Iran's need to preserve the
regional balance of power on the way to enhancing Russia's influence over
Mid-East affairs which in turn helps to ensure that Gazprom's interests
are protected going forward.
Thanks to the
awkward position the US has gotten itself in by covertly allying itself
with various Sunni extremist groups, Washington is for all intents and
purposes powerless to stop Putin lest the public should suddenly get wise
to the fact that combating Russia's resurgence and preventing Iran from
expanding its interests are more important than fighting terror.
In short, Washington gambled on a dangerous game of geopolitical chess, lost, and now faces
two rather terrifyingly disastrous outcomes: 1) China establishing a presence in the Mid-East in
concert with Russia and Iran, and 2) seeing Iraq effectively ceded to the Quds Force and
ultimately, to the Russian army.
"... Virginia Roberts's accusations about Andrew ordered to be struck from the record as judge denied her attempt to join a lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein Allegations that a 17-year-old was forced to have sex with Britain's Prince Andrew , which prompted a crisis at Buckingham Palace earlier this year, have been removed from a federal court case by a judge in the US. ..."
Virginia Roberts's accusations about Andrew ordered to be struck from the record as judge denied her attempt to join a lawsuit
against Jeffrey Epstein
Allegations that a 17-year-old was forced to have sex with Britain's
Prince Andrew, which prompted a crisis at Buckingham Palace
earlier this year, have been removed from a federal court case by a judge in the US.
Judge Kenneth Marra ordered Virginia Roberts's accusations about Andrew, the Duke of York, to be struck from the record and denied
her attempt to join a lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein, a friend of the prince and a convicted sex offender.
"At this juncture in the proceedings, these lurid details are unnecessary," Marra wrote in his order, issued at the US district
court in southern Florida on Tuesday morning. "These unnecessary
details shall be stricken."
Andrew and Buckingham Palace vehemently deny Roberts's allegations.
Marra made no ruling or statement about the veracity of Roberts's allegations. He said the "factual details regarding with whom
and where" she had sex were "immaterial and impertinent" to her argument that she should be allowed to join the lawsuit.
However, Marra noted that Roberts may yet appear as a witness when the long-running case finally goes to trial.
Brad Edwards, an attorney for Roberts, said in a statement that her legal team "absolutely respect" the judge's ruling, which
had recognised Roberts's right to take part in the case as a witness. Roberts said: "I'm happy to get to participate in this important
case."
A Buckingham Palace official said the Duke had been informed of the
Florida court's ruling and was spending this week in private,
before resuming his schedule of public engagements next week.
His spokesman declined to comment further but referred back to repeated palace denials of Roberts claims, including a 3 January statement
that "it is emphatically denied that the Duke of York had any form of sexual contact or relationship with Virginia Roberts. Any claim
to the contrary is false and without foundation."
Five court filings in the Florida case, including a document filed on December 30 last year in which Andrew was first accused,
were immediately sealed from the public.
The filing at that time placed Andrew under intense pressure, forcing him to return to his home at Windsor from Verbier in Switzerland
where he was on a skiing holiday with a party including his daughter Princess Beatrice.
The duke only resumed public engagements at the World Economic Forum in Davos in late January where he was pursued by reporters
and used a short speech "to reiterate and to reaffirm" the existing emphatic Buckingham Palace denials of what courtiers described
as "lurid and deeply personal" claims.
Buckingham Palace broke with convention to directly address the sex claims, and Andrew approved a statement which vehemently denied
"any form of sexual contact or relationship with Virginia Roberts". It continued: "The allegations made are false and without any
foundation."
Roberts, who is referred to in the case only as Jane Doe 3, and a fourth woman were seeking to join two other alleged victims
of Epstein in suing the US government over a plea deal that federal prosecutors struck with the hedge fund tycoon in 2008.
Under the plea agreement, Epstein pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution from an underage girl. He received an 18-month jail
sentence and served 13 months before being released. He remains a registered sex offender in Florida and the US Virgin Islands, where
he lives on a private island.
The agreement was criticised as being extraordinarily lenient by attorneys for a series of women who allege that Epstein sexually
abused them when they were under the age of consent. The FBI, which took over the investigation into Epstein, said it had identified
dozens of potential victims.
Roberts has for years alleged that she travelled around the world with Epstein as his "sex slave" and was made to have sex with
some of his influential associates, including prominent politicians and royalty.
Marra ruled on Tuesday that the application by Roberts and Jane Doe 4 should be denied, as it was "entirely unnecessary" for the
pair to be added as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. The women suing Epstein allege that the government's plea deal violated their rights
as victims.
Describing Roberts's allegations as "duplicative" of the existing lawsuit, the judge said the lawsuit already sought to overturn
Epstein's plea agreement on behalf of all "other similarly-situated victims".
Marra noted in his order that US law empowers judges to "strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial,
impertinent, or scandalous matter."
Allegations that Roberts was also made to have sex with Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor and another friend of Epstein,
were also struck from the case by Marra. The judge said a legal attempt by Dershowitz to intervene in the case was now unnecessary.
In recent weeks the duke has carried out more engagements, including opening the Yorkshire Air Ambulance (YAA) Air Response Unit
prior to Easter and before that leading a "Pitch@Palace" event, a Dragons Den-style scheme to match investors with entrepreneurs
using technology in the creative industries.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
UK Toryism today is not so much a political party espousing an ideology as it is an ideology that has taken over a political party. It is the ideolgy of exploitation of a tiny clique over an entire society and has become, through extensive and relentless propoganda, embedded the fabric of UK society. It is a class ideology that requires a middle classes and poorer apirants to the middle classes to accept cuts to their influence and hence wealth by creating an demonising a constructed underclass. The underclass serves as:
1. a frightening lesson to those who do not conform
2. scapegoats for every kind of social and cultural ill
3. a fungible source of wandering labour who can be compelled to exploitation and discarded at will
It demands the destruction of the state that supports people and replaces it with a state that supports business interests only. Everything must become a commodity – especially humans. It is an ideology that decries income distribution to the less wealthy but in every instance creates laws that ensure distribution of vast majority of wealth to the wealthiest. It is the insurance company for the wealthy as well. The taxpayer is the insurer.
The greatest single example of wealth redistribution from the politically weak is the student loan wheeze. The mob in their greatest exploits could not have contrived a more elaborate form of extortion. As Tory idoeology 'crapifies' every job in the UK, they goad the young into what have become school factories, turning out people with certificates but often very little relevant qualification for a shrinking economy. Meanwhile the governement sells the loans to "investors" (themselves and their friends) for pence on the pound.
Create the law that create the conditions that create the cash flow, and never lift a finger to do a real days work.
What's not to like?
Given the over population of the island, that oil is running out, and that they have gutted any social and cultural cohesive factor, and even if Brexit evaporates, the long term bodes ill anyway.